NoC 140/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 5. 84 
Opinion on the 
— communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the Community's 
role as regards the safety of nuclear installations and the 
— protection of public health; and the radiological problems 
— draft Council resolution on trans-frontier 
(84/C 140/05) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 338 of 15 December 1983, page 7. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 29 September 1983, the Council asked the Economic and Social Committee for an 
opinion under Article 170 of the Euratom Treaty on the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions was entrusted with the preparatory 
work. It adopted an opinion on 10 February 1984. Mr Bordes-Pages was rapporteur. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
On 28 March 1984, during its 216th plenary session, the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted unanimously the following opinion: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee is pleased that the Commis­
sion has reaffirmed in a communication to the 
Council the Community's role as regards the safety 
of nuclear installations and the protection of public 
health. The Committee approves the draft resolution 
on trans-frontier radiological problems. 
1.2. While it should be pointed out that the choice 
of sites, the issuing of building permits and the lay­
ing down of operating rules for nuclear installations 
are matters which are entirely the responsibility of 
Member States' Governments, the Committee feels 
that the latter should concern themselves with the 
radiological impact that a nuclear accident on their 
territory could have on the citizens of neighbouring 
countries. 
1.3. The Committee considers that the Commis­
sion must concern itself with this important cross-
frontier problem, for which no provision could be 
made in the Euratom Treaty when it was signed in 
1958. Although the Euratom Treaty deals compre­
hensively with radiological problems (in Chapter 
III), it does not deal with the safety of nuclear installations in the event of a cross-frontier accident. 
This aspect must therefore be taken into account as 
a matter of urgency. 
1.4. The Committee thinks that the Member States 
and the Commission should get together and work 
out what each of them should do to take account of 
this situation and, in particular, decide what are the 
most effective ways of alleviating the radiological 
consequences of cross-frontier accidents. 
1.5. The Committee would point out that the ulti­
mate aim of this sort of work is to protect the health 
of the public. It would draw attention here to the 
tradition of taking care to ensure an exemplary level 
of safety in the Community's nuclear industry; the 
high level of safety in nuclear installations should 
be taken as a model for industry. 
2. Comments on the communication 
2.1. Research and development 
The Committee would refer here to its previous opi­
nions on the Community's radiation protection pro-
28. 5. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 140/13 
gramme, a nuclear safety programme, the basic stan­
dards for the protection of workers against ionizing 
radiation and the multiannual programme for the 
Joint Research Centre. In each of its opinions, the 
Committee approved the Commission's initiatives. 
2.2. Technical/regulatory aspects 
The Committee agrees with the Commission in reaf­
firming that the Member States alone are responsi­
ble for licensing and monitoring the operation of 
nuclear installations. The Commission is currently 
studying at expert level how it can help work out a 
common European methodology for assessing and 
establishing overall safety objectives. It would there­
fore be reasonable to first await the results of this 
work. 
Moreover, the Commission's intention to carry out a 
comprehensive evaluation of the safety of the most 
representative models of reactors in the Member 
States seems to be an enterprise requiring a high 
degree of cooperation, bearing in mind the peculiar 
political, economic and technical nature of this mat­
ter. An approach of this kind has already been 
begun on a bilateral basis between certain Member 
States, and it has become clear that the main thing is 
to ensure that safety is satisfactory, not that proce­
dures are standardized. 
2.3. Health protection 
In this chapter, the Commission refers to a number 
of directives and other provisions on which the ESC 
has already issued an opinion. The Committee 
thinks it would be a good idea here to reaffirm the 
leading role which must be played by the Commis­
sion in laying down 'basic standards'. 
Done at Brussels, 28 March 1984. 3. Comments on the draft resolution 
3.1. The Committee supports the Commission's 
proposal to gather information on bilateral contacts. 
It also thinks that, as part of the specific responsibil­
ities of the Member States and the Commission, the 
latter should be encouraged to see that the Member 
States take all the necessary steps — in a bilateral 
or, possibly, trilateral framework — to conclude 
agreements between themselves on plans for cross-
border intervention in the event of an emergency. 
The Committee furthermore emphasizes the need 
for such agreements to ensure that full details of any 
radiation accident likely to lead to the contamina­
tion of waters, the ground or of airspace are com­
municated to the Member States, so that the neces­
sary medical monitoring can be set up. 
In addition, the Committee recommends that, if 
these agreements are to lead to tangible results, the 
Commission should, where appropriate, provide 
Member States who so asked with information on 
the nature and extent of assistance which might be 
necessary in the event of a radiological emergency. 
3.2. As regards point 2 (a) in the draft resolution, 
concerning the radiological impact of radioactive 
effluents, the Committee feels it is not a good idea 
to appoint an additional group of experts when, 
according to the new recommendation of 3 February 
1982, the committee of experts referred to in Article 
37 could examine this matter as part of its current 
activities. 
3.3. The Committee approves the draft resolution's 
provisions concerning the pollution of marine wat­
ers of Community interest, and points out that the 
new recommendation of 3 February 1982 on the 
application of Article 37 should enable a solution to 
be found to these problems. The Committee asks 
that a general report be drawn up. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Fran<?ois CEYRAC