1 of 15

Study on the effective implementation of EP&R requirements in the EU Member States and the neighboring countries:

ACN Roundtable: “Cross-border Emergency Preparedness and Response to nuclear accidental and post-accidental situations”, 12 January 2022

Yvan Pouleur, Unit D3 - Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection

DG ENER, European Commission

2 of 15

Objectives

Review and evaluate the practical implementation of national EP&R arrangements
Provide information on the effectiveness of existing arrangements and capabilities in practice
Review to what extent existing international and European standards, guidance and approaches are applied in practice
Share national experiences amongst the relevant authorities and highlight effective practices that would improve public confidence
Review and analyse the coherence of these arrangements in a cross-border context through case studies
Facilitate cross-disciplines discussion, technical exchanges, and sharing of experience amongst decision-makers, expert groups, civil society, licensee associations, regulatory bodies, health, and civil protection authorities to highlight effective implementation practices

Study awarded to a consortium

Taking account of the stress tests findings and the findings of the accident investigation into Fukushima, the EC proposed and discussed with the Council the changes to the NSD provisions.

In 2014 a new NSD was adopted. Amongst the main changes are:

Emphasis on independence of the regulator
Enhanced provision - Transparency and informing and involving the public, providing information on incidents, and accidents, and ensuring that the general public is given opportunities to participate in the decision-making process related to licensing of nuclear installations.
An EU wide safety objective requires that nuc installations are designed, sited, commissioned, operated, and decommissioned with the objective of preventing accidents and if an accident occurs – mitigating its consequences and avoiding both early and large radioactive releases.
Promoting nuclear safety culture is an importance aspect.
New topical peer- review mechanism has been introduced.
Consistency in the on-site EPR and the BSS provisions which cover both on-site and off-site EP&R matters

3 of 15

TASK 1:

To review the National Implementation of EP&R arrangements

TASK 2:

To conduct case studies of emergencies with cross border consequences

TASK 3:

Organisation of two workshops activities to present and disseminate the findings of tasks 1&2

Review/evaluate: practical implementation of national EP&R and response arrangements
Effective practices/ Public confidence
Detailed EP&R review on 4 countries (FR,IT,HU,SK)
Questionnaires & Answers

Review/analyse the coherence of EP&R in a cross-border context
Coordination approaches
Case studies (non real time) based on European regional approaches
Coherence/ harmonisation and implementation in practice

To facilitate cross-discipline discussion/ exchanges
Sharing of experience
Series of activities/ to achieve wider awareness of national and transboundary arrangements
Effective implementation practices

Outputs
Reports
Conclusions
Recommendations

TASK 4:

Outputs and reports of conclusions and recommendations

Project Structure & Methodology

4 of 15

STAKEHOLDERS AND PROJECT ORGANISATION

EU Member State’s and neighbouring

Steering Committee

CONSORTIUM

36 Competent Authorities under international nuclear emergency conventions have been invited
15 Nuclear utilities have been invited
Experts International organisations
Civil societies

Nuclear countries	Non nuclear countries	Nuclear Utilities	International Organisations	Civil Society	NGO
16 countries	17 countries	8 Nuclear Utilities	8 organisations
AM, BE, CH, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UA, UK	AT, CY, DK, EE, EL, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, ME, MK, NO, PL, PT, RS	-WANO -Kozloduy (BG) -German Utilities -ENDESA (ES) -MVM Paks (HU) -EPZ (NL) -NEK-Krsko(SI) -SE (SK) -EDF Energy (UK)	IAEA, NERIS, ENISS, HERCA, ETSON, NEA, IFRC, WHO	GMF ANCLII (France)	NTW
SA: Safety Authority and/or CP: Civil Protection		NU	STEERING COMMITTEE (+ 5 SA’s)

Stakeholder’s participating to the the Project

EU Member States and neighbouring countries involved in the Project

5 of 15

Three questionnaires for different organisations:

One questionnaire to Safety Authority (SA) and Civil Protection Organisations (CP)

Sent to 36 countries
Including 36 SA and 19 CP

One questionnaire to NPP or nuclear Utility

Sent to 10 countries
BG, CZ, FR, DE, HU, NL, SK, SI, ES, UK

One questionnaire to Civil society organisations

For French CLIs (34 CLIs)
GMF (14 countries)
And NTW

Questionnaire topics

Emergency Management System
Stakeholders' responsibilities
Emergency situation categories
Protection strategy
Tools and measures
Communication
Testing and exercising
Cross-border cooperation
Public information
Quality

TASKS COMPLETED AND PRODUCED IN 2021

6 of 15

COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES RECEIVED FOR ANALYSIS

Questionnaire for Safety Authority (SA) and Civil Protection (CP) Organisations:

25 completed questionnaires containing around 45 pages and 147 questions

Questionnaire for Nuclear Utilities (NU):

6 completed questionnaires containing around 8 pages and 45 questions

Questionnaire for Civil Society Organisations (CSO):

15 completed questionnaires containing around 6 pages and 26 questions

TASKS COMPLETED AND PRODUCED IN 2021

7 of 15

7

Workshop n°1

"10 years of EP&R improvements, from Fukushima accident impacts to transborder European harmonization and current state of practices"

17^th-18^th November 2021

EP&R improvements through Nuclear safety upgrades
Revisions of intervention zones
Timing of EP&R phases – Reflex phase
International cooperation reinforced – Herca Wenra approach
Covid crisis underlines existing challenges

8 of 15

Case studies

Focus on the requirements of BSS, Article 99: (international cooperation, sharing of assessment, coordination of protective measures and public information, transition to an existing exposure situation) in a trans-boundary context;
In order to have the largest and most comprehensive possible picture, the methodology tries to maximize the number of countries involved in the Case Studies using one common, three-step scenario applied to different cases defined on a geographical basis.
Questionnaires will be submitted to participants at each step of the scenario, comprising questions needed to understand their practical reactions.
Classification of participating countries into:

AC (Accident Country) / NC (Neighbouring Country) / OT (Other Country and/or Civil Society, NPP Utilities, or International Organizations);

To avoid useless duplication of efforts, roles and involvement of countries should be limited to a maximum of 2 in total.

9 of 15

Case studies

Principle of Sub-Regional Clustering of Countries
4 Country Clusters or Groups, defined geographically
NW, CE, SE, ND
«Working together» is thus facilitated
Countries included: not yet frozen
Possibility to involve «as many as possible»

10 of 15

QUESTIONNAIRE TO NUCLEAR UTILITIES

Preliminary Challenges

Formal way to share international experience could be reconsidered, i.e. practical possibility and benefits of such activity

More specific information and training to emergency workers and public - provide workshops with the local and district managers related to the EPR arrangements and to provide more information to the public related to the EPR arrangements of the NPP. Enhanced Emergency Response arrangements including a review of human and psychosocial aspects to enhance staff welfare, human factor and emotional aspects associated with emergency response.

Improvement of emergency response exercise and training programs to include response to severe accidents, multiunit and long duration events. Trying to ensure minimal contact of involved personnel, e.g. only simulating some parts of the scenarios, using digital tools and video conference software (lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic).

11 of 15

QUESTIONNAIRE TO SAFETY AUTHORITY AND CIVIL PROTECTION ORGANISATIONS

Preliminary Challenges

Lack of “experience” on HWA;
Need to organize specific exercises targeted to understand and verify HWA, involving also decision-makers, if possible;
Further realize/improve/test/exercise data exchange in real-time, so to increase understanding and trust;
Need to further improve Reference Levels harmonization;
Too few joint exercises between neighbouring countries;
Apparently, still too little knowledge of neighbouring countries EP&R arrangements and available resources;
Public (and public opinion) can provide useful feedback in the decision-making process: need for more joint public information campaigns;

12 of 15

QUESTIONNAIRE TO CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS

Preliminary Good practices

CSOs are involved in the implementation of EP&R arrangements
Participants of table-top excercises, including CSOs are prepared, but there are possibilities for improvements
Citizens are get enough information
Public engagement has improved in recent years

13 of 15

QUESTIONNAIRE TO CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS

Preliminary Challenges

Transparent and reliable information is essential

in case of emergency and during preparation phase
local, regional and national level

Effective communication channels should be used
Sharing knowledge and good practices is useful, but should be adapted for local needs.
Training programmes should be established for competence building
Differences between countries should be considered

culture, experiences, available technical solutions (e.g. for communication channels)

14 of 15

TO PERFORM IN 2022

Analysis/synthesis of responses to the questionnaires

Some preliminary results available

Implementation of case studies in March 2022

Proposal is being presented in this afternon Worshshop in the plenary session and we will invite all stakeholders to join their virtual "regional room" for detailed discussion

2^nd Workshop by the end of 2022

Final report and drafting recommendations with stakeholder’s support

EC EP&R project

15 of 15

��Thank-you