(SSM) Report: European Street Tests for Nuclear Power Plants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3 a Str&1 s kerhets myndigheten Swedi.h Radiation Safert Author•ty "A*1 - 4 European stress tests for nuclear power plants The Swedish National Report December 29, 2011 7. IP Page 1 (247) Str&1s kerhetsmyndigheten Doc. No. 11-1471 S.-,,.i. R,,di iti- SaOrv A,,-,rt Date Dec 29, 2011 ABSTRACT On 1I March 2011, the Tohoku region in north Honshu, Japan, suffered a severe earthquake with an ensuing tsunami and an accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Due to the accident the Council of the European Union declared in late March that Member States were prepared to begin reviewing safety at nuclear facilities in the European Union by means of a comprehensive assessment of risk and safety ('stress testing'). On 25 May, SSM ordered the licensees of the nuclear power plants to conduct renewed analyses of the facilities' resilience against different kinds of natural phenomena. They were also to analyse how the facilities would be capable of dealing with a prolonged loss of lectrical power, regardless of cause. On 31 October, the licensees reported on their stress tests to SSM. After reviewing these reports, SSM produced a summary stress test report, which was submitted to the Government on the 15 December. The present report is the national report on Swedish stress tests of nuclear power plants. The report will be submit to the European Conmmnission no later than 31 December. Based on the review SSM has drawn the conclusion that the stress tests carried out by Swedish licensees are largely performed in accordance with the specification resolved within the European Union. The scope and depth of these analyses and assessments are essentially in accordance with ENSREG's definition of"a comprehensive assessment of risk and safety". The stress tests show that Swedish facilities are robust, but the tests also identify a number of opportunities to further strengthen the facilities' robustness. SSM will order the respective licensees to present an action plan for dealing with the results from the stress tests. The Authority will then examine the plans and adopt a standpoint on proposed measures as well as check that the necessary safety improvements are made. In a number of cases, the stress tests indicate deficiencies in relation to, or alternatively, deviations from applicable requirements imposed on safety analysis and on design and construction. In some of these cases, SSM may need to precede a licensee's presentation of an action plan and order this licensee to take measures so that the facilities fulfill the requirements. The Authority nevertheless assesses that none of the deficiencies currently identified or the measures needed are of such a nature that the continued operation of the facilities needs to be put into question. Strlsikerhetsmyndigheten Swedish Radiation Safety Authority SE 171 16 Stockholm Tel: +46 8 799 40 00 E-mail: reqistrator(cssm.se Solna Strandv~g 96 Fax: + 46 8 799 40 10 Web: stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se EuropeanEuropean Stress Tests for NuationalNuclear Power Plants NationalPageReport - Pawe2den"/2 (247) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. G eneral data about the sites and plants ................................................................... 4 1.1. Background ...................................................................................................... 4 1.2 . M e th o d ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. The SSM regulatory approach .............................................................................. 5 1.4. Brief description of the Swedish sites characteristics .......................................... 7 1.5. M ain characteristics of the units .......................................................................... 10 1.6. Description of the m ain safety system s .............................................................. 13 1.7. Significant differences betw een units ................................................................. 19 1.8. M itigation system s im plem ented after the TM I accident ................................... 21 1.9. Safety improvement programmes of the nuclear power reactors ....................... 25 1.10. Scope and m ain results of Probabilistic Safety Assessm ents ............................ 31 2 Earthquakes .................................................................................................................. 33 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 33 2.A. Forsmark ................................................................................................................. 34 2.B. Oskarshamn ....................................................................................................... 48 2.C. Ringhals .................................................................................................................. 66 2.2 Assessm ents and conclusions regarding earthquake .......................................... 82 3 Flooding ......................................................................................................................... 85 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 85 3.A . Forsm ark ................................................................................................................. 85 3.B. Oskarshamn ....................................................................................................... 91 3.C. Ringhals .................................................................................................................. 96 3.2 Assessm ents and conclusions of Flooding ........................................................... 103 4 Extrem e weather conditions ...................................................................................... 105 4. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 105 4.A. Forsm ark ............................................................................................................... 105 4.B. Oskarshamn .......................................................................................................... 109 4.C. Ringhals ................................................................................................................ 122 4.2 Assessm ents and conclusions ............................................................................. 127 5 Loss of electrical power and loss of ultim ate heat sink ........................................... 131 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 131 European Stress Tests for Nuclear Power Plants - National Report - Sweden Page 3 (247) 5.A . Forsmark ............................................................................................................... 133 5.B. Oskarshamn .......................................................................................................... 145 5.C. Ringhals ................................................................................................................ 168 5.2 Assessm ents and conclusions ............................................................................... 184 6 Severe accident m anagem ent .................................................................................... 188 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 188 6.A . Forsmark .............................................................................................................. 188 6.B. Oskarshamn .......................................................................................................... 203 6.C. Ringhals ................................................................................................................ 222 6.2 Assessments and conclusions of severe accident management ............................ 237 7 G eneral conclusion ..................................................................................................... 241 7.1. Key provisions enhancing robustness (already implem ented) .............................. 241 7.2. Safety issues, potential safety improvements and further work forecasted .......... 241 8 References ................................................................................................................... 247 European Stress Tests for Nuclear Power Plants - National Report - Sweden Page 4 (247) 1. General data about the sites and plants 1.1. Background On 11 March 2011, the Tohoku region in north Honshu, Japan, suffered a severe earthquake with an ensuing tsunami. The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant has led to many countries around the world launching investigations or taking various .measures to review the level of safety at nuclear power plants. On 22 March 2011, SSM pointed out in a written communication to the licensees the importance of immediately launching work to identify lessons learned from the situation with the aim of assessing any further radiation safety measures that might be necessary at Swedish nuclear power plants as well as at the facility for storage of spent nuclear fuel. Following an extraordinary meeting, in late March the Council of the European Union declared that Member States were prepared to begin reviewing safety at nuclear facilities