Safety is at the core of all nuclear activities. Over the past seven decades—since the first experimental reactor was brought to criticality in 1942—codes, standards, procedures and regulations have been established, along with regulatory bodies and international guidelines to ensure plant safety and the protection of nuclear workers, neighbouring populations and the environment. Until ITER however, all nuclear activities and installations were founded on fission—the splitting of heavy elements such as uranium. With ITER, a new form of nuclear energy, based on the fusion of light elements, has entered the stage.   ITER is the first fusion device fully categorized as a nuclear installation. Although the physics of fusion and associated risks are radically different from fission, some of the issues ITER has to manage are familiar to nuclear safety experts.   Others—such as the extremely energetic neutrons produced by the fusion reaction or the quantities of tritium present in the installation—are unprecedented.   "Generic" safety studies for ITER began in the mid-1990s, at a time when a site had yet to be chosen to host the installation. Adapted to the present location in France, and in the logic of continuous improvement and refinement, these studies continue to this day ... requiring further exploration, simulation and demonstration.   In compliance with the 2006 ITER Agreement, ITER observes French safety regulations and, like any nuclear installation in France, submits to the stringent controls and inspections, both "notified" and "unscheduled," of the country's regulatory body—the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN).   The ASN demanded the same approach as for any nuclear installation in France, where it is the responsibility of the nuclear operator (the installation "owner") to define safety objectives and functions, identify risks, and describe means to mitigate and minimize them.   This approach is particular to France: safety regulations here are not "prescriptive," meaning that they don't mechanically correlate an identified risk with a pre-defined protection.   The most benign of all radioelements Tritium—one of two hydrogen isotopes (with deuterium) involved in the fusion reaction—is one of them. Tritium is the most benign of all radioelements, emitting low-energy electrons ... so low in fact that a Geiger counter cannot detect them and skin, or a sheet of paper, are enough to stop them. It is when ingested, or inhaled, that tritium can become a health hazard. Tritium is hydrogen with two extra neutrons. It easily binds with oxygen to form tritiated water and, as its nucleus is very small, is difficult to confine. Fission reactors of the CANDU family, which use heavy water as a moderator, produce approximately 100 grams of tritium per year of operation, and the global inventory is in the range of 20 kilos. (Tritium from CANDU reactors will be the main source of supply for ITER.) "It's a pragmatic, graduated approach," says Joëlle Elbez-Uzan, who was part of the early 2000 European ITER Site Studies (EISS) and who now heads the ITER Environmental Protection & Nuclear Safety Division. "The French regulations define the objectives, and let the nuclear operator propose the means to meet these objectives. Solutions have to be proportional to what is a stake in terms of safety. It's a creative and adaptive process ..."   "Oversizing" protection is an obvious option when seeking to mitigate risks. But oversizing has consequences not only in terms of cost but also in terms of robustness. "The more massive a protective measure gets, the more complex and the less robust it becomes. By applying a 'just required' approach we minimize costs and achieve better robustness," adds Joëlle.   Such a philosophy is well adapted to a fusion installation whose potential risks cannot be compared to those of a fission installation.   Joëlle remembers that when she moved from fission to fusion the first thing that struck her was the fundamental difference in physics. "What happens in the core of a fusion reactor is intrinsically safe—if parameters cease to be nominal, the reaction simply stops. And of course this is something we had to take advantage of."   Whereas a fission reactor contains more than one hundred tonnes of solid fuel (enriched uranium of mixed uranium-plutonium oxide), there is never more than a few grams of gaseous fuel in the ITER vacuum vessel at any given time. As a direct consequence, the stored energy is minimal.   This and other fusion-specific characteristics have led safety experts to rely as much as possible on "passive solutions" for ITER. The cooling water system is not classified as a "safety function" in a fusion reactor, for instance. It comprises a single loop only, whereas in a fission reactor a second loop must be able to take over from the first in an emergency situation.   Although some of the safety parameters for the ITER design were established by extrapolating from the fission world, safety analysts were confronted with a number of never-before-encountered situations.   Because of its operational needs, ITER will have to manage significant quantities of tritium—a situation Joëlle describes as "completely new for a nuclear installation."   In dealing with tritium [see box], the "lessons learned" approach proved essential. Feedback from CANDU reactors, the Karlsruhe Tritium Laboratory and even the JET (European) and TFTR (US) tokamaks, which handled minute quantities of tritium during experiments in the 1990s, provided a basis to develop R&D tritium handling programs up to prototype scale.   The vacuum vessel also raised specific safety issues, as there was no readily available code applicable to this unique component and the stresses/forces it will be subjected to. Codes applying to fission reactor vessels were adapted to the specific geometry of the ITER vessel and to the conditions it will face (for instance the impact and subsequent irradiation of the inner walls by energetic neutrons, or unique stresses and movements—such as vertical displacement events).   "ITER operation and its progressive ramp-up will provide a unique opportunity to confirm our hypotheses, validate the safety methodology and refine the regulatory framework and international guidelines for fusion installations," says Joëlle.   For decades, nuclear safety was not central to fusion research, as only two experiments—and only very briefly—had ever employed nuclear fuel in fusion operations.   Now, with ITER, everything has changed. "Ensuring the safety of an installation goes way beyond establishing codes and procedures," says Joëlle. "It is about embedding a 'safety attitude' into each and every action we take. What is at stake here is nothing less than the project's success."

Three vertical storage tanks have been installed since last week outside of the cryoplant. The operation requires two powerful cranes working in tandem but also the strength of many arms ... There are 36 semicircular openings at the base of each tank, corresponding to 36 steel rods deeply anchored into the 2.5-metre thick concrete platforms that have been built to receive them. Each tank stands 20 metres high and weighs 150 tonnes.   As the crawler crane seize a tank by its "ears" (two cylindrical protrusions called "trunnions" located at the upper end of the component), and as the telescopic crane slowly lifts its lower end, one wonders how the required alignment will be achieved.   One hour later, the question can be answered. The crawler crane positions the tank vertically and leaves it hovering a few centimetres above the rods. Three men weigh in with all their strength on the bottom rim: a few pushes to the right, a few pulls to the left, a tilt inward and a small rotational movement and everything falls into alignment. The crane operator can then carefully lower the tank so that all 36 rods slide into their corresponding holes, ready to be bolted.   Last Wednesday's operation was a spectacular first. By the end of the week it was routine and as of today's Newsline, three tanks are in place.   Installed vertically because of space constraints, the six tanks, procured by Europe, will each store 380 cubic metres of gaseous helium at a pressure of 22 bars. They will act as buffers for certain phases of operations and also as storage when ITER is not running. Read a full report on the European Domestic Agency website.

At its Annual Meeting in Austin, Texas, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, invited participants to illustrate how investment in basic research, and the translation of discovery into applications, can help improve the human condition and drive economic growth. In lectures, seminars and discussions held over the five days of the AAAS meeting, scientists, engineers, students, practitioners and communicators covered a multitude of disciplines—ranging from medicine to astrophysics, from safe food to alternative energy. Communication, public engagement and international collaboration were central themes.   In one of the main plenary sessions, veteran astronaut Ellen Ochoa presented the International Space Station (ISS) as a "stunning example of international partnership and science diplomacy." Beyond the 15 participating nations—eleven from Europe plus Canada, Japan, Russia and the US—she pointed out that many more countries were benefiting from this "human outpost in space" through various initiatives, including educational partnerships.   The ISS applies a model of international collaboration and participation that is similar to ITER, including contributions delivered "in kind." Speaking about the US experience, Ochoa said that the 100 suppliers from 40 states had experienced direct economic benefits. She presented examples of supply companies securing new business opportunities as a direct consequence of their involvement with the ISS project.   ISS, CERN and ITER featured as case studies in the research presented on mega science projects by Mark Robinson of Durham University. According to Robinson, the political and societal lessons that can be gleaned from these projects can help international collaboration to address global challenges in other fields.   Saturday was dedicated to families, and the young generation took over the Austin Convention Center. Children of all ages enjoyed a special exhibition and displayed a refreshing level of curiosity for all things science.   The wave spilled over into the main exhibition hall. Many children came to the ITER stand, clearly drawn in by the virtual reality presentation of the ITER worksite.   The children's enthusiasm was shared by most visitors to the ITER stand. It was an interesting mix: diplomats and policy makers, students and educators, scientists and engineers, and even some former ITER staff.   The majority of visitors was new to the field of fusion and had many questions on science, technology and recent engineering achievements. ITER's model of international collaboration, particularly the aspects of in-kind contributions and the sharing of intellectual property, drew a lot of interest.

On 15 February, "Isabelle" and "Jeanne," the last of the ten toroidal field coils manufactured in France for the EU-Japan tokamak JT-60SA, were swallowed into the cargo bay of a giant Antonov 124 bound for Nagoya, Japan. They arrived the next day at their destination (see a full report here).   The JT-60 SA tokamak, which is being assembled in Naka, is part of the Broader Approach agreement signed between Japan and Euratom, and implemented by QST Japan and the European Domestic Agency for ITER.

And there were many wise participants at the ninth Intellectual Property Contact Persons meeting (IPCP-09) earlier this month, exchanging views, best practices, and lessons from managing intellectual property within the ITER framework. "A wise man will always allow a fool to rob him of ideas without yelling 'Thief.' If he is wise, he has not been impoverished," says Ben Hecht in A Child of the Century.     IPCP-09 took place on 6-7 February 2018 at ITER Headquarters, gathering representatives from the ITER Members and Domestic Agencies, as well as ITER staff working on legal, governance and information management issues in the area of intellectual property.   With the ITER Project in full swing, pushing the boundaries of multiple disciplines with dual challenges of scale and precision, there is no shortage of innovation and ingenuity. What is less clear—particularly while meeting the demands of an unrelenting schedule—is how to ensure intellectual property is recorded, evaluated and, as appropriate, disseminated.   Discussions this year focused on publications and copyright issues, intellectual property training for serving and newcomer staff, and improvement of the processes which are in place to "support the widest appropriate dissemination of ITER information and intellectual property [Article 10.1 of the ITER Agreement]."   Significant advances in the reporting of background and generated intellectual property were hailed as a success. Opportunities were identified for testing the various mechanisms available for ensuring the screening, availability and accessibility of relevant data.   Participants welcomed the opportunity to exchange ideas on further modernizing intellectual property processes and practices within the wider ITER family.  

"Many basic science discoveries, while important by themselves and foundational in their fields, also yield spinoff applications or enabling technologies not envisioned by the scientists doing the original work. This is what makes investment in science like fusion energy research so powerful—the impact extends well beyond the laboratory." This statement prefaces a new brochure issued by the US Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (Department of Energy) on the many areas of science and technology—modern electronics, lighting, communication, manufacturing, transportation—that have benefitted directly from research into fusion. You can download the brochure here.