atw 2018-07
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
nucmag.com<br />
<strong>2018</strong><br />
6/7<br />
369<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong>:<br />
Opening Address<br />
374 ı AMNT <strong>2018</strong>: Best Paper<br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel<br />
Rod Behaviour During Long-term Storage<br />
379 ı Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ<br />
ISSN · 1431-5254<br />
24.– €<br />
389 ı Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States<br />
404 ı Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Radiological Characterization of High-level Radioactive Waste
nucmag.com<br />
2017 edition<br />
available!<br />
The Whole Story of<br />
Nuclear Power<br />
– 60 Years on Disc<br />
<strong>atw</strong>-digital | 60 years: 1956 to 2015<br />
<strong>atw</strong>-digital<br />
| 60 years: 1956 to 2015<br />
Single User License<br />
nucmag.com<br />
© INFORUM ı Berlin | 2017<br />
Expert’s articles, reports, interviews and news covering all<br />
technical, economic and political topics of nuclear power<br />
and technology.<br />
Read the articles on your computer or print them out.<br />
Navigate quickly to the desired papers with a few mouse clicks.<br />
Convenient search function in all papers as full-text search<br />
and/or deliberate search for authors and documents titles.<br />
I would like to order (single user license),<br />
payment by invoice:<br />
<strong>atw</strong>-digital 799.– €*<br />
| 60 years: 1956 to 2015 599.– €*<br />
Surname, First Name<br />
Organization/Order no.<br />
DAtF-/KTG-Member (yes/no)*<br />
Also available on Disc:<br />
| 5 years: 2012 to 2016 each 199.– €*<br />
149.– €*<br />
| 1 year: 2017 69.– €*<br />
49.– €*<br />
Street<br />
Postal Code City Country<br />
Telephone/E-mail<br />
VAT no. (EU countries except Germany)<br />
Please send your order to:<br />
INFORUM Verlags- und<br />
Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin, Germany<br />
Fax-No. +49 30 498555-18<br />
or order online: www.nucmag.com/shop<br />
Prices excluding postage.<br />
Prices including 19% VAT for Germany and all EU member states<br />
without VAT number. For EU member states with VAT number and all<br />
other countries VAT will not be added.<br />
I order <strong>atw</strong>-digital | as indicated on the left and agree<br />
to the terms and cancellation rights referred to below.<br />
Date<br />
Signature<br />
Cancellation: This order may be cancelled within 14 days. A notice<br />
must be sent to INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH,<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany, within this period.<br />
The deadline will be observed by due mailing. Prompt dispatch of the<br />
notification is sufficient for compliance with the cancellation conditions.<br />
*<br />
Special price for DAtF- and KTG-Members.
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Summary: Nuclear Power 2017 | <strong>2018</strong>:<br />
Figures, Facts, Assessments and Two Remarkable Conclusions<br />
With the available data, the middle of the year is certainly a suitable time for a summary and an assessment of the<br />
development of nuclear energy in the course of the previous year. But first, for a given reason, two current and certainly<br />
noteworthy findings.<br />
• With the commissioning of the 1,086 MWe (gross)<br />
Yangjiang-5 nuclear power plant in China, not only has<br />
the country's 40 th nuclear power plant gone into operation,<br />
the total number of nuclear power plants in operation<br />
worldwide has also reached another historic high.<br />
After the Leningrad 2-1 (1,199 MWe) and Rostov-4<br />
(1,<strong>07</strong>0 MWe) units went into operation in Russia in<br />
<strong>2018</strong>, 451 nuclear power plants are currently in operation<br />
worldwide. With 421,553 MWe gross output and<br />
398,094 MWe net output, there is also more nuclear<br />
energy capacity available worldwide than ever before.<br />
• Additionally, the contribution of nuclear power plants<br />
increases in terms of security of supply and system<br />
stability, depending on the structure of production in<br />
the countries. Nuclear power plants have outstanding<br />
characteristics in terms of load following capability.<br />
With high possible load change rates and large power<br />
strokes, i.e. the difference between minimum and<br />
maximum power, nuclear power plants together with<br />
other conventional power plants are not stopgap or<br />
fillers in power supply systems, but the basis for grid<br />
stability and integration of the volatile feed from<br />
renewables. Nuclear power plants and conventional<br />
power plants supply electricity when the renewables<br />
are not available and their controllability opens the way<br />
for renewable electricity when it is available at high<br />
output due to the whims of the nature.<br />
Now, back to the summary for 2017: With 449 nuclear<br />
power plants one unit less were in operation than at the end<br />
of the previous year. In particular, four units became critical<br />
and/or were synchronised for the first time with the grid:<br />
Fuqing-4 and Tianwan-3 in China, Chasnupp-4 in Pakistan,<br />
and Rostov-4 in Russia. Five units stopped operation in<br />
2017 and were finally shutdown: in Germany, after 33 years<br />
of successful operation, the Gundremmingen-B NPP was<br />
shutdown due to the political decision in 2011; in Japan,<br />
the prototype fast breeder reactor Monju ceased operation;<br />
in Sweden the Oskarshamn-1 unit and in Spain, after five<br />
years of unsuccessful waiting for an application for further<br />
operation, the Santa Maria de Garona plant stopped<br />
electricity production.<br />
For electricity generation capacities, the global nuclear<br />
energy gross capacity of 420,383 MWe exceeded the<br />
400,000-MW-mark again and the capacity was quasi on<br />
the same level as in 2016 with 420,534 MWe due to high<br />
capacities of the new reactors. Even, the net capacity<br />
increased from 397,003 MWe in 2016 up to 397,193 MWe<br />
with a plus of 190 MWe.<br />
A further increase can also be registered for electricity<br />
generation. The net production of 2,490 TWh is about 1 %<br />
higher compared to last year with 2,477 TWh. Due to the<br />
35 non-operating nuclear power plants in Japan in 2017<br />
this is considerably lower than before the Fukushima<br />
incident in 2011. However, two nuclear power units,<br />
Takahama-3 and Takahama-4, were reconnected to the<br />
grid in Japan in 2017. This means that a total of seven plants<br />
have been put back into operation in Japan since 2011.<br />
Thus, the nuclear power share to the overall energy<br />
production remains at 11 %, the share of nuclear energy in<br />
the entire global energy supply at about 4.5 % – these are<br />
certainly two remarkable figures: The currently 414 active<br />
nuclear power plants are able to provide electricity to<br />
every tenth person worldwide or every twentieth person<br />
worldwide covers its energy needs with nuclear power ...<br />
as mentioned: Regionally and in each single nuclear<br />
energy using countries the share of nuclear power in the<br />
electricity production differs with a range of 4 % in China<br />
– which means a doubling in the past five years – up to<br />
almost 28 % in France. 13 states cover more than 30 % of<br />
its electricity generation with nuclear. With 182 reactors<br />
Europe remains the most important region using nuclear<br />
energy. With a share of about 27 % almost every fourth<br />
kilowatt-hour of electricity spent in European is generated<br />
in nuclear power plants.<br />
Regarding newly started projects in 2017, three projects<br />
were implemented: In Bangladesh the Rooppur project<br />
started; India started its third project at the Kudankulam<br />
site and in the Republic of Korea the project Shin-Kori-5<br />
was initiated. Thus globally 55 nuclear power plant units<br />
with a 59,872 MWe gross – and 56,642 MWe net capacity<br />
were under construction; due to commissioning two less<br />
than in the previous year. Furthermore around 125 new<br />
build projects were registered, which are currently in a<br />
specific planning stage. Besides many projects are planned<br />
in countries, which plan to enter the nuclear sector. For<br />
another 100 nuclear power plant units exist already<br />
preliminary plans.<br />
These nuclear figures reflect a rather unspectacular<br />
development of global nuclear energy with a constant or<br />
rather slight decreasing share. A glance at the details, both<br />
globally and from each single country show, that nuclear<br />
energy can definitely expand its important role in the global<br />
energy supply. On the one hand, this can be explained by<br />
the advised operations times of existing reactors. Today,<br />
60 years of operating time are technically and economically<br />
reality and 80 years are under preparation, safety-related<br />
feasible without any compromises and thus for many<br />
today’s older plants already in preparation or realisation<br />
phase. Thus, the nuclear “age pyramid” with many plants in<br />
the range of 25 to 40 operating years, will have a rather<br />
small influence during the next decades. The regulatory<br />
and political environment shows, that these strategies are<br />
accepted or even receive support through arguments such<br />
as conserving resources, climate protection, favourable<br />
and stable costs as well as supply reliability. The contribution<br />
of innovative technical developments such as Small<br />
Modular Reactors, which are currently being discussed and<br />
developed in many different ways, is not exactly foreseeable.<br />
But these developments show that the potential of<br />
nuclear energy technology is far from exhausted – here we<br />
are more at the beginning than at the end of the journey.<br />
Christopher Weßelmann<br />
– Editor in Chief –<br />
359<br />
EDITORIAL<br />
Editorial<br />
Figures, Facts, Assessments and Two Remarkable Conclusions
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
EDITORIAL 360<br />
Kernenergiebilanzen 2017 | <strong>2018</strong>:<br />
Zahlen, Fakten, Einschätzungen und zwei beachtenswerte Feststellungen<br />
Die Jahresmitte ist mit den vorliegenden Daten sicherlich ein geeigneter Zeitpunkt für ein Resümee und eine Einschätzung<br />
der Entwicklung der Kernenergie im Vorjahresverlauf. Doch vorab aus gegebenem Anlass zwei aktuelle und sicherlich<br />
beachtenswerte Feststellungen.<br />
• Mit der Inbetriebnahme des 1.086 MWe (brutto) Kernkraftwerksblocks<br />
Yangjiang 5 in China ist nicht nur das vierzigste<br />
Kernkraftwerk des Landes in Betrieb gegangen, die<br />
Gesamtzahl der in Betrieb befindlichen Kernkraftwerke<br />
weltweit hat damit auch einen weiteren historischen<br />
Höchststand erreicht. Nachdem im Jahresverlauf <strong>2018</strong> in<br />
Russland die Blöcke Leningrad 2-1 (1.199 MWe) und<br />
Rostov 4 (1.<strong>07</strong>0 MWe) den Betrieb aufgenommen hatten,<br />
sind derzeit weltweit 451 Kernkraftwerke in Betrieb zu<br />
verzeichnen. Mit 421.553 MWe Bruttoleistung sowie<br />
398.094 MWe Nettoleistung steht weltweit auch so viel<br />
Kernenergiekapazität zur Verfügung wie nie zuvor.<br />
• Zudem steigt der Beitrag der Kernkraftwerke, je nach<br />
Struktur der Erzeugung in den einzelnen Ländern differenziert,<br />
in Bezug auf Versorgungssicherheit und Systemstabilität.<br />
Kernkraftwerke weisen heraus ragende Eigenschaften<br />
bei der Lastfolgefähigkeit auf. Mit hohen möglichen<br />
Laständerungsgeschwindig keiten sowie großen<br />
Leistungshüben, also der Differenz zwischen Minimal- und<br />
Maximalleistung, sind die Kernkraftwerke gemeinsam mit<br />
weiteren konventio nellen Kraftwerken nicht Notnagel oder<br />
Füller in Stromversorgungssystemen, sondern Grundlage<br />
für Netz stabilität und Integration der volatilen Einspeisung<br />
aus Erneuerbaren. Kernkraftwerke und konventionelle<br />
Erzeugung liefern dann Strom, wenn die Erneuerbaren<br />
nicht verfügbar sind und sie machen durch ihre Regelfähigkeit<br />
den Weg für erneuerbaren Strom dann frei, wenn<br />
dieser aufgrund der Launen der Natur einmal mit hoher<br />
Leistung verfügbar ist.<br />
Doch nun zurück zur Jahresbilanz: Mit 449 Kernkraft werken<br />
war Ende 2017 ein Block weniger in Betrieb als ein Jahr zuvor.<br />
Im Einzelnen sind vier Blöcke kritisch geworden und wurden<br />
erstmals mit dem Stromnetz synchronisiert: Fuqing 4 und<br />
Tianwan 3 in China, Chasnupp 4 in Pakistan und Rostov 4 in<br />
Russland. Fünf Kernkraftwerksblöcke stellten ihren Betrieb<br />
ein: In Deutschland gemäß der politischen Entscheidung aus<br />
dem Jahr 2011 nach 33 Jahren erfolgreichem Betrieb das<br />
Kernkraftwerk Gund remmingen B; in Japan der proto typische<br />
Schnelle Brutreaktor Monju; in der Republik Korea das erste<br />
Kernkraftwerk des Landes, Kori 1; in Schweden der Block<br />
Oskarshamn 1 und in Spanien hat der Betreiber des Kernkraftwerks<br />
Santa Maria de Garona nach fünf Jahren erfolgloser<br />
Beantragungsphase für eine Laufzeitverlängerung die endgültige<br />
Stilllegung beschlossen.<br />
Bei den Stromerzeugungskapazitäten lag die Brutto leistung<br />
der Kernenergie weltweit mit 420.383 MWe deutlich über<br />
der Marke von 400.000 MW und blieb aufgrund der hohen<br />
Leistung der Neuanlagen quasi auf Vorjahresniveau von<br />
420.534 MW. Die Nettoleistung erreichte 397.193 MWe und<br />
lag damit sogar höher als der Vorjahreswert von 397.003 MW.<br />
Ein erneut gutes Ergebnis kann die Kernenergie auch bei<br />
der Stromerzeugung verzeichnen. Mit einer Nettoerzeugung<br />
von 2.490 TWh lag diese rund 1,0 % höher als im Vorjahr mit<br />
2.477 TWh. Aufgrund von seit 2011 weiterhin nicht in Betrieb<br />
befindlichen 35 Kernkraftwerken in Japan ist diese aber noch<br />
niedriger als vor dem Erdbeben mit Tsunami und Unfall in<br />
Fukushima. Allerdings sind in Japan in 2017 mit Takahama 3<br />
und Takahama 4 weitere zwei Kernkraftwerke wieder in<br />
Betrieb gegangen. Somit sind seit 2011 insgesamt sieben<br />
Anlagen in Japan wieder in Betrieb genommen worden.<br />
Der Anteil an der gesamten weltweiten Strompro duktion lag<br />
weiterhin bei 11 %; der Anteil der Kernenergie an der gesamten<br />
weltweiten Energieversorgung bei rund 4,5 % – dies sind zwei<br />
sicherlich weitere bemerkenswerte Zahlen: Die rund 414<br />
derzeit aktiven Kernkraftwerke sind in der Lage, jeden zehnten<br />
Menschen weltweit mit Strom zu versorgen oder jeder zwanzigste<br />
Mensch weltweit deckt seinen Energiebedarf komplett<br />
mit Kernenergie. Regional und in den einzelnen Kernenergie<br />
nutzenden Ländern liegt der Anteil der Kern energie an der<br />
Stromerzeugung in einer Spannbreite von inzwischen 4 % in<br />
China – eine Verdoppelung innerhalb von 5 Jahren – bis fast<br />
72 % in Frankreich. 13 Staaten decken mehr als 30 % ihrer<br />
Stromerzeugung nuklear. Europa ist weiterhin mit 182 Reaktoren<br />
die bedeutendste Kernenergie nutzende Region. In ihr<br />
wird mit einem Anteil von rund 27 % rund jede vierte<br />
verbrauchte Kilowattstunde Strom in Kernkraftwerken erzeugt.<br />
Bei den neu begonnenen Projekten sind für das Jahr 2017<br />
drei Vorhaben zu verzeichnen: Im Newcomer-Land Bangladesh<br />
wurde gemeinsam mit dem russischen Partner mit dem Bau des<br />
ersten Blocks am Standort Rooppur begonnen, Indien hat die<br />
Errichtung des dritten Blocks in Kudankulam in Angriff<br />
enommen und in der Republik Korea startete das Projekt<br />
Shin-Kori 5. Damit waren weltweit 55 Kernkraftwerksblöcke<br />
mit 59.872 MWe Brutto- und 56.642 MWe Nettoleistung in<br />
Bau; aufgrund der Neuinbetriebnahmen zwei weniger als ein<br />
Jahr zuvor. Darüber hinaus sind rund 125 Neubauprojekte zu<br />
ver zeichnen, die sich im konkreten Planungsstadium befinden.<br />
Viele dieser Projekte werden zudem in Ländern geplant, die<br />
neu in die Kernenergie einsteigen wollen. Für weitere 100 Kernkraftwerksblöcke<br />
bestehen Vorplanungen.<br />
Diese Kernenergiezahlen spiegeln eine im Wesent lichen<br />
unspektakuläre weitere absehbare Entwicklung für die Kernenergie<br />
weltweit wider, mit eher geringfügigen Verän derungen.<br />
Ein Blick auf die Details, sowohl global als auch der einzelnen<br />
Länder, zeigt, dass Kernenergie durchaus zukünftig ihre<br />
wichtige und steigende Rolle bei der weltweiten Energieversorgung<br />
ausbauen kann: Zu begründen ist dies einerseits<br />
sicherlich mit den avisierten Laufzeiten von bestehenden<br />
Reaktoren. Heute sind 60 Jahre Laufzeit für die Anlagen<br />
technisch- wirtschaftlich Realität und 80 Jahre in der Vorbereitung,<br />
sicherheitstechnisch ohne Abstriche umsetzbar und<br />
damit für viele heute ältere Anlagen in der Vorbereitungs- bzw.<br />
Umsetzungs phase. Die kerntechnische „Alterspyramide“, mit<br />
vielen Anlagen im Bereich von 25 bis 40 Betriebsjahren wird<br />
daher in den nächsten Jahrzehnten kaum einen Einfluss haben.<br />
Auch zeigt sich im regula torischen und politischen Umfeld,<br />
dass diese Strategie akzeptiert oder gar mit Argumenten wie<br />
Ressourcen schonung, Klimaschutz, günstige und stabile Kosten<br />
sowie Versorgungssicherheit und Netzstabilität beim Umbau<br />
des Stromversorgungs systems mit mehr volatilen Quellen<br />
Unterstützung erfährt. Welchen Beitrag innovative, tech nische<br />
Entwicklungen, wie unter anderem die derzeit in vielfältiger<br />
Weise diskutierten und in Entwicklung befind lichen Kleinen-<br />
Modularen Reaktoren (Small Modular Reactors) liefern<br />
können, ist nicht konkret absehbar, zeigt aber, dass das Entwicklungspotenzial<br />
der Kernenergie technik bei Weitem nicht<br />
ausgeschöpft ist – hier befinden wir uns eher am Beginn, als am<br />
Ende der Reise.<br />
Christopher Weßelmann<br />
– Chefredakteur –<br />
Editorial<br />
Summary: Nuclear Power 2017/<strong>2018</strong>: Figures, Facts, Assessments and Two Remarkable Conclusions
Kommunikation und<br />
Training für Kerntechnik<br />
Suchen Sie die passende Weiter bildungs maßnahme im Bereich Kerntechnik?<br />
Wählen Sie aus folgenden Themen: Dozent/in Termin/e Ort<br />
3 Atom-, Vertrags- und Exportrecht<br />
Ihr Weg durch Genehmigungs- und Aufsichtsverfahren RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 18.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
02.04.2019<br />
22.10.2019<br />
Das Recht der radioaktiven Abfälle RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 23.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
05.03.2019<br />
17.09.2019<br />
Atomrecht – Navigation im internationalen nuklearen Vertragsrecht Akos Frank LL. M. 03.04.2019 Berlin<br />
Atomrecht – Was Sie wissen müssen<br />
Export kerntechnischer Produkte und Dienstleistungen –<br />
Chancen und Regularien<br />
3 Kommunikation und Politik<br />
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke<br />
Akos Frank LL. M.<br />
RA Kay Höft M. A.<br />
RA Olaf Kreuzer<br />
Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Steinwarz<br />
Berlin<br />
Berlin<br />
04.06.2019 Berlin<br />
12.06. - 13.06.2019 Berlin<br />
Schlüsselfaktor Interkulturelle Kompetenz –<br />
International verstehen und verstanden werden<br />
Public Hearing Workshop –<br />
Öffentliche Anhörungen erfolgreich meistern<br />
Kerntechnik und Energiepolitik im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs<br />
– Themen und Formate<br />
Angela Lloyd 26.09.<strong>2018</strong> Berlin<br />
Dr. Nikolai A. Behr 16.10. - 17.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
05.11. - 06.11.2019<br />
Berlin<br />
N.N. 12.11. - 13.11.<strong>2018</strong> Gronau/<br />
Lingen<br />
3 Rückbau und Strahlenschutz<br />
In Kooperation mit dem TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH Baden-Württemberg:<br />
Stilllegung und Rückbau in Recht und Praxis<br />
Das neue Strahlenschutzgesetz –<br />
Folgen für Recht und Praxis<br />
Dr. Matthias Bauerfeind<br />
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke<br />
Maria Poetsch<br />
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke<br />
24.09. - 25.09.<strong>2018</strong> Berlin<br />
05.11. - 06.11.<strong>2018</strong><br />
12.02. - 13.02.2019<br />
25.06. - 26.06.2019<br />
Berlin<br />
3 Nuclear English<br />
Enhancing Your Nuclear English Devika Kataja 22.05. - 23.05.2019 Berlin<br />
Advancing Your Nuclear English (Aufbaukurs) Devika Kataja 10.10. - 11.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
10.04. - 11.04.2019<br />
18.09. - 19.09.2019<br />
3 Wissenstransfer und Veränderungsmanagement<br />
Berlin<br />
Veränderungsprozesse gestalten – Heraus forderungen<br />
meistern, Beteiligte gewinnen<br />
Erfolgreicher Wissenstransfer in der Kern technik –<br />
Methoden und praktische Anwendung<br />
Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking<br />
Dr. Christien Zedler<br />
Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking<br />
Dr. Christien Zedler<br />
28.11. - 29.11.<strong>2018</strong><br />
26.11. - 27.11.2019<br />
Berlin<br />
26.03. - 27.03.2019 Berlin<br />
Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? 3 Rufen Sie uns an: +49 30 498555-30<br />
Kontakt<br />
INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungs gesellschaft mbH ı Robert-Koch-Platz 4 ı 10115 Berlin<br />
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak ı Fon +49 30 498555-30 ı Fax +49 30 498555-18 ı seminare@kernenergie.de<br />
Die INFORUM-Seminare können je nach<br />
Inhalt ggf. als Beitrag zur Aktualisierung<br />
der Fachkunde geeignet sein.
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
362<br />
Issue 6/7<br />
June/July<br />
CONTENTS<br />
369<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong>:<br />
Opening Address<br />
| | View of TU Munich´s research site in Garching with the FRM I in the foreground and the Forschungs-Neutronenquelle<br />
Heinz Maier-Leibnitz (FRM II) in the background. The 20 MWth research neutron source FRM II is in operation, the FRM I<br />
under decommissioning after 43 years of successful operation for various research projects (Courtesy: TUM)<br />
Editorial<br />
Summary: Nuclear Power 2017 | <strong>2018</strong> . . . . . . . . 359<br />
Kernenergiebilanzen 2017 | <strong>2018</strong> . . . . . . . . . . 360<br />
Abstracts | English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364<br />
Abstracts | German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365<br />
Inside Nuclear with NucNet<br />
Poland Faces Delays and Decisions<br />
as It Makes Ambitious Plans to To Nuclear . . . . . 366<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology<br />
(AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address . . . . . . . . . . . 369<br />
Ralf Güldner<br />
374<br />
| | Crystallographic length change of UO 2 /PuO 2 -fuel relative to<br />
displacement per atom (dpa).<br />
Best Paper<br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel Rod<br />
Behaviour During Long-term Storage . . . . . . . . 374<br />
Heinz G. Sonnenburg<br />
DAtF Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .377<br />
369<br />
| | AMNT <strong>2018</strong>, Opening speech, Dr. Ralf Güldner, President, DAtF.<br />
Spotlight on Nuclear Law<br />
New Build Projects Abroad – A Challenge<br />
for Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378<br />
Neubauprojekte im Ausland – eine<br />
Herausforderung für die Regulierung. . . . . . . . 378<br />
Christian Raetzke<br />
Contents
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors<br />
FRM II and FR MZ After the Fukushima Event . . . 379<br />
Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian<br />
Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt,<br />
Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk<br />
|379<br />
383<br />
| | Overall view of the FRM II (foreground), the neutron guide hall (middle)<br />
and the FRM I (”atomic egg”, now under decommissioning).<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s<br />
First Nuclear Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383<br />
Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and<br />
Anton Kastenmüller<br />
| Visualisation of the unfiltered ventilations system.<br />
|392<br />
404<br />
| | Pyramide.<br />
Operation and New Build<br />
Further Development of<br />
a Thermal- Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool . . . . 401<br />
Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke, Javier Jiménez and V.H.<br />
Sánchez-Espinoza<br />
Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Special Features of Measurement<br />
for the Radiological Characterization<br />
of High-level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . 404<br />
Besonderheiten bei Messungen<br />
zur radiologischen Charakterisierung<br />
hochradioaktiver Abfälle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404<br />
Marina Sokcic-Kostic and Roland Schultheis<br />
| Zelle für den fernhantierten Umgang mit radioaktiven Stoffen.<br />
363<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
While You Were Sleeping:<br />
The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation<br />
in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389<br />
KTG Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408<br />
News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410<br />
Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and<br />
Benjamin Lozier<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6<br />
Reactor Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392<br />
Deutsche Sekretariatsführung ISO/TC 85/SC 6<br />
Reactor-Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392<br />
Janine Winkler and Michael Petri<br />
Nuclear Today<br />
Confidence in Nuclear Safeguards at Risk<br />
as Trump Quits One Deal to Pursue Another. . . . 422<br />
John Shepherd<br />
Imprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388<br />
Environment and Safety<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the<br />
Convective Heat Transfer of an Air-cooled<br />
BWR Spent Fuel Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397<br />
AMNT 2019: Call for Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Insert<br />
Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado<br />
Contents
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
364<br />
ABSTRACTS | ENGLISH<br />
Poland Faces Delays and Decisions as It<br />
Makes Ambitious Plans to Go Nuclear<br />
NucNet | Page 366<br />
Poland has drawn up ambitious plans to build up to<br />
6,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity, potentially<br />
at two sites, by the late 2030s or early 2040s.<br />
But the government is yet to take a final decision<br />
and the deadline has pushed back several times,<br />
with plans hampered by changes in government,<br />
problems putting in place the right domestic legislation<br />
and the need to find the right financing model.<br />
Poland needs nuclear because of its low carbon<br />
footprint and as a way to decrease the country’s<br />
carbon emissions. Poland is no newcomer to nuclear<br />
technology. The Polish National Centre for Nuclear<br />
Research (NCBJ) has operated a research reactor at<br />
Swierk. In 1971 the government made its first<br />
binding decision to build a nuclear plant. The<br />
project was formally scrapped in 1990.<br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology<br />
(AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address<br />
Ralf Güldner | Page 369<br />
As in other years, DAtF and the German Nuclear<br />
Society (KTG), offer a comprehensive program<br />
with their 49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology,<br />
giving insights into many aspects of nuclear<br />
technology and contributing to the international<br />
exchange of knowledge and experience in industry,<br />
research, politics and administration. In keeping<br />
with long-standing tradition, even in the year<br />
preceding its 50th anniversary, on 7 and 8 May 2019<br />
in Berlin, the AMNT remains the only conference<br />
in Germany, and one of the few in Europe, that<br />
combines all the issues surrounding nuclear<br />
technology under one roof and is dedicated to every<br />
sector of the industry.<br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel Rod<br />
Behaviour During Long-term Storage<br />
Heinz G. Sonnenburg | Page 374<br />
The fuel rod code TESPA-ROD is applicable to LOCA<br />
transients and RIA transients. Recently, code<br />
models have been implemented in order to predict<br />
the transitional fuel rod behaviour during longterm<br />
storage. In particular modelling for both<br />
long-term fuel swelling and associated helium gas<br />
release have been implemented. First TESPA-ROD<br />
code predictions for the long-term transient,<br />
including wet storage, drying procedure and dry<br />
storage indicate gap closure between fuel and<br />
cladding. Thus, stress level in the cladding may<br />
depend on both the internal fission gas pressure and<br />
the fuel/cladding mechanical interaction.<br />
New Build Projects Abroad – A Challenge<br />
for Regulation<br />
Christian Raetzke | Page 378<br />
Numerous reactors are under construction or in the<br />
planning stage worldwide. However, compared to<br />
the situation a few decades ago, when the majority<br />
of the plants in operation today were built,<br />
the project models and boundary conditions are<br />
much more diverse, so that traditional models of<br />
regulation, approval and supervision (regulation)<br />
sometimes reach their limits. The article provides<br />
examples of new challenges. Regulation must find<br />
new answers to the challenges. However, it must<br />
not ignore the proven principles and instruments in<br />
order to ensure nuclear safety.<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors<br />
FRM II And FR MZ After the Fukushima<br />
Event<br />
Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton<br />
Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky,<br />
Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt,<br />
Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt<br />
and Sergei Karpuk | Page 379<br />
After the events at the Fukushima-I nuclear power<br />
plant (NPP) in 2011 the Reaktorsicherheitskommission<br />
(RSK) has carried out an overall assessment<br />
of the German nuclear fleet with respect to extreme<br />
(beyond design base) events. This paper deals only<br />
with the research reactors (RR) FRM II (Garching)<br />
and FR MZ (Mainz). The findings of the RSK, its<br />
recommendations and their status of implementation<br />
will be presented.<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First<br />
Nuclear Reactor<br />
Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger,<br />
Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller | Page 383<br />
FRM started operating in 1957 as the first nuclear<br />
reactor in Germany. Reactor operation ended in<br />
2000. Licensing procedures for the deconstruction<br />
and dismantling of the reactor started in 1998. In<br />
2014 the Technical University of Munich (TUM) was<br />
granted the license to decommission the reactor.<br />
The article describes the (long) way to the license<br />
for dismantling of the reactor and gives a short overview<br />
of the current state of the decommissioning<br />
project. Results of the (pre-)licensing stage are<br />
presented: disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and<br />
preparation of the safety report containing details<br />
on fire protection, radiological characterization<br />
(neutron activation and contamination), waste<br />
management and safety analysis. With regard to<br />
the current state of the project we will discuss:<br />
clearance of material and current obstacles.<br />
While You were Sleeping:<br />
The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free<br />
Generation in the United States<br />
Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie,<br />
Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier | Page 389<br />
The United States has embarked on actions to<br />
combat climate change by putting a focus on<br />
lowering the carbon emissions from the electric<br />
generation sector. A pillar of this approach is to<br />
promote the greater use of renewable resources,<br />
such as wind and solar. The past decade has seen<br />
significant growth in carbon-free energy from wind<br />
and solar. Generation from these resources reached<br />
333,000 GWh in 2017. However, unbeknownst to<br />
many who care about climate change, most of the<br />
progress made to date through renewables is at<br />
significant risk due to the loss or potential loss of<br />
more than 228,000 GWh of nuclear carbon-free<br />
generation.<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC<br />
85/SC 6 Reactor Technology<br />
Janine Winkler and Michael Petri | Page 392<br />
On behalf of the Federal Ministry for the Environment,<br />
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety<br />
(BMU) and represented by the Office of the Nuclear<br />
Safety Standards Commission (KTA), DIN has taken<br />
over the Secretariat of ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor<br />
technology in conjunction with China in <strong>2018</strong>. The<br />
new role provides an opportunity to increase<br />
German participation and influence in the field<br />
of International Standardization, for instance<br />
via conversion of German Industrial and KTA<br />
Standards into International Standards. This<br />
demonstrates that Germany is willing to actively<br />
participate in the ongoing efforts to increase<br />
Nuclear Safety in the peaceful use of Nuclear<br />
Energy.<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis<br />
of the Convective Heat Transfer of an<br />
Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly<br />
Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster<br />
and Antonio Hurtado | Page 397<br />
Since the reactor accident in Fukushima Daiichi,<br />
the vulnerability of spent fuel pools (SFP) is more<br />
focused in nuclear safety research. This paper<br />
presents the experimental findings about the<br />
convective heat transfer of a boiling water reactor<br />
(BWR) spent FA under the absence of water. These<br />
studies are performed within the joint project<br />
SINABEL that is funded by the German Federal<br />
Ministry of Education and Research to investigate<br />
the thermal hydraulics of selected accident<br />
scenarios in SFP experimentally and numerically.<br />
Further Development of a Thermal-<br />
Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool<br />
Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke,<br />
Javier Jiménez and V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza | Page 401<br />
The numerical simulation tool TWOPORFLOW is<br />
under development at the Institute for Neutron<br />
Physics and Reactor Technology (INR) of the<br />
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). TWOPOR-<br />
FLOW is a thermal-hydraulics code that is able to<br />
simulate single- and two-phase flow in a structured<br />
or unstructured porous medium using a flexible 3-D<br />
Cartesian geometry. The main purpose of this work<br />
is the extension, improvement and validation of<br />
TWOPORFLOW in order to simulate the thermalhydraulic<br />
behavior of Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)<br />
cores.<br />
Special Features of Measurement<br />
for the Radiological Characterization<br />
of High-level Radioactive Waste<br />
Marina Sokcic-Kostic and<br />
Roland Schultheis | Page 404<br />
In nuclear power plants occasionally highly radioactive<br />
waste is produced, such as fragments of<br />
defective fuel elements or filters from hot cells.<br />
NUKEM Technologies Engineering Services has<br />
designed and implemented waste treatment options<br />
for such waste in projects that characterise highlevel<br />
radioactive waste and condition it in accordance<br />
with the requirements for long-term storage.<br />
This also includes a volume reduction to minimize<br />
future storage costs. The focus of this article is on<br />
the measurement of highly active waste and its<br />
implications.<br />
Confidence in Nuclear Safeguards at Risk as<br />
Trump Quits One Deal to Pursue Another<br />
John Shepherd | Page 422<br />
Confidence in nuclear safeguards at risk as Trump<br />
quits one deal to pursue another. By the time you sit<br />
down to read this article, Donald Trump and Kim<br />
Jong Un may have had an historic sit-down of their<br />
own – in fact the first meeting between a sitting US<br />
president and a leader of North Korea.<br />
Abstracts | English
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Polen steht mit seinen ehrgeizigen Plänen<br />
zur Nutzung der Kernenergie vor<br />
Verzögerungen und Entscheidungen<br />
NucNet | Seite 366<br />
Polen hat ehrgeizige Pläne formuliert, bis Ende<br />
der 2030er oder Anfang der 2040er Jahre bis zu<br />
6.000 MW Kernenergiekapazität an zwei Standorten<br />
zu errichten. Dazu muss die Regierung eine<br />
endgültige Entscheidung treffen, die mehrmals<br />
verschoben wurde, wobei der Zeitplan durch<br />
Regierungswechsel, Probleme bei der Umsetzung<br />
der nationalen Gesetzgebung und der Notwendigkeit,<br />
das geeignete Finanzierungsmodell zu finden,<br />
behindert wurden. Polen benötigt Kernenergie<br />
unter andrem wegen seiner günstigen CO 2 -Bilanz.<br />
Polen ist kein Newcomer in der Nukleartechnik. Das<br />
Polnische Nationale Zentrum für Kernforschung<br />
(NCBJ) betreibt seit 1972 einen Forschungsreaktor<br />
in Swierk. 1971 traf die Regierung ihren ersten<br />
Beschluss zum Bau eines Kernkraftwerks. Das<br />
Projekt wurde 1990 formell eingestellt.<br />
49. Jahrestagung Kerntechnik (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>):<br />
Eröffnungsansprache<br />
Ralf Güldner | Seite 369<br />
Wie in den vergangenen Jahren bieten DAtF und<br />
KTG mit der 49. Jahrestagung Kerntechnik ein<br />
umfangreiches Programm, das Einblicke in viele<br />
Aspekte der Kerntechnik gibt und zum internationalen<br />
Wissens- und Erfahrungsaustausch in<br />
Industrie, Forschung, Politik und Verwaltung<br />
beiträgt. Auch im Jahr vor ihrem 50-jährigen<br />
Jubiläum, am 7. und 8. Mai 2019 in Berlin, ist das<br />
AMNT die einzige Konferenz in Deutschland und<br />
eine der wenigen in Europa, die alle Themen rund<br />
um die Kerntechnik unter einem Dach vereint und<br />
sich allen Bereichen der Branche widmet.<br />
TESPA-ROD Codeberechnungen zum Brennelementverhalten<br />
bei Langzeitlagerung<br />
Heinz G. Sonnenburg | Seite 374<br />
Das Brennstab-Rechenprogramm TESPA-ROD<br />
berechnet für Kühlmittelverluststörfälle als auch<br />
für Reaktivitätsstörfälle das transiente Brenn stab-<br />
Verhalten. Dieses Programm wurde jetzt erweitert,<br />
um auch das Verhalten während der Langzeitlagerung<br />
berechnen zu können. Insbesondere<br />
wurden Modelle für das Langzeit-Brennstoffschwellen<br />
und der damit verbundenen Helium-Freisetzung<br />
implementiert. Erste TESPA-ROD Analysen<br />
zeigen, dass für Langzeittransienten, die die Nasslagerung,<br />
den Trocknungsprozess und die Trockenlagerung<br />
umfassen, ein Spaltschluss zwischen<br />
Brennstoff und Brennstabhülle möglich ist. Somit<br />
kann die Hüllrohrspannung vom Spaltgasinnendruck<br />
als auch von der mechanischen Interaktion<br />
zwischen Hülle und Brennstoff bestimmt werden.<br />
Neubauprojekte im Ausland – eine<br />
Herausforderung für die Regulierung<br />
Christian Raetzke | Seite 378<br />
Weltweit sind zahlreiche Reaktoren in Bau oder in<br />
konkreter Planung. Im Vergleich zur Situation vor<br />
einigen Jahrzehnten, als das Gros der heute betriebenen<br />
Anlagen errichtet wurde, sind die Projekt modelle<br />
und Randbedingungen jedoch deutlich vielfältiger, so<br />
dass überlieferte Modelle der Regelsetzung, Genehmigung<br />
und Aufsicht ( Regulierung) zum Teil an ihre<br />
Grenzen stoßen. Der Artikel liefert Beispiele für neue<br />
Herausfor derungen. Auf die Herausforderungen<br />
muss die Regulierung neue Antworten finden. Sie<br />
darf allerdings dabei auch die bewährten Grundsätze<br />
und Instrumente nicht außer Acht lassen, damit die<br />
nukleare Sicherheit gewährleistet bleibt.<br />
Sicherheitsbewertung der Forschungsreaktoren<br />
FRM II und FR MZ nach dem<br />
Fukushima-Ereignis<br />
Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg,<br />
Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski,<br />
Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein,<br />
Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert,<br />
Klaus Eberhardt und Sergei Karpuk | Seite 379<br />
Nach den Ereignissen im Kernkraftwerk Fukushima-I<br />
im Jahr 2011 hat die Reaktor-Sicherheitskommission<br />
(RSK) eine Gesamtbewertung der<br />
deutschen Reaktoren im Hinblick auf extreme (über<br />
die Auslegung hinausgehende) Ereignisse durchgeführt.<br />
Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich ausschließlich<br />
mit den Forschungsreaktoren (RR) FRM II<br />
( Garching) und FR MZ (Mainz). Die Ergebnisse der<br />
RSK, ihre Empfehlungen und ihr Umsetzungsstand<br />
werden vorgestellt.<br />
Stilllegung des ersten Kernreaktors<br />
Deutschlands<br />
Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger,<br />
Axel Pichlmaier und Anton Kastenmüller | Seite 383<br />
Der FRM wurde 1957 als erster Kernreaktor in<br />
Deutschland in Betrieb genommen. Der Reaktorbetrieb<br />
wurde im Jahr 2000 eingestellt. Die Genehmigungsverfahren<br />
für Stilllegung und Rückbau des<br />
Reaktors begannen 1998. Im Jahr 2014 erhielt die<br />
Technische Universität München (TUM) die Genehmigung<br />
zur Stilllegung des Reaktors. Der Beitrag<br />
beschreibt den (langen) Weg zur Genehmigung für<br />
den Rückbau des Reaktors und gibt einen kurzen<br />
Überblick über den aktuellen Stand des Stilllegungsprojekts.<br />
Ergebnisse der (Vor-)Genehmigungsphase<br />
werden vorgestellt: Entsorgung abgebrannter<br />
Brennelemente und Erstellung des Sicherheitsberichts<br />
mit Angaben zum Brandschutz, zur<br />
radiologischen Charakterisierung (Neutronenaktivierung<br />
und -kontamination), zur Abfallwirtschaft<br />
und zur Sicherheitsanalyse. Im Hinblick<br />
auf den aktuellen Stand des Projektes werden<br />
diskutiert: Räumung von Material und aktuellen<br />
Herausforderungen.<br />
Ganz im Stillen: Der unbemerkte Verlust der<br />
CO 2 -freien Stromerzeugung in den USA<br />
Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie,<br />
Paul Quinlan und Benjamin Lozier | Page 389<br />
Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika haben<br />
Maßnahmen für den Klimaschutz eingeleitet. Ein<br />
Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Minderung von<br />
CO 2 -Emissionen bei der Stromerzeugung. Eine<br />
Säule dieses Ansatzes ist die Förderung der verstärkten<br />
Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien, wie Wind<br />
und Sonne. In den letzten zehn Jahren hat die CO 2 -<br />
freie Erzeugung aus Wind und Sonne auch in den<br />
USA stark zugenommen. Die Erzeugung aus diesen<br />
Ressourcen erreichte im Jahr 2017 333.000 GWh.<br />
Für viele, die sich für das Thema Klimaschutz<br />
interessieren, ist jedoch unbekannt, dass in Summe<br />
die Fortschritte jedoch durch den Verlust oder<br />
potenziellen Verlust von mehr als 228.000 GWh<br />
kohlenstofffreier Stromerzeugung durch Kernenergie<br />
quasi zunichte gemacht werden.<br />
Deutsche Sekretariatsführung ISO/TC 85/SC<br />
6 Reactor technology<br />
Janine Winkler und Michael Petri | Seite 392<br />
Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt,<br />
Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU), vertreten<br />
durch die KTA-Geschäftsstelle, hat DIN ab<br />
<strong>2018</strong> die Sekretariatsführung des ISO/TC 85/SC 6<br />
Reactor technology zusammen mit China übernommen.<br />
Ziel ist hierbei, den deutschen Einfluss in<br />
der internationalen Normung zu erhöhen und die<br />
Möglichkeit wahrzunehmen, deutsche Normen und<br />
KTA-Regeln in die internationalen Normen zu überführen.<br />
Damit möchte Deutschland international<br />
seinen Beitrag für die nukleare Sicherheit bei der<br />
friedlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie leisten.<br />
Thermohydraulische Analyse des<br />
konvektiven Wärmeübergangs eines<br />
luftgekühlten SWR-Brennelementes<br />
Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster<br />
und Antonio Hurtado | Seite 397<br />
Seit dem Reaktorunfall in Fukushima Daiichi ist die<br />
Forschung zur Sicherheit abgebrannter Brennelemente<br />
stärker ausgeprägt. Dieser Beitrag stellt<br />
die experimentellen Ergebnisse zur konvektiven<br />
Wärme übertragung eines Siedewasserreaktor-<br />
Brennelements unter Abwesenheit von Wasser vor.<br />
Diese Untersuchungen werden im Rahmen des vom<br />
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung<br />
geförderten Verbundprojektes SINABEL durchgeführt,<br />
um die thermische Hydraulik ausgewählter<br />
Unfallszenarien im Brennelementlagerbecken<br />
experimentell und numerisch zu untersuchen.<br />
Weiterentwicklung eines thermohydraulischen<br />
Zwei-Phasen-Strömungsmodells<br />
Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke,<br />
Javier Jiménez und V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza | Seite 401<br />
Das numerische Simulationstool TWOPORFLOW<br />
wird am Institut für Neutronenphysik und Reaktortechnik<br />
(INR) des Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie<br />
(KIT) entwickelt. TWOPORFLOW ist ein thermohydraulischer<br />
Code, der in der Lage ist, ein- und<br />
zweiphasige Strömungen in einem strukturierten<br />
oder unstrukturierten porösen Medium unter Verwendung<br />
einer flexiblen 3-D kartesischen Geometrie<br />
zu simulieren. Das Hauptziel dieser Arbeit ist die Erweiterung,<br />
Verbesserung und Validierung von TWO-<br />
PORFLOW, um das thermisch- hydraulische Verhalten<br />
in Siedewasserreaktor kernen zu simulieren.<br />
Besonderheiten bei Messungen<br />
zur radiologischen Charakterisierung<br />
hochradioaktiver Abfälle<br />
Marina Sokcic-Kostic und<br />
Roland Schultheis | Seite 404<br />
Beim Betrieb von Kernkraftwerken fallen gelegentlich<br />
hochradioaktive Abfälle an, wie zum Beispiel<br />
Bruchstücke defekter Brennelemente oder Filter<br />
von heißen Zellen. Für solche Abfälle hat die<br />
NUKEM Technologies Engineering Services Abfallbehandlungsmöglichkeiten<br />
konzipiert und in<br />
Projekten umgesetzt, die hochradioaktive Abfälle<br />
charakterisieren und entsprechend den Anforderungen<br />
für die Langzeitlagerung konditionieren.<br />
Dies schließt auch eine Volumenverminderung ein,<br />
um so die künftigen Lagerkosten zu minimieren.<br />
Der Schwerpunkt dieses Artikels liegt in der<br />
Messung von hochaktivem Abfall und seinen<br />
Implikationen.<br />
Trump gefährdet das Vertrauen<br />
in Safeguards mit der Aufgabe eines<br />
Abkommens zugunsten anderer Ziele<br />
John Shepherd | Seite 422<br />
Das Vertrauen in das Safeguards-System gerät in<br />
Gefahr, da der U.S.-amerikanische Präsident Trump<br />
ein Abkommen aufgibt – mit dem Iran –, um ein<br />
anderes zu verfolgen. Bis zur Veröffentlichung<br />
dieses Beitrags hatten Donald Trump und Kim Jong<br />
Un vielleicht ein historisches Treffen – das erste<br />
Treffen zwischen einem amtierenden US-Präsidenten<br />
und einem Führer Nordkoreas.<br />
365<br />
ABSTRACTS | GERMAN<br />
Abstracts | German
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
366<br />
INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET<br />
Poland Faces Delays and Decisions as It<br />
Makes Ambitious Plans to Go Nuclear<br />
Poland has drawn up ambitious plans to build up to 6 GW of nuclear generating capacity, potentially at<br />
two sites, by the late 2030s or early 2040s. But the government is yet to take a final decision and the deadline<br />
has pushed back several times, with plans hampered by changes in government, problems putting in place<br />
the right domestic legislation and the need to find the right financing model.<br />
Poland is no newcomer to nuclear technology.<br />
The Polish National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ) has<br />
operated a research reactor at Swierk, on the outskirts of<br />
the capital Warsaw, since the mid-1970s. According to the<br />
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the first plans<br />
to launch nuclear power were drawn up in 1956. Nuclear<br />
energy was seen as a tool that would enable reductions in<br />
internal coal consumption, on which the whole Polish<br />
energy sector was based. With nuclear, it would have been<br />
possible to save precious natural resources or to export<br />
them.<br />
In 1971 the government made its first binding decision<br />
to build a nuclear plant. A year later it designated<br />
Zarnowiec, close to Poland’s Baltic coast in the northern<br />
province of Pomerania, as the site. After a decade of planning,<br />
construction of the four-unit Zarnowiec station began<br />
in 1982. The station was intended to have four Sovietdesigned<br />
VVER-440 pressurised water reactors, which<br />
were to be manufactured by Skoda in Czechoslovakia. But<br />
public opposition to the project arose in 1986 in the aftermath<br />
of the Chernobyl disaster in neighbouring Soviet<br />
Ukraine and work on Zarnowiec was suspended in 1989.<br />
The project was formally scrapped in 1990.<br />
Fast forward nearly two decades and Poland revived<br />
its nuclear ambitions in 2009 as part of a drive to find<br />
alternatives to ageing coal-fired electricity generation,<br />
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost energy supply<br />
security.<br />
Poland, the largest economy among the EU’s eastern<br />
members, generated 80 % of its electricity from coal in<br />
2016, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).<br />
The remaining 20 % came from wind, hydro, other<br />
fossil fuels and biofuels. This reliance on coal is a cheap<br />
way to produce energy but provides an enormous headache<br />
for any government trying to maintain economic<br />
growth and meet ever-stricter EU greenhouse gas emission<br />
targets.<br />
Nuclear, which provides reliable baseload supply and<br />
has overall lifecycle emissions that compare to wind power,<br />
seemed the logical choice. In 2014 the Polish ministry of<br />
economy adopted the Polish Nuclear Power Programme<br />
(PPEJ), which included the construction of up to 6 GW of<br />
capacity by 2035. According to the PPEJ, construction of a<br />
first unit should be completed by the end of 2024, and a<br />
second by 2029. The programme said a second nuclear<br />
station should be ready before 2035.<br />
In 2010, PGE EJ1 (Polska Grupa Energetyczna Energia<br />
Jądrowa 1) was set up and charged with the planning and<br />
construction of the first nuclear station with a capacity of<br />
up to 3,750 MW. PGE EJ1’s job would include site search,<br />
environmental impact assessment, various licensing<br />
procedures, construction and subsequent operation. The<br />
company is 70 % owned by Polish state-controlled utility<br />
PGE. The remaining 30 % share is equally spread between<br />
three state-run companies, Enea, KGHM Polska Miedz and<br />
Tauron Polska Energia.<br />
Under the proposed schedule in the PPEJ, site selection<br />
and a tender process should have been concluded by the<br />
end of 2016 and licensing by the end of <strong>2018</strong>. In reality,<br />
development of the nuclear programme has not gone to<br />
schedule and these deadlines have become increasingly<br />
unrealistic.<br />
Delays . . . And some Progress<br />
According to Professor Grzegorz Wrochna of the NCBJ one of<br />
the problems was that the PPEJ had assumed the project<br />
would take 10 years from the investment decision to<br />
operation of the first reactor. This schedule was based on<br />
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documents,<br />
which were in turn based on the experience of other nuclear<br />
countries. However, it soon became clear that Poland would<br />
need 16 years to get its nuclear programme operational<br />
because existing Polish laws did not allow many of the<br />
regulatory processes to run in parallel to each other.<br />
Delays also arose when, in December 2014, PGE EJ1<br />
cancelled a contract with Woorley Parsons over slow<br />
progress on site characterisation and licensing work.<br />
PGE EJ1 awarded the contract to Woorley Parsons in 2013<br />
with 2016 set as a deadline. PGE EJ1 had to take over the<br />
contractor’s tasks.<br />
However, there has been progress. In April 2017,<br />
PGE EJ1 began environmental and site selection surveys at<br />
two locations: Lubiatowo-Kopalino in the municipality of<br />
Choczewo and Żarnowiec in the municipality of Krokowa,<br />
both in northern Pomerania, west of the city of Gdansk.<br />
The studies aim to determine the potential impact of the<br />
project on both the environment and local residents. This<br />
work is expected to be completed by 2020.<br />
In October 2015 general elections in Poland brought<br />
the conservative Law and Justice party to power and<br />
responsibility for the nascent nuclear programme was<br />
transferred to a newly formed ministry of energy. The new<br />
energy minister Krzysztof Tchorzewski confirmed work on<br />
the programme would continue, but that it needed to be<br />
reviewed. The review was expected to be completed by<br />
mid-2017, but that deadline was later extended to the end<br />
of 2017 and was never met.<br />
There have been few official updates from PGE EJ1<br />
or the energy ministry on the status of the nuclear<br />
programme.<br />
In January 2017, however, Mr Tchorzewski said he had<br />
received a mandate from the cabinet to present a new<br />
financing model for the project. A few months later he said<br />
the government had abandoned plans to finance the<br />
nuclear project by way of contracts for difference – similar<br />
to those set up for the Hinkley Point C nuclear station under<br />
construction in England – because it was too costly for<br />
consumers. He said the government would like to find<br />
funding on a commercial basis, without state guarantees<br />
on loans or electricity prices.<br />
PGE EJ1 has stopped short of confirming a financing<br />
scheme and has said all options remain on the drawing<br />
Inside Nuclear with NucNet<br />
Poland Faces Delays and Decisions as It Makes Ambitious Plans to Go Nuclear ı June/July
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
board. Recently, the Polish media has speculated about<br />
possible government plans to involve state-owned energy<br />
companies in the nuclear project. Officials from Orlen,<br />
Poland’s largest oil refiner and petrol retailer, recently<br />
hinted to journalists that the company would be interested<br />
in cooperating with PGE EJ1 on the nuclear project.<br />
In another twist, in September 2017, Jozef Sobolewski,<br />
director of the Polish ministry of energy’s nuclear energy<br />
department, told a parliamentary committee on nuclear<br />
energy that the government was considering using<br />
“ domestic” financing for construction of the first station.<br />
He said the government did not want to have its decision<br />
about the project dominated by financial markets. “It's not<br />
a financial project, it’s an energy project”, he said.<br />
Mr Sobolewski estimated the cost of building 1 GW of<br />
nuclear capacity at € 2.8 bn to € 3.25 bn, based on the<br />
assumption that a 3-GW station would be built.<br />
Rafał Zasun, an editor at the specialised energy portal<br />
Wysokie Napiecie, told NucNet that the main reason for<br />
delaying the final decision on the nuclear programme is<br />
the government’s inability to agree on its financing. “The<br />
idea of building a nuclear power station has strong<br />
opponents in government and in state-owned energy<br />
companies”, he said.<br />
According to Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk, head of the<br />
international economic relations and energy policy<br />
programme at the Polish Institute of International Affairs,<br />
the energy ministry is in the process of revising the national<br />
energy policy framework for the first time since 2009.<br />
Because there are many overlapping aspects, the review<br />
impacts the nuclear programme’s schedule, she said.<br />
A decision is now expected by mid-<strong>2018</strong>, according to<br />
the latest reports.<br />
Why Does Poland Need Nuclear?<br />
Poland needs nuclear because of its low carbon footprint<br />
and as a way to decrease the country’s carbon emissions,<br />
said energy minister Krzysztof Tchorzewski. He told a<br />
recent conference that Poland’s ongoing large-scale<br />
investment in three new coal-fired power plants may be<br />
the country’s last fossil fuel venture, indicating a possible<br />
energy shift in the country’s revived plans to embrace<br />
nuclear power.<br />
There are other factors that point to the need for<br />
nuclear. Poland signed up to the EU’s target to reduce<br />
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % from 1990 levels by<br />
2020. It has had one of the fastest growing economies in<br />
the EU for the past decade and electricity demand is<br />
expected to grow by about 36 % by 2030.<br />
“Poland needs to decrease emissions and nuclear offers<br />
that”, Ms Gawlikowska-Fyk said. “This argument has been<br />
used for years”.<br />
“It is no secret that the European Commission expects a<br />
vision of the future energy mix in the country and nuclear<br />
is showcased by Poland as a way to reduce emissions”, she<br />
said.<br />
According to Ms Gawlikowska-Fyk, smog is “the<br />
elephant in the room” and a significant influence on Polish<br />
public opinion. A report by the World Health Organisation<br />
(WHO) says that out of the 50 European cities most<br />
affected by smog, 33 are in Poland. The WHO estimates<br />
that around 50,000 Poles die every year due to illness<br />
caused by air pollution.<br />
But the prominence of coal mining and coal-related<br />
industries in Poland presents challenges to every government<br />
when it comes to energy sector reforms. Poland is the<br />
second largest coal mining country in Europe, second to<br />
Germany, and the coal industry employs 100,000 people.<br />
However, experts have warned for years that the<br />
cheapest sources of coal in the Silesian Basin are nearly<br />
depleted and that the country’s mining sector will have to<br />
prepare for higher costs in the future.<br />
Meanwhile, work continues on the choice of a<br />
technology for the project. The PPEJ did not shortlist a<br />
technology; the only requirement is for reactors to be of<br />
the Generation III/III+ design because of their improved<br />
safety and 60-year design lifespan. The number of units<br />
that will be built and their site configuration will depend<br />
on the technology choice.<br />
In December 2015 PGE EJ1 said five companies had<br />
expressed an interest in supplying reactor technology. They<br />
were GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, Korea Electric<br />
Power Corporation, SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc, Westinghouse<br />
Electric Company and Areva (now Framatome). PGE EJ1<br />
said at the time that preliminary discussions had been held<br />
with all five.<br />
A public tender for the construction of the first nuclear<br />
power station was scheduled to be announced in late 2017<br />
or early <strong>2018</strong>, but this now seems unlikely.<br />
Author<br />
NucNet<br />
The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency<br />
Editor responsible for this story: Kamen Kraev<br />
Avenue des Arts 56<br />
1000 Brussels, Belgium<br />
www.nucnet.org<br />
INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET 367<br />
Inside Nuclear with NucNet<br />
Poland Faces Delays and Decisions as It Makes Ambitious Plans to Go Nuclear ı June/July
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
CALENDAR 368<br />
Calendar<br />
<strong>2018</strong><br />
16.<strong>07</strong>.-19.<strong>07</strong>.<strong>2018</strong><br />
International Conference on Quality, Leadership<br />
and Management in the Nuclear Industry –<br />
15 th IAEA-FORATOM Management Systems Workshop.<br />
Ottawa, Canada, organized in cooperation<br />
between FORATOM and the International Atomic<br />
Energy Agency, www.foratom.org, www.iaea.org<br />
29.<strong>07</strong>.-02.08.<strong>2018</strong><br />
International Nuclear Physics Conference 2019.<br />
Glasgow, United Kingdom, www.iop.org<br />
30.<strong>07</strong>.-03.08.<strong>2018</strong><br />
14 th Joint ICTP-IAEA School on Nuclear<br />
Knowledge Management. Trieste, Italy,<br />
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and<br />
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical<br />
Physics (ICTP), www.iaea.org<br />
12.08.-17.08.<strong>2018</strong><br />
GOLDSCHMIDT Conference. Boston, USA,<br />
Geochemical Society and the European Association<br />
of Geochemistry, www.goldschmidt.info/<strong>2018</strong><br />
22.08.-31.08.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Frédéric Joliot/Otto Hahn (FJOH) Summer School<br />
FJOH-<strong>2018</strong> – Maximizing the Benefits of<br />
Experiments for the Simulation, Design and<br />
Analysis of Reactors. Aix-en-Provence, France,<br />
Nuclear Energy Division of Commissariat à l’énergie<br />
atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) and<br />
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT),<br />
www.fjohss.eu<br />
28.08.-31.08.<strong>2018</strong><br />
TINCE <strong>2018</strong> – Technological Innovations in<br />
Nuclear Civil Engineering. Paris Saclay, France,<br />
Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire,<br />
www.sfen.org, www.sfen-tince<strong>2018</strong>.org<br />
02.09.-06.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
19 th International Nuclear Graphite Specialists<br />
Meeting (INGSM-19). Shanghai Institute of Applied<br />
Physics, Shanghai, China, ingsm.csp.escience.cn<br />
03.09.-06.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Jahrestagung des Fachverbandes Strahlenschutz.<br />
Dresden, Germany, Fachverband für Strahlenschutz<br />
e.V., www.fs-ev.org<br />
04.09.-05.09.<strong>2018</strong>.<br />
8. Symposium Lagerung und Transport radioaktiver<br />
Stoffe. Hannover, Germany, TÜV NORD<br />
Akademie, www.tuev-nord.de<br />
05.09.-<strong>07</strong>.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
World Nuclear Association Symposium <strong>2018</strong>.<br />
London, United Kingdom, World Nuclear Association<br />
(WNA), www.world-nuclear.org<br />
09.09.-14.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
21 st International Conference on Water<br />
Chemistry in Nuclear Reactor Systems.<br />
San Francisco, CA, USA, EPRI – Electric Power<br />
Research Institute, www.epri.com<br />
12.09.-14.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
SaltMech IX – 9 th Conference on the Mechanical<br />
Behavior of Salt. Hannover, Germany, Federal<br />
Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources<br />
(BGR) Hannover, the Institute of Geomechanics (IfG)<br />
Leipzig and the Technical University of Clausthal<br />
(TUC), www.saltmech.com<br />
16.09.-20.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
55 th Annual Meeting on Hot Laboratories and<br />
Remote Handling – HOTLAB <strong>2018</strong>. Helsinki,<br />
Finland, VTT and International Atomic Energy<br />
Agency (IAEA), www.vtt.fi/sites/hotlab<strong>2018</strong>/<br />
17.09.-21.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
62 nd IAEA General Conference. Vienna, Austria.<br />
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),<br />
www.iaea.org<br />
17.09.-20.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
FONTEVRAUD 9. Avignon, France,<br />
Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire (SFEN),<br />
www.sfen-fontevraud9.org<br />
17.09.-19.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
4 th International Conference on Physics and<br />
Technology of Reactors and Applications –<br />
PHYTRA4. Marrakech, Morocco, Moroccan<br />
Association for Nuclear Engineering and Reactor<br />
Technology (GMTR), National Center for Energy,<br />
Sciences and Nuclear Techniques (CNESTEN) and<br />
Moroccan Agency for Nuclear and Radiological<br />
Safety and Security (AMSSNuR), phytra4.gmtr.ma<br />
19.09.-21.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Workshop Sicherheitskonzepte Endlagerung.<br />
Grimsel, Switzerland. Fachverband für Strahlenschutz<br />
e.V., www.fs-ev.org<br />
26.09.-28.09.<strong>2018</strong><br />
44 th Annual Meeting of the Spanish Nuclear<br />
Society. Avila, Spain, Sociedad Nuclear Española,<br />
www.sne.es<br />
30.09.-05.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
14 th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC).<br />
San Francisco, CA, USA, pbnc.ans.org<br />
30.09.-03.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Fifteenth NEA Information Exchange Meeting on<br />
ctinide and Fission Product Partitioning and<br />
Transmutation. Manchester Hall, Manchester, UK,<br />
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), National<br />
Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) in co‐operation with the<br />
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),<br />
www.oecd-nea.org<br />
30.09.-04.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
TopFuel <strong>2018</strong>. Prague, Czech Republic, European<br />
Nuclear Society (ENS), American Nuclear Society<br />
(ANS). Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Chinese<br />
Nuclear Society and Korean Nuclear Society,<br />
www.euronuclear.org<br />
01.10.-05.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
3 rd European Radiological Protection Research<br />
Week ERPW. Rovinj, Croatia, ALLIANCE, EURADOS,<br />
EURAMED, MELODI and NERIS, www.erpw<strong>2018</strong>.com<br />
02.10.-04.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
7 th EU Nuclear Power Plant Simulation ENPPS<br />
Forum. Birmingham, United Kingdom, Nuclear<br />
Training & Simulation Group, www.enpps.tech<br />
08.10.-11.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
World Energy Week. World Energy Council Council’s<br />
Italian Member Committee, www.worldenergy.org<br />
09.10.-11.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
8 th International Conference on Simulation<br />
Methods in Nuclear Science and Engineering.<br />
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society<br />
(CNS), www.cns-snc.ca<br />
10.10.-11.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
IGSC Symposium <strong>2018</strong> – Integrated Group for the<br />
Safety Case; Current Understanding and Future<br />
Direction for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive<br />
Waste. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, OECD<br />
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), www.oecd-nea.org<br />
14.10.-18.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
12 th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear<br />
Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics, Operation and<br />
Safety – NUTHOS-12. Qingdao, China, Elsevier,<br />
www.nuthos-12.org<br />
14.10.-18.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
NuMat <strong>2018</strong>. Seattle, United States,<br />
www.elsevier.com<br />
16.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
The next steps for nuclear energy projects in the<br />
UK. London, United Kingdom, Westminster Energy,<br />
Environment & Transport Forum,<br />
www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk<br />
16.10.-17.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
4 th GIF Symposium at the 8th edition of Atoms<br />
for the Future. Paris, France, www.gen-4.org<br />
22.10.-24.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
DEM <strong>2018</strong> Dismantling Challenges: Industrial<br />
Reality, Prospects and Feedback Experience. Paris<br />
Saclay, France, Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire,<br />
www.sfen.org, www.sfen-dem<strong>2018</strong>.org<br />
24.10.-26.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
NUWCEM <strong>2018</strong> Cement-based Materials for<br />
Nuclear Waste. Avignon, France, French<br />
Commission for Atomic and Alternative Energies<br />
and Société Française d’Energie Nucléaire,<br />
www.sfen-nuwcem<strong>2018</strong>.org<br />
24.10.-25.10.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Chemistry in Power Plants. Magdeburg, Germany,<br />
VGB PowerTech e.V., www.vgb.org<br />
05.11.-08.11.<strong>2018</strong><br />
International Conference on Nuclear<br />
Decom missioning – ICOND <strong>2018</strong>. Aachen,<br />
Eurogress, Germany, achen Institute for Nuclear<br />
Training GmbH, www.icond.de<br />
06.11-08.11.<strong>2018</strong><br />
G4SR-1 1 st International Conference on<br />
Generation IV and Small Reactors. Ottawa,<br />
Ontario, Canada. Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS),<br />
and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL),<br />
www.g4sr.org<br />
13.11.-15.11.<strong>2018</strong><br />
24 th QUENCH Workshop <strong>2018</strong>. Karlsruhe, Germany,<br />
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in cooperation with<br />
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),<br />
quench.forschung.kit.edu<br />
03.12.-14.12.<strong>2018</strong><br />
United Nations, Conference of the Parties –<br />
COP24. Katowice, Poland, United Nations<br />
Framework Convention on Climate Change –<br />
UNFCCC, www.cop24.katowice.eu<br />
06.12.<strong>2018</strong><br />
Nuclear <strong>2018</strong>. London, United Kingdom, Nuclear<br />
Industry Association (NIA), www.niauk.org<br />
2019<br />
25.02.-26.02.2019<br />
Symposium Anlagensicherung. Hamburg,<br />
Germany, TÜV NORD Akademie, www.tuev-nord.de<br />
10.03.-15.03.2019<br />
83. Annual Meeting of DPG and DPG Spring<br />
Meeting of the Atomic, Molecular, Plasma Physics<br />
and Quantum Optics Section (SAMOP), incl.<br />
Working Group on Energy. Rostock, Germany,<br />
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e.V.,<br />
www.dpg-physik.de<br />
10.03.-14.03.2019<br />
The 9 th International Symposium On<br />
Supercritical- Water-Cooled Reactors (ISSCWR-9).<br />
Vancouver Marriott Hotel, Vancouver, British<br />
Columbia, Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS),<br />
www.cns-snc.ca<br />
<strong>07</strong>.05.-08.05.2019<br />
50 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology<br />
AMNT 2019 | 50. Jahrestagung Kerntechnik.<br />
Berlin, Germany, DAtF and KTG,<br />
www.nucleartech-meeting.com – Save the Date!<br />
Calendar
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology<br />
(AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address<br />
29 to 30 May <strong>2018</strong>, Berlin<br />
Ralf Güldner<br />
Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of the DAtF and the German Nuclear Society (KTG), welcome to our<br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology in Berlin. As in other years, we offer a comprehensive program, giving<br />
insights into many aspects of nuclear technology and contributing to the international exchange of knowledge and<br />
experience in industry, research, politics and administration.<br />
369<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />
In keeping with long-standing tradition, even in the year<br />
preceding its 50 th anniversary, which I’d like to invite you<br />
to attend in Berlin on 7 and 8 May 2019, the AMNT remains<br />
the only conference in Germany, and one of the few in<br />
Europe, that combines all the issues surrounding nuclear<br />
technology under one roof and is dedicated to every sector<br />
of our industry.<br />
Waste management – old challenges,<br />
new structures<br />
It is not only Germany as a venue but also the relevance<br />
and complexity of the dismantling and waste management<br />
issues that again make them one of the focal points of our<br />
conference. The reorganization of nuclear waste management<br />
in Germany, which has been negotiated and put into<br />
legal form over the last few years, is as such broadly<br />
complete following approval by the European Union and<br />
the transfer of around EUR 24.1 billion to the state waste<br />
management fund by the operators on 3 June 2017.<br />
However, the transfer of responsibility for the site-based<br />
interim storage facilities to the Federal Company for Interim<br />
Storage (BGZ Gesellschaft für Zwischenlagerung mbH) is still<br />
pending. But let me give you an overview of the status quo<br />
based on the new structure.<br />
The search for a final repository<br />
is slowly gaining momentum<br />
The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management<br />
(Bundesamt für kerntechnische Entsorgungssicherheit<br />
– BfE) is, in its own words, “a growing authority<br />
with growing responsibilities”. In the public perception,<br />
according to the Site Selection Act (StandAG), the BfE is<br />
currently complying with the second part of the task<br />
assigned to it by the legislator: “The Federal Office for the<br />
Safety of Nuclear Waste Management is the body responsible<br />
for organising public participation in the site selection process.<br />
It informs the public comprehensively and system atically<br />
about the site selection process.” The breadth of issues dealt<br />
with by the BfE’s publications is evidence of this.<br />
At this point, I would also like to mention the work of<br />
the national advisory committee which recently presented<br />
its first report on the selection process for a final repository<br />
site. Broad public participation in the work of the advisory<br />
committee is essential for performing the tasks assigned to<br />
it and is therefore desirable.<br />
Other key tasks of the BfE according to the Site Selection<br />
Act (StandAG) are: specification of the exploration programmes,<br />
examination of the project developer’s proposals<br />
and the preparation of well-founded recom mendations<br />
based on them as well as monitoring of the site selection<br />
process. However, this initially requires pre liminary work<br />
that is currently in process, including<br />
the selection of site regions and the<br />
sites to be explored.<br />
The Federal Company for Radioactive<br />
Waste Disposal (Bundesgesellschaft<br />
für Endlagerung – BGE) is responsible<br />
for this and Dr. Jörg Tietze, Acting<br />
Head of Site Selection within the BGE,<br />
will tell us about its work today. As the<br />
project developer, the BGE has to<br />
“ carry out the site selection process”<br />
according to the will of the legislator.<br />
The BGE which is also responsible, of course, for the<br />
Konrad final repository has now announced a concrete<br />
date for completion of the final repository in the first six<br />
months of 2027. Measured against the original objective,<br />
that is to say 2013, the criticism regarding the extent of the<br />
delay, particularly on the part of the public authorities, for<br />
example in Baden-Württemberg or Schleswig-Holstein, is<br />
entirely comprehensible. However, we now see this fixing<br />
of a date as a kind of voluntary commitment by which it<br />
must be measured.<br />
On 1 August of last year, the Company for Interim<br />
Storage (BGZ Gesellschaft für Zwischenlagerung) became<br />
the property of the federal government and took over the<br />
responsibility for the central interim storage facilities in<br />
Ahaus and Gorleben. From 1 January 2019, the company<br />
will take over the decentralised interim storage facilities<br />
with heat-generating waste and, from 1 January 2020, the<br />
interim storage facilities for waste with negligible heat<br />
generation.<br />
The BGZ will also need the skills it has acquired in the<br />
process for the construction of a central receiving store for<br />
Konrad. This important task and the responsibility for all<br />
interim storage facilities will broaden the BGZ’s range of<br />
responsibilities and strengthen public perception of the<br />
company.<br />
Good and trusting collaboration<br />
between state actors and private operators<br />
is indispensable for public acceptance<br />
A smooth working relationship between state agencies and<br />
private operators as part of this reorganization is crucial<br />
not only for safety and efficiency but also for public acceptance<br />
of the newly created structures and regulations. The<br />
operators are fully committed to the obligations agreed and<br />
we also expect this from our contractual partners.<br />
Dismantling: operators meeting<br />
their obligations without any ifs or buts<br />
The operators are committed, without any ifs or buts, to<br />
their obligation to drive forward safe and efficient<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address ı Ralf Güldner
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
370<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
dismantling and have already received a whole series of<br />
licenses for this. Unfortunately, challenges are arising that<br />
are neither objectively justifiable nor covered by regulatory<br />
requirements. This applies in particular to the release of<br />
rubble from nuclear power plants and taking it to public<br />
landfill sites. Some of the cited public criticism about<br />
alleged health risks is inappropriate and does not<br />
contribute to solving this task for the whole of society.<br />
The rubble released from dismantling<br />
is harmless to health<br />
Unsettling the local residents of the landfill sites concerned<br />
with unfounded and alarmist claims unnecessarily complicates<br />
a safe and internationally recognised disposal path<br />
and considerably hinders dismantling. It is gratifying that<br />
socially recognised institutions, such as the German<br />
Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer), are successfully<br />
resisting the attempt to exploit them for the purpose of a<br />
discrediting campaign. We would sincerely like to thank<br />
the Board of the German Medical Association and its president,<br />
Prof. Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery, for confirming<br />
that the resolution taken by the 120 th German Medical<br />
Assembly, which critically questions the 10 microsievert<br />
concept, is scientifically untenable. It is very important and<br />
very positive to see authorities, operators and policymakers<br />
working together on this issue. Here I would like to<br />
quote Franz Untersteller, Baden-Württemberg’s Minister<br />
for the Environment: “The rubble which we have now cleared<br />
for landfill is harmless to health.”<br />
No technically unfounded, regulatory<br />
tightening for phase-out operation<br />
It would be desirable and important for us to continue this<br />
broad consensus on other issues too, such as the smooth<br />
return of waste from reprocessing in France and the United<br />
Kingdom, and above all on politically trouble-free phaseout<br />
operation of nuclear power plants.<br />
We welcome the federal government’s intention to<br />
implement the judgment of the Federal German Constitutional<br />
Court of 6.12.2016 with the 16 th Atomic Energy<br />
Amendment Act and thus to pacify long-standing disputes<br />
and protect employees affected by the structural change.<br />
The decision to convert the electricity quantities agreed in<br />
2000/2001 into electricity within the remaining operating<br />
time will have a positive effect not only on the federal<br />
budget but also on CO 2 -emissions.<br />
The current draft bill still needs some clarification to<br />
avoid further disputes. It has to be made clear that there<br />
must be not only a “fair” but a complete settlement in money,<br />
that is for all non-convertable quantities within the<br />
group and not just for the quantities that are not transferred.<br />
The values of the electricity quantities existing at<br />
the time of the compensation-triggering event must be taken<br />
as a basis and the appropriate interest paid. Payments<br />
already made for a transfer must be taken into account.<br />
Only in this way can constitutionality be restored. Any limit<br />
imposed on compensation claims must not result in the<br />
power generation deficit determined by the German Federal<br />
Constitutional Court not being fully compensated.<br />
Isolated positive signals in the coalition<br />
agreement – the implementation is what<br />
is important<br />
Overall, it will be exciting to see how things progress with<br />
nuclear power in particular and nuclear technology in<br />
general in Germany. Karsten Möring, Member of the German<br />
Bundestag, rapporteur for nuclear energy in the CDU/CSU<br />
parliamentary group, will give us an insight into the future<br />
of both immediately following this speech. However, if we<br />
try to gain an impression ourselves based on the current<br />
coalition agreement, then it is basically positive.<br />
The following was agreed in the wording: “We stand for<br />
speedy implementation in the search for a final repository for<br />
highly active waste in accordance with the Repository Site<br />
Selection Act. We are adhering to the statutory goal of<br />
establishing the site for a final repository by 2031.” It remains<br />
true that this milestone is already ambitious. According to<br />
the relevant experts, planning approval and construction<br />
are clearly likely to continue into the second half of the<br />
century. It remains to be seen how the implementation will<br />
be carried out, especially against the backdrop of extensive<br />
public participation and the legal remedies available.<br />
It was also agreed to develop “...a concept for the<br />
perspective preservation of specialist knowledge and staff for<br />
operation, dismantling and safety issues in nuclear facilities as<br />
well as for interim and final disposal.” It was stated absolutely<br />
correctly: “Anyone who wants to have a say in safety issues<br />
must also be able to do so. The preservation of expertise is indispensable<br />
for this.” For this reason too, the topic of preserving<br />
expertise is top of the agenda in the work of the DAtF.<br />
Sites in Gronau and Lingen must be<br />
maintained – Nuclear competence can only be<br />
preserved by means of further development<br />
To preserve expertise, it is necessary to further develop<br />
and apply nuclear skills and knowledge and therefore to<br />
continue to operate production facilities. Only in this way<br />
can Germany continue to have a say and also make<br />
decisions at international level. Fortunately, this realization<br />
is also gaining acceptance among political decisionmakers.<br />
Armin Laschet, Minister President of North-Rhine<br />
Westphalia, was completely right when he asserted in his<br />
speech at the state parliament on 1 March <strong>2018</strong>: “If we close<br />
Gronau, if we close Lingen, then this will mean that Germany<br />
is saying goodbye to this area of production. We will then no<br />
longer be a member of the International Atomic Energy<br />
Agency. [...] Gronau will therefore remain, […].” In his<br />
speech, Minister President Laschet meant the loss of a<br />
permanent seat on the IAEA Board of Governors.<br />
Drawing up a master plan for the further<br />
development of nuclear competence<br />
In view of the need to further develop nuclear competence<br />
and skills in order to tackle the upcoming tasks in Germany<br />
and to preserve the ability to have a say internationally, it is<br />
appropriate to ask here when the federal government will<br />
come up with a master plan for the further development of<br />
nuclear competence? A master plan that will allow Germany<br />
to adequately assess international development, whether in<br />
operation, regulation or research, in 10, 20 or even 30 years’<br />
time. And what will this master plan look like?<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address ı Ralf Güldner
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Many countries continue to rely on<br />
nuclear power as part of a clean, low-carbon,<br />
sustainable electricity mix<br />
The worldwide development of nuclear energy emphasizes<br />
the topicality and importance of this question. With the<br />
start of construction on the first block of the Akkuyu NPP in<br />
Turkey on 3 April this year, which will be followed by three<br />
more blocks, we see the implementation of a project whose<br />
origins date back to the 1970s. EDF’s construction of the<br />
new Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom is being<br />
boosted further by the 3,000 strong workforce working on<br />
it daily. The first block constructed by South Korea in<br />
Barakah in the United Arab Emirates is scheduled to go<br />
online this year. And with the run-up of Ohi-3 on 14 March<br />
and Genkai-3 on 23 March <strong>2018</strong>, Japan is still on its way<br />
back to becoming a leading nuclear nation. These are just<br />
a few examples that refute the frequently implied decline<br />
of nuclear energy. With initial criticality and first feed-in to<br />
the grid of the fifth nuclear power plant block at the<br />
Chinese site in Yangjiang, there are currently 451 nuclear<br />
power plants in operation worldwide – more than ever<br />
before in the over 60-year history of nuclear energy. At<br />
421 GW gross and almost 400 GW net, 399.8 GW to be<br />
exact, the output of the plants also hits record figures.<br />
The other 57 nuclear power plants currently under<br />
construction worldwide clearly show that many countries<br />
continue to choose nuclear power as part of a clean,<br />
low-carbon, sustainable electricity mix of the future. A<br />
joint report by the International Energy Agency, the<br />
International Renewable Agency, UNO organizations and<br />
the World Bank of 2 May <strong>2018</strong> predicts an increase in the<br />
share of nuclear power in global power generation to a<br />
total of 15 percent, from 10 percent at present. German<br />
companies and Germany-based companies, with their<br />
acknowledged expertise, particularly in nuclear safety<br />
issues, have great potential to participate in this development.<br />
However, this requires reliable and ideology-free<br />
support for export activities. This would also secure the<br />
urgently needed development of competence in the<br />
nuclear technology field in the long term.<br />
Nuclear energy research continues<br />
to be promoted internationally<br />
An important milestone in the ITER project was reached in<br />
November of last year when 50 percent of the total output<br />
on the way to the first plasma was generated. Despite some<br />
scepticism about the project, including among our own<br />
ranks, we are hopeful about the outcome of this exemplary<br />
international collaboration.<br />
Development in the field of SMRs also remains exciting.<br />
The announcement by Rolls Royce of bringing electricity<br />
costs to the level of offshore wind power and the creation<br />
of a new technical working group at IAEA dedicated to<br />
SMRs give a new boost to the development of compact<br />
small reactors as does the transport, which commenced on<br />
28 April <strong>2018</strong>, of the world’s first floating nuclear power<br />
plant from St. Petersburg to its site of operation.<br />
Nuclear technology is more than<br />
nuclear power<br />
Against this background, we do not intend to challenge<br />
Germany’s phasing out of nuclear power. The phase out,<br />
however, does not mean that Germany should be allowed<br />
to become a nuclear technology-free zone. Nuclear<br />
technology, as we know, is more than just power generation.<br />
This is why, as the DAtF, we are increasingly devoting<br />
ourselves to other topics. We must oppose the efforts of<br />
some political forces to phase out the use of nuclear<br />
technology in other areas such as medicine, agriculture<br />
and industry.<br />
This means that not only top-level research, such as the<br />
Garching research reactor FRM II, which holds the world’s<br />
best ratio of thermal output to neutron flux and is thus one<br />
of the most effective and modern neutron sources in the<br />
world, but also everyday applications must also be maintained.<br />
We need to raise public awareness of the fact that<br />
nuclear technology associated with<br />
• medical applications such as X-rays, computed<br />
tomography, radiation treatment and diagnostic<br />
applications,<br />
• the killing of germs in the food industry and in<br />
medicine,<br />
• the treatment of seeds and the development of new<br />
plant species,<br />
• the non-destructive testing of materials and joints in<br />
the aviation and automotive industries<br />
is part of our everyday life. The aim is to raise public<br />
awareness of the fundamental importance of maintaining<br />
nuclear research and applications in Germany.<br />
Successful AMNT as the annual meeting of the<br />
whole industry<br />
Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />
With your commitment, you all make an important<br />
con tribution to the development of nuclear competence,<br />
not only in Germany but worldwide. It is you who actually<br />
make the AMNT, as an international platform for<br />
knowledge and dialogue, possible and who fill it with life;<br />
who plan and are responsible for the programme, give<br />
presentations and enrich our Annual Meeting with your<br />
participation. For this you have my heartfelt thanks.<br />
I would also like to sincerely thank our many partners<br />
who are providing an exceptional display at the completely<br />
sold-out industry exhibition. I am also pleased to welcome<br />
our British partners. Our intensive discussions as part of<br />
the last “Energy in Dialogue” event as well as the personal<br />
exchange between the DAtF and British government<br />
representatives on the topic of Brexit are currently arousing<br />
justified hope that this collaboration will continue largely<br />
undisturbed. The fact that, in addition to nuclear communities<br />
from the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic,<br />
we are also welcoming many well-known but new exhibitors<br />
from home and abroad strengthens this hope. The<br />
breaks are a good opportunity for obtaining information<br />
and exchanging ideas and opinions.<br />
The DAtF reception, to which you are all cordially<br />
invited, will take place immediately after the second part<br />
of the plenary session. Following this, we can look forward<br />
to the traditional social evening which our exhibitors and<br />
sponsors warmly invite you to attend.<br />
Ladies and Gentlemen,<br />
I wish everybody a successful meeting with fruitful and<br />
interesting discussions and exceptional insights.<br />
Author<br />
Dr. Ralf Güldner<br />
President of the DAtF<br />
(German Atomic Forum)<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin, Germany<br />
371<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Opening Address ı Ralf Güldner
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
372<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Impressions
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
373<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
49 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology (AMNT <strong>2018</strong>): Impressions
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
374<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel<br />
Rod Behaviour During Long-term Storage<br />
Heinz G. Sonnenburg<br />
| | AMNT <strong>2018</strong>: Best Paper Award, awarded by Dr. Erwin Fischer (left) to<br />
Dr. Heinz G. Sonnenburg (right).<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Crystallographic length change of UO 2 /PuO 2 -fuel relative to displacement per atom (dpa) [RAY 15].<br />
The paper “TESPA-<br />
ROD Code Prediction<br />
of the Fuel Rod<br />
Behaviour During<br />
Long-term Storage” by<br />
Heinz G. Sonnenburg<br />
has been awarded as<br />
Best Paper of the<br />
49 th Annual Meeting<br />
on Nuclear Technology<br />
(AMNT <strong>2018</strong>), Berlin,<br />
29 and 30 May <strong>2018</strong>.<br />
Introduction The TESPA-ROD code is applicable to both LOCA and RIA transients. Recently, the code’s models<br />
have been extended in order to predict the transitional fuel rod behaviour during long-term storage [SON 17].<br />
Due to permanent α-decay of actinides<br />
in the fuel during long-term storage,<br />
both fuel swelling and helium release<br />
continue and generate an impact on<br />
the fuel rod behaviour. Therefore, the<br />
TESPA-ROD code extension requires<br />
particular modelling of fuel swelling<br />
and modelling of the associated<br />
helium gas release. These processes<br />
and their modelling have significant<br />
impact on the prediction of cladding’s<br />
stress level.<br />
Continued fuel swelling reduces<br />
the gap between fuel and cladding<br />
which reduces the fuel rod fission<br />
gas volume and might increase<br />
the fuel rod inner pressure by that.<br />
Simultaneously, the release of<br />
helium tends to keep the rod<br />
internal pressure high, thus the<br />
gap between fuel and cladding could<br />
be enlarged. If fuel swelling is the<br />
dominating process, as in case of<br />
MOX fuel, even gap closure might<br />
occur which leads to pellet- cladding<br />
interaction which finally enhances<br />
significantly the stress level in the<br />
cladding. A priori, which effect<br />
dominates cannot be estimated with<br />
simple engineering judgment. Therefore,<br />
a code prediction is inevitable<br />
in order to get reliable estimates about<br />
dominating processes.<br />
Fuel swelling<br />
Fuel in a fuel rod accumulates fission<br />
gases in the fuel matrix during normal<br />
operation. E.g., small gas bubbles of<br />
micrometer size appear within the<br />
fuel grain at higher burn-up levels.<br />
Because the accumulation of fission<br />
gas in the fuel matrix is limited, some<br />
quantity of fission gas will get released<br />
from fuel.<br />
There is a well-known interlinkage<br />
between the accumulation of fission<br />
gas and swelling of the pellet. The<br />
more the fuel accumulates fission gas,<br />
the more the fuel swells.<br />
The same mechanism is true for<br />
the long-term storage, but here helium<br />
is accumulated instead of fission<br />
gases. This helium stems from the<br />
decay of α-emitting actinides.<br />
Patrick Raynaud [RAY 15] from<br />
US.NRC has compiled fuel swelling<br />
correlations for UO 2 fuel and PuO 2<br />
fuel which refer to the α-decay in the<br />
fuel (Figure 1). Correlating parameter<br />
is dpa (displacement per atom). This<br />
compilation reveals a swelling mechanism<br />
which saturates at a certain<br />
maximal swelling level. Consequently,<br />
the swelling can be expressed as<br />
exponential function:<br />
upper bounding values (1)<br />
and<br />
mean values (2)<br />
where ∆a is the change of lattice<br />
parameter, a 0 is the undeformed<br />
lattice parameter.<br />
The parameter dpa correlates with<br />
time. Raynaud /RAY 15/ provides for<br />
60 GWd/t UO 2 fuel the relation<br />
dpa(t) =0.01172 t 0.72246 , where t is<br />
measured in years. In case of MOX<br />
fuel, this relation can be multiplied by<br />
3, because MOX fuel has 3-times more<br />
α-decays, see figure 5.3 on page 54 in<br />
[SON 17].<br />
The swelling mechanism, as correlated<br />
above, refers mainly to the production<br />
of Frenkel pairs and helium<br />
atoms at interstitial positions in the<br />
crystal structure of UO 2 . The effect<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel Rod Behaviour During Long-term Storage ı Heinz G. Sonnenburg
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
375<br />
| | Fig. 2.<br />
Evolution of fuel rod temperature (all curves FGR=10 %…40 % overlap).<br />
| | Fig. 3.<br />
Evolution of internal gas pressure.<br />
| | Fig. 4.<br />
Evolution of gap size.<br />
| | Fig. 5.<br />
Evolution of hoop stress.<br />
