Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Concerned public and the paralysis of decision‐making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany

2009; Routledge; Volume: 12; Issue: 7-8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13669870903126382

1466-4461

Peter Hocke, Ortwin Renn,

Sustainability and Climate Change Governance

Abstract Efforts to site a high level nuclear waste repository in Germany date back to the 1960s. Ten years later the site Gorleben was officially selected and designated as a host for nuclear waste. However, public opposition and maneuvering by the major political actors prevented the completion of the site selection process, resulting in decades of political paralysis. The main reasons for this failure were the polarization in advocates and opponents of nuclear energy, the neglect for due process and participatory procedures, the inability to integrate technical, political, and social rationales in designing a viable nuclear waste policy, and the confusing mix of responsibilities between and among political actors. In spite of the apparent failure to find a solution for high level waste, the German government succeeded in designating a site for radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (Konrad mine). It is assumed that further progress in waste management can be accomplished only if more deliberative elements are introduced into the policy arena. Keywords: radioactive wasteGerman nuclear waste managementnuclear waste repositorydeliberative politicspublic participationGorleben Notes 1. http://www.thema-energie.de/article/show_article.cfm?id=4362 (accessed February 26, 2008). 2. The utility 'PreussenElektra AG' (as a subsidiary of the former VEBA AG) and the 'Bayernwerk AG' (of the former VIAG AG) were the origin of the E.ON AG with its division 'E.ON Kernkraft', which is the largest operating company of nuclear power plants in Germany. The RWE AG (up to 1990 Rheinisch‐Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG) is the largest German power supplier and EnBW ('Energie Baden‐Württemberg') is the Number 3 of the power suppliers. Vattenfall AB is the largest power supplier in the northern states of Europe and the 'Vattenfall Europe AG' manages their nuclear business in Germany. 3. For the general geographical distributions of nuclear power plants see http://www.kernenergie.de/r2/de/Gut_zu_wissen/KKW/Deutschland (accessed December 23, 2008), more detailed and including the borders of the 'Laender' see http://www.kernenergie.de/r2/documentpool/de/Gut_zu_wissen/Materialen/Downloads/055standortkarte2008_05.pdf (accessed December 23, 2008). 4. Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Energieversorgungsunternehmen vom 14 June 2000. 5. Paragraph 9, Passage 3, and Paragraph 23, Passage 1, of the Atomic Act say that the federal level is responsible for installing nuclear repositories and that this task is transferred to the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz – BfS). 6. In addition to the international differentiation between high, medium, and low level waste, the German authorities and regulations base their policies on the differentiation between 'waste with negligible heat generation' and 'heat generating waste'. The argument of the authorities is that the heat generating waste includes around 98% of the radioactivity of all nuclear wastes (see AkEnd 2002 AkEnd (Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagersuche). 2002. Site selection procedure for repository sites: Recommendations of the AkEnd (Committee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites) 248 Final report for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Cologne, December 2002 [Google Scholar], 14–15; BfS 2007 BfS (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz). 2007. Disposal of radioactive waste: Salzgitter, 4Salzgitter: BfS. (only print version available) [Google Scholar], 1; Rübel, Müller‐Lyda, and Storck 2004 Rübel, A., Müller‐Lyda, I. and Storck, R. 2004. Die Klassifizierung radioaktiver Abfälle hinsichtlich der Endlagerung, Köln (Gesellschaft für Anlagen‐ und Redaktorsicherheit, report GRS–04–203) [Google Scholar]). 7. BfS (2005, 2). Actually there are a number of severe problems with this former salt mine, as for years considerable volumes of water were running into the mine and the federal government decided to shift responsibility from one institution to another since the former responsible institution lost its reputation when details from handling these problems became obvious during 2008 (BMU 2008 BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). 2008. Rechtssicherheit für die Schließung der Asse: Berlin (Pressemitteilung Nr. 267/08. November 19, 2008) [Google Scholar]; Krone 2008 Krone, J. 2008. Entscheidung über Asse kommt 2008. Braunschweiger Zeitung, 11.01.08, rubric 'Niedersachsen' [Google Scholar]; Zeit Online 2008 Zeit Online. 2008. "Bundesamt übernimmt Asse". In Zeit Online 04.09.08. http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/37/asse-umweltministerium (accessed December 19, 2008) [Google Scholar]). 