Licensing Process for International Projects

Transcription

1 Licensing Process for International Projects SFEN Atoms for the Future 2014 Paris, 13 October 2014 Christian Raetzke CONLAR Consulting on Nuclear Law and Regulation Leipzig, Germany

2 International Projects Almost all NPP projects are international... vendor from another country suppliers from other countries investors from other countries How does the licensing system take this into account? 2

3 Existing regulatory/legal situation Licensing and regulation is a national activity Each NPP is licensed by a national regulatory body within specific national licensing processes specific national safety requirements A design approval in one country is irrelevant for others This is an obstacle to deployment of standardized designs across a range of countries 3

4 International standardisation of reactor designs (1) International standardization would mean that each vendor s design can be built by a vendor, and ordered by a utility, in every country without obligatory adaptation to specific national regulations would bring benefits to safety would increase certainty and predictability and would therefore ease investment will be absolutely essential for SMRs 4

5 International standardisation of reactor designs (2) FOAK FOAK or n th of a kind? n th of a kind n th of a kind 5

6 International initiatives Regulators and international institutions MDEP Multinational Design Evaluation Programme Industry/stakeholders WNA CORDEL Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing ERDA European Reactor Design Acceptance 6

7 MDEP (1) 12 regulators who are/will be undertaking review of new NPP designs Secretariat: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Aims of MDEP Enhance cooperation between regulators Establish reference regulatory practices Achieve convergence of codes, standards, and safety goals in the longterm Working Groups Design-specific: 5 designs Issue-specific: 3 issues Atoms for the Future,

8 MDEP (2) Scope and mission of MDEP is limited No legal basis (treaty), club of regulators No harmonization of safety requirements No common or mutually accepted design acceptance Emphasis on sovereign authority of each regulator in licensing and regulation Nevertheless, important practical progress Benefits of sharing experience Common Positions contribute to aligning regulatory practices 8

9 WNA CORDEL Group World Nuclear Association s Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL) Group Membership: almost all major vendors and many utilities interested in new build, service companies, etc. Aims Promote international standardisation of reactor designs Promote harmonisation of licensing procedures Promote mutual acceptance of design reviews 9

10 WNA CORDEL Publications 2008: Benefits paper: International standardisation will help deliver large-scale worldwide new build bring benefits for safety 2010 Roadmap : Steps towards international standardisation of reactor designs 10

11 WNA Report on Licensing Published in January 2013 Based on a survey among WNA members Analyses the relationship between licensing and commercial project development Stresses the importance of harmonisation Will be followed up by a WNA conference in Prague in May

12 ERDA European Reactor Design Acceptance Expert Group within the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) active ERDA report issued in July 2012 Concept based on the idea that a nuclear reactor design should not be reviewed and approved independently by each national regulator in each EU member state ( don t reinvent the wheel every time ) ERDA report has not yet led to concrete steps forward ERDA report available at meetings/doc/2013_05_30/related_docs/roadmap_towards_european_ reactor_design_acceptance.pdf 12

13 Option 1: Share design assessment Regulator A Regulator B design review design approval by regulator A licence by regulator A share elements of design review, for example calculations or modelling of event sequences design review design approval by regulator B licence by regulator B 13

14 Option 2: Validation / Mutual Acceptance Regulator A Regulator B design review validation design approval by regulator A licence by regulator A or design approval by regulator B licence by regulator B 14

15 Option 3: Joint Design Acceptance Group of Regulators: A, B, C joint design review identical design approvals! design approval by regulator A design approval by regulator B design approval by regulator C multinational (joint) design acceptance 15 licence by regulator A licence by regulator B licence by regulator C

16 Design approval as part of the overall regulatory process policy decision on nuclear energy in the country creation of legal framework decision in principle /justification of a particular NPP project new NPP licensing process design site licensee construction and operating licence surveillance and inspections during operation 16

17 Issues and challenges National sovereignty and public acceptance Standardisation vs. continuous improvement Keeping the market open for vendors Risk of piling up an inconsistent envelope of different national requirements The ERDA report concludes that perceived weaknesses of the concept either can be avoided or they are far outweighed by the benefits 17

18 Conclusions and outlook Licensing is a national process done in an international context Greater cooperation and harmonisation in licensing enables greater standardisation of reactor designs Mutual acceptance or jointly issued design approvals should be contemplated This would make licensing more effective, efficient and predictable This is absolutely essential for SMRs!! 18