European Union Response to Fukushima
50
20 March 2012 IAEA Meeting 1 1 1 European Union Response to Fukushima – European Stress Tests and Peer Review 20 March 2012 IAEA Meeting 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
-
Upload
iaeainformation -
Category
Documents
-
view
310 -
download
1
description
Plenary Session, Tuesday, 20.03.2012Philipe Jamet, Chairman, Stress Test Review Board
Transcript of European Union Response to Fukushima
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
11
1
European Union Response to Fukushima – European Stress
Tests and Peer Review
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Philippe JAMETChairman
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, Vienna20 March 2012
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2
Content
• Background• Stress Tests• Peer Review• Public Outreach• Conclusion
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
31
320 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
General European Context
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
4
European Regulators Organizations
• ENSREG: European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group + European Commission– European policy advisory group
• WENRA: Western EuropeanNuclear Regulator’s Association– Club of Regulators
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
51
520 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
WENRA and ENSREG
Over 150 Facilities in 17 European countries
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
61
620 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
71
720 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Content
• Background• Stress Tests• Peer Review• Public Outreach• Conclusion
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
8
Objective of Stress Tests
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
9
Specification of Stress Tests
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1010
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Stress Tests Steps
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1111
General Approach (1)
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1212
General Approach (2)
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1313
Natural Hazards
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
14
Natural Hazards Margin Assessment
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1515
Loss of Safety Systems (1)
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
161
1620 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Loss of Safety Systems (2)
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
17
Loss of Safety SystemsCliff Edge Effects
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
1818
Severe Accident Management (1)
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
19
Severe Accident Management (2)
•
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20
Severe Accident Management (3)
•
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2121
Severe Accident Management Robustness (1)
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
22
Severe Accident Management Robustness (2)
• 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)
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
23
Severe Accident Management Robustness (3)
• Identification of strong features and weaknesses
• Possible improvements
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2424
Preliminary Results from National Regulator Reports
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2525
Examples of Safety Improvements
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2626
Hard Core for Extreme Situations
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
271
2720 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Content
• Background• Stress Tests• Peer Review• Public Outreach• Conclusion
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
2828
• IMPROVE SAFETY• Ensure that no important issues have
been overlooked • Give National Regulators information
for consideration of good practices and further improvements
Overall Objectives of the Peer Review
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
291
2920 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Peer Review Definition
• WENRA prepared first draft in June• Involvement of Stakeholders• Methodology endorsed by ENSREG
on 12 October
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
30
Peer Review Scope and Deliverables
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
311
31
Challenges
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
• Over 150 reactors • 17 countries with nuclear power• 80 reviewers from over 20
participating countries• Different designs • Different regulatory regimes • Very short time line
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
3232
Peer Review Timeline
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
3333
Peer Review Process
Topical Reviews in 3 teams:-External Hazards-Loss of Safety Systems-Severe Accident Management
Country Reviews:6 teams in parallel
Country ReportsPeer Review Report
Draft Topical Reports and Draft Country Reports
Board Oversight
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
3434
Board• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
3535
Nuclear Member States• Belgium• Bulgaria• Czech Republic• Finland• France • Germany• Hungary• Lithuania• Netherlands • Romania• Slovakia• Slovenia• Sweden• Spain • United Kingdom
Non Nuclear Member States• Austria• Denmark• Greece• Italy• Ireland• Luxembourg• Poland
Nuclear Non-Member States• Ukraine• Switzerland
European Commission
Participants
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
36
Observers
• Canada• Croatia• Japan • UAE• USA
• IAEA
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
371
37
Desk-Top Review
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
38
Topical Review
• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
391
39
Country Reviews
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
40
Final Tasks
• Finalize Final Report• Present results to ENSREG in April• Make the Final Report public• Host public meeting to share results
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
411
41
Preliminary Results
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
421
4220 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Content
• Background• Stress Tests• Peer Review• Public Outreach• Conclusion
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
4343
Public Outreach• 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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
4444
17 January Public Event
24 February 2012
ENSREG Meeting
• Public Event held in Brussels • Meeting well attended ~180 people• Most European Countries represented
– Regulators– Industry– Labor Unions– Local Communities – NGOs
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
451
45
Global Appreciation
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
461
46
Comments/Criticisms
• Many comments suggesting Stress Tests and Peer Review should go further– Airplane crash– Comprehensive safety assessment– Offsite emergency preparedness
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
471
4720 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
Content
• Background• Stress Tests• Peer Review• Public Outreach• Conclusion
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
481
48
Conclusion (1)
20 March 2012
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
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
491
49
Conclusion (2)
20 March 2012
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.
20 March 2012
IAEA Meeting
50
Conclusion (3)
• Europe is committed to be strongly involved in the actions aimed at drawing lessons from the Fukushima and improving safety at the international level.
![ASME's Response to Fukushima Events [互換モード]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/6174a8e9f529425496799ee7/asmes-response-to-fukushima-events-.jpg)
