atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 08/09.2019


Ever since its first issue in 1956, the atw – International Journal for Nuclear Power has been a publisher of specialist articles, background reports, interviews and news about developments and trends from all important sectors of nuclear energy, nuclear technology and the energy industry. Internationally current and competent, the professional journal atw is a valuable source of information.
It covers in particular the following topics:
Energy policies, economic and legal issues
Research and innovation
Environment and safety
Operation and new construction
Decommissioning and waste disposal



Prospects for

Develop ment

of Power Generation

in Europe

Key Decision for Dismantling

Analytical Methods Used

in Nuclear Decommissioning

Chemotoxic Safety

in the Nuclear Industry

ISSN · 1431-5254

24.– €

Call for Papers inside!





5. – 6. Mai 2020


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Make Nuclear Great Again?

Dear reader, an inventory of future technical developments in the field of nuclear power and for the use of

nuclear energy as a whole is already almost regularly on the agenda of this editorial of atw. Due to some – remarkable

– developments in the field of energy supply and nuclear energy, this has been included here and now.

The annual publication “Nuclear Technology Review” of

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is

updated at the same interval, certainly provides a first

impression as an overview as well as detailed technical


The recently published “Nuclear Technology Review

2019”* highlights remarkable developments in the world

in 2018 and outlines the following selected areas: Energy

applications, basic data on atomic and nuclear physics,

accelerators and research reactors, nuclear technologies in

food supply, land management and agriculture, cancer

diagnosis and therapy, isotope behaviour in atmospheric

precipitation formation, nuclear technologies for analysis

and identification of contributions to ocean acidification

and protection of heritage assets.

The introduction of the summary, and this certainly at a

time when the importance of nuclear energy is being

underestimated in some quarters, is the statement that at

the end of 2018 450 nuclear power plants with a net

capacity of 396,400 MW were in operation worldwide.

This is the highest capacity since the commissioning of the

first commercial nuclear power plant in Calder Hall, UK, in

1956 and the first nuclear power generation in the EBR 1

fast breeder reactor in the USA in 1951. The increase in

output in 2018 was around 5,000 megawatts. The nine

nuclear power plants taken into commercial operation in

2018 made a major contribution to this growth. On the

other hand, there were seven decommissioned plants,

which, however, contributed less to the balance sheet total

with significantly lower plant capacities. The IAEA also

refers to 55 nuclear power plants under construction and

to the fact that the current and future focus of development

will be on Asia; 58 of the 68 new nuclear power

plants commissioned since 2005 are operated in Asian


In its expansion scenario, the IAEA expects a capacity

increase of 30 % by 2030 and a doubling of capacity by

2050 for the expansions in the coming decades. The

pessimistic scenario predicts a decrease in capacity by

2030 and a subsequent increase to today's level by 2050.

With reference to the ambitions to reduce CO 2 emissions in

a number of countries and the paths taken in the

publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, the expansion approach reflects the need for

nuclear energy to make its contribution to the reduction

targets. Editorial note: Today, and over the past two

decades, global nuclear energy use has avoided CO 2

emissions of around 2 billion tonnes a year – more

than agreed in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Together with

hydroelectric power, nuclear energy is thus the lowemission

energy source with all the flexibility options

and round-the-clock availability as well as stability of the

grid and balance between production and demand.

The topics mentioned in the introduction, including

references to progress in nuclear disposal and the

commissioning of repositories, not only round off the topic

on progress in nuclear technologies, but also provide

insights into applications far beyond energy production:

more and safer yields in agriculture, the fight against

tropical diseases affecting millions of people are two of


Despite all these optimistic assessments, which are first

and foremost technical in nature and given the current

intensive discussion of civil society mostly in social media,

also the question must be asked whether the two and

ultimately decisive parameters for the expansion of nuclear

energy, i.e. new nuclear power plants, have been met: their

economic viability and their public acceptance. It is

interesting to note here on the second point that the public

discussions in social media do not lead to a strengthening

of the anti-nuclear trend; rather, supporters of nuclear

energy have finally found an opportunity to engage in and

position themselves in the discussions. An option that

mostly was not possible in earlier times of selected and

limited channels for the dissemination of information with

only a few media with pre- selection. The success of the

“pro- nuclear grassroots movement” in Taiwan in the

November 2018 pro-nuclear referendum is a clear sign of


The question of economic efficiency is certainly worth

its own editorial, its own specialist contributions and has

been and is being discussed in some very detailed studies

with different objectives. The current general impression

may convey an ambivalent situation: e.g. highest cost

pressure with shut-down announcements for individual

nuclear power plants in parts of the USA due to the low

natural gas prices due to the fracking technologies or also

the cost developments for newly designed first-of-a-kind

plants in an additionally difficult regulatory environment.

Ultimately, however, it is not decided on the basis of

repeated academic discourses with ever new approaches

in order to arrive at the result of non- competitive nuclear

energy use. The decisive factors will be correctly considered

boundary conditions and suitable non-discriminatory

market conditions, such as operating times

of at least 80 years and flexibility options, but also the

aforementioned round-the-clock operation: nuclear

energy “bounces” not only on a Friday, but with its

reliable power generation throughout the whole week

and far beyond!

Christopher Weßelmann

– Editor in Chief –

* Download under





Make Nuclear Great Again?

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September



* Download unter


Make Nuclear Great Again?

Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser, eine Bestandsaufnahme zu den zukünftigen technischen Entwicklungen auf dem

Gebiet der Kernenergie sowie für die Kernenergienutzung insgesamt steht schon fast regelmäßig auf der Agenda dieses

Editorials der atw. Aufgrund einiger – bemerkenswerter – Entwicklungen rund um die Energieversorgung und die

Kernenergie sei dies hier und jetzt aufgenommen.

Einen ersten Eindruck als Übersicht sowie zu technischen

Detailentwicklungen vermittelt sicherlich die jährlich

erscheinende und im gleichen Intervall aktualisierte

Veröffentlichung „Nuclear Technology Review“ der Internationalen

Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO; englisch

International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA).

Im kürzlich veröffentlichten „Nuclear Technology

Review 2019“* werden bemerkenswerte Entwicklungen in

der Welt im Jahr 2018 aufgezeigt und folgende ausgewählte

Bereiche näher skizziert: Energieanwendungen, grundlegende

Daten zu Atom- und Kernphysik, Beschleuniger

und Forschungsreaktoren, Nukleartechnologien in der

Lebensmittelversorgung, Bodenwirtschaft und Landwirtschaft,

Krebsdiagnose und -therapie, Isotopenverhalten bei

der Bildung von Niederschlag in der Atmosphäre, Nukleartechnologien

für die Analyse und Ermittlung von Beiträgen

zur Versauerung der Ozeane und Schutz von Kulturgütern.

Den Einstieg der Zusammenfassung, und dies sicherlich

in Zeiten, in denen mancherorts die Bedeutung der Kernenergie

klein geredet wird, bildet die nüchterne Feststellung,

dass Ende des Jahres 2018 weltweit 450 Kernkraftwerke

mit 396.400 MW Nettoleistung in Betrieb waren.

Dies ist die höchste Leistung seit Inbetriebnahme des ersten

kommerziellen Kernkraftwerks im britischen Calder Hall im

Jahr 1956 bzw. der ersten Kernenergiestromerzeugung

1951 im Schnellbrutreaktor EBR 1 in den USA. Der Leistungszuwachs

im Jahr 2018 betrug rund 5.000 Megawatt.

Dazu trugen die neun in 2018 in den kommerziellen Betrieb

übernommenen Kernkraftwerke maßgeblich bei. Dem

gegenüber standen sieben stillgelegte Anlagen, die allerdings

vergleichsweise mit deutlich geringeren Anlagenkapazitäten

weniger zur Bilanz der Gesamtleistung beitrugen.

Die IAEA verweist zudem auf 55 Kernkraftwerke in

Bau und darauf, dass aktuell und auch zukünftig der

Schwerpunkt der Entwicklung in Asien liegen wird; 58 der

68 seit dem Jahr 2005 neu in Betrieb genommenen Kernkraftwerke

werden in Staaten Asiens betrieben.

Bei den Zubauten in den kommenden Jahrzehnten

erwartet die IAEO in ihrem Zubauszenario einen Kapazitätszuwachs

von 30 % bis zum Jahr 2030 und eine

Kapazitätsverdoppelung bis 2050. Das pessimistische

Szenario prognostiziert einen Kapazitätsrückgang bis 2030

und folgend eine Zunahme auf das heutige Niveau bis

2050. Mit Verweis auf die Ambitionen zur Minderung von

CO 2 - Emissionen in einer Reihe von Staaten und die Pfade

in den Publikationen des Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change dazu, reflektiert der Zubauansatz die

Notwendigkeiten, damit die Kernenergie ihren Beitrag zu

den Reduktionszielen leistet. Redaktionelle Anmerkung:

Heute und in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten hat die

weltweite Kernenergienutzung Jahr für Jahr CO 2 -Emissionen

von rund 2 Milliarden Tonnen vermieden – mehr als

im Kyoto- Protokoll von 1997 vereinbart. Gemeinsam mit

der Wasserkraft ist die Kernenergie damit die emissionsarme

Energiequelle mit allen Flexibilitätsoptionen und

einer Verfügbarkeit Rund-um-die-Uhr sowie für die

Gewährleistung von Netzstabilität und Balance zwischen

Erzeugung und Verbrauch.

Die darüber hinaus einleitend genannten Themen, so

auch Verweise auf Fortschritte bei der nuklearen Entsorgung

bis hin zur Inbetriebnahme von Endlagern runden

das Thema zu Fortschritten bei Nukleartechnologien nicht

nur ab, sondern geben auch Einblicke in Anwendungen

weit über die Energieerzeugung hinaus: mehr und sichere

Erträge in der Landwirtschaft, die Bekämpfung tropischer

Krankheiten, die Millionen von Menschen betreffen, sind

zwei davon.

Bei all diesen optimistischen Einschätzungen, die erst

einmal technisch geprägt sind, ist vor dem Hintergrund der

aktuellen intensiv geführten gesellschaftlichen Diskussion,

meist in den sozialen Medien, aber auch zu hinterfragen, ob

die zwei und schlussendlich entscheidenden Parameter für

einen Kernenergieausbau, also neue Kernkraftwerke, erfüllt

sind: ihre Wirtschaftlichkeit und ihre gesellschaftliche

Akzeptanz. Interessant ist hier zum zweiten Punkt festzustellen,

dass die Diskussionen in sozialen Medien nicht

dazu führen, dass sich der Anti-Nuklear-Trend verstärkt,

vielmehr haben Kernenergiebefürworter endlich eine

Möglichkeit gefunden, sich in die Diskussionen einzubringen

und sich zu positionieren. Eine Option, die in

früheren Zeiten ausgewählter und beschränkter Kanäle

zur Informationsverbreitung mit nur wenigen Medien

mit Vorauswahl eher nicht möglich war. Der Erfolg der

„ Pro- Nuklearen Gras wurzelbewegung“ in Taiwan beim

Pro-Kernenergie- Referendum im November 2018 ist dafür

ein klares Zeichen.

Die Frage der Wirtschaftlichkeit ist sicherlich ein eigenes

Editorial und eigene Fachbeiträge wert und wurde und wird

in teils sehr ausführlichen Studien unterschiedlicher Zielrichtung

erörtert. Der aktuelle allgemeine Eindruck mag

eine zwiespältige Situation vermitteln: so z. B. höchster

Kostendruck mit Stilllegungsankündigungen für einzelne

Kernkraftwerke in Teilen der USA infolge der günstigen

Erdgaspreise durch die Fracking-Technologien oder auch

die Kostenentwicklungen bei neu konzipierten Erstanlagen

in einem zudem schwierigen regulatorischen Umfeld.

Letztendlich entschieden wird sie aber nicht anhand immer

wieder neu aufgelegter akademischer Diskurse mit immer

neuen Ansätzen, um meist zum Ergebnis einer nicht

wettbewerbsfähigen Kernenergienutzung zu kommen.

Dabei entscheidend werden korrekt berücksichtige Randbedingungen

und geeignete diskriminierungsfreie Marktbedingungen

sein, so Betriebszeiten von mindestens

80 Jahren sowie Flexibilitätsoptionen, aber auch der schon

erwähnte Rund-um-die-Uhr-Betrieb: Die Kernenergie

„hüpft“ halt nicht nur an einem Freitag, sondern mit ihrer

verlässlichen Stromerzeugung über die ganze Woche und

weit darüber hinaus!

Christopher Weßelmann

– Chefredakteur –


Make Nuclear Great Again?

Kommunikation und

Training für Kerntechnik

Suchen Sie die passende Weiter bildungs maßnahme im Bereich Kerntechnik?

Wählen Sie aus folgenden Themen: Dozent/in Termin/e Ort

3 Atom-, Vertrags- und Exportrecht

Atomrecht – Das Recht der radioaktiven Abfälle RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 17.09.2019



Atomrecht – Ihr Weg durch Genehmigungs- und


Atomrecht – Was Sie wissen müssen

RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 22.10.2019


RA Dr. Christian Raetzke

Akos Frank LL. M.


07.11.2019 Berlin

3 Kommunikation und Politik

Public Hearing Workshop –

Öffentliche Anhörungen erfolgreich meistern

Kerntechnik und Energiepolitik im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs –

Themen und Formate

Dr. Nikolai A. Behr 05.11. - 06.11.2019 Berlin

13.11. - 14.11.2019 Salzgitter

3 Rückbau und Strahlenschutz

In Kooperation mit dem TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH Baden-Württemberg:

3 Nuclear English

Stilllegung und Rückbau in Recht und Praxis

Das neue Strahlenschutzgesetz –

Folgen für Recht und Praxis

Dr. Stefan Kirsch

RA Dr. Christian Raetzke

Dr. Maria Poetsch

RA Dr. Christian Raetzke

24.09. - 25.09.2019 Berlin

15.10. - 16.10.2019

13.11. - 14.11.2019

28.01. - 29.01.2020


English for Nuclear Business Angela Lloyd 01.04. - 02.04.2020 Berlin

3 Wissenstransfer und Veränderungsmanagement

Veränderungsprozesse gestalten – Heraus forderungen

meistern, Beteiligte gewinnen

Erfolgreicher Wissenstransfer in der Kerntechnik –

Methoden und praktische Anwendung

Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking

Dr. Christien Zedler

Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking

Dr. Christien Zedler

26.11. - 27.11.2019 Berlin

24.03. - 25.03.2020 Berlin

Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? 3 Rufen Sie uns an: +49 30 498555-30


INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungs gesellschaft mbH ı Robert-Koch-Platz 4 ı 10115 Berlin

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak ı Fon +49 30 498555-30 ı Fax +49 30 498555-18 ı

Die INFORUM-Seminare können je nach

Inhalt ggf. als Beitrag zur Aktualisierung

der Fachkunde geeignet sein.

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Issue 8/9 | 2019





Make Nuclear Great Again? E/G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Inside Nuclear with NucNet

UK Consultation:

Is RAB Financing Model Right for New Nuclear? . . . . . . . . . . . 388

Did you know...? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

Feature | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power

Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe . . . . 391

Spotlight on Nuclear Law

Key Decision for Dismantling G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods

Used in Nuclear Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety

in the Nuclear Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .409

A World’s Dilemma ‘Upon Which the Sun Never Sets’:

The Nuclear Waste Management Strategy:

The Southern Hemisphere | Part 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414

Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT

CO 2 -Reduction Without Nuclear a Fanciful Utopia G . . . . . . . . 422

Communication Promotes Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy G . . .423

AMNT 2019

50 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology

Young Scientists Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermo syphons . . . . . . . . . . . . .427

Analytical Model for the Investigation of the Out-of-Plane

Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .431


Nuclear power new build. One option

for a reliable electricity supply. The focus is

shifting to the Middle-East and East.

View of the Emirates Nuclear Energy

Corporation project under construction in the

United Arab Emirates. Four units of about

1000 MW will be comissioned in the next


KTG Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Nuclear Today

A Century of Wisdom Underlines Nuclear’s Green Credentials . . 442

Imprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408



= German

= English/German

Insert: AiNT – Programm

KERNTECHNIK 2020 (formerly AMNT) – Call for Papers


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Major Trends in Energy

Policy and Nuclear Power



391 Prospects for Development of Power Generation

in Europe

Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

Spotlight on Nuclear Law

398 Key Decision for Dismantling

Leitentscheidung zum KKW-Rückbau:

VGH München weist Weg zur „grünen Wiese“

Tobias Leidinger

Decommissioning and Waste Management

400 Review of the Analytical Methods Used

in Nuclear Decommissioning

Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar,

Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

409 A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety

in the Nuclear Industry

Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

414 A World’s Dilemma ‘Upon Which the Sun Never Sets’:

The Nuclear Waste Management Strategy: The Southern Hemisphere

| Part 4

Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

AMNT 2019

425 Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology 2019

Young Scientists Workshop

Jörg Starflinger


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September



UK Consultation: Is RAB Financing Model

Right for New Nuclear?

The UK government has announced it wants to prepare to support further new nuclear projects, but only if

they can be delivered at a competitive price and each individual project represents value for money.

The government plans were contained in a

consultation document on a possible new

funding model for new nuclear in the UK.

In the document the government says that by providing

regulated returns to investors, a regulated asset-based, or

RAB model, can reduce the cost of raising private finance

for new nuclear projects, which are notorious for their

up-front capital requirements. According to the document

the RAB model will reduce consumer bills and maximise

value for money for consumers and taxpayers.

The RAB model, typically used for funding UK monopoly

infrastructure, involves an economic regulator who grants

a licence to a company to charge a regulated price to users

of the infrastructure.

The model essentially aims to lower overall costs by

having consumers fund future nuclear projects before they

are built.

According to the Department for Business, Energy and

Industrial Strategy (BEIS), RAB-funded infrastructure has

attracted significant investment from private sector capital

over the last 20-30 years, with total value of RAB assets in

2018 of about £160bn.

After months of rumours that the government might

consider the RAB model, the BEIS has launched the

consultation to seek views on it, including arrangements

for risk sharing.

In the consultation document the BEIS says any RAB

model would need to come with guarantees including

government protection for investors and consumers

against “specific remote, low probability but high impact

risk events”.

There would need to be a fair sharing of costs and risks

between consumers and investors set out in an economic

regulatory regime, an economic regulator to operate the

regime and a route for funds to be raised from energy

suppliers to support new nuclear projects.

The document says the UK recently became the first

major economy to legislate for a target of net zero

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but reaching this target

will require ambitious action to reduce emissions while

keeping energy costs low and supplies secure.

To meet increasing energy demand, whilst reducing

emissions to low levels, there will need to be a substantial

increase in low-carbon generation. The government

committee on climate change estimates a four-fold increase

may be needed. This at a time when seven out of eight of

the UK’s existing nuclear power stations – important

contributors to the country’s low-carbon generation – are

due to come offline by 2030 as they reach the end of their

operational lives.

As the cost of renewable technologies such as offshore

wind and solar continues to fall, it is becoming clear that

they are likely to provide most of the UK’s low-carbon

generating capacity in 2050. However, there will still be a

crucial role for low-carbon “firm” – or always available –

power. The committee on climate change says 38 % firm

low- carbon energy might be needed to meet net zero while

maintaining security of supply and keeping costs low.

The consultation document says nuclear, which today

provides about 20 % of the UK’s electricity, is a low-carbon

option and the government “should be prepared to support

further new nuclear projects in the years ahead, if they can

be delivered at a competitive price and each individual

project represents value for money”.

The first step in driving down costs was the signing of

an ambitious policy deal –known as the nuclear sector deal

– with the nuclear industry which focuses on lowering the

cost of new nuclear projects by 30 % to ensure nuclear

remains competitive with other technologies.

The nuclear industry – as part of the implementation of

the nuclear sector deal – is leading work to establish how

that 30 % target can be achieved by 2030.

This will involve thinking about how, for example,

innovative approaches to advanced manufacturing,

construction and materials can reduce costs in a range

of products and services across the nuclear industry,

including for future nuclear technologies.

The deal will also see the government provide up to

£56m for R&D for advanced modular reactors and increase

its support the development and deployment of small

modular reactors and the innovative technologies that

support them

The new RAB funding model could be used for EDF

Energy’s plans for a new EPR plant at Sizewell C in Suffolk,

which was left in doubt after criticism of the costs

surrounding the Hinkley Point C project in Somerset.

It could also resurrect plans to build two UK Advanced

Boiling Water Reactors at the Wylfa project in North Wales,

which were shelved last year because of rising construction

costs and a failure to reach an agreement on financing with

the UK government.

France’s state-backed EDF Energy has been a vocal

champion for the proposed RAB model after the cost of its

twin-EPR Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was heavily

criticised for its cost to consumers.

BEIS said using an RAB model for future projects was

suitable as companies such as EDF would look to replicate

the Hinkley Point design in future plants. EDF said its

proposed Sizewell C plant would be a “near replica” and

therefore “cheaper to construct and finance”.



The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency

Editor responsible for this story: David Dalton

Editor in Chief, NucNet

Avenue des Arts 56

1000 Brussels, Belgium

Inside Nuclear with NucNet

UK Consultation: Is RAB Financing Model Right for New Nuclear?

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Did you know...?

Energy policy challenges from the

general public’s point of view

The Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research conducted a

representative survey on behalf of KernD. Among other things,

the study examined the general public’s energy policy priorities,

assessment of the energy policy challenges and the allocation

of responsibilities for energy policy decisions.

The study is based on a total of 1,713 face-to-face interviews with

a representative cross-section of the general public aged 16 and

over. The interviews were conducted between 1 and 15 April 2019.

Results expressed as percentages.

1 Highest energy policy priority:

security of supply

Security of supply is the top priority: In the energy policy

priorities chosen by members of the public, security of supply very

clearly ranks first. 81 percent consider it most important that the

energy supply is assured at all times, ahead of the rapid expansion

of renewable energies (72 percent) and the use of energy sources

that protect the climate (70 percent).

In contrast, generating energy in the region (45 percent) and

phasing out nuclear energy by 2022 (41 percent) are much less

important. Even further down the list are higher prices for energy

types that have a greater impact on the environment (32 percent)

and, in particular, a policy that encourages homeowners to

renovate their homes for energy efficiency (24 percent).

2 Challenges of the energy supply

Costs are an important challenge alongside security of

supply and climate protection: As expected, the changeover to

renewable energies (68 percent), the reduction of CO 2 emissions

(59 percent) and security of supply at all times (58 percent) play

an important role in the challenges facing energy policy. Here,

however, the aspect of energy costs comes more strongly to the

fore: 71 percent of respondents see it as a challenge that prices

do not rise too much, and 57 percent see it as a challenge that the

energy requirements for buildings do not place too heavy a

burden on tenants and homeowners.

Question: “When it comes to the energy supply

and energy policy in Germany: what do you see

as the biggest challenges at present?”






That energy prices do not rise too much

That a solution will be found to the final

disposal of nuclear waste

That changing over the power supply

to renewable energies will succeed

That CO 2 emissions in Germany will be

significantly reduced for climate protection

That the energy supply is guaranteed at all times


Allensbach Institute

for Public Opinion

Research. Survey on

behalf of Kerntechnik

Deutschland e.V.

(KernD) (formerly

DAtF) April 2019



Question: “In your opinion, what should energy

policy pay particular attention to?”



That the energy requirements for houses do

not drive up costs for tenants and home owners

That the power grid is also expanded to distribute the

electricity from renewable energies over longer distances


That the energy supply is assured at all times


That Germany becomes less dependent

on energy supplies from abroad


That the expansion of renewable energies

is driven forward rapidly


That Germany as a seat of industry is not at risk


That primarily we use energy sources

that protect the climate


That consumers are more strongly encouraged

to save energy








That different energy sources are used so that

we are not dependent on a single energy source alone

That there are as few risks as possible

when generating energy

That people are encouraged to save energy

That energy prices are low

That our energy supply is as independent

as possible from abroad

That energy is increasingly generated locally

or in the region

That European countries should coordinate their energy

policies more closely and cooperate more closely

3 Allocation of responsibility

for decisions in energy policy

A clear majority sees responsibility for energy policy in the

hands of politicians and experts: A clear majority of 54 percent

of respondents see the responsibility for energy policy decisions

in the hands of politicians in consultation with experts. Only

20 percent see the general public as being responsible for making

decisions in this policy area. The majority therefore assume

that the complex task of ensuring a sustainable and reliable energy

supply must be the responsibility of politicians and experts

and cannot be transferred to the general public.







That Germany will phase out nuclear energy

by 2022 as planned

That Germany should abandon coal as an energy

source as quickly as possible

That more power lines are built so that wind power

generated in Northern Germany can also be transported

to Southern Germany

That new technologies in the energy sector

are promoted more strongly, e.g. electric drives for cars

Higher prices for energy types

that have a greater impact on the environment

That homeowners are encouraged to renovate

their houses for energy efficiency

Question: “A great deal depends on the decisions

on energy policy for the economy and society.

How do you see this: Should decisions in the field

of energy policy be taken primarily by politicians

in consultation with experts, or should it be the

general public itself that makes the decisions?”

54 Politicians in consultation

with experts

20 General


26 Undecided

For further details

please contact:

Nicolas Wendler


Robert-Koch-Platz 4

10115 Berlin


E-mail: presse@

Did you know...?

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September






World Nuclear Association Symposium 2019.

London, UK, World Nuclear Association (WNA),


VGB Congress 2019 – Innovation in Power

Generation. Salzburg, Austria, VGB PowerTech e.V.,


4 th Nuclear Waste Management, Decommissioning

and Environmental Restoration

(NWMDER). Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Nuclear

Society (CNS),


24 th World Energy Congress. Abu Dhabi, UAE,


Jahrestagung 2019 – Fachverband

für Strahlenschutz | Strahlenschutz und Medizin.

Würzburg, Germany,


13 th International Conference on WWER Fuel

Performance, Modelling and Experimental

Support. Nessebar, Bulgaria, INRNE-BAS

in cooperation with IAEA,


63 rd Annual Conference of the IAEA. Vienna,

Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),


ISFNT-14 – International Symposium on Fusion

Nuclear Technology. Budapest, Hungary, Wigner

Research Centre for Physics,


6 th World Nuclear Industry Congress. London, UK,



International Conference on Climate Change and

the Role of Nuclear Power. Vienna, Austria,



ICTP-IAEA Nuclear Energy Management School.

Trieste, Italy, IAEA,


Africa Nuclear Business Platform. Nairobi, Kenya,

Nuclear Business Platform,


SWINTH-2019 Specialists Workshop on Advanced

Instrumentation and Measurement Techniques

for Experiments Related to Nuclear Reactor

Thermal Hydraulics and Severe Accidents.

Livorno, Italy,


Chemistry in Power Plants. Würzburg, Germany,

VGB PowerTech e.V.,



FSEP CNS International Meeting on Fire Safety

and Emergency Preparedness for the Nuclear

Industry. Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society



11. Freigabesymposium: Entlassung von

radio aktiven Stoffen aus dem Geltungsbereich

des StrlSchG. Hamburg, Germany, TÜV Nord



International Conference on Effective Regulatory

Systems 2019. The Hague, Netherlands,

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),


International Conference on Nuclear

Decommissioning – ICOND 2019. Eurogress

Aachen, Aachen Institute for Nuclear Training GmbH,


India Nuclear Business Platform. Mumbai, India,

Nuclear Business Platform,


International Conference on Research Reactors:

Addressing Challenges and Opportunities to

Ensure Effectiveness

and Sustainability. Buenos Aires, Argentina,

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),



Power Plant Simulation Conference. Chattanooga,

Tennessee United States, Society for Modeling &

Simulation International,


ICONS2020: International Conference on Nuclear

Security. Vienna, Austria,

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),


International Power Summit. Hamburg, Germany,

ARENA International Events Group,


Nuclear Power Plants I Expo & Summit. Istanbul,

Turkey, NPPS,


WM Symposia – WM2019. Phoenix, AZ, USA,


IYNC2020 – The International Youth Nuclear

Congress. Sydney, Australia, IYNC,


12. Expertentreffen Strahlenschutz. Bayreuth,

Germany, TÜV SÜD,


ATH'2020 – International Topical Meeting on

Advances in Thermal Hydraulics. Paris, France,

Société Francaise d’Energie Nucléaire (SFEN),


Berlin, Germany, KernD and KTG,



Jahrestagung 2020 – Fachverband für

Strahlenschutz I Strahlenschutz und Medizin.

Aachen, Germany,


NPC 2020 – International Conference on Water

Chemistry in Nuclear Reactor Systems. Antibes,

France, Société Francaise d’Energie Nucléaire (SFEN),



Technical Meeting on Siting for Nuclear Power

Plants. Vienna, Austria, IAEA,

37 th Short Courses on Multiphase Flow. Zurich,

Switzerland, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology


This is not a full list and may be subject to change.


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Feature | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power

Prospects for Development of Power

Generation in Europe

Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

The European power plant fleet will experience a paradigm shift between 2025 and 2030 due to the technical lifetime

of conventional plants. The foreseeable change will be intensified by the increasing efforts, in recent years, to shut down

nuclear and coal-fired power plants before they reach the end of their technical and economic life. The declining volume

generated from conventional power plants can be compensated by the added capacity of renewable energies. However,

to maintain the grid’s stability, there is a need to ensure that the necessary assured capacity is available at all times.

Conventional power plants, which have so far provided most of the assured capacity, will only be available to a

significantly reduced extent in the future. For this reason, renewable energies and flexibility options, such as storage

and demand response, will have to make rapidly increasing contributions to the assured capacity from the period

mentioned above in order to achieve the usual level of security of supply. To illustrate the challenges ahead, this article

looks at the capacity retirement curve of the EU-28’s conventional power plant fleet – only as a first approximation

of course, since a sound energy economic calculation must also take into account the availability and transport of

electricity. European solutions can reduce the necessary increase in flexibility by exploiting portfolio effects.

1 Power supply structures in Europe and

the EU

Energy consumption in Europe and the European Union

EU-28 is still largely covered by the use of fossil resources.

In 2018, oil, natural gas and coal accounted for 75 % of the

EU’s primary energy consumption. The contribution made

by renewable energies and nuclear energy was 14 % and

11 % respectively. A similar picture can be seen for Europe 1

with 74 % of primary energy consumption being fossil

fuels, 15 % renewable and 10 % nuclear energy. The EU-28

accounts for 82 % of European energy consumption.

(Fig. 1).

| | Fig. 1.

Primary energy consumption 2018 in Europe and the EU-28. (Source: BP

Statistical Review of World Energy (June 2019), Workbook).

Oil is used mainly in the transport sector and the chemical

industry. Natural gas is used primarily in the heat market

and also in electricity generation, with very different

weightings in the member states. Renewable energies are

used both in the heating market and in electricity

generation, and also to a lesser extent in the transport

sector. In contrast, the power plant sector is the most

important area of use for coal. This applies even more so to

nuclear energy.

Correspondingly, there are large variations in the

composition of primary energy consumption and power

generation by energy source (Figs. 1 and 2). In 2018, coal

accounted for 20 % (21 %), natural gas for 19 % (18 %), oil

for 2 % (1 %), nuclear energy for 25 % (23 %), renewable

energies for 32 % (35 %) and other energies for 2 % (1 %)

of power generation in the EU-28 (Europe). The share

of fossil energies is thus significantly lower and the contribution

of nuclear energy and renewable energies considerably

higher than in primary energy consumption. The

EU accounts for 89 % of Europe’s electricity con sumption.

2 Determining factors for the energy mix

Within Europe, the EU forms a bloc with a certain

coordinating function with regard to the energy policy of

the member states. Nevertheless, the energy mix in the EU

member states presents a differentiated picture. There are

two decisive factors for this:


the resource situation of the states in each case and


the orientation of their energy policy.

Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union lays down the basis for objectives relating

to energy policy and the method for achieving those

objectives. They include:


ensuring the functioning of the energy market


ensuring the security of the energy supply in the Union


promoting energy efficiency and energy saving and

developing new and renewable energy sources; and


improving the energy infrastructure, e.g. by promoting

the interconnection of energy networks.

It also stipulates that measures must be enacted by the

European Parliament and the Council in order to achieve

these objectives.

| | Fig. 2.

Electricity mix of Europe and the EU-28. (Source: BP Statistical Review of

World Energy (June 2019), Workbook).


1 In addition to the EU-28, BP also includes Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iceland, Northern Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Turkey

and Ukraine under Europe.


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


However, the measures do not affect the right of

member states to determine the conditions for use of

its energy resources, its choice between different

energy sources and the general structure of its energy


| | Fig. 3.

EU countries with power generation based on nuclear energy. (Source: BP Statistical Review of World

Energy (June 2019), Workbook).

| | Fig. 4.

Power generation mix of ten selected EU countries 2018 in %. (Source: BP Statistical Review of World

Energy (June 2019), Workbook).

Energy source 2010* 2014* 2017* 2030 2040




Nuclear energy



• Hydro

• Bioenergy

• Wind

• Geothermal energy

• Solar PV


• Marine energy

















































| | Tab. 1.

Power generation capacity in the EU-28 in GW.

*at the end of each year

Source: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012, 2016 and 2018, Paris,

November 2012, 2016 and 2018, respectively













Total 910 985 1,040 1,266 1,320

Accordingly, fourteen of the 28 EU member states had

decided to use nuclear energy. This applies in particular to

countries such as France, Belgium, the Czech Republic,

Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden,

Finland, Spain and the United Kingdom. In 2011, Germany

decided to completely phase out the peaceful use of

nuclear energy by the end of 2022. In the Netherlands, the

share of nuclear energy is low at 3 % (Fig. 3).

While political decisions were decisive for using nuclear

energy or for abandoning this energy source, the availability

of coal and natural gas in their own countries is a

determining factor above all for the availability of these

resources in each case. In the case of coal, this applies in

particular to Germany, a number of Eastern European

countries and Greece. Natural gas plays a major role

in power generation, especially in the UK and the Netherlands,

where both countries can draw on their own natural

gas reserves. Sweden, Austria, Italy and France are rich in

water resources for electricity generation. Denmark has

particularly favourable conditions for the use of wind power.

This explains – in addition to state support for this energy

source – its high share of electricity generation there. In

Germany, support through the Renewable Energy Sources

Act has led to a six-fold increase in the con tribution of renewable

energies to the electricity supply, especially wind

and solar energy, since 2000 (Fig. 4).

However, the advance of renewable energies was not

limited to Germany. On the contrary, there has been strong

expansion of electricity generation based on renewable

energies in all the EU countries. This was favoured by

corresponding political decisions but since the beginning

of the current decade also by the sharp decline in costs,

especially for PV systems and also – albeit to a lesser extent

for wind turbines. The share of renewable energy in

electricity generation in the EU-28 increased from 13.8 %

in 2005 to 32.0 % in 2018.

The capacity of power generation plants based on

renewables in the EU-28 increased by 65 % from

290 gigawatts (GW) in 2010 to 478 GW at the end of 2017.

By contrast, the capacity of conventional capacities fell by

59 GW from 621 GW to 562 GW in the period from 2010 to

2017. As a result, the share of renewable energies in the

total power generation capacity had increased from 32 %

in 2010 to 46 % by the end of 2017. 2 Most of the decline in

conventional capacity related to coal-fired power plants.

In addition, there was a decrease in nuclear power plant

output and the output of oil-based plants. The capacity of

the gas-fired power plants has remained practically stable

(Table 1).

So far, the decline in conventional capacity has not

been a problem for the stability of the power supply. The

convergence of member states’ systems has reduced the

requirements for the level of reserve capacity. In addition,

excess capacities had been built up in the past which have

now been drastically reduced by decommissioning.

3 Prospects of the power generation


Three factors are particularly important. These are the

continued impetus for expansion in renewable energy

plants, implementation of the coal phase-out plans of a

large number of member states (Fig. 5) and the future of

nuclear energy in the EU.

2 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012 and 2018, Paris, November 2012 and 2018 respectively.


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Of the total US$ 57 billion investment in power

generation plants in the EU in 2018, a good 80 %

(US$ 46 billion) went to renewable energy plants. The

remaining US$ 11 billion was divided between nuclear

energy (US$ 5 billion) and coal/gas/oil (US$ 6 billion). 3

A comparable situation is also to be expected in the

coming years – with the consequence that the capacity

of renew able energy plants in the EU-28 should

increase compared to the end of 2017 by around two

thirds to just under 800 GW by 2030. According to

the New Policies Scenario, the main scenario of

the World Energy Outlook 2018 of the International

Energy Agency (IEA), a further increase to 877 GW is expected

by 2040. 4

By contrast, fossil-fired power plants are expected to

reduce capacity by around 100 GW, from 437 GW at the

end of 2017 to 339 GW in 2040. This particularly affects

coal, whose output is estimated by the IEA to fall by

127 GW from 170 GW to 43 GW by 2040 (Fig. 6).

A similar development is also expected in a study

by the EU Joint Research Centre. According to this

analysis, presented in September 2018, the majority of

coal-fired power plants in Europe were commissioned

more than 30 years ago. On average, these plants are

now 35 years old. A first wave of decommissioning is

expected for the period 2020 to 2025, concentrated

in the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, the Czech

Republic and Spain – with the consequence that EU-wide

output will fall to 105 GW by 2025. A second wave of

decommissioning between 2025 and 2030 will affect

coal-fired power plants, particularly in Germany, Poland,

Great Britain, Bulgaria and Romania. The capacity of

coal-fired power plants in the EU will fall accordingly to

55 GW by 2030. 5

The IEA also estimates that 38 GW of oil-based capacity

will be decommissioned. The assumptions for natural

gas are different. The capacity mechanisms agreed for

the EU favour the construction of new natural gas-based

facilities (Fig. 7). Perhaps somewhat too optimistically,

the IEA anticipates an increase in output of around one

third compared to the end of 2017 to 284 GW in 2040.

In the case of nuclear energy, the age-related closures

clearly exceed the expected new construction capacity

(Fig. 7). Accordingly, EU-wide nuclear power plant

capacity is expected to decline by almost 30 % compared to

the end of 2017 to 89 GW in 2040.

| | Fig. 5.

Coal phase-out plans in the EU. (Source: IEA (2018), Coal 2018, Analysis and forecasts to 2023).

| | Fig. 6.

Development of coal-fired power plant capacity in the EU-28 from 2017 to 2040. (Source: IEA World

Energy Outlook 2018, New Policies Scenario; information provided by the IEA Secretariat).

4 The “capacity retirement curve”

of the power plant fleet

In recent years, Europe has seen a preference for investment

in renewable power generation compared to conventional

technologies. This becomes particularly clear when

looking at the installed capacity in the ENTSO-E area

(Fig. 8). The share of renewable energies in installed

capacity (including hydropower) increased from 34 %

(2010) to 48 % (2018). For availability reasons, the


| | Fig. 7.

Decommissioning and expansion of capacities for power generation in the EU-28,

2018 – 2040. (Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2018).

| | Fig. 8.

Share of renewable and non-renewable power generation capacity in the ENTSO-E area

(2018). (Source: ENTSO-E, Statistical Factsheets).

3 International Energy Agency, World Energy Investment 2019, Paris, May 2019.

4 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2018, Paris, November 2018.

5 Joint Research Centre (JRC), EU Coal Regions 2018: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead, Brussels, September 2018


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


renewable share of the electricity generated in the

ENTSO-E 6 region was 36 % in 2018.

There is currently little doubt that this trend will

continue and that the share of conventional generation,

whether based on fossil fuels or nuclear power, will

decrease. This development is reinforced by decisions and

plans to abandon existing conventional technologies,

albeit with very different developments in the European


For system stability, conventional generation has the

pleasant characteristic of being very easy to plan. This does

not apply to a comparable extent given the dependence of

wind and solar power on weather conditions. Further

technological solutions, e.g. network expansion, storage or

load management, are therefore necessary in order to

maintain the assured capacity (Fig. 9).

The technical lifetime of power plants can be estimated

empirically. There is a certain bandwidth here. Measures

to extend the technical lifetime (known as retrofit) play an

important role, so that in individual cases operation

beyond the technical lifetime is certainly possible.

Technical difficulties can also lead to a shorter lifetime.

For an estimation of an entire power plant fleet, however,

it is perfectly legitimate to use an approach with a fixed set

of technical lifetimes. The following technical lifetimes

were used to estimate the capacity retirement curve in the

power plant fleet (see Table 2).

The list of power plants used comprises around 14,500

power plant units (hydropower, natural gas, hard coal,

brown coal, oil, nuclear power, biomass, other) from the

| | Fig. 9.

Installed and assured capacity in Germany (2018). (Source: BDEW and ENTSO-E 2019).

| | Fig. 10.

Capacity retirement curve in the EU-28 power plant fleet (fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydropower).

(Source: Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne (EWI) gGmbH, Europe Beyond Coal).

Energy source

Technical lifetime in years

Brown coal 55

Hard coal 55

Natural gas 45

Oil 50



Nuclear energy 40

Biomass 40

Other 40

| | Tab. 2.

Assumptions used for the technical lifetime of power plants.

28 EU member states. In addition to the technical lifetimes

on which Table 2 is based, Fig. 10 also shows the impact of

early decommissioning, whether for economic reasons or

due to regulatory decisions. Only the controllable types of

generation (coal, gas, oil, biomass, nuclear power, hydropower)

were taken into account for the illustration.

The minimum and maximum load for the EU-28 can be

calculated from the ENTSO-E data for the hourly load; the

grey band in the graph shows this range, i.e. the load

requested by consumers. The peak load can be covered

with the conventional power plants mentioned until 2030,

and until 2026 if plants are decommissioned before the

end of their technical lifetime. Additional, albeit limited,

contributions to the assured capacity can be expected from

renewable energies.

Essentially, the capacity retirement curve shows three

phases based on the technical lifetime:

1. 2020-2030: relatively rapid reduction in capacity

(around 20 GW per year)

2. 2030-2060: relatively slow reduction in capacity

(around 10 GW per year)

3. From 2060: remaining on an even keel

Discontinuation of power plant operation before the

end of the technical lifetime, whether for economic reasons

or for technology phase-out reasons, has essentially the

same phases with a slightly steeper decrease.

In this case, the capacity retirement curve follows the

expansion phases for generation capacities in Europe

(Fig. 11). Different types of power plants were preferred in

the various decades: the 1960s into the 1970s were the

strongest commissioning periods for coal-fired power

plants. In the second half of the 1960s and in the first half

of the 1970s, there was also a significant increase in oil and

gas capacities. The focus of commissioning for nuclear

power was in the 1980s, followed by a period of dominant

expansion based on natural gas and the current phase of

strong growth in renewable energy plants.

The linear reduction of around 20 or 10 GW per year

mentioned above goes hand in hand with a reduction

in the assured capacity. It is possible to counteract

this development by various means and to achieve the

accustomed level of security of supply.

On the one hand, renewable energy sources such as

wind and sun will also make a contribution to the assured

capacity, albeit to a much lesser extent compared to the

installed capacity. However, with the application of new

technologies, such as storage systems and smart grids, it

will be possible to significantly increase the assured

capacity of wind and PV. In addition, non-EU countries,

6 ENTSO-E is an association of European transmission system operators from 36 European countries (EU-28 excluding Malta; Albania, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Northern Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey as observers) (


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

such as Switzerland and Norway, also contribute to the

assured capacity, as do any new plants constructed in the

EU. Overall, it can be said that the system is undergoing a

period of upheaval in which the intermittent energy

sources wind and PV are increasingly having to make their

contribution to system stability in order to ensure a secure

supply around the clock. And this task will become

increasingly important as the number of controllable

power plants shrinks.

5 New construction

The power plant fleet in the EU-28 will continue to be

rejuvenated in the future by the construction of new plants

– primarily based on renewable energies; on the conventional

side, gas-fired power plants are expected to be the

most important (see Fig. 7). This will increase the assured

capacity but not necessarily at the same rate as that to

which it is being reduced. New plants will thus only be part

of the solution; other technologies for maintaining the

output margin will have to make a greater contribution

than in the past.

The probability of implementation depends on the

expected profitability of the projects, the political framework

conditions and, of course, acceptance locally. Exit

plans from a technology in one country provide a more

favourable economic environment for other types of

production, but also improve the prospects for the same

technology in neighbouring countries. Under certain

circumstances, therefore, a phase-out in one country can

lead to new construction in neighbouring countries.

Likewise, the probability of implementing new builds

depends on the options in the existing power plant fleet. If

retrofit measures pay off, older power plants will be upgraded

and there will be less need for new construction. If

necessary, existing plants can also be mothballed if the

operator assumes that there will again be demand for

electricity from its plant in a few years time. However, this

certainly involves costs; you cannot simply park a power

plant like a car in a garage, but must maintain its operational

readiness by means of maintenance and by retaining staff.

What all these options have in common, however, is

that they are associated with long lead times and therefore

require planning over several years.

6 Grid expansion

Electricity has been traded across borders for decades. This

is made possible by the interconnected European supply

system. The electricity grids of the European countries are

connected to each other over large distances via so-called

cross-border interconnectors. The cross-border exchange

| | Fig. 11.

Capacity additions in the EU-28 power plant fleet (fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydropower).

(Source: Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne (EWI) gGmbH, Europe Beyond Coal).

of electricity made possible in this way has a number of

advantages for national electricity markets. “We can only

think about security of supply in a European context ...

Germany would hardly be able to manage its phase-out of

nuclear and coal without being integrated into a European

system.” 7

The differences in production and consumption

between European countries can be better compensated.

This applies particularly to a large proportion of renewable

energies, such as hydropower, wind and solar power. For

example, the wind and sun conditions in Europe differ

from each other, and the supply of hydropower also differs

greatly from region to region. Moreover, peaks in demand

in Europe are often not simultaneous (see Table 3). The

supra-regional compensation thus possible in the internal

market means that less capacity has to be maintained than

in a purely national system.

Security of the supply can therefore be increased by

developing and expanding the cross-border interconnectors.

In addition, supply costs tend to fall and prices

on wholesale markets align themselves between the linked

markets. The joint Price Coupling of Regions (PCR) system

now integrates 19 European countries into a comprehensive

market coupling system. These include Belgium,

France, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria,

the Scandinavian countries, the Baltic states, the United

Kingdom, Poland, Slovenia, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The transmission capacities available for trade between

member states are limited. For this reason, the right to use

the transmission capacities is auctioned off at the borders

or the electricity markets of the countries included are


Country Highest load Time Lowest load Time

Belgium 13,453 MW 19.11., 18:00-19:00 6,067 MW 20.5., 14:00-15:00

Germany 79,074 MW 28.2., 19:00-20:00 35,718 MW 20.5., 5:00-6:00

France 96,328 MW 28.2., 18:00-19:00 30,448 MW 12.8., 6:00-7:00

Greece 9,062 MW 17.7., 12:00-13:00 3,437 MW 9.4., 4:00-5:00

Italy 57,572 MW 1.8., 15:00-16:00 19,511 MW 26.12., 3:00-4:00

Austria 12,073 MW 13.12., 16:00-17:00 4,844 MW 1.7., 4:00-5:00

Hungary 6,572 MW 2.3., 11:00-12:00 2,914 MW 21.5., 5:00-6:00

ENTSO-E 589,716 MW 28.2., 18:00-19:00 264,157 MW 17.6., 5:00-6:00

| | Tab. 3.

Illustration of the level and timing of the maximum and minimum loads in selected EU member states in 2018. Source: ENTSO-E, Statistical Factsheet 2018.

7 Leonhard Birnbaum, Der Tagesspiegel, 24 June 2019, “The energy transition has brought about a massive redistribution”.


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


automatically linked via market coupling. This procedure,

which is controlled via the electricity exchanges, leads to a

harmonization of the wholesale prices for electricity in the

European countries.

Germany is currently connected to neighbouring countries

via so-called interconnectors to the extent of around

30 GW. By 2030, this figure will rise to around 35 GW. 8

However, network bottlenecks frequently do not occur at

borders and are purely national, and in this case do not

allow full accessibility to assured capacity from neighbouring

countries. In addition, peak loads also occur in

several countries at the same time, so that mutual help is

not possible.

A third driver for convergence of the markets in Europe

has become increasingly relevant: integration of the

increasing share of fluctuating renewable energies which

is facilitated by expansion of the supply system’s geographical


In addition to the advantages outlined above, enlargement

of the integrated supply area also poses challenges.

Security of supply no longer depends solely on conditions

within national borders. On the contrary, it gives rise to

dependencies on systems outside one’s own borders. Furthermore,

the close cross-border coupling increases the

risk of a major blackout. For example, a supply disruption

occurring in one country can cause blackouts in countries

which are connected to that country by transmission grids.

And finally, synchronised systems have to deal with

unexpected cross-border electricity flows, so-called

loop-flows. This point gains in importance as electricity

generation from fluctuating renewable energies increases.

Poland and the Czech Republic, for example, are affected

by electricity flows into their supply areas due to the strong

growth in wind and solar power generation in Germany.

They have installed phase shifters at the borders so that

they can to counteract supply disruptions in their own

systems. 9

In order to coordinate tasks in the converging European

internal market, the European Network of Transmission

System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) has been given

the responsibility for regularly drawing up (every two

years) a Europe-wide 10-year network development

plan. 10 This infrastructure plan is based on the existing

generation capacities and peak load of the countries in the

ENTSO-E region (Western and Central Europe). According

to the latest 10-year plan, net generation capacity at the

end of 2017 was 1,060 gigawatts (GW). Fossil energies

accounted for 418 GW, nuclear for 122 GW, hydropower

for 208 GW and other renewable energies, especially

fluctuating ones, for 312 GW. While output based on

renewable energies has risen sharply in recent years,

fossil- fired capacities have declined by 43 GW since 2013.

From the security of supply point of view, it is relevant that

the additional wind and solar power plants installed make

only a small contribution to the assured capacity and that

hydropower also offers only limited guaranteed output at

all times (Fig. 9).

From the security of supply point of view, it should also

be borne in mind that the possibility of unforeseen outages

of conventional power plant capacities and unavailability

due, among other things, to inspections must be taken into

account. These points must be considered when comparing

existing generation capacity and peak load. The

peak load in the ENTSO-E region, indicated for 18 January

2017, amounted to 542 GW in 2017 and, on 28 February

2018, 590 GW in 2018.

Although a certain balance is created on the demand

side by the fact that the peak load does not occur

simultaneously in all countries integrated into the

European market, peak load situations in the countries of

Central and Western Europe are nevertheless parallel.

According to the cited IEA study Integrating Power Systems

across Borders, the total peak demand of 17 Western

European countries in 2011 – i.e. the peak load of these

countries added together – amounted to 465 GW, while

the simultaneous load determined in the hour with the

highest demand in these European countries was 440 GW.

That is a variation of 5 %. This shows that in a cross-border

linked supply system the level of taxable generation output

may be lower than in isolated national systems. At the

same time, however, it becomes clear that this effect must

not be overestimated. “The mutual availability of assured

capacity from abroad is therefore relatively small.” 11

7 Storage

At present, only pumped-storage power plants are available

for the economic storage of electricity. A pumped-storage

capacity of 5.5 GW is installed in Germany. If the plants

outside the German national territory are also included,

insofar as they feed into a German control area and are

therefore to be assigned electrically to the German power

grid which applies to pumped-storage power plants in

Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland, then the figure is

9.8 GW. At the end of 2018, the figure was 25.2 GW

EU-wide. 12

Due to existing location restrictions, the

expansion possibilities for this mature technology are

limited. There are opportunities to expand capacity when

modernizing existing plants. However, pumped-storage

power plants can only be considered as short-term storage

facilities. They cannot compensate for several days of

restrictions in electricity generation from wind and sun,

i.e. a longer dark doldrums. This also applies to batteries.

Compressed air energy storage plants offer a further

option for mechanical storage. They are just as flexible as

pumped-storage power plants and can be used as a reserve.

In times of excess electricity, they are loaded with air using

compressors. They thus store electrical energy in the form

of potential energy from the pressurized gases. So far,

however, there are only two examples of this type of plant

worldwide, one in Huntorf in Lower Saxony and the

second in Alabama. Large-scale use of this technology on a

significant level is not (yet) to be expected in the coming


In the long term, the production of synthetic fuels from

renewable electricity, the Power-to-X (PtX) technology,

offers an option for long-term storage. 13 PtX technology

converts electricity from renewable energies into gaseous

substances such as hydrogen or methane (Power-to-Gas),

8 Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, Monitoring report on security of supply in the area of cable-bound supply with electricity, Berlin,

June 2019

9 International Energy Agency, Integrating Power Systems across Borders, Paris, June 2019.

10 ENTSO-E, Ten Year Network Development Plan, Brussels, November 2018.

11 BDEW, Availability of foreign power plant capacities for supply in Germany, Berlin, August 2018.

12 International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Capacity Statistics, Abu Dhabi, March 2019.

13 World Energy Council – Germany/frontier economics, International Aspects of a Power-to-X Roadmap, Berlin, October 2018.


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

liquid substances such as fuels (Power-to-Liquids) for

mobility, or basic chemicals for industry (power-tochemicals).

In the Power-to-Gas application, electricity is

used to convert water into hydrogen and, further into

methane, if required. The advantage here is that hydrogen

(within certain limits) and methane (without restriction)

can be fed into the existing natural gas network and stored

there. The gases fed in can then be injected back into the

system or used for other applications (e.g. heating, gas

vehicles). The technology is currently still expensive, and

the efficiencies are low. It is nevertheless regarded as a

promising technology for the realization of sector coupling.

8 Demand response

In addition to storage, a system for controlling power

consumption can be used as a further buffer. Electricity is

then consumed in a targeted manner with load management

when a high supply of electricity is available, e.g.

during periods of strong wind. Variable tariffs can make

such “load shifting” financially viable for the final consumer.

By controlling the consumption side, the maximum

load and thus the need for assured capacity can be reduced.

New technologies, such as smart meters, and the use of the

possibilities offered by digitalization can help to improve

the conditions for keeping production and consumption in

balance. Such balancing, which guarantees the nominal

frequency of 50 Hz, is indispensable for maintaining

system safety.

Furthermore, along with the complete local freedom

from emissions of all-electric vehicles, the expansion

of e-mobility offers the advantage of contributing to

balancing the fluctuating supply of electricity from wind

and sun with the demand for electricity. Intelligent control

of the battery charging process makes it possible to charge

the vehicles with electricity from renewable generation

plants during periods of low load, when the electricity is

already available anyway. Electric vehicles therefore

provide the energy industry with the chance to make an

appreciable contribution to integrating renewable energies

into the energy system. This, however, means achieving a

critical mass of vehicles and a well-developed charging

infrastructure so that as many vehicles as possible can be

charged in a controlled manner during idle time.

To estimate the potential, a Tesla S is used as an

example: the charging capacity with the Supercharger V3

is 250 kW; the battery can absorb up to 100 kWh of energy.

With one million cars and charging units, the maximum

power requirement is 250 GW, i.e. a relevant order of

magnitude compared to the installed generation capacity

in the EU. The energy content of 100 GWh corresponds

to the amount of energy consumed in a quarter of an

hour in the EU-28. There may therefore be interesting

opportunities for short-term optimization.

9 Flexibilities in generation

A generally more cost-effective option than storage for

ensuring supply during periods when the wind is not

blowing and the sun is not shining is to maintain

conventional power plant capacity, which can be used

flexibly to cover the load. Gas-fired, hard-coal-fired and

brown- coal-fired power plants in Germany are equally

suitable technically for this purpose due to the retrofitting

of control technology. At present, with a share of more

than 90 %, this is by far the most important lever for

creating system flexibility in most electricity supply

systems, followed by the opportunities offered by

cross-border line expansion, load management and storage

systems. 14

Wind and solar are also increasingly being used more

flexibly. The shift from fixed remuneration systems to

systems close to the market or the emergence of Green

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are enabling operators

of renewable plants to discover the opportunities for shortterm

optimization. This means that electricity from wind

and solar power can be fed into the system more efficiently.

10 Conclusion

The 2030 EU targets for climate protection and the

expansion of renewable energies must be reconciled with

the objectives of security and economic efficiency of the

energy supply. With the current state of the art, it is

possible to expand assured capacity based on renewable

energies from wind and sun with additional infrastructure

(grid) and new technologies (smart grids, storage, demand

response). In strict compliance with existing climate policy

guidelines, to ensure the best possible security of the

power supply, it is necessary to develop and use new

technologies and it is not foreseeable when these will be

sufficiently available. It therefore appears essential to

maintain sufficient conventional reserve capacities. The

early closure of coal-fired power plants in Germany – even

beyond what the Commission “Growth, Structural Change

and Employment” has recommended 15

– may further

jeopardize the security of supply.

Political decisions must increasingly be taken in the

European context, as markets continue to grow closer

together. Nevertheless, Germany cannot rely on foreign

countries to secure its supply, since there, too, the assured

capacity based on conventional capacity is declining

massively and peak loads in Europe often occur relatively

simultaneously. It is therefore necessary to make sufficient

flexibility options available at national level.

Against this background, it should be noted that in

future renewable energies, as an increasingly dominant

source of electricity, will also have to make important

contributions to the system stability of the electricity grid.

Network expansion, storage and load sequence management

on the customer side are indispensable for

implementation. The coupling of electricity to the heating

and transport sector will provide additional opportunities.


Dr. Stefan Ulreich

World Energy Council – Germany

Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

World Energy Council – Germany


14 International Energy Agency, Status of Power System Transformation - Advanced Power Plant Flexibility, Paris 2018.

15 Commission Growth, Structural Change and Employment, Final Report, Berlin, January 2019.


Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Leitentscheidung zum KKW-Rückbau:

VGH München weist Weg zur „grünen Wiese“

Tobias Leidinger


Die Stilllegung und der Abbau eines Kernkraftwerks stellt eine beachtliche Herausforderung dar: Technisch bedarf es

dafür detaillierter Planung und spezifischen Know-Hows. Rechtlich ist das Abbaugeschehen in eine (oder mehrere)

atomrechtliche Genehmigungen „gekleidet“, die den gesamten Abbauprozess strukturiert erfassen und dafür Rahmenbedingungen

definieren. Aktuell sind Rückbauaktivitäten – technisch und genehmigungsrechtlich – für die infolge des

gesetzlichen Atomausstiegs stillgelegten Anlagen in vollem Gange. Der VGH München hat nun in einer bemerkenswerten

Entscheidung Klarheit in Bezug auf eine ganze Reihe von Streitfragen betreffend die Stilllegung und den Abbau

kerntechnischer Anlagen geschaffen.

1 Der Fall und die wesentlichen


In dem vom VGH München entschiedenen Fall (Urteil v.

20.12.2018 – Az. 22 A 17.400004) hatte der Kläger – ein

Umweltverband – eine ganze Reihe von Streitpunkten

gegen die dem Betreiber erteilte 1. Stilllegungs- und

Abbaugenehmigung (SAG) für ein KKW erhoben. Der

Umweltverband verlangte die Aufhebung der SAG. Das

Gericht setzte sich ausführlich mit den vorgebrachten

Argumenten auseinander. Sie blieben im Ergebnis sämtlich

ohne Erfolg: Die Klage wurde abgewiesen. Die Begründung

enthält beachtenswerte Ausführungen, die über den entschiedenen

Fall hinaus von Bedeutung sind: Umstritten war

u.a. das grundsätzliche Verhältnis der Betriebs- zur Stilllegungsgenehmigung,

die Frage, ob eine bestimmte

Abbaureihenfolge in der Genehmigung festgelegt sein muss

und was im Hinblick auf das erforderliche, vom Betreiber zu

gewährleistende Schutzniveau während des Abbaus gilt.

Schließlich ging es um die – viel diskutierte – Frage, wie das

SEWD-Szenario eines gezielten Flugzeugabsturzes in der

Abbauphase zu bewerten ist. Im Einzelnen:

2 Verhältnis von Betriebs- und


Das Gericht bestätigt die Auffassung, dass die nach § 7

Abs. 1 AtG erteilte Betriebsgenehmigung neben dem

ursprünglichen Leistungsbetrieb auch den sog. Nach- und

Restbetrieb erfasst. Das bedeutet, dass eine SAG nach § 7

Abs. 3 AtG nicht erforderlich ist, soweit geplante Maßnahmen

bereits Gegenstand der Betriebsgenehmigung

nach § 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 AtG sind. Dass es zu einer Überlagerung

von Betriebs- und Stilllegungsgenehmigung kommen

kann, die SAG also nicht anstelle der Betriebs genehmigung,

sondern neben ihr gilt, entspricht den gesetzlichen Vorgaben

und den zu ihrer Konkretisierung erlassenen

Regelungen im Stilllegungsleitfaden des BMU. Der Abbau

kann also bereits beginnen, bevor die SAG erteilt ist, soweit

es sich um bereits durch die Betriebsgenehmigung erfasste

Maßnahmen handelt. Beide Genehmigungen ergänzen


3 Vorgaben für die Abbaureihenfolge

Die Festlegung einer bestimmten Abbau-Reihenfolge

einzelner Maßnahmen in der Genehmigung kann der

Kläger nicht verlangen. Denn sie findet im Gesetz keine

Grundlage und ist auch sonst nicht geboten: Welche

Systeme, Komponenten und Anlagenteile zeitgleich

abgebaut werden dürfen oder nacheinander, ergibt sich in

erster Linie unter Zweckmäßigkeitsgesichtspunkten. Eine

Raum- bzw. abschnittsweise Stilllegung und Demontage

ist dabei als sinnvoll zu bewerten. Von Rechts wegen

bedarf es jedenfalls keiner detaillierten Festlegungen in

der Genehmigung zur Abbaureihenfolge oder für einzelne

Abbauschritte. Damit bestätigt das Gericht die Möglichkeit

für ein sachgerechtes, pragmatisches Vorgehen, ohne dass

der Aufwand in Bezug auf die Genehmigung steigen muss.

4 Erforderliche Schadensvorsorge

Die Genehmigungsvoraussetzung „Gewährleistung der

erforderlichen Schadensvorsorge“ i.S.v. § 7 Abs. 2 AtG gilt

auch für die Abbaugenehmigung nach § 7 Abs. 3 AtG. Das

Gesetz macht keinen Unterschied beim Schutzniveau, egal

ob eine Anlage betrieben oder abgebaut wird. Trotz der

Gleichartigkeit des Schutzniveaus darf beim Abbau aber –

im Rahmen von schutzzielbezogenen Prüfungen – das

ganz erheblich verminderte Risiko und Gefährdungspotential

der Anlage berücksichtigt werden. Insoweit gilt

ein spezifischer Bewertungsmaßstab, der das veränderte

Gefährdungspotential in der Abbauphase einbezieht.

Daher ist ein „statisches“ Gleichsetzen von Betriebs- und

Abbauphase weder sachgerecht noch kann es rechtlich

eingefordert werden. Dementsprechend gibt es auch

keinen Grundsatz, der einen Abbau der Anlage, in der sich

noch Brennelemente befinden, von vornherein ausschlösse.

Das wurde von Klägerseite bestritten. Jetzt ist

geklärt, dass ein solches Vorgehen zulässig ist.

5 Anforderung in Bezug auf den gezielten


Bemerkenswert ist das Urteil schließlich im Hinblick auf

die Bewertung des Szenarios eines gezielten Flugzeugabsturzes.

Der Streitpunkt, wie dieses SEWD-Thema atomrechtlich

zu behandeln ist, zieht sich durch alle atomrechtlichen

Verfahren. Hier hatte sich die Behörde auf den

Standpunkt gestellt, dass dieses Szenario in Bezug auf ein

stillgelegtes Kernkraftwerk – in Ausübung ihres verwaltungsbehördlichen

Beurteilungsspielraums – dem

sog. Restrisiko zuzuordnen ist. Daher sind insofern

keine besonderen Anforderungen während des Abbaugeschehens

zu erfüllen. Diese Rechtsauffassung wird

durch Gericht „im Rahmen des gerichtlich nur eingeschränkt

überprüfbaren Spielraums“ ausdrücklich bestätigt.

Das ist in zweifacher Hinsicht hervorzuheben: Zum

einen bestätigt das Gericht damit klar den der Behörde

im Rahmen der Bewertung von SEWD-Ereignissen zustehenden,

gerichtlich nur eingeschränkt kontrollierbaren

Beurteilungsspielraum. Diese sog. „Einschätzungsprärogative

der Exekutive“ wurde zuletzt – in anderen

Gerichtsentscheidungen – durch überzogene gerichtliche

Anforderungen praktisch „entwertet“. Das Gericht darf

sich aber nicht an die Stelle der Behörde setzen. Zum

anderen bestätigt das Gericht die Bewertung in der Sache

Spotlight on Nuclear Law

Key Decision for Dismantling ı Tobias Leidinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


selbst: Es betont, „dass für den terroristischen Zweck,

möglichst großen Schaden und großes Leid hervorzurufen

… ein seit mehr als fünf Jahren stillgelegtes Kernkraftwerk

„kein gutes Anschlagsziel“ sei. Kurzum: Es ist in der Sache

vertretbar und von Rechts wegen nicht zu beanstanden,

wenn eine solches Ereignis atomrechtlich als „Restrisiko“

eingestuft wird.

6 Fazit

Die Entscheidung des VGH München ist durchweg zu

begrüßen: Sie setzt sich dezidiert und überzeugend mit

grundsätzlichen Streitpunkten und einer Vielzahl von

Klägerseite aufgeworfenen Fragen auseinander, weshalb

sie deutlich über den entschiedenen Fall hinausweist. Der

Weg zur „grünen Wiese“ ist dadurch rechtlich betrachtet

berechenbarer geworden. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass das

BVerwG als Revisionsinstanz der vom VGH München vorgegebenen

Linie folgt und damit weitere Streitverfahren,

die die Stilllegung und den Abbau von kerntechnischen

Anlagen betreffen, abgekürzt oder vermieden werden

können. Für einen zügigen Rückbau in Deutschland – der

nach dem gesetzlich angeordneten Atomausstieg allseits

gefordert wird – wäre das ein konstruktiver Beitrag.

TÜV NORD Akademie



Prof. Dr. Tobias Leidinger

Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für Verwaltungsrecht

Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft

Graf-Adolf-Platz 15

40213 Düsseldorf

11. Freigabesymposium


von radioaktiven

Stoffen aus dem

Geltungs bereich

des Strahlenschutzgesetzes

Nur noch wenige

freie Plätze

04. – 06.11.2019


Spotlight on Nuclear Law

 Key Decision for Dismantling ı Tobias Leidinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September



Review of the Analytical Methods Used

in Nuclear Decommissioning

Application vs. aspiration – an EU-wide survey of methods

in radioanalytical chemistry

Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

The wave of decommissioning of nuclear facilities that Europe is facing now and in the near future requires a solid

basis of efficient chemical and radiochemical analytical methods and capabilities. This study presents the results of a

survey among European laboratories to summarize current practices, covering radionuclides, activity levels, sample

types, and analytical instrumentation to create a clearer picture of the present status and future challenges. The results

reflect the particularity of decommissioning, which requires analysis of a wide range of sample matrices. As a result, a

wide variety of radioanalytical methods are deployed. However, gamma spectrometry, liquid scintillation counting and

alpha spectrometry remain by far the dominant analytical methods. Despite the need for novel methods for specific

nuclides, laboratories did not consider specialization or miniaturization of instruments as a focus for future developments.

Rather, two types of challenges emerged most prominently: firstly, process optimization, such as improved and

more integrated communication with customers and regulatory bodies and secondly, methodical improvements, such

as the more widespread application of new technologies and enhanced availability of reference materials.


Decommissioning of the first nuclear

reactors is progressing and Europe is

currently facing a decommissioning

wave, which will continue into the

future due to the planned shutdown

of the first and second generation

nuclear power plants (NPPs) and

facilities in the next 5 to 50 years

[ European Commission, 2016]. With

about a third of the EU’s 186 reactors

requiring decommissioning at an

estimated cost of 4 to 5 billon € each,

this adds up to a total of 200 to

300 billion € for near future decommissioning

projects within the EU

[OECD, 2016]. Thus, processes that

improve the efficiency of decommissioning,

analytical methods for radionuclide

determination, and availability

of Europe-wide standards are

all becoming increasingly relevant

[Judge & Regan, 2017].

Decommissioning is a strongly

regulated process [McIntyre, 2012],

in which a range of radionuclides

must be analyzed using approved

methods that reach specified limits of

detection and accuracy. Decommissioning

also requires a spectrum of

analytical methods because of the

multitude of radionuclides, matrices

and sample preparation procedures,

all of which span a vast range of

activity levels [Hou, 2007]. The choice

of methods for each radionuclide

depends on the sample, i.e. sample

matrix, activity level and amount,

which, in turn, is dependent on legal

requirements and regulatory statutes

for sampling at nuclear facilities and

power plants during decommissioning.

Detection limits for specific nuclides

are then determined by

declaration criteria. Analysis of radionuclides

is therefore strongly dependent

on a number of parameters

and requires a variety of analytical

methods [Hou et al. 2016], which, to

some extent is contradictory to the

need for a highly efficient, routinebased

approach to radioanalytics with

high-output capacity required to meet

the challenge of the current wave of


Moreover, an overview of the

analytical methods and the scope with

which they are employed throughout

Europe, is currently lacking. Meanwhile,

standardized measurement

procedures that rely on suitable

reference materials are absent or still

being developed [Larijani et al. 2017].

Therefore, it is difficult to determine

whether the available analytical

methods are sufficient and valid when

compared with requirements.

To improve the understanding of

current capabilities and future needs

and challenges, a survey was conducted

for end users of European

laboratories, as part of the Horizon

2020 INSIDER project. The survey

covered radionuclides measured,

their activity levels, analytical instrumentation

and sample matrices.

Materials and Methods

The survey was composed of open and

closed style questions. A total of 18

questions were posed to the participants.

Ten questions indicated the use

of several options (i.e. multiple

nuclides with multiple analytical options)

and a free text option to cover

all possibilities. The aim was to collect

information on the type of laboratories

working on decommissioning, the

sample types analyzed, the activity

levels measured, the sample preparation

techniques utilized, the radionuclides

determined, and the analytical

methods used. The final two open

style questions asked the participants

to provide their view of the future and

in particular the analytical challenges

for both their laboratory and decommissioning

in general.

The survey was created using

the online tool SurveyMonkey (ref:

Laboratory managers from the

INSIDER consortium, as well as others

contacted through personal networks,

were initially contacted and asked to

collect European-wide data with the

intention to reach a representative

sample of laboratories working in

the field. A total of approximately

140 persons were contacted, of which

80 agreed to participate. Out of

75 personalized survey links that were

sent out, 34 surveys were completed

from 16 countries (10 from Germany,

5 from France, 2 from Belgium,

Hungary, Romania, Sweden and

Switzerland. Austria, Croatia, Denmark,

Finland, Italy, and one from

each of the Netherlands, Slovakia,

Spain and the United Kingdom). Five

additional surveys were begun, but

not completed. Only completed

surveys were analyzed. The survey

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

responses were analyzed by exporting

the raw data as a Microsoft Excel® file


Information on the participating

laboratories (Questions 1 – 5)

The answers to the first three questions

confirmed information on the

institutions and countries of the participating

laboratories. In answer to

the question of the final purpose of the

analytical measurements of decommissioning

samples (question 4), 74 %

answered “research”, 53 % “declaration

according to waste criteria / final

disposal”, 50 % “clearance of decommissioning

material”, 50 % “monitoring

environment”, 44 % “monitoring

facility processes” and 32 % answered

“environment remediation”. 27 %

of the responses checked “other” purposes,

such as organization of proficiency

tests, samples with unknown

purposes, general analytical support

(determining scaling factors or high

precision isotope analysis) and monitoring


Regarding sampling (question 5),

47 % of the 34 laboratories replied

that they take samples themselves,

while 53 % replied they did not.

Free-text responses about the types of

samples taken by these 16 laboratories

showed that 8 laboratories took

environmental samples or samples for

monitoring purposes, 7 laboratories

took samples for decommissioning or

waste characterization, and 3 laboratories

took samples for purposes of

research or upon client request. Two

answers, in particular, stood out, one

saying their laboratory provided “the

whole service from sampling, analyses

to assessments” and the other saying

they take samples of “soil, water, aerosols,

vegetation, [and] sediment […]

for preservation of evidence”.

Sample characteristics &

preparation (Questions 6 – 10)

Of the sample matrices analyzed

for decommissioning (Figure 1,

­Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4), the

greatest share of samples analyzed

were waste water (analyzed by 30 out

of 34), sludge (analyzed by 29 laboratories),

aqueous samples (27 laboratories),

metals, concrete / construction

materials and soil (26 laboratories).

Gaseous samples were less common,

and analyzed by 12 out of 34 laboratories,

as were animal products (12 laboratories)

and nuclear fuel or nuclear

rod components (14 laboratories).

The results given in the following

paragraphs were calculated as relative

percentages of those that gave a reply

| | Fig. 1.

Responses regarding the activity levels of decommissioning samples (question was mandatory,

response options were given and multiple answers were possible).

| | Fig. 2.

Responses regarding the sample mass or volume required for decommissioning (question was

mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible).

other than ‘not analyzed in our lab /

none’; absolute numbers can be found

in the respective figures.

The question on activity levels of

samples (Figure 1), revealed that low

(< 0.5 Bq/g) and medium (0.5 to

102 Bq/g) activities were the main

sample levels measured by the laboratories.

The highest activity levels (102

to 105 Bq/g) were analyzed in all samples

(exception for animal products)

with a limited number of high activity

plant material and soils measurements

(4 & 8 % respectively). High

activity measurements were most

common in nuclear fuel or nuclear rod

components (48 %). Medium activity

was reported as being 35 to 44 % of

most sample materials, with only gaseous

samples (29 %), meat / animal

products (24 %) and plant material

(19 %) lower. Samples with a high

relative proportion of low activity

levels (< 0.5 Bq/g) were plant material

(77 %), soil (76 %) and gaseous

samples (52 %).

The results from question 7 on

sample mass/volume required for

analysis (Figure 2) illustrated that

sample mass or sample volume had

the strongest variation (10 kg) for gaseous and filter samples.

Organic liquids, sludge and resin

samples spanned the lowest range


Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


| | Fig. 3.

Responses regarding the sample numbers per batch analysed for decommissioning (question

was mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible).

with 4 orders of magnitude (0.1 mg to

1 kg).

Concerning the number of samples

per batch (question 8, Figure 3),

94 % contained 1 – 25 samples, and

53 % of sample batches contained

5 samples or less. Batches of more

than 50 samples were rare (1 % of the

all sample batches) and were only

found for waste water or soil samples.

Figure 4 showed the most frequently

analyzed samples (question

9) were waste water, for which

28 % of laboratories reported daily or

weekly intervals, and only 2 laboratories

answered they didn’t analyze

them at all. In general, all sample

types showed a variety of analysis

frequencies and each sample type was

analyzed non-recurrently.

| | Fig. 4.

Responses regarding the frequency of samples analysed for decommissioning (question

was mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible).

All laboratories applied some form

of sample preparation (Figure 5,

question 10). The most commonly

used methods were drying (< 110 °C)

/ evaporation to dryness and “classic

radiochemistry” / radionuclide separation

(both reported to be 94 %

applicable). The sample preparation

methods used by the fewest laboratories

were gas expelling (68 % not

applicable), low pressure closed

( acid) digestion (62 % not applicable)

and (alkaline) melt digestion /

fusion beads (53 % not applicable).

Mechanical sample preparation (i.e.

shredding / grinding / milling) was

reported by 81 % of laboratories.

When comparing methods, Figure

5 suggests that multiple methods

were used in the same laboratories

and were complimentary rather

than exclusionary. While open acid

leaching and digestion were both

reported in most laboratories (88 %

and 82 %, respectively) medium

pressure closed (acid) microwave

digestion (71 %) was widely used as

well. Classic radiochemistry / radionuclide

separation (94 %) was applied

by more laboratories than extraction

chromatography of radionuclides

using columns from Eichrom® Technologies

or Triskem International

(88 %).

Regarding the frequency of sample

preparation methods, Figure 5 shows

that for 15 % of the laboratories,

the three main sample preparation

methods (classic radiochemistry /

radio nuclide separation, extraction

chromatography of radionuclides

( Eichrom Technologies, Triskem

International) and electro-deposition

/ electro-precipitation were performed

on a minute-to-hourly basis.

This number rose to 55 %, 50 % and

40 %, respectively, when the frequency

was extended to 5 days. The

only other preparation method that

reached that frequency was drying

(< 110 °C) / evaporation to dryness,

with 47 % of laboratories performing

this sample preparation at a frequency

of minutes to 5 days.

| | Fig. 5.

Responses regarding the frequency of sample preparation types for decommissioning (question was

mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible)

Nuclide Analysis

(Questions 11 – 13)

Figure 6 shows the responses to

question 11, demonstrating that more

than 60 % of all laboratories used

gamma spectrometry for Cs-137,

Co-60, Am-241 and Eu-152 while less

than 20 % used gamma spectrometry

to analyze Np-237, Na-24, Cm-243,

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Am-243, Pu-241, Pu-239, Pu-238,

Pu-240 and Gd-153. Some laboratories

also reported analyzing other

nuclides with gamma spectrometry

than were presented as options in

the survey: Cd-109, Pb-210, I-131,

I-123, In-111, Re-186, Co-58,

Tc-99, Cm-244, Ag-108m, Ag-110m,

Sn-121m, Sb-124. One laboratory

did not consider Ru-106, I-129, Pu

and Cm to be suitable for gamma


As shown in Figure 7 (question

12), alpha-spectrometry, liquid scintillation

counting (LSC) and in ductivelycoupled-mass-spectrometry


measurements were the most frequently

used methods and all of the

laboratories reported using them.

More than 70 % of the laboratories

reported using alpha spectrometry for

Am-241 and Pu-239+240; between

50 % and 70 % of all laboratories

reported using it for U-234, U-235,

U-238, Pu-238, Pu-242, Am-243, Cm,

242 and Cm-244. Alpha spectrometry

was also reported for Pu-241 (26 %)

and Th-234 (62 %).

LSC was mainly used for betaemitting

radionuclides with atomic

masses below 100, as well as for

Ra-isotopes and Pu-241. The most

| | Fig. 6.

Responses regarding the nuclides measured with gamma spectrometry (question was mandatory and

response options were given).

commonly measured nuclides were

C-14 (71 %), Sr-90 (71 %) and H-3

(68 %). More than 50 % of laboratories

reported using LSC for Ni-63,

Cl-36, Fe-55 and Sr-89.

ICP-MS measurements covered a

range of radionuclides. Nuclides most

frequently analyzed with ICP-MS

were U-238 (50 %), U-235 (47 %) and

U-234 (44 %). Less than a third of the

laboratories also analyzed Tc-99

(32 %), Pu-239 (32 %), Pu-240

(32 %), Pu-241 (29 %), Pu-242

(29 %), Np-137 (29 %), Th-232

(26 %) and Zr-93 (21 %) using ICP-


Alpha-beta proportional counting

was mainly used for Sr-90 (26 %) and

Sr-89 (12 %). Some laboratories (6 to

9 %) used this method to measure Co-

60, Tc-99, I-129, C-14, Cl-36, Cs-137,

Ra-226 and U-238. Grid ionization

chamber (GIC) was the least used

method and was deployed by only 3 %

of the laboratories.

The free text option (“other”) revealed

that methods not included

were acceleration mass spectrometry

(AMS), named 3 times, total alpha,

low energy germanium detector

(LEGe), and thermal ionization mass

spectrometry (TIMS).

In answer to the equipment used in

laboratories (Figure 8, question 13),

nuclear radiation measuring techniques

were highly prevalent. 97 %

of laboratories reported using some

form of gamma spectrometry, 74 %

using some form of LSC, 62 %

using alpha spectrometry and 56 %

reported using alpha-beta counters.

With regards to other methods, 71 %

of the laboratories reported using

spectrometry methods (AAS, UV/VIS,

OES, MS), 65 % using chromatography

methods (IC, HPLC), 26 %

using X-ray fluorescence methods

(ED-XRF, WD-XRF, XPS) and 12 %

reported using synchrotron X-ray

methods (XANES, EXAFS).

In all cases, the most prevalent

options were ‘standard’ lab-size instruments.

Portable or miniaturized

instruments were used in 15 % of

gamma spectrometry, 8 % of LSC,

22 % of X-ray fluorescence and 5 % of

chromatography methods. Custommade

equipment was more prevalent

than miniaturized instrumentation:

12 % of gamma spectrometry, 25 % of

synchrotron, 14 % of chromatography

and 11 % of x-ray fluorescence

methods were reported to be in some

way specialized or custom-made. At

least 4 to 5 % of any method was

reported to be specialized or custommade.


Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


| | Fig. 7.

Responses regarding the nuclides measured with non-gamma spectrometry methods (question was mandatory, response options were given and multiple answers were possible).

| | Fig. 8.

Responses regarding the use of methods or specialized equipment (question was mandatory, response

options were given and multiple answers were possible).

Future challenges and

influences (Questions 14 – 17)

When asked about the factors influencing

the development of radioanalytical

methods for decommissioning

(question 14), laboratories rated the

7 proposed influencing factors as

being of almost equal importance

(Figure 9).

Improving accuracy was reported

to be “very important” or “important”

by 79 % of laboratories. “Optimizing

money spent on analyses” and “optimizing

time spent on analyses” were

rated “very important” or “important”

by 76 % and 74 % of the laboratories,

respectively. By comparison, “Scientific

findings” were only considered

“very important” or “important” by

62 % of the laboratories, but was also

only deemed “entirely unimportant by

3 % of the laboratories. The option

“changes in laws and regulations” was

reported most frequently to be

“ entirely unimportant” (9 %) or

“not really important” (18 %). Among

the laboratories, 15 % also responded

that “improving detection limits”

was “not really important”, but no

laboratories considered it “entirely


When evaluating the future analytical

challenges in decommissioning

(question 15), the answers were more

diverse (Figure 10). “Optimizing

radionuclide separation”, “retaining

analytical know-how”, “availability of

more standard material” and “improving

matrix-related sample preparation”

were the challenges deemed most

important with 82 %, 79 %, 79 % and

68 %, of the labora tories, respectively,

considering them “very important” or

“important” challenges for the future.

The two challenges deemed least important

were “developing miniaturized

methods” and “developing more

portable, on-site methods” with 36 %

and 30 % of the labs considering this

challenge “entirely unimportant” or

“not really important” and only 25 %

and 31 % considering it “very important”

or “important”.

The open style question on the

greatest analytical challenges in the

future specific to the participant’s laboratory

(question 16) was not mandatory

and was completed by 22 of the

34 (65 %) participants. The answers

reflected a range of future challenges

(Figure 11), which can be loosely

summarized into 8 groups:

| | Fig. 9.

Responses regarding the influence of various parameters on radioanalytical method development

(question was mandatory and response options were given to be rated).

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

| | Fig. 10.

Responses regarding the importance of different analytical challenges for decommissioning (question

was mandatory and response options were given to be rated).

Four participants cited organizational

or process-related challenges,

such as “dealing with legacy waste

from nuclear research”, challenges

regarding “sample storage and preservation”,

“transportation of radioactive

samples” and “dealing with high level

waste”. Four laboratories named

acquiring new analytical instruments

as their greatest analytical challenge,

such as “acquirement of alpha spectrometry,

XRF (X-ray fluorescence)”,

“availability of mass spectrometric

techniques”, “availability of AMS

( acceleration mass spectrometry)” and

“direct coupling of techniques, e.g.

separation techniques with ICP-MS

(inductively coupled mass spectrometry),

and automation of the procedures”.

Three laboratories stated

that retaining staff numbers, skill or

know-how was their greatest challenge,

while another three laboratories

named optimizing existing methods,

such as “adapting radiochemistry

protocols to regulatory changes”,

“ improving the reliability of results”

and “completely eliminating the use of

hydrofluoric acids” as their greatest

challenge. Another three laboratories

cited developing new methods as their

greatest challenge, such as the “development

of Se-79 and Pa-107 separation

and measurement methods”,

“ usage of mass spectrometry for more

short-lived radionuclides” and “developing

new methods for certain nuclides

and availability of more reference materials”.

Two laboratories stated that

updating existing instruments, such as

“ensuring that we have the relevant,

up-to-date equipment” and “AMS in

unattended mode” was their greatest

challenge, while another two laboratories

cited declaration demands as

their greatest challenge saying that

“ increased demands in the declaration

of nuclear and release material and

performing analyses for customers

whose know-how is continuously

decreasing” and “gaining consensus

what radio nuclides and which sample

matrix should be analysed in decommissioning

samples”. One laboratory

cited a specific decommissioning project

as their greatest challenge.

The open style question on the

greatest analytical challenges in the

future for decommissioning in general

(question 17) was not mandatory and

was completed by 21 of 34 (62 %)

participants, and reflected an even

larger range of future challenges

(Figure 12), which can be loosely

summarized into 5 groups and 5

non- group-able single answers.

Eight laboratories cited new

methods as a general future challenge

for decommissioning, answering

“learning new techniques”, “accepting

new analytical techniques like AMS

as more reasonable methods for

radionuclide detection”, “specific

analytical techniques for pure

alpha and beta emitting nuclides”,

“development of Ca-41 measurement”,

“techniques for radionuclides

difficult to detect”, “establishing good

measurement systems” “developing

preparation techniques for challenging

sample matrices” and “minimization

of radiochemistry needs”.

Topics related to improved sampling

or in- situ measurements were named

by six participants as the greatest

challenges for decommissioning,

citing “make robust equipment for

on-site measurements that would help

optimizing the sampling”, “enlarging

means for in- situ characterization in

order to limit the number of laboratory

analysis”, “representative

sampling for technical constructions”,

“use the actual equipment from the

Horizon 2020 project” and “improving

represen tative sample taking”.

Three Labora tories named the range

of nuclides as a future challenge,

saying “the range of radio nuclides

that need to be accurately measured”,


| | Fig. 11.

Responses regarding analytical challenges specific to the participating

laboratory (Grouped responses after analysis of free-text answers, question

not mandatory).

| | Fig. 12.

Responses regarding analytical challenges for decommissioning in general

(Grouped responses after analysis of free-text answers, question not


Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


“techniques for hard to detect radionuclides”

and “to extend the number

of radionuclides that can be analyzed

in the lab”. The improvement of

legislation or political choices was

mentioned by three laboratories, who

commented “have clear legislation

in place for compliance”, “different

regulations across EU need of standardization

practices across EU” and

“the lack of political and social

decisions regarding the use of new

technologies (transmutation, separation

techniques on an industrial scale)

and the definition of an end- repository

– with the definition of corresponding

disposal conditions”. Two laboratories

considered a lack of suitable reference

materials to be the greatest future

challenge in decommissioning and

responded with “no suitable standard

available for some radionuclides”

and wished “to get good certified

reference materials from suppliers

like the IAEA in order to validate new

methods”. There were also 5 other

topics that were con sidered to be

the greatest challenges: “analysis of

middle active waste samples”, “avoiding

cross-contamination of samples

and contamination of equipment

with highly contaminated samples”,

streamlining the “data communication

chain from customer to analysis

to reach conclusions from analysis

results; digital integration with clients

and project partners”, “improving

nuclide vector reliability” and “improve

nuclear waste minimization

(clearance, recycling...)”.


The survey process and


The number of responses and nature

of laboratories that replied means

that this survey alone cannot be considered

as fully representative of the

entire radioanalytical landscape for

decommissioning in Europe. Not only

was it not possible to reach a representative

sample of all types of laboratories

that perform radioanalytical

methods for decommissioning (i.e.

laboratories of power plant operators),

it was also not possible to reach

a representative number of participants

per country. Unfortunately, this

situation cannot be improved by

simply conducting another survey

that relies on personal networks and

voluntary participation.

Consequently, this survey mainly

suffers from a certain bias due to the

participants that did answer. Findings

in this survey may be considered more

strongly in favor of research, method

development and focused on acquiring

new fields of research as well as

retaining the respective laboratory

client base than would be representative

of the general radioanalytical

landscape in decommissioning. From

this perspective, a survey on views,

expectations and needs of the respective

clients in decommissioning would

complement this work.

Concerning future challenges,

however, the bias towards research

facilities within this study can be

considered positive, as these are best

suited for acquiring and testing novel

developments, particularly when cooperating

with power plant operators

and other end users.

A second limitation with an optionbased

survey is that misunderstandings

are possible; particularly concerning

the option “none” for the

applicability of a variety of methods /

materials as well as the measurement

methods of total alpha vs. alpha-beta

proportional counting. In contrast,

limiting or eliminating option-based

responses could lead to a wider range

of responses, making it challenging to

draw meaningful conclusions.

Sample characteristics and

sample preparation

The results on sample characteristics

and preparation indicate and confirm

that in decommissioning a vast spectrum

of sample types, activity levels,

sample mass/volume and sample

number per batch is covered (which is

to be expected). Obviously, the laboratories

utilize a large selection of

sample preparation methods to deal

with these multitudes of sample types

and radionuclides to be measured.

The type of method used is related to

the type of radionuclide to be determined

and the detection limit required.

This includes the entire spectrum

of nuclides, such as nuclides

from nuclear fuel material, fission

products, activation products and

naturally occurring radionuclides in

the environment.

It was surprising to note that nearly

half of the laboratories responded that

they took their own samples. While

this was to be expected to be prominent

among laboratories that do

environmental monitoring, it was

surprising that nearly as many labs

did this for decommissioning samples.

This speaks for a very close interaction

between analytical laboratory and


Of the samples matrices that were

analyzed, it was surprising to find that

so many laboratories reported not

measuring gaseous samples, nuclear

fuel / rod components and animal

products. This may have to do with

the difficulties of sampling or sample

preparation rather than the necessity

of the measurements, or perhaps this

is due to the biased selection of laboratories

in the survey. As expected,

however, filters, concrete & construction

waste, waste water and other

aqueous samples were analyzed by

the majority of laboratories. These are

considered more ‘routine’ matrices

with comparatively well-known

sampling and sample preparation

pro cedures.

It was also not surprising to find

that most sample sizes are between

0.1 kg to 1 kg. These can be routinely

handled for analytical purposes; therefore,

the finding that a large range of

sample sizes were handled per laboratory

was also to be expected. However,

it is notable that amounts of 1 kg –

10 kg were also reported by most

laboratories – including for matrices

that are more difficult to handle than

liquids, such as concrete, soil and plant

material. This, of course, poses a major

challenge for the preparation of

suitable reference materials.

The majority of batch sizes ranged

from 1 to 10 samples, but the

frequency of the samples showed a

large variation for nearly all matrices.

There was no sample matrix that was

sampled with the same frequency

across all laboratories.

Concerning the activity levels of

samples, as expected, the relative

activity was highest for nuclear fuel or

rod component samples. It was, however,

surprising to find that some

laboratories analyzed plant material

and soil samples with activity levels

>10 2 Bq/g.

The different types of sample

preparation methods showed that

the participating laboratories were

well-rounded and used complementary

methods for digestion and

separation. This correlated with the

high variability of sample matrices

and sample numbers, volumes and

measurement frequencies.

Radionuclides and analytical


While the survey shows that the

number of analytical instruments

available in Europe is large, the three

main methods for nuclide analysis in

decommissioning are still gamma

spectrometry, liquid scintillation

counting and alpha spectrometry.

While gamma spectrometry is the

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

simplest method in terms of sample

preparation, significant knowledge

is required to interpret the spectra

correctly. This is also true for LSC

measurements for beta emitters. However,

alpha spectrometry is still widely

used for the classic decommissioning

nuclides that are alpha emitters.

This method requires a great deal of

sample preparation, which is also

reflected in the wide variety and complimentary

procedures used for sample

preparation by most laboratories.

Development of further methods,

such as ICP-MS and AMS, generally

aims at replacing the labor-intensive

and time-consuming methods, such as

alpha spectrometry, or nuclides that

are difficult to detect with any of the

three methods mentioned, particularly

at low concentrations. As demon strated

by the use of GIC, which is not particularly

wide-spread, however, research

funding does play an important role in

procurement and, therefore, method


Regarding specialization or miniaturization

of methods, the survey

indicates limited need for miniaturization,

apart from hand-held/port able

gamma detectors, which can help

reduce the effort of sampling. While

certain specializations were requested

by some laboratories, there were at

least as many other laboratories who

requested a more widespread application

of more variable instruments,

which translates into less specialization

and more complex, but standardized

instruments, such as ICP-MS, TIMS,

AMS and coupling techniques. Standardization

notwithstanding, such instruments

require know-how and high

acquisition and maintenance costs,

which may pose an obstacle for their

widespread application.

Current and future challenges

The creator of the survey stems from a

radioanalytical laboratory, therefore all

proposed factors influencing method

development in radioana lytics were regarded

as relatively important. It

remains somewhat surprising, however,

that changes in regulation and

laws were considered unimportant by a

significant number of laboratories.

Moreover, there was a significant

number stating that improving detection

limits was not important. This can

either mean that these laboratories had

state-of-the-art instrumentation available,

or that the types of sample they

were analyzing for their types of clients

were not influenced by increasingly

demanding regulations. This is particularly

interesting since the greatest number

of “very important” answers was

given to the factor “changes in regulations

& laws.”

There was also a general agreement

on the fact that across Europe

international legislation required

improvements in standardization, and

that improving legal frameworks

was considered important, as the

questions concerning final repositories

and defining declaration procedures

was considered an unresolved issue,

heavily affecting decommissioning. In

this context, it would also have been

interesting to know how many laboratories

were certified and accredited

and how standardized those requirements

were implemented.

Despite the bias in favor of research

in the survey conducted, it remains an

integral part of radioanalytics in decommissioning.

Research is required

for specific sampling strategies,

particularly for high activities and

preventing of cross contamination or

more robust on-site equipment as well

as for new analytical methods, for

example regarding specific nuclides.

All of this research, however, must be







4. / 5. Dezember 2019, Kongresshotel Arte, Olten


- Die Landkarte des Digitalen – digitale Hotspots in Kernanlagen

- Workshops zu digitalen Hotspots in der Praxis – Erfahrungen innerhalb und ausserhalb der Branche

- Lösungsansätze für künftige digitale Anwendungen

- Workshops zu Lösungsansätzen für künftige Anwendungen in der Praxis – Ausblick in die Zukunft

Der Vertiefungskurs richtet sich an Mitarbeitende in Kernanlagen und Zulieferfirmen, an Vertreter von

Behörden sowie an Studierende und Assistierende von technischen Universitäten und Fachhochschulen.


Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


done in collaboration with power

plant operators, which was shown by

the survey answers to be the case

for many laboratories. In contrast,

increased regulations require more

and more measurements, which also

bring formerly uninvolved clients into

the field of radioanalytics, which

results in difficulties, when these

clients have limited radioanalytical

knowledge and valuable resources are

lost in educating clients.


The purpose of this survey was to

assess the status of radioanalytics for

decommissioning in Europe. The

survey reflected the wide variety of

sample materials and therefore,

methods that were being used,

although gamma spectrometry, liquid

scintillation and alpha spectrometry

remain the dominant measurement

techniques. Specialization and miniaturization

of methods was much less

requested than initially anti cipated,

even though almost half of the laboratories

also perform their own sampling.

Instead, future challenges were

most strongly identified in two areas:

1. In the context of process optimization,

such as better integrated

communication with clients, more

definitive legal actions regarding

the decision of final repositories

and standardization as well as

inter national guidelines for the

process of decommissioning.

2. Methodical improvements, such as

more widespread application of

mass spectrometric techniques,

such as ICP-MS, AMS, TIMS, and

hyphenated techniques, better

availability of reference material

and new methods for specific

nuclides [e.g. Russell et al. 2014].


This project has received funding from

the Euratom research and training

program 2014-2018 under the grant

agreement n°755554.


| | European Commission (2016). Nuclear Illustrative Programme

Presented Under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion

of the European Economic and Social Committee {COM(2016)


| | Judge S.M. & Regan P.H. (2017). Radionuclide metrology

research for nuclear site decommissioning, Radiation Physics

and Chemistry, 140, 463-465

| | McIntyre P.J. (2012). Nuclear decommissioning policy, infrastructure,

strategies and project planning, in Laraia (ed): Nuclear

Decommissioning: Planning, Execution and International

Experience, Woodhead Publishing, Cornwall

| | Hou, X. (2007). Radiochemical analysis of radionuclides difficult

to measure for waste characterization in decommissioning of

nuclear facilities, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear

Chemistry, 273 (1), 43–48

| | OECD (2016). Costs of Decommissioning nuclear power plants,

NEA No. 7201

| | Larijani C. et al. (2017). Reference materials produced for a

European metrological research project focusing on measurements

of NORM, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 126, 279-284

| | Hou X. et al. (2016). Present status and perspective of radiochemical

analysis of radionuclides in Nordic countries. Journal of

Nuclear Chemistry, 309, 1283-1319.

| | Russel B.C, Croudace I.W, Warwick P.E., Milton J.A (2014)

Determination of Precise 135Cs/137Cs Ratio in Environmental

Samples Using Sector Field Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass


| | Amgarou K. et all. (2018) Inventory of existing methodologies

for constrained environments. D5.1 INSIDER project agreement

n° 755554

| | Peerani P. et all (2017) Identification of needs for innovative

technologies. D2.4 INSIDER Project, agreement n° 755554


Dr. Alexandra K. Nothstein

Deputy head of radiochemical


Institute for Safety and

Environment (SUM)

Dr. Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar

Head of radiochemical laboratory

Institute for Safety and

Environment (SUM), Karlsruhe

Institute of Technology (KIT)

Herrmann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1

76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,


Dr. Laura Aldave de las Heras

Deputy Head of waste

management unit

European Commission Joint

Research Centre – JRC

Directorate G – Nuclear Safety &


Herrmann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1

76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,


Dr. Benjamin C. Russell

Senior Research Scientist

National Physical Laboratory (NPL)

Hampton Road,

Teddington TW11 0LW, Middlesex,

United Kingdom


| | Editorial Advisory Board

Frank Apel

Erik Baumann

Dr. Erwin Fischer

Carsten George

Eckehard Göring

Dr. Florian Gremme

Dr. Ralf Güldner

Carsten Haferkamp

Christian Jurianz

Dr. Anton Kastenmüller

Prof. Dr. Marco K. Koch

Ulf Kutscher

Herbert Lenz

Jan-Christan Lewitz

Andreas Loeb

Dr. Thomas Mull

Dr. Joachim Ohnemus

Olaf Oldiges

Dr. Tatiana Salnikova

Dr. Andreas Schaffrath

Dr. Jens Schröder

Norbert Schröder

Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger

Dr. Brigitte Trolldenier

Dr. Walter Tromm

Dr. Hans-Georg Willschütz

Dr. Hannes Wimmer

| | Editorial Office

Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief)

Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany

Phone: +49 2324 4397723

Fax: +49 2324 4397724


Nicole Koch (Editor)

c/o INFORUM, Berlin, Germany

Phone: +49 176 84184604


| | Official Journal of

Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG)

| | Publisher

INFORUM Verlags- und

Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany

Phone: +49 30 498555-30

Fax: +49 30 498555-18

| | General Manager

Dr. Thomas Behringer

| | Advertising and Subscription

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak

Phone: +49 30 498555-30

Fax: +49 30 498555-18


| | Layout Kommunikation

Antje Zimmermann

Berlin, Germany

| | Printing


druck + medien gmbh

Baunscheidtstraße 11, 53113 Bonn, Germany

| | Price List for Advertisement

Valid as of 1 January 2019

Published monthly, 9 issues per year


Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €

Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 187.- €

All EU member states without VAT number:

Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €

Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 187.- €

EU member states with VAT number

and all other countries:

Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 22.43 €

Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage) 174.77 €

| | Copyright

The journal and all papers and photos contained in it are protected by

copyright. Any use made thereof outside the Copyright Act without the

consent of the publisher, INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft

mbH, is prohibited. This applies to reproductions, translations,

micro filming and the input and incorporation into electronic systems.

The individual author is held responsible for the contents of the

respective paper. Please address letters and manuscripts only to the

Editorial Staff and not to individual persons of the association´s staff.

We do not assume any responsibility for unrequested contributions.

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial.

ISSN 1431-5254

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Review of the Analytical Methods Used in Nuclear Decommissioning ı Alexandra K. Nothstein, Ursula Hoeppener-Kramar, Laura Aldave de las Heras and Benjamin C. Russell

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic

Safety in the Nuclear Industry

Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

Little is known, understood, or published outside the nuclear sector about chemotoxic safety within the industry.

Chemotoxic safety in the nuclear industry is a broad topic area which primarily examines the risks posed to human

health by substances and mixtures from their chemical and physical properties. This includes hazards which can cause

harm to health, physical harm, or asphyxiation.

Nuclear sites with their background in

radiological substances and hazards

have created the need for extensive

safety measures involving the requirement

for high integrity instrumentation

and control measures for protection

to stringent nuclear standards

and this approach has historically

been replicated for chemotoxic assessments.

This paper examines the underpinning

regulations and explores the

philosophy behind more recent developments

in chemotoxic assessments to

meet the challenge of producing pragmatic

safety cases within the nuclear

industry. It provides a unique resource

to the nuclear sector and can be used

for benchmarking against the wider

process industry, as well as for training

and developing staff.


The National Nuclear Laboratory

(NNL) has a fully developed toolbox of

chemotoxic technical guides and

methodologies, with a proven track

record of meeting regulatory requirements

across a diverse range of facilities,

such as nuclear chemical facilities

and reprocessing facilities, in the

United Kingdom (UK) and internationally.

In the nuclear sector, facilities need

to comply with both nuclear legislation

and chemical legislation.

The chemotoxic safety assessment

methodo logy developed by NNL

recognises the need for significant

harmonisation with nuclear safety

assessment methodology.

This paper explores the Regulation

and Legal Requirements relevant to

the umbrella term of ‘chemotoxic’

assessment. The origin of the term

‘chemotoxic’ in the nuclear industry

was explicitly associated with substances

presenting a combined radiological

and chemical hazard, for

example that presented by uranium

hexafluoride. Nowadays, chemotoxic

assessment has a wider scope of interest

which covers substances and

mixtures presenting Harm to Health,

Physical Harm and Asphyxiation from

their chemical or physical properties.

The fundamental requirement in

chemotoxic assessments is to demonstrate

that these hazards can be safely

managed and the risks are As Low As

Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). This

paper examines how this is achieved

using NNL’s toolbox of chemotoxic

technical guides and methodologies

to ensure all potential hazards are

identified and prevented, with all

key safety measures recognised, implemented

and maintained in an

appropriate and pragmatic manner

benefitting from experience from the

wider process industry.

Regulation and

Legal Requirements

The civil nuclear industry worldwide

is regulated to ensure that activities

related to nuclear energy and ionising

radiation are conducted in a manner

which adequately protects people,

property and the environment.

In the UK, the Office for Nuclear

Regulation (ONR) is the agency

responsible for the licensing and regulation

of nuclear installations and

the legal framework for the nuclear

industry is based around the Health

and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) [1],

the Energy Act [2] and the Nuclear

Installations Act (NIA) [3].

| | Fig. 1.

Regulations and Legislation relevant to chemotoxic safety assessment.

A fundamental requirement cited

in UK legislation is that risks be

reduced to ALARP. This principle

provides a requirement to implement

proportionate measures to reduce risk

where doing so is reasonable. The

ALARP principle is applied by adhering

to established good practice, or in

cases where this is unavailable, it is

applied to demonstrate that measures

have been implemented up to the

point where the cost of additional risk

reduction is disproportionate to the

benefit gained. This concept, which

determines the ‘tolerability of risk’

is underpinned in Health & Safety

Executive’s (HSE) publication Reducing

Risks, Protecting People

(R2P2) [4] and subsequently the

ONR’s risk informed regulatory decision

making framework [5].

Figure 1 provides an overview of

the relevant regulations and legislation

and crucially their inter-relationship

which drives the requirement

for chemotoxic safety assessment in

the nuclear sector.

Health and Safety at Work Act

(HSWA) [1]

As described above, the HSWA underpins

all industries within the UK.

The HSWA starts from the position

that every hazard requires a suitable

and sufficient risk assessment to be


Decommissioning and Waste Management

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety in the Nuclear Industry ı Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


undertaken to determine the consequences

of hazardous events and the

measures needed to ensure that risks

from the hazard are adequately controlled.

The risks are then determined

to be tolerable in line with R2P2 [4].

Classification and Labelling

(CLP) Regulations [6]

The CLP Regulation is used as a set of

criteria and rules to determine if a

substance or mixture can cause Health

Hazards or Physical Hazards from

their chemical, physical, or biological

properties. Gases are identified as an

Asphyxiation Hazard in their Safety

Data Sheets (SDS) required by the

REACH (Registration, Evaluation,

Authorisation and restriction of

Chemicals) Regulation [7].

Control of Substances

Hazardous to Health

(COSHH) Regulations [8]

COSHH Regulations covers substances

with the potential to cause Health

Hazards from chemicals fumes, dusts,

vapours, mists, nanotechnology, gases

and asphyxiating gases and biological

agents and germs that cause diseases

such as leptospirosis or legionnaires

disease. Substances and mixtures such

as Lead and Asbestos are addressed

under their own specific Regulations.

Chemotoxic assessments ensure

that suitable and sufficient risk assessments

are undertaken to determine

the consequences of hazardous events

and the required safety measures to

confirm the risks from hazards are

adequately controlled. The main focus

of chemotoxic assessments is on sudden

accidental releases of substances

from engineered systems and the risk

of acute hazards. This is in contrast to

routine or low level emissions of a

substance, dealt with by basic tabular

risk assessments, typically covered by

COSHH assessments.

The Dangerous Substances

and Explosive Atmospheres

Regulations (DSEAR) [9]

DSEAR is primarily concerned with

substances or mixtures with the

potential to cause Physical Hazards

from a fire or explosion such as thermal

radiation (burns), overpressure

effects (blast injuries) and oxygendepletion


Chemotoxic assessments determine

appropriate safety measures to

protect against unmitigated consequences

taking into account both the

potential health and physical hazards.

This is in contrast to typical DSEAR

assessments which specifically assess

physical hazards and take credit for

ventilation for the purposes of explosive

atmosphere zoning calculations.

Confined Space Regulations [10]

A “confined space” means any place,

which, by virtue of its enclosed nature,

there arises a reasonably foreseeable

specified risk. A specified risk includes

amongst many things, the loss of consciousness

or asphyxiation of any

person at work arising from gas, fume,

vapour or the lack of oxygen.

Sources of asphyxiant gases can

be identified by the inter-relationship

of COSHH and DSEAR, as shown

in Figure 1. Asphyxiation hazards

arising outside of confined spaces are

deemed to be within the scope of

chemotoxic assessment.

The Control of Major Accident

Hazards (COMAH) Regulations


The purpose of the COMAH Regulations

is to prevent major accidents

involving dangerous substances and

limit the consequences to people and

the environment of any accidents

which do occur. There are two

thresholds, known as lower tier and

upper tier. The Regulations define

dangerous substances using the CLP

regulations. They include substances

which are: toxic; explosive; flammable;

or, hazardous to the environment.

The application of this regulation

is dependent on the qualifying

quantity of dangerous substances

present or likely to be present.

The focus of a chemotoxic assessment

is the potential to cause serious

harm or fatality of an individual or a

member of public. This is in contrast

to COMAH which is mainly concerned

with societal consequences arising

from significant quantities of hazardous


Chemotoxic Hazards

Chemotoxic assessment covers the

assessment of health, physical and

asphyxiation hazards arising from

internally and externally initiated

events with the potential to cause

fatality or serious harm (i.e. requiring

prolonged medical treatment) to

persons on or off the site. The key

hazards they assess are:


Toxic Inhalation – can occur from

chemicals, which if inhaled, could

result in a significant harm to the

operator / member of public (e.g.

inhalation of hydrogen fluoride).


Skin Contact – can occur from

chemicals, which if exposed to the

skin, could result in significant

harm to the operator (e.g. skin

contact with highly concentrated

nitric acid).


Explosion – can occur from

chemicals (explosive or flammable

atmospheres), which if ignited,

could result in a deflagration or

detonation and result in significant

harm to the operator / member of

public (e.g. hydrogen explosion).


Asphyxiation – These are inert

gases, which if released could

result in an oxygen depleted

atmosphere (e.g. inhalation of


It should be noted that ingestion

hazards are generally discounted as

there is no eating and drinking

allowed in areas of nuclear facilities

where chemicals are present.

The CLP Regulations and Safety

Data Sheets are used as a set of criteria

and rules to determine if a substance

or mixture can cause Harm to Health,

Physical Harm or Asphyxiation from

their chemical or physical properties.

Assessment of Hazards

The fundamental requirement in

chemotoxic assessment is to demonstrate

that hazards presenting Harm

to Health, Physical Harm or Asphyxiation

can be safely managed and

the risks are ALARP, with a clear link

of how the assessment is physically

implemented within the facility,

known as the ‘Golden Thread’. This

can be illustrated through a Claims

Arguments Evidence (CAE) approach

as shown in Figure 2.

From a chemotoxic CAE perspective,

there is top level claim

requirement to ensure all chemotoxic

hazards can be safely managed and

the risks are ALARP. This is supported

by a series of sub-claims listed below:


All chemotoxic hazards can be

identified, with inherent material

hazards understood.


All chemotoxic hazards can be

adequately prevented or managed,

by determining the unmitigated

consequences such that appropriate

safety measures can be identified

and the risks can be shown to



All key operational and engineering

measures can be identified,

implemented and maintained.

Hazard Identification

The focus of chemotoxic assessment is

for complex processes or engineered

process systems which require a

structured review to determine the

potential fault scenarios, hazard

severity and safety measures.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety in the Nuclear Industry ı Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

| | Fig. 2.

Claims Arguments Evidence Approach.

The inherent material ‘chemotoxic’

hazards are identified through CLP

Regulations and Safety Data Sheets. A

structured and systematic approach

such as HAZard and OPerability

( HAZOP) studies are utilised to

identify faults which could result in

chemotoxic hazards.

Hazard Prevention and


Chemotoxic hazards are adequately

prevented or managed by determining

the potential severity of the hazard

based on unmitigated consequences

and identifying safety measures which

are proportional to the risk.

NNL has developed a toolbox

which has well-defined thresholds for

serious harm and fatality based on

established sources of published

information such as the HSE Dangerous

Toxic Loads (DTL) [12], NIOSH

pocket guide [13] and HSE

EH40/2005 Workplace exposure

limits [14]. The NNL chemotoxic toolbox

employs the use of well- recognised

codes, including Computational Fluid

Dynamics (CFD), Process hazard

analysis software (Phast), or Areal

Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres

(ALHOA) to support consequence


The foundation of chemotoxic

assessment is based upon defining a

Hazard Management Strategy (HMS)

which identifies a hierarchical

approach to safety measures (i.e.

ERIC PD) to minimise or eliminate the

exposure to hazards:


Elimination of the hazards

wherever possible,


Reduction of the hazard by

substitution with a less hazardous

form if possible,


Isolation and Control of the hazard

with Passive / Engineering controls

to prevent / mitigate the

hazard where appropriate,


Reliance upon Personal protective

control to mitigate the hazard, and

Discipline with procedural controls

is the ‘last line’ of defence.

The HMS also takes into consideration

potential conflicts in safety management

between different radiological

and chemotoxic hazards to ensure an

appropriate balance of safety is


Chemotoxic hazards will have the

potential to give rise to a range of consequences

depending on the success

or failure of the mitigation ‘layers’,

including key operational and engineered

features. These layers serve to

either prevent an initiating event from

developing, or to mitigate the consequences

of an event once it occurs.

Assurance of the layers will be undertaken

on a tolerability of risk based

approach against criteria stated in

HSE’s Reducing Risk Protecting

People R2P2 guide.

Review of Safety Measure

Designation Techniques

The individual hazards identified by

HAZOP studies are presented in the

form of fault sequences. Each fault

sequence starts with an initiating

event that could lead to unwanted

consequences and place a demand on

a set of safety measures. The assessment

of the fault sequence includes

failure of some or all of these safety

measures to determine their degree of


There are various techniques available

to determine the importance of

safety measures in the wider process

industry, two commonly used are;

Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA)

and Bowtie Diagrams. These techniques

are briefly described below and

compared with the NNL Graded

Approach for chemotoxic safety


Layers of Protection Analysis


LOPA is an established hazard assessment

method which provides a

balanced evaluation technique

between detailed and costly quantitative

risk analysis and qualitative

Process Hazard Analysis (PHA).

The LOPA method provides order

of magnitude risk estimates derived

from analysis of the initiating event

frequency and independent layers of

protection. Evaluation of the identified

accident scenarios is based upon

some simplified rules, including the

use of Conditional Modifiers that take

into consideration factors such as the

period of time that an operator is

exposed to a hazard.

Inclusion of conditional modifiers

in the LOPA method can allow for a

more accurate modelling of the risk of

a given scenario from a safety perspective.

However, the use of these factors

can in some instances be subject to

potential pitfalls. The improper use of

these important factors may sometimes

result in a gross underestimate

of the risk of events and if they are too

optimistic during the design stage can

result in lack of provision of safety

measures being identified. As illustrated

in Figure 3, this can sometimes

mean there is a need for costly redesign

or retro-engineering of safety

measures at a later stage to ensure

safe design and operation of facilities.


Decommissioning and Waste Management

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety in the Nuclear Industry ı Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


| | Fig. 3.

LOPA Approach.

Bowtie Diagrams

The use of ‘Bowtie’ diagrams (Figure

4) in the process industry is so-called

because it visualises the management

of risk in the shape of a bow-tie graphical

representation of the relationship

between the initiating event and consequences

with emphasis on the link

between the safety measures and the

management system in one, easy to

understand picture. This can be used

in conjunction with other analytical


Based on NNL’s experience,

chemotoxic assessments often require

consideration of complex engineered

systems which demand detailed

analysis to determine faults sequence

and safety measures.

The use of Bowtie diagrams as an

analytical tool alone does have limitations

for some risk management

problems, in particular if there is a

| | Fig. 4.

Bowtie Diagram Approach.

| | Fig. 5.

NNL Tool box Graded Approach.

requirement to quantify the level of

risk in absolute terms. It is considered

that there are better ways of modelling

complex systems and their relationship

between the hazard, safety measures

and overall risk, if this is required.

NNL Graded Approach

The NNL toolbox of chemotoxic

technical guides and methodologies

recommends the use of a proportionate

graded approach to safety designations

(Figure 5). In general, the

risk from chemotoxic, asphyxiation or

explosive accidents must: be demonstrated

to be limited by robust qualitative

arguments using engineering

judgement; be the subject of a probabilistic

safety assessment to meet the

risk target defined by R2P2; or be

demonstrated to be in alignment with

best practice. If a sufficiently robust

deterministic argument can be made,

these are used in preference to a probabilistic

safety assessment.

If a probabilistic assessment is

required, the NNL chemotoxic toolbox

includes the provision of fault tree

analysis codes to support frequency

calculations and the modelling of

inter-relationships between the

initiating event and safety measures


The challenge is to identify a proportionate

number of safety designations

for implementation. Over-designation

can have a negative effect on safety.

If too many items of equipment or procedures

are safety-designated, their importance

to safety can be ‘ diluted’. This

is in addition to the separate effect of

over-designation resulting in significant

cost implications.

There is a clear link between the

NNL chemotoxic toolbox graded

approach to safety which underpins

the R2P2 broadly acceptable risk

criteria. It is argued that this approach

therefore demonstrates that the risks

are ALARP under the HSE regulations

and this understanding has been used

to produce numerous chemotoxic

safety cases in the nuclear sector,

which meet Regulatory expectations

at a number of different sites within

the UK.

The general approach applied to

significant faults, which have the

potential for fatality, is that they

require the designation of a passive

safety measure such as a vessel, or two

independent engineered safety

measures such as Control, Electrical

and Instrumentation Equipment

(CE&I) or mechanical devices. The

engineered safety measures require

a predefined action on outage or

substitution arrangement. Alternatively,

it is possible for Operational

Safety Measures to be claimed in line

with the ERIC PD principle. The

number of independent measures can

be reduced, such as in the case of low

initiating event frequencies, or highly

reliable safety measures, or where it

can be demonstrated to be in alignment

with good practice guides. It

should be noted that good practice

guides, should be used carefully as

these are often generic and may not

reflect the exact fault scenario or

environment. These should therefore

be interpreted in alignment with a

degree of risk assurance.

The general approach for lesser

significant faults, which have the

potential for serious harm, is that they

require the designation of a single

safety measure, which can either be

passive, engineering or an operational

Decommissioning and Waste Management

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety in the Nuclear Industry ı Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

| | Fig. 6.

Factors Influencing Overall Risk.

safety in line with the ERIC PD


Chemotoxic hazards which fall

below the serious harm chemotoxic

thresholds are adequately assessed by

the basic (tabular style) COSHH risk


One key difference between the

NNL chemotoxic graded approach

and the LOPA process is in the use of

Conditional Modifiers. The graded

approach takes a conservative stance

to the assessment of the initiating

event frequency, with no allowance

being made for Conditional Modifiers.

Although it is a cautious stance, it is

argued it minimises the potential for

expensive retro-engineering work.

It is NNL’s view that chemotoxic

risks are shown to be ALARP through

the qualitative graded approach to

safety, probabilistic safety assessment,

or, demonstration of assurance with

good practice.


All key engineered and operation

safety measures that provide protection

against chemotoxic hazards are

identified with suitable and appropriate

nomenclature to highlight their

importance to safety within the

facility. This information usually feeds

into a category management process

to ensure engineered measures are

substantiated (i.e. can perform what

is required) and are maintained

throughout the life cycle of the facility

and operational measures can be

performed (i.e. through underpinning

instructions and training). It also

enables suitable and where appropriate,

substitution arrangements to

be put in place and safe operating

methods to allow operations to proceed


The Safety Assessment


The NNL proportionate graded

approach provides a robust assessment

method to ensure the

appro priate amount of risk reduction

is provided to achieve the risk target.

The overall risk frequency is a function

of the magnitude of the Initiating

Event Frequency, Integrity ( reliability)

of the safety measure and the Layers

of Safety (number of independent

safety measures) as illustrated in

Figure 6.

The chemotoxic safety assessment

has very little influence on the Initiating

Event Frequency which drives

the risk reduction required from the

safety measure(s). For example, frequent

initiating events will demand a

greater degree of risk reduction than

less frequent initiating events to

achieve the R2P2 broadly acceptable

risk target.

For a typical initiating event, the

dilemma is often a choice of placing

reliance upon a single but complex

safety measure, versus multiple layers

of safety measures. Complex systems

typically demand significant effort

and therefore cost to substantiate and

maintain, compared with multiple

simpler systems.

All of the various analytical techniques

described above enable a

demonstration of managing risk.

More specifically, the NNL graded

approach is based on an appreciation

of understandings about the practicalities

of providing and substantiating

one single very high level of integrity

safety measure versus the provision

of multiple lower level integrity measures.

For the majority of faults which

have the potential to result in fatality,

the general approach of identifying

two independent safety measures

would ensure that the risks are

broadly acceptable.

In summary, the NNL approach

adopted involves finding the equilibrium

between the required number

of protection layer(s) of safety

measures to achieve the most cost effective

and pragmatic degree of risk

reduction. In addition, the NNL

approach has the flexibility to

accommodate unique scenarios and

demonstrate an acceptable risk

through probabilistic safety assessment,

or assurance with good practice



[1] United Kingdom Government, “Health and Safety at Work

Act,” 1974.

[2] United Kingdom Government, “Energy Act,” 2013.

[3] United Kingdom Government, “Nuclear Installations Act,”


[4] Health & Safety Executive, “Reducing Risks, Protecting

People,” 2001.

[5] Office for Nuclear Regulation, “Risk informed regulatory

decision making,” 2017.

[6] Statutory Instruments, “The Classification, Labelling and

Packaging of Chemicals Regulations 2015,” 2015.

[7] European Council, “Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation

and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Regulation

No. 1907/2006,” 2006.

[8] Statutory Instruments, “The Control of Substances

Hazardous to Health, 2002, No.2677,” 2002.

[9] Statutory Instruments, “The Dangerous Substances and

Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, No. 2776,” 2002.

[10] Statutory Instruments, “Confined Space Regulations 1997,

No 1713,” 1997.

[11] Statutory Instruments, “The Control of Major Accident

Hazards Regulations 2015, No. 483,” 2015.

[12] HSE, “Toxicity Levels of Chemicals,” [Online]. Available:

[13] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

“ NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, No. 2005-149,”


[14] HSE, “Workplace Exposure Limits, EH40/2005,” Third Edition


[15] Health & Safety Executive, “Toxicity Levels of Chemicals,”

[Online]. Available:


[16] Health & Safety Executive, “Workplace Exposure Limits,

EH40/2005,” Third Edition 2018.


Howard Chapman

Marc Thoma

Stephen Lawton

Chadwick House

Birchwood Park

Warrington, Cheshire WA3 6AE

United Kingdom


Decommissioning and Waste Management

A Pragmatic Approach to Chemotoxic Safety in the Nuclear Industry ı Howard Chapman, Marc Thoma and Stephen Lawton

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Due to the length

of the article it is

published in some

different parts. The

authors and editor

hope you will enjoy

and look forward to

reading the entire

article, as each

portion is published.

This republication is a

shortened version of

an article originally

published in the

journal Progress in

Nuclear Energy. The

full-length version of

the article may be

found at: Sanders, M,

& Sanders, C 2019

“A world’s dilemma

‘upon which the sun

never sets’ – The

nuclear waste

management strategy

(part II): Russia, Asia

and the Southern

Hemisphere”, Progress

in Nuclear Energy

110, 148-169.

A World’s Dilemma ‘Upon Which

the Sun Never Sets’: The Nuclear Waste

Management Strategy: The Southern


Part 4

Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

6 Southern Hemisphere

6.1 Argentine Republic or

República Argentina


6.1.1 Historical Overview & Law

Argentina, the world’s eighth largest

country, covers most of the southern

portion of South America. Argentina

boasts an extremely varied topography,

from immense plains to high

mountains and deserts to miles of

ocean shoreline [103]. Not only is

Argentina able to boast a varied

topography, but is able to claim various

political systems that have governed

the country, as from 1930 to 1980,

Argentina’s political system has “vacillated

between civilian-led democracy

[to] military-led authoritarian government”

[104]. In the early 1980’s,

Argentina’s most recent military dictatorship

ended after ruling for a period

of seven years. Argentina is not a

hydrocarbon-rich nation, but oil was

discovered in the first decade of the

twentieth century, “when Argentine

geologists accidentally struck crude

while digging an exploratory waterwell

in the arid Patagonian town of

Comodoro Rivadavia” [105].

In 1950, Argentina’s initial foray in

to the realm of nuclear developed

through the founding of the National

Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA)

and the construction of a number of

research reactors. Currently, five

research reactors are in operation

operated by CNEA and others, with

two further research reactors under

construction. Beginning in 1964,

attention turned to nuclear power

generation in the country. The country’s

nuclear power program was

realized with the construction of the

362 MWe (gross) Atucha plant built

100 km northwest of the capital,

Buenos Aires. By the mid-1970’s the

Atucha-1 began commercial operation

(1974), and construction of a second

unit, Atucha-2, began in 1981, but

was repeatedly delayed due to lack of

funds until work resumed on it in

2006 [106]. Atucha-2 achieved

criticality in June 2014 (Patel, 2014),

and in May 2016 was granted a full

operating license by the Argentine

nuclear regulator, Autoridad Regulatoria

Nuclear (ARN) [107].

Argentina’s third nuclear power

plant, The Embalse plant, went online

in 1984. However, due to needed

maintenance and upgrade work on

the reactor, it was taken offline in

January 2016. The plant upgrade is

expected to be completed in the

second half of 2018 [108]. In May

2017, Argentina and China signed a

contract for the building of Atucha-3.

As part of the contract, China guarantees

financing at “4.5 percent 20-year

plus eight-year loan covering the

$12.5 billion estimated cost of the

project” [109]. Work is expected to

begin in 2018, and additional nuclear

power plants within the country are


6.1.2 Government and

Legislative Regime

Argentina, a federal republic, consists

of 23 provinces and one semi-autonomous

city, the national capital Buenos

Aires. Its president, who is both chief

of state and head of government, is

directly elected by popular vote,

serving for a 4-year term. The president

appoints members to the cabinet

[110]. The legislature is bicameral,

with a Chamber of Deputies and a

Senate. There are 257 Deputies,

whom serve for a term of four-years

and are chosen through proportional

representation from a closed list, in

“which voters can neither change the

order of candidates nor remove them

from the list” [108].

The Senate’s 72 members are

directly elected to serve for a term of

six years through majority vote, where

one-third of the Senators are up for

reelection every two years. The Senate

reviews and approves the appointments

of the upper ranks of the armed

forces, as proposed by the President

[111]. Argentina’s judicial branch

constitutes the Supreme Court or Code

Suprema, which consists of the court

president, vice-president, and five

judges, and also other subordinate

courts. Judges to the Supreme Court

are nominated by the president, which

must then be approved by the Senate.

Judges to the Supreme Court have a

mandatory retirement age of 75 [110].

In the early twentieth century,

Argentina was known as one of the

world’s richest countries, benefiting

from rich natural resources, a welleducated

population, and its massive

amount of agricultural exports (chiefly

beef), but in this time has fallen

from one of the world’s wealthiest

countries to a country constantly

plagued with recurring economic

crises, fiscal debt, and high inflation.

Argentina has always “[fluctuated]

between two models of economic

organization of either state intervention

or classical liberalism” [112],

and has consistently struggled for

“ decades [under] a political system

that cannot maintain credible progrowth,

noninflationary policies”

[113]. Within the last four to five

years, Argentina has made efforts to

rejoin its standing in the international

financial community agreeing payment

in the amount of $9.7 billion

owed to Paris Club 1 investors over a

period of five years. Argentina has

further agreed to make payments on

debts owed to US investors in an

1 For more information on the Paris Club, see:, viewed April 17, 2018.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

| | Argentina, nuclear power, view of the Atucha site with two Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR)

in operation.

amount of $606 million. Argentina

made the first payment on this debt

owed for almost 14 years to Paris Club

creditors in 2014. 2 Corruption

Despite Argentina having a strong legal

and institutional framework for combatting

bribery, corruption has, and

continues, to remain a serious problem

affecting both the public and private

sectors. Here, one is reminded of the

response given by Sir Humphrey

Appleby to Minister Jim Hacker in the

British Broadcasting Corporation

fictional comedy show ‘Yes, Minister’ 3

regarding government corruption:

“No, no, Minister! It could never be

government policy. That is unthink able!

Only government practice.” Corruption

has been rife in Argentina throughout

its history, and especially over the

past few decades. Recently, one of

Argentina’s most corrupt Presidents

was probably Carlos Saúl Menem, who

ran the country from 1989 to 1999. He

unabashedly drove a brand-new red

Ferrari given to him as a gift while

holding office and when questioned

about it, “Menem exclaimed, “It’s

mine, mine, mine!” [114].

In the latest Transparency International

Corruption Perceptions Index

(CPI), Argentina ranked 85 out of 180

countries in 2017. Former President

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who

was recently elected to the Senate,

currently faces five sets of corruption

charges. Argentina’s current President

Macri’s administration is trying to

lead the fight against corruption. 4

Under its guidance, Argentina’s

congress has passed three important

anti- corruption laws: (1) limit the

budgetary reallocations that the chief

of the cabinet of ministers can make;

(2) establish penalties against companies

that engage in the corruption

of public officials; and, (3) offers a

reduction in prison terms for those

individuals who have engaged in public

corruption (if they provide specific

and verifiable information to the

authorities) 5

[115]. Such efforts by

the Argentine President are critical for

the stability of the country, as

Manzetti illustrates:

“The price that [any] country will

pay in the long run, from an economic

and political standpoint, is severe.

Corruption and lack of rule of law

discourage investments and set in

motion a pernicious cycle of political

alienation and distrust” [116]. Legislative Framework

Since its creation by Decree

No.10936/50 in 1950, the CNEA has

responsibilities for the control of all

public and private nuclear activities

within Argentina. The legislative

framework in Argentina consists of

the National Constitution, applicable

treaties and conventions, as well as

other laws and decrees. The Argentine

Constitution declares:

“All inhabitants are entitled to the

right to a healthy and balanced environment

fit for human development

and that productive activities may

meet present needs without endangering

those of future generations; and

they have the duty to preserve it.” 6

| | Argentina: nuclear power, view of the Embalse site with one Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR)

in operation.


2 See: L. Thomas and S Marsh, Argentina clinches landmark debt repayment deal with Paris Club, Reuters News Service, https://www.reuters.

com/article/us-argentina-debt-parisclub-idUSKBN0E90JI20140529, viewed July 25, 2018; A. Brown, Argentina pays US$922mn to Paris Club,

BN America,, viewed July 25, 2018; D. Francis, After 15

Years, Argentina Agrees To Pay Back U.S. Creditors, Foreign,,

viewed July 25, 2018.

3 A BBC comedy program broadcast from 1980 – 1983. See:, viewed April 17, 2018.

4 See,

viewed April 17, 2018. In Spanish, RESPONSABILIDAD PENAL Ley 27401,!DetalleNorma/175501/

20171201, viewed April 17, 2018.

5 The provided information must make a significant contribution to the investigation, and the information must be provided before the case is

heard by the court tribunal, and to the extent that it allows for charges to be brought to other co-participants with the same or more criminal


6 Argentina's Constitution of 1853, Reinstated in 1983, with Amendments through 1994; see Article 41,

constitution/Argentina_1994.pdf?lang=en, viewed April 17, 2018.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Act 24804 7 regulates nuclear

activity and determines that the

National State will establish Argentina’s

nuclear policy, perform research

and development activities through the

CNEA, with regulatory and surveillance

actions undertaken through the

Nuclear Regulatory Authority (ARN). 8

Act 25018 provides the framework for

Argentina’s Radioactive Waste Management

regime. The Argentine Government

is solely responsible for radioactive

waste management and the

CNEA is the organization responsible

for its implementation. Producers of

radioactive wastes are responsible for

the conditioning and safe storage of

the waste generated in the facilities

operated by them, until such time that

waste is transferred to the CNEA. Act

25018 creates a fund “for the Management

and Final Disposal of Radioactive

Waste… and whose exclusive destiny

will be the financing of the National

Programme of Radioactive Waste

Management under the responsibility



6.1.3 Nuclear Waste


The CNEA was appointed through

Law No. 25018 as the competent

authority for matters related to radioactive

waste management. Furthermore,

it was obligated to develop a

Radioactive Waste Management

Strategic Plan (PEGRR), subject to the

approval of the National Congress.

A decision regarding the reprocessing

of spent fuel is postponed until 2030.

The Strategic Plan (Law No. 25018) is

to be reviewed every three years,

so modifications may be made, as

needed, inline with any technological

advances. It mandates that a deep

geological repository be designed,

constructed, and operational by 2060.

The final disposal of low-level solid

radioactive waste was initially accomplished

using conditioned waste

packages in engineering enhanced

surface semi-containment systems

located in the Ezeiza Radioactive

Waste Management Area (AGE). However,

in the early 2000’s, these

activities were discontinued. Currently,

it is envisioned that construction

of a final disposal system near the

surface is planned. It is anticipated the

repository will consist of multiple and

redundant barriers, with approximately

300 years of institutional

post-closure control. These wastes

will be immobilized “in cement

matrixes and packed in 200L drums

and/or in special concrete containers”

[117]. Permanent Disposal

Argentina’s current strategy is to build

a deep geologic repository for the

storage of intermediate-level and

high-level wastes. As previously mentioned,

the Strategic Plan (Law No.

25018) mandates a repository to be

operation by 2060, with a determination

on the reprocessing of spent nuclear

fuel by 2030. Should Argentina

choose to adopt the reprocessing of

fuel, then high-level waste separated

during this process will be conditioned

in specially designed glass

matrixes and containers before final

disposal. In the event that reprocessing

is not an acceptable option, the

spent fuel shall be conditioned and

directly disposed of in the geological

repository. Until such a time this a

reality, radioactive waste and spent

fuel awaiting final disposal are stored

in facilities especially designed for

their purpose at the nuclear power

plant site in a spent fuel pool, dry cask

storage, or other purpose-built facility

[117]. 10

6.2 Federative Republic of

Brazil or República

Federativa do Brasil (Brazil)

6.2.1 Historical Overview & Law

Brazil is an up and coming nation,

with an expanding economy that is

growing the size of its middle class. Its

economy outweighs that of all other

South American countries and helps

to ensure that Brazil is a relatively

stable country among a plethora of

unstable nation states. Interestingly,

though Brazil holds a spot among the

top five largest countries in the world,

and covers half of South America’s

land surface “encompass[ing] a wide

range of tropical and subtropical landscapes,

including wetlands, savannas,

plateaus, and low mountains… [yet]

the country contains no desert,

high-mountain, or arctic environments”

[118]. Brazil gained independence

in 1822, after more than three

centuries under Portuguese rule, to

become South America’s largest

economy and a regional leader [119].

From the late 1990s, Brazil’s burgeoning

economy has brought it to the

forefront as an increasingly powerful

state in international affairs, among

the BRIC family of nations.

Brazil’s politics were generally

dominated by its coffee-exporting

titans until the 1930’s, when populist

| | Brazil: The Angra power plant site with the two units currently in operation in Brazil, Angra 1 and Angra

2; both pressurized water reactors.



informe_nacional_de_seguridad/5_National_Report_Joint_Convention_2014.pdf, viewed April 18, 2018.

8 The ARN was created by Law No. 24804 and is the organization responsible for the regulation and control of nuclear activities.

9 See Article 13. An English version of Law No. 25018/98, National Law on Radioactive Waste Management Regime, is provided in Section L.1.2



seguridad/5_National_Report_Joint_Convention_2014.pdf, viewed April 18, 2018.

10 Also see: Spent Fuel Management of NPPs Argentina,,

viewed April 17, 2018.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Getúlio Vargas rose to power. Brazil

experienced more than a half century

of populist and military government

until 1985, with a dictatorship in power

from 1964 to 1985. During 1970’s,

this dictatorship continued to lose

legitimacy and validity among the

Brazilian citizenry, which precipitated

the beginning of the end of military

rule. Brazil experienced a number of

initial setbacks during the first 15

years of democracy, but today enjoys a

status as “a vibrant democracy in the

eyes of the world” [120].

Brazil’s nuclear power program has

its origins in the establishment of the

National Research Council in 1951. In

the early 1970’s, construction began

on Brazil’s first nuclear power plant,

Angra-1. Additional units were

planned (Angra 2 & 3), but were put

on hold due to economic problems in

the country. The construction of

Angra-2 was finally resumed in 1995,

and was completed in 2000 [121].

In May 2015, Brazil’s government

announced that “Angra-3 would be

the last nuclear power plant built as a

public works project” which has now

allowed for the ability that any

additional nuclear new-build projects

be undertaken through private

equity 11 [122]. The Angra-3 “project is

estimated to cost $5.6bn and is

scheduled for completion in 2018”


6.2.2 Government and

Legislative Regime

Brazil is a Federal Republic consisting

of 26 states and one federal district. It

is a civil law system, and its most

recent constitution was ratified in

1988. Its Executive branch is headed

by a president who is both chief and

head of state, and whom appoints

members to the cabinet. The president

is directly elected by an absolute

majority popular vote for a single

four-year term. Brazil’s legislature is

bicameral comprising both the Federal

Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

The 81 members to the Federal Senate

are directly elected in multi-seat

constituencies by simple majority vote

to serve for a term of eight years.

There are 513 members elected to the

Chamber of Deputies, whom are

elected in multi-seat constituencies

by proportional representation vote to

serve for a term of four years [119].

Brazil’s judicial branch constitutes

the Supreme Federal Court consisting

of 11 justices whom are appointed by

the president and approved by the

Federal Senate, and other subordinate

courts. Appointed justices to the

Supreme Court serve until the

mandatory retirement age of 75. Each

Brazilian state has its own judiciary

system, with locally appointed judges.

These local judicial courts are

responsible for “adjudicating matters

of subnational jurisdiction.” [123]. Corruption

In the latest 2017 Transparency International

Corruption Perceptions

Index (CPI), Brazil ranked 96 out of

180 countries (alongside Columbia,

Indonesia, Panama, Peru, Thailand,

and Zambia). Brazil has routinely

been plagued by corruption scandals

since the early twentieth century. In

1951, following his return to power,

President Getúlio Vargas soon found

himself and his administration embroiled

in scandal. It was alleged at

the time that Brazil’s state-run bank

(Bank of Brazil) had granted favorable

loans to a pro-government journalist,

and “after a late-night cabinet meeting

on August 24, 1954… Vargas withdrew

to his bedroom, grabbed a Colt

pistol, and shot himself through the

heart” [124].

Recently, Brazil has seen its politics

upended, and is once again gripped by

an all-consuming scandal, whose tentacles

are reaching farther and deeper

than ever before. The scandal began in

2014 with allegations involving the

state-owned oil company (Petrobas),

and has grown to touch people at the

top of Brazil’s business elites and

politicians. 12

This investigation was

codenamed Lava Jato or Car Wash. A

seemingly typical corruption scandal

at first, what started as a purely

Brazilian scandal soon caught foreign

nations and firms in its net. The discovery

of unlawful payments totaling

“$5bn to company executives and political

parties, put billionaires in jail,

drag[ged] a president into court and

[has] cause[d] irreparable damage to

the finances and reputations of some

of the world’s biggest companies”

[125]. Operation Car Wash has exposed

a permissive culture of systemic

corruption in Brazilian politics, which


“Seven of the ministers in the new

Temer government… while more than

half of Brazil’s 513 deputies are

currently facing criminal proceedings

for everything from corruption and

attempted homicide to the use of

modern- day slave labor… [with] former

president of the Brazilian House,

Eduardo Cunha, [facing] eleven

separate corruption charges…, [while

in the Senate] one-third of [the] senators

[are] currently fac[ing] criminal

investigations” [126]. Legislative Framework

Brazil’s Constitution establishes in its

articles 21 13 and 177 14 the competencies

of the State to exert exclusive control

to operate nuclear energy services

and facilities, including the operation

of nuclear power plants. 15 Thus, the

constitution provides the relevant

powers to the State to exercise these

sole competencies maintaining a

monopoly over all aspects of the

nuclear fuel cycle, from the mining of

uranium to the final disposal of highlevel

nuclear waste and spent nuclear

fuel. The National Commission for

Nuclear Energy (CNEN) was created

in 1956 (Decree 40110 of 10/10/1956)

and maintains custody for all nuclear

activities in the country. Later, CNEN

was reorganized and its responsibilities

were established by Law 4118/62

with alterations established by Laws

6189/74 and 7781/89. Thereafter,

CNEN through its Directorate for

Radiation Protection and Nuclear

Safety (DRS) has assumed Regulatory

Body roles and is accountable for the

regulation, licensing, and control of

nuclear activities in Brazil as it relates

to nuclear safety and security of these

activities, as well as any required

safeguard measures [127].

Law 10308 promulgated on November

20, 2001 expanded the legal

framework encompassing the areas of


11 Recently, Eletrobras Termonuclear SA indicated that it would not be able to honor its debt payments without a renegotiation of the terms of the

agreement. See: Eletronuclear head says may not honor Angra three debts, Reuters Staff,,

viewed July 25, 2018. Also see: Brazil's

Eletronuclear woes may lead to supply interruption, Reuters Staff, eletronuclearwoes-may-lead-to-supply-interruption-paper-idUSL1N1OC0O8,

viewed July 25, 2018.

12, viewed April 19, 2018.

13 § XXIII, Constitution of Brazil,, viewed April 19, 2018.

14 § V, Constitution of Brazil,, viewed April 19, 2018.

15 See: Article 225 §VII, 6, Constitution of Brazil,, viewed April 19, 2018.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


the storage and disposal of radioactive

waste in Brazil. This law reconfirms

that it is the State’s duty to account for

the final storage and disposal of such

radioactive wastes within the country.

Additionally, Law 10308 defines four

types of storage facilities: (1) initial

(operated by the waste generator);

(2) intermediate; (3) final; and (4)

temporary (which may be established

in case of accidents with contamination).

It establishes rules for site

selection, construction, operation,

licensing and control, financing, civil

liabilities related to the storage and

disposal of radioactive waste in Brazil.

In 2014, CNEN issued a new safety

regulation CNEN-NN-8.02 (Licensing

of storage and disposal facilities for

low and intermediate-level radioactive

waste). It lays forth the general

criteria and basic requirements of

safety and radiological protection

related to the licensing of radioactive

waste storage and disposal facilities

for low and intermediate-level waste


6.2.3 Nuclear Waste


Brazil’s radioactive waste policy is to

keep wastes safely isolated from the

environment until a permanent solution

is settled at the national level. In

November 2008, Brazil initiated a project

towards having a licensed and

commissioned repository for the disposal

of low and intermediate-level

wastes, the “RBMN Project.” It is

expected that disposal activities at this

proposed site will included low-level

and intermediate-level wastes “from

[nuclear power plant operation], from

nuclear fuel cycle installations, their

decommissioning and from the use of

radionuclides in medicine, industry

and [research & development] activities”


At Angra-1, intermediate and

low-level waste is currently stored

on-site in a separate storage facility.

Concentrates from liquid waste treatment

“are solidified in cement and

conditioned in 200-liter drums

( before 1998) and 1 m3 steel containers

(after 1998)” [127]. At Angra-2,

liquid waste is collected in storage

tanks, while the concentrate resulting

from treatment of the liquid waste is

further processed reducing the water

content prior to being “immobilized in

bitumen and conditioned in 200-liter

drums. Spent resins and filter elements

are also immobilized in bitumen

and conditioned in 200-liter

drums.” [127].

In September 1987, Brazil suffered

a radiological accident when “a

shielded, strongly radioactive

caesium-137 source (50.9 TBq, or

1375 Ci, at the time) was removed

from its protective housing in a teletherapy

machine in an abandoned

clinic in Goiania, Brazil, and subsequently

ruptured” [128]. As a result of

the accident, a part of the city was

contaminated requiring the demolition

of seven residences and various

other buildings, in addition to the

removal of the topsoil from large

areas. Following the 1987 accident,

two near surface repositories with a

total volume of 3,134 m3 of radioactive

waste were constructed in

Abadia de Goiás in 1995. Permanent Disposal

The current Brazilian policy for spent

fuel from nuclear power plants is

keeping the fuel in temporary safe

storage until a technical, economic,

and political decisions are reached

about reprocessing, or direct permanent

disposal. Spent fuel is currently

stored at the reactor site in spent fuel

pools [127]. At Angra-1, spent fuel

pool capacity has been expanded

by the installation of compact racks

to accommodate the spent fuel

generated for the expected operational

life of the unit. Angra-2’s 16

spent fuel pool has two types of racks,

which is divided into two regions:

Region 1:

Region 2:

Contains normal racks

with a capacity for 264

fuel assemblies. This is

equivalent to one full core

plus one reload of fuel of

any burnup with enrichments

up to 4.3%.

Contains high-density

racks with a capacity for

820 assemblies. Assemblies

stored in region 2 have a

given minimum burnup.

The capacity for region 2

is deemed sufficient for

about 15 years (14 cycles)

of operation [127].

6.3 Republic of South Africa

(South Africa)

6.3.1 Historical Overview & Law

A place of renowned beauty, South

Africa is the southernmost country on

the continent of Africa. It claims a

varied topography, cultural diversity,

and is home to some of the world’s

oldest human fossils. In 1652, Dutch

traders established a stopover point

on the spice route between the

Netherlands and the Far East. However,

it was the discovery of diamonds

(1867) and gold (1886) that spurred

wealth and immigration during the

Victorian era and intensified the subjugation

of the native inhabitants

[129]. For centuries, South Africa

suffered under the yoke of colonialism

and following the defeat of the Dutch

in the Boer War of 1899–1902, “the

British established the Union of South

Africa, a dominion of the British

Empire. In 1913, its all-white government

passed the Natives Land Act,

confining Africans to ownership of

land in only seven percent of the

country” [130].

In the early 1990’s, F.W. de Klerk’s

administration repealed the Population

Registration Act, as well as

legislative acts that helped to provide

legal support for the continuation of

Apartheid. 17

In 1994, South Africa’s

new adopted constitution came into

force, with new elections that year

paving the way to form a coalition government

for the first time entailing a

nonwhite majority, marking the

official end of the apartheid system

[131]. Over the past couple of decades,

South Africa has struggled to fulfill the

promises and blessings brought about

by the change of the political imbalances

of the former era to provide all a

piece of the economic pie.

South Africa began to develop its

nuclear power program in the mid-

1970s. Its first, and only, nuclear

power plant was built in Koeberg, near

Capetown. Construction at the site began

in 1976, and Unit 1 was

synchronized to the grid on April 4,

1984. Unit 2 followed suit on July 25,

1985. Koeberg is the only nuclear

power station on the Continent of

Africa, and is a pressurized water

reactor (PWR) design. Additionally,

16 Spent fuel at the Angra-3 nuclear power plant is to be stored similarly to Angra-2. Additionally, radioactive wastes created at Angra-3 are to be

treated and initially stored within the plant, similarly to Angra-2, until such time it may be forwarded to a final waste repository.

17 Apartheid is a translation from the Afrikaans meaning 'apartness.’ Apartheid was an ideology supported by the National Party (NP) government

and was introduced in South Africa in 1948. Apartheid called for the separate development of the different racial groups in South Africa. See:, viewed April 20, 2018. Also see: ELLMANN, S 2015, 'The Struggle for the

Rule of Law in South Africa', New York Law School Law Review, 60, 1, pp. 57-104, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018

for a discussion on apartheid. Ellmann explains that apartheid is being “ruled by law… [being not a] law of limits but of powers.”

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station

(KNPS) has the distinction “of having

the largest turbine generators in the

Southern Hemisphere and [being] the

most southerly-situated nuclear

power station in the world” [132].

Koeberg’s reactors provide ~ 6 % of

the electric power generation for the

country, using seven and a half tons of

uranium since 1984 [133].

6.3.2 Government and

Legislative Regime

South Africa, a parliamentary republic,

has a mixed legal system of Roman-

Dutch civil law, English common law,

and customary law. Its latest constitution

was approved by the Constitutional

Court on December 4, 1996.The

president of South Africa is both chief

of state and head of government, and

is indirectly elected by the National

Assembly for a five-year term. The

President appoints members to the

cabinet. South Africa has a bicameral

Parliament which consists of the

National Council of Provinces (90

seats) and the National Assembly (400

seats). Members to the National council

are appointed to office by the provincial

legislatures, while members of

the National Assembly are directly

elected in multi-seat constituencies by

proportional representation for a term

of five years. It highest courts are the

Supreme Court of Appeals and the

Constitutional Court, in addition 18 to

other subordinate courts (High Courts,

Magistrates’ Courts, labor courts, and

land claims courts) [129].

For decades, until the early 1990’s,

Apartheid was a serious impediment

to South Africa, not only for sociopolitical

reasons, but also socioeconomic.

In the 1980’s, social unrest

in South Africa due to Apartheid “led

to the imposition of financial and economic

sanctions by the United States

of America and the European Community”

[134]. Furthermore, during

its Apartheid era, South Africa was

routinely isolated from the international

community, including its

| | South Africa: View of the Koeberg site with two pressurized water reactors in operation.

suspension from many international

organizations. Despite its being a

“founder member of the [ International

Atomic Energy Agency] 19

on 6 June

1957, and obtain[ing] a seat on the

agency’s Board of Directors” [135],

South Africa lost this position in 1976,

before taking it up again in 1995. Corruption

Unfortunately, South Africa does

suffer from, and experience, widespread

corruption. Despite a robust

anti-corruption framework, 20 its laws

are inadequately enforced. In 2004,

the Prevention and Combating of

Corruption Activities Act 12 of 2004

was promulgated in recognition that

“corruption and related corrupt

activities [is] undermin[ing]… the

stability and security of [the] society,

[its] institutions… the rule of law and

the credibility of [the] government” 21

[136]. In the latest Transparency

International Corruption Perceptions

Index (CPI), South Africa ranked 71

out of 180 countries in 2017. 22

This pervasive corruption in South

Africa “has seriously constrained

development of the national economy

and has significantly inhibited good

governance in the country” [137].

Though political corruption is found in

every country, the problem of

corruption exacerbates the socioeconomic

dynamic in Africa because

the “infiltration of corruption in the

civil service, is leading to vast continental

poverty” [138]. In a 2005

article, Hyslop pondered on the corruption

dynamic in the post-apartheid

era with South Africa experiencing the

“embezzlement of paltry pension payments

by civil service clerks, to allegations

of cabinet members’ involvement

in shady practices surrounding the

procurement of multi- million-dollar

arms systems” [139].

Just in the first few months of 2018,

a top corruption inspector in South

Africa announced an investigation on

two high-ranking African National

Congress politicians in a case related

to the abuse of public funds for a dairy

farm. 23 Another more high-profile case

that is capturing the attention of the

public is that of former South African

president Jacob Zuma. He is facing

corruption charges over a $2.5 billion

1990’s arms deal. Zuma was forced to

resign by his ruling African National

Congress (ANC) in February 2018,

over a scandal that has dimmed politics

in South Africa for years. 24 Legislative Framework

In the mid-2000’s, South Africa published

its policy approach addressing

radioactive waste management issues.

The Radioactive Waste Management

Policy and Strategy for the Republic

of South Africa outlines the strategic

policy and strategy framework to

ensure a comprehensive radioactive

waste governance system. 25


Africa’s nuclear energy legislative

framework goes back to 1948, when

the predecessor of the present South



Of International Law, 48, 2, pp. 437-455, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018 for a detailed discussion on conflicts

between the judicial and executive/legislative branches of government in South Africa.

19 The agency is the world's central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field.

See:, viewed April 20, 2018.

20, viewed April 21, 2018.

21 Preamble at para. 3.

22 Alongside Bulgaria and Vanuatu.

23 See: The New York Times, South Africa to Investigate 2 A.N.C. Officials in Farm Corruption Case,

africa/south-africa-anc-corruption.html, viewed April 20, 2018.

24 See: Reuters, South Africa hits fallen Zuma with arms deal corruption charges,,

viewed April 20, 2018. Also see: BBC, Jacob Zuma - the survivor whose

nine lives ran out,, viewed April 20, 2018.

25 See:, viewed April 21, 2018.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


African Nuclear Energy Corporation

(Necsa) 26 was established under the

terms of the provisions of the Atomic

Energy Act. The South African Constitution

declares the right of the

individual to “have the environment

protected, for the benefit of present

and future generations.” 27

Nuclear related activities in South

Africa are currently administered by

the Nuclear Energy Act, 1999 (Act No.

46 of 1999) (NEA), which among

other matters, “provides for the establishment

of the South African Nuclear

Energy Corporation Limited… defin[ing]

the Corporation’s functions

and powers and its financial and operational

accountability,” and “to prescribe

measures regarding the

discarding of radioactive waste and

the storage of irradiated nuclear

fuel.” 28 The National Radioactive

Waste Disposal Institute Act, 2008

(No. 53 of 2008) provides for “the

establishment of a National Radioactive

Waste Disposal Institute in

order to manage radioactive waste

disposal on a national basis.” 29 Other

acts 30

applicable to waste management

in South Africa are the National

Nuclear Regulatory Act, 1999 (Act

No. 47 of 1999) (NNRA), 31

and the

Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 (Act

No. 15 of 1973) (HSA), related to

Group III and Group IV hazardous

substances [140].

6.3.3 Nuclear Waste


South Africa’s policy for waste management

follows the principle that no

undue burden should be placed on the

shoulders of future generations. The

National Radioactive Waste Disposal

Institute (NRWDI) currently considers

various options for the safe management

of radioactive wastes and used

fuel: (1) Long-term above ground

storage in an off-site facility licensed

for its purpose; (2) the reprocessing,

conditioning and recycling of used

fuel; and, (3) final disposal in a deep

geological repository having been

specifically licensed for its purpose.

Presently, that are two disposal

options implemented in South Africa:

(1) above ground disposal in engineered

facilities for the bulk of mining

waste, and (2) near surface disposal

of low-level and intermediate-level

waste (LILW) at the Vaalputs National

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility 32

in the Northern Cape Province [140].

The low-level waste is prepared for

storage by sealing such waste inside

drums with distinct markings. This

waste may contain contaminants of

minuscule proportions of radioactive

material. This low-level waste usually

consists of such ordinary items as

clothing, plastics, insulation material,

paper, and coveralls. These low-level

waste storage containers are first

stored at the reactor site until shipped

to the Vaalputs facility. KNPS general

ships ~ 475 steel drums and 158 concrete

drums for final disposal at the

Vaalputs facility on a yearly basis.

Intermediate-level waste 33

“is mixed

with concrete and sealed into appropriately

marked concrete drums”, and

then also shipped to the Vaalputs

facility for final storage [141]. Permanent Disposal

In South Africa, nuclear fuel irradiated

in the nuclear reactor is

referred to as “used fuel” instead of

“spent fuel.” This is an important distinction,

as South Africa is continuing

with investigating the possibility of

reprocessing, and therefore does not

classify the used fuel as radioactive

waste. Rather than being in its final

form for disposal, used fuel is considered

to still contain useful material.

Used fuel is currently stored at

authorized facilities at the generator’s

site. There are two mechanisms available

for the storage of used fuel,

namely dry and wet storage. The longterm

management strategy for used

fuel and other high-level waste is proposed

to include: “(1) Long-term

above-ground storage in an off-site

facility licensed for its purpose; (2)

reprocessing, conditioning and

recycling; (3) deep geological disposal;

and, (4) transmutation” [140].

KNPS currently stores its used fuel

on site. It only handles and stores used

fuel generated from its reactor units.

The used fuel assemblies and control

rods are stored in specially selected

racks in the used fuel storage pool. The

racks consist of high- and low-density

storage racks “for standard and

cropped fuel assemblies, the control

rod rack for burned control rods, and

the high-density racks, which are lined

with boron carbide” [140]. The boron

concentration in the spent fuel pool is

maintained between 2,440 and 2,700

mg B/kg). The storage pools at KNPS

have been fitted with new racks in two

separate regions. Region I provide for a

possible 210 positions in three racks allowing

for the storage of the reactors

most reactive fuel. In Region I, the fuel

assemblies are given additional

spacing, so that it will not be feasible to

reach a critical state. These racks are

produced using stainless steel with

plates of borated steel attached to the

outside surface of each stainless- steel

storage channel, containing 1.7 %

boron. The majority of the fuel at the

reactor site will be stored within Region

II. In Region 2, the fuel the

assemblies will be placed in a closer

proximity given that this fuel has

enjoyed a greater time period in the

reactor. The racks in this region are

constructed of the same materials as

those in region one [142].

As a result of delays in the reracking

project at KNPS, interim

measures were decided upon using

dry cask storage. Four casks, bought in

1996, will each temporarily store 28

spent fuel assemblies. The casks weigh

97,740 kg and are made of Ductile

Cast Iron, with the walls being

358 mm thick. Additionally, a layer of

poly ethylene rods is built into the

inside wall of the cask to provide a

shield against the neutrons emitted by

the fuel. The cask is designed to allow

for the remaining thermal heat in the

26 Formerly, the Atomic Energy Board (AEB).

27 See: §24 (b),, viewed April 21, 2018.

28 See: Nuclear Energy Act Preamble at, viewed

April 21, 2018.

29 National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute Act, 2008 (No. 53 of 2008),

NatRadioActWaste- Disposal-Inst-Act-53-of-2008.pdf, viewed April 21, 2018.

30 Additional acts of important to the nuclear power program and nuclear waste disposal in the country are: the Hazardous Substances Act; the

Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Act; the Patent Act; the National Strategic Intelligence Act; the National Key Points Act; the

Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act; the Mine Health and Safety Act; the Mineral and Petroleum

Resources Development Act; the National Environmental Management Act; the National Water Act; and, the Dumping at Sea Control Act.

31 Supersedes the previous Nuclear Energy Act 1993 (Act No. 131 of 1993); The Nuclear Regulator Act may be viewed at:

wp-content/uploads/2015/02/National-Nuclear-Regulator-Act-No-47-of-1999.pdf, viewed April 21, 2018.

32 See:, viewed April 21, 2018.

33 Generally consists of purification sludges, spent resins, filter cartridges, and irradiated scrap metal.

Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

fuel assemblies to dissipate naturally.

Finally, used fuel from the SAFARI-1

Research Reactor, at the Necsa

Pelindaba site, is first stored in the

reactor pool for at least two years

prior to its being transferred to the

Thabana Pipe Store, which is an

authorized dry storage facility on the

Pelindaba site [140].

7 Discussion and


Decisions regarding a nation state’s

nuclear waste management program

are a dichotomy of politics and

science, with politics usually the dominating

factor. However, though these

political processes bring risk of instability

in the decision-making process

for the final disposal of radioactive

waste, these decisions should be

decided upon now, or in the near term

(if not already done so). Of course,

policymaking comes with risk, as one

picks ‘winners’ and ‘losers,’ leaving

some groups happy and others disappointed.

This is the moral dimension

incumbent upon any policymaker.

Indeed, no matter how well planned a

nuclear waste management program

is, or how great the design of a final

geological disposal facility, a burden

of sorts is thrust onto future generations

to manage.

Japan and South Korea demonstrate

that political perils exist when

engaging in a nuclear power program,

given societal concerns surrounding

the management of high-level wastes

involving a significant time frame into

the future. Brazil, Russia, India,

China, and South Africa, as the BRICS

family of nations, have other similar

challenges and opportunities including

planned and/or expanding

nuclear power programs, growing

economies, but large domestic inequalities

and high levels of poverty.

One cause of concern is the quantity of

pervasive government corruption

occurring in these particular nation

states, though empirical evidence to

date does not demonstrate that

corruption is having a direct effect on

the legitimacy of these nations’

nuclear power and waste management

programs. However, one should

be mindful that corruption in one area

of government could theoretically

result in a lack of legitimacy across the

board – or, “one rotten apple can spoil

the whole barrel.”

Each nation state only has certain

space for allowed change within a

nuclear power and waste management

program once it begins to evolve

through its various milestones. The

manner in which a nation state is able

to successfully process legitimate

change between and within each

milestone, determines the ability to

carry the aura of legitimacy from the

inception of a nuclear power program

through to the closure of long-term

high-level waste geologic disposal



[103] Encyclopedia Britannica - Argentina, https://www., viewed July 25, 2018.

[104] Johnson, DE 2008, ‘Continuity and change in Argentine

interest group activity and lobbying practices’, Journal Of

Public Affairs (14723891), 8, 1/2, pp. 83-97, Academic

Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[105] Walcher, D 2013, ‘Petroleum Pitfalls: The United States,

Argentine Nationalism, and the 1963 Oil Crisis*’,

Diplomatic History, 37, 1, pp. 24-57, Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[106] Atucha Argentina,

Atucha#ref1184869, viewed April 17, 2018.

[107] Atucha-2 Receives Full Operating Licence, World Nuclear


receives-full-operating-licence-3105165.html, viewed April

17, 2018.

[108] Nuclear Power in Argentina, World Nuclear Association,,

viewed April 16, 2018.

[109] Argentina, China, Close To Signing Contract For Atucha III,



viewed April 17, 2018.

[110] ‘Argentina’ 2016, 53, pp. 36-40, Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[111] ‘Argentina’ 2013, Military Technology, 37, 1, pp. 53-56,

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[112] Resico, M, & Campbell, W 2010, ‘SHOULD WE CRY FOR

ARGENTINA?’, Intercollegiate Review, 45, 1/2, pp. 12-21,

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[113] Meltzer, AH 2003, ‘ARGENTINA 2002: A CASE OF GOVERN-

MENT FAILURE’, CATO Journal, 23, 1, pp. 29-31, Academic

Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[114] Anderson, JL 2016, Argentina’s Culture of Corruption,,

viewed April 18, 2018.

[115] Flannery, N. 2018, Is Argentina Finally Cracking Down On



viewed April 17, 2018.



Research Review, 49, 2, pp. 173-195, Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 April 2018.

[117] República Argentina, JOINT CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY



REPORT 2014,



viewed April 18, 2018.

[118] Country of Brazil,,

viewed April 18, 2018.

[119] ‘Brazil’ 2016, 53, pp. 105-109, Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost, viewed 18 April 2018.

[120] Garcia, D 2014, ‘Not yet a democracy: establishing civilian

authority over the security sector in Brazil – lessons for

other countries in transition’, Third World Quarterly, 35, 3,

pp. 487-504, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed

18 April 2018.

[121] Angra-3 PWR Nuclear Reactor Project, Brazil, https://,

viewed April 18, 2018.

[122] Nuclear Power in Brazil, World Nuclear Association, http://

A-F/Brazil/, viewed April 21, 2018.



Research Review, 49, 3, pp. 23-44, Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 April 2018.

[124] Winter, B 2017, ‘Brazil’s Never-Ending Corruption Crisis’,

Foreign Affairs, 96, 3, pp. 87-94, Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost, viewed 18 April 2018.

[125] Watts, J, 2017,


viewed April 19,


[126] Purdy, S 2016, ‘Brazil at the Precipice’, NACLA Report On

The Americas, 48, 2, pp. 107-110, Academic Search

Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 April 2018.





viewed April 18, 2018.



pub815_web.pdf, viewed April 19, 2018.

[129] ‘South Africa,’ CIA Fact book,

publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html, viewed April

20, 2018.

[130] Msimang, S 2018, ‘All Is Not Forgiven: South Africa and the

Scars of Apartheid’, Foreign Affairs, 97, 1, pp. 28-34,

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018.

[131] Apartheid, Staff,, 2010, http://, viewed April 20, 2018.

[132] Koeberg Power Station,



Power_Station.aspx, viewed April 20, 2018.

[133] The Koeberg Experience,



Pages/The_Koeberg_Experience.aspx, viewed April 20, 2018.

[134] Chirwa, T, & Odhiambo, N 2015, ‘Growth Dynamics in South

Africa: Key Macroeconomic Drivers and Policy Challenges’,

Journal Of Global Analysis, 5, 1/2, pp. 9-31, Academic

Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018.

[135] van Wyk, J 2015, ‘Atoms, apartheid, and the agency: South

Africa’s relations with the IAEA, 1957–1995’, Cold War

History, 15, 3, pp. 395-416, Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018.


ACT 12 OF 2004,

acts/2004-012.pdf, viewed April 20, 2018.

[137] Soma Pillay, (2004) “Corruption – the challenge to good

governance: a South African perspective”, International

Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 Issue: 7,


[138] Uneke, O 2010, ‘Corruption in Africa South of the Sahara:

Bureaucratic Facilitator or Handicap to Development?’,

Journal Of Pan African Studies, 3, 6, pp. 111-128, Academic

Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2018.

[139] Hyslop, J 2005, ‘Political Corruption: Before and After

Apartheid’, Journal Of Southern African Studies, 31, 4,

pp. 773-789, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed

20 April 2018.





Report September 2014,

pdf, viewed April 20, 2018.

[141] Waste at Koeberg,



Reracking.aspx, viewed April 21, 2018.

[142] Re-racking Koeberg,



Reracking.aspx, viewed April 21, 2018.


Mark Callis Sanders

Sanders Engineering

1350 E. Flamingo Road Ste. 13B


Las Vegas NV 89119


Charlotta E. Sanders

Department of Mechanical


University of Nevada

Las Vegas (UNLV)

4505 S. Maryland Pwky

Las Vegas, NV 89154



Decommissioning and Waste Management

Part 4 ı Mark Callis Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT



Am 7. und 8. Mai

2019 begingen wir

das 50. Jubiläum

unserer Jahrestagung

Kerntechnik. Aus

diesem Anlass öffnen

wir unser atw-Archiv

für Sie und präsentieren

Ihnen in jeder

Ausgabe einen

historischen Beitrag.

Aus Ansprachen zur

Jahrestagung Kerntechnik

1992 des

Präsidenten des

Deutschen Atomforums

e.V., Dr. Claus

Berke, und Hans Peter

Edel, Schweizerische

Vereinigung für

Atomenergie (SVA),

am 5. Mai 1992 in


Claus Berke

CO 2 -Reduktion ohne Kernenergie

wirklichkeitsfremde Utopie

Karlsruhe ist nicht nur die „Hauptstadt des Rechts“, man kann sie auch als „Geburtsstadt der Kernenergie“ in der

Bundesrepublik bezeichnen. Es war nach Karlsruhe, wohin die Pioniere der Kernenergie in den 50er Jahren zogen, um

hier den selbstentwickelten FR2 zu bauen. Vom Kemforschungszentrum in Karlsruhe gingen in der Folgezeit ganz

wesentliche Entwicklungsimpulse für die Kernenergie aus. Von allen, die sich dabei große Verdienste erworben haben,

möchte ich Karl Wirtz erwähnen, der in diesen Tagen in Karlsruhe seinen 82. Geburtstag feierte, wozu wir ihm herzliche

Glückwünsche senden. Prof. Wirtz war als Chef des Instituts für Reaktorentwicklung im Kemforschungszentrum

lange Jahre der Vorsitzende des für die Kernenergiepolitik der frühen Jahre besonders wichtigen Arbeitskreises

„ Kernreaktoren“ des Atomforums.

Kernforschung und Kerntechnik in Deutschland sind heute

immer stärker in internationale, vor allem europäische

Kooperationen eingebunden. Auf die Dauer kann gleichberechtigter

Partner solcher Kooperationen nur bleiben,

wer in seinem Lande aktiv Kernforschung betreibt. Hier

sind wir im Augenblick wegen der Kosten, die für die

Bewältigung der deutschen Einheit aufgebracht werden

müssen, mit erheblichen Problemen konfrontiert. Langfristige

Sicherung der Energieversorgung wird überall in

der Industriewelt auch als staatliche Aufgabe verstanden.

Zur langfristigen Energieversorgung gehört auch die

Kernenergie vor allem in ihren Sicherheitsaspekten und

ihren fortschrittlichen Varianten, wie Brüter, HTR und

Fusion. Es wäre ein verhängnisvoller Fehler, wenn sich der

Staat in Deutschland aus der Forschung und Entwicklung

der Kerntechnik endgültig abmelden würde.

Die Kernenergie ist heute in Deutschland die stärkste

Säule der öffentlichen Stromversorgung. Praktisch ein

Drittel des gesamtdeutschen öffentlichen Stroms stammte

1991 aus den 20 Kernkraftwerken, die gegenwärtig bei uns

in Betrieb sind. Der Kernenergie folgten die Braunkohle

mit 31 %, die Steinkohle mit 26 % und die Wasserkraft mit

3 %. Die in der Öffentlichkeit mit so viel Optimismus

behandelten anderen erneuerbaren Energiequellen

steuerten 1 % unseres Stroms bei. Im ersten Quartal 1992

hat sich der Beitrag der Kernenergie nochmals gesteigert:

Es wurde 8 % mehr Kernenergie-Strom erzeugt als vor

einem Jahr. Unter diesen Umständen mutet es schon

verwegen an, daß Politiker, die ernst genommen werden

wollen, glauben, diesen Beitrag ohne Schaden für die

Volkswirtschaft auf „0“ fahren zu können.

| | 1992: Jahrestagung Kerntechnik – JK ´92 in der Stadthalle Karlsruhe. | | 1992: Jahrestagung Kerntechnik - JK ´92

in Karlsruhe, Eröffnungsrede des Präsidenten

des Deutschen Atomforums e.V.,

Dr. Claus Berke

Die deutschen Kernkraftwerke haben ihre Leistungen mit

großer Regelmäßigkeit und weitgehend störungsfrei

erbracht. Gefährdungen, geschweige denn Schädigungen,

der Umgebung hat es auch 1991, wie in all den Jahren zuvor,

in Deutschland nicht gegeben. Im Gegenteil: die Kernkraftwerke

leisten seit vielen Jahren einen sehr positiven Beitrag

zum Umweltschutz. 1991 haben sie der Atmosphäre rund

150 Mio. t CO 2 , das ist rund ein Sechstel unseres gegenwärtigen

Gesamtausstoßes, erspart. Die Bundesregierung

hat sich verpflichtet, bis zum Jahre 2005 den Beitrag

Deutschlands zum anthropogenen Kohlen dioxid ausstoß um

25 % bis 30 % zu reduzieren. Allein die Inbetriebnahme des

Kernkraftwerks Mülheim-Kärlich würde uns in Richtung auf

dieses Ziel einen großen Schritt näher bringen. Wir freuen

uns darüber, daß durch einen kürz lichen Beschluß des

Bundesgerichts die Möglichkeit einer Wiederinbetriebnahme

von Mülheim-Kärlich wieder gegeben ist.

Gegen Ende dieses Jahrzehnts müssen in Deutschland

neue Kraftwerke in Betrieb gehen zur Deckung des

Ersatzbedarfs und zur Deckung der zusätzlichen Nachfrage

nach Strom – und diese wird, wie in der Vergangenheit,

so auch in der Zukunft, unablässig weiter steigen, und

dabei keine Rücksicht auf entgegenstehende Koalitionsvereinbarungen

auf Länderebene nehmen. Die Bau-

Entscheidungen stehen Mitte dieses Jahrzehnts an. Bis

dahin muß es wieder möglich werden, in Deutschland

auch Kernkraftwerke zu errichten. Denn mit Auslastungsund

Effizienzverbesserungen sowie Sparerfolgen können

wir den CO 2 -Ausstoß höchstens auf dem jetzigen

Niveau halten. Dem Bundesforschungsminister ist voll

zuzustimmen: Die von der Bundes regierung angestrebte

Reduktion um 25 % bis 30 % bis

zum Jahre 2005 bleibt ohne

Kernenergie eine wirklichkeitsfremde


Entscheidend für die Frage

eines zukünftigen Kernkraftwerkbaus

bleibt die Haltung der

SPD. Wenn sie auf ihrer starren

Ausstiegforderung beharrt, wird

es auch weiterhin keine neuen

Kernkraftwerke auf deutschem

Boden geben. Wir haben im

Sommer und Herbst 1991

Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT

CO 2 -Reduction Without Nuclear a Fanciful Utopia ı Claus Berke

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

erstmals in ganz Deutschland eine Meinungsumfrage

durch geführt. Diese hat gezeigt, daß wir es inzwischen in

der öffentlichen Meinung bei der Einstellung zur Kernenergie

mit drei ungefähr gleich starken Lagern zu tun

haben. Ungefähr ein Drittel der Deutschen akzeptiert den

Status quo ohne Zubau, ein weiteres Drittel setzt auf neue

Kernkraftwerke; das dritte Drittel will den baldigen Ausstieg.

Die Zahl der Ausstiegswilligen ist in den letzten Jahren

deutlich zurückgegangen. Diese Tendenz entspricht der

Entwicklung in den USA. Dort halten inzwischen 73 % der

Bevölkerung den weiteren Ausbau der Kernenergie für

notwendig, um die Stromversorgung der Zukunft sicherzustellen.

Selbst in Italien dreht sich der Wind: Ministerpräsident

Andreotti will dort vom nächsten Jahr an, wenn

das Moratorium endet, wieder Kernkraftwerke bauen


Auch bei uns gibt es ermutigende Signale, zuletzt den

Beschluß der beiden großen Gewerkschaften IG Bergbau

und Energie und IG Chemie, die einen mittelfristigen

Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie in Anbetracht der veränderten

Gegebenheiten nicht mehr für verantwortbar halten.

Die SPD muß sich deshalb fragen lassen, ob ihre Verweigerungshaltung

ein Beitrag zur Lösung der wirklichen

Probleme des Umweltschutzes und der Sicherheit leistet

oder ob hier nicht eine Beschlußlage dabei ist, zum Selbstzweck

zu werden.

Ein brennendes Problem ist die Sicherheit der im Osten

unseres Kontinents betriebenen Kernkraftwerke. Hier

trifft uns eine besondere Verantwortung – im Interesse

unserer Mitbürger, im Interesse der Nachbarn im Osten,

die von Störfällen in erster Linie betroffen wären. Sanieren

können wird man wohl nur die jüngeren Druckwasserreaktoren.

Für alle anderen Kernkraftwerke wird man

besser Ersatzstrom bereitstellen, vor allem für die halbmilitärischen

Anlagen vom Tschernobyl-Typ. Überall

fehlen noch langfristig angelegte Konzepte. Insgesamt

ist in diesem Zusammenhang auf westlicher Seite seit

zwei Jahren außer Papier und guten Worten praktisch

nichts passiert. Das kann so nicht weitergehen. Wir

brauchen jetzt das Anlaufen konkreter Nach besserungsmaßnahmen.

Ich appelliere an die Bundes regierung

und an die Partner des kommenden Weltwirtschaftsgipfels

in München. Sorgen Sie dafür, daß die notwendigen

und sinnvollen Sanierungsarbeiten umgehend beginnen

können, indem Sie die erforderlichen Devisen bereitstellen.

Wir kennen die Größenordnung, etwa 15 Mrd. DM

(ca. 7,6 Mrd. €). Aber ein knappes Drittel davon

wird zum Einkauf von Lieferungen und Leistungen

in den westlichen Industriestaaten benötigt. Vergleichsweise

wenig Geld für eine erhebliche Erhöhung der

Sicherheit der Europäer und zugleich ein entscheidender

Beitrag für die zukünftige Strom versorgung in Europas


In einigen Wochen sollen in Rio auf der Weltkonferenz

für Umwelt und Entwicklung die Weichen für einen

weltweiten Klimaschutz gestellt werden. Die Kernenergie

ist nicht das Allheilmittel für die Lösung des Klima-

Problems. Aber sie kann dazu einen wesentlichen

Beitrag leisten. Angesichts der drängenden Umweltprobleme,

die aus der Belastung der Atmosphäre mit

Schadstoffen herrühren, bringt die Fähigkeit zur

sicheren Beherrschung und Nutzung der Kernenergie

heute für die Industrieländer auch die Pflicht zu ihrer

Nutzung mit sich. Dieser Pflicht darf sich keiner der

großen Industriestaaten entziehen, auch Deutschland

nicht. Aufgabe der Politiker ist es, sicherzustellen, daß

der Einsatz der Kernenergie wieder möglich wird.

Unsere Aufgabe ist es, sicherzustellen, daß dieser Einsatz

sicherheitstechnisch verantwortbar und wissenschaftlich

konkurrenzfähig bleibt.

| | 1992: Pressekonferenz mit Vortragenden der Eröffnungssitzung: A. V. Sidorenko, Erster Stellvertretender

Minister für Atomenergie der Russischen Föderation Russija, Dr. Claus Berke, Präsident des Deutschen

Atomforums (DAtF), Dipl.-Math. Manfred Petroll, Pressesprecher DAtF, Dipl.-Ing. Wulf Bürkle, Direktor

der Siemens AG/KWU und Peter S. Van Nort, President ABB Nuclear Power.


Kommunikation fördert friedliche Nutzung

der Kernenergie

Hans Peter Edel

In der Schweiz erkannten Persönlichkeiten aus der

Industrie, der Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft in Übereinstimmung

mit der Landesregierung schon in den

fünfziger Jahren die außerordentliche Wichtigkeit einer

umfassenden Unterrichtung der Bevölkerung über Kernenergiefragen.

1958 kam es deshalb zur Gründung der

Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Atomenergie (S VA), in

der sich all diejenigen Kreise zusammenfanden, die der

Überzeugung waren, daß das Land die Atomenergie im

Interesse einer gesicherten Elektrizitätsversorgung und

zum Schutze der Umwelt nutzen sollte. Dabei ist „Atomenergie“

in umfassendem Sinne zu verstehen: Die

Interessen und die Tätigkeiten der SVA bezogen sich von

allem Anfang an nicht allein auf die Energiegewinnung aus

Atomkernreaktionen für die Elektrizitäts- und Fernwärmeversorgung,

sondern auch auf die Anwendungen

ionisierender Strahlen und radioaktiver Stoffe in Forschung,

Medizin, Industrie, Technik, Landwirtschaft und

Umweltschutz sowie auf den Strahlenschutz.


„Der Verein fördert die friedliche Nutzbarmachung der

Atomenergie in der Schweiz und die Koordination aller

Bestrebungen auf diesem Gebiet.“ So lautet der Zweckartikel

in den Statuten der Schweizerischen Vereinigung

für Atomenergie (SVA), die am 19. 11. 58 als gemeinnützige

Organisation gegründet wurde und ihren Sitz in

der Bundesstadt Bern hat. Als hauptsächliche Mittel zur

Erreichung dieses Vereinszwecks führen die Statuten auf:


Förderung des Informations- und Erfahrungsaustausches.


Orientierung der Bevölkerung.


Studium einschlägiger Fragen, namentlich ethischer,

gesundheitlicher, technischer, wirtschaftlicher und

rechtlicher Natur.


Vertretung gemeinsamer Interessen bei den Behörden.


Unterstützung der Bestrebungen zur Förderung eines

qualifizierten wissenschaftlichen und technischen



Mitwirkung bei der Aufstellung von Normen.


Pflege der Zusammenarbeit mit ausländischen und

internationalen Organisationen.

Wachsendes Informationsbedürfnis

In der zweiten Hälfte der fünfziger Jahre wurden die

rechtlichen Grundlagen für eine schweizerische Atomenergiepolitik

geschaffen. 1957 genehmigten Volk und

Kantone hierzu einen Zusatz zur Bundesverfassung, der

die Gesetzgebung auf dem Gebiet der Atomenergie und



Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT

CO 2 -Reduction Without Nuclear a Fanciful Utopia ı Claus Berke

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September



den Erlaß von Vorschriften über den Schutz vor

ionisierender Strahlung zur Bundessache erklärte. Zwei

Jahre später lag das darauf abgestützte Bundesgesetz über

die friedliche Verwendung der Atomenergie und den

Strahlenschutz vor. In der Öffentlichkeit weckten diese

politischen Entscheidungen, aber auch die Berichte über

die Tätigkeit unterschiedlicher industrieller Reaktorgesellschaften

und eine sich anbahnende Kontroverse um

die atomare Bewaffnung der Schweizer Armee ein

zunehmendes Bedürfnis nach Informationen über die

neue Technologie der nuklearen Energie.

Ein breites Forum

Die 1958 gegründete Schweizerische Vereinigung für

Atomenergie (SVA) hatte von Beginn an den Charakter

eines breiten Forums. Praktisch alle Zweige der Wirtschaft

und Bereiche von Forschung, Wissenschaft und Technik

traten der neuen Organisation bei. Dazu gesellten sich

Universitäten und Lehranstalten, Amtsstellen sowie

Standes- und Berufsorganisationen. Weil sie seit jeher die

Ansicht vertritt, die Kernenergie diene dem öffentlichen

Interesse und sollte nicht zum Spielball politischer Auseinandersetzungen

werden, war und ist die SVA als wissenschaftlich-technisch

orientierte Fachvereinigung politisch

neutral. Entsprechend fand auch der Staat in ihr den gesuchten


Gegenwärtig umfaßt die SVA rund 700 Mitglieder. Die

Kollektivmitglieder rekrutieren sich aus Elektrizitätswirtschaft,

Industrie, Baugewerbe, Banken, Versicherungen,

Ingenieur- und Beratungsunternehmen, Lehr- und Forschungsanstalten

sowie öffentlichen Diensten und Amtsstellen.

Die Einzelmitglieder entstammen vor allem den

Kreisen, die in der Schweiz auf den Gebieten der Kernenergie,

der Strahlenforschung und -anwendung sowie des

Strahlenschutzes tätig sind und Verantwortung tragen.

Aber auch freischaffende Anwälte, Ärzte, Wissenschaftler,

Lehrer und Journalisten, die sich regelmäßig über

Kernenergie informieren wollen, zählen zu den Einzelmitgliedern.

Die Schweizerische Gesellschaft der Kernfachleute

(SGK) gehört der SVA als Sektion an und stellt

mehr als die Hälfte der Einzelmitglieder.

In Kenntnis der Tatsachen

In der Energiediskussion setzt sich die SVA dafür ein, daß

die Bedeutung der Kernenergie für Gesellschaft, Umwelt

und Wirtschaft nicht isoliert, sondern unter Einbezug der

anderen Energien gesamtheitlich – von der Versorgung

bis zur Entsorgung – und in Kenntnis der wesentlichen

Tatsachen beurteilt wird. Zur Erfüllung ihrer Aufgabe

verfolgt die SVA systematisch die internationale Entwicklung

auf allen Gebieten der Kernenergie. Sie sammelt

Nachrichten, Programme, Studien und Berichte und

dient den interessierten Kreisen als Informations- und

Dokumentationszentrale. Zur Beschaffung der benötigten

Unterlagen pflegt die SVA intensive Kontakte zu inund

ausländischen Firmen, Verbänden, Verwaltungsstellen

und Hochschulen sowie zu internationalen

Organisationen. Zudem vertritt die Vereinigung die

Schweiz im Foratom, der europäischen Dachorganisation

der nationalen Atomforen, sowie beim NucNet, dem

Kernenergie-Nachrichtensystem der European Nuclear

Society (ENS).

Vielfältige Dienstleistungen

Die solcherart zur Verfügung stehenden Informationen

und Beziehungen ermöglichen der SVA eine Vielzahl von

Dienstleistungen für ihre Mitglieder, für Kernfachleute,

Politiker und Meinungsbildner sowie ein weiteres

interessiertes Publikum. So berichtet das offizielle Organ

der Vereinigung, das „SVA-Bulletin“, laufend über die

wichtigsten Geschehnisse und Entwicklungen auf dem

Nukleargebiet. Das Bulletin erreicht mit seinen getrennt

deutsch und französisch erscheinenden 21 Ausgaben pro

Jahr Leser in der ganzen Welt. Dem Bulletin beigelegt wird

der „Monatsbericht über den Betrieb der schweizerischen

Kernkraftwerke“. Er enthält Betriebsdaten und Angaben

über den Betriebs verlauf in den fünf Reaktorblöcken des

Landes. Diese Publikation wird von den Kernkraftwerksbetreibem

in Zusammenarbeit mit der SVA erstellt und

trägt dem Wunsch von Politikern, Verwaltung und

Medienschaffenden nach einer transparenten, regelmäßigen

Berichterstattung Rechnung. Als weitere SVA-

Periodika erscheinen jeden Monat die „Kernpunkte“, die in

Flugblatt-Form aktuelle nukleare Kurzinformationen

vermitteln. Die „Kernpunkte“ richten sich in deutscher und

in französischer Sprache speziell an Politiker und

Meinungsbildner. Die Gesamtauflage beträgt rund 7000


Zu Themen von besonderer Bedeutung bedient die SVA

ihre Mitglieder und die Medien mit Faktenblättern und

einschlägigen Dokumentationen (Media-Backgrounds),

und in jährlich nachgeführten Ausgaben wird die Reaktortabelle

„Kernkraftwerke der Welt“ herausgebracht. Unter

den regelmäßigen Publikationen der SVA ebenfalls zu

nennen sind die Sammelbände mit den an Informationstagungen

und Vertiefungskursen der Vereinigung

gehaltenen Fachbeiträgen. Diese mit internationaler

Beteiligung durchgeführten Veranstaltungen behandelten

beispielsweise im Jahr 1991 die Themen „Wie alt werden

Kernkraftwerke?“, „Brennstoffversorgung und -einsatz im

Kernkraftwerk“ und „Fortgeschrittene Sicherheitsanalyse“.

Zusätzlich zu den Tagungen und Vertiefungskursen

organisiert die SVA Seminaren, Besichtigungsreisen

und ähnliche Anlässe für Kernfachleute, wozu nach

Möglichkeit auch Politiker und Meinungsbildner geladen


Informationen aus erster Hand

Einen wichtigen Teil der SVA-Dienstleistungen stellt

sodann die Pflege der Beziehungen zu bestimmten Zielpublika

dar. Auf die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit im engeren Sinne

ausgerichtet sind die Pressemitteilungen, Stellungnahmen

und Spezialbeiträge der SVA sowie die Konferenzen,

Seminaren und Reisen für die Vertreter der Medien.

Ebenfalls großes Gewicht kommt der Erteilung von Auskünften

und der Vermittlung von Kontakten zum Zwecke

journalistischer Recherchen zu. Dank ihres ausgebauten

Beziehungsnetzes, einschließlich ihrer Zusammenarbeit

mit dem internationalen Kernenergie-Nachrichtendienst

NucNet, verfügt die SVA hierbei über den Vorteil des

direkten Zugangs zu raschen Informationen aus erster


Bindeglied zwischen Fachwelt und Öffentlichkeit

Bei allen diesen Tätigkeiten wird die SVA vom Willen

geleitet, zu einer besseren Akzeptanz der Kernenergie

beizutragen. Sie ist sich zugleich klar darüber, daß dieses

Ziel nur mit völlig offener, sachlich richtiger Fachinformation

erreicht werden kann. Wenn die Schweiz heute

rund 40 % ihrer elektrischen Arbeit in eigenen Kernkraftwerken

erzeugt, ist dies nicht zuletzt mit ein Verdienst der

Informationsanstrengungen der SVA. Und die Tatsache,

daß sich das Schweizervolk in drei Abstimmungen für die

Nutzung der Kernenergie und gegen einen Ausstieg ausgesprochen

hat, ist ebenfalls mit ein Erfolg der breit

angelegten, kontinuierlichen und langfristig konzipierten

Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Vereinigung.

Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT

CO 2 -Reduction Without Nuclear a Fanciful Utopia ı Claus Berke

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

50 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology

Young Scientists Workshop

Jörg Starflinger

During the “Young Scientists Workshop” 18 young scientists presented results of their scientific research as part of their

Master or Doctorate theses covering a broad spectrum of technical areas. This demonstrated again the strong engagement

of the younger generation for nuclear technology and the significant support of German institutions involved.

Dr. Katharina Stummeyer (Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und

Reaktorsicherheit gGmbH), Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Steinwarz

(Founder and former jury chairman of the Workshop

“ Preserving Competence in Nuclear Technology”), Prof.

Dr.-Ing. Marco K. Koch (Ruhr-Universität Bochum), and

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Starflinger (Universität Stuttgart) as

members of the jury assessed the written compacts and the

oral presentations to award the prices gifted by GNS

Nuklear Service GmbH, Essen and Forschungsinstitut für

Kerntechnik und Energiewandlung e.V., Stuttgart.

Dr. Pape, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy,

welcomed the partcipants and gave a short overview of the

7 th Energy Research Programme of the Federal Government.

Eduard Diaz Pescador (Helmholtzzentrum Dresden-

Rossendorf, mentoring: Prof. Hampel) reported about

“Multidimensional fluid mixing study during an

asymmetric injection of cold water in the primary side

of a generic PWR KONVOI with ATHLET 3.1A”.

The presented work covered the investigation of the

multidimensional fluid mixing in the RPV of a generic

KONVOI reactor starting from the selection of a SBLOCA

and MSLB scenarios based on a developed database of

accidents scenarios in order to proceed with the study.

Based on the thermal-hydraulic features of each accident

scenario a generic PWR KONVOI with a pseudo multidimensional

RPV was developed. Comparing the numerical data

with ROCOM experimental data showed good agreement.

Pascal Distler (Technische Universität Kaiserslautern,

mentoring: Prof. Sadegh-Azar) reported on the present

status on “Development of Analytical Methods for

Simulation of Soft and Hard Projectile Impact”. A

numerical model to describe the impact of projectiles on

concrete walls has been developed. Comparison with

experimental results shows good agreement. The model

allows a quick estimation of impact damaged and will be

validated by means of experiments in the future.

The presentation by Cenk Evrim (Universität Stuttgart,

mentoring: Prof. Laurien) described “Numerical investigation

of thermal mixing processes in a T-junction

piping system”. Near wall temperature fluctuations

caused my mixing of cold and warm water jets in a T-junction

of two pipes have been simulated using Large-Eddy

Simulation (LES) method. A grid study shows good agreement

with experimental data for the finest grid (about 20

Mio cells). A dominant fluctuation frequency at 6 Hz could

have been identified, which lies in the High Cycle Thermal

Fatigue range (0.1 – 10 Hz).

Arthur Feldbusch (Technische Universität Kaiserslautern,

mentoring: Prof. Sadegh-Azar) informed about “Numerical

investigations of structural behavior considering

dynamic soil-structure interaction using PML-

Elements”. A “Perfectly Matched Layers” (PML) method

has been developed to describe the interaction of large

structures like reactor building and the surrounding soil.

As a results of several numerical simulations, PML seems to

be the method of choice for nonlinear calculations considering

Soil-Structure Interaction.

Claudia Graß (Universität Stuttgart, mentoring: Prof.

Starflinger) reported on “Atmospheric spent fuel pool

cooling by passive two-phase closed thermosyphons”.

Heat transfer capability of closed two-phase thermosiphons

have been experimentally obtained in large-scale

laboratory experiments. A performance map has been

set-up describing the transferred heat as a function of

driving temperature differences. The data are used to

derive and validate thermosiphon models in ATHLET.

Florian Gremme (Ruhr-Universität Bochum, mentoring:

Prof. Koch) described “Analysis of the Impact of Severe

Accident Management Measures on the Core Coolability

during Beyond-Design-Basis Accidents in a

generic Pressurized Water Reactor”. In his work, several

ASTEC simulations have been carried out to assess, which

minimum mass flow has to be provided in case of beyond

design base accident with delayed reflood. For combined

Station Blackout and Small-Break LOCA of a generic PWR

different minimum mass flows have been identified to

avoid further core degradation or keep the water inventory

under saturation conditions. These data can be used to

assess severe accident management strategies.

Tobias Hanisch (Technische Universität Dresden, mentoring:

Prof. Fröhlich) introduced the “Numerical simulation of

flow and heat transfer in a fuel assembly mock-up with

horizontal overflow”. Assuming uncover of fuel assemblies

in a spent fuel pool, the surface temperatures have been

determined numerically using CFX. The simulations showed

the development of air vortices in the upper part of the

bundle. For the boundary conditions assumed, the fuel rod

surface temperature does not exceed 300 °C. Comparison

with experimental data of a mock-up experiment with

electrical heating show very good reproduction capabilities

of the code.

“Preliminary Analysis of the Design and Operation

Conditions of a sCO2 Heat Removal System” was the subject

of the presentation given Markus Hofer, ( Universität

Stuttgart, mentoring: Prof. Starflinger). The Brayton-cycle of

an innovative heat removal system operation with

supercritical Carbon Dioxide has been numerically simulated.

Several parametric studies were carried out to derive the

design point and assess the heat removal capabilities under

off-design (part-load) conditions. The same simulations will

be repeated with ATHLET and compared with each other.

Moritz Lönhoff (Technische Universität Kaiserslautern,

mentoring: Prof. Sadegh-Azar) reported about “Analytical

Model for the Investigation of the out-of-plane

behavior of unreinforced masonry walls”. In the

comparison of commonly used simplified analytical

methods from codes, guidelines and literature with

numerical simulations, a significant underestimation of

the load-bearing capacity in the simplified methods is

shown when a vertical stiffness is present at the top

boundary. The results are confirmed in experimental


AMNT 2019

AMNT 2019

Young Scientists Workshop ı Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


AMNT 2019

| | Award Ceremony at AMNT 2019 (from left to right: Prof. Dr. Marco K. Koch, Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger,

Bianca Schacherl, Claudia Graß, Dr. Jürgen Skrzypek, Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz, Dr. Katharina Stummeyer

shaking table tests with heat insulating clay brick and

autoclaved aerated concrete block masonry walls.

Martin Neumann (Technische Universität Dresden,

mentoring: Prof. Hampel) gave an overview on “Investigation

of three-dimensional two-phase flow using

­combined ultrafast X-ray tomography and hot-film

anemometry”. An experimental study on a generic

three-dimensional two-phase flow around a flow

obstruction has been carried out as a benchmark

experiment for validation of two-phase CFD models.

Comparing the numerical results with ultrafast electron

beam X-ray tomography, a stagnation point develops

upstream the obstacle and a recirculation zone is formed

downstream of it. These zones of special interest were well

covered by both numerics and experimental set-up.

The presentation of Bianca Schacherl (Karlsruhe Institute

of Technology (KIT), mentoring: Prof. Geckeis) described

“Structural investigations of Np sorbed on illite by M5-

edge HR-XANES and L3-edge EXAFS spectroscopy”. The

sensitive Np M5-edge HR-XANES method is for the first time

applied to study Np redox reactions at mineral surfaces at low

metal ion concentrations, demonstrating that by the complementary

application of advanced spectroscopic methods

mechanistic insight into complex geochemical actinide

reactions can be achieved at even low concen trations.

The presentation by Sibel Tas (Helmholtzzentrum

Dresden- Rossendorf, mentoring: Prof. Hampel) contains

“ Numerical Investigation on the effects of vortex generators

on sub-channel flow in a rod bundle”. As result

from a mesh resolution study using CFX, turbulent kinetic

energy is much more sensitive parameters than pressure.

Among the tested models, the RNG k-ε model predicts the

heat transfer characteristics with minimum deviation.

Vanes increase the heat transfer considerably. A higher vane

angle provides a better heat transfer.

Song Meiqui (Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie, mentoring:

Prof. Cheng) reported about “Heat transfer analysis

for trans-critical pressure transient”. To ensure the heat

transfer of the transcritical transient could be predicted

well and the safety analysis of SCWR reliable, the film

boiling correlations at high pressure are evaluated. Based

on current film boiling database, existing correlations

could not provide a high accuracy. Hence, a new heat

transfer correlation is proposed. The average error of the

modified correlation could be reduced allowing a better

prediction of wall surface temperatures.

The presentation entitled “First Experimental Results

on the Heat Transfer Characteristics of Supercritical

CO2 in Single Circular Tubes with Direct Electrical

Heating” was given by Konstantinos Theologou ( Universität

Stuttgart, mentoring: Prof. Starflinger). A new test rig is

presented for investigation on the heat transfer characteristics

of sCO2 build at IKE. First results of measured wall

temperatures of the two test sections with an inner diameter

of 4 and 8 mm are shown and verified by comparison with

other authors. The next step is to produce more data according

to the experimental matrix. These data are used to

assess the validity pressure drop and heat transfer correlations

in ATHLET for heating near the critical point of CO2.

Sebastian Unger (Helmholtzzentrum Dresden Rossendorf,

mentoring: Prof. Hampel) gave a presentation about “CFDbased

optimization of heat exchanger tube bundle

arrangement for passive spent fuel pool cooling to

ambient air”. In his numerical study, the impact of tube

bundle arrangement on the heat transfer performance of a

heat exchanger for a passive cooling system was assessed.

For the inline configuration, circular tube shapes with

minimum longitudinal and transversal tube pitch are

recommended to use. The staggered configuration

performs best for oval shaped tubes. However, as the

chimney structure enhances the buoyancy induced flow

velocity may different fin designs are of advantage.

Andreas Wahl (Universität Stuttgart, mentoring: Prof.

Starflinger) gave an overview on “Experimental investigation

of heat transfer and pressure drop in tubes to

cool CO2 near the critical point”.

A test section has been build up to investigate the heat

transfer and pressure drop in CO2 close to the critical point.

The first experiments under horizontal orientation were

compared to experiments from literature showing reasonable

agreement but also deviations. In the future, the test

section will be operated in up- and downward flow orientation

to investigate buoyancy effects on the flow. Additionally

the influence of the cooling media flowrate and temperature

will be investigated. These data are used to assess the

validity pressure drop and heat transfer correlations in

ATHLET for cooling near the critical point of CO 2 .

The presentation entitled “Modeling approach of

condensate coverage on inclined wall for Aerosol Wash

down” was given by Fangnian Wang (Karlsruhe Institut für

Technoligie, mentoring: Prof. Cheng). The flowing condensate

coverage on inclined wall is a significant factor for

evaluating the aerosol wash down efficiency. A modelling

approach of the flowing condensate coverage is proposed,

which contains a microscopic treatment and a macroscopic

treatment. The modelling approach is validated by means

of existing experiments. A good agreement with experiment

data was obtained. In the future, in order to implementing

the present model in COCOSYS for the aerosol

wash down calculation, some sensitivity analysis on

volume flow rate, contact angle, inclination and temperature

will be carried out to make an empirical correlation.

Summarizing, the scientific quality of papers presented

by the young scientists in this year reached again a very

high level. Therefore, all participants of the workshop

should get honourable recognition.

The jury awarded Claudia Graß (Universität Stuttgart)

the 1 st price of the 2019 competition. 2 nd ranked author

was Bianca Schacherl (Karlruhe Institut für Technologie)

and the 3 rd ranked author Moritz Lönhoff (Technische

Universität Kaiserslautern).


Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Starflinger

Institute of Nuclear Technology and Energy Systems (IKE)

University of Stuttgart

Pfaffenwaldring 31

70569 Stuttgart, Germany

AMNT 2019

Young Scientists Workshop ı Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermosyphons

Claudia Graß, Rudi Kulenovic and Jörg Starflinger

In a two-step approach the applicability of 10 m long two-phase closed thermosyphons (TPCT) is investigated for a

passive heat removal system for spent fuel pools. The basic operational behavior of TPCT is measured for predefined

thermal conditions at various pipe diameters (20, 32 and 45 mm) and pipe filling ratios in a laboratory setup. The

influence on the thermal operation and the heat flux in dependency on the inner pipe diameter is measured and

presented. First, the experiments are performed with direct electric heating and then with indirect water-heating. In the

second step, the demonstration facility ATHOS (Atmospheric THermosyphon cOoling System) with water tank heating

and ambient air cooling is built, in order to investigate in a small-scale model experiment the heat transfer performance

of TPCTs towards application-oriented thermal conditions of a spent fuel pool (SFP). First results of the ATHOS

experiments are presented, demonstrating the applicability of a TPCT bundle using the ambient air as ultimate heat sink.

Young Scientists



Claudia Graß

was awarded with

the 1 st price of the

50 th Annual Meeting

on Nuclear Technology

(AMNT 2019) Young

Scientists Workshop.


AMNT 2019


New concepts are currently getting in focus of nuclear

safety research considering passive safety systems to

maintain the removal of residual heat from spent fuel

pools. The removal of decay heat is presently achieved by

active cooling systems. In case of station blackout passive

cooling systems could maintain adequate removal of decay

heat. Heat pipes and TPCT are well established as efficient

and cost-effective passive heat transfer devices. The

operation principle of heat pipes and TPCT is based on a

thermodynamic cycle of evaporation and condensation of

a working fluid in a sealed tube. The transport of the

fluid relies on buoyancy driven by temperature and

pressure gradients and the backflow of the condensate

is depending on gravitational forces for TPCT without

wick structure. A comprehensive description of the

operation principles is for example given by Faghri [1],

Reay and Kew [2] or Groll and Rösler [3]. These days TPCT

are common in geo thermal infrastructure and solar heat

pump systems.

Numerous investigations over the last decades point

out that the operation principle of heat pipes and

thermosyphons is well understood, but in spite of their

simple composition the thermodynamic behavior is

complex and has to be investigated especially for the new

application in SFP cooling.

First attempts are in progress to investigate the

applicability of a TPCT heat removal system in nuclear

technology for spent fuel cooling. Xiong et al.[4] published

a concept of passive spent fuel pool cooling by large-scale

sub-atmospheric loop heat pipes removing approximately

10 kW by a single d=65 mm loop at 80 °C heating.

The investigation on the operational behavior of the

TPCT is proceeded in a two-step approach. In the first step,

a laboratory setup was built up to investigate single TPCT

operation for direct electric heating (heat flux driven operation)

and indirect water heating ( temperature driven

operation) under predefined boundary conditions. In the

second step, a bundle of TCPTs is operated by natural

convection flow, heated by a water tank (heat source) and

cooled by ambient air (heat sink). The ATHOS facility

should demonstrate the applicability of TPCTs for a passive

spent fuel pool cooling system.

Laboratory Test Setup and Experiments

A laboratory setup (Figure 1) was built up to investigate

vertical 10-m-long single TPCT pipes with inner pipe

diameters d=20 mm, 32 mm and 45 mm. The filling ratio

for each pipe configuration was varied between 100 %,

70 % and 50 %. The filling ratio is defined as the volume

ratio of fluid inventory in the TPCT’s evaporation section

to the total volume of the evaporation section, which is


A double-pipe cooler on the top end of the test pipes

connected to process thermostats condensates the working

fluid inside the TPCT and the transferred heat is calorimetrically

determined by the temperature difference between

in- and outlet of the cooler and the mass flow rate of the

coolant. The test pipes are made of seamless drawn stainless

steel (1.4301) tubes. A detailed specification of the

laboratory test setup including all components and

measurement points is given by Graß et al. [5].

| | Fig. 1.

Design sketch of the laboratory test setup.

Heat flux driven operation

In a first experimental campaign the TPCT is directly

heated by tubular cartridge heaters. The outer pipe wall

temperature along the TPCT is measured as well as the

AMNT 2019

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermo syphons ı Claudia Graß, Rudi Kulenovic and Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


AMNT 2019

30 % more heat is transferred by the d=20 mm TPCT

(q=30 kW/m 2 ) than by the d=45 mm TPCT (q=22.5 kW/

m 2 ). Although the filling ratio is 70 % for all measurements

in Figure 2, the mass of the fluid inventory of the d=45 mm

TPCT is 4.5 times higher compared to the d=20 mm TPCT

and thus the thermal inertia is increased for the larger diameter.

Therefore, it takes higher heat input and increased

operating temperatures to stabilize the heat transfer. The

smaller cross section (d=20 mm) also promotes a better

mixing of the working fluid in the evaporation section with

the cooled backflow from the condenser section, which

results in lower temperatures measured in the evaporation


| | Fig. 2.

Boiling temperature measured inside the TPCT’s evaporation section vs. calorimetrically determined

heat flux for pipe diameters d=20 mm, 32 mm and 45 mm at heat sink temperature 20 °C and filling

ratio 70 %.

| | Fig. 3.

Temperature difference between heat source and heat sink vs. calorimetrically determined transferred

heat for indirect water-heated experiments with various filling ratios of TPCTs.

pressure in both pipe ends. The TPCT operates in a heat

flux driven operation with significant wall overheating in

the evaporation section. The heat sink temperatures were

set to 10 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C. Previous results reveal the

70 % filling ratio with the highest experimental heat

transfer coefficient in the evaporation section [6].

Figure 2 gives the results of the direct electric heating

experiments for different inner pipe diameters (20, 32 and

45 mm). 70 % of the evaporator section volume was filled

with water as working fluid and the experiments were

performed with a predefined heat sink temperature of

20 °C. The points in Figure 2 give the average temperatures

measured in the evaporation section vs. the calorimetrically

transferred heat flux in different colors for each

pipe diameter. The corresponding colored dashed lines

above and below the average points visualize the temperature

fluctuations during the measurements. It is known

from previous results [5, 6], that the experiments with

water as working fluid tend to unstable operation with

pulsating temperature fluctuations for low heat flux and

low driving temperature difference. These fluctuations

stabilize into isothermal operation with increasing heat

input in dependency on the heat sink temperature and

pipe diameter. At similar boiling temperatures, the heat

flux is increasing with decreasing pipe diameter. For

example, at 55 °C evaporator temperature approximately

Temperature driven operation

In the next step of investigations on a passive TPCT cooling

system for spent fuel pools, the heating of the laboratory

test pipe is converted to an indirect temperature driven

operation. Therefore, the tubular cartridge heaters are

replaced by a double-pipe arrangement connected to a

process thermostat in a secondary heating circuit. The

inlet and outlet heat flux is determined calorimetrically by

the mass flow and the inlet and outlet temperatures of the

water jacket heater and cooler. The charged working fluid

in the TPCTs is water in all presented experiments.

Figure 3 shows the results of the indirect water- heating

experiments for heat source temperatures of 45 °C (green),

55 °C (yellow) and 60 °C (red). The filling ratios 100 %,

70 %, 50 % and 30 % were measured for each heating

temperature. The experiments are performed with a

temperature ramp of the heat sink between 0 °C and 30 °C.

At a defined heat source temperature the heat sink is

adjusted at start temperature and increased by 10 K

approximately every hour. The investigated temperature

ramps are performed both ways, upwards with increasing

and downwards with decreasing heat sink temperature to

observe possible effects depending on the operation mode.

In fact, the heat sink temperature direction had no influence

on the results for water-charged TPCT. The blue-colored

area in Figure 3, which mainly covers the experiments at

45 °C heat source temperature, presents single-phase heat

transfer region. The transferred heat is in the range of

measurement uncertainties and most likely, the heat is

transferred only by natural convection inside the test pipe.

The results covered by the yellow- colored area represent a

meta-stable operation mode of the TPCT. The experiments

are not always reproducible and the operation is in a

transition between single-phase convection and irregular

nucleate boiling. With increasing heat source temperature

the two-phase heat transfer stabilizes (non-colored area)

and the operation temperature pulsates regularly as already

known from the electric heating experiments. The blue

lines present the isothermal heat sink temperatures for a

better comparability between the different heat source

temperature ramps. The influence of the filling ratio

increases with increasing heat sink temperature and

increasing temperature difference. For temperature

differences below 35 K, the influence of the filling ratio is

negligible. At 60 °C heat source temperature and 0 °C heat

sink temperature the heat flux for 50 % and 30 % filling

ratio is similar and approximately 30 % improved compared

to 100 % filling ratio. A stabilization of the pulsating

operation temperature with increasing heat flux like in the

results of the electrically heated experiments is not

observed yet. Overall, the temperature driven experiments

result in lower heat transfer coefficients and without wall

overheating due to thermal inertia of the water- heating.

AMNT 2019

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermo syphons ı Claudia Graß, Rudi Kulenovic and Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

ATHOS – Atmospheric THermosyphon cOoling


For the experimental demonstration of an operating

passive TPCT-SFP cooling system, the ATHOS facility was

set up. Two water tanks, both with a base area of 1 m 2 and

3 m height are established in a bunker facility and heated

by screw-in-heaters from the bottom to represent spent fuel

pools. The concrete ceiling of the bunker facility was

opened and an 8 m height chimney was built on top. 9 TPCT

with an inner diameter d=32 mm are installed in the chimney

in a 3 x 3 aligned bundle hanging 1.5 m deep in the

water tank pool. The filling ratio is nearly 70 % due to the

results from the laboratory experiments. In practice, each

test pipe is filled with 890 g distilled, degassed water, which

corresponds approximately 1 m hydrostatic column inside

the pipes. The TPCT evaporation section in the ATHOS

facility is 1.5 m and hence 0.5 m longer than in the laboratory

setup. Therefore, a filling ratio of 1 m water column in

the pipes corresponds to the mass inventory of 100 % filling

ratio in the laboratory setup.

Considering the arrangement of the bundle there are

three different geometric pipe positions. At the corners

with a 90° bundle surrounding, on the sides with 180°

bundle surrounding and the TPCT positioned in the

middle, which is encircled in 360° by the other pipes. For

one pipe in each position, the temperature and pressure is

measured inside the pipe to observe possible bundle effects

or variations of the operation temperature depending on

the pipe position in the bundle. The other pipes are

pinched and sealed and temperature measurements are

carried out solely on the outer pipe wall.

The limiting parameter for the heat transfer

per formance is hereby the ambient air flow through the

chimney. Therefore, additional fans were installed in the

air inlet on the bottom of the chimney. At the same time,

the ambient air temperature depends on the environmental

atmospheric conditions and is self- sufficient in the

measurements. Therefore, long-term experiments are

scheduled to cover a wide spectrum of heat sink temperature

configurations. Compared to the laboratory setup the

segmentation of the TPCT evaporation, adiabatic and

condenser section is changed. The condenser section takes

approximately half of the pipe length in the ATHOS facility

whilst the adiabatic section is almost 60 % reduced

compared to the laboratory setup. In Figure 4 the basic

setup of the ATHOS facility and the segmentation of

evaporation, adiabatic and condenser section are depicted.

As mentioned before, the ATHOS facility consists of two

water tanks. One tank in Figure 4, which is not in operation

yet, is mobile and provides the opportunity to install

inclined pipe bundles with bends and longer adiabatic


In contrast to the water-heated laboratory experiments

with forced convection flow, the water in the tanks is heated

by screw-in heaters from the side at the tank bottom to

simulate a heat source from the low level with natural convection

flow like in SFPs. The forced convection flow

through the double-pipe jacket in the laboratory leads to an

increase of the heat transfer coefficient and thus an

increased heat input in the TPCT. The water temperature in

the tanks is measured at different tank heights to observe

potential temperature layering during the experiments.


AMNT 2019


Urenco Deutschland GmbH ist ein High-Tech-Unternehmen der Urenco-Gruppe,

die in Großbritannien, Deutschland, Niederlanden und den USA Anlagen zur

Urananreicherung für die Brennstoffversorgung von Kernkraftwerken betreibt.

Für unseren Bereich „Überwachung“, Leistungseinheit „Genehmigung“

suchen wir zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt

Mitarbeiter Compliance/Licence (m/w/d)

Das Hauptaufgabengebiet umfasst u. a. folgende Tätigkeiten:

• Erstellung bzw. Fortschreibung von fachgebietsübergreifenden

technischen und organisatorischen Unterlagen

• Prüfung von Dokumenten auf Übereinstimmung mit den

Genehmigungsbescheiden bzw. -unterlagen sowie den

Festlegungen der Aufsichtsbehörde

• Koordination und Verfolgung der Bearbeitung von Auflagen

und sonstigen Festlegungen aus Genehmigungsbescheiden

und -unterlagen

• Unterstützung von Errichtungsmaßnahmen im Hinblick

auf die Einhaltungen von Festlegungen aus Genehmigungen

und der Aufsichtsbehörde

• Koordination und Durchführung von Fachgesprächen

mit Behörden

• Aktualisierung der zugehörigen Dokumentation

Sie besitzen ein abgeschlossenes (Fach-) Hochschulstudium sowie ein ausgeprägtes

technisches Verständnis. Idealerweise verfügen Sie bereits über Kenntnisse auf dem Gebiet

der Kerntechnik, des Strahlenschutzes, des kerntechnischen Regelwerkes sowie des Bauund

Atomrechts. Darüber hinaus gehören eine hohe Kommunikations- und Teamfähigkeit,

sowie ausgeprägte Englischkenntnisse in Wort- und Schrift zu Ihren Stärken und Sie sind

sicher im Umgang mit den gängigen MS-Office Anwendungen.

Unser Angebot:

• Basis ist der Tarifvertrag der chemischen Industrie, Zusatzleistungen

wie betriebliche Altersversorgung, Weihnachtsgeld, Urlaubsgeld, Sonderzahlungen

und Erfolgsbeteiligung sind für uns selbstverständlich

• Flexible Arbeitszeitmodelle bringen Projekte und Privatleben in Einklang

• Ihre Gesundheit liegt uns am Herzen: zusätzliche Unfall- und Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherungen

sind für uns Standard

• Unser Unternehmens-Spirit – ein sehr gutes Betriebsklima, das erlebbar ist.





ID 0091004215

Ihre aussagekräftigen Bewerbungsunterlagen inkl. Angabe Ihres frühestmöglichen

Eintrittstermins und Ihrem Gehaltswunsch senden Sie bitte an:

Urenco Deutschland GmbH ı Postfach 19 61 ı 48599 Gronau


AMNT 2019

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermo syphons ı Claudia Graß, Rudi Kulenovic and Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


AMNT 2019

| | Fig. 4.

Technical sketch of ATHOS facility (left) and picture of 3 x 3 TPCT bundle condenser section installed

in ATHOS chimney (right).

The major modification to laboratory experiments is

the shift to an atmospheric ultimate heat sink. The heat

transfer coefficient at ambient air flow conditions is

expected between 5 to 45 W/(m 2 K), depending on the air

flow velocity in the chimney. The laboratory measurements

result in heat transfer coefficients 100 times higher using

water as heat sink. Hence, the performance of TPCT is

determined by the heat sink, the heat transfer of the pipe

bundle is estimated by one order of magnitude below the

laboratory measurements so far.

In Figure 5 the thermal operation of one cornerpositioned

TPCT in the ATHOS facility is compared to

previous water-heated laboratory experiments. Both

experiments are performed at 60 °C heating temperature

and about 10 °C heat sink temperature. The shown temperatures

in the graphs are measured nearly at the same TPCT

heights. As mentioned before, it has to be considered that

the segmentation of evaporation, adiabatic and condenser

section is different for both configurations. The beginning

and end of the TPCTs adiabatic section in ATHOS is

measured at 2000 mm and 5000 mm from the lower pipe

end. Whereas the ATHOS temperatures are measured

mainly along the condenser section, the measurements at

the same heights in the laboratory setup are along the

adiabatic section. The shown temperatures at 9500 mm

and 10000 mm in the right graph envelop the double-pipe

cooler condenser section of the laboratory setup.

It is noticeable, that the temperatures in the ATHOS

pipe are stable over the measurement time. The water

temperature at the evaporator end is approximately 60 °C

in the TPCT and enters with nearly 50 °C the adiabatic

section (2000 mm). The temperature at the condenser end

(10000 mm) is still around 45 °C. The laboratory measurements

shows a pulsating TPCT operation. Especially the

temperature measured in the condenser section fluctuates

between the heat sink temperature (10 °C) and the average

adiabatic temperature (30 °C). In general, the ATHOS pipe

operates at higher temperatures. On the one hand, the

heat transfer coefficient of the heat source and therefore

the heat input is lower due to the natural convection flow

in the ATHOS water tank by contrast with the forced

convection flow through the double-pipe heater in the

laboratory setup. Otherwise, the heat transfer coefficient

of the heat sink and thus the heat output is magnitudes less

with ambient air and the condensate temperature is 25 K

higher in ATHOS although the heat sink temperature is

nearly the same. The average temperatures of the experiments

shown in Figure 5 are listed in Table 1.

The heat flow rate of TPCT in the laboratory experiment

is 1350 W, calculated from the mass flow and the

temperatures in the secondary cooling circuit. The

determination of the TPCT heat transfer performance in

the ATHOS facility is quite complex and a comprehensive

energy balance is presently elaborated but not finished yet.

Nevertheless, a first rough estimate based on the heating

power of the water tank and considering heat losses to the

environment and a heat transfer distribution over the 3 x 3

TPCT bundle yields to a transferred heat of about 350 W

per TPCT, which is only 26 % compared to the water-cooled

laboratory experiment.

| | Fig. 5.

Temperature sequence for one hour measurement time in ATHOS facility, pipe in corner position (left) and in water-heated laboratory setup (right).

Position Evap. 2000 mm 5000 mm 7500 mm 9500 mm 10000 mm Cond. Sink

ATHOS 60.1 52.4 51.6 48.4 49.1 43.7 47.1 7.5

Laboratory 54.1 34.2 33.8 33.4 33.3 17.3 19.6 10.2

| | Tab. 1.

Average temperatures [°C] of ATHOS and laboratory setup for TPCT d=32 mm, 70 % filling ratio, 60 °C heat source and 10 °C heat sink.

AMNT 2019

Atmospheric Spent Fuel Pool Cooling by Passive Two-Phase Closed Thermo syphons ı Claudia Graß, Rudi Kulenovic and Jörg Starflinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


The functionality and thermal operation of TPCTs for

various boundary conditions were experimentally investigated.

The direct electric heating experiments show that

with increasing heat input the thermal pulsating operation

of TPCTs stabilizes and minor pipe diameters operate at

lower evaporation temperatures. In the water-heated experiments,

a heat transfer up to 2 kW by a single TPCT was

reached at 60 °C heat source temperature depending on

the heat sink temperature.

Experiments in the ATHOS facility proved successfully

the functionality and applicability of long-length TPCTs for

passive spent fuel pool cooling at 60 °C pool temperature.

Although the removed heat is with approximately 350 W per

TPCT quite low, it has to be considered that these experiments

are performed for conservative basic con figuration. The

optimization of the condenser section for example by enlargement

of the condenser area by fins or airflow arrangements

in the chimney is essential for a final application.


| | A. Faghri, Heat Pipes Science and Technology, Taylor&Francis, London, 1995, ISBN 1560323833

| | D.A. Reay, P.A. Kew, Heat pipes: theory, design and applications, 2006, ISBN 9780080982663

| | M. Groll, S. Rösler, Operation Principles and Performance of Heat Pipes and Closed Two-Phase

Thermosyphons, J. Non-Equilib. Thermosyn. (17), 91-151, 1992

| | Z. Xiong, C. Ye, M. Wang, H. Gu, “Experimental study on the sub-atmospheric loop heat pipe passive

cooling system for spent fuel pool”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2015, 79, pp. 40-47

| | C. Graß, R. Kulenovic, J. Starflinger, “Experimental Investigation on Passive Heat Transfer by Long

Closed Two-Phase Thermosiphons”, Int. J. for Nuclear Power, Vol. 62, 2017, Issue 7, pp. 481-485

| | C. Graß, R. Kulenovic, J. Starflinger, Experimental study on heat transfer characteristics of long twophase

closed thermosiphons related to passive spent fuel pool cooling, Proceedings of Joint 19 th

International Heat Pipe Conference and 13 th International Heat Pipe Symposium, Pisa, 2018


Claudia Graß

Rudi Kulenovic

Prof. Jörg Starflinger

Universität Stuttgart

Institut für Kernenergetik und Energiesysteme

Abteilung Energiewandlung und Wärmetechnik

Pfaffenwaldring 31

70569 Stuttgart


AMNT 2019


The presented work is funded by the German Federal

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi, project

no. 1501515) on the basis of a decision by the German


Analytical Model for the Investigation

of the Out-of-Plane Behavior

of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

Moritz Lönhoff, Lukas Helm and Hamid Sadegh-Azar

Introduction & Objective Load-bearing and non-load-bearing unreinforced masonry (URM) is used for many

types of buildings in Europe and all over the world. In nuclear power plants (NPP), non-load-bearing partition walls are

often built as URM. While for ordinary building structures, static load-bearing capacity verification is sufficient in many

cases, for NPP’s there are high requirements on the earthquake-resistant design. The building structure itself as well as

substructures and secondary structures need to be stable in case of an earthquake. Although, in most cases, only

secondary non-safety relevant elements or structures (e.g. cable trays or piping systems) are anchored or fixed to

partition walls, their collapse however can be a risk for safety relevant structures and components, due to falling debris

or sequential effects (Class IIa structures/components according to KTA 2201.1 [1]). Therefore, it must be verified that

there is no risk of collapsing walls or falling debris. For this purpose, in-plane and out-of-plane (Figure 1) load-bearing

capacities are required to be determined. Since the out-of-plane capacity (stability transverse to the plane) often is

decisive in an earthquake scenario, it is investigated here.

Young Scientists



Moritz Lönhoff

was awarded with

the 3 rd price of the

50 th Annual Meeting

on Nuclear Technology

(AMNT 2019) Young

Scientists Workshop.

According to the German code DIN EN 1996 [2] and guideline

KTA 2201.3 [1], simple force-based quasi-static methods,

using the peak ground acceleration (PGA) as an input

| | Fig. 1.

URM in-plane and out-of-plane failure modes.

parameter are recommended for the seismic design and

evaluation of masonry walls. More advanced energy- and

displacement-based models are available in the literature.

Investigations [3, 4] have already shown that the actual

seismic load-bearing capacity of URM walls can be higher

than the one predicted using simplified models. However,

disregarding important influencing parameters can lead to

unnecessary and uneconomical rehabilitation of existing

masonry or replacement by other construction types.

For this purpose, based on the findings from analytical,

numerical and experimental investigations on the out- ofplane

behavior of URM walls conducted at the TU

Kaiserslautern (TUK), an analytical model to determine

the force-displacement- relationship considering key

influencing factors is developed. The state of the art,

conducted investigations and the developed analytical

model are briefly presented in this paper.

Analytical Model for the Investigation of the Out-of-Plane Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

AMNT 2019

ı Moritz Lönhoff, Lukas Helm and Hamid Sadegh-Azar

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


AMNT 2019

State of the art in science and technology

The out-of-plane behavior of URM walls has been the

subject of various research studies over recent decades in

several countries (e.g. [5–10]). Different influencing

parameters as well as construction and brick types were

studied. The experimental investigations of Dafnis et al.

[11], Meisl et al. [12] and Dazio [13] focused, in particular,

on the effect of the boundary conditions on the

out-of-plane behavior of URM walls. One of the conclusions

of their research was that the connection at the top of

the wall should be considered as one of the most important

boundary conditions.

In practical applications, the models of Paulay and

Priestley [14] and Griffith et al. [15–17] as well as the

models from KTA 2201.3 [1] and DIN EN 1996 [2] are

often used.

In analytical and numerical investigations conducted at

the TUK, those simplified analytical models have been

evaluated. For this purpose, the dimensions of the wall as

well as the properties of masonry and mortar from [11]

were used while the height as well as vertical load has been

varied. Additionally, a numerical model to investigate the

behavior of a URM wall under earthquake loads was

developed. For the numerical model, a reinforced concrete

ceiling was considered at the top of the wall in the nonlinear

dynamic time-history analyses. The results of the

considered simplified analytical models and the numerical

model showed a wide range of estimations of the loadbearing

capacity, especially in case of very low vertical

loads. In all cases, the numerical analyses led to higher

| | Fig. 2.

Experimental dynamic seismic testing of the AAC block wall on the shaking table

at the TUK / analytical and experimental capacity acceleration.

| | Fig. 3.

Geometric dependencies / Pivot point at the bottom.

capacities than the simplified analytical models. In case

of a vertically loaded wall, the factor was 2-3. In case of

vertically unloaded walls up to 8.

As one of the reasons for the higher capacities in the

numerical simulation, the vertical stiffness due to the

concrete ceiling was identified. During the rocking process,

the wall center moves horizontally, leading to a rotation of

the bricks. This results in an axial elongation of the wall,

which increases the axial load acting on the wall and has a

stabilizing effect. For more details on the analytical and

numerical models and the conducted investigations, see


To verify the results obtained from analytical and

numerical analyses, shaking table tests have been conducted

at the TUK with URM walls from heat insulating

clay bricks [19] and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)

blocks [20]. The investigations confirmed the large

influence of the vertical stiffness of the upper boundary on

the out-of-plane capacity. While the analytical model of

Griffith et al. led to good estimations of the capacity in case

of no vertical stiffness, all models underestimate the

capacity in case of vertical stiffness present at the upper

support, since this stiffness is neglected in those methods

(Figure 2).

Development of analytical model

The rocking of masonry walls under earthquake loads

represents a non-linear time-dependent process. It is

therefore ideally represented by a non-linear, dynamic

time-history simulation. However, a discrete modelling of

complete wall systems including bricks, mortar joints,

boundary conditions etc. is usually not feasible in practice.

To determine the out-of-plane capacity more precise than

simplified analytical methods without using complex

models, an idealization to an equivalent single-degree- offreedom

(SDOF) system can be used. Since the vertical

stiffness at the upper support was identified as a significant

influencing factor in the described investigations and it is

not considered in existing models, an analytical model to

determine the out-of-plane force-displacement relationship

of URM walls is developed. For this purpose, the wall

is simplified similar to the models of Griffith and Paulay

and Priestley by two rigid slabs. The support conditions,

the crack height, vertical loads and the vertical stiffness at

the top boundary are considered.

From the geometric relations, the deformations of the

wall can be determined and the work can be determined

using the principle of virtual work. The external work d A a

consists of the external load and the inertia of mass. The

earthquake load at the base causes the displacement of the

mass in horizontal and vertical direction. The inner work

d A i consists of the vertical displacement of the mass

against gravity acceleration, the axial load and the vertical

stiffness of the top support.

By incrementally increasing the displacement of the

wall and determining the associated work, the forcedisplacement

relationship can be determined. Since the

real deformation of the wall is not an infinitesimal small

deformation, the actual geometric relations have to be

considered (Figure 3).

Instead of the simplified assumption of a crack at half

the height of the wall as in the models by Paulay and

Priestley and Griffith et al., the crack height is determined

by means of elastic beam theory. It is assumed that the wall

bends at the point where the first cracks form.

After the wall cracked, rocking of the wall around

its resting position is generated by the constant change of

AMNT 2019

Analytical Model for the Investigation of the Out-of-Plane Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

ı Moritz Lönhoff, Lukas Helm and Hamid Sadegh-Azar

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

direction of the load during earthquake excitation.

The varying strength and frequency of the excitation leads

to horizontal deflections of the wall. The rotation of

the two wall slabs results in a strongly concentrated load

on the pivot point at the bottom and crack height.

This causes a rounding of the edges of the bricks and thus

to an inward shift of the pivot point. Even before an

earthquake event, the joints are often not completely

intact up to the outermost edge of the bricks, as the joint is

already damaged during construction or the joint has

not been made up to the edge. The effective thickness of

the masonry is reduced by shifting the pivot point inwards.

With the change of the pivot point, the displacement at

which the wall fails geometrically also changes. In the

analytical models described, the pivot point is assumed to

be at the outermost edge of the brick in a simplified

manner. Since a model as realistic as possible is developed

here the position of the pivot point is also considered.

For this purpose, contact joints at the base of the wall

and in the cracked joint are applied using springs. The

position of the pivot point can thus be controlled by the

stiffness of the springs. The triangular compression of the

springs over the contact length leads to a corresponding

stress distribution (­Figure 3). The pivot point of the slabs

forms at the resultant point of this distribution. The parameter

a 1 is introduced to define the position of the pivot


Where Mg is the dead weight of the wall, O is the axial

load, E is the Young’s modulus, b is the width of the wall,

c is the stiffness of the springs and ϕ is the current rotation

angle of the slab. The position of the pivot point at crack

height a 2 is determined in the same way.

After determining the crack height and the pivot points,

all geometric relationships can be calculated and the

internal and external work can be determined. For this purpose,

the system is deflected by the angle ϕ min and the pivot

point as well as displacements are calculated. The system is

then deflected by an additional small angle Δϕ and all

displacements are determined again. From the difference

of the two calculated displacements, the distance each

point moved due to the additional rotation Δϕ is calculated:

Herein d i (ϕ)describes the displacement of point i as a

function of the rotation angle ϕ. Using the distance Δ i , the

principle of work and energy can be formed. The dead

weight of the lower slab Mgb is deformed by Δv M,bottom , the

dead weight of the upper slab Mg(1–b) by Δv M,top , where b

is the calculated relative crack height. The axial load O is

deformed by Δv e . To consider the influence of the vertical

stiffness at the upper support, the force that is generated in

the spring must first be calculated using the stiffness of the

springs K and the absolute compression of the spring d v e .

The work is then calculated by multiplying the force with

the current deformation Δv e . The force applied to the lower

slab Fb is deformed by Δh M,bottom and the force applied to

the upper slab F(1–b) is deformed by Δh M,top . From this,


AMNT 2019


Wir suchen Sie zum nächstmöglichen Termin unbefristet

Ingenieur für Entwicklung von Sondermaschinen (m/w/d)

Kennziffer: TEC 2019/04

Die BGE TECHNOLOGY GmbH ist ein national und international führendes Ingenieur- und Beratungsunternehmen mit den

Schwerpunkten Bergbau und Spezialmaschinenbau sowie Geotechnik, Geowissenschaften und Kerntechnik mit Sitz in Peine.

Ihr abwechslungsreiches Aufgabengebiet:

Grundlagenforschung zur Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle

Entwicklung von Maschinen zur Handhabung radioaktiver Abfälle

unter Tage

Mitarbeit in Genehmigungsverfahren

Unser Angebot:

Eine interessante und herausfordernde Tätigkeit

Ein modernes und von Respekt geprägtes Arbeitsumfeld

Außergewöhnliche Herausforderungen an den Schnittstellen von

Sondermaschinenbau, Kerntechnik und Bergbau

Ein motiviertes, interdisziplinär arbeitendes Team

Eine zielgerichtete Fort- und Weiterbildung

Eine gute Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie

Das bringen Sie mit:

Erfolgreich abgeschlossenes Studium des Maschinenbaus, der Kerntechnik

o. ä. (M.Sc. / Diplom)

Erfahrung in der Kerntechnik und im Strahlenschutz oder

Erfahrung in Entwicklung und Konstruktion im Sondermaschinenbau

Damit überzeugen Sie uns:

Teamfähigkeit, selbstständige Arbeitsweise und Eigeninitiative sind

uns wichtig

Außerdem sind folgende Eigenschaften wünschenswert:

Sie konzentrieren sich auf das Wesentliche

Sie sind ein guter Netzwerker und suchen Chancen und Kontakte

Sie suchen kreativ nach neuen Ideen und Lösungen

Sie haben ein gutes Urteilsvermögen und denken analytisch

Sie sehen sich als Spezialisten und sind an den fachlichen Details


Bei Interesse senden Sie uns bitte Ihre vollständigen Bewerbungsunterlagen unter Angabe der Kennziffer und Ihres frühestmöglichen

Eintrittsdatums per E-Mail als pdf-Datei mit max. 15 MB an oder an

BGE TECHNOLOGY GmbH, Personalabteilung, Eschenstraße 55, 31224 Peine

BGE Anzeige atw 179x124.indd 1 AMNT 2019

15.08.19 19:37

atw Stellenanzeige BGE TECHNOLOGY GmbH A5.pdf 1 02.08.19 11:57

Analytical Model for the Investigation of the Out-of-Plane Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls ı Moritz Lönhoff, Lukas Helm and Hamid Sadegh-Azar

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


AMNT 2019

the force F can now be determined as a function of the

horizontal displacement at crack height d h:

The rotation Δϕ and thus of the displacement at crack

height d h is increased until the corresponding force F

becomes negative and thus the geometric stability limit of

the wall is found.

For a generic example, a 2.50 m high and 0.20 m thick

wall is considered. The crack height is set to half the wall

height in order to obtain results that are comparable with

the model of Griffith. Figure 4 shows the force-displacement-curve

according to Griffith for different degrees of

joint degradation (new, moderate and severe).

The introduced parameter c, which describes the contact

stiffness between the joints at the bottom and crack

height, must be chosen here, as it is not known. In Figure 4,

it can be seen that different values for c strongly influence

the stiffness of the wall. If a high value is assumed, the

curve is close to the ideal deformation of rigid slabs. For

lower values, the stiffness decreases significantly. The

parameter is comparable to the experimentally determined

degradation of the joint described by Griffith, but

has the significant advantage that it does not require two

points to define a plateau. Instead, the model inevitably

leads to a continuous force-displacement-curve by taking

into account the change in position of the pivot point. In

addition, the parameter can be selected arbitrarily and

thus all states of the joint and other factors influencing the

position of the pivot point can be considered. Furthermore,

it can be observed that the failure displacement

decreases due to lower contact stiffness. This is also due to

the shift of the pivot point from the edge point of the bricks

to the inside.

| | Fig. 4.

Comparison of the force-displacement-relationship from the new model

with varying stiffness c and the method of Griffith

based on the division of the wall into two rigid slabs. From

this, the geometric dependencies are calculated and the

internal and external work is calculated. This leads to a

continuous force-displacement curve that comparable to

curves from Griffith’s model.

In the further course of the project, the determined

curve will be verified with experimental pushover tests.

After verification and calibration, the model will be used to

simulate the conducted shaking table tests using nonlinear

single-degree-of-freedom systems.


The ongoing project is supported by the Federal Ministry

for Economic Affairs and Energy by resolution of the

German Bundestag.


[1] Nuclear Safety Standards Commission KTA 2201, Parts 1-6: Design of Nuclear Power Plants

against Seismic Events, 2011-2015

[2] DIN EN 1996-1-1: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced

and unreinforced masonry structures; German version EN 1996-1-1:2005+A1:2012, Feb. 2013

[3] Doherty, K.; Griffith, M. C.; Lam, N.; Wilson, J.: Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-ofplane

bending of unreinforced masonry wall, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 2002.

[4] Lönhoff, M.; Sadegh-Azar, H.; Meyer, U.: Investigation of the seismic out-of-plane behaviour of

unreinforced masonry walls, Mauerwerk, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 385-390, 2018.

[5] Kariotis et al.: Methodology for mitigation of seismic hazards in existing unreinforced masonry

buildings: wall testing, out-of-plane. Technical Report ABK-TR-04, ABK, A Joint Venture, USA, 1981.

[6] Dawe, J. L.; Seah, C. K.: Out-of-plane resistance of concrete masonry infilled panels, University of

New Brunswick, 1989.

[7] Angel, R.; Abrams, Daniel P.; Shapiro, D.; Uzarski, J.; Webster, M.: Behavior of Rein-forced

Concrete Frames with Masonry Infills, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Civil

Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series 589, 1994.

[8] Flanagan, R. D.; Bennett, R. M.: Arching of Masonry Infilled Frames: Comparison of Analytical

Methods, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Bd. 4, pp. 105-110, August 1999.

[9] Penner, O. and Elwood, K. J.: Out-of-Plane Dynamic Stability of Unreinforced Masonry Walls in

One-Way, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1675–1697, 2016.

[10] Tondelli, M.; Beyer, K.; DeJong, M.: Influence of Boundary Conditions on the Out-of-Plane

Response of Brick Masonry Walls in Buildings with RC Slabs, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.,

pp. 1337-1356, 2016.

[11] Dafnis, A; Kolsch, H.; Reimerdes, H.-G.: Arching in Masonry Walls Subjected to Earthquake

Motions, Journal of Structural Engineering, 2002.

[12] Meisl et al.: Shake table tests on the out-of-plane response of unreinforced masonry,

10 th Canadian Masonry Symposium, 2005.

[13] Dazio, A.: The Effect of the Boundary Conditions on the Out-Of-Plane Behavior of Un-reinforced

Masonry Walls, 14WCEE, 2008.

[14] Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,

Wiley & Sons, 1992.

[15] Doherty, K. T.; Rodolico, K. T.; Lam, N.; Wilson, J.; Griffith, M. O.: The Modeling of Earthquake

induced Collapse of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Combining Force and Dis-placement Principals,

12WCEE, 2000.

[16] Doherty, K.; Griffith, M.; Lam, N.; Wilson, J.: Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-of-plane

bending of unreinforced masonry walls, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

Vol. 31, pp. 833-850, 2002.

[17] Griffith, M. C.; Lam, N.; Wilson, J.: Experimental Investigation of Unreinforced Brick Masonry

Walls in Flexure, Journal of Structural Engineering, March 2004.

[18] Lönhoff, M.; Dobrowolski, C.; Sadegh-Azar, H.: Analyse des out-of-plane-Verhaltens von

unbewehrten Mauerwerkswänden, Proceedings of the 15 th D-A-CH-Conference: Earthquake

Engineering and Dynamics, S. 419-427, 2017.

[19] Lönhoff, M.; Sadegh-Azar, H.: Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Out-Of-Plane Capacity

of Unreinforced Masonry Walls, Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Thessaloniki, Greece, 2018.

[20] Lönhoff, M.; Sadegh-Azar, H.: Seismic out-of-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry walls, Proceedings

of the 6th International Conference on Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Potsdam, Germany, 2018.

Conclusion and Outlook

In the comparison of commonly used simplified analytical

methods from codes, guidelines and literature with

numerical simulations, a significant underestimation of

the load-bearing capacity in the simplified methods is

shown when a vertical stiffness is present at the top

boundary. The results are confirmed in experimental

shaking table tests with heat insulating clay brick and

autoclaved aerated concrete block masonry walls.

Since the vertical stiffness is not considered in existing

models a new analytical method is developed that considers

this important parameter. In addition, the crack

height and pivot point is taken into account. The model is


Moritz Lönhoff

Lukas Helm

Hamid Sadegh-Azar

Institute of Structural Analysis and Dynamics

Department of Civil Engineering

TU Kaiserslautern (TUK)

67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany

AMNT 2019

Analytical Model for the Investigation of the Out-of-Plane Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

ı Moritz Lönhoff, Lukas Helm and Hamid Sadegh-Azar

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Liebe KTG-Mitglieder,

beim Blick in die Nachrichten kann man sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, dass wir in einer Zeit des Umbruchs

leben: im Automobilbereich, in der Informationstechnik, im Bankenwesen, bald wohl auch in der Tourismusbranche

und noch ganz frisch: der Kohleausstieg. Wir als kerntechnische Branche können das „mit Erfahrung“ betrachten, denn

wir haben eine derart gewaltige – um nicht zu sagen historische – Veränderung bereits hinter uns.

Mittlerweile liegt der Ausstiegsbeschluss

acht Jahre zurück und

seitdem ist in der deutschen Kerntechnik

kaum ein Stein auf dem

anderen geblieben. Die Energieversorger

haben sich – nicht nur

aufgrund des Kernenergie- Ausstiegs

– neu sortiert und aufgestellt.

Aktuell sind noch sieben

Anlagen am Netz, aber die weniger

als drei einhalb Jahre bis zur gesetzlich festgelegten

Abschaltung der letzten Kraftwerke sind schon jetzt durchgeplant.

Der nostalgische Rückblick „auf bessere Zeiten“

lässt sich zwar nie ganz vermeiden, bringt uns aber nicht


Für die Kerntechnik in Deutschland sind die Weichen

weitgehend gestellt und die Verantwortungen verteilt. Mit

dem Endlagersuchprozess und der Neuordnung der Verantwortung

für die kerntechnische Entsorgung ist der

Fahrplan in Deutschland definiert: Der Staat ist weiterhin

verantwortlich für Errichtung und Betrieb der Endlagerung

sowie nun auch für die notwendige Zwischenlagerung

bis zu Verfügbarkeit der Endlager. Die Kraftwerksbetreiber

und Abfallverursacher müssen ihre

Anlagen zurückbauen und ihre Abfälle fachgerecht verpacken.

Der jahrzehntelange Zankapfel der „ungelösten

Entsorgung“ ist damit – zumindest theoretisch – vom


Mit den staatlichen Unternehmen BGZ für die

Zwischen lagerung und BGE für die Endlagerung wird

dieser neuen Verantwortungsverteilung auch strukturell

Rechnung getragen und es sind zwei schlagkräftige

Organisationen etabliert worden. Der BGZ gehören schon

heute die zentralen Zwischenlager in Ahaus und Gorleben,

die Brennelementläger an den Kraftwerksstandorten und

zum kommenden Jahreswechsel wird sie auch die dortigen

Läger für schwach- und mittelaktive Abfälle übernehmen.

Hier sind bei weitem nicht nur Immobilien und Behälter

übergegangen, sondern vor allem auch sachkundige

Mitarbeiter, die künftig für den Staat die sichere Zwischenlagerung

und Entsorgung gewährleisten werden. Und mit

der Zusammenlegung und Umbenennung der bisherigen

Branchenverbände WKK und DAtF zu KernD hat sich auch

die Industrieseite neu aufgestellt.

Diese in wenigen Jahren von Grund auf neugeschaffene

Struktur wird nun über viele Jahre und wohl auch Jahrzehnte

Bestand haben. Das schafft Planungssicherheit für

Unternehmen ebenso wie für die Mitarbeiter. Aufgrund

der langfristigen Projekte, an denen Betreiber, Lieferanten

und Dienstleister ebenso wie Gutachter und Behörden

gemeinschaftlich beteiligt sind, herrscht schon jetzt ein

immenser Bedarf an Fachkräften. Und dieser Bedarf wird

weit über die letzten Abschaltungen noch für Jahrzehnte

bestehen. In Deutschland ist unsere Branche damit zwar

eindeutig „endlich“, aber noch längst nicht „tot“. Das

macht auch für junge Menschen den Einstieg in die Kerntechnik


Wichtig für diese Attraktivität ist aber auch, dass wir

die alten Grabenkämpfe hinter uns lassen. Wir sind schon

jetzt auf einem guten Weg, eine „normale Branche“ zu

werden. Den Ausstiegsbeschluss müssen wir nicht mehr

diskutieren. Wer heute sein Studium abschließt, hat es in

der Regel „nach Fukushima“ und dem Ausstiegsbeschluss

in Deutschland begonnen! Und wer sich heute nach dem

Abitur einen Studiengang aussucht, war 2011 wohl gerade

10 Jahre alt.

Für viele „alte Hasen“ mag so manche Umstrukturierung

noch immer befremdlich wirken. Aber genau diese

neuen Strukturen sind die Basis für ein konstruktives

Zusammenarbeiten aller Beteiligten von EVU bis BGE.

Denn ohne Zweifel gilt, dass die noch vor uns liegenden

großen Aufgaben von Stilllegung, Rückbau, Zwischenlagerung

bis hin zur Endlagerung nur gemeinsam bewältigt

werden können: Betreiber, Lieferanten, Behörden, Sachverständige,

BGZ und BGE müssen lösungsorientiert

zusammenwirken, um unter Einhaltung der hohen Sicherheitsstandards

effektive und effiziente Entsorgungslösungen


Unsere Branche samt der unverändert sehr leistungsfähigen

Forschungseinrichtungen hat in Deutschland über

lange Zeit nicht nur genug zu tun, sondern auch attraktive

Aufgaben zu lösen. Dies bildet im Übrigen auch eine

hervorragende Basis, um die eigenen Kompetenzen und

Leistungen auch im Ausland erfolgreich zu vermarkten.




Dr. Jens Schröder


KTG Inside


für den Inhalt:

Die Autoren.


Natalija Cobanov,


Gesellschaft e. V.


Robert-Koch-Platz 4

10115 Berlin

T: +49 30 498555-50

F: +49 30 498555-51





KTG Inside

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Herzlichen Glückwunsch!



Wenn Sie künftig eine

Erwähnung Ihres

Geburtstages in der

atw wünschen, teilen

Sie dies bitte der KTG-

Geschäftsstelle mit.

Die KTG gratuliert ihren Mitgliedern sehr herzlich zum Geburtstag

und wünscht ihnen weiterhin alles Gute!

September 2019

55 Jahre | 1964

16. Mathias Bräsel. Preetz

65 Jahre | 1954

6. Alfons Braun, Geeste

16. MinDirig Dr. Gerhard Feige, Hannover

70 Jahre | 1949

6. Manfred Erve, Oberasbach

21. Otto Zach, Erlangen

28. Matthias Holl, Essen

78 Jahre | 1941

5. Prof. Dr. Manfred Popp, Karlsruhe

14. Dr. José Lopez-Jimenez, Majadahonda/ES

82 Jahre | 1937

22. Dr. Uwe Schmidt, Obertshausen

83 Jahre | 1936

7. Dr. Harald Stöber, Eggenstein-Leopoldsh.

84 Jahre |1935

27. Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Kleefeldt,


85 Jahre | 1934

13. Dipl.-Phys. Veit Ringel, Dresden

30. Dr. Klaus Ebel, Ingersleben OT Morsleben

86 Jahre | 1933

17. Dr. Ing.Manfred Mach, Breitenfelde

88 Jahre | 1931

22. Dipl.-Ing. Ludwig Seyfferth, Egelsbach

Oktober 2019

40 Jahre | 1979

19. Tobias Schmidt, Essen

55 Jahre | 1964

7. Albert Ali Schaftner, Landshut

60 Jahre | 1959

9. Dr.-Ing. Bernd Klüver, Hemmingen

65 Jahre | 1954

30. Prof. Dr. Hans-Dieter Berger, Marlofstein

70 Jahre | 1949

14. Ludwig Loehr, Neunkirchen

75 Jahre | 1944

2. Arnulf Renner, Sprendlingen

7. Siegfried Bantle, Dietenhofen

76 Jahre | 1943

4. Klaus Günther, Bergisch Gladbach

79 Jahre | 1940

24. Dr. Peter Wirtz, Eggenstein-Leopoldsh.

80 Jahre | 1939

5. Dipl.-Ing. Günter Langetepe, Karlsruhe

82 Jahre | 1937

21. Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Hendl, Freigericht

83 Jahre | 1936

10. Hans-Jürgen Rokita, Schnakenbek

91 Jahre | 1928

8. Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Rothe, Möhrendorf

92 Jahre | 1927

23. Dr. Helmut Krause, Bad Herrenalb

2. Mai 2019 ı

Dr. Roland Beeselt


1. Juli 2019 ı

Dr. Heinz-Günther Sonnenburg


6. Juli 2019 ı

Dr. Ludwig Lindner


Die KTG verliert in ihnen langjährige

aktive Mitglieder, denen sie ein

ehrendes Andenken bewahren wird.

Ihren Familien gilt unsere Anteilnahme.

Die Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG)

trauert um sein Vereinsmitglied

Herrn Dr. Ludwig Lindner

der uns seit 1997 mit seiner Treue und Interesse am Verein

seine Unterstützung erwiesen hat.

Hierfür gebührt ihm unser Dank und unsere Anerkennung.

Wir werden sein Gedenken stets in Ehren halten.

Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG)

Der Vorstand

Nichts bleibt wie es ist.

Wir, die Fachgruppe Nutzen der Kerntechnik und Energiesysteme in der

KTG e.V. trauern um unser Ehrenmitglied und langjährigen Sprecher

Dr. Ludwig Lindner

Kämpferisch trat er für die friedliche Nutzung der Kernenergie und eine sinnvolle

Energienutzung ein, forderte von sich und seinen Mitstreitern Exaktheit

und die direkte Auseinander setzung mit den „Argumenten“ der Gegner.

Am 6. Juli 2019 ist er im Kreise seiner Familie

nach langer, schwerer Krankheit von uns gegangen.

Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG)

Der Vorstand der Fachgruppe

KTG Inside

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


FORATOM highlights importance

of long-term operation

of existing nuclear fleet

(foratom) Ensuring the long-term

operation (LTO) of the European

nuclear fleet will help Europe achieve

its climate goals at an affordable cost,

according to a position paper issued

today by FORATOM.

“The intermediate decarbonisation

targets in the transition towards 2050

cannot be achieved without the LTO

of existing nuclear power plants”, says

Yves Desbazeille, FORATOM Director

General. “In fact, if the EU were to

invest in maintaining a fully operational

nuclear fleet over this period,

58 % of its electricity would come

from low-carbon sources by 2030 –

making it the global leader on climate

change policy. If not, the share would

drop to 38 %, increasing the cumulative

emissions by around 1,500 million

tonnes of CO 2 by 2030”.

Meeting the EU’s ambition to

decarbonize its economy will require

using all low-carbon sources and the

LTO of the existing nuclear fleet will

have a significant impact on this

transition. An increasing number of

experts recognise that nuclear will

have to play an important role if the

world is to reach its CO 2 reduction

targets by mid-century. This means

investing in Europe in both LTO and

the construction of substantial new

nuclear capacity (around 100 GW of

nuclear new build). Both are achievable

if EU institutions, Member States

and the European nuclear industry

work together in partnership.

LTO offers numerous benefits.

For example, it is economically advantageous

compared to other power

sources. This is because it requires a

much lower capital investment cost,

leading to low investment risks for

investors and capital markets, and

lower consumer costs. Furthermore,

it reduces the EU’s energy import

dependency on, primarily, fossil fuels

and provides reliability to the grid. In

addition, LTO helps the industry

maintain and upgrade the competences

of operators and suppliers,

which will allow it to prepare for the

renewal of the fleet in the future.

In order to ensure that Europe can

make the most of the benefits offered

by the LTO of existing nuclear reactors,

FORATOM has put forward the

following policy recommendations:


Ensure a coherent, consistent

and stable EU policy framework

(including Euratom).


Agree an ambitious net-zero CO 2

emissions target for the EU in

2050, in line with the European

Commission’s long-term vision for

a climate neutral economy.


Develop and implement a strong

industrial strategy to ensure that

Europe maintains its technological



Support human competences


The position paper is available for


| |


IAEA highlights the role of

nuclear applications in

support of climate adaptation

and mitigation

(iaea) The IAEA highlighted the

contributions made by nuclear science

and technology at a major United

Nations Forum in New York and

outlined how it supports countries in

combatting the effects of climate


The 2019 UN High Level Political

Forum is the United Nations’ central

platform for following up and reviewing

the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, which includes the

Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs). The annual event provides

Member States, UN organizations and

stakeholders with an opportunity to assess

achievements, share experiences

and increase global cooperation for the

universal call to action.

Focusing this year on “Empowering

people and ensuring inclusiveness

and equality”, the eight day event

reviewed six of the 17 SDGs over 33

meetings, 156 side-events, eight

special events, 36 exhibitions and 17

Voluntary National Review laboratories.

The event brought together more

than 2000 participants, including

more than 125 Heads and Deputy

Heads of States and ministerial level

officials, and 130 speakers in panels.

The review of SDG 13 to combat

climate change highlighted the critical

challenge to meeting the Global Goals

posed by global warming. “Climate

change is perhaps the greatest challenge

to sustainable development,”

said Wei Huang of the IAEA’s Department

of Nuclear Energy. “To help

mitigate the impact of climate change,

the IAEA is supporting around 150

Member States, those with or without

nuclear power, to build and maintain

local capacity to develop and

implement sustainable energy and

mitigation policies.”

The IAEA’s technical cooperation

programme provides expert assistance

to monitor and help Member

States adapt to the effects of climate

change on their environment and

habitats. The IAEA also provides

capacity building in the application of

nuclear technology to improve food

security and manage water resources

as well as to protect biodiversity in a

changing environment.

Recent examples included the

management of freshwater and

agricultural systems, advice on developing

climate-smart agricultural

methods, and support to monitor

ocean pollutants and acidification.

The Forum acknowledged the

essential importance of planning,

funding and managing gender issues

across all aspects of the SDGs when

working towards individual targets.

In addition, Forum participants

highlighted the importance of working

together for the achievements

of the Goals, and of avoiding a ‘silo


“In this regard, partnerships are

essential to the work of the IAEA, by

further amplifying the reach of

nuclear science and technology,” said

Laura Vai, from the IAEA’s Department

of Technical Cooperation.

“ Partnerships allow us to build on

each other’s strengths, to work with a

greater focus in a complementary

manner. Ultimately we can support

Member States to achieve a bigger impact

with more sustainable results.”

In connection to the ongoing

campaign to understand and address

climate change, the IAEA will host the

first International Conference on

Climate Change and the Role of

Nuclear Power in October 2019 in

Vienna. The Conference will provide a

platform to discuss the scientific and

technical aspects of the role of nuclear

power, including both opportunities

and challenges in combating climate


| |


UK Government to provide

£18 million for innovative

Mini Nuclear Plants

(nucnet) In a further boost to the

nuclear sector, the British government

has announced that it proposing to

invest up to £ 18 m of government

money in the creation of innovative




atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Operating Results March 2019



Plant name Country Nominal











Energy generated, gross


Month Year Since


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Month Year Month Year

OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 743 681 152 1 983 493 263 638 701 100.00 100.00 99.05 99.27 99.65 99.86

OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 743 684 858 1 992 173 253 888 716 100.00 100.00 99.79 99.90 100.19 100.30

KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 743 379 224 3 370 923 165 092 612 99.72 92.14 99.44 91.99 99.93 92.61

KKB 1 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 743 286 176 832 085 128 166 195 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.43 101.48

KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 743 284 557 827 318 135 177 725 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.83 100.85

KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 743 790 874 2 245 995 316 121 523 100.00 98.05 99.99 97.49 100.42 98.14

KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 743 286 890 831 110 128 235 425 100.00 100.00 99.95 99.66 99.01 98.71

CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 743 787 753 2 290 520 249 582 189 100.00 100.00 99.92 99.97 99.03 99.04

Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 743 366 612 1 056 915 113 286 408 100.00 99.68 100.00 99.68 98.68 97.91

Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 743 365 263 1 066 708 109 300 879 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.32 98.82

Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 743 371 350 540 224 107 038 265 100.00 51.13 100.00 50.07 99.96 50.04

Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 743 373 753 1 084 468 107 527 737 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.80 100.61 100.46

Temelin B1 1) PWR CZ 1080 1030 21 18 720 1 536 109 115 897 151 2.69 66.51 2.63 66.49 2.33 65.76

Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 733 800 101 2 350 744 111 623 261 98.65 99.54 98.43 99.46 99.52 100.63

Doel 1 2) PWR BE 454 433 484 211 011 211 011 135 655 473 65.25 22.46 59.36 20.80 60.75 21.28

Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 743 342 563 581 650 134 383 589 100.00 62.04 99.98 58.40 101.16 58.98

Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 743 792 766 2 175 268 257 307 753 100.00 93.98 99.98 93.69 100.38 94.79

Doel 4 2) PWR BE 1084 1033 743 807 273 2 288 343 262 661 753 100.00 100.00 99.00 96.28 99.00 96.35

Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 743 757 265 2 208 145 301 039 002 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.99 101.22 101.59

Tihange 2 2) PWR BE 1055 1008 0 0 0 254 651 930 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 743 803 608 2 286 663 273 513 936 100.00 99.90 99.93 97.70 99.93 97.73

Plant name












Energy generated, gross


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year


KBR Brokdorf DWR 1480 1410 743 958 769 2 795 603 353 363 413 100.00 100.00 94.28 94.25 86.82 87.12

KKE Emsland DWR 1406 1335 743 1 017 217 2 989 680 349 808 649 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.34 98.50

KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 743 1 007 351 2 943 996 380 518 210 100.00 100.00 99.86 99.91 94.25 94.81

KRB C Gundremmingen SWR 1344 1288 743 1 000 478 2 912 931 333 854 685 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.82 99.54 99.78

KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 743 1 050 124 3 131 599 356 857 412 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 94.77 97.37

GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 743 998 300 2 952 200 332 779 034 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 96.14 97.93

KKP-2 Philippsburg DWR 1468 1402 743 1 064 885 3 119 674 369 280 829 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 96.22 96.96

mini nuclear power plants which are

smaller and less expensive to build

than traditional nuclear plants.

A statement said that a consortium

led by Rolls-Royce has proposed a

significant joint investment of more

than £500m focused on designing a

first-of-a-kind small modular reactor.

“The consortium expects to more

than match any government funding

both by direct investment and by

raising funds from third-party organisations,”

the statement said.

Rolls-Royce welcomed the announcement,

saying funding from the

government will be matched in part

by contributions from the consortium

and by attracting third party investment.

“The investment is needed to

mature the design, address the considerable

manufacturing technology

requirements and to progress the

regulatory licensing process,” the

company said.

The consortium comprises Rolls-

Royce, Assystem, SNC Lavalin/Atkins,

Wood, Arup, Laing O’Rourke, BAM

Nuttall, Siemens, National Nuclear

Laboratory and Nuclear AMRC.

The government said a working

model of a new plant is expected to be

up and running in the early 2030s,

creating 40,000 jobs at its peak, with

each power station producing enough

clean energy to power 750,000 homes.

Additionally, the government is

providing up to £40m through its

advanced modular reactor (AMR)

programme and is currently considering

project bids.

Up to £ 5 m will also be provided to

the Office for Nuclear Regulation and

the Environment Agency to prepare

for SMRs and AMRs.

| |

Company News

GNS, the eleventh company

worldwide to hold ASME N3



Certified for compliance with

Class ISS requirements for cask

internals for the first time ever

(gns) GNS has earned the “Certificate

of Authorisation N3” from the

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) after successfully

undergoing a rigorous survey. A

team of about fifty GNS employees

has been involved with the preparations

for the audit in the

eighteen months leading up to it.

This certificate of authorization

enables GNS, as one of only eleven

companies worldwide, to design,

test, fabricate, inspect and deliver


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Operating Results April 2019

Plant name Country Nominal











Energy generated, gross


Month Year Since


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Month Year Month Year

OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 657 951 2 641 443 264 296 651 100.00 100.00 99.24 99.26 99.33 99.73

OL2 Olkiluoto 4) BWR FI 910 880 720 644 097 2 636 270 254 532 813 100.00 100.00 97.09 99.20 97.24 99.53

KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 720 366 440 3 737 363 165 459 052 99.48 93.97 99.47 93.86 99.60 94.36

KKB 1 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 276 529 1 108 614 128 442 724 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.10 101.39

KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 275 164 1 102 482 135 452 889 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.59 100.79

KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 720 764 609 3 010 604 316 886 132 100.00 98.54 99.99 98.11 100.19 98.65

KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 720 276 750 1 107 860 128 512 175 100.00 100.00 99.62 99.65 98.56 98.67

CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 720 762 920 3 053 440 250 345 109 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 98.98 99.03

Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 720 351 817 1 408 731 113 638 225 100.00 99.76 100.00 99.76 97.73 97.86

Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 720 350 872 1 417 581 109 651 752 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.46 98.48

Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 720 357 662 897 886 107 395 927 100.00 63.36 100.00 62.55 99.35 62.37

Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 720 360 950 1 445 419 107 888 687 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.85 100.26 100.41

Temelin B1 1) PWR CZ 1080 1030 33 24 890 1 560 999 115 922 041 4.58 51.02 3.19 50.66 3.19 50.11

Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 720 782 635 3 133 379 112 405 896 100.00 99.65 99.97 99.59 100.46 100.59

Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 720 342 894 553 904 135 998 366 100.00 41.85 99.96 40.86 102.13 41.77

Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 720 331 403 913 054 134 714 993 100.00 71.54 99.99 68.80 101.06 69.51

Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 720 771 275 2 946 542 258 079 027 100.00 95.48 99.87 95.23 100.83 96.30

Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 720 778 522 3 066 865 263 440 275 100.00 100.00 98.59 96.86 98.39 96.86

Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 720 727 993 2 936 138 301 766 995 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.39 101.29

Tihange 2 2) PWR BE 1055 1008 0 0 0 254 651 930 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 720 780 147 3 066 810 274 294 083 100.00 99.93 100.00 98.28 100.13 98.33



Plant name












Energy generated, gross


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year


KBR Brokdorf 3) DWR 1480 1410 506 665 970 3 461 573 354 029 383 70.24 92.56 65.05 86.94 62.32 80.92

KKE Emsland 4) DWR 1406 1335 720 1 000 458 3 990 138 350 809 107 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.86 98.59

KWG Grohnde 1,2) DWR 1430 1360 482 667 491 3 611 488 381 185 701 66.93 91.73 66.38 91.53 64.45 87.22

KRB C Gundremmingen 1,2,4) SWR 1344 1288 489 634 970 3 547 901 334 489 655 67.86 91.96 67.26 91.68 65.11 91.11

KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 720 1 041 003 4 172 602 357 898 415 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.99 97.04 97.29

GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 720 982 700 3 934 900 333 761 734 100.00 100.00 99.21 99.79 97.72 97.88

KKP-2 Philippsburg DWR 1468 1402 720 1 019 935 4 139 609 370 300 764 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 95.04 96.48

“Class TC” transport casks and “Class

SC” storage casks using the certification

mark. GNS is the first

company ever to have earned

certification for compliance with

Class ISS (Internal Support Structures)

requirements for internals

(such as baskets and quivers) in

accordance with the ASME Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC).

GNS having attained certification

from ASME confirms that the quality

management systems in place at GNS

have helped effectively implement

measures to meet the requirements

set out in Section III (Construction of

Nuclear Facility Components) pursuant

to the ASME BPVC and the Quality

Assurance Requirements for Nuclear

Facility Applications (NQA-1). There

are many countries where quality

assurance requirements are based on

the NQA-1 quality management

system and in several Asian countries,

such as Taiwan, Korea and Japan, this

quality assurance system has been

fully incorporated.

“While our German and numerous

European customers have adopted a

quality management system that

complies with ISO 9001:2015, other

international customers increasingly

rely on rules and regulations that are

based on US standards,” explains

Dr. Jens Schröder, Managing Director

and CTO at GNS. “As an ASME N3-type

certificate holder we are now in a

position to further explore other

international markets where this type

of certified compliance enables us to

meet the product requirements of new


| |

Science & Research

Netherlands: Government

announces progress on Pallas


(nucnet) The Dutch government has

given greenlight to the further development

of the new Pallas research reactor,

according to a statement by the

ministry of health, welfare and sport.

The statement said that “several

private investors” have expressed

their interest in the project and negotiations

are expected to start in the

forthcoming period”.

The ministry said a final agreement

on the project’s financing must be

reached in 2020 so construction can

begin in 2021, subject to the relevant

licencing process.

Health minister Bruno Bruins said

a “lot of work” remains to be done, but

the Pallas reactor is of “utmost


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September

Operating Results May 2019



Plant name Country Nominal











Energy generated, gross


Month Year Since


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Month Year Month Year

OL1 Olkiluoto 4) BWR FI 910 880 744 670 370 3 311 813 264 967 021 100.00 100.00 98.11 99.02 97.94 99.36

OL2 Olkiluoto 1) BWR FI 910 880 147 120 347 2 756 617 254 653 160 19.72 83.51 18.25 82.57 17.58 82.70

KCB Borssele 1,4) PWR NL 512 484 690 348 237 4 085 600 165 807 289 91.97 93.56 91.66 93.41 66.56 88.65

KKB 1 Beznau 1,2,7) PWR CH 380 365 59 21 938 1 130 552 128 464 662 7.93 81.09 7.71 81.05 7.22 82.05

KKB 2 Beznau 6,7) PWR CH 380 365 744 284 184 1 386 666 135 737 073 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.53 100.74

KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 744 779 685 3 790 289 317 665 817 100.00 98.84 100.00 98.50 98.87 98.70

KKM Mühleberg 1,2) BWR CH 390 373 744 286 450 1 394 310 128 798 625 100.00 100.00 99.93 99.71 98.72 98.68

CNT-I Trillo 1) PWR ES 1066 1003 224 230 759 3 284 199 250 575 868 30.16 85.66 29.79 85.56 28.85 84.62

Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 744 364 735 1 773 466 114 002 959 100.00 99.81 99.80 99.77 98.05 97.90

Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 401 187 029 1 604 609 109 838 780 53.90 90.53 53.50 90.45 50.28 88.58

Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 744 367 103 1 264 989 107 763 030 100.00 70.88 100.00 70.24 98.68 69.83

Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 744 371 589 1 817 008 108 260 276 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.88 99.89 100.30

Temelin B1 PWR CZ 1080 1030 744 803 031 2 364 030 116 725 072 100.00 61.08 99.38 60.67 99.75 60.31

Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 744 808 736 3 942 115 113 214 632 100.00 99.72 100.00 99.67 100.46 100.56

Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 744 352 683 906 587 136 351 049 100.00 53.79 99.98 53.13 101.61 54.19

Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 744 341 283 1 254 337 135 056 276 100.00 77.38 99.99 75.20 100.66 75.90

Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 744 800 465 3 747 008 258 879 492 100.00 96.41 100.00 96.21 101.30 97.33

Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 744 806 592 3 873 457 264 246 867 100.00 100.00 98.71 97.24 98.71 97.24

Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 744 749 278 3 685 416 302 516 274 100.00 100.00 99.97 99.99 99.98 101.02

Tihange 2 2) PWR BE 1055 1008 0 0 0 254 651 930 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 744 801 898 3 868 708 275 095 981 100.00 99.94 99.96 98.62 99.57 98.59

Plant name












Energy generated, gross


Time availability


Energy availability

[%] *) Energy utilisation

[%] *)

Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year


KBR Brokdorf DWR 1480 1410 744 1 020 515 4 482 088 355 049 898 100.00 94.09 94.30 88.46 92.49 83.29

KKE Emsland 1,2,4) DWR 1406 1335 404 526 668 4 516 806 351 335 775 54.28 90.61 54.02 90.56 50.25 88.66

KWG Grohnde 1,2) DWR 1430 1360 111 145 058 3 756 545 381 330 759 14.92 75.96 13.90 75.58 13.52 72.08

KRB C Gundremmingen 1,2,3) SWR 1344 1288 25 17 025 3 564 925 334 506 680 3.37 73.77 1.70 73.20 1.67 72.74

KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 744 1 080 245 5 252 847 358 978 660 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 97.45 97.32

GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 744 1 037 700 4 972 600 334 799 434 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.83 99.99 98.31

KKP-2 Philippsburg DWR 1468 1402 744 1 057 604 5 197 213 371 358 368 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99 95.56 96.29


Net-based values

(Czech and Swiss

nuclear power

plants gross-based)












Hereof traction supply


Incl. steam supply


New nominal

capacity since

January 2016


Data for the Leibstadt

(CH) NPP will

be published in a

further issue of atw

BWR: Boiling

Water Reactor

PWR: Pressurised

Water Reactor

Source: VGB

importance” for the future of “numerous

medical treatments”.

“Moreover, we keep the expertise

in the field of medical isotopes in the

Netherlands, and this is good for

employment”, he said.

In January 2018, an Argentinian-

Dutch consortium called INVAP-TBI

was chosen to design and construct the

Pallas research reactor.

Pallas will replace the existing

High Flux Reactor (HFR) in Petten,

50 km north of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands. The HFR is almost 60

years old.

In 2012, to guarantee the longterm

reliable supply of isotopes, the

Dutch government decided to replace

the HFR.

The Pallas organisation was

founded in December 2013 to design

and construct the reactor. Its remit

also included developing a business

case and arranging private financing

for the construction and commissioning

phase of the new unit.

The financing of Pallas is being

handled in two phases: a publicly

funded phase followed by a privately

funded phase. For the publicly funded

phase, the Department of Economic

Affairs and Climate and the province

of North Holland have already

pro vided a loan of € 80 m.

The second phase, the construction

and commissioning of the reactor,

will be financed privately, which is

when the business case is needed.

From 2025 onwards, Pallas will

play a crucial role in the supply chain

for radiopharmaceutical products

worldwide and in nuclear technology

research. Isotopes produced at the

reactor will be used to treat millions

of people with cancer and cardiovascular


In European hospitals, 70 % of

isotopes used for diagnostic procedures

and treatment originate from

the HFR. Globally, this percentage is

approximately 30 % and in the

Netherlands it is as high as 80 %.

| |

Market data

(All information is supplied without


Nuclear Fuel Supply

Market Data

Information in current (nominal)

U.S.-$. No inflation adjustment of

prices on a base year. Separative work

data for the formerly “secondary

market”. Uranium prices [US-$/lb

U 3 O 8 ; 1 lb = 453.53 g; 1 lb U 3 O 8 =


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September


Prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3O 8]


) 1

Uranium prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3O 8]











Yearly average prices in real USD, base: US prices (1982 to1984) *










* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019 * Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019

| | Uranium spot market prices from 1980 to 2019 and from 2008 to 2019. The price range is shown.

In years with U.S. trade restrictions the unrestricted uranium spot market price is shown.

Separative work: Spot market price range [USD*/kg UTA]

Conversion: Spot conversion price range [USD*/kgU]



) 1 ) 1











Jan. 2008

Jan. 2009

Jan. 2010

Jan. 2011

Jan. 2012

Jan. 2013

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year

Jan. 2014

Jan. 2015

Jan. 2016

Jan. 2017

Jan. 2018

Jan. 2019

Jan. 2020

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019

) 1 Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019









Jan. 2008

Jan. 2009

Jan. 2010

Jan. 2011

Jan. 2012

Jan. 2013

Jan. 2014

Jan. 2015

Jan. 2016

Jan. 2017

Jan. 2018

Jan. 2019

Jan. 2020










Jan. 2008

Jan. 2009

Jan. 2010

Jan. 2011

Jan. 2012

Jan. 2013

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year

Jan. 2014

Jan. 2015

Jan. 2016

Jan. 2017

Jan. 2018

Jan. 2019

Jan. 2020

| | Separative work and conversion market price ranges from 2008 to 2019. The price range is shown.


In December 2009 Energy Intelligence changed the method of calculation for spot market prices. The change results in virtual price leaps.

0.385 kg U]. Conversion prices [US-$/

kg U], Separative work [US-$/SWU

(Separative work unit)].



Uranium: 35.00–39.75


Conversion: 6.25–9.50


Separative work: 58.00–92.00



Uranium: 18.75–35.25


Conversion: 5.50–6.75


Separative work: 47.00–62.00



Uranium: 19.25–26.50


Conversion: 4.50–6.75


Separative work: 39.00–50.00


January to June 2018


Uranium: 21.75–24.00


Conversion: 6.00–9.50


Separative work: 35.00–42.00

February 2018


Uranium: 21.25–22.50


Conversion: 6.25–7.25


Separative work: 37.00–40.00

March 2018


Uranium: 20.50–22.25


Conversion: 6.50–7.50


Separative work: 36.00–39.00

April 2018


Uranium: 20.00–21.75


Conversion: 7.50–8.50


Separative work: 36.00–39.00

May 2018


Uranium: 21.75–22.80


Conversion: 8.00–8.75


Separative work: 36.00–39.00

June 2018


Uranium: 22.50–23.75


Conversion: 8.50–9.50


Separative work: 35.00–38.00

July 2018


Uranium: 23.00–25.90


Conversion: 9.00–10.50


Separative work: 34.00–38.00

August 2018


Uranium: 25.50–26.50


Conversion: 11.00–14.00


Separative work: 34.00–38.00

September 2018


Uranium: 26.50–27.50


Conversion: 12.00–13.00


Separative work: 38.00–40.00

October 2018


Uranium: 27.30–29.00


Conversion: 12.00–15.00


Separative work: 37.00–40.00

November 2018


Uranium: 28.00–29.25


Conversion: 13.50–14.50


Separative work: 39.00–40.00

December 2018


Uranium: 28.50–29.20


Conversion: 13.50–14.50


Separative work: 40.00–41.00


January 2019


Uranium: 28.70–29.10


Conversion: 13.50–14.50


Separative work: 41.00–44.00

February 2019


Uranium: 27.50–29.25


Conversion: 13.50–14.50


Separative work: 42.00–45.00

March 2019


Uranium: 24.85–28.25


Conversion: 13.50–14.50


Separative work: 43.00–46.00

April 2019


Uranium: 25.50–25.88


Conversion: 15.00–17.00


Separative work: 44.00–46.00

May 2019


Uranium: 23.90–25.25


Conversion: 17.00–18.00


Separative work: 46.00–48.00

June 2019


Uranium: 24.30–25.00


Conversion: 17.00–18.00


Separative work: 47.00–49.00

| | Source: Energy Intelligence

Cross-border Price

for Hard Coal

Cross-border price for hard coal in

[€/t TCE] and orders in [t TCE] for

use in power plants (TCE: tonnes of

coal equivalent, German border):

2014: 72.94, 30,591,663

2015: 67.90; 28,919,230

2016: 67.07; 29,787,178

2017: 91.28, 25,739,010


I. quarter: 89.88; 5,838,003

II. quarter: 88.25; 4,341,359

III. quarter: 100.79; 5,135,198

IV. quarter: 100.91; 6,814,244

Year: 95.49; 22,128,804

| | Source: BAFA, some data provisional


atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September



John Shepherd is a

journalist who has

covered the nuclear

industry for the past

20 years and is

currently editor-in-chief

of UK-based Energy

Storage Publishing.


Memorandum on the

Effect of Uranium

Imports on the

National Security and

Establishment of the

United States Nuclear

Fuel Working Group




James Lovelock’s


CNNC’s proposal


A Century of Wisdom Underlines

Nuclear’s Green Credentials

John Shepherd

Probably one of the oldest proponents of nuclear energy celebrated his centenary this summer and his support

continues to be an energising force to be reckoned with. James Lovelock is probably best known as the creator of the

Gaia hypothesis – which argues that Earth acts like a self-regulating system. He’s also a self-confessed, lifelong ‘green’,

who upset the status quo more than a decade ago when he said those environmentalists who opposed nuclear were

wrong to do so.

In interviews to mark his 100 th birthday in July, Lovelock’s

spirited defence of nuclear was as powerful as ever and he

is, to put it simply, still correct.

To be green and nuclear was always seen as a misnomer

until, in 2004, Lovelock penned an article for The

Independent newspaper in the UK that had international


“By all means, let us use the small input from renewables

sensibly, but only one immediately available source

does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy,”

Lovelock said.

“Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational

fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the green lobbies and

the media,” he added. “These fears are unjustified, and

nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the

safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the

minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or

radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway,

mainly because we breathe air laden with that all- pervasive

carcinogen, oxygen.”

In a separate article published in 2005, Lovelock

warned: “To phase out nuclear energy just when we need it

most to combat global warming is madness.”

Lovelock’s message is as timely today as it has ever

been, and perhaps his centenary year could be used to

generate a revival of interest and confidence in nuclear.

Goodness knows we need it and, indeed, maybe the green

shoots of a new offensive in favour of nuclear energy are


In Australia, the newly appointed chair of the Minerals

Council, Helen Coonan, is the latest industry figure to call

for nuclear power to be considered as part of that country’s

future energy mix.

Coonan, a former federal government minister, said the

nuclear option should be on the table, along with renewables

as countries explore energy options beyond the use

of fossil fuels. She told Australian broadcaster ABC that

Australians were ready for a “sensible conversation” about

nuclear power generation, which is currently outlawed in


Coonan suggested Australia could consider the introduction

of modular nuclear power plants.

He comments came after the former leader of the

country’s National Party, Barnaby Joyce, suggested

residents living near a nuclear plant could be offered free

nuclear power.

Security of supply continues to be as important an issue

to companies operating nuclear power plants as those

relying on the raw materials batteries need to power the

electric cars and buses of the future. However, there’s

welcome news on that front too.

In the US, the Trump administration has announced its

decision that imports of uranium do not threaten national

security. There had been fears that quotas could be slapped

on uranium imports. Instead, the announcement, made

during the summer, removes uncertainty affecting the

global uranium market and clears the way for buyers and

sellers to discuss long-term supply and demand arrangements.

The US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) also welcomed

the administration’s backing to form a Nuclear Fuel

Working Group, recommended by the NEI, “to support the

front end of the domestic fuel cycle… and address the very

real challenges faced by the US uranium miners and other

fuel cycle suppliers”.

Progress for innovative nuclear in Canada too, where

regulators have launched an environmental assessment of

a proposal to build the country’s first small modular

reactor. Global First Power, with support from nucleartechnology-innovator

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation and

Ontario Power Generation, are seeking to build and operate

a 15-megawatt thermal (about 5 MW electrical) ‘Micro

Modular Reactor’ plant at the Chalk River Laboratories.

Meanwhile, the China National Nuclear Corporation

(CNNC) has signed an agreement with the Emirates Nuclear

Energy Corporation aimed at cooperating with companies

in the United Arab Emirates in nuclear technology.

China has deep pockets when it comes to investing

overseas and its strategy of supporting projects of strategic

interest, particularly related to nuclear, appears to have

stepped up a gear. In fact, the CNNC is now touting its

“complete nuclear industrial chain” of which it is “willing

to share its expertise with countries that want to develop

nuclear energy”.

Even in the UK, where there has been worse than

lacklustre government support of late for nuclear, there is

now a glimmer of a revivalist streak running through the

new administration formed by Boris Johnson.

Asked about nuclear energy after delivering his first

speech to the House of Commons as prime minister,

Johnson told legislators: “It is time for a nuclear renaissance

and I believe passionately that nuclear must be part of our

energy mix.” He said his government recognised that

nuclear energy would also help the UK meet its carbon

emission reduction targets.

Johnson has hit the nail on the head. Whatever the

naysayers may have us think, Mother Earth would be in a

sorrier state than she is today without nuclear energy.

We would all do well to reflect on James Lovelock’s

century of wisdom.


John Shepherd

Nuclear Today

A Century of Wisdom Underlines Nuclear’s Green Credentials ı John Shepherd

Kommunikation und

Training für Kerntechnik

Öffentliche Anhörungen

erfolgreich meistern

Workshop: Public Hearing

Sich oder das eigene Unternehmen in der Öffentlichkeit im richtigen Licht zu präsentieren ist

nicht immer einfach und sollte gut vorbereitet sein. Noch schwieriger wird der Auftritt bei einer

öffentlichen Anhörung – insbesondere im Bereich der Kerntechnik. Es gilt auf Betroffenheit und

Sorgen von Bürgern einzugehen und behördliche oder politische Entscheidungsträger mit den

eigenen Sachargumenten zu überzeugen.

Eine professionelle Vorbereitung mit einem realistischen Training kann hierbei einen wertvollen

Beitrag leisten.







Theoretische Einführung Anhörungen und Statements

Formulierungen und Wordings

Praktische Kommunikationsübungen

Nonverbale Kommunikation

Umgang mit verschiedenen Stakeholdern

Alle Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer erhalten ein individuelles Feedback des Trainers zu den

praktischen Übungen.


Das Seminar richtet sich an alle Fach- und Führungskräfte in Organisationen der kerntechnischen

Branche in Deutschland, die in „Public Hearings“ ihr Unternehmen oder Institut repräsentieren

oder für das Briefing der auftretenden Sachverständigen verantwortlich sind.

Die maximale Teilnehmerzahl zu diesem Seminar beträgt 8 Personen.


Dr. Nikolai A. Behr

Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Teilnahme!

| Deutsches Institut für Kommunikations- und MedienTraining (DIKT)


2 Tage

5. und 6. November 2019

Tag 1: 10:30 bis 18:00 Uhr

Tag 2: 09:00 bis 16:00 Uhr


Geschäftsstelle der INFORUM

Robert-Koch-Platz 4

10115 Berlin


1.598,– € ı zzgl. 19 % USt.

Im Preis inbegriffen sind:

ı Seminarunterlagen

ı Teilnahmebescheinigung

ı Pausenverpflegung

inkl. Mittagessen



Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft


Robert-Koch-Platz 4

10115 Berlin

Petra Dinter-Tumtzak

Fon +49 30 498555-30

Fax +49 30 498555-18

Bei Fragen zur Anmeldung

rufen Sie uns bitte an oder

senden uns eine E-Mail.

Competence for

Nuclear Services

Waste Management

Spent Fuel Management

Nuclear Casks

Calculation Services and Consulting

Waste Processing Systems and Engineering

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH

Frohnhauser Str. 67 · 45127 Essen · Germany · ·

More magazines by this user