Transcript Folie 1

RHWG
Status report
WENRA Plenary meeting, Geneva, March 2015
Reactor Harmonization Working Group (RHWG)
Fabien FERON
RHWG chair
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
1
1
Agenda
• RHWG meetings
• Ongoing work
–
–
–
–
Post-Fukushima actions
Topical work
Reference Levels
EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review
• Future activities
• Requests to WENRA
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
2
RHWG meetings
• Since last WENRA meeting :
– January 2015 : RHWG meeting in Helsinki
• Upcoming RHWG meetings :
– May 2015 : Bratislava (Slovakia)
– September 2015 : Bulgaria
– January 2016 : Switzerland
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
3
Agenda
• RHWG meetings
• Ongoing work
–
–
–
–
Post-Fukushima actions
Topical work
Reference Levels
EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review
• Future activities
• Requests to WENRA
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
4
RHWG on-going work: summary
DEEPER project
2014
RLs
Guidance on natural hazards
Post Fukushima actions
Reference Levels
Follow-up on transposing 2008 RLs
into national regulatory framework
RHWG
Follow-up on transposing 2014 RLs
into national regulatory framework
Review and, as necessary, revision
of 2014 RLs
Passive systems
Follow-up on implementation of
2014 RLs at NPPs
Practical elimination
Survey on F4.7 (heat removal in
DEC)
March 2015
Topical work
EU Nuclear
Safety Directive
Topical Peer
Review
WENRA spring meeting 2015
5
RHWG on-going work: post Fukushima actions (1/4)
• DEEPER project (paper collection of reactor basic factsheets)
– Spreadsheet content specification adjusted to benefit from experience
gained through the data trial exchange
– Trial data exchange
• Countries having provided at least one (partial) filled spreadsheet to GRS :
Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK, Sweden,
Switzerland
• A few information needs better specification
• Other countries to provide at least one filled spreadsheet before next RHWG
meeting
– Next steps : at next RHWG meeting :
• Termination or continuation of the trial period
• Discussion on a process to verify the “quality” of data submitted
►Question to WENRA : DEEPER ? IAEA EPRIMS (Emergency
Preparedness and Response Information Management System)
initiative
– IAEA Note Verbale of December 2014
– Expected EPRIMS implementation year: 2015
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
6
RHWG on-going work: post Fukushima actions (2/4)
• Guidance on natural hazards
– T1 group established by WENRA in May
2012 (UK leads)
• T.1 Natural hazards : “WENRA will produce
updated harmonised guidance for the
identification of natural hazards, their
assessment and the corresponding assessment
for “cliff-edge” (margins) effects. Safety
Reference Levels will be updated accordingly.”
2014 RLs
Issue T
Head Guidance
Document
Guidance on
seismic hazards
– 2014 set of RLs includes a new issue “T” on
natural hazards
– T1 group has developed/is developing :
Guidance on
flooding hazards
• A head guidance document
• Hazard specific guidance documents (seismic
hazards, flooding hazards, meteorological
hazards)
Guidance on
Meteorological
hazards
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
7
RHWG on-going work: post Fukushima actions (3/4)
• Head guidance document on
Table of content of the guidance
natural hazards
– Meeting with ENISS in September
2014
– RHWG made a partial (~80%) review
of the draft during its October 2014
meeting
– T1 group updated the draft
accordingly
– RHWG made a full review of the draft
during its January 2015 meeting. A
few changes were introduced after
discussing them with T1 lead.
►RHWG view is that the draft is
now
ready
for
WENRA
endorsement then publication on
WENRA website
 WENRA
decision ?
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
00
01
02
03
Introduction
Objective
Identification of natural hazards
Site specific natural hazard
screening and assessment
04 Definition of design basis events
05 Protection against design basis
events
06 Considerations for events more
severe than the design basis
07 Reviews of the site specific
natural hazards
References
List of acronyms
Appendix 1: Non-exhaustive List of
Natural Hazard Types
8
RHWG on-going work: post Fukushima actions (4/4)
• Hazard specific guidance documents
– Work on the 3 drafts was put on hold by T1 group as efforts were devoted
to finalize the RLs of issue T, then to complete the head guidance
document on natural hazards
– T1 group to finalize the 3 drafts by end of April 2015
• A T1 group meeting mid-March 2015 is scheduled
• Document structure should follow the one of the head guidance document.
Specific guidance should be consistent with head guidance
• Status report at RHWG May 2015 meeting
– RHWG discussed the RHWG review process of these 3 drafts,
acknowledging their more technical nature, and agreed on
• Written commenting period during May and June 2015, enabling all RHWG
members/observers to consult their national experts (not all are in T1)
• Update of the drafts + comment disposition table ready by early September
so that final draft can be reviewed at RHWG September 2015 meeting,
hopefully discussing only remaining concerns (if any).
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
9
Topical work
Passive systems
(1/2)
• Goal: develop a position paper on specific issues that should be
•
•
taken into account to demonstrate the safety of plant with passive
safety systems
Working group established : France, Belgium, Finland, Germany
Preliminary workplan presented to RHWG
– Identification of publications (IAEA, US-NRC…) relevant to the topic
– No internationally agreed clear definition of a passive system
• Need to clarify the definition of a “passive safety system” in WENRA countries
and to agree on what is the meaning of “passive systems” in the future WENRA
paper
• Questionnaire under development
– Potential topics to be discussed : failure mode analysis and reliability data
(PSA modeling), qualification and testing (initial and during plant
operation/outage)…
– First meeting of the working group in a few days
Refine the workplan, progress on the topics to be addressed and
report at next RHWG meeting
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
10
Topical work
Passive systems
(2/2)
• IAEA definitions/examples:
– Safety Glossary (2007) : A passive component is “a component whose
functioning does not depend on an external input such as actuation,
mechanical movement or supply of power.
A passive component has no moving part, and, for example, only experiences a
change in pressure, in temperature or in fluid flow in performing its functions. In
addition, certain components that function with very high reliability based on
irreversible action or change may be assigned to this category”.
Examples of passive components are heat exchangers, pipes, vessels, electrical
cables and structures.
Certain components, such as rupture discs, check valves, safety valves, injectors
and some solid state electronic devices, have characteristics which require special
consideration before designation as an active or passive component”
– TECDOC-626: “a passive system is either a system which is composed
entirely of passive components and structures or a system which uses active
components in a very limited way to initiate subsequent passive operation
• Appendix A provides a table with 4 categories of passivity from the most passive
“features” to the less passive ones
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
11
Topical work
Practical elimination
(1/)
• Goal: Develop a position paper on what is expected for the
•
application and demonstration of practical elimination
Working group established: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,
Slovenia
• Preliminary workplan presented to RHWG
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Identification of situations to be practically eliminated
Deterministic approach to demonstration of PE
Probabilistic approach to demonstration of PE
Differences in the application of PE to new, and existing plants
Demonstration of PE via “physical impossibility”
Application of the PE concept to external hazards:
Ensuring that provisions for PE remain effective throughout the lifetime
of the plant
– First draft position paper in January 2016, for review by RHWG at the
January and May 2016 meetings
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
12
Topical work
Practical elimination
(2/)
Perform a survey, based on a questionnaire, on whether
quantitative values are used in WENRA countries to support
demonstration of practical elimination (PSA), either in
regulations and regulatory guidance or in the regulator/TSO inhouse review procedures.
• Answers to be summarized at next RHWG meeting
Workplan was found appropriate.
• Still an open question on whether practical elimination of
external hazards will be addressed
• First meeting of the working group in March 2015
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
13
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – follow-up on 2008 RLs (1/2)
• Follow-up on transposing 2008 RLs into national regulatory
framework : status at the end of 2014
300
0
0
0
10
34
270
0
0
0
48
0
12
52
0
34
94
240
210
187
180
150
120
90
60
30
Ita
l
L
Th
ith y
eN
ua
n
et
h e ia
r la
nd
Ro s
m
a
Sl
ov nia
ak
Re
p.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Sw
Sw ede
Un itze n
r la
it e
nd
d
Ki
ng
do
m
lg
Cz aria
ec
h
Re
p
Fin .
la
nd
Fr
an
Ge ce
rm
an
Hu y
ng
ar
y
Bu
Be
lg
iu
m
0
Already harmonised
March 2015
In progress but not yet harmonised
WENRA spring meeting 2015
14
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – follow-up on 2008 RLs
(2/2)
• At the end of 2014, there is still on-going work in some WENRA
•
countries to implement in their national framework the 2008
RLs.
In 2014, there has been progress towards this goal. In particular,
new texts were published in France and Switzerland.
End of 2013
March 2015
End of 2014
WENRA spring meeting 2015
15
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
RHWG September
2014 meeting
WENRA fall 2014
meeting
(1/8)
RHWG January
2015 meeting
Overall approach
-Review phase
-Revision phase
Approval for the review
and revision of 2014RLS
Clarification of detailed process
Definition of next steps
Need to better address
internal hazards and non
natural external hazards
Approval for the development of
a new issue on “other hazards”
Workplan for the development
of RLs on others hazards
Status report
Status report on outcome of
review phase
Initiation of review phase
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
16
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
(2/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : process followed
– The overall approach was discussed at the RHWG September
2014 Berlin meeting.
– The first step was to make an initial review of most issues (i.e.
not those reviewed as part of the post-Fukushima update).
– Were excluded from this review :
- Issues E (design basis envelope), F (design extension), LM (EOP and
SAMGs), P(PSR) as extensive review was performed as part of postFukushima work
- Issue T (natural hazards), which was established in 2014
• An issue group leader was designated to perform the review and get
feedback from RHWG members on whether (or not) a detailed review
and probably revision is needed on the issue.
– Development of a new issue on internal hazards
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
17
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : preliminary review
(3/8)
Issue A
Safety Policy
Switzerland
Issue K
Maintenance, ISI and UK
Functional Testing
Issue B
Operating Organisation
Spain
Issue LM
EOP and SAMGs
Issue C
Management System
Hungary
Issue N
Contents
and Sweden
Updating of SAR
Issue D
Issue O
PSA
Issue P
Periodic
Review
Issue F
Training and Authorization Bulgaria
of NPP Staff
Design Basis Envelope for /
Existing Reactors
Design Extension of Existing /
Reactors
Issue Q
Plant Modifications
Issue G
Safety Classification of SSCs
Finland
Issue R
Issue H
Operational Limits
Conditions (OLCs)
and France
Issue S
On-site Emergency Austria
Preparedness
Protection
against Germany
Internal Fires
Issue I
Ageing Management
Issue T
Natural Hazards
Issue J
System for Investigation of Slovenia
Events and OEF
Issue E
March 2015
Germany
WENRA spring meeting 2015
/
Slovakia
Safety /
18
Czech Rep
/
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs (4/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : preliminary review results
Issue
Title
No update
needed
Further review
(IAEAI…)
Limited
update
Significant
update

Issue A
Safety Policy
Issue B
Operating Organisation

Issue C
Management System

Issue D
Training and Authorization of NPP Staff

Issue G
Safety Classification of Structures, SSCs

Issue H
Operational Limits and Conditions (OLCs)

Issue I
Ageing Management

Issue J
System for Investigation of Events and OEF

Issue K
Maintenance, ISI and Functional Testing
Issue N
Contents and Updating of Safety Analysis Report

Issue O
Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA)

Issue Q
Plant Modifications
Issue R
On-site Emergency Preparedness
Issue S
Protection against Internal Fires
March 2015



WENRA spring meeting 2015
19
Interface
with new
issue on
hazards
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
(5/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps
– Issues where further review is needed to decide on revision
• Issue B: investigate benefit of shifting some RLs from issue B to issue C or J;
• Issue C: review should take account IAEA DS456 draft (update of GS-R-3) which
should be available before 2015 summer;
• Issue D: determine whether qualification of contractors, content of training
programs, requalification and leadership;
• Issue G: determine whether IAEA SSG-30 impacts some RLs;
• Issue R: review should take account the recently approved GSR Part 7, to the EU
Nuclear Safety Directive, and to the HERCA-WENRA approach;
• Issue H: develop a survey to get a view of WENRA practices for
accepting/refusing “derogations” to OLC and whether such derogation are (or
not) considered temporary modifications of OLC.
Report review result at next RHWG meeting
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
20
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
(6/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps
– For the issues requiring significant updates, work groups
have been established to revise the RLs.
•
•
•
•
Issue I: Germany and Belgium;
Issue J: Slovenia, Austria, France, Finland and Germany
Issue S: Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland;
Issue Q: Czech Republic + ? (volunteers to be confirmed).
Draft updated RLs to be available for next RHWG meeting
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
21
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
(7/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps
– New issue on internal hazards for existing reactors
• The objectives are to develop new RLs for hazards not yet addressed
in RLs:
– Internal hazards other than fire. Internal hazards = hazards occurring inside the
site (“site” is defined in the IAEA Safety Glossary as, typically, the area within the
security perimeter fence or other designated property marker)
– Human-induced external hazards.
• Work group : Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, France and
Switzerland
• Preliminary review of IAEA safety standards and WENRA country
regulations was performed to identify hazards to be addressed
• Workplan developed
• Choice on the structure of issue(s) (i.e. 1 or 2 issues on hazards,
combination with issues S or T) will be made later, once a mature
draft of new RLs is available.
First draft of the RLs on “Human-induced hazards” to be ready for
next RHWG meeting and progress report on development of RLs
on internal hazards.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
22
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs
(8/8)
• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps
– General criteria for acceptable changes to the RLs were suggested :
• they should cover important issues that are significant to safety.
• they should cover areas where difference in substance might be expected.
– it would help in further harmonization of safety within Europe.
• they should be high-level changes and may be implemented in all countries.
– it would not be better to just add these changes in guidance documents.
• they should not be only wording changes without any impact on safety.
– if introduced, they would actually result in changes at the plants.
– A RHWG coordination group is established (UK, Austria, France,
Germany, Slovakia)
• To review all revised RLs/issues to ensure consistency between issues
• To check appropriate application of the general criteria
• To report its views to RHWG
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
23
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(1/7)
WENRA statement
…
WENRA members are committed to
continuous improvement of nuclear safety in
their countries. Within this spirit WENRA
emphasizes identifying the insights from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in March 2011
and operators improving NPP safety
accordingly. For this purpose, WENRA
mandated its Reactor Harmonization Working
Group (RHWG) to review and revise the SRLs
for existing reactors with the aim to integrate
the lessons learned from the 2011 Fukushima
Dai-ichi accident.
…
The national regulators make a commitment
to improve and harmonize their national
regulatory systems, by implementing the
new SRLs until 2017 as a target date.
WENRA strives for openness and keeps all
interested parties informed of the progress
made in this work.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
24
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(2/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the
implementation of the 2014 RLs
– During the RHWG meeting in Madrid January 2014 it was
decided to prepare a preliminary plan to evaluate the
implementation of the revised RLs due to the lessons
learned from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP.
– This preliminary plan was discussed during the RHWG
meeting in The Hague May 2014.
•
A group of RHWG members (Germany, Czech Rep., Finland, Sweden)
was tasked to elaborate the proposed benchmark process in more
detail.
– The proposal was further discussed during the RHWG
meetings in Berlin in September 2014 and in Helsinki in
January 2015.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
25
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(3/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the
implementation of the 2014 RLs
•
•
on the regulatory side (regulations + regulatory guidance)
then, on the implementation at the NPPs
– RHWG supports the follow-up to be based on 4 steps:
1) National self-assessment (with rating A, B or C ) + preliminary
national action plan
•
•
•
A: RL considered to be fully implemented in national regulatory
framework
B: Differences exists between RLs and national regulatory framework
but are deemed justified (no need for change).
C: RL considered as not be implemented.
2) Peer review of national self-assessments
3) Final national action plan
4) Follow-up on implementation of national action plans
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
26
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(4/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of
the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side
– National self-assessment will only address the RLs which were
modified/created in the 2014 version (~130)
– National self-assessment will be framed by a template including, tables to:
• Describe current national situation
Reference Levels (2014)
RL number
RL text
National self-assessment
Basis supporting the rating
Peer review
Rating A/B/C
Peer review rating
• Present national action plan to fully implement RL in the national framework
RL number
March 2015
Description on the way to implement RL
into the national regulatory framework
WENRA spring meeting 2015
Scheduled date to
finalize implementation
27
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(5/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation
of the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side
RHWG January
2014 meeting
Decision to develop
a plan to follow-up
on implementation
of updated RLs
March 2015
RHWG May
2014 meeting
RHWG January
2015 meeting
RHWG September
2014 meeting
Discussion on suggested plan and
amendment to the plan
WENRA spring 2014
meeting
WENRA fall 2014
meeting
Agreement to
perform follow-up
(RHWG workplan)
Progress report on
follow-up process
WENRA spring meeting 2015
RHWG September
2015 meeting
RHWG January
2016 meeting
Self-assessment +
Initiate peer
preliminary action plan
review
31 December 2015
Self-assessment +
action plan
28
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs (6/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of
the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side
– For the RHWG peer-review of the national self-assessments, the process
suggested is different from the one followed in the early 2000. It includes:
• a written question/answer period performed prior to RHWG meetings
by country groups (a similar process as in the CNS review meeting);
• a collective review during RHWG meetings on a few RLs.
– The peer review is a way to challenge RLs rated “A” and “B”
– The process for the peer review needs further clarifications, expected to
be agreed at the next RHWG meeting.
– As it is a new process, RHWG believes a test phase would be useful.
►RHWG requests WENRA to approve the approach for the
follow-up (self-assessment + peer review) on the
implementation of 2014 RLs into the national regulatory
framework.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
29
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs
(7/7)
• Development of a process to follow-up on the
implementation of the 2014 RLs at the plants
– Implementation of the revised RLs in the NPPs is considered
to be important to improve nuclear safety in Europe.
– Considering resources available, follow-up will focus on some
updated RLs (i.e much less than 130)
– Need to manage the interface with EU Nuclear Safety
Directive peer reviews
• Regulators’ resources
• Licensee involvement
During its January 2015 meeting, RHWG did not discuss the
process suggested by its work group as priority was given to
the EU peer review process and topics
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
30
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors : 2014 RLs, survey on F4.7
(1/2)
• F4.7 There shall be sufficient independent and diverse means including necessary power
supplies available to remove the residual heat from the core and the spent fuel. At least one of
these means shall be effective after events involving external hazards more severe than design
basis events
- + guidance on Issue F
• Questionnaire on RL F4.7
• Purpose: to obtain a clear overview of the situation and plans in the WENRA
countries, with focus on fundamental design bases for additional
system/requirements for reactor cooling in extreme conditions
• 23 questions developed by a work group (Sweden, Finland, Germany)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Initiating events considered in DEC A for additional system/requirements [9 questions]
Separation and diversification [1 question]
Redundancy [1 question]
Simplicity (for operation but also for installation and maintenance) [2 questions]
Manual and/or automatic initiation/control [6 questions]
Mobile equipment [4 questions]
• This survey could also help in defining national requirements or assessing licensee’s
plan on this topic.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
31
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors : 2014 RLs, survey on F4.7
(2/2)
– RHWG view was that the current version of the questionnaire
is technically sound but too extensive and detailed;
• In several countries, decisions concerning this issue have not yet been
made and some questions are still pending. F4.7 is often not yet a
regulatory requirement and discussions between the regulator and
the licensee(s) may be at early stages.
• Question on whether the survey will duplicate or not information
provided to the April 2015 ENSREG workshop.
Clarify and simplify the questionnaire for next RHWG
meeting
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
32
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2014/87/EURATOM of 8 July 2014 amending
Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community
framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations
(22) The stress tests demonstrated the key role of enhanced cooperation and
(23)
coordination mechanisms between all parties that have responsibilities
for nuclear safety. The peer-reviews have proved to be a good means of
building confidence, with the aim of developing and exchanging
experience and ensuring the common application of high nuclear safety
standards.
Cooperation on nuclear safety between Members States is well
established and can give added value in terms of nuclear safety,
transparency and openness towards stakeholders at the European and
international level. Member States, through their competent regulatory
authorities making relevant use of ENSREG, and building on the
expertise of the WENRA, should every six years define a methodology,
Terms of Reference and a time frame for Peer Reviews on a common
specific technical topic related to the nuclear safety of their nuclear
installations. The common specific technical topic to be considered
should be identified among the WENRA safety reference levels or on
the basis of operating experience feed-back, incidents and accidents
and technological and scientific developments. Member States should
perform a national self-assessment and make arrangements for
common peer reviews by other Member States' competent regulatory
authorities of their national self-assessment. Reports on the findings of
those peer reviews should be produced. Member States should
establish national action plans for addressing any relevant findings and
their own national assessment, taking into account the results of those
peer review reports. The peer review reports should also form the basis
of any summary report of the outcome of the Union-wide topical peer
review exercise prepared collectively by the competent regulatory
authorities of the Member States. The summary report should not aim to
rank the safety of nuclear installations but rather focus on the process
and technical findings of the topical peer review so that the knowledge
gained from the exercise can be shared. Reciprocal trust should prevail
in peer reviews, and it would therefore be appropriate for the
Commission, whenever practicable, to inform Member States when it
intends to use the results of peer review reports in its policy documents.
March 2015
(1/13)
DIRECTIVE 2009/71/EURATOM of 25 June 2009 establishing a
Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear
installations
Article 8e
Peer reviews
1. Member States shall, at least once every 10 years, arrange for
periodic self-assessments of their national framework and
competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer
review of relevant segments of their national framework and
competent regulatory authorities with the aim of continuously
improving nuclear safety. Outcomes of such peer reviews shall be
reported to the Member States and the Commission, when available.
2. Member States shall ensure that, on a coordinated basis:
(a) a national assessment is performed, based on a specific topic
related to nuclear safety of the relevant nuclear installations
on their territory;
(b) all other Member States, and the Commission as observer,
are invited to peer review the national assessment referred
to in point (a);
(c) appropriate follow-up measures are taken of relevant
findings resulting from the peer review process;
(d) relevant reports are published on the above mentioned
process and its main outcome when results are available.
3. Member States shall ensure that arrangements are in place to allow
for the first topical peer review to start in 2017, and for subsequent
topical peer reviews to take place at least every six years thereafter.
4. In case of an accident leading to situations that would require offsite emergency measures or protective measures for the general
public, the Member State concerned shall ensure that an
international peer review is invited without undue delay.
WENRA spring meeting 2015
33
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
EU Nuclear
Safety Directive
Topical Peer
Review
Atomic Questions Group
DRAFT NON PAPER
Description of a
possible Topical
Peer Review (TPR)
process at EU level
Beginning of 2014
RHWG
Working Group 1
E-mail from WG1 chair to RHWG chair
21 January 2015
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
34
(2/13)
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
• E-mail from ENSREG WG1 chair to RHWG chair (21 January 2015)
– “Schedule:
(3/13)
Working Group 1
• First proposal of topics to be presented by the RHWG to WENRA Plenary on March
2015.
• WENRA would provide some feedback to ENSREG in July on the RHWG proposal.
• Definition and approval of the methodology for the review process, along with the final
topic selection, before the end of 2015.
– Topics proposal:
• Various proposals were presented and discussed … but it was decided that the first set
of proposals should be elaborated from the RHWG. General agreement was reached on
the main topic characteristics:
– It should be related to nuclear safety of the relevant nuclear installations on the
Member States’ territory.
– It should imply a certain degree of practical safety improvement.
– It should be a technical issue, in order to lead to technical discussions rather than
methodology-oriented discussions during the review process.
– It should be preferably connected to one or various WENRA SRLs.
– Review process methodology:
• It seems logical to follow a similar approach for the review process to the one followed
during the stress tests and the peer review of the post-Fukushima National Action
Plans. WG1 could lead the proposal and development of the Terms of Reference for the
review process.”
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
35
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(4/13)
• Non paper presented to the Atomic Questions Group early 2014
– Prepared by Y Pouleur and L. Reiman
“The description in annex is largely based on WENRA and stress tests peer
review experiences and focuses on topics to be chosen among WENRA
Safety Reference Levels (RLs). This ensures the EU TPR would make the best
use of past and on-going mechanisms and achievements. It also optimizes
the harmonization of national nuclear safety approaches (as defined by
WENRA). Moreover, this scenario the TPR would create no shift of
responsibilities.
Although the choice of the topic should be made among WENRA RLs, the
possibility should remain to choose another topic. Past operating experience
feedback has proven events may occur that require prompt action from all
regulators (e.g. - Forsmark incident – fault indications in the core vessel of
Doel and Tihange). This may best fit within the TPR context.
The description in annex is accompanied by examples of topic candidates as
well as a table indicating which mechanisms and procedures are already
implemented within WENRA and should be used within the TPR process.”
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
36
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review (5/13)
• Non paper presented to the Atomic Questions Group early 2014
“The Topical Peer Review process consists of the following main phases (the time
needed for each phase is also roughly estimated), based on the experience from the
European nuclear stress tests and peer review:
• Approval of the ToR including the selection of the topic (3 months)
• National topical self-assessment (12 months)
• Peer review of national assessments (6 months)
• Preparation of national implementation plans (6 months)
• Follow-up of the national implementation plans (36 months)
The actual review phases are estimated to take 1,5 years and the process as a whole (including the follow-up)
5 years.
To guide the TPR process, a generic description of the process is needed and a ToR for each specific TPR. They
should be developed and approved by the ENSREG.
ToR should establish a steering group for a specific TPR, to define the topic, to define the responsibilities of
different actors and to define the overall schedule for the TPR. Also the secretariat for the specific TPR is
established by the ToR.
The topic should be selected by the ENSREG after consultation with the WENRA. The
revised WENRA Reference Levels should be used as a reference in selecting the
topics, but also other topics could be chosen (e.g. important recent REX - Forsmark
incident – fault indications in the core vessel of Doel and Tihange). Especially Reference Levels
which seem to be difficult to implement in regulations or at the plants should be considered.
Reference Levels related to Periodic Safety Review are a priori a good candidate for a peer
review topic. After the topic is selected and the ToR for the review is approved by the ENSREG,
the actual review is initiated.”
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
37
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(6/13)
 Taking into account the time available in its meeting and after
considering ENSREG WG1 feedback and process suggested in
the non-paper, RHWG
- had no objection on the suggested process;
DRAFT NON
PAPER
Description of a
possible Topical
Peer Review
(TPR) process at
EU level
Working Group 1
• TPR generic process :
1.Approval of the ToR including the selection of the topic (3 months)
2.National topical self-assessment (12 months)
3.Peer review of national assessments (6 months)
4.Preparation of national implementation plans (6 months)
5.Follow-up of the national implementation plans (36 months)
• Review process methodology:
It seems logical to follow a similar approach for the review process to the one
followed during the stress tests and the peer review of the post-Fukushima
National Action Plans. WG1 could lead the proposal and development of the Terms
of Reference for the review process
- decided to focus its work on the potential candidate topics for the first
TPR.
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
38
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(7/13)
DRAFT NON PAPER
Description of a possible
Topical Peer Review (TPR)
process at EU level
Working Group 1
“As examples, the following topics for Topical
Peer Reviews, based on new RLs, are
presented:
– Instrumentation and control systems in
Design Basis Envelope (E 10)
– Selection and analysis of Design
Extension Conditions (F 2-3)
– Heat removal functions in DECs (F 4)
– Containment functions in DEC (F 4)
– Emergency power in DECs (F 4)
– Emergency Operating Procedures and
Severe
Accident
Management
Guidelines
(LM 1-4)
– Scope, quality and content of PSA (O 12)
– Scope and methodology of PSR (P 2-3)
– On-site Emergency Preparedness (R 2-5)
– Natural Hazards (T 4-6)”
March 2015
“Topic/s proposal:
– Various proposals were presented and
discussed (LTO by the European Commission,
some other rather technical topics – fire
protection, Instrumentation robustness under
severe accident conditions, containment
integrity – from France) but it was decided that
the first set of proposals should be elaborated
from the RHWG.
– General agreement was reached on the main
topic characteristics:
• It should be related to nuclear safety of
the relevant nuclear installations on the
Member States’ territory.
• It should imply a certain degree of
practical safety improvement.
• It should be a technical issue, in order to
lead to technical discussions rather than
methodology-oriented discussions during
the review process.
• It should be preferably connected to one
or various WENRA SRLs.”
WENRA spring meeting 2015
39
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(8/13)
• Process followed by RHWG to propose potential
candidate topic for the first TPR
• Becoming aware of topics suggested in the non-paper
• Criteria suggested by ENSREG WG-1 and topics suggested during its
recent meeting
• Recalling the topics addressed during the post-Fukushima EU stress
tests
• Going through each issue of the Reference Levels (2014)
– An initial list of potential candidate topics was established
Each country identified its top 3 preferred topics
(paper “secret” vote), so that a global ”hierarchy”
could be established by counting votes
– Short list of potential candidate topics
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
40
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(9/13)
• During the RHWG meeting, questions were raised
about:
– how “specific” (i.e. very specific, large, very large…) should be
the topic (i.e. one RL, a few RLs, a full issue, …) ?
– whether it would be valuable or not to review topics already
reviewed within the EU stress tests ?
– whether media and social perception of the topic selected
should be considered ?
– whether a “non-technical” (i.e. process or organizational)
topic could be a topic for the TPR ?
– the potential topic for the TPR would actually help improving
safety ?
– whether site visits may be relevant for some topics and
whether such visit would be representative ?
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
41
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(11/13)
Issues deemed not appropriate for the first TPR
Issues potentially
candidate for the
first TPR
March 2015
– Issue A (safety policy)
– Issue B (Operating Organisation)
– Issue C (Management System) except, possibly,
of C7.1 to C7.3 (safety culture)
– Issue D (Training and Authorization of NPP Staff
(Jobs with Safety Importance)
– Issue G (Safety Classification of Structures,
Systems and Components), except G4.2
– Issue H (Operational Limits and Conditions
(OLCs))
– Issue J (System for Investigation of Events and
Operational Experience Feedback)
– Issue K (Maintenance, In-Service Inspection and
Functional Testing)
– Issue N (Contents and Updating of Safety
Analysis Report (SAR))
– Issue Q (Plant Modifications)
WENRA spring meeting 2015
42
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
Heat removal in Design Basis
Envelope and in DEC
RL E9.9, F4.7 + F4.1 to F4.5
Natural Hazards
RL T4.1 to T4.4
• Heat removal is a very significant contributor to safety.
• Technical subject, highlighted in the EU stress test peer
review.
• Enable to have a specific look at spent fuel pool.
RHWG
Emergency power in Design
Basis Envelope and in DEC
RL E10.11, F 4.17, F4.18
+ F4.1 to F4.5
• Emergency power is a very significant
contributor to safety.
• Technical subject, highlighted in the EU
stress test peer review.
• Enable to have a specific look for spent
fuel pool and how site wide aspect are
considered.
March 2015
(12/13)
• It is “innovative” (criteria for design basis event).
• Strong link with site location.
• Easy to communicate to public.
• Scope could be narrowed if needed
Ageing management of
major SSCs
RL I2.# and I3.#
• It is relevant for most EU countries.
• Link with PSR and connection with the
LTO topic suggested by EC
• Wide ranging topic with both
methodological aspects and actual
control/surveillance.
• Key process for safety improvement.
• Highlighted in EU Peer review report (especially for • Scope could be narrowed if needed
natural hazards) and EU nuclear safety directive.
• Link with ageing management and review of hazards.
• Scope could be narrowed if needed
WENRA spring meeting 2015
43
Periodic Safety Reviews
RL P2.1 to P3.3
RHWG on-going work:
RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review
(13/13)
RHWG is suggesting 5 candidate topics for the first TPR
(presented in alphabetical order):
• Ageing management of major SSCs,
• Emergency power in Design Basis Envelope and in DEC,
• Heat removal in Design basis envelope in DEC,
• Natural Hazards,
• Periodic Safety Review.
– The topics on ageing management and PSR, and to a smaller
extent, Natural Hazards, are very broad. If they are selected,
their scope may have to be narrowed to a have a more
manageable domain
►What is WENRA view on these candidate topics ?
►Any additional work to perform by RHWG before the
July 2015 ENSREG meeting ?
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
44
Agenda
• RHWG meetings
• Ongoing work
–
–
–
–
Post-Fukushima actions
Topical work
Reference Levels
EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review
• Future activities
• Requests to WENRA
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
45
RHWG future activities
(1/2)
• Follow-up on the implementation of the 2008 RLs
• Complete the development of the 3 guidance documents on
•
specific natural hazards
Progress in the review and revision of the 2014 RLs
– Complete the review of some Issues
– Develop new/modified RLs consistent with the outcome of the review as
well as those in the new issue “other hazards”
• Progress in the follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs
– Questionnaire on F4.7
– Perform the self-assessment on regulatory side then initiate peer review
after clarifying its process
• Progress in developing position paper on practical elimination
•
and on passive system
Complete the data trial exchange period for DEEPER and initiate
the full data collection. Clarify “quality” check process
• EU NSD TPR preparation
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
46
RHWG future activities
(2/2)
2015
2016
2017
Follow-up on implementation
of the 2008 RLs
Development of the guidance
on specific natural hazards
DEEPER
Review and revision of the
2014 RLs
T1 drafting
RHWG review
Trial exchange
Data compilation
Review
Revision
Follow-up on implementation
of the 2014 RLs
Self-assessment
Peer review
Follow-up
EU NSD topical peer review
preparation
Development of a position
paper on passive system
Development of a position
paper on practical elimination
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
47
Agenda
• RHWG meetings
• Ongoing work
–
–
–
–
Post-Fukushima actions
Topical work
Reference Levels
EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review
• Future activities
• Requests to WENRA
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
48
Requests to WENRA
• Approval of the head guidance document on natural hazards
• DEEPER initiative considering IAEA EPRIMS project : maintaining
or not DEEPER, amending the specification of data to be
collected
• Initial steps of the follow-up process on implementation of the
2014 RLs (regulatory side)
• EU Nuclear Safety Directive Topical Peer Review: next steps
• General workplan of RHWG and providing supporting resources
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
49
Thank you.
RHWG
Fabien Féron
March 2015
WENRA spring meeting 2015
50