Interim evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 : report from the group of experts.
Date: 2017-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, nuclear fission, nuclear policy, nuclear research, nuclear safety, research report

Interim Evaluation of indirect 
actions of the Euratom 
Research and Training 
Programme 2014-2018 

Research and 
Innovation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate G — Energy 
Unit G.1 — Strategy 

Contact: Frederick Mariën 

E-mail:  Frederick.Marien@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Interim Evaluation of indirect 
actions of the Euratom 
Research and Training 
Programme 2014-2018 

Report from the Group of Experts 

2017 

EUR 28862 EN 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Euratom Research 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF   ISBN 978-92-79-76017-4 

ISSN 1831-9424  doi: 10.2777/039706  KI-NA-28-862-EN-N 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
For any use or reproduction of individual photos, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................7 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 16 

1.1  Objectives of the Evaluation ...................................................................... 16 
1.2 Evaluation Methodology.............................................................................. 17 
1.3 Structure of the Report .............................................................................. 17 

2.  BACKGROUND  TO  THE  EURATOM  RESEARCH  AND  TRAINING  PROGRAMME 

2014-18 ......................................................................................................... 19 
2.1 Nuclear Fusion .......................................................................................... 19 
2.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 20 

2.2.1 
Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 21 
2.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 27 
2.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 31 
2.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 34 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 37 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 39 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 42 
3.  EVALUATION OF STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................ 45 

2.2.5 
2.2.6 
2.2.7 

3.1  Nuclear Fusion .................................................................................................... 45 

The Fusion Roadmap ................................................................... 45 
The transition from EFDA/CoA to EUROfusion ........................ 46 
Education and Training in the Fusion Programme ...................... 47 
3.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 48 

3.1.1 
3.1.2 
3.1.3 

Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 49 
3.2.1 
3.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 49 
3.2.3.  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 50 
3.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 50 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 51 
3.2.5 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 51 
3.2.6 
3.2.7.  Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 52 
3.3 State of Play - Summary ............................................................................ 52 

4.  EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ......................... 53 

4.1  Nuclear Fusion .................................................................................................... 53 

4.1.1  Relevance of the Fusion Research Programme ............................ 53 
4.1.2 Relevance of Education and Training for Fusion ............................. 53 
4.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 53 

4.2.1 
Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 54 
4.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 54 
4.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 54 

3 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

4.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 54 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 55 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 55 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 56 
4.3 Relevance - Summary ................................................................................ 56 

4.2.5 
4.2.6 
4.2.7 

5.  EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ................... 57 

5.1  Nuclear Fusion .................................................................................................... 57 

5.1.1 
Preparation For ITER Exploitation .............................................. 57 
5.1.2  DEMO Conceptual Design and R&D .......................................... 61 
Stellarator ..................................................................................... 63 
5.1.3 
Training and Mobility .................................................................. 63 
5.1.4 
5.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 64 

5.2.1 
Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 65 
5.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 67 
5.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 69 
5.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 70 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 73 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 74 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 74 
5.3 Effectiveness - Summary ............................................................................ 75 

5.2.5 
5.2.6 
5.2.7 

6.  EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ......................... 76 

6.1  Nuclear Fusion .................................................................................................... 76 

6.1.1  Governance .................................................................................. 76 
Project Management .................................................................... 77 
6.1.2 
Programming and Planning .......................................................... 78 
6.1.3 
 Industrial Involvement ................................................................ 78 
6.1.4 
6.1.5 
 Enabling Research....................................................................... 78 
6.1.6  Administrative Costs .................................................................... 79 
6.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 79 

6.2.1 
Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 79 
6.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 80 
6.2.3.  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 80 
6.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 80 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 81 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 81 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 82 
6.3 Efficiency - Summary ................................................................................. 82 

6.2.5 
6.2.6 
6.2.7 

7.  EVALUATION OF THE INTERNAL COHERENCY OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ......... 83 

7.1 Nuclear Fusion .......................................................................................... 83 

4 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

7.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 83 

7.2.1 
Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 83 
7.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 84 
7.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 84 
7.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 84 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 85 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 85 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 85 
7.3 Coherence - Summary ............................................................................... 85 

7.2.5 
7.2.6 
7.2.7 

8.  EVALUATION OF THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ................ 86 

8.1  Nuclear Fusion .................................................................................................... 86 

8.1.1.  European competitiveness in the global race ............................... 86 
Scientific Cooperation.................................................................. 87 
8.1.2 
8.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 87 

Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 87 
8.2.1 
8.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 87 
8.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 87 
8.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 88 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 88 
8.2.5 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 88 
8.2.6 
8.2.7.  Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 88 
8.3 European Added Value – Summary .............................................................. 88 

9.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 90 

9.1 Nuclear Fusion .......................................................................................... 90 
9.2  Nuclear Fission ................................................................................................... 91 

Safety of Nuclear Systems ........................................................... 91 
9.2.1 
9.2.2  Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste .............................. 92 
9.2.3  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence................................................ 92 
9.2.4  Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

9.2.5 
9.2.6 
9.2.7 

Radiation ...................................................................................... 92 
Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness.................................. 93 
Pan-European Research Infrastructures ....................................... 93 
Social Aspects and Networking ................................................... 93 
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 94 
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 98 
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 100 

ANNEX 1 

TERMS OF REFERENCE ...................................................................... 104 

ANNEX 2 

EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP ............................................................. 108 

ANNEX 3 

MEETINGS SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 110 

ANNEX 4 

QUESTIONS PUT TO THE FUSION AND FISSION STAKEHOLDERS ............ 111 

5 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 4.1  Questions to Fusion Stakeholders ................................................... 111 
Annex 4.2  Questions to Fission Stakeholders ................................................... 114 

ANNEX 5 

FUSION ROADMAP TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS .................................... 116 

ANNEX 6 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE .................................................................. 120 

6 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In accordance with Council decision, the European Commission established in 2016 an 
independent Group of Experts (hereinafter the Panel) to carry out an interim evaluation of 
the Euratom Research and Training programme (2014-18) (hereinafter Euratom 
Programme). The purpose of the Interim Evaluation is set out in the terms of reference for 
the Expert Group namely “to assess its implementation, to provide an evidence base for 
preparing future Euratom research programmes and to inform the European Parliament 
and the Council, Member States, the research community and other stakeholders, and the 
general public about the progress made by research and training activities funded by the 
Euratom Programme.” 

Panel Findings 
The Panel’s findings, summarised below, are structured in relation to the tasks as set out 
in the Panel’s Terms of Reference, namely the evaluation of the Euratom Programme in 
relation to: 

  State of Play; 

  Relevance; 

 

 

 

 

Effectiveness; 

Efficiency; 

Internal Coherency; and 

EU Added Value. 

The Panel has made a number of recommendations that are aimed at improving the 
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of future Euratom research and training 
programmes. These recommendations are reproduced in this Executive Summary because 
of their importance. 

Evaluation of State of Play 

Fusion 
Europe currently has a leadership position in fusion research and this has been achieved 
through the Euratom programmes that have led to a coherent approach in the Member 
States. The formulation of the European Fusion Roadmap has put Europe in a leading 
position on the way to the production of fusion electricity. Maintaining such a leadership 
should be one of the main goals of the Euratom programme. 

In passing from Euratom FP7 to the current Euratom Programme, the approach to fusion 
research has undergone a major transition with the creation of EUROfusion. Research 
activities are now managed within a single organization. In spite of the initial difficulties 
EUROfusion is now demonstrating the value of joint programming. The new approach 
represents a substantial improvement in terms of transparency and effectiveness, and it 
will strengthen the European leadership in fusion. However, the adaptation to the new 
approach will require continuous effort by all stakeholders. 

Education and training is an important part of the fusion programme and is necessary to 
attract researchers, engineers and specialists and to ensure that the right competencies 
are available for the evolving needs of the field. The development of human resources is 
an important component of the fusion research program that requires training and 
education to be explicitly recognised through specific support at under-graduate and PhD 
level. 

Fission 
The fission part of the Euratom programme is being implemented through three work 
programmes, 2014/15, 2016/17 and 2018. There was only one call for the first 2 year 
Work Programme; and a total of 23 grants were awarded with a value of about €90m. The 
Panel notes that in comparison to other areas of Horizon2020, applications to the fission 

7 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

programme had a very high success rate. The Panel recognises the progress made in the 
distribution of grants but there is room for improvement. It appears that the larger, more 
established organisations continue to receive the majority of Euratom funding in the fission 
area and hence the recommendation made in the ex-post evaluation of Euratom FP7 
relating to this issue has not had the desired effect. Accordingly, the Panel believes that 
this recommendation is also relevant to the current Euratom Programme and repeats it 
here. 

Recommendation 1:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the 
Council  should  recognise  that  even  if  the  level  of  excellence 
remains  the  key  for  applying  for  research  funding,  the 
dominance  of  the  established  organisations  can  lead  to  the 
exclusion of emerging contributors who have the potential to 
provide new ideas and innovation. Hence consideration should 
be given as to how this source of innovation can be captured 
rather than lost from European programmes. 

Analysis of the evidence provided to the Panel clearly shows that the aims and intent as 
set out in the 2014-15 Work Programme have been delivered in both the call and the 
grants awarded. 

In relation to funding, the current rules for participation allow, in some areas, for Euratom 
to fund up to 100% of a project. It appears that because of this the result has been that 
less research is being done in some areas because the leverage effect is smaller. 

Recommendation  2:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the 
Commission should review the impact of allowing up to 100%-
funding  has  on  the  level,  scope  and  impact  of  research  being 
delivered. 

Evaluation of the Relevance of the Euratom Programme 

Fusion 
The fusion part of the Euratom Programme is clearly relevant as it enables Europe to 
address the challenge of ensuring an energy production that simultaneously meets the 
goal of long-term sustainability, security of supply and support to the development of the 
economy. The important role of fusion laboratories and universities in training and 
education is recognised by specific support at under-graduate and graduate, specifically 
PhD level. 

Fission 
The projects selected in the 2014-17 programme are in the main relevant to the European 
research needs as set out in the Euratom Work Programmes and the overall Council 
objectives. 

In the area of nuclear safety, the balance of spending between the 21 projects is in 
general consistent with the challenges as set out in the Work Programme. There is a good 
balance between the need to support the safety of existing nuclear power plant operations 
in Europe and the need to focus on the research necessary to underpin the safety of the 
next generation of nuclear power plants. 

The effective management of radioactive waste with the ultimate goal of the delivery of 
safe and secure deep geological disposal for the higher activity wastes is clearly an 
important goal for the Euratom Programme. The funded projects are relevant to the needs 
of the European research community and the citizens of the EU. They are related to 
furthering understanding of issues that are relevant to the effective management of 
radioactive waste in the EU and cover issues that are directly related to the safety of a 
geological disposal facility, the conditioning of radioactive waste, the long-term behaviour 
of spent fuel in a repository and the clean-up of decommissioned sites. 

8 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The importance of supporting the retention and further development of scientific 
competence and human capacity including education and training activities in order to 
guarantee the availability of suitably qualified researchers, engineers and employees in the 
nuclear sector is a long term priority in past and future Euratom programmes. The Panel 
found that the projects are in line with the objective of the Euratom Programme to develop 
knowledge to improve scientific and technical competences. 

CONCERT is an example of a European Joint Programming (EJP) and the radiation research 
programme is directly relevant to the understanding of the risks from low dose of 
radiation. The funded projects are expected to lead to better integration of the radiation 
protection scientific community at EU level, leading to a better coordination of research 
efforts and the provision of more consolidated and robust science-based policy 
recommendations to decision makers in this area. In the long term, these efforts will 
translate into additional or improved practical measures for the effective protection of 
people and the environment. 

In terms of relevance of CONCERT to the research needs of the European Community, the 
call priorities of the 1st open CONCERT call have been established by taking into account 
the Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs), of the European radiation protection platforms 
MELODI, ALLIANCE, NERIS and EURADOS. 

The funded projects relating to Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness in both the 
2014-15 and 2016-17 calls are generally relevant to the wider EU goals. 

The three Pan-European Research Infrastructure projects are consistent with the aims and 
objectives of the Euratom Work Programmes and as such are relevant. 

The aims and objectives of the three projects selected in the Social Aspects and 
Networking area, HoNEST, NUCL-EU2020 and SPRINT are consistent with the Work 
Programme but the extent to which they meet the needs of European citizens is less clear. 
The funding balance for the NUCL-EU 2020 and SPRINT projects is in line with their 
importance and priority but the funding level for the HoNEST project seems excessive. 

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Euratom Programme 

Fusion 
Europe has a long-standing leadership in fusion with the largest magnetic confinement 
fusion device in operation (JET), the most advanced technology programme and the 
largest share of the ITER construction. JET has unique features: it is the experiment 
closest to ITER, the only one that can use tritium as fuel and beryllium as plasma facing 
component. The successful operation in JET of the ITER-like Wall (ILW) led to the ITER 
decision in 2013 to adopt this combination of materials also in the pre-nuclear phase, with 
a substantial saving in costs and a more robust strategy for the development of the ITER 
regimes of operation. This is one of the best examples of the role JET can play in ITER risk 
mitigation. 

It is important to acknowledge that JET is the only fusion device with the closest possible 
conditions to ITER that is available to address urgent R&D needs that may arise in the 
period leading up to the first ITER plasma. Therefore, JET is the last opportunity to address 
in advance of the ITER first plasma the main risks to the successful operation of ITER. 

Recommendation 3: In view of the importance of JET for ITER 
the JET campaigns should be extended up to 2024. 

The launch of an ambitious DEMO Conceptual Design Activity (CDA) is one of the 
distinctive features of the fusion part of the Euratom Programme. The proposal to align the 
DEMO construction decision to the new date for the Q=10 milestone on ITER is sensible. 
However, because of the importance of aligning the start of the DEMO Engineering Design 
Activity (EDA) with the completion of the main ITER machine components, the Panel 
believes that the DEMO EDA should start around 2025. 

9 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Recommendation 4: EUROfusion should not delay the DEMO CDA 
and should start the DEMO EDA around 2025 in order to maintain 
the industrial know-how generated by the ITER construction. 

At the present stage of development of fusion research, setting the commercial fusion 
power plant as the target for the research effort to be carried out over the next two 
decades may be overambitious. It would defocus the activities and would increase 
substantially the time of the delivery of fusion power for electricity production. 

Recommendation 5:  EUROfusion  to  maintain  the  original 
Roadmap focus on DEMO as an ITER-like tokamak to be built as 
soon as ITER achieves the Q=10 target. 

Regarding education EUROfusion recognises the need to continue the previous PhD 
support activities. However, the Panel believes that there is a need for EUROfusion to focus 
more attention on fusion technology and engineering skills. 

Recommendation 6:  EUROfusion  should  use  its  educational 
resources to promote educational programmes that will deliver 
the  nuclear  engineers  and  technologists  as  foreseen  in  the 
Roadmap. 

There are difficulties with both short-term and long-term mobility of researchers that seem 
to result from the application of the Unit Cost regulation. This appears to be inhibiting 
movement of staff. 

Recommendation 7:  EUROfusion  and  the  Commission  should 
review  the  impact  of  Unit  Costs  on  mobility  and  make  any 
necessary changes. 

Overall the fusion part of the Euratom Programme is effective as the amount of resources 
allocated to the various activities reflects the priorities of the Roadmap and the 
programme is pursuing the activities with the highest impact in the realization of the 
Roadmap. 

Fission 
In the fission area, the use of the instrument of European Joint Programme (programme 
co-fund action) is in its infancy and hence it is too early to see definitive evidence one way 
or the other. However there are signs that it is not always beneficial to use this 
instrument. 

The availability of some preliminary reports and website information has enabled 
assessment of progress in the delivery of projects selected following the 2014-15 call for 
proposals. 

In the area of nuclear safety, all of the projects in the 2014-15 call indicate that progress 
is generally as planned with most deliverables and milestones being achieved. 

In relation to radioactive waste, the JOPRAD project, which is aimed at exploring the 
feasibility of establishing a European Joint Programme (EJP) in this area, is not progressing 
as expected with only 15 of the 25 deliverables being delivered. Of the outstanding 
deliverables some were nine months late. In all of the other projects good progress is 
reported. 

Given the level of progress that had been made by the end of Dec 2016 it is difficult to see 
how EJP could go ahead in this area. The Panel believes that in principle a EJP in waste 
management has some potential advantage however, to be able to judge the benefits at 
this point in time it needs to be demonstrated that it is sufficiently developed. 

Recommendation 8:  For  WP2018  or  the  extension  of  Euratom 
2014-18  the  Commission  and  Members  States  should  carefully 

10 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

consider  if  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate  that  the 
EJP instrument can be applied to research on geological disposal 
of radioactive waste at this point in time. 

More recent information on JOPRAD suggests that things have improved, however the 
Panel believes the above recommendation remains valid in view of the importance of the 
topic.  

The regulation for education and training is rather general and there are no specific 
objectives in work packages. However, better specification of goals in the Euratom Work 
Programme may facilitate the implementation of an education and training in the 
programme. 

Recommendation 9:  For  the  implementation  of  future  research 
Programmes  the  Commission  should  ensure  that  there  are 
specific  objectives  for  the  delivery  of  education  and  training  in 
the Work Programme. 

Output from previously funded radiation protection programmes suggests that the 
Euratom Programme is delivering results. However, in relation to the effectiveness of the 
programme, delays were sometimes encountered mainly because of the nature and 
unpredictability of scientific research and also because of administrative delays. The 
CONCERT project was cited as an example where such delays were encountered, however, 
in terms of progress to date on the deliverables identified from the beginning of CONCERT 
until the end of 2016, nearly all have been completed.  

Whilst the Euratom projects relating to radiation protection in the medical exposure area 
have been successful and have contributed to increased knowledge, it is recognised that 
further benefit would be gained by establishing better links between programmes funded 
by Euratom and other EU health-related programmes. 

Recommendation 10:  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States 
should  make  continued  efforts  to  link  future  Euratom  research 
programmes  in  radiation  protection  associated  with  medical 
exposure with other EU medical research programmes. 

There have been initial “teething” difficulties in the operation of CONCERT but it is too 
early to judge whether these are of concern. Given that it is the first time the EJP 
instrument has been applied in the Euratom Programme outside of fusion, the Panel 
believes that there would be benefit of a review of the working of CONCERT in advance of 
the development of future Euratom programmes, so that the Commission can be satisfied 
that its aims and objectives, and benefits of using the EJP approach in the field of radiation 
protection, have been delivered. 

Recommendation 11: The Commission should carry out a review 
of how CONCERT is working, to satisfy itself that the aims of the 
European  Joint  Programme  (programme  co-fund  action)  in 
relation to the effective and efficient management of research in 
the field of radiation protection are being delivered. 

In relation to the other nuclear fission areas, namely Innovation and Industrial 
Competitiveness, Pan-European Research Infrastructure and Social Aspects and 
Networking, the information that is available suggests that progress in general is on track. 

Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Euratom Programme 

Fusion 
The bodies that play a role in the EUROfusion governance are the General Assembly (GA), 
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) and the Programme Manager (PM) 
and the Programme Management Unit (PMU). The multiple roles of the Consortium 
members (supervisory, executive and operator) make the risk of conflict of interest 

11   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

possible. The Panel believes that the EUROfusion structure should be capable of dealing 
successfully with this risk. A possible way of minimising the risks associated with conflict of 
interest could be avoiding the presence of those responsible for the implementation of the 
programme on the supervisory committees (no Project Leaders in the GA or STAC, no Task 
Leader in the Project Board of the same project). 

Recommendation 12:  EUROfusion  should  put  in  place  explicit 
provisions to manage conflicts of interest. 

A strong approach to project management within EUROfusion is essential for the efficient 
delivery of the programme. Good progress is being made in this area but some 
improvement is still required. 

to 
Recommendation 13: 
strengthen  its  project management  arrangements  and  ensure 
that 
the 
implementation strategy. 

the  Programme  Manager 

is  responsible 

EUROfusion 

continue 

should 

for 

The EY report has also pointed out the lack of a design authority for DEMO. In the next 
Euratom programme, progress should be made towards a strong central coordination of 
the DEMO Engineering Design Activity. 

Recommendation 14: EUROfusion should as a matter of urgency 
set up the design authority for DEMO. 

The core function of STAC is to monitor the implementation of the Roadmap and advise 
the General Assembly on the decisions to take. At the moment, the selection of ‘Enabling 
Research’ projects is entirely a STAC responsibility. The selection procedure ensures the 
goal of promoting excellence and innovation. However, this places a significant burden on 
the STAC which limits its ability to focus on its core function. The Panel suggest that 
EUROfusion should find an approach (e.g. by involving further external reviewers with 
modest financial support) that does not compress the role of STAC in monitoring the 
implementation of the Roadmap 

Recommendation 15:  EUROfusion  should 
look  at  ways  of 
reducing the burden on STAC from its role in the project selection 
process for Enabling Research. 

Fission 
The nuclear safety related projects selected in both the 2014-15 and 2016-17 calls are all 
in line with the Euratom Work Programmes and therefore have been judged to be suitable. 
However, it is difficult at this stage to comment upon the extent to which the outcomes 
that are claimed will be generated, will deliver the project aims in a cost effective way. 

Projects relating to radioactive waste management in each of the 2014-15 and 2016-17 
calls are consistent with Council objective (b). Projects from the 2014-15 call appear to be 
on track to deliver their aims and if this proves to be the case the Euratom investment in 
these research projects should make a substantial contribution to the delivery of safe and 
secure disposal of Europe’s radioactive waste. However, the funding of these projects 
should be reviewed because as it is the producer of the waste that should pay for its 
disposal it is hard to see why Euratom should fund 73% of the cost for 2014-15 projects 
and 95% of the cost in the 2016-17 projects. 

Regarding education and training, the Council should consider creating fellowships for 
early stage researchers, incorporating a scheme similar to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
Early Stage Research Training, and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Conferences and Training 
Courses. 

Recommendation 16: The Council should consider extending the 
Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  scheme  to  Euratom’s Fission  Research 
Programmes. 

12 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The use of European Joint Programme (programme co-funded action) in the area of 
radiation protection has presented a few challenges, especially as low dose research is 
mostly done in universities that are third parties for CONCERT. There are problems with 
the national co-funding that may disadvantage universities/third parties. 

The innovation and industrial competitiveness projects are relevant but in the case of the 
ESSANUF project the 100% funding seems difficult to justify. 

The three projects in the Pan-European Research Infrastructure are consistent with the 
Council objectives. However, in the case of the HERACLES and FOREvER projects, the 
100% and 95% Euratom funding is hard to justify and hence it is debatable that these 
projects will be cost effective. 

Evaluation  of  the  Internal  Coherency  of  the  Euratom 
Programme 

Fusion 
The success of the fusion part of the Euratom Programme requires effective and efficient 
co-operation between the main fusion delivery organisations especially at the top 
management level. The strategic coordination of the programme is left entirely to the 
European Commission, now requiring the close interaction between two different 
Directorates-General (DG). Under these conditions coordination between the top-level 
management of F4E and EUROfusion must be ensured. 

Recommendation 17: To improve the coherence of the research 
needs  of  the  Roadmap  the  coordination  between  the  top  level 
management of F4E and EUROfusion should be strengthened 

The Fusion Roadmap has been instrumental not only in relation to the success of the 
research programme but also delivering European leadership. The Roadmap is a European 
Union vision and not a EUROfusion Consortium document. The formal procedure for the 
approval of Roadmap revisions should be clarified in advance of any proposed revisions. 
The Panel believes that any revision procedure should involve a body like the former 
Consultative Committee for Fusion (CCE-FU) which played a role in the endorsement of the 
original Roadmap. The CCE-FU discussed strategic issues relating to fusion at Member 
State level with EFDA and F4E leadership present as standing experts. 

The Panel understands that, while periodic reviews of the Roadmap are part of the project 
management process, a Roadmap revision should be undertaken only when there are 
fundamental technical or budgetary reasons that make the implementation no longer 
possible. 

Recommendation 18: The Commission should introduce a formal 
Fusion Roadmap revision procedure to ensure that any revision 
to  the  original  Fusion  Roadmap  is  owned  by  all  relevant 
stakeholders. 

Fission 
The overall aims and intentions of the Euratom Programme to support the safe operation 
of nuclear systems represent a coherent approach to research and innovation that is 
needed to sustain nuclear safety within the EU. The 2014-15 projects are, in general, 
aligned to and consistent with the overall goals of the EU’s nuclear safety policies. The 
2016-17 projects present a more coherent approach to the delivery of the overall EU 
nuclear safety goals. 

In the field of radioactive waste management the 2014-15 and 2015-16 research projects 
represent a coherent programme. All of the projects address topics that are relevant to the 
delivery of safe and secure geological disposal of radioactive waste. 

CONCERT is considered to be a coherent programme in the context of support for research 
and innovation in general in Europe. The platforms for programming research in radiation 

13   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

protection (e.g. MELODI, NERIS) are relatively recent and therefore the research is more 
fragmented. Thus the complementarity between projects (in particular in radiobiology) 
does not always appear very clearly. But this should change in the coming years. 

Other projects in the Fission area generally present a coherent programme of nuclear 
research actions in the context of support for research and innovation in general in Europe. 
They are also consistent with EU policies in general. 

Evaluation of The EU Added Value of the Euratom Programme 
The Projects selected so far in the 2014-18 Euratom Programme in the main have 
European Added Value (EAV). However, more clarity of the concept of EAV would be 
helpful to support the evaluation of European Added Value. 

Fusion 
The fusion part of the Euratom Programme clearly demonstrates European Added Value. It 
is essential for the successful completion of the ITER project, the delivery of the Fusion 
Roadmap and the ultimate goal of commercially viable fusion-generated electricity. 

The Euratom fusion programme gives Europe leadership in this very important field. No 
single EU Member state would be able to provide a fusion research programme on the 
scale necessary to achieve this. The European fusion community and the fusion facilities 
located in the EU are key assets and as such offer a key European added value. 

JET is a unique European fusion asset and it is a fundamental part of the ITER project. JET 
is a clear example of European Added Value. 

Fission 
Euratom fission research is more than just research to support fission for energy 
production; it also supports research into radiation protection, the impact of radiation on 
human health and medical applications of ionising radiation. 

In the field of nuclear safety it is the operator/ licensee that is responsible for the safe 
operation of nuclear installations. The European Added Value from the fission part of the 
Euratom Programme comes from the benefit to all Member States that results from the 
contribution projects are making to improve our knowledge in the science and technology 
that underpins nuclear safety. The projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme relating to 
Generation- IV reactors provide a clear European Added Value because of their generic 
focus. European Added Value is also gained through the development of skills and 
capabilities in the smaller Member States through their participation in the projects. 

In the area of radioactive waste management, it is possible that individual Member States 
could undertake much of the work that is necessary to demonstrate the concept of 
geological disposal for radioactive waste. However, sharing knowledge and developing 
skills in geological disposal safety case development is of value to all Member States 
wishing to deliver safe geological disposal for their radioactive wastes. 

Research projects that support nuclear training and the development of expertise in 
nuclear related areas are of key importance to Europe. The projects selected in this area in 
general provide European Added Value. 

The Euratom radiation protection research programme provides significant European 
Added Value through its flexibility and focus. 

Conclusions 
Overall it is the Panel’s view that in both the fusion and fission areas the 2014-17 research 
and training activities funded by the Euratom Programme are relevant to the aims of the 
Council Regulations and are delivering progress in line with expectations. 

Fusion 
The fusion part of the Euratom Programme is playing a crucial role in the development of 
Europe’s long-term sustainable energy supplies as suggested in the Fusion Roadmap. The 

14 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Euratom fusion programme, together with the activities under F4E responsibility, is 
implementing the Fusion Roadmap. 

The efficiency of the implementation of the research programme needs to be improved. 
The transition between the EFDA/CoA system and the current Euratom Programme took 
place very rapidly and the new system under EUROfusion is slowly adapting. The 
governance of EUROfusion is progressing but improvements are necessary to strengthen 
the approach to project management. The Programme Manager should exercise leadership 
to ensure the prevention of potential conflicts of interest due to the multiple roles of the 
beneficiaries. 

JET is the closest experiment to ITER and plays a central role in Europe’s fusion strategy. 
The execution of the programme in support of ITER will require JET campaigns extending 
up to 2024. An earlier closure of JET would significantly increase the risk of possible delays 
in the ITER exploitation up to Q=10. 

The Fusion Roadmap is a vitally important document but there is a lack of clarity over who 
actually “owns it” and who has the authority to change it. There does not appear to be any 
compelling technical argument that justifies a revision of the Roadmap, at the present 
moment, instead of an update of the implementation plan to adapt for the new ITER 
schedule. The focus of the Roadmap should remain on an ITER-like DEMO to be 
constructed as soon as ITER achieves the Q=10 milestone. 

Fission 
The nuclear fission part of the Euratom Programme is more diverse than the fusion part, 
but a number of common observations can be made. Overall, the selected projects in the 
2014-15 and 16-17 calls are in line with the goals of the Council objectives. The funding of 
the calls could be improved in the future Euratom programme by reducing the number of 
calls to ensure a more coordinated approach over the whole period. 

The rules of participation, common for Horizon 2020 and the Euratom Programme, 
allowing for up to 100% funding have distorted the balance of funding between Euratom 
and the beneficiaries to the extent that the current Euratom Programme is providing 73% 
of the total project cost compared to 53% in Euratom FP7. In effect this means that less 
research is being done for the same level of Euratom funding because the beneficiaries are 
seeking to limit their contributions. 

The projects funded during 2014-17 are in the main relevant to the European research 
needs as set out in the Euratom Work Programmes and the overall Council objectives. The 
projects are in general achieving their milestones but there are some examples of 
milestones being missed. In general, the projects present, where possible, a coherent 
research approach. European Added Value is a consistent theme in the vast majority of the 
projects. 

15   

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.  1. INTRODUCTION 

One of the key goals of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) is to promote 
nuclear research and to complement nuclear research conducted in Member States by 
carrying out a Euratom Research and Training Programme. 

Since 1984 the Euratom research activities have been channelled through multiannual 
framework programmes addressing nuclear research and training activities. The seventh 
Euratom framework programme (FP7) ran from 2007-2011; it was succeeded by a two-
year Euratom framework programme 2012-2013 (FP7+2). 

The current Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community 
covers the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 and complements the 
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. In this report it is 
referred to as “Euratom Programme”. 

In its decision launching the Euratom 2014-2018 programme [Ref 1] the Council set the 
broad objectives and the funding envelope for the research programme distinguishing 
between direct and indirect actions. Direct actions are carried out exclusively by the 
European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and are not part of this evaluation. In 
this report reference to the Euratom Programme refers to the indirect actions only, unless 
stated otherwise. This interim evaluation covers the research activities under Euratom 
2014-2018 up to February 2017. 

2.1. 

1.1 

Objectives of the Evaluation 

The purpose of this interim evaluation of the Euratom Research and Training Programme 
(2014-2018) is set out in the terms of reference (Annex 1) for the Expert Group (Annex 2) 
namely “to assess its implementation, to provide an evidence base for preparing future 
Euratom research programmes and to inform the European Parliament and the Council, 
Member States, the research community and other stakeholders, and the general public 
about the progress made by research and training activities funded by the Euratom 
Programme”. 

The Expert Group (the Panel) was asked to address the following questions and where 
appropriate provide recommendations for the current Euratom Programme 2014-2018 and 
for the Commission's proposals for future Euratom Programmes. The questions were 
grouped under six main themes: 

State of play 
Q1  How has the Euratom Programme been implemented during 2014-2016? 

Q2  What conclusions can be drawn from the participation patterns and trends? 

Relevance of the Euratom Programme 
Q3 

To what extent do the objectives of the Euratom Programme still correspond to the 
needs of research stakeholders and to EU citizens? 

Q4  Does the Programme offer the right balance between the various areas of nuclear 

research? 

Effectiveness of the Euratom Programme 
Q5  What is the progress made towards the objectives of the Euratom Programme? 

Q6  What are the factors driving or hindering progress and how they are linked (or not) 

to the Euratom Programme? 

Q7  How effective are new measures (European Joint Programmes, prizes) introduced by 

the Euratom Programme? 

16 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Q8  What are the main long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Framework 

Programme? 

Q9  How is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives 

and policies? 

Efficiency of the Euratom Programme 
Q10  To what extent are the inputs provided to Euratom Programme reasonable (i.e. cost-
effective) in light of the outcomes that have been generated or are likely to be 
generated? 

Q11  Is there scope for further simplification? 

Internal  coherency  of 
consistency with EU policies 
Q12  To what extent can the Euratom Programme, as part of Horizon 2020, be considered 
a coherent programme of nuclear research actions in the context of support for 
research and innovation in general in Europe? 

the  Euratom  Programme  and 

Q13  To what extent is the Euratom Programme consistent with EU policies in general 

(including other EU funding programmes)? To what extent is the intervention 
coherent with EU's international obligations? 

EU added value of the Euratom Programme 
Q14  What is the added value resulting from the Euratom Programme, compared to what 

could be achieved by Member States acting alone or at regional level? 

Q15  To what extent do the issues addressed by the Euratom Programme continue to 

require action at EU level? 

Q16  What would be the most likely consequences of discontinuing the Euratom 

Programme? 

2.2. 

1.2 

Evaluation Methodology 

The Panel carried out its task via a combination of meetings with the Commission, 
interviews with research stakeholders, and evaluation of documents provided by the 
Commission. The evaluation report represents the consensus view of the Panel. 

The meeting schedule is shown in Annex 3. Prior to each meeting the Panel prepared a list 
of questions in order to elicit the necessary information and evidence regarding the 
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the relevant research activities. Follow up 
questions were also sent to key stakeholders to elicit further information on key topics. 
These questions are listed in Annex 4. 

2.3. 

1.3 

Structure of the Report 

This report has been structured in line with the Panel’s Terms of Reference (TOR). In 
relation to the fusion research programme the evaluation has focussed on the impact of 
the major changes in governance with the creation of EUROfusion and the extent to which 
the programme is consistent with the Fusion Roadmap. For the fission research 
programme the Panel’s focus has been on the seven research themes, namely: 

  Safe operation of nuclear systems; 

  Management of ultimate radioactive waste; 

  Nuclear expertise and excellence; 

  Radiation protection and medical applications of radiation; 

 

Innovation and industry competitiveness; 

17   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  Pan-European research infrastructure; and 

  Social aspects and networking. 
For the sake of clarity, this report evaluates the fusion and fission programmes against the 
following six factors as required by the TOR: 

  State of Play; 

  Relevance; 

  Effectiveness; 

  Efficiency; 

 

Internal coherence; and 

  European Added Value. 
Chapter 2 provides the background to the fusion and fission programmes and describes 
the aim and objectives of the biennial Euratom Work Programmes and of the selected 
projects in each call. The projects are described in detail in order to provide the reader 
with sufficient information to be able to put the comments made by the Panel into context. 

Chapter 3 addresses the state of play of the Euratom Programme and provides comments 
on how the Euratom Programme has been implemented to date (2014-17); and it aims to 
draw conclusions on the participation patterns and trends. 

Chapter 4 examines the relevance of the Euratom Programme. Here the Panel comments 
upon the extent to which the objectives of the Euratom Programme correspond to the 
needs of research stakeholders and to EU citizens in general. The chapter also addresses 
the extent to which the fusion and fission programmes provide the right balance between 
the various areas of nuclear research. 

Chapter 5 addresses the effectiveness of the Euratom Programme. The focus in this 
chapter is to evaluate the progress being made towards the delivery of the objectives of 
the Euratom Programme and identify any factors that are driving or hindering progress. 
The chapter also examines the impact of the new measures that have been introduced 
such as the European Joint Programme (programme co-fund action). Effectiveness also 
includes the evaluation of the main long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Framework 
Programme, and the extent to which the Euratom Research Programme is contributing to 
the wider EU strategic objectives and policies. 

Chapter 6 provides an evaluation of the efficiency of the Euratom Programme and 
addresses the extent to which the inputs provided to the Euratom Programme are 
reasonable (i.e. cost-effective) in light of the outcomes that have been generated or are 
likely to be generated. The chapter also addresses the scope for further simplification. 

Chapter 7 addresses internal coherency of the Euratom Programme and the extent to 
which the Euratom Programme, as part of Horizon 2020, can be considered a coherent 
programme of nuclear research in the context of support for research and innovation in 
general in Europe, with EU policies in general, and with the EU's international obligations. 

Chapter 8 provides the evaluation of the European added value of the Euratom 
Programme, in particular the added value compared to what could be achieved by Member 
States acting alone or at regional level and the most likely consequences of discontinuing 
the Euratom Programme. 

Chapter 9 provides the detailed conclusions of the Panel. 

Where the Panel believes recommendations can be instrumental to improve the 
programmes, these are brought out in the body of the report and for completeness 
summarised at the end of the report. 

