Nuclear Fission for a Low-Carbon Economy

2012Interdisciplinary Study

2013SymposiumProceedings

Nuclear Fissionfor a Low-Carbon Economy

Benefits andLimitations of

February 2013

Report edited in the context of the Symposium on the “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy” held in Brussels on 26-27 February 2013Co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee

Contact:

Roger GARBIL, Georges VAN GOETHEM

European CommissionDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate K – Energy

Unit K.4 – FissionOffice CDMA 01/47B-1049 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy

2012 Interdisciplinary Study Synthesis report and compilation of the Experts’ reports

2013 Symposium Agenda and Speakers’

Symposium Speeches delivered on

26-27 February 2013, Brussels, Belgium

Co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee

mailto:[email protected]

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers

or these calls may be billed

Table of Contents

LEGAL NOTICENeither the European Commission nor the European Economic and Social Committee nor any person acting on behalf of the European Institutions is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

All experts and interviewees speak in a personal capacity. Affiliations are provided solely to assist with identification.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

ISBN 978-92-79-29833-2doi 110.2777/12636

© European Union, 2013Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

Cover image © suravid/shutterstock.com

2012 Interdisciplinary Study 4Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy / Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020)

Synthesis Report 60Compilation of the experts’ reports Background to the synthesis report

Symposium Agenda and Speakers 174Contribution to the decision-making process on the Euratom part of Horizon 2020

Symposium Speeches 214

An ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy

European Group on Ethics of science and new technologies (EGE) adopted on 16 January 2013 its Opinion No 27: An ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy presented at the Symposium in Brussels. In its Opinion, the EGE proposed an integrated ethics approach for the research, production and use of energy in the EU seeking for an equilibrium between four criteria - access rights, security of supply, safety, and sustainability - in the light of social, environmental and economic concerns.

Press release:

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/pdf/press_release_opinion_energy-clean.pdf

EGE Opinion:

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_27__2013.pdf

Proceedings of the EGE Round table on the topic:

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/roundtable_final_.pdf

Proceedings of the 2012 Interdisciplinary Study and 2013 Symposium:

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

shutterstock.com

4

S y n t h e s i s R e p o r t

2012 Interdisciplinary Study


Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020)

Synthesis Report

2012Interdisciplinary Study

Synthesis Report

Nuclear Fissionfor a Low-Carbon Economy

Benefits andLimitations of

6


2012 Interdisciplinary StudyBenefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy / Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020)

Synthesis Report Mandate 8 Rationale 9

Introduction 10 EU collaborative research in nuclear fission to face tomorrow’s energy challenges 10 Synthesis of the experts’ studies 12 Towards a renewed Euratom fission research programme for 2014 12 Annex 1. Summary of the EGE ethics group report 20 Annex 2. Topical scientific-technological reports: expert viewpoints 23 Annex 3. Topical socioeconomic reports: expert viewpoints 33 Annex 4. Contribution of the Advisory Group on Energy 41 Annex 5. Nuclear fission energy research in FP7 and beyond 42 Annex 6. Contribution of nuclear energy towards the 2050 Energy Roadmap 44 Annex 7. The European clearinghouse on nuclear power plant operating experience 45 Annex 8. Glossary 47 Annex 9. References 49 Annex 10. Contributors 54

8 9

S y n t h e s i s R e p o r t 2 0 1 2 I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y S t u d y

In view of its decision on the Euratom part of Horizon 2020, the EU Council (meeting of 28 June 2011) requested that the Commission “organise a symposium in 2013 involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders to contribute to the debate on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy. The symposium will be prepared by an interdisciplinary study involving, inter alia, experts from the fields of energy, economics and social sciences.”

In light of the mandate handed down by the Council and as part of the political agreement of 28 June 2011 on the Euratom Framework Programme (2012–13), the European Commission contracted in 2012 an interdisciplinary study on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy: 2012 Interdisciplinary Study — Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy: Defining priorities for Euratom fission research and training (Horizon 2020). As requested by the Council, this study will contribute to discussions during a symposium, co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee, to take place in Brussels on 26–27 February 2013, involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders1.

A number of high-level experts worked intensively towards the elaboration of this study. These experts have provided their extensive viewpoints on a wide range of topics, both from a scientific and technical, as well as a socio-economic viewpoint. This synthesis report gives a flavour of the in-depth analyses carried out by the experts, which can be consulted in the complete 2012 Interdisciplinary Study2.

The study would first and mainly be oriented towards answering “why — and how to — continue developing research and training activities on nuclear fission and radiation protection at EU level?”

Extract from the terms of reference

1 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission2 available online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

Mandate from the European Council

RationaleM

An

dATE

RAT

Ion

ALE

Request from the EU Council to the European Commission to organise a symposium on the benefits and limitations

of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy


http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

10 11


Research challenges

Our energy supply has been — for centuries — based on wood and more recently on fossil fuels. We know that this is hardly sustainable, not only because of greenhouse gas emissions, but also because of finite resources. New technologies have therefore been developed during the last 50 years, since security of supply and a low-carbon economy have become — and still are — strategic priorities for Europe.

But, “one solution doesn’t fit all”. Minimisation of risks (economic, strategic, technical, environmental, human) and the development of the right energy mix, with an optimised use of energy, are becoming policy drivers, which should be supported by the research community. To better address the issues, initiatives from the Commission have recently focused on stimulating integrated research approaches and on pooling resources. Roadmaps and strategic research agendas have been developed, in support of secure, efficient, competitive and sustainable energy systems.

Through the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan), research is today identified as a major pillar of the EU energy and climate policy. The vision is not only to stimulate a wide range of multidisciplinary research activities, but also to encompass socio-economic research to back up the development of new technologies and public policies. Implementing the SET-Plan will also depend on increased scientific cooperation based on joint national efforts. In Horizon 2020, the societal challenge “secure, clean and efficient energy”, including its Euratom fission research part, is designed to support the achievement of these objectives. In the specific case of Euratom fission research, an even stronger coordination and integration of Member States’ programmes is required, in order to ensure stability and stronger commitments from the parties involved.

The research services of the European Commission would like to thank the experts who contributed to different studies, in particular those summarised further in this report, for their inputs to the debate. The 2012 report of the Advisory Group on Energy should also be highlighted. We welcome the recommendations stemming from all these direct and indirect contributions, which will be discussed during the symposium, helping to better define the “drivers and enablers for change” in Euratom 2014–20.

EU collaborative research in nuclear fission to face tomorrow’s energy challengesThe Fukushima event in 2011 reinforced the concerns of the citizen on the use of nuclear energy. Public authorities around the world took different actions, including stopping immediately the operation of power plants, commencing a review of current and future plants, e.g. through stress tests, or deciding to progressively phase-out nuclear energy. Many countries, however have decided to continue for several decades the exploitation of nuclear energy, and even to develop it further.

All energy mix scenarios elaborated in the European Energy Roadmap 2050 include nuclear energy in one way or another. While it is for each EU country to choose whether to make use of nuclear power, the role of the Union is to develop, in the interest of all its Member States, a framework to support joint cutting-edge research, knowledge creation and knowledge preservation on nuclear fission technologies, with clear emphasis on safety, security, waste management and radiation protection, including for different applications of ionising radiation, notably in the medical field.

The Council of the European Union decided at the end of 2011 on the prolongation of the Euratom programme for the period 2012–13, focusing on safety. To discuss future orientation of nuclear fission research, it also requested the carrying out of a study and the organisation of a symposium, early in 2013, on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission energy and its impacts on EU research policy.

The aim of the symposium, held on 26–27 February 2013, and of the related studies, carried out in 2012, is therefore to provide answers to pressing questions concerning Europe’s nuclear research policy for the next seven years (financial framework 2014–20).

InTR

od

UCT

Ion

InTR

od

UCT

Ion

Euratom research and training: drivers and enablers for change

One of the main goals of the Euratom research and training programme, in compliance with the Euratom treaty, is to develop the required competences contributing to the safe and sustainable evolution of nuclear energy, as well as to raising the standard of living in the Member States.

This is clearly in line with the general “Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”, as well as with the objectives identified in the various official Communications dedicated to the triangle “research, energy and education”, such as “The Innovation Union — Turning ideas into jobs, green growth and social progress” and “Resource-efficient Europe — Towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy”.

In addition, it should be highlighted that nuclear safety and security have always been in the heart of European fission research and this is even more important now, after the Fukushima event. Keeping in mind that nuclear fission will remain a clearly identified source of energy in many countries in Europe and in the rest of the world, for at least the coming decades, it is crucial to maintain and further develop the appropriate knowledge, skills and research infrastructures on nuclear fission safety issues.

Furthermore, common activities of EU Members and the Commission should be further elaborated and utilised for the improvement of nuclear safety, such as the European Clearinghouse for Nuclear Power Plant Operational Experience Feedback, run by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre and bringing together the best nuclear safety knowledge in the EU.

The consideration of economic, social and environmental issues linked with energy production, distribution and use, the quality of life and the competitiveness of industry in Europe are also raising new challenges, for which the nuclear fission community needs to provide reliable answers.

12 13


10 recommendations

1. Europe faces major societal challenges including climate change and energy dependency. Energy availability, security of supply, sustainability and safety issues (as identified by the EGE ethics group), all require continuing specific research effort, within the energy supply context as a whole, ranging from renewables to nuclear fission and fusion and aiming at responding to the EU energy policy.

2. Following Fukushima, nuclear fission for energy has become a sensitive political issue in some Member States and the public at large expects its concerns to be properly addressed. Future fission research therefore needs to respond to those concerns, including new ways of engaging the public. This is the only way for European industry in the nuclear field to maintain its worldwide leading position.

3. For this reason, all aspects of safety, risk-mitigation, safeguards and security, in addition to waste management and decommissioning, should be the first priority of Euratom; furthermore, the participation of social scientists and other experts from the non-nuclear science and engineering community is required to ensure an holistic approach to the Euratom fission programme.

4. To allow all citizens in Europe to profit from transparent, publicly-financed independent knowledge in nuclear fission, Europe needs to keep its capacity-building competence at the highest level. Therefore European skills need to stay up to date and support for continuous professional development is essential. In addition qualifications should be standardised across Europe to allow free flow of knowledge and expertise to become a reality, as well as to facilitate links to other fields.

5. Respect for European values, solidarity between Member States, and a prudent equilibrium between a common policy, competition between different energy plans and national energy diversification are all necessary elements of an EU energy and research framework. The link between scientists/engineers and policymakers needs therefore to become stronger. Ways of doing this at the EU and national levels (e.g. through research and educational institutions) should be analysed, optimised and implemented as soon as possible.

6. Existing research associations and technology platforms related to nuclear should do more to interact with the general public and to develop stronger links with the European energy fora, including the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF).

7. New and emerging technologies need to be promoted not only to support safety and security but also to develop innovative areas such as nuclear medicine.

8. In line with the changing research and innovation scene worldwide, Euratom should take a full part in international discussions, forming partnerships where there is advantage in working with other regions of the world.

9. Considering the evolution of all these challenges, the governance of Euratom research, including the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), should be reformed; research should be integrated, whenever appropriate, with other Commission support and policy streams, ensuring transparency and cost-effectiveness; the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) monitoring of Euratom activities should also be enhanced.

10. The role of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre as an EU centre for nuclear safety, safeguards and security science should be reinforced; consideration should be given to the JRC playing an active role in collecting and disseminating Euratom research results.

Towards a renewed Euratom fission research programme for 2014

The reality

The patchwork of national nuclear policies across Europe reflects national energy options. Some countries have been non-nuclear for years while a few others have responded to the recent accident in Japan by political decisions to close or limit the operation of existing plants. Yet 14 EU Members will continue to rely on nuclear energy over the medium to long term, either by programmes to allow long-term operation of existing plants or new builds.

However, even with full responsibility for its energy mix, a country’s decisions can affect the rest of Europe as electricity can be traded and radiation from a severe accident would not respect man-made borders. Thus there is a need to have a joint approach to the future of nuclear fission research in Europe, which is the reason that all Member States have signed up to the Euratom treaty. Under this umbrella, the following research goals have been agreed upon; safety and reliability, sustainability, safeguards, and security. The EGE has also highlighted the need to achieve equilibrium between these four elements. Also, within the EU a community of international nuclear scientists and engineers has ensured that Europe remains at the leading edge of both basic and applied research in nuclear fission.

In addition the EU acknowledges the necessity to move towards a zero-carbon economy and flagship initiatives to encourage smart, sustainable and inclusive growth have been proposed.

13Sy

nT

HES

IS o

F T

HE

ExpE

RTS

’ ST

Ud

IES

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

Global consumption of energy is increasing both as a result of population increase and due to the aspirations of citizens to have a quality of life that is equal to that in most of Europe.

According to the EU Institute for Security Studies: “There are three main global trends emerging today that will shape the world in 2030: the empowerment of individuals, which contributes to a sense of belonging to a single human community, greater stress on sustainable development against a backdrop of greater resource scarcity and persistent poverty, compounded by the consequences of climate change: and the emergence of a more polycentric world characterised by a shift of power away from states, and growing governance gaps as the mechanisms for inter-state relations fail to respond adequately to global public demands3.”

It is in this context that the future of nuclear fission research at the EU level needs to be seen in an holistic and realistic way. Likewise it is necessary to be aware of the current political context within Europe and elsewhere. This is also acknowledged by the Commission’s European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) in its review of the challenge of supplying the new energy needed and doing so without adding dangerously to atmospheric greenhouse gases.

The task

The original terms of reference asked the expert group to make its report “oriented towards answering the why — and how to — continue developing research and training activities on nuclear fission and radiation protection at EU level”.

3 Global Trends 2030, ESPAS report, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2012

John WOODAssociation of Commonwealth Universities

2 0 1 2 I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y S t u d y

14 15


Such research should not be led by industry and government, although they remain important contributors, but might be done by academia or independent policy/society analysts. In advocating this approach, lessons from climate change research should be heeded. Above all these studies and outputs must be seen as part of an holistic approach to the future of nuclear energy rather than just stand-alone projects. This is also in line with the EGE’s recommendations.

Assuming that a specific fund is set aside for this research then it should be overseen by a cross-disciplinary board to ensure that the studies link wider issues. A European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI)-type organisation should be considered to enhance an holistic approach and to form an open-access source for all citizens, along the lines of many “citizen cyber-science” projects such as Galaxy Zoo5. This approach would be exciting since it would bring together thousands of non-professionals to contribute to scientific discovery and effectively would democratise research.

It is recommended that an advisory panel consisting of social scientists, with the appropriate nuclear scientists and engineers from industry, research associations and academia, be set up to oversee large nuclear research projects that receive significant Euratom funding, to ensure that all socioeconomic aspects of a project are considered, including public engagement. One might consider expanding the role of the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) by adding social scientists to the membership.

5 http://www.citizencyberscience.net/events/lccs12

Existing European policies

Future research must be seen within the wider context of European energy policy. Binding targets have already been set for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of energy to be produced by renewable energy sources. While carbon reduction targets might be met in the short term due to the economic crisis, if the policies for sustainable growth are to be achieved then there will be a mid- to long-term need to provide more non-carbon based sources. For the immediate future this is likely to require a continuing or increasing commitment to nuclear sources and, given the long-term nature of technology development and confidence in the ability to increase the lifetimes of existing plants, this would require support over the next two decades.

It should be realised that investment in new materials research for safety critical applications, for example, takes at least 20 years to produce practical uses. In this sense there are needs similar to those of the aerospace industry, which combines forces at a European level through a technology platform. The fission research community does this in particular with its Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP).

Other ESFRI facilities will also be of use in developing materials for nuclear plants in addition to giving further information on the effects of radiation, such as the Jules Horowitz Reactor, the Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor MYRRHA, the European Spallation Source, the European X-Ray Laser Project and the Extreme Light Infrastructure6, all of which have attracted EU funding.

Currently 25–30% of electricity in Europe is provided by nuclear power plants. Given this dependence now and into the foreseeable future, and if future policies are to be based on scientific evidence and demonstration, then further and continuing research is necessary. While individual countries in line with their domestic policies will support most of this, European policies need direct European funding.

6 ELI has made extensive use of Structural Funds for its construction and this is a route to pursue in the future.

Initially it might appear that all these objectives and realities are in conflict with one another, especially in the context of the current financial crisis. It is therefore timely that a future roadmap for nuclear energy research, including fission research, be adopted to make clear to European citizens just where their future energy resources will come from. Although the recent economic downturn has lessened the consumption of energy in the short to medium term, the ethics group report has also highlighted the need for new or improved energy technologies if Europe is to meet 2020 and 2050 objectives on climate change, security of energy supply and competitiveness.

The case

In line with the Euratom treaty vision, the case for nuclear fission research at the European level is clear. Whatever the political situation in individual countries, all countries will benefit from research which gives confidence that Europe has sufficient trained people to ensure that current and future nuclear plants and waste are safe. In addition, European industry should remain at the cutting edge of technology where the investments in test equipment and new technologies are too big for one country to consider alone, especially the newer EU Members.

Public acceptance

There is no doubt that most citizens do not understand the nature of nuclear energy and, despite its outstanding safety record in Europe, the very mention of the term nuclear conjures up adverse reactions in the main. This public perception cannot be ignored. There are many concerns, including:

• By whom and how are nuclear decisions made?

• What level of risk is acceptable both in running plants and storing nuclear waste (whether it is located nationally, within Europe or globally)?

• Is the long-term supply of fuel sustainable?

• How should terrorism risks be countered?

• What are the consequences of ionising radiation other than in electricity production (in medicine, for food safety, natural geological radiation)?

• Should we trade with third countries in machinery and expertise to increase the use of nuclear energy, which might play into the hands of unstable governments?

The list could go on, but it is irresponsible of governments, industry and researchers to ignore such fears if the population is to support them in funding future nuclear research. Some of these fears are not just about nuclear fission, but about all scientific research in general and especially where big industry is concerned. It is easy to say the public requires more educating. This is not only patronising but top-down edicts from either government or industry are unlikely to achieve more acceptance and may induce further suspicion.

A key recommendation of the European Research Area (ERA) in its first annual report was that the ERA should be based on a shared responsibility between science, policy and society. To this end three major recommendations were made:

• Appoint an EU chief scientist;

• Engage the public more fully in the debate; and

• Share non-sensitive information by open access.

The first has been achieved. The third has been proposed and would lead to the second being realised.

Above all there should be an holistic approach to energy issues rather than treating each technology and potential technology in isolation, given that European citizens expect a stable supply of energy. They need to be aware of the consequences of any particular option, including the medium- and long-term costs.

When it comes to nuclear energy, a good reference document is the SWOT report by the European Nuclear Energy Forum4.

It is recommended that research should be under-taken to develop methodologies further for risk assessment and public discussion of the levels of risk of various technologies, including those used by most citizens (e.g. motor travel), to understand why people accept some risks and not others.

Here it would be useful not to confine this research merely to nuclear fission, in order to show it is not a special case. A key point to get over is that scientific “facts” are often not certainties but based on scale or the balance of probabilities. It is frequently noted by research academics that students often flounder when they move from the certainties of school science (with facts) to research where the outcomes are necessarily unknown. Thus some curriculum development in schools, sociological analysis of perceptions of risk and safety, and the human cost-benefit analysis of nuclear fission should be supported.

4 available on the website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/competitiveness_en.htm

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

http://www.citizencyberscience.net/events/lccs12

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/competitiveness_en.htm

16 17


National coordination

Key questions are what should be done by individual Member States, what can be helped by coordinated action and what should be undertaken or driven centrally by the Commission? It has been suggested that the approach should be at the “maximum common denominator” level. A key recommendation is that there is great value in maintaining and sustaining support for existing structures, like the SNETP, and potential new technology platforms. Another key platform is the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) and there are other coordinated activities on radiation protection, especially the Melodi association on low-dose effects. Nevertheless, while the existing platforms are working well, their interaction with the general public to share developments to ensure further public confidence should be enhanced and supported.

Education and training

In addition to developing a well-informed general public there is a growing need to train specialists in all areas of nuclear energy, including R&D. In order to ensure the highest standards of safety and security in all sectors of nuclear technology, freedom of labour and freedom of knowledge throughout the EU, these specialists need to be qualified at a level accepted by all Member States. (The existing JRC European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector monitors trends in this field and identifies future human resource requirements).

R&D provides a vibrant skills pipeline for young talented people. There should be further encourage-ment of mobility to maximise the knowledge base throughout Europe via Erasmus-Mundus and Marie Skłodowska-Curie type programmes. Consideration should be given to encouraging centres of excel-lence in specific universities where there will be the necessary critical mass of expertise necessary to train students.

It is recommended that the Commission provide support for partnerships between universities and nuclear fission research organisations (including the JRC), specifically in universities where the research culture is not world leading, to create critical masses both for research and training.

Support is also required for developing practical skills that are accepted throughout Europe. There is a case for considering the adoption of a European-level accreditation system for all areas to allow easier freedom of movement, although it is recognised that this would have to cover everything

from basic nuclear engineering to nuclear medicine. In addition, given the recommendations about public engagement, training programmes in social sciences should be incorporated and supported.

Alongside the initial training it would be necessary to maintain continuous lifetime accreditation by updating personnel on a regular basis. Some effort should be expended on which type of European body could give accreditation and whether it could be linked in some way to the proposed European Research Passport8.

An excellent vehicle for proceeding would be the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) under the European Institute of Technology (EIT), such as InnoEnergy, which has developed a mas-ters in nuclear energy with several universities, companies and research institutes. Given the need for continuous updating of people, including those already in industry, some effort is required to de-velop distance and e-learning curricula alongside practical experience in the field.

Safety, safeguards and security

Everything from nuclear explosions to the alleged murdering of spies by local irradiation is not only the stuff of blockbuster movies but is part of the fears of most people. Alongside the work on public engagement, one must be aiming for the highest possible standards among practitioners. This is an area for which there can be no compromise. It is essential that the present level of R&D investment is maintained and increased. Also, as regards training, there is an overriding priority for common standards, practices and codes to be adopted throughout Europe, not only to ensure best practice but to allow open competition within the free market.

Alongside the stress tests undertaken in Europe in the light of the Fukushima accident, further research is needed on how much the lifetime of current reactors can be extended without affecting safety. Since the protection of EU citizens is a “must” for the EU, prevention of nuclear incidents and accidents, their understanding, evaluation and mitigation should be supported by the Euratom R&D programme. The same conclusions can be drawn for new developments and future reactor systems as described above (generation IV, accelerator-driven systems). Indeed, the EGE has recommended that a comparative impact assessment of all energy sources be carried out, addressing technological, social and political scenarios.

8 Proposal made by the European Research Area Board to aid mobility of researchers across the EU

In addition to specific policies the SET-Plan informs decisions for the next two or three decades. It is estimated that new nuclear power plants and facilities might be constructed in the near term, requiring human resources to ensure their safe construction and operation, in addition to test facilities needed for the appropriate assurances. Harmonised industrial approaches and regulatory and licensing measures would be highly beneficial, especially for long-term operation as well as for non-proliferation and nuclear security.

Moreover, the dismantling of existing plants — particularly in countries that have decided to stop the exploitation of nuclear energy — will last for many years, and this type of operation needs safe and harmonised procedures.

It would thus be a very high-risk option from economic, industrial and social perspectives if further research were not supported.

Complementary to the traditional collaborative research instruments, the new and emerging technologies proposal and the pre-commercial procurement of research ideas proposal outlined in Horizon 2020 would be excellent tools to develop many areas of interest to the nuclear fission industry, using public procurement to support very high financial risk, early-stage projects, to drive forward innovation.

There are many exciting new technologies, e.g. based on accelerator-driven sources and fast reactors, which could be developed using procurement at a European level. Some of these projects could be attractive to countries that have access to structural funds for research in order to generate centres of scientific and industrial excellence. Furthermore, there is a continuous need for pooled and joint facilities, such as EU networks of excellence and the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) laboratories.

Other innovative technologies related to sensors for safety monitoring, or those related to health and medicine, offer numerous commercial advantages to European companies but need early public support if the obvious developmental risks are to be covered.

One lesson which has become abundantly clear in drawing up these large international projects is that there is a need to educate or train more personnel to lead and manage large international scientific projects, including in nuclear fission.

It is thus recommended that a number of initiatives in Horizon 2020 should support future nuclear research especially in infrastructures, new technologies and project management. There would be the potential to provide both conceptual and technical design support for new projects that could inform strategic decisions on what could be located in regions with access to structural funds for research and development (R&D). It is also recommended that small funds be allocated to support the drawing up and maintenance of data demonstrating the potential local impacts so that informed decisions could be made. In addition there needs to be real support for basic nuclear-related science including that for new nuclear and structural materials, reference measurements, devices/sensors that are radiation safe, radiobiology, modelling, and many other areas, including support for user-accessible facilities to train many in nuclear safety and security.

Many of these basic science activities including social sciences should be proposed by individuals to the “excellent science base” pillar of Horizon 2020, and be largely supported.

In some countries agencies and initiatives ensure links between those doing the research and those involved in the political process at the highest level (e.g. the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on the future of nuclear energy7 and the Comité de Choix Stratégique in France).

It is recommended that the Commission review these approaches and set up a similar vehicle for ensuring that the link between scientists and policymakers becomes as strong as possible and is transparent to all stakeholders both within the Commission and outside, and that the outcomes are available to the general public in line with the greater involvement of EU citizens as described above, as long as security is not compromised.

7 http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldsctech/221/22102.htm

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldsctech/221/22102.htm

18 19


At research level it is essential to marry work supported by Euratom with other actions under the Innovation Union proposals, including the work of the JRC, the regional agenda and international policies of the EU. Currently it appears that there is still too little interaction.

It is recommended that a cross-European Commission group be set up to oversee the energy research espe-cially related to nuclear fission. The group should in-clude the research and innovation, energy, communi-cation and education and culture directorates-general and the JRC (possibly with EIT involvement and others as necessary). This should meet on a regular basis to exchange information and to coordinate programmes.

Long-term nuclear waste management will require the implementation of solutions which have been developed over decades. More research will be necessary for that, e.g. testing of materials for containment, to show the public that waste can be properly and safely managed over extended periods.

The work of the JRC in providing R&D for nuclear safety, safeguards and security independently of national or industrial interest needs to be effectively disseminated outside the circle of its direct stakeholders. From a public engagement perspective its connection and cooperation with other aspects of the research and innovation ecosystem, supported by the Commission, should be open and transparent. The JRC could contribute with others to improving public confidence by sharing knowledge and information and by disseminating the output of European R&D projects. The implications of the proposed open access policy need, however, to be examined from a security point of view.

Wider research needs

The massive advances in the use of ionising radiation for treating medical conditions are widely recognised, as is the use of isotope tracers for industrial processes. Breakthroughs in genetic modification and the use of synthetic biology using ionising sources is progressing rapidly but the implications are largely not understood by either the general public or policymakers. Further research at a European level is required not only into the basics but into the long-term safety implications for public health and the environment.

The EU does not sit in a research bubble, it has to interact further with other regions of the world and especially with the countries with rapidly growing nuclear programmes (Russia, China, South Korea). No longer is either the USA or Europe seen as the natural partner for every form of research. There needs to be extensive analysis of which types of international partnerships would be best undertaken at a European level and which by individual Member States or institutions. Advantage should be taken of existing linkages. In particular, participation of the EU in the Generation IV international Forum (GIF) research is a unique opportunity to maintain high competence and know-how in the nuclear field and to share the cost with partners. To achieve this, further support is needed through projects in the Euratom fission programmes.

While the immediate need for nuclear fission research over the next few decades is much discussed, research is needed into the longer-term consequences of and the main underlying values behind the research that is being undertaken. Security studies are needed into the potential for societal breakdown if there is a major plant failure, terrorist use of nuclear materials or failure to meet the energy needs of European citizens. These scenarios are in addition to the lack of global competitiveness for European industries which might move elsewhere, further exacerbating economic and unemployment problems. Many believe we are living at the fragile edge of consumerism in advanced countries; lack of investment in modelling societal breakdown as a result of long-term energy shortages is not wise.

The future

We live in a global world, resources are constrained and in some cases disappearing. In the short to medium term this will put further pressure on all economies to adapt to a new type of sustainable equilibrium, including energy usage. Lights going out across Europe will soon cause social unrest and the potential for societal breakdown. In addition to the further nuclear research investment required at a European level for safety, safeguards, protection, education, infrastructure, new and emerging technologies, and medical and industrial applications, investment is needed to show potential extreme scenarios to policymakers (e.g. what a shortage of energy supply would mean, irrespective of the policies of individual countries). The chronic under-investment in energy research since the 1980s needs to be reversed.

There are exciting opportunities to use future investments in both research infrastructures and training to stabilise the brain-drain from parts of Europe. This requires a level of political vision which might be difficult to achieve, unless there is a more intelligent usage of existing capacity-building instruments in the relatively short term. This needs joined-up thinking to show what the longer-term societal impact could be if an enlightened and holistic approach is taken now. With a European Chief Scientific Adviser in place there could be some work undertaken to bring non-political players together (Note, this is the model in the UK where the independent chief scientific advisers to ministries and to the prime minister agree how the ministries should work together constructively).


Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

Syn

TH

ESIS

oF

TH

E Ex

pER

TS’ S

TU

dIE

S

20 21


Summary of the EGE ethics group reportFossil fuels were the energy source that shaped 19th and 20th century civilisation. But burning coal, oil and gas has proved highly damaging to our environment. Carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse effect gases and fumes all contribute to the disruption in the balance of our planet’s climate. Global energy consumption is set to triple by the end of the century. And yet supplies of fossil fuels are rapidly being depleted and, in addition, the consequences of their exploitation without measures to reduce the production of gases that impact on the environment are serious. Two questions loom over humanity today: how will we supply all this new energy and how can we do so without adding dangerously to atmospheric greenhouse gases?

New or improved energy technologies are vital if Europe’s objectives for 2020 and 2050 in the fight against climate change and to ensure security of energy supply and competitiveness of European companies are to be fulfilled. However, constraints hamper the development and widespread application of these technologies, be they the chronic under-investment that has affected this sector since the 1980s, significant delays in the marketing of new products, the additional cost often involved without always giving better energy output, legal and administrative obstacles, or social acceptability.

On 28 June 2011 the Council reached a political agreement on a Commission proposal for a nuclear research and training programme for 2012–13. However, some Member States felt that a broad discourse on ethical issues and a sustainable energy mix in Europe should take place and indicated the need of having an Opinion from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). On 19 December 2011, the President of the European Commission requested the EGE to “contribute to the debate on a sustainable energy mix in Europe by studying the ethical impact of research on different energy sources on human well-being.” The EGE accepted this request and decided to focus on the ethical aspects of the use of different energy sources in Europe, as foreseen in the EGE remit9. The group recognised the need to consider issues such as security of supply, storage of energy, particularly where intermittent sources are utilised, competition for water and food in the case of biofuels, waste treatment and/or storage and pollution. The EGE decided:

• To address the ethical issues arising from energy use and the mix of energy, the consequences for the future, energy policy and regulation (including environmental considerations), the precautionary principle and inter-generational justice;

• To identify the ethical criteria to allow decisions concerning research on sources of energy (in view of the Council’s decision) to be taken on an informed basis and the implications arising from the use of energy in different areas;

• To propose an integrated ethics framework to address the ethical issues related to the production, use, storage and distribution of energy; and

• To identify the ethically relevant areas of energy research.

9 The role of the EGE is to provide the Commission with high quality and independent advice on ethical aspects of science and new technologies in connection with the preparation and implementation of Community legislation or policies.

An

nEx

1

Following several months of work, on 16 January 2013, the group adopted unanimously its 27th Opinion: “An ethical framework for assessing research, production, and use of energy”. In its Opinion, the EGE has adopted an integrated ethics approach to achieve an equilibrium between four criteria — access rights, security of supply, safety, and sustainability — in the light of social, environmental and economic concerns. It adopted specific recommendations related to access to energy, safety and impact assessment, security of energy supply, sustainability, research and democratic deliberation, participatory instruments and responsibility for future generations. As far as research is concerned, the EGE welcomed the Commission’s actions in energy research and recommended that priorities for research should also cover:

• Technologies that would contribute to the development of European smart grid infrastructure that is configured to harness the potential benefits of low-carbon and renewable technologies, in particular when decentralised energy production is developed.

• New technologies for storage of energy where or when excess is produced in order to facilitate the use of energies that are intermittent.

• Interdisciplinary research on storage and transport of materials and residues related to energy production and use.

• Analysis on residue production of different energy sources, its reduction or elimination and possible re-use. Research to determine the most suitable technologies, regulations and infrastructures for future carbon capture, storage and sequestration.

• Energy efficiency in all areas, but particularly in urban design and architecture, transport, utilities and industrial facilities.

• Psycho-social modelling of individual and community behaviour in energy conservation in order to support energy efficiency initiatives in setting new standards beyond current best practice. Such work is already under way.

• Comparative studies on the implementation of the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 in Member States (quantitative and qualitative data), with specific emphasis on sociocultural and geographical factors that have justified the adoption of specific energy mixes at local level.

• Comparative impact assessment of all energy sources, using the integrated methodology of technological, social, and political scenarios. They should include worst case scenarios (social, environmental), short-term and long-term prognoses, geopolitical contexts and safety risks for workers.

• Social sciences (individual responsibilities), psychology, social anthropology, sociology, ethics and law.

• Interdisciplinary research on the ethical, legal and social implication of energy, to be financed in Horizon 2020.

The EGE also requested that impact assessment of any energy source through its whole life-cycle should be carried out on a comparative basis, including the question of accountability, and that a comparative integrated impact assessment should be required for all energy sources, particularly new technologies. Such an assessment should also involve the participation of local communities at the earliest possible opportunity and assess impacts and risks across the entire life-cycle of the energy production, storage and use, in line with the Lisbon Treaty and the precautionary principle. The group also expressed serious concerns about shale gas and specific actions to embed ethics into energy mix policy design at EU and national levels.

Proceedings of the EGE round table on ethics of energy: http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/proceedings-ege-roundtables/index_en.htm

An

nEx

1

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/proceedings-ege-roundtables/index_en.htm



22 23


An

nEx

2Topical scientific-technological reports Expert viewpointsThe 2012 Interdisciplinary Study has been drawn up addressing the scientific and technological topics, as well as a socioeconomic viewpoint. The report on ethics was addressed by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA).

The following chapter contains short summaries of the topical scientific-technological reports together with the “main subjects” treated for each topic. A total of eight topics were identified and have been addressed by the experts:

1. The three pillars of EU Energy Policy — sustainability, security of supply and competitiveness

2. The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)

3. Research and development

4. Education and training and skills

5. EU nuclear safety and security aspects

6. People, quality of life and the environment

7. Safety and security culture beyond EU borders

8. Science-based policies and nuclear safety and security legislation

More information is available from the full texts of the experts’ reports which is published online on the occasion of the symposium Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy (Brussels, 26–27 February 2013)10.

10 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

and http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm.





24 25


William D’HAESELEER Faculty of engineering science, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium

In his study, the expert takes an “integrated energy systems” approach when looking at the contribution of nuclear fission research to EU energy policy.

EU energy policyContributing to the three pillars of EU energy policy: sustainability, security of supply, competitiveness for a future low-carbon economy

Nuclear has ample capability to contribute to the three pillars of the EU energy policy simultaneously, certainly if an extra effort is made for research and development (R&D) to exploit its assets:

• Nuclear is carbon dioxide-free, if using a good fuel cycle; but its safety record has received a serious dent. Acceptable solutions for waste management and proliferation resistance could be improved. Better understanding of low-dose effects of radiation could ameliorate its reputation and acceptability.

• Security of supply is offered by resource availability (possibly using fast reactors), stable but dispatchable electricity production facilities capable of load following and large turbine-generators providing inertia to the system, permitting reactive power control for voltage stability.

• Nuclear leads to cheap decarbonisation, if it can keep its investment and operational costs low. Future load following, however, must be examined as an important issue.

Nuclear energy only has a long-term future if it is acceptable to the public. To that end, a considerable R&D effort must be devoted to the perceived shortcomings of nuclear power. More R&D is needed, in particular, on the external costs of nuclear11, including risk analysis and accidents, fuel-cycle and waste, routine operation and life-cycle analysis. All this should be summarised in rigorous cost-benefit analyses.

11 E.g. building on FP6 project EUSUSTEL (European sustainable electricity; comprehensive analysis of future European demand and generation of European electricity and its security of supply, 2005–06).

http://www.eusustel.be/, complementary to project NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability, 2004–09) http://www.externe.info/ and http://www.needs-project.org/

The expert highlights that an externality is com-monly defined as a cost that arises when the so-cial or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and that impact is not fully accounted for by the first group. To fully calculate the external costs, all the main impacts from all the stages have to be considered. He rec-ommends, therefore, introducing further the con-cept of total social cost of electricity generation, that is: the sum of the private and external costs of a technology based on its use of resources from an economic point of view and an environmental point of view, which can be regarded as a relative measure of sustainability.

The expert concludes that, given the tremendous uncertainties in areas related to the global energy issue, a priori excluding nuclear fission from the current and future EU electricity generation mix in all Member States would be irresponsible. The EU as a whole should take the lead, with public funding, to seek a more aligned harmonisation.

An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 1

An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 2

The results of the peer review stress tests of the EU nuclear power plant fleet requested by the EU Council on 24-25 March 2011 demonstrated consensus on the high levels of safety of the plants in operation and no reactor was identified as requiring immediate shutdown. Nevertheless, the analysis identified opportunities to improve the safety margins. The costs of additional safety improvements are estimated to be EUR 30–200 million per reactor unit. Thus, the total costs for the 131 reactors operating in the EU could be in the order of EUR 10–25 billion over the coming years12.

At the end of 2011, the European Commission issued the EU Energy Roadmap 205013, based on different energy mix scenarios. A number of ambitious pilot projects are being carried out under the SET-Plan to test the transition towards those scenarios. A drastic decarbonisation, of the order of 80–95% below 1990 levels, of the overall energy sector by 2050 is the strategic objective of Europe’s energy policy.

The energy carrier electricity is expected to become even more important than today (20% of final energy demand today, almost 40% by 2050) and the electricity sector has an effectively zero carbon dioxide emission objective. (Scenarios in the roadmap indicate decarbonisation levels of 57–65% in 2030 and 96–99% in 2050, all compared to 1990).

12 Communication from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament on the comprehensive risk and safety assessments (stress tests) of nuclear power plants in the EU and related activities, COM(2012) 571, Brussels, 4.10.2012

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf13 Energy Roadmap 2050, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF

SET-planContributing to the execution of the SET-Plan, with emphasis on the objectives defined for nuclear fission

María Teresa DOMíNGUEz BAUTISTAEmpresarios Agrupados, Spain

In her study, the expert takes an industrial approach through a SWOT analysis:• Strengths and opportunities (SO) in terms of socioeconomic benefits, jobs, investment,

environment and technologies• Weaknesses and threats (WT) identified in the recommendations to be incorporated

in the SET-Plan and implemented in Horizon 2020.

If current nuclear plant lifetimes are extended between 2015 and 2035, new build should take place between 2025 and 2045. If 20% of the electricity in 2050 is produced by nuclear (delayed carbon capture and storage scenario), that means approximately 100 new units of 1400MWe. Special efforts should also continue to be dedicated to the final storage of high-level waste, a domain where the EU nuclear industry has an excellent record.

The Euratom programmes should play an active role in: the harmonisation of licensing requirements and procedures for generation III reactors, nuclear and industrial codes and standards (including utility requirements) and siting requirements; promoting licensing certification of standard plant designs; and promoting the concept of “first-of-a-kind”.

The EU should also support the study of innovative reactors, through demonstrators and experimental facilities identified in the SET-Plan. This should be done by joining the initiative of some of the Member States. The basic research needed to this end should be channelled through the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA). Clear mapping of international collaboration in these new systems is required at EU level to avoid duplication in development.

http://www.eusustel.be/

http://www.externe.info/

http://www.needs-project.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/com_2012_0571_en.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF


26 27


An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 3

An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 4

Gustaf LÖWENHIELMCGL Consulting, Sweden

The expert, ex-chair of Euratom’s Fission Consultative Committee, takes a “governmental” approach when analyzing the strong link between the research and the competences needed for the nuclear industry, irrespective of Member States own energy policies.

François WEISSGrenoble Institute of Technology, France, and KIC InnoEnergy

The expert highlights the need for efficient knowledge management at EU level, by ensuring education and training in nuclear energy as part of the energy mix. He takes the example of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) when promoting the full integration of the knowledge triangle (research, innovation and education).

Research and development Education and training and skillsPromoting research and development in the nuclear field through increased coordination of national programmes, joint programming

Further development of expertise and high skills in nuclear fields

Research and development (R&D) at EU level should encourage pooling of resources and encourage mobility of researchers to understand challenges in different Member States and also to access specialist facilities, equipment or capability that cannot be replicated in all countries.

Thus a trained workforce, mobile across the EU, sharing resources and know-how through EU-level research programmes is commonly desirable for Member States whose objectives with regards to nuclear differ widely and could be:

• Opposition to nuclear with no intention to deploy, but need to have a voice with the EU and be assured over neighbouring states;

• Phasing out nuclear and need to ensure that reactors are decommissioned safely, efficiently and cost-effectively and that the radioactive waste is managed in a safe long-term and sustainable manner;

• Maintaining generating capacity and wish to see their fleet managed appropriately with maximum lifetime extension while giving assurance to other Member States; and

• Looking to actively expand nuclear programme and considering advanced nuclear concepts and advanced fuel cycles.

Chapter 1 in the Euratom treaty (1957), “Promotion of research”, stated that the European Commission is “responsible for promoting and facilitating nuclear research in the member states and for complementing it by carrying out a research and training programme”. It added that “for purposes of coordinating and complementing research in member states” the Commission shall by either specific request or by a general published request undertake research.

National research and education networks as well as the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN — 64 members from universities, research organisations and industry, from 18 EU countries)14 have played an important role in rekindling the flames of nuclear education and training. Recently, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) opinion on energy education15 insisted on the need for inter-sectorial collaboration and on the need to attract young people more effectively to science and to make the public at large familiar with energy policy issues. The EESC supports, in particular, the new SET-Plan Energy Education and Training Initiative, which brings together bodies from academia, research institutes and industry.

Of particular interest is the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy16, a company, with all its implications: built upon an industrial plan; results and output oriented; commitment from shareholders for the first seven years; and financially sustainable in the medium term. KIC InnoEnergy covers all the SET-Plan thematics, shared among six centres: one is Sustainable nuclear and renewable energy convergence (coordinated by the French Co-location Centre Alps Valley; core members are Areva, the CEA, Grenoble INP and Grenoble Ecole de Management). The expert notes that KIC InnoEnergy launched a European masters in nuclear energy (MSc EMINE) with universities, companies and research institutes.

14 http://www.enen-assoc.org/ 15 CESE1054/2012-TEN/474-25/04/2012-http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.

en.ten-opinions.2181216 KIC InnoEnergy: Knowledge and Innovation Communities, http://www.kic-

innoenergy.com/homepage.html

Furthermore, it stated that “the Commission shall discourage unnecessary duplication and shall direct research towards sectors which are insufficiently explored”. The Commission is also given the possibility of bringing in public and private research centres as well as any expert for consultation. In article 134 the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee is established as an advisory body.

As far as the future is concerned, cooperation and coordination should be enhanced through the existing European technology platforms (e.g. the SNETP, the IGD-TP) and associations (e.g. Melodi). The inclusion of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre could give added value, in particular regarding dissemination and education. However, the Commission should investigate how these platforms and associations can be developed further and promising work is under way.

Finally it is important to keep the nuclear option open for a long time as this provides an opportunity to alleviate the transfer to carbon dioxide-free energy production in a more economical way. Thus, research on new innovative nuclear technologies must be pursued.

The following actions are recommended:

• Education programmes should be developed to address market and societal needs and improve linkages between nuclear energy and its benefits to society and the economy.

• European initiatives such as the European Human Resource Observatory in the Nuclear Sector (EHRO-N), the ENEN and the EU’s Joint Research Centre databases should be reinforced to support EU strategic actions.

• A framework for mutual recognition of qualifications should be developed with the aim of including non-academic qualifications and vocational training to help promote nuclear energy. Pilot exercises should apply a learning outcomes approach within European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training partnerships (ECVET)17.

Mobility of workforce is a central objective of the EU, to foster growth and jobs, which implies a European approach to education and training. But this can only lead to excellence if adequate research tools (infrastructures and programmes) are available. This means a clear plea to maintain a strong Euratom fission research programme.

17 http://www.ecvet-team.eu/

http://www.enen-assoc.org/

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.21812

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.21812

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/homepage.html

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/homepage.html

http://www.ecvet-team.eu/

28 29


An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 5

An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 6

Victor TESCHENDORFFPrivate consultant, Germany

The expert focuses on the Euratom regulatory framework and how to enhance nuclear safety and security. He highlights that the involvement of the public and civil society is crucial and that public acceptance of any nuclear installations relies on trust that they are built and operated safely.

William NUTTALLThe Open University, UK

The expert considers global threats and opportunities relating to energy policy generally and civil nuclear power in particular. These include climate change, urbanisation, globalisation, fresh water scarcity, security and weapons proliferation.

EU nuclear safety and security aspects

people, quality of life and the environment

Fostering harmonisation of the highest nuclear safety and security levels, solutions for nuclear waste and spent fuel management, emergency preparedness in accordance with Euratom Treaty obligations, ensuring verification of proliferation resistance

Possible contribution of nuclear fission to worldwide challenges in particular regarding people, quality of life and environment

Safety and security are key indicators for the quality of life. Protecting people and the environment against harmful effects of ionising radiation has been the aim from the beginning of nuclear activities. Nuclear energy is expected to be a main contributor to low-carbon electricity production in the future. To make this happen, safety and security must stay first priority, even more after the Fukushima disaster. The stress tests performed on the European nuclear power plants have identified tangible improvements to be implemented. Against this background the following recommendations are issued:

• The European Commission should support EU Member States in implementing the 2009 nuclear safety directive, the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the stress tests (research with emphasis on beyond-design basis accidents), and the 2011 radioactive waste directive (research with emphasis on final disposal of long-lived nuclear waste).

• Research at the EU level should strengthen the scientific and methodological basis for further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial codes and standards, and safety assessment practices, with the aim of meeting growing expectations of plausible and science-based regulatory decisions.

• EU citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against nuclear threats from malevolent actions. Advanced methods and high expertise to detect and prevent theft, unauthorised access and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and other radioactive substances should be developed at EU level, and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) should continue to provide strong scientific support in this field.

• The development of advanced reactor concepts and the deployment of demonstrators must consider a high level of safety and reduced long-lived nuclear waste as an integral part of design from the beginning; this should become a prerequisite for any EU support.

Maintaining and constantly improving nuclear safety is thus a societal challenge. Experience shows that the public awareness on fundamental questions and options has increased along the lines of the Aarhus Convention’s principles of 1998 (UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters). The JRC, as a centre of reference for scientific knowledge independent of national or specific interests, could be instrumental in raising public confidence in safety and security and the options available for further improvement.

Efforts to militate against the threats should be on the basis of a global burden sharing in which the greatest efforts should come from those countries with the greatest ability to bear the cost. Part of this effort will involve research and development (R&D), but, importantly, R&D is not simply a burden to carry, it is an opportunity representing an investment in the future. Nuclear fission research and training help build a better world and underpin EU prosperity.

A structured dialogue took place with a range of experts broadly from two communities. The first community comprises European social scientists with a range of specialisations, such as economists, political scientists and social psychologists. The second community comprises international nuclear experts from outside the EU, bringing personal observations from either the perspective of an outside country or an international organisation. In addition much insight was gained from the socio-economic reports submitted to the study.

A strong message is the need to recognise better the concerns of people in nuclear energy policy and research prioritisation. EU decision making in the nuclear fission area is perceived as being excessively technocratic. European citizens must be given a louder voice. Improvements in this regard will be helped by the inclusion of relevant social science research in the Euratom portfolio. Indeed there is a remarkably clear consensus among those consulted that the Euratom research portfolio should contain a stronger component of the social sciences.

EU nuclear technical capacity contributes to health and well-being (e.g. nuclear medicine and security). Importantly, Euratom research and training have never involved matters relating to nuclear weapons development, nor have they had links to other nuclear military technologies, e.g. submarine propulsion. Nuclear fission energy makes a great contribution to European prosperity. It directly supports 500,000 jobs and underpins 400,000 more. Europe has a strong competitive position in an industry with much prospect for global growth and that global growth will occur independently of Europe’s decisions. European nuclear power provides reliable baseload power for industry and householders independent of volatile fossil fuel prices. It seems highly probable that the electricity system of the future will require and value system flexibility. The Euratom programme should recognise that reality and increasingly take a whole-system approach.

The European publics are not simply anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear. Individual opinions are contingent on perceptions of risks and benefits and heavily influenced by considerations of trust. Trust-building would benefit from a broadening of the Euratom research portfolio and efforts to increase public participation in both nuclear fission research and energy policy decision making. It is time to end the EU nuclear technocracy.

30 31


An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 7

An

nEx

2 -

TopI

C 8

Olivia COMSACentre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects (CITON), Romania

The expert takes the approach of the guardian of the Euratom Treaty: Safety, security and non-proliferation are absolute priorities. The common objective is the protection of people, society, and environment from any harmful release of radioactive material.

Jozef MISAKUJV Řež, Czech Republic

The expert reaffirms that EU policies should be based on scientific facts in order to address the important issues and look for common solutions.

Safety and security culture beyond EU borders

Science based policies and safety and security legislation

To promote highest safety culture at international level in all sectors of nuclear fission and radiation protection

Better science base available to support EU policies and evolving EU legislation on nuclear safety, radiation protection and waste management and increased awareness of the people (decision makers, opinion leaders, citizens, etc.)

The EU external cooperation instruments promote cooperation in the field of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation based on common interests and mutual benefit. These are:

• the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC)18: the INSC provides financial support for measures improving technical support to regulatory bodies, nuclear operators and national technical safety organisations, including in nuclear safeguards, radioactive waste management and emergency preparedness as well as education and training;

• the Instrument for Stability19, which funds the EU’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Risk Mitigation Centres of Excellence. It covers areas of nuclear security and non-proliferation such as combating illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and export control of dual-use technologies; and

• the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance20, which provides support for strengthening nuclear safety and regulatory bodies capability in EU acceding countries.

18 Council Regulation (EURATOM) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, OJ L 81, 22.3.2007

19 Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability, OJ L 327, 24.11.2006.

20 Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, amended by Regulation (EU) N° 540/2010

These instruments do not finance research but facilitate networking with, inter alia, research and development communities in nuclear safety, safeguards, security, non-proliferation, radioactive waste management, radioprotection, export control, emergency preparedness and training. The scientific and technical expertise of the Joint Research Centre is instrumental in this context. Euratom, through international cooperation, also plays an important role in promoting nuclear safety and security culture beyond EU borders. The EU should therefore maintain its competence in innovative reactor designs, which would allow the EU to be able to assess safety, non-proliferation and security aspects of future installations outside the EU.

The expert highlights that, during the Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea on 26-27 March 2012, the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso confirmed the EU commitment to boost nuclear safety and security and to contribute under the lead of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the development and reinforcement of a solid and robust global approach for nuclear safety and security after Fukushima. He also stated: “Radiation knows no borders. We therefore need a true cross-border, global approach to nuclear safety. At the global level, we need to agree on the highest safety standards and strengthen emergency preparedness.”21 The European Council president Herman Van Rompuy added: “The EU is committed to achieving the highest level of nuclear security, with the understanding that ultimately, it is the responsibility of every state to maintain effective nuclear security.”

21 Speech by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, on “EU Action on Nuclear Safety” at the Nuclear Security Summit, South Korea, 26-27 March 2012

It is in the interest of all EU citizens to have the highest safety and security level which is best implemented by means of scientifically-based legislation, codes and standards harmonised across the EU and beyond. Further development is important also for non-electrical application of nuclear sciences, such as medical use, development of advanced materials and other industrial applications.

Support for EU policies should cover a broad spectrum of areas in order for the EU to stay at the front line of research and development (R&D) and not to lose existing competences. Among these areas, safety and security of EU installations is of utmost importance. A policy to optimise and to develop the future generation of nuclear infrastructures also needs to be continued.

Next to that, decommissioning, dismantling and the optimisation of solutions for different waste streams require adequate nuclear know-how, for all scenarios involving nuclear energy.

Education and training are important aspects that need top priority in order to compensate for the loss of the expertise in the nuclear domain.

In addition, a broad spectrum of medical R&D issues should be covered in order to utilise the synergy effect of nuclear research, e.g. the further development of radionuclides and dedicated biochemical components for nuclear medicine and improvements in techniques to optimise doses, and the development of methods to measure individual radiosensitivity of human beings in order to optimise the doses delivered in radiotherapy (in particular, for the ageing population).

Updating of legislation and harmonisation of practices should also be based on scientific facts. More effective ways of communicating with the public should be developed to increase trust and European legislation should provide sufficient basis for minimisation of risk. Dedicated research in support of the regulatory bodies should provide background for their independent oversight, harmonised across the Europe and beyond, and development of tools for independent safety assessment.

A sound mechanism should be established to collect scientific evidence at the national and international levels and deliver it to policymakers in a manner that allows its effective translation into policies and regulations. The Joint Research Centre could play a key role in providing impartial scientific advice and support to policymaking EU bodies.

As far as research funding is concerned, a combina-tion of various sources should be considered, includ-ing national and regional funding and funding from private industry. Euratom research has the poten-tial to play a key role in efficient use of scarce re-sources in terms of people, infrastructure and funds and in the past it helped maintain know-how, com-mon understanding of issues and harmonisation of solutions; it should therefore remain a key compo-nent in fission research funding.

32 33


An

nEx

3Topical socioeconomic reports Expert viewpoints

For the socioeconomic part, six questions were asked, pertaining to three main domains, namely, decision making, risk governance and Euratom research. A series of questions was put to a set of selected experts for their insight into socio-economic issues.

Decision making:

•Who are the end users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)? Should this research be driven principally by public concerns or by industrial needs? Who are then the best representatives (e.g. environmental organisations or “technological platforms”)?

•What is specific to EU nuclear fissionresearch? To what extent is it distinct from energy research in general? Should it be driven by EU legislation (e.g. similarly to the Bataille law which proposed a long-term research programme to support the French strategy22)?

Risk governance:

•What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large? What kind of EU research is needed to improve the risk governance? “Technical experts” aiming at technological risk minimisation, “social scientists” aiming at public fear minimisation, or a mix of both?

•How to deal with and how to communicate about uncertainties (e.g. climate change, genetically modified organisms, stem cells)? How about strategic questions in nuclear (e.g. is plutonium an asset or a liability)? What is the impact of low-dose radiation (linear no-threshold model versus hormesis)?

22 The 1991 Bataille Law on the management of high level long lived waste committed France to a 15-year research programme focussed on three ‘axes’: (1) partitioning and transmutation; (2) retrievable and non-retrievable geological repositories; (3) conditioning and long term storage – see 2005 political debate http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf

Euratom research:

•What could be improved to better “serve” the end users? What is the public perception of Euratom research programmes? More generally, how is the role of the technical (especially nuclear) experts perceived, in comparison with scientists in other areas of energy research?

•Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues? What is the impact of the Fukushima event on the public debate and on policymaking in the EU Member States? Is this impact going to be permanent? Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf


34 35


Who are the end users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)? Should this research be driven principally by public concerns or by industrial needs? Who are then the best representatives (e.g. environmental organisations or “technological platforms”)?

What is specific to EU nuclear fission research? To what extent is it distinct from energy research in general? Should it be driven by EU legislation (e.g. similarly to the “Bataille law” which proposed a long-term research programme to support the French strategy)?

The best representatives of the needs and concerns of nuclear research seem to be technology platforms, nuclear associations and nuclear clusters.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

Both industry and public are the end users of research and research can sometimes act as a mediator between them by providing neutral knowledge of the safety related technical, human, and organisational phenomena.

Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald

Energy research should start from social and environmental concerns and be organised subsequently around specific technology options, not vice versa. This also implies that comparative assessment research on those options should be an important part of the basic research.

Gaston Meskens

Social sciences research in the nuclear domain can be useful: to analyse decision makers’ assumptions about the public’s attitudes and perceptions; and to grasp better the actual attitudes and reasoning of citizens in their everyday lives.

Marc Poumadère

By opening the black boxes of nuclear research, environmental or labour organisations, for example, could contribute to the definition of research programmes. In particular, these actors must be involved in the production of and discussion of scenarios and choices concerning possible future energy pathways.

Francis Chateauraynaud, Soraya Boudia, Markku Lehtonen

The public has a series of ethical and value based concerns about nuclear issues. These concerns have significant implications for the policy framework, the political context and the structures for governance that are developed. Public concerns should not drive policy alone, but they should shape it. The work of Sciencewise (UK centre for public dialogue http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/) is worth looking at to understand what value the public can bring to policy processes.

Simon Burall

Ideally, technology platforms should represent the balance between industrial needs and other concerns, but evaluations of the European platforms and our recent study of the IGD-TP show that this is not the case. It should be considered that research funded by public money should in the first instance be committed to the interests of (European) society. This is contrary to a research agenda which is dominated by industry needs.

Anne Bergmans and InSOTEC partners

The end users must be both the technicians and the people in the bodies that are entrusted with formulating and giving force of law to the measures involved.

Evandro Agazzi

In short: if you want to have public trust, raise your own trustworthiness first. The trustworthiness of Euratom could be increased through transparency and accountability, while it could be easily destroyed by intransparency or the perception of biases.

Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald

The peculiarity of nuclear fission research that it is much more regulated due to safety and security concerns.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

The Finnish approach of public nuclear safety research (see for example http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/safir2014/), which is partly funded by a “tax”-like fee from nuclear power companies and thus partly steered by them, is worth considering in broader context as well.


The reference to the French situation (reminder: 1991 Bataille Law on the management of high level long lived waste) is interesting, because the case is an example of “reverse research”, where research is being identified as an important factor in knowledge creation but also, consensus-building. I do not know if the EU is in a position to implement such a model, nor if it falls under its remit.

Romain Garcier

From an economic point of view two main issues are now in debate: (1) How long-term investments may be taken into account, with a good discounting approach? (2) How the specific problem of irreversibility must be solved? The life duration of nuclear waste is very long and for economists this point is difficult to evaluate.

Jacques Percebois

An EU legislation to propose a long-term research strategy may be productive if it settles for an integrated research program on energy options and their interconnections, including natural and social sciences. It also needs to promote active outreach to stakeholders and NGOs in order to understand their viewpoints and to identify areas of common interest, value or concern.

Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke

Unlike for many other energy systems, includ-ing the externalities (waste, decommissioning, environmental impacts, etc.) has always been an integral part of nuclear research. The public should decide on the acceptability of energy technolo-gies once their implication has been understood. Excluding certain energy systems from research could expose us to dangerous choice limitation in the future.

Eberhard Falck

Key to the analysis of nuclear fission safety is the concept of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). PRA calculations are taken as significant indicators of plant weaknesses, and they underpin the concept of acceptable risks and tolerable consequences under fault conditions. However, PRA seems structurally limited in its ability to capture the outcomes and consequences of severe accidents. Research appraisal of this approach and its real-life application seems appropriate and timely.

Paul Dorfman

It is highly advisable to elaborate at least certain shared frames of reference with the aim of proceeding in the direction of an increased integration of the different regulations.

Evandro Agazzi

An

nEx

3

An

nEx

3

http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk

http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/safir2014


36 37


What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large? What kind of EU research is needed to improve the risk governance? “Technical experts” aiming at technological risk minimisation, “social scientists” aiming at public fear minimisation, or a mix of both?

How to deal with and how to communicate about uncertainties (e.g. climate change, genetically modified organisms, stem cells)? How about strategic questions in nuclear (e.g. is plutonium an asset or a liability)? What is the impact of low-dose radiation (linear no-threshold model versus hormesis)?

Research has shown that lay people’s acceptance of nuclear power mainly depends upon the amount of economic benefits (e.g. a secure energy supply) they perceive in this energy source. Perceived risks (e.g. of an accident) have a much smaller influence on acceptance of nuclear power than perceived benefits. Also, the perceived benefits of nuclear power for the climate have a much smaller impact on acceptance of nuclear power than the perceived economic benefits. Trust and feelings have indirect effects on the acceptance.

Vivianne Visschers

The promising existing frameworks, such as the International Risk Governance Council’s risk governance framework (http://www.irgc.org/), have the capacity to integrate different fields of knowledge, include important stakeholders and tailor risk communication to the specific needs of the target audiences. As this risk governance framework has been tested in practical regulation, it could be a starting point for improving risk governance in the EU energy sector.


What is needed are honest and independent assessments of all the various dimensions of nuclear activities (not analysed only from a risk perspective, but also from an opportunity and economic justification perspective).

Romain Garcier

Scientists, industry and regulators can only work on establishing trust in the respective technologies.

Eberhard Falck

European policy and the economic research must develop analyses in three fields: impacts of the nuclear choice on the health of the various populations affected; transparent and objective information about the fair cost of nuclear energy (private and social costs); and comparative analysis of risk management in the main industrial sectors: chemical, nuclear, oil and gas, etc.

Jacques Percebois

An acceptable nuclear risk is simply a risk that an informed democratic society justifies as acceptable. In its contribution to improving risk governance, social sciences research may support effective communication about science and technology with the public, but should primarily concentrate on methods to involve the public better in the research itself and make research transdisciplinary and holistic in a convincing way.

Gaston Meskens

An acceptable level of risk for the public can only be understood when methodologies of risk assessment are used that transcend technical forms of risk assessment (based on probabilistic estimates of harm). Public fears generally are not irrational; they simply depend on different ways of framing the nuclear issue. Institutional responses need to be social in nature rather than about mere fear reduction.

Phil Macnaghten

The quality and reliability of information in matters regarding great risks is the only remedy against irrational and emotional attitudes.

Evandro Agazzi

The public is able to take a very sophisticated view of risk, but not in isolation. It is as interested in how the benefits of a particular technology will be spread as it is in who will bear the risk.

Simon Burall

A good way to deal with this issue is to admit the existence of uncertainties, which cannot all be removed by improving technology only, and put more effort on anticipating and being prepared for unrecognised and emerging risks. This kind of foresight activities is one example where social scientists can make a big contribution.


Expected technical progress with new nuclear reactors is promising and must lead to an increasing research effort. With such a nuclear generation, plutonium is no longer a waste and becomes a fuel. The problem of uranium scarcity is solved and, moreover, through transmutation of some actinides, it is possible to reduce the long-run waste volume to be stored. But the public (and even some governments) does not have good knowledge of this potential technical progress and more information should be provided.

Jacques Percebois

All these questions have been subject to considerable controversies — some for several decades. The issues around the so-called uncertainties are not merely a matter of communication but of: the transparency of decision making concerning nuclear activities; confidence in nuclear institutions in light of their often poor track record in interacting with the public; and the different interpretations of the precautionary principle, adopted as a key principle for risk governance in Europe.


Structures will need to be set up to demonstrate to the public that its concerns are really being heard and are really being acted on. The deficit model of public engagement will not work for areas such as these.

Simon Burall

Rather than seeing risk governance as only a matter to do with communicating about uncertainties (i.e. sending a predetermined message to the passive public that needs to be convinced), efforts should aim at fostering dialogue and discussions and establishing fora in which risk, responsibilities, acceptable thresholds, etc. are co-defined. The case of genetically modified organisms has shown that if the voice of the public is not heard and listened to, controversies about science and technology can quickly emerge.

Anne Bergmans and InSOTEC partners

The worst approach would be to try to keep uncertainties hidden and to give the impression that we are able to master and eliminate them thanks to our models and simulations.

Evandro Agazzi

One important aspect concerns the over-reliance on modelling. Within the energy sector lack of transparency may be as big a problem as uncertainty: the lack of transparency about the ingredients fed into simulations and modelling of energy futures is a major problem that needs to be addressed to enable sound political decision making.


An

nEx

3

An

nEx

3

http://www.irgc.org

38 39


What could be improved to better “serve” the end users? What is the public perception of Euratom research programmes? More generally, how is the role of the technical (especially nuclear) experts perceived, in comparison with scientists in other areas of energy research?

Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues? What is the impact of the Fukushima event on the public debate and on policymaking in the EU Member States? Is this impact going to be permanent? Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

The key issues could be better education about nuclear energy and more focused financial support for research favoured by the industry and technology platforms.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

Euratom research programmes seem to be unknown to the public. One reason might be that they might have been very specific and technologically oriented with no human and societal content — and perhaps regarded by researchers as superior to laymen’s concerns, which holds also for many technological experts.


Nuclear research is still seen as useful and important but most people make no distinction between national and European research programmes. They are more concerned about the direction of nuclear research. Is it more inclined to promote nuclear power or to control it? Is it more directed towards safety and security research or to making nuclear power more profitable and efficient?


In order to maintain public, policy and academic trust in the research process, it is imperative that “limitations” should be given equal weight to the “benefits” of nuclear fission within defining priorities for future Euratom fission research and training.

Paul Dorfman

End users could feel better served if they got involved, directly or indirectly. Action-research could be developed to have scientists share work on the field with the local population whenever possible. But a large part of nuclear research remains strictly technical and it is difficult to imagine how to involve the public.

Marc Poumadère

In an era of responsible science and innovation — now firmly embedded in European Commission funding programmes — nuclear science has to prove that it is operating responsibly. This means that it is: anticipative (with the capacity to consider possible intended and unintended broad impacts); inclusive (committed to deliberate with users and wider publics); reflective (able to reflect upon embedded commitments and assumptions); and responsive (answerable to outside questions and flexible enough to adjust). These are general prescriptions but especially pertinent to the case of nuclear.

Phil Macnaghten

Concerning better service to the public, we think that Euratom could be a pioneer in public engagement in energy if — a big if! — conceived rightly. What needs to be ensured in particular is that public engagement is not misunderstood as acceptance machinery. Instead of requiring blind trust or acquiescence by the public, the goal should rather be to create platforms of public engagement and open discourse where mutual criticism and open debate about different energy futures are supported.


Most of the EU-sponsored social science research that I am aware of is in policy analysis. It is generally very descriptive, stays at the country scale and shies away from engaging with contentious issues. Historically, there has always been an ambiguity about Euratom’s role in European nuclear policy: can an institution that is essentially a promoter of nuclear energy answer public concerns about nuclear energy?

Romain Garcier

Euratom should address sociopolitical aspects – although not necessarily in every research round. Sociopolitical topics must be linked closely to EU decision making.

Eugenijus Ušpuras

The public does not need unambiguous answers to what would be the right energy policy for Europe and what would be the eventual role of nuclear in this. It will trust the research if it senses it to be open, transparent, transdisciplinary and inclusive and driven by a sense for environmental care and social justice with respect to energy policy.

Gaston Meskens

The impact of Fukushima is a demonstration that pure technological advance is not very effective if it is not accompanied by an adequate maturation of moral and social responsibility.

Evandro Agazzi

Sociopolitical issues could be further studied but not treated separately from other Euratom research issues. Severe accident research could include the social impact (even upon populations not exposed to accidental radiation) in the definition of the severity of an accident; what makes a nuclear accident severe is a result of both technical and social characteristics.

Marc Poumadère

We have been focusing too much on defensive messages for nuclear energy. We need to convey to the public all the risks and benefits associated with all energy conversion. This is effectively hampered by the various lobby and partisan groups. There also needs to be a change in the training and education of students to improve their consciousness of the societal context in which they will operate and awareness that they will be societally accountable.

Eberhard Falck

Euratom should as a matter of urgency undertake work on sociopolitical issues across Europe. Such work needs to involve an appropriate balance of disciplines and to be set within an appropriate sociopolitical framing.

Phil Macnaghten

Euratom should certainly focus more on sociopolitical issues, but in addition to understand the collective processes at stake in different countries, a long-run permanent observatory of debates and mobilisations, economical strategies and policymaking would be highly beneficial.


We want to emphasise the necessity to support inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, to include various stakeholders and multiple perspectives and to explore the pros and cons, the specificities and limits of different alternative energy scenarios. It needs to be clarified whether Euratom merely aims at acceptance and promotion of nuclear energy or whether the goal is to support an open and inclusive debate about energy futures. We definitely favour and would support only the latter.


An

nEx

3

An

nEx

3

40 41


An

nEx

4A

nn

Ex 4

The European Commission’s Advisory Group on Energy (AGE) remains of the opinion that nuclear energy has a significant role to play in realisation of the objectives in the SET-Plan, and that the Euratom fission research programme in Horizon 2020 should maintain its focus on safety, fuel cycle and waste management in order to create a broader basis for public debate and acceptance of new nuclear plants and agreement on waste management strategies. The lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the stress tests must be taken into account. During FP7 Euratom has developed important initiatives that strengthen the collaboration across Europe. This has led to the technical fora for sustainable nuclear technology (SNETP) and low-dose radiation protection (Melodi) and the industrial initiative for sustainable nuclear power (ESNII) with generation IV reactor technology as the long-term goal.

Euratom research investments in fission have been modest and strategy has been mostly left to EU members coordinated by FP actions with limited scope. The Horizon 2020 Euratom programme should strive to create a broader basis for public debate and acceptance of new nuclear plants and agreement on waste management. Support should be devoted to enhancing coordination at the European level:

• Continued support to public education on nuclear energy but also coordination of, and sharing experience from, safety research and research on waste processing, packaging and disposal;

• Sharing and spreading of research results such as those related to lifetime extension, so that benefits are accessible throughout Europe; and

• Contribution to research infrastructures such as research reactors, irradiation facilities coordinated with the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) including seed money for start-up research (hybrid reactors, new applications of nuclear fission, etc.).

The roadmap on nuclear materials is a well-suited platform to harvest synergies between the fission and fusion programmes and other energy technology programmes. The common use of the ESFRI materials research infrastructures could catalyse the dialogue around fundamental research issues like quantum chemistry and nanotechnology and materials for energy applications such as solar cells and batteries as well as fission and fusion energy.

AGE has expressed the concern that the small effort will, in the long run, preclude Euratom from participating in work on high-temperature or fast-neutron reactors and hence from influencing the development of standards for these technologies, which are being actively developed elsewhere (e.g. Russia, China, Japan and India).

AGE finds that the Commission should seek to increase the funding for fission research and to alter the balance of the programme to reflect the SET-Plan with respect to advanced reactors, to develop generation IV reactors with a near-term focus on the qualification of sodium-cooled reactor technology.

AGE has often expressed the opinion that industry should also increase its research effort, particularly regarding lifetime extension of generation II reactors, but also that needed for the new generation III projects. On generation IV, although this can be seen as riskier and longer term, industry should at least take into account the competitive edge it could provide, especially in view of active international competition.

Dismantling and clearing of nuclear sites is an area which could become a big industrial activity with European added value stemming from research and development in processes, procedures and standards.

Contribution of the Advisory Group on Energy(extract of May 2012 report)

42 43


The Euratom treaty (1957) gives the responsibility to the European Commission to “facilitate” nuclear research in the Member States, to complement it by carrying out a research and training programme, and to establish the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) (to carry out research and ensure a uniform terminology and a standard system of measurement). It is then reminded that “the Commission shall direct research towards sectors which are insufficiently explored”.

During FP7, the Euratom programme in the fission domain has been geared towards:

• Enhanced safety of design and operation of ex-isting and future reactors, including fuel safety;

• Lifting uncertainty about health risks after low radiation doses;

• Safe, harmonised management of radioactive waste;

• Development of reference data, measurements and materials;

• Enhanced nuclear safeguards and security (only the JRC);

• Ensuring development, maintenance and trans-fer of nuclear competences;

• Coordinating and integrating research at EU level; contribution to Gen IV International Forum; and

• Support to policy development.

As far as indirect actions are concerned, EUR 405 million would have been spent during the period 2007–12, with an average of EUR 57 million per year, focusing on “safety first”. As far as direct actions are concerned, EUR 747 million would have been spent during the period 2007–12, with an average of EUR 107 million per year, being distributed approximately equally among nuclear fuel and reactor safety, waste management and nuclear safeguards and security.

It is estimated that the Euratom funding corresponds to 9% of the public and private research and development spending in the EU in this field, with 47% spent by public bodies within the different Member States and 44% funded by industry (see graph below at start of FP7). When considering only the research on nuclear reactor technologies, the Euratom contribution is only 1%, highlighting therefore the strong focus of the European actions in the other fields, i.e. policy support, safety, radio-protection, waste management as well as in education and training or research infrastructure domains.

The Horizon 2020 proposal continues highlighting two types of activities: indirect and direct.

a) Indirect actions: They should continue focusing on the support to safe operation of nuclear systems in use in the Union or, to the extent necessary, to maintain broad nuclear safety expertise in the Union for those reactor types which may be used in the future. They should also contribute to the development of solutions for the safe and cost-efficient management of nuclear waste to underpin development of a common European view and standards. In addition they should foster radiation protection, in particular for the risks from low doses (from industrial, medical or environmental exposure), and emergency management in relation to accidents involving radiation, to provide a pan-European scientific and technological basis for a robust, equitable and socially acceptable system of protection.

An

nEx

5 Nuclear fission energy research in Fp7 and beyond

b) JRC direct actions: The nuclear activities of the JRC should aim to support EU directives and Council conclusions giving priority to the highest standards for nuclear safety and security in the EU and internationally. The JRC should notably mobilise the necessary capacity and expertise to contribute to the research in the area of nuclear installations and the peaceful use of nuclear energy and other non-fission applications, to support on a scientific basis relevant EU legislation and, if necessary, to react according to its mission and competence to nuclear incidents and accidents. To this aim, the JRC should carry out research and assessments and provide references and standards.

c) Support to training and education is a clear objective within the Euratom treaty. This should be pursued, both through direct and indirect actions.

d) Likewise, it is the duty of Euratom research programme to ensure availability and use of research infrastructures of pan-European relevance.

Framework ProgrammeTotal EU funding

(EUR billion)Total Euratom funding

(EUR billion)

Euratom funding (EUR million) for fission (indirect actions) fusion (indirect actions) JRC (direct actions)

FP4 (1994–1998) 11.88 1.23170 794 271

FP5 (1998–2002) 13.70 1.26191 788 281

FP6 (2002–2006) 17.88 1.35209 824 319

FP7 (2007–2013) 50.52

2007–2011= 1.45287

654* 514

2012–2013= 0,55118

197* 233

Horizon 2020 (Commission proposal)

86 1.79355

710* 724

Overview of Euratom Framework Programme funding(includes operational credits + Commission’s administrative costs)

An

nEx

5

MSs’ funding

0

100

200

300

400

500

50

150

250

350

450

CZ

€ millions

Nuclear reactortechnology

Total nuclearfission

FI

45%

1%

54%

47%

9%

ES SE UK NL BE DE IT FR

1 1 2

1: 2007 data (gap filled)2: Annual average over the period 2002-2007

1 2 1 21 12

12

2

1 2 11

2

Other nuclear fission (i.e. nuclear supporting technology)

Nuclear fission (mainly reactorresearch and fuel cycle, thus withoutsafety, waste, environment)

Public EU (EURATOM budget; annual average)Public R&D spending of EU MS (2007)Corporate R&D investment (2007)

44%

ca.€ 1250million

ca.€ 458million

* excludes ITER construction

44 45


Contribution of nuclear energy towards the 2050 Energy Roadmap

Example of European cooperation in nuclear fission:

The European Commission issued its 2050 Energy Roadmap at the end of 2011. It was then discussed at Council level and led to Presidency conclusions in 2012. The objective of the roadmap is not to select “the” way forward, but to provide elements of reflection on how to reach at least 80% decarbonisation at the middle of the century, while maintaining growth and competitiveness. Of the five decarbonisation scenarios of the roadmap, three show an important contribution of nuclear energy for electricity production, i.e. between 14% and 20%.

• Noting that electricity demand is expected to rise by about 40% between today and 2050 (from 3,300TWh/year today to an average figure of the order of 4,800TWh/year in 2050), a 20% nuclear generation would mean a nuclear capacity in 2050 of 140GWe — compared to 120GWe today (in operation in 14 EU countries).

• From these 120GWe in operation today, around 20GWe are planned to be phased out (in Germany and Belgium) between now and 2025. But the 12 other countries have given signals that they want to keep nuclear in their energy mix on the longer term. Two others intend to start relying on nuclear energy. One might therefore expect that around 100 existing nuclear units with an average age of 30 years today will undergo lifetime extension and safety upgrades (including post-Fukushima actions) to allow safe long-term operation of these units.

Considering the above evaluation of needs, one can derive a vision for the development of nuclear energy in the EU:

• First, an extensive lifetime extension and safety upgrade programme of existing plants will take place over a period of about 20 years (2015–35). The estimated investment into the economy at wide EU level is of the order of EUR 4.5 billion/year and add 50,000 jobs to the 900,000 already associated with the nuclear sector in Europe today; and

• In a second phase, when the existing generation II plants reach their end of life, they will be replaced by new generation III plants — to match the needed 140GWe given above. This large new-build programme would take place over 20 years (2020–40). It would inject EUR 25 billion/year into the EU economy and add 250,000 jobs, over and above the 900,000 mentioned above.

Noting in addition that nuclear developments are also proceeding fast in other parts of the world (notably China, India, Russia, South-East Asia, the Arab world) it is important for the EU to maintain a strong research and development effort in support of the safe operation of existing plants, the construction of new plants, and the building of prototypes of the new generation of reactors, able to make a more efficient use of the resources and to reduce the load of nuclear waste.

What is at stake is the leadership position of the EU, which is a prerequisite to champion the European safety credentials.

Learning from the past and from each other is a common process used within industries where a very high reliability is requested. Today nearly 440 nuclear reactors produce electricity around the world. Operating experience from these reactors is a valuable source of information which allows operators to improve continually both their knowledge and the safety of nuclear installations. This collective knowledge currently represents approximately 14,000 cumulated reactor-years of practical experience worldwide.

However an effective operating experience (OE) feedback implies access to a wide range of information as well as resources and expertise to process this information. Therefore, the need for enhanced coordination and cooperation on operational experience feedback between the national nuclear safety authorities of the EU was highlighted. Consequently, a regional initiative has been set up in support of the EU’s national nuclear safety authorities and technical support organisations (TSOs), international organisations and the broader nuclear community, to enhance nuclear safety through improvement in the use of lessons learned from operational experience.

This initiative, called “the EU Clearinghouse”, is organised as a network operated by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) from a centralised office located at the Institute for Energy and Transport (in Petten in the Netherlands). The Clearinghouse is comprised of dedicated staff from JRC and Member States that have joined the organisation. Membership is mainly composed of nuclear safety regulatory authorities and their TSOs within the EU. The setting up of this initiative at European Community level has allowed the leveraging of resources (experts, data), better identification of the Community’s needs for technical work and further enhanced coordination.

The work programme is decided by the participating safety authorities and is executed by the centralised office with the support of the safety authorities and TSOs when necessary. In cooperation with the safety authorities participating in the EU Clearinghouse, areas where a community approach could lead to significant added value are identified and prioritised. Currently, the main activities are:

• Trend analysis of several OE databases in order to identify the areas on which the efforts should be focused in the future;

• Preparation of topical studies providing in-depth assessment of event families, identifying lessons learned and concrete recommendations;

• Quarterly report on recent events in nuclear power plants;

• Contribution to improve the quality of event reports submitted by the participating countries; and

• Setting up of a common database for sharing of OE.

After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on 11 March 2011, a European approach for a comprehensive safety and risk assessment of nuclear facilities was broadly supported (stress tests).

An

nEx

7

An

nEx

6


The European Clearinghouse on operating experience for nuclear power plants

46 47


GLoSSARyAcronyms

CBA Cost-benefit analysis

CCS Carbon capture and storage

E&T Education and training

ECTS European Credit Transfer and accumulation System

ECVET European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training

EFTS Euratom Fission Training Schemes

EHEA European Higher Education Area

EMINE European masters in nuclear energy

EQF European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning

ERA European Research Area

ETP European technological platforms

IfS Instrument for Stability

INSC Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation

LCA Life-cycle analysis

MS Member States

NPP Nuclear power plant

P2P Public-public partnerships

PLEX Plant lifetime extension

PPP Public-private partnerships

RDDD Research, development, demonstration and deployment

SoES Security of energy supply

SoS Security of supply

SRA Strategic Research Agenda

TP Technology platform

TSO Technical safety organisation

European and international organisations/groups/associations

AGE Advisory Group on Energy

BEPA Bureau of European Policy Advisers

EAC European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture

EC European Commission

EERA European Energy Research Alliance

EESC European Economic and Social Committee

EGE European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

EHRO-N European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector

EIRMA European Industrial Research Management Association

An

nEx

8

48 49


European and international organisations/groups/associations

EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology

ENEF European Nuclear Energy Forum

ENEN European Nuclear Education Network

ENER European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy

ENS European Nuclear Society

ENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group

ENSTTI European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute

ERC European Research Council

ERDO European Repository Development Organisation

ESARDA European Safeguards Research and Development Association

ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures

ESNII European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative

Foratom European Atomic Forum

GIF Generation IV International Forum

HERCA Heads of European Radiological protection Competent Authorities Association

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IEA International Energy Agency

IET Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC)

IGD-TP Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform – Technology Platform

INSAG International Nuclear Safety Group (IAEA)

INSC International Nuclear Societies Council

ITU Institute for Transuranium Elements (JRC)

JRC European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre

KIC Knowledge and Innovation Community

KIC InnoEnergy Energy Knowledge and Innovation Community

Melodi Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative

NCII Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency

NSSG G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group

Nugenia NUclear GENeration II and III association

RTD European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

SET-Plan European Strategic Energy Technology Plan

SNETP Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

STC Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WANO World Association of Nuclear Operators

WENRA Western European Nuclear Regulators Association

WNU World Nuclear University

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Energy Roadmap 2050” [COM(2011)885 final, 15.12.2012]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: a strategic approach” [COM(2012)497 final, 14.9.2012]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Strategic Communication on Renewable Energy” [COM(2012)271 final, 6.6.2012]

European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union’s instruments for external action [COM(2011)842 final, 7.12.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation [COM(2011)808 final, 30.11.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “EU Climate 2050 Roadmap” [COM(2011)112 final, 8.3.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy” [COM(2011)21, 26.1.2011]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, Innovation Union” [COM(2010)546 final, 6.10.2010]

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “Communication on nuclear non-proliferation” [COM(2009)143 final, 26.3.2009]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A European strategic energy technology plan (SET-Plan) – Towards a Low-Carbon Future” [COM(2007)723 final, 22.11.2007]

Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, “An energy policy for Europe” [COM(2007)1 final, 10.1.2007]

Official Journal of the European Communities, 98/C 251/06, 1998

European Parliament, Opinion of the Committee on Budgets for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council regulation on establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, (COM(2011)841 – C7-0014/2012 – 2011/0414(CNS))

European Council, Council directive establishing a community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste [2011/70/Euratom], 19.07.2011

European Council, Security Strategy for the European Union: “Towards a European Security Model”, Brussels, 23.02.2010

European Council, Council directive establishing a community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations [2009/71/Euratom], 25.06.2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on energy education: TEN/474 – CESE 1054/2012 IT/CB/CAT/PM/HAT/gh, 2012

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Horizon 2020, INT/614-615-616-631, 28.03.2012

ENSREG, “Compilation of recommendations and suggestions; peer review of stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 26.07.2012

ENSREG, “Action Plan: Follow-up of the peer review of the stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 25.07.2012

REFEREnCES

An

nEx

9

An

nEx

8

50 51


ENSREG, Peer review report, “Stress Test Peer Review Board, Stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”, 25.04.2012

Technology Roadmap of the SET-Plan [CEU, SEC(2009) 1295]

SNETP, Strategic Research Agenda, May 2009

SNETP, Concept paper, October 2010

SNETP, Deployment strategy 2010

SNETP position paper, “Implications of the Fukushima accident for nuclear research and technology development in Europe”, summary paper, December 2011

SNETP task group on the lessons learnt after the Fukushima accident, “Identification of Research Areas in Response to the Fukushima Accident”, October 2012

SNETP position paper, “EU Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014–20: Aligning nuclear fission R&D budgets to reach SET-Plan targets”, 2012

SNETP, “A vision report”, EUR 22842, 2007

ESNII concept paper, October 2010

IGD-TP, Vision Report, 2009

IGD-TP, Strategic Research Agenda, 2011

IGD-TP, Deployment Plan 2011-2016, 2012

MELODI, Strategic Research Agenda 2012, 3rd draft, 18.08.2012

Cour des Comptes, “Les coûts de la filière électronucléaire”, Rapport public thématique, 31.01.2012

IHS CERA “Sound Energy Policy for Europe”; European Policy Dialogue, 2011

ENEF SWOT Parts 1 & 2, Strengths & Weaknesses; Opportunities & Threats, May 2010 & May 2012

Eurelectric, “Power Choices, Pathways to Carbon-Neutral Electricity in Europe by 2050”, Full Report, June 2010

IAEA report, “Status and trends in nuclear education”, ISBN 978-92-0-109010-2, 2011

IEA-OECD, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, Pathways to a Clean Energy System”, Paris, 2012

NEA-OECD, “The Interaction of Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-Carbon Electricity Systems”, 30.11.2012

NEA-OECD report, “Nuclear education and training from concern to capability”, 2012

IEA/NEA-OECD, “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity; 2010 Edition”, Paris, 2010

NEA-OECD, “Technical and economic aspects of load following with nuclear power plants”, Paris, 2011

NEA-OECD, “Nuclear Power and Climate Change”, 1998

UK House of Commons, “Financing EU external action: the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation”, European Scrutiny Committee, 25.1.2012

G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group Summit Report, May 2012

D.M. Judkiewicz, “Policies & Instruments for Research and Innovation: Necessary Synergies”, Warsaw European Industrial Research Management Association, 2011

Position paper of technical safety organisations, “Research needs in nuclear safety for Gen II and Gen III nuclear power plants”, Etson/2011-001, October 2011

J. Delbeke, “EU climate change policy”, European Energy Market Conference 2009, Leuven, Belgium, 28.05.2009

W. D’haeseleer, “Security of Supply — Appropriate Concepts & Definitions and the Role of Nuclear Energy”, Contribution to the NEA-OECD-study “The Security of Energy Supply and the Contribution of Nuclear Energy”, Working Paper, 13.12.2010

H. Larsen & L. Soenderberg Petersen, Eds, “The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future”, Risoe Energy Report 8, Risoe/DTU, Roskilde DK, 2009

L. Piekkari (TVO), 2009, “Workshop on Economics and Financing of Nuclear Power”, IAEA Vienna, 11.02.2009 (and abbreviated version at ENEF, 10.03.2008)

An

nEx

9

M. Liski (Helsinki School of Economics), “Nuclear power investments in Finland - a model for others to copy?”, Workshop Market Design, Stockholm, 2007

A. Heyes, “An assessment of the nuclear security centres of excellence”, The Stanley Foundation, May 2012

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “New trends in nuclear safety and nuclear security”, Beijing, April 2012

European Commission, “Long-term responses to global security threats, Contributing to security capacity building in third countries through the Instrument for Stability”, Luxembourg, 2011

I. Khripunov, “Nuclear and Radiological Security Culture: A Post-Seoul Summit Agenda”, Center of International trade and security, University of Georgia, 2012

Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Reducing Nuclear risks in Europe, A framework for action”, Washington, 2011

The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), Fact Sheet, 2012

Report of high-level and expert group on European low-dose risk research, 2009

EHRO-N report, “Putting into perspective the supply of and demand for nuclear experts by 2020 within the EU-27 nuclear Energy sector: JRC Scientific and policy report”, EUR 25291 EN, 2012

Eurostat, Key Figures on Europe 2012, Figure 2.1, p. 32. Data for 2010

V.H.M. Visschers and M Siegrist, Risk Analysis, “How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x, 4.07.2012

B. Fischhoff, S. Watson and C. Hope, “Defining Risk”, Policy Sciences, 17, p123-139, 1984 (Reprinted in Glickman T S and Gough M (eds), Readings in Risk, Resources for the Future, 1990)

W.J. Nuttall, “Nuclear Renaissance Requires Nuclear Enlightenment”, Chapter 16 of “Nuclear or Not?” Editor D. Elliot, Palgrave, 2007

UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee 3rd Report, HL 38, ‘Science and Society’, 14.03.2000

J. Chilvers at UEA, Norwich, The Future of Science Governance , April 2011

V.H.M. Visschers, C. Keller, and M. Siegrist, Energy Policy, 39, pp. 3621-3629. Describes a telephone interview study in Switzerland achieving 967 useful responses, 2011

W.J. Nuttall and P. Storey, EPRG Working Paper 1129, “Technology and Policy Issues Relating to Future Developments in Research and Radioisotope Production Reactors”, 2011

NTI Global Security Newswire, “Japan Devises HEU-Free Medical Isotope Production Method”, 28.11.2012

L. Pouret, N. Buttery and W.J. Nuttall, “Is Nuclear Power Inflexible?”, Nuclear Future, 5, (6) pp. 333-341 and pp. 343-344, 2009

MIT Energy Initiative Report, “Managing Large-Scale Penetration of Intermittent Renewables”, based on a 20.04.2011 symposium

K. Anderson and A. Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 366 no. 1882 3863-3882 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0138, 13.11.2008

A. Meyer, Viewpoint, “The fair choice for climate change”, BBCNews, 18.05.2006

UK Parliamentary News, “Government too complacent about Nuclear Energy Future”, say Lords, 22.11.2011

Kessides IN, Energy Policy 48 (2012) 185–208, 2012

R. Grove-White et al., The Political Quarterly, Vol. 77, No 2, pp. 238-246, April-June 2006

A.A. Moghissi, The need for regulatory science transparency at EPA, Institute of Regulatory Science, 30.11.2011

JRC, “Impact analysis of the JRC and its direct actions under the EU research framework programmes”, final report, August 2011

EU Cohesion Policy 2014–20: legislative proposals (regional policy – through partnership contracts agreed between the Commission and the Member States), 2011

An

nEx

9

10.1098/rsta

52 53


European Commission, Energy, Renewable Energy, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency Directive , http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/eed_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm

European Commission, Energy, Technology & Innovation, SET-Plan, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm

European Commission, Climate Action, Policies, Climate and energy package, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

European Commission, Climate Action, Policies, The EU Emissions Trading System, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

European Commission, Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Regional Policy, Future cohesion policy , http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Public Opinion , http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

European Commission, Financial Programming and Budget, Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm

European Commission, Research & Innovation, Research infrastructures, European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri

European Commission, Seventh Euratom framework programme, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom/home_en.html

European Commission, Europe 2020 strategy, http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

European Commission, Resource efficient Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, Agenda for new skills and jobs, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=958&langId=en

Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI), http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/wirkungen/MELODI.html

MELODI, DoReMi, http://melodi-online.eu/doremi.html

World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

EERA, Joint programme on Materials for Nuclear, http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=25

ENEN, Euratom Fission Training Schemes (EFTS - FP7), http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/training/for-nuclear-community/efts-fp7.html

CIA World Fact Book, 2011 estimate determined via Purchasing Power Parity, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Sciencewise ERC, http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/background

Imaginis, the Woman’s Health Resource, http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history-of-nuclear-medicine

Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities (GMF), http://www.gmfeurope.org

An

nEx

9

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/eed_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm




http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm


http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm


http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri



http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom/home_en.html


http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/resource

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=958&langId=en

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=958&langId=en

http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/wirkungen/MELODI.html


http://melodi-online.eu/doremi.html


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html


http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=25

http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/training/for-nuclear-community/efts-fp7.html


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html



http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/background


http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history

http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history

http://www.gmfeurope.org

54 55


All contributors participated in a personal capacity. Affiliations are provided solely to assist with identification. More information is available on the websites: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission and http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

Experts who worked on the scientific-technological-political issues

Name Organisation Country

John Wood Association of Commonwealth Universities UK

William D’haeseleer Faculty of engineering science, University of Leuven (KU Leuven) Belgium

María Teresa Domínguez Bautista Empresarios Agrupados Spain

Gustaf Löwenhielm Private consultant, CGL Consulting (retired) Sweden

Francois Weiss Grenoble Institute of Technology and KIC InnoEnergy France

Victor Teschendorff Private consultant (retired) Germany

William Nuttall The Open University UK

Olivia Comsa Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects (CITON) Romania

Jozef Misak UJV Řež Czech Republic

Experts who contributed to the socioeconomic reports


Evandro Agazzi International Academy of Philosophy of Science Belgium/France

Anne Bergmans Faculty of political and social sciences, University of Antwerp Belgium

Soraya Boudia Laboratoire Techniques Territoire et Sociétés, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée France

Simon Burall Involve and Democratic Audit UK

Francis Chateauraynaud Groupe for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales France

Paul Dorfman Warwick Business School UK

Eberhard Falck Université de Versailles St. Quentin-en-Yvelines France

Romain Garcier Department of social sciences, Ecole normale supérieure, University of Lyon France

Armin Grunwald Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany

Markku Lehtonen Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex and Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée UK/France

Phil Macnaghten Department of geography, Durham University UK

Gaston Meskens Nuclear science and technology studies unit, SCK•CEN Belgium

Pia Oedewald VTT Technical Research Centre Finland

Jacques Percebois Centre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de l’Energie, Université de Montpellier I France

An

nEx

10

An

nEx

10 ConTRIBUToRS Name Organisation Country

Marc Poumadère Institut Symlog France

Ortwin RennInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research

Germany

Piet SellkeInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research

Germany

Judith Simon Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany

Heli Talja VTT Technical Research Centre Finland

Eugenijus Ušpuras Lithuanian Energy Institute Lithuania

Vivianne Visschers Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich Switzerland

Experts consulted for the individual reports


Roberto Adinolfi Ansaldo Nucleare Italy

Hamid Aït Abderrahim SCK–CEN and EUA-EPUE Belgium

Julio Francisco Astudillo Pastor ENRESA Spain

Krasimir Avdjiev Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (BNRA) Bulgaria

Peter Baeten SCK–CEN and ESNII (SNETP) Belgium

Bertrand Barré Areva and Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) France

Ronnie Belmans Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven) Belgium

Janis Berzins University of Latvia Latvia

Helmuth Boeck Atominstitut der Österreichischen Universitäten Austria

Alexandre Bredimas LGI Consulting and SNETP France

Milan Brumovski UJV Řež, Tacis and INSC Czech Republic

Giovanni Bruna Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Noël Camarcat European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) France

Ron Cameron NEA France

Frank Carré CEA France

María Luisa Castaño Marín

Ministerio de Economía, Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Spain

Vincent Chauvet LGI Consulting France

Alain Chevalier Amec UK

Cantemir Ciurea Comisia Nationala pentru Controlul Activitatilor Nucleare (CNCAN) Romania

Hans Codée Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval (COVRA) Netherlands

Antonio Colino Plataforma Tecnológica de Energía Nuclear de Fisión (CEIDEN) Spain

José Condé Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) Spain



56 57



Paolo Contri Enel Italy

Dave Corbett European Commission, Nuclear Safety Programme for Ukraine, Joint Support Office Ukraine

Sander de Groot NRG Netherlands

Jacques Delay IGD-TP and ANDRA France

Odile Deruelle Institut supérieur des techniques de la performance (ISTP) France

Céline Duc Institut supérieur des techniques de la performance (ISTP) France

Mamdouh El-Shanawany Imperial College London UK

Monica Ferraris Politecnico di Torino Italy

Hans Forsström Formerly IAEA Sweden

Bernard Fourest NucSafeConsulting (NSC) France

János Gadó Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Atomic Energy Research Insitute (AEKI-KFKI) Hungary

Javier García Serrano Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) Spain

Marco Gasparini Formerly IAEA Austria

Luc Geraets GDF Suez France

Enrique González CIEMAT Spain

Pilar González Gotor Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI) Spain

Antonio González Jiménez Foro de la Industria Nuclear Española Spain

Martha Heitzmann Areva France

Helmut Hirsch Wissenschaftlicher Konsulent Germany

Chris Hope University of Cambridge UK

Peter Hughes IAEA Vienna

Göran Hultqvist Forsmarks Kraftgrupp, Vattenfall Sweden

Jan Husarcek Nuclear Regulatory Authority Slovakia

Sue Ion Scientific and Technical Committee Euratom (STC) UK

Richard Ivens European Atomic Forum (Foratom) UK

Tomasz Jackowski National Centre for Nuclear Research Poland

Philippe Jamet Authorité de Sureté Nationale (ASN) France

Emilia Janisz European Nuclear Society (ENS) Belgium

Ralf Kaiser IAEA International organisation

Yves Kaluzny CEA and SNETP France

Mujid Kazimi Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) USA

Ioannis Kessides World Bank International organisation

Joachim Knebel Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Germany

Latchesar Kostov Nuclear Regulatory Agency Bulgaria


Zdenek Kriz Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Wolfgang Kröger Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Switzerland

Petr Krs State Office for Nuclear Safety Czech Republic

Irina Kuzmina IAEA Austria

Mats Ladeborn European Atomic Forum (Foratom) Belgium

Philippe Lalieux IGD-TP and NIROND Belgium

Matthias Lauber Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk (RWE) Germany

Peter Liska VUJE and SNETP Slovakia

Carlo Lombardi Politechnic of Milan Italy

Niek Lopes Cardozo Technische Universiteit Eindhoven and Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)-Fusion Netherlands

Cayetano López Martínez CIEMAT Spain

John Loughhead UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) UK

Didier Louvat Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Antonio Madonna Iter Consult Italy

Gaudenzio Mariotti Enel Italy

Aníbal Martín Consultant Spain

Carmen Martínez Ten Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) Spain

Ashot Martirosyan Armenian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (ANRA) Armenia

Hans Menzel CERN and Melodi Switzerland

Sergey Mikheykin FNK Group of Companies Russian Federation

Michael Modro Formerly IAEA Austria

Alan Moghissi Institute for Regulatory Science USA

Steve Napier National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) and Nugenia UK

Andrea Nicic IAEA Austria

Marjatta Palmu IGD-TP and Posiva Finland

Guy Parker European Atomic Forum (Foratom) Belgium

Milan Patrik Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Frantisek Pazdera Ministry of Trade and Industry Czech Republic

Fidel Pérez Montes Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro de Energía (IDAE) Spain

Alessandro Petruzzi University of Pisa Italy

Nick Pidgeon Cardiff University UK

Edward Quinn Technology Resources USA

David Reiner University of Cambridge UK

Jacques Repussard Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Rauno Rintamaa NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia) Finland

An

nEx

10

An

nEx

10

58 59


European Commission staff (who followed the experts’ work)

Name Organisation

Hervé Pero Head of Unit, Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Vesselina Ranguelova Head of Unit , Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Roger Garbil Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Georges van Goethem Directorate-General Research and Innovation (coordinator) EC

Marc Deffrennes Directorate-General Energy (LUX) EC

Willem Janssens Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Michael Fuetterer Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Vincenzo Rondinella Directorate-General Joint Research Centre EC

Sharon Kearney Directorate-General Research and Innovation EC

Benoit Desjeux Directorate-General Education and Culture EC

Eddy Maier Directorate-General Development and Cooperation EC

Maurizio Salvi Bureau of European Policy Advisers EC

An

nEx

10

An

nEx

10



Álvaro Rodríguez Beceiro ENRESA Spain

Martin Ruscak Czech Nuclear Research Institute (UJV Řež) Czech Republic

Joseph Safieh Institut National des Sciences et Techniques Nucléaires (INSTN) and ENEN France

Rainer Salomaa Aalto University and Euratom Association Finland

Anselm Schaefer Technische Universität München (TUM) Germany

Hideshi Semba Mission of Japan to the EU Japan

Veronika Simonovska EHRO-N Netherlands

Vladimir Slugen Slovak Technical University Slovakia

Robert Speranzini Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) Canada

Andrej Stritar Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration Slovenia

Madalina Tronea Comisia Nationala pentru Controlul Activitatilor Nucleare (CNCAN) Romania

Harri Tuomisto Fortum Finland

Ilie Turcu NRI Pitesti, ESNII, SNETP Romania

Ioan Ursu National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH) and CCE Fission Romania

Jean-Pierre Van Dorsselaere

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) France

Eric van Walle SCK•CEN Belgium

Ivo Vasa Formerly UJV Řež Czech Republic

Djordje Vojnovic Slovenian Nuclear Safety Authority Slovenia

Ulrik von Estorff JRC-Petten and EHRO-N Netherlands

Jan Wallenius KTH Royal Institute of Technology Sweden

Wolfgang Weiss Melodi board Germany

Jean Pierre West NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia) Finland

Gerd Wolf European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) EU

Rick Wylie University of Central Lancashire UK

Jozef Zlatnansky Enel Slovakia

Benefitsandlimitations of nuclearfissionfor a low-carbon economy

Defining priorities for Euratom

fission research and training

(Horizon 2020)

Compilation of the experts’ reports

Background to the synthesis report

2012 Interdisciplinary Study



Compilation of the experts’ reportsBackground to the synthesis report

62 63

C o m p i l a t i o n o f t h e e x p e r t s ’ r e p o r t s B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e s y n t h e s i s r e p o r t

Compilation of the experts’ reportsBackground to the synthesis report

Part1 Scientific-technologicalreports 64

Topic 1 EU energy policy 64 Summary and key messages 64 1. The EU’s energy policy for 2020 and 2050 65 2. Nuclear fission in medium and long-term EU energy policy 70 3. Recommendations for Euratom research and training 70 4. Convergence toward a common view in the EU 72 5. Recommended instruments at national and EU levels 73 Conclusion 73 Annex 1: Experts consulted 73

Topic 2 SET-Plan 74 Summary and key messages 74 Introduction 75 1. The role of nuclear energy 75 2. Recommendations for the SET-Plan strategy 77 3. Recommendations for technology development 78 4. Financing of fission innovation 80 Conclusions 81 Annex 1: Experts consulted 81

Topic 3 Research and development 82 Summary and key messages 82 Introduction 83 1. Analysis (and prioritisation) of Euratom research and training for the next 10 years 84 2. Further suggestions 88 Annex 1: Experts consulted 89 Annex 2: Questions put to the interviewees 89

Topic 4 Education and training and skills 90 Summary and key messages 90 Introduction 91 1. European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) research and training — why? 92 2. Convergence towards a common view in the EU — how? 94 3. Recommendations at EU and Member State level 98 Conclusions 98 Annex 1: Experts consulted 99

Topic 5 EU nuclear safety and security 99 Summary and key messages 100 Introduction 100 1. Needs for Euratom research and training 101 2. Convergence towards a common view in the EU 102 3. Recommended implementation instruments 106 Annex 1: References 107 Annex 2: Experts consulted 108

Topic 6 People, quality of life and the environment 108 Summary and key messages 109

Introduction 109 1. People 110 2. Quality of life 112 3. Environment 114 4. Global challenges 116 5. Research 116 6. The policy landscape 118 Conclusions 120 Annex 1: Experts consulted 121

Topic 7 Safety and security culture beyond EU borders 122 Summary and key messages 122 1. International cooperation context 123 2. EU nuclear safety and security activities outside Europe 123 3. EU nuclear research and training 125 4. Scientific support for EU cooperation 125 5. EU challenges and priorities 126 6. Convergence towards a common view 126 7. Education and training 126 8. Instruments 127 9. Recommendations 127 Annex 1: References 128 Annex 2: Experts consulted 128

Topic 8 Science-based policies and legislation 129 Summary and key messages 129 Introduction 130 1. Euratom research and training 131 2. Convergence toward a common view in the EU 134 3. Recommended EU and national implementation instruments 135 Conclusions 136 Annex 1: Experts consulted 137

Part 2 Socioeconomical reports 139 Contribution 1 140 Contribution 2 141 Contribution 3 143 Contribution 4 144 Contribution 5 147 Contribution 6 151 Contribution 7 152 Contribution 8 154 Contribution 9 155 Contribution 10 157 Contribution 11 158 Contribution 12 162 Contribution 13 165 Contribution 14 167 Contribution 15 169 Contribution 16 170

Glossary 171European and international organisations/groups/associations 172

64 65


Topic 1:

EU energy policyMain subjects: Contributing to the three pillars of the EU energy policy: sustainability, security of supply, competitiveness for a future low-carbon economy

William D’HAESELEERFaculty of engineering science, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium

William D’haeseleer is a professor in the faculty of engineering science at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium. His research encompasses integrated energy systems, energy management, energy and the environment and energy policy. He is director of the KU Leuven Energy Institute and head of the Division of Energy Conversion. He was chairman and member of the European Commission’s Advisory Groups on Fusion (EAG-FU) and Energy (Age) in 1998–2002, 2002–06 and 2009–12. He is chairman of the European Energy Institute think-tank. He has coordinated research projects that include European Sustainable Electricity Generation (Eusustel). He chairs the Belgian committee of the World Energy Council.

Summary and key messagesGiven the enormous challenges, especially those of global competitiveness, and formidable global uncertainties, it would be irresponsible not to invest in future nuclear research, development and demonstration (RD&D).

Complete decarbonisation of the electricity sector by 2050 is a strategic goal for the EU. The zero carbon dioxide (CO2) objective requires daunting targets, in a context of abundant uncertainties. Given these formidable challenges, the EU does not have the luxury not to consider all means to guarantee a firm security of supply that is affordable and clean.

In any case, the cost of the future EU energy system will be much higher in 2050 than the current energy system (~14 % of the EU GDP versus ~10 % now). The cheapest EU energy policy scenarios have the largest nuclear fraction (delayed carbon capture and storage and diversified supply technologies). The extra cost of the most expensive scenario above the cheapest one is about EUR 3.6 trillion in 2008 values.

For international competitiveness, costs for Euro-pean industries should not be stretched beyond the breaking point. Furthermore, industry also needs highly reliable energy provision. System flexibil-ity and balancing will be crucial because of large installed capacities of intermittent technologies, sometimes leading to extensive overproduction or lack of production. Large flexible plants able to par-ticipate in load following must form the backbone of the electricity system; rotating turbine-generators provide damping for stability. Big but dispatchable and flexible units will expedite the future penetra-tion of large amounts of intermittent and non-dis-patchable units. A balance between centralised and decentralised generation is desirable.Nuclear has ample capability to contribute to the three EU energy policy pillars simultaneously, certainly with more RD&D:

• Nuclear is CO2 free, if using a good fuel cycle; but its safety record has received a serious dent. Waste management and proliferation controls should be further improved. Better understanding of low-dose effects of radiation could ameliorate its reputation and acceptability.

• Security of supply is offered by resource availability (possibly using fast reactors), stable but dispatchable electricity production facilities capable of load following and large turbine-generators providing inertia to the system, permitting reactive power control for voltage stability.

• Nuclear leads to cheap decarbonisation, if it can keep its investment and operational costs low. Future load following, however, must be examined as an important issue.

Given the uncertainties, a priori exclusion of nuclear in the EU would be irresponsible. Energy policy is a national competence with more than half of the EU countries backing nuclear, although all members have an interest in the successful operation of all nuclear plants in the EU. Collaborative RD&D is thus justified. The EU should offer seed money for reactor vendors, electricity generators, regulators, universities and laboratories to harmonise design, safety regulations, radiation protection, training and education. The EU wishes other countries to abide by nuclear best practices and standards; hence, the need for credible EU nuclear R&D and demonstration (RD&D). Further cross-boundary research on the external costs of nuclear is best performed on an EU scale, as is the cost-benefit analysis of the social-economic impact of nuclear. More effort must be devoted to communicating the results to the public, press and policymakers. RD&D for sustainable systems, with common infrastructures, only makes sense in an EU context.

Nuclear RD&D needs a policy-driven programmatic approach, to meet the strategic objectives of EU energy policy. Lack of coordinated research leads to national or bilateral programmes in countries with large capabilities, threatening smaller countries with scientific isolation and loss of expertise. In nuclear medical applications, proliferation vigilance and waste management, non-participating countries risk becoming second-class.

Experts consulted: see footnotes (1)

(1) Interesting comments have been received (and where appropriate accepted) from members of the ENEF Sub-WG on Competitiveness, Marc Deffrennes (EC, DG Energy), Ron Cameron (NEA), Wolfgang Kröger (ETH, Zürich) and Yves Kaluzny (CEA and chair of SNETP executive committee)

1 The EU’s energy policy for 2020 and 2050

This document outlines European energy policy, both the short-term 2020 targets and the longer-term 2050 vision (2). Against a background of massive uncertainties, it explains the enormous challenges of the envisaged energy policy and the importance of well-targeted nuclear research and development (R&D). EU energy policy (3) is taken as a given, without evaluation of its meaningfulness or praise or criticism of the Energy 2050 Roadmap. This document nevertheless draws attention to some important consequences. In that policy framework, the role of nuclear-generated electricity is evaluated.

1.1 Long-term energy policy is driven by decarbonisation

A drastic decarbonisation of the overall energy sector – a reduction by 80–95 % of the 1990 level by 2050 – is the strategic objective of Europe’s energy policy. The energy carrier electricity is expected to become even more important than today and the electricity sector has an effectively zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions objective. (Scenarios in the Energy 2050 Roadmap indicate decarbonisation levels of 57–65 % in 2030 and 96–99 % in 2050, compared to 1990.)

1.2 Targets for 2020Binding targets for 2020 have been set for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and a minimum final-energy delivery by renewable energy sources (RES). For energy efficiency, an indicative desirable target was set, now backed by binding energy efficiency measures (4).

(2) Main references: EU Energy Roadmap 2050 COM(2011) 885 final, 15 December 2012, including Impact Assessment SEC(2011) 1566 and the final report of the Advisory Group SEC(2011) 1569; EU Climate 2050 Roadmap COM(2011) 112 final, 8 March 2011; EU Strategic Communication on Renewable Energy COM(2012) 271 final, 6 June 2012; IHS CERA Sound energy policy for Europe; European Policy Dialogue, 2011; and ENEF SWOT Parts 1 & 2, strengths & weaknesses; opportunities & threats, dd. May 2010 and May 2012

(3) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm )

(4) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/eed_en.htm

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S





66 67


The GHG-reduction requirement stipulates a 20 % reduction compared to 1990, that was recalibrated to a reduction of 14 % compared to the more reliable figures of 2005 (5). Large CO2 emitters (mostly industries and the electric power sector) are subject to an EU-wide GHG cap of 21 % compared to 2005 through Europe’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) (6).

The ETS-participating facilities are therefore not subject to local emission constraints; all that matters is the overall EU cap and all emissions have to be justified by emission allowances (called EU allowances – EUAs). Other sectors (mainly residential, commercial, service and transportation) are subject to binding national emission targets, ranging from -20 % to +20 % across the 27 EU members, with a total -10 % GHG reduction compared to 2005. At the time of writing, EUA prices are very low, i.e. below EUR 10/tonne CO2, reflecting a surplus of allowances largely because of the economic recession that started in 2008 (the beginning of the Kyoto climate agreement period). As a consequence of the surplus and the right to bank the allowances for the next Kyoto commitment period up to 2020, the GHG-reduction target will be met easily and at relatively low EUA prices (7).

The binding renewables requirement sets a minimum target of 20 % RES for final energy consumption (8), translated into binding national targets that to some extent depend on the GDP/person in the Member States. The transportation sector has a target of 10 %, typically from biofuels or electric vehicles, meaning that the other sectors have to make up for the difference. In particular, the electricity sector will have to contribute considerably, with RES expected to provide 33–35 % of final electricity consumption. The 2020 goal for RES is expected to be reached, but the years up to 2020 will be characterised by increasing challenges in the grid integration of RES. Indeed, the targets are expressed as percentages of annual electric energy consumption (and thus production, since bulk electricity storage is not feasible), which is the same as average annual power consumption (expressed in TWh/year).

(5) Jos Delbeke, EU climate change policy, European Energy Market Conference 2009, Leuven, Belgium, 28 May 28 2009

(6) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (7) This is under the assumption that the current rules of the ETS (as of

November 2012) continue to apply(8) Because of increasing amounts of auto-generation, there is a

difference between consumption by consumers and delivery or demand from the grid

Because of the limited load factor (9) of solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines, for example, the percentage of required installed electricity generation capacity will be substantially larger than twice the peak demand (10). The original indicative energy efficiency target of 20 % will, in all likelihood, not be met. However, a recently agreed energy efficiency directive sets binding measures corresponding to a 2020 target of about 15 %, to be backed up by further measures.

1.3 Substantial uncertainties towards 2020 and even more towards 2050

Although the carbon reduction target for 2020 will very likely be met (to a large extent thanks to the long-lasting economic downturn that started in 2008), there is no guarantee that the route towards the 2050 decarbonisation objective will be easy. According to the Energy Roadmap 2050 (11), the policies and measures to achieve the 2020 goals will “still be insufficient to achieve the EU’s 2050 decarbonisation objective as only less than half of the decarbonisation goal will be achieved in 2050”. Clearly, the transition towards 2050 must be prepared now with more stringent policies. However, there are many uncertainties. In the short run, when will the financial system stabilise and when will the economy recover? This is of fundamental importance since the path towards 2020 and 2050 requires colossal investments. And further down the line, do we expect an oil-production peak with accompanying high oil prices, or will we see an oil glut with low prices? Is there a future for shale gas in Europe and what is the influence of shale-gas deployment elsewhere on the EU gas market? When will carbon capture and storage (CCS) become commercial and will it be accepted by the public and policymakers? Will biofuels manage to move away from food and feed conflicts? What will be the consequences of the Arab Spring for fossil fuel deliveries and prices and for possible injections of solar electricity into EU grids from the south? These massive uncertainties demand deliberate actions and careful choices in order to reach the goals, but the choices must be well thought through so as not to overstretch the energy system and risk its collapse.(9) Load factor is defined as the actual amount of electric energy

produced per year divided by the amount the device could have theoretically produced if it had run permanently at rated power (which equals its installed capacity)

(10) Following the Technology Roadmap of the SET-Plan [SEC(2009) 1295] the desired fractions for wind-generated electricity and solar-PV are 20 % and 12 %, respectively, by 2020. With respective average load factors of 25 % and 14 %, this amounts to required installed capacity of 80 % and 84 %, respectively, of the average load level. If such numbers materialised, then the overall installed capacity (including the still existing thermal plants) would be even over 200 %, with consequences for overproduction in case of very sunny and very windy low-load days, leading to negative electricity prices and requiring RES curtailment. (Idea borrowed from R. Belmans, KU Leuven, Belgium)

11 Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 2

1.4 Energy 2050 Roadmap scenarios are mainly driven by decarbonisation

The Energy Roadmap 2050 considered five decarbonisation scenarios, including special-focus scenarios – high energy efficiency, high RES penetration, delayed CCS and low nuclear – and an overall diversified supply technologies scenario, in which no technology is preferred and where decarbonisation is driven by a carbon price (and assumes public acceptance for both nuclear and CCS) (12).

Figure 1 shows the fuel shares for the different scenarios (13). The scenarios show that decarbonisation is very challenging, but would be possible.

Figure 1: EU Decarbonisation scenarios – 2030 and 2050 range of fuel shares in primary energy consumption compared with 2005 outcome (in %)

(12) This last scenario is somewhat akin to the power choices scenario for 2050 by Eurelectric. See http://www.eurelectric.org/PowerChoices2050

(13) EU Energy Roadmap 2050 COM(2011) 885 final dd. 15 December 2012, p. 5

The main driving force behind the Energy Roadmap 2050 is the fight against climate change, as the basic element of sustainability, one of the three pillars of the EU energy policy. In addition, the roadmap also aims to ensure security of energy supply and competitiveness.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm

http://www.eurelectric.org/PowerChoices2050

68 69


1.5 Security of energy supply – beyond the 2050 roadmap

On security of energy supply (SoES), the Energy Roadmap 2050 states that the different scenarios would reduce the EU’s energy import dependency to 35–45 %, compared to 58 % under current policies. However, import dependency is not really a guarantee of SoES (14), but it may be an important aspect of it. It is noteworthy that the advisory group to the Roadmap has remarked that high RES scenarios may give the impression of a higher SoES because of local energy production, but this is only on the strategic level of primary energy on an annual basis. In contrast, when it comes to instantaneous power delivery, the intermittency of PV and wind, in particular, requires adequate and flexible back-up, makes the system more unstable and poses a challenge for reliable system integration.

Indeed, it is important to distinguish between different forms of SoES (15). Since energy is used in different forms (primary energy or fuels, secondary carriers and end-energy forms) it is important to recognise that SoES requires the right energy form to be delivered at the right time at the right place. In fact, there should always be a flow of energy towards a particular user (16). In that regard, it is imperative to distinguish between an amount of energy, perhaps on an annual basis (17), the instantaneous power and the installed power, usually referred to as the capacity.

Three aspects of SoES are important:

• The strategic availability of primary energy (e.g. oil, gas, coal and uranium ore). This depends on the presence of local resources, exploitation investments and geopolitics.

• The adequacy of investments in primary energy transformation equipment (such as electricity generation facilities) and in transportation means (e.g. transmission and distribution grids for electricity and gas). Investments at the strategic level must take place in producer countries, whereas investments in energy transformation usually take place in consumer or transit countries.

(14) As examples, Iran has ample crude oil, but due to lack of refineries, there is little SoES for the customers when it comes to petrol, diesel and/or jet fuel. On a different level, the UK’s biggest SoES problem has been the domestic coal miners’ strike in the 1980s

(15) See e.g. William D’haeseleer, “Security of supply — appropriate concepts and definitions and the role of nuclear energy” contribution to the OECD-NEA study “The security of energy supply and the contribution of nuclear energy”, Working Paper, available at http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/en/tme/research/energy_environment/Pdf/WPEN2010-13

(16) In technical terms it means that there is a “power flow”, whereby “power” is defined as the time derivative of “energy”. “Power” here is not necessarily electric; it can e.g. also be thermal power, or other kinds of power flow. Instantaneous power is similar to the water flowing out of a tap; “energy” is similar to the amount of water in the bathtub

(17) Energy per year is actually the average power on an annual basis

• Reliability (also often referred to as security in energy contexts) (18). This requires avoidance of sudden black-outs (or gas-delivery cuts). In principle, an energy system is designed to deal with perturbations and must be able to survive large mishaps. For electricity, important considerations are voltage stability (related to reactive power control), redundancy of lines and key components, maintenance and control.

The most general guideline for SoES is diversity of supply (in terms of primary energy, conversion technologies and transport); do not put all the eggs into the same basket!

1.6 Cost of energy transition according to the 2050 Roadmap scenarios

The roadmap says that overall energy system costs (including: capital costs of production and transformation, transportation, transmission and distribution, energy-using equipment, appliances and vehicles; fuel and electricity costs; direct efficiency investment costs such as house insulation, control systems and energy management) would not differ substantially by 2050 from those under the current policy initiatives scenario (19). Taking a closer look at the impact assessment (20), the cumulative time-integrated cost over the period 2011–50 of all scenarios varies between 14.06 % and 14.58 % of the expected cumulative European GDP of 2011–50, with the reference scenario (the baseline or effectively business as usual) amounting to 14.37 % and the current policy scenario resulting in the highest cost of 14.58 %. The cheapest scenarios would be the ones with delayed CCS (14.06 %) and the diversified supply technologies scenario (14.11 %). The high RES scenario cost would be 14.42 %, whereas the high energy efficiency scenario cost would be 14.56 %. For comparison, the total energy system cost (likewise defined) in 2005 is about 10.5 % of the 2005 European GDP (21). The numbers are close because the energy system, as defined here, is so large.

(18) This type of security is to be distinguished from security issues regarding malicious threats like terrorism, etc.

(19) The Current Policy Initiatives (CPI) scenario updates measures adopted, e.g. after Fukushima, and being proposed, as in the Energy 2020 strategy; the scenario also includes proposed actions concerning the energy efficiency plan and the new energy taxation directive

(20) SEC(2011)1566 pp. 29-31(21) Energy Roadmap 2050, p. 5

The absolute numbers provide more transparency: the absolute differences for average annual energy system costs (over the period 2011–50), compared to the reference (which has a total cost of EUR 2,582 billion at 2008 values) are:

• +EUR 33 billion High energy efficiency• -EUR 47 billion Diversified supply technologies • +EUR 8 billion High RES• -EUR 57 billion Delayed CCS• -EUR 29 billion Low nuclear.

The differences may not seem insurmountably large, since the spread of EUR 90 billion/year between the cheapest and the most expensive routes would lead to an overall cumulative cost spread of EUR 3,600 billion, which is still only 0.5 % of the cumulative European GDP in 2011–50. However, this extra cost comes on top of the cost of the cheapest envisaged energy system in 2050, which will already absorb about 14 % of EU GDP compared to about 10 % in 2010.

1.7 System flexibility and balancing

It must be stressed, and perhaps more than in the Energy Roadmap 2050, that the 2050 CO2-reduction challenges for the electricity sector are daunting, especially regarding system flexibility and balancing, as a consequence of the expected massive installed capacity of intermittent technologies. Depending on meteorological conditions, the very large build-up of RES may often lead to large local overproduction, while at other times it may result in a lack of production, possibly widespread over Europe and causing difficulties and the need for an almost full thermal back-up power capacity for peak load if insufficient transmission capacity is available (22). Balancing with only natural gas technologies may be risky in terms of strategic SoES and requires CCS to be carbon neutral (23).

As part of the overall electricity system integration challenge, major issues to be resolved are electricity grid expansion of whatever kind (24) and long-term storage of electric energy. For the former, licensing and permitting will be important, while the latter relies on the hope that R&D will provide the answers (25). In the latter case the role of hydrogen (H2) in a far future is unclear. H2 was popular up to 2005 in 2050 scenarios but has lost popularity since then. Rather than a fully-fledged H2 economy, (22) The European cold spell of February 2012 showed that widespread

meteorological conditions, even if only occasionally, require an almost full back-up electrical generation capacity, with basically zero capacity credit for both wind and PV

(23) Futuristic visions with synthetic fuels coming from hydrogen production through superfluous electricity are still questionable and the fuels would certainly be very expensive

(24) Overhead lines, cables, AC or HVDC, via corridors, supergrids, smart grids, etc.

(25) Clearly, also for grid development, substantial R&D efforts will be necessary

H2 might be an intermediate step for production of synfuels (methanol, ethanol, synthetic methane).

Finally, a few words on the system inertia of electricity grids are appropriate. System inertia is necessary to avoid too-sudden drops of the system frequency. Traditionally, this inertia is provided by large work-horses in the form of the turbine-generators of large power plants distributed over the entire interconnected system and the many millions of rotating electric motors. It is possible, in principle, to mimic virtual system inertia and damping with specially designed power electronics (26), which, however, may not be able to replace (even partially) the classical damping mechanism. The jury is still out, but common wisdom suggests that a minimal number of large rotating turbine-generators in the system is not a superfluous luxury. On the contrary, the presence of such large units might expedite the future penetration of large amounts of perturbing intermittent and non-dispatchable units.

1.8 Comparison with IEA scenarios

The 2012 International Energy Agency (IEA) long-term scenarios for a maximum 2°C temperature increase by 2050 (27) confirm that a diversified generation mix in the electric power sector is the most efficient way to reach the decarbonisation goal. Renewable generation would exceed 60 % of total annual European electricity generation (in TWh/year), with wind energy providing 30 %, nuclear-generated electricity about 25 % and the balance provided by coal and gas generation with CCS.

(26) H. Larsen & L. Soenderberg Petersen, Eds, “The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future”, Risoe Energy Report 8, Risoe/DTU, Roskilde DK, 2009; and Stijn Cole, statement during PhD defence on “Steady-state and dynamic modelling of VSC HVDC systems for power system simulation”, PhD thesis, KU Leuven department of electrical engineering (ESAT)/ELECTA, Leuven, 2010

(27) Energy technology perspectives 2012, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2012

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/en/tme/research/energy_environment/Pdf/WPEN2010-13



70 71


2 Nuclear fission in medium and long-term EU energy policy

Against the background of the Energy Roadmap 2050, what potential role “might, could and should” nuclear energy have if Member States include it in their generation mix?

In the light of the three pillars, nuclear-generated electricity technology could be valuable, if sufficient R&D were devoted to further exploiting its positive characteristics.

Concerning sustainability, nuclear is basically CO2-free if based on an appropriate life cycle. Recently, with the Fukushima events, the perception of its safety has received a serious dent, leading to a re-evaluation of research needs (28). Technically acceptable solutions for its waste management and proliferation control are forthcoming but deserve continued efforts and effective implementation and must be made publicly acceptable. Nuclear waste incineration should be explored. Better scientific understanding of low-dose and low dose-rate effects of radiation could improve nuclear’s reputation and acceptability.

As to SoES, nuclear is able to score well on all three basic aspects; strategic availability, adequacy of investments and reliability. It is characterised by sufficient resource availability (in terms of fuel diversity and amount, certainly if fast reactors could be used to expand the resources by a factor of nearly 100), nuclear plants are stable and dispatchable electricity production facilities that are able to respond quickly (load-following) (29) and the large rotating synchronous turbine-generators in nuclear plants provide inertia to the electricity system and can permit convenient reactive power control for voltage stability (30). The real value of dispatchable nuclear plants as part of the electricity system must be better evaluated.

(28) See e.g. the SNETP task group on the lessons learnt after the Fukushima accident; Identification of research areas in response to the Fukushima accident, October 2012

(29) See e.g. NEA, Technical and economic aspects of load following with nuclear power plants, Paris, 2011, available at http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf

(30) It is interesting to note that the electric generator of the nuclear power station Bibilis A in Germany has been refurbished after the station was shut-down to run as a synchronous motor to provide system stability. See http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BNetzA/Presse/Berichte/2011/BerichtNotwResKKW31August2011pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile p. 44

With regard to cost, the 2050 roadmap scenarios with most nuclear-generated electricity, the low CCS and diversified supply technologies scenarios, lead to the cheapest complete decarbonisation. A future load-following requirement, which is technically feasible in principle, would lead to lower load factors which could endanger nuclear’s competitiveness on a stand-alone basis. But load-following nuclear may be vital in an overall system context, by reducing the overall operational costs.

3 Recommendations for Euratom research and training

Given that nuclear power can play an important role in future EU decarbonisation, it must keep the trust of at least those Member States that consider nuclear as a viable option. Towards that end, future R&D and training are crucial for improvements under the three pillars, especially non-CO2 related sustainability (safety, waste and proliferation), cost and flexibility as part of SoES. This should not be left to individual Member States as collaboration is essential (see Section 4).

During the next 10 years, a common nuclear-related R&D strategy is needed in the domains listed below. Not all items (maybe counter-intuitively, those with the highest priority) need large amounts of EU money, but they need EU coordination with seed money to activate, stimulate and invigorate activities in those areas. The EU-coordinated initiatives must work as catalyst.

The longer-term vision is that the case for the sustainability of nuclear energy (at acceptable cost) can be made more convincingly if nuclear develops innovative systems. However, before reaching that holy grail, the nuclear R&D community and industry must be able to continue working at high scientific and technical levels with high-quality staff.

In order of priority:

1. To remain an attractive and/or acceptable technology for investors and the public, nuclear must prove its value:

• Be cost effective, through developments to reduce investment costs of new plants so that nuclear remains competitive if needed for load following. In addition, more efforts are needed to develop transparent and consistent cost evaluation methodologies (31). Also, the feasibility and desirability of “cheap nuclear” facilities should be investigated, including their compatibility with the EU’s safety philosophy.

• Establish networks that help to guarantee safe operation of existing and future plants.

• Stimulate further research on waste management and disposal (32).

• Establish collaborative efforts to improve safeguards against proliferation.

2. Along with strict regulatory and correct operational practices, R&D and training are necessary for existing plants:

• Support industry (electricity generators (33) and manufacturers/reactor vendors) and regulators in evaluating, and perhaps developing better, methodologies for design reviews and operational practices. How can the reporting protocols of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and the World Association of Nuclear Operators be improved (34)? What are lessons learned from Fukushima? What is the true value of the EU stress tests?

(31) A starting point could be IEA/OECD-NEA, 2010, Projected costs of generating electricity; 2010 edition, Paris; but the analysis by the French Cour des Comptes (2012) highlights that different cost calculation approaches exist. See: Les coûts de la filière électronucléaire, Rapport public thématique, dd.31.01.2012; available at: http://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/Les-couts-de-la-filiere-electronucleaire. Also, the right circumstances for the Finnish investment model of TVO must be further explored; see e.g. Lauri Piekkari (TVO), 2009, Workshop on economics and financing of nuclear power, IAEA Vienna dd. 11 February 2009 (and abbreviated version at ENEF dd. 10 March 2008), and Matti Liski (Helsinki School of Economics), 2007, Nuclear power investments in Finland — a model for others to copy?, Workshop Market Design, Stockholm, among others

(32) Although not R&D related, clear political commitments on geological disposal in each EU country concerned and/or the use of MOX fuel might also contribute to public acceptance and to the sustainability of nuclear

(33) In the context of a liberalised EU electricity market, the use of the word utility is avoided, being devoid of any meaning in a liberalised and unbundled context (where generation companies, transmission system operators, distribution system operators and suppliers co-exist, each with a separate function). For operating nuclear power plants, the generators are the appropriate actors

(34) US-based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (http://www.inpo.info/); World Association of Nuclear Operators (http://www.wano.info)

• Ensure that educational and training expertise in Europe remains very high. Stimulate international exchange of personnel (including audit staff) between EU countries. Educate future experts in emerging countries in safety culture.

• Perform R&D on degradation and ageing of materials and systems for long-term operation. Should there be common methodologies for long-term operation? Is there a potential role for the NUclear GENeration II and III Association (Nugenia) (35)?

• Check whether further refining of probabilistic safety assessment studies and the underlying methods (thinking out of the box) is necessary.

• Support new waste management programmes, including safety cases.

3. A substantial R&D effort must be made for future nuclear systems

• Undertake nuclear system research (into fast systems, accelerator driven systems) which is objective and independent of national preferences. It is necessary to make clear choices and set priorities between proposed reactor system experiments such as the Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID), Jules Horowitz, the Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications (MYRRHA), the gas-cooled fast reactor ALLEGRO and the high flux research reactor PALLAS. This choice should be guided by the strategic research considerations outlined by the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) (36).

• To make these innovative systems successful, new test infrastructures are needed. For envisaged research infrastructures a clear and convincing business plan should be set up.

• Develop novel closed fuel-cycles, with efficient resource management and waste incineration.

• Look for other applications of neutron radiation R&D reactors to defray costs, such as production of medical isotopes and doping of semiconductors. The role of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures may be relevant (37).

• Perform R&D on decommissioning.

(35) http://www.nugenia.org (36) http://www.snetp.eu (37) The mission of ESFRI (the European Strategy Forum on Research

Infrastructures) is to support a coherent and strategy-led approach to policymaking on research infrastructures in Europe and to facilitate multilateral initiatives leading to the better use and development of research infrastructures, at EU and international level. See http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BNetzA/Presse/Berichte/2011/BerichtNotwResKKW31August2011pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile



http://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/Les-couts-de-la-filiere-electronucleaire

http://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/Les-couts-de-la-filiere-electronucleaire

http://www.inpo.info

http://www.inpo.info

http://www.wano.info

http://www.wano.info

http://www.nugenia.org

http://www.snetp.eu



72 73


4. Nuclear energy only has a long-term future if it is acceptable to the public. To that end, considerable R&D must be devoted to the perceived shortcomings of nuclear power:

• More R&D is needed on the external costs of nuclear — following projects such as the External Costs of Energy projects (ExternE), New Energy Externalities for Sustainability (NEEDS) and European Sustainable Electricity; Comprehensive Analysis of Future European Demand and Generation of European Electricity and its Security of Supply (EUSUSTEL) (38). The work should cover risk analysis and accidents, fuel-cycle and waste, routine operation, life-cycle analysis (LCA), etc. and the results must be used in rigorous cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

• The external cost evaluation must be complemented urgently by softer social-political-communicational-economic research. How are the so-called rigorous CBAs to be interpreted to balance “facts” and “perception”? How should results of CBAs be communicated to the press, the public and the policymakers (39)?

• Since acceptance of nuclear energy is strongly related to the public’s fear of the effects of ionising radiation, it is important to further investigate the effects of low doses and low-dose rates. In particular, the validity of the linear-no-threshold hypothesis and the possibility of adaptive effects and/or hormesis need to be clarified (40). In particular, further radio-biological research (both for cancer and genetic effects) (41) and epidemiological studies must be undertaken.

.5. Although electricity system integration

studies are partly electrical engineering, nuclear plant experts need to be involved to evaluate the constraints on and needs of nuclear plants where flexibility andcontrol are of prime importance.

(38) http://www.externe.info/externe_2006; http://www.needs-project.org; http://www.eusustel.be

(39) Among others, corporate social responsibility in the nuclear sector, on top of the traditional economic and environmental corporate reports, should be reflected upon

(40) A collaborative effort with the Melodi network should be pursued. See http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/wirkungen/MELODI.html

(41) The relationship with basic research on low irradiation dose effects (using, in particular, molecular biology and toxicology) must be considered and integrated. These R&D efforts may also be submitted to the European Research Council http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation)

6. Encourage international scientific collabo-ration between Euratom and non-EU coun-tries on a case by case basis, taking care over intellectual property and the limit between cooperation and competition. Although several EU states have bilateral contacts with non-EU countries, there is considerable added value to a common Europeanapproach,includinggreatereffi-ciency and avoidance of competition.

A total of 50 % of EU funding for fission R&D should be devoted to the third priority. The first and second priorities need some well-targeted seed money for coordination, corresponding to 10 % of the budget each, whereas the fourth priority deserves more than symbolic support, or 20 % of the budget, for comprehensive studies. The final two priorities should each get 5 % of the budget to fund participation, varying from membership fees to allowing equality of participation.

4 Convergence toward a common view in the EU

Energy policy is a national competence and 14 EU states have backed nuclear. However, all states have an interest in the proper functioning of all nuclear plants in the EU, so a collaborative EU R&D effort is therefore justified. The EU should offer seed money to push reactor vendors, electricity generators, regulators, universities and laboratories towards greater EU harmonisation of design and operation, safety regulations, radiological protection, training and education. If the EU wishes other countries and regions (both with nuclear programmes and newcomers) to abide by best practices and standards for nuclear, its credibility rests on its own experience and high-quality nuclear R&D.

Further research on the real external costs of electricity generation, including nuclear, is best performed on an EU scale (as in ExternE) because it must be cross-boundary research; in addition, the social-economic impact must be evaluated on an EU scale by objective CBAs and an extra effort must be devoted to communication of results to the public, the press and policymakers. R&D for sustainable innovative systems, with common infrastructures, only makes sense in an EU context.

Lack of coordinated nuclear research leads to national programmes or joint programmes by states with large capabilities, with other countries missing

out on scientific interaction and a loss of expertise. In the areas of nuclear medical applications, proliferation vigilance and waste management, non-participating countries risk becoming second-class. Maintaining world-class nuclear expertise is crucial for the EU, since absence of coordinated efforts and consequent downgraded nuclear knowledge will lead to lack of credibility abroad. Finally, lack of collaboration reduces critical mass and may hamper breakthroughs, resulting in a huge opportunity cost in satisfying the three pillars of the EU’s energy policy, compared to other countries.

5 Recommended instruments at national and EU levels

In contrast to earlier approaches, characterised by bottom-up project selection and implementation, future nuclear R&D should be policy driven. A programmatic approach, rather than a project approach, is called for, to meet the strategic objectives of EU energy policy. EU energy R&D should satisfy all three policy pillars simultaneously, in a coordinated and output oriented manner (42). National laws and the directives of Euratom should play a bigger role in the organisation of research and training (typically through a roadmap and priorities), with national organisations (e.g. for nuclear waste management) taking the lead in R&D programmes, which should be coordinated at the EU level.

It seems appropriate to use different partnerships for collaboration depending on the subjects treated. Public- public partnerships by the European Commission and EU members remain crucial to long-term R&D (especially infrastructures, demonstration and prototype plants and basic nuclear education) and to societal R&D (such as external costs and radiation protection). In contrast, public-private partnerships are more appropriate for short-term work (design and operation of reactors and waste facilities, regulation, procedures and practical training). For management and operation of large infrastructures of common interest, schemes such as a joint technological initiative should be considered (43). In addition, use should be made of new instruments, such as the KIC InnoEnergy sustainable energy arm of the EU’s (42) This type of structured R&D organisation should not exclude some

funding being reserved for good ideas by small research groups, since creative solutions often emerge from unexpected initiatives

(43) Examples of such initiatives are the Joint Undertaking for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen and the European Metrology Research Programme

European Institute of Innovation and Technology, and, where needed, of EU structural funds.

For the funding of education and training, beyond the usual programmes in schools and universities, creative instruments can be envisaged. For example, should the minimal educational and training be better specified in national law or by a Euratom directive? Also, it may be reasonable to set up a common education and training fund jointly managed by the European Commission and Member States and, similarly to the funds for waste management, financed by a mandatory levy on nuclear generators based on nuclear MWh produced.

ConclusionGiven the tremendous uncertainties, excluding nuclear fission from the current and future EU electricity generation mix would be irresponsible. To ameliorate fission’s performance and acceptability, well targeted R&D is necessary and would benefit all countries by ensuring well-performing nuclear power plants. The EU should take the lead in harmonisation. With more R&D, fission could contribute to SoES that is CO2-free, safe and has a minimal waste burden. Furthermore, with cost reductions, nuclear fission could provide affordable electricity, to the benefit of European industrial competitiveness.

Annex 1: Experts consultedSee footnotes

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

http://www.externe.info/externe_2006

http://www.needs-project.org

http://www.needs-project.org

http://www.eusustel.be


http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation

http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation

74 75


Topic 2:

SET-planMain subjects: Contributing to the execution of the SET-Plan, with emphasis on the objectives defined for nuclear fission

María Teresa DOMíNGUEzEmpresarios Agrupados, Spain

María Teresa Domínguez holds a MSc in nuclear energy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an MSc in physics from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Since 1974, she has worked at the Spanish architect-engineering company Empresarios Agrupados, in light water reactor safety. In 2008, she became director of advanced reactor projects. In June 2008, she was appointed to the European Commission’s Advisory Group on Energy (AGE). She represents Empresarios Agrupados on the steering committee of the Engage consortium responsible for architect-engineering the ITER fusion device building. She is a member of the GIF HTR-Hydrogen Production Project management board. She was president of the Spanish Nuclear Society in 2004–06. She is current president of the Spanish Nuclear Energy Forum.

Summary and key messagesThe European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) has proven a very valuable instrument for channelling EU energy development, including nuclear energy, and therefore it should be the backbone of the EU’s coming Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

Since 2007, however, when the SET-Plan was defined, energy technologies have changed substantially, some of them affecting nuclear fission worldwide. New nuclear policies in some EU countries, increased investments in operating nuclear power plants, delays and financing problems for new water-cooled plants and emerging nuclear applications of nuclear energy justify the need for an urgent increase in EU support for nuclear energy

in Horizon 2020. Coherent with the EU scenarios for the future energy mix, the SET-Plan should be enlarged to maintain the existing nuclear fleet, construct 100 units, develop innovative systems and transfer nuclear technology to other sectors.

This Topic 2 underlines significant strengths and opportunities from supporting a solid nuclear energy programme in Europe in terms of socioeconomic benefits, jobs, investment, the environment and technologies. Weaknesses and threats have also been identified as the basis for EU research recommendations to be incorporated in the SET-Plan and implemented in Horizon 2020.

The results of the peer review stress tests of the EU nuclear power plant fleet requested by the European Council on 24/25 March 2011 showed high levels of safety and no need to shut down any reactor immediately. Nevertheless, the stress tests led to the announcement of up to EUR 25 billion of investments to improve safety margins, including spending on external event protection, emergency guidelines, severe accidents management, advanced fuel design and multi-unit site reviews.

Maintaining the safety of the plants in operation and ensuring the future construction of more than 100 new units (in particular, in central Europe, the UK, Finland and other countries), are in line with the objectives of low-carbon strategies and with competitiveness objectives of the industry. Therefore, fission in the EU Horizon 2020 programme should be focused on light water reactor (LWR) technologies to guarantee the achievement of the above objectives. Harmonisation of EU requirements, nuclear regulatory requirements and licensing processes, multinational design approval of plant concepts and design standardisation and procurement rules are areas to be considered in this strategy.

Innovative systems complementary to the LWR should also be developed. This justifies deep EU involvement in basic research and in the construction of the research installations and prototypes defined in the SET-Plan. The Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR), the multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications (MYRRHA), the Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID), the gas-cooled fast reactor ALLEGRO, the high-flux research reactor PALLAS and the Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator (ALFRED) have already been launched and supported by some EU countries. Furthermore, the role of nuclear energy is widening; medicine, aerospace, agriculture, water supply, the environment, etc. are applications that contribute to the quality of life and the progress of society. These new applications justify joint programmes for the transfer of knowledge. Low-doses, radiological protection and environmental surveillance are areas to be considered.

This ambitious programme requires the reinforcement of the organisational and funding mechanisms. In this respect, the strategy in Horizon 2020 will involve collaboration with the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) and with the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (Melodi association) as well as with the existing EU nuclear industry platforms such as the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), the NUclear GENeration II and III Association (Nugenia), and the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP). Along the same lines, and in addition to European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) funds, innovative financing instruments such as loan guarantees, European Investment Bank credits and structural funds could support the fission strategies. Basic research should be channelled through the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) networks to unite the efforts of the EU Member States, as well as through international collaboration.

Experts consulted: see Annex 1

IntroductionThe main objectives of this Topic 2 are to evaluate the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission innovation and research and development (R&D) at the EU level with regard to achieving the climate change goals set out in the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) in an affordable manner, to identify to what extent implementation contributes to tackling the main challenges for nuclear fission in the EU and to produce recommendations on how to align it with the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) programme under the EU’s future Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, to maximise the benefits of the use of fission energy in the EU.The background includes the 2007 SET-Plan defining the technologies strategy, the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) reports that reflect the evolution of several EU initiatives and the May 2012 final report of the EU’s Advisory Group on Energy (AGE) that provided recommendations for EU energy strategy.

The analysis and recommendations are limited to technological and financial issues and therefore should not be considered independently of other topics in this 2012 study, on policy, social impact, training and other topics of importance for nuclear fission R&D.

First, this report describes the current role of nuclear energy with respect to the SET-Plan targets. It then analyses the fission technology development that is required at EU level for innovation proposed by the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP). As a result of the differences in the R&D needs, the different fission reactor technologies, the radiological applications and the waste management strategies are considered separately:

• General strategy of the SET-Plan (Section 3);

• Existing fleet of light water reactors (LWRs) (Section 4.1);

• New water-cooled reactors (Section 4.2);

• Liquid-metal and gas-cooled reactors (Section 4.3); and

• Other applications, radiological protection and waste management (Section 4.4). Finally, the report identifies some innovative financing instruments that could be contemplated in Horizon 2020 in support of an EU fission programme.

1 The role of nuclear energyNuclear energy, the development of which has been supported by the Euratom treaty since 1957, continues to be an element in the construction of the EU, which has leadership in this technology.

Nuclear energy today provides slightly less than 30 % of the electricity consumed in the EU and a small fraction of process heat for district heating and industrial applications. The contribution of nuclear energy is a reliable, predictable, clean and competitive/affordable baseload. As a result, nuclear energy today is also a positive contributor to the EU environment, economy and growth. The nuclear sector employs approximately 500,000 people in the EU, directly and indirectly, with another 400,000 induced jobs, or a total of about 900,000 persons employed. The added value for the European economy is an estimated EUR 70 billion/year.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

76 77


Compared to other SET-Plan technologies, nuclear energy is a safe bet with respect to technology readiness and costs. Furthermore, recent studies of integrated energy systems considering the complete life-cycle show additional benefits of baseload nuclear energy in terms of less infrastructure and investment required in the energy system than for other, intermittent renewable energies.

The EU Energy Roadmap 2050 provides two types of decarbonisation scenarios for the EU when looked at from the nuclear perspective: two scenarios contemplate a nuclear phase-out by 2050, while three others consider that 15–20 % of electricity will be produced by nuclear energy. This paper assumes the 20 % figure.

In 2011, of the approximately 150 nuclear power plants in the EU, 139 were in operation and had a total capacity of 125GWe. Nevertheless, the Fukushima events in Japan triggered changes in EU nuclear policy. Some countries have taken the decision to close their plants; Germany’s last unit is scheduled to shut down in 2025, Belgium plans to shut down all units between 2015 and 2025. In other countries, investments for long-term operation (LTO) or plant life extension of existing plants are under way, including those required by the post-Fukushima stress tests.

The investments in LTO make economic sense if they extend operation by 20 years — leading to between 60 and 80 years of service life. Even assuming that 20 years’ extension will be the strategy adopted, the operators could decide to shut down plants if they are not competitive. If no new builds take place, the average age of operating plants in the EU would be about 40 years in 2020, 50 years in 2030 and 60 years in 2040.

Therefore, if by 2050 a generation capacity of 20 % nuclear electricity (140GWe) is to be secured, 100–120 nuclear power units will have to be built between now and 2050 — the precise number depending on the power rating.

It is most probable that in countries which rely on nuclear energy, most plants will first enter into LTO programmes before new reactors are built. The LTO programmes are expected between 2015 and 2035 and most existing operating plants will be shut down between 2030 and 2050, while new plants will have to be connected to the grid in the same period. Assuming a construction time of seven years, the bulk of new plant construction may take place between 2025 and 2050, with some earlier projects expected, in particular in Finland and in the UK to replace the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet.The socioeconomic benefit of this can be estimated. Assuming very conservative investments of the order of EUR 900 million/plant for LTO and EUR 6 billion for a new reactor, then about EUR 90 billion would be required for LTO and EUR 600 billion for new builds, creating about 300,000 jobs for a period of 20 years.

The benefit in terms of emissions can also be estimated: 140GWe of nuclear power (20 % of electricity generation) in 2050 would save 840Mt/yr of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (compared to the worst case of hard coal without carbon capture and storage). Today’s EU emits approximately 4,500Mt/year of CO2 (9t/year/person for 500 million citizens).Apart from pure electricity generation, large-scale nuclear cogeneration could help to decarbonise the energy market further. Nuclear cogeneration is a proven technology at low temperatures (70–150°C). In Europe, 13 water-cooled reactors are supplying steam for district heating or process heat (a total of 1,089GWh in 2006). Studies for the US and Europe have confirmed the very large industrial heat market in Europe, especially in the 250–550°C temperature range.

The potential of nuclear energy as part of a decarbonisation strategy is therefore significant, both in the electricity sector and in the industrial process heat market. Its implementation will require EU and industrial commitment and a stable transnational energy policy.

Besides electricity and heat, it is important to recognise the increasing role of nuclear energy in medicine, space exploration, agriculture and other potential fields.

These facts should reinforce the EU commitment to nuclear energy.

The roadmap is the SET-Plan that defines and prioritises the SNETP needs. The platform was launched in 2007 and a strategic research agenda in 2009. This Topic 2 intends to provide inputs to enlarge the objective of the SET-Plan and to define the Horizon 2020 programme.

2 Recommendations for the SET-plan strategy

2.1 Research agenda scopeThe expected role of nuclear energy is only possible if the research agenda contemplates the existing fleet, new LWRs, innovative systems and the development of other applications in a sustainable manner. The damage to Fukushima on 11 March 2011, caused by a tsunami in Japan, has triggered policy decisions at the EU level and in the Member States that should be reflected in the priorities and objectives in the SET-Plan. In 2007, the renaissance of nuclear energy was evident in the EU and worldwide, with decisions to continue LWR operation, including through lifetime extensions, and extensive new-build projects. Today, however, some countries have announced the closure of their installations, new-builds are being delayed and the increased cost of the investments required in back-fitting could compromise the viability of some existing plants. Urgent action is needed by EU countries to demonstrate clear support for nuclear energy.

Recommendation: the EU should show firm support for nuclear technology. The SET-Plan should be revisited and enlarged to better reflect the strategies for maintaining the existing fleet and supporting new reactor construction, together with the development of innovative systems. To attain this ambition, in times of economic difficulties, it is more than ever necessary to bundle and optimise all financial, manpower and infrastructure resources, not only from EU countries with nuclear commitments but through international collaboration. In enlarging the SET-Plan, a strategy for technology and knowledge transfer to other nuclear energy applications in medicine, space exploration, agriculture and environmental protection should be incorporated into EU research and supported in Horizon 2020.With respect to innovative systems, a threat exists in that restrictions in R&D will not allow the developments needed to meet the safety, sustainability and economic objectives required for the SET-Plan targets. While the SNETP strategic research and innovation agenda sets out nuclear R&D needs, it lacks priorities and urgency.

Recommendation: In view of the expected limited resources compared to the scope of the required programme of innovative system development, a revised SNETP strategic research agenda should more clearly prioritise R&D according to urgency and significance with a view to meeting SET-Plan targets.

Many EU countries give strong support to the deployment of renewable energies so it is likely that future energy scenarios will comprise a much higher fraction of variable renewable energies than today. It is, therefore, important to explore better the possible synergies between renewable, fossil and nuclear energy scenarios and the necessary infrastructures to integrate all the technologies. This could help dampen daily and seasonal electricity demand/supply mismatches, thus maximising the acceptable fraction of renewables in energy systems. Such effects are insufficiently understood despite the large potential for technically feasible and affordable energy systems with low carbon footprints.

Recommendation: Effort should be dedicated to integrated system studies which would help in the acceptance of nuclear energy operating with a relatively large fraction of renewables in a future EU energy system. The understanding of the socioeconomic impact of the energy mix could provide a clearer view of the benefits and limitations of all energy technologies, to depolarise the energy policy debate in Europe. This strategy should be incorporated in the EU research agenda, in the SET-Plan and in Horizon 2020.

2.2 Research agenda organisation

The SET-Plan has proven to be a very valuable instrument for channelling EU energy development and should remain the backbone of the Horizon 2020 energy programme. Nevertheless, since 2007 when the SET-Plan was defined, the nuclear fission situation has changed significantly worldwide and in Europe.

At the EU level, through SNETP and SET-Plan platforms, a five-tier (pillar) structure has been adopted for nuclear technology development in the SET-Plan, consisting of:

• the NUclear GENeration II and III Association (Nugenia) for the safe and reliable operation of the present reactor fleet (generation II and III) and of the new water-cooled generation III reactors;

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

78 79


• the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) for the deployment of liquid- and gas-cooled fast-neutron systems with closed fuel cycle for minimised waste and optimised use of resources;

• the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) for waste management;

• support associations such as the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (Melodi) for radiological protection and dose evaluation;

• and the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) in support of basic research.

Recommendation: Horizon 2020 should reinforce the legality of these five pillars and assign new missions to them, defining, controlling and being responsible for the implementation. The existing ESNII, Nugenia, Melodi and IGD-TP should act as project managers and basic research should be channelled through the EERA networks to consolidate EU work and through international collaboration.

3 Recommendations for technology development

3.1 Existing reactorsThe existing fleet of reactors should be a key element of the EU nuclear energy roadmap. Safety, transparency and excellence in operation should be a priority. Lessons learned and technology developments should be continually incorporated.The SNETP roadmap initially emphasised waste minimisation and uranium resource optimisation, without giving consideration to nuclear safety and competitiveness. However, the Fukushima accident has drawn new attention to safety, in particular in case of extremely severe external hazards. R&D is essential for a better understanding of accident phenomenologies and thus for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents and for the implementation of the lessons learned. More than before, extremely severe and rare accidents should be considered in a more global approach to safety, which would improve the understanding of design margins and of reactor behaviour beyond those margins, to allow the development of more robust

responses. The revised SNETP research agenda provides a high degree of detail about the R&D required for generation II and III reactors. Seven areas of R&D topics essentially support the safe operation of existing nuclear plants. Much of this R&D could and possibly should be performed by the industry. Nevertheless, some aspects of common interest have effects beyond the boundaries of specific EU countries.

Recommendation: The EU should support and encourage continuous safety development of the existing EU fleet of reactors. A common set of safety requirements should be agreed and R&D promoted specifically in those aspects of common interest across the EU. Emergency management, an environmental monitoring network, severe accident management, life extension technologies, fuel performance, radiation dose calculation methodology, low-dose effects and waste classification should have priority.

3. new water-cooled reactors

As indicated above, an extrapolation to 2050 of the “20 % nuclear” scenario indicates that 100-120 units should be built in Europe. Whether such a concentrated construction effort in the energy sector will hit bottlenecks in terms of financing, industrial and licensing capacity, manpower, etc. is an open issue. All EU country construction programmes face sociopolitical, economic and technical difficulties. Some difficulties are country-specific and therefore require case-by-case solutions. Nevertheless, in most cases solutions could be adopted at the EU level.

Recommendation: Construction of fission reactors should be supported at the EU level to guarantee that 100 new units are built in response to the relevant 2050 energy scenario. Research should be considered into innovative financing schemes, further harmonisation of utility requirements, harmonisation of licensing requirements and procedures, harmonisation of nuclear and industrial codes and standards, harmonisation of siting requirements, licensing of standard plant designs and first-of-a-kind reference projects based on standard plant designs.

3.3 Liquid- and gas-cooled reactors

The great effort already made by the international fission community to define potential fission systems, not only to respond to electricity production needs but also to improve waste management and other applications, should be recognised. Nowadays, we have better understanding of the contribution of different nuclear technologies and several EU countries have initiatives to build research and prototype installations, such as the Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID), the Multi-purpose HYbrid Research Reactor for high-tech Applications (MYRRHA), the gas-cooled fast reactor ALLEGRO and the Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator (ALFRED). Horizon 2020 should support these initiatives, which are in line with the Euratom objectives of providing long-term sustainability to nuclear fission and maintaining leadership.

Recommendation: The EU should support the construction of innovative liquid- and gas-cooled reactors, including the demonstration and experimental facilities identified in the SET-Plan. This should be done by consolidating national initiatives, with basic research channelled through EERA. Clear mapping of international collaboration is required at EU level to avoid duplication.

Nuclear co-generation of power and process heat can be envisaged with different types of nuclear heat sources. The market potential is large (similar to the electricity market) and currently largely provided by combustion of fossil fuels, in particular natural gas and coal with the concomitant carbon footprint. Apart from the ESNII, the SNETP is in the process of creating a second industrial initiative, on nuclear co-generation, with a draft concept paper outlining a roadmap for R&D towards demonstration as a prerequisite for industrial deployment. A particular R&D and demonstration item is the technical and economic adaptation of the nuclear heat source to the end-user, the coupling between heat source and end-user and the licensing of the co-located energy system.

Further development of this technology is justified through revisiting high-temperature reactors or other new systems.

Recommendation: Nuclear cogeneration has a large potential and could therefore be a contributor to the SET-Plan targets. Innovation and R&D should be directed towards demonstration of technologies for industrial applications and in particular towards demonstration of the safety performance and licensing potential.

3.4 other nuclear applications, radiological protection and waste management

The use of nuclear energy is increasing: medicine, agriculture, environmental protection, water use, space exploration, etc. all use nuclear energy. In the EU, the number of nuclear installations is already several orders of magnitude higher than the number of nuclear reactors and increasing. Innovations such as the “as low as reasonably achievable” approach, radiation monitoring systems and operational dose control have continually cut radiation exposure at reactors over the past 40 years and should be transferred to the new applications.

Recommendation: Identify strategies to transfer and expand radiological protection techniques and low-dose effects studies from the fission community to other applications and facilitate the understanding of their benefits and limitations. Horizon 2020 should support this strategy and promote joint programmes.

The EU commitment to the management of nuclear waste resulting from the use of nuclear energy should have the acceptance of society. The technologies for low- and medium-level waste management are in place and are being implemented. The IGD-TP research agenda clearly establishes how to achieve in 2025 the commissioning of several spent fuel and high-level waste storage facilities.

Recommendation: Follow up on EU policies and lessons learned from medium-level waste and promote the development and implementation of the strategic research agency proposed by the IGD-TP, whose aims are:

• Full development of the safety cases for storage facilities, which involves knowledge of processes, models and behaviours of the components and systems under any circumstances, whether expected or not;

• Improved understanding of the characteristics and behaviour in storage of the different types of waste, including any that may result from innovative reactors; and

• The demonstration of the construction and operational feasibility of full-scale facilities (underground laboratories and repository prototypes), the long-term behaviour of the components, the construction and operational safety, the monitoring and the governance.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

80 81


4 Financing of fission innovation

This section underlines the financing issues of the extensive nuclear programme required in Europe over the coming decades and provides recommendations to overcome the threat that the programme could not be implemented because of a lack of funding.

4.1 organisation and legal entities

Assuming the scenarios described and investments of the order of EUR 900 million/plant for LTO and EUR 6 billion for a new reactor, then about EUR 90 billion would be required for LTO and EUR 500 billion for new builds, creating about 300,000 jobs for a period of 20 years. The investment capabilities of European utilities have decreased because of the economic crisis and reactor vendors and utilities are questioning the viability of nuclear power plants under the existing market conditions.

This combination of large investments required and the reduction of the natural investors’ capacity make it urgent for Europe to create innovative financial schemes to attract investors and, at the same time, to maintain Europe’s leadership in fission technology.

Recommendation: Horizon 2020 should incorporate innovative financing instruments, which should balance public and private contributions, depending on the applications. Existing industrial platforms such as ESNII, Nugenia, and the IGD-TP as well as the Melodi association should act as project managers. All the instruments should define the rules for applications and the legal entities, based on the existing platforms.

4.2 Financing instrumentsThe development stages of fission applications range from mature industrial applications to just the opposite, i.e. incipient technologies that require demonstration before they can be used in industry. Therefore, in addition to Euratom funds, other possible instruments and financial schemes are:

• Co-funding by the EU of basic research launched by a Member State, where the work supports an EU objective. The co-financing should be agreed on case-by-case basis (e.g. 70 % Member State and 30 % EU). Euratom would finance all management activities. This instrument would establish coherence and integration between national lines of research and EU objectives;

• Loans and guarantees by Euratom and the European Investment Bank (EIB), as used in the past for other energy demonstration plants and for nuclear safety upgrades. They could be complemented by EU project bonds, which are particularly suitable for projects with long time-frames, high costs and large risks and which the European Commission has proposed under Horizon 2020. Such bonds could boost the credit rating of bonds issued by a project company;

• Financing of demonstrator projects by EU members through technology development or construction funds or in-kind contributions, which could also be from international sources;

• International collaboration for exchanging knowledge and optimising development; and

• The New Entrants Reserve (NER300) fund for the demonstration of low-carbon technologies, including renewable energy and carbon capture and storage, could be expanded to consider nuclear energy a contributor to the EU decarbonisation strategy.

Recommendation: The various SET-Plan pro-grammes and strategies should be linked to differ-ent financing mechanisms, the appropriateness of which will depend on the investment needs, the lev-el of development and industry involvement. In any case, sharing EU and Member State funds should be a priority. Loan guarantees, structural funds, pat-ent commercialisation, fully-funded projects and NER300 should be applied.

ConclusionsIt is the right time for Europe to create the pillars for the huge nuclear programme envisaged in the next decades. The understanding of the programme’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats should be the basis for an agreement among EU countries on the EU’s research agenda. The EU experience in renewable energies, advanced fossil fuel technologies and nuclear energy is unique and should be properly evaluated to drive the EU energy strategy.

This report underlines significant strengths and opportunities from a strong nuclear energy programme, including socioeconomic benefits in terms of jobs, investment, the environment and technologies. In understanding these benefits, there is no doubt about the potential and the need to establish a solid nuclear programme in Europe. The SET-Plan should be enlarged to maintain the existing fleet of plants, construct 100 new units, develop innovative systems, promote innovation in radiological protection and waste management and couple with programmes for other nuclear applications, aligned with a number of high-level recommendations for Horizon 2020.

Even though the benefits are very clear, there are weaknesses and threats that could prevent the implementation of the programme. However, the recommendations offer solutions to potential obstacles.

Among these recommendations, the innovative financial instruments for nuclear fission in Horizon 2020 are the key elements to success. Loan guarantees, EIB credits, structural funds and the co-financing of basic research should be implemented. Existing platforms (SNETP/ESNII, Nugenia and IGD-TP) and the Melodi association together with joint research channelled through EERA could play a fundamental project management role and form the basis of the required legal framework. The recommended organisational and financial instruments could finance 10 % of the EUR 900 billion investment envisaged for the fission industry over the next 30 years.

Annex 1: Experts consulted• Cayetano López Martínez, Centro de Investigacio-

nes Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológi-cas (CIEMAT), Spain

• Peter Baeten, SCK•CEN, Belgium

• Luc Geraets, GDF Suez, Nuclear Activities Division, Belgium

• Vincent Chauvet, LGI Consulting, France

• Michael Fütterer, JRC, Institute for Energy and Transport, Netherlands

• Yves Kaluzny, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, France

• Aníbal Martín, Consultant, Spain

• Edward Quinn, Technology Resources, USA

• María Luisa Castaño Marín, Ministerio de Economía, Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Spain

• Pilar González Gotor, Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI), Spain

• Javier García Serrano, Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI), Spain

• Fidel Pérez Montes, Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro de Energía (IDAE), Spain

• Carmen Martínez Ten, Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN), Spain

• Mats Ladeborn, European Atomic Forum (Foratom), Belgium

• Antonio González Jiménez, Foro de la Industria Nuclear Española, Spain

• Jean Pierre West, NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia), Belgium

• Jacques Delay, IGD-TP and ANDRA, France

• Philippe Lalieux, IGD-TP and NIROND, Belgium

• Antonio Colino, Plataforma Tecnológica de Energía Nuclear de Fisión (CEIDEN), Spain

• Noël Camarcat, European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), France

• Rauno Rintamaa, NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia), Finland

• Álvaro Rodríguez Beceiro, ENRESA, Spain

• Julio Francisco Astudillo Pastor, ENRESA, Spain

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

82 83


Topic 3:

Research and developmentMain subjects: promoting research and development in the nuclear field through increased coordination of national programmes, joint programming

Gustaf LÖWENHIELMCGL Consulting, Sweden

Dr Gustaf Löwenhielm is a consultant at CGL Consulting, Sweden. He was the research director of the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate from 1999 and the research director at the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority from its establishment in 2008 until 2010, then a part-time senior adviser there until 2012. He received his PhD in reactor physics at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. He has worked for the Swedish energy company Vattenfall and as the head of the safety group at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden. He has served on many international research groups, for example on the steering group of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations and as the chairman of the European Commission’s Consultative Committee Euratom-Fission.

Summary and key messagesNuclear research – a concern for nuclear safetyWithin the EU about 30 % of electricity production is obtained from 131 nuclear power plants (January 2013). Although significant in EU terms, this general measure masks major differences in actual national deployments ranging from zero to more than 80 % and there are very different attitudes within the EU towards nuclear energy. However it is in the interests of all EU countries that world-class research and development (R&D) continues at a meaningful level in addressing safety, improved operational performance, decommissioning and waste management. There is no doubt that nuclear power will, in spite of the Fukushima accident, continue to have an important role in the EU’s energy mix for at least several decades into the future.

As nuclear technology is complex with potential risks, the importance of nuclear expertise is paramount for nuclear safety. There is a vital link between a strong research base and education and training of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Therefore a strong R&D programme has an important impact in terms of nuclear safety, which is important to all countries, including those not using nuclear energy. Nuclear issues transcend borders, so a strong pipeline of expertise available within and between countries is essential to inform and advise politicians and the public at large. R&D provides a valuable means for enabling a vibrant skills pipeline of young talented people into regulators, industry, research organisations and government agencies across the EU. Furthermore, each country has an obligation to maintain sufficient expertise for all nuclear facilities throughout their life according to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of R&D at the European level can be made by greater use of the existing technology platforms and leverage with other cross-cutting programmes within the wider scope of Horizon 2020. The vital task of keeping the nuclear option open for EU states to be able to exercise it in the long term should be facilitated by judicious use of EU structural funds.

Recommendation 1: Whether or not individual countries continue with nuclear energy there must be a critical mass of dedicated professionals for high-quality research as new technologies and applications develop. Educated and trained professionals are paramount to nuclear safety. Thus, the European Commission must continue to support research, education and training at least at the present level.

