NoC108/48 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.4.93
serviceswhicharenotcoveredbyanylicence(e.g.
certainservicesintheNetherlands),whereitsisvery
unclearastohowthisshouldbedealtwith,theCom­
missionshouldconsiderthisissueinfurtherdetailto
ensurethatregulationofunregulatedservicesisnota
consequence .4.8.Article22
Thissetsouttheprovisionstoensuresecurityofinfor­
mationundertheproposal.Astheinformationinvolved
intheproceduresundertheMutualRecognitionPro­
posalisparticularlyvulnerableandsensitiveinecon­
omictermsforthepartiesinvolved,itisassumedthat
securityprovisionsequivalenttothoseemployedin
similarcircumstances forinformationgatheredby
DirectorateGeneralIVoftheCommission willbe
employedundertheproposalcurrentlyunderdis­
cussion.
5.Timetable
ItisunderstoodthattheCommissionhopestohavethis
Proposaladoptedinthecourseof1993.TheCommittee
welcomesanearlydeadlineforadoptionofthispro­
posal.4.7.Article16
Concernwasexpressedthatthe'reasonablefee'should
notbesuchthat(forexample)smallandmediumsized
enterprisescannotaffordit.Whatisreasonablefor
somemaybeprohibitiveforothers.
DoneatBrussels,25February1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTTEMANN
OpiniononthedraftproposalforaCouncilDirectivelayingdownthebasicstandardsfor
theprotectionofthehealthofworkersandthegeneralpublicagainstthedangersarising
fromionizingradiation
(93/C108/15)
On8July1992theCommissiondecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle31oftheEuratomTreaty,ontheabovementioned draftproposal.
TheSectionforEnergy,NuclearQuestionsandResearch,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon11February1993.The
RapporteurwasMrBeale.
Atits303rdPlenarySession(meetingof25February1993)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedunnaimouslythefollowingOpinion.
1.Introduction therprovidedthat'thebasicstandardsshallbeworke­
doutbytheCommissionafterithasobtainedtheopin­
ionofagroupofpersonsappointedbytheScientific
andTechnicalCommitteefromamongscientific
experts,andinparticularpublichealthexperts,inthe
MemberStates.TheCommissionshallobtaintheOpin­
ionoftheEconomicandSocialCommitteeonthese
basicstandards'(Article31).1.1.UnderChapterIII(HealthandSafety)ofthe
EuratomTreaty,'basicstandardsshallbelaiddown
withintheCommunityfortheprotectionofthehealth
ofworkersandthegeneralpublicagainstthedangers
arisingfromionizingradiations'(Article30).Itisfur­

19.4.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC108/49
provisionsongroundsofmajorneedsreferredtoin
Article36'.Possiblecontradictions betweenthesepro­
visionsneedtobeclarified.However,aDecisionofthe
CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesof25
NovemberlastappearstohaveestablishedthatMem­
berStatescansetlimitsevenstricterthanthose
obtainingatCommunitylevel.TheCommission is
understoodtobeexaminingtheimplicationsofthe
Decision.1.2.Itisclearfromtheabovequotationsthatthe
primaryresponsibilityforthesettingofradiationsafety
standardsrestswithotherCommunitybodies.Thisis
atopicwherescientificandtechnicalexpertiseiscru­
cial.Theversionofthebasicstandardscurrentlyin
forcedatesbackto1980(*),withamendmentsmainly
affectingtheirtechnicalannexesbeingmadein1984(2).
1.3.TheCommitteehasreceivedanamountofscien­
tificandtechnicaladvicewhichitwishestopassonto
theCommission ,forthelattertotakeintoaccountin
itsfurtherdiscussionswiththeEuropeanParliament
andtheCouncil.TheCommitteeseesasitsprincipal
tasktheissueofanOpinionuponthelikelyeconomic,
socialandenvironmental implicationsofthenewDirec­
tive.However,commentsonthemorestrictlyscientific
andtechnicalmattersarealsomadeasappropriate .
1.4.PreviousOpinionsoftheCommitteewereissued
on24May1973,12July1978,20December1978and
7July1983.InitsOpinionof7July1983(3),thelatest
issued,theCommitteecalledforregularupdatingof
basicradiationsafetystandardsandsupportedthe
bringingofEuratomstandardsintolinewiththelatest
recommendations oftheInternational Commission on
RadiologicalProtection (ICRP),althoughaccepting
thatthis'shouldnot,however,preventtheCommission
lookingforotherscientificsourceswhichmightprovide
stillbetterdata'.3.2.AstheCommissionstatesintheExplanatory
Memorandum ,theCommunity'sbasicsafetystandards
havealwaystakenintoaccounttherecommendations
oftheInternationalCommissiononRadiologicalPro­
tection.Asaresultofthecontinuingstudiesofthe
survivorsoftheatomicbombsatHiroshimaandNaga­
saki,thoserecommendations havebecomesomewhat
morerestrictiveandthisisreflectedinthenewDraft
Directive.
3.3.Tothelayman,thefactthatICRPrecommen­
dationsarelargelybasedonthelatestevidencefrom
studiesofatomicbombsurvivorsposesproblems.The
effectsuponthehumanbodyoflowlevelsofradiation
dosereceivedoveraperiodofyearsarenotnecessarily
comparablewithahigh-leveldoseinflictedinamatter
ofsecondsandaccompaniedbyintenseheatandblast.
Thatis,assumingthetotaldosereceivedtobethesame.
However,theCommitteeisadvisedthatallowanceis
madeforthat,itbeingspecificallyassumedthatalow
doseoveralongperiodislessharmfulthanthesame
dosereceivedinaquickburst. 2.ThepresentsituationintheCommunity
2.1.TheCommitteeunderstandsthatsomeMember
Stateshavenotyetfullyimplementedthecurrentpro­
visionsofCommunitylawonthismatter.Therefore,
thefirstpriorityfortheCommissionmustbetoensure
thatexistinglegislationisenforced.Itisalsoreported
that,exceptforoccasionallapses,thelevelofradiation
towhichworkersandthegeneralpublicarenormally
exposedintheCommunityisbelowestablishedlimits.
AnumberofMemberStateshavealreadyestablished
lowerlimitsofradiationexposurethanaresetoutin
thelatestCommissionproposals.3.4.Moreover,thereismuchotherevidenceavail­
able.Thefirstsustainedchainreactionwasachieved
inChicagoin1942,atthestartoftheUSweapons
programmeinWorldWarTwo.Subsequentmilitary
andcivilnuclearenergydevelopments inmany
countriesmeanthatthereisnowacorpusofknowledge
abouttheeffectsofradiationoverhalfacentury,not
countingearlierworkbythescientificpioneers.There
arealsorecords,datingbacktotheearlyyearsofthis
century,concerningthemedicaleffectsofdosesreceived
byradiographersandtheirpatients,althoughtheolder
dataareoflimiteduse.
3.Generalobservations
3.5.TheCommitteeconsidersthatradiationprotec­
tionisafieldinwhichcontinuousresearchisrequired.
Thisdoesnotmeanthatmorestringentlimitswill
alwaysbenecessary.Insomecases,itmayproveposs­
ibletorelaxthem.Itisinanycaseregrettable,asthe
CommitteerecentlypointedoutinitsOpinionof28
January1993ontheTechnologicalProblemsofNuclear
Safety(4),thattherelevantresearchprogrammesboth
inMemberStatesandatCommunitylevelhavebeen
drasticallycutback.3.1.TheCommitteenotesthatArticle2(b)ofthe
EuratomTreatyprovidesthattheCommunityshall
'establishuniformsafetystandardstoprotectthehealth
ofworkersandofthegeneralpublicandensurethat
theyareapplied'.Ontheotherhand,Article100aof
theEECTreatydoesenvisagethat—withinthepro­
visionsforapproximation oflawswithintheInternal
Market—aMemberStatemay'applynational
(*)OJNoL246,17.9.1980,p.1.
(2)OJNoL265,5.10.1984,p.4.
(3)OJNoC286,24.10.1983,p.15. (4)OJNoC108,15.3.1993,p.78.

NoC108/50 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.4.93
3.6.Shouldthenewdoselimitsprovelowerthanthe
dosesactuallyreceivedbyworkersinanyCommunity
location,thereisaneedforremediesiftheinstallation
inquestionisnottobeshutdown.Theanswermay
besoughtincapitalinvestmenttoprovidebetterprotec­
tion.Ifso,theriskofcancerwillbereduced.Onthe
otherhand,itmayinvolveemployingmorepeoplefor
shortershifts.Inthisevent,thenumberofcancers
mightnotbereducedsincethecollectivedosewould
staythesame.However,theindividualriskwillbe
reducediftheindividualdoseisreduced.
3.6.1.Thereisprobablynosolutionthatisgenerally
applicable.Moreover,adoptionofthenewlevelscould
intheoryputCommunityindustriesatacompetitive
disadvantagevis-a-visthoseinothercountries.Given
thelikelydelaybeforetheDraftDirectiveisadopted
bytheCouncilandthenincorporatedintonational
laws,theproposeddeadlineof30June1994isevidently
unrealistic .4.2.2.Activation
Thisshouldincludeareferencetoparticles.
4.2.3.Approvedoccupational healthser­
vices
Replace'responsiblefor'by'involvedin'.
4.2.4.Harm
Unlessthisweredescribedas'Healthdetriment',the
words'clinicallyobservable'shouldbedeleted,as
shouldthewholeofthesecondsentence'Itincludesthe
probabilityofsucheffects'.
4.2.5.Radioactive substance
Thisdefinitionistoovague.Nolowerlimitisgiven.
4.2.6.Competentauthorities
Adefinitionoftheseshouldbeincluded,tomakeclear
thatthesearetheradiationprotectionbodiesinMem­
berStates,nottheoperatingmanagementsofnuclear
installations .3.7.Whenconsideringtheinternationaldimension
oftheradiationproblem,theCommitteeismindful
ofthefact—amplydemonstratedbytheChernobyl
disaster—thatradiationdoesnotstopatfrontiers.The
shipmentofradioactivesubstancesisitselfthesubject
ofaseparateproposalforaCouncilRegulation(*).
3.8.TheCommitteenoteswithapprovalthepro­
visions,inArticle50ofthepresentDraftDirective,for
cooperationwithotherStates.However,asworded,
thoseprovisionsappeartoenvisagebilateralrelations
withotherStates—whetherwithinorwithouttheCom­
munity—ratherthanmultilateralarrangementssuch
asareavailableviatheInternationalAtomicEnergy
Agency.TheCommunity'sMemberStatesareallmem­
bersofthatbody.4.3.TitleII:ScopeArticle2
4.3.1.TheCommitteeapprovestheinclusionof
'exposuretonaturalradiationsourcesatwork'inthe
DraftDirective.However,inthecaseofexistingurani­
ummines,thereshouldbeprovisioninsomecircum­
stancesforareasonabledelaytopermitprogressive
reductionsinannualdoselimits,untiltheprescribed
limitsareachieved.Theperiodoftimetobeallowed
beforetheprescribedlimitshavetobeimplemented,
andthestagesleadingtotheirimplementation must
bedeterminedbythecompetentnationalauthorities
followingconsultationswiththerelevanttradeunions
andemployers.Thedecisionsofthecompetentnational
authoritiesmustbereportedtotheCommission .4.Specificcomments
4.1.Preamble
4.1.1.TheCommitteepointsoutthatsomeofthe
wordingofthePreamblemayneedchanginginaccord­
ancewithsuggestedamendmentstovariousArticles:
e.g.'placingonthemarket'.
4.2.Title1:DefinitionsArticle1
4.2.1.Accident4.4.Title111:Reportingandauthorization
4.4.1.Article4
Replacethewords'theirplacingonthemarket'by
'theirfreemovement'.Thisarticleshouldnotbeused
toprohibitactivationofsuchitemsforanalyticalpur­
poses.
4.4.2.Articles 5and6Aminimumlimitforthedefinitionofanaccidentis
required,althoughthispresentsdifficulties.
TheCommitteeunderstandsthattheCommission (!)OJNoC347,31.12.1992,p.17.

19.4.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC108/51
Thelasttwolinesshouldread:'shallbesuchasto
ensurethattheequivalentdosetothefoetusdoesnot
exceed1msvduringtheremainderofthepregnancy'.
4.5.3.ChapterIV:Speciallyauthorized
exposures
4.5.3.1.Article13
TheCommitteerecognizesthatthisArticledoesnot
refertoemergenciesbutrathertootherexceptional
circumstances likelytoinvolvehigherdoselimitsdur­
ing,forexample,repairwork.Thisshouldperhapsbe
moreclearlydefined.Moreover,sub-paragraph 2of
thisArticleshouldbeamendedtomakeclearthat
althoughaworkermaybe'excludedfromhisnormal
occupation'afterreceivinganexcessiveradiationdose,
thatdoesnotjustifydismissalfromtheentity'semploy.intendstoclarifythetextoftheseArticles.Meanwhile,
theCommitteewouldsuggestcertainamendments .
4.4.3.Article5
In5(c),thewords'consumergoods'shouldbereplaced
by'consumerdurables'.In5(e)insertthewords'and
handling'between'orprocessing'and'ofproducts'.In
5(f)insertacommafollowedbytheword'diagnosis'
between'medicaltreatment'and'orresearch'.
4.4.4.Article6
SincethevaluesgiveninAnnexI[referredtoinArticle
6(a)and(b)]arenotbackedupbyanytechnicaldata,
itisnotpossibletocheckwhethertheyarecorrect.The
proposedlimitsontheconcentrationofactivityper
unitmasswouldalsoseemtobeonthehighsideinthe
caseofanumberofradionuclides .Theapplicationof
suchlimitsinthedisposalofradioactivewastecould
thereforeposeproblemsincertainMemberStates
unlessparticularprecautionsaretaken.4.6.TitleV:Derivedlimits
4.6.1.Article16
4.5.TitleIV:Systemofradiologicalprotectionfor
practices
Thesecondsentenceofsub-paragraph 1ofthisArticle
shouldread'Othermethods,suchasmodellingtech­
niques,maybeusedtoachievetheseendsifauthorized
bythecompetentauthorities.'4.5.1.ChapterI:Generalprinciples
4.5.1.1.Article7
4.7.TitleVI:Fundamentalprinciplesgoverningoper­
ationalprotectionofexposedworkers,appren­
ticesandstudents
4.7.1.Chapter I:Measuresforthe
restrictionofexposuresectionI
classification anddelineation of
areasTheneedforadefinitionof'competentauthorities'
wasalreadypointedoutincommentsonArticle1.
4.5.2.ChapterII:Limitationofdoses
forexposedworkers
4.5.2.1.Article9
TheCommitteebelievesthatthe'radiationpassport'
recordinganindividual'srecordofexposurealready
providedforinCouncilDirective90/641/Euratomof4
December1990(*)shouldbeextendedtoallexposed
workers.Thiswouldbeausefultooltoassistmobility
oflabouramongnuclearinstallations,whetherwithin
oneMemberStateoracrossborders.
4.5.2.2.Article10
Replacethewords'assoonasthepregnancyisdeclared
tomanagement'by'assoonasthemanagementis
informedofthepregnancy',thepointbeingthatin
somecountriestheinitialdeclarationwillbemadeto
themedicalstaffratherthandirectlytothemanage­
ment.4.7.1.1.Article21
ThedefinitionofCategoryBworkersistooimprecise.
4.7.1.2.Article22
Provisionshouldbemadefortheupdatingoftraining
forwomenassoonasmanagementhasbeeninformed
oftheirpregnancy.
4.7.2.ChapterII:Assessmentofexposure
4.7.2.1.Article25
(!)OJNoL349,13.12.1990,p.21.CategoryBworkersshouldalwaysbeindividuallymon­
itoredwhenenteringacontrolledarea.

NoC108/52 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.4.93
expandedtoincludeconsiderationofreductioninthe
amountandactivityofwasteproduced.
4.9.TitleIX:Potentialaccidentalandemergency
exposures
4.9.1.Article49
ItwouldbedesirablefortheDirectivetoincludean
Annexdefiningtheinterventionlevels'establishedby
Communitylegislation'mentionedin49(c).
4.9.2.Article50
TheInternationalAtomicEnergyAgencyshouldnot
bepassedoverinsilenceintheprovisionsfor'cooper­
ationwithotherStates'.
4.9.3.Article53
ThestatementinArticle13about'theexceedingof
doselimitsasaresultofspeciallyauthorizedexposures'
shouldberepeatedhereinrespectofemergencies,as
shouldtheCommittee'srecommendation thatthisdoes
notjustifydismissal.
4.10.Annexes
4.10.1.Annexes IandIII
ItisunderstoodthattheCommissionisrevisingthese
valueswhich,theCommitteeisadvised,aretoohigh
insomecasesandtoolowinothers.4.7.2.2.Article28
Theword'submitted'shouldbereplacedby'forward­
ed'inthesecondindentofsub-paragraph 1.
4.7.3.ChapterIII:Medicalsurveillance
ofexposedworkers
4.7.3.1.Article32
Thepre-employment medicalreferredtoinsub-para­
graph2(a)shouldapplynotonlytoaworker'sfirst
employmentbutalsotohisorherfirstpostinwhich
theexposuretoradiationisinvolved.
4.7.4.ChapterIV:Tasksofmember
Statesinrespectofprotectionof
exposedworkers
4.7.4.1.Article39
Theprovisionofinformationtoworkersontheirper­
sonalradiationdosesshouldbeautomatic.TheCom­
mitteealsopointsoutthatitsproposal(underArticle
9above)foraradiationpassportwouldfacilitatethe
exchangeofinformationrequiredinsub-paragraph
39.5.
4.8.TitleVIII:Fundamental principlesgoverning
operationalprotectionofthepopulationinnor­
malcircumstances
4.8.1.Articles45and48
Theword'undertaking(s)'in45(a)and(b)and48
shouldbereplacedby'installation(s)'.45(c)shouldbe
DoneatBrussels,25February1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN