Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Nuclear Illustrative Programme, presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee COM(2006) 844 final
Date: 2007-07-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: electrical energy, energy policy, energy technology, nuclear energy, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, security of supply, waste management

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/51

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Nuclear Illustrative Programme,
presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and
Social Committee’

COM(2006) 844 final

(2007/C 256/11)

On 10 January 2007, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 2007. The rapporteur was
Ms Sirkeinen.

At its 437th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2007 (meeting of 12 July 2007), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 81 votes to 28 with 15 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1
In 2004 the EESC suggested in its Opinion ‘The issues
involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation’ that
‘efforts should be made to provide information on the real
issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of
CO2 emissions, competitive prices and safety and management
of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out a
critical analysis of the debates on these issues’. The new Nuclear
Illustrative Programme (PINC) provides such information. The
EESC broadly agrees with the analysis and description presented
the essential
in the Commission communication. Most of
aspects concerning nuclear power are taken up and,
in our
view, correctly described. The Committee in addition points to
some aspects of nuclear power to be taken into account.

Nuclear energy, with its share of 31 % of electricity and
1.2
15 % of the total primary energy consumption in the EU in
2004, plays a crucial role in the energy market. Nuclear also
meets fully the objectives of EU energy policy. The cost of
nuclear power is today clearly competitive. The external depen-
dence is small and sources of fuel are diversified and secure,
which meets the requirements of security of supply. Nuclear
power
is currently the largest source of essentially carbon
dioxide free energy in Europe.

1.3
Following the European Council's decision on green-
house gas emission targets for 2020 and beyond, it is evident
that all additional low carbon power generation capacity, be it
renewables, nuclear or potentially clean coal, should substitute
CO2-emitting capacity and thereby add to total low-carbon elec-
tricity. In practical terms, if at least the present share of nuclear
power is not maintained until totally new clean energy solutions
may be available, climate and other energy policy goals are not
to be met.

1.4
The EESC underlines the persistently important role of
the EU to develop further the most advanced framework for
nuclear energy in those Member States that choose nuclear

power,
in conformity with the highest standards of safety,
security and non-proliferation as required by the Euratom
Treaty.

1.5
The most important tasks is a solution to the question of
radioactive waste, and especially final disposal of spent nuclear
fuel,
to which technology exists but political decisions are
lacking. The EESC also agrees with the Commission on the
other issues that still require attention at the EU level: Nuclear
safety and radiological protection, which have a very good
record in Europe, as well as secured long-term funding of
decommissioning.

The EESC points attention to some additional aspects of
1.6
nuclear power that have not been covered by the draft PINC.
These are the threat of terrorism and in some power plants the
issue of sufficient availability of cooling water.

1.7
For Member States which wish to persevere with nuclear
power a concern could be the lack of attractiveness of the sector
as an employer and research topic. The EESC agrees with the
Commission's view that expertise in radiological protection and
nuclear technology is fundamental for the EU, and therefore
education, training and research in these areas need attention.

Finally, the EESC underlines each Member States right to
1.8
choose its own energy mix, including the use of nuclear as is
mentioned in the PINC.

2. Introduction

According to Article 40 of

the Euratom Treaty,
the
2.1
European Commission shall
‘periodically publish illustrative
programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production
targets and all the types of investment required for their attain-
the
ment. The Commission shall obtain the opinion of
Economic and Social Committee on such programmes before
their publication’. Since 1958 four such illustrative programmes
and one update have been published, last in 1997.

C 256/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

2.2
The present draft Nuclear illustrative Programme (PINC)
was published by the Commission in the context of the energy
and climate package, An Energy Policy for Europe, on
10 January 2007. The final version will be prepared and
published as soon as the Commission has received the Opinion
of the EESC.

2.3
The other parts of the package cover firstly a proposal
for climate change targets of 30 % reductions of greenhouse
gases for the developed countries by 2020 from the 1990 level
or in any case 20 % for EU alone. The package further deals
with the internal market of gas and electricity, interconnections
in the electricity and gas networks, proposals to promote
sustainable power generation from fossil fuels; a roadmap to
promote renewables including a 20 % binding target by 2020
for the share of renewables in the EU's overall energy mix and
energy savings with a 20 % efficiency increase target by 2020
and a future European Energy Strategic Technology Plan. The
European Council on 9 March 2007 supported the targets and
the main policy contents of the package.

