Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05PARIS5077, OECD/NEA: REPORTING CABLE: FIRST MEETING OF

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05PARIS5077.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05PARIS5077 2005-07-22 09:17 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Paris
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
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