ENS /PIME 2004

SPANISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS COMUNICATION

BARCELONA, FEBRUARY 2004

Prepared by: Eugeni Vives

Almaraz I y II

Trillo I

J. Cabrera

Cofrentes

Garoña

Asco I y II

Vandellós II

9 units in 7 sites

SPANISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

2002 PRODUCTION2002 INSTALLED POWER.

ELECTRICAL POWER & PRODUCTION IN SPAIN

58,892 Million KWh 245,229 MilIion KW

35,5%

29,0%

12,5%

4,5%

9,0%

7,5%

2,0%

Coal + Petrol

Hydraulic

Nuclear

Gas

Cogeneration

Wind

Others

27,5%

11,0%

25,5%13,0%

12,0%

3,5%2,0%

5,5%

Coal

Hydraulic

Nuclear

Gas

Cogeneration

Wind

Others

Petrol

UNESA Source

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

70.000.000

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

7.000

7.100

7.200

7.300

7.400

7.500

7.600

7.700

7.800

7.900

MW

200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992199119901989

NUCLEAR GENERATION

INCREASE IN

OVERALL NUCLEAR CAPACITY

UNESA Source

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

OVERALL PERFORMANC

E INDICATORS

AVERAGE NUMBER

OF REACTOR SCRAMS

PER YEAR

CAPABILITY FACTOR

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

UNESA Source

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

12500

15000

17500

20000

22500

25000

27500

30000

32500

35000

NPP S MEDICAL RADIOACTIVE

FACILIT IES

INDUSTRIAL RADIOACTIVE

FACILIT IES

R & D FUEL / CYCLE + CIEMAT DECOMISSIONING TRANSPORT

68.659

542301.0904.304

5.725

6.597

Collective dose (mSv. People)

CSN Source

0

2

4

6

8

10

NPP S MEDICAL RADIOACTIVE

FACILIT IES

INDUSTRIAL RADIOACTIVE

FACILIT IES

R & D FUEL CYCLE + CIEMAT DECOMISSIONING TRANSPORT

2

Individual average dose ( mSv. /year)

0.821.28

0.37 0.410.87

3.65

CSN Source

ALL NPP ORGANIZATIONS HAS INCLUDED IN THEIR BUSINESS PLANS, A VOLUNTARY

SUBMISSION TO AN EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PERFORMED BY PRESTIGIOUS

ORGANIZATIONS AS A MANNER OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

ALMARAZ ASCÓ COFRENTES S.M.GAROÑA J . CABRERA TRILLO I VANDELLÓS I I

OSART 1987 2000 1990 2002

WANO 2002 2005 2003 1996 2001 2001

PEER

REVIEW

IOS 2001 2003 2000

SAFETY

ORGANIZATION

IMPACT

SOCIAL PERCEPTION -1DIMENSION SUBJ ECT % YES

I Do you think N.E. is expensive 72

Economical Do you think N.E. is cheaper then other energy sources 49

Dimension Do you think N.E. permit a lower dependence then petroleum 82

Do you think N.E. Fosters technological development 79

I I Do you think N.E. is clean 14

Ecological Do you think N.E. contaminats the atmosphere less then others E.S. 32

Dimension Should nuclear power stations shutdown in Spain 74

I I I Could we do without N.E. Like a energy source ( N.S.) 44

Generic Should we renonce to the use of N.E. Due to its risks 68

Risck Should we assume the N.E. Risk to be necesary 47

Assumption With respect to risk, N.E. I s dangerous 96

Universidad de A Coruña Source

Specifi c I s living near an nuclear power station has a radiological risk 92

Risck I s living near a nuclear waste storage has a radiological risk 95

Assumption

V Are N.E. risk controlable through saf ety measures 49

Saf ety & There is never enough control over N.E. risks 79

Control Are NPP control measures existing in Spain are suffi cient 20

Dimension Are our control measures with respect to Europe's inferior 46

Are our control measures with respect to USA inferior 55

Universidad de A Coruña Source

SOCIAL PERCEPTION –2

NUCLEAR In which of these fields would you like to see scientific and 1,3

ENERGY technological development witin the upcpming years

NUCLEAR In which of there fields do you think scientifics and technological 54,3

ENERGY development should be limited within the upcoming years

CIS Barometer

EXTERNAL COMUNICATION

•ALL PLANTS HAVE AN SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION

• NEWS FOLLOW UP

•SPOKESMAN

•VISITORS CENTRES

•ALL ACTIVITIES HAVE A HOMOGENOUS TREATMENT THROUGH

“ FORO DE LA INDUSTRIA NUCLEAR”

•COMUNICATION SUBJECTS

•MEANS

•POLITICIANS, INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS

•COUNTRY COMUNICATIONS

•SPAIN ( Foro nuclear)

•LOCAL ( NPP´s)

• MEDIA NOTES

• PRESS CONFERENCES

• JORNALIST SEMINARS

• JOURNALIST TRAINING COURSES THOUGH “ FORO NUCLEAR”

NPP’s COMUNICATION PLAN

• MEANS

• AUTHORITIES COMUNICATIONS

• CENTRAL GOUVERNEMENT DELEGATIONS

• LOCAL ADMINISTRATIONS

• AUTONOMOS GOUVERNEMENTS

• INFORMATION TRANSFER AND COORDINATION WITH UNESA

& FORO NUCLEAR BY AMAC ORGANIZATION

• UNESA ANNUAL REPORT

• SPANISH NUCLEAR SOCIETY MAGAZINES

• FORO NUCLEAR PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICAL REPORTS

• GENERAL NUCLEAR ENERGY

• NPP’s

• SPECIFIC PLANT ANNUAL SUMARY

• PERIODICAL INFORMATION TO AUTHORITIES,

INSTITUTIONS & JORNALISTS (MOUNTHLY,QUATERLY, BI-

ANNUAL )

2001 SEPT.11 EFFECTS

VISITOR CENTERS 60,000/YEAR 36,000/YEAR

INSTALLATIONS TURBINE BUILD. NO WHERE

VISITS INSIDE CONTROL ROOM EXTERNAL

DOUBLE FENCE EXT. AREAS DOUBLE FENCE

VIEW

MORE FRIENDLY MORE DISTANCE

PERCEPTIONS BETWEN PUBLIC BETWEN PUBLIC

& INSTALLATION & INSTALLATION

RESULTS MORE RISK PERCEPTION

BEFORE AFTER

• COMMERCIAL OPERATION JULY 1968

• JOSÉ CABRERA IS CURRENTLY AN UPDATED AND EFFICIENT N.P.P.

• THE AUTHORISATION IS UP TO THE YEAR 2006. TWO YEARS LESS

THEN THE EXPECT 40 YEAR DESIGN LIFE

Based on all this data

CONCLUSIONS

“We have a lot to do”“We have a lot to do”