No C 252/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 9. 82 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 'an energy 
strategy for the Community: the nuclear aspects' 
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 February 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned communication to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 199th 
plenary session held in Brussels on 30 June and 1 July 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 198 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of the 
European Communities on 22 February 1982 for an 
opinion on the communication from the Commission to 
the Council entitled 'an energy strategy for the 
Community: the nuclear aspects', 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 23 
February 1982 instructing the Section for Energy 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 72nd meeting held 
on 4 June 1982, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rapporteur, 
Mr von der Decken, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 199th plenary 
session, held on 30 June and 1 July 1982, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 95 votes to 7, with 3 abstentions: 
The Committee welcomes the fact that the present 
communication from the Commission in connection with 
the Community's energy strategy gives an overview of the 
nuclear aspects and announces a series of concrete 
measures by the Commission. The Committee would 
comment thereon as follows: 
1. General comments 
1.1. In its communication to the Council on the 
development of an energy strategy for the Community the Commission laid down the framework for a whole series 
of communications on important aspects of an energy 
strategy, viz. energy pricing, investment, coal, stocks of 
crude oil and finally nuclear energy. The Committee is to 
issue separate opinions on all these communications. 
1.2. An energy strategy for the Community must 
incontestably still have as objective a reduction in the 
dependence on oil, mainly through rational energy use 
and replacement of oil by other primary energy sources, 
so as to achieve diversification of supplies. 
1.3. All possible forms of energy such as solar energy, 
geothermal energy, wind energy and thermonuclear 
fusion must in future contribute to energy supplies and 
there must be no falling-off in development efforts. In the 
medium and short term the only energy sources available 
in any significant quantity for replacing oil and ensuring 
diversification of supplies are coal and nuclear energy -
and also to a certain degree natural gas. 
1.4. All European bodies are agreed that nuclear 
energy must make a decisive contribution towards the 
Community's energy supplies, and the ESC, too, has 
repeatedly made this point. It is therefore only logical 
that, in addition to a separate communication on coal, the 
Commission should discuss the role of nuclear energy as 
part of an overall European energy study in a separate 
communication. 
1.5. As indicated in the communication, 16% of 
electricity production, i.e. 6% of the Community's total 
energy consumption, is now accounted for by nuclear 
energy. These average figures for Europe as a whole must 
not, however, obscure the fact that the Community does 
not at present have any common nuclear energy policy and 
that the national policies in this sphere diverge rather than 
converge. The spectrum extends from rejection of any use 
at all of nuclear energy in a number of countries to the aim 
of giving nuclear energy by far the largest role in energy 
production. 
27. 9. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 252/13 
1.6.v The Committee thinks that although this 
divergence among national nuclear energy policies is 
discussed in the Commission's communication, its 
importance and consequences have not been sufficiently 
analyzed and taken into account. There are various 
reasons for this divergence, including the different 
degrees to which the Member States are dependent on 
energy imports and their different energy requirements. 
But political aspects, the question of acceptance and the 
problem of capital procurement also play a considerable 
role. Furthermore the licensing procedures have become 
so complex in some Member States as to entail 
indefensible delays and obscurity and hence extreme 
uncertainty for investments. 
1.7. As regards the cost of nuclear energy, the 
Commission mentions the results of investigations by a 
Unipede working party. The Committee cannot hold a 
definitive discussion on this matter for want of sufficient 
information. It presumes that it will be given the 
opportunity to discuss the results of these investigations 
in detail and that the Commission will provide it with all 
the data it requires to make an informed appraisal of its 
own. 
1.8. The Committee regards the compilation of 
reliable data on the economic aspects of nuclear energy as 
an important task for the Commission, since only in this 
way is it possible to determine the effects of a decision in 
favour of a particular energy source on the structure of 
electricity generation costs, the location of industry, 
competitiveness and the development of divergent terms 
of competition. 
1.9. Special attention should be paid to spent nuclear 
fuel elements. 
— On the one hand, only a very small proportion (1 to 
2 %) of the energy content of the uranium is utilized in 
the light-water reactors in use at the present time; 
— On the other hand, the radioactive fission products 
must be finally disposed of in such a way that they 
cannot come into contact with the biosphere. 
1.10. The Committee notes that a very wide variety of 
ideas as to how spent fuel should be treated are being 
pursued and discussed at present in Europe. These ideas 
range from (a) direct final disposal (which would involve 
the loss of a major proportion of the energy content), (b) 
retrievable storage to (c) re-processing in order to 
separate the usable uranium and plutonium from the 
fission products (the plutonium being used in light-water 
reactors) and (d) the systematic use of fast breeder 
reactors and hence the maximum utilization of the energy 
content of the uranium. As with nuclear energy in 
general, it cannot yet be foreseen whether a uniform 
approach will establish itself in Europe regarding the 
treatment of spent fuel. In this sphere there is also at 
present a great deal of discussion in progress on the 
question of the acceptance of nuclear energy. 1.11. In the areas of re-processing, the fabrication of 
plutonium-containing fuel elements and storage, 
plutonium is a sensitive factor from the point of view of 
non-proliferation policy. The International Nuclear Fuel 
Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) devoted over two years to 
these problems. Everyone is agreed that the problems 
concerning the nuclear fuel cycle can only be solved by 
intensive international cooperation and within the 
framework of international treaties. The inspections 
carried out by Euratom have played an important role 
here and must continue to do so. 
1.12. The Committee agrees with the Commission 
that the construction of interim storage facilities for spent 
fuel elements is particularly important in Europe, in view 
of the small re-processing capacity. The fact that such 
interim storage facilities can be made extremely safe and 
do not take up much space means that the necessary 
decisions regarding the further treatment of the fuel 
elements can be taken with all due speed but not 
overhastily. 
1.13. The Committee concurs with the Commission 
on the apportionment of tasks between the Member 
States and the Commission and agrees that the 
Community can help to solve the problems in the 
following areas in particular: 
— compilation of economic data, 
— fuel supplies, 
— nuclear materials safeguards, 
— establishment of standards in the areas of health 
protection and the safety of the general public, 
— R & D in the areas of safety, radiation protection, 
management and storage of radioactive waste, 
— provision of information for the public. 
1.14. The Committee regrets that such an extremely 
important subject and a Commission communication of 
such fundamental significance had to be considered -
together with other energy documents - under such 
severe time pressure, after a long period during which 
relatively few documents on these subjects had been 
referred to the Committee. The Committee hopes that 
ways will be found in future of dealing with these topics in 
a manner in keeping with their importance and on a more 
continuous basis, i.e. with the necessary thoroughness. 
2. Specific comments on the proposed Community 
action 
2.1. The Committee is very pleased that the 
Commission intends finally to resume the periodical 
publication of the illustrative programmes provided for in 
No C 252/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 9. 82 
Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, since they will also 
provide guidance for policy decisions and can be used to 
keep the public better informed about the context and 
development of nuclear energy. 
2.2. In the Committee's view, special attention should 
be paid in these illustrative programmes to analyzing the 
consequences of the tendency for the Member States' 
policies on nuclear energy to diverge. 
2.3. The most important idea in the Commission 
document is probably the proposal for amending Chapter 
VI (Articles 52 to 75) of the Euratom Treaty, which lays 
down how the Community's task of ensuring that users 
receive a regular and equitable supply of ores and nuclear 
fuels (Article 2) is to be discharged. The Committee 
realizes that this is an extremely difficult and complicated 
matter, which cannot be completely separated from the 
question of re-processing and the non-proliferation 
problem. 
2.4. The Committee assumes that it will be given 
sufficient opportunity to study the amended version of 
Chapter VI of the Euratom Treaty, when the 
Commission submits its proposal. The Committee thinks 
that what the Commission has to say on this subject in the 
present communication and the time at present available 
for deliberation are not sufficient for a systematic, 
definitive discussion of the subject. The Committee 
would, however, like to draw the Commission's attention 
already to the following points: 
2.5. The Committee wonders whether it was not 
precisely because of its exclusive trading right -
particularly in connection with the non-proliferation 
aspect - that the Supply Agency was able to contribute to 
the conclusion of agreements, such as those with the 
Community's three main suppliers, the USA, Canada and 
Australia. In future studies, account should be taken of 
the repercussions that a substantial change in the Supply 
Agency's role could have on current and future 
agreements. 
2.6. As regards the control of nuclear materials, the 
Committee awaits with interest the report announced by 
the Commission on the implementation of the three 
verification agreements between Euratom, its Member 
States and the IAEA. The Committee assumes that it will 
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1982. have an opportunity to discuss this crucial subject in 
detail. 
2.7. The Committee has already expressed its views 
on a number of occasions on reactor safety, radiation 
protection, the safety of the nuclear fuel cycle and the safe 
final disposal of radioactive waste. It once again notes 
with satisfaction that the Community's direct and indirect 
R&D programme in the nuclear sphere is almost 
exclusively concerned with precisely these subjects. It 
would like to stress that it still regards this work as one of 
the most important preconditions for the responsible use 
of nuclear energy and as a major contribution towards 
acceptance. 
2.8. The Committee would also like to make express 
reference to its study on a Community nuclear safety 
code. This study is today as important and topical as ever. 
The Committee regrets that so far no further steps have 
been taken in the Community towards the elaboration of 
such a Community code. The Committee would ask the 
Commission what conclusions are to be drawn in this 
connection from the report on nuclear safety in the 
European Communities drawn up by the group of experts 
on nuclear safety. 
2.9. The Committee welcomes the fact that the 
Commission regards it as one of its major tasks to help to 
ensure that the public is informed about questions 
connected with nuclear energy. It is important that 
concrete contributions be made here at Community level, 
in addition to the special role that the governments, 
regional authorities and public utilities should play in this 
connection. 
2.10. The Committee hopes that a start will be made 
quite soon with an effective drive to inform and educate 
the public concerning the development of the energy 
situation and associated questions, particularly with 
regard to the illustrative programmes that have been 
announced. The surveys of public opinion in the 
Community and their publication could make a concrete 
contribution here. 
2.11. The Committee agrees with the Commission 
that it is basically not just a question of informing the 
public but also of dialogue. It is necessary to determine 
how this dialogue could be improved and what specific 
contributions could be made here by the Commission. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE