Communication from the Commission on the nuclear industries in the European Union (an illustrative nuclear programme according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty)
Date: 1997-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, environmental protection, nuclear industry, nuclear safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

if^if 

if 
ix 
if 

if^ix 

if 
if 
i: 

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 

INTRODUCTION 
The Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community (PINC) 
The White Paper : An energy policy for the European Union 
The role of nuclear energy in the Community and Worldwide 

THE NUCLEAR OPTION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF 
AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE COMMUNITY 
Global Competitiveness 
a. 
b. 

Production costs for nuclear-generated electricity 
Competitiveness of nuclear energy as compared 
to other energy source 
Exports 
Long term lasting investments 
Qualified indigenous employment 
Innovation and technological development 

C; 
d. 
e. 
f. 
Security of supply 
Emerging energy trends in the European Community 
a. 
Growing world energy demand 
b. 
Peculiarities of nuclear fuels 
c. 
d. 
Non proliferation and nuclear safeguards 
Protection of the population and the environment 
a. 

Basic safety standards for radiation protection 
and human health protection 
Reduction of C02 and other harmful emissions 
Environmental impact assessment and 
emergency  preparedness 
Radioactive waste management 
Technological issues of nuclear safety 

b. 
c. 

d. 
e. 

SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRIES OF 
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE AND IN THE CIS 

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO 
ARTICLE 40 OF THE EURATOM TREATY 
Actions to facilitate nuclear investments 
Review of developments in the nuclear field 

THE EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY : 
MAIN FEATURES AND CHALLENGES 
Nuclear industry activities and business opportunities 
Nuclear fuel supply conditions 
Technological challenges of nuclear safety 
Spent fuel, nuclear waste and decommissioning 
Transport of radioactive materials 
Use of plutonium 
Future nuclear technology, research and development 

I. 
1. 
2. 
3. 

II. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

III 

IV 

1. 
2. 

V 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

VI 

CONCLUSION 

ANNEX 

2 
4 
5 

5 
6 
6 

8 
9 
10 
10 
10 
11 
11 
11 
12 
13 
15 

15 
15 

16 
17 
18 

18 

20 
20 
20 

21 
22 
23 
23 
24 
25 
26 
26 

29 

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 

2. 

The White  Paper  :  An energy  policy for the European  Union 

—  4  — 

In its White  Paper  "An energy  policy for the  European  Union", the  Commission 
:  overall 
identifies 
competitiveness; security of supply; environmental protection. 

relevant  objectives 

field  of  energy 

three 

the 

for 

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 
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. 

imperative  of  diversification, 

the 

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. 

institutions  have  responsibilities  under  the  Euratom 
The  European 
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 
Such  figures  are 

kWh (at 1995 prices) for discount rates of 5% and 10%, respectively. 
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 
in  particular  those 
know-how  acquired  by  European 
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. 

industrialists, 

—  l i 

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 
the  development  of  non-proliferation 
mechanisms. 

to 

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. 

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. 

i J 

- 

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 — 

C 02  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 

17 
18 

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) 
Council Directive (89/618/EURATOM) of 27 November  1989 
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 

20 

Council Resolution of 19 December 1994 in the field of radioactive waste 
management (OJ C379 of 31.12.1994). 
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 
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. 

the  Union  on  key  safety 

throughout 

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. 

2. 

Review of developments in the nuclear field 

-  23  — 

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 
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. 

is  available 

2. 

Nuclear fuel supply conditions 

-  26 

-

in  substantial  reductions 

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  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. 

ii. 

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; 

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. 

—  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. 

in  the  Community 

is  some  experience  already 

There 
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 
It  covers  the 
environment  has  been  adopted  recently  by  the  Commission 
transport  of  radioactive  material  resulting  from  all activities,  including  medicine, 
the latter accounting for most of the packages shipped. 

23 

24 

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 

—  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 
there  are  many  other 
considerations that determine fuel choice in this sector. 

low-enriched  uranium 

(LEU).  However 

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. 

25 

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. 

—  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 

26 

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. 

VI. 

CONCLUSION 

—  32  — 

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 

Connected to the Grid 

Under Construction 

N° of Units 

GWe 

N° of Units 

GWe 

Belgium 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

7 

4 

56 

20 

2 

9 

12 

35 

5,6 

2,3 

58,5 

22,3 

0,5 

7,0 

10,0 

12,9 

EUR 15 

145 

119,5 

-

-

4 

-

-

-

-• 

-

4 

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 

27 

28 

29 

Source - Nuclear Energy Data 1996, NEA/OECD 
Metric tonnes of uranium per year 
Source - Euratom Supply Agency 

-

-

5,8 

-

-

-

-

-

5,8 

2010 

45 

0 

0 

50 

850 

1.3 - Conversion capacities (tU/year) 30 

36  — 

France 
(UF6) 
Comurhex / Pierrelatte 

UK 
(UF6) 
BNFL/Springfields 

1995 

14 000 

2000 

15 500 

2010 

15 500 

6 000 

6 000 

6 000 

1.4 - Enrichment Capacities (103 SWU/year)31 

1995 

10 800 

2000 

10 800 

2010 

10 800 

3 450 

4 000 

4 500 

France 
Eu rod if 

Germany 
Urenco 

NL 
Urenco 

UK 
Urenco 

30 

31 

Metric tonnes of uranium per year 
Separative work units per year 

1.5 - Uranium Fuel Fabrication Capacities (t HM/year) 32 

37 

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 

2000 

400 

2010 

400 

1150 

1150 

1150 

400 

400 

400 

220 

250 

250 

400 

600 

600 

330 

200 

200 

1590 

1550 

260 

32 

Tonnes of heavy metal per year 

1.6 - MOX Fuel Fabrication (t HM/year) 33 

—  38  — 

Belgium 
Dessel 

France 
Cadarache 

France 
Melox, Marcoule 

UK 
Sellafield 

1995 

35 

15 

120 

8 

1.7 - Reprocessing (t HM/year)^ 

2000 

35 

15 

120 

12035 

2010 

7034 

15 

120 

120 

France 
Marcoule (Gas Graphite) 

France 
La Hague (LWR) 

UK 
Sellafield (Magnox) 

UK36 
THORP / Sellafield 
(LWR + AGR) 

1995 

400 

2000 

0 

2010 

0 

1 600 

1600 

1600 

1 500 

1 500 

1 500 

200 

900 

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) 

Belgium 
Doel & Tihange 

Germany 
Ahaus & Gorleben 

France 
La Hague, Cadarache & 
Marcoule 

Italy 
Saluggia 

Finland 
PKA - Olkiluoto 

Sweden 
CLAB - Oskarshamn 

United  Kingdom 
Sellafield & Dounreay 

In Operation 

Under  Construction 

Modular 

3 

15 0 

135 

1 

5 

15 0 

1.9  - HLW Vitrification Capacities  in operation (glass  canisters/year) 

Belgium 
Dessel 

France 
Marcoule & La Hague 

United  Kingdom 
Sellafield 

450 

1 400 

400 

(rising to 600 by 2000) 

—  40  — 

1.10 - Waste Interim Storage 

LLW & ILW 

Vitrified  HLW 

Operational 

Operational 

Under  Construction 

Belgium 

Dessel 

Germany 

Gorleben & Mitterteich 

Dessel 

Ahaus 

France 

La Hague & Marcoule 

Netherlands 

Petten & Borssele 

Finland 

Olkiluoto 

Dessel 

Gorleben 

Borssele 

United Kingdom 

Drigg & Sellafield 

Sellafield 

Sellafield 

1.11 - Final Disposal 

LLW & ILW 

HLW & Spent  Fuel 

Operational 

Under  Construction 

Operational 

Under  Construction 

Belgium 

Mol (1 lab) 

Germany 

Morsleben 

Konrad 

Asse (1 lab) 

Gorleben 
(1 repository) 

Spain 

El Cabril 

France 

La Manche & 
Soulaines 

Italy 

Finland 

Olkiluoto 

Loviisa 

Sweden 

Forsmark 
Ringhals 
Oskarshamn 
Studsvik 

United 
Kingdom 

Drigg & 
Dounreay 

Pasquasia 
(1 lab) 

Stripa 
(1 lab) 

Àspô 
(1 lab) 

Sellafield 
(1 lab) 

41  — 

2 - SHARE OF NUCLEAR IN THE ELECTRICITY  PRODUCTION (IN %) 

199037 

199538 

200035 

Belgium 

Germany 

Spain 

France 

Netherlands 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

EUR-15 

USA 

Japan 

Korea (Rep.) 

Switzerland 

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 

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 

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 

Nuclear 

Coal 

Gas 

Nuclear 

Coal 

Gas 

11 -22 

7-15 

4,5-  9 

19-74 

15-26 

7 - 17 

5 % p.a. discount rate 

4-  8 

13-26 

19-42 

22-40 

26-74 

26-56 

10 % p.a. discount rate 

4,5-  7 

13-26 

19-38 

33-60 

33-60 

30-60 

3,7-12 

3,7-11 

1,8-5,2 

4 - 12 

7 - 11 

2,2-5,2 

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. 

4 - LIFETIME  LEVELISED  NUCLEAR  FUEL CYCLE COST (Ecu/1000 kWh) 40 

43  — 

Reprocessing option 

Direct  Disposal 

option 

1,22 

0,16 

1,38 

0,74 

3,50 

0,38 

0,18 

0,56 

4,06 

Uranium 

Conversion 

Enrichment 

Fuel Fabrication 

Subtotal for front-end 

Transport of spent fuel 

Reprocessing & vitrification 

Waste disposal 

Transport/Storage of spent fuel 

Encapsulation/Disposal of spent fuel 

Subtotal for  back-end 

Credits (U + Pu) 

Total cost 

1,22 

0,16 

1,38 

0,74 

3,50 

0,08 

1,235 

0,015 

1,33 

-0,19 

4,64 

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 

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 

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 

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