18 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

3.  2. BACKGROUND  TO  THE  EURATOM  RESEARCH  AND  TRAINING  PROGRAMME 

2014-18 

This chapter provides the background to the fusion and fission parts of the Euratom 
Programmes and describes the aim and objectives of the biennial Euratom Work 
Programmes and of the selected projects in each call. The projects are described in detail 
in order to provide the reader with sufficient information to be able to put the comments 
made by the Panel into context. 

3.1. 

2.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

Council Objectives 
In its regulation establishing the Euratom 2014-2018 Programme [Ref 1] the Council 
defines its objectives for the indirect actions in the area of fusion and describes the 
activities necessary to achieve the programme objectives in Annex 1 to the regulation. 

The fusion programme is covered by three objectives and related necessary activities: 

  Council objective (e): Moving towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as 

a power source by exploiting existing and future fusion facilities. 
Supporting common research activities undertaken by members of the European 
Fusion Development Agreement and any of the entities referred to under paragraph (i) 
to ensure the swift start of high performance operation of ITER including the use of 
relevant facilities (including JET, the Joint European Torus), of integrated modelling 
using, among others, high performance computers, and training activities to prepare 
the next generation of researchers and engineers. 

  Council objective (f): Laying the foundations for future fusion power plants by 

developing materials, technologies and conceptual design 
Supporting joint activities undertaken by members of the European Fusion 
Development Agreement and any of the entities referred to under paragraph (i) to 
develop and qualify materials for a demonstration power plant requiring, inter alia, 
preparatory work for an appropriate material test facility and negotiations for the 
Union's participation in a suitable international framework for that facility. Such 
development and qualifications are to make use of all possible levels of the 
experimental, computational and theoretical capacities available. 

Supporting joint research activities undertaken by members of the European Fusion 
Development Agreement and any of the entities referred to under paragraph (i) that 
will address reactor operation issues and will develop and demonstrate all relevant 
technologies for a fusion demonstration power plant. Those activities include the 
preparation of complete demonstration power plant conceptual designs and exploration 
of the potential of stellarators as a power plant technology. 

  Council objective (i): European Fusion Programme 

A grant (Programme co-fund action) is to be awarded to the legal entities established 
or designated by Member States and any third country associated to the Euratom 
Programme and that will develop a joint programme of activities implementing the 
roadmap towards the goal of electricity production by 2050. That grant may include 
resources in kind from the Community, such as scientific and technical exploitation of 
the JET facility in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty, or the secondment of 
Commission staff. 

Key Activities 
Activities in Fusion research are carried out through a grant with the EUROfusion 
Consortium and through a contract for the operation of JET with the United Kingdom 
Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). 

The EUROfusion Consortium involves all institutions working in fusion within the Euratom 
Member States and associated countries. The formal interfaces between EUROfusion and 
the individual research units are the 30 institutions that are members of the Consortium. 

19   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The reference document for the programmatic aspects is the Roadmap to Fusion Electricity 
[Ref 2] elaborated by the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) in 2012. The 
Roadmap articulates in eight Missions the R&D effort to be carried out in order to exploit 
ITER and to design and build a demonstration fusion power plant DEMO. 

A comprehensive European effort is necessary to assess the need for developing, training 
and maintaining adequate human resources for the fusion programme. A coherent policy 
that will meet the future needs not only of the EUROfusion programme but that also takes 
into account the industrial aspect is of strategic value. 

The initial Euratom grant to EUROfusion is €425m, contributing to a total funding for 
EUROfusion of €857m over five years. In addition, there is the New JET Operation Contract 
(NJOC) with a Euratom contribution of €283m that represents 87.5% of the cost of 
operating JET (12.5% is funded by the United Kingdom). 

3.2. 

2.2 

Nuclear Fission 

To achieve the high-level goals set out in the Council’s objectives for the nuclear fission 
and radiation protection area (Council objectives a-d, g, h) two Work Programmes (WP) 
have been released during the period covered by this interim evaluation: The Work 
Programme 2014-2015 (WP2014-15) [Ref 3] and the Work Programme 2016-2017 
(WP2016-17) [Ref 4]. The Work Programmes defined topics (NFRP) for the call for 
proposals, an indicative budget for each NFRP and the conditions for the call. 

For WP2014-15, proposals were invited against each of 16 topics (NFRPs). The 62 
proposals received were evaluated individually against criteria of excellence, impact and 
implementation. Out of 52 proposals above the threshold, 23 projects were selected for 
funding. 

WP2016-17 defined 14 NFRPs structured in six main areas to address the Council 
objectives for Euratom 2014-2018. Proposals were invited against each of the 14 NFRPs. 
The 70 eligible proposals received were evaluated individually against criteria of 
excellence, impact and implementation. Out of 59 proposals above the threshold 25 
projects were selected for funding. Unlike the previous Work Programme, the selection 
process was based on six areas of NFRPs and not on the individual 14 NFRPs. Due to the 
lack of sufficiently good proposals two of the topics (NFRP 8 and NFRP 10) were not 
addressed. 

The information presented to the Panel suggests that the Euratom funding for fission 
research during 2014-2017 is comparable to that for the FP7/FP7+2 programme as shown 
in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Funding for fission and radiation protection research under the Euratom 2014-2018 
Programme (first 4 years) and previous Framework Programmes in fission and radiation 
protection (indirect actions; note that 25 projects from 2016-17 call are still in the ‘grant 
preparation’ phase) 

No of 
projects 
funded 

EC 
Contribution 
(€m) 

Total costs 
of projects 
(€m) 

No of 
participants 

No of 
partici-
pations 

110 

189 

355 

444 

1218 

135 

354 

661 

225 

2106 

Euratom 
FP6 (2002-
2006) 
Euratom 
FP7/7+2 
(2007-
2013) 

20 

 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Euratom 
Programme
14-18 (first 
4 years) 

48 

199 

272 

455 

853 

To structure the research topics, the Work Programmes defined five (WP2014-15) and six 
(WP2016-17) “main sections” combining several topics. However, in this interim evaluation 
the Panel reports its findings for the fission and radiation protection activities in relation to 
the areas covered by the Council objectives, namely: 

  Safety of Nuclear Systems; 

  Management of Ultimate Nuclear Waste; 

  Nuclear Expertise and Excellence; 

  Radiation Protection and Medical Applications of Radiation; 

 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness; 

  Pan-European Infrastructures; 
and an area of: 

  Social Aspects and Networking. 
In this section of the report, italic text within quotation marks represents direct quotes 
from the Commission’s 2014-15 or 2016-17 Work Programmes [Ref 3] [Ref 4]. 

3.2.1.  2.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council objective (a): Supporting safety of nuclear systems. 

In line with the general objective, support to joint research activities concerning the 
safe operation and decommissioning of reactor systems (including fuel cycle facilities) 
in use in the Union or, to the extent necessary in order to maintain broad nuclear 
safety expertise in the Union, those reactor types which may be used in the future, 
focusing exclusively on safety aspects, including all aspects of the fuel cycle such as 
partitioning and transmutation. 

In WP2014-15 three topics (NFRP 1-3) are focused on the area of safety of nuclear 
systems. The key challenges for each topic and the scope and expected impact of projects 
are described below. Table 2 lists the projects selected for funding in WP2014-15 in this 
area. 

NFRP 1 – 2014: Improved safety design and operation of fission reactors 
For this topic the Euratom Work Programme for 2014-15 [Ref 3] sets out the key 
challenge as being the need for the European Union (EU) to maintain its tradition of strong 
leadership in reactor design and operation within stringent safety requirements. The Work 
Programme sees the main research challenge as the need to reinforce research 
cooperation on reactor safety at EU level and worldwide. 

The Euratom funding is “devoted to supporting the continuous improvement of nuclear 
safety of the existing reactor fleet and to optimising the safety characteristics in the design 
of future reactors e.g. by implementation of passive safety features and by increasing the 
redundancy and diversity or by performing experimental tests and developing advanced 
simulation tools.” 

The Euratom focus is on actions that will “increase the knowledge basis on reactor life-time 
management issues relevant to safety (e.g. integrity of structural components, 
containment, irradiation and corrosion issues, …), as well as on those promoting safety 
culture and providing guidance for severe accident management (especially on issues 

21   

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

arising after the Fukushima accident e.g. safety of fuel storage, hydrogen explosion, 
containment behaviour, corium/debris coolability and interactions, …)” 

In addition, the Euratom Work Programme makes it clear that funding will be dedicated to 
“topics where national programme priorities converge and where European added value is 
obvious and maximised”. 

The impact of the Euratom Programme in the area of reactor safety is expected, “in the 
short term, to provide the knowledge basis for developing robust national and EU policies 
in the field of nuclear reactor safety, while also helping interacting with stakeholders and 
civil society on nuclear reactor safety.” The medium term impact is expected to “further 
improve the safety of nuclear reactors in Europe and worldwide through increased 
resistance of safety relevant equipment and better safety culture”. 

NFRP 2 – 2014: Tool for the fast and reliable prediction of severe accident progression 
and anticipation of the source term of a nuclear accident 
For this topic the Euratom Work Programme for 2014-15 [Ref 3] sets out the key 
challenge as being the need for “fast and reliable prediction of severe accident progression 
and the anticipation of the source term in case of severe accident …. for the protection of 
people in triggering the appropriate response to a nuclear emergency.” Another priority is 
seen as the “need to improve the tools for predicting the plant status and the source 
term”. 

This research is intended to support emergency operation centres. The tool should be 
capable of being adapted to “all types of reactors in operation or foreseeable in the EU.” 
Also it should “be able to predict the different possible accidental scenarios and provide 
results in a fast and user-friendly way.” It should also “rely on state of the art knowledge 
on severe accident phenomenology and mitigation measures in order to give results with 
enough accuracy, confidence and reduced uncertainties”. 

The impact of this work is expected to “lead to reinforcing nuclear safety through improved 
accident management procedures that will ensure a faster and site specific response to 
nuclear emergencies”. “It will improve the availability and reliability of dose projection 
caused by atmospheric releases following a nuclear accident and respond to the need 
identified as a priority following the Fukushima accident.” 

NFRP 3 – 2014: New innovative approaches to reactor safety 
For this topic the Euratom Work Programme for 2014-15 [Ref 3] sees the challenge as 
being “innovative reactor safety concepts …. which could become breakthrough options if 
their scientific and practical maturity is demonstrated.” The Euratom research in this area 
is intended to focus on “safety and reliability and optimal waste management”. 

The intended aim of this research will be to allow promising designs to move from the 
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to TRL 3, or from TRL 2 to TRL 3. The focus will be on 
“the proof of concept regarding safety (e.g. passive safety systems and new approaches to 
severe accidents management), reliability and quality assurance (e.g. industrial 
standards)”. The Work Programme requires that the work should be “undertaken in close 
cooperation with industry and regulators whose involvement is indispensable at an early 
stage of design”. 

The impact of this research is expected to “offer top-level scientists a level playing field for 
highly innovative ideas enabling them to demonstrate the feasibility of advanced safety 
concepts. It will open-up new avenues towards reactor safety design. In the medium / 
long term, this action should lead to new orientation and breakthrough in nuclear safety.” 

Seven projects were selected in the area of these NFRPs (see Table 2). 

The WP2016-17 part of the programme covers five topics relating to the safety of nuclear 
systems. The key challenges for each topic, the scope and expected impact of projects are 
described below. 

22 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Table 2: Projects funded in WP2014-15 in the area of nuclear safety 

Project 

Description 

Euratom 
contribution 

FASTNET 

Tool for the fast and reliable prediction of severe 
accident progression and anticipation of the source 
term of a nuclear accident. 

INCEFA-PLUS 

Increasing safety in NPP’s by covering gaps in 
environmental fatigue assessment 

IVMR 

SAMOFAR 

In vessel melt retention severe accident 
management strategy for existing and future NPPs 

A paradigm shift in reactor safety with molten salt 
fast reactor 

sCO2-HeRo 

A supercritical CO2 heat removal system 

SESAME 

SOTERIA 

Thermal hydraulic simulations and experiments for 
the safety assessment of metal cooled reactors 

Safe long-term operation of light water reactors 
based on improved understanding of radiation 
effects in nuclear materials 

(€) 

2,831,910 

2,550,128 

4,831,454 

3,466,896 

2,791,561 

5,200,000 

4,971,297 

NFRP 1 (2016/17): Continually improving safety and reliability of Generation II and III 
reactors 
Within the EU, Generation II and III reactors will continue operating for many years. The 
scope of this work will cover the safety and reliability improvements. “The action should 
address the remaining technology gaps and encompass experiments as well as numerical 
simulations. It should focus on the integrity of structural components in ageing reactors, 
the knowledge basis for lifetime management of the reactor islands and the management 
of severe accidents.” 

The expected impact will be to “help industrial stakeholders to develop efficient solutions in 
response to the new requirements of the amended Nuclear Safety Directive”. It will result 
in the “reinforcement of the safety features of the Generation-II and -III EU nuclear 
reactor fleet.” It should also “improve the market profile of EU-based reactor designs and 
strengthen the competitiveness of the EU nuclear sector through promoting an excellent 
level of safety in response to market requirements and trends”. 

NFRP 2 (2016/17): Research on safety of fast neutron Generation-IV reactors 
It is expected that the first Generation-IV reactors be fully operational in the next 25-30 
years in various places around the world. However, Generation-IV concepts and designs 
currently under development, both in Europe and worldwide, will need to meet appropriate 
safety requirements. In addition whilst offering major advantages in uranium utilisation, 
they could also offer potentially increased proliferation resistance. The scope of this work is 
aimed at the “development of the technical assessment of safety improvements of critical 
fast neutron Generation-IV systems and their supporting reactor islands, as identified by 
ESNII in the SET Plan Integrated Roadmap”. The expected impact will be “to draw on the 
unique expertise and operational experience feedback gained by the EU in Generation-IV 
technology in order to place the EU at the forefront of the development of safety standards 
for this new generation of reactors”. 

NFRP 3 (2016/17): Investigating the safety of closed nuclear fuel cycle options and 
fuel developments 

23   

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The open fuel cycle uses only a few percent of the energy contained in uranium. Uranium 
utilisation can be greatly improved through the recycling of spent fuel. Furthermore, closed 
fuel cycles could facilitate the management of ultimate radioactive waste by reducing its 
volume and radiotoxicity through such things as partitioning and transmutation. The scope 
of this work will include “research and innovation in fuel cycle chemistry and physics for 
the optimisation of fuel design in line with the strategic research and innovation agenda 
and deployment strategy of SNETP”. The focus will “be on reprocessing and fuel 
manufacture, including MOX, with the objective of increasing the safety of installations for 
interim storage during normal operation and hypothetical accident scenarios”. This work 
“should aim at further integrating EU activities on partitioning and fuel fabrication and 
foster the participation of the chemical separation community from European research 
institutions and educational establishments”. 

The impact is expected to “lead to the provision of more science-based strategies for 
nuclear fuel management in the EU. It will reinforce the EU leadership in this domain and 
open up new avenues towards the EU energy security of supply and increased 
competitiveness. It will allow nuclear energy to contribute significantly to EU energy 
independence. In the longer term, it will facilitate the management of ultimate radioactive 
waste by reducing its volume and radiotoxicity.” 

NFRP 4 (2016/17): Research on the safety of small modular reactors 
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) offer different options to the current Generation-II and -III 
reactors. They are in principle easier to build and could have significant export potential. 
The scope of this work will be to “investigate safety features of SMRs, notably passive 
ones, and provide a set of essential technical specifications, against which compliance of 
SMRs with the amended Euratom Safety Directive could be tested.” The research should 
“also propose the methodology for the performing of these tests, including the 
experimental validation of essential items of the proposed models of safety demonstration 
as well as their effects on the SMR licensing process under various typical fields of 
application.” The expected impact will be to “allow the EU to establish standards for 
compliance of SMR to the requirements of the revised Euratom Safety Directive. … In the 
longer term, it will also improve the flexibility of nuclear power generation regarding power 
output and adaptation to local grid and siting conditions, while taking into account the 
highest safety standards. Ultimately, it will reinforce EU’s commercial prospects and 
competitiveness in this field.” 

NFRP 5 (2016/17): Materials research for Generation-IV reactors 
Materials research and innovation is essential in the field of nuclear energy, where 
technical qualification and certification of materials and components are subject to 
stringent safety criteria. Materials research aimed at resolving key issues relating to 
structural and fuel materials to be used in Generation-IV reactor concepts is important to 
the success of these technologies. The scope of this work will focus on “the changes in 
properties of materials and joints under fast neutron irradiation and/or high temperature 
of the coolant, as well as to the compatibility between structural materials, the coolant and 
advanced fuel”. It will “include the refinement of physical models and/or modelling-
oriented experiments aimed at the validation of models of microstructural change and the 
resulting effects on material properties, as well as advanced micro-structural 
characterisation techniques.” The work is expected to result in “significant progress 
regarding the predictive capability of changes in material properties and behaviour and 
subsequent refinement of Generation-IV reactor design codes”. It should also help to 
“overcome the bottlenecks in the certification of materials and hence in the development 
of safety demonstration for Generation-IV reactor technologies”. 

14 projects were selected in the area of these NFRPs (see Table 3). 

Table 3: Projects selected in WP2016-17 in the area of nuclear safety 

Project 

Description 

Euratom 
contribution 

(€) 

24 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

IL 
TROVATORE 

Innovative cladding materials for advanced accident-
tolerant energy systems. 

4,999,999 

 

 

Improved nuclear safety ensured by accident-
tolerant fuels (ATFs) 

Improved fuel performance in response to the 
requirements of the amended Nuclear Safety 
Directive 

CORTEX 

Core monitoring techniques and experimental 
validation and demonstration 

5,092,627 

  Development 
monitoring 
operational 
characterisation 

of 

an 
technique 
anomalies 

innovative 
for 

core-
early-stage 
and 

detection 

  Deepened 
processes 
anomalies 

understanding 

physical 
in  NPPs  operational 

on 

involved 

ATLASplus 

Advanced Structural Integrity Assessment Tools for 
Safe Long Term Operation 

5,092,627 

  Systematic  ageing  management  justifying 

NPPs Long Term Operation (LTO) 

 

Improved  engineering  and  probabilistic 
assessment of NPPs components under LTO 

  Demonstration 
components 
safety margins 

and 

quantification 

integrity  and  NPPs 

of 
inherent 

McSAFE 

High-Performance Monte Carlo Methods for SAFEty 
Demonstration- From Proof of Concept to realistic 
Safety Analysis and Industry-like Applications 

2,981,592 

  Less conservative prediction of important core 

safety parameters 

 

Improvement of nuclear reactors performance 
and operational flexibility 

  Ensuring  the  adaptability  of  codes  and 
future  Gen-III  and  Gen-IV 

methods  to 
reactors 

MEACTOS 

Mitigating Environmentally Assisted Cracking Through 
Optimisation of Surface Condition 

2,550,798 

  Address  Environmentally-Assisted  Cracking 
(EAC)  as  one  of  the  major  failure  modes 
occurring in light water reactors (LWRs) 

  Enhanced safety and reliability of Gen-II and 
Gen-III  NPPs  through  improved  critical  parts 
resistance 

TeaM Cables 

European Tools and Methodologies for an efficient 
ageing management of nuclear power plant Cables 

4,179,344 

25   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  Address  NPPs  cables  ageing  management 
under  both  operational  and  accidental 
conditions 

  Analysis  of  Irradiation  and  temperatures 

effects on cables 

NOMAD 

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) System for the 
Inspection of Operation-Induced Material Degradation 
in Nuclear Power Plants 

4,881,169 

  Development, demonstration and validation of 
a  non-Destructive  Evaluation  (NDE)  tool  for 
Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPVs) 

  Extension  of  the  existing  database  of  RPV 
materials degradation, including reliability and 
uncertainty quantification 

NARSIS 

New Approach to Reactor Safety Improvements 

4,965,481 

  Updated NPPs Probabilistic Safety Assessment 
(PSA) focusing on exceptional natural events 
like  earthquake,  tsunami,  flooding,  strong 
winds, etc. 

  Natural 

hazards 

characterisation 
* Assessment of NPPs' elements fragility and 
functionality 

 

Integration of expert-based information within 
PSA 

ADVISE 

ADVanced Inspection of Complex Structures 

4,168,855 

  Advance  ultrasonic  inspection  of  complex 
structured  materials,  for  which  conventional 
ultrasonic  techniques  suffer 
from  severe 
performance limitations 

  Step  change  inspections  in  terms  of  depth, 
defect  detection,  characterisation  accuracy, 
etc. 

  Confidence  to  safety  decisions  based  on 

inspections results 

ESFR-SMART 

European Sodium Fast Reactor Safety Measures 
Assessment and Research Tools 

5,000,000 

  Enhancing  safety  of  Gen-IV  reactors,  in 
particular  of  European  Sodium  Fast  Reactor 
(ESFR) in accordance with ESNII roadmap 

  Produce  experimental  data  and  perform 
calibration  and  validation  of  computational 
tools to support safety assessments 

  Selection, implementation and assessment of 

safety measures 

GENIORS 

GEN IV Integrated Oxide fuels recycling strategies 

4,999,700 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

GEMINI Plus 

INSPYRE 

  Efficient  use  of  nuclear 

fuel  developing 
techniques  for  dissolution,  reprocessing  and 
manufacturing 

  Reduced  volume  and 

radio-toxicity  of 

radioactive waste 

  Better  understanding  of  a  spent  nuclear 
properties  and  behaviour,  improving  the 
safety of interim storage installations 
Research and Development in support of the GEMINI 
Initiative 

  Provide a conceptual design (including SMRs) 
for a High Temperature Nuclear Cogeneration 
(HTGR) system 

  Outline a licensing framework and a business 
plan  for  a  full  scale  demonstration  for  HTGR 
systems 

  Further  development  of  HTGR  technology  to 
provide higher temperature process heat 
Investigations Supporting MOX Fuel Licensing in ESNII 
Prototype Reactors 

  Enable a timely, facilitated and cost-effective 

licensing of MOX fast reactor fuels 

  Accurate  description  of  basic  phenomena 

occurring in the fuel 

  Characterisation of key irradiated fuel samples 

 

Increased reliability of empirical performance 
laws governing nuclear fuels under irradiation 

3,960,582 

4,043,479 

GEMMA 

GEneration iv Materials MAturity 

3,999,182 

  Qualification  and  codification  of  selected 
structural  materials  of  Gen-IV  reactors,  as 
envisaged  within  the  European  Sustainable 
Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) 

  Generation  of  experimental  data  to  be 
transformed  to  useful  rules  for  system  and 
component designers 

3.2.2.  2.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council  objective  (b):  Contributing  to  the  development  of  safe,  longer  term 
solutions  for  the  management  of  ultimate  nuclear  waste,  including  final 
geological disposal as well as partitioning and transmutation 
Joint and/or coordinated research activities on remaining key aspects of geological 
disposal of spent fuel and long- lived radioactive waste with, as appropriate, 
demonstration of technologies and safety. Those activities are to promote the 

27   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

development of a common Union view on the main issues related to waste 
management from discharge of fuel to disposal. 

Research activities related to management of other radioactive waste streams for 
which industrially mature processes currently do not exist. 

In WP2014-15 three topics (NFRP 4-6) are focused on the area of management of 
ultimate radioactive waste. The key challenges for each topic and the scope and expected 
impact of projects are described below. Table 4 lists the projects selected for funding in 
WP2014-15 in this area. 

NFRP 4 – 2014: EU concerted development of Member State research on radioactive 
waste management 
The Euratom work programme identifies the immediate challenge as the need to address 
uncertainties about the safety of geological disposal facilities and the need “to build a 
sound safety case, special attention being paid to stakeholders' concerns regarding all 
ultimate radioactive waste materials to be disposed of”. 

The main aim of the research is “to develop synergies and increase coordination of 
national research programmes in the field of the management of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste”. The aim also includes “the reviewing of all strategic aspects linked to a stepwise 
move to joint programming in this field. For this purpose it should seek to involve as many 
entities as possible that are active in the management and disposal of radioactive waste, 
notably most relevant public or industry funded research programmes, industry, 
implementers, TSOs and policy makers while not confusing their respective roles.” 

NFRP 5 – 2015: Supporting the licensing of geological repositories 
The challenge here is the need to explore the “interaction between regulatory authorities, 
their TSO and national radioactive waste management organisations is essential in the 
context of the licensing process of underground repositories”. The main aim is to develop a 
common understanding on reviews of licence applications and the identification of the 
necessary scientific competence of the people that will be needed to undertake these 
activities. 

Another key issue is the need to identify research priorities. This should “include exchange 
on criteria and guidance on the review of licence application and the interpretation of 
standards. Due account should be taken of existing and planned initiatives at international 
level. Outreach activities of main findings should also be part of the activity”. 

The expected impact of this work will be the “exchange of regulatory review methods and 
competence in regulatory functions, thereby easing and accelerating the licensing process. 
This work will also help consolidating the knowledge base and stimulate its sharing 
amongst all stakeholders including the public at large, which is central to the implementing 
of solutions for the long-term safety of geological repositories”. 

NFRP  6  –  2014:  Supporting  the  implementation  of  the  first-of-the-kind  geological 
repositories 
The Euratom Work Programme envisaged the main challenge in this area to be the 
research needed to “improve the knowledge base for the safety case including the 
development of monitoring strategies, also taking into account stakeholder's concerns”. 

The Work Programme suggests that the “priority topics of IGD-TP should be considered as 
well as those of public waste management oriented research programmes. EU funding will 
be dedicated to topics where national programme priorities converge and where European 
added value is obvious and maximised”. The aim of the joint implementation of this 
research at pan-European level is to help develop and maintain the necessary 
competences. 

The expected impact of this research and development work is the resolution of “the key 
remaining technical issues for the actual implementation of the planned geological disposal 
projects in the EU”. It is also hoped that it “will demonstrate the EU leadership in this 
domain”. 

28 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Five projects were selected in the area of these NFRPs (see Table 4). 

Table 4 

Projects funded in WP2014-15 in the area of radioactive waste management 

Project 

Description 

Cebama 

JOPRAD 

MIND 

Cement-based materials, properties, evolution, 
barrier functions 

Towards a joint programme on radioactive waste 
management 

Development of a safety case knowledge base 
about the influence of microbial processes on 
geological disposal of radioactive waste 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

3,868,607 

1,000,000 

4,160,234 

Modern2020 

Development and demonstration of monitoring 
strategies and technologies for geological disposal 

5,997,143 

SITEX-II 

Sustainable network for independent technical 
expertise of radioactive waste disposal – 
interactions and implementation – supporting the 
licensing of geological repositories 

1,777,182 

The WP2016-17 covers three topics relating to the management of ultimate radioactive 
waste. The key challenges for each topic, the scope and expected impact of projects are 
described below. 

NFRP  6  (2016/17):  Addressing  key  priority  R&I  issues  for  the  first-of-the-kind 
geological repositories 
Deep geological disposal is regarded as the safest practical solution for the final disposal of 
high- and intermediate-level long-lived radioactive waste. “Thanks to a concerted and 
long-term strategy, Europe has acquired a clear leadership in this domain and will host the 
world's first such repositories, which are expected to become operational around 2020-
2025.” The scope of this work will include addressing the key R&I issues associated with 
the construction and operation in the EU of the first Deep Geological Repository (DGR), 
“notably with respect to validating data and performance”. The focus will be on topics “of 
high priority and European added value that were raised in safety reviews and identified in 
the SRA of IGD-TP. These concern notably the disposal of new and unconventional fuels, 
the validation of the properties of engineered barrier materials and the confirmation of the 
integrated performance of engineered barrier systems.” The expected impact of this work 
will be its contribution “to further progress in resolving remaining technological innovation 
issues important in the actual implementation of the planned DGRs in the EU, thereby 
consolidating the EU leadership in this domain”. 

NFRP 7 (2016/17): Research and innovation on the overall management of radioactive 
waste other than geological disposal. 
The interim storage of radioactive waste destined for geological disposal, and the 
management of other, especially non-standard, radioactive waste types present specific 
challenges. The scope of this work is aimed at “further improving the management of 
radioactive waste generated by the nuclear industry. This includes all management steps, 
up to and including disposal”. It will include for example, “unconventional or legacy waste, 
operational wastes, waste arising from repair or maintenance and 
decommissioning/dismantling waste, and could also include the interim storage and other 

29   

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

pre-disposal management steps in the case of spent fuels and other wastes destined for 
geological disposal”. The expected impact “will lead to the further refinement of the EU 
policy on radioactive waste management. It will help develop new or improved solutions 
for the management of radioactive waste, including waste destined for geological disposal, 
whilst further improving safety aspects and possibly realising economy and efficiency 
gains, for example in the dismantling of nuclear installations.” 

NFRP  8  (2016/17):  Pan-European  knowledge  sharing  and  development  of 
competence in radioactive waste management. 
The Radioactive Waste Management Directive (2011/70/Euratom) [Ref 5] requires each 
Member State to, inter alia, establish a national programme for the management of 
radioactive waste, including the carrying out of the necessary research. It is important for 
the Euratom research and training programme to contribute to the wider development of 
R&D and managerial competences in the field of radioactive waste management at EU 
level with particular attention being paid to the needs of Member States and associated 
countries with little or no practical experience in this area. The scope of this work will 
include the further development of “scientific, technical and managerial knowledge and 
competences in the area of radioactive waste management at pan-European level, 
encompassing the whole range of waste types and forms and origins” and “the 
development and transfer of knowledge and competence rather than the actual elaboration 
and harmonisation of national strategies and programmes”. The expected impact of the 
work will be to “help to consolidate and extend the knowledge base and competences at 
pan-European level in the area of radioactive waste management. This in turn will help 
Member States and associated countries developing their national programme for 
radioactive waste management including the supporting research and development 
actions, which is central to the implementing of the Radioactive Waste Management 
Directive.” 

Five projects were selected in this area (see Table 5). 

Table 5: Projects selected in WP2016-17 in radioactive waste management 

Project 

Description 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

Beacon 

Bentonite mechanical evolution 

3,804,206 

  Developing  and  testing  tools  for  the 
assessment  of  the  bentonite  barriers 
hydro-mechanical evolution 

  Assessment of  evolution from an installed 
engineered  system  to  a  fully  functioning 
barrier 

  Better 

understanding 

of  material 
properties,  scale  effects,  homogenisation 
processes, etc. 

DISCO 

Modern spent fuel dissolution and chemistry in 
failed container conditions 

3,987,676 

 

Improve  understanding  on  the  dissolution 
of new types of fuels with additives (“doped 
fuels”) in a repository environment 

  Better  understanding  of  the  spent  fuel 
dissolution  process  and  the  conditions 
inside a failed waste container 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

  Expansion  of  the  spent  fuel  dissolution 

database4 

CHANCE 

Characterization  of  conditioned  nuclear  waste 
for its safe disposal in Europe 

3,982,604 

  Comprehensive 

understanding 

of 
characterization  methods  and  quality 
control  schemes  for  CRW  (Conditioned 
Radioactive Waste) 

  Development,  testing  and  validation  of 
improve  CRW 

techniques 

to 

novel 
characterization 

 

Identification of links and overlaps between 
acceptance 
CRW 
characterization 

criteria 

and 

THERAMIN 

INSIDER 

Thermal 
minimisation and hazard reduction 

treatment 

for  radioactive  waste 

  Deployment of thermal treatment towards 
an  optimised  RWM  lifecycle  providing 
volume 
reduction,  waste  passivation, 
organics destruction, etc. 

  Provide  an  EU-wide  strategic  review  and 
assessment  of  the  value  of  thermal 
treatment technologies 

Improved  Nuclear  SIte  characterization  for 
waste  minimization  in  DD  operations  under 
constrained EnviRonment 

  Addressing technical, financial and societal 
challenges  on  Decommissioning  and 
Dismantling (D&D) 

  Provide better estimation of contaminated 
materials,  waste  volumes  and  timely 
planning 

3,899,940 

3,781,065 

  Combine 

statistical 

and 
modelling  with  innovative  measurement 
methods 

processing 

3.2.3.  2.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council objective (c): Supporting the development and sustainability of nuclear 

expertise and excellence in the Union 
Promoting joint training and mobility activities between research centres and industry, 
and between different Member and Associated States, as well as support for 
maintaining multi-disciplinary nuclear competences in order to guarantee the 
availability of suitably qualified researchers, engineers and employees in the nuclear 
sector in the Union in the long term. 

31   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In WP2014-15 two topics (NFRP 10, 14) are focused on the area of nuclear expertise and 
excellence. The key challenges for each topic and the scope and expected impact of 
projects are described below. Table 6 lists the projects selected for funding in WP2014-15 
in this area. 

The human resources needs of the Euratom fission actions strongly depend on the 
evolution of the programme and the need to guarantee the availability of suitably qualified 
researchers, engineers and employees in the nuclear sector over the longer term. A key 
concern of industry and policy makers is that human resources could be at risk, especially 
because of retirement expectations and low renewal rates in countries with nuclear 
installations. The JRC’s  Human Resources Observatory plays an important role in 
monitoring the needs. Euratom has worked to strengthen education and training in all 
sectors of nuclear fission and radiation protection. The scope of the activities considered in 
nuclear fission education and training includes cross-cutting areas of nuclear safety, 
reactor systems, waste management and radiation protection, as well as research 
infrastructure. The objective is to establish a single mutual-recognition system across the 
EU, using the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). 

NFRP 10 – 2014: Education and training (Bologna and Copenhagen processes) 
The education and training is an integral and significant part of Euratom program. This 
segment is fundamental for human resources (HR) policies and is essential to train, 
attract, and retain not only qualified researchers, but also engineers and technicians in 
order to maintain top-level research, technological development and high levels of safety. 
Thus expedient measures in the Euratom Programme are necessary in support of training 
and education to ensure the coaching of the next generation of nuclear specialists through 
collaboration between educational organizations and also with private companies in 
nuclear industry. The human resources needs of the programme strongly depend on the 
evolution of the programme and should be permanently monitored. 

The Euratom Work Programme identifies that “one of the main goals of Euratom from its 
inception in developing research and training programmes is to maintain nuclear expertise 
by generating knowledge (research) and developing competences (training)”. One of the 
main challenges is the maintenance of skilled people to support the design, operation and 
regulation of the nuclear industry. “More specifically, within the EU, the nuclear education 
and training community is faced with the challenges of lifelong learning and cross border 
mobility.” 

The aim of this research is to focus on the “further implementation, in the nuclear and 
relevant medical and industrial sectors, of the EU policies stemming from the Bologna and 
Copenhagen processes. Education and training organisations (notably at university or 
equivalent level) are invited to submit proposals in close collaboration with the ‘end–
users’, i.e. industry, research and regulatory organisations. A special effort should be 
devoted to the development of European Masters and summer schools for the continuous 
professional development of researchers and other private/public actors.” 

The expected impact will “accelerate and optimise the development of competences in the 
nuclear area with a special focus on nuclear safety culture and radioactive waste 
management. It will contribute to the creation and transfer not only of knowledge but also 
of skills and competences in a well-focused and practical manner. In the long term, it will 
contribute to improving the safety and radiation protection culture and hence, the safety of 
nuclear installations in the EU.” 

NFRP 14 – 2014: Regional initiative aiming at nuclear research and training capacity 
building 
The challenge here is again to maintain competence in fission safety in a number of 
Member States especially in the Baltic and Eastern European region. 

The aim of this research is to “support the exchange of scientific staff and the sharing of 
equipment, knowledge and competences between private and/or public research 
laboratories within the region and with similar organisations in other EU Member States. 
This action should take advantage of and develop synergies with on-going and future 
Euratom projects in particular those offering access to research infrastructures in 
conjunction with education and training.” 

32 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The expected impact will be that “capacity building at regional level for nuclear research 
and training through cooperation and networking will reduce regional disparity in the 
European Union. Such effort will reinforce the EU excellence in fission relevant applications 
and in particular in nuclear safety and radioactive waste management.” 

Four projects were selected in this area (see Table 6). 

Projects funded in WP2014-15 in the area of nuclear expertise and excellence 

Table 6 

Project 

Description 

ANNETTE 

BRILLIANT 

CORONA II 

VINCO 

Advanced  network  for  nuclear  education  and 
training and transfer of expertise 

regional 

Baltic 
innovative 
research and training capacity building 

technologies 

initiative 

nuclear 

for 

long-lasting 
nuclear 

Enhancement  of  training  capabilities  in  VVER 
technology  through  the  establishment  od  a 
VVER training academy 

Visegrad  initiative  for  nuclear  cooperation  – 
regional initiative aimed at nuclear research and 
training capacity building 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

2,517,399 

1,197,345 

1,017,605 

1,091,324 

For WP2016-17 there is only one topic relating to nuclear expertise and excellence. The 
key challenges, the scope and expected impact of projects are described below. 

NFRP 12 (2016/17): Support for careers in the nuclear field 
The work here is to address “the difficulties encountered with maintaining and renewing an 
adequate number of well-educated and trained nuclear researchers and professionals, 
especially in view of expected high retirement and low renewal rates in countries with a 
strong nuclear tradition and of the growing need for further specialised training in 
emerging nuclear energy countries. The aim is to respond to the needs of the nuclear 
industry, regulatory bodies and TSOs.” The scope includes the “further implementation, in 
the nuclear and relevant medical and industrial sectors”. It also includes “initiatives to 
attract new talent in the nuclear field and develop competences and expertise beyond the 
academic curricula”. The scope is intended to include activities associated with medical 
applications, the relevant non-nuclear industrial applications and the transport of 
radioactive materials. The expected impact will be a revival in the “interest of the young 
generation for careers in the nuclear sector (in particular, reactor safety, geological 
disposal, radiation protection)”. 

Two projects were selected in this area (see Table 7). 

Projects selected in WP2016-17 in the area of nuclear expertise and excellence 

Table 7 

33   

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Project 

Description 

MEET-CINCH 

A Modular European Education and 
Training Concept In Nuclear and 
RadioCHemistry 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

2,110,051 

  Development of a teaching package for 
high  schools  and  a  MOOC  on  Nuclear 
and  Radio-Chemistry  (NRC)  for  public 
use 

  Development  of  new  education  and 
training  approaches  based  on  remote 
teaching  and  the  flipped  classroom 
concept 

  Provide ECVET course modules adapted 

to end-users needs 

ENENplus 

Attract, Retain and Develop New Nuclear 
Talents Beyond Academic Curricula 

2,986,188 

  Revival  of  the  young  generations' 

interest in nuclear sector careers 

  Establishment  of  a  mobility  fund  for 
European  students  researchers  and 
learners 

3.2.4.  2.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council  objective  (d):  Supporting  radiation  protection  and  development  of 
medical  applications  of  radiation,  including,  inter  alia,  the  secure  and  safe 
supply and use of radioisotopes 
Joint and/or coordinated research activities, in particular those regarding the risks 
from low doses from industrial, medical or environmental exposure, on emergency 
management in relation to accidents involving radiation, and on radioecology, to 
provide a pan-European scientific and technological basis for a robust, equitable and 
socially acceptable system of protection. 

Research activities on medical applications of ionising radiation and addressing the 
operational safety aspects of radiation protection and their utilisation. 

In WP2014-15 one topic (NFRP 7) is focused on the area of radiation protection and 
medical applications. The key challenges for this topic and the scope and expected impact 
of projects are described below. Table 8 lists the project selected for funding in WP2014-
15 in this area. 

NFRP 7 – 2015: Integrating radiation research in the European Union 
The Euratom Work Programme recognizes the importance of research in the field of 
radiation protection and identifies the key challenges as the need for a deep understanding 
of the effects of ionising radiations, and the poorly understood risks from low doses of 

34 

 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

radiation. It is considered that a “reinforced multidisciplinary approach to research and 
innovation is essential to further develop the knowledge base in this field”. 

The scope of research in this area is expected to “build on the Strategic Research Agendas 
of MELODI, NERIS and ALLIANCE, while also making use of other existing expertise in 
Europe, notably regarding dosimetry (EURADOS) and the medical use of ionising 
radiation”. 

EU funding will specifically be devoted to “supporting the further integration, at EU level, of 
radiation protection research, with due attention to the interaction and synergies to be 
established between the various areas of expertise, in particular biology, biophysics, 
epidemiology, dosimetry and modelling. These disciplines are pivotal for research on 
medical exposures and the optimisation of the use of, and protection from ionising 
radiation in this field.” 

It is also expected that “attention should also be paid to the development of advanced 
knowledge on the biology and bio-kinetics of medical radioisotopes and to the 
understanding of the effects of naturally occurring radiation (and the optimisation of the 
protection thereof), which also contribute to radiation protection basic science. This activity 
will also address the improvement of knowledge on the effects of ionising radiation on 
living beings (radioecology) both during the normal operation of nuclear installations and 
after an accident, which would be needed to further develop mutually compatible European 
tools and innovative approaches on nuclear emergency management and environmental 
remediation.” 

The research and innovation in this area should also support the “successful transposition 
and implementation of the revised European Basic Safety Standards, which will require 
changes in national regulations and practices that should be done in a co-ordinated 
manner in order to optimise protection and avoid duplication”. 

An additional aim of this research activity will be to accelerate and improve the 
development of “competences in radiation protection with a special focus on radiation 
protection culture and at addressing the challenge of communicating results in radiation 
protection to non-specialist audiences such as policy decision makers and the public at 
large”. 

The expected impact of this research will be a better integration of the “radiation 
protection scientific community at EU level, leading to a better coordination of research 
efforts and the provision of more consolidated and robust science-based policy 
recommendations to decision makers in this area. In the long term, these efforts will 
translate into additional or improved practical measures in view of the effective protection 
of people and the environment.” 

A multidisciplinary approach to research and innovation is considered as essential to 
further develop the knowledge base in this field. Within the Euratom Work Programme 
2014-2015, NFRP 7 – 2015, had the high level objective of integrating radiation research 
in the European Union. 

The type of action chosen for this call was a ‘Programme Co-fund Action (European Joint 
Programme)’ with a contribution from the Euratom programme of between €18.5m and 
€19.5m envisaged. 

Table 8 

Project funded in WP2014-15 in the area of radiation protection and medical 
applications of radiation 

35   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Project 

Description 

CONCERT 

European  joint  programme  for  the  integration  of 
radiation protection research 

 One project was selected in this area (see Table 8). 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

19,822,787 

To foster radiation protection and to gain a better understanding of the effects of low-dose 
ionising radiation on humans, one topic (NFRP 9) was identified in the WP2016-17: 

NFRP 9 (2016/17): Impacts of low dose radiation exposure 
The foreseen challenge in this area is the need to reinforce the cooperation between the 
medical and nuclear sectors. The work “will allow the formulation of science-based 
recommendations to decision-makers and practitioners in the respective sectors in view of 
the effective protection of patients, workers and the general public, and the fine-tuning of 
the necessary precautionary measures”. Research into “innovative and updated radiation 
protection tools and methods will allow the formulating of practical recommendations and 
improved protection of patients and staff in everyday medical practices”. 

Table 9 

Project selected in WP2016-17 in the area of radiation protection and medical 
applications 

Project 

Description 

MEDIRAD 

Implications of Medical Low Dose 
Radiation Exposure 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

9,995,146 

  Enhance  the  scientific  basis  and 
radiation 

clinical 
practice 
protection in the medical field 

of 

  Better  understanding  of  health 
effects  due  to  low  dose  ionising 
radiation exposure 

36 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

  Formulation  of  science-based  policy 
recommendations  for  the  protection 
of patients, workers and the general 
public 

The scope of this work “should allow significant progress to be made in the understanding 
of radiation effects and underlying mechanisms, notably by performing radiation molecular 
epidemiology studies of people who have undergone radiology procedures (i.e. looking at 
side-effects from radiotherapy on healthy surrounding tissues and tissues exposed during 
radiology diagnosis)”. It action should also consider “creating a networked and structured 
repository for patient dosimetry, imaging meta-data and bio-banking, the latter being 
integrated with health databases”. The overall aim of this work “is to further improve the 
science base for recommendations to decision-makers and practitioners in the respective 
sectors, including for optimisation of radiation protection in medical imaging”. The 
expected impact is the achievement of significant progress “in the interaction between the 
radiation protection and medical scientific communities at EU level, leading to cross-
fertilisation of research efforts and the provision of more consolidated and robust science-
based policy recommendations to decision makers in the respective sectors. Ultimately, 
the risks from radiation will be better evaluated and the necessary precautionary measures 
better quantified, leading to a more robust system of protection of patients, workers and 
the general public, whilst not unduly penalising activities through unnecessary and costly 
measures. This could also lead to some revision of the relevant regulatory frameworks.” 

One project was selected in this area (see Table 9). 

3.2.5.  2.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council objective (g): Promoting innovation and industry competitiveness 

Implementing or supporting knowledge management and technology transfer from the 
research co-funded by the Euratom Programme to industry exploiting all innovative 
aspects of the research. 

Promoting innovation through, inter alia, open access to scientific publications, a 
database for knowledge management and dissemination and promoting technology 
topics in educational programmes. 

In the long term, the Euratom Programme is to support the preparation and 
development of a competitive nuclear fusion industrial sector facilitating the 
involvement of the private sector as well as SMEs where appropriate, in particular 
through the implementation of a technology road map to a fusion power plant with 
active industrial involvement in the design and development projects. 

In WP2014-15 one topic (NFRP 16) is focused on the area of innovation and industrial 
competitiveness. The key challenges for this topic and the scope and expected impact of 
projects are described below. Table 10 lists the project selected for funding in WP2014-15 
in this area. 

NFRP 16 – 2015: Supporting the licensing of Western nuclear fuel for reactors of VVER 
design operating in the EU. 

37   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The challenge here is the need to diversify the nuclear fuel supply for Russian pressurized 
water reactors (VVER) as there are as many as 16 VVERs operating in the EU. “The 
diversification of fuel supply in EU VVER plants would be relevant for greater security of 
energy supply. However, the licensing in the EU of VVER reactor fuel assemblies 
manufactured by a new supplier requires a full range of safety evaluations for which R&D 
is to be carried out at EU level, involving industrial and regulatory (or TSO) experts.” 

The aim of this work is to “build on the experience gained in different VVER plants in the 
EU and on well-documented irradiation campaign results (either past or on-going). It 
should aim at establishing all necessary safety analyses, tests and procedures in view of 
the further licensing of VVER fuel manufactured by Western suppliers, with due 

Table 10 

Project funded in WP2014-15 in the area of innovation and industrial competitiveness 

Project 

Description 

ESSANUF 

European supply of safe nuclear fuel – supporting 
the  licensing  of  western  companies  to  supply 
nuclear fuel for VVER’s operating in the EU 

consideration to international safety standards.” 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

2,053,913 

It is expected that this work will contribute to the security of supply of nuclear fuel for 
VVER reactors operating in the EU. 

One project was selected in this area (see Table 10). 

WP2016-17 identified the following two topics in the area of innovation and industrial 
competitiveness. The key challenges, the scope and the expected impact of projects are 
described below. 

NFRP  13  (2016/17):  Fission/fusion  cross-cutting  research  in the  area  of  multi-scale 
materials modelling. 
There are increasing opportunities for synergies in the fission and fusion research areas 
especially in the areas of materials modelling. The work here is to encourage closer 
integration of research between the fission and fusion research communities in the area of 
multi-scale modelling of material properties and the development of new materials. The 
scope includes research on ferritic-martensitic (F/M) steels for use in both fusion and 
fission installations. “The predictive capability of models is of paramount importance and 
should be aimed at supporting the elaboration of design rules. Proposed modelling 
approaches would need to be supported by robust validation means, including where 
necessary testing of environmental degradation and appropriate irradiation campaigns 
ranging from neutrons to ions. Contributions to benchmarking, the development of codes 
and standards as well as to small specimen test technology is also encouraged.” The aim is 
for this work to demonstrate substantial benefit for both fission and fusion, and to 
complement the existing research efforts in both domains. The expected impact is to help 
the “cross-fertilisation in nuclear materials research between the two main fields of activity 
represented by fission and fusion” and to “result in a better general understanding and 
critical mass in the discipline as a whole. In turn, it will help overcome bottlenecks that are 
limiting developments in fission and fusion, including in technology areas with safety 
relevance”. 

NFRP  14  (2016/17):  Cross-cutting  support  to  improved  knowledge  on  tritium 
management in fission and fusion facilities 
The discharges of tritium are “increasing owing to new nuclear fuel management modes 
and the lack of detritiation capability. Discharges are also anticipated from fusion 
installations once they start operating as nuclear facilities”. As a result of this challenge 
“further research is needed to assess and mitigate impacts of discharges and potentially to 
limit them”. The scope of this work will include “assessing technologies to minimise tritium 

38 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

permeation at source and to capture and store tritium from treatment of metallic waste 
and liquid and gaseous effluents, e.g. using photo-synthesised polymers”. It should also 
include “(i) an assessment of the tritium inventory in both fission and fusion systems using 
state-of-the-art modelling tools for tritium migration studies, e.g. from primary to 
secondary systems between which tritium may pass, (ii) refinement of the knowledge on 
outgassing and release mechanisms, radiotoxicity, radioecology, radiobiology, dosimetry 
and metrology of tritium, (iii) engineering solutions for detritiation techniques (metals, 
liquids and gasses) and waste management to meet the stringent regulations in force in 
the EU, and (iv) tritium permeation”. The expected impact will be to contribute to the 
“solution of a number of key issues in the management of tritium in fission and fusion 
facilities that will satisfy regulatory requirements and thus minimise environmental and 
possible subsequent health effects. It will pave the way for robust science-based policy 
recommendations to decision makers in this area at EU level.” 

Two projects were selected in this area (see Table 11). 

Projects selected in WP2016-17 in the area of innovation and industrial competitiveness 

Table 11 

Project 

Description 

M4F 

MULTISCALE MODELLING FOR FUSION AND 
FISSION MATERIALS 

  Foster  the  understanding  of  phenomena 
associated  to  formation  and  evolution  of 
irradiation  induced  defects  and  their  role 
on deformation behaviour 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

4,000,000 

  Reduce  the  gap  between  the  materials 
and 

as  model 

activities 

science 
experiments 

TRANSAT 

TRANSversal Actions for Tritium 

3,999,260 

 

knowledge 

Improve 
tritium 
management  in  both  fission  and  fusion 
facilities 

on 

  Refinement 

on 
the 
radiotoxicity, radiobiology, and dosimetry 

knowledge 

of 

  Address 

radiotoxicity, 

radioecology, 
radiobiology  and  dosimetry  on  tritiated 
particles produced during dismantling  

3.2.6.  2.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

The Council regulation [Ref 1] states the objective and related implementation activities 
for this area as follows: 

  Council objective (h): Ensuring availability and use of research infrastructures 

of pan-European relevance 
Activities supporting the construction, refurbishment, use and continued availability of 
key research infrastructures under the Euratom Programme, as well as appropriate 
access to those infrastructures and cooperation between them. 

39   

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In WP2014-15 two topics (NFRP 8, 9) were focused on the area pan-European 
infrastructures. The key challenges for these topics and the scope and expected impact of 
projects are described below. Table 12 lists the project selected for funding in WP2014-15 
in this area. 

NFRP 8 – 2015: High density uranium fuel and targets for the production of medical 
radioisotopes 
The challenge here results from the shortage of Molybdenum-99 as a result of the low 
availability of specific research reactor facilities and the extensive replacement of highly 
enriched uranium fuel by low enriched fuel to address nuclear proliferation concerns. 

The aim of this research and innovation is to “support the replacement of highly enriched 
uranium fuel and targets by low enriched and high density ones.” The issue for the fuel 
surrounds the maintenance of reactor performance and safety. For the targets, the issue is 
to achieve a sufficient number of fission reactions to produce Molybdenum-99 and to get a 
high quality pharmaceutical product. 

The focus of this work will be on “developing new kinds of high density uranium fuel and 
targets bearing in mind their thermal, mechanical and chemical behaviour and their 
suitability for use in different research reactors”. 

The expected impact will be a “cost effective supply of high density and low enriched 
uranium fuel and targets will allow the more efficient use of research reactors in Europe for 
the purpose of energy research and the production of medical radioisotopes like 
Molybdenum-99. This will contribute to the addressing of key challenges of Horizon 2020 
in the sectors of energy and health. The principal impact of this action will be the 
prevention of future crises in the supply of Molybdenum-99.” 

NFRP 9 – 2015: Transmutation of minor actinides (Towards industrial application) 
The challenge in this area arises from the need to eliminate or transmute the minor 
actinides in order to sustain the back-end of the fuel cycle. The Euratom Work Programme 
suggests that “further research is needed in order to demonstrate the feasibility of 
transmutation of high-level waste at industrial scale. Advanced experimental tests as well 
as numerical simulation tools will be required to conduct this interdisciplinary research 
encompassing basic as well as applied sciences. The technological and economic 
performance of transmutation in a fast neutron facility should also take into account the 
other possible uses of the equipment, e.g. for the production of radioisotopes or material 
testing for nuclear fission and fusion applications.” 

The scope of this research will be to “contribute to the further development of state-of-
the-art critical or sub-critical fast neutron installations for transmutation. Due 
consideration should be given to the actual effectiveness of the transmutation process, as 
for example by using accelerator driven systems, as well as the safety and reliability of the 
facility and the demonstration of the industrial feasibility of the process. The development 
of innovative fuel and targets for the transmutation of minor actinides should also be 
considered in this proposal, as well as the development of advanced experiments and 
numerical simulation tools.” 

The expected impact of this work will be on the reduction of the radioactive waste burden 
of a geological disposal facility. “This research will allow pursuing this objective by using 
state-of-the-art technology, notably in terms of efficiency and safety of the process.” 

Two projects were selected in this area (see Table 12). 

Projects funded in WP2014-15 in the area of pan-European infrastructures 

Table 12 

40 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Project 

Description 

HERACLES-CP 

Towards the conversion of high performance 
research  reactors  in  Europe  –  high  density 
uranium fuel and targets for the production 
of medical radioisotopes 

MYRTE 

research 

MYRRHA 
transmutation 
endeavour  –  transmutation  of  the  minor 
actinides –towards industrial application 

and 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

6,387,960 

8,995,962 

WP2016-17 identified the following two topics in the area of pan-European research 
infrastructures. The key challenges, the scope and the expected impact of projects are 
described below. 

NFRP 10 (2016/17): Support for the optimised use of European research reactors 
The key challenge here is to further the “coordination of the exploitation of available 
research reactors in Europe in order to help resolve the recurrent shortage of medical 
radioisotopes and optimise the use of irradiation time in the available reactors thereby 
reducing disruptions and delays occurring in many experiments”. The scope of the work 
includes “networking the largest possible number of research reactor operators at EU level 
in order to further the exchange of information on the availability of research reactors 
against research needs across the EU”. It will also identify “key parameters that are 
influencing reactor availability and derive an overall strategy for research reactors in 
Europe”. The expected impact will be to “allow the more efficient use of research reactors 
in Europe for the purpose of energy research and training and the production of medical 
radioisotopes like Molybdenum-99” and the “prevention of future crises in the supply of 
Molybdenum-99 and the more effective planning of research reactor needs in the EU”. 

NFRP 11 (2016/17): Support for the EU security of supply of nuclear fuel for research 
reactors. 
The challenge identified here is the security of supply of nuclear fuel for research reactors 
and hence the “availability of such reactors in the EU, which are essential for, notably, 
materials research, isotope production, silicon doping, nuclear science and engineering and 
related education and training purposes”. The scope of this action should involve the 
creation of a “multidisciplinary research consortium able to tackle technical as well as 
economical and legal aspects, and should include EU-based RR fuel manufacturers 
alongside a fully representative number of EU RR operators. It will investigate future needs 
in terms of volume and fuel design requirements for each reactor for which European 
operators do not possess relevant data, as well as the safety-related technical 
requirements of RR fuel manufacturing, storage, transport, and reprocessing, and can 
include possible pilot scale experiments.” The aim is also to “address the regulatory 
context and the legal and economic conditions for the long-term sustainability of EU-based 
RR fuel manufacturing and long-term supply of LEU (low-enriched uranium)”. The 
expected impact will be to help to “secure the supply of nuclear fuel for research reactors 
in Europe” and to “reinforce the security of supply of medical radioisotopes like 
Molybdenum-99 and the availability, in the EU, of an adequate neutron irradiation 
capability for materials testing and other applications”. 

Only one project was selected in this area (see Table 13).  

Project selected in WP2016-17 in the area of pan-European infrastructures 

Table 13 

41   

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Project 

Description 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

FOREvER 

Fuel fOR REsEarch Reactors 

6,598,148 

  Securing  the  nuclear  fuel  supply  for 

European research reactors 

  Fuel shortage risk analysis 

  optimisation of manufacturing process 
(up  to  the  design  of  pilot  equipment) 
and  modelling  of  the  fuels'  in-pile 
behaviour 

3.2.7.  2.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

In WP2014-15, there were three topics (NFRP 12, 13, 15) focused on social aspects and 
networking. As such they were related to more than one specific Council objective. The 
key challenges for these topics and the scope and expected impact of projects are 
described below. Table 14 lists the projects selected for funding in WP2014-15 in these 
three topics. 

NFRP 12 – 2014: Nuclear developments and interaction with society 
The challenge here is the communication and engagement with the public regarding the 
use of nuclear energy. There is a “large body of knowledge of past successes and failures 
in interacting with civil society in the implementing of nuclear projects exist in the form of 
books and studies, press articles, government reports, radio and TV broadcasts, the 
memory of projects stakeholders, etc.” The main aim of this research is to “exploit to the 
best extent this information in view of shedding light on the last sixty years of 
developments of nuclear in Europe and a number of other major nuclear stakeholder 
countries, clarifying the context within which certain decisions were made, identifying the 
factors which influenced projects' success or failure in gaining engagement of the civil 
society and ultimately, help improving communication and interaction with civil society for 
the benefit of all public and private stakeholders concerned.” 

The research will cover “nuclear developments and projects, over the last sixty years, in 
the EU and abroad (USA, Russia, Ukraine, Japan) and related international cooperation 
where appropriate. These cases shall be examined also taking account of the broader 
context (economic, political, institutional…) within which decisions were taken regarding 
the main energy sources for electricity production”. 

The work will be carried out in three phases. “In a first phase, historians shall provide the 
core facts and figures, based on available documents and other sources of information, 
complemented as appropriate by field investigations, notably interviews of major players 
with regard to the selected developments and projects. This should result in a well-
organised and documented database and historical record. The second phase shall bring-in 
additional experts, i.e. communication specialists, sociologists or psychologists of 
organisations, philosophers and other such specialists in order to analyse and interpret this 
information from the perspective of furthering the understanding of the mechanisms for 
effective interaction with civil society regarding nuclear applications and projects, including 
the factors underlying perception, participation and engagement. In the third and last 
phase, the results shall be presented and discussed with industry, associations, policy 
makers and representatives of the civil society.” 

It is expected that the research “should contribute to the understanding of factors 
triggering the societal engagement with nuclear energy and other nuclear applications and 
provide insights to decision makers and other stakeholders regarding interaction with civil 
society”. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

NFRP 13 – 2015: Fostering the network of National Contact Points 
The aim here is to “facilitate trans-national co-operation between National Contact Points 
(NCPs) on Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection with a view to identifying and sharing 
good practices and raising the general standard of support to programme applicants, 
taking into account the diversity of actors that make up the constituency of this 
Programme”. 

The focus will be on issues “specific to Nuclear fission and radiation protection, and should 
not duplicate actions foreseen in the NCP network for quality standards and horizontal 
issues under ‘Science with and for Society’”. 

The expected impact will be an “improved and professionalised NCP service across Europe, 
thereby helping simplify access to Euratom fission 2014-2018 calls, lowering the entry 
barriers for newcomers, and raising the average quality of proposals submitted”. An 
additional outcome will be a more consistent level of NCP support services across Europe. 

NFRP  15  –  2015:  Specific  support  to  the  work  of  the  Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy 
Technology Platform 
The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) rests on three main pillars: 
(i) the NUGENIA association addressing the safety of existing light-water reactors; (ii) 
ESNII (European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative) dealing with the safety of fast 
reactors with associated strategies of spent nuclear fuel management and waste 
minimization, and (iii) nuclear safety of plants not restricted to electricity production. “The 
major challenge of SNETP is to continue to integrate the R&I in nuclear safety at European 
Level in the global context taking due account of the various stakeholders' concerns.” The 
scope of this work includes such things as “specific studies, data collection and analysis 
activities and workshops for the further development of technology roadmaps, 
implementation plans and deployment strategies as well as to the dissemination of the 
platform activities to the various stakeholders”. It also includes the “recent SET Plan 
initiatives for integrating the different energy roadmaps (nuclear and non-nuclear)”. The 
aim is to “foster collaboration between ETPs to address cross-sectorial challenges between 
fission, fusion and non-nuclear energy sources as put forward at SET Plan level, notably on 
materials and education and training. Euratom will not cover secretariat and other running 
costs of the platform as it should be self-financed for these needs“. The expected impact 
will be “to help SNETP to further structure – content-wise - its activities. It will also help 
better situating the development of nuclear energy in the broader context of the relevant 
Horizon 2020 societal challenges, and hence help disseminating the platform's activities to 
the policy-makers and stakeholders.” 

Three projects were selected in this area (see Table 14). 

Projects funded in WP2014-15 in the area of societal aspects and networking 

Table 14 

Project 

Description 

HoNEST 

History  of  nuclear  energy  and  society  - 
nuclear  development  and  interaction  with 
society 

Euratom 
contribution 
(€) 

3,052,269 

NUCL-EU 2020  Connecting Euratom national contact points in 
a  pro-active  network  under  Euratom 
programme HORIZON 2020 

500,000 

SPRINT 

SNETP  programming 
research  and 
innovation  in  nuclear  technology  –  specific 

for 

599,550 

43   

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

support to the network 

No topics were defined in this area in WP2016-17. 

44 

 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

4.  3. EVALUATION OF STATE OF PLAY 

This chapter addresses the “State of Play” of the programme and provides comments on 
how the Euratom Programme has been implemented to date (2014-17); and it aims to 
draw conclusions on the participation patterns and trends. 

4.1. 

3.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

The goal of fusion research is the realization of nuclear fusion as an energy source. Fusion 
has made enormous progress since 1958 with controlled thermonuclear reactions obtained 
in JET in 1997 in conditions close to breakeven. With the start of the ITER construction, 
magnetic fusion research is now focussed on demonstrating the production of fusion power 
at reactor level (500MW) with a fusion amplification factor Q=10 (Q=Fusion 
power/auxiliary power injected in the reaction chamber). 

ITER construction started in 2007 after the establishment of the international ITER 
Organisation (ITER IO) by seven parties (Euratom, Japan, United States of America, 
Russian Federation, Korea, China, India). The Euratom contribution to the ITER 
construction (as well as the activities that are part of the so-called Broader Approach) is 
under the responsibility of Fusion for Energy (F4E), which since the start of the present 
MFF (Multiannual Financial Framework) reports to DG Energy of the European Commission. 
These activities are not part of the Euratom research programme, and therefore are 
mentioned in this document only for their relation to the research activities. 

Europe currently has a leadership position in fusion research: the largest fusion device in 
operation (JET), the more advanced technology programmes and the largest share of the 
ITER construction. This leadership has been achieved thanks to the Euratom Programme 
that has led to a coherent approach in fusion energy research in the Member States. 

The definition of the Fusion Roadmap has further strengthened this position since it has 
translated the goal of fusion electricity into a detailed programme for the DEMO design and 
R&D that is now implemented by EUROfusion. 

The Panel believes that maintaining such a leadership should be one of the main goals of 
the Euratom Programme. 

4.1.1.  3.1.1 

The Fusion Roadmap 

In 2012 a Roadmap to Fusion Electricity [Ref 2] was developed by the European Fusion 
Development Agreement (EFDA), in collaboration with F4E, adopted by all fusion research 
stakeholders and endorsed by the Member States represented in the Consultative 
Committee for Fusion Research (CCE-FU). The Fusion Roadmap defines the R&D priorities 
to achieve the production of fusion electricity by 2050 in a demonstration fusion power 
plant (DEMO). DEMO will not only produce fusion power at reactor level, it will also convert 
efficiently fusion power into electricity, and will be self sufficient in terms of tritium 
production to fuel the fusion reactions. 

ITER is the key facility of the Roadmap: it will demonstrate the production of fusion energy 
in a controlled way at the level of a medium size reactor and most of the technologies 
needed to build DEMO. 

The formulation of the European Fusion Roadmap has put Europe in a leading position on 
the way to the production of fusion electricity. In the following, the Roadmap approach 
that is at the basis of the EUROfusion programme, is briefly outlined. 

The target of the Roadmap is to demonstrate electricity production from fusion energy at 
the earliest possible time. Thus the Roadmap target translates into two objectives: 

  The successful completion of the construction and a swift scientific exploitation 

of ITER; 

45   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  The design and R&D for an ITER-like DEMO to be built as soon as ITER achieves 
the Q=10 target “as a credible prototype for a power-producing fusion reactor, 
although  in  itself  not  fully  technically  or  economically  optimized”  [Ref 2] 
[Ref 6]. 

Once DEMO has achieved its goal, industry will have to take over the exploitation of fusion 
for electricity production. In this sense DEMO will be the last step before the development 
of a commercial fusion power plant. 

The technical challenges to achieve fusion electricity have been known for many years. The 
main novelty of the Fusion Roadmap has been to put these challenges into the perspective 
of a pragmatic approach to fusion. In order to minimize the risks of a delay in the 
demonstration of fusion electricity production, the pragmatic approach advocates for the 
use in DEMO of established technologies and well-characterized regimes of operation such 
as those that have been chosen by ITER to achieve its Q=10 target, rather than pursuing 
more innovative but less mature options. More innovative solutions may lead in due time 
to a more attractive option for a commercial fusion power plant than an ITER-like DEMO 
but these have not been sufficiently qualified yet to be the basis for a DEMO design 
(although prototypes of innovative components could be tested on DEMO). 

Although the pragmatic approach of the Fusion Roadmap calls for a prudent choice of the 
scientific-technical basis for the ITER-like DEMO, further innovation into fusion energy is 
being pursued through different paths: 

  Research on "optimized configurations", such as the advanced tokamak regimes 
and the stellarator line, or on alternative solutions for the heat exhaust through 
specific  upgrades  of  existing  facilities  or  a  dedicated  diverter  tokamak  test 
facility. 

  The participation of industry, now heavily involved in the ITER construction, in 
DEMO through an early start of a DEMO Engineering Design Activity (EDA) to 
make  the  best  use  of  the  lesson  learned  in  the  ITER  construction  and  of  the 
expertise generated in industry by the construction of ITER. 

In the Euratom Programme, curiosity driven research (Enabling Research) to foster new 
ideas is supported through specific projects selected on the basis of the excellence of the 
proposal. 

Finally the role given in the Fusion Roadmap to international collaborations in order to gain 
from the intellectual diversity of the rest of the fusion community and from the sharing of 
resources should be stressed. As also noted in the recent midterm review of EUROfusion 
[Ref 7], the Roadmap implementation may be more efficient if interested international 
partners can take charge of some of the work. 

4.1.2.  3.1.2 

The transition from EFDA/CoA to EUROfusion 

In passing from FP7/FP7+2 to the current Euratom Programme the approach to fusion 
research has undergone a major transition to adapt to the implementation of the Roadmap 
as a project-oriented activity. 

In Euratom FP7/FP7+2 (and in the previous FPs) the approach to fusion research (other 
than the part related to the ITER construction and the Broader Approach activities) was 
organized on the basis of bilateral Contracts of Association (CoA) between Euratom and 
individual laboratories and of the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) that 
was in charge of operating and exploiting JET, of coordinated activities in physics and 
technologies, of training and of the international collaborations other than those related to 
ITER. The allocation of funds through the CoAs was made on the basis of the 
programmatic priorities of each laboratory with Euratom supervising the overall coherence 
of the programme through the European Commission services. A few goal-oriented 
activities were carried out through specific tools like the JET Implementing Agreement 
under EFDA (and the JET Joint Undertaking before 2000), the NET project and the 
technology programme under EFDA mainly for the R&D needs of ITER. 

46 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Although the system of the CoAs had been instrumental for the development of fusion 
activities in all Euratom Member States, with the start of the ITER construction in 2007 a 
change was deemed necessary. To this end, the Fusion Roadmap was elaborated and 
approved in 2012, and by the end of 2013 the structure of the new EUROfusion 
Consortium was in place. Thus, in Euratom 2014-2018 and in line with Horizon 2020 the 
fusion programme has strongly reduced the fragmentation inherent in about 30 CoAs. All 
the activities are now managed within a single consortium. The structure of the 
EUROfusion grant has been one of the first examples of a European Joint Programme 
based on the Programme Co-fund instrument. 

The allocation of funds by EUROfusion is made on the basis of the programmatic priorities, 
on a competitive basis and with the goal of pursuing excellence. A restricted number of 
facilities have their operation supported by Euratom resources: JET through the NJOC and 
a few national facilities (for the part of operation related with the joint programme) 
through EUROfusion. These facilities have been selected in 2008 by an external review 
[Ref 8] on the basis of their relevance to the fusion programme. 

The Panel considers the new approach a substantial improvement in terms of transparency 
and effectiveness. 

The competitive approach to funds allocation may sometime conflict with the aspiration to 
a broad participation in the programme but there is a clear evidence of an increased 
participation of the smaller institutions that have aligned their scientific strategy to the 
Roadmap priorities. 

The Panel is convinced that the transition from CoAs to EUROfusion will strengthen the 
European leadership in fusion. The transition, however, took place in a very short time 
scale (with all the difficulties that this implies) and the adaptation to the new approach still 
requires continuous effort of all stakeholders. 

4.1.3.  3.1.3 

Education and Training in the Fusion Programme 

Education and training in the domain of fusion research in Europe is necessary to attract 
researchers, engineers and specialists and to ensure that the right competencies are 
available for the evolving needs of the field. The biennial Euratom Work Programmes, 
adopted by the Commission after obtaining the opinion of Member States, do not detail the 
goals for education and training in fusion; however, these goals are addressed in the 
Roadmap and implemented in the EUROfusion grant. 

The recent 2016 survey on human resources in fusion [Ref 9] analysed the evolution of 
the fusion workforce during the last decade and the future need for scientists and 
engineers in the programme. A first estimate of the number of researchers and 
professional engineers that need to enter the programme in the future can be made based 
on the available data about people retiring in the next five years. This is in the range of 
100-150 professional engineers and 200-250 physicists, i.e. a minimum input of about 50 
engineers and physicists per year is required to replenish vacancies in the research 
laboratories. Taking into account the needs of industry and fluctuations, and assuming that 
the fusion programme will become gradually more technology-oriented, twice the number 
is a fair estimate of the actual overall needs. To this should be added the need for 
technical support staff, most with an engineering background, that is estimated to be well 
over 20 people per year [Ref 9]. 

Following the previous 2007 human resources survey [Ref 10] many initiatives have been 
started to address the identified gaps with some success. There are specific funds in 
EUROfusion for education and for training with a budget of ca. €8m/year for education 
(PhD students) and €4.7m/year for training (post-doc level engineering and research 
grants). 

The Panel considers the development of human resources an important component of the 
fusion part of the Euratom Programme that requires training and education to be explicitly 
addressed through specific support at under-graduate and PhD level. 

47   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

EUROfusion should ensure the development of competences in areas that are pivotal in the 
Roadmap, with particular reference to engineering, technology and nuclear skills. Training 
in critical qualifications should be reviewed and the existing training schemes should 
involve industry through in-company training of engineers bringing together fusion and 
fission specialists. EUROfusion should, in the long term, aim to support around 600 PhD 
students and the accreditation of PhD programmes with an increased coverage of topics in 
fusion engineering. 

4.2. 

3.2 

Nuclear Fission 

In relation to the call for proposals of the 2014-15 Work Programme the Panel received a 
comprehensive presentation from the Commission services’ staff [Ref 11] on the key 
elements of the fission part of Euratom Programme, the clustering of the topics and the 
allocation of funds, and the budget and grant distribution over the cluster. The 
Commission also provided the panel with a detailed summary of the objectives, funding 
and participation of each of the 23 grants. 

In the Euratom 2014-15 Work Programme, there was only one call; a total of 23 grants 
have been awarded with a value of about €90m. The Panel notes that some projects have 
a longer duration (e.g. CONCERT runs for five years). In comparison to other thematic 
areas of Horizon2020, applications to the Euratom fission programme had a higher success 
rate. 

The Panel notes that some of the recommendations in the Euratom FP7/FP7+2 ex-post 
evaluation [Ref 12] have been addressed, notably recommendation 10 of the FP7/7+2 ex-
post evaluation about the contribution of projects to the objectives of the Euratom 
Programme, i.e. “In future Euratom research programmes, each research proposal/project 
should show how it will contribute to the delivery of the high-level aims and objectives of 
the programme”. 

However, further effort is required in future calls to broaden the participation in the 
programme, maintaining the focus on excellence. The first call 2014-15 shows that the 
trend of the distribution of grant amount [Ref 11] has not changed since FP7/FP7+2. 

The Panel therefore believes that Recommendation 9 of the ex-post evaluation of Euratom 
FP7/FP7+2 is also relevant to the current Euratom Programme and hence it is reproduced 
here: 

Recommendation 1:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the 
Council  should  recognise  that  even  if  the  level  of  excellence 
remains  the  key  for  applying  for  research  funding,  the 
dominance  of  the  established  organisations  can  lead  to  the 
exclusion of emerging contributors who have the potential to 
provide new ideas and innovation. Hence consideration should 
be given as to how this source of innovation can be captured 
rather than lost from European programmes. 

The distribution of the grant amount per cluster [Ref 11] would appear to be in line with 
the intent of the Work Programme with the majority of the funding going to the key areas 
of reactor safety, radiation protection and radioactive waste management respectively. 

Analysis of the evidence given in the interviews, presentations and in the documentation 
provided by the Commission clearly shows that the aims and intent as set out in the 2014-
15 Work Programme have been delivered in both the call and the grants awarded. 

