NUCLEAR REGULATION AND LICENSING OF PNPP-1 Dr. Alumanda M. Dela Rosa Director Philippine Nuclear Research Institute Presented at the Seminar Series on Nuclear Power in the Philippines Revisited: Pros and Cons in the National Institute of Geological Sciences, UP Diliman, February 27, 2009
PAEC Rules and Regulations Legal Basis RA 5207 (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968) which provided authority to PAEC to issue license for the construction, possession and operation of any atomic energy facility Code of PAEC/PNRI Regulations* Part 7, Licensing of Atomic Energy Facilities Part 5, Siting Criteria Part 4, Safe Transport of RAMs Part 3, Standards for Protection Against Radiation * based on codes and standards of the USNRC and the IAEA
Regulatory Framework Nuclear Regulatory Body Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), presently the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI)
Licensing Process Basic regulatory stages: Provisional Permit Stage (PP) Construction Permit Stage (CP) Operating License Stage (OL)
Licensing Process Technical documents required: PP stage Preliminary Site Investigation Report (PSIR) CP stage Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) Environmental Report (ER) Proof of financial qualifications Work Plan OL stage Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Plant operator license
Licensing Process NPC filed for a Provisional Permit on 21 October 1976. This marked the start of the regulation and licensing of the PNPP-1. PAEC regulatory activities: Site visits Audit and inspection of the applicant and its contractor s QA program and activities Meetings with experts and review of mission reports Review of applicant s documents and responses Conduct of public hearings (upon receipt of application for CP and of OL by NPC) Licensing of the plant operators
A notice of public hearing was issued by PAEC in September 1977. No petition for intervention was received within 30-day period. Thereafter, the formal review process started in October 1977.
Safety of the Site The review involved the safe shutdown earthquake, threat of volcanism and foundation engineering. Inhouse and local consultants were availed of by PAEC. Where local consultants lack the necessary expertise, IAEA assistance was availed of by the PAEC. The PAEC requested in 1978 for an IAEA Expert Mission to assist in the assessment of the site, then followed by another IAEA expert mission to assess the actions of government on the resolution of issues raised by the 1978 Expert Mission. The 1978 Mission submitted eight issues for consideration by the PAEC.
Safety of the Site The PAEC required the Applicant to address the issues raised by the PAEC and the IAEA. The NPC and its foreign consultants provided responses to the issues. The second IAEA mission had the following conclusions: An important factor in the PNPP-1 situation is the ability and willingness of the PAEC to act to ensure the safety of the plant. The Philippine regulatory situation is vastly superior to that in many other developing countries
Safety of the Site While geotechnical problems are more difficult in the Philippines than in many other areas, there is evidence that appropriate precautions are being taken. USA criteria have been used and conscientious efforts are being made to resolve the issues raised by the 1978 expert mission. Review of the PSAR by the PAEC staff and the IAEA safety mission in 1977 indicated that this document appeared to be the most comprehensive site investigation and PSAR ever provided to a developing country.
Safety of the Site The final decision rested on the nuclear regulatory body. Based on the review of the documents submitted by the applicant, the responses of the applicant to the issues raised by the PAEC and the recommendations of its consultants and the IAEA, the PAEC issued the construction permit in April 1979. The review process took about 2 years from the time the applicant filed an application in July 1977.
Construction Stage PAEC reviewed the PSAR and the ER PAEC adopted the Quality Assurance program of the USNRC and the IAEA PAEC assigned Resident Inspectors 24/7 PAEC requested technical experts from IAEA IAEA sent long-term Resident Inspectors PAEC issued notices of non-conformance when warranted by the inspection results; applicant responded to the notices until issue was resolved
Three Mile island (TMI) accident occurred in March 1979. Work at the site was suspended and the government created an investigative committee, the Puno Commission, to inquire on the safety of PNPP-1.
Puno Commission The Commission conducted public hearings from July 1979 to September 1980 during which construction work on site was suspended for 18 months. The Puno Commission concluded that the site is safe but that the plant needed additional safety upgrades.
Operating License Stage Safety of the Plant Conclusion of July 1984 IAEA Pre-Operational Safety Review of the PNPP-1 Past IAEA safety reviews have tended to focus on the site selection, plant design and construction areas. Although the Philippines is located in a region of high seismicity and volcanic activity, the plant has been found to meet commonly accepted site selection requirements. Some special features have been provided to deal with seismic and volcanic phenomena. Additionally, the design, construction and operational safety standards applied to PNPP are consistent with the safety codes and guides of the IAEA
In considering the above, the IAEA has concluded that adequate safety margins have been provided in the site selection, design and construction of the PNPP.
Safety of the Plant The OSART I Mission (October 1984) reviewed the plant status and its readiness for core loading. Its conclusions: The various activities to be completed were: outstanding construction and installation work, correction of nonconformances, testing of components and systems, calibration of instruments and adjustments of controls which are typical in nature at this stage of construction of NPP sites around the world; Plant organization is not complete and must be brought to operational strength; Radiation protection and emergency preparedness programs should be completed
Safety of the Plant The OSART II Report (February 1985) The Mission believes that significant progress has been achieved in implementing the previous OSART recommendations. The attitude of the NPC management towards safe plant operation as evidence by the quality and speed of efforts in addressing OSART concerns provides confidence that nuclear safety will be given adequate consideration during plant operation.
Safety of the Plant The Mission acknowledges the review that PAEC conducted of the previous OSART recommendations and the follow-up regulatory actions on the identified safety issues. The Mission believes that there exists no technical obstacle to prevent core loading of the plant.
1985 1986 The PAEC continued the review process. The PAEC conducted public hearings which started in June 1985, a year after the receipt of OL application by NPC. The oppositors elevated issues to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered reconstitution of PAEC Board of Commissioners before hearings could continue on a perceived bias by the PAEC on PNPP. A new government installed in 1986 stopped the nuclear power project and decided to mothball the PNPP-1.
PAEC stopped all regulatory activities related to PNPP-1 on 20 August 1986 after granting NPC s motion to withdraw its application for an operating license. These included inspection/audit of PNPP-1 activities, resolution of outstanding issues, review/evaluation of safety issues, licensing of reactor operators.
Concluding Remarks As the nuclear regulatory body, PAEC implemented its mandate to ensure the safety of the PNPP-1 with the highest degree of competence, transparency and objectivity.
Addendum S&T activities performed by PAEC in support of the Nuclear Power Program: Training of NPC and PAEC staff Regulatory R&D (concentration of RI by biota) Exploration for U and other nuclear materials Successful production of yellow cake from Larap uranium ore Off-site radiological emergency preparedness and response plan
THANK YOU!