NE AExpert Group on theApplication of Robotics
and Remote Systems
in the Nuclear Back-end(EGRRS)
MandateThe Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Expert Group on the Application of Robotics and Remote Systems in the Nuclear Backend (EGRRS) was created in 2019 to advise member countries on the leading and emerging issues related to facilitating
the implementation of robotic and remote systems (RRS) in radioactive waste management, decommissioning and legacy
management at the national and international levels. The expert group develops comprehensive analyses reflecting the range ofits membership, from academia, industry and governmental agencies.

Main findings
The first mandate of the EGRRS investigated the history, statusof implementation, and barriers to the adoption of RRS andmade a preliminary study of the cost-benefits of RRS in thenuclear back-end. This work culminated in the publication ofa first report (NEA, 2023). Building on this work, the second
mandate of the EGRRS was developed to focus on threefollow-up topics presented below.

Regulatory pathway
The group collected ten international regulatory case studies toconceptualise guidance on the regulatory licensing of innovative
RRS and to challenge the perception that regulation is the main
bottleneck to the adoption and implementation of innovative
RRS in nuclear energy. Some insights on the opportunities for
improving the licensing process are as follows:• Initiating the engagement with the relevant regulators after
the completion of the investment decision could create
licensing challenges.
• Lessons learnt exercises involving regulators and licensees
could provide a positive way to reflect on challenges andopportunities emerging from licensing.

• Using inactive mock-ups (including digital twins) or activedemonstrators, or both, could provide a good opportunity to
de-risk the final licensing of a full-scale plant involving innovative solutions.
• By implementing the defence-in-depth principle, solutions
imported from other less hazardous industries can be safely
deployed in the nuclear sector, e.g. by placing a modest
claim on a novel solution and consequently reducing the substantiation/licensing effort.
• In most cases, regulators appreciate the opportunities
offered by robotics and remote systems in a nuclear environment, e.g. in terms of reducing the risk to operators, making
operation more consistent and speeding up risk remediation
at nuclear legacy sites.
A flowchart sketching the process to support licensing ofinnovative solutions will be available in an upcoming report(NEA, forthcoming).

Benchmarking
Much of the work in nuclear waste management anddecommissioning is currently done by hand. Manual labour isassociated with hazards and exposure to risks for personnel.
To enhance the use of robotics and remote systems, additional
information is required to support regulatory bodies, decision

Figure 1. Proposed input flow to future database

System forassessment

Assessment
requestExisting system
Provider wants
to benchmark

Criteria set by EGRRS
Request on tasks
and performance

Evaluationgroup - EGRRS
Individual expert assessmentsCollective groupexpert assessment

Group assessment
sent to provider
for ”right to reply”

Expert assessment
to database

Report/assessment
published in database

Accessible forend usersmakers, programme managers and project leaders in theirassessment and decision processes. Applying traditional
benchmarking approaches to the nuclear sector has provedchallenging as each country and nuclear site operates under
distinct interpretations of international regulations, unique local
cultures, and diverse technical challenges.
To overcome these challenges, the proposed benchmarking
approach involves circumventing site-specific differences
and focusing on the fundamental tasks associated withdecommissioning and waste handling. By emphasising taskcentric evaluations, it is possible to gain valuable insights andmake meaningful comparisons that transcend the complexities
arising from divergent regulations, cultures and technicalaspects across nuclear sites.
To limit bias while performing the assessment, the EGRRS willrely on its member countries’ experts and will further draft its
assessment guidelines by drawing from the NEA experience insetting up international peer reviews (NEA, 2005, 2014).
The EGRRS is currently setting the scope of the database andtesting its concept.

Weaknesses• Task-oriented• Collegial expert assessment• NEA peer review experience• Integration of industry
standards• Community building• Development pace of RRS• Subjectivity of experts• Data accuracy andavailability• Infrastructure cost
• Experts availabilityThreats• Stronger informed decision
making for stakeholders• Increased visibility for RRS
developers• Gap analysis andspontaneous ideation

The group applied the simplified subtractive CBA methodology
to case studies in radioactive waste sorting, reactor demolition
and radiation surveying. The methodology clearly justified theuse of RRS. More details will be available in the upcoming
EGRRS report (NEA, forthcoming).

Future directions

The EGRRS regularly collaborates with other NEA groups
such as the Working Party on Technical, Environmental andSafety Aspects of Decommissioning and Legacy Management(WPTES), and with expert communities hosted by otherorganisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency
or the European Commission.

SWOT
Opportunities

The proposed methodology is to focus on the achievementsof a given output with a defined safety target (e.g. a desiredinterim state or end state) and to compare the safety and cost
implications of different technical choices and configurations,by assuming that all options share the same (minimum)
requirements for safety.

The EGRRS is an expert group with a long-term outlook. Its
mandate will evolve with the trends in RRS development
and the needs of NEA member countries. For example, theEGRRS has started work with a new focus on human factors,
investigating how to help more professionals receive training
in robotics to meet the RRS needs of the nuclear sector, as it
grows rapidly as a low-carbon source of energy.

Figure 2. SWOT analysis of the benchmarking
database concept

Strengths

make and which to forgo. What separates CBA in the nuclear
back-end from a “standard” CBA is that the incentive is notto make money through a return on investment, but rather tospend less money and perform the same action with reducedrisks and costs.

References• Interoperabilityand ergonomics• Large language modeland search engines

NEA (forthcoming), Supporting Implementation of Robotics andRemote Systems in the Nuclear Back-end, OECD Publishing,Paris.

The long-term goal is to host such a database on the NEA
website and provide expert input within the next few years.

Cost benefit analysis
A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a systematic process used toanalyse and evaluate which methods, systems or decisions toNEA (2023), Status, Barriers and Cost-Benefits of Robotic andRemote Systems Applications in Nuclear Decommissioning
and Radioactive Waste Management, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_77051.
NE A (2014), Guide for International Peer Reviews ofDecommissioning Cost Studies for Nuclear Facilities, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14896.
NEA (2005), NEA International Peer Reviews in the Field ofRadioactive Waste General Information and Guidelines, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18274.

Risks tobe managed

Figure 3. Subtractive cost-benefit
analysis methodology
Change processComparative
CBA

Input
Existingsituation

Safety measures
to manage risks

Resources

Various risks
associated toradioactive material

OutputTargeted situationor end state

For information on EGRRS and its publications and events, visit: www.oecd-nea.org/egrrs.
Contact the NEA at: rwmd-egrrs@oecd-nea.org

Less risks or risks
eliminatedLess safetymeasuresneeded