Complementary-safety-assessments-french-nuclear-safety

- 53 - As it is out of range of a CMS, Mélox is not equipped with passive protection systems. With regard to the active systems, the inspectors noted that it could be possible to receive a backup mobile lifting pump from CEA. Accessibility in the event of extreme flooding of the Rhone is guaranteed by boat or by helicopter (helipad at CEA). However, accessibility by boat in the event of very high water needs to be confirmed owing to the presence of strong currents. Mélox has the necessary resources (sleeping arrangements, canteen) to maintain personnel on the site for a period of a week (corresponding to the fuel reserves for the backup electricity generating sets). With respect to telecommunications, the licensee has redundant lines using diversified technologies. The inspectors noted that Mélox had no technical gallery "between facilities" (leading to the facilities on the Marcoule site). Furthermore, in the event of flooding, only the discharges from the stack (sole point of discharge) would be monitored. Finally, Mélox learned significant lessons from the Cevennes mountains storm episode of 2002 and the flooding of 2003, especially its accommodation of the inhabitants of the village of Codolet which suffered catastrophic flooding in 2002. To conclude, the facility is in conformity with its frame of reference and the design measures taken rule out all risk of off-site flooding. The inspectors noted however that on the occasion of the Cevennes mountains storm events of 2002, part of the population of the nearby town of Codolet was accommodated at Mélox, to a certain extent justifying the options taken for the siting of the plant. Relations with the CEA site at Marcoule are the subject of agreements that the inspectors nonetheless felt to be insufficiently precise with regard to the resources that would be deployed on behalf of Mélox. In this respect, it would seem probable that the available intervention or emergency resources shared in the event of an extreme climatic situation, would be deployed to the entire industrial site, according to circumstances. Finally, the inspectors found that accessibility by boat in the event of very high water still needed to be confirmed because of the strong currents. With regard to FBFC at Romans-sur-Isère, the site is not concerned by river flooding or a rise in groundwater, given the elevation separating it from the height of the Isère river or the water table. The risk of flooding would only come from heavy rainfall. A study is underway to characterise the drainage capacity and the condition of the rainwater network and to identify the potential points of water ingress into the buildings. 3.2.3 Other facilities ATPu The licensee has implemented instructions for how to response to an incident situation, valid for all the personnel and covering the flooding risk. The probe alarms are managed by the FLS, which has a reflex response sheet for normal working hours (HN) and outside normal working hours (HHN). A second note defines who to mobilise through the list of on-call personnel. There is a remote-monitoring network and flood alarms in the facility, along with detection probes plus pumps managed by the BNI. The remote monitoring and alarm network is directly and permanently linked to the centre's security command post. The sumps are checked during the rounds by the management/security patrols or the RSE. The groundwater level is periodically checked via piezometers located near to the facility. The equipment is periodically checked and maintained. A loss of electrical power resulting from hypothetical flooding of the basement could in theory lead to loss of facility monitoring (unless the GEF (static generator set) or GEM (mobile generator set) electrical backup is activated. The BNI's rainwater drainage networks, consisting of open or buried manifolds, take part in preventing the risk of flooding. Following the inspection, the licensee was asked to justify the frequency of checks and cleaning of the rainwater drainage networks within the perimeter of BNI 32. To conclude, no nonconformity with the frame of reference was observed. The current frame of reference rules out any vulnerability of BNI 32 to flooding. However, it must be ensured that the hazard considered is indeed conservative enough (consideration of rainfall with a minimum return frequency of a hundred years, inclusion of rising groundwater, etc.).

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjQ0NzU=