SARNET

A Sustainable European Cooperative Efforton Reactor Severe Accident Research and management

Status 1 year after start

Jean-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

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

SARNET projectStructure of the network

Bricks = National R&D Programmes

JPA

C

BA

D

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)

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

7

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)

SARNET project“Joint Programme of Activities"

8

KTHDatabaseFORTUM

DatabaseAEKIDatabase

JRC-ISPRADatabase

Main Portal

ACT

CEADatabase

IRSNDatabase

DATANET

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…

ACT Status- 200 users- around 1000 accesses per month- More than 200 major documents- 10 Topical sites

FZKDatabase

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

SARNET projectNetworking tool and databases

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

COMMON ELABORATION & IMPROVEMENT OF END PRODUCTSINTERPRETATION, KNOWLEDGE,

ASSESSED CODES & MODELS, METHODOLOGIES

BASIC PRODUCTSASTEC, DATA

Dissemination inside SARNET to NMS and less

involved partners for networking

Dissemination outside SARNET to all END USERS,

Students and young researchersAround 15 partners (from 49) provide more than 85% of the support to SARNET (in terms of researcher months)

A dense, hard core providing basic data and tools to a large circle for the common elaboration and finalisation of end products

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

Executive line

Advisory line

Control line

Governing Board

Management Team

Coordinator

Topical Coordinators

EC

Executive line

Proposal line

Advisory Committee

Strategy advisory line

Ad-hoc Scientific Review Committee

7 Scientific Coordinators

Work package 1Work package 2 “ “ “Work package 20

Administrative agents

2 Information system managers

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)