- 21 - The inspectors did however observe delays or deviations: the volumetric protection conformity work is well behind schedule on some sites (Chooz); the "bunkerisation" requested for the BES (site maintenance building) on Saint-Alban and for the Cruas main gatehouse has not been carried out. Moreover, the Saint-Alban site was unable to clearly demonstrate whether compensatory measures had been taken. Finally, the civil engineering work (protective screen and raising of the access road backfill) is behind schedule; the cofferdams procured for the Saint-Alban site do not conform to the procurement specifications; at Gravelines, the minimum margin in relation to the CMS is not in line with the EDF frame of reference requirements for a part of the site (Eastern access side wall). ASN finds that the progress of the work decided on following the event at Le Blayais in 1999 must comply with the deadlines agreed with ASN. In particular, compensatory measures must be rapidly implemented for sites on which the work has been postponed. 2.1.8 Monitoring of volumetric protection (PV) The EDF head office departments have drawn up a national doctrine that is to be applied by the sites. The sites are required to carry out daily monitoring of the volumetric protection and take certain measures in the event of a loss of tightness (planned or unplanned). Volumetric protection must be managed in the "Sygma" equipment management software. The teams must also exercise the openings and closures in the volumetric protection and control the conformity through hold-points after elements of the volumetric protection are operated.. The implementation work has been under way at Le Blayais since 2008 and appears to be more advanced on this point than the other sites (e.g.: Dampierre, Cattenom). Other sites are asking Le Blayais for help with implementing the national report. This monitoring is sometimes performed at the same time as the fire sectoring (Saint-Alban, Dampierre for example). Other sites, Bugey, Flamanville, Penly, Paluel, SaintAlban, Saint-Laurent and Cattenom have implemented this report, receiving no comments from ASN. Finally, on some sites, this report has not been implemented (in Chooz for instance, because volumetric protection is not yet in place). The field visits did however reveal that improvement is required on several sites, which are not currently in compliance with the national doctrine: no exhaustive identification of the elements contributing to the PV (Fessenheim, Nogent, Bugey, Flamanville, Chooz, Gravelines, Blayais); no check on the elements contributing to the PV before divergence (Cruas, Fessenheim, Gravelines, Dampierre); no daily exhaustive check of the PV (Tricastin, Blayais); no use of Sygma (particularly Nogent, Gravelines, Chinon). ASN finds that PV management on the whole needs to be improved. 2.1.9 Maintenance of flood protection features The inspectors examined the periodic checks performed on the protection features (volumetric protection, cofferdams, embankments, pumps, etc.). These tests are generally formally included in the sites' specific maintenance programmes and the periodic tests. There are monitoring instructions for most embankments (Blayais, Flamanville, Cruas) and cofferdams. Field visits have also demonstrated the overall good condition of the protective features on certain sites (Fessenheim, Gravelines, Cattenom, Chooz). However, the inspectors did observe that certain elements of the facilities (openings, cofferdams, protective walls, seals between buildings) were in poor condition (leaks, damage, poor quality) and were consequently liable to jeopardize the volumetric protection on the sites concerned. The rise in the groundwater level combined with the presence of water in the location of the electricity generating set fuel tanks during an event at Cattenom on the 15th May 2010 demonstrates that the issue was not adequately controlled. Other anomalies were also observed on several sites; for example:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjQ0NzU=