EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 7.3.2011 
SEC(2011) 204  final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
  
EX ANTE EVALUATION  
Accompanying document to the  
Proposals for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (Euratom) 
laying down the rules for the participat ion of undertakings, research centres and 
universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European 
Atomic Energy Community and for the disse mination of research results (2012-2013) 
COUNCIL DECISION 
concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community 
(Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2012 - 2013) 
COUNCIL DECISION 
concerning the specific progra mme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, 
implementing the Framework Programme of  the European Atomic Energy Community 
for nuclear research and traini ng activities (2012 - 2013) 
COUNCIL DECISION 
on the specific programme, to be carried ou t by means of direct actions by the Joint 
Research Centre, implementing the Framew ork Programme of the European Atomic 
Energy Community for nuclear research a nd training activiti es (2012 to 2013) 
{COM(2011) 71 final} 
{COM(2011) 72 final} {COM(2011) 73 final} {COM(2011) 74 final} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 4 
2. The need to be met in the short or long term ............................................................... 5 2.1. Energy challenge.......................................................................................................... 5 
2.2. The SET-Plan and nuclear energy................................................................................ 6 2.3. Main challenges in nuclear fission............................................................................... 7 2.4. Main challenges in fusion energy ................................................................................ 8 2.5. Other challenges in nuclear  science and technology.................................................... 9 
2.6. Innovation in nuclear field ......................................................................................... 10 3. The added value of Euratom Commun ity involvement in nuclear R&D................... 11 
4. The objectives to be achieved .................................................................................... 12 4.1. Indirect actions in the area of nucle ar fission and radiation protection ..................... 13 
4.2. Indirect actions in fusion energy................................................................................ 14 4.3. Direct actions in nuclear  safety and security.............................................................. 15 
5. The policy options available ...................................................................................... 17 5.1. Option 1 - no agreement on additional f unding for ITER, termination of fusion R&D
............................................................................................................................... ..... 17 
5.2. Option 2 – Budget increase for ITER, termination of fusion R&D........................... 20 5.3. Option 3 – Budget increase for ITER, minimum-sized EU coordinated fusion 
research programme................................................................................................... 21 
6. The results and impacts expected, in part icular economic, social and environmental 
impacts, and the indicators and evaluation arrangement needed to measure them.... 22 
6.1. Impacts of limited funding for ITER (option 1)......................................................... 22 6.2. Results and impacts of ITER construction according to the base line agreed in July 
2010 (option 2 and 3) ................................................................................................. 22 
6.3. Results and impacts of termination of fusion R&D programme (option 1 and 2)..... 23 
6.4. Results and impacts of prolongation of  fusion R&D programme (option 3)............. 23 
6.5. Results and impacts of fission & radia tion protection programme (all options) ....... 24 
6.6. Conclusions of assessment......................................................................................... 26 6.7. Indicators and evalua tion arrangement for the preferred option................................ 26 
7. The most appropriate method of impl ementation for the preferred option................ 28 
 
EN 3   EN 8. The internal coherence of the proposed pr ogramme or activity and its relations with 
other relevant instruments.......................................................................................... 30 
9. The volume of appropriations, human resour ces and other admini strative expenditure 
to be allocated with due regard fo r the cost-effectiveness principle.......................... 30 
10. The lessons learned from sim ilar experiences in the past.......................................... 32 
 
EN 4   EN Ex-ante evaluation for the legislativ e package of Commission's proposals 
for Euratom research and traini ng activities for 2012-2013 
1. INTRODUCTION  
This ex-ante evaluation accompanies the legisl ative package of Commission's proposals for 
the Euratom nuclear research and training ac tivities (2012-13). It ha s been prepared in 
accordance with Article 21 of  the Implementing Rules fo r the Financial Regulation 
(Commission regulation no. 2342/2002). This legisla tive package consists of the draft Council 
Decisions for the Framework Programme, Specific Programmes for direct and indirect actions 
and Rules for the Participation of undertakings, research centres and uni versities in actions 
under the framework programme and for the dissemin ation of research resu lts. It will aim to 
continue supporting R&D actions in the nuclear field carried  out under the 7th Euratom 
Framework Programme (2007-2011). The proposals will cover only two years (2012-13), in 
accordance with the current financial perspectiv es (2007-2013) and in line with the timeframe 
of the EU 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013).  
The Directorates General (DGs ) responsible for pr eparing this ex-ante evaluation are DG 
Research & Innovation and the Joint Research Ce ntre (JRC). Work started in early 2010 and 
consultation with other Commi ssion services was carried out through an inter-service group 
composed of representatives from the Secretar iat General, DG Energy and the Joint Research 
Centre. The group was set up in May 2010 and met three times. 
During its work on the ex-ante evaluation DG RT D and JRC used various sources, including 
(1) Respective Euratom FP7 Interim Evaluations carried out by independent panels of 
experts  
(2) A report of the European Fusion Devel opment Agreement (EFDA) following an ad-
hoc study group on the future of the Fusion R&D programme  
(3) Input to the extension of FP7 and preparat ion of future research programmes from 
Euratom's Science and Technical Committee (STC)  
(4) Input from the JRC Board of Governors 
(5) Reports such as vision documents and st rategic research agendas prepared by the 
Technology Platforms in nuclear field – Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology 
Platform (SNETP), Implementing Geologi cal Disposal Technology Platform (IGD-
TP) and Multidisciplinary European  Low Dose Initiative (MELODI). 
 
EN 5   EN 2. THE NEED TO BE MET IN THE SHORT OR LONG TERM  
2.1. Energy challenge 
Following a proposal by the Commission1, the European Council de fined, at its March 2007 
summit, an integrated policy for energy and c limate change with three objectives: increased 
security of supply; competitiveness of Europe an economies and availability of affordable 
energy; environmental sustainability whilst co mbating climate change. The resulting Energy 
Policy for Europe sets out a number of st rategic energy policy objectives for 2020: (i) 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissi ons by 20% compared to 1990 le vels; (ii) reducing primary 
energy use by 20% (through energy efficiency); (i ii) increasing the level of renewable energy 
in the EU's overall mix to 20%; (iv) minimum target for biofuels  of 10% of vehicle fuel. In 
addition, it sets out a vision for a low carbon society by 2050 in which greenhouse gas 
emissions must be reduced by 80% to 95% compared to 1990 levels2. 
Nuclear power is Europe's principal low carbon source of electricity. 151 reactors account for 
almost 1/3 of the electricity production, amoun ting to 2/3 of the low-carbon energy produced 
in the EU. This represents a saving of almost 700 million tons CO 2 per year3, equivalent to 
that produced by all the cars in Europe. Nuclear power therefore plays a key role in limiting 
the EU’s carbon emissions. In its Nuclear  Illustrative Programme of October 20074 the 
contribution of nuclear power to  the diversification and the security of energy supplies is 
recognised for a number of reasons, in particular  the availability and distribution of nuclear 
fuel (natural uranium) and the limited impact of fuel price variations on  plant operating costs.  
The role of nuclear is further underlined in  the "Second Strategic Energy Review" published 
by the Commission in 20085. More recently, in the Commission’s Communication on "Energy 
2020 - A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy"6 underlines the importance 
of nuclear safety and provisions of the Euratom Treaty in this respect, including safeguards of 
nuclear materials and detection of any illicit activ ities, especially in a scenario of increased 
recourse to nuclear power.  
Major studies on future energy scenarios have been carried out by the European 
Commission7, international organisations such as the IEA8, NEA9, IAEA, and industrial 
groups such as Eurelectric10. Forecasts for energy consumption suggest that electricity 
demand will increase, despite efforts to improve energy efficiency. However, the contribution of nuclear is expected to remain at current le vels, in terms of electri city generated and as a 
percentage of the total generation capacity. The realisation of nuclear technology must also be 
carried out in such a way that civil nuclear material and technology is not diverted into 
                                                
 
1 Communication from the Commission "An Energy Policy for Europe", COM(2007)1 
2 Council conclusions, 30 October 2009. 
3 If nuclear capacity were replaced by a representative mix of alternative sources 
4 Communication from the Commission "Nuclear Illustrative Programme", COM(2007)565 
5 Communication from the Commission "Second Strategic Energy Review",  COM (2008)781 
6 Communication from the Commission "Energy 2020, A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure 
energy", COM (2010)639 
7 Energy Trends to 2030, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/trends_2030/index_en.htm 
8 International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2010 and Energy Technology Perspectives 2010, 
IEA 
9 Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 , Nuclear Energy Agency 
10 “Power Choices, Pathways to Carbon-Neutral Electricity in Europe by 2050”, Eurelectric, 2010 
 
EN 6   EN weapons programmes. This will become more impor tant with nuclear expansion, especially in 
geographical areas not previously operat ing nuclear fuel cycle facilities.  
For the civil use of nuclear en ergy, the public must be confid ent that nuclear materials are 
well protected against any use for illicit activ ities. These requirements call for strong and 
efficient safeguards, non-proliferati on and nuclear security regimes. 
Fusion is potentially a sustainabl e large-scale energy supply. It is  inherently safe (in terms of 
accidents, waste and prolifera tion issues), carbon-free and ha s virtually inexhaustible and 
widely available fuel resources. The R&D cha llenges still to be met leave considerable 
uncertainty about the timescale on which commer cial fusion power can be realised and the 
cost of fusion generated power, although some articles in peer reviewed journals11 indicate a 
timescale of several decades after 2020 and an electricity cost li kely to be competitive with 
other sources. Because of these uncertainties fusi on is not usually included in the modelling of 
future energy scenarios, but it is firmly embe dded in the energy research landscape, especially 
since the decision to proceed with ITER. 
2.2. The SET-Plan and nuclear energy 
Energy technologies play a central  role in offering both competi tiveness and sustainability in 
the energy sector while increasing security of  supply. To help achieve the medium and long 
term objectives (2020 and 2050) the Commissi on proposed the Strategic Energy Technology 
Plan (SET-Plan)12 which was endorsed by the Council on 14th March 2008 and adopted by 
the Parliament on 9 July 2008. The SET-Plan aims to accelerate the development and 
deployment of cost-effective low carbon technol ogies. Its main assumption is that no single 
form or source of energy will be able to provide a sustainable supply or to cover all energy needs in the coming decades. A broad portfolio  of low-carbon energy sources and carriers 
needs to be investigated and developed. This includes inter alia  wind, photovoltaic (PV), 
fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage ( CCS), bio-energy, and nucl ear energy, especially 
advanced reactors for increased sustainability. This broad portfolio and 'technology neutral' 
approach to future low-carbon energy supply has been underlined  again in the conclusions of 
the European Council (4 February 2011) which agr eed that the EU and its Member States will 
promote investment in renewables, safe and sustainable low carbon technologies and focus on 
implementing the technology prioriti es established in the SET-plan. 
In the short term (2020) the SET-Plan suppo rts research to redu ce costs and improve 
performance of existing energy technologies, and encourages the commercial implementation 
of these technologies. For the longer term (2050) it supports development of a new generation 
of low carbon technologies . Both nuclear fission and fusion are identified in the SET-Plan as 
energy technologies which Europe must maintain, develop and de ploy in order to meet its 
short and longer term energy objectives. 
Regarding nuclear technology in particular, to m eet the short term (2020) goals of the Energy 
Policy for Europe (EPE), the SET-Plan aims to “maintain the competitiveness in fission 
technologies together with long term waste management solutions”.  To realise the longer-
                                                
