13. 11. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 269/15 
1.14.  Regardless  of how  the  waste  disposal  cost 
question  is to be settled,  the Committee  considers  that 
responsibility  for  permanent  storage  sites  or for 
longer-term  interim  storage  sites  can  lie only  with  the 
State,  i.e. the public  authorities.  The risks  associated  with 
long-term  storage,  even  if they  are only  hypothetical  risks 
for the time  being,  cannot  by their  very  nature  be borne  by 
private  firms  or organizations. 
1.15.  The  Committee  is also  very  pleased  that  the 
Commission  has looked  at the question  of a Community 
network  of sites  for storing  radioactive  waste.  It thinks 
that as far as possible  radioactive  waste  should  be 
disposed  of, i.e. stored  on an interim  or permanent  basis, at the place  where  it is produced.  It therefore  supports  the 
Commission's  intention,  under  its proposed  action  plan, 
to press  for the selection  of a few  suitable  sites  for the 
interim  or final  storage  of radioactive  waste,  for use as far 
as possible  in conjunction  with  reprocessing  plants. 
1.16.  Finally,  the Committee  endorses  the proposed 
setting-up  of an advisory  committee  of top-level  experts 
for the full  duration  of the action  plan  to assist  the 
Commission  in the execution  of the measures  in the field 
of radioactive  waste  provided  for in the Community's 
plan.  It would,  however,  like  the Member  States  to be 
obliged  under  the Decision  in question  to supply  the 
Commission  with  all available  information  on the subject 
of radioactive  waste. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 April  1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  text  was  replaced  by an amendment  adopted  by 34 votes  to 14, with  22 abstentions: 
'Point  1.1. 
The first  two  sentences  originally  read: 
In view  of the various  processes  being  developed  or tested  and  the information  provided  by experts,  the 
Committee  thinks  that  reliable  methods  will  be available  for solidifying  high  activity  waste  on an 
industrial  scale  at least  by 1990.  It has the impression,  moreover,  that  the objectives  set out above  will be 
attainable  at an even  earlier  date  if work  is rationalized  and  intensified.' 
Opinion  on the communication  from  the Commission  to the Council  entitled  'The  fast breeder 
option  in the  Community  context  - justification,  achievements,  problems  and  action 
perspectives' 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not yet been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 22 August  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  170  of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Atomic  Energy  Community. 
No C 269/16 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 13. 11. 78 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 158th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 April  1978. 
The full text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  170 of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 26 August  1977  for  an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
27 September  1977,  instructing  the Section  for Energy 
and Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter,  ( 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its 38th  meeting  on 
10 March  1978, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr Friedrichs, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 158th  plenary 
session  held  on 26 and 27 April  1978  (meeting  of 27 April 
1978), 
Whereas  the  Committee  was  also  consulted  on the 
communication  from  the Commission  to the Council 
entitled  'Points  for  a Community  strategy  on the 
reprocessing  of irradiated  nuclear  fuels  (*) and  the 
communication  from  the Commission  to the Council  on 
a Community  plan  of action  in the field  of radioactive 
wastes  (2); 
Whereas  the three  documents  deal  with  questions  which 
are closely  interrelated  and  which  go to the heart  of the 
debate  on the future  of nuclear  energy  in the Community; 
Whereas  there  must  be an early  decision  taken  in the 
Community  to define  the range  of options  on the role  of 
nuclear  energy  relative  to other  sources; 
Whereas  the Community  should  pursue,  as a matter  of 
priority,  the research  and demonstration  projects  that are 
now under  way  on all aspects  of nuclear  safety  and 
technology;  whereas  the same  importance  must  also  be 
given  to the rational  use of energy  and to the continuation 
and development  of programmes  concerning  alternative 
energy  sources; 
Whereas  it is necessary  to bring  into  operation  a 
Community  nuclear  safety  code,  so that safety  should  be a 
top priority,  irrespective  of economic,  industrial  or 
(*) OJ  No C 199,  20. 8. 1977,  p. 2. 
(2) OJ  No C 249,  18. 10. 1977,  p. 8. political  considerations;  whereas  experimental  reliability 
must  ensure  that  residual  hazards  are  limited  to the 
greatest  possible  extent, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 69 votes  to 10, with  1 abstention: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Community  depends  to a large  extent  on 
imports  for its supplies  of energy  products.  In future  there 
is likely  to be an increasing  world-wide  shortage  of 
hydrocarbons.  In the Committee's  view,  it is therefore 
absolutely  essential  to continue  and  intensify  efforts  to 
save energy,  whilst  at the same  time  doing  everything 
possible  to develop  all alternative  sources  of energy. 
1.2. Nuclear  energy  is one  such  alternative  source. 
Development  work  in this  field  has reached  the stage 
where  it can be safely  assumed  that  this  form  of energy 
could  provide  the Community  with  a substantial  part  of 
its requirements  in the  foreseeable  future.  The 
Community  does,  of course,  also  depend  to a large  extent 
on imports  for its supplies  of uranium.  The  Committee, 
therefore,  calls  for increased  uranium  prospecting  in the 
Community,  whilst  at the same  time  recognizing  the very 
considerable  importance  of making  more  efficient  use of 
uranium. 
1.3. On  the basis  of current  technology  the possibilities 
of improving  the  efficiency  of thermal  reactors  are 
relatively  limited.  The  reprocessing  of irradiated  fuel  and 
eventually  the use of fast  breeder  reactors  offer  better 
prospects.  Given  the  present  level  of availability  of 
uranium,  the  successful  development  of fast  breeder 
reactors  could  even  enable  the Community  to become  to a 
large  extent  self-sufficient  as regards  nuclear  fuel.  The 
Committee  considers  that  this  prospect  provides  a 
convincing  argument  for keeping  open  the option  of using 
fast breeder  reactors  in the Community. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. The  Committee  would  draw  attention  to the fact 
that fast  breeder  reactors  could  be of fundamental 
importance  in reducing  the  dangers  of nuclear 
proliferation  as well  as contributing  significantly  to 
energy  supplies.  If it is agreed  that  the non-reprocessing  of 
irradiated  fuel  is also  unacceptable  for safety  reasons,  the 
use of fast  breeder  reactors  provides  a way  of consuming 
the plutonium  obtained  as a result  of reprocessing,  and 
thereby  achieving  a closed  fuel  cycle. 
13. 11. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 269/17 
2.2. The  Community  ranks  amongst  the world  leaders 
in the technical  development  of fast  breeder  reactors. 
Though  this is not a decisive  factor  as far as the attitude  of 
the Committee  is concerned,  the Committee  does  regard  it 
as an additional  reason  for keeping  the fast breeder  option 
open. 
2.3. Fast  breeder  reactors  can  only  be used  in 
connection  with  thermal  reactors  in the short  term.  A 
fundamental  requirement  for their  use is the availability  of 
sufficient  quantities  of plutonium  from  thermal  reactors 
and in the  longer  term  from  fast  breeder  reactors 
themselves.  The  temporal  link  between  the use of thermal 
reactors  and  fast  breeder  reactors  is, in the Committee's 
view,  a further  reason  for not delaying  the development  of 
the latter  form  of reactors.  Such  a delay  could  bring  about 
a situation  whereby  a shortage  of uranium  at a particular 
moment  in time  could  endanger  the Community's  energy 
supply. which  need  to be taken  to enable  nuclear  fuel,  in 
particular  plutonium,  to be used  for  exclusively 
peaceful  purposes,  even  if fast breeder  reactors  should 
come  into  widespread  use;  the Committee  urges  the 
Commission  to come  up with  concrete  proposals  to 
this effect  in the near  future, 
— the  Commission's  intention  to submit,  in the course  of 
1978,  proposals  for intensifying  the Community's 
work  in the fields  of safety  research  and  development 
and codes  and  standards  for fast  breeder  reactors, 
— the  advisability  of paying  special  attention  to the 
specific  technical  problems  involved  in processing  fuel 
obtained  from  fast  breeder  reactors, 
— the  Commission's  views  on  a Community 
contribution  towards  the financing  of fast  breeder 
reactor  demonstration  projects. 
2.4. The  Committee  would,  however,  draw  attention 
to the  fact  that  the commercialization  of fast  breeder 
reactors  is not yet in prospect  for the immediate  future. 
The Commission  is also  of  the  opinion  that 
commercialization  cannot  start  before  the early  1990s. 
The Committee  sees  the maintenance  of the fast  breeder 
option  as meaning  that  technical  development  work  may 
be continued  with  the aim  of achieving  the technical  and 
economic  level  necessary  for  commercialization.  It is 
assumed  that  safety  factors  will,  of course,  be given 
absolute  priority. 
3. The  Commission's  proposals 
3.1. The  Commission's  proposals  deal  with  the 
problems  in the way  of the introduction  and  use of fast 
breeder  reactors  and the measures  which  have  to be taken 
in this  respect.  On  the  basis  of the  abovementioned 
general  and  specific  comments,  the Committee  approves 
the Commission's  proposals.  It would  draw  attention  in 
particular  to: 
— the  need  for  an immediate  start  to be made  on 
discussions  at Community  level  on the  measures 4. Conclusions 
4.1. The  Committee  also  supports  the Commission's 
conclusions  and  recommendations,  namely,  that: 
— the  fast  breeder  option  should  be kept  open, 
— demonstration  projects  should  be pursued  with 
greater  attention  continuing  to be paid  to safety, 
radiological  protection  and  environmental 
consideration, 
— the  Community  should  play  a supporting  role  in the 
achievement  of these  objectives. 
4.2. The  Committee  agrees  with  the Commission  that, 
as far as the widespread  use of fast  breeder  reactors  is 
concerned,  'it would  be wrong  to underestimate  the 
many  and  difficult  problems  which  remain  to be solved 
before  the use (of this type  of reactor)  can be established'. 
4.3. If  these  problems  are to be solved  satisfactorily,  it 
is essential  that  the transition  to the industrial  use of fast 
breeders  must  be phased  in as prudently  as possible,  so 
that the pressing  need  to ensure  the safety  of workers  and 
the public  at large  is respected  at every  stage. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 April  1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI