NEA News
2022 – No. 40.2

In this issue:
The path to gender balance in the nuclear
sector
Minimising the cost of capital for new nuclear
power plants
Adapting nuclear power plants to climate change
and more...

NEA News
Volume No. 40.2

2022

Contents
Facts and opinions
The path to gender balance in the nuclear sector �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
Minimising the cost of capital for new nuclear power plants ������������������������������������������������������������������ 8
Adapting nuclear power plants to climate change ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

NEA updates
Opening the doors to a new, more diverse generation of leaders �������������������������������������������������������� 15
The Sixth International Nuclear Emergency Exercise (INEX-6) ���������������������������������������������������������������� 18

News briefs
NEA SMR Dashboard assesses new reactor concepts �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21
Over 40 years of collaborative research in nuclear safety ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23
NEA Joint Projects ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24
In Memoriam: Pierre Strohl ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32

New publications���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

33

OECD Boulogne building.

1

EDITORIAL

The nuclear sector’s untapped potentialNuclear energy is enjoying a revival of interest around theworld the likes of which we have not seen in decades.
A convergence of factors, from climate change to energy
security, has seen political leaders and other decision makers
reappraise nuclear energy as a strategic asset. Responding
to that interest with action, however, will require people – alot more people than the sector can currently draw upon.
New professionals will be needed of various talents andbackgrounds to be able to deliver in an increasingly complex
world.
The most immediate way to meet that demand for talentis to expand the hiring pool by attracting more women.
Women are a minority in the nuclear field and bringing in
more female engineers and scientists would not only be thejust thing to do but also the strategically smartest way toincrease the sector’s capacity to expand.
Fields in science, technology, engineering andmathematics have long struggled to hire women. The
nuclear sector has its own peculiarities that have long madeit difficult to attract female staff. It was born in the Cold War,
often tied to secretive military programmes. And much of thework can be at plants in remote locations and include shift
work, which can make it a hard sell for young mothers who
might need childcare or family support.
These are not new trends. In fact, improving the genderbalance of the nuclear sector has been talked about for atleast 20 years. Now, however, is the time to do something
about it.
The NEA is making gender balance a priority in its work.
A thorough data collection and analysis project is providing,for the first time, a picture of gender balance in the nuclear
sector’s global workforce. The findings are detailed in the
recent NEA publication Gender Balance in the Nuclear
Sector, as described in the lead article of this volume. They
are sobering and amount to a call to action. Women are not
only underrepresented in the field, but particularly so intechnical roles and even more so in leadership positions. Toomany feel the workplace is not welcoming enough and that

there is not adequate childcare or parental support, meaning
family commitments can have potential negative impacts on
career advancement.
Based on this work, the NEA has provided a series ofrecommendations to member countries to help them
improve the gender balance in their nuclear fields, and by
so doing increase the sector’s capabilities. This means
attracting more women, giving them enough support forthem to stay, and developing them sufficiently to bring themup to leadership positions. Among the recommended actions
are public communications campaigns, mentorships, greater
parental support, flexible work arrangements and diversity
and inclusivity training. Regular surveys and data collection
can help monitor the impact of the policies and provide
accountability.
The policy recommendations are important for all
countries, not only for those looking to expand or start
nuclear energy programmes. The use of nuclear technology,
for example, continues to expand in medical and industrial
applications. Countries that have decided to end their nuclear
energy programmes still have plants to decommission andwaste to manage and dispose of, work that will require
multiple generations of technical experts.
Governments are typically closely involved in nuclear
energy projects, whether in regulation, operation or R&D,
making them well suited to direct, incentivise or encourage
the right policies that can help bring more women to thesector.
Improving gender balance is not only about attracting theneeded skilled professionals, but it is also about having aworkforce that can better interface with the wider public. For
the nuclear sector to deliver on its promises, particularly thatof safe, low-carbon and reliable energy, it needs to hold stakewith the whole of society. It needs to be able to understandand engage a range of views and to reflect those in its
decision-making. Increasing diversity is a strategic prioritythat can no longer wait.

William D. Magwood, IV,
NEA Director-General3

FACTS AND OPINIONSThe path to gender balancein the nuclear sector
by Florence Maher

Melitas/Shutterstock

Florence Maher (florence.maher@oecd-nea.org) is a Social Scientist in the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspectsof Nuclear Safety.

Women scientists and engineers pioneered the nuclear
and radiological fields, with leaders and innovatorssuch as Marie Skłodowska-Curie and Lise Meitner, among
many others, establishing the foundation of modern nuclear
science and technology. Women continue to make vital
contributions to the field, but female representation in the
sector remains limited. This is especially the case in STEMrelated positions and leadership roles. The lack of diversity
in the nuclear sector represents a loss of potential innovationand growth and a threat to the future sustainability of thenuclear workforce and viability of the field.

4 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

In 2021, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) collected dataon gender balance in the nuclear sector in NEA countries tounderstand workforce representation, career trajectories andchallenges facing women in the field, especially in STEM
and leadership positions. Specifically, the NEA gatheredqualitative data on workplace experiences and possible
solutions from over 8 000 women in the nuclear workforce
in 32 countries as well as quantitative data on humanresources (nuclear sector workforce, new hires, attrition,
promotions, salaries and participation in career development
programmes) from 96 nuclear organisations in 17 countries.

Based on the findings,
a comprehensive policy
framework was proposed tosupport countries to betterco-ordinate and leverage
government influence overthe nuclear sector to improveits gender balance. This
article discusses the main
findings of this analysis,presented in more detail in
the report Gender Balancein the Nuclear Sector (NEA,2023).

Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety2023

Gender Balancein the Nuclear Sector

NE A

Under-representation of women in
the nuclear sector
Women are less than a quarter (24.9%) of the nuclear sector
workforce in NEA countries (Figure 1), adjusted for national
differences in the size of the workforce. Only one-fifth (20.6%)
of STEM roles in the nuclear sector are held by women, andwomen represent only 18.3% of senior leadership.

the preference in the nuclear sector for executives with a
STEM background. The data also show a pay gap between
men and women in the sector, which is likely to persist if
higher-paid STEM and management roles continue to be held
predominantly by men.
Trends for female promotions and attrition, while
encouraging, are not sufficient to change the genderimbalance, especially in STEM roles. Although womenconstitute 27.1% of promotions in the nuclear sector –higher than their representation in the workforce – thiswill not significantly transform women’s representation in
the leadership pipeline. Women in the sector are better
represented (but still a minority) in non-STEM roles,
which is also where their retention and promotion rates
are highest (61.4% of promotions for non-STEM roles
requiring a university degree are awarded to women). In
addition, women constitute 23.9% of the nuclear sector’s
8.1% attrition rate, the rate at which employees leave anorganisation over a period of time. Although this is lower thantheir workforce representation, it will not significantly impact
the current gender imbalance.

Women constitute less than a third (28.8%) of newhires in the sector. Although this proportion is higher thantheir representation in the nuclear workforce, it also marks
the upper limit of future representation of women in the
sector if the proportion does not increase. In addition, thepercentage of women among new hires is still larger for
non-STEM positions (40.7%) than for STEM roles (24.6%).
This will not only entrench the gender divide between STEM
and non-STEM roles, but is also likely to perpetuate thegender imbalance at the highest management levels due to

Figure 2 shows a model with two scenarios. The redline is the projection of future female participation in the
sector according to the current representation of women in
hiring and attrition, assuming no change in the size of theworkforce. The gold line models the scenario in the case ofbalanced future recruitment. It suggests that significantly
increasing the percentage of female new hires could havea major impact, especially if combined with an increasein the size of the nuclear workforce in response to newinvestments. However, since a STEM background is often aprerequisite for senior management positions, a larger female
intake may not result in a greater percentage of women in
leadership positions if their recruitment and promotions
remain concentrated in non-STEM roles.

Figure 1: Share of women in the overall
nuclear workforce, by country

Figure 2: Projection of gender balance in the
nuclear workforce with current and balanced
gender representation in recruitment
Recruit 50% - Attrition 8.1%
Recruit 28.8% (actual) - Attrition 8.1%

45

60
Female participation (%)

Female participation (%)

70
50
40
30
20
10

No
Hu rwang y
Po aryRo lanm d
Au an
str iaa
Ko liaRu reaBe ssilg a
Slo iumv
S eni
Ar wed a
ge en
nt
in
I ta aSp ly
Fr ain
an
ce
Ca UK
na
d
Ja a
pa
n

0

Country

40
35
30
25
2024

2028
2032
Year

2036

2040

Note: Data gathered in 2021 from 96 nuclear organisations in 17 NEA
member countries. Mean excludes Russia due to large sample size.

Note: The data modelled in the red line was gathered in 2021
from 96 nuclear organisations in 17 NEA member countries.

Source: NEA, 2023.

Source: NEA, 2023.

5

Key barriers to women’s
participation and progression in the
nuclear workforce
The modern nuclear sector has its origins in many countries in
the use of nuclear science for military purposes. The legacy ofCold War-era security culture persists in the peaceful applicationof nuclear technologies and continues to colour the sector as
opaque and masculine. Women in the sector face issues that
may also be present in other STEM-centred industries, but
the nuclear sector presents unique challenges to women that– in combination with broader societal gender-related issues –produce barriers to their full participation in the field.
As shown in Figure 3, the results of the NEA’s international
survey of women working in the sector suggest that thework culture is not sufficiently supportive for women.
Indeed, women surveyed indicate that they experience
hostility in the workplace, in addition to sociocultural
perceptions that jobs in the sector are for men. Women see
their careers as being stymied by organisational cultures thathave not normalised women in STEM and leadership roles.
Approximately two-thirds of the 8 000 women surveyed saythat male-dominated work cultures inhibit their contributions,and a similar share report that gender stereotypes, microaggressions and unconscious bias hinder female careers
in the sector. A stark 41.7% of survey respondents believethat women are not valued in their workplaces. Only about
half of the women surveyed hold that salaries, performanceappraisals and career opportunities are equal between
genders. Reports of sexual harassment in the workplace(including personal experiences and second-hand accounts)
are high (44.7%), as are reports of hostile behaviours or
attitudes to women (52.2%). Women who are members ofminority groups, in STEM roles and in roles requiring fewer
educational credentials experience higher levels of hostility.
Women in the sector are also pessimistic about thecommitment of their managers and organisations tomake positive change and to better support their careerdevelopment. Only 32.5% of survey respondents consider
that their managers engage on or express commitment togender balance. Only 41.7% agree that robust mechanisms
exist to support women, and a similar minority expressed
career satisfaction and optimism when considering theirorganisation’s gender balance policies. Some 57.4%
highlighted barriers to retaining and promoting women in theirorganisation (see Figure 3 for a list of the main barriers to theretention of women specific to the nuclear sector as identified
by survey respondents). Few respondents reported having
female role models and mentors at work (only 37.0%), and thepresence and visibility of women was apparent to only 50.9%.
Despite these findings, however, women in the sector would
generally encourage other women towards careers in nuclear
energy (59%), albeit with a high level of reported ambivalence.
Work-life balance issues also play a central role. Women
surveyed overwhelmingly agree (over 70%) that pregnancy,maternity leave, parenting or other family and caregiving
responsibilities negatively impact women’s career trajectories
in the nuclear sector. Career advancement in nuclear power
plants often requires roles that entail on-call and shift work,
which may be challenging for nursing mothers or those withyoung children. Also, nuclear facilities are often located inareas lacking spousal employment opportunities or easy
access to family support. These challenges make up twoof the top five nuclear sector-specific barriers to womenaccording to the results of the NEA survey. This may explain
why female retention rates are lower in non-management andjunior management levels in the sector. The lower retention at
this stage may result in a smaller pool of women eligible forprogressively senior positions.

Policy considerations
Many countries, whatever their energy policies, have a
growing need for nuclear expertise. Medical and industrial
applications of nuclear technologies continue to expand; aFigure 3: Barriers to the retention and advancement of women specific to the nuclear sector
Lack of women/women leaders
Social-cultural perceptions roles are male
Call and shift work not women friendly
Culture is not supportive
Positions to advance not women friendly
No nuclear specific barriers
Concern about radiation and healthWorkplace is not women friendly
Negative social messaging
Career path not women friendly
Concern about closing programmes
Politics of nuclear
Attractiveness of other STEM fields
Concern about accidents
None of these
Lack of support from friends/family
0

10
20
30
Question 25 (% of respondents)

40

Note: Multiple choices were possible (up to three). Total number of respondents: 5 409. The data was gathered from a nonrepresentative survey of women working in the nuclear sector in NEA member countries.
Source: NEA, 2023.

6 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Figure 4: The three pillars: Attract, retain and advance

Attract

RetainAdvancewomen into the nuclear
sector& support women in theworkforce& develop women as
leaders

Ongoing data collection and accountability
Source: NEA, 2023.
© 2023 OECD/NEA

large number of nuclear facilities must be decommissioned
and the waste managed and disposed of; and as the world
faces a tremendous challenge to alter society, policies,
technologies and practices to achieve net zero carbon
emissions by mid-century, the nuclear sector can play avital role in supporting this objective. At the same time,
many countries face serious skills shortages that must be
addressed if nuclear technologies are to be applied safely
and effectively. There is a demand for more scientists
and engineers with the capacity to support new projects,
effective regulation and advanced research and development.
Gender-balanced leadership is essential in laboratories,
boardrooms and on the public stage, and it is required to build
lasting coalitions for long-term socioeconomic decisions andtechnological solutions that hold stake with the whole ofsociety. The fact that women are severely underrepresented
in nuclear sector leadership roles shows that many countries
are losing access to a vast pool of talent.
In this context, attracting, retaining and supporting more
women engineers, scientists and leaders is highly relevant
for the nuclear sector’s sustainability and ability to contributevalue to society.
The NEA has developed a policy framework to support abetter representation of women in the sector, including theircareer development and contributions. Recommendations
for direct, practical actions are organised around three pillars(Figure 4) and undergirded by a reporting regime for data
and accountability. The goal of these pillars is to provide astrategic framework through which government institutions
and other nuclear sector actors can develop context-specificpolicies and programmes.
Each pillar anchors targeted recommendations developed
from the data findings to address the needs and challenges
of women in the sector:• Attract women into the sector through public
communication campaigns, enhancing the educational
pipeline, and balanced recruitment and hiring.
• Retain and support women in the nuclear sector
workforce by eliminating harassment, building inclusive
work environments, addressing impacts related tofamilial responsibilities, assessing disparate impacts ofpolicies and programmes on men and women, linking
executive management performance to progress on
supporting and advancing women, and by conducting
regular national surveys on workplace experiences.

www.oecd-nea.org

1• Advance and develop women as leaders andenhance their contributions by eliminating
unequal impacts for women’s career recognition
and advancement and by conducting regular national
surveys on women’s participation in the nuclear sector.
All the above actions need to be supported by evidence. It
is therefore fundamental to provide data and accountability by
setting goals, reporting regularly and designating resources
and senior-level individuals to implement the actions.

OECD Council Recommendation
On 8 June 2023, the 38 member countries of the OECD
made a high political and moral commitment to implementing
the NEA policy framework and targeted recommendations
by adopting them at the ministerial level as an international
policy instrument, the Recommendation of the Council
on Improving the Gender Balance in the Nuclear Sector.
Currently, 41 countries are adherents. The Recommendation
establishes a single, comprehensive set of principles andpolicy recommendation to assist governments, other publicauthorities, and relevant stakeholders in their efforts to design
and implement policies that increase the representation of
women in the nuclear sector and enhance their contributions,especially in STEM roles and leadership positions. To support
countries with implementation and monitor progress, in
October 2023 the Steering Committee for Nuclear Energy
chartered the High-Level Group on Improving the Gender
Balance in the Nuclear Sector (HLG-GB). The group
established task forces and welcomes diverse stakeholders,
including youth, to participate.
To get involved, please contact gender@oecd-nea.org.

References
NEA (2023), Gender Balance in the Nuclear Sector, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_78831.
OECD (2024), Recommendation of the Council on
Improving the Gender Balance in the Nuclear Sector,
OECD/LEGAL/0496.
OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD
Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, ht tps://doi.
org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.

7

FACTS AND OPINIONS

Minimising the cost of capital for new
nuclear power plants
by Jan Horst Keppler

KanawatTH/ShutterStockJan Horst Keppler (jan-horst.keppler@oecd-nea.org) is the Senior Economic Advisor in the Division of Nuclear Technology Development
and Economics.

T

he nuclear energy sector is set for a rapid expansion in the
coming years as more countries turn to its technologies
to help them achieve net zero carbon emissions by midcentury. This will require access to considerable amounts ofcapital at competitive rates, which can be a challenge at atime of increased global uncertainty. The NEA has, throughits work and co-operative programmes, examined the main
financial risks involved in new nuclear energy projects and, in
so doing, indicated possible avenues to minimise the costsof building new nuclear capacity.
As described in a recent report, Financing New Nuclear
Power Plants: Minimising the Cost of Capital by Optimising
Risk Management, the NEA has explored a new framework
based on the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which has
led to two broad conclusions.

8 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

The first is that in a world where limits on carbon emissions
are due to increase, the true capital costs of low-carbon
energy projects like nuclear new build are considerably
lower than previously estimated because of their ability
to compensate for systemic financial risks. The second
conclusion is that construction risk, price risk and politicalrisk, which have tended to be key elements of uncertainty
in the cost of new nuclear projects, can be radically reducedwith effective policies.
The report was the result of the decision of the NEA andthe International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation(IFNEC), in collaboration with the government of Poland, tolaunch an initiative on nuclear financing. The work brought
together experts from academia, industry and policymaking,and this broad range of input is reflected in the report’s results,
which are applicable both to the private and public sectors.

“One challenge that is probably the most pervasive nomatter what type of nuclear technology we consider isfinancing,” said NEA Director-General William D. Magwood,
IV, at the report’s launch. “With new technology it’s veryclear that we need new thinking when it comes to financing.”

Being prepared for the nuclear
sector’s new role
Nuclear energy is seeing an increase in interest andinvestment as more countries make it a part of their plans to
reduce emissions to meet climate change mitigation targets.
The International Energy Agency’s report Net Zero by 2050
assumes that the electricity generated by nuclear power
plants will increase from 2 698 TWh in 2020 to 5 497 TWhin 2050, corresponding to a near doubling of capacity from415 GW to 812 GW (IEA, 2021). An increase in geopoliticaluncertainty has meanwhile made energy security and supply
a more pressing issue for many governments.
The increase in capacity will entail licence renewals
for existing plants but also many new builds, including incountries that have little or no experience of developing
civilian nuclear energy programmes. The wave in investment
will require careful and innovative financing arrangements.
Financial risk management has always been part of nuclear
new build. Historically, however, financial arrangements were
often quite straightforward as utilities were public, whichmeant construction risk was spread over a large number of
taxpayers and tariffs were regulated. The electricity market
deregulation of the 1990s changed all this, meaning financial
risk management needed to become more sophisticated.
Low-carbon energy sources, including hydropower,
solar PV, wind turbines and nuclear energy, are all highly
capital-intensive. This, in turn, means that the cost ofcapital is together with overnight costs and effective project
management one of the three key cost drivers in building

Figure 1: The components of risk ina nuclear new build

Source: IEA/NEA, 2020.

a new nuclear power plant. For nuclear energy, the cost ofcapital will also determine how competitive it is comparedto other baseload electricity providers, such as gas and coal.
When the cost of capital is low, nuclear energy indeed
is cheaper than gas-fired power generation, with fuel costs
for Europe at USD 8 per MMBTU (USD 27.2 per MWh) andcarbon costs at USD 30 per tonne of CO2. Gas prices haverisen dramatically in 2022 but have since fallen again below
USD 30 per MWh, and while the cost of carbon emissions
has risen, the cost of capital remains a key driver of thecompetitiveness of nuclear.
The cost of capital in an investment is determined by thecosts of the risks involved. This is a universal principle offinancial economics and particularly relevant when investingin capital-intensive low-carbon power generation projects
such as nuclear new build. The capital asset pricing model(CAPM), which is the most widely used to determine thecost of capital in financial economics, makes it possible toanalyse the different dimensions of financial risk in nuclear
new build one by one. In this way it offers a more complete
view of the risk and, by extension, the ability to better design
measures to manage, reduce and allocate the economic
costs of risk.

The components of risk in a nuclear
new build
There are three main types of risk according to the CAPM:(1) the risk-free rate at which countries with strong credit
ratings can borrow; (2) the systemic risk of the market
and the project’s correlation with the systemic risk; and(3) different forms of project-specific or “idiosyncratic” risk.
In a nuclear new build project, the idiosyncratic risks would
typically include construction risk, price risk and political risk.
The NEA work finds that the costs of these risks are either
lower than habitually assumed or that there exist effective
measures to reduce them.
In the first case, the risk-free rate at which a country witha good credit rating can raise money is very low in real terms,
even despite recent increases in short-term borrowing rates.
In the case of systemic market risk, investors can lower
their overall risk by adding a low-carbon energy project to theirportfolios as it offsets the systemic risk of other investments.
As efforts to combat climate change intensify, the implicit
and explicit price of carbon rises. This decreases profitability
throughout the economy while increasing the profitability of
low-carbon investments. Consequently, investors will accept
very low or even zero returns on such investments as theirvalue lies primarily in their hedging function at the level of theoverall investment portfolio rather than their individual payoff.
The third type of risk, project-specific risk, can be
mitigated with effective policies. One such risk, construction
risk, applies to many nuclear new builds, which cost billionsof dollars and can easily go over budget if not managed
properly. Such sums can endanger any single company’s
finances, so some countries have adopted alternative
measures to make the risk more manageable. The regulated
asset base (RAB) model used in the United Kingdom and theconstruction work-in-progress (CWP) model in the UnitedStates transfer the cost of building a plant to the electricity
bills of ratepayers from the moment construction starts,
rather than when electricity supply begins.

9Figure 2: Including low-carbon projects improves the risk-reward ratio of financial portfolios
Capital market lines (CML) with andwithout low-carbon projects

Expected
returnSet of portfolios without
low-carbon projects

Risk-freerate

Set of portfolios with
low-carbon projects
0

Expected portfolio risk

Source: NEA, 2022.

Another project-specific risk worth noting is price risk,
the variation in the price of electricity. To reduce its impact
on the cost of financing, regulators have proposed measures
such as price guarantees in the form of feed-in tariffs (FIT)or contracts for difference (CFD). Political risk, meanwhile,requires allocating risk to the party that is most suitable
to minimising it. This is a concept that is already largely
respected in the nuclear sector. Contractual indemnification
clauses insure the operators and investors of nuclear projects
against changes in energy policy that would limit the use of
nuclear power and attribute that risk to national governments.

The role of government inminimising risk
Governments have a key role in ensuring that these risk
elements are properly recognised and addressed. Only thenwill investors, particularly in the private sector, have a stable
framework within which they can more easily provide capitalat lower rates.
First of all, governments must ensure a credible andeffective commitment to carbon emission reductions.
The decorrelation of low-carbon projects from systemic
market risk will not be realised if strong emission reduction
commitments are not followed up by actions that have realtraction in the economy.
Second, governments need to implement the commitment
to eliminating or reducing the three project-specific risks
identified above. This means reducing construction risk by
spreading risk across ratepayers; price risk through longterm contracts or regulated tariffs; and political risk throughappropriate indemnification clauses with government.
Third, governments may become directly involved as
project participants in cases where they judge that private
actors do not realise the full value of a nuclear power project.
This does not require an argument based on the public goodor strategic objectives such as security of energy supply,
technological development, regional cohesion or employment

10 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

– however valuable they may be. The only relevant market
failures would concern the incorrect appreciation of the true
costs and benefits of dispatchable low-carbon electricity
generated by new nuclear power projects.
Fourth, governments have a role in ensuring efficient
project management structures in nuclear new build.
They need to ensure that all stakeholders contribute to an
eventually shared objective of completing nuclear new build
projects on time and to budget.
Fifth, governments need to ensure macroeconomic
stability to keep country risk premiums at a minimum.
Considering the scale of the financing arrangements involved,
an increase of one or two percent above the risk-free rate
quickly makes a difference in the real costs of these projects.
Following these policy recommendations can makea tangible difference in the cost of capital of nuclear newbuild projects in NEA countries and can thus contribute to
fully leverage the contribution of nuclear energy to carbon
emissions in an efficient least-cost manner.

References
IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the
Global Energy Sector, IEA, Paris, www.iea.org/reports/
net-zero-by-2050.
NEA (2022), Financing New Nuclear Power Plants:
Minimising the Cost of Capital by Optimising Risk
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.
org/jcms/pl_76525.
IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity:
2020 Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.
org/jcms/pl_28612.

FACTS AND OPINIONS

Adapting nuclear power plants toclimate change
by Henri Paillère... Bernhard Staehli/Shutterstock

Henri Paillère (h.paillere@iaea.org) is a former Senior Nuclear Analyst and Deputy Head of the NEA Division of Nuclear Technology
Development and Economics.

Despite the goal set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement
to limit global warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels, the OECD (2019) has shown that by the endof the century, the global average temperature increase isactually predicted to be 3°C to 6°C. This is bound to affect all
aspects of human activity, including the operation of nuclear
power plants, which are expected to be a low-carbon sourceof energy in many countries for decades to come.
The NEA has studied the range of potential impacts on
nuclear power plants, looking specifically at how different
weather phenomena will affect plant safety and operationon the basis of national, regional and international studies.
In its findings, published in the report Climate Change:
Assessment of the Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants
and Approaches for their Adaptation (NEA, 2021a), the NEA
highlights the need to address the impact of climate change
at the design and siting stages. It also outlines adaptation
measures that could improve the resilience of existing
power plants in certain extreme weather conditions and thetechnologies that would require.

The impact of climate change
Since it was founded in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has used climate models to assess thepossible impact of climate change and climate developments.
These include climate scenarios, with the most-widelyused ones based on the IPCC Special Report on Emissions
Scenarios (SRES) since 1995 (IPCC, 2000). Figure 1 illustrates
the climate system and interacting subsystems.
The NEA has found a number of measures that could
improve the resilience of nuclear power generation to climatechange, particularly to climate events that can affect theavailability (and quality) of cooling water for plants and thereliability of components during such events.
Some of the climate change scenarios outlined by the
IPCC (IPCC 2007; IPCC 2013) imply an increase in the global
mean surface air temperature, with the greatest temperature
increases over land and at high northern latitudes, and the likely
occurrence of frequent, long-lasting and intense heat waves.

11Figure 1: The climate system and sub-systems, their interactions and processes
Changes in the atmosphere:
composition, circulation

Changes in thehydrological cycle

Changes insolar inputs
CloudsAtmosphere
N2, O2, Ar, H2O, CO2, CH4,
N20, O3, etc.
Aerosols
Atmosphereice interaction

Precipitation
Evaporation

Heat
exchange

Volcanic activity
Atmosphere-biosphereinteraction

Terrestrial
radiation

Wind
stressIce sheet

Human
influences

Glacier
Biosphere

Sea iceSoil-biosphereinteraction

Hydrosphere:ocean

Ice-ocean coupling

Land surface

Changes in the cryosphere: snow, frozen ground, sea
ice, ice sheets and glaciers

Hydrosphere:
rivers and lakes

Changes in the ocean:
circulation, sea level and biogeochemistryLandatmosphereinteraction

Changes in/on the land surface: orography, land use,
vegetation and ecosystems

Source: IPCC, 2007.

Water
Climate conditions have a direct impact on energy systems.
When water is less available and heatwaves more prevalent,
the cooling capabilities and therefore the power output offossil fuel and nuclear power plants are affected. Low waterlevels will likely lead to coal transportation disruptions.
The electricity production and distribution of renewable
technologies (wind and solar photovoltaics) will of course
also depend on climate conditions (IEA, 2020).
The impact on nuclear power plants should be considered
carefully as nuclear energy is the largest source of lowcarbon energy in OECD countries and the second largest
in the world. Its role in future decarbonisation scenarios
has been outlined in NEA publications such as The Costs ofDecarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear
and Renewables (NEA, 2019) and Meeting Climate Change
Targets: The Role of Nuclear Energy (NEA, 2022).
The key climate factors that can influence nuclear
power plants are: higher air and water temperatures; higher
seawater levels; and more extreme weather events (e.g.
droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis
and electric storms). Many of these extreme climate events
can impact cooling water availability and quality. Water isan integral part of the power transformation cycle by which
nuclear power plants generate electricity and heat for otherapplications. Water is required at both the beginning of asteam cycle, where a closed loop of water is transformed into
steam in a boiler to drive a generator to produce electricity,
and at the end, where cooling water passes through tubes
of a condenser to remove heat from the steam, causing it
to return to a liquid state and restart the cycle of the boiler.

12 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Four types of cooling systems for thermoelectric plants
can be envisaged directly affecting water withdrawal andconsumption patterns: once-through cooling; wet closedcycle cooling; hybrid systems employing some subset of
the two previous technologies; and dry cooling. The meritsof these cooling systems, from an economic perspective,
relate to cost and their impact on plant efficiency, withonce-through cooling leading in both areas, due to its simple
design and the low temperature of the intake water. Wet
closed-cycle systems on the other hand require significant
investment (construction of towers or a pond) and theelectricity consumption means that operational costs arehigher and the net efficiency and output capacity are reduced.
Table 1 shows different choices of cooling technologies andthe relative loss of generating capacity, with once-throughcooling used as the reference.

Table 1. Percentage of generating capacity lost
relative to once-through cooling
Cooling system

Fuel
CCGT

Coal

NuclearOnce-through

0.0

0.0

0.0

Wet closed cycle, tower

0.4

1.7

1.7

Dry, indirect*

2.1

8.6

8.5

* Direct dry systems present even greater generating capacity losses(WNA, 2011).
Source: EPA, 2001.

In a nuclear power plant, the water requirements of thecirculating water system depend on the configuration (openloop vs. closed-loop). However, although water withdrawal
requirements of “essential service water systems” are low,
they depend on the level of water and its temperature. Whenwater cooling temperatures are high or there is limited water
available (e.g. when river levels are low), the security of thegeneral energy supply is at risk.
Since droughts affect river water levels, they can have an
impact on cooling water intake. High water temperatures will
also reduce the thermal efficiency of a nuclear power plant,
including cooling needs. Plants in the United States havebeen affected by droughts and heat waves when coolingwater temperatures have exceeded design thresholds orwhere plant outages or output reductions have occurred
related to environmental legislation concerning thermal
releases. An excessive increase in the air temperature incertain rooms containing safety-classified equipment canalso lead to issues of safety and availability of nuclear power
plants.

Water is also important to the front end of the nuclear fuelcycle. For example, in in-situ leach (ISL) mining, groundwaterfrom the ore-containing aquifer is pumped and circulated
hundreds of times. Climate change has already had an impact
on mining activities. In 2011, flooding led to the shutdownof the Ranger mines in the Northern territories of Australia.
The six-month shutdown reportedly cost AUD 154 million(ABC, 2012).

Extreme weather events
Besides heat waves and droughts, climate change will havean impact on nuclear power plants through a range of otherextreme weather events: floods, frazil ice and forest fires, allcaused or intensified by climate change, can affect nuclear
plant operation, causing interruptions and, in rare cases,
outages.
Events such as Hurricane Sandy in the United Statesin 2012 and ice storms in Canada in 1998 illustrated thevulnerability of the transmission network and how grid failure
could lead to the shutdown of generation stations such as
nuclear power plants. Cooling systems can also be affected.

Certain geographical factors come into play when
considering future power plant adaptation. In countries
with limited freshwater resources, desalination processes
could be envisaged. Sustainable development demands that
freshwater resources be maintained while also producing
enough electricity to meet demand.

The NEA has analysed such events based on data fromthe IAEA’s Power Reactor Information Systems (PRIS) fromthe period 2004-2018. PRIS is a comprehensive database of
nuclear power plants worldwide.

Generation III nuclear power plants are designed withinitial licences of 60 years, so the possible impact of climatechange on the safety and operation of these plants must be
studied and adaptation measures discussed. When new large
nuclear power plants are planned, cooling water availability
will be a key criterion for siting. For example, coastal sites
are less susceptible to high cooling temperatures and low
water levels but are also at higher risk of possible damage
or outages due to tsunamis, storm surges and windstorms.

Figure 2 shows the energy lost (electricity not produced) inoutages due to environmental causes, based on the PRIS data.
The figures show that cooling water issues were a dominantcause of weather-related outages from 2003 to 2014. Yet thelargest energy losses (in TWh) were caused by earthquakes
and tsunamis – which are not climate-related events. In 2011,a powerful earthquake and an extremely high tsunami hit theeastern coast of Japan, causing extensive damage, including
to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Figure 3: Energy loss in 2004-2013 due to all environmental causes (TWh)Seasonal variation CWT30

Earthquake/tsunami

Energy loss (TWh)25

Unspec. env. restriction
Non-W env.: pollution

20

Other weather-related
15

Storms (typhoon, hurricane)Lightning/thunderstorm

10

Low water level
5
0

Flood
Cold cooling water
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009
Year

2010

2011

2012

2013

Warm cooling water

Note: Considering the whole spectrum of environmental causes for outages in nuclear power plants (2004-2013), outages related
to “warm cooling water” (above environmental regulatory thresholds) and “cold cooling water” (with frazil ice or ice formation)
represent the largest shares of outages in all three indicators (numbers, duration and energy loss). Warm cooling water accounts for
50.7% of all outages due to environmental causes and cold cooling water accounts for 19.9%. Earthquakes and tsunamis (38%) – which
are not climate related – and warm cooling water (26.6%) are the two main environmental factors for energy loss during 2004-2013.
Source: Based on the IAEA PRIS database.

13

Adaptation to climate change
To a certain extent, the nuclear sector has already been
adapting to climate challenges. For example, the Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona, United States, was built in
the Arizona desert, which is considered one of the most arid
regions in the United States. The cooling needs of the plant
are met through evaporation of treated water waste from
cities in the region. The Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the
United Arab Emirates consists of four APR1400 pressurised
water reactors built by Korea, who adapted its design to thehighly saline and warm shallow waters of the Persian Gulf
(Kim, 2007).
Yet more measures will be needed in a greater range oflocations. In its report Climate Change: Assessment of the
Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants and Approaches fortheir Adaptation (NEA, 2021a), the NEA put forth different
ways to improve the resilience of nuclear power plants toclimate change. Minor engineering changes or retrofits canbe made to improve cooling systems in existing plants andconstructors should consider how to ensure the safety andefficiency of a new plant during the design and siting stages.
Various factors can influence the costs of adaptation toclimate change, including the type of reactor, the climatechange issues affecting them, as well as the applicableregulations and standards. To evaluate these costs, it isimportant to consider the loss of output and the ability torecover the necessary investments in the context of theelectricity market conditions in which each plant is operating.
These costs can be significant, but the costs of inaction will
likely be even higher.

Seasonal temperature changes are one of many factorsthat could impact water cooling and should be taken into
account when assessing the merit of adapting a plant bybuilding a new water intake. For example, the new intake
would lead to benefits such as lower water temperature at agreater depth in summer, meaning higher thermal efficiency,
but lower thermal efficiency in winter, when near-surface
temperatures tend to be colder than temperatures at greater
depth.
There may also be the possibility of changing the coolingsystem from a once-through system to a closed-cycle or
hybrid system so that water withdrawal and the associatedthermal releases are limited. More efficient heat exchangers
can also be installed as well as equipment suited for operation
at higher temperatures than the initial design. More powerful
air-conditioning units are also a possibility.
When it comes to nuclear R&D, adaptation measures canbe of an organisational and planning nature, focussing forexample on providing better forecasting and preparedness, or
optimised planning of outages. The aim should be to ensure asecurity of supply even in critical weather conditions.
Periodic safety reviews and sharing international
operating experience can lead to continuous improvements
in adaptation measures. Governments should betterco-ordinate policies overall to ensure greater attention isplaced on improving the resilience of the energy system,
lowering the impact on the environment, and guaranteeing
the country’s security of energy supply.

References
ABC (2012), ERA takes bath over Ranger uranium delays,
www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-01/20120201-era-profitfall-ranger-uranium/3804916.

NEA (2022), Meeting Climate Change Targets: The Role of
Nuclear Energy, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.
org/jcms/pl_69396.

EPA (2001), “Chapter 3: Energy penalties, air emissions,and cooling tower side-effects”, Technical Development
Document for the Final Regulations Addressing
Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

NEA (2021a), Climate Change: Assessment of the
Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plants and Approaches fortheir Adaptation, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.
org/jcms/pl_61802.

IEA (2020), Power Systems in Transition, International
Energy Agency, Paris.

NEA (2021b), Long-Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
and Decarbonisation Strategies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_60310.

IAEA (n.d.), Power Reactor Information System (PRIS),International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, https://pris.
iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx.

NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs
with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000.

IPCC (2013), Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science
Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

OECD (2019), Accelerating Climate Action: Refocusing
Policies through a Well‑being Lens, OECD Publishing,Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2f4c8c9a-en.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC (2000), IPCC Special Report: Emissions Scenarios,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kim, B.K. and Y.H. Jeong (2007), “High cooling water temperature effects on design and operational safety of NPPs
in the Gulf region”, Nuclear Engineering and Technology,
pp. 961-968, Vol. 45, No. 7.

14 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

WNA (2011), Cooling Power Plants (web page), World
Nuclear Association, November 2011, www.world-nuclear.
org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/
cooling-power-plants.aspx.

NEA UPDATESOpening the doors to a new, morediverse generation of leaders
by Greg Lamarre, Tatiana Ivanova, Antonella Di Trapani, Florence Maher and Ursula Arnal Diffu...

Greg Lamarre (greg.lamarre@oecd-nea.org) is Head of the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear
Safety. Tatiana Ivanova (tatiana.ivanova@oecd-nea.org) is the Head of the NEA Division of Nuclear Science and Education. Antonella
Di Trapani (antonella.ditrapani@oecd-nea.org) is Senior Analyst in the same division and heads the secretariat of the NEA Nuclear
Education, Skills and Technology Framework and the NEA Global Forum on Nuclear Science, Education and Policy. Florence Maher(florence.maher@oecd-nea.org) is a Social Scientist in the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear
Safety. Ursula Arnal Diffu (ursula.arnaldiffu@oecd-nea.org) is an Assistant in the same division.

NEA Director-General Magwood addresses a group of female
students at the NEA mentoring workshop held in Birmingham,
United Kingdom, on International Women’s Day.

As more countries become interested in nuclear energy
as a secure source of low-emissions energy, the sector
needs an influx of skilled professionals the likes of which it
has not seen in decades. The Nuclear Energy Agency has
been increasingly active in its efforts to help foster thisnew generation of leaders and to deepen the talent pool byattracting a broader range of professionals, particularly women.
It is doing so in part through a series of mentoringworkshops that offer opportunities for female students to meetwith accomplished professionals and highlight the rewarding
possibilities of a career in science, technology, engineering ormathematics (STEM). The NEA is complementing that withinternational initiatives that engage with academia and otherstakeholders to bolster educational opportunities for students
and maintain a talent pipeline for the sector.
The NEA held one of its most recent mentoring workshops
in the United Kingdom at the Institution of Engineering andTechnology in Birmingham on 7-8 March, coinciding with
International Women’s Day.
The workshop was co-organised with the UK Department
for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Nuclear
Skills Strategy Group (NSSG). It included 24 female highschool students from six schools in Birmingham and Derby.

15

NEA Director-General William D. Magwood, IV, attended
the workshop and discussed in his opening remarks why the
nuclear sector cannot succeed without the participation of
more women. Kiera Harper, Deputy Director of Nuclear Powerand Industry at the DESNZ, highlighted in her address to thestudents why it is a particularly exciting time for students tobe considering a career in the country’s nuclear sector.
The United Kingdom’s nuclear sector is experiencing asignificant transformation. The government’s strategy aims
for new nuclear capacity to provide approximately 25% ofelectricity by 2050, which will require a significant expansionof the workforce. The sector needs to attract more womenand girls, with the UK Nuclear Sector Deal aiming for womento account for 40% of the workforce by 2030.
Several other countries are similarly looking to expand
the use of nuclear energy to provide base load power as
they increase their variable renewable energy capacity. New
nuclear technologies are furthermore attracting interest
from countries that have so far not had civilian nuclear
energy sectors. Small modular reactors, for example, canbe retrofitted into old coal power plants, possibly reducing
the cost of emissions reductions, particularly for countries
keen to expand the availability of low-carbon electricity
into existing grid infrastructures. They can also be used
for relatively new applications, such as to produce heat forindustry, desalinate water or create hydrogen. Rolling out

such a wide range of new applications quickly enough to
help countries meet climate change targets will require asignificant number of new professionals in all roles in the
nuclear sector, from engineers and scientists to lawyers.
“With the ever-increasing importance of energy security
while minimising carbon emissions, a solution including
nuclear energy is receiving greater focus,” said Dr Fiona
Rayment, Chief Science and Technology Officer at the
UK National Nuclear Laboratory and co-chair of the UK
mentoring workshop. “Meeting these challenges requires abroad range of skills that can be delivered through a neurodiverse workforce, and creating gender balance across theinternational nuclear sector is a key element in achieving this.”On the occasion of the workshop, the NEA launched its
latest publication, Gender Balance in the Nuclear Sector,
which analyses the first publicly available international dataon gender balance in the nuclear sector. The data wascollected from over 8 000 women in the nuclear workforce in
32 countries, as well as human resources data from 96 nuclear
organisations in 17 countries. The report highlighted the needfor action in addressing gender balance: the data finds thatwomen are paid less and feel as though they lack femalerole models, which makes it harder for the sector to attract
more female talent. The report also reveals that nearly half
the women surveyed have experienced or heard accounts ofgender bias and sexual harassment at work.

Dr Fiona Rayment, Chief
Science and Technology
Officer at the UK National
Nuclear Laboratory, andDr Katharina Stummeyer,
Head of Project Management
Agency at the German
Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen
und Reaktorsicherheit
gGmbH (GRS), with students
at the NEA mentoringworkshop in Birmingham,
United Kingdom.

16 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Participants of the first NEA “Rising Stars” workshop
at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts on 20-21 September 2023.

The On the occasion of the workshop, the NEA launched
its latest publication, Gender Balance in the Nuclear Sector,
which analyses the first publicly available international dataon gender balance in the nuclear sector. The data wascollected from over 8 000 women in the nuclear workforce in
32 countries, as well as human resources data from 96 nuclear
organisations in 17 countries. The report highlighted the needfor action in addressing gender balance: the data finds thatwomen are paid less and feel as though they lack femalerole models, which makes it harder for the sector to attract
more female talent. The report also reveals that nearly half
the women surveyed have experienced or heard accounts ofgender bias and sexual harassment at work.
The UK mentoring workshop was the latest in a string ofsuch events, some of which the NEA organises in partnershipwith Women in Nuclear (WiN) Global, an NGO established in
1992 by women working in a variety of nuclear-sector fields
and today has around 35 000 members across 129 countries.
The NEA in December 2022 formed its own WiN chapter
after signing a memorandum of understanding in September
2022, to continue engagement on gender balance issues.

female stars in science, technology, education and policy into
the nuclear sector. It does that by connecting participants withresources, people and support, and creating a community.
The Rising Stars programme holds a workshop every
year, under the aegis of the NEA Global Forum on Nuclear
Education, Science, Technology and Policy, with the firstorganised on 20-21 September 2023 and hosted by MIT in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ayame Hirasawa, one of the “Rising Stars” whoparticipated in the workshop, said she particularly enjoyedmeeting researchers from around the world.
“It was a precious occasion to have interdisciplinaryinteractions from the natural science field of studies,” said
Ms Hirasawa. “The Global Rising Stars programme is alsoplanning to provide us with multiple post-event gatherings
and a more connected, sustainable chain of relationships
among participants. I am excited to follow everyone’s paths
from now on and hear about their achievements and updates
in the future.”

In 2022, the NEA co-organised workshops in Japan,
Romania, Spain and France, by order of occurrence. Some ofthese events included site visits to deepen the experience forparticipants. For example, the French event, which was held
in Cherbourg and was mainly attended by university students
and recent graduates, included a visit to the EPR pressurised
water reactor Flamanville 3. The NEA also collaborated with
WiN Global to deliver a hybrid mentoring session during
their Annual Conference in Japan for university students andyoung professionals from Argentina, Japan, Thailand and theUnited Arab Emirates, and expects to hold more such events.
In parallel with these mentoring efforts, the NEA Rising
Stars programme has been working to welcome emerging

Ayame Hirasawa with NEA Director-General Magwood.

17

NEA UPDATESThe Sixth International Nuclear
Emergency Exercise (INEX-6)
by C. Mogg, J. Garnier-Laplace, J-H. Kruse, P. Wright, H. Arrigoni, S. Runacres

Brandon Frie/Unsplash

Christopher Mogg (christopher.mogg@oecd-nea.org) is a Radiological Protection Specialist in the NEA Division of RadiologicalProtection and Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety. Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace (jacqueline.garnier-laplace@oecd-nea.org) is Deputy
Head of the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety. Jan-Hendrik Kruse (jan-hendrik.kruse@
oecd-nea.org) is a Junior Radiological Protection Specialist in the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear
Safety. Peter Wright (peter.c.wright@hc-sc.gc.ca) is a Radiation Coordination Specialist at the Radiation Protection Bureau, Health
Canada. Holly Arrigoni (arrigoni.holly@epa.gov) is a Physical Scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Selwyn Runacres(selwyn.runacres@beis.gov.uk) is an Emergency Preparedness and Response specialist at the UK Department for Business, Energy
and Industrial Strategy.

The INEX series

The INEX-6 concept

Since 1993, the International Nuclear Emergency Exercise(INEX) series (NEA, 2023), organised by the Nuclear Energy
Agency, has proved successful in testing, investigating
and facilitating improvements in emergency management
systems nationally and internationally. Previous INEX
exercises focused largely on national and international aspectsof early phase management of emergencies at nuclear power
plants. More recently, INEX-3 and INEX-4 (NEA, 2007,2013) touched upon issues associated with consequence
management and the transition to recovery. INEX-6 will
focus solely on the long-term recovery phase, which has
not been tested before at the international level. The recovery
phase, which corresponds in the long term to an existing
exposure situation, begins when the radiation source at theorigin of the event is considered to be sufficiently secured
and/or the exposure situation is adequately characterised tosupport long-term decision-making (for off-site accidents
only the latter applies) (Figure 1).

Long-term recovery is a challenging and costly phase of an
emergency, and one that is highly complex to exercise (NEA,
2022a, 2022b). The considerable number of issues that local,
national and international authorities will be faced with makes
it extremely difficult to set up an exercise that adequately
tests all aspects of recovery. It will also be difficult to replicate
reality in terms of condensing the recovery timeline into asingle exercise. In reality, policy leads, lawyers, decision
makers, regulators, government departments and publicauthorities will all have more time to deliberate and decideon the course of action to take. With this in mind, INEX-6
has been developed as a series of modules to reduce thecomplexity involved and tackle each of the recovery issues as
manageable, bite-sized exercises. The design of the exercise
will also enable countries to reuse the materials, for example
to repeat the exercise with new emergency management
staff or to roll it out to different regions. For INEX-6, four
modules are being developed to test the recovery topics

18 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Figure 1: Simplified time sequence of preparedness, response and recovery
in a nuclear or radiological emergency
RecoveryResponse

Preparedness
Early phase
Event/response initiation –Urgent protective actions

Planned exposure
situation

Crisis management –Early protective actions

Intermediate phase

Long-term phase

Transition to recovery

Recovery/long-term
rehabilitation –Long-term
protective actions

Emergency exposure situation

shown in Figure 2. Cross-cutting issues such as stakeholder
engagement, communications and environmental monitoring
have been built into all modules.
All modules will be based on a single scenario. To
ensure participants focus on long-term recovery issues andknowing that there is equal participation between nuclear
and non-nuclear countries, the scenario is focused on theconsequences, i.e. contamination of the environment, rather
than the cause of the emergency. Further to this, the scenario
has been selected to target the specific module topics inquestion. As the exercise will start after the termination of
the emergency phase, the response phase actions will besimulated and provided to participants. For example, any
decisions around the preceding evacuation or sheltering will
be simulated and the focus in this example will be on therehousing of residents and the associated mental health andpsycho-social support (MHPSS) issues.
Each of the modules is designed as a half-day, tabletop exercise. Participating countries or territories are
responsible for the organisation, delivery and evaluationof their involvement – this will be overseen by a National
Planning Committee (NPC). All exercise materials will be
provided by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to ensure thatmultinational comparisons and learning can be drawn using
a consistent format.
Participation in the exercise from national, regional andlocal organisations involved in the exercise will be at thediscretion of the NPC. The NPC will have to tailor participationfor each of the modules to ensure the appropriate decision
makers, technical experts and other key stakeholders arepresent. Discussion among and between players should be
open and non-critical. The goal is to establish an enhanced
table-top exercise environment where issues regarding longterm recovery activities can be identified and discussed
freely and openly.

The INEX-6 objectives:

Existing exposure
situation• test the decision-making process for the implementationof longer-term protective actions, including thejustification and optimisation of such actions consideringboth radiological and non-radiological issues;• test the adoption of an all-hazards approach to recovery
management, utilising skills, knowledge and capabilities
from outside the nuclear field.
Each of the INEX-6 modules also has detailed objectives
in support of the overarching common objectives above.

The scope of INEX-6
It is recognised internationally that while countries andterritories have robust exercise programmes addressing the
response and transition phases of radiological and nuclear
emergencies, plans and exercises for longer-term recovery
are not as well established. INEX-6 therefore provides anopportunity for participants to test arrangements for therecovery phase and to work alongside others to outline
international best practices and areas for improvement.
A series of guiding statements have been agreed to set out
the scope of the exercise. These are as follows:
The Sixth International Nuclear Emergency Exercise(INEX-6) will:• be delivered individually by participants as table-top
exercises using the same exercise scenario in order todraw comparisons internationally;• involve a series of “modules” focusing on key topicalissues associated with long-term recovery management;• be a “question-driven” exercise where players arechallenged to use existing policies, protocols andemergency preparedness plans/procedures to explain
what longer-term protective actions will be taken;• be prepared as a package that enables participants toreuse the exercise materials after completion of INEX-6,
including a methodology that allows for additional longterm recovery modules to be added at a later stage
following the same format;

The aim of INEX-6 is (i) to exercise national and internationalarrangements for the recovery phase of a nuclear orradiological emergency and to identify improvements toenhance national and international preparedness for recovery;and (ii) to exchange experience with other participants thathave conducted and evaluated an INEX-6 exercise.

• involve a scenario that begins after termination ofa radiological or nuclear emergency, i.e. an existing
exposure situation;

To meet this aim, the following common objectives havebeen set:• maintain a direct link with the NEA publication Building
a Framework for Post-Nuclear Accident Recovery
Preparedness to test implementation of the guidance;• test preparedness for recovery, including organisational
structures, roles and responsibilities, stakeholder
engagement, as well as mechanisms for multinational
co-operation to assess the adequacy of current
arrangements and identify potential gaps against the
NEA’s Framework for Recovery Preparedness;• be open for all countries and territories to participate
in regardless of their current level of preparedness forrecovery;• build on experience from previous INEX exercises;• facilitate the examination of similarities and differencesin recovery management strategies, including
where possible, on transboundary issues between
neighbouring countries.

19

Figure 2: INEX-6 cross-cutting and topical modules

1. Health aspects

2. Food safety(covering issues such as
Mental Health andPsychosocial (MHPSS) issues,
medical follow-up, medical
surveillance)(covering issues such as foodmonitoring, food restrictions,international and domestic
food trade)

3. Remediation anddecontamination

4. Wastemanagement(covering issues such as
remediation of natural and built
environment, contaminatedland, access control)(covering issues such as
storage, treatment,characterisation, transport,
disposal)

Cross-cutting issues: Stakeholder engagement, communications, international co-operation, socio-economics© 2022 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The Sixth International Nuclear Emergency Exercise(INEX6) will not:• test all elements associated with long-term recovery;• be built upon a very technically detailed accident
scenario description, but rather on a more narrative orsemi-quantitative one.
A single common set of questions for each module has
been developed to allow all participants to directly compare
their approaches for managing the response to such events.
To facilitate overall evaluation and experience exchange, allparticipants are required to adopt the common objectives
and scenario questions. While countries and territories may
conduct bolt-on exercises to test specific elements of theirarrangements, it is recommended that all focus their planning
primarily on the core objectives and scenario questions
provided by the NEA.
INEX-6 is a “no fault” exercise. No participants will
have their performance or outcomes assessed. Evaluation
will focus on emergency management arrangements andapproaches for longer-term recovery management in relation
to the exercise scenario, including plans, procedures,organisational structures, information exchange, decisionmaking processes, resources, international interfaces andsupporting systems. Each country or territory will perform
its own exercise evaluation with the intent to share its
experience internationally. To facilitate overall evaluation andexperience exchange, a standard evaluation questionnaire
will be prepared based on the common scenario andobjectives, for completion and submission to the NEA. Eachcountry or territory may also undertake any other internal
evaluation that it feels appropriate, without requirement toshare this information.

When will INEX-6 take place?
Participating countries and territories will run the INEX-6
modules on selected dates during January-March 2024.

What do we hope to learn from
INEX-6?
Following its exercise, each country or territory will completea standard questionnaire to capture observations, lessons
and issues for submission to the NEA. This feedback
will form the basis of the follow-up INEX-6 International
Evaluation Workshop, being organised by the NEA for late2024 or early 2025. The workshop will allow participants to
exchange and analyse experience from the national exercises
and identify cross-cutting issues or gaps impacting multiple
states. An important outcome will be the identification ofgood practices as well as key needs for future work on
recovery preparedness that would benefit from international
co-operation.

References
NEA (2023), International Nuclear Emergency Exercises,
website, www.oecd-nea.org/inex (accessed 24 May 2023).
NEA (2022a), Building a Framework for Post-Nuclear
Accident Recovery Preparedness, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_69605.
NEA (2022b), Sustainable recovery after a nuclear accident, website article, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_75991(accessed 24 May 2023).

20 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

NEA (2013), Summary of the Fourth International Nuclear
Emergency Exercise (INEX-4), OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14850.
NEA (2007), Experience from the Third International
Nuclear Emergency Exercise (INEX-3) on Consequence
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.
org/jcms/pl_14172.

NEA BRIEFSNEA SMR Dashboard assesses newreactor concepts
by Shahnaz Hoque
Shahnaz Hoque (shahnaz.hoque@oecd-nea.org) is a Policy Analyst in the NEA Division of Nuclear Technology Development andEconomics (NTE).

M

The NEA Small
Modular Reactor
Dashboard: Volume
II

Dashboard

The SMRs under development range in size from 5 MWthto over 900 MWth and provide outlet temperatures from
280 to 800°C. This offers the potential to meet the needs ofdifferent applications beyond electricity. Micro-units could be
used for off-grid mining, mid-sized units for different industrial
applications and high temperature units to replace natural gas
cogeneration. Larger units could be used for on-grid power.
An increasing number of countries are looking to SMRs toreach net zero by 2050 and to help keep emissions low afterthat (Figure 1).

Modular Reactor

The NEA recognises the wide variety of SMR concepts
being developed, from water- and gas-cooled reactors to fast
spectrum and molten salt designs and micro-reactors. There isalso diversity in the configurations: while most are land-based,some are multi-modular, marine-based and even mobile.

The NEA
Small Modular ReactorDashboard:
Volume II

The NEArular Reacto
Small Modd
Dashboar

The NEA Small

any small modular reactor (SMR) designs are being
developed around the world, with some alreadydeployed or under construction in China and Russia, andseveral others at earlier stages in Europe and North America.
To help member countries navigate these new technologies,
the NEA has published the first two volumes of The NEA
Small Modular Reactor Dashboard, which defines new
criteria for assessing the progress of an initial 42 concepts.
More technologies will be included in later volumes.

NE A

NE A

Several SMR designs aim to use existing commercial
supplies of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuels, which are ator below 5% enrichment. Others aim to use high assay lowenriched uranium (HALEU) fuels with enrichment between
5% and 20%. Fuel availability will be a critical path issue formany SMRs, in particular those designed to use HALEU fuel.

CO2 emissions

Figure 1: Windows of opportunity for SMRs to support net zero objectives
PHASE I:
Getting to
net zero

CO2 emissions timeline
TRL

2020
Current window
opportunity
for mature
SMRs

PHASE II: Staying at net zero
2050
Next window
opportunity forless mature
SMRs

SMR innovation timeline
Source: NEA 2022.

21

The NEA SMR Dashboard assesses the progress of
SMRs in six key areas of readiness, looking beyond technicalfeasibility. To understand progress, it is important to know
about more than only Technology Readiness Level (TRL). It
is useful to track progress in the areas of:• Licensing readiness• Siting• Financing• Supply chain• Engagement• FuelAll assessments in the NEA SMR Dashboard series are
based on objective criteria applied to information compiled
from verifiable public sources. Combining the NEA SMR
Dashboard with existing technical assessments of SMRs
gives policymakers a comprehensive picture of progress
towards deployment worldwide.

To create the NEA SMR Dashboard, the NEA developed aset of assessment criteria for the six aforementioned areas,
shown in Table 1. Each SMR design was assessed based onthese criteria.
Light green indicates there was no information readily
available from verifiable public sources to assess progressin this area at the time of publication. The darkest
green corresponds to significant progress towards thecommercialisation and construction of a first-of-a-kindreactor. The shades of green between light and dark trackprogress in each area, starting with non-binding agreements
and Memorandums of Understanding, and progressing withlegally binding contracts or other meaningful indicators ofprogress. Bonuses exist for progress in multiple jurisdictions
or on multiple sites.
The NEA SMR Dashboard provides a snapshot in time.
A reactor at an earlier stage of progress today could overtake
others in the future. The first volume of the NEA SMR
Dashboard was published in March 2023 and Volume II in
July 2023. Further volumes will assess additional SMRs fromaround the world.

Table 1. Criteria definitions for tracking progress

LicensingNo
information

Pre-licensing

Licence/construction/
design certification
application submitted

Design approved

Licence to constructapproved

Licence to operate
approved

Received permit(s) andor licence(s) for
construction on the site

Construction has
started on the site

* Bonus for multiple jurisdictions

SitingNo
information

Non-binding agreements/MOUs/non-binding announcements

Site owner has shortlisted the technology

Ten or moreannouncements or
USD 500 million

FOAK is fully financed

FOAK financed +progress for NOAK
finance

Site owner has selected
the technology* Bonus for multiple sites
Financing(1)No
information

At least one
announcement

Five or moreannouncements or
USD 100 million

Supply chain(2)No
information

Supplier days/events/
workshops/trade shows/non-binding agreements/
MOUs/non-binding
announcements

Binding contracts forservices & materials

Partnerships/joint
ventures/consortia – allwith EPCs

FOAK construction
ongoing/complete

NOAK construction
ongoingEngagement(3, 4)No
information

One or moreengagements

Three or moreengagements

Five or moreengagements

Seven or moreengagements

Ten or moreengagements

Fuel

No
information

Non-binding agreements& studies with nationallabs for RDD/Lab-scale
production of fuelContracts/agreementswith fuel supply chain(uranium/conversion/enrichment/fabrication)

Operating fabrication
facility producing fuel,or uses same fuel asexisting/generation-III
commercial reactors

Contracts for fuel for
FOAK

Fuel loading has
begun(1) Types of financing announcements in scope: Funding from private investors; government grants; loans; loan guarantees; cost sharing agreements; publicprivate partnerships; equity partnerships; announcements of becoming publicly traded; announcements of sizeable investments; power purchase agreements;
financing approval from rate payers; export credit financing; bank financing; multilateral development bank financing.
(2) Types of suppliers of interest in scope: Engineering, procurement and construction organisations; universities, labs and research institutions when they
are supplying research and development services to an SMR project.
(3) Types of stakeholders for “Engagement” in scope: Subnational governments; Indigenous governments; labour unions; non-governmental organisations;civil society organisations; community organisations; universities; end users and customers; advisory boards.
(4) Types of announcements for “Engagement” in scope: Memorandums of Understanding; endorsements; town hall meetings; benefit-sharing agreements.

References
NEA (2022), Meeting Climate Change Targets: The Role of
Nuclear Energy, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/
jcms/pl_69396.
NEA (2023), The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/smr-dashboard.

22 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

NEA (2023), The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard:
Volume II, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/
smr-dashboard-ii.

NEA BRIEFS

Over 40 years of collaborative researchin nuclear safety
by Didier Jacquemain
Didier Jacquemain (didier.jacquemain@oecd-nea.org) is Senior Nuclear Safety Specialist in the NEA Division of Nuclear Safety
Technology and Regulation.

S

ince its inception, the NEA has served as a flexible andpowerful platform for multinational research co-operation, particularly in areas related to nuclear safety. The projects conducted under the NEA’s auspices have for decades
enabled nuclear safety regulators, industry and researchorganisations to share research costs and results. That, inturn, has supported safety regulations and practices andfacilitated their harmonisation around the world.
Safety research projects include conducting experimentsthat address a particular safety issue and close a knowledge
gap; creating and maintaining shared event, systems
and components databases that can be used to identify
operational issues and good practices; or benchmarking
safety models. They have contributed to the preservation of
essential research facilities, to the development of expertiseand to training and education by involving students and young
professionals. With an eye to the future, special attention is
also paid to ensuring the projects’ data can be accessed andused in the long term.
The NEA held the Nuclear Safety Research Joint Projects
Week: Success Stories and Opportunities for Future
Development from 9 to 13 January 2023 to review theaccomplishments of the Joint Nuclear Safety Projects over thelast four decades and to discuss future perspectives. Througha series of webinars, around 450 experts from 59 countries andseveral international organisations discussed the outcomes ofclose to 50 nuclear safety projects. They examined how theestablished frameworks, research platforms and networks
could support developments in nuclear energy, facilitating

Figure 1: The safety technical areas covered by
the NEA joint nuclear safety research projects
0Fuel performance and safety
Thermal-hydraulics in circuits
Severe accident (SA): Containment
SA: Progression in and ex-vessel
SA: Source term
SA: Major accidents
Structural integrity and LTO
Fire research
Human technology and organisation
Risk assessment
High temperature gas reactor

5

10

15

innovation and harmonisation. Participants highlighted thebenefits of the NEA projects and their importance for building
research platforms and competencies.
A key point of discussion was related to the challenges
ahead, in particular the effectiveness and efficiency of these
activities and how they might better serve the development
and maintenance of skills and research infrastructures.
Participants also explored new ways to encourage public andprivate stakeholders to contribute funding for future projects.
“There are still many opportunities to develop new
research projects in the new international dynamics ofnuclear energy,” said Veronique Rouyer, Head of Division of
Nuclear Safety Technology and Regulation at the NEA, in avideo address. “The framework has proven its effectiveness.
The framework is flexible. It can be set up very easily if a setof partners are ready. The NEA environment is ready as well
to facilitate the conversation.”
Several additional recommendations were discussed andare being addressed, as listed below.
Regarding the joint projects frameworks:• promoting a more integrated approach of safety researcharound sets of experimental platforms in the main safety
technical areas, e.g. in the thermal-hydraulic area;• engaging with policy-making bodies, efficiently
recruiting stakeholders and enlarging the funding base;• contributing more broadly to education, training andknowledge dissemination;• securing project results’ quality assurance, preservationand dissemination and organising database framework
models where needed;• increasing interactions between joint research projects
and relevant NEA working groups to get the broadest
insights into project development and engage thelargest communities in supporting projects.
Regarding research plans:• establishing a safety research road map, prioritising
globally and per the main safety technical areas,balancing needs for the operating and future reactors1;• developing Phenomena Identification and Ranking
Tables for innovative reactor designs and phenomena
related to long-term operation (LTO) issues.
See also: https://youtu.be/qN0MSiX-eos.

1.	 Future reactors refer to Gen. III, Gen. III+, Gen. IV reactors and also include light water (LW) and non-LWR small modular reactors.

23

NEA BRIEFSNEA Joint Projects
Nuclear safety, nuclear science, radioactive waste
management, radiological protection
NEA joint projects and information exchange programmes enable interested countries, on a cost-sharing basis, to pursue research or
the sharing of data with respect to particular areas or issues in the nuclear energy field. The projects are carried out under the auspices,and with the support, of the NEA.
At present, 18 joint projects are being conducted or completed in relation to nuclear safety, 4 in the area of nuclear science (advanced
fuels, and characterisation of fuel debris and fission products), 3 in support of radioactive waste management and 2 in the field of radiological protection. These projects complement the NEA programme of work and contribute to achieving excellence in each area of research.

Advanced Thermal-hydraulic Test Loop for
Accident Simulation Project (ATLAS)

Cabri International Project (CIP)
Contact: Didier.JACQUEMAIN@oecd-nea.org

Contact: Didier.JACQUEMAIN@oecd-nea.org

Current mandate: March 2018-March 2026

Current mandate (phase 3): January 2021-December
2024

Budget: ≈ EUR 74 million

Budget: EUR 4 million

Participants: Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,
Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the United States.

Participants: Belgium, China, Czechia, France, Germany,
Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates andthe United States.

• extend the database for high burn-up fuel performance in• establish an integral effect test (IET) database for safety• perform relevant tests under coolant conditions represent-

analysis code validation and for assessment of thermal
hydraulic behaviours;• address the scaling issues by performing counterpart tests
and enhance reliability of safety analysis methodology.

Cabri Reactor.
CEA

24 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

reactivity-induced accident (RIA) conditions;
ative of pressurised water reactors (PWRs);• extend the project database to include tests done in the

Nuclear Safety Research Reactor (Japan) on boiling water
reactor (BWR) and PWR fuel.

Component Operational Experience,
Degradation and Ageing Programme (CODAP)Contact: Keiko.CHITOSE@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 4): January 2021-December
2023
Budget: EUR 294 K
Participants: Canada, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany,
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, United Arab Emirates
and the United States.

• collect information on passive metallic component degrada-tion and failure of the primary system, reactor pressure vessel internals, the main process and standby safety systems
and support systems (i.e. ASME Code class 1, 2 and 3, orthe equivalent), as well as non-safety-related (non-Code)components with significant operational impact;• establish a knowledge base for general information oncomponent and degradation mechanisms such as applicable regulations, codes and standards, bibliography andreferences, R&D programmes and proactive actions,information on key parameters, models, thresholds andkinetics, fitness for service criteria, and information on
mitigation, monitoring, surveillance, diagnostics, repair
and replacement;• develop topical reports on degradation mechanisms inclose co-ordination with the CSNI Working Group on
Integrity and Ageing of Components and Structures(WGIAGE).

Co-operative Programme for the exchangeof Scientific and Technical Information
Concerning Nuclear Installation
Decommissioning Projects (CPD)
Contact: Feng-Chih.CHANG@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: January 2019-December 2023

Top view of the PKL facility, Germany.
ORANO (AREVA), France

Experiments on Source Term and Delayed
Releases Project (ESTER)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: September 2020-August 2024
Budget: EUR 3.144 million
Participants: Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Sweden and the United States.

• conduct and analyse experiments that address remobi-

lisation of fission product deposits that might occur during a severe nuclear accident and contribute to delayed
releases;• obtain an improved understanding of processes involvedin the formation of organic iodides in the containment.

Budget: ≈ EUR 81 K/year
Participants: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Russia, the Slovak
Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei,
the United Kingdom, the United States and the European
Commission.

• exchange scientific and technical information among

nuclear facility decommissioning projects, based on biannual meetings of the Technical Advisory Group, to ensurethat the safest, most environmentally sound and economical options for decommissioning are employed;• collect and manage numerous data, techniques and expe-

riences from nuclear facility decommissioning projects forsharing among members.

Experimental Thermal Hydraulics for Analysis,
Research and Innovations in Nuclear Safety
Project (ETHARINUS)
Contact: Martina.ADORNI@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: October 2020-September 2024
Budget: EUR 4.9 million
Participants: Belgium, China, Czechia, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Russia (suspended),
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.
The objective is to perform integral tests in the German
Framatome PKL-facility, the Russian PSB-VVER JSC ENIC
facility and the Finnish PWR PACTEL LUT University facilityto:• investigate thermal-hydraulic transients relevant for current PWR plants as well as for new PWR design concepts,
including e.g. passive systems;• provide data for verifying thermal-hydraulic computercodes used in safety analyses;• provide data for further developing these codes for complex representative scenarios and flow-regimes.

25

Scheme of the DIVA Facility.
IRSN

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station Accident Information Collection and
Evaluation project (FACE)

Fire Risk Assessment through Innovative
Research (FAIR)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 7): June 2023-May 2028
Budget: EUR 4.5 million

Contact: Yuji.KUMAGAI@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: July 2022-June 2026
Budget: EUR 717 175
Participants: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,
Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UnitedStates and the European Commission.
Based on the Japanese organisations’ needs and the
expected needs of project partners, the FACE project has
the following objectives:• refining the interpretation of the Fukushima Daiichi accident scenarios, including the effects of accident management measures in light of insights obtained from plantinvestigations;• clarifying current capabilities and directions to further
improve modelling for severe accident progression;• interpreting the results of analysis of uranium-bearing par-ticles collected on site and determining suitable hot celllaboratory analysis techniques and procedures for futureapplication to fuel debris analyses;• maintaining communication between Japanese organisa-

tions and international partners to share data, informationand expertise towards the resolution of issues related to
Fukushima Daiichi plant decommissioning and dismantling(D&D) and the improvement of reactor safety in various
countries.

Participants: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,
Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States and
CERN (EU).
The Fire Risk Assessment through Innovative Research
Project is a follow-up of the PRISME project series that
addresses new fire scenarios and new topics of interest for
an improved fire risk assessment in nuclear power plants
and other nuclear facilities. It includes experiments investigating three major topics:• fire propagation along cable trays with a focus on theeffects of long-length cables and cable ageing;• fires in confined and mechanically ventilated compartments, with a focus on the effects of hot and vitiatedenvironments on the combustion and the re-inflammationof unburned gases;• multi-source and multi-compartment scenarios, witha focus on fire propagation between discrete sources
and smoke propagation in complex multi-compartment
configurations.

Fire Incidents Records Exchange Project (FIRE)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 7): January 2023-December
2025
Budget: EUR 307 K
Participants: Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Finland, France,
Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

• define the format for, and collect fire event experience
•
•

•

•

26 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

(through international exchange) in, a quality-assured andconsistent database;collect and analyse fire events over the long term so as
to better understand such events, their causes and theirprevention;
generate qualitative insights into the root causes of fire
events that can then be used to derive approaches ormechanisms for their prevention or for the mitigation of
their consequences;establish a mechanism for the efficient feedback of experience gained in connection with fire events, including thedevelopment of defences against their occurrence, suchas indicators for risk-based inspections;record event attributes to enable quantification of fire frequencies and risk analysis.

A cabinet containing copperbus before the HEAF test (left)
and after the test (right)
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Horonobe International Joint Project (HIP)
Contact: Soufiane.MEKKI@oecd-nea.org

Halden Human Technology Organisation (HTO)
Project

Current mandate: April 2023-March 2025

Contact: Anais.NOUAILLES-MAYEUR@oecd-nea.org

Budget: EUR 44 758 600

Current mandate: January 2021-December 2023
Budget: EUR 13.83 million

Participants: Australia, Bulgaria, Germany, Japan,
Romania, Korea, Chinese Taipei, United Kingdom.
The development of DGRs is a growing priority in many
countries but only in a few cases has significant progress
towards implementation been made. Enhancing international co-operation is important to maintaining and strengthening technological capabilities for final disposal and to
improving stakeholder trust and confidence. Through theutilisation of URLs, the Horonobe International Joint Projectprovides a platform for international collaboration to sharefinancial and human resources as well as R&D knowledge
and experience.
The project’s objectives are to:• develop and demonstrate advanced technologies to be

used in repository design, operation and closure and arealistic safety assessment in deep geological disposal,
which are recognised as common international challenges;• encourage and train the next generation of engineers andresearchers by sharing and transferring a vast amount ofknowledge and experience developed to date in relevantorganisations worldwide.

Participants: Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan,
Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United ArabEmirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

• Advancing in the Human-Technology Organisation (HTO)

field by working on aspects of human performance, reliability and organisation in various stages of the plant life,
including design, modernisation, operation, especiallyduring accident situations, as well as decommissioning.

• The project brings together an important international technical network in the area of nuclear safety ranging fromplant control/monitoring, digital I&C and human factors.

• The Halden HTO Projects is direct continuation of the HTO
part of the Halden Reactor Project.

• The Project’s research programme consists of seven

topics of prioritised Human Factors and Digital Systems
Research for Existing and New Reactors.
– Human Performance– Digital I&C – Safety Assurance– Control Room Design and Evaluation– Human-Automation Collaboration– Digital Systems for Operation and Maintenance

Halden Reactor Project (HRP)
Fuel and Material Programme Extension
Contact: Didier.JACQUEMAIN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: January 2021-December 2023
Budget: EUR 3.4 million
Participants: Belgium, China, Czechia, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,
Norway, Russia (suspended), the Slovak Republic, Spain,
Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom,
the United States and the European Commission.
Generate key information for safety and licensing assessments by:• producing topical reports on the following issues:– fuel safety and operational margins;– cladding performance and behaviour;– plant ageing and degradation.

• developing a reliable HRP database capitalising on knowledge and data collected over the years by the project.

– Digital Transformation of Decommissioning– Cybersecurity for Main Control Rooms

High Energy Arcing Fault Events Project (HEAF)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 2): September 2018-June
2024
Budget: EUR 2.4 million
Participants: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan,
Korea, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States.
Perform experiments to obtain scientific fire data on highenergy arcing fault phenomena known to occur in nuclear
power plants by:• conducting 16 full-size equipment HEAF experiments on
bus ducts and electrical cabinets that are partially provided
by the participating organisations;• using international collaboration to expand the pool of available test data the development of a new US NUREG toinvestigate the effects of high energy arcing faults.

27

The PANDA ProjectContact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: July 2021-June 2025

Contact: Aleksandr.RAKHUBA@oecd-nea.org

Budget: EUR 5.41 million

Current mandate: January 2020-December 2023

Participants: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Korea,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.
Following completion of the Hydrogen Mitigation
Experiments for Reactor Safety HYMERES-2 project in
2021, the PANDA project continues and extends investigations to enhance the understanding and modelling of hydrogen combustion phenomena and functioning of related
mitigation systems in a nuclear power plant containment
during an accident. It contributes to the extension of thedatabase on large scale containment basic phenomena. The
thematic areas under investigation include:

•
•
•
•

Information System on Occupational Exposure(ISOE)

jets or plumes impacting complex compartments;
radiative heat transfer;

Budget: EUR 394 860 (in 2022)
Participants: Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Canada, China, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, theNetherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, the Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom and the United States.
Improve the management of occupational exposure at
nuclear power plants in operation, decommissioning and/or preparation for decommissioning by exchanging information, data and experience on methods to optimise occupational radiological protection:

activation of PWR containment spray system;• collect, analyse and share occupational exposure data andissues related to pressure suppression pools of BWRs
and in-containment refuelling water storage tanks(IRWST) of PWRs;• provide broad and regularly updated information on meth-• tests related to SMR phenomenology such as Passive

Containment Cooling System (PCCS) and natural convection heat transfer (HT) from the external wall of thecontainment to the water pool.

International Common-cause Failure Data
Exchange Project (ICDE)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 9): January 2023-December
2026
Budget: EUR 558 K
Participants: Canada, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany,
Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

• collect and analyse common-cause failure (CCF) events

over the long term to better understand such events, theircauses, and their prevention;• generate qualitative insights into the root causes of CCF

events that can then be used to derive approaches ormechanisms for their prevention or for mitigating theirconsequences;• establish a mechanism for the efficient feedback of experi-ence gained in connection with CCF phenomena, including
the development of defences against their occurrence,such as indicators for risk based inspections;• generate quantitative insights and record event attributes

to facilitate quantification of CCF frequencies in member
countries;• use the ICDE data to estimate CCF parameters.

High-temperature Engineering Test Reactor.
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)

28 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

best “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) practices
at nuclear power plants globally;

ods to improve the protection of workers and on occupational exposure in nuclear power plants;• provide a mechanism for the dissemination of informationon these issues, including evaluation and analysis of thedata assembled and experience exchanged, as a contribution to the optimisation of radiological protection.

Loss of Forced Coolant Project (LOFC)
Contact: Vesselina.RANGUELOVA@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: April 2011-March 2027
Budget: EUR 3 million
Participants: Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan,
Korea and the United States.
Perform integral tests in the high-temperature engineering
test reactor (HTTR) in order to:• provide experimental data to clarify the anticipated tran-sient without scram (ATWS) in the case of an LOFC withoccurrence of reactor re-criticality;• provide experimental data to validate the key assumptions

in computer codes predicting the behaviour of reactor
kinetics, core physics and thermal-hydraulics related toprotective measures for safety;• provide experimental data to verify the capabilities ofthese codes regarding the simulation of phenomena coupled between reactor core physics and thermal-hydraulics.

Reduction of Severe Accident Uncertainties(ROSAU)
Contact: Didier.JACQUEMAIN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: September 2019-September 2024
Budget: ~ EUR 8.635 million
Participants: Belgium, Canada, Czechia, France, Japan,
Korea, Sweden and the United States.

• reduce knowledge gaps and uncertainties associated withsevere accident progression by performing large-scale
tests investigating spreading of melt in a cavity and theeffect of metal content in melt on molten core-concreteinteraction as well as in-core and ex-core debris coolability;• refine and validate models and codes for each test category to form the technical basis for extrapolating thefindings from the experiments to plant conditions.

Studsvik Cladding Integrity Project (SCIP)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate (phase 4): July 2019-June 2024
Budget: ~EUR 13.7 million
Participants: China, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Japan, Korea, Russia (suspended), Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom andthe United States.

Studsvik pool facility for storage and inspection of SMILE materials.
Studsvik• generate high-quality experimental data to improve theunderstanding of the dominant failure mechanisms forwater reactor fuels and devise means for reducing fuelfailures;• achieve results of general applicability (i.e. not restricted toa particular fuel design, fabrication specification or operating condition);• achieve experimental efficiency through the judicious useof a combination of experimental and theoretical techniques and approaches.

THAI Experiments on Mitigation measuresand source term issues to support analysis
and further Improvement of Severe accident
management measures Project (THEMIS)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: November 2020-April 2024
Budget: ≈ EUR 5.05 million

Studsvik Material Integrity Life Extension
Project (SMILE)
Contact: Didier.JACQUEMAIN@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: January 2021-December 2025
Budget: ~EUR 14.5 million
Participants: Belgium, China, Czechia, Finland, Germany,
Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

• The general objective of the SMILE Project is the investi-

gation of materials harvested from nuclear power plants inorder to obtain critical data and mechanistic understandingof materials ageing mechanisms to support plant ageing
management, life extension programmes and operating
licence renewals.

Participants: Belgium, Canada, China, Finland, France,
Germany, Japan, Korea, Russia, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The project aims to address remaining questions and examine experimental data relevant to nuclear reactor containments under severe accident conditions, the focus being
on long term ex-vessel phases, concerning:• specific water-cooled reactor aerosol and iodine issues, aswell as hydrogen mitigation under accidental conditions;• passive autocatalytic recombiner (PAR) operation;• hydrogen combustion and flame propagation in two-compartment systems;• the resuspension of fission products.

29

Thermochemical Database (TDB) ProjectContact: Jesus.MARTINEZGONZALEZ@oecd-nea.org
Current mandate: February 2019-February 2025
(TDB-6)
Budget: EUR 1.34 million
Participants (TDB-6): Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Finland,
France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Produce a database that:• contains internally consistent thermodynamic data of solidand aqueous species for elements of interest in radioactive
waste disposal systems;• documents why and how the data were selected;• gives recommendations based on original experimental
data, rather than on compilations and estimates;• documents the sources of experimental data used.
Thermodynamics of Advanced Fuels –International Database (TAF-ID) Project,
Phase 3
Contact: Alice.DUFRESNE@oecd-nea.org
Project agreement (Phase 3): January 2023-January
2026
Budget: ≈ EUR 710 K
Participants: Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands,
Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and theEuropean Commission.
The TAF-ID project aims to develop further a comprehensive, internationally recognised thermodynamic databaseand associated phase diagrams on nuclear fuel materials
for the existing and future generation of nuclear reactors.
The TAF-ID phase 3 is a continuation of the first two phases
and will more specifically aim to:• Further develop the TAF-ID database, and this will include:– validating key systems within the TAF-ID database by
performing thermodynamic measurements on complex fuel compositions and comparing the experimental
results with calculations;– reassessing, improving and expanding the thermody-

namic models of targeted systems considered of interest (mainly oxide, metallic fuels, molten salts and ATF
for Generation 2, 3 and 4 reactors).

• Carry out experimental work and benchmark experimental
vs. computed data to develop and validate the database;• Update the public version of the TAF-ID database; and• Organise training and education for the database’s users.

Microscopic examination of U-bearing particles collected
at Fukushima-Daiichi.
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)

Thermodynamic Characterisation of Fuel
Debris and Fission Products Based on
Scenario Analysis of Severe Accident
Progression, Phase 2 (TCOFF-2)
Contact: Alice.DUFRESNE@oecd-nea.org
Project agreement (phase 2): August 2022-August2025
Budget: ≈ EUR 570 K
Participants: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden,
the United States and the European Commission.
The TCOFF-2 project investigates the thermodynamic
characterisation of fuel debris and fission products basedon scenario analysis of severe accident progression. It isbuilding on the first project phase, which focused on thesevere accident progression at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station. This first project phase significantly
advanced the knowledge of the thermodynamic propertiesof the material systems relevant to the description of corematerials degrading through a severe accident sequence.
The TCOFF-2 project aims to continue improving the materials science knowledge on fuel core degradation and fission
product release, including the improvement of the models
describing the materials interactions and the role they playin the various phases of the severe accidents. The ultimate
goal is the integration of such improved models in severe
accident simulation codes to increase their accuracy.
The TCOFF-2 project also aims to advance the knowledge
on the differences in behaviour of ATF from standard
UO2-Zr systems. The TCOFF-2 project is organised around5 main axes:• prioritisation of the material science issues related to thesevere accidents (SA) study;• improvement of the materials science knowledge regarding fuel core degradation and FP release (UO2-Zry andATFs);• implementation of improved knowledge for the simulationof the accident behaviour (UO2-Zry and ATFs);• extension of the leaching experimental database to better evaluate the mid- and long-term stability of degradedcores;• training and education.

30 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Second NEA Framework for Irradiation
Experiments (FIDES-II)
Contact: Markus.BEILMANN@oecd-nea.org;
Michelle.Bales@oecd-nea.org
Project agreement: October 2022-March 2024
Budget: ≈ EUR 13 million
Work scope value: ≈ EUR 23 million
Participants: Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany,
Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States andthe European Commission.
The FIDES-II Framework* provides a stable, sustainable,
reliable platform for fuel and material testing using nuclear
research reactors in NEA member countries. The work
performed supports organisations, research institutions
and industry by establishing a global network of researchfacilities to perform high-priority experiments to verify
the safety and performance of deployed and innovative
fuels and materials. FIDES-II brings together a networkof key research reactors around the world and safeguards
experimental knowledge for future generations. Four Joint
ExpErimental Programmes (JEEPs) are included in thecurrent programme of work, which cover a wide range of
research needs:• fast power transients, slow power transients and steadystate conditions;

LVR-15 Reactor operated by CVR, where FIDES-II experiments on
Cr-Coated ATF claddings are loaded and generating data.
CVR

The QUENCH-ATF ProjectContact: Julie-Fiona.MARTIN@oecd-nea.org;
Project agreement: October 2021-October 2025

• innovative fuel designs including coated claddings, highBudget: ≈ EUR 1.6 million• co-ordinated modelling efforts to complement experimen-

Participants: Czechia, France, Germany, Japan, Russia(suspended), Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom
and the United States.

burnup fuel and structural materials;
tal interpretation.

* The FIDES-I Framework remains in place until March 2024with the possibility to carry out experimental work at the MIR.
M1 reactor in RIAR, Russia.

The NEST Framework
Contact: Antonella.DiTRAPANI@oecd-nea.org
Project agreement: February 2019-February 2029
Budget: ≈ EUR 512 500 (in 2023)
Participants: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Romania, Russia, Switzerland and theUnited States.

The QUENCH-ATF project includes three large-scalebundle experiments with ATF cladding materials in the
QUENCH facility considering design basis accidents (DBA)
and/or beyond-DBA (BDBA) conditions, and accompanying separate effect tests and post-test examination. The
project aims to provide integral experimental data thatare needed to investigate the complex thermal-hydraulic, chemical and mechanical behaviour of fuel element
simulators under conditions that are as prototypical as
possible and extremely transient. The data obtained fromsuch experiments are used for validation of code systems
simulating accident scenarios like MELCOR, MAAP,
ASTEC and others.

The NEA Nuclear Education, Skills and Technology (NEST)
Framework is a multilateral initiative that, through international collaborative research projects, trains and facilitates
the skills development and training of the next generationof nuclear professionals. NEST helps countries to leverage
resources and address short- and long-term educational andresearch needs through:• developing hands-on training activities in challenging
nuclear projects;• building a talent pipeline from universities to industry andregulators by preparing the workforce with the skills andcompetencies specific to the nuclear sector; and• building long-lasting partnerships between university,
industry and with all nuclear stakeholders to create a global
nuclear network of fellows, mentors and organisations.

31

NEA BRIEFSIn Memoriam:
Pierre Strohl
It is with deep sadness that the NEA community learnt of the passing of Pierre Strohl, former Deputy DirectorGeneral of the NEA.

O

ver a span of more than
40 years, Pierre Strohl
helped create and then shape
the Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA), including as its Deputy
Director-General, during aperiod of intense change that
saw the nuclear sector establish itself as a key part of the
global energy system.
Strohl began his career in1948 and was instrumental
in the foundation in 1958 of
the European Nuclear Energy
Agency, an intergovernmentalorganisation that would be
renamed as the NEA in 1972.
He served as Head of the Legal and External Relations
Division from 1966 to 1974, then Deputy Director of Security
and Regulation of Nuclear Activities and later Deputy
Director-General until his retirement in 1991.

Even after his retirement, Strohl remained active inacademia, publishing in journals and contributing, for example,
to the Centre for Studies and Research in International Law
and International Relations, part of The Hague Academy ofInternational Law.
Mariano Molina, a member of the International Nuclear
Law Association and former Chairman of the Working
Group 5 on Radioactive Waste Management, of which Strohl
was a prominent member, recalls him fondly as a person of“strong, sharp and stubborn character.”“Pierre was also a man with a vast culture,” says Molina of
the working group meetings, where Strohl encouraged deepand engaging debates. “He had an extraordinary knowledgeof poetry and encouraged me to start our reports with averse of a romantic poet (French, of course!)”Among his awards and titles, Strohl was named a Knightof the French National Order of the Legion of Honour.

Strohl helped the NEA establish civilian nuclear law as amajor field of interest as the nuclear sector became a provider
of energy in many countries. He was quick to recognisethat the nuclear sector needed a special legal regime asissues such as nuclear safety, security and liability required
international co-operation and leadership from the NEA andother entities. He led the NEA’s work on the creation of theConvention on Civil Liability for Maritime Carriage of Nuclear
Material as well as on the exclusion of small quantities ofnuclear material from existing conventions.
In 1968, he launched the Nuclear Law Bulletin, a biannual
review of nuclear law developments that aimed to inform
national governments as they adapted their laws to manage
the quickly evolving nuclear sector. Since then, the NEA has
released over 100 issues as it continues to carry out Strohl’svision in the development, strengthening and harmonisationof nuclear legislation and regulation.
“The nuclear law community continues to benefit from
Pierre’s foresight in the need for a specialist publication
devoted to the, at the time, burgeoning field of nuclear law,”says Kimberly Nick, the current head of the NEA Division of
Nuclear Law. “We will continue to carry out his legacy in theyears and decades to come.”

32 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

32

PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND BROCHURESAll NEA publications are available free of charge on the NEA website.

General Interest
Annual Report 2021
2021NEA
Annual Report

Nuclear Technology in 2021
NEA Activities by Sector
General Information

Nuclear Energy Agency
uclearnergy
gency

NEA No. 7643. 116 pages.
http://oe.cd/nea-2021-en

32 pages.
Also available in French, Chineseand Russian.

Rapport annuel 2021

Available online at:
http://oe.cd/neabrochure

AEN n° 7644. 116 pages.
http://oe.cd/nea-2021-fr

NE A

NEA No. 7207. 156 pages.
Available online at: www.oecd-nea.org/
jcms/pl_61802
Climate change will create specific risks
and challenges for nuclear power plants
and the electricity system as a whole.
Extreme weather events caused by climatechange – such as floods, storms, heatwaves and droughts – have already affected
the operation of nuclear power plants. Any
increase in the temperature of the waterused to cool nuclear power plants can also
lead to reductions in their power output due
to decreasing thermal efficiency.
This report sets out the adaptation
strategies that can be effectively
implemented to improve the resilienceof existing plants as well as any new
installations. The costs of adaptation toclimate change can vary significantly
depending on the type of reactor, theclimate change issues affecting them,as well as the applicable regulations andstandards. However, while these adaptation
costs can, in some cases, be significant,the costs of inaction – both directly at theplant level and indirectly for the electricity
system – are likely to be even higher.

Risk Management

Assessment
Plants andof Nuclear Power
their Adaptation
Approaches forby Optimising:
Climate Change
bilityof the Vulnera

Climate Change:
Assessment of the
Vulnerability of Nuclear
Power Plants andApproaches for their
Adaptation

Plants:Nuclear Power
Financing New
byCost of Capital
Minimising theManagement
Optimising Risk

the Cost of Capitaland Economics

and Economics

Financing Nucle

Plants: Minimising

Development

Developmentfor
New Perspectivears New
Build

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Technology
2021

Nuclear Technology
2022

Financing New

Nuclear technology
development andeconomics

NE A

Financing New Nuclear
Power Plants: Minimising
the Cost of Capital by
Optimising Risk
Management
NEA No. 7632. 62 pages.
Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_76525

Realising the contribution of nuclear energy
to achieving net zero carbon emission in
2050 will require raising significant amountsof capital at competitive rates. On the basisof work under the aegis of the Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA) – International
Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation(IFNEC) Initiative on Nuclear Financing,
this report explores a new framework foranalysing the cost of capital for nuclear
new build projects. Its key insight is that
capital costs can be substantially lowered
if the different risks pertaining to suchprojects such as construction risk, pricerisk or political risk are properly understood,
optimally managed and fairly allocated. In a
carbon-constrained world, the true capitalcosts of nuclear energy and other lowcarbon generators will also be lower thancustomarily assumed due to their ability tooffset systemic financial risk. The findingsof this report apply equally to private
and public investments. Governments
nevertheless have important roles to playin ensuring credible net zero commitments,
implementing frameworks for optimal risk
management and by becoming involved as
project participants, in cases where theyjudge that private actors do not realise thefull value of a nuclear power project.

Nuclear Technology
2023

Development

and EconomicsmMaximising Uraniu
l andMining’s Socia
its: A
Economic Benef
holders
Guide for Stake

Maximising Uranium
Mining’s Social andEconomic Benefits: A
Guide for Stakeholders
NEA No. 7547. 100 pages.

NE A

Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_72776

The transformative activity of mining
has numerous economic, social andenvironmental impacts that can be both
positive and adverse for communities,
ecosystems and economies. As theuranium industry begins to address
negative perceptions and legacies
associated with past activities,
environmental, socioeconomic andgovernance aspects of the uranium mining
life cycle are gaining increased attention
from investors, communities, regulatorsand other stakeholders.
While environmental and human health andsafety concerns often dominate stakeholder
engagement programmes and publicconversations about uranium operations,less public discussion and analyticalresearch are typically devoted to the socioeconomic aspects. This was the basis forthis report.
Through an examination of case studies
from several countries the aim is to clarify
how the numerous activities related touranium mining affect various aspects ofsocio-economic development – including
employment, supply chain investments,
exports, taxes and royalties, innovation,
infrastructure, education and medicalcare. This report’s inventory of leading
practices is intended to inform publicdebate on uranium mine development andprovide policymakers with a frameworkof approaches to maximise the social andeconomic benefits of uranium mining
projects.

33

PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND BROCHURESThe NEA
ular Reactor
Small ModDas hboa rd

The NEA Small Modular
Reactor Dashboard

Dashboard

NEA No. 7634. 564 pages.

and Demand

Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/smr-dashboard

Reso urce s,
Pr o d uc t io n
and Demand

Resources, Production

Modular Reactor

NE A

U ranium
Uranium 2022:

The NEA Small

NEA No. 7650. 74 pages.

Uranium 2022:
Resources, Production
and Demand

Energy Agency
by the Nuclear
AgencyA Joint Report
Atomic Energy
and the International

NEA

NUCLEAR ENERGY

All low-carbon solutions will
be required to achieve theworld’s net zero targets. Nuclear energy
has a role to play in meeting this need.
A wave of innovation in small modular
reactors (SMRs) is advancing quickly withthe potential to help decarbonise hardto-abate sectors. Progress is real and ispositioned to accelerate pathways to net
zero. SMRs could replace coal on-grid,fossil fuel cogeneration of heat and power
for heavy industry, diesel at off-grid
mines, as well as producing hydrogen andsynthetic fuels.
Looking beyond technical feasibility, The
NEA SMR Dashboard defines new criteria
for assessing real progress in six additional
dimensions of readiness: licensing, siting,financing, supply chain, engagement, andfuel. This first edition tracks the progress of
21 SMRs around the world.

The NEA
ular Reactor
Small Mod
Volume II
Das hboard:

The NEA Small Modular
Reactor Dashboard II

The NEA Small

NEA No. 7657. 64 pages.

Modular Reactor
Dashboard: Volume
II

NE A

Available online at:www.oecd-nea.org/
smr-dashboard-ii

All low-carbon solutions
will be required to achieve the world’s
net zero targets. Nuclear energy has arole to play in meeting this need. A wave
of innovation in small modular reactors(SMRs) is advancing quickly with thepotential to help decarbonise hard-to-abate
sectors. Progress is real and is positioned
to accelerate pathways to net zero. SMRs
could replace coal on-grid, fossil fuelcogeneration of heat and power for heavy
industry, diesel at off-grid mines, as well as
producing hydrogen and synthetic fuels.

Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_79960

Uranium is the main raw
material fuelling all nuclear fission reactors
today. Countries around the world use it
to reliably generate low-carbon electricity,
process heat and hydrogen as part of theirplans to reduce carbon emissions andincrease energy security and supply. Thereis no nuclear fission power possible – ofwhatever kind – without uranium.
This 29 th edition of the “Red Book”, arecognised world reference on uranium
jointly prepared by the Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), provides analyses
and information from 54 uranium producing
and consuming countries. The present
edition reviews world uranium market
fundamentals and presents data on global
uranium exploration, resources, production
and reactor-related requirements. It offers
updated information on established uranium
production centres and mine development
plans, as well as projections of nuclear
generating capacity and reactor-related
requirements through 2040.

Radiological protection
and human aspects ofnuclear safety
Human Aspects
2023

Gender Balance in the
Nuclear Sectorof Nuclear SafetynceGender Bala
Sectorin the Nuclear

NEA No. 7583. 108 pages.

NE A

Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_78831

34 | NEA News 2022 – No. 40.2

Public HealthnImplement
Installations

onal
Human and Organisati
LearntFactors Lessons

NE A

Post-Fukushima Action
Implementation at
Nuclear Installations:
Human and
Organisational Factors
Lessons Learnt
NEA No. 7578. 52 pages.

Available online at: www.oecd-nea.org/
jcms/pl_77083
In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi
accident in March 2011, nuclear regulators,
industry organisations, and operatingcompanies across the globe began theprocess of understanding the lessons
learnt from the accident and planning
actions to strengthen preparedness and thecapabilities to respond to and mitigate theeffects of such extreme external events.
Although many of these actions leverage
new equipment or technologies, theseenhancements typically continue to rely on
the ability of plant staff to make sound andtimely decisions and to complete assigned
actions within a limited amount of time. As
a result, human and organisational factors
are central to realising the intended benefitsof the many post-Fukushima enhancementsthat have been implemented or remain inprogress.
This report offers the lessons learnt related
to human and organisational factors thatare being gained from implementing theactions that many regulatory authorities
and nuclear facility operators around theworld are taking to strengthen their ability
to respond to events like those experienced
at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.
The report enables the sharing of theselessons learnt broadly so that they can beused to facilitate and enhance such efforts
by all parties working to strengthen their
preparedness and mitigation capabilities.

Nuclear law
Law (ISNL) BrochureThis report features the first publicly
available international data on genderbalance in the nuclear sector. The data wascollected from over 8 000 women in the
nuclear workforce in 32 countries, as wellas human resources data from 96 nuclear

Protection andma Actio
Post-Fukushi
aration at Nucle

School of Nuclear

Female scientists andengineers pioneered
the nuclear and radiological fields, withleaders and innovators such as Marie
Skłodowska-Curie and Lise Meitner,
among many others, establishing thefoundation of modern nuclear science andtechnology. Women continue to makevital contributions to the sector, but theirvisibility and overall numbers in the sector
remain limited, especially in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM), and leadership roles. The lack ofdiversity in the sector represents a lossof potential innovation and growth and acritical threat to the viability of the field.

Radiological
2023

International

Looking beyond technical feasibility, The
NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard
defines new criteria for assessing real
progress in six additional dimensions ofreadiness: licensing, siting, financing,supply chain, engagement, and fuel. The
first volume of The NEA Small Modular
Reactor Dashboard assessed the progressof 21 SMRs. This second volume tracks the
progress of an additional 21 SMRs aroundthe world.

AGENCY

organisations in 17 countries. Based on thefindings, a comprehensive, evidence-driven
policy framework is proposed with practical
recommendations.

ISNL Commemorative
BrochurelInternational Schooawof Nuclear L

NEA No. 7652. 76 pages.

NE A

Available online at: www.
oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15096

The International Schoolof Nuclear Law (ISNL)
Commemorative Brochure highlights thehistory, academics and unique featuresof the ISNL that contribute to the “Spiritof Montpellier”. In addition, the Brochurepresents a yearbook of participants since
the ISNL programme began in 2001.

FROM THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (ANS)NOW AVAILABLE:
International Online Buyers Guide Database
Content collected from the annual print editions of the Nuclear News and Radwaste
Solutions Buyers Guides is now available as a new online resource, in the form of a live,
fully searchable database. Companies are catalogued and cross-referenced under thousandsof nuclear-related categories, products, and services to match any need. Start your searchfor your next company to work with—or for—at www.ans.org/news/bg.

GET LISTED—IT’S FREE
More than 600 worldwide companies have already createda profile! If yours does not currently appear, create a freelisting for your company today www.ans.org/news/bg/listings.
ANS is pleased to offer enhanced listings in both print andonline Buyers Guides by placing an advertisement in the
category that is most representative of your business.
Email advertising@ans.org or phone +1-708-579-8226 for
information about how to become a Featured Supplier.

Version: April 2024

The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is an intergovernmental agency established in 1958.
Its primary objective is to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international
co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally sound and economicaluse of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It is a non-partisan, unbiased source of information,
data and analyses, drawing on one of the best international networks of technical experts.
The NEA has 34 member countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechia, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, theNetherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia (suspended), the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. The NEA co-operates with a range ofmultilateral organisations, including the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

NEA News is published twice yearly. The opi­nions expressed herein are those of the contributors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency or of its member countries.
The material in NEA News may be freely used provided the source is acknowledged.

All correspondence should be addressed to:
The Editor, NEA News – OECD/NEA – 2, rue André-Pascal – 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 73 21 28 19 – Fax: +33 (0)1 45 24 11 10

For more information about the NEA, see: www.oecd-nea.org
Editors: Andrew Macintyre and Carlo Piovano
Design and layout: Laurie Moore
Editorial assistant: Rhiann Pask

Cover page photo credits: NEA International Mentoring Workshop in Canada (Trent University); financing (KanawatTH/ShutterStock);climate change (Bernhard Staehli/Shutterstock).

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
46, quai Alphonse Le Gallo
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 73 21 28 19
nea@oecd-nea.org www.oecd-nea.org

NEA No. 7642