 
11 See for example "Revised assessments of the econo mics of fusion power", W.E. Han, D.J.Ward, Fusion 
Engineering and Design 84 (2009) 895–898 
12 Communication from the Commission "A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (Set-Plan). 
Towards a low carbon future", COM(2007)723 
 
EN 7   EN term EPE vision of a low carbon society by 2050, the SET-Plan states that the following 
milestones are to be reached by 2020: (1) c omplete the preparations for the demonstration of 
a new generation (Gen-IV) of fission reactors for increased sustainabil ity; and (2) complete 
the construction of the ITER fusion facility and ensure early i ndustry participation in the 
preparation of demonstration units. The Europe an Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative 
(ESNII), which is one of the six initial Europe an Industrial Initiatives  foreseen under the SET-
Plan, was formally launched on 15 November 2010. ESNII will address the need for demonstration of Gen-IV Fast  Neutron Reactor technologies,  together with the supporting 
research infrastructures, fuel f acilities and R&D work. The nucle ar energy's milestones of the 
SET-Plan can be reached via research and deve lopment activities to be carried out by private 
and/or public sector in Europe . These R&D activities will address different challenges in 
fission and fusion, though some t opics like development of nucle ar-grade materials are cross-
cutting. Finally, R&D should address some issu es which are beyond scope of the SET-Plan, 
such as radiation protection and nuclear securi ty (proliferation of fissile materials).  
2.3. Main challenges in nuclear fission 
(i) Challenges in the timescale of 2020 
– Plant lifetime management: The current nuclear fleet in Eu rope is based mostly on Light 
Water Reactors (LWR) that have been in operation for about 20 years on average. Current 
plans in most EU Member States are to extend their lifetime on case-by-case basis beyond 
40 years, and possibly beyond 50 years. Key R& D issues are related to meeting safety 
requirements for long-term operation focussing  on ageing of structures, systems and 
components. Other important issues are ageing mechanisms, ageing monitoring and prevention and mitigation of ageing. Finally, research can address the performance of 
existing plants. 
– Geological disposal: As indicated in the Commission’ s revised draft proposal for a 
Council Directive on the Management of Spent Fu el and Radioactive Waste
13, all EU 
Member States produce radioactive waste, which is generated by many be neficial activities 
including civil nuclear power and radioisotope applicati ons in medicine, industry, 
agriculture, research and education. More than half of Member States have accumulations 
of spent nuclear fuel, or residues from the re processing of this fuel, as a result of the 
operation of nuclear power plants. The general principle is that those who benefit today 
from these activities should manage the resul ting waste in a safe a nd sustainable manner. 
This is also the overwhelmi ng view of European citizens14, whose acceptance of nuclear 
energy is also strongly correlated to the impl ementation of solutions to safely manage 
nuclear waste. This is why implementing safe  long-term management of this waste is 
specifically mentioned in the SET-Plan. Indee d, the R&D work carried  out over last three 
decades has confirmed that deep geological dis posal is the most appropriate solution for 
long-term management of spent fuel, high-lev el waste, and other long-lived radioactive 
wastes. This scientific consensus now needs to be turned into an e ngineering reality, and 
this will be the focus of attention over the coming decade. 
                                                 
13 Proposal for a Council Directive on the manage ment of spent fuel and radioactive waste, 
COM(2010)618, 3 November 2011 
14 Special Eurobarometer 297: Attitudes towards radioactive waste , published in June 2008. 
 
EN 8   EN – Nuclear safeguards and security:  Expansion of civil nuclear technology brings with it an 
increasing concern about the risk of accidents,  nuclear non-proliferatio n and the threat of 
nuclear terrorism. The European Parliament  made world-wide nuclear disarmament by 
2020 a top-priority for the EU Member States . High priority is gi ven to strengthening 
prevention measures at both the national a nd international levels, and establishing 
measures to ensure a rapid and coordinated response should these measures fail. The spread of nuclear material , technology and know-how alr eady increases the risk of 
proliferation. The world-wide growth of nuclear power will require even greater safeguards 
which rely on profound knowledge and expertise.  
(ii) Challenges by 2040 or beyond 
– Next generation fission systems: Today's light water reactor technology uses less than 1% 
of the energy content of the mined uranium, which limits the sustainability of nuclear 
energy to a few decades because of the finite nature of the world's uranium reserves. By 
contrast fast neutron reactor s will extract 50-100 times more energy from the same 
quantity of uranium, making nucle ar much more sustainable. Furthermore, fast reactors 
will produce far less high-level long-lived wast e, facilitating the management in future 
geological repositories. R&D challenges in fast reactors are needed to address cost competitiveness, enhanced safety and non- proliferation, requiring innovation both in 
reactor designs as well as fuel and fuel  cycle technology. Though next generation fast 
neutron reactors are not expected to be  widely deployed commercially before 2040, 
prototypes and demonstrators need to be desi gned and constructed in  the next decade to 
enable sufficient return from experience be fore commercial deployment. In parallel, a 
broad-based programme of R&D is needed in  key areas such as materials, numerical 
simulation and safety. 
2.4. Main challenges in fusion energy 
ITER, the next step in fusion R&D, is expected  to demonstrate the feas ibility of fusion power. 
The concentration of the majority  of the funding on ITER is part of an evolution of the fusion 
programme that started during the ITER design phase and has recently accelerated as the 
needs of ITER have become more clearly defi ned and financial resources more scarce. The 
challenges for the Euratom Framework Programme  in relation to ITER  construction are not 
primarily concerned with R&D but  involve issues of project sc hedule, cost containment and 
risk reduction in an international context . In parallel with this, a pioneering R&D programme 
is essential to building a demonstration power plant be fore 2040. The scientific and 
engineering challenges of fusion are major and require a research programme firmly focussed 
on this ultimate goal of fusion power plants.  
The major challenges of ITER and fusion will not be resolved in the 2012-13 timeframe, but 
this period needs to be used to consolidate th e programme strategy and to launch the activities 
for the next 10 years, i.e. in parallel with I TER construction, in order to ensure and enhance 
ITER’s success and move towards the power pl ant goal as rapidly a nd as efficiently as 
possible. These major challenges are: 
(i) Challenges in the timescale of 2020 
– Complete ITER construction : the key challenges surroundi ng ITER's construction are 
procuring, testing and integrating the compone nts, and launching the plasma device in 
 
EN 9   EN 2019. These must be completed within th e approved budget, while minimising the 
technological risks for the correct op eration of the completed machine.  
– Secure ITER operation:  by expanding the knowledge base to maximise the scientific 
output of ITER. To achieve this, the program me must: (i) develop operational scenarios 
that will secure and even exceed the baseline performance, and (ii) ensure the rapid and 
efficient start up of ITER operation, and protect  the investment in ITER by minimising the 
chances of unexpected technical problems that  would delay exploitati on or incur extra cost. 
– Prepare the ITER generation of researchers and engineers:  to ensure that Europe will 
have the human resources to exploit ITER  in an international and competitive 
environment. Europe must cultivate future l eaders of the ITER programme or it will risk 
ceding leadership in fusion research.  
– Lay the foundations for fusion power plants:  driving forward developments in physics 
and technology to ensure the design and c onstruction of a demonstration fusion power 
plant as soon after ITER as possible. Position Europe so that it gains a significant share of 
the intellectual prope rty of fusion power. 
– Involve industry more clos ely and promote innovation:  by integrating industry in the 
development of fusion power plant studies,  enhancing the transf er of knowledge and 
creation of spin offs from the programme as  well as developing the skills and capacities 
necessary for a European fusion industry of the future. The Commission has launched the 
formation of a Fusion Industry Innovation Forum as the first step towards meeting these challenges. 
(ii) Challenges by 2040 or beyond 
– Fusion power:  Beyond ITER, which is an experiment al reactor to study the physics and 
the technology needed for power generation, it is envisaged to cons truct a demonstration 
fusion reactor (DEMO) that can produce el ectrical power and be commercialised. 
Preparation for experiments in ITER are s upported by a number of other smaller fusion 
experiments for specific studies and by major experimental facilities required to develop operating scenarios and address ke y physics issues for an efficien t start up of ITER and for 
research towards DEMO. As a result of the e xperiences obtained by the operation of ITER, 
the physics of burning plasmas will be well known and valuable technological know-how 
will have been obtained. A parallel progra mme of technology activities for materials 
testing, technological validati on, prototype development a nd fabrication methods is 
foreseen. Key technologies should be sufficien tly developed and embe dded in industry to 
have a final design and c onstruction of a DEMO by 2050. 
2.5. Other challenges in nuclear science and technology 
There are also other challenges wh ich concern radiation protection a nd skills in nuclear field:  
– The growing use of radiati on in medical diagnostic and therapeutic techniques is 
responsible for a significant rise in exposure to  low doses. Further rese arch is needed to 
determine the true risks emanating from such  exposure, and to understand the emergence 
of latent cancers and vascular diseases at  these low doses. This will lead to better 
regulation and an appropriate level of prot ection for the public and workforce in all 
industrial and medical uses of radiation. Howeve r, this scientific ch allenge is enormous, 
 
EN 10   EN involving cutting edge research and an approach  that must bring together experts from a 
wide range of disciplines, including radia tion protection, radiobiol ogy, molecular biology, 
genomics and epidemiology. Supporting basic and orie nted research will be needed to keep 
the highest degree of understandi ng of key basic phenomenon.  
– A particular focus must be gi ven to provide support for edu cation and training of present 
and future young scientists and engineers. As underlined by the Council conclusions15, it is 
essential to maintain in the European Union a high level of training in the nuclear field. 
This effort is indispensable for (a) Member States wishing to continue to make use of 
nuclear energy for their energy; (b) for Member States wishing to begin using this energy 
source; (c) for Member States wishing to phase  out the use of nuclear  fission for electricity 
production and still facing the challenge of decommissioning nuclear facilities, and of 
managing radioactive waste and spent fuel; (d) for Member States which have not 
developed a nuclear power programme for energy produc tion but which use nuclear 
technologies for other purposes (r esearch, medical applications). 
2.6. Innovation in nuclear field 
Nuclear energy technology has special characteris tics that affect the actors involved and the 
way innovation occurs: large up-front capital i nvestments, large and complex facilities, 
special quality and safety requirements, a nd long R&D lead times. The fission sector has 
developed over 50 years into a mature industr y and a major market. Nuclear innovation is 
stimulated by many factors including: (i) growing demand for affordable low-carbon 
electricity from citizens/industry, (ii) maintenanc e and reliability perfor mance targets from the 
utilities, (iii) safety and emi ssion standards set by public author ities, (iv) growing interest by 
industrial end-users in  low carbon process heat , and (v) public policy intervention. The supply 
of innovative technologies is supported by public and private organisations (nuclear vendors 
and utilities) and involves technical safety organisations and regulators. Finance institutions are closely involved as nuclear is a very capital-intensive technology.  
The fusion energy sector is in its infancy a nd high-tech industry has to learn-by-doing and 
gain appropriate skills and manuf acturing capabilities. First steps need to be taken now at EU 
level to prepare this new industry and asso ciate it to the programme evolution. The high 
technology industry involved in th e construction of large-scale re search fusion infrastructures, 
such as ITER and W7-X are keen to be invol ved in the fusion technology. They welcome the 
positive impact on their skills base and th e possibility to re-use the new innovative 
manufacturing processes for other products and services
16. The situation is similar to other big 
science research where more than 1/3 of indus trial contracts yield ne w products and services 
according to CERN17. 
                                                 
15 Conclusions on the need for skills in the nuclear field, 2891st Competitiveness (Internal Market, 
Industry and Research) Council meeti ng, Brussels, 1 and 2 December 2008 
16 Commission's survey (2009) of companies involved in upgrade and construction projects in fusion 
17 Technology transfer and technolo gical leaning through CERN's procurement activity, E. Autio, M. 
Bianchi-Streit, A. Hameri, CERN, Geneva 2003 (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/680242/files/p1.pdf )  
 
EN 11   EN 3. THE ADDED VALUE OF EURATOM COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR R&D 
Public support of research is justified in a vari ety of circumstances, including large scale, long 
term endeavours, matters concerning public safe ty and security, a low probability of a near 
term economic return (“market failure”). Resear ch in radiation protection is an example of 
activity where public support is esse ntial, since there is no industr ial / private sector to speak 
of that can exploit such research on a commerc ial basis, but the research is nonetheless 
needed in order to adequately protect the public and the workforce. An example of market failure is in advanced nuclear technology, wh ere commercial deployment is too far in the 
future for the nuclear sector to justify the econo mic, regulatory and political risks of investing 
now. The justification for public sector support for fusion research is its firm focus on the 
future public benefit of having a further op tion in the energy mix, but on a timescale for 
deployment too long for there to be, at pr esent, significant investment by industry. 
The Euratom Treaty is the legal basis unde rpinning R&D by the Euratom community. It 
enables research coordination and cooperation. Article 1 stipulates th at it "it shall be the task 
of the Community to contribute to the raising of  the standard of living in the Member States 
and to the development of relations with the ot her countries". Article 2 stipulates that "in 
order to perform its task the Community shall, as provided in the Treaty  promote research and 
ensure dissemination of technical information" . For this purpose "the  Commission shall be 
responsible for promoting and facilitating nucl ear research in the Member States and for 
complementing it by carrying out a Community research and traini ng programme" (Article 4). 
The Nuclear Safeguards activitie s for current nuclear fuel cy cle systems contribute to the 
implementation by the Commission services of chapter 7 of the Euratom Treaty and by the IAEA of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. To fulfil these obligations, nuclear material measurements, modelling skills for processe s and equipment, advanced sealing and 
verification technologies, scie ntific and technical  support from trusty and independent 
laboratories, and dedicated cons ultancy services are needed by  the safeguards authorities (DG 
ENER and IAEA).  
Because the research competence is not exclusiv e to Euratom, the principle of subsidiarity 
applies. In order for Community action to be ju stified, the principle of subsidiarity must be 
respected. This involves assessing two aspects. 
Firstly, it is important to ensure that the ob jectives of the proposed action could not be 
achieved by Member States in the framework of  their national systems (necessity test). This 
relates to the scope and size of the required research activities.  Clear economies of scale may 
exist when R&D efforts are pooled on a European  scale. European research funding allows 
Europe to benefit from transnational research teams, bringing together the best expertise in Europe to meet ambitious goals. 
The second aspect to consider is whether the research serves  Community aims and whether 
the benefits will be widely spread across the Member States. In the case of nuclear energy, with potential cross-border impacts, the need fo r Member States to work collectively together 
is clear, especially in areas th at will lead to improved practices  and/or regulati on applicable in 
all Member States, and in areas where the rewards will only appear  in the long term. 
Public financial support for much  nuclear research is more eff ective at a European level than 
at a national level fo r several reasons: 
 
EN 12   EN – Critical mass: Some nuclear research activities ar e of such a scale and complexity that very 
few Member States could provide the necess ary financial resources  or personnel, and 
hence need to be carried out at an EU level.  For example, where a large research capacity 
is needed and resources must be pooled to  be effective, or where complementary 
knowledge and skills are needed  (such as inter-disciplinary fields like plasma physics, 
material science etc); 
– Access to common research facilities such  as JET and the fusion programme’s High 
Performance Computer; 
– Participation of smaller Member States: doing large nuclear R&D projects at European 
level brings in valuable contributions from  the smaller Member States who otherwise 
might be left out; 
– Improving skills and technology capabilities: Research teams wishing to develop their 
capabilities in specific fields  can participate in top trans-national teams, benefit from 
learning and synergies, and so become recognis ed global leaders and centres of excellence; 
– Leverage on private and public investmen t: Through EU research schemes, private 
companies and public research bodies can collab orate with foreign partners at a scale not 
possible at national level, which induces them to  invest more of their own funds than they 
would under national funding schemes; 
– Dissemination of results: It is more efficient to  disseminate the results of research at an EU 
level - to users, industries, firms, citizens, et c. – leading to a better use of research, and 
creating a larger impact than would be  possible only at Member State level; 
4. THE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED  
The Euratom Framework Programme is one of the building blocks of  Europe 2020 and the 
Innovation Union. It promotes comp etition for scientific excelle nce and fosters innovation in 
the nuclear energy field to tackle challenges in energy and climate change strategy. The programme will contribute to the "Innovation Un ion" flagship by supporting pre-commercial 
research and facilitating technology transfer process between academia and industry and to the "Resource efficient Europe" flagship by grea tly increasing the overall sustainability of 
nuclear energy. By putting emphasis on training in all its activities, boosting competitiveness 
in the current nuclear industry and creating a new sector of high-t ech industry for fusion 
energy in particular, the Euratom programme w ill lead to growth and new jobs in a wide 
range of disciplines.  
The current proposal addresses in detail ju st the 2-year period 2012-13, but the activities 
remain fully consistent with the key milest ones for technology development in the nuclear 
field over the next decade as laid out in the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan 
(SET-Plan). 
The Euratom Framework Programme for 2012-13 , c overs the same scientific & technical and 
strategic objectives and usi ng the same funding schemes of  current FP7 programme (2007-
2011). Nonetheless, the programme has evolved ove r the last 5 years, and must take into 
account results of recent research and the ne w policy context and research landscape in 
Europe. Regarding policy, the most significant developmen t has been the adoption and 
 
EN 13   EN endorsement of the SET-Plan as part of a br oad portfolio approach to addressing future 
energy challenges. 
The broad objectives for the Euratom Fram ework Programme for the years 2012-13 are: 
– in the area of fusion energy research, to de velop the technology for a safe, sustainable, 
environmentally responsible and eco nomically viable energy source;  
– in the area of nuclear fission and radiation pr otection, to enhance the safety performance, 
resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness of nuc lear fission and other uses of radiation in 
industry and medicine; and to enhance nuc lear security (nuclear safeguards, non-
proliferation, combating illicit tr afficking and nuclear forensics) 
4.1. Indirect actions in the area of nucle ar fission and radiation protection 
In the area of nuclear science and technology, the last 3 years have seen the launch of key 
technical forums that bring toge ther all key nuclear research a nd industrial stakeholders across 
Europe. These are the Technology Platfo rms in Sustainable Nuclear Energy and 
Implementing Geological Disposal (SNETP and IGDTP) and the joint programming initiative 
MELODI – the Multidisciplinary European Lo w-Dose Initiative. All three have come 
together around agreed visions for future R&D in their respective fiel d, and all have defined, 
or are defining, Strategic Research Agenda s (SRA) and Deployment Strategies, to be 
implemented by sharing members' resources in  the respective platforms. Both SNETP and 
IGDTP are closely aligned with th e objectives of the SET-Plan. 
The Euratom strategy in FP7 (2007-11) has alre ady adapted to this new landscape by focusing 
on areas defined in the SRAs. This approach  needs to be maintained in the 2-year 
prolongation, and extended to ESNII, the Europe an Sustainable Nuclear Industrial In itiative, 
which is one of the six initial European Industria l Initiatives foreseen under the SET-Plan, and 
one of the pillars of SNETP's SR A. ESNII was formally launched at the Belgian Presidency's 
SET-Plan Conference in Brussels on 15-16 November 2010. 
Within the programme's five priority  areas, the specific objectives are: 
– Geological disposal – Implementation-oriented research  and development activities on all 
remaining key aspects of deep geological disposal of spent fuel and long-lived radioactive waste and, as appropriate, demonstration of the technologies and safety, and to underpin 
the development of a common European vi ew on the main issues related to the 
management and disposal of waste.  
– Reactor systems and safety – Research to underpin the safe operation of all existing 
reactors (including fuel cycle facilities). This research must take into account new 
challenges such as life-time extension and the development of new advanced safety 
assessment methodologies (both the technical and human element). Further research to 
assess the potential, the safety and waste-manage ment aspects of future reactor systems, in 
the short and medium term, thereby maintaining the high safety standa rds already achieved 
within the EU and consider ably improving the long-term management of radioactive 
waste. Research on partitioning and transmuta tion and/or other concepts aimed at reducing 
the amount and/or hazard of the waste for disposal.  
 
