euratom fp7 ex-post evaluation - european commission · there is an increasing awareness of the...

Research and Innovation

Ex-post Evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom

Seventh Framework

Programme and of the Euratom 2012 - 2013

Framework Programme

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate G — Energy Unit G.1 — Strategy

Contact: Frederick Mariën

E-mail: [email protected]

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Euratom Research 2015

Ex-post Evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom

Seventh Framework Programme and of the Euratom 2012 - 2013

Framework Programme

Report from an independent High Level Group of Experts

Ex-post Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom FP7 and FP7+2

3

LEGAL NOTICE

The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

Print ISBN 978-92-79-53888-9 doi:10.2777/091719 KI-01-15-936-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-53889-6 doi: 10.2777/412849 KI-01-15-936-EN-N

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of individual photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

4

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 6

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 16 1.1. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 16 1.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................ 17

2. BACKGROUND TO THE EURATOM FP7 PROGRAMMES .......................................................... 18 2.1. NUCLEAR FUSION ........................................................................................................................ 18 2.2. NUCLEAR FISSION, SAFETY AND RADIATION PROTECTION ................................................................... 19 2.3. FUNDING OF THE EURATOM FP7 PROGRAMMES .............................................................................. 20

3. EVALUATION OF THE RATIONALE ......................................................................................... 23 3.1. EURATOM FP7 PROGRAMMES AND EU POLICY ................................................................................ 23 3.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .................................................................................................. 25

3.2.1. Fusion ............................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2. Radioactive Waste Management .................................................................................... 26 3.2.3. Reactor Safety .................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.4. Radiation Protection and Medical Exposure.................................................................... 28 3.2.5. Education and Training .................................................................................................... 29 3.2.6. Infrastructures ................................................................................................................. 30

3.3. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................. 31

4. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................... 32 4.1. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................... 32 4.2. IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TOPICS AND PROJECTS ....................................................................... 35 4.3. MONITORING OF PROJECTS........................................................................................................... 37 4.4. PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................... 38 4.5. OUTREACH OF THE PROGRAMMES ................................................................................................. 38

5. EVALUATION OF ACHIEVEMENTS ......................................................................................... 41 5.1. FUSION PROGRAMME .................................................................................................................. 41 5.2. NUCLEAR FISSION, SAFETY, AND RADIATION PROTECTION .................................................................. 47

5.2.1. Radioactive Waste Management .................................................................................... 47 5.2.2. Reactor Systems ............................................................................................................... 49 5.2.3. Radiation Protection and Medical Exposure.................................................................... 52

5.3. INFRASTRUCTURES ....................................................................................................................... 54 5.4. HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING ................................................................................................ 56

5.4.1. Nuclear Fusion ................................................................................................................. 56 5.4.2. Geological Disposal and Radioactive Waste.................................................................... 57 5.4.3. Education and Training in Other Areas of Fission Research ............................................ 57 5.4.4. Impact of Fukushima Accident......................................................................................... 58 5.4.5. Nuclear Safety Culture and International Cooperation ................................................... 59 5.4.6. Radiation Protection and Medical Exposure.................................................................... 59 5.4.7. Assessment of Delivery .................................................................................................... 60

6. EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................................... 63

7. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 65

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 67

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 69

ANNEX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................. 73

ANNEX 2 EVALUATION PANEL ................................................................................................ 80


5

ANNEX 3 DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PANEL......................................................... 81

ANNEX 4 MEETING SCHEDULES .............................................................................................. 82

ANNEX 5 QUESTIONS PUT TO THE COMMISSION, FUSION AND FISSION STAKEHOLDERS .......... 83 QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION............................................................................................................. 83 QUESTIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FUSION AREA ................................................................................... 85 QUESTIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AREA OF NUCLEAR FISSION, SAFETY AND RADIATION PROTECTION ............ 87

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with Council decision, the European Commission has established in April

2015 an independent High Level Group of Experts (hereinafter the Panel) for carrying out

an ex-post evaluation of the Euratom research programme. The aim of this evaluation

was to assess the rationale, implementation and achievements of the indirect actions of

the Euratom Seventh Framework Programme 2007-2011 (Euratom FP7) and the Euratom

Framework Programme 2012-2013 (Euratom FP7+2) in fusion and in fission and

radiation protection.

Panel Findings

The Panel’s findings, summarised below, are structured in relation to the three main

tasks set out in the Panel’s Terms of Reference, namely the evaluation of the rationale,

implementation and achievements of the Programmes. The Panel has made a number of

recommendations that are aimed at improving the effectiveness of future Euratom

nuclear research programmes. These recommendations are reproduced in this Executive

Summary because of their importance.

Overall, the Panel found that the work undertaken in the Euratom FP7 and FP7+2

Programmes in fusion, fission and radiation protection was consistent with the rationale

of the Programmes, was implemented satisfactorily and through the many achievements

has made an important contribution to the delivery of the EU’s goals of security of

electricity supply, sustainable development, and the creation of a knowledge-based

society, and also to the use of radiation in medicine.

Rationale of the Programmes

General Fusion and Fission

The objectives and the coverage of the topics in the Programmes have evolved

appropriately through time in a way that was consistent with the aims and objectives as

set out in the Council Decisions.

As of now, the year 2050 is simultaneously presented as a potential landmark for the

realisation of the use of Generation IV fission innovative systems, and for the delivery of

the DEMO fusion prototype. Given the energy demands within the EU post-2050 it is

likely that nuclear fission and nuclear fusion technologies will each have an important

contribution to make and will need to coexist for some considerable time. It would

therefore be valuable to consider synergies between these two technologies in the

management of future R&D programmes. The fusion community has produced an R&D

roadmap to help develop this technology and it would be beneficial for future fission R&D

programmes to reflect more continuity between the short-term needs to support existing

technologies and the long term goals of security of supply and sustainable energy.


7

Recommendation 1: Coherent Approach to Fission and Fusion

Technologies

Consideration should be given in future Euratom research to the

identification of synergies in the R&D programmes needed to support

deployment of future fission and fusion power technologies.

Recommendation 2: Continuity Between Short- and Long-Term

Research

Future Euratom research programmes to support fission and radiation

protection should take account of the long term thereby reflecting more

continuity between short-term objectives and long-term goals.

Euratom cooperation through the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is an

important way for Europe to maintain the expertise that will be necessary to exploit

advanced reactor technologies and retain EU research and industry leadership in some

key technologies. To build upon the gains made in the FP7 Programmes, future research

should focus on the systems most likely to succeed and on associated advanced fuel

cycles.

Recommendation 3: Advanced Reactor Systems – Generation IV

Euratom should focus its funding on research on the Generation IV systems

that are the most likely to succeed (fast neutrons, liquid metal or gas

coolant). More attention should be paid to the fuel cycle issues related to

these new reactor systems including Partitioning and Transmutation

activities.

There is an increasing awareness of the importance of the need to have a more

integrated approach to the delivery of nuclear safety, nuclear security and safeguards,

especially in the design of new nuclear facilities. Future research programmes should

therefore encompass research proposals to better understand the interactions between

nuclear safety, security and safeguards in the design and operation of new and existing

nuclear facilities within the EU.

Recommendation 4: Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards

Euratom should take the initiative to promote a cooperative approach for

safety, security and safeguards issues (currently managed quasi

independently) and favour their integration at the very early stage of the

design.

Implementation

Fusion

The management of the Euratom fusion programme was thoroughly reorganised during

the period covered by the FP7 Programmes. Many of the recommendations made in the

FP7 Interim Review Report have been overtaken by events, but the recommendation

relating to JET remains valid because of the importance of JET to the future development

and operation of ITER.

8

Recommendation 5: Continued Operation of JET

High priority should be given to keeping JET operating until the design for

ITER has been finalised and ITER has been successfully commissioned.

Fission

The important role, and success, of the Technology Platforms were confirmed in the

Panel’s interviews with stakeholders from fission energy, radiation protection and

radioactive waste management. Their continued role will be vital to the future success of

Euratom’s fission programmes.

Recommendation 6: Technology Platforms

Euratom should continue to support the Technology Platforms in view of the

vital role they have played in the success of the FP7 and FP7+2

programmes.

It is clear that the opportunities to link different scientific communities were not exploited

sufficiently in the FP7 Programmes. Future Euratom Programmes would benefit from

improved opportunities for collaboration between Euratom and other non-nuclear EU

scientific communities.

Recommendation 7: Collaborative Nuclear and Non-Nuclear

Research

The Commission should look for opportunities for collaboration between

Euratom and other EU research programmes.

Given the outstanding importance of the Technology Platforms in guiding future research

in fission energy, waste management and radiation protection, and of the Fusion

Roadmap in guiding research in fusion energy, the Panel believes that these instruments

should be reviewed and updated regularly.

Recommendation 8: Strategic Research Agendas and Roadmaps

Strategic research agendas and roadmaps should be regularly reviewed and

updated.

The current Euratom competition arrangements act in favour of established organisations

and laboratories, which have an advantage over newer research communities and

laboratories. The Panel therefore believes that when deciding future research

programmes the Council should be conscious of this difficulty.

Recommendation 9: Balance between New Research Communities

and Established Organisations

For future Euratom programmes, the Council should recognise that even if

excellence remains the principal criterion for awarding research funding, the

dominance of established organisations could lead to the exclusion of

emerging contributors with a potential to provide new ideas and innovation.

Hence consideration should be given as to how this source of innovation can

be captured rather than lost from European programmes.


9

Improvements can be made in the way projects are selected and assessed. It is

sometimes difficult to identify the link between specific projects and the overall

programme goals. There should be a direct link between a specific proposal and the aims

and objectives of the programme so that the contribution and relevance of each

individual project can be identified. This link should be spelled out in the call for

proposals and each research proposal/project should show how it will contribute to the

overall programme goals.

Recommendation 10: Link to Research Programme Aims and

Objectives

In future Euratom research programmes, each research proposal/project

should show how it will contribute to the delivery of the high-level aims and

objectives of the programme.

It was reported to the Panel that there was still a considerable bureaucratic burden for

those wishing to apply for Euratom funding. It should be as simple as possible for

organisations or institutions that have a contribution to make to bid for Euratom funding.

Recommendation 11: Project Application Bureaucracy

For future Euratom research programmes the application arrangements

should be reviewed continuously to ensure that the bureaucratic burden

placed upon applicants is minimised.

Achievements

Fusion

The EFDA Fusion Roadmap was a commendable achievement resulting from collaboration

between all the different European fusion research groups and with the Commission. It

was presented in November 2012 and is being implemented through the EUROfusion

agreements. The scientific programmes for all the participating laboratories within the

EUROfusion organisation are consequently in the process of being aligned with the

Roadmap. The focusing of fusion research into one programme for Europe could not have

been achieved without the efforts of the Commission. Furthermore, the more long-term

funding now in place must be continued if this success is to be consolidated.

Recommendation 12: Fusion Roadmap Implementation

Future European fusion programmes should implement the goals of the

Roadmap.

As a result of the success of JET projects, major cost-saving design decisions have been

taken for ITER. The Panel fully supports the recommendation from the 2011 review of

the strategic orientation of the EU fusion programme (‘Wagner’ report) that “The ITER

parties should take an active part in the funding of the JET operation. This would be the

most cost-effective way to enter into the operational phase of ITER.”

Recommendation 13: JET Contribution to ITER Success

For the ITER programme, the Commission (Euratom) should explore the

possibility of using the knowledge gained from JET activities as Euratom in-

kind contributions to the international ITER project.

10

The understanding of how materials behave is fundamental to the success of fusion. A

Material Assessment Group was established and a detailed report is now available for the

whole fusion community. Future Euratom research programmes should have an

increased focus on materials research.

Recommendation 14: Fusion - Materials Research

Future Euratom research programmes should have an increased focus on

materials research.

Some of the materials being developed are not unique to fusion technology and hence

benefit could be gained in future Euratom research programmes if materials research

were to be coordinated across disciplines where this is relevant.

Recommendation 15: Fusion - Materials Development Cooperation

In future Euratom fusion materials research programmes the Commission

should encourage cooperation across both nuclear and non-nuclear

disciplines where this would be appropriate.

There is the potential for a rapid loss of fusion-specific expertise and competence when

the construction of ITER is completed. It is essential to avoid this loss of expertise as it

will be needed for the delivery of the DEMO project. Consideration should be given to

how this European capability can be maintained during the gap between the end of ITER

construction and the commencement of manufacture and construction for the DEMO

project.

Recommendation 16: Fusion - Skills Retention in the Future

In future Euratom fusion research programmes the Commission should

consider mechanisms to avoid a rapid loss of expertise in the gap between

the end of the ITER construction and the commencement of DEMO

manufacture and construction.

The importance of R&D to the continued design and development of ITER cannot be

understated. EUROfusion and F4E have an essential role to play in the delivery of this

necessary high quality R&D. It is, therefore, essential that there is effective

communication between F4E and EUROfusion. The performance of F4E is critical to the

success of ITER and the Panel believes that its management and budget should be

reviewed regularly.

Recommendation 17: Fusion - Governance and Operation of F4E

The budget and management of F4E should be reviewed regularly.

Fission – Radioactive Waste Management

There have been a number of successes in the area of radioactive waste management. In

future Euratom programmes more emphasis should be given to ways of reducing the

radiological burden on geological disposal facilities through the use of advanced fuel

cycles and associated Partitioning and Transmutation (P&T). There is also a need to

improve the analysis of the ecological, social and economic benefits from advanced fuel

cycles.


11

Recommendation 18: Radioactive Waste Reduction – Advanced Fuel

Cycles

Building on the success of the dedicated FP7 projects, future Euratom

research programmes should put more emphasis on supporting projects on

advanced fuel cycles that have the potential to reduce the radioactive

burden on geological disposal facilities. Future Euratom research

programmes should also include projects to improve the analysis of the

ecological, social and economic benefits from advanced fuel cycles.

Building on the progress made in the Euratom FP7 Programmes, benefit would be gained

by focusing future research on the comparative costs of P&T deployment and repository

cost savings as a result of the reduction in radioactive waste inventory.

Recommendation 19: Radioactive Waste Reduction – Cost Benefit

Analysis

Building on the success of the previous research programmes, future

Euratom research programmes should include projects to review the

comparative costs of Partitioning and Transmutation (P&T) deployment and

repository cost savings from the resulting reduced radioactive waste

inventory.

The scientific feasibility of P&T has been demonstrated, however significant R&D is still

required to demonstrate that the processes can be delivered on an industrial scale.

Recommendation 20: Radioactive Waste Management – P&T

Demonstration Facilities

Future Euratom research programmes should consider supporting the

design, construction, commissioning and operation of a demonstration P&T

facility to investigate how the technology can be delivered on an industrial

scale.

A key component of R&D in the radioactive waste management field is the provision of

knowledge to support the development of the safety case for the disposal facility. Future

Euratom research programmes should address the provision of information and the

development of models that are needed to underpin the development of the geological

disposal facility safety cases for the geological formations that exist within Europe.

Recommendation 21: Geological Disposal – Generic Safety Case

Future Euratom research programmes should consider the need for R&D to

support the provision of information and the development of models that are

needed to underpin the safety case for geological disposal facilities.

The FP7 Programmes relating to geological disposal were comprehensive and focused on

the key issues. However, the line between generic research to underpin the concept of

geological disposal and facility-specific research that should be funded by industry needs

clarification.

12

Recommendation 22: Geological Disposal – Generic vs. Industry

Specific Research

The Commission should review its criteria for discriminating between generic

research to be funded under the Euratom framework programme and

facility-specific research that should be funded by industry.

Fission – Reactor Systems

The analysis of reactor safety and design performance has directly benefited from the

increasing performance of massive computing facilities. An efficient network is now in

place to support numerical studies and to test and validate models and related codes.

These results are important not only for research but also for industrial developments

and safety expertise. Continued development in this area is vitally important not only to

design, but also for engineering substantiation and safety analysis; hence Euratom

should continue to support this work in future research programmes.

Recommendation 23: Numerical Models and Codes

Euratom should continue to support the development of numerical models

and codes. They are an essential part of efficient generic research; they

build a bridge between basic research, experiments, engineering

substantiation and safety analysis.

There are a number of advanced reactor designs under consideration for future power

stations. Irrespective of whatever nuclear systems Member States are planning to use in

the near future, it is prudent for the EU to maintain the expertise and capability to

understand the nuclear safety issues, not only of the potential 'next generation' advanced

reactors (chiefly those under the umbrella of GIF), but also of the associated advanced

nuclear fuel cycle activities, including P&T.

Recommendation 24: Safety of Next Generation Technologies

Future Euratom research programmes relating to advanced reactor systems

should be focused on the resolution of the nuclear safety, nuclear security

and safeguards issues associated with use of these technologies.

European teams have been involved in GIF from the very beginning, with Euratom, as an

institutional body, being represented by the JRC. As other Member States have their own

representation in GIF structures and programmes, it would be beneficial to undertake a

comprehensive analysis of European GIF-related activities, in order to develop a more

coordinated European approach.

Recommendation 25: European Coordinated Response to GIF

Consideration should be given to a review of the role given to the JRC as the

representative of European R&D interest in the GIF and its interactions with

other organisations within the EU that are contributing to the GIF, in order

to mobilise the European nuclear teams around more stimulating challenges

and to preserve the leadership of European research and industry in nuclear

power plant technology.


13

Fission – Radiation Protection

The growing use of new medical diagnostic procedures such as X-ray computed

tomography (CT) and positron-emission tomography (PET) has in recent years rapidly

increased the medical exposure of the population to radiation. Euratom projects have

substantially contributed to the optimisation of the use of radiation in medical

applications by enabling earlier and more accurate diagnosis.

Recommendation 26: Radiation Protection – Emerging Nuclear

Technologies in Medicine

Future Euratom research programmes in radiation protection should include

the relationship between the clinical benefits arising from the emerging

innovative medical techniques and their radiation risks.

Whilst the Euratom programmes relating to radiation protection in the medical exposure

area have been successful and have contributed to increased knowledge, it is recognised

that further benefit would be gained by establishing better links between programmes

funded by Euratom and other EU health-related programmes.

Recommendation 27: Radiation Protection – Links to Health

Research

Efforts should be made to link future Euratom research programmes in

radiation protection associated with medical exposure with other EU medical

research programmes.

Fission - Infrastructures

Resources for nuclear research are scarce and in this context there should be a review of

priorities in relation to future Euratom support and funding of new infrastructure projects.

If there is a consensus on the need to support new infrastructures (up-grade of facilities,

major refurbishments to existing installations, new design studies etc.) some existing

facilities might have to be shut down, or alternatively Euratom funding support for some

existing facilities will stop. The fusion programme successfully carried out a facilities

review to rationalise future needs.

Recommendation 28: Review of Nuclear Fission Infrastructures

The Euratom community should consider undertaking a review of the

infrastructures within the EU that support Euratom nuclear fission,

radioactive waste management and radiation protection research

programmes in relation to current and future priorities.

Fission and Fusion – Education and Training

The Euratom-funded education and training programmes delivered a number of

successes and have improved nuclear education and training within Europe. The

establishment of the European Accreditation System is at the heart of fission training

schemes (ECVET and ECTS training schemes). However, it is not clear whether the

projects aimed at delivering the use of these schemes across EU nuclear countries have

been successful.

14

Recommendation 29: Application of Accreditation Schemes

The Commission should review the application of the ECVET and ECTS

accreditation schemes across nuclear research and training in the EU and

identify how their application can be improved to enhance the goal of

mobility of experts in radiation protection, in medical physics, and of

scientists and engineers within the EU.

In general there is clear evidence of a comprehensive approach to the challenges of

nuclear education and training in the fission and fusion areas. Euratom indirect actions

projects have clear aims and objectives together with deliverables. However, to improve

transparency, it would help to have a clear summary of all projects in the Euratom FP7

Programmes, showing each project and the extent to which the project had achieved its

objectives.

Recommendation 30: Education and Training Achievements

For future research programmes, the Commission should provide a summary

showing the extent to which projects have achieved their objectives.

The Panel, whilst supporting the work done in the field of education and training within

the JRC, believes that more should be done to coordinate the direct and indirect actions

education and training programmes. This is necessary to avoid duplication and make the

most effective use of the resources available within Euratom.

Recommendation 31: Education and Training Direct and Indirect

Actions

The Commission should give consideration to improving the coordination of

human resource development and education and training between direct and

indirect actions.

The delivery of safe and secure nuclear power programmes (fission and fusion) in the

future will depend upon an integrated approach to nuclear safety, nuclear security and

safeguards. Euratom should, therefore, support the incorporation of this integrated

approach in the training of nuclear engineers and scientists in fields such as

management, design, operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, the disposal of

radioactive waste and the use of radiation sources in industry and medicine.

Recommendation 32: Education and Training on Safeguards and

Security in Indirect Actions

The Commission should give consideration to incorporating education and

training on nuclear security and safeguards in the indirect actions of future

Euratom programmes.


15

16

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the key goals of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) is to promote

nuclear research and to complement nuclear research conducted in Member States by

carrying out a Euratom research and training programme.

Since 1984 the Euratom research activities have been channelled through multiannual

framework programmes addressing nuclear research and training activities. The seventh

Euratom framework programme (FP7) ran from 2007-2011; it was succeeded by a two-

year Euratom framework programme 2012-2013 (FP7+2). Both programmes, Euratom

FP7 and FP7+2, are fully aligned regarding objectives and scope of activities; this report

will therefore use the term “Euratom FP7 Programmes” when referring to the full period

2007-2013.

In its decisions launching the Euratom FP7 Programmes [Ref 1, 2], the Council set the

broad objectives and the funding envelop for the research programmes distinguishing

between direct and indirect actions. Direct actions were carried out exclusively by the

European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and are not part of this evaluation.

The indirect actions of the Euratom framework programme were specified by Specific

Programmes of the Council [Ref 3, 4] that defined the scope and goals for the various

areas of activities to be pursued under two research themes, “fusion energy research”

and “nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection”. The indirect actions were

implemented on the basis of annual work programmes approved by the European

Commission.

The Euratom FP7 Programmes had the objective to promote research in fusion energy,

nuclear fission and radiation protection. In the fusion area the objectives were to develop

the knowledge base to support ITER (a major experimental facility which aims to

demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power at industrial scale),

and the creation of prototype fusion power stations. In the fission, safety and radiation

protection area the objectives were to enhance nuclear safety, radiation protection in

industry and medicine, and to improve the management of radioactive waste.

1.1. Objectives of the Evaluation

In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Council decision [Ref 2], the European Commission

has established in April 2015 an independent High Level Group of Experts (hereafter

referred to as the Panel) for carrying out an ex-post evaluation of the Euratom FP7

Programmes. The aim of this ex-post evaluation is to assess the rationale,

implementation and achievements of the indirect actions of the Euratom FP7

Programmes in fusion and in fission and radiation protection.

The terms of reference for this evaluation are given in Annex 1.

The membership of the High Level Group of Experts and the meeting schedules are given

in Annex 2.


17

The ex-post evaluation is an important instrument for informing the European

Parliament, the Council, Member States, the research community, other stakeholders and

the general public about the achievements of Euratom research. It also provides advice

and recommendations on how future Euratom research programmes can be improved.

1.2. Evaluation Methodology

The Panel carried out its task via a combination of meetings with the Commission,

interviews with research stakeholders, and evaluation of documents provided by the

Commission. The key documents made available to the Panel are listed in Annex 3. The

meeting schedule is shown in Annex 4. Prior to each meeting the Panel prepared a list of

questions in order to elicit the necessary information and evidence regarding the

rationale, implementation and achievements of the relevant research activities. The

questions that the Panel asked to the Commission and the fusion and fission stakeholders

are given in Annex 5.

18

2. BACKGROUND TO THE EURATOM FP7 PROGRAMMES

Nuclear power today is the most significant low-carbon source of electricity in Europe and

constitutes an important element in the debate on combating climate change and

reducing Europe’s dependence on imported energy. However, there remain concerns

about the continued use of this energy source. The Euratom FP7 Programmes aimed at

providing improved knowledge and understanding of the issues to address these

concerns. The programmes focused on generic research topics, including safety,

management of long-lived waste, and radiation protection.

The successful development of nuclear fusion has the potential to provide an energy

source that is safe, sustainable, environmentally friendly and with reduced levels of

radioactive waste to manage. If applied in commercial power plants in the second half of

this century, fusion has the potential to make a major contribution to the realisation of a

secure energy supply. The realisation of fusion as a viable energy source is a long-term

scientific and engineering challenge requiring significant progress in our understanding

and technical capabilities in a number of areas.

More advanced nuclear fission technology could offer the prospect of significant

improvements in efficiency and use of resources, at the same time maintaining and when

possible improving the current high levels of nuclear safety that exists within the EU.

These new technologies also have the potential to produce less waste than current

designs operating today.

The European nuclear sector as a whole is typified by cutting-edge technology and an

outstanding safety record. However, the EU cannot afford to be complacent and it is

important to ensure that Europe maintains its technological leadership in the nuclear

domain, including through ITER, so as not to subject current and future generations to

increasing energy and technology dependence on countries outside the EU.

2.1. Nuclear Fusion

The first priority of the strategy to achieve the long-term goal of commercial fusion

power generation is the construction of ITER followed by the construction of a

demonstration fusion power plant (DEMO). The construction and operation of ITER needs

to be accompanied by a programme of supporting R&D and by activities on the

technologies and physics required to support the development of DEMO.

Europe enjoys a leading position in fusion energy research owing to the combination of

strong continuous Euratom support, coordination by the Commission, the development of

skilled people and of a fully integrated European fusion programme.

In accordance with the Council Decisions [Ref 1, 2] the top-level themes of the Euratom

fusion programme are:

1. The realisation of ITER;


19

2. Research and development in preparation of ITER including the continued

operation of the Joint European Torus (JET);

3. Technology activities in preparation of DEMO;

4. Research and development activities for the longer term;

5. Human resources, education and training;

6. Infrastructures; and

7. Technology transfer processes.

In 2007, Euratom concluded an agreement with six international partners (Russia, Japan,

China, India, South Korea and the United States) to construct ITER in Cadarache, France.

All partners contribute in kind through their domestic agencies rather than through

financial contributions. Each partner provides a share of components, buildings and

infrastructure to deliver ITER. The European contribution to ITER is provided through the

Joint Undertaking for 'ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy' (Fusion for Energy,

F4E), established under the Euratom Treaty.

The research needed in preparation of ITER is carried out by a network of European

laboratories in EU Member States. These fusion laboratories concluded a Contract of

Association (CoA) with Euratom. This contract specified the jointly agreed R&D

programme to be undertaken by the laboratories and provided the mechanism for

funding by Euratom. Further coordination of research activities was ensured by the

European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA), through which Euratom provided

additional financing for activities considered as priorities.

Research for DEMO entails development of advanced materials and other key enabling

technologies. This includes irradiation testing and modelling of materials, studies of the

DEMO conceptual design, and studies of the safety, environmental and socio-economic

aspects of fusion energy. The research for the longer term addresses the development of

improved concepts for magnetic confinement schemes with potential advantages for

fusion power stations (e.g. stellarator device), and low-level ‘keep-in-touch’ research

activities on inertial confinement (laser fusion). Finally, with fusion entering a more

technology-oriented phase, technology transfer activities to enable European industry to

be a competitive player in this field will become increasingly important.

2.2. Nuclear Fission, Safety and Radiation Protection

The Euratom FP7 Programmes supported research under the theme of nuclear fission,

safety and radiation protection through activities in three thematic activity areas:

1. Management of ultimate radioactive waste;

2. Reactor systems;

3. Radiation protection;

and in two cross-cutting areas:

4. Infrastructures;

5. Human resources, mobility and training.

Currently, the main challenge for radioactive waste management is the realisation of

deep geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste (which includes the long-

20

lived isotopes) and spent fuel when it is declared a waste. While some Member State

geological disposal programmes are quite mature and close to realisation, there are some

generic issues that remain to be resolved. The Euratom FP7 Programmes have focused

on these generic issues including demonstration of technologies that are needed to

underpin the safety case for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). The principal aim of

Euratom research is to underpin the development of a common European view.

In the longer term there is the potential to reduce the amount and/or hazard of the

waste for disposal (i.e. the radiological burden on GDFs) by reducing the quantity of the

long-lived radioactive wastes. Partitioning and Transmutation (P&T) of these long-lived

radioisotopes has been shown to be scientifically possible but the challenge is in the

realisation of a viable industrial process. The Euratom FP7 Programmes have maintained

an interest in research that is necessary for the realisation of this technology.

Whilst noting that the safety of existing nuclear facilities, reactors and fuel cycle facilities

is the responsibility of the operator, Euratom reactor systems research has aimed at

underpinning the continued safe operation of relevant reactor systems (including fuel

cycle facilities). It also aimed at maintaining the broad nuclear safety expertise needed to

address new challenges and to develop new advanced safety assessment methodologies.

The research also included the performance and safety of reactor types that may be used

in future – the so-called Generation IV reactors. Following the Fukushima accident,

Euratom FP7+2 concentrated this research exclusively on safety aspects.

European research in radiation protection aims to provide a “scientific basis for a robust,

equitable and socially acceptable system of protection, taking also into consideration the

benefits of the uses of radiation in medicine and industry” [Ref 2]. The current focus is on

the risks from low doses both for cancer and non-cancer effects. Molecular radiobiology

research helps to better quantify risk to health for low and protracted exposure to

radiation. Improving the coherence and integration of emergency and post-accident

management is another topic of Euratom research in this area.

To maintain Europe’s position as a leading player in fission research, availability of

research infrastructure and suitably qualified research personnel are key. Euratom

funding for cross-cutting activities supports the availability of, and cooperation between,

research infrastructures such as material test facilities, underground research

laboratories, radiobiology facilities, and the retention and further development of

scientific competence and human capacity.

2.3. Funding of the Euratom FP7 Programmes

To carry out the indirect activities of Euratom FP7 (2007-2011) the Council set a budget

of EUR 1 947 million for fusion energy research (including ITER construction) and

EUR 287 million for research in the area of fission and radiation protection. For FP7+2

(2012-2013) the budget was EUR 2 209 million for fusion and EUR 118 million for fission,

safety and radiation protection. Figure 1 shows the budget for the Euratom FP7

Programmes by research theme; Figure 2 shows the budget distribution within the

thematic area of fission and radiation protection.


21

Whilst the average annual Euratom contribution dedicated to fission and radiation

protection were about the same during Euratom FP7, the average annual funds assigned

to fusion were increased significantly in Euratom FP7+2, owing to a reassessment of the

ITER project.

Figure 1: Euratom FP7 Programmes budget by research theme (EUR million) (Data from

[Ref 1, 2])

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

Fusion (incl.

ITER)

Fission, RP JRC

1.947

287 517

2.209

118 233 Mil

lio

n E

UR

Thematic Area

Euratom FP7 Programmes Budget by

Research Theme

2012-2013 (FP7+2)

2007-2011 (FP7)

22

Figure 2: Euratom P7 Programmes budget distribution by research area in nuclear

fission, safety and radiation protection [Ref 5]

Due to the different nature of activities in fusion and in fission and radiation protection,

different funding schemes have been applied for these two thematic areas. The fission

programme was funded through the EU schemes such as collaborative projects, networks

of excellence and coordination and support actions. These schemes involve calls for

proposals and an evaluation of the proposals received by external independent experts.

Fusion on the other hand had its own specific funding schemes based on contracts with

associations of research labs and universities (Associations).

Management of Ultimate Radioactive

Waste 17,4%

Reactor Systems 41,3%

Radiation Protection

23,6%

Infrastructures 7,4%

Human Resources and training 4,0%

Cross-Cutting Actions 6,1%

Ad-hoc calls 0,3%

FP7 Programmes Budget Distribution by Area in Fission and Radiation Protection


23

3. EVALUATION OF THE RATIONALE

3.1. Euratom FP7 Programmes and EU Policy

The main objectives of the Euratom FP7 Programmes were in general:

in the case of fusion energy research, to develop the technology for a safe

sustainable and environmentally responsible and economically viable energy source;

and

in the case of fission, to establish a sound scientific and technical basis in order to

accelerate practical developments for the safer management of long-lived radioactive

waste, enhancing in particular the safety, while contributing to resource efficiency

and cost-effectiveness, of nuclear energy and ensuring a robust and socially

acceptable system of protection of man and the environment against the effects of

ionising radiation.

In its decisions launching Euratom FP7 Programmes and the Specific Programmes for the

indirect actions, the Council put the Euratom Framework Programmes in the context of

broader development goals of the European Union, e.g. the creation of a European

Research Area (ERA), reducing greenhouse gases emissions and Europe’s dependence on

imported energy, the Innovation Union (Europe 2020), and in particular the goals of the

European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan [Ref 6]).

Regarding the European Research Area, Euratom fusion research has been a role model

demonstrating ERA in action, involving all national fusion laboratories and institutes in

the EU in a common research framework with agreed goals and priorities regarding use

of crucial research infrastructure. Over the timeframe of the Euratom FP7 Programmes,

this coherence became even stronger by jointly developing a roadmap and a

comprehensive joint programme in line with the roadmap.

Euratom FP7 research contributed importantly to the Innovation Union ‘flagship’ of the

Europe 2020 strategy (from 2010) by supporting pre-commercial research and

facilitating technology transfer processes between academia and industry. By putting

emphasis on training in all its activities, boosting safety in the nuclear industry and

creating a new sector of high-tech industry for fusion energy in particular, it also

contributes to growth and new jobs in a wide range of disciplines.

The SET-Plan aims to accelerate the development of cost-effective low carbon energy

technologies that will contribute to the achievement of the EU’s ambitious targets for CO2

reduction, increasing energy efficiency and the share of renewables in the energy mix.

The SET-Plan is technology neutral, and in the short term also covers the maintaining of

competitiveness of current nuclear technology and the development of waste

management solutions. For the longer term the SET-Plan establishes a vision of a true

low carbon economy in Europe supporting development of a new generation of low

carbon technologies, including advanced fission and fusion systems.

The Euratom FP7 Programmes contributed to both short- and long-term goals of the SET-

Plan. Regarding the short-term goal, they supported generic safety issues of nuclear

fission, including waste management and radiation protection. For the SET-Plan’s long-

24

term target, the framework programme fulfilled a crucial role in further developing fusion

towards an energy source that is safe, sustainable, reduces radioactive waste and will

provide security of supply. For fission energy, new designs with enhanced safety

features, improved thermal efficiency, reduced radioactive waste and increased

sustainability through the use of advanced fuel cycles, will ensure that this energy source

remains a viable option. The Euratom FP7 Programmes contributed to this development

on issues of common interest to all Member States, in particular safety aspects.

The Panel believes that the sub-areas selected and the objectives set for the Euratom

FP7 Programmes’ indirect actions enabled Euratom research to contribute to the nuclear-

related goals of broader EU policies. The Panel also notes that as the European energy

policy evolved, Euratom research also evolved during the implementation of the Euratom

FP7 Programmes.

In the fusion area, the Panel notes that the establishment of the ITER International

Organization (IO) and the Joint Undertaking for 'ITER and the Development for Fusion

Energy' (Fusion for Energy, F4E) brought many changes to the implementation of the

programme. There was also a much stronger focus on the activities that were necessary

to deliver ITER.

In the area of nuclear fission and radiation protection, key technical forums were

established during the implementation of the Euratom FP7 Programmes that brought

together nuclear research and industrial and end-user stakeholders. The Euratom FP7

nuclear fission programme gave a high priority to research directly addressing nuclear

safety. This focus was enhanced when, following the March 2011 accident at the

Fukushima plant in Japan, the Council decided to reorient the programme. As a

consequence, the name of the thematic area also was changed in Euratom FP7+2 to

‘nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection’ and the objectives for this research

theme were adapted.

The Panel agrees that the objectives and the coverage of the topics have evolved

appropriately through time in a way that is consistent with the aims and objectives as set

out in the Council Decisions.

However, in the longer perspective, the Panel believes that future Euratom Framework

Programmes should be focused towards a global European R&D policy that supports the

use of nuclear technologies for energy sustainability. So far, fusion and fission continue

to be governed by separate and very specific approaches. If DEMO takes the perspective

of an industrial vision of a fusion power station, the relationship between fusion and

fission as viable energy sources will require a clarification, at least within the nuclear R&D

community.

As of now, the year 2050 is simultaneously presented as a potential landmark for the

realisation of the use of Generation IV fission innovative systems, and for the delivery of

the DEMO fusion prototype. Given the energy demands within the EU post-2050 it is

likely that nuclear fission and nuclear fusion technologies will each have an important

contribution to make and will need to coexist for some considerable time. The Panel

believes that it would be valuable to consider synergies between these two technologies

in the management of future R&D programmes. It is also important that future fission

R&D should reflect more continuity between the short term needs and long term goals.


25

Recommendation 1: Coherent Approach to Fission and Fusion

Technologies

Consideration should be given in future Euratom research to the

identification of synergies in the R&D programmes needed to support

deployment of future fission and fusion technologies.

Recommendation 2: Continuity Between Short- and Long-Term

Research

Future Euratom research programmes to support fission and radiation

protection should take account of the long-term thereby reflecting more

continuity between short-term objectives and long-term goals.

3.2. Relevance of the Programme

3.2.1. Fusion

The detailed objective in fusion research - as stated in the specific programmes - aims

“to develop the knowledge base for, and the realisation of ITER as the major step

towards the creation of prototype fusion reactor for power stations which are safe,

sustainable, environmentally responsible, and economically viable” [Ref 3, 4].

The FP7 Programmes addressed these goals in seven work packages:

1. The realisation of ITER;

2. R&D in preparation for ITER operation - including the continued operation of

JET, assessment of key technologies for ITER operation and exploration of

ITER operating scenarios;

3. Technology activities in preparation of DEMO;

4. R&D activities for the longer term, including alternative concepts for magnetic

confinement schemes;

5. Human resources, education and training;

6. Infrastructures; and

7. Technology transfer processes to enable European industry to become more

competitive.

The FP7 indirect actions interim report [Ref 7] recommended “a high priority should be

given to keeping JET operating throughout the period during which the ITER design is

finalised.”

JET has been successfully operating during the whole period of the Euratom FP7

Programmes, and furthermore a new five-year contract has been signed for the

continued operation of JET (2014-2018). The JET scientific programme is aligned with the

Fusion Roadmap and with the objective to give answers to ITER needs. Excellent results

have been achieved which have been decisive for the final construction of ITER. The

European fusion laboratories have contributed considerably to the operation of JET.

26

The Panel believes that the decision to extend the use of JET to support the development

of ITER was not only correct but essential. JET is the only tokamak machine currently in

operation that can study D-T reactions and hence it is an essential test bed to underpin

ITER design, commissioning and operating procedures. JET has provided invaluable

knowledge and experience relevant to ITER such as the installation and use of the

tungsten diverter, the demonstration of the capability to replace wall panels remotely

and the demonstration of the performance of the ITER wall material.

3.2.2. Radioactive Waste Management

The Panel notes that the rationale for the radioactive waste management research

activities in the Euratom FP7 Programmes has followed the objectives as set out in the

Council decisions, namely:

“Implementation-oriented research and development activities on all remaining

key aspects of deep geological disposal of spent fuel and long-lived radioactive

waste and, as appropriate, demonstration of the technologies and safety, and to

underpin the development of a common European view on the main issues related

to the management and disposal of radioactive waste.” [Ref 1, 2]

“Research on partitioning and transmutation and/or other concepts aimed at

reducing the amount and /or the hazard of the waste for disposal.” [Ref 1]

Euratom support programmes for research on radioactive waste have existed since 1975.

The key challenges in the area of management of radioactive waste have been associated

with (i) the treatment of radioactive waste to ensure that the waste is passively safe, (ii)

robust interim storage that allows for retrieval, (iii) solutions for eventual disposal that

will isolate the radioactive waste from mankind for the necessary time period, and (iv)

the nature of the waste especially the radioactive half-life. The Panel believes that the

effective management of radioactive waste is an essential prerequisite for the acceptance

of the use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity in Europe.

The Commission [Ref 5] informed the Panel that research into P&T had been funded by

Euratom since 1990 and that by 2006, at the end of the sixth Euratom Framework

Programme, the cumulative spend during this period had been some EUR 80 million. The

work done to date has given valuable insights into the role of P&T in relation to reducing

the radiological burden of a geological disposal facility.

The radioactive waste management programme included a number of 'cross-cutting'

projects relating to the disposal of irradiated graphite, the establishment of an actinide

network, and the safe management of actinides. The Panel believes these projects are

relevant and support the overall aims of the programme.

3.2.3. Reactor Safety

According to the Council Decision for the Specific Programme for Euratom FP7 [Ref 3] the

aims of the actions in this area were:

“to ensure the continued safe operation of all relevant types of existing

installations”

and,


27

“as a contribution to enhancing diversity and security of supply and combating

global warming, to explore the potential of more advanced technology to deliver

an even safer, more resource-efficient and more competitive exploitation of

nuclear energy”.

The Panel believes that the recommendations expressed by the Sustainable Nuclear

Energy Technology Platform SNETP (following the SET-Plan) formulate quite clear

assessments in favour of the application of nuclear systems in general and innovative

solutions beyond the use of current PWR technology in particular. The Panel also

recognises the value of the SNETP’s assessment of the contribution of nuclear

technologies in the future European energy landscape, especially in connection to global

warming issues, sustainable resource efficiency and energy independence.

These perspectives clearly support the EU’s continued interest in the development of

advanced systems as promoted by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), which

was set up to guide studies on advanced reactor systems.

The development of these new advanced reactor systems raises the potential to improve

efficiency and hence reduce the amount of radioactive waste. The use of breeder

technology can also make better use of uranium resources. The development of these

technologies has also been accompanied by the potential to modify the current nuclear

fuel cycle through more advance reprocessing technologies and to support the better use

of uranium resources and the reduction of ultimate radioactive waste.

The design of innovative nuclear plants can be directly linked to research on P&T. This

research has the potential to enable the development of new partitioning processes that

are viable on an industrial scale and to the manufacturing of innovative nuclear fuel

(using actinides extracted from spent nuclear fuel). These innovative processes can also

be used for the transmutation of these actinides into radioactive waste with shorter half-

lives. The development of advanced reactor systems, advanced reprocessing and new

P&T technologies will enable a more sustainable management of spent fuel, reduce the

amount and type of radioactive waste and hence reduce the burden for geological

disposal facilities.

The Panel is convinced that maintaining international cooperation through GIF is a good

way to keep expertise on all potential solutions, as far as the options are still open, and

to position EU research and industry as leaders in some key technologies.

Recommendation 3: Advanced Reactor Systems – Generation IV

Euratom should focus its funding on research on the Generation IV systems

that are the most likely to succeed (fast neutrons, liquid metal or gas

coolant). More attention should be paid to the fuel cycle issues related to

these new reactor systems including Partitioning and Transmutation

activities.

Concerning nuclear systems, the Council Decision for the Specific Programme FP7+2

(2012-2013) reinforced the commitment for “focusing exclusively on safety aspects”.

There have been very few projects addressing technologies linked to the performance of

actual nuclear systems. R&D activities, even with some reformulations in the wording of

the goals of on-going programmes, did not show significant inflexions. Not surprisingly,

28

as the Fukushima accident did not identify any significant shortcomings in our

understanding of nuclear safety, it did not lead to any new unforeseen R&D activities.

The Panel recognises that operational nuclear safety issues are the responsibility of

operators and utilities, and that associated R&D on actual systems is generally done in an

industrial context or for industrial purposes, and therefore agrees that it is not for

Euratom to support such activities.

The Panel believes that Euratom has a legitimate role to play in funding the R&D

necessary to understand the safety implications not only of the advanced systems that

could be developed in one or other of the Member States but to maintain an expertise on

the new designs proposed at the international level.

There is an increasing awareness of the importance of the need to have a more

integrated approach to the delivery of nuclear safety, nuclear security and non-

proliferation safeguards. The Panel believes that an integrated approach is especially

important for the design of new nuclear facilities. Future research programmes should

encompass research proposals to better understand the interactions between nuclear

safety, security and safeguards in the design and operation of new and existing nuclear

facilities within the EU.

Recommendation 4: Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards

Euratom should take the initiative to promote a cooperative approach for

safety, security and safeguards issues (currently managed quasi

independently) and favour their integration at the very early stage of the

design.

By definition, nuclear reactor systems (and the supporting facilities dedicated in

particular to the fuel cycle) are devoted to industrial production of electricity. The R&D

should cover all the technologies and processes favouring that development: increasing

the performance of operating systems and preparing the future through innovative

systems.

3.2.4. Radiation Protection and Medical Exposure

Ionising radiation occurring from natural sources (such as from soil radioactivity, from

radon or from cosmic rays) has always been part of man’s environment, however, man-

made sources (such as from application of ionising radiation in medicine, industry,

energy production or warfare) are now contributing.

The magnitude of risks from exposure to low and protracted doses of ionising radiation,

typical of those encountered in the workplace, the environment and in diagnostic

medicine, is an important policy issue. The uncertainties in the magnitude of risks at low

doses are considerable, as are the associated social and economic implications. If these

risks are overestimated, undue resources are being allocated to dose reduction and

practices are being unnecessarily restricted; if the risks are underestimated, the level of

health protection achieved is less than intended, both for the public and at work and also

in medical procedures.


29

These uncertainties are further exacerbated by increasing evidence that the magnitude of

risk may vary considerably between some individuals depending on their genetic

makeup.

Research on radiological protection addresses the scientific rationale for evaluating the

effects in humans of low levels of ionising radiation encountered in particular in medical

uses of radiation for diagnostic purposes and in individuals and human cohorts exposed

to enhanced levels of ionising radiation due to accidents in nuclear industry or to

radiological accidents. This research also involves studies at cellular and molecular levels

contributing to the systemic biology approach to radiation hazard, to complement on-

going epidemiology studies in exposed human cohorts.

Research in emergency preparedness and remediation of large-scale nuclear accidents or

of acts of nuclear terrorism, closely related to radioecology, is also involved.

Epidemiology or radiobiology studies of human cohorts exposed to ionising radiation may

supply crucial information on the mechanisms and health effects of such exposures

through detailed molecular studies of their tissue samples preserved in tissue banks.

In the medical area, where ionising radiation is massively applied in diagnostics and

therapy, studies of the potential health effects (including second cancers) by

epidemiology or by analysis of mechanisms at different systemic levels in individual

patients are required. Also of interest in this area are risks of non-cancer health effects

from medical exposures to low and protracted doses and of individual patient

susceptibility in all such procedures. Limiting patient exposures from diagnostic X-ray

computed tomography (CT) or from nuclear medicine procedures, and from unwanted

exposures in complex multi-field radiotherapy techniques may be achieved by progress in

medical physics and technology.

For protection purposes, a generally cautious assumption is adopted that the risk of

radiation increases linearly with increasing dose, with risks at higher doses having been

assessed directly from epidemiological studies. The scientific evidence, however, is

equivocal and certain elements can be used to support various interpretations at low

doses, ranging from a linear relationship between risk and dose, curvilinear relationships

of a variety of forms (both supra- and sub-linear), the existence of a threshold, to

radiation having a beneficial effect at low doses.

3.2.5. Education and Training

The development of human resources to ensure the sustainability of Europe’s nuclear

fusion and fission programmes is a fundamental part of the Euratom FP7 Programmes for

both the fusion and the fission and radiation protection research themes.

In the fission area, it is clear that the delivery of safe nuclear power and other nuclear

applications relies not only on well designed and operated facilities, but also on highly

educated and trained people. Within the licensing process of nuclear power stations it is

required that all people whose activity affects nuclear safety be suitably qualified and

experienced to carry out their duties. The development and retention of skilled people is

a significant challenge and requires the provision of high-quality education, training and

research programmes.

30

The key objective of the human resources and training element of the Euratom FP7

Programmes is clearly to address the need to maintain the required high-level of

expertise within the EU that is necessary not only to deliver nuclear safety but also to

deliver a European nuclear industry for electricity production both now and in the future.

The overall aim is to support the increase of scientific competence and know-how

throughout the sector. This goal is delivered through a variety of measures including joint

training and enhanced cooperation between EU institutions to provide harmonised levels

of higher education and training and to facilitate mobility of students and scientists.

The Panel supports the Euratom FP7 Programmes’ education and training aims and

objectives as there is clearly a need to retain and further develop scientific competence

and human capacity in order to guarantee the availability of suitably qualified

researchers, engineers and scientists in the nuclear sector over the longer term.

The Panel believes that this element of the Euratom FP7 Programmes is essential and

directly relevant to the overall aims to support the safe operation of nuclear facilities, the

protection of people from ionising radiation and the effective management of radioactive

waste. In particular the Panel supports the key activities as set out in [Ref 1, 2, 3, 4]

relating to training through the coordination of national training programmes and

mobility of researchers and workers through the use of grants and fellowships.

3.2.6. Infrastructures

The detailed objectives of the Council decision for the Euratom FP7 Specific Programme

[Ref 3], in relation to fission and radiation protection, are “to provide support for key

infrastructures where there is clear European added value especially in order to establish

critical mass and for the replacement of ageing facilities such as e.g. research reactors.”

Research infrastructures are an essential part of R&D in nuclear science and technology

and in radiological sciences, ranging in size from very large and expensive plant or

laboratory networks to much smaller entities such as databases, numerical simulation

tools or tissue banks.

In annual Euratom Work Programmes, various R&D thematic areas were addressed. In

fusion there was an evaluation of the infrastructure facilities in operation in the Member

States [Ref 8] and priorities among these were decided for the development of fusion as

an energy source. In fission, actions addressed a range of issues and related

infrastructures such as components and subsystems of operating nuclear plants through

irradiation validation and testing, hot cells for nuclear chemistry and fuel operations,

facilities for severe accident analysis and data acquisition, loops for thermal hydraulic

experimentation and material testing.

It should be pointed out that some significant nuclear facilities are directly operated by

the JRC (for instance ITU in Karlsruhe is a major laboratory in actinide research and fuel

cycle activities). They benefit from the Euratom budget of the JRC [Ref 9]; the present

evaluation does not cover these activities, even if networking shows many shared

actions.

Since most of these infrastructures are operated at national level in one or other of the

Member States, a major aim of European funding is to support trans-national access to

existing infrastructures. The Euratom contribution for design, construction, operation or


31

refurbishment of such infrastructures is, most of the time, engaged with the operators of

the facilities to enable greater access for individual research workers or research teams.

In previous Euratom programmes and for many decades there has been a long tradition

of networking experimental research around dedicated infrastructures. Nuclear R&D

requires specific infrastructures and, when operating, these infrastructures induce R&D

activities.

Nearly all the facilities currently in operation welcome European R&D projects. More often

the innovative experiments force the infrastructures to adapt or create new internal

devices and chiefly produce sophisticated instrumentation. This process participates in

the progressive and continuous refurbishment of the infrastructures.

On top of these efforts and to accompany new research areas, the Euratom support had

to evolve and favour new infrastructures: for instance underground laboratories to

support research on geological disposal of radioactive waste, or fast neutron sources to

support research on P&T and to contribute to the evaluation of Generation IV fast

neutron innovative systems.

Evidently many of the R&D experimental activities and projects carried out in the

facilities are directly or indirectly related to safety issues, explaining why the European

Technical Support Organisations (TSO) are often included in the research consortia.

3.3. General Observations

Considering the information made available to the Panel and summarising the above

reflections, the Panel believes the objectives of the Euratom FP7 Programmes as set out

in the Council Decisions are pertinent to the issues and challenges associated with the

use of nuclear energy.

The Panel looked at the way in which the Commission identified the Euratom research

needs and the criteria that were used to select and fund specific research. The response

of the Commission to the Panel’s question (Annex 5) indicates that the Euratom research

needs are driven by the high-level goals of the Euratom Treaty to continuously improve

the peaceful application of nuclear energy for the benefit of society and to deliver the

objectives of the EU’s climate and energy policy in relation to sustainability, security of

supply and competitiveness.

32

4. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION

4.1. Management Structure and Instruments

The instruments to implement the framework programme were different for the research

theme of fusion and the theme of fission, safety and radiation protection, which impacts

on the way the programme is managed in both areas.

FUSION

The management of the Euratom fusion programme evolved during the FP7 and FP7+2

period and many changes to the fusion programme have since been implemented.

During the Euratom FP7 Programmes the fusion research programme was mainly

implemented through the Fusion for Energy (F4E) organisation, Contracts of Association

(CoA) and the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA).

With the coming into force of the ITER agreement between the seven parties in 2007 the

international ITER Organization (IO) became responsible for the construction, operation,

exploitation and decommissioning of the ITER device. The coordinated European

contribution to ITER is delivered by the agency Fusion for Energy (F4E), a Euratom Joint

Undertaking established in 2007 in Barcelona, Spain, that acts as the European Domestic

Agency for ITER.

Beyond F4E’s responsibility for providing Europe’s contribution to ITER, F4E also

supported fusion research and development initiatives through the Broader Approach

Agreement with Japan – a fusion energy partnership (in force since 2007) that will last

for 10 years. These projects include the construction of the JT-60SA tokamak facility, the

engineering evaluation and design of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation

Facility (IFMIF) and the provision of a high performance computer for plasma modelling.

Most of the components for the projects are provided as voluntary, in-kind contributions

from some of the Member States. Ultimately, it is expected that F4E will contribute

towards the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor (DEMO).

The CoA were bilateral arrangements between the Commission, representing Euratom,

and national fusion labs / institutes, or in some cases Member States / associated

countries (Switzerland). The 26 separate 'Associations' covered essentially all fusion

research activities in Europe, and the coordination between them contributed to an

effective European Research Area in fusion. The research programmes carried out in the

Associations covered the scientific exploitation of JET, preparation of the operation and

exploitation of ITER, the technology R&D for the long term beyond ITER needs and the

exploration of alternative confinement schemes. In addition, the fusion Associations also

carried out supporting activities.

EFDA was a multilateral agreement between all the fusion Associations plus the

Commission. EFDA’s main tasks were the coordination of the collective scientific

exploitation of joint facilities (primarily JET), the co-ordination of fusion physics and

technology research and development in the EU laboratories (Associations), and training

and career developments of researchers, promoting links to universities. The EFDA

Steering Committee (EFDA SC) played the key role in reporting and monitoring all the

http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/understandingfusion/ourcontribution.aspx


33

activities under the commonly agreed EFDA work programme. Results were reported in

relation to the deliverables and deadlines set in this work programme and major

problems and/or delays were identified.

The fusion governance structure in place during the Euratom FP7 Programmes is

illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Organisation of fusion research in Euratom FP7 Programmes

In the course of FP7 the management of the Euratom fusion programme was also highly

influenced by three key reports: The facilities review study in 2008 [Ref 8] that set clear

priorities for the Euratom support for infrastructures, the ‘Wagner’ report on Strategic

Orientation of the EU Fusion Programme in 2011 [Ref 10], and the EFDA Fusion Roadmap

[Ref 11], which was introduced as the main strategy for the highly integrated European

fusion programme in November 2012.

In assessing the management structure of fusion research during the seventh framework

programme the Panel recognises that this structure changed in the new 2014-2018

Euratom programme and the EUROfusion consortium has been created to succeed EFDA

and the CoA. The Panel did not evaluate the new structure.

However, the Panel, keeping in mind the status of ITER development during the Euratom

FP7 Programmes and based inter alia on the interviews the Panel held with fusion

stakeholders, feels that the combination of bilateral (CoA) and multilateral (EFDA)

instruments being in place during the Euratom FP7 Programmes has enabled the fusion

programme to become the most integrated programme of research in Europe. This

integration has been an important factor in maintaining Europe’s position as the leading

global player in the development of fusion.

The Panel endorses the view of the fusion review panel (2014) [Ref 12] that

34

“The period of FP7&FP7+2 fusion research has seen an increasingly coherent and

focused European fusion programme, capitalising on the recommendations of the

2008 Facilities Review and building towards the Roadmap of 2012 which sets out

a clear route to electricity generation through fusion by the middle of this

century.”

“European fusion research has been at the forefront internationally, with Europe

playing a leading role in ITER and very well placed to capitalise on the outcomes

of ITER once it is operational. This position is the consequence of a highly

integrated programme, with Euratom funding allowing achievements far beyond

what could have been attained by separate national programmes.”

The Panel notes that the recommendations made in the FP7 Interim Review Report

[Ref 7] have been overtaken by events in the management of the ITER project as

discussed above. However, the Panel believes that the recommendation relating to JET

remains valid because of the importance of JET to the future development and operation

of ITER.

Recommendation 5: Continued Operation of JET

High Priority should be given to keeping JET operating until the design for ITER

has been finalised and ITER has been successfully commissioned.

FISSION

The fission programme, unlike fusion, is implemented through the system of calls for

proposals followed by an evaluation using external independent experts. The rules for

participation in the programme were the same rules as applicable in the EU seventh

Framework Programme, and the funding schemes were the same (though not all the EU

schemes were available under Euratom). The projects supported are essentially multi-

partner, bringing together consortia of research and/or industrial organisations and

academia, on basis of shared costs, with Euratom typically contributing 50% to the total

eligible project costs as declared by each of the partners.

The main funding schemes to implement the fission part of Euratom FP7 Programmes

have been Collaborative Projects, Networks of Excellence, Coordination and Support

Actions, and Actions to promote and develop human resources and mobility.

In the area of nuclear fission, safety and radiation protection, the period 2007-2010 has

seen the launch of key technical forums that bring together all key nuclear researc

euratom fp7 ex-post evaluation - european commission · there is an increasing awareness of the...

Documents