of helium bubble formation due to<br />
accumulation of α-particles in bubbles<br />
is presumably underrepresented in<br />
the experimental investigations mentioned<br />
in figure 1. According to Wiss<br />
et al. [WIS 14] this accumulation<br />
effect would dominate in case of very<br />
high alpha doses. Thus fuel swelling<br />
saturation could also be observed<br />
at 0.6 % instead of 0.4642 % as<br />
mentioned in Figure 1. Therefore, the<br />
characterization “upper bounding<br />
values” in Figure 1 has to be taken<br />
with caution.<br />
Helium gas release<br />
The characteristic saturation of the<br />
fuel length change ∆a/a 0 is an<br />
indication that the accumulation of<br />
helium within the fuel matrix is<br />
limited. Therefore, the shape of the<br />
curve above is taken in order to<br />
quantify the fraction of produced<br />
helium which gets released from fuel<br />
matrix. The more the saturation in<br />
Figure 1 is reached the larger the<br />
fraction of produced helium atoms<br />
is. E.g., this interlinkage can be<br />
expressed with:<br />
(3)<br />
<br />
where HeF released (t) is considered as fraction of produced helium mol rate at<br />
time t that gets released from fuel matrix. Equation (3) refers to the upper<br />
bounding swelling correlation given with equation (1). Consequently, the<br />
helium mol rate produced and retained in fuel matrix is:<br />
(4)<br />
Whereas the helium mol rate released from fuel matrix is:<br />
(5)<br />
The helium production rate from α-decay Ḣe produced (t) within the UO 2 fuel<br />
matrix can be approximated with:<br />
(6)<br />
Therefore, the TESPA-ROD modelling<br />
approach for helium release follows<br />
the concept of an athermal helium<br />
release, because a) annealing tests<br />
reveal a minimum temperature of<br />
800 K for the start of thermal helium<br />
release [WIS 14] and b) high burn-up<br />
structure with fuel grain size below<br />
1 µm offers a huge intergranular<br />
surface thus α-particles can easily<br />
escape from these grains without<br />
thermal controlled diffusion.<br />
TESPA-ROD predictions<br />
for long-term storage<br />
The TESPA-ROD prediction for longterm<br />
storage significantly depends on<br />
the normal operating condition of the<br />
fuel rod just before reactor shut down.<br />
If the fuel rod burn-up is e.g. at<br />
70 GWd/t and the fission gas release<br />
(FGR) due to normal operation is low<br />
(e.g. 10 %) due to not demanding<br />
normal operation, the pellet-cladding<br />
gap would be closed and simultaneously<br />
the hoop stress in cladding<br />
would be rather low, which is a consequence<br />
of cladding irradiation creep<br />
during normal operation (stretch-out<br />
operation).<br />
Under these conditions (70 GWd/t,<br />
10 % FGR, low cladding stress and<br />
gap closure at normal operation), the<br />
reactor shut down would consequently<br />
lead to an opening of the gap<br />
between fuel and cladding. This gap<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel Rod Behaviour During Long-term Storage ı Heinz G. Sonnenburg
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
376<br />
| | Fig. 6.<br />
Comparison of internal gas pressure (upper vs mean).<br />
| | Fig. 7.<br />
Comparison of gap size between pellet and cladding (upper vs mean).<br />
| | Fig. 8.<br />
Comparison of cladding hoop stress (upper vs mean).<br />
| | Fig. 9.<br />
Comparison of helium gas release (upper vs mean).<br />
| | Fig. 10.<br />
Comparison of pellet outer diameter (upper vs mean).<br />
opening would be in the range of<br />
20 µm.<br />
The question is whether the gap<br />
gets smaller due to pellet swelling or<br />
will the gap get larger due to the<br />
internal gas pressure affected by<br />
helium gas release.<br />
Of course, various mechanisms<br />
have an impact on the gap size during<br />
long-term storage. The decay heat<br />
power drops and the fuel rod cools<br />
down, thus the internal pressure<br />
decreases and both cladding and pellet<br />
contract due to this cooldown. On the<br />
basis of these obvious mechanisms, it<br />
is easy to estimate the evolution of the<br />
cladding hoop stress because the stress<br />
level depends on the dropping internal<br />
gas pressure only.<br />
The additional consideration of the<br />
mechanisms (α-decay related fuel<br />
swelling and helium gas release) leads<br />
to a more complex situation. Especially,<br />
if the gap gets closed during the<br />
long-term storage, the evolution of<br />
the hoop stress depends no longer on<br />
the internal gas pressure.<br />
Figures 2 through 5 illustrate<br />
the TESPA-ROD prediction for the<br />
evolution of temperature, pressure,<br />
gap size and hoop stress for the periods<br />
of a) reactor shut down, b) wet- storage<br />
(4 years), c) drying procedure and<br />
d) subsequent dry- storage over several<br />
decades. The prediction makes use<br />
of the upper bounding values of the<br />
swelling correlation as defined by<br />
Raynaud [RAY 15].<br />
In particular, the result for cases<br />
with fission gas release (FGR) below<br />
25 %, gap closure (gap closure = gap<br />
size at 3 µm, which corresponds to<br />
roughness of clad and pellet) occurs a<br />
few years after beginning of wetstorage.<br />
For FGR at 40 %, no gap<br />
closure occurs and the hoop stress<br />
depends on the internal gas pressure<br />
only.<br />
Due to helium release from fuel,<br />
Figure 3 reveals an internal gas pressure<br />
minimum during the period of<br />
dry-storage. The occurrence of<br />
minimum depends on FGR. E.g. at<br />
10 % FGR the minimum occurs at<br />
about 60 years after start of drystorage.<br />
These results require further investigations.<br />
Therefore, the TESPA-ROD<br />
prediction using the pellet swelling<br />
model for both the upper bounding<br />
value and the mean value according<br />
to Raynaud [RAY 15] has been compared.<br />
As before, the pellet burn-up of<br />
70 GWd/t is at focus. The initial hoop<br />
stress level during normal operation<br />
(no stretch-out operation) is adjusted<br />
to 90 MPa which leads to a gap<br />
opening after reactor shut down to<br />
roughly 15 µm.<br />
The evolution of pressure, gap<br />
size, hoop stress, helium gas release<br />
and pellet outer diameter for both<br />
model predictions (upper vs mean) is<br />
shown in Figures 6 through 10.<br />
In these figures, fission gas release<br />
is set to 10 %. The temperature<br />
evolution is the same as shown in<br />
Figure 2 above.<br />
Figure 7 shows an early gap<br />
closure for the “upper” case and a late<br />
gap closure for the “mean” case after<br />
about 40 years. Consequently, the<br />
stress level increases at start of<br />
dry-storage for the “upper” case while<br />
this increase, although less pronounced,<br />
occurs after 40 years for<br />
the “mean” case.<br />
The significant increase of hoop<br />
stress after gap closure is a consequence<br />
of a shrinking cladding when<br />
it cools down and when its shrinkage<br />
gets blocked by the pellet. The pellet<br />
outer diameter evolution is shown<br />
in figure 10. This figure reveals<br />
an almost stagnant outer diameter<br />
evolution for the “mean” case. That is,<br />
AMNT <strong>2018</strong><br />
TESPA-ROD Code Prediction of the Fuel Rod Behaviour During Long-term Storage ı Heinz G. Sonnenburg
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
pellet shrinkage due to cooldown<br />
is roughly compensated by pellet<br />
swelling.<br />
Conclusion<br />
A comparative study with TESPA-ROD<br />
for long-term storage transient under<br />
boundary conditions described above<br />
illustrates that both pellet swelling<br />
models as defined by Raynaud (“upper”<br />
case and “mean” case) show up<br />
with gap closure during wet-storage.<br />
There is a significant delay in gap<br />
closure by 40 years when the pellet<br />
swelling model according Raynaud<br />
relies on “mean” values. Furthermore,<br />
the TESPA-ROD predictions reveal<br />
that the impact of pellet swelling on<br />
cladding’s hoop stress is dominating<br />
above the impact of helium gas release.<br />
Nevertheless, both effects need<br />
to be taken into account, because they<br />
affect the cladding’s hoop stresses.<br />
And cladding hoop stress is an important<br />
parameter for subsequent safety<br />
evaluation of the long-term storage<br />
fuel rod behaviour.<br />
Literature<br />
[SON 17] Sonnenburg, H.G.; Boldt, F.: Brennstabverhalten<br />
im Normalbetrieb,<br />
bei Störfällen und bei Langzeitlagerung.<br />
GRS-Bericht: GRS – 464,<br />
ISBN 978-3-9466<strong>07</strong>-47-2, August<br />
2017.<br />
[RAY 15] Raynaud, P.; Einziger, R.: Cladding<br />
stress during extended storage of<br />
high burnup spent nuclear fuel.<br />
Journal of Nuclear Materials 464,<br />
pp. 304–312, 2015.<br />
[WIS 14] Wiss, T.; et al.: Evolution of spent<br />
nuclear fuel in dry storage conditions<br />
for millennia and beyond.<br />
Journal of Nuclear Materials 451,<br />
pp. 198–206, 2014.<br />
Author<br />
Dr. Heinz G. Sonnenburg<br />
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und<br />
Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) gGmbH<br />
Boltzmannstr. 14<br />
85748 Garching, Germany<br />
DATF EDITORIAL NOTES<br />
377<br />
Notes<br />
Global Outlook on Nuclear Energy<br />
From a global perspective, nuclear energy is a requested energy<br />
source. It covers about 11 % of the worldwide demand for electricity,<br />
ensured by 451 nuclear reactors with a net capacity of 395 GW e .<br />
Currently, there are 58 nuclear reactors with a net capacity of<br />
nearly 60 GW e under construction. In addition, more than<br />
150 reactors in about 25 countries are in the planning phase.<br />
Nuclear power plants under construction<br />
According to forecasts, the demand for nuclear energy will rise,<br />
especially in Asia and Central Europe as well as Eastern Europe.<br />
In its study “Sustainable Development Scenario”, the International<br />
Energy Agency projects a share of nuclear energy of 15 % in electricity<br />
generation worldwide until the year 2040.<br />
For further details<br />
please contact:<br />
Nicolas Wendler<br />
DAtF<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin<br />
Germany<br />
E-mail: presse@<br />
kernenergie.de<br />
www.kernenergie.de<br />
Russia: 6<br />
USA: 2<br />
Brazil: 1<br />
Finland: 1 Belarus: 2<br />
China: 17<br />
Slovakia: 2 Ukraine: 2<br />
France: 1<br />
Pakistan: 2<br />
South Korea: 4<br />
Turkey: 1<br />
Japan: 2<br />
Taiwan, China: 2<br />
United Arab Emirates: 4<br />
Bangladesh: 1<br />
India: 7<br />
Argentina: 1<br />
Source: Weltenergierat Deutschland e. V.: Energie für Deutschland; IAEA; Date: 15.06.18<br />
DAtF Notes
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
378<br />
Neubauprojekte im Ausland – eine Herausforderung<br />
für die Regulierung<br />
Christian Raetzke<br />
SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW<br />
Weltweit sind gegenwärtig 57 Reaktoren in 16 Ländern in Bau; 154 Reaktoren befinden sich in 24 Ländern in – mehr<br />
oder weniger – konkreter Planung (Zahlen nach World Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org). Ähnlich große<br />
Zahlen gab es ja schon einmal vor einigen Jahrzehnten, als das Gros der heute laufenden Anlagen errichtet wurde. Die<br />
Lage ist trotzdem heute anders, auch in juristischer und genehmigungstechnischer Hinsicht. Aufgrund der Vielfalt<br />
der für die Projekte in den verschiedenen Ländern verwendeten strukturellen Ansätze ist es zunehmend schwerer,<br />
bewährte Modelle von Regelsetzung, Genehmigung und Aufsicht (alles zusammen kann im Englischen ja mit dem<br />
Begriff „Regulation“ bezeichnet werden) weiterzuführen.<br />
Wie war es früher? Länder, die sich für die Kernenergie<br />
entschieden, bauten eine Infrastruktur auf; sie entwickelten<br />
eine eigene Technologie oder übernahmen sie<br />
von woanders (z.B. aus den USA), entwickelten sie dann<br />
aber oft eigenständig weiter (wie Deutschland und<br />
Frankreich). Erst wurden Versuchsreaktoren gebaut, dann<br />
kamen kleine kommerzielle Kernkraftwerke, dann große.<br />
Das nationale Atomrecht wuchs mit bzw. war immer einen<br />
Schritt voraus; dasselbe galt für die Behörden und ggf.<br />
Gutachterorganisationen, die sich in Größe und Erfahrung<br />
organisch entwickelten.<br />
Für viele Neubauländer trifft dieses Modell nicht mehr<br />
zu. China und Indien haben vielleicht einen grob vergleichbaren<br />
Weg gewählt; in anderen Ländern gibt es aber ganz<br />
andere Szenarien.<br />
Eines der interessantesten und bislang erfolgreichsten<br />
Beispiele liefern sicherlich die Vereinigten Arabischen<br />
Emirate mit dem Barakah-Projekt. Für viel Geld wurden<br />
Experten aus zahlreichen Ländern an den Golf geholt. Sie<br />
haben in kurzer Zeit Bemerkenswertes geleistet; allerdings<br />
fügten sich die unterschiedlichen Kulturen auch nicht<br />
immer bruchlos zusammen. Der Unterschied zu einem<br />
organisch gewachsenen Nuklearprogramm ist deutlich<br />
erkennbar bei der noch lückenhaft vorhandenen lokalen<br />
fachlichen Kompetenz, sowohl beim Betreiber als auch bei<br />
den Behörden.<br />
In rechtlicher Hinsicht wurde ein nationaler regulatorischer<br />
Rahmen geschaffen, der sich an den Leitlinien<br />
der Internationalen Atomenergieorganisation (IAEO) orientiert,<br />
aber auch Elemente aus Ländern übernimmt, die den<br />
jeweiligen Entwurfsverfassern (meist externe Berater)<br />
vertraut waren oder mit denen eine Zusammenarbeit<br />
besteht. Das hat, soweit man das überblicken kann, in den<br />
Emiraten gut funktioniert. Allgemein ergibt sich jedoch in<br />
solchen Konstellationen durchaus die Gefahr, dass IAEO-<br />
Texte mehr oder weniger mit „copy-and-paste“ übernommen<br />
und mit Versatzstücken aus den Gesetzen und<br />
Regelwerken anderer Länder ergänzt werden, ohne dass<br />
die Adressaten notwendigerweise die Texte vollständig<br />
durchdringen; auch besteht die Gefahr von Wider sprüchen<br />
und Redundanzen und einer mangelnden Ankopplung an<br />
das vorhandene nationale Recht. Und was ist, wenn die<br />
(juristischen) Berater wieder abziehen? Gibt es dann<br />
eine fundierte Kompetenz in Ministerien und Behörden,<br />
mit den Atomrechtsinstrumenten umzugehen? Die<br />
Ertüchtigung lokaler Kräfte ist auch hier ein langwieriger,<br />
aber unumgänglicher Prozess.<br />
Ein ganz anderes Modell kann am Beispiel des Projekts<br />
Akkuyu in der Türkei angesprochen werden. Hier bauen<br />
die Russen nicht nur das Kraftwerk, sondern sie finanzieren<br />
es auch (abgesichert durch einen Langzeit-<br />
Stromliefervertrag) und werden es auch betreiben. Man<br />
spricht hier von einem BOO(build-own-operate)-Modell.<br />
Das ist neuartig in der Kerntechnik und die Herausforderung<br />
ist nicht zu übersehen, dass das „Gastland“<br />
möglicherweise gar nicht so sehr daran interessiert ist,<br />
eine regulatorische Infrastruktur „in voller Schönheit“<br />
aufzubauen. In der Türkei stellt sich diese Frage letztlich<br />
nicht ernsthaft, da ja weitere Kernkraftwerke mit anderen<br />
Technologien und Betreibern geplant sind und daher ein<br />
vollständiger regulatorischer Rahmen unentbehrlich ist.<br />
Dessen Aufbau hat sich jedoch bislang als schleppend<br />
erwiesen. Und gerade für Akkuyu ist auch keinesfalls<br />
geklärt, was passiert, wenn die Genehmigungsbehörde<br />
z.B. die Erteilung einer Genehmigung verweigert, wenn<br />
aus ihrer Sicht die Voraussetzungen nicht vorliegen, die<br />
russischen Vertragspartner aber auf die zwischenstaatlichen<br />
Vereinbarungen pochen und Erfüllung verlangen.<br />
Solche Konstellationen werden noch deutlicher werden<br />
in Ländern, die nur ein Kernkraftwerk mit einem Lieferanten<br />
(der gleichzeitig oft das Geld mitbringt) planen.<br />
Eine ganz parallele Herausforderung stellt die<br />
möglicherweise bevorstehende internationale Verbreitung<br />
von SMR (Small Modular Reactors) dar. Die meisten<br />
Modelle und Konzepte hierfür haben den Ansatz<br />
gemeinsam, dass die Anlagen insgesamt oder in Modulen<br />
in Fabriken montiert und zum Einsatzort gebracht werden;<br />
idealerweise werden sie dort nur „hingestellt“ oder<br />
„ zusammengebaut“ und mit dem Stromnetz verbunden<br />
(„plug-and-play“) und womöglich samt abgebrannten<br />
Brennelementen irgendwann wieder abgeholt und ins<br />
Ursprungsland zurückgebracht. Ist es realistisch, vom<br />
„Gastland“ zu erwarten, dass es eigens hierfür eine<br />
vollständige regulatorische Infrastruktur mit eigener<br />
Expertise aufbaut? Andererseits kann ein Reaktor in einem<br />
Land ohne ein vollständiges Atomgesetz und eine fachlich<br />
gut besetzte Behörde wohl kaum betrieben werden. Hier<br />
sind Konflikte vorprogrammiert, aber auch hoffentlich<br />
gute Lösungen zu erwarten.<br />
Für die regulatorische Bewältigung dieser Herausforderungen<br />
gilt wie so oft: neue, komplexe Ent wicklungen<br />
fordern teils neue Lösungen. In der Kerntechnik aber gilt<br />
ebenso, dass man auf Bewährtem aufbauen muss und<br />
neue Lösungen – nicht nur technische, sondern auch<br />
regulatorische – nicht einfach mal „ausprobiert“ werden<br />
können, sondern der sehr sorgfältigen Rechtfertigung<br />
bedürfen, dass sie die erforderliche Sicherheit gewährleisten.<br />
Author<br />
Rechtsanwalt Dr. Christian Raetzke<br />
CONLAR Consulting on Nuclear Law and Regulation<br />
Beethovenstr. 19<br />
041<strong>07</strong> Leipzig, Germany<br />
Spotlight on Nuclear Law<br />
New Build Projects Abroad – A Challenge for Regulation ı Christian Raetzke
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Safety Assessment of the<br />
Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ<br />
After the Fukushima Event<br />
Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky,<br />
Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk<br />
After the events at the Fukushima-I nuclear power plant (NPP) in 2011 the Reaktorsicherheitskommission (RSK) has<br />
carried out an overall assessment of the German nuclear fleet with respect to extreme (beyond design base) events. The<br />
RSK is an expert group of operators, technical support organizations (TSO) and scientists that consults the German<br />
Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMUB) in questions concerning reactor safety. This paper deals only with the<br />
research reactors (RR) FRM II (Garching) and FR MZ (Mainz). The findings of the RSK, its recommendations and their<br />
status of implementation will be presented.<br />
1 Introduction<br />
Upon request of the German Federal<br />
Government the FRM II, the FR MZ and<br />
the research reactor BER II at the<br />
Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin, like every<br />
other nuclear facility exceeding 50 kW<br />
thermal power, underwent a so-called<br />
stress test by the Reactor Safety<br />
Commission (RSK – Reaktor-Sicherheitskommission).<br />
Special emphasis<br />
was put on seismic events, flooding<br />
and other natural events, superposition<br />
of such events and manmade<br />
hazards like aircraft crashes. Additionally,<br />
independent event sequences<br />
relevant for research reactors have<br />
been postulated and analysed, even<br />
under aggravated conditions. Following<br />
these analyses the RSK has deduced<br />
recommendations with respect<br />
to the robustness of these facilities<br />
under such circumstances. The RSK<br />
findings summarized in this paper are<br />
based on [1] and [2].<br />
The following main aspects have<br />
been evaluated in detail for the three<br />
still operational German research<br />
reactors FRM II, FR MZ and BER II:<br />
vital safety functions of the RR and<br />
their behaviour at seismic events,<br />
flooding, other natural events, postulated<br />
events (like long lasting station<br />
blackout (SBO) with emergency<br />
power supply requirements, complete<br />
loss of ancillary cooling systems),<br />
robustness of emergency preparations<br />
for safety measures even under<br />
aggravated conditions due to external<br />
events; consequences of the release<br />
of burnable or toxic gas.<br />
This article focuses on the research<br />
reactors FRM II and FR MZ.<br />
The FRM II in Garching is a tank in<br />
pool reactor with 20 MW thermal<br />
power. A single fuel element, containing<br />
113 fuel plates with highly<br />
enriched Uranium, is cooled by light<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Overall view of the FRM II (foreground), the neutron guide hall (middle) and the FRM I (”atomic egg”, now under decommissioning).<br />
water and placed in a moderator<br />
tank filled with heavy water. This<br />
setup yields an unperturbed thermal<br />
equivalent flux of 8 × 10 14 n/cm 2 /s<br />
over a cycle of 60 days. Generally, the<br />
reactor is operated for up to four<br />
cycles per year. The FRM II has<br />
reached criticality for the first time on<br />
March 2 nd , 2004. It is, therefore, the<br />
most modern research reactor in<br />
Germany.<br />
The main purpose of the FRM II<br />
is scientific research in beam tube<br />
experiments. However, it is also used<br />
for radioisotope production; it operates<br />
a silicon doping facility and an<br />
installation for medical treatment.<br />
Details can be found e. g. in [3]. A<br />
sketch of the overall FRM II design is<br />
given in Figure 1.<br />
The Forschungsreaktor TRIGA<br />
Mainz (FR MZ) at the Johannes<br />
Gutenberg University is a classical<br />
light water cooled swimming pool<br />
reactor with up to 100 kW thermal<br />
power in steady state operation mode.<br />
Furthermore, the FR MZ provides<br />
neutron pulses with energies of typically<br />
10 MJ and pulse lengths of<br />
30 ms. Currently the core is equipped<br />
with 76 fuel elements applying low<br />
enriched uranium in a zirconiumhydrid<br />
matrix. This fuel configuration<br />
has a negative temperature coefficient<br />
which provides an inherent safety<br />
mechanism: the moderation of neutrons<br />
is automatically suppressed with<br />
increasing temperature on a chemicalphysical<br />
basis. Thus the chain reaction<br />
is stopped, as soon as the fuel reaches<br />
temperature of about 150 °C or above.<br />
This mechanism neither requires the<br />
availability of personnel nor any<br />
infrastructure as electricity or further<br />
control systems and works faster than<br />
any engineered device. The FR MZ is<br />
one of the most intensively utilized<br />
TRIGA reactors worldwide with in<br />
379<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ After the Fukushima Event<br />
ı Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 380<br />
average 200 days of operation per<br />
annum. It has reached its first<br />
criticality on 3 rd of August 1965. The<br />
FR MZ has three main pillars of<br />
utilization: the most operation time is<br />
consumed for fundamental research<br />
such as nuclear spectroscopy and<br />
physics with ultra-cold neutrons.<br />
Besides, the reactor is deployed for<br />
applied sciences, e.g. for neutron<br />
activation analysis or radioactive<br />
tracer production. Apart from this<br />
pure scientific utilization, the FR MZ<br />
contributes to the education of<br />
students and maintenance of nuclear<br />
competence by various lectures, lab<br />
courses and one-week lasting rector<br />
operation courses.<br />
2 Procedure of the<br />
evaluation<br />
Objective was to evaluate whether the<br />
fundamental safety requirements<br />
• to control reactivity<br />
• to cool the fuel assemblies and<br />
• to limit the release of radioactive<br />
material<br />
could still be met under more difficult<br />
conditions than taken into account<br />
during the licensing process. For<br />
example, larger scale external<br />
destruction has been assumed and<br />
additional event sequences were<br />
postulated, most prominently the<br />
non-availability of the electric grid to<br />
supply safety-relevant installations.<br />
The conditions investigated were:<br />
• Seismic events<br />
• Flooding<br />
• Other naturally occurring adverse<br />
conditions<br />
• Postulated events like long lasting<br />
(> 2 h) station blackout<br />
• Robustness of preventive<br />
measures<br />
• Airplane crash<br />
• Release of gas (explosion, other<br />
effects of burnable gas, toxic gas)<br />
• Terrorist attacks<br />
The established site specific emergency<br />
measures, even under extreme<br />
conditions like core melt-down, have<br />
been re-evaluated in view of large<br />
scale destruction of the relevant<br />
infrastructure also in the surroundings<br />
of the affected RR.<br />
Because these evaluations are<br />
based on requirements for NPP, a<br />
graded approach has been taken<br />
bearing in mind that the risk associated<br />
with a RR is much lower than<br />
that of a NPP. This is due to the fact<br />
that radioactive inventory of a RR is<br />
typically several orders of magnitude<br />
smaller than that of a NPP and the<br />
processes involved are in general<br />
more benign.<br />
The RR operators followed two<br />
different systematic approaches of<br />
objective evidence. In most cases,<br />
distinct expertise has been produced<br />
to the individual conditions listed<br />
above. For the FR MZ several scenarios<br />
have been covered by a scenario,<br />
which is assumed as all-embracing<br />
event. This case is described by an<br />
airplane crash with maximal damage<br />
to the reactor as described in section<br />
3.2.8.<br />
Following the analysis in [3]<br />
several recommendations have been<br />
made by the RSK.<br />
3 Recommendations<br />
3.1 Generic recommendations<br />
for RR<br />
The RSK has recommended generic<br />
measures for the German RR:<br />
• Every RR should work out a site<br />
specific emergency concept for<br />
internal preventive and mitigating<br />
emergency measures based on the<br />
risk associated with the respective<br />
RR. This concept should be based<br />
upon recommendations given for<br />
NPP in [4].<br />
• Adverse environmental conditions<br />
should be taken into account when<br />
planning such measures.<br />
• Methods to cope with beyond<br />
design base LOCA-type accidents<br />
should be considered in the emergency<br />
planning.<br />
• For beyond design base scenarios<br />
when standard instrumentation to<br />
monitor reactor and radiation<br />
parameters might fail, sufficient<br />
backup is to be made available.<br />
• In the event of a core melt-down a<br />
concept to minimize the release of<br />
radioactivity should be available.<br />
3.2 Specific evaluation<br />
of the FRM II<br />
3.2.1 Specific evaluation<br />
Immediately following the events at<br />
the Fukushima NPP the evaluation of<br />
the FRM II by the RSK, based on<br />
information provided by the licensee<br />
and other available information, gave<br />
the following results [3]:<br />
3.2.2 Seismic events<br />
Cornerstone of the FRM II safety<br />
concept is the integrity of the reactor<br />
pool and related structures. The<br />
design requirement for the FRM II is<br />
robustness against an earthquake of<br />
magnitude VI ½ (MSK). Although<br />
strong hints towards the robustness<br />
of the FRM II in general and in particular<br />
the reactor pool even against a<br />
magnitude VIII quake existed, no conclusive<br />
prove could be provided by the<br />
licensee in 2012. The RSK therefore<br />
concluded that further investigations<br />
should be carried out and be evaluated<br />
by the TSO.<br />
The FRM II immediately started<br />
calculations on the robustness of the<br />
reactor pool and related structures.<br />
The calculations were double-checked<br />
by the TSO. Overall it could be proven<br />
that even a seismic event of the<br />
magnitude VIII ½ would not damage<br />
the integrity of the reactor pool and<br />
consequently no water (for cooling/<br />
shielding) would be lost. This was<br />
completed already before the 2017<br />
RSK assessment.<br />
3.2.3 Flooding<br />
The FRM II is designed to withstand<br />
a flood that is to occur statistically<br />
every 10, 000 years. Even more severe<br />
flooding, however, would not do any<br />
damage that might endanger the vital<br />
safety functions of the FRM II. Therefore<br />
the RSK gave the FRM II the best<br />
grade (“level 3”) regarding flooding<br />
and did not request any further measures.<br />
3.2.4 Other naturally occurring<br />
adverse conditions<br />
No such conditions could be identified<br />
that would require further action.<br />
3.2.5 Postulated events<br />
The only relevant event is the station<br />
black out (SBO). Because of the<br />
diesel/battery buffering the safety<br />
functions in case of SBO are guaranteed<br />
for at least two hours. Additionally,<br />
in the framework of the<br />
licensing process it could be shown<br />
that even a total loss of all active core<br />
cooling components would not lead to<br />
fuel damage. According to the RSK the<br />
required criteria are met, no further<br />
improvement is necessary.<br />
3.2.6 Robustness of preventive<br />
measures<br />
The robustness of a suite of preventive<br />
measures has been analysed by the<br />
RSK:<br />
• Measures against fire: the RSK<br />
concludes that fire cannot endanger<br />
the vital safety functions of<br />
the FRM II.<br />
• Measures against blocked cooling<br />
channels (beyond design base):<br />
these are mainly based on passive<br />
measures like several grids to<br />
stop migration of small particles<br />
in the primary cooling loop. Even<br />
a failure of these preventive<br />
measures would not lead to<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ After the Fukushima Event<br />
ı Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
radiologically required evacuation<br />
of the general public in the surroundings<br />
of the FRM II.<br />
• Measures against loss of the integrity<br />
of the reactor pool leading to<br />
loss of pool water: the concept of –<br />
at least – double barriers has been<br />
used throughout. Additionally,<br />
heavy lifts in the vicinity of the<br />
pool or delicate installations like<br />
the cold source with its D 2 contents<br />
are only allowed after additional<br />
measures are in place (e. g. the<br />
reactor is shut down and the D 2<br />
removed).<br />
• Internal flooding: water is drained<br />
in such a way that safety relevant<br />
functions cannot be affected. The<br />
RSK considers the required criteria<br />
as more than met.<br />
• Measures against improper reactivity<br />
changes: the overall reactivity<br />
coefficients of the FRM II are<br />
negative with increase in temperature.<br />
A postulated release of 3 $<br />
reactivity has been investigated in<br />
the process of the FRM II licensing.<br />
No need for additional measures<br />
could be deduced.<br />
3.2.7 Aggravated boundary<br />
conditions<br />
Several emergency measures (draining<br />
of the D 2 O moderator, sealing<br />
of the reactor building ventilation<br />
systems against the environment,<br />
measures to maintain the pool- waterlevel<br />
and emergency fuel unloading,<br />
installation of a backup 400 V electric<br />
power supply) are described in the<br />
FRM II operating manual (BHB).<br />
There is an emergency control room<br />
and sufficient room for emergency<br />
first responders. The functioning of<br />
communication lines under such<br />
conditions could not be verified by<br />
the RSK. The existing instrumentation<br />
is robust against seismic events and<br />
airplane crashes. Some measures,<br />
however, require access to the reactor<br />
hall. The RSK recommends implementing<br />
measures that do not require<br />
such access since it might no longer be<br />
possible under some circumstances.<br />
Additional emergency drills and the<br />
availability of the required personnel<br />
in case of such events should be<br />
verified.<br />
3.2.8 Airplane crash<br />
No additional measures are required<br />
to withstand the impact of a military<br />
or a large civilian aircraft.<br />
3.2.9 Release of gas<br />
The effects of explosions are covered<br />
by the robustness of the FRM II<br />
towards seismic events and the crash<br />
of even a large aircraft.<br />
In the vicinity of the FRM II no<br />
significant supply of burnable gas<br />
exists, therefore no additional measures<br />
are required (but could be<br />
handled regardless by the design of<br />
the FRM II site).<br />
Toxic gas might affect the availability<br />
of personnel but not compromise<br />
the vital safety functions of the<br />
FRM II.<br />
3.3 Specific evaluation<br />
of the FR MZ<br />
3.3.1 Seismic events<br />
For the FR MZ no detailed seismic<br />
studies, investigating the influence of<br />
the integrity of the reactor under<br />
various earthquakes levels, have been<br />
initiated. Instead, the damage impact<br />
and radioactive release initiated by<br />
the airplane crash scenario (described<br />
in section 3.3.4) covers the consequences<br />
triggered by an earthquake.<br />
The RSK followed the evaluation of<br />
the local authorities (Ministerium für<br />
Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und<br />
Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz MUEEF) of the<br />
FR MZ and accepted the robustness<br />
level 2 as fulfilled.<br />
3.3.2 Flooding and other<br />
naturally occurring adverse<br />
conditions<br />
Several assessments for rain and<br />
snow, based on long-term weather<br />
data provided by the meteorological<br />
institute of the Johannes Gutenberg<br />
University in Mainz, have been taken<br />
into account. In addition, static investigations<br />
against the highest storm<br />
level experienced in the last decades<br />
in the region have been conducted.<br />
From that no unexpected naturally<br />
occurring conditions could be identified<br />
that would require further action.<br />
The MUEEF accepts for these scenarios<br />
a robustness level of the highest grade<br />
(level 3).<br />
3.3.3 Release of gas and<br />
protection against<br />
explosions<br />
The effects of gas-induced explosions<br />
are covered by the scenario of an<br />
airplane crash. A formerly existing<br />
nearby underground gas pipe is<br />
shutdown, so that within 350 m radius<br />
of the reactor hall, no significant<br />
supply of burnable gas exists. The<br />
handling of burnable gas for shortterm<br />
scientific purposes is strictly<br />
regulated at the FR MZ. No burnable<br />
or flammable gas bottles are allowed<br />
to be stored in the reactor hall. Neither<br />
burnable gas nor toxic gas compromise<br />
the inherent safety mechanism<br />
of the FR MZ. As a result, no additional<br />
measures other than the standard<br />
safety provisions for workers in the reactor<br />
hall are required.<br />
The emergency diesel generator of<br />
the FR MZ has an attached 600 L diesel<br />
reservoir. The reactor building is<br />
shielded against the generator container<br />
by the larger cooling tower<br />
installation.<br />
As a result, the RSK assesses this<br />
scenario with a degree of protection<br />
level 3 and has no further demand for<br />
continuative investigations.<br />
3.3.4 Airplane crash<br />
The impact and consequences of an<br />
airplane crash on the FR MZ is the allembracing<br />
damage scenario for the<br />
FR MZ. In the scenario, an airplane<br />
crashes on the reactor hall and<br />
destroys the roof of the hall. In a first<br />
phase debris of the plane destroys the<br />
reactor vessel in such way, that all<br />
water is instantaneously and completely<br />
leaking out of the reactor pool<br />
and furthermore decapitating every<br />
single fuel element. Afterwards the<br />
reactor vessel is sealed in such a way,<br />
that airplane fuel can accumulate<br />
under the now dry reactor core and<br />
start to burn, heating the fuel elements<br />
to a temperature of 1,100 °C. Calculations<br />
of the TSO (TÜV Rheinland)<br />
study the emission of radioactive<br />
isotopes through the open reactor roof<br />
including the scenario with and without<br />
rain. Taking into account the<br />
emergency reference level of the<br />
German Commission of Radiological<br />
Protection (Strahlenschutzkomission),<br />
the radiological levels reached remain<br />
below 30 % of the permissible values.<br />
Therefore, except for the typical ban<br />
area inherent to a conventional airplane<br />
crash, no further immediate<br />
measures have to be initiated.<br />
The MUEEF sees the degree of<br />
protection level 2, the highest possible<br />
scale for this scenario, as fulfilled. The<br />
RSK confirms this assessment.<br />
3.3.5 Robustness of preventive<br />
measures<br />
The FR MZ has four radial beam tubes,<br />
which provide access for experiments,<br />
which are placed close to the reactor<br />
core. The airplane crash scenario<br />
covers a sudden loss of beam tube integrity<br />
and subsequent loss of water<br />
inside the core. Furthermore the influence<br />
of an explosion inside the beam<br />
tubes, e. g. through the D 2 and H 2 gas<br />
applied for ultra-cold neutron experiments<br />
have been evaluated by an<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 381<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ After the Fukushima Event<br />
ı Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 382<br />
external TSO. Due to a double-barrier<br />
concept of the experiments, the TSO<br />
verifies that even in case of D 2 or H 2<br />
ignition, neither the beam tube<br />
integrity is affected nor any damage to<br />
the core is expected.<br />
In the assessment of the MUEEF,<br />
the FR MZ fulfils a protection level 3<br />
and the RSK sees no further need for<br />
robustness analysis on this subject.<br />
In case of a SBO the FR MZ is<br />
equipped with an emergency-power<br />
supply which consists of a combination<br />
of battery buffer, which drives all<br />
necessary reactor control units and<br />
radiation surveillance systems for at<br />
least one hour, and an emergency<br />
diesel generator which starts within a<br />
few minutes after the power blackout.<br />
With a permanent diesel reservoir of<br />
about 600 L, the diesel generator<br />
supplies electric power to the FR MZ<br />
infrastructure for up to 40 hours.<br />
4 Evaluation of the<br />
measures<br />
As a follow-up, the points mentioned<br />
above have been re-evaluated by the<br />
RSK in 2017 [2]. The conclusions can<br />
be summarized as follows:<br />
4.1 Evaluation of the measures<br />
taken by FRM II until 2017<br />
4.1.1 Emergency drills<br />
The FRM II has significantly revised<br />
its emergency concept and mostly<br />
implemented the RSK recommendations.<br />
Some recommendations have<br />
not been addressed in full detail yet:<br />
The RSK recommends that the FRM II<br />
should enlarge its concept of emergency<br />
drills. The internal emergency<br />
organisation as a whole should train at<br />
least once yearly, the relevant external<br />
authorities should be included in these<br />
exercises at least every five years.<br />
At the time of writing, however,<br />
the internal emergency exercise concept<br />
is fully functional and even an<br />
external exercise has been done.<br />
These measures, though, have not<br />
been evaluated by the RSK yet.<br />
4.1.2 Emergency measures<br />
to supply water to the<br />
reactor pool<br />
The RSK recommends having a system<br />
in place to supply water to the reactor<br />
pool in case of a failure of the relevant<br />
barriers against loss of pool water.<br />
While this recommendation has not<br />
been addressed explicitly by the<br />
FRM II yet, at FRM II already now with<br />
existing measures or minor changes it<br />
would be possible to supply water to<br />
the pool in case of emergency without<br />
access to the reactor hall. Since no<br />
explicit evidence has been provided by<br />
FRM II yet there is also no evaluation<br />
of the RSK.<br />
4.1.3 Robustness of the<br />
emergency data<br />
acquisition systems<br />
The RSK recommends an analysis on<br />
the availability of the relevant DAQ<br />
systems in case of beyond design base<br />
accidents, since emergency measures<br />
require reliable information e. g. on<br />
the pool water level, temperature,<br />
neutron flux and radiation levels.<br />
While such information – especially<br />
pool level and temperature – can be<br />
acquired easily by rather primitive<br />
means the recommended prove has<br />
not yet been provided by the FRM II.<br />
4.1.4 Emergency communication<br />
The FRM II is equipped with several<br />
independent and diverse communication<br />
channels (e. g. landlines and<br />
GSM mobile phones). On top of that,<br />
the RSK recommends the FRM II<br />
emergency communication should<br />
have priority over other’s communication<br />
needs. This recommendation has<br />
not yet been implemented. However,<br />
the relevant communication channels<br />
(e. g. land line telephone service)<br />
have large reserves and therefore the<br />
safety gain through priority might be<br />
negligible.<br />
4.1.5 Seismic robustness/<br />
implementation of an<br />
additional system to<br />
maintain long term<br />
undercriticality<br />
Additional very detailed and thorough<br />
analysis confirmed that the earlier<br />
only assumed robustness of the<br />
reactor building and the reactor pool<br />
even towards magnitude VIII ½<br />
(MSK) earth quakes. This has been<br />
confirmed by the TSO.<br />
Such a beyond design base event<br />
might impede the proper functioning<br />
of the primary (control rod) and<br />
secondary (four out of five shut down<br />
rods) shut down system. Therefore the<br />
implementation of an additional<br />
system to maintain long term undercriticality<br />
is recommended by the RSK.<br />
The FRM II is exploring several<br />
options to implement such a system.<br />
Ideas include diluting the D 2 O with<br />
H 2 O in the moderator or adding Boron<br />
to the primary cooling loop or the D 2 O<br />
moderator. Calculations show that<br />
even small amounts of such impurities<br />
would already lead to the required<br />
long term undercriticality. No final<br />
design has been drawn up yet.<br />
4.2 Measures taken by the FR<br />
MZ resulting from the RSK<br />
analysis<br />
4.2.1 Emergency communication<br />
Although the FR MZ infrastructure<br />
contains several communication systems,<br />
the RSK suggests, similar to<br />
section 4.1.4 for the FRM II, the<br />
prioritization of the mobile phones in<br />
the public network. The request to the<br />
telephone network provider is under<br />
progress.<br />
4.2.2 Emergency drills<br />
The RSK recognizes that the emergency<br />
management of the FR MZ is<br />
upgraded by creating two new safetydedicated<br />
reactor staff positions. It<br />
furthermore appreciates the idea of<br />
triannual exercises with external<br />
forces and under the involvement of<br />
the MUEEF. In addition to that, the<br />
RSK request to implement annual<br />
internal drills, including the complete<br />
reactor crisis management, into the<br />
FR MZ emergency drill concept.<br />
Preparations for the establishment of<br />
the triannual exercises are currently<br />
ongoing.<br />
4.2.3 Earthquake<br />
Based on the all-embracing event of<br />
an airplane crash, the RSK confirms<br />
the MUEEF’s evaluation to robustness<br />
level 2. Additionally the RSK suggests<br />
describing measures how to shut<br />
down the reactor manually following<br />
an earthquake with a subsequent<br />
malfunction of the control rods. This<br />
description should be integrated in<br />
the reactor operation regulations.<br />
5 Conclusion<br />
After the events in the Fukushima-I<br />
NPP the RSK has analysed the robustness<br />
of the German nuclear reactors in<br />
general and also the FRM II and the<br />
FR MZ with respect to beyond design<br />
base accidents. Already the analysis in<br />
2012 [3] had given a positive result<br />
and only few recommendations to<br />
even further improve the overall<br />
safety of the research reactors in<br />
Germany were presented.<br />
In its 2017 re-analysis [1] the RSK<br />
confirmed that most recommendations<br />
were met by the FRM II. The<br />
FRM II is working to answer the last<br />
open points. For the FR MZ the RSK<br />
confirmed the Mainz MUEEF’s assessment<br />
of the TRIGA research reactor.<br />
No open questions remained from the<br />
2017 assessment of the FR MZ. Both<br />
facilities are working on reaching full<br />
compliance with all the RSK recommendations<br />
in the near future.<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Safety Assessment of the Research Reactors FRM II and FR MZ After the Fukushima Event<br />
ı Axel Pichlmaier, Heiko Gerstenberg, Anton Kastenmüller, Christian Krokowski, Ulrich Lichnovsky, Roland Schätzlein, Michael Schmidt, Christopher Geppert, Klaus Eberhardt and Sergei Karpuk
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
References<br />
[1] RSK-Stellungnahme, 492. Sitzung der<br />
Reaktor-Sicherheitskommission (RSK)<br />
am 22.03.2017.<br />
[2] Stellungnahme der RSK „Anlagenspezifische<br />
Sicherheitsüberprüfung<br />
(RSK-SÜ) deutscher Forschungsreaktoren<br />
unter Berücksichtigung der<br />
Ereignisse in Fukushima-I (Japan)“,<br />
Anlage 1 zum Ergebnisprotokoll der<br />
447. Sitzung der Reaktor-Sicherheitskommission<br />
(RSK) am 03.05.2012.<br />
[3] FRM II description, http://www.frm2.<br />
tum.de/en/the-neutron-source/.<br />
[4] „Rahmenempfehlungen für die<br />
Planungen von Notfallschutzmaßnahmen<br />
durch die Betreiber von<br />
Kernkraftwerken“, Empfehlungen der<br />
Strahlenschutzkommission und der<br />
Reaktorsicherheitskommission,<br />
gebilligt in der 244. Sitzung der<br />
Strahlenschutz-kommission am<br />
03. November 2010, zum Zeitpunkt der<br />
RSK-SÜ-FR gültig, mittlerweile abgelöst<br />
durch [5].<br />
[5] „Rahmenempfehlungen für die<br />
Planung von Notfallschutzmaßnahmen<br />
durch Betreiber von Kernkraftwerken“,<br />
Empfehlung der Strahlenschutzkommission<br />
und der Reaktor-<br />
Sicherheitskommission, verabschiedet<br />
in der 242. Sitzung der Strahlenschutzkommission<br />
am 01./02. Juli 2010, gebilligt<br />
in der 244. Sitzung der Strahlenschutz-kommission<br />
am 03. November<br />
2010, verabschiedet in der 429. Sitzung<br />
der Reaktor-Sicherheitskommission am<br />
14. Oktober 2010. Ergänzung verabschiedet<br />
in der 468. Sitzung der RSK<br />
am 04.September 2014 und in der 271.<br />
Sitzung der SSK am 21.Oktober 2014.<br />
Abbreviations<br />
BMUB<br />
DAQ<br />
KSB<br />
LOCA<br />
MSK<br />
MUEEF<br />
NPP<br />
OBe<br />
RSK<br />
RR<br />
SBO<br />
TSO<br />
Authors<br />
German Federal Ministry of the<br />
Environment<br />
data acquisition<br />
Kerntechnischer Sicherheitsbeauftragter<br />
(nuclear safety<br />
officer)<br />
loss of coolant accident<br />
Medwedew-Sponheuer-Karnik-<br />
Scale for the magnitude of<br />
earthquakes (IXII)<br />
Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie,<br />
Ernährung und Forsten<br />
Rheinland-Pfalz<br />
Nuclear power plant<br />
Objektsicherungsbeauftragter<br />
(security officer)<br />
Reaktorsicherheitskommission<br />
(Reactor safety commission that<br />
advises the BMUB)<br />
Research Reactor<br />
Station Black Out<br />
Technical Support Organisation<br />
Dr. Axel Pichlmaier<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Reaktorbetrieb<br />
FRM II<br />
Dr. Heiko Gerstenberg<br />
stellv. Technischer Direktor und<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Bestrahlung und<br />
Quellen FRM II<br />
Dr. Anton Kastenmüller<br />
Technischer Direktor FRM II<br />
Dr. Christian Krokowski<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Reaktorweiterentwicklung<br />
FRM II<br />
M. Sc. Ulrich Lichnovsky<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Stilllegung und Rückbau<br />
FRM(alt)<br />
Dipl. Phys. Roland Schätzlein<br />
stellv. Technischer Direktor und Fachbereichsleiter<br />
Elektro- und Leittechnik FRM II<br />
