March 2015WENRA spring meeting 20151 WENRA Plenary meeting, Geneva, March 2015 Reactor Harmonization...

March 2015 WENRA spring meeting 2015 1

WENRA Plenary meeting, Geneva, March 2015Reactor Harmonization Working Group (RHWG)

Fabien FERON RHWG chair

RHWGStatus report

1


Agenda

• RHWG meetings

• Ongoing work– Post-Fukushima actions– Topical work– Reference Levels– EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review

• Future activities

• Requests to WENRA


RHWG meetings

• Since last WENRA meeting : – January 2015 : RHWG meeting in Helsinki

• Upcoming RHWG meetings :– May 2015 : Bratislava (Slovakia)– September 2015 : Bulgaria– January 2016 : Switzerland


Agenda

• RHWG meetings

• Ongoing work– Post-Fukushima actions– Topical work– Reference Levels– EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review




RHWG on-going work: summary

RHWG

Post Fukushima actionsReference Levels

Topical work

DEEPER project

Guidance on natural hazards

Follow-up on transposing 2008 RLs into national regulatory framework

2014 RLs

Follow-up on transposing 2014 RLs into national regulatory framework

Follow-up on implementation of 2014 RLs at NPPs

Review and, as necessary, revision of 2014 RLs Passive systems

Practical elimination

Survey on F4.7 (heat removal in DEC)

EU Nuclear Safety Directive

Topical Peer Review


RHWG on-going work: post Fukushima actions (1/4)

• DEEPER project (paper collection of reactor basic factsheets)– Spreadsheet content specification adjusted to benefit from experience

gained through the data trial exchange– Trial data exchange

• Countries having provided at least one (partial) filled spreadsheet to GRS : Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK, Sweden, Switzerland

• A few information needs better specification• Other countries to provide at least one filled spreadsheet before next RHWG

meeting– Next steps : at next RHWG meeting :

• Termination or continuation of the trial period• Discussion on a process to verify the “quality” of data submitted

►Question to WENRA : DEEPER ? IAEA EPRIMS (Emergency Preparedness and Response Information Management System) initiative

– IAEA Note Verbale of December 2014– Expected EPRIMS implementation year: 2015



• Guidance on natural hazards– T1 group established by WENRA in May

2012 (UK leads)• T.1 Natural hazards : “WENRA will produce

updated harmonised guidance for the identification of natural hazards, their assessment and the corresponding assessment for “cliff-edge” (margins) effects. Safety Reference Levels will be updated accordingly.”

– 2014 set of RLs includes a new issue “T” on natural hazards

– T1 group has developed/is developing :• A head guidance document• Hazard specific guidance documents (seismic

hazards, flooding hazards, meteorological hazards)

2014 RLsIssue T

Head GuidanceDocument

Guidance on seismic hazards

Guidance onflooding hazards

Guidance onMeteorological

hazards



• Head guidance document on natural hazards– Meeting with ENISS in September

2014– RHWG made a partial (~80%) review

of the draft during its October 2014 meeting

– T1 group updated the draft accordingly

– RHWG made a full review of the draft during its January 2015 meeting. A few changes were introduced after discussing them with T1 lead.

►RHWG view is that the draft is now ready for WENRA endorsement then publication on WENRA website WENRA decision ?

Table of content of the guidance

00 Introduction01 Objective02 Identification of natural hazards03 Site specific natural hazard

screening and assessment04 Definition of design basis events05 Protection against design basis

events06 Considerations for events more

severe than the design basis07 Reviews of the site specific

natural hazardsReferencesList of acronymsAppendix 1: Non-exhaustive List of

Natural Hazard Types



• Hazard specific guidance documents– Work on the 3 drafts was put on hold by T1 group as efforts were

devoted to finalize the RLs of issue T, then to complete the head guidance document on natural hazards

– T1 group to finalize the 3 drafts by end of April 2015• A T1 group meeting mid-March 2015 is scheduled• Document structure should follow the one of the head guidance document.

Specific guidance should be consistent with head guidance• Status report at RHWG May 2015 meeting

– RHWG discussed the RHWG review process of these 3 drafts, acknowledging their more technical nature, and agreed on• Written commenting period during May and June 2015, enabling all RHWG

members/observers to consult their national experts (not all are in T1)• Update of the drafts + comment disposition table ready by early September

so that final draft can be reviewed at RHWG September 2015 meeting, hopefully discussing only remaining concerns (if any).


Topical workPassive systems (1/2)

• Goal: develop a position paper on specific issues that should be taken into account to demonstrate the safety of plant with passive safety systems

• Working group established : France, Belgium, Finland, Germany• Preliminary workplan presented to RHWG

– Identification of publications (IAEA, US-NRC…) relevant to the topic– No internationally agreed clear definition of a passive system

• Need to clarify the definition of a “passive safety system” in WENRA countries and to agree on what is the meaning of “passive systems” in the future WENRA paper

• Questionnaire under development– Potential topics to be discussed : failure mode analysis and reliability data

(PSA modeling), qualification and testing (initial and during plant operation/outage)…

– First meeting of the working group in a few days

Refine the workplan, progress on the topics to be addressed and report at next RHWG meeting


Topical workPassive systems (2/2)

• IAEA definitions/examples:– Safety Glossary (2007) : A passive component is “a component whose

functioning does not depend on an external input such as actuation, mechanical movement or supply of power.

A passive component has no moving part, and, for example, only experiences a change in pressure, in temperature or in fluid flow in performing its functions. In addition, certain components that function with very high reliability based on irreversible action or change may be assigned to this category”.

Examples of passive components are heat exchangers, pipes, vessels, electrical cables and structures.

Certain components, such as rupture discs, check valves, safety valves, injectors and some solid state electronic devices, have characteristics which require special consideration before designation as an active or passive component”

– TECDOC-626: “a passive system is either a system which is composed entirely of passive components and structures or a system which uses active components in a very limited way to initiate subsequent passive operation • Appendix A provides a table with 4 categories of passivity from the most passive

“features” to the less passive ones


Topical workPractical elimination (1/)

• Goal: Develop a position paper on what is expected for the application and demonstration of practical elimination

• Working group established: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Slovenia

• Preliminary workplan presented to RHWG– Identification of situations to be practically eliminated– Deterministic approach to demonstration of PE– Probabilistic approach to demonstration of PE– Differences in the application of PE to new, and existing plants– Demonstration of PE via “physical impossibility”– Application of the PE concept to external hazards:– Ensuring that provisions for PE remain effective throughout the lifetime

of the plant

– First draft position paper in January 2016, for review by RHWG at the January and May 2016 meetings


Topical workPractical elimination (2/)

Perform a survey, based on a questionnaire, on whether quantitative values are used in WENRA countries to support demonstration of practical elimination (PSA), either in regulations and regulatory guidance or in the regulator/TSO in-house review procedures.• Answers to be summarized at next RHWG meeting

Workplan was found appropriate. • Still an open question on whether practical elimination of

external hazards will be addressed• First meeting of the working group in March 2015


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors – follow-up on 2008 RLs (1/2)• Follow-up on transposing 2008 RLs into national regulatory

framework : status at the end of 20140 0

340 10 0

48

0

94

0 0

5212

340

187

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Already harmonised In progress but not yet harmonised


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors – follow-up on 2008 RLs (2/2)

• At the end of 2014, there is still on-going work in some WENRA countries to implement in their national framework the 2008 RLs.

• In 2014, there has been progress towards this goal. In particular, new texts were published in France and Switzerland.

End of 2013 End of 2014


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors – updating the 2014 RLs (1/8)

RHWG September 2014 meeting

RHWG January 2015 meeting

WENRA fall 2014 meeting

Overall approach-Review phase

-Revision phase

Need to better address internal hazards and non natural external hazards

Initiation of review phase

Approval for the review and revision of 2014RLS

Approval for the development of a new issue on “other hazards”

Clarification of detailed processDefinition of next steps

Workplan for the development of RLs on others hazards

Status report

Status report on outcome of review phase



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : process followed– The overall approach was discussed at the RHWG September

2014 Berlin meeting. – The first step was to make an initial review of most issues

(i.e. not those reviewed as part of the post-Fukushima update).

– Were excluded from this review :- Issues E (design basis envelope), F (design extension), LM (EOP and

SAMGs), P(PSR) as extensive review was performed as part of post-Fukushima work

- Issue T (natural hazards), which was established in 2014• An issue group leader was designated to perform the review and get

feedback from RHWG members on whether (or not) a detailed review and probably revision is needed on the issue.

– Development of a new issue on internal hazards



Issue A Safety Policy Switzerland Issue K Maintenance, ISI and Functional Testing UK

Issue B Operating Organisation Spain Issue LM EOP and SAMGs /

Issue C Management System Hungary Issue N Contents and Updating of SAR Sweden

Issue D Training and Authorization of NPP Staff

Bulgaria Issue O PSA Slovakia

Issue E Design Basis Envelope for Existing Reactors / Issue P Periodic Safety

Review /

Issue F Design Extension of Existing Reactors / Issue Q Plant Modifications Czech Rep

Issue G Safety Classification of SSCs Finland Issue R On-site Emergency Preparedness Austria

Issue H Operational Limits and Conditions (OLCs) France Issue S Protection against

Internal Fires Germany

Issue I Ageing Management Germany Issue T Natural Hazards /

Issue J System for Investigation of Events and OEF

Slovenia

• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : preliminary review



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : preliminary review resultsIssue Title No update

neededFurther review

(IAEAI…)Limitedupdate

Significant update

Issue A Safety Policy

Issue B Operating Organisation

Issue C Management System

Issue D Training and Authorization of NPP Staff

Issue G Safety Classification of Structures, SSCs

Issue H Operational Limits and Conditions (OLCs)

Issue I Ageing Management

Issue J System for Investigation of Events and OEF

Issue K Maintenance, ISI and Functional Testing

Issue N Contents and Updating of Safety Analysis Report

Issue O Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA)

Issue Q Plant Modifications

Issue R On-site Emergency Preparedness

Issue S Protection against Internal Fires Interface with new issue on hazards



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps– Issues where further review is needed to decide on revision

• Issue B: investigate benefit of shifting some RLs from issue B to issue C or J;

• Issue C: review should take account IAEA DS456 draft (update of GS-R-3) which should be available before 2015 summer;

• Issue D: determine whether qualification of contractors, content of training programs, requalification and leadership;

• Issue G: determine whether IAEA SSG-30 impacts some RLs;

• Issue R: review should take account the recently approved GSR Part 7, to the EU Nuclear Safety Directive, and to the HERCA-WENRA approach;

• Issue H: develop a survey to get a view of WENRA practices for accepting/refusing “derogations” to OLC and whether such derogation are (or not) considered temporary modifications of OLC.

Report review result at next RHWG meeting



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps– For the issues requiring significant updates, work groups

have been established to revise the RLs. • Issue I: Germany and Belgium;• Issue J: Slovenia, Austria, France, Finland and Germany• Issue S: Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland;• Issue Q: Czech Republic + ? (volunteers to be confirmed).

Draft updated RLs to be available for next RHWG meeting



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps– New issue on internal hazards for existing reactors

• The objectives are to develop new RLs for hazards not yet addressed in RLs:– Internal hazards other than fire. Internal hazards = hazards occurring inside the

site (“site” is defined in the IAEA Safety Glossary as, typically, the area within the security perimeter fence or other designated property marker)

– Human-induced external hazards.• Work group : Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, France and

Switzerland • Preliminary review of IAEA safety standards and WENRA country

regulations was performed to identify hazards to be addressed• Workplan developed• Choice on the structure of issue(s) (i.e. 1 or 2 issues on hazards,

combination with issues S or T) will be made later, once a mature draft of new RLs is available.

First draft of the RLs on “Human-induced hazards” to be ready for next RHWG meeting and progress report on development of RLs on internal hazards.



• Review and revision of the 2014 RLs : next steps– General criteria for acceptable changes to the RLs were suggested :

• they should cover important issues that are significant to safety.• they should cover areas where difference in substance might be expected.

– it would help in further harmonization of safety within Europe.

• they should be high-level changes and may be implemented in all countries.– it would not be better to just add these changes in guidance documents.

• they should not be only wording changes without any impact on safety.– if introduced, they would actually result in changes at the plants.

– A RHWG coordination group is established (UK, Austria, France, Germany, Slovakia)• To review all revised RLs/issues to ensure consistency between issues • To check appropriate application of the general criteria• To report its views to RHWG


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors – implementing 2014 RLs (1/7)

WENRA statement…WENRA members are committed to continuous improvement of nuclear safety in their countries. Within this spirit WENRA emphasizes identifying the insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in March 2011 and operators improving NPP safety accordingly. For this purpose, WENRA mandated its Reactor Harmonization Working Group (RHWG) to review and revise the SRLs for existing reactors with the aim to integrate the lessons learned from the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.…The national regulators make a commitment to improve and harmonize their national regulatory systems, by implementing the new SRLs until 2017 as a target date.WENRA strives for openness and keeps all interested parties informed of the progress made in this work.



• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs– During the RHWG meeting in Madrid January 2014 it was

decided to prepare a preliminary plan to evaluate the implementation of the revised RLs due to the lessons learned from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP.

– This preliminary plan was discussed during the RHWG meeting in The Hague May 2014.• A group of RHWG members (Germany, Czech Rep., Finland,

Sweden) was tasked to elaborate the proposed benchmark process in more detail.

– The proposal was further discussed during the RHWG meetings in Berlin in September 2014 and in Helsinki in January 2015.



• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs• on the regulatory side (regulations + regulatory guidance)• then, on the implementation at the NPPs

– RHWG supports the follow-up to be based on 4 steps: 1) National self-assessment (with rating A, B or C ) + preliminary

national action plan• A: RL considered to be fully implemented in national regulatory

framework• B: Differences exists between RLs and national regulatory framework

but are deemed justified (no need for change).• C: RL considered as not be implemented.

2) Peer review of national self-assessments3) Final national action plan4) Follow-up on implementation of national action plans



• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side– National self-assessment will only address the RLs which were

modified/created in the 2014 version (~130)– National self-assessment will be framed by a template including, tables to:

• Describe current national situation

• Present national action plan to fully implement RL in the national framework

Reference Levels (2014) National self-assessment Peer review

RL number RL text Basis supporting the rating Rating A/B/C Peer review rating

RL number Description on the way to implement RLinto the national regulatory framework

Scheduled date to finalize implementation




Decision to develop a plan to follow-up on implementation

of updated RLs

WENRA spring 2014 meeting

Agreement to perform follow-up(RHWG workplan)

WENRA fall 2014 meeting

Progress report on follow-up process

RHWG May 2014 meeting

Discussion on suggested plan and amendment to the plan




Self-assessment + preliminary action plan

31 December 2015Self-assessment +

action plan


Initiate peer review

• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side



• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs on the regulatory side– For the RHWG peer-review of the national self-assessments, the process

suggested is different from the one followed in the early 2000. It includes:• a written question/answer period performed prior to RHWG

meetings by country groups (a similar process as in the CNS review meeting);• a collective review during RHWG meetings on a few RLs.

– The peer review is a way to challenge RLs rated “A” and “B”

– The process for the peer review needs further clarifications, expected to be agreed at the next RHWG meeting.

– As it is a new process, RHWG believes a test phase would be useful.

►RHWG requests WENRA to approve the approach for the follow-up (self-assessment + peer review) on the implementation of 2014 RLs into the national regulatory framework.



• Development of a process to follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs at the plants– Implementation of the revised RLs in the NPPs is considered

to be important to improve nuclear safety in Europe. – Considering resources available, follow-up will focus on some

updated RLs (i.e much less than 130)– Need to manage the interface with EU Nuclear Safety

Directive peer reviews• Regulators’ resources• Licensee involvement

During its January 2015 meeting, RHWG did not discuss the process suggested by its work group as priority was given to the EU peer review process and topics


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors : 2014 RLs, survey on F4.7 (1/2)

• F4.7 There shall be sufficient independent and diverse means including necessary power supplies available to remove the residual heat from the core and the spent fuel. At least one of these means shall be effective after events involving external hazards more severe than design basis events

- + guidance on Issue F

• Questionnaire on RL F4.7• Purpose: to obtain a clear overview of the situation and plans in the WENRA

countries, with focus on fundamental design bases for additional system/requirements for reactor cooling in extreme conditions

• 23 questions developed by a work group (Sweden, Finland, Germany)– Initiating events considered in DEC A for additional system/requirements [9 questions]– Separation and diversification [1 question]– Redundancy [1 question]– Simplicity (for operation but also for installation and maintenance) [2 questions]– Manual and/or automatic initiation/control [6 questions]– Mobile equipment [4 questions]

• This survey could also help in defining national requirements or assessing licensee’s plan on this topic.


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors : 2014 RLs, survey on F4.7 (2/2)

– RHWG view was that the current version of the questionnaire is technically sound but too extensive and detailed; • In several countries, decisions concerning this issue have not yet

been made and some questions are still pending. F4.7 is often not yet a regulatory requirement and discussions between the regulator and the licensee(s) may be at early stages.

• Question on whether the survey will duplicate or not information provided to the April 2015 ENSREG workshop.

Clarify and simplify the questionnaire for next RHWG meeting


RHWG on-going work: RLs for existing reactors – EU NSD topical peer review (1/13)

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2014/87/EURATOM of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community

framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

(22) The stress tests demonstrated the key role of enhanced cooperation and coordination mechanisms between all parties that have responsibilities for nuclear safety. The peer-reviews have proved to be a good means of building confidence, with the aim of developing and exchanging experience and ensuring the common application of high nuclear safety standards.

(23) Cooperation on nuclear safety between Members States is well established and can give added value in terms of nuclear safety, transparency and openness towards stakeholders at the European and international level. Member States, through their competent regulatory authorities making relevant use of ENSREG, and building on the expertise of the WENRA, should every six years define a methodology, Terms of Reference and a time frame for Peer Reviews on a common specific technical topic related to the nuclear safety of their nuclear installations. The common specific technical topic to be considered should be identified among the WENRA safety reference levels or on the basis of operating experience feed-back, incidents and accidents and technological and scientific developments. Member States should perform a national self-assessment and make arrangements for common peer reviews by other Member States' competent regulatory authorities of their national self-assessment. Reports on the findings of those peer reviews should be produced. Member States should establish national action plans for addressing any relevant findings and their own national assessment, taking into account the results of those peer review reports. The peer review reports should also form the basis of any summary report of the outcome of the Union-wide topical peer review exercise prepared collectively by the competent regulatory authorities of the Member States. The summary report should not aim to rank the safety of nuclear installations but rather focus on the process and technical findings of the topical peer review so that the knowledge gained from the exercise can be shared. Reciprocal trust should prevail in peer reviews, and it would therefore be appropriate for the Commission, whenever practicable, to inform Member States when it intends to use the results of peer review reports in its policy documents.

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

installationsArticle 8e

Peer reviews1. Member States shall, at least once every 10 years, arrange for

periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer review of relevant segments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities with the aim of continuously improving nuclear safety. Outcomes of such peer reviews shall be reported to the Member States and the Commission, when available.

2. Member States shall ensure that, on a coordinated basis:(a) a national assessment is performed, based on a specific topic

related to nuclear safety of the relevant nuclear installations on their territory;

(b) all other Member States, and the Commission as observer, are invited to peer review the national assessment referred to in point (a);

(c) appropriate follow-up measures are taken of relevant findings resulting from the peer review process;

(d) relevant reports are published on the above mentioned process and its main outcome when results are available.

3. Member States shall ensure that arrangements are in place to allow for the first topical peer review to start in 2017, and for subsequent topical peer reviews to take place at least every six years thereafter.

4. In case of an accident leading to situations that would require off- site emergency measures or protective measures for the general public, the Member State concerned shall ensure that an international peer review is invited without undue delay.



RHWG

EU Nuclear Safety Directive

Topical Peer Review

DRAFT NON PAPER

Description of a possible Topical

Peer Review (TPR) process at EU level

Atomic Questions Group

Working Group 1

E-mail from WG1 chair to RHWG chair21 January 2015

Beginning of 2014



• E-mail from ENSREG WG1 chair to RHWG chair (21 January 2015)– “Schedule:

• First proposal of topics to be presented by the RHWG to WENRA Plenary on March 2015.

• WENRA would provide some feedback to ENSREG in July on the RHWG proposal.• Definition and approval of the methodology for the review process, along with the final

topic selection, before the end of 2015.– Topics proposal:

• Various proposals were presented and discussed … but it was decided that the first set of proposals should be elaborated from the RHWG. General agreement was reached on the main topic characteristics:– It should be related to nuclear safety of the relevant nuclear installations on the

Member States’ territory.– It should imply a certain degree of practical safety improvement.– It should be a technical issue, in order to lead to technical discussions rather than

methodology-oriented discussions during the review process.– It should be preferably connected to one or various WENRA SRLs.

– Review process methodology:• It seems logical to follow a similar approach for the review process to the one followed

during the stress tests and the peer review of the post-Fukushima National Action Plans. WG1 could lead the proposal and development of the Terms of Reference for the review process.”

Working Group 1



• Non paper presented to the Atomic Questions Group early 2014– Prepared by Y Pouleur and L. Reiman

“The description in annex is largely based on WENRA and stress tests peer review experiences and focuses on topics to be chosen among WENRA Safety Reference Levels (RLs). This ensures the EU TPR would make the best use of past and on-going mechanisms and achievements. It also optimizes the harmonization of national nuclear safety approaches (as defined by WENRA). Moreover, this scenario the TPR would create no shift of responsibilities. Although the choice of the topic should be made among WENRA RLs, the possibility should remain to choose another topic. Past operating experience feedback has proven events may occur that require prompt action from all regulators (e.g. - Forsmark incident – fault indications in the core vessel of Doel and Tihange). This may best fit within the TPR context.The description in annex is accompanied by examples of topic candidates as well as a table indicating which mechanisms and procedures are already implemented within WENRA and should be used within the TPR process.”



• Non paper presented to the Atomic Questions Group early 2014“The Topical Peer Review process consists of the following main phases (the time needed for each phase is also roughly estimated), based on the experience from the European nuclear stress tests and peer review:

• Approval of the ToR including the selection of the topic (3 months)• National topical self-assessment (12 months)• Peer review of national assessments (6 months)• Preparation of national implementation plans (6 months)• Follow-up of the national implementation plans (36 months)

The actual review phases are estimated to take 1,5 years and the process as a whole (including the follow-up) 5 years.To guide the TPR process, a generic description of the process is needed and a ToR for each specific TPR. They should be developed and approved by the ENSREG. ToR should establish a steering group for a specific TPR, to define the topic, to define the responsibilities of different actors and to define the overall schedule for the TPR. Also the secretariat for the specific TPR is established by the ToR.The topic should be selected by the ENSREG after consultation with the WENRA. The revised WENRA Reference Levels should be used as a reference in selecting the topics, but also other topics could be chosen (e.g. important recent REX - Forsmark incident – fault indications in the core vessel of Doel and Tihange). Especially Reference Levels which seem to be difficult to implement in regulations or at the plants should be considered. Reference Levels related to Periodic Safety Review are a priori a good candidate for a peer review topic. After the topic is selected and the ToR for the review is approved by the ENSREG, the actual review is initiated.”



Taking into account the time available in its meeting and after considering ENSREG WG1 feedback and process suggested in the non-paper, RHWG - had no objection on the suggested process;

• TPR generic process :1.Approval of the ToR including the selection of the topic (3 months)2.National topical self-assessment (12 months)3.Peer review of national assessments (6 months)4.Preparation of national implementation plans (6 months)5.Follow-up of the national implementation plans (36 months)

• Review process methodology:It seems logical to follow a similar approach for the review process to the one followed during the stress tests and the peer review of the post-Fukushima National Action Plans. WG1 could lead the proposal and development of the Terms of Reference for the review process

- decided to focus its work on the potential candidate topics for the first TPR.

DRAFT NON PAPER

Description of a possible Topical

Peer Review (TPR) process at

EU level

Working Group 1



“As examples, the following topics for Topical Peer Reviews, based on new RLs, are presented:– Instrumentation and control systems in

Design Basis Envelope (E 10)– Selection and analysis of Design

Extension Conditions (F 2-3)– Heat removal functions in DECs (F 4)– Containment functions in DEC (F 4)– Emergency power in DECs (F 4)– Emergency Operating Procedures and

Severe Accident Management Guidelines (LM 1-4)

– Scope, quality and content of PSA (O 1-2)

– Scope and methodology of PSR (P 2-3)– On-site Emergency Preparedness (R 2-5)– Natural Hazards (T 4-6)”

“Topic/s proposal:– Various proposals were presented and

discussed (LTO by the European Commission, some other rather technical topics – fire protection, Instrumentation robustness under severe accident conditions, containment integrity – from France) but it was decided that the first set of proposals should be elaborated from the RHWG.

– General agreement was reached on the main topic characteristics:• It should be related to nuclear safety of

the relevant nuclear installations on the Member States’ territory.

• It should imply a certain degree of practical safety improvement.

• It should be a technical issue, in order to lead to technical discussions rather than methodology-oriented discussions during the review process.

• It should be preferably connected to one or various WENRA SRLs.”

DRAFT NON PAPERDescription of a possible

Topical Peer Review (TPR) process at EU level

Working Group 1



• Process followed by RHWG to propose potential candidate topic for the first TPR

• Becoming aware of topics suggested in the non-paper• Criteria suggested by ENSREG WG-1 and topics suggested during its

recent meeting• Recalling the topics addressed during the post-Fukushima EU stress

tests• Going through each issue of the Reference Levels (2014)

Each country identified its top 3 preferred topics (paper “secret” vote), so that a global ”hierarchy”

could be established by counting votes

– Short list of potential candidate topics

– An initial list of potential candidate topics was established



• During the RHWG meeting, questions were raised about:– how “specific” (i.e. very specific, large, very large…) should

be the topic (i.e. one RL, a few RLs, a full issue, …) ?– whether it would be valuable or not to review topics already

reviewed within the EU stress tests ?– whether media and social perception of the topic selected

should be considered ?– whether a “non-technical” (i.e. process or organizational)

topic could be a topic for the TPR ?– the potential topic for the TPR would actually help improving

safety ?– whether site visits may be relevant for some topics and

whether such visit would be representative ?



Issues deemed not appropriate for the first TPR– Issue A (safety policy)– Issue B (Operating Organisation)– Issue C (Management System) except, possibly,

of C7.1 to C7.3 (safety culture)– Issue D (Training and Authorization of NPP Staff

(Jobs with Safety Importance)– Issue G (Safety Classification of Structures,

Systems and Components), except G4.2– Issue H (Operational Limits and Conditions

(OLCs))– Issue J (System for Investigation of Events and

Operational Experience Feedback)– Issue K (Maintenance, In-Service Inspection and

Functional Testing)– Issue N (Contents and Updating of Safety

Analysis Report (SAR))– Issue Q (Plant Modifications)

