But that section clearly supports my claim? All that section says is that there must not be anything that casts doubt on the integrity of the containment zone.

Given that logically you can’t logically prove a negative this seems like the strongest sound phrasing of the validity.

Section 23 para. 5 no. 5 StandAG, preservation of the barrier effect:
There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone, in particular on compliance with the geoscientific minimum requirements for hydraulic conductivity of the rock, thickness and expanse of the effec- tive containment zone over a period of one million years.

• Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.

Again this supports my claim:

There must not be any available findings or data that cast doubt on the integrity of the effective containment zone

You can’t prove a negative thus the strongest approach that could be taken is:

Where there is clear evidence or data that the preservation of the barrier effect appears doubtful, the minimum requirement was considered not to have been satisfied. This minimum requirement is considered satisfied in all other cases, until such time as relevant data becomes available.

As for storing everything in Finland. Yes I believe an EU led agenda to store everything in an EU funded, supported and expanded Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository would be the best outcome. The second best would be storage at the nation state level.

This all might be politically difficult but outside of that it is doable.

I do not think all European countries should have a long term storage plan. I think an EU lead central approach would be better.