Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning
NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
January 2023
www.oecd-nea.org

Status, Barriers and Cost-Benefitsof Robotic and Remote Systems
Applications in Nuclear
Decommissioning and Radioactive
Waste Management

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1  1
Nuclear Energy Agency

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Unclassified

English text only
12 January 2023

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

Radioactive Waste Management Committee

Status, Barriers and Cost-Benefits of Robotic and Remote Systems Applications
in Nuclear Decommissioning and Radioactive Waste Management

This document is available in PDF format only.

JT03510640
OFDE

Unclassified
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory,
to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

2 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 38 democracies work together to address the economic,
social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understandand to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, theinformation economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where
governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work
to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, theCzech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on
economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its
members.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membershipconsists of 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, 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 European Commission and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency also take part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:– to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, thescientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally sound and economical use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues as input togovernment decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD analyses in areas such as energy andthe sustainable development of low-carbon economies.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive
waste management and decommissioning, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technicalanalyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides
nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.
© OECD 2023

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in yourown documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given.
All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to neapub@oecd-nea.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of thismaterial for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation
du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 3

Foreword
Robotics and remote systems (RRS) are essential technologies for work in the radiation
environments typically encountered in the nuclear back-end, such as in radioactive waste
management and decommissioning. In addition to enhancing radiation safety, there aremany reasons to implement RRS, such as improving process safety and efficiency,
reducing manual work or improving industrial and environmental safety.
The Expert Group on the Application of Robotic and Remote Systems in the Nuclear
Back-end (EGRRS) was established under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and the Committee on
Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Legacy Management (CDLM). It
supports NEA member countries in optimising the development of national radioactive
waste (RW) management and decommissioning programmes through the application ofrobotics and remote systems.
This report is intended to support NEA member countries considering the leading andemerging RRS technologies, identify barriers to the implementation of RRS and toprovide a basis for a cost-benefit methodology based on case studies of RRS applications
in RW management, decommissioning and legacy management. The expert group also
supports NEA member countries in enabling a wider application of RRS to encourage
progress in scientific and technical knowledge and assist in the transformation towards
a digital, data-driven process.

4 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

Acknowledgements
The NEA wishes to express gratitude to Miklos GARAMSZEGHY of Canada, who coordinated this report; to the NEA member country participants of the Expert Group on
the Application of Robotic and Remote Systems in the Nuclear Back-end; and to theauthors listed below for their contribution to this report:‒

Rustam STOLKIN (United Kingdom), Chair‒

Norbert MOLITOR (Germany), Vice-Chair‒Peter BERBEN (Belgium)‒

Jens VERBEEK (Belgium)‒

Tim REEDMAN (Canada)‒

Hugues BURTIN (European Commission)‒

Laurent-Herve VELNOM (European Commission)‒

Philippe GARREC (France)‒Joël VAN DEN BOSCH (France)‒

Thomas BRAUNROTH (Germany)‒

Michael KNAACK (Germany)‒

Alena WERNKE (Germany)‒

Shinji KAWATSUMA (Japan)‒

Yoichi YAMAMOTO (Japan)‒

István SZŐKE (Norway)‒

Igor DALYAEV (Russia)‒

Alexander LOPOTA (Russia)‒

Eduard NIKITIN (Russia)‒

Aleksey TRIBUNSKY (Russia)‒

Anders LABBA (Sweden)‒

Paolo PICCA (United Kingdom)‒

Ian TELLAM (United Kingdom)‒

Richard REID (United States)

Martin BRANDAUER, Takune KURATA and Vladimir LEBEDEV supported thiswork as part of the NEA Secretariat.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 5

Table of contents
List of abbreviations and acronyms............................................................................................ 8
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 13
1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 17
1.1
1.2

Background .............................................................................................................. 18Group composition and scope of work ..................................................................... 20

2. RRS status, barriers and cost-benefit analysis .................................................................... 21
2.1. Status of the use and development of robotics and remote systems in back-end
applications ............................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.2. Objectives.................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.3. Origins and development of robotics and remote systems in the nuclear industry ..... 21
2.1.4. Current status of development/activities of RRS technologies ................................... 26
2.1.5. Preliminary conclusions .............................................................................................. 27
2.2. Barriers / Impediments....................................................................................................... 28
2.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 28
2.2.2. Objectives.................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.3. Barriers/Impediments .................................................................................................. 28
2.2.4. Preliminary conclusions .............................................................................................. 33
2.3. Cost-benefit analysis .......................................................................................................... 34
2.3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 35
2.3.2. Objectives.................................................................................................................... 35
2.3.3. Economic drivers and methodology for analysis ........................................................ 35
2.3.4. Cost-benefit effects for different applications ............................................................. 39
2.3.5. Preliminary conclusions .............................................................................................. 43
3. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 44
3.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 44
3.2. Robotics in spent fuel processing ...................................................................................... 47
3.3. Robotics for radioactive waste management ..................................................................... 49
3.4. Robotics for nuclear facilities decommissioning ............................................................... 52
3.5. Robotics for management of legacy facilities and post-accident situations ...................... 53
3.6. Robotics in accident response ............................................................................................ 53
3.7. Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 55
4. Summary and conclusions ..................................................................................................... 57
5. Future work ............................................................................................................................ 61
5.1. Key challenges of future and emerging technologies ........................................................ 61
5.2. Future perspectives of the EGRRS work ........................................................................... 62

6 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
References ................................................................................................................................... 64
Annex A: EGRRS Matrix .......................................................................................................... 67
Annex B: Status of RRS in nuclear back-end applications .................................................... 68
B.1 Mobile robots ..................................................................................................................... 68
B.2 Articulated robots ............................................................................................................... 74
B.3 Task-specific end effectors ................................................................................................ 76
B.4 Control ssystems for remote operations ............................................................................. 77
B.5 Conveyors, lifting systems and mobile platforms .............................................................. 78
B.6 Wireless data transfer and control systems ........................................................................ 80
B.7 Sensing and control platform for harsh environments. ...................................................... 83
B.8 Miscellaneous specialty systems ........................................................................................ 84
B.9 Summary of robotics and automated systems in use in back-end applications................ 105
Annex C: Detailed survey results on RRS barriers and impediments .............................. 112
Annex D: RRS cost benefit analysis methodology ................................................................. 120
Annex E: Case studies .............................................................................................................. 131
E.1 Japan: Use of robotics in accident situations .................................................................... 131
E.1.1 Robots for nuclear extreme conditions ...................................................................... 133
E.1.2 JCO accident and nuclear accident response robots .................................................. 134
E.1.3 Contribution to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident recovery............................ 136
E.2 Canada: COG-MDA strategic R&D study on decommissioning robotics ....................... 151
E.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 151
E.2.2 Decommissioning process evaluation ........................................................................ 151
E.2.3 Proposed robotic research areas................................................................................. 154
E.2.4 Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) ...................................................................................... 155
E.2.5 Radiological decay considerations............................................................................. 155
E.2.6 Robotic simulations ................................................................................................... 156
E.3 United Kingdom’ approach to regulating robotics and autonomous systems .................. 157
E.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 157
E.3.2. Approach to innovation in the UK nuclear industry ................................................. 158
Annex F: Bibliography............................................................................................................. 161
List of tables
Table 1. Summary of cost-benefit drivers and assessment approaches
Table 2. Assessment approach for operational schemes
Table 3. Assessment approach for risks
Table 4. Assessment approach for staff
Table 5. Assessment approach for time of execution
Table 6. Assessment approach for licensing and regulatory process
Table 7. Assessment approach for social acceptability
Table 8. Assessment approach for knowledge management
Table 9. Key influencing robotics and remote systems factors

36
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
67

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 7

List of figures
Figure 1. (Left): 1949 report of mechanical master-slave manipulator (MSM) device, designed
by R.C. Goertz at Argonne National Laboratory, United States. (Right): very similar devices,used worldwide today for the vast majority of remote manipulations performed in the nuclear
industry.
24
Figure 2. Control architecture of the CEA force-sensitive tele-operation system deployed in aradioactive environment by AREVA. Note the highly complex algorithms and softwarearchitecture that sits between the human operator and input master device (left) and the slave
manipulator (right).
25
Figure 3. Autonomous motion planner guides robotic laser cutting of a curved surface, as
captured by 3-D computer vision. It was the first autonomous robotic movement
in a radioactive environment.
26
Figure 4. Summary of relative importance of perceived barriers and concerns with RRS
implementation
31
Figure 5. Summary of total scores of perceived barriers and concerns with RRS
implementation
33
Figure 6. FREMES Conveyor belt automatically sorting the radioactive waste by HPGE
Gamma Spectroscopy in Dessel, Belgium.
40

8 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

List of abbreviations and acronyms
AI

Artificial intelligence

ALARA/ALARP

As low as reasonably achievable/as low as reasonably practicable

BIM

Building information management

CANDU

Canada Deuterium Uranium

CAPEX

Capital expenditures

CBA

Cost-benefit analysis

CCTV

Closed-circuit television

CDLM

Committee on Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Legacy Management
(NEA)

CEA

French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat à l'énergie
atomique et aux énergies alternative)

COG

CANDU Owners’ Group

COTS

Commercial off-the-shelf

CPD

Co-operative Programme for the Exchange of Scientific and Technical Information on
Nuclear Installation Decommissioning Projects

CRL

Chalk River Laboratories

DARPA

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (United States)

DAWP

Dual Arm Work Platform

DGR

Deep geological repository

DQO

Data quality objectives

DLTWM

Decommissioning and Long-Term Waste Management

DMCA

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

DOE

United States Department of Energy

EC

European Commission

EDF

Électricité de France

EGRRS

Expert Group on the Application of Robotic and Remote Systems in the Nuclear Backend (NEA)NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 9

EMSM

Electrical master-slave manipulator

EPRI

Electric Power Research Institute

EU

European Union

FGMSPFirst Generation Magnox Storage Pond

FIM

Fukushima Inspection Manipulator

FIU

Florida International University

FOAK

First-of-a-kind

FRM

Fukushima Repair Manipulator

FSC

Forum on Stakeholder Confidence

HIC

High Integrity Container

HLW

High-level waste

HMI

Human-machine interface

HPU

Hydraulic power unit

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

ICM

International Climbing Machine

ICVD

Improved Cerenkov Viewing Device

IFE

Institute for Energy Technology (Norway)

ILW

Intermediate-level waste

INEEL

National Institute of Electricity and Clean Energy (Instituto Nacional de Electricidad y
Energías Limpias, Mexico)

INEL

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

IRS

International Rescue System

ISDCInternational Structure for Decommissioning Costing

ISOCS

In Situ Object Counting System

IT

Information technology

ITER

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

JAEA

Japan Atomic Energy Agency

JAMK

Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences (Finland)

JFN

James Fisher Nuclear

10 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
JV

Joint venture

KAERI

Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute

KHG

Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst GmbHkW

kilowatt

LAN

Local area network

LDUA

Light Duty Utility Arm

LGWIT

Lower Girth Weld Inspection Tool

LWL

Low-level waste

METI

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)

MEXT

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan)

ML

Machine learning

MS

Manipulation system

MSM

Master-slave manipulator

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

NEDO

New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (Japan)

NEST

Nuclear Education, Skills and Technology Framework (NEA)

NIRO

Nuclear Innovation and Research Office

NNL

National Nuclear Laboratory (United Kingdom)

ONR

Office for Nuclear Regulation (United Kingdom)

OPEX

Operational expenditures

OPG

Ontario Power Generation

ORNL

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PDP

Preliminary decommissioning plan

PNGS

Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (Canada)

PoW

Programme of WorkPPE

Personal protective equipment

PWR

Pressurised water reactor

R&AS

Robotics and automation system

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 11

R&D

Research and development

RD&D

Research, development and demonstration

RAIN

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear

RF

Regulators Forum

ROI

Return on investment

RoMaNS

Robotic Manipulation for Nuclear waste Sorting and Segregation

ROV

Remotely operated vehicle

RPV

Reactor pressure vessel

RRA

Robotic research area

RRS

Robotics and remote systems

RUCS

Remote Underwater Characterisation System

RW

Radioactive waste

RWM

Radioactive waste management

RWMC

Radioactive Waste Management Committee (NEA)

SCV

Spent fuel check vehicle

SG

Steam generators

SF

Spent nuclear fuel

SFP

Spent fuel pool

SMR

Small modular reactors

SRNL

Savannah River National Laboratory

SSE

Structures, systems and equipment

TEPCO

Tokyo Electric Power Company

TMI

Three Mile Island

ToR

Terms of Reference

TRL

Technology readiness level

UAV

Unmanned aerial vehicle

UGV

Unmanned ground vehicle

UI

User-interface

12 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
UK

United Kingdom

USSR

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

VLLW

Very low-level waste

VR

Virtual reality

VTT

Technical Research Centre of Finland

VVER

Water-water energetic reactor

WAC

Waste acceptance criteria

WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organization

WNE

World Nuclear Exhibition

WPDD

Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling (NEA)NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 13

Executive summary
Robotics and remote systems (RRS) aim to reproduce or partially replace the manualtasks of humans. As such, RRS are essential for work in hazardous environments,
including high radiation environments, that are encountered in radioactive waste
management and decommissioning. They comprise a broad and diverse collection oftechnologies and a wide range of levels of automation and autonomy. These can range
from simple, repetitive, pre-programmed motions to various types of smart assistancefor human operators and even fully autonomously controlled robots, using artificial
intelligence (AI) motion planners informed by smart sensing capabilities such as
computer vision. Many of these systems are complex in themselves, and even more
complex in their interactions with human operators. The technologies used in thesesystems also change and evolve rapidly, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable
future. Recent and emerging advances in RRS offer significant potential tofundamentally change how radioactive waste management, decommissioning and legacy
site remediation activities are conducted.
The Expert Group on the Application of Robotic and Remote Systems in the Nuclear
Back-end (EGRRS) was established under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and is supported by theCommittee on Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Legacy Management(CDLM).
The purpose of the EGRRS is to support NEA member countries in optimising thedevelopment of national radioactive waste (RW) management and decommissioning
programmes through the application of robotic and remote systems. The EGRRS brings
together prominent international experts to advise member countries on the historical,
current, emerging and future issues surrounding the implementation of RRS in nuclear
applications. The EGRRS offers an important networking forum for collaboration anddissemination of knowledge and best practices between the practitioners of member
countries. The EGRRS also supports NEA member countries in enabling wider
applications of RRS to benefit the progress of scientific and technical knowledge andassists in the transformation towards a digital, data-driven process.
This report documents the first period of work of the EGRRS. The primary target
audiences for this report are potentially interested government, institutional and private
stakeholders, such as regulators, researchers, developers, implementers, service
providers and funding agencies involved in nuclear back-end activities.
During this period, the EGRRS began to frame and contextualise the issues of RRS in
the nuclear domain by initially investigating:i) the status of nuclear RRS technologies in current and previous usage;ii) a qualitative framework for appraisal of RRS usage in terms of cost-benefit
analysis;iii) the initial results from an enquiry into barriers (technological, regulatory,financial, cultural, organisational, etc.) to the deployment of RRS in the nuclear
industry, as perceived by roboticists, experts in remote systems and nuclear
industry end users;

14 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
iv) an in-depth discussion of a number of case study examples of previous
successful RRS usage in the nuclear back-end.
There have been many applications of robotics and remote systems in nuclear back-end
applications during the past several decades. It is important that the nuclear industry bothpublicise and disseminate these examples, and also perform independent criticalassessments to identify successes, weaknesses and areas for improvement. Lessons
learnt from unsuccessful applications of RRS are also important. It is expected that thesewill be further explored in the second mandate of the EGRRS.
The broad observations, based on the initial period of work, are that:•

More work is needed to disseminate and promote the learnings from theexperiences of nuclear back-end applications of RRS in recent decades toavoid widespread duplication of effort, enable critical assessments, learn
from past failures and grow a mutual understanding of best practices.

•

Successful nuclear RRS applications have often been built on field-proventechnologies adopted from other industries. This approach has proven to bepreferable in many circumstances to beginning development from scratch.

•

Other successes have been achieved simply through applying basic
automation of techniques to existing systems or configuring existingprocesses. Where automation of repetitive motions is not possible,
unstructured environments are universally tackled using painstaking direct
tele-operation methods, which have changed relatively little in the past 50
years.

•

However, a new generation of smart robotic technologies is emerging, withsignificant autonomous and AI capabilities. These technologies are
expected to become strongly disruptive in future nuclear back-end activities.
These technologies are evolving very rapidly in ways that are hard to
predict, in an industry that plans on timescales of decades or even longer.

•

In the next two decades, it is likely that systems will still be controlled by ahuman, but with increasing amounts of AI assistance, exploiting semiautonomous capabilities. Evaluating and certifying the combined human-AI
system will provide additional complex challenges to nuclear safety officers
and regulators.

•

In the nuclear back-end, use of RRS is primarily triggered by safety
considerations. The effectiveness and efficiency of RRS deployment
become major issues only when they have been justified by cost-saving to
implement in the specific nuclear back-end activity (e.g. cost of
implementation time/duration, cost of implementation of safe works with
sufficient worker protection, cost of generated radioactive waste).

•Cost-benefit analysis is essential to overcome barriers to adoption. The
EGRRS has developed a qualitative system of economic drivers and metrics
for remote operation. This qualitative approach lessens concerns withquantitative cost-benefit assessment. These drivers take into consideration
both direct and indirect effects to cover a wide range of factors which may
provide economic benefits from robotic solutions. This system has beenused to assess a variety of case studies, demonstrating significant benefitsof RRS in these cases.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 15•

General barriers to RRS implementation include a reluctance to use “firstof-a-kind” (FOAK) technologies and “paves the way” kinds of technology,
as well as a lack of expert knowledge within end-user organisations.
“Robots replacing human jobs” does not seem to be a major concern for thedevelopment and use of more advanced systems by many stakeholders, whoview robots as offering significant potential to enhance the capabilities andefficiency of their expert human workforce.

•

System designs should be made as flexible as practicable to enable multiple
uses at a given facility as well as portability between facilities. This helps
spread out development costs between projects and lessens concerns withuse of FOAK technologies. Development of bespoke systems tailored to
specific applications should be avoided wherever practicable.

•

Service providers actually perform much of the work during facility
decommissioning and can provide valuable insight into optimising task
execution. It is thus critical to get service provider collaboration early in the
RRS development process so that they are fully behind using the technology
in the field and so that the technology development takes the needs andexperience of service providers fully into account. Note that, in some cases,
the service providers may be the key driving force behind RRS development
and implementation.

•

Younger workers are generally more comfortable with – and excited by –using RRS. The industry should take advantage of this by including younger
engineers in development and application efforts.

•

While use of RRS may be attractive to engineers, there may be marginal tono safety or economic benefit in using such systems for some back-end
tasks. Thus, efforts should be focused on those tasks for which a clear safetyor economic benefit exists.

•

There is a continuing need for global collaboration in the RRS community.
There are far too many examples of substantially similar systems being
developed to perform substantially similar tasks in different facilities orcountries. While it may encourage competition and innovation, this canwaste scarce funding if left uncontrolled.

•

RRS will typically operate in a challenging industrial environment,
potentially including extreme temperatures, dirt and dust, elevated radiation
fields, vibrations from other work, etc. Systems must be able to be reliably
operated and maintained in expected environments. There have been many
examples of systems failing simply due to environmental factors.

•

There are several critical steps in the development of RRS. These steps
should be thoughtfully performed, well documented and subject to criticalreview. Additionally, external stakeholders (end users, service providers,manufacturers, etc.) should be engaged early in the process for the:o Development of required system specifications;o Conceptual design, which should be subject to critical independent
evaluation;o Fabrication of a prototype system;16 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
o Engineering scale prototype test, results of which are used to refine thedesign;o Cold testing (i.e. in a non-radioactive environment);o Field testing under prototypical conditions (i.e. in a nuclear
environment).
•

There is a need for a group of experts to monitor these rapidly evolving
technologies and provide up-to-date expert advice to the nuclear industry sothat it can keep pace and adapt in a safe and informed manner.

The EGRRS recommends additional work on RRS for the following reasons:
1) RRS encompass an enormous diversity of technologies and applications, as wellas numerous different disciplines and areas of expert knowledge. Further work
could address additional aspects of this large and diverse field.
2) The focus of this initial work was on documenting the current situation and thestatus of established technologies. This was a critical first step to frame the basic
context of the work. However, a much more important and valuable step will be
to develop guidance on future and emerging technologies in order to develop
policies for the future role of RRS in nuclear back-end applications.
3) RRS and associated areas (such as AI, wearable robotics and sensor systems) arealso unusual in that these are emerging technologies which are not at a stablestate of development but advancing extremely rapidly. Today’s state-of-the-art
research methods are often out of date and superseded within a few months ofbeing first published (especially the increasingly dominant role of algorithms).
Therefore, it is essential that the work continue to develop and deliver advice
and updates to the nuclear industry and to monitor these technologies as they
evolve in ways that are difficult to predict but will have a profound impact on
decommissioning and waste management methods.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 17

1

Introduction

In the NEA Nuclear Innovation 2050 (NI-2050) initiative, 1 expert groups specified theimplementation of robotics and remote systems (RRS) as a cross-cutting issue in the
nuclear industry, particularly in radioactive waste management (RWM) anddecommissioning. They also noted that the application of RRS should be considered indesigning new, advanced reactors to enhance worker and environmental safety in the
management of operational radioactive waste as well as for decommissioning. The
comprehensive implementation of RRS in RWM, decommissioning and legacy
management projects can improve the safety of the workers and also protect the general
population and the environment.
It is acknowledged that there is a need to organise dialogue between interested parties
and countries to reach a common understanding of what can be done to facilitate the wayof RRS from developers to implementers and from the laboratory to industrial
production, taking into account different regulatory requirements. Such dialogue could
result in a foundation for the development of reports, standards and other materials,
which could be further proposed to all parties for better implementation of the systems.
Nuclear decommissioning and the safe disposal of nuclear waste is a global problem ofenormous societal importance. For example, decommissioning the legacy waste andnuclear facilities of the United Kingdom alone represents the largest and most complex
environmental remediation project in western Europe. It is expected to take about 120
years to complete, with estimated clean-up costs of GBP 115 billion, which could rise to
as much as GBP 220 billion (approximately USD 300 billion) according to current
estimation protocols (NDA, 2019). These estimated costs have repeatedly anddramatically escalated over the past few decades, suggesting they may rise again.
However, these cost estimates are based on current conventional ways of doing work.
In some situations with low gamma radiation where human access is possible (e.g.
contaminated plutonium facilities where contaminants are predominantly alphaemitters), decommissioning work can be carried out using human workers wearing airfed plastic suits. However, this still results in some radiation and conventional safety
risks to workers, and generates enormous quantities of secondary waste in the form ofcontaminated suits and other personal protective equipment (PPE). Using robotic andremote systems would reduce the risk to human workers and could dramatically reducesuch secondary waste. In a variety of other situations where there is no possibility foraccess of human workers (e.g. high gamma radiation environments), it may not be
possible to achieve remediation at all without some form of robotic or remote system.
To address these issues and provide a forum for this dialogue, the Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) established a dedicated Expert Group on the Application of Robotics andRemote Systems in the Nuclear Back-end (EGRRS). The work of the EGRRS is
motivated by the enormous potential of modern, advanced robotics to dramaticallyreduce these costs and greatly speed up decommissioning and remediation work, while
also reducing the exposure of human workers to hazards and reducing the amount of
secondary waste.

1.

www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_21829/nuclear-innovation-2050-ni2050

18 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Despite massive and revolutionary adoption of robotics and automation by the
manufacturing industry over the past 40 years, there has been remarkably little use ofrobotics (i.e. devices that are recognisably “robots” in the modern sense – see later
discussion) in the nuclear industry, perhaps surprisingly to a layperson. The lack ofpenetration of modern robots into nuclear applications can be explained, for example,
by the fact that:i) Most industrial robots are designed for repetitive tasks in a well-defined, fixedenvironment, while decommissioning environments are often highly
unstructured with significant uncertainties;ii) the manipulations required for nuclear tasks can be extremely complex, e.g.
picking up an object (such as a container or bottle) with one gripper, andperforming a second action (such as removing bolts or unscrewing the lid) witha second gripper; or negotiating through tight, complex and obstacle-strewn
passages to reach the intended work area;iii) breakdown maintenance of robotic equipment can be severely complicated byhigh radiation environments and access limitations; andiv) the nuclear industry is extremely conservative, with good reason, and this has
sometimes made it relatively slow at introducing and accepting newtechnologies.
The past 15 years has seen a tremendous advance in the capabilities of robots, inparticular with AI control of various kinds becoming reliably deployable at increasingly
high technology readiness levels (TRLs). On the other hand, many legacy sites andstructures are now ageing far beyond their original design lifetimes, e.g. 75-year-old
concrete buildings containing extremely hazardous materials. These deteriorating
facilities place a much greater urgency on decommissioning operations compared toprevious decades. The confluence of these two forces, and a new generation of industry
managers who are embracing new technology, means that the nuclear sector is now on
the brink of largescale adoption of increasingly advanced robotic systems into thisuniquely safety-critical and societally important environment.

1.1 BackgroundIn 2017, the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) decided to starttaking a more holistic approach 2 that would provide participating NEA member
countries extensive support in the areas of radioactive waste management anddecommissioning (which became the responsibility of the Committee on
Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Legacy Management [CDLM] after April2019). The RWMC and CDLM examined activities that would contribute to the
optimisation of national programmes on radioactive waste (RW) management anddecommissioning.
The broad application of advanced technologies, including robotics, was discussed in
the NEA as one of the methods for such optimisation.

2.

The RWMC stated its plan to apply a holistic, sustainable approach in organising its future
activities in the RWMC Statement NEA/RWM(2019)2 (please note that this is an internal
official document not available to the general public). The holistic approach considers andbalances three elements: Environment, Society and Economics.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 19

National institutions expressed the need for an international activity that would focus on
the application of RRS in the nuclear back-end (NEA, 2019). In response, the NEA
organised a workshop that provided a better understanding of the challenges of such arequest (see www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_55827). The discussions demonstrated that
there was a growing interest in establishing an international initiative that would support
participating NEA member countries in exploring ways to expand the use of robotic andremote systems in the management of radioactive waste, decommissioning and legacy
management. The broad use of RRS in relevant projects can improve the safety of theworkers involved in such projects and also better protect the general population and theenvironment.
However, potential end users are often hesitant to adopt new RRS techniques as they
prefer equipment that has a proven track record, quality, acceptable price, increased
service life, high maintainability and versatility. Some of these factors are difficult toprove for new technologies, leading to a general reluctance to adopt first-of-a-kindsystems in crucial applications.
This reticence demonstrated the need for an international dialogue that would:•

establish a broader communication between RRS developers, producers,
users and other interested parties to identify common terminology andunderstandings of problems and solutions;•advise the decision makers on their role in support of extended applicationof RRS in the nuclear back-end;•

create a better awareness among potential users of the principles andprocesses of RRS development and a better understanding amongdevelopers and producers of the conditions of RRS operation, licensing
processes and other factors to be taken into account;•promote the development and implementation of common procedures,
rules, standards, etc. (when necessary) that can significantly facilitate wider
RRS implementation and that can be realised in the format of a report,
guidance or other outcomes where all factors are considered, consensus
between parties established, and the main points of development fixed.

The Expert Group on the Application of Robotic and Remote Systems in the Nuclear
Back-end (EGRRS) was established in November 2019 to support participating NEA
member countries in optimising the development of national RW management anddecommissioning programmes through the application of robotic and remote systems.
Based on its Mandate and Terms of Reference (ToR), the group established in its firststage (2019-2021) the objectives to:•perform a global overview of the status of RRS application in the nuclear
back-end;•

identify and analyse technical and non-technical factors which can hinderor support such applications;•

identify and document the main issues for future development.

These tasks have been performed and are documented in this report.

20 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

1.2 Group composition and scope of work
The EGRRS, as an official task-oriented third-level expert group of the NEA, is
composed of 57 participants from 13 NEA member countries, which include Belgium,
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia (currently suspended), theSlovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Officials
from the European Commission (EC) were also actively engaged in this work, as well
as observers from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The EGRRS was comprised of representatives of operators, research and development
institutions and organisations in the field of RRS, test sites, laboratories and facilities,
regulatory bodies, technical support organisations to the regulatory bodies, developersof the main and auxiliary elements for maintenance and repair of remote/robotic systems,
RRS producers, suppliers and service providers, and other relevant stakeholders activein the field.
Based on the priorities established at an early stage of the expert group, the focus wasplaced on three major fields of activity:•

status of current technologies and uses and definition of terminology;•

barriers/impediments for RRS application;•

cost-benefit analysis of RRS implementation.

The activities carried out in these fields covered surveys, workshops and contribution
papers from EGRRS participants and were the basis of this report.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 21

2. RRS status, barriers and cost-benefit analysis
The activities in the three focus areas on robotics and remote systems (RRS) dedicatedto the status of technologies, barriers to applications and cost-benefit analysis are
summarised below. Further details can be found in the Annexes of this report.

2.1. Status of the use and development of robotics and remote systems in backend applications
2.1.1. Introduction
When considering the potential use of RRS in back-end applications, it is important tounderstand where such systems have been used in the past, where they are currently
being used, and what types of systems are under development.
Aside from providing information on potential candidate systems, such a review is usefulfor identifying key factors in the decision-making process, such as:•

lessons learnt, both positive and negative;•

field data on application performance and costs;•

areas of improvement for constituent technologies; and•comparisons between competing technologies.

This information is essential for assessing the safety, cost and efficiency of potential
applications. Ready accessibility of the information could also help to remove barriers
to more widespread use of robotics and remote systems in the nuclear back-end.

2.1.2. Objectives
The main objective of this work was to provide a review of historical, current, anddevelopmental uses of robotics and remote systems in nuclear back-end applications,
including the pertinent information described above.

