HS Environment Finland will soon revolutionize its nuclear power laws, and then it will become clear how close nuclear power can be built to schools and hospitals – “Never before has this been done in Finland”

How close to hospitals or schools are nuclear reactors allowed to be built? Does a nuclear power plant always have to be covered? How should the disposal of spent nuclear waste be organized?

Among other things, such issues in Finland will soon be seriously considered when the regulations on nuclear power plants are reformed. A comprehensive reform is ahead, in which both the Nuclear Energy Act and the more technical requirements of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Stuk) will be reformed at the same time. The current Nuclear Energy Act came into force in 1988, after which it has been filed about 30 times.

“We are talking about a very big and significant job. This has never been done in Finland. The regulation has been born piece by piece, and no comprehensive reform has been made to this extent before, ”describes the Director General of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Petteri Tiippana.

Stuk and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy have already started preparations for the reform. The goal is for the reform to be completed by the end of the next term.

One the reason for reforming the legislation is the development of technology, especially so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). They are now facing high expectations: it is hoped that mass-produced small reactors will reduce the cost of building nuclear power and bring nuclear energy to new uses, such as district heating.

Dozens of different small reactors are being developed around the world, and the first ones have already been put into commercial use in Russia and China. In Finland, for example, Helen and Fortum have expressed interest in small reactors.

Read more: Small nuclear power plants were supposed to be a utopia, but now they could revolutionize energy production as early as this decade.

According to Tiippana, the current legislation does not completely prevent the construction of SMR power plants in Finland, but it narrows the possibilities of using the technology.

“A large light water reactor will be built to generate electricity. That is the way of thinking that this current set of legislation and security requirements has been created, ”he describes.

If the full potential of small reactors is to be used in Finland, it would require regulatory reform.

Then for example, concrete issues such as the extent of the protection zone arise. The current regulations are unequivocal: there must be a five-kilometer protection zone around the nuclear power plant, which must be free of hospitals, schools or major industrial installations. In addition, a contingency plan must be established for a radius of 20 km.

Such a large protection zone can in practice prevent the use of a small reactor in district heating production, as district heating plants are usually located close to populated areas. Tiippana believes that it would be appropriate to reform the regulation.

“If it can be shown for such a small reactor that such a protection zone is not needed and the consequences of the accident are limited to the immediate vicinity of the plant, then it is not appropriate to require such a large protection zone as under current legislation,” Tiippana says.

Altogether Tiippana believes that a change in mindset is needed in regulation. Today, regulation in many places determines the solutions that must be used to ensure the safety of the plant.

“For SMR, this has to be reversed. In order not to define false or inappropriate safety solutions, goals must be set – no serious accident must occur or the consequences of the accident must be very close to the plant, ”says Tiippana.

“In a country that has experienced the use of nuclear power in this way, licensees must be given the responsibility to implement safety in the best possible way, rather than the authority planning the plant.”

Also the licensing process for power plants should be reformed, Tiippana says.

The decisive step in licensing the new power plant is to apply for a decision in principle from the Government and Parliament. I would like the safety assessment in this phase to be relaxed. The safety assessment of the plant alternatives could be separated from the decision-in-principle and carried out as a separate ex-ante inspection of Stuk. The decision in principle would no longer lock in plant options or their security solutions.

“Basically, at Stuk, we see it as appropriate that processes could be differentiated. The political decision would only concern the use of nuclear energy in general, with a separate safety assessment. However, the basic premise is that the use of nuclear energy is safe;

In practice, this would avoid the situation that Fennovoima found itself in when the reactor type changed as a result of the ownership arrangements. The company had to apply for a completely new decision in principle.

SMR power plants will also come to Finland, Tiippana believes. However, he does not dare to guess the timetable, and he stumbles upon the wildest visions in which small reactors would appear in every peninsula and depression.

Tiippana reminds us that a lot of special skills are required from the operator of a nuclear reactor, even a small one.

“No one can do it. It requires a large organization, and the size of the organization does not scale in proportion to the size of the reactor. There is still a need for expertise in nuclear safety, radiation safety, waste safety, nuclear material management and preparedness. ”

There is also work to be done in developing the technology, he estimates.

“Even these facilities have safety-critical components that must meet very strict quality standards in the nuclear industry. Achieving them with a commercial product is not quite straightforward and may not be possible at once. There is also a lot of work on the part of the actors there. ”