Topical Information Meeting for the 3 rd Call for Proposals of FP6 Brussels, July 11 th , 2005

1. SARNETA Sustainable European Cooperative Efforton Reactor Severe Accident Research and managementStatus 1 year after startJean-Claude MICAELLI (IRSN) (represented by Jean-Pierre VAN DORSSELAERE, IRSN) Topical Information Meeting for the 3rd Call for Proposals of FP6 Brussels, July 11th, 2005

2. CONTENTS • Reactor Severe Accidents: context • SARNET project • Objectives • Structure and Activities • Preparation of the project (a long way) • Objective achievements (a longer way) • Conclusions

3. Reactor Severe Accidents: context • Hypothetical scenario (very low probability) • Accidental event (Ex: break in the cooling system) • And failure of Safety Systems • Might have serious consequences • Release of radioactive elements out of the containment • Large R&D efforts for more than 20 years (TMI2 : 1979) • Large progress has been made and (logically) allocated budgets are decreasing  Risk • To leave unsolved some issues still open and important in terms of reactor safety (i.e.: Ruthenium release, corium retention, …); • To lose competence and knowledge

4. SevereAccidentResearchNETwork of excellence • 18 Countries • 49 organizations • 18 Research Organizations • 10 Universities • 11 Industry Organizations • 4 Utilities • 6 Safety Authorities or Technical Supports • 200 researchers & 20 PhD students SARNET

5. SARNET projectMain objectives • Resolution of still pending questions that are important for reactor safety • Optimised use of available resources and competences throughout Europe • Knowledge transfer for safety application • Perpetuate the competence (capitalize the knowledge)

6. Go beyond the existing collaborative frames that are generally: • limited to a small number of organisations (Ex: bi or trilateral collaboration agreements) • or limited to a small scientific domain (Ex: multiparty share cost action on a given experimental programme) • Integrate in a common structure all the European Research and Development devoted to Severe Accidents SARNET projectStructure of the network Bricks = National R&D Programmes A B Cement = "Joint Programme of Activities" (JPA) aiming at making the best use of available resources to create, capitalize and disseminate knowledge => base of the contract with the European Commission (2004-2008) JPA D C

7. SARNET project“Joint Programme of Activities" • Development of 4 common references: basement of network • Common Information Systems : • Advanced Communication Tool (ACT) for networking • Experimental data base system • Common Research axes: • A reference plan defining research priorities (periodically updated) • Common computation tool: • ASTEC, a scientific software dedicated to the numerical simulation of Severe Accident transients and that will continuously capitalize the knowledge produced within SARNET and become the European reference tool for SA reactor safety studies • Reference methodology for PSA level 2 • Joint research activities (strongly linked to the national programmes) • Common interpretation of experimental results • Common development of models • Education, training and mobility programme (knowledge dissemination)

8. A WEB portal supplies SARNET partners with an access (reading and or writing) to:- networking tool (document management, meeting org., forum, questionnaire, …)- experimental data bases,- ASTEC code,- links… SARNET projectNetworking tool and databases ACT • ACT Status • 200 users • around 1000 accessesper month • More than 200 major documents • 10 Topical sites DATANET KTH Database JRC-ISPRA Database Main Portal FORTUM Database AEKI Database CEA Database IRSN Database FZK Database • DATANET Status • 4 nodes are open (JRC, FzK, IRSN, CEA) • 3 are under works (FORTUM, AEKI, KTH) • 2 are foreseen (CIEMAT, VTT) • Implementation of 10 experimental programmes is underway • More than 50 tests results already implemented

9. SARNET projectCommon interpretation of exp. programmes • 22 expert circles jointly analyse experimental data and elaborate physical models • The inputs are provided by: • more than 50 recent or underway experimental programmes • coming from 18 SARNET organisations • Model improvements are proposed for ASTEC

10. SARNET projectA dense hard core A dense, hard core providing basic data and tools to a large circle for the common elaboration and finalisation of end products COMMON ELABORATION & IMPROVEMENT OF END PRODUCTS INTERPRETATION, KNOWLEDGE, ASSESSED CODES & MODELS, METHODOLOGIES Dissemination inside SARNET to NMS and less involved partners for networking BASIC PRODUCTS ASTEC, DATA Dissemination outside SARNET to all END USERS, Students and young researchers Around 15 partners (from 49) provide more than 85% of the support to SARNET (in terms of researcher months)

11. Project preparation Preparation of the proposal (1/2) • Initiated by 5 organisations in Summer 2002 • Proposal prepared by a WG1 of about 10 persons from the 5 lead organisations • Progressive enlargement of the number of organisations (5=>50) • Finalisation of the proposal in April 2003 (9 months after initiation)

12. Project preparation Preparation of the proposal (2/2) • Major difficulty : NoE definition • Different views among the 5 lead partners on what should be a NoE • Late clarification by the EC (September 2003…) • Strong point: • A major common object: capitalization of knowledge within ASTEC • Minor difficulty: • CPF editor (change of editor version, default of portability)

13. Project preparationMain documents 2 main documents: • Contract with the Commission • Content of the JPA, • Deliverables, • Corresponding efforts. • Consortium agreement (CA) • To be signed by all the partners, • Main points: • Organisation (decision making process) • Management of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) • Grant repartition

14. Project preparation Key dates • From the proposal to the contract: • April 2003: 1st submission to the Commission (12 M€ requested) • August 2003: Commission agreement on the principle (demand of content revision to fit a 6M€ grant) • 15 October 2003: draft of revised programme sent to the Commission • 21 November 2003: Negotiation meeting • 15 December 2003: Finalisation of the contract content • February 2004: Commission decision (contract signature in March) • April 2004: start of the contract for a 4 year duration • April 2004: finalisation of the CA (latest signature received in July 2004) • July 2004: latest signature of the accession to the contract by the 49 participants • September 2004: latest signature of contract accession forms.

15. Project preparation Key points of the CA • Decision making process • Voting rights (weight of each partner) • Directly related to the support to SARNET (in researcher-months) • IPR • Main ideas: • ASTEC available for all the partners • Syntheses and models elaborated in the frame of the JPA available for all the partners • Access rights to part of national programmes integrated in SARNET to be negotiated with owners • Grant repartition • Partial compensation of the contribution to the JPA (JPA effort  45 p-y/y for a grant covering around 12 p-y/y)  main principle: • 50 % for technical coordination, teaching, data base feeding, … • 15% for basic action (contribution to synthesis, ASTEC assessment, …)

16. Project preparation CA preparation (1/2) • Organisation • WG2 grouping the 12 "biggest" partners in terms of involvement in the JPA • Supported by half a dozen legal experts • Iteration via e-mails with other partners • Key dates • July 2003: CA draft V1 • November 2003: CA draft V2 • February 2004: CA draft V3 • April 2004: CA final version

17. Project preparation CA preparation (2/2) • Major difficulty • Intellectual Property Rights • Access to experimental data • An obstacle is the need to raise funding at national and extra national levels, • A clear and non constraining policy in terms of IPR has been defined in order to preserve the interest of organisations. • Easiest point • Fund distribution • Small grant regarding the number of participants • No big debate on distribution rules • Make possible a simple calculation rule that consider only m-m (and a very few subcontracts)

18. Objective achievementsManagement of SARNET (1/2) Two-tiered organization: • Governing board (1 meeting per year): • High management level representatives, empowered to make necessary decisions • Defines strategic orientations • Approves (or not) Coordinator proposals • Decides on inclusion or withdrawal of Contractors  Can be managed: practically around 50% attend the meeting, 50% grant a power of attorney. • Management team (2 meetings per year) • Coordinator + Topical coordinators • Day-to-day management • Elaboration and monitoring of the programme of activities

19. Objective achievementsManagement of SARNET (2/2) Governing Board advised by 2 Committees: • Advisory Committee of 11 members (1 meeting every 18 months) • Advice on strategic orientations • 82% of members from end-users organisations (Safety authorities, industry and utilities) • Ad-hoc Scientific Committee • Scientific and technical assessment of the SARNET activities

20. Strategy advisory line Advisory Committee Governing Board Advisory line Ad-hoc Scientific Review Committee Executive line Proposal line Management Team Control line EC Coordinator Administrative agents Topical Coordinators Executive line 2 Information system managers 7 Scientific Coordinators Work package 1 Work package 2 “ “ “ Work package 20

21. Objective achievementsManagement difficulties • Number of technical domains: • Very large number of different topics (too much for the 7 scientific coordinators)  Corrective action: nomination of subtopic coordinators (small working groups of half a dozen persons) • Access to experimental data: • Less difficult than initially expected because: • Valorisation of data by the NoE • Large volume of data already opened because co-funded by the EC • Phébus international project • International Source Term Programme • Collect of financial information requested by the EC from a large number of participants: • Administrative documents and procedure should be improved • Too large risk of misunderstandings, errors and delays

22. Conclusions (1/3) Management • NoE instrument appears to be a suitable tool for the integration of activities covering a large scientific domain such as Severe Accidents. • Large size NoE is manageable provided that leading organisations constitute a small and stable core. • The exclusion of minor partners is counterproductive regarding the dissemination aspects in particular toward New Member State and end-users: • The most efficient way to acquire knowledge is to be associated to its elaboration, • Dissemination of knowledge in the field of nuclear safety is of prime importance: in this domain the NoE cannot be a club gathering major organisations.

23. Conclusions (2/3)Management • The procedure related to cost statement and fund distribution could be simplified (increased delegation toward the coordinating organisation). • The construction of a NoE is a long term way: • First integrating step of SARNET is the common elaboration of end products (interpretation, models, ASTEC) • Second integrating step is the definition of a common reference strategic plan in terms of experimentation • Unrealistic to expect the NoE become in a few years the place where the costly experimental programmes are decided and steered • Need for a while after 4 years to get at least an indirect support of the EC (co-funding of some satellite programmes providing inputs for the NoE)

24. Conclusions (3/3) Achievements after 1 year • Larger and larger use of common tools (ACT, DATANET, ASTEC) • Collaboration fostering: • Several examples of Knowledge Transfer • Experimental data • Tools and methods • Know-how • Interactions with national programmes • Programme modifications • Common recommendations • Large success of the mobility programme (2 underway but around 6 to be initiated in the coming months) • High motivation of young researchers

25. VULCANO (CEA, France) • Corium progression out of the reactor vessel • Up to 70kg of material representative of a core melt are heated up to 3200°C and poured in a concrete crucible or on a concrete surface. • Kinetics of concrete floor ablation • Retention performance of core catcher systems • Results are used to assess/improve MEDICIS models (ASTEC)

26. QUENCH (FZK, Germany) • Core degradation and Hydrogen production A bundle of 21 rods (simulant material) are heated up to degradation and quenched by steam or water injection. Post mortem examinations and on line measurements of temperature and of hydrogen production are used to assess core degradation models of DIVA (ASTEC)