The THTR Circulars from 2003

***

***

THTR Circular No. 80 February 2003

Red-green governments delighted: Finally new, "safe" nuclear power plants!

Who would have thought that. Research and development of the THTR variant PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) by the research center Jülich, which is financed by the federal and state governments, has the undivided approval of both red-green governments. The NRW Ministry for Science and Research writes in response to a request from Rüdiger Sagel, member of the state parliament, that “no indication of a complaint is seen” and continues: “The federal government emphasizes the point that Germany cannot prevent further development nuclear energy in South Africa is positively and correctively influenced by the Jülich safety analyzes. The research center deserves support with this transfer of safety standards. ”Read the chronicle of this incredible development: Report by Helga Hermanns in“ Westblick ”, WDR 5, 23.12.2002:

Herman's: The 'Citizens' Initiative Environmental Protection' in Hamm got the ball rolling. In a letter to the State Ministry of Science, citizens criticize the fact that German know-how is being used in South Africa to build a new nuclear reactor based on the Jülich pebble-bed principle. According to the will of the citizens' initiative, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia should check whether the scientific support from Jülich is at all compatible with the nuclear phase-out declared by the federal and state governments.

The spokesman for the NRW Ministry of Science, Thomas Breustedt: We took this letter from this citizens' initiative as an opportunity to ask Jülich to give us a report by mid-January on the cooperation in the South African project and whether there are possibly other projects involving high-temperature reactor technology.

Herrmann's: Forschungszentrum Jülich confirms its collaboration with the South African electricity supply company ESKOM. However, it is all about safety issues, emphasizes the chairman of the Jülich research center Professor Joachim Treusch: "We supply software and also try to explain to the engineers and technicians involved in South Africa how to use this software in such a way that no errors occur. (...) We have of course agreed with the ministry and have been doing so for a long time , I was in this context for the first time in October 2000 in South Africa, which we have a responsibility as far as security research is concerned and we also assume it. And this first trip, during which the first contracts were signed, took place expressly in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the embassy was involved. So everything went quite legally. "

Herrmann's: The project is not supported with public money?

Joachim Treusch: "That means that the South Africans pay us according to the contract. The security codes that we transfer to them, which we also explain to them, so that the HTR, which ESKOM has decided to build, then runs according to the security standards for which we are responsible feel that - apart from that - technically, there is no problem here from my point of view. "

On the same day, on December 23.12.2002, XNUMX, the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" wrote:
"The decisive factor is whether it is just about security research or whether it goes beyond that," said Ministry spokesman Thomas Breustedt. According to an agreement between the state and the FZJ, the work of the scientists must be limited to security issues. (...) The economic policy spokesman for the Greens in the state parliament, Rüdiger Sagel, called on the research center to withdraw from the project. "I doubt that the further development of a reactor that is considered unsuitable in Germany is safety research," Sagel told the SZ. Obviously, the aim is to make this type of reactor practical. According to Sagel, the high-temperature reactor will be built next year and go into series production in 2007. In addition, it would possibly produce nuclear weapons-grade material. Sagel called on Science Minister Hannelore Kraft (SPD) to use her membership in the Helmholtz Society to campaign for an exit. In the future, the society will decide on the research funds of the FZJ. Even if the project were financed privately, the FZJ would have to forego any involvement, said Sagel.
The research center defended the project. No reactor would be developed, but safety analyzes would be carried out on behalf of the South African engineering company PBMR, said the FZJ's energy director, Gerd Eisenbeiß. Tax funds would not be used. Eisenbeiß admitted that the reactor would also produce 'to a certain extent' plutonium. The material is highly toxic and can be used to build atomic bombs. Nevertheless, the material is safely stored because South Africa has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty for Nuclear Weapons and is therefore subject to strict international controls.
The Federal Ministry of Science also defended the development activity. "The federal government approves," said a ministry spokesman. The project would transfer the high German security standards to South Africa. The FZJ will 'not immediately' bring the reactor to market readiness. "

In a letter to the editor in the “Westfälischer Anzeiger” (supraregional) dated January 08.01.2003th, XNUMX, Horst Blume commented on the behavior of those involved as follows: “If it comes out that Forschungszentrum Jülich is working on the further development of this ailing reactor in cooperation with the nuclear industry even under Rotgrün in the federal and state levels and even actively co-operates a new building in South Africa, then this says something about the understanding of democracy at this research center and these companies.
But the ministerial bureaucrats of the responsible ministries in Düsseldorf must also be asked why they did not hear or did not want to hear the full-bodied announcements trumpeted by the nuclear industry and its research and why they did nothing. The people in this region will have to be asked whether they have not too lightly, egocentrically and comfortably trusted that an already controversial and inadequate 'nuclear phase-out' would regulate everything. "

On January 10.01.2003, XNUMX, BI Environmental Protection Hamm wrote to the Embassy of South Africa, among other things:
“With our statements (on the THTR) we are also based on the critical assessment of the former and current chairman of the German Reactor Safety Commission Lothar Hahn and Michael Sailer, who both commented on the problem of the THTR.
In particular, Lothar Hahn, as an expert, took part in the special meeting of the City Council of Hamm on the disaster control plan of the THTR in 1985 and described the operation of this type of reactor as a 'dangerous large-scale test' which must be stopped as soon as possible. He declared the technology of the pebble bed reactor to have failed (see attachment). The current chairman of the German Reactor Safety Commission, Michael Sailer, comes to a critical assessment of the possibility of using the THTR to produce tritium for nuclear weapons (see attachment). The THTR was only in operation on 423 of a total of 1.600 approved full-load days; its utilization was less than 50%. (...) As a citizens' initiative that still has to deal with the consequences of this immature and dangerous technology, we can only warn against the construction of a PBMR. (...) "

The “Süddeutsche Zeitung” wrote on January 14.01.2003, 30: “The agreement negotiated between the Federal Ministry of Research and the State Ministry of Energy provides that the state will assume 90 percent of the demolition costs instead of the previous ten percent. The federal government only has to pay 70 percent instead of 200. The same key should also apply if dismantling becomes even more expensive. With demolition costs estimated at 20 million euros, the land will add at least another 60 million to the XNUMX million paid so far. An expensive farewell to the former state-owned nuclear research facility.
The redistribution came about after the federal government had pushed for a higher participation of Düsseldorf. Last summer, the Federal Audit Office had reprimanded the 'disastrous course of the project' and warned that the burdens should be redistributed. Operations in Jülich have been inactive for 15 years. While the reactor was aging, security and decommissioning measures have consumed more than 200 million euros to this day. The Federal Ministry of Research is particularly annoyed by the decommissioning contract signed at the end of the XNUMXs, which guaranteed that the federal government would assume the costs without stipulating anything in return.
The struggle with the operator of the research reactor, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR), was particularly tough. The joint venture between 15 municipal utilities and electricity companies had so far withdrawn from the position of not being responsible for the disposal of the bulky nuclear waste. The federal government is branding this as 'privatizing profits and nationalizing follow-up costs'. His leverage: the complicated legal situation. Should there be a lawsuit over the remains of the nuclear reactor, none of those involved could be sure that they would not get a larger share after all. Accordingly, the AVR should now contribute 15 million euros. "
On January 17.01.2003th, 6 the Ministry of Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia wrote to us: “We received your request of December 2002th, XNUMX. In the meantime, Mr. Rüdiger Sagel, member of the state parliament, has put similar questions to the state government as part of a small question. You will receive an answer as soon as the state parliament printed matter with the answer from the state government is available. "

The ministry for science and research of North Rhine-Westphalia answered the small inquiry of the member of parliament Rüdiger Sagel (Greens) from December 19.12.2002th, 31.01.2003 as follows:

1. Is it correct that the research center is involved in the planning and development for the construction of a so-called pebble bed modular reactor in South Africa?

Forschungszentrum Jülich is not involved in the planning and development of the modular South African pebble bed reactor. The institute for safety research and reactor technology of the research center carries out safety analyzes for reactor concepts of the type high-temperature reactor on behalf of the South African engineering company PBMR Ltd. by. The utility company ESKOM has a 30 percent stake in PBMR Ltd.

2. If so, what does this participation look like?

The research center is a contractor. The order volume is 300.000 to 500.000 euros annually. There is no public funding for the project.

3. If so, to what extent is this project developed and how does it develop further?

According to the information available here, the South African energy supply company ESKOM is preparing for approval steps for a high-temperature reactor. Since ESKOM is aiming to export the newly developed high-temperature reactor, not only the South African supervisory authority but also the International Atomic Energy Organization is involved. Construction has not yet started.

4. If so, how is the safety of this nuclear technology assessed, especially with regard to the possible use of uranium suitable for nuclear weapons?

The concept of the high-temperature reactor envisaged by ESKOM is based on the use of low-enriched uranium. This is not a nuclear weapon. As a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and as an accession partner to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, South Africa has submitted to the intended controls and restrictions - in particular non-disclosure. It has also acceded to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

5. If so, how are the activities and cooperation assessed against the background of the Automaus-Stiegsgesetz and Forschungszentrum Jülich's mandate to limit itself to safety-related issues?

In 1993/4 (...) and 1996/7 (...) the state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia dealt extensively with the nuclear safety research at Forschungszentrum Jülich. He came to the conclusion that the safety research for new reactor lines also corresponds to the statutory mandate of the research center, as long as it is not purely engineering services.
The justification of the law on the orderly termination of the use of nuclear energy allows safety research in the field of nuclear technology with reference to Article 5 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. The consensus agreement between the federal government and the energy supply companies also expressly confirms that research in the field of nuclear technology, in particular in the field of safety, remains free. The research center moves with the preparation of safety analyzes for PBMR Ltd. within the limits shown, so that no indication of a complaint is seen.
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research, which holds 90 percent of the shares in Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH on behalf of the federal government, takes the same point of view. The federal government emphasizes the point that any further development of nuclear energy in South Africa that cannot be prevented by Germany will be positively and correctively influenced by the Jülich safety analyzes. The research center deserves support with this transfer of safety standards. "

Rüdiger Sagel assesses the response of the state government in a press release on February 05.02.2003, XNUMX as follows:
“The issue is now becoming more and more mysterious as the ministry's nebulous response raises new questions. The answer also indicates that approval steps for the nuclear reactor are being prepared. The research center is actively helping to obtain this from the South African supervisory authority and the international atomic energy organization. The point here is not to make reactors that are already running safer for the rest of the operation, but to bring new reactors into operation. This is completely unacceptable and it also raises the question of whether this is covered by the consensus agreement on the nuclear phase-out between the federal government and the energy supply companies, as the ministry claims. In addition, according to the answer from the ministry, there are contradictions regarding the production of plutonium, which the board of directors of the research center previously admitted, but is now excluded.

On February 06.02.2003, XNUMX, the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" reported in its article "Jülich atomic research remains under criticism" on the key points of the state government's response, which Horst Blume commented in a letter to the editor as follows:
“The Internet presence of Forschungszentrum Jülich clearly shows that it sees itself as the engine and control center for the high-temperature reactor research and development that it began in the 60s, the culmination of which is of course the construction of this nuclear facility. Since the maintenance of the FZJ is financed from state and federal funds and the content control is under the sovereignty of two red-green governments, the nuclear phase-out is doubly questionable.
By supporting the new construction of the HTR line in South Africa, the FZJ is saving itself with its nuclear power-friendly efforts over two red-green legislative periods. After a change of government, the current CDU / CSU / FDP opposition announced in its minority vote of the Enquete Commission 'Sustainable Energy Supply' in 2002 that it would be massively promoting HTR technology and building numerous new nuclear facilities in Germany. The prerequisites for this have only been created in recent years. Thank you, Rotgrün! "

What the extremely high German safety standards for nuclear power plants look like in practice can be found in an article in the “Ruhrnachrichten” dated December 12, 12 about the work of the two engineers in the THTR's decommissioning: Developed a feeling for the THTR ', says the 2002-year-old Dortmund Reisch cryptically, referring to the thorium high-temperature reactor. 'We hear strange noises, we feel irregularities.' "
What do you first learn about radioactivity? You don't smell it, you don't feel it, you don't feel it ...

Actions for the Castor shunting yard in Hamm Top

Several decades ago, Hamm was referred to as the largest marshalling yard in Europe. Last year, a total of 45 Castor containers passed the train station and were linked here from different directions. For two years now, the Münster-based group WigA (resistance to nuclear facilities), together with numerous citizens' groups in the Münsterland, has been warning of the dangerous transports and has also carried out a variety of actions on the tracks.
On February 5th, a joint campaign by WigA and BI Environmental Protection Hamm took place for the first time. In the morning at 6 o'clock the common vigil began in front of the Hammer Hauptbahnhof. Not only were leaflets distributed and banners held up, but the long anti-nuclear caterpillar swept across the station forecourt and attracted the attention of a few thousand commuters. At 11.30 a.m., the two castors, who were on their way from the Grohnde nuclear power plant to LaHague, were stopped in Hamm-Pelkum by 15 demonstrators for 20 minutes. A helicopter and a hundred police officers were deployed, which ended peacefully. The media response in the various radio channels and in the local press from Münsterland and Hamm was very satisfactory. Until now, it was not clear to many people that Hamm would become the Castor shunting yard every few weeks.
At a joint event on February 10th in Hamm, the latest developments were analyzed and a future joint
Cooperation agreed. After the two transports on February 19 and 20, the next transports are expected for the beginning of March. If you want to take part in vigils or other activities, please contact Horst Blume (Tel .: 80495) or find out more about the very informative WigAtom website.

 

Dear readers!
Some recipients reacted to the appeal for donations in the last two issues and made it possible to continue to appear. In order to secure the existence in the long term, however, further donations are necessary and the circulation has to be reduced somewhat. This means that the newsletter can no longer be publicly displayed. Non-donors will no longer be able to receive the newsletter in the future.

***

Top

***

Donation appeal - The THTR-Rundbrief is published by 'BI Umwelt Hamm e. V. ' issued and financed by donations. - The THTR circular has meanwhile become a much-noticed information medium. However, there are ongoing costs due to the expansion of the website and the printing of additional information sheets. - The THTR circular researches and reports in detail. In order for us to be able to do that, we depend on donations. We are happy about every donation! Donations account: BI Umweltschutz Hamm Purpose: THTR circular IBAN: DE31 4105 0095 0000 0394 79 BIC: WELADED1HAM

***

Top

***