Issues potentially candidate for the first TPR



RHWG

Heat removal in Design Basis Envelope and in DEC

RL E9.9, F4.7 + F4.1 to F4.5

Periodic Safety ReviewsRL P2.1 to P3.3

Natural Hazards RL T4.1 to T4.4

Ageing management of major SSCs

RL I2.# and I3.#

Emergency power in Design Basis Envelope and in DEC

RL E10.11, F 4.17, F4.18+ F4.1 to F4.5

• It is relevant for most EU countries.• Link with PSR and connection with the

LTO topic suggested by EC• Wide ranging topic with both

methodological aspects and actual control/surveillance.

• Scope could be narrowed if needed

• Emergency power is a very significant contributor to safety.

• Technical subject, highlighted in the EU stress test peer review.

• Enable to have a specific look for spent fuel pool and how site wide aspect are considered.

• Heat removal is a very significant contributor to safety.• Technical subject, highlighted in the EU stress test peer review.• Enable to have a specific look at spent fuel pool.

• Key process for safety improvement.• Highlighted in EU Peer review report (especially for

natural hazards) and EU nuclear safety directive.• Link with ageing management and review of

hazards.• Scope could be narrowed if needed

• It is “innovative” (criteria for design basis event).• Strong link with site location.• Easy to communicate to public.• Scope could be narrowed if needed



RHWG is suggesting 5 candidate topics for the first TPR (presented in alphabetical order):

• Ageing management of major SSCs, • Emergency power in Design Basis Envelope and in DEC, • Heat removal in Design basis envelope in DEC, • Natural Hazards,• Periodic Safety Review.

– The topics on ageing management and PSR, and to a smaller extent, Natural Hazards, are very broad. If they are selected, their scope may have to be narrowed to a have a more manageable domain

►What is WENRA view on these candidate topics ?►Any additional work to perform by RHWG before the

July 2015 ENSREG meeting ?


Agenda

• RHWG meetings• Ongoing work– Post-Fukushima actions– Topical work– Reference Levels– EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review




RHWG future activities (1/2)

• Follow-up on the implementation of the 2008 RLs• Complete the development of the 3 guidance documents on

specific natural hazards• Progress in the review and revision of the 2014 RLs

– Complete the review of some Issues– Develop new/modified RLs consistent with the outcome of the review as

well as those in the new issue “other hazards”• Progress in the follow-up on the implementation of the 2014 RLs

– Questionnaire on F4.7– Perform the self-assessment on regulatory side then initiate peer review

after clarifying its process• Progress in developing position paper on practical elimination

and on passive system• Complete the data trial exchange period for DEEPER and initiate

the full data collection. Clarify “quality” check process

• EU NSD TPR preparation


RHWG future activities (2/2)

2015 2016

Development of the guidance on specific natural hazards

Review and revision of the 2014 RLs

Follow-up on implementation of the 2014 RLs

DEEPER

2017

Development of a position paper on practical elimination

Development of a position paper on passive system

EU NSD topical peer review preparation

Follow-up on implementation of the 2008 RLs

ReviewRevision

Trial exchange

Self-assessmentPeer review

Follow-up

Data compilation

T1 draftingRHWG review


Agenda

• RHWG meetings• Ongoing work– Post-Fukushima actions– Topical work– Reference Levels– EU Nuclear Safety Directive peer review




Requests to WENRA

• Approval of the head guidance document on natural hazards

• DEEPER initiative considering IAEA EPRIMS project : maintaining or not DEEPER, amending the specification of data to be collected

• Initial steps of the follow-up process on implementation of the 2014 RLs (regulatory side)

• EU Nuclear Safety Directive Topical Peer Review: next steps

• General workplan of RHWG and providing supporting resources


RHWGFabien Féron

Thank you.

Date post:	19-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	valentine-mitchell
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

March 2015WENRA spring meeting 20151 WENRA Plenary meeting, Geneva, March 2015 Reactor Harmonization...

Documents