atw 2015-01

nucmag.com 

2015 

1 

ISSN · 1431-5254 

16.– € 

14 

Overview of PHARE 

Projects Implemented 

in Romania 

22 ı Operation and New Build 

Nuclear Power Plant Olkiluoto 3 

Containment Leakage Test 

27 ı Energy Policy, Economy and Law 

General Safety Requirements for a SFR 

Programme 

inside 

30 ı Research and Innovation 

The New Brazilian Multipurpose Research Reactor 

66 ı Nuclear Today 

Cyber Security in Focus

WIR FÜHREN 

KERNENERGIE IN 

DIE ZUKUNFT. 

MIT SICHERHEIT. 

AREVA ist Weltmarktführer in der Kerntechnik und ein führendes 

Unternehmen bei den Erneuerbaren Energien. Wir bieten unseren Kunden 

innovative Lösungen, damit sie CO 2 -armen Strom erzeugen können. 

Für jeden Bedarf haben wir die passenden Produkte und Leistungen. 

Alle unsere Leistungen haben dabei eines gemeinsam: Sicherheit steht 

immer an erster Stelle. So zählen die deutschen Kernkraftwerke seit 

Jahrzehnten zu den sichersten und zuverlässigsten weltweit. 

www.areva.de

atw Vol. 60 (2015) | Issue 1 ı January 

60 

Dear reader, 

The number 60 is of major significance for the nuclear energy landscape: Today the recognised and practiced technical 

operating time for nuclear power plants consists of 60 years. 

Initially commercial plants started operating with an approved 

operating time of – at least – 40 years. Technical 

reasons and perspectives were less decisive rather than a 

solid planning period for the amortization of the investment 

in plants. Thus for regulatory purposes the US 

Atomic Energy Act for instance determined the initial operating 

licence to 40 years with the option of a prolongation 

of initially 20 years. In other countries using nuclear 

energy, formalities are partially similar or differ completely 

by issuing an unlimited operating license if safe operation 

is guaranteed. Programs, already initiated in the 1980s, for 

the analysis of aging processes of nuclear power plants 

demonstrated that together with continuous retrofitting 

60 years of operation are technical and safety-related 

state-of-the art. On this basis the USA set worldwide the 

initial milestone for the operating time of nuclear power 

plants with 5 licences for an operation time of 60 years in 

2000. In the meantime 75 out one hundred U.S. nuclear 

power plants possess such licence and further countries 

followed. 

For more than 60 years now the atw – International 

Journal for Nuclear Power actively accompanies this development 

and all further developments in the field of peaceful 

use of nuclear energy. atw was initially published called 

“die atomwirtschaft” in the year 1956. For the first edition 

of the atw its publishers took note “…to report with objective 

clarity on all economic questions with regard to nuclear 

transformation”. Fifteen years later the range of subjects 

was also by name broadened to “atomtechnik”.The atw remains 

even today closely related to the guiding principle of 

objectivity. International technical contributions, comments 

and documentations published in the atw reflect 

this in all clarity. 

Anniversaries are occasions for retrospective views. 

However, 60 years of development for the peaceful use of 

nuclear energy can be hardly summarized in just a few 

words. Developments vary from country to country. While 

the German nuclear energy sector, being globally up to 

now the only one, needs to focus on decommissioning and 

dismantling of nuclear power plants due to political decisions 

after Fukushima, new plants are being built worldwide 

which shall increase the nuclear power plant capacity 

in a few years by 25 %. Fifteen “Newcomer” states announced 

their willingness to enter the field of nuclear energy. 

Thus altogether 200 construction projects can be referred 

to. Environmental protection, conservation of natural 

resources, security of energy supply and affordable 

energy cost are not being measured globally on ideological 

requirements by the spirit of the times, but by simple, perceptible 

realities and contexts. 

The editorial department and the publishing house 

took “60 years of atw” as an opportunity, to look forward in 

first place and to demonstrate it through a visual redesign. 

Nevertheless the focus remains on the content of individual 

categories – the editorial, comments, technical contributions, 

news and notes from the DAtF and the KTG. By 

adding a new layout, typography and colours we want to 

make the reading of atw more attractive and clear. Colours 

will be assigned to each category in order to help the 

reader easily identify particular key topics. Atw will remain 

as brand supported by a logo that optically underlines 

the look ahead. 

The historical perspective on the other hand will not be 

left aside. Every atw issue in 2015 will be accompanied by 

a historical contribution. In this current issue two contributions 

are attached the “Foreword” by the publisher from 

the first atw issue 1(1956) as well as the contribution “The 

Federal Republic of Germany and the international cooperation 

in the nuclear field” by former Federal Minister 

of Germany Franz Josef Strauss. As both contributions 

were originally published in German language, we will be 

publishing both the original version and an English translation. 

Different stages of the worldwide development of 

the nuclear industry right up to today as well as focal 

themes such as technology, politics and economy were decisive 

in the selection of these topics. 

On the occasion of the anniversary we also provide not 

only for historically interested persons, but also for today’s 

practitioners all atw issues published since 1956 digitalized 

and improved on data mediums. While reviewing the 

contents of the past years we realised, that already early on 

many facets of nuclear energy with a broad pool of helpful 

knowledge were dealt with. One example would certainly 

be the in times of “energy transition” strongly discussed 

“flexibility” in production; nuclear energy was already in 

the 1970s treaded in this context. The wheel is already invented 

and can be read, as many further topics, in the atw. 

We hope, that with the implementation of a new layout 

we found a balanced mix of a pleasing appearance and yet 

objective seriousness. We would be delighted to receive 

your comments, criticism and suggestions. 

Christopher Weßelmann 

– Editor in Chief – 

editorial@atomwirtschaft.com 

3 

EDITORIAL 

Editorial 

60 ı


460 

EDITORIAL 

Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser, 

die Zahl 60 hat für die Kernenergielandschaft eine richtungsweisende Bedeutung: 60 Jahre sind heute die anerkannte 

und praktizierte technische Laufzeit von Leistungskernkraftwerken. 

Ursprünglich gestartet waren die ersten kommerziellen 

Anlagen mit einer genehmigten Betriebszeit von – mindestens 

– 40 Jahren. Weniger waren dabei technische Gründe 

und Perspektiven leitend, als vielmehr ein gesicherter Planungszeitraum 

für die Amortisation in die Investition der 

Anlagen. Regulatorisch wurde so z.B. im U.S.-Atomgesetz 

die Erstbetriebsgenehmigung auf 40 Jahre festgelegt – mit 

der Gesetzesoption einer Verlängerung von zunächst weiteren 

20 Jahren. In anderen Kernenergie nutzenden Staaten 

sind die Regularien teils ähnlich oder weichen sogar 

dahin gehend ab, dass unter der Prämisse eines sicheren 

Anlagenbetriebs eine zeitlich unbeschränkte Betriebsgenehmigung 

ausgesprochen wird. Schon in den frühen 

1980er-Jahren initiierte Programme zur Analyse von Alterungsprozessen 

in Kernkraftwerken zeigten, dass gemeinsam 

mit der kontinuierlichen Nachrüstung 60 Jahren 

Laufzeit technischer und sicherheitstechnischer State-ofthe-Art 

sind. Darauf basierend setzten die USA im Jahr 

2000 mit gleich fünf Genehmigungen für 60 Jahre Betrieb 

weltweit den ersten Meilenstein zu Kernkraftwerkslaufzeiten. 

Inzwischen besitzen 75 von 100 U.S.-Kernkraftwerken 

eine solche Lizenz und weitere Länder folgten dieser 

Praxis. 

Seit inzwischen 60 Jahren begleitet die atw – International 

Journal for Nuclear Power diese und alle weiteren 

Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der friedlichen Nutzung 

der Kernenergie. Gestartet war die atw als „die atomwirtschaft“ 

im Januar 1956. Ihre Herausgeber schrieben zum 

Ersterscheinen der atw ins Stammbuch, „in sachlicher 

Klarheit über alle wirtschaftlichen Fragen der Kernumwandlung“ 

zu berichten. Fünfzehn Jahre später wurde das 

Themenspektrum auch namentlich auf die „atomtechnik“ 

ausgeweitet. Diesem Leitsatz der Sachlichkeit ist die atw 

konsequent verbunden. Die internationalen Fachbeiträge, 

Kommentare und Dokumentationen in der atw zeigen dies 

in aller Deutlichkeit. 

Jubiläen sind Anlässe für Rückblicke. Doch lassen sich 

60 Jahre Entwicklung der friedlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie 

kaum in wenigen Worten zusammenfassen. Die 

Entwicklungen sind doch von Land zu Land zu verschieden. 

Während sich die Kernenergie in Deutschland aufgrund 

der politischen Beschlüsse nach Fukushima bislang 

einzigartig weltweit auf die Außerbetriebnahme und den 

Rückbau der Kernkraftwerke konzentrieren muss, sind 

weltweit Anlagen in Bau, die die Kernkraftwerksleistung 

in wenigen Jahren um 25 % ansteigen lassen werden. 

15 „Newcomer“-Staaten angekündigt, in die Kernkraftnutzung 

einzusteigen. Insgesamt auf 200 Neubauvorhaben ist 

so zu verweisen. Klimaschutz, Ressourcenschonung, Energieversorgungssicherheit 

und bezahlbare Energiepreise 

werden weltweit nicht an ideologischen Vorgaben eines 

Zeitgeistes gemessen, sondern an einfach erkennbaren 

Realitäten und Zusammenhängen. 

Redaktion und Verlag haben „60 Jahre atw“ zum Anlass 

genommen in der atw, zum einen nach vorne zu schauen 

und dies auch mit einem optischen Redesign deutlich zu 

machen. Weiterhin stehen die Inhalte der einzelnen Rubriken 

– Editorial, Kommentare, Fachartikel, Nachrichten 

und Mitteilungen von DAtF und KTG – im Fokus. Mit neuem 

Layout, Typografie und Farbe möchten wir die Lektüre 

der atw attraktiver und deutlicher gestalten. Den einzelnen 

Rubriken sind künftig eindeutige Farben zugeordnet, 

sodass Sie als Leser griffig die jeweiligen Schwerpunkte 

finden. atw als Marke bleibt erhalten mit einem Logo, das 

den Blick nach vorne auch optisch unterstreicht. 

Der historische Blickwinkel wird zum anderen nicht 

außer Acht gelassen. Jede Ausgabe der atw in 2015 wird 

von einem historischen Beitrag begleitet – in dieser Ausgabe 

sind dies zwei, die „Geleitworte“ der Herausgeber aus 

der atw 1 (1956) sowie der Beitrag „Die Bundesrepublik 

und die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Kernenergiegebiet“ 

vom damaligen Bundesminister Franz Josef 

Strauss. Soweit die Beiträge in ihrer historischen Fassung 

in deutscher Sprache abgefasst waren, veröffentlichen wir 

sowohl das Original als auch eine englische Übersetzung. 

Bei der Auswahl der Themen waren die unterschiedlichen 

Phasen der weltweiten Kernenergieentwicklung bis heute 

sowie Schwerpunkte von Technik, Wirtschaft und Politik 

leitend. 

Zudem bieten wir anlässlich des Jubiläums nicht nur 

für den historisch Interessierten, sondern auch für den 

heutigen Praktiker die kompletten Jahrgänge der atw seit 

1956 digitalisiert und nachbearbeitet auf Datenträger an. 

Bei der Aufarbeitung der Jahrgänge wurde uns deutlich, 

dass viele Facetten der Kernenergie schon frühzeitig behandelt 

wurden, mit einem breiten Fundus an heute nützlichem 

Know-how. Ein Beispiel ist sicherlich die in Zeiten 

der „Energiewende“ allenthalben diskutierte „Flexibilität“ 

in der Erzeugung; die Kernenergie wurde darauf schon in 

den 1970er-Jahren darauf getrimmt – dieses Rad ist schon 

erfunden und wie viele weitere Themen nachzulesen in 

der atw. 

Wir hoffen, mit der Umsetzung des neuen Layouts 

einen ausgewogenen Mix zwischen gefälligem Erscheinungsbild 

und weiterhin sachlicher Seriosität gefunden zu 

haben. Über Kommentare, Kritik und Anregungen würden 

wir uns sehr freuen! 


– Chefredakteur – 

editorial@atomwirtschaft.com 

Editorial 

60 ı

Kommunikation und 

Training für Kerntechnik 

Suchen Sie die passende 

Weiterbildungsmaßnahme 

im Bereich Kerntechnik? 

Nutzen Sie das neue Seminarangebot der INFORUM mit interdisziplinär 

relevanten Fragestellungen vermittelt von ausgewiesenen Experten, 

die fachliche und didaktische Kompetenz verbinden. 

Die INFORUM-Seminare bieten nützliche Kenntnisse, die Sie und Ihre 

Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in der täglichen Praxis unterstützen. 

Wählen Sie aus folgenden Themen: 

a 

a 

a 

Atomrecht 

Medien 

Wissenstransfer 

Seminar Termin Ort 

Atomrecht – was Sie 

wissen müssen 

21.01.2015 

24.06.2015 

Berlin 

Medientraining 03.03. - 04.03.2015 Berlin 

Erfolgreicher Wissenstransfer 

in der Kerntechnik – Methoden 

und praktische Umsetzung 

Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? 

3 Rufen Sie uns an: +49 30 498555-20 

11.03. - 12.03.2015 

04.11. - 05.11.2015 

Berlin 

Kontakt 

INFORUM 

Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft 

mbH 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4 

10115 Berlin 

Liane Philipp 

Fon +49 30 498555-20 

Fax +49 30 498555-17 

presse@ 

www. kernenergie.de


6 

Issue 1 

January 2015 

CONTENTS 

14 

Overview of PHARE 

Projects Implemented 

in Romania 

| | Cover: A frosty cold winter day outside the Forsmark nuclear power plant. In the foreground the biotest basin and in the background 

reactor 1 and 2. Forsmark generates approximately one sixth of Sweden’s total electrical energy consumption per year. 

(Courtesy: Vattenfall AB) 

Editorial 

60 3 

60 4 

Contents 6 

Imprint 21 


Containment Leakage Test Under 

Extreme Conditions 22 

Tobias Fleckenstein 

Abstracts | English 8 

Abstracts | German 10 

Inside Nuclear with NucNet 

EU 2030 Targets “Unachievable” 

Without Long-Term Nuclear 

Operation 12 

23 

NucNet and Maria van der Hoeven 

Calendar 13 

Operation and New Build 

Overview of PHARE Projects 

Implemented in Romania Between 

1997 and 2008 for Enhancing the Nuclear 

Safety Level 14 

Radian Sanda, Benoit Zerger, 

Giustino Manna and Brian Farrar 

Spotlight on Nuclear Law 

Paradigmenwechsel im Beförderungsrecht 

oder am „Flaschenhals“ 25 

Paradigm Shift in Transport Legislation 

or Rather at the „Bottleneck“ 25 

Hanns Näser 

| | Measuring equipment to assess tests for Okiluoto 3 project. 

(Courtesy: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH) 

Contents


7 

Energy Policy, Economy and Law 

Completeness Assessment of General 

Safety Requirements for Sodium-Cooled 

Fast Reactor Nuclear Design Utilizing 

Objective Provision Tree 27 

Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, Yongwon Choi, 

Bongsuk Kang and Huichang Yang 

KTG Inside 44 

60 th year atw 

Foreword 50 

Zum Geleit 50 

Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, Karl Hecht, 

W. Alexander Menne, Herbert Seidl and Kurt Sauerwein 

CONTENTS 

26 

The Federal Republic of Germany and 

the International Cooperation 

in the Nuclear Field 51 

Die Bundesrepublik und die 

internationale Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Kernenergiegebiet 55 

Franz Josef Strauß 

| | Transport of nuclear material 

Research and Innovation 

RMB: The New Brazilian Multipurpose 

Research Reactor 30 

News 59 

Market data 64 

José Augusto Perrotta and Adalberto Jose Soares 

33 

63 

| | View of the Taishan site in an early stage of construction of 

Taishan unit 1. (Courtesy: Areva) 

| | Artist view of the RMB nuclear research centre. 

AMNT 2014 

45 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology: 

Key Topic | Reactor Operation, Safety – 

Report Part 3 34 

Nuclear Today 

IAEA Puts Cyber Security in Focus for 

Nuclear Facilities in 2015 66 

John Shepherd 

AMNT 2015 

46 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology: 

Programme 37 

AMNT 2015 Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . Insert 

Contents


8 

ABSTRACTS | ENGLISH 


Without Long-Term Nuclear 

Operation 

NucNet and 

Maria van der Hoeven | Page 12 

Nuclear energy will continue to support 

greenhouse gas emission reduction targets 

until 2020, but without decisions on longterm 

operation of ageing reactors, it will be 

difficult for the EU to meet its 2030 targets, 

International Energy Agency (IEA) executive 

director Maria van der Hoeven, tells 

NucNet in an interview. 

The IEA has quite a few remarks and questions 

related to the EU goals of competitiveness, 

security of supply and sustainability. 

It is good to have these targets, but up until 

now the EU is missing the direct connection 

between the three goals. What is 

mostly needed to achieve the goals is to finalise 

the EU’s internal energy market. 

Secondly cost-effective climate and energy 

policies are needed because it is not only 

about climate and energy, but also about 

economic development and competitiveness. 

The ageing EU reactor fleet requires country-level 

and owner/operator-level decisions 

in the short term regarding plant 

safety regulations, plant upgrades, uprates, 

lifetime extensions and licence renewals. 

Upgrading and uprating existing 

nuclear plants is one of the cheapest ways 

of producing carbon-free electricity in the 

EU. Without long-term operation, the IEA 

expects nuclear capacity in the EU could 

fall by a factor of six by 2030 and that will 

make it more difficult to achieve the EU’s 

2030 climate targets. 

Public opinion is an important topic for 

the acceptance of all energy sources and 

it is different in all IEA member countries. 

Europe is very sensitive to almost all 

forms of energy, including wind turbines 

and solar panels. This is linked to a lack 

of information, so we need more and 

better transparency on information for 

people. 

Overview of PHARE Projects 

Implemented in Romania Between 

1997 and 2008 for Enhancing the 

Nuclear Safety Level 


Giustino Manna and 

Brian Farrar | Page 14 

Through the Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction 

of the Economy (PHARE) programme, 

the European Commission (EC) 

supported the transition of the Eastern 

European states to the European market 

economy. PHARE was a pre-accession financial 

assistance programme which involved 

countries from Central and Eastern 

Europe that applied to become members of 

the European Union. The paper presents a 

synthesis of the projects carried out in Romania 

for enhancing nuclear safety by consolidating 

key areas such as Regulatory 

Activities, Radioactive Waste Management 

and On-Site assistance, in order to fulfil the 

requirements for accession to the European 

Union. 

Statistical considerations on the impact of 

the projects are also proposed and an analysis 

of the methodology of intervention is 

made. 



Extreme Conditions 

Tobias Fleckenstein | Page 22 

Modern nuclear power plants place high 

demands on the design and execution of 

safety checks. TÜV SÜD supported the 

containment leakage test for the largestcapacity 

third generation nuclear power 

plant in the world – Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. 

The experts successfully met the challenges 

presented by exceptional parameters 

of the project. The containment of 

Olkiluoto 3 is unique in that the vessel’s 

volume is 80,000 m 3 while measurements 

were carried out over a period of ten days. 

To execute the test, 75 temperature and 15 

humidity sensors had to be installed and 

correctly interlinked by more than ten 

kilometres of cable. These instruments 

also needed to withstand an absolute 

pressure of 6 bar, ambient temperatures of 

30° C and high levels of humidity. These 

conditions required comprehensive preparation 

and a high amount of qualification 

tests. Parts of the qualifications were 

carried out at the autoclave system of the 

Technical University in Munich, Germany, 

where the project test conditions could be 

simulated. The software required to determine 

the tests was developed by TÜV 

SÜD and verified by German’s national 

accreditation body DAkkS under ISO 

17025. 

TÜV SÜD enabled the test schedule to continue 

without delay by analysing all recorded 

data continuously on site, including 

pressure, temperature, humidity and leakage 

mass flow curves. With the comprehensive 

preparation, data acquisition system 

recording measurements continuously 

and the on-time result calculation, all components 

of the leak-tightness assessment 

were successfully completed in accordance 

with requirements. 

Paradigm Shift in Transport Legislation 

or Rather at the „Bottleneck“ 

Hanns Näser | Page 25 

In the year just started significant decisions 

with considerable consequences by the 

Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal 

Administrative Court in the field of 

nuclear law are expected. Especially the 

decision with regards to „nuclear phaseout“ 

within the 13th amendment of the 

Atomic Energy Act is being eagerly expected, 

as with its far-reaching consequences 

also fundamental constitutional questions 

need to be answered. 

The Federal Administrative Court will need 

to decide on the question, whether she admits 

the appeal against the Brunsbüttel 

decision by the Higher Administrative 

Court Schleswig-Holstein (HAC), which 

from the view of claimant shifted the fundamental 

basis of demarcation of responsibilities 

between the executive and judiciary 

power. 

In comparison to these fundamental decisions 

the awaited decision by the HAC on 

nuclear transport legislation seems of subordinate 

importance, although she will 

proceed with a paradigm shift in the legal 

area. The decision deals with the question 

as to whether and when a right of action 

from a third party within the nuclear transport 

legislation can be accepted or more 

precisely under which preconditions a 

third party has clear standing against a 

nuclear transport authorisation. 

As the site selection law (issued on 23 July 

2013 BGBI I p. 2552) excludes the recirculation 

of vitrified waste block canisters 

from reprocessing spent fuel elements to 

the transport cask storage facility Gorleben, 

the decision by the HAC Lüneburg 

for this site will only be relevant for 

present unpredictable transportations 

from the transport cask storage facility 

Gorleben to a final repository. If necessary 

interest to seek a declaratory judgment 

for declaratory action, in concreto danger 

of recurrence will be approved, is another 

matter. 

Completeness Assessment of 

General Safety Requirements for 

Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Nuclear 

Design Utilizing Objective Provision 

Tree 

Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, 

Yongwon Choi, Bongsuk Kang and 

Huichang Yang | Page 27 

A prototype sodium-cooled fast reactor 

(SFR) of 150 MWe is under development in 

Korea. The designer is planning to apply 

the licensing for construction permit by 

2020. To prepare the future licensing review, 

we are developing general safety requirements 

for SFR. The requirements are 

developed first by evaluating the applicability 

of the current requirements of light 

water reactor (LWR) to SFR and then taking 

into account other international requirements 

available. In this way, we have 

developed a draft general safety requirements 

with 59 articles. The LWR safety 

requirements are coming from the accumulated 

experiences of long-year licensing 

and operation, but we do not have sufficient 

experiences corresponding for SFR, 

so we need a systematic and integral approach 

to complement our developed requirements 

for SFR. For this purpose, we 

have developed an objective provision tree 

for the safety function of reactivity control 

and applied it in assessing the completeness 

of our draft requirements developed. 

In this way, we could confirm that our 

draft requirements include all the requirements 

to prevent the mechanisms that 

could challenge the safety function of reactivity 

control. 

Abstracts | English


RMB: The New Brazilian 

Multipurpose Research Reactor 

José Augusto Perrotta and 

Adalberto Jose Soares | Page 30 

Brazil has four research reactors (RR) in 

operation: IEA-R1, a 5 MW pool type RR; 

IPR-R1, a 100 kW TRIGA type RR; ARGO- 

NAUTA, a 500 W Argonaut type RR, and 

IPEN/MB-01, a 100 W critical facility. The 

first three were constructed in the 50’s and 

60’s, for teaching, training, and nuclear 

research, and for many years they were 

the basic infrastructure for the Brazilian 

nuclear developing program. The last, 

IPEN/MB-01, is the result of a national 

project developed specifically for qualification 

of reactor physics codes. Considering 

the relative low power of Brazilian research 

reactors, with exception of IEAR1, 

none of the other reactors are feasible for 

radioisotope production, and even IEA-R1 

has a limited capacity. As a consequence, 

since long ago, 100% of the Mo-99 needed 

to attend Brazilian nuclear medicine services 

has been imported. Because of the 

high dependence on external supply, the 

international Moly-99 supply crisis that 

occurred in 2008/2009 affected significantly 

Brazilian nuclear medicine services, 

and as presented in previous IAEA events 

[1], in 2010 Brazilian government formalized 

the decision to build a new research 

reactor. The new reactor named RMB 

(Brazilian Multipurpose Reactor) will be 

a 30 MW open pool type reactor, using 

low enriched uranium fuel. The facility 

will be part of a new nuclear research 

centre, to be built about 100 kilometres 

from São Paulo city, in the southern part 

of Brazil. The new nuclear research centre 

will have several facilities, to use thermal 

and cold neutron beams; to produce radioisotopes; 

to perform neutron activation 

analysis; and to perform irradiations 

tests of materials and fuels of interest for 

the Brazilian nuclear program. An additional 

facility will be used to store, for at 

least 100 years, all the fuel used in the reactor. 

The paper describes the main characteristics 

of the new centre, emphasising 

the research reactor and giving a brief 

description of the laboratories that will be 

constructed, It also presents the status of 

the project. 

AMNT 2014: Key Topic | 

Reactor Operation, Safety – 

Report Part 3 

| Page 34 

Summary report on the following sessions 

of the Annual Conference on Nuclear 

Technology held in Frankfurt, 6 to 8 May 

2014: 

• Reactor Operation, Safety: Radiation 

Protection (Angelika Bohnstedt) 

• Competence, Innovation, Regulation: 

Fusion Technology – Optimisation Steps 

in the ITER Design (Thomas Mull) 


Education, Expert Knowledge, Knowledge 

Transfer (Jörg Starflinger) 

The other Sessions of the Key Topics “Reactor 

Operation, Safety”, “Competence, Innovation, 

Regulation” and “Fuel, Decommissioning 

& Disposal” have been covered 

in atw 10 and 12 (2015) and will be covered 

in further issues of atw. 

60 th year atw: 

Foreword of the First Issue in 1956 

Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, 

Karl Hecht, W.A. Menne, 

Herbert Seidl und 

Kurt Sauerwein | Page 50 

The present journal will in detail and with 

objective clarity report on all economic 

questions with regard to nuclear transformation. 

The information will be extensive 

and concentrated and will cover economic 

contexts including news, legal questions 

as well as questions on operational 

and social safety. Especially its documentation, 

which sighted and reliably provides a 

pictures of the happenings in Germany and 

the most important countries in the world, 

will inform the reader quick and briefly in 

an intelligible language. 

Thus the ATOMWIRTSCHAFT should serve 

above all a serious and concentrated reporting 

and should be a conscientious advisor 

on a new promising field of work of 

science and technics beyond German 

speaking regions. 

The Federal Republic of Germany 

and the International Cooperation 

in the Nuclear Field 

Franz Josef Strauß | Page 51 

The questions of international cooperation 

in the field of nuclear energy for 

peaceful purposes arise the increasing interest 

of all political and economic interested 

parties of our nation. This rising 

sympathy reflects the awareness, that due 

to the fast development of nuclear energy, 

in detail a hardly assessable process, a new 

technical revolution is in the offing which 

for the further economic development of 

the European states and not least our 

country itself will be in view of the current 

inferior position in comparison to the 

leading nuclear powers, of paramount importance. 

By all necessity of catching up 

the scientific and technical development 

at national level, the conviction is more 

and more confirmed that joint efforts both 

in the European and global area are necessary 

to make full use of the tremendous 

possibilities of nuclear energy for peaceful 

progress. 

It is appropriate and valuable, already for 

determining the own point of view for the 

further participation in international cooperation 

within the nuclear field, to gain 

from time to time an overview and to take 

stock on existing organisation as well as 

different projects and plans. For this purpose 

the following lines are intended, 

without demanding completeness in all 

details. I may initially pay attention to 

the entirely or predominant economic 

committees for cooperation followed by 

bilateral and multilateral facts and projects. 


Nuclear Facilities in 2015 

John Shepherd | Page 66 

Later in 2015 the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) will convene a special 

conference to discuss computer security, 

in the wake of cyber attacks on global financial 

institutions and government agencies 

that were increasingly in the news. 

According to the IAEA, the prevalence of 

IT security incidents in recent years involving 

the Stuxnet malware “demonstrated 

that nuclear facilities can be susceptible 

to cyber attack”. The IAEA said 

this and other events have significantly 

raised global concerns over potential vulnerabilities 

and the possibility of a cyber 

attack, or a joint cyber-physical attack, 

that could impact on nuclear security. 

The IAEA has correctly identified that the 

use of computers and other digital electronic 

equipment in physical protection 

systems at nuclear facilities, as well as in 

facility safety systems, instrumentation, 

information processing and communication, 

“continues to grow and presents an 

ever more likely target for cyber attack”. 

The agency’s Vienna conference, to be 

held in June, will review emerging trends 

in computer security and areas that may 

still need to be addressed. The meeting 

follows a declaration of ministers of IAEA 

member states in 2013 that called on the 

agency to help raise awareness of the 

growing threat of cyber attacks and their 

potential impact on nuclear security. 

The conference is being organised “to 

foster international cooperation in computer 

security as an essential element of 

nuclear security”, the IAEA said. 

Details of the IAEA’s ‘International Conference 

on Computer Security in a Nuclear 

World: Expert Discussion and Exchange’ 

are on the ‘meetings’ section of the 

agency’s web site. 

9 

ABSTRACTS | ENGLISH 

Abstracts | English


10 

ABSTRACTS | GERMAN 

Interview: EU-2030-Ziele ohne 

langfristigen Betrieb der 

Kernkraftwerke „unerreichbar“ 

NucNet und Maria van der Hoeven | Seite 12 

Die Kernenergie wird in Europa auch weiterhin, 

zumindest bis 2020, einen wichtigen 

Anteil bei der Reduktion von Treibhausgasemissionen 

leisten. Mit zunehmendem Betriebsalter 

der Reaktoren kann es allerdings 

problematisch werden, die von der EU proklamierten 

2030-Ziele zu erreichen. Dies 

fasst die Direktorin der Internationalen Energieagentur 

(IEA), Maria van der Hoeven, in 

einem Interview mit NucNet zusammen. 

Zu den Zielen der EU, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, 

Versorgungssicherheit mit Energie 

und Nachhaltigkeit zu erreichen, hat die 

IEA einige Anmerkungen und Fragen. Die 

Ziele an sich sind gut und richtig, aber es 

fehlt bei der Umsetzung eine direkte Koppelung 

zwischen den einzelnen Zielen. Vor 

allem sieht die IEA in der Realisierung des 

Energiebinnenmarktes der Europäischen 

Union eine wesentliche Voraussetzung zur 

Zielerfüllung. Zweitens ist eine kosteneffiziente 

Klima- und Energiepolitik notwendig, 

da es nicht allein losgelöst um Klimaund 

Energiepolitik geht, sondern auch um 

wirtschaftliche und soziale Weiterentwicklung 

und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. 

Das zunehmende Betriebsalter der Kernkraftwerke 

in der EU erfordert auf Ebene 

der Staaten und bei den Anlagenbetreibern 

kurzfristige Entscheidungen zum Umgang 

mit Sicherheitsanforderungen, Leistungserhöhungen, 

Nachrüstungen, Lebensdauer 

verlängernden Maßnahmen und möglichen 

Verlängerungen von Betriebsgenehmigungen. 

Dabei sind Leistungserhöhungen bei 

laufenden Kernkraftwerken der kostengünstigste 

Weg zur Vermeidung von klimawirksamen 

Emissionen in der EU. Ohne 

Langfristbetrieb könnte der Anteil der Kernenergie 

in der EU bis 2030 erheblich fallen 

– bis auf ein Sechstel der heutigen Kapazität 

–, was mit erheblichen Problemen bei der 

Erreichung der EU-2030-Klimaziele verbunden 

sein dürfte. 

Die „öffentliche Meinung“ ist ein wichtiges 

Thema der Akzeptanz aller Energieträger, 

wobei diese in den einzelnen IEA-Mitgliedstaaten 

unterschiedlich ausgeprägt ist. Die 

Europäer sind inzwischen sehr sensibel in 

allen Fragen der Energiegewinnung und 

-nutzung, was auch Wind und Sonne mit einschließt. 

Eine Ursache sind fehlende Informationen. 

Transparenz und Information der 

Menschen sind also ein wichtiger Baustein 

zum Erfolg der einzelnen Energieträger. 

Übersicht der in Rumänien zwischen 

1997 und 2008 für die Verbesserung 

der nuklearen Sicherheit Ebene 

umgesetzten PHARE-Projekte 


Giustino Manna und Brian Farrar | Seite 14 

Im Rahmen des Programms Poland Hungary 

Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy 

(PHARE) hat die Europäische Kommission 

(EC) die Integration der osteuropäischen 

Staaten in das Marktsystem der 

Europäischen Union (EU) unterstützt. PHA- 

RE war ein finanzielles Konzept für zentral- 

und osteuropäische Staaten, die die 

Mitgliedschaft in der Union beantragt hatten. 

Das Programm unterstützte die Länder 

vor ihrem Beitritt zur EU. 

Der Beitrag fasst die Projekte zur Unterstützung 

der nuklearen Sicherheit in Rumänien 

zusammen. Wesentliche Handlungsfelder 

waren der Ausbau der regulatorischen Infrastruktur, 

der Umgang mit radioaktiven Abfällen 

sowie die Vor-Ort-Unterstützung, mit 

dem o.o. Ziel, die Voraussetzungen für einen 

Beitritt zur EU auf diesem Sektor zu erfüllen. 

Unter anderem erfolgt eine statistische 

Auswertung der Erfolge der einzelnen Projekte 

sowie eine Analyse der angewandten 

Methoden bei ihrer Umsetzung. 

Kernkraftwerk Olkiluoto 3 

Leckagetest für ein Containment 

unter extremen Bedingungen 

Tobias Fleckenstein | Seite 22 

Moderne Kernkraftwerke stellen hohe Anforderungen 

an die Planung und Ausführung 

von Sicherheitstests. TÜV SÜD hat 

den Leckagetest des Sicherheitsbehälters 

von Olkiluoto 3 in Finnland begleitet. Das 

weltweit größte Kernkraftwerk der dritten 

Generation hat einen Sicherheitsbehälter 

mit einem Volumen von 80,000 m 3 . 

Der Test erforderte 75 Temperatur- und 15 

Feuchtigkeitssensoren, die installiert und 

mit Kabeln von einer Gesamtlänge von mehr 

als zehn Kilometern korrekt verbunden werden 

mussten. Weiterhin mussten die Testgeräte 

zehn Tage einem absoluten Druck von 6 

Bar, Temperaturen von 30° C und einer hohen 

Luftfeuchte standhalten. Dies erforderte 

eine umfangreiche Vorbereitung und eine 

Vielzahl von Qualifizierungstests. Ein Teil 

dieser Qualifizierungstests wurde im Autoklav 

der Technischen Universität München 

vorgenommen, wo die Testbedingungen simuliert 

werden konnten. Die für die Durchführung 

der Prüfung erforderliche Software 

wurde von TÜV SÜD entwickelt und von der 

Deutschen Akkreditierungsstelle (DAkkS) 

nach ISO 17025 verifiziert. 

TÜV SÜD ermöglichte die verzugsfreie 

Durchführung des gesamten Prüfablaufs, 

da die aufgezeichneten Daten laufend direkt 

vor Ort ausgewertet wurden, darunter 

Druck, Temperatur, Luftfeuchte und Massenstrom. 

Unterstützt durch umfangreiche 

Vorbereitung, die kontinuierliche Datenerfassung 

sowie der laufenden Auswertung 

der Messdaten konnten alle Anforderungen 

erfüllt und alle Komponenten des Leckagetests 

erfolgreich abgeschlossen werden. 

Paradigmenwechsel im Beförderungsrecht 

oder am „Flaschenhals“ 

Hanns Näser | Seite 25 

Im gerade begonnenen Jahr sind höchst 

bedeutsame Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 

und des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts 

auf dem Gebiet des Atomrechts 

von erheblicher Tragweite zu erwarten. 

Insbesondere die Entscheidung des 

Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu dem mit der 

13. Novelle zum Atomgesetz erfolgten 

„Atomausstieg“ wird mit großer Spannung 

erwartet, weil neben den mit den Entscheidungen 

verbundenen weitreichenden Folgen 

auch grundsätzliche Fragen der Verfassung 

zu beantworten sind. 

Für das Bundesverwaltungsgericht steht die 

Frage zur Entscheidung an, ob sie die Revision 

gegen die Brunsbüttel-Entscheidung 

des Oberverwaltungsgerichts (OVG) Schleswig-Holstein 

zulässt, die aus Sicht der Kläger 

wesentliche Grundlagen der Verantwortungsabgrenzung 

zwischen Exekutive 

und Judikative verschoben hat. 

Gegenüber diesen grundlegenden Entscheidungen 

ist die erwartete Entscheidung 

des OVG Lüneburg zum nuklearen Transportrecht 

von untergeordneter Bedeutung, obwohl 

sie auf diesem Rechtsgebiet einen Paradigmenwechsel 

vollziehen wird. Es geht bei 

dieser Entscheidung um die Frage, ob und 

wann eine Klagebefugnis eines Dritten im 

nuklearen Transportrecht anerkannt werden 

kann, genauer, unter welchen Voraussetzungen 

ein Dritter gegen eine atomrechtliche 

Beförderungsgenehmigung klagebefugt ist. 

Da das Standortauswahlgesetz (vom 23. Juli 

2013 BGBl I S. 2553) die Rückführung 

von Glaskokillen aus der Wiederaufarbeitung 

von abgebrannten Brennelementen 

zum Transportbehälterlager Gorleben ausschließt, 

wird die Entscheidung des OVG 

Lüneburg für diesen Standort nur noch für 

gegenwärtige nicht absehbare Transporte 

vom Transportbehälterlager Gorleben in ein 

Endlager Relevanz haben können. Ob damit 

das für eine Feststellungsklage erforderliche 

Feststellungsinteresse, in concreto 

Wiederholungsgefahr bejaht werden kann, 

steht auf einem anderen Blatt. 

Gesamtbeurteilung der grundlegenden 

Sicherheitsanforderungen 

für natriumgekühlte Schnelle 

Reaktoren unter Einsatz der 

Objective-Provision-Tree-Methode 

Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, 

Yongwon Choi, Bongsuk Kang und 

Huichang Yang | Seite 27 

In der Republik Korea befindet sich der Prototyp 

eines natriumgekühlten schnellen Reaktors 

(SFR) mit 150 MWe Leistung in der 

Entwicklung. Der Entwickler plant, die Genehmigung 

für den Bau dieser Anlage bis 

zum Jahr 2020 zu beantragen und zu erhalten. 

Für den zukünftigen Genehmigungsprozess 

wurden grundsätzliche Sicherheitsanforderungen 

für SFR-Anlagen entwickelt. 

Die Anforderungen berücksichtigen in einem 

ersten Schritt die mögliche Übertragung 

der vorhandenen Anforderungen für 

Leichtwasserreaktoren auf den SFR. Dabei 

werden auch internationale Erfahrungen 

mit berücksichtigt. Ein erster Entwurf für 

die Sicherheitsanforderungen mit 59 Kapiteln 

wurde vorgelegt. 

Die heutigen Sicherheitsanforderungen für 

Leichtwasserreaktoren basieren auch auf 

umfassenden Erfahrungen mit Betrieb und 

Genehmigung. Solche liegen für SFR-Anlagen 

nicht vor. Es wurde daher ein systematischer 

und umfassender Ansatz entwickelt, 

Abstracts | German


um die Sicherheitsanforderungen für 

einen SFR auszuarbeiten. 

Für die Reaktivitätskontrolle wurde ein Ereignisbaum 

entwickelt und als Grundlage in 

die Sicherheitsanforderungen eingearbeitet. 

Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass die damit 

vorliegenden Anforderungen an die Reaktivitätskontrolle 

alle Einflussfaktoren berücksichtigen 

und somit ausreichend sind. 

Der neue Mehrzweckforschungsreaktor 

für Brasilien 

José Augusto Perrotta und 

Adalberto Jose Soares | Seite 30 

Brasilien verfügt derzeit über vier in Betrieb 

befindliche Forschungsreaktoren: 

IEA-R1, eine 5-MW-Pool-Anlage; IPR-R1, 

eine 100-kW-TRIGA-Typ-Anlage; ARGO- 

NAUTA, eine 500-W-Argonaut-Anlage und 

IPEN/MB-01, eine 100-W-Kritische-Anordnung. 

Die drei erstgenannten wurden in 

den 1950er- und 1960er-Jahren für Unterrichts-, 

Ausbildungs- und Forschungszwecke 

gebaut. Sie bilden die Basis der Infrastruktur 

des brasilianischen Nuklearprogramms. 

Die Anlage IPEN/MB-01 ist national 

entwickelt worden, um speziell Reaktorphysik-Codes 

zu qualifizieren. 

Abgesehen vom IEA-R1 sind aufgrund der 

geringen thermischen Leistungen bei den 

brasilianischen Anlagen keine Möglichkeiten 

zur Herstellung von Radioisotopen vorhanden. 

Zudem sind die Produktionskapazitäten 

des IEA-R1 begrenzt. Als Konsequenz 

wird der Bedarf an Mo-99 in der Nuklearmedizin 

zu 100 % durch Importe gedeckt. 

Aufgrund dieser hohen Abhängigkeit 

und der Mo-99-Versorgungskrise in den 

Jahren 2008/2009 hatte die brasilianische 

Regierung in 2010 den Beschluss zum Bau 

und Betrieb eines neuen Forschungsreaktors 

gefasst. Der neue Reaktor mit dem Namen 

RMB (Brazilian Multipurpose Reactor) 

wird als Pool-Anlage ausgeführt sein, 30 

MW thermische Leistung besitzen und 

niedrig angereichertes Uran als Kernbrennstoff 

nutzen. Der Reaktor wird Teil eines 

neuen Forschungszentrums rund 100 km 

von Sao Paulo entfernt im südlichen Landesteil 

von Brasilien sein. Das neue Forschungszentrum 

wird eine Reihe von Einrichtungen 

umfassen, um thermische und 

kalte Neutronen zu nutzen, Radioisotope 

herzustellen, Neutronenaktivierungsanalysen 

sowie Bestrahlungstest and Werkstoffen 

und Kernbrennstoff durchzuführen. Zudem 

wird ein Zwischenlager für den Kernbrennstoff 

des Forschungsreaktors eingerichtet. 

Der genutzte Kernbrennstoff soll hier für 

100 Jahre zwischengelagert werden. 

Forschungsreaktor sowie die Einrichtungen 

des Forschungszentrums werden detailliert 

vorgestellt. 

Jahrestagung Kerntechnik 2014: 

Berichterstattung zu den 

Tech nischen Sitzungen – Teil 3 

| Seite 34 

Zusammenfassende Berichte zu den Technischen 

Sitzungen der Jahrestagung Kerntechnik 

2014 (Frankfurt, 6. bis 8. Mai 

2014) der Technischen Sitzungen 

• Reactor Operation, Safety: Radiation 

Protection (Angelika Bohnstedt) 


Fusion Technology – Optimisation Steps 

in the ITER Design (Thomas Mull) 



Transfer (Jörg Starflinger) 

Berichte zu den weiteren Key Topics “Reactor 

Operation, Safety”, “Competence, Innovation, 

Regulation” and “Fuel, Decommissioning 

& Disposal” sind in den Ausgabe 

10 und 12 (2014) der atw erschienen 

bzw. werden in späteren Ausgaben der atw 

veröffentlicht. 

60 th year atw: 

Zum Geleit der ersten Ausgabe 1956 

Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, 

Karl Hecht, W.A. Menne, 

Herbert Seidl und Kurt Sauerwein | Seite 50 

Die vorliegende Zeitschrift will in sachlicher 

Klarheit umfassend über alle wirtschaftlichen 

Fragen der Kernumwandlung 

berichten. Die Unterrichtung wird umfassend 

und konzentriert sein und sich von 

der Behandlung der wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge 

einschließlich der Nachrichtengebung 

bis zu den Fragen der 

Rechtsordnung und der betrieblichen wie 

sozialen Sicherheit erstrecken. Insbesondere 

ihre Dokumentation, die gesichtet 

und zuverlässig ein Bild des Geschehens in 

Deutschland und in den wichtigsten Ländern 

der Welt gibt, wird den Leser schnell 

und knapp in verständlicher Sprache 

unterrichten. 

So soll DIE ATOMWIRTSCHAFT der ernsthaften 

und vor allem konzentrierten Berichterstattung 

dienen und über das deutsche 

Sprachgebiet hinaus ein gewissenhafter Berater 

auf einem neuen, zukunftsreichen 

Arbeitsfeld von Wirtschaft und Technik sein. 



auf dem Kernenergiegebiet 

Franz Josef Strauß | Seite 55 

Den Fragen internationaler Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Gebiete der Kernenergie für 

friedliche Zwecke wendet sich in steigendem 

Maße das Interesse aller politisch und 

wirtschaftlich interessierten Kreise unseres 

Volkes zu. Diese wachsende Anteilnahme 

entspricht der Erkenntnis, daß sich durch 

die Entwicklung der Kernenergie in raschem, 

im einzelnen kaum übersehbarem 

Ablauf eine neue technische Revolution 

anbahnt, die für die weitere wirtschaftliche 

Entwicklung der europäischen Staaten 

und dabei nicht zuletzt unseres Vaterlandes 

angesichts des augenblicklichen Rückstandes 

gegenüber den führenden Atommächten 

von ausschlaggebender Bedeutung 

sein wird. 

Immer mehr vertieft sich auch die Überzeugung, 

daß – bei aller Notwendigkeit, den 

Anschluß an die wissenschaftliche und technische 

Entwicklung im nationalen Bereich 

weitmöglichst zu gewinnen – sowohl im 

europäischen als auch im weltweiten Raum 

gemeinsame Anstrengungen notwendig 

sind, um die ungeheueren Möglichkeiten 

der Kernenergie für den friedlichen Fortschritt 

voll auszuschöpfen. 

Es ist, schon um den eigenen Standpunkt für 

die weitere Beteiligung an der internationalen 

Zusammenarbeit auf dem Kernenergiegebiet 

festzulegen, zweckmäßig und wertvoll, 

von Zeit zu Zeit einen Überblick über 

die bestehenden Einrichtungen sowie die 

verschiedenen Vorhaben und Pläne zu gewinnen 

und eine gewisse Zwischenbilanz zu 

ziehen. Diesem Zwecke sollen, ohne Anspruch 

auf Vollständigkeit in allen Einzelheiten 

zu erheben, die nachstehenden Zeilen 

dienen. Ich darf dabei zunächst auf die 

ganz oder überwiegend wissenschaftlichen 

Gremien der Zusammenarbeit und sodann 

auf die bilateralen und multilateralen Gegebenheiten 

und Vorhaben eingehen. 

Cyber Security von Nuklearanlagen 

in 2015 im Fokus der IAEO 

John Shepherd | Seite 66 

Im Jahresverlauf 2015 wird die Internationale 

Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) zu 

einer speziellen Konferenz zum Thema 

„Computersicherheit“ einladen. Die IAEA 

sieht aufgrund von Cyber-Attacken auf Finanzeinrichtungen 

und Regierungsbehörden 

bei diesem Thema auch für den Nuklearsektor 

einen besonderen Bedarf. 

Die IAEO führt dazu an, dass in den vergangenen 

Jahren Ereignisse mit Beeinträchtigung 

der IT-Sicherheit bei Nuklearanlagen, 

wie der STUXNET-Attacke, gezeigt 

haben, dass auch diese für Cyber-Angriffe 

anfällig sein können. 

Entsprechend sieht die IAEO einen wachsenden 

Handlungsbedarf, da kerntechnische 

Anlagen bei weiter zunehmenden Anwendungen 

von Computersystemen und 

weiteren digitalen Einrichtungen vermehrt 

zum möglichen Ziel von Cyber-Attacken 

oder kombinierten Cyber-Physischen-Attacken 

werden können. 

Die für Juni 2015 in Wien geplante Konferenz 

soll sich mit den aktuellen Trends der 

Computersicherheit sowie möglichen zukünftigen 

Themen und Handlungsfeldern 

beschäftigen. Sie ist auch eine Antwort auf 

die Erklärung der Minister der IAEO-Mitgliedsstaaten 

aus dem Jahr 2013, die auf 

die wachsende Bedrohung durch Cyber-Attacken 

und deren Möglichkeiten von Auswirkungen 

auf die nukleare Sicherheit verwies. 

Laut IAEO ist er ein weiteres Ziel der Konferenz, 

die internationale Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Gebiet der Computersicherheit als 

ein wichtiges Element der nuklearen Sicherheit 

zu fördern. 

Die IAEO wird Einzelheiten zur „Internationalen 

Konferenz zu Computersicherheit in 

der kerntechnischen Welt: Fachgespräche 

und Expertenaustausch“ auf ihren Webseiten 

veröffentlichen. 

11 

ABSTRACTS | GERMAN 

Abstracts | German


12 


Without Long-Term Nuclear Operation 

INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET 

NucNet 

Nuclear energy will continue to support 

greenhouse gas emission reduction targets until 

2020, but without decisions on long-term 

operation of ageing reactors, it will be difficult 

for the EU to meet its 2030 targets, International 

Energy Agency (IEA) executive director 

Maria van der Hoeven, tells NucNet. 

NucNet: Do you think EU energy policy addresses its goals 

of competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability? 

Maria van der Hoeven: At the IEA we have quite a few questions 

about this. It is good to have these targets, but up until 

now the EU is missing the direct connection between the three 

goals. What is mostly needed to achieve the goals is to finalise 

the EU’s internal energy market. Secondly, if you have a functioning 

energy market, you need cost-effective climate and 

energy policies because it is not only about climate and energy, 

but also about economic development and competitiveness. 

When you look into the EU climate and energy package, 

which sets the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 

40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990, increasing the share 

of renewable energy sources to 27 percent and increasing energy 

efficiency by at least 27 percent, it is a European package. 

What I mean by that is that these EU targets are not 

translated into national targets. What has to be done is to 

ensure there is a governance framework to monitor how these 

Europe-wide targets are going to be achieved. I think it will be 

interesting to see how the new Commission will do this and 

how energy security and especially security of electricity supply 

will be improved. 

NucNet: What do you think is the role of nuclear energy in 

these plans? 

Maria van der Hoeven: It is important to realise that nuclear 

has been very important when it comes to the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear is one of the biggest lowcarbon 

electricity sources and this should not be forgotten. It 

provides 27 percent of the EU’s electricity and it will continue 

to support the EU’s emission reduction goals until 2020. 

However, after 2020 we are expecting the shutdown of the 

German nuclear fleet, with Belgium and Switzerland following. 

By that time, decisions will need to be taken. We have an 

ageing EU reactor fleet which requires country-level and 

owner/operator-level decisions in the short term regarding 

plant safety regulations, plant upgrades, uprates, lifetime extensions 

and licence renewals. I think upgrading and uprating 

existing nuclear plants is one of the cheapest ways of producing 

carbon-free electricity in the EU. Without long-term 

operation, we expect nuclear capacity in the EU could fall by 

a factor of six by 2030 and that will make it more difficult to 

achieve the EU’s 2030 targets. 

designs. We are in favour of an EU-wide nuclear design approval 

process, combined with appropriate market mechanisms 

to help investment decisions. In our view, the EU should 

ensure that those member states that wish to maintain the 

nuclear option can invest in new nuclear. They should benefit 

from the same incentives as other low-carbon generating 

technologies. Nuclear should not be put at a disadvantage under 

the new state aid rules. 

NucNet: What are the biggest challenges the EU faces related 

to nuclear energy in the coming decades? 

Maria van der Hoeven: The biggest challenge will be the decommissioning. 

The primary issue with this is waste management. 

There is no nuclear repository in place for long-lived 

nuclear waste. Another challenge is the risk to energy security. 

Particular attention should be paid to investments in new 

nuclear power plants to be built in the EU using third-country 

technology providers to ensure that these plants are not 

bound to one supplier of nuclear fuel. The possibility of fuel 

supply diversification, ensured by the Euratom Supply 

Agency, should be a condition for any new investment. This 

would contribute to a diversified portfolio of fuel supply in the 

interest of all EU plant operators. 

NucNet: Why do you think there is still a “sensitivity” regarding 

nuclear in European public opinion? 

Maria van der Hoeven: We want to acknowledge that there 

is considerable sensitivity around nuclear energy. The same is 

true for shale gas and carbon capture and storage. This sensitivity 

to nuclear is not on the same level in all IEA member 

countries. For example, Austria and the Czech Republic 

clearly do not share the same view. 

Europe is very sensitive to almost all forms of energy, including 

wind turbines and solar panels. This is linked to a lack of 

information, so we need more and better transparency on information 

for people. Because of differences in the perception 

of costs, benefits and risks, each member state closely guards 

its sovereignty over its nuclear power industry. The EU should 

contribute to transparency across the Union. 

Background 

The IEA report “Energy Policies of IEA Countries: European 

Union – 2014” was published on 1 December 2014. Recommendations 

in the report build on lessons learned since the 

first IEA in-depth review of the European Union in 2008. 

An executive summary of the report is online: www.iea. 

org/Textbase/npsum/EU2014SUM.pdf 

Maria van der Hoeven became executive director of the IEA 

on 1 September 2011. Previously, Ms. Van der Hoeven 

served as a minister in the government of the Netherlands 

from 2002 to 2010. 

NucNet: What role does the EU have to play in ensuring 

more investment in new nuclear? 

Maria van der Hoeven: If the EU’s ageing reactor fleet is going 

to be decommissioned, then a decision has to be taken as 

to whether investments in new nuclear will be made. To help 

these investment decisions we need changes. For instance, 

there is no EU-wide licencing of new nuclear power plant 

Author 

NucNet 

The World’s Independent Communications Network 

for Nuclear Energy and Ionising Radiation 

Editor responsible for this story: Lubomir Mitev 

Avenue des Arts 56 

1000 Brussels/Belgium 

www.nucnet.org 

Inside Nuclear with NucNet 

EU 2030 Targets “Unachievable” Without Long-Term Nuclear Operation ı NucNet


Calendar 


13.-01.-15.01.2015 

World Nuclear Spotlight 2015 and Working 

Group Meetings: Beijing, China. 

World Nuclear Association. 

www.etouches.com/ehome/105915/235404/ 

01.02.-04.02.2015 

CONTE 2015 – Conference on Nuclear Training and 

Education. Jacksonville, FL, USA. American Nuclear 

Society – ANS, www.ans.org 

09.02.-13.02.2015 

32 nd Short Courses on Multiphase Flow 2015. Zurich, 

Switzerland. ETH Zurich, Institut für Energietechnik, 

www.lke.mavt.ethz.ch 


Nuclear Decommissioning & Waste Management 

Summit. London, UK. Active Communications 

International, www.wplgroup.com 


PIME 2015 – Public Information Materials Exchange. 

Bratislava, Slovakia. European Nuclear Society – 

ENS, www.euronuclear.org 


Nuclear energy in the UK: priorities for new build, 

funding and developing the supply chain. 

Central London, UK. Westminster Energy, 

Environment & Transport Forum. 

www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/ 

event.php?eid=935&t= 7870 


4. Fachgespräch Endlagerbergbau. Essen, Germany. 

DMT GmbH & Co. KG, www.dmt.de 


WM2015 Conference. Phoenix, AZ, USA. 

www.wmsym.org 


SUNCOP BF 2015 Seminar: BEPU Methodologies 

and Applications for FSAR in Nuclear Reactor 

Safety Technology. College Station, TX/USA. Nuclear 

Research Group of San Piero a Grado (GRNSPG) of 

the University of Pisa (UNIPI), the Department of 

Nuclear Engineering of Texas A&M (Texas A&M), 

the Network of Nuclear Engineering and Energy 

Services (NNEES). www.grnspg.ing.unipi.it/suncopbf/ 


Istanbul Nuclear Power Plants Summit. 

Istanbul, Turkey. 

www.nuclearpowerplantssummit.com/ 


2015 JAIF Annual Conference. Tokyo, Japan. Japan 

Atomic Industry Forum. www.jaif.or.jp 


RRFM 2015 – European Research Reactor Conference. 

Bucharest, Romania. European Nuclear Society – ENS, 

www.euronuclear.org 


46 th AMNT – Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology 

2015 | Jahrestagung Kerntechnik (AMNT 2015). 

Berlin, Germany. 

DAtF – Deutsches Atomforum e.V. 

(German Atomic Forum) and 

Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e.V. 

(German Nuclear Society). Programme, 

www.nucleartech-meeting.com 


ICONE 23 – Nuclear Power – Reliable Global Energy. 

Chiba, Japan. Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(JSME), American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) and Chinese Nuclear Society (CNS). 

www.icone23.org 


RAMTrans 2015 – Radioactive Materials Transport 

and Storage Conference and Exhibition. Oxford, UK. 

Nuclear Institute, www.ramtransport2015.com 


Canadian Nuclear Society 35 th Annual Conference – 

Nuclear Innovation Through Collaboration. Saint 

John, Canada. Canadian Nuclear Society. 

www.cnsconference2015.org 


ATOMEXPO 2015. Moscow, Russia. Rosatom, 

www.atomexpo.com 


2015 ANS Annual Meeting – Nuclear Technology: 

An Essential Part of the Solution. San Antonio, TX/ 

USA. ANS – American Nuclear Society, 

www.ans.org 


Power-Gen Europe – Secure Power for a Sustainable 

Economy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PennWell. 

www.powergeneurope.com 


CRETE 15 – International Conference in Applications 

of Nuclear Techniques. Crete, Greece. 

www.crete15.org 


International Conference on Management of Spent 

Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors – An Integrated 

Approach to the Back-End of the Fuel Cycle. 

Vienna, Austria. 

International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA. 

www.iaea.org 


Neue Entwicklungen im Strahlenschutz und ihre 

Anwendungen in der Praxis. Munich, Germany. 

TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH and 

TÜV SÜD Akademie GmbH, 

www.tuev-sued.de 


ENYGF 2015 -European Nuclear Young Generation 

Forum 2015. Paris, France. ENS YGN, 

www.nygf2015.org 


Frédéric Joliot/Otto Hahn Summer School on Nuclear 

Reactors ‘Physics, Fuels, and Systems’ – Enhanced 

Reactor Safety – Design and Simulation of Evolutionary 

LWR Cores. Karlsruhe, Germany. Nuclear Energy 

Division of the Commissariat à l´Énergie Atomique 

(CEA/DEN, France) and Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, 

KIT. www.fjohss.eu 


23 rd WiN Global Annual Conference: Women in 

Nuclear Meet Atoms for Peace. Vienna, Austria. 

WiN Global and the WiN IAEA Chapter, IAEA. 

www.women-in-nuclear.de, www.win-global.org/ 


Power-Gen Asia – Investing in a Sustainable 

Tomorrow. Bangkok, Thailand. PennWell. 

www.powergenasia.com 


VGB Congress “Power Plants 2015” 

Vienna, Austria. www.vgb.org 


WNA Symposium 2015. London, United Kingdom. 

World Nuclear Association, 

www.wna-symposium.org 


TopFuel 2015. Zurich, Switzerland. European Nuclear 

Society – ENS, www.euronuclear.org 


IAEA General Conference. Vienna, Austria. 

International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA. 

www.iaea.org 


GLOBAL 2015 – 21 st International Conference & 

Exhibition: Nuclear Fuel Cycle for a Low-Carbon 

Future. Paris, France. www.sfen.fr or www.sfen.org 


Jahrestagung des Fachverbandes Strahlenschutz 2015. 

Baden near Vienna, Austria. Österreichischer Verband 

für Strahlenschutz (ÖVS), Deutsch-Schweizerischer 

Fachverband für Strahlenschutz e. V. (FS). 

www.strahlenschutztagung.at 


2015 ANS Winter Meeting and Nuclear Technology 

Expo. Washington DC, USA. ANS – American 

Nuclear Society, www.ans.org 


COP 21 – 21 st session of the Conference of the Parties. 

Paris, France. United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change – UNFCCC, 

www: http://www.unfccc.int 


Power-Gen International and Nuclear Power International. 

Orlando, Florida, USA. PennWell. 

www.power-gen.com, 

www.nuclearpowerinternational.com 

13 

CALENDAR 


world nuclear fuel cycle. Prague, Czech Republic. 

World Nuclear Association – WNE, NEI – Nuclear 

Energy Institute. www.nei.org, 

www.world-nuclear.org 


Emergency Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants. 

Munich, Germany. TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 

and TÜV SÜD Akademie GmbH, www.tuev-sued.de 


International Conference on Operational Safety. 

Vienna, Austria. International Atomic Energy Agency 

– IAEA. www.iaea.org 


SMiRT-23 – Structural Mechanics in 

Reactor Technology. Manchester, UK. 

SMiRT. www.smirt23.org 

Calendar


OPERATION AND NEW BUILD 14 

Overview of PHARE Projects Implemented 

in Romania Between 1997 and 2008 for 

Enhancing the Nuclear Safety Level 

Radian Sanda, Benoit Zerger, Giustino Manna and Brian Farrar 

1. Framework of PHARE programme and 

projects list 

Reconstruction of the economy of each member state is a 

major asset for the European Union (EU) global community. 

Since 1991, through the Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction 

of the Economy (PHARE) programme, the 

European Commission (EC) supported the transition of the 

Eastern European states to the European market economy. 

PHARE was a pre-accession financial assistance programme 

which involved countries from Central and Eastern 

Europe that applied to become members of the 

European Union. The programme helped to carry out the 

reforms required for membership and to equip the partner 

countries to benefit from EU funds on accession. 

Romania was the first country of post-communist 

Europe to have official relations with the European Community. 

It was included in the Community’s Generalized 

System of Preferences from 1974. After December 1989 

when the Romanian Revolution occurred, successive Romanian 

Governments shared a common main goal to gain 

EU membership. After Hungary and Poland, Romania was 

the third Eastern European country to sign its Europe 

Agreement (1993) and submitted its official application for 

membership of the EU in 1995. During the 2000s, Romania 

implemented a large number of reforms to prepare for EU 

accession. Part of the costs was covered using the PHARE 

Programme. 

One of the fundamental priority areas of the PHARE 

funding was nuclear safety. Regarding this area, Romania, 

member of the EU since 1 st January 2007, received funds 

(more than 8 million euro) from the EC from 1998 in order 

to align its legislation and practices to the level of requirements 

imposed by the EU. 

Currently, Romania is operating two CANDU 6 type reactors 

located at Cernavodă site. A CANDU 6 type reactor is 

based on Canadian technology, and is a Pressurized Heavy 

Water moderated and cooled Reactor (PHWR). Romania is 

the only country which operates such type of reactors 

within the EU, and it is the only one within the Eastern 

European states operating only power reactors based on 

Western technology. 

In the period covered by this study, 16 PHARE projects 

were implemented in Romania (see Table 1). In general, 

these projects were aimed at improving the relevant institutional 

capabilities while dealing with nuclear safety issues. 

More specifically, the topics covered were: 

• Regulatory Activities (RA) (8 projects); 

• Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) (7 projects); 

• On-Site Assistance (OSA) – this means that direct support 

was given to the NPP in order to improve nuclear 

safety and to transfer the know-how of European power 

plant operators (1 project). 

2. Projects related to regulatory activities 

The projects concerned mainly the national nuclear safety 

authority “Comisia Naţională pentru Controlul Activităţilor 

Nucleare” (the National Commission for Nuclear Activities 

Control (CNCAN)) but also other specialized units and services 

within the Ministry of Administration and Interior, the 

Ministry of Environment and Waters Management, the Ministry 

of Education and Research or by another National Agencies. 

Figure 1 shows the implementation timeline of the 

PHARE projects related to RA. 

Enhancement of the regulatory regime 

There were three projects dealing with the Regulatory Regime 

Enhancement: RO/RA/01 and RO/RA/02 “Transfer 

of Western European Methodology to the Nuclear Safety 

Authority of Romania”, RO.01.10.01 “Nuclear Safety Regulatory 

Regime Consolidation” and 2005/017-519.03.03 

“Development of CNCAN capabilities regarding the regulatory 

aspects of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

(NORM) and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Materials (TENORM) related activities”. 

The first project was implemented in two phases, with a 

pause of more than 4 years between the phases. Both 

phases addressed the areas needing enhancement with the 

highest priority in the framework of the accession process 

and for which the transfer of Western European methods 

and practices was deemed to be most appropriate. The 

main objective of the project was to strengthen and enhance 

the effectiveness of the Romanian Nuclear Regulatory 

Authority and to improve its competence and independent 

technical assessment capability. Other topics 

covered were: Quality Management System (QMS) within 

the CNCAN organization, CNCAN performance on inspection 

practice and emergency preparedness, assistance in 

elaboration/implementation of regulations/norms/guides 

in accordance with European legislation, Western practice 

and taking into account the IAEA requirements. 

The second project, “Nuclear Safety Regulatory Regime 

Consolidation”, continued the work carried out in the first 

project, and it was intended primarily to revise and develop 

a new set of regulations in line with the practices of 

the regulatory bodies who were members of the Consortium 

of Western Regulators (CWR) which undertook the 

project. In addition to the work carried out to improve the 

QMS, CNCAN was in the process of implementing the acquis 

communautaire related to the Council Directives 

96/29/EURATOM and 97/43/EURATOM. During the project, 

assistance was provided for the revision of the final 

version of the regulations on radiation safety in the areas 

of radiotherapy, radio diagnosis, industry and nuclear 

medicine and the codes of practice for Dosimetry. In addition, 

the project resulted in the improvement of the norms 

regulating the safeguards and physical protection areas, 

and a new set of norms on radioactive waste management 

was developed, covering: the classification of the radioactive 

waste, the principles of radioactive waste management, 

clearance levels for radioactive waste and radioactive effluents 

and the authorization process of pre-treatment, 


Overview of PHARE Projects Implemented in Romania Between 1997 and 2008 for Enhancing the Nuclear Safety Level ı Radian Sanda, Benoit Zerger, Giustino Manna and Brian Farrar


Nr. Original Project Title Type of activity Project Code 

1 

2 

Support for Regulatory Authority staff to improve its 

capabilities with the view of Probabilistic Safety 

Assessment 

Development of CNCAN capabilities regarding the 

regulatory aspects of Naturally Occurring Radioactive 

Materials (NORM) and Technologically Enhanced 

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) 

related activities 

2005/017-519.03.01 

2005/017-519.03.03 

3 Romanian Regulatory Emergency Response Center 5812.06.01 

4 Early warning system – Cernavoda Regulatory Activities PH6.01/99 (Lot 1 and 2) 

5 Nuclear Safety Regulatory Regime Consolidation RO.01.10.01 

6 

7 

Support to the Romanian Nuclear Regulatory Authority 

(CNCAN) in the licensing review of Fire Protection, Overpressure 

Protection of Reactor Primary Circuit and Main 

Steam Line Design Safety Issues in Cernavoda 1 NPP 

Transfer of Western European Methodology to the 

Nuclear Safety Authority of Romania 

RO.01.10.02 

8 Support to CNCAN – seismic evaluation – Cernavoda NPP RO/TS/01 

9 

Safety Assessment of the Radioactive X-Waste Repository 

of Baita Bihor 

RO/RA/01 and RO/RA/02 

006-RO/PHARE-SCR/A6-01 


10 

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Repository Baita Bihor, Romania 

632.08.01 

11 

12 

Up-Grading of the Baita-Bihor Repository for 

Institutional Radioactive Waste in Romania 

Technical assistance to Romania in establishing the activity 

of National Agency for Radioactive Waste (ANDRAD) 

Radioactive Waste 

Management 

5812.06.03 

5812.06.02 

13 

Technical Basis and Methodological Approach for Waste 

Acceptance Criteria 

PH4.10/94 

14 

Management of Spent Sealed Radioactive Sources in 

Central and Eastern Europe 

SSRS/P01 

15 Characterization of radioactive waste at Cernavoda NPP 5812.06.04 

16 

Modernisation Project for Cernavoda NPP2 – 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

On-Site Assistance 

009-RO/PHARE-SCR/A6-C 

| | Tab. 1. 

PHARE projects implemented in Romania. 

| | Fig. 1. 

The timetable of PHARE projects related to Regulatory Authority. 

treatment, conditioning and packaging of radioactive 

waste. Last but not least, CNCAN staff was trained in various 

other areas such as: practical implementation of Quality 

Management requirements in the regulatory activities; 

specific procedures for issuing type approval in case of 

shipments; PHARE project management. 

The last PHARE project was also the shortest project implemented 

in support of RA. This project improved the 

CNCAN technical capabilities in the framework of radioactive 

waste management. In fact, this project assured the 

implementation in Romania of the Council Directive 

96/29/EURATOM which required for the first time that 

workplaces in the non-nuclear industry also need to be 

subject to regulatory control if the presence of natural radiation 

sources, that can lead to a significant exposure of 

workers or members of the public, cannot be disregarded 

from the radiation protection point of view. Such workplaces 

are found in industries using or processing types of 





minerals or rocks containing significant amounts of natural 

radioactive elements (NORM industry). Other operations 

such as storage, application or disposal of residues resulting 

from the NORM or other industries containing enhanced 

concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides also 

had to be included in the control. Title VII of 96/29/ 

EURATOM encompasses all kinds of natural radiation 

sources and the resulting increase in exposure. The focus of 

the project, on the other hand, was on materials (raw materials 

with increased radioactivity, NORM and TENORM 

residues) so that aircraft operation and radon in homes and 

workplaces (spas, caves etc.) were beyond the scope of this 

assignment. However, it was emphasized that the enforcement 

of NORM/TENORM regulations depends critically on 

the level of knowledge of the regulatory authorities. 

Enhancement of the licensing capabilities 

Three PHARE projects were related to the enhancement of 

the licensing capabilities of the regulatory authority: 

RO.01.10.02 „Support to the Romanian Nuclear Regulatory 

Authority (CNCAN) in the licensing review of Fire Protection, 

Overpressure Protection of Reactor Primary Circuit 

and Main Steam Line Design Safety Issues in 

Cernavoda 1-NPP”, RO/TS/01 “Support to CNCAN – seismic 

evaluation – Cernavoda NPP” and 2005/017-519.03.01 

“Support to Regulatory Authority Staff to improve its Capabilities 

with the View of Probabilistic Safety Assessment”. 

The project RO.01.10.02 started at the same time as the 

“Nuclear Safety Regulatory Regime Consolidation” project 

(01/01/2002) and was aimed at strengthening and enhancing 

the effectiveness of the CNCAN and to improve its 

competence in the licensing review of fire protection, water 

hammer safety analysis, overpressure protection of the 

reactor primary circuit and main steam line design safety 

issues in Unit 1 of Cernavoda NPP. The Fire Protection Programme, 

CNCAN’s Norm on specific requirements on fire 

protection in NPP, documentation covering the overpressure 

protection in Safety Systems and Reactor Primary Circuit 

and the Main Steam Line Stress Analyses were reviewed 

during the implementation of this project. This 

work benefited CNCAN in the decision making related to 

the Cernavoda NPP Unit 1 licensing process, in the resolution 

of open safety issues and provided technical and 

methodological support during the CNCAN independent 

review process of the plant modifications safety assessment 

submitted by the utility. 

The project “Support to CNCAN – seismic evaluation – 

Cernavoda NPP” was requested in order for the Regulatory 

Authority to receive assistance in the safety related seismic 

evaluation of the Cernavoda NPP. Under the project several 

seismic safety assessment studies performed for Cernavoda 

NPP were considered and evaluated. CNCAN was assisted 

in the establishment of procedures and practices for addressing 

seismic hazards evaluation and setting relevant 

regulatory requirements. 

The last PHARE project connected to the enhancement 

of the licensing activities was the project “Support to Regulatory 

Authority Staff to improve its Capabilities with the 

View of Probabilistic Safety Assessment”. This project required 

very high quality work to be carried out both by 

CNCAN personnel and by the sub-contractors responsible 

for the implementation of the project. The entire project 

(approx. 1.5 years) consisted in the provision of training to 

CNCAN staff responsible for PSA analysis. The training was 

aimed at equipping the staff of CNCAN with the necessary 

skills to determine to what extent the existing plant specific 

Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for Cernavoda 

Unit 1 could be used in supporting decisions related to nuclear 

safety, as well as at establishing a framework that 

would assure that the present and future PSAs could be 

relied upon. For knowledge management reasons, CNCAN 

developed a draft final version of the “Procedure on the review 

of PSA” (Level 1 for internal initiators as well as for 

internal and external hazards) that will be used in the future. 

Also, the final version of the “Norm on Regulatory 

Requirements for PSA” was developed, and it can be used 

by the utility staff in the preparation of the Licensee’s request 

for changes in the licensing basis and by regulatory 

staff in the evaluation of such submittals. 

Emergency response 

There were two PHARE projects implemented in Romania 

which were related to emergency response: PH6.01/99 (Lot 

1 and 2) “Early warning system – Cernavoda” and 5812.06.01 

“Romanian Regulatory Emergency Response Center”. 

The first PHARE project related to this topic was the 

project “Early warning system – Cernavoda”. This project, 

although related to RA, had, however, other beneficiaries 

than CNCAN: the Ministry of Administration and Interior 

(MI) and the Ministry of Environment and Waters Management 

(MEWM) as well as an extended scope: to not only 

provide a notification system for Cernavoda city and NPP, 

but also one for accidents with trans-boundary effects. At 

the end of this project, besides the enhancement of the existent 

Early Warning System around Cernavoda NPP and 

the establishment of a system designed for real time data 

acquisition and data transfer to the National Central Emergency 

Situation Centre, an Early Warning system around 

Kozloduy NPP (but within the Environmental Protected 

Zone on Romanian territory) was installed and a Regional 

Emergency Centre in the city of Bechet (close to Romanian/ 

Bulgarian border on the Danube river) was established. 

The second project, “Romanian Regulatory Emergency 

Response Center”, continued the work performed by the 

previous PHARE project. The difference was that this project 

was aimed at improving the regulatory body (CNCAN) 

competences in emergency management. The project 

provided the appropriate equipping of the CNCAN Emergency 

Response Centre. By the end of the project, CNCAN 

was provided with technical means for emergency response 

and sample analysis, and also with the necessary 

training for raising the skills and knowledge of the staff responsible 

for emergency response. Besides, CNCAN developed 

a comprehensive set of technical specifications for 

the tendering and procurement of the necessary equipment 

– and the scope was extended from the acquisition of 

analysis equipment to all the equipment needed for the establishment 

of a network for transferring data to other national 

and international Emergency Response authorities. 

3. Projects related to radioactive waste 

management 

The PHARE projects implemented in Romania in support of 

RWM focussed on improving the quality of services and the 

skills and knowledge at institutional level of the institutions 

considered the major players in the radioactive waste 

management area. The beneficiaries of these projects 

were: CNCAN, the Ministry of Education and Research 

(MER), the National Agency for Radioactive Waste (AN- 

DRAD), the Romanian National Electrical Company (Societatea 

Nationala “Nuclearelectrica” (SNN)) and the “Regia 

Autonoma pentru Metale Rare” (Rare Metals Autonomous 

Authority – RMAR). Figure 2 illustrates the timeframes of 

these projects. 




| | Fig. 2. 

The timetable of PHARE projects related to Radwaste Management. 

Radioactive waste repository 

There were 4 projects in connection to the Radioactive 

Waste Repository. 

Three of them were intended to support the establishment 

of the national Low-Level Radioactive Waste Repository 

at Baita, in Bihor County. These projects were, chronologically, 

006-RO/PHARE-SCR/A6-01 “Safety Assessment 

of the Radioactive X-Waste Repository of Baita Bihor”, 

5812.06.03 “Up-Grading of the Baita-Bihor Repository for 

Institutional Radioactive Waste in Romania” and 632.08.01 

“Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Repository Baita Bihor, Romania”. 

The first project focused on providing technical assistance 

to the CNCAN experts in order to improve their techniques 

of overall safety assessment of the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Repository Baita Bihor. The project considered 

the technical characteristics of the waste disposal 

site (i.e. the inflow rate, the sorption on backfill) and delivered 

a thorough Integrated Performance Assessment 

(IPA) based on code simulations, in order to verify the uncertainty 

of hypotheses and to identify worst case scenarios 

(i.e. the rock cover has been totally eroded). The IPA 

was performed in collaboration with IRSN (France) and 

GRS (Germany) specialists for establishing a reliable 

strategy for the future (i.e. for defining the maximum 

waste content of the repository and of waste acceptance 

criteria). It should be noted that the assessment was performed 

under the regulatory and technical point of view, 

and, at the end, a preliminary list of base case scenarios 

was established. These scenarios included particular features, 

events and processes (FEP) defined in the so-called 

simplified FEP lists drawn up by experts and screened out 

on the basis of appropriate justifications. 

The second project, “Up-Grading of the Baita-Bihor Repository 

for Institutional Radioactive Waste in Romania”, 

continued on the same activities started in the first project. 

This project targeted the application of best EU practices in 

the upgrading and licensing of Baita-Bihor Repository for 

institutional radioactive waste in Romania, in order to improve 

the radiological protection of the operational staff, 

population and environment with regards to radioactive 

waste disposal activities in Romania. For this project, the 

beneficiaries were both the Ministry of Education and Research 

and CNCAN. The project aimed, within the framework 

of the Institutional Radioactive Waste, to assess the 

situation at Baita Bihor placing emphasis on the most urgent 

actions to be implemented for the complete refurbishment 

and modernisation of the repository. 

The third project treating the establishment of the Low- 

Level Radioactive Waste Repository was the longest one. 

The project “Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Repository Baita Bihor, Romania“ 

was a clear continuation of the efforts performed 

during the implementation of the project regarding the 

safety assessment of the repository. Not only CNCAN, but 

also the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) were 

the project beneficiaries, although the results were 

mainly used by CNCAN during the licensing process of 

the repository operations. The work was carried out to 

ensure that the activities related to the Baita Bihor repository 

corresponded to the European Union practices and 

strategies. During the project implementation the Preliminary 

Safety Assessment Report based on in-depth 

analysis of the operational radioprotection and post-closure 

radiological safety of the repository was developed, 

including the assessment of the associated uncertainties. 

In order to undertake future safety analysis, local skills 

were developed as well, in parallel with the definition of 

a programme focused on site characterization and experimental 

work in order to further improve the knowledge 

of the site and reduce the uncertainties underlying the 

assessed doses. 

National Agency for Radioactive Waste 

One project (5812.06.02) dealt with “Technical assistance 

to Romania in establishing the activity of National 

Agency for Radioactive Waste (ANDRAD)”, and started at 

the same time as the project related to the up-grading 

of the repository. This project was needed to help Romania 

to establish in detail the responsibilities of the National 

Agency for Radioactive Waste, which was formally 

set up in January 2003 (following the Governmental Ordinance 

No.11/2003). ANDRAD was assisted to develop a 

national strategy for safe management of spent fuel and 

radioactive waste and to define the appropriate financing 

scheme for radioactive waste disposal. During this project 

the recommendations from the 2004 Country Report 

regarding the progress made by Romania in the accession 

perspective were implemented; they concerned 

the clear delineation of responsibilities between CNCAN, 

ANDRAD and Nuclear Agency (AN) because of the need 

for continuation of efforts to implement the measures to 

improve the management of institutional radioactive 

waste. The transfer of the National Repository of Radioactive 

Waste Baita-Bihor to ANDRAD responsibility was 

following the recommendations of the (Romanian) Country’s 

Supreme Defence Council Resolution no. 108/2005 

on the establishment of the necessary financial resources 

for decommissioning and the management of radioactive 

waste. 






Waste acceptance criteria 

The PHARE project PH4.10/94 had beneficiaries from multiple 

countries. In Romania, the beneficiary was the “Regia 

Autonoma pentru Metale Rare” (Rare Metals Autonomous 

Authority – RMAR). The other co-beneficiaries were institutions 

from Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The project 

provided the beneficiary country with comprehensive information 

on accepted EU practices in radioactive waste 

management and disposal, critical assessment of the methods 

employed in the beneficiary’s countries and methodology 

for the development of radioactive Waste Acceptance 

Criteria (WAC) for waste packages to ensure their safe 

transportation, handling, storage and disposal. The technical 

assistance provided for Romania covered the following: 

a presentation of the waste packages acceptance criteria 

methodology for all operating disposal facilities in 

the countries of the European Union; the performance of a 

technical study covering relevant aspects to define the 

waste packages acceptance criteria; and the development 

of the waste package acceptance criteria approach that 

will be applied to the planned disposal facilities. 

Waste characterization at Cernavoda NPP 

The project 5812.06.04 was the last PHARE project implemented 

in Romania in support of RWM activities. This project 

was also the only project in support of RWM having as 

beneficiary the nuclear operator: the Romanian National 

Electrical Company (Societatea Nationala “Nuclearelectrica” 

(SNN)). The project covered the aspects related to on-site 

radioactive waste characterisation in order to achieve the 

required level for accession to the European Union. The 

activities carried out were concise and referred to: the classification 

system based on physical form of the wastes 

(solid, organic liquid, inflammable solid-liquid mixes); the 

identification system, for each type of radioactive waste, 

based on their source, substance, radionuclide content and 

contact dose rate; and the on-site disposal facilities for each 

type of radioactive waste. The project resulted in the setting 

up of measuring equipment for waste characterisation, 

the development of methodologies for characterising the 

radionuclide content in low and intermediate level waste, 

the establishment of a database based on the waste characterisation 

system and the improvement of the capability of 

personnel of Cernavoda NPP to implement the characterisation 

programme. Last, but not least, a waste segregation 

management according to disposal route was implemented 

(e.g. free release, disposal in a landfill, disposal in a 

near-surface repository, and long-term storage pending the 

availability of a deep geological repository). 

Spent Sealed Radioactive Sources (SSRS) 

There was only one project implemented in Romania in respect 

of the management of the SSRS: SSRS/P01 “Management 

of Spent Sealed Radioactive Sources in Central 

and Eastern Europe”. This project was the shortest project 

in support of the RWM activities (12 months), and was 

also an international one having five beneficiary countries. 

During the project implementation, a study was performed 

to consider the situation relating to the regulation and 

management of spent sealed radioactive sources (SSRS) in 

five of the Central and Eastern European (C&EE) countries 

that were being considered for admission to the EU, 

namely, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia 

(two previous studies had considered the situation in the 

current EU member states and in the Czech Republic, Estonia, 

Hungary, Poland and Slovenia). It should be noted 

that, at the date of the project, Romania was the only country 

in the study that manufactured SRS and had one national 

radioactive waste disposal facility that could accept 

SSRS. In addition, there were two interim storage facilities 

for SSRS. The project concluded that all the countries were 

proceeding with their radioactive waste management 

plans, taking account (to varying degrees) of international 

standards and practices relating to acceptable dose uptakes, 

environmental impact, etc. Such a situation was 

similar to that relating to the EU member states that had 

been studied, which had also not developed specific prescriptive 

disposal criteria for universal application across 

all states. Many improvements for radioactive waste management 

were recommended to the states and the implementation 

of these was expected to serve to further improve 

the situation and provide a long-term safe environment 

for the management of SSRS. In fact, the technical 

assistance offered for Romania covered the following: detection 

of radioactive material at the entrance of metal 

scrap facilities and at national borders; understanding of 

the full life-cycle of SRS, from manufacture through to disposal 

in order to avoid accidental inclusion of SSRS in consignments 

of scrap metal; development of the current regulations 

in order to include waste categorisation, facility 

licensing and SSRS disposal; and transferring of the old 

database that included SRS and related information, kept 

by CNCAN, to a new more practical one. 

4. Projects related to On-Site Assistance 

The project with reference 009-RO/PHARE-SCR/A6-C 

was titled “Modernisation Project for Cernavoda NPP2 – 

Environmental Impact Assessment“. It should be noted 

that the aim of the project was not the assessment of the 

safety of the power plant design itself, but of the manner in 

which the safety-related, radiation protection and emergency 

response systems already were or would be realised 

at Cernavoda, and their compliance with Western standards 

and practices as far as relevant to the EIA. 

It was underlined that the overall radiation protection 

situation at the current Unit 1, which was assumed to be 

identical to that to be applied at Unit 2, was considered to 

be in compliance with relevant international standards and 

practices regarding the protection of both staff and population. 

The significance of some minor deviations was considered 

to be low and, additionally, they were understood 

to be resolved before the Unit 2 was put into operation. 

Furthermore, many design changes in the Cernavoda 

Unit 2 were observed with respect to its reference Unit, the 

Cernavoda Unit 1. Of these design improvements, the majority 

were related to safety and the mitigation of postulated 

accidents. Therefore, the dose estimates made for the 

Unit 1 could be assumed to be conservative for the Unit 2. 

The list of major changes planned for this unit included a 

number of the components and systems, such as the Heat 

Transport System (HTS) and its components, heat transport 

auxiliary systems, safety systems, instrumentation 

and control systems and the control room. Improvements 

had also been recommended by the consultant (HPC AG – 

the engineer enterprise) for safety analysis methodologies. 

5. Discussion 

The projects in support of the Regulatory Authority targeted 

the areas considered as highest priority in the accession 

process with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of 

the Romanian Nuclear Regulatory Authority and improving 

its competence and independent technical assessment capability. 

The type of intervention accomplished considered 




both the organisational and human dimensions of the Regulatory 

Authority, intervening on its operating procedures, 

capacity to equip itself with adequate Quality Management 

System and Procedures, and on the processes affecting 

the output of the Regulatory Authority activities. 

