The European reaction tothe Fukushima incidentInternational Conference „Nuclear
Safety after Fukushima“Tokyo, 22 December 2011
Christian Raetzke, CONLAR
Leipzig, Germany

Contents
 Introduction: Nuclear in the EU – Facts and “Who is Who”
 Member States’ actions after Fukushima
 EU actions after Fukushima

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20112

Part 1: Introduction: Nuclear in the EU –Facts and “Who is Who”

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20113

Nuclear in the EU (1)14 Member Stateswith NPPs inoperation

13 otherMember States143 units in operation
Share of nuclear in total EU
electricity generation: 28%(2009)
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20114

Nuclear in the EU (2)The distribution of competences between the EU and its
Member States in the nuclear field is based on the EU
Treaty and the EURATOM Treaty:
 Choice of nuclear as part of the energy mix: lies withMember States
 Regulation of nuclear safety: lies with Member States.

There is no EU nuclear regulatory agency
 EU has some legislative competence (see Directive on

Nuclear Safety, 2009). EU legal acts have to be
implemented by Member States into their nationallegislation
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20115

Two levels of reactions in Europe (1)EUStress test

New legislation

WENRA
ENSREG

Member State A

Member State B

Member State C

Reactions of individual Member States:
National safety assessments
Political decision about nuclear (phase-out?)
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20116

Two levels of reactions in Europe (2)The actors on EU level Commission of the EU: “government” of the EU. Can

propose legislation to the Council (=representatives ofmember states)
 ENSREG, European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group:Regulators of all 27 EU member states; created byDecision of the Commission
 WENRA, Western European Nuclear Regulators

Association: “club” of the 14 regulators of countries withNPPs; was created independent of EU
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20117

Part 2: Reaction of EU Member Statesto the Fukushima incident

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20118

Measures by Member States Assessments of nuclear facilities• Scope: robustness of NPPs concerning external natural events;
ability to cope with accident situations like loss of cooling andloss of electricity supply• Reports by national regulators or national advisory commissions• Aligned with EU Stress Test, but sometimes with additionalscope Politics:• General approach to nuclear energy revisited• Extremely diverse reactions
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 20119

Germany: Accelerated phase-out (1)The German reaction to Fukushima incident cannot be
understood without the previous history: In 2002, the lifetime of German NPPs was limited toapprox. 32 years by phase-out legislation
 In December 2010, new legislation was passed:

Extension of lifetime by 8 years (for older NPPs) and 14years (for newer ones)
 This lifetime extension was very controversially debatedin Germany

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201110

Germany: Accelerated phase-out (2)The Fukushima incident led to a complete turnaround: Government took immediate measures:• “Moratorium” on 14 March: shutdown of the 8 oldest NPPs
“for three months” (no legal basis)• Safety assessment by RSK (Reactor Safety Commission)• Creation of an “Ethics Commission” to reflect on whether
nuclear power should have a future in Germany
 The RSK assessment was altogether positive: GermanNPPs are robust, with some backfitting recommended The “Ethics Commission” recommended phase-out within

10 years
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201111

Germany: Accelerated phase-out (3) On 31 July 2011, new legislation repeals the lifetime

extension and even accelerates the phase-out:• The 8 oldest NPPs remain offline for good
• The shutdown of the remaining 9 NPPs is fixed in the Nuclear
Energy Act, ranging from end 2015 to end 2022
 New energy policy based on renewables and newtransportation lines and storage facilities
 German operators accept political decision, but claim

compensation
 To conclude: Some private views on the phase-out, its

reasons and its consequences
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201112

Switzerland: new build cancelled Before the Fukushima incident, 2 new NPPs had beenplanned by Swiss utilities This was supported by government
 The Fukushima incident changed the situation: on 7 June2011, Swiss Federal Council (Parliament) enacted a law
not to replace the existing nuclear power plants
 The 5 existing NPPs may continue operation

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201113

Italy: new build cancelled Italy had phased out its nuclear programme in the 1990s

after Chernobyl
 New build was planned from 2008

• New legislation enabling new build• Partnership ENEL (Italy) – EDF (France) In June 2011, a referendum stopped new build plans bycancelling the new legislation with a huge majority• Clear impact of Fukushima incident• Result assisted by unpopularity of Berlusconi government
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201114

France: some uncertainties
 Nuclear safety• Regulator ASN imposes substantial upgrading on operator EDF• This could challenge economic viability of older NPPs
 Politics:• Construction of Flamanville 3 (EPR) will continue• Future of the second EPR project in Penly is uncertain• Lifetime extension of 58 existing NPPs is uncertain• Much depends on presidential elections in 2012

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201115

UK: no substantial consequences Safety assessment by regulator ONR (Weigthman report)

was very reasonable and led to some improvement
measures at NPPs
 In July 2011, UK Parliament voted the National Policy

Statement on nuclear, the basis for new build• Designating 8 sites for new NPPs
• Introducing facilitated planning processes
 “Nuclear energy has risks, but we face the greater risk ofaccelerating climate change if we do not embark on
another generation of nuclear power” (Chris Huhne,
Secretary for Energy and Climate Change).
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201116

Other Member States relying on nuclear
 Finland will go on with planning and construction of 2NPPs
 Poland (which does not have any NPPs) will continue its

new build programme (2 NPPs with 3 GW each, to go inoperation between 2020 and 2030)
 Czech Republic wants to increase the share of nuclear

from 30% to possibly 60% by 2050

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201117

Part 3: Actions on EU level after theFukushima incident

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201118

EU reaction
 Policy: “Nuclear energy will be needed to provide asignificant contribution in the energy transformation
process in those Member States where it is allowed. It
remains a key contributor to CO2 emission reductions”.
 Commission initative: Actions on nuclear safety post-

Fukushima should best be done jointly on EU level On 24/25 March, the European Council (Heads ofGovernment) declared that• “the safety of all EU nuclear plants should be reviewed on the basis of acomprehensive and transparent risk assessment (“stress test”)”• the Commission should “review the existing regulatory and legal
framework for the safety of nuclear installations...”Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201119

Stress Test (1) - System
Criteria established by ENSREG and WENRA together with Commission

Progress reportby licensees

National progress
reports

Final reportby licensees

Final nationalreportPeer review

Commission report to Council
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201120

Stress Test (2) - Timetable
June 1, 2011

Criteria ready, start of assessments

August 15, 2011

Progress report by licensees

September 15, 2011

Progress report by regulators (national report)

October 31, 2011

Final report by licensees

December 9, 2011

Progress Report by the Commission to the Council

December 31, 2011

Final national report

January to April, 2012

Peer Reviews of the National Reports

28/29 June 2012

Consolidated report by the Commission to theCouncil
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201121

Stress Test (3) - Scope

Initiating events• Earthquake• FloodingConsequence of loss of safety functions (from any initiating event)• Loss of electrical power, incl. station blackout• Loss of ultimate heat sink
• Combination of both

Severe accident management issues• Loss of core cooling function• Loss of cooling function in fuel storage pool
• Loss of containment integrity
The methods of assessment are left to the Member States
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201122

Stress Test (4) – Basic aspectsConsequences will be taken on national level• Will there be substantial upgrading of particular NPPs?
• Will plants be shut down for good if backfitting is too costly?
Participation is “voluntary” but in practice no Member State
could afford to stay outside

Neighbouring states have joined (Switzerland and Ukraine)others are doing comparable assessments (Russia, Belarus,Croatia, Armenia and Turkey)

Emphasis on transparency: the reports are published

Politically, the Stress Test is a success for the Commission – itis closely involved in the regulation of NPPs
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201123

EU Legislation – new initiatives
The Commission has announced new legislation in thefields where the EU is competent Introducing EU safety standards for siting, design,construction and operation
 Reinforcing effective independence of national regulators
 Enhancing emergency preparedness and response Reinforcing the EU nuclear liability regime

Draft legislation will be presented in 2012

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201124

Summary: European reactions to Fukushima
 Political reaction of Member States is very divergent:• Accelerated phase-out• Cancelling new build, but keeping existing NPPs
• Additional safety assessment but no basic change innuclear policies, including new build
 The EU...

• Remains positive to nuclear• Promotes common approach to safety assessment• May enlarge its competences in nuclear safety
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201125

Thank you …

Leipzig, Germany

Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201126

… for your attention

Leipzig, Germany
Christian Raetzke, European Reaction to Fukushima, Tokyo, 22 Dec 201127