EGNRS Topical Day. Date: 12 April 2011, Oslo Time: 10am Venue: Clarion Hotel Royal Christiania, Biskop Gunnerus gate 3, NO-0155 Oslo, Norway

Transcription

1 EGNRS Topical Day Date: 12 April 2011, Oslo Time: 10am Venue: Clarion Hotel Royal Christiania, Biskop Gunnerus gate 3, NO-0155 Oslo, Norway Introductory words by Ambassador Dag Briseid Note: See the attached Table and Map in the Power Point presentation Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues I am very happy to welcome all of you to Oslo and to this very important expert workshop, the topical day of the Council of the Baltic Sea States Expert Group on Nuclear and Radiation Safety. I am doing so on behalf of the Norwegian Presidency of the Council and in my capacity as Chair of its Committee of Senior Officials. Let me also convey the warmest greetings to this workshop from the Chairman of the Council, Norway s foreign minister. It goes without saying that the theme of this topical day could hardly be more topical. I know that this is a coincidence and that the theme was chosen long before the Fukushima disaster. But a theme which to me sounded important but rather expert oriented when I first time learnt about this event, has suddenly become a major issue in public debates. You are all specialists and I am here to learn. Nevertheless, let me in my introductory words go straight to the topic in order to give some food for thought. Monitoring radioactivity in the environment includes a wide spectrum of issues, and I will touch only on one side of it, namely nuclear energy. I would like try to draw a kind of a nuclear map or state of the art of our region, the Baltic Sea region. 1

2 We live in a way on the verge of a new era in terms of nuclear power, although we do not know yet what will be the consequences of the Fukushima disaster in a wider sense. We remember that after the Three Mile Island accident in Harrisburg in 1979 and especially after the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986 the so-called West virtually stopped building nuclear reactors. Some countries made political decisions to shut down their existing reactors. Then came the climate change debate and with it kind of a nuclear renaissance, especially after the IPCC 2007 report. Suddenly, nuclear power was recognized, even by many former antinuclear power lobbyists, as one of the most realistic options available for alleviating the risk of global climate change. To be sure, those who are firmly against nuclear energy continued to argue that nuclear power is at best a very partial, problematic and unnecessary response to climate change. It is not my role here to participate in this debate and make any judgements. But instead I will put forward some facts and figures that our Secretariat has collected. Let us look at the Table on the screen. As you can see in the lowest row, today we have 443 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide. It should be mentioned that the world leader is overwhelmingly the United States with its 104 reactors. France and Japan follow with 58 and 55 reactors respectively, the latter figure including those reactors that are now damaged and will not be used again. Moreover, we have currently 62 reactors under construction worldwide. Additionally we have 158 reactors planned, which means that approvals, funding or major commitments are in place, and these are mostly expected in operation within 8-10 years. Finally we have 324 reactors proposed, which means that there are already specific programmes or site proposals, and the reactors are expected in operation mostly within 15 years. If this trend continues, even when the old reactors would be shut down due to their ageing, this means that the number of nuclear reactors will grow in absolute terms. In one estimation, based on this continuous growth scenario, it is calculated that there would be 1120 reactors in operation in 2050, close to three times what we have to-day. This is not the whole truth, however. Nuclear energy is a field which seems to be the most immune to joint approaches not only within societies but across the countries as well. It is enough to look at the situation in the Baltic Sea region to understand how far from each other the CBSS countries, for instance, are in this respect. This can be seen in the Table. Clearly the countries can be divided into several different categories as to their approach to nuclear energy. 2

3 And still the whole region is covered with nuclear reactors. The Secretariat, together with Nordregio, has prepared the Map that is now shown on the screen to illustrate the situation.. It locates the shutdown reactors, those in operation, those under construction, planned or proposed and also research reactors. Two CBSS countries, Finland and Russia, belong to a group which have nuclear reactors in operation and are currently also constructing new ones. Finland has four nuclear reactors connected to the grid. The fifth is currently under construction. Furthermore, the current government decisions from 2010 in principle allow building 2-3 new reactors, partly on new sites. Russia currently has 32 reactors in its territory. As a large country, it has indeed decided on an ambitious programme of further nuclear build-up. Accordingly, 10 reactors are today under construction, 14 reactors have been planned and 30 proposed. Of these, in the Baltic Sea region the construction of Leningrad II has been started, with ultimately four reactors. Russia is also building floating nuclear power plants, indeed pioneering in this field. Although most of them will be deployed far from the Baltic Sea region, waters around the Kola Peninsula have been proposed as one deployment area. Germany is a special case. Its government made in 2000 an agreement with the nuclear energy companies on the gradual shutdown of the then 19 nuclear reactors. The last plant should shut down in And consequently the reactors in Stade and Obrigheim were shut down in 2003 and 2005 respectively. However, after the climate change debate started the question was reframed in terms of a bridging technology pending development of more renewable energy sources. In late 2010 a new agreement was achieved. The operation time for seven older reactors was prolonged with eight years and for ten younger reactors with 14 years. However, after the Japan catastrophe, Germany was the first to rethink. Its government announced already on 15 March that Germany will temporarily shut down all seven reactors that went into operation before the end of It was also informed that the recent decision of prolonging the operation time will be reconsidered. Sweden has currently ten operational nuclear reactors located in three power plants. In 1979 a referendum was held and the year after the Swedish parliament decided that no further reactors will be allowed built and the existing ones should be shut down by Consequently Barsebäck s first reactor was shut down in 1999 and the second in However, in February 2009 the Swedish government announced an agreement that the existing reactors will not only 3

4 not be shut down but they will be also replaced with new reactors; this policy was confirmed by the parliament in Lithuania is a non-nuclear energy country not of its own making. Connected to the European Union membership, Ignalina nuclear power plant was shut down, the first reactor in 2004, the last one at the end of For this country it was a remarkable step as still in 2009 this one reactor had been generating more than two thirds of the country s electricity. Currently in Lithuania preparations for the construction of the new Visaginas power plant are in progress, to be located close to the shutdown Ignalina plant. It has been said that Poland is a non-nuclear island surrounded by nuclear power plants. Within around three hundred kilometres from Polish borders there are 26 reactors and more than a dozen will soon be constructed. According to current plans, Poland will join this trend. Currently the government gives green light to build two nuclear plants with either two or three reactors each. One could also add Belarus, an Observer to the CBSS, to this group of newcomers. The country is in a preparation and planning phase to construct a two-reactor power plant near the Lithuanian border. Estonia and Latvia do not have nuclear power plants. There was a period of discussion on the possibility for the Lithuanian power plant to establish a joint enterprise for all the three Baltic countries. It seems that these countries do not in a short term intend to go nuclear. However, preparations to change the legislation and to establish, for instance, education programmes for nuclear energy have been started. We have three CBSS countries where no nuclear energy programmes are on the table. Denmark follows its parliament s decision made already in 1985 that nuclear power plants would not be built in the country. My own country Norway is in terms of electricity production close to 100 per cent hydro powered and there are no whatsoever plans or discussions going on related to building nuclear power plants in my country. Iceland belongs to this group of nuclear virgins, too. Ladies and gentlemen! As we see, the CBSS countries have very varying energy policies especially as to the use of nuclear energy. However, if we look at the issue from the perspective of nuclear and radiation 4

5 safety and security, we sit in the same boat and face a common challenge no matter of whether we have or do not have nuclear reactors. The CBSS is traditionally active in this field. Already in 1992 the Expert Group on Nuclear and Radiation Safety, the EGNRS, was established. To be sure, the group is not an operational body which would gather together in a crisis situation, but it is active in enhancing prevention and preparedness strategies. Its Terms of Reference starts with the following sentence: Nuclear and radiation safety, i.e. safety and security of installations, radiation protection and radioactive waste management, both civil and military, has been widely identified as an immediate and continuous concern for the Baltic Sea States. I would like to emphasise the words immediate and continuous in this context. We are not supposed to wait for any concerns to be materialised but work proactively. On the other hand, we do not get rid of these concerns even if there would be a complete stop of nuclear build-up. That means that we have to work permanently and constantly to enhance safety and security of nuclear installations. At times there is a discussion going on about whether the CBSS should be active in this or that field. That is natural as it is easy to point out that there already exist many other intergovernmental multilateral forums. However, as to nuclear and radiation safety, I am sure that our societies, especially in the current situation, would not accept if we would simply say that everything has been already taken care of; or let others do what is needed; or that there would be no need for nuclear and radiation safety cooperation in the regional Baltic Sea context. We need the Expert Group. While it is advisable that we will avoid overlaps and double work, the EGNRS can make a difference in many ways. It can pilot in areas where others are not active. It can be forerunner and best example even in many other fields where others are active, too. Instead of overlaps we could speak about division of labour, coordination, and synergy. I think this workshop is a perfect example of it that it has brought together representatives from many actors. One of the achievements of the EGNRS is that it has pioneered in facilitating the intergovernmental agreement on radiation data exchange signed in 2001, enabling almost realtime monitoring of the whole region. While the same data is currently exchanged Europe-wide, the EGNRS can still contribute to making this data exchange even better. 5

6 The group is also engaged in enhancing laboratory cooperation by harmonising methodologies and software in analysing gamma spectrometry, which would enable efficient assistance in analysing data in a crisis situation when resources are sparse. A special working group is established to propose additional initiatives that would enhance assistance preparedness in an emergency situation. The group also covers such issues as possible use of nuclear and radiological material by criminals or terrorists. It is clear that it would not be acceptable for our societies if we would not be well prepared for this obvious threat. I know that in this workshop you will discuss a draft report on environmental radiation monitoring, and later you will come up with some recommendations on how to even better organise and coordinate this activity and cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and beyond. I very much welcome this concrete work and promise that the political level of the CBSS will pay due attention to your recommendations. Let me finally thank the EGNRS for organising this topical day during the Norwegian CBSS Presidency. I would especially like to address the long-term Chairman of this group, Mr. Finn Ugletveit, who as I have been informed in the next meeting after this event will hand over the chairmanship to Finland s Mr Juha Rautjärvi. I have had a very good cooperation with Mr.Ugletveit during his chairmanship, and I would like to wholeheartedly thank him on behalf of the whole CBSS and its Committee of Senior Officials. I also want to express my gratitude to the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. And naturally we welcome and look forward to continuing this cooperation with Mr. Rautjärvi. I would like to wish you a very successful and fruitful workshop. I my self will be staying here the whole first day and also participate in the evening programme, and I am sure that I will learn a lot from you. Thank you very much for your attention and once more welcome! 6