2.1.3. Origins and development of robotics and remote systems in the nuclear
industry
The term “robot” was suggested in 1920 by Karel Čapek, a Czech science fiction author,
to describe a humanoid walking machine and was used in many books and magazines
during the two world wars to describe various types of automatic or remotely controlledmachinery that mimic some aspects of human behaviour. The term was more specificallyadopted by Joseph Engelberger to name an invention by his partner George Devol, who
had patented a “programmed device transfer” in 1954. This led to the creation in theearly 1960s of the Unimate (Unimation, today Stäubli robots), which is generally
accepted as the first industrial robot.
Today, robotics is a multidisciplinary activity aiming at providing advanced automatic
machines or system that can reproduce or partially replace the manual tasks of humans.
The safety constraints of radioactive materials rapidly engendered a need for some formof remote handling capability in the early days of nuclear operations. During the Second

22 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
World War, this was achieved using remote handling tongs, passing through a hole ofthe protective wall or through the ceiling.
The need for handling tools allowing the operator to work in a much greater working
volume and avoiding working at heights was expressed around 1945 in the United States(Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission).
The pioneering design work was carried out at General Electric (Payne, 1948) and at
Argonne National Laboratory (Goertz, 1949). An early technical report on the testing ofa prototype master-slave manipulator (MSM) by R.C. Goertz appears in 1949 and it isreported that the Goertz MSM design was operational as early as 1947 (Pegman, 1997).
His technology was later successfully transferred to Chalk River Laboratories (CRL),
who became the leading constructor. These early MSMs (Figure 2) were still entirely
mechanical and worked under the same mechanical principle as remote handling tongs,
except that their arms’ articulated architecture somehow mimics that of a human arm.
They comprise a “master” arm and a handle manipulated by a human on the safe side ofa concrete shielding wall and a kinematically similar “slave” arm equipped with a gripper
on the other side of the wall in the active contaminated zone. Both arms are mechanicallylinked via several reversible transmissions made of steel wires, ribbons or chains linking
pulleys or parallelograms. The balancing of the telemanipulator, a necessary feature to
improve the quality of handling and comfort, was achieved on the first three joints,
generally with counterweights.
An early archive film footage recorded at Oak Ridge shows the Payne MSM in operation.
Even though the presenter describes it as a “robot”, this term obviously referred more to
the morphology of the master and slave arms than the working principle, which does notfeature any motors, energy sources or automatic control. Another film presents its
functioning principle, showing an operator as they attempt to poor liquids from glass
containers.
Modern MSMs, used throughout the nuclear industry today, have changed remarkably
little from Goertz's 1940s designs. The vast majority of remote handling work, at all
nuclear sites in all countries, is still performed using devices that are largely similar, indesign and functionality, to the 1940s machines.
As a first evolution, electric reversible servomotors controlled by analogue electronic
circuits were introduced to replace the mechanical transmissions by achieving a bilateralposition coupling, as early as 1954 by Goertz (EMSM, for Electrical Master Slave
Manipulator). This allowed master and slave arms to be physically separated, only
connected by electrical signals rather than by fixed mechanical linkages. Up to this level,
the force feedback that these machines provided was only the consequence of the chosen
remote mechanical transmissions. Apart from the creation by Vertut et al. in France ofthe MA 23, which was the first EMSM entirely actuated by highly reversible cable
servomotors (Vertut et al., 1975) that inspired the technology of the first desktop masterarm (Hill and Salisbury, 1977), the EMSM evolved very little until the introduction of
the digital computer in the 1970s at Oak Ridge.
The computer was first used to digitalise the signals of the control loop and then for realtime computations. This made it possible, for example, to replace counterweights bycomputed balancing torque and Cartesian co-ordinates coupling allowing the use ofdifferent articulated structures for the master and the slave arms. These advances madeit possible to create miniaturised and more ergonomic master organs and to increase theoperational volume of the slave arms. A succession of incremental advances over several

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 23

decades then developed these machines towards what would be more conventionallyreferred to nowadays as telerobotic systems.
Then, the development of back-drivable and torque-controllable joints, and the additionof force and torque sensors, enabled bilateral force feedback devices, providing thehuman operator with haptic telepresence. Haptic force feedback corresponds to the senseof dynamic touch and enhancesd the kinesthetic force feedback of early EMSMs by
supplementing the feedback of higher frequencies involved in touch and detected in theskin rather than the muscle. Regarding nuclear applications, however, the haptic force
feedback technology is not yet ready to allow remote work in a glovebox, for example(hand-to-hand tele-operation).
At the same time, since 2000, the considerable improvements in computers has allowed
for more sophisticated aids such as artificial guides, virtual mechanisms or interactive
simulation and visualisation devices (virtual reality, augmented reality). It has become
possible in particular to generate contact forces in real time to improve the quality of
training and the efficiency, accuracy and comfort of the operator during operations.
Consequently, the perception of telerobotics by the end user has improved.
The robotics labs of nuclear agencies in Europe, the United States, Japan and othercountries made pioneering contributions to all of these development stages.
Despite the above-mentioned advances, remarkably few real “robots” (in the modern
sense) have been used in the nuclear industry. Recently, there have been new
developments in using advanced submersible and airborne robot vehicles for monitoringand inspection in real, active zones, including underwater interventions in legacy spent
fuel storage ponds (Sellafield, 2015). Various remotely operated robot vehicles (ROVs)
were used (with varying levels of success and difficulty and providing different lessons
learnt) to investigate nuclear accident sites including Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, andmore recently the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The use of robots at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident site has been documented extensively(e.g. Nagatani, 2013; Okada et al., 2020; Yokokohji, 2021).
However, the above examples are relatively few and should perhaps be seen as unusualcases, especially those that feature deployments at accident sites, despite theirprominence in the media and mainstream consciousness. In contrast, there areremarkably few uses of modern robotic systems for decommissioning tasks, and the vast
majority of such robots deployed in the nuclear industry are still directly tele-operated
in relatively rudimentary ways. The nuclear agencies of many different nations havedeveloped and used a variety of remote systems, including innovative vehicles and pipe
crawlers for deploying inspection and monitoring sensors, underwater robots, and fixed
or mobile manipulators for tasks such as scabbling (Bogue, 2011). Some examples
include the use of a bespoke-built manipulator for the precision cutting, cleaning and resealing of deteriorating pipework and a leaking concrete wall at a legacy storage pond
under very high radiation dose conditions, (Sellafield, 2015a). In earlier work, efforts
were made to adapt an industrial robot arm for waste drum handling and bagging
operations in high dose environments (Abel et al., 1991). Hydraulic robots are widely
trusted in the industry, with Brokk robots for example highly respected due to theirruggedness and reliability. However, many of these devices do not actually contain joint
encoders (and some high radiation environments would damage certain kinds of joint
sensors), so that inverse kinematics computation and Cartesian tool-space control with ajoystick is not possible. Typically, such robots are still controlled by a human operator
using separate levers to operate each joint individually, guessing the inverse kinematics

24 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
from experience, while viewing the scene via CCTV cameras or through thick lead-glass
windows.
Figure 1. (Left): 1949 report of mechanical master-slave manipulator (MSM) device, designed by R.C.
Goertz at Argonne National Laboratory, United States. (Right): very similar devices, used worldwide
today for the vast majority of remote manipulations performed in the nuclear industry.

MasterSlave

MasterNote: In Figure 1 (right), the operator is viewing the slave manipulator in the hazardous workspace througha 1.6 metre thick lead glass window which absorbs gamma radiation. This system poses significant
difficulties associated with depth perception, for example when aligning a gripper with an object, as well as
ergonomic issues.

In a smaller number of cases, the industry is starting to use modern industrial robot arms
with gradually more modern control methods. In recent years, Sellafield Ltd, together
with UK National Nuclear Lab and KUKA Systems, has been experimenting withbespoke systems for joystick tele-operation (with CCTV camera views) of large KUKA
KR500 robots. However, the baseline industry standard for controlling such robots
remains limited to a pair of joysticks to control translations/rotations along/about each
Cartesian axis, and situational awareness, provided through multiple CCTV cameras, isstill problematic (e.g. the cognitive demands of trying to mentally fuse multiple camera
views into a single 3-D mental model of a remote scene).
Pioneering work between the CEA and AREVA (Garrec, 2011) made a significant step
forward in advanced control of an industrial manipulator inside a real radioactive
environment, building on the CEA’s work in advanced force-sensitive robotics. A sixjoint hydraulic slave arm with integral force feedback was first developed as a telerobot
for the dismantling workshops of the CEA (Méasson, 2011). A radiation-hardened sixaxis force-torque sensor was mounted on the wrist of the industrial robotic arm, which
was programmed to behave compliantly (i.e. stop and correct its motion) in response toforceful contacts with its surroundings, as shown in Fig. 2. These behaviours were thenlinked to a novel force-rendering haptic robot as the input master device, enabling thehuman operator to feel the sense of touch of the slave robot in the active environment.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 25

Such advanced control means that a large amount of complex computation was present
for the first time between the human and the robot. In this regard, the work can be
regarded as a landmark case study in nuclear safety regulation for advanced computergenerated control of robots inside hazardous environments. Although the robot was teleoperated, the resulting motions of the robot in response to forceful contacts were
controlled by a computer algorithm. This led to the first exchange of a series of rollers
on a dissolver wheel of the reprocessing plant of AREVA-La Hague (2005). Besides,
this work also demonstrated that telerobotics could be conceived as a flexible systemthat is likely to increase trust in advanced technologies for the end user. In parallel, a
specific electric force feedback slave arm was designed to handle damaged canisters ina storage well (Goubot, 2003). This manipulator innovated with a force feedback
balanced translation and the use of screw-cable actuators (CEA patents) previously
introduced in the MAT6D master arm (Haption™). This telerobot is currently underindustrialisation to be used in future de-storage workshops.
Figure 2. Control architecture of the CEA force-sensitive tele-operation system deployed in a radioactive
environment by AREVA. Note the highly complex algorithms and software architecture that sits between
the human operator and input master device (left) and the slave manipulator (right).

Source: Reproduced fom Garrec (2011).

Contributing to this growth in autonomous systems in real nuclear environments, theUniversity of Birmingham in the United Kingdom collaborated with the CEA team andother leading European robotics labs, with the UK National Nuclear Lab (NNL) as theindustrial end user, in the 2014-2018 European Commission project Horizon 2020
RoMaNS (Robotic Manipulation for Nuclear waste Sorting and Segregation). This led
to fully autonomous grasping (Adjigble, 2018), guided by advanced computer vision andAI motion planning, of inactive waste simulants at the NNL Workington nuclear
industry site (full nuclear industry safety and national security, but a non-radioactive
demonstrator). The AI grasp-planning of the University of Birmingham was also
combined with the haptic input robot designed by the CEA team to yield a shared control
system, in which a human and an AI collaboratively control a remote manipulator

26 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1(Adjigble, 2019), that was also demonstrated under full industry safety and security
regulation.
The University of Birmingham also developed a fully autonomous, computer visionguided, motion planning and control system for robotic laser cutting (Figure 3). This was
implemented in 2016-2017 at the UK NNL’s active demonstrator at the Springfields
nuclear site, where a robot arm autonomously deployed a 6 kW laser to cut contaminatedmetal inside a radioactive hot cell (Chapman et al., 2018). It appears that this was thefirst time a robot arm had ever been controlled autonomously inside a radioactive
environment. The addition of a powerful laser further increased the significance of thiswork in terms of nuclear safety regulation. Later work extended robotic cutting motion
planning to the more complex case of a mobile-manipulator robot vehicle (Pardi, 2020).
This initial chapter has provided an introduction to the field of robotics and remotesystems for nuclear decommissioning and waste management. These systems have
evolved from being fully mechanical in the 1940s to become fully autonomous robots
performing extremely hazardous tasks (laser cutting contaminated steel) insideradioactive environments. Nuclear robotics is entering a significant new era marked by
growing willingness to embrace increasingly autonomous robotics and remote systems.
These machines will be increasingly controlled by computers using complex robotic
vision and sensing systems, with an escalating complexity in algorithms and software.
Figure 3. Autonomous motion planner guides robotic laser cutting of a curved surface, as captured by 3-Dcomputer vision. It was the first autonomous robotic movement in a radioactive environment.

Source: Springfields nuclear site UK, 2017. Images courtesy of NNL Ltd.

2.1.4. Current status of development/activities of RRS technologies
Information in this chapter was compiled from several sources, including a survey ofpractitioners, researchers and nuclear safety regulators; a review of published literature;and the combined expertise of the EGRRS Status Group. While this review cannot by
its nature be exhaustive, a sufficiently broad overview of the types and uses of robotics
and remote systems is provided to inform evaluation of the potential benefits of RRS use
for specific applications.
For ease of use, the technologies are classified into broad functionality-based groups:•

mobile robots used to deliver cameras, sensors/detectors, articulated robots
or task-specific end effectors; this group includes ground units (wheels,tracks, legs, serpentines, wall-mounted suction cups), aerial, submersibles;•

articulated robots that may be mounted to stationary or mobile platforms
and may be used directly to manipulate material or deliver task-specific end
effectors;

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 27•

task-specific end effectors that may be mounted to stationary or mobile
platforms; this may include automated or remotely controlled units formaterial manipulation, welding, cutting, decontamination, application of
fixatives, etc.;•

control systems for remote operation of typically non-robotic systems(saws, scabblers, hydraulic rams, decontamination baths, wasteconditioning or treatment systems, etc.);•

conveyors, lifting systems and mobile platforms;•

wireless data transfer and control systems;•

miscellaneous specialty systems (for example, AI systems for materialsorting).

Details of various examples of applications and developments can be found in Annex B(note that these are examples provided by EGRRS participants and are not intended to
be an exhaustive list of all available technologies and applications).

2.1.5. Preliminary conclusions
A wide variety of robotic and automated systems have been beneficially employed innuclear back-end applications in recent decades and many additional systems are
currently at an advanced stage of development. This information may be used by projectengineers in the evaluation of field-proven technologies for the conduct of specificactivities at their facilities, and by research and development groups to adapt existing
solutions to specific back-end tasks, limiting the development of already existing
technology. Well-publicised accounts of the successful application of robotics andremote systems in back-end applications will aid in reducing industry reticence to theuse of such technologies.
The information presented in Annex B may be used as the basis to establish an interactive
database of robotics and remote systems for practitioners, researchers and regulators
engaged in nuclear facility decommissioning and waste management. Such a databasewould be invaluable in promoting the broader use of RRS in back-end applications.
An even more complex area of research is that of systems which enable a human operator
to interact with an AI to control a remote robot. Such systems can be categorised as:
human-supervised autonomy; shared control (Adjigble, 2019); and variable control(Chiou, 2016), where control of the robot is dynamically traded back and forth between
the human and the AI. This field requires extensive considerations of psychology,
neuroscience, and human factors, in addition to robotics and AI. Evaluating andcertifying the safety, accuracy and reliability of the combined human-AI system will
provide additional complex challenges to nuclear safety officers and regulators. On theother hand, such human-AI combined systems are likely to form the majority ofadvanced robot deployments in high-consequence environments in the coming two
decades, as compared with fully autonomous systems. Therefore, this field will have tobe embraced despite its complexities.
An important task of the NEA-EGRRS is to advise and facilitate the engagement ofindustry, regulators and other stakeholders with these emerging technologies. Such aninternational expert group is especially needed because these technologies are unusual
at this point in history in that they: i) are extraordinarily complex; ii) are changing rapidly
over time; and iii) should be deployed in the most high-consequence environments and28 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
applications imaginable and iv) in an unusual industrial sector that has to plan and budget
for its decommissioning operations over a timeframe of many tens or even hundreds ofyears.

2.2. Barriers / Impediments
2.2.1. Introduction
Feedback from end users of RRS shows that reluctance to use “first-of-a-kind”
technology is one of the first barriers to applying these systems. This echoes what isoften heard from industry players, who talk about a “race to second place”: a reluctanceto be the first to use a technology but more enthusiasm once the system has been seen to
be usefully applied elsewhere in a nuclear context.
This leads to a second point – if people are unwilling to pioneer the use of a technology
in the nuclear industry, how can it ever be adopted? Other great barriers include a lackof knowledge or expertise, of evidence on costs and benefits and, not least, ofunderstanding of the social impact on end-users.
The following chapter provides a deeper characterisation of the RRS user feedback fromvarious perspectives, including some trends that are mostly based on the surveyorganised within EGRRS.

2.2.2. Objectives
Within the EGRRS, work on “barriers” was established with the goal of identifying
barriers and impediments that hinder the application of RRS systems in the nuclear backend. Based on the initial challenges identified by the EGRRS (see Annex C), further
challenges and ways to address them are proposed.

2.2.3. Barriers/Impediments
In addition to internal discussions to gather information from participants about the
topic, a digital survey was set up on the European Union (EU) survey platform. Internal
workshops, seminars and partner visits were also considered to promote the sharing ofexperience and feedback. The group utilised the internal webpage to support timely
sharing of information and promote the collaborative review.
Identification of the impediments

To assess potential barriers and impediments to the application of RRS systems, the
EGRRS identified initial challenges, which have been grouped in two categories: A)
general aspects for RRS application and B) those with a particular focus on nuclear backend activities.
Below are the perceived barriers and concerns relating to RRS implementation as
elaborated by the EGRRS:
A) General aspects perceived as barriers and concerns with RRS implementation:•

current manual techniques;•current use of robotics and remote systems;•

knowledge /awareness of currently available systems;

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 29•

reluctance to adopt first-of-a-kind technology;•

robust system demonstration data;•broad international standards;•

formal certification processes;•

radiation hardness demonstration of RRS;•

safety authorities’ approval;•equipment reliability;•

spare parts availability;•

maintenance requirements;•

availability of qualified operators;•

training needs;•

training requirements;•

systems use complexity;•

acceptance by workforce;•work force concerns with job loss;•

realistic cost-benefit model;•

capital investment;•

equipment life cycle costs;•

task-specific systems;•

performance in an industrial environment vs R&D (heat, humidity, dust,etc.);•

manual effort still required;•damage risk to critical plant equipment;•utilities routing (e.g. power and control cables);•systems size;•

handling of equipment/systems radioactive contamination;•high radiation fields;•

personal safety;•

retrieving malfunctioning equipment in high radiation field;•

personal safety retrieving malfunctioning equipment;•

culture and confidence in technologies that are new and novel;•

licensing and permitting challenges.

30 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
B) Specific issues related to RRS implementation in nuclear back-end activities:•

low-level systems, e.g. hand-operated tools for underwater operations;•

automatically operated tools, e.g. programmable cutting machines;•

programmable controller with interchangeable memory, e.g. storehousecranes;•AI-driven tools, e.g. autonomous working robots;•

additional impediments in applications and/or test of autonomous systems
in the nuclear back-end.

Digital survey to identify the relative importance of perceived barriers

A digital survey was used to identify barriers and impediments to the application of RRS
systems in the nuclear back-end field. The survey questions were based on the initialchallenges identified by the EGRRS.
The finalised survey was released mid-July 2020. The survey was open to any participant
and anonymity was ensured. On 20 September, a Social Anthropology PhD researcher
joined the group to support the survey analysis. By the end of 2020, 47 answers had been
received. Details of the survey and responses are given in Annex C.
A summary of the relative importance of various barriers and concerns to implementing
RRS in the nuclear back-end as perceived by the survey participants is shown in Figures
4 (summary of relative importance) and 5 (summary of total scores).

Figure 4. Summary of relative importance of perceived barriers and concerns with RRS implementation

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 31

Figure 4. Summary of relative importance of perceived barriers and concerns with RRS implementation (continued)

32 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 33

Figure 5. Summary of total scores of perceived barriers and concerns with RRS implementation

It is noted that the set of results is considered small, making it difficult to establish
general trends. Even so, some of the responses to the questions suggest potential forfurther investigation of the identified priorities.

2.2.4. Preliminary conclusions
The barrier that most respondents highlighted is the reluctance to adopt “first-of-a-kind”
technologies. Adoption of new technology within the sector can be characterised as a“race to second place”: if the technology has been usefully applied in a nuclear context
elsewhere, adoption at another site tends to be more enthusiastically embraced. This
creates a double bind, in that it is difficult to generate initial adoption and utilisation and,by doing so, provide a successful example for others to follow. The key challenge,
therefore, is to build a convincing case for potential users that the technology that is in
use in other industries can be utilised at a nuclear site in a safe and beneficial manner. It
is worth mentioning that there are two levels to this:•substantiation of a technology at a generic level;•

consideration of the use of the technology in a specific application.

34 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Following from the previous point, it is therefore important to note that respondents
identified several instances where a “lack of knowledge” formed a barrier totechnological adoption. In order for confidence in the technology to be high enough towarrant a pioneering use of robotic systems, there must be confidence in the data
supporting its use. This key barrier may exist because there is genuinely a lack of
relevant, robust data supporting the case for the technology in question. The barrier could
also exist because, although the data exists, it is not readily accessible, or there is a false
perception within the industry that is lacking – at least as it applies in particular cases.
The perception of a lack of supporting data stems from concerns about performance data,
as well as a lack of knowledge surrounding the reliability of equipment and the costs ofpurchase and maintenance.
It is also noteworthy that the fear of job losses does not appear to be a major impediment
to the adoption of robotics in the nuclear industry, according to this survey, despite being
mentioned in other accounts of roboticisation (e.g. Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014;
McClure, 2018) and in mass media. There is a lack of concern both over potential
unemployment as well any changes in staff positions or retraining of operators to workwith new systems. Note that this might be due to a bias of the respondents that do notinclude potentially affected worker groups.
It is noted that there are considerable variations in the responses. The nature of theorganisation and its circumstances are important aspects to take into consideration whenaddressing these barriers and require more extensive analysis.

2.3. Cost-benefit analysis
While it is essential to develop robotics and remote systems from safety andtechnological points of view, another key aspect to consider is the cost in relation to thefinancial and economic benefits of their application.
The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) ad hoc group was established to provide a global viewof the economic effects of robotic technologies as well as to consider practical cases witha notably positive impact. Since a global view and hands-on assessment require different
methodologies, the CBA ad hoc group developed a hybrid approach to address the needsof different parties interested in the subject.
It is difficult to use quantitative metrics for a global assessment due to a significant
difference in costs of similar robotic solutions. These costs can vary from country tocountry and even from project to project within the same country. However, the generaltrends and quality characteristics are the same for each application.
To provide a global review, the group developed a system of economic drivers andmetrics for their qualitative assessment. These drivers take into consideration both direct
and indirect effects to cover a range of factors that may provide economic benefits fromrobotic solutions.
To perform the relevant calculations, practical cases were identified based on experienceof implementing robotic solutions with the most evident economic effects. These cases
consider two scenarios of a project – with and without robotic solutions. The cases
clearly demonstrate the effects of robotics used in the nuclear back-end and theiradvantages over non-robotic options in the examples examined. The cases also
demonstrate how the economic drivers may be applied in practice.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 35

2.3.1. Introduction
As technology continues to advance, robotic systems have been more commonly used inradioactive waste management and nuclear decommissioning. In the last decade, robots
with specific capabilities have been operated in harsh radioactive waste management anddecommissioning environments, remotely controlled drones equipped with sophisticatedsensors have collected detailed site characteristics, and multifunctional robots haveachieved safe dismantling and decontamination. Innovative techniques have enabledmore cost-effective and safer waste management and nuclear decommissioning.

2.3.2. Objectives
The primary objective of the CBA work is to develop a methodology for evaluating thepotential economic effects of implementing robotic technologies as well as to considerpractical cases with a notably positive impact.

2.3.3. Economic drivers and methodology for analysis
Robotics and digital solutions may provide different economic advantages. However,
not all of them are obvious or easily calculated. Some of the drivers are technical, someare economic and others are socio-political. All of the different factors need to beconsidered when making a decision over the implementation RRS technologies in aparticular application.
The main drivers identified to date that have been considered in this analysis are:•operation scheme;•

capital expenditures (CAPEX);•

operational expenditures (OPEX);•

risks;•

staffing, training requirements and competence building;•time of execution;•

licensing and regulatory process;•social acceptability;•

knowledge management.

Some of these drivers are similar or inter-connected and the differences and interrelationships are described for each of them. In the context of this work, a driver isdefined as having an effect on the implementation of a robotic or digital solution of a
project from an economic point of view.
Other drivers which might be considered include:•

regional development (supply chain);•research and development for future applications;•waste minimisation;•

modularisation;•scaling effects.

36 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
The main drivers and their assessment approach are summarised in Table 1. Details of
the drivers, influences and analysis methodology are given in Annex D.
Table 1. Summary of cost-benefit drivers and assessment approaches
DRIVERDESCRIPTIONASSESSMENT APROACH

Operation scheme

Use of robotics vs manual
performance of tasks. Will influence
CAPEX and OPEX.

IndirectCAPEX (capital expenditures)

Total capital cost of facility/system.

Direct impact. Calculation.

OPEX (operational expenditures)

Total operational costs.

Direct impact. Calculation.

Risks

Change in nature and costs
associated with risks and their
management.

Direct impact. Calculation.

Staffing

Total number of staff required,training needs.

Direct impact. Calculation.

Time of execution

Impact on project schedule. Related
to OPEX and personnel radiation
exposure.

Direct impact. Calculation.

Licensing and Regulatory process

Impact on project schedule, risks
and cost.

IndirectSocial acceptability

Impact on project schedule, risks
and cost.

Indirect

Knowledge management

Skills availability and retention.
Related to staffing and training
requirements.

Soft direct impact. Calculation.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 37

The assessment approaches for the main drivers are described in Tables 2-8:
Table 2. Assessment approach for operational schemes
GRADE

DESCRIPTION-2-1

20% decrease inproductivity.
Significant
negative
operational
impact due toimpossibility ofmaintenance,service andrepair in situ.
Infrastructure issuited forhumans and notsuitable forcertain robotics
solutions0

10% decrease in No changes
operation
productivity.
schemeNegative
operational
impact due toimpossibility ofmaintenance,service andrepair in situ.
Infrastructure issuited forhumans and notsuitable forcertain robotics
solutions1

2

10% increase inproductivity.
Positive
operational
impact due tobetter execution.
Approach ismore convenient
for certain tasks

20% increase inproductivity.
Significant
positive
operational
impact due tobetter execution.
Approach ismore convenient
for certain tasks

Table 3. Assessment approach for risks
GRADE

DESCRIPTION

-2

-1

0

1

2

20% increase in
expenses
devoted to risk
management

10% increase in
expenses
devoted to risk
management

No changes in
expenses
devoted to risk
management

10% decrease in
expenses
devoted to risk
management

20% decrease in
expenses
devoted to risk
management

Table 4. Assessment approach for staff
GRADE
DESCRIPTION

-2

-1

0

1

2

20% increase instaff expenses

10% increase instaff expenses

No changes instaff expenses

10% decrease instaff expenses

20% decrease instaff expenses

Table 5. Assessment approach for time of executionGRADE
DESCRIPTION

-2

-1

0

1

2

20% increase in
execution time

10% increase in
execution time

No changes in
execution time

10% decrease in
execution time

20% decrease in
execution time

38 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Table 6. Assessment approach for licensing and regulatory process
GRADE

DESCRIPTION

-2

-1

0

1

2

20% increase incosts or time oflicensing ofrobotics anddigital solutions

10% increase incosts or time oflicensing ofrobotics anddigital solutions

No difficulties inlicensing ofrobotics anddigital solutions

10% decrease incosts or time oflicensing ofrobotics anddigital solutions

20% decrease incosts or time oflicensing ofrobotics anddigital solutions

Table 7. Assessment approach for social acceptability
GRADE

-2

-1

0

Significant
Low opposition No influence on
local
opposition byof localcommunity
local community community toto using robotics using robotics
and digitaland digitalsolutions insolutions in
DESCRIPTION
decommissioning decommissioning(publications in (publications inmedia, law
media, legal
action and rallies initiatives andagainst the topic) rallies against the
topic)

1

2

Consent by local Consent by local
community on
community on
using robotics
using robotics
and digitaland digitalsolutions insolutions indecommissioning decommissioning

Table 8. Assessment approach for knowledge management
GRADE

0

1

No influence onknowledge
management

Knowledge
accumulation –database

2
Semi AI
solutionsNo more than
two of theand/or predictive following:
analytics

and/or databaseand education
skillsDESCRIPTION

3- AI solutions
developing best
approaches andimprovingexecution skills;- predictive
analytics anddecision-making
systems;- massive
database withwide range of
information andknowledge

4
All of thefollowing:- AI solutions
developing best
approaches andimprovingexecution skills;- predictive
analytics anddecision-making
systems;- massive
database withwide range of
information andknowledge

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 39

2.3.4. Cost-benefit effects for different applications
When deciding on the role of human intervention in RRS applications, the following
points could be considered, among others:1) Can this environment be safely entered, and the tasks be safely managed, by human
workers with PPE?
•

If so, what is the amount of hazard including dose and other forms ofpotential harm?

•

What amount of secondary waste would be generated by large numbers ofhuman entries, and what additional risk and cost is associated with theprocessing and storage of such waste?

2) Alternatively, is this task or environment impossible to handle with human entries?
•

If so, what is the cost and risk of the liability of this task remaining
unresolved?

•

How do these issues weigh up against the costs, risks and other issues of
RRS deployments?

•

What issues arise in terms of robotic systems themselves as a contaminatedwaste stream, comprising a complex mixture of elements and compounds
e.g. circuit boards or batteries, at end-of-life and disposal?

To support the understanding and provide a basis for further development, participantsof the group identified two case studies for robotics and remote systems applications
described in the following.
Example: cost-benefit-considerations for waste sorting with automated/remotesystems
The former fuel assembly manufacturing plant in Dessel, Belgium, stopped operation in2012 and the decision was then taken to dismantle and denuclearize the plant with theintention of an unrestricted site release. To support this goal, a 100% screening of thegroud was adopted with large quantities (~ 38 000 tonnes) of excavated soil. This has
been characterised and sorted by a belt conveyor system, shown in Figure 6 below, while
comparison to manual characterization is offered. Please find additional details in Annex
D (Cost Benefit Analysis Methodology). Taking from the case, the economic effects canbe reflected in CAPEX and OPEX. As mentioned above, the quantitative metrics canvary from country to country and the costs depend on the projects.

40 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure 6. FREMES Conveyor belt automatically sorting the radioactive waste by HPGE Gamma
Spectroscopy in Dessel, Belgium.

Note: Top part shows the process flow, bottom part shows a close up of the free-release waste pile at theend of the belt.
Source: Images courtesy of NUKEM.

The case study results show that, given the right boundary conditions, in the long run,robotics and remote systems provide the opportunity to achieve both lower capital andlower operational costs. The analysed case covers the performance of a belt conveyor
free release measurement system for radiological characterisation of concrete andconstruction waste (denoted FREMES) compared to 20 ISOCS (In Situ Object Counting
System) examining the same volume of soil. The initial CAPEX of FREMES is 29%
lower than 20 ISOCS, based on a 6-year life cycle. Given that the FREMES life cycle isdesigned for 16 years while ISOCS is set to 6 years, the estimated improvement could
be even higher than the 29%. The OPEX of FREMES is half that of 20 ISOCS. The casereflects the general trends for such an application.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 41

Example: Cost-benefit-considerations for dismantling steam generators of nuclear
power plants
The practical approach in this case includes assessments of the economic efficiency ofusing robotics and remote systems in the dismantling of nuclear power plant steam
generators (SG). This represents a specific challenge, since:•

Like reactor vessels, SG are part of the highly contaminated massive
equipment of a nuclear power plant.

•

Dose rates require increased radiological protection measures (reducing
occupational time, zoning, shielding, personal protective equipment [PPE],
rehearsals and mock-up) with the associated need to implement additional
resources for organising safe, effective and efficient work (technical,
intellectual, know-how, funding) but also to organise safe, effective andefficient management of secondary waste produced (e.g. used PPE).

•

Even after performing system decontamination of SG, dose rates remain
high.

•

Dismantling of SG will produce higher-level radioactive waste, fromcontaminated inner components and surfaces, that will have to be managed.

