IAEA Meeting

European Union Response to Fukushima – European Stress Tests and Peer Review
Philippe JAMET Chairman Stress Test Peer Review Board
International Experts’ Meeting on Reactor and Spent Fuel Safety in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant IAEA Headquarters, Vienna 20 March 2012

1
20 March 2012

1

Content
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Background Stress Tests Peer Review Public Outreach Conclusion

2
20 March 2012

General European Context
IAEA Meeting

• Safety is a national responsibility • National Frameworks comply with General European Safety Directive – IAEA Safety Fundamentals – CNS – Report to European Commission – Peer review of National Framework
1
20 March 2012

3

European Regulators Organizations
IAEA Meeting

• ENSREG: European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group + European Commission
– European policy advisory group

• WENRA: Western European Nuclear Regulator’s Association
– Club of Regulators

4
20 March 2012

WENRA and ENSREG
IAEA Meeting

Over 150 Facilities in 17 European countries
1
20 March 2012

5

IAEA Meeting

First European Steps in Reaction to Fukushima
• 11 March: Fukushima accident occurs • 24 – 25 March: European Council Request
– Stress tests to be developed by ENSREG, the Commission and WENRA – Review all EU plants in light of lessons learned from Japan – Assessments conducted by national Authorities – Assessments subject to a peer review

1
20 March 2012

6

Content
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Background Stress Tests Peer Review Public Outreach Conclusion

1
20 March 2012

7

Objective of Stress Tests
IAEA Meeting

• Targeted reassessment of safety margins and robustness of plants, in light of the Fukushima accident
– Natural Hazards – Loss of Safety Systems – Severe Accident Management

• Improvement of Plant Safety taking into account the first lessons learned from Fukushima • Security issues treated by a dedicated ad-hoc group
8
20 March 2012

Specification of Stress Tests
IAEA Meeting

• Methodology drafted by WENRA in April • Approved by ENSREG in May • Specification of EU Stress Tests published by ENSREG and European Commission on 25 May 2011
9
20 March 2012

Stress Tests Steps
IAEA Meeting

1 June: National Regulators formulate request based on ENSREG Specification 15 September: Operators produce reports responding to National Regulators’ requests 1 January: Regulators transmit National Reports to the European Commission assessing Operators’ responses
10

20 March 2012

General Approach (1)
IAEA Meeting

• Assessment of current situation – Current Safety Requirements (Design Basis) in particular for earthquake and flooding – Compliance with current Safety Requirements – Regulatory oversight, Periodic Safety Reviews, evidence of improvement

11
20 March 2012

General Approach (2)
IAEA Meeting

• Robustness of Plants – Assessment of robustness beyond Design Basis: identification of margins and cliff edge effects – Strong features and possible improvements – Further actions and requests from Regulators

12
20 March 2012

Natural Hazards
IAEA Meeting

13
20 March 2012

Natural Hazards Margin Assessment
IAEA Meeting

• Continuous increase of severity of External Hazards (Earthquake, Flood,…) • Corresponding destruction or unavailability of Systems, Structures and Components up to core melt • Identification of cliff edge effects and margins • Identification of strong features and weaknesses • Possible improvements
14
20 March 2012

Loss of Safety Systems (1)
IAEA Meeting

15
20 March 2012

Loss of Safety Systems (2)
IAEA Meeting

1
20 March 2012

16

Loss of Safety Systems Cliff Edge Effects
IAEA Meeting

• Assumption that more and more electrical systems are lost • Assumption that heat sink is lost • Combination of both • Assessment of time before core damage • Identification of strong features and weaknesses • Possible improvements
17
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management (1)
IAEA Meeting

18
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management (2)
IAEA Meeting

19
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management (3)
IAEA Meeting

20
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management Robustness (1)
IAEA Meeting

Assessment of accident management organization and equipments in case of extreme conditions
– – – – – – Destruction of infrastructure Isolation of site Devastation of site Accident affecting multiple units Radioactive releases and high dose rates Unavailability of instrumentation and communication

21
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management Robustness (2)
IAEA Meeting

• Protection of containment integrity
– Hydrogen explosion – Pressurization – Vessel melt through

• Cooling of core and spent fuel pool • Necessary conditions to allow accident management by Operators (radiation protection, equipment, outside support, procedures, training)
22
20 March 2012

Severe Accident Management Robustness (3)
IAEA Meeting

• Identification of strong features and weaknesses • Possible improvements

23
20 March 2012

Preliminary Results from National Regulator Reports
IAEA Meeting

• •

Safety improvements have been identified by all Operators and National Regulators Countries are at different stages of implementation
– In some countries decisions have been made and plant modifications are underway or in place – In other countries actions are just now being considered and have not yet been implemented
24

20 March 2012

Examples of Safety Improvements
IAEA Meeting

• • • • • •

Full implementation or improvements to severe accident mitigation guidelines Installation of containment vents or filtered containment vents Use of mobile equipment to provide electricity or cooling water Strategies to increase battery time Protection of severe accident equipment from extreme natural hazards Response teams to provide external assistance quickly following an accident
25

20 March 2012

Hard Core for Extreme Situations
IAEA Meeting

• •

“Hard Core” of material and organizational measures to manage basic safety functions in extreme situations – Prevent a severe accident or limit its progression – Limit large-scale releases in a severe accident – Enable the operator to perform emergency management duties Designed to withstand much more severe conditions than design basis of the plants Implementation decided for a significant proportion of European plants
26

20 March 2012

Content
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Background Stress Tests Peer Review Public Outreach Conclusion

1
20 March 2012

27

IAEA Meeting

Overall Objectives of the Peer Review
• IMPROVE SAFETY • Ensure that no important issues have been overlooked • Give National Regulators information for consideration of good practices and further improvements

28
20 March 2012

Peer Review Definition
IAEA Meeting

• WENRA prepared first draft in June • Involvement of Stakeholders • Methodology endorsed by ENSREG on 12 October

1
20 March 2012

29

Peer Review Scope and Deliverables
IAEA Meeting

• Review of National Reports written by Regulators by experts designated by Regulators (no Operator) • Final report with 17 country reports as annexes to be transmitted to ENSREG on 25 April

30
20 March 2012

IAEA Meeting

Challenges
• • • • • • Over 150 reactors 17 countries with nuclear power 80 reviewers from over 20 participating countries Different designs Different regulatory regimes Very short time line
31

1
20 March 2012

Peer Review Timeline
IAEA Meeting

32
20 March 2012

Peer Review Process
IAEA Meeting

Board Oversight
Topical Reviews in 3 teams:
-External Hazards -Loss of Safety Systems -Severe Accident Management
Draft Topical Reports and Draft Country Reports

Country Reviews:
6 teams in parallel

Peer Review Report

Country Reports

33
20 March 2012

Board
IAEA Meeting

• Chairman - Philippe JAMET (France) • Vice-Chairman – Antoni GURGUI (Spain) • Project Manager – Petr KRS (Czech Republic) • Group 1 Leader – David SHEPHERD (United Kingdom) • Group 2 Leader – Ervin LISKA (Sweden) • Group 3 Leader – Joseph MISAK (Slovak Republic) • Non-nuclear State Rep. – Andreas MOLIN (Austria) • EU Commission Rep. – Massimo GARRIBBA (EC) _________________ • Secretariat – Mark NOEL (EC) • Communication task force advising the Board - Claire Lyons (UK) ENSREG approved the Board on 7 November 34

20 March 2012

Participants
IAEA Meeting

Nuclear Member States • Belgium • Bulgaria • Czech Republic • Finland • France • Germany • Hungary • Lithuania • Netherlands • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Sweden • Spain • United Kingdom
35

Non Nuclear Member States • Austria • Denmark • Greece • Italy • Ireland • Luxembourg • Poland Nuclear Non-Member States • Ukraine • Switzerland European Commission

20 March 2012

Observers
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Canada Croatia Japan UAE USA

• IAEA

36
20 March 2012

IAEA Meeting

Desk-Top Review
• 1 January: Peer Review started with desk-top review
– All National Reports reviewed – Over 1800 questions posted – First version of Country Reports drafted

• 27 January: Questions grouped, prioritized and sent to National Regulators
1
20 March 2012

37

Topical Review
IAEA Meeting

• 5 February Topical Review began in Luxembourg (2 weeks) • Review of national reports topic by topic
– – – – 80 participants 51 review sessions conducted over 6 days 6 days of report writing with full topical teams 2 additional days of report writing with team leaders and deputy team leaders – Plenary sessions
38
20 March 2012

Country Reviews
IAEA Meeting

• Currently in progress until the end of March 2012 • 6 teams • 4 days in each country • One plant visit in each Country • Complete previous Topical Reviews • Finalize country reports
1
20 March 2012

39

Final Tasks
IAEA Meeting

• • • •

Finalize Final Report Present results to ENSREG in April Make the Final Report public Host public meeting to share results

40
20 March 2012

Preliminary Results
IAEA Meeting

• • • •

Considerable work has been done by all counties in the context of the stress tests All Operators and Regulators have taken actions to improve safety Peer Review is beneficial and requires very significant resources IAEA Safety Standards and WENRA Reference Levels are very useful references for such an international exercise
41

1
20 March 2012

Content
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Background Stress Tests Peer Review Public Outreach Conclusion

1
20 March 2012

42

Public Outreach
IAEA Meeting

• Public Stakeholder Meeting on 17 January on Peer Review process • Second Public Stakeholder Meeting to present the results (May 2012) • ENSREG web site
– Public meetings conclusions and slides – Periodic status updates – Other relevant notices

• Possibility given to stakeholders to post questions for the Peer Review
43
20 March 2012

17 January Public Event
ENSREG Meeting IAEA Meeting

• Public Event held in Brussels • Meeting well attended ~180 people • Most European Countries represented
– Regulators – Industry – Labor Unions – Local Communities – NGOs
44
24 March 2012 20 February2012

Global Appreciation
IAEA Meeting

• Stakeholders openly expressed their views • Stress tests and peer review draw significant interest and are generally seen positively • General agreement on scope of Stress Tests and Peer Review • Strong desire for tangible results
1
20 March 2012

45

Comments/Criticisms
IAEA Meeting

• Many comments suggesting Stress Tests and Peer Review should go further
– Airplane crash – Comprehensive safety assessment – Offsite emergency preparedness

1
20 March 2012

46

Content
IAEA Meeting

• • • • •

Background Stress Tests Peer Review Public Outreach Conclusion

1
20 March 2012

47

Conclusion (1)
IAEA Meeting

• Peer review progressing on schedule, to be completed in April • Significant resources have been involved over the past three months • Many observers have been invited to follow the European effort
1
20 March 2012

48

Conclusion (2)
IAEA Meeting

Europe is willing to share internationally the Stress Tests and Peer Review experience and results Revision of the IAEA Safety Standards and implementation of the Agency post-Fukushima Action Plan are examples where European Stress Tests and Peer Review could provide contributions to the international effort.
49

1
20 March 2012

Conclusion (3)
IAEA Meeting

• Europe is committed to be strongly involved in the actions aimed at drawing lessons from the Fukushima and improving safety at the international level.

50
20 March 2012

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful