atw 2017-09

atw Vol. 62 (2017) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September
ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 526
rules of interpretation [44]. However,
for greater legal certainty it is worthwhile
to clarify some of existing provisions.
First of all, the introduction of
the terms “nuclear heating plant” and
"combined nuclear heat and power
plant" to the list of nuclear installations
in art. 3 pt. 17 Atomic Law
should be considered.
For the construction of commercial
heat-generating reactors it would
be useful to consider splitting the
­definition of “nuclear power unit”
used in several regulations into two
distinctive definitions. The definition
of “nuclear power unit” could since
then cover only nuclear power and
CHP reactors, and the new definition
of “nuclear thermal unit” could cover
nuclear reactors generating only heat.
This would meet the postulate to
­simplify procedures, but would also
have a positive impact on safety.
For example, the requirement for a
­backup control room exists only for
NPPs (including CHPs), while the
­radiological risks from a nuclear
­heating plant would be comparable
to those coming from a NPP with a
similar thermal power. It should be
noted, however, that such deficiencies
of the legal system in the light of the
IAEA's safety fundamentals are not
reprehensible, as the scope and rigor
of national nuclear legislation should
be adequate to the current level of
­existing nuclear infrastructure in
the country and the risks involved.
Creating a closed system in which all
potential factual states are foreseen is
difficult, and although theoretically
possible, it would unnecessarily involve
resources that could be allocated
more advantageous elsewhere.
This is also confirmed by international
practice. In most countries, including
those with developed nuclear industry,
there are no specific provisions
on HTRs. It should also be noted that
regulations for light-water reactors
have been developed for decades,
and their contemporary form has
been ­influenced by the operational
­experience of thousands reactor years,
­including the accidents [45]. The
shaping of regulation is a continuous
process that never stops. Current
­regulations will also not be eternal,
and with the advancement of technology
and the accumulation of
­experience they will undoubtedly
change. With regard to HTRs we are
still at the beginning of this road. ­
The up to now installations were­
­experimental, of different designs
and not as numerous as light-water
reactors. It is therefore more difficult
for the national legislator (and/or
­regulator) to anticipate the requirements
for future construction.
Respecting the aforementioned
IAEA’s optimization principle means
the need to differentiate safety
­requirements for nuclear installations
according to the risks they create. In
other words, higher requirements for
installations of higher risk are needed,
and milder for those with lesser risk.
This principle states also explicitly
that ensuring the highest reasonable
level of safety of an installation should
be achieved without unduly limiting
its utilization [46]. This means that,
where possible, less stringent safety
requirements should be applied. It
would therefore be desirable to create
solutions that would, in relation to
HTRs, implement the principle of
­optimization reflecting a narrower
spectrum of radiological hazards. It
seems that the final shape of these
regulations should be formed as a
­result of a long-term dialogue ­between
the investor and the state authorities
(including the regulator) [47]. It is the
interest of the investor to collect as
much data as possible before submitting
an application for a large
­commercial installation. Parallel to
using already existing experiences
from other projects, the right direction
seems to construct pilot plants
based on the existing regulations for
research reactors. Their operation
will allow to verify the individual
­construction assumptions and to
­gather experience necessary to
­maturely postulate desired changes
in the legal system.
The role of the modern state is
more often to stimulate the development
of science, technology and
­economy, the beneficiary of which is
the whole society. It is therefore
necessary to show willingness to meet
expectations to facilitate complex
­investment processes, also through
simplification of legislation. In the
case of nuclear power however this
has to be a mature and cautious discussion
based on concrete experience,
because the safety always prevails
over other aspects of nuclear energy
utilization [48].
References
[1] J. Szczurek et al., Legal Obstacles to the
Construction of High Temperature
Reactors for Heat Generation on the
Example of Polish Regulations, atw 61
(2016), 455-460.
[2] Ordinance of the Minister of Energy of
13 July 2016 on appointment of the
team to analyze and prepare conditions
for the deployment of high temperature
nuclear reactors (unpublished).
[3] Resolution no. 8 of the Council of
Ministers of 14 February 2017 on the
adoption of Strategy for Responsible
Development until 2020 (Official
Gazette of the Republic of Poland of
2017, item 260), p. 250.
[4] Press release of Ministry of Energy:
http://www.me.gov.pl/node/26197.
[5] NucNet, Q&A: Poland’s Progress on the
Road to New Nuclear, atw 62 (2017),
375.
[6] Journal of Laws of the Republic of
Poland of 1986, item 70 as amended.
[7] Journal of Laws of the Republic of
Poland of 2001, item 18 as amended,
of 2017, item 576 (unified text).
[8] Journal of Laws of the Republic of
Poland of 2011, item 766.
[9] Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom
of 25 June 2009 establishing a
Community framework for the nuclear
safety of nuclear installations
(OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18–22, OJ L 260,
3.10.2009, p. 40 and OJ L 219,
25.7.2014, p. 42-52).
[10] Journal of Laws of the Republic of
Poland of 2014, item 587.
[11] Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of
19 July 2011 establishing a Community
framework for the responsible and
safe management of spent fuel and
radioactive waste (OJ L 199, 2.8.2011,
p. 48–56).
[12] For more on Polish nuclear law see T.R.
Nowacki, Nuclear Power Programme
for Poland – Establishing the Legal
Framework (in:) Raetzke C. (ed.),
Nuclear Law in the EU and Beyond –
Atomrecht in Deutschland, der EU und
weltweit. Proceedings of the AIDN/INLA
Regional Conference 2013 in Leipzig,
Baden-Baden 2014, 121-166.
[13] Law of 29 June 2011 on preparation
and implementation of investment in
nuclear power plants and associated
investments, Journal of Laws of the
Republic of Poland of 2017, item 552
(unified text), further referred to as
“investment law”.
[14] See the terminology used e.g. in
nuclear safety directive and Convention
on Nuclear Safety (CNS) adopted in
Vienna on 17 June 1994 (INFCIRC/449).
[15] See the Joint Convention on the Safety
of Spent Fuel Management and on
the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management adopted in Vienna on
5 September 1997 (INFCIRC/546) and
the IAEA Safety Standards.
[16] J. Szczurek et al., 456.
[17] See art. 14 sec. 1 pt. 1 of 1986 Atomic
Law and art. 34 sec. 1 pt. 1 of 2000
Atomic Law.
Energy Policy, Economy and Law
On Legal Requirements for Construction of High Temperature Reactors (HTR) in Poland ı Tomasz R. Nowacki