Upload
trandieu
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Regulatory Response and Changes to
Regulatory Framework Arising from the
Lessons Learned from the Fukushima
Accident
Ph. JAMET
Commissioner
International Conference on
Effective Nuclear Regulatory Systems:
Transforming Experience into Regulatory Improvements
Ottawa, 8 – 12 April 2013
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 2
Content
� Introduction to general European Nuclear
Safety Organization
� Stress Tests and European Peer Review Process
� Outcome of the European Peer Review
� Outcome of the French Stress Tests
� Regulatory Challenges and Evolutions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 3
General European Context for
Safety
� Safety is a national responsibility ( National Safety
Authority )
� National frameworks for safety comply with
European Directive
─ IAEA safety fundamentals
─ CNS
─ Report to European Commission
─ Peer review of national framework
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 4
ENSREG
� Created by the European Commission
� All European Regulators + European Commission
� Give advises to the European Commission
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 5
WENRA
� Private club of nuclear Regulators
� Non nuclear Regulators invited as observers
� Produce reference documents for European
harmonization
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 6
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 7
Content
� Introduction to general European Nuclear Safety
Organization
� Stress Tests and European Peer Review
Process
� Outcome of the European Peer Review
� Outcome of the French Stress Tests
� Regulatory Challenges and Evolutions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 8
First Responses toFukushima Accident
French Level
� Targeted inspections by ASN
� Request for Complementary Safety Assessment (French
stress tests) from French Prime Minister (23 March 2011)
European Level
� Request for European sress tests and peer review from
European Council (24 and 25 March 2011)
� Terms of reference for European stress tests and peer
review drafted by WENRA and endorsed by ENSREG
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 9
General Approach of Stress Tests
� Targeted reassessment of robustness and safety
margins of nuclear installations in light of the first
lessons learned from Fukushima
� Technical topics:
─ External hazards
─ Loss of safety systems
─ Severe accident management
� Complementary approach to the continuous
improvement process
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 10
Stress Tests and Peer Review Steps(NPP)
� June – 31 October:
─ Assessment of plants by operators requested by nationalRegulators
� 31 October – 1 January:
─ Review of operators assessments by national Regulators
─ National report to the EC
� 1 January – 26 April:
─ Peer review of national reports
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 11
European Peer Review
� 80 experts from all over Europe for 4
months
� First-of-a-kind opportunity to shareresults and compare practicesbetween European countries
� Output:
─ European level recommendations
─ National level recommendations
� Public outreach
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 12
Participants
Nuclear Member States• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Hungary
• Lithuania
• Netherlands
• Romania
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Sweden
• Spain
• United Kingdom
European Commission
Nuclear Non-Member States• Ukraine
• Switzerland
Non Nuclear Member States• Austria
• Denmark
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Poland
Observers• Canada
• Croatia
• IAEA
• Japan
• UAE
• USA
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 13
Content
� Introduction to general European Nuclear Safety
Organization
� Stress Tests and European Peer Review Process
� Outcome of the European Peer Review
� Outcome of the French Stress Tests
� Regulatory Challenges and Evolutions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 14
National Level Conclusions
� 17 country reports with specificrecommendations
(see ENSREG website)
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 15
European Level Conclusions (1)
� Periodic Safety Reviews (PSR) are
essential for continuous improvement
of safety─ Necessity to re-evaluate natural hazards at
least every 10 years
� Need for European guidance on
assessment of natural hazards and
margins─ WENRA task group to be established
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 16
European Level Conclusions (2)
� Need to maintain containment integrity─ Urgent implementation of recognized measures (H2
explosion prevention…), for NPPs where they are
not yet implemented
� Need to strengthen the robustness ofNPPs to beyond design situations, as a
way to prevent accidents resulting from
unforeseen/extreme natural hazards and to
limit their consequences─ Bunkered equipment,
─ Mobile equipment and off-site rescue teams to
assist site…
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 17
Emergency Preparedness
� Strong demand for a European initiative on off-siteemergency preparedness resulting from public
interaction.
─ This subject was not part of the mandate of the peer
review.
─ Important work to be performed at national and international
levels on management preparedness and post-accidental
planning
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 18
Content
� Introduction to general European Nuclear Safety
Organization
� Stress Tests and European Peer Review Process
� Outcome of the European Peer Review
� Outcome of the French Stress Tests
� Regulatory Challenges and Evolutions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 19
Specifics of French Approach
� Complementary safety assessment = French version ofstress tests
� Complementary safety assessment include:─ EPR (in construction)
─ Other installations than NPP
─ Social, organizational and human factors
� Highest priority installations (including all NPP) treated in2011, others from 2012 on
� Results of European peer review fully taken into account inASN positions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 20
Steps in ASN Positions
�3rd January 2012 ASN conclusions: formal report
and ASN’s opinion about stress
tests
�26th June 2012 ASN legally binding requirements
(license conditions) to Utilities on
improvements to be implemented
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 21
ASN general conclusion
after stress tests
“the facilities examined offer asafety level that is sufficient forASN not to request the immediateshutdown of any of them […]. Atthe same time, ASN considersthat continued operation of thefacilities requires that theirrobustness to extreme situationsbe increased beyond the existingsafety margins, as soon aspossible.”
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 22
Improvements expected
Need for a « hardened safety core »
(technical and organizational measures)which remains operational under conditions considered in the stress tests
Establish a Nuclear rapid response force for NPPs (specialist
crew and equipment within 24 h to the site)
Reinforced measures to reduce
the risk of dewatering of the
spent fuel pools
Feasibility studies to protect the groundwater and surface waters in
case of severe accident
Organizational & human
Factors are essential to
nuclear safety• Renewal of the licenseeworkforces and skills• Organisation of the use ofsubcontracting• Research on these topics
Strengthening of the deviation
processing system
Targeted strengthening of the regulatory safety requirements/guidance�Conformity of the facilities�Earthquake, Flooding�Risks linked to other industrial activities
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 23
Content
� Introduction to general European Nuclear Safety
Organization
� Stress Tests and European Peer Review Process
� Outcome of the European Peer Review
� Outcome of the French Stress Tests
� Regulatory Challenges and Evolutions
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 24
Follow-up of French Stress Tests
� Checking implementation of the new license conditions
� Review and revision of regulatory requirements/guidance related tonatural hazards (earthquake and flooding) and risks linked to otherindustrial activities located in the vicinity of nuclear installations
� Completing the stress test for nuclear installations that were not inpriority 1
� Human and organizational factors aspects: ASN established aspecific Committee on Social, Organisational and Human factors,involving licensees and stakeholders
� Continuing work on post accident management issues (CODIRPA)
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 25
Follow-up of European Stress tests and Peer Review
� Establishment of national action plan by each country
involved in European stress tests (end of 2012)
� ENSREG peer review of national action plans
─ Ongoing
─ Seminar (end of April 2012)
� Further monitoring of implementation of national action
plans
� WENRA reference levels and objectives review to take into
account the conclusions from stress tests and peer review
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 26
Evolution of Safety Approach
� In many cases, regulatory requirements following
Fukushima accident were established in a pragmatic way,
in view of preliminary lessons learned
� Full understanding of the TEPCO Fukushima accident will
be a long term process extending over several years
� Necessary in-depth examination and potential revision of
current safety approach (INSAG, NEA, ..)
─ Robustness assessment to be included in safety
demonstration?
─ Evolution of Defense in Depth concept?
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 27
Evolution of Safety Objectives (1)
� The accident at Fukushima confirmed that,
despite all the precautions that are taken for
safety, an accident is always possible.
� It now appears clearly, and has been endorsed in
the conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the
Contracting Parties to the CNS, that “nuclear
power plants should be designed, constructed and
operated with the objectives of preventing
accidents and, should an accident occur,
mitigating its effects and avoiding off-site
contamination.
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 28
Evolution of Safety Objectives (2)
� This objective now needs to be actually implemented.
─ For new NPPs
� It is consistent with WENRA safety objectives for new NPPs
(November 2010)
─ For existing NPPs.
� PSR of the existing reactors should be guided by this
objective of avoiding off-site contamination:
improvements should be implemented on the plants and
those which cannot meet the expectations should be shut
down.
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 29
Conclusion
� The necessary improvement of safety relies largelyon the action of the Regulators, for example byhaving the licensing basis updated.• The independence, the transparency and the rigorous
action of the Regulators are a necessary key to thisprocess.
� International cooperation is essential in thisprocess• Contribution to IAEA action plan (Update of safety
standards)
• High level commitment to peer reviews andtransparency of results (CNS, IRRS,…)
8 – 12 April 2013 International Conference on Effective Regulatory Systems 30