COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER   EX ANTE EVALUATION Accompanying document to the
Date: 2011-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Joint Research Centre, nuclear energy, nuclear research, research programme, scientific research

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 participation of undertakings, research centres and 
universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European 
Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination 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 programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, 
implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community 
for nuclear research and training activities (2012 - 2013) 

COUNCIL DECISION 

on the specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint 
Research Centre, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic 
Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012 to 2013) 

{COM(2011) 71 final} 
{COM(2011) 72 final} 
{COM(2011) 73 final} 
{COM(2011) 74 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

The need to be met in the short or long term ............................................................... 5 

Energy challenge.......................................................................................................... 5 

The SET-Plan and nuclear energy................................................................................ 6 

Main challenges in nuclear fission............................................................................... 7 

Main challenges in fusion energy ................................................................................ 8 

Other challenges in nuclear science and technology.................................................... 9 

Innovation in nuclear field ......................................................................................... 10 

The added value of Euratom Community involvement in nuclear R&D................... 11 

The objectives to be achieved .................................................................................... 12 

Indirect actions in the area of nuclear fission and radiation protection ..................... 13 

Indirect actions in fusion energy ................................................................................ 14 

Direct actions in nuclear safety and security.............................................................. 15 

The policy options available ...................................................................................... 17 

Option 1 - no agreement on additional funding for ITER, termination of fusion R&D
.................................................................................................................................... 17 

Option 2 – Budget increase for ITER, termination of fusion R&D ........................... 20 

Option 3 – Budget increase for ITER, minimum-sized EU coordinated fusion 
research programme ................................................................................................... 21 

The results and impacts expected, in particular economic, social and environmental 
impacts, and the indicators and evaluation arrangement needed to measure them.... 22 

Impacts of limited funding for ITER (option 1)......................................................... 22 

Results and impacts of ITER construction according to the baseline agreed in July 
2010 (option 2 and 3) ................................................................................................. 22 

Results and impacts of termination of fusion R&D programme (option 1 and 2)..... 23 

Results and impacts of prolongation of fusion R&D programme (option 3)............. 23 

Results and impacts of fission & radiation protection programme (all options) ....... 24 

Conclusions of assessment......................................................................................... 26 

Indicators and evaluation arrangement for the preferred option................................ 26 

The most appropriate method of implementation for the preferred option................ 28 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

6.6. 

6.7. 

7. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
8. 

9. 

The internal coherence of the proposed programme or activity and its relations with 
other relevant instruments .......................................................................................... 30 

The volume of appropriations, human resources and other administrative expenditure 
to be allocated with due regard for the cost-effectiveness principle.......................... 30 

10. 

The lessons learned from similar experiences in the past .......................................... 32 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Ex-ante evaluation for the legislative package of Commission's proposals 
for Euratom research and training activities for 2012-2013 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  ex-ante  evaluation  accompanies  the  legislative  package  of  Commission's  proposals  for 
the  Euratom  nuclear  research  and  training  activities  (2012-13).  It  has  been  prepared  in 
accordance  with  Article  21  of  the  Implementing  Rules  for  the  Financial  Regulation 
(Commission regulation no. 2342/2002). This legislative 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  universities  in  actions 
under the framework programme and for the dissemination of research results. 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 perspectives (2007-2013) and in line with the timeframe 
of the EU 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013).  

The  Directorates  General  (DGs)  responsible  for  preparing  this  ex-ante  evaluation  are  DG 
Research & Innovation and the Joint Research Centre (JRC). Work started in early 2010 and 
consultation with other Commission services was carried out through an inter-service group 
composed of representatives from the Secretariat 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 RTD and JRC used various sources, including 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Respective  Euratom  FP7  Interim  Evaluations  carried  out  by  independent  panels  of 
experts  

A report of  the  European Fusion Development  Agreement  (EFDA)  following  an ad-
hoc study group on the future of the Fusion R&D programme  

Input  to  the  extension  of  FP7  and  preparation  of  future  research  programmes  from 
Euratom's Science and Technical Committee (STC)  

Input from the JRC Board of Governors 

Reports  such  as  vision  documents  and  strategic  research  agendas  prepared  by  the 
Technology  Platforms  in  nuclear  field  –  Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy  Technology 
Platform  (SNETP),  Implementing  Geological  Disposal  Technology  Platform  (IGD-
TP) and Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI). 

EN 

4 

   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 defined, at its March 2007 
summit, an integrated policy for energy and climate change with three objectives: increased 
security  of  supply;  competitiveness  of  European  economies  and  availability  of  affordable 
energy; environmental sustainability whilst combating climate change. The resulting Energy 
Policy  for  Europe  sets  out  a  number  of  strategic  energy  policy  objectives  for  2020:  (i) 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels; (ii) reducing primary 
energy use by 20% (through energy efficiency); (iii) 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, amounting to 2/3 of the low-carbon energy produced 
in the EU. This represents a saving of almost 700 million tons CO2 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  activities,  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  levels,  in  terms  of  electricity  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 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 
10 

Communication from the Commission "An Energy Policy for Europe", COM(2007)1 
Council conclusions, 30 October 2009. 
If nuclear capacity were replaced by a representative mix of alternative sources 
Communication from the Commission "Nuclear Illustrative Programme", COM(2007)565 
Communication from the Commission "Second Strategic Energy Review", COM (2008)781 
Communication from the Commission "Energy 2020, A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure 
energy", COM (2010)639 
Energy Trends to 2030, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/trends_2030/index_en.htm 
International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2010 and Energy Technology Perspectives 2010, 
IEA 
Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008, Nuclear Energy Agency 
“Power Choices, Pathways to Carbon-Neutral Electricity in Europe by 2050”, Eurelectric, 2010 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
weapons programmes. This will become more important with nuclear expansion, especially in 
geographical areas not previously operating nuclear fuel cycle facilities.  

For  the  civil  use  of  nuclear  energy,  the  public  must  be  confident  that  nuclear  materials  are 
well  protected  against  any  use  for  illicit  activities.  These  requirements  call  for  strong  and 
efficient safeguards, non-proliferation and nuclear security regimes. 

Fusion is potentially a sustainable large-scale energy supply. It is inherently safe (in terms of 
accidents,  waste  and  proliferation  issues),  carbon-free  and  has  virtually  inexhaustible  and 
widely  available  fuel  resources.  The  R&D  challenges  still  to  be  met  leave  considerable 
uncertainty  about  the  timescale  on  which  commercial  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 likely to be competitive with 
other sources. Because of these uncertainties fusion is not usually included in the modelling of 
future energy scenarios, but it is firmly embedded 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 competitiveness and sustainability in 
the energy sector while increasing security of supply. To help achieve the medium and long 
term objectives (2020 and 2050) the Commission 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 technologies. 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 nuclear 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 agreed that the EU and its Member States will 
promote investment in renewables, safe and sustainable low carbon technologies and focus on 
implementing the technology priorities established in the SET-plan. 

In  the  short  term  (2020)  the  SET-Plan  supports  research  to  reduce  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  deploy  in  order  to  meet  its 
short and longer term energy objectives. 

Regarding nuclear technology in particular, to meet 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 

12 

See for example "Revised assessments of the economics of fusion power", W.E. Han, D.J.Ward, Fusion 
Engineering and Design 84 (2009) 895–898 
Communication  from  the  Commission  "A  European  Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (Set-Plan). 
Towards a low carbon future", COM(2007)723 

EN 

6 

   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) complete the preparations for the demonstration of 
a new generation (Gen-IV) of fission reactors for increased sustainability; and (2) complete 
the  construction  of  the  ITER  fusion  facility  and  ensure  early  industry  participation  in  the 
preparation  of  demonstration  units.  The  European  Sustainable  Nuclear  Industrial  Initiative 
(ESNII), which is one of the six initial European 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 facilities and R&D work. The nuclear energy's milestones of the 
SET-Plan can be reached via research and development 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 topics like development of nuclear-grade materials are cross-
cutting. Finally, R&D should address some issues which are beyond scope of the SET-Plan, 
such as radiation protection and nuclear security (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 Europe 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  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste13,  all  EU 
Member States produce radioactive waste, which is generated by many beneficial activities 
including  civil  nuclear  power  and  radioisotope  applications  in  medicine,  industry, 
agriculture, research and education. More than half of Member States have accumulations 
of  spent  nuclear  fuel,  or  residues  from  the  reprocessing  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 resulting waste in a safe and sustainable manner. 
This  is  also  the  overwhelming  view  of  European  citizens14,  whose  acceptance  of  nuclear 
energy  is  also  strongly  correlated  to  the  implementation  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. Indeed, the R&D work carried out over last three 
decades  has  confirmed  that  deep  geological  disposal  is  the  most  appropriate  solution  for 
long-term  management  of  spent  fuel,  high-level  waste,  and  other  long-lived  radioactive 
wastes. This scientific consensus now needs to be turned into an engineering reality, and 
this will be the focus of attention over the coming decade. 

13 

14 

Proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  on  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste, 
COM(2010)618, 3 November 2011 
Special Eurobarometer 297: Attitudes towards radioactive waste, published in June 2008. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Nuclear safeguards and security: Expansion of civil nuclear technology brings with it an 
increasing concern about the risk of accidents, nuclear non-proliferation 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  given  to  strengthening 
prevention  measures  at  both  the  national  and  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  already  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  reactors  will  extract  50-100  times  more  energy  from  the  same 
quantity  of  uranium,  making  nuclear  much  more  sustainable.  Furthermore,  fast  reactors 
will  produce  far  less  high-level  long-lived  waste,  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  designed  and  constructed  in  the  next  decade  to 
enable  sufficient  return  from  experience  before  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 feasibility 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  defined  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 schedule, 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  before  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 the programme strategy and to launch the activities 
for the next 10 years, i.e. in parallel with ITER construction, in order to ensure and enhance 
ITER’s  success  and  move  towards  the  power  plant  goal  as  rapidly  and  as  efficiently  as 
possible. These major challenges are: 

(i) Challenges in the timescale of 2020 

–  Complete  ITER  construction:  the  key  challenges  surrounding  ITER's  construction  are 
procuring,  testing  and  integrating  the  components,  and  launching  the  plasma  device  in 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2019.  These  must  be  completed  within  the  approved  budget,  while  minimising  the 
technological risks for the correct operation of the completed machine.  

–  Secure  ITER  operation:  by  expanding  the  knowledge  base  to  maximise  the  scientific 
output  of  ITER.  To  achieve  this,  the  programme  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 exploitation 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 leaders 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  construction  of  a  demonstration  fusion  power 
plant as soon after ITER as possible. Position Europe so that it gains a significant share of 
the intellectual property of fusion power. 

–  Involve  industry  more  closely  and  promote  innovation:  by  integrating  industry  in  the 
development  of  fusion  power  plant  studies,  enhancing  the  transfer  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 experimental reactor to study the physics and 
the technology needed for power generation, it is envisaged to construct a demonstration 
fusion  reactor  (DEMO)  that  can  produce  electrical  power  and  be  commercialised. 
Preparation  for  experiments  in  ITER  are  supported  by  a  number  of  other  smaller  fusion 
experiments  for  specific  studies  and  by  major  experimental  facilities  required  to  develop 
operating scenarios and address key physics issues for an efficient start up of ITER and for 
research towards DEMO. As a result of the experiences 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  programme  of  technology  activities  for  materials 
testing,  technological  validation,  prototype  development  and  fabrication  methods  is 
foreseen. Key technologies should be sufficiently developed and embedded in industry to 
have a final design and construction of a DEMO by 2050. 

2.5. 

Other challenges in nuclear science and technology 

There are also other challenges which concern radiation protection and skills in nuclear field:  

–  The  growing  use  of  radiation  in  medical  diagnostic  and  therapeutic  techniques  is 
responsible  for  a  significant  rise  in  exposure  to  low  doses.  Further  research  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  protection  for  the  public  and  workforce  in  all 
industrial  and  medical  uses  of  radiation.  However,  this  scientific  challenge  is  enormous, 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
involving  cutting  edge  research  and  an  approach  that  must  bring  together  experts  from  a 
wide range of disciplines, including radiation protection, radiobiology, molecular biology, 
genomics and epidemiology. Supporting basic and oriented research will be needed to keep 
the highest degree of understanding of key basic phenomenon.  

–  A particular focus must be given to provide support for education 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  production  but  which  use  nuclear 
technologies for other purposes (research, medical applications). 

2.6. 

Innovation in nuclear field 

Nuclear energy technology has special characteristics that affect the actors involved and the 
way  innovation  occurs:  large  up-front  capital  investments,  large  and  complex  facilities, 
special  quality  and  safety  requirements,  and  long  R&D  lead  times.  The  fission  sector  has 
developed  over  50  years  into  a  mature  industry  and  a  major  market.  Nuclear  innovation  is 
stimulated  by  many  factors  including:  (i)  growing  demand  for  affordable  low-carbon 
electricity from citizens/industry, (ii) maintenance and reliability performance targets from the 
utilities, (iii) safety and emission standards set by public authorities, (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  and  high-tech  industry  has  to  learn-by-doing  and 
gain appropriate skills and manufacturing capabilities. First steps need to be taken now at EU 
level  to  prepare  this  new  industry  and  associate  it  to  the  programme  evolution.  The  high 
technology industry involved in the construction of large-scale research fusion infrastructures, 
such as ITER and W7-X are keen to be involved in the fusion technology. They welcome the 
positive  impact  on  their  skills  base  and  the  possibility  to  re-use  the  new  innovative 
manufacturing processes for other products and services16. The situation is similar to other big 
science research where more than 1/3 of industrial contracts yield new products and services 
according to CERN17. 

15 

16 
17 

Conclusions  on  the  need  for  skills  in  the  nuclear  field,  2891st  Competitiveness  (Internal  Market, 
Industry and Research) Council meeting, Brussels, 1 and 2 December 2008 
Commission's survey (2009) of companies involved in upgrade and construction projects in fusion 
Technology  transfer  and  technological  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 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

THE ADDED VALUE OF EURATOM COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR R&D 

Public support of research is justified in a variety of circumstances, including large scale, long 
term  endeavours,  matters  concerning  public  safety  and  security,  a  low  probability  of  a  near 
term  economic  return  (“market  failure”).  Research  in  radiation  protection  is  an  example  of 
activity where public support is essential, since there is no industrial / private sector to speak 
of  that  can  exploit  such  research  on  a  commercial  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,  where  commercial  deployment  is  too  far  in  the 
future for the nuclear sector to justify the economic, 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  option  in  the  energy  mix,  but  on  a  timescale  for 
deployment too long for there to be, at present, significant investment by industry. 

The  Euratom  Treaty  is  the  legal  basis  underpinning  R&D  by  the  Euratom  community.  It 
enables research coordination and cooperation. Article 1 stipulates that 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  other  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  nuclear  research  in  the  Member  States  and  for 
complementing it by carrying out a Community research and training programme" (Article 4). 
The  Nuclear  Safeguards  activities  for  current  nuclear  fuel  cycle  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  processes  and  equipment,  advanced  sealing  and 
verification  technologies,  scientific  and  technical  support  from  trusty  and  independent 
laboratories, and dedicated consultancy services are needed by the safeguards authorities (DG 
ENER and IAEA).  

Because  the  research  competence  is  not  exclusive  to  Euratom,  the  principle  of  subsidiarity 
applies.  In  order  for  Community  action  to  be  justified,  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  must  be 
respected. This involves assessing two aspects. 

Firstly,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  objectives  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 for Member States to work collectively together 
is clear, especially in areas that will lead to improved practices and/or regulation 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 effective at a European level than 
at a national level for several reasons: 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
–  Critical mass: Some nuclear research activities are of such a scale and complexity that very 
few  Member  States  could  provide  the  necessary  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 recognised global leaders and centres of excellence; 

–  Leverage  on  private  and  public  investment:  Through  EU  research  schemes,  private 
companies and public research bodies can collaborate 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,  etc.  –  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 competition for scientific excellence and fosters innovation in 
the  nuclear  energy  field  to  tackle  challenges  in  energy  and  climate  change  strategy.  The 
programme will contribute to the "Innovation Union" flagship by supporting pre-commercial 
research  and  facilitating  technology  transfer  process  between  academia  and  industry  and  to 
the  "Resource  efficient  Europe"  flagship  by  greatly  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-tech  industry  for  fusion 
energy  in  particular,  the  Euratom  programme  will  lead  to  growth  and  new  jobs  in  a  wide 
range of disciplines.  

The  current  proposal  addresses  in  detail  just  the  2-year  period  2012-13,  but  the  activities 
remain  fully  consistent  with  the  key  milestones  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 , covers the same scientific & technical and 
strategic  objectives  and  using  the  same  funding  schemes  of  current  FP7  programme  (2007-
2011).  Nonetheless,  the  programme  has  evolved  over  the  last  5  years,  and  must  take  into 
account  results  of  recent  research  and  the  new  policy  context  and  research  landscape  in 
Europe.  Regarding  policy,  the  most  significant  development  has  been  the  adoption  and 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
endorsement  of  the  SET-Plan  as  part  of  a  broad  portfolio  approach  to  addressing  future 
energy challenges. 

The broad objectives for the Euratom Framework Programme for the years 2012-13 are: 

–  in  the  area  of  fusion  energy  research,  to  develop  the  technology  for  a  safe,  sustainable, 

environmentally responsible and economically viable energy source;  

–  in the area of nuclear fission and radiation protection, to enhance the safety performance, 
resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness of nuclear fission and other uses of radiation in 
industry  and  medicine;  and  to  enhance  nuclear  security  (nuclear  safeguards,  non-
proliferation, combating illicit trafficking and nuclear forensics) 

4.1. 

Indirect actions in the area of nuclear fission and radiation protection 

the  Technology  Platforms 

In  the  area  of  nuclear  science  and  technology,  the  last  3  years  have  seen  the  launch  of  key 
technical forums that bring together all key nuclear research and industrial stakeholders across 
Europe.  These  are 
in  Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy  and 
Implementing Geological Disposal (SNETP and IGDTP) and the joint programming initiative 
MELODI  –  the  Multidisciplinary  European  Low-Dose  Initiative.  All  three  have  come 
together around agreed visions for future R&D in their respective field, and all have defined, 
or  are  defining,  Strategic  Research  Agendas  (SRA)  and  Deployment  Strategies,  to  be 
implemented  by  sharing  members'  resources  in  the  respective  platforms.  Both  SNETP  and 
IGDTP are closely aligned with the objectives of the SET-Plan. 

The Euratom strategy in FP7 (2007-11) has already 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 European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative, 
which is one of the six initial European Industrial Initiatives foreseen under the SET-Plan, and 
one of the pillars of SNETP's SRA. 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  view  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-management aspects of future reactor systems, in 
the short and medium term, thereby maintaining the high safety standards already achieved 
within  the  EU  and  considerably  improving  the  long-term  management  of  radioactive 
waste. Research on partitioning and transmutation and/or other concepts aimed at reducing 
the amount and/or hazard of the waste for disposal. 

EN 

13 

   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 human capacity (for instance through joint training activities) in 
order  to  guarantee  the  availability  of  suitably  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  extensive  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 develop the knowledge base for, and to realise ITER as the 
major  step  towards,  the  creation  of  prototype  reactors  for  power  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 objective, as host, is to maintain a leading role 
in  site  preparation,  the  ITER  Organisation's  management  and  staffing,  and  general 
technical and administrative support. As an ITER Party, the Community objective includes 
the construction of equipment and installations, support to the project during construction 
and the management of R&D activities in support of ITER construction 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  operation  through  the  completion  and  exploitation  of  the  JET 
Enhancements  (first  wall,  heating  systems,  diagnostics)  and  the  exploration  of  ITER 
operating  scenarios  by  means  of  targeted  experiments  on  JET  and  other  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 programme, both for the immediate and medium 
term needs of ITER, and for the further development of fusion. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
–  Technology  transfer  processes  which  have  the  short  term  objective  of  ensuring  that 
innovation and technological progress created in the programme is transferred 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  driven  scientific  and  technical  support  to  EU 
policy related to nuclear energy. In particular, the nuclear activities of the JRC aim to satisfy 
the R&D obligations of the Euratom 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 cycle, radioactivity in the environment 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  education  for  professionals  and  young  scientists, 
ensuring  that  Europe's  leading  scientific  position  in  the  nuclear  field  is  preserved  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. 
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  the  knowledge  base  of  relevant  processes 
during  dry  storage  of  spent  fuel  and  in  the  near-field  of  the  final  repository  (from  the 
waste/waste  package  to  the  geological  barrier);  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 actinide 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 research centres; in the 
field of nuclear data, production of internationally required data and safe operation of the 
Van  de  Graaff  and  GELINA  accelerators;  in  medical  applications,  supporting  the 
development of targeted alpha therapy, focusing on alternatives 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 materials; development of real-time systems to 
collect, validate, map and report on environmental radioactivity in Europe. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Nuclear Safety 

–  Nuclear reactor safety: maintaining competences in design and operational nuclear safety 
for EU and Russian designed power plants in order to provide valuable technical support to 
related 
the 
legislation/projects/issues, to the EU regulatory bodies and technical support organisations 
in the interpretation and dissemination of events occurring in nuclear power plants. 

policy  making  Commission  DG’s 

nuclear 

safety 

other 

in 

–  Nuclear fuel cycle safety for the present generation 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 operation through state of the art post irradiation 
examination techniques; modelling applications.  

–  Safe operation of advanced nuclear systems: giving support to the implementation of the 
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) deployment 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 field of advanced fuels, safety assessments 
and qualification of innovative materials.  

Nuclear Safeguards and Security 

–  Nuclear  safeguards:  development  of  verification  and  detection,  containment  and 
surveillance  technologies,  advanced  and  innovative  measurement  methods  for  nuclear 
materials,  production  of  required  nuclear  reference  materials,  organisation  of  inter-
laboratory comparisons, and provision of training, in particular for IAEA and Commission 
inspectors;  related  to  the  "Additional  Protocol",  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  security  concept  for  prevention,  detection,  and  response  to 
scenarios of undeclared activities. This includes establishment and implementation of the 
European  Security  Training  Centre  at  the  JRC,  based  upon  a  robust  and  high  quality 
scientific background in terms of personnel and equipment. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
5. 

THE POLICY OPTIONS AVAILABLE 

The proposal for the Euratom Framework Programme 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  accordance  with  the  current 
financial  perspective  (2007-2013)  and  in  line  with  the  timeframe  of  the  EU  7th  Framework 
Programme (2007-2013). There are three policy options for Euratom 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/planned  budget  (including  the 
Commission's proposal to amend the financial perspective19).The variable factors behind each 
option are the cost increase of Euratom's contribution to ITER, the need to ensure continuity 
of  fusion  research  programme  parallel  to  the  ITER  construction,  and  the  need  to  support 
implementation of SET-Plan in nuclear energy. 

In this section, three policy options representative of the range of scenarios for the Euratom 
Framework  Programme  are  presented,  together  with  the  planned  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 extended to cover 2012-13 with the budget envelope 
provided  in  the  current  financial  perspective.  The  Commission's  proposal  to  amend  the 
financial perspective to provide 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  implemented  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre,  the  draft 
appropriations proposed for 2012-13 also follow 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 areas (radioactive waste 
management,  nuclear  systems  &  safety,  radiation  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 funds to be tailored, taking into account the strategic, scientific 
and  technical  needs  of  a  particular  time.  This  flexibility  also  enables  results  of  ongoing 
projects  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  annual  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. Some 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  Strategic  research  agendas  (SRAs)  emerging  from 
SNETP,  IGDTP  and  MELODI.  Such  an  approach  will  enable  even  more  effective  use  of 

18 
19 

20 

SEC(2010) 1386 
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  additional  financing  needs  of  the  ITER  project, 
COM(2010) 403 
COM(2010) 403 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Framework Programme funds, since these SRAs promote joint programming of research and 
commit  a  broad  range  of  organisations  including  industrial  players  (except  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  construction  of  large  demonstrator  facilities, 
which  are  the  focus  of  ESNII,  Euratom  can  and should  be  an  important  player  in  the  allied 
cross-cutting  research  programme  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  and  knowledge  management  activities,  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 earnest 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 Communication “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 beyond 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  obligations  under  the  ITER 
agreement. In the longer term, any delay in ITER construction and exploitation would have an 
impact  on  the  realisation  of  the  SET-Plan  and  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  Commission,  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 could have very serious disadvantages because 
insufficient  funds  for  the  fusion  programme  would  compromise  the  Joint  European  Torus 
Facility  (JET)  and  the  EU's  global  reputation.  JET  could  face  closure,  resulting  in 
redundancies of around 500 staff, the money recently spent on upgrading it would be wasted, 
and  its  contribution  to  ITER  would  be  negligible.  The  ability  of  the  EU  to  lead  the  ITER 
project  during  and  beyond  construction  could  be  seriously  damaged.  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 supportive comments about fusion in his key note 
address to the recent IAEA fusion energy conference in Korea. At the same time, in China it 
is reported that 2000 PhDs in plasma science have graduated last year.  

21 

Communication  from  the  Commission  "ITER  status  and  possible  way  forward",  COM(2010)226, 
SEC(2010)571 

EN 

18 

   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,  satisfying  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  installations  and  fuel  cycle, 
radioactivity in the environment and radiation protection.  

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 education for professionals and young scientists, ensuring that Europe's leading 
scientific  position  in  the  nuclear  field  is  preserved  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. The R&D component will 
remain  the  key  aspect  in  the  nuclear  programme  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 cycles and recycling techniques to reduce the long-
term  waste  burden;  development,  implementation  and  training  of  tools  to  improve  the 
exchange  of  information  on  environmental  radioactivity  in  the  EU  MSs  (routine  and 
emergency conditions), according to the underlying EU legislation (EURATOM, Chapter III, 
art.  35,  36  and  39);  maintaining  expertise  in  environmental  monitoring  (sampling-
measurement) by performing international intercomparison exercises; underpinning science in 
chemistry and physics of the actinide elements, nuclear materials research and pre-normative 
and  exploratory  research;  health  impact  and  medical  uses  of  radiation  sources  and 
radioisotopes, becoming increasingly 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  analyses  and  improved  nuclear  data  for  reduced 
modelling and simulation uncertainties of reactor core and fuel cycle parameters 

Nuclear  Security,  Safeguards  and  Non-Proliferation  will  include  three  main  pillars  in  the 
domain, prevention (includes a full set of nuclear safeguards tools and techniques, including 
running of on-site laboratories for DG ENER and an extensive R&D support programme to 
the IAEA), detection, response (includes nuclear forensics analysis and response plans). They 
will cover improved and new methods and technology development (in Non Destructive and 
Destructive  Analyses,  Mass/volume  determinations,  Containment  and  surveillance,  sealing, 
particle  analysis  etc),  forensics  analyses  and  response  in  case  of  seized  materials;  detection 
technologies  for  nuclear  and  radiological  security;  nuclear  materials  accounting  and  control 
reference 
statistical  analysis;  production  and  certification  of 
measurements  and  inter-laboratory  comparisons;  -  Operations  and  process  modelling  and 

reference  materials, 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
monitoring;  development  of  methodologies  for  Gen  IV  proliferation  resistance  analysis  and 
safeguards by design. 

5.2. 

Option 2 – No additional funding but priority given to ITER  

The Euratom Framework Programme is extended to cover 2012-13 with the budget envelope 
provided  in  the  current  financial  perspective.  The  Commission'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  actions  in  fission  and 
radiation protection would be reduced to a very low level, but direct actions in nuclear safety 
and security to be implemented by the Joint Research 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  would  be  carried  out  only  on  the 
basis of existing national programmes. The leverage effect of the Euratom FP on national and 
industrial programmes would be lost 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 waste management (Directive to be adopted this 
year)  would  no  longer  be  possible.  Bilateral  and  multilateral  links  between  research  and 
industrial  organisations  in  Europe  would  be  seriously  curtailed  with  consequences  for  the 
realisation of the European Research 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 construction compared to the schedule agreed by the members 
of the ITER International Organisation, which foresees the start of operation of the facility in 
2019, would be almost as severe as in option 1. Such delays would 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  would  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 agreement, the host of the facility, the Culham 
Centre for Fusion Energy, will cover costs 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 terminate 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 

20 

   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 2011 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  perspective  and  additional  funds  foreseen  in  the 
Commission's proposal to amend financial 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  actions  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 level 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  construction  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 the 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 next research FP, would protect the European investment in ITER and 
make sure that Europe, its research community and its industry, will reap the full benefit of 
the  research  at  ITER.  Depending  upon  the  outcome  of  the  assessment  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  Fusion  Associations  would  continue  to  work 
together under very tight financial constraints, focussing on preparing the operation of ITER, 
but  very  limited  activities  in  power  plant  physics  and  technologies  would  be  funded.  This 
funding  does  not  undermine  the  schedule  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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

THE  RESULTS  AND  IMPACTS  EXPECTED,  IN  PARTICULAR  ECONOMIC,  SOCIAL  AND 
EVALUATION 
THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
ARRANGEMENT NEEDED TO MEASURE THEM 

IMPACTS,  AND 

INDICATORS  AND 

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  projects  according  to  the 
schedule  agreed  in  July  2010  (ITER  baseline)  and  prevents  the  Euratom  Community  from 
fulfilling its legal obligations under the ITER agreement. The Joint Undertaking ‘Fusion for 
Energy’  would  need  to  postpone  some  key  procurements  beyond  2013.  It  will  result  in  the 
substantial delay of the start of the ITER exploitation.  

The possible impacts include: (1) loss of credibility 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 parties 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  machine  as  a  joint  international  research  infrastructure  will 
continue  within  the  approved  scope  and  schedule  and  is  the  highest  priority  of  the  fusion 
programme. The objectives of reaching burning plasma conditions at 500MW of fusion power 
over  400  seconds,  with  an  amplification  factor  of  10,  and  of  controlling  plasma  discharges 
well  beyond  this  duration  at  reduced  fusion  power  are  essential  for  building  an  electricity 
producing demonstration reactor (DEMO). In addition to its scientific objectives, ITER will 
contribute to DEMO by testing technologies impossible to test on present-day fusion devices. 

The objective of the Community as the host of the project is to maintain a leading role in site 
preparation,  the  ITER  Organisation,  management  and  staffing,  plus  general  technical  and 
administrative  support.  The  objectives  of  the  Community  as  an  ITER  Party  include 
construction of equipment and installations, support of the project during construction and the 
management  of  R&D  activities  in  support  of  ITER  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 components "in-kind" to ITER by F4E. The scale and 
complexity  of  components  requires  a  constant  flow  of  information  and  transfer  of 
technologies  between  industry  and  research  associations.  This  will  involve  key  enabling 
technologies  and  a  wide  variety  of  sectors.  Fusion  for  Energy  will  have  an  extremely 
important  role  of  bringing  together  the  scientific  knowledge  of  laboratories  and  the 
practicality-based thinking and management of industry. 

Joint Undertaking 'Fusion for Energy' procurement 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  forces  to  respond  to  the  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 which are difficult to predict today.  

Fusion for Energy has placed many industrial contracts already for the construction of ITER. 
These first contracts are large and therefore limited in scope for SMEs but already 7% of the 
contracts have been placed with SMEs. This is not including the many service contracts that 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
have been awarded for which there is a significant number of SME participation. At present 
F4E is reviewing these contracts to gauge the exact 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 technology content of the contracts. To encourage the participation 
of SMEs, F4E is developing a policy whereby a certain percentage of SME are included in the 
call for tender for contracts under 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  demonstration  power  plant,  while  gaining  valuable 
experience in combining the worlds of laboratories and industries 

The scientific and technological results from ITER operations will only start to appear after 
ITER  first  plasma  planned  for  the  end  of  2019.  A  staged  exploitation  mode  for  ITER  is 
foreseen to gain gradual experience in the operation of this device, which is of a completely 
new  nature  compared  with  previous  experiments.  However,  a  great  deal  of  scientific  or 
technical information can be reached before reaching 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 integrated European fusion programme and the abandoning of its long 
term  aim  of  demonstrating  fusion  power.  The  closure  of  JET  would  be  irreversible 
(mothballing is not a viable option) and the withdrawal of support given to the Associations 
would rule out all fusion R&D, and undermine the priority status given to ITER. Associated 
with this would be a substantial loss of expertise 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 towards 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 capitalise 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 the 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 deliverables for the fusion programme over the period of 
ITER construction. The objectives are (i) securing ITER operation by expanding the existing 
knowledge  base;  (ii)  preparing  the  ITER  generation  to  ensure  that  Europe  will  have  the 
human  resources  to  exploit  ITER  in  an  international  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  impact  on  the  efficient 
operation  of  ITER.  It  will  be  a  unique  experiment,  its  operation  posing  first-of-a-kind 
challenges ranging from the need to have pre-planned high performance operating scenarios 

EN 

23 

   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 ways for a geographically 
spread, multi-national group of researchers 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 leading 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  expertise  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 challenges and mobilize relevant stakeholders, in particular through 
the Fusion-Industry Innovation Forum. On a longer timescale, the ITER-generated expertise 
in  industry  and  the  research  community,  together  with  the  physics  and  technology 
developments  in  parallel  to  ITER,  will  provide  the  essential  basis  for  demonstration  power 
plants. 

6.5. 

Results and impacts of a very low funding for the fission & radiation protection 
programme (option 2) 

Under this option a very low level of funding could mean that only small coordinated actions 
could  be  launched  in  fission  and  radiation  protection  research.  The  Euratom  'fission' 
programme  would  not  be  in  a  position  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  radiation  in  industrial  and  medical  practices.  For  example  Euratom 
would not be able to support topics identified in respective Strategic Research Agendas of the 
technical forums SNETP, IGDTP and MELODI. In particular Europe would lose an important 
added  value  in  the  form  of  the  leverage  on  national  and  industrial  programmes.  Finally 
Euratom  would  not  fulfil  Council  requests  to  undertake  actions  for  maintaining  knowledge 
and  competence  in  Europe,  including  in  Member  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 'fission' 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  radiation  in  industrial  and  medical  practices.  The 
activities carried out in the programme are intended 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  effectively  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  (provided  these  topics  are  also  within  the 
scope  of  the  Euratom  FP)  and  relying  on  the  catalytic  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  projects  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 

24 

   EN 

 
commercial  and  a  broad  cooperative  approach  is  required  across  Europe  in  order  to  ensure 
critical mass. 

In any scientific field, impacts of individual research projects, or whole lines of research, may 
become  apparent  only  after  several  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 geological disposal completed some 10-15 years 
ago is now feeding through as an element in actual implementation programmes in the most 
advanced  Member  States;  similar  situations  are  apparent  in  aspects  of  research  on  nuclear 
installation  safety,  and  even  longer  timescales  may  be  apparent  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 the fission research landscape in Europe; these 
positive  impacts  will  continue  in  2012&13  and  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  common  European  view  in  key  scientific  and 
technical issues, and forges a clear link with the Commission's policy initiatives in areas such 
as nuclear safety (new Directive came into force in 2009) and radioactive waste management 
(new  Directive  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  Oct.  2010)  and  radiation  protection  (new 
Communication on medical applications of ionising radiation adopted by the Commission in 
Aug.  2010).  Effective  links  with  the  nuclear  safety  regulatory  authorities,  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 programme, 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, Euratom influence is in providing a catalyst 
and  initial  seed  money,  but  also  a  framework  for  change  and  a  Community-wide  vision. 
Training  and  knowledge  management  have  become  a  focus  of  the  activities  of  SNETP  and 
other  Europe-wide  nuclear  stakeholder  initiatives,  such  as  the  European  Nuclear  Energy 
Forum (ENEF). 

In conclusion, and in view of this long-term nature 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 with the evolving Community strategy / policy, as represented by 
the  SET-Plan  (low-carbon  energy  policy  /  strategy)  or  under  the  Euratom  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 with 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 forums, and  cementing the relationship  with the 
SET-Plan, especially the launch of ESNII, represent the most tangible success of the Euratom 
FP. Euratom's contribution to this process remains crucial over the coming years if we are to 
capitalise on its success in the longer term. 

EN 

25 

   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 radiation protection R&D 
programmes)  would  enable  the  Community  to  address  the  medium  (2020)  and  long  term 
(2040) R&D challenges and to reach SET-Plan objective of low carbon society by 2050. 

6.8. 

Indicators and evaluation arrangement 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 Euratom Framework Programme through the following indicators: 

ITER construction:  

–  Number of milestones met by Joint Undertaking 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 devoted to experimental campaigns 

–  Number of professional person days of Association staff at JET for campaigns  

EFDA coordinated activities  

–  Completion of deliverables under EFDA Task Agreements  

–  Implementing Agreement for Power Plant Physics and Technology activities  

–  Number  of  fusion  researchers  and  engineers  trained  for  the  needs  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 

26 

   EN 

 
Indirect actions in Fission and Radiation protection:  

Indicators have already been laboriously developed and endorsed as part of the RTD Annual 
Management Plan, and these will be maintained (and improved if necessary) during the period 
2012-13  (see  list  below).  In  view  of  the  'business-as-usual  approach',  no  major  changes  are 
considered necessary.  

In brief, the indicators include: 

–  Coverage  of  areas  being  granted  highest  priority  in  the  Specific  Programme  for  indirect 

actions. 

–  Percentage  of  proposals  which  successfully  addressed  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  radiation  protection,  the  intellectual  property  acquired  during  the 
project  implementation  could  result  in  patent  applications  not  only  during  the  lifetime  of 
the project and Euratom Framework Programme, but also in the 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  significant  scientific, 

technical, commercial, social or environmental impacts. 

–  Percentage of projects with publications in peer reviewed 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  evaluation  support  activities,  ranging  from  the 
monitoring of achieving objectives, through to a Periodic Action Review, which assesses the 
set  of  JRC  research  projects  (called  "actions")  in  terms  of  achieved  policy  impact  and 
scientific output once a year using an elaborated indicator-based methodology.  

Regarding policy support, the JRC determines: 

–  the number of deliverables (productivity indicator), and 

–  the number of occurrences of a tangible impact at the level of policy makers using a list of 

pre-defined criteria (impact indicator). 

Scientific output is measured through: 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
–  the number of publications in peer reviewed journal articles (productivity 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 scientific researchers (PhD, Post-docs and visiting scientists) 

–  the number of hours of training modules delivered multiplied by the respective number of 

participants. 

the  evaluation  arrangements, 

Regarding 
the  Commission  will  continually  and 
systematically  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  Euratom  Framework  Programme  and  its 
specific  programmes  and  regularly  report  and  disseminate  the  results  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 Commission publishes annual reports. These reports are 
accompanied  by  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  which  provides  more  detailed 
reporting  and  by  Statistical  Annexes.  Following  the  completion  of  the  Framework 
Programme, the Commission will launch, not later than two years after its completion (2015) 
an  external  evaluation  by  independent  experts  of  its  rationale,  implementation  and 
achievements.  The  Commission  will  communicate  the  conclusions  of  this  evaluation, 
accompanied  by  its  observations,  to  the  European  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  indirect  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-ante  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 performance of regular independent external audits 
help  to  ensure  sound  financial  management,  including  regularity  and  legality  of  the 
transactions performed. 

Fission and radiation protection: The 'fission' programme during 2012-13 will continue on 
the  basis  of  annual  calls  for  proposals,  covering  most  if  not  all  thematic  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 grant funds ("time to grant") has been 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 

28 

   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  Development  Agreement,  under  which  there  are 
Implementing Agreements for JET and the High Performance Computer for Fusion), the JET 
Operating  Contract  and  the  Agreement  on  Staff  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  consultation  with  the  actors  and  stakeholders  in  the 
programme.  Such  adaptations  could  be  considered  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 their 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  level  (Joint  Undertaking  'Fusion  for  Energy') 
and level of the ITER International Organisation. 

The  ITER  project  is  conducted  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  into  force  in  October  2007.  The  Agreement 
established  the  ITER  Organization  (IO)  with  full  international  legal  personality  to  be 
responsible for the joint implementation of the ITER project. According to the International 
Agreement,  each  Party  provides  its  contribution  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  components,  and  quality  and  safety  requirements), 
while the Parties are committed to providing various components and systems. At EU level, 
the  Euratom  contribution  to  ITER  is  managed  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 about 80% of the European contribution to the ITER project 
and  the  Commission  is  ultimately  accountable  for  the  use  of  these  public  resources.  The 
European  Parliament  is  responsible  for  giving  budgetary  discharge  to  the  European  Joint 
Undertaking for ITER. 

24 

25 

26 

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "Towards  a  robust  management  and  governance  of  the  ITER 
project",  
SEC(2010) 1386, 9 November 2010 
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  
OJ L 90, 30.3.2007, p. 58. 

EN 

29 

   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  Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (SET-Plan),  which  has  been 
endorsed  by  the  European  Council.  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  Energy  Technology  Platform  (SNETP),  the 
Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform (IGDTP) and 
other instruments for stability and global security 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  ALLOCATED  WITH  DUE  REGARD  FOR  THE 
COST-EFFECTIVENESS PRINCIPLE 

In the following section, the budget for the preferred option 3 is explained. The proposal for 
Euratom Framework programme is of limited 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 period 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  consistent  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 proposals are considered 
to represent the most cost-effective way of achieving the aims within a regime of strict cost 
containment27 

Commitment figures: 

2012 

2013 

Total 

Million euro 

Million euro 

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 

JRC administrative expenditure 

Total direct R&D actions 

9,895 €

104,648 €

114,543 €

10,252 € 

20,147 €

108,421 € 

213,069 €

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 

30 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Payment figures: 

2012 

2013 

2014 - 2016 

Total 

Million euro 

Million euro 

Million euro 

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: 

Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents) 

Year 
2012  

Year 
2013  

X 01 01 01 (Headquarters and 
Commission’s Representation Offices) 

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) 

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) 

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) 

- 

- 

190 

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) 

08 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect 
research) 

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct 
research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

- 

- 

- 

239 

40 

166 

- 

- 

- 

190 

566 

- 

- 

- 

239 

40 

166 

- 

TOTAL 

1,201 

1,201 

There is no extra need for staff in spite of the increase of the budget in 2012 and 2013. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
10. 

THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM SIMILAR EXPERIENCES IN THE PAST 

In  2009  two  panels  of  independent  experts  carried  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 Platforms / Joint Programming Initiatives 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  Euratom  FP7  'fission  and  radiation  protection' 
programme is on track to meet its objectives in all research activities.  

The  panel  recommended  that  the  EU  should  alter  the  balance  of  the  fission  research 
programme to be able to better reflect the priorities agreed by all stakeholders, as formulated 
by the Technology Platforms and Joint Programming initiatives, particularly 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,  previous  ex-post  evaluations  of  the  Euratom  FP5 
and FP6 fission programmes have demonstrated the effectiveness of the research carried out 
in  these  programmes,  the  restructuring  effect  of  the  new  funding  instruments  introduced  in 
FP6,  and  the  importance  of  developing  the  technology  platforms  to  ensure  longer  term 
strategic impacts in Europe.  

Regarding the indirect actions in fusion research, 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 fusion are great – so much so that it is unlikely 
that any European Member State could contemplate undertaking it alone. The panel believes 
that the fusion research coordinated under European Fusion Development Agreement is well 
focussed and managed and is essential to support ITER.  

The fusion programme has also  been the subject, in 2009,, of an in-depth 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 the R&D required to make fusion 
energy  production  ready  for  commercial  exploitation”  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 shift towards preparing for 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 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  panel  also  prioritised  the  present  and  possible  future  facilities  in  the  programme 
according to their benefits, costs and risks in relation to ITER and DEMO.  

On  the  basis  of  these  conclusions,  the  Commission  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 last two years of FP7, which may 
continue in 2012-13. The process of adaption will continue into that period.  

The  ITER  project  is  inherently  complex  but  it  provides  enormous  potential  for  sustainable 
energy.  The  FP7  Interim  Evaluation  panel  considered  ITER  an  essential  step  towards  the 
commercial realisation of fusion energy and if Euratom 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 during the review. On the basis of this review 
the  Commission  has  strived  to  have  a  more  focused  leadership  at  the  ITER  organisation  to 
secure a positive outcome within the limits set by the adopted baseline. It also requires a more 
streamlined 
interfaces 
international  management  structure  with  fewer  and/or  better 
implemented  according  to  the  best  practice  either  from  the  construction  of  nuclear  power 
plants or large international projects. Changes of management will take place during the last 
years of FP7 but continued monitoring, verification 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 relevance of the programme, the implementation 
of the programme (its governance), the achievements 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 improved through the better management structure 
and  distribution  of  responsibilities,  enhanced  customer  consultation  and  reduction  of 
bureaucratic burden; 

Present work and future proposals should be based 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 reporting 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 management, as well as planning and reporting; 

the  development  of  a  nuclear  safety  and  security  specific  strategy  taking  into  account  the 
recommendations of the report. 

It should be noted that since the beginning of 2011, a new structure 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. 

EN 

33 

   EN