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; 
17.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 263/53 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
18 March  1975,  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 
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  it is absolutely  essential  that  adequate 
common  measures  be taken  to ensure  the safety  and 
protection  of the public  and  the environment  against 
the technological  hazards  inherent  in the production 
of nuclear  energy; 
Whereas  the  Community  must  play  a fundamental 
role by  progressively  approximating  regulations, 
rules,  general  and  detailed  criteria  and  industrial 
standards, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 39 votes  to 4 and with  3 abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Commission's  communication  to the 
Council  includes  a draft  Council  resolution  calling 
upon  the licensing  authorities,  the appropriate  safety 
and supervisory  bodies,  operators  and  constructors 
of nuclear  plants,  and  the  bodies  responsible  for 
programmes  of  applied  research,  to  intensify 
cooperation  at Community  level,  in order  to ensure 
an equal  level  of  protection  for  the  public 
throughout  the  Community  by harmonizing  safety 
practice  and  criteria,  thereby  avoiding  or removing 
trade  barriers.  The  proposed  Council  resolution  also 
seeks  to achieve  closer  cooperation  in the  field  of 
applied  research  and  thus  avoid  needless  duplication 
of work  within  the Community. 
1.2. In  order  that  these  objectives  may  be 
achieved,  all  draft  laws,  regulations  and administrative  provisions  in the  field  of nuclear 
safety  are to be communicated  to the Commission  so 
that it may  arrange  the  necessary  consultations  at 
Community  level.  Furthermore,  Member  States  are 
to adopt  a common  position  in  the  relevant 
international  organizations  in  respect  of  the 
coordination  of nuclear  safety  provisions  and  safety 
research. 
1.3. Finally,  the Commission  is given  the task  of 
issuing  a yearly  progress  report,  and  it is noted  that 
appropriate  funds  are to be made  available  each  year 
to finance  back-up  studies  in connection  with  the 
proposed  measures. 
1.4. The  Committee  regards  the  measures 
proposed  by the Commission  as urgently  necessary. 
The Committee  is becoming  increasingly  concerned 
over the  fact  that  expansion  of nuclear  energy 
production  within  the  Community  is encountering 
growing  public  resistance.  The  frequently  indecisive 
attitude  of the  competent  authorities  and  also  of 
experts  has on occasion  given  members  of the public 
the impression  that  insufficient  consideration  is given 
to their  interests  and  protection  when  nuclear  plants 
are being  planned.  It is now  being  argued  in the 
public  debate  on the  expansion  of nuclear  energy 
that rapid  enlargement  of nuclear  capacity  is not 
necessary  in view  of the  stagnation  of electricity 
consumption.  If the misgivings  about  nuclear  energy 
and the  regional  opposition  to the  construction  of 
local  nuclear  power  stations  were  to intensify,  then, 
in the Committee's  view,  there  would  be real  danger 
that further  expansion  of nuclear  energy  production 
within  the  Community  would  be  slowed  down 
markedly.  The  Committee  believes  that  even  at the 
present  time  it is very  doubtful  whether  the 
Community's  "target  figures  of 160  GWe  or, at the 
maximum,  200  GWe  of installed  nuclear  capacity  can 
be attained.  The  absence  of  common  laws, 
regulations  and  administrative  provisions  and 
common  nuclear-technology  rules  and  directives 
governing  the  grant  of nuclear-plant  licences  has 
undoubtedly  had  an  adverse  effect  here.  The 
Committee  recognizes  that  differences  in the way  in 
which  the nuclear  energy  industry  has  developed  in 
the various  Member  States,  and  particularly  the use 
of different  types  of reactors,  have  hindered  the 
timely  establishment  of common  regulations  and 
provisions. 
1.5. The  Euratom  basic  standards  for  the 
protection  of the  public  against  ionizing  radiations 
produced  in the  peaceful  use  of nuclear  energy 
demonstrate  that  from  the  very  beginning  the 
Community  has  endeavoured  to introduce  common 
arrangements  in the field  of nuclear  energy  and  has, 
in part,  been  successful  in this  endeavour.  As all of 
No C 263/54 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 17. 11. 75 
the Member  States,  with  one  exception,  are 
concentrating  on the  industrial  application  of the 
same  type  of reactor,  namely  the light  water  reactor, 
conditions  are now  right  for the phased  introduction 
of common  nuclear-technology  rules  and  directives 
and the  approximation  of  the  relevant  laws, 
regulations  and  administrative  provisions. 
1.6. Common  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions  are necessary  for a variety  of reasons.  The 
effects  of an incident  in a nuclear  plant,  for example, 
may extend  beyond  the  frontiers  of the  Member 
States.  Furthermore,  a large  proportion  of nuclear 
installations  — including  those  still  on the  drawing 
board,  or under  construction  —  are  located  in 
frontier  regions.  This  is particularly  so for  nuclear 
power  stations.  The  early  introduction  of common 
rules  and  criteria  governing  the design  and  licensing 
of nuclear  plants  is particularly  necessary  in order  to 
obviate  disputes'  between  Member  States  from  the 
outset.  The  Committee  is fully  aware  of  the 
problems  in the  way  of an early  harmonization  of 
existing  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions.  The  various  Member  States  have  set 
different  objectives  for  their  research  and 
development  work  and  there  are  also  differences  in 
the system  of administration  and  in the  views  on 
hypothetical  accident  risks  and  their  consequences, 
not to mention  certain  other  factors.  This  has 
brought  about  considerable  variations  in 
requirements  as regards  the  safety  engineering  of 
nuclear  plants,  and  in the  provisions  governing  the 
Siting  of such  plants  in the  Community.  This 
tendency  has  been  reflected  in the  national  research 
and development  programmes  on reactor  safety,  a 
point  that  will  be taken  up again  later. 
1.7. The  Committee  regrets  that  the  measures 
proposed  in the  Commission  document  were  not 
taken  much  earlier.  National  regulations  have  become 
ever more  firmly  entrenched  as nuclear  energy  has 
been  developed  in the  various  Member  States.  This 
makes  the  present  attempts  at harmonization  that 
much  more  difficult.  Earlier  contacts  at Community 
level  between  authorities,  industry  and  energy  supply 
undertakings,  particularly  those  contacts  which  were 
initiated  and  promoted  by the  Commission,  were 
undoubtedly  very  useful.  In most  cases,  however, 
these  contacts  did  not  imply  anything  more  than  the 
passing  on  and  noting  of  information.  The 
unchanged  markedly  national  character  of safety  and 
licensing  practices  further  demonstrates  the fact  that 
the nuclear  industry  is still  geared  to national 
markets.  Whilst  it is true  that  the Member  States  are, 
to an increasing  extent,  ordering  many  nuclear  plant 
components  from  other  Member  States,  orders  for 
complete  plants  have  so  far  almost  without 
exception  been  confined  to the national  market. 1.8. The  Committee  therefore  wonders  whether 
the proposed  measures  will  be sufficient  to enable 
the early  introduction  of common  laws,  regulations 
and administrative  provisions  and  common  nuclear-
technology  rules  and  directives,  bearing  in mind  that 
the Community  is responsible  not  only  for  safety 
and protection  of public  health,  but  also  for  the 
operation  of the common  market.  It is certainly  right 
that the  Commission  should  first  of all  form  a 
comprehensive  picture  of the  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative  provisions  currently  in force  in the 
Member  States,  and  that  furthermore,  all new  draft 
laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
governing  nuclear  safety  should  be communicated  to 
the Commission.  But  the  Commission  should  also 
make  a positive  endeavour  not  merely  to formulate 
recommendations  of a general  nature  under  Article 
124 of the  EAEC  Treaty,  but  also  to create  the 
conditions  necessary  for the issuing  of directives  and 
regulations  in this  field,  in order  that  it may  thereby 
lay down  minimum  standards  for  all nuclear  plants 
in the Community. 
1.9. The  Committee  believes  that  this  development 
could  be speeded  up if the  Commission  for  its part 
were  to support  the  endeavours  in the  Member 
States  to arrive  at an early  standardization  of nuclear 
power  stations.  To  an  increasing  extent  Member 
States  are  ordering  and  building  nuclear  power 
stations  of the order  of 900  and  1 300 MWe.  One  of 
the important  pre-conditions  for  standardization  at 
Community  level  is thus  fulfilled.  Standardizing 
nuclear  power  stations  at Community  level  would 
not only  offer  advantages  in respect  of costs;  it 
would  also  help  to rationalize  licensing  procedures 
and remove  technical  barriers  to trade;  above  all, 
however,  it  could  lead  to  uniform  safety 
requirements  being  applied  throughout  the 
Community.  In this  context  the  Committee  would 
also refer  to its Opinion  (1) on a Communication 
from  the  Commission  to the  Council  on  initial 
implementation  of the  guidelines  and  priorities  for a 
Community  Energy  Policy  — Promotion  of the  use 
of nuclear  energy  —  in which  the  Committee 
pointed  to the  need  to harmonize  safety  regulations 
and called  for  simplification  of  the  licensing 
procedures  by  means  of  rationalization  and 
standardization  of requirements  at Community  level. 
1.10.  The  Committee  would  also  like  to take  the 
opportunity,  in the  present  Opinion,  of drawing 
attention  once  again  to the  need  for  a research  and 
development  programme  coordinated  at Community 
level  for  the  optimization  of  existing  safety 
arrangements.  The  Committee  is fully  aware  that 
considerable  and  successful  efforts  have  been  made 
(!) OJ No C 116,  30. 9. 1974,  p. 26. 
17.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 263/55 
in the  Community  in the  past  years  with  a view  to 
further  improving  the  safety  of nuclear  plants.  The 
fact that  there  is no known  case  of serious  danger  to 
the public  arising  from  the  various  incidents  which 
occurred  at nuclear  power  stations  proves  that  up till 
now safety  arrangements  have  been  satisfactory.  This 
record  for nuclear  power  stations  in the Community 
— which  has  also  been  emulated  by other  countries 
with  nuclear  programmes  — is, in the  Committee's 
view,  due  to the  fact  that  from  the  very  beginning 
strict  safety  requirements  have  always  been  set and 
observed  in the  construction  and  operation  of 
nuclear  power  stations. 
1.11.  The  Committee  recognizes  that  the Member 
States  and  also  the Commission  itself  have  not  been 
satisfied  with  what  has  so far been  achieved  but  are 
endeavouring  to take  into  consideration  a still 
broader  range  of hypothetical  accident  risks  and,  by 
supplementing  the  safety  measures  accordingly,  to 
bring  even  very  improbable  accident  risks  within  the 
scope  of the  safety  precautions.  In the  Committee's 
view  this  calls  for  the  continuation  of appropriate 
R&D  work. 
1.12.  The  Committee  considers  that  further 
research  and  development  work  in the  field  of 
nuclear  safety  is necessary  also  because  the  rapid 
development  of ever-larger  nuclear  power  stations  is 
constantly  leading  to new  and  different  ideas  on 
safety.  Standardization  of nuclear  power  stations 
could,  in the  Committee's  view,  go hand  in hand 
with  standardization  of  well  tried  and  fully-
developed  safety  concepts,  thus  making  it possible 
for these  to be further  optimized. 1.13.  In  this  context  the Committee  would  refer  to 
its Opinion  of 28 November  1974  on the  Proposal 
for a Revision  of  the  Multiannual  Research 
Programme  (x), in which  it unreservedly  welcomed 
the increased  Community  resources  which  were  to be 
made  available  for  further  theoretical  work  on 
reactor  safety.  The  Committee  called  for  the 
considerable  expenditure  in the  field  of nuclear 
safety  to be transferred  to an increasing  extent  from 
the national  to the  Community  level,  in order  to 
achieve  a highly  integrated  Community  programme. 
1.14.  As  the Committee  observed,  this  requires  not 
only  coordination  of safety  research  by the Advisory 
Committee  on  Programme  Management,  but  also 
meetings  between  qualified  experts  who  are 
responsible  for  questions  of nuclear  safety  in the 
individual  Member  States  and  who  are representative 
of all  categories  affected  by  nuclear  energy 
(employers,  employees,  consumers),  in order,  as far 
as possible,  to define  a common  standpoint  on 
important  and  fundamental  aspects  of safety  and 
safety  requirements. 
Done  at Brussels,  29 May  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
(!) OJ No C 16, 23. 1. 1975,  p. 1. 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Point  1.4. 
In the second  sentence  delete  'The  Section  is becoming  increasingly  concerned  over  the  fact 
that..also  delete  the fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  sentences  of this  item  (from  'It is now  being 
argued  ...' to '...  of installed  nuclear  capacity  can  be attained'). 
Reason 
The deletions  should  be made  to avoid  the  present  Opinion  anticipating  the  forthcoming 
Opinion  on general  energy  policy. 
Result  of the vote 
For: 5; against:  37; abstentions:  2.