EU nuclear operators happily foot bill for stress test safety improvements
on May 1, 2013
The European Parliament non-binding resolution that all safety
improvements recommended following stress on nuclear reactors across the
EU must be carried out urgently estimates EUR 25bn in reparations must
be paid for by nuclear operators.
The resolution was originally drafted in January, and was adopted on
the14 March by a considerable margin with 414 votes in favour, against
116 in opposition, with 83 abstentions.
After events in Fukushima, 145 reactors were tested across 15 European
Union member state countries to assess whether nuclear plants could
withstand a similar natural disaster, nearly all of those plants
reviewed needed safety improvements.
In 2013, there are now 131 reactors online in 14 countries, with 57
power plants in operation, and now Brussels is hungry to see action
being taken on safety and more stringent stress tests.
Licensee responsible
In response to the recommendations from the European Parliament, a
spokesperson from RWE reflects: “As stated in the European Nuclear
Safety Directive and in German nuclear law accordingly, the licensee is
responsible for the safe operation of its plants. This also comprises
the implementation of upgrades and safety measures as needed.”
“The post-Fukushima safety reviews confirmed the high safety level of
our plants. Nevertheless, we have foreseen further improvements to
increase the robustness of our plants.”
The text of the resolution criticised the stress tests carried out and
complained that they were ‘limited in scope’, and did not extend
themselves to any off-site emergencies, despite the emphasis on reducing
the risks for citizens who are in immediate danger if an accident
occurs at a nuclear plant.
The potential of the danger was noted in the text, in 47of the nuclear
plants across EU countries, the resolution says 100,000 people are
living within 30KM of those plants.
Additionally, an amendment, adopted by 315 votes to 282, states that the
stress tests carried out were incomplete, and secondary effects of a
nuclear disaster such as material deterioration, human errors, and
specific flaws inside the reactor vessels were not taken into account.
European Parliament members were also adamant that the European Nuclear
Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) should have a prominent role in
monitoring the implementation of any recommendations, without the
taxpayer incurring any of the cost.
“We experienced the EU-stress test as a comprehensive robustness
assessment regarding unlikely external events. The European Parliament
also said that the EU stress test was not meant as a replacement for
regular safety reviews that are the responsibility of the national
regulators. In Germany periodic safety reviews every 10 years are
mandatory by law for all nuclear power plants,” the RWE spokesperson
adds.
Nuclear energy dependence
After France, Belgium is the most nuclear dependent country in the EU,
with seven reactors from two nuclear plants producing 54% of its energy,
which are operated by Electrabel, a historically powerful energy
supplier in Belgium, which is part of the GDF Suez global operation.
Both the Tihange and Doel plants have experienced difficulties in recent
times, with three of the reactors at the plants being shut down over
maintenance issues.
However, the company is confident over its own safety measures, despite
the European Parliament’s recent assertions: “We have always known that
the operators would pay for the improvements based on the stress tests,
the results showed that our Belgian nuclear units are robust and results
were very satisfying,” says a company spokesperson.
“For example, some of the improvements are the construction of a wall
around the Tihange site to prevent the site from floods and a bunker
building will be built at the Tihange site that will contain a more
complete second level of safety systems.
“Stress tests were not physical tests in the literal sense of the word,
rather they involved the reassessing of the safety margins of the power
stations in light of the incidents at Fukushima; asking how do the
nuclear power stations react to extreme events, that challenge the
safety systems and could lead to a serious accident,” says the
spokesperson.
At a European level the “stress test specifications” have been drawn up
by the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association alongside ENSREG.
If there are additional questions that have to be asked, then all
nuclear operators in EU member states would put forward their
suggestions.
Electrabel stresses that in the case of Belgium, the Federal Agency for
Nuclear Control (FANC) has worked with ENSREG in proposing assessments
for a number of off-site situations including earthquakes, floods,
extreme weather conditions, plane crashes and even terrorist attacks.
The European Parliament is also welcoming the revision of the Nuclear
Safety Directive, established in 2009 to promote nuclear safety in the
EU, and that member states provide national safety programmes that are
equipped to deal with nuclear dangers.
“The Nuclear Safety Directive should be understood as a guideline for
regulators, a clear rationale for the benefit in comparison to existing
national regulations, but should not interfere with their responsibility
and independence,” asserts the RWE spokesperson in keeping with the
nuclear operator culture in Europe of self-determinism from Brussels.
© Nuclear Energy Insider