NUCLEAR SAFETY HAS NO BORDERS: A History of THE WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS Philip L. Cantelon NUCLEAR SAFETY HAS NO BORDERS: A HISTORY OF THE WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS PHILIP L CANTELON This book is dedicated to the highly professional men and women of WANO who operate, maintain, and support nuclear power plants worldwide, and who understand that ‘good enough’ is the enemy of excellence This edition was first published in 2016 by World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Publishing Director Rick Haley / Joel Bohlmann Editor Claire Newell President Seok Cho Chief Executive Peter Prozesky Head Office WANO London, Level 35 25 Canada Square London E14 5LQ United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7478 9200 E: [email protected] www.wano.info Creative Design and Production Graphic Evidence Ltd www.graphicevidence.co.uk ISBN: 978-1-5262-0483-7 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products and services are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold and distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not directly engaged in rendering professional services. Open Distribution: Copyright © 2016 by the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Not for sale or commercial use. All other rights reserved Printed and bound by CPI Group(UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Preface vii Chapter One: Forging a Global Safety Net 01 Chapter Two: The Second Marshall Plan 37 Chapter Three: Protecting the Core 67 Chapter Four: Securing the Mantle of Nuclear Safety 101 Chapter Five: The Trials of Change 131 Chapter Six: Last Chance to Get it Right 171 Chapter Seven: One WANO 207 Endnotes 253 Appendix A – WANO Officers 268 Appendix B – WANO Nuclear Excellence Award Winners (2003–2015) 269 Appendix C – WANO Oral History Interviewees 271 Index 272 PREFACE Nikolai Lukonin stood under the glare of stage lights in a large dining room in the State Palace of the Kremlin. Dressed in a plain grey suit and grey tie with his Hero of Socialist Labour and other medals proudly hanging from his chest, he looked very much like the former Soviet Minister for Atomic Energy he was – a bit out of place in modern Russia. But on this day Lukonin was a guest of honour at the dinner. He was the historical bookend, present at the creation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) in 1989 and honoured nearly a quarter of a century later for his crucial role in bringing east and west together to form a do-it-yourself industry organisation that would improve the operations and safety of commercial nuclear power plants. The 12th Biennial General Meeting (BGM) WANO held in Moscow in May 2013 was, in part, the beginning of a celebration of the organisation’s first quarter of a century. The loose association of nuclear utilities forming an industry forum to share operating experience and technical counsel in order to self-regulate and improve the safety, reliability and operations of their plants had evolved into an integrated, confident global industry organisation determined to overcome the challenges of the past and to meet the changing landscape of commercial nuclear power’s future. There was a fitting symbolism in holding the 12th BGM in Moscow. WANO had viii PREFACE been born in the very same building in 1989. Over that time, both the venue and the organisation had greatly changed. The Sovincentr, host to the inaugural meeting, had been transformed into the Crowne Plaza Moscow World Trade Centre. Although the structure still stood on the bank of the Moskva River, those who attended both meetings could not find any remaining interior landmarks of the former building in the new one. The geopolitical and nuclear landscapes had also changed dramatically over those 25 years. The Soviet Union had become the Russian Federation, and the country had become a major exporter of nuclear power plants. The US, Europe and Japan – the leading nations in the commercial nuclear power industry – had seen the centre of activity shift to Asia. WANO, once a fledgling association with a high risk of failing, had become a respected and necessary part of global nuclear safety. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima – these were the defining events in the history of commercial nuclear power. Each incident reinforced the lesson that all nuclear power plants were “hostages of each other”, as William S Lee III, president of Duke Power and a driving force behind the creation of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), stated after Three Mile Island. A devastating accident at one plant had enormous repercussions on all. Yet Three Mile Island had little impact globally. Such an accident might occur in the US, international operators thought, but they were better than their American counterparts at running nuclear plants and adopted an “it can’t happen here” attitude. Chernobyl changed that. Again, 22 years later, Fukushima dispelled the complacency that had settled in from the successes of the intervening years. In each instance the industry responded, first in the US with the creation of INPO in 1979, then with a global organisation, WANO, in 1989, and lastly with a restructured and refocused ‘One WANO’ by 2015. However, to emphasise solely these major events would be to overlook the steady ix PREFACE achievements of these exceptional voluntary industry organisations. INPO had established significant programmes to improve nuclear safety in North America. Yet any American who believed that the actions taken by nuclear utilities in the US after Three Mile Island could be imported wholesale into the global commercial nuclear power market was badly mistaken. The international ownership model – governments owned or controlled utilities in many countries – was different and more complex than in the US. In addition, cultural and linguistic differences defied simple solutions. The WANO compromise of creating four regional centres was brilliant, ensuring that all could participate within their cultural norms. The arrangement enabled and assured the organisation’s survival during its formative years. Although the structure engendered friction, relations were never fractured. However, broad acceptance came slowly. Pedro Figueiredo of Brazil, who joined the Paris Centre Governing Board in 1991 and received a WANO Nuclear Excellence Award in 2003, recalled that “in the beginning, the majority of WANO members did not know what the main goals of WANO were other than safety.” In addition, early peer reviews were met with considerable scepticism. Today, he observed, “there is a standard of excellence that is measured through peer reviews globally,” and WANO had become an integral part of the nuclear operating experience.1 Figueiredo was correct in identifying peer reviews as being critical to WANO’s success. Peer reviews were based on best practices; they were constructive, not chiding. Experienced reviewers recognised that WANO could not inoculate against error, but peer reviews could strive to anticipate and prevent errors caused by complacency, lack of resources or a slack safety culture. Importantly, the “peer” of peer reviews held two meanings, both central to achieving excellence in nuclear operations and safety. One definition was a person of the same rank, ability and quality – an equal. These were the individuals who would inspect, x PREFACE analyse and evaluate the workings of a nuclear power plant. How they accomplished this was the second definition of peer – to observe, to look closely and searchingly for strengths and weaknesses, or areas for improvement, in the operations and operating culture of a nuclear power plant. Eventually, the concept of peers peering became a cornerstone of global nuclear safety. Those achievements did not come easily. In more than a quarter of a century, WANO’s history has passed through four stages of evolution. The first, from 1989–1996, was a direct result of Chernobyl and encompassed the initial organisation of the world’s nuclear power operators into a self-policing confederation with the aim of improving the safety and performance of nuclear power stations. The confederation model established in the WANO Charter – four autonomous regional centres in North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia, linked by a coordinating centre in London – was a brilliant and necessary compromise to ensure international acceptance and commitment. While adopting several programmes based on INPO’s decade of industry experience in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, the major accomplishment during this period was WANO’s success in opening communications between operators in the former Soviet Union and those in the West. Thereafter, WANO turned to the broader safety concerns and practices of all its members. The second phase, from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, was a period of consolidation and the reaffirmation of the basic core of WANO programmes – peer reviews, operating experience, technical assistance, and workshops and seminars – that emphasised personnel exchanges and information sharing. The third phase, from 2002–2009, consisted of an attempt to repair perceived shortcomings in the operations of the association stemming from the cultural differences of the four regions. An attempt to meld the four WANOs through a realignment of the governing structure, with an aim to centralise the power of the coordinating centre without eviscerating xi PREFACE the autonomy of the regional centres, proved to be unsuccessful. The failure of the third phase to achieve those goals led to the fourth period, beginning in 2009 with a major overhaul of the governance structure to create greater involvement, accountability and consistency among the membership.