8

Fukushima Daiichi crisis | International response

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL | www.neimagazine.com China Supplement 2012
Stress test response
One year on from the Fukushima accident, safety reviews or stress tests carried out at nuclear power plants across the
world have investigated a variety of issues, and generated a range of recommendations. By Caroline Peachey
I
n response to the 11 March 2011
accident at the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power station in Japan, countries
across the world ordered safety reviews of
existing and planned nuclear power plants,
and assessments of the lessons learned.
In Europe, all 14 EU member states
operating nuclear power plants are
participating in the EU stress tests along with
Lithuania, which is decommissioning its two
reactors, and non-member states Switzerland
and Ukraine. Reports on the stress tests were
submitted to the European Commission in
December 2011; these will be subject to peer
review before the Commission presents its
findings in June 2012.
Although the scope of the safety reviews
differ from country to country, they all
consider the issues highlighted by
Fukushima, including flood risks, seismic
risks, back-up systems and emergency
procedures. Improvements to spent fuel pools
and hydrogen mitigation are also considered.
At the time of writing nine months after
the accident, some safety reviews are still
ongoing, and the results of others have not
yet been released (for example, Armenia and
China). However, common themes and areas
for potential safety improvements have
already been highlighted.
In its review of the interim stress test
reports, the European Commission noted a
number of issues that deserve an in-depth
analysis. These issues include increasing
robustness of plants against flooding, loss of
power and loss of ultimate heat sink as well
as beyond-design-basis earthquake. In fact
these themes are common on the world
stage. Other common actions relate to spent
fuel pool (SFP) issues, severe accident
management guidelines (SAMGs), multi-unit
events, and regulatory independence.
Planned post-Fukushima actions, by country and broad issue (as of 1 December 2011)
Belgium X X X X X X
Brazil X X X X X X
Bulgaria X X X X
Canada X X X X X X X
Czech Republic X X X X
Finland X X X X X X X
France X X X X
Germany X X X X
Hungary X X X X X
India X X X X X X X
Japan X X X X X x X X
Korea, South X X X X X X X X X X X
Lithuania X X X
Romania X X X X X X X
Russia X X X X X X X
Slovakia X X X X X X X
Slovenia X X X X X
South Africa X X X
Spain X X X X X X X
Sweden X X X X X X X X
Switzerland X X X X X X X
Taiwan X X X X X X X X
Ukraine X X X X X X X
UK X X X X X X X
USA X X X X X X X X X
Note: This table highlights some of the areas for improvement that have been proposed or are being studied for improving safety of nuclear power plants. This list is by no means exhaustive and
has been compiled from various operator, regulator, European Commission, IAEA, and OECD sources.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
T
s
u
n
a
m
i
/
f
l
o
o
d

d
e
f
e
n
c
e
s
I
n
s
t
a
l
l

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

d
i
e
s
e
l
s
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

p
u
m
p
s
S
p
e
n
t

f
u
e
l

p
o
o
l

c
o
o
l
i
n
g
S
F
P

i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
H
y
d
r
o
g
e
n

r
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
r
s
C
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

v
e
n
t
s
S
A
M
G
s
M
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
008neiChina20l2 fukushimav2 l/2/l2 l4:29 Page 8