Status of the EU nuclear industry after Fukushima

Richard IvensDirector Institutional Affairs

“Ukrainian Nuclear Forum 2012: plans and perspectives of the nuclear power industry development”, Kiev, 27-28 March 2012

1

about FORATOM Fukushima: a very specific accident safety & risk reassessment: timeline / technical scope /

methodology / some insights a set of diversified political reactions nuclear developments in Europe public opinion conclusions

Content

2

FORATOM is the Brussels-based association of nuclear industry in Europe:

17 national nuclear associations active across Europe 3 corporate members (PGE Nuclear, CEZ, Slovenska Elektrárne) 800+ firms represented (vendors, utilities, nuclear fuel cycle,

engineering, transport, waste storage, lawyers, consultants, insurers)

ENISS (European Nuclear Installations Safety Standards) was set up in 2005 under the umbrella of FORATOM

ENISS currently represents the nuclear utilities and operating companies from 16 European countries with nuclear power programmes, including Switzerland

Who are we?

3

4

FORATOM Membership

act a voice of nuclear energy industry in EU energy policy debate

enhance relations between nuclear industry and EU institutions

deliver information on nuclear energy to EU institutions, media and the public

inform members about developments emerging from EU institutions interact with intergovernmental organisations (IAEA, OECD/NEA, IEA,

WANO, etc.) communicate latest science and technology developments in co-

operation with the European Nuclear Society (ENS)

What do we do?

5

the plant design did not take into account a tsunami of the size of the one which occurred in March 2011

the accident resulted in an almost total loss of safety functions: electrical supply heat sink

the consequences of the tsunami and the impact of radiation hampered the accident management

several reactor units on the same site were directly involved in the accident

the cooling of the spent fuel pools (located in each reactor building) was a special concern

Fukushima accident (1)

6

the most striking nuclear-related event since Chernobyl

a combination of natural and man-made events which questions again our ability to accept and manage severe hazards and accidents

global impacts on the economy: in Japan, indirectly in Europe (Germany, others), worldwide

contradictory humanitarian outcome: no direct casualties, but unprecedented human/psychological consequences and a wide set of political reactions: emotional - hysterical – short-minded – opportunistic - concerned – balanced – wise?

a demonstration of the influence of media in crisis situation (Germany vs. ROW)

an opportunity to demonstrate industry's ability to learn from experience through a continuous improvement strategy

Fukushima accident (2)

7

8

o Decision to undertake voluntary “stress tests” (safety

reassessments) of EU nuclear facilities

o Stress test scope proposed by National Regulators (ENSREG) in

co-operation with industry (FORATOM/ENISS)

o Tests to proceed in two phases:

1. Natural disasters: earthquakes, flooding, extreme cold and heat, snow, ice,

storms, tornados, heavy rain and other extreme natural conditions

2. Man-made failures and malevolent actions: airplane crashes, fires, explosions,

terrorist attacks

EU actions in response to Fukushima

27/03/2012

9

• Licensee self assessments, to be reported to national regulators by

15 August 2011

• National reports to be submitted by the regulators to the European

Commission (EC) by 31 December 2011

• Interim EC report, 24 November 2011

• Peer reviews (technical topic and country specific) by multinational teams,

Jan – Apr 2012

• Final report by ENSREG, 30 April 2012

• EC to report to European Council, 28/29 June 2012

Stress Test timetable

27/03/2012

to focus on issues highlighted by the Fukushima accident: initiating events, loss of safety functions, accident management

initiating events: earthquake flooding and other extreme natural conditions

consequential loss of safety functions: prolonged total loss of electrical power prolonged total loss of the main ultimate heat sink combination of both situations

accident management issues: prevention of some accident conditions core melt accident management

Safety reassessment: technical scope

10

case by case (because of each NPP particularities), better protect the safety functions (from flood, earthquake): protection of buildings (sealed perimeters) reinforcement or rising of dams, dikes

organizational & human factor: even in the case of natural hazards, human beings stay at the core (which implies to deeply care for design, training, procedures, emergency planning, etc.)

possible design improvements: further diversify electrical supply provide for additional water heat sink emergency center

Proposed improvements (1)

11

portable components / plug and play systems and equipment

severe accident management: (in particular, keep enough flexibility to be able to deal with different situations): multi reactor unit crisis management (organization and features – e.g.

FARN Nuclear Rapid Action Force in France)

H2: passive catalytic recombiners

containment filtered venting

specific features for spent fuel pool: instrumentation, water sources

Proposed improvements (2)

12

European NPPs have substantial margins and robustness the measures implemented so far provide further margins to protect the

public and the environment assessment by the Regulators :

the nuclear installations subject to the Safety Reassessment are sufficiently safe to continue operation

the safety level must continuously be improved

the Reports of the National Regulators

13

14

• EC considering:• Minimum technical requirements (safety margins, siting, design, construction,

operation)• Independence of the national regulators• Frequency and scope of peer reviews• Cross-border emergency response• 3rd party nuclear liability (e.g. min. insurance levels, claims handling,

harmonisation)

• Possible proposal for revision of 2009 EU Nuclear Safety Directive by

2013

European Commission is reviewing the Safety Legislation

15

• EC 2050 Energy Roadmap, Dec 2011 (collection of 7 possible scenarios aiming at

80-95% decarbonisation of the EU economy by 2050)

• Proposal for EU research programme “Horizon 2020” 2014-2020, overall budget

€80 billion, nuclear fusion + fission €1.8 billion

• ITER

• European Nuclear Energy Forum ENEF (broad stakeholder dialogue on the

opportunities, risks and transparency of nuclear energy)

• Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform SNETP (coordinating R&D work

on existing reactors, Generation IV, HTRs/cogeneration, fuel cycle, safety, etc)

• Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform IGDTP (R&D work to

support the operation of a first HLW repository by 2025)

Other EU initiatives in the nuclear field

Reactors in Europe

27/03/2012 16

• 138 reactors in operation in the EU27 + Switzerland (+15 in Ukraine)

• 6 reactors under construction (+2 in Ukraine) (source: PRIS, IAEA)

• 27,8% of EU27’s electricity production (source: Eurostat)

Reactors in operation Reactors under construction (source: Swiss Nuclear Forum)

under construction:

Finland: EPR-1600 (TVO: Olkiluoto) online by 2014 France: EPR-1600 (EDF: Flamanville) online by 2014/15 Slovakia: 2 VVER-440 units (Slovenské Elektrárne/ ENEL:

Mochovce) online by 2013/2014• Russia: 11 units (VVERs) under construction (8.3 Gwe) • Ukraine: 2 units (VVER) under construction (Khmelnitsky 3/4)

Nuclear developments, early 2011 (1)

17

under consideration/planned:

Bulgaria: 2 new units considered (Belene/Kozloduy) the Czech Republic: tender received for 2 reactors at Temelin Finland: two more units online by 2020 (TVO, Fennovoima*) France: a second EPR unit online by 2017 at Penly Hungary: government wants 2 more units by 2025 Italy: at least 4 EPR units by 2020 Lithuania: new unit considered (Ignalina) Poland: first NPP by 2022 (Zarnowiec identified)

Nuclear developments, early 2011 (2)

18

under consideration/planned:

the Netherlands: a second unit considered (begin 2015, Borssele) Romania: two more units planned (Cernavoda 3 & 4) Slovenia: a second unit considered (Krško) Slovakia: government and CEZ considering a fifth reactor (Bohunice) Sweden: no new units considered yet (replacement policy) UK: 8 sites identified in draft Government Policy Statement (the first

unit on line by 2018) Croatia, Russia and Switzerland: new units also under

consideration

Nuclear developments, early 2011 (3)

19

long-term operation:

the Netherlands: Borssele (10 years) Spain: Garoña (4 years), Cofrentes (10 years); legal reference to the

40-year life of nuclear reactors recently removed Belgium: Doel and Tihange (10 years); government’s decision

pending Germany: 8 more years for older NPPs and 14 years for younger

ones beyond 2021; new fuel tax; fund for the development of renewable energy

Nuclear developments, early 2011 (4)

20

o No (significant) change in nuclear policies across 15 EU countries:

Bulgaria Lithuania Hungary Slovakia UK Czech Republic Netherlands Slovenia (Croatia) Finland Poland Spain France Romania Sweden

21

Nuclear developments, early 2012 (1)

27/03/2012

Negative developments:

22

new Belgium government maintains 2003 decision (law) to start the phase-out of nuclear power beginning in 2015; also decided to raise a tax imposed on the nuclear energy industry to 550 M€/year

immediate closure of eight NPPs that started operating before 1980; Germany become a net importer of electricity; industrial giant Siemens closes its nuclear business

Italy voted against a return to nuclear power, repealing a regulation that would have allowed for the construction of new reactors in a national referendum (June 2011)

Swiss government announced that it would not replace the country’s five NPPs after they reached their lifetimes between 2019 and 2034

Nuclear developments, early 2012 (2)

27/03/2012

23

Before Fukushima

• 56% of EU citizens wanted nuclear energy to be maintained or increased (Eurobarometer on

Nuclear Safety, April 2010)

After Fukushima

• Impact country specific

• Germany, Switzerland and Belgium: opposition to nuclear has risen

• Other countries like UK, France, Sweden, Poland: support for nuclear held up well

• In 9 (Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden) out of the

27 EU Member States less than 1/5 of those opposed to nuclear have been influenced by the

accident (Ipsos MORI, May 2011)

Public acceptance: support for nuclear industry

27/03/2012

• In a number of countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and France, after a

dip just after the accident, public acceptance of nuclear has recovered.

Public acceptance: recovery in a number of EU countries

27/03/2012 24

UK: support for nuclear new buildSource: Ipsos MORI, 2012

The total amount of nuclear reactors under construction

• worldwide 66

• European Union 6 (Finland, France, Slovakia, Bulgaria)

• rest of the world 60 (India, Brazil, Argentina, China, Iran, South Korea,

USA, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and Ukraine)

New build worldwide

27/03/2012 25

“German decision: politically correct? economically sustainable?

environmentally right?” (The Guardian, 1 June 2011)

“Germany's phase-out of nuclear power may compromise the security and

sustainability of the European Union. Power will be more costly, and less

secure, and even greater and more urgent investment in renewables is

needed.” Nobuo Tanaka, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive

Director (EURELECTRIC annual conference in Stockholm: 13 June 2011)

Impact of Fukushima - Germany turns its back on nuclear

27/03/2012 26

“If [we don't remain] competitive in comparison with other countries, a

company of global stature like Bayer can think about moving its production to

countries where energy costs are lower.” Marijn Dekkers, CEO of Bayer

(France 24, 6 August 2011)

Impact of Fukushima - Germany turns its back on nuclear

27/03/2012 27

“There hasn't been a strong debate after Japan (nuclear accident) that we

should change our decision. I think Finns are very rational, pragmatic. We

expect that in the existing plans, the security level is high. And also, on those

which are under process, they will be. Security is an important factor but I'm

not worried. ” Jyri Hakamies, Finnish Economy Affairs Minister (Reuters, 2

September 2011)

Impact of Fukushima

27/03/2012 28

• Fukushima represents an opportunity for the nuclear industry to show it

can learn from experience through “continuous improvement strategy”

• Nuclear is a trump card in the EU Energy mix, meeting low-carbon,

competitiveness and security of supply requirements

• EU needs: legal framework for nuclear safety, harmonisation of licensing

procedures and reactor design clearance

• Greater co-operation between industry and international organisations

• Do more to convince the public about safety

Securing the future of new build

27/03/2012 29

• Every human activity involves some risk (forces of nature, medical treatment…)

• No-one can guarantee that accidents will never occur. The industry’s duty and

commitment is to ensure safety, to reduce the possibility of an accident and

mitigate its consequences. The resources committed to safety are huge, but more

will have to be done.

• Stringent, independent nuclear safety regulation is essential

• We cannot afford to lose nuclear energy in Europe – it is a cost effective and low

carbon energy source

• Electricity production and distribution doesn’t stop at EU’s borders - need to

promote a common pan-European energy market

Conclusions

27/03/2012 30