29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/127

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the following: ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013)’

COM(2011) 71 final — 2011/0045 (NLE)

‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013)’

COM(2011) 72 final — 2011/0046 (NLE)

‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013)’

COM(2011) 73 final — 2011/0043 (NLE)

‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013)’

COM(2011) 74 final — 2011/0044 (NLE)

2011/C 318/21

Rapporteur: Mr WOLF

On 22 March 2011 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Council Regulation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013) COM(2011) 71 final — 2011/0045 (NLE)

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012 - 2013) COM(2011) 72 final — 2011/0046 (NLE)

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012 - 2013) COM(2011) 73 final — 2011/0043 (NLE)

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012 to 2013) COM(2011) 74 final — 2011/0044 (NLE).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 23 June 2011.

At its 473rd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 July 2011 (meeting of 14 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to none, with 5 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The accident in the nuclear fission reactor blocks in Fukushima caused by the tsunami and its consequences show the great vulnerability of such reactors to a breakdown in emergency cooling systems. This has already led to energy policy decisions being taken in Member States regarding the further use of such technology and to the beginning of a debate at EU level. There is a need for a reassessment of the research and development objectives of the Euratom R&D framework programme under consideration in this opinion (2012-13 period). The following comments take this into account.

1.2   For a number of reasons, the Committee believes that the level of knowledge about nuclear technologies, their use and their consequences must be maintained and developed. Given that it plays a coordinating role in pooling resources and integrating joint efforts, the Euratom R&D framework programme offers significant European added value in this connection.

1.3   The Committee thus recommends the following:

—	research on fission reactor technology should concentrate on improving reactor safety, reducing and disposing of long-lived radioactive waste, monitoring fissile material and radiation protection;

—	expertise in dealing with incidents beyond design and in relation to forthcoming stress tests on existing facilities should be maintained and developed;

—

development work on energy production from nuclear fusion should be pursued vigorously in view of the potential safety and other advantages of this technology, with the international partnership-based ITER project playing the central role. The ‘associations’ are the foundation of the fusion programme;

—	appropriate training should be provided to ensure that there are enough highly-skilled specialists in key fields and that enough basic knowledge is taught in schools about these technologies and radioactive emissions, the risks they pose and how they are measured.

1.4   The documents available to the Committee suggest that the Commission's proposals and plans broadly correspond to the recommendations mentioned above. However, the Committee suggests that the Commission check whether sufficient resources have been allocated in the light of the new situation and whether individual subjects require further development.

1.5   Taking account of its other recommendations, the Committee supports the Euratom R&D framework programme and its instruments as a key element of the European Research Area.

2.   Communication from the Commission

2.1   The Commission's Communication extends over four separate documents with proposals for Council regulations or decisions on the Euratom programme for 2012 to 2013. That new decisions or regulations are even necessary at all for this period stems from the fact that the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011) cover different periods. A gap of two years must therefore be bridged.

2.2   The four Commission documents cover all the relevant aspects, namely:

—	rules for participation;

—	the framework programme;

—	the specific programme - indirect actions;

—	the specific programme - direct actions of the Joint Research Centre.

Including the appendices these documents are 120 pages long; it would therefore be impossible to even summarise their content here or to comment on all aspects.

2.3   Thematically these documents are concerned with EU-supported research in the fields of fusion (focusing on ITER), fission and radiation protection. The Commission feels that research over the next two-year period should build on and continue the activities carried out successfully during 2007-2011.

2.4   Total funding amounts to around EUR 2 560 million, with the largest share going to the fusion programme with ITER.

3.   General remarks

3.1   Fukushima – new point of departure

The above-mentioned Commission documents were drawn up before the events in Fukushima. In view of the impact of the tsunami on the nuclear fission power plants based there and the resulting damage and effects on the public and the environment, the Committee feels that the research and development objectives of the Euratom R&D framework programme being discussed here should be reviewed taking into account this aspect as well, with a view to adapting the focus of the programme if necessary. Therefore this opinion, which is geared exclusively towards research and development, is about more than just aligning the timeframe of the Euratom R&D framework programme with that of the general seventh R&D framework programme.

3.1.1   Even though the Committee believes it is too early to draw general energy policy conclusions from this event, it respects the decision of those Member States which have decided, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not to use nuclear fission any more in the future as an energy source. The Committee welcomes the fact that Fukushima will also be discussed at EU level (1) and has been included on the energy policy agenda, with each Member State being able to decide for itself, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, what is its preferred energy mix.

3.2   Euratom R&D framework programme

Geared primarily towards energy research, the Euratom R&D framework programme supplements the energy research covered by the general R&D framework programme (2), which focuses in particular on research and the development of renewable energy sources and other non-nuclear technologies for low-carbon energy production. This is supposed to ensure that all useful technologies for a sustainable energy mix and their characteristics are researched and assessed within the EU.

3.3   European added value

For many reasons (see below), the Committee feels that there must be more in-depth knowledge of nuclear technologies, their use and their impact. In the light of the fact that it plays a coordinating role in pooling resources and integrating joint efforts, the Euratom R&D programme offers significant European added value in this connection. Taking account of its recommendations below, the Committee fully supports the Euratom R&D framework programme and its instruments as a key element of the European Research Area (3).

3.4   Focusing on maintaining knowledge and research in the field of nuclear safety

Irrespective of possible future decisions by the Member States and the EU on the future use of nuclear fission energy production, in view of the following considerations the Committee feels it is imperative to prioritise the development and dissemination of our knowledge within the EU on safety issues and the associated technologies:

1)	the possible cross-border impact of nuclear incidents, and

2)	the global migration of experts and technologies, as well as

3)	existing sites and their radioactive waste,

4)	the existence of nuclear weapons together with the associated production facilities and very serious political risks, etc.

The abandonment of comprehensive knowledge would be dangerous and tantamount to burying one's head in the sand. For this reason and with a view to ensuring that knowledge about these technologies and their impact is not collectively forgotten, it is especially important to systematically and continuously train and support in sufficient numbers the future scientists and technicians needed here.

3.5   Nuclear fission

As regards nuclear fission technology the Committee stresses safety aspects in particular:

—	radiation protection, medical treatment, preventive medical and technical measures;

—	safer low-waste nuclear fission power stations (4);

—	management (disposal) of long-lived radioactive waste;

—	extraction and processing of fissile materials (nuclear fuel);

—	measures to prevent theft and abuse of fissile and/or radioactive material;

—	incidents beyond design at existing sites and consequences of the forthcoming necessary stress tests (5).

3.6   Controlled nuclear fusion

The fusion programme has been promoted from the very start (6) in particular because of its considerable safety advantages (extremely low fuel inventory, no emergency cooling, no chain reaction, no fission products and no actinides) and because of the other advantages of this technology. The progress made has enabled a site to be constructed (ITER) with considerable fusion power (500 MW). Even though according to current levels of knowledge and research, fusion reactors will only be able to contribute to energy production in the second half of the century, and even though considerable research and development is still required to develop it into a usable energy source, controlled nuclear fusion represents the only known energy option offering internationally available and practically unlimited potential which is not already being used in one way or the other at present (7). The Committee therefore recommends that particular importance be attached to this programme. Many extrapolations agree that global energy needs and the problem of an internationally sufficient, environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy supply will become ever more acute in the course of this century. There is therefore an especially urgent need for another environmentally-friendly source of energy such as nuclear fusion.

3.7   On the Commission's thematic proposals – full support

In the light of the remarks under point 3.1, we are pleased to note that to the largest possible extent the Committee's recommendations mentioned in this opinion have been incorporated into the Commission's thematic proposals; we therefore wholeheartedly approve those proposals. However, given the documents at its disposal the Committee is not in a position – nor does it consider it to be its role – to evaluate whether the resources provided in terms of equipment, personnel and funding are adequate to precisely meet the goals set. It therefore recommends that the Commission instruct its expert groups, which are accompanying the programme, to carry out such a review under individual programme headings and, if necessary, to allocate additional resources.

