12.3.90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/7 
— the prevention of new technical trade barriers, and 
— the encouragement of small and medium-sized enter­
prises' participation in the TEDIS programme 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. 
^hile endorsing in general the update of the 198^ 
lllustrativeNuclear Programme, the Committee has doubts 
about the timeliness of this document and would makea 
number of comments which are detailed below. 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. Onder Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, the 
Commission is obliged to publish penodicallyailustrative 
programme indicating in particular nuclear energy produc 
tion targets and all types of investment required for their 
attammenC.Thei^efore the objective of the P1NC is only to 
set the framework for future nuclear power. 
1.2. Three programmes have been published to date, the 
latest in 198e^PThe present document isapartial update 
of theobjectives andrecommendationscontamed in the 
198e^ programme, namely those concerning nuclear power 
statioudesignandconsti^uctiou. justifies in every way the Commission's plan to let the 
countries listed take part inTEL^S. 
1.3. The approach to nuclear power has changed 
considerably since the t984 illustrative programme, 
following the Chernobyl accident.One ofthe Committee's 
conclusions on the!984 programme was to^highhght the 
major importance of greater Community political will in 
the implementation of programmes concernmgthevarious 
aspects of nulcear energy'^). 
1.4. Since then, public concern, in particular,has had, as 
stated by the Commission in its documentgtheeffectof 
deterring the development of nuclear programmes in 
several Alember States'. Some of them have deferredthe 
contmuationof their nuclear power programmes, others 
haveslowed down or stoppednuclear station construction. 
tBu Nevertheless,ithastoberecalled,thatm 1988, 
nuclear energyaccouutedfor34^ of electricity produce 
tionintheCommunity(comparedtoabout22^mt983), 
even though only si^Alember States produced electricity of 
nuclear origin. (^) Opinion on nuclear industries in the community 
The nuclear power station design and construction industry and completion 
of the European Single market (update of the Illustrative nuclear Programme 
for the Community (PINC^)— Article 40 of the EuratomTreaty 
(90^C^2^0^ 
On 18Septemberl989 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 40 of theTreaty establishing the European AtomicEnergyCommumty,on the 
nuclear industries inthe Community. 
The Section for Energy,Nuclear questions and Research,which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee'swork on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 30 November 1989.The Rapporteurwas 
Air Campbell. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (meeting of 19 Eoecemberl989) the Economic and Social Committee 
unammouslyadopted the following comments^ 
(!) Doc COM(85) 401 final of 23 July 1985 (2) Doc. CES 472/85 of 30 May 1985, point 4 
(3) See Annex 1 and 2 to doc COM(89) 347 
No C 62/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 90 
1.6. The Commission's present document is intended 
neither to deal with nuclear power production — this will 
be the subject of a comprehensive update in 1992 — nor to 
open a political debate in favour or against the nuclear 
option, in relation to environmental concerns, in par­
ticular. 
1.7. Secondly, it is not intended to deal with nuclear 
safety, either of power station operation or of workers in 
the stations or of the general public. The matter of safety 
was the subject of a separate Commission Communication 
on 'Assurance of safety of nuclear power plants' [doc. 
COM(88) 788 final of February 1988]. 
1.8. In that context, the Committee would underline the 
clear difference between design standards and the safety 
principles and criteria which preside over the licensing of 
nuclear power stations by national authorities. Neverthe­
less, it should also be stressed, as the Commission does in 
its document, that there is an interface between common 
standards and the safety aspects, since manufacturing 
specifications and standards have to be approved by 
national safety authorities. Design standards are dependant 
on previously determined safety standards. 
1.9. The objective of the present PINC is to review the 
short and long term requirements for nuclear power 
stations and suggest ways in which, in relation to the 
completion of the internal market by 1992, the specif­
ications for design and construction can be harmonized in 
the Community in order to improve the economics of 
production, to standardize safety requirements for design, 
to improve the conditions for competition in a limit 
Community market and to afford opportunity for a strong 
Community industry to compete in world markets. 
1.10 The Commission suggests that the present low 
level of nuclear power station requirements will continue 
for another 15 to 20 years or so. Thereafter, unless new 
forms of energy production are developed, all the existing 
sources of energy, including nuclear power, will be 
required to meet demand. As existing stations become life-
expired after some 40 years of operation, the replacement 
of existing installations will therefore be required. A firm 
plan for replacement will, however, be required 10 to 15 
years before existing plants can be effectively replaced. 
1.11. Nuclear power generations will probably be 
available in the form of advanced pressurized water 
reactors (PWR) or as Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR), which 
are likely to be available in the time scale. 2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee reviewed the existence of codes and 
standards available in the Community (France, the United 
Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany), in the United 
States and in the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
Diverse standards exist and there is no doubt that if it can 
be achieved, a European standard for Advanced PWRs and 
for FBRs would be beneficial. 
2.2. The production of codes and standards is a lengthy 
and costly process. The Commission document appears to 
set a target of harmonization in a timescale of the 1992 
single market. The Committee believes that comprehensive 
common standards, acceptable to all Community States, 
will take longer to produce and should be directed towards 
the increasing requirements after the year 2000. 
2.3. These requirements are likely to be identified more 
specifically once the 1995 Energy objectives have been 
reviewed. This review, which will take place in 1990, is 
likely to give a more positive impetus to the need for 
harmonization in the decade 1990 to 2000. This is the 
reason why the Committee expresses some doubts as to the 
need for the present partial update of the PINC prior to a 
complete and in-depth review planned for 1992. 
2.4. Despite these doubts about timing the Committee 
does broadly agree with the analysis set out in the 
Programme and the conclusions as applied specifically to 
safety and common standards of design and construction. 
This does not pre-empt its Opinion on the present situation 
and future development of investments in the nuclear field 
and of nuclear power programmes, or on the Safety of 
Operation of Nuclear Power Stations. 
2.5. On the assumption that there is going to be a need 
for a replacement of life-expired power stations, it is 
prudent for the Community to combine its total technical 
and production resources to enable more effective 
competition among European nuclear contractors in a 
limited market and thus to obtain maximum economic 
benefit, through the harmonization of the various elements 
of design and construction, both for Advanced PWRs and 
FBRs and the completion of a Single European Market for 
supply and construction. 
2.6. In addition to the general endorsement of the 
principles of PINC, the Committee has a number of specific 
comments which it believes are relevant. 
12. 3. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/9 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. It seems that the PINC concentrates on the largest 
installations of Advanced PWRs and FBRs. The future 
development of new reactor concepts especially of smaller 
next generation plants, which could have a market beyond 
Community boundaries, should not be neglected. 
3.2. At a time of low demand, consideration should be 
given to how best to use limited resources on the very large 
amount of work required to achieve harmonization. 
Concentration of effort should be directed towards the 
requirements of the next century and should not necessarily 
be geared to the timetable of the Single European Market of 
1993. 
3.3. Whilst accepting that PINC is in effect a conceptual 
document and not an executive plan it would have been 
helpful if the actions and results which had emanated from 
previous programmes had been discussed and used as a 
firm foundation on which to base the 1989 PINC. 
3.4. It is assumed that harmonization can be achieved by 
extensive discussion. There is no central authority which 
will impose standards. It is therefore essential that all 
competent authorities should be represented in the CEN/ 
CENELEC discussions and that standards should not be 
dictated unilaterally by powerful commercial interests in 
industry. 
3.5. It is a general problem that whilst seeking 
harmonization within the Community, innovation based 
on research and testing by responsible authorities 
worldwide should not be inhibited by rigid standardiz­
ation. There must be the capability of amending standards 
to take advantage of scientific advance. 
3.6. The PINC does not envisage the use of the Joint 
Research Centre, despite its major role in nuclear safety 
and prenormative research. Whilst it is accepted that the 
task is mainly to harmonize a multitude of existing 
standards, full use should be made of the JRC, as an 
impartial and independent technical expert. In this respect, 
attention is drawn to the comments the Committee has 
made in its Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. concerning the framework programme for Community 
activities in the field of research and technology develop­
ment (1990 to 1994) (!). 
3.7. One of the conclusions of the Committee's Opinion 
on the 1984 PINC related to the decommissioning of power 
stations and storage, reprocessing and disposal of nuclear 
waste. There is no mention in the present document of 
these important matters. Whilst it is recognized that there 
are specific research programmes in these areas the 
Committee believes that harmonization of design in all 
these operations should be part of any comprehensive 
PINC. 
3.8. In a number of its Opinions and Reports over recent 
years the Committee has urged the preparation of a 
widespread public information service on all aspects of 
nuclear power. There is unfortunately no significant 
mention of this in the 1989 PINC. Whether or not future 
use of nuclear power is essential or is politically acceptable, 
there is no doubt that the present generation of power 
stations will be in operation for many years, that some 
construction will continue both within the Community and 
elsewhere in the world. It is essential that the public should 
be informed by responsible authorities as to the present and 
future state of the industry and should not have to rely on 
less well informed and possibly biased sources. Whatever 
may be the future of nuclear power it will depend on the 
support of a well informed public. 
4. Conclusion 
4.1. The Committee has expressed doubts about the 
need for this document, at this time. Subject to this 
reservation, it endorses in general the content of this partial 
update of the 1985 Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the 
Community — PINC — as an interim statement of intent. 
4.2. The Committee looks forward to the revision, in 
1990, of the 1995 energy objectives for the Community and 
a further in depth revision of the PINC in 1992. 
(!) Doc. CES 1250/89 of 15 November 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE