1. Energy Nuclear stress tests and follow up in Europe Brussels, 25 May 2012 Nina Commeau Adviser to the Deputy Director-General in charge of nuclear energy Directorate-General for Energy European Commission 1

2. Energy Nuclear Stress tests Tree step process to assess the ability of the EU nuclear power plant to safely resist and cope with extreme events 2

3. Energy What have we learned from the stress tests ? A new EU nuclear governance approach A new EU methodology 3

4. Energy A.Nuclear governance Stress tests: Commission mandate 15 March 2011: High Level Conference 24-25 March 2011: European Council:  comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessments  similar stress tests should be carried out in the neighbouring countries and worldwide  revision of the legal and regulatory framework 4

5. Energy All stakeholders closely involved in the work preparation and during the process  main lines drafted by WENRA in April  agreed to by ENSREG in May  published on 25 May 2011 by ENSREG and the Commission 5

6. Energy Participation :Member states All 14 EU Member States that operate nuclear power facilities, + Lithuania, Without any legal obligation 6

7. Energy And neighbouring countries Meeting in June 2011:  signature of a Joint Declaration Follow-up meeting next April State of play:  Switzerland and Ukraine participate fully  Armenia and Russia have agreed to carry out assessments taking into account EU specifications  Croatia has a special observer status (it co-owns an NPP in Slovenia)  Belarus and Turkey are involved but do not have operating plants 7

8. Energy B. New methodology Stress tests: features They go beyond safety evaluations during the licensing process and periodic reviews The aim: assess whether safety margins are sufficient to cover various unexpected events Conducted on a voluntary basis in three- steps:  licensees (nuclear operators, report Oct 2011)  independent national authorities (regulators, Dec. 2011) 8

9. Energy A democratic approach : transparency All reports (national, peer review, Commission) have been or will be published All stakeholders are closely involved Public meetings with stakeholders: 117 January, Brussels 88 May, Brussels Web pages dedicated to public engagement: wwww.ensreg.eu/EU-Stress-Tests/Public-engagement ppossibility to submit suggestions for the peer-review process (in January and in April) 9

10. Energy Peer reviews: features They aim to ensure credibility and accountability Peer review teams:  experts from Member States (nuclear and non- nuclear) and from the European Commission Board supervising the process:  national regulators, non-nuclear countries, Commission; chaired by P. Jamet (ASN, FR) Deliverables:  Country Reports  Peer Review Summary Report (June 2012) 10

11. Energy Peer reviews: structure 11

12. Energy Peer reviews: timetable 12

13. Energy C. Follow-up Ensure continuous improvement in nuclear safety Implementation of recommendations and concrete measures made in the report are of national responsibility Expected to provide a basis for legislative or non-legislative proposals that the Commission may put forward 13

14. Energy Revision of the EU safety framework Public consultation (from December 2011 to February 2012): http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/consultations/20120229_euratom_en.htm End 2012 or 2013 : Commission proposals Main areas for legislative improvements: NNuclear safety directive (2009) to be revised NNuclear safety governance ( international convention) EEmergency preparedness and response (improvement of MS mechanisms) NNuclear liability regimes (might be a Directive) SScientific and technological competence (research) 14

15. Energy World governance Partnership with the IAEA to strengthen safety culture and emergency preparedness Need to revise the international legal framework (IAEA Nuclear Safety Convention) to increase its: effectiveness, governance, and enforceability 15

16. Energy CONCLUSION - To be underlined : first exercise of its kind No EU or international guidance existed - Some differences appeared between MS as definition of extreme weather or level of details -Such stress tests peer review couldn't be carried out each year in a similar level of details -The efforts by operators, regulators and the EC can be quantified around 500 million euros and 500 man hours. 16

17. Energy 17