European Research Area. 7th Framework Programme COMMISSION

Transcription

1 E U R O P E A N COMMISSION European Research Area 7th Framework Programme Interim Evaluation of the indirect actions of the FP7 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) Studies and reports EUR EN

2 European Commission Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit B-1049 Brussels Fax (32-2) Internet: Pictures Shutterstock, 2010 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research Directorate J - Energy (Euratom) Unit J.1 - Horizontal aspects and coordination rtd-euratom@ec.europa.eu Contact: Frederick MARIEN European Commission Office CDMA 01/002 B-1049 Brussels Tel. (32-2) Fax (32-2)

3 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Interim Evaluation of the indirect actions of the FP7 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) Directorate-General for Research 2010 Euratom EUR EN

4 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE: Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010 ISBN doi /61777 European Union, 2010 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

5 Table of Contents Table of Contents...3 The Evaluation Panel...4 Executive Summary Introduction Terms of Reference Background to FP7 Euratom Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection Fusion Energy Research Evaluation Rationale / Relevance - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection Rationale / Relevance - Fusion Energy Implementation - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection Implementation - Fusion Research Achievements - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection Achievements - Fusion Energy Concluding Remarks...52 ANNEX 1. Membership of the Interim Review Panel...54 ANNEX 2. Glossary of Terminology...56 Documents made available to the Panel:...65 References

6 The Evaluation Panel JAROSLAV MIL (CHAIRMAN) President of the Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic Prague, Czech Republic JACQUES BOUCHARD Special advisor to the Director General of Commissariat l'énergie Atomique Saclay, France EBERHARD JAESCHKE Retired, Former Technical Director of the Berliner Elektronenspeicherring - Gesellschaft für Synchrotronstrahlung (BESSY) Berlin, Germany CARMEN MARTINEZ-TEN President of the Consello de Seguridade Nuclear (Nuclear Safety Council) Madrid, Spain DEREK POOLEY Retired, Former Chief Operating Officer of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) London, United Kingdom AGNETA RISING Director for Environment at Vattenfall AB Stockholm, Sweden PROFESSOR NICOLETTA STAME Professor of Sociology, University of Rome (la Sapienza) Rome, Italy KEVIN LANGLEY (RAPPORTEUR) 4

7 Executive Summary The Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (hereinafter Euratom FP7) runs from 2007 to It is a requirement of the Council of the European Union that an interim evaluation should be carried out by a panel of independent experts. This panel was convened by the European Commission in July 2009 and now presents its report. The Euratom FP7 budget of 2,751 Million is divided between direct (carried out by Joint Research Centre) and indirect action programmes. This evaluation is concerned only with the indirect action programme a separate evaluation panel covers the direct action programme. The indirect action programme comprises two sub-programmes: Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection ( 287 M) Fusion Energy Research ( 1,947 M). The panel is convinced that nuclear energy is a key technology for the realisation of the objectives set out in the European Strategic Energy Plan (SET Plan), i.e. reduced carbon emissions, increased security of supply, decreased dependence on delivery of energy sources from unstable world regions, and increased industrial competitiveness. In this context, the panel believes that Euratom FP7 makes an important contribution to reaching the objectives of the SET Plan and is essential in taking forward the Strategic Research Agenda of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform. Nuclear fission is already a reliable, large scale source of almost carbon-free energy it is currently supplying almost one third of Europe s electricity. However, for it to be sustainable in the long term (several centuries or more) it will be necessary to fully develop the technology of Generation IV reactor systems and explore the possibility of reducing actinides in waste by nuclear incineration. At present only about 10% of the small Euratom fission budget is allocated to Generation IV work. This is a reflection of a constraint applied in the past that the fission programme should be narrowly focused on safety and waste management issues related to existing plants and that work on advanced nuclear systems should relate only to assessing their potential. Unless this can be changed Euratom will be precluded from participating in real work on high temperature or fast neutron reactors 5

8 and hence from influencing the development of standards for these technologies, which are being actively developed elsewhere (e.g. Russia, China, Japan, and India). It is possible, of course, for those EU member states which wish to pursue a larger nuclear contribution to do so outside the Euratom framework but we believe this would lead to an undesirable fracture of the EU Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan and would leave the nuclear sceptic member states with no influence at all on what is done. A better way forward would be for those countries who do not wish to use nuclear power nevertheless to allow the work to go on under Euratom, just as northern members of the EU allow work on direct solar generation in which they have little direct interest and southern, Mediterranean members allow the development of wind and wave generation. When nuclear fission s contribution to Europe s energy supplies was seen as simply operating the existing power stations until the ends of their lives, the research tasks were modest and it was justifiable to fund only a small Euratom fission programme. However, the situation has changed dramatically in the last few years. The panel therefore recommends that the Commission should seek to substantially increase the funding for fission research and to alter the balance of the fission research programme to reflect the SET Plan with respect to work on advanced reactor systems. The panel is convinced that the potential of fusion is so great that it should be actively pursued, at least to the point where it is clear whether or not it can be engineered to be economically viable. The costs, timescale and project risks inherent in the development of fusion are great so much so that it is unlikely that any European member state could contemplate undertaking it alone. The fusion research programme is currently dominated by the costs of ITER construction, an international project to which Euratom, as host, is contributing 45%. A recent review of the design and cost baseline for ITER construction has indicated a large increase in the cost estimate, some of which will fall within FP7. The reasons for this cost increase have been examined by the panel and can be considered in two main groups. Firstly, they are an inevitable consequence of the management structure and procurement methods chosen for the ITER project, including the system of contributions from the participating parties in kind (rather than in cash). Secondly, further cost increases come from design changes due to the incompleteness of the original design, and 6

9 research and development carried out since the original baseline was established in Some other reasons for the increase are mentioned in the report. The panel is critical of the existing structure of the ITER project because it believes that it has not been and is not effective, and may still fail to deliver even at the higher costs and longer timescales we have seen during our review. A more focused leadership is needed to secure a positive outcome. It also needs a more streamlined international management structure with fewer interfaces implemented according to the best practice either from the construction of nuclear power plants or large international projects (for example, the Large Hadron Collider). As the major contributor and host of the project, Euratom has to convince its partners of the necessity to improve the structure and should propose a more efficient organization. However, ITER will inevitably be expensive and trying to cut costs by reducing scope will lead to failure. The panel considers that ITER is an essential step on the road to commercial realisation of fusion energy and if we are to pursue fusion energy it must be adequately funded. It is necessary to show our international partners that Europe is committed to delivering ITER as quickly as possible, but without risking further large cost increases by striving for an unrealistic timescale. A revised project baseline (scope, schedule and cost) needs to strike the right balance between achievability, affordability and urgency, and an improved management structure needs to be put in place. Other aspects of the fusion programme, particularly in relation to materials development, are equally important and the panel believes are being managed effectively. In particular, continuing experiments on JET in the next few years and the ASDEX Upgrade beyond that will provide valuable design information which will enhance the likelihood of ITER being successful. These and other projects (e.g. the stellarator W7-X) will also provide continuity in maintaining knowledge and skills in operating large fusion machines which would otherwise be lost before ITER becomes operational. In summary, the panel believes that: 1. the fission programme is well focused and well managed, but needs to be expanded to cover development of advanced reactor systems 7

10 2. the fusion research managed by EFDA is also well focussed and managed and is essential to support ITER 3. ITER is an inherently complex and difficult project but an essential one. There are serious issues related to the structure and management of the project which need to be addressed urgently 4. both fission and fusion energy research will need significantly more funding in future framework programmes. Specific Recommendations The panel has made the following specific recommendations which are discussed in the body of the text, at the page references indicated. Fission Research Fission research needs increased EU-wide funding and coordination with resources focused on improving the technology for the future, not simply on ensuring the safety of existing plants. (Page 31) Euratom should be given the freedom to alter the balance of the Fission Research programme to reflect the Strategic Research Agenda of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, particularly with respect to work on advanced reactor systems. (Page 22) Although the Euratom Treaty requires unanimity, Euratom member states should generally permit research on nuclear fission, of interest to only some member states, to be carried out under the umbrella of the Treaty. (Page 30) Future framework programmes should have substantially increased funding for nuclear fission research mainly for generation IV to ensure that nuclear electricity generation can grow sustainably. In particular, funding for fission research should not be constrained by a shortfall in funding for fusion, especially for the ITER project. (Page 23) 8

11 Administrative costs in the Fission R&D budget should reflect actual costs rather than an arbitrary 15% overhead. (Page 28) Fusion Research Euratom should propose and create with its partners a more streamlined management structure for ITER with fewer interfaces, based on the best practice in very large projects. (Page 38) Euratom needs to ensure better control of the ITER project by eliminating constraints arising from the over-complex management structure, in particular by giving more responsibility to an ITER Project Director chosen for his/her proven ability to manage a huge international construction project. (Page 40) A revised ITER project baseline should strike a proper balance between achievability, affordability and urgency, resulting in a realistic budget and project plan including a critical path and milestones. (Page 27) Euratom and its international partners should maintain and follow a global roadmap setting out a route to a commercially viable fusion energy reactor, with short- and medium-term objectives, including clear intermediate milestones (Page 24) Additional funding should be found to meet the increased cost needed for construction of ITER without jeopardising the accompanying programme. (Page 27) In particular, a high priority should be given to keeping JET operating throughout the period during which the ITER design is finalised. This will allow JET to be used to validate ITER design features and solve problems which arise. (Page 25) General For individual projects, Euratom should set out success criteria at the outset against which the project can be monitored regularly throughout its life and on conclusion. (Page 35 and 42) 9

12 1. Introduction This document is an interim evaluation of the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (FP7 Euratom), carried out by a panel of experts appointed by the European Commission (DG Research). Euratom energy research activities are carried out under the 1957 treaty which established the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Euratom is legally separated from the European Union (EU) and has its own Framework Research Programme, which is managed by the Commission alongside the EC framework programme. FP7 Euratom was established by Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom 1 to run for the five year period with a budget of 2,751 M. In contrast, the EC FP7 has a budget of 50,521 M for the seven year period FP7 Euratom is concerned with both indirect and direct action elements. The indirect action programme comprises two sub-programmes: Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection ( 287 M) Fusion Energy Research ( 1,947 M). The direct action programme covers the nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre with a budget of 517 M. However, this evaluation relates only to the indirect action programme. Another panel of experts has been appointed for a similar evaluation of the direct action programme with approximately the same terms of reference. Contact has been established between the panels to ensure correlation of the two evaluations. The membership of the interim review panel is listed in Annex 1. The panel met in Brussels in five plenary sessions between July 2009 and January

13 1.1 Terms of Reference Terms of reference were established by the European Commission 2 for a panel of independent experts to carry out an interim evaluation of the Euratom Seventh Framework Programme and its specific programme on indirect nuclear research and training activities. The Panel was asked to pay particular attention to Euratom's participation in the ITER International Organisation and the instruments and structures in place to ensure an effective management and control of the contributions to the project. The interim evaluation also addressed whether the implementing arrangements are adequate for the purpose of the programme. The Terms of Reference contained specific questions which have been re-ordered by the Panel to assist in presentation. They are summarized here: Rationale/Relevance (a) (b) (c) Is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives and policies, notably sustainable development, energy policy, the European Research Area (ERA) and the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)? And how? To what extent are the Euratom FP7's objectives pertinent to the needs and problems in nuclear energy research? Was level of funding and other available resources adequate to achieve the objectives set? Implementation (d) (e) Is the Euratom research programme pursued in a cost-effective manner? Are the legal framework and instruments in place (Rules of participation, model contract and grant agreement, Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy', Contracts of Association, European Fusion Development Agreement) and governance structures appropriate for ensuring an effective and efficient implementation of the programme? 11

14 (f) (g) (h) (i) Are this framework, instruments and structures adequate for ensuring effective control over Euratom's contribution to ITER? Have the Euratom research activities constituted the best way of obtaining the objectives set? Did the Euratom FP7 attract (and target) the best and most appropriate researchers and research organisations? Are the arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation appropriate and effective? Achievements (j) (k) (l) Do the early outcomes of the research activities indicate that the overall and specific objectives of the Euratom FP7 would be met? To what extent did the Euratom FP7 provide some (Community) added value compared to baseline option (no EUpolicy/no change from FP6 to FP7). How has the FP7 programme improved in comparison to FP6?. 12

15 2. Background to FP7 Euratom Sustainable energy development is a major issue for the European Union. The risks associated with climate change and the needs for a secure energy supply, which is not too dependent on oil and gas imported from potentially unreliable sources and supply chains, have led the EU to adopt binding targets for and to define a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) 4. As part of this strategy, the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) 5 was launched in The SNETP aims to support the SET-Plan through R&D in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy already has a key role as the main provider of low carbon electricity in Europe (currently providing more than 30% of EU s electricity). Nuclear energies, both fission and fusion, have the potential to provide much more carbon-free energy in an environmentally acceptable and sustainable manner, provided they can satisfy economic, safety and public acceptability criteria. Fission and fusion developments are on different timescales. In addressing the climate change issue, a strong development programme for fission can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a large amount by the middle of the century. In contrast, the impact of the development of fusion energy will not appear before the second half of the century but could play an important role at this time. The rationale for new developments in fission energy is not only to maintain at least the current level of contribution, but to provide technical solutions for increasing the contribution in a sustainable way and to help European Industry to be competitive suppliers of nuclear power technology and equipment on foreign markets. Fusion is a longer term challenge. After many decades of basic developments and technology innovations, the worldwide fusion community has designed a global experiment, the ITER facility, aiming to confirm the feasibility of continuous energy production from fusion in a Tokamak device. The EU has been selected as host for the implementation of ITER at Cadarache and has agreed to fund 45% of the construction costs while continuing to make various technological developments in preparation for the future demonstration and then development of the system. The rationale for fusion is thus to add a new energy source in the future to limit the use of coal when oil and gas will 13

16 become scarce and expensive and to keep a leadership of the European scientific community in this field. 2.1 Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection Nuclear fission currently generates almost one third of all electricity consumed in the EU and, as the most significant source of essentially carbon-free * base-load electricity, constitutes an important element in the debate on the means of combating climate change and reducing Europe s dependence on imported energy. More advanced nuclear technology could offer the prospect of significant improvements in efficiency and use of resources, at the same time ensuring even higher safety standards and producing less waste than current designs. There are, however, important concerns that affect the continued use of nuclear fission as an energy source in the EU. Key issues are reactor safety, the management of long-lived waste and the protection of people and the environment against the effects of ionising radiation. Research on reactor systems under-pins the continued safe operation of existing reactor systems (including fuel cycle facilities), taking into account new challenges such as life-time extension and development of new advanced safety assessment methodologies, and assesses the potential, the safety and waste-management aspects of future reactor systems. Research and development on the management of radioactive waste includes aspects of deep geological disposal of spent fuel and long-lived radioactive waste. Research is also carried out on partitioning and transmutation and other concepts aimed at reducing the amount and/or hazard of the waste for disposal. Research on radiological protection addresses the risks from low doses, the medical uses of radiation and the management of nuclear and radiological accidents. Research is also carried out to minimise the impact of nuclear and radiological terrorism and diversion of nuclear material. * Nuclear power does not emit CO 2 during operation. On a lifecycle basis, an extremely small amount of CO 2 is emitted from fossil fuel during plant construction and fuel manufacture, comparable with the best of the renewable energy sources (Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008, Chapter 4, OECD/NEA, Paris). 14

17 Funding is also provided to support the availability of, and cooperation between, research infrastructures such as materials test facilities, underground research laboratories, radiobiology facilities and tissue banks, necessary to maintain high standards of technical achievement, innovation and safety in the European nuclear sector. There is support for retention and further development of human resources (for instance through joint training activities) in order to guarantee the availability of suitably qualified researchers, engineers and employees in the nuclear sector over the longer term. 2.2 Fusion Energy Research The long-term goal of European fusion research is to realise its potential by developing prototype power reactors which are economically viable. Fusion has several attributes which make it very attractive as a future sustainable energy resource. Thus, it is inherently safe emits no carbon dioxide or any other chemical pollutant uses a fuel (lithium) that is abundant and widespread produces only relatively modest amounts of radioactive waste, none of which are very long-lived. However, sustaining a fusion reaction is technically complex and today there is uncertainty as to how it can be achieved in a practical reactor and when it will become commercially viable. Because of this uncertainty and the large scale of the facilities needed for its development, fusion has become an international collaboration in order to share costs and ideas. It is now therefore a global R&D enterprise rather than simply a European one. The strategy to achieve the long-term goal entails, as the next step, the construction of ITER, followed by the construction of DEMO, a demonstration fusion power station. This will be accompanied by a programme of R&D supporting the ITER project and for developing the materials, technologies and physics required for DEMO. This will involve European industry, the fusion associations and third countries, in particular parties to the ITER Agreement. A Joint Implementation Agreement was signed in 2006 between Europe, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the USA to construct ITER at Cadarache in France together with supporting Broader Approach projects in other countries. Following ratification 15

18 of the ITER Agreement by all Members, the ITER Organization was formally established on 24 October 2007 to manage the agreement. The ITER Organisation is supervised by the ITER Council. With respect to the construction of the ITER machine, most of the components will be contributed by the Members in kind - that is to say the Members will contribute the components themselves, rather than providing the financing to procure them. The seven Members of the international ITER project have all created Domestic Agencies to act as the liaison between national governments and the ITER Organization. The Domestic Agencies' role is to handle the procurement of each Member's in-kind contributions to ITER. The Domestic Agencies employ their own staff and have their own budget, and place contracts with suppliers. They are responsible for organising and carrying out the procurement for each ITER Member. In the case of the European Union, the Domestic Agency is Fusion for Energy (F4E) which has been established as a Joint Undertaking under the Euratom Treaty. F4E serves as the link between the European Commission and the ITER Organization. The cost of ITER was originally estimated at 5 billion over the full course of its lifetime. The agreement runs for 35 years (10 years construction, 20 years operation and 5 years decommissioning). However, the cost, scope and timescale are currently under review. The specific goals of fusion research in Euratom FP7 are to develop further the knowledge base for future fusion reactors, and to realise ITER as the next major step. The programme consists of: The realisation of ITER R&D in preparation of ITER operation Materials technology development in preparation of a demonstration fusion power plant (DEMO), including preparations for the construction of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) R&D activities for the longer term, including alternative concepts for magnetic confinement schemes (focussed on the completion of the construction of the W7-X stellarator device) Human resources, education and training, aimed at ensuring that adequate human resources will be available in relation to the physics and engineering of fusion Technology transfer processes to enable European industry to become more competitive. 16

19 Within Euratom, the fusion energy R&D tasks not directly related to the construction of ITER are the responsibility of the European Fusion Research Agreement (EFDA). Specifically, EFDA is responsible for: Collective use of the JET tokamak Coordination of fusion physics and technology research and development in EU laboratories Training and career development of researchers, promoting links to universities and carrying out support actions for the benefit of the fusion programme EU contributions to international collaborations outside F4E. The total number of professionals in the European fusion programme is about 2500 (full time equivalent). These professional staff work in the Fusion Associations (the laboratories which carry out the research) and some are also involved in national activities (R&D, teaching etc.) outside the Community funded programme. The European fusion R&D programme is managed by the Energy (Euratom) Directorate of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research. The total number of Commission staff involved in the programme management is about 53 (including support staff) and there are a further 50 scientific experts working in ITER and other high priority projects in the programme. The relationship between the various bodies involved in the ITER project is shown in Appendix 2. 17

20 3. Evaluation The objectives of the seventh framework programme, as defined in the Council decision of 19 December 2006 cover most of the needs in nuclear energy research. Nevertheless, this review of the programme calls for some comments on the real objectives which can be reached with the actual level of funding and the practical constraints. The panel s responses to the specific questions raised in the Terms of Reference are given below. The questions are highlighted in red. We have grouped the responses to each question in turn for nuclear fission and radiological protection on the one hand and fusion energy on the other. Not all questions are relevant to both sub-programmes. Some additional questions have been framed, and answered, by the panel. 3.1 Rationale / Relevance - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection (a) Is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives and policies, notably sustainable development, energy policy, the European Research Area (ERA) and the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)? And How? The panel believes that it is now widely accepted that nuclear electricity generation has an important role to play in moving the EU s energy supplies towards sustainability, lessening our dependence on imported oil and gas and reducing the CO 2 emissions. The logic is straightforward. Thus the only credible way to achieve the very large reduction in CO 2 emissions believed to be required to eliminate a risk of potentially damaging global warming is to provide more final energy to users as electricity (or hydrogen) and less as gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons, since CO 2 capture and storage at the level of final users of energy is so difficult. The electricity supply itself must, of course, be as reliable as it is now, despite the intermittent nature of the sun and wind etc., because final users either cannot or do not wish to provide their own back-up supplies. Since it must also be largely free from CO 2 we cannot continue the current practice of compensating for the variability of renewables in the electricity system by using simple fossil generation when wind or solar is not available. Moreover, the likely growth of smart meter technology, which will enable users to disconnect non-essential loads at 18

21 times of peak electricity demand (and unit costs), together with decentralised generation systems able to accommodate the massive integration of renewable in smart grids, will increase the comparative value of base-load electricity generators, such as nuclear (and such fossil generation as can be coupled with carbon capture and sequestration - CCS - if it proves to be economically viable). There must therefore be substantial nuclear contributions to future electricity supply and we must find ways of making it sustainable. This means getting fast-neutron reactors ready for use, so that increasing uranium demand and consequent high prices does not become a serious constraint. It probably also means exploring not only alternative fuel cycles using thorium but also the partitioning and transmutation of waste to reduce its toxicity and heat output (thereby optimising the use of future geological repositories), which might require acceleratordriven fast reactors. It is also likely that high-temperature reactors will have a role replacing fossil energy in some industrial processes and in efficient generation of hydrogen. These technologies are all part of the Strategic Research Agenda of SNETP. In carrying out its current work, the Euratom FP7 continues to place a lot of emphasis (as did FP6) on building a European Research Area in fission. There is growing evidence of its success in doing so. Thus many of the networks that were established within the European nuclear community through the Euratom FP6 programme have follow-up projects in FP7 - for example in the nuclear systems and safety part of the programme there are PERFORM 60, SARNET-2 and NURISP in the area of structural integrity, severe accidents and reactor simulation respectively and there are similar projects in other areas such as ACTINET (actinides characteristics) or RAPHAEL (high temperature reactors). These networks are evidently attractive to the important industrial players who will have to deliver future nuclear facilities in Europe. Thus even in the UK, where there is minimal government support, companies such as British Energy/EdF, Rolls Royce, AMEC and Serco are quite active and contributing substantially to the costs of their participation. The fact that well-informed companies are prepared to spend their share-holders money on taking part is also perhaps the best possible indicator that they see the work as important and good value for money. However, public and political perceptions play a major role in determining the future of nuclear energy. The existing coordination, 19

22 collaboration and harmonisation of the research activities within Euratom s FP7 should help to increase the public awareness and support to nuclear energy. In order to reduce societal concerns and improve public perception on nuclear technologies, the issues that the nuclear industry is facing or may have to face should be explained to the public, together with the solutions proposed by the research community. As special Eurobarometer studies on Europeans and nuclear safety 6 and Attitudes towards radioactive wastes 7 have shown, citizens in countries that have operational nuclear power plants are in general more likely to support nuclear energy than citizens in other countries. Nonetheless, Europeans feel unfamiliar and poorly informed on nuclear energy issues. And, interestingly, they indicate scientists as the most trusted source of information. The Panel thinks this is a good reason to encourage Euratom to design strategies and to initiate plans for dissemination and communication of key results of the most relevant research projects within FP7 to the general public. We believe that initiatives like the Fusion Expo, video documentaries, websites and leaflets accessible to the general public are also needed with regard to nuclear fission research. The objective should be to present actual facts about nuclear fission energy and its key role for the future in Europe as an environmentally acceptable, safe and sustainable energy technology. (b) To what extent are the Euratom FP7's objectives pertinent to the needs and problems in nuclear energy research? In the priority theme of Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection, the overall objective is to establish a sound scientific and technical basis in order to accelerate practical developments for the safe management of long-lived radioactive waste, to enhance the safety performance, resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy and to ensure a robust and socially acceptable system of protection of man and the environment against the effects of ionising radiation. The panel has examined the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) 5 developed by the European Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) and has concluded that it is sensible and does cover essentially all the research needs and problems which must be dealt with to secure the future of nuclear power in the European Union. Our judgment about the SRA is consistent with the participation in the SNETP of most of the important industrial as well as academic and research institute players on the EU nuclear scene. This, in our opinion, is the best evidence that Euratom has identified the right tasks and that 20

23 the participants believe FP7 is an effective way for them to monitor and help shape the future of nuclear power, good value for money for its participants. If they thought the work was irrelevant, the bureaucracy overblown or the costs too high they would not participate in the Euratom programme. Perhaps the ultimate indicator that the Euratom fission programme is tackling important problems and doing so effectively is when the industrial partners take over part of the programme themselves, i.e. carry out Euratom-like collaborative research in line with the strategic research agenda but without using FP instruments or FP funds. In SNETP such initiatives are now being planned, by EU nuclear utilities in the area of lifetime management of current LWR plant, and this could serve as a model in other parts of SNETP's SRA. However, these positive comments do not imply that the size, balance and content of the Euratom fission programme are optimum for the future of nuclear power in Europe. In our view they are not, not least because for many years the Commission has been powerless to change the balance much. Thus work on reinforcing the safety of existing facilities, the disposal of waste and on radiological protection was all that many EU member states would tolerate in Euratom fission research for nearly two decades after the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union and this work has only recently been augmented by some on the potential of new systems for the future. Because of this, the current balance is definitely not optimum for a Europe in which several member states expect to rely increasingly on nuclear generation in the future. We therefore welcome the fact that, in FP7, there are no longer ringfences which prevent the Commission changing the balance of funding between these main consensus areas (as a result of shifts in priorities during the course of FP7) but also regret that there are still political constraints which are a result of the need for unanimity in the Euratom programme and have unfortunate effects. The most important issue, which is likely to be difficult in the near future, is that (in order to obtain unanimous approval of Member States) the Commission's work on advanced nuclear systems (Generation IV) is restricted to the potential of advanced nuclear systems. Unless this constraint can be lifted and more funds provided, Euratom will be precluded from moving forward on advanced reactor systems. 21

24 Recommendation 1: Euratom should be given the freedom to alter the balance of the Fission Research programme to reflect the Strategic Research Agenda of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, particularly with respect to work on advanced reactor systems. (c) Was level of funding and other available resources adequate to achieve the objectives set? As long as nuclear fission s contribution to Europe s energy supplies was seen as simply operating the existing power stations until the end of their lives, the research tasks were limited to safety, waste issues and radiation protection. Hence, it was justifiable to fund only a small Euratom fission programme. However, the position has changed dramatically in the last few years and several EU countries (e.g. Finland, France, the UK and several new Member States) have concluded they must not only maintain but also expand the contribution to electricity supplies that nuclear plants make. Many other countries, such as Italy and Poland, are contemplating moving in a similar direction. The consequent much more extensive use of nuclear power will entail further reactor development, such as fast-neutron, so-called-breeder reactors, which allow energy to be obtained from much more of the non-fissile U-238 isotope (which constitutes 99.3% of natural uranium) than in current reactors. It is also possible that high temperature reactors will be needed, since they would allow the replacement of fossil energy in some industrial processes and efficient generation of hydrogen, which may be needed for clean transport and stationary heating. A bigger programme may also require the more efficient use of geological waste disposal facilities via the partitioning and transmutation of actinide waste. The current indirect-action programme of 287M over five years is too small for any research programme in fission which will have a significant impact, especially if it is heavily constrained to supporting safety, waste disposal and radiological protection. It is certainly nothing like adequate to meet the additional research needs noted above and should be increased substantially if the EU is to make sure that nuclear electricity generation can be grown sustainably. Furthermore, the Panel strongly recommends resisting any attempt to reduce this already extremely meagre provision still further as a consequence of the difficulties in financing the ITER project. 22

25 Recommendation 2: future framework programmes should have substantially increased funding for nuclear fission research mainly for generation IV to ensure that nuclear electricity generation can grow sustainably. In particular, funding for fission research should not be constrained by a shortfall in funding for fusion, especially due to the needs of the construction phase of ITER project. 23

26 3.2 Rationale / Relevance - Fusion Energy (a) Is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives and policies, notably sustainable development, energy policy, the European Research Area (ERA) and the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)? And How? The Euratom fusion energy programme is complex and it implies a lot of cooperation agreements, both within the European Union and with other partners. The programme is a potentially important element in the European long term energy strategy. Highest priority is currently given to the construction and operation of the ITER facility, but at the same time, the decision has been taken to keep nearly half of the budget for fusion R&D support actions other than ITER construction. For such a long term R&D programme, it is important to maintain and follow a global roadmap giving the main steps which are foreseen today as necessary to reach an industrial deployment of fusion energy production with some realistic dates as targets for each step and with cost estimates of the various actions needed to reach each milestone. F4E has issued a project plan for the next five years, which is quite detailed for the European contributions to ITER construction and for facilities decided upon in the frame of the broader approach with Japan. But it does not cover the entire European programme and it does not show the relevance of the various actions against a global roadmap. The previously-mentioned complexity of the programme and of the various cooperation agreements is certainly not helping to define such a global roadmap. Nevertheless, being in the forefront of the fusion scientific community, Europe should take the lead in making a road map proposal. The rationale of the programme is clear enough. However, its relevance depends on the realism in the short or mean term objectives. Recommendation 3: Euratom and its international partners should maintain and follow a global roadmap setting out a route to a commercially viable fusion energy reactor, with short- and medium-term objectives, including clear milestones. 24

27 (b) To what extent are the Euratom FP7's objectives pertinent to the needs and problems in nuclear energy research? The objectives of the fusion programme are quite ambitious, covering not only the construction of the ITER facility and the continuation of basic research but preparation for a future DEMO plant. There is a clear logic in trying to achieve all these objectives together in order to shorten what is still a long development timescale for fusion technology. In such a broad programme, it is necessary to define priorities and to make practical choices. The programme does not seem to have been well defined at the beginning (only a fixed share of the funding between ITER and the other tasks was defined). The priority given to the realization of ITER is well understood and supported by the Panel but the recent new cost estimate has led to some confusion about the future of many other parts of the programme. The selection of sub-programmes not directly related to ITER appears to result not only from technical priorities but also from international commitments, such as the 'Broader Approach' agreement with Japan, and national choices, such as the German support for stellarators and the UK work on spherical tokamaks. With some exceptions, it does not appear that the selection is done on the basis of short or medium- term objectives. Even if the development of fusion energy requires a long range approach, it is the opinion of the Panel that, beside the realization of ITER and the necessary actions for its successful operation, the rest of the programme should be justified in terms of intermediate objectives in an overall strategy. Particular attention was given to the future of the JET facility. For many reasons including some research needed to ensure that ITER works successfully, such as the ITER-like wall, the possibility of a Deuterium- Tritium experiment and the training of operators, it seems worthwhile to continue the operation of this facility for some more years. The Panel recommends giving it a high priority in spite of the present difficulties with funding ITER. Recommendation 4: A high priority should be given to keeping JET operating throughout the period during which the ITER design is finalised. This will allow JET to be used to validate ITER design features and solve problems which arise, e.g. the trials of the ITER-like wall in JET. 25

28 (c) Was level of funding and other available resources adequate to achieve the objectives set? The panel knows very well that budgets allocated for particular areas of energy (or any other) research must, first and foremost, reflect the requirements of the tasks to be tackled. Thus the fusion budget must be large, despite the fact that we are still not sure what contribution it will make to Europe s energy supplies, simply because the science dictates that the work cannot be done at small scale and cost. The only sensible alternative to a fusion programme of a large size would be to abandon fusion research altogether. Therefore, the level of funding of the fusion programme has been considerably increased from FP6 to FP7, in accordance with the decision of Europe to host the ITER facility. In the Seventh Euratom Framework Programme, the budget for fusion is 1,947 M, of which some 900 M were originally reserved for activities other than the construction of ITER. Thus, more than half of the funding will be spent for the construction of this key facility. It is clear that ITER costs were underestimated. Even if the necessary corrective measures are taken promptly, it is already inevitable that this will mean both a delay in the realization of the facility and a need for new sources of financing. As well as the very large ITER project and the Broader Approach agreed with Japan we heard of a fast track for reducing the overall timescale to achieve deployment of a commercial fusion reactor. However, the budgets currently allocated are not adequate to meet the needs of the agreed programme or proposed additional work. In previous reports it has already been noted that the existing budget is not compatible with a fast track. The panel has made a considerable effort to identify the reasons for the large increase of cost for the ITER project (cf. section 3.4 on Implementation of the fusion research programme) and has concluded that difficulties with funding ITER should not be allowed to jeopardise other important parts of the European fusion programme. We consider that it is necessary to show our international partners that Europe is totally committed to delivering ITER as quickly as possible, but without risking further large cost increases by striving for an unrealistic target. The project baseline (scope, schedule and cost) needs to strike the right balance between achievability, affordability and urgency. 26