•

Besides the direct costs, the time necessary for dismantling SG impacts theoverall time for dismantling, which implies indirect costs (e.g. formaintaining structures, systems and equipment [SSE], organisational andtechnical infrastructure for safety and physical protection [security] of thenuclear power plant).

A safe, effective and efficient approach requires specific solutions for the dismantling oflarge, contaminated components with respectively reduced dose uptake and optimised
RW management.
The typical principal approaches for dismantling steam generators (or other similarly
large, contaminated components such as heat exchangers, reactor vessels, etc.) are in situ
versus ex situ fragmentation (off-site, rip-and-ship approach), both meant to minimise
dose uptake with extensive use of remote means.
In the case of ex situ fragmentation, the steam generator or component needs tobe moved out of its original location to a site which has been configured specifically forfragmentation: this allows a higher degree of use of remote and automated systems
because boundary conditions can be configured as required. An example that
demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach is the decommissioning of theGreifswald Nuclear Power Plant in Germany (VVER type reactor): SG are removed in
one piece for fragmentation in a special caisson, which is part of a new building erectedadjacent to the nuclear power plant and comprises storage and dismantling facilities.
This approach contributed to reduced dose uptake for workers and fragmentation
performance by increased use of remote tools and systems. These advantages, however,come at the cost of rather high investments (CAPEX) to create the necessary
infrastructure, which may be advantageous if there is a sufficient number of large
equipment such as SG to be dismantled. Other examples from Germany include:•

SG from the Stade Nuclear Power Plant, which were decontaminated andshipped with very light shielding to Studsvik in Sweden for further
treatment, minimising the amount of radioactive waste remaining; and42 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1•

SG from the Obrigheim Nuclear Power Plant and the Rheinsberg Nuclear
Power Plant, which were shipped to the Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant
and will be dismantled there for further treatment, minimising the amountof radioactive waste remaining. (One great way to avoid radiation exposurein the Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant is to increase decay time. They have
30 SG from Greifswald, 2 from Obrigheim and 9 from Rheinsberg.
Dismantling is occurring at a slow pace to increase decay time.)

In situ fragmentation is more challenging in terms of remote systems and automatisation.
When the nuclear power plants were designed, there was no specific consideration of
measures to optimise the dismantling and fragmentation of the installed systems andcomponents, and certainly not for possible use of remote or robotic systems for in situ
fragmentation. The conditions to implement this approach are therefore rarely
favourable.
There is an interesting alternative approach which has demonstrated its effectiveness inpractice and was developed for the Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant in the Slovak
Republic (VVER type reactor): the steam generator is moved in one piece from its
original place to the adjacent turbine hall, which had been emptied and modified
to include space for the fragmentation and RW management works. In this area, a mobile
platform with a multi-freedom robotic arm has been installed on which special
fragmentation tools can be mounted. The system is remote-controlled with the support
of automated (programmed) sequences (e.g. the positioning of the cutting tool to start
cutting is controlled by the operator, the cutting itself is performed by a programmed
routine involving real-time data collection and processing during the cutting operation).
The cuttings are automatically collected and handed over to a remotely controlled device
configured to collect and place the cuttings in intermediate storage containers for transfer
to the next RW management step. This system, initially conceived primarily as a R&D
demonstrator, was successful enough to justify the decision to enhance its use forfragmenting a series of six steam generators in a sequence, and was implemented
successfully. Some key performance features:•

There is no need to transport the steam generator over long distances as theworkplace is prepared within the existing premises of the nuclear power
plant.

•The technology can be operated remotely in a highly automated regime(digital process control support for the operator), in which the movement ofeach tool and fragment is kept under control.

•

The net fragmentation time is reduced by 15-25% by utilising a circularmilling cutter for the casing (vessel) and a high-speed circular saw to cut
pipes.

•

Beside fragmentation time, the radiation exposure is further reduced bydecreasing the number of staff necessary for the fragmentation process.

•The reduction of involved staff contributes to a reduction in secondary
waste (i.e. PPE) generated.

•

The capital expenditures (CAPEX) for the configuration, including
providing the fragmentation workplace and system in the former turbinehall, have been lowered by about 30-35% in comparison to other options
considered.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 43

2.3.5. Preliminary conclusions
This work defined economic drivers, their effects and assessment approaches forpotential CBA of RRS. With the analysed case studies, it was demonstrated that, from acost-benefit point of view, there are oportunities for the successful application of RRS
in the nuclear back-end. The economic favorability, however, depends very much on theboundary conditions of the application, the complexity as well as the drivers identified
in this work.

44 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

3. Discussion
3.1. Introduction
The nuclear industry makes extensive use of remote handling systems to implement
technological processes in radioactive environments and comply with radiologicalprotection and safety requirements, according to the ALARA/ALARP (i.e. as low asreasonably achievable/as low as reasonably practicable) principle. These systems arealmost exclusively mechanical – remote clamps, booms, master-slave remotemanipulators – that have not changed significantly for several decades. They are usedparticularly in research laboratories, in nuclear fuel production units and even in somenuclear power plants.
This technology has slowly evolved with some applications in nuclear laboratories andattempts in decommissioning sites. Some of these systems have been integrated into
vehicles to create post-accident intervention vehicles. At the beginning of the 1980s,
these types of systems were digitalised and progressively enhanced with computing
capabilities allowing assistive functions and supervision, ultimately leading them tomerge with robotics in the telerobotics concept.
Since then, the applications of robotics, telerobotics, and remotely operated systems(RRS) in the nuclear back-end have been modest compared to the high potential of thesetechnologies. Nevertheless, there have been convincing uses of some systems (telerobots
with force feedback, mobile robots with manipulator or even robotic arms) during thelast 20 years for dismantling and maintenance tasks of high added value. This experience
makes it possible to highlight the complex factors that can favour or slow down the
deployment of increasingly advanced robotic technologies in the nuclear industry. In
particular, it has been shown that these technologies can benefit both the quality of workin the domain of delicate tele-operated tasks (assistive guides, supervision) andproductivity when there is repetition of tasks.
The evolution of applications and developments in the nuclear sector is demand-driven,
as in other industrial sectors. As in all competitive industrial sectors, the main demandis for the production of efficient and robust systems at affordable prices and competitive
with alternative solutions, with the additional pertinent requirement of nuclear andradiological safety (criticality control and radiological protection). In the nuclear
industry, RRS systems that are remote and dexterous, and therefore under real-time
human control, have always been decisive success factors in establishing and/or
maintaining safety, while automatic or autonomous systems are justified by the need for
productivity (competitiveness) as well as by the robustness and safety allowed bymodern technologies. In any case, all these applications must follow and integrate
continuously the developments induced by economic and/or regulatory requirements.
Note that currently, for new facilities, the owner very seldom incorporates into the designof the new facility a “robot friendly” section. This often leads to complex retrofitting
issues when such a technology is added later.
In an active power plant with a highly structured environment, the handling of, forexample, fresh and spent fuel rods, whose size and shape are exactly known, is carriedout without human presence and under predictable conditions. These applications
therefore lend themselves to traditional methods of automation and robotics, where (asNEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 45

in manufacturing environments) operations can be carried out using simple actuatedsystems performing pre-programmed, repetitive movements.
In contrast, spent fuel reprocessing is a complex activity with variable tasks to be
performed in hot-cells. It involves RRS for remote handling with human expertise andis, therefore, systematically guided by radiological protection principles. The
maintenance of these installations also requires complex interventions on high-value
components involving RRS.
The other downstream activities, namely characterisation, decommissioning, clean-up
and management of nuclear and radioactive waste (including disposal), are driven by thesame imperatives. However, unlike the two previous cases (power plants and spent fuelreprocessing), the demand here is not driven by productivity imposed by commercial
profitability, but rather by safety requirements. Accordingly, the focus is on resolving
challenges related to existing effluents or situations safely and efficiently without arevenue-generating product for an end consumer. This has the effect that decisions about
design and configuration are primarily not driven by considerations of return ofinvestment (meaning generating or increasing revenues based on investments) but
primarily by reducing costs for a necessary “lost investment” (meaning without direct
return except possibly cost-saving). Accordingly, many nuclear back-end activities arefollowing less the logic of industrialisation of processes with high productivity, but more
the logic of project management with a focus on cost management and necessary safety
requirements. The focus on cost management as well as licensing may hinder
investments into advancing novel and emerging technologies.
Uncertainties, which can accumulate and become financial risks, must be weighedagainst the potential short-term savings achievable through higher productivity.
Decommissioning (especially old and aged legacy facilities) often presents a highly
unstructured and/or unreliable environment, with associated large uncertainties. The
management of legacy sites, legacy inventories, accident response or post-accident
situations are exceptional challenges for the nuclear sector, requiring decommissioning
and radioactive waste management to achieve a safe end state. Many nations have asignificant number of legacy sites, posing significant challenges.
For example, waste streams can include complex mixed materials (e.g. contaminatedrubber gloves and PPE, broken concrete, metal and construction materials) as well as
non-radioactive hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos, lead, PCBs) that cannot be handled
by robots or automated machinery on the basis of simple pre-programmed motions andactions. These are highly unstructured environments, in which the currently viable way
to use robotics is by a human directly controlling (teleoperating) the robot. This is why
the first answer has traditionally involved large amounts of slow and painstaking teleoperation of remote robots by human workers, using rudimentary control systems and
CCTV cameras for situational awareness. It is questionable whether such approaches
can achieve clean-up tasks at legacy sites in socially acceptable timeframes given thequantity of material involved. Advanced RRS such as tele-operation using assistive
guides, supervision and virtual reality can certainly improve the quality of work andworking conditions of the operators but should be reserved to only delicate and highvalue tasks because the presence of a human limits productivity.
For these applications, advanced AI-assisted robotics could represent an effective tool
to significantly reduce delays. However, to further “automate” such interventions,significant technological progress will be required because the objective is essentially tobuild machines that are sufficiently “intelligent” that they can partially take over the46 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
control currently performed by humans. This requires a step change from the mostrudimentary tele-operated machines (e.g. joystick controlled) to autonomous robotic
systems that must go beyond the current state-of-the-art in AI and intelligent softwareand sensory systems. Note that such a step change essentially jumps over theintermediary graded stages of conventional, repetitive, pre-programmed robotic actions.
The level of automation is characterised by a large spectrum, ranging from assistance tofully autonomous solutions. The intermediary graded stages were highly successful inthe manufacturing industry over the past half century (see, for instance, the SAE
Classification J3016 in the automobile industry [SAE, 2019]), but it was only possible
because of the highly structured and constrained manufacturing environment (e.g.
known products arriving in known positions on a production line). Also in the field of
oil exploration, such a graded approach gained some momentum in the application of
RRS.
Furthermore, where the presence of humans is required and tolerable in situ, wearable
robotic solutions (including small passive systems as well as exoskeletons) have thepotential to further support work, especially in labour-intensive areas.
It should be noted that there are some non-technological barriers to implementing RRS
more widely. One such barrier is related to intellectual property rights. For example, theUS law Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that
implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Passed on 12 October 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code toextend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online
services for copyright infringement by their users.
Among the provisions contained in the text there is the possibility of explicitly
prohibiting the circumvention of technologies used to protect documents subject tocopyright. Thus, the law prohibits the misappropriation of copy protection, but also
distributing or making available processes that allow this misappropriation.
Also, in the EU, Directive 2001/29 / EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union “On the Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related
Rights in the Information Society” was adopted on 22 May 2001 to implement the WIPO
Copyright Treaty and harmonise various aspects of copyright law throughout Europe,
including copyright limitations and exceptions.
Based on these laws, producers can seriously restrict access to information about theirproducts, including the information needed for service needs (handling, repairing, reprogramming, etc.).
Producers propose their own services which often appear expensive compared to smaller
independent service providers. Only official service centres are usually provided withneeded documentation that restricts other service providers.
The official service usually supposes the replacement of the whole block instead of more
precise (and sometimes cheap) intervention. As a result, “electronic” waste has been
growing in many countries recently. In the case of the nuclear back-end it means thegrowth of radioactive waste. Also, the producers can extend the service time without riskof being replaced by more accurate service organisations. Each time, the producers referto the legislation protecting their behaviour and it is not easy to find a compromise.
Taking into account the complexity of RRS, such policy can lead to situations where theimplementer finds it is easier and cheaper to buy new equipment than to get service fromall suppliers.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 47

Another issue is the so-called artificial ageing that some producers include in the designof their products. This pushes users to buy the same products during periods that are
beneficial for the producers, and it leads to extra spending, which have no reason except
to benefit the producers.
Furthermore, there is a lack of a standard that would allow the development of integratorsand create the necessary confidence among end users. Indeed, since the industrialists
specialised in mechanical or electronic remote handling are small, they cannot handle
the investments needed to evolve towards advanced robotics. There is a risk that theirvaluable expertise will disappear. A standard that would allow the constitution of ondemand systems would favour their specialisation and increase their chances of survival.
On the other hand, the end user would have a guarantee of durability, not of the systembut of its function.
All these factors could have a negative influence on RRS application in the nuclear backend and may lead to the need for some exclusions in the application of relevant
legislation being considered (e.g. “right to repair” legislation being considered in somecountries).
In this context of intersecting economic and technological constraints, it is possible tooutline in more detail the experience of, and potential for, using RRS in the nuclear backend in the following fields:•

robotics in spent fuel management;•

robotics for radioactive waste management;•

robotics for nuclear facilities decommissioning;•

robotics for the management of legacy facilities and post-accident
situations;•robotics in accident response.

3.2. Robotics in spent fuel processing
Spent nuclear fuel (SF) is usually managed through two main strategies: reprocessing
and disposal.
This spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed once, with the fissile portion used to makenew fuel. Once this fuel itself is spent, disposal is the final solution. Alternatively, theSF can be reprocessed each time it is removed from the reactor.
In both strategies, the primary storage in the spent fuel pool is the first stage ofmanagement. After that, the SF is usually transferred from the reactor zone to the dry
storage facility (centralised or at the nuclear power plant site) where it is stored, waiting
for further management (disposal or reprocessing). Various storage strategies could be
implemented (short-term, long-term or even extended storage). Depending on the case,monitoring, handling and possibly repackaging operations may require the applicationof RRS. During storage, container handling, container monitoring data collection andmanagement are the challenges. Transporting SF containers from one stage to anotherrequires numerous remote-controlled operations. Thus, in SF management, RRS
application can support the following operations:•

Retrieval of SF from reactors to the spent fuel pool (there are technologies
for these operations such as loading machines); the specific issue could be48 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
the retrieval of damaged assemblies and fuel debris; also, new types of fuelcan require the application of newly developed RRS for their management.
•

The interim storage in spent fuel pools requires the monitoring of the fuel’s
status, handling the SF containers/assemblies within the pools andextraction and packaging for transfer to the next stages; the management ofdamaged assemblies andfuel debris within pools is a specific issue.

•

The transportation of SF between facilities requires the application ofvarious remotely operated techniques.

•

During storage, containers with SF require periodic inspection (for integrity,
temperature and other parameters); transfer of containers within the storage
facility might be needed; addressing the degradation of both SF andcontainers during the extended storage, the repackaging will require RRS to
be used.

•New RRS samples and methods will be needed for the handling of SF
containers within the disposal facilities (deep geological repository, or
DGR). In some concepts of DGR, the un-/re-packing can be required before
placing SF assemblies in the disposal chambers, and that implies RRS
application. The disposal of new types of fuel can also be considered in thecontext of RRS application. During the DGR operation, a lot of safety(radiation and industrial) functions can be performed by RRS (fire safety,
excavation works, sealing of filled chambers, internal transportation of nonradioactive materials, monitoring of the integrity of containers, barriers andconstructions, emergency response and rescue operations and many others).

•

SF reprocessing is currently largely automated; however, an improvementin techniques and methods could be considered useful; in the case of new
reprocessing facilities, new RRS could be developed to be integrated into
the new facility.

•

In the case of SF from research and other types of non-energetic
applications, the specific RRS configuration could be needed for the
management of SF; specific issues could appear with the implementation of
new advanced reactors (small modular reactors [SMRs], floating nuclear
power plants, Generation IV reactors and others); as some SMRs are
expected to be installed in remote areas, the specific requirements of RRS
would need to be formulated.

The specificity of SF management requires some advanced features of RRS, forexample:•Remote work and process flow are mandatory for safety requirements dueto the high radioactivity.

•

The high radioactivity resistance of sensors is an issue.

•

High precision (no miss) is required in operations; SF management
operation means the handling of heavy containers with high legibility ofpositioning.

•

Maintenance and repair with some types of techniques can require otherspecific types of RRS.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 49•

Handling and manipulation of fuel under water (including measurements
and sampling).

•

With progressing automation, increasing security requirements.

•

Adaptability to handling different types of fuel, especially in transport,
storage and disposal facilities.

3.3. Robotics for radioactive waste management
According to the international consensus reflected in international standards (IAEA, EC
and others), the RW must be managed in a safe manner up to and including disposal.
Due to the wide variety of RW types, diverse management strategies are applied. The
main factors defining the selection of methods of management and final disposal solution
include:•RW volumes;•

RW class (HLW, ILW, LLW, VLLW) based on activity and half-life;•

RW physical state (solid, liquid or gas);•

type of packaging (e.g. materials, containers);•

current location and transport requirements;•

chemical composition;•

origin of the RW (when included as a part of a waste classification system);•the main isotopes in the RW (radiotoxicity, mobility, chemical activity,etc.);•

evolution over time due to decay.

The management of RW is not limited to RW from nuclear energy production. RW is
produced in almost all front-end activities as well as other sectors such as medicine andmining, and this RW requires safe management.
According to the NEA-RWMC holistic vision, the management of RW can beconditionally broken down in the following stages:•

RW generation, collection, characterisation, sorting and primary packaging(if applied);•

RW treatment and conditioning (some RW classes and types could beuntreated or unconditioned);•

RW storage (interim for both conditioned and non-conditioned, long-term
for all types of RW; storage for decay for very short-lived RW);•

RW disposal.

Radioactive waste management typically comprises:•

Direct taking over or retrieval from a buffer or interim storage of raw RW– normally in preliminary waste packages; however, RW is often stored inold storage facilities for a long time, not conditioned or even packaged. And
the retrieval of such waste can require the characterisation of the storage
and then the characterisation of each portion of extracted waste. Sometimes,

50 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
an old facility once designated for “disposal” can require waste retrieval,and this is a specific challenge.
•

Characterisation of waste is an important operation, which makes it possible
to minimise the waste volume through the accurate separation of radioactive
and non-radioactive waste. In the case of large volumes of RW, RRS can be
extremely useful. However, equipment with high sensitivity and specificity
of measurement is needed to increase the level of separation.

•

Preliminary sorting of wastes is based on the characterisation, and a highlevel of reliability of measurements is a crucial factor; the application of the
RRS allows a quick sorting of large volumes of RW.

•

Processing and conditioning (if applied) of waste, depending on the waste
class and technology applied, can be equipped with robotics or remotesystems; this can be especially useful in the treatment of HLW and bigvolumes of lower-level waste (ILW, LLW). The conditioning of RW isfollowed by the collecting and handling of large volumes of information(information about the RW and treatment, package passport, transfer of
relevant data to the next RW management stages, etc.) which can be
performed with the usage of RRS.

•

Retrieval and repackaging of historical RW including additional processing
and conditioning, size reduction of empty packaging (to be re-packaged in
new containers), etc.

•

Disposal of RW is the final point of RW management. The disposal strategy
is identified based on the RW class, the available disposal routes, the safetycase and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) of the receiving facility as wellas other factors. RRS application in disposal facilities can be an important
optimising factor. In addition to RW handling, RRS can also be used indisposal facility operations providing fire safety, excavations, tunnels
maintenance, monitoring, maintaining and repairing of constructions andengineering systems, etc. Information/data/knowledge management in
disposal facilities can also be facilitated through RRS application.

•

A rather specific RW management activity is the collection and consequent
management of RW from small producers (e.g. scientific activities; medical
applications, disused sealed radioactive sources [DSRS]) where RRS canplay a more visible role.

•

The facility security provision can also widely apply RRS.

The performance criteria for the deployment of RRS in waste management are typically:•

protection of the personnel, population and environment, minimisation ofrisks (dose);•minimisation of waste management costs: optimised waste formation, RW
volumes of different categories (e.g. better and more reliable sorting),
optimised time of RW management (e.g. improved process throughput);•

improvement of RW forms and waste packages (e.g. better quality control
and consistency, improved inspection capability).

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 51

There are numerous benefits in using RRS with advanced automation for homogeneous
RW streams. Good examples include liquid radioactive waste treatment plants (e.g.
process control for filtering, evaporation, solidification), treatment of LLW and ILW
solid waste (e.g. incineration, compaction) and automated sorting of low-level,
decommissioning bulk wastes (e.g. dismantling debris with low contents of residual
contents of contamination). The automated control is quite straightforward and most of
the situations can be managed by simple decision-based programming such as that usedin standard industrial process control equipment (e.g. single, or few, parameter if-thenalgorithms, interlocks and logic gates). The current optimisation potential is probably
mainly in complementing existing solutions with integration of up-to-date sensor
equipment, data processing and analysis tools for the furthering fostering ofeffectiveness (reducing failures or overburdening) and efficiency (productivity,
maintenance optimisation) as also continuously adopted in non-nuclear industry.
The challenge for nuclear operators and decision makers, however, is integrating andimplementing rapidly growing and changing technologies. The risk is that installed
equipment (hardware and software) may become obsolete quickly, resulting indifficulties in maintaining the equipment as well as in updating facilities or repurposing
them in a safe and economical manner.
For heterogeneous RW streams, the challenge is considerably greater: different
compositions must be recognised, and decisions made to select the appropriate path andprocess to achieve an optimal result. Although obvious in principle, this requires a
combined interaction of different technologies and disciplines: for example, forcharacterisation, sorting, and processing, automated control is much more difficult andtypically requires advanced artificial intelligence algorithms at various stages of patternrecognition, deep analysis, self-correction or self-programming. In the R&D field, highly
versatile, flexible and self-organising systems have been demonstrated and arecontinuously developed. However, their application in the real industrial environment isstill limited due to the insufficient maturity of the technology and the limits ofimplementing incremental solutions in an economically efficient manner. The
uncertainties and risks of partial or larger failures are an argument for decision makers
and implementers to wait for a real-world reference case to be established.
It should be noted that large-scale decommissioning projects (e.g. the Ignalina Nuclear
Power Plant in Lithuania, Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant in the Slovak Republic,
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, Sellafield site in the United Kingdom,
Savannah River National Laboratory [SRNL] and Hanford sites in the United States)
have fostered the development of complex facilities for radioactive waste managementwith extensive use of remote technologies which are (or can be considered) operational.
Each situation is unique, varying in scale, funding and timing, which affects the degreeof RRS applied. In addition, it may be noted that many if these reference cases weretypically publicly financed. Private industry is typically more risk-averse with regard to
the use of advanced complex technologies given the uncertainties of investment return.
Reference cases are therefore an important enabler for RRS. For existing facilities, it
may be interesting to note that they are typically equipped with man-operated remote
digital control systems, which may be quite easily further modernised by introducing
increasing (graded) automated control components with increasing AI elements to
support human operators to operate these complex facilities more productively. Again,a paced and graded approach can support and reduce the technological gap between
developers and implementers.

52 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

3.4. Robotics for nuclear facilities decommissioning
Dismantling of nuclear facilities presents a specific range of challenges including:•characterisation, dismantling and fragmentation of highly contaminatedsystems and components, e.g. reactor internals, reactor vessels, primarycircuits, steam generators (high activity concentrated in a small, often
massive volume);•characterisation and dismantling of contaminated buildings and structures(heterogeneously distributed moderate activity in specific parts of building
and structures);•characterisation and dismantling of buildings and structures with low or nocontamination (occasionally low activity dispersed locally in larger
volumes);•characterisation and management of bulk materials (e.g. soils) with low orno contamination (typically low activity dispersed in larger volumes).

In the performance of decommissioning work in a radioactive environment, thefollowing types of RRS tools can be observed:•

specialised tools adapted for fragmentation of highly contaminatedequipment and systems, either typically remotely operated by a humanoperator (e.g. cutting and retrieval of reactor internals) or sometimes withpartially or enhanced automated systems with software assisted control (e.g.
cutting reactor vessels or steam generators);•

multi-versatile robust mobile equipment or carrier platforms withinterchangeable tools configured for radioactive environments (often called
dismantling robots), which are typically remotely operated by a humanoperator;•

specialised systems for automated monitoring and segregation of bulk
materials (soil, rubble, etc.).

For an environment with no or very low occasional radioactivity, robust and versatilemobile equipment with interchangeable tools such as those used in civil construction
work may be observed. Conventional safety hazards, such as asbestos, PCBs and lead,must also be considered. In the absence of remote control (which would be quite
exceptional) for radiological protection and the application of the ALARA principle,
common provisions are implemented to reduce the risk for the operator of respiratory or
percutaneous exposure, such as breath delivery units (BDU)/ventilator control, an
overpressure air-conditioned cabin, or PPE.
These observations may confirm that automation in dismantling works is still quite
limited and may be justified better in a high-dose environment. In a low-dose
environment, the justification would be probably similar to the one of conventional
dismantling works where the use of RRSs is also not very common. The most promisingtools in this area are in semi-autonomous characterisation and 3D-scanning of buildings.
Another example is final decontamination of the remaining buildings and facilities,
which is currently mainly a manual activity with workers in suitable PPE. The patternchanges for decommissioning waste management where semi-automated or automatedsystems for sorting and clearance of decommissioning wastes are frequently observed inpractice because of their typical justification: minimising waste disposal costs.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 53

It is interesting to note that a complete RRS system integrating characterisation anddecommissioning would be an exception in practice, so it is possible to improve RRS
systems for decommissioning, if the decommissioning organisation wishes to use them.

3.5. Robotics for management of legacy facilities and post-accident situations
The challenges of managing legacy facilities and post-accident situations are typicallyassociated with non-normative conditions and inventories under challenging conditions,
including substantial uncertainties.
However, they are real situations and activities may be planned, licensed andimplemented addressing specifically the non-normative conditions and uncertainties.
Technical solutions typically imply addressing specifically the safety for known anduncertain nuclear and radiological conditions during implementation. In these technicalsolutions, given this context and the mostly harsh working environment, RRS might
become a primary option. More specifically, situations characterised by non-normative
conditions of nuclear or radioactive inventory, chemical hazards and including possibly
unstable conditions due to damaged structures, infrastructure, systems and equipmentwith a certain degree of uncertainty and often unique or unprecedented elements (noreference case) are drivers for RRS.
In practice, use of remotely operated equipment is a common approach to organising
retrieval and radioactive waste management (e.g. remotely operated dismantlingequipment, automated classification and sorting of rubble). Systems and tools similar to
those used for the dismantling of (highly) contaminated structures can be used.
The control of the equipment is typically extensively made by operators with a rather
limited level of automation and limited productivity. This may be explained by theindividual specificity of each case, which does not make it possible to revert easily toexisting systems. At the same time, these applications need to show visible progress
instead of investing time and resources for research and development, which may beconsidered as adding to lost investment.

3.6. Robotics in accident response
Emergency response in case of significant accidents requires an ability to take action in
an unplanned situation, with a high degree of uncertainty with typically high relevancefor nuclear, radiation and industrial safety.
In principle, such a situation would be predetermined for the use of RSS to minimise
human intervention for collecting data to reduce uncertainties and take immediate action
for hazard defence (if possible in-depth) to protect the general public, the workers andthe environment.
The main peculiarity of an emergency situation in case of significant accidents is,however, that the unplanned as well as effective and efficient deployment of RSS
requires ad hoc resources, such as:•

Availability of effective RRS for specific required or desired tasks where
typically the identification of tasks in terms of objective, scope and priority(survey, manipulation) are not predetermined and are evolving during the
emergency at the nuclear site.

•

Availability of operators who are trained on these RRS and have sufficientknowledge of the nuclear sites where the emergency occurred; these54 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
operators should preferably be selected from among those who regularly
work as remote operators in dismantling shops. Thus, the development of
RRS for dismantling applications represents the best guarantee of having
expert operators available for post-accident situations. Indeed, operators ofspecialised post-accident intervention groups can hardly benefit from a
sufficiently intense and varied training. In addition, their equipment, whichis less frequently renewed, cannot claim to have the best performance. Thus,
the development of RRS for dismantling applications represents an
irreplaceable guarantee for having expert operators in post-accident
situations.
•

Availability of appropriate infrastructure and supporting systems, including
operators for these RRS at the nuclear site where the emergency occurs.

•

Availability of existing RRS to be adapted easily and quickly to newly
discovered conditions of operation.

In practice, while availability is limited and adequate preparation is required, anyavailable RRS is a tool and option for:•active risk management by the operator of the plant (including cost-benefitmanagement as far as reasonably possible ad hoc in an emergency);•

optimised use of available RRS in combination with other systems(e.g. plant workers, external supporting resources, including robotic
specialists) by adapting ad hoc to the situation and needs to the extent
reasonably possible.

Experience shows that specialised emergency response organisations(e.g. Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst GmbH [KHG] in Germany; Naraha Robotics Centre for
Remote Control Technology Development [NARREC] of the Japan Atomic Energy
Agency in Japan) with long-term over-annual budgets have a specific role and thepossibility to develop specialised RRS for emergency response with mobile
infrastructure (e.g. mobile remote operating base, mobile power supply) and maintain a
trained team which may be deployed in an emergency situation.
These specialised emergency response organisations do not supersede the responsibilityof a site operator to take action but are a valuable option to support the site operator withspecific specialised RRS on a demand and purpose basis. The value of the option can beincreased by:•implementation of specialised infrastructure for the use of own or external
RRS to be better prepared for emergency cases (e.g. access corridors, highspeed communication equipment [transponders for data transfers], power
supply systems, control devices, control room, trained staff);•

specific training including simulation of emergency cases with RRS
operators of the plant operator to be better prepared for an emergency case– with support by robotics experts from the specialised emergency responseorganisation;•

co-operation – organisation of work: task splitting/distribution among
different available systems and resources, including for on-site-emergency
response systems, specialised RRS provided by the emergency
organisation, use of available technology and staff from the operator;

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 55

Advanced informatic systems including AI to support the operator and emergency
response teams to support overview and decision-making during an emergency case andto deploy RRS may be a further option for:•resource optimisation: use of available resources including staff, tools and
RRS. RRS is not an objective but an option (in complement to otherresources);•

safety optimisation as part of risk optimisation: implement dangerous workwith staff as much as necessary as low as possible; optimisation should
cover all types of regulating (nuclear safety, fire safety, industrial safety,etc.);•

cost-benefit optimisation: minimising time and resource utilisation toachieve increasingly safer statuses;•

security issues (when applied);•

the improved use of RRS in the field of emergency response in case of heavy
accidents requires a lot of R&D, which is not easy for an operator of one orseveral sites to plan but may be fostered by co-ordinated transboundaryefforts (e.g. experience exchanges, training, R&D).

3.7. Conclusions
General conclusive statements:•

The general evolutionary sequence of RRS can be summarised as:o Mechanised equipment  remotely operated  IT assisted 
automated  autonomous (increasing automation grade)•Tele-operation by humans is needed because the unstructured environments
frequently encountered in waste management and decommissioning do notlend themselves to repetitive automation. This results in a profoundchallenge because further “automation” means machines that can do the jobof human intelligence in controlling the remote robot in unknown
environments. This requires AI and “autonomous” robotics which remains
an open research challenge for this application.

•

The AI challenges in this case include: diverse and changing “unstructured
environments”; the ability to “generalise” and have a “semantic level
understanding of scenes and objects”; the ability to correctly handle
uncertainty and have “situational awareness”.

•

The development of AI is further challenged by a lack of availability ofreference cases, digital and simulation models, suitable development
environment (e.g. robot base, trained operators, reliable human-machineinterface [HMI], digital twin/shadow) and specific regulatory requirements.
In addition, the duration of planning, design, licensing and implementation
is difficult to incorporate into most project schedules.

•

Safety and economic benefits are generally the main drivers.

•

RRS are common in some parts of the nuclear industry (including in the
nuclear back-end). However, there is large potential for additional
deployment.

56 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1•

In the nuclear back-end, use of RRS is primarily triggered by safety.
Effectiveness and efficiency become a major issue only when it is justified
by cost-saving to implement the specific nuclear back-end activity (e.g. costof implementation time/duration, cost of implementation of safe works with
sufficient workers protection, cost of generated radioactive waste).

•

The primary focus is typically on remote work, which may have a different
degree of automation: the mechanisation of work  remote operated
execution of repetitive work in well-defined boundary conditions remote
operated execution of flexible (multi-versatile) and varying work sequences
under changing boundary conditions.

•

Another focus which typically becomes important (if it is justified by costsaving) is the level of automation: operator (human) direct control  remote
operator control with remote feedback (bidirectional human-machineinterface)  computer-assisted operator control (use of programmedsequences on a decision of operator)  semi-autonomous computerassisted operator control (use of programmed sequences using AI elements
for motion and work optimisation on a decision of operator)  autonomous
device (most of the decisions are shifted to AI-based IT systems, leaving
the operator to make only the main decisions, using a graded approach).

•

The increasing use of RRS with increasingly automated or autonomous
elements opens several substantial options to foster safe, effective andefficient solutions in the nuclear back-end, which represent an opportunity
for further development.

•

However, the systems and the associated technologies (e.g. sensoring,
technical configuration, information technology [IT] including AI systems)
are increasingly complex, going beyond the capabilities and the limits ofsingle solutions for individual cases, which should be compensated bymodularisation. Co-ordinated exchanges and R&D-efforts beyond theindividual organisation and national boundaries are necessary, which makes
specific involvement of multi-national organisations and transboundary
programmes necessary.

•

Besides the technical aspects of RRS, the use of RRS with increasing
autonomy is also an increasingly challenging issue for regulatory aspects,
which will require further efforts and co-ordinated developments between
the relevant stakeholders.

•

In case of new reactors, such as SMRs, it could be useful to design and/or
construct specific RRS directly with the development of the SMRs.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 57

4. Summary and conclusions
This report documents the first period of work of the EGRRS. During this period, the
EGRRS began to frame and contextualise the issues of RRS in the nuclear domain, byinitially investigating:i) The status of nuclear RRS technologies in current and previous usage;ii) the initial results from an enquiry into barriers (technological, regulatory,financial, cultural, organisational, etc.) to the deployment of RRS in the
nuclear industry, as perceived by roboticists, experts in remote systems, andnuclear industry end users;iii) a qualitative framework for appraisal of RRS usage in terms of cost-benefit
analysis;iv) a set of in-depth case studies of examples of previous successful RRS usage
in the nuclear back-end.
Initial findings and broad conclusions are listed in the following. It is furthermore
supported by the summary of the findings collected during the “EGRRS DedicatedContribution at the Online Event Focusing on Innovation within Nuclear
Decommissioning at DigiDecom 2021” on the 25 March 2021 [https://www.oecdnea.org/EGRRS21].
In terms of current status and previous usage of RRS:•

Annex B documents a wide variety of robotic and automated systems whichhave been beneficially employed in nuclear back-end applications, andadditional systems at an advanced stage of development. This information
may be used by project engineers in the evaluation of field-proventechnologies. (Note that these are examples provided by participants and are
not intended to be an exhaustive list of all available technologies andapplications.)•

Annex B may be used as a basis to establish an interactive online databaseof robotics and remote systems for practitioners, researchers and regulators
engaged in nuclear facility decommissioning and waste management. Sucha database would be invaluable in promoting the broader use of RRS in
back-end applications.

•

A more complex emerging area of research is that of systems which enable
a human operator to interact with an AI to control a remote robot. Evaluating
and certifying the combined human-AI system will provide additional
complex challenges to nuclear safety officers and regulators. On the other
hand, such human-AI combined systems are likely to form the majority ofadvanced robot deployments in high-consequence environments in the
coming two decades, as compared with fully autonomous systems.
Therefore, this field will have to be embraced despite its complexities.

•

These technologies are unusual in that they are complex and evolving andchanging extremely rapidly over time. Additionally, they should be
deployed in an unusual industrial sector that has to plan and budget today58 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
for its future decommissioning operations over an extraordinarily long timeframe of many tens or even hundreds of years.
In terms of barriers and impediments:•

One of the most significant barriers reported by stakeholders is a reluctanceto use “first-of-a-kind” (FOAK) technology. This echoes what is often heard
from industry sources who talk about a “race to second place”; people are
reluctant to be the first to use a technology, but more enthusiastic once it
has been usefully applied elsewhere in a nuclear context.

•

This leads to a second point – if people are unwilling to pioneer the use ofa technology in the nuclear industry, how can there ever be justification for
it being adopted in the first place?

•

Another major barrier, based on a broad characterisation of various
categories, is a “lack of knowledge or expertise” in the back-end field.

•

The next aspects to be considered are the lack of evidence for cost-benefit
analysis and, not least, the social impact at end-users’ facilities.

•

Contrary to popular perception, loss of jobs to robots does not seem to be amajor concern among most respondents. However, this is identified as aconcern among some respondents.

•

A notable difference in opinion was observed between the various types oforganisations. It has been observed that developers of the technology
believe that the vendors (potentially themselves) are qualified, whereas theindustry has concerns in this regard.

•

It is important to note that there is a wide diversity and disparity in responses
from a wide variety of different stakeholders. Hence it is important for RRS
developers to obtain a deeper understanding of the drivers and constraintsof particular end users.

In terms of cost-benefit analysis:•

It is difficult to use quantitative metrics for a global assessment due to asignificant difference in costs of similar robotic solutions from country tocountry and even from project to project. However, general trends andqualitative characteristics are the same for each application.

•

To provide a global review, the EGRRS has developed a system of
economic drivers and metrics for their qualitative assessment. These drivers
take into consideration both direct and indirect effects to cover a wide range
of factors which may provide economic benefits from robotic solutions.

•

A set of case studies was identified based on the experience of successfully
implementing robotic solutions with evident economic effects. These cases
consider two scenarios of a project – with and without robotic solutions.
The cases clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of using robotics in the
nuclear back-end and their advantages over non-robotic options in thesesituations. The cases also demonstrate how the provided economic drivers
may be applied in practice. (The initial work focused on successful
implementations. Additional case studies, including examples where there
was no demonstrable benefit from RRS, will be examined in the next phaseof the work.)

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 59

This report has examined and documented many successful applications of robotics andremote systems (RRS) in back-end applications during the past several decades, and such
systems continue to be used today. It is important that the industry both publicise thesesuccesses and perform independent critical assessments to identify weaknesses and areas
for improvement. Broad observations from these case studies include:•

Many successful nuclear applications have built on field-proventechnologies adopted from other industries. This approach has proven to bepreferable to beginning development from scratch.

•

Other successes have been achieved simply through automation of existing
systems and processes, or configuring existing technologies for remote
operation. This approach lessens concerns with use of FOAK technologies
and paves the way for incremental development and use of more advanced
systems.

•

System designs should be made as flexible as practicable to enable multiple
uses at a given facility as well as portability between facilities (suchflexibility is a key strength of the concept of “robot” as opposed to“automation” machinery). This helps spread out development costs between
projects and lessens concerns with use of FOAK technologies. Development
of bespoke systems tailored to specific applications should be avoided
wherever practicable. Service providers perform much of the work during
facility decommissioning. It is thus critical to get service provider
collaboration early in the development process so that they are fully behindusing the technology in the field.

•

Younger workers are generally more comfortable and in fact excited byusing RRS. The industry should take advantage of this by including younger
engineers in development and application efforts.

•

While use of RRS may be attractive to engineers, there is only a marginal
known cost-benefit advantage in using such systems for many back-end
tasks. Efforts should be focused on those tasks for which a clear benefit
exists.

•There is a continuing need to find ways to improve global collaboration anddissemination in the RRS community. There are far too many examples ofsubstantially similar systems being developed to perform substantiallysimilar tasks, by different teams at different sites. This duplication of effort
wastes scarce funding.

•

RRS will typically operate in a challenging industrial environment,
potentially including extreme temperatures, dirt and dust, elevated radiation
fields, vibrations from other ongoing work, etc. Systems must be able to bereliably operated and maintained in such environments. There have been
many examples of systems failing simply due to environmental factors.

60 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1•

There are several critical steps in the development of RRS. These steps
should be thoughtfully performed, well documented and subject to criticalreview. Additionally, external stakeholders (end users, service providers,manufacturers, etc.) should be engaged early in the process. These criticalsteps include:
1. Development of required system specifications.
2. Conceptual design that should be subject to critical independent
evaluation.
3. Fabrication of prototype system.
4. Engineering scale prototype test, results of which are used to refine thedesign.
5. Cold testing (i.e. in a non-radioactive environment).
6. Field testing under prototypical conditions (i.e. in a nuclear
environment).

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 61

5. Future work
In the following, a general perspective is given resulting from the work done by EGRRS
from 2019 to 2021, and the future development of EGRRS is illustrated.

5.1. Key challenges of future and emerging technologies
One of the challenging and, at the same time, promising factors considered by the
EGRRS is the rapidly evolving approaches, functionalities and capabilities of AI, ML
and other smart algorithms, linked to smart sensors and perception systems. These are
increasingly being applied in the control of robotic systems, and also have a role in thecollection and analysis of data, e.g. “characterisation” in legacy nuclear facilities, and indata-informed decision making. These technologies offer enormous potential, and arelikely to be profoundly disruptive in the near future. However, they also introduce anumber of difficult open challenges, especially when deployed in high-consequenceenvironments. These include, for example, issues of verification and validation ofincreasingly complex systems, comprising many hundreds of thousands of lines ofcomputer code, spanning numerous software libraries created by large numbers ofindividuals. The smarter and more autonomous a robotic system becomes, the lesspredictable its actions will be. Additionally, machine learning introduces potential for
robotic systems which change their own decision-making processes in real time during
operational deployments. These issues feed directly into considerations of safety and risk
assessments, and thereby also issues of regulation, liability and policy.
An additional emerging area, of great scientific complexity, is that of human-machineinteraction. This includes the design and development of human-robot interfaces (bothcognitive and physical with e.g. haptic systems). It also includes the questions of how to
objectively measure and characterise the performance, safety and other factors, ofsystems in which both human workers and AI’s interact to co-operatively control remoterobotic systems. The addition of the human- in-the-loop adds great complexity to an AI
system that is alreadyso complex. These technologies are evolving extraordinarily fast.
The latest algorithms are often superseded and obsolete within a year, especially in areas
such as computational vision systems. The functional capabilities of smart robots havebeen making large step changes roughly once per every five years over the past two
decades – and robotic hardware and sensory hardware have also been transforming
roughly every five years.
High-speed of solving decommissioning tasks rapidly will require training both new
specialists in creating and control RRS in dangerous conditions and retraining of current
employees. The creation of common international educational programmess will require
constant updating in case of if they are to following the pace of development in RRS andbased on successful application experience during decommissioning.
There is thus a significant danger, that regulation and policy decisions will be alreadyoutdated and obsolete by the time they are implemented. There is also significant danger
that poorly designed regulation can significantly obstruct the development andintroduction of innovative new technologies.

62 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Some of the key challenges include (not limiting):•

The deployment of RRS requires some degree of harmonisation of the legal
framework between the countries.

•

Analyse impact of robotics on nuclear energy sustainability across the globe
and compliance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

•

Promote standards to assist with safety cases and deployment types.

•

Promote a standardised approach to RRS hardware and software making forplug and play technology within nuclear robotics. Investigate having arobust, deployable toolset of approved robotic technology that has beenverified and validated for a given scenario. This offers a repeatable andreliable baseline for nuclear deployments and the foundation for further
enhancements such as AI or machine learning (ML) stretching towards
human-supervised autonomy and beyond.

•Support dialogue and exchanges between the main involved stakeholders:
operators and implementers, regulators (in nuclear and other robotic areas),
designers and producers of RRS, scientists, service organisations, publicorganisations and others.

•

Provide recommendations and proposals for international R&D cooperation and co-ordination to facilitate development and implementationof robotic solutions.

•

It is important to determine how the ageing of the equipment is managed
and how to maintain and/or update/replace the operating system in place.
The main reason is because the control electronics of the RRS usually havea useful life of only a few years before they become obsolete, while thenuclear facilities in which they will be used have a useful life of several
decades.

These unusual and unprecedented challenges provide a strong need and motivation forestablishing a long-term ongoing international co-ordination effort on this topic. The
EGRRS has brought together the leading experts from numerous nations and provides
an ideal platform for delivering this critical monitoring and advising function moving
forward.

5.2. Future perspectives of the EGRRS work
The RWMC created the EGRRS in 2019 to elaborate, in a stepwise manner, the guidancefor NEA member countries on the establishment of national frameworks allowing thebroad industrial-scale application of robotic and remote systems (RRS) at all stages andin all activities of the nuclear back-end. Also, the EGRRS scope of work includes RW
management and decommissioning activities not related to the nuclear power plant –research, medical, transport and other nuclear applications.
For the first step, within two years, the RWMC defined the EGRRS goals as the overview
of the current status of RRS in the nuclear industry, collection of information, andprimary analysis of the key factors influencing the application of RRS. The EGRRS
successfully performed the objectives mandated by the RWMC, and developed thisreport based on the collected and analysed information.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 63

In 2022, the EGRRS starts its second two-year period of work with new objectives:•

Develop a systematic approach for comprehensive benchmarking of bestpractices in RRS applications (database implementation);•

Provide an iterative process of solution-finding towards the identified
barriers in the regulatory framework (with regulators, operators, developers,
technical support organisations [TSO], etc.);•

Develop a cost-benefit methodology/structure for RRS application in the
back-end field, providing a decision-making tool on the “human” vs“robotics” task;•

Analyse the future implications of emerging AI and advanced robotics
technologies, approaches and functionalities, while monitoring new
developments and synergies as they emerge, and advising participating
NEA member countries on future implications and emerging opportunities.

As an important basis for the implementation of RRS in the nuclear field, education andtraining will also be addressed by the EGRRS. It is proposed to formulate therequirements of general education programmes for studying new specialists in the fieldof RRS development and operation.
The group will continue to collect and analyse the information through the exchanges
between participating NEA member countries, and identify the good practices of RRS
applications. This can lead potentially to the creation of a database, and the EGRRS canprovide a set of recommendations concerning the functions and main features of such a
database.
As a practical example in an emerging field, the use of RRS in the construction andoperation of deep geological repositories (DGRs) for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
wastes can be further studied in conjunction with the RWMC. Alternate construction
technologies, such as robotic tunnel boring machines, show promise as a safer, more
efficient method for DGR construction. In addition, operation of a DGR will also require
robotics and remote systems due to the inherently high radiation environment. Therefore,
it is expected that the EGRRS will also extend its activities and surveys to these fields
and identify impediments or barriers to the application of RRS in DGR construction as
well as RW management and decommissioning.

64 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

References
Abel, E., M. Brown, P. Fisher, R. Sharp and K. Siva (1991), “NEATER, a telerobot for the nuclear
industry”, in Proceedings of the Fourth ANS Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Systems,
American Nuclear Society, Albuquerque New Mexico, United States.
Adjigble, M. (2019), “An assisted telemanipulation approach: combining autonomous grasp planningwith haptic cues”, in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots andSystems (IROS 2019), 3-8 Nov. 2019, Macao, China,
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8968454.
Adjigble, M. (2018), “Model-free and learning-free grasping by local contact moment matching”, inProceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2018), 1-5 Oct. 2018, Madrid, Spain.
Bogue, R. (2011), “Robots in the nuclear industry: a review of technologies andapplications”, Industrial Robot, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 113118, https://doi.org/10.1108/01439911111106327.
Brynjolfsson, E. and A. McAfee (2014), The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in atime of brilliant technologies (1st ed.), New York, NY: W. W. Norton, ISBN: 978-0-393-35064-7.
Chapman, H., S. Lawton and J. Fitzpatrick (2018), “Laser cutting for nuclear decommissioning: An
Integrated Safety Approach”, Atw. Internationale Zeitschrift für Kernenergie, Vol. 62, No. 10,
p. 521, https://inis.iaea.org/search/49098104.
Chiou, R. S. (2016), “Experimental Analysis of a Variable Autonomy Framework for Controlling a
Remotely Operating Mobile Robot” in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference onIntelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2016), 9-14 Oct. 2016, Daejeon, Korea.
EPRI (2017), Evaluation of System Automation and Robotics for Decommissioning Applications,Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 3002010599, Palo Alto, CA, United States,www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002010599.
Garrec, P. (2011), “Dedicated and industrial robotic arms used as force feedback telerobots at the
AREVA-La Hague recycling plant”, in Proceedings of ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics & Remote
Systems for Hazardous Environments • 11th Emergency Preparedness & Response, 7-10 Aug.
2011, Knoxville, TN, United States, https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01182491.
Goertz, R. (1949), Master-Slave Manipulator, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL-4311,
United States, www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1054625/.
Goubot, J.M. and P. Garrec (2003), “STeP: An Innovative Teleoperation System for
Decommissioning Operations”, in Proceedings of Decommissioning challenges: An industrial
reality? Nov. 2003, Avignon, France, French Nuclear Energy Society, SFEN, https://halcea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01174196/document.
Hill, J.W. and J. K. Salisbury, Jr., (1977), Annual Report 2: Study to design and develop remotemanipulator systems, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, California, United States, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19780008677.
JNC (2000), H12: Project to establish the scientific and technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan,
Supporting report 2: Repository design and engineering technology, Japan Nuclear Cycle
Development Institute Technical Report TN1410 2000-003, https://jopss.jaea.go.jp/pdfdata/JNCTN1410-2000-003.pdf.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 65

McClure, P.K. (2018) “You’re Fired, Says the Robot: The Rise of Automation in the Workplace,Technophobes, and Fears of Unemployment”, Social Science Computer Review, 36(2), pp.139-156,
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439317698637.
Méasson, O. D. (2011), “Dismantling with the hydraulic force feedback robot MAESTRO”, inProceedings of ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics & Remote Systems for Hazardous Environments •11th Emergency Preparedness & Response, 7-10 Aug. 2011, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Nagatani, K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Otake, K., Yoshida, K., Tadokoro, S., Nishimura, T.,
Yoshida, T., Koyanagi, E., Fukushima, M. and Kawatsuma, S. (2013), “Emergency response to the
nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants using mobile rescue robots”,
Journal of Field Robotics, 30(10), pp. 44-63, https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21439.
NDA (2019), Nuclear Provision: the cost of cleaning up Britain’s historic nuclear sites, Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority Corporate Report, Cumbria, United Kingdom,
www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-upbritains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclearlegacy.
NDA (2014), The 2013 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory – Waste Quantities from all Sources,
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Report URN 14D042 NDA/ST/STY(14)0010, Cumbria,
United Kingdom,
https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/17716/17718/421321419.PDF.
NEA (2019), Summary of the NEA Workshop on the Application of Remote and Robotic Systems in
Nuclear Back‐End Activities – Way Forward in System Implementation, 30-31 Jan. 2019,www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_55827.
NEA (2014), R&D and Innovation Needs for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, NEA Report No.
7191, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14898.
Okada, S., K. Hirano, R. Kobayashi and Y. Kometani (2020), “Development and Application of
Robotics for Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant”, Hitachi Review, Vol.
69, No. 4, pp. 562–563, www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2020/r2020_04/pdf/04d02.pdf
Pardi, T. M., V. Maddali, V. Ortenzi, R. Stolkin and N. Marturi (2020), “Path planning for mobile
manipulator robots under non-holonomic and task constraints”, in Proceedings of 2020 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6749-6756,
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9340760.
Pegman, G. and D. Hopper (1997), “Advanced teleoperated robots for hazardous environments”, inProceedings of Underwater Technology International: Remote Intervention (UTI-97), Aberdeen,
UK, April 1997, https://onepetro.org/SUTUTI/proceedings-abstract/UTI97/All-UTI97/SUT-UTI97-167/3203.
SAE (2019), J3016 Levels of Automated Driving, SAE International, www.sae.org/news/2019/01/saeupdates-j3016-automated-driving-graphic.
Sellafield (2015), “Energy minister praises decommissioning progress at Sellafield”, Retrieved fromPress release: www.sellafieldsites.com/press/energy-minister-praises-decommissioning-progressat-sellafield-on-first-visit-to-site/.
SKB (2009), Underground design Forsmark Layout D2, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Report
R-08-116, Stockholm, Sweden, www.skb.com/publication/1963365/R-08-116.pdf.

66 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Vertut, J. and P. Coiffet (1975), “Bilateral Servo Manipulator MA23 in Direct Mode and Via
Optimized Computer Control” in Proceedings of the 2nd Remotely Manned Systems Technology
Conference, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 9-11 June 1975,https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19770022806/downloads/19770022806.pdf.
Yokokohji, Y. (2021), “The Use of Robots to Respond to Nuclear Accidents: Applying the Lessons of
the Past to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station”, Annual Review of Control, Robotics,
and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 681-710, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-071420100248.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 67

Annex A: EGRRS Matrix
The kick-off meeting of the EGRRS identified some of the influencing factors and associated challenges in theareas defined as i) technical, safety and environment, ii) economical, iii) societal, iv) legal and regulatory andv) organisational and structural. Given some of the identified topics and challenges fall in different areas, crosscutting aspect were collected at the bottom of Table 9. Topics that are relevant in two or more areas are color
coded.
Table 9. Key influencing robotics and remote systems factors

•
•
•
•
•
•

Guidance and principals of usage of RRS
User RRS in the whole fuel cycle process (including new builds)
In nuclear economical focus, which is not the case in other areas
Bottom-up push development: end-user pushing developers(instead the other way around)
Playbook would be useful tool for member states (feasible)
Diversity in the field68 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

Annex B: Status of RRS in nuclear back-end applications
Note that these are examples provided by individual EGRRS participants and are not intended to be an exhaustive
list of all available technologies and applications.

B.1 Mobile robots
The category “mobile robots” includes:•

Ground units that move using a variety of propulsion methods (wheels, tracks, legs,
serpentines, wall-mounted suction cups);•

Aerial units (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or drones), most commonly
propelled by rotating blades; and•Submersibles, commonly propelled by rotating blades or hydraulic jets.

This category is arguably the most commonly employed in back-end applications. Mobile robots are used to deliverequipment to perform specific tasks, such as cameras, sensors and/or detectors to perform inspection andcharacterisation activities; or task-specific end-effector systems (such as articulated arms fitted with grasping end
effectors for moving material or obtaining samples).
Examples of mobile robot systems are provided below.
Use of Track Wheeled Robots at Duke Nuclear Power Plants:
Duke Energy procured commercially available PackBot and 710 Warrior units from iRobot (now Endeavor
Robotics). The lightweight PackBot has been used for tactical operations, such as inspecting objects, and the 710
Warrior robot, which has a higher lift capacity and can travel up to 8 mph, is assigned to perform heavier functions,such as removing and replacing filters in the High Integrity Containers (HICs) located in the plant’s fourradioactive waste bunkers (Cato at al., 2013; Peterson and Monti, 2014).
The robots required a few modifications prior to being used. The primary change was equipping the robots so they
could be used in areas of the facility that blocked radio signals. In this case, iRobot engineers equipped the 710
Warrior and PackBots with fibre spoolers that allowed operators to control them via a fibre optic tether rather thanrelying on radio frequencies. The utility selected the iRobot units in part because of their ease in learning how to
use them with a video-game style control system.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 69

Figure B.1. Endeavor Robotics 710 Warrior in Use at Robinson Nuclear Power Station

Use of Submersible Robots at DOE and Sellafield
The Remote Underwater Characterisation System (RUCS) is a small, remotely operated submersible vehicle
intended to serve multiple purposes in underwater operations (see Figure B.2). It is based on the commerciallyavailable “Scallop” vehicle produced by Inuktun Services, Ltd., British Columbia, Canada (EPRI, 2015). The US
Department of Energy modified the commercially available system to add radiation sensors and auto-depth control
to the submersible, and to add vehicle orientation and depth monitoring at the operator control panel. RUCS isdesigned to provide visual and gamma-radiation characterisation, even in confined or limited-access areas. RUCS
has been used to visually survey reactor canals and to gather characterisation data on the reactors and equipmenton the floor of the canal. It is simple to deploy and its small size and manoeuvrability allowed it to operate beneathoverhead structures and behind the reactors.
Figure B.2. Scallop Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle (EPRI, 2015)

At the Sellafield nuclear site in the United Kingdom, a mini-submarine ROV was used to remotely monitor andretrieve samples from the bottom of the First Generation Magnox Storage Pond (FGMSP) (JFN, 2014). James
Fisher Nuclear (JFN) worked with the site to plan, perform trial runs, and send a Video Ray Pro 4 ROV into the70 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
FGMSP for the monitoring and sample collection activities. This technology was taken from the oil and gas
industry.
Magnox also mounted survey equipment on this technology and used this for the conduct of remote underwater
surveys.

Crawler robot used at Fukushima Daiichi
Many robots have been successfully employed to perform a variety of inspection, sampling, and material handling
functions at the Fukushima Daiichi site. One example is a remote-controlled crawler crane unit mounted withgamma cameras used to inspect areas significantly contributing to radiation dose rates (hot spots) on the 1st floorof the reactor building in Units 1 to 3 (FDADA, 2014).
Figure B.3. Crawler System Used for Dose Assessment at Fukushima Daiichi

Wall-climbing robot for application of fixatives
Florida International University (FIU) conducted a demonstration at their mock hot cell of a remote fixative sprayer
platform that was integrated onto an existing remote platform developed by International Climbing Machine (ICM)(see Figure B.4) (EPRI, 2015). This integrated platform has the capability of climbing up vertical surfaces. The
integrated technology platform was successfully demonstrated to remotely enter into a mock hot cell facility andto spray a fixative on the ceiling, walls and floor surfaces. The spraying rate for the remote sprayer platform ranged
from 3.4 to 4.3 square feet per minute (0.3 to 0.4 m2/min) based on area covered, spraying time and product used.
This is designed for hostile environments.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 71

Figure B.4. ICM climbing machine spraying fixative

Source: EPRI (2015).
Sludge Crawling application for clean-up of nuclear ponds (Sellafield Ltd).
The Gerotto Bull has been modified to enable the final clean-up of the ponds before Sellafield can begin to dewatersome of its legacy ponds. Decades of sludge remain on the floors of the ponds which may contain fuel elements
or other large debris. The Bull has been modified to enable this sludge to be removed from the pond bed and to becontained, ready for downstream processing of the waste to commence.

72 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.5. Gerotto Bull Sludge crawling robot

Sherpa, Hexapod Transporter Robot (experimental, tested in 2 nuclear plants)
This project, partly financed by the European Teleman programme, was carried out between 1991 and 1994 andconsisted in studying the efficiency of a legged transporter for the deployment of manipulator arms formaintenance tasks and the transport of protective elements in nuclear power plant buildings.
The machine was a hexapod platform with telescopic legs initially designed for the Odex 3 robot (Odetics, UnitedStates) and developed at the CEA with the creation of new walking algorithms exploiting reflex functions basedon the exploitation of sensors integrated in the feet. The machine has become able to evolve by avoiding scatteredobstacles, to cross narrow or elevated passages and finally to go up and down stairs. Mobility evaluation and loadtransport tests (200 kg in all circumstances) have been carried out in two nuclear power plants in France (Chooz)
and Italy (Trino). During the second campaign, the staff members trained to pilot the robot carried out all the
specified evolutions, including in degraded situations (oil on the ground, rubble, lighting defects, etc.).

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 73

Figure B.6. Sherpa transporter robot, in Chooz-B (1993, left) and Trino (1994, right)

This programme was followed by a design phase by the CEA (with the support of EDF and TECHNICATOME)
of a new hexapod with innovative telescopic legs with a compact synchronised mechanism and a light hyperstatic
structure, with a reduced size from 0.85 to 0.65 m, an equivalent transport capacity and a speed 2.5 times higher(12 m/min). A complete leg was successfully tested on a locomotion bench in 1998, including endurance tests.
This project, which was to lead to tests by the members of the consortium in various maintenance or post-incident
situations, did not materialise however.
Figure B.7. Sherpa 2 transporter robot (left); with a telescopic carrier (centre); its innovativesynchronised telescopic leg on a test-rig (1998, right)

74 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

B.2 Articulated robots
Articulated robots have widespread use in industrial applications and many are commercially available. These
units are often mounted to stationary or mobile platforms. They may be used directly to manipulate material ordeliver task-specific end effectors. Examples of articulated robots are provided below.

MAESTRO telerobot (CEA-CYBERNETIX)
In collaboration with the CEA (Commissariat à l’energie atomique et aux énergies alternatives), Cybernetix has
designed various ‘slave’ arms for telerobotic systems such as the electro-hydraulic MAESTRO, which has beenused for applications in France and other countries (EPRI, 2016). The MAESTRO telerobot, shown in Figure B.8,
is composed of the slave arm, the master arm MAT6D and a toolbox of various components that can be assembled
to perform virtually any telerobotic task in a nuclear environment through its dual master-slave force
feedback/robotic modes.
Figure B.8. The MAESTRO telerobot: Left, MAESTRO Slave arm; Right, MAT6D Master arm (EPRI,
2016)

The MAESTRO telerobot includes:•

A 2.34 m long, 60 kg payload capacity, torque controlled, slave hydraulic manipulator with 6 degrees of
freedom, and a tool changer;•

An embedded hydraulic power pack;•An embedded electronic controller;•

A control system with a wide range of control modes, including joint torque control on both arms, gravity
compensation of the arms, force feedback master-slave coupling mode, Cartesian robotic mode, virtual
guide mode, virtual reality (VR) training system with force feedback;NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 75•

A complete set of tools for dismantling and maintenance (nibbler, gamma camera, drill, laser torch, offset
screwdriver, video camera, IF104 radiation probe, screwdriver, disk grinder, hydraulic shears, alternating
saw);

•

Two pan and tilt cameras with a specific controller to automatically follow the tools;•

A MAT6D (CEA -HaptionTM) force feedback master arm.

Large components at the Belgian research reactor BR3, including the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head andbottom, pressuriser and steam generator, were segmented using high pressure water jet cutting deployed by a
MAESTRO manipulator.
MAESTRO in the hot-cell 414 of the Marcoule pilot plant
The DEM APM C414 project aimed to demonstrate the reliability of the MAESTRO dismantling system underindustrial conditions. It allowed the dismantling of centrifuges, a pulsed filter, settling pots, dosing wheels, flow
pots, active and/or inactive effluent circuits.
Figure B.9. MAESTRO in the hot-cell 414 of the Marcoule pilot plant

Summary of operations carried out from 23/11/2015 to 24/05/2017, i.e. 18 months: 3 163 kg of process waste
packaged in 43 baskets out of a total of 3 562 kg (process waste – historical) in 52 baskets.

MAESTRO in dissolver A of the Plutonium Plant n°1 of Marcoule
The CEA has signed a contract with an industrial company (ONET TECHNOLOGIE) which is responsible forsupplying the MAESTRO process as well as its operation and maintenance. The dissolver is dismantled according
to the cuttings: chimney, piping, upper internals, dome and upper shell, cutting of the lower internals, the basket,
the dished bottom, the lower shell and the fuel drop tube.

76 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.10. MAESTRO in dissolver A of the Plutonium Plant n°1 of Marcoule

The MAESTRO telerobot was used over a period of 30 months from the end of 2015 to June 2018 for the firstphase, the cutting of dissolver A and the recovery of deposits and waste: 11 tonne of metals and 40 litres of deposits
packaged in eighty 0.5 litre jars.
ARTISAN Robotic arm used at West Valley
West Valley Environmental Services, in partnership with Nuvision Engineering, Inc., developed a robotic arm(ARTISAN) to remove thousands of feet of small diameter piping (5 cm to 20 cm), and structural steel (up to
20 cm) from a chemical processing cell (NEA, 2011). The robotic arm was fitted with a mechanical shear for 5 cm
piping, a band saw for 15 cm piping, and a circular saw for structural steel. The arm was fitted with a remotely
operated wrench to allow disassembly and removal of bolted tanks. The ARTISAN arm performed beyond
expectations, and substantially reduced personnel radiation exposure during the dismantling operation.
There may be a possible use for this manipulator for removal and cutting of piping, although the system deployedat West Valley had limited capabilities for larger diameter piping. The equipment may be useful to crimp or shear
the piping for increased contamination control and could potentially be deployed by a mobile robot to limit set up.

B.3 Task-specific end effectors
Task-specific end effectors are typically mounted to stationary or mobile platforms (see examples in previous
sections). This includes automated or remotely controlled units for material manipulation, welding, cutting,decontamination, application of fixatives, etc.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 77

Automated spent fuel canister welding system at Zion
Zion Station purchased and deployed an automated remote welding system to apply closure welds and perform
non-destructive inspections of the fuel canisters after loading to reduce radiological exposure to its workers (Daly,
2013). The system comprised a weld head and camera mounted to a remote-controlled articulated arm. This firstof-a-kind robotic welding system was used on both fuel and Greater-Than-Class C canisters and had the capability
to remotely perform non-destructive testing of the welds. In general, some type of automated nuclear canister
welding system has been implemented at more than 10 nuclear power plant sites that are using remote welding as
one way to minimise workers’ exposure to radiation.

Risk reduction of Glovebox operations at Sellafield ltd.
Sellafield Ltd possess a large number and variety of gloveboxes used to contain and carry out tasks with nuclear
materials. Manual operations in gloveboxes carry a considerable risk to operators and Sellafield Ltd therefore
aspire to remove the need for operators to undertake manual operations in gloveboxes. A prime candidate
technology to achieve this is the use of a robotic manipulator employing techniques such as haptics, VR and AI
that will interface with a glovebox and can augment the operator thereby remove them from the immediate risks.
Although complete elimination of manual operations is unlikely to be achieved in the short term and effort isfocused on achieving a significant risk reduction to operators in the short term.
Figure B.11. Robotic manipulators at Sellafield

B.4 Control ssystems for remote operations
Systems that are typically manually operated can be readily converted to remote operation, and there are many
examples of this practice for back-end applications. They include equipment such as saws, scabblers, hydraulic78 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
rams, decontamination baths, and waste conditioning or treatment systems. An example of equipment converted
for remote operations is provided below.
Reactor vessel internals segmentation at Jose Cabrera
Segmentation of reactor internals components is performed underwater, typically in the reactor cavity or spent fuelpool (SFP). At Jose Cabrera, segmentation was performed on top of a stand over a dedicated turntable resting on
its floor. The placement and control of the different cutting and handling tools was performed manually by
operators from a purposely built bridge crane over the SFP, riding on the same rails as the old bridge crane, andmaking use of the two updated reactor building cranes.
The cutting tools used in the reactor vessel internals segmentation were a band saw, a disc saw, a drill tool andshear tools. All tools were hydraulically powered and controlled, and could be easily reconfigured, e.g. to change
cut direction. They were manually controlled by the operators on the bridge, via control boxes that monitored andmodified parameters such as cutting speed and force.
Lifting and handling of cutting tools and segmented pieces was performed under manual operator control from thebridge, with the help of both the bridge and reactor building cranes. Standard pneumatic and hydraulic poweredclamp type tools were used to lift the cut pieces, in combination with bayonet connected extension poles, while
heavy pieces (up to 5 tonnes) were handled by heavy duty mechanical grippers.
Figure B.12. Remotely operated bandsaw for internals segmentation at Jose Cabrera

B.5 Conveyors, lifting systems and mobile platforms
This category includes systems for manipulating material and staging equipment. It includes cranes and winches
that have been configured for mobile operation, conveyor systems for moving material through an automatedprocess and large mobile platform systems designed to deliver and stage other remotely operated systems for
deployment. Examples of platform systems are provided below.
Mobile Tool Platform used at Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl
PAR Systems, LLC developed the TensileTruss™ technology that serves as a long reach, stable platform forremotely operated tools. The TensileTruss is composed of two triangular shaped platforms, upper and lower,
connected by six wire ropes and positioned by six hoists (which is an inverted Stewart Platform). The hoists raise
and lower the platform and due to the geometry and rope tension due to the mass of the lower platform, the lower

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 79

platform can sustain significant horizontal loads and reactive torque generated by dismantling tools (i.e. acts as arigid truss).This stable lower platform provides an ideal delivery system for remote tooling where a telescoping
mast is impractical due to a long reach and high tooling loading is expected, which is the case at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant.
PAR Systems provided their patented TensileTruss technology at Chernobyl as the Trolley deployed Mobile Tool
Platform, along with a complex, 50 Tonne robotic crane. The crane and TensileTruss system comprise the Main
Cranes System for the New Safe Confinement now in place over Unit 4 of Chernobyl in Ukraine and will be usedin the safe dismantling of the Sarcophagus and the destroyed reactor using tools such as a remotely operated highcapacity arm and high capacity shears.. The MTP can handle 1.5 tonnes (1.7 tons) of side load capacity at an
extension of 44 metres (144 feet) without sway, which would be impossible to achieve with a standard hoist. The
designallows for remote work to be completed that is otherwise difficult due to the elevation and radioactive
environment. The total vertical extension of the TensileTruss lower platform is 70 metres (230 feet), enabling it toreach from just below the ceiling all the way to the ground (PaR, 2015).
The TensileTruss technology was also provided by PAR to support the clean-up activities at Unit 3 of the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site in Japan. The Fukushima TensileTruss was successfully used to remove spent fuelfrom Unit 3 following the tsunami and subsequent hydrogen explosion. PAR’s Fukushima system is a rolling
gantry system, which has four lifting devices: two 5T auxiliary hoists, one 1.5T fuel handling mast, and one 1.5T
tensile truss, equipped with dual hydraulic manipulators supplied by Westinghouse.
Figure B.13. Fukushima overall gantry (Owen, 2014)

Work platform used at Chicago Pile 5 Reactor
A Dual Arm Work Platform (DAWP) was used to perform mechanical dismantling of the radioactive reactor andbio-shield structures (EPRI, 2015). The DAWP manipulated standard, commercially available tools (i.e. circularsaws, jackhammers) using two Schilling Titan III six degrees of freedom hydraulic, tele-operated manipulator
arms controlled from a remote location. The two arms were mounted to a steel work platform designed to hold the80 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
associated tooling, utilities and cameras supporting the operation of the manipulator arms. The DAWP wasprovided by a consortium of US national laboratories and industry manufacturers. Individual components andsubassemblies were purchased from or provided by Schilling Robotics Systems, RedZone Robotics, Inc., ORNL
and INEEL. The robotic arms utilised were Titan III manipulator arms made from titanium and stainless steel andwere supplied by Schilling Robotics.
The DAWP provided for control of five electrical and two hydraulic tools, had a remote viewing system, a lighting
system, and a tool control system. The DAWP was designed to minimise the on-board electronics and hydraulicvalves for radiation tolerance, and to facilitate decontamination and so a relatively large diameter tether linked theplatform to the hydraulics source and control system.
The control hardware rack and the hydraulic power unit (HPU) were mounted in the basement away from theradiation and contamination hazards expected in the reactor shell. The DAWP operator control station consistedof a video console, control chair, master controller station and the virtual window stereo viewing system.
Figure B.14. DAWP Used for material handling in a high radiation area

B.6 Wireless data transfer and control systems
Remote operations are greatly enhanced if physical connections (umbilicals, tethers, etc.) are not required for datatransfer and control. Many recently developed systems include capabilities for wireless control and retrofitting
existing remotely operated systems is an area to be developed. Wireless transmission inside the typically robust
concrete structures present in nuclear facilities continues to be a challenge. An example of a system configured for
wireless control is provided below.
Autonomous Radiological Characterisation System
EPRI has assembled and demonstrated an autonomous system for radiological characterisation of large land areas
and open floor areas during decommissioning. The system comprises a commercially available wheeled robot(Adept MobileRobots Seekur Jr. platform), a commercially available sodium iodide detector system with amultichannel analyser, and a custom-designed control and navigation system. The assembled system includes a
LiDAR unit for navigation and obstacle avoidance, and an internally installed on-board computer that performs
all of its necessary computing tasks, such as:(1) localisation and navigation,(2) measurement device communication,

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 81(3) data collection, and(4) data storage.
The on-board computer can be remotely accessed through a Local Area Network (LAN) and Wi-Fi access pointthat is attached to the platform.
The system was successfully demonstrated at the shutdown Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station.
Figure B.15. Prototype of autonomous radiological characterisation vehicle

Multipurpose wireless modular ground robots
RoboDecom is an industrial innovation project co-financed by Link and Allinvent, Norwegian robotics companies,
and the Research Council of Norway, led by the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) and including
Sintef (Norway) as well as Createc, Tecnubel and Magics as associated international partners. RoboDecom isdeveloping a multipurpose wireless modular system to support nuclear decommissioning projects based on the
integration of existing unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) with advanced 3-D radiological scanning systems (byCreatec – see Figure B.20), software modules related to robot mission planning and control and 3-D spatial datavisualisation, as well as other end effectors (e.g. a drilling system). The RoboDecom system takes advantage ofvarious UGV platforms including the world’s first robotic ceiling drilling system by nLink, quadrupeds (in thiscase Spot by Boston Dynamics, now part of Hyundai) and four-wheel systems (in this case Jackal by Clearpath).
In RoboDecom, the modular nLink platform provides functionalities for deploying sensors and tools acrossindustrial installations, including capabilities for positioning payloads high above the floor level, while quadrupeds
and four-wheel units (in this case Spot and Jackal) provide access to areas that are difficult to access by tracked
vehicles and serve as mobile hubs for wireless communication.

82 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
The RoboDecom system aims at combining important capabilities identified as key industry needs related tonuclear robotics in and integrated system. These capabilities are provided by a collaboration of UGV platforms asfollows:
nLink UGV system:•

Smooth movement providing capabilities for positioning scanners in a constant plane
without the need for stabilisers across large industrial floors;•

High reach provided by a scissor lift/telescopic system;•

Capabilities for flexible/dynamic and precise deployment of payloads using robotic arms
and precise positioning systems, including a total station;•

Capabilities for deploying both tools and sensors;•

Wireless connection using a modern communication topology;•

Integration with a Building Information Management (BIM) system providing capabilities
for positioning and managing data within a BIM approach;•Integration with real-time 3-D radiological modelling and visualisation allowing a hazard
and DQO (Data Quality Objectives) informed mission control.

Quadrupeds and four-wheel units:•

Capabilities for deploying sensors and mobile communication hubs across large areas,
including areas that are, typically, hard to access by conventional tracked robots and larger
units with decent payload capacity (like the nLink UGV system).
Figure B.16. The RoboDecom multipurpose wireless modular robot system.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 83

The first RoboDecom prototype will be developed in 2021 and demonstrated next in 2022. In the slightly longer
term, the RoboDecom system will be equipped with machine learning based and other algorithms allowing
autonomous navigation and detection of hazardous conditions.

B.7 Sensing and control platform for harsh environments.
Semiconductors have always been the carrier of technology advancements. However, the abundance of thesetechnologies has led to manually operated robotics, driven by big cables, leading to robotics and manipulators thatare difficult to operate and maintain.
In that context, Magics has developed a motion control chipset (Figure B.17) for closed loop sensing applications.
The system is radiation hardened and can survive accumulated doses of more the 1 Mgy.
Figure B.17. Packaged motion control chips.

The first use cases were in the remote handling system at the world’s largest experimental nuclear fusion reactor
to automate maintenance and inspection operations. Next, in the nuclear decommissioning industry, the technology
delivered significant time and cost efficiencies.
The system consists of a Bus controller that has a deterministic communication protocol embedded. This makes it
possible to receive exact timing information from all the sensors in the network. The Bus controller chip canconnect with 3 Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) slave Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC). These slave
ASICs can connect Resolvers, linear variable differential transformers (LVDT), strain gauges, force sensors,pressure sensors, etc. On top of that they can read out limit switches or drives relays for motion control. Powersupplies are included in the system as well, to foresee local distributed DC power distribution. A master module
can receive and send digital data from a 215-metre distance from a control cubicle.
Figure B.18. Overview of ASIC functions and motion system.

84 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
The ASIC can be used stand-alone or integrated in master-slave modules that can be plugged into an electricalcabinet as shown in Figure B.19.
Figure B.19. Overview of ASIC functions and motion system.

The master controller can communicate with a higher level control system used by an integrated system. An
synchronous serial interface (SSI) is foreseen to communicate with existing motor drivers. In the radiation
environment, sensors or relay drivers can be connected.
The electronic platform and unique semiconductors technology bring new levels of automation to the nuclear
industry. The modules offer an easy way towards standardisation of robotic fleets and manipulators and removes
the need for customisation. The control system enables robust and reliable controls of robotics. The local digital
control allows for easy multiplication of sensor interfaces, which makes it possible to increase safety integrity
levels (SIL) of remotely handled systems.

B.8 Miscellaneous specialty systems
This general and broad category includes technologies that do not fit neatly into the categories discussed above.
Examples of such systems are provided below.
N-Visage gamma camera used at Fukushima Daiichi for radiological characterisation
Createc designed a gamma camera system (N-Visage) that could be mounted onto remote-controlled drones andcaterpillar-tracked robots for the visualisation of radiation inside the Fukushima Daiichi reactor buildings(REACT, 2017). The system is able to create a real-time, three-dimensional image of the area being surveyed andidentify hot spots of radioactivity. Figure B.20 shows one of the hot spots inside a reactor building.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 85

Figure B.20. Image of a hot spot mapped inside a Fukushima reactor (REACT, 2017)

The N-Visage™ software system takes laser scanning and gamma camera radiation data and constructs a 3-D mapof where the radioactive sources are potentially located within a building (REACT, 2017).
The N-Visage™ gamma camera has also been used with a laser scanner modelling system at the United Kingdom
Sellafield Separation Plant (REACT, 2017) to characterise a cell and its contents. REACT Engineering Ltd andMultipass 3-D Laser Scans Ltd carried out the laser scanning using a FARO LS 880 laser scanner that precisely
mapped the contents of the cell. The data obtained was used to create 3-D model images of the shear cell integrated
with the data from the gamma scanner. This is an example of work that can be used to remotely survey andconstruct 3-D files for use in decommissioning planning and geostatistical evaluations of the data.

Autonomous exploration and mapping in nuclear power plants
For the (semi-) autonomous decontamination of building structures in nuclear power plants, the detection of
unknown environments, as well as radiation measurement, is important. For this purpose, a multisensory, agile
robot system, that drives autonomously through the plant areas or buildings, was developed and expanded by theInstitute of Technology and Management in Construction at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT-TMB). In thisplatform, the FARO Focus S150 integrated into software is used for laser scanning, which can receive and process
the scan data to a point cloud data automatically. Furthermore, 2-D maps, which are created from the point cloud,are used for localisation in autonomous exploration. For autonomous radiation measurement, a scintillator probe
for local dose rate measurement is used. The purpose is to investigate whether the distribution of the local dose
rate is homogeneous so that hot spots can be found.
The platform can also be remotely controlled and tele-operated by using the developed interface from a co-operated
institute at KIT.

86 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.21. Mobile robot platform for the environment exploration and radiation measurement

Mobile robot platform for automation of decontamination and subsequent (clearance) measurement
At the Institute for Technology and Management in Construction (“KIT-TMB”), the focus is on the developmentof automated solutions for the decontamination and for the clearance measurement of near-surface contaminations
for nuclear power plants. Research is being conducted at TMB on the development of practical robot platforms
that optimally support the user in the decommissioning process.
KIT-TMB uses a mobile elevating working platform with two tools as a robot platform. With the first tool, an
automated milling tool, wall areas within a plant area or building where the thresholds for surface contamination
have been exceeded can be specifically decontaminated. The second tool, an automated contamination array,measures the surface activity on the wall areas and verifies compliance with the thresholds. To do this, the tool on
the boom is changed and the second tool can be mounted. For the automation of the work and a practicableexchange of the tools, an interface on the cantilever was developed. In addition to these two tools, other tools fordecontamination are conceivable.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 87

Figure B.22. Robot platform with milling tool and contamination array

Spent fuel check vehicle
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute’s (KAERI’s) newly developed spent fuel check vehicle (SCV) was
included in the “Small Unmanned Surface Vehicle” section of the “IAEA Robotics Challenge 2017,” held inAustralia.
KAERI’s SCV can travel at 30 centimetres per second, faster than other similar machines, and can automaticallyanalyse spent fuel. Its user-friendly user-interface (UI) makes it easy to manoeuvre by remote control. Its compact
size, weighing less than 11 kilograms, allows it to be carried on a plane. The SCV can be assembled in under fiveminutes, while minimised areas of outside exposure allow fast clean-up.
The SCV’s final evaluation will take place inside an actual nuclear power plant. Once it passes the technologicaltest, the SCV will be prepared for mass production and export, with numbers in accordance with the IAEA’s
request. It is the first time that the IAEA has been involved in developing a robot to check the environmental
impact of nuclear energy.
So far, the IAEA has been sending experts to inspect spent nuclear fuel in underwater storage and radioactive
waste in containers on land. But the organisation has been aware that areas that can be difficult to access, or withelevated radiation levels, would be best inspected by robots. A handheld optical instrument called an Improved
Cerenkov Viewing Device (ICVD) is used to confirm the presence of spent fuel stored underwater.

88 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.23. KAERI spent fuel check vehicle

Available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFL-Ug8nFY

LAROB: Laser-guided underwater mobile robot for reactor vessel inspection
LAROB (depicted in Figure B.24) is a submarine-type mobile robot whose weight is approximately 40 kg but
drops to zero in water with the aid of floats. Most of the reactor pressure vessel in a pressurised water reactor(PWR) is composed of carbon steel and is clothed inside with austenitic stainless steel. To climb the vertical wallof the vessel, LAROB has four magnetic wheels. The ring-shaped magnet has N and S poles on each side of themagnet. Pure steel circular plates are attached on each side of the magnet to maximise the attraction force to thevertical wall. Smooth rubber is clothed around the magnet to prevent slippage on the vertical wall. Among four
magnetic wheels, two are caster wheels and the other two are driven by dc servo motors so that the robot can movein any direction on the vertical inner wall of the reactor vessel. The robot can control the linear velocity and angularvelocity by the sum and difference of the velocities of the left and right driving wheels.
Both the front and rear caster wheels are mounted on the parallelogram links with the robot body plate. It keeps
the robot body parallel to the wall, even though the wall is cylindrical. The caster wheel frame can move only up
and down, keeping the posture parallel to the robot body frame.
The robot also has a light and long manipulator, and the ultrasonic probes are attached to its end effector. The
manipulator has five degrees of freedom, which are slide, tilt, rotation, four consecutive translations and proberotation. Slide is the relative motion of the frame {M1} in the x-axis direction {ROB}, whereas tilt is the small
amount of rotational motion of the frame {M2} about the z-axis {M2}. Rotation is the rotational motion of theframe {M3} about the z-axis {M3}. The manipulator can reach up to 100 cm using four consecutive translation
links, which are driven by a wire train. It is not easy to design a long-reach manipulator kinematically, as it mustbe light and non-bulky in order to be mounted on a small mobile robot. The probe assembly can be rotated about
the z-axis of frame M5 and can move up against the spring tension, and the ultrasonic sensor can be tilted to closelyNEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 89

contact the reactor vessel wall surface. The camera and lamp are mounted on the robot, and a visual image fromthe camera is transmitted to the main control station.
The robot is induced by the laser pointer, which is fixed in the middle of the crossbeam across the reactor upper
flange. The laser pointer emits a laser beam to the next position for the robot to move. The robot, with the position
sensitive detector on its back, detects the deviation of the laser beam spot from the centre of the position sensitive
detector, and moves in the appropriate direction to make this deviation zero. The laser pointing device is a kind of
pan-tilt device upon which the diode laser is mounted.
Figure B.24. KAERI LAROB Underwater inspection system

Robot for non-destructive inspection of angular welded joints of reactor pipes
The scanning system provides the possibility of television and ultrasonic testing of angular welded joints of themain circulation pipeline nozzles. It supports:-

Inspection of angle welded joints using technical vision technologies and ultrasonic flaw detection.

-

Control of angular welded joints of nozzles with outer diameter of 70 mm, 121 mm, 192 mm, 200 mm,
252 mm, 280 mm, 400 mm, 462 mm, the possibility of further addapting the system for other diameters.

90 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.25. Robot for non-destructive inspection of angular welded joints

Robot for non-destructive inspection the cover of the PWR reactor unit
The manipulation system (MS) “Control-VB” is designed for pre-operational and operational control of the metalof the nozzles of the control and protection system (SUZ) and intrareactor control (VRK) of the upper unit of the
VVER-1200 reactor unit.
When developing design and software solutions for the manipulation system, special attention was paid to thefulfilment of such customer requirements as ensuring high accuracy of the MS (maximum positioning error of theequipment – no more than 2 mm) and the ability of the system to function for a long time in extreme conditions of
the nuclear power plant (not less than 2 000 hours). In addition, the system should be as safe as possible for thework of the station’s maintenance personnel and ensure that control operations are carried out in the shortest
possible time. MS includes a manipulator, lower frame, upper frame, control unit, computer, replaceable modulesof non-destructive testing and a contact fluid supply device. The manipulator has five rotational degrees of
freedom, and a replaceable module of non-destructive testing is attached to the output link of the manipulator.
The main types of control operations using the manipulation system “Control-WB”:•

ultrasonic testing (ULTRASIC) of welded joints and base metal of the nozzles of the SUZ
and VRK from the outside of the nozzles, the cover of the upper block around the nozzles
according to the thickness of the lid, as well as surfacing on the lower ends of the nozzles of
the SUZ and VRK and the sealing surfaces of the nozzles of the SUZ and VRK for
detachment from the base metal of the nozzles;•

eddy current control (VTK) of the shirts of the nozzles of the SUZ and VRK along the entire
length and the internal surfacing of the upper block cover, including the lid flange;•

television control (TVK) of welded joints and internal surfaces of pipes and shirts of nozzles
of SUZ and VRK with internal surfacing of the cover of the upper block, flange of the WB
cover;The MS uses a modular scheme for installing scanning devices. For television control of the flange surface of theupper unit cover, a flange television control module is used, which is a separate mobile module and, unlike othermodules that are installed on the manipulator, is placed directly on the controlled flange surface of the upper block
cover on a magnetic suspension.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 91

Figure B.26. Robot for non-destructive inspection the cover of the PWR reactor unit

Emergency response robot to work in areas with high radiation levels, localise gamma radiation sources in hazard
areas.
Robotic complex RTK-08 is designed to eliminate the consequences of emergency situations of a technical nature
and work in areas with high levels of radiation, localisation of gamma radiation sources in hard-to-reach areas, inindustrial and residential premises, transport facilities, etc. It can:•perform liquidation of the consequences of emergency situations of a technogenic character;•work in areas with high levels of radiation;•

localise gamma radiation sources in hard-to-reach areas, in industrial and residential
premises, transport facilities, etc.
Figure B.27. Emergency response robot

92 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Electrical master-slave remotely handled waste reconditioning
In order to prevent radiation dose accumulation by workers, an electrical master-slave (EMS) system wasdeveloped by ENGIE for the remote handling and conditioning of radioactive waste. This modular and mobile
EMS has now been used in Belgium and Germany for several years.
In this solution, remotely controlled double EMS arms are installed in a modular double tent confinement, in which
also a compactor (100 tonne) can be installed. The tent is kept in slight negative pressure and is equipped with its
own air filtration.
The EMS unit is mounted on a mobile bridge, with the ability to move it in all directions, rotate it and adjust its
height (see Figure B.28).
A working platform will be provided, under which the containers with radioactive waste can be placed for
emptying remotely. Positions are also provided for empty drums to drop the sorted and characterised and possiblycompacted waste.
Figure B.28. EMS, wrapped in yellow foil, on mobile bridge above the working platform in a double tent
confinement, equipped with a 100 tonne press (photo ENGIE Tihange Nuclear Power Plant )The entire system is compact and modular, and can be transported via 20’ ISO containers (see Figures B.29 andB.30).

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 93

The controls through master arms are set up in a 20’ ISO container outside the controlled area. Power and control
units are also set up outside that zone. Figure B.31 provides the principal lay-out.
The equipment is a combination of robust and reliable off-the-shelf equipment, which is easy to assemble anddisassemble, and low maintenance.
Figure B.29. Master arms installed in 20’ ISO container (see next figure)94 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.30. 20’ ISO container, or control unit equipped with master arms and power supply

The EMS are always properly packed in the controlled area to protect them from contamination. Some of the tools
which come into contact with the contaminations, for example the grippers, are sometimes difficult todecontaminate and remain with the customer or are considered secondary waste.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 95

Figure B.31. EMS principal lay-out
380VA

Connection by
10m cables

Central
Unit

CentralUnit

operators

Master arms

Non controlled area

Controlled area

Connection by 30-60m
or 120m cables

CameraSlave arms

RX TAO telerobot (CEA-Orano)
The RX TAO is a family of force feedback telerobots whose particularity is that the slave arm is an industrial robot
from the Stäubli™-RX range equipped with a 6-axis force sensor. The generic TAO software thus authorises theforce feedback slave master mode by coupling to a master arm of the Haption™ range (MAT6D / Virtuose 6D)
and make it possible to benefit from sophisticated assistances such as virtual mechanisms or guides and an
automatic robot mode. Its development was achieved by CEA in close collaboration with the operator Orano La
Hague. The arm’s robustness has enabled it to be used since 2005 for a series of maintenance campaigns on the
dissolver wheel at the Orano La Hague fuel reprocessing plant.
The specifications issued by AREVA Nuclear Cycle (now Orano) were for an industrial slave arm resistant toradiation (at least up to 104 Gy), decontaminable and able to be either remotely controlled with force feedback or

96 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
used in robot mode (programmed). The Stäubli RX family of robots, known for high reliability, was selected andadapted to the specifications of the nuclear environment (connectors, decontamination). The CEA has therefore
carried out important R&D work to make the arm tolerant to radiation and to allow master-slave remote handlingwith force feedback. Radiation tolerant absolute position resolver type joint sensors have been selected andimplemented.
A radiation tolerant version of the original ATI Industrial Automation 6-axis end effector force transducer and ahigh-speed radiation tolerant signal multiplexer were specifically developed by CEA to significantly reduce thesize of the RX arm umbilical compared to its industrial version (ROC). This allows the arm to pass through thecell walls of the reprocessing plant (Ø 36 mm) and facilitates the safe movement of the arm on the carrier systems.
The CEA has also developed a computer-aided tele-operation control system based on its generic TAO2000
software running in Cartesian co-ordinates and offering advanced functions, such as master/slave mode with force
feedback and robotic trajectory planning.
Today, Orano possesses a wide range of industrial robots that can be used remotely (Figure B.32) and can bequickly adapted to different types of intervention. The necessary work is carried out by Temis, an Orano subsidiary.
Figure B.32. Stäubli™ RX90, 130 and 170 range of radiation tolerant industrial robots implemented by
AREVA NC (Orano La Hague)

Since 2005, at least one or two maintenance campaigns per year have been achieved with the RX170-TAO on the
two UP3 and UP2-800 installations at La Hague. They concern either the maintenance of the dissolution wheelrollers carried out in the tele-operation mode with force feedback, or a cleaning operation of the inter-tank spaceof the dissolution wheel carried out in automatic robot mode (Figures B.33 and B.34).
The technical interest of the force feedback master-slave mode for maintenance operations on the dissolver wheel,an essential element of the La Hague reprocessing plant, is to guarantee:•

safe handling of the 60 kg roller;•

positioning without shock and therefore without risk of damaging the dissolver wheel during
the installation of the of the new roller;•a time saving on the maintenance operation (1 week saving on a total duration of 3 weeks);•internal control of the technology (Orano Temis, with the support of the CEA) which allows
a better reactivity in case of failure.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 97

The economic benefit to the Orano La Hague reprocessing plant will be further examined in the next phase of the
EGRRS work. For example:•

gain of XXX hours of plant availability;•

a reduction in the estimated maintenance cost of YYY%;•

a reduction in exposure of ZZZ%.

Figure B.33. Force feedback tele-operated maintenance of the rollers of the dissolving wheel

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure B.34. Force feedback tele-operated cleaning operation of the inter-bucket space of the dissolvingwheel

98 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
In order to keep up with the evolution of the Stäubli robot range (RX160 now replaced by the TX2-160), Orano
Temis has continued developments to adapt the remotely operated robot solution with force feedback. Thus, theircurrent product named TEΩ600 is based on the RX160 TAO:•

radiation resistance (integrated dose): 1 Mgy;•load: 600N;•

rest of the system is identical to RX160 TAO (HaptionTM master arm, TAO2000 solution);•fine force feedback with force sensor;•

force feedback by measuring the motor currents. This less expensive solution offers aslightly coarser force feedback, but allows in return to have it on all the axes, which makes
it possible to manage contacts occurring at any point of the arm and not only at the end
effector.

This TEΩ600 system will be used for dismantling operations with laser cutting and disc cutting processes at theUP2-400 plant being dismantled at La Hague (Figure B.35). The first 2 sites are scheduled for 2022 and others are
already planned.
Figure B.35. The TEΩ600 system cutting of 2 dissolvers in the UP2-400/HADE Workshop; cutting
equipment in a contaminated area with the TEΩ600 robot mounted on a mobile platform

DEROSA (semi-automatic robotic cutting)Orano has also developed a specific system for dismantling operations in a moderately irradiating environment.
This non-hardened system also uses the Stäubli RX160 manipulator robot and is designed to perform trajectories
in unknown or evolving environments.
The DEROSA system includes:•

A standard RX160 robot and its rack. The robot is unchanged so its cost, maintenance andmean time between failures (MTBF) are known and controlled.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 99•

A set of cameras and a 3-D scanning system embedded on the robot.

The developed function allows the operator to scan his environment, to realise in real-time a 3-D graphic
reconstruction (cloud of points) of the chosen working area. He can also draw directly on this graph the trajectoryof the robot, the system ensuring the management of the anti-collision with the environment thanks to the cameras.
Figure B.36. Scan of the working area (monitoring on the mobile monitoring and intervention [MMI] of
the real position of the robot in the scene)

Figure B.37. (L) Definition of the trajectory in the point cloud; I Trajectory control and anti-collision100 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.38. Cutting operation

The system was tested under real but inactive conditions on a mock-up of a shuttle barrel from the Orano La Hague
plant and on a mock-up of a CEA-type shielded enclosure. It was equipped with a circular saw, a grinder and alaser (simulated). Other tool couplings are planned.
Figure B.39. Shielded enclosure cutting test: 3 mm stainless steel with complex geometry

Figure B.40. Cutting of shuttle drums and endurance test of the robot - tool - consumable combination.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 101

The advantage of the automatic mode for cutting operations is a better management of the trajectory, speed andeffort than in the tele-operated manual mode. This reduces wear and tear on the consumables and avoids the needto stop work on the site.
MT200 TAO thru-wall telerobot (CEA-Orano)
The MT 200 TAO (Figure B.41) is a “thru-wall” force feedback telerobot whose special feature is that its telescopic
slave arm and wall feedthrough are borrowed from the conventional MT200 mechanical telemanipulator (MSM)
produced by Getinge - La Calhène. A MT200 is composed of three separate modules (slave arm, wall tube, masterarm) and the actuator unit of the MT200 TAO takes the place of the master arm. A remote controller allows it tocouple the slave actuator block to a force feedback master arm placed in the cold zone and chosen from theHaption™ range (MAT6D / Virtuose 6D).
Figure B.41. Architecture of the MT200 TAO telerobot

The control software provides precise balancing of the telerobot as well as the force feedback master-slave andthus exactly replaces the function of the MSM that it replaces. In addition, it offers the whole range of advanced
assistance functions permitted by the generic TAO2000 software such as virtual mechanisms, virtual guides andthe automatic robot mode. The development work for this system was carried out by the CEA on a specificationfrom AREVA Hague (now Orano) as part of a multi-year collaborative programme.
The MT200 TAO was fully qualified from 2010 to 2011 by 10 months of tests in the vitrification cells of the Orano
La Hague plant. Subsequently, its industrialisation has been achieved by Getinge La Calhène and 10 units weredelivered to the plant and integrated into the production process of the plant.

102 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure B.42. A typical workstation at the Orano La Hague reprocessing plant (left); the MT200 TAO
telerobot in a ceiling work configuration in an Orano test cell (centre); a mixed workstation in acontrolled area showing the MT200 TAO telerobot operated by the master arm MAT6D (HaptionTM)
and a standard mechanical telemanipulator MT200 (right).

The MT200-TAO telerobot is now installed at the most heavily used workstations of the La Hague plant. The
combination of the TAO control software and the actuator technology allows accurate and robust control of thesystem balance, the forces applied to the load and the mechanical transmissions, the position of the arm and theadmissible speed limits defined by the operator. As a result, on the same highly solicited workstation (chiselling
operation), the MTBF of the MT200-TAO remote robot is 500h against 50h for the slave arm of the MT200
mechanical remote manipulator. The reduction in the frequency of replacement, the concomitant reduction in
operating stoppages and the reduction in the duration of operations results in a saving of several hundred euros.
In addition to the replacement of MT200 mechanical telemanipulators for the regular operation of the plant’s
processes, some MT200-TAO telerobots are also deployed on dismantling sites of shutdown installations. The
photos below show the use of MT200-TAO telerobots on three workstations in the ELAN2B Workshop being
dismantled at La Hague, in particular for cutting tasks. In each situation it is completed by a second mechanicaltelemanipulator MT200.
Figure B.43. Top, ELAN 2B dismantling workshop achieved using a combination of 3 telerobots pairedwith 3 mechanical telemanipulator MT200. Bottom, the results obtained in cutting tasks.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 103

For other dismantling applications, the MT200 TAO telerobot is also offered in synergistic combination with an
RX TAO.

References
Cato, D., F. Harris, K. Monti and K. Derwin (2003), “Robots Reduce Dose, Improve Efficiencies inStandard and Emergency Operations”, ANS Transactions, Vol. 108, No. 1, June 2013, pp. 949-951,
www.ans.org/pubs/transactions/article-16796/.
Daly, P. (2013), “The decommissioning of Zion: A status update,” RadWaste Solutions,November-December 2013, www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/article-904/.
EPRI (2016), Proceedings of the 14th EPRI International Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning
Workshop, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 3002007087, Palo Alto, CA,
United States, www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002007087.
EPRI (2015), Summary of Department of Energy Decommissioning Technology Demonstrations,Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 3002005411, Palo Alto, CA, United States,www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002005411.
FDADA (2014), “Contamination status survey and decontamination of Reactor Building Units 1 to 3,
Fukushima”, Fukushima Daiichi Accident Analysis and Decommissioning Activities Information
Portal, https://fdada.info/en/home2/.
IRID (2017), “New Toshiba and IRID Robot Will Inspect Interior of Primary Containment Vessel at
Fukushima Daiichi 3,” International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID) News
Release 15 June 2017, https://irid.or.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171222_e.pdf.
JFN (2014), “The use of submersible ROV in the FGMSP”, James Fisher Nuclear Case Study CS002,
www.jfnl.co.uk/files/7714/8405/8180/CS002_The_use_of_submersible_ROVs_in_the_FGMSP.pdf.
NEA (2011), Remote Handling Techniques in Decommissioning, A report of the NEA Co-operative
Programme on Decommissioning (CPD) project No. NEA/RWM/R(2011)2, OECD Publishing
Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19074.
Owen, R. (2014), “Robotics and Remote Handling for Complex Decommissioning Projects”, paper
presented at the Nuclear Decommissioning and Used Fuel Strategy Summit, 2 Oct. 2014, Charlotte,NC, United States.
PaR (2015), “PaR Systems Ships Largest Remote Robotic Nuclear Crane to Chernobyl,” PaR Systems
Company News Release, 16 June 2015, www.par.com/company/news/2015/par-systems-shipslargest-remote-robotic-nuclear-crane-chernobyl/.

104 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Peterson, C. and K. Monti (2014), “Robots for Remote Handling of High-Activity Waste Filters” inProceedings of ANS Embedded Topical Meeting on Decommissioning and Remote Systems (D&RS
2014), American Nuclear Society, Reno, NV, United States, 15-19 June 2014, ISBN: 978-0-89448710-1, www.ans.org/store/item-700387/.
REACT (2017), “CASE STUDY: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant”, REACT Engineering,www.react-engineering.co.uk/case-studies/view.php?id=10.
WNN (2017), “Robot surveys Fukushima Daiichi containment vessel,” World Nuclear News Article
1702175, February 2017, www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Robot-surveys-Fukushima-Daiichicontainment-vessel-1702175.html.
WNN (2015), “Small-scale robot for unit 2 containment inspections,” World Nuclear News Article
3006154, June 2015, https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Small-scale-robot-for-unit-2containment-inspectio.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 105

B.9 Summary of robotics and automated systems in use in back-end applications
Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications

A.N. Technologies
Inc.

Nuclear operations; survey and measurement of hot
cell at DOE site.

AREVA

Laser cutting of piping by robot in France; Lower
Girth Weld Inspection Tool (LGWIT) used at 2 US
utilities.

ASI Marine

Underwater ROV technology for visual inspection of
structures at Canadian and US facilities.

Blue Bear Systems
Research

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology forradiation detection and mapping in GPS-denied
environments.
Bluebear's RISER drone was previously deployed at
Fukushima Daiichi.
TRL 9

Boston Dynamics(now part ofHyundai)

BD (now Hyundai) manufactures biomimetic robots.
Their first commercial product (Spot) is a fourlegged mobile robot capable of navigating throughstairs, walkways and other obstacles. Suitable for sitecharacterisation, site surveillance and sample-return
operations. Spot successfully performed radiologicalsurveys at the Chernobyl site and is currently in use
at 2 Canadian nuclear power plants.

References

Blue Bear Systems Research Ltd (BBS–) Products, “RISER”, [Online], available:
https://bbsr.co.uk/products/riser.
Drone DJ, “UK RISER drone to map out radiation at
Fukushima nuclear power plant”, 2018, [Online],available: https://dronedj.com/2018/02/27/uk-riserdrone-to-map-out-radiation-at-fukushima/.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), “New robot dog
Spot turning heads at OPG”, [Online], available:
www.opg.com/stories/new-robot-dog-spot-turningheads-at-opg/.

TRL 9
Bouygues
Construction
Solutions
Nucléaires

Remote and robotic equipment used for nuclear
dismantling and characterisation operations (Gobie,
Murene, …)

BROKKRemote-operated equipment for dismantlement andsegmentation operations and waste handling.
Applied at US DOE sites, US commercial nuclear
plants and UK decommissioning reactors.

California
Mechatronics
CenterWheeled robots for inspection of leaks in steamaffected areas and high levels of N-16.

Carnegie Mellon
University (CMU)

CMU's bioinspired snake-like robot (Unified Snake)is designed for navigation in uneven ground, slopes,
channels, pipes and poles. Conducted visualinspections at Austria's Zwentendorf nuclear site.

Wright, C. et al, “Design and Architecture of the
Unified Modular Snake Robot”, 2012 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics andAutomation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States,
May 2012.

106 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications
TRL 8

CEA / HaptionTM

RX TAO, tele-operated maintenance robot at Orano
La Hague.

Chiba Institute ofTechnology

Tracked robots at Fukushima.

CRDI RTC

The Central Research Center of Robotics andTechnical Cybernetics of the Russian Federation is acentre of competence in the field of research andcreation of robotics, technical cybernetics andmechatronics. They have developed robots for nondestructive inspection of angular welded joints ofreactor pipes as well as the cover of the PWR reactor
unit (TRL?). In the field of emergency response of
man-made emergencies UGV to perform work inareas with high radiation levels, localise gamma
radiation sources in hazard areas was developed(TRL?).

Createc

Remote camera system for radiation imaging at UK
sites and Fukushima.

Curtis Dyna-Fog
LimitedApplication of wetting and contamination control
agents used in US facilities.

Cybernetix

Inspection/maintenance in French and Japanesefacilities.

D&S Fildem

Remote equipment used for nuclear characterisation
operations (MIROS).

ECA Robotics

Robotic solutions for a large range of purposes,
include nuclear dismantling operations.

Energid
Technologies
Corporation

Robot used for heat exchanger inspections in nuclear
power plants.

References

New Atlas, “CMU’s Snake Robot Explores DefunctNuclear Power Plant”, 2013, [Online], available:
https://newatlas.com/cmu-snake-robot-exploresnuclear-power-plant/28235/.
Garrec, P. (2011), “Dedicated and industrial roboticarms used as force feedback telerobots at the
AREVA-La Hague recycling plant”, in Proceedingsof ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics and Remote Systems
for Hazardous Environments • 11th Emergency
Preparedness and Response, 7-10 Aug. 2011,
Knoxville, TN, United States.

Webpage with updated materials:
https://rtc.ru/

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 107

Manufacturer orLead Organisation
ENGIE Solutions –Specialised Nuclear
Services
Flyability

Applications

References

Electrical master-slave (EMS) remote handling and(re)conditioning of nuclear waste.

Campaigns at ENGIE Electrabel Tihange Nuclear
Power Plant (Belgium) and PreussenElektra Nuclear
Power Plants (Germany).
Lectured at ICOND 2016.

Flyability's Elios collision-tolerant drone has been
deployed at various nuclear power plants toinvestigate suspected leakages and conduct visualinspections in confined spaces. At Exelon
PowerLabs, it was exposed to a cumulative dose ofover 180 rem. In late-2020, a visual inspection ofChernobyl Reactor 5 was conducted successfully.
TRL 9

FLYABILITY, “How Drones Can Help Nuclear
Power Plants Reach ALARA Goals”, [Online];available:
www.flyability.com/articles-andmedia/drones-nuclear-power-alara.
FLYABILITY, “Elios 2 Tested at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant”, [Online]; available:
www.flyability.com/news/chernobyl-mission.
WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS (2021), New drone formapping radiation in nuclear plants, www.worldnuclear-news.org/Articles/New-drone-for-mappingradiation-in-nuclear-plants.

Fortum / Jyväskylä
University ofApplied Sciences(JAMK).

An inspection and cleaning robot for steam
generators at the Loviisa nuclear power plant.

Framatome

Virtual Remote Robotics for Radiometric Sorting(VIRERO) remote waste handling.

FriGeoCollection of samples by freezing at UK site.

G.E. Hitachi

Robot for movement of rubble at Fukushima;inspection of underground piping at US nuclear
plants.

H3D

Gamma imaging, identification of sources ofradiation, discrete low-level contamination.

Idaho National
Laboratory (INL)

Remote and automated systems for scanning andcharacterisation of soil contamination at US DOE
sites.

IHI Southwest
Technologies/ IHI
Corporation

Underwater robot used for inspection of tanks at
nuclear power plants.

Institute for Safety
Problems of
Nuclear Power
PlantsRobots for sampling and monitoring at Chernobyl.

108 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications

International
Climbing Machines

Use of crawler robot to remotely inspect tank walls
at US DOE Hanford site.

iRobot

Maintenance, material handling and radiation
monitoring by robots at Duke Energy plants; material
handling and inspections at Fukushima; Wolf Creek
bioshield inspections.

James Fisher
Nuclear Ltd

Moduman 100 is a dexterous, radiation hardened, 23 metre reach arm with high payload capacity (100kg) designed to support sorting and heavy lifting
operations during decommissioning. Previously
tested at facility in West Cumbria.

References

James Fischer and Sons plc – Nuclear, “ModuMan
100 Manipulator Brochure”, [Online], available:
www.jfnl.co.uk/files/8414/3412/0187/James_Fisher_Moduman_100.pdf

TRL 8-9
KHG

Remote and robotic equipment used in German
research and power reactors.

Kinetrics

Robots for radiation measurements and removal ofhigh activity debris at a Canadian nuclear plant.

Karlsruhe Instituteof Technology(KIT) - Institute ofTechnology andManagement in
Construction(TMB)

Robot systems for the (semi-)autonomous
exploration, decontamination and clearance
measurement of contaminated wall.

Korea Atomic
Energy ResearchInstitute (KAERI)

KAERI developed spent fuel check vehicle (SCV),
which can travel at 30/sec and can automaticallyanalyse spent fuel. Its compact size, weighing andweight less than 11 kg, allows it to be carried on aplane. The SCV had been selected in the "IAEA
Robotics Challenge 2017," held in Australia.

[Online].
Available:
Ug8nFY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFL-

TRL 5
Korea Atomic
Energy ResearchInstitute (KAERI)

Underwater mobile robot was developed for theinspection of reactor vessel weld, which is guided by alaser pointing device. The robotic system is so small
and compact that the inspection time is reduced andits handling is convenient.
TRL 5Kim, J.-H., J.-C. Lee and Y.-R. Choi (2014),“LAROB: Laser-Guided Underwater Mobile Robot
for Reactor Vessel Inspection”, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 19, No. 4, Aug.
2014,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2013.2276889.
[Online].
Available:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9yXjXZBN4

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 109

Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications

References

Kraft Telerobotics

Remote controlled robots used fordismantling operations (Kraft Predator).

KurionMechanical systems for monitoring, lifting andcutting operations at US DOE sites and Fukushima.

LaCalhene

Fully electrically powered remote handling systems
with software control for dismantling anddecommissioning.

Magics Instruments

Sensing and control platform maintenance andinspection Tools. Digital sensing and control ofrobotics, remote handling equipment andmanipulators. Reduction of analogue cables andease-up cable management. Post-accident sensing
networks. Lifetime extension programmes.

Magnox

Decontamination and volume reduction of highly
contaminatedskips;
automatedshaverdecontamination installation and use.

MDA Corporation

MDA developed the Light Duty Utility Arm(LDUA) for the US DOE, to inspect the undergroundstorage tanks at Hanford, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (INEL), and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL).

nuclearCarteret, B.A., "Light Duty Utility Arm System
Applications for Tank Waste Remediation",
Westinghouse Hanford Company, October 1994

TRL 9
Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI)

MHI's decontamination robot "MEISTer" wasdesigned
toperform
vacuuming/blasting
decontamination, concrete core sampling andcollection of rubble in the reactor buildings at
Fukushima.
TRL 9.

New Millenium
NuclearTechnologies
International Inc.

System with automated components for thecollection of concrete samples at US DOE.

Nova Machine
Products

Automated HydraNut tensioning and detensioning
system used at US nuclear plant reactor vessels.

NuVision
Engineering

Hydraulic robotic arms and equipment, and wastematerial handling and decontamination at US DOE
sites.

OC Robotics

Snake arm robotic equipment for segmentation
operations at Swedish and Canadian nuclear plants.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), “MEISTER
Remote Control Robot Completes Demonstration
Testing at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station– Performs Decontamination Work and Concrete
Sampling”,
2014,[Online],available:
www.mhi.com/news/story/1402201775.html.

110 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications

References

Ocean Modules

Ocean Modules develops underwater ROVs certified
for use in nuclear environments such as the V8
M500N.

Ocean Modules – References [Online], available:
http://ocean-modules.com/references.html.

TRL 9
Orano

AZURo automated underwater cutting system forlarge components.
TRL 9

Ortec

Automated measurement and assay systems forradioactive material and waste.

Pacific Northwest
National
Laboratory

Automated chemical analysis of tank contents at
DOE.

www.orano.group/docs/default-source/defaultdocument-library/conférence-virtuelle--espagne/2020-09-orano-wastemanagement.pdf?sfvrsn=e2c20bfb_8

and EIC
Laboratories Inc.
PaR Systems

Robotic equipment for radioactive material andwaste handling at US DOE sites; main crane andmobile tool system for remote operations and cleanup at Chernobyl.

QinetiQ

Robots for material handling and inspections at
Fukushima.

Rolls-Royce

Cleaning and inspection of small diameter piping.

Savannah River
Remediation, LLC

Various robots for tank cleaning at US DOE site
(Savannah River Site).

Shark Robotics

Unmanned ground vehicles that can be used innuclear back-end activities.

SiléaneVision assisted robotic system used to sort, calibrate,
handle, … (EDF is interested for waste
management).

UK Atomic Energy
Authority, Ltd

Nuclear operations; development of remote handlingequipment for ITER fusion reactor in France.

VeoliaVeolia Nuclear Solutions has developed the
Fukushima Inspection Manipulator and Fukushima
Repair Manipulator (FIM and FRM) systems tolocate and seal leakages and allow future removal ofthe damaged fuel and other debris from the unit 2
reactor.
TRL 8-9

Veolia Nuclear Solutions, "Go Where No Human
Can With Innovative Robotic Solutions" [Online],available: www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/ourexpertise/case-studies/fukushima-daiichi-japan/gowhere-no-human-can-innovative-robotic

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 111

Manufacturer orLead Organisation

Applications

VideoRay

Mini-submarine ROV for monitoring and retrieval ofsamples from spent fuel pool at UK nuclear site.

Zetec, Inc.

Robot crawler for inspection of steam generator
tubes.

References

112 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

Annex C: Detailed survey results on RRS barriers and impediments

Introduction:
What follows is a brief summary of the responses gathered for the industry survey on the use of robotics
and automation in nuclear decommissioning with a total of 43 replies. It was disseminated among the
EGRRS participants, their networks, members of the NEA Co-operative Programme for the Exchange of
Scientific and Technical Information on Nuclear Installation Decommissioning Projects (CPD), as well as
participants of the DigiDecom2021 (https://www.oecd-nea.org/EGRRS21). Given the relative small responses
base and broad variety of responses, it was considered difficult to support definitive conclusions. No quantitative
analysis on the data has therefore been performed. Nevertheless, some points of interest have been identified
that might be useful when bringing to bear statistical tools onto the data if and when this is deemed suitable.
The responses have also been viewed through the lens of the last couple of years of ethnographic fieldwork
undertaken in the UK industry.
The initial approach was to examine the survey question by question and give some thought to the data collected,
followed by a short summary of some of the issues that have been raised by the survey. Overall, the section
where respondents were asked to rate the importance of the barriers from 1 to 5 yielded the most potentiallyrelevant information. The section following this, which asks for written responses, is not as useful tointerpret as the answers, where they were given, tend to speak to esoteric and context-dependent experiences
depending on the nature of the work being carried out. Outside of these highly specific cases, this did notprovide a great deal more information except for echoing some of the issues raised in the previous section.
Results and comments:
Below are the results to the questions and related comments, starting with three questions to broadly evaluate theparticipating stakeholders.
1. What size is your organisation?
Only 7 of the respondents had under 250 employees. So mostly the respondents were larger organisations,as shown in he following graph:

Size of the organisation
45
40
35
30
25
20

Total

15
10
5
0

Below 10
employees

between 10 and 50 between 50 and
employees
250 employees

Above 250
employees

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 113

2. Which is the type of your organisation?
Mostly industry, with a few public sector and academic respondents:
Size of the organisation
30
25
20
15

Total

10
5
0

(blank)start-up

Other

Academia Public Sector Industry

3. (How) would you consider your organisation?
Either fully or highly involved in nuclear sector across the board:

Involvement in Nuclear Activities
35
30
25
20
15
10

Total

5
0

Involved in nuclear Highly involved in nuclear Fully involved in nuclear
activities (facilities,
activities (funding / activities (basic research,
operators, storage,
collaboration in scientifc technology providers,etc)
decomissiong, etc).
projects, venture capital,etc).

114 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
4. Importance of impediments:
The following table provides comments on the responses to the proposed impediments identified by EGRRS. The
refereced ranges in the assessement apply to the following scale:1 – not important; 2 – somewhat important; 3 - important; 4 – very important; 5 – critical;
Impediments

Comment on the provided responses

E: Current manual techniques are adequate

A large spread found, 1-4. No obvious trend at a glanceand didn’t seem to coincide with the type oforganisation. Perhaps some further statistical analysis
might pick something with regards to some of theother attitudes.

F: Current use of robotics and remote systems isalready at an appropriate level

Another wide spread of answers. Hard to establish apattern with collected data set.

G: Lack of knowledge on currently available systems

Mostly in the 3-5 range. Very few seen in the range of
2. Overall it seems to be the case that there is perceived
to be a belief that there is somewhat of a lack ofknowledge regarding available systems.

H: Reluctance to adopt first-of-a-kind technology

This seems to be more strongly indicated to be anissue, although more data would need to be collected
to confirm this, as there is a not-insignificant numberof outliers.

I: Lack of robust system demonstration data

This was generally supported quite strongly in asimilar manner to the previous question. With some
exceptions, the answers also corresponded mostly withthose from the previous question, which would be
expected given their similar implications. A few of theanswers strongly buck this trend, though.

J: Lack of broad international standards

Shows broad disagreement. Responses were veryvaried.

K: Lack of federal standards

As above, the results varied widely.

L: Lack of formal certification processes

Varied results, but there is some suggestion that
research bodies don’t believe this to be a significant
impediment. This may be down to a lack of experience
with formal certification, or it could be suggesting thatthe formal certification process itself may beconsidered an impediment, therefore the lack of it is
not seen challenging. It depends on how the questionis interpreted. Experience suggests the certification
process can be challenging for those unfamiliar withit, but comparatively straightforward for those whoare.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 115

M: Lack of radiation hardness assurance for RRS

A broad range of results, although the results tended tofall more strongly on one side of the question or theother (responces on the extremes 1 and 5).

N: Difficulty
authorities

Although there are not enough responses to make aclear statement in this regard, it is interesting that it
was generally perceived to be a major hindrance
except by the start-up and public sector respondents
who it might be assumed have more experience withthis type of approval. This could be a clearer indicatorthat there is a perceived difficulty more than an actualone. This is possibly one of the more interesting trends
that might benefit from further analysis.

achieving

acceptancebysafetyO: Concerns with equipment reliability

With a couple of exceptions this does seem to be awidespread concern. Probably one of the clearer
trends.

P: Concerns with availability of spare parts

Very broad range of results, difficult to ascertain
anything meaningful from the responses.

Q: Burdensome maintenance requirements

A broad range of responses, so it is equally difficult todraw any concerns over this. It seems likely that withthis and the above question it is difficult to respondbroadly to something which most likely is assessed ona case-by-case basis.

R: Lack of qualified operators

Again, a wide range of results with no clear pattern at
this point.

S: Lack of qualified vendors

There is what appears to be an interesting pattern
forming here, with industry being concerned with thiswhile the research-based respondents were not. This is
an aspect which has been observed in research being
conducted in the United Kingdom, where thoseorganisations supplying the technology believe
themselves to be qualified while industry does not.
This is often a case of potential suppliers not knowing
what they do not know, through lack of experiencedealing with the industry. This leads the nuclear
industry to favour more experienced suppliers withwhom they have dealt with over long periods and be
sceptical of new developers entering the industry. Thisappears to be potentially borne out with the responses
in this survey.

T: Burdensome training requirements

Broadly speaking, the responses seem to trend towards
this being a low or medium concern for industry, while
researchers did not consider this to be a major issue.

116 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
U: Systems are too complex to use

These seemed to follow the results of the previous
question quite closely, which seems logical given thatthe complexity of the system is the primary concern ofboth.

V: Reluctance of workforce to use advanced systems

Very mixed responses from this question.

W: Work force concerns with job loss

Although there is some variation, this seems to trendquite low as a concern. There are plenty of “1”
responses (not important) here, and no “5”s (critical)
at all. This is also in line with the responses
encountered over the course of research being
conducted in the United Kingdom, where this is
generally not considered to be a major issue despite it
being raised as a potential factor, most likely due tothe general discourse surrounding robotics andautomation in the mainstream media. As an aside,
research shows it was more often raised than greater
efficiency of equipment leading to a drop in theamount of overtime available to workers, rather thancomplete job loss, and that this could generate some
negativity towards these systems. Overall job security
was rarely considered to be a problem, however.

X: Lack of a realistic cost-benefit modelWith the exception of the start-up and R&D
respondents (perhaps understandably) this seemed to
be a general concern among most respondents.

Y: Capital investment is too highWith the exception of some outliers, this seems to bea moderate to major concern, which is in line with the
responses based on the cost-benefit considerations.

Z: Equipment life cycle costs are too high

The mixture of responses here seems to be in line withother questions regarding the potential costs of theequipment.

AA: Systems are too task-specific

There was a fairly high variation in the responses, so
it is difficult to ascertain much on the given data set.

AB: Concerns with performance in an industrial
environment (heat, humidity, dust etc.)

Most responses seemed on the medium to lower end
for this question.

AC: Equipment cannot fully complete the task; somemanual effort still required

A very mixed series of responses with no clear pattern.
Most likely this depends on the particular case as towhether this is a concern or not, and the factors which
may be considered here (radiation exposure, cost etc.).

AD: Concerns with damage to critical plant
equipment

Mixed responses for this question.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 117

AE: Difficulties routing required utilities (e.g. powerand control cables)

Responses varied from 1 to 5 across the board. No
doubt this would be highly dependent on both the typeof equipment, as well as influenced by priorexperiences with new and existing technology.

AF: Systems too large/heavy for restricted-accessspaces

A wide variety of responses again. Most likely because
it is so dependent on the technology and the nature of
the specific deployment as to whether this is a concern.
Context is important here.

AG: Lack of an accepted radiation exposure reduction
cost benefit factor

A wide variety of results here. This might vary basedon the weighting to which each organisation places onradiation exposure and cost benefit, rather thananything to do with robotics and automation itself.

AH: Potential for radioactive contamination ofequipment/systems

The results were quite mixed, making it difficult toguess at a trend at work. Interestingly some of theresults seemed to skew towards the extremes of thescale with several 1s and 5s. Overall it seems to be acomparatively low concern in the context of thissurvey but for some respondents it becomes anabsolutely key factor. A wide range of what appears to
be individual difference seems to factor in here.

AI: Concerns with performance in high radiation
fieldsA fairly mixed series of results.

AJ: Concerns with personnel safety

A very mixed series of results, with the interesting
exception that the public sector respondents all had
very low concerns for this aspect.

AK: Potential for high radiation exposure retrieving
malfunctioning equipment

This seems to be a moderate concern for most.

AL: Potential for personalmalfunctioning equipment

The distribution of results seemed to be broadly in linewith those for the previous question, perhaps
averaging slightly lower.

injuryretrieving

118 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
5. Barriers and impediments
Based on the back-end related barriers and impediments, the comments reflected the following:●

Low-level systems e.g. hand-operated tools for underwater operations.
The academic respondents seemed quite focused on the technical challenges, especially with aquatic
systems. The industrial issues were spread across several of the categories mentioned in the previous
questions, including safety, training, reliability and some mentions of a general cultural resistance tochange or inertia. Several of the respondents did claim there were no specific barriers or that they werealready using such technologies.

●

Automatically operated tools e.g. programmable torch cutting machines.
Where there were concerns these would often mention concerns on the dependability of software.
Telerobotics, such as remote, mechanical/electrical master-slave manipulators (MSM/EMSM), andcomputer assisted master-slave systems with or without force feedback.
Fewer responses for this question, several respondents saying this technology was already in use.

●

Programmable controller with interchangeable memory e.g. storehouse cranes.
Many of the responses here suggesting little or no experience with these technologies.

●

AI driven tools e.g. autonomous working robots.
The most common barrier here was clearly a lack of standards and difficulty creating safety cases.

●

Other classifications or specific robotic and remote systems (to be detailed further).
Various responses for this category that seemed heavily contextual based on the respondent’s area ofexpertise and context.

General questions to complement the survey:●

Based on the categories above, are there robotic and remote systems you would like to apply but were
not able to? If yes, please elaborate on the kind of robotic and remote systems and the existing barriers
and impediments towards its application.
The answers here were quite specific to the respondent, often echoing the range of barriers and
impediments mentioned previously.

●

Could you please list applications or test of autonomous systems in the nuclear back-end? Pleaseelaborate on the additional impediments in conjunction with such systems.
Not many responces received. This question might have been misunderstood or otherwise people felt
incapable of responding.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 119

Summary
It is obviously difficult to establish overall trends using a small set of results such as the above. Although a proper
quantitative analysis may reveal some more patterns, whether this could be considered conclusive in any way
uncertain. Nevertheless, the outcomes suggest topics for potential further investigation. In some categories there
was a notable difference in opinion between the various types of organisations. More specifically, organisations
that can be assumed to be providers of the technology (such as academic institutions) had a different perspectiveon impediments for adoption of robotics than organisations representing potential end users within the industry.
This was clearly visible in the responses referring to the “lack of qualified vendors”. Generally speaking, thedevelopers of the technology believe that the vendors (potentially themselves) are qualified, whereas the industry
has concerns in this regard. With such a small number of respondents so far, the survey alone does not necessarily
identify an international pattern. Nevertheless, the pattern is notable and is in line with the personal experience ofsome the authors of this document.
There are various issues regarding the development of robotics when taking into account some of the particularchallenges in nuclear decommissioning environments. Many of the researchers working with robotic solutions
have very little first-hand experience and, hence, understanding of the sites where the technology will be deployed.
There may be debris that can snag a tether, uneven surfaces which present challenges for locomotion, the visibility
in underwater environments may be exceptionally poor, etc. These are aspects which those working indecommissioning are highly familiar with, but there is often very little communication between the developers andthe potential users. Test deployments will often fail due to such unanticipated circumstances, reducing confidenceof the end-user community in the technology for a long period. When it comes to further analysis, it could be
productive to separate research organisations and industrial users in the analysis, as a misalignment in beliefs,
experience and expectations could be an indicator of a barrier to adoption in itself.

120 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

Annex D: RRS cost benefit analysis methodology
FBFC International is a former fuel assembly manufacturing plant in Dessel, Belgium, which is finishing its
decommissioning in 2021. Founded in the early 1960s, it produced uranium fuels slightly enriched (< 5% 235U)
starting from uranium oxide powders until final assemblies ready for use in electricity-generating nuclear power
plants. Uranium production was stopped in 2012 and the decision was then taken to dismantle and denuclearise
the plant with the intention of an unrestricted site release.
Site survey
The objective was the “unconditional release of the site” which implies the absence of residual contamination inbuildings but also the absence of soil pollution. Potential sources of soil pollution included leakage of underground
effluent pipes, historical spills and possible uncontrolled pollution during dismantling operations.
Concerning the soil issue, the first step was a site survey based on the EURSSEM: the site was split up into areasof different risk categories based on their history before and during the production period but also duringdecommissioning operations. For each class, a different number of sample positions was required to reject the
hypothesis that the area is contaminated. Exact number depended on the expected variation of measured activity
concentration in such a class. This could be derived from a preliminary site survey: at FBFC International, resultsfrom a prior remediation project of more limited scope in 2001 were reused to this end.
It is worth pointing out that EURSSEM recommends an additional 100% screening of the ground for hotspots forclass I, e.g. using a mobile gamma spectrometer. However, given the radionuclides used at FBFC International(234U, 235U and 238U only), the most significant gamma emission line being at 185.7keV (235U), this would
result in a screening depth too thin to serve its purpose. Instead, it was opted to place additional sampling positions
near all potential sources of hotspots: along piping pathways, around and under retention pits and along
foundations. The repercussion was a large increase in the number of sampling positions.
Soil remediation
The volume to remediate was then minimally defined as the bounding volume defined by the first sample points
below the clearance limit of 1Bq/g. Nevertheless, the volume excavated was often larger, taking into accountpractical concerns as grouping of small neighboring volumes, having an excavation slope < 45° to avoid the created
pit from caving in (occupational safety) and use of industrial equipment (cranes, sand-pumping devices). Sample
positions were marked out again after excavating operations to verify that all contamination has been removed andto map the excavated surface for record keeping. Excavated soil was buffered in different storage areas on site.
The second step in the strategy was to send the excavated soil through a dedicated system for radiologicalmeasurement and sorting designed by NTES and named FREMES. Soil was forced into a fixed geometry by
conveyor belts and ran past two high-purity germanium spectrometers that picked up the 185.7keV line of 235U
to determine the activity content. Together with a scale mounted on the same belt, the activity concentration of thesoil could be determined per batch of ±120kg at speeds around 10 to 15 ton/hour. The batch of soil was thendirected towards one of three possible output streams:•< 1Bq/g: unconditional free release. In first instance, this sand was and will be used to refill the excavation
on site.

•

1-10Bq/g: conditional release. With a dedicated license granted by the Belgian authority, this material
was transferred in big bags to a conventional landfill for hazardous waste.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 121•≥10Bq/g: transferred to the Belgian national radioactive waste management agency (ONDRAF/NIRAS).

Results
Overall, 38 000 tonnes of soil were excavated and sent through the sorting equipment FREMES from January
2018 until December 2020, which was the end of FREMES operation:•

36 000 tonnes soil unconditionally released•~2 000 tonnes soil sent in a depository for hazardous waste•~1.3 tonnes sent to ONDRAF/NIRAS as radioactive waste (> 10 Bq/g)

The example case described in this Annex compares FREMES and ISOCS. FREMES is a belt conveyor freerelease measurement system for radiological characterisation of concrete and construction waste. ISOCS means
In Situ Object Counting System. The site has 38 000 tonne of soil that is to be observed for radiation. There arethree scenarios: remediation with the Canberra ISOCS system, remediation with the FREMES system, andremediation with ISOCS systems with the same capacity as FREMES. The last two options are comparable as thesame volumes of soil are in focus. It is relevant to make a comparison in respect to the main drivers: operation
scheme, CAPEX, OPEX, risks, staff, time of execution, licensing and regulatory process, social acceptability, andknowledge management.

OPERATION SCHEME. Usage of robotic or digital solutions may lead to significant changes in the execution
approach in comparison with the same task executed by staff. In some cases with high radiation, it may
substantially decrease expenses on radiation safety. Moreover, it is important in difficult-to-reach areas.
Influence:•

Robotic and digital solutions may use the same operation scheme as a non-robotics
approach or be executed in a different way. In medium and high radiation zones, a nonrobotic approach needs special infrastructure to protect staff during operation while forrobotics these solutions are not necessary and only require contingencies for intervention
and retrieval in case of failure. This fact alters the operation scheme, first requiring hugeinvestments but turning profitable later. Moreover, such an operation scheme provides more
safety.

•Robotic and digital solutions may be more suitable for the execution of specific tasks. In
some cases, there are specific conditions (hard-to-reach places) where there are significant
operational scheme differences between robotic and non-robotic approach, such as objects
that are difficult to access or very dangerous for humans.

•Special equipment may be necessary for service and repairing.

Case/Example:
The operation scheme differs in the number of pieces of equipment: 1 for FREMES versus 20 for ISOCS. Thisdifference results in various distinctions for other drivers. So the FREMES technology is 20 times more effective
than 1 ISOCS, according to this assessment approach.

122 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (CAPEX). In some cases, use of special robotic and digital solutions will result in
additional CAPEX in comparison to non-robotic approaches with standard equipment. As a result, capital
expenditures on direct task-related equipment with robotics execution is usually higher than with non-robotics.
However, the robotic system cost cannot be examined in isolation. The overall CAPEX on a project can be lower
with robotic solutions due to the possibility of simplifying, eliminating or reducing other equipment or building
space associated with the project.
Case/Example:
CAPEX of 1 FREMES is EUR 10 000 000. CAPEX for 1 ISOCS is EUR 700 000, so for 20 ISOCS it is
EUR 14 000 000, much higher than for FREMES. The life cycle of FREMES is 10 years longer than that of ISOCS(16 vs 6), so the efficiency of the former technology is evident.

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES (OPEX). Robotic equipment will often reduce the OPEX required tocomplete a task or project by reducing or eliminating manual labour, as well as the associated personal protective
equipment (PPE) for the staff. Robotic approaches may also save on schedule time due to higher productivity andreduced task times. However, additional costs associated with equipment maintenance also need to be considered.
Case/Example:
The different numbers of units define the number of necessary personnel. One FREMES needs four workers, withan annual cost per staff of EUR 400 000. Twenty ISOCS are likely to have more personnel: 120 people and annual
cost of EUR 12 000 000. The huge gap is between these figures. Costs of site maintenance are equal.

RISKS. Robotic and digital solutions may severely influence both the probability and impact of risks.
Influence:•

No risks devoted to human factor (decrease of risks number). Personnel can work outside
the dangerous zone and avoid handling radiated objects.

•

Changes in probability and impact of risks for staff and civilians due to incident andaccident. With good software and hardware, the human factor is eliminated and operations
are more accurate.

•

Cost of insurance (decrease of expensive staff insurance). Fewer workers need fewer
insurance certificates and the cost also decreases as the work becomes safer.

•

Changes in expenses on risks mitigation. Safer technology provides lower risk for personnel,
resulting in less money spent on risk mitigation.

Risk is defined as the probability of the risk multiplied by its impact:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼

Weighted Risk means risk multiplied by mitigation expenses:

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ∗ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ∗ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 123

Case/Example:
The FREMES has higher operational risk as only the one unit is in operation. However, the technology has provenits reliability. The 20 units of ISOCS have lower operational risk as they are diversified. Nevertheless, FREMES
decreases risk for personnel, which means lower expenses in this sphere.

STAFF. This driver may be a part of OPEX as the cost per working hour in the project. However, robotic anddigital solutions may also have more indirect consequences such as a global decrease in staff for certain
applications in other projects, expenditures on certification and education, pension and other aspects which are
different not only from case to case, but also from country to country.
Influence:•

Expenses for education, qualification and certification. New technology needs higher initialexpenses especially for personnel education, qualification and certification. However, suchcosts are recompensed, as the innovations tend to improve efficiency.

•

Extra payment for risk and work in dangerous conditions. As it was mentioned, the lower
risk decreases such expenses, making the project more profitable.

•

Extra pension payment.

•

Insurance. Innovations result in lower number of workers so this decreases the insurance
cost.

Case/Example:
The FREMES technology has significantly fewer staff and not only lower cost for wages but also lower training
costs. The technology increases the safety of personnel.

TIME OF EXECUTION. Even assuming other drivers are the same for robotic and non-robotic solutions, thefaster decommissioning work is finished the earlier the area can be rehabilitated and used for other purposes.
Influence:•

Earlier refund of reserves for decommissioning liabilities. New technology shortens
the time of execution, which creates more opportunities for other purposes.

•

Earlier completion of decommissioning and rehabilitation provides opportunities
for commercial reuse of a brownfield or greenfield decommissioning investment.

•

Decrease of total maintenance expenses.

Case/Example:
As the case equalises the annual observed soil volumes, the time of execution is the same, about two years. Thisis a good indicator for such volume of work.

124 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
LICENSING AND REGULATORY PROCESS. Previous approval by the regulator of a project’s robotics
solutions may lead to easier and faster acceptance for another. However, licensing and supervision of theimplementation of new (first-of-a-kind) robotics solutions may be more complex and take more time and money.
Influence:•

Easier process of licensing and regulatory supervision (for solutions with references such as
ISOCS, however, 20 units need more time and expenses).

•

Less cost and time on licensing and regulatory supervision (for solutions with references).

•

Licensing and getting approval process for implementation of robotic and digital solutions
depends on local requirements and the flexibility of the national regulator. Tests and trials
are needed.

•

International and regional certification may have a positive impact on the deployment ofrobotic and digital solutions in different countries.

Case/Example:
The ISOCS technology has a standard licensing procedure and known expenses. FREMES needs approval byregulators. This needs trials and tests to estimate the corresponding costs.

SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY. Using robotic or digital solutions may seem more reliable and safer for local
communities from a technical point of view and can help to gain social acceptance more quickly.
Influence:•

Robotics and digital solutions may be favoured by local communities as more technological,
reliable and unbiased. Delegation of dangerous work and hazards to robotics and digitalsolutions decreases risks for humans and increases safety.

•

Robotics and digital solutions may be viewed critically by local communities because of apotential decrease in employment.

Case/Example:
Social acceptability requires objective information as the topic is crucial for local communities. The volume ofsoil is huge and dangerous, so there is a need for reliable technology that can complete the task in a proper andsafe way. Society expects the technology to mitigate risks and hazards and become more reliable than a human.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. Decommissioning is a complex process and each project has unique issues that
may lead to new know-how and innovative solutions. The deployment of robotic and digital solutions provides arange of opportunities for more effective accumulation and use of knowledge in decommissioning projects. Thisis particularly true for AI solutions, which can implement know-how in new projects faster than staff ganing
knowledge and skills. An important issue is to save practical knowledge and skills for a long time – after the peakin decommissioning work in 2040-50 due to solving legacy issues, the number of decommissioning projects will
be decreasing. The transition of knowledge and skills to new generations is important for safe and sustainable
nuclear development.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 125

Influence:•

Accumulation of knowledge and know-how for higher efficiency of decommissioning. R&D
projects and new knowledge lead to innovations, which make the processes more efficientand safer.

•

Better opportunities for fast and widespread deployment of best practices and skills.

•

Storage and transfer of knowledge and skills through generations. Robotics and digitalsolutions provide a range of opportunities to record best practices as well as knowledge
about long-term dangers and hazards (disposals, etc.) for future generations. The software
stores the best practices and AI improves skills for a safer and more precise performance.
Technology accumulates data during operation and constantly develops.

Case/Example:
ISOCS needs a team to operate and the personnel should retrain and get certifications. ISOCS does not collectdata. At the same time, FREMES is a technology that collects data without human intervention. Artificial
intelligence studies data during operations, which decreases costs and uncertainty.

126 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Detailed calculations for cost benefit analysis case study

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 127

128 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 129

130 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 131

Annex E: Case studies
E.1 Japan: Use of robotics in accident situations
In the case of the accident that occurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant (TMI) , one of the factors that
contributed to the escalation of the accident was that the operators could not confirm whether the safety valves in thecontainment vessel were working. In response to this, a group of Japanese companies started to develop a system tosupport information gathering activities in the containment vessel, which is normally inaccessible to workers.
In Japan, it is required to improve the operation rate of the nuclear power plants. Another purpose of this system isto detect abnormal events in equipment and piping at an early stage and to respond to them as soon as possible.
Therefore, research and development has begun to use robots for inspection, monitoring and operation inside thecontainment vessel.
The research and development of the robot was divided among three companies (Yamamoto, 1992).
(1) Floor travelling inspection vehicle: Toshiba(2) Spatial travelling inspection vehicle: Hitachi(3) Mobile manipulator for operation: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Assuming that the inspection will be conducted inside the containment vessel, the environmental conditions werecommonly set:
(1) Temperature conditions: Maximum 70°C
(2) Humidity conditions: Maximum 100%
(3) Cumulative radiation dose: Cumulative 106R
Since the interval between periodic inspections at a nuclear power plant was approximately one year, it was assumed
that the parts replacement interval of the robot would be one year.
In 1980, there was no robotics research and development based on the constraints specific to these nuclear power
plants, and it can be said that a wide range of research and development was challenged, from the components(machinery, electrical and electronic parts, etc.) to the robot system (Yamamoto, 1992).
These three robots were developed by taking into account the constraints for each usage situation. Each robot isrequired to satisfy the above environmental conditions in its component parts as well as in the robot system as awhole. Various tests are conducted to confirm the performance and safety of the robots .
Figure E.1.1 shows the appearance of the three robots as a conceptual diagram of the containment inspection system.
These robots are not stand-alone units, but are configured as a system to move and perform tasks (inspection,
monitoring, and light work), which is highly evaluated. In addition, some of these robots and other robots that wereresearched and developed by electric power companies in co-operation with heavy electric power manufacturers were
put to practical use in nuclear power plants or were subjected to demonstration tests, proving that robots are usefulfor inspection and monitoring. However, due to legal issues such as safety standards when adding robots to alreadycompleted power plants, economic issues such as the cost of robots and their maintenance, and technical issues suchas robot operation, maintenance and preservation, power companies have been very reluctant to actively accept the
robots.

132 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.1. Nuclear power generation support system: containment vessel internal inspection system(a) Floor travelling inspection vehicle(b) Room space travelling inspection vehicle

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 133(c) Mobile manipulator

E.1.1 Robots for nuclear extreme conditions(1) Outline(a) Development history
The Robot Project was a national project that took place from 1983 to 1990 whose goal was to gather the mostadvanced robotics technologies and to research and develop systems that could perform tasks in extreme
environments, those that are difficult for humans to enter.
The research and development of a robot for nuclear power plants was one of these tasks. The expected tasks wereselected from among the various tasks in nuclear power plants that could only be performed by robots and that had
clear advantages for robotisation. The tasks were those that could be performed with a high degree of reliability in aconfined space and in a radiation environment, or those that could be made more efficient by the use of robots.
Specifically, inspection, monitoring, and repair work (replacement of valves, piping, tanks, heat exchangers, andfilters) in the containment vessel during operation and in areas with high radiation levels, and floor decontamination
were discussed.

(b) Basic functions and system concept
It was expected that the robot would be able to perform more advanced work than dedicated machines, perform more
efficient work, improve the operation rate, and perform general-purpose work that cannot be performed by dedicatedmachines by equipping it with intellectual functions as a so-called robot. The main basic functions of the robot are
shown below.
(1) Autonomous remote control system is adopted because there are many irregular-shaped tasks.
(2) Environmental conditions: 70°C, 100% humidity, radiation dose rate of 150 R/hr (approximately
1.5 Sv/hr).
(3) Size, floor movement, obstacle crossing, manipulator function, perception function, informationtransmission function, remote control, reliability, maintainability.

134 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1(2) Lessons learnt and recommendations
Although the demonstration machine itself was not introduced to the field, Figure E.1.2 shows some of the elemental
technologies that were developed during the construction process and are considered to have been put to practical use
in industry.
In particular, the autonomous remote system technology is thought to have been used as the basic technology for
subsequent robot systems of the same type, such as the disaster prevention robots developed in response to the JCO
accident.
Figure E.1.2. Examples of practical technologies developed from the demonstration unit

E.1.2 JCO accident and nuclear accident response robots(1) Overview(a) Background of development
In September 1999, a criticality accident occurred at a uranium processing facility in Tokai Village, Ibaraki
Prefecture. At this facility, there was no equipment to protect people from high radiation.
In response to this, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) allocated a budget of approximately
3 billion yen to prepare the necessary equipment for radiological protection, etc., so that disaster prevention officials
can conduct disaster prevention activities accurately and safely at the site.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 135(b) Preconditions for development
Development of tele-operated robots and other technologies to enable nuclear disaster prevention workers to work innuclear facilities, even in an accident at a nuclear power plant that may cause serious damage to the reactor core(e.g. multiple fuel breaks or core meltdown) and release a large amount of radioactive materials outside the plant(severe accident).

(c) Development objectives (basic plan)(1) Working environment: High radiation (equivalent to 10 sV/h gamma rays or more) that is inaccessible tohumans. In consideration of the worst-case scenario, the working environment should have 100%RH
humidity, visibility without illumination due to loss of power supply, explosion-proof, waterproof and fireproof. Also, fire occurrence should be considered.
(2) Moving function: Minimum width of the current nuclear power generation facility (0.8 m), overcoming
steps, and ascending and descending stairs (inclination 40°).
(3) Power supply and communication: Communication between inside and outside should be possible bythrough penetration.
(4) Work: Various checks of the disaster situation, opening and closing of valves, cutting, drilling, opening andclosing of doors, routing of hoses, transportation and installation of shielding, etc.
(5) The system should consider simplicity of operation, operation time of about 2 hours, common interface, etc.

(2) Lessons learnt and recommendations(a) Practical application evaluation
A report on the evaluation of the practical application of nuclear disaster prevention support systems compiled in
December 2002 concluded as follows (NUPEC, 2002):"In nuclear power facilities, the robot is expected to be used for surveying and monitoring the situation at
disaster sites under high radiation, and for opening and closing some manual valves, etc.
However, there are many issues that need to be improved, such as the slow walking speed compared tohumans, the large width that makes it impossible to enter narrow places such as disaster sites under highradiation or places where manual valves are installed, and the short distance that can be travelled.
(…). In the event of a disaster at a nuclear power generation facility or a reprocessing plant, it is thought that
there will be few situations in which it can be used. However, if the equipment, performance, and use of thesystem are further improved in the future, and the issues that need to be improved are resolved, the system
may well be used in the field during a nuclear disaster event.”

136 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

E.1.3 Contribution to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident recovery(1) Information collection and work by robots
In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the primary mission was to stabilise the cooling systemand contain the radioactive materials. After the cold shutdown, the focus shifted to removing the fuel from the spent
fuel pools and extracting the fuel debris for decommissioning. However, the most important mission was, and still is,
to reduce the radiation exposure of the workers who are performing various tasks at the site. Specifically, robots andremote-controlled devices are required for water injection, debris removal, survey (video acquisition, measurementof radiation dose, contamination distribution, temperature, humidity, oxygen concentration, etc.), sample collection,
installation of measurement devices, decontamination, shielding and transportation of equipment, etc. Many robots
and devices have already been introduced (Osumi, 2014; Asama, 2011a; 2011b).
The survey and operation robots that have been introduced are PackBot (see Fig. E.1.3) (2 units) manufactured byiRobot (United States); Quince (see Fig. E.1.4) developed by Chiba Institute of Technology, Tohoku University,
International Rescue System (IRS), and New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO),
Quince 2 Quince 3, Warrior (see Fig. E.1.5) developed by iRobot (United States); Talon (QinetiQ (United States)),
JAEA-3 (see Fig. E.1.6) developed by Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA); Survey Runner (see Fig. E.1.7)
developed by TOPY Industries, and a four-legged walking robot and a small travelling vehicle developed by Toshiba
Corporation (see Fig. E.1.8); FRIGO-MA developed by Mitsubishi Electric Tokki System (see Fig. E.1.9); and anelevated work vehicle developed by AIST and Honda R&D (see Fig. E.1.10).
Figure E.1.3. Packbot

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 137

Figure E.1.4. Quince

Figure E.1.5. Warrior

138 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.6. JAEA-3

Figure E.1.7. Survey Runner

Figure E.1.8. Quadruped robot and small vehicle

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 139

Figure E.1.9. FRIGO-MA

Figure E.1.10. Elevated work vehicle(2) Work with remote working machines
In the response to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and the decommissioning of the plant,
the following unmanned construction equipment and other construction machinery are being used effectively:

140 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
a) Remote water injection by concrete pump truck
Immediately after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the cooling of the reactors was
the most important issue. As a means of stable water injection, remote water injection using a concrete pump truck
was carried out in unit 4. A concrete pump truck manufactured by Putzmeister was installed and remotely operated(see Fig. E.1.11). For the remote operation, a light and a camera were installed at the end of the boom of the concrete
pump truck, and the boom was remotely controlled by wireless LAN to ensure stable water injection while monitoring
the camera images from the seismic isolation building.
Figure E.1.11. Remote water injection by concrete pump truckb) Removal of rubble in nuclear power plants using unmanned construction machinery
Immediately after the accident, there was a lot of rubble generated by the tsunami and by the hydrogen explosion in
the reactor building in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In particular, the rubble generated by thehydrogen explosion had high radiation levels, which greatly hindered the work inside the power plant. Therefore, ajoint venture (JV) of Taisei Corporation, Kajima Corporation, and Shimizu Corporation removed the rubble using
unmanned construction equipment to reduce the exposure dose in the high-dose work environment (see Fig. E.1.12).
Figure E.1.12. Removal of debris using unmanned construction machineryNEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 141

Specifically, several backhoes, crawler dump trucks (11 tonne), and camera trucks were used.
c) Removal of rubble inside the reactor building
Inside the reactor building of unit 3, remotely operated equipment was also used to remove rubble. The equipmentused included Talon (manufactured by QinetiQ, United States) (see Figure E.1.13), Bob Cat (manufactured by
QinetiQ, United States) (see Figure E.1.14), Brokk-90 (manufactured by Brokk, Sweden) (see Figure E.1.15), Brokk330 (manufactured by Brokk, Sweden) (see Figure E.1.16). After that, ASTACO-SoRa (manufactured by Hitachi
Engineering and Services, Ltd.), a remotely operated heavy machine, was used to remove obstacles such as rubble
on the first floor of the unit 3 reactor building (see Figure E.1.17).
Figure E.1.13. Talon

Figure E.1.14. Bob Cat

142 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.15. Brokk-90

Figure E.1.16. Brokk-330

Figure E.1.17. ASTACO-SoRad) Removal and transportation of rubble from the top floor of the nuclear reactor building where a hydrogen explosion
occurred.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 143

The removal of the rubble from the top floor of the reactor building where the hydrogen explosion occurred is also
being carried out using unmanned construction equipment. For the upper part of the reactor building of unit 4, theremoval of debris was carried out by manned workers because the radiation level was low, but for the upper part of
the reactor building of unit 3, the removal of rubble was carried out by remotely operated heavy machinery such as
cranes and backhoes (Nipla) from the ground and platforms built around the reactor building in order to reduce theexposure dose to workers because the radiation level was high (see Figure E.1.18). In addition, Kajima Corporation
has achieved fully automated transportation of high radiation level rubble from unit 3 using crawler dump trucks andforklifts.
Figure E.1.18. Composition of automatic debris transport system(3) Development of unmanned disaster response system
The Industrial Machinery Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the New Energy andIndustrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) implemented the unmanned anti-disaster system R and D
project as a common infrastructure technology for disaster response under the second supplementary budget for fiscal
2011, and developed the following (NEDO, 2012). Figure E.1.19 shows an overview of the project. These systems,
equipment, and devices developed in this project are also planned to be used in the decommissioning of the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

144 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.19. Conceptual diagram of the NEDO unmanned anti-disaster system R and D projecta) Development of work movement mechanism
A compact high-stepping remote handling device (see Fig. E.1.20 and E.1.21), communication technology (seeFig. E.1.22), remote-control human interface (see Fig. E.1.23), a remote heavy lifting/working cart in a narrow space(see Fig. E.1.24), and a heavy handling remote-control loading cart (see Fig. E.1.25) have been developed.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 145

Figure E.1.20. Sakura

Figure E.1.21. Tsubaki

146 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.22. Radio communication relay station

Figure E.1.23. Remote control human interface

Figure E.1.24. Remote heavy load unloading cart for narrow areas (Super Giraffe)NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 147

Figure E.1.25. Remote-controlled unloading vehicle for heavy load handling (Super Lifter)b) Development of measurement and work element technologies
Development and improvement of monitoring and handling devices for air and water (air monitoring device/water
monitoring device (see Fig. E.1.26), pollution mapping technology, and handling device technology) was carried out.
Figure E.1.26. Amphibious mobile equipmentc) Development of work-assist robot for disaster countermeasures
A work-assist robot (see Fig.E.1.27) was also developed to reduce the workload of humans.

148 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Figure E.1.27. Worker wearing a work-assist robot for disaster response(4) Lessons learnt and recommendations(a) Recommendations of the Industrial Competitiveness Council
In order to prepare for future disasters and accidents, it is necessary to analyse the problems that prevented the rapid
and smooth introduction of robots and tele-operation equipment (Asama, 2011a; 2011b) when the Great East Japan
Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred, and to consider how to solve them.
In order to implement disaster response robots in society, the Industrial Competitiveness Council conducted the"Disaster Response Robots and Operation Systems" project from 2011 to 2012 (COCN, 2011; 2012). This can besummarised in the following three main points:(1) Research and development bases and projects (hardware recommendations)
There are many technical issues that need to be developed to enable robots to be used in various types of disasters,
including technologies for movement and access to special environments, stable communication for tele-operation,
spatial awareness for tele-operation, autonomous and intelligent technologies to improve operability, andmeasurement technologies and inspection, diagnosis, and maintenance technologies.
There are many technological issues to be developed. This needs to be addressed through needs-driven basic
technology research and advanced practical application research. In addition, it is effective to hold competitions andchallenges such as the DARPA Challenge (DARPA, 2017) in order to advance the solution derivation andsystemisation technologies.
(2) Disaster Prevention Robot Center (recommendations on infrastructure)
It is necessary to establish a disaster prevention robot centre with the following functions: demonstration tests,
operator training, functional evaluation and certification of explosion resistance, release resistance, durability, andsafety; accumulation, centralised management, and provision of robot technology information; and emergency
response.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 149

For demonstration tests and operator training, it is essential to set up test fields and mock-ups for these functions.
(3) Strategy formulation, standardisation, and institutional design (software-related proposals)
It is important to ensure the long-term sustainability of the development and operation of disaster response robots,and strategies for this purpose must be designed and formulated. In addition, it is also important to design a systemthat includes standardisation activities for functional evaluation and interface specifications of robots, deregulation,
strengthening of regulations (e.g. mandatory deployment), formulation of taxation systems such as tax exemptions,and improvement of the environment including securing radio frequencies and insurance systems.
(b) Recommendations for the future
In contrast to the so-called "robots" that were not introduced quickly at the time of the disaster, unmanned construction
machines were introduced and used at the site at a very early stage. There is a reason for this. The unmanned
construction technology was developed and applied when Mt. Unzen Fugen erupted in 1991, causing great damage
due to pyroclastic flows and mud and stone flows, and is still used in the construction. The unmanned construction
technology has been used frequently in various hazardous operations, such as rescue work at the site of a tunnel
landslide during the Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake in 2004 and construction of a landslide dam caused by Typhoon No.
12 in 2011. It is a technology with a proven track record that has been used in various hazardous operations. The factthat this technology has been used continuously at various sites is considered to be an important factor in the rapid
introduction of this technology during the nuclear accident. In order to ensure that robots can also be deployedsmoothly in the event of a disaster, this should be used as a model.
In order to be able to quickly deploy robots in the field in response to future disasters, it is necessary to:(1) Conduct needs-driven research and development, and actively involve and participate in the development of robot
users, such as firefighters, police, defence, local governments and electric power companies(2) Develop a practical platform that can be used in the field, and to operate it during normal times, including training.
(3) The national and local governments should take the initiative in supporting the practical application and operationof the system to enable the participation of companies, and create demand by procuring the system or requiring
its deployment.

E.1.4 References
Asama, H. (2011a), “Introduction of robot technology and its challenges in the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident (Part 1)”, Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 658-659, https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.29.658.
Asama, H. (2011b), “Introduction of robot technology and its challenges in the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident (Part 2),” Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 796-798, https://doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.29.796.
COCN (2012), “Disaster Response Robots and Operation Systems”, Council on Competitiveness-Nippon
2012 Project Final Report, (in Japanese), http://www.cocn.jp/report/thema50-L.pdf.
COCN (2011), “Disaster Response Robots and Operation Systems”, Council on Competitiveness-Nippon
2011 Project Report, (in Japanese), http://www.cocn.jp/report/thema39-L.pdf (in Japanese).
DARPA (2017), DARPA Robotics Challenge, United States Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, www.darpa.mil/program/darpa-robotics-challenge.

150 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
NEDO (2012), “Research and Development Project for Unmanned Disaster Response Systems”, Japan
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (in Japanese),
http://www.nedo.go.jp/activities/ZZJP_100045.html.
NUPEC (2002), “Evaluation Report on Practical Application of Nuclear Emergency Assistance System(Robot for Disaster Prevention) (December 2002)”, Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation,
Evaluation Committee on Practical Application of Nuclear Emergency Assistance System (Robot for
Disaster Prevention), (in Japanese).
Osumi, H. (2014), “Application of Robot Technologies to the Disaster Sites” in Report of JSME
Research Committee on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster, Chapter 5, Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers, www.jsme.or.jp/jsme/uploads/2016/08/Chapter-5-final.pdf.
Yamamoto (ed.) (1992), “Robots for Critical Works”, Chapter 8, Maintenance Robots for Nuclear Power
Plants, pp. 218-262, Kogyo Chosakai Publishing Co. Ltd., (in Japanese), (ISBN:9784769321026).

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 151

E.2 Canada: COG-MDA strategic R&D study on decommissioning robotics
E.2.1 Introduction
The COG-MDA study on robotics and automated systems is part of an ongoing and larger effort being pursued by
CANDU Owners’ Group (COG) Decommissioning and Long-Term Waste Management (DLTWM) Program to
identify key technologies or processes that can lead to significant savings throughout the CANDU decommissioning
life cycle. This strategic R&D study and stream of inquiry is focused on determining for which tasks it is economically
viable (i.e. tasks that would result in a positive return on investment (ROI) if an investment in technology is made)to use robotics and automation during decommissioning. A set of drivers and scoring criteria were defined to permit
the systematic evaluation of planned CANDU decommissioning tasks, which resulted in a subset of high-prospectareas that would benefit from the application of robotics (see details in Section E.2.2).
Table E.2.1 summarises the multiple phases proposed for this project, where Year 1 corresponds to Fiscal Year 201819 in COG’s calendar.

Table E.2.1. COG-MDA decommissioning robotics project workflow (2018-present)

Part of the ongoing R&D scope involves investigating robotic solutions with short-term (5-year) ROI in more detail,such as automated mobile platforms for comprehensive characterisation and surveillance of nuclear power plants.
Typically, a complete characterisation occurs in the early stages of decommissioning, prior to safe storage (postshutdown). Additional surveys are conducted through inactive dismantlement, dismantlement of nuclear components,
site clean-up and site clearance. The COG-MDA study also recommended integrating robotics and automation withemerging digital asset management solutions to generate an even greater ROI. Leveraging advances in computing,artificial intelligence (AI), building information models (BIMs), mixed reality and data fusion, it is possible to enable
automated digitisation of nuclear power plant assets during decommissioning, including the development of threedimensional (3-D), semantically-enriched BIMs to support job planning and decision making throughout all
decommissioning phases.

E.2.2 Decommissioning process evaluation
In 2019, MDA conducted a systematic evaluation of the CANDU decommissioning life cycle and identified the top
areas for investment. An existing preliminary decommissioning plan (PDP) corresponding to the Pickering Nuclear
Generating Station (PNGS) located in Ontario, Canada, was used as a reference to generate a high-level task
breakdown. MDA extracted approximately 78 decommissioning tasks from the PDP for analysis, and a subset of 20
tasks were identified as good prospects for robotics and automation implementation.

152 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
The 20 high-value decommissioning activities were selected by qualitatively assessing the operating environment,
existing approaches (conventional/manual methods), state-of-the-art technology readiness, and the potential costbenefit obtained from robotics and automation versus using conventional tools/machinery for task execution.

E.2.2.1 Scoring methodology
In total, six independent characteristics of CANDU decommissioning were chosen to systematically score the tasks
extracted from the existing PDP, as follows:a)Radiological waste classification (low-, intermediate- or high-level wastes)b) Contaminated waste mass segregationc)Hazardous waste classification (mixed or non-radiological)d) Cost estimates based on the International Structure for Decommissioning Costing (ISDC) Level 2e)State of the art

f)Existing approach (used as a weighing factor)

Based on the waste-inventory and costing data available at the time of the analysis, strong emphasis was placed on
the Radiological Waste Classification, ISDC Level-2 Cost Estimates and state-of-the-art technology readinesscharacteristics. For initial scoring purposes, the costs allocated to the PDP tasks were based on the existing ISDC
Level-2 benchmark cost breakdown for CANDU sites in Canada and Europe.
Table E.2.2 contains the scoring definitions assigned to each characteristic used for systematic evaluation of CANDU
decommissioning tasks, where the reference values (e.g. upper/lower score limits) are omitted here for generalisation
purposes.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 153

Table E.2.2. Preliminary decommissioning plan process-task evaluation characteristics.

E.2.2.2 State-of-the-art assessment
In parallel to the decommissioning process evaluation, a state-of-the-art assessment of applicable robotic andautomation technologies with different technology readiness levels (TRLs) and previous mission legacy was
conducted. MDA scored approximately 80 commercial off-the-shelf technologies in 11 technology categories.
Approximately 23 technologies were identified as having direct-applicability to CANDU decommissioning activities
and were later used as references in the conceptualisation of robotic solutions for detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
Table E.2.3 shows a summary of all 11 robotic categories investigated in the COG-MDA study, and the evaluation
criteria used to select the top candidates per category.

154 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Table E.2.3. Summary of robotic categories and technology evaluation criteria.

E.2.3 Proposed robotic research areas
The results from the systematic CANDU decommissioning needs assessment, state-of-the-art assessment, and lessons
learnt from global robotic deployments (i.e. relevant operating experience/OPEX) were consolidated and used toformulate a list of 12 robotic and automation solutions with high prospect for investment. In the COG-MDA study,
these high-value solution candidates are referred to as “robotic research areas” (RRAs), and were further categorised
as short-, medium- and long-term solutions depending on their expected development and deployment time frames(i.e. in anticipation of the decommissioning of CANDU facilities in Canada).
Figure E.2.1 illustrates the approach followed to recommend a subset of high-value RRAs for cost-benefit analysis
and conceptual engineering design.

Figure E.2.1. Systematic selection approach of robotic research areas for application to decommissioning.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 155

E.2.4 Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
The goal of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is to generate high-fidelity estimates of potential savings from implementing
a robotic or automated solution, versus using a conventional approach during decommissioning (e.g. manual
segmentation or manual site characterisation). The CBA scenarios provide a sequential mapping of therobotic/automated system deployment and operational steps, including task execution and equipment demobilisation.
Subsequently, the task-execution savings obtained via quantitative analysis, and the anticipated costs of development
and deployment, are used to calculate short or long-term return on investment (ROI) estimates for the top robotic
technology candidates.
The CBAs must provide a time-based, step-by-step comparison between the numerical attributes (e.g. dose uptake,manpower-hour and task-execution duration) associated with the robotic and conventional approaches. These
quantitative analyses must also account for the potential hazards and operational challenges posed by the remaining
radiological activity on site, as well as infrastructure/geometrical constraints that might limit accessibility.
The savings corresponding to each CBA study were calculated for 3 key numerical attributes, as follows:•

manpower-hour;•

cumulative radiation dose per task;•

task duration for critical-path and parallel activities.

E.2.4.1 Conventional vs. robotic process mapping
As most CANDU reactors in Canada undergoing decommissioning are currently very early in the process (e.g. at the“safe storage with surveillance” stage), some assumptions about the dismantling activities and equipment used duringlater stages were made based on analogue processes (e.g. outages or refurbishment campaigns, where reactor
components are typically removed and replaced).
MDA leveraged existing datasets containing timestamped dose and radionuclide activity values, as well as
storyboards and outage-inspection reports to re-construct a mapping of conventional decommissioning processes.
This mapping must capture the entire sequence of manual operation steps; from equipment ingress to setup, and fromtask execution to waste removal and egress. Subsequently, an equivalent concept of operations was developed for the
proposed robotic candidate(s), mapped in parallel with the conventional (manual) task-execution steps.
Figure E.2.2 shows a generic operational flowchart, showing the sequence of robotic operations inside a nuclear
reactor vault.
Figure E.2.2. Simplified process flowchart for robotic and automation operations inside the vault.

E.2.5 Radiological decay considerations
When the cost savings are driven primarily by dose uptake, it will be necessary to account for the decay ofradionuclide activity throughout the robot’s operational life cycle. Exceptions include technologies that are notreusable (one-time use solutions). As such, the cumulative dose associated with direct exposure to contaminatedmaterial becomes a temporal variable in the cost-benefit analysis.

156 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
MDA leveraged characterisation reports and in situ radiation surveys conducted during previous CANDU outages to
get an approximate mapping of dose and radionuclide activity that the robot (or human) may be exposed to at any
given time following shutdown of a CANDU site. Therefore, the CBA results in the COG-MDA study are presented
as decay-corrected cost savings, which account for the reduction in radiation based on the length of the safe storage
period.

E.2.6 Robotic simulations
For some case studies outlined in the work package for decommissioning robotics, detailed Computer-Aided Design(CAD) models of plant infrastructure were used in combination with time-based robotic simulations to obtain more
realistic estimates of savings and a three-dimensional visualisation of the operations. These 3-D simulation
environments can be used in the future for design verification, training and mission planning. Figure E.2.3 shows anexample of a simulated drone campaign developed by MDA for routine radiation survey and characterisation of
CANDU sites during safe storage.
Figure E.2.3. Robotic simulation of a UAV for complete radiation mapping during safe storage withsurveillance.

Source: MDA

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 157

E.3 United Kingdom’ approach to regulating robotics and autonomous systems
E.3.1 BackgroundE.3.1.1 The UK regulatory framework
The legal framework for the regulation of the UK nuclear industry is based around the Health and Safety at WorkAct 1974 (UK Government, 1974), the Energy Act 2013 (UK Government, 2013), the Nuclear Installations Act 1965
(UK Government, 1965), and Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 (UK Government, 2017) and Nuclear Industries
Security Regulations 2003 (UK Government, 2003). The UK Energy Act 2013(UK Government, 2013) establishes
the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as the UK independent nuclear regulator for safety, security and safeguards.
The legal requirement set in legislation (UK Government, 1974, 2013) is for the UK dutyholders to reduce the healthand safety risk from their nuclear activities to workers and the public as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). The
key principles used by ONR inspectors in its regulation of safety and security in nuclear facilities are set out in the
ONR safety assessment principles (SAPs) (ONR, 2020a) and security assessment principles (SyAPs) (ONR, 2017).
The regulatory regime outlined above is predominantly goal-setting, in that it focuses on risk and on outcome rather
than prescribing design solutions or compliance with standards which often lag behind the development of newtechnologies. Also, the regulatory regime can be considered as technology-neutral so it provides a constructive
environment within which innovation can thrive, but which ensures the basis for safety and security is clearly
understood and communicated. Using an enabling regulatory philosophy, ONR aims to work with the UK nuclear
industry to realise the benefits of new technology and novel approaches, providing a progressive, regulatoryenvironment.

E.3.1.2 UK Nuclear Sector Deal and the role of regulators
In 2018, the UK government published its Nuclear Sector Deal (UK Government, 2018), which identifies innovationand the use of new technology as a means of accelerating risk reduction at nuclear facilities, particularly at legacy
plants and in reducing decommissioning costs. Responsibility for many of the changes and initiatives prompted by
the Nuclear Sector Deal will be delivered by the nuclear industry.
However, a 2019 paper on the regulation of the fourth industrial revolution (UK Government, 2019) recognises the
key role played by regulators. Regulatory processes are often cited as a barrier to innovation, with a perception that
regulation is inevitably risk-averse, regulators will be reluctant to accept novel techniques or approaches, or that theregulatory processes associated with new technologies must be long and complex. To address this challenge, the UK
government (2019) outlines how regulators need to be open to discuss innovative ideas to ensure that regulatory
processes, procedures and behaviours do not stifle creative thinking or create unnecessary barriers.
Early engagement with industry and the supply chain is a priority, fostering an environment that facilitates innovation
through clear understanding of common goals and how these may be achieved. Continuous improvement ofregulatory processes can also help remove unnecessary bureaucracy while keeping them fit for purpose and robust.
This needs to be achieved while maintaining regulatory independence, which is essential in effectively delivering
appropriately balanced judgements.

158 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

E.3.2. Approach to innovation in the UK nuclear industry
E.3.2.1 Enabling innovation
Recognising the ambitions in UK Government (2018) and the expectations in UK Government (2019), ONR
published in 2020 a guidance document setting out the approach to regulating innovation (ONR, 2020b). This
document outlines a regulatory approach that is enabling, accessible, open-minded, poses appropriate challenge,
works collaboratively, and yet is adaptable and responsive to the needs of industry / innovators and the wider
environment. An example of how this is achieved is ONR’s engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, bothnationally and internationally, to facilitate the discussion and implementation of innovative solutions. Rather thanbeing a barrier to innovation, as a modern progressive regulator, ONR (2020b) outlines how ONR is committed toregulating in a way that encourages and facilitates technological advancements, providing adequate justifications arein place that nuclear operations will be adequately safe and secure (ONR, 2020b). To achieve this, ONR promotes
constructive dialogue at an early stage with dutyholders, providing early feedback on the licensing challenges ofcandidate options, avoiding surprises and building trust which will improve communication.
In implementing the principles in ONR (2020b), ONR continuously reviews the suitability of its regulatory approachand remain responsive to the need for innovation in the nuclear sector. ONR also incorporates regular horizon
scanning, which aims to understand future use of new technologies in nuclear applications, providing the foresight toprepare for developments by building internal capability (ONR, 2018, 2020b).

E.3.2.2 Regulating innovation in practice: robotics and autonomous systems
An example of an area where this approach to regulating innovation is adopted by ONR is the permissioning ofactivities involving robotics and automation system (R&AS) solutions. While recognising the benefit of R&AS in
reducing the radiological risks and normal operation exposure of workers by remote operations, ONR is also
conscious of the new safety and security challenges introduced by R&AS technologies, for example due to theircomplexity (e.g. new failure modes and potential cyber attack vectors) and limited experience of previous deployment
in nuclear applications
In this context, ONR’s aim is to ensure the regulatory system continues to be flexible and outcome-focused bydelivering targeted training programmes to help ONR inspectors understand innovation and influence positive
improvement in both nuclear safety and security of robotic systems. A number of initiatives have been taken forward
by ONR to promote this, including:•engaging at early stages with dutyholders to understand the challenges, provide initial feedback
and work on enablers / blockers for a safe and secure implementation of R&AS;•

proactively reviewing the adequacy of ONR’s guidance in response to new technologicalsolutions such as R&AS;•

building key links with stakeholders in research, academia, and industry to better understandthe technological and industry development needs;•

commissioning research in areas where additional internal knowledge needs to be gained toregulate the industry;•engaging internationally (e.g. with the IAEA, NEA and other peer regulators) to promoteconsistency in the outcomes, and share good practices.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 159

E.3.2.3 Addressing innovation challenges with R&AS
Early experience in applications of robotic solutions in the UK nuclear industry involved their use in non-safety
applications. Projects are currently under way to trial innovative technologies on nuclear licensed sites in pilot
projects called “demonstrators”, to test new concepts for delivering safety functions in a safe environment, before
deployment in larger projects/live applications. A few examples of early learning and areas of future interest in thearea of R&AS are presented below:•

Cross discipline engagement: this recognises that the use and substantiation of R&AS involves
multiple disciplines (both from ONR and dutyholder organisations) and its complexity inproviding or supporting an overall safety function cannot be dealt with separately within eachspecialism. Typical disciplines involved include, but are not limited to, human factors, fault
studies, internal hazards, instrumentation and control, mechanical engineering and cybersecurity. This aspect is particularly important in the UK regulatory context where the legal
requirement to reduce the risk ALARP needs to holistically consider various disciplines in thecontext of the overall substantiation. Engagement of various stakeholders (including theregulator, as appropriate) and disciplines at early stages in the design process has proved to beparticularly valuable, e.g. in identifying design / operational requirements and in promoting
fail-safe / secure-by-design principles.

•

Screening of options (or “optioneering”): this requires discussions at early stages of various
options / alternatives and documentation of the outcome of the decision-making process. In
early discussions on R&AS, optioneering was recognised as a key enabler. The result of thisprocess becomes useful also at later stages of the design and licensing process, to confirm therationale for specific design choices and also to articulate how the risk of the proposed solution
is reduced ALARP.

•

Substantiation of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions: many proposed applications of
R&AS involve the modification and deployment of commercial off-the-shelf equipment, i.e.
equipment not initially developed for nuclear applications. The substantiation of COTS solution
can be challenging for a number of reasons, including access to key proprietary informationfrom the manufacturers. Future work is planned in this area, to identify proportionate andpragmatic approaches for the substantiation of R&AS, graded to the safety class / reliability
target.

•Co-operative working between industry/academia/regulator: there is currently a significant
effort on R&AS across various industries and stakeholders (academia, regulators, othertechnology clusters). Early experience showed the value of having broad representation fromacross the sector and supply chain within relevant forums to discuss common challenges andfind synergies, avoiding duplication of effort or inconsistent approaches and early engagementwith regulators. An example of this joint effort is the Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in
Nuclear (RAIN) hub (RAIN, 2021), which is facilitating discussions between academia,
licensees and relevant regulators in several technical areas. Other discussions are ongoing withhealth and safety regulators in non-nuclear sectors (e.g. Health and Safety Executive), andindependent bodies such as the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office (NIRO).

•

Targeted research: early experience showed that areas where uncertainty in the capabilities of
new technology to perform safely and securely can be a significant concern and this needs tobe addressed by targeted research to underpin claims made by users and thereby enable thedeployment of R&AS in nuclear. Examples of these areas includes artificial intelligence andmachine learning tools that can be an essential element of autonomous systems. Their safe andsecure application in the nuclear industry requires, among other things, increasing thecompetence of key organisation in this area and targeted research.

160 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1

E.3.3 References
ONR (2020a), Safety Assessment Principles for nuclear facilities, Revision 1, United Kingdom Officefor Nuclear Regulation, www.onr.org.uk/saps/saps2014.pdf.
ONR (2020b), Approach to Regulating Innovation, United Kingdom Office for Nuclear Regulation,
https://news.onr.org.uk/2020/09/approach-to-regulating-innovation/.
ONR (2018), Holding industry to account and influencing improvements – A guide to enabling
regulation in practice, United Kingdom Office for Nuclear Regulation,
https://news.onr.org.uk/2020/09/approach-to-regulating-innovation/.
ONR (2017), Security Assessment Principles for the Civil Nuclear Industry, United Kingdom Office for
Nuclear Regulation, www.onr.org.uk/syaps/security-assessment-principles-2017.pdf.
RAIN (2021), RAIN – Robotics and AI in Nuclear Research Hub, https://rainhub.org.uk.
UK government (2019), Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, United Kingdom Government
White Paper,https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807
792/regulation-fourth-industrial-strategy-white-paper-web.pdf.
UK government (2018), Nuclear Sector Deal, United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy &Industrial Strategy White paper, www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-sector-deal/nuclearsector-deal.
UK government (2017), The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017,www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1075/contents/made.
UK government (2013), Energy Act 2013, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/32/contents.
UK government (2003), The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003,
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/403/contents/made.
UK government (1974), Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974,
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents.
UK government (1965), Nuclear Installations Act 1965, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/57.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 161

Annex F: Bibliography
Abel, E., Brown, M., Fisher, P., Sharp, R. and Siva, K. (1991), s“NEATER, a telerobot for the nuclear
industry”, in Proceedings of the Fourth ANS Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Systems,
American Nuclear Society, Albuquerque New Mexico, United States.
Adjigble, M. (2019), “An assisted telemanipulation approach: combining autonomous grasp planningwith haptic cues”, in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots andSystems (IROS 2019), 3-8 Nov. 2019, Macao, China,
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8968454.
Adjigble, M. (2018), “Model-free and learning-free grasping by local contact moment matching”, inProceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2018),
1-5 Oct. 2018, Madrid, Spain.
Bogue, R. (2011), “Robots in the nuclear industry: a review of technologies and applications”, Industrial
Robot, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1108/01439911111106327.
Chapman, H., S. Lawton and J. Fitzpatrick (2018), “Laser cutting for nuclear decommissioning: An
Integrated Safety Approach”, Atw. Internationale Zeitschrift für Kernenergie, Vol. 62, No. 10, p521.
Chiou, R. S. (2016), “Experimental Analysis of a Variable Autonomy Framework for Controlling a
Remotely Operating Mobile Robot” in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference onIntelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2016), 9-14 Oct. 2016, Daejeon, Korea.
Energiforsk AB (2021). Robotics in nuclear applications, Report number 2021:796, Stockholm, Sweden,
https://energiforsk.se/en/programmes/digitalisation-in-nuclear-power/reports/robotics-in-nuclearapplications-2021-796/.
EPRI (2017), Evaluation of System Automation and Robotics for Decommissioning Applications,Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 3002010599, Palo Alto, CA, United States,www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002010599.
Garrec, P. and Y. Perrot (2015), Force Feedback Nuclear Telerobotics in France: R&D Results andIndustrial Achievements, Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA),France,https://indico.cern.ch/event/346833/contributions/1751182/attachments/684457/940211/PURESAFE_
CERN_january_2015_Garrec_Perrot.pdf.
Garrec, P. (2011), “Dedicated and industrial robotic arms used as force feedback telerobots at the
AREVA-La Hague recycling plant”, in Proceedings of ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics & Remote
Systems for Hazardous Environments • 11th Emergency Preparedness & Response, 7-10 Aug. 2011,
Knoxville, TN, United States.
Garrec, P., F. Geffard, O. David, F-X. Russotto, Y. Measson and Y. Perrot. (2011), “Telerobotics
Research and Development at CEA List”, in Proceedings of ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics & Remote
Systems for Hazardous Environments • 11th Emergency Preparedness & Response, 7-10 Aug. 2011,
Knoxville, TN, United States.
Garrec, P. (1998), “A new telescopic leg for the next generation of hexapod transporter”, in Proceedingsof the Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, CLAWAR, Belgian Societyof Mechanical and Environmental Engineering, Nov. 1998, Brussels, Belgium, https://halcea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-01168827.

162 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
Goertz, R. (1949), patent US2632574, Remote Control Manipulator, https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&
r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=2632574.PN.&OS=PN/2632574&RS=PN/2632574.
Goertz, R. (1949), Master-Slave Manipulator, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL-4311, UnitedStates, www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1054625/.
Goubot, J.M. and P. Garrec (2003), “STeP: An Innovative Teleoperation System for Decommissioning
Operations”, in Proceedings of Decommissioning challenges: An industrial reality? Nov. 2003,
Avignon, France, French Nuclear Energy Society, SFEN, https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea01174196/document.
Hill, J.W. and J.K. Salisbury, Jr. (1977), Annual Report 2: Study to design and develop remotemanipulator systems, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, California, United States, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19780008677.
JNC (2000), H12: Project to establish the scientific and technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan,
Supporting report 2: Repository design and engineering technology, Japan Nuclear Cycle
Development Institute Technical Report TN1410 2000-003, https://jopss.jaea.go.jp/pdfdata/JNCTN1410-2000-003.pdf.
Kawatsuma, S., M. Fukushima, and T. Okada (2012), “Emergency response by robots to Fukushima‐
Daiichi accident: summary and lessons learned”, Industrial Robot, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 428-435.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01439911211249715.
Kim, J.-H., J.-C. Lee and Y.-R. Choi (2014), “LAROB: Laser-Guided Underwater Mobile Robot for
Reactor Vessel Inspection”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 19, No. 4, Aug. 2014,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2013.2276889.
Labba, A. (undated), Brokk in Nuclear D&D Project, www.brokk.com/industry/nuclear/.
Lagos, L. (undated), Advanced and Innovative Technologies for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,
Applied Research Center Florida International University, United States.
Lopota, A. (2018), “Overview of Russian Robotic Program and Progress of Extreme Robots”,
International Field Robot Forum, 23 Oct., 2018, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology(KAIST), Daejeon, Korea,
http://firos.org/design/upload_file/BD1120/35c697cc6daf396b8fd5586013e57eb3_15598_6.pdf.
Maturi, N., Rastegarpanah, A., Takahashi, C., Adjigble, M., Stolkin, R., Zurek, S., Kopicki, M., Talha,
M., Kuo, J.A. and Bekiroglu, Y. (2016), “Toward Advanced Robotic Manipulation for Nuclear
Decommissioning: A pilot study on Tele-operation and autonomy”, in Proceedings of 2016
International Conference on Robotics and Automation for Humanitarian Applications (RAHA), 18-20
Dec. 2016, Amritapuri, India, https://doi.org/10.1109/RAHA.2016.7931866.
Méasson, O.D. (2011), “Dismantling with the hydraulic force feedback robot MAESTRO”, inProceedings of ANS EPRRSD – 13th Robotics & Remote Systems for Hazardous Environments • 11th
Emergency Preparedness & Response, 7-10 Aug. 2011, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Nagatani, K.K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Otake, K., Yoshida, K., Tadokoro, S., Nishimura, T.,
Yoshida, T., Koyanagi, E., Fukushima, M. and Kawatsuma, S. (2013), “Emergency response to the
nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants using mobile rescue robots”, Journalof Field Robotics, 30(10), pp. 44-63, https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21439.
NDA (2019), Nuclear Provision: explaining the cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear legacy, Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority Corporate Report, Cumbria, United Kingdom,
www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britainsnuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy.

NEA/RWM/R(2022)1 | 163

NDA (2014), The 2013 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory – Waste Quantities from all Sources, Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority Report URN 14D042 NDA/ST/STY(14)0010, Cumbria, United
Kingdom, https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/14D042_NDASTSTY140010_-_Waste_Quantities_from_all_Sources.pdf.
NEA (2019), Summary of the NEA Workshop on the Application of Remote and Robotic Systems in
Nuclear Back‐End Activities – Way Forward in System Implementation, 30-31 Jan. 2019,www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_55827
NEA (2014), R&D and Innovation Needs for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, OECD Publishing,Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14898.
NEA (2011), “Remote Handling Techniques in Decommissioning, A report of the NEA Co-operative
Programme on Decommissioning (CPD) Project”, NEA/RWM/R(2011)2, OECD Publishing Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19074.
Okada, S., Hirano, K., Jp, P.E., Kobayashi, R. and Kometani, Y. (2020), “Development and Applicationof Robotics for Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant”, Hitachi Review,Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 562–563, www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2020/r2020_04/pdf/04d02.pdf
Pardi, T.M., Maddali, V., Ortenzi, V., Stolkin, R. and Marturi, N. (2020), “Path planning for mobile
manipulator robots under non-holonomic and task constraints”, in Proceedings of 2020 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6749-6756,
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9340760.
Payne, J. H. (1948), patent US2476249, Remote Control Manipulator,
https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&
r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=2476249.PN.&OS=PN/2476249&RS=PN/2476249.
Pegman, G. and D. Hopper (1997), “Advanced teleoperated robots for hazardous environments”, inProceedings of Underwater Technology International: Remote Intervention (UTI-97), Aberdeen, UK,
April 1997, https://onepetro.org/SUTUTI/proceedings-abstract/UTI97/All-UTI97/SUT-UTI-97167/3203.
Perrot, Y., L. Gargiulo, M. Houry, N. Kammerer, D. Keller, Y. Measson, G. Piolain, A. Verney (2010),“Long reach articulated robots for inspection in hazardous environments, recent developments on
robotics and embedded diagnostics”, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Applied
Robotics for the Power Industry (CARPI), 5-7 Oct. 2010, Montreal, Canada,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CARPI.2010.5624425.
Piolain, G., Freudenreich, A., Monthel, P., Brudieu, M., Geffard, F., Garrec, P. (2012) “Results of atesting campaign of the telerobotic system MT200-TAO in AREVA La Hague's hot-cells”, inProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Robotics for the Power Industry (CARPI),
Zurich, Switzerland, 11-13 Sept. 2012, pp. 157-162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CARPI.2012.6473378.
Piolain, G., J-F Thro, M-A Brudieu and A. Coudray (2010), “Dedicated and Industrial Robotic Arms
Used as Force Feedback Telerobots at the AREVA-La Hague Recycling Plant”, in Proceedings of the
1st International Conference on Applied Robotics for the Power Industry (CARPI), 5-7 Oct. 2010,
Montreal, Canada, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CARPI.2010.5624418.
Sellafield (2015), “Energy minister praises decommissioning progress at Sellafield”, Retrieved fromPress release: http://www.sellafieldsites.com/press/energy-minister-praises-decommissioningprogress-at-sellafield-on-first-visit-to-site/.
SKB (2009), Underground design Forsmark Layout D2, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Report R-08116, Stockholm, Sweden, www.skb.com/publication/1963365/R-08-116.pdf.

164 | NEA/RWM/R(2022)1
SPARC (2015), Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap for Robotics in Europe: Call 2 ICT24 (2015) –Horizon 2020, The Partnership for Robotics in Europe, www.eurobotics.net/sparc/upload/about/files/H2020-Robotics-Multi-Annual-Roadmap-ICT-2016.pdf.
Szőke, I. (2021), “Digital innovation for robotics applications in decommissioning”, in Proceedings of
DigiDecom 2021, https://ife.no/en/event/digidecom2021/.
Szőke I. (2019), “RoboDecom: New modular robotic solutions for nuclear decommissioning in Norway
and abroad & LiveDecom: Digital support for management of nuclear decommissioning in Norway
and abroad”, in Proceedings of DigiDecom 2019, https://ife.no/en/event/digidecom2019/.
Szőke, I. (2018), “Nuclear decommissioning: end of lifecycle - cradle of new technology”, inProceedings of DigiDecom 2018, https://ife.no/en/event/digidecom2018/.
Szőke, I., Louka, M.N., Bryntesen, T.R., Edvardsen, S.T. and Bratteli, J. (2015), “Comprehensive
support for nuclear decommissioning based on 3D simulation and advanced user interface
technologies”, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 371–387.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223131.2014.951704.
Szőke, I., Louka, M.N., Bryntesen, T.R., Bratteli, J., Edvardsen, S.T., RøEitrheim, K.K. and Bodor, K.
(2014), “Real-time 3D radiation risk assessment supporting simulation of work in nuclear
environments”, Journal of Radiological Protection, 34 (2), pp. 389–416,
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/34/2/389/.
USDOE (2018), Research and Technology Roadmap - Robotics and Remote Systems for Nuclear Cleanup, Department of Energy’s (DOE) of Environmental Management (EM), United States,
http://rrsd.ans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DOE-EM-Robotics-Roadmap-March-2018-eversion.pdf.
Yokokohji, Y. (2021), “The Use of Robots to Respond to Nuclear Accidents: Applying the Lessons of
the Past to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station”, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, andAutonomous Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 681-710, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-071420-100248.