Dipl. Ing. Michael Schmidt<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Reaktor überwachung FRM<br />
II<br />
FRM II, Forschungs-Neutronen quelle Heinz<br />
Maier-Leibnitz<br />
Technische Universität München<br />
Lichtenbergstr. 1<br />
85748 Garching, Germany<br />
Dr. Christopher Geppert<br />
Betriebsleitung FR MZ<br />
Dr. Klaus Eberhardt<br />
Betriebsleitung FR MZ<br />
Dr. Sergei Karpuk<br />
KSB und OBe FR MZ<br />
FR MZ, Forschungsreaktor TRIGA Mainz<br />
Fritz-Straßmann-Weg 2<br />
55128 Mainz; Germany<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 383<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s<br />
First Nuclear Reactor<br />
Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller<br />
FRM started operating in 1957 as the first nuclear reactor in Germany. Reactor operation ended in 2000. Licensing<br />
procedures for the deconstruction and dismantling of the reactor started in 1998. In 2014 the Technical University of<br />
Munich (TUM) was granted the license to decommission the reactor.<br />
In this article we describe our<br />
(long) way to the license for dismantling<br />
of the reactor and give a short<br />
overview of the current state of the<br />
decommissioning project.<br />
We present the results of the (pre-)<br />
licensing stage: disposal of spent<br />
nuclear fuel (SNF) and preparation of<br />
the safety report containing details<br />
on fire protection, radiological characterization<br />
(neutron activation and<br />
contamination), waste management<br />
and safety analysis.<br />
With regard to the current state of<br />
the project we will discuss: clearance<br />
of material and current obstacles.<br />
1 Introduction 1<br />
1.1 Construction, licensing and<br />
commissioning<br />
In the 1950s the Bavarian government<br />
gave impulses for the transformation<br />
of Bavaria from an agricultural to an<br />
industrial country. The worldwide<br />
euphoria towards the peaceful use of<br />
nuclear energy was shared by the<br />
leading political parties in Germany,<br />
left-wing as well as right-wing parties.<br />
It took an incredibly short time –<br />
compared to today’s time consuming<br />
licensing processes – from the political<br />
decision to build a nuclear research<br />
reactor near Munich to the first<br />
criticality of the research reactor<br />
Forschungsreaktor München (FRM):<br />
In 1956 the Bavarian government<br />
decided to buy a research reactor. A<br />
few days after the political decision,<br />
Professor Maier-Leibnitz (Physics Depart<br />
ment of the Technical University of<br />
Munich) was sent to the USA with the<br />
task of buying a nuclear reactor.<br />
When the reactor was bought from<br />
AMF, there was no federal legislation<br />
regarding nuclear installations in<br />
Germany. The construction of the<br />
FRM started in 1956, without the<br />
legislation that would be necessary for<br />
1) The main contents<br />
of the introduction<br />
were collected from<br />
the articles in [1].<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 384<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Reactor pool of the FRM.<br />
reactor operation. With the approval<br />
of the Bavarian state government the<br />
construction of the FRM started – still<br />
without any federal nuclear law. In<br />
1957 the Bavarian government passed<br />
a nuclear law of their own, before the<br />
federal government had an appropriate<br />
nuclear law for the Federal<br />
Republic of Germany. The Bavarian<br />
law was the basis for the license of<br />
Germany’s first nuclear reactor.<br />
In October 1957 first criticality was<br />
achieved, thus making the FRM the<br />
first nuclear installation in Germany.<br />
Operation of FRM laid the foundation<br />
for many decades of successful<br />
and peacefull nuclear research and<br />
industry in Germany.<br />
1.2 Technical overview<br />
The FRM was designed as neutron<br />
source for science and material test<br />
reactor.<br />
It was a light-water-moderated<br />
open pool reactor (see Figure 1).<br />
From 1957 to 1960 the fuel was<br />
20% enriched uranium (U-Al-alloy).<br />
With a reactor power of 1 MW a maximal<br />
neutron flux of 6.6 * 10 12 n/cm 2 /s<br />
was achieved.<br />
In order to further increase neutron<br />
flux, the use of 90 % enriched<br />
uranium (HEU) started in 1960. Six<br />
years later, in 1966, the thermal<br />
reactor power was increased to<br />
2.5 MW and in 1968 to 4 MW. For<br />
further increase of the neutron flux in<br />
1982 the core design was completely<br />
refurbished: the operating team<br />
added Beryllium and Graphite reflector<br />
elements and was able to increase<br />
the neutron flux to 8 * 10 13 n/cm 2 /s.<br />
In order to keep up with the scientific<br />
demands other facilities were<br />
added to the FRM. In 1962 a system to<br />
irradiate samples near liquid Helium<br />
temperature (TTB) was installed, with<br />
the nozzle of the irradiation facility<br />
inside the reactor core. Additionally<br />
in 1995 a cold neutron source was<br />
installed.<br />
A pneumatic tube system made it<br />
possible to irradiate and change<br />
scientific probes while the reactor is<br />
running.<br />
The reactor pool is situated inside<br />
the reactor hall. The reactor hall is a<br />
spheroid with 30 m height and 30 m<br />
diameter – giving the FRM its characteristic<br />
egg-shaped form (Atom-Ei; see<br />
Figure 2). The open reactor pool is<br />
built of 450 m 3 baryte and normal<br />
concrete containing 55 metric tonnes<br />
of steel as reinforcement. The reactor<br />
pool holds 270 m 3 of deionized light<br />
water as moderator and primary<br />
coolant.<br />
1.3 Scientific highlights<br />
The FRM always was a reactor for<br />
scientific purposes and the scientific<br />
use of neutrons. Power generation<br />
was not of interest.<br />
The main fields of science at<br />
FRM were: nuclear physics, neutron<br />
physics, solid-state physics, irradiation<br />
techniques and radiochemistry.<br />
Ultracold neutrons (UCN) were first<br />
detected at the FRM by A. Steyerl et al.<br />
[2].<br />
Many techniques that are still used<br />
today at neutron source type research<br />
reactors were developed or greatly<br />
refined at FRM including:<br />
spectroscopy, mass spectroscopy<br />
of fission products, interferometry,<br />
neutron guides, small angle scattering,<br />
fast pneumatic tube system and<br />
gravity refractometry.<br />
1.4 End of operation<br />
When it was decided to build a new<br />
high flux neutron source next to FRM,<br />
it was also decided to decommission<br />
the old reactor. Licensing for decommissioning<br />
started in 1998.<br />
The last reactor operation took<br />
place in the year 2000. Since 2002<br />
FRM has had no fuel elements on site.<br />
The license for decommissioning<br />
was granted in 2014.<br />
2 Licensing for<br />
decommissioning<br />
2.1 General legislation<br />
In order to decommission a nuclear<br />
installation in Germany the licensee of<br />
the running installation has to request<br />
a license for decommissioning according<br />
to § 7 of the German Atomic<br />
Energy Act AtG.<br />
The licensee’s request has to<br />
contain a detailed safety report. The<br />
safety report has to cover the following<br />
items:<br />
• geographic location<br />
• neighbouring infrastructure (residential,<br />
industrial and agricultural<br />
areas)<br />
• technical description of the nuclear<br />
installation<br />
• description of the planned procedure<br />
for practical decommissioning<br />
• radiation safety<br />
• waste management<br />
• fire protection<br />
• possible incidents/accidents<br />
• personnel organisation of the<br />
operator<br />
After receiving the safety report, the<br />
licensing authority asks a technical<br />
safety organisation (TSO) for their<br />
expert opinion regarding the safety<br />
report and its contents. The TSO<br />
writes a final report commenting on<br />
each point of the safety report.<br />
The licensing authority grants the<br />
license for decommissioning, if it is<br />
convinced that the decommissioning<br />
can be done safely for people and the<br />
environment.<br />
2.2 Licensing at FRM<br />
FRM requested a license for decommissioning<br />
in 1998. A new environmental<br />
impact assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung<br />
UVP) with<br />
participation of the public was not<br />
required due to the fact that only<br />
already licensed values were re quested<br />
for permissible emissions ( only 1 E6<br />
Bq aerosol-bound activity per year).<br />
Shortly after the first request, all<br />
licensing efforts for decommissioning<br />
were put on halt, as all resources from<br />
FRM, authority and TSO were needed<br />
for the licensing and commissioning<br />
of the new high flux neutron source<br />
FRM II.<br />
Finally, in 2010 FRM negotiated a<br />
contract with a nuclear consulting<br />
company, to get the licensing done. In<br />
this process the contractor prepared<br />
all the necessary documents and<br />
discussed them with the operator, the<br />
TSO and the licensing authority – the<br />
Bavarian state ministry of the environment,<br />
health and consumer protection<br />
(StMUV).<br />
The TSO and the licensing authority<br />
were involved during the whole<br />
process of preparing the safety report.<br />
Both, the licensing authority and the<br />
TSO, already knew the FRM form the<br />
operating time in great detail, which<br />
facilitated the unavoidable technical<br />
discussions.<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
| | Fig. 2.<br />
Historic picture of the FRM site.<br />
Year<br />
Activities towards license for decommissioning<br />
1957-2000 Reactor operation of FRM under operating license<br />
1998 Operator (FRM) requests license for decommissioning<br />
1998-2010 FRM, TSO and authority are busy with licensing and commissioning<br />
of the new high flux research reactor FRM II<br />
2010-2012 FRM working with a contractor to finalize the licensing documents<br />
2010-2014 FRM, contractor, TSO and authority discuss details of the licensing<br />
documents and prepare additional documents<br />
2014 License for decommissioning is granted by the authority<br />
| | Tab. 1.<br />
FRM’s way from reactor operation to decommissioning.<br />
After the submission of the safety<br />
report by FRM, the TSO reviewed the<br />
report and wrote a detailed report<br />
themselves. The overall result was<br />
positive. Still, the TSO requested some<br />
conditions to be met before the start of<br />
dismantling.<br />
The licensing authority granted<br />
the license for decommissioning in<br />
2014 [3]. Basis of the license are:<br />
• the safety report presented by FRM<br />
• the technical report presented by<br />
the TSO (conditions, written down<br />
by the TSO, did not necessarily become<br />
requirements of the licensing<br />
authority)<br />
• federal and national legislation<br />
• additional national regulations<br />
The whole process from reactor operation<br />
to license for decommissioning<br />
is summed up in Table 1.<br />
3 Description of the<br />
(pre-)licensing stage<br />
This chapter describes the main<br />
challenges during the pre-licensing<br />
stage: the disposal of spent nuclear<br />
fuel (chapter 3.1) and writing up the<br />
safety report (chapters 3.2 to 3.5).<br />
The parts of the safety report (see<br />
chapter 2.1), that are of general<br />
interest, are described in detail.<br />
Figure 2 shows the “atomic egg” –<br />
with circumferential rooms – from<br />
the outside.<br />
The licensed area of the FRM<br />
consists of the reactor hall – containing<br />
the open pool (see Figure 1)<br />
– and additional rooms around the<br />
“atomic egg”. The adjacent rooms<br />
contain storage rooms, laboratories<br />
and rooms for technical installations<br />
such as ventilation system and waste<br />
water treatment.<br />
3.1 Disposal of spent nuclear<br />
fuel<br />
The main part of the spent nuclear<br />
fuel from FRM was highly enriched<br />
uranium as described above. Supporting<br />
the international effort of minimizing<br />
civilian HEU stockpiles, the<br />
FRM participated in the repatriation<br />
of the spent nuclear fuel back to the<br />
United States in 2002. The packaging<br />
of the SNF took place still under the<br />
operating license.<br />
This step reduced the radioactive<br />
inventory at the FRM drastically. The<br />
typical protection objectives of a<br />
nuclear facility: control of reactivity<br />
and heat removal, are not necessary<br />
after the removal of all the nuclear<br />
fuel from the FRM reactor hall.<br />
3.2 Fire protection<br />
Fire protection is gaining more and<br />
more focus in international and German<br />
regulations. This is especially the<br />
case after tragic accidents in industrial<br />
[4] and private building complexes.<br />
The German Nuclear Safety Standards<br />
Commission (KTA) published<br />
regulations concerning fire protection<br />
in nuclear power plants (i.e. reactors<br />
commercially producing electricity)<br />
under the national regulation KTA<br />
2101 in 1985. This regulation is being<br />
updated on a regular basis.<br />
The fire protection at the research<br />
reactor FRM has always been inspired<br />
– but not governed – by this KTA rule.<br />
Especially because of the age and<br />
the structural design of the reactor<br />
hall it is not always possible to fully<br />
comply with KTA-rule 2101. There is<br />
consensus that because of the low risk<br />
arising from the decommissioning of<br />
the FRM this is tolerable.<br />
The main outline of the fire protection<br />
concept is as follows:<br />
• use of burnable substances and<br />
burnable structural materials is<br />
minimized at FRM – especially in<br />
controlled areas<br />
• utilization units (e.g. ventilation<br />
system, reactor hall, emergency<br />
battery room) are separated by<br />
walls and doors with a fireresistance<br />
rating that guarantees a<br />
resistance time of 90 minutes<br />
( following DIN 4102-5) during a<br />
conventional fire<br />
• every room is monitored by fire/<br />
smoke detectors<br />
• there are hand held fire extinguishers<br />
for firefighting by the FRM<br />
personnel (only small fires)<br />
• the combination of fire-resistant<br />
structural material and detector<br />
systems gives the Werkfeuerwehr<br />
(fire department of the TUM<br />
located at the campus site [5])<br />
enough time to arrive for firefighting<br />
• there are enough outdoor and<br />
indoor hydrants for the fire<br />
department to do their work.<br />
All the installations necessary for fire<br />
protection and the inventory of burnable<br />
substances on the site are checked<br />
on a regular basis by the operator.<br />
Additionally there are yearly site<br />
inspections by the TSO, which also<br />
include a detailed review of the<br />
operator’s inspection protocols.<br />
3.3 Radiological<br />
characterisation<br />
The reactor hall and most of the<br />
reactor systems were known to be very<br />
clean – with regard to radioactivity<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 385<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 386<br />
2) The results<br />
presented are<br />
mainly from work<br />
done by the<br />
contractor [6]<br />
Measured spot<br />
Heat Exchanger<br />
Pneumatic Tube System<br />
Contaminated parts from the Reactor Pool<br />
Ventilation System<br />
Reactor Hall – concrete wall<br />
| | Tab. 2.<br />
Results from gamma spectroscopy.<br />
– throughout the decades of reactor<br />
operation. Still, there was one known<br />
contamination event with Eu-152/<br />
Eu-154 in the pneumatic rabbit system<br />
that contaminated the tube system,<br />
the reactor hall and the ventilation<br />
system. Additionally there is a Americium<br />
and Plutonium contamination<br />
in at least one pneumatic tube.<br />
In order to show that safe decommissioning<br />
is possible with respect to<br />
radioactive waste and safety of the<br />
working personnel, it was necessary<br />
to characterize the radiological situation<br />
at the FRM – after removal of SNF.<br />
The methodology and the main results<br />
of the radiological characterisation<br />
are described in the following. 2<br />
Gamma dose rate measurements:<br />
Gamma dose rate measurements were<br />
executed for a first overview in the<br />
reactor hall, the pump room – containing<br />
the primary circuit, the heat<br />
exchanger and the water cleaning<br />
system - and on the reactor platform.<br />
The dose rate levels were very low at<br />
every place (< 5 µSv/h).<br />
No new contamination was found.<br />
Only places with known contamination<br />
could be confirmed: pneumatic rabbit<br />
system, heat exchanger, waste storage<br />
areas and some scientific experiments.<br />
The dose rate from activated core<br />
components is negli gible as long as the<br />
open pool is filled with water.<br />
Gamma spectrometry:<br />
In order to determine the most important<br />
nuclides in-situ measurements<br />
with a gamma spectrometer were<br />
performed at spots of increased dose<br />
rate. The summarized results are<br />
presented in Table 2.<br />
Relevant isotopes<br />
Co-60, Ag-108m, Cs-137, Eu-152, Eu-154<br />
Co-60, Ag-108m, Cs-137, Eu-152, Eu-154<br />
Co-60, Cs-137<br />
Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152, Eu-154<br />
Only naturally occurring nuclides<br />
Nuclide Total activity in concrete [Bq] Total activity in steel [Bq]<br />
H-3 3.1 E<strong>07</strong> –<br />
C-14 2.0 E04 1.5 E04<br />
Fe-55 4.3 E06 1.0 E09<br />
Co-60 2.5 E06 1.3 E<strong>07</strong><br />
Ba-133 1.3 E08 –<br />
Eu-152 3.9 E06 –<br />
Eu-154 2.7 E05 –<br />
| | Tab. 3.<br />
Total activity of the wall of the reactor pool.<br />
Contamination measurements:<br />
To determine the contamination of<br />
the reactor hall and reactor systems,<br />
swipes were taken and measurements<br />
with hand held contamination monitoring<br />
devices were performed. The<br />
three main results were:<br />
• there is no relevant contamination<br />
– with one exception: inside the<br />
pneumatic tube system<br />
• Co-60 and Cs-137 are the main<br />
contaminants<br />
• there are no relevant isotopes<br />
( excluding the pneumatic tube<br />
system), which are difficult to<br />
measure (e.g. H-3, Alpha emitters)<br />
Nuclide<br />
Mn-54<br />
Fe-55<br />
Co-60<br />
Ni-59<br />
Ni-63<br />
Zn-65<br />
Total activity<br />
in aluminium [Bq]<br />
5.2 E<strong>07</strong><br />
| | Tab. 4.<br />
Total activity of the aluminum components<br />
close to the core.<br />
Nuclide<br />
Mn-54<br />
Fe-55<br />
Co-60<br />
Ni-59<br />
Ni-63<br />
1.1 E12<br />
5.4 E11<br />
2.5 E09<br />
3.3 E11<br />
5.9 E12<br />
Total activity<br />
in steel [Bq]<br />
1.1 E<strong>07</strong><br />
3.5 E11<br />
7.7 E09<br />
1.7 E09<br />
2.2 E11<br />
| | Tab. 5.<br />
Total activity of the steel components close to<br />
the core.<br />
Neutron activation calculations:<br />
Neutron activation calculations for<br />
the components close to the reactor<br />
core and close to the neutron beam<br />
tubes were performed to determine<br />
the remaining main radioactive<br />
inventory (see Table 3 to Table 5).<br />
Summary:<br />
The main part of the remaining<br />
radioactivity in the reactor hall is<br />
activation of the components close to<br />
the core. The handling of the highly<br />
activated components is not trivial<br />
(dose rates up to > 1 Sv/h for components<br />
very close to the reactor) but<br />
possible. It is possible to comply<br />
with the acceptance criteria for<br />
final disposal. There are only a few<br />
contaminated systems (pneumatic<br />
rabbit tubes, primary circuit with<br />
heat exchanger). The decommissioning<br />
of these systems will be technically<br />
possible.<br />
3.4 Waste management<br />
Clearance/free release of material<br />
from controlled areas:<br />
Most of the material from the controlled<br />
areas of the FRM can be<br />
released without any restriction. For<br />
this clearance measurements have to<br />
be performed by FRM and those<br />
measurements have to be confirmed<br />
by an independent third party (at<br />
FRM: the Bavarian State Agency for the<br />
Environment (LfU)). After that the<br />
material is cleared for unrestricted use<br />
or restricted conventional dis posal.<br />
Conventional pollutants:<br />
Due to the age of the FRM there are<br />
several conventional pollutants that<br />
have to be taken into account when<br />
planning the disposal.<br />
In order to shield some of the neutron<br />
beam guide tubes going through<br />
the reactor hall, concrete tubs containing<br />
water were built around the<br />
neutron guide tubes. The concrete<br />
shielding tubs were constructed from<br />
concrete bars that were joint by<br />
material containing PCB (sum PCB<br />
9.2 g/kg). The concrete bars were<br />
covered with insulating material also<br />
containing PCB and lead (sum PCB<br />
2 g/kg; Lead 11 g/kg).<br />
There are two possible ways of<br />
disposing of the concrete contaminated<br />
with PCB for the FRM:<br />
• breaking up the concrete into<br />
small parts (size of a human fist),<br />
burning every single piece,<br />
disposing of the pieces conventionally<br />
or<br />
• disposing of the concrete bars<br />
in appropriate containers at a<br />
licensed underground disposal<br />
site.<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
The disposal route preferred by the<br />
competent state disposal company is<br />
the underground disposal site.<br />
No asbestos could be found so far.<br />
Disposal of radioactive waste:<br />
The activated components and some<br />
contaminated pieces have to be prepared<br />
for disposal in a federal final<br />
repository. At the moment FRM has to<br />
prepare the radioactive waste in such<br />
conditions (stable, packaging, limit for<br />
activity, limit for conventional<br />
pollutants) that it complies with the<br />
acceptance criteria of Schacht Konrad<br />
[7].<br />
There are wastes at the FRM site<br />
that cannot be brought in such a form,<br />
that they comply with the acceptance<br />
criteria. The problematic wastes are:<br />
• beryllium reflector elements and<br />
• graphite reflector elements.<br />
The disposal of the FRM reflector<br />
elements is an unresolved problem.<br />
The TUM Institute for Radiochemistry<br />
already presented information regarding<br />
the disposal of the beryllium<br />
elements [8].<br />
For the licensed final repository<br />
Schacht Konrad the H-3-inventory<br />
(radioactivity) and the beryllium<br />
(conventional pollutant) inventory<br />
are too big. This is most likely also the<br />
case for the C-14-inventory of the<br />
graphite elements. The responsible<br />
federal authority (former Federal<br />
Agency for Radiation Protection (BfS –<br />
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) now<br />
Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear<br />
Waste Management (BfE – Bundesamt<br />
für kerntechnische Entsorgungssicherheit))<br />
is legally obliged to provide<br />
a final repository for this kind of<br />
wastes.<br />
Until when the packaged wastes<br />
will be safely stored in a final repository,<br />
FRM remains the owner of<br />
the radioactive wastes, thus also<br />
respon sible (especially financially) to<br />
ensure safe storage of the radioactive<br />
material.<br />
As stated above the spent nuclear<br />
fuel was already repatriated to the<br />
United States.<br />
• destruction of the reactor building<br />
with release of radioactivity (e.g.<br />
after an earthquake)<br />
• outage of important systems<br />
For the calculation of a possible<br />
release of radioactivity into the environment,<br />
the inventory of radioactivity<br />
at the FRM site was taken from the<br />
radiological characterisation described<br />
above (see chapter 3.3). The<br />
possible release of activity was calculated<br />
conservatively following national<br />
and international guidelines.<br />
The German Radiation Protection<br />
Ordinance (Strahlenschutzverordnung<br />
– StrlSchV) requires that the effective<br />
radiation dose which follows the worst<br />
accident conditions has to be below<br />
50 mSv. The result of the safety analysis<br />
was: the possible radiation dose for<br />
every group of age is well below the<br />
acceptable limits (also including radiation<br />
doses to the organs).<br />
4 Status of the project<br />
4.1 Clearance of material<br />
Clearance measurements are performed<br />
routinely by the FRM radiation<br />
protection personnel. The preferred<br />
method of such measurements<br />
is a circa 1 m 3 box (FMA) with gammasensitive<br />
detectors on every side.<br />
Clearance for unrestricted use of<br />
material that is measured in the FMA<br />
can be achieved within a few weeks –<br />
including the time the independent<br />
expert takes to verify the FRM measurements.<br />
Material that can’t be measured in<br />
the FMA – due to its size – can take a<br />
much longer time to achieve the clearance<br />
for unrestricted use (roughly half<br />
a year). Clearance measurements for<br />
this kind of material are performed<br />
with in-situ gamma spectrometry and/<br />
or hand-held contamination monitors<br />
with additional material probes.<br />
Clearance for restricted use (i.e.<br />
conventional disposal sites or conventional<br />
incineration) can take a much<br />
longer time (up to a few years). There<br />
are a few problems for this way of<br />
clearance:<br />
• hard to find appropriate sites<br />
• hard to find sites willing to take<br />
material from a nuclear site<br />
• conventional authority and<br />
nuclear/radiation protection<br />
author ity have to communicate<br />
• operator has to coordinate<br />
everything<br />
From the year 2011 until the beginning<br />
of <strong>2018</strong> almost 170 metric tonnes<br />
of material have been cleared for free<br />
release. Clearance for restricted use<br />
(incineration) has been achieved for<br />
almost 100 kg.<br />
4.2 Ventilation system<br />
The license for decommissioning<br />
issued by the responsible authority<br />
described the present ventilation<br />
system as appropriate for the time of<br />
decommissioning.<br />
The visualisation scheme of the<br />
present ventilation system is shown in<br />
Figure 3.<br />
Because of the lack of filtration<br />
under normal operation (this was also<br />
the case during reactor operation) the<br />
TSO was able to come up with a<br />
scenario in which, because of the<br />
requested low permissible yearly<br />
emissions (1E6 Bq per year), the<br />
emission limit for one year could be<br />
exhausted into the air – undetected by<br />
the operator – in a few hours. Although<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 387<br />
3.5 Safety analysis of possible<br />
accidents<br />
The safety analysis of possible accidents<br />
and the possible resulting radiation<br />
dose to the public was done in<br />
accordance with German legislation<br />
and regulations.<br />
For the safety analysis a conservative<br />
spectrum of possible incidents<br />
was selected. They can be summed up<br />
as follows:<br />
• long lasting fire in the reactor hall<br />
| | Fig. 3.<br />
Visualisation of the unfiltered ventilations system.<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 388<br />
the scenario described by the TSO<br />
seems to be extremely unlikely, FRM<br />
decided to install a new ventilation<br />
system – with filtered exhaust air – for<br />
the time of decommissioning and the<br />
use of the reactor hall after decommissioning.<br />
As long as the ventilation system<br />
is not accepted by the licensing<br />
authority, FRM is not allowed to use<br />
tools in the reactor hall that could<br />
cause emission of aerosols into the air,<br />
thus rendering impossible every<br />
significant step in physical decommissioning.<br />
4.3 Radioactive Waste<br />
Most of the radioactive material is still<br />
stored in the reactor hall. The components<br />
that were close to the reactor<br />
core are still in the reactor pool<br />
covered with water.<br />
The disposal of radioactive waste is<br />
not going on at the moment. This is<br />
mainly due to the following:<br />
The radioactive material can’t be<br />
processed or separated in the reactor<br />
hall because of the state of the ventilation<br />
system described in chapter 4.2.<br />
Additionally, appropriate financial<br />
resources and personnel have not yet<br />
been allocated for the disposal of<br />
radioactive waste.<br />
4.4 Financing of the project<br />
FRM is part of FRM II which is a central<br />
scientific facility of TUM. In order to<br />
pay for projects necessary for the<br />
decommissioning (for example new<br />
construction of the ventilation system<br />
and disposal of radioactive waste)<br />
FRM has to ask the Board of the TUM<br />
for financial resources. The TUM<br />
Board asks the responsible Ministry of<br />
Science for money which again<br />
requests their financial means from<br />
the Bavarian Parliament. If the<br />
Bavarian Parliament decides to<br />
finance the necessary projects, the<br />
Ministry – responsible for publicsector<br />
construction – assigns their<br />
Building and Construction authority<br />
to plan the construction project (in<br />
terms of public finance every step of<br />
the decommissioning project is a<br />
construction project).<br />
This planning is than done by FRM<br />
(and of course contractors working<br />
for FRM) and presented to the construction<br />
committee of the Bavarian<br />
Parliament by the Building and Construction<br />
authority.<br />
If the construction committee sees<br />
the project feasible, the Building<br />
and Construction authority has<br />
access to financial resources. But still<br />
FRM is the operator responsible for<br />
the nuclear installation. So in very<br />
close cooperation the Building and<br />
Construction authority and FRM are<br />
acting as contracting authorities for<br />
the decommissioning projects.<br />
5 Conclusion<br />
The history and the current state of<br />
the FRM have been described. Once<br />
the remaining issues will be resolved,<br />
the decommissioning will proceed as<br />
licensed. The complex financing<br />
procedure described in chapter 4.4 is<br />
adding an additional level of complexity<br />
to the already challenging<br />
decommissioning project.<br />
References<br />
[1] Festschrift der Technischen Universität<br />
München, „40 Jahre Atom-Ei Garching“.<br />
[2] A. Steyerl, 1969, Physics Letters 29B<br />
33-5.<br />
[3] Bayerische Staatsministerium für<br />
Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz<br />
StMUV, 03.04.2014, „Genehmigung<br />
nach § 7 Atomgesetz (AtG) zum Abbau<br />
der Reaktoranlage des Forschungsreaktors<br />
München FRM in Garching“.<br />
[4] Der Spiegel, 15.12.1999, „Chronologie:<br />
Die Brandkatastrophe am Düsseldorfer<br />
Flughafen.“<br />
| | Editorial Advisory Board<br />
Frank Apel<br />
Erik Baumann<br />
Dr. Maarten Becker<br />
Dr. Erwin Fischer<br />
Eckehard Göring<br />
Dr. Ralf Güldner<br />
Carsten Haferkamp<br />
Dr. Petra-Britt Hoffmann<br />
Dr. Guido Knott<br />
Dr. Willibald Kohlpaintner<br />
Ulf Kutscher<br />
Andreas Loeb<br />
Dr. Thomas Mull<br />
Dr. Ingo Neuhaus<br />
Dr. Joachim Ohnemus<br />
Prof. Dr. Winfried Petry<br />
Dr. Tatiana Salnikova<br />
Dr. Andreas Schaffrath<br />
Dr. Jens Schröder<br />
Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger<br />
Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz<br />
Prof. Dr. Bruno Thomauske<br />
Dr. Walter Tromm<br />
Dr. Hans-Georg Willschütz<br />
Dr. Hannes Wimmer<br />
Ernst Michael Züfle<br />
Imprint<br />
| | Editorial<br />
Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief)<br />
Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany<br />
Phone: +49 2324 4397723<br />
Fax: +49 2324 4397724<br />
E-mail: editorial@nucmag.com<br />
| | Official Journal of<br />
Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG)<br />
| | Publisher<br />
INFORUM Verlags- und<br />
Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany<br />
Phone: +49 30 498555-30, Fax: +49 30 498555-18<br />
www.nucmag.com<br />
| | General Manager<br />
Christian Wößner, Berlin, Germany<br />
| | Advertising and Subscription<br />
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany<br />
Phone: +49 30 498555-30, Fax: +49 30 498555-18<br />
E-mail: petra.dinter@kernenergie.de<br />
| | Prize List for Advertisement<br />
Valid as of 1 January <strong>2018</strong><br />
Published monthly, 9 issues per year<br />
Germany:<br />
Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €<br />
Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 176.- €<br />
All EU member states without VAT number:<br />
Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €<br />
Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 176.- €<br />
EU member states with VAT number<br />
and all other countries:<br />
Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 22.43 €<br />
Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage) 164.49 €<br />
| | Copyright<br />
The journal and all papers and photos contained in it<br />
are protected by copyright. Any use made thereof outside<br />
the Copyright Act without the consent of the publisher,<br />
INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH,<br />
is prohibited. This applies to reproductions, translations,<br />
microfilming and the input and incorporation into<br />
electronic systems. The individual author is held<br />
responsible for the contents of the respective paper.<br />
Please address letters and manuscripts only to the<br />
Editorial Staff and not to individual persons of the<br />
association´s staff. We do not assume any responsibility<br />
for unrequested contributions.<br />
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views<br />
of the editorial.<br />
| | Layout<br />
zi.zero Kommunikation<br />
Berlin, Germany<br />
Antje Zimmermann<br />
| | Printing<br />
inpuncto:asmuth<br />
druck + medien gmbh<br />
Baunscheidtstraße 11<br />
53113 Bonn<br />
ISSN 1431-5254<br />
Research and Innovation<br />
Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
[5] History of the Werkfeuerwehr, Technical<br />
University of Munich, Garching,<br />
https://www.feuerwehr.tum.de/index.<br />
php?id=30.<br />
[6] S. Thierfeldt et. al. (Brenk Systemplanung),<br />
March 2013, „Sicherheitsbericht<br />
zur Stilllegung des Forschungsreaktors<br />
München (FRM) der Technischen<br />
Universität München”.<br />
[7] K. Kugel, K. Möller (BfS), 20.2.2017,<br />
„Anforderungen an endzulagernde<br />
radioaktive Abfälle (Endlagerungsbedingungen,<br />
Stand: Februar 2017) –<br />
Endlager Konrad –”.<br />
[8] C. Lierse et. al., 28.12.2010, Abschlussbericht<br />
FKZ02S7951: „Entsorgung von<br />
Beryllium/Berylliumoxid und Cadmium<br />
aus Forschungsreaktoren“.<br />
Abbreviations<br />
FMA<br />
HEU<br />
KTA<br />
PCB<br />
SNF<br />
Freimessanlage (Release<br />
Measurement Facility)<br />
Highly Enriched Uranium<br />
Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (Nuclear<br />
Safety Standards Commission)<br />
Polychlorinated biphenyl<br />
Spent Nuclear Fuel<br />
StMUV Staatsministerium für Umwelt,<br />
Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz<br />
(Bavarian state ministry of the<br />
environment, health and consumer<br />
protection)<br />
TSO<br />
Technical Safety Organisation<br />
Authors<br />
While You Were Sleeping:<br />
The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free<br />
Generation in the United States<br />
Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier<br />
M. Sc. Ulrich Lichnovsky<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Stilllegung und<br />
Rückbau FRM(alt)<br />
B. Sc. Julia Rehberger<br />
Ingenieurin Dokumentation und<br />
Änderungsdienst FRM(alt)<br />
Dr. Axel Pichlmaier<br />
Fachbereichsleiter Reaktorbetrieb<br />
FRM II<br />
Dr. Anton Kastenmüller<br />
Technischer Direktor FRM II<br />
FRM II, Forschungs-Neutronenquelle<br />
Heinz Maier-Leibnitz<br />
Technische Universität München<br />
Lichtenbergstr. 1<br />
85748 Garching, Germany<br />
389<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW<br />
The United States has embarked on actions to combat climate change by putting a focus on lowering the carbon<br />
emissions from the electric generation sector. A pillar of this approach is to promote the greater use of renewable<br />
resources, such as wind and solar. The past decade has seen significant growth in carbon-free energy from wind and<br />
solar. Generation from these resources reached 333,000 GWh in 2017. However, unbeknownst to many who care about<br />
climate change, most of the progress made to date through renewables is at significant risk due to the loss or potential<br />
loss of more than 228,000 GWh of nuclear carbon-free generation.<br />
Renewables growth:<br />
Investment in carbon-free<br />
generation<br />
Over the past decade, wind and solar<br />
have grown in large part due to<br />
policies such as renewable portfolio<br />
standards, federal tax incentives, and<br />
in some cases state tax incentives. Few<br />
would argue that the addition of<br />
renewable generation is a critical<br />
element of a comprehensive carbonreduction<br />
strategy.<br />
Since 2008, the policy focus on<br />
renewables has attracted hundreds of<br />
billions of dollars of investment for<br />
the development of wind and solar.<br />
The results have been significant – in<br />
the past decade 90 % of the current<br />
operating wind and solar capacity was<br />
added, roughly 75 GW of wind and<br />
52 GW solar. [1] Another result of<br />
these investments has been to help<br />
wind and solar drive down the cost<br />
curve reaching a more competitive<br />
position. The policies promoting<br />
renewables have clearly contributed<br />
to the addition of a meaningful<br />
amount of carbon-free electricity as<br />
well as to jump-starting an industry in<br />
the United States.<br />
Early retirement: Nuclear<br />
generators face challenges<br />
In the same timeframe, natural gas<br />
prices have driven down power prices,<br />
causing difficulties for both renewables<br />
and existing generation. The<br />
nuclear industry in particular has<br />
been challenged by low natural gas<br />
prices and the lack of overall policy<br />
support for its zero-carbon attributes.<br />
As a result, the nuclear industry has<br />
faced a wave of actual and announced<br />
retirements. The most vulnerable<br />
nuclear plants have been small, singleunit<br />
plants and merchant facilities in<br />
deregulated markets with low energy<br />
and capacity values. Under these<br />
conditions, existing nuclear plants are<br />
having difficulty competing in bidbased<br />
markets and in some regulated<br />
as well. Some states have recognized<br />
this issue and have explored zerocarbon<br />
incentives to keep plants open<br />
that would otherwise have shut down.<br />
However, these incentives are being<br />
challenged and still make these plants,<br />
while technically “reprieved,” what<br />
we categorize as “at risk.”<br />
In 2016, the New York Public Service<br />
Commission approved a Clean Energy<br />
Standard (CES), which supported<br />
the continuation of more than 3 GW<br />
of nuclear capacity (i.e., Fitzpatrick,<br />
Ginna, and Nine Mile Point nuclear<br />
plants). [2] In the same year, Illinois<br />
passed The Future Energy Jobs Bill<br />
that provides nuclear plants with<br />
$ 0.01/kWh, saving almost 3 GW of<br />
nuclear capacity (i.e., Clinton and<br />
Quad Cities nuclear plants). [3] The<br />
actions in New York and Illinois<br />
sustained more than 50,000 GWh<br />
of carbon-free generation per year.<br />
Meanwhile, Connecticut recently<br />
estimated it would cost roughly<br />
$ 5.5 billion to replace the carbon-free<br />
generation from Dominion Energy’s<br />
Millstone station with renewables. [4]<br />
To understand the potential for<br />
loss of carbon-free generation, Scott-<br />
Madden identified four categories of<br />
“at-risk” nuclear assets. Each nuclear<br />
plant operating in 2008 (a date that<br />
coincides with the rapid growth in<br />
renewables) was reviewed and, if<br />
applicable, placed into one of the<br />
following “at-risk” categories:<br />
• Retired – Any nuclear plant that<br />
has ceased operations since 2008.<br />
Some plants on the list had physical<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
While You Were Sleeping: The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States ı Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 390<br />
Category Nuclear plants Capacity<br />
(MW)<br />
Retired<br />
Announced<br />
Crystal River, Fort Calhoun, Kewaunee, San Onofre, and<br />
Vermont Yankee<br />
Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, Diablo Canyon, Indian Point,<br />
Oyster Creek, Palisades, Perry, Pilgrim, and Three Mile Island<br />
issues driving retirement, but they<br />
may have continued to operate<br />
under different economic circumstances,<br />
including markets valuing<br />
carbon-free generation<br />
• Announced – Any nuclear plants<br />
where the owner has announced<br />
plans to cease operations early<br />
• In Jeopardy – Any nuclear plant<br />
where the owner has indicated<br />
the plant may close if market<br />
conditions do not improve<br />
• Reprieved – Any nuclear plant<br />
that has received state support to<br />
remain open. These were on the<br />
cusp of closure, and absent followthrough<br />
on these programs, the<br />
plants will likely close<br />
For each “at-risk” category, we calculated<br />
total capacity and annual generation.<br />
[5] As seen in the Table 1<br />
below, more than 28,000 MW of<br />
Generation<br />
(GWh)<br />
4,674 37,795<br />
11,109 89,818<br />
In Jeopardy Duane Arnold, Hope Creek, Millstone, and Salem 6,189 50,044<br />
Reprieved Clinton, Fitzpatrick, Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and Quad Cities 6,232 50,388<br />
“At-risk” nuclear total: 28,204 228,045<br />
| | Tab. 1.<br />
Nuclear capacities retired or facing early retirement in the U.S.<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Change in U.S. Carbon-Free Generation.<br />
| | Fig. 2.<br />
In-State Renewable Generation vs. “At-Risk” U.S. Nuclear Generation.<br />
nuclear capacity has retired or<br />
is facing early retirement. The<br />
228,045 GWh of nuclear generation<br />
retired since 2008 or at risk of early<br />
retirement represents 5.6 % of total<br />
U.S. net generation in 2016.<br />
Carbon impact: Early<br />
retirement of nuclear<br />
diminishes renewable gains<br />
To understand the potential impact on<br />
carbon-free energy, ScottMadden compared<br />
“at-risk” nuclear assets facing<br />
early retirement to all wind and solar<br />
assets operating at the end of 2017. [6]<br />
As discussed previously, there has been<br />
great publicity around the wind and<br />
solar capacity that has been added over<br />
the past decade. If compared on this<br />
popular measure, nuclear capacity at<br />
risk of early retirement only accounts<br />
for 20 % of the total 2017 renewable<br />
capacity. If at first glance, it is not<br />
alarming, it is because capacity is not<br />
the right measure to show impact on<br />
carbon. To understand that, we must<br />
compare on electric output, or energy.<br />
When compared on energy output,<br />
the potential loss of nuclear presents a<br />
greater concern. With capacity factors<br />
greater than 90 %, losing a smaller<br />
amount of nuclear can produce outsized<br />
impacts on carbon-free generation<br />
compared to the low-capacity<br />
factor of wind and solar (35 % to<br />
22 %). [7] In 2017, wind and<br />
solar produced a combined total of<br />
333,000 GWh of carbon-free generation<br />
(see Figure 1). This gain has the<br />
potential to be reduced by 68 % or<br />
228,045 GWh through the early<br />
retirement of nuclear capacity. In fact,<br />
the United States has lost 11 % of the<br />
renewable generation from plants<br />
already retired.<br />
In the states that host “at-risk”<br />
nuclear assets, the potential lost<br />
carbon- free generation from nuclear<br />
energy exceeds total in-state renew able<br />
energy generation (see Figure 2). [8]<br />
This represents a sig nificant barrier to<br />
achieving near-term state- level reductions<br />
in greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
A further potential challenge is<br />
the relicensing of nuclear plants.<br />
Those plants not currently at risk of<br />
early retirement must renew their operating<br />
licenses with the U.S. Nuclear<br />
Regulatory Commission in the next<br />
20 years. If these plants do not renew<br />
their licenses, even more carbon- free<br />
generation would be lost. In fact, wind<br />
and solar output would need to more<br />
than double just to break even on the<br />
loss of carbon-free generation from<br />
the retirement of the entire nuclear<br />
fleet (see Figure 3).<br />
Germany: A cautionary tale<br />
Many have pointed to Germany as a<br />
shining example of a country that has<br />
led the way in deploying renewables.<br />
In 2000, the Renewable Energy Act<br />
established feed-in tariffs and priority<br />
grid access for renewables. The action<br />
represents a key milestone in the<br />
Energiewende or transition to a lowcarbon<br />
economy based on renewable<br />
resources. Since then, the country has<br />
spent roughly $ 222 billion on renewable<br />
subsidies. [9] The result is renewable<br />
energy as a percentage of gross<br />
electricity generation increasing from<br />
6.2 % in 2000 to 31. 3% in 2015. [10]<br />
At the same time however, Germany<br />
has embarked on a strategy of shuttering<br />
its nuclear plants. Roughly 40 %<br />
of the country’s nuclear capacity<br />
was shut down in 2011, following the<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
While You Were Sleeping: The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States ı Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
| | Fig. 3.<br />
Total U.S. Renewable Generation vs. Total U.S. Nuclear Generation.<br />
| | Fig. 4.<br />
Annual greenhouse gas emissions in German electricity sector.<br />
About ScottMadden<br />
ScottMadden is the management<br />
consulting firm that does what it<br />
takes to get it done right. Our practice<br />
areas include Energy, Clean Tech &<br />
Sustainability, Corporate & Shared<br />
Services, Grid Transformation, and<br />
Rates, Regulation, & Planning. We<br />
deliver a broad array of consulting<br />
services ranging from strategic planning<br />
through implementation across<br />
many industries, business units,<br />
and functions. To learn more, visit<br />
www.scottmadden.com | Twitter |<br />
Facebook | LinkedIn<br />
About ScottMadden Energy<br />
Practice<br />
We know energy from the ground up.<br />
Since 1983, we have been energy<br />
consultants. We have served more<br />
than 400 clients, including 20 of the<br />
top 20 energy utilities. We have performed<br />
more than 3,000 projects<br />
across every energy utility business<br />
unit and every function. We have<br />
helped our clients develop strategies,<br />
improve operations, reorganize companies,<br />
and implement initiatives. Our<br />
broad and deep energy utility expertise<br />
is not theoretical – it is experience<br />
based.<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 391<br />
Fukushima nuclear accident. [11] As<br />
a result, despite the addition of significant<br />
renewable resources, there is<br />
limited progress in reducing total<br />
carbon emissions in the electricity<br />
sector due to the early retirement of<br />
nuclear plants. In fact, greenhouse gas<br />
emission from the electricity sector has<br />
only decreased 3 % from 2000 to 2015<br />
(see Figure 4). [12]<br />
Conclusion: Rapid and deep<br />
carbon reductions require<br />
nuclear assets<br />
Investments in renewables have made<br />
a significant contribution to emissionfree<br />
electricity generation. For those<br />
concerned with climate change, this<br />
represents a meaningful step in the<br />
right direction. The early retirement of<br />
“at-risk” nuclear, however, puts the<br />
United States in danger of “giving<br />
back” an amount equivalent to twothirds<br />
of the overall carbon-free generation<br />
supplied from wind and solar. In<br />
states with these nuclear assets, the<br />
loss represents a significantly larger<br />
impact. The losses could become even<br />
greater if more nuclear plants do not<br />
renew operating relicenses.<br />
However, a glimmer of hope<br />
emerges as states, such as New York<br />
and Illinois, are developing policies<br />
to value the carbon-free generation<br />
provided by nuclear plants. Even<br />
environ mentalists are beginning to<br />
offer support for nuclear energy. In<br />
Illinois, the Union of Concerned<br />
Scientists called the Future Energy<br />
Jobs Bill “one of the most comprehensive<br />
state energy bills ever crafted<br />
and is the most important climate<br />
bill in Illinois history.” [13] In addition,<br />
an open letter signed by more<br />
than 70 ecologists and conservation<br />
researchers stated that wind and solar<br />
are promising, but “nuclear power –<br />
being by far the most compact and<br />
energy dense of sources – could also<br />
make a major, and perhaps leading,<br />
contribution” to carbon emission<br />
reductions. [14]<br />
If nuclear plants are not saved in<br />
the near term, it will put the entire<br />
industry at risk. For once a nuclear<br />
plant shuts down, it will not come<br />
back. If enough nuclear plants shut<br />
down, a tipping point may be reached<br />
for the entire industry in the United<br />
States, and we will lose forever that<br />
carbon-free generation. [15] While<br />
one might argue that in the long run,<br />
this nuclear hole may be filled with<br />
renewables and other evolving clean<br />
technologies, in the near term it is<br />
certain that a rapid and deep carbon<br />
reduction will require these nuclear<br />
assets.<br />
About the Authors<br />
Chris Vlahoplus is a partner and leads<br />
the firm’s Clean Tech & Sustainability<br />
practice, Ed Baker is a partner and<br />
co-leads the firm’s nuclear and gas<br />
practices, Sean Lawrie is a partner and<br />
co-leads the firm’s nuclear practice,<br />
Paul Quinlan is a clean tech manager,<br />
and Benjamin Lozier is an energy<br />
research analyst.<br />
This report is one of a series of<br />
ScottMadden white papers on clean<br />
energy technologies and is based on<br />
our independent analysis. The<br />
contents have been updated from the<br />
initial version to reflect the recent<br />
change of FirstEnergy Solutions units<br />
from “in jeopardy” to “announced.”<br />
References<br />
[1] Data obtained from Bloomberg New<br />
Energy Finance’s <strong>2018</strong> Sustainable<br />
Energy in America Factbook. Wind<br />
capacity is reported in AC; solar<br />
capacity is reported in DC.<br />
[2] New York State Department of Public<br />
Service, Governor Cuomo Announces<br />
Establishment of Clean Energy Standard<br />
that Mandates 50 Percent Renewables<br />
by 2030.<br />
[3] Forbes, Illinois Sees The Light – Retains<br />
Nuclear Power. December 4, 2016.<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
While You Were Sleeping: The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States ı Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 392<br />
[4] Connecticut Department of Energy &<br />
Environmental Protection Connecticut<br />
Public Utilities Regulatory Authority,<br />
Resource Assessment of Millstone<br />
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 59 and<br />
Public Act 17-3; Determination<br />
Pursuant to Public Act 17-3. February 1,<br />
<strong>2018</strong>.<br />
[5] Capacity was calculated using net<br />
summer peak capacity obtained from<br />
SNL Financial. Generation was<br />
calculated using 92.3 % capacity factor,<br />
which represents the average capacity<br />
factor for the U.S. nuclear fleet in 2016<br />
as reported by the Energy Information<br />
Administration.<br />
[6] Data obtained from Bloomberg New<br />
Energy Finance’s <strong>2018</strong> Sustainable<br />
Energy in America Factbook. Wind<br />
capacity is reported in AC; solar<br />
capacity is reported in DC.<br />
Deutsche Sekretariatsführung ISO/TC<br />
85/SC 6 Reactor-Technology<br />
Janine Winkler und Michael Petri<br />
[7] Average capacity factor of utility-scale<br />
generators in 2016: nuclear 92.3 %,<br />
wind 34.5 %, utility-scale solar 25.1 %,<br />
and solar thermal 22.2 %. Source:<br />
Energy Information Administration,<br />
Electric Power Annual. Distributed solar<br />
capacity factors are often below 20 %.<br />
[8] These states include California,<br />
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,<br />
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska,<br />
New Jersey, New York, Ohio,<br />
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin.<br />
[9] The New York Times. Germany’s Shift to<br />
Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge<br />
Investments. October 7, 2017.<br />
[10] German Environment Agency on the<br />
basis of Working Group on Renewable<br />
Energy Statistics (AGEE-Stat)<br />
[11] The Economist. Is Germany's Energiewende<br />
Cutting GHG Emissions? March<br />
20, 2017.<br />
[12] United Nations Framework Convention<br />
on Climate Change Data Interface<br />
[13] Union of Concerned Scientists. A Huge<br />
Success in Illinois: Future Energy Jobs Bill<br />
Signed Into Law. December 8, 2016.<br />
[14] The Washington Post. Why Climate<br />
Change Is Forcing Some<br />
Environmentalists to Back Nuclear<br />
Power. December 16, 2014.<br />
Authors<br />
Chris Vlahoplus<br />
Ed Baker<br />
Sean Lawrie<br />
Paul Quinlan<br />
Benjamin Lozier<br />
ScottMadden<br />
2626 Glenwood Ave., Suite 480<br />
Raleigh, NC 27608, USA<br />
Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU), vertreten durch die<br />
KTA-Geschäftsstelle, hat DIN ab <strong>2018</strong> die Sekretariatsführung des ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor technology zusammen mit<br />
China übernommen. Ziel ist hierbei, den deutschen Einfluss in der internationalen Normung zu erhöhen und die<br />
Möglichkeit wahrzunehmen, deutsche Normen und KTA-Regeln in die internationalen Normen zu überführen. Damit<br />
möchte Deutschland international seinen Beitrag für die nukleare Sicherheit bei der friedlichen Nutzung der<br />
Kernenergie leisten.<br />
Einleitung<br />
Im Jahr 2017 fanden bei DIN mehrere<br />
Workshops in Zusammenarbeit mit<br />
dem Bundesministerium für Umwelt,<br />
Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit<br />
(BMU) und der KTA-Geschäftsstelle<br />
(Kerntechnischen Ausschuss – KTA)<br />
statt, um den aktuellen Stand der<br />
Normung im Bereich der Kerntechnik<br />
zu eruieren und das weitere Vorgehen<br />
über das Jahr 2022 hinaus zu planen.<br />
Die Workshops haben verdeutlicht,<br />
dass der aktuelle Stand der Gesetzgebung<br />
im Verbund mit den nachgeordneten<br />
Regeln in der Kerntechnik<br />
und im Strahlenschutz verlässlich<br />
ist und die deutschen Regeln international<br />
sehr geachtet sind und bereits<br />
in einigen Ländern verwendet<br />
werden. Die Herausforderung ist es<br />
daher, die aufgebaute Kompetenz zu<br />
erhalten und zusammen mit anderen<br />
internationalen Institutionen weiterzuentwickeln.<br />
Zusätzlich sind die veränderten<br />
Anforderungen in Bezug auf den<br />
bevorstehenden Ausstieg Deutschlands<br />
aus der Kerntechnik zu berücksichtigen.<br />
Bei DIN hat dies bereits zu<br />
einer Verlagerung der Aktivitäten<br />
geführt, wobei der Fokus nun stärker<br />
auf dem Bereich der Normen zum<br />
Strahlenschutz liegt. Hierzu zählen<br />
die Normen für z.B. Radionuklidlabore<br />
für die Medizin, den Brandschutz<br />
oder auch Abschirmeinrichtungen.<br />
DIN wird auch weiterhin<br />
sicherstellen, die Normen für den<br />
Leistungsbetrieb auf dem aktuellen<br />
Stand von Wissenschaft und Technik<br />
zu halten.<br />
Im Kerntechnischen Ausschuss<br />
(KTA) wird ebenfalls diskutiert, wie<br />
die Regelwerksarbeit im KTA – über<br />
2022 hinaus – gestaltet werden kann.<br />
In diesem Zusammenhang hat das<br />
BMU einvernehmlich mit dem KTA-<br />
Präsidium beschlossen, dass die KTA-<br />
Geschäftsstelle (KTA-GS) verstärkt die<br />
Koordination und Mitarbeit bei der<br />
internationalen Normung für Kernkraftwerke<br />
übernehmen soll. Dies<br />
impliziert eine aktivere Mitarbeit der<br />
KTA-GS in allen wichtigen internationalen<br />
Normungsgremien, insbesondere<br />
in den Gremien, in denen<br />
dies bisher nur punktuell erfolgt ist<br />
(ISO, CEN, ASME), um die deutschen<br />
Interessen, die im KTA gebündelt<br />
sind (Betreiber, Hersteller, Behörden,<br />
Gutachter), möglichst effektiv auch<br />
international zu vertreten und zu<br />
koordinieren. Wesentliche Gesichtspunkte<br />
bei dieser Entscheidung waren<br />
die enge Verzahnung zwischen<br />
KTA-Regeln und den thematisch zugehörigen<br />
nationalen Normen. Die<br />
zunehmende Bedeutung der Standardisierung<br />
im internationalen Bereich<br />
(insbesondere bei kerntechnischen<br />
„Newcomern“ wie z. B. Bangladesch,<br />
Türkei, VAE) erfordert ein aus<br />
deutscher Sicht ausreichendes Niveau<br />
sowie die Schließung noch vorhandener<br />
Lücken im internationalen Regelwerk.<br />
Außerdem ist festzustellen, dass<br />
aufgrund der begrenzten Laufzeit der<br />
deutschen Kernkraftwerke bis Ende<br />
2022 eine abnehmende Bereitschaft<br />
seitens der Betreiber und Gutachter<br />
absehbar und auch bereits erkennbar<br />
ist, Experten in internationale Regelgremien<br />
zu entsenden. In Abstimmung<br />
zwischen BMU und dem KTA-<br />
Präsidium ist daher vorgesehen, dies<br />
– soweit möglich – durch eine verstärkte<br />
Aktivität von Mitarbeitern der<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor Technology ı Janine Winkler and Michael Petri
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
KTA-GS und durch Entsendung von<br />
weiteren Experten im Auftrag des<br />
BMU aufzufangen.<br />
1 Zusammenhang<br />
zwischen KTA-Regeln,<br />
internationalen und<br />
nationalen Normen<br />
Der Zusammenhang zwischen technischen<br />
Normen, wie den Regeln des<br />
Kerntechnischen Ausschusses (KTA),<br />
und DIN-Normen und den einschlägigen<br />
Gesetzen und Verordnungen<br />
ist rechtlich begründet (siehe<br />
Abbildung 1). Während das Atomgesetz<br />
[1] und das Strahlenschutzgesetz<br />
[2] Hoheitsaufgaben des<br />
Staates sind, liegt die Erarbeitung von<br />
technischen Normen in der Selbstverwaltung<br />
der Wirtschaft. Dies bedeutet<br />
zum einen, dass die staatlichen Vorgaben<br />
meist einen sehr viel geringeren<br />
Detaillierungsgrad aufweisen und<br />
somit auf weiterführende Dokumente<br />
verweisen müssen (wie z.B. auf DIN-<br />
Normen), und zum anderen, dass,<br />
obwohl der Detaillierungsgrad größer<br />
ist, technische Normen wesentlich<br />
flexibler hinsichtlich der Erarbeitung<br />
und Überarbeitung sind. Die Erarbeitung<br />
von technischen Normen ist ein<br />
offener Prozess (siehe auch Abschnitt<br />
4), wobei die Beteiligung einer<br />
breiteren Öffentlichkeit durch Einspruchsverfahren<br />
erfolgt [3].<br />
Es wird in 22 DIN-Normen auf<br />
KTA-Regeln verwiesen, während andererseits<br />
in 67 KTA-Regeln auf<br />
DIN-Normen verwiesen wird. Diese<br />
Zahlen verdeutlichen die enge Verflechtung<br />
von DIN-Normen und KTA-<br />
Regeln und zeigen auch, dass DIN-<br />
Normen praxisrelevant für den Alltag<br />
in kerntechnischen Anlagen sind. Als<br />
Beispiel kann hier die KTA 3201.4 [4]<br />
aufgeführt werden, in welcher nicht<br />
weniger als 14-mal auf DIN-Normen<br />
verwiesen wird. Formulierungen wie<br />
„nach dem Stand von Wissenschaft<br />
und Technik“ deuten auf weitere Verweise<br />
auf Normen hin, werden aber<br />
nicht explizit angegeben.<br />
Zwischen dem KTA und DIN e. V.<br />
besteht ein Vertrag [5], der genau<br />
regelt, wer welche technischen Regeln<br />
aufstellt, wobei es unter § 2 heißt „das<br />
DIN erarbeitet ferner solche Normen,<br />
die das Regelwerk des KTA außerhalb<br />
des sicherheitstechnischen Bereiches<br />
ergänzt“. Ein für die internationalen<br />
Normungsaktivitäten wichtiger Aspekt<br />
wird unter § 9 der Vereinbarung angesprochen<br />
und besagt „das DIN vertritt<br />
die Fachmeinung des KTA auf internationaler<br />
und europäischer Ebene“.<br />
Die Erarbeitung von neuen KTA-<br />
Regeln und DIN-Normen im Bereich<br />
| | Abb. 1.<br />
Pyramide.<br />
der Kernreaktoren ist allerdings stark<br />
rückläufig, was auch Auswirkungen<br />
auf die Beteiligung in den jeweiligen<br />
Gremien hat. Eine Fortschreibung<br />
bzw. Aktualisierung wird somit immer<br />
schwieriger. Daher muss ein neuer<br />
Weg beschritten werden und der erarbeitete<br />
Stand in andere Normen und<br />
Regeln einfließen, die auch in Zukunft<br />
bearbeitet werden. Wie auch in<br />
anderen Bereichen außerhalb der<br />
Kerntechnik ist daher die Über führung<br />
in die internationale Normung eine<br />
Möglichkeit den erarbeiteten Stand<br />
von Wissenschaft und Technik zu<br />
erhalten und weiterzugeben (Abbildung<br />
2).<br />
2 Internationale<br />
Normungsarbeit<br />
des ISO/TC 85/SC 6<br />
Das ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor technology<br />
ist zuständig für die Normung<br />
im Bereich Kernkraftwerke und<br />
Forschungsreaktoren. Der Geltungsbereich<br />
umfasst dabei Standortauswahl,<br />
Konstruktion, Bau, Betrieb<br />
und Stilllegung. Die Standortauswahl<br />
umfasst alle Arten von kerntechnischen<br />
Anlagen und alle Themen wie<br />
Hochwasser, seismische Gefahren<br />
usw. Forschungsreaktoren umfassen<br />
eine Vielzahl von Einrichtungen:<br />
Erzeugung von Neutronenstrahlen,<br />
Bestrahlung von Proben, Herstellung<br />
von Isotope (insbesondere Produktion<br />
für Nuklear medizin) und Testreaktoren<br />
oder Prototypen neuer Technologien.<br />
Die Normung im Bereich<br />
der Stilllegung beschränkt sich<br />
auf reaktorspezifische technische<br />
Themen.<br />
Die Erarbeitung der internationalen<br />
Normen des ISO/TC 85/SC 6<br />
findet in den einzelnen Arbeitsgruppen<br />
des SC 6 statt (Abbildung<br />
3). Die Abstimmung über Annahme<br />
und weiteres Vorgehen zu den<br />
| | Abb. 2.<br />
Ablösung nationaler Normung durch internationale und europäische<br />
Normen.<br />
internationalen Norm-Entwürfen<br />
findet im SC 6 selbst statt. Das SC 6<br />
arbeitet dabei weitgehend unabhängig<br />
vom übergeordneten ISO/TC<br />
85, mit welchem lediglich eine<br />
Koordinierung der Arbeiten stattfindet.<br />
Bezüglich einer engeren<br />
Zusam menarbeit ist insbesondere das<br />
SC 5 zu nennen, welches teilweise in<br />
gleichen Auf gabengebieten arbeitet,<br />
allerdings mit dem Kernthema des<br />
Brennstoffkreislaufes.<br />
Die Arbeitsgruppe 1 (Working<br />
Group 1 – WG 1) beschäftigt sich<br />
mit der Entwicklung, der Pflege und<br />
Förderung von Normen für Berechnungen,<br />
Analysen und Messungen<br />
zur Unterstützung der Reaktorkernphysik.<br />
Solche internationalen<br />
Normen liefern u. a. Kriterien für<br />
die Auswahl nuklearer Daten und<br />
com putergestützter Methoden; geeignete<br />
Benchmark-Problemspezifikationen<br />
zur Verifizierung der vom<br />
Reaktorkern verwendeten Berechnungs<br />
methoden, Kriterien für die<br />
Bewertung der Genauigkeit und der<br />
Anwendbarkeit von Datenmethoden;<br />
Methoden der Verifikation und der<br />
Abschätzung von Unsicherheiten. Die<br />
WG 1 wird von einem amerikanischen<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 393<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor Technology ı Janine Winkler and Michael Petri
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 394<br />
| | Abb. 3.<br />
Struktur des Unterkomitees 6 im ISO/TC 85.<br />
Convenor geführt und bearbeitet<br />
derzeit 6 Projekte:<br />
• ISO/NP 19226 Determination of<br />
neutron fluence and displacement<br />
per atom (dpa) in reactor vessel<br />
and internals<br />
• ISO/NP 18<strong>07</strong>7 Reload Startup<br />
Physics Tests for Pressurized Water<br />
Reactors<br />
• ISO/DIS 10979 Identification of<br />
fuel assemblies for nuclear power<br />
reactors<br />
• ISO/AWI 23018 Group-Averaged<br />
Neutron and Gamma-Ray Cross<br />
Sections for Radiation Protection<br />
and Shielding Calculations for<br />
Nuclear Reactors<br />
• ISO/NP 23468 Determination<br />
of heavy water isotopic purity<br />
by Fourier Transform Infrared<br />
Spectroscopy<br />
• ISO/PWI 18156 Technical specification<br />
guide for decay heat computation<br />
codes in nuclear reactors<br />
Die Arbeitsgruppe 2 (WG 2) beschäftigt<br />
sich mit der Entwicklung, Pflege<br />
und Förderung von Normen für<br />
Auslegung, Konstruktion, Betrieb,<br />
Wartung, Nutzung und Stilllegung<br />
von Forschungs- und Testreaktoren.<br />
Die WG 2 wurde bislang ebenfalls<br />
von einem amerikanischen Convenor<br />
geführt, der diese Position letztes Jahr<br />
übernommen hat aber nicht weiter<br />
wahrnehmen kann. Dieses Jahr hat<br />
sich China bereit erklärt die Führung<br />
der Arbeitsgruppe 2 zu übernehmen,<br />
der vorgesehene Fokus der Arbeiten<br />
wird sich dann auf Fusionsreaktoren<br />
sowie Forschungsreaktoren für die<br />
Herstellung von Isotopen für die<br />
Nuklearmedizin richten. Die Arbeitsgruppe<br />
hat allerdings derzeit keine<br />
Projekte.<br />
Die Arbeitsgruppe 3 (WG 3)<br />
beschäftigt sich mit der Entwicklung,<br />
der Pflege und Förderung von Normen,<br />
die sich mit allen Themen zum Standort,<br />
Konstruktion, Betrieb und Stilllegung<br />
von Kernkraftwerken auseinander<br />
setzen. Der Betrieb umfasst<br />
dabei auch die Notaus rüstungen.<br />
Weiterhin werden inter nationale Normen<br />
für nicht- elek trischen Anwendungen<br />
und trans portable Kernreak toren<br />
erarbeitet. Die WG 3 wird durch einen<br />
französischen Convenor geführt und<br />
hat momentan mit 12 Projekten ein<br />
sehr anspruchsvolles Arbeits pensum.<br />
• ISO/DIS 18195 Method for the<br />
justification of fire partitioning in<br />
water cooled NPP<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-1 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 1: Mechanized<br />
ultrasonic testing<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-2 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 2: Magnetic particle<br />
and penetrant testing<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-3 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 3: Hydrostatic<br />
testing<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-4 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 4: Visual testing<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-5 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 5: Eddy current<br />
testing of steam generator heating<br />
tubes<br />
• ISO/DIS 20890-6 In-service inspections<br />
for primary coolant<br />
circuit components of light water<br />
reactors – Part 6: Radiographic<br />
testing<br />
• ISO/CD 21146 Classification of<br />
Transients and Accidents for<br />
Pressurized Water Reactor<br />
• ISO/NP 23466 Design criteria for<br />
the thermal insulation of reactor<br />
coolant system main equipments<br />
and pipings of PWR nuclear power<br />
plants<br />
• ISO/NP 23467 Guidance of ice<br />
plug isolation technique for<br />
nuclear power station<br />
• ISO/PWI 18583 Technical Spe cifications<br />
for the connection of Mobile<br />
Equipments for Emergency Intervention<br />
on Nuclear Instal lation<br />
• ISO/PWI 19462 Criteria for Assessing<br />
Atmospheric Effects on the<br />
Ultimate Heat Sink<br />
In diesem Arbeitsprogramm sei<br />
insbesondere auf die Reihe ISO/DIS<br />
20890 hingewiesen, welche der erste<br />
deutsche Vorschlag im SC 6 ist und<br />
der deutschen Normenreihe DIN<br />
25435 in großen Teilen entspricht.<br />
Das vorhandene Arbeitsvolumen<br />
wird voraussichtlich weiter zunehmen,<br />
da ein Großteil der DIN-Normen<br />
und KTA-Regeln, die als Grundlage<br />
für die Erarbeitung entsprechender<br />
internationaler Normen geeignet<br />
sind, in den Aufgabenbereich der<br />
WG 3 fallen.<br />
Bis vor etwa 6 Jahren war das SC 6<br />
eher inaktiv, mit insgesamt 6 veröffentlichten<br />
Normen, von denen eine<br />
zurückgezogen wurde. Diese Normen<br />
wurden vor etwa 20 Jahren erarbeitet.<br />
Vor etwa 6 Jahren, nach den Reaktorunfällen<br />
von Fukushima, kam es zu<br />
einer Wiederbelebung. Das Sekretariat<br />
wurde in diesem Zeitraum durch<br />
die USA (ANSI) geführt. Im Jahr 2017<br />
und <strong>2018</strong> wurden 5 neue Normen erarbeitet<br />
und veröffentlicht, was zu<br />
einer Verdopplung der vorhandenen<br />
Normen im Arbeitsprogramm des SC<br />
6 geführt hat.<br />
Auf seiner Plenarsitzung in Helsinki<br />
hat das SC 6 weiterhin festgelegt,<br />
dass es eine Roadmap für die Ausrichtung<br />
seines zukünftigen Arbeitsprogrammes<br />
erstellen wird. Hierzu wird<br />
es im Rahmen der nächsten Sitzungswoche<br />
im Mai 2019 in Berlin einen<br />
Workshop geben, bei dem die Bedürfnisse<br />
der beteiligten Länder herausgearbeitet<br />
werden sollen. Weiterhin soll<br />
dann auch die Zusammenarbeit mit<br />
dem SC 5 sowie anderen Organisationen,<br />
wie IAEA, Europäische Kommission<br />
untersucht und systematisch<br />
aufgearbeitet werden.<br />
3 Deutsche<br />
Sekretariatsführung<br />
Im August 2017 hat ANSI mitgeteilt,<br />
dass sie das Sekretariat des SC 6 aus<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor Technology ı Janine Winkler and Michael Petri
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
kapazitiven Gründen abgeben wollen.<br />
Daraufhin hat das ISO/TC 85 eine<br />
Umfrage zur Neuvergabe des Sekretariats<br />
durchgeführt.<br />
Diese Umfrage hat DIN an seine<br />
interessierten Kreise im Fachbeirat<br />
„Kerntechnik und Strahlenschutz“<br />
weitergegeben. Seitens des BMU gab<br />
es großes Interesse, dieses Sekretariat<br />
aus strategischen Gründen zu besetzen.<br />
Eine Zusage der Finanzierung<br />
wurde ebenfalls ausgesprochen. Ziel<br />
des BMU ist es, ein Konzept zur<br />
Wahrung der Kompetenz durch die<br />
Mitarbeit und die Einbringung des<br />
deutschen Standes von Wissenschaft<br />
und Technik in verschiedene internationale<br />
Regelsetzungen umzusetzen.<br />
Die Motivation des BMU ist es,<br />
einen hohen Qualitätsstandard in den<br />
internationalen Regelwerken sicherzu<br />
stellen, der den nationalen sicherheitstechnischen<br />
Anforderungen in<br />
der Anwendung der friedlichen Kerntechnik<br />
und der sonstigen Anwendungen,<br />
wie z. B. Forschung, Strahlenschutz,<br />
Medizin etc. gerecht wird.<br />
Als erster Schritt soll daher die<br />
Sekretariatsführung durch DIN diesen<br />
hohen Standard bei den vorhandenen<br />
Projekten, neuen Vorschlägen für<br />
internationale Normen und den<br />
älteren ISO-Normen des SC 6 unterstützen.<br />
DIN hat sich daher um die<br />
Sekretariatsführung beworben und<br />
dieses nach einem positiven Beschluss<br />
des ISO Technical Management Board<br />
übernommen. Als nächster Schritt ist<br />
vorgesehen, in Zusammenarbeit mit<br />
der Geschäftsstelle des Kerntechnischen<br />
Ausschusses (KTA-GS) fehlende<br />
Standards in den Bereichen Hochwasserschutz,<br />
Seismik und Blitzschutz<br />
einzubringen und als internationale<br />
Normen zu etablieren. Weiterhin<br />
wird das BMU auch Experten<br />
von DIN unterstützen, welche sich in<br />
der internationalen Normung beteiligen<br />
um DIN-Normen im Bereich der<br />
Konstruktion, Betrieb und Konta mina<br />
tions überwachung/Freimessungen<br />
in die internationale Normung zu<br />
überführen.<br />
Ein weiteres Ziel des deutschen<br />
Sekretariats wird es sein, die Teilnahme<br />
der aktiven und passiven Mitglieder<br />
von ISO/TC 85/SC 6 in den<br />
Sitzungen und bei der Erarbeitung<br />
von Normen in den drei Arbeitsgruppen<br />
zu verbessern. Darüber<br />
hinaus soll die Zusammenarbeit<br />
innerhalb des ISO/TC 85 und die<br />
Verbindungen zu Organisationen<br />
außerhalb der ISO-Struktur, wie<br />
z. B. zu IAEA, aktiver gestaltet werden.<br />
Die Zusammenarbeit innerhalb<br />
des ISO/TC 85 mit den anderen<br />
| | Abb. 4.<br />
Sitzung des ISO/TC 85/SC 6/WG 3 im Mai <strong>2018</strong> in Helsinki.<br />
beiden Unterkomitees innerhalb von<br />
ISO/TC 85 und insbesondere mit<br />
ISO TC 85/SC 5, Nuclear installations,<br />
processes and technologies soll intensiviert<br />
werden. Weiterhin hat Deutschland<br />
die Unterkomitees SC 5 und SC 6<br />
2019 zur jährlichen Sitzung nach<br />
Berlin eingeladen, um die Idee einer<br />
engen Zusammenarbeit zu unterstützen<br />
(Abbildung 4).<br />
Das ISO/TMB hat weiterhin entschieden,<br />
dass DIN die Sekretariatsführung<br />
des SC 6 nicht alleine übernimmt,<br />
sondern dem Vorschlag von<br />
DIN folgend, zusammen mit China als<br />
twinning secretariat. Dies bedeutet,<br />
dass ein entwickeltes Land, welches<br />
sehr aktiv bei ISO ist und die ISO-<br />
Regeln beherrscht, ein sich entwickelndes<br />
Land, welches noch nicht<br />
so aktiv bei ISO ist und die ISO-Regeln<br />
nicht im Detail kennt, unterstützt.<br />
Beide Partner innerhalb des twinning<br />
secretariat müssen sich mittels<br />
einer Vereinbarung über die Aufgabenteilung<br />
verständigen. Das primäre<br />
Ziel eines twinning secretariat ist es,<br />
die Fähigkeit des sich entwickelnden<br />
Landes aufzubauen und die Teil nahme<br />
an der ISO-Arbeit zu ver bessern. Die<br />
Ziele bei einem twinning secretariat<br />
sollten daher auch die Ziele des<br />
Entwicklungslandes und seine nationalen<br />
Pläne sowie Strategien umfassen.<br />
Die twinning secretariat-<br />
Vereinbarung sollte daher einen kontinuierlichen<br />
Prozess der Einbindung<br />
und Beteiligung des Entwicklungslandes<br />
in die Sekretariatsführung<br />
abbilden, eine Nachverfolgung der<br />
vereinbarten Ziele enthalten und falls<br />
notwendig, Korrekturmaßnahmen in<br />
der Zusammenarbeit zulassen. Das Ergebnis<br />
des twinning secretariat sollte<br />
es sein, dass das Entwicklungsland<br />
nach der vereinbarten Zeit des twinnings<br />
die Fähigkeit aufgebaut hat, die<br />
Sekretariatsführung selbstständig und<br />
entsprechend den ISO- Regeln korrekt<br />
durchzuführen und hauptverantwortlich<br />
zu übernehmen.<br />
Für das deutsche Sekretariat hat<br />
dies den Vorteil, dass mit Laufe der<br />
Vertragszeit die administrative Last<br />
weniger wird und es sich verstärkt auf<br />
inhaltliche Aspekte und die Qualität<br />
der entstehenden Normen konzentrieren<br />
kann. Weiterhin ist dies ein<br />
hervorragendes Mittel zur Stärkung<br />
einer strategischen Partnerschaft mit<br />
China.<br />
Außerdem erhofft sich Deutschland<br />
durch die gemeinsame Partnerschaft<br />
eine erhöhte Beteiligung asiatischer<br />
Länder in der Erarbeitung von<br />
internationalen Normen im ISO/TC<br />
85/SC 6 sowie deren Akzeptanz und<br />
Anwendung.<br />
Das twinning ist für das ISO/TC<br />
85/SC 6 auf zwei Ebenen vorgesehen,<br />
d. h. es wird neben einer deutschen<br />
Sekretärin (Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Janine<br />
Winkler) einen chinesischen Co-<br />
Sekretär geben und neben dem deutschen<br />
Chairman (Dr. Michael Petri)<br />
eine Vize-Chair aus China. Zeitlich ist<br />
das twinning vorerst auf drei Jahre<br />
beschränkt, wobei eine Verlängerung<br />
um drei Jahre optional ist.<br />
4 Erarbeitung von<br />
internationalen Normen<br />
DIN vertritt die Normungsinteressen<br />
Deutschlands in der International<br />
Organization for Standardization<br />
(ISO). Dabei ist jedem internationalen<br />
Normungsgremium ein nationales<br />
Spiegelgremium bei DIN zugeordnet.<br />
Dieses nationale Spiegelgremium<br />
entscheidet über die aktive Mitarbeit<br />
auf internationaler Ebene, eruiert<br />
die deutsche Meinung und entsendet<br />
Experten in die weltweit tagenden<br />
internationalen Gremien, um die<br />
nationale Position zu vertreten<br />
oder – bei Projekten von besonderem<br />
nationalen Interesse – die ISO-<br />
Projektleitung zu übernehmen. Die<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 395<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor Technology ı Janine Winkler and Michael Petri
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 396<br />
| | Abb. 5.<br />
Delegationsprinzip.<br />
nationalen Spiegelgremien entscheiden<br />
zusätzlich über die Übernahme<br />
internationaler Normen in das nationale<br />
Normenwerk, welche freiwillig<br />
ist.<br />
Die Erarbeitung der internationalen<br />
Normen vollzieht sich in den<br />
Technischen Komitees und deren<br />
Unterkomitees und Arbeitsgruppen.<br />
Alle ISO-Mitglieder haben das Recht,<br />
in jedem beliebigen Technischen<br />
Komitee (TC) oder Unterkomitee (SC)<br />
ihrer Organisation mitzuarbeiten<br />
( aktive Mitarbeit: P-Mitglieder, Mitwirkung<br />
als Beobachter: O – Mitglieder).<br />
Die Arbeit ist dezentralisiert; die<br />
Sekretariate dieser Gremien werden<br />
jeweils durch ein Mitglied betreut. Die<br />
Zentralsekretariate der ISO in Genf<br />
sind für folgende Aufgaben zuständig:<br />
Allgemeine Verwaltung, Unterstützung<br />
bei der Planung, Koordinierung<br />
der Facharbeit, Durchführung der<br />
Umfrage- und Annahmeverfahren<br />
und Veröffentlichung von internationalen<br />
Normen und anderen Publikationen,<br />
Betreuung der Organe außer<br />
der Technischen Komitees.<br />
Vorschläge für die Erarbeitung<br />
internationaler Normen (oder auch<br />
deren Überarbeitung oder Änderung)<br />
können von verschiedenen Seiten<br />
eingebracht werden. Erhält der Vorschlag<br />
ausreichende Unterstützung,<br />
wird er in das Arbeitsprogramm des<br />
TC oder SC aufgenommen. Zur Aufnahme<br />
ist eine einfache Mehrheit der<br />
P Mitglieder notwendig sowie eine<br />
Verpflichtungserklärung zur aktiven<br />
Mitarbeit von mindestens fünf – dem<br />
Vorschlag zustimmenden – P-Mitgliedern.<br />
Damit ist die Vorschlagsstufe<br />
(Proposal Stage) abgeschlossen.<br />
Ein TC oder SC kann auch vorläufige<br />
Norm-Projekte (Preliminary Work<br />
Items) in sein Arbeitsprogramm aufnehmen,<br />
die für eine Bearbeitung<br />
noch nicht reif sind. Sie werden auf<br />
einer Bereitschaftsstufe (Preliminary<br />
Stage) gehalten und vom Komitee<br />
regelmäßig auf ihre Bearbeitbarkeit<br />
hin überprüft.<br />
Die nächste Bearbeitungsstufe<br />
(Preparatory Stage) umfasst die<br />
Ausarbeitung eines Arbeitsentwurfes<br />
(Working Draft – WD). Dies geschieht<br />
normalerweise auf Arbeitsgruppenebene.<br />
Meist sind mehrere aufeinanderfolgende<br />
WD erforderlich, bis ein<br />
weitestgehend stabiles Arbeitsergebnis<br />
als Entwurfsvorschlag (Committee<br />
Draft – CD) registriert werden und in<br />
die nachfolgende Komiteestufe (Committee<br />
Stage) gehen kann.<br />
Auf der Komiteestufe wird das<br />
Dokument dem TC oder SC schriftlich<br />
zur Kommentierung unterbreitet. Die<br />
zuständige Arbeitsgruppe (Working<br />
Group – WG) sichtet die eingegangenen<br />
Kommentare und erarbeitet<br />
einen Vorschlag für das weitere Vorgehen.<br />
Der Beschluss zur Einreichung<br />
als internationaler Norm-Entwurf ist<br />
im Konsens zu fassen (Konsens gilt als<br />
erreicht, wenn keine Einwände gegen<br />
wesentliche Teile des Dokumentes<br />
aufrechterhalten werden; er bedingt<br />
nicht Einstimmigkeit).<br />
In der Umfragestufe (Enquiry<br />
Stage) wird der Internationale Norm-<br />
Entwurf (Draft International Standard<br />
– DIS) allen Mitgliedern von ISO<br />
zur Prüfung und Abstimmung (Ja,<br />
Nein, oder Enthaltung) innerhalb von<br />
fünf Monaten vorgelegt. Fachliche<br />
Kommentare können eingereicht<br />
werden; ihre Annahme darf bei einer<br />
Ja-Stimme aber nicht zur Bedingung<br />
gemacht werden. Ist der DIS für ein<br />
Mitglied in der vorliegenden Form<br />
nicht annehmbar, muss dieses deshalb<br />
mit Nein stimmen und die fachlichen<br />
Gründe dafür angeben. Die Annahme<br />
| | Abb. 6.<br />
Entstehung einer internationalen Norm.<br />
des DIS erfordert eine Zwei-Drittel-<br />
Mehrheit der P-Mitglieder des zuständigen<br />
TC oder SC und zugleich<br />
eine Drei-Viertel-Mehrheit aller abgegebenen<br />
Stimmen (ohne Enthaltungen).<br />
Nach Ablauf der Umfrage<br />
trifft der Vorsitzende des TC oder SC<br />
in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Sekretär<br />
und in Konsultation mit dem Zentralsekretariat<br />
die Entscheidung über das<br />
weitere Vorgehen und das Sekretariat<br />
erstellt einen Bericht über das Umfrageergebnis<br />
und die eingegangenen<br />
Kommentare. Es muss dabei versucht<br />
werden, auch die mit den Nein-<br />
Stimmen verbundenen Probleme zu<br />
lösen. Im Falle eines positiven Ergebnisses<br />
erarbeitet das Sekretariat mit<br />
der Unterstützung der zuständigen<br />
Arbeitsgruppe die endgültige Fassung.<br />
Für den Fall, dass keine einzige<br />
Nein-Stimme vorliegt, führt die<br />
Umfragestufe direkt zur Veröffentlichungsstufe<br />
(Publication Stage), ansonsten<br />
endet die Umfragestufe mit<br />
der Registrierung des Dokumentes<br />
als Internationaler Schluss-Entwurf<br />
durch das Zentralsekretariat.<br />
In der Annahmestufe (Approval<br />
Stage) wird der Internationale<br />
Schluss- Entwurf (Final Draft International<br />
Standard – FDIS) allen Mitgliedern<br />
von ISO zur Abstimmung<br />
innerhalb von zwei Monaten unterbreitet.<br />
In der Annahmestufe kann der<br />
Schluss-Entwurf sachlich nicht mehr<br />
geändert, sondern nur noch angenommen<br />
oder – mit entsprechender<br />
Begründung – abgelehnt werden.<br />
Die Veröffentlichungsstufe (Publication<br />
Stage) umfasst die abschließende<br />
Korrektur, Veröffentlichung<br />
und Verteilung der Norm durch das<br />
Zentralsekretariat. Die internationale<br />
Norm wird regelmäßig überprüft<br />
(Systematic Review – SR), wobei über<br />
ihren Fortbestand, eine Überarbeitung<br />
oder auch die Zurückziehung<br />
entschieden wird. Bei der ISO erfolgt<br />
dies spätestens nach jeweils fünf<br />
Energy Policy, Economy and Law<br />
German Secretarial Management ISO/TC 85/SC 6 Reactor Technology ı Janine Winkler and Michael Petri
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Jahren. Falls die Überprüfung (SR)<br />
ergibt, dass die Norm aktualisiert<br />
werden muss, folgen die Schritte zur<br />
vollständigen Überarbeitung dem vorangehend<br />
geschilderten Arbeitsablauf<br />
für eine neue Norm.<br />
5 Schlussfolgerung<br />
Trotz der politischen Entscheidung<br />
Deutschlands aus der Kerntechnik<br />
auszuscheiden, wird Deutschland<br />
auf Initiative des BMU ein weiteres<br />
internationales Normungsgremium<br />
führend übernehmen. Damit soll auch<br />
in Zukunft ein hohes Niveau der<br />
nuklearen Sicherheit bei der friedlichen<br />
Nutzung der Kernenergie in der<br />
Welt unterstützt und sichergestellt<br />
werden. Im Laufe der nächsten Jahre<br />
wird das BMU – über die Sekretariatsführung<br />
hinaus – die Mitarbeit von<br />
deutschen Experten an internationalen<br />
Projekten unterstützen. Neben<br />
der Fortführung der Regelwerksarbeit<br />
im KTA werden damit auch die dazugehörigen<br />
nationalen und internationalen<br />
Normungsarbeiten unterstützt.<br />
Literatur<br />
[1] Atomgesetz in der Fassung der<br />
Bekanntmachung vom 15. Juli 1985<br />
(BGBl. I S. 1565), das zuletzt durch<br />
Artikel 2 Absatz 2 des Gesetzes vom<br />
20. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2808) geändert<br />
worden ist<br />
[2] SStrahlenschutzgesetz vom 27. Juni<br />
2017 (BGBl. S. 1966), das durch Artikel<br />
2 G des Gesetzes vom 27. Juni 2017<br />
(BGBl. S. 1966) geändert worden ist.<br />
https://goo.gl/qhvNr5<br />
[3] DIN 820-4:2013-06, Normungsarbeit –<br />
Teil 4: Geschäftsgang<br />
[4] KTA 3201.4, Komponenten des Primärkreises<br />
von Leichtwasserreaktoren Teil<br />
4: Wiederkehrende Prüfungen und<br />
Betriebsüberwachung in der Fassung<br />
6/99<br />
[5] DER KERNTECHNISCHE AUSSCHUSS -<br />
Grundlagen und Verfahren – KTA-<br />
GS-63, Anhang E Vereinbarung<br />
zwischen dem KTA und dem DIN<br />
www.kta-gs.de<br />
Authors<br />
Janine Winkler<br />
Dr. Michael Petri<br />
Senior-Projektmanagerin<br />
DIN-Normenausschuss<br />
Materialprüfung (NMP)<br />
Burggrafenstraße 6<br />
1<strong>07</strong>87 Berlin<br />
397<br />
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the<br />
Convective Heat Transfer of an<br />
Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly<br />
Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado<br />
Since the reactor accident in Fukushima Daiichi, the vulnerability of spent fuel pools (SFP) is more focused in nuclear<br />
safety research. In case of a structural damage of the SFP through an external event with a loss of coolant, the coolability<br />
of the spent nuclear fuel is endangered. If the pool is completely drained, the fuel assemblies (FA) are fully uncovered<br />
and only cooled by air. A sufficient decay heat transfer depends on the arising air mass flow from the containment<br />
through the spent FA from bottom to top (chimney effect). Beside analytical approximations from the U.S. Nuclear<br />
Regulatory Commission (NRC) that are partially not publicly accessible only little experimental data about loss of<br />
coolant accidents in SFP exist.<br />
Revised version of a<br />
paper presented at<br />
the Annual Meeting<br />
of Nuclear Technology<br />
(AMNT <strong>2018</strong>), Berlin,<br />
Germany.<br />
This paper presents the experimental<br />
findings about the convective heat<br />
transfer of a boiling water reactor<br />
(BWR) spent FA under the absence of<br />
water. These studies are performed<br />
within the joint project SINABEL that<br />
is funded by the German Federal<br />
Ministry of Education and Research to<br />
investigate the thermal hydraulics of<br />
selected accident scenarios in SFP<br />
experimentally and numerically.<br />
For the experimental investigation,<br />
the test facility ALADIN was build up<br />
in 2016. This mock-up is a full-scale<br />
electrically heated 10x10 rod bundle<br />
surrounded by additional heated rods<br />
to simulate the surrounding and to<br />
adjust nearly adiabatic boundary conditions.<br />
The rod bundle is equipped<br />
with a unique 3-D net of thermocouples<br />
that allows the observation of<br />
the cladding temperature distribution<br />
and temperature development combined<br />
with filling level measurement<br />
and video monitoring. Different experiments<br />
at single rod powers<br />
between (20-100) W were conducted.<br />
The results show that the convective<br />
heat transfer of a BWR FA that<br />
is only cooled by air is strongly inhibited.<br />
Inside the FA channel where<br />
axial flow is not appreciable, the entire<br />
heat has to be transferred in radial<br />
direction requiring large temperature<br />
differences.<br />
1 Introduction<br />
Spent nuclear fuel assemblies (FA)<br />
has to be stored in spent fuel pools<br />
(SFP) after their last operation cycle<br />
in the reactor. The decay heat arising<br />
from the decay of the fission products<br />
has to be removed from the SFP by<br />
active systems during the long-term<br />
storage. In case of a system failure<br />
or a loss of integrity of the SFP, a<br />
boil-off or a partial drain-down<br />
scenario can be postulated. Under<br />
these conditions the FA get exposed<br />
to the air of the containment. The conservative<br />
approach is a single FA in the<br />
middle of the SFP surrounded by other<br />
FA of the same temperature. Heat<br />
can be dissipated only in axial<br />
direction. Crossflows are not possible<br />
because of the design of a boiling<br />
water reactor (BWR) FA especially in<br />
case of the application of high-density<br />
racks. The temperature limit up to<br />
which the integrity of the cladding<br />
is guaranteed depends on the atmosphere,<br />
the cladding material, individual<br />
cladding characteristics and the<br />
accident sequences [1, 2].<br />
In publications, a complete loss of<br />
coolant with a free bottom nozzle can<br />
be found as the ultimate benchmark of<br />
the coolability of FA. Partial draindown<br />
scenarios with a blockade at the<br />
bottom play a minor role [3].<br />
The phenomenology and quantity<br />
of arising flow conditions that occur<br />
Environment and Safety<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the Convective Heat Transfer of an Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly ı Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 398<br />
parameter test facility ALADIN SFP (real plant)<br />
pressure 0.1 MPa 0.1 MPa<br />
maximum power 350 W/rod 200 W/rod<br />
(2 d after reactor shutdown)<br />
heated length<br />
of the rods<br />
inside and around the FA during<br />
air-cooling conditions are focus of<br />
this paper. Therefore, experimental<br />
investigations are conducted at the<br />
test facility ALADIN at Technische<br />
Universität Dresden (TUD) within<br />
the joint project SINABEL. The test<br />
facility ALADIN simulates a generic<br />
full scale BWR FA in a SFP under<br />
accident conditions. The experiments<br />
serves for a better understanding of<br />
the heat transport phenomena in<br />
a FA and their dependencies during<br />
air-cooling conditions.<br />
2 Experimental<br />
investigation<br />
For about 30 years, there have<br />
been investigations at the Chair of<br />
Hydrogen and Nuclear Energy, TUD<br />
to study the safety of BWR. Since<br />
20<strong>07</strong>, the safety of BWR FA inside<br />
SFP is more focused. Vattenfall<br />
Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH initiated<br />
first experiments that were carried<br />
out by TUD at the test facilities<br />
ADELA I (20<strong>07</strong>-2010) and ADELA II<br />
3,600 mm 3,760 mm<br />
(depending on the manufacturer)<br />
cladding material stainless steel Zircaloy<br />
full height<br />
outer dimensions<br />
4,748 mm<br />
350 mm x 350 mm<br />
(plus 70 mm insulation)<br />
| | Tab. 1.<br />
Technical data of the test facility ALADIN in comparison to a SFP (real plant).<br />
(2010-2013). Beside boil-off experiments,<br />
air- cooling experiments were<br />
conducted.<br />
The test facility ADELA-I simulated<br />
a part of a BWR FA with a 3x3<br />
elec trically heated rod bundle with<br />
one additional heater. The experiments<br />
showed great dependence of<br />
the axial temperature profile on the<br />
entering airflow in the upper region<br />
of the rod bundle. Complex flow<br />
conditions could not be studied in<br />
detail [4].<br />
The enhanced test facility ADELA-II<br />
investigated a quarter of a BWR FA.<br />
It consisted of a 5x5 rod bundle<br />
with 8 additional heaters. The experiments<br />
showed the influence of the<br />
convection flows inside the test facility<br />
in dependence of the depth of the test<br />
facility. Significant cooling effects of<br />
ambient air at the top worsening to<br />
the bottom were observed. Consequently,<br />
heat was transferred in radial<br />
direction to the surrounding by<br />
conduction leading to specific axial<br />
heating profiles [5].<br />
2.1 Test facility ALADIN<br />
The test facility ALADIN was designed<br />
to simulate a full FA inside a SFP by<br />
taking the heat transfer mechanisms<br />
with the surrounding into account.<br />
Therefore, the geometric boundary<br />
conditions of a generic BWR FA were<br />
adopted in nearly original scale.<br />
Experiments were conducted under<br />
atmospheric pressure. Plant conditions<br />
shortly after reactor shutdown<br />
until years afterwards can be simulated<br />
with a continuously adjustable<br />
power up to 350 W per rod. The main<br />
technical data is listed in Table 1.<br />
Main component is a central electrically<br />
heated rod bundle consisting<br />
of 96 heating rods in a square arrangement<br />
positioned in an inner channel.<br />
In the outer channel 44 additional<br />
heating rods represent neighboring<br />
FA in the SFP. All channels are connected<br />
hydraulically to each other<br />
at the bottom and top. The outer<br />
surface of the test facility is thermally<br />
shielded by a microporous insulation<br />
with a total width of 70 mm. Simplified<br />
views of the test facility are given<br />
in Figure 1 and Figure 2.<br />
The power supply of the heating<br />
rods is ensured via 13 individually adjustable<br />
power supply units. Hence, it<br />
is possible to create different radial<br />
power profiles. In recent experiments,<br />
a constant profile was chosen due to<br />
low importance of a specific radial<br />
profile. The embossed axial power<br />
distribution of every rod takes the<br />
burn-up of the fuel rods into account<br />
(Figure 3).<br />
To understand the thermal<br />
hydraulic behavior inside the test<br />
facility during the experiments,<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Simplified sectional view of the test facility ALADIN.<br />
| | Fig. 2.<br />
Simplified longitudinal view of the test facility<br />
ALADIN and axial measuring planes.<br />
Environment and Safety<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the Convective Heat Transfer of an Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly ı Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
measuring<br />
plane (level)<br />
position from bottom<br />
to top in mm<br />
| | Tab. 2.<br />
Arrangement of the instrumentation of ALADIN.<br />
cladding and wall surface temperatures<br />
are measured with 216 thermocouples<br />
on 12 different elevations<br />
thereof 125 in the rod bundle on 10<br />
elevations. Inside the test facility,<br />
thermocouples with a diameter of 0.5<br />
mm are used for minimal- intrusiveness<br />
and good temporal resolution.<br />
On the outside, the use of thermocouples<br />
with a diameter of 1 mm is<br />
sufficient. The probe tips were fixed<br />
under 0.05 mm point welded sheets of<br />
metal. The arrangement of the instrumentation<br />
is listed in Table 2.<br />
The temperature signals were<br />
wired with two solid-state multi plexer<br />
cards with cold junction compensation<br />
and a 26-bit resolution digital<br />
multimeter. Due to the large amount<br />
of measuring points, the time step for<br />
a complete measurement is 6.5 s. The<br />
chosen scan interval is 10 s. The maximum<br />
error including the uncertainty<br />
of the thermocouple is about ±2.5 K.<br />
2.2 Experimental set-up<br />
The heat transfer mechanisms of an<br />
air-cooled FA half a year after reactor<br />
shutdown are investigated by a power<br />
supply of 20 W per rod. Two experiments<br />
are presented:<br />
• Experiment I (exp. 1) simulates a<br />
completely drained SFP. For this<br />
purpose, the test facility is completely<br />
drained.<br />
• Experiment II (exp. 2) represents<br />
the accident scenario of a partialdrain<br />
down with a minimum<br />
blockade at the bottom. Therefore,<br />
the hydraulic connection between<br />
the inner and the outer channel at<br />
the bottom of the test facility is<br />
locked by a water level of 280 mm.<br />
In both scenarios, the test facility is<br />
open at the top and connected to<br />
T cladding<br />
1<br />
T wall_inside 2 T wall_outside<br />
3<br />
1 384 x x x<br />
2 784 x x x<br />
3 1,184 x x x<br />
4 1,584 x x x<br />
5 1,984 x x x<br />
6 2,384 x x x<br />
7 2,784 x x x<br />
8 3,184 x x x<br />
9 3,584 x x x<br />
10 3,984 x x x<br />
11 4,284 x x<br />
12 4,584 x<br />
ambient air. The experiments are<br />
limited to maximum cladding temperatures<br />
of 450 °C due to maximum<br />
operation temperatures of the heating<br />
rods.<br />
3 Results and discussion<br />
3.1 Results of experiment I<br />
In experiment I, the rod bundle heats<br />
up to a maximum cladding temperature<br />
of 427 °C measured at the elevation<br />
of 1,984 mm on measuring plane<br />
5. The experiment was stopped<br />
after 13.5 h hours with a maximum<br />
cladding temperature increase of at<br />
least 3 K/h.<br />
In Figure 4, the axial temperature<br />
profiles of the hottest rod inside the<br />
rod bundle are presented for different<br />
test durations. The dashed line represents<br />
the power profile of a single rod.<br />
The profiles illustrate the heat up of<br />
the cladding and the similarity to the<br />
linear power profile. The comparison<br />
of the temperature profiles with<br />
regard to the power profile shows a<br />
continuously increasing warming in<br />
the lower half of the test facility by<br />
| | Fig. 4.<br />
Axial temperature profiles at different test durations at 20 W/rod (exp. I).<br />
| | Fig. 3.<br />
Axial power distribution of a single rod to simulate the burn-up.<br />
contrast with the upper part. That<br />
indicates a formation of a flow stagnation<br />
region in that area of the rod<br />
bundle. In the upper part, a better<br />
heat dissipation due to convection is<br />
obvious. The air flowing upwards is in<br />
interaction with the air flowing<br />
downwards.<br />
The radial cladding temperature<br />
distributions of the quarter at the<br />
elevation of 2,784 mm (measuring<br />
plane 7) and 3,184 mm (measuring<br />
plane 8) at the end of the experiment<br />
are pictured in Figure 5. Each rod<br />
is instrumented with at least one<br />
thermocouple at each plane whereby<br />
the average temperature distribution<br />
is shown. Both temperature distributions<br />
are non-uniform with a<br />
temperature maximum towards the<br />
center of the test facility. The maximum<br />
temperature difference between<br />
the hottest and coldest rod is about<br />
82 K at level 7 and about 73 K at level<br />
8. It can be concluded that the radial<br />
heat transport is very low and therefore<br />
the coolabilty of the inner rods is<br />
not sufficiently secured.<br />
In Figure 6, axial temperature<br />
differences of the hottest and the<br />
coldest rod inside the bundle after 6 h,<br />
9 h and 13.5 h are compared. The<br />
apparent constant differences per<br />
elevation indicate a constant radial<br />
heat transport inside the rod bundle at<br />
the analyzed test times.<br />
1) surface of the rods<br />
2) surface of the inner<br />
channel inside the<br />
test facility<br />
3) outer surface of the<br />
test facility (plus<br />
insulation)<br />
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 399<br />
Environment and Safety<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the Convective Heat Transfer of an Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly ı Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 400<br />
| | Fig. 5.<br />
Radial cladding temperature distribution after 13.5 h (exp. I).<br />
| | Fig. 6.<br />
Axial temperature differences of the hottest and coldest rod after 6 h, 9 h and 13.5 h at 20 W/rod (exp. I).<br />
3.2 Comparison of the<br />
experimental results<br />
of experiment I with<br />
those of experiment II<br />
For a better understanding of the heat<br />
transfer mechanisms, the experiment<br />
I with the opened bottom connection<br />
is compared to experiment II with the<br />
flow blockade. The cladding temperatures<br />
of the hottest rod inside the rod<br />
bundle and the temperatures of the<br />
outer surface of the inner channel<br />
were analyzed in Figure 7. The rod<br />
bundle is shorter than the inner channel<br />
and ends at a height of 4,035 mm.<br />
Hence, there is no measurement<br />
point above this elevation for the rod<br />
bundle. In the lower and in the upper<br />
region, differences between the temperature<br />
profiles of both experiments<br />
can be seen. In experiment I, the rod<br />
temperatures in the region from<br />
bottom to 2,500 mm are lower compared<br />
to the rod temperatures of<br />
experiment II. Conversely, the temperatures<br />
in the upper part are higher<br />
in experiment I compared to experiment<br />
II. This is evidence for a chimney<br />
effect inside the bundle. Air heated<br />
inside the bundle flows upward, and<br />
colder air of the outer channel is<br />
forced to flow through the bottom<br />
connection inside the rod bundle. In<br />
experiment II, a stagnation region is<br />
formed in the lower part. Ambient air<br />
could only interact in the upper and<br />
middle region of the facility.<br />
4 Conclusion and outlook<br />
In the special case of a complete or a<br />
partial drain-down scenario, decay<br />
heat has to be removed from the FA by<br />
air-cooling. The flow characteristics<br />
and temperature progression in the<br />
assemblies are not investigated in<br />
detail especially not experimentally.<br />
Therefore, experimental tests are<br />
under way within the joint project<br />
SINABEL. Experiments with a rod<br />
power half a year after shutdown are<br />
presented. The investigation shows<br />
that there are huge radial temperature<br />
differences inside the bundle itself.<br />
This indicates, that a sufficient heat<br />
transfer inside a BWR FA is not possible<br />
although the cooling outside is high<br />
enough. Heat can only be transferred<br />
in axial direction. In this event, a<br />
blockade at the bottom of a FA has an<br />
influence on the convection flows inside<br />
the rod bundle. However, these<br />
convection flows only lead to opposite<br />
temperature changes in the lower and<br />
upper part of the rod bundle and has<br />
no significant effect on the maximum<br />
temperature in the investigated range<br />
up to cladding temperatures of 450 °C.<br />
The analysis of the heat transfer<br />
mechanism of BWR FA shortly after<br />
reactor shutdown up to half a year<br />
are under way and will give further<br />
information of these effects and their<br />
dependencies. A grid sensor for combined<br />
temperature and flow velocity<br />
measurement will be inserted in a<br />
quarter of the rod bundle to detect the<br />
flow velocities and their changes over<br />
the test time and at different rod<br />
powers. By modelling the entire FA<br />
structure in original scale with<br />
additional heaters to adjust nearly<br />
adiabatic boundary conditions it will<br />
be possible to make improved predictions<br />
about the cladding temperature<br />
development of a FA in case of<br />
air-cooling conditions. In combination<br />
with numerical investigations with<br />
CFD methods and integral codes, a<br />
significant improvement in this field<br />
of research can be expected. For this<br />
purpose, further publications with<br />
additional insights will follow.<br />
| | Fig. 7.<br />
Axial temperature profiles of the “inner channel” and “rod” after 13.5 h and axial temperature differences (exp. I/II).<br />
Acknowledgement<br />
This work is part of the research<br />
project “SINABEL” and is sponsored<br />
by the German Federal Ministry of<br />
Education and Research (BMBF) under<br />
the contract number 02NUK027A.<br />
Responsibility for the content of this<br />
paper lies with the authors.<br />
Environment and Safety<br />
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of the Convective Heat Transfer of an Air-cooled BWR Spent Fuel Assembly ı Christine Partmann, Christoph Schuster and Antonio Hurtado
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
References<br />
[1] Smith, C.W.: Calculated fuel perforation<br />
temperatures: commercial power reactor<br />
fuels, NEDO-10093, September 1969.<br />
[2] Nourbakhsh, H.P. et al.: Analysis of<br />
spent fuel heatup following loss of<br />
water in a spent fuel pool, NUREG/<br />
CR-6441, Upton: Brookhaven National<br />
Laboratory, March 2002.<br />
[3] Benjamin, A. S. et al.: Spent fuel heatup<br />
following loss of water during storage,<br />
NUREG/CR–0649, US Nuclear<br />
Regulatory Commission, Washington<br />
DC, 1979.<br />
[4] Schuster, C. et al.: Experimental investigation<br />
of the rod load in an evaporating<br />
spent fuel pool, Proceedings on Annual<br />
Meeting on Nuclear Technology, Berlin,<br />
Germany, 20<strong>07</strong>.<br />
[5] Schulz, S.; Schuster, C.; Hurtado, A.:<br />
Convective heat transfer in a semiclosed<br />
BWR-fuel assembly in absence of<br />
water, Nuclear Engineering and Design,<br />
Volume 272, 2014, Pages 36-44, ISSIV<br />
0029-5493<br />
Authors<br />
Further Development of a Thermal-<br />
Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool<br />
Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke, Javier Jiménez and V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza<br />
Dipl.-Ing. Christine Partmann<br />
Dr.-Ing. Christoph Schuster<br />
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Antonio Hurtado<br />
Technische Universität Dresden<br />
Institute of Power Engineering<br />
Chair of Hydrogen and Nuclear<br />
Energy<br />
01062 Dresden, Germany<br />
401<br />
OPERATION AND NEW BUILD<br />
The numerical simulation tool TWOPORFLOW is under development at the Institute for Neutron Physics and Reactor<br />
Technology (INR) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). TWOPORFLOW is a thermal-hydraulics code that is<br />
able to simulate single- and two-phase flow in a structured or unstructured porous medium using a flexible 3-D Cartesian<br />
geometry. It has the capability to simulate simple 1-D geometries (like heated pipes), fuel assemblies resolving the<br />
sub-channel flow between rods or a whole nuclear core using a coarse mesh. The code uses six conservation equations<br />
in order to describe the coupled flow of steam and liquid. Several closure correlations are implemented to model the<br />
heat transfer between solid and coolant, phase change, wall friction as well as the liquid-vapor momentum coupling.<br />
Originally, TWOPORFLOW was used to calculate the flow and heat transfer in micro-channel heat exchangers. The<br />
main purpose of this work is the extension, improvement and validation of TWOPORFLOW in order to simulate the<br />
thermal-hydraulic behavior of Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) cores. For that aim, the code needs some additional<br />
empirical models. In particular, a turbulent lateral mixing model, and a void drift model have been implemented, tested<br />
and validated, adopting relevant tests found in the literature. Regarding reactor conditions, the BFBT critical power<br />
bundle experiments were selected for the validation.<br />
1 Introduction<br />
TWOPORFLOW is a thermal- hydraulic<br />
code based on a porous media<br />
approach to simulate single and twophase<br />
flow in 3D Cartesian coordinates.<br />
The time dependent mass,<br />
momentum and energy conservation<br />
equations for each fluid are solved<br />
with a semi-implicit continuous<br />
Eulerian type method. TWOPOR-<br />
FLOW was originally developed for<br />
the simulation of thermal-hydraulic<br />
phenomena inside micro-channels [1]<br />
[2]. However, the code has been<br />
recently modernized and adapted to<br />
be able to describe thermal-hydraulic<br />
phenomena occurring in Light Water<br />
Reactors (LWRs), specifically BWRs<br />
[3].<br />
2 TWOPORFLOW<br />
capabilities and<br />
main features<br />
TWOPORFLOW is capable to solve<br />
transient or steady state problems in<br />
reactor cores or RPV with a flexible<br />
3D Cartesian geometry which can be<br />
used to represent sub-channels, fuel<br />
assemblies, or even the whole core.<br />
The rod centered and the coolant centered<br />
approaches are available for<br />
sub- channel simulations. TWOPOR-<br />
FLOW uses a system of six conservation<br />
equations. The mass conservation<br />
equations of the two phases are given<br />
by the following equations:<br />
<br />
<br />
(1)<br />
(2)<br />
(3)<br />
The source term Γ I describes the rate<br />
of evaporation or condensation at the<br />
liquid-vapor interface.<br />
The momentum equations are used<br />
in non-conservative form as follows:<br />
<br />
(4)<br />
<br />
(5)<br />
For energy conservation equations,<br />
the internal energy (e) is used as the<br />
main variable:<br />
(6)<br />
(7)<br />
TWOPORFLOW has additional models<br />
to close the system of conservation<br />
equations, like solid-coolant heat<br />
transfer, interphase heat exchange,<br />
empirical correlations for wall<br />
friction, empirical correlations for<br />
Operation and New Build<br />
Further Development of a Thermal- Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool ı Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke, Javier Jiménez and V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
OPERATION AND NEW BUILD 402<br />
interphase friction and liquid-vapor<br />
momentum coupling. However, some<br />
models need to be added or improved.<br />
For example, turbulent lateral mixing,<br />
void drift and critical heat flux (CHF)<br />
as well as the post-CHF models. In the<br />
next sections the addition of turbulent<br />
viscosity, void dispersion and turbulent<br />
conductivity, as well as the results<br />
of the validation of these models are<br />
presented.<br />
3 Improvement of physical<br />
models<br />
3.1 Turbulent viscosity<br />
To describe the effect of the turbulent<br />
flow between sub-channels in the<br />
momentum equations a simple algebraic<br />
equation approach is chosen.<br />
According to this approximation, the<br />
turbulent flow can be simulated as a<br />
pseudo fluid having an effective<br />
viscosity (μ), which is the result from<br />
the addition of the molecular and the<br />
turbulent viscosities. This extension is<br />
based on a mixing coefficient (β) which<br />
was determined experi mentally [4].<br />
Such simple model does not account<br />
for the details of turbulence, but it<br />
describes the general mixing behavior<br />
between sub-channels leading to the<br />
following equation for total viscosity.<br />
μ = μ mol + μ tur (8)<br />
μ tur = βρVl (9)<br />
eddy diffusivity. In this work the value<br />
of 0.9 is used [7].<br />
<br />
(12)<br />
The turbulent conductivity is added to<br />
the thermal conductivity of the fluid<br />
and affects directly the conductivity<br />
terms in equations (6) and (7).<br />
4 Validation<br />
(13)<br />
4.1 NUPEC PSBT stationary<br />
temperature tests (thermal<br />
mixing)<br />
To validate the implementation of the<br />
turbulent-viscosity and conductivity,<br />
nine tests of the Exercise 1 Phase II<br />
“Steady State Fluid Temperature”<br />
from the NUPEC PSBT benchmark [8]<br />
have been used. The boundary conditions<br />
of the tests are:<br />
• Outlet pressure: 4.92 to 16.58 MPa<br />
• Inlet mass flow: 1.3 to 11.52 kg/s<br />
• Inlet temperature : 86 to 289.2 °C<br />
• Bundle power: 0.4 to 3.44 MW<br />
The quoted measurement error for the<br />
outlet temperatures is 1°C [8].<br />
The tests consist of a 5x5 rod<br />
assembly with constant axial power<br />
distribution. The PSBT benchmark<br />
uses the rod power map shown in<br />
Figure 1.<br />
1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.25<br />
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25<br />
1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.25<br />
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25<br />
1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.25<br />
| | Fig. 1.<br />
Lateral power distribution PSBT tests.<br />
The meshing in TWOPORFLOW is<br />
constructed by a coolant centered<br />
sub-channel approach, resulting in an<br />
arrangement of 6x6 sub-channels in<br />
directions X and Y respectively; and<br />
27 axial cells in Z direction. The<br />
number of rods per channel is ¼, ½,<br />
or 1 depending on the location<br />
of the sub-channel as can be seen in<br />
Figure 2.<br />
Six different mixing coefficients<br />
are tested for the validation, 0.03,<br />
0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.<strong>07</strong> and 0.08.<br />
Figure 3 shows the difference<br />
between the average-calculated and –<br />
measured temperatures at the top of<br />
the sub-channels dependent on the<br />
mixing coefficients. With no mixing,<br />
most of the tem peratures are outside<br />
the 10 % scattering band, but an<br />
increasing mixing coefficient leads to<br />
temperatures closer to the measured<br />
values. However, starting at a mixing<br />
coefficient of 0.05 the temperatures<br />
disperse again. The minor deviation<br />
is found using coefficients of 0.05<br />
and 0.06.<br />
3.2 Void dispersion<br />
A void dispersion term (pi) is added to<br />
the vapor momentum equation for<br />
bubbly flow and is calculated from an<br />
assessment of the turbulent kinetic<br />
energy using the next equation [5]:<br />
<br />
(10)<br />
This implementation affects directly<br />
the equation (5) adding a term, and<br />
thus gives the following equation:<br />
| | Fig. 2.<br />
View from the top of the TWOPORFLOW’s model of the NUPEC PSBT.<br />
(11)<br />
3.3 Turbulent conductivity<br />
To describe the effect of the turbulent<br />
flow between channels in the energy<br />
equation, the turbulent conductivity<br />
between adjacent sub-channels is<br />
calculated using the turbulent Prandtl<br />
number [6]. This number is defined as<br />
the ratio between the momentum<br />
eddy diffusivity and the heat transfer<br />
| | Fig. 3.<br />
Difference between measured and calculated temperatures dependent on mixing coefficient.<br />
Operation and New Build<br />
Further Development of a Thermal- Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool ı Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke, Javier Jiménez and V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
| | Fig. 4.<br />
Geometry of test Assemblies 1, 01, 02, 03 and 04.<br />
1.15 1.30 1.15 1.30 1.30 1.15 1.30 1.15<br />
1.30 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15 1.30<br />
1.15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15<br />
1.30 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.15<br />
1.30 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.15<br />
1.15 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15<br />
1.30 1.15 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15 1.30<br />
1.15 1.30 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.30 1.15<br />
A)<br />
1.15 1.30 1.15 1.30 1.30 1.15 1.30 1.15<br />
1.30 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15 1.30<br />
1.15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15<br />
1.30 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.15 1.15<br />
1.30 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.15 1.15<br />
1.15 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15<br />
1.30 1.15 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.45 1.15 1.30<br />
1.15 1.30 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.30 1.15<br />
B)<br />
OPERATION AND NEW BUILD 403<br />
| | Fig. 5.<br />
Lateral power distribution BFBT.<br />
4.2 NUPEC BFBT stationary<br />
void fraction tests (void<br />
drift)<br />
Fifteen tests of the Exercise 1 Phase I<br />
“steady-state sub-channel grade<br />
benchmark” from the BWR Full- size<br />
Fine-mesh Bundle Test (BFBT)<br />
Benchmark [9] were used to validate<br />
the implementation of the void<br />
dispersion. The tests have a geometry<br />
of 8x8 pin assembly , different lateral<br />
power distributions, (uniform for<br />
assembly 1; Figure 5-A for assemblies<br />
01, 02, 03; and Figure 5-B for<br />
assembly 4), and different axial power<br />
distributions (constant for assemblies<br />
01, 02, 03, and 4; and cosine for<br />
assembly 1).<br />
The boundary conditions of the<br />
tests are:<br />
• Outlet pressure: ~7.15 MPa<br />
• Inlet mass flow: ~15.20 kg/s<br />
• Inlet temperature: ~278 °C<br />
• Bundle power: 1.9 – 6.48 MW<br />
The error in the void measurement<br />
is given as 3% [9].The tests have<br />
been modeled in TWOPORFLOW<br />
using a coolant centered sub-channel<br />
approach, making an arrangement<br />
of 9x9 sub-channels and 24 axial<br />
cells. A small mixing coefficient of<br />
0.0<strong>07</strong> is set, because the assemblies<br />
do not have mixing vane spacers,<br />
as used in PSBT. The number of rods<br />
per channel is ¼, ½, or 1 depending<br />
on the location of the sub-channel<br />
(Figure 2).<br />
The calculations were run with an<br />
old version of TWOPORFLOW without<br />
void drift, and with the new model.<br />
The average percentage error in void<br />
fraction per assembly of both simulations<br />
with respect to the experimental<br />
data shows a better approximation<br />
using the version of TWOPORFLOW<br />
with void drift (Figure 6).<br />
5 Conclusions and<br />
outlook<br />
The validation results obtained for the<br />
improved TWOPORFLOW code have<br />
shown that the code is capable to<br />
simulate in an appropriate way the<br />
most important thermos-hydraulic<br />
phenomena occurring in a BWR or in<br />
similar conditions.<br />
The next step is to improve and<br />
validate critical heat flux (CHF),<br />
| | Fig. 6.<br />
Average % error of simulations with- and without void dispersion term (pi).<br />
transition boiling, and subcooled boiling<br />
correlations of TWOPORFLOW.<br />
In addition, post-CHF models like<br />
minimum film boiling temperature,<br />
annular film dry out, rewetting, and<br />
cool down of a superheated surface<br />
is needed in order to simulate the<br />
physical phenomena that may happen<br />
during accidental conditions in a BWR<br />
core.<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
This work has been performed at<br />
the Institute for Neutron Physics and<br />
Reactor Technology (INR) of the Karlsruhe<br />
Institute of Technology (KIT). The<br />
authors would like to thank the<br />
Program Nuclear Safety Research of<br />
KIT for the financial support of the<br />
research topic “multi-physics methods<br />
for LWR”.<br />
Operation and New Build<br />
Further Development of a Thermal- Hydraulics Two-Phase Flow Tool ı Verónica Jáuregui Chávez, Uwe Imke, Javier Jiménez and V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
404<br />
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT<br />
Nomenclature<br />
C p<br />
D H<br />
e<br />
→<br />
FI<br />
Specific Heat (J/kg-K)<br />
Hydraulic diameter (m)<br />
Internal energy (J/kg)<br />
Friction at vapor-liquid interface<br />
(N/m 3 )<br />
→<br />
Fwk Wall friction for phase k (N/m 3 )<br />
→ g Gravity (kg/m-s 2 )<br />
l<br />
P<br />
pi<br />
Characteristic mixing length (m)<br />
Pressure (Pa)<br />
Void dispersion term (Pa/m)<br />
Pr tur Turbulent Prandtl number (0.9)<br />
Q H<br />
Q I<br />
Q w<br />
Internal heat source in porous structure<br />
(W/m 3 )<br />
Heat exchange between phases<br />
(W/m 3 )<br />
Heat exchange between structure<br />
and fluid (W/m 3 )<br />
t Time (s)<br />
→ V, V Velocity of fluid (m/s)<br />
Greek letters<br />
α<br />
β<br />
Γ I<br />
λ<br />
λ k<br />
λ tur<br />
Volume fraction of vapor<br />
Mixing coefficient<br />
Rate of evaporation/condensation<br />
(kg/m 3 -s)<br />
Total thermal conductivity (W/m-K)<br />
Turbulent conductivity of the fluid<br />
(W/m-K)<br />
Turbulent conductivity (W/m-K)<br />
μ<br />
Effective viscosity (Pa-s)<br />
μ mol Molecular viscosity (Pa-s)<br />
μ tur<br />
Turbulent viscosity (Pa-s)<br />
ρ Fluid or clad density (kg/m 3 )<br />
φ<br />
Subscripts<br />
L<br />
v<br />
Porosity<br />
Bibliography<br />
Liquid Phase<br />
Vapor phase<br />
[1] U. Imke, “Porous media simplidied<br />
simulation of single- and two-phase<br />
flow heat transfer in micro-channel<br />
heat exchangers,” Chemical Engineering<br />
Journal, pp. 295-302, 2004.<br />
[2] B. Alma, U. Imke, R. Knitter, U. Schygulla<br />
and S. Zimmermann, “Testing and<br />
simulation of ceramic micro heat<br />
exchangers,” Chemical Engineering<br />
Journal, no. 135, pp. 179-184, 2008.<br />
[3] J. Jimenez, N. Trost, U. Imke and V.<br />
Sanchez, “Recent developments in<br />
TWOPORFLOW, a two-phase floew<br />
porous media code for transient<br />
thermo- hydraulic simulations,” in<br />
Annual Meeting on Nuclear<br />
Technology, Frankfurt, Germany, 2014.<br />
[4] F. S. Castellana, W. T. Adams and J. E.<br />
Casterline, “Single-Phase Sub-channel<br />
Mixing in a Simulated Nuclear Fuel<br />
Assembly,” Nuclear Engineering and<br />
Design, no. 26, pp. 242-249, 1974.<br />
[5] M. Valette, “Analysis of Subchannel and<br />
Rod Bundle PSBT Experiments with<br />
CATHARE 3,” Science and Technology of<br />
Nuclear Installations, 2012.<br />
[6] S. J. Kim and S. P. Jang, “Effects of the<br />
Darcy number, the Prandtl number,<br />
and the Reynolds number on local<br />
thermal non-equilibrium,” International<br />
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,<br />
no. 45, pp. 3885-3896, 2002.<br />
[7] A. Malhotra and S. Kang, “Turbulent<br />
Prandtl number in circular pipes,”<br />
International Journal of Heat and Mass<br />
Transfer, no. 27, pp. 2158-2161, 1984.<br />
[8] NUPEC, “OECD/NRC Benchmark based<br />
on NUPEC PWR Sub-channel and<br />
Bundle Tests (PSBT) Volume I: Experimental<br />
Database and Final Problem<br />
Specifications,” NUPEC, Japan, 2010.<br />
[9] NUPEC, “NUPEC BWR Full-size<br />
Fine-mesh Bundle Test (BFBT)<br />
Benchmark. Volume I: Specifications,”<br />
Japan, 2006.<br />
Authors<br />
Verónica Jáuregui Chávez<br />
Uwe Imke<br />
Javier Jiménez<br />
V.H. Sánchez-Espinoza<br />
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology<br />
Institute for Neutron Physics and<br />
Reactor Technology<br />
Hermann von Helmholtz Platz 1<br />
76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,<br />
Germany<br />
Besonderheiten bei Messungen<br />
zur radiologischen Charakterisierung<br />
hochradioaktiver Abfälle<br />
Marina Sokcic-Kostic und Roland Schultheis<br />
1 Einführung Beim Betrieb von Kernkraftwerken fallen gelegentlich hochradioaktive Abfälle an, wie zum<br />
Beispiel Bruchstücke defekter Brennelemente oder Filter von heißen Zellen. In manchen Kraftwerken wurden diese<br />
Abfälle über lange Zeit in unterirdischen Depots gelagert. Diese Depots entsprechen jedoch nicht den Zielsetzungen für<br />
eine sichere Langzeitlagerung, bis die im Abfall enthaltenen radioaktiven Isotope ausreichend zerfallen sind und der<br />
Abfall dann als nicht-radioaktiver Abfall weiterverarbeitet oder entsorgt werden kann.<br />
Für solche Abfälle hat die NUKEM<br />
Technologies Engineering Services Abfallbehandlungsmöglichkeiten<br />
konzipiert<br />
und in Projekten umgesetzt,<br />
die hochradioaktive Abfälle charakteri<br />
sieren und entsprechend den<br />
An forderungen für die Langzeitlagerung<br />
konditionieren. Dies schließt<br />
auch eine Volumenverminderung ein,<br />
um so die künftigen Lagerkosten zu<br />
minimieren.<br />
Der Schwerpunkt dieses Artikels<br />
liegt in der Messung von hochaktivem<br />
Abfall und seinen Impli kationen.<br />
2 Charakterisierung<br />
der Abfälle<br />
Nach der Verfüllung der konditio nierten<br />
Abfälle in geeignete Behälter werden<br />
die Abfälle wie folgt charak terisiert:<br />
a) Dosisleistung an der Behälteroberfläche<br />
b) Kontamination der Behälteroberfläche<br />
c) Spezifische Aktivität des Inhaltes<br />
der Behälter<br />
d) Zeit bis zum Abklingen der Aktivität<br />
(Halbwertszeit der enthaltenen<br />
Isotope)<br />
a) und b) sind wichtig für die<br />
Handhabung und den Transport der<br />
Behälter, c) und d) hingegen für die<br />
Lagerung des Abfalls.<br />
Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Special Features of Measurement for the Radiological Characterization of High-level Radioactive Waste ı Marina Sokcic-Kostic and Roland Schultheis
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Die Grenzwerte für eine Klassifizierung<br />
gemäß a)-d) sind in den<br />
einzelnen Ländern teilweise unterschiedlich.<br />
Typische Werte sind:<br />
a) > 2 mSv/h<br />
b) Wischtestwerte:<br />
Beta-Aktivität ><br />
10 7 Teilchen/cm 2 /min<br />
Alpha-Aktivität ><br />
10 6 Teilchen/cm 2 /min<br />
c) Beta-Aktivität > 3.7*10 9 Bq/kg<br />
Alpha-Aktivität > 3.7*10 8 Bq/kg<br />
d) Der Abfall wird als langlebig<br />
deklariert, wenn er einen signifikanten<br />
Anteil von Isotopen mit<br />
einer Halbwertszeit größer 30<br />
Jahre hat (Ausnahme: Cs-137).<br />
Wie gezeigt, gibt es für hochaktiven<br />
Abfall nur einen unteren Grenzwert.<br />
Bei der Planung von Anlagen und<br />
Messeinrichtungen muss man zunächst<br />
auch obere Grenzwerte<br />
definieren. So müssen die Räume für<br />
die Handhabung eine ausreichende<br />
Abschirmung aufweisen. Das fängt<br />
damit an, dass die Räume für die<br />
Handhabung ausreichende Abschirmung<br />
aufweisen. Aber auch die<br />
Instrumentierung muss so ausgelegt<br />
sein, dass sie bei den zu erwartenden<br />
Aktivitäten noch funktionsfähig ist.<br />
3 Allgemeine Eigenschaften<br />
des hochaktiven<br />
Abfalls<br />
Bevor man die geeignete Messmethode<br />
für den hochaktiven Abfall<br />
auswählt, sollte man zunächst einmal<br />
Herkunft und Eigenschaften des<br />
Abfalls betrachten.<br />
Hochaktive Abfälle können sowohl<br />
fest wie auch flüssig sein. Wenn man<br />
einmal die hochaktiven Abfälle aus<br />
der Wiederaufarbeitung von Brennstäben<br />
ausklammert, so eignen sich<br />
für die Langzeitlagerung nur feste<br />
Stoffe, weswegen flüssige Abfallstoffe<br />
zuvor in feste Formen umgewandelt<br />
werden müssen (z.B. durch Eindampfung<br />
etc.). Flüssige Stoffe sind<br />
für die Langzeitlagerung nicht<br />
geeignet, da hier chemische Reaktionen<br />
nicht ausgeschlossen werden<br />
können, die zum Beispiel Korrosion<br />
der Behälter zur Folge haben können.<br />
Kernbrennstoff ist bei Abfällen aus<br />
Kernkraftwerken im Allgemeinen nur<br />
in sehr kleinen Mengen im Abfall<br />
präsent, da generell Kernbrennstoff<br />
kein Abfall ist. Kleinere Mengen<br />
können zum Beispiel dadurch entstehen,<br />
dass Material von defekten<br />
Brennelementen im Reaktor nach<br />
unten fällt (sogenannter „fuel debris“).<br />
Die Hauptaktivität der hoch aktiven<br />
Abfälle resultiert aus Aktivierungsprozessen<br />
(z.B. Aktivierung von<br />
| | Abb. 1.<br />
Geiger-Müller-Zählrohr mit Energiekompensation.<br />
Stahl) oder aus der Freisetzung von<br />
Cs-137, welches durch mangelnde<br />
Rückhaltung der Kernbrennstäbe in<br />
den Kühlkreislauf gelangt. Letzteres<br />
wird durch Filtrierung zurückgehalten.<br />
Diese Filter können dann<br />
hohe Aktivitäten aufweisen.<br />
Etwas anders verhält es sich, wenn<br />
der Abfall aus Unfällen, wie zum<br />
Beispiel Tschernobyl, stammt. Dann<br />
können sehr wohl auch Isotope wie<br />
Uran oder Plutonium in relevanten<br />
Mengen vorliegen.<br />
Um die im Folgenden beschriebenen<br />
Messmethoden so einfach wie<br />
möglich zu halten, ist folgende Vorgehensweise<br />
empfehlenswert:<br />
• Zunächst ist die Herkunft des<br />
Abfalls zu klären<br />
• Dann sollte auf der Basis von<br />
Probenahmen die zu erwartenden<br />
Isotope in einem Labor bestimmt<br />
werden<br />
• Anschließend sollte der Isotopenvektor<br />
bezogen auf Co-60 und<br />
Cs-137 bestimmt werden, welche<br />
dann als Leitisotope bei der Berechnung<br />
der Aktivitäten heran gezogen<br />
werden können.<br />
4 Messung der Oberflächendosisleistung<br />
bei<br />
hochaktiven Abfällen<br />
Für die Messung der Oberflächendosisleistung<br />
werden in der Regel<br />
Geiger-Müller-Zählrohre eingesetzt,<br />
die aufgrund ihrer geringen Baugröße<br />
auch Hot Spot Erkennung erlauben<br />
(Abbildung 1). Der Abstand zwischen<br />
Zählrohr und Oberfläche ist gewöhnlich<br />
mit 10 cm spezifiziert. Die<br />
Zählrohre sind mittels Filter energiekompensiert<br />
und in Sv/h geeicht.<br />
Ein wichtiger Punkt bei Messungen<br />
an hochaktiven Abfällen ist die<br />
Vermeidung einer Paralyse des Zählrohres.<br />
Diese könnte zu einer Unterschätzung<br />
der Dosisleistung und<br />
ernsthaften Konsequenzen für die an<br />
der Hantierung beteiligten Arbeiter<br />
führen.<br />
Aus diesem Grund werden oft<br />
Geräte mit zwei Zählrohren unterschiedlicher<br />
Empfindlichkeit eingesetzt,<br />
wodurch die Messdynamik des<br />
Gerätes erweitert wird. Weiterhin<br />
arbeiten die Geräte in einem totzeitlosen<br />
Modus um den Messbereich zu<br />
erweitern und Messfehler durch die<br />
ansonsten benötigte Totzeitkorrektur<br />
zu minimieren (Abbildung 2).<br />
Hierbei wird die Hochspannung<br />
für das Messgerät zunächst unterhalb<br />
der Einsatzgrenze eingestellt. Anschließend<br />
wird die Hochspannung<br />
über die Einsatzgrenze erhöht und<br />
die Zeit bis zum Auftreten des ersten<br />
Pulses gemessen. Dann wird die Hochspannung<br />
wieder abgesenkt. Nach<br />
einem fest vorgegebenen Zeitintervall<br />
wird der Vorgang wiederholt. Die so<br />
gemessenen Zeitintervalle sind umso<br />
kleiner, je höher die Zählrate ist. Diese<br />
Messmethode ist bei hohen Zählraten<br />
recht genau, bei kleinen Zählraten<br />
sind die statistischen Fehler etwas<br />
größer, was bei hochaktiven Abfällen<br />
ohne Bedeutung ist.<br />
5 Messung der Oberflächenkontamination<br />
bei hochaktiven Abfällen<br />
Wenn die Behälter mit Abfall außerhalb<br />
von kerntechnischen Anlagen<br />
(z.B. in Zwischen- oder Endlager)<br />
transportiert werden müssen, so muss<br />
zur Verhinderung der Verschleppung<br />
von Radioaktivität die Behälteroberfläche<br />
auf Kontaminationsfreiheit<br />
geprüft werden. Wegen der Eigenstrahlung<br />
derartiger Behälter kann<br />
die Kontamination bezüglich Alphaoder<br />
Betastrahlung nicht direkt<br />
gemessen werden. Daher wird ein<br />
zweistufiges Verfahren angewandt.<br />
| | Abb. 2.<br />
Dosisleistungsmessgerät mit zwei totzeitfrei<br />
arbeitenden Geiger-Müller-Zählrohren<br />
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 405<br />
Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Special Features of Measurement for the Radiological Characterization of High-level Radioactive Waste ı Marina Sokcic-Kostic and Roland Schultheis
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 406<br />
Zunächst wird die Behälteroberfläche<br />
mit einem speziellen Papier<br />
abgewischt. Dies kann manuell oder<br />
auch automatisiert mit Kassetten<br />
erfolgen. Eine Variante ist auch die<br />
Nutzung von Rollen, die mit einem<br />
doppelseitig klebenden Band bestückt<br />
sind. Beim Abrollen werden durch<br />
den Kleber locker sitzende Kontaminationen<br />
fixiert.<br />
Anschließend wird das Papier oder<br />
die Rollen in einen Raum mit niedriger<br />
Umgebungsaktivität verbracht, in<br />
welchem ein Kontaminationsmessgerät<br />
aufgebaut ist. Dieses Gerät misst<br />
dann die von der Wischprobe ausgehende<br />
Alpha- und Betastrahlung mit<br />
Hilfe von Szintilationszählern. Um die<br />
Empfindlichkeit für Alphastrahlung zu<br />
erhöhen, sind diese teilweise mit ZnS<br />
Pulver oder Ähnlichem an der Außenseite<br />
bestäubt, welche bei Auftreffen<br />
von Alphastrahlung eine hohe Lichtausbeute<br />
ergeben.<br />
6 Messung der spezifischen<br />
Aktivität bei<br />
hochaktiven Abfällen<br />
Die Messung der Aktivität eines<br />
Gebindes (Abbildung 3) beruht gewöhnlich<br />
auf dem Nachweis der von<br />
den Gebinden emittierten Photonen.<br />
Um die Gesamtzahl von Betazerfällen<br />
zu berechnen, benötigt man den<br />
zugehörigen Isotopenvektor. Dieser<br />
beschreibt nicht nur die pro Betazerfall<br />
emittierten Photonen sondern<br />
auch die verdeckten Zerfälle, wie zum<br />
| | Abb. 3.<br />
Fassmonitor bestückt mit Dosisleistungs messgeräten.<br />
| | Abb. 4.<br />
Spektren eines 3x3inch NaI Spektrometers<br />
(oben) und eines 2x2inch Spektrometers<br />
(unten) eines Co-60 Präparates.<br />
Beispiel Betazerfälle ohne Photonenemission<br />
(z.B. Sr-90).<br />
Für Abfälle aus Kernkraftwerken<br />
ist gewöhnlich bei sehr hohen Aktivitäten<br />
eine Dominanz der Isotope<br />
Cs-137 und Co-60 zu finden. Diese<br />
Isotope können gut gemessen werden<br />
und dienen dann als Leitnuklide.<br />
Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen<br />
Halbwertszeiten ist eine Unterscheidung<br />
zwischen Co-60 und Cs-137<br />
nötig. Daher werden zur Messung<br />
gewöhnlich HPGe Detektoren eingesetzt,<br />
die eine exzellente Trennung<br />
ermöglichen. Durch die getrennte<br />
Messung von Co-60 und Cs-137<br />
ist zugleich auch eine der Energie<br />
der Isotope angepasste Absorptionskorrektur<br />
möglich.<br />
Probleme bei hochaktiven Abfällen<br />
entstehen, wenn der Dynamikbereich<br />
des Detektors nicht mehr mit den<br />
Zählraten mitkommt. Bei HPGe<br />
Detektoren ist die Zählrate auf etwa<br />
60.000 Ereignisse im Spektrum<br />
begrenzt. Dies gilt bei rückgekoppeltem<br />
Vorverstärken. Für Transistor<br />
Reset Schaltungen, bei welchen der<br />
Vorverstärker nicht rückgekoppelt<br />
sondern mit einem Transistorschalter<br />
kurzgeschlossen wird, ist dieser Wert<br />
etwas höher (ca. 80 bis 100.000), aber<br />
auch dieser Wert ist bei hoch aktivem<br />
Abfall schnell erreicht.<br />
Man könnte nun auf die Idee<br />
kommen, den Kristall zu verkleinern<br />
um so die Zählrate abzusenken. Doch<br />
dies ist keine gute Idee, wie die<br />
Abbildung 4 der Spektren eines NaI<br />
Spektrometers zeigen:<br />
Wie die Abbildung 4 zeigt, verringert<br />
sich bei Verkleinerung des<br />
Kristalls zwar die Fläche unter den<br />
beiden Co-60 Linien, gleichzeitig<br />
steigt aber der niederenergetische<br />
Untergrund an, da die Wahrscheinlichkeit,<br />
dass die Photonen vollständig<br />
im Kristall absorbiert werden, ebenfalls<br />
niedriger wird. Den gleichen<br />
Effekt finden wir auch bei HPGe<br />
Detektoren.<br />
Im vorliegenden Fall nimmt die<br />
Peakfläche bei einer Verkleinerung<br />
von 3 auf 2 inch (Durchmesser wie<br />
Länge des Kristalls) zwar auf 37 % ab,<br />
die Gesamtzählrate verringert sich<br />
jedoch nur auf 60 %.<br />
Die beste Methode bei sehr hohen<br />
Zählraten ist die Vergrößerung des<br />
Abstandes zwischen Detektor und<br />
Gebinde. Leider sind bei sehr hohen<br />
Abfallaktivitäten die räumlichen Gegebenheiten<br />
oft sehr eingeschränkt,<br />
sodass diese Methode nicht viel<br />
weiterhilft.<br />
Eine andere Methode ist der Einsatz<br />
von Schlitzkollimatoren. Allerdings<br />
muss die Öffnung groß<br />
genug sein um Vielfachstreueffekte<br />
am Kollimator zu unterbinden.<br />
Wenn die bisher beschriebenen<br />
Methoden nicht weiterhelfen, so muss<br />
man Absorptionsplatten vor den<br />
Detektor stellen. Allerdings muss man<br />
dabei für jede Energie (oder Linie)<br />
eine entsprechende Absorptionskorrektur<br />
durchführen. Diese Methode<br />
wurde bislang mit Bleiplatten bis zu<br />
15 cm Dicke erfolgreich angewandt.<br />
Aber auch diese Methoden hat ihre<br />
Grenzen.<br />
Bei spezifischen Aktivitäten von<br />
10 10 Bq/kg oder höher für Co-60 oder<br />
Cs-137 endet der Einsatz von HPGe<br />
Spektrometern. Hier muss man auf<br />
die Messung der Oberflächendosisleistung<br />
zurückgreifen und aus diesen<br />
Werten die Aktivität berechnen. Dies<br />
gelingt nur, wenn man für die Rechnungen<br />
ein Modell entwickelt hat.<br />
Als Beispiel sei hier ein Container<br />
erwähnt, der von oben mit Abfällen<br />
gefüllt wird, und an dessen Unterseite<br />
sich Dosisleistungsmessgeräte befinden.<br />
Zusätzlich wird das Gewicht des<br />
Containers gemessen. Als radio aktives<br />
Isotop wird Co-60 angenommen.<br />
Die MCNP Rechnungen, die hierfür<br />
durchgeführt wurden, zeigten,<br />
dass man grob die Dosisleistung<br />
als Funktion des Container Netto-<br />
Gewichtes beschreiben kann (siehe<br />
Abbildung 5).<br />
Die eingezeichnete Linie präsentiert<br />
alle Werte in einem Fehlerbereich<br />
von +/-30 %. Bei den Rechnungen<br />
schwankten die Dichten im Bereich<br />
von 0,2 bis 1,1 g/cm 3 . Beim Befüllen<br />
wurde ein Füllkegel mit einem<br />
Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Special Features of Measurement for the Radiological Characterization of High-level Radioactive Waste ı Marina Sokcic-Kostic and Roland Schultheis
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
| | Abb. 5.<br />
Dargestellt ist der Empfindlichkeitsfaktor S als Funktion des Abfallgewichtes. Die Bedeutung von S ist weiter unten im Text näher erklärt.<br />
Öffnungswinkel von 30 Grad simuliert.<br />
Entsprechend dem Gewicht und<br />
der angenommenen Dichte war der<br />
Füllungsgrad des Containers unterschiedlich<br />
und lag im Bereich von<br />
8 bis 72,4 %.<br />
Die Aktivität ergibt sich aus der<br />
Formel (1):<br />
Aktivität [Bq] =<br />
Dosisleistung [Sv/h] *100 /<br />
Verzweigungsverhältnis / S(1)<br />
S ist der in Abbildung 5 dargestellte<br />
Empfindlichkeitsfaktor<br />
Der Maximalbereich eines Standard-Dosisleistungsmessgerätes<br />
liegt<br />
bei etwa 100 Sv/h. Geht man<br />
von S = 1E-11 aus und setzt das<br />
Ver zweigungsverhältnis auf 2, so<br />
erhält man eine maximal messbare<br />
Aktivität von 5E+14 Bq. Das ergibt<br />
bei einem Gewicht von 2.290 kg<br />
eine spezifische Aktivität von 2E+<br />
11 Bq/kg. Bei einem Gewicht von<br />
100 kg erhält man entsprechend<br />
eine spezifische Aktivität von 7,4E<br />
+11 Bq/kg.<br />
Abschließend muss erwähnt werden,<br />
dass der Raum, in welchem die<br />
Messungen durchgeführt werden, als<br />
Heiße Zelle ausgelegt und natürlich<br />
für jeden Zutritt gesperrt sein muss<br />
(Abbildung 6).<br />
Diese Darstellung gilt nur für<br />
Detektoren die unterhalb des Containers<br />
montiert sind. Die Messwerte<br />
seitlicher Detektoren oder solche auf<br />
dem Deckel des Containers sind hingegen<br />
sehr stark vom Füllungsgrad<br />
abhängig.<br />
7 Klassifikation der<br />
hochaktiven Abfälle als<br />
lang lebiger (long lived)<br />
oder als kurzlebiger<br />
(short lived) Abfall<br />
Die Klassifikation von radioaktivem<br />
Abfall als langlebig (LLW long lived<br />
waste) basiert auf der Existenz von<br />
Radionukliden mit einer Halbwertszeit<br />
größer als 30 Jahre, wobei Cs-137<br />
nicht mitbewertet wird. Als Nebenbedingung<br />
wird gefordert, dass die<br />
Aktivität derartiger Nuklide per<br />
Gebinde im Mittel nicht größer ist<br />
als 400 Bq/g. Die hier aufgeführte<br />
Beschreibung ist beispielhaft und<br />
kann entsprechend lokaler Gesetze<br />
variieren.<br />
Zusammenfassung<br />
Der Umgang und die Messung<br />
von hochaktivem Abfall stellt an<br />
Messmethodik und Instrumentierung<br />
sehr spezielle Anforderungen. Anstelle<br />
der sonst üblichen Parameter<br />
wie Nachweisgrenze und Selektivität<br />
stehen der Dynamikbereich der<br />
Messung und obere Messgrenzen im<br />
Vordergrund.<br />
Auch ist die Durchführbarkeit der<br />
Messungen oft an das Vorhandensein<br />
von ausreichenden Abschirmungen<br />
und der Fernhantierung der Operationen<br />
gebunden.<br />
Das Fernziel der Messungen ist<br />
die Abschätzung von Lagerdauer und<br />
Lagerart bis hin zum Zeitpunkt, an<br />
welchem der Abfall durch Zerfall<br />
seiner radioaktiven Isotope gefahrlos<br />
gehandhabt werden kann.<br />
Authors<br />
Dr. Marina Sokcic-Kostic<br />
Roland Schultheis<br />
NUKEM Technologies Engineering<br />
Services GmbH<br />
Industriestraße 13<br />
63755 Alzenau, Germany<br />
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 4<strong>07</strong><br />
| | Abb. 6.<br />
Zelle für den fernhantierten Umgang mit radioaktiven Stoffen.<br />
Decommissioning and Waste Management<br />
Special Features of Measurement for the Radiological Characterization of High-level Radioactive Waste ı Marina Sokcic-Kostic and Roland Schultheis
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
408<br />
Inside<br />
International Youth Nuclear Congress (IYNC) – Women in Nuclear (WiN) Global Conference<br />
KTG INSIDE<br />
11. bis 17. März <strong>2018</strong> Bariloche, Argentinien<br />
… inklusive Ausflug in die Geschichte der Kerntechnik Argentiniens<br />
| | IYNC und WiN Congress in Argentinien: Gruppenfoto der Teilnehmenden.<br />
Argentinien ist das Land des Tangos, der Gauchos, von<br />
Rindfleisch und Wein so das Cliché. Kernreaktoren<br />
gehören da kaum dazu. Als Melina Belinco das 1995 von<br />
Maela Viirso gegründete WiN Chapter in Argentinien<br />
wieder belebte, wollte sie die Atomforschung Argentiniens<br />
international zeigen und so traf es sich gut, dass der International<br />
Youth Nuclear Congress <strong>2018</strong> in Argentinien<br />
geplant war. Die Zusammenarbeit der Frauen mit den<br />
Jungen führte zu einer inspirierenden Konferenz in<br />
Bariloche. Dort ist neben Schokolade der Nuklearsektor<br />
äußerst wichtig. Junge Frauen und Männer werden seit<br />
1955 im Instituto Balseiro ausgebildet. Der Kongress<br />
vermittelte nicht nur viel Wissenswertes über Kerntechnik<br />
heute. Er beleuchtete auch die Entwicklung der „Small<br />
Modular Reaktors“ (SMR) und in der Ausstellung neben<br />
den zahlreichen Postern von Teilnehmenden auch den<br />
Entwicklungsstand der vier Reaktoren in Barakah (VAE)<br />
sowie die Vielfalt der chinesischen Kernforschung.<br />
Die Länderreports wurden gemeinsam von WiN und<br />
IYNC erarbeitet und mehrheitlich auch gemeinsam<br />
präsentiert. Das Kongressprogramm war sehr umfangreich<br />
und die Qual der Wahl der zahlreichen technischen<br />
Vorträge, die parallel – teilweise an drei verschiedenen<br />
Orten stattfanden – war oft schwierig.<br />
Unter Gabi Voigt's (WiN Global Präsidentin seit 2016)<br />
speditiver Leitung fand die WiN-Generalversammlung<br />
statt, wo ihre Vorgängerin Se-Moon Park den WiN Honorary<br />
Award entgegennehmen durfte. Der WiN Award ging an<br />
Professor Carla Notari, Argentinien. Mehrere Mentoring<br />
Workshops hatten zum Ziel, junge Frauen zu motivieren,<br />
sich selbstbewusst für eine Karriere in der Nukleartechnik<br />
zu bewerben.<br />
Die begleitenden Besichtigungen zeigten die Geschichte<br />
der argentinischen Nuklearforschung hautnah auf: Schon<br />
1948 überzeugte ein Doktor Richter den damaligen<br />
Präsidenten Perón von seinen Plänen, einen Fusions reaktor<br />
zu bauen. Auf der Isla Huemul, im See von Bariloche,<br />
entstand ein geheimes Fusions-Forschungsinstitut. 1951<br />
verkündete Perón, dass „eine kontrollierte thermonukleare<br />
Reaktionen auf technischer Skala“ erzielt wurde. Doch der<br />
Durchbruch blieb aus und Perón drehte den Geldhahn zu.<br />
Was tun mit den teuren Einrichtungen? Jemand überzeugte<br />
ihn, ein Labor für Kernspaltung (Centro Atomico) und<br />
ein Institut für Nukleartechnik (Instituto Balseiro) zu<br />
gründen.<br />
Zusätzlich gibt es die priv<strong>atw</strong>irtschaftlich organisierte<br />
Firma INVAP, die im Besitz der Provinz Rio Negro ist. Das<br />
Unternehmen hat eine interessante Geschichte. Gegründet<br />
wurde es zur Entwicklung von Forschungsreaktoren und<br />
zur Produktion von medizinischen Isotopen. Dies wurde<br />
zu einem Verkaufsschlager: Südlich von Sydney in<br />
Australien – Veranstaltungsort der WiN Global Conference<br />
2014 – liegt das Kernforschungszentrum ANSTO. Das<br />
Institut hatte damals eben den „Opal“, einen Swimmingpool-Reaktor,<br />
in Betrieb genommen. Er dient als Neutronenquelle<br />
für physikalische Forschungsprojekte, aber<br />
auch zur Herstellung von Mo-99, das in der medizinischen<br />
Diagnostik eine wichtige Rolle spielt. Dies ist einer von<br />
vielen Forschungsreaktoren unterschiedlicher Leistung,<br />
die bei INVAP entwickelt und gebaut wurden. Deren<br />
Entwicklung ist bemerkenswert. Man ist davon weggekommen,<br />
stark angereichertes Uran zu verwenden und<br />
begnügt sich jetzt mit 19,7 %. Argentinien hat Forschungsreaktoren<br />
nach Ägypten, Algerien, Australien, Bolivien,<br />
Kuba, Iran, Peru und Saudi-Arabien geliefert und landete<br />
kürzlich einen weiteren Verkaufserfolg in Petten, Holland!<br />
Wie an vielen Orten der Welt ist das politische Klima für<br />
Kernenergie auch in Argentinien volatil. Deshalb baute<br />
INVAP ein zweites Standbein in der Weltraumtechnik auf.<br />
Diese Sparte ist heute fast wichtiger als der Nuklearbereich.<br />
| | IYNC und WiN Congress in Argentinien: Gruppenfoto der Teilnehmenden.<br />
KTG Inside
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Natürlich baute INVAP auch den RA-6 Reaktor für das<br />
staatliche Centro Atomico in Bariloche. Er wird zu Schulungszwecken<br />
genutzt. Hier werden Reaktoroperateure<br />
ausgebildet. Argentinien hat für die spanischsprachige<br />
Welt auf diesem Gebiet ein „Quasi-Monopol“. Im Zeitalter<br />
der Digitalisierung geht das Centro hier neue Wege: Über<br />
einen separaten Kontrollraum, der gegen Cyber-Attacken<br />
geschützt ist, können Studierende lernen, den Reaktor zu<br />
„fahren“ ohne nach Bariloche reisen zu müssen. Sie sitzen<br />
in ihrer Heimat am Simulator und arbeiten über das<br />
Internet.<br />
Neben Forschungsreaktoren hat Argentinien schon früh<br />
angefangen, Kernkraftwerke zu entwickeln. Der Markt für<br />
angereichertes Uran war damals von den USA beherrscht<br />
und streng reguliert. Um eine Abhängigkeit zu vermeiden,<br />
beschloss man, Natururan als Brennstoff zu verwenden<br />
und lieber das Wasser anzureichern und Schwerwasser<br />
(Deuterium) als Moderator zu nutzen. Die Wasseranreicherungsanlage<br />
hat damals die Schweizer Firma<br />
Sulzer geliefert. Die US-Regierung versuchte dies mit allen<br />
Mitteln zu verhindern – vergeblich. Heute verfügt Argentinien<br />
über drei Kernkraftwerke, alle vom Schwerwassertyp.<br />
In Atucha, unweit von Buenos Aires stehen zwei KKW von<br />
KWU/Siemens, in Embalse ein kanadischer CANDU.<br />
Das Centro Atomico beteiligt sich auch an der Entwicklung<br />
der Reaktoren der Zukunft: Klein und modular.<br />
Die argentinische Variante heißt CAREM und ist wie die<br />
meisten SMR „integriert“, das heißt, alle druckhaltenden<br />
Elemente wie Wärmetauscher und Druckhalter befinden<br />
sich im Reaktordruckbehälter. Der Primärkreislauf kommt<br />
ohne Pumpe aus und wird durch Konvektion angetrieben.<br />
Der Prototyp soll 32 MWe leisten. Zurzeit ist er in Atucha<br />
im Bau. SMR profitieren nicht von der „Economy of Scale“<br />
der Großreaktoren. Sie kompensieren das durch die<br />
geringe Menge an Hochdruck-Installationen.<br />
Man kann nur wünschen, dass die Zusammenarbeit der<br />
Jungen und der Frauen in allen Ländern weitergeführt<br />
wird. Hoffentlich bleibt es nicht bei diesem einen<br />
| | IYNC und WiN Congress in Argentinien: Vor-Ort vor dem Kernkaftwerk Atucha.<br />
gemeinsamen Kongress! Die Kernenergie braucht weltweit<br />
junge Frauen und Männer für zukünftige neue, inhärent<br />
sichere Reaktoren, aber auch für den sicheren Betrieb der<br />
heutigen KKW. Zusätzlich müssen die Ängste vor Radioaktivität<br />
– gerade von Frauen – angesprochen und abgebaut<br />
werden. Ohne den Einbezug der fast CO 2 -freien Kernenergie<br />
ist der Klimaschutz nicht erreichbar!<br />
Irene Aegerter<br />
Irene Aegerter<br />
Irene Aegerter doktorierte nach ihrem Physikstudium am<br />
Eidgenössischen Institut für Reaktorforschung, heute PSI.<br />
Sie war Vizedirektorin des Verbandes Schweizerischer<br />
Elektrizitätsunternehmen (VSE), gründete den Verein<br />
Frauen für Energie in der Schweiz und war Gründungsmitglied<br />
des weltweiten Netzwerkes „Women in Nuclear“<br />
(WiN) sowie Mitglied der Eidgenössischen Kommission<br />
für Sicherheit der Kernanlagen und Vize-präsidentin<br />
der Schweizerischen Akademie der Technischen Wissenschaften.<br />
Links:<br />
http://www.invap.<br />
com.ar/en/invap-2/<br />
about-invap/<br />
invap-headquarters.<br />
html<br />
https://www.cab.<br />
cnea.gov.ar/<br />
http://www.ib.edu.ar/<br />
409<br />
KTG INSIDE<br />
Herzlichen<br />
Glückwunsch!<br />
Juli <strong>2018</strong><br />
93 Jahre wird<br />
8. Dr. Werner Eyrich, Karlsruhe<br />
90 Jahre wird<br />
17. Dipl.-Ing. Karl Josef Sauerwald,<br />
Höchstadt<br />
86 Jahre werden<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. Joachim May, Burgwedel<br />
27. Dr. Rainer Schwarzwälder, Glattbach<br />
31. Dr. Theodor Dippel,<br />
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen<br />
83 Jahre wird<br />
20. Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Wünsche, Hannover<br />
82 Jahre werden<br />
1. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Jürgen Börner,<br />
Weisenheim<br />
25. Dr. Gert Dressler, Lingen<br />
81 Jahre werden<br />
6. Dipl.-Ing. Paul Börner, Steinau<br />
16. Dr. Dieter Hennig, Berlin<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Klaus Haase, Bruchsal<br />
29. Dr. Herbert Reutler, Köln<br />
80 Jahre wird<br />
30. Dr. Philipp Dünner, Odenthal<br />
79 Jahre werden<br />
10. Dr. Bernhard Steinmetz,<br />
Bergisch Gladbach<br />
23. Heinz Stahlschmidt, Erlangen<br />
26. Dipl.-Ing. Ewald Passig, Bochum<br />
78 Jahre werden<br />
2. Prof. Dr. Anton Bayer, Ilmmünster<br />
2. Dr. Manfred Hagen, Berlin<br />
16. Dipl.-Ing. Dietrich Kuschel, Fulda<br />
31. Dr. Peter Schneider-Kühnle<br />
77 Jahre werden<br />
1. Norbert Semann, Bruchsal<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. Friedrich Wietelmann,<br />
Erkrath<br />
25. Dr. Heinz-Wilhelm Bock, Erlangen<br />
75 Jahre werden<br />
4. Prof. Dr. Ioannis K. Hatzilau,<br />
Athen/GR<br />
10. Dipl.-Ing. Dieter Eder, Alzenau<br />
70 Jahre werden<br />
6. Dr. Hans-Urs Zwicky, Remigen<br />
19. Dr. Wolfgang Boeßert, Pirna<br />
65 Jahre wird<br />
18. Dipl.-Chem. Christel Herzog,<br />
Dresden<br />
60 Jahre werden<br />
8. Dipl.-Ing. Uwe Süss, Stutensee<br />
14. Jochen Rotzsche, Oldenburg<br />
18. Dipl.-Masch.-Ing. Manfred Meyer,<br />
Schwegenheim<br />
27. Prof. Dr. Joachim Axmann,<br />
Braunschweig<br />
28. Dr. Peter Schreiber, Hohenstorf<br />
50 Jahre werden<br />
5. Dr. Peter Engelhard, Essen<br />
9. Lothar Seiffert, Furtwangen<br />
21. Heike Mohrhardt, Hockenheim<br />
KTG Inside
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
410<br />
NEWS<br />
Wenn Sie keine<br />
Erwähnung Ihres<br />
Geburtstages in<br />
der <strong>atw</strong> wünschen,<br />
teilen Sie dies bitte<br />
rechtzeitig der KTG-<br />
Geschäftsstelle mit.<br />
KTG Inside<br />
Verantwortlich<br />
für den Inhalt:<br />
Die Autoren.<br />
Lektorat:<br />
Natalija Cobanov,<br />
Kerntechnische<br />
Gesellschaft e. V.<br />
(KTG)<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin<br />
T: +49 30 498555-50<br />
F: +49 30 498555-51<br />
E-Mail:<br />
natalija.cobanov@<br />
ktg.org<br />
www.ktg.org<br />
August <strong>2018</strong><br />
94 Jahre wird<br />
1. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Stoll, Hanau<br />
92 Jahre wird<br />
17. Dr. Rolf Schütte, Marburg<br />
88 Jahre wird<br />
2. Dipl.-Phys. Wolfgang Schwarzer,<br />
Weilerswist<br />
87 Jahre werden<br />
9. Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Laue, Karlsruhe<br />
11. Dipl.-Ing. Siegfried Dreyer, Overath<br />
22. Dr. Dieter Eitner, Mannheim<br />
84 Jahre werden<br />
15. Dipl.-Phys. Heinrich Glantz,<br />
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Großer, Geesthacht<br />
83 Jahre werden<br />
16. Dr. Dietmar Albert, Salzgitter<br />
29. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Engelmann, Peine<br />
82 Jahre werden<br />
16. Dipl.-Ing. Dietrich Seeliger, Escheburg<br />
26. Dr. Günther Lill, Herzogenaurach<br />
31. Dr. Hartwig Poster, Radeberg<br />
80 Jahre werden<br />
6. Prof. Dr. Rudolf Avenhaus, Baldham<br />
9. Dr. Carl-Otto Fischer, Berlin<br />
21. Dr. Gerhard Schücktanz, Altdorf<br />
25. Dipl.-Phys. Armin Jahns,<br />
Bergisch Gladbach<br />
79 Jahre werden<br />
1. Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Becker,<br />
Neunkirchen-Seelscheid<br />
8. Dipl.-Ing. Gottfried Merten, Rastatt<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. Hans Wild, Bruchsal<br />
29. Dr. Adolf Hüttl,<br />
Monte Estoril/Portugal<br />
31. Dr. Dietrich Ekkehard Becker,<br />
Deisenhofen<br />
78 Jahre werden<br />
20. Dr. Herwig Pollanz,<br />
Linkenheim-Hochstetten<br />
24. Dipl.-Ing. Franz Schüler,<br />
Bubenreuth<br />
77 Jahre werden<br />
12. Dr. Klaus Riedle, Uttenreuth<br />
17. Dipl.-Ing. Jörg-Hermann Gutena,<br />
Emmerthal<br />
20. Dr. Willi Theis, Wien/A<br />
21. Dipl.-Phys. Peter Kahlstatt, Hameln<br />
29. Dipl.-Volkswirt Eckhard Strecker,<br />
Bonn<br />
76 Jahre wird<br />
28. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-J. Fröhlich, Berzhahn<br />
75 Jahre wird<br />
26. Dr. Roland Wutschig, Kaiserslautern<br />
70 Jahre werden<br />
2. Dipl.-Ing. Gerd-Rainer Lang,<br />
Sessenbach<br />
11. Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Gräber, Stuttgart<br />
16. Dr. Gerhard Gräbner, Frankfurt/M.<br />
29. Dipl.-Ing. Peter Jung, Linkenheim<br />
65 Jahre werden<br />
2. Dipl.-Ing. Claus Peter Barthelmes,<br />
Erlangen<br />
3. Michael Eigenbauer, Burgau<br />
17. Dipl.-Ing. Volker Duill, Vechelde<br />
20. Dr. Bernd Schubert, Hamburg<br />
23. Dr. Reinhard Marquart, München<br />
26. Dipl.-Ing. Friedrich Hodde, Jülich<br />
29. Ing. Günter Schwarzl, Braunschweig<br />
60 Jahre werden<br />
2. Dipl.-Ing. Steffen Kniest, Dresden<br />
7. Dipl.-Ing. Eberhard H. Rausch,<br />
Stockstadt<br />
12. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Uwe Schuster,<br />
Neckarsulm<br />
17. Dr. Wolfgang Faber, Hannover<br />
31. Dipl.-Ing. Michael Brielmayer,<br />
Mainhausen<br />
31. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Michael Kursawe,<br />
Herzogenaurach<br />
50 Jahre werden<br />
12. Ronny Ziehm, Alzenau<br />
15. Dipl.-Phys. Anja Koschel, Düsseldorf<br />
28. Dipl.-Ing. Frank Staude, Winterbach<br />
Die KTG gratuliert ihren Mitgliedern<br />
sehr herzlich zum Geburtstag und<br />
wünscht ihnen weiterhin alles Gute!<br />
Top<br />
Framatome and the EPR<br />
reactor: a robust history and<br />
the passion it takes to succeed<br />
(framatome) “The Taishan 1 EPR<br />
reactor in China started up on June 6.<br />
This first chain reaction comes as the<br />
culmination of intense work accomplished<br />
by the nuclear industry for<br />
which Framatome is one of the key<br />
actors, as a part of the EDF Group.<br />
Framatome, the designer of this<br />
Generation III+ reactor, is proud, as I<br />
am proud, of this first start up, which<br />
underscores and rewards the years of<br />
engineering devoted to achieving this<br />
success alongside our client TNPJVC.<br />
As one of the largest commercial contracts<br />
ever granted to the French<br />
nuclear sector and, more generally,<br />
in the history of the civil nuclear industry,<br />
the Taishan 1 & 2 project confirms<br />
Framatome’s position as a major<br />
nuclear actor. On this project, we have<br />
handled the design engineering, the<br />
| | Framatome and the EPR reactor: a robust history and the passion it takes to succeed.<br />
View of the Taishan site in China.<br />
supply of the nuclear islands, and the<br />
provision of the fuel assemblies, as<br />
well as related technology transfers.<br />
Today, Framatome is involved in<br />
the Today, Framatome is involved in<br />
the six EPR reactors under construction<br />
worldwide: Taishan 1&2 in China,<br />
Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3<br />
in France and Hinkley Point C in the<br />
United Kingdom. The EPR reactor,<br />
specified for a 60-year operating lifetime<br />
and with a capacity of 1,650<br />
MWe, is the first Generation III+ pressurized<br />
water reactor and has been<br />
designed to deliver unsurpassed levels<br />
of safety, durability and performance.<br />
All of Framatome’s expertise in<br />
nuclear project management and our<br />
lessons learned from the construction<br />
of numerous nuclear facilities in<br />
France and around the world, have<br />
gone into this genuine “first-of- a-<br />
kind” reactor model. The EPR therefore<br />
benefits from decades of research<br />
and development aimed at ensuring<br />
the safe and secure operation of the<br />
reactor. The EPR has been designed to<br />
minimize its environmental footprint<br />
and optimize waste management and<br />
the exposure of its operators and<br />
maintenance personnel.<br />
As the reactor designer, Framatome<br />
has brought all its experience to bear<br />
in the field of licensing alongside a<br />
great number of regulatory bodies,<br />
particularly in France, Finland, China,<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
the United Kingdom and the United<br />
States.<br />
Framatome makes a point of<br />
supporting its customers in the startup<br />
of its EPR reactors and places its<br />
depths of competencies at the disposal<br />
of operators to help drive major new<br />
build projects. So that today, so that<br />
tomorrow, nuclear energy is and shall<br />
remain a strategic choice for lowcarbon<br />
and ever more reliable, safe<br />
and competitive electricity.”<br />
| | www.framatome.com<br />
Westinghouse AP1000 plant<br />
to load fuel<br />
(westinghouse) Westinghouse Electric<br />
Company, China State Nuclear Power<br />
Technology Corporation (SNPTC)<br />
and CNNC Sanmen Nuclear Power<br />
Company Limited (SMNPC) announced<br />
in April that the world’s first<br />
unit of AP1000 nuclear power plant<br />
located in Sanmen, Zhejiang Province,<br />
China, has received the fuel load permit<br />
from China’s National Nuclear<br />
Safety Administration (NNSA) and has<br />
commenced initial fuel loading.<br />
“Today we have reached a tremendous<br />
milestone for Westinghouse and<br />
our AP1000 plant technology,” said<br />
José Emeterio Gutiérrez, Westinghouse<br />
president and chief executive<br />
officer. “This is the next major step in<br />
delivering the world’s first AP1000<br />
plant to our customer and demonstrating<br />
the benefits of our advanced<br />
passive safety technology to the<br />
world.”<br />
Sanmen Unit 1 has successfully<br />
completed all the necessary functional<br />
tests as well as technical, safety and<br />
Chinese regulatory reviews. The fuel<br />
load process will be followed by initial<br />
criticality, initial synchronization to<br />
the electrical grid, and conservative,<br />
step by step, power ascension testing,<br />
until all testing is safely and successfully<br />
completed at 100% power.<br />
“This major project milestone<br />
marks the start of the final commissioning<br />
program for Sanmen Unit 1,”<br />
said David Durham, Westinghouse<br />
New Projects Business senior vice<br />
president. “I am confident that our<br />
teams will continue to operate at the<br />
highest levels – at Sanmen, as well as<br />
the Haiyang and Vogtle projects and<br />
in our ongoing support of the worldwide<br />
operating fleet.”<br />
Commenting on Westinghouse’s<br />
partnership with the Chinese government<br />
and suppliers as key contributors<br />
to the successful delivery of clean<br />
energy, Gavin Liu, president – Asia<br />
Region stated, “Westinghouse is<br />
proud to be a partner in China’s<br />
| | Westinghouse Sanmen (China) AP1000 plant to load fuel.<br />
forward-looking nuclear energy<br />
program, an effort that will provide<br />
clean-air electricity to power China’s<br />
economy. Through technology transfer,<br />
localization and infrastructure<br />
development, Westinghouse continues<br />
to collaborate with our Chinese<br />
partners and supports the development<br />
of China’s nuclear power<br />
industry.”<br />
In 20<strong>07</strong>, Westinghouse successfully<br />
won the bid for China’s generation<br />
III+ nuclear power projects to build<br />
two units of AP1000 reactors in Sanmen,<br />
Zhejiang Province and two units<br />
in Haiyang, Shandong Province. The<br />
company has two additional units<br />
currently under construction at the<br />
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near<br />
Waynesboro, Georgia.<br />
First criticality of the reactor is<br />
expected to be achieved in JUne/July<br />
<strong>2018</strong>.<br />
| | www.westinghousenuclear.com<br />
Nuclear pioneers looking<br />
to solve our most pressing<br />
challenges<br />
• New “beyond electricity” capabilities<br />
include process heat, deep<br />
decarbonization<br />
• Several advanced reactor designs<br />
moving toward regulatory approval<br />
• Novel uses for advanced nuclear<br />
technologies will improve their<br />
economics<br />
• “When TerraPower was formed 12<br />
years ago, we were not a nuclear<br />
reactor developer. What we were<br />
looking to do was to solve energy<br />
poverty for one billion people and<br />
to decarbonize the world.”<br />
That was TerraPower’s President<br />
Chris Levesque, speaking to a rapt<br />
crowd at this year’s Nuclear Energy<br />
Assembly (NEA), NEI’s annual conference.<br />
No fewer than four panels<br />
at the event drew packed audiences<br />
excited to hear what the new types<br />
of reactors just over the horizon<br />
will bring.<br />
More than 40 companies and research<br />
institutions are investigating<br />
small modular reactor (SMR) and<br />
advanced nuclear reactor concepts.<br />
And more are on the way.<br />
On NEA’s first day, Dominion<br />
Energy announced it is investing in<br />
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s brandnew<br />
BWRX-300 SMR design. “The<br />
BWRX-300 represents a significant<br />
improvement in the economics of new<br />
nuclear, an imperative for the longterm<br />
viability of the industry,” GE<br />
Hitachi Executive Vice President of<br />
Nuclear Plant Projects Jon Ball said.<br />
But one of the main advantages of<br />
advanced nuclear technologies is the<br />
new and innovative uses they offer<br />
beyond generating electricity. Their<br />
ability to operate at higher temperatures<br />
makes them available for industries<br />
needing process heat for chemicals<br />
production, desalination and<br />
hydrogen production.<br />
Utah Associated Municipal Power<br />
Systems (UAMPS) is teaming with<br />
small modular reactor developer<br />
NuScale Power LLC to build a power<br />
plant at the Idaho National Laboratory<br />
in the 2020s. UAMPS Chief<br />
Executive Officer Douglas Hunter<br />
said NuScale’s small footprint and<br />
enhanced safety will allow its<br />
industrial customers to make the<br />
most of the reactors’ process heat by<br />
moving “right up to our fence line.”<br />
Kathryn McCarthy, vice president<br />
for research and development at<br />
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories<br />
(CNL), said one potential new revenue<br />
stream for SMRs in Canada is producing<br />
hydrogen to decarbonize<br />
the transportation sector, including<br />
long-distance trucks, trains and the<br />
Toronto light rail system. CNL also is<br />
looking at how nuclear plants can<br />
operate in load-following mode to<br />
better balance intermittent wind and<br />
solar generation.<br />
Levesque said TerraPower’s Traveling<br />
Wave Reactor design is now<br />
moving out of the research phase and<br />
entering the test phase, with a view to<br />
obtaining regulatory approvals from<br />
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission<br />
or China’s National Nuclear<br />
Safety Administration. The company<br />
also is working on a molten chloride<br />
fast reactor concept and has several<br />
domestic and overseas partners on<br />
both projects.<br />
411<br />
NEWS<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
412<br />
NEWS<br />
*)<br />
Net-based values<br />
(Czech and Swiss<br />
nuclear power<br />
plants gross-based)<br />
1)<br />
Refueling<br />
2)<br />
Inspection<br />
3)<br />
Repair<br />
4)<br />
Stretch-out-operation<br />
5)<br />
Stretch-in-operation<br />
6)<br />
Hereof traction supply<br />
7)<br />
Incl. steam supply<br />
8)<br />
New nominal<br />
capacity since<br />
January 2016<br />
9)<br />
Data for the Leibstadt<br />
(CH) NPP will<br />
be published in a<br />
further issue of <strong>atw</strong><br />
BWR: Boiling<br />
Water Reactor<br />
PWR: Pressurised<br />
Water Reactor<br />
Source: VGB<br />
“Advanced reactor development is<br />
a heavy lift and we need talent, capital<br />
and intellectual property collaboration<br />
from more than one country.<br />
Technical primacy no longer has to be<br />
confined to one country – these are<br />
global projects that need global resources,”<br />
Levesque said.<br />
The Electric Power Research Institute<br />
(EPRI) recently released a report<br />
on the economic viability of advanced<br />
reactor designs, which feature fewer<br />
and simpler systems, components and<br />
buildings and can be built cheaper<br />
and quicker. “The good news is that a<br />
lot of these technologies are headed to<br />
the lower end of the cost spectrum,”<br />
said Tina Taylor, EPRI’s senior director<br />
of research and development and deputy<br />
chief nuclear officer.<br />
| | www.nei.org<br />
World<br />
IEA: Only 4 out of 38 cleanenergy<br />
technologies are on<br />
track to meet long-term<br />
climate goals<br />
(iea) The International Energy Agency’s<br />
new and most comprehensive<br />
analysis of the clean-energy transition<br />
finds that only 4 out of 38 energy<br />
technologies and sectors were on track<br />
to meet long-term climate, energy<br />
access and air pollution goals in 2017.<br />
According to the IEA report and<br />
website www.iea.org/tcep/ nunclear<br />
power is part of the clean-energy technologies<br />
but more efforts are needed<br />
for expansion.<br />
The findings are part of the IEA’s<br />
latest Tracking Clean Energy Progress<br />
(TCEP), a newly updated website<br />
released today that assesses the latest<br />
progress made by key energy technologies,<br />
and how quickly each technology<br />
is moving towards the goals of<br />
the IEA’s Sustainable Development<br />
Scenario (SDS).<br />
Some technologies made tremendous<br />
progress in 2017, with solar PV<br />
seeing record deployment, LEDs<br />
quickly becoming the dominant source<br />
of lighting in the residential sector,<br />
and electric vehicle sales jumping by<br />
54%. But IEA analysis finds that most<br />
technologies are not on track to meet<br />
long-term sustainability goals. Energy<br />
efficiency improvements, for example,<br />
have slowed and progress on key technologies<br />
like carbon capture and storage<br />
remains stalled. This contributed<br />
to an increase in global energy-related<br />
CO 2 emissions of 1.4% last year.<br />
Operating Results January <strong>2018</strong><br />
Plant name Country Nominal<br />
capacity<br />
Type<br />
gross<br />
[MW]<br />
net<br />
[MW]<br />
Operating<br />
time<br />
generator<br />
[h]<br />
Energy generated. gross<br />
[MWh]<br />
Month Year Since<br />
commissioning<br />
Time availability<br />
[%]<br />
Energy availability<br />
[%] *) Energy utilisation<br />
[%] *)<br />
Month Year Month Year Month Year<br />
OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 744 682 567 682 567 255 336 753 100.00 100.00 99.77 99.77 100.82 100.82<br />
OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 744 688 417 688 417 244 987 599 100.00 100.00 99.92 99.92 100.58 100.58<br />
KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 744 381 482 381 482 158 588 401 99.82 99.82 99.82 99.82 100.47 100.47<br />
KKB 1 Beznau 1,2,7) PWR CH 380 365 0 0 0 124 746 087 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 744 285 615 285 615 131 450 488 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.05 101.05<br />
KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 744 749 519 749 519 305 944 106 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 95.04 95.04<br />
KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 744 287 530 287 530 124 625 675 100.00 100.00 99.89 99.89 99.09 99.09<br />
CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 744 789 686 789 686 239 814 110 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.19 99.19<br />
Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 744 373 503 373 503 109 003 986 100.00 100.00 99.88 99.88 100.40 100.40<br />
Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 617 3<strong>07</strong> 527 3<strong>07</strong> 527 104 930 065 82.93 82.93 82.12 82.12 82.67 82.67<br />
Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 744 370 166 370 166 102 992 593 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.51 99.51<br />
Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 744 371 602 371 602 103 643 343 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.89 99.89<br />
Temelin B1 1,2) PWR CZ 1080 1030 0 0 0 106 481 294 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 744 809 669 809 669 102 299 615 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.77 100.77<br />
Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 744 338 599 338 599 134 553 346 100.00 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.21 100.21<br />
Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 744 340 286 340 286 132 592 554 100.00 100.00 99.72 99.72 100.49 100.49<br />
Doel 3 3) PWR BE 1056 1006 0 0 0 251 169 221 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 744 814 535 814 535 255 360 377 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.95<br />
Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 744 761 737 761 737 291 600 613 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.82 101.82<br />
Tihange 2 PWR BE 1055 1008 744 783 542 783 542 249 733 <strong>07</strong>9 100.00 100.00 99.06 99.06 100.36 100.36<br />
Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 744 813 456 813 456 269 708 286 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.36 100.36<br />
Operating Results April <strong>2018</strong><br />
Plant name<br />
Type<br />
Nominal<br />
capacity<br />
gross<br />
[MW]<br />
net<br />
[MW]<br />
Operating<br />
time<br />
generator<br />
[h]<br />
Energy generated, gross<br />
[MWh]<br />
Time availability<br />
[%]<br />
Energy availability Energy utilisation<br />
[%] *) [%] *)<br />
Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year<br />
commissioning<br />
KBR Brokdorf 1,2) DWR 1480 1410 5 3 166 2 859 287 343 051 345 0.75 75.18 0.29 70.54 0.29 66.85<br />
KKE Emsland 4) DWR 1406 1335 720 1 005 788 4 012 463 339 335 746 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.40 99.17<br />
KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 720 968 379 3 021 184 369 648 763 100.00 78.29 100.00 75.54 93.51 72.95<br />
KRB C Gundremmingen 1,4) SWR 1344 1288 487 543 440 3 387 209 323 967 102 67.69 91.92 67.<strong>07</strong> 91.63 55.76 87.00<br />
KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 720 1 040 580 4 223 814 345 822 137 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.99 96.97 98.53<br />
GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 720 984 700 3 962 700 324 085 834 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.84 97.87 98.58<br />
KKP-2 Philippsburg 4) DWR 1468 1402 720 932 322 4 049 510 359 217 026 100.00 100.00 99.73 99.91 86.41 94.30<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
TCEP provides a comprehensive,<br />
rigorous and up-to-date analysis of<br />
the status of the clean-energy transition<br />
across a full range of technologies<br />
and sectors, their recent progress, deployment<br />
rates, investment levels, and<br />
innovation needs. It is the result of<br />
a bottom-up approach backed by<br />
the IEA’s unique understanding of<br />
markets, modeling and energy statistics<br />
across all fuels and technologies,<br />
and its extensive global technology<br />
network, totaling 6,000 researchers<br />
across nearly 40 technology collaboration<br />
programmes.<br />
The analysis includes a series of<br />
high-level indicators that provide an<br />
overall assessment of clean energy<br />
trends and highlight the most important<br />
actions needed for the complex<br />
energy sector transformation.<br />
For the first time, the analysis also<br />
highlights more than 100 key innovation<br />
gaps that need to be addressed<br />
to speed up the development and<br />
deployment of these clean energy<br />
technologies. It provides an extensive<br />
analysis of public and private clean<br />
energy research and development<br />
investment. It found that total public<br />
spending on low-carbon energy technology<br />
innovation rose 13% in 2017,<br />
to more than USD 20 billion.<br />
“There is a critical need for more<br />
vigorous action by governments,<br />
industry, and other stakeholders to<br />
| | IEA: Only 4 out of 38 clean-energy technologies are on track to meet long-term climate goals. IEA's website.<br />
drive advances in energy technologies<br />
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,”<br />
said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s<br />
Executive Director. “The world doesn’t<br />
have an energy problem but an<br />
emissions problem, and this is where<br />
we should focus our efforts.”<br />
A total of 11 of 38 technologies<br />
surveyed by the IEA were significantly<br />
not on track. In particular, unabated<br />
coal electricity generation (meaning<br />
generation without Carbon Capture,<br />
Utilisation and Storage, or CCUS),<br />
which is responsible for 72% of power<br />
sector emissions, rebounded in 2017<br />
after falling over the last three years.<br />
Meanwhile, two technologies,<br />
onshore wind and energy storage,<br />
were downgraded this year, as their<br />
progress slowed. This brought the<br />
number of technologies “in need of<br />
improvement” to a total of 23.<br />
413<br />
NEWS<br />
Operating Results February <strong>2018</strong><br />
Plant name Country Nominal<br />
capacity<br />
Type<br />
gross<br />
[MW]<br />
net<br />
[MW]<br />
Operating<br />
time<br />
generator<br />
[h]<br />
Energy generated. gross<br />
[MWh]<br />
Month Year Since<br />
commissioning<br />
Time availability<br />
[%]<br />
Energy availability<br />
[%] *) Energy utilisation<br />
[%] *)<br />
Month Year Month Year Month Year<br />
OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 672 618 566 1 301 132 255 955 319 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.88 101.15 100.98<br />
OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 672 620 840 1 309 258 245 608 439 100.00 100.00 99.85 99.89 100.42 100.50<br />
KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 672 344 895 726 377 158 933 296 99.87 99.84 99.87 99.84 100.56 100.51<br />
KKB 1 Beznau 1,2,7) PWR CH 380 365 0 0 0 124 746 087 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 672 258 171 543 786 131 708 659 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.09 101.<strong>07</strong><br />
KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 672 720 590 1 515 109 306 709 696 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 101.16 100.94<br />
KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 672 259 910 547 440 124 885 585 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.92 99.17 99.13<br />
CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 672 713 087 1 502 773 240 527 197 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.11 99.15<br />
Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 672 338 390 711 893 109 342 375 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.93 100.71 100.55<br />
Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 672 338 186 645 713 105 268 250 100.00 91.03 100.00 90.61 100.65 91.20<br />
Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 672 335 837 706 003 103 328 430 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.72<br />
Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 672 336 572 708 174 103 979 916 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.17 100.02<br />
Temelin B1 1,2) PWR CZ 1080 1030 0 0 0 106 481 294 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 672 733 731 1 543 400 103 033 346 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.10 100.92<br />
Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 672 306 486 645 085 134 859 832 100.00 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.36 100.28<br />
Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 672 3<strong>07</strong> 293 647 580 132 899 847 100.00 100.00 99.99 99.85 100.58 100.54<br />
Doel 3 3) PWR BE 1056 1006 0 0 0 251 169 221 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 672 740 003 1 554 538 256 100 379 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.59 100.25<br />
Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 672 690 038 1 451 775 292 290 651 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 102.21 102.01<br />
Tihange 2 PWR BE 1055 1008 672 719 012 1 502 554 250 452 091 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.51 102.06 101.17<br />
Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 672 734 674 1 548 130 270 442 960 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.30 100.33<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
414<br />
NEWS<br />
This year, the TCEP tracks progress<br />
against the Sustainable Development<br />
Scenario, introduced in the World<br />
Energy Outlook 2017, which depicts a<br />
rapid but achievable transformation<br />
of the energy sector. It outlines a path<br />
to limiting the rise of average global<br />
temperatures to “well below 2°C,” as<br />
specified in the Paris Agreement, as<br />
well as increasing energy access<br />
around the world and reducing air<br />
pollution.<br />
In this scenario, meeting longterm<br />
sustainability goals requires an<br />
ambitious combination of more<br />
energy efficient buildings, industry<br />
and transport, and more renewables<br />
and flexibility in power.<br />
The findings this year are compiled<br />
in an updated website, which provides<br />
easy navigation across technologies<br />
and sectors, and draws links across<br />
the IEA’s resources. The report will<br />
be updated throughout the year as<br />
new data becomes available, and will<br />
be complemented by cutting-edge<br />
analysis and commentary on notable<br />
developments on the global clean<br />
energy transition.<br />
| | www.iea.org/tcep/<br />
Reactors<br />
NEI. New report sees threat<br />
of blackouts if nuclear<br />
retirements continue<br />
• Gas pipeline failure could lead to<br />
significant disruption in Midwest,<br />
Mid-Atlantic<br />
• White House says power plant<br />
retirements are negatively impacting<br />
resilience of grid<br />
• Preservation of nuclear power<br />
plants could lead to added resilience<br />
(nei) A new NEI study conducted by<br />
ICF details how a future gas pipeline<br />
disruption, combined with continued<br />
nuclear power plant retirements<br />
and/or failure to improve natural gas<br />
infrastructure, could lead to prolonged<br />
electricity service disruption<br />
in the areas served by the PJM Interconnection.<br />
The report comes as the Trump<br />
administration, the Federal Energy<br />
Regulatory Commission and PJM<br />
grapple with the issue of the electricity<br />
grid’s diminishing resilience<br />
due to premature nuclear power plant<br />
retirements.<br />
The ICF report finds that a disruption<br />
to natural gas pipelines would<br />
have a major, prolonged effect on electricity<br />
service in the Mid-Atlantic, if<br />
nuclear power plants are not there as a<br />
backup resource and/or natural gas<br />
infrasctructure is not enhanced.<br />
“Such an event could result in the<br />
loss of nearly 27 gigawatts [GW] of<br />
gas-fired generation, with 18 GW<br />
serving the PJM Mid-Atlantic area, depending<br />
on the severity and location<br />
of such event,” the ICF report says.<br />
“When combined with the retirement<br />
of a similar amount of nuclear<br />
capacity, the analysis implies such an<br />
event would put as much as 22 percent<br />
of the area’s load at risk of being<br />
shed in the highest load hours.”<br />
Earlier this month, the White<br />
House released a statement saying<br />
that “impending retirements of fuelsecure<br />
power facilities are leading<br />
to a rapid depletion of a critical part<br />
of our Nation’s energy mix, and impacting<br />
the resilience of our power<br />
grid.”<br />
According to the ICF report, during<br />
a gas pipeline disruption caused by<br />
extreme weather or equipment failure<br />
and lasting 60 days, the PJM service<br />
area would experience “load losses for<br />
more than 200 hours spread across as<br />
many as 34 days.”<br />
“Of the nearly 18 GW of gas-fired<br />
capacity that could be impacted by<br />
such an event, over 45 percent has no<br />
backup fuel capability and would be<br />
immediately unavailable during such<br />
an event,” the report says.<br />
The report examines a scenario,<br />
The Policy Case, in which nuclear<br />
power plants continue to run thanks<br />
to prudent state and federal policies.<br />
Under that scenario, nuclear power<br />
plants would be able to compensate<br />
for the losses in natural gas generation<br />
due to an unexpected interruption.<br />
“The nuclear capacity that remains<br />
online is able to offset the gas generation<br />
impacted by the infrastructure<br />
event, resulting in load being served<br />
in all hours over the 60-day period,”<br />
the report says.<br />
Nuclear power plants have a longterm<br />
supply of fuel onsite. A steady<br />
supply of fuel delivered via pipelines is<br />
necessary to generate electricity from<br />
natural gas. Some natural gas plants<br />
have the ability to run on oil as a<br />
backup fuel, but those supplies would<br />
only last for a handful of days before<br />
needing to be refilled.<br />
The steady supply of onsite fuel is<br />
one reason nuclear power plants are<br />
able to continue supplying electricity<br />
during extreme weather, including<br />
2017’s Hurricane Harvey in Texas.<br />
Last year, Energy Secretary Perry<br />
directed FERC to “take swift action”<br />
to address threats to the resiliency<br />
of the U.S. electric grid and issue a<br />
rule requiring organized markets to<br />
develop rules to compensate “fuelsecure”<br />
electricity generators for the<br />
resiliency they provide. FERC declined<br />
to adopt that proposed rulemaking,<br />
but the agency did open a new proceeding<br />
in which it directed regional<br />
transmission organizations (RTOs)<br />
and independent system operators<br />
(ISOs) to assess grid resilience and<br />
recommend actions. The ICF report<br />
has been submitted to FERC as part of<br />
this proceeding.<br />
Last month, 10,000 megawatts of<br />
nuclear generating capacity failed to<br />
clear PJM Interconnection’s annual<br />
capacity auction. NEI President and<br />
CEO Maria Korsnick said that result<br />
showed the urgent need for electricity<br />
market reform.<br />
NEI Senior Director of Policy<br />
Development Matt Crozat adds that<br />
mounting evidence points to serious<br />
underlying flaws in how electricity<br />
markets are set up.<br />
“This new study underscores<br />
nuclear power’s vital role in ensuring<br />
a reliable and resilient supply of<br />
electricity,” Crozat said.<br />
“Policymakers and administrators<br />
interested in continuing and strengthening<br />
the resilience of America’s grid<br />
should act promptly to ensure nuclear<br />
power plants are fairly compensated<br />
in the marketplace for the reliable,<br />
emission-free electricity they provide.”<br />
| | www.nei.org<br />
Fuel Management<br />
and Disposal<br />
U.S.: Huge bipartisan<br />
majority passes Used Fuel<br />
Management Bill in House<br />
• Republicans and Democrats join<br />
together to pass bill 340-72<br />
• Passage major victory for Rep.<br />
Shimkus; sets up possible Senate<br />
legislation later this year<br />
• Bill expedites Yucca Mountain licensing,<br />
provides for centralized<br />
interim storage<br />
The U.S. House of Representatives<br />
made overdue progress toward<br />
solving the long-standing issue of<br />
used fuel management, with the passage<br />
of the Nuclear Waste Policy<br />
Amendments Act of <strong>2018</strong> (HR 3053)<br />
with a bipartisan vote of 340-72.<br />
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman<br />
of the House Energy and<br />
Commerce Committee’s environment<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
subcommittee, authored the bill “to<br />
reform the used fuel management<br />
and disposal program to assure its<br />
sustainability going forward.” A<br />
previous version of the bill passed<br />
the committee last year by a vote<br />
of 49-4.<br />
The Nuclear Energy Institute<br />
lauded the passage of the bill.<br />
“Today’s bipartisan vote represents<br />
overdue progress towards solving a<br />
longstanding issue. House passage of<br />
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments<br />
Act begins a much needed step<br />
forward regarding reform to implement,<br />
at long last, the federal government’s<br />
statutory obligation to manage<br />
used nuclear fuel,” NEI President and<br />
Chief Executive Officer Maria Korsnick<br />
said.<br />
“Earlier this year we marked a<br />
troubling milestone: 20 years of<br />
government failure to meet its legal<br />
obligation to take possession of used<br />
fuel. This abdication of responsibility<br />
has harmed electricity consumers and<br />
U.S. taxpayers.”<br />
The original Nuclear Waste Policy<br />
Act became law in 1982, creating a<br />
structured program requiring the<br />
U.S. Department of Energy to begin<br />
removing used fuel from reactor sites<br />
in January 1998. To cover the program’s<br />
costs, DOE and reactor owners<br />
entered into contracts under which<br />
owners paid a fee of one-tenth of a<br />
cent per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity<br />
generated into a Nuclear Waste<br />
Fund. To date, electricity consumers<br />
have paid more than $40 billion into<br />
the fund and with interest accruing<br />
more than $1.7 billion annually, a<br />
balance of more than $38 billion<br />
remains.<br />
Since 1987, DOE focused on developing<br />
a repository at Yucca Mountain,<br />
Nevada, spending approximately $10<br />
billion on the program and submitting<br />
a license application to the U.S.<br />
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in<br />
2008. In 2010, DOE declared Yucca<br />
Mountain “unworkable” and unsuccessfully<br />
attempted to withdraw its<br />
application.<br />
Since DOE missed the January<br />
1998 deadlines, the courts have<br />
held the government liable for<br />
DOE’s inaction, awarding reactor<br />
owners damages for DOE’s failure<br />
to meet its January 1998 statutory<br />
deadline.<br />
“U.S. taxpayers have paid more<br />
than $7 billion in damages, and will<br />
continue to pay more than $2 million<br />
a day until the federal government<br />
moves the fuel from plant sites,”<br />
Korsnick noted.<br />
The technical staff of the NRC,<br />
after the court ordered it to complete<br />
its safety and environmental reviews<br />
of DOE’s application, found the<br />
repository in compliance with all<br />
applicable regulations. The court<br />
also ordered DOE to stop collecting<br />
Nuclear Waste Fund fees, which it<br />
did starting mid-2014.<br />
This bill includes provisions that<br />
would move the Yucca Mountain project<br />
forward by helping to resolve key<br />
issues such as land withdrawal and<br />
infrastructure issues.<br />
It would also increase the statutory<br />
limit for used fuel to be placed in the<br />
repository to 110,000 metric tons<br />
from the present 70,000 metric tons<br />
and clarify DOE’s authority to advance<br />
privately owned consolidated interim<br />
storage facilities.<br />
Additionally, it provides a pathway<br />
for bringing Nevada and the local<br />
communities to the table to discuss<br />
benefits associated with these projects.<br />
The legislation also addresses<br />
Nuclear Waste Fund fees, preventing<br />
DOE from collecting any fees until<br />
the NRC issues a final determination<br />
on the Yucca Mountain construction<br />
authorization application. It also<br />
restricts DOE’s fee collections to no<br />
more than 90 percent of the amount<br />
Congress appropriates for the program<br />
in any given year.<br />
Support for the bill came from<br />
many stakeholders, including a joint<br />
letter to Congress from NEI, the<br />
American Public Power Association,<br />
the Edison Electric Institute and the<br />
National Rural Electric Cooperation<br />
Association. Other letters of support<br />
were transmitted from labor unions,<br />
including the AFL-CIO, the International<br />
Brotherhood of Electrical<br />
Workers and North America’s Building<br />
Trades Unions.<br />
The Senate has legislation of its<br />
own that could be introduced later<br />
this year.<br />
“The industry recognizes that the<br />
House and Senate have differing<br />
views on how to reform the used fuel<br />
program. We encourage the two<br />
bodies to continue to advance their<br />
respective proposals and reach a<br />
compromise by the end of the year,”<br />
Korsnick said.<br />
“We look forward to continuing<br />
to work with lawmakers to reach<br />
bipartisan consensus on the best<br />
approach for the long-term management<br />
of the nation’s used fuel. We<br />
urge lawmakers to ensure that resulting<br />
legislation protects both electricity<br />
consumers and taxpayers.”<br />
| | www.congress.gov, www.nei.org,<br />
Research<br />
DOE awards $24 million to<br />
10 advanced nuclear projects<br />
Awards focus on boosting efficiency<br />
and safety, lowering costs of advanced<br />
reactor designs<br />
Reactor control, load-following<br />
and prefabrication techniques win<br />
awards<br />
DOE’s Perry: Awards will help<br />
America retain its technological edge<br />
In yet another example of the<br />
current administration’s continuing<br />
enthusiasm for nuclear energy, the<br />
U.S. Department of Energy this week<br />
announced up to $24 million to fund<br />
10 projects that will boost advanced<br />
nuclear reactor designs.<br />
The awards play a fundamental<br />
role in ensuring America retains its<br />
technological leadership in commercial<br />
nuclear energy, the Nuclear<br />
Energy Institute said.<br />
“It’s gratifying to see DOE taking a<br />
leading role in investing in the longterm<br />
future of this critical American<br />
technology that enhances energy<br />
security and boosts grid resilience<br />
while lowering emissions,” NEI Senior<br />
Technical Advisor for New Reactor<br />
and Advanced Technology Everett<br />
Redmond said.<br />
The awards are part of a new<br />
Advanced Research Projects Agency-<br />
Energy (ARPA-E) program, Modeling-<br />
Enhanced Innovations Trailblazing<br />
Nuclear Energy Reinvigoration<br />
(MEITNER), which will identify and<br />
develop technologies that enable<br />
designs for lower cost, more easily<br />
constructible and safer advanced<br />
nuclear reactors.<br />
“Nuclear energy is an essential<br />
component of the U.S. energy mix,<br />
and by teaming up with the private<br />
sector to reduce costs and improve<br />
safety, we are keeping America ahead<br />
of the curve in advanced reactor<br />
design and technology,” U.S. Secretary<br />
of Energy Rick Perry said in the<br />
DOE statement.<br />
“These next-generation ARPA‐E<br />
technologies help us maintain<br />
our competitive, technological edge<br />
globally, while improving the resilience<br />
of the grid and helping provide<br />
reliable, baseload electricity to each<br />
and every American.”<br />
Many of the awards focus on<br />
improving the efficiency and safety of<br />
several advanced nuclear technology<br />
designs now under development. The<br />
designs come in a range of sizes, from<br />
a couple of megawatts to more than<br />
a 1,000 megawatts of generating<br />
capacity. They feature a range of<br />
415<br />
NEWS<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
416<br />
NEWS<br />
| | Mounting of a battery cell in the instrument ANTARES at FRM II.<br />
Photo: Wenzel Schürmann / TUMwebsite.<br />
coolants including high-temperature<br />
gas, molten salt and liquid metal.<br />
Some of these reactors may even be<br />
capable of recovering and reusing elements<br />
in used fuel to produce even<br />
more energy.<br />
The winning project teams will<br />
have access to DOE’s modeling and<br />
simulation resources as they develop<br />
their concepts and will coordinate regularly<br />
with experts from across DOE<br />
and the national laboratory system.<br />
The winning projects and their<br />
award amounts include:<br />
