Would it be technically possible to continue operating the last three nuclear power plants in a safe manner?

Christian Geinitz

Business correspondent in Berlin

  • Follow I follow

From a purely technical point of view, there is a lot to be said for this.

The Nuclear Association of Nuclear Technology Germany, formerly known as the German Atomic Forum, assures that the plants meet all safety requirements and can continue to run from a technical point of view.

The competent Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) does not fundamentally contradict this assessment.

Of course, the nuclear power plants (NPP) are safe, they say, otherwise they would not be connected to the grid.

The technology will be no different on January 1, 2023 than it was on December 31, 2022. But the power plants are set to stop operating at the end of the year in terms of business, personnel and fuel procurement.

These "organizational and human factors are very important for safety," said the house of Steffi Lemke (Greens).

"Therefore, such circumstances are likely to result in an increased risk for operation." The federal government, at least the green part of it, is of the opinion that continued operation is technically possible, but only if the safety requirements are postponed and if the state takes risks.

Berlin is not ready for this.

There one hears that the operators themselves also only consider extensions to the service life to be possible under the condition that there are cutbacks in the safety checks and the retrofitting requirements.

What does the TÜV say?

In Bavaria, the Ministry of the Environment has asked TÜV Süd to check whether the Isar 2 nuclear power plant from Preussen-Elektra/Eon could remain connected to the grid from a technical point of view.

The result available to the FAZ is clear: "From a technical point of view, there are no concerns about continued operation after December 31, 2022." In the federal government, however, this report is viewed very critically, especially the idea that the necessary safety checks can be carried out almost "on the side".

The argument that the absence of the last major security check does not automatically mean that there are cutbacks in damage prevention is also considered questionable.

What about the periodic safety reviews (PSR), which are the basis for risk-free operation?

Actually, the Atomic Energy Act prescribes these heart and kidney tests every ten years.

Unlike in France, for example, where the power plants are idle for several months, the inspections in Germany are carried out during operation, but then extend over years.

The last PSÜ would have been due in 2019.

However, in view of the forthcoming shutdowns, the legislature has granted an additional period of three years via an exception clause in the Atomic Energy Act.

In return, the operators once again expressly undertook to stop operations afterwards.

The BMUV says that 13 years without a PSR is the maximum, and that the period cannot be extended under any circumstances: "Additional operation by extending the service life would take place without the knowledge from a PSR and therefore represent an unacceptable risk.

What do experts say about the necessity of the PSR?

Experts share the concerns of the federal government.

A waiver of the PSR means that the systems may no longer meet the current safety requirements, says Nikolaus Müllner from the Institute for Safety and Risk Sciences in Vienna.

Retrofitting, which would no longer have been worthwhile, was probably also dispensed with in the three nuclear power plants.

According to the scientist, a "retrofit backlog" can therefore be assumed: "Without a PSR, it would not be possible to assume that the systems would meet the current safety requirements." On the other hand, the industry argues that there are no signs of the lack of PSR deficiencies in the safety technology had remained undiscovered.

Nuclear power plants are subject to permanent supervision and regular inspections by the responsible authorities,

would discover the defects.

The Society for Reactor Safety GRS is also of the opinion that the PSÜ can be made up for if the Atomic Energy Act is changed accordingly.

How long will the fuel for the reactors last?