10. 9. 79 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 227/27 
4. Subject  to these  reservations  and  the  safety 
problems  raised,  the  Committee  is in favour  of total 
harmonization  in this  field. 
5. The  Committee  draws  the Commission's  attention 
firstly  to the  need  to revise  the  translation  of certain 
technical  terms  so as to avoid  difficulties  in the 
implementation  of the  Directive,  and  secondly  to a 
Done  at Brussels,  22 May  1979. number  of technical  comments  which  are contained  in its 
report. 
6. The  Committee  would  point  out  the  need  to 
supplement  this  Directive  by another  Directive  on the 
rules  for  design  proposed  in Chapter  IV  of the 
explanatory  memorandum  and  would  urge  that  this  be 
drawn  up and  put  forward  for  discussion  as soon  as 
possible. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Fabrizia  BADUEL  GLORIOSO 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a second  five-year  programme  (1980  to 1984)  on radioactive 
waste  management  and  storage  (indirect  action) 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 80 of 27 March  1979,  page  9. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 14 March  1979  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  7 of the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Atomic  Energy  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 168th 
plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 22 and  23 May  1979. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in particular  Article  7 
thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  on 
14 March  1979  for an opinion, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
3 April  1979  instructing  the  Section  for  Energy  and 
Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  Committee's  opinion  of 29 May 
1975  approving  the memorandum  from  the Commission 
to the Council  concerning  the programme  on radioactive 
waste,  management  and  storage  (J), 
(') OJ  No C 263,  11. 11. 1975,  p. 46. Having  regard  to the Committee's  opinions  of 27 April 
1978  on (a),  the communication  from  the Commission 
to the Council  entitled  'The  fast-breeder  option  in the 
Community  context  —  Justification,  achievements, 
problems  and  action  perspective'  (b),  'The  points  for a 
Community  strategy  on the  reprocessing  of irradiated 
nuclear  fuels'  and  (c),  the communication  from  the 
Commission  to the  Council  on a Community  plan  of 
action  in the field  of radioactive  wastes  (2) (3) (4), 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its 48th  meeting  held 
on 27 April  1979, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr von  der Decken, 
(2) OJ  No C 269,  13.  11. 1978,  p. 12. 
(3) OJ  No C 269,  13.  11. 1978,  p. 15. 
(4) OJ  No C 269,  13.  11. 1978,  p. 18. 
No C 227/28 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 10. 9. 79 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 168th  plenary 
session  held  on 22 and  23 May  1979  (meeting  of 23 May 
1979), 
Whereas  the problem  of management  and  storage  is of 
central  importance  for the use  of nuclear  energy; 
Whereas  it is a matter  of overriding  importance  to 
provide  the  most  effective  solutions  to safeguard  the 
public  and  protect  the  environment  against  the  risks 
associated  with  the management  and  storage  of waste; 
Whereas  the results  of the first  five-year  programme  have 
been  encouraging; 
Whereas  this  is the  second  phase  of a longer-term 
programme, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 71 votes  toll  with  one  abstention: 
1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  issued  a very 
comprehensive  opinion  on the first  five-year  programme 
on radioactive  waste  management  and  storage.  It 
returned  to  this  problem  in  its  opinion  on  the 
communication  to the Council  on a Community  plan  of 
action  in the  field  of radioactive  waste.  The  present 
proposal  for a second  five-year  programme  is a logical 
follow-up  to the  first  programme  and  represents  the 
second  phase  of  a longer-term  programme.  The 
Committee  need  not  therefore  reiterate  its views  on the 
justification  for the programme.  Reference  to its previous 
opinions  will  suffice. 
2. The  Committee  is pleased  to note  that  the primary 
objective  of the second  programme  is the same  as that  of 
the first,  namely  'to  provide  effective  solutions  to 
safeguard  the public  and  protect  the environment  against 
potential  hazards  associated  with  nuclear  activities'. 
3. The  Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  that  the 
results  of the first  programme  are encouraging  and  that 
the research  carried  out  has  resulted  in the  second 
programme  being  oriented  more  towards  pilot  projects 
and experiments  under  real-life  conditions  and  towards 
evaluation  of the  quality  of the  conditioned  waste 
products.  It is also  apparent  that  the results  obtained  in 
the first  programme  made  it possible  for  the  second 
programme  to be drawn  up in very  detailed  form  with 
clear  objectives. 
4. The  Committee  notes  with  interest  that  the 
Advisory  Committee  responsible  for  the  direct  action 
programme  is also  to be  involved  in the  second 
programme. 5. The  Committee  would  like  to draw  attention  to the 
very  detailed  report  on  the  first  programme  which 
prefaces  the second  programme  and  makes  an evaluation 
of the  second  programme  considerably  easier;  it would 
also draw  attention  to the fact  that  on 1 August  1977  a 
review  of the  first  programme  concluded  that  revision 
was not  required. 
6. The  total  appropriations  required  for  the  second 
programme  represent  a real  increase  of 60%  over  the 
first programme.  The  appropriation  for staffing  costs  has 
also been  increased.  The  Committee  realizes  that  such  an 
increase  in costs  is unavoidable  on passing  from  the 
research  phase  to the  pilot  installation  phase,  from  the 
use of equipment  under  non-active  conditions  to its use 
in the  presence  of radioactivity,  and  on the  continuing 
transition  to geological  deep  drillings.  An  increase  in 
staff  would  seem  necessary  in view  of the large  number 
of individual  contracts. 
7. In  the  new  programme  there  is a relative  shift  in 
budgetary  resources  away  from  'storage  and  disposal'  to 
'treatment  and  conditioning'.  In the Commission's  view, 
this is a logical  consequence  of the fact  that  the work  on 
treatment  and  conditioning  has  reached  the  pilot 
installation  phase  and  increased  funds  must  therefore  be 
made  available.  The  Committee  is pleased  to note, 
however,  that  this  does  not  imply  any  lessening  of 
interest  in storage  and  disposal. 
8. In  its previous  opinion  the Committee  pointed  out 
that the  processes  for  conditioning  radioactive  waste 
have  reached  the  stage  where  very  stringent  safety 
standards  can  be met;  in the next  few  years  this  position 
must  be consolidated  and  further  improvements  made. 
The Committee  believes  that  our  knowledge  about 
disposal  in geological  formations  is already  considerable. 
Many  different  alternatives  are  being  studied  and 
underground  tests  are  being  carried  out  or prepared. 
Even  if we still  have  a relatively  long  way  to go before  the 
storage  of large  quantities  of radioactive  waste  becomes 
necessary,  research  must  continue  steadily  to solve  the 
remaining  problems  in time  and  optimize  the processes. 
9. The  Committee  would  once  again  point  out  that 
the problem  of radioactive  waste  is one  of the  main 
factors  influencing  public  opinion  on the use  of nuclear 
energy.  It is therefore  extremely  important  that  the 
public  should  be properly  informed.  The  Committee 
would  urge  the  relevant  bodies  (Commission, 
governments  and  industry)  to step  up their  efforts  in this 
area. 
10. The  Committee  would  further  point  out  that  the 
use of radioactive  material  in industry  and  in the medical 
field  in particular,  also  produces  extraordinarily  large 
10. 9. 79 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 227/29 
quantities  of radioactive  waste.  Even  though  this  is 
generally  low-activity  waste  which  has a shorter  life than 
the waste  produced  by power  reactors,  the quantities 
Done  at Brussels,  23 May  1979. involved  are enormous.  The Committee  would  like to see 
the Commission  make  a study  of the problems  of this 
radioactive  waste  from  non-nuclear  energy  sources. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Fabrizia  BADUEL  GLORIOSO 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected: 
Paragraph  9 
Delete  the second  sentence: 
'Research  programmes  must  therefore  be developed  to guarantee  a satisfactory  solution  — from  the 
angle  of public  safety  — to the problems  raised  by radioactive  waste.  Furthermore,  the management  of 
waste  should  be the direct  responsibility  of the public  authorities  since  in some  cases  it involves  several 
generations.  People  are  rightly  very  concerned  over  the problem  of storing  radioactive  waste  which 
has not yet been  resolved  in an acceptable  manner.  Not  only  must  people  be informed  objectively,  they 
must  also  be involved  properly  in the decisions.  The  further  expansion  of nuclear  energy  should  be 
made  dependent  on an acceptable  solution  being  found  to the problems  of radioactive  waste  storage 
and the safety  of workers,  those  living  nearby  and  the  public  in general.' 
Voting 
For:  2; against:  majority;  amendments:  5. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision  for a research  and training  programme  for the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community  on the plutonium  cycle  and  its safety 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 100 of 21 April  1979,  page  9. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 14 March  1979  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  7 of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Atomic  Energy  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 168th 
plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 22 and  23 May  1979. 
The full text of the opinion  is as follows: