No C 269/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 13. 11. 78 
Opinion  on the points  for a Community  strategy  on the reprocessing  of irradiated  nuclear  fuels 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 199  of 20 August  1977,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 10 August  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  170  of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Atomic  Energy  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 158th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 April  1978. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  170 of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 11 August  1977  for  an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 27 
September  1977,  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 that  Section  at 
its 38th  meeting,  held  on 10 March  1978, 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  by the rapporteur, 
Sir John  Peel, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 158th  plenary 
session  on 26 and  27 April  1978  (meeting  of 27 April 
1978), 
Whereas  the  Committee  was  also  consulted  on the 
communication  entitled  'The  fast  breeder  option  in the 
Community  context  - justification,  achievements, 
problems  and action  perspectives'  and the communication 
from  the Commission  to the Council  on a Community 
plan of action  in the field  of radioactive  wastes  (1); 
Whereas  the three  documents  deal  with  questions  which 
are closely  interrelated  and  which  go to the heart  of the 
debate  on the future  of nuclear  energy  in the Community; 
Whereas  there  must  be an early  decision  taken  in the 
Community  to define  the range  of options  on the role  of 
nuclear  energy  relative  to other  sources; Whereas  the Community  should  pursue  as a matter  of 
priority  the research  and  demonstration  projects  that  are 
now under  way  on all aspects  of nuclear  safety  and 
technology;  whereas  the same  importance  must  also  be 
given  to the rational  use of energy  and to the continuation 
and development  of programmes  concerning  alternative 
energy  sources; 
Whereas  it is necessary  to bring  into  operation  a 
Community  nuclear  safety  code,  so that  safety  should  be a 
top priority,  irrespective  of economic,  industrial  or 
political  considerations;  whereas  experimental  reliability 
must  ensure  that  residual  hazards  are  limited  to the 
greatest  possible  extent, 
(*) OJ  No C 249,  18. 10. 1977,  p. 8. HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 67 votes  to 7 with  0 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the Commission  proposal  but 
wishes  to make  the following  comments: 
General  comments 
1.1. The  risk  of a progressive  shortage  of certain 
sources  of energy  in the Community  by the end  of the 
present  century  makes  it essential  to develop  all available 
sources,  including  nuclear  ones,  during  the next20  years. 
Furthermore,  as the Community  has to import  some  80 % 
of its uranium  supplies,  it is essential  to maximize  the 
efficiency  with  which  this  uranium  is used.  Reprocessing 
enables  the  recovery  and  re-use  of the  uranium  and 
13. 11. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 269/19 
plutonium  contained  in the irradiated  fuel.  In this  way, 
more  power  can  be generated  from  a given  amount  of 
uranium  ore. 
1.2. The  use of plutonium  produced  in reprocessing, 
whether  in thermal  or fast breeder  reactors,  would  reduce 
uranium  requirements.  This  is likely  to have  a mitigating 
effect  on the price  of uranium  on the world  market,  and 
hence  on the cost  of nuclear  power  in the future,  relative  to 
what  it would  be without  fast  breeder  reactdrs.  The 
Committee  thinks  that  this  economic  benefit  is an 
important  one. 
1.3. Reprocessing  separates  the irradiated  fuel  into 
three  streams:  uranium,  plutonium  and  fission  products. 
Both  the uranium,  which  constitutes  the bulk  of the 
material,  and  the  plutonium  can  then  be burned  in 
thermal  or fast  reactors.  The  bulk  of the fission  products 
are then  isolated  in a single  low-volume  waste  stream 
which  facilitates  their  subsequent  management.  On the 
other  hand,  without  reprocessing,  a larger  volume  in a 
much  less  suitable  form  including  large  quantities  of 
plutonium  would  have  to be stored.  As the problems  of 
the storage  and disposal  of waste  from  thermal  reactors 
are by no means  fully  resolved,  the Committee  believes 
that reprocessing  offers  an important  contribution. 
1.4. The  Committee  considers  that  it is essential  to gain 
adequate  experience  in the reprocessing  of high  burn-up 
oxide  fuels  in the immediate  future.  It is important  that 
large-scale  plants  are fully  proven  by the time  they  are 
required  to meet  the production  schedule  imposed  by the 
expected  growth  of nuclear  power.  The  Committee 
understands  that  reprocessing  is not a complex  chemical 
process.  However,  the need  for remote  control  requires 
engineering  which  guarantees  operational  reliability.  The 
upscaling  involved  from  a plant  of low through-put  to one 
with a capacity  of over  1 000 tonnes  per annum  could 
thus entail  some  difficulties.  It would  seem,  therefore,  to 
be sound  policy  to start  constructing  full scale  plants  in the 
near future  in order  to allow  sufficient  time  for the 
Community  to establish  an oxide  reprocessing  capability 
which  would  meet  its future  needs. 
1.5. Furthermore,  the  Committee  believes  that  the 
Community  should  not follow  the negative  policy  on civil 
reprocessing  adopted  by  the  United  States.  The 
Community  has  limited  indigenous  resources  of both 
fossil  fuels  and uranium  and is thus  in an entirely  different 
situation.  The Committee,  however,  notes  that the INFCE 
(International  Nuclear  Fuel  Cycle  Evaluation) 
programme  is currently  in progress  and  thinks  that  the 
outcome  of this  may  well  have  some  influence  on 
international  as well  as United  States'  policy  in the future. 1.6. The  Committee  is fully  convinced  that  the danger 
of the proliferation  of nuclear  weapons  is one of the most 
serious  problems  facing  the international  community. 
The Committee  therefore  welcomes  the proposal  to set up 
a Commission  Working  Party  to make  detailed 
examination  of this whole  problem.  But it emphasizes  the 
need  to avoid  duplication  with  work  being  done  in this 
field  in the INFCE  exercise  or in other  international 
circles.  Furthermore,  the risks  of proliferation  as a result 
of a policy  of reprocessing  must  be assessed  against  those 
of a nuclear  power  policy  without  reprocessing.  The 
establishment  of regional  centres  will  help  to minimize 
risks  in this direction,  the number  of reprocessing  plants 
thereby  being  kept  in check.  However  all countries  are not 
likely  to be satisfied  indefinitely  with  such  a situation  and 
it is vital  that some  form  of international  control  should  be 
established  over  the multiplication  of reprocessing  plants. 
1.7. The  safety  of workers  in the nuclear  industry  and 
of the public  in general  is of paramount  importance.  The 
fact that  so far the standards  of safety  in the nuclear 
industry  are  extremely  high  should  not  lead  to a 
complacent  attitude  towards  the maintenance  of safety 
precautions. 
1.8. In  this  connection,  the  Committee  wishes  to 
emphasize  the following  points: 
— the  replacement  and  refurbishing  of outdated  plant 
should  not be unduly  delayed.  Radioactivity  doses 
should  at all times  be kept  as low as possible  and well 
within  the recommended  limits, 
— the  design  of plants  should  aim to reduce  maintenance 
requirements  so that  the exposure  to radiation  of 
maintenance  personnel  is reduced  to the absolute 
minimum, 
— there  should  be a strong  managerial  infrastructure  to 
ensure  the maintenance  of high  safety  standards  and 
training  of personnel, 
— the  Committee  would  also  refer  to its study  adopted 
on 28 April  1977  on a Community  nuclear  safety 
code. 
1.9. The  Committee  agrees  with  the Commission  that 
radioactive  pollution  of the environment  in the proximity 
of large  plants  must  be guarded  against  and welcomes  the 
proposal  to launch  a research  and  development 
programme  in this area.  However,  the Committee  thinks 
that atmospheric  pollution,  specifically  referred  to by 
the Commission,  is only  one aspect  of the problem  and 
emphasizes  the importance  of continuing  research  into 
all likely  biological  pathways  back  to man  in food  chains, 
etc. Pollution  risks,  however  they  might  occur,  are a serious 
problem  but  the  Committee  points  out  that  these 
problems  might  take  on a special  significance  in areas 
near national  boundaries.  All this work,  which  could  well 
No C 269/20 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 13. 11. 78 
be undertaken  as part  of the Community's  research  and 
development  programme,  will  take  on an increasing 
significance  as the nuclear  power  programme  expands. 
In pursuing  this  research  and  development  effort,  the 
Committee  also  believes  that  it is essential  to ensure  that 
progress  on the engineering  side keeps  pace  with  advances 
in nuclear  technology. 
1.10.  The  Committee  welcomes  the establishment  of 
the ad hoc  committee  to assist  the Commission  and 
Council  in elaborating  a Community  strategy  on 
reprocessing.  The  Committee  believes  that in elaborating 
such a strategy  at Community  level,  a very  large  number 
of problems  - economic,  structural  and  political  - will 
inevitably  arise.  It is therefore  vital  that  all interested 
economic  and  social  parties  drawn  from  the Member 
Done  at Brussels,  27 April  1978. States  must  be adequately  represented.  The  work  of this 
committee  will  be of crucial  importance  in providing  the 
necessary  details  which  are lacking  in the Commission's 
present  proposals  and in 'ensuring  an even  distribution  of 
effort  among  the interested  parties',  as proposed  by the 
Commission  in the ad hoc  committee's  draft  mandate. 
Such  an arrangement  is the only  one whereby  the strategy 
proposed  by the Commission  for reprocessing  irradiated 
fuels  can be put into  effect  in a truly  Community  sense. 
The Committee  notes  that  the ad hoc  committee  will 
report  to the Commission  and the Council  before  the end 
of 1978.  The Committee  would  welcome  the opportunity 
of commenting  on thcad  hoc committee's  report  before  it 
is finalized,  when  it is hoped  that  there  will  be sufficient 
detail  in the  proposals  to enable  it to give  a more 
considered  judgement. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the approximation  of the laws  of the 
Member  States  relating  to common  provisions  for machine-tools  and similar  machines  for the 
working  of metals,  wood,  paper  and other  materials  and the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on 
the approximation  of the laws  of the Member  States  relating  to hand-held,  power-driven, 
portable  grinding  machines 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 23 of 27 January  1978,  pages  4 and  19. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 16 January  1978,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 159th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 31 May  and  1 June  1978. 
The full  text of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  100 of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 23 January  1978  for  an 
opinion, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by the Bureau  of the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 31 January  1978, 
instructing  the Section  for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts 
and Services  to draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and Services  at its meeting  on 
10 May  1978,