wmii 
m-
mhh 
ttf'll-'tit* 
?M<- &• COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10.07.1995 
COM(95)328 final 
># is 
. • # • 
• i 
Mi j - J,: . 
i»i:t. ' • -J', -> 
'.<• ', ' • 17 ' REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE EURATOM TREATY, 
JULY 1990 - JUNE 1994 

INTRODUCTION 
In its resolution of 20 November 1980 on the siting of nuclear power stations in 
frontier regions1, the European Parliament called on the Commission to prepare 
an annual report on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. 
This article imposes the following obligation on Member States concerning the 
disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear installations: 
Article 37 
"Each Member State shall provide the Commission with such 
general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive 
waste in whatever form as to make it possible to determine whether 
the implementation of such a plan is liable to result in the 
radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another 
Member State. 
The Commission shall deliver its opinion within six months, after 
consulting the group of experts referred to in Article 31". 
The number of disposal plans submitted to the Commission each year fell from 
8 in 1980 to an average of 5 over the period 1983-1987, with a further fall to 3 
only in 1988 and 1989. Owing to this decrease and the systematic publication in 
the Official Journal since 1986 of the opinions delivered by the Commission under 
Article 37, the interval at which reports have been submitted to Parliament has 
changed. 
The first report of the series2, covering the period from 1959 to the summer of 
1982, described in detail the procedure for issuing the Commission's opinions, 
the main points considered when examining a disposal plan and the experience 
thereby acquired. Subsequent reports3 have been confined to a brief outline of the 
procedure and a description of the projects examined during the reporting period. 
In view of the long period that has elapsed since the publication of the first report 
(submitted in 1982) and bearing in mind the changes introduced by the 
Commission Recommendation of 7 December 19904, the present report describes 
the procedure in greater detail. 
OJ C 327/34 of 5 December 1980 
COM (82) 455 final 
COM (84) 566 final covering mid-1982 to end 1983 
COM (85) 713 final covering 1984 
COM (88) 109 final covering 1985 and 1986 
COM (90) 2290 final covering January 1987-June 1990 
Recommendation 91/4/Euratom 
It covers the two plans still being examined when the previous report was drawn 
up, the nine plans submitted and examined during the period July 1990-June 1994, 
and the two plans that were submitted during the same period but were still being 
examined at the end of that period. 
PROCEDURE FOR APPLYING ARTICLE 37 
2.1 Background 
The Commission Recommendation of 3 February 1982 on the application 
of Article 37l introduced the idea of preliminary general data, indicated 
what data should be included in the preliminary and final communications 
and, finally, laid down the procedure to be followed by the Member States 
when submitting disposal plans to the Commission. 
When the previous report appeared, the 1982 version of this 
recommendation was being revised. The revised version subsequently 
produced was adopted on 12 December 19902. It is reproduced in full in 
Annex 1. 
The revised version takes account of the experience gained up to that point 
and of the amendments and additions mentioned in the previous 
Commission report to the European Parliament. In particular, the fifth 
recital of the preamble to the Recommendation refers to the judgment 
handed down by the European Court of Justice in September 19883, 
according to which the competent national authorities could not validly 
issue a discharge authorisation pertaining to a plan covered by Article 37 
until the Member State concerned had received and considered the 
Commission's opinion on that plan. The Recommendation (Article 3) 
therefore calls for the relevant general data to be submitted to the 
Commission whenever possible one year, but not less than six months, 
before any discharge authorisation is granted by the competent national 
authorities and not - as provided for in the 1982 version - one year or six 
months before the commencement of disposal operations. 
The following three additions incorporated into the 1990 version deserve 
mention: 
a) where a change to a plan for the disposal of radioactive waste that 
has already been submitted could cause an appreciable increase in 
the exposure of the population of another Member State, the 
Commission recommends that the new general data be submitted 
OJ L 83 of 29 March 1982 
Published in OJ L 6 of 9 January 1991 
Judgment of 22 September 1988, Case 187/87 
to it within the same time limits as those mentioned above (Article 
6); 
b) the addition of Article 9, recommending that the Member State 
inform the Commission of the measures it intends to take in 
response to the Commission's recommendations; 
c) the addition of Article 10, recommending that the Commission be 
notified of any authorisation for radioactive waste disposal, for 
information purposes. 
The full text of the new recommendation is given in Annex 1 of this 
report. 
2.2 Stages in the procedure 
In chronological order, the various stages leading to the issuing of the 
Commission opinion provided for in the Euratom Treaty are as follows: 
(i) Communication of the general data by the Member State concerned 
to the Commission's Secretariat-General. 
(ii) Initial examination of the documents by the competent Commission 
department, which also acts as the secretariat for the group of 
experts. The purpose of this initial examination is to check that the 
data specified in the Recommendation have been submitted and that 
they constitute an adequate basis for a more detailed examination 
of the plan. 
(iii) Forwarding of the general data, in an appropriate language, by the 
secretariat to members of the group of experts and other competent 
Commission departments. 
(iv) Preparation by the secretariat, based on the general data, of a 
"study" (see (v)(a) below) or a "draft experts' report to the 
Commission" (see (v)(b) below) and of a list indicating the data 
that are missing and the additional details that are needed. 
(v) Consultation of the group of experts and drawing up of the group's 
opinion. The procedure for consulting the group of experts varies 
according to the category of operations (as referred to in Article 1 
of the Recommendation) to which the plan relates. 
a) In the case of Category 1 operations (nuclear reactors and 
fuel reprocessing plants), the secretariat sends the study 
which it has prepared, in an appropriate language, to 
members of the group of experts and to other competent 
Commission departments and then invites the experts and 
departments in question to a meeting. A delegation from the 
Member State that submitted the plan is also invited to 
attend part of the meeting in order to supply the missing 
data and the additional details which are needed (see (iv)) 
or requested by the experts and the other departments. 
When the delegation has left, the experts: 
- where necessary, amplify/correct the study in the 
light of the information provided during the meeting 
by the delegation of the Member State concerned 
- supplement the study by preparing an additional 
section on "experts' conclusions and opinion" 
approve the "experts' report to the Commission" 
consisting of the study together with the additions 
and corrections mentioned. 
b) As regards the other categories, the secretariat puts together 
its own questions (see (iv)) and those forwarded by the 
members of the group of experts after reading the general 
data, sends a direct written request to the Member State 
concerned for the missing data .and the additional 
information needed, and prepares a "draft report of the 
group of experts to the Commission". This document, which 
also includes the draft conclusions and opinion of the 
experts, is then sent in an appropriate language, for their 
comments and approval, to the members of the group and 
the other competent Commission departments, after which 
it is approved as an "experts' report to the Commission". 
(vi) Drawing up of the draft opinion by the secretariat. 
(vii) Forwarding, by the secretariat, of the Commission's draft opinion 
(accompanied by the group of experts' report) to the other 
competent departments for consultation purposes. 
(viii) Translation into the nine languages and approval of the draft 
opinion by the Commission. 
(ix) Communication of the Commission's opinion and the group of 
experts' report (which sets out the grounds for the opinion) to the 
Member State concerned. 
(x) Publication of the opinion in the Official Journal of the European 
Communities. 
2.3 Contents of the experts' report 
Apart from giving a brief description of the plan and of the related 
monitoring and safety facilities, the experts' report also assesses the 
potential radiological consequences of the following: 
a) the discharge of gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents in normal 
operation 
b) the disposal of solid radioactive waste in normal operation 
c) unplanned discharges of radioactive effluents that may occur in the 
event of an accident. 
If the operator has made any applications for a discharge authorisation, the 
information contained in such an application is taken into account when 
drawing up the report. 
The report ends by stating if and to what extent the implementation of the 
plan is liable, in normal operation or in the event of an accident, to result 
in contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the 
territory of another Member State. 
2.4 The group of experts 
Originally, the group of experts referred to in Article 37 was the same 
group as that referred to in Article 31, whose task is to help in the 
preparation of basic safety standards. The group consisted mainly of public 
health experts. However, given the technical aspects involved in assessing 
health risks associated with radioactive effluent discharges, it was thought 
useful to add some technical experts to the existing specialists. As a result, 
at its meeting on 13 October 1959, the Scientific and Technical Committee 
(STC) which had been set up under Article 134 of the Euratom Treaty and 
was responsible under Article 31 for appointing experts to the group 
decided that, in order to carry out the tasks arising out of Article 37, the 
group in question would consist of six public health experts ar'1 six experts 
representing various technical disciplines. 
For all the technical disciplines to be represented, it soon became necessary 
to increase the number of technical experts. Consequently, at its meeting 
on 4 December 1962, the STC, on a proposal by its members, appointed 
a further six experts to the group. Following the enlargeme; \ of the 
Community, the group expanded; its present composition, broken down by 
country, is shown in Annex 3. Administrative support for the group is 
provided by DG XI/C/1 (the former DG XI/A/1). 
The members of the group are appointed for a five-year term (altl Th 
some members may be replaced during this period), as are the members 
of the STC. The current members' term of office expires on 31 Marc* 
1998. 
The chairmanship of the group varies according to which country has the 
presidency of the Council of Ministers. However, where a plan is 
submitted by the Member State from which the chairman comes, the 
chairmanship is transferred, while the plan is being considered, to an 
expert from the Member State holding the previous or next presidency of 
the Council. 
2.5 Remark concerning deadlines 
The general data are usually submitted to the Commission only in the 
language of the Member State providing them. The work involved in 
translating both them and the related documents (study, draft and final 
experts' report, Commission opinion) takes up a large proportion of the 
period specified for the overall procedure and thus reduces still further the 
time available to the Commission for delivering its opinion. 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCEDURE 
3.1 Preliminary general data 
In the case of plans for the disposal of waste from nuclear power stations 
and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, Member Stales are called on to 
submit to the Commission certain "preliminary general data", as specified 
in Annex 2 to the Recommendation, before permission for construction is 
granted by the competent national authorities. 
Since such data are not required under Article 37, their submission at this 
stage is a response to a request for information and not an obligation. In 
consequence, few Member States have complied with this request since it 
was first introduced in the 1982 Recommendation. Thus, over the 13-year 
period 1982-1994, the Commission received preliminary general data on 
seven occasions only, while no such data were submitted during the period 
covered by this report. • 
An EEC directive of 27 June 19854 which has been applicable since July 
1988 requires that for certain types of project, including the larger nuclear 
installations, an environmental impact assessment and public consultation 
take place before the developer is granted an authorisation. However, the 
resulting procedures are the responsibility of the Member State concerned 
and the Commission plays no part in them. 
3.2 Definitive general data 
The data to be submitted by the Member States to the Commission in 
respect of disposal plans are specified in Annexes 1A and IB to the 
Recommendation, which further provides, in Article 3, for submission 
whenever possible one year, but not less than six months, before a disposal 
Directive 85/337/EEC published in OJ L 175/41 of 5 July 1985 
7 
authorisation is granted. This corresponds to the time limit laid down in 
Article 37 for submitting the Commission's opinion. 
Following the submission, the Commission, under the procedure described 
in 2.2, consults the group of experts referred to in Article 37, which 
examines the plan and then provides the Commission with its report. On 
the basis of this report, the Commission delivers its opinion on the plan 
concerned, communicates this opinion to the government of the Member 
State submitting the plan and publishes it in the Official Journal. 
In all, 11 plans were submitted to the Commission between July 1990 and 
June 1994. Opinions have been issued on nine of these, the remaining two 
being still under examination. In addition, the Commission issued two 
opinions on plans that were still under examination when the previous 
report was published. 
The plans came from six Member States and cover practically the whole 
of the nuclear fuel cycle. They are listed in the following table and 
described in detail in Annex 2. 
TYPE OF INSTALLATION NAME and COUNTRY 
2 nuclear power stations Sizewell B (UK) 
Chooz B (F)" 
5 waste treatment and/or storage Windscale (UK)* 
facilities Aube (F) 
Covra (NL) 
El Cabril (E) 
Konrad (D)** 
4 fuel fabrication plants Lingen (D)* 
Demox PI (B) 
Melox (F) 
Hanau (D) 
1 fuel reprocessing plant Thorp (UK) 
1 uranium ore processing plant Quercus (E) 
* Project being examined at beginning of period covered by this 
report 
** Project still being examined at end of period covered by this report. 
POINTS ARISING FROM THE OPINIONS 
4.1 Timing of communications and opinions 
As regards the plans for which an opinion was issued during the reference 
period, the six-month time limit imposed on the Commission was in most 
cases complied with. However, four opinions were issued a few days late, 
two of them relating to plans still under examination at the beginning of 
the period covered by this report. 
4.2 General remarks 
For all the plans examined during the reference period, the Commission 
expressed the opinion "that the implementation of the plan is not liable, 
either in normal operation or in the case of an accident of the magnitude 
considered, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the 
point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member 
State". 
4.3 Specific points 
4.3.1 Normal operating conditions 
All the opinions issued contain the conclusion that the discharges 
in question "are not liable to result in exposure, significant from 
the point of view of health, of the population of other Member 
States". In the case of the Thorp plant at the Sellafield site, the 
opinion also points out that, although discharges into the Irish Sea 
are not confined to those from the Sellafield site, "taking account 
of exposure arising from such other discharges would not alter this 
conclusion". 
4.3.2 A ccident situations 
In the cases of Thorp and Sizewell B, although the accident 
situations taken into account are not liable to result in exposure, 
significant from the point of view of health, of the population of 
another Member State, the Commission recommended that the 
arrangements for the transmission of information, in the event of 
an accident, between the United Kingdom authorities on the one 
hand and the Irish authorities (for Thorp) and Belgian authorities 
(for Sizewell) on the other, be formalised under bilateral 
agreements, given that such agreements already exist in these two 
cases with France and the Netherlands. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
During the period July 1990 - June 1994, the Commission 
delivered opinions on: 
a) two plans which were still being examined at the end of the previous 
reference period 
b) nine plans submitted during the reference period 
and began examining two plans submitted at the end of the reference period. The 
13 plans mentioned relate to six Member States and cover almost the whole of the 
nuclear fuel cycle. 
In all the opinions issued, the Commission concluded that the routine discharges 
of radioactive effluents were not liable to result in radioactive contamination, 
significant from the point of view of health, of another Member State. 
As regards potential accident situations, the Commission recommended in two 
cases that intergovernmental bilateral information agreements be concluded. 
10 

ANNEX 1 
COMMISSION 
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 
of 7 December 1990 
on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty 
(91/4/Euratom) 
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 37 
and 124 thereof. 
Having consulted the group of experts appointed in 
accordance with Article 31 of the Treary by the Scientific 
and Technical Committee. 
Whereas Article 37 requires that each Member State is to 
provide the Commission with such general data relating 
to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in 
whatever form as would make it possible to determine 
whether the implementation of such plan is liable to 
result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil 
or airspace of another Member State. The Commission is 
to deliver its opinion within six months, after consulting 
the group of experts referred to in Article 31 ; 
Considering the experience acquired in the application of 
the Commission recommendations of 16 November 
1960 (') and 82/181/Euatom (^ concerning the application 
of Article 37 of the Treaty ; 
Whereas the Court of Justice of the European Communi­
ties in its judgment in Case 187/87(*) rules that: 'Article 
37 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the Euro­
pean Atomic Energy Community must be interpreted as 
meaning that the Commission of the European Commu­
nities must be provided with general data relating to any 
plan for the disposal of radioactive waste before such 
disposal is authorized by the competent authorities of the 
Member State concerned.' 
Whereas in the same judgment the Court stated that : 
'Consequently, it must be acknowledged that, (.. ) where 
a Member State makes the disposal of radioactive waste subject to authorization, the Commission's opinion must,, 
in order to be rendered fully effective, be brought to the 
notice of that State before the issue of any such authoriz­
ation.' 
Whereas to ensure that the basic safety standards for the 
health protection of the population are uniformly applied 
and to appraise disposal plans in a consistent manner, it is 
necessary to specify the information to be supplied ; 
HEREBY RECOMMENDS: 
1. That the 'disposal of radioactive waste' within the 
meaning of Article 37 of the Treaty should cover any 
form of disposal, planned or accidental, of radioactive 
substances from the opérations listed in the three 
categories below. 
CATEGORY 1 OPERATIONS 
(1) The operation of nuclear reactors 
(2) The reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel 
CATEGORY 2 OPERATIONS 
(1) The mining, milling and conversion of uranium 
and thorium 
(2) U 235 enrichment of uranium 
(3) The fabrication of nuclear fuel 
(4) The processing and storage (*) of radioactive waste 
arising from category 1 and category 2 operations 
(5) The sea dumping of radioact:ve v-^ste from cate­
gory 1 and category 2 operations 
(') OJ No 81. 21. 12. I960, p. 1893/60. 
(-1 OJ No L 9\ 2*. 3. 1*82. p. 15. 
O Report of Case* before the Court (1988), p. 5013. (*) Provided that the operation is not incorporated in a plan sub­
mitted under another heading. 
4f 
I. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 6/17 
(6) The land or sea burial of radioactive waste from 
category I and category 2 operations 
(7) The storage (') of irradiated nuclear fuel on sites 
other than those involving category 1 operations 
(8) The dismantling {/) of installations involving cate­
gory 1 operations 
(9) The handling or processing of radioactive 
substances on an industrial scale. 
CATEGORY 3 OPERATIONS 
All other operations giving rise to radioactive waste. 
2. That 'general data* within the meaning of Article 37 
of the Treaty be understood to mean : 
— for category 1 operations the information set out in 
Annexes 1A and 2, 
— for category 2 operations other than (5) and (6) the 
information set out in Annex 1A and for category 2, 
operations (5) and (6), that set out in Annex 1B, 
— for category 3 operations the information set out in 
paragraph 8 (b). 
3. That, for plans involving category 1 and category 2 
operations, the relevant parts of the 'general data' 
listed in Annex 1A or IB be submitted to the 
Commission whent.^r possible one year but not less 
than six months 
— before any authorization for the disposal or radioactive 
waste is granted by the competent authorities, 
or 
— before start-up of those category 2 operations for 
which no disposal authorization is foreseen. 
4. That, for plans involving category 1 operations, the 
preliminary 'general data' listed in Annex 2 be 
submitted to the Commission before permission for 
construction is granted by the competent authorities. 
5. That, if a Member State considers it appropriate, it 
may request from the Commission an opinion on any 
plan for the disposal of radioactive waste on its own 
territory and not called for by the present recommen­
dation. 
6. That, if a plan for the disposal of radioactive waste, on 
which an opinion has already been given under the terms of Article 37. is modified such that this could 
cause an appreciable increase of the exposure of the 
population of another Member State, the relevant 
'general data' be submitted to the Commission 
whenever possible one year but not less than six 
months before any new authorization for the disposal 
of radioactive waste is granted by the competent 
authorities. 
7. That, since submission of a plan for the disposal of 
radioactive waste is the responsibility of the relevant 
Member State, that Member State accept responsibi­
lity for all information submitted to the Commission 
in respect of such a plan. 
8. lhat there be communicated to the Commission : 
(a) every two years, a statement of the radioactive 
waste discharges from each installation involving 
category 1 or category 2 operations; 
(b) every five years, an estimate of the total radioac­
tive liquid waste discharges from all category 3 
operations into any water medium (e.g. hydro-
graphic basin, sea, etc.). This estimate may be 
based on the discharge data for individual installa­
tions or on measurements in the receiving water 
medium ; 
(c) prior to any dumping of radioactive waste in the 
sea, a copy of the notification communicated to 
other international bodies. 
9. That the Government concerned informs the 
Commission of the actions it envisages in response to 
any recommendation given in an opinion of the 
Commission on a disposal plan. 
10. That Member States communicate to the Commission 
for information the authorization(s) for radioactive 
waste disposal. 
This recommendation is addressed to the Member States. 
It replaces recommendation 82/181/Euratom. 
Done at Brussels, 7 December 1990. 
For the Commission 
Carlo RIPA D! MEANA 
Member of the Commission 
{') Provided that the operation is not incorporated in a plan sub­
mitted under another heading. 
(") Stage 2 or \ as defined bv the International Atomic Energy 
Agcncv fSuftly Strit* \'o >.'. IAEA. Vienna. 1980). 
M 
No L o/lX Official Journal of the European Communities 9. I. 9| 
AKNEX IA 
GENERAL DATA' 
applicable to category 1 operations and category 2 operations other than (5) and (6) 
INTRODUCTION 
General presentation of the plan 
1. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 
1.1 Geographical and topographical situation of the site with 
— a map of the region showing the location of the site. 
— the location of the plant in relation to other nuclear installations, existing or planned, on 
the same or other sitefsX discharges from which may have implications for discharges from 
the plant in question, 
— the location of the plant with regard to other Member States giving the distances from 
frontiers and closest conurbations. 
IJ. Geology — Seismology 
Brief description of 
— the main geological features of the region, 
— the degree of seismic aaivity ; probable maximum seismic intensity and designated plant 
seismic response. 
1 J. Hydrology 
For a plant situated beside a watercourse 
Description of the watercourse with 
— a general description of its path (major features, main tributaries, estuary, etc.), 
— the average waterflow at the site, 
— the maximum and minimum waterflows stating frequency and periods of occurrence. 
Where the river flows through the territory of one or more other Member Sûtes downstream 
of the site, corresponding information in respect of the Sute(s). 
For a plan situated on the coast 
General description of the coastal area with 
— heights of the tides, 
— direction and force of currents, both local and regional. 
In both cases 
— flood-risk and protection of the site, 
— water-table level and direction of flow. 
1.4 Meterology and climatology 
— regional climatology taking account of orographic features (plains, valleys, mountain 
ranges). 
— local climatology with frequency distributions of : 
—wind directions and speeds, 
— precipitation intensity and duration, 
— for each wind sector, atmospheric dispersion conditions and duration of temperature 
inversions. 
^ 
91 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 6/19 
IS. Natural resources 
Brief descrp':~n of 
— soil characteristics and ecological features of the region, 
— water utilization in the region for drinking, irrigation, etc, 
— principal food resources, methods and scale of production ; crops, stock breeding, fishing, 
hunting, for discharges into the sea, data on fishing in territorial and extra-territorial 
waters, 
— foodstuffs distribution system and particularly the export to other Member Sûtes of agri­
cultural products, fish or game from the regions concerned. 
1.6. Other activities in the vicinity «i cne site 
— industrial or military sites, surface and aerial traffic, bulk transport by pipeline, 
— possible influence on the plant; protective measures, 
— regulations covering industrial or other development. 
1.7. Population 
— distribution of the populations of interest in other Member Sûtes, 
— pattern of daily life and eating habits of these populations ; 
main features ; the dau required concern the population distribution (density), noting conur­
bations and any particular characteristics in so far as these are related to the risk of exposure 
from discharges through the significant exposure pathways. 
2. THE PLANT 
2.1. Main features of the plant 
Brief description of the plant, giving the type, purpose and main features 
— for reactors : main features of the reactor, the reactor building, the auxiliary installations, 
the fuel storage facilities, safety provisions, etc, 
— for other plants or laboratories : main features of processes used ; throughput of radioactive 
and fissile materials, insullations which make up the plant, safety provisions, etc. 
2.2. Ventilation system 
Schematic diagrams and description indicating function in normal operating conditions and 
in the case of an accident, air flows, relative pressures in the buildings and heights of release ; 
data on filters, their efficiency, methods and frequency of testing. 
2 3. Containments 
Bried description and main characteristics ; methods and frequency of testing lor leaktight-
ness. 
2 4. Time scale 
— commissioning period and date for routine operatic, of the plant. 
— present Magi- of licensing procedure. 
2.5. Decommissioning and dismantling of the plant 
Outluu- oi ICCIMIKJI Ji'il .iilministramo provisions 
No L 6/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. I. 91 
3. RELEASE OF AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS IN NORMAL OPERATION 
3.1. Authorization procedure in force 
— outline of the general procedure involved, 
— discharge limits envisaged by the authorities (if not available, maximum discharges fore­
seen). 
3.2. Technical aspects 
— origins of these radioactive effluents, their composition and physico-chemical forms, 
— purification and holdup of these effluents, methods and paths of release. 
33. Monitoring of discharges 
— sampling, measurement and analysis of discharges, 
— principal features of the monitoring equipment, 
— alarm levels, intervention actions (manual and automatic). 
3.4. Evaluation of transfer to man 
3.4.1. models and parameters used to calculate: 
— atmospheric dispersion of the effluents, 
— ground deposition and resuspension, 
— transfer via food chains, 
— exposure levels via the significant exposure pathways. 
3.4.2. evaluation of concentration and exposure levels associated with discharges cited in 3.1. above : 
— in the case of continuous release : average annual concentrations of activity in the atmos­
phere near the ground and surface conumination levels. 
— in the case of intermittent release and planned special release : time integrated concentra­
tions in the atmosphere near the ground and surface conumination levels. 
These dau are to be provided for the most exposed areas in the vicinity of the plant and for 
relevant areas in other Member Sûtes. 
— corresponding exposure levels (') : dose equivalents to those living in the relevant areas of 
other Member Sûtes uking account of all significant exposure pathways. 
3.5. Radioacrive discharges to atmosphere from those installations cited under 1.1. 
Where appropriate, procedures for coordination with discharges from other insullations, 
where there may be an additive effect for the exposure levels. 
4. RELEASE OF LIQUID RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS IN NORMAL OPERATION 
4.1. Authorization procedure in force 
— outline of the general procedure involved, 
— discharge limits envisaged by the authorities (if not available, maximum discharges fore­
seen). 
(') The values submitted should reflect the fact that the results can represent litdc more than orders of magnitude to 
which it would be inappropriate to ascribe a false precision. 
A\ 
9. I. 91 Official Journal of the fjropcan Communities No L 6/21 
4.2. Technical aspects 
— origins of these radioactive effluents, their composition and physico-chemical forms. 
— treatment of these effluents, storage capacities, mcuiwJs and paths of release. 
43. Monitoring of discharges 
— sampling, measurement and analysis of discharges, 
— principal features of monitoring equipment, 
— alarm levels, intervention actions (manual and automatic). 
4.4. Evaluation of transfer to man 
4.4.1. models and parameters used to calculate: 
1 — aquatic dispersion of the effluents, 
— their transfer by sedimenution and ion exchange, 
— transfer via food chains, 
— exposure levels via the significant exposure pathways. 
4.4.2. evaluation of the exposure levels (') associated with the discharges cited in 4.1 above : dose 
equivalents to those living in relevant areas of other Member Sûtes, uking account of all 
significant exposure pathways. 
4.5. Radioacrive discharges into the same receiving waters by other installations 
Where appropriate, procedures for coordination with discharges from other insullarions, 
where there may be an additive effect for the exposure levels. 
DISPOSAL OF SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE 
5.1. Categories of solid radioactive wastes and estimated amounts 
5.2. Processing and packaging 
53. Intermediate storage ; storage capacities and conditions, radiological risks to the 
environment, precautions taken 
6. UNPLANNED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS 
6.1. Review of accidents of internal and external origin which could result in unplanned 
releases of radioactive substances 
List of the accidents studied in the safety report. 
6.2. Reference accidents) taken into consideration by the competent national authorities 
for evaluating possible radiological consequences in the case of ur îanned releases 
Online of the accident(s) considered and justification of its (their) choice. 
63. Evaluation of the radiological con^M-ences of the reference accidents) 
f ) The values submitted should reflect that the results can represent little more than orders of magnitude to which 
it would be inappropriate to ascribe a false precision. 
Ah 
No I. 6/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. I. 91 
6.3.1. Entailing releases to atmosphere 
— assumptions used to calculate the releases to atmosphere, 
— rele-;c paths ; time pattern of the releases. 
— amounts and physico-chemical forms of those radionuclides released which are significant 
from the point of view of health, 
— models and parameters used to calculate for the releases their atmospheric dispersion, 
ground deposition, resuspension and transfer via food chains and to evaluate the exposure 
levels via the significant exposure pathways, 
— maximum time-integrated concentrations of radioactivity in the atmosphere near the 
ground and maximum surface contamination levels (in dry and wet weather) for the most 
exposed areas in the vicinity of the plant and for relevant areas in other Member States, 
— corresponding exposure levels P): dose equivalent to those living in relevant areas of other 
Member Sûtes uking account of all significant exposure pathways. 
632. Enuiling releases into an aquatic environment 
— assumptions used to calculate the liquid releases, 
— release paths, time partem of releases, 
— amounts .and physico-chemical forms of those radionuclides released which are significant 
from the point of view of health, 
— models and parameters used to calculate for the releases their aquatic dispersion, their 
transfer by sedimenution and ion exchange, their transfer via food chains and to evaluate 
the exposure levels via the significant exposure pathways, 
— corresponding exposure levels (') : dose equivalents to those living in the vicinity of the 
plant and in relevant areas of other Member Sûtes uking account of all significant expo­
sure pathways. 
6.4. Emergency plans ; agreements with other Member Sûtes 
Brief description of emergency planning zones, emergency reference levels of dose, bilateral or 
multilateral agreements on transfrontier communications and mutual assisunce, rehearsals, 
reviewing and updating of emergency plans. 
7. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 
— external radiation levels, 
— radioactivity in air, watrer, soil and the food chains. 
With reference to 3.1 and 4.1 above, monitoring programms as approved by the competent 
national authorities, organization, sample forms and frequency, type of monitoring instru­
ments used in normal and accidenul circumsunces ; where appropriate, any collaboration 
arrangements in this respect with neighbouring Member Sûtes. 
() The values submitted should reflect that the results can represent little more than orders ol magnitude to which 
it would br inappropriate 10 ascribe a false precision. 
Slï 
I. 9| Oilici.il Journal of the European Communities No L b'l.\ 
ANNEX IB 
'GENERAL DATA' 
applicable to category 2, operations (5) and (6) 
(for plans concerning new disposal sites) 
1. The site and surroundings 
Location, depth, geology, seismology, and 
for a iea site : seabed characteristics (including the presence of pipelines and submarine cables) 
currents and other dispersion mechanisms, relevant biological data, risk of disturbance (e.g. by 
e\K>oitation of marine resources, by dumping of other wastes etc.) 
for a land site : hydrology, use of land and of ground water, repository design including safety 
features and capacity, long term control of the site. 
2. The wastes 
Volumes, radionuclides present, activities, prohibited wastes, conditioning and packaging, assumed 
leak rates and. where appropriate, heat release rates. 
3. Environmental effects 
Assessment of the radiological consequences to the environment. 
4. Operational procedures 
Including measures to be taken in the event of incidents. 
5. Monitoring 
Radiation monitoring programmas). 
Al 
No I. 6/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. i. •»! 
A XX EX 2 
PRELIMINARY GENERAL DATA* 
applicable to category t operations 
1. The site and its surroundings 
— map of the region showing the location of the plant with regard to other nearby nuclear instal­
lations and to other Member Sûtes, 
— main seismic characteristics of the region. 
— main characteristics of the waterbodies receiving radioactive effluents, 
— main regional and local climatological characteristics, 
— industrial or military activities in the vicinity of the plant, 
— population distribution in adjacent regions of other Member Sûtes concerned. 
—. 2. The plant 
— brief description of the plant and its main safety features, 
— time scale of plant construction. 
3. Forecast releases of radioactive effluents 
— estimate of annual radioactive discharges and their radiological consequences. 
4. Accidental releases of radioacrive effluents 
— list of accidents considered in the preliminary safety report, 
— preliminary evaluation of the radiological consequences of the reference accidents). 
M 
ANNEX 2 
Details of plans submitted 
Site 
Sellafield (UK) 
Dessel (B) 
Lingen (D) 
Hanau (D) 
Soulaines-Dhuys (F) 
Sloe (NL) 
Saelices el Chico (E) 
Sellafield (UK) 
EI Cabril (E) 
Sizewell (UK) 
Marcoule (F) 
Chooz (F) 
Salzgitter (D) Distance to another 
Member State 
180km(IRL) 
11 km(NL) 
20km(NL) 
145 km (L) 
200 km (B and L) 
16 km (B) 
14 km (P) 
180km(IRL) 
126 km (P) Type of installation 
Windscale vitrification 
plant and vitrified 
product store 
Demox PI fuel 
fabrication plant 
Fuel element fabrication 
plant (extension) 
Siemens AG fuel 
fabrication plant 
Aube storage centre for 
radioactive waste 
Covra NV radioactive 
waste processing and 
storage facility 
Quercus uranium ore 
processing plant 
Thorp nuclear fuel 
reprocessing plant 
Storage facility 
140 km (F, B and NL) PWR nuclear power 
station 
1x1175 MWe 
180 km (I) Melox nuclear fuel 
fabrication plant 
4 km (B) PWR nuclear power 
station 
2x1400 MWe 
220 km (NL) 
PWR: Pressurised Water Reactor Konrad radioactive 
waste repository Opinion 
issued 
7/90 
11/90 
12/90 
5/91 
11/91 
4/92 
4/92 
3/94 OJ 
reference 
L 193/35 
L 337/23 
L 356/39 
L 142/39 
L 324/34 
L 121/44 
4/92 L 128/26 
L 138/36 
5/92 L 189/40 
11/92 L 344/40 
L 80/24 
oUO 
ANNEX 3 
Composition, by Member State, of the Article 37 group of experts 
on 30 June 1994 
BELGIUM 3 
GERMANY 4 
DENMARK 2 
SPAIN 4 
IRELAND 2 
FRANCE 4 
UNITED KINGDOM 4 
GREECE 2 
ITALY 4 
LUXEMBOURG 2 
NETHERLANDS 3 
PORTUGAL 3 
TOTAL 37 
l\ 
ISS* 0254-1475 
COM(95) 328 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 01 12 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-359-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-91449-1 
Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg