Energy

Nuclear stress Nuclear stress tests and follow tests and follow up in Europeup in Europe

Brussels, 25 May 2012Brussels, 25 May 2012

Nina Commeau Nina Commeau Adviser to the Deputy Director-General in Adviser to the Deputy Director-General in charge of nuclear energycharge of nuclear energy

Directorate-General for EnergyDirectorate-General for EnergyEuropean CommissionEuropean Commission 1

Energy

Nuclear Stress tests

Tree step process to assess the ability of the EU nuclear power plant to safely resist and cope with extreme events

2

Energy

• What have we learned from the stress tests ?

A new EU nuclear governance approach

A new EU methodology

3

Energy

A.A. Nuclear governanceNuclear governanceStress tests: Commission mandateStress tests: Commission mandate• 15 March 2011: High Level Conference• 24-25 March 2011: European Council:

comprehensive andtransparent risk andsafety assessments

similar stress testsshould be carried outin the neighbouringcountries and worldwide

revision of the legal andregulatory framework

4

Energy

All stakeholders closely involved in the All stakeholders closely involved in the work preparation and during the processwork preparation and during the process

main lines drafted by WENRA in April

agreed to by ENSREG in May

published on 25 May 2011by ENSREG and the Commission

5

Energy

Participation :Member statesParticipation :Member states

• All 14 EUMember Statesthat operate nuclearpower facilities,+ Lithuania,

• Without any legal obligation

6

Energy

And neighbouring countriesAnd neighbouring countries• Meeting in June 2011:

signature of a Joint Declaration• Follow-up meeting next April• State of play:

Switzerland and Ukraineparticipate fully

Armenia and Russia have agreed to carry out assessments taking into account EU specifications

Croatia has a special observer status(it co-owns an NPP in Slovenia)

Belarus and Turkey are involved but do not have operating plants 7

Energy

B. New methodology B. New methodology Stress tests: featuresStress tests: features• They go beyond safety evaluations during the

licensing process and periodic reviews• The aim: assess whether safety margins are

sufficient to cover various unexpected events• Conducted on a voluntary basis in three-

steps: licensees (nuclear operators, report Oct 2011) independent national authorities (regulators, Dec.

2011)8

Energy

A democratic approach : transparencyA democratic approach : transparency

• All reports (national, peer review, Commission) have been or will be published

• All stakeholders are closely involved• Public meetings with stakeholders:

17 January, Brussels 8 May, Brussels

• Web pages dedicated to public engagement: www.ensreg.eu/EU-Stress-Tests/Public-engagement possibility to submit suggestions for the

peer-review process (in January and in April)9

Energy

Peer reviews: featuresPeer reviews: features• They aim to ensure credibility and

accountability• Peer review teams:

experts from Member States (nuclear and non-nuclear) and from the European Commission

• Board supervising the process: national regulators, non-nuclear countries,

Commission; chaired by P. Jamet (ASN, FR)• Deliverables:

Country Reports Peer Review Summary Report (June 2012)

10

Energy

Peer reviews: structurePeer reviews: structure

11

Energy

Peer reviews: timetablePeer reviews: timetable

12

Energy

C. Follow-upC. Follow-up• Ensure continuous improvement in nuclear

safety • Implementation of recommendations

and concrete measures made in the report are of national responsibility

• Expected to provide a basisfor legislative or non-legislativeproposals that the Commissionmay put forward

13

Energy

Revision of the EU safety frameworkRevision of the EU safety framework• Public consultation

(from December 2011 to February 2012):http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/consultations/20120229_euratom_en.htm

• End 2012 or 2013 : Commission proposals• Main areas for legislative improvements:

Nuclear safety directive (2009) to be revised Nuclear safety governance (international convention) Emergency preparedness and response

(improvement of MS mechanisms) Nuclear liability regimes (might be a Directive) Scientific and technological competence

(research) 14

Energy

• World governance • Partnership with the IAEA to strengthen

safety culture and emergency preparedness

• Need to revise the international legal framework (IAEA Nuclear Safety Convention) to increase its:• effectiveness,• governance, and• enforceability

15

Energy

• CONCLUSION• - To be underlined : first exercise of its kind• No EU or international guidance existed• - Some differences appeared between MS as

definition of extreme weather or level of details

• -Such stress tests peer review couldn't be carried out each year in a similar level of details

• -The efforts by operators, regulators and the EC can be quantified around 500 million euros and 500 man hours.

16

Energy

17