OECD/NEA: REPORTING CABLE: FIRST MEETING OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 005077

SIPDIS

FROM USOECD

DOE FOR NE-1/SJOHNSON
DOE FOR NE-80/KLAU
DOE FOR NE-20/JHERCZEG AND RVERSLUIS
DOE FOR NE-60/LGUNTER
DOE FOR PI-32/BMCINTYRE
DOE FOR NE-ID/RFURSTENAU
STATE FOR NP/NE/JGORN
UNVIE FOR ASTARZ

E.O. 12356: N/A
TAGS: ENRG KNNP TRGY KSCA OECD UNVIE
SUBJECT: OECD/NEA: REPORTING CABLE: FIRST MEETING OF
THE EXPERT GROUP ON NEEDS OF RESEARCH AND TEST
FACILITIES IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE, FRANCE, MAY 19, 2005

--------------
Summary
--------------
U.S. Department of Energy delegate R. Furstenau
attended the First Meeting of the Expert Group on Needs
of Research and Test Facilities in Nuclear Science.
The meeting was held at the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
Headquarters in Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France on May 19,

2005. The purpose of this first meeting was to initiate
technical discussions and decide on the scope,
deliverables and methods of work. END SUMMARY

--------------
OPENING REMARKS
--------------


1. The meeting was opened by C. Nordborg, head of NEA
Nuclear Science Section, who welcomed the participants
and indicated that the Expert Group had been
established as a follow-up activity to the former
Nuclear Science Committee (NSC) activity on "R&D Needs
in Nuclear Science". He also informed the Expert Group
that a consultant, David Weaver, UK, had been hired to
assist the Group in collecting information, and in
editing the final report. David Weaver was not able to
participate in this Expert Group meeting.

--------------
ELECTION OF CHAIR
--------------


2. P. D'Hondt, Belgium, was elected chair of the Expert
Group

--------------
MANDATE OF THE EXPERT GROUP
--------------


3. I. Yamagishi, NEA secretariat, introduced the
mandate of the Expert Group, as approved by the NSC in
June 2004 and confirmed at the NSC bureau meeting in
December 2004. The Expert Group would mainly focus on
evaluating future needs for research and test
facilities in field of nuclear science, reviewing the
status of existing facilities worldwide and proposing
actions to meet the identified needs. The different
functions and roles of the Expert Group members, the
consultant and the NEA secretariat were proposed.
Possibilities to collaborate with similar activities in
other NEA technical committees, especially the Nuclear
Development Committee (NDC) and the Committee on the
Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI),were
identified.


4. T. Haapalehto, NEA Nuclear Development Division,
asked about the target audience and whether facilities
for isotope production and desalination were to be
reviewed. P. D'Hondt answered that the final report
was mainly aimed at informing capitals about future
needs and to identify possibilities for international
cooperation. The information to be provided would
highlight if facilities are unique and important for
research in the field of nuclear science. Nuclear
related issues, such as hydrogen production would be
brought up when discussing the detailed scope of the
study later in the meeting.


5. R. Jacqmin, France, suggested that other existing
databases on facilities should be reviewed and that the
countries of interest should be defined. K. Suyama,
Japan, stated that an accessible database of facilities
in NEA member countries, including their status and
program, would be very useful for a national government
that plans to initiate new projects in nuclear science.

R. Furstenau, USA, agreed with K. Suyama and commented
that such a database would also be needed in the
development of the Generation-IV International Forum
(GIF) program. Z. Hzer, Hungary, highlighted the
importance of having a good collaboration with CSNI and
NDC.

-------------- --------------
REPORTS ON RELATED CURRENT AND PAST NEA ACTIVITIES
-------------- --------------



6. Current and past NEA activities related to nuclear
facilities were reported as background information to
the Expert Group.


7. C. Vitanza, NEA Nuclear Safety Division, presented a
related CSNI activity called SFEAR (Support Facilities
for Existing and Advanced Reactors). The aim of this
activity is to assess facilities needed to support
safety for current and advanced reactors. A preceding
activity, called SESAR (Senior Group of Experts of
Safety Research),was also presented, as well as the
status of the Halden project. A final draft of SFEAR
report will be submitted to CSNI in December 2005, and
published in June 2006. The SFEAR group asked the NSC
to contribute to the SFEAR draft, in particular the
section on Reactor Physics.


8. P. D'Hondt indicated that the division of
responsibilities between the SFEAR project and the NSC
Expert Group could be based on the following
observations:
--SFEAR reviews facilities for nuclear safety issues;
--SFEAR reviews existing and improved LWRs, as well as
existing gas-cooled reactors, but not advanced
concepts, such as GIF reactors; and
--SFEAR does not review facilities for measurement of
nuclear data.
The method of work for the SFEAR and SESAR projects is
based on contributions to the draft report from each
member. This method of work would be suitable also for
the NSC Expert Group dealing with different issues and
various facilities.


9. T. Haapalehto introduced a recent NDC activity
entitled "Nuclear Competence Building", which had as an
objective to identify mechanisms and policies for
promoting international collaboration in the area of
nuclear education and R&D. The methodology used in the
NDC project was based on a questionnaire to NEA member
countries. It was pointed out that it is often
difficult to obtain a high return from questionnaires,
in particular those, which requires "descriptive", and
not "yes/no", answers. After the publication of the
final report in 2004, the study of facilities for
research is presently not in the NDC program of work.


10. E. Sartori, NEA Data Bank, presented the NSC
International Reactor Physics Experiments Evaluation
Project (IRPhE) and other integral experiments
databases, such as SINBAD on Shielding Experiments,
ICSBEP on Criticality, IFPE on Fuel Performance and
CCVM on thermal-hydraulic transients. He introduced a
list of the status of facilities for reactor physics,
nuclear data and criticality, which would constitute a
useful input to the report but which would need to be
completed. It was noted that the IRPhE project could
assist the Expert Group, as its mission is to identify
already performed experiments.


11. Expert Group members commented that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) possesses a
database of facilities, which covers various nuclear
facilities, but which has not been updated recently.
The NEA secretariat was asked to contact N.
Ramamoorthy, IAEA, to obtain more information about the
database. R. Jacqmin commented that the IAEA database
contains official data, which are public and not
private. The Expert Group decided to store only
official data in the database. G. Benamati, Italy,
suggested that, the following facilities should be
included in the scope:
--non-nuclear facilities, which do not treat
radioactive/nuclear materials, but which are needed in
nuclear science
--Russian facilities.

--------------
SCOPE, DELIVERABLES AND METHODS OF WORK
--------------


12. P. Rullhusen, EC, made a presentation entitled
"Nuclear data networking initiatives in the EU". The
Michelangelo Network, within the 5th Framework Program,
had reviewed nuclear expertise and research facilities
in Europe using a questionnaire. Answers from 280
research organizations were published as a report from
the Gesellschaft fr Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit
(GRS),entitled "Assessment of the Situation of Centres
of Competence in the Fields of Nuclear Fission and
Radiation Protection Final Report". The data collected
from European countries are searchable in a database,
which could be used as a model for the database to be
established by the Expert Group. The NEA secretariat
and the consultant were asked to find out more about
this activity.


13. The Expert Group discussed the written
contributions provided by J.Kysela, Czech Republic,
H.S. Lee, Korea, and the consultant D. Weaver and re-
examined its scope and objectives. In conclusion:
--The aim of the report is to provide scientific
evidence enabling government or industrial sectors to
secure support and finance from their relevant funding
sources for the maintenance of existing and for the
development of new facilities.
--Facilities dedicated mainly to fusion research are
beyond the scope of the study.
--Facilities for decommissioning and waste disposal are
outside of the scope of the study. The nuclear waste
treatment, such as reprocessing and P&T is an important
issue and would be reviewed in the field of Fuel Cycle
Chemistry.


14. I. Yamagishi presented a draft proposal for a table
of content of the final report on "Needs of research
and test facilities in nuclear science" and the
associated database. A draft time schedule was also
presented. K. Suyama proposed that the Expert Group
restrict its study to the following list of facilities
(resources),based on the conclusions and
recommendations of former NSC study on "R&D needs in
nuclear science":
-- Accelerators,
-- Criticality assembly,
-- Hot Laboratories,
-- Material Test Reactors,
-- High performance computing.

K. Suyama also proposed to launch a questionnaire to
collect the necessary information.

15. The Expert Group members discussed the proposed
outline of the report and the associated database. The
Group concluded that:


A. The Expert Group should start by evaluating the
research needs and review the availability of
facilities described above.


B. The Expert Group approved the proposed outline of a
final report with the following improvements:
--High performance computing is worthwhile to review
but should be a separate section (chapter) of the
report, since it covers all fields of nuclear
science.
--The IRPhE project should be described as a sub-
section entitled "Preservation of Integral Data"
together with other integral experiments
databases.


C. The content of IAEA database should be reviewed and
compared with the draft template, as a first approach
to establishing a database on facilities. Some items
in our template might already have been covered by the
IAEA database. After a review by the consultant, the
Expert Group would collect and provide missing data.


D. Doubts were expressed about the usefulness of
launching a questionnaire, as it was not clear which
persons to target, nor how many replies could be
expected. The Expert Group made no decision on the
questionnaire.


E. The first outline of a report should be prepared by
the consultant, D. Weaver, before the next meeting of
the Expert Group. David Weaver would, in the meantime,
contact Expert Group members for supplementary
information.


F. The final draft should be submitted to NSC by
December 2006. The report should be published in May

2007.


G. P. D'Hondt will provide a short contribution to
Reactor Physics section of the SFEAR report by
September 2005. The Thermal Hydraulics and Fuel
Behaviour sections of the SFEAR report could be used as
reference in the NSC report.


H. The NEA will establish a dedicated webpage for
discussion among Expert Group members. A password
protected webpage for file transfer, as well as mailing
list, will be set up.

--------------
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
--------------


16. The next meeting of the Expert Group on "Needs of
Research and Test Facilities in Nuclear Science" will
be held at the NEA Headquarters in Issy-les-Moulineaux,
France on 1-2 December 2005.

MORELLA