The emergency response organization of NPP Temelín operator

This work deals with Organization of Emergency Response in NPP. According assignment this work summarizes its legal preconditions and consequently gives description of its practical realization. The necessary terminology is gathered and the basic overview of OER functioning is given. An attention is paid to staffing, structure and number of workplaces, the used documentation and also to the system of its readiness and functionality verification. The intent is to define the essential aspects of nuclear safety and to describe system of emergency planning and response in condition of real nuclear facility. In the second part of work a comparison of Stress Tests of EDU and ETE NPPs in the reason to evaluate how the goals of Emergency Response are met. The comparison of Stress Tests results is done in shape of tables. My interpretation of the established facts is: 1.The probability of earthquake exceeding the design resistant of structures, technological systems and structures is practically insignificant. The results are for both locations virtually identical. The project robustness of ETE NPP to earthquakes is slightly higher than EDU. 2.The flooding robustness of both our NPP sites is high. Both NPPs are due to its location very resistant to rain water flooding. To ensure a high level of resistance to rain water flooding requires regular maintenance of drainage systems. 3.EDU and ETE NPPs are resistant to earthquakes and in this way they are resistant to the extreme weather condition especially to the gusty wind too. 4.Secured power internal consumption supply systems on EDU and ETE NPPs are projected according to analogical basics and are enough robust to failure from common cause. To secure safe down-cooling of reactor unit the only one independent power supply system is sufficient. In project of ETE NPP there is in comparison with EDU NPP the next system of common independent power consumption supply. It is primarily intended to prevent damages in technology of secondary circle. Two DGs strongly improve the resistance of unit to SBO accident. 5.Heat removal from separate technological systems is on both power stations realized by using of analogical cooling system. Constructional differences in projects of our power stations are given by different time of their project works. There is a possibility that cooling systems of EDU NPP will be improved. 6.System of severe accident management is organized in the similar way at both facilities. The staff of Accident Board and Technical Support Centre is analogical. Recently the staff of TSC was reinforced to improve its ability to cope the multiply accident on several units. The documentation for solving of abnormal states, accidents and severe accidents has got the same basic structure. Procedures and guidelines are continually improved. Attention is paid to verification and validation of these procedures. 7.On the basis of performed Stress Tests there is a high possibility of gradual realization of partial administrative, personal and technological improvements that will be done in reason to improve Nuclear Safety and Organization of Emergency Response. The specific measures are summarized in the National Action Plan. An absolute elimination of an accident is impossible, but the probability of an accident with fuel degradation must be as low as it is reasonably possible to achieve. The NPP must be able to diminish the impacts of such event to the generally acceptable low. The ability to manage such events is the major goal of Emergency Response that should be taken as a sophisticated interdisciplinary system