ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (77)331
V ol.1977/0111

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(77)331 final
I
Brussels ,2July 1977
COMMUNICATION PROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
POINTS FOR ACOMMUNITY STRATEGY ON THE REPROCESSING
OF IRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUELS
C0M(77 )331final

POINTS FOR ACOMMUNITY STRATEGY ON THE
REPROCESSING OF IRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUELS
Introductory note
Inits communication tothe Council of13May 1977,entitled "The Community
*and the International Nuclear Environment ,the Commission announced its
intention topresent tothe Council certain additional communications at
alater stage ,particularly regarding Community guidelines onthe reprocessing
and storage ofradioactive waste andthe introduction offast breeder
reactors inthe Community .
This communication contains proposals for Community guidelines onthe
reprocessing ofused nuclear fuels .
 *
<
*
C0M(77)163 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TOTHE COUNCIL
POINTS FOR ACOMMUNITY STRATEGY ONTHE REPROCESSING OF
IRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUELS
Foreword
Reprocessing isacomplex chemical process applied toused fuels discharged
from nuclear power stations .These used fuels consist ofamixture of
re-usable products (unburned uranium ,andplutonium generated during
irradiation inthepower "station reactor )andradioactive wastes (fission
products ).
Reprocessing makes itpossible toseparate these various products andto
recover those which can beused again .
Plutonium canbeburned with uranium inlight water reactors (LWR )a^d it
isofgreatest importance asthe fuel necessary fortheoperation offast
breeder reactors ,which could secure the long-term future ofnuclear energy
intheCommunity .Itcanalso beused tomanufacture nuclear explosives .
Itisnothighly radioactive ,but itisvery toxic ifabsorbed through
therespiratory system .
Recycled uranium canbeused inreactors .Itraises noproblems ,owing
toits low level ofenrichment .
Reprocessing isthus afactor tobetaken into account in :
-medium and long-term energy policy ;
-research ,advanced industrial development andeconomic development ;
-protection oftheenvironment andthe safety ofworkers andthepopulation .

-2-
Itmust besubjected tothe measures necessary toprevent the diversion of
nuclear materials .
Aswasstressed bythe European Parliament initsresolution of10May
1976 ,and having regard tothe new American attitude inthis field ,
steps arecalled foratCommunity level toexamine theplace forreprocessing
within thepursuit ofthe Community 'sobjectives -particularly inthe
energy field -andtodefine action tobetaken onreprocessing ,for:
(a)The Community hasresponsibilities and powers ,andispursuing
objectives ,inthefields mentioned above .
(b)National frameworks taken inisolation are clearly becoming increasingly
unsuitable for the solution ofthe whole complex ofdifficulties which
are atpresent holding upprogress inthe development ofthe reprocessing
industry .
(c)The Community andits Member States must work out solutions within the
reprocessing field which will both meet the conditions setout above
and respond tointernational preoccupations regarding the development
ofnuclear energy .
 *
*
Reprocessing and the Community sobjectives
Select ives_jn_t he_indu str_ia_l_and _energy fie_lds
Reprocessing may beseen tobeone oftheessential components ofapolicy
designed toachieve the Community 'sobjectives inthe industrial and energy
fieIds. '
Indeed :
-The Community isinadifficult position with regard toenergy ;its
fossil fuel resources are limited andtosome extent costly ;itis
therefore heavily dependent onimported petroleum (55 %ofCommunity
energy requirements in1976 ). The increased availability ofpetroleum from
the North Sea isnot likely tobring about any fundamental change inthis
situation .
O.J. no C125/14o110May 1976 .
Cf. document C0M(77)163 final of13May 1977 .

–recourse "tonuclear energy isindispensable tosecuring areduction in
this level ofdependency and todiversify sources ofsupply thus making
itpossible for theobjectives which the Council haslaid down on
Community energy policy tobeachieved .
–nuclear energy and coal areatpresent the main resources available to
cover energy needs in .the face ofaprogressive decline inpetroleum
reserves .
–but the Community 'sown resources ofnuclear fuels fall far short ofits
requirements (approximately 80$oftheuranium supplies tothe Community
asawhole are imported ). These requirements may beexpected toaccount
for approximately onethird ofworld requirements bytheyear 2000 ;
Consequently ,reprocessing can make itpossible tosecures
a)inthe medium term (19^5–90)»areduction intherequirement of
uranium (intheorder ,onaverage ,of20$peryear )andintheworkload
Ofenrichment (intheorder of15$peryear )inthe Community ,with
the aid ofuranium and plutonium recycling at LWR power stations .The
present difficulties with regard toreprocessing and the supply of
plutonium tothefirst fast reactor power stations would probably
*restrict this reduction tohalf ofthe percentage indicated above .
b)Inthe long :term ,theprospect ofvirtual freedom from dependence on
external supplies ofuranium ,thanks tofast breeder reactors .Itis
thus noaccident that the countries most heavily committed tothe
development offast reactors and reprocessing are inthe Community .
This commitment has sofar been reflected inavery high level of
expenditure and investment .
The cumulative economy achieved during theperiod 1985-90 "bypartial
recycling would liewithin the order of30000tofnatural uranium ,i.e. 300million tpetroleum equivalent (tpe).

-4-
Moreover ,the Community has to "balance its imports ,particularly ofraw
materials ,tothebest ofitsability "byexports ofmanufactured goods and
advanced technology .Nuclear power stations ,inparticular ,constitute a
major export market ,"butthe export ofnuclear power stations isandwill
continue to "bemade considerably easier ifthe vendor canalso supply the
buyer with certain services for the associated fuel cycle .
From this point ofview ,reprocessing isalso animportant factor inthe
industrial and commercial development ofthe Community .
B»Protection for the population and the environment
Ithas also become apparent that reprocessing and the industrial operations
associated with it(fabrication ofp'lutonium fuel elements ,transport of
recovered radioactive materials ,waste management )are ,asshown by
experience todate ,compatible with the objectives concerned with
protection for the population and the environment ofthe Community and
must continue tobesothroughout this development process .
Indeed :
–theshort-term radiological risks (workers andpopulation )maybe
reliably assessed onthebasis ofpast experience .The doses recorded
hitherto have been below thelimits imposed bythehealth and safety
rules ofthe Member States ofthe Community and inconformity with the
Community radiological protection standards (Euratom Basic Standards ).
-thevery long-term radiological risks (future generations )will arise
mainly from certain long-lived radioactive wastes .Programmes in
*progress point tothe existence ofpromising solutions for the
isolation ofthese wastes from thebiosphere (permanent storage in
geological formations ,for example ).
Inparticular ,the Community research and development programmes in
progress onthe management and storage ofradioaotive waste .

-5-
-finally ,theradiological risks forfuture generations would probably
*
beincreased ifreprocessing were abandoned .Indeed plutomum would
have tobeadded tothe list ofunusable products which remain radioactive
for avery long time aridthe permanent storage ofwhich (hundreds of
thousands ofyears )isthe cause ofthese risks .
C.Guarantee _against_the_goss ibUity_of _nucIear_mate riaj.s_bei ng_d iverted_t o
2UI20ses_ot her_than_t hose_for_wh jch_th e^_are__in tended
Plutonium can beused for the manufacture ofnuclear explosives ifcertain
conditions arepresent .Therisk ofplutonium being used forpurposes other
than that of areactor fuel can beovercome byadequate and -effective measures
relating tothe supervision ofend-use andphysical protection .
The Community has competence and resources tomake asignificant contribution
toensuring that nuclear materials are notdiverted topurposes other than
those for which they are intended (Article 2,e ofthe Euratom Treaty ).
*This substance isinfact amixture ofplutonium isotopes ,theradioactivity
ofwhich isofextremely long duration andthetoxicity extremely high .

The Community :
–has atitsdisposal the Euratom system ofsafeguards which operates in
accordance with Chapter VII ofthe Euratom Treaty andits implementing
regulations :
–has concluded with the IAEA theVerification Agreements of5April 1973
and 6September 1976 ;
–isempowered toconclude with third countries orinternational
organizations ,under the terms ofArticles 101 and 77ofthe Euratom
Treaty ,agreements involving special commitments concerning safeguards
which seem appropriate tothe situation and tointernational requirements
inthis field atany given time .
–may under the terms ofArticle 59ofthe Euratom Treaty oppose the
export ofplutonium produced inthe Community ifsuch export iscontrary
to"the general interests ofthe Community ",which may "beassessed ,in
particular ,inthelight ofthe objectives ofthe Euratom Treaty .
–may contribute tothe establishment of"regional "reprocessing and
storage centres byapplying certain provisions ofthe Euratom Treaty
such asthose referring totheJoint Undertaking (Articles 45ff)and
tothestorage offissile materials (Article 62and,inparticular ,
Article 80);
*–The foregoing must besupplemented byphysical protection measures ;on
thebasis ofArticle 203 ofthe Euratom 'Treaty ,the Community may take
appropriate measures atCommunity level .These measures would basically
beaimed atharmonizing within aCommunity framework the standards of
physical protection adopted bythe Member States
*
Protection against malicious acts ,covering all operations associated
with reprocessing ,including transport .
r
Cf. Communication from the Commission tothe Council onthis subject ,
COK(76)76 .

Thepresent position with regard toreprocessing ;thedifficulties
The industrial development ofreprocessing isatpresent hampered by:
-problems inperfecting the technolgy oftheprocesses involved and
ad^ting them forpractical applications Processes successfully
developed during the 1940-60 period within the framework offirst the
American ,then theBritish and French military programmes ,using slightly
irradiated metallic fuels ,proved more difficult than had been expected
totranspose tothe reprocessing ofhighly irradiated oxide fuels at
LWR power stations .
-financing problems .The commercial .viabilityof reprocessing remains
 tobeestablished ,atleast inthe short term .Consequently industry is
hesitating toinvest ,atleast without heavy financial participation by
public bodies orpotential clients (electricity producers ).
-problems associated with the industrial application oftechnologies
concerned with radioactive waste and effluent and with the continued
strengthening ofsafety arrangements .These problems give rise to
uncertainty with regard toadditional amounts ofinvestment which may
berequired and delays inthe preparation ofsafety reports .
-difficulties with regard topublic acceptance which are making themselves
felt invarying degrees inthe Community and are atpresent slowing down
certain plant construction projects ;
-quite recently ,byattitudes now being adopted inAmerica .
The economics ofreprocessing and the associated operations are subject to
aconsiderable margin ofuncertainty ranging from profitability toaheavy
burden ofcosts ,depending onthe hypothesis selected .The main sources
ofthis uncertainty are the costs ofmanagement and storage ofthe
radioactive waste andthe values tobeassigned tothe materials (uranium
and plutonium )recovered byreprocessing .
The impact ofthepossible cost ofthese operations onthe cost ofnuclear
energy isnot considered tobeprohibitive (4-5 %ofthe cost per KWh).
Moereover astrategy excluding reprocessing isbound tobecostly since ,
inthat case,there-usuable fuels (unburned uranium and plutonium )would
beregarded aswaste .

-8- XII/566/77
These difficulties are causing considerable delays inthe decision tobuild ,
inthe actual construction ofplants and inthe commissioning ofcommercial -
scale oxide reprocessing facilities .
Although most countries with asignificant nuclear programme have projects
forreprocessing plants currently inhand,nolarge oxide fuel*reprocessing
facilities are atpresent inservice anywhere inthe world ,with the
exception ofthe bigplant atLaHague (COGEMA ,France )which began
operating onreduced load in1976 .
Consequently ,acomparison between present trends inrequirements and
available uranium oxide fuel reprocessing capacity inthe Community and the
world shows that capacity will beinsufficient tomeet the need inthe
years to come .
Inthe Community ,capacity will remain below annual requirements upto
**around 1986-89 . •
This also means that the stock ofirradiated fuel accumulated since 1975
will only beentirely reprocessed some years later ,i.e. atbest after
1988 .
Asfar asthe Community isconcerned ,the figures would beasfollows :
Nuclear power station construction
programmes (in GWe)
Cumulative reprocessing requi­
rements from 1975 (inthousand
tonnes ofuranium content )
Cumulative requirements not covered
(stocks awaiting reprocessing )
(inthousand tonnes ofuranium
content )1980
40-481985
85-95
8-9
3-41990
140-180
20-25
10-15
These are the only fuels towhich consideration ishenceforth given .
They are the fuels ofimportance tolight-water and heavy-water 'reactors
andtothe British AGR type .
According topessimistic andoptimistic forecasts made onthe development
ofprogrammes forthe construction ofnuclear power stations and .repro­
cessing facilities .
The Community 'srequirements account for approximately 75 %ofEuropean
requirements .

-9-
N.B. These evaluations donot take into' account thepossibility that part of
the capacity set upinEurope may besetaside fornon-European
requirements .
These difficulties ,ifnot overcome ingood time ,could jeopardize
theCommunity 'snuclear energy objectives .Moreover ,the lack of
capacity imposes theneed tostockpile used fuel elements pending
reprocessing .
These storage requirements ,which will beequal tothe cumulative requi­
rements not covered ,will have tobemet ifsevere adverse effects on
thenormal operation oftheCommunity 'snuclear power stations are tobe
avoided .They could bemetduring theperiod upto1990 bydoubling
thestorage capacity currently al'lotted toeach nuclear power station ,
although itwould seem preferable tolimit this storage capacity to
the immediate operating needs ofeach power station .
They could also bemet bysetting upcentralized storage capacity .For
example ,theCommunity 'would by1990 need tohave available 10-15 units
of 1000tonnes .This would represent aninvestment intheorder
of 1000 million to 1500 million units ofaccount between now and 1990 .
IV.Points tobecovered byaCommunity strategy
The above analysis shows that :
-reprocessing isanecessary anddecisive stage inanuclear strategy
designed tosecure theCommunity 'smedium andlong-term energy objectives ;
-reprocessing is,onexperience "todate ,compatible with concerns ofsafety
andprotection forthepopulation andmust remain sothroughout thecourse
ofitsfuture development .Thealternative without reprocessing offers
nodecisive advantages from this point ofview (seesection B,p.4);
Thepresent storage capacity ofapower station isbetween one andtwo
discharge peryear plus acomplete core (intheevent that thereactor
hastobecompletely unloaded forinspection ).Acomplete core represents
three discharges peryear inthe case ofaPWR.Additional edacity of
three discharges peryear would benecessary .Itmaybenoted that several
operators have already embarked upon developments inthis direction .

-10-
-the development ofnew measures ,arrangements andtechniques ensuring full
compatibility ofreprocessing with theexclusively peaceful useofnuclear
materials onalarge scale must bepursued inline with theindustrial
development ofreprocessing .
ACommunity strategy inthis field must therefore :
,-Promote the coordinated development atminimum cost ofthe Community 's
reprocessing and plutonium industries ;
-make sure "that reprocessing ispompat ible with the Community 'sobjectives
ofpopulation safety andprotection ofthe environment and with the
exclusively peaceful use ofnuclear materials .
A.Promotion
Industrial initiative based oncommercial profitability ,which isstill lacking
today ,nolonger seems adequate toserve asthe driving force forthe
industrial development ofreprocessing .The development ofthe firm
United Reprocessors ,since its establishment in1971 inatotally different
*context ,isanexample ofthis .
**The promoters ,whether public (e.g. BNFL ,COGEMA ),private (e.g. KEWA )or
mixed (e.g. BELGOPROCESS ),doindeed subordinate the establishment ofnew
capacity toalimitation ofthe financial risks andtothe requirements of
thenational nuclear programmes .This assessment varies from oie country
toanother inthe Community .Inparticular ,countries with ruclear power
plant programmes ofmodes *-scope runtherisk ofbeing for<-d toset up
companies which are, omtheoutset ,bound tooperate onanunsound
economic basis ■'order toensure atallcosts tbattney have reprocessing
services whic 1:foreign promoters would no --beab^e ~orwilling -toprovide
during pr-''°ds ofworld shortage .
***United Reprocessors isafirrproviding reprocessing services ,which fromitsinception hasgrouped British (BNFL),rerman (KEWA),and French
(CEA)interests and whose hasbeen tocoordinate investments in
order toavoid superfluous capacity .F.ieCommission accepted the
establishment ofthis coiranyin19 I,after notification inaccordant
with Council Regulation -7andpu?3uant toArticle 85oftheEECTreaty(Competition Rules ). ireaty
BNFL :British Nucle' fjelsL.mited ((JK)
COGEMA :Compagnie -nérale desMatières Nucléaires (F)
KEWA :Kernbrenns' ,f~Wiederauf arbeitungs-Gesel Ischaf t (d)
BEL-^PROCESS :s^eho^lders tobespecified (company being (B)
Itwill be,-called that areprocessing plant ofeconomic size must beabletor,rve aUrge number of1000MWepower stations simultaneously .

-11-
The users -all ofwhom areelectricity producers –are faced with the
dilemma ofthemselves having totake onheavy financial commitments to
**ensure that they have the services which they alone require ,ornot to
have their fuel reprocessed atall.
The Main points ofajoint strategy designed tosecure the development of
reprocessing inthe Community should aimat:
– "bring about aconvergence ,between promoters andusers interests and
linking their action with that ofthe Community ,whilst atthe same time
extending tothird parties (particularly the Community 'sEuropean
neighbours )facilities forjoining thegroup orgroups formed ;
–"extending totheusers ofall member countries ,including those
countries having nuclear power plant programmes ofmodest scope ,
facilities for ensuring ,byway ofparticipation inthe groups formed ,
that they have the desired reprocessing services under optimum economic
conditions ,which would make itpossible tolimit the number of
.reprocessing plants inthe "'Community tothe bare minimum needed ".
–facilitating cross-holdings inorder topromote the establishment of
efficient groups ;
–providing certain financial aid (e.g. participation bythe Community ,
participation bythird parties ).
Thelegal framework ofthe Joint Undertaking provided bythe Euratom
Treaty could beanexcellent instrument for the application ofthis
strategy ,foritenables industrial initiative tobedeveloped without the
public service aspects associated with reprocessing being overlooked .The
Commission therefore proposes that this facility should beused ,having due
regard inparticular tothe following provisions ofthe Treaty :
*
The statement adopted bythe Management Committee oftheInternational
Union ofProducers andDistributors ofElectrical Energy (UHIPEDE)' on17
May 1977 isworth noting inthis connection :"The Members ofUNIPEDE
consider itindispensable ,within the framework ofexisting laws and
regulations atnational level and where appropriate ,within the framework
ofinternational cooperation ,that urgent priority should begiven tothe
early construction ofreprocessing plants capable ofmeeting requirements .
Theelectricity producers are resolved tomake their contribution tothe
deployment ofthenecessaiy industrial effort ".
This istheposition ofthefirm DWK ,which groups the German electricity
producers and istotake control of KEWA «

-12-
-possible participation bythe Community inthe financing oftheJoint
Undertaking (Article 46,2,d);
-possible participation byanon-Community country ,aninternational
organization oranational ofanon-Community country inthe financing or
management ofthe Joint Undertaking (Article 46,2,e).
Inaddition ,this promotion strategy would make itpossible toestablish a
bridge with the compatibility strategy dealt with below .Indeed ,ajoint
undertaking ofthis kind,tothe extent that theplants tobecovered by
itwould beconcentrated ,could constitute the Community formula for
"nuclear fuel parks ". "
Such astrategy should enjoy the cooperation ofthe main repositories of
reprocessing technology .
The Commission proposes that the Council should take adecision toset upa
Committee whose task would betoassist theInstitutions inthe elaboration
ofthis strategy cnthe basis ofthe main points setout above ,taking into
account the respective interests ofthe promoters and users concerned in
inthe Community and which would report tothe Commission andtothe Council
*before the end of1978 onfollow-up action tobetaken .
The Commission proposes tosupplement this strategy :
-bydrawing theattention ofpromoters toCommunity financing facilities ,
particularly the "Euratom loans ";
bystudying the Community provisions designed toensure that additional
storage capacity forusedjfuel elements will beavailable sufficiently early
and will beaccessible toall.
B.Çomga t_ib_i_lit%
Health and safety rules
Ashasbeen said above ,aclosed fuel cycle (with reprocessing andre-use of
recovered fissile materials )must remain compatible with theobjectives
ofsafety andhealth forthepopulation oftheCommunity ,provided the
efforts being deployed arevigorously pursued .
Cf. Draft decision included asanannex .

Inthis connection ,the Commission proposes toLaunch aprogramme of R&D
onthe processes which would make itpossible toensure that ,inspite ofthe
industrial development ofreprocessing ,the radioactive pollution ofthe
environment ,andparticularly the atmosphere ,bythe big plants ofthe
future will remain negligible .
Itmay also make proposals tobroaden the scope ofits current programmes
onradioactive waste inafuture communication onthe subject .
Guarantees against the diversion ofnuclear materials
The development ofmeasures ,arrangements and techniques toensure full
compatibility ofreprocessing with the exclusively peaceful use onalarge
scale ofnuclear materials must bepursued inline with tl\e industrial
development ofreprocessing .
Areprocessing strategy must,forthis purpose ,give consideration to:
1.Thepossibility ofinfluencing the technological processes now undergoing
industrial development -all ofwhich involve storage ofpure plutonium in
large quantities during the course ofits re-use ,inboth light water and
fast reactors -with aview tocutting outthis storage phase ;thejoint
reprocessing ofuranium and plutonium (co-processing ),thepreparation of
standard U-Pu mixtures and the immediate refabrication ofcontrol rods are
some ofthethings which should beinvestigated .The Commission proposes
toset upaworking party which will make adetailed examination ofmeasures ,
tobeincorporated into proposals for future action inthis field ,which it
might bepossible tointegrate into the INFCE programme recently proposed
bythe USA*. -
2.The development ofregional structures concentrating the final operations
ofthe fuel cycle inorder tolimit the geographical dispersion offissile
materials and toease the task ofsupervision .
Cf.C0M(77)263 of 10June 1977 .

Such structures would offer certain economic advantages ,inparticular the
possibility ofincreasing theunit size ofplants and ofreducing thecost
ofsafeguards ,and would beconcentrated inavery small number of
locations (e.g. five sites forWestern Europe inthe 2000).Inthe
erection ofthese structures ,care should betaken toensure that they
donot lead tosituations which are incompatible with the conditions of
competition required bytheTreaties .
Asfar asthe Community isconcerned ,such anorganization could evolve
within the framework ofone ormore .joint undertaking ,with possible
financial participation bythe Community and sub.ject toEuratom safeguards ,
.but with the possibility ofparticipation byanorir-roember country not
ruled out.Such anapproach ties inwith that recommended above for the
promotion ofre-processing .
The (multinational )regional nuclear fuel centres would begoverned by
such undertakings :the fuel cycle services provided aspart ofsales of
nuclear power stations abroad would becarried out onacommercial basis
inthese centres ,and export oftechnology would belikewise avoided .
Community participation inthe infrastructure costs ingeneral and inthe
.permar --iitstorage ofradioactive waste inparticular would make itpossible
ex"':endfree access totheregional centre toalltheindustries ofthe
Community andtorp?■'-•■r"ihehos*country ofpr-jrb oftheburden by
6stablisV"" -'-< stora^site .*asCommunity undertakings .
3.Thedevelopment ofasystem ofinternational agreements andarrangements
covering ,mparticular ,theexport ofsensitive materials andtechnologies .
Suchasystem which could involve measures aimed atinternational trade in
fissile materials ,including stockpiling ,affects thenuclear industiy as
awhole andimpinges upontheinterests oftheCommunity anditsMember
States .TheCommission feels inthisregard thattheCommunity should
participate asaCommunity intheinternational discussions onthese
subjects ,inaccordance with asuitable procedure *.
* *
*
Nuclear Environment "^3^^ Comnmnii * theInternational

-15-
The Commission invites the Council togive its agreement tothe following s
–The Community andits Member States must retain thepossibility of
recovering and recycling used fuels discharged from nuclear reactors .
–Itisaccordingly necessary topromote the coordinated development at
minimum cost ofthe reprocessing and plutoniuin industries inthe
Community ,while ensuring that these activities are compatible with the
objectives ofsafety for the population ofthe Community and protection
ofthe environment with the exclusively peaceful use ofnuclear materials .
The Joint Undertaking provided for inthe Euratom Treaty would "bean
eminently suitably instrument forthis purpose .
–Italso asks the Council totake adecision setting up&nad-hoc
Committee onthereprocessing ofirradiated nuclear fuels (Cf.draft
Decision attached asanannex ).

DRAFT COUNCIL DECISION ONTHE SETTING UPOPANAD-HOC
COMMITTEE ONTHE REPROCESSING OPIRRADIATED NUCLEAR
FUELS
TheCouncil oftheEuropean Communities ,
–Having regard totheTreaty establishing theEuropean Atomic Energy
Community ;
–Having regard totheCommission draft ;
–Whereas theCommission haspresented totheCouncil aCommunication on
"Points for aCommunity strategy onthereprocessing of .irradiated
nuclear fuels ";
–Whereas reprocessing isone ofthenecessary components ofapolicy
aimed atsecuring theCommunity 'sobjectives intheindustrial and
energy fields andwhereas itistherefore important topromote -he
coordinated development atminimum cost ofreprocessing ;
*
–Whereas the safety andprotection ofthegeneral public and the
environment must bepreserved from thepotential hazards associated
with nuclear activities ;
has decided asfollows :
–Anad–hocCommittee onthereprocessing ofirradiated nuclear fuels ,
whose terms ofreference shall beasset out inthe Annex tothis
Decision ,ishereby setup;
–TheCommittee shall consist representatives ofthepublic bodies and
undertakings concerned ,with thevarious aspects ofprocessing
referred tointherecitals ,amaximum ofthree members being appointed
byeach Member State Government .TheChairman oftheCommittee shall
besupplied bytheCommission ;theSecretary shall besupplied bythe
Secretariat oftheCouncil .TheCommittee shall befree jointly .to
call upon the services ofrepresentatives ofnon–Member States and of
undertakings innon-Member States in .aconsultative capacity .
–The term ofoffice ofamember shall beterminated before its normal
expiry ifthat member dies orresigns ,oriftheGovernment ofthe
Member State which appointed himdecides toreplace him .His successor
shall beappointed fortheremaining oftheterm ofoffice .

ANNEX
DRAFT TERMS OFREFERENCE OFTHE ADHOC COMMITTEE
ON THE REPROCESSING OFIRRADIATED NUCLEAR FUELS
The task of "the Committee is:
1.a)toassist theCommission andtheCouncil intheelaboration ofa
Community strategy onthereprocessing ofirradiated fuels ,"based
onthepoints presented "bythe Commission ,aimed at:
– "bringing about aconvergence oftheinterests ofthe
promoters andusers inthe Community andlinking their
action with that ofthe Community itself ,whilst atthe
same time extending facilities tothird parties (in
particular ,theCommunity 'sEuropean neighbours )for
joining the group orgroups formed ;
–extending tousers inall Member States ,including those
countries -having nuclear power programmes ofmodest
scope ,thepossibility ofensuring ,bywayofparticip­
ation inthegroups formed ,that they have available to
them thedesired reprocessing services under optimum
economic conditions ,andwith dueregard totherequire­
ments inherent inthe safety ofthegeneral public and ■
inprotection oftheenvironment ,which would make it
possible tokeep thenumber ofreprocessing plants in
the Community down tothebare minimum required ;
–ensuring aneven distribution ofeffort among the
interested parties ;
–facilitating cross –holdings inorder topromote the
establishment ofefficient groups ;
–providing certain financial aid (e.g. participation by
theCommunity ,participation bythird parties ).
1.b)Toexamine towhat extent theprovisions relating totheJoint
Undertaking ,asdefined inChapter VoftheEuratom Treaty ,coua-d
assist inthe implementation ofthis strategy .

ANNEX
2.The Committee shall draw upareport showing t
a)Theobjectives common tothepromoters and .totheusers andthe
extent towhich the application oftheJoint Undertaking
provisions could assist inachieving those objectives ;
b)anypoints ofdivergence which mayexist between thepromoters
and the users and the extent towhich the application ofthe
Joint Undertaking provisions could contribute totheir elimination .
Onthebasis ofananalysis ofthe above points ,the report shall evaluate
the follow-up tobegiven tothe strategy inquestion .
The report shall beforwarded tothe Commission and tothe Council as
soon aspossible but inany case notlater than 31December 1978 *