31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/67 
3.4. In other words fundamental objectives will 
have to be achieved through flexible measures sensi­tive to the fluctuating demand for and supply of 
electricity. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on informing the population about health 
measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency 
(88/C 337/22) 
On 30 June 1988, the Commission of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, under the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European 
Atomic Energy Community, in particular Article 31 thereof, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The section for energy, nuclear questions and research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 October 1988. The rapporteur 
was Mr Saiu. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority with 1 abstention. 
The Committee approves the objective of the Com­
mission proposal, namely introduction of public-infor­
mation procedures and measures with a view to improv­
ing the practical health protection provided in the event 
of a radiological emergency. In the Committee's view, 
however, the ways and means proposed are inadequate 
at the present time and do not meet public expectations, 
especially in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear acci­
dent. The Commission is urged to heed the comments 
and proposed amendments set out in this Opinion. advisory duties under the Euratom Treaty, Article 31 
in particular. 
1.2. The Committee reserves the right to carry out 
later a detailed examination of all the measures taken by 
the Community pursuant to Chapter III of the Euratom 
Treaty regarding health protection; the Commission 
undertook to take these measures in its Communication 
of August 1986. 
2. Comments 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. The Committee would first express its concern 
over the tight deadline for the present Opinion: this has 
prevented it from carrying out essential consultations 
in a field which has assumed special importance follow­
ing the Chernobyl accident. The Committee has already 
protested strongly in the past against this state of affairs 
which makes it difficult for it to carry out properly its 2.1. The situation prevailing after the Chernobyl 
nuclear accident, which has already been described 
many times, made it essential that measures and pro­
cedures for informing the population be drawn up and 
implemented and that they improve the practical health 
protection provided in the event of a radiological emer­
gency. This accident has shown that, as far as exposure 
to radioactivity is concerned, the whole population of 
the Community is in effect living in the vicinity of a 
nuclear power station. 
No C 337/68 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
2.2. Hence the drawing-up of joint principles and 
specific provisions regarding information—supple­
menting the Council Directive of 15 July 1980 (*), as 
amended by the Directive of 3 September 1984 (2), laying 
down the basic safety standards for the health protec­
tion of the general public and workers against the 
dangers of ionizing radiation—cannot but meet the 
wishes and expectations of public opinion in the Com­
munity to be informed not only as fully as possible but 
also coherently and reliably. It must once again be 
stressed that such information should be comprehen­
sible. It would be advisable for the Commission to 
consider, in accordance with Article 32 Euratom Treaty, 
revising or supplementing the basic standards as defined 
in Article 30 so that they can be understood by the 
whole population and become public knowledge, and 
so that the Commission can coordinate the information. 
2.3. To this end the Member States should be asked, 
in accordance with Article 33 Euratom Treaty, which 
states that each Member State shall take the necessary 
measures with regard to teaching, education and 
vocational training, to introduce measures aimed at 
including the basic concepts of radioactivity, its evalu­
ation and units of measurement in their school curric­
ula, alongside the traditional systems of weights, meas­
ures and volumes. In this way people will become 
accustomed to these concepts from an early age. 
2.4. The Committee therefore approves the Com­
mission's objective and welcomes a Directive which will 
give tangible form to several recommendations which 
it has itself made, in particular in its Opinion of 
25 February 1987 on a draft proposal for a Council 
Decision on a Community system of rapid exchange 
of information in cases of unusually high levels of 
radioactivity or of a nuclear accident (3); in this Opinion 
the Committee stated that 'urgent measures are required 
to restore and rebuild public confidence in the field of 
information'. 
2.5. In the same Opinion the Committee called for 
initiatives to be taken in such areas as the public dis­
semination of information, readily understood infor­
mation in particular, and preventive information/edu­
cation. 
2.6. Furthermore, the adoption of a Directive on 
informing the public is in accordance with and sup­
plements Article 3 of the Council Decision of 
14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for 
(J) OJ No L 246, 17. 9. 1980, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No L 265, 5. 10. 1984, p. 4. 
(3) OJ No C 105, 21. 4. 1987, p. 7. the early exchange of information in the event of a 
radiological emergency (4). 
2.7. The Committee would point out that informing 
the population about various technological or other 
risks, be they nuclear, chemical, biological or natural, 
and about the health-protection measures to be applied 
and steps to be taken in an emergency, is not simply a 
matter of laws and regulations. In other words, it is 
not enough to decide that the public is or will be 
informed for this to actually be the case, unless the 
necessary measures are taken at the same time to ensure 
that this information is actually received and under­
stood by all. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear 
power station must be able to familiarize themselves 
with the protection measures and emergency plans. 
2.8. Admittedly the aim of the Commission proposal 
is only to lay down certain principles upon which the 
provision of public information should be based, but it 
must be stressed that the effectiveness of such a Direc­
tive implies, above all, that: 
— the practical arrangements for its implementation 
ensure that the public actually benefits from the 
information, 
— the public can rely on the channels through which 
the information is disseminated and on the infor­
mation itself, 
— the information is credible, which means that it 
must be complete, comprehensible, consistent, 
appropriate to the accident in question, dissemi­
nated in time and based on the latest situation. 
2.9. The Committee considers that these conditions, 
to which the Commission does not attach sufficient 
importance, will only be met if the whole population 
is in general encouraged to give its active support. For 
this, the employers' and trade union organizations in 
the relevant sectors, environmental protection and con­
sumer organizations and associations, must be involved 
in the preparation of the information, its dissemination 
and updating. These organizations could in fact act as 
effective relays in passing on the information. 
2.10. The present proposal seems to be guided by 
certain principles introduced in Directive 82/501/EEC 
on the major accident hazards of certain industrial 
activities(5) (the so-called Seveso Directive), which 
made a distinction between preventive/educative infor­
mation and more specific information in the event of a 
radiological emergency. 
(4) OJ No L 371, 30. 12. 1987, p. 76. 
(5) OJ No L 230, 5. 8. 1982, p. 1. 
31- 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/69 
2.11. While approving this distinction, the Commit­
tee considers that the parallel thus established between 
the two Directives points the need for a coordinated 
and consistent approach to information and prevention 
vis-a-vis the various types of major accident risks, what­
ever their origin, particularly so as to avoid a prolifer­
ation of public information networks. Such a prolifer­
ation could reduce the impact of the information dis­
seminated by these networks and hence reduce the 
overall effectiveness of the measures taken to prevent 
and control existing risks. 
2.12. Not only does the Committee regard as insuf­
ficiently clear the distinction drawn in the Commission 
proposal between the two types of information referred 
to in point 2.10, but it also considers that, in the case 
of a radiological emergency, an adequate link is not 
established between the present proposal and Decision 
87/600/EURATOM on Community arrangements for 
the early exchange of information in the event of a 
radiological emergency (*), with which it is nevertheless 
closely connected. 
2.13. The Committee considers it inadvisable to dif­
ferentiate, as the Commission does, 'sections of the 
population' or to define 'the population concerned', 
for whose protection the Member States plan to take 
information measures. Such distinctions, which would 
be left to the discretion of the Member States, could 
result not only in divergencies in the application of 
the Directive, but could also perpetuate the chaotic 
situation which occurred in the aftermath of Chernobyl 
and impair the reliability of the information dissemi­
nated to the public. 
2.14. Consequently the Committee considers that 
this Directive must cover all members of the public 
within the meaning of Directive 80/836/EURATOM. 
2.15. Where necessary, specific information for sec­
tions of the population liable to be more affected should 
supplement this basic information. This means, in par­
ticular, the population near the accident site, infants, 
unborn children, pregnant women. 
2.16. For the abovementioned reasons the Commit­
tee does not regard the provisions of the Commission's 
proposal as sufficient. In accordance with Article 31 of 
the Euratom Treaty the Commission is urged to amend 
its proposal in line with the general and specific com­
ments set out in this Opinion. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 (2) 
3.1.1. The definition given in paragraph 2 a) is not 
satisfactory and should be supplemented by the pro-
(') OJ No L 371, 30. 12. 1987, p. 76. visions of Article 1 (1) of the Council Decision of 
14 December 1987 (87/600/EURATOM). 
3.2. Article 1 (2) 
3.2.1. The definition given in paragraph 2 b) refers 
only to emergencies involving the Member States. It 
should also be stated that installations and activities 
as defined in Article 2 of Council Decision 87/600/ 
EURATOM of 14 December 1987 are covered. It would 
also be advisable to mention transfrontier problems. 
3.3. Article 1 (2) 
3.3.1. The definition given in paragraph 2 c) must 
distinguish between general information for the whole 
population and specific information for sections of the 
population for whose protection the Member State 
plans to take emergency measures in the event of a 
radiological emergency. 
3.4. Article 2 (2) 
3.4.1. As paragraph 2 of this Article refers to 
Annex 1, the first paragraph should concern the whole 
population. 
3.5. Article 2 (3) 
3.5.1. The whole of the population is to be informed 
without any request being made. 
3.6. Article 2 (4) 
3.6.1. Coordination is highly desirable to avoid 
chaos such as that which followed the Chernobyl catas­
trophe; to ensure this, the Member States must not only 
update and circulate the information regularly, but also 
forward it to the Commission. 
3.7. Article 3 
3.7.1. Article 3 should refer to Article 3 of the 
Decision of 14 December 1987. 
3.8. Article 4 
3.8.1. To ensure that any action taken is as effective 
as possible, the civil defence personnel and staff of the 
administrations concerned must also be informed of the 
procedures, instructions and methods of the internal 
security services of the installations in question. 
No C 337/70 Official Journal of the 
3.9. Article 6 
3.9.1. The competent authority or authorities shall 
be responsible not only for collecting, recording, pro­
cessing, selecting and disseminating the information, 
but also for ensuring coordination with those 
employers', trade union, consumer and ecological 
organizations which could actively help to relay the 
information. 
3.9.2. The information referred to in Articles 2 and 
3 must be disseminated via those information channels 
most appropriate in each Member State. In the event 
of a radiological emergency, the population should 
know the signal which would tell them to listen out for 
the information on what action they should take. 
3.10. Article 7 
3.10.1. In the event of a radiological emergency, the 
Commission should also receive the information which 
a Member State disseminates to its own residents under 
Article 3 and, in the framework of bilateral relations, 
to other Member States whose populations are likely 
to be affected. 
3.11. Annex 11 — Point 1 B 
3.11.1. Point I B should also refer to Article 3 of the 
abovementioned Decision of 14 December 1987. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. European Communities 31. 12. 88 
3.12. Annex II — Point U 
3.12.1. Regarding the attitude towards foodstuffs 
and drinking water, reference should be made to advice 
on the harvesting, transport and processing of agricul­
tural products and on stockrearing. 
3.13. Annex II — Point III 
3.13.1. The information on evacuation plans should, 
in the event of a serious accident, include arrangements 
for the evacuation firstly of people near to the accident 
site, then of those in a wider radius. 
3.13.2. In this second zone, a distinction must be 
made between two groups: 
— infants, unborn children, pregnant women, who are 
more sensitive to the effects of radiation, 
— the rest of the population. 
3.13.3. There must be checks on the carrying-out of 
the evacuation plans to ensure that they are as effective 
as possible. 
3.13.4. It would also be desirable for Member States 
to communicate their evacuation plans to the Com­
mission as well as to other States likely to be affected. 
3.13.5. The emergency plans should also cover the 
reception of evacuees so that they are reassured, helped 
over the stock and cared for. To this end, special 
vocational training should be provided for the reception 
personnel. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee' 
Alberto MASPRONE