29 Continuing with JET (the tokamak closest in design and layout to ITER) in the short term and ASDEX-UG (also engaged in tungsten wall experiments), and bringing W7-X into operation will also provide valuable continuity in maintaining knowledge and skills in operating large fusion machines, which would otherwise be lost before ITER becomes operational. The information from these projects is needed to ensure that ITER meets its objectives within the (revised) cost and schedule baseline and should be retained even if the needs for ITER construction require a reduction in other programmes. Recommendation 5: A revised ITER project baseline should be realistic by striking a balance between achievability, affordability and urgency resulting in a realistic budget and project plan including a critical path and milestones. Recommendation 6: Additional funding should be found to meet the increased cost needed for construction of ITER without jeopardising the accompanying programme. 27

30 3.3 Implementation - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection (d) Is the Euratom research programme pursued in a cost-effective manner? We have already noted that the best indicator that Euratom is tackling the right problems for the future of nuclear power and is cost-effective is that the participants in it believe that FP7 is an effective way for them to monitor and help shape the nuclear future, and that it offers sufficiently good value for money for the main industrial players to be willing to participate, often using their shareholders money to cover most of their costs. We have also already noted that the programme is small in relation to the tasks it now faces; there is no sense of significant fat and/or waste. However, on the costs of the programme, there are still unsatisfactory features and further improvements that need to be made. One feature which causes higher-than-necessary headline costs for the fission R&D and which could be eliminated by the stroke of a pen, comes from the Council Decision to assume the administrative costs of all Euratom research are (up to) 15% of the total cost, a figure based on the requirements of the much larger and more centrally managed EU fusion programme. In reality, fission R&D is implemented in a very similar way to the EC Cooperation programme, in which the administrative costs are only 6.5%. Actual administrative costs for fission are therefore much lower than for fusion but 15% is taken from the annual fission R&D allocation none-the-less. Given that the fission R&D budget is so small and the need for the R&D so large this should be corrected as soon as possible, preferably at the FP7 mid-term review. Recommendation 7: Administrative costs in the Fission R&D budget should reflect actual costs rather than an arbitrary 15% overhead. 28

31 (e) Are the legal framework and instruments in place (Rules of participation, model contract and grant agreement, Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy', Contracts of Association, European Fusion Development Agreement) and governance structures appropriate for ensuring an effective and efficient implementation of the programme? The main legal problem for fission is the requirement for unanimity in Euratom. This was not initially a problem, when all the Treaty signatories did, as in the treaty preamble: recognise that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry and will permit the advancement of the cause of peace (and hence would) resolve to create the conditions necessary for the development of a powerful nuclear industry which will provide extensive energy resources, lead to the modernization of technical processes and contribute, through its many other applications, to the prosperity of their peoples. However, this initial optimism for nuclear energy was eroded during the 1970s and 1980s, most notably by the Chernobyl accident and the controversy over radioactive waste disposal, so that, by the late 1980s, several member states of the by-then-much-smaller Community were no longer willing to accept these statements and were unwilling to allow the Euratom programme to tackle anything that would prolong the use of nuclear power or make it more attractive. Work had to be concentrated simply on ensuring the safety of existing installations and the safe disposal of existing or committed waste (waste which would be generated during the remaining lifetime of the existing power plant). If, as we expect, the acceptance of the need for nuclear power once again becomes widespread, leading to its increased use and need for further research and development, then these constraints will be seriously damaging. It is possible, of course, for those countries which wish to pursue a larger nuclear contribution to do so outside the Euratom framework but we believe this would lead to an undesirable fracture of the EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) and would leave the nuclear sceptic member states with no influence at all on what is done. A better solution would be for those countries who do not wish to use nuclear power nevertheless to allow the work to go on under Euratom, just as northern members of the EU allow work on direct solar generation in which they have little direct interest and southern, 29

32 Mediterranean members allow the development of wind and wave generation. There are also a few lesser issues which affect the fission programme Recommendation 8: Although the Euratom Treaty requires unanimity, Euratom members should generally permit research on nuclear fission which is of interest to only some Member States to be carried out under the umbrella of the Treaty. detrimentally and derive from its being an instrument of the separate Euratom Treaty and not part of the main EC Framework Programme. One example is that Euratom researchers cannot access the Marie Curie fellowship scheme. Instead the Euratom programme has to make its own, arguably less-well-honed, arrangements for training using its very limited research funding to do so. The administrative costs of running a very small training programme are proportionately large and the demands on project officer s time are onerous. Effective developments on education and training have been made, especially through the European Nuclear Education Network, and the requirement for Euratom projects to have an education element appears to be successful, but it needs to be compared in cost effectiveness with simply allowing Euratom to participate in the mainstream Marie Curie programme. Similarly, although the formal record of the Council Decision on Euratom R & D in 2006 notes that up-stream research (such as developments in materials science) necessary to underpin advances in nuclear technology might well come from the European Research Council, which it expects to support frontier research in any field of basic scientific and technological research, the management of the EU s Ideas programme have generally taken the line that any research with nuclear technology in mind must be funded by Euratom. Nuclear fission research should be better integrated with the main EC Framework Programme as it is with programmes on security and health (e.g. medical uses of radiation). (g) Have the Euratom research activities constituted the best way of obtaining the objectives set? The panel believes that EU-wide involvement in fission energy development through Euratom research is essential. It is the best way to ensure nuclear power makes its contribution to the SET plan. This is 30

33 primarily ensuring that Member States evolve a common understanding on the safety and environmental requirements to be set for new plant designs and on waste disposal. These requirements should preferably also be common with the USA, Japan and others intending to use nuclear energy. In achieving commonality it will be important to ensure that the common standards finally agreed are based on good science. We therefore recommend that fission research needs EU-wide funding and coordination, with resources focused on improving the technology, not simply on ensuring the safety of existing plant. Recommendation 9: Fission research needs increased EU-wide funding and coordination with resources focused on improving the technology, not simply on ensuring the safety of existing plant. (h) Did the Euratom FP7 attract (and target) the best and most appropriate researchers and research organisations? It is clear from the list of organisations who are members of the SNETP (see image below) that the Euratom programme attracts essentially all the important nuclear technology organisations in Europe. The best and most important organisations do take part! We have no direct evidence about the quality of the researchers these organisations deploy in the Euratom programme but it seems to us likely that, if they want to influence the EU nuclear research agenda through SNETP, to keep in close touch with developments for the future and build useful networks, they will deploy the best available people. 31

34 In the recent overall evaluation of FP6, including the parallel Euratom Programme, a social-science research project was implemented which found that the citation records of lead researchers in the EC research programme were about average for their fields. We believe that this probably also applies to Euratom research. One problem about attracting organisations to the Euratom programme, which comes from the fact that nuclear technology is very specialised with high-cost entry hurdles for newcomers, is that it is hard for SMEs to enter. This issue is compounded by the absence in the Euratom programme of the positive discrimination for SMEs that has been built into the EC programme. It is further compounded by the small fission budget, which inevitably leads to all participants having to provide much of their own funding. For example, the SARNET- 2 (Severe Accident Research Network) has a total project budget of 38M but the Commission contribution is only 5.75M (15%). 32

35 (i) Are the arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation appropriate and effective? In the long run what really matters in research is whether the outcome makes a difference to the target customers that is commensurate with its costs. However, for nuclear research, such impact is usually apparent only in the very long term and we recognise that the Commission does need to achieve a balance between waiting patiently for such impact to appear and insisting on such regular reporting and monitoring as is needed to spot when programmes have gone off course or no longer seem to offer reasonable value for money. We have analyzed the actual evidence about the quality of implementation and management against the suggestions of previous evaluations (ex post evaluation of EU FP6, ex post evaluation of Euratom Programme in FP6). In so doing we have taken into consideration: Whether previous suggestions about monitoring, made for the wider EU framework programme, were applicable to the Euratom framework programme, given the special nature of the Euratom Treaty, with its own rules of governance, different from other programmes That innovations made in recent research might not yet have realised all their potential. Previous suggestions focussed on the need for simplifying monitoring and reporting, so as to allow good potential participants with a small administrative capacity (small research institutes and SMEs) to participate. We have looked into various instances in which simplification could have been brought about, as suggested by previous evaluations. The following steps already taken towards simplifying the application process for research funding have been noted: In order to reduce duplication of documentation, a Unique Registration Facility (URF) has been introduced. This registers and validates legal entities that participate as partners in FP projects. All FP consortia partners need to be registered and categorised (type of organisation, e.g. research, SME, educational etc., and system of accounting / indirect cost method) before Grant Agreements can be 33

36 approved. The URF coordinates this process, though there may still be delays in the system owing to EC staff shortages (this is a generic problem faced by the whole FP, not Euratom alone). In order to reduce difficulties in communication and coordination among partners, greater capacity in negotiation has been given to coordinators. The coordinator needs to consult with other partners as and when necessary. Euratom has a comparatively good record of time-to-contract of 7-8 months. The system of analyzing programmes for each call in three batches per year may produce delays for those applications that fall into the third batch, simply because they are the last to be addressed. However, the panel considers this period still too long. With regard to suggestions to address issues of low participation: Women. The relatively low level of participation of women in nuclear research carried out in the Euratom programme is a reflection of the relatively small numbers of women in the nuclear industry and there are no active steps to promote positive discrimination in favour of women. However, the programme monitors the involvement of women researchers in projects, as part of the wide monitoring of the whole FP. Where control over gender issues is possible, such as choice of experts for the evaluations, a reasonable participation of women in the process is looked for, though this is by no means on a par with male experts. SMEs and low participation of industry in general. It is believed that the good participation of industry in the SNETP may translate into good industry participation in FP projects. The measures to simplify the application process seem to us to be sensible, given that in the evaluation of FP6 as a whole, which was carried out in 2008 and reported early this year, one persistent criticism of EU procedures was that they were administratively too cumbersome and that this was especially off-putting for smaller participants and some academic departments. Methodology for evaluation of research proposals Euratom FP7 relies on a traditional one step evaluation, as it does not fit the criteria for the two-stage process that has been suggested 8 in the expost evaluation of FP6 for reducing the burden of preparing applications. One would opt for a two-stage process if the overall 34

37 success rate in a single-stage process was very small, but this is not the case in the Euratom fission programme. As suggested by previous evaluations, from FP6 to FP7 there have been changes in evaluation procedures, analogous with what happens with other programs. There has been a change to the points attributed (max. 15). The number of criteria has changed from five in FP6 to three in FP7: excellence, nature of consortium, impact and dissemination. In particular, the introduction of "expected impact" in the Work Programme and the related introduction of the criterion of impact in the evaluation criteria represent an innovation, paralleling what happens in other programs. It is, however, too early to say whether it will contribute to greater efficiency. It should be noted that FP7 enjoys greater flexibility in the allocation of budget to different lines of research, so as to address the request of remaining flexible to emerging issues and ongoing research. There is a single budget line for the whole programme, each thematic area being attributed indicative budgets. Only topics within the same indicative budget compete with each other, and each sector will receive funding according to needs and based on the result from on-going research. One simple technique which should be used for all work is to define at the outset what success actually means for the work and to insist that both contractors and project officers regularly assess whether such success is still likely and, if so, when and at what cost. Ex-post project evaluation of some individual projects as well as of the programme as a whole should also be routine. Recommendation 10: For individual projects, Euratom should set out success criteria at the outset against which the project can be monitored regularly throughout its life and on completion. The main problems linked to the management of complex partnerships relate to too tight accounting regulations and to rigidity in the composition of the partnership. They have been tackled in the following way: Accounting requirements have been reduced for participants receiving only small amounts of EC funding. 35

38 The whole FP has now moved to a standard 18-month reporting period (from 12 months), which clearly reduces the frequency of reporting and accounting in most projects. However, the FP cannot escape from the obligations imposed by the Commission's Financial Regulations. Moreover, it should be noted that the level of random auditing of beneficiaries by the RTD external unit has significantly increased in FP7. Other possibilities were introduced by the FP7 Grant Agreement which, however, have not yet been fully implemented i.e. the certificate on the methodology that beneficiaries can use to identify personnel and indirect costs (which, when accepted, will exempt them from the requirement for regular reporting in all their FP projects). There has also been a simplification on the side of the Commission whereby (annual) technical deliverables no longer need to be reviewed by external experts. Though this does not affect the financial reporting requirements, it does simplify and facilitate the process at the end of each reporting period and should result in fewer delays in the payment of subsequent prefinancing instalments. Relations among the partners have become more fluid. Whereas with previous FP regulations project coordinators might have been "frustrated" by problems with certain consortium partners who never delivered important documents on time and thereby created problems for the whole project, in FP7 the system for making contract amendments has in theory been simplified (a system of "information letters" is now possible in the case of many contract amendments) which should allow those problems to be solved. Considering the long-term objectives of FP7, the panel thinks that current rules which force the Commission's scientific officers to change to a different area every five years compromise proper follow-up and evaluation of the research projects, with the risk of creating difficulties or losing beneficial cooperation between contractors and the Commission. 36

39 3.4 Implementation - Fusion Research Note: the order in which the questions are addressed in this section has been changed to facilitate a more logical flow of the discussion. (e) Are the legal framework and instruments in place (Rules of participation, model contract and grant agreement, Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy', Contracts of Association, European Fusion Development Agreement) and governance structures appropriate for ensuring an effective and efficient implementation of the programme? The panel is satisfied with the legal framework and governance structures in place for managing an efficient cooperation through the Contracts of Association and EFDA. In terms of the quality of the research activities and the effectiveness of the management of the programme, the accompanying (i.e. non-iter) research programme is working well. The Panel has paid particular attention to Euratom's participation in the ITER International Organisation (IO) and the instruments and structures in place to ensure an effective management and control of the Euratom contributions. The panel is concerned that evident organisational deficiencies have the potential to further increase cost, prolong schedule and ultimately endanger the whole ITER project. We believe that the shortfall in funding and the related increase of construction time were not addressed by the EU early enough. The EU s internal decision processes (between Brussels, Cadarache and Barcelona) are slow and it seems difficult to find the extra funding which is now required. We consider that it would have been preferable to set up ITER as a single organisation without the domestic agencies. Examples of a successful unified project structure are the recently completed Large Hadron Collider at CERN and the construction of JET in the early 1980s. Within the European part of the structure, the organisational separation between the ITER IO at Cadarache and F4E at Barcelona is not optimum. Presently the structure of the ITER IO is dictated by each party's wanting to nominate a deputy Director General, who has to be assigned a senior function. Whilst many senior posts are required, they do not necessarily all have to be filled at the same level, and the current appointees do not necessarily have the experience to fill the posts. As a consequence, deputies have to be appointed to assist the senior 37

40 appointees. As the biggest contributor to ITER, Europe should use its influence to arrive at a more streamlined organisation. The panel also notes with concern that the governing board (GB) of F4E has at present 59 members. The panel agrees with the view of the Expert Group 9 convened by the GB to assess the management of F4E, namely that a 59-member board reflecting the stakeholder composition is adequate for constitutional decisions but too cumbersome for the efficient executive control of F4E. Smaller executive groups or responsible individuals should be authorised to take decisions. However, the panel fears that this may not be enough. We think that this approach is merely patching up an inherently flawed management structure. A more radical approach to restructuring not only F4E but the whole ITER project structure is needed. The rapid build-up of the two teams in Cadarache (ITER IO) and Barcelona (F4E) since 2007 could only be managed because of the commitment and enthusiasm of the people involved. The panel appreciates their efforts but urges Euratom to improve the general organisational structure of the ITER project. Recommendation 11: Euratom should propose and create with its partners a more streamlined management structure for ITER with fewer interfaces, based on the best practice in very large projects. (f) Are these framework, instruments and structures adequate for ensuring effective control over Euratom s contribution to ITER? Having interviewed the main people in charge, the Panel is convinced that the current framework, instruments and structures are not adequate for a successful realization of ITER and in particular for ensuring effective control of Euratom s contribution. The Panel has sought to understand the reasons for the large increase in the cost estimate for ITER. We have conducted interviews with the chairman of the Council of the ITER International Organisation, the Chairman of the F4E Governing Board and the directors of F4E and EFDA and have taken note of the reports by the Briscoe team (Assessment of Resource Estimates for ITER Construction) and Toschi assessment team (Cost Assessment of the EU In-kind Contributions to ITER). At this point, it is worth noting some of the historical background to the evolution of ITER. Design of ITER began in 1985 as collaboration 38

41 between Euratom, the USA, the then Soviet Union and Japan. By 1998 a detailed design was agreed by the participating parties for a tokamak with 8 m plasma radius and 1.5 GW fusion power. When the USA left the project in 1999 (returning in 2003) the remaining partners decided to rework the design taking into account the more limited funding but maintaining the overall objectives of the project. The smaller design adopted in 2001 uses a 6 m plasma radius and 500 MW fusion power. There were still a number of areas of uncertainty and much R&D on major components was still in progress. However, although the budget had been reduced by half and the machine was significantly smaller, the objectives of the programme remained more or less the same. Following the 2007 agreement to construct ITER as envisaged in the 2001 design, the participating parties charged the ITER management (IO and F4E) to carry out a design review, starting from the information provided in 2001, and to finalise the ITER baseline documentation on scope, schedule and cost of the project. The panel believes the factors contributing to the increases of cost estimates between 2001 and 2007 were: Inefficient and inappropriate organization structure, with international agreements based on political agreements that do not reflect the best practice in large international construction projects. Management without the clear and strong leadership necessary to manage such a complex and diverse international organisation. Contribution from the participating parties in kind rather than in cash. When the design was costed in 2001, there were still a number of areas of uncertainty and much R&D was still in progress. The 2001 cost estimates are now seen to have been very aggressive i.e. set up with a low degree of confidence and were generally much too low. A number of technical changes have been made to the design of ITER to enhance its performance and decrease the risks to the project. For example, a new approach to the control of a plasma instability known as edge localised modes (ELMs) has been devised. Also, there is a need for replacement parts for critical components. These changes account for ~20% of the cost increase. Escalation of the materials and construction indices has been much faster than average inflation rates. The complexity of managing interfaces across participating parties multiplied when the number of parties increased from three to seven. This increase in the number of parties also results in work 39

42 being split into smaller packages, which reduces economies of scale. More resources than foreseen for inspection and testing the millions of parts to be assembled are needed to comply with the Quality Assurance requirements for a nuclear installation. The time and costs of establishing autonomous organisations (e.g. F4E) from scratch were underestimated. Only a small number of top managers has experience in construction of large facilities or has been recruited from the nuclear industry. The reports of the assessment teams confirm that the estimated costs for ITER will be much higher than initially planned. The increase of estimated costs affects all seven of the ITER Parties, but Euratom s higher share in the project implies a proportionally higher financial impact for the EU. Although the profile of these increased costs is not precisely defined, the peak for the Euratom contribution is expected to occur between 2010 and This is due to the way that the share of the tasks between ITER parties is divided, whereby the major components of ITER, early on the critical path, have to be provided by Euratom. Unless the structural and management issues raised in this report are satisfactorily addressed, it is probable that further cost increases and time delays will be encountered. Recommendation 12: Euratom needs to ensure better control of the ITER project by eliminating constraints arising from the overcomplex management structure, in particular by giving more responsibility to an ITER Project Director chosen for his/her proven ability to manage a huge international construction project. 40

43 (g) Have the Euratom research activities constituted the best way of obtaining the objectives set? The fusion programme covers a wide range of activities. There is a strong focus on ensuring the success of ITER as the first priority, but also a large effort on longer term R&D to maintain a critical mass. For activities other than the construction of ITER, the selection criterion is partly dependent on national priorities through the Contracts of Association rather than a global roadmap for the development of fusion energy. EFDA, which is in charge of the coordination of all European fusion activities not directly related to ITER, has an important role to keep this large community working together. EFDA has indicated clear priorities for technological research which we think are sensible, in particular for research into materials for fusion e.g. for testing of wall materials for ITER (e.g. tungsten and beryllium). It is important to have well defined and achievable milestones that will encourage and motivate the team, which will also satisfy political decision makers. The recent performance of the W7-X stellarator project is a good example of how a project which had gone astray can be turned around by well-chosen and strictly managed milestones. This project was set up as a green field project in the nineties. After enforcing milestones declared from a detailed time schedules, the project has advanced considerably and start up is now expected in The panel notes that W7-X is a unique experiment - the only optimized full-size stellarator worldwide. The experience gained at W7-X and later at ITER will be complementary and of definite relevance for the development of a DEMO reactor. (d) Is the Euratom research programme pursued in a cost-effective manner? Although we have expressed concerns about the organisational and management aspects of the ITER project, which necessarily impact adversely on the cost-effectiveness of that part of the programme, the panel considers that there are positive features of the accompanying programme which help make the programme cost-effective. In particular: Central management of the programme by EFDA avoids duplication of effort. 41

44 International collaboration enables sharing tasks and costs and pooling know-how By contributing only a relatively small proportion of the funding for the accompanying programme (~20%), Euratom is ensuring that the work is evaluated independently by national governments which contribute the larger share of the costs. (h) Did the Euratom FP7 attract (and target) the best and most appropriate researchers and research organisations? The Euratom FP7 programme draws together all of the European research institutes and organisations involved in fusion energy research. Some of the best European scientists and engineers are attracted into this field, stimulated not only by the technical challenges but by idealism in pursuing a goal of long-term benefit to mankind and the environment. The ability of these organisations to continue to attract high quality staff depends on a clear commitment from political leaders to provide the necessary funding and resources. (i) Are the arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation appropriate and effective? The EFDA Steering Committee (EFDA SC) plays the key role in reporting and monitoring, and it relies on its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to make the detailed analyses. Each year the EFDA Leadership, with the assistance of the Close Support Units and the leaders of the EFDA Task Forces and Topical Groups, prepares detailed reports on all the activities under the previous year's Work Programme. Results are reported in relation to the deliverables and deadlines set in the EFDA Work Programme and major problems and/or delays are identified. This arrangement seems to us to be appropriate. Recommendation 10 (p. 35) on fission equally applies to fusion. To ensure that the diverse areas of the programme are thoroughly examined by experts the STAC appoints rapporteurs and Ad-Hoc Groups from among its members (plus some outside experts if necessary). These rapporteurs and groups examine the reports and hold meetings with the EFDA Leadership and relevant staff. This process results in a detailed list of findings and recommendations which are discussed at the STAC, in the presence of the EFDA Leadership and the rapporteurs and group chairs. On this basis, STAC formulates its recommendations to the EFDA SC, highlighting any matters of particular importance or where it feels action is required. 42

45 The panel has already commented on the cumbersome management structure of the ITER project. Inevitably, this must impact on the monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the programme. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there is much good technical work being carried out and that the level of scrutiny and review is very intensive. The panel has no quarrel with the technical merits of the programme or its evaluation at a technical level. The difficulty arises due to the inertia of the decisionmaking processes. This means that it appears to be very difficult to feed back the outcome of any technical advance into the next phase of the work. 43

46 3.5 Achievements - Nuclear Fission and Radiological Protection (j) Do the early outcomes of the research activities indicate that the overall and specific objectives of the Euratom FP7 would be met? The lead time for carrying R&D in the nuclear field is long and it is too early to comment on the achievements of FP7 per se. However, it is relevant to consider the achievements of the series of framework programmes as a whole and note the evolutionary trend that is being carried into FP7. The technical priorities of the FP series have developed in step with the maturity of the technologies involved and with the overall Community strategy. Thus early FPs focussed on issues such as the management of short-lived, low-level waste and decommissioning of redundant plant at a time when these technologies were in their infancy; now these issues are largely dealt with commercially. Next, the FP focus shifted to emergency management and IT capabilities. These fields are in turn maturing and it is to be expected that the focus of the FP should shift again. However, it is undoubtedly the case that Community funding has helped these technologies to develop by providing seed-funding and promoting transnational cooperation. Three examples of progress are noted below: In the aftermath of Chernobyl, research on severe reactor accidents was given a greatly increased impetus. The Phebus convention was signed between EC/JRC and CEA (later IRSN) in 1988, with the objective of evaluating the amount and nature of the radioactive products that could be released to the environment in the event of the core melt of an LWR. Other international partners also joined the project, including from the US, Canada, Japan and Korea. Euratom will make a final payment in 2010, by which time it will have contributed > 40M to the funding of the suite of in-pile tests and associated experiments and analyses. Throughout FP4 & FP5, the Euratom programme also promoted and funded projects that either provided input for or used output from the various Phebus tests. In FP6, steps were taken to encourage the severe accident R&D community towards true sustainable integration with the project SARNET (Severe Accident Research Network) using the new Network of Excellence instrument. A major part of this effort was based on the Phebus work and the FP4 & 5 projects. This process of integration will come to fruition in FP7 with the followup project SARNET-2 (started 1/4/09), which foresees the establishment of a virtual institute on severe accidents by the end of 44

47 the project. The EC contribution is 5.75M towards the total project budget is some 38M. Geological disposal of radioactive waste has been a priority since the first FP, and the Euratom programme has made a significant impact on all stages of scientific and technical development in this field, from basic research to long-term demonstration tests in underground research laboratories and the development of repository design and engineering systems. The focus has increasingly been on progressing towards construction of Europe s (and the world s) first geological repositories in the next years. Following a feasibility study carried out in FP6, a new technology platform has been launched (November 2009) to coordinate this work the Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform (IGD-TP). The founding members are waste management organisations in Belgium (ONDRAF/NIRAS), Finland (Posiva), France (Andra), Spain (ENRESA), Sweden (SKB), Switzerland (Nagra) and the UK (NDA), and the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). In 2010, FP7 will call for proposals on the demonstration of repository concepts and technologies in underground research laboratories. Euratom research on advanced reactor concepts is an example of the expansion of a field in response to strategic aims and international commitments. Before FP6, this research constituted only a very small part of the Euratom programme. However, this developed into a more significant fraction in FP6 (though still only 10% of the total FP budget) as a result of Euratom s involvement in the GIF (Generation-IV International Forum - see glossary). FP7 is now building on this solid base (while still respecting the broad-based nature of the Euratom programme and the spirit of the Council Decision establishing FP7). The driver for this Gen-IV effort is not just international cooperation, but also European energy policy, which now recognises, in the SET-Plan, the importance of developing next generation reactor systems in response to the longer-term challenges of establishing a low carbon society. From a consideration of the above evidence, the panel believes that Euratom FP7 is on track to achieve its objectives. 45

48 (k) To what extent did the Euratom FP7 provide some (Community) added value compared to baseline option (no EU-policy/no change from FP6 to FP7). The panel is convinced of real and substantial European Added Value in having an EU-wide programme of fission research - as opposed to separate programmes in individual Member States. Such added value is, of course, the main plus of any EU project and we believe it comes in one or more of the following ways: The simplest is by allowing Europe to take part in, and sometimes lead, large-scale research which would be beyond the capability of all but the largest EU Member States, and might be too expensive even for them to go it alone. Participation in Generation IV fission development is an example where most member states could not be involved on their own. Closely related is the provision of major facilities that are too expensive to duplicate. This does not absolutely require EU-wide coordination of the research, as CERN and the other facilities belonging to EIROforum ( illustrate, but some useful nuclear facilities are provided this way, such as the Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU), the accelerators at the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurement (IRRM) and the high flux reactor at the Institute for Energy (IE) at Petten. Another important way in which working on the European scale adds a lot of value is when several Member States (MSs) need not only to learn as much as possible from each other but also to thrash out common conclusions. Research of this kind often supports national, EU or international policy development, making it even more important that it is done on a Europe-wide basis if policies in MSs are to be coherent and thus command public confidence. Cooperation on the geological disposal of radioactive waste, the prevention and mitigation of severe nuclear accidents and standards for protection against ionising radiation are good examples here. Finally, those of us who have been researchers and research managers know that scientific progress is significantly accelerated when the involved scientists talk to and collaborate closely with others in the same field. Because individual MSs, especially the smaller ones, can rarely afford to fund several teams in any field, the across- Europe collaboration which the EU programmes 46

49 engender will provide acceleration and improved efficiency of European research compared with individual MSs working separately. In doing things together researchers share knowledge, skills and information better than when doing things separately, using international conferences and symposia. It is self-evident that the value of pooling research into an ERA is nearly always proportionally greater for smaller MSs, but it does seem clear that there are major benefits for the big MSs as well. The panel is convinced that this programme has a lot of added value to bring to our future society. The European coordination, collaboration and harmonisation of research activities should also contribute to increase the public awareness and support to nuclear energy as an environmentally acceptable, safe and sustainable energy technology. However, as discussed above (3.1.(a)), more efforts should be made to design strategies and to initiate plans for dissemination and communication of key results of the most relevant research projects within FP7 to the general public. Otherwise, the gap between the technical/scientific community and the general public would be difficult to close and it will continue to be an obstacle for getting a wide social acceptance that is today missing in some countries. (l) How has the FP7 programme improved in comparison to FP6 We consider it likely that FP7 is more effective than FP6 in encouraging the development of an ERA in nuclear fission. As noted previously, this is partly because FP7 is built on the sensible initiatives (Networks of Excellence, Integrated Projects etc.) started in FP6, by trying to exploit their strengths, improve them and correct their weaknesses rather than starting again from scratch as has so often happened in the past. The FP6 initiatives are now bearing fruit! However, there are probably also several other factors at work in bringing the greater recognition and acceptance of a nuclear fission ERA that we now see. One is the increased confidence among participants that we will see a nuclear renaissance in several EU member states. However, perhaps the most important factor in bringing important industrial players from around Europe into the Euratom programme was the establishment of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, through which key players are able to influence the agenda and no longer find themselves simply bidding for small amounts of work whose importance they may doubt. We therefore welcome the Commission s action to establish an Implementing Geological 47

50 Disposal Technology Platform and the plans coming from the High Level Expert Group on European Low-Dose Risk Research to develop a strategic research agenda and road map for low dose risk research in Europe. These will, we believe, improve FP7 even more relative to earlier FPs. The time taken to place a contract within the Euratom fission programme has been reduced to 7-8 months for the first projects to be launched after each FP7 call, comparing favourably with FP6. However, some projects still take much longer for a variety of reasons, and this is common to all themes in the FP (EC and Euratom). Seven months is one of the shortest times to contracts of any part of FP7 and is probably as short as is possible within the existing framework. 48

51 3.6 Achievements - Fusion Energy (j) Do the early outcomes of the research activities indicate that the overall and specific objectives of the Euratom FP7 would be met? As with fission R&D, it is only possible to consider progress in Fusion within the overall context of the evolution of the FP series. There have been major scientific achievements within the Euratom FP. Thirty years ago, fusion research was several orders of magnitude short of the conditions required for sustaining a D-T fusion reaction. JET and other fusion devices internationally have progressively narrowed this gap to a factor of 2 or 3. A recent project, launched during FP6, is the design and testing in JET of an ITER-like ion cyclotron heating antenna. The results for the performance of the antenna, achieved during the summer of 2009, proved very satisfactory and verified the design of the ion cyclotron heating scheme for ITER. A second JET enhancement project, begun early in FP7, will test the performance of the materials selected for lining the ITER vacuum vessel (beryllium) and divertor (tungsten) in realistic conditions. This involves replacing the existing JET wall tiles, together with other upgrades, e.g. to plasma heating and control systems. The second JET upgrade began in October 2009 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of The panel believes that these and other R&D activities significantly enhance confidence that fusion programme will meet its technical objectives. (k) To what extent did the Euratom FP7 provide some (Community) added value compared to baseline option (no EU-policy/no change from FP6 to FP7). As with the Fission programme, it is obvious that the Euratom Fusion programme allows even the smaller MSs to contribute able and enthusiastic fusion scientists to the global enterprise and help the EU run world-class facilities such as JET and ITER. Without the EU, only the largest MSs would be able to participate in the international programme in their own right. EFDA, having transferred responsibility for ITER related technology to F4E, has broadened its scope to include an enhanced coordination of physics research among the numerous national Fusion Associations across Europe. This is clearly a key added value provided by the Community to the fusion research programme giving a sound platform 49

52 for focused research which meets the objectives of the SET Plan. Some examples serve to illustrate the results of this enhanced coordination: EFDA has defined the specification for a world-class high performance computer dedicated to the needs of the programme. The Commission has provided priority support funding for procurement of the hardware and an Implementing Agreement has been created under EFDA. All Associations contribute financially and have access to the facility. Two EU wide Task Forces under EFDA have been created in areas where coordination is considered most important: Plasma Wall Interaction (PWI) and Integrated Tokamak Modelling (ITM). While the ITM TF is working towards a unified set of fusion plasma simulation/modelling codes (bringing together a large number of independently developed codes covering the whole range of relevant physics), the PWI TF provides a platform for defining and executing coordinated experiments on a number of fusion facilities. The ITM TF is presently providing to ITER a set of codes to be integrated as a product into the ITER operating control capability. Two significant facility upgrade projects have been undertaken outside the EFDA framework, but as collaboration between Associations receiving priority financial support. The UKAEA COMPASS tokamak, after being mothballed for several years, was transferred to Prague. It has been reinstalled (with help from the UKAEA), upgraded, and its exploitation is now being planned with inputs from a number of Associations. An important enhancement of the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak, in-vessels coils and a conducting wall to study ELM mitigation techniques, is being carried out in collaboration with several other Associations which provide specialist expertise. An additional benefit from a strong coherent programme is that it facilitates the coordinated training of young researchers, promotion of physics and engineering in higher education, a European voice in international collaborations and support to industry with visible spinoffs and technical developments. 50

53 (l) How has the FP7 programme improved in comparison to FP6? The completion of the preparatory work on the detailed design of ITER made it possible to take a decision about the launching of this project and the construction of the machine. Thus FP6 made decisive progress towards the realisation of ITER. As a result of the exploitation of JET and technological research, in particular research into materials for fusion, the knowledge base for ITER construction and operation and for DEMO design has been significantly expanded. As a consequence, in FP7 a stronger emphasis has been given to ITER as the major priority. As previously noted, the focus on the ITER project has led to problems; so at this point in time (midterm of FP7) final judgement to the above question is difficult. However, some observations can be made about the present situation. In FP6, research and component prototyping activities were financed directly from the Framework Programme with technical management by EFDA. In FP7 the F4E was established to discharge the Euratom obligations under the ITER and Broader Approach Agreements. In FP7, EFDA continues to manage the collective scientific exploitation of JET by the Associates, while responsibility for ITER technology has passed to F4E. However, there is clearly a need for close cooperation between the two organisations which is not necessarily facilitated by the complex structure of the overall ITER project. 51

54 4. Concluding Remarks The panel believes that nuclear fission is already a reliable source of low-carbon energy on a large scale. However, for it to be sustainable in the long term (several centuries or more) it will be necessary to develop Generation IV reactor systems which make much more effective use of uranium (and possibly thorium) resources and possibly also minimise radioactive waste through recycling. The current level of funding allocated to nuclear fission is not sufficient to develop the technology to meet the challenges of carbon emissions reductions, security of supply and competitiveness required by the SNETP Strategic Research Agenda or the SET Plan. Future Framework Programmes will need significantly increased funding for fission. Moreover, there are constraints and additional costs imposed on the fission programme which are unnecessary and should be removed. The panel is also convinced that the potential advantages of fusion, if it can be successfully developed, are so great that it should be actively pursued, at least to the point where it will be clear whether or not it can be engineered to be economically viable. The costs, timescale and project risk inherent in the development of fusion are great so much so that it is unlikely that any one country could contemplate undertaking it alone. The panel is critical of the existing organizational structure of the ITER project because it believes that it is not effective and may fail to deliver its objectives quickly and economically. Euratom must act promptly. A stronger and more focused leadership is needed to secure a positive outcome. Nevertheless, the ITER project is the right way to go. It is an essential step on the road to commercial realisation of fusion energy. Moreover, it will inevitably be expensive but trying to cut costs by reducing scope will lead to failure. Other aspects of the fusion programme, particularly in relation to material development, are equally important. As with fission, fusion needs significantly more funding in the future. Notwithstanding our criticisms of the ITER project, the Seventh Euratom Framework Programme continues the excellent work carried out in the field of nuclear energy research since the first Framework 52

55 Programme ( ). Over the years, there has been an evolution of the programme to match the developing maturity of the various technologies and the shifting priorities of the European Community in this field. 53

56 ANNEX 1. Membership of the Interim Review Panel The evaluation panel comprised the following independent members: Jaroslav Míl (Czech Republic) Chairman Jacques Bouchard (France) Eberhard Jaeschke (Germany) Carmen Martinez-Ten, assisted by Eduardo Gallego Diaz (Spain) Derek Pooley (United Kingdom) Agneta Rising (Sweden) Nicoletta Stame (Italy) Kevin Langley (United Kingdom) Rapporteur. The panel was assisted by the following representatives of the European Commission: Octavi Quintana Trias - Director for Energy (Euratom) Angel Perez Sainz - Head of Unit for Horizontal Aspects and Coordination Simon Webster - Head of Unit for Fission Serge Paidassi Acting Head of Unit for ITER Yvan Capouet - Head of Unit for Fusion Association Agreements Frederick Mariën - Coordinator for Euratom RTD Horizontal Activities Tomasz Sliwinski - Policy Officer. The panel also received presentations from and addressed questions to the following individuals: Christopher Llewellyn-Smith - Chairman of ITER Council Didier Gambier - Director of Fusion for Energy (F4E) Jerome Paméla Leader of European Fusion Development Association (EFDA) Carlos Varandas - Chairman of the F4E Governing Board. The panel held plenary meetings in Brussels on the following dates: 7 July

57 7-8 September October November January

58 ANNEX 2. Glossary of Terminology ASDEX-Upgrade (ASDEX-UG) - Medium-sized tokamak at Garching, Germany with elongated, diverted plasma and full coverage of the first wall with tungsten. Broader Approach (BA) - The "Broader Approach" agreement between Euratom and Japan aims to support ITER and an early realisation of fusion energy. It consists of three projects: Satellite Tokamak Programme (STP), International Fusion Energy Research Centre (IFERC) and the Engineering Validation and Engineering Design Activities for the International Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF/EVEDA). Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) - CCS is a means of mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming, based on capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants, and storing it permanently away from atmosphere by different means, for example by injecting in depleted natural gas or oil wells. Because of the very large scale on which this would need to be carried out to be effective and the cost of collecting and transporting captured CO 2, it would be necessary to locate fossil-fuelled plants near to the site of storage. CCS can also be used to describe the scrubbing of CO 2 from ambient air as a geoengineering technique. CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) - Founded in 1954, the CERN Laboratory sits astride the Franco Swiss border near Geneva. It was one of Europe s first joint ventures and now has 20 Member States. CERN is concerned with fundamental physics and the basic constituents of matter. Its principle facility is the Large Hadron Collider, the world s largest and most powerful particle accelerator. DEMO - Demonstration Reactor which will follow ITER as an essential step towards the realisation of fusion as a commercially viable source of power. DEMO is intended to be the first fusion device to produce electricity. Direct Action - research carried out in the nuclear field by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). 56

59 Divertor - A magnetic field configuration affecting the edge of the confinement region, designed to remove heat and particles from the plasma, i.e. divert impurities and helium ash to divertor plates in a target chamber. Deuterium/Tritium (D/T) Reaction - The most immediately promising nuclear reaction to be used for fusion power is: 2 H + 3 H 4 He + n Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium) is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen and is universally available. The large mass ratio of the hydrogen isotopes makes the separation rather easy compared to the difficult uranium enrichment process. Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) is also an isotope of hydrogen, but it occurs naturally in only negligible amounts due to its half-life of 12.3 years. Consequently, the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle requires the breeding of tritium using one of the following reactions: n + 6 Li 3 H + 4 He n + 7Li 3 H + 4 He + n. ELM (Edge Localised Mode) - An instability which occurs in short periodic bursts during the H-mode in divertor tokamaks. It modulates and enhances the energy and particle transport at the plasma edge. These peak transient heat and particle losses must be limited in a reactor. European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) - an agreement between European fusion research institutions and the European Commission in order to coordinate and manage collective activities in fusion research, notably the exploitation of JET in the UK, training and career development in fusion and EU contributions to international collaborations. There are three bodies involved in decision making by EFDA: The EFDA Steering Committee (EFDA-SC), in which all the European Fusion Associations and the European Commission are represented, is responsible for planning and supervision of the activities carried out under EFDA. The Science and Technology Advisory Committee (STAC). Task Forces and Topical Groups which deal with specific technical issues. EFDA operates two Close Support Units (CSUs) which are responsible for part of its work: 57

60 EFDA-CSU Garching is located in Garching, near Munich (Germany), and is hosted by the German Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik (IPP). EFDA-CSU Culham is hosted by the UK Atomic Energy Authority at its Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE), home of the Joint European Torus facilities. Fusion for Energy (F4E) - F4E was established in April 2007 for a period of 35 years with an indicative total budget of almost 10 billion and offices situated in Barcelona. F4E is a Joint Undertaking under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, with three main objectives: to act as the European Domestic Agency for procurement of components of ITER to act as the Implementing Agency of the Broader Approach agreement between EURATOM and Japan to prepare for the construction of demonstration reactors (DEMO) and related facilities including the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). The members of F4E are EURATOM (represented by the European Commission), the 27 Member States of EURATOM and Switzerland. F4E is managed by the Governing Board and its Director, assisted by an Executive Committee and Technical Advisory Panel. Generation IV International Forum (Gen IV, GIF) - GIF is a cooperative international endeavour to examine the feasibility and performance capabilities of the next generation nuclear energy systems. The GIF has nine founder Members (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the UK and the USA) which signed the GIF Charter in July Subsequently, it was signed by Switzerland in 2002, Euratom in 2003, and the People s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, both in The goals adopted by GIF provided the basis for identifying and selecting six nuclear energy systems for further development. Their designs feature thermal and fast neutron spectra, closed and open fuel cycles and a wide range of reactor sizes from very small to very large. Depending on their respective degrees of technical maturity, the Generation IV systems are expected to become available for commercial introduction in the period between 2015 and 2030 or beyond. High Flux Reactor (HFR - The high flux reactor, located at Petten, the Netherlands, is one of the most powerful multi-purpose materials testing research reactors in the world. The HFR is a tank in pool type light 58

61 water-cooled reactor and it is moderated and operated at 45MW.The reactor provides a variety of irradiation facilities and possibilities in the reactor core, in the reflector region and in the poolside facility. Research carried out in the HFR includes: R&D for nuclear fission energy, i.e. materials irradiation in support of nuclear plant life extension Irradiation tests for fuel materials for use in the High Temperature Reactor R&D for fusion reactor technologies Partitioning and Transmutation technologies. Institute for Energy (IE) - The Institute for Energy is one of the seven scientific Institutes of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. The IE is based both in Petten, the Netherlands, and Ispra, Italy, and has a multidisciplinary team of around 300 academic, technical, and support staff. It is concerned with all aspects of energy R&D, including nuclear fission and renewable energy. IFMIF - International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility to qualify materials for DEMO. It will include 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. Indirect Actions - Euratom indirect actions are managed by the Commission's Directorate-General for Research (DG RTD). There are two main themes: fusion energy research and nuclear fission and radiation protection. FP7 research in nuclear fission and radiation protection is funded through schemes such as collaborative projects, networks of excellence and coordination and support actions. Fusion has its own specific funding schemes. IRRM (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements) - The Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) located at Geel, Belgium, is one of the seven institutes of the Joint Research Centre (JRC). It covers a wide range of measurement problems from food safety to environmental pollution, including production of reference materials, provision of expert advice in food safety and quality, bioanalysis and reference measurement data. Its facilities include a 150 MeV linear electron accelerator (Gelina) and a 7 MV Van de Graaff accelerator ITER - The Way in Latin. An acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The next step of an international 59

62 collaboration to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion as an energy resource, ITER was established by the ITER agreement in 2006 between Europe (with the largest share), China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the USA. The project has a duration of 35 years (construction, operation and decommissioning) and was originally costed at about 5 billion. Construction of the ITER complex began in 2009, while assembly of the tokamak itself is scheduled to begin in the year The first plasma is expected to be produced in ITER is the first fusion device designed to produce more energy than it consumes 500MW of output from an input of 50 MW. ITER International Organisation (IO) - The international organisation (IO), based in Cadarache, France, which has been set up under the ITER Agreement. The IO is responsible for all aspects of the project: the licensing procedure, the hardware procurements, the construction, the twenty-year operation period, and ultimately for decommissioning of ITER at the end of its lifetime. The members of the IO bear the costs of ITER. The EU contributes almost half of the costs; the other partners share the remaining part. Most of the components are being contributed by the members in kind, meaning that they manufacture the components themselves, rather than paying for them. A simplified diagram of the relationship between Euratom and ITER is shown below: Euratom ITER Council F4E Board ITER Organisation EFDA Research Agreement between all EU fusion labs and Euratom Coordinated R&D Use of JET Located Culham & Garching F4E Projects EU Domestic Agency Procurement for ITER construction EU Contribution to Broader Approach Located Barcelona Other Domestic Agencies China Japan India Russia South Korea USA 60

63 ITU (Institute for Transuranium Elements) - The Institute for Transuranium Elements is one of seven institutes of the Joint Research Centre. The mission of ITU is to provide the scientific foundation for the protection of the European citizen against risks associated with the handling and storage of highly radioactive material. ITU s prime objectives are to serve as a reference centre for basic actinide research, to contribute to an effective safety and safeguards system for the nuclear fuel cycle, and to study technological and medical applications of radionuclides/actinides JET (Joint European Torus) - Currently the largest tokamak in the world sited at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in the UK and operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in association with Euratom through EFDA. The JET torus is half the diameter of ITER and has recently been fitted with walls made of the same materials (beryllium and tungsten) as proposed for ITER. JRC (Joint Research Centre) - The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission was originally established under the 1957 Euratom treaty. It is currently organised into seven Institutes with six physical locations. Its original focus on nuclear energy research has been expanded to embrace all aspects of energy, as well as environmental and other research topics. Lawson Criterion - A general measure of a system that defines the conditions needed for a fusion reactor to reach ignition, i.e. that the heating of the plasma by the products of the fusion reactions is sufficient to maintain the temperature of the plasma against all losses without external power input. As originally formulated the Lawson criterion gives a minimum required value for the product of the plasma (electron) density and the "energy confinement time". Later analyses suggested that a more useful figure of merit is the "triple product" of density, confinement time, and plasma temperature T: Plasma - A state of matter above a few thousand degrees where atoms are broken into their constituents, ions and electrons, thereby creating an electrically conducting medium. Plasmas can therefore interact strongly with electric and magnetic fields. Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) - The SET Plan, presented by the Commission in November 2007, addresses the challenges facing Europe in the fight against climate change, security of 61

64 energy supply and the competitiveness of European companies, and sets out objectives for 2020 and It aims to achieve this: in the short term by increasing research to reduce costs and improve performance of existing technologies, e.g. biofuels, carbon capture and storage, integration of renewable energy sources into the electricity network and energy efficiency in construction, transport and industry; in the longer term by supporting development of a new generation of low carbon technologies such as new technologies relating to renewable energies, energy storage, sustainability of fission energy, fusion energy, and the development of Trans- European Energy networks. Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) - The basic document describing the mission and planned activities of a European Technology Platform. The SRA for the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) was published in 2009 by a working group from member organisations of the SNETP. It sets out research, development and demonstration road maps to achieve the goals of SET Plan. Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) - The SNETP was officially launched in September It brings together about 75 member organisations from European industry, research and academia, technical safety organisations, non-governmental organisations and national representatives. SNETP promotes research, development and demonstration of the nuclear fission technologies necessary to achieve the SET-Plan goals: For the year 2020: maintain competitiveness in fission technology and provide long-term waste management solutions, For the year 2050, act now to complete the demonstration of a new generation (Gen IV) of fission reactors with increased sustainability and enlarge nuclear fission applications beyond electricity production. Sustainability - There is no one definition of the concept of sustainability. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development gave the following: sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For example, continued use of fossil fuels is not sustainable because it depletes the resource without 62

65 providing any means for future generations to meet their needs. It also damages the environment, perhaps irreversibly. In the context of nuclear energy, the present generation of nuclear fission reactors make poor use of uranium resources (only about 2% of natural uranium is usable) and since the known economic reserves of uranium are limited, a large expansion of the use of this technology would not be sustainable. Gen IV reactor concepts seek to use all of the natural uranium (and possibly thorium), so that known reserves will last for many centuries. There is also debate about the extent to which disposal of nuclear wastes is sustainable. Although the volumes involved are small compared with, e.g. coal ash, they are hazardous and need to be isolated from the environment for geological periods of time. Again, Gen IV concepts seek to minimise waste volumes through recycling. Fusion energy is constrained by the availability of lithium (effectively the primary fuel). There have been concerns expressed about the abundance of lithium, which may also be required in large quantities if lithium-ion batteries are deployed widely in electric vehicles. However, recent assessments 10 show that conventional lithium reserves should be sufficient for about 3000 years. Lithium extracted from sea-water could provide current needs for 60 million years. Stellarator - A closed configuration fusion reactor having the shape of a three-dimensionally distorted ring in which the plasma is confined principally by an externally generated magnetic field (produced by nonplanar coils outside the plasma vessel). A toroidal plasma current is not required to maintain the confinement configuration, avoiding the cost and complexity of a transformer to drive the current. Compared with a tokamak, the stellarator plasma is inherently more stable with reduced damage due to disruptions and the possibility of continuous rather than pulsed operation. But there are disadvantages, e.g. it is more difficult to design a divertor and the 3-D magnetic coils are more complex and expensive to manufacture. Development of the stellarator concept is generally considered to be less advanced than that of the tokamak. Triple product - See Lawson Criterion. Tokamak - A magnetic configuration with the shape of a torus (a cylindrical ring, like a doughnut) which can contain a high temperature plasma, keeping it from contacting the walls of the vacuum vessel. The plasma is stabilised by a strong toroidal magnetic field. The component of the field perpendicular to the toroidal direction (the poloidal field) is produced by an electrical current flowing in the plasma. Other types of plasma containment (e.g. Stellarator) do not have this toroidal plasma 63

66 current. Tokamak is a Russian acronym which can be translated as toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field. Tritium - An isotope of hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of one proton and two neutrons. Tritium does not occur naturally, because it decays radioactively with a half-life of 12.3 years. For a fusion reactor, it will be produced from lithium by irradiation with neutrons in a breeding blanket surrounding the core of the reactor. Q-value - The ratio of fusion power to total additional heating power. A plasma which heats itself with no external power input corresponds to infinite Q. The condition of Q = 1 is referred to as breakeven. A power station should operate with Q ~50 to be economically viable. ITER is expected to achieve Q ~10 momentarily and ~5 in a steady state. Wendelstein VII- X (W7-X) - Large advanced superconducting Stellarator, optimised to produce a reactor-relevant plasma configuration under construction at Greifswald, Germany with first operation scheduled for

67 Documents made available to the Panel: 1. Legal documents 1.1. Commission Decision on the Terms of Reference for the interim evaluation of the Euratom FP7 (C/2009/3926); 1.2. Council Decision of 18 December 2006 (2006/970/Euratom) concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011); 1.3. Council Decision of 19 December 2006 (2006/976/Euratom) concerning the specific programme implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011); 1.4. Council Regulation of 19 December 2006 (2006/1908/Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in action under the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2007 to 2011); 1.5. Council Decision of 27 March 2007 (2007/198/Euratom) establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it ; 1.6. Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project (OJ L 358/62, 16 December 2006) 1.7. Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Japan for the Joint Implementation of the Broader Approach Activities in the Field of Fusion Energy Research (OJ L 246/34, 21 September 2007) 1.8. Euratom Work Programme 2007 (C/2007/3717, 23 August 2007) 1.9. Euratom Work Programme 2008 (C/2007/5750, 29 November 2007, C/2008/4522, 22 August 2008) Euratom Work Programme 2009 (C/2008/6800, 17 November 2008) European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) 65

68 1.12. JET Implementing Agreement (JIA) Model of Contract of Association EFDA Work Plan for General documents on the 7 th Framework Programme 2.1. Report of the expert group on the FP6 ex-post evaluation ( ) 2.2. Commission response to the FP6 ex-post evaluation (EC/Euratom) 2.3. Commission Communication (COM/2007/723) 'A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-PLAN)' 3. Fission & Radiation Protection 3.1. Report on the ex-post evaluation of the FP6 fission & radiation protection programme 3.2. Vision Report for SNE-TP Vision Report 3.3. Strategic Research Agenda for SNE TP 3.4. RTD brochure on the FP7 ( ) fission & radiation protection projects 3.5. Responses to the panel questions on the implementation of the FP7 Fission & Radiation Protection Programme (by Simon Webster) 3.6. Comments on the recommendations from the FP6 Fission & Radiation Protection ex-post evaluation (by Simon Webster) 3.7. Added Value of the FP7 Fission & Radiation Protection Programme (by Simon Webster) 3.8. Examples of Euratom achievements in FP7 Fission & Radiation Protection (by Simon Webster) 4. Fusion 4.1. Introduction to the European Fusion Programme 4.2. Report on the ex-post evaluation of the FP6 fusion research 4.3. R&D Needs and Required Facilities for the Development of Fusion as an Energy Source Report of the Fusion Facilities Review Panel, October 2008, EUR (08) CCE-FU 44/ F4E Annual Report ( ) 4.5. ITER Organization 2007 Annual Report 4.6. ITER Organization 2008 Annual Report 66

69 4.7. F4E project plan for , F4E(07)-GB04-09, 18 December Non-paper on the rationale and views on ways forward for the fusion research accompanying programme (by Yvan Capouet) 4.9. Technical non-paper on ITER construction for the seminar with Member States (20/09/2009) Presentation by Mr Jeroma Pamela on Fusion Accompanying Programme (6 October 2009) Presentation by Mr Didier Gambier on F4E Progress Report (presented to the CCE-FU meeting in March 2009) Comparison of FP6 and FP7 fusion programme objectives and instruments (by DG RTD) Ad-hoc Toschi Group Report on the cost assessment of the EU in-kind contributions to ITER BRISCOE REPORT (1) - Assessment of Resource Estimates for ITER Construction (Progress report October 2008) BRISCOE REPORT (2) Summary Of Progress Report From Resource Estimate Assessment Team (May June 2009) Answers to Panel Questions European Fusion Programme and ITER (by DG RTD) F4E responses to questions by the Chair of Euratom FP7 Interim Evaluation Panel Assessment of the Fusion for Energy (F4E) ITER-Related Activity - management and governance. Report from the Expert Group to the Governing Board, October Policy and scientific achievements of the European Fusion Programme, its added value and monitoring system (by DG RTD) 5. International Co-operation of Euratom 5.1. Response from DG RTD, Directorate J, to the Questionnaire on views on implementation of international cooperation 67

70 References Cited in Text: 1. Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011). 2. Commission Decision (C/2009/3926, 20 May 2009) establishing the Terms of reference for independent experts and allocating the necessary funding for the Panel of experts for the interim evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). 3. Climate change: Commission welcomes final adoption of Europe's climate and energy package. IP/08/ A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (Set-Plan): Towards a low carbon future. COM(2007) 723 final, Brussels, Strategic Research Agenda for the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform. May Europeans and Nuclear Safety. Special Eurobarometer 271, February Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste. Special Eurobarometer 297, June Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development Report of the Expert Group, Feb Assessment of the Fusion for Energy (F4E) ITER-related Activity Management and Governance. Report from the Expert Group to the Governing Board, October

71 10. Energy For Future Centuries: Will fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and clean energy source?, J. Ongena and G. Van Oost. Transactions of Fusion Science and Technology, Vol. 49 (Feb. 2006). 69

72

73

74 European Commission EUR Interim Evaluation of the indirect actions of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011) Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union pp. 17,6 x 25,0 cm ISBN doi /61777

75 Free publications: How to obtain EU publications via EU Bookshop ( at the European Union s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet ( or by sending a fax to Priced publications: via EU Bookshop ( Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union): via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (