Improve nuclear safety and reduce environmental impact – international and national practice

1. Improve nuclear safety and reduce environmental impact– international and national practice Roundtable “Environmental Safety: Scientific and Technical Opportunities and Perspectives”, ATOMEXPO-2013 International Industrial Forum; June 27, 2013, St.-Petersburg, Russia H. Teske (GRS), Germany

2. Short introduction of GRS GRS is inside Germany the main scientific-technical and research organization in the area • of nuclear safety and security as well as • of radiation and environmental protection GRS is working • as TSO for the national nuclear safety regulator (BMU), • as safety research institution for the Ministry of economics (BMWi), • as scientific-technical support for foreign NRA and their TSOs • as a strong cooperation partner over 25 years for Rostechnadsor and/or Rosatom to assess and improve nuclear safety, radiation and environmental protection for existing and new build nuclear installations Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

3. German view on nuclear energy (NE), nuclear safety and environmental protection (i) • After Fukushima clear decision to phase-out NE use in Germany (decision was taken because of public non-acceptance, not necessary from technical point of view) • We accepting the right of each country to decide whether to use or not NE. But … • Using NE require to accept as guiding principle “nuclear and radiation safety first” (ensure the most robust level of nuclear safety) Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

4. German view on nuclear energy (NE), nuclear safety and environmental protection (ii)  aspects to be considered with respect to a high level of nuclear safety and environmental protection: • Further reduction of environmental and health impacts - a major objective • Transparent exchange of information and discussion • Independent verification and review of the safety case by national NRA and their TSO • National and international peer review as regular tools to improve the safety and to reduce the ecological impact Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

5. 1. Further reduction of environmental and health impacts - a major objective (i) • The overall safety objective known by definitions in IAEA Safety Fundamentals, in national atomic laws and in SARs are very general by nature and do not reflect latest developments. • The movements are provided much more in the stringent specific objectives • Important changes or clarifications comes from: • Latest WENRA requirements and new draft EU NS-Directive • F/G technical requirements for the next generation NPPs • Discussions to amend the Russian OPB • Fukushima lessons learned and outcome of the IAEA NSAP • IAEA and INSAG activities, discussions in frame of the CNS Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

6. 1. Further reduction of environmental and health impacts - a major objective (ii) In addition to the mentioned overall safety objective the following specific objective should be used as key ones: • It has to be ensured that the nuclear installations are designed, sited, constructed, commissioned, operated and decommissioned with the objective of avoiding or significantly reducing potential radioactive releases. • This could be reached by: • practically eliminating the occurrence of all accident sequences which would lead to early or large releases; • for accidents that have not been practically eliminated, implementing design measures so that only limited protective measures in area and time are needed for the public and that sufficient time is available to implement these measures, and that the frequency of such accidents is minimized. •  to use of this approach is even a challenge for Russia Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

7. 2. Transparent exchange of information and discussion of all public concerns relating to NE use • A key lesson learned - the importance of enhancing transparency on nuclear safety and environmental protection matters. • identify the type of information that should be provided, as a minimum by different actors as part of their wider transparency strategies. • Information should be released up to date and in a timely manner. • Information on safety and environmental impact should be also made public in accordance with national legislation and international obligations. • Appropriate transparency provisions, with prompt and regularly updated release of information. •  to be more transparent is even a challenge for Russia: more open information sharing is required (especially licensing documentation) Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

8. 3. Independent verification and review of the safety case by national NRA and their TSO • Well-known lessons learned from accidents decades ago have not been taken up voluntarily by parts of the industry and not been sufficiently enforced by regulators • The licence holders should ensure, to regularly assess and continuously improve, as far as reasonably achievable, the nuclear safety and environmental protection of their installations. • The licencing applicant is required to prepare and update a detailed demonstration of safety. The safety case scope and level of detail shall be adequate. • The regulatory authority should supervise above activities. • It shall be reviewed by the competent regulatory authority and their TSO in accordance with clearly defined procedures. •  independent verification of the safety case is even a challenge for Russia: more information sharing with licensees, NRA/TSO Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

9. 4. National and international Peer Reviews as regular tools (and perhaps peer pressure) • The European stress tests demonstrated the key role of enhanced cooperation and coordination between all parties having responsibilities for nuclear safety. • National and international peer review activities, including peer reviews of nuclear installations, could become a regular tools to improve the safety and to reduce the ecological impact • Regulatory and Expert Groups could contribute with their expertise to identifying relevant safety topics and in carrying out peer reviews. • Appropriate follow-up mechanisms with a kind of “peer pressure” could be established to ensure the implementation of the peer-reviews outcome. •  active participation in peer reviews is even a challenge for Russia: more information sharing with other peers Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia

10. International cooperation with neighboring countries and worldwide • A severe nuclear accident anywhere is an incident everywhere. No national border protect us.  to pay more attention to cooperation with our neighbors and worldwide. • Established global, regional and thematic networks are an excellent platform and should be used more intensively. • Trustful and proven information exchange at all possible levels and at each step in the decision making processes and in the implementation phases. • Participation in cross boarder negotiation processes in frame of ESPOO, CNS and other relevant legislation – important, to be practiced more intensively. • Fruitful relation between GRS and our Russian partners in cooperation. We are looking forward to continuously improve our trustful partnership relations •  let´s use the challenges for all of us Atomexpo, Roundtable EnvSaf, 27.06. 2013,St.Petersburg, Russia