Justice in dealing with highly radioactive waste – an empirical perspective
Abstract. The introduction of the Site Selection Act (Standortauswahlgesetz, StandAG) marked the initiation of a new repository site-selection process as well as the elimination of injustices of past procedures. In this context, the white map of Germany served as a basis for and symbol of an unbiased search process (Hocke and Smeddinck, 2017). However, the publication of the Sub-Areas Interim Report has revealed injustices in the handling of high-level radioactive waste. For example, there is criticism that the methods used to determine the sub-areas are immature or scientifically dubious. There are still fears that rural areas with a low population density will be favored, that there are imbalances in the site-selection process between West and East Germany, or that the discrepancy in the sense of fairness between regions that drop out of the process and those that remain will lead to problems in subsequent stages of the process. All of these positions show that there is inherent injustice in the search for a repository site: at the end of the site-selection process, a single site will receive all the high-level radioactive waste of the Federal Republic of Germany and thus bear the potential risks. People at this one site will live with the uncertainties associated with dealing with high-level radioactive waste. While the debate about geological or technical factors and challenges is multifaceted and specialized, the issue of fairness in the site-selection process is rarely addressed. However, fairness is immensely important to find a socially acceptable repository site. This paper thus focuses on the following questions: What are the prevailing notions of justice among those involved in the repository site-selection process? From the perspective of the involved parties, what characterizes fairness in the site-selection process? Answering these questions should contribute to a better understanding of whether the repository site-selection process is perceived as just, and what this depends on. Starting from Rawls' theoretical perspective of justice (2005 [1971]) and Latour's contribution of the values of modern people (2014), an empirical understanding of the stakeholders' perception and understanding of justice in the site-selection process is synthesized. In the context of this work, results of an empirical survey comparing different aspects of justice, e.g., procedural, distributive, intergenerational, and interpersonal, but also justice as recognition, are presented and related to adjacent factors, such as trust, emotions, or experiences. The empirical survey is intended to provide information on whether the perception of justice is more strongly dependent on the process, on one's own affectedness, or on adjacent factors.