slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility Perspective Seminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility Perspective Seminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility Perspective Seminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 219 Views
  • Uploaded on

Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility Perspective Seminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26 February 2010. Dr. Christian Raetzke E.ON Kernkraft, Hannover. Contents. Introduction: E.ON and Nuclear New Build Part One: Some basics on regulation of nuclear power plants

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility Perspective Seminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26' - fox


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Effective Nuclear Regulation from a Utility PerspectiveSeminar “Tuumaenergia efektiivne reguleerimine”, Tallinn, 26 February 2010

Dr. Christian Raetzke

E.ON Kernkraft, Hannover

contents
Contents

Introduction: E.ON and Nuclear New Build

Part One: Some basics on regulation of nuclear power plants

Part Two: Nuclear Regulation from a utility‘s perspective: reducing regulatory risk

Part Three: Making use of international progress: design standardization

Part Four: Nuclear regulation trends in the EU

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

introduction e on and nuclear new build
Introduction: E.ON and nuclear new build

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

e on nuclear existing fleet
E.ON Nuclear: Existing fleet

21 units in operation (9 units operated by E.ON, 12 with minority shares)

5 units shut down / in decommissioning

Installed capacity ≈11 GW

Employees ≈ 3.300

Availability > 90 %

Power generation ≈ 80 TWh

E.ON headquarters

NPP minority shares

NPP operated by E.ON

NPP under dismantling

and decommissioning

Source: EKK (2008).

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

e on nuclear new build activities
E.ON Nuclear: New Build Activities

Sweden

Finland

UK

France

Italy

►New build footprint in countries with well-established nuclear excellence

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

project development uk horizon np
Project Development UK: Horizon NP

Status

  • 50/50-JV with RWE located in Gloucester
  • Goal: appr. 6 000 MW by 2025
  • Acquisition of two sites: Oldbury and Wylfa
  • Two reactor technologies under evaluation: EPR (Areva), AP1000 (Westinghouse)

Gloucester

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

project development finland fennovoima oy
Project Development Finland: Fennovoima Oy

Status

  • JV with Finnish partners, E.ON as the nuclear „backbone“
  • Decision in Principle application submitted in January 2009
  • Decision by Finnish Government / Parliament expected in 2010
  • Two sites proposed: Simo and Pyhäjoki
  • Three technologies under discussion:
    • EPR (Areva)
    • KERENA (Areva)
    • ABWR (Toshiba)

Simo

Pyhäjoki

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

pre selected reactor designs subjected to site independent review activities at e on
Pre-selected reactor designs subjected to site-independent review activities at E.ON:

EPR (PWR)

AREVA

ABWR (BWR)

Toshiba/Westinghouse

AP1000 (PWR)

Westinghouse

KERENA (BWR)

AREVA

Dr. Michael Micklinghoff April 2009

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

part one regulation of nuclear power plants
Part One: Regulation of nuclear power plants

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

why is regulation of npps so specific 1
Why is regulation of NPPs so specific? (1)

Safety

Demonstration of safety is paramount

  • Exposure to radiation during normal operation
  • Prevention of accidents with radiological consequences
  • Long-term safety of waste/decommissioning

High international pressure and monitoring

  • IAEA
  • International conventions
  • Peer reviews
  • Pressure by EU and neighbouring states

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

why is regulation of npps so specific 2
Why is regulation of NPPs so specific? (2)

Politics

  • Nuclear is highly political: licensing of NPP is not only an administrative procedure, but also a political issue
  • NPPs need a national infrastructure (nuclear regulatory system, waste concept, education facilities, supply chain, service companies etc.)
  • „Any expansion of a nuclear power programme will require strong and sustained government support“ (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency)
  • Licensing and supervision needs to be kept clear of day-to-day politics

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

why is regulation of npps so specific 3
Why is regulation of NPPs so specific? (3)

Financing

  • Specifics of investment in NPP:
      • higher share of investment in levelized electricity generating costs
      • higher cost of capital
      • longer period of construction
  • It is crucial that regulatory and licensing risk is under control in order to give certainty to investors

► Predictable, streamlined, efficient and effective licensing process needed

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

main elements of a system of nuclear law and regulation
Main elements of a system of nuclear law and regulation
  • General frameworkregulatory body
    •  regulatory functions
  • Radiation protection
  • Nuclear safetysafety of nuclear installations
    •  emergency preparedness and response
    •  safety of radioactive waste and spent fuel management
    •  transport of radioactive material
    •  other items
  • Nuclear liability and coverage
  • Non-proliferation and physical protection

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

national nuclear law and regulations hierarchy
National Nuclear Law and Regulations: Hierarchy

International

Treaties

and

Agreements

Nuclear

Act

Decrees/Ordinances

Technical Regulations

Codes and Standards

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

safety of nuclear installations international standards
Safety of nuclear installations: International standards
  • Technical regulations for NPPs are set by each country nationally, but the following need to be taken into account:
  • IAEA safety standards
        • Mandatory for IAEA itself and for its activities (for example review missions)
        • Not mandatory for member states
        • However, member states are expected to take IAEA safety standards as a benchmark/model
  • WENRA reference levels
        • WENRA: Western European Nuclear Regulators` Association
        • In 2006, definition of appr. 300 Reference Levels
        • RLs are basis for harmonization of national safety requirements
        • Voluntary implementation in national regulations by 2010

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

international conventions
International conventions
  • Convention on Nuclear Safety
  • Joint Convention (on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management)
  • Non-Proliferation Treaty
  • Vienna and Paris/Brussels conventions on nuclear liability
  • etc.

Member states have to incorporate these treaties in their national law

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

slide17
IAEA
  • Most visible in safeguards/non-proliferation
  • Safety standards are models/benchmarks for national regulations
  • IAEA gives advice to newcomer countries how to install a nuclear regulatory framework
  • IRRS (Integrated Regulatory Review Service) missions: peer reviews of a regulator by a team of fellow regulators, resulting in recommendations

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

euratom
EURATOM
  • EURATOM Treaty 1957
  • Some legislation competences in the nuclear field
  • But: no European regulatory authority
  • Recent developments
      • 2009 Directive setting up a Community framework for nuclear safety
      • ENEF, European Nuclear Energy Forum
      • ENSREG, European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

part two nuclear regulation from a utility s perspective reducing regulatory risk
Part Two: Nuclear Regulation from a utility‘s perspective: reducing regulatory risk

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

new world for investment in nuclear power 1
New World for Investment in Nuclear Power (1)

New market conditions

 Investors need to be able to quantify risks, including regulatory and licensing risk, before making their investment

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

20

new world for investment in nuclear power 2
New World for Investment in Nuclear Power (2)

Globalization

Emerging of multinational utilities

International vendors, standardization of designs

Vendor is in most cases a foreign company

Applicant/licensee may be controlled/owned by a foreign utility

Money comes from foreign utilities, banks or credit guarantee agencies

Harmonization of regulations, critical review of national procedures and cooperation of governments and regulators is mandatory

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

21

what are the important issues for utilities today
What are the important issues for utilities today?

Two main issues

Encouraging investment by reducing regulatory and licensing risk

Taking account of international aspects (indeed, profiting from them):

standardization of designs

multinational character of vendors and operators

These issues are closely related!

Example: taking an internationally standardized design facilitates the licensing procedure and makes it more predictable

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

22

regulatory and licensing risk
Regulatory and licensing risk

Some risks and their consequences

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

reducing regulatory risk
Reducing regulatory risk

In order to mitigate those risks, the licensing and regulatory framework must ensure that decisions taken by the national regulators are predictable

 proportionate stable in accordance with a pre-defined timescale nationally coordinated internationally aligned

The regulator must be strong with a clear policy, strong project management function, and adequate resources and staffing to deliver on its tasks

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

24

slide25

The long road to licensing of a nuclear power plant

Policy decision about nuclear energy

Decision in principle about a particular NPP project

Pre-licensing: designs and/or sites

Licensing process (construction and operating licence)

design

site

applicant

Surveillance and inspection during operation

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

firm political decision decision in principle
Firm political decision („Decision in principle“)

A firm, legally binding basic decision on a project should be takenat the outset so that political issues are kept out of the licensing process, thus giving more certainty

  • Finland: Decision in principle, endorsed by Parliament
  • Switzerland: General Licence, endorsed by Parliament and, as the case may be, by the People in a referendum

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

pre licensing
Pre-Licensing

Pre-licensing (project-neutral)

Licensing of particular NPPs

Design certifications (owned by vendors)

Design 2

NPP 1

Design 1

Applicant

Design 2

Design 3

Site A

Site licences (owned by utilities)

NPP 2

Design 3

Site A

Applicant

Site B

Site B

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

policy decisions and pre licensing
Policy decisions and pre-licensing

US

(government incentives,

e.g. loan guarantees)

design certification

early site permit

UK

White Paper

National Policy Statement

Generic Design Assessment

(National Policy Statement)

FIN

Decision in principle

France

Multi-year plan on electricity

production investment

(Generic letter on a design

by ASN)

GER

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

pre licensing in smaller countries
Pre-Licensing in smaller countries?

For a smaller country with only one or two NPP projects, pre-licensing should also be considered

Disadvantages

  • only one design will eventually be built
  • review of several designs consumes resources

Advantages

  • review of several designs keeps competition between vendors open
  • pre-licensing facilitates the take-over of design approvals from other countries

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

timeliness of licencing process
Timeliness of licencing process

Sticking to a pre-agreed timeline is essential

  • Time is more important after start of construction work

What about Legal timelines? (“Decision about application must be taken xxx months after application is filed”)

  • For the political decision (decision in principle): probably not feasible
  • For nuclear licensing:
      • Mandatory timelines are not a remedy for lengthy procedures
      • They depend on a complete application being filed (which may be subject to discussion)
      • Consequences are doubtful (licence “deemed to be issued”?!?)
      • Much more important:
    • ►strong project management by government
    • ►strong staffing and resources of regulator (see UK)

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

nuclear licensing one step or stepwise 1
Nuclear licensing: one-step or stepwise? (1)

The main investment decision has to be taken when construction begins. At this point in time, there must be certainty that operation will be allowed. This can be assured by issuing one licence for construction and operation only:

  • US: Combined construction and operating licence, COL
  • UK: Nuclear Site Licence
  • France: The “autorisation de création”, issued by decree of government, is the main licence. The operating permit, issued “only” by the authority, is a predictable milestone.

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

nuclear licensing one step or stepwise 2
Nuclear licensing: one-step or stepwise? (2)

US

COL, Combined construction and operating licence

UK

Nuclear Site Licence

FIN

construction licence

operating licence

France

autorisation de création

operating permit

GER

1st CL

2nd CL

1st OL

2nd OL

►start of construction

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

slide33
Licensing: Managing a multitude of processesFor an NPP, a number of licences/permits/authorisations is needed

► Strong government coordination and management required

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

safety of nuclear waste spent fuel management 1
Safety of nuclear waste / spent fuel management (1)

To give certainty to all stakeholders, an overall national strategy (embedded in legislation and policy papers) is needed

Responsibility for waste management:

  • Who does it?
  • Who pays for it?

Who pays?

  • The operator (polluter-pays principle)
  • Accumulation of funds during operating lifetime of installation

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

safety of nuclear waste spent fuel management 2
Safety of nuclear waste / spent fuel management (2)

Who performs waste management activities?

  • Interim storage: operator or sometimes government agency
  • Final disposal:  Sometimes operators or commercial waste management companies Sometimes a government agency (especially spent fuel repositories)

Final disposal of high level waste and spent fuel

  • Deep geological disposal as only practical solution
  • Discussion on multinational repositories for smaller countries

Further decisions to be taken on a national level

  • Reprocessing to be allowed/prescribed?
  • Import/export of nuclear waste and spent fuel to be allowed?

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

nuclear liability
Nuclear liability

Nuclear third party liability: liability for damage suffered by a third party (not the operator) caused by a nuclear incident

Firm and clear liability regime is important

Nuclear liability regime governed,

  • for most countries, by international conventions: Vienna or Paris convention (Estonia: Vienna Convention)
  • or by national legislation (USA: Price-Anderson Act)

Nuclear liability regimes have some special features, aimed at

  • Protection of victims
  • Just and equal distribution of existing resources for compensation
  • Compensation across national borders
  • Enabling development of nuclear industry

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

the finnish case 1 licencing procedure
The Finnish case (1): Licencing procedure

Energy Policy

Decision-in-principle

Government decision and Parliament ratification

Nuclear Safety

Construction Licence

Government, based on STUK safety assessment

Operating Licence

Government, based on STUK safety assessment

Improved Licensing Procedures for NPP in Europe 13th May 2009 KK-NNR-Dr.Rae/Stb

37

the finnish case 2
The Finnish case (2)

Positive aspects

Legislation and regulations fairly recent: Nuclear Energy Act 1987, Council of State Decisions 1991, Safety regulations (YVL guides) updated constantly

Decision in Principle as general political decision on an NPP project; the following licencing process can concentrate on nuclear safety

Two-step licensing (construction and operation) does not really seem to cause uncertainty

Very competent and respected authority (STUK)

The overall Finnish licensing approach is good and does not need to be overhauled

Improved Licensing Procedures for NPP in Europe 13th May 2009 KK-NNR-Dr.Rae/Stb

38

the finnish case 3
The Finnish case (3)

Aspects which are not perfect

Many reasons for the delays in Olkiluoto 3 project are not specific to the Finnish approach, e. g. „first of a kind“ design, shortage in experienced personnel, lack of harmony between vendor and applicant etc.

Some regulatory issues:

Construction licence issued at an early stage of design completion, making further design work during construction necessary

Some Finnish safety requirements deviate from the European „mainstream“, leading to re-design and to uncertainty

More openness to design and manufacturing standards of other countries would be helpful

Very strict requirements on management by licensee; risk of inconsistency of STUK approach with a „turnkey contract“ model?

Improved Licensing Procedures for NPP in Europe 13th May 2009 KK-NNR-Dr.Rae/Stb

39

part three making use of international progress design standardization
Part Three: Making use of international progress: design standardization

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

reducing regulatory risk design standardization
Reducing regulatory risk: design standardization
  • The vision:
    • If a design is assessed and licensed in one EU country, authorities in other countries should not do it all over again
    • The goal should be mutual acceptance of design approvals or a joint design approval
    • This would
        • reduce risk and uncertainty for the investor, once a First-of-a-kind (FOAK) of a design is licensed in Europe
        • reduce the strain on regulators
        • make the licensing process more efficient and effective
        • lead to a coherent approach to safety
        • actually increase safety, due to a better basis for experience feedback

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

vision pre licensing of designs in an international context
Vision: Pre-Licensing of designs in an international context

Pre-licensing (project-neutral)

Licensing of particular NPP

Design certifications

(owned by vendors)

Validation

Design 2

NPP

Applicant

Design 1

licensed in country A

Design 1

Site

Design 2

licensed in country B

Design 2

Design 3

licensed in country C

Design 3

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

existing regulatory legal situation
Existing regulatory/legal situation

Each reactor project needs a licence issued in a specific procedure after full assessment by the competent regulatory body

Licence is issued according to special national licensing procedures, which vary considerably

Licence is based on national safety requirements, which vary considerably in details

► This does not facilitate deployment of standardized designs across a range of countries

► A design approval in one country is irrelevant for others

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

initiatives for cooperation and harmonization
Initiatives for Cooperation and Harmonization

Worldwide

MDEP (Multinational Design Evaluation Program): regulators of 10 new build countries worldwide

WNA CORDEL Group (Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing): industry‘s response to MDEP

Europe:

WENRA: safety reference levels to be implemented in national regulations by 2010

EU Commission initiatives, including the recent Directive on nuclear safety (see next chapter)

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

44

the cordel proposal 3 steps towards standardization
The CORDEL proposal: 3 steps towards standardization

World Nuclear Association (WNA) Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL) Group

Founded in January 2007

Membership: includes all major vendors and many utilities interested in new build

CORDEL proposes 3 subsequent steps to achieve international validity of design approvals and thus to achieve full international standardization of reactor designs

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

step 1 share design assessment
Step 1: Share design assessment

Regulator A

Regulator B

design review

design review

share

elements of design review, for example calculations or modelling of event sequences

design approval

by regulator A

design approval

by regulator B

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

step 2 accept design approvals after validation
Step 2: Accept design approvals after validation

Regulator A

Regulator B

design review

validation

design approval

by regulator A

design approval

by regulator A

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

step 3 issue multinational design approval
Step 3: Issue multinational design approval

Team of Regulators: A, B, C

(or, much later, International Agency)

design review

multinational design approval

Country A

Country B

Country C

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

some boundary conditions to be respected
Some boundary conditions to be respected

Sovereignty of each country’s regulator has to be respected

Regulators are bound by law to apply their national safety requirements and licensing procedures

Regulators need to build up knowledge of the design

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

design approval as part of the overall regulatory process
Design approval as part of the overall regulatory process

policy decision about nuclear energy

decision in principle about a particular NPP project

licensing process (construction and operating licence)

design

site

applicant

surveillance and inspection during operation

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

a recent example for international design acceptance
A recent example for international design acceptance
  • Italy‘s new Act on Energy Companies, Act no. 99 of 23 July 2009, Art. 25, 2 i):

[Government is empowered to issue] a provision that licences relating to technical requirements and specifications for reactor designs which have been licenced in the past 10 years by the competent authorities in member states of OECD-NEA, or in states linked to Italy by bilateral agreements ... in the nuclear sector, will be considered to be valid in Italy after approval by the Nuclear Safety Agency

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

harmonization of national safety requirements
Harmonization of national safety requirements

Absolutely necessary for standardization

Differences are ever more difficult to justify (why should requirements of one country be “safer” than others....)

However, combination and “piling up” of the strictest requirements to be avoided

IAEA Safety Standards as a model

Good opportunity for newcomer countries to start right away with regulations based on international consensus

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

part four nuclear regulation trends in the eu
Part Four: Nuclear regulation trends in the EU

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

european commission initiatives in the nuclear field
European Commission Initiatives in the Nuclear Field

European Nuclear

Energy Forum

Opportunities, Risks

& Transparency

Politicians, Industry,

Finance, Civil society

High Level Group (now ENSREG)

Safety Harmonisation& Waste Management

27MS Regulators/Safety Authorities +EC

Launched on 26/11/07

Sustainable Nuclear Energy

Technology Platform

R & D – FP 7

Major nuclear Stakeholders,

EC, Academics, Researchers

First Meeting, 12/10/07

Launched on 21/09/07

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

new eu directive on nuclear safety
New EU Directive on nuclear safety

Directive 2009/71/EURATOM of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

  • Aims at „continuous improvement of nuclear safety and its regulation“ and at a „high level of nuclear safety“
  • Obliges Member States to
      • establish and maintain a national legal and regulatory framework
      • establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority with sufficient powers and resources
      • ensure that licensees fulfil their responsability for safety
      • ensure arrangements for education and training
      • ensure that information is made available to the public

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

coming up eu directive on nuclear waste
Coming up? EU Directive on Nuclear Waste
  • Stakeholder Consultation Process started
  • ENEF WG „Risks“, SubWG „Waste Management“ is working on a paper
  • ENSREG is working on a paper
  • Some possible principles
      • Each Member State has to establish a national plan for management of radioactive waste and spent fuel
      • Probably no timeframe set by EU, but national plans should include a timeframe
      • High level waste and spent fuel: deep geological disposal required

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

subgroup nuclear legal road map of european nuclear energy forum enef
Subgroup „Nuclear Legal Road Map“ of European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF)

Work on licensing and harmonisation issues

  • Paper „The Importance of New Approaches in Licensing“ produced by the Subgroup in October 2008
  • Under preparation: Survey of licensing procedures in Europe
    • ► Towards a licensing document of the EU?

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

summary
Summary

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

summary59
Summary

More efficient, more predictable and more harmonized licensing processes are vital to reduce licensing risk and to enable investment decisions in new nuclear projects

International alignment of approaches and regulations and international cooperation among regulators are needed to reflect the “international” world of licensing new reactors

Christian Raetzke, Effective Nuclear Regulation 26 February 2010

59