C
TOUR OF SELECTED SPENT FUEL STORAGE-RELATED INSTALLATIONS IN GERMANY

On April 25–28, 2004, six committee members visited spent fuel storage-related installations in Germany. The following is a summary of some of the pertinent information obtained from that trip.

Several organizations and individuals worked with committee staff to make this trip possible. The committee would especially like to acknowledge Alfons Lührmann and William McConaghy of GNB/GNSI (Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter, mbH/General Nuclear Systems, Inc.), who organized site visits; Klaus Janberg (STP engineering); Michael Sailer, chairman of RSK (Reaktorsicherheitskommission—reactor safety commission); Holger Broeskamp manager of GNS (Gesellchaft für Nuklear-Service, mbH—Germany’s nuclear industry consortium) and his staff; Wolfgang Sowa, managing director of GNB (Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter, mbH) and his staff; Florentin Lange of GRS (Gesellschaft für Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit, mbH); and Hubertus Flügge, vice-president of the RWE Power AG plants in Lingen and his staff, who allowed the committee to visit the reactor building and the site’s spent fuel storage facility.

C.1 GERMAN COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Germany currently has 18 operating commercial nuclear power reactors at 12 sites. Approximately one-third of the reactors are boiling water reactors (BWRs) and two-thirds are pressurized water reactors (PWRs).

The design for PWR plants is illustrated schematically in FIGURE C.1. It consists of a dome-shaped reactor building constructed of reinforced concrete and a spherical inner containment structure constructed of steel. The reactor core, spent fuel pool, and steam generators are located within the inner containment. The emergency core-cooling systems are located outside the inner containment but within the reactor building.

The German BWR reactor building design is generally similar to a PWR, However, the spent fuel pool is outside the inner containment structure but within the reactor building. The reactor building is also a different shape (rectangular or cylindrical).

There are three generations of commercial nuclear power plants in Germany, each having increasingly thick walls:

  • First-generation plants have reactor building walls that are less than 1 meter thick. There are four plants of this type.

  • Second-generation plants have reactor building walls that are slightly more than 1 meter thick. There are five plants of this type.

  • Third-generation plants have reactor building walls that are about 2 meters thick, There are nine plants of this type.1

1  

The committee subgroup visited one of these plants (the Lingen power plant) during its tour.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 92 C C TOUR OF SELECTED SPENT FUEL STORAGE-RELATED INSTALLATIONS IN GERMANY On April 25–28, 2004, six committee members visited spent fuel storage-related installations in Germany. The following is a summary of some of the pertinent information obtained from that trip. Several organizations and individuals worked with committee staff to make this trip possible. The committee would especially like to acknowledge Alfons Lührmann and William McConaghy of GNB/GNSI (Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter, mbH/General Nuclear Systems, Inc.), who organized site visits; Klaus Janberg (STP engineering); Michael Sailer, chairman of RSK (Reaktorsicherheitskommission—reactor safety commission); Holger Broeskamp manager of GNS (Gesellchaft für Nuklear-Service, mbH—Germany's nuclear industry consortium) and his staff; Wolfgang Sowa, managing director of GNB (Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter, mbH) and his staff; Florentin Lange of GRS (Gesellschaft für Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit, mbH); and Hubertus Flügge, vice-president of the RWE Power AG plants in Lingen and his staff, who allowed the committee to visit the reactor building and the site's spent fuel storage facility. C.1 GERMAN COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Germany currently has 18 operating commercial nuclear power reactors at 12 sites. Approximately one-third of the reactors are boiling water reactors (BWRs) and two-thirds are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The design for PWR plants is illustrated schematically in FIGURE C.1. It consists of a dome-shaped reactor building constructed of reinforced concrete and a spherical inner containment structure constructed of steel. The reactor core, spent fuel pool, and steam generators are located within the inner containment. The emergency core- cooling systems are located outside the inner containment but within the reactor building. The German BWR reactor building design is generally similar to a PWR, However, the spent fuel pool is outside the inner containment structure but within the reactor building. The reactor building is also a different shape (rectangular or cylindrical). There are three generations of commercial nuclear power plants in Germany, each having increasingly thick walls: • First-generation plants have reactor building walls that are less than 1 meter thick. There are four plants of this type. • Second-generation plants have reactor building walls that are slightly more than 1 meter thick. There are print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. five plants of this type. • Third-generation plants have reactor building walls that are about 2 meters thick, There are nine plants of this type.1 1 The committee subgroup visited one of these plants (the Lingen power plant) during its tour.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 93 C Some first- and second-generation plants have independent emergency systems in a bunkered building that contains some safety trains and a control room. These systems are capable of delivering water to the reactor after an accident or attack if the pipe systems within the reactor building survive. Second- and third-generation plants were designed to withstand the crash of military fighter jets. Second- generation plants were designed to withstand the crash of a Starfighter jet at the typical landing speed. Third- generation plants were designed to withstand the crash of a Phantom jet at the typical cruising speed. This is considered to be part of the “design basis threat” for nuclear power plants in Germany. This information on the design basis threat has been made available to the public by the German government. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FIGURE C.1 Schematic illustration of the Lingen PWR power plant, a third-generation power plant design. SOURCE: RWE Power.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 94 C Plant operators must show that of the four safety trains (each train contains 50 percent of the safety system) at the plant, at least two will survive such a crash. The crash parameters (e.g,, aircraft type, speed, and angle) have been established by RSK. The crash parameters have been published and the public knows about them. Each plant must perform an independent analysis of each reactor building. Sometimes two separate analyses have to be provided for the same site if there are two or more reactors with different designs. In 1998, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy. Commercial nuclear plants will be allowed to generate an agreed-to amount of electricity before shutdown. Currently, the Lingen and the Neckarwestheim-2 plants have the highest remaining electricity production allowance and will be shutdown in 2021 or 2022, should no revision of this political decision be implemented. C.2 SPENT FUEL STORAGE Until recently, all spent fuel at German plants was stored in the reactor pools until it could be sent to Sellafield (U.K.) or La Hague (France) for reprocessing. In the 1980s, plants began to re-rack their spent fuel pools to increase storage capacities (the older German nuclear plants were designed to contain one full reactor core plus one third of a core). Regulators became concerned that the emergency cooling systems were not sufficient to handle the increased heat loads in spent fuel pools from this re-racking. Some plants added additional cooling circuits to address this concern. Only one power plant (an older plant at Obrigheim) has wet interim pool storage in a bunkered building. A discussion of alternative spent fuel storage options began in 1979. A reprocessing plant had been proposed at Gorleben that would have had several thousand metric tons of pool storage. The German government concluded that while there were no major technical issues for reprocessing, wet fuel storage was a potential problem because cooling systems could be disrupted in a war. GNS decided to shift from wet to dry storage for centralized storage facilities. There are two centralized storage facilities in Germany: Gorleben and Ahaus. Gorleben is designed to store vitrified high-level waste from spent fuel reprocessing and spent fuel from commercial power reactors. Ahaus is designed to store spent fuel from test reactors and other special types of fuel. Ahaus currently stores 305 casks of reactor fuel from the decommissioned Thorium High Temperature Reactor, three casks of PWR spent fuel from the Neckarwestheim site, and three casks of BWR spent fuel from the Gundremmingen site. The latter shipment produced large public demonstrations and required the deployment of 35,000 police officers to maintain security. At the end of 2001, the German utility companies and the German federal government agreed to avoid all transport of spent fuel in Germany because of intense public opposition. The German government recently passed a law making it illegal to transport spent nuclear fuel to reprocessing plants in France and the United Kingdom after June 30, 2005. However, there is no legal restriction concerning the transport of spent fuel from power reactors to other destinations (e.g., to dry storage facilities). The government and power plant operators have negotiated an agreement to develop dry cask storage facilities at each of the 12 nuclear power plant sites to avoid the need for offsite spent fuel transport. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 95 C These dry cask storage facilities are to be constructed by 2006. They are licensed to store fuel for 40 years. There are three dry cask storage facility designs in Germany: 1. WTI design: The walls and roof are constructed of 80 and 50 centimeters, respectively, of reinforced concrete. 2. STEAG design: The wails and roof are constructed of 1.2 and 1.3 meters, respectively, of reinforced concrete. This design is used at the Lingen Nuclear Power Plant dry storage facility visited by the committee (FIGURE C.2). 3. GNK design: This is a tunnel design and is under construction at the Neckarwestheim nuclear power plant. The use of reinforced concrete in these facilities was originally intended for radiation protection and structural support, not for terrorist attacks. In 1999, RSK issued guidelines for dry storage, which were released in 2001 (RSK, 2001). Licensing a dry storage facility in Germany requires several safety demonstrations and analyses. As part of the licensing procedures for a storage facility, the license applicant must do independent calculations that demonstrate how the building features meet the safety standards and the design basis threat. This threat includes an armed group of intruders and the impact of a Phantom 2 military jet. It also includes a shaped charge. The scenario of a deliberate crash of a large civilian airplane has been considered and analyzed as part of the recent licensing of onsite dry storage facilities but is not established as part of the design basis threat. There are public hearings during which the license applicant explains the safety features of the storage facility. The public is aware of the design basis threat, and it is provided with the results of the analysis but not with the details. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FIGURE C.2 Dry cask spent fuel storage building at the Lingen Nuclear Power Plant. SOURCE: RWE Power.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 96 C There are six temporary (i.e., five- to seven-year) storage facilities in use at reactor sites until these dry cask storage facilities become available. The casks in these temporary storage facilities are stored horizontally and are protected by concrete “garages” designed to withstand the impact of a Phantom military jet. Spent commercial fuel is stored in CASTOR® casks (FIGURE C.3) that were originally designed and developed by the German utility-owned company GNB.2 These casks can store either PWR or BWR spent fuel assemblies. The design consists of a ductile cast iron cylindrical cask body with integral circumferential fins machined into the outer surface to maximize heat transfer; inside, the spent fuel assemblies are inserted in a borated stainless steel basket. The cask has a double-lid system that is protected by a third steel plate. The cask complies with the international regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a type B(U) package. Spent fuel is typically cooled for five years in a pool before it is put in dry cask storage; some other custom- made cask designs can hold fuel that has been cooled for shorter (minimum two years) or longer times depending on the fuel characteristics and fuel burn-up. Current fuel burn-ups in Germany (52 to 55 gigawatt-days per metric ton) are similar to those in the United States. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. FIGURE C.3 Typical features of a CASTOR cask used at the Lingen Nuclear Power Plant. SOURCE: RWE Power AG Lingen Nuclear Power Plant. 2Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter, mbH.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 97 C C.3 RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States caused the German government to reassess the security of its nuclear power plants and spent fuel storage facilities. RSK held meetings starting in October 2001 to discuss the implications of the September 11 attacks for German commercial nuclear power plants. It issued a short statement recommending that an analysis be carried out on each plant to assess its vulnerability to September 11- type attacks. These analyses have not yet been undertaken. Plant operators assert that terrorist attacks are a general risk of society and should be treated like attacks on other infrastructure (e.g., chemical facilities). The Länder (state) governments, which are responsible for licensing commercial power plants in Germany, do not require these analyses. RSK recommended that the federal government develop a checklist for such an analysis, but this also has not been done. A general analysis of the impact of the different civilian aircraft on commercial nuclear plants was requested by BMU3 and has been carried out by GRS.4 The result of the discussions between RSK and BMU on the basis of this report was that plant specific sensitivity analyses are needed. GRS was also involved in the framing of the recent German licensing process in the analysis of the consequences of civilian aircraft attacks on STEAG-and WTI-design spent fuel storage facilities using three sizes of aircraft (ranging from Airbus A320- to Boeing 747-size aircraft). C.4 TESTS ON GERMAN CASKS The casks that are used in German dry cask storage facilities have been subjected to several tests that simulate accidents and terrorist attacks. The following types of tests were performed on these casks or cask materials. Airplane crash test simulations with military aircraft (Phantom type) are part of the licensing requirements for both casks and storage facilities. Between 1970 and 1980 a number of tests on storage casks were carried out at the Meppen military facility in Germany. A one-third scale model of a GNB cask was used to simulate the impact of a turbine shaft of a military aircraft using a hollow-tube projectile. Two different impact orientations were used: perpendicular to upright cask body (lateral impact) and perpendicular to center of lid system. The projectile completely disintegrated in the test, but the cask sustained only minor damage. The jet aircraft tests were carried out because of safety concerns, but after September 11, 2001, intentional crashes of aircraft also were considered. Investigations by BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung) and GRS concluded that CASTOR-type casks would maintain their integrity when intentionally hit by a commercial aircraft. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. 3 Bundesministerlum für Umwelt Naturschutz and Reaktorsicherheit (Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Protection, and Nuclear Safety and Security). 4Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), mbH (Company for Installation and Reactor Safety). GRS is Germany's main research institution on nuclear safety. It is an independent, nonprofit organization, founded in 1977, and has about 450 employees. GRS funds its work through research contracts. Some have compared GRS to Sandia National Laboratories in the United States.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 98 C Other types of terrorist attacks have been a long-standing concern to the German government because of terrorism activities in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. A series of tests simulating terrorist attacks on casks were done in Germany, France, the United States (for the German government), and Switzerland (for the Swiss government). Additional tests may have been done that are not publicly acknowledged. In 1979–1980 at the German Army facility in Meppen, a “hollow charge” (i.e., shaped charge) weapon was fired at a ductile cast iron plate and fuel assembly dummy to simulate a CASTOR cask. The cask plate was perforated but release fractions from the fuel assembly were not examined. From this experiment, the German government concluded that the wall thickness of the cask should not be less than 300 millimeters. Other tests were carried out at the Centre d'Etude de Gramat in France in 1992 on behalf of the Germany Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (BMU) (Lange et al,, 1994), These tests involved shaped charges directed at a CASTOR cask (type CASTOR lla, the cask was one third of the regular length) filled with nine fuel element dummies with depleted uranium. The fuel rods were pressurized to 40 bars to simulate fuel burn-up, but the cask interior was at atmospheric pressure or at reduced pressure of 0.8 bar. The shaped charge perforated the cask and penetrated fuel elements. This damaged the fuel and resulted in the release of fuel particles from the cask. These particles were collected, and their particle size distribution was measured. About 1 gram of uranium was released in particles of less than 12.5-microns aerodynamic diameter, and 2.6 grams of uranium were released in particles with a size range between 12.5 and 100 microns. If the pressure inside the cask was reduced to 0.8 bar (to simulate the conditions during interim storage of spent fuel in Germany), the releases were reduced by two-thirds: 0.4 gram for particle sizes less than 12.5 microns and about 0.3 gram for particles between 12.5 and 100 microns. In 1998, a demonstration was carried out at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the United States using an anti- tank weapon on a CASTOR cask. The purpose of this demonstration was to show that a concrete jacket on the exterior of the cask could prevent perforation. The weapon was first fired at the cask without the jacket. It perforated the front wall of the cask. The concrete Jacket was effective in preventing perforation of the cask. Committee members saw a specimen of this cask at the GNB workshop (see FIGURE C.4). Also in 1999, explosion of a liquid gas tank next to a cask was performed by the German BAM (Federal Office of Material Research and Testing) to study the effect of accidents involving fire or explosions in the vicinity of the cask during transportation or storage. The gas tank and the CASTOR cask were initially about 8 feet (2.5 meters) apart. Explosion of the tank generated a fire ball 330 to 500 feet (100 to 150 meters) in diameter. The explosion projected the cask 23 feet (7 meters) away and tilted it by 180 degrees, causing it to hit the ground on the lid side. Examination after the explosion showed no change in the containment properties of the lid system. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

OCR for page 92
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the 99 C FIGURE C.4 Section of a CASTOR cask showing the perforation made by a shaped charge at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. SOURCE: Courtesy of GNB/GNSI. REFERENCE Large, F., G.Pretzsch, J.Döhler, E.Hörmann, H.Busch, and W.Koch. 1994. Experimental Determination of UO2-Release from a Spent Fuel Transport Cask after Shaped Charge Attack. 35th INMM Annual Meeting Proceedings (Naples, Florida). Vol. 23, pp. 408–413. RSK (Reaktorsicherheitskommission). 2001. Safety-Related Guidelines for the Dry Interim Storage of Spent Fuel Elements in Storage Casks. Recommendation of the Commission on Reactor Safety. April 5. Available at http://www.rskonline.de/Download/Leitlinien/English/ RSK-GUIDELINES-DRY-INTERIM-STORAGE.pdf. print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.