The EESC has prepared Opinions on each PINC, as the
2.4
Treaty requires. The Committee has also touched upon nuclear
power in several of its other Opinions, recently in particular the
own-initiative Opinion on the role of nuclear power in 2004,
stating in the conclusions that ‘the EESC considers that nuclear
power should be one of the elements of a diversified, balanced,
economic and sustainable energy policy for the EU. In view of
the issues which it raises, staking everything on nuclear is not
an option which should be considered; on the other hand, the
EESC considers that a partial or total abandonment of nuclear
power would compromise the EU's chances of respecting its
commitments on the climate issue’.

3. The Commission document

3.1
The Commission's document reviews the investments in
nuclear energy for the past ten years, describes the economics of
nuclear power generation, its impacts on the energy mix as well
as its conditions for social acceptance. The content is, in some
more detail, as follows.

phase-out policies for the time being. 12 of the 27 EU Member
States do not produce nuclear energy.

3.3 With 152 reactors spread over the EU 27, nuclear power
contributes 30 % of Europe's electricity today — however, if the
planned phase-out policy within some EU Member States
continues, this share will be significantly reduced. To meet the
expected energy demand and to reduce European dependency
on imports, decisions could be made on new investments or on
the life extension of some plants.

3.4
According to the Commission reinforcing nuclear power
generation could represent one option for reducing CO2 emis-
sions and play a major role in addressing global climate change.
Nuclear power is essentially carbon emissions-free and forms
part of the Commission's carbon reduction scenario including
the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. This could also feature
as an important consideration when discussing future emissions
trading schemes.

The most crucial factor affecting the prospect of growth
3.5
of nuclear power is its underlying economics as a nuclear plant
involves an up front
ranging from EUR 2 to
EUR 3.5 billion. Nuclear energy generation incurs higher
construction costs in comparison to fossil fuels, yet operating
costs are significantly lower following the initial investments. In
detail the Commission is stating:

investment

‘The economic risks of a nuclear power plant are
3.5.1
linked to the major capital
investment at the beginning and
require quasi-faultless operation during the first 15 to 20 years
of its 40-60 year lifetime to pay back the initial investment. In
addition, decommissioning and waste management mean that
financial assets must be made available for 50 to 100 years after
the shutdown of the reactor.’

is approaching 25 years (2).

‘In EU-27 (1) a total of 152 nuclear reactors are in
3.5.2
operation in 15 Member States. The average age of nuclear
power plants (NPPs)
In France,
which has the largest fleet (59) of nuclear reactors accounting
for nearly 80 % of its electricity generation, and Lithuania, with
only one NPP yet accounting for 70 %, the average age is
around 20 years. The UK fleet of 23 NPPs has an average age
approaching 30 years, while in Germany the average age of
their fleet of 17 operational NPPs is 25 years.’

3.2
It is for each Member State to decide whether or not to
rely on nuclear power for the generation of electricity. Decisions
to expand nuclear energy have recently been taken in Finland
In the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Czech
and in France.
the United
Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia,
Kingdom, Bulgaria and Romania a debate has been re-launched
on their nuclear energy policy. Germany, Spain and Belgium are
— despite a continuing debate — continuing their nuclear

3.5.3
‘Nuclear power has traditionally shown a combination
of higher construction and lower operating costs than fossil-
fuel-based energy production, which exhibits lower capital costs
but higher and potentially fluctuating fuel and, hence, operating
costs.’

(1) Annex 2: Country-by-country information on current nuclear fuel

cycle activities.

(2) Annex 1: See Figures 6 and 7 showing NPPs by age and age distribution

by country.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/53

3.6
Nuclear power generation is largely immune to changes
in the cost of raw material supplies, as a modest amount of
uranium, which comes largely from stable regions of the world,
can keep a reactor running for decades. Reasonably assured and
recoverable known uranium resources at competitive prices can
sustain the requirements of the nuclear industry for at least the
next 85 years at current levels of consumption. Therefore, in
most industrialised countries new nuclear power plants offer an
economic way to generate base-load electricity.

The nuclear industry has made considerable investments
3.7
since 1997. The Commission recognises the importance of
maintaining a technological lead in the field of nuclear power
and supports the further development of the most advanced
framework for nuclear energy,
including non-proliferation,
waste management and decommissioning. Since the establish-
ment of the Euratom Treaty, nuclear safety and the radiological
protection of the public have been one of the main concerns of
the European Community and are issues that have gained
further importance in view of the past and the present enlarge-
ment.

At EU level, the role should be to develop further the
3.8
most advanced framework for nuclear energy in those Member
States that choose nuclear power,
in conformity with the
highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation as
required by the Euratom Treaty. This should include nuclear
waste management and decommissioning.

The Commission proposes that the discussion on the

3.9
way forward should notably focus on:

— recognising common nuclear safety reference levels for
implementation in the EU, building on the extensive exper-
tise of Member States' national nuclear safety authorities;

— setting up a High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and
Security with the mandate of progressively developing
common understanding and, eventually, additional European
rules on nuclear security and safety;

— ensuring that Member States put in place national plans for

management of radioactive waste;

— during the early phase of FP7, establishing technology plat-
forms to ensure closer coordination of research in national,
industrial and Community programmes in the fields of
sustainable nuclear fission and geological disposal;

— monitoring the

recommendation on harmonisation of
national approaches to management of decommissioning
funds to ensure that adequate resources are made available;

— simplifying and harmonising licensing procedures, based on
closer coordination between national regulatory authorities,
aiming at maintaining the highest safety standards;

— ensuring greater availability of Euratom loans, provided the
ceilings are updated in line with the needs of the market as
already proposed by the Commission;

— developing a harmonised liability scheme and mechanisms
to ensure the availability of funds in the event of damage
caused by a nuclear accident;

— giving new impetus to international cooperation, notably
through closer collaboration with the IAEA, the NEA, bilat-
eral agreements with non-EU countries and renewed assis-
tance to neighbouring countries.

4. General remarks

4.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's new draft Nuclear
Illustrative Programme. The energy environment has evolved
much in the 10 years since the last publication. In particular in
the last few years new and dramatic developments have directed
much attention to all three aspects of energy policy — security
of supply, competitiveness and reasonable prices as well as
environment, in particular climate change. The EU has reacted
to the evident problems and challenges by proposals for a
European Energy Policy. In this context an analysis and propo-
sals on nuclear energy are needed. It positions nuclear energy in
the overall energy scene and provides necessary information for
the discussion and definition of an energy policy for Europe.

4.2
In its Opinion ‘The issues involved in using nuclear
power in electricity generation’ from 2004, the EESC suggested
that ‘efforts should be made to provide information on the real
issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of
CO2 emissions, competitive prices and safety and management
of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out a
critical analysis of the debates on these issues’. The new PINC
provides such information and the EESC broadly agrees with the
analysis and description presented in the Commission commu-
nication. Most of the essential aspects concerning nuclear power
are taken up and,
in our view, correctly described. The
Committee in addition points to some aspects of nuclear power
to be taken into account.

4.3
Nuclear energy, with its share of 31 % of electricity and
15 % of the total primary energy consumption in the EU in
2004, plays a crucial role in the energy market. Nuclear also
meets fully the objectives of EU energy policy. The cost of
nuclear power is today clearly competitive, in particular when
utilised as base load power. The external dependence is small
and sources of fuel are diversified and secure, which meets the
requirements of security of supply. Nuclear power is currently
the largest source of essentially carbon dioxide free energy in
Europe (see 4.8 below).

C 256/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Better energy efficiency,

4.4
including combined heat and
power generation, and thereby curbing demand is the first and
foremost target on the energy policy agenda. Still a big amount
of investments in power generation is needed in the EU to
substitute old plants and possibly also to meet additional
demand, as market and technology developments may lead to a
rising share of electricity in total energy demand.

electricity generated by nuclear power are low and at the same
level with wind, biomass and hydro power, the level being 1-5 %
of the coal-fired power plants emissions.

4.4.1
In the medium and long term it is possible that new
energy technologies like hydrogen technology, heat pumps, elec-
tric cars etc. will be increasing the demand of electricity as a
share of overall energy demand faster than we now estimate in
scenarios. This kind of development could make the role of
nuclear energy in the EU energy palette much more important
than it is now.

4.5
The Committee notes actual plans to extend the life of
power stations which have exceeded the period of commercial
usage of between 30 and 40 years. The question of ageing
power stations in Europe was not covered in depth in the mate-
rial prepared by the Commission and there is a need for more
information on the subject. As the Commission writes that:
‘certain financial and environmental risks still remain with
governments in some Member States, such as responsibility for
the facilities for long-term waste disposal and management’,
solutions will be needed in this area in the future.

4.6
These new investments should ideally correspond to the
objectives of security of supply, competitiveness and combating
climate change. In view of the features and potentials of other
life extension of existing nuclear
forms of power generation,
plants as well as new investments is to be expected. On this we
agree with the Commission.

4.7
According to the Commission, uranium resources would
last for 85 years at current levels of consumption. Different
sources give varying information on this issue, mainly varying
from 85 to 500 years. As availability of fuel is important to
security of supply of energy, the Commission should provide
more detailed information on nuclear fuel availability.

impacts of different
4.8 When comparing environmental
energy sources it is important to evaluate the overall environ-
mental impacts of the entire process from raw materials supply,
production, transport and energy generation to recycling and
disposal stages. The World Energy Council (WEC) has published
a compilation report (Comparison of Energy Systems Using Life
in which a number of
Cycle Assessment, WEC,
July 2004),
existing life-cycle
identified and
reviewed. The report evidences that CO2 emissions per kWh of

studies were

assessment

Thus,

4.9
it is essential to take into account the valuable
contribution that nuclear energy makes to the avoidance of
greenhouse gasses. Now the use of nuclear power in the EU
avoids about 600 million tonnes of CO2 every year, taking into
account the current energy mix. In the whole world the avoid-
ance levels amount to roughly 2 billion tonnes of CO2. This
equals the present total CO2 emissions of France, Germany and
the UK altogether. If planned phase-out in some Member States
is maintained, a large amount of the present European nuclear
power plants needs to be replaced by other non-emitting energy
sources. In addition,
if existing nuclear power plants are not
replaced by new ones at the end of their life, all nuclear power
needs to be substituted by other non-emitting energy in the
medium term.

the

decision

Following

European Council's

4.10
on
greenhouse gas targets for 2020 and beyond, it is evident that
all additional
low carbon power generation capacity, be it
renewables, nuclear energy or potentially clean coal, should
substitute CO2-emitting power capacity and thereby add to total
low-carbon electricity. In practical terms, if at least the present
share of nuclear power is not maintained until totally new
energy solutions may be available, climate and other energy
policy goals are not to be met in an economically acceptable
way. On the other hand, it is obvious that a growing share of
nuclear power together with renewables would mean better
cost-effectiveness fighting against climate change.

The EESC supports

4.11
the objective on internalising
external costs in the prices of all energy and other market activi-
ties. According to the External Costs Study (ExternE) (3) by the
Commission the external costs for nuclear power are about
0.4 cents/kWh. The corresponding external costs for coal-fired
power production are estimated to be over 10 times higher, for
biomass few times higher, for wind lower and for hydro power
at the same level than for nuclear.

The Commission notes

4.12
that one key question is
whether nuclear energy requires policy intervention. All clean
energy technologies should be treated equally. Mechanisms
should be found to encourage research into next-generation
reactors and the related nuclear fuel cycle. A subsidy but to
totally new developments — pilots — could be envisaged.
Conventional nuclear energy does not need any subsidy and it
should not be subsidised.

(3) External Costs — Research results on socio-environmental damages

due to electricity and transport, European Commission, 2003.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/55

4.13
Public opinion and perception of nuclear power is
recognised by the Commission as paramount for the future of
nuclear policy. With this we agree, while reminding that the
acceptance varies much between Member States. Accessibility of
information for the public as well as transparent decision-
making procedures has to be improved, as surveys show that
the EU public is not well
informed on nuclear issues. The
Commission could play a useful role in this. But also real
measures to meet public concerns are needed, as the EESC has
stated many times before.

4.14 We underline the persistently important role of the EU
to develop further the most advanced framework for nuclear
energy in the Member States that choose nuclear power,
in
conformity with the highest standards of safety, security and
non-proliferation as required by the Euratom Treaty.

4.15
The most pressing task is a solution for the issue of
radioactive waste, and especially final disposal of spent nuclear
fuel,
to which technology exists but political decisions are
lacking. This is a major issue concerning environmental and
health impacts and public acceptance of nuclear power. PINC
notes that no country has yet implemented the proposed final
solution. However, there is progress in Finland, where a disposal
site has been chosen, as well as in Sweden and France, where
big steps towards site selection have been taken.

4.16 We also agree with the Commission on the other issues
that still require attention at the EU level: Nuclear and radiation
safety, which has a good record in Europe, as well as securing of
funding for decommissioning.

The new threat of terrorism is not mentioned in the
4.17
PINC. It is a severe threat for nuclear power plants as well as for
many other industrial plants and public buildings all over the
world. All new nuclear power plants should be planned to stand
a crash of a big passenger aeroplane without radioactive emis-
sions outside the power plant. Technical and human security
systems must also be planned and carried out in a way that
prevents all kind of terror offensives inside a nuclear power
plant. The Commission should start initiatives, in collaboration
and
with
ensure
authorities
terrorism prevention are in
that appropriate measures of
operation at each nuclear plant.

responsible

operators,

to

An additional concern is the attractiveness of

4.19
the
nuclear energy field as an employer and research topic after
some 20 years of almost moratorium in Europe. The resulting
lacking interest of students and professional experts is a bottle-
neck for the general development of nuclear energy and may
also form a safety risk. The EESC agrees with the Commission's
view that expertise in radiological protection and nuclear tech-
nology is fundamental
for the EU, and therefore education,
training and research in these areas need attention. So does also
the preservation and transfer of knowledge from the generation
of scientists and engineers who constructed the existing fleet of
plants in Europe, while in many countries during many years no
younger experts have entered the sector.

4.20
The Commission reminds us that it is for each Member
to use nuclear power. The EESC
State to decide whether
supports each Member States right to choose its own energy
mix, including the use of nuclear. This right should be respected
not only by the EU, but also by other Member States. However,
the decisions of one Member State influence the situation of the
increase
others in many ways, and this interdependence will
with more open internal markets.

5. Remarks on proposals for measures

5.1
In chapter 6.5 of PINC ‘The way forward’ the Commis-
sion puts proposals on measures, mainly at the EU level, for
discussion (see 3.9). The EESC views on the presented proposals
are as follows:

5.1.1
The EESC agrees with the Commission's present view
that the common nuclear safety reference levels and their appro-
priate implementation should be built on the extensive expertise
of Member States' national nuclear safety authorities in colla-
boration within WENRA (4). Any other approach could possibly
put in some member states the present high safety performances
at risk.

5.1.2
A High level Group on Nuclear Safety and Security,
consisting of representatives of competent national authorities,
could add to the harmonisation process and help to improve
links with international nuclear safety conventions.

4.18
During recent hot and dry summers also the issue of
sufficient availability of cooling water from rivers to condensing
power plants has caught attention. The problem has so far been
very local and neither frequent nor long in duration, but it
might become more serious over time in some cases. This has
to be taken into account in the design and choice of location
for power plant units.

to put

5.1.3
The EESC sees an urgent need for Member States
in place national plans for
utilising nuclear power
management of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. National
plans may include a purely national approach, a multinational
approach or a dual-track approach. Anything else is to be seen
as irresponsibly passing on the present generations' obligations
to next generations.

(4) (Western European Nuclear Regulatory Authorities).

C 256/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Technology platforms have proven to be

very
5.1.4
successful
instruments in creating public-private partnerships
for developing European Strategic Research Agendas. The EESC
supports the Commission's idea of using this instrument in the
area of sustainable nuclear fission and geological disposal. This
could be a much needed instrument to attract young scientist to
this industry.

In order to ensure full coverage of life long operating
5.1.5
costs and a level playing field,
that adequate
it
resources are made available by operators through decommis-
sioning funds within the EU as well as globally. The Committee
does however not see a need for full harmonisation of the
management of these funds, as long as principles of full and
secured coverage and transparency are met.

is essential

5.1.6
An observation of the highest safety standards at the
same time with a simplification of licensing procedures as well
as their gradual harmonisation through cooperation between
national regulatory authorities are needed in order to render
lead times for construction projects more foreseeable, and
thereby enabling more accurate planning and cost calculations.
Safety must never be compromised.

5.1.7
EESC agrees with the Commissions proposals to update
the ceilings of EURATOM loans and ensure their better avail-
ability. In principle investments in all forms of energy should
have equal access on equal terms to financing instruments,
otherwise provided by the EIB.

5.1.8
A harmonised liability scheme, including a mechanism
to ensure the availability of funds in the event of damage caused
by a nuclear accident without calling on public funds, is in the
for greater acceptability of
view of
nuclear power. The current
system (liability insurance of
$ 700 million) is inadequate for this purpose. The insurance
problem of an extremely low probability of an accident
combined with potentially very serious and costly damages

the EESC also essential

Brussels, 12 July 2007.

needs to be addressed in an open, constructive and practical
way. One possibility could be an insurance pool scheme.

The EESC welcomes the proposal to give new impetus
5.1.9
to international cooperation with the IAEA and the NEA as well
as bilateral agreements. Much emphasis should be put on assis-
tance to neighbouring countries.

In addition to the proposals from the Commission, the
5.2
EESC sees that the following issues would be worth attention
when the Commission is preparing for the next steps:

5.2.1
Drawing the Member States' attention the probability
of re-increasing education and training needs in the broad area
of nuclear energy and technology, including in particular educa-
tion and training for nuclear safety. Education is not only a way
of providing new professionals in the field of nuclear energy,
but also of increasing public awareness in this field, which is of
fundamental importance in shaping public opinion.

5.2.2
Exploring further possible problems in the framework
for investments into nuclear power in an open energy market,
given the size and long lead times, and possible market based
solutions to them.

5.2.3
The European nuclear technology industry has gained a
position as a global frontrunner, which provides high class jobs
while at the same time being beneficial for nuclear safety world-
wide, given its excellent safety records. In order to keep this lead
position, as investments in nuclear are expected to surge glob-
ally, this industry including its upstream component industry
should be considered as a target for the Commission's new
sectoral industry policy approach.

5.3
Finally, the EESC also welcomes the Commission's inten-
tion to increase the frequency of publication of the Nuclear
Illustrative Programmes and thereby providing a more updated
picture of the situation in the EU.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/57

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the discussion:

Point 1.1

Amend as follows:

‘In 2004 the EESC suggested in its Opinion “The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation” that “efforts
should be made to provide information on the real issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of CO2 emissions,
competitive prices and safety and management of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out a critical analysis of the
debates on these issues”. The new Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC) provides such some of this information. The EESC
broadly agrees with the analysis and description presented in the Commission communication but also notes that important
subjects are not discussed (see also point 1.6). Most of the essential aspects concerning nuclear power are taken up and, in our
view, correctly described. The Committee also highlights certain aspects of nuclear power which should be taken into account.’

Reason

This is clear from the other amendments and from point 1.6 of the draft opinion, which points to important aspects of
nuclear power (the threat of terrorism and cooling water) that have not been sufficiently discussed.

Result of vote

For: 49

Against: 52

Abstentions: 11

Point 1.2

Amend as follows:

‘Nuclear energy, with its share of 31 % of electricity and 15 % of the total primary energy consumption in the EU in 2004,
plays a crucial role in the energy market. Nuclear also meets fully the objectives of EU energy policy. The cost of nuclear power is
today clearly competitive. The external dependence is small and sources of fuel are diversified and secure, which meets the require-
ments of security of supply. Nuclear power is currently one of the largest sources of essentially carbon dioxide free energy in
Europe. Its other environmental implications are limited and contained.’

Reason

The Commission document states that nuclear power is currently ‘one of the largest sources’ of carbon dioxide-free
energy in Europe, not ‘the largest’. We should quote correctly.

For the other environmental implications, see other amendments.

Result of vote (N.B.: Last part of amendment, the deletion of sentence — was accepted by the Plenary)

For: 57

Against: 60

Abstentions: 3

C 256/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Point 1.3

Amend as follows:

‘Following the European Council's decision on greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020 and beyond, it is evident that all addi-
tional low carbon power generation capacity, be it renewables, nuclear or potentially clean coal, should substitute CO2-emitting
capacity and thereby add to total low-carbon electricity. The Committee notes the statement contained in the Commission commu-
nication that: “At present over 110 nuclear facilities within the Union are at various stages of decommissioning. It is forecast that
at least one third of the 152 NPPs currently operating in the enlarged European Union will need to be decommissioned by 2025
(without taking into account any possible extension of the working life of NPPs)”. As to date the Commission has been informed
of the construction of only one new reactor, it is highly likely that the proportion of electricity generated using nuclear technology
will fall sharply. And yet, as a study carried out by the German Federal Chancellery, relating to Germany, shows, the climate
objectives can be met; this will, however, require further efforts to reduce electricity consumption and with regard to the efficiency
and use of renewable energy sources. In practical terms, if at least the present share of nuclear power is not maintained until
totally new clean energy solutions may be available, climate and other energy policy goals are not to be met.’

Reason

Clear from the Commission's text and from the study mentioned.

Result of vote

For: 49

Against: 65

Abstentions: 6

Point 1.7

Amend as follows:

‘For Member States which wish to persevere with nuclear power Aa additional concern is could be the lack of attractiveness of the
sector as an employer and research topic after some 20 years of almost moratorium in Europe. The EESC agrees with the
Commission's view that expertise in radiological protection and nuclear technology is fundamental for the EU, and therefore
education, training and research in these areas need attention. Plant operators are primarily responsible for this.’

Reason

It is incorrect to speak of a ‘moratorium’. Moreover, responsibility for training lies primarily with the companies and not
with the State/community of States.

Result of vote (only 2nd part of amendment was put to vote, 1st part was accepted)

For: 45

Against: 71

Abstentions: 2

Point 3.6.1

Insert a new point 3.6.1:

‘The Committee notes that there are discrepancies between the Commission communication and the summary of the most recent
IAEA Red Book as regards the availability of uranium stocks. The summary reads: “As currently projected, primary uranium
production capabilities including existing, committed, planned and prospective production centres supported by Identified Resources
(…) could satisfy projected world uranium requirements by 2010 if all expansions and mine openings proceed as planned and if
production is maintained at full capability at all operations. (…) However, secondary sources are expected to decline in impor-
tance, particularly after 2015, and reactor requirements will have to be increasingly met by the expansion of existing production
capability together with the development of additional production centres or the introduction of alternate fuel cycles, both of which
are costly, long-term enterprises. A sustained near-term strong demand for uranium will be needed to stimulate the timely devel-
opment of needed Identified Resources. Because of the long lead-times required to identify new resources and to bring them into
production (typically in the order of 10 years or more), there exists the potential for the development of uranium supply shortfalls
and continued upward pressure on uranium prices as secondary sources are exhausted”. The Committee expects the Commission to
clarify this.’

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/59

Reason

We should draw attention to clear discrepancies rather than pass over them in silence.

Result of vote

For: 49

Against: 65

Abstentions: 5

Point 4.1

Amend as follows:

‘The EESC welcomes notes the Commission's new draft Nuclear Illustrative Programme. The energy environment has evolved
much in the 10 years since the last publication. In particular in the last few years new and dramatic developments have directed
much attention to all three aspects of energy policy — security of supply, competitiveness and reasonable prices as well as environ-
ment, in particular climate change. The EU has reacted to the evident problems and challenges by proposals for a European
Energy Policy. In this context an analysis and proposals on nuclear energy are needed. It positions nuclear energy in the overall
energy scene and provides some of the necessary information for the discussion and definition of an energy policy for Europe.’

Reason

The rapporteur herself writes that not all aspects are discussed (the threat of terrorism etc.).

Result of vote

For: 50

Against: 69

Abstentions: 2

Point 4.5

Amend as follows:

‘These new investments should ideally correspond to the objectives of security of supply, competitiveness and combating climate
change. In view of the features and potentials of other forms of power generation from other energy sources, the EESC notes the
discussion currently underway in some Member States on the life extension of existing nuclear plants as well as new investments
is to be expected. On this we agree with the Commission.’

Reason

The author of the amendment cannot find any passage in the communication where the Commission states that life
extension ‘is to be expected’. This is pure speculation.

See also point 1.5, which was amended in the section meeting, in which we express our concern about possible life exten-
sions.

Result of vote

For: 50

Against: 67

Abstentions: 6

Point 4.6

Add the following text to the end of the point:

‘According to the Commission, uranium resources would last for 85 years at current levels of consumption. Different sources give
varying information on this issue, mainly varying from 85 to 500 years. As availability of fuel is important to security of supply
of energy, the Commission should provide more detailed information on nuclear power fuel availability. It is once again pointed
out that estimates vary widely as to the availability of uranium resources.’

C 256/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Result of vote

For: 55

Against: 68

Abstentions: 0

Point 4.8

Amend as follows:

‘Thus, it is essential to take into account the valuable contribution that nuclear energy makes to the avoidance of greenhouse
gasses. Now the use of nuclear power in the EU avoids about 600 million tonnes of CO2 every year, taking into account the
current energy mix. In the whole world the avoidance levels amount to roughly 2 billion tonnes of CO2. This equals the present
total CO2 emissions of France, Germany and the UK altogether. If planned phase-out in some Member States is maintained, a
large amount of the present European nuclear power plants needs to be replaced by other non-emitting energy sources as well as
energy efficiency and conservation measures. In addition, if existing nuclear power plants are not replaced by new ones at the end
of their life, all nuclear power needs to be substituted by other non-emitting energy and energy efficiency and conservation
measures in the medium term.’

Reason

We have to do much more than think about how one form of power generation can be replaced by another. The EESC
has repeatedly pointed this out.

Comment by the author of the amendment: I asked the rapporteur to verify the figures for CO2 savings after a figure of
300 million tonnes had been quoted — with a source — in the working document. This has unfortunately not been
done.

Result of vote

For: 61

Against: 61

Abstentions: 2

Point 4.9

Add the following text to the end of the point:

‘Following the European Council's decision on greenhouse gas targets for 2020 and beyond, it is evident that all additional low
carbon power generation capacity, be it renewables, nuclear energy or potentially clean coal, should substitute CO2-emitting power
capacity and thereby add to total low-carbon electricity. In practical terms, if at least the present share of nuclear power is not
maintained until totally new energy solutions may be available, climate and other energy policy goals are not to be met in an
economically acceptable way. On the other hand, it is obvious that a growing share of nuclear power together with renewables
would mean better cost-effectiveness fighting against climate change. And yet studies (German Federal Chancellery in relation to
Germany) show that the climate objectives can be met, although this will require further efforts to reduce electricity consumption,
improve efficiency and use renewable energy sources.’

Reason

Self-explanatory.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/61

Result of vote

For: 58

Against: 65

Abstentions: 1

Point 4.11.1

Insert a new point 4.11.1:

‘The Commission states that: “liability for nuclear accidents in the EU-15 Member States is governed by the Paris Convention of
1960, which created a harmonised international system on liability for nuclear accidents, currently limiting the liability to opera-
tors in case of nuclear accidents to around $ 700 million”. The EESC sees this as an indirect subsidy for nuclear energy and calls
for all operators to be required to take out sufficient insurance to cover all potential risks.’

Reason

At the study group meetings the rapporteur said that a solution had to be and could be found. The text does not make
this clear. This is the purpose of the amendment.

Comment: In Germany cars have to carry liability insurance of EUR 100 million. Nuclear power plants on the other hand
are insured for only USD 700 million — a derisory sum in view of the potential risks!

Result of vote

For: 41

Against: 44

Abstentions: 3

Point 4.14

Amend as follows:

‘The most pressing task is a solution for the issue of radioactive waste, and especially final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, to which
technology exists but political decisions are lacking. This is a major issue concerning environmental and health impacts and public
acceptance of nuclear power. PINC notes that no country has yet implemented the proposed final solution. However, there is
progress in Finland, where a disposal site has been chosen, as well as in Sweden and France, where big steps towards site selection
have been taken.’

Reason

The technology does not exist.

Result of vote

For: 55

Against: 69

Abstentions: 4