Harmonization of Reactor Safety in WENRA Countries February 2006

1
(No Transcript)
2
Harmonization of Reactor Safetyin WENRA
Countries February 2006

• by
• Paul Woodhouse
• RHWG Chair

3
Aiming to highlight

• Background
• Terms of Reference
• Overview of methodology
• Reference Levels
• Benchmarking
• Validation
• Overview of results
• Conclusions

4
WENRAs harmonization concept

• No substantial safety difference between
• Countries legal requirements
• Implementation in NPPs
• Also
• Independent of regulatory regime
• Existing reactors only

5
Background

• 1999 WENRAs harmonization ideas developed
• Pilot Project to devise a methodology
• Reference Levels devised for six safety issues
• 9 countries benchmarked
• 2002 Results reported
• 2003 Main project used Pilot Project experience
• Accession countries invited to join 17
  countries
• Number of safety issues increased to 18
• National Action Plans for harmonization by 2010

6
Terms of Reference
7
Terms of Reference Reactors

• Existing NPP safety only
• Not radiation or physical protection
• Cover deterministic, probabilistic, management,
  safety culture aspects
• Not legal or technical details
• Focus on regulators requirements of licensees
• Not regulatory practices

8
Overview of methodology Reference Levels
9
Identification of safety issues

• Five main safety areas 18 safety issues
• (listed in report)
• Safety Management 4
• Design 3
• Operation 5
• Safety Verification 4
• Emergency Preparedness 2
• Several nuclear sources consulted for topics

10
Development into Reference Levels

• Reference Levels developed for issues
• High-level requirements
• Judgements of best practice
• Useful for judging harmonization
• Number per issue is not significant
• IAEA safety standards used to choose detail
• Plus RHWG members high level of experience

Not regulatory standards do not define
nuclear safety
11
Balancing level of detail

• Reference Levels need to be easy to judge
• No substantial differences between countries
  from the safety point of view in generic,
  formally issued, national safety requirements,
  and in their resulting implementation on Nuclear
  Power Plants.
• Reference Levels use shall throughout
• Drafts commented upon by group
• Agreed for use in benchmarking

12
Overview of methodology Benchmarking
13
National self-assessment

• Each Reference Level assessed nationally
• Legal requirement?
• Law, ordinance, or regulation
• Formal, generic, public recommendation
• Implemented on all NPPs?
• Two-letter coded answer
• A Yes
• B No, but justified or will be yes by end
  2005
• C No, cannot be justified

A, A Fully harmonized
14
Benchmarking meeting

• 2 teams peer reviewed self-assessments
• 8/9 countries per team
• Different countries each time
• Plenary discussion of outcomes
• Legal criteria quite harsh for some countries
• Reasonably confident about assessments
• Implementation less straightforward
• Needs more resource to confirm full position

15
Outcome from meeting

• Peer groups large enough to test assessments
  achieve consistency
• Authors update finalize Reference Levels to
• Give common understanding
• Avoid duplication complexity
• Improve usefulness for harmonization
• Countries reassess themselves against revised
  document

16
Overview of methodology Validation
17
Verification and validation

• Peer reviews very effective
• Became more rigorous as familiarity grew
• Countries reassessed themselves to tighter
  requirements
• Separate checks carried out independently by
  nominated countries

18
Overview of Results
19
Grand totals

• Figure numbers same as in report

Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
20
Totals by Issue
Figure numbers same as in report
Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
21
Issue A Safety policy
Figure numbers same as in report
Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
22
Issue R Emergency preparedness
Figure numbers same as in report
Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
23
Issue LM EOPs SAMGs
Figure numbers same as in report
Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
24
Issue E Verification of design
Figure numbers same as in report
Code A Already harmonized Code B Justifiable
difference Code C Needs harmonizing
25
Conclusions

• Large undertaking for WENRA countries
• Very good network created through the project
• All 17 countries have been benchmarked against
  all 18 safety issues
• Results show good harmonization
• Legal side applies very strict criteria
• Implementation may need more work for some
• Validated results effective methodology
• Countries can develop Action Plans from them
  should be able to meet WENRAs 2010 target