Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II

Abstract

This article compares different strategies for handling low- and medium-level nuclear waste buried in a retired potassium mine in Germany (Asse II) that faces significant risk of uncontrollable brine intrusion and, hence, long-term groundwater contamination. We survey the policy process that has resulted in the identification of three possible so-called decommissioning options: complete backfilling, relocation of the waste to deeper levels in the mine, and retrieval. The selection of a decommissioning strategy must compare expected investment costs with expected social damage costs (economic, environmental, and health damage costs) caused by flooding and subsequent groundwater contamination. We apply a cost minimization approach that accounts for the uncertainty regarding the stability of the rock formation and the risk of an uncontrollable brine intrusion. Since economic and health impacts stretch out into the far future, we examine the impact of different discounting methods and rates. Due to parameter uncertainty, we conduct a sensitivity analysis concerning key assumptions. We find that retrieval, the currently preferred option by policymakers, has the lowest expected social damage costs for low discount rates. However, this advantage is overcompensated by higher expected investment costs. Considering all costs, backfilling is the best option for all discounting scenarios considered.

Future-Generation Perception: Equal or Not Equal? Long-Term Individual Discount Rates for Poland

“…The operating time frame of a nuclear plant is estimated at around 40 years. However, the perspectives of waste management range start at 50-100 years [17,21] and rise to thousands of years [19,22].…”

Scenario Building and Sensitivity Analyses for Decision Support: A Response to D. Warner North

“…In his commentary on our recent article, (1) D. W. North points out how important it is for a cost-benefit analysis to clearly describe the assumptions on which the analysis is based. (2) We could not agree more.…”

“…Thus, we can safely say that the concerns about the stability of the mine and the potential release of radionuclides into the environment have triggered an extensive political and administrative process in order to identify the measures to restore long-term safety. 1 We share with Dr. North the concern that assumptions must be made transparent and critically assessed. In our case, the impacts of an uncontrollable brine intrusion, and a flooding of the mine, are based on a hydrological model that predicts that contaminated water could reach the surface, more precisely the groundwater in the root zone of agricultural crops, about a century after the flooding of the mine.…”

Time matters: A stock-pollution approach to authorisation decision-making for PBT/vPvB chemicals under REACH

“…In response to these fundamental gaps our paper develops a SEA model that explicitly accounts for stock pollution properties of persistent chemicals. We employ dynamic cost benefit analysis (CBA) for SEA, which is a widely used approach for assessing long-term impacts and risks (Söderquist et al 2015, Ilg et al 2016. Though modelling stock effects in pollution control problems is not new, existing studies usually assume a specific (e.g.…”