ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(82)37
Vol.1982/0015

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 OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(82)37 final
Brussels,5thFebruary1982
4\'Λ
i"1■A
;■"ir'...
;:"*•%•-•tr^i~.Jr- L\>l
■\rv"''-t:/0/K(-r..*',7,.k<U'K'•'-si/■a-7
-""V, '''
r.'\j..
-J•>'^""r'.:■Avsy
COMMUNICATION FROMTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
onthereportoftheadhocAdvisoryCommittee ontheReprocessing
ofIrradiated NuclearFuels(CORECOM)
C0M(82)37final

Communication fromtheCommission totheCouncil
Subject:ReportoftheadhocAdvisoryCommitteeontheReprocessing of
Irradiated NuclearFuels
PREAMBLE
ByDecisionof18February1980***theCouncilsetupanadhocAdvisory
Committee ontheReprocessing ofIrradiated NuclearFuels,itstermsof
referencebeingtodrawupfortheCommission areportcentredonthe
followingpoints:
-analysisofthereprocessing situationintheCommunity asregardsthe
trendbothofrequirements andofavailablecapacity;
-collectionofinformation ontheinterimstoragecapacitywhichwillbe
requiredpendingmedium-term reprocessing andreviewoftheproblems
raisedinthisconnection;
-studyonwhether,andifso,howtopromotethedevelopment ofthe
industrial capacityrequiredintheCommunity andtofacilitate the
coordination ofmeasuresbetweenthepartnersconcerned,withdueregardto
legalprovisions andindustrial arrangements alreadyobtaining;
-examination,withregardtoindustrial processing capacity,ofthe
desirability andfeasibility ofutilisingallrelevantprovisionsofthe
EuratomTreaty,particularly withaviewtofacilitating convergence ofthe
interestsofpromoters andusers.
Thereportinquestionwastransmitted totheCommissioninJuly1981bythe
ChairmanoftheCommittee.Itsconclusions aresetoutbelow.
N°L52,26.2.1980.

2.
1.Reprocessing appears increasingly tobeanecessary element ofmedium -
and long-term energy strategies which envisage the use ofnuclear energy .
Italso represents thefirst stage inthe treatment ofradioactive waste
prior todisposal .
2.Clear political decisions ,involving the provision ofstorage and
reprocessing facilities ,are necessary inthe Community Member States in
order tocope with the accumulated spent fuel .
3.The build-up ofstorage capacity for spent fuel isthe most urgent step .
The necessary reprocessing capacity can then beinstalled with acertain
flexibility intime scale .
4.Provided that the necessary political and industrial decisions are made,
there should benomajor difficulty ininstalling the storage and
reprocessing capacity required . This can bedone bythe existing nuclear
industries within the Community . The growth ofinternational cooperation ,
particularly inthefield ofreprocessing ,could behelpful .
5.Community involvement infinancing the large capital requirements could
constitute afavourable factor inestablishing the storage and reprocessing
capacity .
6.Since the Committee 'sreport reflects the situation asatthe end ofJune
1981,itwould appear desirable toreview thesituation atCommunity level
atanappropriate time .
After examining this report ,the Commission istoforward ittothe Council
together with comments and recommendations . The Commission would like to
compliment the Commiteee onthequality ofthe report .
*
 *
1.The Commission wishes ,attheoutset ,todraw the Council 'sattention tothe
fact that,inits assessment ofthesituation and prospects inthe Community
uptothe year 2000 asregards the reprocessing and storage ofirradiated
nuclear fuels ,the report confines itself toastudy oftheoverriding problem
ofuranium-oxide fuels from thermal reactors . This type ofreactor will
account forvirtually all the installed nuclear power plant capacity between
now and the year 2000 .

This limited approach can beexplained onthe grounds of :
-the decisions taken several years ago inthe Community todiscontinue the
development ofgas-cooled natural uranium metal-fuelled nuclear power
stations ,and thepresent smooth functioning ofthe services for
reprocessing that fuel ;
-the minimal quantities ofmixed uranium -and plutonium-oxide fuels tobe
discharged from fast-breeder reactors between now and 1990 .
Inparticular ,the Commission would draw attention tothe following points
which emerge from the report .
a)Attitudes among Member States towards covering their reprocessing
requirements vary considerably from one country toanother .
Anumber ofMember States are developing ,orplan todevelop ,the
industrial capacity needed for the reprocessing ofirradiated fuels .
However ,the levels ofcapacity currently envisaged and the timetables
fortheir introduction vary significantly .
Some ofthese countries intend toconcentrate exclusively oncovering
their own requirements ,while others have already given undertakings to
cover the requirements offoreign countries aswell (Member States and
non-member countries alike ).
Lastly ,Member States which have opted for nuclear energy but which have
noreprocessing programme oftheir own are not opposed toreprocessing as
such,since national fuel-reprocessing requirements can becatered for
abroad .
b)Aquantitative analysis ofthe estimated reprocessing requirements which
will become apparent between now and the year 2000 inthe Community
(including the requirements ofnon-member countries already covered by
reprocessing contracts ),set against the capacity ofindustrial
reprocessing plants already under construction ,committed
or planned for construction ,shows that capacity islagging
behind requirements bysome five years . This time-lag isnot serious
provided that itdoes not increase .Accordingly ,theestimates given
inChapter IIofthe report inrespect ofthe timetables for the
installation ofthe reprocessing capacity and theplant utilisation rate

must prove toberealistic . Onthe other hand,this time-lag could
diminish if,inthe future ,there was anoticeable slowing-down inthe
nuclear power station installation programmes without acorresponding
slowing-down inplant construction . However ,the coincidence ofthese two
hypotheses ishighly unlikely .
c)Upto1990 thefate ofthe irradiated fuel accumulated inthe Community is
bound todepend toalarge extent onthe use ofinterim storage capacity ,
the provision ofwhich should not pose any problems from atechnical point
of view .Itisnotuntil the end ofthe T980'sthat alarge part of
this fuel should bereprocessed .
Thesituation asdescribed ,particularly inpoints (b)and (c)above ,ought
not,atfirst sight ,togive rise tomajor concern .Nevertheless ,the
report itself underlines the not insignificant difficulties and constraints
facing industrial reprocessing activities . Forthis reason the Commission
feels that itmust place particular stress onthe following .
a)The Community 'stechnical potential for carrying out oxide-fuel reprocessing
onanindustrial scale isbeyond question . However ,despite the fact that
long experience inthe reprocessing oflow burn-up metallic fuels has been
acquired inthe Community ,there isatpresent nomajor high burn-up oxide -
fuel reprocessing plant ,either inthe Community orelsewhere ,which has
experience ofthe continuity ofoperation typical ofplants which have
fully entered the commercial stage . This highlights the duration and
extent oftheeffort needed toattain this objective .
b)Major obstacles stand inthe way ofthe development ofreprocessing
activities .
-Experience shows that theauthorisation and inspection procedures for
the construction and operation ofnuclear installations frequently give
rise toconsiderable delays and attimes even place aquestion mark over
the future oftheprojects . One cannot but fear that this type of
difficulty will continue toarise inthe reprocessing sector ,inview of
the additional fact that the industrial maturity ofthis stage ofthe
fuel cycle has not reached the same level asthat achieved inthe
construction and operation ofnuclear power stations proper .

-Asfar aspublic acceptance isconcerned ,thehostility shown towards
industrial development ingeneral (byreason ofthe potential risks
associated with itfrom the point ofview ofpublic safety and
environmental protection )has largely crystallized round the peaceful
uses ofnuclear energy and,among other things ,the reprocessing ,
management and storage orradioactive waste and the use ofplutonium .
Moreover ,reprocessing isstill a"sensitive "technology likely topose
problems asfar astheapplication ofsafeguards isconcerned .However ,
(1)detailed studies onaworld scale point tothe conclusion that the
risks ofillicit diversion ofplutonium produced byreprocessing can be
substantially reduced subject tothe adoption ofanumber oftechnical
(2)and institutional measures both nationally and internationally .
c)The reprocessing-plant construction cost estimates are beset with
uncertainties that reflect the difficulties mentioned in (a)and (b)above .
The financing ofthese plants inaccordance with ordinary commercial rules
therefore poses problems .
d)The contracts concluded inthe past bythe reprocessing industry with
foreign customers (whether ornot nationals of EEC Member States )cannot
beregarded ashaving created agenuine reprocessing market ,onthe grounds
that :
-atpresent this industry feels that the planned workload ofplants
already inservice ,orscheduled tocome into service ,rules out
acceptance ofnew reprocessing contracts ;itislikely that this
situation will continue until acertain amount ofexperience has been
gained inthis field through operating thefirst newplants ,i.e.,not
before 1985 ;
-the contracts already concluded donot provide for afixed reprocessing
deadline ,andthis isanawkward source ofuncertainty asfar asthe
customer isconcerned .
(1)International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE )
(2)Inthe context ofthe institutional measures which could beimplemented at
international level ,mention should bemade ofIPS (International Plutonium
Storage ),currently the subject ofastudy being carried out under the aegis of
the Viennd-based International Atomic Energy Agency with theactive support of
the Commission .

III.a)Inthe light ofthe foregoing ,the Commission 'simmediate reaction is
that compliance with the timetable for the completion and operation of
reprocessing plants currently under construction orscheduled for
construction isfar from having been achieved .
Consequently ,there isadanger that,over the next few years ,reprocessing
activities will increasingly lag behind requirements .
The Commission therefore stresses the need toconvene the Committee
periodically (see last conclusion ofthe report )inorder toreview the
situation atCommunity level .
b)Furthermore ,reprocessing isincreasingly coming tobeseen asanessential
element inmedium -and long-term nuclear policies (seefirst conclusion
ofthe report ),inthat itmakes itpossible toachieve areduction in
natural uranium and enrichment requirements asaresult ofthe recycling
ofuranium and plutonium inthermal and fast reactors ,with the prospect
ofreduced dependence onoutside supplies ofuranium through fast breeder
technology ^**.
Accordingly ,the Commission feels that steps must betaken toovercome the
difficulties currently being experienced inthis sector soastocreate
the best possible conditions ,from the point ofview both ofpromoters and
ofusers ,foritsindustrial development .
Naturally ,such development must beconsistent atall times with public -
safety and environmental-protection objectives and with the aim ofensuring
that nuclear materials are not diverted toapplications other than those
stipulated bytheir users .
Accordingly ,on the Commission ,acting onthe basis of
the Committee 'sreport ,adopted ,under Article 124 ofthe Treaty ,a
recommendation addressed tothe Governments ofthe Member States ,the
competent national authorities and the promoters and users . This
recommendation centres onthe following points .
(i)Inview ofthe urgent need toensure that programmes for the
construction ofthe capacity necessary for the interim storage of
**Council Resolution of18February 1980 onthereprocessing ofirradiated nuclear
fuels (0JN° C51,29.2.1980 ).

7.
irradiated fuels are completed bythe appropriate time,firm decisions
must betaken and implemented without delay inthis area .
<ii)Steps should betaken toexplore allpossibilities conducive tothe
setting-up ofundertakings capable ofbringing together interests
expressed byanumber ofMember States and,from the point ofview
ofreprocessing ,ofsuch akind asto:
.facilitate the creation ofaneconomically viable capacity ,
.ensure that partner states have access toreprocessing services
onfinancial terms fixed bycommon accord ,
.comply with INFCE conclusions according towhich itisconsidered
desirable that,asfar aspossible ,reprocessing bedeveloped in
the context ofmultinational corporations ,thus providing possible
additional advantages asregards theapplication ofsafeguards ,
.encourage the creation ofagenuine market inthis sector ,
.facilitate some degree ofwork-sharing among the reprocessing plants
insuch away,for instance ,that small and medium-sized plants
possessing sufficient flexibility would beused,asamatter of
priority ,for reprocessing fuels from experimental and research
reactors .
(iii)Inorder toencourage industrial cooperation within the Community ,
promoters must adopt asopen anattitude aspossible tothe question
oftechnology transfers and exchanges ofexperience ,notably inthe
field ofplant safety .
IV.Asregards investment for the construction ofreprocessing and storage plants ,
the Commission would point out that Euratom loans and loans from the European
Investment Bank areavailable . Cases mayarise ,however ,where certain
investment projects may require specific financial incentives which lieoutside
the scope ofthe conditions governing Euratom and EIB loans .
Foritspart,the Commission will make apoint ofexamining thepossibility
offollowing upsuch applications ,provided that the relevant projects bring
together interests expressed byanumber ofMember States .
V . This communication shall innowayprejudice any measures which the Commission
might beprompted totake regarding the rules currently governing Community
nuclear supplies and the role ofnuclear-fuel reprocessing inthis connection .
(*)International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation .