(532.5186) WISE Amsterdam - On June 14, the government and the electicity utilities signed the agreement that lays down the timeframe of shutting down Germany's 19 nuclear power reactors. The agreement, which is the final outcome of the "consensus talks" between government and industry, also bans reprocessing within five years and places a moratorium for (as little as) three to ten years on research at the Gorleben underground laboratory. (See also WISE News Communique 501.4936: "Germany after the elections: nuclear phaseout or not?"; WISE News Communique 505.4975: "Germany will end reprocessing in 2000; furious reactions"; WISE News Communique 506.4980: "Germany: U-turn on nuclear phaseout"; WISE News Communique 516.5067: "Germany: an assessment of the red-green government"; WISE News Communique 531.5182: "Germany: consensus talks continue; no agreement on operational periods")
| Obrigheim (1968) | 8.70 |
| Stade (1972) | 23.18 |
| Biblis A (1974) | 62.00 |
| Neckarwestheim I (1976) | 57.35 |
| Biblis B (1976) | 81.46 |
| Brunsbüttel (1976) | 47.67 |
| Isar 1 (1977) | 78.35 |
| Unterweser (1978) | 117.98 |
| Philippsburg 1 (1979) | 87.14 |
| Grafenrheinfeld (1981) | 150.03 |
| Krümmel (1983) | 158.22 |
| Gundremmingen B (1984) | 160.92 |
| Philippsburg 2 (1984) | 198.61 |
| Grohnde (1984) | 200.90 |
| Gundremmingen C (1984) | 168.35 |
| Brokdorf (1986) | 217.88 |
| Isar 2 (1988) | 231.21 |
| Emsland (1988) | 230.07 |
| Neckarwestheim 2 (1988) | 236.04 |
| Mülheim-Kärlich | 107.25 |
Operational periods
Instead of laying down dates when the reactors have to close, the consensus talks resulted in amounts of electricity for each reactor that is allowed to be produced. To define these amounts, the following calculations were made. Every reactor has in principle an operating lifetime of 32 years. The oldest currently operating reactor of Obrigheim started electricity production in 1968, 32 years ago. The five years, between 1990 and 1999, in which a reactor had its highest electricity production are taken to calculate the average annual production, which is called the "reference amount". That amount is increased with 5.5% as optimizing output, power increase of certain reactors and grid stabilization would have led in the future to higher electricity production of reactors, compared to the reference amounts. These assumptions and the remaining lifetime of the 32 years (after January 1, 2000) results in the remaining electricity amounts for each reactor that is allowed to be produced. The Obrigheim NPP is excluded from the 32-year lifetime period and can in principle run until December 31, 2000.
Indeed, Mülheim-Kärlich gets the "credits" the industry wanted. In exchange, the owner RWE will stop to make further attempts to reopen the reactor, which was closed down in 1988 on procedural grounds (incomplete license was nullified because of earthquake concerns). The intention is to transfer its credits to Emsland, Gundremmingen B/C and Biblis B (with a maximum of 20%) or other newer reactors.
The total amount that is allowed to be produced is 2,623.30 TWh. This amount will be laid down in the German Atomic Law. The utilities are allowed to transfer the credits of reactors to other ones. This means that the smaller, older and thus less economic reactors might be closed sooner and their remaining electricity amounts can be produced by bigger and newer reactors. This could result in the closure of some reactors within some years, but also a later date of the real end of nuclear energy in Germany. To transfer credits from newer to older reactors needs consent from the consensus partners, unless the newer reactor will be shut down immediately. With this, it is prevented that utilities would "buy time" for old reactors to be closed soon, for instance Obrigheim, in the hope of better times.
It was agreed upon that all reactors have to undergo regular safety assessments. Until now, this obligation was regulated for each reactor separately but will now be laid down in the federal Atomic Law. Utilities liability in case of accidents is to be increased from DM500 million (US$225 million) to DM5 billion (US$2.25 billion) (see also WISE News Communique 530: "In Brief").
Reprocessing and waste
As of July 1, 2005, reprocessing will be forbidden. Until that date, the utilities are allowed to send their spent fuel to France and the UK. It is assumed that the necessary procedures for transport will be finished this summer. It was agreed upon that every NPP needs within five years its own interim storage for spent fuel, eventually in regional context. This measure, in combination with the future cancellation of reprocessing, should make an end to the problem of transports of high-level waste, which have been confronted with huge resistance, sabotage and immense police forces and thus large costs.
| 32 YEARS? Though the nuclear power reactors have in principle a lifetime of 32 years, the to be produced amount of electricity will determine when a reactor has to close. Take for instance the Emsland unit, which was opened in 1988. It could in principle operate until 2020. Until now, Emsland has had a high capacity factor of 93 percent, which means that it was producing electricity that much of the time. So, the calculated "reference amount" for Emsland is based on this high capacity factor. But production can be expected to decrease as reactors grow older, i.e. repairs could be necessary or safety upgrading programs conducted. And the less electricity Emsland produces annually, the longer it can operate. The closure is not defined by a date, but by the produced amount of electricity. Besides, it can be expected that Emsland will receive some of the credits of Mülheim-Kärlich or other reactors that might possibly be closed before having 'consumed' their credits. Thus, Emsland (and other reactors) will run for at least two more decades. |
The research in the Gorleben salt dome will be suspended for three to 10 years. In a further explanation, the government states that Gorleben would be, in principle, suitable for the disposal of waste, though uncertainties had been raised. One of it is the formation of gases due to corroding containers and chemical reactions in the waste itself, which can be a risk of building up of pressure to the surrounding rock salt and possible cracking. Internationally, there is more and more attention for a retrievable form of waste storage, which is not the concept as studied in Gorleben. Other host rocks, granite and clay have also not been studied by Germany. In case of storing spent fuel, one has to take in consideration possible criticality risks. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) will soon issue recommendations for unforeseen future human-intrusion in a waste disposal site. These five issues are not to be solved by a further research in the salt dome itself and have to be studied in the coming years.
The license procedure for the "Pilot Konditionierungs Anlage" (Pilot Conditioning Facility) at the Gorleben site will be rounded of, but the facility is only allowed to be used for repairs on damaged spent fuel storage containers.
Plans for waste storage in the salt dome of Konrad are to be abandoned. Although the legal procedures for a license will be rounded of, the industry promised to give up storage plans. The license procedure will be completed, followed by the industry which will renounce claims to a license, in order to exclude later problems in a court review.
The industry agreed not to claim any financial damage from earlier investments in Gorleben and Konrad. In exchange, the government has promised to secure the Gorleben salt dome as a potential disposal site during the moratorium period and protect it against claims by others. The industry will pay for the necessary costs to keep the laboratory maintained during this period.
All of what was agreed upon will be laid down in the federal Atomic Law, including a prohibition for building new nuclear reactors.
Reactions
In a first reaction, the "Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland" (Union for Environment and Nature Protection) urged the Green Party and Social-Democrat Party to reject the agreement as it is an "only for the operators favourable and longterm prolongation of the NPP's." BUND objects the continuation of reprocessing with another five years.
Greenpeace Germany condemns the outcome of the consensus talks as it had not resulted in a real phaseout of nuclear energy but, in contrary, in guarantees for further production. "The consensus agreement does not deserve the name nuclear phaseout: until the last reactor will be disconnected from the grid, some additional 7,000 tons of highly radioactive waste will have been produced--almost as much as had been produced since the beginning of nuclear energy in Germany," said a Greenpeace press release.
The "Bürgerinitiative Kein Atommüll in Ahaus" (Citizens' Initiative No Atomic Waste in Ahaus) also referred to another promise of the government in the agreement. It said: "The federal government will not undertake initiatives to change the safety standard and the underlying safety philosophy. In fulfilling the aims of the Atomic Law, the government guarantees the undisturbed operation of the facilities." "Kein Atommüll in Ahaus" states that that would be a very comfortable situation for the nuclear industry, even better than before. The group, which is based in the small city where an interim storage is located, condemns the further production of nuclear waste as a solution still is not available nor foreseen. "The long remaining lifetimes means above all that the amount of nuclear waste until presently produced by German NPPs will be more than doubled," it said.
|
ON-SITE STORAGE PROBLEMS |
In a first reaction, one of the two leaders of the Green Party, Antje Radcke, said she would on the June 24 party conference propose to reject the consensus agreement. "We are not able to tell the population when the last nuclear power station will be shut down. This is not acceptable," she said.
The Green Party conference, however, resulted in a majority that voted in favour of the consensus agreement. At the conference, 433 of the 672 delegates voted in favour, whereas 227 against it and six withholded votes. The adopted resolution said: "This phaseout was not reached without Green participation in the government".
Another opponent of the consensus agreement is the pro-nuclear Christian Social Union (CSU) in the state Bavaria together with its sister party of the Christian Democrat Union (CDU). Edmund Stoiber, CSU-leader and likely federal chancellor candidate, said he would dissolve the contract as soon as his party gets into power. Bavaria, which is ruled by the CSU, will do anything it can against the plans. Stoiber hopes that the deal will be challenged by the Upper House, the "Bundesrat", which represents the German states. "If the government tries to ignore the Bundesrat, Bavaria will take a case to the federal constitutional court," said Stoiber.
Sources:
- Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Energieversorgungsunternehmen vom 14. Juni 2000 (Agreement between the federal government and the energy supply companies of June 14, 2000), 14 June 2000
- Letter Minister of Environment Jürgen Trittin, 15 June 2000
- Press release "Kein Atommüll in Ahaus", 15 June 2000
- Press release Greenpeace Germany, 15 June 2000
- Press release BUND, 23 June 2000
- Elbe-Jeetzel-Zeitung, 24 June 2000
Contact: Greenpeace Germany, Grosse Elbstrasse 39, D-22767 Hamburg, Germany Tel: +49-40-306180; Fax: +49-40-30618100
Email: mail@greenpeace.de
Web: www.greenpeace.de
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |