From a hard nuclear state towards a soft nuclear repository state – participation, co-designing, learning and reversibility in the site selection process for a nuclear waste repository

Abstract

Abstract. Since 2013 the site search for a repository for highly radioactive waste has been taking place in Germany within the framework of a new governance architecture and under new political guidelines. Based on experiences with nuclear politics in the past, Jungk (1977) coined the term hard nuclear state, characterized by decisions made in a top-down manner. The Decide-Announce-Defend (DAD) strategy, which branded the nuclear state at that time, led to conflicts, mistrust of authorities and blockages. In particular, massive resistance developed against the planned final repository site at Gorleben. Nowadays, after more than 60 years deploying nuclear energy, the (energy) political balance of power has fundamentally changed. Parts of the anti-nuclear movement have been integrated into the political party system and have contributed significantly to the nuclear phase-out. In the course of this, the unfinished task of final disposal has been readdressed: with the Repository Site Selection Act (StandAG, 2017), which was passed in 2013 and amended in 2017, an ongoing process of public participation is stated. The site selection process is required to be learning, self-questioning, science-based, reversible, and participatory. The StandAG § 5 not only provides a basis for a fundamental dialogue between the regulator, the operator, and the public, but also for „co-design“ by common citizens. The StandAG considers various elements from different participation-friendly theories of democracy as well as specific governance concepts, which we refer to collectively as the soft nuclear repository state (cf. Brunnengräber, 2021). Its characteristics need to be worked out, as the StandAG only provides some indications, but no criteria, for what good and sufficient participation in the site selection process means and what its conditions for success should be. Based on preliminary considerations on democratic theory and governance aspects (part 1), we present what good participation could mean in the current procedure and what the framework conditions for good participation could be (part 2). Additionally, we present main findings from participatory observations from the ongoing site search process and identify conditions and indications of a successful future participation process based on the ongoing process (part 3). In the résumé, we turn to the question of which of the democracy-theoretical elements of the soft repository state are already recognizable in the present procedure, but also whether the current procedure provides additional indications towards the soft nuclear repository state (part 4).