8. This approval of the decision of Prime Minister Albrecht and his state government by the federal level was steered by the application of four rather superficial criteria of safety with respect to final disposal: (1) no former mining activity in the salt dome, (2) sufficient size of the salt dome, (3) surface of the salt body less than 400 m below surface, but not extending too far into near‐surface groundwater, (4) no usable resources (Appel 2006 Appel, D. 2006. "Historical background of decision making for repository projects in Germany: The Gorleben case – example for missing participation of stakeholders". In Disposal of radioactive waste: Forming a new approach in Germany NEA, 55–62. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar], 59). 9. A number of courts on the state and national level were involved and the literature gives only a vague description of this process. 10. For the anti‐nuclear movements and their phases with successful campaigns and latency see Rucht 2007 Rucht, D. 2007. "Anti‐atomkraftbewegung". In Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945: Ein Handbuch, Edited by: Roth, R. and Rucht, D. 245–66. Frankfurt/Main: Campus. [Google Scholar], especially 257. 11. For the struggles between these two dominating parties in the end of 1979 see Tiggemann 2004 Tiggemann, A. 2004. Die 'Achillesferse' der Kernenergie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Lauf an der Pegnitz: Europaforum‐Verlag. [Google Scholar] and Popp 2006 Popp, M. 2006. "Die unklare nukleare Entsorgung. Persönliche Reminiszenzen und Reflexionen". In Wohin mit dem radioaktiven Abfall? Perspektiven für eine sozialwissenschaftliche Endlagerforschung, Edited by: Grunwald, Hocke. 53–62. Berlin: Edition Sigma. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 12. One problem in this context is that the AkEnd proposal was not precise in identifying the groups of stakeholders, which have to be represented in the supervisory board (AkEnd 2002 AkEnd (Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagersuche). 2002. Site selection procedure for repository sites: Recommendations of the AkEnd (Committee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites) 248 Final report for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Cologne, December 2002 [Google Scholar], 195, 197; Jentzsch 2003 Jentzsch, G. 2003. "Die Ergebnisse des AkEnd. Neue Wege zur Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle". In Atommüll und sozialer Friede Edited by: Dally. 25–72. Rehburg‐Loccum (Loccum Protokoll 5/03) [Google Scholar], 37, 58). 13. See http://www.bfs.de/en/bfs/presse/pr08/pr0801.html (accessed January 22, 2008). 14. In this context, see also Grunwald and Hocke 2006 Grunwald, A. and Hocke, P. 2006. "Die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle als ungelöstes Problem". In Wohin mit dem radioktiven Abfall? Perspektiven für eine sozialwissenschaftliche Endlagerforschung, Edited by: Grunwald, Hocke. 11–34. Berlin: Edition Sigma. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 14–15. 15. Important studies on nuclear politics and protest are Rüdig (2000 Rüdig, W. 2000. Phasing out nuclear energy in Germany. German Politics, 9(3): 43–79. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), Rucht (1995 Rucht, D. 1995. "The impact of anti‐nuclear power movements in international comparison". In Resistance to new technology, Edited by: Bauer, M. 278–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 1994 Rucht, D. 1994. Modernisierung und neue soziale Bewegungen, Frankfurt/Main: Campus. [Google Scholar], especially 443–5, and Kolb (2007 Kolb, F. 2007. Protest and opportunities. The political outcomes of social movements, Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag. [Google Scholar]); for ethics see Boetsch (2003 Boetsch, W. 2003. Ethische Aspekte bei der Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle Abschlussbericht, ed. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Bonn (Schriftenreihe Reaktorsicherheit und Strahlenschutz, BMU 2003‐619) [Google Scholar]), and for media reporting on nuclear waste transports to Gorleben which are cited under the name of the containers called 'Castor' see Berens (2001 Berens, H. 2001. Prozesse der Thematisierung in publizistischen Konflikten. ereignismanagement, Medienresonanz und Mobilisierung der Öffentlichkeit am Beispiel von Castor und Brent Spar, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Schulz, Berens, and Zeh (1998 Schulz, W., Berens, H. and Zeh, R. 1998. Der Kampf um den Castor in den Medien. Konfliktbewertung, Nachrichtenresonanz und journalistische Qualität, München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer. [Google Scholar]). Reflection on the AkEnd process is available at Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium (2003 Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium. 2003. Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in Deutschland Gesamtstaatliche Verantwortung für die Zukunft. Tagungsband, Hannover (Graue Reihe) [Google Scholar]), ILK (2003 ILK (Internationale Länderkommission). 2003. Statement on the recommendations of the Committee on a Selection Procedure for Repository Sites (AkEnd) Munich (ILK‐14 E, September 2003) http://www.ilk-online.org/public/en/stellungnahmen.htm (accessed January 16, 2008) [Google Scholar]), Hocke‐Bergler and Gloede (2006 Hocke‐Bergler, P. and Gloede, F. 2006. "Collective action of experts in a stalemate situation: Central results of evaluative research on the work of 'AkEnd' in Germany". In Disposal of radioactive waste: Forming a new approach in Germany NEA, 91–6. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar]), Hocke‐Bergler, Stolle, and Gloede (2003 Hocke‐Bergler, P., Stolle, M. and Gloede, F. 2003. Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsumfragen, der Medienanalyse und der Evaluation der Tätigkeit des AkEnd. Endbericht im Rahmen der fachlichen Unterstützung des 'Arbeitskreises Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte' durch das Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) im Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, October 2003, 2 vols. (final report 273pp.) http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/2003/houa03b.pdf (accessed January 10, 2008) [Google Scholar]). In the last ten years, some collections of essays were published which should show different positions in the waste debate (Lux 2003 Lux, K.‐H. 2003. Clausthaler Colloquium zur Endlagerung 2003 und Ehrenkolloquium zum 65 Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Klaus Kühn am 8. und 9. Mai 2003 in der Aula der Technischen Universität Clausthal, Clausthal‐Zellerfeld: Papierflieger (Schriftenreihe Deponietechnik; Bd. 14) [Google Scholar]; Grawe and Picaper 2000 Grawe, J. and Picaper, J.‐P., eds. 2000. Streit ums Atom, München: Piper. [Google Scholar]; Busch and Paretzke 1999 Busch, R. and Paretzke, M., eds. 1999. Castor und Endlager, München: Herbert Utz Verlag. [Google Scholar]; IPPNW 1995 IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), ed. 1995. Die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle. Risiken und Probleme, Stuttgart: S. Hirzel. [Google Scholar]); conflict management and deliberative politics are the frame for some anthologies or conference reports like Dally (2003a Dally, A., ed. 2003a. Der Streit um Gorleben: Rehburg‐Loccum (Loccumer Protokoll 2/00) [Google Scholar], 2003b Dally, A. 2003b. Atommüll und sozialer Friede: Rehburg‐Loccum (Loccumer Protokoll 5/03) [Google Scholar]), COWAM 2 (2006 COWAM 2 (Cooperative Research on the Governance of Radioaktive Waste). 2006. National insights (Final report, Workpackage 5, Paris) http://www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_COWAM2-WP5-_FINAL_REPORT.pdf (accessed January 16, 2008) [Google Scholar], 2007 COWAM 2 (Cooperative Research on the Governance of Radioaktive Waste). 2007. Final synthesis report, Paris http://www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_COWAM_2_Final_Synthesis_Report.pdf (accessed January 10, 2008) [Google Scholar]); in consultative perspective the work of Ruetter & Partner (2005 Ruetter & Partner. 2005. Nukleare Entsorgung in der Schweiz. Untersuchung der sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen von Entsorgungsanlagen Vol. 2, Fallstudien und Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsbefragung, Rüschlikon, CH [Google Scholar]) and Barth et al. (2007 Barth, R., Brohmann, B., Kallenbach‐Herbert, B., Schulze, F. and Sering, M. 2007. Anforderungen an die Gestaltung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im Endlagerauswahlverfahren: Abschlussbericht, Tei A, Vol. 2, Darmstadt: Institute for Applied Ecology. (Report SR 2524) [Google Scholar]) is important. 16. In this context, see Roose (Forthcoming). 17. Part of the German controversy on nuclear waste is related to the question whether the energy suppliers are allowed to externalize a certain amount of costs in the field of disposal. In the present waste management concept, the suppliers are committed to pay, but the government is responsible for the repository site selection and installation. In this context, the 'formal' research repository Asse, where a remarkable amount of waste has been buried, is financed by public money and in the Gorleben case, it is controversial whether, in reaction to the concerns about suitability, a comparative site selection process as proposed by the AkEnd can be financed by the suppliers or should be paid by public money. The utilities argue in this case that such a comparative review is not necessary for technical but only for political reasons and hence it would be the task of the public authorities to pay for such an 'unnecessary detour'. 18. One conflict in this context was whether the Gorleben site should be part of the comparison. In October 2008 Minister Gabriel argued that Gorleben should be compared with other German sites and so it would be part of any reformed selection procedure (http://www.bmu.de/reden/bundesumweltminister_sigmar_gabriel/doc/42508.php, accessed December 19, 2008). 19. In this context, see for example the comments of ILK (2003), Pescatore (2006 Pescatore, C. 2006. "ILK on AkEnd: Short report to FSC Workshop". In Disposal of radioactive waste: Forming a new approach in Germany NEA, 97–8. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar], 97–8), and in the actual context BMU (2006 BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). 2006. Verantwortung übernehmen: Den Endlagerkonsens realisieren 32 (Konzeptpapier vom 18.09.06, Bonn and Berlin [Google Scholar]) and ILK (2007 ILK (Internationale Länderkommission). 2007. Statement on BMU Paper 'Taking on responsibility: Implementing the consensus agreement on disposal' Munich (ILK‐30 E, July 2007). http://www.ilk-online.org/public/en/stellungnahmen.htm (accessed January 16, 2008) [Google Scholar]). 20. Also the latest concept discussed for Great Britain emphasizes the substantial participation, voluntarism, and partnership (CoRWM 2006 CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management). 2006. Managing our radioactive waste safely: CoRWM's recommendations to government, London: CoRMW. (Doc 700, July 2006) [Google Scholar]).