No C 263/46 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 17.11.  75 
mentioned  under  point  4.3  of the  Commission's 
document.  However,  the  Committee  would  like  to 
express  its concern  that  the  figures  may  be under-
estimated  and  urges  that  adequate  provision  be made 
in order  to ensure  that  the studies  be of high  quality. 
2.4. Report  on developments 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  welcomes  the 
Commission's  intention  to prepare  a report  on 
developments  in the  data-processing  sector  in the 
Community.  The  Committee  would  urge  the 
Commission  to consult  with  the  economic  interests 
and social  groups  involved,  and  more  especially 
itself,  when  preparing  such  a report. 
2.5. Project  management  and  organization 
2.5.1.  The  Committee  welcomes  the 
Commission's  proposals  regarding  its consultative 
committee  but  feels  that  the  representatives  of each 
of the  Member  States  on the  consultative  committee 
should  be  backed  by  appropriate  measures  of consultation  within  their  respective  countries,  and 
also at Community  level. 
2.5.2.  The  Committee  wishes  to stress  particularly 
the interest  to the  users  that  work  be undertaken  in 
this field  and  hopes  that  the technical  committee  will 
be regarded  as a board  for  the  formulation  and 
approval  of  the  requirements  of  users.  The 
establishment  of 'Requirements  Boards'  has  already 
been  proved  in some  Member  States  to be of value 
where  public  expenditure  on  technology  is 
undertaken. 
2.5.3.  The  Committee  urges  the  Commission  to 
incorporate  reference  to the  establishment  of the 
technical  committee  in the  proposal  for  a Council 
Decision. 
Done  at Brussels,  29 May  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  memorandum  from  the  Commission  to the  Council  concerning  the 
programme  on radioactive  waste,  management  and  storage 
The text  referred  to the Committee  was  published  in Official  journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 54 of 6 March  1975,  page  29. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 30 January  1975,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  memorandum  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  under  Article  170  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 130th  plenary  session, 
held  in Brussels  on 28 and  29 May  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below. 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the referral  on 3 February  1975  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities,  of the 
memorandum  from  the  Commission  to the  Council 
concerning  the  programme  on  radioactive  waste, 
management  and  storage; Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community  and,  in 
particular,  Article  170  thereof; 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 January  1975  instructing  the  Section  for  Energy 
17. 11. 75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 263/47 
and Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an Opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  adopted  by  the 
Section  for  Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its 
meeting  on 12 May  1975; 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  at this  meeting 
by the  Rapporteur,  Mr  Schlitt; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its meeting  on 29 
May  1975  (130th  plenary  session  of 28 and  29 May 
1975); 
Whereas  the  new  energy  policy  objectives  for 
reducing  the  dependence  of the  Community  in the 
field  of energy  supplies  which  were  approved  by the 
Council  of Ministers  on 17 December  1974,  entail  a 
considerable  expansion  of nuclear  capacity  by 1985; 
Whereas  the  development  of  nuclear  energy 
inevitably  leads  to the  production  of radioactive 
wastes; 
Whereas  it is absolutely  essential  that  effective 
solutions  be found  which  guarantee  the  safety  and 
protection  of the public  and  the environment  against 
the hazards  connected  with  the  treatment  of 
radioactive  waste, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  4 votes  against  and  1 abstention: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. On  22 November  1973  the Council  approved, 
as part  of the  Community's  programme  of action 
for the  environment,  the  principle  of a five-point 
plan  of work  on  the  management  of radioactive 
waste.  It asked  the  Commission  to put  forward  a 
proposal  on the subject  before  31 December  1974. 
1.2. In  its resolution  of 7 November  1974  the 
Council  reaffirmed  the  need  for  such  action  and 
stated  that  it was  the  responsibility  of  the 
Communities  and  the  Member  States  to study  the 
problems  mainly  caused  by  nuclear  power 
expansion  and  in  particular  the  problem  of 
radioactive  waste. 
1.3. Work  on the treatment  of radioactive  waste  is 
already  being  done  at national  level  and  under  the 
Community's  multiannual  research  programme.  In the latter  case  the  work  is concerned  with  specific 
problems  which  the Commission  has  singled  out  for 
study.  In the  present  programme  on  radioactive 
waste,  management  and  storage,  the Commission  has 
for the first  time  tackled  the  problem  of radioactive 
waste  in a wider  context.  The  various  programme 
proposals  relate  to the aspects  of the  waste  problem 
which  are  most  important  at the  present  time, 
namely: 
(i) processing  of solid  radioactive  waste; 
(ii) storage  and  disposal  of high-activity  and/or 
long-lived  radioactive  wastes; 
(iii) study  of  an  advanced  management  model 
(separation  and  transmutation  of actinides); 
(iv) survey  of  the  problems  involved  in  the 
management  of radioactive  waste  that  could  not 
be solved  in the  existing  international  legal, 
administrative  and  financial  framework; 
(v) study  of  the  guiding  principles  for  the 
management  of radioactive  waste. 
1.4. The  above  programme  proposals  constitute  a 
five-year  programme  (1975—1980)  which  is seen  as 
the first  stage  of a longer-term  programme.  A total 
of 19 160  000  units  of account  is earmarked  for this 
five-year  programme.  The  programme  consists  of a 
series  of technological  projects  and  general  studies 
aimed  at working  out  the technical  solutions  and  the 
legal,  administrative  and  financial  framework  needed 
to allow  the  nuclear  industry  to adopt  radioactive 
waste  management  techniques  at an early  date.  All the 
studies  and  projects  are to be financed  largely  by the 
Commission  and  coordinated  by it with  the help  of a 
programme  management  committee  comprising 
representatives  of  the  Member  States  and 
Commission  officials.  The  Committee  will  have  to 
meet  as soon  as the  programme  is approved.  The 
proposed  programme  takes  into  account  the research 
work  currently  in hand  at the  Community  Joint 
Research  Centre  (JRC),  the  results  of which  will 
serve  as back-up  material  for the programme.  It also 
takes  account  of  the  activities  of international 
organizations;  in particular  it proposes  a Community 
financial  contribution  towards  the  continuation  of 
certain  technological  studies  begun  by the  OECD 
joint  enterprise  Eurochemic.  The  programme  is to be 
reviewed  after  two  years  to reorientate  or amplify 
the projects  where  necessary  in the  light  of the 
results  obtained. 
No C 263/48 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 17.11.  75 
1.5. The  Committee  warmly  welcomes  the 
programme  on  the  management  and  storage  of 
radioactive  waste.  It regards  the  execution  of the 
programme  and  above  all the working-out  of optimum 
solutions  for  the  conditioning  or immobilization, 
storage  and  disposal  of  radioactive  wastes  as 
potentially  a crucial  contribution  towards  completing 
the fuel  cycle,  and  by the  same  token  towards  the 
development  of nuclear  energy  in the  Community. 
The Committee  has  repeatedly  pointed  to the  need 
for the rapid  and  satisfactory  solution  of outstanding 
problems  connected  with  radioactive  waste,  if 
nuclear  energy  is to be expanded  in accordance  with 
the Community's  and  the  Member  States'  energy 
programmes.  The  Committee  believes  that  the 
misgivings  felt  by large  sections  of the population  in 
the Community  can  be dispelled  if principles  are 
established  on  which  methods  for  handling 
radioactive  wastes,  in particular,  high-activity  wastes 
such  as fission  products,  should  be based.  There  is 
no doubt  that  present  methods  of treating  and 
storing  radioactive  waste  are sufficient  for the time 
being  to deal  safely  with  the as yet small  quantities 
of waste.  But  more  advanced  treatment,  storage  and 
disposal  techniques  must  be ready  to cope  with  the 
sharply  increasing  volume  of radioactive  waste 
produced  as more  and  more  nuclear  power  plants 
come  into  operation,  and  especially  after  the 
commissioning  of the  first  big  reprocessing  plants, 
which  produce  and  process  almost  99  °/o of 
radioactive  waste  arising  from  nuclear  energy  in the 
Community. 
1.6. Although  a number  of processing  and  storage 
methods  which  practically  eliminate  any  danger  to 
the environment  are  already  available  and  widely 
used,  optimum  solutions  in both  these  fields  and 
especially  for  the  permanent  storage  (disposal)  of 
radioactive  waste,  have  in many  cases  still  to be 
found  or  have  not  yet  been  approved  by the 
responsible  safety  authorities.  A series  of practicable 
and suitable  methods  are at present  undergoing  trials 
or have  been  proposed.  However,  a major  effort  will 
have  to be made  to perfect  and  scale-up  these 
methods  to arrive  at a really  reliable  system  of 
radioactive  waste  disposal  capable  of meeting  the 
authorities'  extremely  stringent  safety  requirements. 
1.7. The  Committee  went  into  this  matter.  It 
transpired  from  the  discussion  that  fundamental 
research  programmes  on the  disposal  of radioactive 
wastes  have  been  and  are  still  being  carried  out  at, 
however,  differing  levels  of intensity.  What  is more the EEC's  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  been 
taking  part  in such  work  for  a considerable  time. 
The findings  made  to date  in the course  of this  work 
inside  and  outside  the EEC  have  demonstrated  with 
a probability  bordering  on certainty  that  certain 
geological  formations,  and  notably  salt  formations 
lying  far below  the surface,  satisfy  requirements  for 
safe and,  above  all,  very  long-term  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste.  It is fortunate  that  there  are in the 
EEC  suitable  geological  formations  which  can  be 
used  for the safe  storage  of radioactive  waste.  The 
Committee  therefore  considers  that  from  the angle  of 
long-term  radioactive  waste  disposal  there  is no 
technical  objection  to a further  expansion  of nuclear 
energy  production  in the EEC. 
1.8. The  state  of knowledge  and  development  in 
the field  of the processing  and  storage  of radioactive 
waste  still  varies  very  much  from  one  Member  State 
to another.  But  in the Committee's  view  one  reason 
for this  is that  the stage  reached  by nuclear  energy 
production,  and  notably  the  structure  of the  fuel 
cycle,  still  varies  very  much  across  the EEC.  Another 
reason  lies in the differing  safety  requirements  which 
the competent  authorities  lay down  in the Member 
States  in respect  of the  processing  and  storage  of 
radioactive  waste.  In the  Committee's  view  it is of 
the utmost  importance  that  the  Community  bodies 
take steps  to ensure  that  uniform  directives  and 
criteria  which  are  rational  from  the  technological 
and safety  points  of view  apply  soon  in the EEC  as 
regards  radioactive  waste.  In this  way  it will  be 
possible  for future  research  and  development  work 
and technological  planning  to be aligned  on these 
Community  criteria  and  requirements. 
1.9. The  Committee  is also  conscious  of the  fact 
that the processing  and  disposal  of radioactive  waste 
is not  just  a technical,  but  also  an  economic 
problem.  Treatment  and  disposal  must  be done  at 
costs  which  enable  the  nuclear  generation  of 
electricity  to continue  to be economically  viable. 
This  is why,  in the  Committee's  estimation,  the 
processing  and  disposal  of 'medium-activity  wastes', 
that is to say  the main  type  of waste,  attracts  great 
interest.  Although  this  type  of waste  is already 
extensively  processed  industrially,  present  methods 
are not  yet  optimum.  Research  into  proven  and 
economic  solutions  for these  wastes,  or support  for 
such  research  should  be given  top  priority  by the 
Commission.  High  priority  also  deserves  to be given 
to all work  on krypton,  tritium  and  iodine  removal. 
At least  one  Member  State  is already  aiming  at 
complete  removal  of these  radioactive  substances,  so 
17.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 263/49 
that the  requisite  work  must  be stepped  up in the 
interests  of an early  expansion  of nuclear  energy. 
1.10.  In  the  Committee's  view  another  key 
research  area  should  be  the  permanent  storage 
(disposal)  of radioactive  substances.  The  concept  of 
disposal  in geological  formations,  with  preference 
being  given  to medium-activity  wastes  is relevant 
here.  The  Committee  considers  that  fundamental 
decisions  of this  kind  call  for  not  only  theoretical 
studies  but  also  experimental  work,  such  as test 
bores  and  storage  trials  (particularly  in formations 
such  as granite  and  clay,  which  have  been  little 
investigated  to date).  Furthermore,  in addition  to the 
R&D  work,  the  Commission  should  clarify 
between  the Member  States  whether  they  are willing 
to take  and  store  in their  geological  formations 
radioactive  waste  from  other  Member  States. 
Member  States  have  so far given  no indication  of 
whether  they  are willing  to dispose  of other  Member 
States'  radioactive  waste  in  their  geological 
formations. 
1.11.  The  problem  of  transport  takes  on 
paramount  importance  in connection  with  the 
matters  discussed  under  1.10.  The  Committee 
considers  that  questions  relating  to transfrontier 
transport  within  the Community  and  transport  within 
individual  Member  States  should  be investigated 
from  the point  of view  of the hazards  involved  and 
the methods  used  and  that  uniform  arrangements 
should  apply  here.  This  aspect  must  be  given 
absolute  priority. 
1.12.  Studies  on the  separation  of actinides  (i.e. 
the separation  of,  for  example,  plutonium, 
americium  and  curium)  are certainly  desirable,  but in 
the Committee's  view  they  do not  merit  the priority 
given  them  in the  Commission's  proposal.  First, 
theoretical  studies  should  be initiated  into  whether 
the separation  of  actinides  is necessary  and 
worthwhile  before  developing  or applying  processes 
which  would  be liable  to be expensive. 
1.13.  Handling  and  disposal  techniques  for 
radioactive  waste  must  not only  be safe  — an aspect 
which  will  enjoy  priority  in any  rational  set  of 
requirements  — but also  economically  viable.  It now 
looks  as though  expenditure  on radioactive  waste 
will be considerably  higher  than  was  previously 
assumed.  Development  work  has  in some  cases  still 
not been  completed,  and  the  Committee  has  the 
impression  that  it is still  impossible  to make  a 
definitive  evaluation  of the  expenditure  which  the 
nuclear  power  industry  will  have  to incur.  It is 
generally  considered  in the  Community  that  these 
not inconsiderable  costs  will  have  to be met  by the energy  supply  undertakings  and  will  thus  increase 
costs  per  kWe.  The  Committee  has  discussed  the 
matter  in detail,  and  it does  not  consider  that  these 
additional  costs  will  call  the economic  advantages  of 
nuclear  energy  into  question.  But  the  Committee 
considers  it expedient  and  necessary  to make  a cost 
analysis  and  determine  the impact  on costs  per kWe 
of the  necessary  capital  and  operating  expenditure 
on the  processing  and  storage  of radioactive  waste. 
In doing  this,  allowance  should  be made  above  all 
for existing  safety  requirements,  and  those  which  it 
is expected  will  be laid  down  in the future. 
1.14.  Apart  from  this,  the  Committee  would 
welcome  it if all  questions  connected  with  the 
processing  and  storage  of radioactive  wastes  were 
discussed  more  often  in public.  As the  Committee 
sees it, one  of the reasons  for the contradictory  views 
put forward  in public  about  nuclear  energy  lies  in 
the fact  that  available  data  and  research  findings  are 
not always  uniformly  evaluated  and  that  members  of 
the public  are  often  inadequately  informed  about 
prospects  and  possibilities  regarding  safe  disposal  of 
radioactive  wastes  and  their  long-term  removal  from 
the biocycle.  Various  processing  and  temporary-
storage  methods  may  still  need  improvement,  but  it 
should  be possible  to tell the public  clearly  whether 
wastes  can  be  permanently  stored  in  certain 
geological  formations  under  conditions  which  ensure 
the safety  of the general  public. 
2. Specific  comments  on individual  points  of the 
programme 
2.1. General 
2.1.1.  The  programme  embraces  optimization  and 
complementary  activities  in the  field  of radioactive 
waste  management.  Generally  speaking  these  activities 
are a welcome  step  towards  achieving  security  of 
energy  supplies  while  causing  the  least  possible 
damage  to the environment. 
— The  funds  earmarked  for  the  proposed 
programme  are in some  cases  very  much  on the 
low side,  and  therefore  any  ambition  to work  in 
too many  fields  at once  should  give  way  to in-
depth  work  on a limited  number  of specially 
selected  points  of the  programme  for which  the 
appropriate  Community  bodies  are  particularly 
well-equipped.  The  points  selected  should  be very 
urgent  or  particularly  consonant  with  the 
international  character  of  the  European 
Communities. 
No C 263/50 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 17.11.  75 
— Several  points  of the  programme  overlap  with 
national  work  going  on in the Member  States.  If 
maximum  efficiency  is to be  achieved,  the 
Community  programme  must  be  coordinated 
with  such  national  work. 
— The  coordinating  aspects  of  the  proposed 
programme  and  its  stocktaking  of  existing 
findings  are to be particularly  welcomed. 
— The  programme  should  not  be  too  strongly 
biased  towards  high-level  waste  (HLW).  This 
category  of waste  admittedly  accounts  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  radioactivity,  but  in 
quantitative  terms,  medium-  or low-activity  waste 
exceeds  it by a factor  of between  one  and  two. 
2.1.2.  There  are a number  of considerations  which 
militate  in favour  of special  and  priority  treatment 
for the problem  of medium-activity  waste  (MAW). 
— Relatively  large  quantities  are involved,  which  for 
economic  reasons  should  not  be  put  into 
intermediate  storage,  particularly  since  this  waste 
category  does  not require  to be left  for a time  to 
allow  very  high  activity  to decline.  In other 
words,  disposal  could  take  place  immediately  the 
waste  is produced,  if optimized  approved 
conditioning  and  disposal  methods  were 
available. 
— A relatively  large  amount  of work  is being  done 
in individual  Member  States  on  high-activity 
solid  waste,  while  less  is being  done  in the MAW 
field. 
— In contrast  to high-level  waste,  MAW  streams 
vary greatly  (e.g.  organic/inorganic  nature),  and  it 
follows  that  a variety  of processing  methods  will 
have  to be tested  and  optimized. 
— Due  to the  relatively  large  quantities  of MAW 
involved  the accent  should  be laid  on the testing 
of special  (low-cost)  storage  techniques  (e.g. 
containerless  storage  in caverns). 
2.1.3.  The  development  of international  standards 
for environmental  protection  in waste  management  is 
desirable,  inter  alia,  on competition  grounds,  since  it 
would  be  unacceptable,  for  example,  for  lower 
reprocessing  and  waste  processing  costs  to be 
translated  into  low  energy  prices  at the  expense  of 
environmental  protection  and  safety  in the countries 
concerned  and/or  in neighbouring  countries. 2.2. Processing  of radioactive  waste 
2.2.1.  Immobilization  with  plastic 
resins  of  m e d i u m - a c t i v i t y 
wastes 
The process  is not very  high  priority.  A disadvantage 
is that  it gives  rise  to flammable  final  products  as in 
the case  of bitumen. 
Research  into  inorganic,  non-flammable  matrices 
would  seem  worthwhile.  If the final  product  is to be 
disposed  of at the  place  where  reprocessing  has 
taken  place,  its volume  will  be of little  importance 
because  of the lack  of need  for transport.  The  funds 
earmarked  would  appear  too small  for the proposed 
programme. 
2.2.2.  Decontamination  and 
conditioning  of  irradiated 
fuel-element  claddings 
This  item  is of high  priority. 
Improvement  of decontamination  possibilities  should 
commence  at the  head-end  of reprocessing  plant, 
that is to say research  should  be carried  out into  the 
efficiency  of both  the  cutting  up and  dissolving  of 
fuel elements.  According  to more  recent  assessments 
zirconium  recycling  is uneconomical. 
An interesting  additional  subject  would  be 
decontamination  of  centrifuge  sludges  produced 
during  the reprocessing  of transuranium  elements. 
2.2.3.  Immobilization  of  calces  in 
metallic  matrices 
Some  countries  do not  accept  calces  as an ultimate 
storage  medium  for high-activity  waste. 
Subsequent  separation  of transuranium  elements 
from  calces  in metallic  matrices  would  seem 
improbable.  Should  it subsequently  prove  worthwhile 
to separate  out  transuranium  elements,  something 
which  according  to present  research  would  appear 
unlikely,  HLW  stored  in the liquid  state  according  to 
a proven  method  would  be a considerably  better 
starting  material. 
For the  reasons  stated  it is recommended  that  this 
item of the  programme  be switched  from  metallic 
matrices  to matrices  which  are  a combination  of 
glass  or ceramic  and  metal.  Such  matrices  are good 
ultimate  storage  products.  Only  if this  changeover  is 
made  should  this  item  be assigned  a high  priority. 
17.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 263/51 
2.2.4.  Incineration  of  solid  waste 
contaminated  by  alpha  emitters 
This  is an extremely  important  and  high  priority 
item. 
Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to plutonium 
recovery  from  the ash  so as to minimize  the  volume 
of final  storage  products  which  have  been 
contaminated  by alpha  emitters. 
Processing  using  wet  techniques  — inorganic  acids 
— has  various  advantages  (e.g.  no dust  problem)  and 
should  definitely  be included  in the  programme  of 
research. 
Attention  should  be  paid  to  coordination  with 
existing  national  research  projects  (Marcoule, 
Karlsruhe,  USA). 
The funds  requested  appear  too  low  for the relevant 
trials  programme. 
2.2.5.  Testing  and  comparison  of 
materials  for  solidifying 
high-activity  wastes 
This  part  of the  programme  is only  low-priority 
because 
— work  is already  going  on at national  level  (e.g. 
Hahn-Meitner-Institut  in Berlin); 
— exact  results  are  only  obtainable  from  tests  with 
real high-activity  products,  which  are  not  yet 
available,  at least  not in a representative  form; 
— DIN  standards  for  leaching  from  glasses  already 
exist. 
It is therefore  proposed  that  this  part  of  the 
programme  be changed  into  a comprehensive  study 
in which  all  internationally  available  research 
findings  are  evaluated  and  any  gaps  in the  R&D 
programme  identified. 
2.2.6.  Engineered  storage 
This  part  of the  programme  is not  high-priority 
because 
— various  activities  have  already  been  carried  out  in 
this field  (USA,  FRG,  EC); 
— the  methods  involved  (especially  liquid  storage) 
have  already  been  in use for years; 
— owing  to the cost  and  safety  factors,  intermediate 
storage  should  not last  any  longer  than  necessary. It is proposed  that  the  emphasis  be placed  here  on 
perfecting  the entire  system: 
— fuel  element  storage; 
— liquid  storage  of waste; 
— intermediate  storage  of  solidified  or  treated 
products; 
— final  disposal. 
Attention  should  also  be  given  to working  out 
Community  criteria  in the ligth  of existing  results. 
2.2.7.  Disposal  in  geological 
formations 
Programme  items  with  high  priority,  for 
— medium-activity  wastes:  containerless  storage  of 
self-solidifying  solutions  in caverns  by admixture 
of suitable  non-combustible  matrix  materials; 
— high-activity  wastes:  trial  bores  and  storage 
evaluation  and  working  out  of  common 
guidelines; 
— discussion  of possibility  of multinational  disposal 
sites. 
It is unrealistic  to aim,  at recoverability  of the  waste, 
except  in disposal  trials.  Even  final  storage  should 
not, however,  be regarded  as irreversible. 
The national  programmes  should  be  given  due 
attention  and  coordinated. 
The large  appropriations  for  this  part  of  the 
programme  seem  to be justified. 
2.2.8.  Storage  of  gaseous  wastes 
This  part  of the  programme  has  a high  priority,  but 
work  done  at national  level  should  be taken  into 
account. 
The appropriation  for  this  important  and  large 
complex  of questions  is extremely  small;  only  a very 
small  fraction  of this  part  of the  programme  can  be 
properly  carried  out  with  the funds  allocated. 
2.2.9.  Separation  and  recycling  of 
a c t i n i d e s 
This  is an  extremely  controversial  issue,  which 
certain  groups  have  exaggerated. 
No C 263/52 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 17.11.  75 
Comparisons  with  naturally  occurring  uranium 
deposits  and  estimates  of migration  between  disposal 
sites and  the  biosphere  have  put  this  issue  back  into 
perspective. 
Separate  storage  of actinides  does  not  offer  any 
advantages  and  in-pile  mutation  is only  a partial 
solution  since  a residue  of long-lived  isotopes 
remains  even  after  repeated  in-pile  recycling. 
The Committee  does  not  expect  that  further  'all 
round  studies'  will  shed  any  new  light  on  the 
matter,  for  many  such  studies  have  already  been 
undertaken. 
On the  other  hand,  thorough  treatment  should  be 
given  to important  individual  aspects  such  as: 
— improvement  of actinide  decontaminating  factors 
in reprocessing,  with  particular  emphasis  on the 
prevention  of alpha-contaminated  wastes  in the 
MAW  sector; 
— precise  calculation  of the  migration  of actinides 
in ultimate  storage  sites  under  various 
circumstances; 
— exact  profitability  calculations  in respect  of the 
separation  and  mutation  of actinides; 
— definition  of alpha-contaminated  wastes  from 
various  disposal  angles. 2.2.10.  Survey  of  outstanding 
problems  and  proposal 
ofsolutions 
This  point  of the programme  can  only  be dealt  with 
in close  correlation  with  practical  work.  Otherwise 
the standards  created  will,  from  a technological 
angle,  not be easy  to achieve. 
Attention  should  be  given  to coordination  with 
systems  analyses  currently  being  conducted  at 
national  level  in the waste  sector. 
2.2.11.  Technological  guidelines 
By analogy  the  comments  made  under  2.2.10  apply 
here. 
Attention  should  also  be given  here  to medium-
activity  wastes. 
Done  at Brussels,  29 May  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the communication  from  the Commission  to the Council  on technological 
problems  of nuclear  safety 
The text  referred  to the Committee  was  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 99 of 2 May  1975,  page  4. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 11 March  1975,  the  Council  referred  the abovementioned  communication  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  under  Article  170  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 130th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 28 and  29 May  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below. 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE,  communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Council  on technological  problems  of nuclear  safety; 
Having  regard  to the  referral  on 13 March  1975  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities,  of the Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community  and,  in 
particular,  Article  170  thereof;