The Commission provided further information on the outcome of the call launched on the 
basis of the 2016-17 Work Programme [Ref 13]. A total of 25 proposals have been 
selected in six areas with a total funding of €109m. 

The total Euratom funding for the 2014-17 fission projects is €199m and the total project 
cost is €272m. This means that the Euratom Programme in its first four years is providing 

48 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

73% of the total project cost compared to 53% in the FP7/FP7+2 programme. The total 
funding from Euratom for the years 2014-2017 is comparable to the FP7/FP7+2 funding 
(scaled to a four years programme), i.e. €199m compared with €231m, but the fact that 
Programme’s rules allows for up to 100% Euratom funding means that less research is 
being done for the same amount of funding. 

Recommendation  2:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the 
Commission should review the impact of allowing up to 100%-
funding  has  on  the  level,  scope  and  impact  of  research  being 
delivered. 

4.2.1.  3.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

It is clear from the information that was provided to the Panel for the 2014-15 programme 
that the range of the 7 projects that were selected was consistent with the intent of the 
Euratom Programme in this area. The range of topics is in general relevant to the goals of 
maintaining Europe’s leadership in the delivery of nuclear safety within the nuclear 
industry. 

In relation to participation patterns and trends it is encouraging that there is diverse 
participation in the projects but there remains a dominance of the larger more established 
organizations; this results in the majority of funding going to a small number of the 
traditionally strong nuclear countries. 

The 14 projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme are consistent with the Council objective 
for nuclear safety of current and future reactor systems. The information provided by the 
Commission on the outcome of the call for the 2016-17 part of the programme [Ref 13] 
shows a reasonable balance between research to support the safety of operation of the 
current fleet of reactors in the EU and the need to support the safety of future Generation-
IV reactor systems. There are nine projects related to the continued operation and safety 
of the Generation II and Generation III nuclear power plants. Four projects are directly 
related to the design, development and safety of Generation-IV reactor systems and one 
project on advanced nuclear fuel cycle for future reactor systems. The split of €33.5m / 
€17.5m / €5m for Gen-II/III, Gen-IV and fuel cycle projects, respectively, seems 
reasonable and in line with both the Council objectives [Ref 1] and the Euratom Work 
Programmes [Ref 3] [Ref 4]. 

4.2.2.  3.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

The effective management of radioactive waste is a central part of the Euratom 
Programme and Member States are at various stages of development in the delivery of a 
sustainable long-term management strategy. The Euratom work programme identifies the 
immediate challenge as the need to address uncertainties surrounding the safety of 
geological disposal facilities. 

The projects selected in the first call (2014-15) demonstrate that the intent of the Euratom 
Programme has been implemented with three of the five projects focussed on geological 
disposal challenges and the other two associated with looking into the development of a 
European Joint Programme for radioactive waste research and networking. The total 
Euratom funding in this area is €16.2m which is 72% of the total project funding. One 
project (MIND) has 90% Euratom funding. The participation pattern reflects a good spread 
of the areas of expertise within the EU radioactive waste community. 

The analysis of the funding for the five projects in the 2016-17 programme shows that all 
projects are related to waste characterisation and conditioning in preparation for geological 
disposal and geological disposal challenges. In this call the Euratom funding of €19.5m 
represent 95 % of the total project funding. Looking at the projects it is difficult to see the 
justification of such a large Euratom contribution. 

49   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The Panel notes that there is consideration of applying EJP to this area (JOPRAD). In 
principle EJP should deliver a greater contribution from beneficiaries. However the case for 
joint programming remains to be made (see Chapter 5). 

4.2.3.  3.2.3. 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

In the 2014-15 Work Programme there were four projects relating to education and 
training. The total EU funding of €5.8m represents 77% of the total project funding. 

The 69-member-strong European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN), a non-profit 
association was formed in 2003 to integrate master-level education and training in nuclear 
programmes throughout Europe. ENEN is central to the strategy of the Euratom 
Programme. Subsequently Euratom Fission Training Schemes (EFTS) were launched in 
2009 to help structure research training and researcher career development across the EU 
focusing on advanced reactor designs, radiation protection and radioactive waste 
management. EFTS go beyond training and mobility: a typical scheme may receive up to 
EUR 1 million to be used over the course of three years. In the implementation of the 
2016-17 Work Programme’s ENENplus project of ca. €3m was launched to attract and 
retain new nuclear talents. Research institutions, industry and EU organisations formed the 
European Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform Education (SNETP) [Ref 14] in 
collaboration with ENEN to secure an adequate resource of well-educated and trained 
young professionals to support the research recommended in the SRA and to meet the 
demand of industry. 

4.2.4.  3.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

In the 2014-15 Work Programme there was one proposal (CONCERT) submitted under 
topic NFRP7-2015. Following evaluation by independent experts appointed by the 
Commission, a Euratom contribution of €19.8m was allocated. This represents 68% of the 
total project funding. 

In the 2016-17 programme only one project was proposed, MEDIRAD, with the EuratomU 
providing €10m which represented 100% of the total project funding. 

The CONCERT consortium brought forward a proposal that aimed to build on the results 
achieved through projects developed in the sixth and seventh Euratom Framework 
Programmes, such as the DoReMi Network of Excellence, and the OPERRA project in the 
field of radiation effects on humans, and on similar projects in other fields of radiation 
protection such as emergency preparedness and response (NERIS-TP and PREPARE) and in 
the field of radioecology (STAR NoE and COMET). 

The DoReMi and OPERRA projects had originated from a policy review prompted in 2008 
by the European Commission which had initiated a review by a European High Level and 
Expert Group (HLEG) of the state of knowledge and the major elements of scientific 
uncertainty in the context of radiation risk assessment and protection policies. The HLEG 
recommended the establishment of mechanisms and structures for specification and 
periodic updating of priorities in radiation protection research, to ensure the provision of 
long-term funding for focused research projects, to integrate education and training in 
state of the art research in radiation protection, and to ensure the availability of key 
infrastructures. 

Based on the recommendations of the HLEG, national radiation protection organizations 
together with research centres and university institutes founded MELODI as a European 
platform to promote research in effects and risks associated with low-dose radiation 
exposures. In parallel to MELODI, the platforms ALLIANCE and NERIS were initiated in the 
fields of radioecology and nuclear emergency preparedness, respectively. To promote 
integration in the entire field of radiation protection research, MELODI, ALLIANCE, NERIS 
and EURADOS, an existing platform to foster promoting research and development as well 
as European cooperation in the field of the dosimetry of ionizing radiation, joined forces 
and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). CONCERT operates as an umbrella 

50 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

structure for the research initiatives jointly launched by the radiation protection research 
platforms MELODI, ALLIANCE, NERIS and EURADOS. 

CONCERT aims to contribute to the sustainable integration of European and national 
research programmes in radiation protection by focussing resources and efforts in five key 
directions: 

  Bring together the elements of the European scientific communities in the fields 
of radiation effects and risks, radioecology, nuclear emergency preparedness, 
dosimetry and medical radiation protection, whose joint expertise is essential 
to  continue  the  development  of  radiation  protection  knowledge  in  a 
multidisciplinary  mode  to  reduce  further  the  uncertainties  in  radiation 
protection. 

  Strengthen  integrative  activities  between  the  various  areas  of  expertise,  in 
particular biology, biophysics, epidemiology, dosimetry and modelling as well 
as  fostering  the  use  of  existing  infrastructures  and  education  and  training 
activities in radiation protection. 

  Stimulate  and  foster  scientific  excellence,  by  setting  up  and  co-funding 
advanced  research  programmes  with  the  potential  to  enhance  current 
knowledge and the scientific evidence base for radiation protection. 

  Exchange  and  communicate  with  all  stakeholders,  including  the  professional 
organizations concerned with radiation protection, the regulatory organizations 
across  Europe,  the  public  and  media  where  necessary,  and  the  international 
community  of  scientific,  technical,  legal  and  other  professional  experts  in 
radiation protection. 

  Foster  the  harmonious  application  of  available  scientific  basis  for  radiation 
protection practices across Europe, by bringing together scientific and technical 
expertise in radiation protection issues, standard setting know how, particularly 
with  respect  to  the  implementation  of  the  Euratom  Basic  Safety  Standards 
(BSS) at the legal, administrative and operational level. 

4.2.5.  3.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

Under the theme of innovation and industrial competitiveness there was one project in the 
2014-15 Work Programme. The ESSANUF project received €2m of Euratom funding which 
represent 100% of the total project cost. Given that this project is to support the security 
of supply for utilities operating VVER nuclear power plants in the EU it is difficult to 
understand why this has no funding contribution from those utilities. 

In the 2016-17 Work Programme there were two projects in this area. TRANSAT is a four 
years multidisciplinary project built to contribute to research and innovation on "cross-
cutting activities" needed to "improve knowledge on tritium management in fission and 
fusion facilities". As such it is in line with the broader aims and objectives of the Euratom 
Work Programme. The M4F project aims to bring together the fusion and fission materials 
communities working on the prediction of microstructural-induced irradiation damage and 
deformation mechanisms of irradiated ferritic/martensitic steels. M4F is a multidisciplinary 
project, were both modelling and experiments at different scales will be integrated to 
foster the understanding of complex phenomena associated to the formation and evolution 
of irradiation induced defects and their role on the deformation behaviour. These two 
projects received €8m (69%) out of a total funding of €11.6m. 

4.2.6.  3.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

In the 2014-15 programme there were two projects, HERACLES-CP and MYRTE. Both 
projects are relevant to the Council objectives and to the wider Euratom nuclear research 
needs as set out in the WP2014-15. Each project subject area is important to the long-

51   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

term goals of the programme. It is also clear that there is a good level of participation, but 
in relation to the MYRTE project, perhaps understandably, there is a limited participation. 

HERACLES–CP received €6.4m from the Euratom Programme which is 100% of the total 
project funding. Given the objective of this project it is again hard to see why the Euratom 
should fund 100%. 

The 2016-17 Work Programme had one project, FOREvER. This project is focussed on 
securing the nuclear fuel supply for European research reactors. The EU is providing €6.6m 
out of a project total of €6.9m which means the EU is funding 95% of the project costs. It 
is hard to see how this can be justified given the nature of the expected outcome of the 
project. 

4.2.7.  3.2.7. 

Social Aspects and Networking 

The 2014-15 Work Programme selected one project related to social aspects, HoNEST, and 
two projects to promote networking, NUCL-EU2020 and SPRINT. All three projects cover 
areas addressed in the Work Programme. The projects are very different in nature and 
application. Implementation is underway and there is a good measure of Member States 
participation. 

The total Euratom funding of €4m represent 100% of the total cost. 

Two projects primarily addressing issues of expertise (VINCO and BRILLIANT), also 
contribute to this area. 

No projects in this area were funded in the 2016-17 Work Programme. 

4.3. 

3.3 

State of Play - Summary 

The Panel was asked two questions on the state of play, namely: “How has the Euratom 
Programme been implemented during 2014-2016?” and “What conclusions can be drawn 
from the participation patterns and trends?” The above analysis shows that the Panel 
believes that in the aims of the Euratom Programme in both fusion and fission are being 
implemented but there are areas where improvements can be made as shown above in 
relation to participation of smaller organisations. Further effort is required in future calls to 
broaden the participation in the programme, maintaining the focus on excellence. Also, the 
fact that the rules for participation allow for up to 100% Euratom funding means that less 
research is being done for the same amount of funding.  

52 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

5.  4. EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This chapter examines the “Relevance” of the Euratom Programme. Here the Panel 
comments upon the extent to which the objectives of the Euratom Programme correspond 
to the needs of research stakeholders and to EU citizens in general. The chapter also 
addresses the extent to which the fusion and fission programmes provide the right balance 
between the various areas of nuclear research. 

5.1. 

4.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

Fusion offers a number of advantages for the long-term delivery of clean, secure and 
sustainable energy supplies for Europe. Fusion offers also the opportunity to foster 
innovation through the participation of industry in ITER and to the DEMO design. 

The success of fusion requires educating and training a new generation of scientists and 
engineers, a significant component of the EUROfusion programme. 

5.1.1.  4.1.1 

Relevance of the Fusion Research Programme 

Europe faces the challenge of ensuring an energy production that simultaneously meets 
the goal of long-term sustainability, security of supply and support to the development of 
the economy. 

The advantages of fusion are such that its exploitation fits well in the EU strategy in 
response to those challenges. The fuel used in a fusion power plant (deuterium and 
lithium) is diffuse in seawater and in the Earth crust. No greenhouse gases are produced. 
Fusion does not produce nuclear wastes that require a long-term geological repository. 
With a proper choice of materials the components that are radioactive at the end of the 
reactor life cycle can be recycled after 100 years in a new reactor. The Fusion Roadmap 
has set the goal of demonstrating the production of fusion electricity around 2050 in order 
for Europe to achieve the goal of commercial fusion power for electricity production in the 
latter part of this century. It also defines the research priorities to achieve such a goal. 
These are now being pursued in the EUROfusion programme. 

The large involvement of the European industry in the ITER construction is providing an 
opportunity for fostering innovation. It is of utmost importance that the expertise 
developed by industry in the ITER construction be retained for the further development of 
fusion as a commercial energy source through the construction of a DEMO plant. 

5.1.2.  4.1.2 Relevance of Education and Training for Fusion 

The leading research teams and laboratories in fusion science and technology play an 
indispensable role in training and education. The role of fusion laboratories and universities 
in training and education is recognised by specific support at under-graduate and 
graduate, specifically PhD level. 

In addition, training in critical qualifications should be reviewed with industry, ITER and 
F4E, and should be encouraged. As recommended in the Fusion Roadmap, the existing 
training schemes would be enhanced by the involvement of industry through in-company 
training of engineers involved in fusion-related tasks and specific training of professionals 
and technicians, already specialised in fusion, for future technologies and standards. 

5.2. 

4.2 

Nuclear Fission 

The distribution of funding in the 2014-15 Work Programme [Ref 13] demonstrates that a 
good balance has been achieved between the various topics in the fission and radiation 
protection research areas. The focus of the selected projects is in line with the Euratom 
Work Programme and the overall Council objectives. The research is relevant but as 
discussed in section 3 above, the balance between Euratom and beneficiary spending is 
not always justified. 

53   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme are again focussed on the key nuclear 
fission and radiation protection issues of interest. The range of projects in this Programme 
are generally balanced with the majority of the funding going to nuclear safety and 
radioactive waste management which are the key areas of importance for Euratom fission 
research today. 

5.2.1.  4.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

Evaluation of the grants awarded in the 2014-15 Work Programme in the area of nuclear 
safety clearly demonstrated that the aims and objectives that were set out in the Euratom 
Work Programme have been met and the research being undertaken is relevant to the 
research stakeholders and to the wider needs of the citizens of the EU. The balance of 
spending between the seven projects is in general consistent with the challenges as set 
out in the Work Programme. 

The grants awarded in the 2016-17 programme are all relevant to the research needs set 
out in the Euratom Work Programme. There is a good balance between the need to 
support the safety of existing nuclear power plant operations in Europe and the need to 
focus on the research necessary to underpin the safety of the next generation of nuclear 
power plants. 

5.2.2.  4.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

The effective management of radioactive waste with the ultimate goal of the delivery of 
safe and secure deep geological disposal for the higher activity wastes is clearly an 
important goal for the Euratom Programme. The balance of spending on the projects in 
both the 2014-15 and 2016-17 Programmes is consistent with the challenges and aims of 
the radioactive waste research programme. 

The five selected projects are consistent with the goals of the Euratom Work Programme 
2014-15 and hence are relevant to the needs of the European research community and the 
citizens of the EU. All the projects selected in the 2016-17 programme are related to 
furthering understanding of issues that are relevant to the effective management of 
radioactive waste in the EU. They cover issues that are directly related to the safety of a 
geological disposal facility, the conditioning of radioactive waste, the long-term behaviour 
of spent fuel in a repository and the clean-up of decommissioned sites. 

5.2.3.  4.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

The importance of supporting the retention and further development of scientific 
competence and human capacity including education and training activities in order to 
guarantee the availability of suitably qualified researchers, engineers and employees in the 
nuclear sector is a long term priority in past and current Euratom Programmes. Euratom 
Projects facilitate the coordination of scientific research at the EU level, associating 
different competences and laboratories available in Europe in a multidisciplinary approach 
necessary for development of competences. 

The Panel found that the results achieved are in line with the objective of the Euratom 
Programme to develop and assemble knowledge to improve scientific and technical 
competences, and know-how. One key aspect of added value with projects intended to 
produce guidelines and policy recommendations is the inherent ability of EU-level projects 
to ensure widespread dissemination of results through their international dimension and 
large number of project partners. 

5.2.4.  4.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

Contrary to high dose, the risks from low dose of radiation, including its interaction with 
other risk factors, are poorly understood. In order to optimise the use of ionising radiation 
in medical and other applications, a deeper understanding of the associated effects is 
required including developing understanding of dependencies such as gender, age and 

54 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

individual radiosensitivity. A fundamental question in radiation protection is whether the 
LNT (Linear No Threshold) concept is still valid at very low doses. While this question is 
embedded in current research activities, it has been suggested that future calls should 
have more specific goals to address open research challenges, like the issue that DNA 
damage from radiation is mostly linear, but the efficiency of repair mechanisms is not; or 
specific issues raised by individual and non-linear factors that need to be explored 
[Ref 15]. 

To achieve this, it is necessary to harness co-operation within the research community at a 
European level and to draw on expertise within other scientific disciplines. An integrated 
approach to radiation protection research, exploiting synergies between the various areas 
of expertise is required to fully realise maximum benefits and outcomes. This action should 
lead to better integration of the radiation protection scientific community at EU level, 
leading to a better coordination of research efforts and the provision of more consolidated 
and robust science-based policy recommendations to decision makers in this area. In the 
long term, these efforts will translate into additional or improved practical measures in 
view of the effective protection of people and the environment. 

The EY review [Ref 16] looked at projects funded under Euratom FP7 and as such projects 
funded between 2014 and 2016 were not the primary focus of this study. However, the 
review looked at the impact and usefulness of Euratom research in a more general sense, 
at the mobility of researchers within the Euratom programme and drew some conclusions 
for all areas of the Euratom programme. As CONCERT draws heavily on the output of 
previous research programmes, some of the findings of the review are directly relevant. In 
addition, the EY review also conducted a survey to assess satisfaction and opinion for all 
Euratom FP7 and 2014-18 projects and carried out the first of a series of qualitative 
interviews to assess end user views on the programme. CONCERT and other recent 
Euratom projects were included in the survey. 

In terms of relevance of CONCERT to the needs of the European research community, the 
call priorities of the first open CONCERT call have been established by taking into account 
the Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs) of the European radiation protection platforms 
MELODI, ALLIANCE, NERIS and EURADOS. 

5.2.5.  4.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

In the 2015-16 programme ESSANUF is an unusual research project and it is debatable 
whether it fits into the Euratom programme given the obvious commercial nature. 
However, given the vulnerability of the nuclear fuel supply to Russian VVER reactors in the 
EU, it is understandable that some funding of this work is justifiable. The objectives of the 
project [Ref 13] are comprehensive and relevant to the need to reinforce European 
capabilities for nuclear fuel supply for reactors of VVER-440 design and expedite the 
process of strengthening such capabilities. 

The project clearly is in line with the need to support the needs of EU citizens. However, as 
discussed in Section 3 above, the 100% Euratom funding for the project is debatable. 

The 2016-17 Work Programme has two projects in this area. The TRANSAT project is 
aimed a furthering understanding of the issues surrounding the management of tritium. As 
such it is relevant to both fission and fusion technologies. The M4F project aims to bring 
together the fusion and fission materials communities working on the prediction of 
microstructural-induced irradiation damage and deformation mechanisms of irradiated 
ferritic/martensitic steels. It is a multidisciplinary project, where both modelling and 
experiments at different scales will be integrated to foster the understanding of complex 
phenomena associated to the formation and evolution of irradiation induced defects and 
their role on the deformation behaviour. Both Projects are judged to be relevant and 
clearly consistent with the Euratom Work Programme and the needs of EU citizens. 

5.2.6.  4.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

In the 2014-15 programme the two projects, HERACLES-CP and MYRTE, are relevant to 
the wider EU nuclear research needs as set out in WP2014-15. 

55   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The 2016-17 Programme had one project FOREvER. This project, which is aimed at the 
security of supply for research reactor fuel is very relevant to the delivery of the Work 
Programme. 

5.2.7.  4.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

In the 2014-15 Programme three projects were selected, HoNEST, NUCL-EU2020 and 
SPRINT. All three are very different from each other but the projects aims and objectives 
are consistent with the Work Programme. The extent to which they meet the needs of 
European citizens is less clear. The HoNEST project should provide information to enable 
the public to have a better understanding of the history and social impacts of nuclear 
power in Europe. However, the €3m allocated to this seems excessive. The funding 
balance for the NUCL-EU 2020 and SPRINT projects is in line with their importance and 
priority. 

The 2016-17 programme does not include any projects in this area. 

5.3. 

4.3 

Relevance - Summary 

The Panel was asked two questions on the relevance of the Euratom Programme, namely: 
“To what extent do the objectives of the Euratom Programme still correspond to the needs 
of research stakeholders and to EU citizens?” and “Does the Programme offer the right 
balance between the various areas of nuclear research?” The Panel believes that the above 
analysis shows that the research being done in both the fusion and fission areas is relevant 
and does correspond to the needs of both the research stakeholders and the wider EU 
citizens. There is also a balanced programme that reflects the needs of both the fusion and 
fission communities. 

56 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

6.  5. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This chapter addresses the “Effectiveness” of the Euratom Programme. The focus in this 
chapter is to evaluate the progress being made towards the delivery of the objectives of 
the Euratom Programme and to identify any factors that are driving or hindering progress. 
The chapter also examines the impact of the new measures that have been introduced 
such as the ‘European Joint Programme’. Effectiveness also includes the evaluation of the 
main long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Framework Programme, and the extent 
to which the Euratom research programme is contributing to the wider EU strategic 
objectives and policies. 

6.1. 

5.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

Europe has a long-standing leadership in fusion with the largest magnetic confinement 
fusion device in operation (JET), the most advanced technology programme and the 
largest share of the ITER construction. This leadership has been achieved thanks to the 
Euratom programmes that have led to a coherent approach in the Member States and 
facilitated the emergence of excellence. 

The major factor driving the progress in fusion is ITER. Following the definition of the 
Roadmap in 2012, the Euratom programme has made substantial progress to secure the 
success of ITER and lay the foundation for a demonstration fusion power plant (DEMO). 

The test on JET of the ITER plasma facing materials (the ITER-like wall) has progressed 
and now awaits experiments with tritium. Tests are on-going of ITER systems that are 
critical for the authorization to progress from the pre-nuclear to the nuclear phase. The 
JET tritium experiment will also provide the best opportunity to train the ITER staff. JET 
will provide the largest impact for a successful ITER start, provided operation is extended 
up to 2024. 

The DEMO design activity has started in a professional manner. A substantial effort in the 
critical areas of materials and tritium breeding has been started. The original Roadmap 
approach, for the achievement of fusion electricity at the earliest possible time, should be 
maintained. This requires a focused approach to the R&D on DEMO and starting the DEMO 
Engineering Design Activity at the earliest possible time to make full advantage of the 
know-how generated in industry through the ITER construction. 

The stellarator research line has achieved an important milestone in the reporting period 
with the start of W7X. 

Progress have been achieved also thanks to a new organizational structure of fusion 
research that supports, through joint programming, a transparent allocation of funds and 
facilitates the emergence of excellence. 

The Fusion Roadmap is articulated in eight Missions. In the Annex 5 a list of technical 
achievements during the period 2014-2016 in each Mission is presented. A midterm review 
of the EUROfusion programme has been carried out in 2016 and made available to the 
Panel [Ref 7]. 

In order to evaluate the impact of the activities implemented by EUROfusion so far, the 
results are grouped under the following areas: the preparation for ITER exploitation, the 
design and R&D for DEMO, the stellarator line and training and mobility. 

6.1.1.  5.1.1 

Preparation For ITER Exploitation 

The main goal of the ITER preparation is to address (in conditions as close as possible to 
those of ITER) the main challenges that ITER will face in the first part of its exploitation. 
The impact on the programme of this approach is made clear by noting that if an issue is 
found now, remedial actions can be put in place in a timely manner to ensure a swift 
progress of ITER. If the same issue is found during the ITER exploitation, a significant 

57   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

delay and cost increase can ensue. For this reason, the preparation for the ITER 
exploitation is the main risk mitigation element in the Fusion Roadmap. 

The ITER schedule has been recently revised and it now foresees first plasma in 2025 (five 
years behind the original scheduled time) and the start of deuterium-tritium operation in 
2037 (a delay of nine years). The ITER delay with respect to what was assumed in the 
Fusion Roadmap makes even more necessary an adequate preparation to avoid the risk of 
further delays in achieving the Q=10 milestone on ITER. 

The Euratom 2014-2018 activities in fusion (the EUROfusion grant and the NJOC) devoted 
to the ITER preparation include the operation and exploitation of JET and other medium 
size tokamaks (MSTs) and the preparation for the exploitation of JT-60SA. 

6.1.1.1.5.1.1.1 

JET 

JET is the largest tokamak experiment in operation, the only one that can use tritium as 
fuel and that has beryllium as the plasma facing component. JET has been instrumental in 
achieving the European leadership in fusion. Thanks to the flexibility of its design it has 
been possible to adapt the facility to the changing needs in fusion research. 

During FP7 all the JET components inside the reaction chamber were replaced with the 
same combination of materials foreseen in ITER for the nuclear phase (beryllium for the 
main wall and tungsten for the divertor) - a combination never tested before. The 
successful operation on JET of the ITER-like wall (ILW) led to the ITER decision in 2013 to 
adopt this combination of materials also in the pre-nuclear phase, with a substantial saving 
in cost and a more robust strategy for the development of the ITER regimes of operation. 

The Panel considers this is one of the best examples of successful ITER risk mitigation. 

The exploitation of the ITER-like wall has been progressed further by EUROfusion (see 
Annex 5). JET experienced some operational difficulty at the beginning of the current 
Euratom Programme but is now operating well and the Panel expects that it can fulfil its 
tasks without any major issues related to machine reliability provided the ongoing 
refurbishment programme is completed. 

JET continues to play the crucial role for such a risk mitigation strategy for ITER. A detailed 
list of tasks that could be successfully carried out by JET has been produced by the ITER 
Organization following a request of this Panel and summarised below. Some of these tasks 
are already being implemented and some are new, following the evolution of the ITER 
Research Plan. Schematically, the goal of the tasks is to address on JET the following 
areas: 

  Development of ITER-relevant regimes of operation at high plasma current with 
tolerable stationary and transient heat loads on the plasma-facing components. 
This  is  particularly  relevant  as  JET  has  the  same  plasma  facing  materials  as 
ITER and can investigate deuterium-tritium plasmas. 

  Characterization of hydrogen and helium plasmas to be used in ITER during the 

pre-nuclear phase. 

  Test of reliable systems to mitigate off-normal events (disruptions and runaway 
generation)  utilizing  massive  material  injection,  in  particular  via  a  so-called 
"shattered pellet injector" foreseen for application to ITER. 

  Test and extensive use of the ITER Integrated Modelling Analysis Suite (IMAS). 
IMAS will be a key tool for the implementation of the ITER scientific programme, 
allowing  the  validation  of  plasma  regimes  of  operation  in  advance  of  their 
exploitation in ITER and the analysis of  experimental data resulting from the 
ITER operations programme. 

58 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

  Development of methods that impact on the nuclear safety of ITER such as dust 
and tritium inventory control, validation of the calculations of neutron streaming 
in  the  ITER  biological  shield,  characterization  of  collective  dose  distribution, 
validation of models for the production and transport of activated cooling water 
and activated corrosion products. 

  Characterization  of  effects  of  fusion  generated  neutrons  on  essential  ITER 

diagnostics. 

  Training  of  personnel  in  the  execution  of  tokamak  operating  sessions; 
operational experience with tritium for the ITER fuel cycle team and experience 
with beryllium handling. 

Some of these tasks must be completed by JET in order to facilitate the authorization 
process for ITER to progress from the pre-nuclear to the nuclear phase, others will allow to 
prepare in advance all the possible strategies during the nuclear phase to achieve the 
Q=10 milestone in the shortest possible time. Training of ITER personnel has an obvious 
impact in reducing the risks of ITER delays by transferring all the possible know-how and 
best practices to the ITER staff. 

The Panel has also examined the implications of different dates for the closure of JET on 
the basis of the schedule provided by EUROfusion [Ref 17]. 

In the event of a closure of JET in 2018 (end of the current Euratom Programme) only 
seven months of operation would be available for the programme. No deuterium-tritium 
experiment would be carried out and no input on the nuclear safety of ITER would be 
generated. The development of ITER relevant regimes of operation would be heavily 
constrained, the test of the disruption mitigation tools could be performed but no 
possibility of follow-up would be possible and training opportunities for the ITER team 
would be almost entirely lost. 

In case of closure in 2020, about 24 months of operation would be available and many of 
the above tasks could be partially addressed. A limited (four months) deuterium-tritium 
experiment could be executed. However, the helium campaign (a relevant test for the 
preparation of the ITER non-active phase) would not be carried out. This schedule (see 
Figure 1) would also force a "once through" approach that would preclude the possibility of 
returning to areas where the analysis would require a second iteration to complete the 
database, with the risk of leaving significant uncertainties in extrapolation to ITER. In 
addition, a closure in 2020 would heavily limit the training of ITER operational staff which 
is planned to be built up from 2020 onwards. Although in preparing this schedule 
reasonable assumptions for contingency have been made, any unforeseen event (e.g. a 
small delay in one of the scheduled shut-downs) could significantly impact on the amount 
of experimental time - from January 2018 to May 2020 the machine should be available 24 
months over 29 months. 

JET 2020 schedule (Orange=shut-down, Pale green=Restart, Blue=deuterium operation, 
Yellow=hydrogen/helium operation, Green=tritium operation) 

Figure 1 

59   

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The JET Team has also produced a tentative schedule to fully address all the ITER tasks 
(see Figure 2). This schedule foresees operation up to the end of 2024 with JET put in a 
safe state in 2025, with 54 months of operation over a total amount of 84 months 
including a 4-month full-tritium campaign and a 6-month deuterium-tritium campaign. 
This schedule also includes a four-month helium campaign. This option would allow 
addressing all the urgent ITER R&D needs listed above with a sufficient contingency 
margin and sufficient flexibility to adapt the programme on the basis of the indications 
emerging from the results obtained early in the experimental campaigns. Results would 
arrive in time to be incorporated in the ITER Research Plan in advance of the first ITER 
plasma in 2025. Furthermore, it would allow an optimal training of the ITER operational 
personnel. 

The Panel makes the following observations on the impact of the closure of JET on the 
following dates: 

JET schedule with DTE2 in 2019 (Orange=shut-down, Pale green=Restart, 
Blue=deuterium operation, Yellow=hydrogen/helium operation, Green=tritium 
operation) 

Figure 2 

  2018  -  most  of  the  tasks  requested  by  ITER  could  not  be  executed  and  no 
training  of  ITER  staff  would  be  possible.  The  scientific  return  out  of  the 
investments made in JET in 2004-2011 would be severely reduced. 

  2020  -  most  of  the  tasks  could  be  preliminarily  addressed  but  it  would  be 
impossible to have any follow-up on the findings. The availability requested of 
JET during this period appears to be challenging and the risk that the program 
could not be completed seems high. No substantial training of the  ITER staff 
would be possible. 

  2024 - all the ITER tasks could be completed with  sufficient depth to inform 
the ITER Research Plan and the training of ITER staff would be possible. This is 
also  the  option  proposed  by  the  international  ITER  Organisation  (ITER  IO) 
[Ref 18]. 

It is important to acknowledge that JET is the only fusion device with the closest possible 
conditions to ITER that is available to address urgent R&D needs that may arise in the 
period leading up to the first ITER plasma. Therefore, JET provides the last opportunity to 
address in advance of the ITER first plasma the main risks to the successful operation of 
ITER in ITER-relevant conditions. 

Recommendation 3: In view of the importance of JET for ITER 
the JET campaigns should be extended up to 2024. 

6.1.1.2.5.1.1.2  Medium size tokamaks and PWI devices 

In the current Euratom Programme the ITER preparation activities have been significantly 
improved through the joint exploitation through a campaign-oriented approach of the 
medium size tokamaks (ASDEX-U, MAST-U and TCV) that have emerged from the 2008 
Facility Review [Ref 8] as those having features relevant for ITER. Linear plasma devices 

60 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

(MAGNUM-PSI, Pilot-PSI, etc.) and the WEST tokamak are also used collectively for 
plasma-wall interaction studies in support of ITER. This programme also investigates 
alternative solutions for the heat exhaust in DEMO at a proof-of-principle level. 

Until FP7, the exploitation of these devices, although supported by Euratom, was under the 
responsibility of their home laboratories. Bilateral collaborations were in place and 
exchange of personnel was supported through the Euratom mobility funds. In some cases, 
the EFDA Leader was involved in an advisory role. 

From 2014With Horizon 2020 a substantial part of the experimental programme is now 
carried out under the EUROfusion responsibility, in a way similar to the exploitation of JET. 
The experimental programme is discussed collectively and implemented under the 
responsibility of the relevant EUROfusion Task Force Leaders and Project Leaders. 

The main advantage of the new system is the integration among the experimental 
programmes of the various facilities. This allows an optimal allocation of tasks to the 
various European facilities (JET, MSTs and plasma-wall interaction devices) through the 
selection of the facility best suited for the execution each task. The execution of the 
programmes has been harmonized to allow the participation of the key scientists to each 
task. The Panel is convinced that this approach has substantially increased the added 
value of the Euratom contribution. 

6.1.1.3.5.1.1.3 

JT-60SA 

JT-60SA is a superconducting tokamak built within the Broader Approach activities in 
collaboration with Japan. It is expected that the construction of JT-60SA will be completed 
by the end of 2019. JT-60SA has a plasma current similar to that of JET but thanks to the 
use of superconductors is particularly suited for the development of advanced tokamak 
regimes of operation in preparation of the second phase of the ITER exploitation. Thus, in 
the next decade as soon as the commissioning of the device has been completed and a 
substantial amount of heating power is available, JT-60SA will play an important role in 
support of the preparation for the ITER exploitation. 

The activities for the preparation of the JT-60SA exploitation are progressing well in 
collaboration between EUROfusion, F4E and Japan. Specifically, the JT-60SA Research Plan 
has been revised in order to incorporate the input of the European scientists. 

6.1.2.  5.1.2 

DEMO Conceptual Design and R&D 

The launch of an ambitious DEMO Conceptual Design Activity (CDA) and R&D is one of the 
distinctive features of the Euratom Programme fusion activities, with an increase by about 
an order of magnitude in the budget in this area with respect to Euratom FP7. The main 
goal is to complete the Conceptual Design and the associated R&D by 2020. 

The Panel notes that the DEMO design activity has started in a professional manner with a 
thorough examination of system integration aspects supported by a systems engineering 
approach. The Panel encourages the continuation of this work. 

A baseline architecture has been established that integrates all the major DEMO sub-
systems into a coherent plant concept. This approach is necessary in order for the plant 
design to drive R&D and not the other way round. A stakeholder group has been also set 
up in order to gather the view of industry and utilities on the mission of DEMO. 

Different projects have been set up to implement the R&D effort on all the main DEMO 
technologies: breeding blanket, balance-of-plant, diagnostic and control, divertor, 
superconducting magnets, heating and current drive, material, remote maintenance, 
safety and fuelling. The allocation of resources privileges those areas not covered by the 
ITER R&D, namely tritium breeding and materials, or that require a substantial change in 
approach with respect to ITER such as remote maintenance. 

The focus of the activities in the Breeding Blanket Project is on strengthening the technical 
basis and resolving all the main technical issues associated with the four breeding blanket 

61   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

concepts that have been selected in 2012 as promising candidates for this programme. 
The present schedule foresees the selection of one concept completed by 2024 (rather 
than by 2020 as in the original programme). The possibility of realigning the ITER Test 
Blanket Module (TBM) and EUROfusion Breeding Blanket programmes is also being 
discussed with F4E. 

The Panel supports a realignment of the TBM programme  to the priorities of the Fusion 
Roadmap. 

In the area of materials, different options are being investigated for reduced activation 
steels with the goal of increasing the operational window in temperature. The programme 
experienced some delay as specific financial provisions had to be put in place to support 
irradiation campaigns in material test facilities. First results from neutron irradiation in 
material testing reactors are expected by 2020. 

As to the schedule for the completion of the DEMO design activity, the Panel notes that the 
timing of the decision on the DEMO construction is determined in the Fusion Roadmap by 
the following elements: 

  The time at which ITER will confirm the viability for DEMO of the plasma regimes 
of operation. This is conventionally identified with the achievement of the Q=10 
milestone. 

  The need to exploit the know-how and experience gained in industry during the 
ITER construction by launching at an early stage the DEMO Engineering Design 
Activity (EDA). 

As to the first point, the ITER schedule, at the time of the preparation of the Fusion 
Roadmap, foresaw the Q=10 milestone achieved in 2030. In the revised ITER schedule 
there is a nine year delay in the achievement of the Q=10 milestone. 

As to the second point, at the time of the preparation of the Roadmap the first assembly 
phase of the main machine components (magnets, vacuum vessel, cryostat - internal 
components will be installed in two successive phases) was expected to be completed at 
the beginning of 2020 whereas the revised schedule foresees now the end of 2024. This 
date is important as the components involved in the first assembly phase are the 
components that mostly impact the cost of the fusion power plant core and on which the 
industrial expertise will be crucial in finding more innovative and less expensive solutions 
for DEMO. Hence, the need for a start of the DEMO EDA not much later than the end of the 
first ITER assembly phase. 

In dealing with the impact of the change in the ITER schedule EUROfusion is proposing: 

  To  align  the  DEMO  decision  of  construction  to  the  new  date  for  the  Q=10 

milestone on ITER; 

  To postpone the start of the DEMO EDA to 2030. The time up to 2030 would be 
devoted to a pre-conceptual design activity for the period 2014-2020 followed 
by a true CDA in the period 2020-2030. 

The Panel supports the proposal of aligning the decision of DEMO construction to the new 
date for the Q=10 milestone on ITER. 

However, because of the importance of aligning the start of the DEMO EDA with the 
completion of the main ITER machine components, the Panel believes that the DEMO CDA 
should not be delayed in order for the DEMO EDA to start around 2025, as explained 
above. 

Recommendation 4: EUROfusion should not delay the DEMO CDA 
and should start the DEMO EDA around 2025 in order to maintain 
the industrial know-how generated by the ITER construction. 

62 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The new schedule of the DEMO CDA/EDA is indeed motivated not only by the delay in the 
ITER schedule but also by the goal of redefining the DEMO concept as close as possible to 
that of a commercial fusion power plant. For this reason a number of different options are 
presently being explored ranging from limited modifications of the magnetic configuration 
(e.g. going from the ITER single-null to a double-null magnetic equilibrium) to 
configurations capable of incorporating very different features (e.g. advanced divertor 
configurations) and presently tested only at a proof-of-principle level. 

The focus of the DEMO programme should be maintained on an ITER-like DEMO design 
because fusion will become a credible energy source only when it will demonstrate the 
production of net electricity in large-scale plant with a reasonable amount of availability in 
an integrated way including tritium breeding, nuclear safety and electricity conversion in 
one facility. Thus, an approach should be taken that prioritises a rapid build-up of the 
know-how in the nuclear aspects of fusion, rather than trying to figure out at this stage 
the layout of a commercial power plant. 

Studies of advanced fusion power demonstration concepts have certainly a value but the 
timescale for the validation of their underlying assumptions makes it likely that such 
advanced demonstration concepts, if feasible at all, will demonstrate electricity production 
at a much later stage. These investigations can be pursued with limited resources but 
should not interfere with DEMO design work and its goal of early electricity production 
while more innovative solutions are developed and qualified in parallel. 

At the present stage of development of fusion research, setting the commercial fusion 
power plant as the target for the research effort to be carried out over the next two 
decades may be overambitious. It would defocus the activities and increase the time of the 
realization of fusion even beyond what is presently foreseen by the Roadmap revision 
under discussion. 

Recommendation  5:  EUROfusion  to  maintain  the  original 
Roadmap focus on DEMO as an ITER-like tokamak to be built as 
soon as ITER achieves the Q=10 target. 

6.1.3.  5.1.3 

Stellarator 

The stellarator line is a potential alternative to the tokamak line with intrinsic advantages 
since the confining magnetic field can be generated by external coil only and the 
configuration is not prone to the problem of disruptions. A new large facility (W7X) has 
started in 2016 and the operation and its exploitation is involving all the EUROfusion 
laboratories. The main objective of the first campaign was the integral commissioning of 
plasma start-up and operation using an electron cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) 
system and an extensive set of plasma diagnostics. 

6.1.4.  5.1.4 

Training and Mobility 

Past training programmes under EFDA such as the European Fusion Research Fellowship 
and the Goal-Oriented Training programmes have been effective, as shown by the 
selection of high-quality students and research proposals and by the large fraction of the 
participants staying in fusion research. 

Regarding education, EUROfusion recognises the need to continue the previous PhD 
support activities. However, the Panel believes that there is a need for EUROfusion to focus 
more attention on fusion technology and engineering skills. 

Recommendation  6:  EUROfusion  should  use  its  educational 
resources to promote educational programmes that will deliver 
the  nuclear  engineers  and  technologists  as  foreseen  in  the 
Roadmap. 

Mobility in fusion research is important to underpinning the successful transition to a more 
integrated and results focused way of working within the framework of increasingly 

63   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

complex pan-European projects. The mobility support covers three elements (all on unit-
cost scheme): funding for visiting scientists, secondees, and fellowships. With EUROfusion, 
mobility now has to be justified by the needs of the programme and is directly integrated 
into the programme budget and managed within each project and taskforce. Research 
grants were awarded by a panel based on the quality of the proposal. Engineering grants 
were given for individual proposals attached to projects and not given to the Research 
Units. 

Some of the stakeholders interviewed by the Panel suggested that mobility support needs 
increased attention as it appears to be more restrictive in EUROfusion than it has been 
under the previous system. This has created discontent [Ref 16] that chiefly stems from 
the “unit cost” Commission Decision [Ref 19], a system whereby travel costs are 
reimbursed by a lump sum based on rates defined in the Decision. According to Art 2.1.1 
of the Decision the unit cost scheme does apply to secondments, both short-term such as 
for JET campaigns and long-term such as to the PMU. However, the interpretation of Art. 
2.1.1 is quite broad, meaning that short ‘missions’ such as to attend the General Assembly 
or to support networking among the labs can also be covered. The system has tended to 
create additional administrative burden for some Research Units, particularly larger ones 
that are used to applying national cost-based reimbursement schemes. The unit cost 
scheme also seems to penalise secondments to the PMU. 

While available statistical data do not point towards a negative impact on mobility, the 
PMU could address these issues by proposing, for example, that application of unit costs is 
restricted to true secondments for the purposes of actual research activities. 

Table 15 provides a good estimate of the number of researchers receiving mobility support 
(in comparison with FP7). 

The short-term mobility has become more clearly focused on the implementation of the 
Roadmap. However, the support for mobility appears to be overwhelmingly  

Table 15 
Number of researchers receiving mobility support (data from EUROfusion) 

Year 

2014 

2015 

Researchers 
supported 

Mission 
days 

Researchers supported accessing 
infrastructure 

839 

842 

10 572 

10 860 

872 

958 

concentrated on the physics side of EUROfusion activity (e.g., experimental campaigns at 
JET and the medium-sized tokamaks). It should be noted that developing a higher level of 
mobility is also important for creating scientific networks between the different Research 
Units involved, particularly within the context of fragmented and geographically dispersed 
project teams. 

Issues with long-term mobility of the Programme are quite different. The unit cost decision 
provides the basis for the supplemental remuneration of secondees to the Programme 
Management Unit (PMU). 

Recommendation  7:  EUROfusion  and  the  Commission  should 
review  the  impact  of  Unit  Costs  on  mobility  and  make  any 
necessary changes. 
6.2. 

Nuclear Fission 

5.2 

Most projects selected after the first call (WP2014-15) of the Euratom Programme started 
in 2015 with duration of usually four years for Research and Innovation Action (RIA) 
projects. Therefore the Panel has only seen a limited number of periodic progress reports 
that in many cases focus on the administrative aspects and project implementation issues. 

64 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

There is even less information available to judge the progress of the projects in the 2016-
17 Programme. 

In the Fission area the concept of joint programming (European Joint Programme / 
Programme Co-fund Action) is in its infancy and hence it is too early to see definitive 
evidence one-way or the other. However there are signs that it is not always beneficial to 
adopt a joint programming approach and it should only be used when it can offer clear 
benefits to research coordination. 

It is difficult to define what the long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Programmes 
have been other than to say that research activities have generally been focused on 
providing support to the delivery of a safe and secure nuclear energy programme in the EU 
and on understanding the effects of ionizing radiation on human health. 

The impact of the previous Euratom Framework Programme FP7/FP7+2 is effectively 
summarized in the EY report [Ref 16] and in the ex-post evaluation [Ref 12]. Both these 
reports conclude that in general the research has contributed to the EU’s strategic 
objectives and policies. 

6.2.1.  5.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

Not all of the seven projects in this area of the 2014-15 Programme have detailed 
documentation showing progress against the required deliverables. The following 
summarises the progress to date of these projects based upon the available reports 
supplied by the Commission and information obtained from the project websites. 

FASTNET 
The main objective of this project is to set up a severe accident scenarios database 
[Ref 20]. The project implementation is over a 4-year period Oct 2015-September 2019. 
There are five work packages (WP): WP1 Development of a Scenarios Database; WP2 
Emergency Preparedness; WP3 Emergency Response, WP4 Benchmarking and WP5 
Dissemination. To date progress on WP1 has been reported on the successful completion 
of the first FASTNET workshop in November 2016 in Bologna [Ref 21]. Further workshops 
in Stockholm in January 2017 discussed progress on WP1 and WP2. 

INCEFA-PLUS 
The objective of this project is to develop new guidelines for assessment of environmental 
fatigue damage susceptibility for nuclear power plant (NPP) components [Ref 22]. The 
project has two main parts: 

  The  characterization  of  a  limited  selection  of  typical  austenitic  stainless  steel 

alloys employed in NPPs; and 

  The development of a modified procedure for estimating the fatigue degradation 

of the materials. 

The main deliverable of the project [Ref 23] is a new or modified fatigue analysis 
procedure. Besides a new/revised fatigue analysis procedure the project will also establish 
a new fatigue data format standard. 

In the first 18 months of the project, progress has been made on all four Work Packages 
(WP). In WP1 (Project Management) an advisory board has been established, terms of 
reference agreed and a number of project meetings convened. In WP2 (Test Programme) 
the test programme for phase I has been agreed but commencement of testing was 
delayed due to a combination of specimens not being available and some laboratories not 
being ready. WP3 (Development of a fatigue analysis procedure) is progressing: A 
workshop has been delivered along with a full day web meeting to develop ideas for data 
analysis. In WP4 (Development of INCEFA-PLUS website, training seminars and 
workshops) the project was presented at several international conferences, and also to the 
World Nuclear Association CORDEL project. At one of the conferences the presentation was 
included in a session co-organized by the INCEFA-PLUS project. 

65   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Overall the project appears to be progressing and the agreement of a testing protocol that 
is being adhered to by 16 partners from across Europe is a major development. 

IVMR 
The IVMR (In-Vessel Melt Retention) project [Ref 24] aims at providing new knowledge 
(experimental, theoretical and technical) and a new methodology able to provide a best-
estimate evaluation of In-Vessel Retention (IVR) strategy for large power reactors. The 
project has six work packages (WP). WP1 (Project Management) appears to have delivered 
most of the expected deliverables to date. In WP2 (Methodology and Modelling Activities) a 
considerable amount of work has been reported in this area with extensive modelling work 
being completed. WP3 (Experimental study of heat and mass transfer in stratified molten 
pool within RPV lower head) is showing that a considerable amount of work has gone into 
planning experiments and constructing suitable facilities but no experiments have take 
place so far. In WP4 (Experimental assessment of vessel external cooling and long term 
stabilization), in the case of the small-scale experimental activities, work is on schedule as 
is the construction of the large-scale test facility. For WP5 (Review of innovation and 
technical engineering applicable to IVMR – New ideas for the efficiency and optimal 
management of IVMR) again a considerable amount of work has been reported in this 
area. In WP6 (Dissemination and use of results) to date there have been a few 
publications but there are activities such as conferences planned to further disseminate 
results. 

Overall reasonable progress is being made with the first year being mostly dedicated to 
analytical work and the development of “benchmark exercises which should lead to a 
common understanding and evaluation of the IVR strategy and, later, to a harmonization 
of the methodology at the European level (or even at the international level if connections 
can be established with external countries).” 

SAMOFAR 
The objective of SAMOFAR is to prove the innovative safety concepts of the Molten Salt 
Fast Reactor (MSFR) by advanced experimental and numerical techniques, to deliver a 
breakthrough in nuclear safety and optimal waste management, and to create a 
consortium of stakeholders to demonstrate the MSFR beyond SAMOFAR [Ref 25]. A “Kick 
Off” meeting was held at Delft University on 15 August 2015 and to date the Project has 
produced 25 publications. Another deliverable has been the “Description of initial reference 
design and identification of safety aspects” [Ref 26]. Deliverable 1.1 presents the initial 
reference design and operation procedures of the MSFR proposed by CNRS and the other 
partners of WP1 at the beginning of the project. 

SOTERIA 
The aim of this project is to improve understanding of the ageing effects in reactor 
pressure vessel steels in order to ensure the safe long-term operation of Europe’s nuclear 
power plants. The aims and objectives of the project [Ref 27] are impressive but all key 
deliverables are not due until the end of the project mid 2019. Of the short-term 
deliverables the “Kick-Off” meeting was held within the first month of the project start 
date as required [Ref 28] and the website is up and running [Ref 29]. 

sCO2-HeRo 
The objective of this project is to show the proof of the concept of the supercritical CO2 
heat removal (sCO2-HeRo) system. The project has five work packages: WP1 System 
Integration and Simulation; WP2 Heat Exchanger; WP3 Turbo Machine Set; WP4 
integration in the Glass Model; and WP5 Exploitation and Dissemination. The Project 
deliverables are given at the Project website [Ref 30] but it is not clear if the deliverables 
were delivered on time. Some of the project meetings have taken place, a 3D-printed 
model of the turbomachine has been delivered as well as the 1st European Seminar on 
“Supercritical CO2 Power Systems”, TU Vienna, 29-30 Sep 2016. All this indicates that 
progress is being made. 

SESAME 
SESAME is a coordinated R&D programme for nuclear thermal-hydraulics reactor safety to 
support both future reactors and the continued safe operation of existing nuclear plants 

66 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

[Ref 31]. It aims to maintain and develop the necessary supporting research 
infrastructures, such as experimental facilities and numerical tools. It will use available 
liquid metal laboratories and facilities in Europe, such as the existing facilities from KALLA, 
KASOLA, CIRCE, TALL, NACIE, and the Phénix sodium fast reactor. 

In the short term, SESAME will improve the thermal hydraulics knowledge base for liquid 
metal fast reactors and for contemporary light water reactors. The new experimental data 
and the advanced simulation approaches to be developed within SESAME will support 
interactions with stakeholders at large and the civil society on nuclear reactor safety. In 
the medium term, the project will improve the safety of liquid metal fast reactors and 
contemporary light water reactors in Europe, and in a second step globally, by making 
available new safety related experimental results and improved numerical approaches. 

The publishable summary for this project [Ref 32] and the Technical Report [Ref 33] 
provide details of the progress that has been made so far. Information on the project 
milestones [Ref 34] and deliverables [Ref 35] show that for all the milestones most of the 
deliverables have been achieved, to the extent that reports have been submitted. 

6.2.2.  5.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

There are five projects the 2014-15 Programme: CEBAMA, JOPRAD, MIND, Modern2020 
and SITEX-II. 

Cebama 
Cebama is a 4-year project that started 1st of June 2015. The consortium has 27 members 
including some from Switzerland and Japan. The main objective of Cebama is to support 
the implementation of geological disposal by significantly improving the knowledge base 
for the Safety Case for European repository concepts. 

The project has five work packages: WP1- Experiments on interface processes and the 
impact on physical properties; WP2 - Radionuclide retention; WP3 - Interpretation and 
modelling; WP4 - Documentation, knowledge management, dissemination and training; 
WP5 - Management. Progress in each of deliverables in each of the work packages is 
encouraging [Ref 36] [Ref 37] with a number of workshops being delivered and 
experimental programmes started. 

JOPRAD 
The overall aim of the JOPRAD project is to assess the feasibility and prepare for the 
setting-up for a RD&D European Joint Programme (EJP) that would bring together all R&D 
activities in the field of geological disposal of spent fuel and other higher activity 
radioactive waste. The Joint Programme would also include pre-disposal activities such as 
treatment, characterization and conditioning of radioactive waste and the accompanying 
key horizontal activities of knowledge management and training. 

JOPRAD has six work packages: Management (WP1); Engagement and Commitment of 
Member States (WP2); Basis of the “Programme Document” (WP3); Production of the 
“Programme Document” (WP4); Preparation for Implementation (WP5); and Dissemination 
of the Project outcomes (WP6). A number of events took place in 2016 to discuss the order 
to inform on, engage and involve countries in the process of European Joint Programming 
(EJP) and its preparation within the JOPRAD project [Ref 38]. Various newsletters have 
been published [Ref 39] [Ref 40] which illustrate progress being made. The report on the 
project milestones [Ref 41] shows that all the milestones up to August 2016 have been 
achieved. However out of some 25 planned deliverables only 15 have been delivered on 
time [Ref 42]. Of the outstanding deliverables some were nine months late. 

Given the level of progress that had been made by the end of Dec 2016 it is difficult to see 
how EJP could go ahead in this area. The Panel believes that in principle EJP in waste 
management has some potential advantage but more work is needed to demonstrate that 
it is sufficiently developed to be able to judge the benefits at this point in time. 

67   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Recommendation  8:  For  WP2018  or  the  extension  of  Euratom 
2014-18  the  Commission  and  Members  States  should  carefully 
consider  if  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate  that  the 
EJP instrument can be applied to research on geological disposal 
of radioactive waste at this point in time. 

More recent information suggests that things have improved, however the Panel believes 
the above recommendation remains valid in view of the importance of the topic.  

MIND 
The Microbiology In Nuclear Waste Disposal (MIND) programme is a unique 
multidisciplinary project that brings together a broad range of leading research institutions 
and stakeholders in the field of radioactive waste disposal. Its main objective is to address 
the key technical issues, involving microbial processes that could affect the safety case for 
geological disposal facilities. The project has a website [Ref 43]. There are four work 
packages: WP1 Improving the geological safety case knowledge of the behaviour of 
organic containing long-lived ILW; WP2 Improving the safety case knowledge base of 
HLW; WP3 Integration, communication and dissemination of experimental and 
computational output and WP4 Project management. The Project Publishable Summary 
[Ref 44] shows that the “Kick Off” meeting took place in September 2015 and that good 
progress is being made in the delivery of the work packages. Progress against the project 
milestones [Ref 45] and deliverables [Ref 46] shows that all milestones up to December 
2016 have been achieved and all the required reports have been delivered. 

Modern 2020 
The objective of this project is to develop and implement an effective and efficient 
repository operational monitoring programme for radioactive waste geological disposal 
facilities. The project has six work packages. WP1 deals with management and 
administration. WP2 Strategy: addresses the development of detailed methodologies for 
screening safety cases to identify needs-driven repository monitoring strategies and to 
develop operational approaches for responding to monitoring information. WP3 
Technology: is aimed at carrying out research and development (R&D) to solve 
outstanding technical issues in repository monitoring, which are related with wireless data 
transmission technologies, alternative long term power supplies, new sensors, geophysics, 
reliability and qualification of components. WP4 Demonstration and Practical 
Implementation: aims to enhance knowledge on the operational implementation and 
demonstrate the performance of state-of-the-art and innovative techniques by running 
full-scale and in-situ experiments. WP5 Societal concerns and Stakeholder Involvement: 
Develop and evaluate ways for integrating public stakeholders concerns and societal 
expectations into repository monitoring programmes. WP6 Dissemination: addresses the 
distribution of knowledge gained from the project including the provision of a project 
website [Ref 47]. 

The Publishable Summary of the project [Ref 48] gives a review of progress against the 
work packages. Progress against project milestones [Ref 49] indicates that 17 out of the 
18 Milestones up to January 2017 had been achieved. 

In addition out of the 9 required deliverables 8 had been submitted [Ref 50]. 

SITEX-II 
This project aims at further developing the independent Expertise Function network in the 
field of deep geological disposal safety [Ref 51]. The project has six work packages: WP1 
covers Programming R&D; WP2 aims at developing a joint review framework; WP3 covers 
training and tutoring for reviewing the safety case; WP4 deals with interactions with civil 
society; and WP5 covers management and coordination. 

The Publishable Summary [Ref 52] shows the progress being made in the early stages of 
the project, such as the development of a strategic research agenda, consideration of the 
implications of Joint Programming and the initial steps for developing guidance on 
reviewing safety cases for a geological disposal facility. Progress against the achievement 
of the project milestones [Ref 53] suggests that all milestones up to the end of November 

68 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

2016 have been achieved. Of the eight deliverables for the project up to the 1 February 
2017, seven have been submitted on time [Ref 54]. 

6.2.3. 

5.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

The fission programme ensures the availability of required competences through education 
and training. Though the provision of the Programme’s regulation for education and 
training are rather general and there are no specific objectives in Project’s work packages, 
the programme goals are realized. However, better specification of goals in Euratom Work 
Programme may facilitate the implementation of education and training in the Euratom 
Programme. In general it is recognised that about 5% of every project in fission 
programme should be spent on education and training. 

Recommendation  9:  For  the  implementation  of  future  research 
Programmes  the  Commission  should  ensure  that  there  are 
specific  objectives  for  the  delivery  of  education  and  training  in 
the Work Programme. 

A number of topics concerning education and training actions was launched under 
WP2014-15. 

One of the main goals of the project Advanced Networking for Nuclear Education and 
Training and Transfer of Expertise (ANNETTE) [Ref 56] is developing research and training 
programmes to maintain nuclear expertise by generating research and training 
competences. It is dealing with the further implementation, in the nuclear and relevant 
medical and industrial sectors, of the EU policies stemming from the Bologna and 
Copenhagen processes. Education organisations participate in collaboration with the 
industry, research and regulatory organisations. A special effort is devoted to the 
development of European Masters curricula and summer schools for the continuous 
professional development of researchers and other private/public actors. 

The CORONA II project aims at continuation of the European cooperation and support in 
the area for preservation and further development of expertise in the nuclear field by 
improvement of higher education and training through networking between universities, 
regulatory bodies, industry and any other organisations involved in the application of 
nuclear science, ionising radiation and nuclear safety [Ref 57]. A specific objective of the 
CORONA II project is to proceed with the development of a state-of-the-art regional 
training centre for VVER competence (called CORONA II Academy), whose pilot 
implementation through the (2011-2014) CORONA project proved to be a viable solution 
for supporting transnational mobility and lifelong learning amongst VVER operating 
countries. The selected form of the CORONA II Academy, together with the online 
availability of the training opportunities allows trainees from different locations to access 
the necessary knowledge on demand. The available set of courses covers the whole range 
of training of VVER specialists from the university until reaching high professional skills and 
competences in the area. 

Further to the projects ANNETTE and CORONA II launched under the topic of nuclear 
expertise and excellence, the projects CONCERT and MYRTE have important education and 
training work packages. 

In CONCERT (European Joint Programme for the Integration of Radiation Protection 
Research), a special budget of about €6.5m Euro [Ref 55] is allocated to education and 
training (70% EC and 30% national funding). In the work packages, education and 
training courses and travel grants are funded. Proposals for open calls have to show how 
education and training is integrated. Training courses are funded via open calls, in the 
2015-2016 call eight courses have been funded, and fourteen in the next call. They are 
mainly in the range of €20-30k. Training courses developed and training materials are 
made available openly. 

MYRTE has an education and training work package in addition to five technical work 
packages. The work package on training has three dedicated tasks: (a) Course on 
accelerators and accelerator-driven systems (ADS systems) and lecture notes; (b) lecture 

69   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

series on thermohydraulics and chemistry; and (c) a workshop at the end of project 
[Ref 58]. This includes also education and training of young scientists, master and PhD 
students in the scientific and technologies challenges related to all work packages of 
MYRTE. Communication and dissemination of the latest results will be achieved through an 
international workshop open to the whole scientific community. 

Communication with the public and technological awareness are important aspects since 
civic society's interaction with nuclear developments changes over time, and is locally, 
nationally and transnationally specific. Project HoNESt (History of Nuclear Energy and 
Society) [Ref 59] involves an interdisciplinary team of 24 high profile research institutions 
to cover the complexity of political, technological and economic challenges; safety; risk 
perception and communication, public engagement, media framing, social movements, 
etc. Research on these interactions has thus far been mostly fragmented. Extensive 
historical data from different countries are analysed through the lens of an integrated 
approach, in order to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying decision-
making and associated citizen engagement with nuclear power. 

The concept of fission mobility has been presented in Annex 1 of the Council Regulation 
[Ref 1] of Euratom 2014-2018. One of the activities identified as necessary to achieve the 
Council objective of “Supporting the development and sustainability of nuclear expertise 
and excellence in the Union” was defined as “promoting joint training and mobility 
activities between research centres and industry and between different Member States and 
Associated States” [Ref 1]. The objective is to facilitate the mobility of teachers and 
students, in particular through support from public-private partnerships. Such mobility is 
essential for a research community allowing for cross-pollination of ideas between both 
cultures and disciplines. Mobility is encouraged for scientists through grants and 
fellowships that help them move between universities and research institutes within and 
outside the EU. 

The 2014-2015 Euratom Work Programme identified in topic NFRP 10 a particular 
challenge for the nuclear education and training community in relation to cross-border 
mobility. However, no reference is made to mobility within the 2016-2017 Work 
Programme.  

6.2.4.  5.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

The FP7/FP7+2 Activity ‘Radiation Protection’ was aimed at providing a scientific basis for 
a robust, equitable and socially acceptable system of protection that would not unduly limit 
the beneficial and widespread uses of radiation in medicine and industry in particular with 
regards to low dose exposure. The Activity was divided into four areas: ‘Quantification of 
risks for low and protracted exposures’, ‘Medical uses of radiation’, ‘Emergency 
management and rehabilitation’ and ‘Other topics: national research activities in other 
areas’. The expected impact was to understand the medical mechanisms linked with 
radiation and to establish a clear link between exposure level and radiation effects. The 
objectives and strategies of the projects in this Activity were further informed by the 2009 
report published by the High Level Expert Group on European Low Dose Risk Research. 

In the area of risk quantification for low and protracted exposures, a total of €86.7m was 
provided to support 12 projects over the period 2007 to 2013. A number of projects were 
focused on the integration and coordination of radioprotection research in Europe including 
the DoReMi project which supported the development of the Multidisciplinary European 
Low Dose Risk Re-search Initiative - MELODI. The on-going OPERRA project established a 
mechanism for joint programming and implementation of radiation protection research, 
organising two rounds of competitive calls to date, and began preparation of an education 
and training strategy. 

In the area of medical uses of radiation, six projects were funded over the period 2007 to 
2010 for a total cost of €23.1m. 

70 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

For both of these areas (risk quantification and medical uses), the EY review [Ref 16] 
concluded that the projects funded under FP7 were implemented in line with the objectives 
set out in the work programmes and produced expected outputs with few deviations. 

Output from previously funded programmes suggests that the Euratom programme is 
delivering results. For example in DoReMi, most of the funding was for integration, only a 
small amount for research and studies and yet more than 100 publications have been 
produced; much of this research was done by labs alone, but the programme brought 
them together. OPERRA had more funds for direct support of research, but results are still 
awaited. The lesson from DoReMi is that forcing collective work on consortia is productive 
[Ref 60] and results in higher output. 

MELODI showed that epidemiological research alone cannot resolve the questions of low 
dose research; only multidisciplinary R&D can do that [Ref 60]. 

The views expressed above are corroborated by the EY review [Ref 16]. EY conducted 47 
case studies of FP7 fission projects with 10 of these funded under the Activity radiation 
protection. The report considers the projects under the headings Effectiveness, Coherence 
and Complementarity, Impact and EU Added Value of the Euratom programme. In terms 
of effectiveness, they concluded that all of the projects reviewed produced the expected 
outputs and results with no issues identified that would impact on effectiveness. The 
reviewers highlighted two of the projects (DoReMi & OPERRA) as playing an important role 
in supporting the coordination of radiation protection research in Europe. DoReMi (funding 
in excess of €20m) supported the structuring and management of a network of excellence 
involving a large number of labs (36 labs) to support European and international research 
on low dose effects of ionizing radiation. OPERRA contributed to structuring the national 
and European research and training programmes in radiation protection, including the 
medical use of radiation, low dose effects, radioecology and nuclear emergency 
management. Of note, EY observed that OPERRA also laid the ground work for an 
integrated platform for managing competitive calls with a significant involvement of 
stakeholders to define research priorities in radiation protection. The reviewers also 
commented that the DoReMi and OPERRA projects both contributed to better structuring 
and coordinating radiation protection research in Europe. 

The EY survey to assess satisfaction and opinion for all FP7 and H2020 projects generally 
found satisfaction among respondents with the Euratom programme. Of note in relation to 
the effectiveness of the programme however, were indications that delays were sometimes 
encountered mainly because of the nature and unpredictability of scientific research, but 
also because of administrative delays. The CONCERT project was cited as an example 
where such delays were encountered. 

The scope of the Activity within NFRP7-2015 was such that it was intended to build on the 
work of previous research platforms such as MELODI, NERIS, ALLIANCE and EURADOS. 
More recently, a new platform EURAMED has been established. CONCERT is committed to 
the vision of a strong science based roadmap in radiation protection research, tailored to 
the protection needs of society, stakeholders and authorities, that will serve the radiation 
protection community beyond the actual project. A first joint roadmap draft of all platforms 
is foreseen and work is in progress (CONCERT deliverable D3.4 mid 2017). The long-term 
research roadmap that will be jointly produced, could build the basis for future research 
Programmes in Europe. 

The 2014-2015 Work Programme's topic NFRP7-2015 identified the need for a reinforced 
multidisciplinary approach to research and innovation and considers it to be essential to 
further develop the knowledge base in this field. CONCERT considers that integration of a) 
research activities in the field of medical applications of ionising radiation and b) of 
research in social sciences and humanities (SSH) related to radiation protection should be 
taken into account in future open calls. Part of the scope of Activity envisaged under 
NFRP7-2015 was to address the challenge of communicating results in radiation protection 
to non-specialist audiences such as policy decision makers and the public at large. 

To reach its goals CONCERT has seven work packages within which these high level 
objectives are to be explored and developed: 

71   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  WP 1 deals with the management of CONCERT 

  WP 2 on integration in radiation protection research 

  WP 3 on joint research programming, 

  WP 4 on administration of the CONCERT open research calls, 

  WP 5 on stakeholder involvement, 

  WP 6 on access to infrastructures, and 

  WP 7 for education and training. 
In terms of progress to date on the deliverables identified in the CONCERT proposal, 28 
deliverables were scheduled across the seven different Work Packages from the beginning 
of CONCERT until the end of 2016. Nearly all have been completed. Three deliverables had 
to be postponed to the end of May 2017; however, the consortium believe that this will 
have no major impact on the progress of other deliverables. In addition, they believe that 
this delay will not jeopardise the overall planning of CONCERT. 

In addition, call priorities have been established taking into account input from National 
programme owners participating in CONCERT and from stakeholders, through open web 
and workshop consultations. Call priorities were identified to address radiation protection 
challenges in Europe and Member States with targeted radiation protection research. 

The total budget for the first call issued by CONCERT was €10.5m. This budget allowed the 
funding of the first three projects from the ranking list (see Table 16). This ranking list was 
established by an independent peer review panel. Three projects were selected, one from 
Topic 1 and two from Topic 2. 

Table 16 

Projects funded in the first call issued by CONCERT (‘Budget’ gives total funding of 
projects; the contribution from CONCERT for the first call was €10.5m) 

Topic 

Project Name 

Project Description 

Budget 
(€) 

1. Improvement of health risk assessment associated with low dose/dose rate radiation. 

LDLensRad 

Towards a full mechanistic understanding of 
low dose radiation induced cataracts 

2.5m 

2. Reducing uncertainties in human and ecosystem radiological risk assessment and 
management in nuclear emergencies and existing exposure situations, including NORM. 

CONFIDENCE 

COping with uNcertainties For Improved 
modelling and DEcision making in Nuclear 
emergenCiEs 

TERRITORIES 

To Enhance unceRtainties Reduction and 
stakeholders Involvement TOwards integrated 
and graded Risk management of humans and 
wildlife In long-lasting radiological Exposure 
Situations 

6.2m 

4.2m 

CONCERT actively supported the establishment of a new Research Platform in the field of 
Radiation Protection in Medicine – EURAMED (European Alliance for Medical Radiation 
Protection Research). As the most recently established platform (launched in September 
2016), EURAMED will lead European research activities in medical radiation protection and 
harmonise clinical practice to advance European radiation safety culture in medicine. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

EURAMED aims to initiate and facilitate research on medical radiation protection issues in 
Europe, to bring together researchers in the field, cooperate with stakeholders, facilitate 
training of researchers, integrate into radiation protection communities in Europe, work on 
communication issues and regularly update the newly developed EURAMED Strategic 
Research Agenda (SRA). While CONCERT does not directly address the therapeutic use of 
radiation, it recognises that there is learning from medically exposed cohorts. 

Radiation Protection is very much about risk communication and societal issues. CONCERT 
supported the development of a strategic research agenda in social sciences and 
humanities in relation to radiation protection by initiating workshops and meetings of 
scientists and stakeholders in these fields together with scientists and stakeholders in the 
wider field of radiation protection. 

Consideration has been given to the establishment of a platform to address these issues or 
alternately ensuring that they are adequately integrated into other activities; however, 
caution must be exercised to avoid creating new silos. 

Closer co-operation of these social science activities with those going on in other nuclear 
areas, e.g. reactor safety, is difficult and could potentially endanger the perception of RP 
research being independent. For the same reason CONCERT platforms are cautious to have 
industrial partners in their membership. 

EURAMED and social sciences and humanities related research topics will be included as an 
integral part in the second open CONCERT call in early 2017 and should be included in 
future research projects funded by Euratom. As this was very much part of the scope of 
the Activity envisaged under NFRP7-2015, notwithstanding the inherent challenges, it 
would be important that appropriate emphasis be given to this area. 

The ex-post evaluation of the FP7 and FP7+2 programme concluded that “whilst the 
Euratom programmes relating to radiation protection in the medical exposure area have 
been successful and have contributed to increased knowledge, it is recognised that further 
benefit would be gained by establishing better links between programmes funded by 
Euratom and other EU health-related programmes”. The Panel believes that this conclusion 
remains relevant and hence repeats recommendation 27 of the FP7/7+2 ex-post 
evaluation. 

Recommendation  10:  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States 
should  make  continued  efforts  to  link  future  Euratom  research 
programmes  in  radiation  protection  associated  with  medical 
exposure with other EU medical research programmes. 

There have been initial “teething” difficulties in the operation of CONCERT but it is too 
early to judge whether these are of concern. Given that it is the first time the EJP 
instrument has been applied in the Euratom Programme outside of fusion, the Panel 
believes that there would be benefit of a review of the working of CONCERT in advance of 
the development of future Euratom programmes. This review would allow the Commission 
to be satisfied that its aims and objectives, and the benefits of using the EJP approach in 
the field of radiation protection, have been delivered. 

Recommendation 11: The Commission should carry out a review 
of how CONCERT is working, to satisfy itself that the aims of the 
European  Joint  Programme  (programme  co-fund  action)  in 
relation to the effective and efficient management of research in 
the field of radiation protection are being delivered. 

6.2.5.  5.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

ESSANUF 
The Panel heard evidence that the project is underway and that there is a reasonable level 
of Member States participation. Information made available to the Panel [Ref 61] shows 
that five reports in WP1, seven reports in WP2, one report in WP3, three reports in WP4, 

73   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

two reports in WP5, two reports in WP6, three reports in WP7, two reports in WP8, one 
report in WP 9 and one report in WP10 have been submitted. The detailed adequacy and 
value of the reports submitted to date need detailed evaluation in relation to the project 
and programme objectives but the scope of the work covered looks comprehensive 
[Ref 62]. Progress to date suggests that the project is on track to deliver its objectives 
[Ref 63]. The project has a website that provides further information [Ref 64]. 

The project, when completed, will clearly contribute to the wider EU strategic objectives in 
this area. 

The 2016-17 Work Programme has two projects in this area, TRANSAT and M4F. These 
have only recently been launched and it is too early to comment on progress. 

6.2.6.  5.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

HERACLES-CP 
This project’s main objective is “the provision of the technical and scientific foundations for 
the successful qualification of UMo fuel” [Ref 65]. The project has six work packages. WP1 
focuses on management. WP2 (Dispersed fuel comprehension) looks at improved 
understanding of swelling behaviour in fuels. WP3 (Production Technology) is aimed at 
improved understanding of production technologies for dispersed and monolithic fuels. 
WP4 (Powder and Plate Manufacturing) aims to establish new knowledge for high density 
UMo fuel plate manufacturing. WP5 (Heavy Ion Irradiations) aims to carry out several 
irradiations to plug the current gaps in knowledge. WP6’s (SEMPER FIDELIS in-pile 
irradiation) objective is to test by irradiation in a test reactor the advanced fuel produced 
according to the design proposed in WP2 with the advanced manufacturing technology 
defined in WP3, and implemented in the plates produced in WP4. WP7 (PERSEUS device) 
focuses on the examination of fuel. 

Progress has been made in a number of areas, including management arrangements, 
irradiation experiments, manufacturing and measurement technology [Ref 66]. Of the 9 
milestones due to be achieved by the end of December 2016 only 6 had been achieved 
[Ref 67]. A report on deliverables [Ref 68] shows that out of the 22 identified deliverables 
4 had not been delivered on time. 

MYRTE 
MYRTE is a project to demonstrate the feasibility of transmutation of high-level waste on 
an industrial scale, through the development of the MYRRHA (Multi-Purpose Hybrid 
Research Reactor for High-Tech Applications) research facility [Ref 69]. The Project has 7 
work packages: WP1 Project management; WP2 Accelerator R&D for ADS/MYRRHA; WP3 
Thermal Hydraulics; WP4 Chemistry of volatile radionuclides; WP5 Experiments in support 
of the MYRRHA design evolution; WP6 Actinide fuel; and WP7 Dissemination and 
communication. The MYRTE publishable summary [Ref 70] shows that this is a complex 
project but one that is in line with the long-term energy needs of Europe. [Ref 71] shows 
that most of the project milestones to date have been achieved. Of the 11 project 
deliverables planned to be delivered by November 2016, 10 have been delivered [Ref 72]. 

There are no results available to judge the progress of the project in the 2016-17 Work 
Programme, FOREvER. 

6.2.7.  5.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

HoNEST 
The main objective of this project is to provide a practically useful analytical framework 
that allows for the identification of key factors influencing the interaction of nuclear 
technology with civil society [Ref 73]. The project has six work packages: WP1 
Management and coordination; WP2 History of the civilian production and use of nuclear 
energy in Europe, 1945-2013; WP3 Translating, linking and bridging, Phase 1 (History) 
and Phase 2 (Social Sciences); WP4 Understanding perceptions and mechanisms for social 
engagement; WP5 Backcasting ideal futures; and WP6 Dissemination and engagement. 

74 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

In the 12 months since the start of the project the consortium has produced over one 
thousand pages of academic research on the interactions of nuclear power with civil 
society across most of Europe and beyond [Ref 74]. Of the 10 planned milestones only 5 
have been achieved and of the 27 deliverables 23 were delivered [Ref 75]. 

NUCL-EU 2020 
The objective of this project is to enhance the competence of National Contact Points 
(NCPs), raise the level of know-how of the Euratom network in particular helping less 
experienced NCPs rapidly acquire the experiences accumulated in other countries and to 
consolidate the network of Euratom NCPs [Ref 76]. The project has four work packages: 
WP1 Management; WP2 Capacity building for NCPs; WP3 Dialogue with energy 
participants; and WP4 Communication and dissemination. 

There is not much information on progress with the delivery of the objectives or work 
package milestones or deliverables, but the first NCP Assessment Report [Ref 77] in WP 2 
suggests that the project is up and running and progress is being made. 

SPRINT 
This project has four objectives: (1) Ensure an inclusive and efficient process for producing 
strategic roadmaps; (2) Improve the ‘value proposal’ of SNETP for the fission R&D 
community in Europe; (3) Confirm SNETP as a key player within the international energy 
technology landscape; and (4) Enhance the visibility and dialogue of SNETP towards a 
wider audience. The project has six work packages: WP1 Strategic Roadmapping; WP2 
Enhancing SNETP’s added value for the community; WP3 Interaction with SNETP’s 
technology environment; WP4 Communicating SNETP; WP5 Event Management; and WP6 
Consortium Management. 

The Periodic Technical Report (Part B) [Ref 78] gives a report on progress. Analysis shows 
that the aims of the project are being delivered but some of the planned milestones and 
deliverables have been delayed. 

6.3. 

5.3 

Effectiveness - Summary 

The Panel was asked five questions in relation to evaluating the effectiveness of the 
Euratom Programme, namely: “What is the progress made towards the objectives of the 
Euratom Programme?”; “What are the factors driving or hindering progress and how they 
are linked (or not) to the Euratom Programme?”; “How effective are new measures 
(European Joint Programmes, prizes) introduced by the Euratom Programme?”; “What are 
the main long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Framework Programme?”; and “How 
is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives and 
policies?”. 

The Panel believes that the above evaluation shows that in general good progress is being 
made in both the fusions and fission parts of the Euratom Programme. However, there are 
some areas where improvements can be made in future programmes. An instrument of the 
European Joint Programme (programme co-fund action) is proving to be effective in the 
fusion area but more work is required to assess its effectiveness in the radiation protection 
area (CONCERT) and in the field of radioactive waste management (JOPRAD). It is still too 
early to say what the long-term impact of the previous programmes will be. However, both 
the EY report [Ref 16] and the FP7/FP7+2 [Ref 12] ex-post evaluation conclude that in 
general the research has contributed to the EU’s strategic objectives and policies. The 
Panel finds that both the fusion and fission Euratom research actions are in the main 
contributing to the wider EU strategic objectives and policies. 

75   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

7.  6. EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This chapter provides an evaluation of the efficiency of the Euratom Programme and 
addresses the extent to which the inputs provided to Euratom Programme are reasonable 
(i.e. cost-effective) in light of the outcomes that have been generated or are likely to be 
generated. The chapter also addresses the scope for further simplification. 

7.1. 

6.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

A comprehensive assessment of the management and governance of EUROfusion has been 
carried out by EY [Ref 79] and provided as input to the Panel. The Panel has further 
discussed some of the conclusions of the report with the fusion stakeholders. 

Fusion research underwent a major reorganization in passing from FP7/FP7+2 to Euratom 
2014-2018  in order to change from a broad programmatic approach to a project-oriented 
approach. This change was made in a very short time and the transition is still ongoing. 
Specifically, EUROfusion needs to further strengthen the project management structure 
(with the Programme Manger fully in charge of the implementation strategy) and to put in 
place specific provisions to deal with conflict of interest. The lack of a design authority for 
DEMO is an issue to be tackled urgently. 

The level of industrial involvement in fusion research has increased. In order to make best 
use of the competences gained by industry with the ITER construction, it is necessary to 
maintain an approach to DEMO that will involve industry in the DEMO EDA at the earliest 
possible time. 

The Enabling Research programme, modelled along the experience of the ERC projects, 
appears to be successful in fostering innovation and promoting excellence. However the 
selection process should not impact too heavily on STAC, to preserve its role in monitoring 
the implementation of the Roadmap. 

7.1.1.  6.1.1 

Governance 

The bodies that play a role in the EUROfusion governance are the General Assembly (GA), 
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) and the Programme Manager (PM) / 
Project management Unit (PMU). 

The General Assembly is the ultimate decision-making body responsible for defining and 
reviewing the overarching strategy and the annual work plan. It is composed of one 
representative for each Consortium member. 

STAC advises the General Assembly on strategic and implementation issues related to the 
Consortium work programme, and its coherence with respect to the Roadmap. STAC 
members are selected ad personam. 

The Programme Manager is responsible to the General Assembly for the overall top-level 
planning, coordination and implementation of the programme, including the allocation of 
tasks to the various beneficiaries. 

The change from a broad programmatic approach to a project-oriented approach requires 
a substantial change in the role of the Consortium members. As the members have signed 
up to the implementation of the Roadmap, the Consortium governance should ensure that 
the common goal takes the precedence over the scientific strategy/interest of individual 
members. This requires a clear distinction of responsibility between the General Assembly 
and the Programme Manager with the latter having the full leadership of the 
implementation strategy. 

Although the multiple roles of the Consortium members (supervisory, executive and 
operator) makes the risk of conflict of interest possible, the Panel considers that the 
EUROfusion structure is capable of dealing successfully with this risk provided that the 

76 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

Programme Manager has the ownership of implementation and his responsibility for the 
implementation strategy is fully preserved and exercised. 

A possible way of minimising the risk of conflict of interest could be to avoid the presence 
in the supervisory committees of those responsible for the implementation of the 
programme (no Project Leaders in the GA or STAC, no Task Leader in the Project Board of 
the same project). 

Recommendation  12:  EUROfusion  should  put  in  place  explicit 
provisions to manage conflicts of interest. 

In view of the STAC role, the management of conflict of interest is a delicate matter. As 
the fusion community is a limited-size, strongly interacting community, removal of all 
formal conflicts of interest can also lead to removal of competence. The approach adopted 
by STAC is one of transparency and peer example, and an atmosphere where prejudice 
and bias is noticed and remarked upon, and thereby largely eliminated. The Panel supports 
this approach. 

7.1.2.  6.1.2 

Project Management 

Fusion is changing from a broad programmatic research activity to a project-oriented 
activity structured to achieve results on the programmatic priorities defined in the 
Roadmap. The largest part of the EUROfusion budget is therefore committed for work 
carried out either in task forces (for the exploitation of JET and the MSTs under a 
campaign-oriented approach) or projects. 

The transition is still on-going and to be successful needs the active role of the Programme 
Manager in matching the programmatic priorities of the Roadmap and the scientific 
interest of the consortium members. The experience of EFDA shows that this approach can 
be successful especially with small and medium size Research Units that generally 
performed well already in the first call for participation in the EUROfusion projects. 

The Project Leader is assisted by a Project Board (with a representative of each of the 
members participating in the project) that deals with the practical issues of the 
implementation. The scope, resources, organization, planning, work breakdown structure, 
risks and risk mitigation actions are described in a single document for each project, the 
Project Management Plan (PMP) prepared by the Project Leader. 

There are a few issues that have been identified in the EY report [Ref. 79]: 

  The need to internalize the project management process in all the projects. 

  There  remains  a  "culture  of  inclusiveness"  that  leads  several  EUROfusion 
members  to  spread  their  participation  in  EUROfusion  activities  over  several 
projects, so increasing fragmentation and decreasing efficiency; 

  The  tendency  of  the  beneficiaries  to  shift  the  scope  of  tasks  to  follow  their 
scientific interest rather than the project needs - this can end in a problem of 
conflict of interest if it occurs at Project Board level. 

  The project management approach in EUROfusion, whilst appropriate, needs to 
improve,  especially  in  relation  to  the  role  of  the  Programme  Manager.  The 
Programme  Manager  needs  to  exercise  close  oversight  of  the  process.  The 
Project Leader should have adequate delegations to take decisions without any 
interference of policy considerations by the beneficiaries. In general, projects 
can work well if the number of participants is limited and the participation of 
each member achieves a critical mass. Representatives in the Project  Boards 
should not be primarily concerned with protecting the interests (and resources) 
of  their  institutions  but  rather  with  steering  the  project  in  an  objective  way 
based on purely technical criteria. 

77   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The Panel believes that measures like having the PL/TFL reporting to the Programme 
Manager and having the Project Boards assisting the PLs in the execution of the project 
rather than in the definition of the scope, will help in strengthening project management. 

Recommendation  13:  EUROfusion  should  continue 
to 
strengthen  its  project management  arrangements  and  ensure 
that 
the 
implementation strategy. 

the  Programme  Manager 

is  responsible 

for 

The EY report has also pointed out the lack of a design authority for DEMO. To address this 
issue EUROfusion proposes (a) strengthening the project management and technical 
capabilities of the PMU and (b) reinforcing the budgetary and technical authority of the 
PMU. These actions would be gradually implemented over the next Euratom Programme, 
aiming towards a strong central coordination of the DEMO Engineering Design Activity. 

Recommendation 14: EUROfusion should as a matter of urgency 
set up the design authority for DEMO. 

7.1.3.  6.1.3 

Programming and Planning 

One of the main advantages made with the formulation of the Roadmap and the award of 
the EUROfusion grant has been the possibility of having a multi-annual programme. The 
detailed technical deliverables are included in the Project Management Plans (PMP) and 
updated there on a regular basis. 

However, the annual life-cycle of the Commission budget requires the preparation of an 
Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) and of an Annual Work Plan (AWP). The preparation of 
Annual Reports has been described by many stakeholders as "unduly long and tedious". 
The Panel believes that it is important to strike a reasonable compromise between the 
level of detail needed for the AMR/AWP approval by the Commission and the need to avoid 
unnecessary paperwork. The AMR/AWP should be light documents that should be based on 
the updated PMPs and should not need an extensive mobilization of human resources. 

7.1.4.  6.1.4 

 Industrial Involvement 

The involvement of industry in fusion research has a long history and specific measures for 
the high-level industrial involvement were taken at the time of the Engineering Design 
Activity for ITER. However, it is with the Roadmap and the EUROfusion grant that the 
industrial involvement has been put as one of the central elements to be actively pursued 
in the strategy to DEMO. In line with that, EUROfusion has set up a few provisions to 
facilitate the involvement of industry in the programme such as secondment of industry 
personnel (one of the Project Leaders comes from industry), the formation of a 
Stakeholder Group to define the high-level DEMO requirements, and the supply of 
contracts for design and hardware. At the moment, the level of industrial personnel 
involvement is about 10% of the total. 

The EY report points out that the need for a transition from science-driven and laboratory-
based research to an industry and technology driven activity, advocated by the Roadmap, 
is shared by the EUROfusion members but there is currently no consensus on when this 
should take place. The Panel believes that following the approach outlined in the original 
Roadmap for the DEMO strategy will facilitate the industrial involvement. In particular, a 
critical issue for industrial participation is the need to maintain the competences that have 
been generated through the ITER construction by having a reasonable continuity between 
the end of the ITER construction and the start of the DEMO EDA (see Recommendation 
14). 

7.1.5.  6.1.5 

 Enabling Research 

To foster innovation and promote excellence there are yearly calls for proposals evaluated 
in way similar to the ERC projects. About 100 proposals have been selected with a 
rejection rate around about 66%. A number of successful projects have been launched in 

78 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

this way in the areas of core and edge turbulence modelling, fast-particle collective effects, 
modelling of disruptions and runaway behaviour, material science and high temperature 
superconductors. 

The selection of fusion research projects is entirely a STAC responsibility. Specific 
provisions to deal with conflicts of interest are in place. 

The selection procedure ensures the goal of promoting excellence and innovation. 
However, this procedure places a significant burden on the STAC and this limits its ability 
to focus on its core function. The Panel believes that STAC must retain its focus on its core 
function and hence EUROfusion should find an approach (e.g. by involving external 
reviewers) that will allow STAC to concentrate on monitoring the implementation of the 
Roadmap and providing advice to the General Assembly. 

Recommendation  15:  EUROfusion  should  look  at  ways  of 
reducing the burden on STAC from its role in the project selection 
process for Enabling Research. 

7.1.6.  6.1.6 

Administrative Costs 

The amount of resources devoted to administrative functions include those of the PMU, the 
support provided by the coordinator (IPP) and those of the EUROfusion members for 
administrative managing the various tasks. 

The figures provided by EUROfusion show a level of administrative expenses in the range 
6-7% [Ref 80]. The Panel considers this to be a reasonable level for administrative costs. 
However, Consortium Members have expressed a number of concerns about the 
administrative burden. While this is understandable as the CoA system gave a large 
freedom to the Head of Laboratories with a minimal administrative burden, a project-
oriented approach necessarily requires a more complex system. The Panel believes that by 
keeping the number of laboratories in a project to a manageable level the administrative 
burden could be minimized and work fragmentation avoided. 

7.2. 

6.2 

Nuclear Fission 

7.2.1.  6.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

The projects selected following the 2014-15 call for proposals are all in line with the 
Euratom Work Programme [Ref 3] and therefore have been judged to be suitable. 
However, it is difficult at this stage to comment upon the extent to which the outcomes 
that are claimed will be generated and will deliver the project aims in a cost effective way. 
Progress, as discussed in chapter 5 of this report, suggests that most projects are on 
target to deliver their objectives. 

In relation to research into molten salt fast reactor it is difficult to see how cost 
effectiveness can be evaluated at this stage given the novelty of the project and the likely 
use of this technology for commercial electricity generation. 

The projects selected following the 2016-17 call for proposals again are all relevant to the 
Euratom Work Programme [Ref 4]. 

Evaluating cost effectiveness in relation to specific projects aimed at improving nuclear 
safety will be difficult. This is because nuclear safety is delivered through a combination of 
high quality engineering; defence in depth against internal plant malfunctions (faults), 
external hazards and human error; the use of suitably qualified and experienced people 
and a strong nuclear safety culture. This combination ensures that faults that can result in 
the uncontrolled release of radioactivity have a very low frequency of occurrence, typically 
10-7 per year. Hence, to demonstrate cost effectiveness of research activities it would be 
necessary to show how the research contributed directly to the factors that influence the 
safety case and then evaluate the value of any improvement gained against the cost of the 
research. 

79   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

7.2.2.  6.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

The projects chosen in both the 2014-15 and 2016-17 calls are consistent with Council 
objective (b) i.e. “Contributing to the development of safe, longer term solutions for the 
management of ultimate nuclear waste, including final geological disposal as well as 
partitioning and transmutation”. Progress on the projects in launched in 2015 reported 
above suggests that the aims are on track to be delivered and if this proves to be the case 
the Euratom investment in these research projects should make a substantial contribution 
to the delivery of safe and secure disposal of Europe’s radioactive waste. 

The funding of these projects should be reviewed because as it is the producer of the 
waste that should pay for its disposal it is hard to see why Euratom should fund 73% of 
the cost for 2014-15 projects and 95% of the cost in the 2016-17 projects. 

7.2.3.  6.2.3. 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

In the fission area there is a need to improve the approach to early stage training (PhD, 
post-doc). The Panel believes that opening up the Euratom fellowships to early stage 
researchers, incorporating a scheme similar to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Early Stage 
Research Training, and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Conferences and Training Courses, 
should ensure high quality training at the post doc stage. Moreover, industrial doctorates, 
combining academic research with work in companies, and other innovative training that 
enhances employability is very important for the Euratom programme. 

Legal interpretation has so far prevented Marie Skłodowska-Curie (MSC) grants 
implementation in the nuclear research. The Panel believes that Council should consider 
the extension of MSC to Euratom research programmes and, if this is not possible, 
consideration should be given to the creation of a ‘Pierre Curie’ Euratom fellowship and 
training scheme to support researchers at all stages of their careers. Thus this initiative 
should be considered in a preparation for future Euratom programmes. 

Recommendation 16: The Council should consider extending the 
Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  scheme  to  Euratom’s  Fission  Research 
Programmes. 

7.2.4.  6.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

NFRP7-2015 envisaged that proposals under this Activity would aim at accelerating and 
improving the development of competences in radiation protection with a special focus on 
radiation protection culture. The CONCERT proposal recognises the decline in Radiation 
Protection competences / expertise / activity across Europe and identifies this as an area 
that should be addressed. CONCERT dedicates a whole work package (WP) to education 
and training (E&T) for the development and maintenance of the expertise and competence 
of the community of research scientists working in the area of radiation protection 
research. The specific activities organised by the work package, and funded as integration 
activities, included: (1) Setting up a programme of student travel grants to allow students 
to attend relevant training courses at other institutions, or attend conferences to present 
their work; (2) Launching calls for short courses in topics important for radiation protection 
research, aimed particularly at students entering the field or young researchers and (3) 
Encouraging the career development of new scientists entering the field through 
interaction with the European Radiation Research Association for Young Scientists 
(EURAYS). 

The use of EJP in the area of radiation protection presents a particular challenge as low 
dose research is mostly done in universities that are third parties for CONCERT (CONCERT 
has Beneficiaries and Linked Third Parties). Beneficiaries have ways to access 
complementary national funding and third parties have contractual links with beneficiaries 
and can contribute in-kind, but national co-funding is more difficult to obtain for 
universities. This can make the use of this type of instrument more challenging. Raising 
the cap for third party funding took some time to negotiate and delayed the first open call. 

80 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The medical area was not included in the first CONCERT call because at that time, the SRA 
had just been set up; it will be a priority in the second call. 

Early experience suggests that administrative costs will be below 10%. 

For maximum efficiency and effectiveness there needs to be a strong link between 
knowledge generation and RP governance. However, there is still a gap (and not only in 
radiation protection) in relation to a review mechanism evaluating what should be done 
with the knowledge created through the research projects. Progress in the application of 
results is slow and the time from research results to application is too long. Integration 
needs to encompass the general issue of consolidation of scientific results into 
(governance) application [Ref 60]. 

The EY survey [Ref 16] to assess satisfaction and opinion for all FP7 and Euratom 2014-18 
projects looked at efficiency in terms of the relationship between the financial and 
administrative resources used to implement the projects and the achievements of the 
project (outputs and results). While the responses were mainly positive in relation to 
efficiency, a small number of projects drew negative comments on this aspect of their 
management and one of these was CONCERT. The EY report cautions that the large 
number of participants in some of the projects, including CONCERT, might contribute to 
this negative perception. 

7.2.5.  6.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

In the 2014-15 Work Programme the ESSANUF project, whilst consistent with the intent of 
Council objective (g), Promoting innovation and industry competitiveness - “Implementing 
or supporting knowledge management and technology transfer from the research co-
funded by the Euratom Programme to industry exploiting all innovative aspects of the 
research,” is an unusual research project and relates to the needs of security of supply. 
The inputs are well defined and the outputs that are being generated are relevant to the 
key safety and licensing issues. 

In the 2016-17 Work Programme the TRANSAT project is no doubt of interest but it is not 
novel. It will provide some useful information but the 80% of the Euratom funding needs 
justification. The M4F project is 60% funded Euratom and whilst this is reasonable given 
the crosscutting nature of the work, it is too early to comment on its cost effectiveness. 

7.2.6.  6.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

In the 2014-15 Programme the two projects MYRTE and HERACLES-CP are consistent with 
the Council objective (h)-Ensuring availability and use of research infrastructures of pan-
European relevance. 

The MYRTE project on partitioning and transmutation is a long-term challenge. Success will 
depend upon the industrialization of the process and in the long-term this should be 
funded by the nuclear industry. The potential benefits of the successful industrialization of 
transmutation to the long-term management of radioactive waste are such that the level 
of funding by Euratom of 75% is appropriate. 

The HERACLES-CP project on the conversion of research reactor fuel and targets from HEU 
to LEU is clearly important to ensure the continued supply of technetium isotopes (Tc99) 
for medical purposes. The reduction of HEU fuel is also important to deliver the EU non-
proliferation goals. However, it could be argued that that this is a commercial / industrial 
issue and that funding should come from the nuclear or medical industries. 

The FOREvER project in the 2016-17 Work Programme is again consistent with Council 
objective (h), but given its purpose in relation to the supply of fuel for research reactors, 
the 95% EU funding for the project needs justification. 

81   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

7.2.7.  6.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

It is recognised that enhancing the public’s understanding of nuclear technologies is 
important and appropriate to be covered in the Euratom research programme. However, in 
view of the high level (€3m) funding for the HoNEST project it is important that the 
expected outcomes are delivered. The other two projects have relatively modest funding. 
In relation to the NUCL-EU 2020 it is important that the goals relating to the 
improvements in the effectiveness of the NCPs are realised. 

7.3. 

6.3 

Efficiency - Summary 

The Panel was asked to answer two questions on the efficiency of the Euratom Research 
Programme, namely: “To what extent are the inputs provided to Euratom Programme 
reasonable (i.e. cost-effective) in light of the outcomes that have been generated or are 
likely to be generated?’ and “Is there scope for further simplification?”. 

In the fusion part of the Euratom Programme the Panel believes that EUROfusion has 
improved the cost effectiveness of the programme. However, the preparation of the annual 
reports has been described by many stakeholders as "unduly long and tedious". The Panel 
believes that it is important to strike a reasonable compromise between the level of detail 
needed for the AMR/AWP approval by the Commission and the need to avoid unnecessary 
paperwork. Further simplifications can result from ensuring that the number of laboratories 
in a project is kept to a manageable level and work fragmentation is avoided. The Panel 
makes a number of recommendations to improve efficiency in relation to potential conflicts 
of interest, strengthening project management, reducing the burden on the STAC and 
considering the extension of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie programme to Euratom. 

In the fission area, the cost effectiveness of the research is not always easy to evaluate. 
The Euratom funding levels of some of the research projects is high and needs 
justification. This suggests that the cost effectiveness is debatable in some cases. 

82 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

8.  7. EVALUATION  OF  THE  INTERNAL  COHERENCY  OF  THE  EURATOM 

PROGRAMME 

This chapter addresses internal coherency of the Euratom Programme and the extent to 
which the Euratom Programme, as part of Horizon 2020, can be considered a coherent 
programme of nuclear research in the context of support for research and innovation in 
general in Europe, with EU policies in general, and with the EU's international obligations. 

8.1. 

7.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

Fusion research is pursued by different players: F4E for the ITER construction and the 
Broader Approach (now under DG Energy of the European Commission), EUROfusion for 
the fusion part of the Euratom Programme, with JET operation managed through the JET 
Operation Contract between Euratom and UKAEA. 

In principle the Euratom Programme is internally coherent as the missions of the various 
organizations do not overlap and all the Roadmap scope is covered. A co-operation 
between F4E and EUROfusion exists in some areas (especially within the Broader Approach 
activities and possibly in the TBM programme), however, the strategic coordination of the 
Programme is left entirely to the European Commission now requiring the close interaction 
between two different Directorates-General (DG). Under these conditions coordination 
between the top-level management of F4E and EUROfusion must be ensured. 

Recommendation 17: To improve the coherence of the research 
needs  of  the  Roadmap  the  coordination  between  the  top  level 
management of F4E and EUROfusion should be strengthened. 

This is particularly important should a Roadmap revision be necessary at some stage. As 
the Roadmap is a European Union vision and not only a EUROfusion Consortium document, 
the formal procedure for the approval of Roadmap revisions should be clarified in advance 
and should involve a body like the former Consultative Committee for Fusion (CCE-FU), a 
body in which strategic issues related to fusion were discussed at Member State level with 
EFDA and F4E leadership present as standing experts, as it has been for the endorsement 
of the original Roadmap. 

The Panel understands that, while periodic reviews of the Roadmap are part of the project 
management process, a Roadmap revision should be undertaken only when there are 
fundamental technical or budgetary reasons that make the implementation no longer 
possible. 

Recommendation 18: The Commission should introduce a formal 
Fusion Roadmap revision procedure to ensure that any revision 
to  the  original  Fusion  Roadmap  is  owned  by  all  relevant 
stakeholders. 

Within the Euratom Programme activities, the separation between JET operation and JET 
scientific exploitation may require at some point a revision. The close link between the 
operational and scientific aspects of a fusion device makes such a separation artificial - 
fusion experiments are not facilities in the same way as neutron or synchrotron radiation 
sources. This may require a suitable solution for a future JET Operation Contract. 

8.2. 

7.2 

Nuclear Fission 

8.2.1.  7.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

The overall aims and intentions of the Euratom Programme in this area represent a 
coherent approach to the research and innovation that is needed to support nuclear safety 
within the EU. However, there is a range of topics that are covered in the 2014-15 
Programme. Given this range of topics it is difficult to see how this part of the research 
programme could be considered to be coherent except at the highest level. 

83   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The 2014-15 Work Programme in general is aligned to and consistent with the overall 
goals of the EU’s nuclear safety policies. It is difficult to relate the research projects in this 
area with the EU’s international obligations. It is clear that Member States have an 
obligation to maintain a structure to ensure the safe and secure use of nuclear energy and 
the research activities in this area should, if successful, provide information that will be 

useful to support these obligations. 

The projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme present a more coherent approach to the 
delivery of the overall EU nuclear safety goals. 

8.2.2.  7.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

The research projects in both the 2014-15 and the 2015-16 Work Programme represent a 
coherent approach. The projects all address topics that are relevant to the delivery of safe 
and secure geological disposal of radioactive waste. 

8.2.3.  7.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

As well as the projects having their main objectives focused on education and training, the 
CONCERT project also provides a coherent approach to nuclear expertise and training. 
CONCERT intends to hold an annual Forum in association with the MELODI Workshop, to 
strengthen the integration of education and training institutions within radiation protection, 
and to promote the integration of education and training into research projects funding 
under the CONCERT calls. 

8.2.4.  7.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

NFRP7-2015 envisaged that successful proposals would address the need for research and 
innovation required to support the successful transposition and implementation of the 
revised European Basic Safety Standards (BSS). While CONCERT plans to start vocational 
training for Experts foreseen in the new Euratom BSS, this has not yet started. Given that 
the transposition date is February 2018, it might have been expected that this would have 
started by now. 

In the EY case study of FP7 fission projects [Ref 16], the reviewers noted that the 
platforms for programming the research in radiation protection (e.g. MELODI, NERIS) are 
relatively recent and therefore the research is more fragmented. Thus the coherence 
between projects (in particular in radiobiology) does not always appear very clearly. But 
they noted, this should rapidly change in the coming years. 

There is a need to allow for stability of the current approach before any further changes 
are made. The continued support of platforms as a way to integrate the European research 
community is an appropriate use of European research funds. 

The current system is open to new members and platforms bring in new people who have 
not been involved in Euratom before. For example DoReMi expanded from 12 to 24 
members now; OPERRA from 14 to 49 members with the majority of them not having 
been involved in Euratom research programmes before. Platforms also bring in different 
disciplines and encourage participation from outside Euratom which is very often of high 
quality [Ref 60]. Thus the RP platforms and CONCERT as umbrella project are coherent 
with the overarching goal of promoting the concept of European Research Area (ERA). 

R&D in health research is primarily focussed on therapeutic objectives; Radiation 
protection has been seen as a secondary consideration, however, it’s now recognised as a 
major issue. There is a growing integration of medical doctors and RP specialists in some 
projects, but it has been slow to happen. 

84 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

8.2.5.  7.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

The ESSANUF project is unique and not part of a coherent Euratom research programme. 
However, it is consistent with the wider EU policy of having security of supply in nuclear 
electricity generation. The TRANSAT and M4F projects are stand-alone projects that 
support the wider nuclear fission and Fusion research programmes. They are also 
consistent with the wider EU nuclear energy policies. 

8.2.6.  7.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

The two projects in the 2014-15 Work Programme are relevant to the delivery of Council 
objective (h) and are consistent with the EU’s nuclear energy policies. The FOREvER 
project in the 2016-17 Work Programme is also aligned to the delivery of the Council 
objective in this area and provides a coherency with the wider EU nuclear research 
programme. 

8.2.7.  7.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

The HoNEST project will add to the EU nuclear knowledge base but it is difficult to see 
where it fits in the wider EU nuclear energy goals. However, if the two projects NUCL-EU 
2020 and SPRINT are successfully delivered, the outcomes should support the delivery of 
coherency in the wider Euratom research programme. 

8.3. 

7.3 

Coherence - Summary 

The Panel was asked to address three questions relating to the coherence of the Euratom 
Research Programme, namely: “To what extent can the Euratom Programme, as part of 
Horizon 2020, be considered a coherent programme of nuclear research actions in the 
context of support for research and innovation in general in Europe?”; “To what extent is 
the Euratom Programme consistent with EU policies in general (including other EU funding 
programmes)?”; and “To what extent is the intervention coherent with EU's international 
obligations?”. The Panel believes that the above evaluation shows that the fusion research 
programme can be said to be a coherent programme. Similarly in the fission area the 
various projects in general represent a coherent programme. Both the fusion and fission 
parts of the Euratom Programme are consistent with the EU policies in general. However it 
is difficult to comment on the extent to which the fission research projects are consistent 
with the EU’s international obligations. 

85   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

9.  8. EVALUATION OF THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This chapter provides the evaluation of the European Added Value of the Euratom 
Research Programmes, in particular the added value compared to what could be achieved 
by Member States acting alone or at regional level and the most likely consequences of 
discontinuing the Euratom Programme. 

The Commission noted that European Added Value (EAV) “is best defined as the value 
resulting from an EU intervention which is additional to the value that would have been 
otherwise created by Member States action alone” [Ref 81]. 

Today EAV is used to generate focus, synergies, cooperation, and ultimately more results 
from the limited available financial resources. 

The European Added Value definition will be further developed and adapted by the 
researchers and research communities. It will be used to define and evaluate programmes 
as well as to build citizens’ trust and commitment. 

For the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) period (after 2020) the result oriented 
approach remains and will further evolve. The Panel notes that the “Budget for Result” 
(BFOR) concept [Ref 82] is nearing completion and that it goes far beyond EAV, 
developing Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure the success. 

The Panel used the slightly modified EAV criteria [Ref 83] applicable to all parts of the 
Euratom Programme to check their added value for all programmes: Fusion, Fission, 
Radiation Protection and Training (see Annex 6). 

Euratom Research and Training Programmes have additional common added value 
elements by sustaining safe use of nuclear activities, trust of society via transparency, and 
the worldwide leadership in the global race; promoting global mobility, building 
competitive advantage in research and connected industries, and increasing scientific 
output and access to data. 

The Panel notes that EAV is implicitly part of the DNA of the Euratom research programme. 
However, the Panel believes that recognition of the value of this research would be 
enhanced if both the fusion and fission communities communicated the EAV of their 
projects. 

9.1. 

8.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

The ITER project has an enormous impact on Europe’s and the world’s scientific and 
political progress, being the first scientific programme initiated at the edge of the 
Reykjavik Summit (11-12 October 1986) during an era determined by the Cold War. 

ITER is a global research project, and the European Union and all its 28 Member States are 
key global partners in the project to build the ITER facility in Cadarache, France. The 
Euratom fusion research programme has and is making a significant contribution to the 
success of ITER. 

The Panel believes that the Euratom fusion research programme clearly demonstrates 
European Added Value and is essential for the successful completion of the ITER project, 
the delivery of the Fusion Roadmap and the ultimate goal of commercially viable fusion-
generated electricity. 

9.1.1.  8.1.1. 

European competitiveness in the global race 

The Euratom fusion programme gives Europe leadership in this very important field. No 
single EU Member state would be able to provide a fusion research programme on the 
scale necessary to achieve this. It is important to keep European leadership and hence 

86 

 
 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

European added value in the fusion area, in the short, medium and long-term. Fusion 
research must therefore play a key role in the future Euratom research programme. 

The European fusion community and the fusion facilities located in the EU are key assets 
and as such offer a key European added value. To maximize European added value and 
exploit all potential benefits it is important to offer existing EU assets to international 
fusion and material science communities and therefore is the suggested way forward. 

9.1.2.  8.1.2 

Scientific Cooperation 

The creation of EUROfusion is recognised as being a positive achievement at both the 
European and international level. The focus on scientific cooperation and networking has 
not only been successful but has clearly demonstrated European added value. The 
EUROfusion management should continue efforts to encourage inclusion and increase 
awareness of the vision, mission and achieved results of the programme. 

JET is a unique European fusion asset and it is a fundamental part of the ITER project. JET 
is a clear example of European Added Value. If Europe is committed to remain a global 
player in fusion research, the Panel believes that JET with its unique European Added 
Value has great benefit for the international fusion community. 

9.2. 

8.2 

Nuclear Fission 

The nuclear fission research includes nuclear safety, radioactive waste management, 
radiation protection and medical applications of ionising radiation. Fission research has 
seven major streams with significant added value for all Europe. 

9.2.1.  8.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

In the field of nuclear safety it is the operator/ licensee that is responsible for the safe 
operation of nuclear installations. The European Added Value from the fission part of the 
Euratom Programme comes from the benefit to all MS that results from the contribution 
projects are making to improve our knowledge in the science and technology that 
underpins nuclear safety. The projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme relating to 
Generation- IV reactors provide a clear European Added Value because of their generic 
focus. European Added Value is also gained through the development of skills and 
capabilities in the smaller Member States through their participation in the projects. 

9.2.2.  8.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

Given that there is a clear EU need to provide a solution to the management of radioactive 
waste in general and the demonstration of the viability of deep geological disposal in 
particular there is a considerable EU added value to these projects. It is possible that 
individual Member States could undertake all the work that is necessary to demonstrate 
the concept and provide the detailed safety substantiation to satisfy regulatory 
requirements. However, sharing knowledge and developing skills in geological disposal 
safety case development is of value to all Member States wishing to deliver safe geological 
disposal for their radioactive wastes. 

9.2.3.  8.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

Use of nuclear energy (especially fission energy) to produce electricity, is a choice of 
individual Member States. To keep the state of art, understanding in the field of nuclear 
research is and will remain of common interest to all European citizens. Nuclear training 
and the development of expertise in all related nuclear research is a key European added 
value. 

Added value has also been demonstrated in sharing knowledge and developing common 
training and research projects in areas such as: radiation protection, materials research 
and geological disposal of radioactive waste. 

87   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

9.2.4.  8.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

In the EY review [Ref 16], it was noted that many different types of EU added value were 
identified through the case study analysis. The most frequent were related to creating 
platforms for research coordination and cooperation (either around a specific project or 
more durable platforms), bringing together different, complementary actors to achieve the 
necessary multidisciplinary approach, achieving the necessary scale inherently necessary 
for some types of research and the EU approach allows to build large cohorts and 
harmonize the methods more rigorously), providing access to infrastructures, enabling 
actors to compare and benchmark research results, avoiding duplications and 
fragmentation, disseminating results, etc. 

The Euratom radiation protection research programme provides significant European 
Added Value through its flexibility and focus. While international organisations like ICRP, 
UNSCEAR do address these issues, the progress can be slow. For example, in radiation 
protection of the lens of the eye, many years elapsed between the first publication of 
findings to the publishing of recommendations and later implementation in regulations or 
guidance. The process can take 15 years or even more. The structure of research 
platforms and the CONCERT European Joint Programme created by the Euratom 
Programme is unique in radiation protection research worldwide and should shorten the 
time from research output to regulation [Ref 60]. 

9.2.5.  8.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

The ESSANUF project could have been undertaken at the Member State level and hence 
the EU added value is limited. However, given that there is a concern surrounding the 
security of the supply of nuclear fuel for utilities operating VVER reactors it is not 
unreasonable for the Euratom programme to continue to support this work. The project 
has shown that organisations in Member States working together to address this issue has 
brought benefits from the sharing of knowledge and experience. If the programme were 
discontinued it would be for the utilities to support the project. 

The TRANSAT and M4F projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme are generic and hence 
they do provide some European Added Value. 

9.2.6.  8.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

The HERACLES-CP, MYRTE and FOREvER projects are addressing areas that will potentially 
benefit the wider EU. Each in their own way provides European Added Value because of 
the long-term generic research applications. MYRTE is a good example of a project that 
creates a particularly high European Added Value. 

9.2.7.  8.2.7. 

Social Aspects and Networking 

The NUCL-EU 2020 and the SPRINT projects clearly have an EU added value because no 
single MS could deliver the goals of these projects. If these projects were to be 
discontinued the impact would be to undermine the SNETP and the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the wider H2020-Euratom nuclear research programme. 

9.3. 

8.3 

European Added Value – Summary 

The Panel was asked three questions relating to the European added value of the Euratom 
Programme, namely: “What is the added value resulting from the Euratom Programme, 
compared to what could be achieved by Member States acting alone or at regional level?”; 
“To what extent do the issues addressed by the Euratom Programme continue to require 
action at EU level?”; and “What would be the most likely consequences of discontinuing 
the Euratom Programme?”. The above evaluation shows that nuclear fusion is a clear 
example of European Added Value. The Panel believes that the nuclear fission part of the 
Euratom Programme also demonstrated a high level of European Added Value. To be 
successful, both the fusion and fission programmes will continue to require action at the 

88 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

EU level. It is clear to the Panel that if the Euratom Programme were discontinued there 
would be a significant adverse impact on nuclear fusion, nuclear fission and radiation 
protection research in Europe. 

89   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

10.  9. CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, it is the Panel’s view that in both the fusion and fission areas the research and 
training indirect actions funded up to February 2017 by the Euratom 2014-2018 Research 
and Training Programme are relevant to the aims of the Council Regulation and are 
delivering progress in line with expectations. 

10.1.  9.1 

Nuclear Fusion 

The fusion part of the Euratom Programme is playing an important role for securing in the 
long term a sustainable energy supply for Europe. 

The formulation of the European Fusion Roadmap in 2012 has been crucial to focus the 
commitment of the fusion research community towards the goal of the exploitation of 
fusion energy and has put Europe in a leading position on the way to the production of 
fusion electricity. 

The Euratom Programme (together with the activities under F4E responsibility) is 
implementing the Fusion Roadmap. The Panel is pleased to see the increased level of 
transparency in the allocation of funds and an approach that promotes competition and 
excellence. 

The Panel considers that to date the Euratom Programme in fusion has been effective as 
the various activities reflect the priorities of the Roadmap and that the programme is 
pursuing the activities with the highest impact in the realization of the Roadmap. 

The efficiency of the implementation of fusion research needs to be improved. The 
transition between the EFDA/CoA system and the Euratom Programme 2014-18 took place 
very rapidly and the new system under EUROfusion is slowly adapting. Progresses in the 
governance are being made. However rigorous project management rules should be 
systematically implemented and the Programme Manager should fully exercise his/her 
leadership on the implementation strategy to prevent potential conflicts of interest due to 
the multiple roles of the beneficiaries. 

A proper preparation to the ITER exploitation is needed to minimize the risks of further 
delays in the achievement of the Q=10 milestone. JET is the experimental device closest to 
ITER and plays a central role in this strategy. The execution of the programme in support 
of ITER will require JET campaigns extending into future Euratom Programmes up to 2024. 
An earlier closure of JET would significantly increase the risk of possible delays in the ITER 
exploitation up to Q=10. 

The industrial involvement in the DEMO definition and design, advocated by the Roadmap, 
is being pursued but it should be strengthened further. The competences that have been 
formed in industry during the ITER construction phase should be exploited for the DEMO 
Engineering Design Activity. 

The Panel has not found any compelling technical argument that justify at the present 
moment a revision of the Roadmap, rather than an update of the implementation plan to 
adapt for the new ITER schedule. 

The Panel believes that the focus of the Roadmap should remain on an ITER-like DEMO to 
be constructed as soon as ITER achieves the Q=10 milestone. Priority should be given to 
the challenges of: integrating technologies related to tritium breeding; developing 
materials capable of withstanding neutron damage; and building nuclear safety into a 
consistent design of an ITER-like DEMO to demonstrate the production of a net fusion 
electricity output. Once DEMO has achieved its target, industry will have to take over the 
exploitation of fusion for electricity production. In this sense DEMO will be the last step to 
a commercial fusion power plant. 

90 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

10.2.  9.2 

Nuclear Fission 

The nuclear fission research programme is more diverse than the fusion research 
programme, but a number of common observations can be made. Overall, the selected 
projects in the 2014-15 and 16-17 calls are in line with the goals of the Council objectives. 
The funding of the calls could be improved in future Euratom programmes in order to 
reduce the number of calls thus ensuring a more coordinated approach over the whole 
period. 

The Euratom Programme arrangements that are common with those of Horizon 2020 
(Rules of Participation) allow for up to 100% Euratom funding of projects. This appears to 
have distorted the balance of funding between Euratom and the beneficiaries to the extent 
that the Euratom is now providing around 73% of the project costs compared to 53% in 
the FP7/FP7+2 programme. This suggests that less research is being done for the same 
level of EU funding because the beneficiaries are seeking to limit their contributions. 

The projects selected during 2014-17 are in the main relevant to the European research 
needs as set out in the Euratom Work Programmes and the overall Council objectives. The 
projects are in general delivering their milestones but there are some examples of 
milestones being missed. In general, they present, where possible, a coherent research 
approach. European Added Value is a consistent theme in the vast majority of the 
projects. 

In the fission area the use of the instrument of European Joint Programme (Programme 
Co-fund Action) is in its infancy and hence it is too early to see definitive evidence one-
way or the other. However, it may not always beneficial to adopt such an approach and it 
should only be used when it can offer clear benefits to research coordination.  

10.2.1. 9.2.1 

Safety of Nuclear Systems 

In the area of nuclear safety, the range of topics is in general relevant to the goals of 
maintaining Europe’s leadership in the delivery of nuclear safety within the nuclear 
industry. Projects supported by the fission part of the Euratom Programme are consistent 
with the Council objective for nuclear safety of current and future reactor systems. It is 
encouraging that there is diverse participation in the projects but there remains a 
dominance of the larger more established organizations; this results in the funding going 
to a small number of the traditionally strong nuclear countries. 

The balance of spending between the projects is in general consistent with the challenges 
as set out in the Work Programme. There is a good balance between the need to support 
the safety of existing nuclear power plant operations in Europe and the need to focus on 
the research necessary to underpin the safety of the next generation of nuclear power 
plants. 

All of the nuclear safety related projects in the 2014-15 call indicate that progress is 
generally as planned with most deliverables and milestones being achieved. However, it is 
difficult at this stage to comment upon the extent to which the outcomes that are claimed 
will be generated will deliver the project aims in a cost effective way. The 2014-15 
programme in general is aligned to and consistent with the overall goals of the EU’s 
nuclear safety policies but projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme present a more 
coherent approach to the delivery of the overall EU nuclear safety goals. 

In the field of nuclear safety it is the operator/ licensee that is responsible for the safe 
operation of nuclear installations. The European Added Value from the fission part of the 
Euratom Programme comes from the benefit to all MS that results from the contribution 
projects are making to improve our knowledge in the science and technology that 
underpins nuclear safety. The projects in the 2016-17 Work Programme relating to 
Generation- IV reactors provide a clear opportunity for European Added Value to be 
delivered. 

91   

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

10.2.2. 9.2.2 

Management of Ultimate Radioactive Waste 

Radioactive waste management is an important component of the use of nuclear energy in 
Europe. The projects selected in the first call (2014-15) demonstrate that the intent of the 
Euratom Programme has been implemented. The five projects in the 2016-17 Work 
Programme are all related to waste characterisation and conditioning in preparation for 
geological disposal and geological disposal challenges. In this call the Euratom funding of 
€19.5m represents 95 % of the total project funding and it is difficult to see the 
justification for such a large Euratom contribution. 

The funded projects are relevant to the needs of the European research community and 
the citizens of the EU. The JOPRAD project, which is aimed at exploring the feasibility of a 
European Joint Programme approach, has some difficulties and at the end of 2016 it was 
not progressing as expected. Since this time improvements have been made but the panel 
remains of the view that the Commission should satisfy itself that the there is sufficient 
evidence to support the case for proceeding with application of EJP to radioactive waste 
management research. The projects in both the 2014-15 and 2016-17 parts of the 
programme are consistent with Council objective (b). Progress in the 2014-15 projects 
suggests that the aims are on track. However, the funding of these projects should be 
reviewed because as it is the producer of the waste that should pay for its disposal it is 
hard to see why Euratom should fund 73% of the cost for 2014-15 projects and 95% of 
the cost in the 2016-17 projects. 

10.2.3. 9.2.3 

Nuclear Expertise and Excellence 

The importance of supporting the retention and further development of scientific 
competence and human capacity including education and training activities in order to 
guarantee the availability of suitably qualified researchers, engineers and employees in the 
nuclear sector is a long term priority in both past and future Euratom programmes. The 
projects are in line with the objective of the Euratom Programme to develop knowledge 
and to improve scientific and technical competences. 

The Council Regulation’s objective for education and training is rather general and there 
are no specific objectives in the biennial Work Programmes. Better specification of goals in 
the Euratom Work Programmes may facilitate the implementation of education and 
training in the programme. 

Euratom should consider creating fellowships for early stage researchers, incorporating a 
scheme similar to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Early Stage Researcher fellowship, and the 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Conferences and Training Courses. 

Research projects that support nuclear training and the development of expertise in 
nuclear related areas are of key importance to Europe. The projects selected in this area in 
general provide a European Added Value. 

10.2.4. 9.2.4 

Radiation  Protection  and  Medical  Applications  of 

Radiation 

There remains a need to seek closer cooperation between the Euratom radiation protection 
programme and the wider EU health research programme in order to maximise the 
European added value of the Euratom research to health within the EU. 

CONCERT is an example of a European Joint Programme (Programme Co-fund Action) and 
the radiation research programme is directly relevant to the understanding of the risks 
from low dose of radiation. The funded projects are expected to lead to better integration 
of the radiation protection scientific community at EU level, leading to a better 
coordination of research efforts and the provision of more consolidated and robust science-
based policy recommendations to decision makers in this area. In the long term, these 
efforts will translate into additional or improved practical measures for the effective 
protection of people and the environment. 

92 

 
Interim Evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom 2014-18 

The use of the European Joint Programme instrument in the area of radiation protection 
has presented a few challenges, especially as low dose research is mostly done in 
universities that are third parties for CONCERT. There are problems with the national co-
funding that disadvantages universities/third parties. The Panel believes that it would be 
beneficial for the Commission to carry out a review to satisfy itself that its aims and 
objectives, and the benefits of using the EJP approach in the field of radiation protection, 
have been delivered. 

10.2.5. 9.2.5 

Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness 

The selected projects relating to innovation and industrial competitiveness in both the 
2014-15 and 2016-17 calls are generally relevant to the wider EU goals. The information 
that is available suggests that the projects are in general on track. The innovation and 
industrial competitiveness projects are relevant but in the case of the ESSANUF project the 
100% funding seems difficult to justify. 

10.2.6. 9.2.6 

Pan-European Research Infrastructures 

Both projects in the 2014-15 Work Programme are relevant to the Council objectives and 
to the wider EU nuclear research needs. In the case of the HERACLES-CP and the FOREvER 
project (2016-17 programme) it is hard to see why the EU should be funding 100% and 
95% respectively of the research costs. 

The three pan-European research infrastructure projects are consistent with the aims and 
objectives of the Euratom Work Programmes and as such are relevant and consistent with 
the Council objectives. The information that is available suggests that progress is generally 
on track. 

10.2.7. 9.2.7 

Social Aspects and Networking 

The aims and objectives of the three projects selected in the Social Aspects and 
Networking area, HoNEST, NUCL-EU2020 and SPRINT are consistent with the Work 
Programme but the extent to which they meet the needs of European citizens is less clear. 
The funding balance for the NUCL-EU 2020 and SPRINT projects is in line with their 
importance and priority, but the funding level for the HoNEST project seems excessive. 
The information that is available suggests that progress is generally on track. 

93   

11.  REFERENCES 

[Ref 1] 

Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1314/2013 of 16 December 2013 on the Research and 
Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) 
complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 

[Ref 2] 

Fusion Electricity. A roadmap to the realization of fusion energy ISBN 978-3-00-040720-
8 (2012) 

[Ref 3] 

Euratom Work Programme 2014-15, Revised, European Commission C(2014)5009, 22 
July 2014 

[Ref 4] 

Euratom Work Programme 2016-17, European Commission Decision C(2015) 6744, 13 
October 2015 

[Ref 5] 

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/70/EURATOM of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community 
framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 

[Ref 6] 

D. King et al. Conclusions of the Fusion Fast Track expert meeting 27 November 2001; 
ITER CTA Newsletter No11, August 2002; IAEA October 2002; ISSN 1683-0555 

[Ref 7] 

C. Cesarski et al. rtd.ddg2.g.5(2016)4688423 (Ref Ares(2016)4202045 - 08/08/2016) 

[Ref 8] 

R. Cashmore, et al. “R&D Needs and Required Facilities for the Development of Fusion 
as an Energy Source” (2008) Report of the Facilities Review Panel 

[Ref 9] 

A.J.H. Donné, L.G. Eriksson, C. Ibbott, J.-M. Noterdaeme and C. Schönfelder, Review of 
Human Resources in the European Fusion Landscape (2016). 

[Ref 10]  Survey of Human Resources in the European Fusion Programme - Final Report of the 

Ad-Hoc Group; A. Airaghi, M. Chatelier, M.E. Manso, D. Martin, J. Pamela, M. Q. Tran, R. 
Wolf, R. Zagorski, Y. Capouet, C. Ibbott. EUR(07) CCE-FU 37/8.7; March 7th, 2007 

[Ref 11]  Lecbychova, Rita, Presentation to the Panel at its meeting with Commission services’ 

stakeholders, Brussels, 27 June 2016 

[Ref 12]  Ex-Post Evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom Seventh Framework Programme 

and of the Euratom 2012 - 2013 Framework Programme, August 2016 

[Ref 13]  Coverage of Euratom Objectives by calls launched in 2014-2016; data provided by the 

Commission 

[Ref 14]  http://www.snetp.eu/education-training-and-knowledge-management/ 

[Ref 15]  Repussard, Jacques; Panel interview with fission stakeholders; Brussels, 8 August 2016 

[Ref 16]  EY : Study of the evaluation of the management and impacts of fission and fusion 

research supported by the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-18 and 
previous Euratom Programmes; Second Interim Progress Report; DG R&I, 18 November 
2016 (revised) 

[Ref 17]  Horton, Lorne; Panel interview with fusion stakeholders, Culham, UK, 21/22 September 

2016 

[Ref 18]  Campbell, David; Answer to the Panel’s written questions to the ITER Organisation, 

Email to Commission services, 22 December 2016 

[Ref 19]  Commission Decision of 10 December 2013 (C(2013) 8201 final) authorising the use of 

reimbursement on the basis of unit costs for Fusion programme co-fund action under 
the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community 
(2014-2018). 

[Ref 20]  FASTNET Website – www.fastnet-h2020.eu/ 

 
 
[Ref 21]  Minutes of the First FASTNET Workshop – November 2016, ENEA Int. Doc. Prot. 

2016/57530/FSN-SICNUC 

[Ref 22] 

INFCEFA Website – www.infcefaplus.unican.es 

[Ref 23] 

INCEFA Plus Publishable Summary, 

[Ref 24] 

IVMR First Periodic Activity Report 

[Ref 25]  SAMOFAR website- www.samofar.eu/ 

[Ref 26]  SAMOFAR D1.1 Description of initial reference design and identification of safety 

aspects; Ares(2016)793952 - 15/02/2016 

[Ref 27]  SOTERIA - 661913 – Ares (2015)1802084 - 28/04/2015 

[Ref 28]  SOTERIA Report on the Kick-off Meeting , Ares (2015)4025662, Sept 2015 

[Ref 29]  SOTERIA Website – www.soteria-project.eu/ 

[Ref 30]  sCO2-HeRo website – www. 

[Ref 31]  SESAME Thermal hydraulics Simulations and Experiments for the Safety Assessment of 

Metal cooled reactors, Project Report, Ares(2015))3468188-21/08/2015 

[Ref 32]  SESAME Publishable Summary, Ares (2016)6718849-30/11/2016 

[Ref 33]  SESAME Technical Report Part B, Sept 2016 

[Ref 34]  SESAME Milestones, Ares (2016)6718849-30/11/2016 

[Ref 35]  SESAME Deliverables, Ares (2016) 6718849-30/11/2016 

[Ref 36]  Cebama Newsletter 1 February 2016 

[Ref 37]  Cebama Newsletter 2 November 2016 

[Ref 38] 

JOPRAD website- www.joprad.eu/ 

[Ref 39] 

JOPRAD 653951 Newsletter 1 

[Ref 40] 

JOPRAD 653951 Newsletter 2 

[Ref 41] 

JOPRAD Milestones, Ares (2017) 532812 - 31/01/2017 

[Ref 42] 

JOPRAD Deliverables, Ares (2017)532812 - 31/01/2017 

[Ref 43]  MIND website – www.mind15.eu/ 

[Ref 44]  MIND Publishable Summary, Ares(2017)478237 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 45]  MIND Milestones, Ares(2017)478237 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 46]  MIND Deliverables, Ares(2017)478237 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 47]  Modern 2020 Website – www.modern2020.eu/ 

[Ref 48]  Modern 2020 Publishable Summary, Ares (2017) 530714 - 31/01/2017 

[Ref 49]  Modern 2020 Milestones, Ares (2017) 530714 - 31/01/2017 

[Ref 50]  Modern 2020 Deliverables, Ares (2017) 530714 - 31/01/2017 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

[Ref 51]  SITEX Website – www.sitexproject.eu/ 

[Ref 52]  SITEX Publishable Summary, Ares (2017) 541659-01/02/2017 

[Ref 53]  SITEX Milestones, Ares (2017) 541659-01/02/2017 

[Ref 54]  SITEX Deliverables, Ares (2017) 541659-01/02/2017 

[Ref 55]  http://www.concert-h2020.eu/ 

[Ref 56]  http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/199503_en.html 

[Ref 57]  http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/196913_en.html 

[Ref 58]  http://myrte.sckcen.be/en/Scope 

[Ref 59]  http://www.honest2020.eu/ 

[Ref 60]  Repussard, Jacques; Panel interview with fission stakeholders; Brussels, 8 August 2016 

[Ref 61]  ESSANUF PR Deliverables 

[Ref 62]  ESSANUF PR Publishable Summary 

[Ref 63]  ESSANUF Technical Report Part B, BTC 16-1137, rev 0 

[Ref 64]  ESSANUF Website – www.essanuf.eu/ 

[Ref 65]  HERACLES-CP Website – www.heracles-consortium.eu/ 

[Ref 66]  HERACLES-CP Publishable Summary, Ares (2017) 487463 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 67]  HERACLES-CP Milestones, Ares (2017)487463 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 68]  HERACLES –CP Deliverables, Ares (2017) 487463 - 30/01/2017 

[Ref 69]  MYRTE Website – www.myrte.sckcen.be/ 

[Ref 70]  MYRTE Publishable Summary, Ares (2016) 6969925-14/12/2016 

[Ref 71]  MYRTE Milestones, Ares (2016) 6969925-14/12/2016 

[Ref 72]  MYRTE Deliverables, Ares (2016) 6969925-14/12/2016 

[Ref 73]  HoNEST Website – www.honest2020.eu/ 

[Ref 74]  HoNEST, History of Nuclear Energy and Society, Project Plan Ares (2015) 4030891 - 

30/09/2015 

[Ref 75]  HoNEST, First Annual Public Report, Ares (2016) 6297268 - 08/11/2016 

[Ref 76]  NUCL-EU 2020 Website – nucleu2020.eu/ 

[Ref 77]  NUCL-EU First NCPs Assessment Report, Ares (2016) 137032 - 11/01/2016 

[Ref 78]  SPRINT Periodic Technical Report – Part B 

[Ref 79]  EY : Study of the evaluation of the management and impacts of fission and fusion 

research supported by the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-18 and 
previous Euratom Programmes; First Intermediate Progress Report: Management / 
Governance assessment of EUROfusion, EY France; European Union 2016 

[Ref 80]  Donné, Tony; Panel interview with fusion stakeholders, Culham, UK, 21/22 September 

2016 

96 

 
[Ref 81]  The added value of the EU budget; Commission staff working paper SEC(2011) 867 

final; 29.6.2011, Brussels 

[Ref 82]  ec.europa.eu/budget/budget4results/initiative/index_en.cfm 

[Ref 83]  European Added Value of EU Science, Technology and Innovation actions and EU-

Member State Partnership in international cooperation; ISBN 978-92-79-29772-4; 
European Union 2014 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

12.  LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation 1:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the  Council  should 
recognise that even if the level of excellence remains the key for applying for 
research funding, the dominance of the established organisations can lead to 
the exclusion of emerging contributors who have the potential to provide new 
ideas  and  innovation.  Hence  consideration  should  be  given  as  to  how  this 
source  of  innovation  can  be  captured  rather  than  lost  from  European 
programmes. 

Recommendation 2:  For  future  Euratom  Programmes  the  Commission 
should  review  the  impact  of  allowing  up  to  100%-funding  has  on  the  level, 
scope and impact of research being delivered. 

Recommendation 3:  In  view  of  the  importance  of  JET  for  ITER  the  JET 
campaigns should be extended up to 2024. 

Recommendation 4: EUROfusion should not delay the DEMO CDA and should 
start the DEMO EDA around 2025 in order to maintain the industrial know-how 
generated by the ITER construction. 

Recommendation 5: EUROfusion to maintain the original Roadmap focus  on 
DEMO as an ITER-like tokamak to be built as soon as ITER achieves the Q=10 
target. 

Recommendation 6:  EUROfusion  should  use  its  educational  resources  to 
promote  educational  programmes  that  will  deliver  the  nuclear  engineers  and 
technologists as foreseen in the Roadmap. 

Recommendation 7:  EUROfusion  and  the  Commission  should  review  the 
impact of Unit Costs on mobility and make any necessary changes. 

Recommendation 8:  For  WP2018  or  the  extension  of  Euratom  2014-18  the 
Commission and Members States should carefully consider if there is sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the EJP instrument can be applied to research on 
geological disposal of radioactive waste at this point in time. 

Recommendation 9: For the implementation of future research Programmes 
the Commission should ensure that there are specific objectives for the delivery 
of education and training in the Work Programme. 

Recommendation 10: The Commission and the Member States should make 
continued  efforts  to  link  future  Euratom  research  programmes  in  radiation 
protection  associated  with  medical  exposure  with  other  EU  medical  research 
programmes. 

Recommendation 11:  The  Commission  should  carry  out  a  review  of  how 
CONCERT  is  working,  to  satisfy  itself  that  the  aims  of  the  European  Joint 
Programme (programme co-fund action) in relation to the effective and efficient 
management of research in the field of radiation protection are being delivered. 

Recommendation 12: EUROfusion should put in place explicit provisions to 
manage conflicts of interest. 

Recommendation 13: EUROfusion should continue to strengthen its project 
management  arrangements  and  ensure  that  the  Programme  Manager  is 
responsible for the implementation strategy. 

Recommendation 14: EUROfusion should as a matter of urgency set up the 
design authority for DEMO. 

98 

 
Recommendation 15: EUROfusion should look at ways of reducing the burden 
on STAC from its role in the project selection process for Enabling Research. 

Recommendation 16:  The  Council  should  consider  extending  the  Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie scheme to Euratom’s Fission Research Programmes. 

Recommendation 17: To improve the coherence of the research needs of the 
Roadmap  the  coordination  between  the  top  level  management  of  F4E  and 
EUROfusion should be strengthened 

Recommendation 18:  The  Commission  should  introduce  a  formal  Fusion 
Roadmap revision procedure to ensure that any revision to the original Fusion 
Roadmap is owned by all relevant stakeholders. 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

13.  GLOSSARY 

ALLIANCE 

AMR 

ASDEX-U 

AWP 

BFOR 

Breeding Blanket 

BSS 

CCE-FU 

CDA 

CIRCE 

CNRS 

CoA 

COMET 

Research Platform to coordinate and promote European research 
on Radioecology (http://www.er-alliance.org/) 

Annual Monitoring Report 

ASDEX Upgrade (Medium-sized tokamak at Garching, Germany) 

Annual Work Programme 

Budget for results; Commission initiative to demonstrate the value 
added for the EU budget 

The DEMO component that absorbs the neutrons produced in 
fusion reactions. Its main role is to breed the tritium needed to 
fuel the reactor and to transform the neutron energy in thermal 
energy to be used for electricity production. 

(European) Basic Safety Standard 

Consultative Committee for the Euratom specific research and 
training programme in the field of nuclear energy (FUsion) 

Concept Design Activity 

CIRColazione Eutettico (facility to simulate thermo-hydraulic 
behaviour of heavy liquid metal cooled reactor) 

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 

Contract of Association 

COordination and iMplementation of a pan-
European instrumenT for radioecology (www.comet-
radioecology.org) 

CORDEL 

Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing 

COUNCIL Objectives  Objectives as described in the Council regulation establishing the 

Euratom 2014-2018 Programme 

DEMOnstration fusion power plant 

Deep Geological Repository 

European Added Value 

European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System 

European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training 

Engineering Design Activity 

European Fusion Development Agreement 

European Joint Programme/co-fund action 

European Nuclear Education Network 

European Research Council 

European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative 

European Training Programme 

European Alliance for Medical Radiation Protection Research 

European Radiation Dosimetry Group 

European Radiation Research Association for Young Scientists 
(http://www.eurays.eu/) 

European Consortium implementing a comprehensive joint 
programme in line with the fusion roadmap 

Ernest & Young group 

Fusion For Energy 

6th Euratom Framework Programme 2002-2006 

7th Euratom Framework Programme 2007-2011 and Euratom 
Framework Programme 2012-13; FP7/FP7+2 refers to the 
combined 2007-2013 Programme 

Euratom Framework Programme 2021-2025 (to be decided) 

DEMO 

DGR 

EAV 

ECTS 

ECVET 

EDA 

EFDA 

EJP 

ENEN 

ERC 

ESNII 

ETP 

EURAMED 

EURADOS 

EURAYS 

EUROfusion 

EY 

F4E 

FP6 

FP7, FP7+2 

FP9 

100 

 
 
FUSENET 

GA 

European FUSion Education NETwork 

EUROfusion General Assembly 

Generation- II/-III  Current generations of nuclear power plants 

Generation- IV 

Generation IV (advanced fission nuclear systems) 

HEU 

HLEG 

HLW 

ICRP 

IGDTP 

ILW 

ILW 

IMAS 

IPP 

ITER 

High Enriched Uranium fuel 

High Level and Expert Group on European Low Dose Risk Research 

High-Level (radioactive) Waste 

International Commission on Radiological Protection 

Implementing Geological Disposal Technological Platform 

Intermediate-Level (radioactive) Waste 

ITER-like wall 

ITER Integrated Modelling & Analysis Suite 

Institute of Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

ITER IO 

ITER International Organization 

ITER Research Plan  The document that outlines the research to be carried out on ITER 

throughout the various phases of the ITER exploitation. 

JET 

JET DTE2 

JRC 

JT-60SA 

KALLA 

KASOLA 

KPI 

LEU 

LNT 

Joint European Torus 

The experimental campaign to be carried out on JET using 
deuterium and tritium at the end of Horizon 2020. 

Joint Research Centre 

Joint Torus 60 Super Advanced, Tokamak in Japan 

KArlsruhe Liquid metal LAboratory 

KArlsruhe Sodium LAboratory 

Key Performance Indicators 

Low Enriched Uranium 

Linear No Threshold 

Magnum-PSI 

Linear plasma facility at Foundation for Fundamental research On 
Matter (FOM), Netherlands 

MAST-U 

MELODI 

Mega Ampere Spherical Tokamak at Culham, UK 

Multidisciplinary European Low-Dose Initiative 
(http://www.melodi-online.eu/) 

MFF 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Mission (Roadmap)  See Annex 5 

MOOC 

MOX 

MS 

MSC 

MSFR 

MST 

Massive Open Online Courses 

Mixed Oxyde reactor fuel 

EU Member States 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie 

Molten Salt Fast Reactor 

Medium-Sized Tokamak 

MYRRHA 

Project of ADS nuclear system demonstrator 

NACIE 

NCP 

NERIS 

NERIS-TP 

NAtural Circulation Experiment 

National Contact Point 

European Platform on Preparedness for Nuclear and Radiological 
Emergency Response and Recover (http://www.eu-neris.net)) 

Technology Platform on Preparedness for nuclear and radiological 
emergency response and recovery 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

NET project 

NFRP 

NJOC 

NUGENIA 

OPERRA 

Pilot-PSI 

PL 

PMP 

PM 

PMU 

PREPARE 

Q=10 

R&I 

RIA 

Next European Torus. Project established in Garching by EURATOM 
at the end of the '80 to design an experiment to produce fusion 
power at a reactor level. 

Topics for calls in the Nuclear Fission Radiation Protection area 

New JET Operation Contract 

NUclear GEneration II & III Association 

Open Project for the European Radiation Research Area 
(http://www.melodi-online.eu/operra.html) 

Linear plasma facility at Foundation for Fundamental research On 
Matter (FOM), Netherlands 

Project Leader 

Project Management Plan 

EUROfusion Programme Manager 

EUROfusion Programme Management Unit 

FP7/7+2 project on Innovative Integrated Tools and Platforms for 
Radiological Emergency Preparedness and Post-Accident Response 
in Europe (http://www.eu-
neris.net/index.php/projects/prepare.html) 

Performance of ITER, yielding a fusion power of 10 times the 
auxiliary power injected in the reaction chamber 

Research and Innovation 

Research and Innovation Action 

Roadmap 

Fusion Energy Research Roadmap 

RP 

RR 

RU 

Radiation Protection 

Research Reactor 

Research Unit 

SET-Plan 

Strategic Energy Technology Plan 

Small Modular Reactor 

Seconded National Expert 

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform 

Strategic Research Agenda 

Social Sciences and Humanities 

Science and Technology Advisory Committee 

STrategy for Allied Radioecology (STAR) network of excellence 
(NoE) (http://www.radioecology-exchange.org) 

Magnetic configuration that produces the confining magnetic field 
entirely with external coils, without a current flowing in the 
plasma. It is an intrinsically steady state configuration. 

Thermal-hydraulic ADS Lead-bismuth Loop 

Test Blanket Module 

Tokamak à Configuration Variable at Lausanne, Switzerland 

Task Force Leader 

Technology Readiness Level 

Technical Support Organisation 

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority 

Uranium-Molybdenum nuclear fuel 

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 
Radiation 

Vodo-Vodianoï Energetitcheski Reaktor / Pressurized-Water 
Reactor of Russian design 

SMR 

SNE 

SNETP 

SRA 

SSH 

STAC 

STAR NoE 

Stellerator 

TALL 

TBM 

TCV 

TFL 

TRL 

TSO 

UKAEA 

UMo 

UNSCEAR 

VVER 

102 

 
W7-X 

WEST 

WP 

WP2014-15 

WP2016-17 

WP2018 

Wendelstein7-X, large advanced superconducting Stellerator at 
Greifswald, Germany 

'W' Environment in a Steady-state Tokamak (W is the chemical 
symbol for tungsten), Cadarache, France 

Work Programme 

1st biennial Work Programme of Euratom 2014-2018 

2nd biennial Work Programme of Euratom 2014-2018 

3rd and last Work Programme of Euratom 2014-2018 (to be 
decided) 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

14.  ANNEX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE GROUP OF EXPERTS ON THE INTERIM 
EVALUATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS OF THE EURATOM RESEARCH AND 
TRAINING PROGRAMME (2014-18) 

1. 

NAME OF THE EXPERT GROUP 

The Group of Experts on the interim evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom Research and Training 
Programme (2014-2018), hereinafter referred to as 'Interim Evaluation of Euratom Programme'. 

2. 

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

According to Article 22(1) of the Council Regulation (Euratom) 1314/2013, by 31 May 2017, and taking 
into  account  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Seventh  Euratom  Framework  Programme  established  by 
Decision 2006/970/Euratom and of the Euratom Framework Programme (2012-2013) established by 
Decision 2012/93/Euratom to be completed by the end of 2015, the Commission shall carry out, with 
the assistance of independent experts selected on the basis of a transparent process, an interim evaluation 
of the Euratom Programme. 
Evaluations are an essential step to manage and revise the existing body of EU legislation and policy 
and should precede impact assessment for proposals for new legislation. The Commission is committed 
to  evaluate  in  a proportionate  way  all  EU  spending  and  non-spending  activities intended  to  have  an 
impact on society or the economy. The Interim Evaluation of Euratom Programme will be based on the 
evaluation principles established by the Better Regulation Guidelines1. 

3. 

PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 

The purpose of the Interim Evaluation of the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2014-2018) 
(hereinafter  Euratom  Programme)  is  to  assess  its  implementation,  to  provide  an  evidence  base  for 
preparing future Euratom research programmes and to inform the European Parliament and the Council, 
Member  States,  the  research  community  and  other  stakeholders,  and  the  general  public  about  the 
progress made by research and training activities funded by the Euratom Programme. 
In line with Article 22(2) of the Council Regulation (Euratom) 1314/2013, direct and indirect actions 
are subject to separate evaluations. These terms of reference concern indirect actions i.e. research funded 
through competitive calls for proposals managed by the Commission's Directorate-General for Research 
& Innovation. 
Main evaluation questions are defined by Article 22(1) of the Council Regulation (Euratom) 1314/2013 
and further elaborated in these terms of reference. Evaluation shall cover the Programme's achievements, 
at  the  level  of  results  and  progress  towards  impacts,  continued  relevance  of  all  the  measures,  the 
efficiency and use of resources, the scope for further simplification, and European added value. The 
evaluation shall also take into account the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth, results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures and the 
degree of synergy and interaction with other Union funding programmes, including the Structural Funds. 
Regarding scope, the interim evaluation will cover the implementation and results of indirect actions 
funded under the Euratom Programme between January 2014 and June 2016. It will cover all steps of 
the  Euratom  Programme's  implementation,  from  the  defining  of  Work  Programmes,  through 
implementation of calls for proposals and monitoring of projects. 
Particular attention should be paid to the evaluation of the new measures introduced  by the Euratom 
Programme: European Joint Programmes in fusion research and in radiation protection, and prizes. In 
this  context  the  group  might  be  requested  to  examine  the  outcome  of  the  mid-term  review  of 
EUROfusion and of the fusion research roadmap. 
The  group  of  experts  shall  answer  the  following  questions  and  formulate  recommendations  for  the 
Euratom  Programme  2014-2018  and  for  the  Commission's  proposals  for  the  future  Euratom 
Programmes: 

1 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm 

104 

 
                                                 
3.1. 

State of play 
  How has the Euratom Programme been implemented during 2014-2016? 

  What conclusions can be drawn from the participation patterns and trends? 

3.2.   Relevance of the Euratom Programme 

  To what extent do the objectives of the Euratom Programme still correspond to the needs of 

research stakeholders and to EU citizens? 

  Does the Programme offer the right balance between the various areas of nuclear research? 

3.3.   Effectiveness of the Euratom Programme 

  What is the progress made towards the objectives of the Euratom Programme? 

  What are the factors driving or hindering progress and how they are linked (or not) to the 

Euratom Programme? 

  How effective are new measures (European Joint Programmes, prizes) introduced by the 

Euratom Programme? 

  What are the main long-term impacts of the previous Euratom Framework Programme? 

  How is the Euratom research programme contributing to the EU strategic objectives and 

policies? 