The intervention on the human dimension, i.e. the staff, 

of the Regulator was done by means of the implementation 

of targeted training. The transfer of know-how took place 

not only in theoretical terms but by exploiting opportunities 

of “learning by doing”, which allowed the staff to develop 

their skills and competences whilst approaching the 

open issues they were called to analyse and tackle. For example, 

the PHARE assistance for the implementation of the 

two Council Directives inherent radiation protection were 

combined with assistance for the revision of the regulations 

on radiation safety in the areas of radiotherapy, radio diagnosis, 

industry and nuclear medicine and the codes of 

practice for Dosimetry – in other words, the staff learned 

what the purposes and the meaning of the Council Directives 

were, while they were mentored on how to implement 

them. Furthermore, the assistance also supported CNCAN 

in enhancing its competences with respect to the tasks inherent 

in the Cernavoda NPP Unit 1 licensing process, the 

safety related seismic evaluation of the Cernavoda NPP, and 

the analysis of the of PSA for Cernavoda Unit 1. 

The projects which improved the Regulatory Authority 

competences in emergency management highlighted the 

need to consider the inter-institutional links whilst carrying 

out certain interventions. For this reason, the project 

on the early warning system for Cernavoda not only benefited 

the Regulatory Authority, but also the Ministry of 

Administration and Interior (MI) and the Ministry of Environment 

and Waters Management (MEWM). The PHARE 

projects also emphasised the need for attention to the 

trans-boundary effects of accidents. 

The projects also provided tools for the improvement of 

the Quality Management System of CNCAN, of the working 

methodology and performances of the Authority in inspection 

practices and emergency preparedness and in the conception 

and implementation of regulations, considering 

the relevant international and Western practices and legislation. 

The PHARE projects in support of radioactive waste 

management targeted several institutions, including 

CNCAN, all involved in the radioactive waste management 

area. These projects benefited from the opportunity to exploit 

synergies by addressing radioactive waste management 

issues which were a common denominator among 

the considered accession countries. The methodology adopted 

was similar to that followed in the implementation 

of the support to the Regulatory Authority, in the sense that 

the transfer of the EU knowledge and practices took place 

within the process of revision of the methods and practices 

adopted in the beneficiary’s country. Moreover, some projects 

focusing on the repository of Baita Bihor, provided 

direct guidance in the Safety Assessment for the Repository, 

the application of best EU practices in the upgrading 

and licensing of Baita-Bihor Repository, and its Preliminary 

Safety Analysis Report. 

Furthermore, the PHARE interventions aimed at supporting 

the establishment of the National Agency for Radioactive 

Waste (ANDRAD) and provided assistance to the 

implementation of the necessary separation of tasks and 

responsibilities between this Agency, CNCAN and the Nuclear 

Agency. 

The projects also provided training for developing the 

local skills, including those of the nuclear operator. 

While observing that in general there were 7 institutions 

involved in the projects’ implementation, the main 

beneficiary was the National Nuclear Regulatory Authority 

(CNCAN). CNCAN was involved not only in all the RA supporting 

projects, but also in four other PHARE projects supporting 

RWM. SNN was involved in two projects: the OSA 

project and one of the RWM projects. The other players 

were involved in one project each. The overall involvement 

distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. 

Although in each of the three improvement areas targeted 

by the projects there were pauses – for example, two 

pauses while implementing the PHARE projects in support 

of RA and RWM – at the country level the effort was much 

more continuous and extended to a period of 12 years (see 

Figure 4). It is worth to consider that in order to horizontally 

transfer the knowledge obtained by the implementing 

a project, some time is needed after the project is completed. 

After the 1 January 2007 (the day of Romania’s accession 

to the EU) there were two more PHARE projects implemented 

in Romania. Both of them addressed the field of RA 

– one of them aimed at improving the quality of the PSA 

| | Fig. 3. 

Distribution of beneficiaries among the PHARE projects. 


| | Fig. 4. 

PHARE projects implementation timeline (red: Regulatory Authority; green: Radwaste Management; blue: On-Site Assistance). 





analysis performed by the CNCAN’s staff and the other one 

aimed at improving CNCAN’s capabilities regarding the regulatory 

aspects of NORM and TENORM related activities. 

As for the staff training strategy, while observing the 

chronology of project implementation, it can be easily seen 

that the majority of the effort was directed at training of 

the staff of the CNCAN. In fact, the CNCAN’s staffs were 

trained continuously, on relevant topics, during the whole 

period of implementation of the PHARE projects. Only for 

specific activities the training of the personnel focussed on 

staff from other agencies, i.e. RMAR staff was trained for 

the development of radioactive WAC for waste packages 

to ensure their safe transportation, handling, storage and 

disposal. Similarly, staff from MI and from MEWM was 

trained on how to develop and use a notification system 

not only for accidents affecting Cernavoda city and NPP, 

but also one for accidents with trans-boundary effects. The 

licensee’s staff also received important training on how to 

characterize radioactive waste at the plant, on understanding 

the environmental impact of their activities and 

regarding the current level of radioprotection for staff, 

public and environment. The scientists from MER were involved 

in performing different calculations using various 

codes while preparing the PSAR for the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Repository Baita Bihor. 

6. Conclusions 

During the phase of accession to the European Union, Romania 

benefited of a number of PHARE projects aiming at 

improving the nuclear safety in the country. The implementation 

of the projects covered a period of about 12 

years and was carried out following a clear strategy of intervention. 

The projects targeted areas identified as having 

high-priority and highly impacting the nuclear safety of 

the country: Regulatory framework, Radioactive Waste 

Management and also Operation. 

In particular, the projects focused on the Regulatory 

framework and contributed both to its institutional development 

and to the enhancement of the skills and competences 

of the staff of the Safety Authority, which had the 

opportunity to acquire the western and international 

know-how and practices and incorporate them into its own 

practices while applying them to the issues the staff were 

called upon to deal with in their regulatory duties. The 

knowledge and skills acquired will be further used for continuously 

improving the in-house capabilities of the organisations 

involved in carrying out and controlling the nuclear 

activities in Romania. 

Together with the institutional consolidation of the 

Regulatory Authority, the PHARE projects produced as 

spin-off a series of technical documents to be used as reference 

in the future activities of the Safety Authorities and of 

the nuclear actors of the countries. 

This review of the selected PHARE projects has shown 

that the intervention on the nuclear safety of the country 

followed a systematic approach, with projects carried out 

sometimes in parallel, sometimes in series, and allowing – 

in the latter case – adequate time between the sequential 

projects for the absorption and further development of 

knowledge and know-how. In this way, the conception of 

the follow-up project was started considering a new basis. 

The PHARE interventions highlighted the specific inter-institutional 

dimension of nuclear safety in Romania 

improving the compatibility of the regulatory system with 

the country’s regulatory commitment and institutional 

and human resources endowment, stressing also the trans- 

boundary effects of some specific accidents. It is important 

to recognise also the role of PHARE in bringing together a 

number of accession countries for considering the common 

nuclear safety issues they were called to tackle, for 

example those related to Radioactive Waste Management, 

and identifying opportunities for cooperation; this uncovers 

another side of the European added value of the programme. 

Finally, the review of the PHARE projects has highlighted 

that the regulatory activities, the nuclear safety, 

the safety of radioactive sources, the radioprotection and 

the radioactive waste management programmes were addressed 

and enhanced during the implementation of the 

projects. 

Acknowledgements 

The success of the PHARE projects was based on the efforts 

of various stakeholders involved: the European Commission 

staff involved in managing the projects, the Western 

contractors and Eastern subcontractors that carried out 

the work with professionalism, achieving the successful 

results. It should be noted that the success of such projects 

is also in direct relationship with the involvement of the 

beneficiary organisation. All their work and efforts are appreciated 

and acknowledged. 

The PHARE programme was managed by the European 

Commission Directorate General for Enlargement (DG 

ELARG). 

Abbreviations 

AN Agentia Nucleara (Nuclear Agency) 

ANDRAD Agentia Nationala pentru Deseuri Radioactive 

(National Agency for Radioactive Waste) 

CANDU Canada Deuterium Uranium 

CNCAN Comisia Nationala pentru Controlul 

Activitatilor Nucleare (National Commission 

for Nuclear Activities Control) 

CWR Consortium of Western Regulators 

C&EEC Central and East-European Countries 

EC European Commission 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

EU European Union 

EURATOM European Atomic Energy Community 

FEP Features, Events and Processes 

GRS Gesellschaft für anlagen-und Reaktor 

Sicherheit mbH 

HTS Heat Transport System 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IPA Integrated Performance Assessment 

IRSN Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté 

Nucléaire 

MER Ministry of Education end Research 

MI Minister of Interior 

MEWM Ministry of Environment and Water 

Management 

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

NPP Nuclear Power Plant 

OSA On-Site Assistance 

PHARE Poland, Hungary Aid for Reconstruction 

PHWR Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor 

PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment 

PSAR Preliminary Safety Assessment Report 

QA Quality Assurance 

QMS Quality Management System 

RA Regulatory Activities 

RMAR Rare Metal Autonomous Authority 

(Regia Autonoma pentru Metale Rare) 




RWM 

SNN 

SRS 

SSRS 

TENORM 

TSO 

WAC 

References 

Radioactive Waste Management 

Societatea Nationala “Nuclearelectrica“ 

(National Society “Nuclearelectrica“) 

Sealed Radioactive Source 

Spent Sealed Radioactive Source 

Technologically Enhanced Naturally 

Occurring Radioactive Materials 

Technical Support Organization 

Waste Acceptance Criteria 

| | PHARE report: Support for Regulatory Authority Staff to improve 

its Capabilities with the View of Probabilistic Safety Assessment, 

number 2005/017-519.03.01. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Development of CNCAN capabilities regarding the 

regulatory aspects of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

(NORM) and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive 

Materials (TENORM) related activities, number 2005/017- 

519.03.03. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Romanian Regulatory Emergency Response Centre, 

number 5812.06.01. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Early warning system – Cernavoda, number 

PH6.01/99(Lot 1 and 2). Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Nuclear Safety Regulatory Regime Consolidation, 

number RO.01.10.01. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Support to the Romanian Nuclear Regulatory 

Authority (CNCAN) in the licensing review of Fire Protection, 

Overpressure Protection of Reactor Primary Circuit and Main Steam 

Line Design Safety Issues in Cernavoda 1-NPP, number 

RO.01.10.02. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Transfer of Western European Methodology to the 

Nuclear Safety Authority of Romania (2nd Phase), 

number RO/RA/02. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Support to CNCAN – seismic evaluation – 

Cernavoda NPP, number RO/TS/01. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Safety Assessment of the Radioactive X-Waste 

Repository of Baita Bihor, number 006-RO/PHARE-SCR/A6-01. 

Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Repository Baita Bihor, Romania, number 

632.08.01. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Up-Grading of the Baita-Bihor Repository for Institutional 

Radioactive Waste in Romania, number 5812.06.03. 

Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Technical assistance to Romania in establishing the 

activity of National Agency for Radioactive Waste (ANDRAD), 

number 5812.06.02. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Technical Basis and Methodological Approach for 

Waste Acceptance Criteria, number PH4.10/94. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Management of Spent Sealed Radioactive Sources 

in Central and Eastern Europe – Interim Repor“, number SSRS/P01. 

Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Characterization of radioactive waste at Cernavoda 

NPP, number 5812.06.04. Restricted 

| | PHARE report: Modernisation Project for Cernavoda NNP2 – 

Environmental Impact Assessment, number 009-RO/PHARE-SCR/ 

A6-C. Restricted 

Authors 

Radian Sanda, Benoit Zerger, Giustino Manna and Brian Farrar 

Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) 

Westerduinweg 3 

1755 ZG Petten/The Netherlands 


Imprint 

| | Editorial Advisory Board 

Prof. Dr. Dr.-Ing. e. h. Adolf Birkhofer 

Dr. Peter Fritz 

Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Gräber 

Dr. Ralf Güldner 

Dr. Ulrich Hartmann 

Dr. Norbert Haspel 

Dr. Walter Hohlefelder 

Prof. Dr. Gerd Jäger 

Dipl.-Ing. Ulf Kutscher 

Jörg Michels 

Dr. Joachim Ohnemus 

Dr. Astrid Petersen 

Prof. Dr. Winfried Petry 

Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz 

Prof. Dr. Bruno Thomauske 

Stefan vom Scheidt 

Dr. Hannes Wimmer 

Ernst Michael Züfle 

| | Editorial 


Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany 

Phone +49 2324-4397723, 

Fax +49 2324-4397724 

E-mail: editorial@atomwirtschaft.com 

| | Publisher 

INFORUM Verlags- und 

Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany 

Phone: +49 30 498555-0, Fax: +49 30 498555-19 

www.nucmag.com 

| | General Manager 

Christian Wößner, Berlin, Germany 

| | Advertising and Subscription 

Sibille Wingens 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany 

Phone: +49 30 498555-10, Fax: +49 30 498555-19 

E-mail: sibille.wingens@nucmag.com 

| | Prize List for Advertisement 

Valid as of 1 January 2015 

Published monthly, 11 issues per year 

Germany: 

Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 16.- € 

Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 176.- € 

All EU member states without VAT number: 

Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 16.- € 

Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage)176.- € 

EU member states with VAT number 

and all other countries: 

Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 14.95 € 

Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage)164.49 € 

| | 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, microfilming 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. 

| | Setting 

Waltraud Zimmer, Bonn, Germany 

Phone: +49 228 2428867, Fax: +49 228 2428967 

E-Mail: w.zimmer@atomwirtschaft.de 

| | Printing 

in puncto druck + medien GmbH, Bonn 

ISSN 1431-5254 





Nuclear Power Plant Olkiluoto 3 – 


Extreme Conditions 

Tobias Fleckenstein 

Modern nuclear power plants place high demands on the design and execution of safety checks. TÜV SÜD specialists 

supported the containment leakage test for the largest-capacity third generation nuclear power plant in the world – 

Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. The experts successfully met the challenges presented by exceptional parameters of vessel 

volume and pressure. 

To test a nuclear containment vessel 

for pressure-resistance and leak-tightness, 

it is filled with compressed air 

while temporarily installed instruments 

monitor a number of parameters, 

including any potential drops in 

pressure. Although these examinations 

are routinely performed all over 

the world, the test of the Finnish reactor 

Olkiluoto 3 in February 2014 set 

a new benchmark: It was the first pressure 

and leak-tightness test ever conducted 

on an EPR unit, and the first 

pre-operational test of a reactor containment 

conducted in Europe since 

2001. 

The EPR reactor is a third generation 

pressurized water reactor (PWR), 

designed and built by French supplier 

AREVA. The construction to date has 

used about 200,000 m 3 of concrete, 

and at the height of the project there 

were 700 sub-contractors and up to 

4,300 workers from 60 countries at the 

site. In order to prepare for the safety 

check, TÜV SÜD experts carried out 

careful planning and logistics both onsite 

and off-site, and in close cooperation 

with AREVA and with TVO, the 

Finnish owner company of Olkiluoto 3. 

and includes a steel liner, which ensures 

a continuous surface, including 

the basemat. Inside the containment 

are many of the reactor’s key components: 

the whole reactor coolant system, 

the core catcher, the reactor pressure 

vessel, the steam generators, the 

in-containment refuelling water storage 

tank and part of the main feedwater 

lines. 

The inner containment shell is 

the final barrier in the EPR reactor’s 

defence strategy and designed to 

withstand high pressures. It is intended 

to effectively contain without 

leakage the total primary coolant 

system inventory released into the 

containment volume. Containment 

leak rate tests are mandatory to specifically 

assure two aspects of a power 

plant’s safety. Firstly, that the leakage 

through the containment itself or 

through the components that penetrate 

it, doesn’t exceed specified allowable 

leakage rates. Secondly, that the 

integrity of the containment structure 

is maintained during its service 

life. 

Acceptance criteria for leak rates 

are determined so as to demonstrate 

that the leak rate assumed in the 

plant’s safety analysis and approved 

by the regulatory agency will be maintained 

throughout the plant’s operating 

lifetime. 

The containment of Olkiluoto 3 is 

unique in that the vessel’s volume is 

80,000 m 3 and the test pressure 

reached up to 6 bar while measurements 

were carried out over a period 

of ten days. The demands that these 

parameters placed on the test instruments 

were so extreme that none 

of the involved manufacturers were 

able to provide assurance that their 

sensors would withstand these extreme 

conditions and retain their accuracy. 

However, high accuracy is necessary 

for sufficient data quality and 

data safety, and ultimately for a reliable 

measurement of the leakage 

rate. 

To add to the challenge, the conventional 

method of passing the individual 

signal transmission lines of the 

instruments through the reactor walls 

Unique containment 

parameters 

While the outer containment shell 

provides protection against external 

hazards, such as an airplane crash, the 

inner containment is designed to confine 

the mass of radioactive materials 

inside the structure. If an accident 

causes radioactive steam to escape the 

internal system, then the containment 

shell plays a critical role in preventing 

the release of radioactive material into 

the environment. It typically consists 

of a structure enclosing the reactor 

pressure vessel, equipment access 

hatches, air lock doors, seals, isolation 

valves, mechanical and electrical penetrations, 

and a suppression pool. 

The inner containment of Olkiluoto 

3 is made of pre-stressed concrete 

| | Fig. 1. 

TÜV SÜD specialists used the autoclave system of the Technical University in Munich, 

Germany, to simulate the project test conditions. Courtesy: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. 


Nuclear Power Plant Olkiluoto 3 – Containment Leakage Test Under Extreme Conditions ı Tobias Fleckenstein


could not be used at Olkiluoto 3. Instead, 

the electronic data recording 

systems had to be placed inside the 

containment vessel for the entire test 

period and had been connected via 

three co-axial cables to the analysing 

laptop located outside the containment. 

The systems inside the containment 

were thus also exposed to an 

absolute pressure of over 6 bar, in addition 

to ambient temperatures of 

around 30 °C and high levels of humidity. 

Careful preparations 

are key 

To execute the test, 75 temperature 

sensors and 15 humidity sensors, connected 

by ten kilometres of cable, had 

to be installed and correctly interlinked. 

They also had to be able to 

withstand the extreme test pressure 

for the entire test period. Previous 

leak testing had only been performed 

at significantly lower pressures, and 

some materials used for electronic insulation 

are known to undergo 

changes, bearing a risk for short-circuits 

and fires. The architecture of the 

measurement system had to be designed 

in such a way that the testing 

could continue even if there was a 

fault in the coaxial cables used to communicate 

with the data recording system 

and for the transmission of data. 

To ensure the efficient and effective 

execution of the Okiluoto 3 test, 

the TÜV SÜD specialists completed a 

thorough preparation phase prior to 

the project test. The objective was to 

determine how the equipment would 

handle pressures of 6 bar, whether 

the measurement precision would be 

| | Fig. 2. 

Measuring equipment is being placed inside the autoclave system in order to assess how the equipment 

will handle the extreme conditions of the Okiluoto 3 project environment. 

Courtesy: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. 

compromised, and how the architecture 

of the system needed to be configured. 

Parts of the preparation phase 

were carried out at the autoclave system 

of the Technical University in Munich, 

Germany, where the project test 

conditions could be simulated. 

The on-site test preparation began 

with the set-up of the measurement 

system. In the process, TÜV SÜD specialists 

used more than ten kilometres 

of cables to connect all of the sensors 

to the data acquisition system and 

computers. Once the system was set 

up, the specialists undertook a pretest 

quality check. In order to further 

reduce uncertainty of the containment 

leak test, the air in the containment 

shell was homogenised by running 

four compressor units with dryers 

and filters for 24 hours prior to the 

execution of the test. 

Using information 

technology to achieve 

higher safety integrity 

In addition to setting up and configuring 

the hardware, the software required 

to run the tests needed to be 

developed to accommodate the extreme 

parameters. On-site engineers 

of TÜV SÜD would have to be able to 

quantify leakage volumes and monitor 

the real-time values of pressure, 

temperature, humidity, mass flow and 

leak rates. This data would allow for 

the source of a leak to be identified. 

The software was successfully developed 

by TÜV SÜD and verified 

by Germany’s national accreditation 

body DAkkS under ISO 17025. It included 

an emergency plan for on-site 

engineers in case measurement devices 

stopped working or a loss of data 

occurred. Furthermore, it covered the 

analysis of a number of what-if scenarios 

and a simulation of potential failures 

under laboratory conditions. It 

was thus aligned to the requirements 

of the project test, including the number 

of measurement points and additional 

evaluation stages. 

To achieve higher standards of 

safety integrity, the hardware architecture 

was guided by the principle of 

diverse redundancy. Redundancy 

refers to the duplication of systems, 

which enables the overall process 

to continue even if one system fails. 

In addition, diversity reduces the 

impact of so-called common cause 

failures, whereby multiple sensors 

may fail simultaneously due to a common 

cause. To reduce this type of risk, 

different configurations and operating 

principles are used across the 

sensors. 

TÜV SÜD experts set up all instruments 

as redundant and diverse systems, 

including three co-axial cables 

provided by the plant supplier AREVA. 

If an instrument inside the containment 

shell failed, the communication 

could be switched to an alternative 

device, which would also use a 

different communication protocol. 

The overall architecture was designed 

to allow for measurements to continue 

without interruption, even in 

the case of instrument failure. The 

measurement accuracy was also 

found to be within the required tolerance 

range. 

Executing the leakage test 

Once the quality check and containment 

homogenisation had been completed, 

the project test could finally 

begin. The signals from all measuring 

devices were processed by two data 

acquisition units, which recorded the 

data of all sensors at a minimum rate 

of ten times per hour. These devices 

used internal digital multi-metres and 

transferred their data to two separate 

computers, one of which was configured 

as a backup unit. The data 

was stored in its raw format (ohms, 

volts, Hz) and subsequently converted 

using an online software, which 

also applied calibration curves for all 

pressure, temperature and humidity 

sensors. 

To execute the test, the TÜV SÜD 

specialists determined a range of variables: 

• The free gas volume of the containment 

shell: This parameter was 

one of the key requirements to 

later calculate the leakage volume. 






| | Fig. 3. 

TÜV SÜD specialists calibrate the inlet pipe – a requirement to accurately determine the free volume. 

Courtesy: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. 

Although it can, in principle, be 

calculated, the TÜV SÜD specialists 

opted to measure it to reduce 

uncertainty and further increase 

the accuracy of the test results. 

All of the variables necessary to 

determine the incoming mass 

flow for pressurisation were measured 

every ten seconds. These included 

the ambient pressure and 

the temperature behind the flow 

section. The differential pressure 

across the flow section and the 

gauge pressure in front of the 

nozzle were measured twice using 

independent pressure transmitters, 

connected to defined tappings. 

• Temperature and humidity: The 

vapour pressure inside the containment 

shell was measured using 

twelve relative humidity sensors 

and three dew-point mirrors. To 

determine the dry-bulb temperature 

of the containment air, TÜV 

SÜD specialist employed four-wire 

resistance temperature device. 

• The absolute pressure inside the 

containment. 

Using high standards to 

guide testing 

The ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002 standard of 

the American Nuclear Society outlines 

the standards for the containment 

leakage testing requirements of 

Olkiluoto 3. It provides a basis for determining 

leakage rates through the 

primary reactor containment system 

of light-water-cooled nuclear power 

plants. Together with the testing instructions 

of the system construction 

company, the standard guided the 

work of the TÜV SÜD specialists, and 

evaluations were completed at various 

levels during testing. 

The standards for the leak test 

were also in line with the safety recommendations 

and requirements 

used in the design of Olkiluoto 3. 

These include the European utility requirements 

defined by European 

power companies as well as the safety 

and quality recommendations of the 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA). In Finland, nuclear safety instructions 

are issued by the Finnish 

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority 

(STUK), which also controls compliance 

with them. 

In the Olkiluoto 3 project, TÜV 

SÜD experts enabled further testing 

to continue without delay by analysing 

all recorded data on site. This included 

pressure, temperature, humidity 

and leakage mass flow curves 

for all evaluation levels. With the 

data acquisition system recording 

measurements continuously, all components 

of the leak-tightness assessment 

were successfully completed in 

accordance with requirements: 

• The first Loss of Coolant Accident 

test (LOCA); 

• The design pressure test; 

• The Initial Structural Integrity Test 

(ISIT); and 

• The second LOCA test. 

Conclusion 

Pressure and leak-tightness tests play 

an important role in assessing nuclear 

safety and form a significant milestone 

in the completion of the Olkiluoto 

3 project. As it is one of the 

largest industrial projects ever carried 

out in Northern Europe, the design, 

setup and execution of the tests place 

high demands on the expertise of engineers 

and specialists. Critical to the 

success of the measurement process 

were careful preparations and logistics, 

carried out both on-site and offsite 

prior to the project test. 

Author 

Tobias Fleckenstein, 

Plant Engineering, 

TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 

Measurement Technology 

Department 

Westendstraße 199 

80686 Munich/Germany 




Paradigmenwechsel im Beförderungsrecht oder 

am „Flaschenhals“ 

Hanns Näser 

Im gerade begonnenen Jahr sind höchst bedeutsame Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts 

auf dem Gebiet des Atomrechts von erheblicher Tragweite zu erwarten. Insbesondere die 

Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu dem mit der 13. Novelle zum Atomgesetz (vom 31.07.2011 Bundesgesetzblatt 

(BGBl) I 1704) erfolgten „Atomausstieg“ wird mit großer Spannung erwartet, weil neben den mit den 

Entscheidungen verbundenen weitreichenden Folgen auch grundsätzliche Fragen der Verfassung insbesondere zum 

Art. 12 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz (GG) und Art. 14 GG zu beantworten sind. 

Für das Bundesverwaltungsgericht steht die Frage zur Entscheidung 

an, ob sie die Revision gegen die Brunsbüttel- 

Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts (OVG) Schleswig-Holstein 

zulässt, die aus Sicht der Kläger wesentliche 

Grundlagen der Verantwortungsabgrenzung zwischen Exekutive 

und Judikative verschoben hat. 

Gegenüber diesen grundlegenden Entscheidungen ist 

die erwartete Entscheidung des OVG Lüneburg zum nuklearen 

Transportrecht von untergeordneter Bedeutung, 

obwohl sie auf diesem Rechtsgebiet einen Paradigmenwechsel 

vollziehen wird. Es geht bei dieser Entscheidung 

um die Frage, ob und wann eine Klagebefugnis eines Dritten 

im nuklearen Transportrecht anerkannt werden kann, 

genauer, unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Dritter gegen 

eine atomrechtliche Beförderungsgenehmigung nach § 4 

Abs. 1 Atomgesetz (AtG) klagebefugt ist. 

Zur komplexen und vielschichtigen Vorgeschichte, die 

nicht leicht zu entwirren ist: 

Über Jahrzehnte hatte das Verwaltungsgericht (VG) 

Braunschweig als das nach § 52 Nr. 2 Satz 1 VwGO örtlich 

zuständige Gericht für Anfechtungsklagen gegen Beförderungsgenehmigungen 

nach § 4 AtG, die vom Bundesamt 

für Strahlenschutz (BfS) mit Sitz in Salzgitter (früher von 

der Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) mit Sitz 

in Braunschweig), erteilt werden, die Zulässigkeit derartiger 

Klagen wegen fehlender Klagebefugnis verneint. Das 

OVG Lüneburg als Berufungsgericht hatte diese Auffassung 

geteilt. 

Gegenstand der zur Entscheidung anstehenden Klage 

ist eine atomrechtliche Beförderungsgenehmigung des 

Bundesamts für Strahlenschutz aus dem Jahre 2003 zur Beförderung 

von HAW-Glaskokillen (HAW: High Active Waste) 

aus der Wiederaufarbeitungsanlage La Hague in das 

Transportbehälterlager Gorleben. Nach Durchführung des 

Transports im Dezember 2003 haben die Kläger die Feststellung 

der Rechtswidrigkeit dieser Beförderungsgenehmigung 

beantragt. Eine derartige Feststellungsklage ist 

zulässig, wenn ein besonderes Rechtsschutzinteresse besteht. 

Ein Kläger ist Eigentümer eines von ihm bewohnten 

Hauses, das ca. 650 m von der Umschlagsanlage in Dannenberg 

entfernt ist. Der andere Kläger ist Miteigentümer 

eines von ihm bewohnten Hauses, das in unmittelbarer Nähe 

der Transportstrecke von Dannenberg zum Transportbehälterlager 

Gorleben liegt. Diese örtliche Beziehung der 

Kläger zur Transportroute ist der wichtige Beurteilungsmaßstab 

für die Klagebefugnis, hierauf wird zurückzukommen 

sein. 

Das Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig hat entsprechend 

seiner ständigen Rechtsprechung die Klagen als unzulässig 

zurückgewiesen. Die Anträge der Kläger auf Zulassung der 

Berufung hat das OVG Lüneburg abgelehnt. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht 

hat die Beschlüsse über die Nichtzulassung 

der Berufung aufgehoben und die Streitsachen an das OVG 

Lüneburg zurückverwiesen, weil durch diese Entscheidungen 

die Kläger in ihrem Grundrecht auf effektiven Rechtschutz 

aus Art. 19 Abs. 4 Satz 1 GG verletzt seien (https:// 

www.bundesverfassungs-gericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20 

090121_1bvr252406.html). Das OVG Lüneburg habe die 

Anforderungen an die Zulassung der Berufung überspannt 

und sei in der Begründung nur unzureichend auf die von 

den Klägern geltend gemachten Argumente eingegangen. 

Das OVG Lüneburg hat entsprechend den Vorgaben des 

Bundesverfassungsgerichts die Berufung zugelassen, allerdings 

an seiner bisherigen Rechtsprechung festgehalten, 

die Unzulässigkeit der Klagen festgestellt und die Revision 

zugelassen. 

Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat den Revisionen der 

Kläger stattgegeben mit der Entscheidung vom 14.03.2013 

(http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/verwan-dte_dokumente.php?az=BVerwG+7+C+34.11). 

Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht 

geht zwar wie das OVG Lüneburg davon 

aus, dass das Gefahrgutrecht als solches keinen Drittschutz 

gewährt. Die unterschiedlichen Schutzkonzepte 

für ortsfeste Anlagen und Einrichtungen in der Strahlenschutzverordnung 

(effektive Dosis am ungünstigsten Ort) 

und für Beförderungen im Gefahrgutrecht (effektive Dosis 

an der Außenfläche des Gefahrguts) sind aus Sicht des 

Gerichts nicht ausschlaggebend für eine unterschiedliche 

Bewertung des Drittschutzes. Diesen leitet es vielmehr 

aus den mit sicherheitsrechtlichen Vorgaben angereicherten 

Genehmigungsvoraussetzungen zur Beförderung von 

Kernbrennstoffen ab, und zwar der Gewährleistung der 

erforderlichen Vorsorge gegen Schäden und des erforderlichen 

Schutzes gegen Störmaßnahmen oder sonstigen 

Einwirkungen Dritter. Unter Verweis auf die vergleichbaren 

Regelungsgehalte der § 6 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 und 3 AtG für die 

Zwischenlagerung von Kernbrennstoffen und § 7 Abs. 2 

Nr. 3 AtG und 5 AtG für Kernkraftwerke mit den Genehmigungsvoraussetzungen 

des § 4 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 und 5 AtG 

für die Beförderung von Kernbrennstoffen weitet es den 

für ortsfeste Einrichtungen (§ 6 AtG) und für das Anlagengenehmigungsrecht 

(§ 7 AtG) seit langem bestehenden 

Drittschutz nunmehr auch auf das Beförderungsrecht 

aus. 

Worum geht es beim Drittschutz? Anknüpfend an Art. 

19 Abs. 4 GG gewährt das Verwaltungsprozessrecht im 

Grundsatz subjektiven Rechtsschutz. Eine Klage ist danach 

nur zulässig, wenn der Kläger die Möglichkeit der Verletzung 

eigener Rechtspositionen geltend macht. Beruft er 

sich hingegen auf die Verletzung objektiven Rechts, wäre 

die Klage grundsätzlich unzulässig. 

Die Möglichkeit der Verletzung eigener Rechtsposition 

kann beispielsweise neben dem Adressaten eines Verwaltungsakts 

auch ein Dritter geltend machen, sofern er durch 

den Verwaltungsakt in seinen Rechten beeinträchtigt 

sein kann. Der betreffende Verwaltungsakt muss danach 

Rechtswirkungen auch gegenüber dem Dritten entfalten 

SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW 25 


Paradigm Shift in Transport Legislation or Rather at the “Bottleneck” ı Hanns Näser


SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW 26 

| | Transport von Kernmaterial 

(sog. mehrpoliges Rechtsverhältnis). Beispiele hierfür sind 

umwelt- und atomrechtliche Genehmigungen, die den Genehmigungsinhaber 

begünstigen und Nachbarn in ihren 

Rechten beeinträchtigen können. 

Eine Beeinträchtigung subjektiver Rechte kann allerdings 

nur dann bestehen, wenn ein durch die Genehmigung 

potenziell beeinträchtigter Dritter sich auf eine 

Rechtsnorm berufen kann – deren Verletzung er rügt – die 

nicht nur dem allgemeinen Interesse dient, sondern auch 

seinen Individualinteressen zu dienen bestimmt ist. 

Wann eine Rechtsnorm auch Individualinteressen 

dient, ist durch Auslegung der Norm zu ermitteln. Dabei 

ist insbesondere zu bewerten, ob die Norm individualisierende 

Tatbestandsmerkmale enthält, 

d.h. neben der Allgemeinheit 

auch den Schutz eines bestimmten 

abgrenzbaren Personenkreises intendiert 

(sog. Schutznormtheorie). Die 

Schutznormtheorie wird zunehmend 

durch europarechtliche Einflüsse 

und Vorgaben zurückgedrängt. 

So haben inzwischen bestimmte anerkannte 

Vereinigungen Klagebefugnis 

bei wichtigen umweltrechtlichen 

Großvorhaben, ohne die Verletzung 

eigener Rechte geltend machen zu 

müssen (Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz 

vom 07.12.2006 in der Fassung vom 

07.08.2013 http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/umwrg/). 

Die Vorgaben des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts, 

an die das OVG Lüneburg 

gebunden ist, bedeuten allerdings 

keine Abkehr von der Schutznormtheorie. 

Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht 

hat vielmehr den Drittschutz 

wegen der Wortgleichheit der o.g. Genehmigungsvoraussetzungen 

auch auf die Beförderung von Kernbrennstoffen 

ausgedehnt und den Individualrechtsschutz 

aus der übergeordneten Schutzzweckbestimmung des § 1 

Abs. 1 Nr. 2 AtG abgeleitet. Nach dieser Bestimmung bezieht 

sich der Schutzzweck des Atomgesetzes auch auf den 

Schutz des Lebens, der Gesundheit und von Sachgütern 

vor den Gefahren der Kernenergie. Dieser Schutzzweck 

schließt das Beförderungsrecht ein. Allerdings ist bei Beförderungsvorgängen, 

anders als bei ortsfesten Anlagen 

und Einrichtungen, der abgrenzbare geschützte Personenkreis 

nur schwer zu bestimmen. Dies gilt erst recht dann, 

wenn die Beförderungsstrecke, wie im Regelfall, nicht in 

der Genehmigungsentscheidung festgelegt ist. Denn für 

die Abgrenzung vom geschützten zum nicht geschützten 

Personenkreis ist wesentliches Kriterium die räumliche Beziehung. 

Für die Anerkennung des Drittschutzes ausschlaggebend 

ist aus Sicht des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts im konkreten 

Fall, dass ein Kläger in der näheren Umgebung der 

stationären Verladestelle in Dannenberg zum notwendigen 

Umschlag der Transportbehälter von der Schiene auf 

die Straße und der andere Kläger in einer „nahezu zwangsläufig 

zu benutzenden Strecke“ wohnt; damit verenge sich 

die Vielzahl möglicher Transportwege „nach Art eines Flaschenhalses“. 

Mit anderen Worten ist bei Beförderungen 

im Hinblick auf den Drittschutz zwischen potenziellen Anliegern 

einer bescheidmäßig nicht festgelegten Beförderungsstrecke, 

bei denen das Transportgut „in einem mehr 

oder weniger flüchtigen Beförderungsvorgang vorbeigeführt 

wird“ und Anliegern an Transportstrecken zu unterscheiden, 

auf die der Transportvorgang angewiesen ist. 

Auch ist zu berücksichtigen, dass beim Umschlag in Dannenberg 

die Verweildauer nicht unerheblich ist. 

Damit ist der Drittschutz bei nuklearen Beförderungsvorgängen 

nur unter engen Voraussetzungen anerkannt. 

Im Regelfall werden derartige Zwangspunkte nicht bestehen, 

insbesondere wenn verschiedene Streckenführungen 

denkbar sind. Entscheidend ist danach der jeweilige 

Einzelfall. 

Da das Standortauswahlgesetz (vom 23. Juli 2013 BGBl 

I S. 2553) durch Einführung des § 9a Abs. 2a AtG die Rückführung 

von Glaskokillen aus der Wiederaufarbeitung von 

abgebrannten Brennelementen zum Transportbehälterlager 

Gorleben ausschließt, wird die Entscheidung des OVG 

Lüneburg für diesen Standort nur noch für gegenwärtige 

nicht absehbare Transporte vom Transportbehälterlager 

Gorleben in ein Endlager Relevanz haben können. Ob damit 

das für eine Feststellungsklage erforderliche Feststellungsinteresse, 

in concreto Wiederholungsgefahr bejaht 

werden kann, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. 

Author 

Hanns Näser 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH 

Frohnhauser Straße 67 

45127 Essen/Germany 


Paradigm Shift in Transport Legislation or Rather at the “Bottleneck” ı Hanns Näser


Completeness Assessment of General 

Safety Requirements for Sodium-Cooled 

Fast Reactor Nuclear Design Utilizing 

Objective Provision Tree 

Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, Yongwon Choi, Bongsuk Kang and Huichang Yang 

1. Introduction The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is developing a Prototype Gen-IV Sodiumcooled 

Fast Reactor (PGSFR) of 150 MWe size with a plan to apply the construction permit by 2020. The Korea Institute 

of Nuclear Safety (KINS) is performing a regulatory research to prepare the licensing of this future reactor, developing 

regulatory requirements and safety analyses methodologies. 

The development of regulatory requirements 

is needed because in a 

prescriptive regulatory framework adopted 

by the countries like United 

States or Korea, licensing review of 

nuclear power plant is performed 

evaluating whether the design satisfies 

the prescriptive design criteria or 

regulatory requirements previously 

established. For this, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has the 

well established General Design Criteria 

(GDC) [1] for Light Water Reactor 

(LWR) that served for many decades 

in assuring the safety of the nuclear 

power plant. The GDC is top level 

regulatory requirements enforced by 

law. The corresponding regulatory requirements 

for LWR are stipulated in 

the Korean “Regulations on Technical 

Standards for Nuclear Reactor Facilities” 

which has the same level of binding 

force and similar contents with 

those of GDC. Thus, preparing the licensing 

of PGSFR requires first of all a 

development of GDC like General 

Safety Requirements (GSR) for SFR. 

The approach we use in developing 

the GSR for SFR is 1) to evaluate the 

applicability of the current LWR GSR 

to SFR and 2) to reflect the other 

safety requirements for SFR, developed 

by Gen-IV International 

Forum (GIF) or American Nuclear Society 

(ANS). Following this approach 

we have developed a draft version of 

SFR GSR with 59 articles. The next 

step is to assess the draft versions for 

its completeness and the normal approach 

is to depend on the engineering 

judgement of experts. The NRC’s 

GDC is developed also based on the 

accumulated experiences of LWR licensing 

and operation, but unfortunately 

the similar experiences are not 

available for SFR. To assure that the 

developed GSR includes all the necessary 

requirements and guarantee the 

safety of SFR from Defence-in-Depth 

(DID) point of view, we have decided 

to utilize the Objective Provision Tree 

(OPT) methodology developed by International 

Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) [2]. We found that this methodology 

provides a systematic and integral 

approach in complementing the 

GSR developed referencing the current 

requirements of similar kind. 

The OPT is a methodology to ensure 

and document the provision of 

essential “lines of protection” for successful 

prevention, control or mitigation 

of phenomena that could potentially 

damage the nuclear system. 

[2,3] The OPT is normally developed 

by designer to confirm whether the 

design fulfills the DID concept, but we 

have developed the OPT to apply it in 

assessing whether there is missing 

safety requirements in our GSR under 

development from DID concept. In the 

following section, we first describe the 

strategy of GSR development for SFR 

and the next section presents the development 

of OPT. Then, the completeness 

assessment on the requirements 

of nuclear design utilizing the 

“reactivity control” safety function is 

presented in the following section. 

Through out this paper, we will use a 

terminology GSR for common understanding, 

instead of GDC or Technical 

Standards which are used in the regulation 

of United States and Republic of 

Korea, respectively. 

2. Development of general 

safety requirements 

for SFR 

This section describes the position of 

general safety requirements in the 

framework of Korean atomic law system 

and then how we have developed 

the draft version of the SFR GSR. The 

current Korean legal framework for 

nuclear safety regulation has 4 levels. 

The nuclear safety act positions at the 

highest level and then follows, sequentially, 

enforcement decree of the 

nuclear safety act, enforcement regulation 

of the nuclear safety act, regulations 

on technical standards for nuclear 

reactor facilities. Basic concept 

and role of act and decrees are the 

following: 

1) Nuclear safety act stipulates the basic 

principles concerning nuclear 

safety 

2) Enforcement decree of the nuclear 

safety act stipulates the particulars 

entrusted by the act 

3) Enforcement regulation of the nuclear 

safety act stipulates the particulars 

entrusted by the Act and/or 

Decree and necessary for their enforcement 

(including detailed procedures 

and format of documents) 

4) Regulations on Technical Standards 

for Nuclear Reactor Facilities 

stipulate conceptual technical 

standards as entrusted by the Act 

and/or Decree. It contains also the 

details on technical standards, procedures 

or format as entrusted by 

the Act, Decree and/or Regulations 

Thus, the GSR which corresponds 

to LWR GDC of U.S. NRC is the regulations 

on Technical Standards in 

Korean atomic legal framework. This 

GSR for SFR is developed referencing 

the LWR GSR, so the first step is to 

evaluate the applicability of the LWR 

GSR to SFR. Performing the evaluation 

we could classify the requirements 

of LWR GSR into 3 groups, i.e., 

1) LWR requirements which are not 

applicable to SFR, thus need to be excluded, 

2) requirements applicable to 

SFR as it is, 3) requirements needed to 

be revised/amended. In addition to 

this, taking into account the SFR specific 

features, there are requirements 

to be newly added. The overall 

strategy and process are depicted in 

Figure 1. 

In revising/amending the current 

LWR requirements and to identify 

ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 27 


Assessment of General Safety Requirements for SFR ı Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, Yongwon Choi, Bongsuk Kang and Huichang Yang



| | Fig. 1. 

Strategy of GSR Development for SFR. 

Art. Title Art. Title Art. Title 

1 Definition 21 Use of qualified equipment 41 I&C system 

2 Radiation Protection 22 Human factors 42 Electric power system 

3 Defense-in-Depth 23 Prevention of harmful effects 

between systems 

4 Interfaces of safety with 

security and safeguards 

5 Physical Protection / Safeguards 

24 Protection against sodium 

reactions 

6 Proven technologies 26 Inherent protection of 

reactor 

| | Tab. 1. 

General Safety Requirements (Articles of Technical Standards) for SFR. 

43 Control room, etc. 

44 Alarm devices, etc. 

25 Reactor design 45 Optimization of radiation 

protection 

7 Assessment of Design Safety 27 Suppression of reactor power 

oscillation 

8 Construction and operating 

experiences 

46 Radioactive waste processing 

& storage systems 

47 Radiation protection 

provision 

28 Reactor core, etc. 48 Fuel handling & storage 

facilities 

9 Decommissioning 29 Fuel rod and assembly 49 Auxiliary systems 

10 Postulated initiating events 30 Protection against flow 

blockage 

50 Power conversion system 

11 Design bases accidents 31 Reactivity control system 51 Emergency response facilities 

and equipment 

12 Design extension conditions 32 Reactor protection system 52 Intermediate cooling system 

13 Safety classes and standards 33 Use of computerized system 53 Liquid sodium handling 

system 

14 External events design bases 34 Diverse protection system 54 Sodium heating system 

15 Fire protection 35 Reactor coolant boundary 55 Protection against sodium 

freezing 

16 Design bases for environmental 

effects 

36 Reactor cooling system 56 Purification control of cover 

gas and supply 

17 Reliability 37 Overpressure protection 57 Operating experiences and 

safety research 

18 Sharing of facilities 38 Residual heat removal 

system 

19 calibration / test / inspection/ 

maintenance 

20 Startup, shutdown, and low 

power operation 

58 Limiting conditions for 

operation 

39 Ultimate heat sink 59 Initial tests 

40 Reactor containment, etc. 

new requirements to be added, we 

have referenced the international documents 

like IAEA SSR-2/1, Safety Design 

Criteria of GIF and draft version 

of SFR GDC under development by 

ANS. Fukushima action items and applicability 

of Risk Informed Regulation(RIR) 

are also considered. Utilizing 

this strategy and process, we have 

developed a draft version of SFR GSR 

containing 59 articles. The title of the 

articles are listed in Table 1. 

3. Development of OPT for 

SFR reactivity control 

safety function 

The OPT is a top-down method with a 

tree structure for each DID level describing 

objectives and barriers, safety 

function, challenges to maintain 

safety functions, mechanisms of safety 

function degradation, and provisions 

for each degradation or failure mechanisms 

to maintain safety functions. 

Reference [2] describes conceptually 

how to apply this methodology to development 

of safety requirements for 

innovative reactors, specifically for 

the modular high temperature gas 

cooled reactors. In general, we have 

three safety functions to fulfill the 

safety objectives, i.e., control of reactivity, 

core heat removal and containment 

integrity. Among these three 

safety functions, we have developed 

the OPT for the safety function of “reactivity 

control”. Because the design of 

PGSFR is not mature yet, we have developed 

the OPT modelling the KA- 

LIMER-600 [4] reactor which is conceptually 

designed by KAERI and is an 

SFR of 600 MWe size. OPT is a qualitative 

methodology whose development 

relies mainly on experiences of 

experts using the design documents 

like probabilistic safety assessment report. 

Because the SFR GSR we are developing 

is a general one which should 

not be reactor or design specific, we 

have developed the OPT for KALIMER 

even if the target reactor to apply the 

GSR in reviewing is the PGSFR. The 

detailed description of the system is 

not included in this paper since it is not 

necessary to understand the developed 

OPT. Example of the Level 3 

OPT we have developed for the safety 

function of “reactivity control” is 

shown in Figure 2. 

In Figure 2, safety function means 

the essential function necessary to ensure 

the safety objectives by maintaining 

DID and barrier integrity. Challenge 

is the phenomenon which 

threatens the successful achievement 

of the safety function and the possible 

challenges to the safety function 




| | Fig. 2. 

Developed Level 3 OPT for “reactivity control” safety function. 

are dealt with by the provisions (inherent 

characteristics, safety margins, 

systems, provisions). Mechanism is 

defined as “specific reason, process or 

situation whose consequence might 

create challenge to the performance 

of safety function.” [3] 

4. Completeness 

assessment of the 

developed general 

safety requirements 

The draft GSR developed, referencing 

the LWR GDC, SDC of GIF RSWG and 

ANS GDC for SFR is assessed from the 

DID point of view utilizing the OPT. 

The process is mainly to identify and 

check whether the mechanisms in the 

OPT are included in the draft GSR. In 

Figure 2, we have 4 challenges to the 

safety function of “reactivity control” 

and 6 mechanisms that could induce 

the challenges. For example fuel cladding 

chemical interaction (FCCI) is a 

mechanism that could induce the 

change in core geometry. Because the 

GSR is a top level requirement enforced 

by law, the contents are rather 

qualitative description, so the prevention 

of this mechanism and the ensuing 

challenge needs to be translated 

into requirements of GSR. On the 

other hand, how to achieve this mechanism 

should be handled in specific 

design by provisions, so the contents 

of provisions in Figure 2 need to be 

described in a lower level regulatory 

documents like review guides. The 

assessment whether the requirement 

to prevent this mechanism is included 

in the GSR or not is done as following: 

• Mechanism; Fuel-cladding chemical 

interaction. 

• Assessment; The paragraph (3) of 

Article 25 “reactor design” in our 

draft GSR stipulates that “the property 

change by the irradiation of 

the main core structure materials 

like control rod driving mechanism, 

core support structure etc. 

should not impair the structural 

integrity”. Thus the paragraph of 

Article 25 is the requirement to 

prevent mechanism of “fuel-cladding 

chemical interaction”. 

• Result; Requirement to prevent the 

FCCI is well implemented in the 

draft GSR. 

Another example we present is the 

mechanism of “control rod withdrawal 

from subcritical state” that 

challenges ‘the inability to maintain 

subcriticality”: 

• Mechanism; Control rod withdrawal 

from subcritical state. 

• Assessment; The subparagraph 5 

under the paragraph 2 of Article 32 

“reactor protection system” stipulates 

that “the protection system 

shall be designed to assure that the 

specified acceptable fuel design 

limits are not exceeded for any 

single malfunction of the reactivity 

control systems such as an accidental 

withdrawal of control rods.” 

Thus, the subparagraph of Article 

35 is the requirement to prevent 

the mechanism of “control rod 

withdrawal from subcritical state”. 

• Result; Requirement to prevent the 

control rod withdrawal from subcritical 

state is well implemented in 

the draft GSR. 

In this way, we have confirmed that 

the draft GSR has all the requirements 

to prevent the challenges and mechanisms 

for the “reactivity control” 

safety function. We found no requirements 

to be added or revised by assessing 

this “reactivity control” safety 

function, but we expect that we might 

be able to find some requirements to 

be revised or added by assessing this 

way and it might confirm the utility of 

our approach. We found that utilizing 

the OPT in this way is a systematic and 

integral way to complement the development 

of GSR. We will continue to 

work for other two safety functions in 

a future. 

5. Conclusion 

The draft version of GSR for SFR was 

developed, first by evaluating the applicability 

of the current LWR GSR to 

SFR and then taking into account 

other international requirements for 

SFR. The current requirements including 

the LWR GDC are coming 

from the long-year accumulated experiences 

of licensing and operation, 

but there are not enough experiences 

for SFR, so even if it is possible to develop 

a draft version of SFR GSR referencing 

the currently available requirements, 

there is need of a systematic 

and integral methodology to complement 

the developed GSR for SFR. The 

application of OPT is a good way to 

achieve the requirements. So the OPT 

have been developed for a safety function 

of reactivity control and applied 

in complementing the draft GSR. Assessing 

the completeness of the GSR 

in view of DID concept utilizing the 

OPT, it was found that the draft GSR 

includes all the requirements necessary 

to prevent the mechanisms which 

could challenge the safety function. 

The developed GSR will be applied in 

licensing review of PGSFR under 





RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 30 

development in Korea which the designer 

plans to apply the licensing for 

construction permit by 2020. The revision 

and refinement of the draft GSR 

for SFR will continue further. 

REFERENCES 

| | [1] Code of Federal Regulation, Title 10, 

Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization of Facilities, Appendix 

A, General Design Criteria for 

Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington D.C. 

| | [2] IAEA-TECDOC-1366, Considerations 

in the development of safety requirements 

for innovative reactors : Application 

to modular high temperature gas 

cooled reactors, IAEA, August 2003. 

| | [3] GIF/RSWG, An Integrated Safety Assessment 

Methodology (ISAM) for Generation 

IV Nuclear Systems, 2011. 

| | [4] Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 

KALIMER-600 Conceptual Design 

Report, KAERI/TR-3381, 2007. 

Authors 

Namduk Suh, Moohoon Bae, and 

Yongwon Choi 

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 

62 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu 

Daejon/Republic of Korea. 

Bongsuk Kang and Huichang Yang 

TÜV Rheinland Korea Ltd. 

Goro-dong 197-28, Guro-gu 

Seoul/Republic of Korea. 

RMB: The New Brazilian Multipurpose 

Research Reactor 

José Augusto Perrotta and Adalberto Jose Soares 

1. Introduction In 2009, pushed by the international Moly-99 supply crisis that occurred in 2008/2009, and 

that affected significantly the nuclear medicine services in the world, Brazilian government, decided to carry out a sustainability 

study, to decide about the feasibility to construct a new research reactor in the country. As demonstrated in 

reference [2], the result of the study, which was done following IAEA’s recommendation presented on reference [3], 

was favourable to the construction of the new reactor, and Brazilian professionals started analysing its conceptual 

design. 

| | Fig. 1. 

Top view of reactor core (left) and reflector vessel (right). 

In 2010, following recommendations 

of COBEN (Bi-national Commission on 

Nuclear Energy), a committee responsible 

for a bi-national cooperative 

agreement between Brazil and Argentina, 

a decision was taken to adopt, for 

the new Research Reactors of Brazil 

(RMB) and Argentina (RA10), a conceptual 

model based on INVAP designed 

OPAL research reactor, as a reference 

for radioisotope production 

and neutron beams utilization. 

For the Brazilian RMB research reactor, 

in addition to radioisotope production 

and neutron beams utilization, 

two other requirements were established. 

The first one was the capability 

to test fuels and materials for the 

Brazilian nuclear program, and the 

second was the requirement to have, 

around the reactor building, the necessary 

infrastructure to allow the interim 

storage, for at least 100 years, of 

all spent nuclear fuel used in the reactor. 

Details of these two characteristics 

will be given in the next sections. 


RMB: The New Brazilian Multipurpose Research Reactor ı José Augusto Perrotta and Adalberto Jose Soares 

2. Description of the 

reactor 

RMB is a MTR open pool type reactor 

that uses beryllium and heavy water 

as reflector, and light water as moderator 

and cooling fluid. The power of 

the reactor is 30 MW, and its main requirements, 

established during the 

feasibility study, are: radioisotope 

production, to attend national demand 

beyond 2020; production of 

thermal and cold neutron beams for 

research and application in all areas; 

development of materials and nuclear 

fuels for the Brazilian nuclear program; 

neutron activation analysis; 

and silicon transmutation doping. 

The core of the reactor is a 5 x 5 

matrix, containing 23 MTR fuel elements, 

and leaving 2 positions available 

for materials irradiation tests. 

Each fuel element has 21 plates, with a 

meat made of low enriched (19.75 %) 

Uranium Silicide-Aluminium dispersion 

(U 3 Si 2 -Al) clad with Aluminium. 

Dimensions of the fuel element are 

80.5 mm x 80.5 mm x 1,045 mm, 

and meat dimensions are 0.61 mm x 

65 mm x 615 mm. 

Three sides of the core are surrounded 

by a reflector vessel, filled with 

heavy water that acts as reflector for 

the neutrons produced in the core. 

The reflection on the fourth side is 

done with the utilization of removable 

beryllium blocks. These beryllium 

blocks are needed to allow RMB to be 

used as a tool for the Brazilian nuclear 

program. Figure 1 shows a top view of


the reactor core and the reflector 

vessel. 

The core is designed to have a 

cycle length of 28 days. To accomplish 

with this cycle, the fuel element is 

poisoned with Cadmium wires which 

are depleted together with the fuel 

element. Each fuel element has 42 

Cadmium wires, which are placed on 

the fuel element alongside the fuel 

plates, one on each side of the plate. 

The Cadmium wires are 0.4 mm in 

diameter and 615 mm long. The core 

has also 6 independent Hafnium control 

plates, which move parallel to the 

fuel plates. 

3. Reflector vessel 

The reflector vessel is made of zircaloy, 

and it is installed in the bottom 

of the reactor pool, about 10.5 meters 

below water surface level. Filled with 

heavy water, it has an internal diameter 

equal to 2.6 meters and an internal 

height equal to 1.0 meter. It has 

5 positions for neutron transmutation 

doping; 14 positions for pneumatic irradiation 

(9 with 3 vertical positions 

each and 5 with 2 vertical positions 

each); about 20 positions for bulk irradiation; 

one cold neutron source; 2 

cold neutron beams; 2 thermal beams, 

1 neutrongraphy beam and one position 

for fuel irradiation testing, where 

up to 2 rigs can be installed simultaneously. 

As explained before this fuel 

irradiation position constitutes one of 

the main differences between RMB 

and the reference reactor. The position 

has a 5 x 5 grid where beryllium 

blocks are placed to reflect the neutrons 

produced in the core when there 

is no fuel being tested. When used, the 

fuel irradiation position allows testing 

of fuel prototypes, simulating steady 

state and dynamic conditions (ramp 

tests and load following). 

At least 10 of the bulk irradiation 

positions in the reflector vessel can be 

used to irradiate rigs with low enriched 

fuel miniplates, to produce 

Mo-99. Each rig is designed to produce, 

after 7 days irradiation, between 

2,400 and ,3000 Ci of Mo-99, which 

will correspond to 400 and 500 Ci, respectively, 

after 6 days calibration. 

On the lower part of the reflector 

vessel there is a skirt, whose interior is 

divided into two parts. The central 

part is used as water inlet for the 

primary reactor cooling system, and 

the outer section, between the central 

part and the wall of the skirt, is used 

as water outlet for the reactor pool 

cooling system. Figure 2 shows a perspective 

and a cutaway view of the reflector 

vessel. 

| | Fig. 2. 

Perspective (left) and cutaway (right) views of the reflector vessel. 

4. Reactor and service 

pools 

The reactor pool is a 5.1 meters diameter, 

14 meters high cylindrical tank 

made of stainless steel, filled with water 

up to the 12.6 meters level. It 

houses the reflector vessel, a small 

spent fuel storage rack, with capacity 

to store up to 32 fuel elements; the 

bundles of tubes used for pneumatic 

irradiation; the internal piping that 

form the inlet and outlet of the 

primary and pool cooling systems; 

nuclear and process instrumentation; 

auxiliary support and mechanical 

structures, and the water inventory, 

required for the pool cooling system to 

perform its functions. The tank is embedded 

in a concrete block, anchored 

to the concrete by a set of reinforcement 

rings and clamps at the bottom. 

The bottom of the pool has 5 penetrations, 

one for the control plates driving 

mechanisms, and four for the 

heavy water system. One of the heavy 

water connections is used for drainage 

of the reflector vessel, two are used as 

inlet and outlet of the heavy water 

cooling system; and the forth connection 

is used as an alternative system to 

shut down the reactor. This connection 

has a set of valves that once open, 

removes about 50 % of the heavy water 

in less than 15 seconds, assuring 

that the reactor is kept shutdown, 

even after returning to normal temperature. 

Adjacent to the reactor pool there is 

the service pool, a 9.0 meters high rectangular 

stainless steel structure, with 

maximum water level equal to 7.6 

meters. The service pool houses a spent 

fuel storage rack with capacity to 600 

spent fuel elements, the equivalent to 

10 years of operation; some containers 

specially designed to store damaged 

fuel assemblies; a basket for solid waste 

storage; a transport cask platform; a 

structure to store the reactor isolation 

gate; internal piping of the pool cooling 

system; pool lighting supports; and 

racks used for decay of materials irradiated 

in the reactor and that needs 

further processing, like Silicon, the 

miniplates for Mo-99 production, etc., 

The service pool also is the entrance of 

an elevator, which connects the service 

pool to a hot cell, named Moly Hot Cell, 

which is part of a system used to transfer 

the miniplates to a transport cask. 

The service pool is connected to the reactor 

pool by a transfer channel. The 

transfer channel, also made of stainless 

steel, has a 5.0 meters layer of water, 

which works as biological shielding 

when the spent fuel, or any material 

irradiated in the core, is transferred 

from the reactor pool to the service 

pool. A sliding gate, when installed in a 

| | Fig. 3. 

Perspective view of the reactor and service pools. 

groove of the transfer channel, allows 

maintenance of one pool without the 

need to empty the other pool. Figure 3 

shows a perspective view of the reactor 

and service pools. 

5. Reactor and pools cooling 

systems 

Light water is used for cooling the reactor 

core and the internals of the 



RMB: The New Brazilian Multipurpose Research Reactor ı José Augusto Perrotta and Adalberto Jose Soares



reactor and service pools. The water 

used in the reactor primary cooling 

system enters the reactor pool through 

two pipes installed about one meter 

below the transfer channel, and flows 

down to enter in the lower part of the 

reflector vessel, then flows upward 

through the reactor core, and through 

a riser installed on top of the reflector 

vessel, leaving the reactor pool 

through a single pipe also installed below 

the transfer channel, as shown in 

Figure 3. The volume of water that 

flows through the core represents 

90 % or the total flow in primary cooling 

system. The other 10 % comes from 

the top of the reactor pool. It enters the 

top of the raiser and flows down to the 

outlet piping. By using this design, all 

N-16 produced in the water, when it 

passes through the reactor core, goes 

directly to the N-16 decay tank, installed 

below the service pool. 

The primary cooling system has 3 

circuits. Each circuit has a pump, with 

inertia flywheel, and a plate type heat 

exchanger with capacity to remove 

50 % of the heat generated in the reactor 

core. One of the circuits remains 

in standby during normal operation. 

In addition to the 10 % of water 

that flows in the primary cooling system, 

the reactor pool has another 

equivalent volume of coolant that 

flows downward in the reactor pool, 

passes through the radioisotope production 

and silicon irradiation rigs, 

and enters a plenum between the 

primary cooling inlet region and the 

external wall of the skirt installed on 

the lower part of the reflector vessel, 

as shown in Figure 2. The water 

leaves the plenum through a pipe 

that goes upward, leaving the reactor 

pool close to the transfer channel. 

The inlet and outlet pipes of 

both cooling systems, the primary 

cooling system and the pools cooling 

system, have siphon brake and 

| | Fig. 4. 

The temporary spent fuel storage and the handling and dismantling pools. 

flap valves on their top positions. The 

siphon brake valves are installed to 

prevent the accidental loss of water 

as a consequence of a siphon effect 

following the unlikely rupture of a 

pipe outside the pool, and the flap 

valves are installed to allow the establishment 

of the natural circulation 

process, to cool the reactor core, following 

the reactor shutdown. 

A 1.5 m thick hot layer on top or the 

reactor and service pools, provides a 

non-activated stable water layer over 

the pools. It prevents active particles 

from reaching the surface of the pools, 

reducing significantly the radiation 

dose to reactor operators. The hot 

layer temperature is 8 ºC higher than 

the pool water temperature. 

6. Reactor control and 

shutdown systems 

Six independent Hafnium control 

plates are used to control the fission 

process in the RMB research rector. 

Each control plate has an extension 

which has a magnetic disc at the end, 

and is driven by an independent 

mechanism installed in a sealed compartment 

below the reactor pool. The 

driving mechanism is based on a system 

known as “rack-pinion”, having 

on its extremity an electromagnetic 

assembly. When active, an electric 

current passes through the electromagnetic 

assembly and engages the 

magnetic disc, allowing the movement 

of the respective control plate. 

The movement is upwards for removal 

from the core, and downwards for insertion. 

Once the electric current is 

interrupted, the magnetic disc automatically 

disengages from the eelectromagnetic 

assembly, and the control 

plate falls by gravity. Compressed air, 

from a pneumatic cylinder, helps to 

accelerate the introduction of the control 

plate into the reactor core. 

The negative reactivity inserted by 

any combination of five control plates 

is enough to keep the reactor shutdown, 

and if for some reason, following 

a “scram signal” it is detected that 

two control plates have not reached to 

bottom position, a second “scram signal” 

is generated. This second “scram 

signal” is used to open a series of valves 

that result in the removal of about 50 

% of the heavy water from the reflector 

vessel; quantity enough to assure keeping 

the reactor shutdown even when it 

returns to ambient temperature. 

7. The spent fuel storage 

building 

To comply with the requirement to allow 

the interim storage, for at least 

100 years of all spent nuclear fuel 

used in the reactor; a building, named 

“Spent Fuel Storage Building”, was 

designed adjacent to the reactor 

building. This building, which can be 

accessed directly from the reactor 

building, will have two additional 

pools, one for temporary wet storage 

of the spent fuel used in the reactor, 

and the other for handling and dismantling 

rigs that were used for material 

and fuel irradiation tests. 

The temporary spent fuel storage 

pool is a stainless steel structure, similar 

to the service pool. The pool has 

only three items, the spent fuel storage 

rack, the inlet piping from the 

pool cooling system, and the pool 

lighting system. The spent fuel storage 

rack has a capacity to store 1,200 

spent fuel elements, the equivalent to 

20 years of reactor operation. In order 

to improve water distribution injection 

and water circulation through the 

fuel assemblies, the diffuser of the 

pool cooling system is placed below 

the storage rack. The pool cooling system 

has a derivation that is used to 

continuously purify the water, before 

it returns to the pool. 

The handling and dismantling pool 

is also a stainless steel structure. It 

houses several racks, with capacity to 

store 4 in-core irradiation rigs, 2 used 

cold neutron sources, 1 fuel irradiation 

loop, and 2 isolation gates, one for the 

temporary storage pool and the other 

to isolate the pools from a “delivery 

transfer channel”, that connects the 

two pools with the service pool, located 

in the reactor building. The pool 

has also the pool lighting system, the 

piping of the cooling and purification 

system, and a transport cask platform, 

needed to receive a cask that will be 

used to transfer the spent fuel to a dry 

storage position. Figure 4 shows the 

temporary spent fuel storage pool and 

the handling and dismantling pool. 

The two pools of the spent fuel 

storage building plus the reactor pool 

and the service pool, these last two 

located in the reactor building, form a 

stainless steel structure embedded in 

a concrete block, as shown in Figure 

5. Three hot cells located in the 

reactor building and one hot cell in 

the spent fuel storage building complement 

the concrete block. 

According to the conceptual design 

of the spent fuel storage building, 

after 20 year of decay, the spent 

nuclear fuel shall be transferred from 

the storage pool to a dry storage position, 

located in the level -6,00 of the 

building. For this operation, a dual 

purpose cask (for transport and stor- 




age) is lowered in the transport cask 

platform, installed in the handling 

and dismantling pool. After being 

filled with spent fuel assemblies, the 

cask is taken to an area where it will be 

properly dried, and then transferred 

to level -6,00 of the building, where 

150 dual purpose casks can be stored 

for at least 100 years. 

A system comprising two ante cameras 

and two isolation gates, maintain 

the physical and environmental separation 

between the reactor and the 

spent fuel storage buildings. 

8. The research and production 

nucleus 

The reactor and spent fuel storage 

buildings are the centre of what is 

called the “research and production 

nucleus”, which includes a radioisotope 

production facility and three 

laboratories, one for research utilizing 

neutron beams, one for neutron activation 

analysis and the third one for 

post irradiation analysis of irradiated 

materials and nuclear fuels. 

The radioisotope production facility 

will have two lines of hot cells, the 

first one for production of radioisotopes, 

like Mo-99 and I-131, and the 

second one for “sealed sources”, like 

Ir-192 and I-125, for industrial and 

medical applications. According to the 

established requirement, it will have 

the capacity to produce radioisotopes 

and sealed sources to attend the national 

needs beyond 2020. 

The neutron beams laboratory will 

have lines of thermal neutrons, for experiments 

like high resolution diffractometry, 

high intensity diffractometry, 

Laue diffractometry, residual 

stress diffractometry, and neutrongraphy; 

and lines of cold neutrons, 

for experiments like small angle neutron 

scattering (SANS), reflectometry, 

prompt gamma analysis and others 

that are under analysis. 

The radiochemistry laboratory will 

have two pneumatic connections to receive 

long life irradiated samples, plus 

five pneumatic tubes connected directly 

to the reflector vessel, for cyclic 

irradiations of short life products and 

delayed neutron activation analysis. 

The post irradiation laboratory is 

the facility that, together with the reactor, 

allows irradiation tests of materials 

and fuels needed for the 

Brazilian nuclear program. 

Seven more facilities complement 

the research and production nucleus, 

the reactor auxiliary building, the 

cooling tower complex, the electrical 

supply and distribution building, a radioactive 

waste management facility, 

a workshop, an operator’s support 

building, and a researcher’s building. 

Figure 6 shows the main facilities of 

the research and production nucleus. 

9. The RMB nuclear 

research and production 

centre 

RMB is a new nuclear research and 

production centre that will be built in 

a city about 100 kilometres from Sao 

Paulo city, in the southern part of 

Brazil. The centre will have, in addition 

to the research and production 

nucleus, an administrative centre and 

an infrastructure centre to attend all 

the needs of the centre. The administrative 

centre will have a library, an administration 

building, a hotel, a restaurant, 

an ambulatory, and a training 

centre. The infrastructure centre will 

have a water treatment plant, a warehouse, 

a workshop, a facility for the fire 

brigade, a garage, a sewage treatment 

station, a chemical treatment plant, a 

meteorological station, the main gate, 

and the electrical substation. Shown in 

Figure 7, RMB Centre has an area of 

about 2 millions square meters. 

10. Status of the project 

In 2011, the Ministry of Science Technology 

and Innovation allocated R$ 50 

Mill. (about US$ 25 Mill.) for the conceptual 

and basic designs of the complex. 

It allowed, in 2012, the signature 

of a contract, with a Brazilian company, 

to develop the engineering work for the 

conceptual and basic design phases of 

all buildings and facilities of the centre, 

excluding the reactor and connected 

systems; and in 2013 the signature of 

the contract with INVAP for the work 

related to the preliminary engineering 

of the reactor and connected systems. 

Conclusion of both contracts is planned 

for the middle of 2014. 

Also in 2012, a contract was signed, 

with a Brazilian company with tradition 

in environmental studies, to perform 

environmental and site studies. 

| | Fig. 5. 

Pools embedded in the concrete block. 

| | Fig. 6. 

Plant (left) and perspective view (right) of the RMB research and production nucleus. 

The report was finished by middle 

2013, allowing the starting of environmental 

and nuclear licensing processes, 

with presentation of site and local reports, 

requirements for first license. 

They were also the basis for the three 

public hearings, done in October 2013. 

Site topography was already surveyed; 

geological sampling completed, 

and a meteorological tower was 

installed and it is operational since 

2012. 

Next steps are: conclusion of the basic 

and preliminary engineering, development 

of detailed design, manu- 

| | Fig 7. 

Artist view of the RMB nuclear research centre. 





34 


Paper 

presented 

at the RRFM 2014 

facturing, construction, assembling 

and management. These phases will be 

carried out by national and international 

companies, and for these activities, 

a provision was made in the national 

budget, but not yet confirmed. 

Total project remaining time span is 

estimated in 5 years after contract signature 

and subject to availability of 

funds. 

11. References 

| | [1] I. J. A. Perrotta, J. Obadia, “The RMB 

project development status”, on Proceedings 

of the 2011 International Conference 

on Research Reactors: Safe Management 

and Effective Utilization, held in 

Rabat, Morocco, 14-18 November 2011; 

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 

Austria (2012), available at: http:// 

www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/ 

PDF/P1575_CD_web/datasets/abstracts/ 

C6Perrotta.html. 

| | [2] I. J. Obadia, J. A. Perrotta, “A sustainability 

analysis of the Brazilian Multipurpose 

Reactor Project”, on Transaction of 

14 th International Topical Meeting on Research 

Reactor Fuel Management 

(RRFM-2010), held in Marrakesh, Morocco, 

21-25 March 2010; European 

Nuclear Society, Brussels, Belgium 

(2010), ISBN 978-92-95064-10-2, available 

at: http://www.euronuclear.org/ 

meetings/rrfm2010/transactions/ 

RRFM2010-transactions-s6.pdf. 

| | [3] International Atomic Energy Agency, 

“Specific Considerations and Milestones 

for a Research Reactor Project”, Nuclear 

Energy Series NP-T-5.1, IAEA, Vienna, 

(2012), ISBN: 978–92–0–127610–0, Available 

at: - http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/ 

publications/PDF/Pub1549_web.pdf. 

Authors 

José Augusto Perrotta and 

Adalberto Jose Soares 

Comissão Nacional de Energia 

Nuclear (CNEN) 

Avenida Prof. Lineu Prestes 2242 

05508-000, Brazil 

45 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology: Key Topic | 

Reactor Operation, Safety – Report Part 3 

The following reports summarise the presentations of the Technical Sessions “Reactor Operation, Safety: Radiation 

Protection”, “Competence, Innovation, Regulation: Fusion Technology” and “Competence, Innovation, Regulation: 

Education, Expert Knowledge, Knowledge Transfer” presented at the 45 th AMNT 2014, Frankfurt, 6 to 8 May 


The other Key Topics and Technical Sessions have been covered in previous issues of atw and will be covered in further 

issues of atw. 

Reactor Operation, Safety: 

Radiation Protection 

Angelika Bohnstedt 

Due to different circumstances the amount of presentations in the 

technical session “Radiation Protection” was at the Annual 

Meeting actually reduced to three lectures. But this gave the audience 

with about 23 to 27 participants the opportunity to have a 

lively discussion after each presentation, not only with the lecturer 

but also with other colleagues in the public. So the whole 

session was a fruitful exchange of interesting information and 

knowledge. 

The session was chaired by Dr. Angelika Bohnstedt, Karlsruhe 

Institute of Technology (KIT). 

The first presentation “Optimisation of Clearance Measurements 

According to DIN 25457 Taking Account of Type A and 

Type B Uncertainties” was hold by S. Thierfeld (co-author: 

S. Wörlen; both Brenk Systemplanung GmbH). In the beginning 

S. Thierfeld gave an overview of the DIN 25457, the widely applied 

standard for clearance measurements. He showed the evolvement 

from the fundamentals in 1993 via the Part 4 about contaminated 

and activated metal scrap, to the Part 6 of building rubbles and the 

latest Part 7 of the DIN about nuclear sites. And he emphasized 

that the primary aim is to get a reliable yes/no decision about the 

compliance with clearance levels. At the next step S. Thierfeld explained 

the incorporation of DIN ISO 11929, the standard for 

dealing with uncertainties in measurements, into DIN 25457. The 

consideration of Type A and Type B uncertainties for measurements 

and their calibrations was discussed. For different factors, 

influencing measurement and calibration, a conservative approach, 

taking only Type A uncertainties into account, and a realistic 

approach, combining Type A and Type B uncertainties, is possible. 

S. Thierfeld elucidated how to check step by step in the measurement 

and the calibration procedure which approach of uncertainty 

determination will be more reasonable for each respective 

factor. He concluded that finally a combination of all conservative 

and realistic approaches has to be done in a way to reach clearance 

measurements as precisely as necessary. At the end S. Thierfeld 

pointed out that the higher effort to reduce uncertainties will 

bring a decreased effort for decontamination work. 

The following presentation “Optimization of Handling Components 

and Large Scale Shielding Calculations with the Deterministic 

Code ATTILA” was given by S. Boehlke (co-author: 

M. Mielisch; both STEAG Energy Services GmbH), who started with 

the statement that in general shielding components are designed 

with conservative assumptions and boundary conditions which 

cover all possibly occurring situations. This can result in an overestimated 

shielding and the goal of an optimization procedure is to 

decrease on one hand the radiation level in accessible areas but on 

the other hand to decrease the amount of avoidable shielding material. 

S. Boehlke noted that for this optimization the calculation of 

the shielding geometry as well as the calculation of the dose rate 

distribution was done with the code ATTILA. He explained the different 

features of ATTILA, e.g. intuitive graphical user interface 

and the possibility to integrate simplified CAD geometries etc., and 

demonstrated in the following the use of ATTILA with 2 examples: 

a large scale dose rate mapping and the optimization of the shielding 

material of a handling machine for canisters of vitrified glass. 

For the large scale model (situation in a storage building) several 

aspects like superposition of all sources, the scattering of walls 

etc. and the scattering through openings was taken into account. 

As result S. Boehlke showed an overview about the shielding situation 

in the whole building. The second example was the calculation 

of the dose rate at the surface of a handling machine for canisters. 

Here S. Boehlke could demonstrate as consequence of the 

calculations a change in the design of the machine with the success 

that regions where the dose rate limit was exceeded before 

vanished and on the material site the reduction of used lead was 

about 30 % and the overall mass reduction of the machine was of 

about 10 %. 


Key Topic | Reactor Operation, Safety – Report Part 3


In the third lecture “Shielding Factors of Newly Designed 

Ventilation Screws” H. Niegoth (co-authors: S. Boehlke, W. Stratmann 

and M. Bock; all STEAG Energy Services GmbH) presented the 

novel design of a shielding screw. He started with a short explanation 

that for a hot cell – to handle spent fuel and other sources of 

high radiation- there are two opposing requirements: on one hand 

sufficient ventilation is necessary but an effective radiation shielding 

has to be guaranteed on the other hand. Known construction 

solutions are Z-shaped channels, not able to penetrate a wall 

straight, and ventilation screws made of cast iron where the shielding 

is restricted to gammy radiation. Next H. Niegoth demonstrated 

a new approach for a screw design. This design bases upon a sandwich 

construction of several layers of winged discs where each individual 

element can vary in the numbers of wings, in the thickness 

and in the type of shielding material. H. Niegoth pointed out 

that because of different materials the shielding possibility is not 

restricted to gamma radiation but also neutron shielding can be 

achieved by using disc elements of polyethylene. He presented 

shielding calculations, performed with the ATTILA code, for 

screws with variations in the diameter, the length and the number 

of wings for each disc and in the number of turns per screw. In addition 

pressure loss coefficients have to be calculated for different 

screw parameters with CFD methods. At the end H. Niegoth summarized 

that the sandwich concept of the novel screw allows a 

flexible adaption of the shielding requirements with regard to the 

ventilation requirements for individual application cases. 

Competence, Innovation, Regulation: 

Fusion Technology 

Optimisation Steps in the ITER Design 

Thomas Mull 

ITER is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

which is presently under construction at Cadarache in Southern 

France. This reactor is meant to demonstrate the feasibility of 

maintaining a burning fusion plasma – magnetically confined and 

producing a fusion power of 500 MW – in a steady state for several 

minutes and to investigate the possibility of breeding Tritium, 

which is needed for fuel, at a technical/industrial scale. 

The first presentation with the title “Effect of Diagnostic 

Apertures on Shut-Down Dose in ITER Upper Port Plug #18” 

was given by Arkady Serikov (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 

KIT). His co-authors were U. Fischer, B. Weinhorst (both KIT) and 

L. Bertalot, A. Suarez and S. Pak (all three: ITER Organisation). 

Shut-Down Dose Rates (SDDR) are a key condition for ITER 

maintainability. Dr. Serikov and his colleagues had focused on one 

of the port plugs, namely the Diagnostics Upper Port Plug (UPP) # 

18. This port plug is hosting three diagnostic systems: vacuum ultra-violet 

(VUV) spectrometer, vertical neutron camera (VNC) 

and neutron activation system (NAS). 

The SDDRs are calculated in a multi-step process. The first step 

calculates the neutron and gamma flux in the plug volume during 

ITER operation, based on a prediction of the strength and spatial 

distribution of the power release of the ITER fusion plasma and 

shielding effects. The second step calculates the (space-resolved) 

activation of the materials in the plug, based on these radiation 

fluxes and assumptions for the preceding ITER operation time. A 

last step calculates the gamma dose rates due to these activated 

materials, based on a certain shutdown time before access (typically 

106 s, i.e.: approx. 12 days). 

The parameters to be varied are choices for materials, presence 

or absence of filler materials and general geometry (where 

the real geometry is rather closely defined but for sake of simplicity 

there are calculations with a “homogenized” plug). 

Dr. Serikov and his colleagues found out that the SDDR directly 

behind the UPP under consideration could be reduced with respect 

to the current design by a factor of approx. 2 by proper 

choice of geometry and materials. Moreover they collected experience 

with radiation streaming effects inside the gaps which are 

surrounding the plugs inevitably and due to the apertures required 

by the spectrometers. This experience can be transferred to 

many other components. 

The following three contributions were all dealing with properties 

of tungsten which is foreseen as the plasma-facing material 

for the ITER divertor. The speakers (and main authors) of all these 

contributions were from Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH (FZJ). 

Isabel Steudel presented her works on “Thermal Shock Behaviour 

of Tungsten Under Different Simulation Methods”. Her 

co-authors were A. Huber, J. Linke, G. Sergienko and M. Wirtz. 

Forged tungsten has a heterogeneous grain structure with grains 

flattened corresponding to the forging forces. I. Steudel had investigated 

the resistance of tungsten samples with different surface grain 

orientation to the impact of electron beams and Nd:YAG laser beams 

(with these beams simulating peak power impacts due to so-called 

edge-localized modes of the plasma, ELMs, which reach up to 1 GW/ 

m 2 and which are way higher than the “normal” irradiation due to a 

burning plasma which reaches “only” up to 20 MW/m 2 ). The experiments 

were starting from base temperatures of 20 °C and 400 °C, 

respectively. Mrs. Steudel explained that ELMs are unlikely to occur 

in operation states where the wall temperatures are below 200 °C. 

The results of these experiments show that there are different 

kinds of surface modifications and damages which are referable to 

two mechanisms. The transient heat loads and the related temperature 

increase leads to a local expansion that induces compressive 

stresses due to the cooler surrounding material. After the thermal 

shock event the material quickly cools down and compressive 

stresses are converted into tensile stresses. If the material is 

ductile these stresses can be compensated by plastic deformation. 

Otherwise cracks or crack networks occur. 

The damage behaviour strongly depends on the impacting 

power density and on the base temperature. A damage threshold 

was identified between 0.19 and 0.38 GW/m 2 for both base temperatures, 

for recrystallised material even between 0.38 and 0.76 

GW/m 2 if starting at room temperature. 

An important conclusion from the experiments is that both 

simulation methods are capable to provide similar thermal loading 

conditions and that the damage patterns such as roughening 

and cracking are similar and show only minor deviations. 

Nathan Lemahieu reported on “Resistance of Tungsten with 

Yttrium Doping to ELM-Like Thermal Shocks”. His co-authors 

were J. Linke, G. Pintsuk, M. Wirtz (all three FZJ) as well as G. Van 

Oost (Ghent University, Belgium) and Z. Zhou (University of Science 

and Technology Beijing, China). 

The thermal shock resistance of spark plasma sintered tungsten 

grades, containing between 0.25 weight% and 1 weight% yttrium, 

was investigated under fusion relevant ELM-like loading conditions. 

The tungsten samples were cyclically tested at room temperature 

using a Nd:YAG laser beam and the electron beam facility 

JUDITH 1. Heat pulses with durations of 1 ms were applied to the 

samples leading to absorbed power densities between 0.37 GW/m 2 

and 1.14 GW/m 2 . Furthermore, at a temperature of 400 °C, three 

samples were tested as well with the highest available power density 

of 1.14 GW/m 2 . The characterization of the samples before and 

after exposure shows that the thermal shock resistance improves 

with increasing yttrium content. However, in contrast to pure 

tungsten, for a base temperature of 400 °C there is still brittle behaviour 

for the yttrium-doped tungsten. 

These works clearly showed that tungsten-yttrium grades have 

benefits and should be considered as plasma facing materials 

(PFM). However, an observed rise in the ductile to brittle transition 

temperature (DBTT) could be a real draw-back. Therefore, 

future studies should include more tests at elevated base temperatures, 

higher than 400 °C to determine this DBTT and to exclude 

other drawbacks. A second approach to future research could include 

optimizing the yttrium content. 

35 





36 


Bruno Jasper explained “The Powder Metallurgical Route to 

Tungsten-Fiber Reinforced Tungsten”. His co-authors were J.W. 

Coenen, Ch. Linsmeier (both FZJ) and J. Riesch and J.-H. You 

(Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany) as 

well as A. Mohr (Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany). 

Tungsten structures can withstand high temperatures but 

tungsten is a relatively brittle material. Tungsten-fiber reinforced 

tungsten (Wf/W) composites are supposed to enable enhanced 

toughness due to extrinsic energy dissipation mechanisms such as 

interface debonding and plastic deformation of fibers. So far 

Wf/W has been produced by Chemical Vapor Infiltration (CVI). 

The crucial property of this material is a certain ability of the 

fibers to move microscopically with respect to the surrounding 

tungsten bulk. This feature is secured by very thin coatings of the 

tungsten fibers, e.g. by erbium oxide. CVI does not damage neither 

the fibers nor their coating. Unfortunately, CVI is limited to rather 

small production rates. 

B. Jasper and his colleagues are investigating alternative 

methods, namely powder metallurgical routes of Wf/W production: 

Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) and Electro Discharge Sintering 

(EDS). The advantage of such a procedure could be much larger 

production rates. It is, however, a big challenge not do damage 

the fibers and their coatings during these new production processes 

which impose high thermal and mechanical stresses onto 

the fibers. 

In this context, EDS might be the preferable process. During 

EDS a powder is placed between two electrodes and then compacted 

by a short but high energy pulse. In addition an axial pressure 

is applied to increase the density even further. 

First pure W samples showed high values for the relative density. 

Investigations on samples including fibers are ongoing, supported 

by comprehensive modelling efforts. 

The Technical Session was chaired by Thomas Mull (AREVA 

GmbH). 

Competence, Innovation, Regulation: 


Transfer 

Jörg Starflinger 

Design and Development of Training for Managers of a Nuclear 

Operator (Anna Starynska, Spider Management Technologies 

Ukraine; Ronald Landefeld, Christian Schönfelder and Robert Geisser, 

AREVA GmbH): AREVA with their subcontractor Spider Management 

Technologies Ukraine are currently implementing a consultancy 

project with the objective to complete a management 

training center of a nuclear operator. As an important milestone, 

the development as well as the training needs analysis of managers 

has been completed recently, and accepted by executive 

management of the operator. In the paper the methodology used 

has been described, the connection of development needs with 

the strategic reorientation of the operator and the contribution of 

management training to achieving the strategic goals of the utility, 

in particular improvement of nuclear safety. The highest priority 

of all activities of a nuclear operator shall be given to establish a 

mechanism of permanent improvement of safety culture according 

to IAEA-Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-4. 

Based on a management competence model, a special tool – 

the Individual Training and Development Plan – was elaborated 

for managers’ appraisal, identification of training needs, elaboration 

of individual plans for development of managers and trainers, 

and monitoring of the personal development process. 

In summary, the utilization of the competence model allows 

establishing, forming and developing preferable behaviour of 

managers in the context of creation of necessary operation culture. 

Individual training and development plans for managers are 

an efficient and effective tool of implementation of the operator’s 

middle and long term strategy. 

Support of an University Nuclear Master Course by a Nuclear 

Supplier (Tomas Bajer, AREVA NP Controls, s.r.o.; Vladimir 

Slugen, Slovak University of Technology; Stefan Glaubrecht and 

Christian Schönfelder, AREVA GmbH): The cooperation between 

the Institute of Nuclear and Physical Engineering FEI STU, University 

of Bratislava, Slovak Republic, and AREVA has been presented. This 

cooperation is considered as a win-win arrangement for all stakeholders, 

the university, students and AREVA. The university can 

rely on state-of-the-art technologies for its education activities, 

expand its lecture offer and establish an international scope. Students 

will gain a deeper comprehension of current issues in nuclear 

Instrumentation&Control and they will be better prepared for 

their future job positions and career perspectives. AREVA will profit 

from the students’ enhanced specific knowledge on nuclear technology 

and access to well-educated and motivated graduates. 

As an example the preparation and delivery of specialized lectures 

and practical exercises for an upcoming new subject “Measurement 

and control in nuclear power plants”, focusing on stateof-the-art 

technologies, especially TELEPERM ® XS (TXS), which 

is also used in Slovak NPPs of VVER-440 type. AREVA contributed 

to four of the twelve lectures of the university course. 

This cooperation will be formalized in the near future by concluding 

an agreement detailing the scope of the cooperation. The 

cooperation could also be extended in the future, e.g. by expanding 

the number of lectures and lab works that are supported by 

AREVA, by organizing student internship and Master theses in 

AREVA facilities, or even by performing joint R&D projects. 

Practical Implementation Methodologies of Preserving 

Competence in Nuclear Power Plants (Michael Burkhard, GiS - 

Gesellschaft für integrierte Systemplanung mbH): To preserve competence 

and knowledge in nuclear power plants, professional tools 

are in use in the area of maintenance and operations, so-called “Enterprise 

Asset and Operations Management Solution (EAM)”. Such 

a system contains operational data, maintenance instructions, 

technical specifications, historical data, etc. It can be extended to a 

Knowledge Preservation System (KPS), which contributes to prevent 

the loss of knowledge, that processes can be optimized by utilizing 

experience and to extend of the power plant’s life cycle. If the 

KPS is established in a very early stage, information is inserted in a 

less filtered way. That way it is possible not only to learn from best 

practices but also to prevent doing the same mistakes twice. As soon 

as this is achieved, learning from best practices as well as learning 

from mistakes, it is very likely that the power plant is optimally prepared 

for a technically and economically optimized future. 

The main target and the focus has to be on gathering data in a 

sufficient way whilst enabling users to get those information attached 

directly to their actual work so they get the information 

they need at the right time, in the right context and in the appropriate 

details. Such system has been applied successfully in several 

nuclear power plants in Germany and Switzerland. 

Authors: 

Angelika Bohnstedt 

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) 

Programm Nukleare Sicherheitsforschung (NUKLEAR) 

KIT Campus Nord, Gebäude 433 

Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1 

76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen/Germany 

Thomas Mull 

AREVA GmbH 

Nuclear Fusion, HTR and Transverse Issues (PTDH-G) 

Paul-Gossen-Straße 100 

91052 Erlangen/Germany 

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jörg Starflinger 

Institutsleiter 

Universität Stuttgart 

Institut für Kernenergetik und Energiesysteme (IKE) 

Pfaffenwaldring 31, 70569 Stuttgart/Germany 



The International Expert Conference on Nuclear Technology 

Estrel Convention 

Center Berlin 

5–7 May 


Germany 

Key Topics 

Outstanding Know-How & 

Sustainable Innovations 

Enhanced Safety & 

Operation Excellence 

Decommissioning Experience & 

Waste Management Solutions 

Programme 

3 Gold Sponsor 

3 Silver Sponsors 

www.nucleartech-meeting.com 

Fuel


AMNT 2015 38 

Plenary Session 

Tuesday ı May 5 th 2015 

Welcome and Opening 

Address 

Dr. Ralf Güldner, President of DAtF, 

Germany 

Policy 

German Energiewende and European Energy 

Market – Risk or Opportunity? 

Thorsten Herdan, Head of the Department 

Energy Policy, Federal Ministry for Economic 

Affairs and Energy, Germany 

International Developments 

Representative of EU Member State 

Economy 

E.ON’s Strategy: Managing Regulation and 

Political Uncertainty 

Dr.-Ing. Leonhard Birnbaum, Member of the 

Board of Management – Markets, 

Services, E.ON SE, Germany 

Vattenfall’s Visions Concerning Climate 

Policy and the Place of Nuclear 

Mats Ladeborn, Head of Nuclear Power 

Development, Vattenfall AB, Sweden 

Long-Term Stability and Profitability in 

Electricity Generation 

Jacek Cichosz, Vicepresident and Member of 

the Board, PGE EJ1, Poland 

Communications 

Pragmatism and Ideology: Opinion Shaping 

in Nuclear 

Ann S. Bisconti, PhD, President, Bisconti 

Research, Inc., USA 

Why Miracles Come From Nuclear? 

Nuclear Communications Beyond Energy 

Dr. John Barrett, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear 

Association, Canada 

Waste Management 

Re-Start of the Selection Process for a HAW 

Final Repository in Germany – a Snapshot of 

the Status-Quo 

Key Note: Ursula Heinen-Esser, Chairperson 

of the Commission “Storage of High-Level 

Radioactive Waste Materials”, German 

Bundestag 

Panel 

• Ursula Heinen-Esser, Chairperson of the 

Commission 

• Prof. Dr. Dirk Bosbach, Director of the Institute 

of Energy and Climate Research 

IEK-6: Nuclear Waste Management and 

Reactor Safety, Forschungszentrum Jülich 

GmbH 

• Jochen Stay, Spokesperson of anti-nuclear 

organisation .ausgestrahlt 

• Dr. Hannes Wimmer, Chairman of the 

Board of Managing Directors, GNS Gesellschaft 

für Nuklear-Service mbH, Germany 

Moderator: (Tba) 

Competence 

From Enhanced Safety to Advanced Designs 

Panel 

• Yves Brachet, PhD, President EMEA Region, 

Westinghouse Electric Company, 

Belgium 

• Nick Hanigan, Director of Waste Management 

and Decommissioning National 

Nuclear Laboratory, UK 

• Stefan vom Scheidt, CEO AREVA GmbH, 

Germany 

• Tba, China National Nuclear Corporation 

(CNNC), China 

Moderator: Chairperson KTG (tba), Germany 

Outlook AMNT 2016 

Chairperson KTG (tba) 

Social Evening 

All contributions translated simultaneously 

in English/German. 

The DAtF-President and the KTG-Chairperson 

will lead through the programme. 

Key Topic 

Outstanding Know-How 

& Sustainable 

Innovations 

Focus Session 

Implementing New Safety 

Requirements in Europe 

Wednesday ı May 6 th 2015 

Coordinators: Dr. Christian Raetzke, CONLAR 

Consulting on Nuclear Law, Licensing and 

Regulation, Germany 

The revision of the EU Nuclear Safety Directive 

has been adopted by the Council. WENRA 

will complete the revision of its Reference 

Levels by 2014. The IAEA is pursuing a number 

of post-Fukushima actions and programmes. 

These developments and their impact 

on design and operation of nuclear installations 

will be presented and discussed by 

high-level speakers from relevant institutions 

and companies. 

The Revised EU Nuclear Safety Directive 

Massimo Garribba, European Commission, 

Luxembourg 

The Revision of WENRA Reference Levels and 

their Implementation by WENRA Regulators 

Dr. Hans Wanner, ENSI (Eidgenössisches 

Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat), Switzerland 

IAEA Activities Concerning Nuclear Safety 

After the Fukushima Accident 

Gustavo Caruso, International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA), Austria 

The Revision of the German Regulations in 

the Light of Developments in the EU and 

Worldwide 

Tba, Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit GRS 

mbH, Germany (tbc) 

The Impact of New Safety Requirements on 

the Operation of Existing Installations in the 

Czech Republic 

Milan Sýkora, CEZ, a. s., Czech Republic 

The Impact of New Safety Requirements on 

the Design of New Nuclear Power Plants in 

the EU on the Example of EPR 

Jürgen Wirkner, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Topical Session 

Nuclear Know-How Beyond 

Power Generation 


Coordinator: Dr. Stefan Nießen, 

AREVA GmbH, Germany 

FRM II: Neutrons for Industrial and Medical 

Applications 

Dr. Anton Kastenmüller, Technische 

Universität München, Germany 

Thermohydraulic Codes Applied to Wind 

Power and Combustion Engines 

Prof. Dr. Andreas Class, Karlsruher Institute of 

Technology, Germany 

Radioisotope Battery Technology in Space 

Marie-Claire Perkinson, European Aeronautic 

Defence and Space Company (EADS), United 

Kingdom 

Dr. Richard Ambrosi, University of Leicester, 

United Kingdom 

Gamma Irradiation an Indispensable Tool for 

Sterilization 

Reiner Eidenberger, Synergy Health 

Allershausen GmbH, Germany 

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

(NORM): A Comparison Between Geothermal 

Energy, Fracking and Uranium Mining 

Overburden 

Prof. Dr. Thorsten Schäfer, Karlsruher Institute 

of Technology, Germany 

Industry Applications of Nuclear Safety 

Based Non-Destructive Examination 

Technology 

Friedrich Mohr, iNDT GmbH, Germany 


Programme



CFD Simulations for Reactor 

Safety Relevant Objectives 

Thursday ı May 7 th 2015 

Coordinator: Dr. Andreas Schaffrath, Martina 

Scheuerer, Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und 

Reaktorsicherheit GRS mbH, Germany 

This session demonstrates the progress as 

well as its potential for their application regulatory 

practice. Current developments, examples 

(e.g. flow in PWR fuel assemblies, 

vortex formation at pump inlets, condensation 

induced water hammer, containment 

flows) and future needs are presented by 

worldwide leading technical experts in this 

area. 

CFD Application in Nuclear Reactor Safety 

Martina Scheuerer, Gesellschaft für 

Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit GRS mbH, 

Germany 

Current Developments in CFD Codes 

Dr. Thomas Frank, ANSYS/ MFBU – 

Mechanical-Fluids Business Unit, Germany 

LES Analysis of Flow in a Simplified PWR 

Assembly with Mixing Grid 

Dr. Ulrich Bieder, CEA/Centre de SACLAY, 

France 

Modelling of Passive Auto-Catalytic 

Recombiner Operational Behaviour with 

the Coupled REKODIREKT-CFX Approach 

Dr. Stephan Kelm, Forschungszentrum 

Jülich GmbH, Germany 

Investigation of Surface Vortex Formation at 

Pump Intakes in PWR 

Peter Pandazis, Dr. Andreas Schaffrath, 

Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit 

GRS mbH, 

Dr. Frank Blömeling, TÜV NORD SysTec 

GmbH & Co. KG, Germany 

CFD Simulations of Condensation Induced 

Water Hammer 

Dr. Sabin Ceuca (tbc), Technische Universität 

München, Germany 

CFD Simulations of Containment Flows 

Dr. Ed Komen (tbc), NRG, The Netherlands 

CFD for Two-Phase Flows: Status, Recent 

Trends and Future Needs 

Dr. Dirk Lucas, Helmholtz-Zentrum 

Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany 

Prof. Dr. Eckhart Laurien, University of 

Stuttgart, Germany 

Technical Session 

Reactor Physics, Thermo and 

Fluid Dynamics 

Topical Neutron Kinetics 

and Thermal Hydraulic 

Developments and 

Applications 


Chair: Dr. Birgit Wortmann, STEAG Energy 

Services GmbH, Germany 

The Use of Neutron Fluence Analyses as 

Verification of Reactor Pressure Vessel 

Shielding Design 

Lars Ackermann, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Validation of MCNP for Skyshine Calculation 

Luc Schlomer, WTI GmbH, Germany 

VENUS 7: A Recent Evaluation for the IRPhE 

Handbook 

Dr. Winfried Zwermann, Gesellschaft fur 

Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, 

Germany 

Nuclear Data Uncertainty Analysis With 

Perturbation Theory and Random Sampling 

Dr. Winfried Zwermann, Gesellschaft für 


Germany 

Depletion Calculations for a Fast Spectrum 

Fuel Assembly 

Alexander Aures, Gesellschaft fur Anlagenund 

Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, Germany 

Neutronic Modeling of a PWR Konvoi Type 

Reactor Using PARCS With Few Group Cross 

Section Generated With SCALE and SERPENT 

Joaquin Ruben Basualdo Perello, Karlsruhe 

Institute of Technology, Germany 

Monte Carlo Neutronics Investigations of 

VVER-1000 Fuel Assemblies 

Luigi Mercatali, Karlsruhe Institue of 


Fundamentals of Heat Removal Accuracy ans 

Application Limits of Analytical and 

Numerical Calculation Methods: Examples 

from Nuclear Applications 

Dr. Andre Leber, WTI GmbH, Germany 


Know-How, New Build and 

Innovations 

Innovative Concepts in Nuclear 

Technology 


Chair: Dr. Dietrich Knoche, Westinghouse 

Electric Germany GmbH, Germany 

Advanced Reactor Concepts and Sustainable 

Nuclear Energy Strategy –Russian Trends 

Dr. Andrey Gagarinskiy, National Research 

Centre, Russia 

On the Use of a Molten Salt Fast Reactor for 

Transmutation Fulfilling the Requests of the 

Nuclear Phase Out Decision 

Dr. Bruno Merk, Helmholtz-Zentrum 

Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Germany 

Modeling SFR Diagrid Expansion Reactivity 

Feedback by Coordinate Transformation of 

the Diffusion Equation 

Dr. Armin Seubert, Gesellschaft fur Anlagenund 


AREVA‘s Worldwide Contributions to Safety 

Improvement 

Marina Welker, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

AREVA‘s Alternative Way for Spare Parts 

Management 

Ulrich Kizak, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Development of a Moderator System for a 

High-Brilliant Cold and Thermal Neutron 

Source 

Jan Philipp DabruckRWTH Aachen University, 

Germany 

Regulatory and Computerised 

Improvements 

Chair: Dr. Matthias Lamm, AREVA GmbH, 

Germany 

Training in a Plant Modernization Project 

Christof Pudelko, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Supports for Equipment Components and 

Piping of Nuclear Power Plants: Advances in 

the Russian Regulatory Basis 

Dr. Yury Spirochkin Engineering Center of 

Nuclear Equipment Strength, Russia 

Design of Nuclear Building Structures and 

Components With Respect to Service Life 

and Reliability 

Dr. Rudiger Meiswinkel, TU Kaiserslautern, 

Germany 

Assessment of Containment Reinforced 

Concrete Structures Exposed to the 

Accidental Flooding by Using Abaqus FEA- 

Software: Solutions and Lessons-Learned 

Ulf Ricklefs, Welstinghouse Electric Germany 

GmbH, Germany 

Thermal and Mechanical Design of the 

Plasma Core CXRS Diagnostics of the ITER 

Nuclear Fusion Reactor 

Frank Giese, WTI GmbH, Germany 



Programme



Fast Neutron Detection With sic Semicoductor 

Detector at Elevated Temperatures 

Dora Szalkai, Karlsruhe Institute of 


Surface Finish Influence on the Thermal 

Shock Performance of Beryllium 

Benjamin Spilker, Forschungszentrum Julich 

GmbH, Germany 

Creep Irradiation Testing of Copper Alloy for 

the ITER First Wall Panels 

Christoph Pohl, TUV Rheinland Industrie 

Service GmbH, Germany 

Campus Nuclear Energie 


Workshop Preserving 

Competence 

Wednesday ı May 6 th 2015 & 


Key Topic 




Sustainable Reactor 

Operation Management – 

Safe, Efficient and Valuable 


Coordinator: Dr. Erwin Fischer, E.ON Kernkraft 

GmbH, Germany 

Every operator of a nuclear power plant 

worldwide strives for safety, efficiency and 

adding value. But what are the key factors to 

achieve these goals? For sure, the technological 

standards and herewith continuous investments 

in maintenance and technological 

development are essential. Of course, a strict 

and sound regulation with an independent 

authority of highest expertise is crucial, too. 

In this context this session provides an overview 

over best practices and state of the art 

scientific findings on the relevant topics in 

the field of efficient organization and responsible 

human performance. Questions of 

management systems, organizational setup 

are being presented and discussed as well as 

aspects of incorporating lessons learned and 

training. 

Organisational and Regulatory 

Background 

Welcome/Opening Remarks 

Dr. Erwin Fischer 

E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, Germany 

Management System and Organisational 

Setup as Determinants for a Successful 

Performance of Plant Staff 

Jürgen Schwarzin, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, 

Germany 

Health, Safety and Environment – First! 

Matthias Röhrborn , RWE Power AG, 

Germany 

Environmental Management – How to Deal 

with EMAS and OSAS? 

Dr. Johann Oswald, NPP Isar, E.ON Kernkraft 

GmbH, Germany 

Procedures Incorporating 

Lessons Learned 

The Process of Evolving Improvement with 

Feedback of Experience in a NPP 

Ulrich Sander, NPP Neckarwestheim, EnBW 

Kernkraft GmbH, Germany 

German Information Notices – Interdisciplinary 

Event Assessment Resulting in 

Recommendations 

Dr. Dagmar Sommer, Gesellschaft für Anlagenund 


The “Human Factor” 

Developing and Preserving Requisite 

Qualification – Training at a Simulator 

Jochen Kruip, KSG Kraftwerks-Simulator- 

Gesellschaft mbH, GfS Gesellschaft für 

Simulatorschulung mbH, Germany 

Tools Supporting Human Performance 

Dr. Stephan Rahlfs, NPP Philippsburg, EnBW 

Kernkraft GmbH 

Frank Heinrich, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, 

Germany 

Focus Session 

Radiation Protection 


Coordinator: Erik Baumann, AREVA GmbH, 

Germany 

Radiation Protection – a century of safety 

benefit for jobholders, public and environment. 

The development of protection principles 

is a long lasting process. It started with 

the increasing industrial application of X-rays 

more than 100 years ago. Today, there is a 

large number of national and international 

organization and governmental institutions 

dealing with the protection of occupationally 

exposed workers, of members of the public 

and of the general environment. This session 

presents the most recent status of discussions 

and developments in the fields of radiation 

protection during decommissioning, 

development of codes, standards and regulations. 

In Fact, it Protection of Human Beings and 

the Environment Against Ionizing Radiation 

– Some Historical Insights 

Erik Baumann, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

ALARA – How Much Radiation Protection is 

Reasonable? 

Dr. Gerhard Frank, Karlsruher Institut of Technology 

(KIT), Germany 

Radiological Protection Targets and 

Performance Indicators 

Gabriele Hampel, AXPO Power AG, 

NPP Beznau, Switzerland 

Dose Rate Measurements at the Presence of 

Surface-near Sources 

Sinisa Simic, TO.M.MA.S GmbH, Germany 

Incorporation Monitoring of Intakes During 

the Dismantling of Nuclear Facilities 

Martina Froning, Forschungszentrum Jülich 

GmbH, Germany 

Decommissioning Aspects – EC and IAEA 

Guidance on Exemption and Clearance Levels 

and Implications on Clearance in Germany 

Dr. Stefan Thierfeldt (tbc), Brenk 

Systemplanung GmbH, Germany 


Fuel Management During the 

Last Cycles and Beyond 


Coordinators: Ulf Benjaminsson, 

Carina Önneby, Westinghouse Electric 

Sweden AB, Sweden 

Many utilities are currently facing a situation 

where the fuel and core components are to be 

effectively managed during the last cycles of 

operation and beyond. A key aspect is the experiences 

and strategies for core and fuel optimization 

with regard to flexibility and fuel 

cycle costs. With the completion of the operation, 

utilities must consider whether to reuse or 

dispose any residual fresh fuel assemblies. Disposal 

of other core components, such as control 

rods and BWR fuel channels is also to be 

performed. Moreover, damaged fuel rods remaining 

at the plant are to be prepared for safe 

transportation and disposal. Finally, fuel suppliers 

and utilities jointly have to ensure that the 

depleted fuel assemblies can be safely stored in 

dry storage facilities before final disposal. 

Fuel Related Experiences and Lessons Learend 

from Barsebäck 1 and 2. 

Fredrik Winge (tbc), Vattenfall/Ringhals, Sweden 

Strategies and experiences from using the 

fuel as effectively as possible within EKK 

Wolfgang Faber, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, 

Germany 


Programme


Evaluation of Intermediate Term Dry Storage 

of Fuel 

Björn Andersson, Westinghouse Electric 

Sweden AB, Sweden 

Experiences from Potential Reuse Versus 

Disposal of Fresh BWR Fuel Assemblies 

Tba, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH 

Tbd 

Sylvia Choihtramani Becerra/Robert 

Schneider, GNF ENUSA Nuclear Fuel S.A. 


Current Issues and Learnings 

from the International 

Experience of Reactor 

Operation 



Operation and Safety of 

Nuclear Installations, Fuel 

Operation and Maintenace 


Chair: Dr. Jürgen Sydow, TÜV NORD SysTec 

GmbH & Co. KG, Germany 

Pipe Robots for Internal Inspection, 

Non-Destructive Testing and Machining of 

Pipeline Systems in Nuclear Power Stations 

Alexander Reiss, Inspector Systems 

Rainer Hitzel GmbH, Germany 

Lessons Learned From Operational 

Accompanying Temperature Measurements 

Dr. Sven H. Reese, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, 

Germany 

Quality Assurance for Industrialization of 

Rodlet Refabrication for Power Ramps, 

in LECA-STAR Facility 

Cedric Plantegenest, CEA – Cadarache, France 

Examination of the Irradiated Mixed Carbide 

and Nitride Fuels as Part of Their Safety 

Evaluation 

Paul David William Bottomley, European 

Commission-JRC-Institute für Transurane, 

Germany 

Special Issues 

Chair: Dr. Anke Traichel, NUKEM Technologies 

Engineering Services GmbH, Germany 

Concept of Modular Heat Exchanger for 

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 

Dr. Nader Ben Said, Westinghouse Electric 

Germany GmbH, Germany 


Coordinator: Dr. Ludger Mohrbach, VGB 

PowerTech e.V., Germany 

Continuous improvement is the intrinsic target 

of day-to-day operation of nuclear power 

plants. Thus, global nuclear safety progressed 

by a factor of ten every ten years. The section 

highlights in-depth insights in seven persentations 

into current operational issues from 

seven countries. 

Commissioning of Atucha-2 and Taishan-1 

Tba 

Material Defects in Belgian Reactor Vessels 

Rene Delporte (tbc), Electrabel, Belgium 

Security of Supply in Central Europe after 

Shut-down of Grafenrheinfeld 

Tba, TenneT TSO GmbH, Germany 

New Energy Policy in France 

Gilbert Moritz (tbc), EDF Electricité de France, 

France 

Backfitting Measures at Swiss Nuclear Power 

Plants 

Martin Richner, AXPO Power AG, Switzerland 

Challenges of the Post-operational Period for 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Wittmann 

Operation of Nuclear Power Plants in the 

Spanish Grid 

Jose Antonio Prieto, Almaraz-Trillo Nuclear 

Power Plants, Spain 

NUGENIA: a Non Profit International Organization 

to Promote R&D for the Safe Long 

Term Operation of GENII and III Nuclear 

Power Plants 

Dr. Abderrahim Al Mazouzi, EDF – EDF R&D, 

France 

Control Room Technology 

Uwe Kimmeskamp, Bilfinger Mauell GmbH, 

Germany 

Statistical Analysis of Fatigue Data for 

Austenitic Stainless Steels in Water 

Environments 

Paul Wilhelm, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

PSA 

Replacement of RPV Head Spray System in 

NPP RH1 

Thomas Glaab, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

A Novel Approach for the Seismic Probabiistic 

Safety Assessment During the Design 

Stage of Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities 

Maxi Mummert, NUKEM Technologies 


Modeling Software Failures of Digital I&C in 

Probabilistic Safety Analyses 

Dr. Mariana Jockenhövel-Barttfeld, AREVA 

GmbH, Germany 

Analysis of the Spent Fuel Pool of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Taking Into Account Tolerable 

Down Times 

Dr. Günter Becker, RISA Sicherheitsanalysen 

GmbH, Germany 

Fuel 

Chair: Patrick Raymond, Commissariat 

à l‘énergie atomique et aux énergies 

alternatives (CEA), France 

Status of the Low Enriched Uranium UMo 

Dispersion Fuel Development for High 

Performance Research Reactors 

Dr. Leo Sannen, SCK-CEN, Belgium 

Advanced Statistical Design and Evaluation 

Method 

Steffen Kaefer, Westinghouse Electric 

Germany GmbH, Germany 

A Vision for Nuclear Reactor Safety 

Prof. Francesco D‘Auria, University of Pisa, Italy 

Emergency Response Exercises with 

Comprehensive aAccident Scenarios at 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Ole Staack, ESN Sicherheit und 

Zertifizierung GmbH, Germany 

On a New Method for the Diagnosis of the 

State of the Reactor Pressure Vessel 

Inventory During Severe Accidents 

Daniel Fiß, Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz, 

Germany 

Further Investigation on Light Gas Layer Erosion 

Using the Current ASTEC Model Basis 

Vera Koppers, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 

Germany 

Assessment of Fission Product Release 

From Ex-Vessel Molten Pools Based on ACE 

Experiments 

Kathrin Agethen, Ruhr Universität Bochum, 

Germany 

SA: WASA-BOSS + CESAM 

Chair: Dr. Thorsten Hollands, Gesellschaft für 


Germany 

QUENCH-11 Simulations With the Severe Accident 

Analysis Code ASTEC V2.0 in CESAM 

Florian Gremme, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 

Germany 

CESAM: Simulation of a Large Break LOCA 

Sequence in a German PWR Konvoi with the 

Severe Accident Code ASTEC 

Ignacio Gómez García-Torano, Karlsruhe 


QUENCH-11 Simulations With the Severe Accident 

Analysis Code ASTEC V2.0 in CESAM 

Florian Gremme, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 

Germany 


Programme



CESAM: Simulation of a Large Break LOCA 

Sequence in a German PWR Konvoi with the 

Severe Accident Code ASTEC 

Ignacio Gómez García-Torano, Karlsruhe 


Parametric Study on a KONVOI MB-LOCA 

Scenario for the Determination of Coolability 

Parameters 

Ailine Trometer, University of Stuttgart, 

Germany 

WASA-BOSS: Athlet-CD Model for Severe Accident 

Analysis for a Generic Konvoi Reactor 

Polina Tusheva, Helmholtz-Zentrum 


WASA-BOSS: Expansion of the Model-Basis 

in MELCOR 

Philipp Dietrich, Karlsruhe Institute of 


WASA-BOSS: Investigation of the Coolability 

of Partly-Damaged BWR Core by Water 

Injection Into the RPV 

Dr. Valentino Di Marcello, Karlsruhe Institute 

of Technology, Germany 

Simulation of the Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 3 

Accident With ATHLET-CD as Part of the 

Collaborative Research Project WASA-BOSS 

Mathias Hoffmann, Ruhr-Universität 

Bochum, Germany 

Contributions for „WASA-BOSS“: Study of 

Containment Film Cooling With an Advanced 

Water Film Model 

Xi Huang, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 

Germany 

Key Topics 

Decommissioning 

Experience & Waste 

Management Solutions 

Welcome/Introduction 

Dr. Erich Gerhards, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, 

Germany 

Status Quo and Future 

Challenges 

Decommissioning Projects in Germany – 

Perspectives From the Federal Level 

Dr. Bernhard Massing, Federal Ministry for 

the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building 

and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Germany 

The Decision Regarding the “Right” Decommissioning 

and Dismantling Concept 

Dr. Ralf Versemann, RWE Power AG, Germany 

Factors for Successful 

Decommissioning 

Staff – A Key Component for Successful 

Decommissioning and Efficient Dismantling 

Ernst-Michael Züfle, Senior Advisor to CEO, 

Vattenfall GmbH, Germany 

Construction and Process Organization in a 

Nuclear Power Plant – A Constant Change? 

Dr. Walter Glöckle, Ministry of the 

Environment, Climate Protection and the 

Energy Sector, Baden-Württemberg, Germany 

Successful Interface Management Among 

the Remaining Operation, Dismantling and 

Recycling Management 

Andreas Ehlert, Energietechnische 

Gesellschaft im VDE (ETG), Germany 

Remaining Operation and Waste 

Management 

Safety Classifications and Reclassification of 

Systems 

Dr. Heinz-Walter Drotleff, Entsorgungskommission 

(ESK), Germany 

Efficient Recycling and Waste Management 

Frank Bolles, Burkhard Hartmann, EnBW 

Kernkraft GmbH, Germany 

qualification of old packages that have accumulated 

over decades. 

Involving representatives of the waste producers, 

responsible authorities and experts, this 

session will elaborate means and potentials 

for improvement and acceleration of the 

qualification process to deliver an annual 

amount of 10.000 m³ of radioactive waste 

starting from 2023. 

Welcome/Opening Remarks 

Presentations: Boundary Conditions for 

Waste and Disposal 

National Waste Management Plan 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature 

Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety 

(BMUB), (tbc) 

Final Repository Konrad – What Still Has to 

be Done 

Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS), (tbc) 

Task and Duties of the Coordinators 

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH / 

Energiewerke Nord GmbH (EWN), (tba) 

Panel Discussion: Final Disposal of 10.000 m³ 

of Radioactive Waste per Year – A Joint 

Challenge 

Introduction by Moderator 

Panel Discussion 

Panelists: Authorities and independent 

experts, waste producers of public and 

private sector 

Key Topics: Qualification of waste packages 

– rules and regulations, standards and 

specific solutions, experiences gained and 

lessons learned 


End of Life Applications and 

Infrastructure – Experiences and 

Way Forward 


Focus Session 

Experiences on Postoperation 

and Decommissioning in Germany 


Coordinator: Dr. Erich Gerhards, 

E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, Germany 

This session provides an overview of current 

developments and best practices in Germany. 

Essential questions regarding the decision for 

the “right” decommissioning and dismantling 

concept, success factors of an efficient 

decommissioning as well as the state-of-theart 

amongst others during the waste treatment 

will be discussed. The session adresses 

representatives of international and national 

service providers, public authorities and TSOs 

as well as operators. 

Focus Session 

Qualification for Konrad – 

What Is to Be Done? 


Coordinators: Iris Graffunder, Energiewerke 

Nord GmbH, Germany 

Dr. Astrid Petersen, GNS Gesellschaft für 

Nuklear-Service mbH, Germany 

Since 2002, regulations with binding conditions 

for final disposal of ILW/LLW in the Konrad 

repository exist. Still, there is uncertainty 

among the responsible waste producers concerning 

the qualification process of waste 

packages for final disposal. This comprises 

both the fabrication of new packages and the 

Coordinator: Thomas Seipolt, NUKEM 

Technologies Engineering Services GmbH, 

Germany 

This session is going to cover the “after-life” 

of nuclear facilities as well as decommissioning- 

related programs in Germany and in 

Europe with emphasis on European countries. 

European countries not only have 

shown different levels of progress in that 

perspective, but have chosen different ways 

to deal with the issue depending on their 

specifics. This session covers topics such us 

decommissioning know-how transfer, legal 

framework, support programs as well as reuse 

concepts. 


Programme


Decommissioning Documents and Pilot 

Dismantling – Support for the Armenian NPP 

Ronald Rieck, NUKEM Technologies 


IAEA Decommissioning Programs and 

Support 

Vladimir Michal, International Atomic Energy 

Agency, Vienna International Centre, Austria 

Second Life of a Nuclear Site – Experiences 

and Lessons Learned 

Dr. Markus Storcz, RWE Power AG, Germany 

INPP Decommissioning: Progress and Future 

Challenges 

Darius Janulevicius, State Enterprise Ignalina, 

Italy 

Engineering 3D Models for Decommissioning 

Alexandr Kanishev, Vladislav Tikhonovsky, 

CJSC NEOLANT, Russia 


Comprehensive Solutions 

for Waste and Spent Fuel 

Management: The Key to 

Public Acceptance from 

New Build to Phase Out 


Coordinator: Dr. Jürgen Skrzyppek, 

Stefan Weber, GNS Gesellschaft für 


Today, solutions for the disposal of radioactive 

waste from operating and dismantling of 

NPPs do not only have to be technically 

feasible, but must be communicable to the 

public. Especially for planned new builds, 

the issue of disposal has become a key 

factor in public acceptance. This session will 

offer international comparison of the challenges 

and advances of waste management 

as well as disposal and its relevance to the 

situation of nuclear energy in the respective 

country. 

Obtaining Completely Fuel Free Reactors as 

a Precondition for Dismantling 

Tba, RWE/ NPP Biblis, Germany 

Safe Dismantling Together with Reliable 

Waste Management of Nuclear Power Plants 

of the First Generation ‐ A Key Factor for 

Acceptance of New Build Projects 

Tba 

Public Acceptance for a Repository Site and 

its Simultaneous Influence on Decisions for 

the Extension of Nuclear Power 

Tba, Posiva Oy, Finland 

Early Engagement of all Stakeholders Along 

Potential Transport Routes to a Repository 

Site 

Tba, NWMO, Canada 

Ensuring Dismantling and Disposal Projects 

in the Long Term – Governmental 

Responsibility 

Tba, NDA, United Kingdom 


Radioactive Waste Management, 

Storage and Disposal 

Characterisation 


Chair: Werner Stratmann, STEAG Energy 

Services GmbH, Germany 

Gamma-Induced Radiation Damage in Spent 

Nuclear Fuel 

Christian Herold, RWTH Aachen, Germany 

Progress in the Non-Destructive Analysis of 

Radioactive Waste Drums to Fulfil Storage 

Acceptance Criteria 

Dr. Marina Sokcic-Kostic, NUKEM Technologies 

Engineering Services, Germany 

ANNA - A New Flexible Code for Best- 

Estimate Neutron Activation Calculations 

Lars Ackermann, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Monte-Carlo Calculations of the Radiation 

Field in a Rock Salt Horizontal Emplacement 

Gallery of an Underground Nuclear Waste 

Disposal Facility 

Héctor Saurí Suárez, Karlsruher Institut für 

Technologie (KIT), Germany 

Treatment Disposal I 

Chair: Klaus Büttner, NUKEM Technologies 


Pyrohydrolysis: A Universal Tool for the 

Treatment of Organic Radwaste 

Dr. Georg Braehler, NUKEM Technologies 


Sorbents for Sr-90-Removal 

Dr. Alexander Zulauf, NUKEM Technologies 


Qualification Procedure for the Konrad 

Repository on Example of Disposal of 

Activated Components of the Forschungs- 

Neutronenquelle Heinz Maier-Leibnitz 

(FRM II) 

Patrick Halama, EWN GmbH, Germany 

Treatment Disposal II 

Chair: Klaus Büttner, NUKEM Technologies 


Lessons Learned from 1000 CASTOR 

Dispatches 

Wolfgang Reuter, GNS Gesellschaft für 


Ageing of Elastomeric Seals for Storage 

Containers 

Anja Kömmling, Federal Institute for 

Materials Research, Germany 

Results and Conclusions From the German 

P&T Study – a View of the Contributing 

Helmholtz Research Centres 

Dr. Bruno Merk, Helmholtz-Zentrum 



Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Installations 

Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Facilities – Challenges and 

Solutions 


Chair: Stefan Klute, Siempelkamp 

Nukleartechnik GmbH, Germany 

Source Term Reduction Prior to Decommissioning 

and Dismantling AREVA‘ s 

Decontamination Technology 

Dr. Christian Topf, AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Detection of Contaminations in Pipes With 

OSL-Dosimetry: Test Measurements 

Uwe Reichelt, TU Dresden, Germany 

Dismantling of SVAFO Research Reactors 

R2&R2-0 

Hans-Uwe Arnold , AREVA GmbH, Germany 

Further Dismantling Activities of the 

Obrigheim NPP Reactor 

Dr. Ralf Borchardt, Energiewerke Nord 

GmbH, Germany 

Sorbents for Sr-90-Removal 

Dr. Alexander Zulauf, NUKEM Technologies 


Characterization and Remediation of Contaminated 

Concrete at Nuclear Power Plants 

Richard Mcgrath, USA 



Programme


44 

KTG INSIDE 

Inside 

Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, im Jahr 2014 sind vier neue Kernkraftwerke weltweit ans Netz gegangen, davon 

drei allein in China. Weitere 26 sind dort im Bau. Das Land mit dem größten Wachstumspotenzial und Energiehunger 

setzt verstärkt auf Kernenergie, um die Umweltverschmutzung durch die Kohleverstromung und die damit verbundenen 

gesundheitlichen Gefahren nachhaltig zu reduzieren. Und auch im Rahmen der internationalen Bemühungen um Klimaschutz 

und CO 2 -Reduktionen ist Kernenergie inzwischen eine Option für den Weltklimarat. 

In Deutschland zeigt sich derweil immer deutlicher die 

Tragweite von nicht zu Ende gedachten politischen Entscheidungen. 

Der Kernenergieausstieg lässt die ehrgeizigen 

CO 2 -Ziele der Bundesregierung wanken. „Dreckige“ Kohlekraftwerke 

ersetzen in der Grundlastversorgung die Kernenergie, 

weil die entsprechenden CO 2 -Zertifikate so billig 

sind. Der EU-Emissionshandel liegt wegen politischer Eingriffe 

und falscher Rahmenbedingungen am Boden. Und 

damit rechnet sich selbst der Einsatz moderner und umweltfreundlicher 

Gas- und Kohlekraftwerke nicht mehr. 

Während die Erneuerbaren zeitweise im Überfluss ins 

Netz drücken, leidet insgesamt die Versorgungssicherheit. 

Auf Veranlassung des Netzbetreibers musste beispielsweise 

2014 das Kernkraftwerk Brokdorf die Revision verschieben. 

Gleichzeitig ergreifen die europäischen Nachbarn im 

Osten technische Maßnahmen, um die ungebremste 

Stromeinspeisung aus Deutschland zu Spitzenzeiten der 

regenerativen Erzeugung zu verhindern. Erforderliche Infrastrukturinvestitionen 

in Deutschland bleiben hingegen 

aus: zu wenig Planungssicherheit und jede Menge regionale 

Widerstände. Und die technische Umsetzung von Großspeichern 

ist nach wie vor nicht gelöst. Die „Dunkelflaute“ 

wird bei weiter steigendem Anteil der Regenerativen immer 

mehr zum Problem, technisch wie auch wirtschaftlich. 

Fazit: Der Energiemarkt funktioniert nicht mehr. 

Gleichzeitig versucht die Bundesregierung die durch 

ihre aktionistischen Eingriffe selbst verursachten Probleme 

bei Energieversorgung und Klimaschutz auf die Industrie 

und damit letztlich alle Bürger abzuwälzen. Das betrifft 

in gleichem Maße den vom Erneuerbare-Energie-Gesetz 

(EEG) beeinflussten hohen Strompreis – dem inzwischen 

in Europa nach Dänemark mit Abstand zu anderen 

EU-Staaten zweithöchsten – wie den verordneten Zwang 

zur Häuserdämmung. Und für die weitere Entsorgung 

werden neue zusätzliche Zwischenlagergenehmigungen 

für Abfälle aus der Wiederaufarbeitung gefordert, weil 

diese politisch motiviert nicht mehr in das dafür vorgesehene 

zentrale und genehmigte Lager dürfen. 

Die Bundesregierung zeigt sich dennoch überrascht, 

dass ihre Eingriffe mit Konsequenzen insbesondere für die 

großen Energieversorger verbunden sind und diese unter 

wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten zum Handeln gezwungen 

werden. Das über Jahrzehnte gesamtgesellschaftlich 

eingeschwungene System zwischen Industrie, Politik und 

Gesellschaft ist aus dem Takt. 

Mich persönlich erstaunt bei diesen Entwicklungen in 

Deutschland am meisten, dass die politisch Verantwortlichen 

immer wieder von Konsequenzen überrascht werden, 

die doch eigentlich recht gut im Voraus zu berechnen 

waren. Ein Beispiel dafür ist die Diskussion um die Entsorgungskosten. 

Auf Basis geprüfter Konzepte wurden 

über Jahrzehnte Rückstellungen aufgebaut und bestätigt. 

Für den Wegfall von Planungs- und Geschäftsgrundlagen 

kann man die Unternehmen der Energiewirtschaft aber 

tatsächlich nicht verantwortlich machen; weder für den 

um Jahrzehnte verschobenen Bau eines Endlagers für 

hochradioaktive Abfälle noch für die gesetzliche „Enteignung“ 

ihrer Kraftwerke und den damit verbundenen wirtschaftlichen 

Verlust. 

Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, ich möchte mich weder vom 

bisherigen Bild der ingenieurtechnisch geprägten und innovativen 

Bundesrepublik verabschieden, noch vom Wirtschaftsstandort. 

Die Erkenntnisse des Bundeswirtschaftsministers 

lassen mich hier ein wenig hoffen. Schließlich hat 

er die Komplexität der Energiewende erkannt und auch das 

EEG als ungeeignetes Mittel zur Steuerung der Energiesysteme 

adressiert. Wir dürfen dennoch gespannt sein, wie die 

übergeordneten energiepolitischen Ziele Wirtschaftlichkeit, 

Versorgungssicherheit und Umweltverträglichkeit in 

Deutschland wieder gleichermaßen Einzug halten. 

Ich wünsche Ihnen und uns allen für das Jahr 2015, 

dass wir auch weiterhin unsere Kompetenz und unser Engagement 

im Dienste der friedlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie 

zum Einsatz bringen können – in Deutschland und 

weit darüber hinaus! 

Ihre 

Dr. Astrid Petersen 

Vorsitzende der KTG e.V. 

KTG-Newsletter Nr. 4 

* Der vollständige 

Newsletter, u.a. mit 

detaillierten Informationen 

zu Vorstand 

und Aktivitäten der 

KTG-Sektionen ist 

auf den Webseiten 

der KTG verfügbar 

unter www.ktg.org | 

Service 

Liebe Leserinnen und Leser, wir haben in der Mitgliederversammlung der Kerntechnischen Gesellschaft e. V. 

(KTG) am 6. Mai 2014 einstimmig eine neue Satzung verabschiedet, die u.a. eine Vereinfachung der Struktur vorsieht. 

Die Fusion der bisher 10 Ortssektionen zu den 5 Sektionen – Nord, Süd, West, Ost und Südwest – ist inzwischen 

umgesetzt. Informationen darüber, aber auch über die konstituierende Sitzung des KTG-Beirats und vieles mehr 

finden sie in diesem Newsletter*. 

Weiterhin ist es uns sehr wichtig, dass der KTG-Newsletter 

insbesondere durch Beiträge von IHNEN – den KTG- 

Mitgliedern – lebt, daher gilt nach wie vor: Ihr Feedback 

aber auch Ihr Input ist ausdrücklich erwünscht. Lob, Kritik 

und Verbesserungsvorschläge, aktuelle Themen, interessante 

Beiträge und News aus der Welt der Kerntechnik 

senden Sie gerne an: newsletter-input@ktg.org. 

Die nächste Ausgabe des Newsletters ist für das 

II. Quartal 2015 geplant mit Einsendeschluss für Beiträge 

28. Februar 2015. Ihr Redaktionsteam 

KTG Inside

Unsere Jahrestagung – die gemeinsame Fachkonferenz von KTG und DAtF 

5.–7. Mai 2015 Estrel Convention Center Berlin ı Deutschland 

Frühbucherrabatt! 

Bis zum 31. Januar 2015 

registrieren und 

bis zu 170 EUR sparen! 

Key Topics 

Kompetenz & Innovation 

Sicherheitsstandards & Betriebsexzellenz 

Rückbauerfahrung & Entsorgungslösungen 

Stilllegung und Entsorgung im Fokus 

Unsere Jahrestagung bietet mit einer Vielzahl an Vorträgen und 

Diskussionen in Plenarsitzung, Technischen Sitzungen, Fach- und 

Fokussitzungen ein zweieinhalbtägiges Programm der Extraklasse. 

Experten aus Theorie und Praxis diskutieren aktuelle Fragestellungen 

und neueste Erkenntnisse. 


3 Silber Sponsoren 

Aktuelle Top-Themen 

3 Stilllegung 

3 Nachbetrieb 

3 Rückbau 

3 Abfallmanagement 

3 Konditionierung 

3 Transporte 

3 Zwischenlagerung 

3 Endlagerung 

Unsere Jahrestagung – das Original seit 45 Jahren. 

Hier trifft sich die Branche. 

www.unserejahrestagung.de


46 

KTG INSIDE 

Aktuelles und Kernenergie-News 

Neuformierung der KTG‐Sektionen 

Im Rahmen der Strukturvereinfachung der KTG wurden 

die bisherigen 10 Ortssektionen wie folgt fusioniert: 

• Erlangen/Nürnberg und München bilden die Sektion 

Süd 

• Karlsruhe-Mannheim-Stuttgart und Rhein-Main bilden 

die Sektion Süd-West 

• Berlin/Brandenburg/Greifswald und Sachsen bilden 

die Sektion Ost 

• Rheinland und Rhein-Ruhr bilden die Sektion West 

• Hannover/Braunschweig und Norddeutschland bilden 

die Sektion Nord 

Sektion Süd 

Nach dem Zusammenschluss der KTG-Ortssektionen Erlangen/Nürnberg 

und München vereint die Sektion Süd ca. 600 

Mitglieder – vorrangig aus den Kernkraftwerken Gundremmingen, 

Isar und Grafenrheinfeld sowie den Unternehmen 

GRS, AREVA, dem TÜV Süd und der TU München (FRM II). 

Neben dem „internen“ Erfahrungsaustausch und der 

Vernetzung der Mitglieder in den einzelnen Unternehmen 

sowie regelmäßigen Vortragsveranstaltungen an den jeweiligen 

Standorten sollen zukünftig auch gemeinsame 

Veranstaltungen durchgeführt werden. 

Wenn passend, sollen aber auch „externe“ Veranstaltungen 

dazu beitragen, das Wissen über und die sachliche 

Auseinandersetzung mit kerntechnischen Themen zu erhöhen. 

Außerdem zeigen die Mitglieder der Sektion durch 

ihr berufliches und persönliches Engagement, dass sie als 

Experten in allen Bereichen der Kernenergie verantwortungsvoll 

und nachhaltig handeln. Auf diese Weise möchten 

sie zur Versachlichung des Themas in Deutschland beitragen. 

Auch weiterhin sollen Exkursionen – u.a. im Rahmen 

von Veranstaltungen an den jeweiligen Standorten – für 

die Mitglieder angeboten werden. Wichtig ist dem Vorstand, 

den Erfahrungsaustausch mit den anderen neu gegründeten 

Sektionen sowie den Fachgruppen zu intensivieren. 

Informationen auf der neu zu gestaltenden Internetseite 

der Sektion sollen zukünftig aktuell und vielseitig 

gestaltet werden. 

Sektion Südwest 

Die Sektion Südwest ist mit derzeit ca. 790 Mitgliedern die 

mitgliederstärkste Sektion der KTG. Sie ist im Jahr 2014 

aus den beiden Ortssektionen Karlsruhe-Mannheim-Stuttgart 

und Rhein-Main entstanden. 

In ihrer Region (Baden-Württemberg und Hessen) befinden 

sich neben den (teils bereits abgeschalteten) Kernkraftwerken 

Biblis, Neckarwestheim, Obrigheim und Philippsburg 

zahlreiche Firmen und Forschungseinrichtungen 

mit energietechnischen/kerntechnischen Kompetenzen. 

Zu ihnen zählen z.B. AREVA Deutschland, Kraftanlagen Heidelberg, 

NUKEM, NIS sowie Westinghouse Electric Germany 

GmbH. Vertreten sind auch die Universitäten Frankfurt, 

Darmstadt und Stuttgart sowie Forschungseinrichtungen 

wie das GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung in 

Darmstadt und das Karlsruher Institut für Technologie 

(KIT). 

Die Mitglieder der Sektion Südwest, die sich hauptsächlich 

aus den oben genannten Einrichtungen und Unternehmen 

rekrutieren, sind sehr reisefreudig, weshalb technische 

Exkursionen – nicht nur zum Thema Kerntechnik – 

einen wichtigen Bestandteil der Vereinsarbeit bilden. Die 

Diskussionsfreudigkeit der Mitglieder kann auch bei Vortragsveranstaltungen 

mit anschließenden sogenannten 

Stammtischen ausgelebt werden. 

Besonders in den Forschungseinrichtungen aber auch 

bei den Firmen finden bisweilen interessante Vorträge und 

Vortragsreihen statt, auf die besonders aufmerksam gemacht 

wird. 

Sektion Ost 

Die Sektion Ost ist im Oktober 2014 aus den bisherigen Sektionen 

Berlin/Brandenburg/Greifswald und Sachsen hervorgegangen. 

Mit einer Mitgliederzahl von ca. 160 ist die 

Sektion Ost die kleinste aller Sektionen. 

Hauptsächlich stammen die Mitglieder (von Nord 

nach Süd) von den EWN mit den Standorten Lubmin und 

Rheinsberg über eine ganze Reihe Ingenieurbüros in Berlin 

und Sachsen bis zu den drei großen öffentlichen Einrichtungen 

in Sachsen: Technische Universität Dresden, 

Forschungsstandort Dresden-Rossendorf (Sitz vom Helmholtz-Zentrum 

Dresden-Rossendorf und Verein für Kernverfahrenstechnik 

und Analytik Rossendorf) sowie der Hochschule 

Zittau/Görlitz (alle 4 KOMPOST KOMPetenzzentrum 

OST). 

Wir bieten unseren Mitgliedern und externen Gästen 

regelmäßig: 

• Vortragsveranstaltungen und Diskussionsrunden zu 

aktuellen Themen, 

• Kolloquien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem VDI/GET und 

dem KOMPOST, 

• Exkursionen zu kerntechnischen und Kerntechnik nahen 

Einrichtungen, 

• Verbindungen zu anderen Sektionen der KTG in 

Deutschland und 

• lockere Gemeinschaftsabende an. 

Sektion West 

Die KTG-Sektion West ist aus den bisherigen Ortssektionen 

Rheinland und Rhein-Ruhr hervorgegangen. 

Die Mitglieder des Vorstandes der Sektion West sehen 

die Information über die friedliche Nutzung der Kernenergie 

in verschiedenen Technologiefeldern als ihre wichtigsten 

Ziele der Vorstandsarbeit an. 

Neben dem „internen“ Erfahrungsaustausch und den 

Netzwerken der Mitglieder sollen auch „externe“ Veranstaltungen 

dazu beitragen, das Wissen über und die sachliche 

Auseinandersetzung mit kerntechnischen Themen 

zu erhöhen. Zudem soll durch das persönliche und berufliche 

Engagement der Mitglieder der Sektion deutlich werden, 

dass hinter der Kernenergie Fachleute und verantwortungsvoll 

handelnde Menschen stehen, die als Teil 

dieser Gesellschaft sich für die Versachlichung einer über 

viele Jahre in Deutschland stark emotionalisierten Debatte 

einsetzen. 

Neben regelmäßigen Vortragsveranstaltungen werden 

auch jährlich Exkursionen für die Mitglieder angeboten. 

Wichtig ist dem Vorstand, den Erfahrungsaustausch mit 

den anderen Sektionen und Fachgruppen zu intensivieren. 

Informationen auf den Internetseiten der Sektionen 

sollen zukünftig noch aktueller und vielseitiger gestaltet 

werden. 

Mit einem interessanten Angebot der Sektion West will 

der Vorstand die Sektion, die aktuell ca. 530 Mitglieder 

umfasst, für neue Mitglieder attraktiv machen. 

Konstituierende Sitzung des Beirats 

Am 5. November 2014 fand in Berlin die konstituierende 

Sitzung des KTG-Beirats statt. Die anwesenden Beiratsmitglieder 

haben Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz (Siempelkamp 

KTG Inside


Nukleartechnik GmbH & Sprecher der Sektion West) zum 

Vorsitzenden des Beirates und Iris Graffunder (EWN 

GmbH, Betriebsstätte Karlsruhe & Sprecherin Fachgruppe 

Stilllegung und Entsorgung) zur stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden 

des Beirates gewählt. In der Sitzung wurden Vorschläge 

für den neu zu wählenden KTG-Vorstand diskutiert 

und das nächste Beiratstreffen für 29. Januar 2015 

geplant. 

Neuer Vorstand bei Women in 

Nuclear (WiN) Germany 

Auf der diesjährigen Mitgliederversammlung von WiN 

Germany am 14. November 2014 bei der Westinghouse 

Electric GmbH in Mannheim waren die WiNners aufgerufen, 

einen neuen Vorstand sowie die Präsidentin zu wählen. 

Die bisherige Präsidentin Jutta Jené wurde mit großer 

Zustimmung in ihrem Amt für weitere zwei Jahre 

bestätigt. 

Ihr zur Seite stehen im Vorstand zukünftig Marika Didonaki 

(Budgetbeauftragte), Hedjeh Emami-Far (Leiterin 

AG Kommunikation), Karin Reiche (AG Messen & Veranstaltungen), 

Maxi Mummert (AG Internet), Dr. Christien Zedler 

(AG Bildung), Beate Scheffler (AG Networking) und Yvonne 

Broy (Sponsoring-Beauftragte). 

Die bisherige Leiterin der AG-Bildung, Birgit Felgenhauer, 

stand wegen beruflicher Veränderung nicht mehr zur 

Wiederwahl. Ihr folgt Christien Zedler ins Amt. „Wir danken 

Birgit Felgenhauer ganz herzlich für ihr Engagement im 

WiN-Vorstand und für die AG-Bildung und freuen uns auf 

die Zusammenarbeit mit Christien Zedler“, sagte Präsidentin 

Jutta Jené. 

Auch wenn in Deutschland der Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie 

beschlossen worden ist, wollen die deutschen 

WiNners nicht nur das „interne“ Networking pflegen, sondern 

sich auch weiterhin aktiv im internationalen Rahmen 

– WiN Europe bzw. WiN Global – betätigen. Nächste Gelegenheit: 

WiN Global Conference vom 24. bis 28. August 

2015 in Wien. 

Zum vierten Mal hatte der Verein den WiN-Germany- 

Preis ausgeschrieben, der als eine besondere Anerkennung 

für den Nachwuchs in der Nukleartechnik vergeben 

wird. Aus den von jungen Wissenschaftlerinnen bzw. Ingenieurinnen 

eingereichten Arbeiten nahm eine Jury vorab 

in einem ersten Auswahlverfahren aus allen eingegangenen 

Bewerbungen drei Kandidatinnen in die engere 

Wahl – darunter auch Christine Schumacher vom Forschungszentrum 

Jülich. Mit ihrem Vortrag „Entwicklung 

einer Trennmethode für Radionuklide in wässrigen Umweltproben 

mit einem automatisierten Trennsäulensystem“ 

überzeugte sie dann auch die „große“ Jury – die Teilnehmerinnen 

der Mitgliederversammlung, die mehrheitlich 

die Arbeit und den Vortrag von Christine Schumacher 

würdigten. 

Neben einer Urkunde und einer Geldprämie erhält 

Christine Schumacher – ebenso wie die beiden Platzierten 

Frances Viereckl (NUKEM) und Madeleine Weber (KIT) – die 

Möglichkeit, ihre Arbeit beim Workshop Kompetenzerhaltung 

anlässlich der Jahrestagung Kerntechnik 2015 einzureichen. 

Nachwuchstagung der Jungen Generation 

Zur diesjährigen Nachwuchstagung der Jungen Generation 

haben sich ca. 40 Teilnehmer im Informationszentrum des 

Kernkraftwerks Isar getroffen, um über die wirtschaftlichen 

Auswirkungen der Energiewende zu diskutieren. Als 

durch die Abschaltung eines Blockes direkt „Betroffene“ 

konnten der Anlagenleiter Isar, Dr. Kohlpainter, sowie Frau 

Zimmermann in ihrem Vortrag „Herausforderung an Betrieb 

und Rückbau“ auch aus ganz persönlicher Erfahrung 

berichten. Wie andere Standorte und Betreiber sich dieser 

Aufgabe stellen, neben der Ausrichtung auf eine neue 

Marktsituation, aber auch, wie die Mitarbeiter motiviert 

und mitgenommen werden sollen stellten Reinhold Scheuring 

(Kraftwerksleiter Kernkraftwerk Grafenrheinfeld) und 

Christoph Heil (Technischer Geschäftsführer der EnBW 

Kernkraft GmbH) dar. Dass mit dem Ausstiegsbeschluss 

auch die Entsorgungsfrage mehr in den Fokus rückt, zeigte 

Thomas Seipolt (Geschäftsführer der NUKEM Technologies 

Engineering Services GmbH). Er thematisierte insbesondere 

die zukunftssichere Behandlung radioaktiver Abfälle. 

Gleich zwei Vorträge hielt Detlef Fischer (Verband der Bayerische 

Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V.). Er vertrat 

Dr. Kießling von E.ON mit dem Vortrag zur Stilllegung von 

Kraftwerken und dem derzeit viel diskutierten Kapazitätsmarkt. 

Zunächst hielt er jedoch einen wahrlich launigen 

Vortrag über die Energiewende. Darüber hinaus wurde die 

Situation der Netze von Ralf Schwarz (Bayernwerk AG) sowie 

die Energiebeschaffung/Bilanzkreismanagement von 

Thomas Darda (EnSo) beleuchtet. 

Abgerundet wurde die Veranstaltung mit einem Vortrag 

der KTG-Vorsitzenden, Dr. Astrid Petersen, die auf die 

neue, eher zurückhaltende Rolle der Kernenergie in Politik 

und Medien einging sowie mit dem Besuch der Papierfabrik 

UPM Plattling. Dieser Standort gehört zu den größten 

Energieverbrauchern der Region und ist aufgrund seiner 

Wettbewerbssituation auf dem internationalen Markt nur 

durch die Vergünstigungen überlebensfähig. 

Die Junge Generation bedankt sich bei E.ON Kernkraft 

sowie dem Kernkraftwerk Isar für die freundliche Unterstützung 

bei der Durchführung der Tagung. 

Splitter aus der Energiewelt 

• Leitartikel aus der Welt vom 17.11.2014: Ökologisch 

entsorgtes Geld 

Bei der Energiepolitik gefährden die abrupten Kurswechsel 

der großen Koalition den Energiestandort 

Deutschland. Überforderte Öko-Populisten sind zunehmend 

mit der Korrektur eigener Fehler beschäftigt 

… 

• Schweinfurter Tagblatt, 05.11.2014 zum Thema „Erfolgreicher 

Rückbau bei E.ON“: Ein leerer Sarkophag 

aus Beton 

Zum Thema Abschluss atomrechtlicher Rückbau Kernkraftwerk 

Würgassen mit Bildern & Interview von Dr. 

Ralf Güldner Vorsitzender der Geschäftsführung der 

E.ON-Kernkraft GmbH … 

• Spiegel Online vom 01.12.2014: Hier bekommen Sie 

reine Kernkraft 

Ein Augsburger Energieunternehmen will punkten, indem 

es einen Strom anbietet, der ausschließlich aus 

Kernkraft gewonnen wird. Kurios: Die Firma will nicht 

Nuklearfans ansprechen, sondern fortschrittliche Klimaschützer 

… 

Glosse 

Bemühungen für eine Laufzeitverlängerung der Camerata 

Nucleare endgültig gescheitert: Das Sinfonieorchester der 

Deutschen Energiewirtschaft stellt den Betrieb nach 

einem Konzert im Kloster Wettenhausen bei Günzburg 

endgültig ein. 

Denkt man an die großen Aktivitäten der Musiker in 

den vergangenen 28 Jahren seit der Gründung der 

Camerata Nucleare und die Kontamination weiter Landstriche 

mit einer hohen Dosis an klassischen Werken, die 

47 

KTG INSIDE 

KTG Inside


48 

KTG INSIDE 

regelmäßig zu Strahlung in den Gesichtern der Zuhörerschaft 

geführt haben, drängen sich uns Nukleartechnikern 

einige Fragen förmlich auf: 

• Benötigen wir für die Camerata Nucleare nicht eine 

Stilllegungsgenehmigung? Und falls ja, welche Behörde 

wäre hierfür eigentlich zuständig? 

• Müssen die Werkzeuge (Instrumente), die vielen Stunden 

hohen Aktivitäten ausgesetzt waren, jetzt einer Abklinglagerung 

zugeführt werden? 

• Was passiert mit den „Abfallprodukten“ aus langjähriger 

Produktion, den mit Tönen aktivierten silbernen 

Plastikscheiben? 

Doch lassen Sie uns hier und heute mit solchen Fragen 

keine schlafenden Hunde wecken, sondern lassen 

Sie uns hoffen, dass unsere Kollegen ihre Werkzeuge 

jetzt nicht dem „Sicheren Einschluss“ zuführen. Sie haben 

uns seit der Gründung des Orchesters 1986 viel 

Freude bereitet, und deshalb akzeptieren wir die Beendigung 

des „bestimmungsgemäßen Betriebs“ und sagen 

einfach nochmals: 

Herzlichen Dank den Mitgliedern der Camerata Nucleare 

und weiterhin alles Gute!! 

Kontakt 

Bernd Gulich 

Sprecher der Arbeitsgruppe Kommunikation 

bernd.gulich@eon.com 

Herzlichen 

Glückwunsch 

Januar 2015 

95 Jahre wird im Januar 

9. Dr. Josef Fassbender, Jülich 

88 Jahre werden im Januar 

1. Prof. Dr. Werner Oldekop, 

Braunschweig 

3. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Jäger, 

Engelskirchen 


20. Dr. Devana Lavrencic-Cannata, 

Rom/I 


10. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Peter Schmidt, 

Weinheim 


12. Dr. Rolf Hüper, Karlsruhe 


3. Dipl.-Ing. Fritz Kohlhaas, Kahl/M. 


7. Dr. Willi Biermann, Bergisch 

Gladbach 

9. Prof. Dr. Hellmut Wagner, 

Karlsruhe 

16. Heinz Fleischhacker, Lingen/Ems 


10. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Diefenbacher, 

Karlsruhe 

17. Dipl.-Ing. Helge Dyroff, Alzenau 

24. Theodor Himmel, Bad Honnef 


5. Obering. Peter Vetterlein, 

Oberursel 

11. Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Moritz, Bergisch 

Gladbach 

23. Prof. Dr. Hartmut Schmoock, 

Norderstedt 

27. Dr. Peter Weimar, Karlsruhe 

30. Dipl.-Phys. Wolfgang Borkowetz, 

Rüsselsheim 

30. Dipl.-Ing. Friedrich Morgenstern, 

Essen 


7. Dipl.-Ing. Albrecht Müller, 

Niederrodenbach 

9. Dipl.-Ing. Werner Rossbach, 

Bergisch Gladbach 

10. Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Lehmann, 

Erlangen 

14. Dr. Angelika Hecker, Philippsburg 

25. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Heinz Wolf, 

Philippsburg 


7. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Manfred Schirra, 

Stutensee 

8. Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Repke, 

Waldshut 

10. Dr. Dieter Türck, Dieburg 

12. Dipl.-Ing. Hans Dieter Adami, 

Rösrath 

17. Dr. Dieter Fleischhammer, Dießen 

18. Dr. Werner Katscher, Jülich 

22. Dr. Franz Müller, Erlangen 

28. Dipl.-Ing. Erhard Müller, Gründau 


11. Dipl.-Ing. Gerwin H. Rasche, 

Hasloch 

13. Dr. Udo Wehmann, Hildesheim 

16. Dr. Wolfgang Kersting, Blieskastel 

21. Prof. Dr. Detlef Filges, Langerwehe 

23. Dipl.-Phys. Wolfram Gaide, Jülich 

28. Dr. Sigwart Hiller, Lauf 


4. Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Schemenau, 

Laudenbach 


6. Dr. Bruno Keck, Alzenau 


3. Dipl.-Ing. Christian Sauer, Hessheim 

10. Sten Adin, Västeras/S 

15. Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Hüttmann, 

Oering 

29. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Jürgen Schartz, 

Waghäusel 

31. Dr. Bernd Lorenz, Essen 


8. Dr. Peer Dräger, München 

21. Dr. Christian Krause, Bonn 

25. Heinz-Ulrich Kraft, 

Schwanstetten 

28. Dr. Joachim Runkel MdL, Suthfeld 


9. Michael Lüdeke, Neuenkirchen 

11. Dr. Ben Volmert, Birmensdorf/CH 

23. Dipl.-Ing. Matthias Topp, Wiesloch 

24. Gero Spitzner, Fürth 

25. Dr. Guido Caspary, Aldenhoven 

31. Dipl.-Ing. Eckhard Stengert, 

Worms 

Februar 2015 

87 Jahre werden im Februar 

10. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Peter Schabert, 

Erlangen 

24. Dr. Dietrich Hiller, Wiesbaden 

86 Jahre wird im Februar 

20. Dr. Helmut Hübel, Bensberg 


5. Dr. Eberhard Teuchert, 

Leverkusen 


14. Dipl.-Ing. Heinrich Kahlow, 

Rheinsberg 


11. Dr. Rudolf Büchner, Dresden 


9. Dr. Horst Keese, Rodenbach 

12. Dipl.-Ing. Horst Krause, Radebeul 

23. Prof. Dr. Adolf Birkhofer, Grünwald 


6. Dr. Ashu-T. Bhattacharyya, 

Erkelenz 

17. Dr. Helfrid Lahr, Wedemark 

KTG Inside



5. Prof. Dr. Arnulf Hübner, Berlin 

6. Dipl.-Ing. Heinrich Moers, 

Florida/USA 

11. Dr. Günter Keil, Sankt Augustin 

11. Reiner Lembcke, Bad Vilbel 

18. Dipl.-Ing. Hans Wölfel, 

Heidelberg 

21. Dipl.-Ing. Hubert Andrae, Rösrath 


5. Dr. Friedrich-Peter Heigl, 

Frankfurt/M. 

15. Dr. Heiner Krug, Saarbrücken 

27. Dr. Klaus Wolfert, Ottobrunn 


3. Dr. Roland Bieselt, Kürten 

8. Dr. Joachim Madel, Sankt Ingbert 

8. Dr. Herbert Spierling, Dietzenbach 

22. Dr. Manfred Schwarz, Dresden 

15. Dipl.-Ing. Nicolaus Porschek, 

Hamburg 

23. Dipl.-Ing. Victor Teschendorff, 

München 

24. Dipl.-Ing. Ing. grad. Anton Scheuer, 

Kerpen 

28. Dr. Günther Dietrich, Holzwickede 


12. Dipl.-Ing. (TU) Karl-Heinz Durst, 

Hessdorf 


1. Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Filbert, Peine 

23. Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Storr, 

Möhrenfeld 


6. Dr. Ronald Hepper, Würzburg 

15. Joachim Dux, Bürstadt 

18. Sven Lahmann, Adenbüttel 

 

13. Oktober 

Prof. em Dr.-Ing 

Wolfgang Lischke 

Dresden 

13. November 2014 

Prof. Dr. Horst Böhm 

Karlsruhe 

24. November 2014 

Dr. Werner Meyer-Jungnick 

49 

KTG INSIDE 


8. Dipl.-Phys. Tadas D. Urbas, 

Neustadt 

9. Dr. Gerhard Preusche, 

Herzogenaurach 

13. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Fabian, Gehrden 

14. Kurt Ebbinghaus, Bergisch 

Gladbach 

21. Dr. Jürgen Langeheine, Gauting 

23. Dr. Gerhard Heusener, Bruchsal 

25. Prof. Dr. Sigmar Wittig, Karlsruhe 


1. Prof. Dr. Alfred Voß, Aidlingen 

11. Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Dieter Wallerius, 

Frankenthal 

Die Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. 

gratuliert ihren Mitgliedern sehr 

herzlich zum Geburtstag 

und wünscht ihnen weiterhin 

alles Gute. 

KTG Inside 

Verantwortlich für den Inhalt: 

Die Autoren. 

Lektorat: Sibille Wingens, 

Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e.V. 


10115 Berlin 

Tel.: +49 30 498555-10, Fax: -19 

E-Mail: s.wingens@ktg.org 

Internet: www.ktg.org 

Willich 

Die KTG verliert in ihnen langjährige 

Mitglieder, denen sie ein ehrendes 

Andenken bewahren wird. 

Ihren Familien gilt 

unsere Anteilnahme. 

KTG Inside


60 TH YEAR ATW 50 

die atomwirtschaft 

Vol. I 

Issue 1 

January 1956 

Foreword 

The idea of the atomic structure of matter came from philosophic speculations and was proven by theoretical and experimental 

research. Its results provide to mankind an energy form of its strongest concentration. In its practical use it 

initially served war technology. This use woke the emotional defence of mankind feeling threatened as well as the desire 

to use this power source for peacefully purposes and to exploit it for the economic sector. 

Already today nuclear energy is an important replenishment 

of the world energy potential which exists alongside 

classical energy sources. An increasing number of companies 

of different businesses need continuous information 

about the intentions of nuclear energy use: the chemical 

industry, the electrical industry, the energy industry, the 

measuring instruments industry and all branches of mechanical 

engineering, which are part of this new development 

from exploitation of minerals to reactor constructions. 

Added to this are all companies and specialists that pay 

attention to the allocation of isotopes. While there exists to 

necessary degree scientific literature for nuclear physics 

and related fields, there is a lack of a systematically handling 

of newly arising economic problems. It thereby appears 

irrational to split information and news into different 

specialist journals. 

The present journal will in detail and with objective 

clarity report on all economic questions with regard to 

nuclear transformation. Scientific and chemical engineering 

topics are only to the extend part of the programme as 

long as they are being essential to the understanding of 

economic questions. The information will be extensive and 

concentrated and will cover economic contexts including 

news, legal questions as well as questions on operational 

and social safety. 

With the editorial experience by the publisher the 

journal will concentrate and rationalize the reading mater. 

Especially its documentation, which sighted and reliably 

provides a pictures of the happenings in Germany and the 

most important countries in the world, will inform the 

reader quick and briefly in an intelligible language. 

Thus the ATOMWIRTSCHAFT should serve above all a 

serious and concentrated reporting and should be a conscientious 

advisor on a new promising field of work of science 

and technics beyond German speaking regions. 

The Publisher 

Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, Karl Hecht, W. Alexander Menne, 

Herbert Seidl and Kurt Sauerwein 

Zum Geleit 

Die Vorstellung vom atomaren Aufbau der Materie erwuchs aus philosophischer Spekulation und wurde durch theoretische 

und experimentelle Forschungen erwiesen. Ihre Ergebnisse stellen der Menschheit eine Energieform in stärkster 

Konzentration zur Verfügung. In ihrer praktischen Verwendung diente sie zunächst der Kriegstechnik. Diese Anwendung 

weckte die seelische Abwehr der sich bedroht fühlenden Menschheit, wie auch den Drang, diese Kraftquelle für friedliche 

Zwecke zu verwenden, sie im ökonomischen Bereich nutzbar zu machen. Schon heute steht offensichtlich in der Atomenergie 

eine wertvolle Ergänzung des Energiepotentials der Welt bereit, die neben die klassischen Energiequellen tritt. 


Jahrgang I 

Nr. 1 

Januar 1956 

Eine wachsende Zahl von Unternehmen der verschiedenartigsten 

Wirtschaftskreise braucht eine fortlaufende Unterrichtung 

über die Aussichten bei der Nutzung der Atomkraft: 

die chemische Industrie, die Elektroindustrie, die 

Energiewirtschaft, die Industrie der Meßgeräte und alle 

Zweige des Maschinenbaus, die von der Erzgewinnung bis 

zum Reaktorenbau an dieser neuen Entwicklung beteiligt 

sind. Hinzu treten alle Unternehmen und Fachleute, die 

sich mit dem Einsatz von Isotopen beschäftigen. Während 

die wissenschaftliche Literatur für die Kernphysik und die 

ihr verwandten Gebiete in ausreichendem Maße verfügbar 

ist, fehlt es an einer systematischen Bearbeitung der neu 

auftretenden wirtschaftlichen Probleme. Dabei erscheint 

eine Aufsplitterung der Nachrichtengebung in die verschiedensten 

Fachzeitschriften unrationell. 

Die vorliegende Zeitschrift will in sachlicher Klarheit 

umfassend über alle wirtschaftlichen Fragen der Kernumwandlung 

berichten. Wissenschaftliche und verfahrenstechnische 

Themen gehören nur insoweit zu ihrem Programm, 

als sie zum Verständnis der wirtschaftlichen Fragen 

unerläßlich sind. Die Unterrichtung wird umfassend 

und konzentriert sein und sich von der Behandlung der 

wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhänge einschließlich der 

Nachrichtengebung bis zu den Fragen der Rechtsordnung 

und der betrieblichen wie sozialen Sicherheit erstrecken. 

Unter Verwertung der redaktionellen Erfahrungen des 

Verlages wird die Zeitschrift eine Konzentration und damit 

eine Rationalisierung des Lesestoffes bringen. Insbesondere 

ihre Dokumentation, die gesichtet und zuverlässig ein 

Bild des Geschehens in Deutschland und in den wichtigsten 

Ländern der Welt gibt, wird den Leser schnell und 

knapp in verständlicher Sprache unterrichten. 

So soll DIE ATOMWIRTSCHAFT der ernsthaften und vor 

allem konzentrierten Berichterstattung dienen und über 

das deutsche Sprachgebiet hinaus ein gewissenhafter Berater 

auf einem neuen, zukunftsreichen Arbeitsfeld von 

Wirtschaft und Technik sein. 

Die Herausgeber 

Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, Karl Hecht, W. Alexander Menne, 

Herbert Seidl und Kurt Sauerwein 


Foreword ı Siegfried Balke, Heinrich Freiberger, Karl Hecht, W. Alexander Menne, Herbert Seidl and Kurt Sauerwein


The Federal Republic of Germany and 

the International Cooperation 

in the Nuclear Field 


The questions of international cooperation in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes arise the increasing 

interest of all political and economic interested parties of our nation. This rising sympathy reflects the awareness, 

that due to the fast development of nuclear energy, in detail a hardly assessable process, a new technical revolution 

is in the offing which for the further economic development of the European states and not least our country itself 

will be in view of the current inferior position in comparison to the leading nuclear powers, of paramount importance. 

By all necessity of catching up the scientific and technical development at national level, the conviction is more 

and more confirmed that joint efforts both in the European and global area are necessary to make full use of the tremendous 

possibilities of nuclear energy for peaceful progress. 


It is appropriate and valuable, already for determining 

the own point of view for the further participation in international 

cooperation within the nuclear field, to gain 

from time to time an overview and to take stock on existing 

organisation as well as different projects and plans. 

For this purpose the following lines are intended, without 

demanding completeness in all details. I may initially pay 

attention to the entirely or predominant economic committees 

for cooperation followed by bilateral and multilateral 

facts and projects. 

Scientific organisations 

1. CERN 

On 1 July 1953, in a purely scientific field, with little attention 

paid by the public, twelve west and southern 

European countries, amongst them the Federal Republic 

of Germany, joint together in Paris the so-called “European 

Organization for Nuclear Research“ (CERN). The organisation 

especially wants to serve basic research. For 

this purpose she built an international laboratory for research 

in the field of highly accelerated particles including 

cosmic radiation in Meyrin Geneva. The laboratory 

comprises apart from its respective buildings, equipment 

etc. a synchrocyclotron with a proton acceleration capacity 

of approx. 600 billion electron volts, which currently 

is being constructed. 

In addition, the construction of a high performance 

proton synchrotron is planned, which should be commissioned 

in 1960. Beside the construction and operation of 

these installations, CERN wants to serve international scientific 

cooperation in the nuclear field through the exchange 

of scientists, training of researchers, dissemination 

of information and cooperation with national research 

institutions. In order to throw light on the activities 

of CERN at a practical example, it shall be indicated, 

that a symposium about high-energy physics will take 

place in Geneva in June this year, to which approximately 

200 nuclear scientists from different countries, among 

them as well leading German experts, will attend. 

Besides a representation within the organisation of 

CERN and an objective and personal participation 

through constant transfer of researchers as well as financing 

the organisation, the Federal Republic of Germany is 

behind Great Britain and France in third place. At present 

she bears approximately 18 % of the overall costs. The 

contribution scheme of each member will be determined 

as of 1957 based on the net public income. 

2. European Atomic Energy Society 

The “European Atomic Energy Society“ (Europäische Atomenergie-Gesellschaft) 

serves research as well as the practical 

use and utilization of nuclear energy for friendly 

purposes. She was established on 15 June 1954. Currently 

besides the Federal Republic of Germany, who 

joint the society in February 1956, countries such as 

Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, 

the Netherlands and Switzerland belong to her. 

The member states are represented by their supreme 

national atomic energy agencies. The society’s object is 

especially in the context of the loose merger of a scientific 

union the exchange and dissemination of scientific information, 

the standardisation of technical terms, the 

promotion of safety measures for the population, the 

publication of scientific papers and as far as possible the 

publication of an international journal with regards to 

nuclear science. 

She especially defines her duty in the promotion of direct 

exchange of ideas between scientists, and engineers 

through regular conferences and meetings in different 

member states. As an example for the work of the society 

the recent conference of rector scientists and practitioner 

in Naples should be pointed out, to which also decisive 

German personalities in this area were represented. Furthermore 

this year, symposiums with regards to questions 

of disposal of nuclear waste, the chemical processing of 

enriched fuels as well as metallurgical issues and theoretical 

nuclear physics are intended. 

The Federal Ministry for Nuclear Affairs tries to delegate 

on a regular basis all respective experts from the field 

of science, economy as well as from the ministry itself to 

the conventions of those institutions, which achieved and 

contributed with valuable results. Professor Heisenberg 

represents the Federal Republic of Germany within the 

permanent council, within the permanent working group 

she is represented by several members from different scientific 

areas. The chairmanship of the council holds the 

President of the British Atomic Energy Research Establishment, 

Sir John Cockcroit. A permanent financial contribution 

by all members is not intended. They burden their 

participations costs at the councils meetings and conventions 

themselves. 

English translation of 

the original text 

published in: 


Vol. I 

Issue 6 

June 1956 


The Federal Republic of Germany and the International Cooperation in the Nuclear Field ı Franz Josef Strauß



Bilateral cooperation 

The agreement with the USA 

In the area of bilateral cooperation between the Federal 

Republic of Germany and other countries, up to now 

only the so-called standard agreement with the USA 

exists, which has been concluded in essentially similar 

form with altogether 30 states of the western world. The 

agreement concluded in February 1956 came into 

force on 23 April this year. It intends – only mentioning 

the relevant points – the leasing of at the most 6 kg 

Uranium-235 in an up at best 20 % enriched condition 

for the operation of research reactors in the Federal Republic 

of Germany. 

Delivered single fuel items need to be returned unchanged 

or exchanged for new delivered pieces after the 

machining operation. In addition, according to the agreement, 

contracting partners shall exchange each other on 

issues such as the planning, construction and operation 

of research reactors, health and safety problems with regards 

to operation and usage of such reactors as well as 

on the usage of radioactive isotopes within physical and 

biological research, medicine, agriculture and industry. 

The exchange of confidential information is not intended. 

According to the agreement and on the basis of special 

arrangements by the Federal Republic of Germany, the 

USA are allowed to sell or lease reactor materials which 

are necessary for the construction and operation of research 

reactors. 

The agreement provides different safety guarantees 

against the misuse of nuclear fuels or rather reactor materials 

for other purposes than agreed on. Thus among 

others representatives of the American Nuclear Committee 

are allowed upon request to observe the condition and 

usage of leased nuclear fuels as well as the efficiency of 

the reactor, for which they are being used. The agreement 

remains in force, subject to a mutual agreed extension, 

for a period of five years. The Federal Republic o Germany 

hopes that due to the standard agreement concluded 

with the USA first research reactors will be put to 

operation in the foreseeable future. Negotiations on the 

execution of the agreement and the purchase of research 

reactors in the USA should be completed shortly. It remains 

hope that beyond this standard agreement further 

agreement with the United States for the delivery of nuclear 

fuels, if possible also for the operation of nuclear 

power plants, can be concluded. 

Preliminary discussions with Great Britain about the 

conclusion of a British-German Nuclear agreement are 

currently on-going, about possibilities of further bilateral 

nuclear agreements with other states can not be concretely 

reported yet. 

Multilateral Projects 

1. International Atomic 

Energy Agency 

From the projects of multilateral cooperation in the nuclear 

field for peaceful purposes I would firstly like to emphasise 

on the international planning on establishing an 

International Atomic Energy Agency. After President Eisenhower 

presented at the UN General Assembly his plan 

“Atoms for Peace“ in December 1953, negotiations took 

place in the following period in the bosom of the UN concerning 

an International Atomic Energy Agency, which resulted 

very difficult due to the political differences 

between west and east. 

Now on 18 April this year, the draft of constitution for 

a future International Atomic Energy Agency was accepted 

by a conference to which Australia, Belgium, Brazil, 

France, Great Britain, India, Canada, Portugal, the Soviet 

Union, the South African Union, Czechoslovakia and the 

USA belong. The draft shall be discussed during a major 

conference in New York among all considered countries 

in September this year. It is expected, to lay down the 

statues during this conference in order to establish the 

International Atomic Energy Agency within the next 

years. 

The Federal Republic of Germany did not yet express 

an opinion on the recently received draft of the statute. 

She will, of course, be represented at the conference. 

The draft of statute concerns itself in comprehensive 

manner with the responsibilities and targets of the authority 

as well as with its executive bodies and their functions. 

Only the main points can be pointed out here 

broadly. The authority should in particular be responsible 

to promote and support to the greatest extend possible 

research and development of nuclear energy and its usage 

for peaceful purposes in all member states. For this 

purpose she shall be authorised to seize all necessary 

measures to fulfil these targets and to build all required 

institutions and plants. 

In particular she shall take care of the availability of 

necessary nuclear material required for research and its 

practical usage, support the exchange of scientific and 

technical information as well as support the exchange of 

scientists and experts, provide safety measures against 

the misuse of nuclear fuel for other than friendly purpose 

and supervise the adherence to these measures as well as 

to elaborate regulations for employment and population 

protection and to guarantee obedience to these regulations. 

Members of the Agency should be all member states of 

the United Nations and its affiliate organisations, which 

sign the final statute within a certain period. Due to its 

membership at the UNESCO, the Federal Republic of Germany 

already has access to the International Atomic Energy 

Agency. 

A General Conference, a Board of Governers and a department 

with an executive director and respective civil 

service are intended for the executive bodies of the 

Agency. The General Conference, which consists of a representative 

of each member state, takes decision by 

simple majority. She has among other things the right to 

decide on the budget and is able to provide recommendations 

to the Board of Governers with respect to all atomic 

authority related questions. Besides she also decides on 

approval and suspension of members. The Board of Governers 

should consist of 23 members. 

Five members are the leading nuclear powers (USA, 

the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and Canada), five 

seats are allocated to the representatives of specific regional 

groups (e.g. Latin America, southern Asia, Pacific 

regions); 2 members are producers of source materials 

(Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Portugal), whereas 

both seats should alternate on a yearly basis between east 

and west; 1 seat is allocated for countries which can only 

provide technical knowledge. The General Conference 

shall elect at least ten further members of the Board of 

Governers from countries that are neither nuclear powers 

nor provide raw material or nuclear material or technical 

knowledge. 




The relation between the International Atomic Energy 

Agency and the UN has been for a long time subject of intense 

political controversy. According to the draft of 

statue, the agency shall report to the UN General Assembly 

and “when appropriate” to the Security Council. 

Future relations between the Agency and the UN shall be 

guaranteed in conjunction with the UN General Assembly 

along with the General Conference of the agency. In practice 

it is regulated that the agency is an independent organisation 

from the UN, which nevertheless is responsible 

to inform the UN about her activities. With regards to 

the position of the Agency towards its members it needs 

to be highlighted, that the member state sovereignty 

needs to be considered. 

2. The OEEC-Project 

The Council of Ministers of the seventeen OEEC-member 

states decided within a meeting on 29 February 1956 

with the participation of representatives from the USA 

and Canada, to appoint a selected committee for nuclear 

energy, which should rework within three month the 

report of the working party No. 10, in order to create a 

fundament for a concrete and speedy cooperation of 

OEEC- members in the nuclear field of nuclear field. Due 

to the details of the report No. 10, of the so-called OEECplan, 

it can be referred to – even to avoid repetitions – 

the report in February 1956 issue no. 2 of the “Atomwirtschaft”. 

The selected committee appointed four task 

forces for the performance of its tasks. One team for 

common enterprises, one for security control, one for 

the adaptation of legislation and one for the training of 

specialists. 

The task force for “common enterprises” is responsible 

to evaluate technical and other requirements for the construction 

of a joint isotope separation plant for uranium, 

a chemical plant for processing enriched fuels, a plant for 

the production of heavy water and common operation of 

experimental reactors. The task force for “security matters” 

should elaborate recommendations for the special 

committee of a control system within the OEEC-countries 

for preventing misuse of source material and nuclear 

fuels, especially for military purposes. 

The task force for “the adaptation of legislation” is responsible 

to ascertain the possibility to harmonise national 

atomic legislations with related legislations (e.g. 

mining codes, standards for employment and population 

protection) and the task force for “training of specialists” 

shall evaluate the current situation of the training sector 

of each single member state and thus highlight ways to 

overcome the significant lack of well trained specialists 

within the nuclear field (scientists and engineers). 

Besides the actual task forces of the special committee 

on nuclear energy, a mixed group together with the 

OEEC-Board of Governers “Committee on trade“ elaborates 

the possibilities and requirements for an economic 

and custom policy moratorium and the following establishment 

of a nuclear common market of the OEEC-countries. 

The moratorium shall prevent obstacles, which 

could stand in the way for the future liberalisation on 

trade of source material, nuclear fuels as well as of nuclear 

equipment. 

A subgroup of the OEEC-committee responsible for insurance 

questions gives attention to the extremely complex 

and difficult questions of insurance against nuclear 

risks and a far-reaching adaptation of the required national 

laws. The work of these committees is now near 

completion. The soon expected reports will be part of the 

agenda during the concluding meeting on 23 until 30 

June of the special committee on nuclear energy. 

The special committee will deal especially with the 

question of establishing a steering committee on nuclear 

energy its constitution and responsibilities as well as with 

questions on cooperation with the USA and with all other 

supranational institution or rather activities. It is expected 

to present its final report with recommendations on a 

practical definition of the cooperation of the seventeen 

OEEC-member states to the Council of Ministers on 17 

July. Even if it is not possible to provide at present any 

precise forecasts, it can be nevertheless expected that the 

decisions of the Ministerial Council will bring the plans 

for cooperation in the nuclear field within the OEEC 

closer to its realisation. 

The Federal Republic is present in all mentioned committees 

and groups and promotes their activities best possible. 

She has always emphasized and proved its willingness 

to collaborate on both OEEC and EURATOM-level. I 

nevertheless consider a non-existent or only little coordinated 

cooperation of both projects and even a kind of 

„competition“ between both as incorrect. Certain coordination 

already arises due to the fact that all six coals 

and steel countries are at the same time OEEC-members. 

Moreover, it seems attractive to me, to entrust a special 

committee with the responsibility to adapt both plans to 

one another as far as possible, wherever it seems appropriate 

– e.g. at certain common companies, in terms of 

security check. 

3. EURATOM 

A task force appointed by the government committee in 

Brussels chaired by L.M. Armand (France) presented a detailed 

report with a plan for cooperation in the nuclear 

field on the level of the six member states of the European 

Coal and Steel Community in November 1955(so-called 

EURATOM-plan). Due to its history and details of this 

plan it can again be referred to the detailed report in February 

1956 issue no. 2 “Atomwirtschaft” p.1 ff. 

The government committee in Brussels reworked the 

Armand-report subsequently. On April 1956 the government 

committee now presented the “Report of the Heads 

of Delegation to the Foreign Ministers”. Beside of very 

extensive explanations about the establishment of a general 

European common market it contains also recommendations 

for the structure of EURATOM within its 

second main part. The report ties in to a large extend to 

the Armand-report but deviates from it – in a general liberal 

tendency – not insignificantly in certain points. In 

what follows only the most important aspects will be 

mentioned. 

The report strongly underlines, that EURATOM shall 

be open to all European states, which accept the community 

rules. The establishment of a close liaison with 

Great Britain should be further attempted in any event. 

The report also noticed, that the EURATOM and OEECplan 

do not show any contradictions but rather complete 

and support each other. 

Within the field of research it is explicitly noticed, that 

besides the recommendation for common research activities 

in the context of EURATOM the major part of the research 

results should be still carried out by public or 

private research bodies within the member states. Research 

cannot be planned. A centralisation of research 

seems principally flawed. 






On the question of law of inventions, private property 

and private initiative is generally recognised. In exceptional 

cases, however, which cannot be discussed in detail 

at this point, the possibility of non-exclusive compulsory 

licenses on full compensation are intended. All decision if 

challenged shall be reviewed by court. 

In the field of labour and population protection the report 

regards an elaboration of binding minimum standards 

for the members of the community as necessary. The 

respective control of plants, which machine and process 

fuel material is essentially considered. However, the periodical 

monitoring of the safety requirements, should be 

left to the member states with a certain right of control by 

the community. 

The major part of investments in the nuclear field 

should remain within the responsibility of the public and 

private sector in the member states in the same way as 

research carried out by the EURATOM should only represent 

a supplement to the entire research work. The initiative 

of enterprises should be supported by illustrative programs, 

the dissemination of research results and if necessary 

financial assistance. 

Even if the development projects in the nuclear field 

shall be forwarded to the commission for a statement, the 

report also underlines, that the organisation should 

neither possess the right of investment decisions nor the 

right to comment on their economic justification or on 

the facilities location. 

The recommendation about the supply of source material 

and fuels within the report seems of special economic 

and political importance. In this respect a purchase 

priority by EURATOM is planned, which shall provide 

these materials in standardised and non-discriminating 

conditions to consumers. An exception takes merely place 

if the organisation declares not being able to deliver. An 

ownership monopoly is not recommended. Under certain 

conditions, in case of strongly enriched nuclear fuels, 

only a leasing form of commodities is intended. 

In order to guarantee prevention of misuse of ores and 

nuclear fuels, the report recommends far-reaching control 

and in particular the return of nuclear fuels to t he 

community bodies at the end of a conversion process. 

The report states an immediate establishment of a 

nuclear common market that later on shall give way to a 

general common market. 

In order to accomplish all responsibilities of EURATOM, 

a European Atomic Energy Commission with its own power 

and common mandate as permanent body for the on-going 

management of the community was recommended. 

Certain committees shall support the European Atomic 

Energy Commission in order to achieve her tasks e.g. an 

expert’ forum for science and economy and a mixed committee 

of producers and consumers. In order to perform 

its functions towards common institutions, an administrative 

unit for the industrial administration and an 

agency for special coverage obligations with a commercial 

management should be established. The complete 

report by the head of delegation is – as it needs to be emphasized, 

an expert report dedicated to governments. But 

at the same time the report is not binding. Thus suggestions 

by the participating governments in all detailed 

questions are subjected to alternations. 

During the conference of the Foreign Ministers of the 

European Coal and Steel countries from 29 to 30 May in 

Venice, the ministers agreed on using the report as basis 

for an intergovernmental conference, which is convened 

on 26 June in Brussels. This conference shall elaborate 

necessary individual contracts for the establishment of a 

common European market and by EURATOM into a whole 

comprehensive treaty. 

Two questions of high political importance, however, 

were reserved for a special consultation. This concerns in 

this respect the inclusion of overseas territories into the 

treaty placed for discussion by France and the question of 

the military usage of nuclear energy. It is obvious, that 

especially problems, which result from military use of 

one or more member states in the nuclear field, have significant 

influence on the cooperation development in the 

field of research and usage of nuclear energy for peaceful 

purposes. 

In this context it is necessary to remind, that the Federal 

Republic of Germany refused within the Paris Treaty 

the production of nuclear arms. After all it is necessary to 

point out the welcoming decision by the conference in 

Venice, at which the Belgian Foreign Minister Spaak was 

appointed to inform allied European countries as well as 

European organisations about the activities of the upcoming 

intergovernmental conference and to explicitly 

invite them for a participation in efforts of the six 

countries. 

Author 


Federal Minister of Germany for Nuclear Affairs 






auf dem Kernenergiegebiet 


Den Fragen internationaler Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiete der Kernenergie für friedliche Zwecke wendet sich in 

steigendem Maße das Interesse aller politisch und wirtschaftlich interessierten Kreise unseres Volkes zu. Diese wachsende 

Anteilnahme entspricht der Erkenntnis, daß sich durch die Entwicklung der Kernenergie in raschem, im einzelnen 

kaum übersehbarem Ablauf eine neue technische Revolution anbahnt, die für die weitere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung 

der europäischen Staaten und dabei nicht zuletzt unseres Vaterlandes angesichts des augenblicklichen Rückstandes 

gegenüber den führenden Atommächten von ausschlaggebender Bedeutung sein wird. 


Immer mehr vertieft sich auch die Überzeugung, daß – bei 

aller Notwendigkeit, den Anschluß an die wissenschaftliche 

und technische Entwicklung im nationalen Bereich 

weitmöglichst zu gewinnen – sowohl im europäischen als 

auch im weltweiten Raum gemeinsame Anstrengungen 

notwendig sind, um die ungeheueren Möglichkeiten der 

Kernenergie für den friedlichen Fortschritt voll auszuschöpfen. 

Es ist, schon um den eigenen Standpunkt für die weitere 

Beteiligung an der internationalen Zusammenarbeit auf 

dem Kernenergiegebiet festzulegen, zweckmäßig und 

wertvoll, von Zeit zu Zeit einen Überblick über die bestehenden 

Einrichtungen sowie die verschiedenen Vorhaben 

und Pläne zu gewinnen und eine gewisse Zwischenbilanz 

zu ziehen. Diesem Zwecke sollen, ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit 

in allen Einzelheiten zu erheben, die nachstehenden 

Zeilen dienen. Ich darf dabei zunächst auf die ganz 

oder überwiegend wissenschaftlichen Gremien der Zusammenarbeit 

und sodann auf die bilateralen und multilateralen 

Gegebenheiten und Vorhaben eingehen. 

Organisationen der Wissenschaft 

1. CERN 

Auf rein wissenschaftlichem Gebiet haben sich, in der Öffentlichkeit 

wenig beachtet, am 1. Juli 1953 in Paris zwölf 

west- und südeuropäische Staaten, darunter die Bundesrepublik, 

zur sogenannten „Europäischen Organisation für 

Kernphysikalische Forschung” (CERN) zusammengeschlossen. 

Die Organisation will insbesondere der Grundlagenforschung 

dienen. Sie errichtet zu diesem Zweck in Meyrin 

bei Genf ein internationales Laboratorium für Forschungen 

auf dem Gebiete hochbeschleunigter Teilchen einschließlich 

der kosmischen Strahlung. Das Laboratorium 

wird neben den entsprechenden Gebäuden, Gerätschaften 

usw. ein Synchrozyklotron mit einem Protonen-Beschleunigungsvermögen 

von etwa 600 Mill. Elektronenvolt umfassen, 

das bereits im Bau ist. Daneben ist die Errichtung 

eines Protonen-Synchrotrons von großer Leistungsstärke 

geplant, das 1960 in Betrieb genommen werden soll. Neben 

der Errichtung und dem Betrieb dieser Anlagen will 

die CERN der internationalen wissenschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Kernenergiegebiet durch Austausch 

von Wissenschaftlern, Ausbildung von Forschern, Verbreitung 

von Informationen und Zusammenarbeit mit nationalen 

Forschungseinrichtungen dienen. Um die Aktivität 

der CERN an einem praktischen Beispiel zu beleuchten, 

darf darauf hingewiesen werden, daß im Juni dieses Jahres 

in Genf ein Symposion über Hochenergiephysik stattfindet, 

an dem etwa 200 Kernwissenschaftler aus verschiedenen 

Ländern, darunter auch führende deutsche Gelehrte, 

teilnehmen. 

Die Bundesrepublik steht, neben einer Vertretung in 

den Organen der CERN und einer sachlichen und persönlichen 

Beteiligung durch ständige Abordnung von Forschern, 

auch in der Finanzierung der Organisation hinter 

Großbritannien und Frankreich an dritter Stelle. Sie trägt 

gegenwärtig etwa 18 % der Kosten. Der Beteiligungsschlüssel 

der einzelnen Mitglieder wird ab 1957 auf der Grundlage 

des Nettovolkseinkommens neu festgelegt werden. 

2. Europäische 

Atomenergie-Gesellschaft 

Sowohl der Forschung als auch der praktischen Verwertung 

und Nutzbarmachung der Kernenergie für friedliche 

Zwecke dient die „Europäische Atomenergie-Gesellschaft“ 

(European Atomic Energy Society). Sie ist am 15. Juni 1954 

gegründet worden. Gegenwärtig gehören ihr neben der 

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, die im Februar 1956 beigetreten 

ist, die Länder Großbritannien, Frankreich, Italien, 

Belgien, Schweden, Norwegen, die Niederlande und die 

Schweiz an. Die Mitgliedsländer sind durchweg durch ihre 

obersten nationalen Atombehörden vertreten. Die Gesellschaft 

bezweckt im Rahmen des lockeren Zusammenschlusses 

einer wissenschaftlichen Vereinigung insbesondere 

den Austausch und die Verbreitung von Informationen 

wissenschaftlicher Art, die Vereinheitlichung von 

Fachbegriffen, die Förderung von Schutzmaßnahmen für 

die Bevölkerung, die Publizierung wissenschaftlicher Werke 

und nach Möglichkeit die Herausgabe einer internationalen 

kernwissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift. Vor allem sieht 

sie ihre Aufgabe in der Förderung des unmittelbaren Gedankenaustausches 

von Wissenschaftlern und Technikern 

durch regelmäßige Tagungen und Zusammenkünfte in 

den verschiedenen Mitgliedsländern. Als Beispiel für die 

Arbeit der Gesellschaft sei auf die kürzliche Konferenz von 

Reaktor-Wissenschaftlern und -Praktikern in Neapel hingewiesen, 

bei der auch maßgebliche deutsche Persönlichkeiten 

auf diesem Sachgebiet vertreten waren. Ferner sind 

für dieses Jahr Symposien über Fragen der Beseitigung von 

Atomabfall, der chemischen Aufbereitung angereicherter 

Brennstoffe, metallurgische Fragen und theoretische Kernphysik 

vorgesehen. 

Das Bundesministerium für Atomfragen ist bemüht, zu 

den Tagungen der Gesellschaft, die bisher wertvolle Ergebnisse 

erzielt haben, regelmäßig die entsprechenden 


Vol. I 

Ausgabe 6 

Juni 1956 





Sachverständigen aus Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft sowie 

aus dem Ministerium selbst zu delegieren. Im ständigen 

Rat der Gesellschaft (Council) ist die Bundesrepublik durch 

Professor Heisenberg, im ständigen Arbeitsausschuß (Working 

Group) durch mehrere Mitglieder für verschiedene 

wissenschaftliche Sachgebiete vertreten. Den Vorsitz der 

Gesellschaft hat der Präsident des British Atomic Energy 

Research Establishment, Sir John Cockcroit. Eine ständige 

finanzielle Beteiligung der Mitglieder ist nicht vorgesehen; 

diese tragen vielmehr die Kosten ihrer Teilnahme an den 

Sitzungen und Tagungen der Gesellschaft selbst. 

Bilaterale Zusammenarbeit 

Der Vertrag mit den USA 

Auf dem Gebiet bilateraler Zusammenarbeit zwischen der 

Bundesrepublik und anderen Staaten ist bisher lediglich 

das sog. Standardabkommen mit den USA zu verzeichnen, 

das von diesen bisher mit insgesamt 30 Staaten der westlichen 

Welt im wesentlichen in gleicher Form abgeschlossen 

worden ist. Das im Februar 1956 unterzeichnete Abkommen 

ist am 23. April dieses Jahres in Kraft getreten. Es sieht 

– um nur die wesentlichsten Punkte anzusprechen – die 

Verpachtung von im Höchstfall 6 kg Uran-235 in einem bis 

zu höchstens 20 % angereicherten Zustand zum Betrieb 

von Forschungsreaktoren in der Bundesrepublik vor. Die 

gelieferten Brennstoffeinzelstücke müssen nach dem Bearbeitungsvorgang 

unverändert zurückgegeben bzw. gegen 

andere, neu zu liefernde Stücke ausgetauscht werden. Daneben 

sollen nach dem Abkommen die Vertragspartner gegenseitig 

Informationen über Planung, Bau und Betrieb 

von Forschungsreaktoren, über die Probleme von Gesundheit 

und Sicherheit im Zusammenhang mit dem Betrieb 

und der Benutzung solcher Reaktoren sowie über die Verwendung 

radioaktiver Isotope in der physikalischen und 

biologischen Forschung, in der Medizin, Landwirtschaft 

und Industrie austauschen. Ein Austausch von Geheiminformationen 

ist nicht vorgesehen. Nach dem Abkommen 

können auf Grund besonderer Vereinbarungen der Bundesrepublik 

Reaktormaterialien, die für den Bau und den Betrieb 

von Forschungsreaktoren erforderlich sind, durch die 

USA verkauft oder verpachtet werden. Das Abkommen 

sieht verschiedene Sicherheitsgarantien gegen den Mißbrauch 

des Kernbrennstoffes bzw. des Reaktormaterials zu 

anderen als mit dem Abkommen beabsichtigten Zwecken 

vor. So muß u.a. Vertretern der Atomkommission der Vereinigten 

Staaten auf Verlangen gestattet werden, Zustand 

und Verwendung des verpachteten Kernbrennstoffes sowie 

die Leistung des Reaktors, in dem er verwendet wird, zu 

beobachten. Das Abkommen bleibt vorbehaltlich einer gegenseitig 

zu vereinbarenden Verlängerung für fünf Jahre in 

Kraft. Die Bundesregierung hofft, daß auf Grund des Standardabkommens 

mit den USA die ersten Forschungsreaktoren 

in absehbarer Zeit in Betrieb genommen werden können. 

Verhandlungen über die Ausführung des Abkommens 

und den Kauf von Forschungsreaktoren in den USA stehen 

vor dem Abschluß. Es besteht die Hoffnung, daß über dieses 

erste Standardabkommen hinaus weitere Abkommen 

mit den Vereinigten Staaten zur Lieferung von Kernbrennstoffen, 

nach Möglichkeit auch zum Betriebe von Kraftreaktoren, 

abgeschlossen werden können. 

Mit Großbritannien sind bereits Vorbesprechungen 

über den Abschluß eines britisch-deutschen Atomabkommens 

im Gange, über sonstige Möglichkeiten für bilaterale 

Atomabkommen mit anderen Staaten läßt sich gegenwärtig 

noch nichts Konkretes berichten. 

Multilaterale Vorhaben 

1. Die Internationale Atomagentur 

Von den multilateralen Vorhaben einer Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Kernenergiegebiet zu friedlichen Zwecken möchte 

ich zunächst auf die weltweite Planung der Errichtung 

einer Internationalen Atomagentur eingehen. Nachdem 

im Dezember 1953 Präsident Eisenhower der Vollversammlung 

der UN seinen Plan „Atoms for Peace“ vorgelegt hatte, 

fanden in der Folgezeit im Schöße der UN Verhandlungen 

über eine weltweite Atomenergiebehörde statt, die sich 

nicht zuletzt wegen der politischen Gegensätze zwischen 

West und Ost sehr schwierig gestalteten. Nunmehr ist jedoch 

am 18. April dieses Jahres durch eine Konferenz, der 

Australien, Belgien, Brasilien, Frankreich, Großbritannien, 

Indien, Kanada, Portugal, Sowjetunion, Südafrikanische 

Union, Tschechoslowakei und die USA angehören, 

der Entwurf einer Satzung für die künftige Internationale 

Atomagentur (International Atomic Energy Agency) angenommen 

worden. Er soll noch im September dieses Jahres 

in New York auf einer großen Konferenz aller in Betracht 

kommenden Mitglieder beraten werden. Man hofft, in dieser 

Konferenz die Statuten endgültig festlegen zu können, 

um so schon im nächsten Jahre die Internationale Atomagentur 

aufbauen zu können. 

Die Bundesregierung hat zu dem erst kürzlich zugegangenen 

Satzungsentwurf noch nicht Stellung genommen. Sie 

wird selbstverständlich auf der Konferenz vertreten sein. 

Der Satzungsentwurf befaßt sich in sehr umfassender 

Form mit den Aufgaben und Zielen der Behörde sowie ihren 

Organen und deren Funktionen. Es kann hier nur in 

großen Zügen auf die wichtigsten Gesichtspunkte hingewiesen 

werden. Die Behörde soll vor allem die Aufgabe haben, 

die Erforschung und Entwicklung der Atomenergie 

und ihre Nutzung zu friedlichen Zwecken in allen Mitgliedsstaaten 

weitmöglichst zu fördern und zu unterstützen. 

Zu diesem Zwecke soll sie befugt sein, alle für die Erreichung 

dieses Zieles notwendigen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen 

und die erforderlichen Institutionen und Anlagen zu 

errichten. Insbesondere soll sie für die Bereitstellung des 

für die Forschung und die praktische Verwertung notwendigen 

Kernmaterials sorgen, den Austausch wissenschaftlicher 

und technischer Informationen sowie von Wissenschaftlern 

und Fachleuten fördern, Schutzmaßnahmen gegen 

Mißbrauch der Kernbrennstoffe zu anderen als friedlichen 

Zwecken vorsehen und über ihre Einhaltung wachen 

sowie Vorschriften für Arbeits- und Bevölkerungsschutz 

ausarbeiten und ihre Beachtung sicherstellen. 

Mitglieder der Agentur sollen alle Mitgliedsstaaten der 

Vereinten Nationen und ihrer Tochterorganisationen sein, 

die innerhalb einer bestimmten Frist das endgültige Statut 

unterzeichnen. Die Bundesrepublik hat somit schon über 

ihre Mitgliedschaft in der UNESCO Zugang zur Internationalen 

Atomagentur. 

An Organen der Agentur ist eine Allgemeine Konferenz 

(General Conference), ein Direktorium (Board of Governers) 

und ein Stab mit einem Generaldirektor und einer 

entsprechenden Beamtenschaft vorgesehen. Die Allgemeine 

Konferenz, die sich aus je einem Vertreter aller Mitgliedsstaaten 

zusammensetzt, entscheidet mit einfacher 

Mehrheit. Sie hat u.a. das sog. Budgetrecht und kann in 

allen die Atombehörde betreffenden Fragen dem Direktorium 

Empfehlungen geben. Außerdem entscheidet sie 

über die Zulassung und Suspendierung von Mitgliedern. 

Das Direktorium soll sich aus 23 Mitgliedern zusammensetzen. 

5 Mitglieder sind die führenden Atommächte 

(USA, Sowjetunion, Großbritannien, Frankreich und 




Kanada); 5 Sitze gehen an Vertreter bestimmter regionaler 

Gruppen (z.B. Lateinamerika, Südasien, Pazifische Region); 

2 Mitglieder sind den Produzenten von Ausgangsstoffen 

zu entnehmen (Belgien, Polen, Tschechoslowakei, Portugal), 

wobei diese beiden Sitze alljährlich zwischen Ost 

und West abwechseln sollen; für die Länder, die im wesentlichen 

nur technische Kenntnisse zur Verfügung stellen 

können, ist 1 Sitz vorgesehen; schließlich sollen weitere 

10 Mitglieder des Direktoriums durch die Allgemeine 

Konferenz aus den Ländern gewählt werden, die weder 

Atommächte sind noch Grundstoffe oder Kernmaterial 

oder technische Kenntnisse zur Verfügung stellen können. 

Das Verhältnis der Internationalen Atomagentur zu den 

UN war lange Zeit Gegenstand heftiger politischer Kontroversen. 

Nach dem Satzungsentwurf ist nunmehr vorgesehen, 

daß die Agentur der Generalversammlung der UN 

und, „when appropriate”, dem Sicherheitsrat Bericht zu 

erstatten hat. Die künftigen Beziehungen zwischen der 

Agentur und den UN sollen im Zusammenwirken der Vollversammlung 

der UN mit der Allgemeinen Konferenz der 

Agentur gewährleistet werden. In der Praxis geht die Regelung 

dahin, daß die Agentur eine von der UN unabhängige 

Organisation ist, die allerdings die Verpflichtung übernimmt, 

die UN über ihre Tätigkeit zu unterrichten. Hinsichtlich 

der Stellung der Agentur gegenüber ihren Mitgliedern 

ist hervorzuheben, daß die Souveränität der Mitgliedsstaaten 

beachtet werden muß. 

2. Das OEEC-Projekt 

Der Ministerrat der 17 Mitgliedsstaaten der OEEC hat unter 

Beteiligung von Vertretern der USA und Kanadas in seiner 

Sitzung vom 29. Februar 1956 beschlossen, einen Sonderausschuß 

für Kernenergie einzusetzen, der möglichst 

innerhalb von drei Monaten den Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe 

Nr. 10 überarbeiten soll, um die Grundlage für eine baldige 

konkrete Zusammenarbeit der OEEC-Mitglieder auf dem 

Kernergiegebiet zu schaffen. Wegen der Einzelheiten des 

Berichts Nr. 10, des sog. OEEC-Planes, darf – schon um 

Wiederholungen zu vermeiden – auf die Ausführungen in 

Heft Nr. 2 der „Atomwirtschaft” vom Februar 1956, S. 1 ff. 

verwiesen werden. Der Sonderausschuß hat zur Erfüllung 

seiner Aufgaben vier Arbeitsgruppen eingesetzt, nämlich 

für gemeinschaftliche Unternehmen, Sicherheitskontrolle, 

Anpassung der Gesetzgebung und Ausbildung von Fachkräften. 

Die Arbeitsgruppe „gemeinschaftliche Unternehmen” 

hat den Auftrag, die technischen und sonstigen Voraussetzungen 

für die Errichtung einer gemeinsamen Isotopentrennungsanlage 

für Uran, einer chemischen Anlage 

zur Aufbereitung angereicherter Brennstoffe, einer Anlage 

zur Erzeugung von Schwerem Wasser und für den gemeinsamen 

Betrieb von Versuchsreaktoren zu prüfen. Die Arbeitsgruppe 

„Sicherheitsfragen” soll dem Sonderausschuß 

Vorschläge für ein Kontrollsystem innerhalb der OEEC- 

Länder zur Verhinderung des Mißbrauchs von Ausgangsstoffen 

und Kernbrennstoffen, insbes. für militärische 

Zwecke, unterbreiten. Die Arbeitsgruppe „Anpassung der 

Gesetzgebung” hat den Auftrag, die Möglichkeiten einer 

Harmonisierung der nationalen Atomgesetzgebungen und 

der verwandten Gesetzgebungen (z.B. Berggesetze, Normen 

für den Arbeits- und Bevölkerungsschutz) zu ergründen, 

und die Arbeitsgruppe „Ausbildung von Fachkräften” 

schließlich soll die derzeitige Lage in den einzelnen Mitgliedsländern 

auf dem Ausbildungssektor prüfen und Wege 

zur Überwindung des allenthalben für besonders 

schwerwiegend erachteten Mangels an ausgebildeten 

Fachkräften auf dem Kernenergiegebiet (von Wissenschaftlern 

und Technikern) aufzeigen. Neben diesen eigentlichen 

Arbeitsgruppen des Sonderausschusses für 

Kernenergie befaßt sich eine zusammen mit dem Handelsdirektorium 

der OEEC gebildete gemischte Gruppe „Ausschuß 

für Handelsfragen“ mit den Möglichkeiten und Voraussetzungen 

für ein wirtschafts- und zollpolitisches Stillhalteabkommen 

und die spätere Errichtung eines gemeinsamen 

Atommarktes der OEEC-Länder. Das Stillhalteabkommen 

soll die Aufrichtung von Hemmnissen verhindern, 

die einer späteren Liberalisierung des Handels mit Ausgangs- 

und Kernbrennstoffen sowie mit Atomausrüstungsgegenständen 

(equipment) entgegenstehen könnten. Eine 

Untergruppe des Ausschusses der OEEC für Versicherungsfragen 

befaßt sich mit den äußerst vielschichtigen und 

schwierigen Fragen der Versicherung gegen das Atomrisiko 

und einer weitmöglichen Anpassung der insoweit zu schaffenden 

nationalen Gesetze. Die Arbeiten all dieser Gremien 

stehen vor dem Abschluß. Die demnächst zu erwartenden 

Berichte werden Gegenstand der für den 28. bis 30. Juni angesetzten, 

voraussichtlich abschließenden Sitzung des Sonderausschusses 

für Kernenergie sein. Der Sonderausschuß 

wird sich außerdem insbesondere auch mit der Frage der 

Errichtung eines Direktoriums für Kernenergie (steering 

committee) und dessen Zusammensetzung und Zuständigkeiten 

sowie mit Fragen der Zusammenarbeit mit den USA 

und mit anderen übernationalen Institutionen bzw. Vorhaben 

zu befassen haben. Er wird seinen Abschlußbericht mit 

Vorschlägen für die praktische Ausgestaltung der Zusammenarbeit 

der 17 Mitgliedsstaaten der OEEC voraussichtlich 

am 17. Juli dem Ministerrat vorlegen. Wenn auch im 

gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt noch keine genauen Prognosen 

gestellt werden können, so darf doch erwartet werden, daß 

die Beschlüsse des Ministerrats die Pläne für eine Zusammenarbeit 

auf dem Kernenergiegebiet innerhalb der OEEC 

der Verwirklichung ein gutes Stück näherbringen werden. 

Die Bundesrepublik ist in allen genannten Ausschüssen 

und Gruppen vertreten und fördert deren Arbeiten nach 

Kräften. Sie hat stets ihre Bereitschaft betont und in der 

Praxis bewiesen, sowohl auf der OEEC- als auch auf der 

EURATOM-Ebene mitzuarbeiten. Ich halte allerdings ein 

nicht oder nur wenig koordiniertes Nebeneinander der 

beiden Projekte oder gar eine Art „Wettlauf” zwischen ihnen 

für verfehlt. Eine gewisse Koordinierung ergibt sich 

zwar schon aus der Tatsache, daß die sechs Montanstaaten 

gleichzeitig Mitglieder der OEEC sind. Darüber hinaus 

aber scheint es mir wünschenswert, ein bestimmtes Gremium 

ausdrücklich mit der Aufgabe zu betrauen, die beiden 

Pläne dort, wo dies sinnvoll ist – z.B. bei gewissen gemeinschaftlichen 

Unternehmen, in der Frage der Sicherheitskontrolle 

– soweit wie möglich einander anzupassen. 

3. EURATOM 

Auf der Ebene der sechs Mitgliedsstaaten der Montanunion 

hat eine vom Regierungsausschuß in Brüssel eingesetzte 

Arbeitsgruppe unter dem Vorsitz von L. M. Armand (Frankreich) 

im November 1955 einen eingehenden Bericht mit 

einem Plan für eine Zusammenarbeit auf dem Kernenergiegebiet 

vorgelegt (sog. EURATOM-Plan). Wegen der Vorgeschichte 

und der Einzelheiten dieses Planes darf wiederum 

auf die eingehende Darstellung in der „Atomwirtschaft”, Nr. 

2, Febr. 1956, S. 1 ff., verwiesen werden, 

Der Armand-Bericht wurde in der Folgezeit vom Regierungsausschuß 

in Brüssel überarbeitet. Der Regierungsausschuß 

hat nunmehr, am 21. April 1956, den „Bericht 

der Delegationsleiter an die Außenminister“ vorgelegt. Er 

enthält neben sehr umfangreichen Ausführungen über die 






Schaffung eines allgemeinen gemeinsamen europäischen 

Marktes in seinem zweiten Hauptteil Vorschläge für die Ausgestaltung 

von EURATOM. Der Bericht knüpft zwar weitgehend 

an den Armand-Bericht an, er weicht aber – in einer 

allgemein etwas liberalen Grundtendenz – in einzelnen 

Punkten nicht unwesentlich von diesem ab. Im folgenden 

können nur die wichtigsten Gesichtspunkte angesprochen 

werden. 

Der Bericht betont zunächst mit großem Nachdruck, 

daß EURATOM allen europäischen Staaten offenstehen 

solle, welche die Regeln der Gemeinschaft annehmen. Die 

Herstellung einer besonders engen Verbindung mit Großbritannien 

soll auf jeden Fall versucht werden. Der Bericht 

bemerkt ferner, daß EURATOM- und OEEC-Plan keine Gegensätze 

darstellen, sondern sich vielmehr gegenseitig ergänzen 

und fördern. 

Auf dem Gebiet der Forschung wird neben den Vorschlägen 

für eine gemeinsame Forschungstätigkeit im 

Rahmen von EURATOM ausdrücklich bemerkt, daß der 

größte Teil der Forschungsarbeiten weiterhin durch öffentliche 

oder private Forschungsträger in den Mitgliedsländern 

durchgeführt werden müsse. Forschung könne 

nicht „geplant” werden. Eine Zentralisierung der Forschung 

erscheine grundsätzlich verfehlt. 

In der Frage der Erfinderrechte wird Privateigentum 

und Privatinitiative grundsätzlich anerkannt. In Ausnahmefällen 

allerdings, auf die hier nicht im einzelnen eingegangen 

werden kann, ist die Möglichkeit von nichtausschließlichen 

Zwangslizenzen unter voller Entschädigung 

vorgesehen. Alle Entscheidungen sollen insoweit der Anfechtung 

vor einem Gerichtshof unterliegen. 

Auf dem Gebiete des Arbeits- und Bevölkerungsschutzes 

bezeichnet der Bericht die Aufstellung von verbindlichen 

Mindestnormen für die Mitglieder der Gemeinschaft 

als erforderlich. Eine entsprechende Kontrolle der Anlagen, 

in denen Kernbrennstoffe be- oder verarbeitet werden, 

wird als notwendig erachtet. Hierbei soll jedoch den 

Mitgliedsstaaten selbst die regelmäßige Überwachung der 

Sicherheitsbedingungen unter einem gewissen Kontrollrecht 

der Gemeinschaft überlassen bleiben. 

Ebenso wie die von EURATOM durchgeführten Forschungsarbeiten 

nur eine Ergänzung der gesamten Forschungstätigkeit 

darstellen sollen, soll auch der größte Teil 

der Investitionen auf dem Atomgebiet weiterhin Aufgabe 

der öffentlichen und privaten Hand in den Mitgliedsländern 

bleiben. Die Initiative der Unternehmen soll durch 

hinweisende Programme, die Verbreitung von Forschungsergebnissen 

und erforderlichenfalls durch finanzielle Mitwirkung 

gefördert werden. Wenn auch die Entwicklungsprojekte 

auf dem Gebiete der Atomenergie der Kommission 

zur Stellungnahme übersandt werden sollen, so betont 

doch der Bericht, daß die Organisation weder das Recht 

der Investitionslenkung noch das der Stellungnahme zu 

deren wirtschaftlicher Begründung oder dem Standort der 

Einrichtungen haben solle. 

Von besonderer wirtschaftlicher und auch politischer 

Bedeutung erscheint der Vorschlag des Berichts über die 

Versorgung mit Ausgangsstoffen und Kernbrennstoffen. 

Insoweit ist eine Einkaufspriorität von EURATOM vorgesehen, 

das seinerseits den Verbrauchern diese Stoffe zu einheitlichen 

und nichtdiskriminierenden Bedingungen zur 

Verfügung stellen soll. Eine Ausnahme von der Einkaufspriorität 

soll unter noch festzulegenden Bedingungen nur 

dann Platz greifen, wenn die Organisation erklärt, selbst 

nicht liefern zu können. Ein Eigentumsmonopol der Organisation 

wird in dem Bericht nicht vorgeschlagen. Unter 

gewissen Voraussetzungen, so bei stark angereicherten 

Kernbrennstoffen, ist allerdings nur eine pachtweise Überlassung 

vorgesehen. 

Um die Sicherheit vor Mißbrauch von Erzen und Kernbrennstoffen 

zu gewährleisten, wird in dem Bericht eine 

weitgehende Kontrolle und insbesondere der Rücklauf von 

Kernbrennstoffen am Ende eines Umwandlungszyklus in 

die Einrichtungen der Gemeinschaft vorgeschlagen. 

Der Bericht sieht ferner die unverzügliche Schaffung 

eines gemeinsamen Atommarktes vor, der später in dem 

allgemeinen gemeinsamen Markt aufgehen soll. 

Zur Erfüllung der Aufgaben von EURATOM wird eine Europäische 

Atomenergiekommission mit eigenen Befugnissen 

und einem gemeinsamen Mandat als ständiges Organ 

für die laufende Verwaltung der Gemeinschaft vorgeschlagen. 

Die Kommission soll einer parlamentarischen Kontrolle 

durch eine gemeinsame Versammlung und einer richterlichen 

Kontrolle durch einen Gerichtshof unterliegen. In 

Fragen der allgemeinen Politik sowie bei gewissen Entscheidungen 

von besonders weittragender Bedeutung soll der 

Ministerrat nach noch festzusetzenden Bestimmungen mitwirken. 

Der Europäischen Atomenergiekommission sollen 

für die Erfüllung ihrer Aufgaben gewisse Gremien zur Seite 

stehen, z.B. ein Sachverständigenbeirat für Wissenschaft 

und Wirtschaft und ein gemischter Ausschuß der Produzenten 

und Verbraucher. Für die Ausübung ihrer Funktionen 

gegenüber gemeinsamen Unternehmen soll eine Dienststelle 

für industrielle Verwaltung und für die Versorgungsaufgaben 

eine Agentur mit kaufmännischer Geschäftsführung 

eingerichtet werden. Der Bericht der Delegationsleiter ist in 

seiner Gesamtheit, wie betont werden muß, ein Sachverständigenbericht 

an die Regierungen. Er ist für diese somit 

nicht verbindlich. Allen beteiligten Regierungen sind daher 

Änderungsvorschläge in allen Einzelfragen Vorbehalten. 

Auf der Konferenz der Außenminister der Montanunionstaaten 

am 29. und 30. Mai in Venedig sind die Minister 

übereingekommen, den Bericht zur Grundlage der Beratungen 

einer Regierungskonferenz zu machen, die für den 26. 

Juni nach Brüssel einberufen ist. Diese Konferenz soll die 

notwendigen Einzelverträge für die Schaffung eines gemeinsamen 

europäischen Marktes und von EURATOM in einem 

als einheitliches Ganzes anzusehenden Vertragswerk 

ausarbeiten. 

Zwei Fragen von hochpolitischer Bedeutung sind allerdings 

gesonderten Beratungen der Außenminister Vorbehalten 

worden. Es handelt sich insoweit um die von Frankreich 

zur Erörterung gestellte Einbeziehung der überseeischen 

Gebiete in das Vertragswerk und um die Frage der militärischen 

Verwendung der Atomenergie. Es liegt auf der Hand, 

daß gerade die Probleme, die sich aus einer militärischen 

Betätigung eines oder mehrerer Mitgliedsstaaten auf dem 

Atomgebiet ergeben, erheblichen Einfluß auf die Ausgestaltung 

der Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Erforschung 

und Nutzung der Kernenergie zu friedlichen Zwecken ausüben. 

In diesem Zusammenhang muß daran erinnert werden, 

daß die Bundesrepublik in den Pariser Verträgen auf 

die Herstellung von Atomwaffen verzichtet hat. Schließlich 

ist noch auf die erfreuliche Entschließung der Konferenz in 

Venedig hinzuweisen, nach der der belgische Außenminister 

Spaak beauftragt worden ist, befreundete europäische Länder 

sowie die europäischen Organisationen über die Arbeiten 

der kommenden Regierungskonferenz in Brüssel zu unterrichten 

und sie zu einer Beteiligung an den Bemühungen 

der Sechs ausdrücklich einzuladen. 

Autor: 


Bundesminister für Atomfragen 




Top 

Energy experts agree climate 

change threat needs nuclear 

solution 

(nei) The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s proposed rule regulating 

carbon emissions from existing 

power plants is the first time the 

agency has ever included nuclear energy 

as a solution to an air pollution 

problem, former EPA Deputy Administrator 

Bob Perciasepe said. 

Now president of the Center for 

Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), 

Perciasepe told a gathering of energy 

experts in Washington, D.C., that the 

pro-nuclear sentiment behind EPA’s 

Clean Power Plan is a “threshold 

change worth noting.” 

The plan, also known as the 

“111(d) rule” after the applicable section 

of the Clean Air Act, contains provisions 

to give states and regions 

credit for avoided carbon emissions if 

they preserve existing nuclear plants 

considered to be at risk of premature 

closure. It also seeks ways to provide 

credit for nuclear plants now under 

construction. 

The industry has criticized both 

provisions as being “right in intent but 

wrong on methodology”. 

Perciasepe acknowledged that 

EPA’s first draft of the plan was “not 

the most elegant” but was “a way to 

get started” while juggling competing 

interests and complicated interstate 

electricity issues. He said EPA recognized 

from the start that meeting 

President Obama’s near-term goal of a 

26 percent to 28 percent reduction in 

carbon from 2005 levels by 2025 

would be difficult to achieve without 

existing and new nuclear plants. 

The bottom line, Perciasepe said, is 

that “nuclear energy cannot be ignored 

as a solution to the health of the 

planet.” He said EPA has received 1.5 

million comments on the draft 111(d) 

rule and expressed confidence that the 

agency will be responsive to the concerns 

of the industry as it works toward 

finalizing the rule by June 2015. 

Other speakers at the event, conducted 

by the Howard Baker Forum, 

also referenced nuclear energy. Jessica 

Lovering, senior analyst at the 

Breakthrough Institute, compared 

other countries’ recent experiences 

with nuclear energy – especially those 

of France, Germany and Japan. 

Lovering noted that in the nearly 

four years that Japan put its 50 operable 

reactors on hiatus after the 

Fukushima accident and greatly increased 

its use of fossil fuels, there 

have been 4,000 additional deaths per 

year from air pollution as well as 

40,000 serious illnesses and 1 million 

minor illnesses. 

Contrasting France and Germany’s 

divergent energy policies, Lovering 

said France’s 80 percent share of nuclear 

energy gives it the cleanest air in 

Europe – including half Germany’s carbon 

intensity – as well as the lowest 

electricity prices in Europe. Germany, 

meanwhile, is essentially burning dirty 

brown coal to replace its nuclear capacity 

while not markedly increasing its 

use of renewables. This has resulted in 

greatly increased carbon emissions as 

well as higher electricity costs. 

She said France’s policy choice 

shows that a country does not have to 

make expensive sacrifices to move toward 

clean energy. In France, “the 

clean option IS the cheapest option,” 

she said. 

Installed nuclear energy capacity 

worldwide could nearly triple from 

today’s 375 gigawatts to as much as 

1,092 gigawatts by 2050 if nations recognize 

it as the best and least expensive 

means to address the threat of climate 

change, a new International 

Atomic Energy Agency report says. 

The report, “Climate Change and 

Nuclear Power 2014,” says its analysis 

“indicates that nuclear power represents 

the largest single mitigation potential 

at the lowest average costs.” 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change notes that raising the 

percentage of global nuclear energy 

capacity from 16 percent in 2005 to 18 

percent in 2030 could avoid 1.9 billion 

metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalence 

per year. 

IAEA notes that even its high projection, 

based on the International Energy 

Agency’s stringent “450 Scenario,” 

is achievable in the timeframe 

noted. As the chart shows, the nuclear 

industry was able to increase global 

net capacity 20 times from 1970 to 

1990, lending plausibility to the IEA’s 

forecast of 126 percent capacity 

growth through 2030. 

| | www.nei.org, 6598 

World 

Power-hungry emerging 

countries look to nuclear 

energy to meet demand 

(gd) Emerging markets will play a major 

role in the expansion of global nuclear 

installed capacity, which will increase 

from 371 GW in 2013 to 

517 GW by 2025, at a Compound Annual 

Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.5 %, 

according to research and consulting 

firm GlobalData. 

The company’s latest report* states 

that while the world’s nuclear power 

generation decreased in 2011 and 

2012 in the aftermath of the 

Fukushima meltdown, the market is 

gradually recovering, with large-scale 

capacity additions expected in the 

Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. 

Pranav Srivastava, GlobalData’s 

Associate Analyst covering Nuclear 

Power, says: “The after-effects of the 

Fukushima meltdown go beyond the 

decline of nuclear power generation 

in Japan. 

“Germany and Switzerland are 

now planning to phase out nuclear 

power, while others, such as China, 

Japan, France and the UK, have developed 

strong frameworks for nuclear 

safety and performed stress tests 

on their existing nuclear reactors to 

ensure safe operations.” 

Despite this more cautious global 

approach, GlobalData states that the 

emerging nuclear countries in the 

APAC region are building more than 

20 nuclear reactors and are planning 

to add 13.8 GW of nuclear power by 

2030, led by 6.8 GW of additions in 

Vietnam. 

Srivastava explains: “High electricity 

demand is a key driver for nuclear 

power development in Vietnam. The 

country plans to construct 10 new reactors 

by 2030 and has signed a number 

of co-operative governmental 

agreements regarding the peaceful use 

of nuclear energy with Russia, China, 

India, South Korea and Argentina. 

“Russia received a construction 

deal to build the first two reactors in 

2009, while Japan won the deal for 

the third and fourth reactors the following 

year.” 

GlobalData’s report states that despite 

anti-nuclear public opinion and 

safety concerns, there are a number of 

factors boosting demand for nuclear 

power. 

The analyst concludes: “Nuclear 

power has the capacity to produce 

large amounts of electricity and therefore 

meet the growing demand for 

power. It is also seen as a way of counteracting 

concerns over volatile fossil 

fuel prices, oil reserve shortages and 

rising carbon emissions.” 

| | www.globaldata.com, 6596 

NEA Director-General opened 

the Northeast Asia Nuclear 

Safety Symposium 

(nea) On 26 November 2014, the NEA 

Director-General opened the Northeast 

Asia Nuclear Safety Symposium 

* Emerging Nuclear 

Power Countries – 

Market Forecast, 

Key Companies and 

Development Analysis 

to 2030 

59 

NEWS 

News


Operating Results October 2014 

60 

Plant name 

Nominal 

capacity 

gross 

[MW] 

net 

[MW] 

Operating 

time 

enerator 

[h] 

Energy generated. gross 

[MWh] 

Month Year 1) Since 

commissioning 

Time availability 

[%] 

Energy availability Energy utilisation 

[%] *) [%] *) 

Month Year 1) Month Year 1) Month Year 1) 

NEWS 

KBR Brokdorf 1480 1410 745 1 073 558 9 462 011 309 654 875 100.00 96.79 96.79 91.23 97.32 87.48 

KKE Emsland 6) 1406 1335 745 1 041 037 9 492 725 299 885 849 100.00 94.27 94.27 94.17 99.44 92.77 

KKG Grafenrheinfeld 1345 1275 745 979 090 8 521 034 326 996 325 100.00 90.70 90.70 89.47 97.37 86.39 

KWG Grohnde 1430 1360 745 1 000 954 8 142 281 335 701 952 100.00 81.72 81.72 81.54 93.29 77.53 

KRB B Gundremmingen B 1344 1284 745 1 009 087 8 024 701 298 775 953 100.00 82.41 82.41 81.61 100.55 81.47 

KRB C Gundremmingen C 1344 1288 745 1 002 395 8 569 143 288 935 646 100.00 88.50 88.50 87.74 99.52 86.80 

KKI 2 Isar 2 1485 1410 745 1 070 136 9 322 809 304 877 887 100.00 94.39 94.39 88.55 96.37 85.63 

GKN II Neckarwestheim II 1400 1310 735 999 500 9 307 200 284 934 314 98.63 91.70 91.70 91.46 97.12 90.39 

KKP 2 Philippsburg 2 1468 1402 745 1 087 192 8 101 803 323 550 677 100.00 78.58 78.58 78.44 98.21 74.50 

*) 

Net-based values 

1) 

Refueling 

2) 

Inspection 

3) 

Repair 

4) 

Stretch-out-operation 

5) 

Stretch-in-operation 

6) 

New nameplate capacity 

as of 2014: 

KKE Emsland from 

July 2014: 

1 406 MW (gross), 

1 335 MW (net) 

Source: VGB 

(2 nd TRM+) in Seoul, Korea. During 

his presentation, he stressed the importance 

of the human dimension in 

nuclear safety and finding mechanisms 

to implement safety culture concepts 

effectively in different national 

contexts. He noted that the NEA is in a 

very good position to help facilitate 

further nuclear safety discussions in 

the region, and assured participants 

of the NEA’s support for that interaction. 

In closing, he recalled that “All 

problems have solutions, and working 

together we can overcome any challenge.” 

| | www.oecd-nea.org, 6597 

| | ITER construction site: The B2 slab, which will support some 400,000 tons 

of building and equipment (including the 23,000-ton ITER Tokamak), 

is now in place. 

ITER Tokamak complex will 

begin to rise 

(iter) The ITER Organization and the 

European Domestic Agency for ITER, 

Fusion for Energy, issued statements to 

mark the completion of Tokamak Complex 

foundations and the beginning of 

a new phase of ITER construction. 

In the centre of the vast excavated 

area that will house the principal 

buildings of the ITER scientific facility, 

workers have started to frame out the 

lower walls of the Tokamak Complex, 

a first step toward realizing the senstorey 

structure that will house the 

ITER fusion experiments. 

This milestone comes on the heels 

of the August completion of the Tokamak 

Complex basemat – the heavily 

reinforced “B2 slab” that will support 

some 400,000 tons of building and 

equipment, including the 23,000-ton 

ITER Tokamak. 

“The start of pouring activities for 

the massive Tokamak Complex is an 

important and exciting moment for 

the ITER Project,” declared ITER Director-General 

Osamu Motojima. 

“Years of hard work by all ITER Members 

are bearing fruit as the ITER facility 

takes shape in France and as the 

manufacturing of the systems and 

components advances. ITER is progressing 

on all fronts.” 

The imminent start of concrete 

pouring for the walls will mark the beginning 

of the second phase of ITER 

construction. Four years were necessary 

to complete the first phase – the 

creation of a ground support structure 

for the Tokamak Complex. From August 

2010 to August 2014, workers excavated 

the 17-metre- deep, 90 x 130 

metre Tokamak Complex Seismic Pit; 

created a ground-level basemat and 

retaining walls; installed 493 seismic 

columns and pads; and poured the B2 

foundation slab. 

All works have been carried out by 

the European Domestic Agency “Fusion 

for Energy” which, as part of its 

contribution to ITER, is responsible 

for the financial contribution and 

technical supervision linked to the 

construction of 39 scientific buildings 

and dedicated areas on the ITER platform. 

The Director of Fusion for Energy, 

Henrik Bindslev, stressed that “Europe 

is taking ITER construction to the next 

level. The basemat is … where scientific 

work and industrial know-how 

will come together and be deployed to 

seize the power of fusion energy.” 

The Tokamak Complex will dominate 

the ITER platform when it is completed. 

The seven-storey structure will 

house not only the ITER Tokamak, but 

also more than 30 different plant systems 

including cooling systems and 

electrical power supplies. Eighty 

metres tall, 120 metres long and 80 

metres wide, the Tokamak Complex 

will require 16,000 tons of rebar, 

150,000 m 3 of concrete and 7,500 tons 

of steel for the building structure. 

The contract for Tokamak Complex 

construction was awarded in December 

2012 by Fusion for Energy to the 

French-Spanish consortium VFR 

(made up of French companies VINCI 

Construction Grands Projets, Razel- 

Bec, Dodin Campenon Bernard, 

Campenon Bernard Sud-Est, GTM 

Sud and Chantiers Modernes Sud, and 

the Spanish firm Ferrovial Agroman). 

The EUR 300-million contract also 

includes the construction of the ITER 

Assembly Building; the radio frequency 

heating building; areas for 

heating, ventilation and air conditioning; 

a cleaning facility and site services 

buildings; the cryoplant compressor 

and coldbox building; the control 

buildings; the fast discharge and 

switching network resistor building; 

and three bridges. 

In the years to come, the number of 

workers involved in ITER construction 

will rise from 300, currently, to more 

than 2,000. 

| | www.iter.org, 6605 

World Energy Outlook warns 

nuclear industry on 

decommissioning and disposal 

(nucnet) The nuclear energy industry 

needs to be ready to manage “an unprecedented 

rate” of decommissioning 

with almost 200 of the 434 react- 

News


ors that were operating commercially 

at the end of 2013 to be retired by 

2040, a report by the International 

Energy Agency says. 

The World Energy Outlook 2014 

(WEO) says “the vast majority” of 

these reactor retirements will be in the 

European Union, the US, Russia and 

Japan. 

The industry will need to manage 

this unprecedented rate of decommissioning, 

while also building substantial 

new capacity for those reactors 

that are replaced, WEO says. The IEA 

estimates the cost of decommissioning 

plants that are retired to be more 

than $100 billion. But WEO warns 

that “considerable uncertainties” remain 

about these costs, reflecting the 

relatively limited experience to date in 

dismantling and decontaminating reactors 

and restoring sites for other 

uses. Regulators and utilities need to 

continue to ensure that adequate 

funds are set aside to cover these future 

expenses, WEO says. It also warns 

that all countries which have ever had 

nuclear generation facilities have an 

obligation to develop solutions for 

long-term storage. 

In one scenario examined in WEO, 

the cumulative amount of spent nuclear 

fuel that has been generated 

(a significant portion of which becomes 

high-level radioactive waste) 

more than doubles, reaching 705,000 

tonnes in 2040. 

Today – 60 years since the first nuclear 

reactor started operating – no 

country has yet established permanent 

facilities for the disposal of highlevel 

radioactive waste from commercial 

reactors, which continues to build 

up in temporary storage, WEO says. 

It says nuclear power is one of the 

few options available at scale to reduce 

carbon dioxide emissions while 

providing or displacing other forms of 

baseload generation. Nuclear has 

avoided the release of an estimated 56 

gigatonnes of CO 2 since 1971, or almost 

two years of total global emissions 

at current rates. Policies concerning 

nuclear power will remain an 

essential feature of national energy 

strategies, even in countries which are 

committed to phasing out the technology 

and that must provide for alternatives, 

WEO says. 

In WEO’s central scenario, global 

nuclear power capacity increases by 

almost 60 percent from 392 gigawatts 

in 2013 to more than 620 GW in 2040. 

However, its share of global electricity 

generation, which peaked almost two 

decades ago, rises by just one percentage 

point to 12 percent. This growth is 

concentrated in just four countries – 

China, India, South Korea and Russia. 

These are markets where electricity is 

supplied at regulated prices, utilities 

have state backing or governments act 

to facilitate private investment. Of the 

growth in nuclear generation to 2040, 

China accounts for 45 percent while 

India, South Korea and Russia collectively 

make up a further 30 percent. 

Generation increases by 16 percent in 

the US, rebounds in Japan – although 

not to levels seen before the Fukushima-Daiichi 

accident – and falls by 10 

percent in the European Union. 

WEO says despite the challenges 

nuclear faces, it has specific characteristics 

that underpin the commitment 

of some countries to maintain it as a 

future option. “Nuclear plants can 

contribute to the reliability of the 

power system where they increase the 

diversity of power generation technologies 

in the system. For countries that 

import energy, it can reduce their dependence 

on foreign supplies and 

limit their exposure to fuel price 

movements in international markets.” 

Although the upfront costs to build 

new nuclear plants are high and, often, 

uncertain, nuclear power can offer 

economic benefits by adding stability 

to electricity costs and improving 

balance of payments, WEO says. 

| | www.iea.org, www.nucnet.org, 

6606 

Europe 

New Commissioner lays out 

plans for European ‘Energy 

Union’ 

(nucnet) Momentum is building for a 

European Energy Union like never before, 

but if progress is to be made 

member states will need to stop thinking 

of markets as national territories 

and be willing to explore the common 

buying of gas, the new European Commissioner 

for Energy Union has said. 

In a speech at the Tatra Summit in 

Slovakia yesterday, Maroš Šefčovič 

laid out his vision for an Energy Union 

– an idea that was first aired in 2009 

– saying it needs to be built on “security, 

solidarity and trust”. 

“We need to integrate,” he said. 

“We need to explore the common purchasing 

of gas. We will need to diversify 

our energy sources and routes, 

and reduce high energy dependency 

on several of our member states.” 

He said geopolitical events – notably 

in Ukraine and Russia – worldwide 

energy competition and the impact 

of climate change are triggering a 

“mind switch” in terms of the EU’s energy 

and climate strategy. 

Mr Šefčovič, who supported the 

European Commission’s decision to 

approve a contract for the proposed 

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in the 

UK, said transparency is needed as to 

how member states are negotiating 

with third country suppliers. The EC 

should be involved in these negotiations. 

Similarly, no member state 

should modify its energy system 

without consultation because this 

may have “huge consequences” for another 

member state’s systems. 

Building a European Energy Union 

is one of the EC’s most pressing challenges, 

he said. The EU imports 53 

percent of its energy at a cost of more 

than €400 billion a year, making it the 

biggest energy customer in the world. 

Mr Šefčovič said one of his key 

goals is to finalise an internal energy 

market. He said a “transparent and 

competitive” energy market will be the 

backbone of the Energy Union, bringing 

real benefits to households through 

affordable energy prices and industry 

through greater competitiveness. 

In a progress report on the internal 

energy market published last month, 

the EC said there are still challenges 

that need to be addressed. 

The report said more investment is 

needed in infrastructure including 

smart grids. It said Europe needs to 

implement a set of simple, harmonised 

rules for gas and electricity trading. 

Mr Šefčovič said the Third Energy 

Package – a legislative package that 

entered into force in 2009 aimed at 

producing a more harmonised internal 

gas and electricity market – 

must be “fully implemented and applied” 

through strict monitoring and 

with assistance for any member states 

experiencing problems with implementation. 

The package includes measures 

such as the ‘Unbundling Provision’, 

which says organisations involved in 

electricity and gas transmission cannot 

also be involved in generation and 

supply. The aim of the legislation is to 

eliminate any potential conflict of interest. 

Mr Šefčovič intends to produce a 

short policy paper within months with 

concrete proposals for an Energy 

Union. 

The idea of a European Energy 

Union dates to a December 2009 declaration 

by Jerzy Buzek, president of 

the European Parliament at the time, 

who said a “European Energy Community” 

could become the next big EU 

project. 

61 

NEWS 

News


62 

NEWS 

In May 2010, Mr Buzek signed a 

declaration which explained the 

concept of energy community and 

called for “a radical shift” in the way 

Europe produces and consumes energy. 

One of his proposals was that the 

EU must have the ability to pool its 

supply capacities and engage in “coordinated 

energy purchasing”. In the 

long term, if the EU is faced with a major 

energy crisis, common strategic 

reserves must be available. 

In September, when he was still 

prime minister of Poland, the new EC 

president Donald Tusk urged other EU 

leaders to create an Energy Union in 

order to reduce Europe’s dependence 

upon Russian gas imports. 

Poland has decided to build new 

nuclear reactors to move away from its 

heavy reliance on coal and gas. The 

first unit is expected to come into commercial 

operation by 2025. 

| | europa.eu, www.nucnet.org, 6607 

China 

Hongyanhe-3 achieves first 

criticality 

(nucnet) The Hongyanhe-3 nuclear 

unit in Liaoning province, northeastern 

China, has achieved first criticality, 

the China Nuclear Energy Agency 

(CNEA) has said. 

The Chinese-designed Generation 

II CPR-1000 pressurised water reactor 

(PWR) unit reached first criticality on 

27 October 2014, CNEA said. All parameters 

were “normal” and “reasonable”, 

CNEA said. 

The unit is undergoing physical 

testing to validate the performance of 

the reactor core and the performance 

of the instrumentation and control 

(I&C) system. 

The next step is to start the turbine 

on the secondary, non-nuclear side of 

the unit and test whether it can operate 

at full speed. 

Hongyanhe has two commercially 

operational units and two under construction, 

all of the domestic CPR- 

1000 design. 

Hongyanhe-1 and -2 entered commercial 

operation in June 2013 and 

October 2013. Construction of 

Hongyanhe-3 and -4 started in March 

and August 2009. 

According to the International 

Atomic Energy Agency’s Power Reactor 

Information System (Pris) database, 

China has 22 nuclear units in 

commercial operation and 27 units 

under construction. 

| | www.cnecc.com, 6604 

Research 

IAEA-led project solves mystery 

of how helium enters the 

atmosphere 

(iaea) How helium – the light noble 

gas that sends balloons floating in the 

air – enters the atmosphere has 

wracked the brains of scientists for 

generations. Now the mystery has 

been solved, as an unexpected side benefit 

of research done by a group of 

scientists in an IAEA-led project to 

study groundwater in South America. 

The Guarani Aquifer is one of the 

world’s largest water systems, and 

Pradeep Aggarwal, Head of the IAEA’s 

Isotope Hydrology Section and a 

group of other scientists set out to 

study this aquifer to learn how it can 

be better managed and protected. 

“In effect, this aquifer, under Argentina, 

Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, 

is a huge natural laboratory 

where we were able to infer for the 

first time that helium from deep in the 

earth reaches the atmosphere along 

with the discharging ground water,” 

said Pradeep Aggarwal. 

Helium is produced as uranium 

and thorium in the earth’s crust decay. 

Until this study it was unclear how it 

entered the atmosphere. 

The results of the findings, following 

three years of study, has been published 

in Nature Geoscience. Aggarwal 

is the lead author with two other 

IAEA experts and nine contributors 

from five institutions in Brazil, the 

United States and Switzerland who 

took part in the study. They used a 

laser-cooling and atom-trapping technique 

at the Argonne National Laboratory 

in the United States for measuring 

the rare, radioactive krypton isotope 

(Kr-81). In this technique, specific 

lasers are used to slow down and 

count individual Kr-81 atoms, which 

are only a few among more than a trillion 

atoms of stable krypton (Kr-84). 

The reduced number of Kr-81 atoms in 

groundwater compared to the atmospheric 

krypton allowed the estimation 

of the age of water, which established 

the link between groundwater 

and the passage of helium. Krypton-81 

has a half-life of about 229,000 years 

and is used for dating old (about 

50,000 to one million year-old) 

groundwater. 

The IAEA Guarani project aimed to 

provide more knowledge about the 

aquifer. 

“The Agency is working with its international 

partners to improve our 

understanding of groundwater systems 

so that we can better protect and 

manage this vital freshwater resource,” 

said Aggarwal. 

“As part of this process we need to 

continue to better understand earth’s 

physical systems. In pursuing the 

Guarani project, we found out more 

than we expected, but that is the 

nature of scientific exploration.” 

Helium is quite rare on earth but is 

widely used in industry. The gas is important 

to the electronics industry and 

for cooling super-conducting magnets 

such as those used in magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI). Most helium is 

obtained from natural gas drilling in 

the United States. 

| | www.iaea.org, 6599 

FRM II: New hall for cooling 

systems of ultra-cold neutron 

source 

(frmii) South of the Maier-Leibnitz 

Laboratory a hall in wood construction 

is currently being built. From next year 

on, it will house the mock-up for the 

cooling systems of the ultracold neutron 

source at the FRM II. The hall will 

be ready at the end of November 2014. 

The hall was necessary in order to 

be able to test the large cooling systems 

the source of ultracold neutrons 

in non-nuclear operation. Only after a 

year of testing the compressors and 

gas tanks will be taken to the neutron 

source for the preparation of ultracold 

neutrons. 

The foundations for three gas 

tanks, filled with the coolants nitrogen 

and helium, are already poured. 

The 70 square metres wide and 3.70 

metres high hall consists of a wooden 

structure. It will house the compressors 

of the refrigerator, which is 

to ensure the cooling of the neutrons. 

The ultracold neutrons are slowed 

down so much that they have a velocity 

of only about 20 kilometers an 

hour. Planned experiments with ultracold 

neutrons include the measurement 

of the lifetime of free neutrons 

and the search for an electric dipole 

moment of the neutron. 

| | www.frm2.tum.de, 6603 

Company News 

Successful commissioning of 

Taishan EPR reactors full-scope 

simulator 

(areva) CORYS, a company co-owned 

by AREVA and EDF, announced the 

successful installation and commissioning 

of the Taishan plant’s full scope 

simulator at the on-site training center, 

in the Guangdong province, in China. 

News


| | View of the Taishan site in an early stage of construction of Taishan unit 1. (Courtesy: Areva) 

This marks an important milestone for 

the project as plant’s staff will now 

start training to prepare the plant’s 

commissioning and operation phases. 

The simulator will provide enhanced 

training to the customer’s 100 

operators for the two EPR units in construction 

in Taishan. 

Developed through CORYS’ stateof-the-art 

simulation workshop 

ALICES © , the simulator offers a very 

high level of realism. In addition, 

thanks to its unequalled calculation 

capacity, the device is very reactive 

and its behaviors are extremely 

faithful to those of the reference 

plant. 

“This commissioning adds to 

Flamanville 3 EPR’s full-scope simulator 

supplied by CORYS”, said Ralf 

Gathmann, CORYS CEO. “With this 

second validation, we become leaders 

in the segment of the GEN3 Full- 

Scope simulator.” 

“With the Taishan full scope simulator 

in service, a major milestone for 

the plant construction project has 

been successfully achieved,” said 

Zhou Weichang, Head of the Taishan 

training centre, for TNPJVC*. “We 

are grateful to the CORYS project 

team who made this project a success.” 

| | www.areva.com, 6600 

Rusatom Overseas welcomes 

Fortum’s decision to enter 

Hanhikivi 1 NPP project 

(rus) Rusatom Overseas welcomes the 

conditional decision of the Finnish energy 

company Fortum on entering the 

Hanhikivi 1 nuclear power plant project 

by purchasing up to 15 per cent of 

Voimaosakeyhtiö SF shares. Fortum’s 

purchase of a minority stake in the 

project implemented by Fennovoima 

will allow to meet the requirement of 

the Ministry of Employment and the 

Economy of Finland in accordance 

with which at least 60 per cent of the 

shares should be in the Finnish ownership. 

Kirill Komarov, Deputy CEO for 

Corporate Development and International 

Business of Rosatom Corporation 

said: “Russian nuclear industry 

has been cooperating with Fortum for 

more than 40 years, and we are happy 

that our cooperation is entering a new 

phase. Fortum’s readiness to participate 

in our joint project with Fennovoima 

is a truly positive signal. If 

Fortum becomes a shareholder, the 

Hanhikivi 1 project will have access to 

the competences of one of the leading 

energy experts in Finland.” 

In December 2013, Rusatom Overseas 

and Fennovoima signed the EPC 

Contract for Hanhikivi 1 nuclear 

power plant in the region of Northern 

Ostrobothnia, Finland. In March 2014, 

RAOS Voima Oy, subsidiary of Rusatom 

Overseas, purchased a 34-percent 

share in Fennovoima. 

| | www.rosatom.ru 

Westinghouse inks multi-party 

agreement to develop nuclear 

power in Turkey 

(westn) Westinghouse Electric Company, 

China’s State Nuclear Power 

Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and 

Electricity Generation Company 

(EÜAŞ), the largest electric power 

company in Turkey, announced an 

agreement to enter into exclusive negotiation 

to develop and construct a 

four-unit nuclear power plant site in 

the Republic of Turkey based on 

AP1000 ® reactor technology. 

The project also covers all life cycle 

activities including operations, nuclear 

fuel, maintenance, engineering, 

plant services and decommissioning. 

“We are excited to expand into the 

Republic of Turkey and provide our 

cutting-edge technology and innovative 

passive safety systems,” said Danny 

Roderick, Westinghouse president 

and CEO. “We are confident that our 

partnering relationship with SNPTC 

and the leadership they have demonstrated 

in China will provide the 

greatest value to the customers in the 

Republic of Turkey.” 

Eight AP1000 units are currently 

under construction worldwide: two 

each at the Vogtle and V.C. Summer 

sites in the U.S. and the Sanmen and 

Haiyang sites in China. In addition, 

shareholder agreements have been 

signed in the past few months for the 

development of AP1000 plants at the 

Moorside site in the United Kingdom 

and the Kozloduy site in Bulgaria. 

Westinghouse Electric Company, a 

group company of Toshiba Corporation 

(TKY:6502), is the world’s pioneering 

nuclear energy company and is 

a leading supplier of nuclear plant 

products and technologies to utilities 

throughout the world. Westinghouse 

supplied the world’s first pressurized 

water reactor in 1957 in Shippingport, 

Pa., U.S. Today, Westinghouse technology 

is the basis for approximately 

one-half of the world’s operating nuclear 

plants. AP1000 is a trademark of 

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. 

All rights reserved. 

State Nuclear Power Technology 

Corporation (SNPTC) is the general 

contractor of the first four AP1000 

units in the world being built in China. 

By working together with overseas 

partners, SNPTC is working on providing 

safe, clean, economic and reliable 

energy by advanced nuclear technology, 

products and services. 

Electricity Generation Company 

(EÜAS) is a state owned company 

which was founded to generate electricity 

in compliance with the energy 

and economic policies of the state and 

| | View of the AP1000 construction site in Sanmen, China. Eight AP1000 

units are currently under construction worldwide. Negotiations to develop 

and construct a four-unit nuclear power plant site in the Republic of Turkey 

have started. (Courtesy: Westinghouse) 

63 

NEWS 

News


64 

Uranium 

Prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3O 8] 

140.00 

) 1 

Uranium 

Prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3O 8] 

140.00 

) 1 

120.00 

120.00 

100.00 

100.00 

80.00 

80.00 

NEWS 

60.00 

40.00 

Prices in real USD, base: US prices (1982 to1984) * 

60.00 

40.00 

20.00 

20.00 

0.00 

Year 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2014 

2014 

0.00 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year 

Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2014 

Jan. 2012 



Jan. 2015 

| | Uranium spot market prices from 1980 to 2014 and from 2004 to 2014. 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] 

180.00 

) 1 

Conversion: 

Spot conversion price range [USD*/kgU] 

14.00 

) 1 

160.00 

12.00 

140.00 

120.00 

10.00 

100.00 

8.00 

80.00 

6.00 

60.00 

40.00 

4.00 

20.00 

2.00 

0.00 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. 

Year 





Source: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2014 

0.00 

* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year 

Source: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2014 





| | Separative work and conversion market price ranges from 2004 to 2014. The price range is shown. 

)1 

In December 2009 Energy Intelligence changed the method of calculation for spot market prices. The change results in virtual price leaps. 

in accordance with the principles of 

efficiency and profitability. 

| | www.westinghousenuclear.com, 

6601 

People 

Luc Oursel passed away 

Luc Oursel, president and CEO of 

AREVA, passed away on 3 December 


| | www.areva.com 

Market data 

(All information is supplied without 

guarantee.) 

Nuclear fuel supply market data 

Information in current (nominal) 

U.S.-$. No inflation adjustment of 

prices with respect to 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 = 0.385 kg U]. Conversion 

prices [US-$/kg U], Separative work 

[US-$/SWU (Separative work unit)]. 

January to December: 2012 

• Uranium: 40.25–53.00 

• Conversion: 6.25–10.50 

• Separative work: 118.00–147.00 

January to December 2013: 

• Uranium: 34.00–43.50 



January to July 2014: 

• Uranium: 28.10–36.00 



August 2014: 

• Uranium: 28.60–32.50 



September 2014: 

• Uranium: 32.00–36.50 



| | Source: Energy Intelligence, 

www.energyintel.com 

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): 

2010: 85.33; 23,795,158 

2011: 106.97; 26,513,704 

2012: 93.02; 27,453,635 

2013: 79.12, 31,637,166 

2014: 

I. quarter: 75.16; 8,446,794 

II. quarter: 71.18; 6,374,963 

| | Source: BAFA, some data provisional 

EEX Trading Results in 

September 2014 

(eex) In September 2014, the total 

volume in power derivatives on the 

European Energy Exchange (EEX) 

amounted to 154.3 TWh. This represents 

the highest volume that has been 

traded on this market so far in 2014. 

The French Power Futures volume increased 

by 265 percent to 7.3 TWh 

compared to the previous year 

(September 2013: 2.0 TWh). This represents 

the highest monthly volume 

that has been traded and registered 

for clearing at EEX since the launch of 

this product. The volume in Italian 

Power Futures increased by 49 percent 

to 12.7 TWh compared to the previous 

month (August 2014: 8.5 TWh). 

In September, 71.7 TWh were registered 

at EEX for clearing. Clearing 

and settlement of all transactions was 

executed by European Commodity 

Clearing (ECC). 

News


The base load price for the year 

2015 in the Phelix Future product 

(market area Germany/Austria) was 

quoted at EUR 34.72 per MWh on 

30 September 2014. The peak load 

price for 2015 in the Phelix Future 

product was quoted at EUR 43.58 

per MWh. 

On the EEX Market for Emission Allowances, 

a total volume of 44.9 million 

tonnes of CO 2 was traded in 

September, compared with 108.3 million 

tonnes of CO 2 in September 2013. 

During the month, Primary Market 

Auctions contributed 37.3 million 

tonnes of CO 2 to the total volume. In 

September, the first Primary Market 

Auction for EU Aviation Allowances 

(EUAA) in 2014 was conducted by 

EEX with a volume of 1.64 million 

tonnes of CO 2 . 

In September, the monthly average 

of the ECarbix (European Carbon Index) 

amounted to EUR 5.99 per EUA. 

On the EUA Derivatives Market, the 

daily settlement price in the front year 

contract (Dec-2014) varied between 

EUR 5.68 per EUA and EUR 6.42 per 

EUA. 

The Power Derivatives Market 

volumes for September 2014 are 

broken down as follows: (September 

2013 in brackets): 

• Total trading volume: 

154,260,536 MWh 

(177,867,019 MWh) 

• Phelix Futures: 133,165,765 MWh 

(170,410,054 MWh) 

• French Futures: 7,318,397 MWh 

(1,970,645743 MWh) 

• Italian Futures: 12,708,494 MWh 

• Dutch Futures: 74,705 MWh 

• Belgian Futures: 184,655 MWh 

• Spanish Futures 

(Trade registration): 183,655 MWh 

• Phelix Options: 807,520 

(5,486,320 MWh) 

| | www.eex.com 

MWV crude oil/product prices: 

August 2014 

According to information and calculations 

by the Association of the German 

Petroleum Industry MWV e.V in 

August 2014 the prices for mineral oil 

products such as super, diesel fuel 

and fuel oil developed inconsistently 

compared to the previous month 

(July 2014) in Germany. The average 

gas station prices for Euro super consisted 

of 155.10 €Cent (July 2014: 

158.63 €Cent, approx. -2.23 % in 

brackets: each information for previous 

month or rather previous month 

comparison), for diesel fuel of 

136.542 €Cent (136.76; -0.18 %) and 

for heating oil (HEL) of 78.33 €Cent 

(78.01; +0.41 %). 

The tax share for super with a.m. 

consumer price of 155.10 €Cent 

(158.63 €Cent) consisted of 65.45 

€Cent (42.2 %, 65.45 €Cent) for 

the current constant mineral oil 

tax share and 24.76 €Cent (current 

rate: 19.0 % = const., 25.33 €Cent) 

for the valued-added tax. The 

product price (notation Rotterdam) 

consisted of 55.84 €Cent (35.2 %, 

56.77 €Cent) and the gross margin 

consisted of 11.63 €Cent (7.5 %; 

12.01 €Cent). Thus the overall tax 

share for super results of 61.2 % 

(60.3). 

Worldwide crude oil prices 

(monthly average price PEC/Brent/ 

WTI) were approx. -5.41 % (-2.90 %) 

lower in August 2014 compared to 

July 2014: each in US-$/bbl: OPEC 

basket: 100.75 (105.61); UK-Brent: 

101.61 (106.77); West Texas Intermediate 

(WTI): 96.54 (103.59). 

| | www.mwv.de 

Publications 

Proceedings of AMNT 2014 

(inforum) As one of Europe‘s biggest 

and most prestigious nuclear energy 

conferences the AMNT features a 

wide range programme with 200 expert 

lectures relating to the three Key 

Topics: 

• Reactor Operation, Safety 

• Competence, Innovation, Regulation 

• Fuel, Decommissioning & Disposal 

Advantages of the Proccedings CD: 

• Presentations of Topcial Sessions 

and Focus Sessions 

• Abstracts of Technical Sessions 

and Workshop Preserving Competence 

• List of all autors and committee 

members 

• Practical search function and userfriendly 

structure 

| | www.kernenergie.de, 228 

Energiemarkt Deutschland – 

Jahrbuch 2015 

Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer 

Zahlen, Daten, Fakten gehören zum 

Handwerkzeug; auch und gerade in 

einer so mit Realitäten verbundenen 

Branche, wie der Energiewirtschaft. 

Von daher zählt das von Hans-Wilhelm 

Schiffer herausgegebene Jahrbuch 

“Energiemarkt Deutschland” 

auch in seiner Auflage für das Jahr 

2015 zu den unverzichtbaren Werke 

für alle, die bei der Energieversorgung 

mitreden wollen. 

Das Jahrbuch „Energiemarkt 

Deutschland 2015“ liefert auf 636 Seiten 

einen fundierten und aktuellen 

Überblick über die Struktur und Entwicklung 

des deutschen Energiemarktes 

und das Handeln seiner Teilnehmer. 

Das Buch befasst sich eingehend 

mit den Märkten und einzelnen Teilmärkten 

für Mineralöl, Braunkohle, 

Steinkohle, Erdgas und Elektrizität. 

Den erneuerbaren Energien ist ein 

eigenes Kapitel gewidmet. 

Es präsentiert Daten und Fakten 

zu Angebot und Nachfrage, erläutert 

Preisbildungsmechanismen für Erdöl, 

Kohle, Erdgas und Strom und 

beschreibt die nationalen und europäischen 

rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen. 

Eigens erörtert werden die internationalen 

Klimaschutzvereinbarungen 

und die Umsetzung des Treibhausgas- 

Emissionshandels in Deutschland. 

Alle wichtigen Zusammenhänge 

des Energiemarktes sind in 130 Tabellen 

und 190 Abbildungen anschaulich 

aufbereitet. 

Käufer des Buches haben die Möglichkeit, 

die Grafiken von einer eigenen 

Website herunterzuladen und bei 

Angabe der Quelle ihren eigenen Präsentationen 

oder Dokumenten einzubinden. 

Schiffer, Hans-Wilhelm: Energiemarkt 

Deutschland Jahrbuch 2015 

(2014), Köln: 

TÜV Media, 636 Seiten mit zahlreichen 

farbigen Abbildungen und Tabellen, 

ISBN: 978-3-8249-1849-2, 99,- €, 

| | www.tuev-media.de, 229 

65 

NEWS 

News


NUCLEAR TODAY 66 


Nuclear Facilities in 2015 

John Shepherd 

Later this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) will convene a special conference to discuss computer 

security, in the wake of cyber attacks on global financial 

institutions and government agencies that were increasingly 

in the news in 2014. 

In common with other industrial and commercial sectors, 

computer security at facilities handling nuclear and other 

radioactive material, in addition to related activities such 

as transport, represents what the IAEA has said are “a 

unique set of challenges”. 

According to the IAEA, the prevalence of IT security incidents 

in recent years involving the Stuxnet malware 

“demonstrated that nuclear facilities can be susceptible to 

cyber attack”. The IAEA said this and other events have significantly 

raised global concerns over potential vulnerabilities 

and the possibility of a cyber attack, or a joint cyber-physical 

attack, that could impact on nuclear security. 

The IAEA has correctly identified that the use of computers 

and other digital electronic equipment in physical 

protection systems at nuclear facilities, as well as in facility 

safety systems, instrumentation, information processing 

and communication, “continues to grow and presents an 

ever more likely target for cyber attack”. 

According to the IAEA, computer systems and networks 

supporting nuclear facility operations include many 

non-standard information technology systems in terms of 

architecture, configuration, or performance requirements. 

“These systems can include specialised industrial control 

systems, access control systems, alarm and tracking systems, 

and information systems pertaining to safety and 

security and emergency response,” the IAEA said. 

The agency’s Vienna conference, to be held in June, will 

review emerging trends in computer security and areas 

that may still need to be addressed. The meeting follows a 

declaration of ministers of IAEA member states in 2013 

that called on the agency to help raise awareness of the 

growing threat of cyber attacks and their potential impact 

on nuclear security. 

The conference is being organised “to foster international 

cooperation in computer security as an essential element 

of nuclear security”, the IAEA said. 

The US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) explained recently 

that a cyber attack on the country’s nuclear plants 

“cannot prevent critical systems in a nuclear energy facility 

from performing their safety functions”. The NEI said nuclear 

plant safety systems are “completely isolated from the 

internet and, even if cyber security were breached, the reactors 

are designed to shut down safely if necessary”. 

The NEI stressed that nuclear plants are also designed 

to automatically disconnect from the power grid if there is 

a disturbance that could be caused by a cyber attack. 

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires power 

reactor licensees and those seeking permission to build 

and operate new reactors to prove that their digital computer 

and communication systems and networks are protected 

against cyber attacks, including those systems and 

networks associated with safety-related and important- 

to-safety functions and emergency preparedness functions, 

including offsite communications, and support systems 

and equipment important to safety and security. 

Figures from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) highlight why ongoing attention to the potential 

threats to digital systems is needed. According to the FBI, 

cyber attacks are an increasing risk for the US electric sector 

and have eclipsed terrorism as the primary threat. The 

FBI said its industrial control systems cyber emergency response 

team responded to 256 incidents that targeted critical 

infrastructure sectors in fiscal year 2013, and 59 percent 

of those incidents involved the energy sector. 

The UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said 

towards the end of 2014 that its network is subject to 

30,000 automated cyber attacks or scans every day – which 

the NDA said was “not unusual”. 

The NDA, which warned that networks in its supply chain 

were also at risk of attack, said suppliers bidding for certain 

contracts involving sensitive and personal information are 

now required to provide assurance of compliance with the 

requirements of the UK’s Cyber Essentials (CE) programme. 

CE “defines a focused set of controls which provide 

cost-effective basic security for organisations of all sizes”, 

the NDA said. In particular, it focuses on threats “which require 

low levels of attacker skill, and which are widely available 

online”. 

An advocacy body for the global software industry, the 

US-based BSA / The Software Alliance, said last November 

that there is an “uneven landscape” for cyber security readiness 

in Europe which should be tackled by investing in 

critical infrastructure. 

BSA said a draft EU network and information security 

directive should focus on “Europe’s most critical networks 

and infrastructure, such as transport, energy and banking, 

in order to establish a foundation for cyber security readiness 

first and foremost in those areas where disruption 

would have major security and public safety impacts”. 

However, as important and necessary as activities to 

combat potential threats to cyber security are, it will be especially 

important to ensure that these efforts make clear 

that risks of cyber attacks are not unique to nuclear facilities 

and infrastructure. 

Indeed, it will be important for industry leaders and all 

involved to highlight the cyber security issue as one of importance 

to the global energy sector (among others) as a 

whole, and not something that should encourage a new and 

unbalanced focus, on the nuclear energy industry alone. 

Details of the IAEA’s ‘International Conference on Computer 

Security in a Nuclear World: Expert Discussion and Exchange’ 

are on the ‘meetings’ section of the agency’s web site. 

Author 

John Shepherd 

nuclear 24 

24 Charlotte Street 

Brighton BN2 1A6/United Kongdom 

Nuclear Today 

IAEA Puts Cyber Security in Focus for Nuclear Facilities in 2015 ı John Shepherd

nucmag.com 

The Whole Story of 

Nuclear Power 

– 50 Years on Disc 

atw-digital | 50 years: 1956 to 2005 

atw-digital 

| 50 years: 1956 to 2005 

Single User License 

nucmag.com 

© INFORUM ı Berlin | 2014 

p 

p 

p 

p 

Expert’s articles, reports, interviews and news covering all 

technical, economic and political topics of nuclear power 

and technology. 

Read the articles on your computer or print them out. 

Navigate quickly to the desired papers with a few mouse clicks. 

Convenient search function in all papers as full-text search 

and/or deliberate search for authors and documents titles. 

I would like to order (single user license), 

payment by invoice: 

P atw-digital 799.– €* 

| 50 years: 1956 to 2005 599.– €* 

Also available on Disc: 

u | 2006 to 2010 199.– €* 

149.– €* 

u | 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 69.– €* 

49.– €* 

Surname, First Name 

Organization/Order no. 

DAtF-/KTG-Member (yes/no)* 

Street 

Postal Code City Country 

Please send your order to: 

INFORUM Verlags- und 

Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH 


10115 Berlin, Germany 

Fax-No. +49 30 498555-19 

or order online: www.nucmag.com 

Prices excluding postage. 

Prices including 19% VAT for Germany and all EU member states 

without VAT number. For EU member states with VAT number and 

all other countries VAT will not be added. 

Telephone/E-mail 

VAT no. (EU countries except Germany) 

I order atw-digital | 50 years: 1956 to 2005 and agree 

to the terms and cancellation rights referred to below. 

Date 

Signature 

Cancellation: This order may be cancelled within 14 days. A notice 

must be sent to INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, 

Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany, within this period. 

The deadline will be observed by due mailing. Prompt dispatch of the 

notification is sufficient for compliance with the cancellation conditions. 

* 

Special price for DAtF- and KTG-Members.

The International Expert Conference on Nuclear Technology 

Estrel Convention 

Center Berlin 

5–7 May 


Germany 

Early Bird Discount! 

Register by 31 January 2015 

and save up to EUR 170 


3 Key Topics – 1 Event 

Outstanding Know-How & 

Sustainable Innovations 



Decommissioning Experience & 

Waste Management Solutions 

Highlights 

3 More than 2 days comprehensive programme on each key topic 

3 200 expert presentations from high-level professional speakers 

3 Around 1,000 participants from around 30 countries 

3 About 40 international exhibitors and sponsors 

3 Networking with experts and decision-makers 

3 Up-to-date developments and innovations 

3 Silver Sponsors 

Don’t miss this key event of the global nuclear energy community. 

www.nucleartech-meeting.com

atw 2015-01

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?