Balancing safety and economics

The safety requirements of NPPs have always aimed at limiting societal risks. This risk approach initially resulted in deterministic design criteria and concepts. In the 1980s the paradigm ‘safety at all costs’ arose and often led to questionable backfitting measures. Conflicts between new requirements, classical design concepts and operational demands were often ignored. The design requirements for advanced reactors ensure enhanced protection against severe accidents. Still, it is questionable whether the ‘no-damage-outside-the-fence’ criteria can be achieved deterministically and at competitive costs. Market deregulation and utility privatisation call for a balance between safety and costs, without jeopardising basic safety concepts. An ideal approach must be risk-based and imply modern PSAs and new methods for cost–benefit and ALARA analyses, embed nuclear risks in a wider risk spectrum, but also make benefits transparent within the context of a broader life experience. Governments should define basic requirements, minimum standards and consistent comparison criteria, and strengthen operator responsibility. Internationally sufficient and binding safety requirements must be established and nuclear technology transfer handled in a responsible way, while existing plants, with their continuous backfitting investments, should receive particular attention.