3.4.   Efficiency of the Euratom Programme 

  To  what  extent  are  the  inputs  provided  to  Euratom  Programme  reasonable  (i.e.  cost-

effective) in light of the outcomes that have been generated or are likely to be generated? 

 

Is there scope for further simplification? 

3.5.  

Internal coherency of the Euratom Programme and consistency with EU policies 
  To  what  extent  can  the  Euratom  Programme,  as  part  of  Horizon  2020,  be  considered  a 
coherent programme of nuclear research actions in the context of support for research and 
innovation in general in Europe? 

  To what extent is the Euratom Programme consistent with EU policies in general (including 
other  EU  funding  programmes)?  To  what  extent  is  the  intervention  coherent  with  EU's 
international obligations? 

3.6.   EU added value of the Euratom Programme 

  What is the added value resulting from the Euratom Programme, compared to what could 

be achieved by Member States acting alone or at regional level? 

  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  Euratom  Programme  continue  to  require 

action at EU level? 

  What would be the most likely consequences of discontinuing the Euratom Programme? 

4.  

WORKING APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 

4.1.   Working method 
The experts shall carry out an independent and robust evaluation built on a solid evidence base. The 
experts shall prepare a report via a combination of collective and individual work carried out remotely 
and structured around regular meetings. 
The Chairperson shall specify the working method of the panel and ensure that the capacities of the 
experts are best utilised in order to carry out this evaluation. 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The  group  shall  include  a Rapporteur  who  shall  prepare  the  final  report.  The  Rapporteur  shall  draft 
summaries of the discussions held at meetings. Commission staff shall support the production of the 
report, notably by making available relevant evidence base and by providing relevant feedback. 
The evaluation shall be designed and carried out in line with the Better Regulation guidelines2. 

Support and evidence base 

4.2.  
A comprehensive set of relevant data, reports and studies allowing the carrying out of the evaluation 
shall be delivered by the Commission to the experts as their work evolves: 

a)  statistical information on the implementation of the Euratom indirect actions; 

b)  targeted studies carried out for the purpose of this evaluation; 

c)  report from the ex-post evaluation of the Euratom FP7; 

d)  report from mid-term review of EUROfusion consortium; 

e)  relevant policy documents concerning Euratom research; 

f)  scientific  publications  and  other  sources  of  evidence  at  the  level  of  the  programme  and 

projects. 

The members may invite, as appropriate, representatives of the Commission services, beneficiaries of 
the  Euratom  Programme  and  end-users,  independent  experts  and  stakeholders  in  fission  and  fusion 
research to give written or oral evidence. 

5.  

DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT GROUP 

The group is composed of a Chairperson, a Rapporteur and four experts. The Chairperson shall specify 
the distribution of the work among members of the expert group in order to carry out this evaluation. 
The experts will be asked by the Commission to devote up to 28 working days (including meetings and 
remote work) to these tasks. In the case of the Chairperson and the Rapporteur, the maximum number 
is 32 and 35 working days respectively. 

6.  

MEETINGS, REPORTING AND DEADLINES 

The group shall prepare a report in English. The report shall include: 
a)  an executive summary of maximum 4 pages in English; 

b)  the  following  standard  disclaimer:  “The  information and  views  set  out  in this  report  are 
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. 
The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither 
the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.” 

c)  The experts shall start their work in June 2016. A draft report shall be made available to the 
Commission  by  end  of  November  2016  and  the  final  report  shall  be  addressed  to  the 
Commission  by  end  of  January  2017.  The  Commission  shall  make  the  report  publicly 
available. 

The Chairperson and/or Rapporteur may be invited in the future by the Commission to present the report. 

7.  

EXPERTS PROFILES 

The experts  shall  have  the  relevant  expertise  to ensure  evaluation  in all  of the areas  covered  by  the 
indirect actions of the Euratom Programme. Experts shall be appointed on the basis of high level of 
skills, experience and knowledge in the relevant areas, in particular: 

2 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/index_en.htm 

106 

 
                                                 
a) 

in  the  fields  of  research  and  technological  development,  as  attested  by  higher  education 
qualifications of at least doctoral level and/or proven by having won prizes and awards at 
national,  European  and  international  level  and/or  as  evidenced  by  experience,  research 
outputs, publications and skills that are widely recognised; 

b)  an  appropriate  range  of  skills  in  different  aspects  of  the  Euratom  Programme,  including 
knowledge on nuclear systems, radiation protection, radioactive waste management, cross-
cutting issues as well as education & training in the nuclear field, energy policy, social and 
economic aspects of nuclear energy, combined with the ability to examine related questions 
and analyse the general context into which they fall; 

c)  appropriate language skills. 

The following criteria shall also be taken into consideration when appointing the members of the group: 

d)  geographical diversity and gender balance; 

e)  where appropriate, the balance between academic and industry expertise; 

f)  ability to assess the societal dimension and strategic relevance of the Euratom Programme; 

g)  knowledge about evaluations of previous Euratom Programmes; 

h)  absence of conflict of interest. 

8. 

EXPERTS SHORT BIOGRAPHIES 

[Experts short biographies will be added after appointment of the experts by the Director-General.] 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

15.  ANNEX 2 EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP 

The evaluation Panel comprised the following independent members: 

Professor Laurence G Williams FREng (UK) - Chairman 

Senior Research Investigator in the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London; 
Emeritus Professor of Nuclear Safety and Regulation at the University of Central 
Lancashire; Former HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations (1998-2005) and Director for 
Nuclear Safety in the UK Health and Safety Executive; Chief Engineer and Director for Nuclear 
Safety, Security and Environment at the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Chair of UK 
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM); Chair IAEA Commission on Safety 
Standards (2000-2005); Chair Ex-post evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom FP7 and FP7+2 
Programmes. 

Professor Eugenijus Butkus (LT) 

Eugenijus Butkus, Head of the Life Sciences Center of Vilnius University, Professor. Eugenijus 
Butkus previously served as the Chairman of the Research Council of Lithuania during 2003‐
2013, Vice‐Rector for research of Vilnius University in 2013‐2015 and Vice President of the 
European Science Foundation (ESF) in 2012‐13. He has also been the Chair of the BONUS 
program steering committee (2013‐14). He was a HLEG member of Ex‐Post‐Evaluation of the 
7th EU Framework Programme (2007‐2013). He has coordinated the FP7 collaborative project 
Servicing Policy for Resource Efficient Economy. In 2014 he has been awarded the National 
Science Prize. Eugenijus Butkus is a full member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. 

Edit Herczog (HU) 

Edit Herczog, managing director of the company called Vision & Values, specialised on Strategic 
Marketing, Brussels. She is a former MEP served ten years in the European Parliament 
Committee for Industry Technology and Research, Committee for Internal Market, Committees 
for Budget and Budget Control. She worked as rapporteur or shadow rapporteur for several 
energy and nuclear energy related legislation. She was chairman for the Forum for the future 
of the nuclear energy in Europe, and vice president of the European Energy Forum. Before EP 
Edit was a manager for ten years responsible for Central Easter Europe at Company called 
National Starch and Chemical (member of ICI group) in the field of Specialised Chemicals. She 
is a lecturer at HEC University in Liege. 

Dr. Geraldine O’Reilly (IE) 

Geraldine O'Reilly is Chief Physicist and Head of the Medical Physics and Bioengineering 
Department in St.James's Hospital, Dublin. She acts as Radiation Protection Adviser to 
St.James's and to a number of other hospitals in the region. She is a member of the Article 31 
Group of Experts, an advisory group to the European Commission on matters relating to 
radiation safety and has acted as a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency. She 
lectures on a number of post-graduate programmes in Trinity College Dublin and also in the 
Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland. She has acted as a reviewer for a number of journals in 
the field of Radiology and Radiation Protection, including the BJR. She served two terms as a 
Board Member on the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and served on both their 
environmental and medical radiation advisory committees. She is a member of the National 
Radiology Steering Group. 

Professor Francesco Romanelli (IT) 

Francesco Romanelli is professor of Physics of Nuclear Energy in the Department of Industrial 
Engineering of the University of Rome "Tor Vergata". He has been Leader of the European 
Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) from 2010 to 2014 and Leader of the Joint European 
Torus (JET) from 2006 to 2014. He has directed the activities in Physics of Magnetic 
Confinement Fusion at ENEA from 1996 to 2006. From 2003 and 2006 he has been Chairman 
of the EFDA Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 

Dr. Hans G Riotte (DE) - Rapporteur 

Hans Riotte is former Head of the Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management 
Division at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. He is a retired official of the German Federal 
Ministry of Research and Education where he was in charge of technology foresight and 
strategic research policy issues. Hans was the rapporteur of the panel for the ex-post 
evaluation of indirect actions of Euratom FP7 and FP7+2 Programmes. 

108 

 
The Panel was assisted by the following representatives of the European Commission Directorate-
General for Research & Innovation: 

  Frederick Mariën – Coordinator for Euratom R&I Horizontal Activities 

  Tomasz Sliwinski – Policy Officer 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

16.  ANNEX 3 MEETINGS SCHEDULE 

The Panel met ten times between June 2016 and March 2017 at the Commission premises in 
Brussels (BE), in London (UK), and at the CCFE (Culham, UK) and IPP (Garching, DE) research 
centres: 

  27 June 2016 

Brussels (Meeting with Commission stakeholders) 

  18 July 2016  

Brussels 

(Meeting  with 

EY 

and 

Cesarski-Panel 

representatives) 

  08 August 2016 

Brussels (Meeting with fission stakeholders) 

  21-22 September 2016  Culham, UK (Meeting with fusion stakeholders) 

  27-28 October 2016  

Brussels 

  23-25 November 2016  Garching, DE (Meeting with fusion stakeholders) 

  29-30 November 2016   Brussels 

  26-27 January 2017 

London 

  21-22 February 2017 

Brussels 

  16-17 March 2017 

  20 April 2017 

Brussels 

Brussels 

110 

 
 
 
17.  ANNEX 4  QUESTIONS PUT TO THE FUSION AND FISSION STAKEHOLDERS 

17.1. 

Annex 4.1 

Questions to Fusion Stakeholders 

Topics  of  the  meetings  with  fusion  stakeholders  on  21-22 
September and 23-25 November 2016 

  The impact of the transition from EFDA to EUROfusion. 

  The relevance of the Euratom Fusion research and training programme. 

  The effectiveness and efficiency of EUROfusion in the delivery of the Euratom fusion 

research and training programme. 

  The EU added value of the Euratom fusion research programme. 

  The extent to which the EUROfusion programme in delivering the intent of the Fusion 

Roadmap. 

  The revision of the Fusion Roadmap. 

  The role of JET in the delivery of the 2014-18 Programme 

  The role of JET in future fusion research 

  The role of JET in support of ITER 

 

JET upgrade requirements 

  The implications of the closure of JET on Euratom Fusion research in FP 9 

  Experience of small research units in EUROfusion. 

  Status of the Roadmap implementation 

  Summary of the status of the Roadmap implementation in terms of standard indicators 
(e.g. deliverables, milestones, budget committed by the beneficiaries for the capital 
investments, etc.) 

a.  Schedule of the main decision points 

b.  JET internationalisation 

c.  Divertor Tokamak Test facility (DTT) 

d.  Early Neutron Source 

e.  JT60-SA exploitation post Broader Approach 

  EUROfusion achievements on the Roadmap Missions 1 (Plasma regimes of operation), 

Mission 2 (Heat and particle exhaust) and Mission 8 (Stellarators) 

  Evolution of the JT60-SA research plan and opportunities for implementing part of the 

ITER/DEMO preparation there (e.g. test of tungsten plasma facing components) 

  Possible role of EU Medium Size Tokamaks in FP9 in support of ITER/DEMO. 

  Status of the DTT discussion 

  The main achievements so far (STAC). 

  The role and effectiveness of STAC 

  The management of conflicts of interest in STAC 

  The extent to which the EUROfusion programme is delivering the intent of the Fusion 
Roadmap  in  relation  to  the  objectives  of  increasing  competence  in  engineering  and 
technology . 

  The ability of EUROfusion to measure the quality of the information provided by each 

of the participating institutions. 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  Areas  where  improvements  can  be  made  in  education  and  training  aspects  of  the 

Euratom Programme 

  The Countries that are benefitting from the E&T programme 

  The role of FUSENET. 

  The achievements in terms of better return for EURATOM from the IC in the first two 

years of EUROfusion 

 

International participation in JET. 

  EUROfusion participation in the design of the Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor. 

  Progress  in  the  possibility  of  making  material  irradiation  in  fission  reactors  of 

international collaborators. 

  Collaboration on the non EU stellarators 

  Status of JET upgrade/ refurbishment programme 

 

 

JET lifetime – status of lifetime usage of main components 

JET availability / reliability over the past 15 years 

  Experience with the  first 3 years of  EUROfusion as  a participant in the projects and 

member of the GA 

  Role of the UK fusion programme in the Roadmap implementation (MAST-U, etc.) 

  Management of the transition between JET and ITER after JET era. 

(Written) Questions on fusion research for fusion R&D stakeholders 

Role of JET and consequences of closure at the end of the present Euratom programme. 
Q1  With realistic assumptions of JET reliability, how much experimental time is needed for JET to 
complete the original EP2 programme (including the tritium campaigns) and execute the 
additional tasks outlined by ITER during the JET internationalization workshop? 

Q2 

The schedule presented in Fig.3 of the Addendum foresees almost 3 years of operation in 
2018-2020 with limited time for interventions. Is this realistic in view of the need to have 
most of the systems operating at their top performance? 

Q3  What role can JET play in order to mitigate the risks to the success of ITER (in the areas of 
preparation of ITER operation, consolidation of ITER design choices, training of ITER 
personnel, etc.) and in which time frame? 

Q4  What would be the consequences of the closure of JET in 2018 or 2020, respectively on the 

risk mitigation strategy for ITER? 

Q5  A main difference between EFDA and EUROfusion is the separation between the direction of 

JET operation and that of JET scientific exploitation. How is this impacting on the 
preparation, selection, and review of the individual experimental proposals for JET? 

Q6  What would be the consequences of managing the JOC through EUROfusion? 

Fusion Roadmap 
Q7  No input from ITER operation is expected during the CDA both in the 2012 Roadmap and in 
the revised Roadmap. What is to be gained by postponing the start of the Engineering 
Design Activity (EDA)? 

Q8  One of the motivations behind the start of the DEMO EDA in the 2020s advocated by the 

2012 Roadmap was to avoid dispersing the know-how acquired by industry from the ITER 
design and construction. What plans have been made by EUROfusion to cope with the 
problem caused by delaying the start of EDA by ten years? 

Q9 

Taking into account the aggressive schedule of China for the CFETR construction, how can 
the present leadership position of Europe in Fusion be maintained in the revised Roadmap? 

112 

 
 
Q10  What is the schedule presently envisaged for narrowing down the blanket concepts? 

Q11  Which steps is EUROfusion taking to orient the Test Blanket Module program in ITER to 

provide additional input for the DEMO design finalization? 

Q12  The Roadmap advocated for the development of FM steels for DEMO out of the High-

Temperature steels developed within the fission research. How is this development 
progressing? 

Q13  The E&Y review pointed out the lack of a design authority for the DEMO CDA. How is this 

compatible with the implementation of a project oriented activity? In the comments to E&Y 
EUROfusion mention the experience of GenIV with a strong team of 500 people on site. Is 
EUROfusion considering to put together a similar effort on the Garching site? (see also Q13 
below on lack of PMU leadership of the implementation strategy) 

Q14  In relation with the choice of investigating different Power Plant layouts, what resources are 
planned to be devoted to this activity in H2020 and does this compare with those planned in 
the grant for the DEMO design? 

Q15  Following the PEX assessment on mid October 2016, what is the strategy of EUROfusion with 

regard to the risk-mitigation strategy on Mission 2? 

Transition from EFDA to EUROfusion 
Q16  The review made by E&Y has pointed out the lack of PMU leadership of the implementation 
strategy and, more generally, an attitude to see the PMU/Task Force leader/Project leader 
role as that of referee or back-office. How is this compatible with the implementation of a 
project oriented activity such as that envisaged in the Roadmap? 

Q17  Is the EUROfusion organization capable of steering the effort of the European fusion 

laboratories on the DEMO R&D activities? 

Q18  Who do Project Leaders/Task Force Leaders respond to? 

Q19  What were the administrative costs in FP7 including those of the EFDA system (CSU)? 

Q20  What are the current and projected administrative costs in the H2020 for the monitoring of 

the EUROfusion grant. 

Q21  What are the current PMU costs, the coordinator costs and those recognized as 

administrative costs of the beneficiaries? 

Q22  What were your administration costs of the EFDA/CoA programme and how do these 

compare with the current and projected administration costs associated with EUROFUSION? 
Are there specific administrative barriers that can be overcome? 

Q23  What are the steps to prepare the annual Work Programme? 

Q24  What are the quantitative indicators that have been used to show how this change has 

impacted on the quality and quantity of the scientific production? 

Q25  What quantitative indicators have been used to measure the increased focalization of the 

Medium Size Tokamak experimental programme around the most urgent ITER R&D needs in 
going from EFDA? 

Q26  What, broken down by Work Package, is the budget committed up to the end of 2018 and 

the amount of that has not yet been committed? 

Q27  How does this compare with the budget breakdown foreseen in the grant proposal? 

Q28  How is the balance struck between the desire to get the maximum participation of Member 

States, the delivery of excellence and the need for effective and efficient use of research 
funding to deliver the goals of the roadmap? 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Q29  What analysis has been done to assess the costs on Beneficiaries to administer the need to 
have the widest possible collaboration across Member States, and what are the implications 
for the large and small fusion research labs. 

STAC and Enabling Research 
Q30  What is the rejection rate of the Enabling Research projects? 

Q31  How does STAC assess the achievements of the Enabling Research projects and the 

effectiveness of this programme to promote excellence and innovation? 

Q32  What are the main conclusions that can be drawn for the projects that are coming to an end 

now? 

Q33  What is the distribution among the EUROfusion members of: 

 

number of principal investigators, 

  manpower resources (ppy), and 

 

hardware (euros). 

Q34  Are the new Member States benefitting from the Enabling Research process? 

Q35  How does STAC deal with conflict of interest both for its internal work and the ER 

assessment? 

Q36  Is a declaration for conflict of interest requested from each STAC member? 

Q37  Have you made a comparison between the ER selection process and the similar processes 

managed by ERC in terms of success rate, complexity of the process and referee's effort 
(average per proposal)? 

Education and training. 
Q38  How is this being implemented? Do you have indicators that show that this programme is 

indeed promoting the Universities to adapt their curricola. 

Q39  How many PhD students have been supported since the start of EUROfusion and how is the 

number is evolving with time? 

Q40  How is the fusion relevance of individual PhD project assessed to check that the link with 

fusion is not "marginal"? 

Q41  Do you rank a PhD proposals e.g. according to quality or to relevance for the Roadmap? 

EUROfusion added value 
Q42  What is the European added value of the EUROfusion programme? Can you compare it with 

EFDA/CoA? 

Governance 
Q43  Do you think that the present system is missing a body like the old CCE-FU in which strategic 
issues related to fusion were discussed at Member State level with EFDA and F4E Leadership 
present as standing experts? What system would you suggest for a better coordination within 
the existing fusion governance? 

17.2. 

Annex 4.2 

Questions to Fission Stakeholders 

Questions to Ernst&Young (EY) 
  Questions  with  particular  focus  on  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  EU 

added value of the fission part of the Euratom Programme 

Questions to Commission services 
  Response to the recommendations of the FP7 & FP7+2 ex-post evaluation 

114 

 
  The relevance of the Euratom funded fission research to the delivery of the objectives 

of the Euratom Programme 2014-18. 

  The effectiveness of the Euratom funded fission research in meeting the objectives of 

the Euratom Programme 2014-18. 

  The efficiency of the fission part of Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-

2018 

  The  EU  added  value  of  the  fission  part  of  the  Euratom  Research  and  Training 

Programme 2014-18. 

fission  project  stakeholders  (Heracles/  CONCERT/  MELODI/  MYRTE/ 

to 

Questions 
ESSANUF/ CORONA-II/ JOPRAD/ ANNETTE/ SNETP) 
a) General questions 

  The  relevance  of  the  [PROJECT]  to  the  delivery  of  the  nuclear  safety/radiation 

protection objectives of the Euratom Programme 

  The effectiveness of the [PROJECT] in meeting the nuclear safety/radiation protection 

objectives of the Euratom Programme 

  The EU added value of the [PROJECT] 

  Training activities within the [PROJECT] 

  Progress to date in the delivery of the [PROJECT] objectives 
b) Project-specific questions to MYRTE 

  The Efficiency of the MYRTE project 
c) Project-specific questions to MELODI: 

  How has the 2014-2016 Euratom project "CONCERT - Integrating radiation research 

in the European Union" impacted on MELODI? 

  Has  this  project  led  to  a  better  integration  of  the  radiation  protection  scientific 

community in the EU? 

  What achievements have been delivered so far and what are likely to be delivered over 

the course of the 2014-18 programme? 

  Do you think these achievements, with a total expenditure of €27m, represent value 

for money and if so, why? 

  How do you think this work will improve our understanding of the impact of exposure 
to low doses of radiation so that realistic risk assessments can be made in the analysis 
of nuclear reactor or nuclear fuel cycle facility safety? 

  How will this work impact on radiation protection regulatory requirements / standards? 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

18.  ANNEX 5 FUSION ROADMAP TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS 

The Fusion Roadmap is articulated in eight Missions. In the following the main progress is 
summarized. The results involve the combination of experimental effort, theoretical simulation and 
modelling, and design work. 

Mission 1. Development and qualification of plasma regimes of operation for ITER and DEMO. 

Performance optimization with metallic wall has been progressed closer to ITER conditions. 
Stationary operation that avoids tungsten accumulation in the plasma core - a potential problem 
for ITER - has been established both in JET and ASDEX-U. Energy confinement quality relevant for 
ITER has been achieved on JET both for the baseline H-mode regime of operation (up to 3.0 MA) 
and the hybrid regime at higher normalised plasma pressure. 

Identical discharges with metallic walls have shown a 25%-30% reduction of the L to H power 
threshold, PL-H, in ASDEX Upgrade and in JET - if confirmed on ITER this result would significantly 
increase its margin of success. 

Mitigation and control of disruption and runaway electrons. Mitigation of disruptions is a 
requirement for safe ITER operation. The use of Massive Gas Injection (MGI) for disruption 
mitigation became mandatory on JET for operations with metallic walls and is integrated in the 
scenario development. Using the JET disruption mitigation system, the vessel forces during vertical 
displacement of disruptions could be reduced by 40% and the asymmetric forces fully mitigated. 

Control of edge instabilities. Substantial mitigation of Edge Localized Modes (ELMs) is required on 
ITER to avoid damage of the plasma facing components. Full ELM suppression has now been 
demonstrated in low collisionality discharges at higher triangularity on ASDEX Upgrade as part of a 
joint experiment with researchers on DIII-D (GA, US). 

Analysis of the transient heat loads during mitigated and non-mitigated ELMs in JET, ASDEX-U and 
MAST have allowed a quantification of the analogous loads in ITER. 

Preparation of the ITER non-active phase. A dedicated helium discharge campaign was carried out 
in ASDEX Upgrade in 2015 to investigate the suitability of He for non-nuclear plasma operations in 
ITER. 

Plasma operations with high radiated power. ITER and DEMO need to radiate between 70% and 
90% of the heating power in order to reduce the heat load on the divertor to tolerable levels. 
Regimes of operation with high radiated power have been established both on JET (75%) and 
ASDEX-U (90%) through impurity seeding. However plasma confinement is still below the ITER 
requirements. 

Preparation for the EU participation in JT-60SA. Feasibility studies of JT-60SA transition to tungsten 
PFCs, with simulations in the presence of a W divertor and tests of PFC coatings on EU high heat 
flux facilities have been performed. As a result, a DEMO-relevant test on JT-60 SA of the 
compatibility of plasma operation with a full tungsten wall is now being considered in the JT-60SA 
baseline research plan around 2027. 

Mission 2. Development of heat exhaust systems capable of withstanding the high thermal and 
particle loads of the plasma facing components of ITER and DEMO. 

Tritium retention with the ITER plasma facing materials. Both post-mortem analysis of retrieved 
plasma facing components and gas balance studies in ASDEX-Upgrade and JET have demonstrated 
a significant reduction (by factor of 10-15) of the deuterium fuel retention with metallic first walls 
as compared to the previously used carbon based first walls. 

Operation with molten tungsten in ITER. Deliberate shallow tungsten melting has been produced on 
JET using protruding lamellae. The experiment has shown that the consequence of melting can be 
tolerated for JET operation and that the JET results indicate tolerable consequences also for ITER 
operation. 

Preliminary design of the DEMO divertor. The design and technology development of the DEMO 
divertor based on the same engineering approach as the ITER divertor has been started in a 
specific project. A required margin against heat load excursions limits the water coolant 
temperature of the plasma facing components to 150oC or lower. Although, the neutron damage in 
DEMO is higher than in ITER, the effects on the CuCrZr properties is not expected to be a limiting 

116 

 
factor for the design in the temperature range of interest. Alternative technology solutions of the 
divertor target PFC are being investigated to further improve the heat flux performance such as 
advanced heat-sink materials (e.g. Cu-W composite). The first batch of mock-ups has been 
successfully fabricated and is being tested where the results achieved so far demonstrate the high 
fabrication quality and the envisaged performance. Extensive neutronic, electromagnetic, thermal 
and mechanical analyses have been carried out for both the divertor cassette and the plasma 
facing components. 

Definition of the scope and feasibility of a divertor tokamak test facility. Work has progressed in 
this area to assess the DEMO relevance of divertor configurations presently investigated at proof-
of-principle level on existing tokamaks. However, a decision on the scope and feasibility of a 
divertor tokamak test facility is still pending. 

Mission 3. Development of neutron resistant materials capable of withstanding the 14MeV 
neutron damage. 

The qualification of the main candidates as DEMO structural materials - the ferritic-martensitic steel 
EUROFER, CuCrZr as heat sink and tungsten as plasma facing materials - has been started. 

Irradiation campaigns are underway to fill the database of irradiated materials. Post-irradiation 
examination data shall be available latest 2020 for EUROFER97 (the version of EUROFER produced 
in 1997) irradiated up to 20dpa, CuCrZr up to 5 dpa, both at various temperatures, complemented 
by irradiation of tungsten options at 1dpa. Data will feed into the Material Property Handbook, 
where updates of engineering data are regularly released. 

The goal of increasing the working temperature window of EUROFER is also being pursued - 
reducing the low temperature boundary is crucial to make it possible the use of water as blanket 
coolant. Approximately three dozens of new alloys have been produced at industrial scale. The 
results so far demonstrate that the development of improved 9Cr steels for high temperature 
applications is a realistic goal: a significant improvement of EUROFER-HT mechanical properties can 
be obtained at the expense of the degradation of fracture properties at the lower temperature end 
with either of the following options: (i) modified heat treatments (compared to standard 
EUROFER97), (ii) optimized chemical compositions or (iii) by thermo-mechanical treatments. The 
development of 9Cr steels for low temperature applications with improved (fracture) properties, 
turned out to be really challenging. Some improvement of (impact) properties have been obtained 
and new treatments on optimized compositions may yield more significant gains, all to be 
confirmed und irradiation conditions. It was found that double austenitization at 1020°C was the 
optimum treatment in terms of grain size reduction, which resulted in a reduction of the ductile-to-
brittle transition temperature of some 10 K (up to ~30 K at the best). 

After a first down-selection, ion irradiation in JANNuS and neutron irradiation experiments up to 2.5 
dpa, where results are expected by 2020, have been launched. 

In the frame of the development of advanced High Heat-Flux Materials there has been significant 
progress in various areas, including: 

Particle reinforced W composites via powder injection molding. 

Short and long fiber reinforced W materials with optimized fiber/matrix interface. 

W-particle and fiber reinforced Cu-based alloys as well as quarternary CuCrZr-(V,Ta) alloys. 

Multi-metal W-laminates (W/Cu, W/Ti and W/V – the two latter with implemented interlayers acting 
as diffusion barriers) and the newly set-up W/W laminate option. 

Thermal barrier layers with a wide range of available thermal conductivity and W/Cu-Functional 
Graded Materials. 

The amount of available data from detailed mechanical, thermo-physical and high heat flux 
characterization is steadily increasing and transferred to the newly established material database 
as basis for the Material Property Handbook. 

Mission 4. Development of components to ensure tritium self-sufficiency of DEMO. 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The design of the four breeding blanket concepts selected as promising candidates for this program 
is in progress and the supporting technical documentation is almost completed, including the 
definition of all the interfaces with other DEMO blanket-interdependent systems (i.e. remote 
handling, balance-of-plant and tritium systems). The conceptual design of the associated tritium 
extraction and removal systems and of the largest ancillary systems (e.g., the PbLi loop for the 
liquid blanket concepts), including the preliminary layout and space allocation, are available and 
are being used to perform the required studies. The associated R&D programme has progressed 
especially in the following areas: production and characterization of tritium permeation and 
corrosion barriers and of suitable tritium extraction technologies, manufacturing and welding of 
EUROFER sub-components, characterization of double-wall pipes for water cooled concepts, 
fabrication and characterization of functional gradient tungsten layers for the first-wall, fabrication 
of advanced functional material for solid breeder blankets. 

A strategy for realigning the ITER Test Blanket Programme and the EUROfusion Breeding Blanket 
Programme is being elaborated by a Working Group composed of representatives of key EU 
laboratories involved, EUROfusion and F4E and an independent Review Panel of external experts is 
addressing, in support to the Working Group activities, a specific list of technical points. 

A preliminary design layout and performance analysis of the DEMO balance-of-plant (primary heat 
transfer system (PHTS), energy storage system (ESS) and power conversion system) based on the 
use of either helium or water as coolant for the breeding blanket has been performed. The He-
PHTS design has been integrated into an initial design of the DEMO tokamak building together with 
a few other large systems and plants (some already designed for DEMO, some others extrapolated 
from ITER, such as NBI, Magnet Feeders, Cryoplant and cryodistribution lines etc. A similar, layout 
is being developed for a water cooled blanket PHTS and both will be used to conduct initial design 
integration studies, safety, technology feasibility, and cost analyses 

Mission 5. Implementation of the intrinsic safety features of fusion into the DEMO design. 

Work in this area involves the definition of the design and licensing requirements, the integrated 
safety analysis/source terms/models and codes, and the analysis of radioactive waste 
management. The relevant documents defining the General Safety Principles and the Plant Safety 
Requirements Document have been released. The UK and French nuclear regulators have been 
approached to define a possible strategy for the licensing of DEMO. In radioactive waste 
management the main issue is the detritiation of solid materials. A number of possible technologies 
has been identified. 

Mission 6&7. Integrated DEMO design and system development and competitive cost of 
electricity. 

The DEMO design activity has started in a professional manner with a thorough examination of 
system integration aspects supported by a systems engineering approach. Systems codes that 
model the interplay of key systems and subsystems of a fusion plant have been further improved 
and benchmarked with similar tools developed in Japan and realistic plasma physics and 
engineering assumptions have been used to derive the reactor design parameters of various DEMO 
design options. A baseline architecture has been established that integrates all the major DEMO 
sub-systems into a coherent plant concept, Establishing system requirements and a baseline 
concept is mandatory, as this should drive R&D - not the other way round. A stakeholder group has 
also been set up in order to gather the view of industry and utilities on the mission of DEMO, and 
to establish the high level requirements and constraints. Their involvement culminated in the 
definition of the Stakeholder and Plant Requirements Document. 

In the area of DEMO superconducting magnets, three toroidal field coil winding pack designs were 
studied, each with various pros and cons (cost, integration, manufacture methods, etc.). All the WP 
designs have opted to depart from the radial plates approach adopted by ITER- a significant 
simplification that offers the possibility of cost reduction for one of the largest DEMO component. 
Mechanical studies have so far shown that this is possible. Two DEMO-relevant TF conductor 
samples were fabricated (React & Wind + Wind & React routes) and one tested in the EDIPO 
facility, and one tested in the SULTAN facility. These tests demonstrated that these conductors do 
not show degradation with EM cycles and have a lower level of strain than in ITER – which will lead 
to more robust and efficient winding pack designs. 

Several studies were carried out on high temperature superconductors, from tapes (transport 
critical properties, sustainment to irradiation, and mechanical properties) to cables (four types of 
cable concept evaluated) including tests and analyses. 

118 

 
In the area of Remote Maintenance, significant progress has been made on the maintenance of the 
blanket segments, the most critical element to ensure high-availability of a fusion power plant. The 
vertical-large sector maintenance scheme has been selected from different options as the most 
appropriate to meet the high-level requirements. The different challenges of this scheme have 
been identified. These are related to the large size/weight of the components to manipulate, the 
presence of a large number of high-pressure service connections and the extreme conditions due to 
the nuclear environment. The project aims at defining the remote maintenance strategy by 2018. 

A specific project for the DEMO H&CD systems has been launched. The R&D activity focuses on the 
critical components of each of the DEMO systems under consideration. 

Mission 8. Stellarator development. 

The W7X facility has started in 2015. Its operation and its exploitation involves many of the 
EUROfusion laboratories. The main objective of the first campaign was the integral commissioning 
of plasma start-up and operation using an electron cyclotron resonance heating system and an 
extensive set of plasma diagnostics. The performance of W7-X and the science output during the 
first campaign exceeded all expectations. 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

19.  ANNEX 6 EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

European Added Value Criteria (modified from [Ref 81]) 

Criterion 

Applicable to Fusion, 
Fission, RP and E&T 

Scale too big for Member States to handle alone 

Financial benefits: a joint approach would be 
advantageous 

Combines complementary MS efforts to tackle European 
problems 

Cohesion of European markets 

Unification of European S&T across borders 

Promotes uniform laws and standards 

Mobilising EU potential at European and global level by 
coordinating national and EU programmes 

Contributes to implementing EURATOM policy 

Contributes to societal objectives (later ‘grand 
challenges’) 

Exploits opportunities for the development of European 
science, technology and industry 

Structures the EU R&D community and ‘fabric’ 

Improves quality through exposure to EU-wide 
competition 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

(n/a to E&T) 

A more recent source defines EAV more relevant to research and research infrastructure: 

Critical mass 
Research activities are often of such a scale and complexity that no single Member State or 
company can provide the necessary financial or personnel resources, and hence need to be carried 
out at a EU level in order to achieve the required “critical mass”. This occurs where a large 
research capacity is needed, resources and expertise must be pooled to be effective (e.g. for areas 
such as rare diseases) or where there is a strong requirement for complementary knowledge and 
skills (e.g. in highly inter-disciplinary fields). 

More efficient use of scarce resources 
Large scale demonstration projects and major research infrastructures are better planned and 
funded at European level. Instead of supporting multiple national flagship demonstrators and 
infrastructures, planning and competitive selection of projects and better sharing of these 
infrastructures and demonstration plants at EU level are a more cost efficient use and provide 
better value for money. Alignment of research agendas at EU level can also help to increase impact 
of scarce resources. 

Reducing financial risks 
EU funding can support entrepreneurs to undertake risky projects in R&I through financial 
incentives; 

Increase competition in research 
EU funding helps to promote more intense competition in research leading to higher quality 
proposals and excellence. 

Improving S&T capabilities 

120 

 
 
 
EU funding contributes to access to knowledge, to training, cross border mobility and international 
research careers. Research teams wishing to develop their S&T capabilities in specific fields can 
participate in top trans-national teams, benefit from learning and synergies, and so become 
recognised world centres of excellence; 

Improving industrial productivity and competitiveness 
EU funding leads to a better exploitation of S&T capabilities within industry, including in SMEs, by 
addressing significant industrial challenges, by integrating technologies, and by enhancing the 
access of SMEs to new markets and users, 

Promote human capital and high skills availability 
By generating new knowledge and international mobility, human capital can contribute directly to 
innovation through the spillovers produced by skilled workers who diffuse their knowledge 
throughout their workplace and the wider environment. 

Leverage on private investment 
Through EU research schemes, private companies can collaborate with foreign partners at a scale 
not possible at national level, which encourages them to invest more of their own funds than they 
would under national funding schemes; 

International attractiveness 
International attractiveness of the European Research Area and international breath of European 
research. 

Boost EU competitiveness in markets outside Europe 
More openness to the world also implies more opportunities for entry in foreign markets, including 
young firms having a comparative advantage in market-creating innovation; 

Assistance in scaling up 
Internationally oriented start-ups and SMEs with great breakthrough innovation potential are most 
effectively and efficiently identified and supported at EU level. 

EU scale dissemination of results 
It is more efficient to disseminate the results of research and innovation at an EU level - to users, 
industries, firms (SMEs in particular), citizens, etc. – leading to a better exploitation of research 
and innovation results, and giving a larger impact than would be possible only at Member State 
level. 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

122 

 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
I
-
N
A
-
2
8
-
8
6
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2777/039706 
ISBN 978-92-79-76017-4