Recommendation 2: The European Nuclear Safety Regulators’ conclusions based on the European stress tests following Fukushima must be pursued. Any further research required should be included in the calls for Horizon 2020 projects, while duplication of work done under the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD-NEA) should be avoided. It is expected that the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) will adjust its work accordingly.

Recommendation 3: The key to enhancing cooperation and coordination are the existing technology platforms (SNETP and the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform [IGD-TP]) as well as the Multidisciplinary European Low-Dose Initiative (Melodi) association). The Commission should recognise that these initiatives have different driving actors. The SNETP is industry driven, the IGD-TP is implementer driven (industry and government-funded organisations) and Melodi is driven by regulators and technical safety organisations. The Commission should investigate how the they could be developed further.

Recommendation 4: Keep the nuclear option open for a long time to provide for an opportunity to move to carbon dioxide-free energy production. Thus, research on innovative nuclear technologies must be pursued, using all possible types of financing. Two research initiatives (related to industrial innovation) should be financed by setting aside a few per cent of EU structural funds.

Experts consulted: see Annex 1Questions put to the interviewees: see Annex 2

IntroductionIn January 2013 there were 435 nuclear reactors (44) in operation in the world, of which 131 were situated in EU. About 30 % of the EU’s electricity and about 70 % of its low-carbon energy was produced by nuclear power. However, there are major differences in the deployment of nuclear power in the Member States; ranging from 0 % to 80 %. Furthermore, different governments and publics have very different attitudes towards nuclear energy. Several countries have a non-nuclear energy policy but even so use nuclear technology for medical and other non-energy applications.

44 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) treaty was signed in 1957 by the six members of the then European Community. Today all 27 EU members have signed the Euratom treaty. The primary objective of the treaty was the promotion of the nuclear industry. In 1957 the industry was seen as exciting with the potential for the supply of affordable energy. Today the situation is different; today nuclear energy is seen as a means to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the terms of Kyoto agreement and by some as a key resource for securing energy supplies.

Chapter 1 in the treaty, “Promotion of research”, stated that the European Commission was “responsible for promoting and facilitating nuclear research in the Member States and for complementing it by carrying out a research and training programme” (Article 4).Article 5 stated: “For purposes of coordinating and complementing research in Member States” the Commission shall by either specific request or by a general published request undertake research. Furthermore: “The Commission shall discourage unnecessary duplication and shall direct research towards sectors which are insufficiently explored.” This article also allowed the Commission to consult public and private research centres as well as any expert. Article 134 set up the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) as an advisory body. Article 8 required the Commission to establish the Joint Nuclear Research Centre (JRC).

Interviews

To get an impression of the Euratom research, status and suggestions for the next research framework programme 2014–20, 11 interviews were conducted in the period 30 August to 19 October 2012. Annex 1 lists the interviewees and Annex 2 the questions asked. Those interviewed have all been involved in Euratom research in some way, but special care was taken to involve people from the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP), the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) and the Multidisciplinary European Low-Dose Initiative (Melodi). The latter is not a technology platform, but will be treated as one in the following text.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S


84 85


1 Analysis (and prioritisation) of Euratom research and training for the next 10 years

1.1 Why research?There is a strong link between research and the competences needed by the nuclear industry. An important source of skilled workers is universities strong in both research and education; a link noted in the treaty, which emphasises research and training. Research, education and training are of major importance for the EU and safe nuclear power. The EU needs to reduce uncertainty associated with advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems such that decisions can be taken on whether nuclear power should contribute to the long-term energy strategy. While Member States might disagree on deploying nuclear technology, it remains an option and research and development (R&D) will help to address uncertainties related to safety, economics, plant performance, deployability and environmental impact. R&D at a meaningful scale to address some of these attributes is beyond the means of a single country, hence the need for a collaborative EU approach.

Irrespective of whether advanced systems are deployed, R&D helps to underpin the safe operation of existing nuclear facilities. Even countries that have phase-out policies still have active nuclear programmes associated with generation and ultimately decommissioning. Nuclear R&D is not solely about developing new products that advance the industry, such as in the automotive, defence or aerospace sectors. Much of the work is to underpin safety cases for safe operation of nuclear facilities, by enabling a robust scientifically sound and mechanistic approach to safety. Without such R&D, this approach would not be possible. Given common challenges in Member States, it makes sense to pool capabilities and capacities to address some of these issues and also share knowledge, peer reviewing, etc. to ensure that high levels of safety are adopted throughout the EU. This is what we see in the geological disposal area for example.

This view was supported in the interviews; the interviewees took the general view that we must continue safety research on reactor systems, waste disposal and radiological protection. Education and training must also be maintained. The importance of keeping the competences in all these areas was emphasised, as was the important connection between research and education. Several interviewees felt that it should be possible to use sources other than Euratom funds, e.g. for basic research it should be possible to use European Research Council funding.

R&D is also a valuable means for enabling a vibrant skills pipeline of trained young people to join the industry. Again, irrespective of countries’ nuclear policies, such a skills pipeline will be needed for many decades even to support decommissioning and clean-up. EU level R&D encourages pooling of resources and mobility of researchers to understand challenges in different countries and also to access specialist facilities, equipment or capability that cannot be replicated in all countries.

Thus a trained workforce, mobile across the EU, sharing resources and know-how through EU research programmes is desirable for all EU countries, despite widely differing nuclear policies, which include:

• Opposition to nuclear with no intention to deploy, but need to have a voice, be informed and be assured over neighbouring states that may be deploying nuclear;

• Phasing out nuclear and need to ensure that reactors are decommissioned safely, efficiently and cost effectively and that the radioactive waste is managed in a safe long-term and sustainable manner;

• Maintaining generating capacity and wish to maximise lifetime extensions with safe operation, thus giving assurance to other countries over regulation and know-how; and

• Looking to expand nuclear programme and considering advanced nuclear concepts and advanced fuel cycles, which entail uncertainty over costs, safety, environmental protection, plant operation, performance, etc.

Recommendation 1: Whether or not individual countries continue with nuclear energy there must be a critical mass of dedicated professionals for high-quality research as new technologies and applications develop. Educated and trained professionals are paramount to nuclear safety. Thus, the European Commission must continue the support to research, education and training at least at the present level.

1.2 How should Fukushima affect Euratom research?The Fukushima Daiichi accident had an immediate effect on the public perception of nuclear safety. Two EU countries and Switzerland decided to phase out nuclear power (Germany within 10 years, Belgium before 2025 and Switzerland stopped plans to build new plants to replace old plants). A total of 12 EU members continue their nuclear programmes and in several (France, the UK, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, the Slovak Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Slovenia) construction or planning for new units is under way. Outside Europe (except in Japan) it seems that Fukushima has not significantly affected nuclear programmes other than evaluation of enhanced safety and improved robustness to external events.In the EU it was decided to perform stress tests (45). Some resulting recommendations require more investigation and research. From the interviews for this topic, it is clear that there is a wish for regulators to be more harmonised and a feeling that the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) could be more precise in its conclusions from the stress tests. However, a substantial part of reactor systems research should be devoted to following up the ENSREG recommendations. It is also obvious that public perception is very sensitive to major nuclear accidents and land contamination. The defence-in-depth principle has to be further developed. Also, protection of reactor containments must be considered, e.g. with protection by filtered venting. As the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD-NEA) has made a ranked list of necessary research following Fukushima, duplication of work should be avoided.

Recommendation 2: The ENSREG conclusions based on the European stress tests must be pursued. Any further research required should be included in the calls for Horizon 2020 projects, while duplication of work done under OECD-NEA should be avoided. It is expected that the SNETP will adjust its work accordingly.

(45) EU Stress Test Peer Review Final Report.pdf

1.3 The importance of technology platformsOne of the most important forms of EU cooperation is the technology platform, implemented in the 7th R&D Framework programme. So far there are two in fission: the SNETP (46) and the IGD-TP (47). There is similar cooperation in the Melodi association (48).Several interviewees stated that the research efficiency and cooperation under Euratom have increased mainly because of the introduction of the platforms. But large collaboration projects and networks of excellence (NoEs) have also enhanced efficiency and cooperation. Also appreciated in these large projects and platforms was the requirement for cooperation on training. But there was also dissatisfaction at some aspects of platform functioning, with suggestions for improvements. Still, it is obvious that the most important key to enhanced cooperation in Europe is the platforms, which provide the necessary cross-cutting dimension.

SNETP

Launched in September 2007, the SNETP today has more than 100 members from 21 countries (20 EU countries and Switzerland). No regulator participates. The SNETP was set up with three aims (49):

• To maintain the safety and competitiveness of today’s technologies, through the NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia);

• To develop a new generation of more sustainable and innovative reactor technologies, through the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII); and

• To develop new applications of nuclear power such as the industrial-scale production of hydrogen, desalination and other industrial process heat applications, through the Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative (NC2I).

(46) http://www.snetp.eu (47) http://www.igdtp.eu (48) http://melodi-online.eu (49) The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform – A vision

report, EUR 22842 (2007) – http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-VisionReport/sne-tp_vision_report_eur22842_en.pdf

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

Report.pdf

http://www.snetp.eu

http://www.igdtp.eu

http://melodi-online.eu

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-VisionReport/sne-tp_vision_report_eur22842_en.pdf



86 87


The strategic research agenda (50) is ambitious: the short-, medium- and long-term challenges are identified, but very little is said about priorities and the cost of the research. The deployment strategy (51) estimates that generation II and III research requires funding of about EUR 1.5 billion for the years 2010–20, with the industry supposed to provide about two-thirds and national governments and the EU one third. For new reactor technologies and co-generation the funds needed are quite substantial: research and construction of prototypes will require EUR 8–10 billion at 2009 prices and the cogeneration initiative about EUR 3.5 billion — similar figures are included in SET-Plan (52). The SNETP believes that the industry can provide about 20 %, with the remainder coming from EU and national funds. A financial position paper (53) foresees that the ESNII and NC2I financing will be through public-private partnerships (PPPs).

In this context the work of the Joint Programme Nuclear Materials (JPNM) should be mentioned. The JPNM is part of the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) established by 15 leading European research institutes. The objective of EERA is to accelerate the development of new energy technologies through joint research programmes in support of the SET-Plan and the integration of activities and resources, combining national and EU funding and maximising complementarities. The JPNM, one of 13 joint programmes, focuses on advanced materials for nuclear applications, in support of SET-Plan and SNETP work on advanced and innovative technology. The JPNM is a good example of the importance of cross-cutting research.

Looking at generation II and III research one interviewee found the earlier merger of the Nuclear Plant Life Prediction platform (NULIFE) and the first part of the SNETP to form Nugenia extremely important as they had the same aims. According to one interviewee, industry should work for common values in the design, assessment and operation of the plants and should have a common knowledge base. However, there were some concerns (see Section 2).

The accident at Fukushima will affect the SNETP work, in particular in generation II and III (Nugenia) research (54). One important development is that the Severe Accident Research NETwork of Excellence (SARNET) has been incorporated into the SNETP and must play a role in the Fukushima research.

(50) Strategic research agenda – SRA 2009 – http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-AboutSNETP/sra2009.pdf

(51) Deployment strategy 2010 – SNETP – http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-DS/ds-a4.pdf

(52) The SET-Plan: from concept to successful implementation (2011), Centre for European Policy Studies task force – http://www.ceps.eu/book/set-plan-concept-successful-implementation

(53) EU Multi-annual Financial Framework 2014–20: Aligning nuclear fission R&D budgets to reach SET-Plan targets, SNETP position paper (2012) – http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Publications/pp_mff.pdf

(54) Implications of the Fukushima accident for SNETP (2011)

IGD-TP The IGD-TP was launched in November 2009 and by July 2011 had about 80 participating members. The IGD-TP states: “Our vision is that by 2025, the first geological disposal facilities for spent fuel, high-level waste and for other long-lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe.”

The commitments are to:

• Build confidence in the safety of geological disposal among European citizens and decision-makers;

• Encourage the establishment of waste management programmes that integrate geological disposal as the accepted option for the long-term management of long-lived and/or other high-level waste; and

• Facilitate access to expertise and technology and maintain competences in the field of geological disposal for the benefit of Member States.

Waste programmes are financed differently around the EU. In Sweden and Finland, for example, they are run by the respective industry organisations SKB and POSIVA. In France, ANDRA, owned by the government-funded research organisation CEA, and in Germany the federal economics and technology ministry are responsible for finding high-level waste repositories. Another important difference is the progress; Sweden and Finland have applied for repository construction licences, but in most other countries that process has just started.

The IGD-TP has published a strategic research agenda (55) and a deployment plan (56). One major difference compared to the SNETP is that the members of the IGD-TP responsible for finding a final repository are financially strong and can fund most, or even all, of the research needed. The secretariat is covered for three years currently by EU research funding.

It is clear that the IGD-TP has initiated a systematic way of coordinating waste research. The Commission and the IGD-TP are discussing future work options.

The general opinion of the interviewees was that the IGD-TP functions fairly well despite a few problems (see Section 2). One interviewee said that although the IGD-TP does not depend on EU funding, Euratom support for coordination was politically important and could boost public acceptance.

(55) Strategic research agenda (2011) – IGD-TP – can be downloaded from http://www.igdtp.eu

(56) IGD-TP – Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform – Deployment Plan 2011-2016 (2012); can be downloaded from http://www.igdtp.eu

On international collaboration beyond the EU, interviewees did not feel that more was needed for the IGD-TP to reach its goals. Another, new research network, the Sustainable network of Independent Technical EXpertise for Radioactive Waste Disposal (SITEX), is coordinated by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) of France and the members include regulators. SITEX and the IGD-TP are discussing their relationship.

Melodi

The January 2009 report by an EU-funded high-level expert group on European low-dose risk research (57) identified the most important gaps in knowledge and the need for research at the European, or even international, level through a transnational organisation. The Melodi association was therefore established in 2010 with 15 members and in many respects acts as a technology programme. Its 2010 strategic research agenda was updated in 2011 and 2012 (58). Furthermore, the Do-Re-Mi NoE was established with EU research funding (59).

The expert group identified three key scientific areas:

• Dose response curves for cancer;

• Non-cancer diseases; and

• Individual radiosensitivity.

There are two other important radiological protection entities, the Alliance in Radioecology (with the NoE Strategy for Allied Radioecology) and the European Platform on Preparedness for Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Response and Recovery (NERIS).

The importance of Melodi (including Do-Re-Mi), the alliance and NERIS should be emphasised. Radiological protection research in many EU countries had been faltering and there was a sub-critical mass of researchers thanks, for example, to severe US budget cuts. Interviewees felt that the new cooperation would maintain competence in radiological protection in the EU and ensure coordination of low-dose research. They stressed that long-term competence in Europe had been a problem in several countries with limited research budgets.

It should be pointed that Melodi has yet to publish a deployment plan.

(57) Report of high-level and expert group on European low-dose risk research (2009)

(58) Third draft of strategic research agenda – MELODI – http://melodi-online.eu/SRA3.pdf

(59) http://melodi-online.eu/doremi.html

Melodi, the alliance and NERIS are discussing a merger, which is supported by the Commission and interviewees, to form the Open Project for the European Radiation Research Area (OPERRA) covering the overlapping disciplines of low-dose research, radioecology and emergency preparedness.

Platforms have different participants and financingcapabilities

One important aspect should be recognised: the platforms are very different in terms of participants and finance.

SNETP: The members are mainly vendors and utilities, plus technical safety organisations (TSO). There are several strong financial participants, but the funding is definitely inadequate for demonstrators and a sodium-cooled fast reactor prototype.

IGD-TP: This is implementer driven, with the mix of regulatory bodies, publicly funded organisations and utilities reflecting the spread of responsibility for high-level waste repositories between utilities and governments (usually financed by utilities). All members are strong financially and little dependent on EU research funding.

Melodi: The members are regulators, TSOs and universities; the nuclear industry is not involved. A few members are strong financially, but the universities have to find funding from regulators, for example.

Several interviewees stressed that it was important for the Commission to recognise the differences when considering enhanced cooperation and collaboration. As some regulatory bodies do not want to be part of the SNETP or the IGD-TP (according to regulatory interviewees), communications with the platforms must be carefully implemented so that the integrity of the regulatory role is not endangered. Furthermore, communications must be open and transparent.

The Commission must also recognise that there are national needs because of different regulatory requirements, different nuclear power plants, etc. The research for national needs cannot be coordinated by the platforms and cannot be supported by Euratom.

Recommendation 3: The key to enhancing cooperation and coordination are the existing technology platforms (SNETP and IGD-TP) as well as the Melodi association. The Commission should recognise that these initiatives have different driving actors. The SNETP is industry driven, the IGD-TP is implementer driven (industry and government-funded organisations) and Melodi is driven by regulators and TSOs. The Commission should investigate how they could be developed further.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-AboutSNETP/sra2009.pdf

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-AboutSNETP/sra2009.pdf

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-DS/ds-a4.pdf

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-DS/ds-a4.pdf

http://www.ceps.eu/book/set-plan-concept-successful-implementation

http://www.ceps.eu/book/set-plan-concept-successful-implementation

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Publications/pp_mff.pdf

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Publications/pp_mff.pdf

http://www.igdtp.eu

http://www.igdtp.eu

http://melodi-online.eu/SRA3.pdf

http://melodi-online.eu/SRA3.pdf


88 89


1.4 Are innovative reactor technologies and co-generation reactors part of Europe’s energy future?When discussing new-build, all interviewees recognised the political situation in Europe and the adverse view in some countries. However, some interviewees believed that innovative reactor technologies would be an important part of the future energy mix in Europe and that safety research for such reactors should be supported. There is a considerable cost in moving to a CO2-free energy mix.

It was clear from the interviews that the most difficult problem in the SNETP was the financing of work on new technologies and co-generation reactors. The two programmes (including one prototype and two to three demonstrators) would need EUR 11.5–13.5 billion at 2009 prices over the next 10 years. Several of the interviewees expressed concern about how this could be funded. These interviewees felt it important to carry out the SET-Plan, but that Euratom funding was magnitudes short of the money needed. It is therefore necessary to tap other funds, e.g. EU regional or infrastructure funds or European Investment Bank loans (to be repaid from electricity sales). International funding sources could include organisations participating in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and in the Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (OECD-NEA).

One interviewee warned that a lack of funding for prototypes and demonstrators would probably lead to China and India taking over the technology, leaving Europe behind in a high-tech area in which it has been prominent. It is also necessary to keep the nuclear option open in the long-term and thus Europe should cooperate internationally and also build prototypes and demonstrators in Europe, typically through PPPs.

A few interviewees called for more research into the materials for prototype reactors, which would otherwise be risky to build. This material research can be performed in research reactors smaller and cheaper than prototype reactors already proposed.Recommendation 4: Keep the nuclear option open for a long time to provide for an opportunity to move to CO2-free energy production. Thus, research on innovative nuclear technologies must be pursued, using all possible types of financing. Two research initiatives (related to industrial innovation) should be financed by setting aside a few per cent of EU structural funds.

2 Further suggestions

Working methods in the platforms

The Commission is amending its funding processes to address the unwillingness of regulators to be active members of the SNETP and the IGD-TP for integrity and transparency reasons. Communication between the organisations is important, if only so that the industry can relate its research to that expected by regulators. The SNETP/Nugenia should set up a reference group, with regulator members, to provide informal communication links, to keep regulators informed about the research. However, a few interviewees pointed out that regulatory bodies have varied views on what research is important, as the legislation differs between countries; a recurring difficulty in the SNETP/Nugenia. However, a reference group could lead to, maybe not harmonisation, but at least better understanding of different views. The IGD-TP is developing a closer relationship with SITEX, which could give regulators in SITEX links to disposal organisations without jeopardising the integrity of the regulators. Furthermore, the inclusion of the JRC could give added value, in particular in dissemination and education, although one interviewee questioned whether the added value justifies the extra administrative burden.

Concerning OPERRA, one interviewee hoped that the universities would have a bigger role, as they had access to other, closely-related scientific disciplines (e.g. medicine) and education on site.

Several interviewees warned that a large number of participants led to a large administration. One interviewee felt that 10 participants was ideal and another stated that when the number exceeded 30, the administration would be cumbersome and it was questionable if the added value outweighed the added administrative burden. One way to alleviate this burden is to limit the number of participants in work packages, scientific committees and reference groups.

Suggestion: A reference group with regulator members should be established in the SNETP/Nugenia and closer cooperation between the IGD-TP and SITEX fostered to develop communications between regulators and industry. The establishment of OPERRA should be backed. Universities should play a bigger role than they do today. Cumbersome red tape should be cut.

European Nuclear Forum Energy

Social scientists interviewed said that Euratom research was not well known by the public at large and that more research should be done in social sciences in an open and transparent manner. The European Nuclear Forum Energy (ENEF) (60) could play an important role as it is a discussion forum for all, free of taboos, on transparency issues as well as the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy. Euratom should be more involved in this work.

Suggestion: All stakeholders should have an influence on policy and on Euratom research. Researchers should be active in ENEF.

Annex 1: Experts consulted• Bertrand Barré, member, Euratom Scientific and

Technical Committee (STC), France

• Peter Baeten, advanced nuclear systems institute director, SCK•CEN, Belgium and vice-chair of ESNII (SNETP)

• José Condé, head of the office of research, CSN, Spain

• Jacques Delay, Andra, France and secretary general, IGD-TP

• Martha Heitzmann, senior executive vice president, research and innovation, Areva, France

• Göran Hultqvist, senior specialist in reactor safety, Forsmarks Kraftgrupp, Sweden

• Sue Ion, chair, STC, UK

• Jacques Repussard, director general, IRSN, France

• Rainer Salomaa, professor of applied physics, Aalto University, Finland and member STC

• Jan Wallenius, professor of reactor physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

• Wolfgang Weiss, vice president, Melodi board (at time of interview), Germany

(60) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm

Annex 2: Questions put to the interviewees

• How active is your organisation in EU research?

• What type of research do you expect that EU should support? Safety, public acceptance, economic risk, new-build, political risk?

• What is your experience so far with EU research?

• In your opinion, what are the best instruments used so far? How can the instruments be further developed? Your opinion about technology platforms?

• What is your view of the link research–education–training and possible improvements?

• What relationship would you like between the EU and the research community in Horizon 2020? Role of public funding?

• You probably know that the Commission is pushing for research to be programme oriented, not project oriented as it is today. Your view? Is research in the EU (EU, safety authorities, transmission system operators, utilities, vendors) poorly coordinated? If yes, how can this situation be improved? Public-private financing? Public-public financing? Authorities’ involvement?

• Cooperation outside EU?

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S


90 91


Topic 4:

Education and training and skillsMain subjects: Further development of expertise and high skills in nuclear fields while ensuring education and training in nuclear energy as part of the energy mix. (Knowledge management, EU higher education, ECTS and ECVET)

François WEISSGrenoble Institute of Technology, France and KIC InnoEnergy

Dr. François Weiss is senior scientist at the French national centre for scientific research (CNRS) and a materials sciences specialist, focusing on superconducting and functional materials. He was director of the Materials Science and Physical Engineering Laboratory (LMGP) in Grenoble. He was until 2008 vice-president for Research of the Grenoble Institute of Technology. Since 2009, he has helped to set up the sustainable energy company Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy, in the EU’s European Institute of Technology (EIT). He was education officer for the French co-location centre, devoted to sustainable nuclear and converging technologies. He developed education within KIC InnoEnergy, setting up six international MSc schools and one PhD school with an emphasis on energy innovation and entrepreneurship.

Summary and key messagesEducation, training, and research in nuclear science and engineering: keys to sustain nuclear energy’s future role in the EU

The nuclear science and engineering community in the EU is beset with numerous challenges that threaten nuclear power’s role as a clean and abundant source of reliable energy. These range from growing disinterest in higher education among young and upcoming scientists and engineers to a nuclear workforce that is rapidly ageing and not being replaced.

The result is likely to be a lack of future generations to operate, promote and expand the nuclear power sector, as well as the loss of trained experts with the necessary knowledge and technical competencies to build, operate, and decommission current and future nuclear facilities safely.

Active nuclear research and education are, however, of utmost importance in spreading knowledge not only in the energy market but also in other very important sectors such as health care and cancer prevention. Therefore they provide stable employment in the mid- and long-term for qualified people. Cooperation with other energy sectors is also increasingly important, for the development of transversal skills and competences oriented to the wellness of society, for the analysis of global socioeconomic challenges and for the creation of awareness of and acceptance of nuclear energy as part of the whole energy mix. Smart energy education will be the key to changing behaviour.

To create and develop the necessary education, research and training programmes to ensure nuclear energy’s future in the EU, the following actions are recommended:

• Joint education and training programmes by the nuclear energy sector and academic institutions should be formed and encouraged to ensure a stable and highly trained workforce;

• New education programmes should be developed to address market and societal needs and to improve linkages between nuclear energy and its benefits to society and the economy;

• Public-private partnerships and collaboration with other EU organisations should be encouraged, to harmonise nuclear education and training across the EU as well as to support the expansion of education and training programmes in the nuclear sector;

• European initiatives such as the European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector (EHRO-N), the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) databases (based on input from and cooperation with national organisations) should be reinforced to support and advise different EU strategic actions;

• Key organisations in nuclear energy and nuclear safety should develop a common language for employment in nuclear education and training, including a taxonomy of knowledge, skills and competencies linked to employment opportunities; and

• A framework for mutual recognition of qualifications should be further developed with the objective of including non-academic qualifications and related vocational training to help promote nuclear energy. Pilot exercises should apply a learning outcomes approach (knowledge, skills, competences) within the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET).

Experts consulted: see references in the text and Annex 1

IntroductionNuclear technologies play an important role in our everyday lives, in energy, industrial, medical and environmental applications.

Nuclear fission, however, is often perceived as a controversial issue, principally because of nuclear accident risks, in particular after the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and after the triple accident in Japan in March 2011. As a result, in the 1980s and 1990s, Europe and North America in particular reduced their ambitions in the building of nuclear capacities; more recently, some European countries have taken political decisions either to phase out existing nuclear programmes, or to scale down further expansion. This makes the situation alarming as the number of qualified personnel is falling because of the retirement of ageing workers and a lack of replacement workers (61) (62) (63) (64) and students are not aware of, or no longer interested in, professional opportunities in this area.

(61) Putting into perspective the supply of and demand for nuclear experts by 2020 within the EU-27 nuclear energy sector, EHRO-N report, JRC scientific and policy report, EUR 25291 EN, ISBN 978-92-79-21276-5, ISSN 1831-9424, doi:10.2790/47738

(62) Nuclear education and training from concern to capability, 2012, OECD-NEA report (2420I:79264176379 OECD Code: 662012011P1)

(63) Status and trends in nuclear education, IAEA report: ISBN 978-92-0-109010-2, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1475_web.pdf

(64) Human resources for nuclear power expansion, IAEA report, http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/GC54InfDocuments/English/gc54inf-3-att5_en.pdf

This concern was identified more than 10 years ago and decisions have been taken by the EU and Member States to preserve a qualified workforce for the nuclear sector in the coming years.

Obviously, nuclear technologies will provide an important part of electricity production in the next 50 years (several scenarios of global energy mix) (65) and EU members are going to need properly trained professionals to work in these areas.

With the aim of continuously improving and disseminating the nuclear safety culture, education and training should therefore continue to contribute to the sustainability of nuclear energy by generating knowledge (research) and developing competences (training).

Needs are still expressed in the nuclear sector in terms of:

• scientific and technological innovation (the development of research and new reactor concepts, new applications and the integration of higher education, research and business/innovation);

• the increasingly multidisciplinary and international character of the nuclear fission sector;

• access to critical and large facilities and at the EU level;

• the different national energy policies regarding fission;

• the need for high-level decisions over long time-scales (100 years);

• the trend towards the outsourcing of activities;

• the development of a common nuclear safety culture worldwide, based on technical and organisational excellence and with possible public-private collaboration;

• pan-European mobility in science and technology (free movement of students, professors and experts);

• harmonisation of regulations across the EU;

• shortages of skilled professionals and the ageing of technical staff;

• new approaches to human resource development in a multicultural environment;

(65) Energy Roadmap 2050 (COM[2011] 885 Brussels, 15 December 2011), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1475_web.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1475_web.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/GC54InfDocuments/English/gc54inf-3-att5_en.pdf





92 93


• the public nuclear debate (understanding and public engagement);

• a common language between the world of education and the world of work;

• the impact of the EU’s European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) on national education and training developments; and

• the new sociological characteristics of learners, enhancing and supporting e-learning.

The challenge for knowledge creation and competence building is to create instruments that meet the requirements of both employers and learners, with emphasis on borderless mobility and lifelong learning. The main actions in these perspectives could be:

• Convergence towards a common vision, i.e. towards maximum safety and security worldwide, with a robust demonstration that the use of nuclear energy is beneficial, responsible and sustainable, and the re-building of public confidence;

• Analysis of the needs of industry and society, in particular with regard to the nuclear safety culture and knowledge management, including the knowledge, skills and competences to be taught according to established standards;

• Early contact between students and industry, preferably through coaching;

• Improvement of continuous professional development schemes to fit the needs of employers and learners;

• Development of common instruments that respond to the above needs and vision, i.e. co-funding of nuclear education and training through public-public partnerships or public-private partnerships;

• Development of performance-based training on large infrastructures within academic-industry cooperation schemes; and

• Description of job profiles as portfolios of learning outcomes that can be assessed, validated and recognised in the EU (ECVET).

1 European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) research and training — why?

1.1 Situation todayRecognising the scientific and interdisciplinary dimensions of nuclear technology and the high significance of human skills for its safe use, education and training have always been closely related to the use of nuclear energy. All major nuclear energy programmes over the past 60 years have included the establishment of an education and training infrastructure in parallel to the growth of the industry.

The strong public and political debates about nuclear energy after the accidents at Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) have, however, damaged the smooth evolution of the nuclear industry. The industry’s ups and downs, related to political decisions, have influenced the attractiveness of nuclear technology for students and have been reflected in the growth and decline of the nuclear education and training infrastructure. These developments resulted in tremendous manpower challenges for the nuclear energy sector, with three main concerns:

• The ability of universities to attract top-quality students, to meet industry’s future staffing requirements and to conduct leading-edge research, has been compromised;

• The lack of teachers and trainers to educate the future generations of learners is becoming critical; and

• The ageing of nuclear experimental infrastructures at universities, which are closing and need to be replaced.

1.2 progress to dateIn the last decade, the European Commission has taken the lead, complementing national initiatives, to offset the demise in nuclear education and training in the 1980s and 1990s. Examples include the Euratom Fission Training Scheme (EFTS) (66) of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Human Resource Observatory in the Nuclear Sector (EHRO-N) (67).

National research and education networks as well as the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) (68) have played an important role in rekindling the flames of nuclear education and training. They have an important function in supporting industry in its ambitious and challenging aims.

The cross-cutting dimension of nuclear education and its contribution to other energy fields is confirmed in the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) (69) under the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) and the latter’s European Energy Education and Training Initiative (launched in December 2011) (see recommendations in Section 3) where nuclear energy is taken as part of the whole energy mix.

Industry-driven collaborations and networks involving academic and industrial organisations are now extending beyond just the academic and research arenas to encompass education, training and provision of skills in all sectors of the nuclear fuel cycle.

International collaboration has been extended from research to education and training in the nuclear sector and it is worth mentioning that Euratom is involved in a number of international initiatives. A large international effort is currently dedicated to understanding what happened at Fukushima and how the subsequent response, at EU level, should be organised.

New EU initiatives in education and innovation have also recently been launched to foster collaboration in innovation, such as the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (70) (71), and the co-funding of education (e.g. through COFUND (72)).Most of these actions have a narrow focus and need to be evaluated with respect to the whole nuclear or energy sector.

(66) http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/training/for-nuclear-community/ efts-fp7.html (67) http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (68) http://www.enen-assoc.org/ (69) European Energy Research Alliance — 13 joint programmes, http://

www.eera-set.eu/, and, in particular, joint programme “Materials for nuclear”, http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=25

(70) http://www.eit.europa.eu/kics1/kic-innoenergy.html (71) http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/ (72) http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about-mca/

actions/cofund/index_en.htm

1.3 new needs, opportunities and challengesA nuclear future requires a re-qualification of human resources above and beyond those required just to replace the loss of skilled and experienced workers owing to retirement.

Significant trends put a greater emphasis on:

• The need to keep a high level of research and innovation;

• The need to develop knowledge and high-level expertise in radiological protection;

• The need to enhance safety and security, even when extending lifetimes of existing nuclear power plants;

• The decommissioning programmes expected over the next two to three decades;

• The need to achieve visible progress towards demonstration of high-level waste disposal;

• The need to reinforce regulation and legal control;

• The need to develop interdisciplinarity between hard science and soft sciences such as economics and social sciences; and

• The development of societal awareness, through outreach to opinion leaders and policymakers.

With the same profiles, well-educated and skilled personnel will also be needed for the new civil nuclear power countries across the world.

Additionally, significant changes in the structure of the nuclear industry, such as a trend to more outsourcing and an increasing international character to many activities related to nuclear energy, are gradually changing professional profiles. This calls for higher mobility of nuclear professionals within the EU and for more effective systems of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in line with the relevant national regulations. It calls also for a common background of knowledge and culture for the mutual understanding of roles and for achieving the necessary quality of communication and working processes.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S



http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.enen-assoc.org/

http://www.eera-set.eu

http://www.eera-set.eu

http://www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=25

http://www.eit.europa.eu/kics1/kic-innoenergy.html

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about-mca/actions/cofund/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about-mca/actions/cofund/index_en.htm

94 95


Although the industry is currently recruiting significant numbers of employees across a broad spectrum of disciplines (partly to offset retirements), a better understanding of the knowledge and skills profiles is needed for the safe long-term operation of existing plants, waste management and decommissioning, security, radiation protection and — more generally — the sustainability of the nuclear industry.

Better analyses of knowledge and skills gaps are needed based on the most recent information and a perspective of sustainable future needs. These analyses need to cover a wide scope including the engineering, scientific and technical areas as well as socioeconomic issues and managerial skills. In the industrial context, special attention must be devoted to relatively new issues such as corporate social, environmental and financial responsibility. They need to be performed at a European level with strong links to the Member States and the principal stakeholders.

• Changes and optimisations are required within the current education and training schemes to address the gaps which have been identified.

• New types of programmes are required, to foster transnational and trans-sectorial mobility, cooperation along the value chain and enhanced relationships between industry, academia and others, for better productivity. In particular, the timeframe needed to implement measures to fill the gaps have to be well evaluated. EHRO-N (73) has an important role to play in this analysis.

Regarding supply and demand of experts, the specific course contents and training pedagogy should be optimised for the different groups of learners. The availability of new IT technologies supporting e-learning and distance learning provide attractive opportunities for increasing the effectiveness and the efficiency of education and training programmes. Additionally, innovative approaches should also be imported from other sectors in a framework where the collaboration between education, research, industry and society is enhanced. The European Economic and Social Committee pointed out the need for inter-sectorial collaboration in energy, the need to attract young people to science and the need to make the public at large familiar with nuclear issues using new approaches including, for example, the design of “intelligent games” (74).

(73) http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=150

(74) Opinion of the European Economic and social Committee on energy education: TEN/474 – CESE 1054/2012 IT/CB/CAT/PM/HAT/gh

In general, a wider mutual recognition of professional qualifications and competences is a prerequisite for increasing the mobility and the international orientation of nuclear professionals within the EU. Greater clarity on education and training standards is therefore needed along with normalisation of education and training.

At the same time, significant investment will be needed to ensure the availability of adequate numbers of suitably qualified educators and trainers for the next generation nuclear workforce.

2 Convergence towards a common view in the EU — how?

Energy plays a key role in the construction of the EU and is one of the key targets in the Europe 2020 strategy contributing to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

The development of education and training in nuclear energy, to support the energy mix of the future, will be based on different initiatives and funding instruments available at the EU level or at the national level.

Under a renewed political framework in Europe, the new opportunities provided by recent EU flagship initiatives (75) and EU cohesion policy (76) should promote effective partnerships between the academic and industrial worlds and between private and public interests, providing bridges and ways for science to interact better with politics and society.

In this context, the European technology platforms and safety regulators (77) play an increasingly important advisory role in the Euratom research and training strategy (consensus on common needs, vision and instruments).

(75) http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/ (76) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm (77) European technology platforms (reactor safety, radiation

protection, geological disposal, etc.): SNETP, http://www.snetp.eu/ Melodi, http://www.melodi-online.eu/ IGD-TP, http://www.igdtp.eu/ ENEF, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm ENSREG, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_

en.htm

The vision reports of the platforms and fora (the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform [SNETP], the European Nuclear Energy Forum [ENEF], the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform [IGD-TP]) (78) and of the associations (e.g. the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative, Melodi) are particularly important to an understanding of the medium- and long-term objectives of the various scientific communities (reactor safety, waste management, radiation protection) in the fission sector. They should be supported by economic databases and human resources observatories (the Joint Research Centre [JRC], EHRO-N, etc.), which could provide independent analyses of their strategies. Their role should be confirmed with a balanced representation of all main parties from industry and society involved in fission applications (79):

• Research organisations (e.g. public and private sector, industrial and medical);

• Systems suppliers (e.g. nuclear vendors, engineering companies, manufacturers);

• Energy providers (e.g. electricity utilities, co-generation plants for process heat);

• Nuclear regulators and associated technical safety organisations;

• Higher-education and training institutions, in particular universities; and

• Civil society (policymakers, opinion leaders, interest groups and non-governmental organisations).

2.1 Implementation of Euratom education and training actions

Cooperation at national and EU level in nuclear education and training between academic and nuclear organisations has been considerably intensified during the last decade. The increased support and active involvement of the industry and others in academic education and research is important and needs to be further encouraged.

(78) Vision reports and strategic agendas of the platforms: http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-

VisionReport/sne-tp_vision_report_eur22842_en.pdf http://www.igdtp.eu/Documents/VisionDoc_Final_Oct24.pdf http://www.hleg.de/ (high-level group) http://www.melodi-online.eu/ (79) The role of stakeholders from civil society, in particular NGOs, is

pointed out in the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on energy education: TEN/474 – CESE 1054/2012 IT/CB/CAT/PM/HAT/gh

The collaboration at EU level is important for flexibility and mobility of skills between Member States and for the optimisation of key competences across Europe.

Further progress is needed, however, to resolve remaining difficulties, such as the insufficient availability of internships, and to optimise academic programmes, for a better fit between supply and demand.

Implementing such actions should involve a systematic consideration of established good practices in nuclear and other disciplines and the promotion of a high level of coordination between the initiatives and the funding instruments.

The training of educators and trainers also warrants particular attention.

Specific actions have been suggested in the recent report for the European Energy Education and Training Initiative and could be re-examined in the present context (80).

Based on the strategic analyses of the technology platforms (and taking into account budget constraints), EU education and training actions should be increasingly focused on programmes (not on projects) which present a clear added value in terms of new methodology or gaps and a clear evaluation of the main related key performance indicators.

The EU contribution could be used to leverage in-kind national, regional and international funds under joint programmes where only the implementation is supported by the EU. Joint programming could be ensured through voluntary (i.e. with limited EU funding) activities with a better balance between control-based and trust-based systems.

An example of such programmes is the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the EIT(81). KICs combine international networks with strong local clusters. They use the concepts of co-location and co-creation, in synergy with the EU cohesion policy (82), to promote innovation and entrepreneurship as a flagship for Europe.

(80) SET-Plan European Energy Education and Training Initiative, working group nuclear energy (January 2013 final report)

(81) EIT is the first EU initiative to integrate fully the three sides of the knowledge triangle (higher education, research, business/innovation)

(82) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=150

http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=150

http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/


http://www.snetp.eu/

http://www.melodi-online.eu/

http://www.igdtp.eu/


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_en.htm



http://www.igdtp.eu/Documents/VisionDoc_Final_Oct24.pdf

http://www.hleg.de/



96 97


KIC InnoEnergy (83) is a company with commitments from universities, researchers and industry, is results oriented and aims to be financially sustainable in the medium-term. It covers all the SET-Plan themes, shared among six co-location centres, including sustainable nuclear and renewable energy convergence. Business creation activities are coupled with research and innovation projects as well as with education and training. All these activities tend to be in synergy with each other, to foster innovation and entrepreneurship.

As far as education and training are concerned, KIC InnoEnergy has launched a European master in nuclear energy qualification (MSc EMINE) as a partnership between universities (UPC, KTH, Grenoble INP, ParisTech), companies and research institutes (Vattenfall, Areva, EDF, Endesa, the CEA), with EDF and the CEA hosting EMINE students for sessions at their experimental reactors. The students are involved also during their course modules in innovation projects run by industry and research institutes within KIC InnoEnergy, or are supported for KIC added-value activities during their PhD work within the KIC InnoEnergy PhD school, which is organised as an international university and industry collaboration.

In such programmes the EIT contribution is restricted to 25 % of the total programme cost and EIT funds only the added-value activity devoted to the deployment of innovation and entrepreneurship.In the same spirit, co-funding schemes implemented in connection with the European Regional Development Fund (for capacity building or smart specialisation) and the European Social Fund (for training of nuclear researchers and technical personnel) could be used in synergy with in-kind contributions.

In such programmes, even stronger coordination is required regarding governance and financing in order to ensure stability and stronger commitments from the parties involved.

(83) http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/

2.2 Answering societal challenges (84)

Nuclear energy is an integral part of the global energy mix and EU policy. The SET-Plan has analysed the evolution and shares of different primary energy sources to explore possible paths towards a low-carbon and resource-efficient EU energy system. National energy research strategies are clearly aligned to these objectives and should be integrated with the SET-Plan priorities on education and training.

To develop awareness of the nuclear sector in society, increase the attractiveness of nuclear careers in public and private organisations and strengthen links with other energy sectors, Europe-wide educational nuclear programmes should be addressed and developed.

The programmes should include the socioeconomic impacts of nuclear energy (such as on the global energy market, policymaking, corporate social responsibility, public acceptance, the environment, markets, entrepreneurship and public awareness).

They should be based on innovative learning approaches and methods (hands-on training, conferences, coalitions, networking, etc.) and develop new profiles linking the nuclear sector to other energy sectors and society.

Networks addressing these issues should be based on public-private partnerships, such as a group of universities, with both nuclear and social science disciplines, in association with private nuclear organisations.

They could also cover frontiers with other energy resources to address globally the societal challenge of green growth and favour borderless mobility of skills and competences in the whole energy sector.

In this context, new IT means could also be more generally developed:

• to share learning materials;

• to speed up, and increase the capacity for, multidisciplinary education; and

• to offer the public an open portal to create awareness about nuclear energy.

(84) See recommended actions, in the SET-Plan European Energy Education and Training Initiative, working group nuclear energy (October 2012 draft report)

2.3 Facilities for education and training Access to large research infrastructure such as major experiments and state-of-the-art computer codes is highly relevant for the quality and the attractiveness of high-level academic education in nuclear technology.

Research and training reactors, other facilities and experimental devices and fuel-cycle laboratories should be used more systematically within nuclear education to provide students with a more direct and more personal experience of nuclear phenomena and characteristics.

However, many of these facilities are ageing and will soon need to be refurbished or replaced.

As the infrastructures, particularly the experimental facilities, are not equally distributed across Europe, the EU should ensure transnational access and long-term availability.

These initiatives should focus on a small number of facilities, to ensure the attractiveness for future generations of learners.

They could again use co-founding schemes to ensure their sustainability.

2.4 normalisation of education and training standardsIt is important that normalisation of education and training standards in the nuclear sector is achieved at the European level, through the introduction of appropriate concepts. The initiative of ECVET (85) at the higher levels 6 to 8 of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) (equivalent to bachelor, master and doctorate levels) and the stepwise introduction of a European “training passport”, whenever necessary, are promising approaches.

The challenge of lifelong learning and borderless mobility is an important concern for the nuclear energy sector. As far as ECVET is concerned, Euratom FP7 has conducted a number of fission training schemes (86) which should be used as best-practice models to implement ECVET further.

(85) http://ecvet-team.eu/ (86) http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/training/for-nuclear-community/efts-

fp7.html

The main efforts should be focused today to develop:

• A common taxonomy for the world of education and the world of work to describe the specific nuclear profiles (knowledge, skills, competences) and occupations (harmonisation of learning outcomes); and

• A common qualification approach to improve transparency between different countries’ national qualifications systems.

These two approaches will need a strong collabo-ration to produce, whenever necessary, training passports, that is: portfolios of documents rec-ognised by all potential employers in the EU and used by individuals to describe their qualifica-tions and competences in a coherent manner. It is clear, however, that the training passports do not constitute a licence or an official authorisation (in the legal national regulatory sense). This has nec-essarily to be promoted at EU level.

2.4 Cooperation beyond EuropeCooperation with non-European countries in nuclear education and training, especially with those engaged in larger programmes for new build, is highly beneficial for the development of the nuclear knowledge base in Europe and the attraction of the best talents. It is also crucial for the development of new modes of global cooperation. The ENEN has a good experience in this domain.

Considering the great significance of the cultural dimension of nuclear safety, the cooperation with non-European countries needs to address both scientific and technical knowledge and mutual understanding of each other’s culture. This is particularly relevant for cooperation with Asia, Africa and South America.

Taking into account the significance of a broad approach, partnerships of public and private organisations should play an increasing role in this. Coalitions and networking could play an important role in supporting nuclear emerging countries.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.kic-innoenergy.com/

http://ecvet-team.eu/



98 99


3 Recommendations at EU and Member State level

(From the SET-Plan nuclear energy study European Energy education and training initiative, January 2013)

Filling the skills, competences and knowledge gaps

• Identify areas with potential shortages and needing new competences (including educators and trainers) and improve education and training. Support the internationalisation of these programmes, especially those on nuclear safety, radiological protection and knowledge management. Expand networks such as those developed for educational programmes to cover technical vocational training. All levels of education should cover the sociological impact of the industry on society.

• Study the feasibility of networking training institutions into interdisciplinary and multi-company training providers. Co-sponsor the creation of an interdisciplinary and multi-company training organisation to share and improve industry competences, especially in nuclear safety and operational excellence.

Fostering involvement, access and up-take by the labour market, promoting mobility, life-long learning and training

• Promote mutual recognition of knowledge, skills and competences (ECVET).

• Consider carrying over to training the accreditation and certification culture that is well established in education and establishing independent accreditation and certification of training and employer schemes. Some countries have competence based qualifications (similar to the NQA in the UK). Accreditation bodies need to be national (using ECVET) and need to comprise academia, training providers, student/labour union representatives and industry/employer representatives. This three-party evaluation should be included in any proposed accreditation. At a European level, technology platforms need to be involved.

Planning and enabling skills development, including sector skills assessments and observatories

• Monitor workforce supply and demand in order to forecast trends and provide information on the demand/supply position. Secure EHRO-N’s long-term operation, with EU countries and nuclear parties contributing to EHRO-N surveys.

• Establish a European nuclear education and training council.

ConclusionsIn a rapidly changing world, the main evolutions which may be expected from the Euratom education and training programmes will be strongly related, by 2020, to the impact of the SET-Plan.

EU countries are committed to developing energy mix strategies of common interest and the highest political level will be engaged to reinforce financial instruments for technological development.

As a consequence, the coordination between industry, researchers and education will be reinforced and the corresponding initiatives and instruments will be mobilised to advance the SET-Plan agenda.

New knowledge will be generated, at European level, where working together brings an economy of scale and raises significantly the level of excellence.In nuclear fission education and training, the flagship actions performed at EU level should be :

• Strengthened initiatives such as EHRO-N, ENEN and JRC databases (based on input from and cooperation with national organisations) to support and inform strategic actions;

• Nuclear energy parties and academic institutions engaged jointly in optimising synergies between academic and training programmes, with innovative learning methods and hands-on training on first-class European facilities and IT infrastructure;

• Development of programmes/modules, includ-ing socioeconomic sciences, to improve the flexibility of the workforce, links with other energy sectors and the relevance of nuclear energy to society;

• Widespread public-private partnerships and collaboration with EU nuclear instruments to support an expansion in education and training and the training of trainers;

• Development of a common language for employment in nuclear energy and safety, including a common taxonomy of knowledge, skills and competencies linked to jobs; and

• Development of the framework for mutual rec-ognition of qualifications with the objective of gradually including non-academic qualifica-tions and vocational training. Pilot exercises should apply the learning outcomes approach (knowledge, skills, competences) within ECVET partnerships.

Annex 1: Experts consulted• Joseph Safieh, Institut National des Sciences et

Techniques Nucléaires and ENEN, France

• Helmuth Boeck, Atominstitut der Österreichis-chen Universitäten, Austria

• Marjatta Palmu, IGD-TP and Posiva Oy, Finland

• Hans Menzel, CERN and Melodi, Switzerland

• Guy Parker, European Atomic Forum (Foratom), Belgium

• Alexandre Bredimas, LGI Consulting and SNETP, France

• Hamid Aït Abderrahim, SCK•CEN and EUA-EPUE, Belgium

• Emilia Janisz, European Nuclear Society (ENS), Belgium

• Enrique Gonzalez, CIEMAT, Spain

• Monica Ferraris, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

• Niek Lopes Cardozo, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven and Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)-Fusion, the Netherlands

• Céline Duc, Institut Supérieur des Techniques de la Performance (ISTP), France

• Odile Deruelle, Institut Supérieur des Techniques de la Performance (ISTP), France

Topic 5:

EU nuclear safety and securityMain subjects: Fostering harmonisation of the highest nuclear safety and security levels (eg EU stress tests, EU safeguards), developing solutions for nuclear waste and spent fuel management, ensuring verification of proliferation resistance, emergency preparedness in accordance with Euratom treaty obligations.

Victor TESCHENDORFFPrivate consultant, Germany

Victor Teschendorff was a division head for reactor safety research in the nuclear safety company Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) until 2010. He received his diploma in mechanical and chemical engineering from the Technical University of Aachen (RWTH). He was engaged in development and validation of simulation codes for nuclear reactor accidents and gained expertise in thermal-hydraulics, fuel behaviour and severe accident processes. He contributed to licensing cases in Germany and abroad. Until 2009 he was chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations programme review group of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

100 101


Summary and key messagesResearch is the key to enhanced nuclear safety and security

Safety and security are key indicators for the quality of life. Protecting people and the environment against harmful effects of ionising radiation has been the aim from the beginning of nuclear activities. Nuclear energy is expected to be a main contributor to low-carbon electricity production in the future. To make this happen, safety and security must stay the first priority, even more so after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The stress tests performed on European nuclear plants after Fukushima have identified tangible improvements to be implemented. Public acceptance of nuclear installations relies on trust that they are built and operated safely. Maintaining and constantly improving nuclear safety is thus a societal challenge.

The almost 100 members of the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) are convinced that the future of nuclear energy in Europe and the rank of EU nuclear technology in international competition will depend primarily on the safety performance of nuclear power plants. Developing and implementing safe and sustainable long-term management of spent fuel, high-level waste and other long-lived radioactive waste is a key societal and political issue, irrespective of the national policies regarding nuclear energy. Reducing research and training programmes significantly or taking away essential parts would fail the expectations of EU citizens of living more safely with nuclear installations in their country and in the neighbourhood. The urgently needed harmonisation of safety requirements and practices would lose the necessary science-based consensus. EU countries and the European Commission would have a hard time fulfilling their obligations under the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) treaty and their commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Against this background are the following recom-mendations:

• The Commission should support EU countries in implementing the European nuclear safety directive of 2009 and the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the subsequent nuclear plant stress tests. To be effective, this process has to be supported by research, primarily in the beyond-design basis range to better prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents.

• EU-level research should strengthen the scientific and methodological bases for further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial codes and standards and safety assessment practices, to meet growing expectations of plausible and science-based regulatory decisions.

• The Commission should support EU countries in implementing the radioactive waste directive of 2011. It should, in particular, support the selection and implementation of the optimal solution for final disposal of long-lived nuclear waste, through consensus building on safety-based and commonly-recognised research results. New approaches to international cooperation and pooling should be envisaged.

• EU citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against nuclear threats from malevolent actions. Advanced methods and strong expertise to prevent and detect theft of, unauthorised access to and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and other radioactive substances should be developed at the EU level. Unique infrastructure provided through the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) should be modernised and maintained.

• EU support for the development of advanced reactors and the deployment of demonstrators should require a high level of safety and reduced long-lived nuclear waste as an integral part of design from the beginning.

References: see Annex 1.Experts consulted: see Annex 2

IntroductionNuclear fission energy will play a major role in the future in several EU Member States and elsewhere. In spite of different national plans on future use of nuclear power, there is unanimous agreement that any nuclear activity has to be performed under strict conditions of safety, safeguards, security and radiological protection.

Safety, safeguards and security are top priorities in the EU. There are obligations arising from the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) treaty not only on countries regarding their own legislation and practices but on the European Commission. Moreover, important documents and political statements have recently reaffirmed the utmost importance of safety and security across Europe and worldwide. Research and training activities have to live up to these obligations and common goals.

1 needs for Euratom research and training

Euratom research and training are intended to serve the needs of both society and industry. The strategy has to take into account the rapidly-changing world and the conditions under which everyone operates. In the following, some of the conditions are addressed with a focus on safety, safeguards and security, along with a brief reflection on possible consequences of failures.

1.1 IndustryIndustrial activities are the backbone of the economy. Industry’s decisions have an enormous impact on the economy and society in terms of reliable, safe and affordable energy supplies as well as in terms of sustainable growth and employment.

Vendors and suppliers of nuclear installations

The nuclear industry is part of a globalised economy. Vendors are facing worldwide competition. They no longer have assured regional markets. In addition, they have to comply with international non-proliferation commitments such as export controls. In spite of acting globally, they have to respect country-specific preferences in business and administration, individual approaches to safety and sovereign national regulations and safety cultures.

The safety concept of a plant design may be decisive for business success, influencing cost and duration of construction, operation and maintenance. In recent international bids different accident prevention and mitigation systems were offered with substantially different impacts on cost.

There are research and training needs resulting from this situation. Research needs are not restricted to plant performance and efficiency but apply to safety as well.

Utilities operating nuclear installations

Electricity producers and distributors operate in a deregulated market. Nuclear competes with other forms of electricity production. It is expected that with an increasing share of renewables and future smart grids the market will become even more complex in Europe, requiring flexibility on both suppliers’ and consumers’ sides. Technical challenges and associated safety and security requirements arise from this complex commercial and regulatory environment, including extended load-following capability, flexibility of outage time and service intervals and minimum staffing levels. Although the stress test risk and safety studies of nuclear plants initiated in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 had no immediate large impact on plant operation, plants have been asked to improve their ability to resist extreme external events. Emergency preparedness is not to be seen primarily as an administrative or regulatory issue; it requires extended research, including into human aspects, simulation tools and training. Utilities are major end-users of the results of research and development (R&D) programmes. Even though they provide most of the financing, the current trend in Europe is a tighter association of all parties in defining and selecting R&D topics.

1.2 The public and civil societyExperience shows that the public awareness of fundamental questions and options has increased, in line with the Aarhus Convention’s principles of establishing the public’s environmental rights, such as the rights to information and participation. This awareness requires debates on the limits and uncertainties of the knowledge base and appropriate dissemination of goals and outcomes of R&D programmes aimed at reducing such uncertainties. The EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), as a source of scientific knowledge independent of national or specific interests, could be instrumental in raising public confidence in safety and security and the options available for further improvement. The EU’s Economic and Social Committee (EESC) said: “The level of knowledge about nuclear technologies, their use and their consequences must be maintained and developed. Given that the JRC plays a coordinating role in pooling resources and integrating joint efforts, the Euratom R&D framework programme offers significant European added value in this connection.”

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

102 103


1.3 Regulators and technical safety organisationsIn spite of national differences regarding the future use of nuclear energy, there is a growing demand for harmonised approaches to safety (principles, rules and safety assessment practices), safeguards (plant inspections, reporting and non-proliferation commitments such as export controls) and security (reduction of materials vulnerability, robustness of verifications, etc.).

A strong driver towards harmonisation is the general public demand for transparency and plausibility of decision-making. It should be demonstrated that safety decisions are tractable and that the underlying safety evaluation is science-based, underpinned by latest research findings. Regulators have to demonstrate that rules and decisions rely, for their technical part, on evaluations based on the state-of-the art as recognised by international consensus. Therefore, regulators are important end-users of research and training. They receive support from scientific experts, generally gathered in technical safety organisations (TSOs), who should participate in research to keep competence high and preserve independence of judgement. Further development of regulation and technical specifications requires pre-normative research in all safety-relevant disciplines. The research should be wide enough to cover the issues identified as root causes of the Fukushima accident and the anticipated safety, safeguards and security needs of future reactors.

1.4 R&d organisationsFor the reactor fleet in operation (generation II and III) and the one under deployment (generation III+) there are new challenges with safety implications linked to design, materials, fabrication and construction, operation, fuel elements and the whole fuel cycle. Safety issues often cut across disciplines. Research centres, universities and others have to provide the scientific and technical basis for convincing answers to safety questions, specifically to new challenges arising from recent accidents. Pre-normative research is necessary not only for new reactor types and associated fuel cycles but also to ensure an improved safe and secure operation of current reactors. Research organisations have to lay the scientific and technical foundation for advanced system demonstrators. They should extend the knowledge and best investigation practices developed from safety and proliferation resistance and physical protection research, for existing and near-to-deployment reactors, and focus them on the challenges of improving performance, extending lifetimes and optimising fuel cycles. Research

programmes must consider the lessons learned from operating experience, severe accidents and security events. Maintaining and modernising experimental infrastructure and associated skills requires EU-wide cooperation.

2 Convergence towards a common view in the EU

Safety and security are key indicators of the quality of life. Protecting people and the environment against harmful effects of ionising radiation has been the aim from the beginning of nuclear activities. Nuclear energy is expected to be a main contributor to low-carbon electricity production in the future. To make this happen, safety and security must stay the first priority, even more so after the Fukushima disaster. Public acceptance of nuclear installations relies on trust that they are built and operated safely. Maintaining and constantly improving nuclear safety and security are thus a societal challenge. Nuclear fission research is the most effective way of strengthening the safety and security of nuclear facilities presently in operation or under construction and of enhancing them even more for future designs.

Cooperative research programmes at EU level add significant value through combining national forces for more ambitious and challenging projects, particularly in the fields of nuclear energy that feature high costs and long lead-times. Organising and financing research at EU level will ensure that large research infrastructures are world-class and shared between countries, avoiding duplication of efforts and promoting synergies. It enables small states to become full partners in large projects and allows for researcher mobility as effective support to education and training. This reflects the goals of the European research area initiative. The almost 100 members of the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) are convinced that the future of nuclear energy in Europe and the rank of EU nuclear technology in international competition will depend on the safety performance of nuclear power plants and the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. By maintaining a consistent vision of current and future nuclear power, Europe could remain influential in good practice, standards and regulations that it wishes implemented internationally. Due to the risks inherent in the

operation of nuclear facilities, research on safety and security has to be in place as long as nuclear facilities are operated and beyond. European research can accept this challenge by joining forces to bring solutions in a more efficient way than separate national research programmes could.

2.1 Research is a key to improving safety and securityResearch is fundamental to any scientific or technical achievement. Ensuring nuclear safety and security is far more than a technical challenge; it is the integration of human, technical, organisational and regulatory measures. The safety of nuclear installations is based on sound construction, best-practice operation, including organisational and human aspects, and effective supervision. For existing installations and their long-term operation, safety improvements are spurred by operating experience and new findings from research. For future nuclear installations enhanced safety features dominate the designs, relying on the results from both dedicated research programmes and lessons learned from incidents and accidents.

One outcome of the Fukushima disaster is that everyone now realises clearly that a major nuclear accident in Europe would lead to extreme difficulties and constitute an unparalleled challenge to emergency preparedness. All countries, not just the ones operating nuclear power plants, have a vital interest in making sure that the reasons for the accident and the means for avoiding such accidents in the future are well understood at the technical level. They should have a chance to participate actively in the development of measures and the underlying research and training to prevent such an accident in Europe. The stress tests have identified the need for improvements in several areas, foremost among them additional provisions for coping with accidents resulting from extreme natural hazards. Besides calling for national action plans, there are recommendations for follow-up on the European level. Many of the recommendations that the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) issued following the peer review of the national stress tests require research to become fully effective.

Recommendation 1: The Commission should support EU countries in implementing the European Council nuclear safety directive of 2009 and the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident and the subsequent nuclear plant stress tests. To be effective, this process has to be supported by research, primarily in the beyond-design basis range to better prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents.

2.2 Harmonising safety requirements and assessment practicesThe establishment of uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public is a provision of the Euratom treaty. With progressing regulation in other areas and the accession of new EU members the desire to achieve highest safety standards everywhere in Europe has become more obvious. After witnessing severe accidents in other parts of the world, people are now fully aware that the consequences of accidents cannot be confined to national borders. Joint research is an important means of achieving the level of common scientific and technological understanding that is required to further harmonise national safety approaches. A step forward was achieved by the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association with the definition of safety reference levels for power reactors. The more comprehensive activities of ENSREG on improving nuclear safety arrangements could build on this. The Commission’s European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) supported nuclear safety legislation further by adding others’ views of harmonised standards. The 2009 EU directive established a regulatory framework for the safety of nuclear installations, stipulating inter alia further development of expertise and skills in nuclear safety. Developments in methodology and science should be employed. Although the directive puts the obligation on to Member States, its implementation entails the need for research and training at the European level. Research strengthens consensus on safety issues. Nuclear energy needs to be competitive. Harmonisation of European safety requirements and practices as well as industrial codes and standards needs urgent progress and cooperative R&D is needed to develop a common sound basis for convergence. Standardisation can help to keep electricity prices down. Mutualisation of methods and tools, such as computer codes for accident simulation, would greatly foster common safety assessment practices. Integration of tools should go even further by developing European references. Emergency preparedness could be supported by a (virtual) European emergency centre.

Recommendation 2: Research at EU level should strengthen the scientific and methodological basis for further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial codes and standards and safety assessment practices, to meet growing expectations of plausible and science-based regulatory decisions.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

104 105


2.3 Managing spent nuclear fuel and wasteDeveloping and implementing a safe and sustainable approach to the long-term management of spent fuel, high-level waste and other long-lived radioactive waste is a key societal and political requirement, irrespective of national policies regarding nuclear energy. Spent fuel and radioactive waste must be managed safely and securely for long periods. The time horizon for active disposal of material already generated in the EU, because of both nuclear energy production and many other activities in industry, research and health care, certainly extends beyond 2050 and will stretch far into the next century. This means that operational work has to be done by generations to come and requires the continuation of research and training.

In the long run, only European solutions can work because national approaches will not be sustainable. Today’s generators of waste are responsible for the long-term safe and secure management of their waste, but their decisions will reverberate well beyond their own lifetimes. A broad basis and a broad consensus are needed and can only be realised by adopting a European approach.

Article 8 of the 2011 EU directive establishing an EU framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste obliges countries to make arrangements for education and training as well as for R&D. The directive says that the activities conducted under the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) could facilitate access to expertise and technology. Cooperation at EU level must be sensitive to different national approaches and act as a vehicle to foster a common vision towards geological disposal, to avoid fragmentation and duplication as well as to ensure an efficient use of resources. Considering the above points, R&D for geological disposal should rank high on the EU agenda. To bring about practical solutions in a foreseeable timescale, more than 80 organisations founded the IGD-TP, uniting a wide range of backgrounds. The participants share a common vision that “by 2025, the first geological disposal facilities for spent fuel, high-level waste and other long-lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe”. The strategic research agenda identifies the key topics of research and training that have the greatest potential to support repository implementation through enhanced cooperation in Europe. The Commission should promote and support the IGD-TP and the European Repository Development Organisation initiative on radioactive waste and create comparable initiatives on treatment techniques.

Recommendation 3: The Commission should support EU countries in implementing the EU’s radioactive waste directive of 2011. It should, in particular, support the selection and implementing of the optimal solution for final disposal of long-lived nuclear waste, through consensus-building on safety-based and commonly-recognised research results. New approaches to international cooperation and pooling should be envisaged.

2.4 Strengthening nuclear safeguards and security Security is an absolute priority in the EU, just as high as safety. Physical protection and the prevention and detection of theft, unauthorised access and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and other radioactive substances are more than ever a public concern, recognising the threat of nuclear terrorism. Although physical protection is primarily a national responsibility, joint research and services provide a good basis for improved security. Experimental infrastructure and data collection are part of necessary research.

The Euratom treaty and Commission regulation 302/2005 are the cornerstone of EU safeguards, putting far-reaching and detailed obligations on EU countries and the Commission itself. Also, non-proliferation legal rules (e.g. the agreements INFCIRC 193, 263 and 290 and the EU dual-use regulation 428/2009, in line with the political responsibilities of the Commission’s energy and trade directorates) have a direct impact on the business of EU nuclear technology producers and vendors.

For safeguards, security, nuclear forensics and non-proliferation, the JRC provides scientific and technical infrastructure and advanced expertise. The methods for detecting and characterising nuclear materials must be further refined to tackle the challenges of full safeguards verification and the detection of clandestine activities and to reduce measurement uncertainties. Advanced equipment and training for nuclear inspectors should set highest international standards.

Recommendation 4: EU citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against nuclear threats from malevolent actions. Advanced methods and strong expertise to prevent and detect theft of, unauthorised access to and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials and other radioactive substances should be developed at the EU level. Unique infrastructure provided through the JRC should be modernised and maintained.

2.5 developing advanced systems for sustainable nuclear energySustainability of nuclear fission energy implies social acceptability. Safety must be a constitutive element of any future technical system. That is different from in the past, when safety was not the first priority, so that some safety-related aspects of design and operation have been investigated only after the plants have gone into operation. Demonstrating improved safety, operability, recycling modes and proliferation resistance, through large experiments and prototypes or experimental fast reactors in Europe — the Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID), the multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications (MYRRHA), the gas-cooled fast reactor ALLEGRO, the Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator (ALFRED), etc. — will influence future international regulations on safety and security for these types of reactors. Nuclear co-generation, i.e. using a nuclear reactor as a heat source for producing hydrogen or chemicals, is a straightforward application of energy efficiency to nuclear power. Such demonstrations with light-water reactors first and then other reactor types would comply with country requirements to address specific safety issues.

These ambitious goals clearly exceed any national capacity. The way forward has been described in the SNETP research agenda and action is under way in the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) and the NUclear GENeration II & III Association (Nugenia).

Recommendation 5: EU support for the develop-ment of advanced reactors and the deployment of demonstrators should require a high level of safety and reduced long-lived nuclear waste as an integral part of design from the beginning.

2.6 Benefits of safety research beyond nuclear applications

Research performed for safety of nuclear installations has a high potential to produce innovations for other industries by increasing safety, reliability and performance of technical systems. Methodologies originally developed for nuclear safety are being successfully transferred to other industrial applications — probabilistic safety assessment, uncertainty analysis, hydrogen deflagration and detonation assessment, man/machine interaction studies are just a few. For example, systems for early detection of material cracks by noise analysis, originally developed for reactor core studies, are now routinely used on offshore wind turbines and in high-speed train axles and wheels in Germany, for on-line detection of material fatigue before small cracks grow and components fail, thereby preventing accidents or costly repairs.

2.7 TrainingThe current level of safety expertise in EU regulators and TSOs is at the limit of what is necessary to control the use of ionising radiation. This workforce is ageing and progressively retiring. Training and development of new safety experts is vital. A harmonised curriculum for the training of nuclear experts supported by a professional passport would give confidence across national borders in regulators’ assessments and decisions. It would also enable experts to move from one organisation to another even in a different country. Small nuclear safety authorities have limited resources and cannot afford to send their staff for training frequently. As an example, new specialists in nuclear safety and radiological protection are needed in the Baltic region where several new nuclear power plants are expected (Visaginas, Kaliningrad, Belarus).

The education and training of safety experts at EU level is organised principally through the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) and the European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute (ENSTTI). The Commission supports a safety culture in non-European countries through the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC); it should devote a similar effort to safety training in EU countries. European nuclear fission research is crucial for educating and training young engineers and scientists in a way consistent with the growing international (and European) dimension of nuclear safety and security.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

106 107


2.4 The threatNational and industry programmes alone would not have produced the safety and efficiency improvements which EU-supported research programmes have demonstrated over decades. Lack of future support would prejudice the strong reputation that the EU programmes have in the delivery of safe low-carbon nuclear electricity generation and the economic benefits for EU countries. The long-term nature of advanced reactor research would clearly fall outside the normal planning horizons of industry and many Member States. Without coordinated EU-funded programmes research and training would be jeopardised, leaving the EU at a disadvantage. The lack of European vision and influence on reactor safety, security, fuel cycles, radioactive waste management, novel applications and proliferation control would leave more active nuclear countries (Russia, China, Korea, India, etc.) to set international standards and regulations, which could be below EU expectations.

3 Recommended implementation instruments

Research and training in radiological protection, reactor safety, safeguards and security and radioactive waste have been implemented at the EU level by a variety of instruments that have evolved over time.

There is widespread support for proven instruments, specifically collaborative projects and coordination actions. The administrative burden of any new approach should be kept to a minimum and remain proportionate to the EU funds available. In its March 2012 opinion on the Horizon 2020 proposals (not restricted to Euratom) the EESC said: “The proposals relating to simplification and flexibility are particularly appreciated. Continuity should be ensured as far as possible and further complexity avoided when elaborating these.” With respect to governance it stated: “The continuity with previous processes should only be broken if this is unavoidable in the interests of simplification.” Finally, the Committee concluded on project size: “Manageable collaborative projects with a workable number of participants should therefore remain the main instrument of Horizon 2020.”

3.1 Technology platforms and industrial initiativesEU technology platforms deserve strong support because of their dedication to clear goals and their realistic roadmaps. The SNETP, for example, is updating its strategic research and innovation agenda and the consensus between private and public parties has allowed for the launch of more specific networks such as Nugenia, which has more than 60 members, and has encompassed previous networks of excellence and working groups, namely SNETP’s generation II and III group on fission reactor R&D, the Nuclear Plant Life Prediction platform (NULIFE) on plant lifetime management, the Severe Accident Research NETwork of Excellence (SARNET) and ENIC on inspection and repairs in operation.

The IGD-TP’s strategic research agenda represents the common needs of the organisations being formally mandated, at national level, to implement geological disposal. This agenda is dedicated to identifying the main R&D and development issues that need a coordinated effort over years in order to achieve the 2025 aims. R&D supported by the IGD-TP is not limited to close-to-implementation demonstration activities but covers the whole spectrum of R&D, including fundamental research, methodological development, applied research and prototype disposal concepts. A complementary effort is developed through the Sustainable network of Independent Technical EXpertise for Radioactive Waste Disposal (SITEX), where regulators and TSOs express their needs for future research for safe waste management. There are other forms of successful networking that have proven to be effective and efficient. A good example is ESARDA, an association which unites those engaged in safeguards research and development, including a training component.

3.2 partnershipsOpportunities for and limits on extended public-public and public-private partnerships are recognised widely. Programme-based instead of project-based research seems to be preferable for optimal streamlining and continuity of research, but scepticism is voiced as well. Research aimed at long-term developments for improving the sustainability of fission energy will generally pass the time-frame for which private investments are available. As for the IGD-TP, the legal status of agencies in charge of implementing geological disposal varies greatly from pure private players to ministries, whilst the financial support is mostly provided according to the polluter-pays principle. Any future type of cooperation will have to consider this variety of legal status. An appropriate combination of public and private resources according to the value of research for different stakeholders is therefore believed to be the most appropriate basis for future funding. It is important that a good balance between national and European resources for fission safety research is achieved in that context.

A programme-based approach means a stronger commitment by countries. Binding commitments to providing resources and financing over five years and more is necessary. Governments need to be convinced that they will get a better return from a euro invested under Euratom priorities than spent within a merely national research programme. It should be noted, however, that specific national issues will always remain when dealing with geological disposal, for example. A fully integrated programme approach is therefore not always possible. Public-private partnerships are especially important as research approaches industrial projects’ needs. This in particular confirms the interest of industry in research and makes it possible for research organisations to negotiate patents and proceeds from patented results of their research. Attention needs to be paid, nevertheless, to ensuring transparent criteria for determining the respective shares of private and public resources. There should remain sufficient public resources available for research related to remote risks associated with the operation of present-day nuclear facilities because those risks are highly relevant for the public but less relevant for the industry.

3.3 The role of the JRCThe reliance on the JRC for activities that are mandatory under the Euratom treaty and that require a continuity of experimental infrastructure and databanks should continue, based on past experience and expectations. Financing these activities largely through the Commission’s “direct action” funding instrument has turned out to be effective and should be maintained.

The various activities of the JRC provide vital support for policymakers in the Commission. However, not everyone is aware of the products and opportunities offered by the JRC. Beyond the traditional activities, JRC could further extend its role as a coordinator of research and training, especially in the transition from project-based to programme-based work.

Obligations directly resulting from the Euratom treaty have to be financed in any case. This is clearly so for safeguards and to some extent for safety and security; mandatory tasks mostly performed by the JRC directly. Unique infrastructures (experimental installations, hot cells, measuring techniques) and the skills to operate and further develop them is an asset in European research and training.

Maintaining and strengthening JRC’s capabilities in nuclear safety, safeguards and security and its often unique experimental infrastructure should be one of the top priorities in Horizon 2020.

Annex 1: ReferencesCompilation of recommendations and suggestions; peer review of stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants; ENSREG 26-07-2012

Council directive establishing a community frame-work for the nuclear safety of nuclear installa-tions, 2009/71/Euratom

Council directive establishing a community frame-work for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, 2011/70/Euratom

Identification of research areas in response to the Fukushima accident; report of the SNETP Fukushima task group, Rev.16, 23 September 2012

Implications of the Fukushima accident for nuclear research and technology development in Europe; position of the SNETP, summary paper, December 2011

Opinion of the EECS on Horizon 2020, 28 March 2012, INT/614-615-616-631

Position paper of technical safety organisations: research needs in nuclear safety for Gen II and Gen III nuclear power plants, ETSON/2011-001, October 2011

Statement on structuring orientations for the Euratom Horizon 2020; SNETP/Nugenia, 25 June 2012

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

108 109


Strategic research and innovation agenda of SNETP, to be issued February 2013, open for consultation: ht tp : //w w w.snetp .eu /w w w/snetp/ images /stories/Docs-SRA2012/snetp_sria_for_public_consultation.pdf

Annex 2: Experts consultedExperts were consulted through a questionnaire or face-to-face.

• Steve Napier, NNL, UK, Nugenia, TA leader innovative designs

• Bernard Fourest, NSC, France, ENEF Risk, chair of SWG NIS

• Hans Codée, COVRA, Netherlands, ENEF Risk, chair of SWG waste

• Matthias Lauber, RWE, Germany, ENEF Risk, SWG NIS

• Philippe Jamet, ASN, France, Commissioner

• Jea-Pierre Van Dorsselaere, IRSN, France, SARNET, coordinator

• Didier Louvat, IRSN, France, ENSTII, director

• Gerd Wolf, rapporteur, Germany, European Economic and Social Committee

• Zdenek Kriz, UJV Řež, Czech Republic, STC

• Jacques Delay, IGD-TP and ANDRA, France

• Philippe Lalieux, IGD-TP and NIROND, Belgium

Topic 6

people, quality of life and the environmentMain subjects: Possible contribution of nuclear fission to worldwide challenges, in particular regarding people, quality of life and environment

William NUTTALL The Open University, UK

Dr William Nuttall is professor of energy at The Open University, in the UK, which he joined in October 2012 from Cambridge University, where he had taught technology policy for 10 years. His career has taken him from experimental physics (PhD MIT, USA 1993) to technology policy with an emphasis on nuclear energy. At Cambridge he was on the management committee of the Electricity Policy Research Group; he is now an associate researcher. He is author of Nuclear renaissance – technologies and policies for the future of nuclear power (Taylor and Francis, 2005) He serves on the competitiveness sub-group of the European Nuclear Energy Forum and on the scientific advisory board of Next Generation Infrastructures in the Netherlands.

Summary and key messagesEnd the EU nuclear technocracy

A world of change

The world faces a series of global threats and opportunities relating to energy policy generally and civil nuclear power in particular. These include climate change, urbanisation, globalisation, fresh water scarcity, security and weapons proliferation. Efforts to militate against the threats should be on the basis of a global burden sharing in which the greatest efforts should come from those countries with the greatest ability to bear the cost. Part of this effort will involve research and development (R&D), but importantly R&D is not simply a burden to carry, it is an opportunity representing an investment in the future. Nuclear fission research and training help to build a better world and underpin EU prosperity.

The EU is an important component of a global civil nuclear research community. It provides valuable capacity and convening power additional to that of the individual Member States. The supranational nature of its role is precious. Furthermore, it provides a single portal by which outside experts can easily interact with European researchers — it is a single portal to a diversity of European ideas.

One message emerges strongly from the consultative exercises conducted for this study, involving independent experts who were either interviewed or who submitted written evidence. That message is that EU decision-making in the nuclear fission area is excessively technocratic. European citizens must be given a louder voice.

People

The future of nuclear power is rightly of social and political concern. Policy priorities should be determined through a genuine dialogue involving EU publics and stakeholders. Established interactions with industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are necessary, but are not sufficient. Local communities close to, and familiar with, nuclear sites have a particular role to play. They should not decide policy, but they should be given a proper voice.

Public fear and, most importantly, trust are important considerations and appropriate professional scientific expertise should be employed to advance understanding in such areas. Trust must be earned. The EU must give much greater emphasis to social considerations when shaping future research priorities, including technical priorities. There would be benefit in bringing nuclear technology policy into the EU mainstream.

Quality of life

EU nuclear technical capacity contributes to health and well-being (e.g. nuclear medicine and security). Importantly, European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) research and training have never involved matters relating to nuclear weapons development, nor had links to other nuclear military technologies, e.g. submarine propulsion. Nuclear fission energy makes a great contribution to European prosperity. It directly supports 500,000 jobs and underpins 400,000 more. Europe has a strong competitive position in an industry with much prospect for global growth and that global growth will occur independently of Europe’s decisions. European nuclear power provides reliable baseload power for industry and householders independent of volatile fossil fuel prices. Nuclear science and technology extend beyond the electricity sector. Euratom provides important capabilities that would be essential if there were to be a nuclear related incident in Europe, or affecting Europe.

Environment

The world must confront harmful anthropogenic climate change and act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The substitution of coal and oil by natural gas would reduce emissions, but be insufficient and give rise to serious price risks. The European electricity system must be largely decarbonised and both nuclear fission power and renewables have a beneficial role to play. The relative contribution of each should be determined via the most inclusive analysis considering whole system costs. It seems highly probable that the electricity system of the future will require and value system flexibility. The Euratom programme should recognise that reality and increasingly take a whole system approach.


IntroductionA changing world

Over the last 30 years global poverty has fallen enormously, the threat of global nuclear war has receded and democracy and respect for human rights have taken root in all continents. New threats, however, have emerged – anthropogenic climate change, international terrorism and social strains arising from globalisation. Europe has an important place in the world: EU residents comprise 7.3 % of the global population (87) and the EU tops global

(87) Eurostat, Key figures on Europe 2012, Figure 2.1, p. 32. Data for 2010

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.snetp.eu/www/snetp/images/stories/Docs-SRA2012/snetp_sria_for_public_consultation.pdf



110 111


rankings of GDP just ahead of the USA (88). The energy policies of the EU and its Member States have the potential to exacerbate, or to militate against, the threats of global climate change, while EU research policies represent an investment in the future for all mankind.

With power comes responsibility

The EU is a bastion of democracy and tolerance. Over more than 50 years nuclear fission development has contributed to European energy security, the civil nuclear power industry provides employment directly for half a million Europeans and it has been argued that an additional 400,000 full-time equivalent jobs are induced in the European economy (89). As Europe confronts the need, enshrined in policy, for substantial energy system decarbonisation, especially in electricity, nuclear energy is avoiding substantial greenhouse gas emissions compared to plausible counterfactual historical scenarios (90).

For the typical European citizen energy policy and research policy are relatively minor concerns amidst a plethora of issues. From such a perspective, fission naturally sits in a broad range of historical contexts. Europeans discovered nuclear fission in the 1930s and in the 1940s the development of the atomic bomb in the USA relied upon European inventiveness and skills. In the late 1940s and 1950s two European countries – the UK and France — were respectively the third and fourth countries to develop nuclear weapons. As the Cold War progressed nuclear weapons were deployed across much of what today forms the 27-member EU by the opposing forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Today Europeans over 45 years of age remember such past realities clearly, while for younger generations such stories represent little more than history.

The origins of the European project which became the modern EU lies in a series of treaties from the 1950s. One of the two treaties signed in Rome on 25 March 1957 established the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The peaceful use of nuclear energy has been a cornerstone of the EU since its inception. The EU has never had any connection to military nuclear developments. The EU has a long history as a force for good in addressing the global challenge of nuclear weapons proliferation. The Euratom treaty remains in force today relatively unaffected by the numerous constitutional steps which have led to the modern EU.

(88) CIA World factbook, 2011 estimate determined via purchasing power parity. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html, accessed 10 December 2012

(89) Employment estimates from Socioeconomic role of nuclear energy to growth and jobs in the EU for time horizon 2020–50, Marc Deffrennes for competitiveness sub-group of European Nuclear Energy Forum (2012)

(90) The Nuclear Energy Agency noted in 1998 that globally: “Assuming that the nuclear units in operation have substituted for modern fossil-fuelled power plants, nuclear energy is reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector by about 8 per cent.” Nuclear power and climate change, OECD-NEA, (1998) http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/climate/climate.pdf accessed 15 October 2012

Task approach taken

The topic “people, quality of life and the environment” is extremely broad and multi-faceted. No one person can have a good expert view of such wide-ranging issues. Hence this topic has involved dialogue with experts broadly from two communities. The first community comprises European social scientists with a range of specialisations, such as economists, political scientists and social psychologists. The second community comprises international nuclear experts from outside the EU, bringing the perspective of either an outside country or an international organisation. Evidence came from semi-structured interviews conducted specially for this topic and from responses to a questionnaire managed by the study secretariat (see the socioeconomic part of this interdisciplinary study). In this report evidence from interviewed social science experts is denoted ISS and from international nuclear experts INE. Written evidence submitted by social scientists in response to the questionnaire is denoted by SSS. In the case of all interviewees, comments were offered purely in a personal capacity (see Annex 1).

It is appropriate to consider the core issues in turn.

1 peopleThere is not a single European public (91); there is a multiplicity of publics of different ages, nationalities, religions, languages and cultures, but all living within a framework respecting individual opinions and peaceful freedom of expression. There are two main motivations for giving a stronger voice to the public in EU nuclear fission policymaking: the first is stronger in a temporal sense, because those perspectives have been under-emphasised in the past; and the second stronger in a sectoral sense, because public mistrust of decision-makers is greater in the nuclear fission area than in other areas of technology policy [ISS4].

It is important to stress the remarkable consensus encountered across both the interviewed social scientists and those that responded to the questionnaire. Broadly, the advice points to an overarching recommendation that it is time to end the nuclear technocracy. This message is the dominant conclusion for Topic 6.

(91) There is clearly no such thing as the “public at large” [SSS15]. Europe comprises numerous dynamic publics

Accidents and attitudes to safety

Research indicates that far-away accidents have little lasting impact on public attitudes to nuclear power. Visschers and Siegrist report: “Our explanatory model did not show a shift in the importance of the relations between the constructs that explained people’s acceptance of nuclear power stations. Therefore a nuclear accident, although catastrophic for the people living near the plant and for the environment, does not seem to result in radical changes in influences of perceived benefits, perceived risks, or trust on the acceptance of this technology (92).”

Risk and fear

More should be done to reduce fear, not just to reduce risk [ISS4] (93). It is entirely understandable that physicists and engineers will focus on reducing risk as such matters are within their experience and expertise. Greater efforts to reduce fear are both sensible and appropriate, but require the involvement of others with different sets of expertise [ISS4]. However, even a shift to fear reduction would be insufficient: “[Risk] assessments need to include societal and institutional dimensions such as trust, secrecy and alienation. … Institutional responses need to be social in nature rather than mere fear reduction [SSS8].” One respondent rightly flags the importance of aligning any efforts to reduce fear with a need to protect the openness of information and freedom of expression [SSS16].

Socially inclusive policy

There is a need for better social science understanding and research around matters of nuclear fission policy. The aim should not be to influence public opinion but rather to hear “the wisdom of the masses [ISS2]” or the “common sense view of the many [SS3]”. Some of the difficulties in nuclear policy have arisen because the importance of public dialogue was not appreciated in the early decades of nuclear fission policy [ISS2].

Some EU countries, such as Denmark, have made much good progress on social inclusion in policymaking, but it must always be recognised that approaches appropriate in one Member State may not be best suited to another. For instance some EU members have highly centralised constitutional structures and it would not be appropriate to challenge such traditions [ISS4].

(92) Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M., Risk Analysis, 4 July 2012, “How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x

(93) Fischhoff B., Watson S. and Hope C., 1984, Defining risk, Policy Sciences, 17, pp. 123–139. (Reprinted in Glickman T. S. and Gough M. (eds), Readings in risk, resources for the future, 1990 and Nuttall W. J., “Nuclear renaissance requires nuclear enlightenment”, ‘Chapter 16 of “Nuclear or Not?” ed. Elliot, D., Palgrave (2007)

In Europe there has been much more effort and funding devoted to social aspects of biotechnology than of nuclear issues. This is particularly visible in Member State-funded research — e.g. in the UK [ISS3]. Following various problems in the food and public health area (e.g. mad-cow disease and genetically-modified foodstuffs) the UK has developed a relatively strong framework for science-government-public interactions. One example is that following a parliamentary report (94), an organisation called the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre was created, to promote “meaningful engagement between scientists, policymakers and the public. … public engagement had focused mainly on promoting the ‘public understanding of science’. This involved the so-called ‘deficit model’, a one-way flow of information from experts to a largely passive public, which did not give people any real voice in decision-making (95).” As such, deficit-model approaches are insufficient.

One social science respondent noted: “[Sciencewise] are as interested in how the benefits of a particular technology will be spread as they are in who will bear the risk. … the public is only willing to accept arguments about risk and benefit if they are confident that: i. their views have been taken on board and; ii. that there is a clear governance structure to ensure that risks and benefits are spread as they understand it. “However, the public will not accept or believe categorical statements about risk: they understand that technology and policy relating to technology lead to significant levels of uncertainty. They will need to understand that the wider context has been taken into account when calculating specific risks specific to a particular technology [SSS7].”In addition UK academia has played a strong role in improving science-based decision-making and science policy (96). Progress in this area is more than just a matter for government. We shall return to related matters of research.

(94) UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee 3rd Report, HL 38, Science and society, 14 March 2000

(95) Sciencewise ERC website: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/background, accessed 14 October 2012

(96) See, for example the work of Jason Chilvers at UEA, Norwich. In particular The future of science governance, available online at: http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Future-of-Science-Governance-Lit-Review-Apr11-new.pdf, accessed 14 October 2012

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S



http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/climate/climate.pdf

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/climate/climate.pdf



http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Future-of-Science-Governance-Lit-Review-Apr11-new.pdf

http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Project-files/Future-of-Science-Governance-Lit-Review-Apr11-new.pdf

112 113


Public attitudes

Public opinion as accessed by surveys, focus groups or deliberative processes (however well conducted), should not shape the science and engineering research agenda; that would be too strong. Rather, scientists, engineers and policymakers need to be sensitive to some of the concerns the public raises in such exercises [ISS3]. Energy research and technology policy must take account of many complex factors — legal issues, political factors, economic concerns, environmental issues and energy security, alongside public opinion. It would therefore be inappropriate to hand decisions on these complex matters solely over to lay publics [ISS3]. The importance of the public acceptance of technology, once understanding has been achieved, has also been stressed [SSS14].

One should not abandon an activity simply if one starts to hear voices of objection. The response to such objections should be that scientists, engineers and policymakers explain their positions in as forthright and open a way as possible to open up a constructive dialogue with society [ISS3].

One can make a useful distinction between the invited and the uninvited publics. These two communities often hold differing views. The invited can include jury citizens with little pre-existing knowledge of the subject, but willing to devote time and apply common sense. The uninvited are more passionate. They actively seek to involve themselves. NGOs are similar to the uninvited public. Arguably, industry worries more about the uninvited than the invited, as there is far more likelihood of disruption to business activity from the uninvited [ISS3]. The views of both groups are important.

One social scientist offered this important insight: “The main component of public acceptance is … trust in the management and control, not trust in the technology itself. If trust in risk-managing institutions could be increased, it would be more beneficial for public acceptance than decreasing the probability of a serious accident [SSS11].”

The Japanese experience following the catastrophic March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant highlighted that the Japanese people had relatively few sources of authoritative public information other than the sources provided by the government, which at that point was much distrusted. The existence in Europe of a supranational source of independent expertise (Euratom) would, if a serious nuclear accident were to occur in the EU, be a most valuable source of information and could do much to help retain public confidence in the authorities. As a stand-alone sovereign state, Japan lacked such a supranational regional resource [INE4].

Notwithstanding the earlier observation that a single far away accident might be expected to have only a shallow impact on public attitudes and acceptance of nuclear fission energy, it is today essential that there is no further major accident. A key part of the problem in the late 1980s was that the Chernobyl disaster came not long after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. It is important that there is not another accident anywhere before 2020, if nuclear energy research is to have a strong future in Europe in the 2020s [ISS3].

Eurobarometer and other surveys have consistently shown significant differences in public attitude between men and women. Furthermore, in most EU countries, the physical sciences and engineering are populated with more male professionals than females and nuclear fission appears to be no exception. In broadening consideration of key issues beyond the current technocracy it is important to act to ensure a better gender balance. It is also important to ensure a range of age perspectives from the EU population, as attitudes can vary between generations.

2 Quality of lifeArguably two crises have hit the global nuclear industry in the last five years. They have been similarly disruptive to what had previously been widely regarded as a European nuclear renaissance. The first crisis was the global banking crisis and the consequential shortage of capital as banks across Europe sought to rebuild their balance sheets. That crisis led in turn to a wave of sovereign debt problems across the world, including within the eurozone. These difficulties were already generating problems for capital intensive energy investments, such as new nuclear power plants, before the March 2011 nuclear accident in Japan. That accident was the second crisis. It prompted a wave of concern for nuclear power safety and in some EU members has strengthened pre-existing public and governmental aversion to nuclear energy. Taken together, the prospects for large-scale nuclear new build in Europe are weaker than they were five years ago. That said, in some EU Member States, such as Finland and the UK, nuclear new build plans continue to move forward.

There is a strong linkage between economic benefit and public acceptance. Visschers and co-workers report that: “Research has shown that lay people’s acceptance of nuclear power depends upon the amount of economic benefits (e.g. a secure energy supply) they perceive in this energy source. Perceived risks (e.g. of an accident) have a much smaller influence on acceptance of nuclear power compared to perceived benefits. Also, the perceived benefits of nuclear power for the climate (e.g. zero carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions during operation) have a much smaller impact on people’s acceptance of nuclear power than the perceived economic benefits (97).”

Globalisation is not just an issue for energy policy and industrial policy; it increasingly impinges upon research policy. Perhaps the most direct effect of globalisation on research policy is the presence in Europe of major industrial companies headquartered outside the EU; for example Indian firms involved in EU steel production and Korean car manufacturers assembling cars in the EU. Via such globalisation one can imagine external bodies increasingly shaping EU technology policy, including on nuclear fission [ISS4]. In principle this should be welcomed.

Nuclear research underpins more than electric-ity generation

Nuclear research and innovation save lives all over the world in medical diagnosis and therapy (98). As the Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) fulfil their economic potential there will be greatly increasing needs for radiopharmaceuticals. These developments will bring opportunities for European companies. Global expansion of radiopharmaceutical production will require care and oversight to avoid increasing threats to nuclear security (99). Nuclear research and innovation can militate against such risks; for instance, in Japan it has recently been announced that a process known as plasma sintering can produce molybdenum 99 without the need for highly enriched uranium (100). This is one of several global research initiatives to improve medical isotope production. Europe must remain engaged with such developments. It is important to note however that the investment required for medical nuclear activity is less than that required to sustain the larger nuclear energy industry [INE5].

(97) Visschers, V. H. M., Keller, C. and M. Siegrist, M., Energy Policy, 39, (2011), pp. 3621–3629. Describes a telephone interview study in Switzerland achieving 967 useful responses

(98) In the USA alone about 12 million nuclear medicine imaging studies take place every year. Source: http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history-of-nuclear-medicine, accessed 15 October 2012

(99) William Nuttall and Peter Storey, EPRG Working Paper 1129, Technology and policy issues relating to future developments in research and radioisotope production reactors (2011), available at: http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/category/publications/working-paper-series/, accessed 15 October 2012.

(100) NTI Global Security Newswire, November 28, 2012, available at: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/japan-devises-heu-free-medical-isotope-production-method/, accessed 3 December 2012

Research reactors for medical isotope production, such as the PALLAS reactor proposed as a replacement for the high flux reactor in Petten, in the Netherlands, would be able to serve several beneficial purposes (e.g. medicine and low-carbon energy) simultaneously. There are useful synergies between nuclear fission technologies. Accelerator-based medical isotope production techniques can also be expected to yield beneficial spin-offs beyond the domain of medicine.

The potential of nuclear energy to address future needs in heat and transport deserves special mention. These sectors are far harder to decarbonise than the electricity sector. Nuclear power could facilitate the electrification of transport, but other uses of nuclear heat are also potentially relevant. For instance, thermochemical and electrochemical hydrogen production from high-temperature nuclear reactors would have the potential to yield low-carbon hydrogen – an energy carrier for transport applications [INE5].

Nuclear power, future grids and future markets

It is a reality that smart grids are coming, not just in Europe, but all around the world. The electricity system is undergoing a major transition. Therefore those concerned with the future of nuclear fission energy systems must acknowledge that reality and adapt [INE2 and INE3].

The competitiveness sub-group of the European Nuclear Energy Forum has noted that policy for electricity system design has not been holistic and joined-up. Investments in the natural monopolies of transmission and distribution are made largely separately from the private investment decisions associated with generation (and perhaps in future storage). Increasingly investors are planning generation investments assuming a flexible and smart distribution system, but rarely are overall social welfare and cost minimisation considered [INE1].

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history-of-nuclear-medicine

http://www.imaginis.com/nuclear-medicine/history-of-nuclear-medicine

http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/category/publications/working-paper-series/

http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/category/publications/working-paper-series/

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/japan-devises-heu-free-medical-isotope-production-method/

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/japan-devises-heu-free-medical-isotope-production-method/

114 115


The EU nuclear fission research programme has historically placed much emphasis on nuclear energy as a technology providing baseload power. The anticipated changes to the electricity system motivate the need for new nuclear technologies (such as with greater output flexibility). It seems highly probable and wise that, some countervailing ideas notwithstanding, nuclear power will continue to play a vital low-carbon baseload role in the future in Europe. It could be that European innovation in smaller and more flexible forms of nuclear energy will be more a story of global export potential than of serving markets within the EU, but at this stage nothing is certain. The issues of future nuclear systems relate both to nuclear technology but also to electricity market design and economics (101).

3 EnvironmentThere are many aspects to the environmental impact of nuclear technology. Two have global saliency; the first is the risk arising from the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the second is the harm from global climate change. The EU is rightly a major contributor towards global efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These aspects of EU endeavour are considered by topics 5 and 7. Topic 6 therefore gives emphasis to the threat from climate change.

In considering policy responses to major global challenges it is very important to think of the counterfactual scenarios in which the challenges did not exist [ISS4]. For instance, what would EU greenhouse gas emissions have been over the last 30 years in the absence of an awareness of the risks of anthropogenic climate change? Significant changes, such as changes to industry in central and eastern Europe, the completion of a low-carbon electricity system in France and the dash for gas in the UK would all have occurred in the absence of a climate policy driver. There can be a tendency to present pre-existing policy trends as green action. This phenomenon is not restricted to Europe but can be seen around the world [ISS4].

In a recent webinar for the Florence School of Regulation, Professor Denny Ellerman considered decarbonisation in the USA and the EU and observed that the rate of real change appears, at best, only loosely related to the strength of climate policy (102).

(101) Laurent Pouret, Nigel Buttery and William Nuttall, “Is nuclear power inflexible?”, Nuclear Future, 5, (6) pp. 333–341 and pp. 343–344. See also: MIT Energy Initiative Report, Managing large-scale penetration of intermittent renewables, based on a 20 April 2011 symposium and The interaction of nuclear energy and renewables: system effects in low-carbon electricity systems, OECD-NEA, in press 2012

(102) FSR webinar, 9 October 2012, available on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3sepOBU74&feature=plcp accessed 15 October 2012

One interviewed social scientist highlighted the core environmental issues:

• We have failed utterly to deal with our over-consumption problem in the west [ISS3]; and

• The world is not going to meet the goal of avoiding the onset of dangerous climate change by limiting the temperature rise to 2ºC. We are probably not going to limit warming to 4ºC. That is extremely serious and must be planned for [ISS3] (103).

However, despite such truths it appears that globally the wind has gone out of the sails of climate change action [ISS4].

It increasingly seems likely that around the world the fuel of the future will be natural gas. This option involves technological innovation and can be associated with emissions reduction, but importantly it is less ambitious than nuclear or renewable energy [ISS3]. Substitution of natural gas for coal or oil has the potential to deliver significant CO2 emissions reductions at lower cost than either nuclear power or large-scale renewables. Such a strategy would however bring with it two major risks. The first would be the possibility of major price instability and the second would be the probability of failure in climate change mitigation. Whether the world is capable of dramatic decarbonisation remains far from certain and, given that reality, the best short-term EU energy policy choices remain difficult. The process emerging from the EU 2050 Energy Roadmap exercise will be important in 2013.

European and global emissions burden sharing

Fundamentally there are three reasons why Europeans should contribute to the burden of global decarbonisation:

• Europe can afford to pay. A given carbon price (e.g. $100/tonne CO2) represents a smaller proportion of wealth for a rich country than a poor one. The rich country should have a greater willingness and ability to pay (i.e. give up consumption) [ISS2 and INE1].

• Europe has a massive and highly capable research and industrial base — there is a responsibility and opportunity to use this capability to militate against global threats [ISS1 and INE1].

• Europe did much to cause the problem. It achieved its current technological and economic position via the emission of vast amounts of greenhouse gases over centuries; with culpability comes responsibility [INE1].

(103) Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 13 November 2008, vol. 366 no. 1882 3863–3882 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0138

There has been a vast amount of debate and scholarship around the question of equity in burden sharing, but what metrics should guide energy policy? For example, how should national (or continental) greenhouse gas emissions levels be established? Should emphasis be given to absolute current emissions, rates of change in emissions or the economic intensity of emissions? The world has failed to achieve consensus on such matters. Some ideas however received more support among the consulted experts, some of whom highlighted the ideas of Aubrey Meyer concerning contraction and convergence [ISS3 and ISS4] (104).

The notion of equality and equity based upon per-person emissions has some attraction, but such simplicity of logic brings with it problems. For instance, a country with a low population density should be expected to have higher per person emissions than a city state [ISS4].

Developing countries present widely varying contexts for nuclear fission policy, but such countries are of great importance for the global future of nuclear power. At the risk of oversimplifying, developing countries can be placed in two groups — a grouping including China, India, Brazil and perhaps South Africa and then the rest (105). The rest are at present generating negligible greenhouse gas emissions and climate change should not be a major driver of their energy choices for some time to come. The listed countries, however, are already major emitters and also have strong nuclear energy capabilities [INE1].

For all developing countries economic competitive-ness is vital and nuclear energy has the potential to be an attractive cost-effective option. Europe must recognise the importance for development of the nuclear option today and nuclear innovation in the future (such as small modular reactors). Argua-bly the need for nuclear fission energy in develop-ing countries is greater than it is in Europe where greater wealth provides the luxury of a broader set of energy options [INE1].

(104) See for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4994296.stm (105) The former group is similar to the BRIC Group of Brazil, Russia, India

and China, but the history of nuclear fission motivates a slightly different grouping as highlighted in the text

European leadership

Europe is the region where the greatest progress has been made in bringing together sovereign countries to develop joined-up policy for climate change and energy. Progress has not always been easy, but over many years there have been strong moves towards international coordination of EU Member States [ISS1]. However, Europe cannot shoulder the decarbonisation responsibility alone. Europe must protect its own economic growth and competitiveness while remembering that there is more to quality of life than mere GDP performance [ISS1].

Waste and decommissioning

Radioactive waste issues remain a major source of public concern in Europe. Policy progress in this area has been slow, but European successes are visible, particularly in Scandinavia. Finland and Sweden have long adopted a public-engagement approach to radioactive waste management and it is a model now followed by the UK. Radioactive waste is a socio-technical policy problem, as are many in the nuclear sector. The waste experience can provide much good evidence on which to build the more socially-engaged technology policy proposed earlier. It is worth stressing that waste repositories are intimately related to specific locations. The policy journey in that case has shown the power of community veto as part of trust building. In the waste case this seems appropriate but improved societal engagement should not in every case necessarily imply that a community power of veto is appropriate.

Europe has world-leading competence in nuclear decommissioning services. Research and development (R&D) should support European success. European decommissioning needs would surely benefit from a stronger base of underpinning research. Europe should be home to the most innovative and intelligent decommissioning methods. Europe has much to gain domestically from such research, but it is also worth remembering the importance of future global markets for decommissioning services [INE2 and SSS9].

There are aspects of radioactive waste unrelated to power production. For instance, the production of rare earth metals for high-field magnets yields substantial residues of slightly radioactive thorium with actinide heavy metal chemistry. Naturally-occurring radioactive materials are also encountered by the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear knowledge and research are important for safety and environmental protection in these sectors unrelated to nuclear power. Many of the most important environmental challenges lie outside the EU but relate to EU demand for high-value geological resources. The EU should play its proper part in addressing such global environmental challenges through research.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3sepOBU74&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3sepOBU74&feature=plcp

10.1098/rsta

10.1098/rsta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4994296.stm

116 117


4 Global challengesEurope is known for its democratic traditions, its plurality of views and freedom of expression. Europe cannot be said to have a single opinion on contentious matters, such as nuclear energy. One should not require the EU institutions to articulate a single opinion for Europe on such difficult matters. An existing and proper and outward-facing role of the EU is to provide a portal by which experts and policymakers from around the world can better understand European perspectives on issues of mutual interest. In this way the institutions of the EU are already greatly assisting international understanding [INE3].

The nuclear fission competences and functions of the EU add much value above and beyond the activities of the various EU Member States. It is especially appreciated by external, non-European, nuclear technology policy specialists. For them, communicating via the EU institutions, as a portal, greatly simplifies technical collaboration. This is especially important in the area of fission. One important reason is that nuclear technology companies are in many cases perceived to be national champions of the external countries and sometimes of EU countries. There can be an ambiguity of process, or risk of perceived ambiguity, because a government-to-government dialogue can, on occasion, resemble a firm-to-firm dialogue. The nuclear industry is a competitive business and firm-to-firm conversations need to be handled very carefully. Intellectual property and anti-trust issues are much easier when an outside government is able to speak via EU institutions and not directly with a Member State. The EU institutions are not, and are not perceived to be, focused on supporting the narrow interests of individual European nuclear technology companies. The disinterested position of the EU institutions and the ability to act as a single portal for communication are hugely valued by international third parties [INE3].

The bulk of fission research and training in Europe is funded and managed by individual Member States. The EU contribution sits atop these activities and within a different policy framework. From outside, these arrangements can appear rather fragmented. Other countries, such as China and South Korea, are able to make substantial coordinated investments leveraging their full potential. If Europe were able to mount a more strongly coordinated effort in nuclear fission R&D it could be a match for any region in the world. Others have observed that the EU is sensibly positioned between excessive centralisation and fragmentation [INE5]. One particular issue relates to large-scale R&D facilities. One interviewee commented that in this respect Europe appears to be falling behind [INE2]; more about facilities later.

5 ResearchResearch is a key element of EU fission activity. It relates to all aspects of the topic discussed here. For many years there has been a strong appreciation of the value of that research to European industrial competitiveness (both via healthy EU nuclear industries, but also via affordable and reliable electricity provision to all industry). There has also been a good appreciation of the linkage between nuclear energy and a broad range of environmental impacts. Following the consultation adopted for this study it is clear that the area of relative weakness is at the interface between research and people. That will motivate dedicated discussion, below, of social science research. Importantly, however, it is not just about social science research — people should have a greater role (as discussed earlier) in developing ideas concerning technical research.

Technical research

One of the respondents highlighted the links between the technical research portfolio and people: “The strategic goal of nuclear fission research may not be to find the single ‘right technical answer’ to the problem, but rather to bring people together and keep them together, in order to ensure that better decisions are made in the future [SSS10]”. Another said that the EU should “seek to target research to a group of end-users which is as broad as possible. This contradicts … a research agenda which is dominated by industry needs [SSS13].”

National or regional efforts in research should not be regarded simply as a contribution to the shared burden of global decarbonisation. Such efforts come at a cost and can be expected to reduce emissions, but despite such realities research is rightly considered to be an investment. We are not undertaking this research narrowly to militate against climate change — we do it for other reasons too. Publicly funded basic research is a public good made available to all; policymakers sensibly seek to capture as much of the economic return from the research within the territory of the funding region [ISS4]. Broadly, as a principle, those who will benefit from research should be those who pay for it [ISS2]. EU fission research is an investment in our future prosperity.

Importantly there is a benefit to fission research and training beyond the narrow scope of individual research projects. It is important for any advanced economy that capacity be available when it is needed to address a future problem or crisis. Such demands arise periodically and will continue to arise. Importantly, they cannot be predicted. Europe needs to be ready with a broad base of expertise if it is to retain its capability to respond properly to future crises [INE3]. Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident Japan has reoriented its nuclear research towards safety and remediation. The EU has long-standing pre-existing strength in these areas.

Europe has a strong tradition of closely specified and tightly structured nuclear research projects. One international expert from the US said: “I would recommend taking a small fraction of the total budget and making it somewhat freer to support bright ideas that come from all directions, as opposed to in certain programmatic ones. It’s like investment in our, let’s say, recently created ARPA-E, where you’re looking at high-risk, but high pay-off, ideas related to energy, that perhaps are not supported under certain programmatic activities, and, … as long as it is reasonably managed, in the sense that … you have good reviews of ideas and encourage broad participation in the reviews and so forth, I think that you might find some … higher pay-off for the overall dollar strength, in that way [INE5].”

Broadly, Europe’s contribution to nuclear fission research and training is seen and appreciated around the world. The following observations stand out: European experts play a vital role in international peer review and European researchers are major contributors to the global research effort [INE3 and INE5]. If European technical capacity in nuclear fission were to be diminished its loss would be sorely noticed by international colleagues and global progress would be significantly slowed [INE3].

Existing EU strengths are noted in: proliferation resistance and safeguards [INE3]; counter terrorism and security [INE3]; research training and skills [INE3]; generation IV systems — importantly on a broad front [INE3]; advanced nuclear fuel cycles [INE3]; partitioning and transmutation [INE2]; inspection and safety [INE3]; and fundamental science [INE3].

There are areas where it is felt the EU could do more, in some cases building upon an already strong base either at the EU level or in the Member States. Such areas include: nuclear medicine [INE3]; innovative light-water reactor technology [INE5]; flexible systems [INE3]; non-electricity (process heat) applications of nuclear energy [INE1]; small modular reactors [INE1]; and decommissioning [INE2]. Several international interviewees pointed to the importance of central facilities, such as the direct actions of the EU delivered via the Joint Research Centre [INE1, INE2 and INE3]. The

Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe, Germany is particularly well regarded and the High Flux Reactor in Petten was also highlighted [INE2]. Outside observers felt that the EU could do more to develop central facilities [INE2 and INE1], including building upon existing strengths in partitioning and transmutation and also upon Member State capabilities, such as the proposed Multi-purpose hybrid research reactor for high-tech applications (MYRRHA) project at SCK•CEN (Mol, Belgium) [INE2].

The current balance between basic and applied research in EU-funded fission activity is believed to be about right [INE3]. In recent years the EU research portfolio has gradually given more emphasis to basic research, for instance via the creation of the European Research Council. It is suggested that EU nuclear fission research policy should gently follow that trend notwithstanding the wider developments associated with Horizon 2020.

In terms of research capacity building, or rebuilding, the UK is interesting. The November 2011 UK House of Lords report on nuclear R&D capabilities, and its acceptance by the UK government, illustrate that in some EU countries there is a strong desire to restore eroded capabilities [ISS3 and INE5] (106).

Ioannis Kessides has argued, in an article published in Energy Policy (107), that the Fukushima accident and cost over-runs on generation III new build in Europe should now prompt a profound reassessment of the future of nuclear generation in favour of small modular reactors with the following advantages: lower unit capital cost; lower radioactive inventory per unit; factory build levels of quality and safety; and lower proliferation risks if deployed internationally via a hub-and-spoke model. He further advises that such a plan would be of great importance for markets in developing countries and sensitive aspects of the fuel cycle would be handled at a hub while deployment would occur via spokes [INE1]. The EU could do more in this area as it lags the USA and East Asia [INE1].

As regards EU research priority setting, a voice of criticism notes: “The strategies formulated for the SET-Plan were largely formulated by experts in the respective fields (at least as of 2009) and sounded like sales brochures, rather than strategic and need-driven assessments [SSS14].”

(106) Available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/nuclear-report-press-notice/

(107) Kessides IN, Energy Policy 48 (2012) pp. 185–208

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/nuclear-report-press-notice/



118 119


Another expert said: “More empirical research is needed to find out how lay people respond to scientific uncertainty information, especially regarding nuclear risks [SSS1]”. However, relevant social science research is far more than a better recognition of uncertainties surrounding technical assessments and the open presentation of such uncertainties; it is about developing “a better understanding of what is at stake in the debates concerning uncertainties and taking seriously the adverse arguments [SSS2]”.

Social science research (e.g. in psychology, economics, political science and sociology) is important and must be done by experts. It should not be subordinated to physics- or engineering-based agendas [ISS1]. A further note of caution was added: “Euratom should certainly focus more on sociopolitical issues, but the crucial question is what kind of sociopolitical research approach will be taken. It would be harmful and counterproductive if Euratom conducted and financed mainly research aimed at enhancing the trust and acceptance of nuclear power in its member countries [SSS2].” Another social scientist explicitly concurs [SSS15]. One expert [SSS4] stressed the benefit of funding EU Foresight activity in the nuclear area. This would be an area of collaboration with social scientists.

Various important existing EU institutions are acknowledged and regarded as necessary, but they are not regarded as sufficient. These include Eurobarometer [ISS4], the Economic and Social Committee (EESC) [ISS1] and the European Nuclear Energy Forum [SSS3].

6 The policy landscape

The better inclusion of the concerns of the public in nuclear policymaking is not restricted to better individual energy policy decisions or research prioritisation; it can go as far as affecting the processes of decision-making or even the constitutional framework. Nuclear policymaking in the early decades was made by technocratic elites behind closed doors and in the national interest — that approach is no longer appropriate [ISS5]. For instance, the public has repeatedly stated its valid concerns about radioactive waste over many decades. These concerns have been largely played down or even dismissed by technocratic policymakers [ISS4].

The involvement of NGOs and others is necessary, but is not sufficient. Broader and deeper societal engagement is required [ISS2 and ISS5]. NGOs ask the hard questions [ISS1] and are important groups to engage with, but their views are not those of the public [ISS4]. The concerns of the public extend beyond simply green values. The public typically has more multi-faceted concerns than single-issue NGOs [ISS5].

As regards public involvement in complex technology policy, it must be recognised that the trust of civil society and of the public in experts and institutions varies between EU Member States (109). Attempts at improved policymaking must recognise and seek to understand diversity of experience better [ISS1]. One submission emphasised “the necessity to support inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, to include various stakeholders and multiple perspectives and to explore the pros and cons, the specificities and limits of different alternative energy scenarios [SSS12]”.

It is important to remember local communities — the localities in which facilities are built and operated. Industrial facilities and communities impact upon each other in subtle ways, forming true societies and micro-economies; hence local government and other local forums should have a proper role in decision-making [ISS5 and SS4]. It should be remembered that some European local communities are proud defenders of their nuclear heritage [ISS5]. There is an opportunity for nuclear communities (in the local sense) from across the EU to share experiences and wisdom. Local political cultures differ and that helps to build the opportunity for interesting inter-community European dialogue.

In this regard the work of the Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities deserves mention and further consideration (110). Also the French Association Nationale des Comités et Commissions Locales d’Information (ANCCLI) has proposed a new organisation for Europe termed Nuclear Transparency Watch with related goals. ANCCLI itself is part of a wider history of local information commissions.

(109) See, for instance outputs from Eurobarometer http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm, accessed 16 October 2012

(110) http://www.gmfeurope.org, accessed 21 December 2012

Perhaps most importantly, the Aarhus Convention established by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and enshrined in EU law provides a framework for dialogue and wider issues of transparency. In 1998 the EU Committee of the Regions adopted a resolution on nuclear safety and local and regional democracy (111). It is appropriate that a coming together of local nuclear communities should be managed in coordination with the relevant Member States [ISS5]. In considering societal aspects of European energy policy the Member States have an important role and are a useful conduit [ISS3].

There are good foundations on which processes for local community and wider participatory dialogues can be built. This topic observes that in the fission area such practices should be expanded in scope and importance, including importantly for research policy and research facilities.

Euratom is not a visible entity to most Europeans, this militates against good public dialogue on important nuclear issues [SSS2 and SSS11]. The very existence of Euratom was challenged by one respondent: “The current framework for nuclear energy research, as instructed by the Euratom treaty, is historical but no longer relevant in the current light of the global environmental and social challenges of energy governance. In practice, the European Commission should reflect on ways and means to liberate non-purely technical nuclear fission research out of the Euratom research framework and integrate it in an holistic energy research programme (including all options) that also enables full comparative and contextual research [SSS3].”

Alternatively the position of nuclear energy research in the EU could be altered: “EU energy research should indeed focus more on sociopolitical (and related ethical) issues … this focus only makes sense if EU energy research is reorganised so that it enables contextual reflection in relation to sustainable development and geopolitical issues and also comparative assessment of all energy technology options (which … would mean that the Euratom enclosure around nuclear fission should be dissolved) [SSS3].”Another social scientist commented: “While there may be a clear distinction in terms of research relating to technology for nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and other ways of producing energy, an holistic approach to energy issues is relevant when addressing decision-making. Social sciences research can either focus on this holistic ensemble, or on particular aspects or issues. The framework within which such research is conducted (or called for), would merit from being broader and having a clear link to what is done (expected) in other energy fields [SSS13].”

(111) Official Journal of the European Communities, 98/C 251/06

Europe has much capability in the area of nuclear fission technology and this is appreciated and understood worldwide. The balance of activity should be reviewed and some suggestions for expansion and contraction have been given by those consulted and other published experts. The most important messages, however, are the importance of continuity and the need for better linkage with European society. Proper consideration should be given to supporting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research [SSS12], including building a bridge between technical and socially-oriented research. Finally, the technical research community must also be aware of issues that are well appreciated by the social science community. Namely: “Explicit recognition of uncertainty, complexity, indeterminacy and data gaps are particularly important where there is over-reliance on modelling or where statistical power is relatively low (e.g. low-level radiation epidemiology) [SSS10].”

Furthermore: “Intransparency may be as big a problem as uncertainty: the intransparency of ingredients, i.e. of what is fed into simulations and modelling with respect to energy futures, is a major problem that needs to be addressed to enable sound political decision making [SSS12].”

Social science research

A strong message emerging from this study is the need to recognise better the concerns of people in nuclear energy policy and research prioritisation. Improvements in this regard will be helped by the inclusion of relevant social science research in Euratom. Indeed there is a remarkably clear consensus among the social scientists consulted, both via interviews and the study questionnaire, that the Euratom research portfolio should contain a stronger component of the social sciences. It should be noted that this call comes broadly from members of the European social science research community who might be regarded as beneficiaries of any such shift. To this author’s impression, however, any such risk is outweighed by the power and objective clarity of the message received. The consensus behind the message is indeed powerful [e.g. SSS1–16 without obvious exception].

Robin Grove White and co-workers have pointed to the solid importance of social realities. They have written: “Official representations of public views and concerns about a particular technology as ‘perceptions’ convey the impression that they are somehow ‘soft’ and insubstantial, by comparison with more ‘real’ material dimensions such as safety, performance, economic viability and environmental effects — all of which are held to be measurable in supposedly robust objective terms. Such a tendency is misleading (108)”.

(108) Robin Grove-White et al. The Political Quarterly, Vol. 77, No 2, April–June 2006, pp. 238–246

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S



http://www.gmfeurope.org

120 121


ConclusionsThe European public is not simply anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear. Individual opinions are contingent on perceptions of risks and benefits and heavily influenced by considerations of trust. Furthermore, Robin Grove-White and coworkers advise: “More favourable perceptions of nuclear energy appear to be contingent on there being a projected future mix of energy generation sources. Thus there appears to be some support for a continued role for nuclear energy in the context of a diverse mix of energy technologies, a finding which is not obvious in polls structured around a simple choice between nuclear or renewables or maintenance of the status quo [emphasis in original] (112).”

Nuclear fission energy remains an attractive option worldwide to meet important global challenges in energy policy relating to the environment, energy security and affordability. The EU should carry a substantial part of the burden of global decarbonisation because: it can afford the cost; it has the capability to act effectively; and it has a responsibility to address pollution it has generated. Fission could contribute much to the global challenge of low-carbon energy and Europe should continue to play a full part in that. Such a step, however, would not represent an act of selfless altruism. An expansion of technical capability in fission would represent an investment in Europe’s economic future. It seems likely that investment in fission technology would do more to improve European competitiveness than would similar-scale investments in some other energy sectors [INE1].

It is beyond the scope of this project to propose reforms to the constitutional landscape, or more specifically to the Euratom treaty. It is clear, however, from consultation with a range of experts that there are issues which deserve serious consideration if fission research and training are to be less technocratic. The calls to end technocracy are strong.

Recommendations

• The core recommendation is that all institutions of the EU concerned with nuclear fission research and training should take steps to end the technocracy characteristic of decision-making in this area. Issues of gender balance and differing generational perspectives should be remembered.

• The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform should take special measures to communicate beyond the European nuclear industry.

(112) Robin Grove-White et al., op cit.

• Having considered existing initiatives the Committee of the Regions should extend its engagement with nuclear issues and consider bringing together community representatives from EU nuclear sites (including major research sites) to share experiences, insights and recommendations of best practice. These sessions should yield outputs of benefit to other EU institutions and all those concerned with nuclear policy in Europe.

• The European Commission should consider establishing a standing citizen’s panel on EU nuclear matters, perhaps under the auspices of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers. This group should not be constructed as an expert group in the technical sense. There should be significant representation from the invited public. Care should be taken to ensure good gender balance and representation from all parts of the EU. Such a result might be achieved by advertising for suitable citizens in EU mainstream media. It would be beneficial not to declare in such advertisements that the topic of interest is nuclear energy. The goal should be to seek thoughtful people willing to help the EU look ahead in a contentious science-based area of public policy. Such a forum should be subject to review after a suitable period. The proposed panel would in no way supplant the existing Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC). The proposed panel and the STC should have equal advisory status in the policymaking process. It is hoped a good rapport might be developed between the two separate entities and occasional joint activities undertaken.

• Noting its power of initiative, the European Commission should start a conversation concerning the proposition to mainstream nuclear fission research policy and possibly EU nuclear energy policy into the main frameworks of EU activity. Various ideas would surely emerge from such a conversation and this is not the point to be prescriptive as to what constitutional changes should be advanced.

• Horizon 2020 should do more to support bold visionary and high-risk research. The American ARPA-E programme provides inspiration. In an EU context this could take the form of an instrument. The scope of funding should be broad and as free of constraints as possible. It should not be focused on just nuclear fission, but also should not exclude it.

• The European Commission should expand the Euratom research portfolio, especially to bring in more social science perspectives. This research must not be motivated by a desire to defend or justify current technical research activities, or indeed nuclear power as a technology. Such research should not be required or expected necessarily to yield conclusions consistent with the ideas articulated by the founding parties of the Euratom treaty, such as “that nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry”.

• The European Commission should open up the scope of its technical research to include all aspects of fission research and training that might emerge from the more deliberative policy development processes recommended here. No research areas permitted by the treaties and other law should be excluded on principle. Budget allocations should follow principles of best science, while cognisant of EU policy goals.

• The EESC should continue and expand its good work in matters relating to nuclear policy. Its advice and recommendations should be considered carefully by policymakers.

• The European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation should, subject to the recommendations above, consider expanding the balance of Euratom activities to generate knowledge relating to the whole energy system and not just power generation.

Acknowledgements

The author is most grateful to all those that kindly agreed to be interviewed for this project, to the leaders of the other project topics and to those who contributed written evidence and to those that provided advice. The author is grateful to the secretariat provided by the European Commission and most especially to Roger Garbil and Georges van Goethem. The ideas presented here do not necessarily reflect the opinion of those that have offered assistance.

Annex 1: Experts consultedInterviews were conducted for background information and for specific evidence to inform the study. In all cases interviewees offered their comments in a personal capacity and their comments are no way representative of their employers or of any other body with which they may be affiliated. Furthermore, in no case do the comments represent a national view or opinion.

Social scientists interviewed

[ISS1] Richard Adams [ISS2] Chris Hope [ISS3] Nick Pidgeon[ISS4] David Reiner[ISS5] Rick Wylie

Nuclear experts interviewed

[INE1] Ioannis Kessides[INE2] Ralf Kaiser[INE3] Robert Speranzini[INE4] Hideshi Semba[INE5] Mujid Kazimi

Written evidence from social scientists

[SSS1] Vivianne Visschers[SSS2] Francis Chateauraynaud, Soraya Boudia

and Markku Lehtonen[SSS3] Gaston Meskens[SSS4] Heli Talja and Pia Oedewald[SSS5] Evandro Agazzi[SSS6] Eugenijus Ušpuras[SSS7] Simon Burall[SSS8] Phil Macnaghten[SSS9] Jacques Percebois[SSS10] Paul Dorfman[SSS11] Ortwin Renn and Piet Sellke[SSS12] Judith Simon and Armin Grunwald[SSS13] Anne Bergmans[SSS14] Eberhard Falck[SSS15] Romain Garcier[SSS16] Marc Poumadère

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

122 123


Topic 7

Safety and security culture beyond EU bordersMain subjects: To promote the highest safety culture at international level in all sectors of nuclear fission and radiation protection, e.g. through substantial EU support to countries both for the improvement of nuclear power plant safety and security and the strengthening of the regulatory oversight process — the EU Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC), the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and the Instrument for Stability (IfS)

Olivia COMSACentre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects (CITON), Romania

Olivia Comsa is research manager in the nuclear power and fuel cycle department of the Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects, Romania. Until 2012 she was a seconded national expert at the European Commission’s Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid, in charge of nuclear safety projects in former CIS countries. Previously, she was a nuclear counsellor at Romania’s ministries of European integration and of education and research, Euratom national contact point and Romanian representative to the Consultative Committee Euratom-Fission (CCE-Fission). She is a founder member of European and Romanian nuclear education networks ENEN and RONEN respectively. She worked on nuclear research and development for more than 35 years, mainly on Candu plants and nuclear fuel cycle projects.

Summary and key messagesA safer Europe in a safer world: towards a common safety and security culture

Safety, security and non-proliferation are absolute priorities for the EU. The overall goal of the EU nuclear safety and security activities outside Europe is to ensure the highest safety and security for European citizens while promoting a safety and security culture and the use of best-available nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes worldwide.

Under the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) treaty, the European Commission has provided financial and human resources to improve nuclear safety in countries outside Europe through specific external instruments which do not finance nuclear research but actions to promote the highest level of nuclear safety and security.

The nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima highlighted the global importance of nuclear safety and security and demonstrated that the health, environmental, social and economic consequences of a nuclear accident may extend beyond national borders and, potentially, worldwide. Through plant stress tests following Fukushima, the EU has contributed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to reinforcing and developing a solid and robust global approach to nuclear safety and security. There is an EU political commitment to further support IAEA activities worldwide towards a new safety and security architecture.

To accomplish these objectives a strong research programme, education and training and a research infrastructure are needed. No progress is possible without competitive, dedicated and EU added-value safety and security research. Maintenance of the international standing of the EU nuclear industry’s leadership, technological innovation capability and knowledge requires:

• European research and development (R&D) on nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation is a political, economic and scientific necessity but must be exported beyond the EU to be effective.

• Research and development should be performed at the EU level to achieve agreement on common standards at the earliest possible stage before they are proposed to other countries. The various fora (technology platforms, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group [ENSREG] and the European Nuclear Energy Forum [ENEF]) and their interactions are instrumental in defining, prioritising and implementing nuclear safety and security R&D.

• The main outreach instruments (the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance and the Instrument for Stability) are a crucial EU contribution to enhancing nuclear safety, safeguards, security and non-proliferation outside Europe and profit largely from the results achieved, best practices developed and lessons learned in the Euratom programme. Their efficiency could be increased through harmonisation and coordination with national actions.

• The EU should maintain its competence on innovative reactor designs which would allow it to assess safety, non-proliferation and security aspects of future installations outside the EU and apply pressure through international instruments, such as the IAEA conventions, for improvements where necessary.

By promoting nuclear safety and security culture beyond its borders the EU contributes to the strategic objectives of its flagship initiative the Innovation Union — excellent science, industrial leadership and meeting societal challenges — while promoting its nuclear industry’s access to new emerging markets and paving the way towards a safe and secure Europe.

References: see Annex 1Experts consulted: see Annex 2

1 International cooperation context

Promoting a solid culture of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation in neighbouring regions is the EU’s first line of defence against nuclear threats and risks. Strengthening the institutional capacities of other countries contributes to stabilising the EU geopolitical environment and is mutually beneficial as it reinforces regional integration and good governance.

The EU and its Member States act, within the broad range of their respective competences, in multiple ways in this area, including under the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as well as those founded on the Community treaties. In this way, the EU has also contributed considerably for many years to addressing the global non-proliferation challenge, based on its extensive experience in dealing with nuclear installations and owing to its top-level scientific and technical laboratories (113).

The competences and infrastructure available today in the EU are the fruit of years of continuous investment in research and development (R&D) and infrastructure development accompanied by training and education. To maintain its effectiveness, this know-how has to advance continuously in order to adapt to changing technical, societal and political requirements.

At the global level, the key international actor in preventing nuclear proliferation is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with its safeguards activities deriving from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the enhanced safeguards regime based on the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and NPT Additional Protocols. There are tight links between EU and IAEA activities.

2 EU nuclear safety and security activities outside Europe

Safety, security and non-proliferation are absolute priorities for the EU. It is in the interest of the EU to play a central role in developing further the high standards of safety, security and non-proliferation and promoting their implementation worldwide.

The overall worldwide goal of EU nuclear safety and security policy is to ensure high safety and security for European citizens while supporting the implementation of the highest safety and security standards in other countries. Safety and security cultures have a common objective; the protection of people, society and the environment from a harmful release of radioactive material. After the Fukushima accident, a healthy and actively maintained safety and security culture is at the forefront of the work of nuclear regulatory and governance bodies, which are now looking for a safety-security nexus. In 1992 the European Council encouraged “the Member States and the [European] Commission to act in a coordinated manner in international fora, on the basis of the achievements reached in the Community, towards a system of internationally accepted nuclear safety and safeguards criteria and requirements, in particular in the framework of the IAEA (114)”.

(113) Nuclear non-proliferation, Communication from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, COM(2009) 143 final, 26 March 2009

(114) The technological problems of nuclear safety, European Council resolution, (92/C 172/02), 18 June 1992

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

124 125


More recently, during a 2012 nuclear security summit, the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, reaffirmed the EU commitment to boosting nuclear safety and security and to contributing under the lead of the IAEA to the development and reinforcement of a solid and robust global approach after Fukushima. Barroso stated: “Radiation knows no borders — the Fukushima accident demonstrated that. We therefore need a true cross-border, global approach to nuclear safety. At the global level, we need to agree on the highest safety standards and strengthen emergency preparedness. Our aim is a more robust and solid nuclear framework worldwide. We strongly support tighter international rules for the peaceful, safe and sustainable use of nuclear energy (115).”

The European Council president Herman Van Rompuy stated: “The EU is committed to achieving the highest level of nuclear security. We would like to see a global security culture emerging, with the understanding that ultimately, it is the responsibility of every state to maintain effective nuclear security. I would like to appeal for more intense national efforts and international cooperation — to counter the threat that concerns all of us.”

For many years, the EU has provided the financial and human resources to improve nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation in countries outside the EU. In particular, the Tacis programme facilitated safety assistance to the former Soviet Union and the Phare project covered many countries that are now EU members. Both came to an end in 2006, but from 1991 to 2006 the Commission allocated EUR 1.3 billion to 1,200 projects through Tacis to improve nuclear safety and safeguards in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.

The EU external cooperation instruments promote cooperation in nuclear safety and security (and not on nuclear energy as such) and are based on common interests and mutual benefit:

• The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) (116) finances measures to support a higher level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries;

• The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (117) provides support for strengthening the capability of nuclear safety and regulatory bodies in EU-acceding countries; and

(115) EU action on nuclear safety, José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, Nuclear security summit, South Korea, 26,27 March 2012

(116) Council Regulation (Euratom) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for nuclear safety cooperation, 19 February 2007, OJ L 81

(117) Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, OJ L 210

• The Instrument for Stability (IfS) (118) funds the EU’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Risk Mitigation Centres of Excellence (CBRN CoE) (119).

The EU’s development and cooperation commission (EuropeAid), with assistance from the European External Action Service (EEAS) and technical support by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), runs the INSC and the IfS. The instruments do not finance research, but instead facilitate networking with, inter alia, R&D communities in nuclear safety, safeguards, security, non-proliferation, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, export control, emergency preparedness and training. This is particularly the case with the CBRN CoE.

The INSC, in place since 2007, focuses on the promotion and development of regulation, technical support to regulators, nuclear operators and national technical safety organisations (TSOs) and the promotion of international cooperation. It also supports joint projects with the IAEA and international projects and initiatives such as the Chernobyl Shelter Fund and the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership.

The IPA assists EU candidate and potential candidate countries in the harmonisation of their legislation on nuclear safety and radiation protection with that in the EU. It supports enhancement of the technical capacity of national nuclear regulatory bodies and their technical support organisations, monitoring of radioactivity in the environment, emergency preparedness and reduction of medical exposure to ionising radiation. The aim is to ensure that countries are fully prepared for possible EU accession by encouraging them to adopt emerging EU strategies and policies as priorities.

Through the IfS, the EU supports the development of training and assistance for security and non-proliferation in the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) fields. That includes combating illicit trafficking of nuclear materials (detection, forensics, etc.) and export control of dual-use technologies and goods (legislation, licensing, industry outreach, enforcement and jurisdiction). The IfS has a budget of about EUR 300 million in 2007–13(120). The IFS is an important financial tool for the EU to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear terrorism.

(118) Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability, OJ L 327, 24 November 2006.

(119) CBRN risk mitigation CoE initiative(120) Nuclear non-proliferation, Communication from the European

Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, COM(2009) 143 final, 26 March 2009

3 EU nuclear research and training

The following objectives of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) support the estab-lishment of European competence, excellence and scientific background outside the EU:

• To improve safety, including fuel and reactor safety, waste management and decommissioning and emergency preparedness; and

• To improve security, including safeguards, non-proliferation, combating trafficking and forensics. Euratom contributes to various projects of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) for R&D into the feasibility and performance of next-generation nuclear energy systems. The participation maintains EU competences and knowledge, allowing independent assessment of the safety and proliferation resistance aspects of future reactors. It also allows the EU to remain one of the principal powers promoting safety and combating nuclear proliferation.

In the area of nuclear safeguards and non-prolif-eration, the JRC provides a significant amount of R&D and training directly to the IAEA, under the European Commission’s IAEA support programme. This long-standing collaboration, in about 35 tasks, covers safeguards technologies and approaches, equipment development and a large number of training courses for nuclear safeguards inspectors.The JRC is carrying out research on:

• Methodologies and detection/verification technology;

• Methods and technology to prevent, detect and respond to nuclear and radioactive incidents, including qualification of detection technology and the development of forensics for trafficking, in collaboration with the global CBRN network;

• Export controls for non-proliferation; and

• Nuclear science for standardisation. Euratom should further develop the scientific basis for safety and security standardisation, to provide reference data and measurements which could be shared outside the EU.

The JRC also fosters knowledge management, education and training.

4 Scientific support for EU cooperation

The emphasis post-2013 will be on adapting the EU’s methods of designing, programming and delivering external assistance to changing political, economic and institutional realities while building on what has proven to be successful so far (121).

There are several nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation priorities for external cooperation for which sound EU technical competence is needed. There are also EU commitments to international organisations requiring the same scientific support. The technical expertise and competence needed to implement these commitments in an effective, efficient and sustainable way can be ensured only by bundling together related national efforts and through attractive research, educational and training activities, including modern infrastructures supported and coordinated by Euratom.

The main external priorities which require R&D to maintain and develop a sound scientific basis are:

• The promotion and implementation of safety and radiological protection standards;

• The development and implementation of strategies for the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, decommissioning and remediation of former nuclear sites;

• The implementation of the lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima and the ensuing European stress tests;

• The promotion of non-proliferation as a priority, in close collaboration with the IAEA;

• The enhancement of Euratom support to the IAEA;

• Support to the IfS in the development of a CBRN safety and security culture throughout the world contributing to security worldwide by combating trafficking of nuclear and radioactive materials, with a focus on enhanced detection technologies, training and forensics; and

• Extending international cooperation through bilateral Euratom agreements.

It should be stressed that the aim of the external cooperation instruments is the promotion of EU standards of safety, security and non-proliferation and not the promotion of nuclear energy.

(121) Global Europe: a new approach to financing EU external action, Communication from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, COM(2011) 865 final, 7 December 2011

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

126 127


5 EU challenges and priorities

Non-proliferation should receive the greatest possible attention.

The EU should stay abreast of developments in instrumentation, safety, security and environmental regulation through a rolling investment plan. To maintain the EU at the forefront of nuclear safety and security, Euratom should develop knowledge management tools, monitor human resources trends and deliver training and education programmes.

6 Convergence towards a common view

The EU’s nuclear safety and radioactive waste directives, of 2009 and 2011 respectively, were fundamental steps in establishing the foundations of a global safety and security framework. The Commission sees the directives and the high standards in the EU as examples that can be used to encourage other countries to adopt similar high standards.

The EU and the IAEA closely coordinate their activities and their support to countries to promote safety, security and non-proliferation worldwide most effectively. The EU is a key provider of technical support to the IAEA and a donor to its nuclear security fund.

The EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP), the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) and the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (Melodi) play an important role in the convergence towards a common view of safety and technology. They develop excellence and contribute to the promotion of European expertise worldwide, although the industry funds the development of products and services.

There is also increasing interaction between technology platforms and other EU bodies, such as the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) and the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG).

ENEF, founded in 2007, is a unique platform for discussion, for instance of transparency as well as of the economics, opportunities and risks of nuclear energy. ENEF members include EU countries, European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, industry, electricity consumers and civil society. ENSREG was created in 2007 to push for continuous improvement and a common understanding of safety and radioactive waste management.

Fukushima led the Commission to analyse, with ENSREG, the EU’s legal and regulatory safety and security framework, based on the results of the stress tests. The stress tests demonstrated the EU’s capacity to develop a common EU view and to act internationally.

7 Education and trainingCooperation within the EU provides an ideal platform for the collection and dissemination of knowledge, for post-graduate and professional training and for the promotion of mobility. The European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) association, for example, is active in more than 10 Euratom Fission Training Schemes (EFTS) under Euratom FP7 in areas of reactor safety, waste management and radiation protection, where there are shortages of skilled professionals.

The ENEF developed a number of initiatives to deal with the increasingly challenging nuclear human resources situation: the most important initiative is the European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear energy sector (EHRO-N), with the JRC as implementing agent. The JRC has set up a European Nuclear Safety and Security School (EN3S) and also provides safeguard and non-proliferation education and training to Euratom and IAEA inspectors, EU authorities and others worldwide in collaboration with the IAEA and the US Department of Energy. The European Nuclear Safety Training and Tutoring Institute (ENSTTI) is an initiative of European technical safety organisations. ENSTTI provides vocational training and tutoring in the methods and practices required to assess nuclear safety, nuclear security and radiation protection.

8 InstrumentsIn a fast-changing world, EU financial instruments have historically been hampered by a lack of flexibility. Therefore, new mechanisms have been introduced to increase flexibility, in particular by earmarking funds for unforeseen needs and defining minimum allocations. The instruments should pursue strategic objectives such as: promoting and defending EU values abroad; putting human rights, democracy and the rule of law at the core of EU external action; investing in the long-term prosperity and stability of the EU’s neighbourhood; and supporting reform in countries preparing for EU membership (122).

Future instruments should focus on four broad policy priorities in direct application of the Euratom treaty: enlargement; the neighbourhood; cooperation with strategic partners; and development cooperation. They should enable the EU and its members to increase their political and economic impact and to meet their commitments.

The instruments dealing with safety, security and non-proliferation should operate throughout the coming decade and be coordinated with other instruments and EU policies.

The IfS should be expanded to reflect increasing international challenges, including natural disasters and other unexpected crises.

Assistance to EU candidate countries should continue, either under the IPA or by increasing the geographic scope of the INSC.

Euratom projects should be funded mainly with public money but private funding should be considered. The funding of JRC direct actions is essential, in particular in areas which directly provide scientific support for international cooperation. Scarcity of resources should not affect strategic research.

Structural funds should be used to develop nuclear infrastructure and capabilities to achieve the cohesion policies of the EC.

To summarise, the EU contribution as a donor in support of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation is provided through: the INSC; the IPA; the IfS; decisions of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy to support nuclear security; technical support to the IAEA; the seventh Euratom framework programme for nuclear research and training; and nuclear cooperation agreements with third countries (123). These will continue in the next EU budget period 2014–20.(122) Global Europe: a new approach to financing EU external action,

Communication from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, COM(2011) 865 final, 7 December 2011

(123) Lars-Erik Lundin: , EU Non-proliferation Consortium, 2012

9 Recommendations• The EU should promote international nuclear

safety, security and non-proliferation cooperation, based on common interest and mutual benefit. Ensuring high standards of safety, security and emergency preparedness and response should be a major aim of nuclear energy policy in Europe and worldwide, especially after the Fukushima accident.

• The EU should coordinate its international activities with those of other organisations including the IAEA, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations. It should continue to contribute to the G8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction, to the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540 (April 2004) on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The EU should maintain its world lead in promoting nuclear safety and security.

• The EU must maintain a strong R&D, education and training infrastructure and expertise, in the face of changing safety, security and non-proliferation challenges and to be able to implement the lessons learned from Fukushima.

• The EU should address the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation by strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.

• The EU should develop education and training programmes, including globally. It should further develop international research cooperation with countries and international organisations.

• The EU should continue to contribute to and fund the Generation IV International Forum for R&D, specifically for safer, more secure and proliferation-resistant reactor designs and fuel cycles. The EU must provide sufficient funding for nuclear research and training.

• The EU should consider using structural funds to develop nuclear capabilities and infrastructure, to achieve its cohesion policies and for joint programmes with Member States, to increase the impact and the coherence of such work.

• The EU should boost the value of safety and security activities through better harmonisation and coordination of EU, IAEA and national programmes. The EU should boost the visibility of its safety and security activities outside Europe and improve transparency and communication with Member States and the wider world.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

128 129


Annex 1: ReferencesCarnegie Endowment for International Peace, New trends in nuclear safety and nuclear security, Beijing, April 2012

Communication on nuclear non-proliferation, from the European Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament, COM(2009) 143 final, 26 March 2009

Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste

Council of the European Union, Internal security strategy for the European Union: towards a European security model, Brussels, 23 February 2010

ENSREG, Action plan: follow-up of the peer review of the stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants, 25 July 2012

EP, Opinion of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council regulation on establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, (COM(2011)0841 – C7-0014/2012 – 2011/0414(CNS))

European Commission, An energy policy for Europe, COM (2007) 1 final

European Commission, Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: a strategic approach, COM(2012) 497 final, 14 September 2012

European Commission, Long-term responses to global security threats, Contributing to security capacity building in third countries through the Instrument for Stability, Luxembourg, 2011

European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union’s instruments for external action, COM(2011) 842 final

European Council, Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations

G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group, Summit report, May 2012

Heyes, A., An assessment of the nuclear security centres of excellence, The Stanley Foundation, May 2012

Joint EC/HR, Global Europe: a new approach to financing EU external action, COM(2011) 865 final, 7-12-2011

Judkiewicz, D. M., Policies and instruments for research and innovation: necessary synergies, Warsaw European Industrial Research Management Association, 2011

Khripunov, I., Nuclear and radiological security culture: a post-Seoul Summit agenda, Centre of international trade and security, University of Georgia, 2012

Nuclear Threat Initiative, Reducing nuclear risks in Europe, a framework for action, Washington, 2011

Strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security in the EU — an EU CBRN action plan, European Parliament resolution, 2010/2114(INI), 14 December 2010

The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), Fact Sheet, 2012

UK House of Commons: Financing EU external action: the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation, European Scrutiny Committee, 25 January 2012

Annex 2: Experts consultedConsultations were by interviews, communications, public opinion and opinion papers.

• Vesselina Ranguelova, JRC, Nuclear safety and security coordination

• Eddie Maier, European Commission, Directorate General for Development and Cooperation —EuropeAid, Instrument for security, nuclear safety

• Jose Mota, European Commission, Directorate General for Development and Cooperation —EuropeAid, Instrument for Security, Nuclear Safety

• Daniela-Sabine Abentung, European Commission, Directorate General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid, Instrument for Security, Nuclear Safety

• Peter Liska, VUJE and SNETP, Slovakia

• Ilie Turcu, NRI Pitesti, ESNII, SNETP, Romania

• Milan Brumovski, UJV, Tacis and INSC, Czech Republic

• Dave Corbett, European Commission, Nuclear Safety Programme for Ukraine, Joint Support Office, Ukraine

• Sergey Mikheykin, FNK Group, Russian Federa-tion

• Ioan Ursu, IFIN-HH and CCE Fission, Romania

• LinkedIn groups: Nuclear safety, European nuclear industry, Future of nuclear, Nuclear safety culture, Nuclear power — the next generation.

Topic 8

Science-based policies and legislationMain subjects: Better science base available to support EU policies and evolving EU legislation on nuclear safety, radiological protection and waste management and increased awareness of the people (decision-makers, opinion leaders, citizens, etc.)

Jozef MISAKUJV Řež, Czech Republic

Dr Jozef Misak is vice-president of engineering and research organisation UJV Řež, Czech Republic, mainly involved in development of strategy and nuclear safety coordination for major projects. He has 42 years of nuclear experience, including many years in research. He was first chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority in Slovakia and a head of safety development at the International Atomic Energy Agency. For the European stress tests following Fukushima he was a member of the governing board and led the severe accident management work. He is a member of regulatory advisory bodies in Armenia, Slovakia and Ukraine and on the board of the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform. He holds a PhD degree from the Czech Technical University in Prague.

Summary and key messagesIt is important to base EU policies on scientific facts and justifications in order to address the important issues, to look for common solutions and harmonise opinions. It is in the interests of all EU citizens to have the highest safety and security levels, which are best implemented by means of scientifically based legislation, codes and standards harmonised across the EU and beyond.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

130 131


Experience gained in nuclear energy has huge potential for technology transfer and offers a number of non-electrical applications of nuclear sciences, such as in medicine, biology, dosimetry and radioecology and advanced materials. European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) research has the potential to play a key role in building trust and ensuring efficient use of scarce resources such as people, infrastructure and funds.

Recommendations

• EU policies should have a scientifically based framework which allows collective action on energy issues, based on a complex mix of scientific-technological, sociopolitical and economic points of views and analyses. Science-based justifications should provide political leaders and everyone else with sufficient facts about risks and benefits of nuclear power in an open and transparent way.

• Nuclear fission research financed from public funds should respond to public concerns, including not only health and environmental, but also other societal concerns such as security of power supply and general human welfare. The priorities in research should be established in accordance with EU policies with a balance of public concerns and the need for technological progress including the development of a new generation of reactors. The role of EU technology platforms in identifying research priorities should be strengthened.

• Research aimed at technological risk minimisation should include social scientists capable of interpreting technological facts to analyse public fears. More effective ways should be developed to communicate the risks and benefits of nuclear power to the public in order to increase public trust that European legislation provides sufficient minimisation of the risks.

• Strengthening of legislation should be based on scientific facts in order to address the important issues and harmonise opinions, avoiding EU legislation diverging significantly from international standards. A sound mechanism should be established to collect scientific evidence nationally and internationally and deliver it to policymakers in a manner that allows it to be reflected in policies and legislation.

• Dedicated research should be carried out in support of regulators, to allow oversight harmonised across Europe and beyond, development of independent safety assessment tools and communication with decision-makers and the public for the objective interpretation of scientific facts. Regulatory decisions should be based on best available

science covering a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines and contributing to transparency in decisions. Research should support more broadly the potential for technology transfer from the nuclear energy sector to non-electrical applications of nuclear sciences, such as in medicine, biology, dosimetry, radioecology and advanced materials.

• Communication between all parties should be improved to develop common views on needs and priorities, pooling of resources and funding, with special attention paid to how funding should be split between industry and public resources. European framework programmes should continue to provide a substantial component of fission research funding.


IntroductionRole of nuclear power in Europe

Nuclear energy is an important part of the EU’s energy mix. There are 131 nuclear reactors in operation today in 14 EU members, delivering about 30 % of the electricity consumed in the EU (and 70 % of the low-carbon electricity). Nuclear energy is satisfying a large fraction of the electricity demand of the EU without carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during plant operations and at competitive generation costs and it has the potential to remain so in realistic economic scenarios.

The nuclear events in Fukushima have an influence on decision-making on nuclear energy at national and EU levels. Public confidence in nuclear power as a reliable and safe energy source has been challenged. European opinions on nuclear power are now more strongly divided than ever. While some countries are focusing on closing down nuclear plants and on subsequent decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste, others are focusing on extending the lifetime of plants, with potential new builds in the short- to medium-term, while others are investigating new generations of nuclear systems that could provide great opportunities for a secure, safe and affordable energy supply for centuries to come. In addition, experience gained in nuclear energy has huge potential for technology transfer and offers non-electrical applications of nuclear sciences, such as in medicine, biology, dosimetry, radioecology and advanced materials.

Thanks to recent developments nuclear power is associated more than ever with high-level policy decisions at both national and European level. Strengthening of nuclear legislation is expected to reflect the lessons learned from Fukushima and to require additional provisions for minimisation of

risks. Harmonisation of policies and legislation in the EU and beyond is essential for the future safe use of nuclear power. For all these developments a solid and continuously updated and improved knowledge base is required, as for any technology with a major impact on European society.

The task for the nuclear industry, research centres, technology developers and academia is to provide policymakers and the public with accurate and unbiased assessments of the risks, benefits and perspectives of the use of nuclear technology.

The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) framework programme has been, over the last two decades, an effective contributor to progress in nuclear research, development, innovation and education. The programme helped to establish an integrated European nuclear research and development (R&D) community that has been cooperating effectively, making the best of the scarce resources available in terms of people, infrastructure and funds. Its effect is recognised as largely beneficial to maintaining know-how, common understanding of issues and the resulting harmonisation of solutions. Irrespective of EU members’ nuclear policies — phasing out, maintaining or expanding nuclear fleets — a continued Euratom contribution to European cooperation is of paramount importance.

Objectives of the document

The main objectives of this topic include the identification of the added value of the EU approach to nuclear research and training as opposed or complementary to national approaches and of ways to improve the approach. Section 2 is devoted to analysis and identification of research needs over the next 10 years, with consideration of support for EU policies and nuclear legislation, harmonisation of safety practices in the EU and globally and enhancement of regulatory competences. Implications of the Fukushima accident on research are also indicated. Section 3 considers the convergence towards a common view in the EU. Section 4 discusses factors important for implementation of EU research. Conclusions are given in Section 5.

1 Euratom research and training

1.1 Research in support of EU policiesEU policies and high-level decisions should correspond to the current state of the art in scientific disciplines. Any significant decision at EU level should be scientifically based and supported by studies. The research should cover a broad spectrum in order for the EU to stay at the front line of R&D and not to lose competences. Safety and security of EU installations is of utmost importance and is the highest priority for the nuclear world. A policy to develop the next generation of nuclear infrastructures also needs to be continued. Next to that, decommissioning, dismantling and the optimisation of solutions for different waste streams require adequate nuclear know-how, for all scenarios involving nuclear energy. A broad potential for utilisation of nuclear science in medicine needs to be supported. Education and training are important aspects that need top priority in order to compensate for loss of nuclear expertise. In addition to research needed to support EU energy policy (dealt with elsewhere in this study), the following topics are relevant to EU-wide policies.

Safety and security

• Emergency preparedness and response: harmonisation of modelling and monitoring tools for supporting decisions and communications after an event and harmonisation of intervention;

• Enhanced resistance of nuclear facilities to extreme natural hazards, especially those induced by projected climate change;

• Reduction of uncertainties in severe accident phenomena in power reactors;

• Fuel behaviour in spent-fuel pools and dry-storage facilities under design extension conditions;

• European harmonisation of safety assessment standards and tools;

• Harmonisation of the European approach to the measures developed from post-Fukushima stress tests;

• Interfaces between safety and security; and• Effects of human, social and organisational

factors on safety.

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

132 133


Present and future reactor technologies

• Harmonisation of European certification of reactor technologies to support worldwide competitiveness of European nuclear industry;

• Development of innovative strategies and research infrastructures for high-level nuclear waste reduction and nuclear fuel resources optimisation, including use of fast reactors with closed fuel cycles;

• Development of alternative fuel cycles for existing and future reactors, such as usage of thorium;

• Development and demonstration of small and medium reactors practically immune to severe accidents and nuclear proliferation;

• Support of the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) (124) under the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) (125);

• Promotion of integration of fusion and fission materials research, including the development of irradiation facilities;

• Usage of nuclear-generated heat and hydrogen, to support European security of energy supply policy; and

• Development with the European Space Agency of nuclear fission and nuclear conversion systems to help Europe to play a major role in space programmes.

Decontamination, dismantling and decommissioning, waste, radioecology

• Techniques and methodologies for radioactive waste volume reduction and minimisation;

• Harmonised criteria for the methodology and results of final radiological surveys for the release of decontaminated structures;

• Identification of waste streams that pose problems (e.g. bitumen, graphite) and support for development of treatment processes;

• Characterisation and categorisation

methodologies for radioactive waste; • Elaboration of radioecology methodologies,

modelling tools and acceptance schemes for the remediation of contaminated sites and structures with mixed radiological-chemical natures;

(124) European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative, concept paper, Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, October 2010

(125) A European strategic energy technology plan (SET-Plan) — towards a low-carbon future, COM(2007) 723 final europa.eu/legislation

• R&D on waste transmutation policies and

practices; and • An integrated European approach to high-level

waste disposal.

Medical, biological and dosimetry • Development of radionuclides and biochemical

components for nuclear medicine and improved techniques to optimise doses, taking into account individual biological factors and using advanced techniques for assessment of biological risks and benefits;

• Development of methods to measure individual

human radiosensitivity to optimise radiotherapy doses;

• Research into the effects of low-dose irradiation

on people; • Development of curative radioisotopes and

radiopharmaceuticals for the ageing population; and

• Development of a harmonised, optimised low

enriched uranium-based target for medical radioisotope production.

Education and training • Strengthening the European nuclear knowledge

base; and • Enhancement of the mobility of researchers in

educational programmes to form an elite that could determine future priorities for peaceful nuclear development.

1.2 Research to support EU legislationIn the area of EU legislation, nuclear safety, non-proliferation and security have long been absolute priorities. The European Council recently adopted two directives:

• Directive 2009/71 of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for nuclear safety and giving legal force to international safety standards; and

• EU Directive 2011/70 of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.

Other legislative developments have included revision of Euratom basic safety standards, EU-wide harmonisation of licensing and design certification, harmonisation of nuclear accident liability and harmonisation of education and training. Specific EU measures are geared to protecting the health of those working in the sector and of the public at large and protecting the environment from the risks associated with nuclear fuel and waste.

Updating of legislation should follow progress in scientific knowledge. The Council has given the European Commission a mandate to review the existing legal and regulatory framework for the safety of nuclear installations, possibly through legislative amendments to the nuclear safety directive, improvements in the implementation of existing mechanisms and better coordination between countries. Post-Fukushima and the resulting safety reassessments of EU nuclear plants (the stress tests), it is expected that further harmonisation of safety assessment practices will be sought.

In this context it is necessary to prevent EU legislation from diverging significantly from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards, since that could result in public mistrust and lead to EU isolation and loss of competitiveness. In any case, it is important to base legislation on scientific facts and justifications in order to address the important issues, harmonise opinions and avoid a wrong emphasis on issues not important to safety. Examples of where research results are needed for sound legislation include low radiation dose limits, long-term treatment of spent fuel, severe accident mitigation and off-site emergency arrangements.

1.3 Harmonisation of safety practices in EU and globallyBecause of the cross-border nature of radiation hazards, there is a need for a harmonised EU approach not only for legislation, but also for standards, methodologies and practices. In addition, nuclear harmonisation is only effective if it is disseminated to most countries, including those outside the EU. Harmonisation had been promoted by the EU before Fukushima, but took on more importance afterwards. Participation in common research projects is one possible approach to harmonisation, taking into account the positive fact of limited commercial interests in this area. Specific fields of research relevant for harmonisation of standards, methodologies and practices have been identified in the harmonisation roadmap of the NUclear GENeration II and III Association (Nugenia) (126).

(126) http://www.nugenia.org

1.4 Enhancement of regulatory competencesRegulators have an exceptional role in influencing policies and establishing and supervising compliance with legislation. Strengthening of regulatory bodies is therefore a high priority, to ensure efficient supervision of nuclear safety and good legislation. They need specific and independent tools and methods for safety assessment to enhance their competencies and capabilities for the interpretation of scientific facts. Areas of special regulatory interest include the development of scientifically-based regulations and guides, the quantification of safety margins, environmental issues, radioactive waste management and spent-fuel storage and disposal. Regulatory decisions should be based on best available science; the term regulatory science has been introduced to cover a broad spectrum of disciplines. This includes a need to develop processes and methods for transparency in regulatory decisions (127). In addition regulators can enforce advanced practices and play key roles in harmonisation of training, in emergency organisations and in maintaining critical knowledge in professional communities.

Publicly-funded research to support regulators, including their training, is important for regulatory independence as an essential component of public trust.

1.5 Research implications of FukushimaThe most positive response to the Fukushima tragedy is to learn and convert the lessons into safety and reliability improvements for current and future nuclear systems. Nuclear R&D can and should support the improvements. Although Fukushima did not reveal any substantially new phenomena, it influenced priorities in research, as indicated in the final report of the EU stress tests peer review (128) and in the report of the Fukushima task group of the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) (129). The reports called for increased attention to research associated with safety, with more emphasis on the robustness of plants against extreme hazards, the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents occurring in several reactors at the same time (including organisational and societal factors) and the minimisation of accident consequences. Many implications for existing plants would be applicable also to new reactor designs.

(127) The need for regulatory science transparency at EPA, by Alan Moghissi, Institute of Regulatory Science, 30 November 2011

(128) Peer review report: stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants, ENSREG, April 2012

(129) Identification of research areas in response to the Fukushima accident, report of the SNETP Fukushima task group, Rev.14, 13 July 2012

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

europa.eu/legislation

http://www.nugenia.org

134 135


Fukushima demonstrated that technological advances should be associated with a focus on human behaviour and social responsibility. Lessons learned from Fukushima cannot be considered as a purely technical issue, so research into reactor technologies should be complemented by attention paid to human and organisational factors under high-stress and harmful conditions, as well as to societal factors. Most likely, Fukushima will also lead to more active harmonisation of European legislation. Fukushima also demonstrated a need for increased awareness in decision-makers as well as in opinion leaders and citizens. Issues to be addressed include: cost-benefit analysis of energy sources with consideration of all external costs, including those associated with low-probability scenarios; assessment on a scientific basis of the pros and cons of evacuating people after a nuclear accident; social risks of different human activities; low-dose effects; and mitigation of severe accidents in new reactor designs to avoid the need for evacuation. Research into these complex processes is essential.

2 Convergence toward a common view in the EU

2.1 Variety of stakeholdersDespite plans for utilisation of nuclear power in Europe and the recognition of the need for a science base to policies as well as for nuclear safety and security legislation, consensus to support associated research may be quite difficult to reach because of broadly varying expectations and interests. The parties to be considered include: EU policymakers; national politicians; the public; regulators; utilities; manufacturers; research organisations; and non-governmental bodies. All are customers of the research, as policymakers, bodies involved in development of legislation, or simply bodies affected by implementation of legislation.

Therefore a broad spectrum of research demands can be identified, which can most effectively be pursued by cooperation and collaboration at a European level. Although this ambition has been established in nuclear R&D, the funding has been and is too limited. The coordination of nuclear R&D in Europe is high, but can only have an impact, serving everyone, if the R&D is adequately financially supported by the EU and its members.

2.2 Research support for EU policies and legislationIn the area of EU policies and legislation there are several influential factors determining directions of development. There are international institutions, in particular the IAEA, developing international conventions and safety standards, and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It is important that EU instruments, in particular standards and directives, will not be in conflict with broader international instruments. Under special circumstances, ad hoc actions such as the European stress tests and their peer review have significant implications. EU policymakers should maintain a balanced vision and realistic position in this complex environment. The EU should maintain relations with and utilise the work of other institutions, but as a serious partner, providing added value. Euratom has been involved in international initiatives but would find it difficult to continue playing such a role without adequate scientific background and research. The European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) (130) and the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (131) (in close cooperation with the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (132)) could play more important roles in the convergence of opinions, as well as in the harmonisation of legislation. Both institutions are already active, but ENEF in particular could do more, making the process more visible and involving all countries.

2.3 Common interests in all EU countriesThe overall objective of EU activities should be to ensure a continuous improvement in safety and security in the use of nuclear energy in the EU and abroad. All EU countries, whatever their nuclear policy, have to deal with nuclear safety, be it in connection with waste management or with nuclear power plants in their country or beyond their borders. All are concerned about emergency preparedness, radiological protection, non-electricity applications of nuclear power, fuel cycles and radioactive waste management, environmental impacts, security and nuclear civil liability. The knowledge base and continuous improvements require adequate R&D, preferably at a European level. Scientific assessment and solid data, well scrutinised, should be the basis for the convergence towards a common view in the EU at least in the areas listed above. Although the consensus on research may be more easily found in the listed areas, those should not necessarily be the only priorities in terms of overall benefits for the EU.

(130) http://ec.europa.eu/ energy/nuclear/forum/(131) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg (132) http://www.wenra.org

For example, development of future technologies (generation IV and fusion) with economic models for their sustainability and legal frameworks may be equally important.

3 Recommended EU and national implementation instruments

3.1 Euratom framework programmesThe 7th Euratom framework programme (133) has reflected European research priorities and exhibited improved working methods and should be renewed under Horizon 2020. It has contributed significantly, in combination with other EU financing mechanisms, to European nuclear R&D and in particular to ESNII (134), as a long-term endeavour of wider European interest.

Most experts involved in Euratom research projects are satisfied with the current organisation of projects. Among other things, they cited sufficient flexibility and a reasonably low level of bureaucracy, good transparency and an adequate level of management. As Euratom has established a solid foundation for cooperation and collaboration, no significant organisational changes should be made. Research coordinated through the framework programmes has led to significant achievements, improved usage of scarce resources such as people, infrastructure and funds and solid cooperation at the European level. It should also be recognised that cooperation and collaboration at European level is a prerequisite for some EU members to fund nuclear R&D, to maximise the impact of their investments.

(133) Seventh Euratom framework programme, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/euratom/home_en.html

(134) ESNII concept paper, October 2010, http://www.snetp.eu

3.2 EU technology platformsEU nuclear research policies are discussed in several platforms, most notably in the SNETP (135) and the groups under its umbrella (Nugenia, ESNII and the Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative (136)). The EU research strategy for radiological protection is in the hands of the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative association (137). Finally, the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (138) provides the focus in the lead up to the operation of geological repositories for high-level nuclear waste. The platforms’ vision reports, research agendas and deployment reports help to identify important research directions and priorities and provide valuable inputs for orientation of research in individual countries.

To a large extent the necessary coordination between national programmes is already achieved through the SNETP and other platforms and their working groups, solidifying the cooperation established in past Euratom projects. The platforms should continue to play this role. They should also be partners of the Commission in implementation of Horizon 2020, providing direct feedback from EU members. Their role should be further strengthened to allow them to define specific programmes and optimise implementation.

3.3 national and international researchBoth European and national R&D institutions should support policymaking. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre should complement national research (139) and coordinate the elaboration, collection and interpretation of scientific information needed for EU decision-making. National centres, in addition to addressing their local needs, should be encouraged to expand participation in coordinated research in areas of common interest exceeding their individual capacity. Importantly, the system of national research institutions should have technical safety organisations providing support to regulatory decision-making.

(135) http://www.snetp.eu/ (136) http://www.snetp.eu (137) http://www.melodi-online.eu/ (138) http://www.igdtp.eu/ (139) Impact analysis of the JRC and its direct actions under the EU

research framework programmes, JRC, final report, August 2011

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://ec.europa.eu/%20energy/nuclear/forum/

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg

http://www.wenra.org



http://www.snetp.eu

http://www.snetp.eu/

http://www.snetp.eu


http://www.igdtp.eu/

136 137


3.4 Research funding

The common view of interviewees was that support for scientifically-based policies as well as for the development, harmonisation and implementation of legislation should be financed primarily from public funds, since private sector interest is limited while the strategic needs of the EU and its members are of primary concern. The most frequent and often the only criticism in interviews with participants in Euratom research programmes was that support for fission was less than was justified by the importance of the work. Although the need to use EU public funds prudently is obvious, at the same time it is necessary to take into account the need for fission research to maintain nuclear competences in Europe and the competitiveness of the European nuclear industry and to prepare innovative technologies for the improved sustainability of nuclear fission by 2050. This approach is common for all major technologies.

EU countries should recognise the importance of the scientific support and reverse the steady reduction of financial resources for fission research at the EU level. In this regard, on 25 June 2012 the SNETP, in reaction to the Commission’s Horizon 2020 proposals, recommended consideration of “a significant increase of the fission research budget in Horizon 2020 when taking into account the cutting-edge challenges that the SNETP platform has put forward in its vision report and associated strategic research agenda (140)”.

Different sources of research funding will also be necessary in the future, mainly based on national and regional funding and on funding from private industry through shared-cost projects, in combination with other public resources (141). The European Regional Development Fund might be used, for example, to co-fund the construction of research facilities. Similarly, the European Social Fund might be used to co-fund education and training of researchers and technical personnel. However, framework programme funding should remain a significant component of total funding.

Coordination and communication are needed to produce common views on needs and priorities, on pooling of resources and on funding, particularly the industry contribution.

(140) SNETP statement on structuring orientations for the Euratom Horizon 2020, 25 June 2012

(141) EU Cohesion Policy 2014–20: legislative proposals (regional policy — through partnership contracts agreed between the Commission and the Member States), http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm

ConclusionsEconomically realistic EU energy development scenarios include nuclear power as an important component. Despite the varied national approaches towards nuclear power, many EU countries operate nuclear power plants and consider nuclear power to be part of their future energy mix.

The challenges of achieving a sustainable low-carbon economy require a proper evaluation of the role and development of nuclear power at national and EU levels with a balanced consideration of risks and benefits. It is important that the evolution of EU policies, legislation and instruments in areas such as nuclear safety and security, the environment, radiological protection, waste and spent fuel disposal is based on scientific analysis, in order to efficiently address the subjects and reduce risks.It is in the interests of all EU citizens to have the highest safety and security levels, which are best achieved through scientifically-based legislation, codes and standards harmonised across the EU and beyond. Harmonisation is important also for the non-electricity applications of nuclear sciences, such as in medicine, biology, dosimetry, radioecology and advanced materials. Euratom research has the potential to play a key role in building capacity and trust and contributing to efficient use of scarce resources such as people, infrastructure and funding.

Annex 1: Experts consulted• Bertrand Barre, Areva, France

• Carlo Lombardi, Italy

• Enrique Gonzalez, CIEMAT, Spain

• Eric van Walle, SCK•CEN, Belgium

• Alan Moghissi, Institute for Regulatory Science, USA

• Ioan Ursu, Romania

• John Loughhead, UK

• Joachim Knebel, Germany

• Latchesar Kostov, Bulgaria

• Frantisek Pazdera, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Czech Republic

• Richard Ivens, Foratom, Brussels

• Roberto Adinolfi, Ansaldo, Italy

• Sander de Groot, the Netherlands

• Andrea Nicic, IAEA, Austria

• Jan Husarcek, Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Slovakia

• Antonio Madonna, Iter Consult, Italy

• Peter Liska, VUJE, Slovakia

• Alessandro Petruzzi, University of Pisa, Italy

• Peter Hughes, IAEA, Vienna

• Philippe Jamet, ASN, France

• Petr Krs, State Office for Nuclear Safety, Czech Republic

• Helmut Hirsch, Wissenschaftlicher Konsulent, Germany

• Eugenijus Ušpuras, Lithuanian Energy Institute

• Marco Gasparini, Formerly IAEA, Austria

• Janos Gado, AEKI-KFKI, Hungary

• Michael Modro, Formerly IAEA, Austria

• Jozef Zlatňanský, Enel, Slovakia

• Paolo Contri, Enel, Italy

• Djordje Vojnovic, Slovenian Nuclear Safety Authority, Slovenia

• Mamdouh El-Shanawany, Imperial College London, UK

• Hamid Aït Abderrhaim, SCK•CEN, Belgium

• Harri Tuomisto, Fortum, Finland

• Alain Chevalier, Amec, UK

• Giovanni Bruna, IRSN, France

• Cantemir Ciurea, CNCAN, Romania

• Ashot Martirosyan, Anra, Armenia

• Irina Kuzmina, IAEA, Austria

• Gaudenzio Mariotti, Enel, Italy

• Tomasz Jackowski, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland

• Madalina Tronea, CNCAN, Romania

• Krasimir Avdjiev, BNRA, Bulgaria

• Luc Geraets, GDF Suez, Belgium

• John Wood, Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK

• Vladimir Slugen, Slovak Technical University, Slovak Republic

• Martin Ruscak, UJV Řež, Czech Republic

• Ivo Vasa, Formerly UJV Řež, Czech Republic

• Milan Patrik, UJV Řež, Czech Republic

pART

1

pART

1SC

IEn

TIFI

C-TE

CHn

oLo

GICA

L R

Epo

RTS

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm

138 139


Part 2:

Socioeconomic reportsContribution 1Evandro AgazziInternational Academy of Philosophy of Science, Belgium

Contribution 2Anne BergmansFaculty of political and social sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Contribution 3Simon BurallInvolve, UK and Democratic Audit, UK

Contribution 4Francis ChateauraynaudGroup for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, FranceSoraya BoudiaLaboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, FranceMarkku LehtonenSussex Energy Group, University of Sussex, UK and Institute for Research and Innovation in Society, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, France

Contribution 5Paul Dorfman Warwick Business School, UK

Contribution 6Eberhard FalckCentre international de Recherches en Economie écologique, Eco-innovation et ingénierie du Développement Soutenable, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France

Contribution 7Romain GarcierDepartment of social sciences, Ecole normale supérieure, University of Lyon, France

Contribution 8Phil MacnaghtenDepartment of geography, Durham University, UK and Unicamp, Brazil

Contribution 9Gaston MeskensNuclear science and technology studies unit, SCK•CEN, Belgium

Contribution 10Jacques PerceboisCentre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de l’Energie, University of Montpellier I, France

Contribution 11Marc PoumadèreInstitut Symlog, France

Contribution 12Ortwin RennPiet SellkeInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart, Germany and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research, Germany

Contribution 13Judith SimonArmin GrunwaldInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Contribution 14Heli TaljaPia OedewaldVTT Technical Research Centre, Finland

Contribution 15Eugenijus UšpurasLithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuania

Contribution 16Vivianne VisschersInstitute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

pART

2

SCIE

nTI

FIC-

TECH

no

LoGI

CAL

REp

oRT

S

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

140 141


For the socioeconomic part of the 2012 Interdisci-plinary Study, six questions were asked, pertaining to three main domains, namely, Decision-making, Risk Governance and Euratom Research. A series of questions was put to a set of selected experts for their insight into socioeconomic issues.

Decision-making

• Who are the end-users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)? Should this research be driven principally by public concerns or by industrial needs? Who are then the best representatives (e.g. environmental organisations or “technological platforms”)?

• What is specific to EU nuclear fission research? To what extent is it distinct from energy research in general? Should it be driven by EU legislation (e.g. similarly to the “Bataille law” (142) which proposed a long-term research programme to support the French strategy)?

Risk governance

• What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large? What kind of EU research is needed to improve the risk governance? “Technical experts” aiming at technological risk minimisation, “social scientists” aiming at public fear minimisation, or a mix of both?

• How to deal with and how to communicate about uncertainties (e.g. climate change, genetically-modified organisms, stem cells)? How about strategic questions in nuclear? (e.g. is plutonium an asset or a liability?) What is the impact of low-dose radiation (linear no-threshold model versus hormesis)?

Euratom research

• What could be improved to better “serve” the end-users? What is the public perception of Euratom research programmes? More generally, how is the role of the technical (especially nuclear) experts perceived, in comparison with scientists in other areas of energy research?

• Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues? What is the impact of the Fukushima event on the public debate and on policymaking in the EU Member States? Is this impact going to be permanent? Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

(142) The 1991 Bataille Law on the management of high level long lived waste committed France to a 15-year research programme focussed on three ‘axes’: (1) partitioning and transmutation; (2) retrievable and non-retrievable geological repositories; (3) conditioning and long term storage – see 2005 political debate http://www.senat.fr/opecst/rapport/rapport_dechets_anglais.pdf

Contribution 1

Evandro AGAzzIInternational Academy of Philosophy of Science, Belgium

Evandro Agazzi is president of the Belgium-based International Academy of Philosophy of Science. He was president (and is now honorary president) of the International Federation of the Philosophical Societies and of the International Institute of Philosophy in France. He has written and edited more than 70 books and more than 800 papers in books and journals. His main field of research is the philosophy of science and technology, with special consideration of the ethical, social and political problems related to technological development in modern societies, the global impact of technology and science and the possibilities of sustainable development. His approach is based on concepts from general systems theory and the philosophical theory of values.

Decision-making 1: Who are the end-users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)?

End-users must be both the technicians and the people in the bodies that are entrusted with formulating and giving force of law to the measures involved. Therefore it is advisable that the results of this kind of research become part of the general information supplied to people at different levels, because only in this way can one expect decisions to be objectively grounded and, at the same time, subjectively supported by serious convictions.

Decision-making2:WhatisspecifictoEUnuclearfissionresearch?

The politically composite structure of Europe makes it impossible to establish a real common European regulation. Yet it is highly advisable to elaborate at least certain shared frames of reference, with the aim of proceeding in the direction of an increased integration of the different regulations.

Risk governance 1: What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large?

The technological advancements in the control of risks are of equal importance to the improvement in the quality of generalised risk perception because, it is this perception that will determine the political decisions regarding risk governance. In this domain, the general public must become confident in the advice of experts who can be considered above any partisan interest, because they work for public institutions. High quality and reliability of information in matters regarding great risks is the only remedy against irrational and emotional attitudes.

Risk governance 2: How should uncertainties be dealt with and communicated?

When it comes to uncertainties, the worst approach would be to try to keep them hidden and to give the impression that we are able to master and eliminate the uncertainties thanks to our calculations, models and simulations. The correct strategy, on the contrary, is to make people accustomed to making choices in a situation of uncertainty, understanding that criteria of orientation are much more efficient than projects based on data and equations whose predictive power is notoriously very limited.

Euratom research 1: What could be improved to better serve end-users?

The general perception of Euratom and its function is vague and not disseminated. It would be advisable to publicise and popularise the goals and work of this institution.

Euratom research 2: Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?

The impact of Fukushima is certainly not negligible, because this event has indicated how even the correct measures can relatively easily be evaded by persons involved in the management of such high-risk structures. This is a demonstration that pure technological advance is not very effective if it is not accompanied by an adequate maturation of moral and social responsibility.

Contribution 2

Anne BERGMANSFaculty of political and social sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Dr Anne Bergmans is a senior research fellow in the political and social sciences faculty at the University of Antwerp, Belgium and a sociology of safety and security lecturer in the law faculty. She has a PhD in social sciences and a master’s in international politics and maritime economics. She focuses on science and technology governance and the sociology of the environment, particularly engagement in radioactive waste management. She was involved in the local partnership programme to site a radioactive waste repository in Belgium. She coordinated the international research project CARL on engagement in decision-making in radioactive waste management. On the EU-funded radioactive waste disposal projects MoDeRn and InSOTEC she is the principal investigator and the coordinator, respectively.

The following comments are the result of a discussion with the InSOTEC team members. InSOTEC is a Euratom-funded social sciences research project on radioactive waste management, coordinated by the University of Antwerp (FP7 grant agreement no. 269906/duration 2011–14).


EU energy research should principally be driven by public concerns, or at least there should be a better balance between industrial needs and other concerns. Ideally, technology platforms should represent that balance, but evaluations of the European Commission’s platforms and a recent study of the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGD-TP) by the Euratom project InSOTEC show that this is not the case. One may conclude that the nuclear industry at the European level has available an organisational framework for bundling and articulating its research needs. Other groups and civil society generally have less potential to point out their needs and concerns and should therefore get special attention in the research agendas of EU-financed energy research.

Furthermore, research funded by public money should in the first instance be committed to the interests of (European) society. It should therefore target research at a group of end-users which is

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS



142 143


as broad as possible. This is contrary to today’s research agenda which is dominated by industry’s needs. Additional efforts should be envisaged to elicit the general public’s or particular stakeholders’ views on research needs.


A clear framework is always useful. With regard to decision-making, nuclear fission research cannot be separated from general energy policy, as nuclear energy is part of the EU energy mix. Nor can it be separated from related issues such as radioactive waste management.

While there may be a clear distinction in terms of research relating to technology for nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and other ways of producing energy, an holistic approach to energy issues is relevant when addressing decision-making. Social sciences research can either focus on this holistic approach or on particular aspects or issues. The framework within which such research is conducted (or called for) would merit from being broader and having a clear link to what is done or expected in other energy fields.


The level of nuclear risk acceptable to the public is something that cannot be concluded in a void, but needs to be established in relation to a concrete situation or question. This will vary in time and space, based on a variety of factors, including the weighing of this particular risk in relation to others, but also the cost of reducing the risk, etc.

Improvement in risk governance requires both the “soft” and the “hard sciences” and should predominantly be based on an integration of technical and social sciences. In the long term, the challenge lies in moving beyond a categorisation of risk governance as being researched by technical experts and social scientists. Risk is neither a question of pure calculus, nor one of pure perception or negotiation, and cannot be contained in any single discipline. Transdisciplinary research efforts are therefore crucial. Risk governance is an “adisciplined” problem and requires the expertise of policymakers, technicians, social scientists, civil society and industry. In the first instance, the aim should not therefore be put on minimisation of risk or fear, but on approaches for a well-informed mutual exchange between technical and sociological experts, society and politics on nuclear risks. EU research can contribute to the development of adequate approaches for such discursive processes on the European, national and regional levels.


The question of how to deal with and communicate uncertainties is difficult to answer in general terms. On the one hand it depends very much on the specific topic. It is recommendable to separate questions which are mainly of a political nature, such as whether plutonium is an asset or a liability, from real uncertainties that arise, especially in geological disposal because of limited knowledge of geological formations (which decreases with time and with the increase of data from exploration) and of the predictability of long-term developments, etc.

On the other hand communication strategies depend on the nature of the audience (e.g. whether this is homogenous/heterogeneous with regard to certain characteristics) and on when and why you would be communicating (e.g. linked to a certain event or to produce a decision).

Rather than seeing risk governance as only to do with communicating about uncertainties (i.e. sending a predetermined message to a passive public that needs to be convinced), efforts should aim at fostering dialogue and discussions and establishing fora in which risk, responsibilities, acceptable thresholds, etc. are co-defined. The case of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has shown that if the voice of the public is not heard and listened to, controversies about science and technology can quickly emerge.


We have no research basis to build this on, but a hypothesis would be that in general the public has hardly any knowledge of the Euratom research programme. The few people and groups that do and that could be taken to represent the public, rather than the industry, may vary from considering Euratom research to be relatively objective to considering it to be very much dominated by the industry. With regard to nuclear in general, my feeling would be that the public perceives technical experts as strongly linked to the industry. Similarly, GMO researchers, for example, are criticised for being in bed with industry.

The end-user friendliness of Euratom research might profit from a broader exchange with representatives from society, politics and industry, starting during the development of the research agenda.


Any major incident will have an effect on the public debate and on policymaking and I assume Fukushima to have a certain lasting effect. Still, you see different reactions, as shown in the InSOTEC country studies on radioactive waste

management and geological disposal in 11 EU states and in the US, Canada and Switzerland. While Fukushima affected the policy towards nuclear power production in Germany and Switzerland, the effect in the UK was not so much a questioning of the future of nuclear energy, but of the treatment of radioactive waste.

With regard to Fukushima, we would consider carrying out research on the pre-accident safety culture and decision-making process, including what led to the siting of the power plant, and responses to the accident. Research is also needed on how society copes with such an accident and the lessons to be drawn, as well as on how society can deal with the limits of controllability represented by Fukushima. Both Fukushima and the Chernobyl nuclear accident were clearly cases with a worldwide environmental impact and comparison with cases such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster could be meaningful.

In our view, such studies should primarily be about learning how to handle risks (both in a technical and a social way) rather than about “improving public understanding – and acceptance”, as the latter has a negative, almost manipulative connotation.

Contribution 3

Simon BURALLInvolve, UK and Democratic Audit, UK

Simon Burall is the director of the UK-based public participation company Involve. He has experience in democratic reform, governance, participation, engagement, accountability and transparency, in Africa, Asia and Europe. In the UK, he chairs the research organisation Democratic Audit, is a WWF UK fellow and is head of public dialogue for the expert resource centre Sciencewise. Burall was a research fellow (2006–09), at the UK think-tank the Overseas Development Institute, focusing on engagement in reform of international aid delivery and on improving development finance. Previously, he was the executive director of the One World Trust (1999–2005), where he initiated the Global Accountability Index, and he re-established the UK volunteer network for the cultural exchange organisation AFS (American Field Service).


This question is posed as an either/or question. However, this need not be the case. Indeed, for a decision to be sticky, i.e. one which can be implemented, then it must take into account and meet the needs of industry, the public and others (the latter group was not identified in the question). If it does not satisfy the first group then it will be practically impossible to implement, if it does not satisfy the latter group then the political risk of rejection is increased.

Industry’s needs from research will be technical and policy driven. Industry will need to understand the parameters of the policy framework and the political context. Others will have similar needs, though their concerns will be different.

The public, on the other hand, will have ethical and value-based concerns about nuclear issues. These concerns will have significant implications for the policy framework, the political context and the governance structures that are developed. Public concerns should not drive policy alone, but they should shape it.

The work of the public dialogue centre Sciencewise in the UK is worth looking at from this perspective, to understand what value the public can bring to policy processes, as well as its views about how its voices should be heard. This will inform an understanding of what the public needs from research.

In terms of who are the best representatives for the public, environmental organisations are clearly one important set of interlocutors, but they are by no means the only ones. Indeed, focusing solely on environmental civil society will miss a large group of representatives that can reach (and represent) parts of society that environmental organisations cannot. To focus only on national umbrella organisations, for example, will miss out important sections of civil society which operate at local level and which could be of critical importance for ensuring public consent or dissent, as policies are implemented through the building of infrastructure. Taking account of non-environmental representatives will require a very sophisticated understanding of how civil society operates in different Member States.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

144 145



Drawing again from the experience of Sciencewise supporting the government in engaging the public in complex science and technology policies, the public is able to take a very sophisticated view of risk, but not in isolation. It is as interested in how the benefits of a particular technology will be spread as it is in who will bear the risk. It is more likely to accept higher risk if the benefits are higher, but the benefits will need to be spread evenly. However, even risks and benefits cannot be taken alone, as the public is only willing to accept arguments about risks and benefits if it is confident that its views have been taken on board and that there is a clear governance structure to ensure that risks and benefits are spread as it expects.

However, the public will not accept or believe categorical statements about risk; it understands that technology and policy relating to technology lead to significant levels of uncertainty. It will need to understand that the wider context has been taken into account when calculating risks specific to a particular technology.


I have no specific expertise on the communication of risk and uncertainty to the public. However, such communication must not be seen as a one-way transmission of information. Structures will need to be set up to demonstrate to the public that its concerns are really being heard and are really being acted on. The deficit model of public engagement will not work for areas such as these.

Contribution 4Francis CHATEAURAyNAUDGroup for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, France

Professor Francis Chateauraynaud is founder and director of the Group for Pragmatic and Reflexive Sociology (GSPR), in the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris. As a sociologist he has worked on risk, public controversies and fields of expertise. As a computer scientist, he has co-developed scientific software for argumentation analysis of large text corpuses covering long periods. His work has contributed to the transformation of French sociology towards a comparative analysis of the dynamics of conflicts and controversies around health, environmental and technological issues in areas such as nuclear energy, climate change and genetically-modified organisms. He is involved in numerous research projects with colleagues from France and abroad, including the US, Colombia, Belgium and Switzerland.

Soraya BOUDIALaboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, France

Soraya Boudia is professor of innovation, science and technology studies at the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée and a member of the Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés (LATTS). She has conducted several studies of the history of radioactivity and its applications in science, industry and medicine. Her current research includes the analysis of the global expertise in and regulation of nuclear risks and environmental hazards and, more broadly, the transnational government of technological and environmental health risks. Her latest book, edited with Nathalie Jas, Toxicants, health and regulation since 1945, has been just published by Pickering and Chatto. She is currently writing a forthcoming book, on scientific expertise and nuclear risks.

Markku LEHTONENSussex Energy Group, University of Sussex, UK and Institute for Research and Innovation in Society, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, France

Dr Markku Lehtonen has been a research fellow in the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex in the UK since October 2005. His research concerns governance of and controversies over nuclear power and radioactive waste management in Finland, France and the UK, knowledge tools in policymaking and the social sustainability of bioethanol in Brazil. Since June 2012, he has been conducting research at the Institute for Research and Innovation in Society at the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée on the evaluation of socioeconomic impacts of geological disposal of radioactive waste in France. In 2009–10 he was a visiting scholar at the Ecole des

Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. He holds a PhD in environmental economics from the Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.


The question of end-users should certainly be addressed differently. The design of end-users reflects a certain conception of the process of research and innovation that makes a sharp distinction between production and use. However, science, technology and innovation studies have highlighted the importance of co-production of knowledge by different actors: for example an industrial actor or a non-governmental organisation (NGO) may be the origin of the question addressed in nuclear research. From this perspective, there are no easy answers to questions such as whether public concerns or industry should define the research agenda and who would be the best representatives. In fact, many actors, each with their own agenda and perspective, contribute to the co-production of energy research and should be represented. In France, for example, four major categories of users have taken shape in the course of the country’s nuclear history:

• large research institutions, mainly the public-sector CEA (Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives) but also the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), which became independent in the late 1990s, and the National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA), which has a separate status between research and industry;

• energy companies such as EDF and Areva;

• public authorities (the ministries of industry, of the environment, etc.) including the associated agencies and institutes, and parliament (espe-cially the Parliamentary Office for the Evalua-tion of Scientific and Technological Options); and

• NGOs such as the World Information Service on Energy (WISE) and Global Chance.

Concerning the EU research agenda, as social scientists we think that it should be driven primarily by public concerns — industry has its own resources for conducting research to serve its own needs and agenda. Indeed, the plurality of actors involved and the multi-level nature of actions and decisions in nuclear policy require that research be driven by public concerns, since industrial operators tend to reduce research to technological innovation designed according to economic demand patterns, and their research agendas are typically established without involvement by citizens.By opening the black boxes of nuclear research,

environmental or labour organisations, for example, could contribute to the definition of research programmes. In particular, these actors must be involved in the production of and discussion of scenarios and choices concerning possible future energy pathways.

From this perspective, representatives (for decision-making concerning research orientations and priorities) should include all relevant actors. However, particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the weaker and marginalised groups — and indeed the views and perspectives that diverge from the mainstream — are taken on board. This is particularly important to foster innovation and creativity, which are prerequisites to sustainable energy transitions. Various pathways towards sustainability need to be explored — not only those that seem the most feasible within the current institutional, political and economic context.


There is no simple answer to the question of what is the best way to define a research agenda and to conduct and implement research. Historically, research programmes that have led to the most useful results have been those that have provided multiple benefits, as they have explored several parallel tracks on the same subject.

We do not think that research defined by EU legislation would be the best option, since: Member States disagree rather fundamentally on many of the key aspects relating to nuclear fission; and research based on legislation is rarely effective, because it tends to lack flexibility and reduces the likelihood that seemingly unpromising but potentially fruitful research paths would be explored.

However, on some topics, notably on public safety, research driven by EU legislation would be a good option. Indeed, safety is a general requirement cutting across all areas and fields of energy production and use, but each step in the nuclear production cycle (from mining to waste management) generates its own specific concerns, unique to nuclear energy. EU legislation on safety research could be developed through extensive processes of deliberation, which would provide broad input to decision-making on research programmes at the parliamentary level.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

146 147



The terms such as “acceptability” and “the public” are problematic in themselves and are increasingly called into question by many scholars, activists and policymakers. The problems associated with the use of the term acceptability relate to questions concerning alternative societal choices.

A more fruitful approach than asking what is acceptable to the society would be to support the construction of spaces for an equitable discussion concerning energy policy choices, whose harms and benefits are always unequally distributed across different groups of society. Creation of such spaces entails much more than just bringing together the “stakeholders”. Instead, it requires active efforts — economic and cognitive support — to weaker and poorly organised groups so as to enable them to participate on an equal standing with established players.

Typically, the type and the degree of consensus on an acceptable level of risk depend on two main parameters: the existence of catastrophes that serve as precedents (e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima); and the range of risks addressed in discussion in public arenas (global warming, chemical and air pollution, genetically-modified organisms, nanoparticles, etc.).

As for the term “public”, several studies have shown that the public is not a homogeneous monolith, but in fact consists of many publics, each defined and mobilised through different types of social processes. Attempting to give a general representation of the public opinion is a political strategy repeatedly criticised by a wide range of social scientists.

A clear division between experts and the lay public, or the juxtaposition of technical solutions and social fears are likewise at odds with current thinking on public problems (see for instance Frank Fisher, Democracy and expertise. Reorienting policy inquiry, Oxford, 2009). Hence, neither of the proposed approaches, i.e. technical experts aiming at technological risk minimisation, or social scientists aiming at public fear minimisation, seems reasonable as an overarching strategy. A key challenge for future research is to take social science research seriously to understand better the stakes in the risk debate.


All these questions have been subject to considerable controversies — some for several decades. The issues around the so-called uncertainties are not merely a matter of communication but of the transparency of decision-making concerning nuclear activities; the confidence in nuclear institutions in light of their often poor track record in interacting with the public; and the different interpretations of the precautionary principle, adopted as a key principle for risk governance in Europe.

Appraising uncertainties is not only a scientific exercise but an inherently social one. Technical experts surely play a crucial role in the process, but experts cannot alone define what the uncertainties actually mean for different groups (e.g. workers in nuclear power plants or people living in the vicinity of nuclear installations). The main challenge therefore is not communication about uncertainties, but rather the need to develop a better understanding of what is at stake in the debates concerning uncertainties and to take seriously the arguments that go against the dominant views.

Some dangers created by nuclear activities are uncontested and action is primarily oriented towards prevention, preparedness and management of historical legacy. The often-made association of plutonium with military uses raises to the fore the question concerning the borders between civil and military uses of plutonium. Concerning the recent evolutions of low-dose issues, see the report coordinated by S. Boudia, F. Chateauraynaud et al., Scientific exposure and exposure to low doses (2011, French version available online).


Even though the notion of public perception is, as such, contestable (notably in view of the heterogeneity and multiplicity of the public), it is rather safe to say that Euratom is not well known to ordinary people. It has little visibility outside the circles of experts and is poorly known even among the protagonists on either side of the disputes over nuclear power and its future.

Technical experts seldom seem to participate in discussion and debate and the nuclear world, including nuclear research, still seems to be characterised by opacity. This is much less the case in other areas of energy research (e.g. renewable energy sources and even the oil sector, with the exception of the high secrecy concerning the estimations of existing oil reserves).


The disaster that hit Japan on 11 March 2011 has had a profound effect, producing a chain of impacts beyond Japan, by reintroducing, in many places all over the world, doubts and controversy over the safety of nuclear power. The political consequences of the disaster were clearly visible in different countries in Europe — Germany at first, but also Italy, Switzerland and Belgium — while in France the political debate on the desirability and the shape of the nuclear sector has made a comeback, and this debate is likely to last.

Even if in the UK or Finland, for instance, Fukushima did not provoke an immediate shift in nuclear policy, the myth of perfect safety as well as a secure technological society has been definitively shattered in the aftermath of Fukushima. We are likely to be at the beginning of a very long process of transformations with many turning points in the near future. The questions of how democracies deal with extreme risks and how collective risk preferences are translated into public decision-making are at the centre of the political agenda in the EU. It is clear that Euratom should contribute to these debates.

Summing up, Euratom should certainly focus more on sociopolitical issues, but the crucial question is what kind of sociopolitical research approach. It would be harmful and counterproductive if Euratom conducted and financed mainly research aimed at enhancing the trust and acceptance of nuclear power in its member countries. Several other issues merit the full attention of researchers — for example, how the nuclear world frames safety issues in a manner that cannot be easily shared by other groups (the post-Fukushima stress tests, for example). In addition, to understand the collective processes at stake in different countries, a permanent observatory of debates and mobilisations, economic strategies and policymaking would merit being established.

Contribution 5

Paul DORFMAN Warwick Business School, UK

Dr Paul Dorfman is a Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust UK Energy Policy Research Fellow and a senior researcher at the University of Warwick, both in the UK. He is founding co-ordinator of the Nuclear Consulting Group, an adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence’s nuclear Submarine Dismantling Project and a member of the European Nuclear Energy Forum’s transparency and risk working groups. He is a member of the steering group of the UK-based Safety and Environmental Guidance for the Remediation of Nuclear and Defence Sites network and was secretary to the UK government’s scientific advisory Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. He is a lead author of the forthcoming European Environment Agency report: Late lessons from early warnings, Vol.2.


The purpose of EU energy research is to inform long-term policy choices. Decisions across the entire field of industrial strategy depend on the results. It is in this way that we justify the configuring of further scientific research, technology development and infrastructure investment and the implementation of entire suites of policy instruments like taxes, standards, regulations and subsidies. Taken across the full range of public and private actors engaged in energy systems, annual commitments worth many billions of pounds rest (directly or indirectly) on the framing of this appraisal.

Creating a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy involves major structural changes to the way EU states work and live, including how we source, manage and use our energy. Because these developments will vary in their acceptability to differing sections of the public, achieving change to low-carbon energy futures at the pace and scale required will not be straightforward and public values and attitudes concerning energy supply infrastructure implications will play a critical role.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

148 149


Existing research on public acceptance of nuclear energy provides a complex picture and there is a need to explore choices and trade-offs. The broad area of concern is the role of public values and attitudes in enabling or inhibiting energy system change. In this context, the end-users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain) are all those interested in, concerned about or affected by decisions that follow from that research.

Throughout the EU, there are clear policy moves to integrate public and community knowledge into processes for making environmental and health decisions. The underlying social force that underpins this move is the drive for more-accountable, transparent and publicly acceptable decision-making. There is also a range of strongly EU-centred drivers to this dynamic, based on a perceived crisis of legitimacy in EU policymaking and the research that underpins it and on the role of expertise implicit in top-down decision-making. EU policy has emphasised, again and again, the need for greater public involvement in research. As a result, research focusing on public concerns is no longer seen as an optional add-on to science-based policymaking.

Public mistrust of policymaking on issues involving nuclear fission is a defining issue. In order to overcome this mistrust, research should address public concerns. This view is echoed in more recent EU controversies, where the focus of disputes has centred on credibility and trustworthiness.

This has seen moves towards a two-way dialogue between specialists and non-specialists as a means of forging a more lasting consensus, by increasing social involvement and participation and thereby fostering a sense of community. Implicit within this approach is the idea that risks from technological progress may be better addressed by broadening and extending the environmental decision-making community to incorporate those affected by those risks — since any approach to environmental control which ignores the knowledge, expertise and imagination of the bulk of the population seems extremely restricted.

If carried out in a truly involving way, this integration of public, local community and expert scientific knowledge allows for greater accountability and transparency — and much better public take-up of necessary change and improved likelihood of long-term problem resolution. It should be noted that the policy context of research governance concerning a shared, knowledge-based European Community energy future is set within the drive for sustainable development as expressed within in the EU’s Lisbon Strategies of 2000, 2005 and 2009.

Public involvement in research and the practices that enable it are the basis of the building of mutual understanding between all parties. While it is outside the remit of this short response to determine the nature and breadth of this involvement, I strongly suggest that an initial scoping list would comprise representatives from both non-statutory and statutory organisations (i.e. non-governmental environmental organisations, industry and business, government departments, elected representatives and regulators).

However, given the key nature of non-statutory involvement in the context of trust-building and EU democratic legitimacy, it is important that their input should not be outweighed by statutory input. In other words, this would be essentially a knowledge-balancing exercise. The goal would be to build a shared understanding of sustainable energy futures based on the open exchange of diverse perspectives and to generate a modelled social contract around energy systems through public involvement and critical reflection.

Here, for complex systems with multiple goals, inclusive energy research (comprising a broad range of diverse public and statutory stakeholders) might prove more able to manage the leveraging of technological change (for new or contested technologies). The concept of co-production (the simultaneous production of knowledge and social order) provides a satisfying conceptual framework for understanding this dynamic, a feature of which is an enhancement of the degree of both democratic legitimacy and consequential efficiency of social decision-making procedures — the main normative and substantive rationales for inclusive research.


Given the degree of uncertainty and complex-ity attached to even the most tightly framed and rigorous nuclear fission assessment, attempts to weight the magnitude of an accident by the ex-pected probability of occurrence have proven un-certain, since these essential theoretical calcula-tions are based on pre-conditioning assumptions. This is not an arcane philosophical point, but rather a very practical issue with significant implications for the proper management of nuclear fission.

Whatever the view of the risks and benefits of fission, it is clear that the possibility of catastrophic accidents should be factored into the defining of research. The risk to the future of nuclear energy as a consequence of a major incident is significant. Recent events at Fukushima tend to support the conclusion that reactor accidents may prove the single largest financial risk facing the nuclear industry, far outweighing the combined effect of market, credit and operational risks. In this context, it may prove productive to explore current major accident liability regimes.

There may also be a need to encourage greater research into the defence of the coastal sites of nuclear plants against the hazards of rising sea levels, storm surges and flooding and into the possibility of eventual nuclear site islanding.

Levels of reliability required for a complex interactive nuclear fission plant are very great. Nuclear waste management and liability are also the subject of intense and prolonged public and policy debate, especially in the context of the high burn-up fuel proposed for new generation III reactors. The low-probability, high-impact nature of nuclear fission risk renders it distinct from other energy research in general.

EU legislation may prove counter-productive given current public concerns around issues relating to policy legitimacy. For research into nuclear fission to prove publicly acceptable (and hence acceptable to policymakers), it may be essential to distinguish between fundamental research and EU legislative processes.


The final summary report of the recent 2nd extraordinary meeting of the contracting parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, 27–31 August 2012, Vienna, Austria notes six topics for further work: external events; design; severe accident management and recovery (on-site); national organisations; emergency preparedness and response and post-accident management (off-site); and international cooperation. In this context it seems clear that the integration of both scientific and social research on these interrelated issues is fundamental to the development of a cogent, integrated analysis.

In terms of technological risk minimisation, key to the analysis of fission safety is the analytical concept of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). Whilst PRA calculations are not taken as absolute, but rather as significant indicators of plant weaknesses, they do underpin the concept of acceptable risks and tolerable consequences under fault conditions. PRAs assume that the likelihood of failure can be captured through identical, independent log-normal failure distributions.

Since strong independence assumptions employed in PRAs assume that reactor safety systems are duplicated and reliable, core damage frequency estimates are typically very low. Also, PRA seems structurally limited in its ability to conceive of and capture the consequences of accidents resulting from a cascading series of unexpected, beyond-design events, as described in all major nuclear fission accidents. Here, relatively simplified chain-of-event fault-tree models may not prove sufficient to account for the indirect, non-linear and feedback relationships common for accidents in complex systems. It follows that numerical estimates of probabilities of significant accidents remain uncertain and regulatory emphasis on risk-based probabilistic assessment will need greater analysis. Research appraisal of this approach and its real-life application seems appropriate and timely.


The fundamental science and technology that underpin nuclear fission are characterised by varying degrees of uncertainty, indeterminacy and contingency. However, perhaps necessarily, the operation and regulation of nuclear facilities are based on the language of certainty. This paradox needs to be understood within the evaluation of scientific evidence (including formal risk assessment). Scientific uncertainties (even quantification of confidence intervals of levels of uncertainty) need to be clearly identified and communicated and scientific nescience should be recognised. Explicit recognition of uncertainty, complexity, indeterminacy and data gaps are particularly important where there is over-reliance on modelling, or where statistical power is relatively low (e.g. low-level radiation epidemiology).


The energy landscape within Europe is one of national and market differences and trade-offs between supply, demand, transmission and load-balancing. Although EU states are diverse in terms of cultural and industrial landscapes, public opinion, technological structures, institutions, regulatory practice and energy mixes, European energy policy offers a fairly open and flexible framework in which countries could develop collective action on energy issues.

While it should be noted that European public values around energy futures are in transition, with significant implications for EU policy, Euratom research has the potential to play a key role in building trust between and among statutory and non-statutory civil society actors at EU, state, regional and local levels. As discussed above, this trust can be engendered through greater attention to public involvement in research scoping, practice and outputs.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

150 151



In Europe, Finland and France are completing new generation III reactors, with the Finnish parliament and regulators having granted permits for construction of the country’s sixth and seventh commercial reactors to TVO and Fennovoima with a further reactor to be built at Olkiluoto by TVO. In October 2011, Fennovoima announced that it had chosen Pyhäjoki, in northern Finland, as a site for further nuclear expansion, with construction expected to start in 2015.

Elsewhere: the UK’s government, excluding Scotland, has in principle approved the concept of a new generation of up to eight nuclear power plants, subject to generic reactor design approvals; Bulgaria has begun detailed planning for a reactor at Belene; Romania has issued a call for tender; Poland’s state utility, PGE, has shortlisted three sites as possible locations for their first nuclear power plant; and the Czech Republic is progressing with planning for new plants – despite downsizing the proposed Temelin site tender from five to two reactors and Austria’s strong objection to the expansion of the Temelin plant, which is situated near the border between the two countries.

However, the Fukushima disaster may have, to some extent, reversed public support of nuclear power, with a BBC World Service-Globescan (2011) poll showing strong public concerns about the safety of nuclear and thus of new plants, e.g. in Europe, 64 % of Swedes opposed new reactors while 27 % supported them. Similarly, while Spain has no plans for expansion or closure, public opposition to new plants was very high at 55 %. The UK was more favourable towards the use of nuclear energy than any other European country, with 37 % in favour of building new nuclear infrastructure.

Elsewhere, French policy proposes to reduce nuclear generation by up to 25 % of electricity demand. Given that Germany uses about 20 % of all EU electricity, its government’s decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 and to invest in renewables, energy efficiency and grids and plan for cross-border pumped-storage hydroelectricity may prove significant for European energy policy as a whole. In June 2011, an Italian referendum on whether to cancel plans for new reactors saw 94 % of the electorate voting in favour of the construction ban.

Strong Swiss public opposition to nuclear led to a decision not to replace the country’s five reactors when they come to the end of their operation in 2034. Belgium also confirmed a nuclear phase-out,

with no firm date set for end of operation, while the only operating Dutch reactor, at Borssele, will remain open until 2033 only if it can comply with the highest safety standards. It is also worth noting that, at a ministerial meeting in Vienna, delegations from Austria, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal, observed by ministers from Cyprus, Denmark and Estonia, concluded that nuclear power was not compatible with the concept of sustainable development, suggesting that nuclear power does not provide a viable option in combating climate change (Vienna Declaration, 2011).

Thus, despite new-build in Finland and France and potential new-build in the UK and elsewhere, the general post-Fukushima public debate in the EU is likely to have important implications for the future of nuclear fission. In terms of policy, combined with the ageing of nuclear power plants and the finalisation of nuclear phase-out in Germany and other European countries, there has been some movement towards maximising output of existing reactors through extensions, upgrades and retrofits.

While the impact of Fukushima on the public debate and on policymaking in the different EU members is difficult to predict, it seems clear that future fission research should make strenuous efforts to integrate multi- and pan-disciplinary scientific and social components. For complex issues with uncertain futures, the strategic goal of fission research may not be to find the single right technical answer to the problem, but rather to bring people together and keep them together in order to ensure that better decisions are made in the future.

Overall recommendation

A key point is contained within the title and terms of reference of the current study: Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy: defining priorities for Euratom fission research and training. In other words, since the terms of reference clearly define limitations as a key factor, to maintain public, policy and academic trust in the research process it is imperative that this aspect should be given a weight equal to the benefits of fission when defining priorities for future Euratom research and training.

Contribution 6

Eberhard FALCKCentre international de Recherches en Economie écologique, Eco-innovation et ingénierie du Développement Soutenable, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France

Eberhard Falck is associate professor of environmental sciences at the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines and visiting professor at the Ecole des Mines de Nantes, both in France. He studied at the University of Kiel, Germany and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. His PhD is from the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, for a thesis on environmental geochemistry. He has been involved in research and development and policy for radioactive waste and uranium mining legacy management for more than 25 years. He has worked for the British Geological Survey, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency, the EU’s Joint Research Centre-Institute for Energy and Transport and in private consultancy. His focus is the science and society interface.


End-users of energy research are all of us. Energy policies can only be implemented if they find widespread acceptance among everyone (the general public, industry, regulators). Therefore, the formulation of a research strategy must take account strongly of stakeholder needs. The strategies formulated for the European Commission’s European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) were largely formulated by experts in the respective fields (at least as of 2009) and sounded like sales brochures, rather than strategic and need-driven assessments. Assessing the true needs and concerns of all stakeholders is notoriously difficult, because of the silent majority. Most organised stakeholders (environmental organisations, industry, etc.) represent some form of bias. Participation of non-institutional parties (including other than non-governmental organisations) in fora such the Commission’s technology platforms is seriously hampered by the lack of funding. Perhaps the Commission could look into setting up funding mechanisms.


Historically, much fission research has been driven by scientists’ perception of need (and curiosity). There is a fairly close-knit worldwide research community and the funding has been relatively stable and focused over the past decades, though the focus in more recent years has shifted to actual application and implementation. Unlike for many other energy systems, including the externalities (waste, decommissioning, environmental impacts, etc.) has always been an integral part of this research. It is important that energy research as such is decoupled from the shifting daily politics and focused on the strategic needs. The public should decide on the acceptability of energy technologies once their implication has been understood. Excluding certain energy systems from research could expose us to a dangerously limited choice in the future.


Risk governance should always involve continuous improvement and the communication of this improvement to stakeholders. While this is objectively the most effective approach, the approach in itself is difficult to communicate. Some may not be prepared to accept something that requires continuous improvement. While continuous improvement has been always a key element of technology use this seems to be not very well understood by the public.

There are also significant differences in perception depending on the type of technology. While the consumer may accept and demand continuous improvement in motor car safety, the same consumer may claim to accept certain controversial technologies only when proven “absolutely” safe. Scientists, industry and regulators can only work on establishing trust in different technologies.


Uncertainty is a notoriously difficult concept to communicate. Today the problem is also that several discourses overlie each other; do I trust the scientists/engineers that make claims about uncertainties/probabilities, can I live with a particular level of uncertainty, am I prepared to expose myself to a certain statistical risk for the benefit of all, etc.?One of the main obstacles to overcome is the problem that statistical observations are projected onto one’s individual life as discrete events. Whether something is an asset or a liability depends on how the problem is framed and depends on the values that are attributed by the various stakeholders to the various risks, such as the environmental or health impact, energy security, proliferation, etc.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

152 153



I have no actual data/information on the public perception of Euratom research. See also the response to Decision-making 1: Who are the end-users of EU energy research (especially in the nuclear domain)?

Heuristically, it can be expected that the public perception of experts is heavily value loaded: negatively for nuclear experts and positively for others. This would be independent of the Euratom programme.


The Fukushima accident certainly has undermined public trust and it will take several years, if not decades, to return trust to pre-2011 levels. There are, however, specific Japanese issues that aggravated the situation and undermined good safety culture, such as unquestioning obedience in the hierarchy and the attempt not to lose face. The operator’s poor risk management choice of protecting the assets rather than early and decisive intervention, albeit at the risk of losing the assets, seriously undermined public trust in the safety culture of the senior management of nuclear plant operators worldwide.

Research and development needs to further address the psychological and sociological factors (which are culture-specific) that make up a good and resilient safety culture, not only in the control room but also in the boardroom. This research, its results and its application have to be communicated to the public. More research may also be needed into how to measure real change (as opposed to lip-service) in safety culture and how this can be made transparent to the public.

Overall, I believe that we have been focusing too much on defensive messages for nuclear energy. In the context of an unbiased true European (or even worldwide) strategy for long-term energy security we need to convey to the public all the risks and benefits associated with all energy conversion systems. This, however, is effectively hampered by the various lobby and partisan groups for different systems, as could be seen inter alia in the SET-Plan. There also needs to be a change in how natural scientists and engineers are trained, to make them conscious of the societal context in which they operate and aware that they are societally accountable.

Contribution 7

Romain GARCIERDepartment of social sciences, Ecole normale supérieure, University of Lyon, France

Dr Romain Garcier is a maître de conférences in geography, in the social sciences department at the Ecole normale supérieure at the University of Lyon in France, where he also holds the Excellence Chair in emerging technological risk. He is a national coordinator for social sciences in the framework programme on nuclear energy of the French National Centre for Scientific Research. A geographer, his research interests are the spatiality of nuclear activities and materials – especially the cartography of nuclear waste flows and the regional impact of nuclear facilities (both active and decommissioned).


From a social science perspective, I know of very little EU-sponsored research that has been incorporated into mainstream expert knowledge (and advanced teaching). The most often cited piece of research (or tool) is the European Commission’s Eurobarometer series of surveys, which is useful as a first (though limited) approach to public opinion in the EU (on nuclear safety, or nuclear waste, for example).

Most of the EU-sponsored social science research that I am aware of is in policy analysis — generally comparisons of legal frameworks and policy initiatives across Member States. This kind of research, although useful as a synoptic state of policy at a moment in time, is of limited heuristic and epistemological value, because it is generally very descriptive, stays at the country level/scale and also shies away from engaging with theoretical dimensions, explanations or contentious issues.

I do not think that EU nuclear research (especially in the social sciences) has many end-users among national policymakers and governments (beyond waste management agencies), because the most active and influential bodies in that department are the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and its Nuclear Energy Agency.The question about “public concerns/industrial needs” cannot be divorced from the question of the position of the EU itself with respect to nuclear energy and how it wants to be seen by the public. Historically, there has always been an ambiguity about Euratom’s role in European nuclear policy: can an institution that is essentially a promoter of nuclear energy answer public concerns about nuclear energy? What if the public presses for the termination of nuclear energy?

My opinion is that the EU research support should focus on unpacking the social and economic dimensions of proposed industrial developments. It does not mean responding to industrial needs, but exposing their social and territorial implications, which is necessary and useful for policymaking and decision-making. There is at the moment a lack of independent research (i.e. not connected to environmental organisations or industrial companies) into the practical, concrete effects and dimensions of nuclear policies.


The reference to the French situation is interest-ing, because the case is an example of reverse research, with research identified as an important factor in knowledge creation but also in consensus-building. The problem is that such an approach revolves around the identification of a limited set of issues with a limited set of options (e.g. nuclear waste management with either geological disposal or permanent storage) and a specific temporality (e.g. research will be done for a period of 15 years). I do not know if the EU is in a position to implement such a model, nor if it falls under its remit.


The question as it is put (What is the acceptable level of nuclear risk for the public at large?) has absolutely no meaning. Social science has shown that every issue creates its own public (so there is no such thing as the public at large) and that many different things are grouped, somewhat disorderly, under the umbrella terminology of nuclear risk: are we talking about waste? power plants? legacy contaminations? nuclear proliferation? The terminology of “public fear minimisation” (or public acceptability) is also deeply offensive, as it suggests that a form of technocratic manipulation of citizens is desirable. This is precisely why many social scientists are reluctant to engage with nuclear issues: they do not want to participate in what could be seen as a propaganda effort.

I do not think that EU nuclear research should focus on risk and risk perceptions, because I am not sure that risk is a fruitful concept for thinking about the relationships between nuclear energy and society. What is needed are honest and independent assessments of all the various dimensions of nuclear activities (not analysed only from a risk perspective, but also from an opportunity and economic justification perspective).


Personally, I think it is important not to mask uncertainties and the probabilistic nature of our knowledge. The question of plutonium is very different: it is, as is well known, entirely political. And I think it is important to acknowledge publicly the political nature of nuclear policy because being political opens the door to political accountability and, thus, to political legitimacy. Something being presented as inevitable cannot be legitimate.


See the social science part of the answer to Decision-making 1: What is specific to EU nuclear fission research?


Some research has been conducted on that topic (by Markku Lehtonen, for example). It shows that the political implications of Fukushima differ in different countries (in the UK and in France, for example) and that Fukushima has a different meaning in different contexts. In the UK, the climate change and energy security narrative has kept the upper hand, so that Fukushima simply served as a reminder of the importance of safety in the delivery of energy and did not impede nuclear new build initiatives. In France, Fukushima fuelled the debate on the desirable level of dependence on nuclear energy and actually helped to advance the cause of those seeking a reduction of nuclear production.

I firmly believe that Euratom research should focus more on sociopolitical issues but such initiatives are flawed if they are predicated on “improving public understanding and acceptance”. First, it cannot be empirically demonstrated that public understanding improves acceptance: in the case of Fukushima, what the public rightly understood was that the plant operator Tepco had knowingly and persistently lied about the severity of incidents and had captured the nuclear regulator. Second, the concepts of acceptance or acceptability are not adequate or scientific.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

154 155


Contribution 8

Phil MACNAGHTENDepartment of geography, Durham University, UK and Unicamp, Brazil

Professor Phil Macnaghten, of the department of geography at Durham University in the UK and a visiting professor at Unicamp in Brazil, has broad interests in the governance of science and technology, responsible innovation, the sociology of the environment, deliberative methodology and discourse analysis. His research focuses on the cultural dimensions of policy and their intersection with everyday practice. He has developed a form of engaged scholarship, combining conceptual work with critical policy development in environmental behaviour change, forestry, responsible innovation, rural matters, sustainability and technology. Macnaghten led the European Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Technologies (DEEPEN) project (2006–09). He has recently co-authored a comment piece for Nature, “Good governance for geo-engineering”.


In my opinion energy derived from nuclear presents a particular case. Given historical sensitivities nuclear power can only exist in a favourable public climate. Thus, engaging with public concerns is a necessary prerequisite to any form of energy policy, particularly if it is to involve nuclear.


Nuclear fission research is distinct from energy research in general, again for historical reasons: firstly, due to historical proximities with weapons programmes; secondly, because of the still unresolved matter of how to deal with nuclear waste. Ensuring adequate policy and political responses — not least involving publicly-credible deliberative forums informing decision-making — especially to the second factor is again a critical precondition for a future EU nuclear fission research programme.


An acceptable level of risk for the public can only be understood when methodologies of risk assessment are used that transcend technical forms of risk assessment (based on probabilistic estimates of harm). Assessments need to include societal and institutional dimensions such as trust, secrecy and alienation. They need in addition to facilitate anticipation of dimensions and dynamics that may have not been imagined in earlier times (such as the terrorist threats post-9/11 or the combination of social and natural factors such as that which contributed to Fukushima).Public fears generally are not irrational; they simply depend on different ways of framing the nuclear issue. Institutional responses need to be social in nature rather than mere fear reduction. To reduce the problem in such a way can engender public unease and alienation.


Communication of uncertainties is vital. In certain circumstances people may find nuclear power more acceptable when situated as part of a package of responses to climate change. However, this does not mean that people support nuclear power per se. Rather, what they are supporting is the context in which nuclear power is being developed (for credible humanitarian and environmental purposes rather than as a project of a centrist part of government that was tied historically to the arms programme).Plutonium may be an asset but only if certain conditions apply; e.g. that it does not pose a further security risk, that the motives that underpin its use are transparent and credible.


I have no particular data concerning public perception of the Euratom research programme. However, public perceptions of the nuclear scientist have historically been poor. In an era of responsible science and innovation — now firmly embedded in European Commission funding programmes — nuclear science has to prove that it is operating responsibly. This means that it is: anticipative (with the capacity to consider possible intended and unintended broad impacts); inclusive (committed to deliberate with users, wider publics and others); reflective (able to reflect upon embedded commitments and assumptions); and responsive (answerable to outside questions and flexible enough to adjust). These are general prescriptions but especially pertinent to the case of nuclear.


The impact of Fukushima is profound with substantial and continuing implications in the policymaking of EU members. Just as significantly, it signals awareness of the sensitivity of nuclear policymaking to external sociopolitical events. Research to better understand this dynamic is vital. Euratom should as a matter of urgency undertake work on sociopolitical issues across Europe. Such work needs to involve an appropriate balance of disciplines and to be set within an appropriate sociopolitical framing. This should involve, inter alia, sociologists and political scientists and social studies of science.

Contribution 9

Gaston MESKENS Nuclear science and technology studies unit, SCK•CEN, Belgium

Gaston Meskens holds master degrees in theoretical physics and nuclear physics from the University of Ghent, Belgium. He works part-time with the science and technology studies group of the Belgian nuclear research centre SCK•CEN and as a researcher at the Centre for Ethics and Value Inquiry at the University of Ghent. In both contexts, his research focuses on critical analysis of the working of the knowledge-policy interface and on enabling conditions for intellectual capacity building in the interest of sustainable development governance. In 1999, he co-founded the Programme of Integration of Social Aspects into Nuclear Research at the SCK•CEN. The programme considers nuclear technology in order to study the complexity of technology assessment in the context of sustainable development governance.


The principal end-users of EU energy research are European citizens, represented through their political representatives and civil society (non-governmental organisations and institutions that represent specific interests of societal relevance).

The practical end-users of EU energy research are the mandated institutions (agencies, the European Commission itself, research centres, academia, etc.) on the one hand and the private sector on

the other hand. As these actors also partly steer, perform and sponsor the research, it is important to see the policy and practice of energy research as an enclosed self-serving process, embedded in a broader policy framework that approaches energy as a transnational issue in the spirit of sustainable development and that is negotiated, justified and maintained by the political representation in interaction with civil society.

Obviously, this policy framework needs to be both enabling (stimulating innovation, private sector participation and international cooperation and providing means for continuous contextual reflection) and enforcing (promoting efficiency, providing means for direct involvement of civil society representatives in research projects, aligning national and EU programmes, organising transparency and accountability over how public money is spent and maximising public dissemination of results).

As with all practices of broad societal relevance that have to be justified in a liberal democracy, the research should be driven by public concern. As industries do not exist for their own sake, but must also meet public concerns, the way that energy research should and could serve the energy industry needs to be made clear in the broader policy framework mentioned above.

Energy research should start from social and environmental concerns and be organised subsequently around specific technology options, not vice versa. This also implies that comparative assessment research on technology options should be an important part of the basic research. Besides the traditional political representation, those driving EU energy research are civil society groups, enlarged with formal private sector representation. In practice, they could speak through formal fora organised by the Commission, taking into account that it makes no sense to organise technology-specific energy fora or platforms as is the case today.

Decision-making2:What isspecific toEUnu-clearfissionresearch?

Except for the issue of proliferation, there are no specific conditions or requirements for nuclear energy research compared to other energy technology research. The current framework for nuclear energy research, under Euratom, is no longer relevant in light of the current global environmental and social challenges of energy governance.

In practice, the Commission should reflect on ways and means to liberate non-purely technical fission research from the Euratom framework and integrate it into an holistic energy research programme (including all options) that would also enable full comparative and contextual research.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

156 157


In practice, this programme could be organised through topical research in the Science in Society and the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programmes of the Commission.


There is no objective (scientific, economic, social, political or philosophical) rationale behind the determination of the acceptable level of nuclear risk for the public at large. The reason is that, because of the specific character of the risk, the societal justification for the technology is troubled by moral pluralism. That is; even if we would all agree on the scientific knowledge base for the assessment of the risk, then opinions could still differ on its acceptability. Science may thus inform us about the technical and societal aspects of options, but it cannot instruct or clarify the choice to be made.

The matter becomes even more complex if we take into account the fact that science can only deliver evidence to a limited extent. Despite the maturity of nuclear science and engineering, the existence of inherent uncertainties, unknowns and unknowables fundamentally limits the understanding and forecasting of technological, biological and social phenomena for nuclear risk assessment. Last but not least, we have to accept that three important factors remain to a large degree beyond control; human behaviour, nature and time.

While the current rationale behind the levels of acceptance of basic nuclear design accidents may continue to instruct power plant design and operation, an overall risk assessment and justification (covering human error, force majeure, delayed long-term risk, malevolent action and future but presently unknown technical factors, etc.) can only be done through an inclusive democratic process. In other words, an acceptable nuclear risk is simply a risk that an informed democratic society justifies as acceptable. Obviously, this also counts for other technological risks such as those associated with fossil fuels, genetically-modified organisms, stem cells and nanotechnology.

In terms of the EU research needed to improve risk governance, the existence of inherent uncertainties, unknowns and unknowables on the one hand and moral pluralism on the other hand creates room for interpretation and discourse that unavoidably marks any political act of justification. Obviously this puts a heavy responsibility on nuclear technology assessment as a research and policy practice.While the reasoning elaborated above still supports the need for technical experts to be concerned with technological risk minimisation, it is meaningless to organise formal research with

the aim of minimising public fear. In its contribution to improving risk governance, social sciences research may support effective communication about science and technology with the public, but should primarily concentrate on methods to better involve that public in the research itself (especially its representation through informed civil society) and make research transdisciplinary and holistic in a convincing way.


In accordance with the answer to the question Risk governance 1: What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large?, responsible management of (and communication about) uncertainties starts from an acknowledgement of the existence of these inherent uncertainties (inherent in the sense that the uncertainty is connected to the causality of the natural and social processes themselves and not to a lack of knowledge about these processes).

This implies nothing less than the need to move beyond simplistic positivist visions of the role of science in policy and public discourse and thus the need to advance towards a more deliberate and reflective vision on the role of science; a vision that takes into account what science can and cannot account for on the one hand and the implications of moral pluralism, as sketched above, on the other hand. Several research policy initiatives on the meaning and implications of this advanced approach to science already exist, including within the Commission. However, there is still no coherent approach to applying them to thematic research such as that into energy governance.


Referring to results from Eurobarometer research and based on my own research experience, there are reasons to believe that the public knowledge about the Euratom research programmes is very limited, which obviously heavily influences the perception of the work. Similarly, the public perception of the role of the expert remains abstract and at the same time stereotypical; an expert is considered to be trustworthy by a member of the public if that member is sympathetic to the energy technology represented by that expert.

As I argue that the end-users of the research are European citizens through their governmental and non-governmental representation, better serving these end-users simply implies involving them

more. In practice, the organisation of formal long-term discussion fora (such as the European Nuclear Energy Forum, but extended to cover all energy options) may be an essential tool in this respect. The fact that the European Council required the organisation of a public conference in 2013 as a condition of agreeing to the Commission’s proposal for a future Euratom programme can be seen as an additional argument in this sense.


The impact of the Fukushima accident on nuclear policy and political and public discourse will wane faster than the impact of the Chernobyl accident. The reason is not the lower accidental release of radioactivity or the fact that there is no direct death-toll; the public debate on nuclear remains polarised and Fukushima does not affect this polarisation. While anti-nuclear groups see Fukushima as the ultimate proof of their claim that the nuclear risk is unacceptable, the nuclear industry already seems to have rationalised the accident and its consequences into its story of continuing relevance. Nuclear advocates speak of lessons learned from Fukushima, but see no reason to fundamentally reconsider the justification of the technology as such, or to submit the issue to a broader societal debate.

EU energy research should indeed focus more on sociopolitical (and related ethical) issues but, in line with the reasoning above, this focus only makes sense if EU energy research is reorganised so that it enables contextual reflection on sustainable development and geopolitical issues and also comparative assessment of all energy technology options (which, as said before, would mean that the Euratom enclosure around nuclear fission research should be dissolved).

Trust for EU energy research among the public in general and informed civil society in particular should not be sought by the promise of specific concrete outcomes of that research but through a deliberate approach to the method of that research.

The public does not need unambiguous answers to the research questions about the right energy policy for Europe and the eventual role of nuclear in this (these unambiguous answers do not exist). It will trust the research if it senses it to be open, transparent, transdisciplinary and inclusive and driven by a sense of environmental care and social justice with respect to energy policy (caring for energy savings, equal access to energy, access to information and participation in decision-making, access to justice, access to compensation, etc).

Contribution 10

Jacques PERCEBOISCentre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de l’Energie, University of Montpellier I, France

Professor Jacques Percebois is honorary dean of the faculty of economics at the University of Montpellier 1, France and the director of the Centre de Recherche en Economie et Droit de l’Energie in its CNRS Art-Dev research centre. He has a PhD in public and energy economics and a master’s in political science and economics. He is on the board of the gas grid operator GRTgaz and on France’s Assessment Board for Radioactive Waste Research (CNE2). He served on the French government commissions Champsaur I and II and Energies 2050. His last publication (with Jean-Pierre Hansen), Energie: économie et politiques, Editions de Boeck, 2010, received prizes from the Association Française de Science Economique and France’s Association des Economistes de l’Energie


The main end-users of EU energy research, especially in the nuclear domain, are governments, energy firms, universities and environmental organisations. The research must be mainly implemented according to public needs but taking into account the interests and needs of industry.


What is specific to EU nuclear fission research?; probably constraints linked to public opinion and fair governance implementation. This is the case with nuclear reactor safety, nuclear waste storage and decommissioning. From an economic point of view two main issues are being debated: how long-term investments may be taken into account, with a good discounting approach; and the specific problem of irreversibility. The life of nuclear waste is very long and for economists this point is difficult to evaluate.

It is difficult to implement a common energy policy in Europe, as national policies, in particular for the electricity sector, differ as the result of history and geography. EU energy research must consequently lay emphasis on the various aspects of nuclear risk management in each European country.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

158 159



Public opinion is not necessarily rational, particularly in the nuclear field. It is the reason why European policy and economic research must develop analyses in three fields:

• impacts of the nuclear choice on the health of the various populations affected (nuclear workers but also people living near nuclear power stations);

• transparent and objective information about the fair cost of nuclear energy (private and social costs); and

• comparative analysis of risk management in the main industrial sectors: chemical; nuclear; oil and gas; aviation, etc.


Expected technical progress with new nuclear reactors (e.g. the generation IV Astrid programme in France) is promising and must lead to an increasing research effort. With such a nuclear generation, plutonium is no longer a waste and becomes a fuel. The problem of uranium scarcity is solved and, moreover, through transmutation of some actinides, it is possible to reduce the long-run waste volume to be stored. But the public (and even governments) does not have good knowledge of the potential technical progress in this field and more information should be provided.


In the nuclear field cooperation among European governments is difficult because of the strategic nature of the choices to be made. In fact, cooperation is not easy among electricity companies and competition is often the rule (see Areva and EDF). But fair cooperation may be possible, in the framework of Euratom, in two main fields:

• fundamental research about new nuclear reactors and dismantling of existing ones; and

• implementation of a European nuclear regulation system. A European nuclear safety authority could be a world reference for countries either active in or entering the nuclear field.


The Fukushima disaster had a very strong impact on the social acceptability of nuclear energy everywhere in the world, but more particularly in Europe. For Euratom it is now necessary to implement socioeconomic research about nuclear risk management, nuclear information, credibility of nuclear safety authorities and strategies of green organisations in relation to nuclear energy. The political aspects of the energy choices, in a context where energy transition becomes the main

issue for everybody, must now be developed with close attention. But it is also necessary to improve cooperation between Euratom and the other energy departments of the European Commission, to implement a clear and coherent energy roadmap in Europe, including socioeconomic aspects.

Contribution 11

Marc POUMADèREInstitut Symlog, France

Dr Marc Poumadère, programme director of the French social sciences research organisation Institut Symlog, has been engaged as a social scientist in risk research for more than 20 years. He has theoretical and applied experience of technological, environmental and health risks. He has designed action research for operating nuclear units. He advised the World Health Organisation on the field assessment of the psychological and social consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Formerly an associate professor at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Cachan, France for 10 years, he teaches risk management at Mines ParisTech. He has taken part in EU research projects and has published in journals such as Risk Analysis, Climatic Change and Radioprotection. His PhD is from the University of Paris-Dauphine, France.


Social sciences research in the nuclear domain can be useful: to engage the diversity of stakeholders in joint investigation of commonly identified issues (as in the European Commission’s radioactive waste management governance projects COWAM and IPPA); to analyse decision-makers’ assumptions about the public’s attitudes and perceptions about nuclear energy; and to grasp better the actual attitudes and reasoning of citizens in their everyday lives. IPPA is the current FP7 project Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal (2011–13), which is building on the results of the past Community Waste Management projects (COWAM 1 under FP5 and COWAM 2 under FP6).

Whether through a constructive democratic process (Lavelle et al., 2007) or on a dialogical basis (Renn, 2008), better knowledge can be developed and structured exchanges initiated,

leading eventually to more acceptable decisions. This can be done at the national and EU levels. The nuclear industry’s needs and activities require a time-scale of several decades, while the public often reacts immediately to events without always putting them into perspective (temporal, comparison with other risks, benefits, etc.). The ensuing potential misunderstandings (which are latent and continuously present) ought to be the object of research before they are expressed, most often as opposition to nuclear energy.

Although this requires being well prepared and might not fit all contexts, it would be useful to assemble a mix of representatives within a common working group with an identified task in common. For instance, for the implementation in France of the Aarhus Convention in the nuclear sector by the National Association of Local Information Committees and Commissions (ANCCLI) in close collaboration with the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), three pluralistic working groups (WG) were organised with the support of social scientists:

• WG1, piloted by the ANCCLI and France’s High Committee for Transparency and Information on Nuclear Safety, assessed the lessons of the 2008–09 site selection process for low-level, long-lived waste;

• WG2, piloted by Greenpeace and France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), addressed access by the public to information and participation in decision-making in the nuclear sector; and

• WG3, piloted by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) and the ANCCLI, considered competence-building and access to expertise needed to enable true participation.


A major characteristic of the EU is its very diverse national nuclear experiences. Member States are at different stages of learning to implement democratic practices in a stepwise process of radioactive waste management (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2010). Safety culture, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), probably witnesses variations from one context to another. At this point, concrete actions seem to be needed to integrate or associate new EU members better into nuclear research programmes. Work on future generation IV nuclear plants provides an example of coordination of research across nations. I am not sure how well known this is by the public. EU legislation could perhaps give a clearer perspective to citizens and help to reduce some of the mismatch between long-term planning and short-term reactions. Cooperation between states

and reinforced supranational governance might increase public trust — provided that Member States accepted less sovereignty.


From the point of view of the public, to put it bluntly, there is no level of acceptable nuclear risk. Research shows regularly that in the “probability x consequences” equation, non-specialists see first and foremost the consequences. Minimising the technological risk remains certainly a goal, although the achievements at that level will always remain perceived as not good enough. Specific communication could aim at increasing the public’s awareness of the improvements in nuclear energy reliability and efficiency, generation after generation (as is the case with other technologies, such as aviation).

Fear is a complex issue, especially if we consider the open circulation of information from very diverse sources in our societies. A research programme could be presented as follows: although the case in favour of concealing nothing from the public appears to be unanswerable, there is, nevertheless, a duty to study the psychological principles of the presentation of anxiety-raising information in relation to the capacity of the public to endure it. While this programme could nicely fit present situations, and within the Indian context for example (Poumadère, to be published), it comes from a World Health Organisation technical report of 1958.So there are issues with a long lifespan in nuclear social science research. The goal of concealing nothing has been well pursued and increasingly included in regulation and practice since 1958, while the duty to study the psychological principles has been lost to sight. Has that been intentional?


Uncertainty is simplified at the societal level; the risk is either socially attenuated (e.g. heat waves in France until 2003) or it is socially amplified (e.g. radiofrequencies). So, in a way, uncertainties cannot be communicated; it is like trying to give something you do not have to someone who does not want it. What needs to be better understood are the factors which lead to the social amplification (or attenuation) of a risk.

As shown in the case of radiofrequencies, repeated news about research into numerous uncertain risks is likely to increase concern (Poumadère and Perrin, 2011). Hormesis is another good example of a divide between scientific knowledge and social acceptability; at this point, this concept would probably be very difficult to communicate and to apply (Poumadère, 2003).

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

1958.So

160 161



I am not sure that the EU public knows Euratom and its research programme. End-users could feel better served if they got involved, directly or indirectly. Research could be developed so that scientists share their work with local populations whenever possible. But a large part of nuclear research remains strictly technical and it is difficult to imagine how to involve the public. Education is an indirect way which has been exploited in several countries. However, communicating with the public should not be limited to what has been criticised as the deficit model; in that model, people are said to be ignorant or scientifically illiterate and should be correctly instructed about the real state of things. This top-down approach ought to be complemented by better knowledge of people’s understanding of science in their everyday lives and by social interactions.

As mentioned in the terms of reference of this 2012 study, a special effort is needed to update, in a changing world, the analysis of the Euratom research needed more than 50 years after the start of Euratom’s activities. This updating could include providing established institutions with additional national and EU resources, including from new EU members.

The “changing world” part could also be addressed by knowing better how nuclear scientists themselves define today’s situation and needs. A survey could be organised among scientists involved in present or recent Euratom projects and could simply take the form of specific questions within a larger project. To be worthwhile, and in addition to questions that a pilot group could develop, any survey ought to measure social representations to provide a sound base for analysis.


Before Fukushima, nuclear energy had regained worldwide a somewhat positive image, although public support appears conditional upon simultaneous development of other renewable energy technologies along with feasible plans to address the disposal of nuclear waste (OECD, 2008; Poumadère et al., 2011). The Fukushima event triggered immediate worldwide concern, verifying the comment made after Chernobyl by the then IAEA director Hans Blix: “A nuclear accident somewhere is a nuclear accident everywhere.”

The public impact of the Fukushima event was directly translated into policymaking in several EU countries, including Germany. Severe accidents are rare and knowledge about their psychological and social impacts is therefore limited. Nonetheless, some elements seem common to Chernobyl and Fukushima, with civil society exhibiting its rejection of a tacit social contract, or a “collapse of the safety myth”, according to which nuclear accidents are not supposed to happen (Miyasaka, 2012).

However, the Chernobyl accident has shown that the impacts fade over time. It must be noted too that changes can occur within and across countries. According to a June 2011 survey (Ipsos MORI, 2011), support for nuclear energy appeared stronger in the USA than in France, in contrast with the results of a previous comparative study (Slovic et al., 2000). Also, in the USA, at a regional level, the operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad apparently did not stigmatise the state of New Mexico with a spoiled image. Therefore, previous assumptions ought to be verified on a case-by-case basis, giving special attention to the difference that the governance process can make (Renn, 2008).

Sociopolitical issues could be further studied but not treated separately from other Euratom research issues. Interdisciplinary projects ought to be more systematic. For instance, severe accident research could include the social impact (even upon populations not exposed to accidental radiation) in the definition of the severity of an accident; what makes a nuclear accident severe is a result of both its technical and social characteristics. This social dimension seems absent in the five European Review Meetings on Severe Accident Research (ERMSARs) organised since 2005 by the Severe Accident Research NETwork of Excellence SARNET (past FP6 project 2004–08 and current FP7 project 2009–2013).Interdisciplinary research is challenging. But if EU physics/engineering and social science researchers cannot work together, how can we expect such cooperation from the varied components of society at large?

In addition, different types of publics ought to be considered. For instance, populations living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant ought to be studied further and their specific needs, different from those of the larger public, better understood.

Finally, over more than 30 years, risk research in the social sciences has generated sound concepts and methods. It could be useful to review those of particular relevance for future Euratom research, be they general (risk perception, social amplification of risk, risk governance, etc.) or more specific to nuclear events (accident evacuation limits, etc.).

References• Ipsos MORI (2011), Public attitudes to nuclear energy

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2834/Public-attitudes-to-the-nuclear-to-the-nuclear-industry.aspx

• Lavelle, S., Hériard Dubreuil, G., Gadbois, S., Mays, C. and Schneider, T. (2007), “Démocratie constructive et gouvernance de la technique: les conditions de la gouvernance démocratique dans un processus technique et social complexe; l’exemple du projet européen Cowam-in-Practice dans la gestion des déchets radioactifs”, http://www.revuegouvernance.ca/images/content/Spring2007/lavelle_et_al.pdf

• Miyasaka, M. (2012), “Call for applied ethics in nuclear science and technology — lessons from Fukushima”, 3rd workshop on Science and values in radiological protection decision-making and the 6th Asian regional conference on the Evolution of the system of radioprotection. Tokyo, 6 November 2012

• OECD (2008), Nuclear energy perspectives. Executive summary

• OECD-NEA (2010), Partnering for long-term management of radioactive waste. Evolution and current practice in 13 countries. Paris: OECD

• Poumadère, M. (2003), “Hormesis: public health policy, organisational safety and risk communication”, Journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 22, pp. 39–41

• Poumadère, M. (forthcoming), “Before and after Fukushima: the many fronts of managing the nuclear power option”, In Moor, R. and Gowda, R. (eds.), India at risk

• Poumadère, M. and Perrin, A. (2011), “Exposition socio-cognitive et évaluation des risques: le cas de la téléphonie mobile”, Radioprotection, 46 (1) pp. 59–73

• Poumadère, M., Bertoldo, R. and Samadi, J. (2011), “Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geo-engineering”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. doi: 10.1002/wcc.134

• Renn, O. (2008), Risk governance. Earthscan

• Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadère, M. and Mays, C. (2000), “Nuclear power and the public: a comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States”, in Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies, dir. Renn, O. et Rohrmann, B., Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Press

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS




http://www.revuegouvernance.ca/images/content/Spring2007/lavelle_et_al.pdf



10.1002/wcc

162 163


Contribution 12

Ortwin RENNInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart, Germany and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research, Germany

Professor Ortwin Renn’s main interest is risk governance, political participation and technology assessment. He is chair of environmental sociology and technology assessment at Stuttgart University, Germany. He directs the Stuttgart Research Centre for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies and the non-profit research company Dialogik, which studies communication and participation in environmental policymaking. He is adjunct professor for integrated risk analysis at Stavanger University, Norway and an affiliate professor at Beijing Normal University, China. Renn has a doctoral degree in sociology and social psychology from the University of Cologne. He has taught and researched at Clark University (USA) and the Swiss Institute of Technology. He has published more than 30 books and 250 articles, including Risk governance (Earthscan, 2008).

Piet SELLKEInstitute of Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart, Germany and Dialogik Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research, Germany

Piet Sellke has a degree in political science and sociology from the University of Stuttgart in Germany and the University of Oregon in the USA. Since 2004 he has been a researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart and, since 2006, a senior researcher at the non-profit research company Dialogik, which studies communication and participation in environmental policymaking. Sellke leads research projects on risk communication, crisis communication, risk perception and risk governance. Recently he was in charge of the EU-funded research projects Public Information Responses after Terrorist Events (PIRATE) and PROspective SUstaInability Assessment of TEchnologies (PROSUITE), which aims to develop a standardised methodology for sustainability assessment.


EU energy research should aim at an integrated view of different scientific, technical and societal needs. Whereas individual studies can highlight specific aspects of energy, the overall research programme needs to take account of the complexity of the research and to explore the tensions between technical challenges and societal responses.

Thus, the research should be driven neither by public concerns nor by industrial needs alone; rather, technical expertise is necessary to find (and explain) the best available technological options and public concern assessment is necessary to become knowledgeable about risk perceptions and socioeconomic impacts. If research is carried out only in the technical domain, it is likely to lose public support; if the research is carried out only in the societal domain, relevant technical knowledge is neglected.

In today’s societies in Europe, nuclear fission represents a technology that touches on a number of societal concerns. First, no nuclear waste treatment has been developed that wins public approval let alone support. It is still an open question whether the attempts in Finland and Sweden (and soon in Switzerland) to build a final repository will meet local acceptance. The longevity of nuclear waste raises concerns among the public that today’s society is living at the expense of future generations; thus fundamental equity is a concern. Second, research shows a decreasing acceptance of nuclear fission (more pronounced in some countries than in others) because of the desire for alternative energy technologies such as solar and wind power. From normative as well as a practical viewpoint, implementing a less-accepted technology produces more costs in terms of public confidence and political acceptability than relying on highly-supported technologies.

Thus, end-users of European energy research should be considered an integral part of the decision-making process beyond the general inclusion of societal concerns in policy thinking. Effective, efficient and fair governance of energy policies relies on the cooperation of government, industry, experts and civil society including non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Integrative energy research puts together perspectives from those involved to foster a shared understanding about technical expertise and societal needs.


Nuclear fission research, even more so than other energy research topics, is subject to societal conflicts and political manoeuvring. Although research shows that in general large centralised technology facilities increasingly have acceptance problems (e.g. also wind farms), nuclear fission faces major perception problems: it is perceived as being controlled only by profit-seeking industry; it has dreadful consequences should the worst happen; it is perceived as a subtle killer because of assumed emissions of invisible radiation; and it is perceived as unfair to future generations who still have to bear the consequences of living with radioactive waste.

These features distinguish nuclear fission from other energy technologies. Some of those also face public opposition and societal concern but to much less a degree than nuclear installations.

EU legislation for a long-term research strategy may be productive if it settles for an integrated research programme on energy options and their mutual interconnections, including natural sciences and social sciences. It also needs to promote active outreach to stakeholders and NGOs in order to understand their viewpoints and to identify areas of common interest, value or concern.


Nuclear fission will not be more accepted by society if the possibility of large accidents with far-reaching consequences can be ruled out or at least made extremely unlikely. Although fourth-generation reactors are being developed to reach this goal, research shows that probabilities in general, but specifically very small probabilities, are hard for most individuals to understand, so a lower probability of a nuclear melt-down will not result in any higher confidence in the technology. The goal to limit damages to a very confined area even in the worst-case accident is a step in the right direction. The main component of public acceptance is, however, trust in the management and control, not trust in the technology itself. If trust in risk-managing institutions could be increased, it would be more beneficial for public acceptance than decreasing the probability of a serious accident.

A judgment about acceptability can only be a result of a societal deliberation. Whether a society wants or does not want to bear the risk of nuclear installations depends largely on a societal discourse on risk and benefits and, very importantly, on perceived alternatives. Research today shows that the public in many European countries (not all!) might accept nuclear energy to some extent or for a limited transition period

if that is seen as the only feasible way to combat climate change or to promote the expansion of renewable energy.

EU research to improve risk governance should aim at testing the current risk governance frameworks and their applications to energy policies. The promising existing frameworks, such as the International Risk Governance Council’s risk governance framework, have the capacity to integrate different fields of knowledge, include important stakeholders and tailor risk communication to the specific needs of the target audiences. As this risk governance framework has been exposed to many tests of its usefulness in practical regulation, it could be a promising starting point for improving risk governance in the EU energy sector. The framework has been tested with different technologies but also in a more process oriented way focusing on the protection of critical infrastructures in Europe.


The communication of uncertainties should be related to the specific phases of the risk governance process. It does make a difference whether the governance process is in the early stage of problem framing, the risk assessment phase or the management phase. The earlier the communication is initiated the more likely one is able to shape public perceptions and evaluations.

Communicating uncertainties poses specific chal-lenges. Most of the time individuals like to structure reality in clear opposites: safe or unsafe, healthy or unhealthy, etc. Uncertainty includes shades of grey between white and black. It takes time to make people familiar with such a differentiation.

Uncertainties can, however, be well communicated in the context of different decision options. People are familiar with uncertainty in situations where they must decide between multiple options. They need to assess the likely consequences of each op-tion to choose one option. These consequences are normally uncertain and the decision-maker needs to assess their likelihoods. This comparative evalu-ation is not dependent on scientific input alone. It is shaped by value judgments and appetite for risk (being more risk-averse or more risk-seeking).

This is a choice about how much risk a society wants to bear in exchange for some degree of benefit or opportunity. This balancing of uncertain risks and opportunities can only be a product of societal deliberation. Thus, the inclusion of relevant parties is an integral part of a successful communication of uncertainties. A general rule of thumb for dealing with uncertainties can be the avoidance of irreversible outcomes, a goal that is plausible and normally easy to disseminate to a larger public.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

164 165



The empirical results of perception studies in Europe show that Euratom is not a familiar term to most people regardless of country or even familiarity with nuclear energy. The European Commission’s Eurobarometer surveys confirm that the majority of European citizens believe that Europe has an important stake in the design and control of nuclear energy programmes but that decisions on whether to use the power source are left to individual states. So most respondents attributed nuclear policymaking to the nation state, not to the EU authorities.

Nuclear research is still seen as useful and important but most people make no distinction between national and European research programmes. They are more concerned about the direction of nuclear research. Is it more inclined to promote nuclear power or to control it? Is it more directed towards safety and security or to making nuclear power more profitable and efficient? If Euratom would like to sharpen its public profile it would need to start a campaign to become a familiar name in the public’s eyes.


The impact of the Fukushima accident has triggered an intense discussion about nuclear energy in all EU states but in particular in Germany, with the resulting Energiewende (energy transformation) setting a fixed timetable for phasing out nuclear fission. Thus, the perceptions of Fukushima rejuvenated a debate on the future of nuclear energy in all European countries, with different results. France and the UK reconfirmed their nuclear commitment, for example, while Germany, Austria, Switzerland and others underscored their decisions to phase out nuclear or abandon it.

In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the accident led to the ousting of the conservative government (known for its pro-nuclear policies) that had occupied the prime minister’s office for more than 58 years. The public opposition to nuclear had immediate political effects on elections, so politicians in Germany and beyond are highly alert when nuclear issues are debated. Nuclear power is a sensitive political issue and could determine the results of elections.

The impact of Fukushima will certainly fade over time but public support of nuclear will probably not reach pre-Fukushima levels. It was the same with the Chernobyl accident. Public opposition was strongest in the immediate aftermath of the accident. It then slowly decreased over time but never reached the levels that were measured before the accident. This observation has been made in almost all European countries independent of the prior mix of proponents and opponents of nuclear energy. Chernobyl and Fukushima have become symbols of technological disasters that will remain as mental anchors for most of the people in Europe.

Euratom research should focus more on sociopolitical issues as they become the decisive factor for the future of nuclear energy. As mentioned above, ideal are combinations of social and technological studies highlighting interdisciplinary approaches and multiple perspectives. Only through collaboration can one design a research programme that reflects the multi-faceted dimensions of the nuclear power debate.

Contribution 13

Judith SIMONInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Dr Judith Simon is a senior researcher at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany and at the University of Vienna in Austria. She is an associate postdoctoral fellow at the Institut Jean Nicod in France and has held visiting positions in the US, Italy and Spain. She is principle researcher on a project investigating the relationship between trust, knowledge and information and communications technology (ICT) and a member of the Onlife Initiative of the European Commission, exploring how the digital transition affects societal expectations of policymaking. Her research interests include technology assessment, science and technology, values in design, the philosophy of ICT, the philosophy of science and social epistemology.

Armin GRUNWALDInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Professor Dr Armin Grunwald is director of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany and has held the KIT chair of the philosophy and ethics of technology since 2007. Since 2002, he has been director of the German parliament’s Office of Technology Assessment. He studied physics, mathematics and philosophy at the universities of Münster and Cologne in Germany. In 1987 he finished his dissertation in theoretical solid state physics at Cologne University. In 1998, he finished his habilitation at Marburg University, Germany with a thesis on culturalistic planning theory. His work covers: theory and methodology of technology assessment; ethics of technology, in particular of nanotechnology and synthetic biology; and sustainable development.

ForewordSince we had the privilege to read some of the other contributions before preparing our replies, we took the chance to respond to these contributions by endorsing certain claims made by others to support their views. These endorsements will be notified in our replies.


The dualistic notion of “public concerns” and “industrial needs” is problematic, since it assumes a duality between public and industry that is questionable (see also the excellent comment by Meskens on this topic). Moreover, attributing only concerns to the public, but needs to industry is not merely a linguistic triviality, but may represent or at least give the impression of bias. More precisely, the wording suggests that Euratom is primarily industry-driven and that the public is perceived as a troublemaker raising irrational concerns. We are not implying that this is Euratom’s perception of the public, but with such a wording, it will at the very least be difficult to convince the public that their voices really are of interest to Euratom and will be heard.

In short: if you want to have public trust, raise your own trustworthiness first. The trustworthiness of Euratom could be increased through transparency and accountability, while it could be easily destroyed by lack of transparency or the perception of biases.

We further endorse the following aspects:

• the critique of the end-user model and the emphasis on co-production (Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen);

• the relevance of sustainability and the need to take desires for alternative energies seriously (Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen as well as Renn and Sellke);

• the necessity to include a broader variety of stakeholders (Burall) with special emphasis on weaker and marginalised groups (Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen); and

• the need for more accountable and transparent decision-making processes (Dorfman).

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

166 167


Decision-making2:What isspecific toEUnu-clearfissionresearch?As other contributors have also noted, there are numerous aspects which set nuclear fission apart from other forms of energy, such as the waste problem and the historical proximity to weapons (Macnaghten). These differences are thus also relevant for nuclear fission research. We further want to support Dorfman’s emphasis on the degrees of uncertainty and complexity and the particular problem of pre-conditioning assumptions which — while certainly not specific to fission — are of particular concern here because of the low-probability, high-impact nature of nuclear fission risk (Dorfman).

Another important point raised by Dorfman concerns the importance as well as the difficulty of assessing liabilities. While the localisation of financial responsibility in highly complex and entangled socio-technical systems is one side of the coin, the other side concerns the localisation of harm, i.e. who bears the risk? – as Burall has rightly emphasised. We need to think of risk not in generic terms, but in terms of who exactly bears what degree of risk with what potential consequences. Only such an in-depth and specific understanding of risk can enable an open, transparent and accountable discourse with the stakeholders and publics.

Finally we wish to strongly support Meskens’s suggestion that Euratom should focus on holistic energy research scenarios, including renewable energies, with support of comparative and contextual research and links to science in society and social sciences and humanities. It should be noted that if such a development is desired, it may be necessary to think about a renaming of the initiative, because the name Euratom is rather connotative. If — and only if — the goal is to enable an open discourse on energy futures instead of simply convincing the public about the merits of nuclear energy, a new name would be advisable (e.g. something like EU-nergy).


These questions are highly problematic as has been indicated by many other contributors. “What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large?” seems to ask for a number but, as Meskens rightly states; acceptable risk is a risk that an informed democratic society justifies as acceptable. Importantly, as Renn and Sellke have emphasised, alternatives to nuclear energy have to be included in this discussion of the acceptance of risks. We further endorse Macnaghten’s important point not to regard public fears as irrational, as well as the reminder by Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen that the public should not be considered homogenous and that it may be advisable to think of publics rather than the public. This point links to Meskens’s emphasis on moral pluralism which we fully endorse and wish to underscore.


The communication of uncertainties is a very important topic and should be addressed thoroughly. We think that openness and transparency about different types of uncertainty and ignorance (i.e. unknowables, not-yet-knowns, etc.) are needed and that different means of communicating probabilistic statements need to be explored. Yet, as has been stated by others, uncertainties are not purely a matter of communication, but are partly inherent in the research itself (see Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen, Dorfman and Meskens). One important aspect that has been stressed by Dorfman concerns the over-reliance on modelling. We would like to add that within the energy sector lack of transparency may be as big a problem as uncertainty; the lack of transparency about the ingredients fed into simulations and modelling of energy futures is a major problem that needs to be addressed to enable sound political decision-making.

We also wish to underscore Burall’s critique of the deficit model of public engagement and the related focus on one-way communication; communication should not be conceived as a means to simply educate the public, but ideally as a form of dialogue. We further endorse Meskens’s more deliberative and reflexive vision of science.


We agree with the perception of many other contributors that the Euratom research programmes have a low visibility. Concerning better service to the public, we think that Euratom could be a pioneer in public engagement in energy if — a big if! — conceived rightly. What needs to be ensured in particular is that public engagement is not misunderstood as acceptance machinery. Instead of requiring blind trust or acquiescence

by the public, the goal should rather be to create platforms of public engagement and open discourse where mutual criticism and open debate about different energy futures are supported. (See also our response to the question Euratom research 2: Should Euratom research focus more on sociopolitical issues?).


First, while we cannot know whether the impact of Fukushima will be permanent, it would certainly be wise to learn our lessons from this disaster instead of hoping that the public will simply forget quickly. Second, sociopolitical issues are of central relevance to Euratom research — indeed they are or at least should be relevant to all publicly-funded research — and hence have to be taken into account. However, this does not imply that mere acceptance is the right goal. Indeed, the German term Akzeptanzbeschaffung has severely negative connotations and, to our minds, aiming at mere acceptance would be a worst-case scenario for Euratom research and the best route to ensure — justified — public distrust. Before asking for public trust in energy research, it is essential to ensure the trustworthiness of Euratom — ideally by fulfilling Meskens’s request to be open, transparent, transdisciplinary and inclusive, driven by a sense of environmental care and social justice.

We share many of the additional concerns raised by Chateauraynaud, Boudia and Lehtonen, Meskens, Renn and Sellke and Dorfman. In particular we want to emphasise the necessity to support interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, to include various stakeholders and multiple perspectives and to explore the pros and cons, the specificities and the limits of different alternative energy scenarios. Frankly, some of the questions in this questionnaire (in particular the question Risk governance 1: What is an acceptable level of (nuclear) risk for the public at large?) rather confirm fears of biases and may increase suspicion about Euratom being purely industry-driven or being simply a promoter of nuclear energy. We think it needs to be clarified whether Euratom merely aims at acceptance and promotion of nuclear energy or whether the goal is to support an open and inclusive debate about energy futures including all possible forms of energy. We definitely favour and would support only the latter.

Contribution 14

Heli TALJAVTT Technical Research Centre, Finland

Dr Heli Talja is a technology manager at the VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland. She earned her master’s and DTech degrees in mechanical engineering, majoring in mechanics of materials. She has worked at VTT since 1980, first as a researcher and group manager on structural integrity in nuclear power plants, and spent two years as a visiting scholar in Germany. In 2006 she was awarded her doctorate by Tampere University of Technology, Finland for work focusing on organisational studies. She is author or co-author of more than 150 scientific publications. Since 2006 she has led VTT’s multidisciplinary and international centre for organisations, networks and innovation systems, participating in research related to societal, organisational and human views of technology.

Pia OEDEWALDVTT Technical Research Centre, Finland

Pia Oedewald is a senior scientist at the VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland, where she leads an organisational psychology research team. Her educational background is in psychology. She has 13 years of experience of research and consultancy work in various safety-critical domains such as the nuclear power industry, health care, railways and the chemical industry. The main focus of her work has been on how to evaluate the safety of organisations and the definition and assessment of safety culture.


Both industry and the public are the end-users of research and research can sometimes act as a mediator between them by providing neutral knowledge of safety-related technical, human, and organisational phenomena.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

168 169



EU legislation is and should be one important driver of research but not the only one. It is important to have research programmes open to emerging topics as well.

The Finnish approach to public nuclear safety research (see for example http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/safir2014/), which is partly funded by a tax-like fee from nuclear power companies and partly steered by them, is worth considering more widely.


A general comment; social science has made a major contribution to technological risk management, not just public fear minimisation. This has been achieved by developing safety management and safety culture theories and methods for the industry and regulators. EU research could be grounded in safety science/resilience engineering thinking where the viewpoint is not risks but safety; how to create capabilities to manage complex and high-hazard systems which can operate even in varying, unexpected conditions.

These competences require a mix of technical and social sciences. A social climate where nuclear education is attractive and the industry is not threatening is needed to ensure a supply of competent engineers and the technical reliability of plants, for example.

Companies and regulators as well as their collaboration networks need to develop capabilities to deal with the technical, individual/psychological, organisational and social aspects of nuclear power.


Ultimately there are and will be uncertainties which we just have to live with. Human behaviour always reflects uncertainties, which cannot be successfully dealt with by more detailed instructions but by taking safety culture theories, etc. seriously.

A good way to deal with this issue is to admit the existence of uncertainties, which cannot all be removed by improving technology only, and put more effort into anticipating and being prepared for unrecognised and emerging risks. This kind of foresight activity is one example where social scientists can make a big contribution.


Euratom research programmes seem to be unknown to the public. One reason might be that they have been very specific and technologically oriented with no human and societal content — and perhaps regarded by researchers as superior to laymen’s concerns, which holds also for many technological experts.


The Fukushima event has had a very different impact in different EU countries. In Finland, for example, the impact seems to have been quite small, in terms of policymaking, public debate and new nuclear power plant projects.

As after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, the impact will probably fade with time, but the political decisions made in some EU Member States may have far-reaching effects on the nuclear infrastructure (e.g. the available knowledge) with a consequent impact should nuclear energy later gain more acceptance.

Euratom research programmes should focus more on social/society-related issues. As nuclear power plant owners are dependent on many kinds of suppliers and partners, including non-nuclear specific (for maintenance, annual outages, cleaning, education, etc.), it might be useful to consider the functioning of these ecosystems as well. In cases of evacuation, the infrastructure (including external rescue organisations, roads, etc.) may prove critical. So, besides improving the acceptance of nuclear power in general, there are many human/social/societal aspects which would be worth considering.

Contribution 15

Eugenijus UšPURASLithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuania

Professor Dr Habil. Eugenijus Ušpuras is director of the Lithuanian Energy Institute, a full member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences and a board member of the European Nuclear Society. Most of his scientific career has focused on heat transfer and fluid flow in nuclear reactors, deterministic and probabilistic safety analyses of reactors, the development of fission and fusion energy technologies, the transport of radioactive materials, energy security and technology risk analysis. In recent years his main professional activities have been focused on reactor safety, energy security, industrial risk analysis and uncertainty analysis. He is the author of more than 300 scientific publications, including five monographs and three handbooks.


End-users of EU energy research are both European industry and the public and both should influence nuclear research (although research interest might be a different matter). The best representatives of the needs and concerns of nuclear research seem to be technology platforms, nuclear associations and nuclear industry. Environmental organisations have an important role in the public discussion, but rather limited interest and concern.


Nuclear fission research is much more regulated and expensive than non-nuclear research because of safety and security concerns. However, it must definitely be regulated by EU legislation, taking into account International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations and best practices.


In general (and for the public in particular) the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle must be used. Public education is essential; even though modern technologies would decrease the possible risk, it seems that public perception is not swayed. An extensive and group-oriented education programme should be implemented Europe-wide. Research organisations could act as mediators, interpreting the results of EU nuclear fission research for industry and the public. The programme should cover both technological risk minimisation and minimisation of public fear, which increases after nuclear accidents.


For the communication of uncertainties, questions, etc. as varied a range of media as possible and as open, diverse and profound a discussion as possible should be used. That would improve the chance of winning support and, in the long term, providing decision-makers with a positive view of the nuclear industry. The key target has to be secondary and tertiary education students. Certainly, other groups have to be addressed as well, but a limited impact should be expected.


A survey is needed to understand the perception of the Euratom programme. For academics the view might be different from that of the ordinary citizen. The way to better serve end-users could be better education about nuclear energy and more focused financial support for research favoured by the industry and technology platforms.

In general the public is uneasy about nuclear matters.


Fukushima had an extremely negative impact on the public’s opinion of nuclear energy and nuclear research. It had different impacts in different countries because of the different historical, political and cultural backgrounds. In the countries where green movements have some political power, the impact was much more extensive and critical. Whether the process is permanent is rather difficult to say, because of the different contexts. Euratom should address sociopolitical aspects of nuclear energy — although not necessarily in every research round. Sociopolitical topics must be linked closely to EU decision-making.

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS



170 171


Contribution 16

Vivianne VISSCHERS Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Dr Vivianne Visschers is a senior researcher in the consumer behaviour group of the Institute for Environmental Decisions at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Switzerland. She studied cognitive psychology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, from which she received her PhD in 2007. Her PhD thesis focused on the role of affective and deliberative processes in lay people’s risk perception. She worked as a researcher at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Her research at ETH Zurich concerns the public’s perception of new technologies and of climate change and risk communication. She has published several papers on the public’s perception of nuclear power, of other energy technologies and of climate change.


Research has shown that laypeople’s acceptance of nuclear power mainly depends upon the amount of economic benefit (e.g. a secure energy supply) they perceive in this energy source. Perceived risks (e.g. of an accident) have a much smaller influence on acceptance than perceived benefits. Also, the perceived benefits of nuclear power for the climate (e.g. zero carbon dioxide emissions during operation) have a much smaller impact on acceptance of nuclear power than the perceived economic benefits. Only when people were explicitly asked to compare the expansion of nuclear power to the risk of climate change, did they reluctantly choose the expansion of nuclear power. In theory, the benefits and risks people see in nuclear power should be determined by their knowledge about this technology.

However, most lay people do not know much about nuclear power. They rather rely on their trust in stakeholders when they estimate the risks and benefits of this technology, for example by looking at the stakeholders’ past behaviour. For the same reason, people use the feelings they experience when thinking of nuclear power to estimate its risks and benefits. Trust and feelings thus have indirect effects on the acceptance of nuclear power. Thus, in order to increase people’s acceptance of nuclear power, it is advisable to focus more on the technology’s benefits for the economy when communicating with the public than to try to change people’s fear or their risk perception. Moreover, acceptance of nuclear power can indirectly be increased if governmental organisations, research institutes and the nuclear industry show their competences, expertise and responsibility regarding nuclear safety.EU research should therefore be focused both on technical risk minimisation and on communication with the public about the benefits of nuclear power and about stakeholders’ qualities.


On the one hand, the communication of scientific uncertainty may increase lay people’s trust in the stakeholders, as revealing what one does not know is perceived as being honest. On the other hand, scientific uncertainty as the result of conflicting knowledge (e.g. researcher A believes event X is very likely to occur, whereas researcher B considers event X to be very unlikely) can make the public feel uncertain and outraged, especially if there is no open communication about the differing views. Research into how lay people are affected by uncertainty related to environmental hazards has, however, shown conflicting results itself, probably because self-report measures were used to measure the impact of uncertainty. More empirical research is needed to find out how lay people respond to scientific uncertainty, especially regarding nuclear risks.


Several polls and studies have shown that the nuclear accident at Fukushima in 2011 decreased the public acceptance and increased risk perception of nuclear power directly after the event. It should, however, be noted that the changes were not very dramatic. Nuclear power was, for example, not seen as highly unacceptable after the accident. A few months after the accident, public acceptance seemed to have recovered a bit, as was also the case after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986.

It has been suggested that because the consequences of the nuclear accident in Japan appeared to be not as bad as expected over time in Europe, the public debate diminished. As a result, the acceptance of nuclear power increased again. These results however come from studies that were done in countries in which nuclear power plants are currently operating, such as the UK and Switzerland. Eurobarometer studies have shown that public perception of nuclear power differs between countries with and without operating nuclear power plants. Based on studies and polls conducted after the Chernobyl accident, it can be expected that the public’s perception of nuclear power will become more positive again compared to directly after Fukushima. It is however unclear how long this will take, especially because in countries in which it was decided to phase out nuclear power the public debate continues.

References• Bammer, G. and Smithson, M. (Eds.) (2008).

Uncertainty and risk: multidisciplinary perspectives. Earthscan

• European Commission (2007). “Energy technologies: knowledge, perception, measures”, Special Eurobarometer 262/Wave 65.3), TNS Opinion & Social

• European Commission (2010). “Europeans and nuclear safety”, Special Eurobarometer 324/Wave 72.2, TNS Opinion & Social

• Keller, C., Visschers, V. and Siegrist, M. (2012). “Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants”, Risk Analysis, 32, 464–477

• Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. and Poortinga, W. (2008). “Climate change or nuclear power ̶ No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain”, Global Environmental Change, 18, 69–85

• Siegrist, M. and Visschers, V. H. M. (in press). “Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect”, Energy Policy

• Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. and Lorenzoni, I. (2010). “Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment”, Energy & Environment, 21, 385–407

• Verplanken, B. (1989). “Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design”, Environment and Behaviour, 21, 371–392

• Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M. (2012). “Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants”, Energy Policy, 46, 292–300

• Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M. (in press). “How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster”, Risk Analysis

• Visschers, V. H. M., Keller, C. and Siegrist, M. (2011). “Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model”, Energy Policy, 39, 3621–3629

GlossaryCBA Cost-benefit analysisCCS Carbon capture and storageE&T Education and TrainingECTS European Credit Transfer and

accumulation SystemECVET European Credit system for Vocational

Education and TrainingEFTS Euratom Fission Training SchemesEHEA European Higher Education AreaEMINE European masters in nuclear energyEQF European Qualifications Framework for

Lifelong LearningERA European Research AreaETP European Technological PlatformsEU European UnionFP Framework ProgrammeIfS Instrument for StabilityINSC Instrument for Nuclear Safety

CooperationLCA Life-cycle analysisMS Member StatesNPP Nuclear power plantP2P Public-public partnershipsPLEX Plant life time extensionPPP Public-private partnerships RDDD Research, development, demonstration

and deployment SoES Security of energy supply SoS Security of supplySRA Strategic Research AgendaTP Technology platformTSO Technical safety organisations

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

safety.EU

172 173


European and international organisations/groups/associations AGE Advisory Group on EnergyBEPA Bureau of European Policy AdvisersEAC European Commission, Directorate-

General for Education and CultureEC European CommissionEERA European Energy Research AllianceEESC European Economic and Social

CommitteeEGE European Group on Ethics in Science and

New TechnologiesEHRO-N European Human Resource Observatory

in the Nuclear Energy SectorEIRMA European Industrial Research

Management AssociationEIT European Institute of Innovation and

TechnologyENEF European Nuclear Energy ForumENEN European Nuclear Education NetworkENER European Commission, Directorate-

General for EnergyENS European Nuclear SocietyENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators

GroupENSTTI European Nuclear Safety Training and

Tutoring InstituteERC European Research CouncilERDO European Repository Development

OrganisationESARDA European Safeguards Research and

Development AssociationESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research

InfrastructuresESNII European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial

Initiative Foratom European Atomic ForumGIF Generation IV International ForumHERCA Heads of European Radiological

protection Competent Authorities Association

IAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyIEA International Energy AgencyIET Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC)IGD-TP Implementing Geological Disposal of

Radioactive Waste Technology PlatformINSAG International Nuclear Safety Group (IAEA)INSC International Nuclear Societies CouncilITU Institute for Transuranium Elements (JRC)JRC European Commission, Directorate-

General Joint Research CentreKIC Knowledge and Innovation CommunityKIC InnoEnergy Energy Knowledge and

Innovation CommunityMelodi Multidisciplinary European Low Dose

InitiativeNCII Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial InitiativeNEA Nuclear Energy Agency

NSSG G8 Nuclear Safety and Security GroupNugenia Nuclear Generation II and III AssociationRTD European Commission, Directorate-

General for Research and InnovationSET-Plan European Strategic Energy Technology

PlanSNETP Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology

PlatformSTC Scientific and Technical Committee

EuratomUNECE United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe WANO World Association of Nuclear OperatorsWENRA Western European Nuclear Regulators

AssociationWNU World Nuclear University

pART

2

pART

2

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

SoCI

oEC

on

oM

IC R

Epo

RTS

Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low-Carbon EconomySymposium Agendaand Speakers

Contribution to the decision-making process on the Euratom part of Horizon 2020

Co-organised by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee

Symposium Agendaand Speakers


26-27 February 2013Brussels

177


It is our great pleasure to bid you all a warm welcome to this important event, “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy”.

In 2011 the EU Council invited the European Commission “to organise a symposium in 2013 involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders to contribute to the debate on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy. The symposium will be prepared by an interdisciplinary study involving, inter alia, experts from the fields of energy, economics and social sciences.”

The European Commission (DG RTD, DG JRC, DG ENER) has taken this mandate and has closely worked with colleagues in the European Economic and Social Committee to put together a programme which will facilitate an open debate.

Research efforts lie at the heart of all technologies in the energy mix, including nuclear fission. This conference will certainly provide constructive and important advice vis-à-vis future research needs in the domain.

The Programme for this Symposium represents a broad cross-section of stakeholders and concerned parties from across Europe. A holistic approach will facilitate and stimulate the debate.

Our thanks go to the colleagues in the different services of the European Commission as well as in the European Economic and Social Committee for putting together this Symposium and to the contributors to the Study on “Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy”, as well as the European Group on Ethics, for their time and dedication.

The views of all conference participants will be instrumental in shaping the political vision for the future of nuclear fission research in Europe.

InTR

od

UCT

Ion2012 Interdisciplinary Study

Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy / Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020)

Contribution to the decision-making processon the Euratom part of Horizon 2020Co-organised by the European Commissionand the European Economic and Social Committee

Introduction 177 Day 1 178 Day 2 179

Speakers Richard Adams 180 Hamid Aït Abderrahim 181 Laure Batut 182 Stéphane Buffetaut 183 William D’haeseleer 184 Thierry Dujardin 185 János Gadó 186 Paul Howarth 187 Philippe Jamet 188 Julian Kinderlerer 189 Jørgen K. Kjems 190 Paul Krueger 191 Wolfgang Liebert 192 Patricia Lorenz 193 Philip Lowe 194 Jim Lyons 195 Ann Maclachlan 196 Jozef Misak 197 William Nuttall 198 Günther H. Oettinger 199 Marjatta Palmu 200 Jean-Pol Poncelet 201 Hans Püttgen 202 Jacques Repussard 203 Dominique Ristori 204 Ulla Sirkeinen 205 Peter Skinner 206 Robert-Jan Smits 207 Vladimir Šucha 208 Victor Teschendorff 209 François Weiss 210 Frank-Peter WEISS 211 Gerd Wolf 212 John Wood 213

178


179

DAy 1 TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013

09.00 – 09.55 Registrations

09.55 WelcomeRobert-Jan SMITS, Director-General, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission

OPENING SESSION - The European and wider context

Chairperson - Laure BATUT, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

The European science and energy landscape Dominique RISTORI, Director-General, JRC, European Commission

Civil society and its relevance to research and innovation on societal challengesStéphane BUFFETAUT, EESC, Chair of the TEIIS Section

Ethical impact of research on different energy sources on human well being Julian KINDERLERER, Chair of the European Group on Ethics

Importance of EU R&D for nuclear fission safety, safeguards and security James LYONS, IAEA Director, Division of nuclear installation safety

Industry view of EU nuclear fission research for a low-carbon economyJean-Pol PONCELET, Director-General of Foratom

Contribution to the debate at European level Tom HANNEY, Representative of the IE Presidency of the Council of Ministers

Views of the European Parliament on nuclear fission researchPeter SKINNER, European Parliament, ITRE Committee, Rapporteur for Euratom

12.00 – 13.30 Buffet Lunch

SESSION ONE – Challenges and opportunities

Chairperson - Vladimir šUCHA, Deputy Director-General, JRC, European Commission

Rapporteur - Richard ADAMS, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

13.30 Introduction

Keynote speech - Example of a multidisciplinary research and innovation project Hamid AÏT ABDERRAHIM

Panel 1 – Outcome of the studies

Recommendations and key messages John WOOD

EU energy policy and SET-Plan William D’HAESELEER

Security of energy supply, a strategic view Paul KRUEGER

ERA, E&T and skills François WEISS

Q/A session

15.30 – 16.00 Coffee Break

Panel 2 – Research and science-based policies

Nuclear safety and security in EU and beyond Victor TESCHENDORFF

Science based policies and legislation Jozef MISAK

People, quality of life and the environment William NUTTALL

Summary of the website’s forum inputs Richard ADAMS

Q/A session

18.00 – 19.00 Cocktail

DAy 2 WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2013

08.30 – 08.55 Welcome Coffee

SESSION TWO – Future research needs at European Union level, Stakeholders’ views

Chairperson - Philip LOWE and Peter FAROSS, Director-General, DG Energy, European Commission

Rapporteur - Gerd WOLF, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

09.00 Introduction

Keynote speech - Energy Center of Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Hans PÜTTGEN

Panel 3 - Research community, academia and industry

Melodi European Association Jacques REPUSSARD

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform Paul HOWARTH

Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform Marjatta PALMU

KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute János GADÓ

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Thierry DUJARDIN

Q/A session moderated by Ann MACLACHLAN (journalist)


Panel 4 - Safety authorities and civil society

Friends of the Earth Europe Roland EGGER

French Nuclear Safety Authority Philippe JAMET

Inst. Sicherheits & Risikowissenschaften, Wien Univ. Wolfgang LIEBERT

Network of European Technical Safety Organizations Frank-Peter WEISS

European Economic and Social Committee Ulla SIRKEINEN

Q/A session moderated by Ann MACLACHLAN (journalist)

13.15 – 14.30 Buffet Lunch

CONCLUDINGSESSION–Roleofnuclearfissionresearchforalow-carboneconomy

Chairperson - Robert-Jan SMITS, Director-General, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission

Rapporteur - Richard ADAMS, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

14.30 Summary by rapporteur of Session 1 Richard ADAMS

Summary by rapporteur of Session 2 Gerd WOLF

Round table with J. KINDERLERER, J. WOOD AND J. KJEMS (STC)

Final Q/A session


CLOSINGSESSION-RoleofnuclearfissionresearchandinnovationtotackleEUchallenges

16.30 The need for European research and innovation to face tomorrow’s challenges Günther OETTINGER, European Commissioner for Energy

Symposium’s conclusions

17.30 Closure of the Symposium

178

180 181Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

HA

MId

AïT

ABd

ERR

AH

IM

He is partner and/or coordinator of various projects of the European Commission Framework Programme related to advanced nuclear systems or to partitioning and transmutation of high level nuclear waste management. He is presently the Chairman of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) working group of the European Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP, www.snetp.eu) initiated in September 2007.

He is author of more than 100 scientific publications in peer review journals and international conferences. He directed many PhD and masters theses in the various fields of nuclear technology.

Hamid AÏT ABDERRAHIM is specialised in Reactor Physics, Reactor Dosimetry, Fuel Cycle and Nuclear Reactor Technology.

Prof. Dr. Hamid Aït Abderrahim started his career in 1989 at SCK•CEN, the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, as Researcher Neutron Calculation. A few years later he became Head of the Section Group Reactor Dosimetry and then Head of Department Fuel Research. Since 1998 he is the Director of the MYRRHA project: an accelerator driven system coupling a sub-critical Pb-Bi cooled reactor and a high power proton accelerator through a spallation target. Since June 2010 he is also Deputy Director-General.

Prof. Dr. Hamid Aït Abderrahim is lecturing reactor physics and nuclear engineering at the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) at the mechanical engineering department of the Ecole Polytechnique de Louvain (EPL).

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Richard ADAMS is a co-chair of the European Nuclear Energy Forum and President of the European Economic and Social Committee’s European Energy Community group.

He was rapporteur on recent EESC Opinions on the energy and low-carbon roadmaps, nuclear safety cooperation outside the EU, radioactive waste management, and public engagement in the energy policy debate. He is founder of several successful UK social enterprises that allow people to express ethical values through their work, spending or saving.

The majority have been focussed on fair trade, the problems of social exclusion, fuel poverty, international development and sustainability. He has authored a number of books on corporate social responsibility and launched the UK’s first ethical supermarket chain. He has academic degrees in sociology, theology and business and holds a number of honorary doctorates and visiting fellowships from British universities.

Speaker in the opening sessionRapporteur of Session one

182 183Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in the opening sessionChairperson of the opening session

STép

HA

nE

BUFF

ETA

UT

Stéphane BuFFEtAut, Chairman of the energy, transport, infrastructures and information society of the European Economic and Social Committee, has obtained degrees from the Sorbonne university in European law. He is a former member of the European Parliament.

He is president of an important funding association for social housing in France, and president of various social housing firms and representative of the MEDEF (French employers association) in various bodies dedicated to the question of employees housing.

In the EESC, he represents the French public transports association.

Laure BAtut

2010 Elected as quaestor by EESC-Group II

2004 EESC-Group II Member, sections SOC & TEN

Permanent member at FO Confederation Headquarters / Europe-International Department

Member of Force-Ouvrière, Unions Confederation

Senior Officer - French Customs - Ministry of Finances

1972 Master in Public Law

LAU

RE

BATU

T

184 185Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session one Speaker in Session two

THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn

He spent the beginning of his career within the French CEA, being successively Field Engineer, Project Manager, Head of a research unit mainly in the area of uranium enrichment, Executive Deputy-Director for International Relations with a specific responsibility regarding the Inter-ministerial coordination for the Euratom Treaty affairs with a direct link to the Prime Minister’s office and a mission of providing expertise to the Government on foreign nuclear policy, and Director of the Scientific and Technical Information Division.

Thierry DUJARDIN joined the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD in 2001 as Deputy Director for Science and Development. In this domain, the NEA activities range from the development and dissemination of sound scientific and technical knowledge to the provision of authoritative, reliable information to governments on nuclear technologies, economics, strategies and resources.

Dr. Dujardin is also responsible for the Technical Secretariat services that the NEA provides to the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and since January 2012, NEA acting Deputy Director-General. He got a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.

William D’HAESELEER is a professor in the Faculty of Engineering Science at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium. His research encompasses integrated energy systems, energy management, energy and the environment and energy policy.

He is Director of the KU Leuven Energy Institute and Head of the Division of Energy Conversion. He was Chairman and member of the European Commission’s Advisory Groups on Fusion (EAG-FU) and Energy (Age) in 1998-2002, 2002–2006 and 2009–2012. He is Chairman of the European Energy Institute think-tank.

He has coordinated research projects that include European Sustainable Electricity Generation (Eusustel). He chairs the Belgian committee of the World Energy Council.

WIL

LIA

M d

’HA

ESEL

EER

186 187Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session twoSpeaker in Session two

pAU

L H

oW

ART

H

Paul HOWARTH was appointed Managing Director of the National Nuclear Laboratory on 1 January 2011. He is also Executive Director of Battelle Energy UK and a visiting professor at the University of Manchester.

Prior to working at NNL, Paul held various senior roles at British Nuclear Fuels plc including Director of Advanced Reactor Research, Head of Technology for Nuclear Generation and Head of Group Skills Strategy. He has also headed up technical operations at the Berkeley site, worked in Japan on the Nuclear Fuel Programme and sat on various regional, national and international nuclear R&D Committees and Advisory Boards.

After leaving BNFL in 2006, Paul co-founded the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester and was Executive Director. More recently he was a member of the Technical Advisory Panel for the Weightman report into the Fukushima incident.

His career started on the European Fusion Programme in Oxfordshire where he gained his PhD in Applied Nuclear Physics, he also has a first degree in Physics and Astrophysics and an MBA.

János GAdó graduated at the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, in 1969, as a physicist. In 1999 he became Doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He is titular professor at the Budapest University for Technology and Economics.

J. Gadó has been working in the KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute from 1969. Between 1990 and 2012 he was Director of the Institute and now he works as a scientific advisor of the Director. His scientific activity was concentrated on reactor physics, especially on computational modelling. He was the Project Manager of the AGNES project (1991-1994) that reassessed the safety of the Paks NPP. As a consequence of the conclusions of the project, Paks NPP performed an extensive safety enhancement programme. J. Gadó is the head of the plant’s consultant team that prepared the feasibility study of power uprate of the NPP and the level 2 probabilistic risk assessment of the NPP. He chaired the advisory team controlling the preparation of the Final Safety Analysis Report of the NPP.

Ján

oS

GAd

Ó

188 189Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session twoSpeaker in the opening session

and Round table panelist

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER

ER

Julian has served as the Adviser to a UK House of Lords Select Committee examination of legislation on transgenic organisms in the environment within the European Union, and in 2000 spent a year with the United Nations Environment Programme as Director for Biosafety assisting developing countries to develop legislation to implement a multilateral environmental treaty - the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. He has extensive experience working on policy and legislation addressing scientific topics, especially risk assessment as well as encouraging innovation in developing and emerging countries. He has significant experience in Patent Law.

Julian KINDERLERER is President of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). The EGE is an independent, pluralist and multidisciplinary body comprising 15 individuals that advises the European Commission, Parliament and Council on ethics in connection with Community legislation or policies. They serve in a personal capacity and offer independent advice to the Commission, either at the Commission’s request or on our own initiative. The President of the EGE is elected by and from its members. The EGE membership includes scientists, lawyers, philosophers and theologians.

Julian Kinderlerer is a former Director of the Sheffield Institute of Biotechnology Law and Ethics at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, and was Professor of Biotechnology Law at Sheffield, having originally been a biochemist/molecular Biologist interested in comparative enzymology. Until recently he was Professor of Biotechnology and Society at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. He is Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Head of the IP Law Research Unit at the University of Cape Town.

Philippe JAmEt is ASN Commissionner. He is an Ingénieur civil des mines de Paris (a graduate from the Ecole des Mines de Paris). He also holds a Master of Science from the University of Minnesota (United States).

From 1974 to 1993, Philippe Jamet performed safety research within the CEA (French Atomic Energy Commission) in structural mechanics, thermal behaviour of structures and thermo-hydraulics.

From 1993 to 2007, he worked for the IRSN (Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety) where he occupied various positions. In 1995, he was appointed Head of the Safety Assessment Department, where he was responsible for the safety assessment of all the French nuclear facilities. In 2003 he became Deputy Director-General for the Institute.

From 2007 to 2010, he was Director of the Division of Nuclear Installation Safety at the IAEA.

Philippe Jamet was appointed ASN Commissioner by Presidential decree on 15 December 2010.

pHIL

IppE

JAM

ET

190 191Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Round table panelist

pAU

L KR

UEG

ER

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Lecturer for military strategy and doctrine at the Military Leadership School and Swiss Military Academy / National Institute of Technology

Lecturer for Strategy and Strategic Intelligence at the Technological University of Lucerne.

Former Chief Planning Division Swiss Armed Forces, Responsible for Strategic Architecture / Methods and conceptual framework development

Paul KRUEGER

Director Strategic Security and Intelligence SCALARIS ECI AG Switzerland

Advisor for Strategic Crisis Management Swiss Federal Administration

Lecturer for Strategy at the Military Academy and the General Staff College Swiss Armed Forces

ACADEMIC PREPARATION

B S in Military Science from the Swiss National Institute of Technology

MS in Geopolitics from the University of Kansas, USA

Graduate from Command and General Staff College US Armed Forces

Jørgen K. KJEMS is trained as a condensed matter physicist and had as such a distinguished career at Risø National Laboratory in Denmark, where he joined the laboratory management as Scientific Director in 1988.

He became the Managing Director of the Laboratory in 1997. Risø National Laboratory merged with the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and four other government research institutes in 2007. Jørgen K. Kjems served as a member of the management team at DTU until the end of 2008 with responsibility for energy programmes and international affairs. In 2009 he formed Kjems R&D Consult as Owner and Director, and acts as a senior advisor to universities, ministries and international organisations. He is a member of the STC since 1997 and has also served on the Advisory Group on Energy until this year.

Jørgen K. Kjems is author and co-author of about 150 scientific papers published in national as well as international scientific periodicals.

JøRG

En K

JEM

S

Speaker in Session one

192 193Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session two Speaker in Session two

pATR

ICIA

Lo

REn

z

Patricia LORENz completed her Master´s degree in interpretation with focus on NPP terminology in Vienna and specialised in nuclear energy.

In 1993 she started to work with the Austrian Environmental Organization Global 2000 (now Friends of the Earth Austria). She focused on the nuclear power plants surrounding Austria: Temelin in the Czech Republic, Mochovce and Bohunice, both in the Slovak Republic.

In 2000 Patricia Lorenz joined Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels and started the Abolish EURATOM campaign. In 2002 Patricia Lorenz organised the FoEE EURATOM conference in the European Parliament.

She also gained expertise and campaigned on many other nuclear issues: nuclear liability, nuclear safety, and participated in several EIA/ESPOO processes and represents FoEE on EU level. In her current work she focuses on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the field of nuclear energy and EURATOM, stress tests, final repositories in Europe.

Wolfgang LIEBERT studied physics and philosophy at German universities. Dissertation in theoretical physics. 1999-2012 Scientific Director of the Interdisciplinary Research Group in Science, Technology and Security (IANUS) of Darmstadt University of Technology. Currently Head of the Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences (ISR) of the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU) in Vienna (Austria).

Main research interests: nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament; prospective technology assessment; assessment of nuclear research and technology; philosophy of science.

Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

194 195Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in the opening sessionChairperson of Session two

JAM

ES Ly

on

S

Jim LYONS is the Director of the Division of Nuclear Installation Safety at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria.

The Division of Nuclear Installation Safety is responsible for the development of the IAEA safety standards relevant to nuclear installation safety. In addition, the division provides advisory and peer review services that are directly related to the areas addressed by the safety standards, such as the operation, design and siting of nuclear power plants, governmental organisation, research reactors and fuel cycle facilities. The division is responsible for the secretariat of the Convention on Nuclear Safety and is a major contributor to training and capacity building activities performed by the IAEA for countries embarking on nuclear power or expanding their existing fleet.

Jim Lyons started at the IAEA on 1 March 2011, and was a key contributor to the IAEA’s response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Prior to joining the IAEA, Jim Lyons had a 29-year career at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, retiring as the Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,

Philip LOWE is Director-General of DG Energy (ENER) at the European Commission.

Philip Lowe was born in Leeds in 1947. He read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at St John’s College, Oxford and has an M. Sc. from London Business School. Following a period in the manufacturing industry, he joined the European Commission in 1973, and held a range of senior posts as Chef de Cabinet and Director in the fields of regional development, agriculture, transport and administration, before becoming Director-General of the DG DEV in 1997.

From September 2002 he was Director-General of the DG COMP until he took up his current appointment as Director-General of the DG ENER in February 2010.

pHIL

Ip L

oW

E

196 197Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Moderator in Session two Speaker in Session one

Joz

EF M

ISA

K

Jozef MISAK is Vice-President of engineering and research organisation UJV Rež, Czech Republic, mainly involved in development of strategy and nuclear safety coordination for major projects. He has 42 years of nuclear experience, including many years in research.

He was first Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority in Slovakia and a head of safety development at the International Atomic Energy Agency. For the European stress tests following Fukushima he was a member of the governing board and led the severe accident management work.

He is a member of regulatory advisory bodies in Armenia, Slovakia and Ukraine and on the board of the EU’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform. He holds a PhD degree from the Czech Technical University in Prague.

Ann MACLACHLAN is European Bureau Chief of Platts Nuclear Publications, based in Paris, France.

She joined the Nuclear Publications in 1982 after seven years as a reporter and Managing Editor with King Publications in Washington, DC and Paris.

With King’s Energy Daily in Washington, Ann Maclachlan covered all types of energy production, consumption, policy, and international relations during an era of intense activity. In Europe beginning in 1981, she also covered the defense and metals fields.

In 2000, McGraw-Hill’s Nuclear Publications - which include Nucleonics Week, NuclearFuel, Inside NRC and Nuclear News Flashes - became part of Platts, McGraw-Hill’s energy and commodities information division. As European Editor and then European Bureau Chief, Ann Maclachlan has written countless articles on nuclear energy in Europe and beyond and participated in numerous conferences.

Ann Maclachlan was made a Knight in the French Legion d’Honneur in 2001.

An

n M

ACL

ACH

LAn

198 199Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Closing sessionSpeaker in Session one

Gün

THER

oET

TIn

GER

Günther H. OETTINGER is European Commissioner for Energy since 10 February 2010. From 2005-2010, he was Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg (Germany) and, since 1984, a member of the regional Parliament (“Landtag”). He was the leader of the CDU Landtag group from January 1991 to April 2005.

A lawyer by training, Günther H. Oettinger became actively involved in politics during his adolescence. He is a member of the Federal Executive Committee and of the Steering Committee of the CDU Deutschlands.

William NUTTALL is Professor of energy at The Open University, in the UK, which he joined in October 2012 from Cambridge University, where he had taught technology policy for 10 years. His career has taken him from experimental physics (PhD MIT, USA 1993) to technology policy with an emphasis on nuclear energy.

At Cambridge he was on the management committee of the Electricity Policy Research Group; he is now an associate researcher. He is author of Nuclear renaissance – technologies and policies for the future of nuclear power (Taylor and Francis, 2005). He serves on the competitiveness sub-group of the European Nuclear Energy Forum and on the scientific advisory board of Next Generation Infrastructures in the Netherlands.

WIL

LIA

M n

UTT

ALL

200 201Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in the opening sessionSpeaker in Session two

JEA

n-p

oL

pon

CELE

T

Jean-Pol Poncelet was Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence and Minister of Energy in the Belgian Government from 1995 to 1999 and an elected Member of Parliament from 1991 to 2001.

Previously, he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of ONDRAF, the Belgian Nuclear Waste Agency. His professional career started with BelgoNucleaire, a nuclear engineering company. He later served as a researcher and a lecturer in renewable energy and environment.

Jean-Pol Poncelet, a Member of the Belgian Royal Society, earned a Master’s Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the École Polytechnique de Louvain (Belgium) in 1973.

Jean-Pol PoNCELEt is Director-General of Foratom, the Trade Association of European Nuclear Industry, and Secretary General of the European Nuclear Society.

He was AREVA’s Senior Vice-President Sustainable Development and Continuous Improvement from 2008 to 2011, having joined AREVA in February 2006 as an Advisor to the CEO, Anne Lauvergeon.

From 2001 to 2005, he was Director of Strategy and External Relations of the European Space Agency (ESA).

marjatta PALmu is Senior Adviser at Posiva Oy, Finland. She joined Posiva in August 2002 from HELIA School of Vocational Teacher Education where she educated vocational teachers as a Principal Lecturer.

Mrs Palmu acted as the Project coordinator for the Euratom FP7 Secretariat project of the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste - Technology Platform and she has been a member in the authoring working groups of each of the IGD-TP platform’s founding documents i.e. the Vision, the Strategic Research Agenda and the Deployment Plan.

Mrs Palmu has worked as an expert in the field of rock engineering, education and training, and in geological disposal of radioactive waste over 30 years.

She has recently served as an expert member in the Committee for Nuclear Energy Competence in Finland established by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy.

She continues to serve in the Finnish Nuclear Competence Group and as the other Finnish representative in the Senior Advisory Group of the European Human Resource Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector (EHRO-N), an initiative by the European Nuclear Energy Forum. She has recently contributed to the Nuclear Working Group of the European Energy Training Initiative’s Assessment Report and chairs the IGD-TP’s Competence Maintenance, Education and Training Working Group (CMET).

MA

RJA

TTA

pA

LMU

202 203Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session two Speaker in Session two

JAcQ

uES

REP

uSS

AR

D

Jacques REPUSSARD graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique and the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, in Paris. He spent the first part of his career in the French civil service, at the Ministry for Industry. He was involved in the EU negotiations leading to the opening of the European internal market, and in 1991 was appointed in Brussels as Chief Executive Officer of the European Standards Organization, with the mission of developing the thousands of harmonised standards that were necessary to operate effectively the new internal market.

In 1997, he took up the position of Deputy Director-General of the Institute for Industrial Risks and the Environment.

In 2003, he was appointed as Director-General of the newly created French TSO, responsible for research and expertise in the fields of nuclear safety, security and non proliferation, and radiation protection, IRSN.

Jacques Repussard is also currently President of ETSON, the European TSO network, and of MELODI, the European association for research on the effects of low dose ionising radiation.

At Georgia Tech, he launched the National Electric Energy Test, Research and Application Center, NEETRAC, and served as its Director and Management Board Chair.

Later, Teddy Püttgen served as President and CEO of Georgia Tech Lorraine, the European campus of Georgia Tech located in France.

He graduated from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, EPFL. He also holds graduate degrees in Business Administration and Management from the University of Lausanne. His PhD, in Electrical Engineering, is from the University of Florida.

Teddy Püttgen, who is a Fellow of IEEE, served as President of the Power Engineering Society of IEEE in 2004 and 2005.

HA

nS

püTT

GEn

Hans B. (Teddy) PüttGEN is Director of the Energy Center at EPFL (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne) since April 2006.

Before that, Professor Püttgen was Georgia Power Professor and Vice Chair for External Affairs in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech).

204 205Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session twoSpeaker in the opening session

ULL

A S

IRKE

InEn

ulla SIRKEINEN, MSc (Eng), is Member of the European and Economic Committee and acts as Vice-President of the Section for Transport, Energy and Networks (TEN).

She has several times been rapporteur on energy issues, including nuclear. After an early career in administration of international technology cooperation she acted 1992-1995 as Counsellor for industry and energy at the Permanent Representation of Finland to the OECD. 1983-1992 and 1995 onwards she was Director at the Confederation of Finnish Industries in charge of technology policy, industrial policy and later energy policy. 2005-2010 she headed the Confederation’s EU office in Brussels. She is member of the Swedish Academy of Technical Sciences in Finland.

Whilst Director in charge of General Affairs and Resources at Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, he was responsible for interinstitutional relations; enlargement and international relations; coordination of energy and transport research; internal market, state aids, infringements and public service obligations; passengers’ and users’ rights; central management of human and budgetary resources (2000-2006). Between 1996 and 1999, he was Director in charge of European Energy Policy at Directorate-General for Energy.

In the period 1990–1996 D. Ristori was in charge of transnational cooperation between SMEs at the Directorate-General for Enterprise policy.

D. Ristori graduated from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (1975).

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri

Dominique RISTORI is Director-General of the Joint Research Centre at the European Commission.

D. Ristori has been working in the European Commission since 1978 where he has held several positions. Prior to his current position, he was Deputy Directorate-General of the Director-General for Energy, in charge of nuclear energy policy, in particular the development of the EU legal framework and international relations (2006-2010).

206 207Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in the opening session Chairperson of the Concluding session

RoBE

RT-JA

n S

MIT

S

Before that Mr Smits was Director for the European Research Area: Research Programmes and Capacity at DG RTD, where his responsibilities included: coordination of national research programmes, cooperation with intergovernmental research organisations (EIROforum, EUREKA, COST), Research Infrastructures, the relations with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Structural Funds.

Mr Smits is chairing several high-level committees such as European Research Area Committee (ERAC) and the Steering Committee of the ERC (ERCEA).

Robert-Jan Smits was born in the Netherlands in 1958. He has degrees from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, Institut Universitaire d’Hautes Etudes Internationales in Switzerland and Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy in the United States of America.

Robert-Jan SMITS is Director-General of DG Research and Innovation (RTD) at the European Commission. In this capacity he is responsible for defining and implementing EU policy and programmes in the field of research and innovation (average annual budget EUR 8 billion).

His previous assignment was Deputy Director-General of DG JRC where he was responsible for Programmes and Stakeholder Relations, Resource Management, and three institutes, being the Institute for Energy, the Institute for Environment and Sustainability and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Peter SKINNER is the European Parliament rapporteur on the Euratom Framework report for 2020.

He was first elected as a Member of the European Parliament in 1994. He is a leading Member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee and has served on the committee for 16 years. In addition, he is a Member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

Peter Skinner plays a central role in the European Parliament’s relations with the United States as the European Parliament’s longest serving member on the Transatlantic Economic Council, which is part of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue.

Peter Skinner graduated from Bradford University as an Honours Graduate in Economics and Politics, and post-graduate studies at Warwick Business School. He is a Fellow of the University of Sunderland. He is also a qualified HR professional.

pETE

R S

KIn

nER

208 209Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Chairperson of Session one

VIC

ToR

TES

CHEn

do

RFF

Victor TESCHENDORFF Private consultant, Munich, Germany

Victor Teschendorff was a Division Head for reactor safety research in the nuclear safety company Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) until 2010. He received his diploma in mechanical and chemical engineering from the Technical University of Aachen (RWTH).

He was engaged in development and validation of simulation codes for nuclear reactor accidents and gained expertise in thermal-hydraulics, fuel behaviour and severe accident processes. He contributed to licensing cases in Germany and abroad. Until 2009 he was Chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations programme review group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency.

VLA

dIM

IR Š

UCH

A

He also worked as the Principal Advisor for European Affairs for the Minister of Education of the Slovak Republic (2004-2005). He covered research, education and culture portfolio for the Slovak Representation in the EU in Brussels from 2000 to 2004.

At the same time he has a long-term academic background - a full professorship of the Comenius University in Bratislava and lecturing at different institutions in many countries.

He used to be a member of many advisory and governing bodies at the national, European and international levels.

He is the author of about 100 peer reviewed publications.

Vladimir ŠUCHA is Deputy Director-General of the JRC at the European Commission.

Previously (2006-2012), he was a director at the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission.

Prior to that he worked as the Director of the Slovak Research and Development Agency (2005-2006), the Slovak national body for funding research, promoting international cooperation, research culture, and scientific advice.

Speaker in the Session one

210 211Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session one Speaker in Session two

FRA

nK-

pETE

R W

EISS

Frank-Peter WEISS graduated from the Physics Department of the Dresden Technical University and defended his doctoral thesis in nuclear reactor physics in 1986.

Until October 2010, Dr. WEISS had been Director of the Institute of Safety Research at Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf. There, he was responsible for accident analysis of nuclear reactors, the development of CFD codes, and the analysis of irradiation induced ageing effects of RPVs.

Dr. WEISS is Professor at the Mechanical Engineering Faculty of the Dresden Technical University where he lectures on methods for reliability and safety analysis.

In November 2010 he became Scientific-Technical Director of Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit.

Dr. WEISS serves as expert in reactor safety to the European Commission, the French CEA, and OECD CSNI. He is member of the German Reactor Safety Commission.

Professor WEISS is author and co-author of more than 350 publications in reviewed journals and conferences.

François WEISS is senior scientist at the French national centre for scientific research (CNRS) and a materials sciences specialist, focusing on superconducting and functional materials. He was director of the Materials Science and Physical Engineering Laboratory (LMGP) in Grenoble. He was until 2008 Vice-President for Research of the Grenoble Institute of Technology. Since 2009, he has helped to set up the sustainable energy company Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy, in the EU’s European Institute of Technology (EIT).

He was education officer for the French co-location centre, devoted to sustainable nuclear and converging technologies. He developed education within KIC InnoEnergy, setting up six international MSc schools and one PhD school with an emphasis on energy innovation and entrepreneurship.

FRA

nço

IS W

EISS

212 213Be

nefit

s an

d lim

itatio

ns o

f nu

clea

r fiss

ion

rese

arch

for a

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

Speaker in Session one and Round table panelistRapporteur of Session two

JoH

n W

oo

d

John WOOD CBE, FREng is the Secretary-General of the Association of Commonwealth Universities and Visiting Professor of materials at Imperial College London. Apart from academic appointments at the Open, Nottingham Universities and Imperial College he was Chief Executive of the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils 2001-2007.

He was a founder member of the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures and became Chair in 2004. He chaired the European Research Area Board in 2008-2011 and remains a member of the European Research and Innovation Area Board. He chaired the Commission’s High Level Group on the future of Scientific Data.

He was elected as a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in 1999. He was made a Commander of the British Empire in 2007 for “services to science”, and in 2010 was made an “Officer of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany”.

Gerd H. WOLF is presently Vice-President of section TEN of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). There he has been rapporteur of numerous “Opinions” – mainly on energy and on research policy – intended to advise EU Parliament, Council and Commission.

After his studies and thesis at the Technical University Munich in Technical Physics, he started a career in plasma-physics at the Munich Max-Planck-Institute for Physics (Heisenberg). In 1975 he became Director at the Institute for Plasmaphysics (now “for Energy Research”) at Research Centre Jülich and later both, Professor for Experimental Physics at Düsseldorf University and Head of the Jülich Fusion Project; being Emeritus from these tasks since 1999.

He is author of many scientific publications and acted on many advisory and other scientific committees, recently becoming associate member of the Academie Royale de Belgique. In 2005, he received the order of merit (1.class) of the Federal Republic of Germany.

GER

d W

oLF

Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low-Carbon EconomySymposium Speeches

2013 Symposium



Speeches

216 217

S y n t h e s i s R e p o r t S p e e c h e s

2013 SymposiumBenefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low-carbon economy / Defining priorities for Euratom fission research & training (Horizon 2020) Speeches

EESC is hosting all speeches, presentations and web streaming related to the event including copy of the documentation published is there: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

Robert Jan Smits 217 Dominique Ristori 218 Stéphane Buffetaut 223 Julian Kinderlerer 225 James Lyons 232 Jean-Pol Poncelet 235 Peter Skinner 239 Vladimir Sucha 242 Hamid Ait Abderrahim 243 John Wood 253 William D’Haeseleer 258 Paul Krueger 262 Francois Weiss 268 Q&A Session 1, Panel 1 273

Panel 1 Victor Teschendorff 275 Jozef Misak 279 William Nuttall 283 Richard Adams 286 Q&A Session 1, Panel 2 290

Panel 2 Hans Puttgen 294 Jacques Repussard 301 Paul Horwarth 305 Marjatta Palmu 310 Janos Gado 313 Thierry Dujardin 316 Q&A Session 2, Panel 3 321

Panel 3 Roland Egger 322 Philippe Jamet 325 Wolfgang Liebert 330 Frank Peter Weiss 337 Ulla Sirkinen 340 Q&A Session 2, Panel 4 343

Panel 4 Round Table Concluding Session 345 Richard Adams 346 Gerd Wolf 353 Symposium Final Conclusions 363 Richard Adams 364 Gunther Oettinger 365

Ladies and Gentlemen,• It is my great pleasure to bid you all a warm

welcome to this important event.

• On 28 June 2011 the EU Council requested that the European Commission should “organise a symposium in 2013 to contribute to the debate on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy. The symposium (should be) prepared by an interdisciplinary study involving, inter alia, experts from the fields of energy, economics and social sciences”. The Commission was pleased to take up this mandate.

• In addition to this, the preparation of the Symposium benefitted of a second input. Following the request of Member States that indicated the need of a broad discourse on ethical issues and sustainable energy mix, the president of the European Commission requested on 19 December 2011 the Opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New technologies (EGE) to “contribute to the debate on a sustainable energy mix in Europe by studying the ethical impact of research on different energy sources on human well-being”. The EGE had accepted this request and decided to focus on the ethical aspects of the use of different energy sources in Europe, as foreseen in the EGE remit.

• On this basis, we have worked closely with our colleagues in the Economic and Social Committee to put together a programme which will facilitate an open debate. I trust that this conference will provide very constructive and important advice vis-à-vis future research needs for a sustainable, secure, reliable and competitive energy mix, including nuclear fission.

• The Programme for this symposium represents a broad cross-section of stakeholders and concerned parties from across Europe. I am convinced that this will stimulate the debate in all its nuances.

• The opening session will set the scene; in the session one you will hear the recommendations of the experts who worked during several months to identify the major issues; the session two will allow the expression of the different views of stakeholders; finally, the last session will try to conclude and synthesize the major ideas stemming out from this symposium.

• I would like to take this opportunity to warmly thank the contributors of the Study on Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Research for a Low Carbon Economy, as well as the European Group on Ethics, for their time and dedication.

• I would encourage all conference participants to contribute to the discussions. You should not be afraid to tackle the questions posed and to address the concerns of the citizen so that the EU research efforts can be steered in the right direction. Your views are instrumental in shaping the political vision for the future of nuclear fission research in Europe.

• This is a complex topic, which deserves a priority analysis, and I would already like to thank you all for the attention you have given and will give to this delicate issue.

• I will now pass the floor to Mrs BATUT, member of the European Social and Economic Committee, who will chair the opening session.

RoBE

RT JA

n S

MIT

SOPENING SESSIONThe European and wider context, 26 February, 10 am to 12 am

Welcome Speech Robert Jan Smits, Director-General, DG Research

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

218 219


The European Science and Energy landscapeAddress by Dominique Ristori Director-general JRCBrussels, 26 February

Dominique RISTORI is Director-General of the Joint Research Centre at the European Commission.

D. Ristori has been working in the European Commission since 1978 where he has held several positions. Prior to his current position, he was Deputy Directorate-General of the Director-General for Energy, in charge of nuclear energy policy, in particular the development of the EU legal framework and international relations (2006-2010).

Whilst Director in charge of General Affairs and Resources at Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, he was responsible for interinstitutional relations; enlargement and international relations; coordination of energy and transport research; internal market, state aids, infringements and public service obligations; passengers’ and users’ rights; central management of human and budgetary resources (2000-2006). Between 1996 and 1999, he was Director in charge of European Energy Policy at Directorate-General for Energy.

In the period 1990–1996 D. Ristori was in charge of transnational cooperation between SMEs at the Directorate-General for Enterprise policy.

D. Ristori graduated from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (1975).

Dear Robert-Jan, Mme la Présidente, Members of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to address today three main points:

First: The Global and EU energy panorama;

Second: The role of Science and Innovation for the development of EU energy sector;

And Third: The key aspects for safe and secure resistant use of nuclear energy.

Let me start with the overview of the

I. Global and EU energy panorama.

Energy is fundamental for the development of our society. We cannot address however, energy in an isolated manner, but we need to think about energy in the context of the global challenges the

EU and the world are facing today and will be facing tomorrow: environment and climate changes, human health, growing population and growing needs of energy worldwide, need for increased safety and security and energy independence, growth and economic prosperity. In fact we need clean, secure and competitive energy.

In Europe, as well as at international level, we are reaching a turning point where we need to debate in an open and transparent manner, not only on the role of each possible source of energy options: e.g. renewable, nuclear, coal, oil, conventional and unconventional gas, but also on all aspects starting from energy production, and going to conversion, transportation networks, distribution, storage and efficient utilization.

1a) Global energy panorama

Recent scientific and economic studies clearly state that in the world:

• Energy demand and CO2 emissions will continue to rise worldwide, with energy markets being more and more influenced by emerging economies,

• Universal access to energy sources is still a pending issue.

The world energy demand is expected to in-crease by one third by 2035, with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60 % of the growth.

The proposed shift to low-carbon energy sources does not at this stage diminish the appetite for fossil fuels. The demand for oil and gas is increasing steadily.

What is new is the development of the renewable energy sources (RES) as well as the upstream technological developments to exploit unconventional oil and gas (shale gas, oil sands, fracking, and tight oil). This is obviously the case in the USA, which is developing its industrial competitiveness, but this is also affecting Europe indirectly. In Europe we are applying more the precautionary principle and use of shale gas is conditioned by its environmental acceptability.

Electricity will consolidate as a principal energy vector, and its demand will continue to increase by up to 70 %.

Nuclear energy continues to be an important source for electricity production. There are 437 nuclear power plants in operation in the world that produce around 13 % of the electricity needs.

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

nAround one third of it is generated in European nuclear power plants.

Worldwide there are 56 reactors under construction. Most of them in China (28), Russia (11), India (7), and Korea (4). But four of them are being built in Europe, and one in the USA.

Even though the accident in Fukushima has changed public perception and the nuclear energy policy in some countries, the overall contribution of nuclear electricity to the world’s energy needs will remain probably around the values of today, at least for the next two decades.

In this context, no region can isolate itself from the different relationships and influences of the diverse fuels, markets and prices. Today, political decisions to enhance the sustainability and security of energy supply, with appropriate measures for the protection of the environment, not only have a local or regional impact, but have a global effect.

1b) European energy panorama

Currently, 77 % of the energy consumed in the EU comes from fossil fuels, 13 % from nuclear, and the remaining 10 % from renewable sources. However, EUproductionisnotsufficient to cope with the demand, and Europe has to import around 53 % of the energy it needs.Of course these aggregated data doesn’t reflect the diversity of situations in the Member States. As an illustration, the Netherlands is a net exporter of natural gas, while 12 other Member States have to import more than 90 % of the gas they need. The current energy system in Europe:

a) Relies too much on fossil fuels, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions that are not compatible with the global objective of limiting climate change to a 2ºC temperature increase.

b) Is too much dependent on external sup-pliers, as the EU imports over 83 % of its oil and around 64 % of its gas from a few countries in a competitive environment against increasingly demanding nations (i.e. China and India).

c) Is still not sufficiently competitive, withhigh energy prices and underinvestment.

The EU has therefore taken the initiative to ex-plore possible ways to achieve a reduction of the CO2 emissions without compromising its com-petitiveness.

If correctly implemented, these options could result in reduction of CO2 emissions up to 80% - 95% below the levels of 1990 while maintaining EU energy policy objectives of sustainability, security of supply, and competitiveness, by 2050.

But we all know that we need a common European will to do so; building a common European Energy policy is one of the biggest challenges I see in front of us. Different scenarios have been analysed at the European level, and are presented in the Energy Roadmap 2050. These scenarios aim to develop a long-term European technology-neutral framework within which national energy policies can be more effective. (The choice of energy mix being a national competence)

In this context I would like to underline some aspects:

• Around 50% of all current electricity generation plants (oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro) will reach the end of their service life and need to be renewed in the two coming decades. Accordingly it will be important to invest in generation, as well as transmission and distribution networks (supergrid and smart grid).

• Currently, around half of the European electricity is generated from low carbon technologies and this is very important since the electricity will have to play a much greater role, and it is estimated that low carbon electricity (Renewable Energy Sources – nuclear) will continue to increase its share possibly up to 75 % by 2030.

• The electricity prices for industry in Europe are presently approximately 40% higher than in the US. The situation between Member States is also very diversified, if you compare for instance France and Finland on the one hand, with Italy and Spain on the other hand.

• Energy savings throughout the system are crucial. These are needed not only to achieve the objectives of the Energy 2020 strategy, but also to reduce the EU energy dependence on sources abroad.

• Nuclearenergyremainsasignificantsourceof low carbon electricity generation in the countries that have decided to have nuclear in their energy mix.

1c) Nuclear Energy in Europe

Since we are debating today on the role of nuclear for a low carbon society I would like to give you some facts and figures on nuclear.

• The EU has the largest number of Nuclear Power plants in the world: There are 132 operating nuclear power reactors. These nuclear reactors are a main source for low carbon electricity production, as they supplied last year about 30 % of the electricity in the EU without CO2 emissions. Currently nuclear energy is part of the energy mix of 14 of the 27 Member States.

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

220 221


• Since the accident of Fukushima in March 2011, public perception and nuclear energy policy in some Member States has changed. While some countries have decided to phase out nuclear energy, others continue to rely on it.

• Furthermore, about two thirds of the nuclear power plants in Europe will reach the end of their lives by 2025. Even though if a life extension is granted to part of them, decommissioning of nuclear power plants will become a priority and relevant activity in the next decades, with a market value in Europe estimated at more than 60 billion €.

II. Role of Science and Innovation

After having described the global and European energy panorama, I would like to draw your attention to the role of science and innovation in this context.Scientific developments are crucial for all aspects of energy: energy efficiency, energy grids and all energy sources.

This is true for basic and fundamental research but also for technological and industrial developments, which are the essential tools to face and overcome the energy challenges that are ahead of us.

Important efforts are made in the field of basic and fundamental research both for fusion and fission energy.

For fusion energy ITER represents a key challenge and one of the most important industrial research projects in the world.

For fission, EURATOM has been the framework in which, for more than 50 years, knowledge and competence in nuclear science and technology have been developed in Europe.

All European efforts to ensure safe and secure nuclear utilisation would not have been possible if Europe was not continuously maintaining high competence, underpinned by sound and advanced research.

We are looking now for further innovations and scientific solutions to address societal needs, covering safe operation of nuclear installations, efficient and effective decommissioning, safe waste reprocessing, responsible radioactive waste management and secure radioisotope production for medical applications.

In the field of nuclear power energy we need to avoid low cost options and ensure the development and the use of the best available techniques aiming at:

- increased safety and security

- minimised production and easier management of radioactive waste

- sustainability of nuclear fuel resources by more efficient use, and

- resistance to proliferation.

In the field of decommissioning we need to transfer the fundamental research into successful industrial projects while ensuring adequate training opportunities are available for this growing market.In the field of waste management we need to find innovative solutions that can help the society to understand issues linked to the waste disposal and agree on the acceptability of proposed solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen: keeping in mind that nuclear fission will remain a source of energy in Europe and in the rest of the world for at least the coming decades, it is crucial to maintain and further develop a framework to support joint cutting-edge research, knowledge creation and knowledge preservation on nuclear fission technologies in the EU.

It will only be possible to ensure the highest safety and security standards in the EU and globally if competence and technology leadership is maintained within the EU.III. Key aspects for future use of Nuclear Energy in Europe

The fundamental key aspects for future use of nuclear energy in Europe are twofold:

• Nuclear safety and security are absolute priorities; and

• transparency, public access to information, re-spect to ethical principles, as well as involve-ment of all key actors, are also fundamental.

a) Nuclear safety and nuclear security are absolute priorities

• Nuclear safety

Nuclear safety is an absolute priority for the EU – safety in construction, operation, decommissioning, and waste management. Safety at each and every stage of nuclear power utilization.

The EU has become the first major regional nuclear actor to provide binding legal rules concerning the main international nuclear safety standards. These are the Fundamental Safety Principles established by the IAEA and the obligations originating from the IAEA’s Convention on Nuclear Safety.

The Nuclear Safety Directive adopted by the Council on June 25th, 2009, establishes a common legal framework in the EU to protect workers

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri

and the general public. The Directive does this by strengthening the responsibility of the license holders, reinforcing the independence and resources of the national competent regulatory authorities, and requesting higher levels of transparency. This approach should be further developed both in Europe and at the international level.

I underline in this context the importance of the creation of the EU nuclear regulators’ group, proposed by the Commission, with the support from the European Council and the European Parliament. This Group includes for the first time nuclear regulators from nuclear and non-nuclear Member States.

At European level, we are supporting the Member States for harmonization of our approaches with the only objective of ensuring the highest safety standards for all European citizens and to promote the highest safety standards all over the world.

One of the common initiatives of the Commission and the MSs in this field is the European Clearinghouse on Nuclear Power Plants Operational Experience Feedback, operated by the Joint Research Centre, in which the best EU nuclear safety knowledge from EU regulators, technical support organisations and experts are brought together to exchange operating experience in nuclear incidents. Based on this experience, we are proposing to launch a European Nuclear Safety Laboratory that will support Member State’s efforts to improve safety. This will be open to all Member States and Regulators that would like to participate, benefiting from common activities.

• Nuclear Security and Non-proliferation

Security is also a key challenge.

The EU is the only region in the world that has agreed to have a common safeguards systems, facilitating an effective approach of non-proliferation and implementation of the Additional Protocol, I mean, control of declared as well as of undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

We are implementing the EC support programme to the IAEA in safeguards which is becoming the biggest support programme after the USA’s. These activities include training for both Euratom and IAEA inspectors.

In the field of nuclear security, scientific and technical support is provided to the implementation of the EU security plan inside the EU, but also outside its borders within the Instrument for Stability. The

JRC supports the technical implementation of the EU Regional CBRN centres of Excellence in many regions of the world.

In summary, the EU is helping the world to become safer and more secure. The EU leading role in this field was highly recognised during the Security Summit in Seoul last year, and we will continue to play a leading role for the 2014 Security Summit in the Netherlands.

b) Transparency, Public Access to Information, Respect to Ethical Principles and involvement of all key actors

I would also like to underline that nowadays nuclear energy and the nuclear sector should give consideration to transparency and the involvement of all key actors.

The solutions advocated by the governments, authorities and academia, need to pursue the benefit of the entire society. It is thus very important that the general public represented by its civil societies is kept well informed and given the opportunity to participate in the decision making as appropriate.

Our policy-makers need to ensure that our decisions are well and sufficiently explained, and based on solid scientific evidence. Policy-makers need to be involved in constructive public dialogues and ensure public access to information whenever possible.

This has to be connected to the full implementation of the Nuclear Safety and Waste Management Directives provisions, but should also be supported by additional initiatives such as in the context of the Aarhus Convention. The JRC is also supporting the European Parliament Nuclear Transparency Watch initiatives as well as local and national initiatives such as ANCLI.

I welcome the contribution to the debate within this symposium of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Its report, “an ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy” will be presented by M. Kinderleler later today.

The report addresses the ethical issues arising from the use of different energy sources within the EU, whilst achieving equilibrium between access rights, security of supply, safety and sustainability of energy, in the context of social, environmental and economic concerns and thus also contribute to transparency.

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

222 223


Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen,

I believe that the design of this Symposium, regrouping all key actors (such as NGOs, industry, academia, regulatory and public authorities) will stimulate interesting discussions, widen the scope and enrich the debate.

This will help to build a common ground for better policy making in particular on the absolute priorities of nuclear safety and security, waste management and decommissioning.

In any case we will need to preserve and further develop within the EU the knowledge, cutting-edge research, expertise and competence to successfully tackle these challenges.

At the same time we should make sure that we involve all key actors and ensure transparency. This is important because, at the end, energy is essential for our economies and contributes to our quality of life. Therefore it has to be seen as profitable to the whole society.

Thank you for your attention.

Do

miN

iQu

E R

iSTo

Ri Civil society and its relevance to research

and innovation on societal challenges Nuclear safety and safe RWM together with nuclear research must be a close partnership from the technical point of view but they must also address the concerns of the citizen and help their understanding of our complex, energy dependent world. Civil society is looking to the research community to make these issues both more understandable and more transparent. It means that research on social aspects of nuclear fissionlike for example human factor of nuclear safety or transparency and public engagement issues should receive well deserved attention. I am pleased that the research study took them into consideration and several social experts were asked for their opinions. The EESC, with its capabilities and its privileged links with civil society, intends to continue and indeed intensify its efforts to promote further transparency in relation to nuclear energy, through Richard Adams’ role as president of ENEF’s transparency group and by way of the opinions we produce and the conferences we organise. The Committee has proven expertise in participatory democracy and is ready to serve as the link to make the results of theEUresearchonnuclearfissionknownandunderstood by civil society and citizens.

The EESC’s possible role in thisfield shouldbe put in the context of its ongoing battle for transparency in the public debate on energy. The EESC has repeated on several occasions that all sources of energy are covered by the obligation of transparency. The transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy will require considerable research and development efforts, but also a radical change in our production and consumption patterns. These changes will inevitably have an impact on our way of life and work, and public opinion is not really prepared for this. More public debate and awareness-raising, as well as genuine transparency will help us bring the people of Europe, who are today rather unwilling to acknowledge the risks inherent in every form of energy, to understand that change more readily.

• Regarding the future directions for Euratom framework program and irrespective of possible future decisions by the Member States and the EU on the future use of nuclear fission energy production, the EESC feels it is imperative to prioritise the development and dissemination of our knowledge within the EU on safety issues and the associated technologies.

STép

HA

nE

BUFF

ETA

UT

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

Speech for Mr Stéphane Buffetaut

Members of the European Parliament,Ladies and Gentlemen,Honoured Guests,

First of all the European Economic and Social Committee congratulates the Council for the good decision on the organisation of this symposium preceded by an interdisciplinary study. The EESC thanks also the European Commission for giving a strong role for the EESC in this Symposium and in the guidance of the study. The Committee has been enthusiastic about playing this role for a very good reason. Although nuclear fission research has major roles in medical and other technical areas it is most often associated with energy, and energy is one of those subjects that affects everybody. We all need it, we all use it.

Energy use and economic development go hand-in-hand. It is vital to the development of civil society and to climate and environmental challenges ahead of us. The EESC has been arguing strongly for some years that how we produce our energy and the research that contributes to it should be discussed much more widely by the European citizen. The debate on nuclear fission research is in particular important before the decision-making process on the Euratom part of Horizon 2020 is finalised.

Energy that is accessible to all, that is secure, safe and competitive is the guiding principle. Built on the presentation of a comprehensive and well—researched study this Symposium is intended to be a dialogue about the limits and benefits of nuclear fission research.

Chernobyl and then Fukushima both provided a vital reality check on the safety of nuclear concerns that continue to be actively followed through by the ‘stress test’ process and its consequences. In addition, the concerns about radioactive waste management (RWM), safe and respective for future generation, remain one of the main preoccupations in the minds of citizens.

224 225


• The abandonment of comprehensive knowledge would be dangerous and tantamount to burying one’s head in the sand. For this reason and with a view to ensuring that knowledge about these technologies and their impact is not collectively forgotten, it is especially important to systematically and continuously train and support in sufficient numbers the future scientists and technicians needed here.

• The Committee stresses also that energy research as a proportion of funding for the R&D framework programmes has long ceased to reflect the fundamental importance of energy for society and the climate issues associated with this.

In ancient Greece a Symposium was just another name for a drinking party, although serious matters were often discussed. The person who introduced the Symposium was known as the ‘Symposiarch’ and they could decide the strength of the wine that was served. In the next two days some very strong wine will be set before us - matters relevant to the make-up of the European energy mix. We need to have clear heads so our conclusions reflect the implications of this topic - nothing less than our commitment to research and its role in the economic and global future of Europe.

This is what this Symposium will try to achieve and we all hope it is successful.

I wish you a constructive, open debate.


STép

HA

nE

BUFF

ETA

UT

An ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy

Opinion 27

“On June 28th 2011 the Competitiveness Council reached a political agreement on the Commission proposal for nuclear research and training programme for 2012-2013. Although the Council's discussion has been successfully concluded, it was felt that a broad discourse on ethical issues and sustainable energy mix in Europe should take place”

2-Apr-13 2

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER

EREthical impact of research on different energy sources on human well being

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

226 227


2-Apr-13 3

The EGE is an independent, pluralist and multidisciplinary body advising the European Commission on ethics in science and new technologies in connection with Community legislation or policies. The EGE members serve in a personal capacity and are asked to offer independent advice to the Commission

•  address the ethical issues arising from energy use within the EU energy agenda, mix of energy, consequences for the future, energy policy and regulation

•  identify the ethical criteria on the manner in which decisions concerning research on sources of energy (in view of the Council’s decision) are to be taken on an informed basis and the implications arising from the use of energy in different areas

•  propose an integrated ethics framework for the purpose of addressing the ethical issues related to the production, use, storage and distribution of energy

•  identify the ethically relevant areas of energy research

2-Apr-13 4

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER

ER

1.  Respect for human dignity and human rights, among them the right to health care and a safe environment, the right to access to energy as an important condition for basic human flourishing , the right to active democratic participation in the decision-making processes regarding energy policies and the right to transparency and information;

2.  Justice including distributive, social, political, and intergenerational justice;

3.  Solidarity identifies the shared responsibility and concern for EU and global welfare, which calls for cooperation in order to achieve the goal of securing the well-being of present and future generations;

2-Apr-13 5

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Every decision that a country takes on energy sources is ultimately based on society’s value judgments, over and above technical and economic considerations.

2-Apr-13 6

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER


Ethical impact of research on different energy sources on human well being

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

228 229


Ethical considerations are integral to the formulation of energy policy

This ethical analysis requires that the production systems being considered should be compared on the same basis using identical criteria. The analysis cannot only consider economic issues, but must consider the impact that may occur during the entire lifecycle of the system and this should encompass the impact on the environment and on communities and the implications of the use (or indeed cessation of use) of a particular energy source.

2-Apr-13 7

2-Apr-13 8

1.  Access to energy 2.  Security of EU energy supply 3.  Sustainability 4.  Safety

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER

ER

2-Apr-13 9

Access ‘Energy poverty’ reduces or even threatens people’s wellbeing, e.g. by reducing their chances to flourish and participate in social and economic life.

2-Apr-13 10

Security of Supply The goal of security of supply entails not only reducing import dependency but also increasing supply diversity and the stability of the electricity and gas grids.

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER



opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

230 231


2-Apr-13 11

Security of Supply •  solidarity in energy policies (no country can

resolve the energy production issues on its own); •  dependency and vulnerability: the energy mix

should not depend on one source alone; •  the need for energy to be produced safely, in an

environmentally and socially acceptable manner and at competitive prices;

•  mechanisms for sourcing energy should not adversely impact on food or water security;

2-Apr-13 12

Sustainability The challenge is to build a responsible energy future through sustainable development which means helping to meet the world’s growing energy needs in economically, environmentally and socially responsible ways

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER

ER

2-Apr-13 13

Safety A comprehensive concept of risk and safety includes the dimensions of security of supply and economic stability as well as environmental protection. Environmental, economic, social and technical risks are closely interlinked. All the risks involved in all sources of energy must be adequately evaluated, assessed and communicated to society

JULI

An

KIn

dER

LER



opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

232 233


Importance of EU R&d for nuclear fission safety, safeguards and security26-27 February 2013 Opening SessionBrussels, Belgium

European Commission European Economic and Social Committee

Mr James Lyonsdirector Division of Nuclear Installation Safety Department of Nuclear Safety and SecurityInternational Atomic Energy Agency

Welcome and Introduction

Good morning. This is a very timely symposium. I want to congratulate the European Commission and the European Economic and Social committee for bringing together the important constituents to focus on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy. I’ve been asked to speak to the importance of EU R&D for nuclear fission safety, safeguards and security.

Last month, senior officials from the EU and the IAEA met here in Brussels for a first ever high-level meeting to discuss enhanced cooperation between the institutions.

The meeting addressed on-going cooperation and common goals of both institutions in the areas of Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, Nuclear Applications, Technical Cooperation, Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Safeguards.

Priorities, areas for future work and possible deepening of collaboration, coordination and enhanced visibility were discussed in many areas, including expanding cooperation in Science, Research and Innovation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is up to each individual country to decide whether or not to make nuclear power part of its energy mix. But if a country decides to do so, the IAEA helps it to build and operate nuclear power plants safely, securely, efficiently and profitably. Helping countries to introduce nuclear power, or to expand existing programmes, is an important part of our work at the IAEA.

When I came to the IAEA two years ago, there was much talk of a global nuclear renaissance. Dozens of countries were thinking about introducing nuclear power and many of the 30 or so existing users planned to build additional plants.

Then, ten days after I started as Director of Nuclear Installation Safety, the Fukushima Daiichi accident occurred. It caused profound public anxiety and damaged confidence in nuclear power. Some people predicted that nuclear power would go into decline.

However, the evidence suggests that this will not be the case because the drivers for nuclear energy have not changed.

While some European countries have announced plans to move away from nuclear power—globally, however, nuclear power looks set to continue to grow steadily, although more slowly than we expected before the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

JAM

ES Ly

on

S There are 437 operating nuclear power reactors in the world today. The latest IAEA projections, which are based on what Member States tell us, suggest that number could increase by 80 or 90 in the next 20 years.

There are 67 new reactors currently under construction. The main growth in the coming decades is expected in countries such as China and India, which are already major users of nuclear power.

South Africa plans to build more reactors in the coming decades. A number of other countries have taken the decision to introduce nuclear power, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Poland and Vietnam. A new nuclear power plant is under construction in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is the first country in 27 years to start building its first nuclear power plant.

We know that nuclear power offers many benefits. It can help to improve energy security, reduce the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices, mitigate the effects of climate change and make economies more competitive. These are the main reasons which new countries tend to give for wanting nuclear power plants.

Nuclear energy also has important non-electric applications such as seawater desalination, district heating and heat for industrial processes.

In June this year, we will hold an International Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Power in the 21st Century in St. Petersburg, Russia. It will provide a valuable opportunity to consider nuclear power’s long-term contribution to sustainable development.

We also know that the safe management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel remain key issues. The nuclear industry has been managing interim waste disposal successfully for more than half a century. While no long-term disposal facility has so far become operational for nuclear spent fuel, the attention and expectations of the nuclear community are now focussed on three countries that have taken the lead in this area: Sweden, Finland and France, which plan to start geological disposal in their countries between 2020 and 2025.

The EC’s Joint Research Centre is investigating aspects of different high-level waste management strategies with the aim of preventing the release of radio-nuclides in the environment over a very long time scale.

The IAEA is providing safety standards and guides for radioactive waste management, and supports Member States in developing policies and strategies for managing radioactive waste and spent fuel.


The lasting legacy of the Fukushima Daiichi accident will be a much more intense global focus on safety.

The accident was a wake-up call for everyone involved in nuclear power - a painful reminder that safety can never be taken for granted, even in an advanced nuclear power country.

A few months after the accident, our Member States adopted an IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, which is now being implemented.

One of the 12 actions in the plan is to effectively utilize research and development.

The Action Plan calls on relevant stakeholders to conduct necessary research and development in nuclear safety, technology and engineering and for the IAEA Secretariat to utilize the results of research and development and to share them, as appropriate, to the benefit of all of our Member States. The EC’s Joint Research Centre already has programmes for enhancing the safety of existing and future reactors, including fuel safety, and the health effects of low radiation doses.

And, as you probably know, the Fukushima Task Group of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform issued a report on the, Identification of Research Areas in Response to the Fukushima Accident last month. The Task Group concluded that completely new research directions are not needed, but that specifying and updating priorities in certain areas is appropriate. This is the type of activity that the Action Plan on Nuclear Safety envisioned and we look forward to the results being shared with the international community.

Another area I want to touch on is the area of Safeguards.

The IAEA is best known to the public for our work in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. IAEA inspectors are constantly on the road, visiting all types of nuclear facilities throughout the world to verify that nuclear material is not being diverted from peaceful purposes.

EC-IAEA R&D cooperation and EC material contribu-tions to the Agency’s safeguards analytical services are very significant. EU member state experts and scientists in the Joint Research Centre (JRC) have been consulted along the way in the design of the IAEA’s new Nuclear Material Laboratory (NML) build-ing and the site’s physical protection concept, and the EU (the Commission, Directorate General for De-velopment) has contributed € 10 million over two years to sponsor the construction and outfitting of specialized areas within the NML.

JAM

ES Ly

on

S

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

234 235


Examples of some specific R&D cooperation include:

The JRC’s Institute of Trans Uranium Elements (ITU) is a key laboratory of the Safeguards Network of Analytical Laboratories for nuclear material and environmental swipe sample analysis and has recently brought into a service a large geometry secondary ion mass spectrometer for this purpose. ITU has developed an innovative in-the-field destructive analysis method and made it available to IAEA inspectors to perform in-situ analysis of the concentration and enrichment of U fuel pellets.

The JRC’s Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) takes an active part in the on-going quality control programme for the safeguards analytical services. These activities are important contributors to the overall Analytical Laboratory’s quality control and assure a high level of analytical performance in terms of accuracy, precision and dependability for the evaluation of Safeguards samples.

IRMM also developed a superior technique to measure isotope ratios of uranium samples, which in combination with a new generation of certified reference materials, is now in use at the Agency’s Nuclear Material Laboratory.


In recent years, world leaders have given considerable attention to the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Agency plays a central role in strengthening nuclear security. Our work focuses on helping to minimize the risk of nuclear and other radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists, or of nuclear facilities being subjected to malicious acts.

We help countries to put laws and regulatory infrastructure in place to protect nuclear and other radioactive material. We also help them to strengthen physical security at nuclear, industrial or medical facilities where such material is stored, or while it is being transported.

Additionally, the IAEA and EC are cooperating under the EU Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Action Plan. Under the plan, the EU―in coordination with its MS and the IAEA―conducted a review of the IAEA’s Incident and trafficking Database (ITDB). Those areas identified for improvement included both the timeliness and completeness of reporting. In response the Joint Research Centre (through Institute for TransUranium Elements) is preparing a Best Practices document for use by EU MS; and is assisting the IAEA with the development of a web based platform for the submission of trafficking related information. This support will significantly improve the quality of the information flowing between the IAEA and MS.

The IAEA is also cooperating with the Joint Research Centre on cyber security.

Additional, to make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to traffic nuclear and radioactive material across borders the IAEA is providing detection equipment at border crossings and training border guards.

Nuclear security will be the focus of an important IAEA Ministerial Conference in Vienna in July this year. The outcomes of this conference will be reflected in the IAEA Nuclear Security Plan for 2014 – 2017.

In closing,

The IAEA is guided by our mandate, which is to contribute to the welfare and security of the world through peaceful nuclear technology, and to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

I am confident that the research and development being conducted by the EC will foster nuclear fission safety, safeguards and security and will deepen our collaboration and coordination, meeting the challenges and achieving the common goals of both the EU and the IAEA.

Thank you and I wish you a very good symposium and I am looking forward to productive, forward-thinking discussions.

JAM

ES Ly

on

S

Industry view of Nuclear Fission Research for a Low Carbon Economy Jean-Pol PONCELET DG Research Symposium, 26-27 February 2013

reactors in operation reactors under construction

2

2012: the achievements

2

JEA

n-p

oL

pon

CELE

TIndustryviewofEUnuclearfissionresearchfor a low-carbon economy

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

236 237


reactors in operation reactors under construction

135 (+) Operating Reactors 4 (+2) under Construction

800+ Companies 900,000 Jobs 70 G€/year

28 % EU Power 2/3 EU Low Carbon Electricity

3

2012: the achievements

3

New buid or lifetime extension

Nuclear phase out and/or nuclear ban

Phase out and lifetime extension

2012: a divided Europe

4

[internal analysis - 20% nuclear power share]

High nuclear vs. the global economy

6

JEA

n-p

oL

pon

CELE

T

New buid or lifetime extension

Nuclear phase out and/or nuclear ban

Phase out and lifetime extension

2012: a divided Europe • before March 2011:

56 % of EU citizens wanting nuclear energy to be maintained or increased [Eurobarometer on Nuclear Safety, April 2010]

•  in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and France, after a dip just after the accident, public acceptance of nuclear has recovered

UK: Support for Nuclear New Build

source: Ipsos MORI, 2012

5

JEA

n-p

oL

pon

CELE

TIndustryviewofEUnuclearfissionresearchfor a low-carbon economy

IndustryviewofEUnuclearfissionresearchfor a low-carbon economy

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

238 239


•  Powering European Economy •  Driving R&D

Cassini-Huyghens

Mars Rover Curiosity

•  Saving Lifes

Pb-212 against cancer

Nuclear: back to the dream

7

JEA

n-p

oL

pon

CELE

T IndustryviewofEUnuclearfissionresearchfor a low-carbon economy

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

pETE

R S

KIn

nER

European Parliament and the future of Fission

Peter Skinner MEP

2-Apr-13

EP and Euratom Framework

•  Although Parliament is one of main institutions it is often less involved in Euratom deciscions

•  As the directly democratic body Parliament is closer to public perceptions on nuclear fission

•  Parliament is involved in numerous aspects of EU nuclear issues; Horizon 2020, Stress Tests, ITER etc.

Views of the European Parliament on nuclear fissionresearch

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

240 241


pETE

R S

KIn

nER

•  EP firmly behind need to maintain 20% carbon

reduction target

•  Nuclear fission established as low-carbon technology under SET plan

•  Japan likely to fall behind, UK nuclear programme suffering from a lack of domestic investment

2-Apr-13 3

EP and Low-Carbon Future

Euratom and Horizon 2020

•  New under Horizon2020 – designed to reflect greater ambition for R&D across the board

•  Euratom report as part of Horizon 2020 covered a wide range of topics and gained massive support in ITRE Committee

•  Ought to be treated as Parliament’s opinion and an integral part of Horizon2020 framework even though not treated under co-decision


opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

pETE

R S

KIn

nER

Issues ahead

Only small budget increase under Horizon 2020 from FP7

No final say on Horizon2020 budget Parliament pressing ahead with other issues, such

as need to fund ITER, JET and fusion


Report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

(COM(2011)0812 – C7-0009/2012 – 2011/0400(NLE))

Committee on Industry, Research and EnergyRapporteur: Peter Skinner

Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-407&language=EN

opE

nIn

G SE

SSIo

n

242 243


SESSION ONE

Challenges and opportunities Introduction of Mr Sucha, Deputy Director of JRCRapporteur Mr Richard Adams from EESC

Speaking Points. Mr Sucha. Deputy Director General JRC.

1) Welcome and introduction to the session.

“Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to session one of this symposium, which aim at identifying the challenges and opportunities of nuclear research. This session is split in two panels, in which the main outcomes of the studyon“Benefitsandlimitationsofnuclearfission for a low carbon economy, definingpriorities for Euratom fission research andtraining (Horizon-2020)” will be presented. This multidisciplinary study, has been prepared by a group of independent experts with the objective of serving as a basis for the discussions in this symposium, as requested by the Council.

After each panel, we will have some time for questions and answers to our panelists.”

“Session one will start with some words by Professor Dr. Hamid Aït Abderrhaim, that will present an example of a multidisciplinary research and innovation project. Professor Abderrhaim is Deputy Director General of SCK•CEN, the Belgian Nuclear ResearchCentre and director of the MyRRHA project. Professor…”

2) Mr Sucha will call panelists of Panel 1 to the table, give the floor to each of them. Speakers of each panel are listed below.

PANEL 1 1) Professor John WOOD, Association of

Commonwealth Universities, UK, will present the recommendations and key messages of the study

2) Mr William D’HAESELEER, from the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven ) Belgium will speak about the EU Energy Policy and SET-Plan

3) Mr Paul KRUEGER, Director of Strategic Security and Intelligence SCALARIS ECI AG Switzerland, will present a strategic view of the security of energy supply

4) Mr François WEISS, Grenoble Institute of Technology and KIC InnoEnergy will speak about the European Research Area, Education and Training, and Skills

3) Question and answer session and coffee break.

After Panel 1 speakers have finalized, there is time until 15:30 to drive a question/answer session.

4) Mr Sucha will call panelists of Panel 2 to the table, giving the floor to each of them.

PANEL 2

5) Mr Victor Teschendorff, private consultant from Germany will speak about nuclear safety and security in EU and beyond.

6) Mr Jozef Misak, Nuclear Research Institute, Czech Republic, will give his view on science based policies and legislation.

7) Mr William Nuttall, from the Open University of UK will disert on people, quality of life, and environment.

8) Mr Richard Adams rapporteur of the session and co-chair of the European Nuclear Energy Forum and President of the European Economic and Social Committee’s European Energy Community group, (more information in Appendix 3) will summarise the inputs received in the forums set up in the website of this symposium.

5) Question and answer session and closure of the session.

After Panel 1 speakers have finalized, there is time until 18:00 to drive a question/answer session.

VLA

dIM

IR S

UCH

ASE

SSIo

n o

nE

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH

IM

Copyright © 2013 SCK•CEN

MYRRHA Multipurpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications

Contributing to the 3rd Pillar of the European Strategy for P&T

Prof. Dr. Hamid Aït Abderrahim SCK•CEN, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium [email protected] or [email protected]

Symposium on "Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy“

26-27 Feb. 2013, Brussels (BE)


What are the challenges for Nuc. R&D?

l Attract new talents and E&T them l Continue to address the nuclear safety through highly

instrumented experiments l Come with acceptable solution for nuclear waste l Develop new nuclear fission energy technologies: more

sustainable and compatible with future energy environment

l Prepare the path for the nuclear fusion energy production l Guarantee welfare of the population via nucl. Med.

Example of a multidisciplinary research and innovation project

SESS

Ion

on

E

244 245



What is MYRRHA? An Accelerator Driven System = Pan-European LRI

Reactor •  Subcritical or Critical modes

•  65 to 100 MWth

Accelerator (600 MeV - 4 mA proton)

Fast Neutron Source

Spallation Source

Lead-Bismuth coolant

Multipurpose Flexible

Irradiation Facility

Innovative &

Unique


Multipurpose LRI R&D facility

Multipurpose hYbrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications Waste

Fission GEN IV Fusion

Fundamental research

Silicon doping

Radio- isotopes

50 to 100 MWth ΦFast = ~1015 n/cm².s

(En>0.75 MeV)

Φ = 1 to 5.1014 n/cm².s (ppm He/dpa ~ 10)

in medium-large volumes

Material research ΦFast = 1 to 5.1014 n/cm².s

(En>1 MeV) in large volumes

Fuel research Φtot = 0.5 to 1.1015 n/cm².s

Φth = 0.5 to 2.1015 n/cm².s (En<0.4 eV) Φth = 0.1 to 1.1014 n/cm².s

(En<0.4 eV)

High energy LINAC 600 MeV – 1 GeV

Long irradiation time

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH

IM Example of a multidisciplinary research and innovation project

SESS

Ion

on

E


the innovation loop

Investing in R&D

infrastructure

Science = basic science

Technology = applied science

Services = sources of revenue

Attraction of

talents

World-class R&D

programmes

Outputs of

R&D

Attractiveness of R&D

in Belgium

MYRRHA

BR2

but after 50 years…

To attract new talents Importance of LRI in the innovation loop


Total impact on employment of the MYRRHA project

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

REFE

RENC

E

DESIG

N PH

ASE (2

009-

2011

)

SPEC

IFIC

ATIO

N (2

012-

2013

)

CONST

RUCT

ION (2

014-

2016

)

ON SI

TE A

SSEM

BLY (2

017)

COMMIS

SIONIN

G (201

8-20

19)

FULL

OPE

RATI

ON (2

020-

)N

um

ber

of

job

s (F

TE)

Low estimate High estimate

> 2,000 jobs created

Total 2.000 sustainable jobs (direct+indirect)

Investment 2010-2023 Operation > 2024

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH

IMExample of a multidisciplinary research and innovation project

SESS

Ion

on

E

246 247



Applications in ISOL@MYRRHA

Nuclear Physics

Astro-physics

Atomic Physics

Fundamental Interactions

Medical Applications

Day Week Month Year Typical Beam Time/Experiment

Condensed Matter

Chemistry

Biology

δ<r2

>, µ

, Q

Mas

ses

Decay (log ft, Pxn/yp)

Reactions (σ, B(E2), C2S)

QED tests in HCI

Rare decays: GTGR, βxn/yp, cluster decay, SHE Extreme precision: e.g., crystal spectrometry

Prototyping Ft values,

Correlations (β-ν,…), EDM

Correlations (β-ν, ...), EDM: Statistics + control systematic effects of setup

Mössbauer, β-NMR, PAC,

EC-SLI Systematic sample measurements

SHE chemistry

Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn β-NMR in

proteins Systematic sample measurements

Radiopharmacy (prototyping)

Radiotherapy (prototyping)

Systematic production of Radiopharmaceuticals

Dedicated radiotherapy center

Ultra-high selectivity: LIST configuration Bohr-Weisskopf: A- and g-factors

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E


Come with acceptable solutions for HLW Motivation for transmutation

spent fuel reprocessing

no reprocessing

Uranium naturel

Time (years)

Rel

ativ

e ra

diot

oxic

ity

transmutation of spent fuel

Duration Reduction 1.000x

Volume Reduction 100x


MYRRHA contributes to the European Strategy for P&T

Ø  The implementation of P&T of a large part of the high-level nuclear wastes in Europe needs the demonstration of its feasibility at an “engineering” level. The respective R&D activities could be arranged in four “building blocks”:

1.  Demonstration of the capability to process a sizable amount of spent fuel from commercial LWRs in order to separate plutonium (Pu), uranium (U) and minor actinides (MA),

2.  Demonstration of the capability to fabricate at a semi-industrial level the dedicated fuel needed to load in a dedicated transmuter, (JRC-ITU)

3.  Design and construction of one or more dedicated transmuters, 4.  Provision of a specific installation for processing of the dedicated fuel

unloaded from the transmuter, which can be of a different type than the one used to process the original spent fuel unloaded from the commercial power plants, together with the fabrication of new dedicated fuel.

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E

248 249



Even with completely different national NE policies European solution for HLW works with ADS

Spent fuel A

MOXFabrication

UOXFabrication

Enriched U

PWRMOX

PWR UOX

Reprocessing B

Spent fuel B

Reprocessing A

ADS

Pu

ADS fuel fabrication

ADS fuel reprocessing

Spent fuel ADS

Pu + MA

Pu + MA

GROUP A

GROUP B

REGIONALFACILITIES

MA

Spent fuel A

MOXFabrication

UOXFabrication

Enriched U

PWRMOX

PWR UOX

Reprocessing B

Spent fuel B

Reprocessing A

ADS

Pu

ADS fuel fabrication

ADS fuel reprocessing

Spent fuel ADS

Pu + MA

Pu + MA

GROUP A

GROUP B

REGIONALFACILITIES

MA

q  Advantages for A •  ADS shared with B •  ADS burn A’s Pu&

MA •  Smaller Fu-Cycle

units & shared

Scenario 1 objective: elimination of A’s spent fuel by 2100

SHARED


Prepare the path for Fusion DEMO Irradiation capabilities in the spallation target

+10 cm

0 cm

-30 cm

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E


MYRRHA for fusion irradiations

Estimated damage induced in DEMO and proposed irradiation conditions in IFMIF and MYRRHA-IMIFF


Guarantee welfare of the population via nucl. Med. Radioisotope (Mo-99) production capability

0 100 200 300 400 5000

50

100

150

200

250

300

Spec

ific

activ

ity (C

i/g-U

)

Time (hours)

Mo-99, upper set Mo-99, central set Mo-99, lower set Tc-99m, upper set Tc-99m, central set Tc-99m, lower set

Average specific power

173 W/cm2

184 W/cm2

171 W/cm2

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E

250 251



Belgian commitment: secured We look forward to European & International ones

Belgium 60 M€ (12 M€/y x 5 y)

2nd phase (11 y) others 576 M€

Belgium 324 M€ (36 M€/y x 9 y)

Consortium


European Context Energy

Independence Knowledge Economy ESFRI

European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructure

SET Plan European Strategic Energy Plan

27.11.2010 Confirmed on ESFRI priority list projects

15.11.2010 in ESNII

(SNETP goals)

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E


Conclusions l MYRRHA As a Multipurpose Fast Spetrum irradiation

facility selected by ESFRI, is responding to: l The issue of addressing the nuclear waste legacy of present

reactor technology through advance options (ADS, P&T) l The SNETP need for a multipurpose research infrastructure

expressed in its Strategic Research Agenda whatever the considered technology for Gen.IV systems

l The Objective of Belgium and SCK•CEN to maintain a high level expertise in the country in the nuclear safety, nuclear technology and nuclear competencies independently of the future of NE

l The objective of the European Commission to make available a series of relevant irradiations facilities for the fusion material research community towards the DEMO construction

l Secure society needs for RI for medical applications and Dopped-Si for renewable Energy


MYRRHA: EXPERIMENTAL ACCELERATOR DRIVEN SYSTEM

A pan-European, innovative and unique facility at Mol (BE)

BR2 reactor (existing)

MYRRHA reactor building

MYRRHA LINAC high energy tunnel

ECR source & Injector Building

Utilities buildings

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E

252 253



Copyright © 2013 - SCK�CEN

PLEASE NOTE! This presentation contains data, information and formats for dedicated use ONLY and may not be copied,

distributed or cited without the explicit permission of the SCK•CEN. If this has been obtained, please reference it as a “personal communication. By courtesy of SCK•CEN”.

SCK•CEN Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie

Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire Belgian Nuclear Research Centre

Stichting van Openbaar Nut Fondation d'Utilité Publique Foundation of Public Utility

Registered Office: Avenue Herrmann-Debrouxlaan 40 – BE-1160 BRUSSELS

Operational Office: Boeretang 200 – BE-2400 MOL

HA

MId

AIT

ABd

ERR

AH


SESS

Ion

on

E

Key recommendations Professor John Wood Rapporteur

2-Apr-13

The sun last Friday morning (NASA Stereo mission)

2-Apr-13 2

JoH

n W

oo

dRecommendations and key messages

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

254 255


JoH

n W

oo

d

More pervasive than you think (NASA Stereo Mission)

2-Apr-13 3

Radon map of Europe in 2006

2-Apr-13 4

Recommendations and key messages

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

JoH

n W

oo

d

The 10 Recommendations of the experts' study

2-Apr-13 5

•  Europe faces today major societal challenges including climate change and energy dependency. In the energy field, notably – as identified by the EGE -availability, security of supply, sustainability or safety issues, all require continuing specific research effort, within the energy supply context as a whole, ranging from renewables to nuclear fission and fusion, and aiming at a responsible response to the EU energy policy.

•  Following Fukushima, nuclear fission for energy has become

a sensitive political issue in some Member States and the public at large which expects that their concerns are properly addressed. Future research activities on fission therefore need to respond to those including new ways of engaging the public in its research actions. This is the only way for European industry in the nuclear field to maintain its world-wide leading position.

2-Apr-13 6

•  For this reason, all aspects of safety, risk-mitigation, safeguards and security, in addition to waste management should be the first priority of the Euratom programme; furthermore, participation of social scientists and others from the non-nuclear science and engineering community is required to ensure a holistic approach to the fission Euratom programme.

•  To allow all citizens in Europe to profit from transparent, publically financed independent knowledge in nuclear fission, Europe needs to keep its capacity building competence at the highest level. Therefore European skills need to stay up to date, and support for continuous professional development is essential. In addition qualifications should be standardised across MS to allow freedom of knowledge and expertise to become a reality as well as to facilitate links to other disciplines.


pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

256 257


JoH

n W

oo

d

2-Apr-13 7

•  Respect for European values, solidarity among Member States, and a prudent equilibrium between a common policy, competition between different energy plans and national diversification regarding energy sources are all necessary elements of an EU energy and research framework. The link between scientists/engineers and policy makers needs therefore to become stronger. Ways of doing this at EC level and in Member States (e.g. through research and educational institutions) should be analysed, optimized and implemented as soon as possible.

•  Existing nuclear related research associations and technology

platforms should do more to interact with the general public, and to develop stronger links with the European Energy Fora, including the ENEF, the Nuclear Energy Forum.

2-Apr-13 8

•  New and emerging technologies need to be supported not only to support the safety and security aspects but also to develop innovative areas such as nuclear medicine.

•  In line with the changing research and innovation

scene world-wide, EURATOM should take a full part in international discussions forming partnerships where there is advantage in working with other regions of the world.


pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

JoH

n W

oo

d

2-Apr-13 9

•  Considering the evolution of all these challenges, the governance of Euratom research, including STC, should be reformed; research efforts should be integrated, whenever appropriate, with other support and policy streams in the EC, ensuring transparency and cost effectiveness; the role of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in monitoring the Euratom activities should also be reviewed.

•  •  Finally, the role of the JRC as a EU Centre for nuclear

safety, safeguards and security science should be reinforced; in this respect consideration shall be given to the possibility for the JRC to play a proactive role in maintaining and disseminating the Euratom research results.

Importance of Nuclear Medicine in the World of Medicine

2-Apr-13 10

•  Nuclear medicine includes both nuclear medicine treatment, as well as medical imaging. The creation of nuclear medicine occurred from a collaboration between several unique fields of academic study. Both forms of nuclear medicine utilize radioactive material to either treat or diagnose a variety of diseases. The field of medicine has advanced dramatically due to the discovery of nuclear medicine and the range of possibilities it offers.


pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

258 259


WIL

LIA

M d

’HA

ESEL

EER

EU Energy Policy & SET Plan

William D’haeseleer University of Leuven

2-Apr-13

Challenges

•  Driving force EU Energy Policy is complete decarbonisation of electricity sector by 2050

•  Transition to 2050 must occur with simultaneous •  Guaranteed Security of Supply (SoS) •  At acceptable cost for citizens & industrial competitiveness •  With acceptable health, safety & environmental effects

•  Path towards 2050 ‘littered’ with massive uncertainties

2 5-Apr-13

EU energy policy and SET-Plan

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

WIL

LIA

M d

’HA

ESEL

EER

Energy 2050 Roadmap Scenarios

•  Future energy system by 2050 much more expensive than today •  About ~ 14% of annual average EU GDP to 2050 •  Compared to current energy system cost of ~ 10%

•  Most expensive scenario ~ 3,600 Bln €’08 extra to total cost of Ref. Scen.

•  Cheapest scenarios have high fraction nuclear •  Diversified mix of technologies •  Delayed CCS

3 2-Apr-13

Need for Nuclear R&D

•  Nuclear has intrinsic capability satisfying all three pillars simultaneously •  SoES at affordable cost crucial for competitiveness

industry •  Sustainability aspects great for CO2, but further

considerations needed for safety & waste management •  But further R&D needed to reduce costs &

improve nuclear record & performance •  Given global competitiveness & uncertainties,

not investing in nuclear R&D is irresponsible

4 2-Apr-13


pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

260 261


SET (Strategic Energy Technology) Plan

•  SET plan has two horizons •  2020 targets •  2050 vision

•  Current EU nuclear plants to be ‘assisted’ to keep good record - safety performance and GHG emissions

•  Double route towards 2050: •  Basic nuclear research via EERA •  Industrial Initiatives (ESNII)

•  Support concerns of ENSREG, MELODI, NUGENIA, IGD-TP and pursue research agenda of ESFRI

5 2-Apr-13

6

1.  To be attractive and/or acceptable technology for investors & public nuclear to live up to its promises

2.  Besides strict regulatory and correct operational practices for existing plants, supportive R&D and training is necessary

3.  Substantial R&D needed for future innovative nuclear systems - test infrastructures, fuel cycle, materials

4.  R&D on perceived shortcomings of nuclear power External costs, socio-economic research (CBA), correct communication, effects low level radiation

5.  System integration – load following – system stability

6.  International scientific collaboration

Recommendations & Priorities


Given global competitiveness & uncertainties, not investing in

nuclear R&D is irresponsible

2-Apr-13

Need for common EU R&D

•  All MS should have an interest to make nuclear more “sustainable”

•  Need for more EU-wide harmonization on reactor design & operation à EU seed money for coordinated actions

•  Credibility towards other nations (China, India, RF, USA) only if we possess own competence based on experience & high quality R&D

•  Lack of nuclear-coordinated research risks to lead to “national-centered” programs or “bilaterals” and downgrading of expertise

•  Concerning nuclear medical applications and proliferation vigilance, non-participating MS risk becoming second class

• 

9 2-Apr-13


WIL

LIA

M d

’HA

ESEL

EER

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

WIL

LIA

M d

’HA

ESEL

EER

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

262 263


pAU

L KR

UEG

ER

SCALARIS STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE Security of Energy supply - a strategic View

02.02.2013 © krueger/galli - 2012 1

Security of Energy Supply - A strategic View Ø  What do we mean by strategy and strategic security Ø  Forces (dimension of task) in space and time Ø  key elements of a strategic security conception

Ø  Security Operation Ø  Strategic Intelligence Ø  Strategic Information Concept and Operations


© krueger/galli - 2012 2

What is Strategy? – Forces (dimension of task) in space and time

What are strategically relevant forces?

2050

Space

Forces

time

What are strategic relevant facts?

What forces influence our project?

What information and intelligence do we need for this?

Speed

Volume

Complexity

Why do we fail in so many venture?

Security of energy supply, a strategic view

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

pAU

L KR

UEG

ERSecurity of energy supply, a strategic view

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

264 265



© krueger/galli - 2012 5

Intelligence Operation

Information Operation

Security Operation

Security Concept - An accepted level of risk…

Security Measures

Countermeasures Elimination of threat

Reduction of threat - Defensive protection measures

2 Strategic Security - Concept and Operations

Threat Perception


6

2 Environment-related

Threat Threat by natural, social,

economic environment

1 Human – related

Threat Threat posed by human

threatened Object

Threat Potentials

3 Technology-related

threat • weakness of man – machine relationship • System Reliability

© krueger/galli - 2012 © krueger/galli - 2012

2 Strategic Security - Concept and Operations - Threat Perception



© krueger/galli - 2012

Security Operation



8

Processes Intentions, Objectives,

Doctrine

Identities Individuals, Collectives,

Potentials, Capacity

Intelligence Operation – to Identify the Change (Threat - Opportunities)

Environment Cultural Change

Operational Environment

3 Strategic Intelligence - Concept and Operations

Intelligence – the first line of defense,,,


pAU

L KR

UEG

ERpA

nEL

1 -

out

com

e of

the

stu

dies

pAU

L KR

UEG

ERpA

nEL

1 -

out

com

e of

the

stu

dies

266 267



© krueger/galli - 2012

Security Operation



10

Ø (own) Information Protection

Influencing the perception and opinion building

Physical Influence

By the attempt of

Control of Information

4 Strategic Information Concept and Operations



thank you

02.02.2013 © krueger/galli - 2012 11



Security Operation

Volume

Space

time

Forces Speed

Volume

Complexity

strategic Situation Analysis – the dimensions of tasks in space and

time…


pAU

L KR

UEG

ERpA

nEL

1 -

out

com

e of

the

stu

dies

pAU

L KR

UEG

ERpA

nEL

1 -

out

com

e of

the

stu

dies

268 269


Education & Training and Skills keys to sustain nuclear energy's future role in the European Union François WEISS

Grenoble Institut of Technology & KIC InnoEnergy

2-Apr-13

Global perception •  …numerous challenges threaten nuclear power's role as a clean

and abundant source of reliable energy. ü  growing disinterest in higher education of young and upcoming scientists and

engineers, ü  nuclear workforce that is rapidly aging and not being replaced.

•  …nuclear research and education are of utmost importance ü  to spread knowledge ü  to support other sectors such as health care and cancer prevention.

•  ...they provide qualified and stable employment ü  for mid and long term

•  Cooperation is essential ü  to develop transversal skills and competences oriented to the wellness of society, ü  To integrate nuclear energy as part of the whole energy mix… ü  To built international cohorts...

Smart energy education will be the key to changing behaviour.

2-Apr-13 2

FRA

nCo

IS W

EISS ERA, E&T and skills

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

2-Apr-13 3

•  Develop E&T in nuclear energy as part of the energy mix ü  To link edu and indu, with other sectors, with societal needs ü  To better attract young people to science ü  To create mutual confidence and mobilize young generations ü  To make the public at large familiar with energy policy issues ü  To maintain an european leadership and open it to the world

•  Keep a high level research and infrastructures ü  To further develop and spread knowledge and a scientific culture ü  To ensure highly qualified trainers ü  To shear best in class facilities

•  Develop a common language ü  Knowledge, Skills and Competences : ü  A common taxonomy and a framework

for mutual recognition to promote a pan-european expertise in energy fields and markets

Key messages

2-Apr-13 4

•  Keeping and developing new Knowledge for a future safe contribution to the energy mix. (new technologies, safety & security, radioprotection, waste management, healthcare…)

•  Requalification of human resources above and beyond those required actually just to replace the loss of skilled/experienced workforce owing to retirement, but a qualified

and stable job perspective for mid and long term..

•  Nuclear energy in the global energy mix, not for itself! •  Multidisciplinary & interdisciplinary knowledge & skills,

links with economic & social sciences

•  Transparency and societal awareness •  Transnational and trans-sectorial mobility

cooperation along the value chain, enhancing relationships between industry, academia and other nuclear stakeholders , with the rest of the world

•  Innovative teaching i.e. hands on training, e-means, apprentice schemes…

Key challenges

FRA

nCo

IS W

EISSERA, E&T and skills

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

270 271


2-Apr-13 5

•  Important advisory Role of Plateforms and fora: SNETP, MELODI, IGD-TP, ENEF…and their ”spin-offs” : ETKM.., EHRO-N, all databases.. with a balanced representation of all main stakeholders (from industry and society) involved in nuclear fission applications.

•  Key role of research to keep knowledge at the highest level.

•  New paradygm: we are moving from a world based on knowledge to a world asking for… Skills and Competence for a safe and

sustainable energy development..

•  Learning outcomes… •  Mutual recognition of qualifications

ECTS & ECVET European Credit Transfert System European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training

Education for a better future…

2-Apr-13 6

•  Success stories and networks to rely on :

ü  Euratom EFTS ü  ENEN : portal, databases…

•  KIC InnoEnergy •  MSc EMINE helps tomorrow’s nuclear engineers take up the challenges that the

nuclear energy industry faces in terms of safety, social acceptability and waste management.

•  By offering outstanding technical training and addressing the economic, social and political issues of nuclear energy, the programme broadens the scope of traditional nuclear education.

•  The uniqueness of EMINE lies in the involvement of its industrial partners. Four major players of nuclear energy, AREVA, EDF, ENDESA and Vattenfall take active part in the master.

•  The CEA is also actively involved in EMINE, bringing thus its expertise as one of the most important research centers in Nuclear energy in Europe.

Some “good” practices

ERA, E&T and skills

2-Apr-13 9

Existing Workforce EU : 500 000 (EHRO-N report)

•  16% of nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists, nuclear chemists, radioprotection specialists (or, in short, nuclear experts), which represent the main workforce of 77 000 people.

•  26% of non-nuclear engineers (but which have to be “nuclearized”) •  20% of other graduates, •  28% of technicians, and •  10% of support and other

Both, the nuclearised and nuclear-aware employees need to be trained in order to acquire the competences and skills necessary to perform their activities in the nuclear energy industry.

Key challenges

2-Apr-13 10

Key challenges

•  Workforce required by 2020 :

38900 nuclear experts = Staff needs to replace retiring personnel and to cater for additional capacity. (low limit)

• Some 2800 graduated in 2009 in the EU-27. • It covers 70% of the demand for nuclear experts by the nuclear energy sector. •  needs = on average 4000 per year by 2020)

ERA, E&T and skills

FRA

nCo

IS W

EISS

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

FRA

nCo

IS W

EISS

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

272 273


2-Apr-13 11

Other examples ..

The KIC InnoEnergy PhD school The KIC InnoEnergy PhD School is for students who have technical excellence together

with a drive for Business and Entrepreneurship (B&E). The KIC InnoEnergy PhD School provides "added value"education and activities within B&E and mobility support within a world class alliance of top European universities, research institutions and companies. And close links with other Energy sectors..

Some “good” practices

ERA, E&T and skills

Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

1,

PAN

EL 1International cooperation

Didier Haas (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Belgium) insisted that Euratom cooperated internationally (with the IAEA, the Generation IV International Forum, Russia, the US, Japan, etc.), which should be strongly supported.

Waste

Q1: Daniel Weselka (science ministry, Austria) questioned the potential to reduce wastes, as well as the cost and volume. Why should European money support fission research in this field? Brian Smith from the Danish Ministry of Science reaffirmed the waste option but conceded that the problem of high-level and long-lived waste had not been solved.

A1.1: Hamid Aït Abderrahim (SCK•CEN, Belgium) answered that waste and transmutation research needed to be tackled but that there would still be remnant waste. Partitioning and transmutation would reduce the waste burden to a few hundred years but research was needed to pin down costs. The waste issue deserved an assessment of economic and social factors and an holistic approach addressing our societal energy challenges.

Benefits and limitations of nuclear fissionresearch

Q2: Wolfgang Renneberg (Security and Risk Science Institute, Austria) claimed that he had only heard about benefits (and not limitations). What about the risks and the need to speak about them? An explanation of the context and the support for nuclear fission research should be given.

A2.1: Vladimir Šucha (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Belgium) claimed that the presentations supported an holistic approach to energy, involving civil society and learning the lessons of Fukushima.

A2.2: John Wood (Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK) highlighted the need to give confidence to European citizens, including training people to assess and manage risks. Nuclear produced an “emotive” response that should be overcome.

A2.3: William D’haeseleer (University of Leuven, Belgium) said that, when dealing with risks, we needed research into social acceptability and assessment of risks. He reminded the conference that the production and use of coal result in many deaths a year. There were overall challenges to be tackled globally and work had to be done on risk analysis.

A2.4: Paul Dorfman (Warwick Business School, UK) indicated that low probability and high risk had to be taken into account in the process of democracy.

A2.5: Gerd Wolf (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium) suggested that some security, safety, health risk and related questions were likely to be addressed on the second day of the symposium.

Energy roadmap 2050

Q3: Andreas Molin (agriculture, forestry, environment and water management ministry, Austria) said that his ministry would be able to support some of the recommendations expected to emerge from the symposium but would find others more difficult. He said that as the background details of the 2050 roadmap scenarios had not been published, the roadmap should not be the basis for action. Funding European nuclear research with European money was another concern. More interaction with European society was needed, he said, claiming that there was a lack of accountability and a need for more transparency.

A3.1: Vladimir Šucha said that European policy development was engaging more with society at large, as confirmed at a conference in Dublin from which he had just returned.

A3.2: William D’haeseleer indicated that the 2050 roadmap could be achieved, with all the possible scenarios costing roughly the same. It was a luxury to look at the most expensive one! We have to look at an overall systems approach, he said, recommending the book “The carbon crunch” by Professor Dieter Helm. His message was clear; overall EU policy was broken!

Competitiveness

Andrej Hanzel (Slovenské Elektrárne, Slovakia) highlighted the need for fair competition between all energies. Demonstrations by consumers in Hungary against high electricity prices had shown lately that electricity and energy prices had to be regulated. Also, consumers did not know the source of their electricity.

Q4: Dumitru Fornea (European Economic and Social Committee, Romania) said that Bulgaria was currently facing social unrest and the price of energy was one factor, following the closure of an old nuclear reactor. The EU was maybe responsible for electricity prices rising. Romania had to build nuclear reactors but EU companies had not succeeded in grouping together to invest in projects. Could the EU help to promote safe standards and facilitate European investment?

FRA

nCo

IS W

EISS

pAn

EL 1

- o

utco

me

of t

he s

tudi

es

274 275


Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

1,

PAN

EL 1 A4.1: William D’haeseleer said that we needed to

foster balanced energy systems. Electricity in the US was 50% cheaper than in the EU; we should not throw away the possibilities of reducing that gap.

Civil society

A5: Jean-Claude Autret (ANCCLI, France) recalled the need to take into account critical constraints from society.

Dissemination of results, education and training, access to information

Q6: Georges van Goethem (European Commission’s research and innovation directorate, Belgium) asked, in particular of D’haeseleer and François Weiss (Grenoble Institute of Technology, France), what the nuclear community could learn from other energy initiatives. He asked Weiss for a few words about the energy innovation company KIC InnoEnergy.

A6.1: John Wood highlighted open access initiatives but what do you do to train people to understand information that is made available? How do you help people to be informed? He called that a deep vein for research.

A6.2: François Weiss said that education and training within KIC InnoEnergy were very promising. Education was provided with the needs of industry in mind, through discussions and optimisation of resources. Industry was today investing in education and training and trying to get the best trainers for the young generation. He said that it was really impressive how the young were responding; they saw a future role for themselves in the energy industry. Innovation and leadership were being promoted and courses run now. Technology research was also converging across sectors, such as in instrumentation. Vladimir Šucha added that the low skills figures published by the European Human Resources Observatory for the Nuclear Energy Sector were frightening.

A6.3: William D’haeseleer said that nuclear research did not really have much to learn from other sectors although we could do with more spin-offs. There was a lack of enthusiasm today for nuclear research, he said. He envied the scientists of the 1950s to the early 1970s. However, there was still a lot of things in physics to be learned!

A6.4: Hamid Aït Abderrahim confirmed that nuclear research once had to invent everything by itself. Now nuclear needed to get out of the box; there were cross-cutting research activities and we needed to use them for nuclear applications.

A6.5: Paul Krueger (Scalaris ECI, Switzerland) indicated that there was a lot to learn from other projects using tools available. Everything could be available, information could be shared, but we had to understand the view from outside the research sector.

A6.6: When John Wood was doing his PhD, Harwell laboratory in the UK trained 60 technicians a year, which had a tremendous, wider knock-on effect on the development of the Oxfordshire area. We needed harmonisation of qualifications, qualifications to be transportable and universities with a critical mass linked to those without. There was a strong need to focus on the technician level, he said.

VIC

ToR

TES

CHEn

do

RFF

Nuclear Safety and Security in Europe and beyond

Victor Teschendorff Private Consultant, Germany

2-Apr-13

Research is the key to enhanced nuclear safety and security

2-Apr-13 2

•  Safety and security are key indicators for the quality of life.

•  Public acceptance of nuclear installations relies on trust that they are built and operated safely. Maintaining and constantly improving nuclear safety and security is thus a societal challenge.

•  The European Council nuclear safety directive established a regulatory framework, stipulating inter alia further development of expertise and skills in nuclear safety.

•  Needs for safety improvements have been identified by the nuclear plant stress tests. Effective implementation has to be supported by research on EU level.

Safety and security should continue to be the focus of Euratom fission research.

Nuclear safety and security in EU and beyond

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

276 277


Harmonise safety requirements and safety assessment practices

2-Apr-13 3

•  Establishing uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public is a provision of the Euratom treaty.

•  Joint research is necessary for achieving the level of common scientific understanding that is required to further harmonise national safety approaches.

•  Standardisation can help to keep nuclear electricity competitive and prices down.

Research on EU level should strengthen the scientific and methodological basis for further harmonisation of safety requirements, industrial standards, and safety assessment practices.

2-Apr-13 4

•  Long-term management of spent fuel and high-level waste is a key societal and political requirement, irrespective of national policies regarding nuclear energy.

•  We, the generators of today’s waste are responsible for its long-term safe and secure management.

•  Decisions taken now will affect future generations.

Foster consensus on management of spent fuel and radioactive waste by joint research

Consensus-building on the optimal solution for final disposal of waste should be supported by research on EU level.


2-Apr-13 5

Citizens should be protected by adequate nuclear safeguards and security measures against

nuclear threats from malevolent actions: JRC provides the scientific basis

European Nuclear Security Training Centre

Effective and Efficient Safeguards

Verification Absence of Undeclared

Activities

Nuclear Non

Proliferation

Combating Illicit

Trafficking

2-Apr-13 6

Kirgizstan Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Afghanistan

RF: 7 projects

Ukraine: 3 projects

Georgia Azerbaijan

Armenia:(2)

Moldova

ABACC

Belarus

Uzbekistan

RDC South East Asia

Middle East 2012 2013

Algeria Morocco

Nuclear Security beyond EU: Projects executed under outreach instruments TACIS, IfS, INSC


VIC

ToR

TES

CHEn

do

RFF

VIC

ToR

TES

CHEn

do

RFF

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

278 279


VIC

ToR

TES

CHEn

do

RFF

A safer Europe in a safer world

2-Apr-13 7

•  It is in the EU’s interest to further develop the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation and promoting their implementation worldwide. Credible competence is needed based on world-class R&T. The aim of external cooperation is NOT the promotion of nuclear energy.

•  Promoting safety and security beyond EU is a first line of defense against nuclear threats and risks.

•  Advanced methods to prevent theft of, unauthorised access to and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials should be developed at the EU level.

•  Unique infrastructure provided through the JRC should be modernised and maintained.

The EU should remain a world leader on nuclear safety and security.


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

Joz

EF M

ISA

K

Science based policies and legislation

Jozef Misak UJV Rez, a.s.

2-Apr-13

Background •  It is important to base EU policies on scientific facts

in order to address the important issues, to look for common solutions and harmonise opinions

•  It is in the interests of all EU citizens to have the highest safety and security levels, best implemented by scientifically based legislation and standards harmonised across the EU and beyond

•  Experience from nuclear sciences has huge potential for technology transfer to a number of non-electrical applications, e.g. medicine, biology, dosimetry, radioecology and advanced materials

2-Apr-13 2


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

280 281


Joz

EF M

ISA

K

Key research directions relevant for EU policies and legislation

2-Apr-13 3

•  Scientific support for EU policies to allow for balanced high level decisions not only in the area of safe and sustainable electricity production but also in other applications of nuclear science, e.g. in medicine, biology, radioecology, advanced materials, etc

•  Support for evolving legislation in order to address the most important issues and harmonize opinions

•  Harmonization of codes and standards in EU and beyond via participation in research projects in order to disseminate best practices as broadly as possible

•  Support to regulators to ensure that the decisions representing public interests in safety are based on best available science, are independent and transparent

Complex assessments for EU policies

2-Apr-13 4

•  EU policies should be scientifically based to support collective actions, based on scientific-technological, socio-political and economic points of views and analyses. Both EU and national R&D should support policymaking. The JRC should complement national R&D and coordinate the collection of scientific information needed for EU decisions.

•  Research financed from public funds should

respond in a balanced way to public concerns, including not only health and environmental, but also other societal concerns such as security of power supply and general human welfare

Balanced response to public concerns


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

Joz

EF M

ISA

K

Increasing public trust in EU legislation

2-Apr-13 5

•  More effective ways should be developed to communicate the risks and benefits of nuclear power to the public in order to increase public trust that European legislation provides sufficient minimisation of the risks

•  Strengthening of legislation and broad

dissemination of codes, standards and best practices harmonised across Europe and beyond should be based on scientific facts to address the important issues and harmonise opinions

Harmonization of best practices

Best available science to regulators

2-Apr-13 6

•  Regulatory decisions should be based on best available science covering a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines, using independent safety assessment tools and providing for the objective interpretation of scientific facts

•  Research should support more broadly the

potential for technology transfer from the nuclear energy sector to non-electrical applications of nuclear sciences, such as in medicine, biology, dosimetry, radioecology and advanced materials

Broader support to technology transfer

Science based policies and legislationScience based policies and legislation

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

282 283


Joz

EF M

ISA

K

Justified share of public funding

2-Apr-13 7

•  Communication between all parties should be improved to develop common views on needs and priorities, pooling of resources and funding, with special attention paid to how funding should be split between industry and public resources

•  European research has the potential to play a key

role in building trust among the various stakeholders, and efficient use of scarce resources in terms of people, infrastructure and funds

Efficient use of EU resources

Science based policies and legislationScience based policies and legislation

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

WIL

LIA

M n

UTT

ALL

People, Quality of Life and Environment

William J. Nuttall The Open University

2-Apr-13

Global Challenges •  Civil nuclear technology relates to two major

global challenges – weapons proliferation (addressed by others) and climate change.

•  The world must achieve very significant greenhouse gas emission reductions – nuclear energy has a beneficial role to play.

•  Europe can afford the task, has key technical capabilities and helped create the climate problem. Meeting the challenge ahead is not just a burden, it’s an investment opportunity.

2-Apr-13 2

People, quality of life and the environment

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

284 285


WIL

LIA

M n

UTT

ALL

End the technocracy •  It is right that nuclear issues are of social and

political concern. •  Euratom policy and strategy should do more to

hear the common sense wisdom of the people. •  Interaction with industry and campaign groups

are necessary, but are not sufficient. European citizens should be given a proper voice. They should not decide, but they should be heard.

•  Communities local to nuclear research sites have a special perspective deserving consideration.

2-Apr-13 3

Broaden the scope of research - I •  In addition to broadening the dialogue around

policy and strategy, Euratom should move to sponsor social science research dealing with nuclear issues.

•  Such research should not be motivated by a desire to defend or justify current research activities or nuclear power as a technology.

•  Improved understanding of fear and trust sits alongside the need to understand the statistical likelihood of accidents.

2-Apr-13 4


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

WIL

LIA

M n

UTT

ALL

Broaden the scope of research - II •  Electricity systems worldwide are changing to

more flexible and smarter systems – Euratom fission research should therefore adjust.

•  Euratom should consider the whole electricity system, look elsewhere in energy technology and beyond energy technology (e.g. to medicine and radiation hazards unrelated to nuclear power).

•  Europe must support bold innovative ideas outside programmatic structures. The US ARPA-E is a good model. Fission should be welcome.

2-Apr-13 5

Importance of Continuity •  Euratom research has, over decades, developed

strengths as seen and appreciated by the wider world.

•  Its role as an impartial ‘portal’ to all European civil nuclear activity is very important.

•  Euratom research has never had any military connections.

•  Globally nuclear power has a strong future and Euratom helps ensure Europe’s engagement with global developments.

2-Apr-13 6


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

286 287


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Symposium: Benefits and limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon economy

2-Apr-13

Online Forum Summary Richard Adams - EESC

•  25 posts to the forum between 26 November and 13 February

•  Contributors asked to respond to three sets of questions

2-Apr-13 2

Summary of the website’s forum inputs

pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Q. •  Do you feel well-informed about energy issues? How

informed are you about nuclear fission and radiation protection research issues?

A. •  Institutional and MS internal flows of information about

energy and research seems OK •  There is a problem communicating with the wider public.

2-Apr-13 3

•  How do you perceive the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix, compared to other sources of electricity? Do you know about the innovation aspects of the SET plan?

•  Nuclear must remain part of the energy decarbonisation plan for 2050

•  Substantial and increasing concerns about cost and instability/imbalance of wind/solar RES

•  Natural gas/coal replacements for nuclear will both substantially increase GHG emissions

•  Public perception of nuclear risk may be disproportionate after Fukushima

• 

2-Apr-13 4


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

288 289


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

•  How do you perceive the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix, compared to other sources of electricity? Do you know about the innovation aspects of the SET plan?

•  An agreed, independent and informed view about the risks and competitiveness of all energy sources must established.

•  Research into minimising radio-toxicity of high-level waste should be increased

•  Nuclear research offers new technologies to other energy sectors

•  SET plan fails to deliver on the moral/social implications of energy planning- it needs to be put alongside the insights of the European Group on Ethics report.

2-Apr-13 5

•  Should Europe continue to invest its energy research budget in nuclear fission on a wide range of topics to keep a global perspective – or on limited number of priorities ? Have you been consulted about Euratom research?

•  Nuclear sector has foreseeable major research needs for many years to come

•  Research funding should be used to maintain critical skills mass and encourage European coordination

•  Funding should focus on long-term societal challenges and ‘bridges’ to other sectors

•  We need to maintain a leading global position as a source of influence and excellence

2-Apr-13 6


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

•  Should Europe continue to invest its energy research budget in nuclear fission on a wide range of topics to keep a global perspective – or on limited number of priorities ? Have you been consulted about Euratom research?

•  Don’t forget the potentially vital role of Gen IV •  More harmonisation and consensus on safety is needed •  Trust-building with the public and better governance should

be part of the research programme

-o-

2-Apr-13 7


pAn

EL 2

- Re

sear

ch a

nd s

cien

ce-b

ased

pol

icie

s

290 291


Energy challenges, competitiveness

Q1: Energy challenges and competitiveness?

A1.1: Jozef Misak (UJV Řež, Czech Republic) said that, when addressing risk and competitiveness, the European Nuclear Energy Forum should be more broadly used and the sharing of rules should be fostered.

A1.2: William D’haeseleer (University of Leuven, Belgium) said that, in the field of nuclear energy, the need to apply the “safety first” principle was commonly agreed. Many issues could be dealt with by industry but European money could help to coordinate all activities and a long-term nuclear future should be maintained.

A1.3: Jorgen Kjems (Kjems R&D Consult, Denmark) indicated that at the international level Europe was a leading nuclear player but European industry was not able to deliver in Romania. Would our high-level standards be used if we cannot deliver?

Communication, involvement of civil society and transparency

Q2: Krzysztof Kamieniecki (Institute for Sustainable Development, Poland), an environmental group representative, found the first day of the symposium very interesting. It was his first time at a conference where people from the nuclear power sector were using a different language — soft language — to express uncertainty and doubts. With the media, the industry had to hear from society and learn how to communicate with society.

A2.1: Vladimir Šucha (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Belgium) wondered how the industry could interact with the media. We needed to look at different ways.

A2.2: Frank Deconinck (SCK•CEN, Belgium) said that access to nuclear installations and common rules to access research organisations should be improved.

A2.3: Stéphane Buffetaut (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium) reaffirmed that transparency was needed for all sources of energy, including on costs, energy efficiency, energy dependency, weather dependent forecasts and so on.

A2.4: John Wood (Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK) indicated that transparency, including open access to the results of publicly-funded research, were high on the Horizon 2020 agenda.

Q3: Concetta Fazio (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany) noted the request to include social science in nuclear research. What about having nuclear scientists involved in social science? One should take lessons from the analysis of the low participation in the symposium’s on-line forum.

A3.1: Andreas Molin (agriculture, forestry, environment and water management ministry, Austria) had launched public consultations in Austria and participation was limited even during the 2012 European nuclear stress tests.

Q4: Richard Adams (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium) indicated that the symposium’s on-line forum had a low participation rate; was that a problem? How do you promote a quite technical conference such as today’s? A lot of material had been translated, many research studies into getting the participation of the public did exist. Could participation be successful?

A4.1: Richard Adams mentioned that the forum was a new approach to promote participative democracy but public consultations were most effective when the public, stakeholders and civil society expected and realised that they were going to be listened to.

Risk and safety, standards and harmonisation

Q5: Wolfgang Renneberg (Security and Risk Science Institute, Austria) confirmed that there was a consensus on safety standards but the EU nuclear directive did not include safety standards and what about Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) recommendations?

A5.1: Viktor Teschendorff (consultant, Germany) confirmed that standards were needed in support of research at the European level, to evaluate questions related to safety and safety requirements, in support of industry. Europe had a leading position on safety of installations. Standardisation had not been achieved yet, but already it was a legal requirement at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) level, and the EU nuclear safety directive was a declaration to do more. WENRA had fostered the heads of regulatory authorities to work together but that had not led to mandatory rules. Common standards should be possible but WENRA was maybe not the appropriate organisation to achieve that. Finally, to achieve consensus more research was needed.

A5.2: Jozef Misak indicated that WENRA was not very specific and that it was easier to change legislation than to build a nuclear power plant.

A5.3: James Lyons (IAEA, Austria) indicated that IAEA safety standards evolved in a pyramidal fashion, from fundamental safety principles and safety requirements to safety guides. Member countries were required to implement fully these safety standards but adoption of the standards was voluntary. Each country was responsible for the safety of its plants, developed its own rules and applied its own safety standards. The IAEA group in charge of harmonising IAEA codes, the engineers organisation ASME and so on were having a difficult time. OECD-NEA was the secretariat and there was a standards board trying to harmonise technical standards.

A5.4: Olivia Comsa (Centre of Technology and Engineering for Nuclear Projects, Romania) indicated that EU nuclear safety and security influence outside of Europe was through technical projects implemented under programmes such as Tacis and through promoting the establishment of centres of excellence.

A5.5: Frank-Peter Weiss (GRS, Germany) confirmed that WENRA influenced new safety requirements. Safety requirements adopted in Germany, for instance, had been exported to the Netherlands and were much more detailed than the existing reference requirements.

A5.6: Jacques Repussard (IRSN, France) confirmed the need to develop safety standards in Europe. One should however not forget that beyond conformity with standards, safety reflects:

• the economics of the nuclear industry and its difficulties;

• the safety culture;• the level of knowledge about risk, experience and

clearance levels for radioactively contaminated buildings;

and• societies’ vigilance, understanding of how

society is vigilant through parliaments and local communities, and the huge potential for social science research.

A5.7: Implementation of safety objectives was not such a general matter, it included emergency management and stringent implementation of safety requirements, said Marjatta Palmu (IGD-TP, Finland).

A5.8: Andreas Molin suggested thinking about doing research into general standards and defining more safety objectives. Research could give safety some substance. Finally, how could standards be made legally binding to ensure that European countries would be much more cautious?

Education, training and mobility

Q6: Gerd Wolf (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium) wondered how to motivate young people. Security and safety were most important but we needed some kind of challenge; an adventure that should be interesting.

A6.1: Jozef Misak indicated that training only in decommissioning would be a problem, as we needed to build new plants.

A6.2: Viktor Teschendorff (consultant, Germany) claimed that there were sufficient new young people entering the industry. When carrying out interviews of people for jobs in Germany, he used to ask whether they were worried about the long-term prospects and they answered that he should not worry, as they knew that there was no activity that would feed them all their life. Scientific challenge was the question to be raised. There were sufficient people.

A6.3: William Nuttall (Open University, UK) indicated that for new build, energy policy and a substantial carbon price should play a useful role. Thinking about new build, and research challenges; challenge is properly part of the motivation of scientists and engineers as referenced in US President John Kennedy’s speech about the challenge of going to the moon.

A6.4: John Wood insisted that seeding investments were needed and that people would follow. As an example, he said that the building of a synchrotron in the UK resulted in more scientists.

A6.5: On mobility of people, John Wood, an ex-chair of the European Research Area Board, recommended a European passport. There was a need to push strongly for that.

A6.6: Vladimir Šucha said that a call in Brazil for the public to report illegal forest fires resulted in 40.000 reports. Scientific ecosystems for the young should be fostered.

A6.7: Martin Ruscak (UJV Řež, Czech Republic) said that the Sustainable Energy (SUSEN) project in the Czech Republic was attracting young people into the industry and that there was no problem hiring young people. There was public support for nuclear and Temelin nuclear power plant was attracting people. When dealing with nuclear technology, there was no need to have specific training in nuclear in many cases, which was an opportunity to attract people into this field. His main recommendation was to continue energy studies and to use the skills people had.

Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

1,

PAN

EL 2

Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

1,

PAN

EL 2

292 293


Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

1,

PAN

EL 2 A6.8: William Nuttall highlighted the need to attract

young people into the nuclear field. It is interesting that generally the UK is not having trouble recruiting and keeping the young generation. Nuclear courses in universities are proving popular.

Social science

Q7: Romain Garcier (Ecole Normale supérieure de Lyon, France) appreciated the presentation on people, quality of life and the environment. He stressed that social science focused on the public. He would be interested in having research carried out in the nuclear industry itself, with external access to what is going on in the nuclear field.

A7.1: William Nuttall indicated that his remarks were consistent with more pro-active research. Also social science should be done by social scientists and indeed ethnography could be an option.

A7.2: Hamid Aït Abderrahim (SCK•CEN, Belgium) agreed that social sciences in nuclear was a sound suggestion that needed to be looked at from both sides. Scientific centres had already opened up this very interesting research area. More could be done but mutual trust was needed; high-quality research needed to be built on openness.

A7.3: Ulla Sirkeinen (European Economic and Social Committee, Finland) indicated that social and economics research should not be just to get nuclear power accepted by citizens. A lot of fundamental work had to be done to ensure that citizens could assume ownership of issues related to nuclear safety. A visit to Fukushima showed her that social society was lost because of social unawareness. Nuclear power could have a future in Europe, involving young people; several thousand researchers were needed but they might be picked up by other countries. Part of the overall societal research should be to support citizens to be fully aware and to allow them to react in an operational way in the event of disasters.

A7.4: Gustaf Löwenhielm (CGL Consulting, Sweden) recalled that not a lot of money was available. We were discussing spending and we all agreed that more money was needed for energy research in general. Social science would take time. We should first answer the questions of whether nuclear safety and security research should continue.

A7.5: William Nuttall indicted that social science research is usually less expensive than technical nuclear research. Nuclear scientists interacting with social scientists would take us into the field of multidisciplinary research. Such collaboration is to be welcomed.

session two

Future research needs at European Union level, Stakeholders’ views Introduction of Mr Philip Lowe, Director-General, DG Energy, European CommissionRapporteur Mr Gerd Wolf from EESC

A7.6: Julian Kinderlerer (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, South Africa) insisted that we had to understand why the public was not happy. We must get these things right. Social science research had been embedded in all the ethics group’s reports. You needed people to advise, you needed to get it right.

A7.7: Vladimir Šucha concluded that if you carried out responsible research and innovation you would enjoy a transparent and stimulating debate.

294 295


HA

nS

pUTT

GEnKeynote speech - Energy Center of Ecole

Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

SESS

Ion

TW

o

EU Symposium - Nuclear fission / Feb. 26&27 ’13 http://EnergyCenter.epfl.ch E n e r g y C e n t e r

21st century – unique in history

Hopefully, the 21st century will also mark the end of a fossil-dominated energy supply era and the ubiquitous deployment

of rational energy end-use technologies and attitudes.

The long term energy supply solution is toward renewable energies, i.e. a mix of hydro, solar, wind, ocean, geothermal, biomass and waste which is

adjusted according to local geographical, economic and political circumstances. As is broadly agreed upon, this realignment away from the

present fossil-dominated situation will take not years but decades.


The Fukushima aftermath – two years later - 1

Germany has decided to exit nuclear energy and has already shut down 8 of the 17 operating nuclear power plants in March 2011.

Ø It is the only country in the world to have willingly started to implement a nuclear exit policy following Fukushima.

Ø While, it has recently enacted a proactive renewable energy policy – wind and PV, Germany has increased its fossil-based power generation.

Switzerland and Belgium have also decided to exit nuclear energy as a direct result of the Fukushima accident. However, implementation has not yet started and is subject to intense discussions within each country.

The new government in France has announced a decrease in the nuclear energy share to 50% from 75% by 2025 and the shut-down of Fessenheim.

HA

nS

pUTT

GEn


Future research needs at EU level - stakeholders’ views

Hans Björn (Teddy) Püttgen Professeur, Chaire de Gestion des Systèmes Energétiques

Directeur, Energy Center

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Georgia Power Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology

Fellow IEEE

EU Symposium Benefits & limitations of nuclear fisssion

for a low-carbon economy Brussels February 26 & 27, 2013


21st century – unique in history

Hopefully, the 21st century will mark the stabilization of the human population on the planet earth.

While the population is already decreasing in Western Europe, a slow-down of the population growth in emerging regions of the world can only be achieved if these same populations gain broad and rational access to affordable and reliable energy while avoiding irreparable damage to our

environment, which we all share.

By the end of this century, we must reach an equilibrium such that the per capita energy consumption in “energy affluent” regions of the world decreases such that the per capita energy in “energy poor” regions can

grow to reach a reasonable level.

Keynote speech - Energy Center of Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

SESS

Ion

TW

o

296 297


HA

nS

pUTT

GEn


Public perception is reality

Any energy strategy has risks associated with it.

As a result, public acceptance and adherence is a MUST when seeking broad implementation of energy technologies and strategies.

Civil society is an integral part of energy mix.

Strong, clear & concise and durable policies and regulations are paramount. Harmonization is critical for public acceptance.

«Team effort» is crucial:

Legislative & executive branches of government

Public agencies Operators

Academic and research institutions


European coordination – a network necessity

The European electric power system is becoming a reality – technical operating codes will be harmonized as of 2014.

Dr. Oliver Koch 2013 Stromkongress January 2013


SESS

Ion

TW

o


The Fukushima aftermath – two years later - 2

Japan, facing the enormous financial burden of importing fossil fuels (the balance of payments has become negative for the first time since over 30 years), has decided to restart two reactors at Ohi.

In the United States, since the Fukushima accident, the NRC has authorized the construction of four AP 1000 reactors at two sites and has increased the operating licenses to 60 years for 12 reactors adding to the 61 already licensed to operate 60 years.

61 nuclear power plants are under construction around the world as we speak.

The world is not moving toward a nuclear energy exit.


La fermeture de Fessenheim en France

Ø  «Je regrette cette annonce qui est précipitée»

Ø  «Elle confirme un engagement du Président de la République mais elle a lieu alors que le débat sur la transition énergétique n’a même pas débuté. Nous ne devons pas anticiper sur les conclusions qui pourraient en sortir»

Ø  «Des personnes exerçant des métiers depuis des décennies ne peuvent pas forcément se reconvertir dans une activité alternative»

Ø  «Il ne faudrait donc pas que la solution apportée à certains problèmes soit seulement le résultat de coalitions plus politiques qu’efficaces pour l’avenir du pays»

Bernard Thibault, Secrétaire général de la CGT


HA

nS

pUTT

GEn

SESS

Ion

TW

o

298 299


HA

nS

pUTT

GEn


An electric world

The future electric world means:

Ø More renewable energies – hydro, wind, PV, geothermal, biomass, waste cycles.

Ø Less pollution using electric transportation rather than internal combustion engines, electric heat pumps rather than furnaces, variable speed drives in factories, etc…

Ø The transition will be long and costly.

Ø The exit from fossil fuels is paramount.

Fission nuclear energy must remain in the mix toward a faster transition toward an electric world.


Fukushima – what has changed

The R & D efforts have not and should not be decreased – the world is not renouncing nuclear energy.

A worldwide effort R & D effort is under way:

Ø Enhanced passive and active safety and security measures.

Ø Better fuel cycles.

Ø Generation II reactor dismantling and disposal.

Ø Generation IV, more as a key component in the fuel cycle rather than for energy production.

Europe has played a central role in the nuclear energy R & D.

It must maintain this position as the energy transition gains momentum.


SESS

Ion

TW

o

HA

nS

pUTT

GEn


The energy transition – Energiewende

The energy transition – Energiewende -

«beginning of the beginning» is now.

The transition must be suitably designed and implemented taking local political – economic – environmental and cultural circumstances into account.


Climate change

Climate change is a reality – man does play a role.

What is less certain, but also less important, is man’s role versus natural cycles.

What is also a reality is that increasingly so each generation leaves less of earth’s reserves for future generations.

We must pay greater attention to making sure that we provide for future generations.

We must therefore pay greater attention to using carbon reserves for uses where they are crucial and not simply burn them away.

As we pay greater attention to fossil reserves, we will move toward an electric world and a less carbonized world.


SESS

Ion

TW

o

300 301


JAcQ

uES

REP

uSS

AR

D

Euratom H2020 Conference Jacques Repussard

Director General IRSN & President MELODI Association

2-Apr-13

IRSN: enhancing nuclear safety

•  IRSN is the French public body (TSO) responsible for providing public authorities reference expertise and independent data on nuclear safety, security, nuclear material accounting, protection of people and the environment against ionising radiation.

•  IRSN operates its own research laboratories, and co-funds R&T programmes worldwide in the fields of safety and radiation protection, often through EU and NEA projects.

•  IRSN is a founding member of MELODI, Alliance, SNETP, SARNET, ETSON, ENSTTI, ENSRA,…

•  IRSN has a budget of circa 300M€, and 1700 staff. www.irsn.fr

2-Apr-13 2

Melodi European Association

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

HA

nS

pUTT

GEn


Future research needs at EU level - stakeholders’ views

Hans Björn (Teddy) Püttgen Professeur, Chaire de Gestion des Systèmes Energétiques

Directeur, Energy Center

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Georgia Power Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology

Fellow IEEE

EU Symposium Benefits & limitations of nuclear fisssion

for a low-carbon economy Brussels February 26 & 27, 2013


SESS

Ion

TW

o

302 303


JAcQ

uES

REP

uSS

AR

D

MELODI: the « blueprint » for the future radiation protection R&T EU platform

HERCA

A non profit Association, funded by membership contributions, and supported by DoReMi actions

2-Apr-13 5

Deliverables

-  SRA, and priority roadmap, reviewed yearly at open international workshop

-  Policy coordination of members, leading to the conception of OPERRA project

-  Interaction with DoReMi and with international partners

-  Scientific opinions to the EC

Establishing the EU radiation protection R&T Platform: the OPERRA Project (EURATOM FP7)

Three goals: • Establish Strategic Research Agendas and associated « roadmaps » in

response to societal expectations, operational needs, and regulatory oversight harmonization and optimisation

• Organise a Platform structure, on the basis of achievements by MELODI, Alliance and NERIS, in order to perform the management of integrated programmes in support to EURATOM FP8 (H2020) and to national R&T actors

• On an interim basis, operate R&T open calls in the field of low dose effects on the basis of the priorities of the MELODI SRA, complementing actions undertaken by the DoReMi NoE

14 Partners: IRSN / SCK-CEN / BfS / STUK / Association MELODI / JU / OSSKI / HPA / CEA / CREAL / ISS / HMGU / UNIPV / SU

5 work packages: •  WP1: Project coordination and Management •  WP2: Integration of National & EU research & training programmes covering radiation protection •  WP3: Preparing to operate an integrated platform & organising competitive calls •  WP4: Reaching out to new Member States, academic & professional partners, as well as to major

stakeholder authorities •  WP5: RTD activities organised through open calls, with a fully independent evaluation process

2-Apr-13 6


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

JAcQ

uES

REP

uSS

AR

D

•  1981: launch of EURADOS (European radiation dosimetry group)

•  1990 – 2010: several stand alone epidemiology and radiobiology projects •  2009: the HLEG Report to the EC (www.hleg.de/fr.pdf):

•  Several major unresolved societal issues about low dose effects •  No chance to resolve them without a holistic vision, and uniting EU R&T

•  2010: creation of EUTERP (European training & education in radiation protection foundation)

•  2010: creation of MELODI Association (now 21 members, 13 EU countries) •  2010: launch of DoReMi NoE (low dose effects) > 2015 •  2010: launch of STAR NoE (radioecology) > 2015 •  2011: creation of Alliance Association (Radioecology) •  2012: launch of the NERIS project (emergency preparedness) > 2015 •  2013: launch of the OPERRA project: consolidation of the European

radiation protection R&T integrated Platform > 2016

Optimizing radiation protection research in Europe: towards an integration of EU capabilities, facilitating

the resolution of complex societal issues

2-Apr-13 4


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

304 305


pAU

L H

oRW

ART

H

1

SNETP Europe’s Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

European Symposium Benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy

Brussels, 26-27 February 2013

2

▪  SNETP was set up in 2007 under the auspices of the European Commission, to gather stakeholders building a common vision: industry, research centres, safety organisations, universities, non-governmental organisations, SMEs, etc. It is an official European Technology Platform.

▪  The overall goal is to support technological development for enhancing safe and competitive nuclear fission in a sustainable energy mix, as part of the EU’s SET-Plan ▪  Low greenhouse gas emissions ▪  Security of energy supply for Europe ▪  Stable electricity prices

▪  R&D is necessary to further enhance the safety and sustainability of nuclear fission, and to open new markets

▪  SNETP has expressed its strategic orientations around three technological pillars, and launched task forces to implement them

About SNETP

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

JAcQ

uES

REP

uSS

AR

D

1.  Safety is part of key societal challenges for Europe in the area of energy J

2.  After Fukushima, active engagement with the public is essential for nuclear industry’s future in Europe J transparency, accountability, participation

3.  A holistic approach to fission R&T, with safety first J risk perception, environment, economic aspects (safety is priceless, but it has a cost...)

4.  Maintain high levels of skills and standardize qualifications to ensure freedom of work and access of citizens to knowledge J ENSTTI was set up by TSO’s

5.  Link betyween science and policy to be reinforced at EU and national levels J TSO’s and radiation protection agencies contribute to such links

6.  R&T Associations and Platforms to interact more with the public, ENEF, EESC J Aarhus Convention, Luxembourg Conference 12&13 March 2013

7.  R&T in support of innovation as well as safety J : both should go together!

8.  Develop international partnerships J NEA as a privileged broker

9.  A stronger policy governance for EURATOM J safety priority makes it easier!

10.  JRC to play a proactive role in maintaining and disseminating R&T results L Platforms should do this work, in a polycentric and integrated approach.

10 recommendations,… 2 missing concepts: EURATOM R&T as a source of EU harmonization & competitiveness

2-Apr-13 7


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

306 307


5

•  Sept 2007: SNETP launch with Commissioners for Research and Energy, publication of Vision Report

•  June 2009: Strategic Research Agenda •  May 2010: Deployment Strategy •  Nov 2010: Launch of ESNII •  Jan 2011: Education & Training Strategy •  Oct 2011: 100th member of SNETP •  March 2012: Launch of NUGENIA •  Jan 2013: Publication of “Identification of Research Areas in

Response to the Fukushima Accident” •  Feb 2013: Updated Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda

All documents are available for download on www.snetp.eu and prints upon request ([email protected])

SNETP’s main milestones

Vision Report

SRA DS ESNII Concept

Paper

E&T Implications of

Fukushima

Updated SRIA

6

SNETP’s vision for the future

▪  Nuclear fission will continue to play an important role in the energy mix, whatever the scenario (Energy Roadmap 2050)

▪  Post-Fukushima R&D has been identified, even for the LTO of existing reactors

▪  SNETP fully aligns with the strategic objectives to support the utmost levels of nuclear safety and increase the sustainability of nuclear energy (radioactive waste minimization, optimization of the use of nuclear materials)

▪  In the EU’s next multiannual framework, SNETP counts on European legal and financial instruments (Horizon 2020, Structural Funds, EIB loans, EIT KIC InnoEnergy…) to foster joint programming and execution of R&D

pAU

L H

oRW

ART

HSustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

pAU

L H

oRW

ART

H

3

SNETP Vision

“Maintain competitiveness in fission technologies, together with long-term waste management solutions” *

ESNII “The first co-generation reactors could (…) appear within the next decade as demonstration projects to test the technology for coupling with industrial processes”**

NC-2I “The first co-generation reactors could (…) appear within the next decade as demonstration projects to test the technology for coupling with industrial processes” *

SET Plan Objectives (*) [COM/2007/0723 final] (**) [COM/2009/0519 final]

4

SNETP for European RD&D

Pan-European fission R&D and the role of SNETP? 1.  Jointly share and develop best-practice to ensure safe operation of

existing nuclear facilities 2.  Enable assessment of new technologies through pooling resource

(finance, intellectual) and sharing of infrastructure 3.  Promotes pan-European industry engagement in globally competitive

markets

4.  Enables coherent approach within Europe and externally when facing international partners

5.  Facilitates EU harmonisation, particularly for safety 6.  Enhances researcher education, training and EU mobility

SNETP is in line with its expected ETP role (as defined by the EC): 1.  Deliver “Research and innovation agendas”: SRA in 2009, SRIA in 2013 2.  Act as “Open innovation platform”: ESNII, NUGENIA, NC2I bring together

actors of industry & research 3.  Ensure “Partnership with MS and MS based platforms”: dialogue is

ensured via individual members, joint programming happens in practice


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

308 309


pAU

L H

oRW

ART

H

9

Nuclear fission…

•  Is a massive low-carbon energy source •  Ensures security of energy supply for Europe

•  Has an excellent safety record in Europe

•  Minimizes its waste with the new generations of nuclear plants

•  Benefits from distributed and geopolitically stable uranium supply

•  Offers operational availability above 90 %

•  Provides economic energy for a competitive European industry and affordable electricity for consumers, independently from fossil fuel price volatility

•  Is a sector where Europe has industrial leadership which needs to be maintained

Reminder: benefits of nuclear fission for Europe

10

A growing network


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

pAU

L H

oRW

ART

H

7

Thank you for your attention www.snetp.eu

8

Backup slides


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

310 311


MA

RJA

TTA

pA

LMU

Vision 2025

19-Apr-13 3

IGD-TP: Committed to the Vision 2025 •  11 EG members and a total of 100+ participants

working together and providing resources and sharing in learning.

•  Euratom support for SecIGD, SecIGD2 and for the individual deployment projects defined by the foundation stones of the IGD-TP.

19-Apr-13 4

Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

MA

RJA

TTA

pA

LMU

IGD-TP Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive WasteTechnology Platform Marjatta Palmu

19-Apr-13

19-Apr-13 2

•  Commitments to nuclear have been made •  100 years and beyond until disposal of wastes •  Once taken, they can not be reversed in the real

world in the middle of the process •  No undue burden for future generations •  Concern of the citizens => Act and continue to act!

•  Implementing safe passive systems for Spent Fuel and High Level Wastes disposal •  Joint work requires a shared Vision and a Strategic

Research Agenda •  IGD-TP’s focus is on what can and what is valuable

to carry out jointly including EC/EURATOM research and innovation programmes as a co-funding partner


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

312 313


MA

RJA

TTA

pA

LMU

SRA for RD&D and how to implement?

19-Apr-13 5

Key Topics •  Safety case •  Waste forms and their

behaviour •  Technical feasibility and

long-term performance of repository components

•  Development strategy of the repository

•  Safety of construction and operations

•  Monitoring •  Governance and stakeholder

involvement

Joint Activities •  5 major work forms •  Financed by the

members or co-financed by Euratom

Geological Disposal Stages of Implementation

Where are we now in Europe?

19-Apr-13 6

•  Current timeframe ranges for the start of repository operations in countries with existing programmes •  planned start of operations in Member States:

from 2022 to 2080 •  For many Member States still undecided! •  Development of a programme required by the new

Waste Directive 2011/70 •  European research and innovation projects are

important short cuts to learning.


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

JAn

oS

GAd

o

János Gadó MTA Centre for Energy Research

(former KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute), Budapest, Hungary

Nuclear Fission Research for a Low Carbon Economy,

Panel 3, Brussels February 27, 2013

Nuclear energy as a part of low carbon economy

Safe and secure nuclear energy is an important part of the European energy resources and according to any realistic scenario it will remain in this status for many decades. Together with renewables (incl. hydropower) nuclear energy can contribute to the considerable decrease of GHG emission in Europe, among others by generating electricity for transportation. Moreover, in several large emerging economies nuclear energy has to be applied if mankind wants to avoid a large increase of GHG emission. Therefore it seems to be a primary interest of Europe to remain a leader in the knowledge of nuclear technology. It is one more reason why a nuclear reactor fleet has to be maintained and gradually modernized in Europe.

February 27, 2013 2

KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

314 315


JAn

oS

GAd

o

Research community, academia and industry

In the nuclear energy field the research target shall be derived from the necessities of the society. Without applications nuclear energy research is senseless. Safety and security of environment friendly energy production + competitiveness in the nuclear field (strong European presence on the world market) are the main targets. Consequently, nuclear energy research is somewhere in between basic and industrial research. Though nuclear energy research is not conform with the usual categorization, it needs a moral support from every stakeholder.

February 27, 2013 3

Closing the nuclear fuel cycle

Closing the nuclear fuel cycle is the most important challenge for nuclear energy research in the 21st century. Closing of the fuel cycle makes nuclear energy sustainable on the long run. Targets: •  R&D in the field of safety, technology and economy of Generation

4 reactors (fast neutron spectrum burners and breeders) •  R&D in the field of advanced reprocessing and minimization of

long lived radioactive waste (plutonium and uranium shall be extracted together, minor actinides shall be also partitioned, etc.)

•  Establish a sound technical basis for political decisions on the geographical siting of the European nuclear reactor and fuel facility fleet

These research targets are clearly on the European level.

February 27, 2013 4


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

JAn

oS

GAd

o

European added value

The nuclear energy research needs integration: •  regional and multi-national projects are underway •  the research targets can be reached only on the European level •  the nuclear industry has a European dimension and significance •  the nuclear regulation is of European dimension. R&D should be the most mobile component, however, the general shortage in funding, the difficulties of funding regional co-operation in applied sciences (especially concerning research infrastructure), the lack of good practice in simultaneously funding applied R&D from governmental and industrial resources do not facilitate the integration of nuclear energy R&D organizations. More attractive funding schemes have to be invented and introduced.

February 27, 2013 5

February 27, 2013 6



pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

316 317


THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn

26/27 February 2013 -‐ Brussels EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM 1

EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy Brussels - 26/27 February 2013

An OECD/NEA Perspective

Thierry DUJARDIN Acting Deputy Director General

Deputy Director, Science and Development OECD Nuclear Energy Agency


Mission q  To assist its member countries in maintaining and further

developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal basis required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes

q  To provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understanding on key issues, as support to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and as input to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development

Ø  Forum for sharing national experience •  Catalyst for developing consensus

Ø  Centre of excellence •  Network of over 4000 national experts •  To pool and maintain expertise

Ø  Managerial skills for co-ordinating multi-national R&D projects •  More than 50 years of experience in managing such projects for the benefit of

participating countries

NEA does not allocate funds to its members

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn


Flexibility in implementation to maximise the added value of international cooperation for member countries

q Human resources

q Medical Radio-isotopes (Mo99/Tc99m) Ø  Current economic model unsustainable Ø  Policy approach agreed Ø  Implementation still difficult

q Post Fukushima R&D Ø  Accident more tolerant fuels Ø  Re-criticality after a severe accident or in spent fuel pools Ø  Benchmark of codes describing severe accidents

q Economics


“System costs are the total costs above plant-level costs to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply.”

•  Plant-level costs

•  Grid-level system effects (technical externalities) o  Grid connection o  Grid-extension and reinforcement o  Short-term balancing costs o  Long-term costs for maintaining adequate back-up capacity

•  Total system costs o  Take into account not only the costs but also the benefits of integrating new

capacity (variable costs and fixed costs of new capacity that could be displaced) o  Other externalities (environmental, security of supply, cost of accidents, …)

•  Dynamic effects (pecuniary externalities) o  Reduced prices and load factors of conventional plants in the short-run o  Re-configuration of the electricity system in the long-run

System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems

Nuclear Energy and Renewables


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

318 319


THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn


Lessons Learnt and Policy Conclusions Lessons Learnt The integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is an important challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear.

o  Grid-level system costs for variable renewables are large (15-80 USD/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (Wind ON < Wind OFF < Solar PV)

o  Grid-level and total system cost increase over-proportionally with the share of variable renewables

o  System effects of nuclear power exist but are modest compared to those of variable renewables

o  Lower load factors and lower prices affect the economics of dispatchable generators: difficulties in financing capacity to provide short-term flexibility and long-term adequacy need to be addressed.

Policy Conclusions 1.  Account for system costs and ensure transparency of power generation costs. 2.  New regulatory frameworks are needed to minimize and internalize system effects.

(1) Capacity payments or markets with capacity obligations, (2) Oblige operators to feed stable hourly bands of capacity into the grid, (3) Allocate costs of grid connection and extension to generators, (4) Offer long-term contracts (contracts for difference, feed-in-tariffs) to dispatchable base-load capacity.

3.  Recognize the role of dispatchable low-carbon technologies such as nuclear 4.  Develop flexibility resources to enable the co-existence of nuclear and variable

renewables in low carbon electricity systems.

Nuclear Energy and Renewables (2)


Climate Change: assessment of the vulnerability of NPPs and cost of adaptation

Objectives of the study: 1.  Identify and quantify the level of vulnerability of nuclear power plants to climate

change effects 2.  Quantify the cost of inaction 3.  Quantify the cost of adaptation 4.  Assess the impact of CC on the security of energy supply provided by nuclear power. Group of experts:

14 experts from 10 OECD/NEA countries and 2 international organisations, with competence in: nuclear safety and risk assessment, meteorology, climate change, sustainable energy systems, nuclear technology, economics.

Published 2012

New project: Final report to be published in 2014


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn


Generation IV International Forum (GIF) A major international initiative to foster collaborative R&D aiming at

developing future generation nuclear energy systems

q  10 active members, incl. 3 non-OECD countries.

q  Charter (2001). q  Intergovernmental Agreement

(2005) – OECD-SG Depository. q  6 most promising systems;

selected for potential deployment beyond 2030: §  consensus towards fast neutrons

family with closed fuel cycles; §  high temperature for hydrogen

production; q  well defined R&D projects focusing

on technological breakthroughs.

8 common goals: Ø  best use of natural resources; Ø  minimisation of ultimate waste; Ø  Competitiveness; Ø  comparable financial risk; Ø  excellence in safety & reliability; Ø  low likelihood of severe accident; Ø  no need for off-site emergency

response; Ø  improved proliferation resistance &

physical protection.

NEA role as Technical Secretariat.


Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP) An initiative taken by national safety authorities to leverage their

resources and knowledge for new reactor design reviews and promote harmonisation of designs

•  Canada •  China •  Finland •  France •  India •  Japan •  Korea •  Russian Federation •  South Africa •  U.K. •  U.S.A

•  MDEP has issued Common Positions that may be used by regulators in making regulatory decisions, or by vendors in designing plants;

•  Pilot project with Industry on code harmonization for mechanical components;

•  Joint Vendor Inspection protocol for safety equipment;

•  MDEP position paper on safety goals and safety levels for new plants;

•  Assessing impact of Fukushima accident on new designs.

NEA ensures Technical Secretariat Funded through voluntary contributions by members

Expanded membership opportunity: UAE (associate member), Vietnam, Turkey


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry

320 321


THIE

RRy

dU

JAR

dIn


q  GIF is recognized as a first successful attempt to organize a large worldwide frame for R&D cooperation in a sensitive field close to industrial applications Ø Euratom involvement essential

q  Nuclear Energy Policy Key Drivers Ø Global energy demand

–  Population growth –  Economic growth, especially in developing countries

Ø  Increasing prices of fossil fuels Ø  Increasing volatility of prices Ø  Security of energy supply (& diversity)

–  Nuclear energy – domestic source Ø  Climate change

–  Need to “decarbonise” electricity production None of these drivers was modified due to the Fukushima accident

q  Economics of climate change –  “Doing nothing is not an option, because its costs and consequences are a

multiple of the known costs of action” Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General q  There is no “silver bullet” q  It is essential to keep all low-carbon energy options open and to

avoid idolising or demonising any technology

Some messages


pAn

EL 3

- Re

sear

ch c

omm

unity

, aca

dem

ia a

nd in

dust

ry Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

2, P

AN

EL 3Costs of energy

Q1: Ann MacLachlan (Platts Nuclear Publications, France) asked why do we only have to focus on nuclear?

A1.1: Thierry Dujardin (OECD-NEA, France) recalled the need to identify all hidden costs and to internalise them, and the very challenging study, just published by OECD-NEA, quantifying for the first time system costs at grid-level for all energies, from nuclear to renewables.

A1.2: Philip Lowe (European Commission’s energy directorate, Brussels) highlighted the need for the transformation of the overall energy system to deal with high capital costs, intermittency of supply, generation adequacy, capacity mechanisms and renewables. This was being met in all areas of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) and has been the subject of a public consultation on generation adequacy in the context of the Commission’s Communication on the internal energy market.

Transparency

Q2: Ann MacLachlan (Platts Nuclear Publications, France) asked who decided about transparency in research and how you could practically involve citizens.

A2.1: Jacques Repussard (IRSN, France) said that transparency and interaction with societal stakeholders took many years and came from the grassroots. In France and in northern European countries, activity with local communities was really taking place today.

A2.2: Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil (ANCCLI, France) highlighted the need for a greater involvement by civil society and claimed that ANCCLI was a very good example.

Nuclear research infrastructures and safety of research facilities

Q3: Noël Camarcat (EDF, France) indicated that nuclear safety applied to nuclear research facilities and asked whether the high safety levels had to meet only national rules.

A3.1: Vesselina Ranguelova (Joint Research Centre, Belgium) indicated UK facilities, for instance, were on nuclear sites and the sites of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre must meet local national regulations, according to two comments.

Q4: Tomasz Jackowski (National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland) asked how much time was needed for the harmonisation and safety of European infrastructures.

A4.1: Jacques Repussard indicated that the process should be bottom-up. Against a background of EU directives, the European Commission’s development and cooperation directorate and the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association were in discussions and Technical Safety Organisations were getting involved. Europe did not need centralisation but should catalyse capabilities to harmonise safety approaches.

A4.2: Philippe Jamet (Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire, France) said that harmonisation had to result from technical work. The ASN did not agree with a European bureaucratic approach but preferred a bottom-up approach. There could be harmonisation already but full harmonisation might take decades.

A4.3: Marjatta Palmu (IGD-TP, Finland) confirmed that the challenge was to reach the given objectives but apply the highest standards available, not just the common standards.

A4.4: Hans Björn Püttgen (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland) stressed the need for integration of nuclear energy. Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy had large implications for European markets; for example, at one point last December the marginal electricity price across Europe was negative because of the large production by renewables in Germany. To avoid that, you needed baseload production and the absence of nuclear for that role meant fossil fuel plants. However, civil society came into play. In Switzerland, for example, citizens would say no … and then, sorry, what was your question again?

322 323


RoLA

nd

EGG

ER

EURATOM`s answer finding mission …

Roland Egger atomstopp, Austria

2-Apr-13

Nuclear energy leaves open questions …

... of major interest for Europeans ... •  What about health risks? Leucemia rates for

children in the surroundings of NPP – answer?

•  Where to put the radioactive waste? - safe repository for 1 000 000 years is needed! - answer?

2-Apr-13 2

Friends of the Earth Europe

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

RoLA

nd

EGG

ER

2-Apr-13 3

Radioactive waste – Kam s ním?

•  29 Czech communities say NO to nuclear waste repository: Oslavička (2003: 98,5% NO) / Nadějkov (2003: 95,7% NO) / Přeštěnice (2003: 99,4% NO) / Božetice (2003: 99,4% NO) …

•  Referenda after moratorium Hojkov (2007: 98,3% NO) / Hubenov (2007: 98,9% NO) / Rohozná (2009: 96,6%) / …

EURATOM must …

•  ... protect people – radiation! – not industry Why industry friendly ALARA instead of ALAP?

•  ... be subject to full participation of European population – nuclear is nothing special! So why is the European Parliament – the representative of the European population – excluded from EURATOM-decisions? – answer?

2-Apr-13 4


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

324 325


RoLA

nd

EGG

ER

EURATOM research programme

•  NOW: ... should maintain its focus on safety, fuel cycle and waste management in order to create a basis for public debate and acceptance of new nuclear plants (contribution of the Advisory Group on Energy – May 2012 report)

•  THEN: ... Should try to solve the problems nuclear energy creates – it`s a challenge for centuries!

2-Apr-13 5


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

pHIL

IppE

JAM

ET

26 – 27 February Nom - manifestationNuclear Fission Research for a low Carbon Economy

1

REGULATORY AUTHORITY NEEDS FOREUROPEAN RESEARCH

EXAMPLE OF THEAUTORITE DE SURETE NUCLEAIRE

Philippe JAMETCommissioner


2

Autorité de Sûreté NucléaireASN

• Independent body

• 5 full-time commissioners, including a Chairman

• 450 staff

• Core duties– Regulations– Authorization– Inspection– Contribution to emergency situations response– Information

• ASN benefits from the expertise of a major Technical Support Organization : IRSN

French Nuclear Safety Authority

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

326 327


pHIL

IppE

JAM

ET


3

Importance of research for ASN

• Technical and scientific knowledge – Essential basis for regulatory decisions and actions

• New results of research – Necessary to reduce uncertainties– Driver for continuous improvement of safety

• Close connection between regulators and research– Provides credibility to regulatory prescriptions– Provides credibility to public communication


4

Position of ASN with respect to research

• ASN does not perform or finance research• ASN formulates its needs to be taken in account

in research programs• ASN has an Advisory Committee on Research• Examples of critical subjects identified by ASN:

– Material ageing– Non destructive testing– Social, organizational and human factors– Individual radiation sensitivity


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety


5

Need for furtherEuropean Research (1)

• Financial resources are more and more scarce for necessary research

• Obvious interest to coordinate and share research at European level

• Sharing resources is the only solution for some necessary large experimental programs

• European should be an example and an initiator for such programs


6

• Europe is more and more playing a leading role in world wide nuclear safety (e.g. European post-Fukushima stress tests)

• Safety approaches across European Member States are different

• Harmonization is in progress based on technical approaches by Regulators ( WENRA, HERCA) and TSOs (ETSON)

• European research is an important basis for harmonization

Need for furtherEuropean Research (2)


pHIL

IppE

JAM

ETpA

nEL

4 -

Safe

ty a

utho

ritie

s an

d ci

vil s

ocie

ty

328 329



7

Need for further European Research (3)

• Nuclear reactor development will proceed in several areas of the world

• There is a significant probability that new reactors will be imported from these areas to Europe or constructed close to European borders

• It is crucial to maintain in Europe the capability to assess their safety and, if necessary, to influence their design

• European research is necessary to contribute to the necessary European capability, harmonization and credibility


8


• Fukushima has illustrated that a major nuclear accident in Europe would involve many Member States

• Management of such an accident would not be operational in Europe at the present time:– Different approaches for source term prediction– Different criteria for protection of people and

environment– Absence of operational preparation– Absence of common approach to health

consequences• Research to be continued as one of the bases for setting

up an operational emergency management system


pHIL

IppE

JAM

ETpA

nEL

4 -

Safe

ty a

utho

ritie

s an

d ci

vil s

ocie

ty


9


• Safety is not only an issue for nuclear Member States

• Non nuclear Member States should have the capacity to carry out their own assessments and influence safety in nuclear Member States

• Sharing research is one way to build and maintain the capacity of non nuclear Member States to be effective stakeholders at the European level


10

Thank you very much for your attention


pHIL

IppE

JAM

ETpA

nEL

4 -

Safe

ty a

utho

ritie

s an

d ci

vil s

ocie

ty

330 331


Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

Promises and limits of nuclear fission

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Liebert Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna

Symposium on “Nuclear Fission Research for a Low Carbon Economy” Brussels, 27 Feb 2013

1. Promise of most relevant carbon reductions

scenario I : linear expansion (~ 55 GW/a) 2015 - 2050 → 1500 GW ≈ ⅓ electricity production (growth rate 2%/a) (~ 12-13 % share of PEU) scenario II: linear expansion (~ 110 GW/a) 2015 - 2070 → 4400 GW ≈ ½ electricity production (growth rate 2.5%/a) (~ 18-20 % share of PEU)

Under current conditions nuclear electricity production has a comparably low carbon impact. However, only 370 GW globally installed nuclear capacity: nuclear share of primary energy use (PEU): 5.7% (2010) nucl share of electricity production: 17 % (1990s) 12.5% (2010) [11% (2011)]

…to make the low carbon nuclear contribution more significant…

Only massive nuclear expansion could provide a significant impact. But: feasibility in question (high costs, economic indifference, resources …)

Inst. of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences Vienna

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

2. Promise of security of energy supply

annual uranium demand: ~ 67,000 tU since 1990: annual demand is higher than annual production constant future demand: proven and probable reserves last for ca. 2 decades

EU is highly dependent on foreign U resources: Russia 25%, Canada 19%, Kazakhstan 15%, Australia 10%, Niger 10%, ……, EU 2%

→ security of energy supply in question

According to OECD/NEA/IAEA „Red Book“ (2010/2012): identified U reserves & resources ~ 6 – 7 mio. tU (type A) undiscovered and speculative resources ~ 10 mio. tU (type B)

Are massive expansion scenarios covered by U resources? scenario I (1,500 GW in 2050): type A exploited in 2050 each further decade needs 2.7 mio. tU scenario II (4,400 GW in 2070): demand until 2070 ~ 24 mio. tU >> type A+B

Looking at 29 representative mines currently producing or planned & careful analysis of secondary resources shows: Massive expansion scenarios are not covered already by mining expectations of the next two decades!

2. Promise of security of energy supply (II)


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

332 333


Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

Production S1 – S3 + Secondary

Production S4 – S5 + Secondary

Secondary Min - Max

Demand expansion II Demand expansion I

Constant demand

RedBook Low

RedBook High

Base 18 kt

Uranium production and demand prognosis 2010-2030 (in ktU)

Source: IANUS 2011

3. Promise of a closed fuel-cycle

Source: IANUS 2012

Pu re-use in MOX still makes no relevant contribution to the fuel cycle (economic unattractive). Large-scale Pu handling causes serious latent proliferation risks and/or might be a danger for open societies. pA

nEL

4 -

Safe

ty a

utho

ritie

s an

d ci

vil s

ocie

ty

Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

Source: IPFM 2006

4. Promise of proliferation resistance

Pu separation and re-use is renounceable; uranium enrichment is not. But in particular gas ultra centrifuges are military-civil dual-use.

separation factor per unit

necessary stages for reactor LEU / weapon HEU

power needed for 25 kg HEU per year

Gasdiffusion 1.004 1000 /3000 1.6-2.3 MW

Centrifuge 1.3 – 1.6 14 / 50 35-150 kW

(Laser) (> 10) ( 1 / 3 ) (7-20 kW)

Source: Liebert/Neuneck 1992

Gas ultra centrifuges for U-enrichment are esp. fast, effective, well usable for weapon-grade HEU and badly detectable ! (attractive from the business standpoint) Small, clandestine facilities undetectable from outside.

Centrifuge enrichment is a proliferation-prone technology. (by no means proliferation-resistant – Iran case illustrates it) However, globally it is now the technology of choice. There is no proliferation-resistant alternative under R&D. (The only example, laser isotope separation, is even worse.)

4. Promise of proliferation resistance (II)

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

Inst. of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences Vienna Inst. of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences Vienna

334 335


Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

Energy from uranium fission goes to fission products 83.3 % neutrons 2.4 % prompt gamma radiation 3.3 % neutrinos 4.8 % radiation of delayed further decay 6.2 %

5. Promise of inherent safety of reactors

One of the problems to be solved: unavoidable after heat

Afterheat of a 2.775 Gigawatt-reactor after shutdown

100 sec 1 hour 1 day 1 week

0.1 sec. : 200 MW 1 hour : 35 MW 1 day : 14 MW 1 week : 9 MW 1 year : 1.7 MW

amount of water totally evaporated within 1 hour

60 t 24 t 15.5 t 3 t

Source: Petrangeli 2006 pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

The after-heat problem has not been solved neither for existing nor for future fission reactor systems (including Generation IV and ADS). “Improved new” Generation IV systems •  are not at all new (under research since 60 years like HTGR, F[B]R) •  are not “mature” before 2040 (“first-of-a-kind”) •  cannot affect the EU low carbon objectives for 2050 (“Energy Roadmap”) More important might be: interdisciplinary research on transborder nuclear accident consequences (& more protection of the public than protection of investments)

5. Promise of inherent safety of reactors (III)

6. Promise of solving the waste problem

Carlo Rubbia on „Energy Amplifier“ (1997): „it promises an essentially complete elimination of the … long lived radioactive waste“

Accelerator-driven Transmutation of Waste

Realistic objective of US-DoE Report to Congress (1999): - reduction of radiotoxicity up to a factor of 100 - reduction of waste amounts up to a factor of 10 - costs of 300 bill. $ over 90 years

J.Knebel et al. (Feb. 2013): - reduction of radiotoxicity: factor 10 – 100 - reduction of necessary space in final repository: factor 9

J.Knebel, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (8.11.2010): - anticipated radiotoxicity reduction: factor 1000 - anticipated volume reduction of HLW: factor 100

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

Inst. of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences Vienna Inst. of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences Vienna

336 337


Wo

LFGA

nG

LIEB

ERT

The potential of transmutation seems to be shrinking with progress in R&D. Even that is only conceivable under multiple recycling and manifold and extensive reprocessing (not comparable with today´s PUREX). A safe and secure final repository is still necessary! The potentials, limits and development risks of transmutation have to researched independently from proponents, preparing a societal debate.

6. Promise of solving the waste problem (II)

Summary and recommendations

Overall promise of sustainable nuclear fission energy is highly questionable. Transformation of the EU energy system into a real sustainable one requests suitable efforts. Before allocating significant R&D funds to new fission technology prospective technology assessment is highly recommendable. Appropriately EU-funded independent interdisciplinary research is needed to clarify the extent to which sustainability objectives can be met in comparison to other technology.

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

FRA

nK

pETE

R W

EISS

F.-P. WEISS

The European TSO network ETSON and its role in European nuclear safety research

/ 2!EU-Symposium on "Benefits and Limitations of Nuclear Fission for a Low Carbon Economy" - February 27, 2013

European TSO Network ETSON

!   8 members + 3 associated members

!   Major common goal: harmonized safety standards and converging assessment practices by

!   sharing experiences and methods in safety assessment

!   striving for coordinated European research activities in reactor safety and security, radioactive waste disposal, and radiation protection

!   Activities:

!   Participation in European nuclear safety related research activities

!   ETSON Safety Assessment Guide

!   Evaluation of operating experience feedback (EU CLEARINGHOUSE)

!   post-Fukushima activities: operation of technical crisis centres, national and European stress tests, dedicated research

Network of European Technical Safety Organizations

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety


338 339


FRA

nK

pETE

R W

EISS


Need for European nuclear safety research (1)

!   Growing public demand for harmonized, transparent, and plausible decision making

!   Compliance of codes, standards, and regulations with international recommendations

!   State of the art safety assessment practices incl. simulation tools and methods

!   Harmonization, plausibility and transparency promoted by science based approach

!   ETSON participates in European research and training programs

!   EURATOM framework programs and Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation

⇒  Implementation of ETSON goals: -  develop knowledge base -  knowledge transfer through training


Need for European nuclear safety research (2)

!   Need for European funding of coordinated research

!   Formation of a European nuclear safety research community

!   Making best use of scarce human and infrastructural resources

!   Managing new challenges (incl. post-Fukushima challenges)

!   Achieving commonly recognized results

⇒ Integrating governance of research and shared European funding


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

FRA

nK

pETE

R W

EISS


Priorities of European research and training

Involvement in the regulatory system enables TSOs to prioritize research needs

!   ETSON identified ten areas for European R&D1) for Gen. II and III NPPs, e.g.

!   Development of best-estimate simulation tools

!   Identification and improved understanding of all relevant ageing mechanisms

!   Fukushima motivated research: natural hazards, accident mitigation, emergency preparedness and crisis management, …

!   ETSON claims strengthening the safety orientation of European nuclear research

!   ETSON supports research on the interface of technical and societal sciences

!   Enhanced training and tutoring efforts for future European experts in nuclear safety

1) Position Paper, 2011-01,www.etson.eu, October 2011


Summary and Conclusions

!   ETSON – a powerful network to harmonize views and practices in nuclear safety

!   European research indispensable for a common high level of nuclear safety

!   Shared funding of nuclear safety research between the EU and the member states allows making the best use of scarce human and infrastructural resources

!   Holistic and multidisciplinary approach to nuclear research and training needed also covering societal dimensions

!   ETSON claims strengthening the safety orientation of European nuclear research as well as training and tutoring for experts from member states and beyond

!   After the Fukushima accident, highest priority should be assigned to R&D on

!   external hazards that might endanger the defense in depth safety concept

!   mitigation of accidents and of radioactive releases

!   improvement of European emergency preparedness and management system


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

340 341


ULL

A S

IRKI

nEn

Session Two: Future Research needs at European level, stakeholders views Panel 4 The European Economic and Social Committee Ulla Sirkeinen

EESC views on future research needs at EU level

•  The level of knowledge about nuclear technologies, their use and their consequences must be maintained and developed

•  Key task: develop reactor systems with max.

safety and min. long-lived radioactive waste

2

European Economic and Social Committee

pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

ULL

A S

IRKI

nEn

3

•  Improved reactor safety •  Permanent disposal of high-level waste •  Transmutation to reduce long-term radioactivity •  Monitoring fissile materials (extracting and

processing, preventing theft and abuse) •  Radiation protection, medical treatment •  Stress tests: possible beyond-design-basis

accidents •  Cross-border impact of incidents

4

•  Focusing on maintaining knowledge and research in nuclear safety

•  Irrespective of MS decisions on nuclear abandonment of comprehensive knowledge would be dangerous

•  1. Prioritise safety issues and associated technologies

•  2. Global migration of experts and technologies •  3. Training of specialists, enough basic

knowledge at schools •  4. General education of the public about radiation

Focusing on maintaining knowledge and research in nuclear safety. Irrespective of MS decisions on nuclear abandonment of comprehensive knowledge would be dangerous. Prioritise safety issues and associated technologies: 1.Cross-border impavct of incidents 2. Global migration of experts and technologies 3. existing sites and their radioactive waste 4. existence of nuclear weapons and production sites; political risks


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

342 343


ULL

A S

IRKI

nEn

Nuclear energy as an integral part of the EU’s low carbon energy mix but technological failures or accidents should be avoided: call for research on organisational and human factor to enhance nuclear safety

5


pAn

EL 4

- Sa

fety

aut

horit

ies

and

civi

l soc

iety

Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

2, P

AN

EL 4Proliferation issues, plutonium and thorium

Q1: Ann MacLachlan (Platts Nuclear Publications, France) asked if there was an opportunity to test the use of uranium and plutonium in test reactors and, given the resource potential of plutonium, would generation IV reactor research fall into the category of safety research?

A1.1: Philippe Jamet (Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire, France) indicated that it had to be a political decision, considering the timescale, and that there was a need to increase safety levels. Several models of fast reactors were being considered and key requirements were that there should be no long-term effect on or contamination of the surroundings.

A1.2: William D’haeseleer (University of Leuven, Belgium) asked if one were to stop nuclear fission worldwide, would it stop nuclear proliferation? The next generation of reactors might deal with the problem so why not do research into that?

A1.3: Wolfgang Liebert (Security and Risk Science Institute, Austria) indicated that maybe William D’haeseleer was right to question whether there would be less proliferation. Totally passive safety systems still did not exist. High-temperature reactors had more promising features but results needed to be discussed.

A1.4: Gerd Wolf (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium) asked for consideration of the thorium fuel cycle and that resources be provided in addition to those for uranium fuel research.

A1.5: Wolfgang Liebert said that only India was now investing heavily in the thorium fuel cycle.

Generation IV reactors and safety research activities

Q2: Ann Maclachlan asked if progress made on generation IV safety had progressed enough.

A2.1: Wolfgang Liebert indicated that, in the case of plutonium, we had seen 20 reactors and wide experience over the last six decades, but the commercial basis and the economics of reactors were questionable. Also, the use of plutonium in light-water reactors was not explicitly contributing to a reduction in the use of uranium, he said.

A2.2: Ann Maclachlan indicated that in the USA, money was being spent on research.

A2.3: Wolfgang Liebert was not against research but priorities had to be clearly defined and priority issues should be tackled accordingly.

A2.4: Andreas Molin (agriculture, forestry, environment and water management ministry, Austria) said that everyone could support research on a new generation of reactors that would close the nuclear fuel cycle and that would operate without side-effects.

Lowdoseresearchandstatisticalquantificationof effects of low-dose radiation

Q4: Ann Maclachlan acknowledged that low dose research was taking place. If low doses were not harmful and tolerable, how would you react?

A4.1: Roland Egger (atomstopp_atomkraftfrei leben!, Austria) said that the effects of radiation must be tackled. What should European money contribute to? If research produced results, then it should be discussed.

A4.2: William Nuttall (Open University, UK) indicated that the public should be involved but should not decide.

A4.3: Ann Maclachlan asked whether research could complement findings, e.g. leukaemia studies around German nuclear installations could be useful.

Q5: Ann Maclachlan proposed assuming that the nuclear community had answered all questions, how would you react?.

A5.1: Wolfgang Liebert chose the example of transmutation over the last 15 years and the variation in the potential waste volume reduction factor between 100 and 10. He also raised the issue of organising and funding independent research; how could the EU do it independently?

A5.2: Roland Egger did not know when there would be answers as some were only likely in the long term.

A5.3: Frank-Peter Weiss (GRS, Germany) indicated that, regarding institutional and human factors, one has to assess feasibility and applicability of any action under extreme conditions.

Transparency

Q6: Wolfgang Renneberg (Security and Risk Science Institute, Austria) highlighted the meaning of transparency and dissemination of research results. A recommendation within the existing framework was the objective of transparency, with the fostering of dispassionate information on the benefits and limitations of nuclear fission results. He questioned the compatibility of renewable and nuclear energies and whether renewables could take nuclear’s place.

344 345


Q&

A S

ESSi

oN

2, P

AN

EL 4 A6.1: Ulla Sirikeinen (European Economic and

Social Committee, Finland) agreed on the proposed recommendation.

A6.2: Frank-Peter Weiss agreed that new quality and transparency approaches were needed but said that there was maybe the need to double-check the information.

A6.3: Philippe Jamet supported the idea that safety regulators should provide information to the public.

A6.4: Ann Maclachlan indicated that maybe it was only a question of wording and that nobody was questioning the need for transparency.

A6.5: Roger Weynants (CCE-FU, Belgium) was also interested in a discussion on limitations of all energies. Renewables were intermittent, 70% of electricity was needed for transport and heating, we have to talk about storage and hydrogen and they all have to play together, he said.

A6.6: Paul Krueger (Scalaris ECI, Switzerland) recalled that institutional and organisational factors should be part of the European Economic and Social Committee’s mandate.

A6.7: Wolfgang Liebert indicated that independent research had to be funded publicly. When industry became involved there was always a bias.

A6.8: Gerd Wolf called for more independent research into the reduction of radioactivity. Experts always have an interest in the research to be done, he said.

Q1: Robert-Jan Smits (European Commission’s research and innovation directorate) asked the panel: What would be your advice?

A1.1: Julian Kinderlerer (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, South Africa) answered that more energy and more access to energy were needed. Could we do without nuclear in the EU? The answer was no. And there was a need for a stable energy system.

A1.2: John Wood (Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK) indicated that more nuclear materials research would be very useful. We needed to make nuclear more transparent and more visible in EU countries, but would we then not be accused of fixing the flow of information? Why not switch off the lights 20% of the time and see how people reacted? The expectations of citizens were rising. We did not have much time. What were we going to do?

A1.3: Jorgen Kjems (Kjems R&D Consult, Denmark) reported that the justifications for the support of nuclear fission research outlined in a December 2012 report by the Scientific and Technical Committee of Euratom were fully in line with the ideas at this symposium.

From the audience, Paul Dorfman (Warwick Business School, UK) indicated that the topics of liability and costs still needed to be discussed.

D’haeseleer clarified that he had previously mentioned that nuclear had the potential to satisfy all three pillars of the EU energy policy, if sufficient research were carried out.

Then Robert Jan Smits presented his symposium conclusions and the way forward. The ethics and experts reports and a report on the symposium would be sent to the competitiveness Council for the attention of ministers.

Richard Adams (European Economic and Social Committee) gave a final conclusions speech on this symposium.

Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger gave the final speech, on the role of nuclear fission research and innovation in tackling EU challenges.

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nRo

Un

d T

ABL

EConcluding Session

Role of nuclear fission research for a low-carbon economy Chairperson Robert-Tan Smits, Director General, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission

Rapporteur Richard Adams of EESC

Round table with Julian Kinderlerer, John Wood and Jorgen Kjems (STC)

346 347


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS SESSIon onE

SUMMARy REpoRT –I apologise in advance. Yesterday, for four hours, we had seven eminent colleagues presenting some excellent analyses of the issue that face nuclear research - and more than 20 contributions from the floor. I now have 12 minutes to summarise. I have fitted the comments and questions from the floor into the summary where it seemed most appropriate, now necessarily connected with the speaker where the point was made. I have also had to leave out much, especially anything not directly connected with research.

John Wood is convinced thatNuclear fission research has to be set in a global context and also in tomorrow’s world, a world not only of climate change but one where people will expect their voice to be heard, where resources are under pressure and where there could be big gaps in world governance. Energy will be a critical and sensitive area – we must be seen to be responsive, putting safety first, building trust, capacity and skills, encouraging a common, integrated energy and research framework in the EU. Specifically, this means more public engagement, reform of the governance of Euratom research and a greater emphasis on worldwide partnership. Politics needs to understand science better. In particular the role of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre as an EU centre – in reality a global centre - for nuclear safety and security should be reinforced, in a fully transparent way - all this without leaving science to the scientists. Finally, we should not forget that some of the greatest advances in medicine are coming through the benefits of nuclear research.

William D’haeseleer argued that Nuclear may be the only energy source that has the capacity to contribute substantially under each of the three pillars of EU energy policy – to a low carbon, secure and competitive energy mix. But only if it is acceptable to the public and two big shadows obscure a clear analysis. First, is nuclear safe- are all the risks manageable and comparable with other energy sources? (The waste problem was particularly raised in subsequent questions) Second - have all external costs, financial, environmental and social, been taken into account? The reality is that energy is going to be much more expensive in the future. The cheapest scenarios in the Energy Roadmap 2050 have a high fraction of nuclear though one questioner doubted this) but we need to establish an accepted methodology which will determine the total social cost of all types of electricity generation, as a valid measure of sustainability. Work needs to be done; nuclear needs to live up to its promises.

But because world energy markets are volatile and unpredictable the precautionary principle would argue that it would be irresponsible to, a priori,to exclude nuclear fission from the electricity generation mix in Europe.

Paul Krueger askedWhat do we mean by a strategic view on the security of our energy supply? Strategic leadership is vital. We have to have a clear perception of what threats we are facing to defend against or to eliminate such threats. This requires security measures based on intelligence and information. Threats can be human, environmental or technology related – usually in combination. Threat reduction involves a complex set of predictive, remedial or counter measures. These can involve design of the work environment and a deep understanding of organisational and human behaviour. Any intelligence gathering operation will result in a huge amount of data so it is essential to screen and validate material to determine what is relevant and actionable. And of course it is vital to protect one’s own information analysis and use it to best advantage. Mr Krueger reminded us that strategic situation analysis depended on the progress and dimensions of the tasks in space and time but fortunately, at least in my case, didn’t require us to understand relativity theory!

François Weiss argued that In Europe we are falling short in training the workforce we need to support our nuclear programmes. We need 500,000 nuclear aware people in the workforce ranging from experts through to support staff. We already have an ageing workforce in this area, yet it’s a type of employment which offers stable, long-term work.But we need smart energy education, an emphasis on societal needs and a sense that nuclear is a vital area, not a dead end – we need to see it in a global context. It’s a paradigm shift. We are moving from a world based on knowledge to a world based on competences. Innovative teaching plays a part, as does the promotion of good practices and examples like KIC InnoEnergy. A framework for mutual recognition of qualifications is important but action in support of non-academic qualifications and vocational training is also vital. If we are to maintain nuclear leadership and the growth and jobs potential of nuclear then the necessary excellence can only be assured within a strong Euratom fission research programme.

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nFollowing this first panel two or three questions from the floor pointed out that there had been too little discussion of risk, and too much emphasis on benefits. There were still many shortcomings in the topics covered by research, and we owed it to the European taxpayer to ensure that more transparency and accountability was injected into all types of research. Could we also promote an understanding of radiation risk awareness amongst the public and encourage open access – but access to understandable material - so that everyday knowledge could be blended with expert knowledge. A related comment from the floor was why don’t we find a way of putting nuclear alongside other energies, to deal with comparable issues of public understanding and concern.

Victor Teschendorff showed us whyResearch has a vital role in public assurance on safety and security. Can the major objective of global low carbon energy be achieved within the risk parameters acceptable to the public? Member States need both support and encouragement to fully implement the safety directives. Continuing research on ‘beyond the design basis’ of plants and on final disposal of waste and minimising its radiotoxicity may answer some of the public concerns. Further harmonisation of safety requirements and research on all the issues surrounding adequate security is essential. In particular the JRC, as a focus for independent scientific knowledge, can help raise public confidence. 30 countries have nuclear power and more are considering it and the substantial outreach instruments, (like TACIS, IfS, INSC) have been providing, for over 20 years, a high standard of advice on safety and regulation to more than 20 countries outside Europe – setting global standards – though later some people questioned the how we could be confident about this. at this conference we voiced doubts, qualifications, uncertainties but when we spoke to the public we tended to be categoric, less nuanced. We needed to be more open, go more than half-way to the community to get them engaged. We had tobe innovative in our communication, our use of social media. Yes, this woud take money, money that might have been spent on ‘hard’ science research, but it was vital we understood more about how our work was perceived by our own societies. Without that understanding the conviction that many had that nuclear research was not only relevant but vital might not be enough. But done well it could be an outstanding example of public engagement and a big contribution to participative democracy.

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nR

ICH

AR

d A

dAM

S

348 349


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS


2-Apr-13

Summary of Session I Richard Adams - EESC

Session One

Keynote Speech -‐ Example of a mul4disciplinary research and innova4on project Hamid AïtAbderrhaim

Panel 1 – Outcome of the studies

Recommenda4ons and key messages John Wood

EU Energy Policy and SET-‐Plan William D’haeseleer

Security of Energy supply, a strategic view Paul Krueger

ERA, E&T and Skills François Weiss

Panel 2 – Research and science-‐based policies

Nuclear Safety and Security in EU and beyond Victor Teschendorff

Science based policies and legisla4on Jozef Misak

People, Quality of Life and environment William NuUall

Summary by rapporteur of Session 1

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Recommendations - key messages John Wood

•  Applicable to tomorrow’s world: climate change, higher expectations of involvement, resource shortages, gaps in world governance.

•  Energy a critical and sensitive area – we must be responsive - safety first - encourage capacity and skills - integrated EU energy/research framework.

•  More public input - reform Euratom research governance - emphasis on global partnership.

•  Reinforce JRC’s role •  Advances in medicine are coming through the benefits of

nuclear research.

2-Apr-13 3

EU energy policy and the SET plan William D’haeseleer

•  Contributes substantially to each of the three pillars of EU energy policy – sustainable, secure and competitive mix.

•  Public acceptability vital. •  Is it safe? Are all externalities accounted for? •  Need methodology to determine the total social cost of all

types of electricity generation. •  Energy markets volatile - irresponsible to, a priori, exclude

nuclear fission from the generation mix in Europe.

2-Apr-13 4


Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

350 351


Security of energy supply -strategic view Paul Krueger •  Clear perception of threats.

•  Security measures based on intelligence and information. •  Threats - human, environmental or technology related. •  Threat reduction - work environment - organisational and

human behaviour. •  Intelligent data screening to obtain actionable material. •  Vital to protect own information

2-Apr-13 5

ERA, E&T and Skills François Weiss

•  Shortage in training the future workforce. •  Meeting only 70% of needs. •  500,000 jobs offering stable, long-term work. •  Smart energy education - societal needs – a future – a

global context •  Innovative teaching - good examples - KIC InnoEnergy. •  Framework for mutual recognition of qualifications and

support of non-academic and vocational training. •  Growth and jobs potential needs strong Euratom research.

2-Apr-13 6


Nuclear Safety and Security in the EU and beyond Victor Teschendorff

•  Vital role in public assurance on safety and security. •  MS need support to implement NS and RW Directives. •  Further harmonisation on safety and security essential. •  JRC, focus for independent scientific knowledge. •  The outreach instruments, (TACIS, IfS, INSC) good record

on advice on safety and regulation to 20+ countries outside Europe.

•  World looks to Europe for global standards.

2-Apr-13 7

Science based policies and legislation Jozef Misak

•  Technology transfer into other fields is significant. •  Medicine, advanced materials, a wide range of industrial

applications. •  Decommissioning, dismantling and disposal offer long

horizons. •  Strong competences needed into the future. •  Best available science helps regulators on improvement and

harmonisation. •  New entrants need a vibrant research community.

2-Apr-13 8


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

352 353


People, Quality of Life and environment William Nuttall

•  Citizens need a louder, clearer voice. •  Technocracy replaced by Trust. •  Euratom research portfolio needs stronger component of

the social sciences - active links to public engagement. •  Nuclear fission energy – 900,000 direct & indirect jobs. •  Attitudes vary widely across Europe - simple facts (never

weapons or military) could offer a new perspective. •  Many positive aspects to which the public will respond.

2-Apr-13 9

Final Points from the floor

•  How do we communicate? •  Be more engaged, innovative, more dialogue •  Not a struggle for resources with ‘hard’ science •  How are nuclear research and related

programmes understood by our societies? •  Our conviction is not enough. •  Relevant and a contributor to participative

democracy.

2-Apr-13 10

Summary by rapporteur of Session 1 Summary by rapporteur of Session 2

Rapporteur: Gerd Wolf (European Economic and Social Committee, Belgium)

Session 2 covered the presentations plus discussion shown below.

Keynote speech Hans Püttgen

Panel 3 — Research community, academia and industry

1. Melodi association Jacques Repussard

2. Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform Paul Howarth

3. Implementing Geological Disposal — Technology Platform marjatta Palmu

4. KFKI atomic energy research institute, Hungary János Gadó

5. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Thierry DUJARDIN

Panel 4 — Safety authorities and civil society

6. atomstopp, Austria Roland Egger

7. Nuclear Safety Authority, France Philippe Jamet

8. Safety and Risk Sciences Institute, Austria Wolfgang Liebert

9. European Technical Safety Organisations Network Frank-Peter Weiss

10. European Economic and Social Committee Ulla Sirkeinen

3. The Implementing Geological Disposal — Technology Platform has the vision that, by 2025, the first geological disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste and other long-lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe. The platform:• has members from 11 EU countries and 100+

participants working together and providing resources and learning;

• provides opportunities to participate in the planning of research, development and demonstration and in knowledge transfer; and

• focuses on the technical feasibility and long-term performance of repository components.

Also here, governance and stakeholder involvement had to be made clear.

4. The MTA centre for energy research is engaged in national Hungarian nuclear R&D. In the view of the speaker the following key issues needed to be addressed:• closing the nuclear fuel cycle (the most important

challenge for nuclear energy research in the 21st century);

• R&D into the safety, technology and economics of generation IV reactors;

• R&D into the advanced reprocessing and minimisation of long-lived radioactive waste; and

• the establishment of a technical basis for political decisions.

1. The Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (Melodi) association has the task of combining and piloting low-dose ionising radiation research by involving major national bodies with research programmes and long-term commitments to low-dose risk research in Europe. This is an extremely important task since the question of low-dose effects on human health is still not sufficiently answered. So far, following the precautionary principle, safety considerations are still based on the linear no-threshold model. Therefore it is of great interest to find out whether and under which conditions such a threshold exists or whether hormesis effects may occur.

2. The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform has the task of bringing together parties to address key issues of nuclear research and development (R&D), including:• post-Fukushima R&D;• improved sustainability of nuclear energy;• European legal and financial instruments;• EU sharing of risks and leveraging of investments;• Europe’s international relations;• large R&D infrastructures shared across Europe; and• researchers’ education, training and EU mobility.In the conclusions, the necessity of efficient governance was emphasised.

GER

d W

oLF

RA

poRT

EUR

SES

SIo

n 2

RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

354 355


He concluded that nuclear energy research in EU countries needed to be integrated into a self-consistent EU programme.

5. The Nuclear Energy Agency is a specialised agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It promotes member states’ cooperation in follow-up action and international projects in response to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident (more accident-tolerant fuels, benchmarking of codes describing severe accidents) and radioisotopes for medical use. It also takes account of Euratom involvement in the Generation IV International Forum and system effects in low-carbon electricity systems at the European level, to help define future R&D. 6. As expressed in its name, the main aim of atomstopp is to argue against the use of nuclear energy. Concerning R&D, it proposed that the Euratom research programme should:• maintain its focus on safety, the fuel cycle and

waste management; • create a basis for public debate concerning the

advisability of new nuclear plants;• try to solve the problems that nuclear energy

creates — a challenge for centuries to come!;• not protect industry; and• mainly address the key topics of health risks and

waste disposal.

7. The presentation of the Safety and Risk Sciences Institute challenged sustainability of nuclear energy (uranium resources, safety, proliferation, waste) and questioned the promise of transmutation researchers to reduce high-level nuclear waste.R&D was in particular addressed:• no proliferation resistant enrichment technology

is currently under R&D• potentials, limits and development risks of

transmutation should be independently and prospectively researched by EU

• to which extent sustainability goals can be met should be independently researched in comparison to other energy technology

He did not address the thorium cycle with itspotential for large additional resources, but in the discussion it became clear that he was not a fan of the use of thorium either.

8 and 9. The other two presentations on safety and security described the following activities:• an overall review to maintain rigorously high and

comparable safety standards in Europe;• a detailed analysis of Fukushima;• European and national stress-tests of existing

nuclear power stations; and• attention to non-proliferation and arms control.

And from this they had formulated tasks and necessities, including:• harmonised safety standards and converging

assessment practices;• the sharing of experiences and methods in safety

assessments;• the striving for coordinated European research in

reactor safety and security, radioactive waste disposal and radiation protection; and

• the development of intra-European emergency procedures and emergency preparedness.

They concluded that research was the key to enhanced safety and security. In the following debate it was emphasised strongly that there was an urgent need for binding and reliable common EU standards. Moreover, the necessity of intra-European emergency procedures and emergency preparedness was stressed.

10. The views of the EESC on future research needs at EU level summarised the main points of its various Opinions, including the need to:

• maintain competences at the highest level, irrespective of national decisions on nuclear energy;

• strengthen research investments to support policy on energy and nuclear safety (harmonisation) and to ensure an equitable transition towards a low-carbon economy;

• focus on safety, risk mitigation, safeguards and security of reactor systems, waste and fissile materials, with the increased involvement of civil society;

• integrate innovative technologies better, to face socio–economic and competitiveness challenges, to ensure long-term radiation safety and to provide medical treatments;

• ensure that stress tests cover possible beyond-design-basis accidents;

• anticipate the cross-border impact of incidents; and

• train specialists and ensure the teaching of enough basic knowledge in schools.

In his speech at the end of session 2, the rapporteur gave a cross-section of the above presentations and discussions, concluding that the search for knowledge and the use of knowledge were characteristic features of humans and that abandonment of knowledge would mean burying your head in the sand.

RoU

nd

TA

BLE

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nR

Apo

RTEU

R S

ESSI

on

2

GER

d W

oLFSummary by rapporteur of Session 2

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n


19-Apr-13

Summary of Session II Gerd Wolf - EESC

Revised, including corrections and orally given comments by the Rapporteur and the audience

Keynote Speech -‐ Hans Pü1gen Panel 3 -‐ Research community, academia and industry MELODI European AssociaCon Jacques Repussard Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology PlaIorm Paul Howarth ImplemenCng Geological Disposal Technology PlaIorm Marja1aPalmu KFKI Atomic Energy Research InsCtute JánosGadó OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Thierry Dujardin Panel 4-‐ Safety authoriCes and civil society Friends of the Earth (atomstopp, Austria) Roland Egger French Nuclear Safety Agency Philippe Jamet Inst. Sicherheits & RisikowissenschaWen, Wien Univ. Wolfgang Liebert Network of European Technical Safety OrganizaCons Frank Peter Weiss European Economic and Social Commi1ee Ulla Sirkeinen

Session Two

Authority

356 357



GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative) Jacques Repussard

•  Concerns about radiation protection against chronic exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation left unanswered

•  Areas of greatest uncertainties •  Combine and pilot efforts on low dose ionizing radiation

research •  Major national bodies with research programmes and long

term commitment to low dose risk research in Europe

Linear no-threshold model, LNT Is there a threshold? Hormesis?

19-Apr-13 3

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform Paul Howarth

•  Post-Fukushima R&D •  improve sustainability of nuclear energy (minimize

radioactive waste, optimize the use of nuclear materials) •  European legal and financial instruments (joint

programming and execution of R&D) •  EU scale: sharing risks and leveraging investments •  European position facing international partners •  Large scale R&D infrastructures shared across Europe •  Researchers’ education, training and EU mobility

Bring together all parties involved. Governance issues?

Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform Marjatta Palmu

•  Vision: by 2025, the first geological disposal facilities for spent fuel, high-level waste and other long-lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe.

•  11 EU member states and 100+ participants working together and providing resources and sharing and learning

•  Opportunities to participate in the planning of research, development and demonstration and in important information exchange and knowledge transfer

•  Key topic: Technical feasibility and long-term performance of repository components

Governance and stakeholder involvement

19-Apr-13 5

MTA Centre for Energy Research

(former KFKI) János Gadó

• Closing the nuclear fuel cycle is the most important challenge for nuclear energy research in the 21st century.

• R&D in the field of: • safety, technology and economy of Generation 4 reactors • advanced reprocessing and minimization of long lived radioactive waste

• Establish a technical basis for political decisions on siting of the European nuclear reactor and fuel facility fleet.

The nuclear energy research needs integration into a self consistent EU-Programme

February 27, 2013 6


GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

358 359


OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Thierry Dujardin

•  Specialised agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development promoting International Coopeartion

•  Examples of OECD/NEA flexibility in adapting its programme of work •  Radio-isotopes for medical use •  Post Fukushima R & D (accident more tolerant fuels, benchmark of

codes describing severe accidents, etc.) •  Euratom involvement in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF)

is essential •  Taking into account systems effects in low-carbon electricity systems

at the European level should help defining future R & D

Assist member states through international cooperation in these areas

Main emphasis: against the use of nuclear energy Therefore, the EURATOM research programme: •  should maintain its focus on safety, the fuel cycle and

waste management. •  should create a basis for public debate concerning the

advisability of new nuclear plants •  should try to solve the problems nuclear energy creates –

a challenge for the centuries to come! •  EURATOM should not protect industry •  Key topics: health risks and waste disposal

19-Apr-13 8

atomstopp, Austria Roland Egger


GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

Safety Organizations and Agencies

•  Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire ASN Philippe Jamet •  European Technical Safety Organizations Network

ETSON Frank Peter Weiss •  Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences of the

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna Wolfgang Liebert

Presentations from:

Wolfgang Liebert

•  Added some vinegar to the wine by

> challenging the sustainability of nuclear energy in view of limited Uranium resources, safety and waste challenges, and the questionable use of Plutonium.

> challenging researchers promise of transmutation to ease the reduction of nuclear waste

> requesting EU independent research on achievability of sustainability goals and realistic transmutation potentials


GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

360 361


Safety Organizations and Agencies Philippe Jamet and Frank Peter Weiss

main activities:

•  Overall review to maintain rigorously high and comparable safety standards in Europe

•  Detailed analysis of Fukushima •  European and National stress-tests of existing

nuclear power stations •  Non-Proliferation, Arms Control •  Research is key to enhanced safety and

security

Safety Organizations and Agencies goals:

•  harmonized safety standards and converging assessment practices

•  sharing experiences and methods in safety assessment

•  striving for coordinated European research activities in reactor safety and security, radioactive waste disposal, and radiation protection

•  developing inter-European emergency procedures: emergency preparedness Conclusion during discussion: need for binding and

reliable common EU standards


GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

Views of the EESC on future research needs at EU level

•  Keeping competences at the highest level, irrespective of MS decisions on nuclear energy

•  Strengthening research investments to support policy on energy & nuclear safety (harmonization) and to ensure an equitable transition towards a low carbon economy

•  Euratom focus on safety, risk mitigation, safeguards and security: reactor systems, waste, fissile materials ... with increased involvement of civil society

•  Better integration needed for innovative technologies, to face socio–economic & competitiveness challenges, long-term radiation safety, medical treatment

13

Views of the EESC

14

•  Stress tests: possible beyond-design-basis accidents •  Cross-border impact of incidents •  Training of specialists, enough basic knowledge at schools

-o- The search for knowledge and the use of knowledge are the

characteristic features of humans Abandonment of knowledge => head in the sand.


GER

d W

oLF

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

362 363


RoU

nd

TA

BLE

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nCo

nCL

Ud

InG

SESS

Ion

Round-table: concluding session

Q1: Robert-Jan Smits (European Commission’s research and innovation directorate) asked the panel: What would be your advice?

A1.1: Julian Kinderlerer (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, South Africa) answered that more energy and more access to energy were needed. Could we do without nuclear in the EU? The answer was no. And there was a need for a stable energy system.

A1.2: John Wood (Association of Commonwealth Universities, UK) indicated that more nuclear materials research would be very useful. We needed to make nuclear more transparent and more visible in EU countries, but would we then not be accused of fixing the flow of information? Why not switch off the lights 20% of the time and see how people reacted? The expectations of citizens were rising. We did not have much time. What were we going to do?

A1.3: Jorgen Kjems (Kjems R&D Consult, Denmark) reported that the justifications for the support of nuclear fission research outlined in a December 2012 report by the Scientific and Technical Committee of Euratom were fully in line with the ideas at this symposium.

From the audience, Paul Dorfman (Warwick Business School, UK) indicated that the topics of liability and costs still needed to be discussed.

D’haeseleer clarified that he had previously mentioned that nuclear had the potential to satisfy all three pillars of the EU energy policy, if sufficient research were carried out.

Then Robert Jan Smits presented his symposium conclusions and the way forward. The ethics and experts reports and a report on the symposium would be sent to the competitiveness Council for the attention of ministers.

Richard Adams (European Economic and Social Committee) gave a final conclusions speech on this symposium.

Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger gave the final speech, on the role of nuclear fission research and innovation in tackling EU challenges.

SyM

poSI

UM

FIn

AL

Con

CLU

SIo

nSConclusions presented

by Robert Jan SmitsThe symposium took note of the interdisciplinary study on nuclear energy and the opinion of the European Group on Ethics and:

• noTEd the major societal challenges Europe has to address, not only the current economic crisis, but also security of energy supply, food security, protection of the environment, including climate change, and social welfare;

• ExpRESSEd its concern notably about the energy challenge and CALLEd upon the public and the private sector to step-up their research investments in all forms of sustainable energy to ensure an equitable transition to a low carbon economy, while fulfilling the overall goals of the Eu Energy policy (Sustainability, Security and Reliability of Supply; Competitiveness and Affordability)

• REcoGNiSED that nuclear fission for energy production is an important political issue in most Member States and for the general public. Therefore nuclear fission research must be considered as a joint endeavour involving the research community, politicians and the public; in addition scientific support to policy on nuclear safety should be further developed, notably the setting of a framework for harmonisation of national standards.

• HIGHLIGHTEd that, following Fukushima, future Euratom research cannot be “business as usual” and its orientation should be more focused on safety, risk-mitigation, safeguards and security, as well as waste management and decommissioning; research efforts should evolve towards a wider systemic approach and be integrated with other policy streams, ensuring transparency and cost effectiveness; Euratom should also not ignore the necessity and stimulus of research into new and emerging technologies, not only for safety and security, but also in innovative sectors such as nuclear medicine;

• EMpHASISEd that Europe, through the Euratom programme, should keep its competences at the highest level, to allow all citizens to benefit from publicly financed, transparent, independent knowledge in nuclear fission safety; European skills have to stay up to date, supported by capacity building and continuous strengthening of the human resource base;

• CALLEd for the development of stronger links between science, civil society, industry and policy makers, with possible consequences on the governance of the future Euratom programme, including the composition of the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee (STC), and on the way research associations and technology platforms interact with the general public;

• UndERLInEd that the Euratom activities would greatly benefit from structured and regular interactions with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), in particular to help deal with the implications of the rapidly growing demand for energy and the evolution of the energy mix.

• RECALLEd that the Commission’s Joint Research Centre is recognized as a EU Centre of Excellence for nuclear safety, safeguards and security science; consideration should be given to opening the JRC Clearinghouse on operational Experience Feedback to all national nuclear regulatory authorities, who want to participate, in order to establish a permanent European nuclear Safety Laboratory for the continuous improvement of safety;

• REITERATEd that, in line with the changing research and innovation scene world-wide, Euratom should take a full part in international discussions, forming partnerships with other regions of the world, to promote the highest safety standards.

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

364 365


RIC

HA

Rd

AdA

MS Symposium Conclusions

speech by Richard Adams from EESCThis conference has been dynamic. Like life itself it has been a creative interaction between energy and matter. It has built on the research study and added new insights and perceptions; and it has been stimulated by the summary found in the Synthesis Report.

Acting in the original spirit of a symposium, this conference has established the basis for a ‘fresh start’, a new covenant between the research community and the citizen. This has been affirmed not only through the contributions of more than 20 social scientists from a wide range of disciplines but by the close association and co-operation with the EESC and by the attention paid to the ground-breaking Energy Research and Ethics report, something originally requested with great discernment by the Austrian government. This offers us a framework which recognises the common values in European society, applies them to energy and sets them in a global context.

The conference has addressed those challenges which research should be exploring and challenged the research community to respond. Europe has to address major societal issues in connection with energy and in response public and private sector research investments in all forms of sustainable low carbon energy must be increased.

The conference has not avoided the fact that nuclear energy is an important and controversial political issue in most Member States. What this conference has shown is that the future of nuclear fission research must be seen as a joint enterprise involving the research community, politicians and the public.

To restate the obvious, Fukushima was a game-changer for the future of Euratom research, directing its focus to safety, risk-mitigation, and security, as well as waste management and decommissioning. But we cannot ignore the necessity and stimulus of research into new and emerging technologies, not only for safety and security but also in innovative sectors such as nuclear medicine.

One of the strongest messages was that Europe, through the Euratom programme and in an open and transparent way, should keep its competences at thehighest level, not only through skills development and training but by better coordination. As an example it has also been proposed that the JRC opens its Clearinghouse on Operational Experience Feedback to all national nuclear regulatory authorities and thus establishes a permanent European Nuclear Safety Laboratory for continuous improvement as a global centre of excellence in cooperation with all Member States. And in a spirit of trust and transparency the aim should be for Euratom research to be published in full and be assessed and evaluated against the original objectives.

With nuclear fission the role of research can be summed up as minimising risk and maximising opportunities whilst ensuring safety, but there needs to be more. The sense of limitless possibilities in the early days of nuclear research has been tempered by the realities of risk and the vital demands of safety. But the sound potential of nuclear research still exists and understanding what is possible will be vital for tomorrow’s world. The world is at a crossroads; can we take the path to a truly sustainable future? We have to deal with the implications of the rapidly growing demand for energy, the evolution of the energy mix and the role that nuclear could play in maintaining a safe and secure diversity in that mix. Only in this way can it contribute to our aspirations for a sustainable low carbon, global economy.

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n

GUn

THER

oET

TIn

GERThe need for European

research and innovation to tackle EU challenges

Commissioner Oettinger proposed speech(in English)


I am happy to be here with you to close the event where you discussed benefits and limitations of nuclear fission for a low carbon economy. This is a complex topic, which deserves a priority analysis, and I would already like to thank you all for the engagement given to this delicate issue.

Europe faces today major societal challenges. The economic crisis of course, but let’s not forget climate change and availability of sustainable, secure and affordable energy that are central to the strategy that the European Union has set up for 2020. It is a dynamic strategy that will make the development of a European competitive low carbon energy system an engine of growth, economic recovery and job creation.

The institutional framework and the Treaty of Lisbon confirm that the energy mix of the Member States is a national responsibility. Nevertheless, the establishment of the internal market for energy creates strong links and interdependencies between those national decisions. That is the basis on which an EU energy policy is built, to ensure an equitable transition to a low carbon economy.

This is not a mere question of optimisation based on technological and economic considerations. It is also a question of choosing from among various types of risks, since there is no risk-free energy source. The particular choice is also a societal issue, even socio-cultural, having regards of the different interpretations of quality of life in different countries.

One of the major European objectives for a sustainable economy involves the decarbonisation of our electricity supply. Renewable energies will definitely contribute to this effort. But for many countries CO2-free nuclear energy is also needed to reinforce the robustness of energy supply and is considered an asset for the competitiveness of the European economy.

Nuclear energy is therefore today part of the energy mix in half the EU Member States. Of course, the Fukushima event has demonstrated that the highest safety levels and full transparency are of the upmost importance. This is even more clear since Europe hosts the highest number of nuclear power plants,

one hundred and thirty five (135), generating about a third of the electricity consumed in the European Union.


Necessary elements of a responsible EU energy policy and energy research framework are the respect for European values, solidarity among Member States, and a prudent equilibrium between a common European approach and different national energy plans. This is highlighted by the European Group on Ethics in its recent report.

It is clear that safety must be a key priority for every country, for those that decide to embark on, or continue the use of nuclear energy, as well as for those confronted with nuclear plants in their neighbourhood. The highest safety standards must be respected throughout each stage of the life cycle of nuclear systems – starting from design and construction, through operation, to dismantlement of nuclear installations and waste management.

Nuclear safety is a global issue that requires a global response. We must work together to meet all the challenges related to the use of these technologies. In Europe and outside, we must build the most advanced legal framework and the highest standards. That is why - following the Nuclear Safety Directive of 2009, the Commission is preparing a new version taking fully into account the lessons learnt from Fukushima and the subsequent Stress Tests at EU level. In 2011 a Directive was also adopted for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. These developments are far-reaching because they make the EU the first major global player to give binding legal force to international safety standards whilst at the same time supporting strong European cooperation. On this basis, be sure that the European Union will pursue a close dialogue and collaboration with other partner countries around the world.

How can we develop good regulations? It is clear that the only way forward is through interaction with all Member States, and on the basis of scientific knowledge. You will agree with me that research supports European capacity building and the maintenance of competences at the highest level. Could we imagine that, in the future, Europe would depend from competences outside the Union in the field of safety of nuclear reactors? Certainly not – and this very simple statement was reinforced in all the studies carried out in preparation of this Symposium. In addition, public research at EU level allows all citizens to profit from the necessary knowledge to better understand the different challenges and the proposed solutions.

Developing joint actions on safety issues is therefore the backbone of the Euratom research programme. Co

nCL

Ud

InG

SESS

Ion

366 367


GUn

THER

oET

TIn

GER Ladies and Gentlemen

I will now examine the way nuclear research should be implemented. The viewpoint shared by all the experts is that the link between science, civil society, industry and policy makers must become stronger. Easy to say, more difficult to realize… Solutions at European and national levels should be developed and implemented as soon as possible. For example, social scientists and experts from the non-nuclear science and engineering should be integrated in the Euratom actions to ensure a wider systemic and multi-disciplinary approach to the development of efficient, safe and sustainable energy technologies and energy mix. Future Euratom research cannot be “business as usual”.

A vital task of research is to create a better future, a future where Europe’s citizens feel valued and secure. That is why public involvement in agreeing priorities for the contribution of research to Europe’s future energy mix is essential. I therefore greatly welcome the initiative by the European Economic and Social Committee, co-organisers of this conference, to explore an ambitious programme of public understanding and engagement in energy policy.

Moreover, common initiatives between the European Commission and the Member States, such as the European Clearinghouse for nuclear operational experience, coordinated by the EC Joint Research Centre, shall be further implemented and efficiently used. This experience towards the establishment of a European Nuclear Safety Laboratory in wide cooperation with all Member States should be pursued.

Initiatives such as these will allow the European Union to guarantee and promote high safety standards in all types of civilian nuclear activities, including electricity production and medical activities.


Please allow me to refer now to the proposal for the Euratom research programme, which will be part of Horizon 2020. This allows putting existing financial instruments for research and innovation under a common structure. The Commission has proposed a research budget of 80 billion € for the period 2014-2020, of which about 10% would be devoted to energy issues. Even if this budget is currently discussed, this gives a clear message that Europe is serious about investing in growth and jobs – a proven way out of economic crisis – and that Europe – I mean both the public and the private sector - is serious about maintaining its global leadership in energy research and innovation.

I am convinced that the research activities which the Commission has proposed under the Euratom part Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

nof Horizon 2020, both direct and indirect actions, address the concerns which have been discussed during the last two days.

Firstly, as far as the direct actions through the Joint Research Centre are concerned, you all understand that the JRC plays a major role, as the Commission’s in-house science service, in underpinning European policies with the necessary scientific evidence. It serves the common interest of the Member States, being independent of specific private or regional interests. It helps overall to improve transparency and build public confidence on safety and security.

As far as support to collaborative and co-operative research is concerned, the European Commission is able to play a catalysing role between Member States and to reinforce the European Research Area as well as the Partnerships for Excellence and Growth. Euratom research has to be consistent with the Strategic Energy Technologies Plan, the so-called SET-Plan, which was set up to accelerate the development of technologies with low carbon emissions throughout Europe. This implies the support to the development of industrial initiatives, European Technology Platforms or Integrated Research Programmes. Of course safety should remain the top priority of these actions, all over the lifetime of the nuclear installations, including the decommissioning phase, for which the Civil Society should be fully aware of and engaged in. This is - maybe - the only way for Europe to maintain its world-wide leading position, and to keep Europe’s industry competitive in the long-term.

Furthermore, in line with the Innovation Union goals, a number of new and emerging technologies should be promoted, not only to support safety and security, but also to develop innovative areas, such as in support to nuclear medicine.

Let’s not forget of course the role of Euratom in the development of skills in Europe, which need to stay up to date, to support professional development, notably on safety issues, in energy as well as non-energy related sectors. Economies of scale and the development of a common knowledge base call for a European dimension of these activities.

Knowledge is the currency of the new economy. A world-leading research and innovation capacity, built on a strong publicly funded science base, is therefore vital to achieve lasting economic recovery and to secure Europe’s position in the emerging global order. In line with the changing research and innovation scene world-wide, Euratom should also be a major partner with other regions of the world to promote the highest safety standards.

GUn

THER

oET

TIn

GER

Con

CLU

dIn

G SE

SSIo

n


Ultimately, all this work under Europe 2020, Innovation Union and Horizon 2020 is aimed at tackling the huge societal challenges Europe is confronted with. We owe it to our citizens and to future generations to act proactively and responsibly. In this context, all actors in nuclear fission research should understand the need to strengthen links between research and society.

The EU also needs to act urgently and coherently to pool resources in order to achieve the impact needed. Therefore, I am fully aware that the governance of Euratom research should be reformed, considering the evolution of various challenges, in particular integrating better the civil society. Research activities should also evolve towards a wider systemic approach. Research efforts should become more multi-disciplinary and integrated with policy streams at European and national levels, and ensuring more transparency and cost effectiveness.

Let’s however keep in mind that Member States are key actors for the increased efficiency and impact of responsible research activities in the nuclear fission domain. The European Commission has to play a crucial catalysing role in this process, by helping with the development of common visions and the pooling of resources across a range of initiatives of pan-European interest.

With the joint engagement of academia, civil society, public authorities and industry, I am confident that the outcome of discussions over the last two days will be very useful in helping the Council reach consensus for the adoption of the next Euratom research programme.

I would like now to conclude and express again my thanks to all of you for your time, dedication and discussions. The broad participation of stakeholders, coming from research, public institutions, regulatory bodies, industry, as well as from the civil society represents an encouraging signal to the further development of a responsible energy research at EU level. Many thanks in particular to colleagues of the Economic and Social Committee for their role, not only as co-organisers, but also as dynamic interface with the civil society.

I look forward to important initiatives at European level, which will demonstrate to the citizens how able we are – jointly - to face the challenges ahead, notably through innovation and by keeping the necessary competences in Europe in the nuclear field, based on efficient research and education efforts at European level. The development of a European competitive low carbon energy system as an engine of growth and job creation is an opportunity not to be missed.

I thank you for your attention.

368 369


Argus Media BELGIUMAB IAGO DAFYDD

European CommissionABENTUNG DANIELA

European Economic and Social CommitteeADAMS RICHARD

SCK•CEN BELGIUMAÏT ABDERRAHIM HAMID

Institut de Radioprpotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire FRANCEALBERT MARC - GÉRARD

Atomic Energy Authority TURKEYALPER ZAFER

Karita Research AB SWEDENANDERSSON KJELL

TRACTEBEL ENGINEERING - GDF SUEZ BELGIUMANGULO CARMEN

European Commission, JRCANKLAM ELKE

European CommissionANTOINE MARIANNE

Department of Energy and Climate Change UNITEDKINGDOM

ARNOLD ROB

Ministry of Employment and the Economy FINLANDAURELA JORMA

ANCCLI FRANCEAUTRET JEAN - CLAUDE

SCK•CEN BELGIUMBAETEN PETER

ASSISTANTBALLETTO ILARIA

European Economic and Social CommitteeBATUT LAURE

Mutadis FRANCEBAUDÉ STÉPHANE

ASIR Consultants Europe BELGIUMBEGINE LUC

Texaco (until retir.) BELGIUMBENOOT ADOLPHE

French Permanent Representation to the EuropeanUnion

BINET MARINE

European Commission, DG ENERBLOHM-HIEBER UTE

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

Ministry of Education and Research SWEDENBOGDANOVIC GORAN

Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education DENMARKBRAMSNAES GORM

European Commission, DG RTDBRASSART MATTHIEU

Pan European Networks UNITEDKINGDOM

BRENNAN MICHAEL

DCNS FRANCEBRIFFOD FRANCOIS -XAVIER

Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux EnergiesAlternatives (CEA)

FRANCEBROCHARD DIDIER

IRSN FRANCEBRUNA GIOVANNI

Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology (INCT) POLANDBRYKALA MARCIN

European Commission, JRC-ITUBUCKAU GUNNAR

AREVA BELGIUMBUET BAPTISTE

European Economic and Social CommitteeBUFFETAUT STÉPHANE

Basse-Normandie Regional Office BELGIUMBUYLE-BODIN ZOE

Basse-Normandie Regional Office BELGIUMBUYLE-BODIN ZOE

Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform (Gopa-Cartermill) BELGIUMCAGLIONI LICIA

Tausend Augen, les mille Yeux BELGIUMCALBERT YVES

EDF FRANCECAMARCAT NOEL

European Commission, JRC-IETCARLSSON JOHAN

SNETP FRANCECARULLI MARCO

Paul Scherrer Institute SWITZERLANDCAVEDON JEAN - MARC

AREVA FRANCECHAUCHEPRAT PATRICK

LGI Consulting FRANCECHAUVET VINCENT

freelance BELGIUMCLEENEWERCK KAAT

Ministerio de Hacienda SPAINCOBO MARIA ROSA

CEA FRANCECOGNET GERARD

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 2

370 371













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

EDF FRANCECOLAS FRANCOISE

General secretariat of the European CouncilCOLLART CATHERINE

Center of Technology and Engineering for NuclearProjects

ROMANIACOMSA OLIVIA

Environment Ministry of Ireland IRELANDCONNOLLY EMER

European Commission, DG SCICCSANYI NORA

European Economic and Social CommitteeCSEKE DORA

Permanent Representation of Austria to the EuropeanUnion

CSÍK ADRIAN

Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland IRELANDCURRIVAN LORRAINE

University of Leuven, Energy Institute (KU Leuven) BELGIUMD'HAESELEER WILLIAM

European Commission, DG EMPLDAPERGOLA ROCCA ELENI

European Commission, DG DEVCODAURES PASCAL

European Commission, DG RTDDAVIES CHRISTOPHE

NRG NETHERLANDSDE GROOT SANDER

NRG NETHERLANDSDE HAAS GEERT - JAN

European Commission, DG RTDDE HEMPTINNEGWENDOLINE

European Commission, DG RTDDE JONG VAN DEN BRANDESTHER

European Nuclear Education Network Association(ENEN)

FRANCEDE REGGE PETER PAUL

Necsa SOUTH AFRICADE VILLIERS VAN ZYL

INVESTA-CBFI BELGIUMDECEUNINCK PATRICK

SCK•CEN BELGIUMDECONINCK FRANK

European Commission, DG ENERDEFFRENNES MARC

Ministère de l'enseignement supérieur et de larecherche

FRANCEDELBOURGO PASCALE

Service Public de Wallonie BELGIUMDELMER LAURIE

European Commission, DG RTDDELTOMBE LUC

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 3

EDF BELGIUMDESBAZEILLE YVES

Publisher Brussels Diplomatic BELGIUMDESNERCK MIGUEL D

PR OF LITHUANIA BELGIUMDEVIZIENE JURATE

Institute for Nuclear Research ROMANIADIACONU DANIELA

GERMANYDOHNERT BERND

Empresarios Agrupados SPAINDOMÍNGUEZ BAUTISTAMARÍA TERESA

WBS, University of Warwick UNITEDKINGDOM

DORFMAN PAUL

South African Department of Science and Technology BELARUSDU TOIT DAAN

CJB BELGIUMDUBUS CLAUDE

European Commission, DG RTDDUJARDIN STELLA

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency FRANCEDUJARDIN THIERRY

Amphos 21 Group S.L. SPAINDURO LARA

APRE ITALYDUROCHER LUCIE

European Commission, DG RTDDŽUBINSKÝ MYKOLA

Forum Engrers SWITZERLANDECOFFEY BERNARD

Ministry of Environment ESTONIAEEK LIINA

atomstopp_atomkraftfrei leben! AUSTRIAEGGER ROLAND

Belgian Health Council and GoE Art 31 Euratom BELGIUMEGGERMONT GILBERT

Belgo-Cadres BELGIUMENGLEBERT CHRISTIAN

Université de Versailles St. Quentin-en-Yvelines FRANCEFALCK EBERHARD

ASSISTANTFALCK JAMES

European Commission, JRC-ITUFANGHÄNEL THOMAS

European Commission, DG ENERFAROSS PETER

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) GERMANYFAZIO CONCETTA

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 4

372 373













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

FPS Economy & Energy BELGIUMFERNANDEZ FERNANDEZALBERTO

Lithuanian Permanent Representation BELGIUMFIRKAVICIUTE KARIMA

EESC&NTUC MERIDIAN from Romania ROMANIAFORNEA DUMITRU

CEEP BELGIUMFORYŚ MICHAŁ

private SWITZERLANDFOSKOLOS KONSTANTIN

FORATOM/ENISS BELGIUMFOUREST BERNARD

European Commission, DG RTDFRANZA MARCO

Ansaldo Nucleare ITALYFROGHERI MONICA

European Commission, DG ENERFURFARI SAMUELE

MTA Centre for Energy Research HUNGARYGADÓ JÁNOS

Joint Research Centre - European Commission BELGIUMGAMMEL JEAN-PHILIPPE

European Commission, DG RTDGARBIL ROGER

Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon FRANCEGARCIER ROMAIN

Permanent Representation of France to the European Union

GILLET GUILLAUME

CIEMAT SPAINGONZALEZ-ROMEROENRIQUE M.

European Parliament BELGIUMGOTEV GORAN

Reporters CESE/CDRGOUVERNEUR MICHEL

NUTRICIA/DANONE NETHERLANDSGREEN WILLIAM

European Commission, DG SCICGUERRA ANTONIO

Office of the High Commissionner for Atomic Energy FRANCEGUETAT PHILIPPE

Premier Ministre/Secrétariat Général aux AffairesEuropéennes

FRANCEGUYADER MARIE - CLAIRE

Fennovoima BELGIUMHÄÄRÄ SINI

European Commission, DG JRCHAAS DIDIER

European Parliament BELGIUMHAGAN PAUL

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 5

European Commission, JRC-IETHÄHNER PETER

Platts BELGIUMHALL SIOBHAN

BMWF AUSTRIAHANSLIK STEFAN

Slovenske Elektrarne, a.s. group of ENEL SLOVAKIAHANZEL ANDREJ

Paul Scherrer Institute SWITZERLANDHARDEGGER PETER

VUJE, a.s. SLOVAKIAHATALA BRANISLAV

E.ON Nuclear Sweden SWEDENHAUKILAHTI JUHA

GDF SUEZ BELGIUMHAVARD PAUL

Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) FINLANDHEIKINHEIMO LIISA

ANCCLI FRANCEHERIARD DUBREUIL GILLES

Paul Scherrer Institut SWITZERLANDHIRSCHBERG STEFAN

European Commission, DG RTDHONZAK RADEK

National Nuclear Laboratory UNITEDKINGDOM

HOWARTH PAUL

European Commission, DG RTDHUGON MICHEL

Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB SWEDENHULTQVIST GÖRAN

Ministry of Economy ROMANIAIONESCU MIRCEA

FORATOM BELGIUMIVENS RICHARD

National Centre for Nuclear Research POLANDJACKOWSKI TOMASZ

Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire FRANCEJAMET PHILIPPE

European Nuclear Society BELGIUMJANISZ EMILIA

Independent BELGIUMJOHNSTON MARK

European Commission, DG RTDJOUVE ANDRÉ

Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) BELGIUMKAINURINNE KAIJA

European Economic and Social CommitteeKAMIENIECKI KRZYSZTOF

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 6

374 375













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

Euratom Supply Agency / European Commission, DGENER

LUXEMBOURGKARDARAS STEFANOS

Nestle Health Science, ENHA SWITZERLANDKASPAR KALA

European Commission, DG RTDKEARNEY SHARON

Ministry of Science and Higher Education POLANDKIELMINSKI MACIEJ

European Group on Ethics SOUTH AFRICAKINDERLERER JULIAN

Kjems R&D Consult DENMARKKJEMS JORGEN

European Economic and Social CommitteeKLENKE ALEKSANDRA

TU-Delft NETHERLANDSKLOOSTERMAN JAN LEEN

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) GERMANYKNEBEL JOACHIM

Slovenske Elektrarne, a.s. group of ENEL SLOVAKIAKOPERNICKY JOZEF

European Economic and Social CommitteeKOZDOJ ANNA

ETH Zurich SWITZERLANDKROGER WOLFGANG

SCALARIS ECI AG - Paul kruegr Consulting GmbH SWITZERLANDKRUEGER PAUL

Permanent Representation of Lithuania to the EuropeanUnion

KUODE IEVA

Research Center Jülich AUSTRIAKUPITZ JUERGEN

European Nuclear Education Network Association(ENEN)

FRANCEKUSUMI RYOKO

European Commission, DG RTDLACOURT AMANDINE

NPP Kozloduy BULGARIALALOVA VLADISLAVA

DCNS FRANCELEBEL HUGUES

SCK•CEN BELGIUMLEGRAIN CHRISTIAN

Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex & IFRIS,Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée

FRANCELEHTONEN MARKKU

European Commission, DG RTDLEQUEUX GILLES

Civil Society BELGIUMLEROY JOSIANE

Jozef Stefan Institute SLOVENIALESKOVAR MATJAZ

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 7

European ParliamentLESNIAK CHRISTOPHE

Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, BOKUVienna

AUSTRIALIEBERT WOLFGANG

VUJE SLOVAKIALISKA PETER

UK Energy Research Centre UNITEDKINGDOM

LOUGHHEAD JOHN

SGAE France FRANCELOUSSELIN MARINA

European Commission, DG ENERLOWE PHILIP

CGL Consulting SWEDENLÖWENHIELM GUSTAF

International Atomic Energy Agency AUSTRIALYONS JAMES

Representative of the Irish Presidency of the Council ofMinisters

IRELANDMAC AODHA EAMON

European Economic and Social CommitteeMACIULEVICIUS MINDAUGAS

European Commission, DG DEVCOMAIER EDDIE

European Commission, DG RTDMANOLATOS PANAGIOTIS

VUJE a.s. SLOVAKIAMAREC JURAJ

European Commission, DG RTDMARIEN FREDERICK

ASSISTANTMARTENS JULIE

European Commission, DG JRCMARTÍN RAMOS MANUEL

SCK•CEN BELGIUMMASSAUT VINCENT

master finance europe BELGIUMMEGANCK WILFRIED

ROST ROMANIAMIHAIL IULIA

PREMIER MINISTRE - COMITE TECHNIQUEEURATOM

FRANCEMIJUIN DOMINIQUE

UJV Rez a.s. CZECHREPUBLIC

MISAK JOZEF

Permanent Representation of Poland to the EuropeanUnion

MISIEWICZ MALGORZATA

Permanent Representation of Romania to the EuropeanUnion

MOISII ROXANA

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environmentand Water Management

AUSTRIAMOLIN ANDREAS

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 8

376 377













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

European Commission,JRC-IRMMMONDELAERS WILLY

European Economic and Social CommitteeMORDANT ANDRÉ

Confrontations Europe BELGIUMMOREAU MATHIEU

European Comission, DG DEVCOMOTA JOSE

Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) BELGIUMMOULIN JEAN

Finnish Energy Industries FINLANDMURANEN LAURI

National Nuclear Laboratory UNITEDKINGDOM

NAPIER STEVE

Westinghouse BELGIUMNAREDO FERNANDO

ASSISTANTNEGEDE TSEDEY

Permanent Mission HUNGARYNÉMETH GÁBOR

ASSISTANTNGUYEN LAM

AREVA NP GERMANYNIESSEN STEFAN

European Commission, JRC-IETNOËL MARC

Ege University, Institute of Nuclear Sciences TURKEYNOSTAR EMINE

E.ON New Build and Technology GERMANYNÚÑEZ-GONZÁLEZ SARA

The Open University UNITEDKINGDOM

NUTTALL WILLIAM

Environment Ministry IRELANDO'LEARY RORY

European Commission, Commissionner for EnergyOETTINGER GÜNTHER

European Economic and Social CommitteeORAVEC JAN

Hitachi BELGIUMOTTO ERIK

EGE UNIVERSITY TURKEYOZDEN BANU

IGD-TP / Posiva Oy FINLANDPALMU MARJATTA

FORATOM BELGIUMPARKER GUY

European Commission, DG JRCPATAKI ZSOLT

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 9

UJV Rez a.s. CZECHREPUBLIC

PATRIK MILAN

Paul Scherrer Institute SWITZERLANDPAUTZ ANDREAS

Jilbee GREECEPAVLAKIS CHRISTOFOROS

MPO CZECHREPUBLIC

PAZDERA FRANTISEK

DASTI DENMARKPEDERSEN JEPPE

SPF Economie BELGIUMPEDOUX SOPHIE

SCK•CEN BELGIUMPERKO TANJA

European Commission, DG RTDPERO HERVE

European Commission, JRC-IETPETEVES STATHIS

Ministry of Development, Competitiveness,Infrastructures, Transportations & Networks

GREECEPETRIDIS ATHANASIOS

Employers of Poland/ alternate of EESC's member - MrAndrzej Malinowski

POLANDPIETKIEWICZ JANUSZ

APRE ITALYPOCATERRA CHIARA

Foratom BELGIUMPONCELET JEAN POL

European Economic and Social CommitteePONTHIEU ERIC

Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) BELGIUMPOULEUR YVAN

Institut Symlog de France FRANCEPOUMADÈRE MARC

CEZ CZECHREPUBLIC

PRASIL JAN

European Commission, DG RTDPTACKOVA KATERINA

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne SWITZERLANDPÜTTGEN HANS BJÖRN

PREMIER MINISTRE - COMITE TECHNIQUEEURATOM

FRANCEQUAGLIA BRUNO

European Commission, DG JRCRANGUELOVA VESSELINA

Institut für Sicherheits- und Risikowissenschaften, Wien AUSTRIARENNEBERG WOLFGANG

IRSN FRANCEREPUSSARD JACQUES

Mission of Switzerland to the European UnionREYMOND XAVIER

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 10

378 379













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1












ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

AREVA BELGIUMRICHARD ANNE - LAURE

GDF SUEZ Energy & Environment BELGIUMRICHEZ JEAN - MICHEL

VTT FINLANDRINTAMAA RAUNO

European Commission, DG JRCRISTORI DOMINIQUE

SCK•CEN BELGIUMROJAS-PALMA CARLOS

EFDA UNITEDKINGDOM

ROMANELLI FRANCESCO

European Commission, JRC-ITURONDINELLA VINCENZO

Artesis BELGIUMROSIERS LUC

Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EuropeanUnion

ROYAUX DAVID

UJV Rez CZECHREPUBLIC

RUSCAK MARTIN

NHS SWITZERLANDRUTHSATZ MANFRED

TVO FINLANDRYHÄNEN VEIJO

Aalto University FINLANDSALOMAA RAINER

European Commission, BEPASALVI MAURIZIO

PR Slovak Rep BELGIUMSANDOR DUSAN

Permanent Representation of Romania to the EuropeanUnion

SBARNA MIRCEA

ISaR Institute GERMANYSCHAEFER ANSELM

Ministry of Economic Affairs NETHERLANDSSCHOUSTRA TJEERD

SCK•CEN and University of Antwerp BELGIUMSCHRÖDER JANTINE

European Commission, DG ENERSCHWALBACH PETER

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire FRANCESCOTT DE MARTINVILLEEDOUARD F.

Vinçotte Nuclear Safety BELGIUMSHIHAB SAMMY

European Commission, DG RTDSHISHKOVA ALBENA

European Economic and Social CommitteeSIRKEINEN ULLA

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 11

European ParliamentSKINNER PETER

European Commission, DG RTDSMITS ROBERT-JAN

Permanent Representation of Bulgaria to the EuropeanUnion

STEFANOV STANISLAV

BCL Communications FRANCESTEVENS THOMAS

Ministry for Ecology, Sustainable Development andEnergy

FRANCESTORRER FRANÇOIS

Ministry of Science and Higher Education POLANDSTYCZEŃ PAULINA

European Commission, DG JRCSUCHA VLADIMIR

European Investment BankSZABO ISTVAN

IPPT PAN POLANDSZKILADZ EWA

Consultant GERMANYTESCHENDORFF VICTOR

EESC BELGIUMTETU ALICE

European Commission, DG DEVCOTHORMAEHLEN CHRISTINA

AULA BELGIUMTULONEN SAMI

Institute for Nuclear Research ROMANIATURCU ILIE

IFIN-HH ROMANIAURSU IOAN

Lithuanian Energy Institute LITHUANIAUŠPURAS EUGENIJUS

University of Antwerp BELGIUMVAN BERENDONCKS KRIS

SPW BELGIUMVAN CAUWENBERG THIERRY

AIG BELGIUMVAN DE VOORDE JEANNINE

PRESSVAN DER HASSELTGEOFFROY

European Commission, DG RTDVAN GOETHEM GEORGES

NRG NETHERLANDSVAN HEEK ALIKI

SCK•CEN BELGIUMVAN WALLE ERIC

FOD Justitie BELGIUMVANCROMBRUGGE THIERRY

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 12

380 381













ARNOLD ROB










BINET MARINE


Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 1

Council of the European Union BELGIUMVEIVO EVA

Permanent Representation of the Netherlands to theEuropean Union

VERBOOM JOHAN

NIDIA srl ITALYVIVALDA CLAUDIA

ENPRO Consult Ltd BULGARIAVLADIMIROVA RANKA

European Commission, JRC-IETVON ESTORFF ULRIK

Development agency of Split and Dalmatia region CROATIAVUČICA MARIJA

European Commission, DG RTDWEBSTER SIMON

Grenoble INP/CNRS and KIC InnoEnergy FRANCEWEISS FRANÇOIS

Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit(GRS) mbH

GERMANYWEISS FRANK - PETER

Ministry of Science AUSTRIAWESELKA DANIEL

CCE-FU BELGIUMWEYNANTS ROGER

European CommissionWOHLSCHLEGEL WERNER

European Economic and Social CommitteeWOLF GERD H.

European Economic and Social CommitteeWOLF INGEBORG

Association of Commonwealth Universities UNITEDKINGDOM

WOOD JOHN

Utility Week/Professional Engineering BELGIUMWYMAN VIC

European Economic and Social CommitteeZBORIL JOSEF

EESC BELGIUMZBORIL JOSEF

REC SLOVENIAZELEZNIK NADJA

European Commission, DG RTDZURITA ALEJANDRO

Last issued on 18/03/2013 at 10:28:12 13

Roger GARBILEuropean CommissionDG Research & InnovationCDMA 01/055, B-1049 Brussels - BelgiumTel: +32 2 29 92496 E-mail: [email protected]

Aleksandra KLENKEEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeJDE 2234, B-1040 Brussels/BelgiumTel: +32 2 546 9899 E-mail: [email protected]

Georges van GOETHEMEuropean CommissionDG Research & InnovationCDMA 01/047, B-1049 Brussels - BelgiumTel: +32 2 29 51424 E-mail: [email protected]

Vesselina RANGUELOVAEuropean CommissionDG Joint Research CentreSCI15 07/009, B-1049 Brussels – BelgiumTel: +32 2 29 84019 E-mail: [email protected]

Marc DEFFRENNESEuropean CommissionDG EnergyEUFO 04/383, L-2920 Luxembourg/LuxembourgTel: +352 4301 32904E-mail: [email protected]

Sharon KEARNEYEuropean CommissionDG Research & InnovationCDMA 04/029, B-1049 Brussels - BelgiumTel: +32 2 29 92539 E-mail: [email protected]

Gwendoline DE HEMPTINNEEuropean Commission until 28 February 2013

SECR

ETA

RIA

T Secretariat of the 2012 Interdisciplinary Study and the 2013 Symposium

mailto:[email protected]

382



2013 — 383 pp. — format 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-29833-2

doi:10.2777/12636

How to obtain EU publications

Free publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);• at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

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 (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

pUBL

ICAT

Ion

S W

EBSI

TEEESC Symposium website:http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-symposium-on-nuclear-fission

DG Research and Innovation publications website:http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/publications/fission/index_en.htm

European Group on Ethics of Science and new technologieshttp://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/publications/opinions/index_en.htm and

An ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy European Group on Ethics of science and new technologies (EGE) adopted on 16 January 2013 its Opinion No 27: An ethical framework for assessing research, production and use of energy presented at the Symposium in Brussels. In its Opinion, the EGE proposed an integrated ethics approach for the research, production and use of energy in the EU seeking for an equilibrium between four criteria - access rights, security of supply, safety, and sustainability - in the light of social, environmental and economic concerns.

Press release:http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/pdf/press_release_opinion_energy-clean.pdf

EGE Opinion:http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_27__2013.pdf

Proceedings of the EGE Round table on the topichttp://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/roundtable_final_.pdf

http://bookshop.europa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu

http://bookshop.europa.eu

http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm





KI-0

3-1

3-0

45

-EN-N