EN 14   EN – Radiation protection – Research, in particular on the risks from low doses, on medical 
uses and on the management of accidents, to  provide a scientific basis for a robust, 
equitable and socially acceptable system of protection that will not unduly limit the 
beneficial and widespread uses of radiation in medicine and industry.  
– Infrastructures – Supporting the availability of, and cooperation between, research 
infrastructures necessary to maintain high standards of technical achievement, innovation and safety in the European nuclear sector, such as material test  facilities, underground 
research laboratories, radiobiology facilities and tissue banks,.  
– Human resources and training – Supporting the retention and further development of 
scientific competence and huma n capacity (for instance through joint training activities) in 
order to guarantee the availability of su itably qualified researchers, engineers and 
employees in the nuclear sector over the longer term.  
4.2. Indirect actions in fusion energy 
The construction of ITER in Europe has brought about a fundamental change in the 
environment in which the European fusion research programme operates. However, the FP7 objectives were framed in the context of extens ive negotiations with the other international 
partners which were taking place and the decision to proceed with ITER (the international agreement was signed in November 2006). The FP7 objectives are therefore already well 
adapted to the needs of the period 2012-13.  
The overall objective remains “To de velop the knowledge base for, and to realise ITER as the 
major step towards, the creati on of prototype reactors for pow er stations that are safe, 
sustainable, environmentally responsible, and economically viable”. This entails: 
– The realisation of the ITER machine  as a joint international research infrastructure 
within the approved scope and schedule. EU objectiv e, as host, is to maintain a leading role 
in site preparation, the I TER Organisation's management and staffing, and general 
technical and administrative s upport. As an ITER Party, the Community objective includes 
the construction of equipment and installati ons, support to the project during construction 
and the management of R&D activities in suppo rt of ITER constructi on carried out in the 
Fusion Associations and European industries.) 
– R&D in preparation of ITER operation  to consolidate ITER project choices. Preparation 
for a rapid start-up of ITER operation, reducing significantly the time and cost needed for 
ITER to achieve its baseline objectives. This will include assessment of specific key technologies for ITER opera tion through the completion a nd exploitation of the JET 
Enhancements (first wall, heating systems,  diagnostics) and the exploration of ITER 
operating scenarios by means of targeted e xperiments on JET and ot her facilities, and 
coordinated modelling activities. 
– Technology activities in preparation of DEMO , with the objective of  developing the key 
technologies and materials required for the licensing, construction and operation of the 
DEMO power plant.  
– Human resources, education and training  aiming at ensuring adequate human resources 
and a high level of cooperation within the pr ogramme, both for the immediate and medium 
term needs of ITER, and for th e further development of fusion. 
 
EN 15   EN – Technology transfer processes  which have the short term objective of ensuring that 
innovation and technological progr ess created in the programme is transf erred to industry 
swiftly, so that European industry becomes more competitive.  
4.3. Direct actions in nuclear safety and security 
The overarching goal is to provide customer dr iven scientific and te chnical support to EU 
policy related to nuclear energy. In particular, th e nuclear activities of the JRC aim to satisfy 
the R&D obligations of the Eu ratom Treaty and support both the European Commission and 
Member States in the fields of safeguards and non-proliferation, waste management, safety of 
nuclear installations and fuel cy cle, radioactivity in the envir onment and radiation protection. 
To fulfil this goal, knowledge and skills need to be updated continuously to provide the cutting edge scientific expertise required for nuclear reactor safety and nuclear security. 
Furthermore, the JRC will further strengthen its role as a European reference for the dissemination of information, training and educ ation for professionals and young scientists, 
ensuring that Europe's leading scientific pos ition in the nuclear field is preserved and 
reinforced, and that the necessary competent work force of scientists and operators is available 
in the future to implement, m onitor, evaluate and assess curr ent and new nuclear programmes. 
The safe and reliable operation and maintenance of all nuclear installations and laboratories 
located in the JRC's nuclear sites and related management of the operational waste from their 
exploitation will remain a high priority objective. 
The JRC's specific objectives are: (1) Nuclear Waste Management and environmental impact  
– Nuclear waste management: strengthening th e knowledge base of relevant processes 
during dry storage of spent fuel and in the ne ar-field of the final repository (from the 
waste/waste package to the geological barr ier); in the field of partitioning and 
transmutation, contribution to demonstration of  efficient processes and safe operation of 
fuel fabrication and partitioning facilities at laboratory scale, based on aqueous and dry techniques.  
– Basic research and applications: remaining at  the forefront of actin ide physics, chemistry 
and nuclear reference data, with the main goal of providing world-class experimental 
results and opening its facilities to scientists from universities and rese arch centres; in the 
field of nuclear data, production of internationally required da ta and safe operation of the 
Van de Graaff and GELINA accelerators; in  medical applications, supporting the 
development of targeted alpha therapy, focusing on alternativ es for the production of alpha 
emitters and the radio-biological testing of radio-labelled bio molecules, assessing their efficiency and feasibility.  
– Monitoring radioactivity in the environment: development of analytical techniques and 
production of the corresponding reference material s; development of real-time systems to 
collect, validate, map and report on envi ronmental radioactivity in Europe. 
 
EN 16   EN Nuclear Safety 
– Nuclear reactor safety: maintaining competence s in design and operati onal nuclear safety 
for EU and Russian designed power plants in or der to provide valuable  technical support to 
the other policy making Commission DG’s in nuclear safety related 
legislation/projects/issues, to the EU regulat ory bodies and technical support organisations 
in the interpretation and disse mination of events occurri ng in nuclear power plants. 
– Nuclear fuel cycle safety for the present gene ration of reactors: development of current and 
evolutionary fuel cycle trends and concepts for fuels operating in Gen II and III reactors; fuel rod safety assessment during in-pile opera tion through state of th e art post irradiation 
examination techniques; modelling applications.  
– Safe operation of advanced nuclear systems:  giving support to the implementation of the 
Sustainable Nuclear Energy T echnology Platform (SNETP) depl oyment strategy, to further 
coordinate the Euratom participation in GIF, remaining a major Euratom contributor to the 
GIF knowledge and data base build-up in the fi eld of advanced fuels, safety assessments 
and qualification of innovative materials.  
Nuclear Safeguards and Security 
– Nuclear safeguards: development of veri fication and detection, containment and 
surveillance technologies, advanced and i nnovative measurement methods for nuclear 
materials, production of required nuclear re ference materials, organisation of inter-
laboratory comparisons, a nd provision of training, in partic ular for IAEA and Commission 
inspectors; related to the "Additional Protoc ol", strengthening of  the capability for 
detection of undeclared nuclear  activities, enhancement of  the spectrometric methods 
towards high resolution, high sensitivity and reliability.  
– Combating illicit trafficking of  nuclear materials including forensic analysis: establishment 
of an integrated nuclear se curity concept for prevention,  detection, a nd response to 
scenarios of undeclared activities. This incl udes establishment and implementation of the 
European Security Training Centre at the JRC, based upon a robus t and high quality 
scientific background in terms of personnel and equipment. 
 
EN 17   EN 5. THE POLICY OPTIONS AVAILABLE  
The proposal for the Euratom Framework Progr amme will aim to continue support for R&D 
actions in nuclear field carried out under the 7th Euratom Framework Programme (2007-
2011). The proposal will cover only two years (2012-13), in accordan ce with the current 
financial perspective (2007-2013) and in line w ith the timeframe of the EU 7th Framework 
Programme (2007-2013). There are three policy options for Eura tom all of which should be 
based on the Commission Staff Working Document "Towards a robust management and 
governance of the ITER project"18 and the available/pla nned budget (including the 
Commission's proposal to amend the financial perspective19).The variable factors behind each 
option are the cost increase of Euratom's contribu tion to ITER, the need to ensure continuity 
of fusion research programme parallel to th e ITER construction, a nd the need to support 
implementation of SET-Plan in nuclear energy. 
In this section, three policy op tions representative of the range  of scenarios for the Euratom 
Framework Programme are presen ted, together with the pla nned activities and immediate 
results. Long term impacts are discussed under section 6.  
5.1. Option 1 – Same level of Euratom R&D and no additional funding for ITER 
The Euratom Framework Programme is extend ed to cover 2012-13 with the budget envelope 
provided in the current financ ial perspective. The Commi ssion's proposal to amend the 
financial perspective to provi de additional funding for ITER20 is not adopted. The funding for 
indirect R&D actions in fission and radiation protection would remain at the same level as 
during the last 5 years, while  the appropriations for fusion R&D would be similar to the 
average level of Euratom contribution to fusion research during FP7. Regarding direct actions 
in nuclear safety and security to be implem ented by the Joint Research Centre, the draft 
appropriations proposed for 2012-13 also fo llow the budget provided under FP7 (2007-2011). 
Activities to be implemented and expected results: 
Fission and Radiation Protection: Under this scenario, the 'fission' programme will be able 
to co-fund in 2012-13 a limited number of projects in  all key research area s (radioactive waste 
management, nuclear systems & safety, radiatio n protection, training actions, related cross-
cutting topics). As in Euratom FP7 (2007-2011) there will be flexibility in the annual budget 
that allows the allocation of f unds to be tailored, taking into account the strategic, scientific 
and technical needs of a particular time. This  flexibility also enab les results of ongoing 
projects to be taken into c onsideration in the a nnual work programmes. At present, it is 
expected that, following the annual calls for proposals and evaluations, approximately 20 
additional projects will be launched each year. So me of these will be in support of SET-Plan 
aims and objectives presented in Section 2.2 above.  In nearly all cases, there will be a focus 
on key research topics identified in the Stra tegic research agendas (SRAs) emerging from 
SNETP, IGDTP and MELODI. Such an approach will enable even more effective use of 
                                                 
18 SEC(2010) 1386 
19 Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Interinstitutional 
Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards the multiannual financial framework, to address a dditional financing needs of the ITER project, 
COM(2010) 403 
20 COM(2010) 403 
 
EN 18   EN Framework Programme funds, sinc e these SRAs promote joint pr ogramming of research and 
commit a broad range of organisations includi ng industrial players (e xcept in the case of 
MELODI, where only public research funding is  available) and those responsible for 
implementing national programmes. This level of activity in the 'fission' programme is 
considered the minimum possible in view of  the objectives laid down in the SET-Plan 
regarding nuclear energy and radioactive waste management, and in particular the 
requirements of ESNII in coming years. Though the Euratom FP is unlikely ever to be able to 
make large financial contributions to actual c onstruction of large dem onstrator facilities, 
which are the focus of ESNII, Euratom can and should be an important player in the allied 
cross-cutting research program me that is also foreseen under ESNII. The current ESNII 
Concept Paper, endorsed by the SET-Plan Steering Committee, estimates that €1B will be required over 10 years for the accompanying R& D programme, to be carried out largely in 
new or upgraded research infrastructures. Much of this effort will be on safety-related aspects 
of next generation nuclear systems, advanced modelling and numerical simulation techniques, 
pre-commercial and pre-normative R&D in general,  for example in materials science, and in 
related all-important training a nd knowledge management activit ies, all of which are areas 
where the Euratom FP has a clear role to play. Though these activities will  often continue till 
2020 and beyond, many must nonetheless begin in ear nest now and are often based on current 
Euratom research projects and actions. 
ITER: The cost increase of the ITER project was the subject of in-depth assessment in the 
Commission Communicati on “ITER status and possible way forward”
21. In the business-as-
usual scenario, Euratom's contribution to ITER would be limited. Such a budget would 
require key procurements to be delayed be yond 2013. The resulting substantial delays would 
not allow the Community to implement the project according to the schedule agreed in July 2010 (ITER baseline). Euratom would therefore not fulfil its obligat ions under the ITER 
agreement. In the longer term, any delay in I TER construction and expl oitation would have an 
impact on the realisation of the SET-Plan a nd on the European long term vision of a low 
carbon society in 2050.  
Fusion R&D programme: The level of appropriations would be used to maintain a minimum 
research programme in fusion. The Commissi on, with the support of a high-level expert 
group, is currently  assessing the role of JET in this  programme. Depending on the level of 
funding dedicated to ITER this policy option co uld have very serious disadvantages because 
insufficient funds for the fusion programme w ould compromise the Joint European Torus 
Facility (JET) and the EU's global reputa tion. JET could face closure, resulting in 
redundancies of around 500 staff, the money recen tly spent on upgrading it would be wasted, 
and its contribution to ITER w ould be negligible. The ability of the EU to lead the ITER 
project during and beyond constr uction could be seriously dama ged. The credibility of the 
European Union as the coordinator of European fusion research could be lost both in Europe 
and worldwide. It is clear that leadership in  the development of fusion would move to Asia, 
since the Korean prime Minister made very su pportive comments about fu sion in his key note 
address to the recent IAEA fusion energy conferen ce in Korea. At the same time, in China it 
is reported that 2000 PhDs in plasma science have gradua ted last year.  
                                                
 
21 Communication from the Commission "ITER status and possible way forward", COM(2010)226, 
SEC(2010)571 
 
EN 19   EN Direct actions in nuclear security and safety: The JRC will continue to act as a reference 
centre for unbiased robust science, supporting independent policy making, in key areas of 
nuclear energy and nuclear security, satisfyi ng the R&D obligations of the Euratom Treaty 
and supporting both the European Commission and Member States in the fields of safeguards 
and non-proliferation, waste management, safety of nuclear installati ons and fuel cycle, 
radioactivity in the environm ent and radiation protection.  
Knowledge and skills need to be updated contin uously to provide the cutting edge scientific 
expertise required for nuclear reactor safety an d nuclear security. Furthermore, the JRC will 
further strengthen its role as a European re ference for the dissemination of information, 
training and education for professionals and young scientists, ensuring that Europe's leading 
scientific position in the nuclear field is pr eserved and reinforced, and that the necessary 
competent workforce of scientists and operators  is available in the future to implement, 
monitor, evaluate and assess current and new nuclear programmes. Th e R&D component will 
remain the key aspect in the nuclear program me justifying the added value of the JRC. 
Another essential aspect is the need of independent and reliable research and assessment in a 
controversy context in which public acceptance, policy concerns and nuclear industries are 
strong components. 
Nuclear Waste Management and environmental impact will cover  R&D work and relevant 
data on fuel cycle (back-end); development of optimised waste management and final 
repositories; development of closed fuel cycl es and recycling techniques to reduce the long-
term waste burden; development, implementa tion and training of tools to improve the 
exchange of information on environmental radioactivity in the EU MSs (routine and 
emergency conditions), according to the underl ying EU legislation (EURATOM, Chapter III, 
art. 35, 36 and 39); maintaining expertise in environmental monitoring (sampling-
measurement) by performing international interc omparison exercises; underpinning science in 
chemistry and physics of the actinide elements, nuclear materials research and pre-normative 
and exploratory research; health impact a nd medical uses of ra diation sources and 
radioisotopes, becoming increas ingly important with emerging new technologies; non nuclear 
applications of nuclear materials and techniques.  
Nuclear Safety will address current nuclear policy and innovative systems (Innovative safety 
concepts both in nuclear reactor and nuclear fuels, targeting at harmonised guidelines on 
operational safety issues; plant safety assessment; operational feedback and event analysis; performance standards and codes for current and new materials, and for conventional and 
advanced fuel safety concepts, fabrication of prototype nuclear materials, determination of 
their properties, safety and performance anal yses and improved nuclear data for reduced 
modelling and simulation uncertainties of reactor core and fuel cycle parameters 
Nuclear Security, Safeguards a nd Non-Proliferation will include  three main pillars in the 
domain, prevention (includes a full set of nucl ear safeguards tools and techniques, including 
running of on-site laboratories  for DG ENER and an extens ive R&D support programme to 
the IAEA), detection, response (i ncludes nuclear forensics analys is and response plans). They 
will cover improved and new methods and tec hnology development (in Non Destructive and 
Destructive Analyses, Mass/volume determinati ons, Containment and su rveillance, sealing, 
particle analysis etc), forensics analyses and re sponse in case of seized  materials; detection 
technologies for nuclear and radi ological security; nuclear ma terials accounting and control 
statistical analysis; production and certifica tion of reference ma terials, reference 
measurements and inter-laboratory comparis ons; - Operations and process modelling and 
 
EN 20   EN monitoring; development of me thodologies for Gen IV prolifer ation resistance analysis and 
safeguards by design. 
5.2. Option 2 – No additional funding  but priority given to ITER  
The Euratom Framework Programme is extend ed to cover 2012-13 with the budget envelope 
provided in the current financ ial perspective. The Commi ssion's proposal to amend the 
financial perspective to provide additional funding for ITER22 is not adopted. In order to give 
priority to ITER the funding for fusion R&D,  the indirect R&D ac tions in fission and 
radiation protection would be reduc ed to a very low level, but direct actions in nuclear safety 
and security to be implemented by the Joint Re search Centre would remain at the same level 
as in option 1.  
Activities to be implemented and expected results: 
Fission and Radiation Protection:  
Most of nuclear research and training activities in Europe w ould be carried out only on the 
basis of existing national programmes. The leve rage effect of the Eu ratom FP on national and 
industrial programmes would be lo st at a time when SET-Plan activities should be starting in 
earnest. Euratom FP support to complement key EU  policy initiatives in  nuclear safety (EU 
Directive adopted in 2009) and radioactive wast e management (Directive to be adopted this 
year) would no longer be possible. Bilatera l and multilateral links between research and 
industrial organisations in Eur ope would be seriously curtailed with consequences for the 
realisation of the European Re search Area in this field.  
ITER: The limited additional appropriations coming from the fusion and fission research 
programme would still not be sufficient to launch the necessary procurements in the 2012-
2013 timeframe. The delay in cons truction compared to the sc hedule agreed by the members 
of the ITER International Organisation, which fore sees the start of operati on of the facility in 
2019, would be almost as severe as in option 1. Such delays w ould necessarily increase the 
total costs for the period of ITER construction, because of the running costs of the ITER 
Organization and F4E. 
Fusion R&D programme: The level of appropriations woul d be insufficient to maintain a 
minimum viable research programme in fusion.  The detailed impacts of a low level of budget 
would be: 
– Closure and termination of the JET facility  - Exploitation of the JET facility would be 
limited to 2012 as the largest part of available funding would be used to cover the termination expenditures, mainly on staff and operational waste, currently estimated at 45 
Million GBP. In accordance with the JET agreem ent, the host of the facility, the Culham 
Centre for Fusion Energy, will cover cost s of the facility’s decommissioning.  
– Termination of the Contracts of Association and EFDA
 – Within this budget envelope, 
Euratom would not be able to maintain the support to the fusion Associations: the 
Contracts of Association and EFDA would te rminate at the end of 2011. But the training 
activities and the mobility of researchers might  continue to be supported at a low level. 
                                                 
22 COM(2010) 403 
 
EN 21   EN – Cessation of R&D activities in support of ITER  – Closure of JET in 2012 and the 
termination of the Contracts of  Association at the end of 20 11 would mean the integrated 
fusion programme would practically cease to exist.  The ability of the EU  to lead the ITER 
project during and beyond construction would be brought into question.  
Direct actions in nuclear security and safety: see option 1 
5.3. Option 3 –Same level of Euratom R&D and budget increase for ITER 
The Euratom Framework Programme would be extended to cover 2012-13 with the budget 
envelope provided in the financial perspect ive and additional funds foreseen in the 
Commission's proposal to amend fi nancial perspective in order to provide additional funding 
for ITER23. The funding for fusion would maintain a minimum-sized EU coordinated research 
programme. The funding for indirect R&D acti ons in fission and radiation protection and 
direct actions in nuclear safety and security to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre would remain at the same le vel as in the option 1.  
Activities to be implemented and expected results: 
Fission and Radiation Protection: see option 1 
ITER: The construction of ITER in Cadarache,  France, will continue in 2012-13. The 
schedule for ITER constructi on agreed by the members of  the ITER International 
Organisation foresees the start of research in November 2019. In 2012-13, the European Joint 
Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy' will carry on procurement activities concerning key 
European components of the ITER facility. 
Fusion R&D programme: This policy option is a "bridge to  the next research programme 
(beyond 2013)". EU funding in 2012 and 2013 is minimal, around the same level of Euratom 
contribution to fusion research in 2011. A bridge to the next research FP will have no impact on the EU's contribution to ITER outlined in th e schedule agreed between ITER Parties, and 
would be part of the requested reduction of  the European contribution to the ITER 
construction costs over its lifetime. In this scenario, a much reduced EU-coordinated fusion 
research programme would be maintained in 2012-13 through activities which, if followed by 
adequate funding in the ne xt research FP, would protect the European in vestment in ITER and 
make sure that Europe, its research community and its industry, will reap the full benefit of 
the research at ITER. Dependi ng upon the outcome of the asse ssment carried out with the 
support of a high level group of experts JET may continue to operate during 2012-13 and to 
close during the following research FP. The Fu sion Associations would continue to work 
together under very tight fina ncial constraints, focussing on pr eparing the operation of ITER, 
but very limited activities in power plant physics and technologies would be funded. This funding does not undermine the sc hedule and baseline of ITER , nor affects the full EU 
contribution to its construction costs. In fact, it will allow vital mitigation of risks and cost 
containment activities for ITER to continue. 
Direct actions in nuclear security and safety: no change from option 1. 
                                                
 
23 Additional funds foreseen in the Commission's proposal to amend the financial perspective. Ibidem, 
COM(2010) 403 
 
EN 22   EN 6. THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS EXPECTED , IN PARTICULAR ECONOMIC , SOCIAL AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS , AND THE INDICATORS AND EVALUATION 
ARRANGEMENT NEEDED TO MEASURE THEM  
6.1. Impacts of limited funding for ITER (option 1 and 2) 
A budget for Euratom contribution to ITER limited to the appropriations foreseen for this 
purpose in 2006 does not allow the Community to implement project s according to the 
schedule agreed in July 2010 (ITER baseline) and prevents the Euratom Community from 
fulfilling its legal obligations under the ITER ag reement. The Joint Undertaking ‘Fusion for 
Energy’ would need to postpone some key pr ocurements beyond 2013. It  will resu lt in the 
substantial delay of the star t of the ITER exploitation.  
The possible impacts include: (1) loss of credibi lity of the European Union, (2) additional cost 
for Euratom as the host for ITER (additional running costs for ITER IO and F4E), and (3) 
compensation to other partie s in the ITER agreement. 
6.2. Results and impacts of ITER construction according to the baseline agreed in 
July 2010 (option 3) 
The realisation of the ITER m achine as a joint international research infrastructure will 
continue within the approved sc ope and schedule and is the highest priority of the fusion 
programme. The objectives of reaching burning pl asma conditions at 500MW of fusion power 
over 400 seconds, with an amplification factor of 10, and of controllin g plasma discharges 
well beyond this duration at reduced fusion power are essen tial for building an electricity 
producing demonstration reactor (DEMO). In add ition to its scientific  objectives, ITER will 
contribute to DEMO by testing t echnologies impossible to test on present-day fusion devices. 
The objective of the Community as the host of the pr oject is to maintain a leading role in site 
preparation, the ITER Organi sation, management and staffi ng, plus general technical and 
administrative support. The objectives of th e Community as an ITER Party include 
construction of equipment and installations, supp ort of the project durin g construction and the 
management of R&D activities in support of I TER construction carried out in the Fusion 
Associations and European industries.) Almost  50% of the budget for construction of ITER 
will be spent in Europe to provide the compone nts "in-kind" to ITER by F4E. The scale and 
complexity of components requires a consta nt flow of information and transfer of 
technologies between industry and research a ssociations. This will involve key enabling 
technologies and a wide variety of sectors.  Fusion for Energy will have an extremely 
important role of bringing t ogether the scientif ic knowledge of laboratories and the 
practicality-based thinking a nd management of industry. 
Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy' procurem ent activities since 2007 have already given a 
huge boost to high-tech sector, paving the way for existing and future industries consortia. 
Major European companies are already joining for ces to respond to th e calls for tender 
launched by F4E in challenging science and engineering areas. As a result, the industry will 
gain new skills and manufacturing capabilities. Technological progress  will also produce 
spin-off results in other sectors wh ich are difficult to predict today.  
Fusion for Energy has placed many industrial cont racts already for the construction of ITER. 
These first contracts are large and therefore lim ited in scope for SMEs but already 7% of the 
contracts have been placed with  SMEs. This is not including th e many service contracts that 
 
EN 23   EN have been awarded for which there is a signif icant number of SME participation. At present 
F4E is reviewing these contracts to gauge the ex act involvement of SMEs in the activities of 
F4E. For the future procurement contracts, SME participation is expected to increase due to the smaller size and higher technol ogy content of the co ntracts. To encourage the participation 
of SMEs, F4E is developing a policy whereby a ce rtain percentage of SM E are included in the 
call for tender for contracts unde r a certain threshold, as well as contractual requirements on 
main suppliers to include SME subcontracting with favourable conditions such as payment 
schedules etc. 
This way the Community will stay a leader in the field and be in the forefront for next steps in 
the development of technology for a demonstrat ion power plant, while gaining valuable 
experience in combining the worlds  of laboratories and industries 
The scientific and technological results from I TER operations will only start to appear after 
ITER first plasma planned for the end of 20 19. A staged exploitation mode for ITER is 
foreseen to gain gradual experience in the opera tion of this device, which is of a completely 
new nature compared with previous experiment s. However, a great deal of scientific or 
technical information can be reached before re aching full performance, including information 
having an important impact for the design of DEMO. 
6.3. Results and impacts of termination of  fusion R&D programme (option 2) 
As discussed in section 5, the near zeroing of the budget under option 2 would result in the de 
facto termination of the integr ated European fusion programme  and the abandoning of its long 
term aim of demonstrating fusion power. Th e closure of JET woul d be irreversible 
(mothballing is not a viable option) and the wit hdrawal of support given to the Associations 
would rule out all fusion R&D, and undermine th e priority status give n to ITER. Associated 
with this would be a substantial loss of exper tise and training activities from fusion research. 
Even if funding were to be restored in the following research FP, the ability of the programme 
to support ITER and to work towa rds its long term aims would be  seriously impaired. Lack of 
expertise would leave Europe in a very weak position for the future exploitation of ITER, 
which will certainly involve competition with our international partners, and Europe would 
not be able to capitalis e on the results of ITER. 
6.4. Results and impacts of prolongation of  fusion R&D programme (option 3) 
Option 3 would provide just enough funding in 2012 and 2013 to bridge the gap to the next 
research programme (beyond 2013) and keep th e momentum of the programme going towards 
its long term objectives. A Working Group of the Consultative Committee for the Euratom 
Specific Research and Training Programme in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Fusion - CCE-
FU) has identified the objectives and deliverab les for the fusion programme over the period of 
ITER construction. The objectives are (i) secu ring ITER operation by expanding the existing 
knowledge base; (ii) preparing the ITER genera tion to ensure that Europe will have the 
human resources to exploit ITER in an inte rnational and competitive environment; and (iii) 
laying the foundations for fusion power plants by  driving forward the significant physics and 
technology developments that are required. 
Achieving objectives (i) and (ii) will have a significant and direct im pact on the efficient 
operation of ITER. It will be a unique expe riment, its operation posing first-of-a-kind 
challenges ranging from the need to have pr e-planned high performance operating scenarios 
 
EN 24   EN guaranteed not to damage the machine, through the maximisation of operational efficiency in 
view of the substantial operating costs, to the creation of a effective wa ys for a geographically 
spread, multi-national group of rese archers to work together in a unified team. The integrated 
fusion programme, and especially the experience of the collective exploitation of JET, will 
put Europe in a strong position to take the l eading role in meeting all these challenges. 
All three objectives are important for Europe to be able to benefit from the success of ITER 
and to be able to move on to the following stage of fusion development: the demonstration 
power plant. The body of expert ise created in Europe, both in industry and the research 
community, by working for ITER will provide immediate technology transfer benefits. Steps 
will continue to be taken at EU level in 2012 and 2013 to prepare the European industry to 
meet fusion technological challe nges and mobilize relevant stake holders, in particular through 
the Fusion-Industry Innovation Forum. On a lo nger timescale, the ITER-generated expertise 
in industry and the research community, together with the physics and technology 
developments in parallel to ITER, will provid e the essential basis for demonstration power 
plants. 
6.5. Results an d impacts of a very low funding for the fission & radiation protection 
programme (option 2) 
Under this option a very low level of funding c ould mean that only small coordinated actions 
could be launched in fission and ra diation protection research. The  Euratom 'fission' 
programme would not be in a position to contri bute to reaching Europe 's long-term energy 
targets and to address societal concerns in ar eas such as nuclear safety, radioactive waste 
management and use of radiation in industria l and medical practices. For example Euratom 
would not be able to support topics identified in  respective Strategic Re search Agendas of the 
technical forums SNETP, IGDTP and MELODI. In particular Europe woul d lose an important 
added value in the form of the leverage on national and industria l programmes. Finally 
Euratom would not fulfil Council requests to undertake actions for maintaining knowledge 
and competence in Europe, including in Me mber States without civil nuclear power 
programmes but who have to regulate nuclear research and medical activities and/or who 
decide to develop nuclear power. 
6.6. Results and impacts of maintaining the fission & radiation protection 
programme (options 1 and 3) 
The overall aim of the Euratom 'f ission' programme is to contribute to reaching Europe's long-
term energy targets and to address societal concerns in areas such as nuclear safety, 
radioactive waste management and use of radia tion in industrial and medical practices. The 
activities carried out in the programme are inte nded to maximise impacts in these areas over 
the longer term for the greater benefit of  the maximum number of EU citizens. 
However, the 'fission' programme has limited financial means for 2012-13 – so the emphasis 
is on ensuring funding is allocated as effectivel y as possible in all thematic areas of the 
programme. This is achieved by concentrating on topics identified in respective SRAs of the 
technical forums SNETP, IGDTP and MELODI (p rovided these topics are also within the 
scope of the Euratom FP) and relying on the catal ytic effect to maximise the leverage on 
national / industrial programmes. In the period 2007-2010, this leverage has been >100%, i.e. 
the combined total costs of all FP7 project s to date is more than double the Euratom 
contribution over these 4 years. This Euratom seed  money is particularly effective in projects 
in more cross-cutting fields (including nuclear safety), or where the research is largely pre-
 
EN 25   EN commercial and a broad cooperative approach is required across Europe in order to ensure 
critical mass. 
In any scientific field, impacts of individual res earch projects, or whole lines of research, may 
become apparent only after seve ral years. In the nuclear sector  the timescales can be even 
more protracted; we are only now seeing these impacts in the case  of research carried out in 
Euratom FP4. For example, the research on ge ological disposal completed some 10-15 years 
ago is now feeding through as an  element in actual implementa tion programmes in the most 
advanced Member States; similar situations are apparent in aspects of  research on nuclear 
installation safety, and even l onger timescales may be appare nt in research  on advanced 
nuclear systems, since such systems will not be deployed commercially for decades. 
However, in addition to adding to the knowledge base in key fields, Euratom FP6 & FP7 have 
had a more immediate restructuring effect on th e fission research landscape in Europe; these 
positive impacts will continue in 2012&13 a nd will contribute, along with the actions 
undertaken by the technical forums , to establishing the European Research Area in the nuclear 
field. In this process of facilitating effective cooperation in Europe, Euratom research also ensures the all-important development of a co mmon European view in key scientific and 
technical issues, and forges a clear link with th e Commission's policy initiatives in areas such 
as nuclear safety (new Direct ive came into force in 2009) a nd radioactive waste management 
(new Directive proposed by the Commission in  Oct. 2010) and radiation protection (new 
Communication on medical applications of ioni sing radiation adopted by the Commission in 
Aug. 2010). Effective links with the nuclear sa fety regulatory author ities, through such 
forums as ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group), are an important part of 
this overall approach. 
Euratom is a nuclear research and training prog ramme, and the impacts in the latter field are 
already being felt following a number of key activities in recent years, including the 
establishing of a number of Euratom Fission Training Schemes. The political dimension to 
such issues as availability of competences and know-how in this field has already been 
addressed in the EU Council Conclusions of December 2008, in which the role and impacts of 
the Euratom FP were clearly mentioned. Again, Eu ratom influence is in  providing a catalyst 
and initial seed money, but also a framew ork for change and a Community-wide vision. 
Training and knowledge management have become  a focus of the activ ities of SNETP and 
other Europe-wide nuclear stak eholder initiatives, such as the European Nuclear Energy 
Forum (ENEF). 
In conclusion, and in view of this long-term natu re of the research in most nuclear fields, the 
importance is to maintain continuity research and related competences and to ensure that the R&D contribution is in line wi th the evolving Community stra tegy / policy, as represented by 
the SET-Plan (low-carbon energy policy / stra tegy) or under the Eu ratom umbrella (i.e. 
nuclear safety, radioactive waste management / radiation protection). The potential benefits 
for the Community as a whole will be maximised if  this coherence can be maintained, and this 
can be best achieved by working closely w ith SNETP, IGDTP and MELODI for as long as 
these forums continue to be effective and work efficiently. To date, the establishing by the 
research community of the above technical fo rums, and cementing the relationship with the 
SET-Plan, especially the launch of ESNII, repr esent the most tangible success of the Euratom 
FP. Euratom's contribution to this process remain s crucial over the coming years if we are to 
capitalise on its succe ss in the longer term. 
 
EN 26   EN 6.7. Conclusions of assessment 
Following assessment of options presented in the section 6, it is concluded that option 3 
(budget increase for ITER and continuation of  fusion, fission and radi ation protection R&D 
programmes) would enable the Community to  address the medium (2020) and long term 
(2040) R&D challenges and to reach SET-Pl an objective of low carbon society by 2050. 
6.8. Indicators and evaluation arrang ement for the preferred option 
For the monitoring and evaluation it is proposed that, like in the past, the Commission would 
assess the execution of the Eu ratom Framework Programme through the following indicators: 
ITER construction:  
– Number of milestones met by Joint U ndertaking Fusion for Energy (F4E). 
– Number of procurement contracts launched and research grants awarded by the Joint 
Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy'  
– Number of new industrial consortia formed to deliver ITER components and technology 
Fusion research:  
JET  
– Number of scientific  publications on JET 
– Number of operational days devot ed to experimental campaigns 
– Number of professional person days of A ssociation staff at JET for campaigns  
EFDA coordinated activities  
– Completion of deliverables unde r EFDA Task Agreements  
– Implementing Agreement for Power Plant Physics and Technology activities  
– Number of fusion researchers and engineer s trained for the need s of ITER and the 
programme)  
Associations  
– Planning & monitoring of Associations’ programmes by the Steering Committees  
– New Association Work Programmes  
Mobility Agreement  
– Level of researcher mobility in fusion R&D 
High Performance Computer  
– Number of proposals and allocation of  CPU time to the Associations  
 
EN 27   EN Indirect actions in Fission and Radiation protection:  
Indicators have already been laboriously developed and endors ed as part of the RTD Annual 
Management Plan, and these will be maintained  (and improved if necessa ry) during the period 
2012-13 (see list below). In view of the 'busin ess-as-usual approach', no major changes are 
considered necessary.  
In brief, the indicators include: – Coverage of areas being granted highest priori ty in the Specific Programme for indirect 
actions. 
– Percentage of proposals which successfully a ddressed the criteria of  scientific and/or 
technological excellence (based  on the consensus report for research projects established 
by the evaluators to rank the proposals) 
– Percentage of projects which generate one or  more patent application (in the field of 
nuclear fission and radiati on protection, the intellectual property acquired during the 
project implementation could result in patent applications not only dur ing the lifetime of 
the project and Euratom Framew ork Programme, but also in th e 10-15 years after the end 
of the project). 
– Percentage of the projects which have fully  achieved their objectives  and technical goals 
and have even exceeded expectations. 
– Percentage of proposals which successfully addressed the criterion of dissemination and 
use of project results. 
– Percentage of projects showing evidence that  they will produce sign ificant scientific, 
technical, commercial, social or environmental impacts. 
– Percentage of projects with publica tions in peer re viewed journals. 
– Percentage of projects which generate  one or more patent application 
– Percentage of industrial participation in the projects (Excluding Radiation Protection
 ) 
Direct actions in waste management, nuclear safety and security (JRC)  
The JRC has put in place a system of eval uation support activities, ranging from the 
monitoring of achieving  objectives, through to a Periodic Action Review, which assesses the 
set of JRC research projects (called "acti ons") in terms of achie ved policy impact and 
scientific output once a y ear using an elaborated indicator-based methodology.  
Regarding policy support, the JRC determines: – the number of deliverables (p roductivity indicator), and 
– the number of occurrences of a tangible impact at the level of policy ma kers using a list of 
pre-defined criteria (impact indicator). 
Scientific output is  measured through: 
 
EN 28   EN – the number of publications in p eer reviewed journa l articles (productiv ity indicator), and 
– the number of joint publications with external  research organizations (for measuring the 
degree of cooperation with top class institutes). 
In 2011, the JRC will develop a system to assess the impact of its scientific publications. 
– Training and education results and impact  will be assessed on the basis of: 
– the number of PhD-Thesis performed at JRC premises 
– the number of visiting scientif ic researchers (PhD, Post-docs and visiting scientists) 
– the number of hours of training modules deliv ered multiplied by the respective number of 
participants. 
Regarding the evaluation arrangements , the Commission will continually and 
systematically monitor the implementation of  the Euratom Framework Programme and its 
specific programmes and regularly  report and disseminate the re sults of this monitoring. In 
accordance with the article 173 of the Treaty on  the functioning of the European Union and 
article 11 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commissi on publishes annual report s. These reports are 
accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Do cument, which provides more detailed 
reporting and by Statistical Annexes. Fo llowing the completion of the Framework 
Programme, the Commission will launch, not later than two years after its completion (2015) 
an external evaluation by independent expe rts of its rationale, implementation and 
achievements. The Commission will communicate the conclusions of this evaluation, 
accompanied by its observations, to the Europ ean Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 
7. THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PREFERRED 
OPTION  
The following management modes are envisaged. The funds will be managed in a centralised 
direct management system and by indir ect management through a body set up by the 
Communities (Fusion for Energy, a Joint Undertaking situated in  Barcelona). Several control 
methods are applied as for FP7, including ex-a nte control measures and randomly selected 
biannual ex-post verifications in the framework of the internal control scheme. Moreover, the 
requirement for audit certificates and the perfor mance of regular indepe ndent external audits 
help to ensure sound financial management , including regularity and legality of the 
transactions performed. 
Fission and radiation protection : The 'fission' programme dur ing 2012-13 will continue on 
the basis of annual calls for proposals, covering most if not all thema tic priority areas and 
committing most if not all of the annual budget. This system has been applied successfully for 
the years 2007-2011. By setting call deadlines in April and evaluations in May, the time taken 
to process the proposals and gran t funds ("time to grant") has b een reduced to 240 days which 
is about as efficient as could be expected. If  simplifications are introduced for the Euratom 
2012-13 programme, then the time to grant may be even quicker. 
 
EN 29   EN Fusion R&D programme:  Substantial changes to funding mechanisms (and their associated 
governance provisions) are not envisaged. These mechanisms are the Contracts of 
Association, EFDA (the European Fusion De velopment Agreement, under which there are 
Implementing Agreements for JET and the High Performance Computer for Fusion), the JET Operating Contract and the Agreement on Sta ff Mobility. They are interconnected, so any 
substantial change to one would have important  consequences for the others. The integrated 
nature of the fusion programme is largely due  to the success of these mechanisms, and any 
adaptation of them should be done in consulta tion with the actors and stakeholders in the 
programme. Such adaptations could be consider ed as part of preparations of research 
programme after 2013.  
ITER: In its Staff Working Paper "Towards a robust management and governance of the 
ITER project"
24 the Commission examines and addresses the way in which the Member 
States, F4E, and the Commission itself fulfil th eir responsibilities under the ITER agreement. 
The overall goal is the successful construction of ITER in accordance with the technical 
requirements, within the agreed schedule and with the resources fixed to that end. To this aim, 
an adequate project management, including cost  containment and risk management (technical, 
industrial, financial, legal) must  be at the core of the ITER implementation at all levels. The 
Staff Working Paper provides an overview of  the possible measures for improvement of 
governance and management at the European le vel (Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy') 
and level of the ITER In ternational Organisation. 
The ITER project is conduc ted under the terms of an International Agreement25 between 
Euratom, represented by the Commission, and 6 other Parties - People's Republic of China, 
India, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United States-, which was signed 
in Paris in November 2006 and entered in to force in October 2007. The Agreement 
established the ITER Organization (IO) with full international legal personality to be responsible for the joint implem entation of the ITER project. A ccording to the International 
Agreement, each Party provides its contributi on to IO through an entity called Domestic 
Agency (DA). The IO is responsible for the construction and performance of the machine 
(including design and assembly of the compon ents, and quality and safety requirements), 
while the Parties are committed to providing vari ous components and systems. At EU level, 
the Euratom contribution to ITER is manage d through the European Joint Undertaking for 
ITER – "Fusion For Energy" (F4E), established as the European "DA"
 by the Council in 
March 200726 and based in Barcelona. Community funds advanced through the Euratom 
Framework Programme represent ab out 80% of the European cont ribution to the ITER project 
and the Commission is ultimately  accountable for the use of these public resources. The 
European Parliament is responsible for givi ng budgetary discharge to the European Joint 
Undertaking for ITER. 
                                                 
24 Commission Staff Working Document "Towards a robust management and governance of the ITER 
project",  
SEC(2010) 1386, 9 November 2010 
25 Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint 
Implementation of the ITER Project. OJ L 358, of 16.12.2006, p.62  
26 OJ L 90, 30.3.2007, p. 58. 
 
EN 30   EN 8. THE INTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME OR ACTIVITY AND ITS 
RELATIONS WITH OTHER RELEVANT INSTRUMENTS  
Indirect R&D activities to be  supported by the proposed Euratom Framework Programme are 
within the scope of the St rategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan), which has been 
endorsed by the European Counc il. The programme also takes account of major EU policy 
documents such as Communications on Europe 2020 and Energy 2020.  
The direct actions to be carried  out by JRC aims to build on the Strategic Research Agenda 
(SRA 2009) of the Sustainable Nuclear En ergy Technology Platform (SNETP), the 
Implementing Geological Disposal of Radio active Waste Technology Platform (IGDTP) and 
other instruments for stability and global secu rity such as EU CBRN Action Plan (June 2009), 
EU New Dual Use Regulation (May 2009) , EU Council Decision on New Lines for 
combating proliferation of WMD (Dec 2008).  
9. THE VOLUME OF APPROPRIATIONS , HUMAN RESOURCES AND OTHER 
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE TO BE AL LOCATED WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE 
COST -EFFECTIVENESS PRINCIPLE  
In the following section, the budget for the pref erred option 3 is explained. The proposal for 
Euratom Framework programme is of limite d duration and will be in force from 1st January 
2012 until 31st December 2013. Financial impact is expected from 2012 until 2016.  
The programmatic content of the two year peri od 2012-13 is a direct continuation of Euratom 
FP7, with strong continuity in  the activities and outcomes. In all areas except ITER 
construction the proposed appropriations are c onsistent with the corresponding figures for 
FP7, and there is therefore a similar cost-effectiveness. The cost of ITER construction has been the subject of extensive analysis and the present appropriation pr oposals are considered 
to represent the most cost-effective way of achie ving the aims within a regime of strict cost 
containment
27 
Commitment figures: 
 2012 
Million euro 2013 
Million euro  Total 
Million euro  
Fission R&D 54,105 € 55,839 €  109,944 €
Fusion R&D and ITER 1.129,274 € 936,965 € 2.066,239 €
Administration 74,054 € 76,817 € 150,871 €
Total indirect R&D actions 1.257,433 € 1.069,621 € 2.327,054 €
JRC operational expenditure 9,895 € 10,252 € 20,147 €
JRC administrative expenditure 104,648 € 108,421 € 213,069 €
Total direct R&D actions 114,543 € 118,673 € 233,216 €
Total for direct and indirect actions 1.371,976 € 1.188,294 € 2.560,270 €
                                                 
27 Communication from the Commission "ITER status and possible way forward", COM(2010)226, 
SEC(2010)571 
 
EN 31   EN Payment figures: 
 2012 
Million euro  2013 
Million euro  2014 - 2016 
Million euro  Total 
Million euro  
Fission R&D 34,600 € 35,000 € 40,344 € 109,944 €
Fusion R&D and ITER 401,822 € 863,164 € 801,252 € 2.066,239 €
Administration 74,054 € 76,817 € - € 150,871 €
Total indirect R&D actions 510,476 € 974,981 € 841,596 € 2.327,054 €
JRC operational expenditure 4,650 € 8,972 € 6,525 € 20,147 €
JRC administrative expenditure 104,648 € 108,421 € - € 213,069 €
Total direct R&D actions 109,298 € 117,393 € 6,525 € 233,216 €
Total for direct and indirect 
actions 619,774 € 1.092,374 € 848,121 € 2.560,270 €
 
Human resources: 
 Year 
2012   Year 
2013  
Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents)  
X 01 01 01 (Headquarters and 
Commission’s Representation Offices)  - - 
XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) - - 
XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) 190 190 
10 01 05 01 (Direct research) 566 566 
External personnel (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)  
XX 01 02 01 (CA, INT, SNE from the 
"global envelope")  - - 
XX 01 02 02 (CA, INT, JED, LA and 
SNE in the delegations) - - 
08 01 04 yy  - at Headquarters - - 
 - in delegations 
(F4E) 239 239 
08 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect 
research) 40 40 
10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct 
research) 166 166 
Other budget lines (specify) - - 
TOTAL  1,201 1,201 
There is no extra need for staff in spite of the increase of th e budget in 2012 and 2013. 
 
EN 32   EN 10. THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM SIMILAR EXPERIENCES IN THE PAST  
In 2009 two panels of independent experts carr ied out the interim evaluation of direct and 
indirect actions under the Euratom FP7 (2007- 2011). More recently, the Euratom Scientific 
and Technical Committee (STC) produced its ex -ante opinion on orientations for Euratom 
Framework Programme (2012-13), which also provided an initial reflection on Euratom 
research programmes beyond 2013. 
Regarding the indirect actions in  fission and radiation protection, the report of the panel fully 
supports the establishing of Technology Platform s / Joint Programming Init iatives in line with 
ERA (European Research Area) and SET-Plan goals, which is a growing focal point of the 
calls for proposals, and considers that the Eu ratom FP7 'fission and radiation protection' 
programme is on track to meet its obj ectives in all research activities.  
The panel recommended that the EU should al ter the balance of the fission research 
programme to be able to better reflect the prior ities agreed by all stakeholders, as formulated 
by the Technology Platforms and Joint Programming initiatives, particular ly with respect to 
the increasingly important field of advanced and more sustainable reactor systems (also 
prioritised under the SET-Plan). Very similar conclusions and recommendations are reflected 
in the Euratom STC opinion. In addition, previ ous ex-post evaluations of the Euratom FP5 
and FP6 fission programmes have demonstrated th e effectiveness of the research carried out 
in these programmes, the restructuring effect of the new funding instru ments introduced in 
FP6, and the importance of developing the t echnology platforms to ensure longer term 
strategic impacts in Europe.  
Regarding the indirect actions in fusion resear ch, the panel expressed its conviction that the 
potential of fusion is so great that it should  be actively pursued. The costs, timescale and 
project risks inherent in the development of fu sion are great – so much so that it is unlikely 
that any European Member State could contem plate undertaking it alone. The panel believes 
that the fusion research coordinated under Euro pean Fusion Development Agreement is well 
focussed and managed and is essential to support ITER.  
The fusion programme has also been the subjec t, in 2009,, of an in-d epth examination by a 
high level panel of nine European and non-European experts28. The Fusion Facilities Review 
panel was charged with the tasks of developing “ a vision of th e R&D required to make fusion 
energy production ready for commercial exploitati on” and defining “the facilities needed to 
support the envisioned R&D”. With regard to  the programme, the panel concluded that: 
During the period of ITER construction the key strategic R&D emphasis should be on 
supporting ITER construction and preparation for operation, and preparing DEMO design, 
simultaneously carrying out long-term R&D; 
During the following decade the focus must shif t towards preparing fo r DEMO construction, 
based on ITER and the accompanying R&D; 
ITER and DEMO must be complemented by long-term strategy for human resources to 
guarantee a future workforce with adequate skill and expertise. 
                                                 
28 “R&D Needs and Required Facilities for the Development of Fusion as an Energy Source” - Report of 
the Fusion Facilities Review Panel - October 2008. 
 
EN 33   EN The panel also prioritised the present and po ssible future facilities in the programme 
according to their benefits, costs and ri sks in relation to ITER and DEMO.  
On the basis of these conclusions, the Comm ission launched a dialogue with all the Fusion 
Associations on how their programmes could and should be adapted, and which facilities 
should continue to receive Community support. These dialogues have taken on an increased 
urgency in view of the serious  budget constraints during the la st two years of FP7, which may 
continue in 2012-13. The process of adapti on will continue into that period.  
The ITER project is inherently complex but it provides enormous potential for sustainable 
energy. The FP7 Interim Evaluation panel consid ered ITER an essential step towards the 
commercial realisation of fusion energy and if Eu ratom is to pursue fusion energy it must be 
adequately funded. The panel was critical of the existing structure of the ITER project 
because it believes that it has not been and is not  effective, and may still fail to deliver even at 
the higher costs and longer timescales presented dur ing the review. On the basis of this review 
the Commission has strived to have a more focu sed leadership at the ITER organisation to 
secure a positive outcome within the limits set by the adopted baseline. It also requires a more streamlined international management structure with fewer and/or better interfaces implemented according to the best practice eith er from the construction of nuclear power 
plants or large international projects. Change s of management will take place during the last 
years of FP7 but continued monitoring, verifica tion of planning and quality of the deliverables 
will continue in 2012-2013.  
A separate panel of external experts carried out  an interim evaluation of direct actions under 
Euratom FP7. It evaluated the rationale and re levance of the programme, the implementation 
of the programme (its governance), the achieve ments and performance level (at macro-level). 
The panel made a positive evaluation of the achievements and performance of the JRC nuclear programme, with the three broad recommendations specifically focusing on the 
governance and management structure of the programme: 
Governance of the programme should be improv ed through the better management structure 
and distribution of responsibilities, enhan ced customer consultation and reduction of 
bureaucratic burden; 
Present work and future proposals should be base d on a vision and strategy linked to Strategic 
Research Agendas of the technical forums such  as SNETP, and through a definition of a 10 to 
20 year outlook for JRC's research facility infrastructure; 
JRC programming, planning and re porting should be improved. 
In response to these recommendations, a series of actions are being undertaken in JRC and 
will be implemented as proposed, namely: 
a series of actions regarding governance and ma nagement, as well as planning and reporting; 
the development of a nuclear safety and secu rity specific strategy taking into account the 
recommendations of the report. 
It should be noted that since the beginning of 2011, a new struct ure has been put  in place in 
the JRC, defining 7 Thematic Areas (nuclear R& D being one of them), with a Lead Director 
who has the responsibility of the programme definition and follow-up of its implementation.