3.8   Further studies on safety and risk issues

Since the problem of safety and risk issues concerns not only the Euratom R&D framework programme, the Committee would recommend that studies of relevant safety and risk issues be carried out in conjunction with energy research under the general seventh R&D framework programme and as far as possible in cooperation with other international partners, in view of the natural disasters currently in the spotlight. These should address the following aspects:

—

Technical risks of various critical energy technologies such as nuclear fission, carbon dioxide capture and storage, water reservoirs, pneumatic accumulators, fossil fuel technologies, promotion, transport and processing of fossil fuels, hydrogen storage systems, and, particularly for mobile use, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

—	Environmental risks stemming from failure to meet CO2 reduction targets (8) and the more advanced climate change associated with this.

—	The social, political and possibly military risks (i) of a serious global energy shortage and the resulting crisis situation and (ii) the potential dangers of climate change (9).

3.9   Educating the population

In addition, the Committee feels that, alongside specialist training (see point 3.4) in the fields of physics, chemistry and engineering, which is necessary in any case, all members of the public should from childhood on be made familiar in schools and higher education institutions with radiation measurement and taught to distinguish between natural/acceptable and dangerous radiation levels. The Committee feels this is the best way to ensure that the public is sufficiently able to assess nuclear threats and react with the necessary objectivity, particularly in the event of a crisis situation in which panic must be avoided and sober, targeted action is needed.

3.10   Questionable funding levels

Although the Committee is not in a position to assess this issue quantitatively on an ad hoc basis, in view of the above-mentioned new considerations it is inclined to be sceptical (see also point 3.7) whether current funding levels are sufficient during the period under discussion to address the issues raised with sufficient emphasis in line with the Committee's recommendations on the SET-Plan (10) and on the Roadmap 2050 (11). It therefore recommends that, insofar as the budget until 2013 can be determined with no possibility of it being changed, at least for the new post-2013 funding period (i) research needs be determined on the basis of the far-reaching implications of an energy shortage and failure to meet a CO2 reduction target for the 2020 strategy and beyond and (ii) and sufficient resources be allocated for this purpose. The Committee reiterates that energy research as a proportion of funding for the R&D framework programmes has long ceased to reflect the fundamental importance of energy for society and the climate issues associated with this.

3.11   Opinions on the seventh framework programme

With reference to its comments in point 3.7, the Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed programme over the next two-year period should build on and continue in a suitable way the activities carried out successfully during 2007-2011; the Committee points to the importance - highlighted in many opinions - of adequate continued support for the success of research. It therefore also refers to its opinions both on the seventh framework programme (2007-2011) of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities, and on the component specific programmes and the accompanying rules for participation; it re-confirms the recommendations made in those opinions and would add the considerations set out here. This reference to existing Committee opinions is particularly important given that for obvious reasons the current opinion is not in a position to discuss all the details of the Commission's proposals.

4.   Specific comments

4.1   Solving the problem of waste management and disposal

With reference to previous Committee opinions on nuclear energy, on the roadmap for achieving a low-carbon energy system by 2050 and on nuclear waste disposal problems (12), the EESC reiterates the importance of efforts to reduce the amount and lifetime of hazardous waste. It would be a decisive step forward if we actually succeeded in reducing the lifetime of radioactive waste through effective transmutation from a ‘geological timescale’ to a ‘historical timescale’. This would open up an entirely new approach to solving or reducing the waste and disposal problem. All options for conducting scientific and technological research and achieving success in this area should therefore be strongly supported.

4.2   Reducing the risk of a MCA/super-MCA

In the Committee's view man-made technical facilities can never be entirely safe. However, one possible development objective could be in the distant future to only build and operate facilities which are safe in the event of internally caused incidents and are only vulnerable to extremely rare external events (e.g. meteor impact), which would in any case result in damage on such a scale that damage or destruction of the site itself would not considerably increase the harmful consequences.

4.3   Nuclear fusion programme

Given the importance of the future availability of fusion energy, the Committee recommends:

—	carrying out preparatory activities to develop a demonstration reactor (DEMO), which as a successor to ITER should for the first time demonstrate generation of electrical energy through nuclear fusion within a comprehensive system, with the necessary breadth and depth of research, and

—	researching, in connection with design developments, also alternative magnetic configurations (especially Stellarators); at the same time, the requisite focus on the leading Tokamak approach should be maintained with ITER as the flagship.

In addition, we need to consider what conditions should be put in place to bring DEMO closer, and how - in view of experiences acquired with the global organisation of the ITER project - a strong and effective European fusion programme can be developed further. The Committee stresses that Europe will be able to develop ITER and use the results it produces only by means of a strong infrastructure of fusion research laboratories with adequate links to relevant industries.

4.4   Participation rules for nuclear fission and radiation protection

The Committee sees no significant differences here to existing participation rules for the 2007–2011 programme. It therefore refers once again to its previous positive opinion (13), as it has nothing more to add here.

4.5   Participation rules for the fusion programme

Currently, there are specifically adapted participation rules for the European fusion programme, a key part of which are the now 26 ‘contracts of association’ with participating research centres or their relevant Member States, called ‘associations’. In addition to this, there is the Joint European Torus JET programme with its own especially developed support rules. On the basis of this successful infrastructure, the EU has been able to have a major say in the international ITER project and won the competition to host it.

4.5.1   Contracts of Association

In the above arrangements the appropriate construction of Contracts of Association geared towards development goals with their decisive leverage effect on Member States' support policy and political support played a key part in ensuring the current rapid and steady progress of this programme. Only this has made ITER possible, which the Committee strongly supports as the most important project in the current development of fusion research. Owing to the considerable rise in ITER costs, whose causes the Committee is unable to discuss here, there is extreme pressure to save money on other aspects of the programme, especially activities relating to contracts of association. The Committee would like to warn against making such savings to the point where the leverage effect of contracts of association is jeopardised and thus the programme's effectiveness, the knowledge base needed and - more generally - Member States' political support are compromised. These are necessary in order to help ITER to succeed, and to ensure that the European side can reap the expected benefits. The ‘associations’ are the foundation and ‘think-tanks’ of the fusion programme, preparing the operation and use of ITER, developing and investigating new ideas, training the urgently needed new scientists and engineers, and connecting with EU citizens.

4.6   Joint research centre

The Joint Research Centre, which is institutionally supported by the Commission, promotes the following development objectives concerning the Euratom programme: a) disposal of nuclear waste, environmental impact and basic knowledge, b) nuclear safety and c) nuclear security. Thematically this corresponds to the recommendations put forward at the start of this opinion as well as the Committee's recommendations in the opinion on the 7th framework programme (14) and thus is fully supported by the Committee.

---

(1)  e.g. in the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm.

(2)  See OJ C 65, 17.3.2006, p. 9.

(3)  See OJ C 44, 16.2.2008, p. 1.

(4)  See also the memorandum of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste (North-Rhine Westphalia Academy of Science and Arts) on the safety of nuclear power stations after the accident in Fukushima, 26 May 2011.

(5)  See EESC press release No 60/2011 of 30 May 2011.

(6)  See OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, p. 27.

(7)  See OJ C 107, 6.4.2011, p. 37.

(8)  See http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959 of 30 May 2011.

(9)  See footnote 5 as well as research*eu results magazine – No 2 – May 2011, page 20.

(10)  See OJ C 21, 21.1.2011, p. 49.

(11)  See OJ C 107, 6.4.2011, p. 37.

(12)  See OJ C 218, 23.7.2011, p. 135.

(13)  See OJ C 309, 16.12.2006, p. 41.

(14)  See OJ C 185, 8.8.2006, p. 10.

---