COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT INTERIM EVALUATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS OF THE EURATOM RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Interim evaluation of the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018
Date: 2017-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EAEC, EU financing, EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, Joint Research Centre, nuclear research, nuclear safety, nuclear technology, scientific cooperation, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.12.2017  SWD(2017) 427 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT INTERIM EVALUATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS OF THE EURATOM RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Interim evaluation of the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 {COM(2017) 697 final} - {SWD(2017) 426 final} - {SWD(2017) 440 final} - {SWD(2017) 441 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 4 

2.  ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY .............................................................................. 6 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 7 

3.1.  Purpose of the evaluation .................................................................................. 7 
3.2.  Scope of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 7 

4.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ................................................................... 8 

4.1.  Description of the initiative and its objectives .................................................. 8 
4.2.  Evaluation questions ....................................................................................... 11 
4.3.  Method ............................................................................................................ 11 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 13 

5.1.  Overview of programme inputs and activities ................................................ 13 
5.2.  Overview of implementation status after three years ...................................... 14 
5.2.1.  Overview of funding allocation during 2014-2017 ........................... 14 
5.2.2.  Results of three calls for proposals in the fission research ................ 15 
5.2.3.  Fusion energy research actions .......................................................... 16 
5.2.4.  Progress towards the Euratom programme's objectives .................... 17 

6.  RELEVANCE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ............................................. 19 

Is the Euratom Programme tackling the right issues? ..................................... 19 
6.1. 
6.2.  Relevance of Euratom programme in addressing European objectives .......... 20 
6.3. 
Is the Euratom Programme responding to stakeholder needs? ........................ 20 
6.4.  Programme attractiveness and take-up ............................................................ 21 
6.5.  End-users in the Euratom research and training programme .......................... 22 
6.6.  Geographical dimensions ................................................................................ 24 

7.  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME ...................................... 26 

7.1.  Effectiveness of Euratom supported fusion research ...................................... 26 
7.1.1. 
Implementation of fusion roadmap ................................................... 26 
7.1.2.  Publications in peer-reviewed journals ............................................. 27 
7.1.3. 
Joint exploitation of European fusion research infrastructures ......... 28 
7.1.4.  Fusion education, training and mobility ............................................ 29 
7.1.5.  Spin offs and patents from Euratom fusion programme ................... 32 
7.1.6.  The  European  Prize  for  Innovation  in  Fusion  Research  (SOFT 

Innovation Prize) ............................................................................... 32 
7.2.  Effectiveness of Euratom supported fission research ...................................... 36 
7.3. 

Impacts  of  the  previous  research  and  training  programme  –  Euratom  FP7 
and  comparison  with  the  expected  impacts  of  Euratom  programme  2014-
2018 ................................................................................................................. 41 
Impacts of Euratom FP7 .................................................................... 41 
7.3.1. 

2 

 
7.3.2.  Comparison of Euratom FP7 and Euratom programme 2014-2018 .. 44 

8.  EFFICIENCY OF EURATOM PROGRAMME ...................................................... 45 

8.1.  Efficiency of European Joint Programmes ...................................................... 45 
8.2.  Efficiency of the Euratom Programme management structures ...................... 47 
8.2.1.  Administrative costs .......................................................................... 47 
8.2.2.  Management of application and evaluation process .......................... 47 
8.2.3.  Ethics and ethics appraisal of proposals ............................................ 48 
8.2.4.  Euratom Programme simplification .................................................. 49 
8.3.  How efficient are the communication and application processes? .................. 50 
8.4.  How efficient is the distribution of funding? .................................................. 51 
8.4.1.  Success rates ...................................................................................... 51 
8.4.2.  Distribution of funding ...................................................................... 52 

9.  COMPLEMENTARITY  AND  COHERENCE  OF  THE  EURATOM 

PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................... 54 

9.1.  Complementarity  of  the  Euratom  programme  with  national  (public  and 

private) research priorities and activities ........................................................ 54 
9.2.  External and internal coherence of the Euratom programme .......................... 55 

10.  EU ADDED VALUE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME .................................. 55 

11.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 58 

ANNEX  1: PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS  TO 
PREPARE THE INTERIM EVALUATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS OF THE 
EURATOM RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME 2014-2018. ............. 59 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 60 

ANNEX  3:  SUMMARY  OF  SOFT  INNOVATION  PRIZES  AWARDED  BY  THE 

EURATOM PROGRAMME (2014-2016) ............................................................... 65 

ANNEX  4:  AN  OVERVIEW  OF  IMPORTANT  SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS  IN 
FUSION  RESEARCH  (HIGHLIGHTS  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  2016  ANNUAL 
REPORT OF EUROFUSION) .................................................................................. 68 

3 

 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Commission staff working document (SWD) presents the interim evaluation of indirect 
actions  funded  through  the  Euratom  research  and  training  programme  2014-2018  (the 
'Euratom programme', or the 'programme'). A separate SWD presents the interim evaluation 
of direct actions. These two documents accompany the Commission report which sets out the 
Commission’s observations and the findings  and recommendations  from independent expert 
groups assisting the Commission in carrying out this evaluation. 

In  accordance  with  Council  Regulation  1314/2013,  the  general  objective  of  the  Euratom 
programme  is  to  pursue  nuclear  research  and  training  activities  with  an  emphasis  on 
continuously  improving  nuclear  safety,  security  and  radiation  protection.  The  programme's 
scope  and  objectives  are  based  on  the  compromise  reached  by  the  Council  following  the 
Fukushima  nuclear  accident.  As  a  result,  the  Euratom  programme  contains  objectives 
allowing  coordination  of  nuclear  research  in  some  specific  areas.  The  compromise  is  also 
reflected in the budget allocated for the fission part of the programme. The Commission notes 
that for the moment a high level of expertise in nuclear research is still available in Europe, 
and  one  of  the  aims  of  a  European  research  and  training  programme  is  to  maintain  this 
potential for the future.  

The interim evaluation finds that the programme’s original rationale for intervention and its 
objectives  are  highly  relevant.  As  confirmed  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group,  Euratom 
research  focuses  on  challenges  of  importance  to  the  public.  The  programme  provides  a 
balance between the need to support the safety of nuclear technology in Europe and the need 
to underpin safety in the future. Euratom waste management projects help to better understand 
the  issues  relevant  to  the  effective  management  of  radioactive  waste  in  the  EU.  These  are 
issues,  such  as  the  safety  of  future  geological  disposal  facilities,  the  conditioning  of 
radioactive waste,  the  long-term  behaviour  of  spent  fuel in  a  repository  and  the  clean-up  of 
decommissioned  sites.  Euratom  research  on  radiation  protection  will  lead  to  an  improved 
knowledge  of  the  effects  of  low  doses  of  ionising  radiation  on  the  human  biota.  This  will 
translate  into  a  more  effective  and  safer  use  of  radiation  and  radionuclides  in  medical 
diagnostic and therapeutic practices. Public consultation revealed that the programme is also 
important for research stakeholders and end-users of nuclear research – the nuclear industry, 
operators of power plants and safety authorities. The programme's relevance is also shown by 
the sustained interest in the competitive calls issued under the fission part of the programme.  

On  effectiveness,  after  three  years  of  implementation  of  the  Euratom  programme  (2014-
2016), evidence indicates that progress is being made in delivering on all Euratom objectives 
in indirect actions, as set by the Council Regulation. In fusion there is significant progress on 
the agreed roadmap toward demonstrating the feasibility of fusion as a future energy source 
(47%  of  the  research  milestones  for  2014-2018  were  achieved  by  2016).  In  particular,  the 
programme  is  delivering  key  information  and  data  of  relevance  for  the  future  operation  of 
ITER,  the  ground-breaking  global  research  facility  under  construction  in  France.  By 
confirming  appropriate  ITER  design  options  and/or  investigating  relevant  plasma  scenarios 
and  optimising  plasma  operation  and  control  measures,  Euratom  research  reduces  costs  and 
associated ITER construction and operation risks. The EUROfusion  consortium  coordinated 
the  joint  exploitation  of  three  research  tokamaks  and  supporting  facilities,  and  Euratom 
supported access to these infrastructures for more than 1000 researchers in 2016. As a result, 
European  researchers  submitted  about  1000  articles  in  high-impact  peer-reviewed  scientific 
journals.  

4 

 
First reports show progress by fission projects in the three key areas of research (safety, waste 
management  and  radiation  protection)  with  half  of  them  having  a  safety  focus.  While  the 
number  of  publications  is  understandably  low  at  what  is  only  the  start  of  project 
implementation, Euratom projects have already set up substantial teams of researchers (almost 
1200 people) and are reporting progress in reaching milestones.  

Euratom  is  also  at  the  forefront  in  implementing  the  new  instruments  in  the  area  of  joint 
programming of research. In 2014, the Euratom programme successfully pioneered the first 
use of the European Joint Programme (EJP) co-fund action with the major EUROfusion grant 
agreement for fusion energy research. Since then, in 2015, Euratom introduced another Joint 
Programme  co-fund  action  (CONCERT)  for  radiation  protection  focused  on  achieving 
breakthroughs in understanding the effects of low doses of ionising radiation.  

The  results  of  the  interim  evaluation  show  a  good  overall level  of  efficiency  in  programme 
management (in particular, grant management and proposal evaluation in the case of indirect 
actions)  and  implementation  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  is  keeping  its  own 
administrative  expenditure  for  indirect  actions  below  the  target  of  an  average  of  7%  of  the 
operational budget for 2014-2018, and available data shows that the planned target of 6% for 
2018 will be met. Simplification measures introduced since the start of the programme have 
greatly  improved  efficiency,  notably  for  the  time-to-grant  (TTG).  The  average  TTG  for  the 
Euratom  7th  Framework  Programme  was  315  days,  whereas  it  was  261  days  for  the  23 
projects launched following the 2014-2015 call, and decreased further to only 229 days for the 
25 projects from the 2016-17 call.  

A  key  part  of  the  European  added  value  of  Euratom  indirect  actions,  as  underlined  by 
stakeholders, is the EU's ability to mobilise a wider pool of excellence, expertise and multi-
disciplinarity in nuclear research than individual Member States could. Through cooperative 
research and innovation, the Euratom programme also enables a Europe-wide approach to the 
improvement  of  nuclear  safety  and  radiation  protection  in  all  areas  of  application.  This 
complements  the  Euratom  Directives  on  nuclear  safety,  radioactive  waste  management  and 
basic safety standards and involves demonstrable scientific and technological progress in all 
areas that would not have been possible without a collaborative pan-European approach. The 
Euratom programme also enables a much more broad-based coordination throughout Europe 
of  education  and  training,  the  use  of  research  infrastructures  and  international  cooperation. 
This  is  of  particular  benefit  to  smaller  Member  States,  which  can  then  take  advantage  of 
economies of scale afforded by the Europe-wide pooling effect.  

5 

 
 
 
2.  ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY  

Type 

Name or 
abbreviation 

Description 

r
a
e
l
c
u
N

g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
m
d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

I

ALLIANCE  

Research Platform to coordinate and promote European research on Radioecology (http://www.er-alliance.org/) 

EFDA  

ENEN 

ESNII 

European Fusion Development Agreement 

European Nuclear Education Network 

European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative 

EUROfusion 

European Consortium implementing a comprehensive joint programme in line with the fusion roadmap 

Generation- II/-III 

Generation- IV 

HLW 

MELODI 

Applicant 

Application 

High Quality 
Proposal 

KPI 

Newcomer 

Participant 

Current generations of nuclear power plants 

Generation IV (advanced fission nuclear systems) 
High-Level (radioactive) Waste 

Multidisciplinary European Low-Dose Initiative (http://www.melodi-online.eu/) 

Legal entity submitting an application for a call for proposals. 

The act of involvement of a legal entity in a Proposal. A single Applicant can apply in different proposals. 

A proposal that scores above set evaluation threshold, making it eligible for funding. 

Key Performance Indicators in the legal basis of Euratom Programme  

A participant in Euratom Programme who was not involved in Euratom FP7 Project  

Any legal entity carrying out an action or part of an action under Euratom Programme 2014-2018. 

Participation 

The act of involvement of a legal entity in a Project. A single Participant can be involved in multiple Projects. 

Project 

SME 

Success rate  

Time to grant 

TRL 

Successful proposals for which a Grant Agreement is "signed". 

Small or Medium-Sized Enterprise.  

The number of proposals that are retained for funding over the number of eligible proposals.  

The elapsed time between the call closing date and the signing of the grant agreement, which marks the official start of 
the project.  
Technology Readiness Levels are indicators of the maturity level of particular technologies. This measurement system 
provides  a  common  understanding  of  technology  status  and  addresses  the  entire  innovation  chain:  TRL  1  –  basic 
principles observed; TRL 2 – technology concept formulate; TRL 3 – experimental proof of concept; TRL 4 – technology 
validated  in  lab;  TRL  5  –  technology  validated  in  relevant  environment;  TRL  6  –  technology  demonstrated  in  relevant 
environment;  TRL  7  –  system  prototype  demonstration  in  operational  environment;  TRL  8  –  system  complete  and 
qualified; TRL 9 – actual system proven in operational environment 

n
o
i
t
c
a
f
o
s
e
p
y
T

p
u
o
r
g
y
r
t
n
u
o
C

r
e
h
t
O

CSA 

IA 

Coordination and Support Action  

Innovation Action  

EJP-COFUND 

European Joint Programme Cofund Action 

RIA 

Research and Innovation Action  

Third Country 

A state that is not a Member State of the EU. “Third Countries” do not include Associated Countries. 

Associated 
Country 

Third Countries that are party to an association agreement with the Euratom Research and Training Programme. They 
participate  in  Euratom  Programme  under  the  same  conditions  as  EU  Member  States.  2  countries  are  associated  to 
Euratom Programme: Switzerland (since 1979) and Ukraine (since 2016) 

EU13 

EU15 

NMS 

DG RTD 

DG JRC 

EESC 

ESIF 

EFSI 

EAV  

BG - Bulgaria, LT - Lithuania, SK - Slovakia, CY - Cyprus, LV - Latvia, CZ - Czech Republic, MT - Malta, EE - Estonia, PL - 
Poland, HR - Croatia, RO - Romania, HU - Hungary and SI – Slovenia 

AT- Austria, BE - Belgium, DE - Germany, DK - Denmark, EL - Greece, ES - Spain, FI- Finland, FR - France, IE - Ireland, IT - 
Italy, LU - Luxembourg, NL - Netherlands, PT - Portugal, SE - Sweden and UK - United Kingdom 

EU New Member States (since 2004) 

European Commission's Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

European Commission's Joint Research Centre 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Structural Investment Funds 

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

European Added Value 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

INTRODUCTION 

3.1. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  provides  support  and  evidence  for  the 
Commission  report  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Euratom  Research  and  Training 
Programme  2014-2018, in line with Article 22 of Regulation 1314/20131 and Commission's 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines2.  The  evaluation  aims  at  improving  the  implementation  of  the 
Euratom programme by already drawing some lessons for the Work Programme for the year 
2018,  and  by  informing  the  design  of  the  proposal  for  the  extension  of  the  Programme  for 
2019-2020 and future Euratom Programmes. It assesses progress made towards achieving the 
objectives  of  the  Euratom  Programme,  the  efficiency  and  use  of  resources,  its  continued 
relevance, the coherence within the Programme and with other instruments, and its EU added-
value. 

3.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

This  interim  evaluation  covers  the  implementation  of  indirect  actions  during  approximately 
the  first  half  of  the  current  Euratom  Programme  (2014  to  2016).  The  direct  actions 
implemented by the Joint Research Centre have been evaluated separately and are covered in 
a separate Staff Working Document. Furthermore, it reports on the wider impacts of previous 
Euratom Programmes. 

1 OJ L 347, 20 December 2013 
2  More information here: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

4.1.  Description of the initiative and its objectives  

In  accordance  with  the  Euratom  Treaty,  nuclear  research  is  a  competence  shared  between 
Euratom and Member States3. The Euratom Programme is the EU’s main instruments for the 
funding of nuclear research in Europe, with a budget of EUR 1.6 billion for the period 2014-
2018.4  
The  objectives  of  the  Euratom  Programme  are  established  by  Article  3  of  the  Council 
Regulation (Euratom) No. 1314/2013: 

1.  The  general  objective  of  the  Euratom  Programme  is  to  pursue  nuclear  research  and 
training  activities  with  an  emphasis  on  continuous  improvement  of  nuclear  safety, 
security  and  radiation  protection,  notably  to  potentially  contribute  to  the  long-term 
decarbonisation  of  the  energy  system  in  a  safe,  efficient  and  secure  way.  The  general 
objective  shall  be  implemented  […]  in  the  form  of  direct  and  indirect  actions  which 
pursue the specific objectives set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.  

2. The Euratom Programme indirect actions shall have the following specific objectives:  

(a) supporting safety of nuclear systems;  

(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;  

(c) supporting the development and sustainability of nuclear expertise and excellence in 
the Union;  

(d) supporting radiation protection and development of medical applications of radiation, 
including, inter alia, the secure and safe supply and use of radioisotopes;  

(e) moving towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source by exploiting 
existing and future fusion facilities;  

(f)  laying  the  foundations  for  future  fusion  power  plants  by  developing  materials, 
technologies and conceptual design;  

(g) promoting innovation and industrial competitiveness;  

(h) ensuring availability and use of research infrastructures of pan-European relevance.  

For the purpose of the interim evaluation, the intervention logic of the Euratom Programme 
has been reconstructed based on the programming documentation (see Figure 1). It describes 
the links between the problems to be tackled, the objectives to be achieved, the activities and 
the expected impacts5. It distinguishes between outputs (the direct products from the actions, 

3  Article 4 of Euratom Treaty 
4  Article 4 of the Council Regulation (Euratom) 1314/2013  
5  The  intervention  logic  is  based  on  the  following  documents:  Euratom  Programme's  Impact  Assessment  that 
establishes  and  assesses  the  problem  definition,  objectives  and  options  of  the  programme;  The  Euratom 
Programme's Regulation that defines the general and specific objectives, priorities, budget and principles for 

8 

 
 
                                                 
such  as  reports,  trained  researchers,  prototypes,  new  infrastructures),  results  (that  relate  to 
benefits  for  direct  beneficiaries  from  their  participation)  and  impacts  (the  wider  long-term 
effects of the Euratom Programme).  

Where  possible,  the  previous  Euratom  Framework  Programme  (FP7,  2007-2013)  and  the 
related  ex-post  evaluation  have  been  used  as  a  baseline  for  this  interim  evaluation.  An 
overview  of  the  results  and  impacts  generated  through  Euratom  FP7  is  provided  in  Section 
7.3.  
In  fusion  research  this  evaluation  considers  the  transition  from  the  FP7  instruments  such  as 
the  many  bi-lateral  contracts  between  Euratom  and  Member  States'  laboratories,  and  the 
multilateral instrument under the European Fusion Development Agreement. 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 this consortium. 

the  management  of  the  programme;  The  Work  Programmes  2014-2015  and  2016-2017,  which  detail  the 
activities undertaken so far. 

9 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.  Evaluation questions  

This interim evaluation is structured around five evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, 
effectiveness, coherence and EU added value6. 

4.3.  Method 

In line with the Council Regulation, the interim evaluation was carried out by the Commission 
with  the  assistance  of  the  Commission  group  of  independent  experts  (CEG).  The  interim 
evaluation  started  in  June  2016.  Work  of  the  expert  group  has  been  guided  by  Terms  of 
Reference  adopted  by  the  Commission7.  The  exercise  has  been  based  on  the  following  data 
sources: 8 

  Commission's  statistics  concerning  the  implementation  and  results  of  Euratom  calls 

for proposals (2014/15, and 2016/17)9; 

  2014-2016 periodic reports from EUROfusion and fission projects10  
  Report from the Commission Expert Group for interim evaluation of indirect actions 

of Euratom Programme 2014-2018; 

  Study by E&Y consultancy on governance and management of EUROfusion, and on 

fission research. 

The feedback from an on-line public stakeholder consultation carried out in the context of this 
interim evaluation has also been used. More than 320 stakeholders replied and 10 stakeholder 
position papers were submitted.11  

The main limitation of this interim evaluation concerns its timing: it is taking place only three 
years  after  the  beginning  of  the  Euratom  Programme,  whereas  most  projects  (i.e.  fission 
projects following open calls for proposals) have only just started and it is too early to present 
a complete picture of results and impacts. Though some results may be expected within such a 
period  of  time,  it  would  require  more  time  for  more  significant  impacts  to  emerge,  such  as 
influence on the regulatory  framework, or  development of  new  materials and/or  techniques. 

6  Relevance:  assessment  of  whether  the  original  objectives  of  Euratom  Programme  are  still  relevant  and  how 
well they still match the current needs and problems. Effectiveness: how successful Euratom Programme has 
been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. Efficiency: the relationship between the resources used 
by Euratom Programme and the changes it is generating. Coherence: how well or not the different actions work 
together,  internally  and  with  other  EU  interventions/policies.  EU  added  value:  assessment  of  the  value 
resulting from Euratom Programme that is additional to the value that could result from interventions which 
would be carried out at regional or national levels. 

7 Commission decision (C(2016)3922) of 29.6.2016 setting up the Commission expert group on the interim 
evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2014-2018) 
8  Further details on the methodologies adopted for this interim evaluation are provided in Annex 1. 
9  Euratom 
2020  Annual  Monitoring 

the  Horizon 

published 

statistics 

are 

in 

reports 

- 

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=monitoring  

10 Data on Euratom projects can be found on CORDIS website http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html  
11 A full analysis of the stakeholder consultation (both the questionnaire and the position papers) is provided in 

Annex 2. The SWD summarises key stakeholder input on relevant topics.  

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Some 'lower risk' actions have incremental and short-term effects, which are easier to capture 
and  to  report  on,  though  'high  risk'  actions  (such  as  fundamental  research)  would  result  in 
more  profound  impacts  only  in  the  longer  term  (e.g.  10-20  years,  and  even  beyond).  These 
latter effects are also more difficult to capture through usual indicator systems, and often need 
complex  investigative  work  to  match  outputs  from  projects  carried  out  in  the  past  with 
eventual impacts many years later, sometimes in different technical areas. 

Data limitations include issues related to data availability and measurability of outcomes (e.g. 
most  Euratom  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPI)  focus  on  outputs  from  research  projects 
such as publications and patents), aggregation (e.g. difficulty in aggregating data covering the 
whole  spectrum  of  programme  coming  from  various  data  sources)  and  reliability  of  certain 
data  (e.g.  data  on  patents  and  publications  are  based  on  self-reporting  by  project 
coordinators).  

Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks to compare performance. Worldwide there is no 
nuclear research programme similar to the Euratom Programme in terms of thematic coverage 
and depth. To overcome and mitigate these limitations, the SWD is transparent in indicating 
its data sources and all underlying sources are available.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
5. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

5.1.  Overview of programme inputs and activities 

The Commission is responsible for research policy in the nuclear field in line with provisions 
of  the  Euratom  Treaty.  While  the  Council  Regulation  establishing  the  Euratom  Programme 
2014-2018  sets  out  the  broad  lines  of  action  and  the  budget  envelope,  the  Euratom  Work 
Programmes  define  the  priorities,  usually  on  a  biennial  basis,  as  well  as  all  details  of  the 
corresponding open calls for proposals in the 'fission' part of the programme. Following the 
opinion of the Programme Committee, consisting of Member States' representatives, Euratom 
Work  Programmes  are  formally  adopted  by  the  Commission.  Reacting  to  the  calls  for 
proposals,  applicants  from  industry,  academia,  national  nuclear  research  centres  and  other 
players  submit  proposals  that  are  then  evaluated  by  panels  of  independent  experts.  The 
Euratom Research and Training programme 'indirect actions', including any related calls for 
proposals,  are  managed  by  Directorate-G  ('Energy')  of  DG  Research  &  Innovation  (DG-
RTD).  

Table 1 provides an illustration of the different types of actions used. The bulk of the budget 
is granted to European Joint Programmes, collaborative Research & Innovation projects (most 
specifically through Research and Innovation Actions)  and the coordination and networking 
of research and innovation projects, programmes and policies (CSA). Other types of actions 
include  recognition  prizes  and  financial  instruments  (Innovfin).  Coordination,  support  and 
other actions are used for studies, expert groups, conferences, as wells as measures to promote 
the dissemination and exploitation of results.  

Grants 
(direct financial 
contribution in order 
to finance actions) 

Table 1. Types of funding actions in the Euratom Programme 

Research and 
Innovation 
Action (RIA) 

Innovation 
Actions (IA) 

Coordination 
and support 
actions (CSA) 

Funding for research projects tackling clearly defined 
challenges, which can lead to the development of new 
knowledge or a new technology. Aimed at consortia of 
partners from different countries, industry and academia. 
Funding is more focused on closer-to-the-market activities. 
For example, prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, 
scaling-up etc. if they aim at producing new or improved 
products or services. Aimed at consortia of partners from 
different countries, industry and academia. 
Funding covers the coordination and networking of research 
and innovation projects, programmes and policies. Funding 
for research and innovation per se is covered elsewhere. 
Aimed at single entities or consortia of partners from different 
countries, industry and academia. 

New instrument in 
Horizon 2020 and 
Euratom 
Programme 2014-
2018 

13 

 
 
 
 
Co-fund grants 

European 
Joint 
Programme 
(EJP) 

Loan-based financial 
instruments 

InnovFin 

Support Member States’ research programmes in 
implementing a joint coordinated programme of activities. 
Aimed at entities owning/managing national research 
programmes. The EJP aims at attracting and pooling a critical 
mass of national resources in line with the Euratom 
Programme’s objectives, and at achieving significant 
economies of scale.  
Loans to support fission research and innovation projects 
concerning the construction or refurbishing of research 
infrastructures 

Financial prize following a contest in order to give recognition 
of past achievements and induce future activities. 

Prizes 

Recognition 
Prizes 

Source: European Commission 

New instrument in 
Horizon 2020 and 
Euratom 
Programme 2014-
2018 

New instrument in 
Horizon 2020  and 
Euratom 
Programme 2014-
2018  
New instrument in 
Horizon 2020 and 
Euratom 
Programme 2014-
2018 

5.2. Overview of implementation status after three years 

5.2.1.  Overview of funding allocation during 2014-2017 

On the basis of two biennial work programmes (2014-15 and 2016-17) a total amount of EUR 
750 million was allocated to indirect actions of the Euratom programme. As figure 2 shows, 
69%  of  this  budget  was  assigned  to  fusion  research,  while  31%  was  assigned  to  fission 
research,  including  calls  for  proposals  and  other  actions  such  as  public  procurement  and 
financial instruments. Table 2 provides more details on the budget allocation, with breakdown 
per biennial work programme.  

Figure 2 - Euratom funding allocation for indirect actions 
during 2014-2017 

Other Actions;  
€35.000.000,00  

Fission calls for 
projects; 
€198.997.276,64 

Fusion research; 
€516.142.849,00 

Source: European Commission 

The  2014-2015  work  programme  provided  payment  in  annual  instalments  for  the  grant  for 
EUROfusion  consortium  and  for  operating  contract  for  the  JET  fusion  research  facility.  On 
the basis of both work programmes the Commission launched biennial calls for proposals.  

14 

 
 
 
Table 2. Budget allocation under Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 

Period 

Research field 

Expenditure 

Fusion research 

Fission calls for projects 

2014-2015 

Other actions (Supporting access to Jules Horowitz 
Research reactor) 

Total 

Fusion research 

2016-2017 

Fission call for projects 

Other actions (InnovFin) 

Total 

Total for 2014-2017 

Source: European Commission 

€ 231,880,687 

€ 90,144,332.11 

€ 15,000,000 

€ 337,025,019  

€ 284,262,162 

€ 108,852,944.64  

€ 20,000,000 

€413,115,106.75 

€ 750,140,125.75 

5.2.2.  Results of three calls for proposals in the fission research 

The  1st  open  call  in  the  Euratom  fission  programme  resulted  in  62  eligible  proposals.  The 
cumulative  amount  of  Euratom  contribution  requested  in  these  proposals  was  EUR  228.08 
million,  which  represented  2.5  times  the  available  budget  foreseen  in  the  Euratom  Work 
Programme  2014-2015.  After  evaluation,  55  proposals  scored  above  threshold  while  21 
proposals  were  initially  retained  for  funding.  Later,  a  further  proposal  was  funded  from  the 
reserve  list.  In  addition,  a  second,  supplementary  call  was  opened  concerning  research  for 
security  of  supply  of  nuclear  fuel,  4  proposals  were  found  eligible  and  the  Euratom 
contribution  requested  in  these  proposals  was  EUR  5.93  million.  As  a  result  of  these  two 
calls,  23  proposals  were  funded  with  a  total  Euratom  financial  contribution  of  EUR  90.14 
million. 

The average Euratom funding per signed grant was almost EUR 4 million. The success rates 
for Euratom indirect actions were 35% in terms of eligible proposals and 38.5 % in terms of 
Euratom  funding  requested,  which  compare  with  Horizon  2020  averages  of  13.39%  and 
14.51%  respectively.  The  significantly  higher  Euratom  success  rates  are  due  to  the  high 
degree  of  consolidation  of  the  research  efforts  in  this  domain,  and  were  apparent  also  in 
previous framework programmes. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Euratom  Programme  does  not  include  some  of  the  sub-
programmes available under EU Horizon 2020, such as those specifically supporting SMEs. 

Grant Agreements for 23 projects were signed in the course of 2015. The average duration of 
each project is 47 months. 

A total of EUR 15 million of fission funding was not allocated to the above call, instead being 
allocated  to  supporting  future  access  of  Euratom  researchers  to  the  Jules  Horowitz  Reactor 
(JHR), currently in the final stage of construction at CEA Cadarache. 

15 

 
 
 
Following the call for proposals under WP2016/17, 70 eligible proposals were received by 5 
October  2016  and  all  25  selected  proposals  were  signed  by  5  June  2017.  The  cumulative 
amount  of  Euratom  contribution  requested  in  these  70  proposals  was  EUR  266.76  million, 
which represented 2.5 times the available budget foreseen in the Euratom Work Programme 
2016-2017.  At  the  evaluation  stage,  59  proposals  scored  above  threshold  and  25  proposals 
were retained for funding for a total Euratom financial contribution of EUR 108.85 million. 

On average, the amount of Euratom funding allocated per signed grant was almost EUR 4.3 
million.  The  success  rates  for  Euratom  indirect  actions  were  36%  in  terms  of  eligible 
proposals and 41% in terms of Euratom funding requested. 

Participation trends in proposals show that labs from new Member States are well integrated 
into  the  European  nuclear  research  (EU-13/EU-28  participation  rate  is  relatively  high  at 
17,93%  compared  to  the  Horizon  2020  average  of  9.87%).  Participation  from  associated 
(Switzerland  and  Ukraine)  and  third  countries  is  5.83%  and  3.98%  respectively,  while 
participation  from  the  private  sector  and  SMEs  is  23.47%  and  6.38%  respectively.  The 
average project duration is 46.4 months. 

The  2016/17  call  included  two  topics  of  cross-cutting  research  of  importance  to  both  the 
fission  and  fusion  research  communities,  to  be  funded  equally  from  the  fission  and  fusion 
budget lines, and one project from each of these topics is included in the above 25 selected 
proposals.  In  addition,  the  WP2016/17  also  made  available  for  the  first  time  the  InnovFin 
loan-based financial instrument, managed by EIB and the European Commission, to support 
research  infrastructure  projects  in  fission  and  radiation  protection.  EUR  20  million  were 
earmarked for loan guarantees using this instrument. 

5.2.3.  Fusion energy research actions 

In  fusion energy research, a new framework was established in  2014 that  replaced previous 
instruments12.  This  new  framework13  consists  of  two  principal  actions.  The  first  concerns 
multiannual support (EUR 425 million over the period 2014-2018) through a European Joint 
Programme  (EJP)  co-fund  action  Grant  Agreement  with  the  EUROfusion  consortium  of 
national fusion laboratories and institutes14 to implement a comprehensive goal-oriented joint 
programme in line with the roadmap to fusion electricity15. The second is support, through a 
five-year ad hoc bilateral contract under Article 10 of the Euratom Treaty, for the continued 
operation of JET, the Joint European Torus16 (EUR 283 million, 2014-2018), as the research 
device  exploited  under  the  EUROfusion  joint  programme.  In  line  with  article  4(5)  of  the 
Council  Regulation  (Euratom)  No  1314/2013,  the  Euratom  Work  Programme  2014-2015 
constitutes  a  five-year  financing  decision  for  both  the  European  Joint  Programme  (Grant 

12   The  European  Fusion  Development  Agreement  (EFDA)  and  the  Contracts  of  Association  between  the 

Commission and national fusion laboratories, which all expired at the end of 2013 

13   Established in accordance with point (i) of the Annex I of the Council regulation (Euratom) No 1314/2013. 
14   For more information see https://www.euro-fusion.org/  
15   ‘Fusion Electricity – A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy’, https://www.euro-

fusion.org/eurofusion/the-road-to-fusion-electricity/  

16   For more information see https://www.euro-fusion.org/jet/     

16 

 
                                                 
Agreement  with  EUROfusion)  and  the  'New  JET  Operation  Contract'.  On  this  basis,  the 
Commission pays every year instalments following approval of the annual reports and work 
plans submitted by the EUROfusion consortium and JET operator. 

5.2.4.  Progress towards the Euratom programme's objectives 

The Council Regulation (Euratom) 1314/2013 establishing the Euratom programme provides 
a set of specific  objectives to  be funded by the Commission while  detailed research actions 
are  set  at  the  level  of  Work  Programmes.  Furthermore,  detailed  milestones  and  targets  are 
fixed at the level of grants which are monitored closely by the Commission. Progress of the 
programme can be also measured by a set of Key Performance Indicators provided for in the 
Annex II to the Council Regulation.  

Table  3  and  analysis  carried  out  for  this  SWD  (see  Section  7  on  the  efficiency  of  the 
programme  for  more  details)  show  that  Euratom  programme  is  on  track  to  achieve  its 
objectives in fission and fusion:  

In the first three years of its establishment (2014-16), the EUROfusion consortium has made 
tangible  and  incremental  progress  along  the  fusion  roadmap  with  the  vast  majority  of  the 
agreed  deliverables  and  milestones  achieved.  This  progress  is  further  exemplified  by  an 
increasing  number  of  peer-reviewed  publications,  PhDs  students,  physics  and  engineering 
grantees  as  well  as  the  number  of  researchers  having  access  to  pan-European  research 
infrastructures. 

In fission and radiation protection, the Commission has launched a portfolio of 48 projects in 
all main fields of research as requested by the Council Regulation (including 2 cross-cutting 
fission-fusion  projects).  First  periodic  reports  from  launched  projects  show  that  while  the 
number of reported publications is relatively low at the start of the project implementation, the 
Euratom  fission  projects  already  established  substantial  teams  of  researchers  (almost  1200 
people) and they report progress made in terms of milestones reached. 

The Commission launched two European Joint Programme in both  fields (EUROfusion and 
CONCERT) further integrating the research efforts of stakeholders in Member States. A third 
Joint  Programme  on  research  for  nuclear  waste  management  is  in  an  advanced  stage  of 
preparation thanks to the JOPRAD project launched in 2015. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 - Key performance indicators for indirect actions in fission and fusion research 
under Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 

Key performance indicator 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 

The number of projects (joint research and/or 
coordinated actions) likely to lead to a 
demonstrable improvement in nuclear safety 
practice in Europe 

The number of projects contributing to the 
development of safe long term solutions for the 
management of ultimate nuclear waste 
The number of projects likely to have a 
demonstrable impact on regulatory practice 
regarding radiation protection and on 
development of medical applications of 
radiation 

The number of researchers' and engineering 
grants in the Euratom fusion programme 

8 

5 

1 

9 

5 

1 

17 

10 

217 

17 

28 

31 

n/a 

76 

The number of fission and fusion publications in 
peer-reviewed high impact journals18 

200 

450 

325 

n/a 

975 

The percentage of the Fusion Roadmap's 
milestones, established for the period 2014-
2018, reached by the Euratom Programme 

The number of spin-offs from the fusion 
research under the Euratom Programme 

The patents applications generated and patents 
awarded on the basis of research activities 
supported by the Euratom Programme19 

The number of researchers having access to 
research infrastructures through Euratom 
Programme support20 

13% 

31% 

47% 

n/a 

1 

1 

2 

2 

0 

1 

n/a 

1 

- 

3 

5 

872 

958 

1039 

n/a 

2869 

Source: European Commission, EUROfusion annual reports and periodic reports from fission projects 

17 This number does not include projects launched within framework of CONCERT European Joint Programme 

in radiation protection research 

18 Based on data available from EUROfusion and from 22 fission projects 
19 For fission and fusion 
20 Data will be available at the end of the projects (for fission). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.  RELEVANCE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

6.1. 

Is the Euratom Programme tackling the right issues? 

The  general  objective  of  the  Euratom  programme  in  accordance  with  Council  regulation 
1314/2013  is  to  pursue  nuclear  research  and  training  activities  with  an  emphasis  on 
continuous improvement of nuclear safety, security and radiation protection. The scope and 
objectives of the programme are based on the compromise reached in Council following 
the  Fukushima  nuclear  accident.  The  compromise  is  also  reflected  in  the  budget  for  the 
fission part of the programme. 

The  focus  of  the  fission  programme  on  safety-related  issues  addresses  key  societal 
concerns regarding the use of current nuclear technology, such as operational safety of 
nuclear power plants and safe disposal of the most hazardous forms of radioactive waste 
(high-level  waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel).  Nuclear  safety  and  management  of  radioactive 
waste constitute major responsibilities at European level, with important Euratom Directives 
now in force, and the Euratom Programme complements this policy taking into consideration 
research  agendas  of  technology  platforms  such  as  SNETP  (Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy 
Technology  Platform)21  and  IGDTP  (Implementing  Geological  Disposal  Technology 
Platform)22 and of initiatives such as NUGENIA (Nuclear Generation II & III Association)23 
and radiation protection research platforms: MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low-Dose 
Initiative)24, ALLIANCE (European Radioecology Alliance)25, NERIS (European Platform on 
Preparedness  for  Nuclear  and  Radiological  Emergency  Response  and  Recovery)26, 
EURADOS  (European  Radiation  Dosimetry  Group)27  and  EURAMED  (European  Alliance 
for Medical Radiation Protection Research)28. Some of the projects supported by the Euratom 
Programme contribute, within the limits of the mandate given by the Council, to achieving the 
targets defined as part of the SET-Plan (Strategic Energy Technology Plan) process29. 

Outside  the  power  sector,  the  Euratom  Programme  is  addressing  important  societal 
concerns  regarding  the  use  of  nuclear  technologies  in  general,  in  particular  the  use  of 
radiation in medical diagnostic and therapeutic practices. Here, the focus is on the effects 
of  low  doses  of  radiation  on  the  human  biota.  All  exposure  to  ionising  radiation  carries  a 
potential risk and related health detriment. In normal situations, doses and therefore risks are 
very low, with no clinically observable tissue effects and no epidemiological evidence of any 
detriment. Nonetheless, risks may not be zero, and late effects, including cancer in particular, 
remain possible. This calls for a multidisciplinary approach to radiation protection research, 

21 http://www.snetp.eu/  
22 http://www.igdtp.eu/  
23 http://www.nugenia.org/  
24 http://www.melodi-online.eu/  
25 http://www.er-alliance.eu/  
26 http://www.eu-neris.net/  
27 http://www.eurados.org/  
28  http://www.eibir.org/scientific-activities/joint-initiatives/european-alliance-for-medical-radiation-protection-

research-euramed/   

29 https://setis.ec.europa.eu/implementing-integrated-set-plan/nuclear-safety-ongoing-work  

19 

 
                                                 
individual 

radio-sensitivity,  and  biological,  biophysical  and 
involving  genomics, 
epidemiological  aspects.  This  is  the  heart  of  the  Euratom  research  programme's  strategy  in 
this  field.  The  overall  approach  to  radiation  protection  has  been  established  over  many 
decades by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and is based on 
the ALARA principle, i.e. radiation exposures should be 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable'. 
The  need  to  protect  health  as  well  as  the  environment  is  also  recognised  in  the  Euratom 
Treaty,  in  which  specific  provisions  are  laid  down  in  Chapter  III  on  'Health  and  Safety'.  In 
particular, Article 31 of the Treaty calls for uniform Basic Safety Standards to be established 
within the EU. Annex I of the Treaty clearly mentions that research on health effects is within 
the scope of the Community (i.e. Euratom) research and training programme. 

6.2.  Relevance of Euratom programme in addressing European objectives 

The Euratom Programme plays an important role in supporting the implementation of Council 
Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009, and its revision 2014/87/Euratom, establishing a 
Community  framework  for  the  nuclear  safety  of  nuclear  installations,  of  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,  and  of  Council  Directive 
2013/59/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising 
from exposure to ionising radiation. 

6.3. 

Is the Euratom Programme responding to stakeholder needs? 

In  the  case  of  the  fusion  programme,  the  approach  adopted  is  to  co-fund  a  comprehensive 
joint programme implemented by the EUROfusion consortium of all national fusion labs and 
institutes  in  Europe  (30  partners  in  total:  three  in  Germany,  one  in  all  other  Member  States 
except  Luxembourg  and  Malta,  one  in  Switzerland  and,  from  1  January  2017,  one  in 
Ukraine). In addition, there are also more than 100 linked third parties supported through the 
co-fund  arrangement  with  EUROfusion.  The  joint  programme  is  in  line  with  the  fusion 
roadmap  to  fusion  electricity  by  around  the  middle  of  the  century30,  which  was  originally 
approved in late 2012 by all European labs as the long-term guiding strategy in the European 
fusion  research  effort.  This  comprehensive  and  goal-oriented  roadmap,  and  associated  joint 
programme,  covers  all  aspects  of  the  current  effort  needed  to  realise  fusion  energy  in  a 
realistic  yet  ambitious  time  horizon.  It  includes  joint  research,  use  of  shared  facilities, 
mobility  of  researchers,  industrial  involvement,  education  and  training,  international 
cooperation, etc. The present focus of the effort is support for the success of ITER, which is 
the  one  critical  path  on  roadmap  as  a  whole.  To  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  joint 
programme, EUROfusion has  set up a Programme Management  Unit  (PMU), established  in 
Garching,  Germany,  and  Culham,  UK,  with  some  50  staff,  most  seconded  from  the 
beneficiaries. The head of the PMU, and the person with the key responsibility regarding the 
implementation of the joint programme, is the Programme Manager, who is appointed by and 
reports directly to the EUROfusion General Assembly, which is the principal decision-making 
body and made up of representatives of all the fusion labs involved (the grant beneficiaries). 

30 https://www.euro-fusion.org/eurofusion/the-road-to-fusion-electricity/  

20 

 
                                                 
EUROfusion,  and  therefore  the  Euratom  programme,  is  responding  to  the  needs  of  the 
European  fusion  community  in  this  regard.  The  Euratom  contribution  to  EUROfusion  is, 
under  the  terms  of  the  Grant  Agreement  with  the  Commission,  up  to  55%  of  the  declared 
eligible costs of the consortium. In addition, under a bilateral contract with the Culham Centre 
for Fusion Energy (CCFE,UK – the JET operator) the Commission funds 87.5% of the cost of 
operation  of  JET,  which  is  then  offered  to  EUROfusion  as  an  in  kind  contribution  for 
exploitation by researchers across Europe.  

Regarding the 'fission' programme, which is implemented largely by open calls for proposal, 
more than 80% of the respondents in the recent stakeholder consultation, carried out as part of 
the interim evaluation of the Euratom Programme 2014-2018, agreed that the frequency of the 
calls  and  their  clarity  were  either  'good'  or  'very  good'.  The  majority  of  respondents  (67%) 
also  had  a  positive  opinion  on  the  transparency  in  the  process  of  formulating  the  Euratom 
Work  Programmes  and  on  the  ease  of  finding  the  right  call  topic  for  their  proposal,  even 
though 26% of respondents replied 'poor' or 'very poor' on these aspects.  

6.4. 

Programme attractiveness and take-up 

The  willingness  of  all  national  fusion  labs  to  commit  'own  resources'  in  the 
implementation  of  the  EUROfusion  joint  programme  indicates  the  attractiveness  and 
their involvement in the Community joint effort. In total, over the period 2014-2018, 45% 
of  the  consortium's  budget  will  be  committed  from  national  programmes  via  EUROfusion 
beneficiaries  to  this  joint  effort.  More  precise  figures  will  be  known  only  at  the  end  of  the 
programme  and  following  submission  of  all  cost  statements.  At the  start  of the  programme, 
and  as  part  of  the  requirements  for  the  awarding  of  a  European  Joint  Programme  (EJP)  co-
fund  action  Grant  Agreement  with  the  Commission,  respective  national  fusion  research 
programme  'owners'  in  Member  States  (usually  at  the  level  of  ministries)  signed  a 
commitment to make national resources available for this action. Note that these resources are 
effectively in-kind (manpower, use of research infrastructures) and constitute about one half 
of  the  total  resources  of  the  joint  programme,  matched  by  the  financial  contribution  from 
Euratom under the terms of the Grant Agreement. 

In the 'fission' research, the demand for funds following the open calls is an indication of the 
value  stakeholders  attach  to  the  programme.  Compared  to  Euratom  FP7,  the  number  of 
proposals submitted to the two fission calls so far in the Euratom Programme 2014-2018 
has increased. Whereas FP7 generated around 121 proposals during first three years, as of 1 
January  2017  –  after  three  years  –139  proposals  had  been  submitted  under  the  Euratom 
programme 2014-2018.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Public consultation: relevance of the Euratom Programme 

The opinion of stakeholders regarding the current Euratom programme's relevance is positive: 
80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that it is relevant. This opinion varies from field to 
field, showing the strongest support for E&T, waste and safety of existing reactors. The main reasons 
for  participating  in  Euratom  Programme  are  financial  support,  access  to  new  knowledge  and  know-
how, and unique collaboration opportunities with existing or new European or international partners. 
Interdisciplinary work and the opportunity to work with other types of actors also stand out.  

6.5.  End-users in the Euratom research and training programme 

Euratom programme attracts a substantial number of end-users of fission research. For 
2014-2015,  approximately  45%  of  participants  were  recognised  end-users31.  For  the 
purpose  of  the  interim  evaluation,  three  categories  of  end  users  have  been  identified32  (see 
figure 3): 

Figure 3: Mapping of end-users in Euratom projects 

Source: European Commission 

-  Next-users: Rarely will a single Euratom project lead to breakthrough discoveries and the 
development of products or knowledge mature enough to pass on to the next echelon of 
user.  In  reality,  the  immediate  end-users  (‘next’  user)  of  the  project  results  will  be  the 

31 E&Y study on fission research 
32 Ibidem 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

same community of research centres  and universities engaged in  work on a given topic. 
Indeed, Euratom projects have demonstrated an ability to maintain coherence across time, 
with projects often building on the results of previous projects. These clusters of projects, 
over decades, produce increasingly mature knowledge that may eventually be transferred 
to  intermediate  or  final  end-users.  The  presence  of  final  and  intermediate  end-users  in 
these projects is often peripheral and focused on providing strategic input to help ensure 
that the direction of research remains relevant to the ultimate needs of these actors.  
Intermediate end-users: This group of actors is a critical link in the chain between the 
research  community  and  the  final-end-users.  As  with  the  user  of  a  mass  consumer 
electronic,  the  final  end-users  in  the  nuclear  sector  do  not  have  extensive  technical 
knowledge of the products and knowledge (e.g. standards, procedures) they employ. They 
cannot build them from scratch, nor can they operate them without the support of a wide 
array  of  actors.  These  are intermediate end-users  that  are  responsible  for  developing  the 
underlying technology on an industrial scale, building the components of NPPs and other 
nuclear  technologies  (e.g.  CT  scanner),  elaborating  the  regulatory  frameworks  for  their 
use,  and  providing  the  final  end-users  with  the  technical  support  necessary  to  safely 
exploit  nuclear  technologies.  The  nuclear  vendors  that  build  reactors  and  other  nuclear 
technologies, the regulators that set the ground rules for their use and the Technical Safety 
Organisations  and  other  specialized  firms  that  assist  final  end-users  represent  veritable 
end-users in themselves to a large extent. 

-  Final  end-user:  The  final  end-users  are  the  actors  that  ultimately  exploit  nuclear 
technologies. In the field of reactor systems, this includes NPP operators and, to a certain 
extent  regulators  in  their  inspection  and  enforcement  capacities.  In  terms  of  waste 
management,  this  includes  waste  management  operators  (public  and  private)  and  fuel 
manufacturers (P&T). Finally, in the field of radiation protection, this includes regulators, 
service  providers  (often  regulators)  and  the  medical  community.  End-users  can  be  both 
organisations and individuals. The level of granularity can be an important consideration 
that  will  not  be  the  same,  for  example,  whilst  developing  a  new  reactor  technology  and 
developing a training module on nuclear safety. In a broader sense, it is important to also 
remember that society itself, which benefits from the safe operation of sustainable nuclear 
technologies, is always the final end-user.  

Looking  at  the  evolution  of  participation  over  time  during  Euratom  FP7  and  the  first  three 
years  of  the  current  Euratom  programme,  there  is  a  slight  upward  trend  (see  figure  4). 
However,  the  number  can  vary  considerably  by  year  depending  on  the  number  and  type  of 
projects  launched  in  a  given  year.  For  the  2014-18  programme,  the  picture  appears  to  be 
largely  the  same  as  FP7,  with  approximately  45%  of  participants  being  either  final  or 
intermediate end-users during the period 2014-16.  

23 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Evolution of the participation of final and intermediate end-users 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014-2015

Source: European Commission  

6.6.  Geographical dimensions 

Analysis  of  participation  of  Member  States  that  joined  the  EU  in  2004  or  later 
(hereinafter  NMS)  shows  the  substantial  role  played  by  research  labs  and  universities 
from  these  countries,  measured  in  terms  of  the  number  of  project  coordinators  and 
budget  received.  Regarding  fission  projects  from  the  2014/15  call,  NMS  accounted  for  2 
coordinators (PL, CZ), while in the 2016/17 call, NMS have 3 coordinators (BG, PL, LT). We 
observe  also  an  increase  of  6%  in  the  total  Euratom  funding  awarded  to  NMS,  from  the 
2014/15 to the 2016/17 call (see table 4)  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 – Euratom financial contribution to new Member States in calls 2014-2016 

Calls for proposals 2014/15 

Call for proposals 2016/17 

EU-13 

CZ 
SK 
LT 
PL 
HU 
BG 
SI 
EE 
RO 
LV 
HR 

Euratom 
contribution in 
grants (€) 

3,702,753.25 
890,748.00 
692,477.33 
660,944.28 
615,853.00 
513,019.99 
462,367.42 
285,706.25 
175,312.00 
148,612.50 
66,937.50 
8,214,731.52 

Total 
Source: European Commission 

EU-13 

CZ 
PL 
HU 
SI 
LT 
RO 
SK 
HR 
LV 
CY 

Euratom 
contribution in 
grants (€) 
3,066,508.25 
1,671,231.25 
1,498,750.50 
1,147,326.25 
456,105.00 
330,952.33 
251,225.00 
183,976.00 
52,125.00 
23,625.00 

Total 

€8,681,824.58 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This section evaluates the progress being made towards the delivery of the objectives of the 
Euratom  Programme.  It  also  includes  the  evaluation  of  the  main  long-term  impacts  of  the 
previous Euratom Framework Programme. 

7.1.  Effectiveness of Euratom supported fusion research 

7.1.1.  Implementation of fusion roadmap 

The Council Regulation provides three objectives concerning fusion research: 

  Establishment of ‘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’.  

 

 

‘Moving  towards  demonstration  of  feasibility  of  fusion  as  a  power  source  by  exploiting 
existing and future fusion facilities’ 

‘Laying  the  foundations  for  future  fusion  power  plants  by  developing  materials, 
technologies and conceptual design’ 

In order to implement these objectives, and following the expiry of Contracts of Association 
and  European  Fusion  Development  Agreement  (EFDA),  which  had  defined  the  structure  of 
European fusion research for many years until 2013, the Commission put in place in 2014 a 
radically  different  approach  based  on  a  comprehensive  European  Joint  Programme 
implemented by all national fusion labs in line with an agreed goal-oriented research roadmap 
to fusion electricity. The effective integration of all national efforts across Europe represents a 
first  for  any  EU-promoted  research  field  and  includes  comprehensive  research  activities  in 
some  33  separate  work  packages  (projects  and  taskforces),  also  covering  education  and 
training  actions,  international  cooperation  aspects,  industrial  involvement,  centralised 
programme management, and the efficient use of key resources through a truly transnational 
access approach to key facilities. Programme and project management and related governance 
structures  have  become  more  transparent,  with  information  readily  available  to  the 
Commission services that retain overall monitoring and assessment responsibilities.  

Euratom-funded  research  activities  in  fusion  are  centred  around  a  fusion  roadmap  -  'Fusion 
Electricity – A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy’33. It is the guiding document of 
the  Joint  Programme,  representing  a  comprehensive  and  detailed  goal-oriented  approach  to 
the challenge of developing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source. Though fusion 
energy remains a long-term endeavour, the EUROfusion consortium has made tangible 
and incremental progress along this roadmap in the first three years (2014-16), with the 
vast majority of the agreed deliverables and milestones achieved, as set out in its annual 

33 See footnote 12 

26 

 
 
                                                 
Work  Plans  (Table  5),  and  this  despite  2014  being  a  transitional  year  involving  the 
setting up of the new organisational structure. 

Table 5 
The percentage of the Fusion Roadmap's milestones established for the period 2014-2018  
that have been achieved by EUROfusion 
Milestones to be achieved by end of year indicate (forecast)34 

2014 
13 % 

2015 
31 % 

2016 
54 % 

Actual results according to annual reporting 

13 % 

47% 
31% 
 Source: European Commission, annual reports from EUROfusion 

2017 
75 % 

n/a 

2018 
90% 

n/a 

The  fusion  Roadmap  is  articulated  in  eight  Missions  addressing  key  issues  for  developing 
fusion  as  an  energy  source.  The  Commission  Expert  Group  concluded  that  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)35.  Furthermore,  in  July  2016,  the  international  expert  panel  set  up  by  the 
Commission  to  perform a Mid-Term Review of EUROfusion,  concluded that  'In  relation to 
the  scientific  and  technical  work,  the  Panel  considers  that  this  has  largely  continued  as 
planned with a high proportion of milestones and deliverables being achieved, and with some 
notable  successes  in  this  period  –  the  experiments  with  metal/ITER-like  walls  on  medium 
sized tokamaks and JET, the completion of the construction of Wendelstein 7X and its start-
up,  and  the  introduction  of  a  new  supercomputer  for  fusion  modelling  studies'.  Table  11 
provides an overview of main results expected from fusion research funded by the Euratom 
Programme and Annex 4 provides an overview of important scientific achievements in 2016.  

Public consultation: fusion research 

Stakeholders  commented  on  the  effectiveness  of  Euratom-supported  fusion  research  as  part  of  the 
public consultation carried out during the Interim Evaluation of the Euratom Programme 2014-2018. 
Only  5.3%  of  respondents  thought  that  the  Euratom  programme  was  not  making  progress  towards 
delivering its objectives in fusion research. 

7.1.2.  Publications in peer-reviewed journals 

The  number  of  published  papers  in  high  quality  peer-reviewed  journals  remains 
consistent with the level during the previous European fusion programme in FP7, once 

34   Milestones have been defined in the co-fund grant agreement with the EUROfusion consortium. 
35   Annex 5 to the Report from the Commission Expert Group provides a list of technical achievements during 

the period 2014-2016 in each Mission. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
allowance  is  made  for  the  new  programme  structure.  The  previous  programme  included  26 
Contracts  of  Association  with  national  fusion  labs,  thus  effectively  ensuring  that  all  fusion 
research funding in Europe was linked with the Euratom programme. However, from the start 
of  2014,  only  approximately  1/3  of  national  funding  has  been  channelled  through 
EUROfusion.  Therefore  one  cannot  compare  directly  the  number  of  published  papers.  In 
reality,  the  figures  since  2014  would  be  expected  to  be  c.  ⅓  to  ½  of  the  historical  figure 
during the period of the 26 Associations, when on average some 800 papers were published 
per year. This is borne out by the statistics in the table 6 below. 

2014 was the first year of EUROfusion, and many papers with the EUROfusion logo would 
not  have  appeared  until  2015  in  view  of  the  time  needed  to  go  through  the  publication 
procedure.  In  addition,  the  somewhat  fewer  papers  published  in  2016  than  in  2015  is  most 
likely due to an artefact of the conference cycles, with international conferences such as the 
IAEA's FEC (Fusion Energy Conference) occurring only every two years on even-numbered 
years (in the autumn). Therefore, in 2015 many papers were published as a result of the 2014 
conferences, and this is likely to be seen also in a spike in 2017. 

Table 6 
The number of fusion research publications in peer-reviewed high impact journals 
2017 
2014 
Not available yet 
200 

2015 
450 

2016 
325 

Source: Web of Science 

7.1.3.  Joint exploitation of European fusion research infrastructures  

The  JET  facility  at  Culham,  UK,  is  the  operational  fusion  device  that  is  closest  to  ITER  in 
design, meaning that JET plays a crucial role in deciding design choices for ITER and in the 
preparations for ITER exploitation. This was further reinforced thanks to the all-metal 'ITER-
like'  inner  wall  installed  on  JET  in  a  major  refit  in  2009-2011,  and  the  current  scientific 
exploitation of JET by the EUROfusion consortium is therefore fully able to support the 
ultimate success of ITER, through investigating ITER plasma scenarios and mitigating 
ITER  operational  risks  in  ITER-relevant  conditions.  Indeed,  early  experimental  results 
from  JET  following  restart  after  the  installation  of  the  'ITER-like'  wall  challenged  our 
understanding of the behaviour of plasmas in 'all metal' tokamaks. Technical problems at JET 
in  2014  &  2015  prevented  the  carrying  out  of  further  cutting-edge  research  for  several 
months, but these problems have now been resolved and the latest experimental campaign in 
autumn  2016  was  very  successful,  with  JET  operating  at  almost  full  power  and  enabling 
significant progress to be made on improving plasma performance in 'all metal' tokamaks. The 
fusion research community is confident that remaining plasma performance issues can now be 
resolved  before  ITER  becomes  operational.  This  will  accelerate  start  of  ITER  scientific 
exploitation and enable significant cost savings by shortening preparatory phase - each year of 
additional exploitation of ITER would costs on average ~EUR 250 million/year (2015 prices), 
of which Euratom would need to contribute on average ~EUR 85 million (equivalent to 34% 
of the operating costs, the agreed Euratom share).  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 
The number of researchers having access to fusion research 
facilities through Euratom Programme support  
2016 
2015 
2014 
872 
1039 
958 
Source: annual reports from EUROfusion 

In  EUROfusion,  it  is  not  only  JET  that  is  exploited  but  also  other  key  'medium-sized' 
tokamaks  (MSTs)  and  linear  plasma  devices  in  other  European  countries  (e.g.  ASDEX-
Upgrade  at  IPP,  Germany,  TCV  at  EPFL,  Switzerland,  and  now  W7-X  at  IPP  Greifswald, 
Germany, with MAST-Upgrade at CCFE, UK, due to be co-exploited from 2017). 

Until the end of Euratom FP7 (2013) 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  Euratom  mobility  funds. 
Now,  under  the  Euratom  Programme  2014-2018,  a  substantial  part  of  the  experimental 
programme  is  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 Taskforce Leaders and Project Leaders. 

The Commission Expert Group concluded that the main advantage of the new system is the 
more effective integration of 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 of each task. The execution of the programmes has been harmonised, for example 
in joint planning meetings, to allow the participation of key scientists to each task. The view 
of the Group it that this approach has substantially increased the added value of the Euratom 
contribution. 

This joint programming approach is central to the EUROfusion ethos. The related access and 
mobility  of researchers (see table 7), together with the dissemination and sharing of results, 
are  assured  through  the  joint  programme,  once  again  underlining  that  the  fusion  research 
programme is the best example that Europe can offer of ERA – the 'European Research Area' 
– in action. 

One of the latest additions to the group of world-beating fusion research devices in Europe is 
the  Wendelstein7-X  (W7-X)  stellarator,  located  at  IPP,  Greifswald  in  Germany.  The 
construction  of  this  cutting-edge  facility  was  co-funded  in  the  initial  phase  by  Euratom 
programmes in the past, and W7-X has now been fully integrated into the EUROfusion joint 
programme following successful commissioning and the 'first plasma' achieved in December 
2015, with access assured by researchers from across Europe as part of this programme. 

7.1.4.  Fusion education, training and mobility 

One of the principal objectives of EUROfusion and the Euratom Programme is to ensure the 
availability of appropriate human resources in the fusion research effort over the longer term, 

29 

 
 
in  particular in  view of  the need  to train  an 'ITER generation' of scientists and engineers to 
operate and exploit ITER, and to ensure the right balance and competences of physicists and 
engineers in a DEMO programme focusing increasingly on CDA (conceptual design activity) 
and  EDA  (engineering  design  activity)  over  the  course  of  the  next  10-15  years.  In  2005,  a 
major  survey  of  the  HR  requirements  of  the  fusion  programme  was  carried  out  by  the 
Commission with the support of EFDA and the national labs, and this was updated in 2015 
under  EUROfusion,  again  with  Commission  support.  Issues  such  as  PhD  and  Masters 
programmes,  role  of  FuseNet36,  training  instruments,  numbers  of  researchers,  physicists, 
engineers and technical staff needed in the programme, role of industry, gender balance, etc. 
were all covered in the survey, with particular focus on the evolution since the 2005 survey. A 
number of recommendations  were issued, which have  since been  taken up by EUROfusion, 
though other stakeholders (FuseNet, labs, F4E, industry) are also concerned. FuseNet is a key 
actor  in  this  field,  and  efforts  are  now  on-going  within  EUROfusion  to  reinforce  FuseNet's 
role through ensuring linked third party status within the joint programme. The Commission 
will continue to monitor the situation, in consultation with the EUROfusion, and may propose 
further actions as part of future Euratom programmes and/or amendments to the EUROfusion 
Grant Agreement. 

One  of  the  tasks  of  the  EUROfusion  consortium  is  to  support  PhD  students  in  the  research 
institutions  working  on fusion-relevant  thesis  subjects,  i.e. mainly  on  fusion  plasma  physics 
and  engineering.  Both  magnetic  confinement  fusion  and  inertial  confinement  fusion  are 
covered,  but  90%  of  the  funding  is  earmarked  for  the  former.  The  allocation  of  funding  to 
individual research institutions is based on the number of students and theses supported each 
year  (weighting  65%)  and  a  quality  assessment  of  the  student  training  provided (weighting 
35%).  Furthermore,  the  thesis  subjects  are  screened  by  EUROfusion  to  ensure  they  are 
relevant  for the  fusion  roadmap  implementation.  Table  8  shows  the  evolution  of  the  budget 
for PhD students and number of active students for each year. About 24 % of on-going PhDs 
are  technology  related  and  women  account  for  15%  and  18%  of  all  PhDs  (technology  and 
physics respectively). Current data shows positive trend in number of PhDs which should 
allow keeping the manpower of fusion programme at current level37. 

Table 8: EUROfusion support for PhD studies: 
evolution of budget (Mio EUR) and number of PhD students  

Year 
Budget for PhD studies 
Number of PhD students 

2014 
9,000 
658 

Source: Annual reports from EUROfusion 

2015 
7,868 
713 

2016 
7,908 
756 

Fusion  research  and  technology  development  requires  staff  with  skills  going  beyond  PhD 
level. For this reason and in order to maintain highly qualified staff, EUROfusion has set up 

36   For more info ttp://www.fusenet.eu/  
37   Conf. recommendation 21 of the Review of Human Resources in the European Fusion Landscape (March 

2016) 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUROfusion  Researcher  Grants  (ERG)  and  EUROfusion  Engineering  Grants  (EEG).  The 
ERG are post-doc grants to scientists who have recently finalised their PhD, while EEG aims 
to encourage excellence and career development of young engineers. Support for EEG grants 
is  constantly  adjusted  to  the  expected  shortage  of  skills  in  specific  missions  of  the  fusion 
roadmap. Current data (table 9) shows positive trends in number of grants awarded. Since the 
first  grantees  are  roughly  halfway  through  their  contract, it is  premature  to  elaborate  on  the 
outcome  and  success  rate  of  the  ERG  and  EEG.  But  given  the  success  of  similar  grants 
awarded under Euratom FP7, it is to be expected that many of the grantees will stay in fusion 
research. 

Table 9 - EUROfusion training actions 

The number of researcher grants awarded per year 

The number of engineering grants awarded per year 

Source: Annual reports from EUROfusion 

Total 

2014  2015 

2016  Total 

17 

- 

17 

11 

17 

28 

11 

20 

31 

39 

37 

76 

Mobility of researchers and scientists within the joint programme is one of the cornerstones 
on which the success of EUROfusion depends. Mobility support covers funding for visiting 
scientists  for  joint  research,  long-term  secondees,  and  fellowships.  Within  EUROfusion, 
mobility for joint research activities is approved in line with the project-oriented approach and 
is directly integrated into the programme budget and managed under the responsibility of each 
Project Leader and Taskforce Leader.  

The Commission Expert Group concluded that short-term mobility has become more clearly 
focused  on  the  implementation  of  the  roadmap.  However,  mobility  support  appears  to  be 
overwhelmingly  concentrated  on  the  physics  side  of  EUROfusion's  activities  (e.g., 
experimental campaigns at JET and the medium-sized tokamaks). In addition, as in previous 
Euratom programmes, mobility remains important as a means to creating scientific networks 
between  the  various  national  research  labs  involved,  particularly  in  view  of  the  often 
fragmented and geographically dispersed project teams. 

The issues regarding long-term mobility (e.g. secondments) within the programme  are quite 
different from those of shorter-term mobility. The Unit Cost Decision38 provides the basis for 
the  supplementary  remuneration  of  secondees  to  the  Programme  Management  Unit  (PMU), 
ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for  all  labs  and  secondees  from  across  Europe  (to  the  extent 
possible in view of the various tax regulations in force across Member States, which are not 
under Commission competence). However, experience has shown that the Unit Cost Decision 
has  required  additional  administrative  effort  in  some  laboratories,  and  in  some  of  the  larger 
labs  it  is  not  compatible  with  normal  working  practices.  On  the  other  hand  it  has  been 
welcomed in the majority of Member States joining the EU since 2004, who otherwise would 
not be able to afford the cost of travel.  

38   Commission decision C(2013) 8201 of 10 December 2013 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.1.5.  Spin offs and patents from Euratom fusion programme 

Development  of  fusion  energy  requires  scientific  advances  in  many  different  areas  which 
frequently lead to unexpected applications beyond fusion energy. Table 10 shows first spin-
offs  from  fusion  research  since  2014.  In  addition,  researchers  from  European  fusion 
laboratories supported by EUROfusion made so far 4 applications for patents. 

Table 10 – Recent spin offs from fusion research 

 

Fusion  lab  in  Poland  (IPPLM)  established  in  2014  the  Scientific  and  Industrial  Centre  for  New  Energy 
Technologies  (Centrum  naukowo-przemysłowe  Nowe  Technologie  Energetyczme  (CeNTE).  The  CeNTE 
consists of 12 entities: 4 Research Institutes, 7 Universities and 1 busines-oriented organisation.  

  Culham Center for Fusion Energy in UK has produced in 2015 the "SPILADY'', a computer programme with a 
spin-lattice  dynamics  code  intended  to  serve  as  an  introductory  computer  simulation  tool  for  undergraduate 
students, scientists, researchers, and interested members of the public familiar with molecular dynamics.  
  MAGICS Instruments NV (MAGICS) is a fusion spin-off company from the University of Leuven, Belgium 
and  SCK-CEN  (the  Belgium  Nuclear  Research  Centre).  MAGICS’  core  competence  lies  in  the  design  of 
radiation  hardened  integrated  circuits,  more  specifically  electronic  devices  that  reliably  operate  in  nuclear 
environments that yield accumulated doses in excess of Mega Gray. MAGICS addresses customers’ demands 
by  offering  standard  rad-hard  products  or  customized  IC  design  services.  The  company  also  provides  MGy-
level  radiation  qualification  services  on  its  own  products  or  other  commercial-of-the-shelf  components. 
(http://www.magics.tech/about-us/ )  
Source: EUROfusion 

7.1.6.  The European Prize for Innovation in Fusion Research (SOFT Innovation Prize) 

The  European  Prize  for  Innovation  in  Fusion  Research  (SOFT  Innovation  Prize)  was  first 
awarded at the international Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT) in September 2014, 
with  the  second  edition  awarded  at  the  following  SOFT  in  September  2016.  The  SOFT 
Innovation  Prize  has  been  promoted  by  the  Commission  through  the  respective  Euratom 
Work Programmes, with the support of the SOFT organising committees, and is a recognition 
prize highlighting and rewarding excellence in innovation in fusion energy research as well as 
the quality of the researchers and industries involved. The objective of the SOFT Innovation 
Prize is to reward outstanding researchers and industries in the search for innovative solutions 
to challenging problems, possibly with wider applications outside fusion. This promotes and 
supports innovation in a range of future technologies of importance in the fusion sector, and 
contributes  to  the  spin-off  applications  of  these  technologies  in  other  fields,  with  potential 
impact on jobs and growth. 

The first edition of the SOFT Innovation Prize in 2014 was limited to EU member states (and 
Switzerland).  Since the 2016 edition, applicants  have  been welcomed  from all  ITER parties 
plus other third countries with Euratom fusion bilateral agreements (Ukraine, Kazakhstan and 
Brazil).  A  participant can  be  a  researcher,  a research team  or  an  industry.  The  2016  edition 
saw more applicants, and a higher quality of submissions, including one from outside the EU 
(China). In 2016, three prizes were awarded: 1st prize: 50 000 EUR, 2nd prize: 25 000 EUR 
and  3rd  prize:  12  500  EUR.  Prizes  are  awarded  during  the SOFT  conferences,  which  every 
two years gather about 800 participants from all over the world active in universities, research 
laboratories and in industries. The SOFT is the largest technology-oriented fusion event in the 
world, offering scientists, engineers, developers, manufacturers and students the opportunity 
to exchange views, visions and experiences and to establish contacts. 

32 

 
 
 
In 2016 SOFT Innovation Prizes were awarded to a partnership from the Karlsruhe Institute 
of  Technology  (KIT)  and  Ecole  Polytechnique  Fédérale  de  Lausanne,  a  partnership  from 
ENEA and CEA, and a young researcher from CCFE. The technologies were respectively a 
new  type  of  high  temperature  superconducting  cable,  an  innovative  membrane  to  produce 
ultra-pure  hydrogen,  and  cutting-edge  VR  software  to  improve  radiation  protection  during 
access to contaminated areas.  

Thanks to the SOFT Innovation Prize, the winning researchers have had good visibility 
and the innovation aspects of the fusion programme as a whole have also been put in the 
spotlight. Some of the projects have also filed patents, which could raise the interest of 
European industry. The prize also raises awareness among fusion researchers in general on 
the importance of entrepreneurship, patents, market readiness and spin-offs. Annex 3 provides 
more details of the prize winning projects.  

33 

 
 
Table 11 - Expected main outputs and results of Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 
(on the basis of description of work for projects launched until September 2017 and Work Programme 2018) 

 Fusion 

Nuclear Safety 

Waste Management 

Radiation Protection 

Integration  of  research:  launch  of  European  Joint 
Programme, update of fusion roadmap. 

Development and qualification of plasma regimes 
of operation for ITER and DEMO (Mission 1) 
-  Further  optimisation  of  plasma 

regimes  of 

operation with metallic wall; 

-  Further  development  of  mitigation and  control  of 

disruption and runaway electrons; 
-  Control of plasma edge instabilities; 
-  Establishment  of  regimes  of  operation  with  high 

radiated power; 

-  Enhanced predictive capabilities of fusion plasma 
simulations  and 

performance  by  numerical 
validation of models.  

Development of heat exhaust systems (Mission 2): 
-  Demonstration  of  significant  reduction  of  tritium 

retention in plasma facing materials; 

-  Completion  of  a  preliminary  design  and 

technology development for the divertor; 

-  Definition  of  the  scope  and  feasibility  of  a 

divertor tokamak test facility. 

Development  of  neutron  resistant  materials 
(Mission 3): Substantial progress in the qualification 
of  the  neutron  resistant  materials  and  in  increasing 
their working temperature range. 

Development  of  components  to  ensure  tritium 
self-sufficiency (Mission 4): Substantial progress in 
the design of the four breeding blanket concepts. 

Implementation of  the  intrinsic  safety  features  of 

Safety of existing Nuclear power plants: 
-  Better  understanding  of  physical  processes  involved  in 
nuclear  reactors'  anomalies  and  development  of  a  non-
intrusive  innovative  core-monitoring  technique  for  detection 
and characterisation of anomalies; 

-  Progress in development of accident-tolerant fuels; 
-  Improved  assessment  techniques  of  structural  integrity  of 

nuclear power plants' components; 

-  Better  understanding  of  the  ageing  phenomena  occurring  in 
reactor  pressure  vessel  steels.  Development  of  predictive 
approaches in support of surveillance programs; 

-  Establishment  of  a  procedure  for  fatigue  analysis  in  NPPs 
based upon experimental test data, integrating also impact of 
environmental effects; 

-  Development  of  mitigation  techniques  for  environmentally-

assisted cracking of nuclear power plants components; 

-  Improvement  of  the  detection  limits  of  the  ultrasonic 

inspection techniques of complex structures; 
-  Development  of  non-destructive  evaluation 

for 
characterisation of the embrittlement level in reactor pressure 
vessels; 

tools 

-  Updated  elements  for  Probabilistic  Safety  Assessment  of 
Nuclear Power Plants focusing on external natural events like 
earthquake, tsunami, flooding, high speed winds, etc.; 
-  Further development of in-vessel retention of melted core; 
-  Update  and  validation  of  simulation  tools  to  improve 

accident management and emergency response; 

-  Development  of  a  backup cooling  system to  upgrade LWRs 

passive safety systems. 

Future nuclear power plants: 
-  Improved modelling and safety assessment of different future 

reactor concepts; 

-  Improvement of nuclear fuel cycles for advanced systems; 
-  Qualification  of  structural  materials  for  future  nuclear 

systems; 

-  Testing  of  safety  features  and  waste  management  of  future 

34 

Integration  of  research:  establishment  of  a 
European  Joint  Research  Programme  in  the 
management  and  disposal  of  radioactive 
waste. 

network 

Geological disposal of HLW & SF: 
-  Development of means and conditions for a 
independent 

sustainable 
technical expertise for safety case reviews; 
-  Improved  knowledge  on  the  impact  of 
cement  materials  in  contact  with  bentonite 
barriers and  the host  rocks on  the  mobility 
of radionuclides; 

of 

-  Assessment  of  the  impact  of  microbial 
metabolisms  on  the  safety  of  geological 
repositories; 
-  Development 

of 
monitoring  strategies  &  technologies  for 
geological repositories; 

demonstration 

and 

-  Development of tools for the assessment of 
the bentonite barriers mechanical evolution; 
-  Improved  understanding  of  the  dissolution 
and  chemistry  of  modern  spent  fuels  in 
failed container conditions. 

Management of other radioactive waste: 
-  Development  and  validation  of  new 
the  characterization  of 

techniques 
for 
conditioned radioactive waste; 
thermal 

-  Assessment 

of 

treatment 
technologies  providing  waste  volume 
reduction. 

Decommissioning: 
-  Development 

for 
decommissioning research aiming at safety 
impact 
improvement, 

environmental 

roadmap 

of 

a 

research 

Joint  Programme 

Integration  of  research:  establishment 
of  European 
in 
radiation 
(CONCERT), 
implementation  of  Strategic  Research 
Agenda,  implementation  by  CONCERT 
of  a  portfolio  of  projects  in  radiation 
protection;  

Nuclear emergency preparedness:  
improved  nuclear 
Development  of 
emergencies  modelling  for  atmospheric 
dispersion,  dose  estimation,  food  chain 
and  countermeasure  simulations  and 
their  propagation  in  decision  support 
systems 

Radiation biology: better understanding 
of  low  dose  radiation  induced  effects  at 
molecular, cellular and tissue level 

Radioecology:  preparation  of  novel 
dose 
guidance 
and 
assessment, 
radioactively 
remediation 
contaminated sites 

documents 
risk  management, 

for 

of 

Supply of medical radioisotopes: 
In  order  to  maintain  supply  chain  of 
medical radioisotopes, development of a 
new,  safe,  high-density  fuel  for  high 
performance  research  reactors  while 
addressing proliferation concerns. 

Medical low dose radiation exposure: 
Contribution 
radiation 
protection  in  the  medical  field  by:  i) 
ii) 
improving  organ dose  estimation, 

refined 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
into  the  DEMO  design  (Mission  5): 

fusion 
Definition of the safety and licensing requirements. 

Integrated  DEMO  design  (Mission  6&7):  Pre-
conceptual DEMO design activity, preparation of the 
Stakeholder  and  Plant  Requirements  document. 
DEMO-relevant 
superconducting 
magnets fabricated and tested. Significant progress in 
the remote maintenance. 

samples 

of 

Stellarator 
Commissioning and operation of the W7X facility. 

development 

(Mission 

8): 

concepts; 

-  Conceptual  design 

temperature  nuclear 
for  a  high 
cogeneration  system  to  supply  process  steam  to  industry  – 
licencing  framework  and  business  plan  for  full  scale 
demonstration. 

minimisation and cost reduction; 

-  Development  of  methodologies  for  more 
accurate  estimation  of  the  characteristics 
and  the  volume  of  contaminated  materials 
as  well  as  for  improved  Decommissioning 
and Dismantling (D&D) planning. 

evaluating the effects of low to moderate 
doses  of  radiation,  with  a  focus  on 
cardiovascular  disease  as  a  result  of 
radiotherapy  and  cancer  risk  as  a  result 
of CT scans, and iii) formulating a series 
of  evidence-based recommendations to 
improve radiation protection of patients, 
medical workers and general public. 

35 

 
 
 
7.2.  Effectiveness of Euratom supported fission research 

Following  three  calls  for  proposals  (2014/15  and  2016/17),  the  Commission  launched  48 
projects  and  other  actions  which  address  specific  objectives  in  nuclear  safety,  waste 
management  and  radiation  protection  set  by  the  Council  Regulation  establishing  the 
Programme (see table 12). The first 23 projects were launched in 2015 following signature of 
the  grant  agreements.  The  second  group  of  25  projects  (including  2  cross-cutting  fission-
fusion  projects)  were  launched  in  June  2017.  In  view  of  the  recent  launch  of  these  fission 
projects,  this  interim  evaluation  is  based  on  limited  feedback.  The  Commission  has  only 
recently received first periodic reports from the projects launched in 2015, and in the case of 
projects  launched  in  2017,  the  Commission  services  have  at  their  disposal  only  the 
descriptions of planned research work. 

Nonetheless,  the  currently  available  data  as  well  as  the  report  from  the  Commission  Expert 
Group  confirm  that  the  scope  of  the  48  projects  supported  by  Euratom  addresses  the 
objectives set by the Council Regulation in the specific area of fission research. The 23 
projects  in  the  field  of  nuclear  safety  represent  48%  of  all  projects,  the  total  Euratom 
contribution to these projects accounting for 41% of the total budget for fission R&D during 
the period 2014-2017. Projects in nuclear safety support research on existing Nuclear Power 
Plants  as  well  as  the  safety  aspects  of  future  designs.  The  2nd  area  of  research  in  terms  of 
Euratom  expenditure  (22%  of  the  total)  concerns  support  for  research  infrastructures, 
including  the  access  to  Jules  Horowitz  Research  Reactor  and  InnovFin  loans  for  fission 
2017).
research 

infrastructures 

available 

general 

(loans 

from 

be 

to 

in 

36 

 
 
Table 12 – Euratom funding and number of projects launched in fission and distribution per specific objective during 2014-2017 (in Euro) 

Nuclear Safety 

Waste 
Management 

Nuclear 
expertise and 
excellence 

Radiation  
Protection 

Innovation 

Infrastructures 

Social aspects 

Total 

35,046,832.86 
 9 projects 

16,303,167.25 
5 projects 

3,552,269.00 
2 projects 

19,822,878.00 
1 project (EJP) 

- 

Work Programme 2014-2015 

Projects  

Other actions 

Total 

35,046,832.46 

16,303,167.25 

3,552,269.00 

19,822,878.00 

Work Programme 2016-2017 

Projects  

59,708,662.80 
14 projects 

19,455,488.90 
5 projects 

9,096,239.25 
3 projects 

9,995,145.75 
1 project 

3,999,259.69 
1 project 

10,087,286.00 
2 projects 
15.000.000 
(support for 
access to JHR) 
25,087,286.00 

6,598,148.25 
1 project 
20,000,000.00 
(Innovfin for 
Euratom) 
26,598,148.25 
51,685,434.25 

5,331,899.00 
4 projects 

90,144,332.11 

15.000.000 

5,331,899.00 

105,144,332.11 

108,852,944.64 

20,000,000.00 

5,331,899.00 

128,852,944.64 
233,997,276.75 

Other actions 

Total 
Total for 2014-17 
% of budget 
2014-17 

59,708,662.80 
94,755,495.26 

19,455,488.90 
35,758,656.15 

9,096,239.25 
12,648,508.25 

9,995,145.75 
29,818,023.75 

3,999,259.69 
3,999,259.69 

41% 

15% 

5% 

13% 

2% 

22% 

2% 

100% 

Source: European Commission

37 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table  13  shows  progress  made  by  fission  projects  in  three  main  areas  of  research  (safety, 
waste  management  and  radiation  protection).  While  the  number  of  reported  publications  is 
relatively  low  at  the  start  of  project  implementation,  it  can  be  noted  that  Euratom  projects 
already  established  substantial  teams  of  researchers  (almost  1200  people)  and  they  report 
progress  made  in  terms  of  milestones  reached.  Table  11  shows  a  summary  of  expected 
impacts of the Programme in the above fields. 

In order to assess the effectiveness of the fission part of the Euratom programme, a survey of 
participants  in  Euratom  projects  launched  under  the  Euratom  2014-18  programme  and  FP7 
was  carried  out  in  2016.  The  e-survey  questions  on  effectiveness  sought  to  gather  the 
perception  of  respondents  concerning  the  extent  to  which  their  project(s)  produce  expected 
outputs, as defined in the projects' contractual documents, as well as immediate results (e.g. 
the intermediate stage between outputs produced by the project and impact). Respondents to 
the  e-survey  overwhelmingly  reported  that  their  projects  had  performed  or  are 
performing well in terms of producing the envisaged outputs. Overall, more than 85% 
(544)  of  the  respondents  considered  that  their  project(s)  produce(d)  the  expected 
deliverables, of which half reported only minor deviations compared to the expected outputs. 
Less  than  3%  (16)  of  respondents  considered  that  the  expected  outputs  were  not  produced. 
The remaining respondents considered that it was not possible to answer the question because 
their projects were still ongoing. No project was considered as unable to deliver its planned 
outputs by a significant number of respondents.  

According  to  qualitative  responses  received  from  respondents,  deviations  most  often  arose 
from  the  natural  uncertainty  and  unpredictability  of  the  scientific  process.  Major  causes 
reported  by  e-survey  respondents  were  technical  difficulties  encountered  (e.g.  equipment 
failure)  and unexpected challenges  or  outcomes  in  experimental  activities,  which  require  an 
adjustment  in  the  direction  of  the  project.  Collaborative  and  focused  research  projects  are 
most susceptible to these types of problems. Other issues cited as impacting effectiveness in a 
small  number  of  cases  included  administrative  delays,  a  lack  of  interest  from  key  target 
groups in some projects, or difficulties in the collaboration between partners. 

More generally, the e-survey also asked respondents to indicate any difficulties that had been 
experienced  in  the  implementation  of  their  projects,  whether  or  not  these  resulted  in  major 
deviations in terms of project deliverables. 33% of the respondents (254) did not identify any 
difficulties during the implementation of their projects. The remaining 67% indicated at least 
one difficulty, though a range of reasons were mentioned and no clear pattern has emerged. 
The  main  difficulties  underlined  are  external  delays  (25%  of  the  difficulties)  and  budget 
limitations (24% of the difficulties), followed by the lack of engagement of project partners 
(17%), internal events (12%) and the feasibility of the project (8%). 15% of the responses (75 
respondents)  described  other  types  of  difficulties,  mainly  inadequately  defined  work  plans, 
technical  difficulties  and  lack  of  coordination  and  communication.  The  high  number  of 
respondents pointing to budget limitations and the citing poorly defined work plans does raise 
some  concern  that  projects  are  not  adequately  defined  and  budgeted  for  at  the  stage  of  the 

38 

 
 
proposal and that more scrutiny on this aspect may be needed during the proposal evaluation 
process.

39 

 
Table 13 – Data from first periodic reports of fission projects launched in 2015 
(Data retrieved in February 2017) 

Field of research 

Scientific 
publications 
(all) 

Scientific 
publications 
(peer 
reviewed) 

Audience reached by projects 

Researchers involved in projects 

Industry 

Civil 
society 

Scientific 
community 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Number of 
SMEs in 
projects 

Milestones 
reached by 
project 

Average 
duration of 
the project 

Nuclear safety  

(9 projects) 

Nuclear 
management 

waste 

(5 projects) 

Radiation 
protection  

(1 project) 

Total 

22 

13 

n/a 

35 

16 

406 

25 

2132 

366 

98 

464 

2 

920 

190 

2000 

290 

165 

455 

9 

8 

67% 

45.6 

91% 

42 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

129 

145 

274 

n/a 

44% 

18 

1326 

215 

4132 

785 

408 

1193 

17 

60 

49 

Source: European Commission, periodic reports from projects

40 

 
 
 
 
7.3. 

Impacts  of  the  previous  research  and  training  programme  –  Euratom  FP7  and 
comparison with the expected impacts of Euratom programme 2014-2018 

7.3.1.  Impacts of Euratom FP7 

The  Euratom  7th  Framework  Programme  (FP7)39,40  was  implemented  during  2007-2013  and 
was  subject  of  an  ex-post  evaluation  carried  out  by  independent  experts41  in  2015  (see 
COM(2016)5 and Annex 1 in particular). FP7 impacts can be summarised as follows:  

- 

In  fission  research,  research  supported  by  Euratom  FP7  had  a  substantial  number  of 
scientific  achievements  in  all  fields  supported  by  the  programme  -  nuclear  safety, 
radiation  protection,  radioactive  waste  management.  A  substantial  number  of  research 
proposals  (286  proposals  submitted  for  seven  annual  calls)  prepared  by  3354  applicants 
demonstrated a strong interest of research stakeholders to participate in nuclear research at 
European  level.  Stakeholders,  including  industry,  have  also  shown  a  readiness  to  form 
consortia  in  response  to  the  calls  -  the  average  consortium  size  in  Euratom  Programme 
was  significantly  higher  than  across  FP7  as  a  whole  (17  compared  to  12  partners  per 
collaborative  project).  Moreover,  total  investment  in  funded  projects  was  almost  €660 
million for a Euratom contribution of only €354 million (54% of total costs). 

-  Euratom  FP7  activities  in  nuclear  safety  have  concentrated  on  research  in  severe 
accidents,  long-term  plant  operation  (i.e.  ageing  and  integrity  of  various  materials  and 
components), plant safety simulation tools and the man-machine interface.  

-  Euratom  funded  projects,  such  as  SARNET-2,  contributed  to  the  resolving  of  important 
pending issues on postulated severe accidents of existing and future nuclear power plants 
(e.g. severe core damage and resulting release of radiation in the event of ‘beyond design 
basis’  events).  These  projects  optimised  use  of  available  resources  in  this  field  and 
established  a  sustainable  network  to  support  the  development  of  joint  research 
programmes  and  a  common  computer  tool  to  model  and  predict  Nuclear  Power  Plants 
behaviour.  

-  Regulatory  authorities  in  many  countries  are  approving  lifetime  extensions  of  nuclear 
power plants (NPP) beyond original design lifetimes. The key consideration in granting an 
extension to the operation license is the degradation over time (thermal cycling, irradiation 
damage, other chemical / physical processes) of materials and components with a safety 
function.  A  number  of  Euratom  FP7  projects  have  focused  on  such  issues  and  related 
management  of  safety-related  functions  (e.g.  projects  PERFORM-60,  LONGLIFE, 
STYLE, ADVANCE). The projects are developing and improving tools for predicting the 
combined  effects  of  irradiation  and  corrosion  on  key  components  such  as  the  reactor 

39   Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme 
of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 
2011) includes a budget of EUR 2 751 million to be spent over five years (2007-2011). 

40   Council Decision 2012/95/Euratom of 19 December 2011 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme 
of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (20012 to 
2013) includes a budget of EUR EUR 233,2 million to be spent over two years (2012-2013) 

41   Report available on https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm  

41 

 
 
                                                 
- 

pressure  vessel,  and  for  the  structural  integrity  assessment  of  the  cooling  circuit. 
Importantly,  the  projects  are  establishing  a  common  and  harmonised  set  of  tools  and 
methods for use in all reactor lifetime assessments and related predictions in Europe. 
-  Several  Euratom  research  projects  addressed  issues  raised  by  Fukushima  accident. 
Specific  projects  have  been  launched  addressing  hydrogen  issues  in  the  containment 
(ERCOSAM  project),  containment  venting  technology  (PASSAM),  modelling  tools  for 
severe  accidents  (SARNET2  and  CESAM),  PSA  methodologies  for  assessing  extreme 
external  events  (ASAMPSA_E),  and  assessment  of  in-vessel  and  ex-vessel  phases  of  a 
severe accident (SAFEST and ALISA). In addition, accident consequences for health and 
the environment, including marine radioecology, were investigated by projects DOREMI, 
STAR,  PREPARE,  COMET,  and  NERIS-TP  under  the  topic  of  radiological  and 
emergency preparedness. 
In  radiation  protection,  the  Euratom  Programme  supported  the  development  of  a 
comprehensive,  state-of-the-art,  science-based  evaluation  of  radiation  risks  in  low-dose 
research  and  has  had  a  large  impact  in  terms  of  publications  and  training  of  a  new 
generation  of  researchers  in  radiation  protection.  Euratom  projects  have  substantially 
contributed  to  the  optimisation  of  the  use  of  radiation  in  medical  applications.  For 
example, significant advances in the use of radiation in medicine achieved by FP7 help cut 
down  exposures  to  patients  which  reduces  the  recovery  time  and  the  chance  that 
secondary cancers occur, as well as the exposure to medical staff. Because of the growing 
use  of  new  medical  diagnostic  procedures  such  as  computed  tomography  (CT)  and 
positron-emission tomography (PET), medical exposure to radiation of the population has 
increased  rapidly  in  recent  years.  Euratom  projects  have  substantially  contributed  to  the 
optimisation  of  the  use  of  radiation  in  medical  applications  by  developing  innovative 
products  and  algorithms  in  3D  nuclear  medical  imaging  and  breast  imaging  (projects 
MADEIRA  &  Breast-CT),  for  better  diagnostics,  optimised  patient-dose  calculation  and 
application,  and  higher  resolution  images.  By  enabling  earlier  and  more  accurate 
diagnosis, these innovations will help to increase survival rates and reduce the high costs 
of cancer treatment. 

-  The  most  important  development  in  the  area  of  low-dose  research  was  the  launch  the 
Multidisciplinary  European  Low-Dose  Initiative  (MELODI).  This  would  not  have  been 
possible  without  the  funding  and  support  of  the  Euratom  Framework  Programme.  This 
initiative, since evolving into a legal entity under French law, has developed a clear vision 
for  future  radiation  protection  R&D  and  a  related  Strategic  Research  Agenda  (SRA), 
which brings together the full range of necessary disciplines and competencies thanks to 
its  large  stakeholder  base.  SRAs  in  related  sectors  such  as  radioecology  have  also  been 
developed  thanks  to  other  Euratom  projects.  All  these  projects  have  helped  retain 
European competences in technical sectors or growing importance worldwide.  

-  Emergency management and rehabilitation have also been greatly improved in Europe as 
a result of Euratom FP7 projects that have integrated Member States' capabilities as well 
as  providing  practical  information  and  documentation  for  improved  guidance  regarding 
post-accident response and clean-up. 

-  Managing  radioactive  waste  safely  is  a  concern  for  all  EU  Member  States,  whether  it 
relates to the waste from nuclear electricity production or from radiation use in research, 

42 

 
industry and medicine. Following more than 30 years of research co-funded by Euratom, 
geological  disposal  now  represents  a  passively  safe  and  sustainable  option  for  the  long-
term  management  of  nuclear  waste.  Euratom  projects  launched  during  FP7  have 
contributed substantially to the overall progress in the development of geological disposal 
of  nuclear  waste.  Euratom  projects  have  redefined  the  state  of  the  art  in  main  areas: 
knowledge  base  and  tools  for  safety  assessment  of  waste  repositories,  development  of 
repository  technologies  (demonstration  activities  by  LUCOEX  project),  and  public 
involvement – projects such as IPPA, INSOTEC provided a neutral forum for discussion 
between  all  concerned  stakeholders,  including  local  communities,  enabling  progress  in 
actual disposal programmes. Decisions regarding disposal of radioactive waste are taken 
at the national level and should be based on a sound understanding of the scientific and 
technical issues and related risks.  
In fusion research, one of the scientific and technical achievements was the completion of 
the ITER-Like Wall (ILW) upgrade of JET facility (2009-2011). This established the JET 
tokamak as the only device worldwide that uses the same combination of plasma-facing 
components  as  those  to  be  used  in  ITER.  It  involved  replacing  more  than  4000  internal 
tiles by remote handling. The ITER-Like Wall in JET has since yielded many important 
results. In particular, results confirmed that ITER could be fitted with a tungsten divertor 
from the start of its planned operation, avoiding the need for an initial carbon divertor and 
representing  significant  cost  savings  for  the  project  as  a  whole.  Furthermore,  JET 
experiments with the ILW have revealed many new aspects associated with operating with 
a metallic wall.  

- 

-  Contribution to the scientific excellence of nuclear research in Europe: During 2007-2013 
scientific  outputs  of  the  Euratom  Programme  in  fusion  research  have  been  substantial. 
Results  have  been  published  in  more  than  5000  internationally  reviewed  articles.  The 
average  number  of  peer-reviewed  publications  per  annum  in  journals  from  European 
fusion associations over the FP7 period was 665. This represents an almost 20% increase 
over the FP6 period. The total number of citations – a measure of the impact of the work – 
has  increased  even  more  strongly:  an  average  of  over  8600  citations  per  annum  during 
FP7  compared  with  around  2200  under  FP6.  In  nuclear  fission,  103  completed  projects 
(out of 134 launched during FP7) resulted in 947 publications in peer-reviewed journals, 
of which 211 were published in high impact journals. 

-  Support  for  the  development  and  sustainability  of  nuclear  expertise  and  excellence  in 
Europe:  Effective  transfer  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  from  the  current 
generation of nuclear experts to the next is indispensable for ensuring nuclear safety and 
radiation  protection  across  Europe,  as  well  as  developing  fusion.  In  nuclear  fission,  73 
completed  FP7  projects  (out  of  134  in  total)  involved  520  PhD  students,  of  which  33% 
were female. This indicates that on average, each project supported more than seven PhD 
students.  In  fusion,  the  Goal-Orientated  Training  (GOT)  programme  and  researcher 
fellowships funded by Euratom have successfully contributed to supplying fusion research 
with urgently needed new fusion engineers (160) and researchers (24). Euratom supported 
also a mobility scheme, facilitating movement of researchers across Europe. In Euratom 
FP7, the number of researchers participating has generally increased from around 600 in 
2006 to 1100 in 2013. JET facility has provided a key focus for mobility of scientists and 

43 

 
European  integration,  operating  as  a  truly  international  collaboration  with  participation 
from  across  the  EU  and  beyond.  During  FP7,  958  scientists  made  visits  to  JET  to 
undertake research, many of these visiting more than once. 

-  The  Euratom  FP7  has  shown  a  clear  European  added  value  in  this  field.  The  Euratom 
programme  mobilised  a  wider  pool  of  excellence,  competencies  and  multi-disciplinarily 
than  is  available  at  national  level.  The  achievements  of  the  fusion  programme,  in 
particular  resulting  from  joint  exploitation  of  JET,  rely  on  the  collective  endeavours  of 
researchers and engineers from across Europe (about 350 persons per year), supported by 
Euratom  funding  for  mobility.  In  fission  area,  projects  in  nuclear  safety  and  radiation 
protection  ensured  that  competences  in  key  technical  sectors  can  be  retained  in  Europe, 
requiring  the  bringing  together  of  expertise  from  many  Member  States,  and  the 
establishing  of  legal  entities  to  ensure  sustainability  in  the  long  term.  The  Euratom 
programme  increased  the  willingness  of  research  stakeholders  to  release  capital  for 
projects  with  particular  importance  for  nuclear  safety.  The  SARNET-2  project  is  an 
excellent example of the leverage effect of Euratom funding – the total budget was almost 
€39M but the Euratom contribution is just €5.75M (i.e. less than 15% of total costs). The 
project  supported  the  efforts  of  a  number  of  European  R&D  organisations,  including 
safety authorities, industry and universities, to network their research capacities in the area 
of severe reactor accidents, thus enhancing the safety of existing and future nuclear power 
plants.  This  Network  of  Excellence  defined  joint  research  programmes  and  developed 
common computer tools and methodologies for safety assessment of nuclear power plants, 
and ultimately supported efforts for sustainable integration of the key R&D organisations 
in this sector.  

7.3.2.  Comparison of Euratom FP7 and Euratom programme 2014-2018 

Progress achieved so far by the Euratom Programme 2014-2018 (see sections 5 and 7) shows 
that  the  programme  is  on  track  to  achieve  its  objectives.  The  main  difference  with  the 
implementation of Euratom FP7 is that the 2014-2018 Programme implements some research 
actions  which  are  channelled  through  European  Joint  Programmes.  These  EJP  aim  at 
attracting  and  pooling  a  critical  mass  of  national  and  Euratom  resources  for  achieving 
significant  economies  of  scales.  Apart  of  Eurofusion  for  fusion  research,  this  instrument  is 
being implemented in radiation protection, and a Joint Programme is expected to be launched 
for  implementing  waste  management  research.  Under  Euratom  FP7,  the  fission  part  of  the 
programme was implemented mainly through research and innovation actions. 

44 

 
 
 
8.  EFFICIENCY OF EURATOM PROGRAMME 

This  section  provides  an  evaluation  of  the  efficiency  of  the  Euratom  Programme  and 
addresses  in  particular  the  new  instruments  that  have  been  introduced  in  2014  such  as  the 
European  Joint  Programmes  (EJP).  Analysis  of  the  efficiency  of  the  EJP,  in  particular 
concerning management and governance, is important since this instrument accounts for 75% 
of the budget for indirect actions42.  

8.1.  Efficiency of European Joint Programmes  

Following entry into force of the new Rules for Participation, the European Joint Programme 
(EJP) co-fund action instrument was used for the first time in the Euratom fusion programme 
as  the  means  to  finance  the  EUROfusion  consortium.  The  EJP  co-fund  Grant  Agreement 
allows considerable flexibility within the consortium to organise and implement research and 
related activities, with the Commission reimbursing costs on a global basis up to the agreed 
co-fund rate. In the case of EUROfusion, the reimbursement rate was set at 55% subject to the 
availability  of  funds.  The  consortium  has  the  complete  freedom  to  allocate  the  Euratom 
funding to the beneficiaries according to its own internal procedures. In this regard, different 
activities  have  different  internal  reimbursement  rates,  which  often  were  based  on  normal 
practice under previous Euratom programmes (EFDA, Contracts of Association). 

Such a large and comprehensive joint programme necessarily requires a complex governance 
structure and management system. These are established in the Consortium Agreement signed 
by all beneficiaries, and include a weighted voting system if agreement cannot be reached by 
consensus. 

This  governance  and  management  system  was  subject  to  an  in-depth  assessment  by 
Ernst&Young consultancy, under the terms of a service contract with the Commission and as 
part  of  the  Mid-Term  Review  of  EUROfusion  and  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Euratom 
Programme. The conclusions of the assessment are as follows: 

–  While the publication of the Roadmap created a need for change to ensure that the fusion 
research community was structured in the most efficient way for its implementation, the 
transition to EUROfusion was driven primarily by the Commission and its evolving role 
within  fusion  research,  rather  than  a  widely  perceived  need  for  change  within  a  fusion 
community accustomed to and comfortable with a system in place for over a half century. 
However,  the  Commission’s  decision  to  reduce  its  involvement  in  the  scientific 
orientation of the fusion research programme as well as the scientific administration, and 
its  desire  to  externalise  most  administrative  and  financial  management  meant  that  the 
status quo was no longer tenable. Moreover, the tools used for the implementation of the 
fusion programme until end-2013 were relics of Euratom dating back to the 1950s and out 
of step with any other research community. 

–  The  transition  to  EUROfusion  was  necessarily  hasty  in  view  of  the  need  to  synchronise 
with the start of Horizon 2020. The Consortium had limited time to put in place a complex 

42 Grant for EUROfusion (including JET contract) and grant for CONCERT (EJP in radiation protection) 

45 

 
                                                 
organisation  or  undertake  in-depth  reflection  of  possible  improvements.  Without  the 
proper  discussion  and  in  view  of  the  widespread  sentiment  that  the  restructuring  was 
‘imposed’, the initial focus of Research Units was defensive, i.e. to maintain their position 
and  role  rather  than  capitalise  on  the  opportunities  created  by  this  major  restructuring. 
Many aspects of the EFDA system, although widely recognised as not being ideal, were 
carried over to the current EUROfusion organisational structure.  

–  Whilst the transition to EUROfusion was not positively perceived in the community, there 
is  recognition  amongst  stakeholders  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  previous  approach  to 
implementing  fusion  research  and  a  general  consensus 
the  EUROfusion 
organisational structure offers some benefits. 

that 

–  The current organisational structure of EUROfusion is ‘fit for purpose’ to continue 
to  implement  the  Roadmap  into  the  next  programming  period.  Any  benefits  of 
introducing significant changes to the EUROfusion organisational structure would appear 
to  be  outweighed  by  the  ‘friction  costs’  naturally  generated  by  enacting  such  important 
change. 

The  E&Y  report  provides  a  large  number  of  specific  recommendations  for  EUROfusion 
management for the improvement of governance and management. On the basis of the E&Y 
report and its own analysis and interviews, the Commission Expert Group concluded 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 
the research programme needs to be improved. The transition between the EFDA/CoA system 
and Horizon 2020 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." 

The  Group  made  specific  recommendations  regarding  EUROfusion  governance,  project 
management,  planning  and  programming  in  line  with  the  above  conclusions.  These 
recommendations  are  essentially  addressed  to  EUROfusion,  and  while  not  bringing  into 
question the basic structure or approach, will require further refinements and evolution of the 
joint  programme  in  order for it to  remain effective going  into  the next programming period 
(2021-2025  and  beyond),  when  the  focus  will  increasingly  be  DEMO  CDA  and  EDA.  The 
recommendations  are  broadly  consistent  with  the  more  detailed  points  made  by  E&Y  in  its 
assessment, and the conclusions of the international panel of experts responsible of the Mid-
Term Review of EUROfusion. The Commission will work with EUROfusion over the coming 
months  to  ensure  all  recommendations  are  addressed  satisfactorily,  and  this  will  also  be  an 
important consideration in the planning for the 2021-2025 Euratom Programme, in particular 
as part of the ex-ante impact assessment 

46 

 
 
8.2.  Efficiency of the Euratom Programme management structures 

8.2.1.  Administrative costs 

In line with article 4 of the Council regulation establishing the Programme, the Commission's 
administrative  expenditure  for  indirect  actions  shall  reach  up  to  7%  on  average  during  the 
duration  of  the  Euratom  Programme  and  no  more  than  6%  in  2018.  Analysis  of  actual 
expenditure during 2014-2016 and projections for 2017-2018 shows that these limits will be 
observed.  Data  show  that  the  administrative  budget  for  2014-18  will  be  ca.  6.7%,  and  for 
2018 it is estimated to reach 5.9%.  

8.2.2.  Management of application and evaluation process 

Euratom  calls  for  proposals  are  managed  by  DG  Research  and  Innovation.  For  the  period 
2014-2016,  3  calls  have  been  organised  (two  biennial  calls  2014/15  and  2016/17,  and 
supplementary call 2014/15 concerning safety aspects of supply of fuel for VVER reactors in 
EU). 

In  the  first  three  years  of  Euratom  programme,  about  500  distinct  higher  or  secondary 
education  institutions,  private  companies,  research  organisations,  public  entities  and  others 
applied  for  Euratom  funding.  The  expenses  related  to  processes  on  writing,  coordinating 
consortia  and  administrative  questions  vary  greatly  on  the  types  of  proposal,  salary  level  of 
participants  involved,  administrative  support  needed  etc.  Horizon  2020  studies  have  shown 
that depending on their age and position, researchers spend from 5-10% of their time applying 
for  research  funding43.  These  and  following  findings  are  also  applicable  to  the  Euratom 
programme, which is based on the same rules for participation and therefore the same system 
for submitting proposals and reporting is used for both programmes. Three quarters (75%) 
of  the  respondents  to  the  simplification  survey,  with  experience  in  FP7  and  Horizon 
2020, confirmed that, overall, the processes in Horizon  2020 are  much simpler than in 
FP7. The survey results on the time spent on preparing proposals are presented in box 1. 

Box 1: Time spent on proposal preparation 

  52.3% of coordinators in a multi-partner project say that they spent more than 30 days, 32% stated that 

they spent between 15-30 days preparing a proposal.  

  14.3% of partners in multi-partner projects declare spending more than 30 days, 52.6% that they spend 

between 15 and 30 days.  

Source: European Commission Simplification Survey44 

In  total,  the  evaluation  process  involved  77  experts  (34  for  call  2014-2015,  4  for  the 
supplementary  call  2014-2015,  39  for  call  2016-2017)  who  were  appointed  in  accordance 
with  the  procedures  laid  down  in  the  Guide  for  proposal  submission  and  evaluation  of  the 
Horizon 2020 grant manual. In selecting experts, the primary objective was to ensure a high 

43  E.g.  see  http://www.eui.eu/Documents/MWP/Publications/20111012MWP-ACOSurveyResearchFunding-
Full.pdf  
44Available 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/events/survey/h2020_simplification-survey_final-
report_en.pdf  

at: 

47 

 
                                                 
level  of  skills,  experience  and  knowledge  in  the  areas  of  the  call  (including  project 
management,  innovation,  exploitation,  dissemination  and  communication).  Under  these 
conditions, special attention was given to achieve an appropriate balance composition in terms 
of  various  skills,  experience  and  knowledge,  geographical  diversity  and  gender,  as  well  as 
regarding  private-public  sector  balance.  As  a  result,  15  out  of  the  77  experts  (19%)  were 
women. Out of the 77 invited experts, 30 (39%) came from universities and research institutes 
public or private, 18 (23%) came from non-research public sector, and 29 (38%) were from 
private commercial firms. 39 out of the 77 experts (51%) were new experts evaluating fission 
proposals for the first time. In addition, for each call an independent expert was appointed by 
the Commission to observe and offer an independent advice on the conduct and fairness of the 
evaluation sessions, on the application of the evaluation criteria and on ways to improve the 
process.  

Table 14 - Data on number of proposals evaluated in Euratom FP7 and Euratom 
programme 2014-2018 

Programme 

Year 

FP7  
FP7 
FP7 
FP7 
FP7 
FP7(+2)  
FP7(+2) 
2014-2018 
2014-2018 
2014-2018 
Source: European Commission 

2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014-2015 
2014-2015 (supl. call) 
2016-2017 

No. of proposals evaluated 
54 
38 
29 
38 
48 
38 
29 
62 
4 
70 

Total 

274 

136 

Public consultation: management of the calls by the Commission 

In  general,  consulted  stakeholders  are  content  with  the  management  of  the  Euratom  calls  by  the 
Commission  services.  65%  agreed  that  time  taken  to  evaluate  and  select  proposals  is  good  or 
acceptable.  61%  was  of  the  same  opinion  regarding  time  taken  to  establish  contracts  and  launch 
projects. Quality of the feedback received by participants in the evaluation process was considered as 
good or acceptable by 56% of stakeholders.  

8.2.3.  Ethics and ethics appraisal of proposals 

All  activities  funded  by  Euratom  are  assessed  through  the  Ethics  Appraisal  Procedure. 
Applicants must complete an Ethics self-assessment starting with the completion of an Ethics 
Issues Table and the proposals above threshold and considered for funding undergo an Ethics 
Review,  carried  out  by  independent  ethics  experts.  After  signature  of  the  Grant  Agreement 
(GA)  and  following  the  recommendations  of  the  ethics  experts  or  at  the  initiative  of  the 
Commission  services,  ethics  checks are  be  undertaken  for  some  of  the  proposals.  The  main 
objective is to ensure adherence to ethics requirements and ethics principles in general. If any 
substantial  breaches  of  ethics  principles,  research  integrity  or  the  relevant  Horizon  2020 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
legislation  are  identified,  the  Commission  can  carry  out  an  ethics  audit  or  take  corrective 
action  pursuant  to  the  provisions  and  procedures  laid  down  in  the  GA.  The  ethics  appraisal 
scheme was the subject of an external audit in 2016 and the report concluded that the Ethics 
Appraisal  process  is  well  designed,  comprehensive  as  well  as  broad  (i.e.  going  beyond 
standard  research  ethics).  The  Commission  services  are  implementing  the  recommendations 
of  the  audit,  including  the  enhancement  of  training  sessions  targeting  EC  personnel  and  the 
recruitment and training of new experts. 

In the call 2014-2015, out of 52 proposals, 40 with the possibility of being funded underwent 
ethics screening performed by external ethics experts. As a result, none of these 40 proposals 
were considered to raise serious or complex ethical issues requiring a more in-depth analysis 
through  further  ethics  assessment.  Out  of  21  retained  proposals,  3  received  ethics  clearance 
and  18  received  conditional  ethics  clearance.  In  the  supplementary  call  2014-2015,  which 
included  only  one  topic,  all  above-threshold  proposals  (3)  underwent  ethics  screening 
performed  by  external  ethics  experts,  and  all  received  conditional  ethics  clearance  meaning 
that there were no serious or complex ethical issues requiring a more in-depth analysis. 

In the call 2016-2017, all proposals except those with little probability of being considered for 
funding were subject to an ethics screening carried out by ethics experts. This concerned in 
total  33  proposals,  of  which  3  were  considered  not  to  involve  ethics  issues  and  30  were 
identified as involving (one or more) ethics issues, though none was considered to require the 
‘ethics assessment’ needed for only the more serious or complex ethics issues. Out of these 30 
proposals,  6  received  ethics  clearance  and  24  received  conditional  ethics  clearance.  In  all 
calls,  recommendations  arising  from  the  ethics  screening  were  taken  into  account  in  grant 
agreement preparation. 

8.2.4.  Euratom Programme simplification 

From  the  outset,  the  Euratom  Programme  and  Horizon  2020  in  general  were  constructed 
around  a  simplified45  architecture,  set  of  rules  and  procedures,  control  strategy  and  funding 
model.  A  single  set  of  rules  applies  to  the  all  research  and  innovation  support  provided 
through EU programmes. In order to ensure coherence of this legal frame with all other EU 
funding programmes, the rules have been aligned to the Financial Regulation. In parallel, the 
Commission  streamlined,  harmonised  and  accelerated  procedures  and  processes  linked  to 
programme  and  project  implementation.  The  new  funding  model  is  based  on  two  main 
features:  a  single  reimbursement  rate  and  a  single  flat  rate.  This  represents  a  major 
simplification compared to FP7 (see table 15). 

45  Streamlined  ex-ante  checks,  reduced  requirements  for  work  time  recording,  reduced  audit  burden,  an 
acceleration of the granting processes and fully paperless proposal and grant management.  

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 15 – simplification measures for Euratom Programme 2014-18 compared with Euratom FP7 

Euratom Programme 2014-2018 

Euratom FP7 

Simplification 
measure  

Single  
reimbursement 
rate 

A single reimbursement rate in a given 
project, without differentiation between 
organisation categories or types of 
activities. The reimbursement rate is up to 
100% of the eligible costs for Research 
and Innovation Actions and up to 70% for 
Innovation Actions 

Single flat rate 

A single flat rate for contributing to the 
indirect costs. This flat rate of 25% is 
applied to the direct costs 

Fusion research 

Co-fund instrument covering all joint 
R&D and related activities, plus an ad hoc 
bilateral contract with CCFE for the 
operation of JET 

Source: European Commission 

Reimbursement is determined by a matrix 
of organization categories and activity 
types. 

Indirect costs (overheads) are calculated 
by four different methods (two flat rate 
models, depending on the organisation 
categories; real indirect costs and a 
simplified method of determining real 
indirect costs. The real indirect cost 
options were a considerable source of 
financial errors. 
26 Specific bilateral Contracts of 
Association with national fusion labs, a 
multilateral agreement (EFDA) between 
all labs and the Commission, other 
multilateral Implementing Agreements 
under EFDA, a bilateral contract for JET 
operation, and another multilateral 
agreement on mobility. 

This  simplified  funding  model  put  the  focus  on  the  costs  that  are  directly  related  to  the 
project.  It  is  expected:  to  simplify  the  financial  management  of  projects  through  a  reduced 
complexity of the financial rules; to reduce the financial error rate detected in ex-post audits; 
to increase legal certainty for beneficiaries; to increase the attractiveness and ease of access to 
the  programme,  in  particular  for  newcomers,  smaller  actors,  SMEs  and  industry;  and  to 
contribute to the acceleration of the granting processes 

The first three calls of Euratom  Programme have shown a significant reduction of  the 
Time  to  Grant,  i.e.  time  elapsed  between  the  closure  of  a  call  and  the  signature  of  the 
Grant Agreement for projects in the  main ranked list, from  an average of 315 days in 
FP7 to an average of 229 days in the WP 2016-2017. 

8.3.  How efficient are the communication and application processes? 

A number of communication activities have been undertaken by the Commission services to 
attract participation in the Euratom Programme, including 'info days' organised on 28 March 
2014 for the call 2014-2015 and on 15 September 2015 for the call 2016-2017.  

50 

 
 
 
 
The  Euratom  Programme  strongly  encourages  dissemination  and  exploitation  of  research 
results. Project beneficiaries have an obligation to promote funded projects and their results, 
and communication forms part of the activities expected to generate project impact. To guide 
communication efforts, the Euratom Programme requires projects to develop and implement a 
communication  plan,  which  goes  beyond  the  project’s  own  community  and  includes  “the 
media and the public”.  

As  result,  a  substantial  number  of  communication  activities  was  undertaken  to  disseminate 
and communicate the project results and the knowledge generated. Validated periodic reports 
from  the  first  18  months  of  13  fission  projects  show  many  different  types  of  activities 
including  7  communication  campaigns,  3  conferences,  9  workshops.  However,  citizens  are 
usually  not  the  most  important  target  group  of  these  activities,  but  rather  a  secondary  or 
tertiary  audience.  Projects  stating  that  they  intend  to  target  citizens  typically  mention 
websites,  newsletters,  publications  and  social  media  channels  as  means  to  reach the  general 
public.  

Table 16 – audience reached by fission and fusion projects in 2014-
2015 

Scientific 
community 

Industry 

Civil society 

24 800 

8000 

1800 

Source: European Commission, periodic reports from projects 

Dissemination of results is usually the responsibility of one of the work packages in each of 
the projects. For the first 23 projects launched in fission following the 2014-2015 call, as well 
as  EUROfusion,  table  16  shows  the  total  audience  reached  through  different  channels 
(conferences, symposia, technical meetings). 

8.4.  How efficient is the distribution of funding? 

8.4.1. 

Success rates 

Results  of  the  first  fission  calls  (2014/15)  show  a  very  high  success  rate,  with  23  of  the  66 
eligible  and  admissible  proposals  being  funded  (35%  success  rate)  and  55  evaluated  above 
threshold (83%). Results of the 2016/17 fission call confirm this high success rate, with 23 of 
the  70  eligible  and  admissible  proposals  funded  (36%  success  rate)  and  59  above  threshold 
(84%). 

Research  stakeholders  from  NMS  are  becoming  well  integrated  in  European  nuclear 
research.  In  fusion  research,  the  participation  of  smaller  fusion  labs  from  these  MS  was 
guaranteed  as  part  of  the  initial  'named  beneficiary'  approach  required  by  the  Council 
Regulation, and since then most of these smaller labs appear clearly to have benefited from 
the evolution of the fusion programme. In fission research, participation rates of beneficiaries 
from NMS in successful projects is well above the Horizon 2020 average (17,93%). 

51 

 
 
 
8.4.2. 

Distribution of funding 

For  the  fission  calls  2014-2015  and  2016-2017,  beneficiaries  in  Member  States  have  been 
awarded  a  total  of  €193,750,445.72  (see  figure  5),  with  only  Luxembourg  and  Malta  not 
represented.  Beneficiaries  in  associated  countries  (i.e.  Switzerland  and  Ukraine,  the  latter 
associated  only  since  2016)  have  been  awarded  €4,764,620.53,  and  those  in  third  countries 
€482,210.50.  Third  countries  include  Canada,  Japan,  Korea,  Mexico,  Norway,  Russian 
Federation, Turkey, Ukraine (2014-2015 calls) and USA. 

Figure 5. Summary graphs (Euratom contribution and participation per country) 

Euratom contributions per Member States (2014-
2017) 

€60.000.000,00 

€50.000.000,00 

€40.000.000,00 

€30.000.000,00 

€20.000.000,00 

n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C
U
E

€10.000.000,00 

€0,00 

FR DE BE UK ES SE FI

IT CZ NL PL HU SI LT SK PT AT EL BG RO DK EE HR LV IE CY

Source: European Commission 

In  Euratom  FP7,  the  programme  was  quite  concentrated  in  terms  of  geography,  actors, 
resource  distribution,  etc.  Beneficiaries  from  two  Member  States  (Germany  and  France) 
participated  in  over  three-quarters  of  all  FP7  fission  projects,  while  six  Member  States  had 
participants in  over  half  of  all  projects  (Germany,  France,  Belgium,  United  Kingdom  Spain 
and  Sweden).  French  participants  were  by  far  the  most  prevalent  in  Euratom  FP7  fission 
projects, followed by German, UK, Spanish and Italian. Together, these five Member States 
accounted for over 50% of all participation, and the corresponding EC contribution amounted 
to  62%  of the overall allocated Euratom  fission funding. A  small  group  of 15 highly active 
organisations  (who  were  participants  in  25  or  more  projects)  accounted  for  29%  of  all 
participation and 49% of the total budget (i.e. EC plus participant contributions). Moreover, 
participating  organisations  from  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  United  Kingdom  Spain  and 
Sweden  were  much  more  likely  to  cooperate  with  each  other  than  with  organisations  from 
new Member States.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
However, the trends from the first two years of Euratom Programme 2014-2018 provide 
some  signs  of  increased  involvement  of  Member  States  from  Central  and  Eastern 
Europe as shown in figure 6. 

Figure 6: Number of fission projects in which Member States participated (2014 – 2017) 

Source: European Commission 

53 

 
 
 
 
9.  COMPLEMENTARITY  AND  COHERENCE  OF 

THE 

EURATOM 

PROGRAMME 

9.1.  Complementarity of the Euratom programme with national (public and private) 

research priorities and activities 

The Euratom indirect actions in fission and radiation protection seek to accommodate for the 
needs of an extremely wide diversity of Member States, ranging from small Member States 
with no civil nuclear programme and almost no nuclear research activities, to large Member 
States  meeting  a  large  majority  of  their  energy  needs  from  nuclear  power  and  on  the 
international  forefront  of  research.  Even  amongst  the  14  Member  States  with  civil  nuclear 
programmes,  the  level  of  maturity  of  these  programmes,  the  technology  underlying  their 
reactor fleet, the strategic orientations for the future development and the research needs and 
interests can differ significantly46.  

Considering  these  boundary  conditions,  evaluation  found  that  the  Euratom  programme  is 
generally coherent with the fission research priorities and activities on the national level47:  

- 

In  the  area  of  nuclear  safety,  Euratom  priorities  are  well  aligned  with  the  needs  of  an 
ageing  reactor  fleet  and  addressing  the  inherent  safety  concerns  arising  from  lifetime 
extension,  as  well  as  more  generally  improving  knowledge  of  plant  behaviour  and 
performance  and  refining  and  developing  new  mitigation  measures  to  respond  to  new 
risks as they appear (e.g. issues raised by the Fukushima accident). Most of the operating 
reactors  were  built  in  the  1970s  and  1980s,  and  since  the  construction  of  reactors  has 
slowed down in the last 30 years, the average age of the nuclear fleet has been continually 
growing  and  reached  32  years  in  2016.  The  country  with  the  oldest  reactor  fleet  is  the 
Netherlands  (43  years),  followed  by  Switzerland  (41,4  years),  Finland  (37,8  years), 
Sweden (37,7 years), Belgium (36,4 years), Slovenia (35 years) and the United Kingdom 
(32,6  years). The average age of the reactor fleets in  other Euratom Member States was 
equal to or less than the overall average48. The 2011 Fukushima accident revived public 
concern  for  the  safety  of  NPPs  and  has  led  to  national  authorities  strengthening  their 
research  programmes  in  this  area,  as  well  as  the  trend  towards  greater  international 
cooperation  in  this  field.  The  lessons  learnt  during  the  accident  have  also  contributed 
significantly to shaping research priorities since 2011.  

-  Concerning  research  on  advanced  reactor  systems,  the  Euratom  programme  has  been 
focused  on  better  understanding  of  safety  implications  arising  from  the  development  of 
Generation IV reactor concepts. Research priorities have been generally well focused on 
the most promising concepts being developed on the national level, in line with SNE-TP 
and  ESNII  strategy.  They  also  generally  complemented  well  national  activities  and 
provided  small  but  useful  support  in  the  financially  precarious  early  phases  of  concept 
definition and design.  

- 

In  the  field  of  radiation  protection,  Euratom  priorities  have  been  as  much  about  better 
structuring  research  as  supporting  the  research  itself.  The  Euratom  programme  has  thus 

46 For more details see Ernst & Young study on fission research 

47 ibidem, p.104 and later 

48 Ibidem, p.106 and later 

54 

 
                                                 
been relevant to the need both to support research on specific topics and to assist Member 
States in achieving greater synergies between their national programmes.  

9.2.  External and internal coherence of the Euratom programme  

Euratom programme is  coherent internally and with the other EU programmes  and policies. 
Internal  coherence  between  fission  and  fusion  indirect  actions  is  ensured  by  supporting 
projects  addressing  topics  relevant  for  both  fields.  In  the  Euratom  WP  2016-2017,  the 
Commission included topics addressing cross-cutting issues between fission and fusion. The 
first topic (NFRP 13) concerned fission/fusion cross-cutting research in the area of multi-scale 
materials modelling, while the second (NFRP 14) aimed at cross-cutting support to improved 
knowledge  on  tritium  management  in  fission  and  fusion  facilities.  Following  the  call  two 
projects were launched in 2017, with total Euratom support of 8 million euro, addressing both 
topics  (M4F  –  Multiscale  modelling  for  fusion  and  fission  materials,  and  TRANSAT  - 
TRANSversal Actions for Tritium)49. 

Synergies between direct and indirect actions are ensured by participation of JRC's institutes 
in  consortia  implementing  indirect  actions'  projects,  where  they  provide  access  to  research 
infrastructures.  In  2014-2015  call  for  proposals,  JRC  institutes  are  involved  in  7  projects, 
mainly concerning safety research. Regarding 2016-2017 call for proposals, JRC is involved 
in  12  projects  covering  7  work  programme  topics  (out  of  8)  in  nuclear  safety  and  waste 
management.  In  addition  JRC  is  involved  in  projects  supporting  education  and  training  and 
materials research.  

Regarding  coherence  of  the  Euratom  programme  with  other  EU  programmes  and  policies, 
through the cooperative research, the Euratom indirect actions enable a Europe-wide approach 
to  improving  nuclear  safety  and  radiation  protection  in  all  areas  of  application,  which 
complements  the  implementation  of  the  Euratom  Directives  on  nuclear  safety50,  radioactive 
waste  management51  and  basic  safety  standards52.  Involvement  in  the  research  actions 
supported  by  the  Euratom  programme  also  facilitates  participation  of  national  and  regional 
research stakeholders in other Union funding programmes, including the Structural Funds. 

49   European Commission, results of the 2016-2017 call for proposals. 
50   Council  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  of  25  June  2009  and  its  revision  2014/87/Euratom,  establishing  a 

Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. 

51   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. 

52   Council  Directive  2013/59/Euratom  laying  down  basic  safety  standards  for  protection  against  the  dangers 

arising from exposure to ionising radiation. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
10.  EU ADDED VALUE OF THE EURATOM PROGRAMME 

A key element of Euratom Programme added value is the ability to mobilise a wider pool of 
excellence, competencies and multi-disciplinarity in the nuclear research field than is possible 
at  the  level  of  individual  Member  States.  This  is  demonstrated  by  a  diverse  portfolio  of  23 
projects launched in 2014-2017 addressing important aspects of nuclear safety (for example 
accident tolerant fuels, core monitoring techniques, assessment of structural integrity of NPP 
elements,  ageing  management  etc.)  as  well  as  by  the  launch  of  the  European  Joint 
Programmes  in  fusion  and  radiation  protection  research.  Another  example  is  a  joint 
exploitation  of  fusion  research  infrastructures,  which  rely  on  the  collective  endeavours  of 
researchers and engineers from all across Europe (about 350 persons per year), supported by 
Euratom funding for mobility. This broad-based coordination throughout Europe of education 
and training, the use of research facilities and international cooperation is of particular benefit 
to  smaller  Member  States,  which  can  take  advantage  of  the  economies  of  scale afforded  by 
the Europe-wide pooling effect – in fusion research this is exemplified by smaller laboratories 
that  can  specialise  in  scientific  topics  or  subsystems  for  fusion  research  facilities  in  Europe 
and  make  important  contributions  while  maintaining  the  visibility  in  the  European 
consortium.  

The 2016 survey carried out by Ernst&Young53 aimed to understand the added value provided 
by  Euratom  research  projects  compared  to  research  conducted  on  the  national  or  bilateral 
levels.  The  respondents  were  presented  with  the  opportunity  to  provide  their  opinion  on 
several  aspects  of  added  value  (see  Figure  7).  The  main  types  of  European  added  value 
underlined  by  the  respondents  are  the  improvement  of  sharing  of  knowledge  and  best 
practices  across  borders,  the  wider  dissemination  of  results  allowed  by  international 
dimension,  the  greater  cross-border  collaboration  and  mobility,  and  the  contribution  to  the 
structuration  of  research  in  the  area of  the  project.  However  the  Euratom  programme  is  not 
considered  to  have  strong  influence  on  financial  aspects  of  the  projects:  only  34%  of  the 
respondents agree to say that the European project allow important economies of scale and a 
little  under 50%  that  Euratom  funding  allow  their  organisation  to  secure  additional  national 
funding.  Some  respondents  also  underlined  other  types  of  added  value.  The  European 
programme allows for the awareness of the European Commission on some important issues 
in nuclear research and enhance the creation of common vision of research challenges across 
European organisations. The European action is also considered as having an important role 
in  ensuring  training  of  the  next  generation  of  nuclear  specialists  through  the  collaboration 
between educational organisations and with nuclear companies. 

53 Ernst & Young study, 2016. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Main types of EU added value of the Euratom programme identified by the 
respondents 

Source: Ernst&Young study 

In the short term, Euratom fission research promotes added value by enhancing the safe and 
secure  performance  of  providing  electricity  from  nuclear  energy,  representing  27%  of 
electricity in the EU and is the main low-carbon base load energy source in the European grid. 
Euratom research may also play a role in the security of energy supply at EU level, through 
dedicated  R&D  work  on  the  diversification  of  fuel  sources,  notably  regarding  pressurised 
water reactors of Russian origin operating in the EU, and on the possible optimisation of the 
use of resources through further investigation of the safety and feasibility of closed fuel cycle 
options. 

In the long term, both Euratom fission and fusion research can support the decarbonisation of 
the energy system by developing magnetic confinement fusion, including through support for 
ITER, and by improving safety aspects of new and innovative fission technologies. In the case 
of fusion energy in particular, it is clear that without past Euratom Programmes there would 
be no ITER, and certainly no ITER under construction in Europe. The Euratom Programme 
has  therefore  ensured  that  Europe  is  in  a  leading  position  in  the  next  step  in  the  quest  for 
fusion energy – the demonstration in ITER of the feasibility of fusion energy at reactor scale – 
and  the  Euratom  programme  must  now  ensure  that  Europe  can  benefit  from  this  leading 
position in the step that follows, namely the construction and operation of a DEMO facility to 
produce fusion electricity for the grid. Without such efforts, the investment in ITER would be 
jeopardised and the opportunity of fusion energy could be lost.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
11.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  interim  evaluation  concluded  that  the  Euratom  programme  is  relevant  across  the  full 
scope  of  activities,  including  nuclear  safety,  security  and  safeguards,  radioactive  waste 
management,  radiation  protection  and  fusion  energy.  Action  at  EU  level  continues  to  be 
instrumental  in  addressing  challenges  faced  by  Member  States  in  these  areas.  The  Euratom 
programme  helps  ensuring  that  public  financing  is  used  in  an  optimal  manner  by  avoiding 
unnecessary  duplication  while  providing  the  required  EU-added  value  and  coordination.  In 
this  respect,  the  Euratom  programme  remains  an  important  part  of  the  European  nuclear 
research landscape. 

On  the  programme’s  efficiency  and  effectiveness,  the  CEG  report  on  indirect  research 
indicates some areas requiring action by the Commission and/or beneficiaries. This concerns 
in particular:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

the need to improve organisation and management of the European Joint Programmes 
in fusion and radiation protection research;  
the  need  to  exploit  synergies  with  other  thematic  areas  of  Horizon  2020  in  order  to 
address cross-cutting aspects such as health aspects of radiation.  
the need to seek synergies in application of some Horizon 2020 instruments in nuclear 
field such as Marie Curie Skłodowska Actions 
the  need  to  review  the  impact  of  100%  reimbursement  rate  for  direct  costs  of 
beneficiaries  of  indirect  actions  on  the  level  and  scope  of  research  delivered  by  the 
Programme. 

These  will  be  addressed  as  appropriate  over  the  coming  months  to  optimise  programme 
implementation  during  the  2019-2020  extension  and  better  prepare  for  the  post-2020 
programme.  Other  recommendations,  in  particular  on  the  long-term  aspects  of  nuclear 
research  or  instruments  that  the  Euratom  programme  shares  with  Horizon  2020,  will  be 
further analysed in the ex-ante impact assessment of the Euratom programme (post-2020) of 
the next multiannual financial framework. 

.  

58 

 
 
 
ANNEX  1: PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION CONCERNING  THE  PROCESS  TO  PREPARE  THE 
INTERIM  EVALUATION  OF  INDIRECT  ACTIONS  OF  THE  EURATOM  RESEARCH  AND  TRAINING 
PROGRAMME 2014-2018. 

Lead DG: Directorate General Research and Innovation (RTD)  

Agenda planning number: 2015/RTD+/014 Interim evaluation  

The requirement for the interim evaluation of Euratom programme derives from Article 22(1) 
of  Regulation  1314/2013/Euratom  establishing  the  programme.  This  stipulates  that  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  on  the 
achievements,  at  the  level  of  results  and  progress  towards  impacts,  of  the  objectives  and 
continued  relevance  of  all  the  measures,  the  efficiency  and  use  of  resources,  the  scope  for 
further simplification, and European added value.  

The  interim  evaluation  of  Euratom  programme  started  in  2016  and  has  been  guided  by  an 
Inter-Service  Group  (ISG).  A  roadmap  summarising  the  design,  purpose  and  scope  of  the 
interim  evaluation,  was  published  in  May  201654.  An  Inter-Service  Group  (ISG)  gathering 
representatives of four Directorates-General (RTD, ENER, JRC, SG) of the Commission was 
set up in 2016.  

The  interim  evaluation  was  coordinated  by  the  Strategy  Unit  in  Energy  Directorate  of  the 
Commission's  Directorate-General  for  Research  &  Innovation  (DG  RTD).  This  unit 
contracted studies and organised work of the independent Group of Experts. 

The  evaluation  is  based  on  a  wide  range  of  sources  comprising  internal  assessments  by 
Commission services as well as external expert group report, thematic evaluation studies, the 
results of the ex-post evaluation of the Euratom 7th Framework Programme (FP7).  

54 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-

regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_rtd_014_interim_evaluation_euratom_research_en.pdf 

59 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

A public stakeholder consultation for the interim evaluation of Euratom research and training 
programme 2014-2018 was launched on 20 October 2016 and closed on 15 January 2017.  

Overview of respondents 

The Commission received 323 answers from individuals and stakeholders in nuclear research 
in  Europe,  covering  all  areas  of  research  and  different  activities  (public  research  bodies, 
TSOs, umbrella organisations, NPP operators, waste management authorities etc.). 171 replies 
were  submitted  by  individuals,  and  152  replies  came  from  organisations,  mainly  public 
research bodies (48) and TSOs (23), and SMEs (18).¾ of the respondents participated in the 
current or previous Euratom programme. 63% respondents indicated that they are 'end-users' 
of Euratom research. 

Regarding all responses (323), they came mainly from France (18%), Italy (15%), Romania 
(11%), Germany (9%), Spain (7%), Belgium (6%), Finland (4%), Sweden (4%) and UK (4%). 

Regarding  the  involvement  in  specific  fields  of  nuclear  research  –  29%  of  respondents  are 
involved in R&D on nuclear systems and safety, 14% in waste, 11% in fusion and Radiation 
Protection, 10% in education& training.  

Overview of answers to public consultation questions 

1.  The opinion of stakeholders regarding the current Euratom programme's relevance is quite 
positive:  80%  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  it  is  relevant.  This  opinion 
varies  from  field  to  field,  showing  the  strongest  support  for  E&T,  waste  and  safety  of 
existing reactors (answers 'agree' and 'strongly agree' were grouped together): 

82% 

80% 

80% 
76% 
75% 

75% 

72% 

63% 

63% 

Education and & Training activities 

Final disposal of nuclear waste 

Safety of existing nuclear systems 
Promoting innovation 
Safety of more advanced nuclear systems 

Providing research infrastructures of pan-European relevance 

Storage of nuclear waste 

Partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste 

Low dose radiation research 

63% 

R&D for future fusion power plants 

60% 

59% 

57% 
50% 

Radiation protection aspects of medical applications 

Demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source 

Promoting industrial competitiveness 
Supply of radioisotopes 

2.  In which areas is the current Euratom Programme making progress towards delivering its 

objectives (answers 'agree' and 'strongly agree' put together)? 

60 

 
 
 
 
Nuclear safety 
Education & Training  
Waste 
Radiation protection 
Fusion 

75% 
71% 
65% 
62% 
54% 

3.  In which field Euratom Programme has played an adequate role in positioning Europe as 

a leader? (answers 'agree' and 'strongly agree' put together)? 

Fusion 

56% 
Radiation Protection   53% 
Waste management  51% 
45% 

Nuclear systems 

4.  Are the forms of funding provided through Euratom Programme relevant to the needs of 

stakeholders (answers 'agree' and 'strongly agree' put together)?  

Grants for research and innovation actions 
Grants for coordination and support actions 
Co-fund instrument for EJPs (EURofusion and 
concert were not indicated) 
Recognition prize (fusion prize was mentioned) 
Financial instruments (e.g. Innov Fin) 

70% 
63% 

43% 
20% 
18% 

5.  The EU added value of the Euratom programme was rated high or very high by 72% of 

respondents. 

6.  Opinion on the EU added value of different aspects of the Euratom programme (answers 

'agree' and 'strongly agree' put together): 

Improving knowledge sharing and information dissemination 
Mobilising wider pool of high level multi-disciplinary competencies than is available at 
national level 
Undertaking programmes beyond the reach of individual Member States enabling reaching 
objectives that could no otherwise be achieved 
Having a leverage effect on public investment  
Achieving objectives at lower overall costs 
Having a leverage effect on private investment 

89% 

85% 

82% 
50% 
49% 
30% 

7.  65% of respondents agreed that the Euratom Program is coherent with other EU policies 

8.  89%  of  respondents  see  consequences  of  discontinuing  the  Euratom  Programme  (10% 

don’t know).  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Negative impact on: 
nuclear education & training 
research activities carried out by my organisation  
nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear systems in Europe 
nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems in Europe  
safe solutions for the final disposal of nuclear waste 
safe solutions for the storage of nuclear waste 
radiation protection in Europe 
EU position in fusion research 
Partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste 
Development of radiation protection aspects of medical applications of 
radiation 
Development of the supply and use of radioisotopes 

75% 
72% 
66% 
65% 
65% 
61% 
60% 
60% 
58% 

52% 
47% 

9.  Stakeholders were asked to rate different implementation aspects of the current Euratom 

Programme (answers 'good' and 'acceptable' put together): 

Contents of the calls for proposals 
Clarity in the text presenting the calls for proposals 
Frequency of calls for proposals 
Time taken to evaluate and select proposals 
Procedures for project monitoring and reporting 
Balance between control and trust of beneficiaries 
Communication activities to attract applicants 
Time taken to establish contracts and launch projects 
Support of the EC services during grant preparation and 
implementation 
Time taken to issue payments to grant holders 
Balance between new research stakeholders and established 
organisations 
Quality of the feedback received by participants in the evaluation 
process 
Balance in calls between small and large projects 
Acceptance of the organisations usual accounting practices 
Actions helping to close the research and innovation gap in Europe, in 
particular concerning Member States which acceded the EU and 
Euratom in 2004 or later 

69% 
67% 
65% 
65% 
62% 
61% 
61% 
61% 

58% 
58% 

57% 

56% 
55% 
54% 

49% 

10. Regarding the question whether benefits of participating in the Euratom project exceed the 
costs  of  participation,  62%  respondents  indicated  that  benefits  either  strongly  (33%)  or 
slightly (29%) outweigh costs.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
11. 76%  respondents  agreed  that  participation  of  research  entities  from  non-EU  countries 

brings added value to the Euratom Programme.  

12. Very  strong  support  for  education  and  training  under  current  programme  -  94% 
respondent  replied  'yes'  to  the  question  'Should  education  and  training  activities be 
supported  by  Euratom  Programme?'  And  36%  replied  that  E&T  is  not  sufficiently 
supported by the Programme 

13. 34% of respondents answered yes to the question on whether new organisation of fusion 
R&D (roadmap implemented by EUROfusion) is an improvement. A smaller number of 
respondents were positive regarding transition to joint programming and appropriateness 
of the instrument (27% and 25% respectively). However for all three questions, the same 
percentage of respondents (59%) did not know answer.  

14. An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  (84%)  agreed  that  the  current  Euratom 

Programme's objectives should be continued in the next Euratom Programme 

15. When  asked  about  specific  fields  of  nuclear  research  respondents  indicated  (answers 

'agree' and 'strongly agree' put together): 

Supports training activities to maintain high level of nuclear competence in Europe 
Ensure availability of research infrastructures of pan-European relevance 
Promote innovation 
Support safety of more advanced nuclear systems 
Contribute to the development of safe solutions for final disposal of nuclear waste 
Support safety of existing nuclear systems 
Contribute to the development of safe solutions for the storage of nuclear waste 
Promote industrial competitiveness 
Contribute to the development of safe solutions for the partitioning and transmutation of 
nuclear waste 
Support low dose radiation research 
Support development of radiation protection aspects of the medical applications 
Support supply of radioisotopes 
Lay the foundations for future fusion power plants (e.g. by developing materials, technologies 
and conceptual design 
Move towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source  

82% 
82% 
81% 
77% 
73% 
72% 
72% 
65% 

62% 
61% 
59% 
57% 

55% 
54% 

16. 58%  of  respondents  were  aware  of  the  joint  programming  initiatives  developed  within 
fission. When asked to indicate in which fields Joint-Programming should be developed, 
the respondents indicated the following fields ('agree' and 'strongly agree' put together): 

Nuclear waste management 
Nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear 
systems 
Materials of nuclear relevance 
Nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems 

57% 

56% 
51% 
49% 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17. Regarding support for E&T, respondents were asked which fields are important ('crucial'). 
While many people indicated so, there were also many answers (20%-30%) indicating that 
this activity is important but it should be better addressed at MS or industrial level.  

Nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear systems  56% 
50% 
Waste management 
48% 
Nuclear fusion 
47% 
Radiation protection 
45% 
Nuclear security 
44% 
Nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems 

18. Mobility  of researchers is  another  point  of  concern  for respondents  –  while  34%  agreed 
that  Euratom  provides  sufficient  support,  29%  disagreed  at  the  same  time.  This  is 
probably why 63% of respondents was in favour of Euratom offering grants for access to 
nuclear infrastructure of the JRC sites. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  3:  SUMMARY  OF  SOFT  INNOVATION  PRIZES  AWARDED  BY  THE  EURATOM 
PROGRAMME (2014-2016) 

SOFT Innovation Prize 2016 

Proposal number: 

  731318 

Acronym: 

  CroCo 

Funding scheme: 

  Recognition prize 

Proposal title: 

  A new type of high temperature superconducting cable 

Total costs: 

  50.000 € 

At Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and, in partnership with the Swiss Plasma Center 
(SPC)  of  Ecole  Polytechnique  Fédérale  de  Lausanne,  a  novel  and  innovative  type  of  high 
temperature  superconducting  cable  based  on  REBCO  material  has  been  developed.  This 
innovation is the scope of this application.  

High  Temperature  high  current  superconductor  cables  are  future  keys  to  manufacture  large 
high  field  magnets,  because  they  provide  efficiency  and  low  inductance  of  the  magnets, 
minimizing  the  high  voltage  requirements  in  case  of  quench.  However,  the  established 
technology of low temperature superconductors NbTi and Nb3Sn is at the limit for the ITER 
magnets and an increase of operating temperature or a distinct increase of field is not possible.  

High  temperature  superconductors  (HTS)  REBCO  material  allows  higher  currents  at  higher 
magnetic fields and/or temperatures, but the assembling into high current cables (e.g. 68 kA 
for the ITER TF coil) is challenging, due to the extreme aspect ratio of the thin REBCO tape. 
SPC has made a proposal to use round stacked conductors as basic strands for a Rutherford 
cable and demonstrated 60kA @ 5 K and 12 T. KIT recognized the exceptional potential of 
the  round  twisted  stack  concept  of  SPC  and  optimized  current  density,  facilitated  the  joint 
formation  and  demonstrated  a  simple  fabrication  technology  of  long-length  units  named 
"CroCos". These CroCos can be used as base elements in high field  magnet application and 
offer at the same time a large potential for power applications, transferring fusion know-how 
to industrial applications, e.g. low loss DC power transmission cables operated at 100 kA and 
cooled with liquid nitrogen. 

Proposal number: 

  731446 

Acronym: 

  TRI2H2 

Funding scheme: 

  Recognition prize 

Proposal title: 

  New membrane technology to produce ultra-pure hydrogen 

Total costs: 

  25.000 € 

At ENEA, Frascati and, in partnership with CEA, Cadarache (SPC), a novel and innovative 
type of membrane for hydrogen purification has been developed. This innovation is the scope 
of this application.  

Palladium-based membranes have been studied for separating hydrogen isotopes in the fusion 
fuel  cycle.  ENEA  and  CEA  designed  and  tested  membrane  reactors  made  of  dense  Pd-Ag 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
tubes in a process developed for the recovery of tritium from JET soft housekeeping waste. 
These Pd-membranes exhibit infinite selectivity to the hydrogen isotopes and, therefore, can 
operate  the  detritiation  processes  with  high  efficiency.  The  tests  carried  out  at  Cadarache 
laboratories verified the effectiveness of the studied process for both detritiating the waste and 
recovering  tritium  in  form  of  HT.  The  same  Pd-membrane  reactors  have  been  tested  for 
producing ultra-pure hydrogen via reforming of hydrocarbons, alcohols and biomass. In fact, 
fixed  bed  membrane  reactors  consisting  of  Pd-Ag  membrane  tubes  filled  with  catalyst 
produce  hydrogen  with  hydrogen  yields  higher  than  those  of  traditional  reactors.  Thanks  to 
the  proper  mechanical  design  developed  in  the  fusion  fuel  cycle  applications,  the  Pd-
membrane  reactors  exhibit  good  durability  and  reliability.  Experiments  demonstrated  the 
effectiveness of these devices for recovering pure hydrogen from biomass. Particularly, Olive 
Mill Wastewater (OMW), that represents a major environmental concern because of its high 
pollution  potential,  has  been  successfully  valorized  for  producing  hydrogen  and  syngas  by 
means of tubular Pd-membrane reactors. 

Proposal number: 

  731435 

Acronym: 

  VORTEX 

Funding scheme: 

  Recognition prize 

Proposal title: 

virtual 

New 
radioprotection  

Total costs: 

  12.500 € 

reality 

software 

technology 

to 

improve 

At  UKAEA,  Culham,  a  novel  and  innovative  software  technology  making  use  of  virtual 
reality  to  improve  radioprotection  has  been  developed.  This  innovation  is  the  scope  of  this 
application.  

This  innovation  called  VORTEX  (Virtual  Operator  RadiaTion  EXposure)  combines  virtual 
reality with radiation transport calculations in order to accurately determine the total dose to 
operatives  and  equipment  during  maintenance  tasks  in  radiation  environments.  Used  in  a 
fission or fusion plant environment, VORTEX will enable the detailed planning of such tasks 
with a view to minimizing the exposure of the workforce. 

SOFT prizes 2014 

Proposal number: 

  643929 

Acronym: 

  KALPUREX 

Funding scheme: 

  Recognition prize 

Proposal title: 

A  new  process  for  continuous  and  non-cryogenic  fusion  exhaust 
gas  pumping  with  a  separation  function  for  direct  internal 
recycling 

Total costs: 

  15.000 € 

At Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), a novel and innovative fusion fuel cycle concept 
for DEMO and future fusion power plants has been developed. This innovation is the scope of 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this  application.  It  is  based  on  a  continuous  and  non-cryogenic  but  still  fully  tritium 
compatible process to pump the exhaust gas of the reactor. It further includes a direct internal 
recycling path for separation of pure hydrogen from the exhaust gas and leading it directly to 
the  fuelling  systems,  in  a  short-cut  around  the  tritium  plant.  By  these  measures,  the  tritium 
inventories are decreased, the cycle times are minimized and the tritium plant size is reduced. 
It  therefore  solves  a  potential  showstopper  and  helps  to  make  fusion  energy  more  cost-
attractive.  KALPUREX  (Karlsruhe  liquid  metal  based  pumping  process  for  fusion  reactor 
exhaust gases) is the process to implement this new and innovative concept. It is based on the 
use of a metal foil pump for separation and hydrogen recycling, of a mercury diffusion pump 
for primary pumping and of a mercury liquid ring pump for rough pumping. All three pump 
technologies had to be further developed with novel design solutions to make them suitable 
for fusion applications. 

67 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  4:  AN  OVERVIEW  OF  IMPORTANT  SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS  IN  FUSION  RESEARCH 
(HIGHLIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF 2016 ANNUAL REPORT OF EUROFUSION) 

In  the  area  of  ITER  relevant  physics  and  support  for  future  operation  of  the  device  several 
advances  were  made.  For  example,  milestones  set  up  to  increase  the  confidence  in  JET 
performance  being  on  track  to  reach  the  levels  required  for  a  successful  Deuterium-Tritium 
(DT) campaign in 2019/20 were rapidly met when high power Neutral Beam heating became 
available  from  mid-September  2016.  These  milestones  had  been  formulated  by  the 
independent  EUROfusion  Science  &  Technology  Advisory  Committee  (STAC)  and  it  was 
crucial  that  they  were  met.  A  future  JET  DT  campaign  should  yield  invaluable  results  and 
experience  in  support  of  ITER  (the  DT  fuel  species  mix  will  be  used  by  ITER  in  its  full 
performance phase). An important factor for enhancing the performance of JET has been to 
overcome  the  lower  energy  confinement  found  experimentally  with  the  ITER  Like  Wall 
(ILW).  Significant  progress  was  made  in  improving  the  JET  confinement  during  2016,  and 
the underlying reasons for the reduced energy confinement in the edge plasma region with the 
ILW  are  becoming  clearer.  Both  experiments  on  JET  and  on  ASDEX-Upgrade  have  made 
significant  contributions  in  this  respect  (ASDEX  Upgrade  is  also  operating  with  a  metallic 
wall).  To  put  JET's  role  for  risk  mitigation  into  context  for  ITER,  the  ILW  has  now  been 
operated  for  6  years  and  if  the  same  understanding  on  operating  with  a  metal  wall  were  to 
have been obtained from ITER experiments it would likely have taken much longer time (the 
number of experiments it will be possible to carry out on ITER per day are much fewer than 
what is achieved on JET) and been vastly more expensive (one year of operation of ITER will 
cost Europe ~85M€).  

Another  important  result,  with  potential  implications  for  ITER,  was  discovered  in  a  special 
Hydrogen campaign at JET (normally JET is operated with Deuterium plasmas). It was found 
that  operation  of  hydrogen  plasmas  with  only  a  small  amount  of  Helium  mixed  in  (~10%) 
required significantly less auxiliary heating power for the discharge to enter into to a so called 
high  performance  mode  (H-mode).  The  standard  operating  scenario  for  ITER  discharges 
should be H-mode and one would like to explore this confinement mode as early as possible. 
Unfortunately, with a single ion species the power required for entering into H-mode is about 
inversely proportional to the mass of the of the ion species. This poses a problem because in 
the  initial  (non-nuclear)  phase  of  ITER  the  plan  is  to  operate  hydrogen  plasmas.  Because 
hydrogen has the lowest mass and the amount of auxiliary heating power available in the non-
nuclear phase will be limited it would be very challenging to enter into H-mode in early ITER 
operation  (one  might  have  to  resort  to  operating  a  very  low  magnetic  field  or  in  Helium 
plasmas, none of which is unproblematic). However, if the JET result extrapolates to ITER it 
would significantly ease the difficulty of operating early with H-modes. 

Progress with important implications for ITER was made not only in terms of plasma physics. 
Just  to  mention  an  example,  the  dust  generated  by  the  JET  ILW  has  been  studied  very 
carefully. Dust is a particular concern for ITER because of the tritium that can be lodged in it. 
Tritiated dust poses a number of safety hazards and could degrade e.g. in vessel diagnostics. 
The  good  news  is  that  the  dust  generated  by  the  ILW  has  been  found  to  be  two  orders  of 
magnitude below that of the previous carbon wall. This combined with analysis of the sources 
of dust generation with the ILW provides highly relevant information for ITER. 

Of course the EU fusion roadmap is not only concerned with tokamaks like ITER and JET, 
but  also  with  an  alternative  configuration:  the  stellarator.  It  can  be  viewed  as  a  backup 
strategy to the tokamak or as a possible alternative for a second generation of fusion power 

68 

 
 
 
 
plant. Mission 8 of the roadmap is dedicated to the stellarator and when W7-X in Greifswald, 
Germany, came into operation a significant milestone was reached. The commissioning and 
experimental  campaign  in  2016  demonstrated  the  accuracy  of  the  magnetic  field  lines  and 
higher than expected performance. In fact the experimental campaign resulted in significantly 
more results than had been anticipated and was a great success. 

An  increasingly  important  aspect  of  fusion  research  is  fusion  technology  and  a  number  of 
advances were made in 2017. One of the perhaps most significant ones was a breakthrough in 
the development of High Temperature Super Conductor (HTS). The programme conducted in 
the  framework  of  EUROfusion  developed  a  novel  fabrication  route  to  embed  several  HTS 
tapes into a round conductor called “CROCO”. The development was entered into the 2016 
SOFT  recognition  prize  and  won  1st  place  due  to  it  novelty and  wide  range  of  applications 
beyond fusion. In fusion research it opens up the possibility of having very high field super 
conducting magnets which may have an impact on the size and cost of a fusion reactor.  

69