EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AN IAEA TECHNICAL MEETING
The IAEA Technical Meeting on the Role of Research Reactors in providing support to Nuclear Power Programmes was held from 21 to 24 June 2016 at IAEA headquarters, Vienna. The main purpose of this meeting was to provide a forum that allowed participants to share and discuss experiences, challenges and lessons learned on the role that research reactors have played and are playing in offering support to on-going nuclear power programmes. The meeting was attended by 30 participants from 24 Member States.
Based on the presentations given and the discussions that followed, the meeting participants concluded that research reactors can indeed play an important role to support new and ongoing nuclear power plant (NPP) programmes. The following main areas of contribution have been identified: (1) research and development (R&D);
(2) human resources development; (3) public awareness and confidence building; and (4) development of other elements of the national infrastructure.
II−1. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The participants recognized that research reactors are indispensable tools for material and fuel testing to ensure the continuous operation, life extension and safety of the existing NPP fleet as well as the development of new NPP technologies and fuel cycles. However, a limited number of material testing reactors can effectively provide such support to the global nuclear industry. Building a domestic research reactor to develop such capabilities is expensive and time consuming, therefore access to international collaborations or consortia built around existing or planned high performance research reactors was recommended by the meeting participants. It was noted that research reactor international cooperation effectively supports the operation of NPPs worldwide and that utilities rely on such international collaborations for fulfilling their R&D needs.
Meeting participants also noted that Member States that are newcomers to NPP programmes are usually looking for NPPs of proven design, licensed in the State of origin, and are not opting for first-of-a-kind NPPs, to reduce the risks in building first-of-a-kind and minimize the uncertainty in associated costs. Thus, it was recognized that building a domestic research reactor with the scope of performing such a kind of front end R&D does not provide any short or medium term valuable contribution to the development of an NPP programme in newcomer Member States.
The participants also highlighted the benefits of low and medium power research reactors in contributing to R&D for the nuclear power industry (including fuel cycle) in various areas such as: nuclear data measurements, code development and validation, and nuclear detectors and instrumentation testing and calibration for NPPs. The participants noted that these activities can sometimes also be conducted within the framework of international cooperation. However, it was also accepted that some Member States operating NPPs utilize their domestic low and medium power research reactors and associated facilities (e.g. hot cells) to ensure a certain level of national autonomy in the management of their NPPs (e.g. as is done by Argentina, India, and Pakistan) as well as for the preservation of national expertise to understand the results and implications of specific tests and of how they satisfy national regulatory requirements. In this regard, the participants recommended that Member States take into due consideration the dimension of their national NPP programme (current and/or planned) and make a cost–benefit analysis before choosing to build a domestic research reactor for this purpose.
II−2. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
The meeting participants recognized that, nowadays, there are many options to obtain hands-on experience and to train necessary human resources for NPP programmes (e.g. through NPP simulators). However, they also recognized that the development of a national educational system for nuclear capacity building and knowledge preservation can benefit from adding practical hands-on components through access to research reactors. This
access can be obtained both through a domestic research reactor and through sustainable access to a research reactor outside the State.
Experiences from research reactor coalitions (e.g. the Eastern European research reactor Initiative, EERRI, in which Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia take part), from Member States recently engaged in providing hands-on training courses (the first course was proved by Indonesia and Malaysia and the second by Thailand and Viet Nam), the IAEA Internet Reactor Laboratory project (involving Argentina and France as providers of host reactors) and the IAEA International Centres based on Research Reactors (ICERR) scheme (with CEA France as the first designated ICERR) were identified as good examples to ensure access to research reactors for capacity building purposes in a cost effective and time saving manner. In this regard, the meeting participants encouraged Member States, in particular newcomers to nuclear programmes, to take advantage of such opportunities to obtain hands-on experience and training for the development of human resources. The meeting participants appreciated the IAEA’s efforts in establishing and supporting the functioning of such coalitions, tools and collaborative schemes which allow also a better understanding of the commitments, challenges and opportunities related to the operation of a nuclear facility.
The meeting participants also appreciated the examples provided by several Member States on the effective use of domestic research reactors to support human resources development for nuclear programmes in general and nuclear education and training in particular.
The meeting participants also discussed the use of research reactors in the personnel training of NPPs and regulatory authorities. Although it was noted that national regulatory authorities usually do not require such hands-on training at research reactor facilities, the experiences of several Member States represented in the meeting showed that the use of research reactors in providing basic and refresher training of such staff (as part of the comprehensive training and retraining programme) is recognized as beneficial by their utilities and regulatory authorities. The meeting noted in this regard the positive experience from Austria (providing training to Slovakia), the Czech Republic, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Slovenia (who provided training for their own national needs).
During the meeting, it was also noted that nuclear knowledge and experience developed around a national research reactor had helped some Member States in making a more informed decision on a subsequent NPP programme. Additionally, the participants also recognized that a research reactor can be a point of attraction to build national nuclear competences. In this regard, the experience of many Member States that developed technical support organizations around research reactor facilities or communities to provide support to both regulatory authorities and NPP utilities was presented.
II−3. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND CONFIDENCE BUILDING
The participants concluded that a well managed research reactor can be beneficial to enhance public awareness and confidence in nuclear technologies, including NPPs. This can have a positive impact on local communities and decision makers relevant for an NPP programme. In this regard, the experience of Ghana, India, Poland and Romania was discussed during the meeting, where public access to the records of operating research reactors helped to develop public confidence in nuclear reactor technology and NPP programmes.
The discussions that took place during the meeting showed also that safely and securely operated research reactors are contributing to build a nuclear safety and security culture in States.
II−4. DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Historically, NPP programmes evolved from national programmes to develop nuclear science and technology capabilities, which were structured around research reactors and their supporting infrastructure. Today, different approaches have been observed in NPP newcomer countries: (1) the historical approach (building first a domestic research reactor followed by the construction of NPPs); (2) embarking simultaneously on a research reactor and NPP programme; and (3) embarking on a nuclear power programme without a domestic research reactor programme.
Meeting participants noted that a national infrastructure for an NPP programme can be built around a certain number of different nuclear and ionizing radiation applications and facilities and that, in Member States who are
newcomers to NPPs, research reactors are not always the centre of such development. Thus, it was recognized that building a domestic research reactor is not a prerequisite for establishing an NPP programme.
However, meeting participants also recognized that, if the decision is taken to build a research reactor as a first step to embark on an NPP programme, the national infrastructure developed for the research reactor programme, if properly conceived, would be beneficial and could further support the NPP programme. In this regard, the participants highlighted the importance of developing the infrastructure for a research reactor programme in accordance with international standards and good practices (such as the IAEA’s safety standards and Research Reactor Milestone Approach), to maximize the benefits to the envisaged NPP programme. The feedback from the IAEA’s INIR missions also showed that the development of a national infrastructure for an NPP programme in an embarking Member State is facilitated (particularly in Phase 1 and 2) if this Member State is already operating a research reactor with competent staff, an established regulatory body and active utilization programmes.
However, the participants also recognized that a poorly managed and utilized domestic research reactor or a new research reactor programme not properly conceived and implemented can have a strong adverse impact in a State embarking on an NPP programme.
The meeting participants recommended that, if the decision to embark simultaneously on both a research reactor and NPP programme is taken by a Member State, adequate arrangements need to be made in order to ensure sufficient financial and human resources to implement and maintain both programmes. This will also require effective coordination to ensure the appropriate development of the two programmes, taking into consideration the differences in the timescales, costs, competences needed and other specificities of each programme.
The participants also highlighted the fact that a research reactor operation lifetime is normally longer than the time required for establishing an NPP programme. Thus, justifying the construction of a domestic research reactor only to support the development of the national infrastructure for an NPP programme may jeopardize the sustainability of operation of such a research reactor in later stages of its life cycle. In this regard, the meeting participants highlighted the importance of developing an adequate justification and robust utilization programme for a new research reactor in accordance with IAEA guidance (in particular on applications of research reactors and strategic planning for research reactors) and relevant safety standards.