• A novel circulation pump for<br />
molten salt reactors to improve<br />
plant performance, increase pump<br />
lifetime and reduce cost will be<br />
developed by Terrestrial Energy<br />
USA ($3,150,000).<br />
• A new reactor control technology<br />
to enhance passive safety and<br />
reduce costs for the molten salt<br />
reactor and other designs being<br />
developed by Yellowstone Energy<br />
($2,599,185).<br />
• A cost-saving construction method<br />
for concrete reactor components<br />
being developed by General<br />
Atomics that will use factory<br />
pre-cast modules of ultra highstrength<br />
concrete ($1,532,752).<br />
• General Atomics also is developing<br />
a detailed, dynamic model of a<br />
nuclear power system with rapid<br />
load-following capability, enabling<br />
grid synergies with renewable wind<br />
and solar sources ($1,455,762).<br />
• Westinghouse Electric Co. will<br />
develop a “solid core block” of<br />
materials that will self-regulate<br />
the reaction rate in a nuclear<br />
reactor, allowing it to achieve safe<br />
shutdown without external power<br />
or operator intervention<br />
($5,000,000).<br />
An overarching theme of the<br />
awards is the drive to increase the<br />
efficiency and economic performance<br />
of advanced reactor technologies<br />
under development, while lowering<br />
their construction costs, Redmond<br />
noted.<br />
“New energy technologies can improve<br />
our quality of life, benefit the<br />
environment and create jobs, but they<br />
must also be economically viable if<br />
they are to see wide commercialization,”<br />
Redmond said.<br />
“These awards acknowledge the<br />
fact that advanced nuclear technologies<br />
must not only be groundbreaking,<br />
they must also be affordable.”<br />
| | www.nei.org, www.energy.gov<br />
Neutrons pave the way to<br />
accelerated production of<br />
lithium-ion cells<br />
(frmii) Developers from Bosch and<br />
scientists at the Technical University<br />
of Munich (TUM) are using neutrons<br />
to analyze the filling of lithium ion<br />
batteries for hybrid cars with electrolytes.<br />
Their experiments show that<br />
electrodes are wetted twice as fast in a<br />
vacuum as under normal pressure.<br />
One of the most critical and<br />
time-consuming processes in battery<br />
production is the filling of lithium<br />
cells with electrolyte fluid following<br />
the placement the of electrodes in a<br />
battery cell. While the actual filling<br />
process takes only a few seconds,<br />
battery manufacturers often wait<br />
several hours to ensure the liquid is<br />
fully absorbed into the pores of the<br />
electrode stack.<br />
The fact that neutrons are hardly<br />
absorbed by the metal battery housing<br />
makes them ideal for analyzing batteries.<br />
That is why Bosch employees,<br />
in collaboration with scientists from<br />
the TU Munich and the University of<br />
Erlangen-Nuremberg, investigated<br />
the filling process at the neutron<br />
i maging and tomography facility<br />
ANTARES of the research neutron<br />
source FRM II.<br />
Faster in a vacuum<br />
Manufacturers of lithium cells often<br />
fill the empty cells in a vacuum. The<br />
process is monitored indirectly using<br />
resistance measurements. “To make<br />
sure that all the pores of the electrodes<br />
are filled with the electrolyte,<br />
manufacturers build in large safety<br />
margins,” says Bosch developer<br />
Dr. Wolfgang Weydanz. “That costs<br />
time and money.”<br />
In the light of the neutrons, the<br />
scientists recognized that in a vacuum<br />
the electrodes were wetted completely<br />
in just over 50 minutes. Under normal<br />
pressure, this takes around 100<br />
minutes. The liquid spreads evenly in<br />
the battery cell from all four sides,<br />
from the outside in.<br />
In addition, the electrodes absorb<br />
ten percent less electrolyte under<br />
normal pressure. The culprit is gases<br />
that hinder the wetting process, as the<br />
scientists were able to demonstrate for<br />
the first time using the neutrons.<br />
| | mlz-garching.de/antares<br />
Company News<br />
Bilfinger awarded contract<br />
for superconducting magnetic<br />
modules<br />
(bilfinger) Bilfinger has received a<br />
major contract from GSI Helmholtzzentrum<br />
für Schwerionenforschung<br />
GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany, for<br />
the construction and delivery of 83<br />
superconducting magnetic modules<br />
along with twelve additional modules.<br />
The contract is valued at over €20<br />
million. The modules will be used<br />
in the SIS100 accelerator ring at<br />
the Facility for Antiproton and Ion<br />
Research (FAIR). FAIR is one of the<br />
world’s largest research projects with<br />
an investment volume of more than<br />
€1 billion.<br />
“Research facilities are crucial<br />
customers for us. I am therefore<br />
particularly pleased that we have been<br />
able to expand our partnership with<br />
GSI,” says Ronald Hepper, Managing<br />
Director of Bilfinger Noell. The<br />
Bilfinger subsidiary is also working<br />
with the Karlsruhe Institute of<br />
Technology and CERN, the European<br />
Organization for Nuclear Research,<br />
among other research facilities.<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
| | Bilfinger awarded contract for superconducting magnetic modules. 3D view of the superconducting<br />
magnetic module (Picture: GSI)<br />
For more than ten years now,<br />
Bilfinger has been involved in the<br />
FAIR project. The FAIR accelerator<br />
will allow numerous experiments to<br />
be conducted to find out more about<br />
the structure of matter and the origin<br />
of the universe as well as to improve<br />
cancer therapy. The SIS100 accelerator<br />
ring generates the particle beams<br />
required for all these experiments.<br />
Bilfinger is currently producing a<br />
series of 110 superconducting dipole<br />
magnet modules for the SIS100.<br />
The basis for this is a prototype that<br />
Bilfinger also helped develop.<br />
The 83 superconducting magnetic<br />
modules which are the subject of the<br />
new order each consist of two magnet<br />
units, a vacuum vessel with a thermal<br />
shield, radiant tubes and other<br />
complex components. Each of these<br />
devices has a length of around 5.2<br />
meters and weighs over five tons.<br />
With their different structures, the<br />
different module types pose a logistic<br />
challenge. The twelve additional<br />
modules serve to connect superconducting<br />
magnet modules in the<br />
SIS100 particle accelerator.<br />
Delivery of the first superconducting<br />
magnetic modules is planned<br />
to start in early 2019.<br />
| | www.bilfinger.com<br />
Framatome partners with<br />
McAfee to support energy<br />
industry cybersecurity<br />
(framatome) Framatome signed an<br />
agreement with McAfee, the deviceto-cloud<br />
cybersecurity company, to<br />
distribute cybersecurity solutions to<br />
energy transmission, distribution<br />
and generation facilities worldwide.<br />
Together, Framatome and McAfee<br />
will work with these facilities to<br />
help protect their digital assets and<br />
support the reliable production of<br />
electricity.<br />
“In a rapidly evolving digital<br />
landscape, holistic and robust cybersecurity<br />
programs are critical to<br />
protecting nuclear energy facilities<br />
and electrical power and distribution<br />
infrastructure,” said Catherine Cornand,<br />
senior executive vice president<br />
of Framatome’s Installed Base Business<br />
Unit. “This partnership with<br />
McAfee will enhance our ability to<br />
provide customers with the right<br />
combination of cutting-edge technologies<br />
and expertise.”<br />
This partnership builds on the<br />
cybersecurity support Framatome<br />
provides to international power generation<br />
fleets and bulk electric system,<br />
allowing the company to deliver an<br />
even stronger suite of services to<br />
customers, backed by McAfee’s highly<br />
respected brand and cybersecurity<br />
products.<br />
“McAfee’s diverse client portfolio<br />
and global threat intelligence network<br />
give us a comprehensive and real-time<br />
view of cybersecurity threats,” said<br />
Tom Moore, vice president, World<br />
Wide Embedded Sales of McAfee.<br />
“We look forward to combining our<br />
significant knowledge base and<br />
time-tested, evolving solutions with<br />
Framatome’s experience and proficiency<br />
in the electric power industry<br />
to serve this unique customer base.”<br />
When combined with Framatome’s<br />
cyber products and services, the<br />
McAfee cybersecurity hardware,<br />
software, support and incident response<br />
services are a comprehensive<br />
solution to protect international<br />
digital systems from cyberattacks.<br />
This solution also helps meet international<br />
regulations.<br />
| | www.framatome.com<br />
NUKEM Technologies:<br />
Successful finalization of<br />
the ITER Deactivation study<br />
(nukem) ITER is a tokamak under construction<br />
in Cadarache, France. Its<br />
goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of<br />
producing energy by fusion reaction of<br />
Deuterium and Tritium. The machine<br />
should generate first plasma in December<br />
2025. Before construction is even<br />
finished, the deactivation and dismantling<br />
was analyzed already.<br />
For the ITER Deactivation study a<br />
consortium of the companies AMEC<br />
Foster Wheeler (now known as WOOD<br />
PLC and supported by AJR consulting)<br />
and NUKEM Technologies Engineering<br />
Services GmbH (NTES) was<br />
selected. Within the consortium<br />
French, UK, and German knowledge<br />
on nuclear issues was present.<br />
In close cooperation with ITER<br />
Organization about 100 documents<br />
needed to be mined for relevant<br />
information to get to a good understanding<br />
of the equipment which will<br />
be deactivated and dismantled after<br />
the end of plasma operations of ITER.<br />
The documents had sometimes several<br />
hundred pages (e.g. the Safety Report<br />
of ITER) or otherwise huge dimensions<br />
(e.g. the “Bill of materials” with<br />
information on materials used for IT-<br />
ER construction contains several<br />
hundred thousand cells …). The<br />
3D-Models of all facilities of ITER<br />
which will be under French nuclear<br />
legislation were essential for the<br />
analysis to get a good understanding<br />
not only on the equipment’s location<br />
and dimensions, but also on accessibility.<br />
Additional information on<br />
safety parameters of the rooms (radiation<br />
zones, ventilation zones etc.)<br />
needed to be brought together to<br />
better understand possible restrictions.<br />
Throughout the project the expertise<br />
of France, UK and Germany<br />
present in the consortium was used to<br />
estimate the working procedures and<br />
time requirements for all deactivation<br />
operations required. In some cases<br />
knowledge based assumptions where<br />
developed.<br />
For some parts of ITER the analysis<br />
was performed depending on the<br />
systems, while for others the analysis<br />
was performed on a Level by Level and<br />
Room by Room base. Due to the<br />
changes partly resulting from the<br />
first analysis results the basis of the<br />
analysis needed to be changed within<br />
the process. When needed, assumptions<br />
on the parameters of the equipment<br />
required for the deactivation<br />
analysis could be made based on the<br />
417<br />
NEWS<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
418<br />
NEWS<br />
experience of the consortium and<br />
approved by ITER leading to a common<br />
basis for the analysis.<br />
The project’s success was based<br />
on the wide knowledge base provided<br />
by the participating companies. The<br />
frequent meetings within the consortium<br />
and with ITER staff were very<br />
helpful to get a clear understanding of<br />
the processes within all facilities. The<br />
cooperation was on a very good level<br />
of understanding of each other even<br />
with some surprises concerning<br />
different regulations on how to process<br />
or treat radiological issues. The<br />
sequencing of all necessary steps to<br />
deactivate the whole plant took into<br />
account not only tritiated waste<br />
treatment issues but always put safety<br />
first e.g. by establishing specific<br />
methods of operations. For example<br />
before any room is entered by<br />
personnel the first action is to<br />
decontaminate the rooms, if necessary<br />
using robots. The study does<br />
not take into account future possible<br />
dismantling methods but is based on<br />
existing methods.<br />
It was proven that the safe deactivation<br />
of ITER is possible. After the<br />
presentation of the results to ITER at<br />
the final meeting mid of March, ITER<br />
expressed its full satisfaction to the<br />
consortium team.<br />
| | www.nukemtechnologies.com<br />
Orano TN awarded a contract<br />
for the supply of dry storage<br />
casks and services in the USA<br />
(orano) Orano TN, the nuclear<br />
logistics subsidiary of Orano, has been<br />
selected by the American electric<br />
utility Omaha Public Power District<br />
(OPPD) for the final offload of more<br />
than 900 used fuel assemblies contained<br />
in the pool of its Fort Calhoun<br />
nuclear power station in Nebraska. To<br />
carry out this operation, Orano TN<br />
will supply 30 NUHOMS® dry storage<br />
systems and the associated “pool to<br />
pad” transfer services for several tens<br />
of millions of dollars.<br />
NUHOMS® canisters, already in<br />
use at the Fort Calhoun facility, are<br />
approved for both onsite storage<br />
and offsite transportation, ensuring<br />
long-term used fuel management.<br />
“We are proud to continue our<br />
nearly 15-year trusted relationship<br />
with our client OPPD and the Omaha<br />
community,” said Greg Vesey, Senior<br />
Vice President of Orano TN. “As<br />
before, our commitment is to transfer<br />
the used fuel to the Independent<br />
Spent Fuel Storage Installation in a<br />
safe, accelerated and cost-effective<br />
manner.”<br />
| | The beginning of towing of FPU ‘Academik Lomonosov’ to Pevek.<br />
Orano TN’s NUHOMS® systems<br />
have securely stored used nuclear fuel<br />
in the United States for more than two<br />
decades, with installations at 33 sites<br />
around the country.<br />
| | www.orano.group<br />
Westinghouse accident tolerant<br />
fuel development moves<br />
forward with cooperation<br />
agreement with ENUSA<br />
(westinghouse) Westinghouse Electric<br />
Company announced that it will collaborate<br />
in the development of its En-<br />
Core® Fuel, the revolutionary<br />
accident-tolerant fuel (ATF) design,<br />
with ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas<br />
(ENUSA) through a Frame Cooperation<br />
Agreement (FCA).<br />
“This agreement serves to<br />
strengthen the technical and commercial<br />
relations between ENUSA and<br />
Westinghouse as we work to develop<br />
leading nuclear fuel technology,” said<br />
Torbjörn Norén, European Fuel Group<br />
and EMEA Fuel Delivery Director at<br />
Westinghouse. “Westinghouse’s work<br />
with ENUSA in the Spanish and<br />
European Fuel Group markets will<br />
help to facilitate agreements with<br />
customers to launch EnCore Fuel<br />
demonstration programs in their<br />
plants.”<br />
Under the terms of the agreement,<br />
the newly signed FCA establishes<br />
the framework that will regulate the<br />
different Joint Development Programs<br />
(JDPs) to be launched between<br />
both companies. The first JDP will<br />
evaluate the application of the<br />
segmented rod concept and develop<br />
models of ATF / EnCore fuel behavior.<br />
The first JDP will be followed by<br />
other JDPs in the area of codes and<br />
methods, spent fuel management,<br />
and fuel fabrication and inspection<br />
technology.<br />
| | www.westinghousenuclear.com<br />
Russia’s floating nuclear<br />
plant arrives in Murmansk f<br />
or fuelling<br />
(nucnet) Russia’s first commercial<br />
floating nuclear power station, the<br />
Akademik Lomonosov, has arrived in<br />
the port city of Murmansk in the far<br />
northwest of Russia where it will be<br />
loaded with nuclear fuel, state nuclear<br />
corporation Rosatom said.<br />
The plant was moved from its construction<br />
site in St Petersburg with no<br />
nuclear fuel on board. Fuel will be<br />
loaded in Murmansk and the plant<br />
will then be moved for deployment at<br />
Pevek, an Arctic port town in the<br />
country’s far north-eastern region of<br />
Chukotka, in the summer of 2019.<br />
Commissioning is scheduled for the<br />
autumn of 2019.<br />
The Akademik Lomonosov – set to<br />
be the only operating floating nuclear<br />
plant in the world – will be the first<br />
vessel of a proposed fleet of floating<br />
plants with small pressurised water<br />
reactor units that can provide energy,<br />
heat and desalinated water to remote<br />
and arid areas of the country.<br />
It will be the first floating nuclear<br />
station to be built and deployed<br />
since the MH-1A, also known as<br />
the Sturgis, in the US in 1967. The<br />
Sturgis was towed to the Panama<br />
Canal Zone that it supplied with<br />
10 MW of electricity from October<br />
1968 to 1975.<br />
The 21,000-tonne vessel has two<br />
Russian-designed KLT-40S reactor<br />
units with an electrical power<br />
generating capacity of 35 MW each,<br />
sufficient for a city with a population<br />
of around 200,000 people.<br />
Rosatom said the Akademik<br />
Lomonosov will replace capacity lost<br />
when the Bilibino nuclear station in<br />
Chukotka is shut down. According to<br />
Rosatom, Bilibino generates 80% of<br />
electricity in the isolated region.<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
Unit 1 at Bilibino is scheduled to be<br />
permanently shut down in December<br />
<strong>2018</strong>. The remaining three units will<br />
be shut down in December 2021,<br />
Rosatom has said.<br />
| | www.rosatom.ru<br />
GNF Wins $ 250 Million<br />
Contract To Provide BWR Fuel<br />
For Entergy<br />
(nucnet) US-based Global Nuclear<br />
Fuel (GNF) has been awarded a longterm<br />
contract by Entergy Nuclear to<br />
continue to fuel its boiling water<br />
reactors.<br />
The new fuel supply contract,<br />
valued at more than $250m, runs<br />
from 2019 to 2031 and includes 10 reloads<br />
of GNF3 nuclear fuel. Entergy<br />
will be the first customer to take delivery<br />
of GNF3 in reload quantities.<br />
GNF, a General Electric-led joint<br />
venture with Hitachi, said the GNF3<br />
fuel assembly, manufactured in<br />
Wilmington, North Carolina, is<br />
designed to offer improved fuel cycle<br />
economics, increased performance<br />
and flexibility.<br />
GNF3 lead use assemblies have<br />
been operating in several US nuclear<br />
power plants, including four lead use<br />
assemblies in Entergy’s River Bend<br />
nuclear station in Louisiana since<br />
2015.<br />
In 2019, River Bend will become<br />
the first plant in which GNF3 will be<br />
installed in reload quantities. GNF3<br />
will be installed in reload quantities at<br />
Grand Gulf in Mississippi in 2020.<br />
| | nuclear.gepower.com<br />
Forum<br />
10 th Anniversary International<br />
Forum ATOMEXPO <strong>2018</strong><br />
(atomexpo) The ATOMEXPO International<br />
Forum is the largest congress<br />
and exhibition event of the nuclear<br />
industry. Inaugurated in 2009 on<br />
the initiative of Rosatom State Corporation,<br />
the forum is held annually.<br />
Traditionally, the event brings<br />
together leaders of major companies<br />
of the global nuclear industry<br />
and related industries, government<br />
agencies, representatives of international<br />
and public organizations,<br />
and leading experts. Over the years,<br />
ATOMEXPO has become a global<br />
event for the exchange of views and<br />
best practices in the field of effective<br />
nuclear power use, and a popular<br />
venue for business meetings, partnership<br />
agreements and launch of new<br />
projects.<br />
The 10 th International Forum<br />
ATOMEXPO <strong>2018</strong> was held in May in<br />
Sochi. This year the key theme is:<br />
Global Partnership – Joint Success.<br />
The plenary discussion on this theme<br />
will be attended by: Aleksei Likhachev,<br />
Director General of Rosatom State<br />
Atomic Energy Corporation; William<br />
D. Magwood IV, Director General of<br />
the Nuclear Agency of the Organization<br />
for Economic Cooperation<br />
and Development; Liubov Glebova,<br />
member of Russian Federation<br />
Council; Mohamed Shaker, Ministry<br />
of Electricity and Renewable Energy<br />
of Egypt; Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA<br />
Deputy Director general; Hortensia<br />
Jimenez Rivera, General Executive<br />
Director of the Bolivian Atomic<br />
Energy Agency; Necati Yamac,<br />
Deputy Undersecretary of Ministry of<br />
Energy and Natural Resources of<br />
Turkey; Vladimir Semashko, Deputy<br />
Prime Minister of the Republic of<br />
Belarus.<br />
The program includes over 20<br />
round tables and panel sessions,<br />
which will be attended by more than<br />
200 experts. The participants will<br />
address topical issues on multilateral<br />
cooperation in all areas of nuclear<br />
technology application, focusing on<br />
international partnerships in the construction<br />
of nuclear power plants, digital<br />
technologies, research, staff training,<br />
infrastructure development and<br />
security. Signing of important documents<br />
is also planned: agreements on<br />
strategic cooperation and partnership,<br />
commercial contracts, and project<br />
development documents.<br />
The third Russia-IAEA Nuclear<br />
Management School for Managers in<br />
Nuclear Organizations will be held for<br />
the first time at ATOMEXPO. A special<br />
event will premiere the ATOMEXPO<br />
AWARDS, where an international<br />
professional award for outstanding<br />
services will be awarded to global<br />
companies that have made a significant<br />
contribution to the development<br />
of the nuclear industry and the<br />
use of nuclear power for the benefit of<br />
mankind.<br />
It is expected that over 3,000 representatives<br />
of over 600 companies<br />
from over 60 countries will take part<br />
in ATOMEXPO <strong>2018</strong>. The exhibition<br />
will present the latest technologies,<br />
products and solutions developed<br />
by more than 115 Russian and international<br />
nuclear power companies<br />
and related industries.<br />
Between 2009 and 2017, about<br />
38,000 attendees from 83 countries<br />
took part in ATOMEXPO events, 987<br />
companies made presentations, and<br />
1,116 experts spoke at 141 round<br />
tables. More than 300 agreements<br />
and international cooperation documents<br />
were signed during the nine<br />
forums. Platinum sponsors of the<br />
anniversary ATOMEXPO <strong>2018</strong> are<br />
Sovcombank and VTB bank; Gold<br />
sponsor – Gazprombank; partners –<br />
TVEL, RosRAO, National Operator<br />
for Radioactive Waste Management;<br />
energy sponsor – REA; operator –<br />
Atomexpo.<br />
| | www.rosatom.ru<br />
People<br />
Holger Bröskamp retires after<br />
15 years with GNS<br />
(gns) Holger Bröskamp (60) retired at<br />
the end of April <strong>2018</strong> after 15 years in<br />
the management of GNS. Bröskamp<br />
was spokesman of the GNS Board of<br />
Managing Directors from March 2003<br />
to September 2011, since then he has<br />
been its deputy chairman.<br />
“During his one and a half decades<br />
at the head of GNS, Holger Bröskamp<br />
has always given equal priority to safe<br />
disposal and the well-being of our<br />
employees,” says Dr. Hannes Wimmer,<br />
Chairman of the Management Board<br />
of GNS, in praise of his colleague<br />
who is leaving the company. “With<br />
these principles, he has had a<br />
lasting influence on GNS and laid<br />
the foundations for our success<br />
today.”<br />
GNS Supervisory Board Chairman<br />
Dr. Guido Knott adds: “Holger<br />
Bröskamp enjoys an excellent reputation<br />
in all decisive waste disposal<br />
issues in politics, among experts and<br />
among domestic and foreign GNS<br />
customers.In a tense period between<br />
phase-out of nuclear energy, the<br />
extension of its operating life and the<br />
second phase-out decision, he made a<br />
decisive contribution to objectifying<br />
the debates. On behalf of all GNS<br />
shareholders and the Supervisory<br />
Board, I would like to thank Mr.<br />
Bröskamp for his outstanding commitment”.<br />
Of the activities Holger Bröskamp<br />
was most recently responsible for,<br />
Dr. Hannes Wimmer has taken over<br />
waste management and the retrieval<br />
of residues from reprocessing, while<br />
Managing Director Dr. Jens Schröder<br />
is now responsible for spent fuel<br />
management.<br />
The operation of the interim<br />
storage facilities in Ahaus and<br />
Gorleben, which were also under<br />
Bröskamp’s responsibility, was<br />
419<br />
NEWS<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
420<br />
NEWS<br />
already taken over by the federal<br />
government last year as part of the<br />
reorganization of nuclear waste<br />
management in Germany.<br />
The Board of Management Directors<br />
of GNS now consists of Dr. Hannes<br />
Wimmer (CEO), Dr. Jens Schröder<br />
(CTO) and Georg Büth (CFO).<br />
| | www.gns.de<br />
Publications<br />
Reaktorsicherheit für<br />
Leistungskernkraftwerke –<br />
Die Entwicklung im<br />
politischen und technischen<br />
Umfeld der Bundesrepublik<br />
Deutschland<br />
Das in der <strong>atw</strong> Juli 2013, S. 461/462<br />
besprochene Werk von Peter Laufs ist<br />
jetzt in der 2. Auflage erschienen. Neu<br />
aufgenommen und detailliert behandelt<br />
wurden die Themen Alterungsmanagement,<br />
der Rückbau von<br />
Kernkraftwerken und die Entsorgung<br />
radioaktiver Abfälle. Neben diesen<br />
umfangreichen Ergänzungen wurde<br />
der Stoff der 1. Auflage überarbeitet,<br />
erweitert und an die neuere Entwicklung<br />
seit Erscheinen der 1. Auflage<br />
angepasst. Wegen des gewachsenen<br />
Umfangs wurde das Werk in zwei Bände<br />
aufgeteilt, die auch einzeln<br />
bezogen werden können. Der 2. Band,<br />
der auch die genannten neuen Kapitel<br />
enthält, war umgehend vergriffen<br />
und musste nachgedruckt werden.<br />
Ursächlich war offenbar das starke<br />
Interesse an der umfassenden Darstellung<br />
der Endlagerpolitik in<br />
Deutschland und vergleichend in<br />
einigen anderen Ländern. In dieser<br />
geschlossenen Form findet man das<br />
sonst nirgendwo.<br />
Das Buch ist in einer auch für den<br />
interessierten Nichtfachmann verständlichen<br />
Sprache geschrieben und<br />
bietet mit seinem umfangreichen<br />
Literaturverzeichnis viele Materialien<br />
für weiterführende Studien.<br />
Laufs, P.: Reaktorsicherheit für<br />
Leistungskernkraftwerke – Die Entwicklung<br />
im politischen und technischen<br />
Umfeld der Bundesrepublik<br />
Deutschland.<br />
• 2. Auflage. Band 1: 866 Seiten,<br />
389 Abb., 29 Tab., Springer, Berlin<br />
<strong>2018</strong>, ISBN 978-3-662-53452-6,<br />
124,99 €, eBook 89,99 €;<br />
Band 2: 624 Seiten, 434 Abb.,<br />
24 Tab., Springer, Berlin <strong>2018</strong><br />
ISBN 978-3-662-54163-0,<br />
124,99 €, eBook 89,99 €<br />
| | www.springer.com<br />
Market data<br />
(All information is supplied without<br />
guarantee.)<br />
Nuclear Fuel Supply<br />
Market Data<br />
Information in current (nominal)<br />
U.S.-$. No inflation adjustment of<br />
prices on a base year. Separative work<br />
data for the formerly “secondary<br />
market”. Uranium prices [US-$/lb<br />
U 3 O 8 ; 1 lb = 453.53 g; 1 lb U 3 O 8 =<br />
0.385 kg U]. Conversion prices [US-$/<br />
kg U], Separative work [US-$/SWU<br />
(Separative work unit)].<br />
January to December 2014<br />
• Uranium: 28.10–42.00<br />
• Conversion: 7.25–11.00<br />
• Separative work: 86.00–98.00<br />
January to December 2015<br />
• Uranium: 35.00–39.75<br />
• Conversion: 6.25–9.50<br />
• Separative work: 58.00–92.00<br />
2016<br />
January to June 2016<br />
• Uranium: 26.50–35.25<br />
• Conversion: 6.25–6.75<br />
• Separative work: 58.00–62.00<br />
July to December 2016<br />
• Uranium: 18.75–27.80<br />
• Conversion: 5.50–6.50<br />
• Separative work: 47.00–62.00<br />
2017<br />
January to June 2017<br />
• Uranium: 19.25–26.50<br />
• Conversion: 5.00–6.75<br />
• Separative work: 42.00–50.00<br />
July to December 2017<br />
• Uranium: 19.50–26.00<br />
• Conversion: 4.50–6.00<br />
• Separative work: 39.00–43.00<br />
<strong>2018</strong><br />
January <strong>2018</strong><br />
• Uranium: 21.75–24.00<br />
• Conversion: 6.00–7.00<br />
• Separative work: 38.00–42.00<br />
February <strong>2018</strong><br />
• Uranium: 21.25–22.50<br />
• Conversion: 6.25–7.25<br />
• Separative work: 37.00–40.00<br />
March <strong>2018</strong><br />
• Uranium: 20.50–22.25<br />
• Conversion: 6.50–7.50<br />
• Separative work: 36.00–39.00<br />
April <strong>2018</strong><br />
• Uranium: 20.00–21.75<br />
• Conversion: 7.50–8.50<br />
• Separative work: 36.00–39.00<br />
May <strong>2018</strong><br />
• Uranium: 21.75–22.80<br />
• Conversion: 8.00–8.75<br />
• Separative work: 36.00–39.00<br />
| | Source: Energy Intelligence<br />
www.energyintel.com<br />
Cross-border Price<br />
for Hard Coal<br />
Cross-border price for hard coal in<br />
[€/t TCE] and orders in [t TCE] for<br />
use in power plants (TCE: tonnes of<br />
coal equivalent, German border):<br />
2012: 93.02; 27,453,635<br />
2013: 79.12, 31,637,166<br />
2014: 72.94, 30,591,663<br />
2015: 67.90; 28,919,230<br />
2016: 67.<strong>07</strong>; 29,787,178<br />
2017<br />
I. quarter: 95.75; 8,385,<strong>07</strong>1<br />
II. quarter: 86.40; 5,094,233<br />
III. quarter: 88.<strong>07</strong>; 5,504,908<br />
IV. quarter: 94.<strong>07</strong>; 6,754,798<br />
2017, year: 91.28, 25,739,010<br />
<strong>2018</strong><br />
I. quarter: 89.88; 5.838.003<br />
| | Source: BAFA, some data provisional<br />
www.bafa.de<br />
EEX Trading Results<br />
April <strong>2018</strong><br />
(eex) In April <strong>2018</strong>, the European<br />
Energy Exchange (EEX) increased<br />
volumes on its power derivatives<br />
markets by 12 % to 246.6 TWh (April<br />
2017: 220.7 TWh). In particular, the<br />
markets for Italy (38.8 TWh, +100 %)<br />
and France (19.8 TWh, +48 %)<br />
contributed to this development. Also<br />
the smaller markets for Spain<br />
(7.2 TWh, +54 %) and the Netherlands<br />
(4.3 TWh, +358 %) recorded<br />
significant growth. In Options on<br />
Phelix-DE Futures, at 36.7 TWh,<br />
EEX achieved the highest volume<br />
since the launch of this product.<br />
The April volume comprised<br />
158.3 TWh traded at EEX via Trade<br />
Registration with subsequent clearing.<br />
Clearing and settlement of all<br />
exchange transactions was executed<br />
by European Commodity Clearing<br />
(ECC).<br />
The Settlement Price for base load<br />
contract (Phelix Futures) with<br />
delivery in 2019 amounted to<br />
39.08 €/MWh. The Settlement<br />
Price for peak load contract (Phelix<br />
Futures) with delivery in 2019<br />
amounted to 44.85 €/MWh.<br />
On the EEX markets for emission allowances,<br />
the total trading volume increased<br />
by 56 % to 232.9 million<br />
tonnes of CO 2 in April (April 2017:<br />
149.6 million tonnes of CO 2 ). In<br />
particular, the development was driven<br />
by a significant increase of volumes on<br />
the EUA derivatives market where EEX<br />
recorded an increase of 32 % to 88.0<br />
million tonnes of CO 2 (April 2017: 66.5<br />
million tonnes of CO 2 ). Primary<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
market auctions contributed 79.3 million<br />
tonnes of CO 2 to the total volume.<br />
The EUA price with delivery in<br />
December <strong>2018</strong> amounted to<br />
12.65/14.01 €/ EUA (min./max.).<br />
May <strong>2018</strong><br />
(eex) In May <strong>2018</strong>, the European<br />
Energy Exchange (EEX) increased<br />
volumes on its power derivatives<br />
markets by 23% to 306.9 TWh (May<br />
2017: 248.7 TWh) which is the highest<br />
volume since March 2017. In the<br />
benchmark product for European<br />
power trading, the Phelix-DE Future,<br />
EEX achieved new monthly record of<br />
170.4 TWh. Furthermore, EEX was<br />
able to significantly increase volumes<br />
in its markets for Italy (58.4 TWh,<br />
+60%), Spain (9.7 TWh, +52%) and<br />
the Netherlands (3.2 TWh, +283%).<br />
Volumes on the options markets have<br />
tripled as against the previous year to<br />
31.7 TWh (May 2017: 10.3 TWh).<br />
The May volume comprised<br />
191.7 TWh traded at EEX via Trade<br />
Registration with subsequent clearing.<br />
Clearing and settlement of all<br />
exchange transactions was executed<br />
by European Commodity Clearing<br />
(ECC).<br />
The Settlement Price for base load<br />
contract (Phelix Futures) with<br />
delivery in 2019 amounted to<br />
44.42 €/MWh. The Settlement Price<br />
for peak load contract (Phelix<br />
Futures) with delivery in 2019<br />
amounted to 51.88 €/MWh.<br />
On the EEX markets for emission<br />
allowances, the total trading volume<br />
more than quadrupled to 477.8 million<br />
tonnes of CO 2 in May (May 2017:<br />
105.1 million tonnes of CO 2 ). On the<br />
EUA secondary market (Spot and<br />
Derivatives), EEX achieved a new<br />
record volume of 204.8 million tonnes<br />
of CO 2 . Also trading in EUA options<br />
reached a new peak of 214.0 million<br />
tonnes of CO 2 . Primary market auctions<br />
contributed 59.0 million tonnes<br />
of CO 2 to the total volume.<br />
The EUA price with delivery<br />
in December <strong>2018</strong> amounted to<br />
12.97/16.31 €/ EUA (min./max.).<br />
| | www.eex.com<br />
MWV Crude Oil/Product Prices<br />
March 2017<br />
(mwv) According to information and<br />
calculations by the Association of the<br />
German Petroleum Industry MWV e.V.<br />
in March <strong>2018</strong> the prices for super<br />
fuel, fuel oil and heating oil noted<br />
inconsistent compared with the<br />
pre vious month February <strong>2018</strong>. The<br />
average gas station prices for Euro<br />
| | Uranium spot market prices from 1980 to <strong>2018</strong> and from 2008 to <strong>2018</strong>. The price range is shown.<br />
In years with U.S. trade restrictions the unrestricted uranium spot market price is shown.<br />
| | Separative work and conversion market price ranges from 2008 to <strong>2018</strong>. The price range is shown.<br />
)1<br />
In December 2009 Energy Intelligence changed the method of calculation for spot market prices. The change results in virtual price leaps.<br />
super consisted of 134.15 €Cent<br />
( February <strong>2018</strong>: 137.27 €Cent, approx.<br />
-2.27 % in brackets: each information<br />
for pre vious month or rather previous<br />
month comparison), for diesel fuel of<br />
118.03 €Cent (119.50; -1.23 %) and<br />
for heating oil (HEL) of 59.87 €Cent<br />
(59.15 €Cent, +1.22 %).<br />
The tax share for super with a<br />
consumer price of 134.15 €Cent<br />
(137.27 €Cent) consisted of<br />
65.45 €Cent (48.79 %, 65.45 €Cent)<br />
for the current constant mineral oil<br />
tax share and 21.42 €Cent (current<br />
rate: 19.0 % = const., 21.85 €Cent)<br />
for the value added tax. The product<br />
price (notation Rotterdam) consisted<br />
of 38.46 €Cent (28.67 %, 38.46 €Cent)<br />
and the gross margin consisted of<br />
8.82 €Cent (6.57 %; 11.82 €Cent).<br />
Thus the overall tax share for super<br />
results of 67.79 % (66.68 %).<br />
Worldwide crude oil prices<br />
(monthly average price OPEC/Brent/<br />
WTI, Source: U.S. EIA) were slightly<br />
higher, approx. +0.77 % (-4.26 %) in<br />
March <strong>2018</strong> compared to February<br />
<strong>2018</strong>.<br />
The market showed a stable<br />
development with slightly higher<br />
prices; each in US-$/bbl: OPEC<br />
basket: 63.76 (63.48); UK-Brent:<br />
66.02 (65.32); West Texas Intermediate<br />
(WTI): 62.72 (62.23).<br />
April 2017<br />
In April <strong>2018</strong> the prices for super fuel,<br />
fuel oil and heating oil noted higher<br />
compared with the pre vious month<br />
March <strong>2018</strong>. The average gas station<br />
prices for Euro super consisted<br />
of 138.96 €Cent (March <strong>2018</strong>:<br />
134.15 €Cent, approx. +3.59 % in<br />
brackets: each information for previous<br />
month or rather previous month<br />
comparison), for diesel fuel of<br />
121.09 €Cent (118.03; +2.59 %) and<br />
for heating oil (HEL) of 63.12 €Cent<br />
(59.87 €Cent, +0.27 %).<br />
The tax share for super fuel with<br />
a consumer price of 138.96 €Cent<br />
(134.15 €Cent) consisted of<br />
65.45 €Cent (47.10 %, 65.45 €Cent)<br />
for the current constant mineral oil<br />
tax share and 22.19 €Cent (current<br />
rate: 19.0 % = const., 21.42 €Cent)<br />
for the value added tax. The product<br />
price (notation Rotterdam) consisted<br />
of 41.93 €Cent (30.17 %, 41.93 €Cent)<br />
and the gross margin consisted of<br />
9.39 €Cent (6.76 %; 8.82 €Cent).<br />
Thus the overall tax share for super<br />
results of 66.10 % (67.79 %).<br />
Worldwide crude oil prices<br />
(monthly average price OPEC/Brent/<br />
WTI, Source: U.S. EIA) were markable<br />
higher, approx. +7.39 % (+0.77 %)<br />
in April <strong>2018</strong> compared to March<br />
<strong>2018</strong>.<br />
The market showed a stable<br />
development with higher prices; each<br />
in US-$/bbl: OPEC basket: 68.47<br />
(63.76); UK-Brent: 72.11 (66.02);<br />
West Texas Inter mediate (WTI):<br />
66.25 (62.25).<br />
| | www.mwv.de<br />
421<br />
NEWS<br />
News
<strong>atw</strong> Vol. 63 (<strong>2018</strong>) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July<br />
422<br />
Confidence in Nuclear Safeguards at Risk<br />
as Trump Quits One Deal to Pursue Another<br />
John Shepherd<br />
NUCLEAR TODAY<br />
References:<br />
Statement by<br />
Yukiya Amano,<br />
https://bit.ly/2HlS7O<br />
Islamic Republic<br />
News Agency report,<br />
https://bit.ly/2sLiIjg<br />
By the time you sit down to read this article, Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un may have had an historic sit-down of their<br />
own – in fact the first meeting between a sitting US president and a leader of North Korea.<br />
The schedule for the meeting has been as unpredictable as<br />
the two leaders themselves and, at the time of writing,<br />
their proposed meeting has been variously described as a<br />
“summit” and “meet and greet”. The description appears<br />
designed to keep expectations in check.<br />
What is certain is that the “denuclearisation” of the<br />
Korean peninsula is on the agenda – although both sides<br />
appear to have different ideas as to what that means.<br />
Under normal circumstances, an outbreak of peace,<br />
harmony and moves to develop an atmosphere of mutual<br />
trust between the US and North Korea would be very<br />
welcome. But whatever relationship the leaders may or<br />
may not be seeking to nurture, I fear the circumstances<br />
that have led up to this appointment with destiny puts at<br />
risk the confidence the international community must<br />
have in the regulated use of civil nuclear power worldwide.<br />
I say this because in the run up to the talks, President<br />
Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive<br />
Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran.<br />
Through the JCPOA, Iran effectively had decided to<br />
make a ‘fresh start’ with the international community. The<br />
agreement was with the ‘P5+1’ group of world powers<br />
comprising the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.<br />
Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and<br />
allow in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)<br />
inspectors in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.<br />
The JCPOA was designed to end years of tension and<br />
fears about military aspects of Iran's nuclear activities. Just<br />
last March, IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano said “Iran<br />
is implementing its nuclear-related commitments” under<br />
the JCPOA.<br />
In May, Amano stressed that Iran was “subject to the<br />
world’s most robust nuclear verification regime under the<br />
JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain”. As of<br />
5 June, Amano said the IAEA “can confirm that the nuclearrelated<br />
commitments are being implemented by Iran”.<br />
The IAEA has said repeatedly that, before the end of<br />
2003, “an organisational structure was in place in Iran<br />
suitable for the coordination of a range of activities<br />
relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.<br />
However, the Agency “also assessed that these activities<br />
did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies,<br />
and the acquisition of certain relevant technical<br />
competences and capabilities”. The IAEA said it had “no<br />
credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the<br />
development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009”.<br />
But all this was not enough for the US president. He<br />
effectively questioned the credibility of the IAEA.<br />
Instead, the US president decided it was time to embrace<br />
North Korea, which has a record of frustrating, dodging<br />
and rebuffing all safeguards attempts by the world’s nuclear<br />
community, largely under the auspices of the IAEA.<br />
Readers may recall the 1994 framework agreement,<br />
under which North Korea agreed to freeze work at its then<br />
gas-graphite moderated reactors and related facilities and<br />
to allow the IAEA to monitor that freeze. Pyongyang was<br />
also required to “consistently take steps to implement the<br />
North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of<br />
the Korean Peninsula” and to remain a party to the Non-<br />
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In exchange, the US agreed to<br />
lead an international consortium to construct two light<br />
water power reactors, and to provide 500,000 tons of<br />
heavy fuel oil per year until the first reactor came online<br />
with a target date of 2003.<br />
But North Korea delayed safeguards inspections<br />
designed to verify its past nuclear activities – which in turn<br />
meant the proposed power reactors did not materialise. The<br />
international community also feared North Korea had an<br />
illicit highly-enriched uranium programme. Subsequent US<br />
intelligence reports appeared to support those concerns and<br />
it was later revealed that North Korea, together with Libya<br />
and Iran, had illegally acquired gas-centrifuge technology<br />
from a Pakistani nuclear scientist.<br />
North Korea’s behaviour since then has not improved<br />
and it remains to be seen whether Chairman Kim sees a<br />
meeting with President Trump as an opportunity to start<br />
making amends.<br />
However, it cannot make sense for the US to have<br />
worked so hard with the IAEA on bringing Iran into line<br />
with strictly-supervised civil nuclear operations – only to<br />
then say “the JCPOA is not good enough”. It adds insult to<br />
injury to then imply the US is ready to do business with the<br />
rogue nuclear nation of North Korea!<br />
What trust can the general public have in the safeguards<br />
and monitoring that the IAEA is tasked to carry out<br />
anywhere in the face of the US administration’s actions?<br />
Worse still, what example does the actions of the US set<br />
for other nations in terms of their relationships and<br />
agreements with the international nuclear community?<br />
President Trump has in the past alluded to his admiration<br />
for one predecessor in particular – President Dwight<br />
Eisenhower. If so, then all may not be lost, because the<br />
genesis of the IAEA was Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’<br />
address to the United Nations in 1953.<br />
Whatever the outcome of the talks with Chairman Kim,<br />
I hope someone in the US administration will be bold<br />
enough to get President Trump to reflect on the Atoms for<br />
Peace ideals.<br />
Mr Amano has warned in recent weeks that if the JCPOA<br />
were to fail, “it would be a great loss for nuclear verification<br />
and for multilateralism”.<br />
And for its part, Iran’s ambassador to the European<br />
Union, Peiman Seadat, has been quoted as saying “years of<br />
intense multilateral diplomacy are now on critical life<br />
support and without effective and timely intervention, the<br />
JCPOA will simply die”.<br />
Perhaps we could all remind the US president of the<br />
IAEA’s work for the greater nuclear good via his communications<br />
channel of choice? Feel free to Tweet a courteous<br />
but steadfast defence of the Agency to @realDonaldTrump.<br />
Author<br />
John Shepherd<br />
Shepherd Communications<br />
3 Brooklands<br />
West Sussex<br />
BN43 5FE<br />
Nuclear Today<br />
Confidence in Nuclear Safeguards at Risk as Trump Quits One Deal to Pursue Another ı John Shepherd
Kommunikation und<br />
Training für Kerntechnik<br />
Rückbau kerntechnischer Anlagen<br />
In Kooperation mit<br />
TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH<br />
Baden-Württemberg<br />
Seminar:<br />
Stilllegung und Rückbau in Recht und Praxis<br />
Seminarinhalte<br />
Genehmigungen für die Stilllegung und den Rückbau<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
Gestaltung der Übergänge zwischen der Betriebs- und der Stilllegungsgenehmigung<br />
Gestaltung der Übergänge zwischen Genehmigungs- und Aufsichtsphase<br />
Rechtliche Gestaltung des Genehmigungsverfahrens<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
Elemente des Umweltbereiches<br />
UVP und Erörterungstermin<br />
Anfechtung von Genehmigungen<br />
Stellungnahmen der EU-Kommission<br />
Reststoffe und Abfälle<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
ı<br />
Vorstellung von Reststoffkonzepten<br />
Bewertung der Reststoffkonzepte<br />
Neue Regelungen zum Übergang der Entsorgungsverantwortung<br />
Entsorgungsfragen rund um Abfälle aus dem Rückbau<br />
Zielgruppe<br />
Die 2-tägige Schulung wendet sich an Fach- und Führungskräfte, Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter<br />
von Betreibern, Industrie und Dienstleistern, die sich mit der Thematik aktuell bereits beschäftigen<br />
oder sich künftig damit auseinander setzen werden.<br />
Maximale Teilnehmerzahl: 12 Personen<br />
Referenten<br />
Dr. Matthias Bauerfeind<br />
Dr. Christian Raetzke<br />
Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Teilnahme!<br />
ı Abteilung Stilllegung, Entsorgung, Reaktorphysik, TÜV SÜD Energietechnik<br />
GmbH Baden-Württemberg<br />
ı Rechtsanwalt, Leipzig<br />
Bei Fragen zur Anmeldung rufen Sie uns bitte an oder senden uns eine E-Mail.<br />
Zusatztermine<br />
2 Tage<br />
24. bis 25. September <strong>2018</strong><br />
Tag 1: 10:30 bis 17:45 Uhr<br />
Tag 2: 09:00 bis 16:45 Uhr<br />
Veranstaltungsort<br />
Geschäftsstelle der INFORUM<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin<br />
Teilnahmegebühr<br />
1.598,– € ı zzgl. 19 % USt.<br />
Im Preis inbegriffen sind:<br />
ı Seminarunterlagen<br />
ı Teilnahmebescheinigung<br />
ı Pausenverpflegung<br />
inkl. Mittagessen<br />
Kontakt<br />
INFORUM<br />
Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft<br />
mbH<br />
Robert-Koch-Platz 4<br />
10115 Berlin<br />
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak<br />
Fon +49 30 498555-30<br />
Fax +49 30 498555-18<br />
seminare@kernenergie.de
Media Partner<br />
www.nucleartech-meeting.com<br />
Save the Date<br />
7 – 8 May 2019<br />
Estrel Convention Center Berlin, Germany<br />
Key Topics<br />
Outstanding Know-How & Sustainable Innovations<br />
Enhanced Safety & Operation Excellence<br />
Decommissioning Experience & Waste Management Solutions<br />
The International Expert Conference on Nuclear Technology