Lord Mayor Frank Klingebiel: "As long as it has not been proven that the Konrad mine meets the current requirements for a deep geological repository for radioactive waste, no further facts should be created and no further money should be sunk into the depths."

The considerable pressure from the region and the long period of time between the verification and the planned commissioning of the repository have prompted the operator to carry out the "Review of the safety requirements of the Konrad repository according to the state of the art in science and technology (ÜsiKo)". The Bündnis gegen Schacht KONRAD commissioned the two experts, geologist Jürgen Kreusch and physicist Wolfgang Neumann, to evaluate the results of phase 1 of the ÜsiKo published in 2020.

Wolfgang Neumann: "The Atomic Energy Act stipulates the application of the state of the art in science and technology and the Federal Constitutional Court has defined what the state of the art in science and technology is. This includes current scientific findings and publications, even if they have not yet been incorporated into laws or ordinances, as well as a broad spectrum of justifiable scientific opinions. However, the BGE's experts base their assessments primarily on the laws and ordinances in force at the time of the assessment and the long outdated safety criteria for the disposal of radioactive waste from 1983. As a result, the reports on the results of ÜsiKo Phase 1 do not do justice to the self-imposed claim of a comparison with the current state of science and technology and miss the point.

For example, the assessment of the health risk posed by radon has increased since the 2002 plan approval decision. The Federal Office for Radiation Protection points out on its website that around five percent of all deaths from lung cancer in the German population can be attributed to naturally occurring radon. This assessment by the BfS is not even mentioned in the reports. According to the ÜsiKo, the reassessment by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is currently not relevant for the assessment because there are no new legal regulations in Germany."

According to Neumann, the reports also suffer from the fact that the effects of the changes to the emplacement concept, the radionuclide inventory and other factors that the operator has made since the plan approval decision were not taken into account.
were not considered. Both Neumann and Kreusch criticize the fact that it was assumed without examination that the documents at the time of the plan approval decision corresponded to the status of W&T at that time (2002). However, this was already wrong at the time.

Geologist Jürgen Kreusch criticizes the fact that the ÜsiKo experts did not ask themselves the obvious question of how to proceed with the long-term safety case for the planned Konrad repository according to the current state of science and technology (S&T). Then, for example, the question of the type, number, representativeness and informative value of the specific data required for the long-term safety case for Konrad, which has been controversial for decades, could be answered in accordance with S&T (then and now). For example, the question would then also arise as to whether the model area that has been available since the beginning of the 1980s represents the real conditions sufficiently well or whether a more realistic model area would be obtained if, for example, the high-resolution 3D seismics commonly used today were used. And the question would arise as to the informative value of the material samples from the many decades-old exploratory boreholes, which had a completely different objective than answering questions about the long-term safety of a Konrad repository. In addition, there is no containment effective rock zone at KONRAD, as is required today according to W&T, because the geological system is open to the north-east.

Kreusch criticizes the fact that the ÜsiKo report adheres to the assessment standard of 0.3 mSv/a from 1983 instead of using the new standard of the Federal Environment Ministry of 0.01 mSv/a for probable and 0.1 mSv/a for less probable developments of the repository system (scenario analysis). Kreusch: "It is very surprising that a different dose limit should apply for waste with negligible heat generation than for heat-generating waste. The abandonment of a common limit value for the radioactive radiation of repositories with different inventories would be a step backwards, because the radiological effect on humans and the environment can be derived independently of the inventory of the repository. In addition, there is no systematic scenario analysis, as is currently required by S&T. A reference to uncertainties in the long-term safety prognosis, as in the ÜsiKo, is also not helpful. At the Konrad repository, for example, a maximum radiation exposure (effective dose) of 0.26 mSv/a was calculated for an infant. When approving a repository, the assessment standard for radiological exposure is of decisive importance and is a key factor in determining whether or not approval is granted. Konrad is not approvable with a limit value of 0.01 or 0.1 mSv/a."

Ulrich Löhr, Chairman of Landvolk Braunschweiger Land, commented: "It is absurd when we farmers are subject to additional production restrictions based on new findings that have often hardly been evaluated and at the same time the scientific findings and requirements of 1983 apply to storage in the KONRAD mine, even though there has been significant progress in this area over the last 40 years."

Matthias Wilhelm, 1st authorized representative of IG Metall Salzgitter-Peine: "The effects resulting from the proximity to the large companies in the region with their dynamically developing production processes, such as hydrogen-based production at Salzgitter AG and battery cell production at VW, have not been investigated at all so far, not even in the ÜsiKo. It is absurd and irresponsible to want to build a nuclear waste storage facility in the middle of an industrial area next to hazardous waste facilities."

Ludwig Wasmus, Chairman of "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Schacht KONRAD e.V.": "In the course of the site selection process, it is being considered to also store some of the low and medium-level radioactive waste at the site for high-level radioactive waste. This storage facility is supposed to meet the current safety requirements, but Konrad shaft does not. This is not fair. We are therefore calling for the Konrad project to finally be abandoned and for all types of radioactive waste to be included in the current site selection process or for a separate site search to be launched for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

Under the link www.salzgitter.de/baustopp-konrad (opens in a new tab) (will only work from Saturday, April 3, at 0 a.m. with
expiry of the embargo period) you can view the statements by Jürgen Kreusch and Wolfgang Neumann.
For queries: Ursula Schönberger, tel. 05341 / 63123, schoenbergerag-schacht-konradde