if^if 
if if 
ix if 
if i: 
if^ix COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 25.09.1997 
COM(97) 401 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
on the nuclear industries in the European Union 
(an illustrative nuclear programme according to Article 40 
of the Euratom Treaty) 

— 1 — 
TABLE QF CONTENTS 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community (PINC) 2 
2. The White Paper : An energy policy for the European Union 4 
3. The role of nuclear energy in the Community and Worldwide 5 
II. THE NUCLEAR OPTION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF 
AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE COMMUNITY 5 
1. Global Competitiveness 6 
a. Production costs for nuclear-generated electricity 6 
b. Competitiveness of nuclear energy as compared 
to other energy source 8 
C; Exports 9 
d. Long term lasting investments 10 
e. Qualified indigenous employment 10 
f. Innovation and technological development 10 
2. Security of supply 11 
a. Emerging energy trends in the European Community 11 
b. Growing world energy demand 11 
c. Peculiarities of nuclear fuels 12 
d. Non proliferation and nuclear safeguards 13 
3. Protection of the population and the environment 15 
a. Basic safety standards for radiation protection 
and human health protection 15 
b. Reduction of C02 and other harmful emissions 15 
c. Environmental impact assessment and 
emergency preparedness 16 
d. Radioactive waste management 17 
e. Technological issues of nuclear safety 18 
III SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRIES OF 
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE AND IN THE CIS 18 
IV THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO 
ARTICLE 40 OF THE EURATOM TREATY 20 
1. Actions to facilitate nuclear investments 20 
2. Review of developments in the nuclear field 20 
V THE EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY : 
MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES 21 
1. Nuclear industry activities and business opportunities 22 
2. Nuclear fuel supply conditions 23 
3. Technological challenges of nuclear safety 23 
4. Spent fuel, nuclear waste and decommissioning 24 
5. Transport of radioactive materials 25 
6. Use of plutonium 26 
7. Future nuclear technology, research and development 26 
VI CONCLUSION 29 
ANNEX 31 
INTRODUCTION 
The Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community (PINC) 
Title Two of the Euratom Treaty is entitled "Provisions for the encouragement of 
progress in the field of nuclear energy". Chapter IV of this Title concerns 
"Investment", and Article 40 of this Chapter reads as follows : 
"In order to stimulate action by persons and undertakings and to 
facilitate coordinated development of their investment in the nuclear 
field, the Commission shall periodically publish illustrative programmes 
indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the 
types of investment required for their attainment 
The Commission shall obtain the opinion of the Economic and Social 
Committee on such programmes before their publication. " 
Since the Treaty was adopted, three illustrative programmes and one update 
have been published by the Commission respectively in 1966, 1972, 1984 and 
19901. 
In 1990 the Commission considered that the guidelines presented in the 1984 
PINC2 were mostly still valid, both as regards the nuclear-power production 
objectives for the Community, and the implications for all parties concerned : 
public authorities, electricity producers and nuclear industries. 
The Commission also considered that all the interrelated aspects of nuclear 
power were covered by the overall energy policy. The 1984 PINC was one of 
the elements taken into account by the Council, when in 1986 it established the 
energy objectives for 19953. 
"The nuclear power station design and construction industry and completion of the 
European single market. Update of the Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the 
Community adopted by the Commission in 1984", COM(89) 347 final of 
7 February 1990 
"Illustrative Nuclear Programme under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty 1984" 
COM(85) 401 final of 23 July 1985, together with the opinion of the Economic and 
Social Committee of 30 May 1985, ESC 472/85 
Council Resolution of 16 September 1986 concerning new Community energy policy 
objectives for 1995 and the convergence of Member States policies (ref. OJ 86/C 
241/01 of 25.09.1986) 
3 — 
It is the view of the Commission that it is now again appropriate to consider the 
main issues concerning nuclear energy, as foreseen by Article 40 of the 
Euratom Treaty, while keeping clearly in mind the constraints placed by that 
Article and by the Euratom Treaty as a whole. 
Since the last PINC was adopted in 1984, the energy situation in the 
Community has changed and the energy market organisation is moving 
steadily towards liberalisation. Our knowledge of the environmental issues 
linked to energy use has advanced and we are now much more aware of the 
seriouness of climate change and the need for a global reduction in 
greenhouse gases emissions. The growing awareness of the crucial nuclear 
safety issues related to nuclear power plants in the Central and Eastern 
European Countries and the CIS, as well as the significant political changes in 
these countries which lead to a reinforced policy of disarmament, are also 
relevant factors. All these developments are affecting the future development of 
nuclear energy. 
The Commission's intention with the 1997 PINC is to provide an overview of the 
situation in the European Union as regards nuclear energy and to indicate the 
importance it attaches to the nuclear issue. The 1997 PINC was announced in 
the Commission White Paper "An Energy policy for the European Union"4 
published in December 1995, and its content is placed within the framework of 
a common energy strategy, as presented in the White Paper. 
As was clearly underlined in the White Paper, the Community is moving 
towards an integrated, liberalised, and more competitive energy market. The 
present Nuclear Illustrative Programme therefore takes a more market oriented 
approach than the previous ones. It also underlines the major challenges faced 
by the industry and addresses the main concerns voiced by public opinion. 
Clearly, the nuclear issue is a highly controversial one in the Union, with many 
different views being expressed, in a context where Member States have 
different energy structures and different approaches to nuclear energy. The 
Commission believes that it is, nonetheless, important to update its views and 
promote the greatest degree of transparency possible on this issue5. 
COM(95) 682 of 13.12.1995 
The draft PINC, adopted by the Commission on 25 September 1996, was submitted 
for opinion to the Economic and Social Committee, according to Article 40 of the 
Euratom Treaty. This opinion was adopted on 24 April 1997 (document ECOSOC 
ENERG/238) 
It was transmitted for information to the Council and the European Parliament. 
The Commission organised also a broader information campain, seeking the 
opinion of several european associations concerned by nuclear energy. These 
— 4 — 
2. The White Paper : An energy policy for the European Union 
In its White Paper "An energy policy for the European Union", the Commission 
identifies three relevant objectives for the field of energy : overall 
competitiveness; security of supply; environmental protection. 
As the Commission notes : 
"In pursuing these aims the Community cannot be unaware that its 
forecast energy dependence will increase and that the choices to be 
made as regards protection of the environment in particular may 
heighten that dependence. Nor may it disregard the fact that the 
integration of the Community involves greater solidarity in the energy 
choices made by each of the Member States. " 
It is within this broader framework addressing global energy policy issues that 
future nuclear energy developments in the Community have to be addressed, 
while preserving the spirit of the relevant provisions of the Euratom Treaty. The 
aim of a policy providing a framework for the development of nuclear energy is 
to contribute to the achievement of the three energy policy objectives 
mentioned in the White Paper. The future of nuclear energy in the Community 
will depend to a large extent on its acceptability by society and by political 
leaders. The White Paper analyses the situation as follows : 
"This acceptability problem derives particularly from concerns on nuclear 
safety, on transport and disposal of nuclear waste and on nuclear non-
proliferation. The imperative of diversification, the external 
competitiveness of the nuclear industry and the integration of the 
electricity market in several Member States underline the role nuclear 
energy plays in electricity generation. 
However, the reality is that a number of Member States depend to a 
large extent on nuclear energy, whilst others prefer to pursue a non-
nuclear energy policy, and a third group have decided to reduce 
dependency on nuclear-based sources of energy or to terminate the 
existing nuclear-plants altogether. 
The European institutions have responsibilities under the Euratom 
Treaty which permit the development of nuclear energy in conformity 
with the rules and policies at national level. The choice between energy 
opinions were gathered in a compendium, available upon request, to the Directorate 
General for Energy of the Commission. 
— 5 
technologies or fuels is always a matter where policy appreciation 
intervenes but nuclear should remain part of this choice. " 
The arguments developed in the White Paper are setting the scene for this new 
Nuclear Illustrative Programme. Its aim is to contribute to a reassessment of the 
various features of nuclear energy, in the European Union, as they are today 
and as they may develop in the future. Certain basic principles at Community 
level will be suggested as a conclusion to this paper. 
Given that the development of nuclear energy has an important industrial 
dimension, at the level of electricity generation as well as the entire fuel cycle, 
the nuclear industry has an important responsibility to meet the challenges it will 
be faced with in the coming years. These challenges are described in this 
paper. 
The role of nuclear energy in the Community and Worldwide 
Today, the European Union has a mature nuclear industry covering the entirety 
of the fuel cycle, with its own technological base. 
More than 140 nuclear reactors are operating in Belgium, Germany, Spain, 
France, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, making the 
Union the world's leading producer of nuclear generated electricity. 
Nuclear power plants provide for approximately one third of the electricity 
generated in the European Community. The operational experience built up by 
the nuclear industry in Western Europe is at least equivalent, if not greater than 
that of the United States, Japan and other major industrial countries. 
Large countries in Asia (Japan, China, India, South Korea) and in Central and 
Eastern Europe as well as in the CIS have chosen to include nuclear power 
amongst the means to meet their energy needs. Other Asian countries such as 
Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan and Turkey have signalled their intention to also 
include nuclear power in their energy plans. 
However, the USA has not granted a licence for building new nuclear power 
plants since 1974, although a significant number of plants are in operation and 
research activity is continuing. In Latin America, while countries such as 
Argentina and Brazil are encouraging the development of nuclear power 
generation, others have chosen not to follow a nuclear energy option. 
II. THE NUCLEAR OPTION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN ENERGY POLICY 
FOR THE COMMUNITY 
— 6 -
Any decisions made on nuclear energy at Community level need to be placed in the 
context of the overall energy policy decisions. The Community's responsibilities under 
the Euratom Treaty include the definition of common energy policy guidelines. Energy 
policy objectives in the context of the Union Treaty, have been discussed in the 
Commission's White Paper on energy policy. Policy decisions with regard to nuclear 
energy will need to be taken within the frameworks outlined in both the PINC and the 
White Paper.taking into account the industrial challenges identified. The fact that the 
acceptance of nuclear energy by public opinion differs from one country to another 
needs to be kept clearly in mind. It is also clear that absolute priority must be given to 
the safety of nuclear power. 
As indicated in the White Paper, any Community energy policy should, at least, 
contribute to the achievement of the three fundamental objectives of : 
overall economic competitiveness; 
security of supply; 
environmental protection. 
Nuclear energy will have to be judged according to these aims and the contribution it 
can make to the achievement of these energy policy objectives. 
1- Global Competitiveness 
a. Production costs for nuclear-generated electricity 
According to a joint OECD / IEA study published in 19936, the 
breakdown in the total cost of nuclear-generated electricity production is 
as follows, assuming a 5 % average discount rate : initial investment 45 
- 55 %, operation and maintenance 20 - 25 %, fuel 20 - 25 %. If an 
average discount rate of 10 % is taken, then the initial investment cost is 
58 - 70 %, operation and maintenance 15-20 % and fuel 12-20 %. 
For recently designed water-cooled reactors (the most widely used type 
in the Western world), the total cost of electricity production is estimated 
Entitled : "Projected costs of generating electricity-update 1992" 
Results of this type of OECD study are based on replies to questionnaires given by 
Member States who have nuclear power stations. 
to be (at 1991 prices) 22 - 30 Ecus/1000 kWh assuming a 5 % discount 
rate, and 33 - 41 Ecus/1000 kWh assuming a 10 % discount rate7. 
Costs are higher for older water cooled reactors, for other types of 
reactors (for example gas-cooled reactors) or for Light Water Reactors 
which do not benefit from the lower costs of standardisation or of mass 
production. The investment cost for one such nuclear power station 
could be double the cost of a single nuclear power station which is part 
of a series. 
Investment costs cover the basic construction costs, engineering costs, 
contingencies and the long term costs of decommissioning and disposal 
of decommissioning wastes. 
Authorities in all the Member states using nuclear power oblige electricity 
generators to create a financial reserve fund for decomissioning and 
waste disposal, with the level of funds deemed appropriate by each 
Member State. 
Decommissioning costs 
Decomissioning costs vary according to the characteristics of the nuclear 
power station. Despite a certain degree of uncertainty involved in the 
estimates, current indications are that decomissioning represents a 
relatively low percentage of the total investment cost. It is currently 
estimated that the decomissioning cost for a 1000 MWe water cooled 
reactor represents 10 - 15 % of the total initial investment cost at 
constant prices, but it could be higher for other types of reactors. This 
percentage decreases after discounting (1.4 - 3.7 % for a 5 % discount 
rate, 0.2 - 2.1 % for a 10 % discount rate). 
Fuel costs 
Fuel costs vary depending on the type of reactor, and on the option 
chosen for the fuel cycle. For a cycle with reprocessing the total fuel 
costs (1991 prices) is estimated at 4,6 Ecus/1000 kWh; for a cycle with a 
single use of fuel, the total cost is estimated at 4,1 Ecus/1000 kWh. 
According to a more recent study conducted end of 1996, in the framework of 
UNIPEDE (and not yet published), total costs of nuclear electricity production in a 
Light Water Reactor to be commissioned in 2005, would be 30,6 and 44,9 Ecus/1000 
kWh (at 1995 prices) for discount rates of 5% and 10%, respectively. Such figures are 
located at the upper end of the range found in the 1992 study. 
Waste, Transport and Disposai 
According to a 1994 OECD report8 for a fuel cycle with reprocessing, the 
cost for reprocessing, vitrification and waste disposal corresponds to 27 
% of the fuel cost, while transport costs correspond to 1.5 - 2 %. For a 
single-use fuel cycle, transport and storage of irradiated fuel represents 
approximately 10 % of fuel cost, while coating and disposal of the 
irradiated fuel represents about 5 % of the cost. 
The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle NE A / OECD -1994 
— 9 — 
Storage costs 
A previous 1990 report9 noted costs varying between 400 and 1,300 
ECU / m3 for storage of low level irradiated waste, and approximate 
discounted investment costs of 100,000 ECU / m3 for high level 
irradiated waste storage. 
Clearly, cost estimates are affected by the assumptions on which they 
are based and carry a degree of uncertainty, in particular as concerns 
waste treatment and storage. However, as indicated by the cited OECD 
cost estimates, even a significant variation in the cost of waste transport 
or storage will only have a small effect on the total cost of nuclear-
generated electricity, since the nuclear fuel cost only represents 20 - 25 
% of the total cost. 
Competitiveness of nuclear energy as compared to other energy source 
Industrial competitiveness refers to the production cost of the electricity 
generated (in kWh). This cost is the main factor in determining the price 
at which nuclear electricity is supplied to consumers, including heavy 
industries which are its main individual consumers. 
The previously mentioned joint study of the OECD and of the IEA from 
1993 compares the projections of costs of the various sources of 
electricity production on the basis of data provided by the Member 
States, using the method of the levelized average cost. This study 
shows that, on the basis of an average discounted costs at the rate of 
5% a year, nuclear power appears to be the most economic option in 
thirteen of the fifteen countries examined (the exceptions being the UK 
and NL). For a rate of 10%, five countries keep a real economic 
advantage to use nuclear power; five others preserve the choice 
between nuclear power and natural gas. These conclusions rely on the 
implicit hypothesis of price stability for the fuels, by no means 
guaranteed owing to the increasing demand for natural gas. They also 
include costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. It is envisaged 
that this study will be updated in 1997. 
Another study of the OECD published in 1992 examines the overall 
economic impact of the use of nuclear energy. The economic analysis 
conducted for the countries having opted for nuclear energy shows 
clearly beneficial effects on the balance of payments due to the savings 
Report EUR 12871 "Evaluation of Storage and disposal costs for conditioned 
radioactive waste in several European countries" 
— 10 — 
made on energy imports. Of course, the economic attractiveness of 
nuclear generated electricity depends on a wide range of factors and it is 
therefore not surprising that different studies give rise to divergent 
results. 
Developments towards the liberalisation of the Community internal 
electricity market will mean that nuclear energy will have to compete in 
the same framework and under the same conditions as all other energy 
sources. A full implementation of the internal market and a rigorous 
application of the relevant state aid and competition rules implies a level 
playing field for all energy sources, with emphasis on cost transparency. 
In terms of raw material costs, whatever the future trends in the price of 
uranium or exchange rates, they are likely to have a rather low impact 
on the competitiveness of the nuclear industry since the purchase cost 
of the source material currently accounts for considerably less than 10 % 
of the electricity production costs. The remainder of the production cost 
is mainly accounted for by technological and industrial input from within 
the European Union. The Union has the necessary expertise in nuclear 
technology, and the capability to improve this technology even further. 
It should be noted that, due to the capital intensity of the nuclear 
industry, its economic attractiveness depends critically -inter alia- on the 
level of interest rates. It should also be noted that costs and pricing of 
nuclear generated electricity are likely to be re-evaluated in the light of 
moves towards the liberalization of electricity markets and in certain 
cases privatisation (for example in the UK). 
Exports 
Industrialists and manufacturers involved in the nuclear fuel cycle or in 
the construction of nuclear power stations make a considerable 
contribution to the European Union's export earnings. There are also 
growing export opportunities for European business in the large, global 
nuclear waste-treatment and decommissioning markets. 
Export markets are essential for maintaining the technological level and 
know-how acquired by European industrialists, in particular those 
operating in fuel cycle activities or in equipment manufacturing. The 
Commission has negotiated and is negotiating, nuclear agreements with 
third countries, in order to facilitate business and trade in nuclear goods 
and services. 
— li­
lt should be noted that all nuclear exports from the Union are subject to 
the IAEA rules, as well as the Euratom safeguards regime. 
d. Long term lasting investments 
The nuclear industry investments are made for the long term. To be 
realised they need a long lead time and a stable and favourable 
regulatory and economic environment. It takes 5 to 10 years to design 
and construct a nuclear power station, which is then operated and 
maintained over, a period of 40 years or more. The operator needs the 
assurance that fuel and fuel services will be available throughout this 
period and that it will be possible to process the spent fuel and nuclear 
waste in a satisfactory manner. 
In implementing the internal electricity market, Member States may take 
due consideration of the long term planning needs of the nuclear 
industry and create, accordingly, the conditions for such heavy long term 
investments. 
e. Qualified indigenous employment 
More than 90 % of the cost of nuclear energy arises from services 
provided by economic operators within the European Union. It follows 
that considerable use is made of indigenous labour, whether directly or 
indirectly. This level of employment is generated or maintained by 
investment in the various branches of the industry which contribute to 
nuclear energy production, and by the operation of the plants when built. 
The nuclear industry estimates that it employs more than 400 000 staff 
in Europe in tasks directly linked to electricity generation and fuel cycle 
activities, mostly highly-qualified, making an important contribution to the 
economic, social, industrial, and scientific development of the European 
Union. 
f. Innovation and technological development 
It has been recognized from the beginning in the Euratom Treaty that 
the development of nuclear energy would not have been possible 
without major breakthroughs in research and development. The nuclear 
industry has been consistently successful in terms of innovation and 
implementation of new technologies. The nuclear research effort needs 
to be continued, in parallel with research in renewable energy sources 
and efforts to increase energy efficiency. Support of the Research and 
Development Community Framework Programmes, together with 
— 12 — 
national programmes, will contribute to the further improvement of 
safety, to the effectiveness of the industry and to the creation of new 
export markets. 
2. Security of supply 
a. Emerging energy trends in the European Community 
As indicated in White Paper, future energy supply and demand trends 
are difficult to predict. Different scenarios have been studied, examining 
a.range of different possible socio-economic futures at the horizon of 
20201° In this study, 
"Some of the key messages emerging which may have policy 
implications are as follows : 
Europe will significantly increase its dependence on 
imported energy-
gas will compete with oil as a leading component of the 
fuel mix; 
European consumers will become increasingly dependent 
on "grid" supplied energy; 
there is considerable flexibility as to the final shape of the 
future fuel-mix. The weight given to climate change 
concerns, the effect of technology and the liberalisation of 
martlets and the fact that some renewables are on the 
threshold of economic viability will be the major 
determining factors. " 
Based on these key messages, nuclear energy can continue to play a 
role in the future supply of energy to the European Community. This 
would be particularly useful if the present satisfactory degree of supply 
diversification deteriorates in the coming years, as some experts expect. 
We must therefore keep trying to save energy, to diversify our resources 
and to maintain a high degree of self-sufficiency. In spite of their widely 
differing national policies, the Member States of the Community must act 
together to alleviate energy supply constraints. Nuclear energy can be a 
way to contribute to that aim. 
10 European Energy to 2020 : A scenario approach. Ref. : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 
- 13 — 
Growing world energy demand 
Since the energy markets are international, there is also a need to look 
at the energy situation world-wide. 
With a near stagnation of energy demand in Europe and a decline in the 
former Soviet Union, it is easy to overlook that energy demand is rising 
very quickly in Asia. Future population growth and development in Third 
World countries will also generate an increase in their consumption of 
fossil fuels. According to the Commission's scenarios studies mentioned 
above, total world energy demand could grow by around 50 % between 
now and the year 2020. Coordinated efforts to improve energy 
efficiency, promote savings and develop renewable sources of energy 
would lead to a smaller increase in world fossil fuel demand for the 
future. 
When it comes to meeting that demand, world fossil fuel reserves are far 
from being inexhaustible. According to the latest estimates from the 
World Energy Council, on the basis of current consumption, oil reserves 
(75 % of which are controlled by OPEC) may last for just over 40 years, 
natural gas for the about 65 years, coal for over 200 years and uranium 
for about 50 years if no fuel reprocessing is carried out (with fuel 
reprocessing the life time of uranium reserves is extended manifold). 
However, fossil fuel reserves have frequently been underestimated in 
the past because little account was taken of improvements in yield 
recovery techniques. Over the past twenty years, proven fossil fuel 
reserves have been fairly stable and in certain cases even increased, 
despite high and growing consumption volumes, and there has been no 
reason in recent years to look for major new uranium reserves. It should 
also be noted that uranium reserves are widely dispersed in a number of 
countries. Oil prices, at their lowest level since 1973, may well rise in the 
medium term. The prices of uranium available on the international 
market have been going down due to supplies from the CIS countries, 
but the trend is reversing. However, if a recycling option for nuclear fuels 
(plutonium) is followed, there will be less need for uranium. 
Having taken all the factors into account, use of nuclear energy is 
considered by some of the potentially highest energy consuming 
countries in the world as a way of facing their energy supply problems. 
On the other hand, because of the uncertainties involved, a number of 
countries have chosen not to build nuclear plants and to pursue other 
forms of supply diversification. 
— 14 — 
Peculiarities of nuclear fuels 
The way in which nuclear fuels are used differs from other fuels. 
Uranium is mined virtually only for the purpose of energy production. 
More importantly, once the waste products of its initial use have been 
removed, uranium and its by-product plutonium can be recycled and 
used for further energy production. 
Since only a small fraction of the potential energy in uranium is 
consumed during its first use, it makes sense in the long term to recycle 
it, and even to do so repeatedly, provided technological solutions are 
found to make recycling safe and economically viable. 
Nuclear material obtained from the dismantling of weapons may also be 
recycled as nuclear fuel for power generation. Plutonium in all its forms 
raises issues in the areas of environmental safety and non-proliferation. 
For recycling, there are still questions concerning its economic viability11. 
Non proliferation and nuclear safeguards 
There is an evident link between nuclear trade and enhanced security of 
energy supply, and the non proliferation credentials of a country or a 
group of countries. Non proliferation is of prime importance, given the 
possibility of using highly enriched uranium or plutonium of any grade as 
fissile materials for nuclear weapons12. The European Union has 
contributed significantly to the development of non-proliferation 
mechanisms. 
Euratom is the regional organization with the longest experience in 
safeguards and non-proliferation. Its activities are closely connected with 
the letter and the spirit of the NPT, in particular as regards the 
interrelation between a regional and a global safeguards system, and 
the link between regional and global cooperation for the peaceful use of 
nuclear energy. 
At the last G7/P8 Summit in Denver, Foreign Affairs Ministers noted that P8 
experts concluded that the most timely and technically viable option is the 
consumption of plutonium as mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in nuclear reactors, and as a 
complementary option, the immobilisation of plutonium in glass or ceramic form 
mixed with high-level radioactive waste. Experts also concluded that interim 
storage will be required, whatever longer-term management options are selected. i J 
Isotopic separation is needed to enrich uranium to the level needed for weapons, while 
the chemical separation needed to obtain plutonium represents a lower barrier to 
diversion for military purposes. 
- 15 — 
Euratom is a prominent example of a regional integrated safeguards 
system : it is based on European Community law and is operating 
efficiently and effectively. A new partnership arrangement has been 
agreed in 1992 between the Commission and the IAEA (International 
Atomic Energy Agency) known as the "New Partnership Approach", in 
order to optimise resources and to strengthen safeguards. 
The objective was to strengthen cooperation between the two 
organizations, based on the following understanding : 
Euratom is confirmed in its role as a regional system sui generis; 
mutual support in Research and Technological Development is 
regarded as essential; 
support in logistics will be enhanced; 
common training and equipment procurement will be developed; 
inspection arrangements will be optimized in order to enable the 
IAEA to save inspection resources; 
each organization will maintain its rights to draw independent 
conclusions. 
The experience gained so far with the implementation of this new 
approach is judged as being positive. 
The European Union supported fully the indefinite and unconditional 
extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the results of the 
NPT Review and Extension Conference held in 1995 are therefore 
considered to have been a success. 
It should be noted in this context that the Nuclear Summit of Moscow on 
19-20 April 1996 confirmed the commitment of the G7 and Russia to 
conclude a treaty on the total ban of nuclear tests (CTBT) which was 
signed in September 1996. 
It should also be noted that, since 1992, all exports of nuclear material 
from the European Union to third countries which do not possess 
nuclear weapons, are subject to the IAEA's full scope safeguards. 
— 16 
The European Union is thus a major player not only in trade in nuclear 
materials and equipment, but also in the important areas of non-
proliferation and nuclear safeguards. 
— 17 — 
Protection of the population and the environment 
Broadly speaking, for the first 20 years of the existence of Euratom there has 
been a consensus on the usefulness of nuclear energy. This consensus, 
weakened after the accident at Three Mile Island and partly broke down 
following the Chernobyl accident, though the design and safety features of this 
plant cannot be compared with those of nuclear power stations operating in the 
European Union. It is now internationally accepted that use of nuclear energy 
and ensuring its safety are two sides of the same coin. Countries using nuclear 
energy must put "safety first". 
a. Basic safety standards for radiation protection and human health 
protection 
Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty requires the Community to "establish 
uniform standards to protect the health of workers and of the general 
public and ensure that they are applied" as provided in the Treaty. 
Under article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, basic standards have been laid 
down establishing the fundamental principle of radiation protection and 
the maximum permissible radiation doses for workers and the general 
public. These standards, updated in 1996, form the basic framework for 
radiation protection throughout the European Union13. 
In addition, the provisions of article 129 of the Treaty on the European 
Union state that the Community shall contribute towards ensuring a high 
level of human health protection, and that health protection shall be a 
constituent part of other Community policies. 
b. Reduction of C02 and other harmful emissions 
The build-up of C02 in the atmosphere poses a serious threat, and less 
use will have to be made of coal and other fossil fuels. Although Europe 
uses energy more efficiently than the USA, China or Russia, it can still 
reduce C02 and other emissions, by promoting, for example, energy 
savings and the use of renewable sources of energy. The use of nuclear 
energy has the advantage of reducing C02 and other greenhouse gas 
emissions. It should be noted that, for Europe as a whole, use of nuclear 
energy is already avoiding the emission of some 700 million tonnes of 
13 Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996 laying down the basic safety 
standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against 
the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (OJ LI59 of 29.06.1996) 
18 — 
C02 annually, compared to a situation where the same electricity would 
have been produced using a mix of fossil fuels14. 
In addition, nuclear power generation contributes to the avoidance of 
other harmful atmospheric emissions such as particulates, sulphur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and methane. 
Environmental impact assessment and emergency preparedness 
Specific provisions in the Euratom Treaty also exist (art. 35-37) in order 
to assess the radiological impact of the release of radioactive materials 
into the biosphere. Nuclear installations are designed and built to contain 
virtually all the harmful by-products of their operation, even under 
accidental conditions. However, this is not the way in which the general 
public perceives the inherent risk of radioactivity being released as the 
result of the use of nuclear energy -either under normal operating 
conditions or in the event of an accident. 
Industrial nuclear installations in the European Union are well assessed 
for their impact on the environment. They must meet the specific 
provisions of the Euratom Treaty and its secondary legislation, and are 
also covered by the Council Directive on environmental impact 
assessment15 and the Espoo Convention (Convention on Environmental 
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context). 
14 
15 European Energy to 2020 : A scenario approach. Ref. : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995. 
According to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee "the loss of most of its 
nuclear generation would (...) conteract the EU's efforts to reduce its C02 emissions". 
Council Directive (85/337/EEC) of 27 June 1985 concerning the evaluation of the impact of 
private and public projects on the environment (OJ LI75 of 05.07.1985) as amended by 
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ L73 of 14.03.1997). 
— 19 — 
As required by the Community basic standards, emergency programmes 
have been developed in all Member States in order to ensure that public 
authorities will be able to cope in an appropriate way with the possible 
radiological consequences, in case of a nuclear accident. These 
programmes are co-implemented by a Community system for the rapid 
exchange of information established on the basis of a 1987 Council 
Directive16. These programmes provisions will benefit from the common 
approach of the RODOS system, which is being developed as a 
decision-aiding system for offsite response to nuclear emergencies and 
is being implemented in certain Member States and elsewhere mainly 
through the Radiation Protection Research Programme. 
In the event of a nuclear accident having off-site consequences, it is 
important that the public affected is sufficiently informed about the 
appropriate behaviour to adopt. A 1989 Council Directive deals with the 
information of the general public concerning the health protection 
measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency17. 
Radioactive waste management 
Radioactive waste management is an important factor in safety and 
environmental protection. Industrial techniques for the management and 
disposal of nuclear wastes are being implemented and constantly 
improved. Nevertheless, research needs to be continued in a systematic 
way, in order to further reduce the volume of waste to be managed and 
to optimise the technologies used in waste management. 
In 1994 the Commission adopted a Communication proposing a 
"Community strategy for the management of radioactive wastes"18. This 
strategy, which is basically focussed on safety and environmental 
protection concerns, envisages a harmonised approach concerning 
radioactive waste management principles at Community level, where 
practicable, in order to ensure an equivalent level of safety throughout 
the Community. It represents a comprehensive medium and long-term 
programme, but concentrates only on those elements which could 
benefit from a common approach to radioactive waste at Community 
level. These elements include the definition and classification of 
16 Council Directive 87/600/EURATOM of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements 
for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency (OJ L371 of 
30/12/87) 
17 Council Directive (89/618/EURATOM) of 27 November 1989 
18 COM(94) 66 final of 02.03.1994. 
— 20 — 
radioactive waste; waste minimization, transport, treatment and disposal; 
public information; and financing of radioactive waste management. In a 
Resolution of December 1994 , the Council gave its support to the 
strategy proposed by the Commission. 
There is a consensus on the approach adopted in this field between the 
Community and the specialised international agencies involved, namely 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy 
Agency (NEA) of the OECD. This consensus would be strengthened by 
the adoption of an international convention on the management of 
radioactive waste. Preparation of a draft text has already started within 
the framework of the IAEA. The Commission fully supports this ongoing 
process. 
Technological issues of nuclear safety 
In 1975, the Council of Ministers adopted its first Resolution on "The 
technological problems of nuclear safety"20. That Resolution remains 
important for the promotion of cooperation in the field of nuclear safety. 
Nuclear technology issues which are directly related to nuclear safety 
are not subject to prescriptive provisions in the Euratom Treaty. The 
Resolution set the basis for a freely agreed cooperation between 
Community Member States and the Commission on the technological 
and industrial issues which are significant for the safety of nuclear 
installations. It calls for "the progressive harmonisation of safety 
requirements and criteria in order to provide for an equivalent and 
satisfactory degree of protection of the population and of the 
environment against the risk of radiation resulting from nuclear activities 
and to assist the development of trade". 
19 Council Resolution of 19 December 1994 in the field of radioactive waste 
management (OJ C379 of 31.12.1994). 
20 Council Resolution of 22 July 1975 (OJ C185 of 14.08.1975) 
21 — 
On the eve of the target date for the completion of the Union's Internal 
Market (1993), the Council consolidated the basis for cooperation 
between Member States and the Commission on the technological, 
problems of nuclear safety by adopting a further Resolution on 
18 June 199221. This Resolution provides guidance on ways of seeking 
consensus throughout the Union on key safety requirements. 
Consensus on such requirements will be beneficial to any harmonisation 
effort related to materials and manufacturing codes and standards, 
significant for the mechanical integrity of plant components. The 1992 
Resolution also calls for coherence between harmonisation of safety 
criteria and requirements within the European Union, and the Union's 
programme of cooperation with non-Member States. 
SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN 
EUROPE AND IN THE CIS 
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 revealed important deficiencies in the design, 
construction and operation of reactors and, more generally, in the safety culture 
prevailing in the countries of that region. The seriousness of the situation was 
underestimated for several years by the authorities at the time. Only in the early 
1990s, following the political changes, did it become apparent that urgent action 
should be taken to improve the oldest reactors and even to make it possible for 
the operating countries to close them down. 
Accordingly, the G-7 countries committed themselves, at their Economic 
Summit in 1992 in Munich, to an action programme which was adopted by the 
G-24 as the basis for all technical assistance efforts in the area of nuclear 
safety. The European Union, for its part, undertook to use the technical 
assistance provided for under the PHARE programme for the Central and 
Eastern European countries including the Baltic countries and under the TACIS 
programme targeted at the CIS countries. 
Such an assistance was developed mainly in the following fields : 
support to safety authorities 
design and operational assistance 
spare parts 
waste treatment and fuel cycle 
early warning systems 
Chernobyl 
21 Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 (OJ C172 of 08.07.1992) 
— 22 — 
As a primary objective, short term measures are implemented and drawn up to 
remedy the most urgent deficiencies, especially as regards the less safe 
reactors, and to transfer our safety culture. Longer term measures are also 
implemented and drawn up aiming at bringing the reactors, either existing or 
under construction, as well as other nuclear installations to an internationally 
accepted safety level. 
Euratom loans may offer today a way of financing the necessary investments. 
The implementation of such programmes presupposes that all Central and 
Eastern European countries and the CIS take swift action to introduce a nuclear 
civil liability system as defined in the Paris and Vienna Conventions, thus 
enabling the European nuclear industry to give them its support within a 
satisfactory legal framework. 
Implementation of the European Energy Charter principles will be realised 
through the "Energy Charter Treaty", a binding instrument applicable to all 
forms of energy which was available for signing from December 1994 to mid 
June 1995. At the signature closing date, 50 countries and the European 
Communities had signed the Treaty, among which all European countries and 
some of the OECD countries, with the exception of the USA and Canada. A 
Declaration concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy is still under 
consideration. 
IV. THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 40 OF THE 
EURATOM TREATY 
1. Actions to facilitate nuclear investments 
In general, as stated in Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission's role 
is "to stimulate action by persons and undertakings and to facilitate coordinated 
development of their investment in the nuclear field". Although decisions are 
taken by the Member States, the Commission can facilitate their strategic 
choices, thus enabling the European Union to derive the maximum benefit from 
the safe use of nuclear energy. 
Examples of actions undertaken by the Commission are the promotion and 
encouragement of a speedy harmonization of requirements, rules, criteria and 
practices regarding the design, operation, maintenance and certification of 
installations. 
- 23 — 
2. Review of developments in the nuclear field 
Forty years after the signature of the Euratom Treaty, its implementation 
requires the Commission to acknowledge the fact that nuclear energy is an 
industrial, economic and social reality in several highly-developed countries and 
that the nuclear industry in Western Europe has reached its mature years. 
The nuclear generation installed capacity in the European Community was of 
120 GWe in 1995. According to the current plans of Member States, it will still 
increase slightly to reach 125 GWe in 2000. 
While no precise plans are available for a later date, the scenarios developed 
by the Commission22 predict a possible range of installed capacity between 118 
and 138 GWe for 2010, based on certain long term assumptions. These 
assumptions concern, for example, the future price of energy, the intensity of 
energy efficiency, the political choices to be made by Governments, etc. Under 
these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is not feasible to assign 
quantitative production or investment targets to the nuclear industry beyond the 
year 2000, noting, in addition, that the Union's objective today is to let market 
rules play their role. 
22 European Energy to 2020 : A scenario approach. Ref. : SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 
— 24 — 
If, in the future, economic or political pressures modify the present framework, a 
longer term approach may be needed again. For example, if a new political will 
emerges in order to combat greenhouse gases emissions or to improve the 
independence of the EU in the domain of energy supply, it may as a result be 
envisaged to establish nuclear electricity production targets at a more distant 
horizon. 
In any case, there is a need to improve cooperation between Member States 
in the nuclear field and to identify the major challenges that the nuclear 
industry will be faced with in the future. 
The Commission therefore proposes to examine, in the remaining parts of this 
document, the main features of and challenges for the nuclear energy sector in 
the years to come, and to suggest certain principles to be followed at 
Community level for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 
V. THE EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY : MAIN FEATURES AND 
CHALLENGES 
In the years to come, the world will be faced with increasingly difficult environmental 
energy-related problems. Nuclear energy is one of the means of generating large 
quantities of electricity economically, without depleting the planet's reserves of fossil 
fuels. 
— 25 — 
Nuclear industry activities and business opportunities 
At present, in the European Community, the scope for construction of new 
nuclear power stations is rather limited. However, investment programmes exist 
for the replacement or modernisation and upgrading of operating plants. 
Research programmes for the development of a new generation of reactors 
have also been undertaken. These programmes will, in principle, permit the 
nuclear industry to further develop its technological and research base and its 
development skills and, where possible, to further improve its competitiveness 
and know-how. 
The situation is different for some of our competitors. In Japan in particular, 
prospects for new developments exist, and in order to exploit these prospects, 
Japanese firms have formed strong links with North American industrial firms. 
The rapid economic development taking place in the Far East makes it also a 
growing market. The European industry must be ready to grasp every 
opportunity to operate in these countries. Fuel cycle expertise developed by 
European Union companies is already being exploited in the growing Far 
Eastern markets. Major opportunities also exist in the huge waste management 
and decommissioning markets, especially in the USA. 
The European Union has committed itself, in the framework of cooperation with 
third countries, to ensure that absolute priority is given to safety when using 
nuclear energy ("the safety first" principle). The Union has committed itself in 
particular to cooperate for the promotion of a safety culture in all countries 
which have nuclear reactors; to an increased international transparency in 
nuclear activities; and to the continuation of the reform in the energy sector in 
countries in transition, on the basis of effective strategies orientated towards an 
opening to the world and towards adoption of corresponding economic and 
environmental principles. 
The industry must also be in a position to cooperate with Central and Eastern 
European Countries and the CIS within this framework, provided the financing 
is adequate and a civil liability system is available in accordance with 
international rules. The involvement of the European industry could ensure that 
internationally accepted safety standards are respected. There is also a need 
for all nuclear States to participate in the existing nuclear liability conventions 
(the ParisA/ienna Convention) as a means of providing full legal security, both 
to the nuclear industry and to European citizens. 
- 26 -
2. Nuclear fuel supply conditions 
In the short and medium terms, there is no foreseeable risk of supply disruption 
of uranium or of enrichment services. However, in recent years the substantial 
increase of the share of the natural uranium market captured by the CIS, 
through prices at abnormally low levels (well below market economy costs of 
production), has caused serious concerns to the European nuclear fuel industry 
and has resulted in substantial reductions in uranium production in the 
Community and in the Community's traditional market economy supplier 
countries. Furthermore, nuclear material from dismantled weapons has the 
potential of aggravating the problems of market instability for natural uranium 
and overcapacity for enrichment. The Commission and the Euratom Supply 
Agency are applying a policy of diversification of sources of supply, 
implemented in a flexible way by the exercise of the Agency's right to conclude 
contracts and aiming at avoiding overdependence on any single source of 
supply. The Commission is also exploring whether possible solutions can be 
found in cooperation with the main states concerned. 
More recent initial signs of firming uranium prices may mean that the mining 
industry will begin again to make the investments necessary to cover world 
requirements for uranium towards the end of the century. There are already 
indications that production has increased in Australia, the US and Namibia, and 
has been maintained at a high level in Canada. However, this trend has still to 
be confirmed. 
The Union supports cooperation programmes for the safe storage of fissile 
material released by the dismantlement of nuclear weapons, its peaceful use 
and its safe and secure transportation. 
3. Technological challenges of nuclear safety 
The Council Resolutions on the Technological problems of nuclear safety 
(1975, 1992) referred to in section II.3 (e) are implemented through the 
following three complementary actions : 
i. Efforts to establish consensus amongst nuclear plant operators, 
designers, manufacturers, regulators and technical support institutions 
on technical issues which are key in operational and design safety; 
ii. A concerted effort between Member States and the Commission for the 
safety assessment of important European nuclear plant projects; 
— 27 — 
iii. The establishment of equivalence regarding safety for those technical 
codes which are significant for the mechanical integrity of nuclear plant 
components. 
The combination of these actions should contribute towards finding consensus 
on key safety requirements, thus avoiding technical barriers to the free 
movement of goods and services. These actions should also strengthen the 
harmonisation effort on technical codes, taking early account of safety 
requirements. The Commission's standing advisory expert groups on reactor 
safety, regulators and mechanical codes and standards provide a forum for on­
going communication and cooperation between the relevant actors. 
Another objective of the 1992 Resolution is to ensure coherence between the 
use of best nuclear safety practice in the European Community and the transfer 
of know-how to Central and Eastern European Countries and the Community of 
Independent States through the Community's technical cooperation and 
assistance programmes. These programmes are based on a transfer of know-
how, a transfer of the safety culture and, subsequently, a transfer of equipment. 
In the period between 1991 and 1995, the European Union committed 
555 Mio Ecu for projects in the CEEC and the CIS. It is the intention to allocate 
similar average annual budgets to this sector over the period 1996-1999. 
Efforts for the effective transfer of European Community best safety practice 
are made through the promotion of contacts between East and West-European 
partners: operators, designers, manufacturers, technical support organisations, 
regulators. Joint expert groups can provide appropriate fora for communication 
and cooperation on nuclear safety. 
In a wider context, an important initial step has been taken to address the 
safety problems worldwide, by drawing up an international convention on 
nuclear safety within the framework of the IAEA. Under this convention, the 
contracting parties commit themselves to comply with fundamental principles 
adopted on the basis of a consensus between world experts, and this can be 
verified. As many States as possible should therefore be encouraged to ratify 
and apply this Convention. 
Spent fuel, nuclear waste and decommissioning 
Industrial processes exist for nuclear waste treatment, the decommissioning of 
nuclear plants at the end of their life span and the reprocessing of spent fuel. 
23 
24 — 28 — 
There are different ways to manage spent fuel. One way is to put spent fuel into 
retrievable storage disposal. A second way is to reprocess spent fuel rods 
chemically removing the 96% of recyclable material (plutonium and uranium), to 
vitrify the resulting 4% fission waste and to dispose of such, vitrified waste. 
These solutions are being studied in several countries. Another possibility is to 
bury unprocessed spent fuel into deep permanent storage facilities. 
Under the first and third approach, all the elements present in such spent fuel, 
including plutonium and slightly enriched uranium, are considered as waste. In 
the second approach, by recycling the re-usable plutonium and uranium, the 
volume of high-level waste for final disposal is reduced. 
Storage and disposal methods are constantly being improved through research 
and demonstration programmes, and these should be pursued systematically. 
There is some experience already in the Community in the field of 
decommissioning based on a number of specific cases, for instance the nuclear 
power reactors Gundremmingen-A and Greifswald in Germany, Chinon-A and 
St. Laurent-A in France, Windscale AGR and Berkeley in the United Kingdom, 
Vandellos I in Spain and the reprocessing facilities AT-1 in France and 
Eurochemic in Belgium. However, so far, most aged power plants have been 
modernized and upgraded, extending the life-span of the investment, and have 
not yet been decommissioned. Where new nuclear power plants are being 
designed in the European Union and the USA, attention is being paid to 
reducing the cost of their future decomissioning. 
Transport of radioactive materials 
A safety policy is pursued in all Member States with regard to the transport of 
radioactive materials. There have been regular Commission reports in 
accordance with a 1992 Council Directive on radioactive waste shipments23. 
An additional report describing the provisions adopted and implemented in 
order to ensure an appropriate radiation protection for the public and the 
environment has been adopted recently by the Commission It covers the 
transport of radioactive material resulting from all activities, including medicine, 
the latter accounting for most of the packages shipped. 
Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and 
control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out 
of the Community. 
Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council on the safe transport 
of radioactive materials in the European Union : COM(96) 11 of 20 March 1996 
25 — 29 — 
The report concludes that "packages of radioactive material shipped worldwide 
each year have been transported safely" and that "the excellence of these 
results can be put down to the existence of stringent, uniform regulations that 
have been rigorously enforced for several decades, and the adequacy and 
implementation of which are regularly being reviewed and updated by groups of 
experts". Such an excellent safety record cannot, however, give cause for 
complacency. 
Use of plutonium 
In France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, plutonium obtained from the 
reprocessing of irradiated fuels has been and is successfully recycled in light-
water reactors. Power station operators are satisfied with the results25. 
Fast neutron reactors are theoretically capable of incinerating plutonium, 
including weapons-grade plutonium made available by the dismantling of 
nuclear weapons -although they have not yet been tested in such a role, but 
research is currently going on. Fast neutron reactors can also be used to 
reduce the quantities of radioactive waste made up of heavy elements known 
as actinides. 
The challenge facing the nuclear industry is to ensure that plutonium recycling 
is safe and economic. 
Currently, the cost associated with reprocessing, handling and turning 
plutonium into MOX fuel make it more expensive, on a purchase price basis, 
than low-enriched uranium (LEU). However there are many other 
considerations that determine fuel choice in this sector. 
The presence of plutonium in the civilian nuclear fuel cycle has important 
implications for worldwide non proliferation policy. 
Future nuclear technology, research and development 
In order to face all new challenges and to answer to public concerns, the role of 
research has been underlined several times by the European Parliament, the 
Council and the Commission. 
Although the United States operate about 110 large power producing reactors, the 
spent fuel is not reprocessed, following a decision to renounce to plutonium-based 
fuel cycle taken by the Carter Administration in the 1970's. On the other hand, 
Japan intends in the near future to undertake the recycling of plutonium as a fuel for 
their nuclear power plants. 
26 — 30 — 
The Euratom R and D Framework Programme (1994-1998)26 stressed that it is 
necessary to consolidate the nuclear option by showing our ability to control it in 
all areas of application. This demonstration of a full nuclear safety capability will 
be continued through the following priority routes : 
the development of a dynamic approach to nuclear safety; 
the joint use of the large European test facilities; 
the creation of a common understanding of the crucial phenomena 
linked to the nuclear fuel cycle; 
the development of means to prevent and mitigate severe reactor 
accidents; 
the establishment of the scientific and technical basis for the long-term 
safety of radioactive waste disposal; 
the pursuit of the development of nuclear safeguards techniques; 
the integration of radiological protection into a global system for the 
protection of man and the environment. 
New systems of control and monitoring, aspects related to severe accidents, 
work on new safety features for innovative reactors, ageing of installation, 
safety of the fuel cycle and waste management, as well as nuclear safeguards 
are amongst the activities to be implemented either through indirect actions or 
by the Joint Research Centre. 
For the near future, a new generation of reactors is under development, with 
the clear objective of taking on board the latest developments in the area of 
safety. The European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR), is one such reactor 
developed by European industry. The aim is to design a high power nuclear 
generating plant, economically viable able to comply with the requirements of 
the safety authorities. The EPR is in the detailed design phase, with the 
construction of a prototype expected in two or three years time. 
The development of fast neutron reactors (FNR) is continuing at a slow pace. 
This is due to a number of problems being encountered in the handful of such 
Decision 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 April 1994 
concerning the forth framework programme for Community activities in the field of 
research, technological development and demonstration for the period 1994 to 1998 
(OJL126 of 18.05.1994) 
— 31 — 
reactors undergoing tests in Japan and Russia. FNRs may eventually be able 
to mass-produce electricity in Europe once the current technical problems are 
overcome. If this proves to be the case their use may offer some advantages in 
terms of waste treatement and disposal, as noted above in this document. 
The Commission adopted on 9 April 1997 a "Proposal for a Council Decision 
concerning the 5th Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy 
Community (EURATOM) for Research and Training Activities (1998-2002)". 
The aim of these activities is to focus on safety and competitiveness of nuclear 
energy within two frameworks : the existing situation in Europe and the future 
global opportunities at world level. Consequently, the proposed RTD approach 
comprises three areas for action with different time horizons : 
a key action on controlled thermonuclear fusion which would further the 
development of this energy source for potential use in the long term; 
generic technologies concerned with enhancing the safety, 
competitiveness and social acceptability of the nuclear fission energy 
system and of the other industrial and medical uses of ionizing radiation in the 
short and medium term; 
a direct action to be carried out by the JRC in nuclear safeguards 
and the management of fissile materials which would have medium 
and longer term objectives. 
Thermonuclear fusion offers an important potential for the long term energy 
with attractive characteristics regarding operational safety, environmental 
compatibility and fuel availability; these long term prospects and the importance 
of the issue justifies that the RTD effort, in Europe, be made at Community 
level. At present it is a large scientific and technological project integrating 
within the Euratom framework all RTD activities in the European Union and 
Switzerland. Steady progress in the past years, in particular on the Joint 
European Torus JET, have placed European research on the front line world­
wide. 
Considering the scientific challenge of developing fusion technology and the 
associated human and financial effort, the EU has chosen to design the first 
fusion reactor in closed cooperation with the major world partners (USA, Japan 
and Russia) under the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor) Agreement. 
— 32 — 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The management of nuclear energy, including the issues of spent fuel, waste disposal 
and decommissioning, as well as the other challenges identified for the future, are the 
priority objectives of the regulatory authorities, the nuclear industry and other 
organisations concerned. 
Use of nuclear energy produces favourable impacts on security of energy supply, fuel 
imports, high technology know-how, qualified jobs, and C02 emissions reductions. On 
the other hand, there are problems related to concerns on safety, transport, 
management of waste, decommissioning and non-proliferation. All are areas to which 
much consideration must be given and which will continue to merit careful attention at 
all times. Further technological development and increased international cooperation 
is also important. 
Almost forty years after the signing of the Euratom Treaty, the European Community 
has a mature nuclear industry covering the entire fuel cycle with its own technological 
base. Certain Member States have decided not to produce nuclear energy and some 
others have decided to plan the decommissioning of their nuclear power plants. 
However, the European Union and some of its Member States may, in the context of a 
future energy supply strategy, review the role of nuclear energy alongside of other 
alternatives. 
Future discussions as the role of nuclear energy will be affected by whether 
circumstances confirm an ever increasing dependency of the Community on fossil 
fuels imports to meet future energy supplies. 
Use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity contributes to reducing fossil fuel 
consumption; the subsequent reduced demand on the international oil market has 
made a contribution towards moderating oil and other energy prices. 
The Commission believes that, in order to provide a framework for the continuing 
contribution of nuclear energy to the energy supply, some common principles have to 
be followed. The suggestions outlined below take account of the balance needed 
between national and Community responsibilities. They are based on the Euratom 
Treaty and on the Treaty on the European Union, both of which provide an appropriate 
framework for the Community to act. 
The suggested principles are the following : 
the right to decide to develop or not the peaceful use of nuclear energy belongs 
to each Member State; 
— 33 — 
the choice made in this regard by any of the Member States has to be 
respected; 
Member States having chosen to use nuclear energy need, in parallel, to 
ensure a high degree of nuclear safety, respect non-proliferation requirements 
as provided for in relevant international agreements, as well as a high level of 
human health protection; 
while it is individual Member States who are responsible for setting safety 
standards and licensing nuclear installations, and national operators who are 
responsible for their safe operation, both share the collective responsibility 
towards all European citizens for ensuring nuclear safety. 
If such principles can be the basis of a common approach to these issues, there could 
be benefits from sharing experience and developing more cooperation. 
Such principles, if implemented by the Member States, could also offer the framework 
for the nuclear industry to continue playing an effective role in the European Union, 
making a valid contribution to the Union's energy supply and its economic welfare. 
A high degree of nuclear safety within the Community alone is not sufficient. Nuclear 
safety improvements in Central and Eastern Europe and in the New Independent 
States are also needed, and to achieve this, the combined efforts of the Member 
States, the European Community, the partner countries and the wider international 
community are essential. 
************ 
— 34 
ANNEXES 
TABLES : 
1. Nuclear Programmes in the European Union 
1.1 Nuclear Power Plants - Installed and planned capacities 
Status as of 01.01.1996 
1.2 Natural Uranium Production 
1.3 Conversion Capacities 
1.4 Enrichment Capacities 
1.5 Uranium Fuel Fabrication Capacities 
1.6 MOX Fuel Fabrication 
1.7 Reprocessing 
1.8 Spent Fuel AFR Interim Storage 
1.9 HLW Vitrification Capacities in operation 
1.10 Waste Interim Storage 
1.11 Final Disposal 
2. Share of nuclear in the electricity production 
3. Costs of electricity production 
4. Lifetime levelised nuclear fuel cycle cost 
ABBREVIATIONS 
35 — 
1 - NUCLEAR PROGRAMMES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 27 
1.1 - Nuclear Power Plants - Installed and planned capacities - Status as of 
01.01.1996 
Belgium 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
EUR 15 Connected to the Grid 
N° of Units 
7 
4 
56 
20 
2 
9 
12 
35 
145 GWe 
5,6 
2,3 
58,5 
22,3 
0,5 
7,0 
10,0 
12,9 
119,5 Under Construction 
N° of Units 
-
-
4 
-
-
-
-• 
-
4 GWe 
-
-
5,8 
-
-
-
-
-
5,8 
1.2 - Natural Uranium Production (tU/year) 28 
Belgium 
France 
Germany 
Portugal 
Spain 199629 
33 
930 
40 
15 
255 2000 
45 
500 
0 
50 
810 2010 
45 
0 
0 
50 
850 
27 
28 
29 Source - Nuclear Energy Data 1996, NEA/OECD 
Metric tonnes of uranium per year 
Source - Euratom Supply Agency 
36 — 
1.3 - Conversion capacities (tU/year) 30 
France 
(UF6) 
Comurhex / Pierrelatte 
UK 
(UF6) 
BNFL/Springfields 1995 
14 000 
6 000 2000 
15 500 
6 000 2010 
15 500 
6 000 
1.4 - Enrichment Capacities (103 SWU/year)31 
France 
Eu rod if 
Germany 
Urenco 
NL 
Urenco 
UK 
Urenco 1995 
10 800 
3 450 2000 
10 800 
4 000 2010 
10 800 
4 500 
30 
31 Metric tonnes of uranium per year 
Separative work units per year 
37 
1.5 - Uranium Fuel Fabrication Capacities (t HM/year) 32 
Belgium 
FBFC / Dessel 
LWR 
France 
FBFC / Romans & Pierrelatte 
LWR 
Germany 
Siemens / Lingen 
LWR 
Spain 
ENUSA/Juzbado 
LWR 
Sweden 
ABB Atom / Vasteras 
LWR 
UK 
BNFL / Springfields 
LWR 
UK 
BNFL / Springfields 
GCR 1995 
400 
1150 
400 
220 
400 
330 
1590 2000 
400 
1150 
400 
250 
600 
200 
1550 2010 
400 
1150 
400 
250 
600 
200 
260 
32 Tonnes of heavy metal per year 
— 38 — 
1.6 - MOX Fuel Fabrication (t HM/year) 33 
Belgium 
Dessel 
France 
Cadarache 
France 
Melox, Marcoule 
UK 
Sellafield 1995 
35 
15 
120 
8 2000 
35 
15 
120 
12035 2010 
7034 
15 
120 
120 
1.7 - Reprocessing (t HM/year)^ 
France 
Marcoule (Gas Graphite) 
France 
La Hague (LWR) 
UK 
Sellafield (Magnox) 
UK36 
THORP / Sellafield 
(LWR + AGR) 1995 
400 
1 600 
1 500 
200 2000 
0 
1600 
1 500 
900 2010 
0 
1600 
1 500 
900 
33 
34 
35 
36 Tonnes of heavy metal per year 
The additional capacity is in process of licensing 
Start-up: 1997/98 
Licensed capacity : 1 2001 HM/year 
— 39 
1.8- Spent Fuel AFR Interim Storage Capacities (t HM) 
In Operation Under Construction 
Belgium Modular 
Doel & Tihange 
Germany 3 
Ahaus & Gorleben 
France 15 0 
La Hague, Cadarache & 
Marcoule 
Italy 135 
Saluggia 
Finland 1 
PKA - Olkiluoto 
Sweden 5 
CLAB - Oskarshamn 
United Kingdom 15 0 
Sellafield & Dounreay 
1.9 - HLW Vitrification Capacities in operation (glass canisters/year) 
Belgium 450 
Dessel 
France 1 400 
Marcoule & La Hague 
United Kingdom 400 
Sellafield 
(rising to 600 by 2000) 
— 40 — 
1.10 - Waste Interim Storage 
Belgium 
Germany 
France 
Netherlands 
Finland 
United Kingdom LLW & ILW 
Operational 
Dessel 
Gorleben & Mitterteich 
Petten & Borssele 
Olkiluoto 
Drigg & Sellafield Vitrified HLW 
Operational 
Dessel 
Ahaus 
La Hague & Marcoule 
Sellafield Under Construction 
Dessel 
Gorleben 
Borssele 
Sellafield 
1.11 - Final Disposal 
Belgium 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Finland 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom LLW & ILW 
Operational 
Morsleben 
El Cabril 
La Manche & 
Soulaines 
Olkiluoto 
Forsmark 
Ringhals 
Oskarshamn 
Studsvik 
Drigg & 
Dounreay Under Construction 
Konrad 
Loviisa HLW & Spent Fuel 
Operational 
Mol (1 lab) 
Asse (1 lab) 
Pasquasia 
(1 lab) 
Stripa 
(1 lab) Under Construction 
Gorleben 
(1 repository) 
Àspô 
(1 lab) 
Sellafield 
(1 lab) 
41 — 
2 - SHARE OF NUCLEAR IN THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION (IN %) 
Belgium 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR-15 
USA 
Japan 
Korea (Rep.) 
Switzerland 199037 
60,8 
27,8 
35,9 
75,5 
4,9 
35,3 
46,7 
20,7 
33,6 
19,1 
25,9 
49,1 
42,6 199538 
55,5 
29,4 
33,5 
76,1 
4,9 
29,9 
46,9 
25,4 
34,8 
22,5 
• 33,0 
36,2 
38,9 200035 
58,7 
26,0 
34,2 
76,0 
4,8 
25,2 
47,6 
23,4 
33,1 
18,6 
31,7 
37,5 
38,1 
37 
38 European Energy to 2020 - A Scenario Approach 
SEC(95) 2283 of 20.12.1995 - for 2000 : conventional wisdom scenario 
Energy - Source EUROSTAT (OECD for third countries) 
42 
3 - COSTS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION (Ecu/1 OOOkWh) 39 
Investment Operation & 
Maintenance Fuel TOTAL 
5 % p.a. discount rate 
Nuclear 
Coal 
Gas 11 -22 
7-15 
4,5- 9 3,7-12 
3,7-11 
1,8-5,2 4- 8 
13-26 
19-42 22-40 
26-74 
26-56 
10 % p.a. discount rate 
Nuclear 
Coal 
Gas 19-74 
15-26 
7-17 4-12 
7-11 
2,2-5,2 4,5- 7 
13-26 
19-38 33-60 
33-60 
30-60 
Assumptions : 
1000 MWe PWR commissioning in the year 2000 
1991 prices 
39 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - Update 1992 
NEA/OECD,IEA-1993 
Data from UNIPEDE available at the end of 1996 confirm the orders of magnitude 
presented in the table. 
43 — 
4 - LIFETIME LEVELISED NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE COST (Ecu/1000 kWh) 40 
Reprocessing option Direct Disposal 
option 
Uranium 1,22 1,22 
Conversion 0,16 0,16 
Enrichment 1,38 1,38 
Fuel Fabrication 0,74 0,74 
Subtotal for front-end 3,50 3,50 
Transport of spent fuel 0,08 
Reprocessing & vitrification 1,235 
Waste disposal 0,015 
Transport/Storage of spent fuel 0,38 
Encapsulation/Disposal of spent fuel 0,18 
Subtotal for back-end 1,33 0,56 
Credits (U + Pu) -0,19 
Total cost 4,64 4,06 
Assumptions : 
1000 MWe PWR commissioning in the year 2000 
5 % p.a. discount rate 
1991 prices 
40 The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 
NEA/OECD-1994 
— 44 
ABB 
AFR 
AGR 
BNFL 
CEEC 
CIS 
EPR 
FBFC 
FNR 
GCR 
HLW 
IAEA 
IEA 
ILW 
ITER 
LLW 
LWR 
MOX 
NEA 
NPT 
OECD-
OPEC-
PINC 
PWR 
SWU 
THORP 
UNIPEDE ABBREVIATIONS 
Asea Brown Boveri 
Away From Reactor 
Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor 
British Nuclear Fuels pic 
Central and Eastern European Countries 
Community of Independent States 
European Pressurized Water Reactor 
Franco Belge de Fabrication de Combustible 
Fast Neutron Reactor 
Gas Cooled Reactor 
High Level Waste 
International Atomic Energy Agency 
International Energy Agency 
Intermediate Level Waste 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
Low Level Waste 
Light Water Reactor 
Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Nuclear Energy Agency 
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
Illustrative Nuclear Program in the Community 
Pressurized Water Reactor 
Separative Work Units 
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant 
Union of Producers and Distributors of Electricity 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 401 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 12 15 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-403-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-23491-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
fr