ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(82)455
Vol.1982/0151

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHE>EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
.*;>
M"S,'V
\
V/
\'COM(82)455 final
Brussels ,28July 1982
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TOTHE COUNCIL AND TOPARLIAMENT
APPLICATION
OFARTICLE 37
OFTHEEURATOM TREATY
SURVEY OFACTIVITIES
EXPERIENCE GAINED
1959 -1981
COM (82)^55final

ABSTRACT
Article 37ofthe EURATOM Treaty stipulates that each Member
State shall submit totheCommission such general data concern­
ing anyplan for the disposal ofradioactive waste aswill
enable the Commission togive its opinion whether ornot the
implementation ofsuch aplan islikely toinvolve radiological
consequences inanother Member State .
Inthe 22years during which this Article has been applied ,
theCommission has issued 94Opinions relating to149nuclear
installations .
This report ,inpart responding toarequest from the European
Parliament ,reviews the procedure followed informulating such
Opinions ,the focal points ofthe examination ofadisposal
plan and the experience thereby acquired .The last-mentioned
has been taken fully into account inthe revision ofthe
Recommendation relating tothe application ofArticle 37,as
approved bytheCommission onFebruary 3rd 1982 .

-II-
CONTENTS
page
ABSTRACT I
I.INTRODUCTION 1
II .PROCEDURES FOLLOWED INAPPLICATION OF
ARTICLE 37 3
1.Recommendation concerning theapplication
ofArticle 37adopted bythe Commission
in1960 3
2.Examination ofsubmissions 7
3.Essential features cited inOpinions on
waste disposal plans 10
III .WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMISSION 17
IV.EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED AND PROGRESS ACHIEVED 19
1.Experience acquired 19
2.Progress achieved 23
V.REVISION OFTHE RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
THE APPLICATION OFARTICLE 37 26
REFERENCES 28
ANNEXE I -The Article 37Group ofExperts
ANNEXE II -Note issued bvthe Council of t
ANNEXE III -
ANNEXE IV -
ANNEXE V
ANNEXE VI -Note issued bythe Council ofthe European
Atomic Energy Community on12/1/62
Plans for the disposal ofradioactive waste
(asnotified at31.XII .1981 )
Maximum hypothetical exposure in1978 from
gaseous effluents
Principle sites with nuclear installations ,
operational orunder construction ,located
near frontiers ofMember States
"Commission Recommendation of3February 1982
ontheapplication ofArticle 37ofthe
EURATOM Treaty "

I.INTRODUCTION
Title 2,Chapter III ("Health Protection ")oftheTreaty
establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM )
imposes the following obligations upon Member States as
regards the discharge ofradioactive waste from nuclear
installations .
Article 37
"Each Member State shall provide theCommission with such
general data relating toany plan for the disposal of
radioactive waste inwhatever form aswill make itpossible
todetermine whether the implementation ofsuch plan is
liable toresult inthe radioactive contamination ofthe
water ,soil orairspace ofanother Member State .
The Commission shall deliver its opinion within six months ,
after consulting the group ofexperts referred toin
Article 31".
Afurther article ofthe Treaty ,Article 38,defines the
measures tobetaken bythe Commission toprevent infringe­
ment ofthe EURATOM Basic Safety Standards with regard to
the level ofradioactivity inthe air ,water orsoil inany
Member State .

After what now amounts toover twenty years' experience of
theapplication ofthese provisions oftheEURATOM Treaty ,
itseems appropriate topresent acomprehensive review of
the role ofArticle 37inthe approach toradiation protect­
ion adopted bythe Commission and totake stock ofthe work
that has been carried out under the terms ofthis Article ,
with anappraisal ofthe experience gained and the lessons
that have been learned .The present report isintended to
constitute ,inparticular ,the first ofthe annual reports
concerning the application ofArticle 37and the experience
gained therefrom that have been called for bythe European
Parliament D.
1)Resolution ,dated 20th November 1980 ,onthesiting of
nuclear power stations infrontier regions
O.J. C327Vol 23,pp34-35 ,15/12/80

-3-
II.PROCEDURES FOLLOWED INAPPLICATION OFARTICLE 37
Since Article 37provides the only legal basis ,within the
framework ofthe Treaty ,for theCommission receiving from
theGovernments oftheMember States certain data relating
totheradiological safety Dofnuclear projects ,itis
understandable that themandate actually laid down in
Article 37has frequently been seen ,incorrectly ,asan
instrument which may ,byextension ,beused tohandle all
problems specific tosuch projects .The description given
below ofthe procedures followed inapplication of
Article 37therefore starts with the 1960 Recommendation
which allows abetter understanding ofthis point .The
procedure used inexamining waste disposal plans isthen
reviewed and themost significant points raised inopinions
delivered bythe Commission are discussed .
1.Recommendation concerning the application ofArticle 37
adopted bythe Commission in1960
The first application ofArticle 37was preceded ,inthe
period 1959 /60,byanexchange ofviews onthe interpreta­
tion and objectives ofthis Article and the procedure to
befollowed from the notification ofawaste disposal plan
tothe delivery ofthe Commission 'sopinion under the terms
oftheTreaty .Thegroup ofexperts 2)cited intheArticle
realized atanearly stage that certain ,mainly technical
terms inthe Treaty would need elucidation toensure that
itcould beapplied asuniformly aspossible throughout the
Itshould benoted that the term "nuclear safety "(e.g. in
the sense of "reactor safety ")isnot tobefound inthe
text ofthe EURATOM Treaty .
2)Forthecomposition oftheGroup ofExperts seeAppendix I.

-4-
Community .Itshould beremembered ,inthis context ,that
Article 37waswritten inonly onthedaypreceding the
signature ofthe Rome Treaties Catthe eleventh hour ,soto
speak ),without detailed discussion .Itmust also be
remembered that ,atthat time 1),theoriginal sixsignatory
States possessed little experience ofthedischarge of
radioactive wastes (particularly from nuclear installations
ofanindustrial nature ),which explains why certain phrases
inthis passage from the Treaty are couched inrather general
terms .They were meant tobesointerpreted astoensure
meaningful application -where appropriate ,onthe basis of
such specialized knowledge asmight beacquired inthe
course oftime orofother experience relevent totheir
technical significance .The first question toresolve was
what plans ,i.e. disposal plans ,for what installations
should besubject tothe procedure provided for inthe Treaty
and what evidence should form the basis ofthe Commission 's
opinion ineach case .
There isinfact nogenerally recognized definition ofthe
level above which wastes should beregarded as "radioactive ",
and the same applies to "radioactive contamination ".Nor is
itimmediately obvious which aspects ofawaste disposal
plan should becovered bythe "general data "stipulated in
the Treaty .
1)TheTreaties ofRome were signed on25th March ,1957

-5-
The discussions onthese points resulted inaRecommendation
concerning theapplication ofArticle 37which was approved
bytheCommission onNovember 16th ,1960 /l/.The essential
points ofthis Recommendation ,which isaddressed toall
Member States ,are summarized below .
Since the Treaty implies that thehealth protection aspects
are ofessential importance inthe assessment ofawaste
disposal plan ,itisobvious that theEuratom Basic Safety
Standards /2/,which were drawn upinaccordance with
Article 30ofthe Euratom Treaty ,consitute themain
authority towhich reference should bemade .This iswhy
anyattempts todefine more precisely thewording of
Article 37had totake account ofthese Basic Safety Stand­
ards .
For thepurposes ofthis Article ,therefore ,"disposal of
radioactive waste "was deemed tomean "any definitive release
into the air ,water orsoil ofradioactive substances that
can cause ,forpersons other than those occupationally
exposed ,acontamination involving adanger ofexceeding
themaximum permissible dose for thegeneral population as
fixed inthe Basic Safety Standards inpursuance of
Article 31oftheTreaty ".
Thus ,itisthis health aspect alone ,and not the type of
installation (laboratory ,power station ,reprocessing plant ,
etc )oritscapacity orlocation ,which determines whether
aproject issubject totheprovisions ofArticle 37.Member
States are ,however ,atliberty tosubmit totheCommission
individual projects which donotcome under thedefinition
given above but forwhich they would welcome theopinion of
thegroup ofexperts .

-6-
Theaforesaid Recommendation also specifies :
-what comprises the "general data "1)forthepurposes of
Article 37;
-that the general data should besubmitted atleast
6months before thedate setforthedisposal plan to
beput into operation ;
-which plans are toberegarded asinvolving releases of
"radioactive waste ";
-that simple handling and temporary storage ofradioactive
waste isnot regarded as "disposal ";
-that the nuclear installations already inservice in1960
were tobelisted ,and that the data ontheir waste dis­
charges under normal operating conditions were tobe
entered onrecord .
Inaddition ,atthe request ofthe Atomic Questions Group ,
the Secretariat ofthe Council ofthe EAEC defined more
precisely ,inanote dated 12th January 1962 (see
Appendix II),the obligations imposed upon theMember
States pursuant toArticle 37with regard tosupplying the
required data and thecompleteness and correctness thereof .
Itemphasized inparticular that theCommission should
also benotified ofany substantial modifications made to
plans previously submitted ,insofar asthey arerelevant
tothe aspects covered byArticle 37.
The list ofgeneral data setforth intheAppendix tothis
Recommendation was revised for the first time in1973 to
take account ofexperience acquired uptothat date .

-7-
This note also emphasized thefact that togrant official
authorization fortheimplementation ofanyplan without
having first obtained theCommission 'sopinion would be
inconsistent with the spirit ofArticle 37andwould rob
thelatter ofallpractical significance .
Inthis respect ,itisworthwhile noting that twoMember
States ,Belgium and Italy ,have made explicit reference to
Article 37intheir legislation onthe authorization of
nuclear installations .The Belgian Royal Decree ,of
28th February 1963 /3/specifies that theopinion ofthe
Commission pursuant toArticle 37must beobtained before
granting authorization for theoperation ofmajor nuclear
installations ,while Article 42ofDecree No .185 (1964 )
ofthePresident oftheRepublic ofItaly /4/stipulates
that the "general data "must besubmitted totheCommission
before any disposal plan isauthorized .
2.Examination ofsubmissions
Itmust beexpected that the completeness and accuracy of
the general data concerning anyplan for the disposal of
radioactive waste will have been checked before itissub­
mitted totheCommission bythe government oftheMember
State inquestion (cf.theCouncil Note inAppendix II).

-8-
The successive stages oftheprocedure ,which meets the
requirements ofthe Treaty ,are asfollows :
(1)Submission ofthegeneral data totheSecretary General
oftheCommission bytheMember State
(2)Verification ,bythat Commission department which
provides theSecretariat totheGroup ofExperts that
thegeneral data are complete and ,ifnecessary ,
collection ofanymissing information
(3)Preparation ,bytheSecretariat totheGroup ofExperts ,
ofastudy ofthewaste disposal plan ,toserve asa
working document forexamination atthe experts' meeting
(4)Meeting ofthe group ofexperts ;
and compilation ofthe ;Consultation
Report oftheGroup ofExperts to ; Experts^
the Commission
(5)Compilation ofadraft ofthe opinion required bythe
Treaty and Approval thereof bythe Commission
(6)Communication ofthe Commission 'sopinion tothe Govern­
ment ofthe Member State concerned ,within the six-month
period allowed ,andwhere appropriate transmission of
all orpart oftheopinion ,toanyneighbouring Member
State concerned .Consultation
ofthe group
ofExperts

-9-
Insofar asthedocumentation issubmitted only inthe
language oftheMember State concerned ,translation and
reproduction isarelatively time-consuming process .
Theactual process ofconsulting theexperts isStage 4of
thesequence outlined above .Toensure that anytechnical
questions canbeanwered ,themeetings areattended not
only byrepresentatives ofrelevant Commission departments
but also byrepresentatives ofthegovernment ofthe
Member State submitting the data .
Inaddition toabrief description ofthe installation and
itsmonitoring and safety equipment ,the report then
compiled bythe experts generally contains ananalysis of
thepossible radiological consequences of:
-discharges ofgaseous radioactive effluents during normal
operation ;
-discharges ofliquid radioactive effluents and solid
radioactive wastes during normal operation ;
-unplanned releases which may occur inthe event ofan
accident .
Thereport finishes with astatement ofwhether and towhat
extent theimplementation ofthewaste disposal plan is
liable toresult incontamination inanother Member State .
Onthebasis ofthe experts' report ,the Secretariat ,in
collaboration with the Legal Department oftheCommission
andwith Directorate-General XIlD ,draws upadraft ofthe
Commission Opinion required bytheTreaty which isthen
submitted totheCommission ,usually bywritten procedure ,
for its approval .
1)Directorate-General "Science ,Research and Development "

-10-
Theprocedure iscompleted bythecommunication ofthe
Opinion thus produced totheGovernment oftheMember State
which submitted thewaste disposal plan ,forease ofunder­
standing ofthetechnical factors onwhich theOpinion was
based ,thereport compiled bythegroup ofexperts is
frequently enclosed .Furthermore ,ifother States (whether
Member States ornon-member countries )could beaffected
bythedischarges inquestion ,they arenotified ,inan
appropriate way ,ofthe conclusions ofthe study orof
other aspects oftheOpinion ofspecial relevance tothem .
3.Essential features cited inOpinions onwaste disposal
plans
The above description ofthe content ofthe reports submitt­
edbythe experts totheCommission onwaste disposal plans ,
simply bymentioning the essential features ofthe investig­
ation ,gives some indication ofthevarious problems involved .
Onthe one hand ,itisobvious that the scope ofArticle 37
does not include acomplete safety analysis ofthe type
usually required aspart ofthe nuclear installations
licensing procedure .Onthe other hand ,theopinions
issued inapplication ofthe Treaty areessentially dependent
onthe consequences that may arise inthe event ofan
accidental release .Itcan therefore beseen that itis,in
practice ,necessary torefer repeatedly totheresults of
thesafety studies onwhich thenational authorities base
thegranting ofpermits forthesiting ,construction and
operation ofnuclear installations .Theoriginal view ,that
Article 37was confined ,initsapplication ,to "planned
releases "hasbeen replaced over theyears byabroad
interpretation extending itsapplication toaccidental
releases ,i.e. theprinciple isthat every project ,and
inparticular every waste disposal plan ,must beexamined
toascertain whether theplan presented canbeadhered
toandtheconsequences ofanyfailure todoso.
1)See footnote 1)topage 3

-11-
Normal discharges .Normal discharges include notonly con­
tinuous discharges but also variations which reflect the
need for acertain degree offlexibility intheoperation
ofaplant 1).Observance ofthestringent provisions of
theBasic Safety Standards implies theelimination ofany
possible hazard totheareas surrounding thesite asa
result ofsuch discharges ,and itisbarely credible that
anysignificant amount ofactivity could carry toaneigh­
bouring country (e.g. through take upinclouds and sub­
sequent rain-out ).
There are ,however ,special cases inwhich "normal "dis­
charges call for attention under the terms ofArticle 37.
This may beso,for example ,when liquid effluent isdis­
charged into ariver which impinges onthe territory of
another Member State .Apart from the problems associated
with thedilution capacity ofsuch rivers ,the question may
arise ofanunremarked significant increase inradioactivity
levels (e.g. inriver-borne sediment orasaresult of
utilization ofthe water for irrigating crops ).The moni­
toring ofthe radioactivity ofsuch abody ofwater should
then beorganized under abilateral ormultilateral agree­
ment ,depending onthenumber ofStates involved ,and in
such cases the Commission can provide the appropriate
stimulus 2).
These are referred toinFrench as'rejets concertes *
(planned releases ).Thephrase 'rejets exceptionels concertos'
('planned exceptional releases' )isalso sometimes used in
contrast to'normal' (=planned )discharges ;releases inthe
former category during which therelease rates aretemporarily
higher than during quasi-continuous releases ,areassociated
with specific operating conditions andoccur particularly in
the case ofreactors and reprocessing plants .
2)Recently ,forexample ,astimulus ofthis kind hasbeen
given forco-ordination ofradioactive effluent discharges
into the River Meuse bytheriparian states involved .

-12-
Gaseous discharges under normal operating conditions usually
need tobeclosely examined under the terms ofArticle 37
only inthe case ofinstallations sited soclose toa
frontier that even surveillance ofthe environmental effects
ofroutine discharges necessitates collaboration with the
competent authorities intheneighbouring country orin
cases where theproximity ofseveral nuclear installations
close toafrontier means that superposition ofthe
respective discharges must beexpected .
Todate theminimum distance from the frontier ofaneigh­
bouring country forasite investigated under Article 37D
is1500 m,inthe case ofFessenheim nuclear power station
(2units )inFrance .Inanumber ofother cases (Doel I,II,
IIIandIVinBelgium andtheSENA nuclear power station 2)
inthe Ardennes region ofFrance ),the frontier iswithin
afew kilometres ofthe site .
Unplanned releases .Whereas themajority ofroutine and
specific planned discharges present few problems under the
terms ofArticle 37,unplanned releases ,aspreviously
remarked ,are important inthis context .Itisonly inthe
event ofuncontrolled ,i.e. accidental ,releases that larger
quantities ofactivity are liable tobeliberated and cause
significant contamination even atappreciable distances from
the site .
1)Excluding thecase oftheRemerschen nuclear power station in
theGrand Duchy ofLuxembourg ,which hasnever passed beyond
the planning stage .
2)inthis case theBelgian andFrench Governments resolved the
problems ofradiological protection procedures atanearly
stage ,under theterms ofaspecial agreement /5/.

-13-
Thesafety reports regularly include theanalysis ofarange
ofhypothetical accidents .Ofthese ,the accidents with non-
negligible degrees ofprobability involving themost serious
consequences for the environment are studied with particular
attention bythegroup ofexperts when examining the dis-
charge-plan ,since their consequences are usually decisive
informulating theopinion required bytheTreaty .Starting
from thehypotheses adopted forthese accidents ,1)the
experts assess the consequences ofthe release ofactivity
inthevicinity ofthe site inquestion (frequently basing
their appraisal ontheir own calculations using conservative
parameters )and then extend their study tothepossible con­
sequences inaneighbouring Member State ,particularly in
the latter' sfrontier region .
This form ofprocedure onthe part ofthe experts ensures
auniform approach tothe analyses and gives acontinuity
tothe assessments ofthe reference accident consequences .
Itisthis part oftheexperts 1report inparticular that
demands close cooperation between thevarious disciplines
represented within thegroup ,notonly inorder tojudge
whether theaccident hypotheses are justified but also in
order todecide whether the calculations submitted are
sound .
Referred toas "reference accidents'

-14-
One can thus expect toobtain arealistic idea ,interms of
theinformation available andtheassumptions accepted at
the time ofthe assessment ineach case ,ofthe risk involved
for the environment ofthe site and for the frontier zone
ofaneighbouring country over t.he lifetime ofthenuclear
installation concerned .
Assessment ofthe risk ofcontamination .The dilemma when it
comes toassessing the risk ofcontamination ofthe area
surrounding anuclear site isthe same asthat which has
generally tobefaced when assessing the safety ofanuclear
installation :onthe one hand ,notwithstanding its inherent
risks ,nuclear engineering has proved tobe "safe "(oreven ,
indeed ,safer than certain other branches ofhuman activity ),
while onthe other hand weare still far from being ina
position toquantify the degree ofsafety with sufficient
accuracy .What welack here ,precisely because accidents
involving the release ofsignificant activity have been
extremely rare ,aretheprobability factors bywhich the
assumed consequences ofanaccident would have tobemulti­
plied toreach any conclusion regarding the risk inits
fullest sense .
Itmust also beborne inmind that when itisamatter of
assessing the site for anuclear power station ,the sur­
rounding population isunlikely tobeinterested inthe
mathematical probability oftherisk ;what they really want
toknow is,"What could happen tous?" Inother words they
want tobetold what theconsequences oftheoperation of
apower station intheir vicinity might befortheir health .
Thus ,they want toknow (individually andnotcollectively )
theupper limit ofthehealth hazard associated with the
reference accident .Theonly meaningful way ofobtainig
this maximum value istocalculate the doses which the
individual members ofthepopulation inquestion could
conceivably receive .

-15-
Forthepurposes Article 37,thepossible exposure ofthe
population involved ineach case has tobeevaluated inthe
same waywhen assessing therisk ofcontamination .These
individual doses ,calculated onthe basis ofconservative
hypotheses ,thus become thedecisive criteria informing a
opinion .Further ,through their comparison with dose limits
orreference levels ,they also play amajor role inplanning
such radiation protection and intervention measures asmay
need tobetaken .Collective doses are oflittle merit in
this context since the necessary averaging over larger
population groups conceals the contribution from themaxi­
mum values ofindividual doses .
Trans-frontier cooperation .Article 37issoformulated
that its legal effect isexhausted bytheCommission 's
issuing theopinion provided for therein .If,therefore ,
thehealth andsafety objectives setout inArticle 2(b)
andclearly underlying Title two ,Chapter III ,ofthe
EURATOM-Treaty ,are tobeeffectively realized ,then there
must be,subsequent totheissue oftheopinion ,close co­
operation between theMember States concerned ineach case .
Attention hasalready been drawn tothecircumstances in
which cooperation between neighbouring States maybeneces­
sary even inconnection with normal discharges .
Butsmooth cooperation between theauthorities onboth sides
ofthe frontier becomes afarmore crucial factor inthe
event ofaserious accident resulting intherelease ofacti­
vity from anuclear installation .Insuch cases ,time isof
theessence andinformation has tobepromptly transmitted
(2)

-16-
soastoensure that thepopulation arenotunnecessarily
put atrisk oralarmed .Hence ,inOpinions issued under the
terras ofArticle 37,theCommission has recommended ,where
appropriate ,that advance contacts beestablished between
the competent authorities inneighbouring countries ,with
aview tominimizing the constraints imposed bynational
frontiers inrespect of:
-the activation ofarapid trans-frontier alarm system ;
-the transmission ofurgent instructions with regard to
radiation protection ;
-theexchange ofinformation onthe development of
accident situations and onthe observed consequences
ofaccidents inthe surrounding area .
Inthe case ofnuclear installations sited near tonational
frontiers ,aparticular emphasis isalso placed onthe desir­
ability ofcarrying out trans-frontier exercises even such
asthose designed toensure theprompt operation ofcommuni­
cation systems .Such practical aspects arenecessarily the
subject ofparticular attention inmeetings with the compe­
tent authorities and are held tobeofgreater importance
than any formal agreements concluded between thegovernments
concerned .

-17
III .WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS SUBMITTED TOTHE COMMISSION
Asof31st December 1981 ,the Commission had received the
general data inrespect of94plans for thedisposal of
radioactive waste ,relating inall to149nuclear units
andhad delivered itsopinions accordingly .Some ofthese
notifications were particularly complex ,asinthecase of
the research centres atJtJLICH and KARLSRUHE ,the ISPRA
Joint Research Centre ,and industrial installations such
asEUROCHEMIC ,forwhich asingle waste disposal plan
related toawhole series oflaboratories orother nuclear
installations .
The breakdown ofthese submissions byMember States isas
follows :
Member State Number of Number of
notifications installations
concerned
Belgium 16 28
Denmark– –
F.R. ofGermany 35 47
France 22 43
Greece– –
Ireland– –
Italy7 12
Luxembourg1 1
Netherlands 5 5
United Kingdom8 13
Total 94 149

-18-
These submissions cover awide range ofprojects ,viz.:
-teaching andresearch reactors ,
-radiochemical andmetallurgical laboratories ,
-power reactors ofvarious types ,
-enrichment plants ,
-fuel element fabrication plants ,
-installations for the storage ofirradiated fuel ,
-fuel reprocessing plants
-the nuclear-powered ship 'Otto Hahn'
-handling and storage facilities for radioactive wastes
-controlled sea-dumping ofradioactive waste .
Insome cases ,when major modifications have been made to
thecapacity ortotheplant process /several opinions have
been delivered with respect toasingle installation .
The individual installations for which the Commission has
delivered opinions onthe plans for the disposal of
radioactive waste are listed ,country bycountry ,in
Appendix III .Itshould benoted that ,without exception ,
every plan for thedisposal ofradioactive waste from the
type ofinstallation onwhich public interest isconcen­
trated ,namely nuclear power stations ,hasbeen examined
under the terms ofArticle 37ofthe Treaty .

-19-
IV.EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED AND PROGRESS ACHIEVED
1.Experience acquired
Aswas tobeexpected ,thetendency ,already noted inthe
previous report onthepresent topic /9/,towards industrial
scale nuclear installations instead ofresearch facilities
and tolarger generating capacities onanygiven site has
continued .
The Article 37procedure isone ofthe fewmeans available
tothe Commission for obtaining anup-to-date picture of
the practical problems ofradiological protection ofthe
environment .The examination ofdischarge plans with refer­
ence tothe aspects discussed above corroborates asubstan­
tial fund ofexperience gathered elsewhere which confirms
nuclear technology is "favourable "totheenvironment .
This experience can besummarized asfollows .
Normal discharges .The levels foreseen for
routine discharges from nuclear installations studied are
invariably solowthat throughout thesurrounding areas the
corresponding exposure ofthepopulation isinallcases
very much lower than themaximum permissible doses laid
down inArticle 12oftheEURATOM Basic Safety Standards /2/.

-20-
Asshown elsewhere /6/^,theactual discharges from the
major nuclear installations -i.e. power stations andrepro­
cessing plants -amount toafraction ofthecorresponding
foreseen orauthorized maximum values .Itshould also be
noted ,inthis connection ,that thepast 23years have seen
aconsiderable improvement inourunderstanding ofthe
operational behaviour ofeven large capacity nuclear reactors
and their associated installations .
The favourable operational experience gained isalso re­
flected inthecontinuing downward trend 2)indischarge
limits and inthe actual discharges normalized topower
generated 3).ithastherefore been rare tofind high dis­
charge limits ,ascompared with themore customary values ,
such aswould prompt arecommendation for aparticularly
close watch tobekept onoperating practice inthe instal­
lation inquestion orfor areappraisal ofthe need to
maintain such limits .Hence todate ithas not proved
necessary tofall back onthe implementaion ofArticle 38.
L>The Commission periodically reviews the discharges from the
more significant nuclear installations ,which serves to
confirm inpractice the information received inplans sub­
mitted .
2)This trend isvisible evidence oftheobservation ,in
practice ,oftheprinciple laid down inthe Basic Safety
Standards whereby "all exposures should bekept aslow as
reasonably achievable "/7/,corresponding totheALARA
principle ofthe ICRP .
3)Intheperiod 1970-78 ,forexample ,thedischarge ofnoble
gases was reduced intheEuropean Community from anaverage
of25Ci/MWa to2Ci/MWa ,and thenormalized values for
liquid effluent discharges in1978 were onaverage less than
one third ofthe 1970 values .

-21-
Exposure of the population .The
doses towhich thepopulation might possibly beexposed as
aresult ofthese discharges arecorrespondingly low .This
isconfirmed bythedata summarized inAppendix IVforthe
immediate vicinities ofthenuclear power stations inthe
European Community ,The figures show that thedoses to
individuals are onaverage around 1%orless ofthe dose
limits 1);inother words ,they liewithin therange of
regional and temporal variations about the average level
ofnatural background radiation ,which isgenerally recog­
nized tobeabout 1mSv/a(0.1 rem/a).
Accident analyses .Itcan beconcluded on
the basis ofthe studies ofthepossible consequences of
hypothetical accidents for awide variety ofnuclear instal­
lations (seeSection III )carried out during theperiod under
review ,that significant contamination with effects extending
over large distances into aneighbouring country iscon­
ceivable only inthe event ofserious accidents occurring
incertain well defined categories ofnuclear installations
inparticular nuclear power plants and ,toalesser degree ,
reprocessing plants .Asisclear from thepresent report ,
theCommission pays particularly close attention tothese
types ofinstallation inthecontext ofArticle 37.
Noaccidents resulting inasignificant environmental impact
following therelease ofactivity have yetbeen recorded
within theCommunity .Furthermore ,theanalyses carried out
todate suggest that theforeseeable consequences fora
neighbouring country could generally bekept within accept­
able limits simply byadministrative measures ,e.g. restric­
tions ontheconsumption oflocally produced foodstuffs .
1)Thewhole-body dose limit forindividual members ofthe
population is5mSv/a(0.5rem/a),/8/.

-22-
Nuclear sites near national
frontiers .Theavailable cooling capacity is
well known asone ofthedecisive criteria for siting of
nuclear power stations ,and this has resulted inacertain
degree ofcompetition for sites onthecoast and along the
major rivers .The geography oftheEuropean continent ,
particularly asregards the situation ofthe Rhine ,the
Moselle ,the Meuse ,and the Ems ,issuch that awhole series
ofnuclear power plants ,often comprising several units ,have
been constructed orare tobeconstructed inclose proximity
tonational frontiers .
The sites ofthe major nuclear installations inthe Com­
munity ,both operational and under construction ,which are
located close tonational frontiers ofMember States are
listed inAppendixes Vand VI .
Insome 20%ofOpinions ondisposal plans issued bythe
Commission inthe context ofArticle 37,ithas been judged
opportune tomake arecommendation concerning co-operation
between neighbouring Member States asregards possible
accidents innuclear installations which could have con­
sequences reaching beyond the national frontier .Although
nospecial problems have sofararisen with sites located
close tofrontiers itwas deemed advisable toprovide for
the submission ofwaste disposal plans for nuclear power
plants and fuel reprocessing plants atanearlier juncture
than hitherto stipulated .See also Section V.

-23-
2.Progress achieved
Thegenerally satisfactory experience outlined inthis
report also reflects the ,tosome extent parallel ,harmoni­
zation achieved asregards thetechnical aspects ofradio­
logical protection .Although ,asfarasregulations are
concerned ,theBasic Safety Standards /2/referred to
several times inthepresent report have constituted a
basis for aharmonized approach totheproblems ofradiation
protection ,considerable efforts have been and still are
required toimplement this harmonization onawide front .
This isthepurpose behind thetechnical cooperation that
hasbeen instituted atvarious levels .Asregards the
procedural aspects ,harmonization ofthe application of
Article 37has already been largely achieved .The following
paragraphs are devoted tothese two aspects .
Technical cooperation .Onthe basis
oftheexperience acquired intheapplication ofArticle 37,
awide-ranging programme ofcooperation hasbeen introduced
atvarious levels under which progress has been made towards
harmonization onoutstanding technical problems and the
supply ofmore detailed information hasbeen improved ,
particularly inthefollowing fields which have been the
subject ofseminars ,experts' meetings andpublished reports :
-Methodology forevaluating theradiological exposure of
thepopulation /10/;
-Verification procedures andcharacteristic values forthe
efficiencies ofiodine andaerosol filters /ll/,/12/,/13/;
-Surveys ofradioactive discharges from nuclear power
stations andreprocessing plants intheCommunity /6/;

-24-
-Theradiological exposure ofthepopulation intheRhine -
Meuse Region /14/;
-Collection ofdata regarding theexposure ofthepopula­
tion oftheCommunity tonatural background radiation /15/;
-Criteria andreference dose levels forradiological pro­
tection and intervention measures inthe event ofradio­
logical exposure ofthepopulation resulting from a
nuclear accident /16/.
The examination ofplans for the disposal ofradioactive
waste has thus provided awelcome opportunity for identi­
fying problems anddefining unresolved technical questions
inthe field ofradiological protection ,the treatment of
which and answers thereto are ofinterest inawider context
than that ofArticle 37 .
Article 37 procedures .With regard to
the Article 37procedures per se,itshould benoted that
delays inthe communication ofand major gaps inthe general
data have become less frequent inthe course ofthe period
under review and also that ,where such gaps have occurred ,
they have been more quickly rectified ,sothat the procedures
stipulated bythe Treaty have run more smoothly .In
particular ,aspreviously noted ,the general data for all
operational plants ofthe type onwhich public interest is
most closely focussed ,i.e. nuclear power stations ,have
been duly examined .
Asaresult ofthe technical cooperation mentioned previous­
lyagreater uniformity oftechnical language inthecom­
munications submitted bythevarious Member States and of

-25-
theapproach toassessing discharges andtheir consequences
hasbeen realized .Inspite ofthis generally encouraging
experience ,itseems desirable that the Commission should
infuture beprovided with certain additional information
and this isone ofthe aims ofthe aforementioned revised
version oftheRecommendation concerning theapplication of
Article 37discussed further inSection Vbelow .

-26-
V.REVISION QFTHE RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION
OFARTICLE 37
Onthebasis ofmore than 22years' experience oftheappli­
cation ofArticle 37inaccordance with theprovisions ofthe
1960 Recommendation ,/l/itseemed advisable torevise the
text oftheRecommendation tobring itinto line with current
needs .Itseemed infact worthwhile ,inview ofthe technical
developments inthenuclear field with theaccompanying quan­
titative and qualitative changes inthe associated radioactive
effluents ,toformulate aclearer definition ofthe actual
concept of'the disposal ofradioactive waste' taking account
ofthe potential risk ofexposure and tocompile anew version
ofthelist of'general data' ^corresponding toeach cate­
gory ofnuclear installation .
Ithas also become clear that itisimperative for the Commis­
sion toreceive general data inrespect ofthemost important
types ofnuclear installations ,namely nuclear reactors and
reprocessing plants ,atanearlier juncture than hitherto 2)f
namely before construction starts .This would permit the
airing ,atapreliminary examination ,ofany specific bi­
lateral problems resulting from thedisposal plan inquestion ,
with aview inparticular tothe timely establishment ofbi­
lateral contacts .
1)The list of'general data' hasbeen once previously revised ,
in1973 .(See /9/andAnnex V).
2)TheEuropean Parliament hasalso drawn attention ,onseveral
occasions ,totheneed ofsuch advance information .

-27-
Tofacilitate theimplementation ofcertain .recommendations
inOpinions formulated bytheCommission ,itappeared advis­
able torequire thedata ,submitted under Article 37,where -
ever possible oneyear prior totheplanned commissioning of
theinstallation inquestion .
TheRecommendation also calls forthesubmission atregular
intervals ofreports ondischarges from individual fuel cycle
installations (every 2years )andontotal discharges (every
5years )bysmall-scale users ofradionuclides ,into bodies
ofwater orriver systems .This information will provide the
Commission with background data for the calculation of
existing exposure rates and are intended tofacilitate the
formulation oftheCommission 'sOpinion with regard toindi­
vidual projects .
Inline with technical developments ,details are also given
oftheprocedure forplans for theunderground ormarine
disposal ofradioactive waste .
This Recommendation ,appended tothepresent report as
Annex VI,wasadopted bytheCommission on3rdFeb .1982 /17/.
Itlays down theprocedures forimplementing theprovisions
ofArticle 37inthe years tocome .

-28-
REFERENCES
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES
/l/"Recommandation delaCommission concernant l'application
del'article 37duTraité "
J.O. *)3eannée ,N°81,1893-1896 ,1960
/2/The EURATOM Basic Safety Standards are laid down inthe
following Directives bythe Council ofMinisters :
-"Directives fixant les normes debase relatives àla
protection sanitaire delapopulation etdes travailleurs
contre les dangers résultant des radiations ionisantes "
J.O. 2eannée ,N©il,221-239 ,1959
-"Directive portant révision des annexes 1et3des
directives fixant les normes debase enmatière de
protection sanitaire "
J.O. 5eannée ,N°57,1633-1649 ,1962
-"Directive duConseil du27octobre 1966 ,portant modi­
fication des directives fixant les normes debase rela­
tives àlaprotection sanitaire delapopulation et
des travailleurs contre les dangers résultant des radi­
ations ionisantes "
J.O. 9eannée ,N°216 ,3693-3703 ,1966
-"Council Directive ofJune 1976 laying down the revised
basic safety standards for thehealth protection of
thegeneral public andworkers against thedangers of
ionizing radiation
J.O. Vol 19,N°L187 ,1-44 ,1976
-"Directive duConseil du15juillet 1980 ,portant
modification des directives fixant les normes debase
relatives àlaprotection sanitaire delapopulation
etdes travailleurs contre les dangers résultants des
rayonnements ionisants
J.O. 23e année ,NOL246 ,1-72 ,1980
*)J.O. =Journal Officiel desCommunautés Européennes

-29-
/3/ "28FEVRIER 1963 -Arrêté royal portant règlement général
delaprotection delapopulation etdestravailleurs
contre ledanger des radiations ionisantes M
Moniteur Belge ,133e année ,tP98,5206-5266 ,1963 ;
cf. especially Art .6.5 and 7.4 .
/4/Decreto delPresidente della Repubblica Italiana
13febbraio 1964 ,n.185
'Sicurezza degli impianti eprotezione sanitaria dei
lavoratori edelle popolazioni contro ipericoli delle
radiazioni ionizzanti derivanti dall' impiego pacifico
dell' energia nucleare "
Gazzetta Ufficiale n.95,Supplemento ordinario ,1-30 ,
16aprile 1964 ;
cf. especially Art .42,par .2
/5/'Convention entre laBelgique etlaFrance sur lapro­
tection radiologique concernant les installations dela
Centrale nucléaire des Ardennes ,etannexes ,signée à
Paris ,le23septembre 1966 "
Moniteur Belge ,137e année ,IP45,2276-2280 ,1967 .
/6/ "Radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and
nuclear fuel reprocessing plants intheEuropean
Community -Discharge Data 1974 /1978 -Radiological
Aspects "
Commission oftheEuropean Communities (September 1980 )
/7/Article 6b)ofthe1980 Directive ,v./2/
/8/Article 12 (2)ofthe1980 Directive ,v./2/
/9/ "Application ofarticle 37oftheEURATOM Treaty -Survey
ofactivities -Experience gained 1959-72 '"
Commission oftheEuropean Communities ,Directorate
General ofSocial Affairs ,1972
/10/'Methodology forEvaluating theRadiological ConsequencesofRadioactive Effluents released inNarmal Operations "
Joint Report bythe 1RPB andtheCEA
Commission oftheEuropean Communities (July 1979 )

-30-
/ll/"Proceedings Seminar onIodine Filter Testing "
Vol .Iand II
Commission oftheEuropean Communities 1974
/12/"Proceedings Seminar onHigh Efficiency Aerosol Filtration
intheNuclear Industry "
Commission oftheEuropean Communities
Luxembourg ,February 1977
/13/J.G. WILHELM
Jodfilter inKernkraftwerken "
Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften .
Luxemburg 1976
R.G. D0RMAN
'Acomparison oftheMethods used intheNuclear Industry
totest High Efficiency Filters "
Commission ofthe European Communities ,
Luxembourg June 1981
/14/A.BAYER
"The Radiological Exposure ofthePopulation ofthe
Rhine-Meuse Region "
Commission ofthe European Communities ,June 1978
arevised edition ofthe report tobepublished
/15/"Proceedings Seminar ontheRadiological Burden ofMan
from Natural Radioactivity intheCountries oftheEuro­
pean Communities "
LeVésinet 4-6 December 1979
Commission ofthe European Communities
Luxembourg 1980
/16/"Radiological Protection Criteria forControlling Doses
tothe Public inthe Event ofAccidental Releases of
Radioactive Material "-AGuide onEmergency Reference
Levels ofDose from theGroup ofExperts convened under
Article 31oftheEuratom Treaty (inpreparation )
/17/Commission Recommendation of3February 1982 onthe
application ofArticle 37oftheEURATOM Treaty "
J.O. Vol .25,No.L83,15-23 ,1982

ANNEXE I
THEARTICLE 37GROUP OFEXPERTS -
Hiegroup ofexperts referred toinArticle 37andestablished under the
terms ofArticle 31isthesame group asthat which collaborates indrawing
uptheBasic Safety Standards ,sothat itsmembers areinparticular experts
inpublic health asstipulated inArticle 31.Itseamed appropriate ,however ,
inview oftheintrinsic technical problems intheassessment ofthehealth
risks inherent inthedisposal ofradioactive waste ,that anumber oftechno­
logical experts should also beappointed tothegroup .Hence theScientific
andTechnical Ccranittee (STC ),established under Article 134oftheTreaty ,
atitsmeeting on13th October 1959 ,agreed that forthepurpose ofthetasks
imposed byArticle 37thegroup should comprise sixtechnological experts
andsixpublic health experts .
Toensure thepresence ofthemore important technical disciplines atthe
meetings ofthegroup ,itsoon proved necessary toincrease thenumber of
technical experts .Hence ,atitsmeeting on4thDecember 1962 theScientific
andTechnical Ccranittee hasdecided toappoint afurther sixtechnical
experts tothegroup .
Following theenlargement oftheCommunity through theaccession ofnew
Member States still ,further members were brought into thegrot?),which now
hasthirty members (seelist below ).Upto31st Decertoer 1981 ,thegroup
ofexperts hadbeen convened on57occasions .These meetings ,atwhich the
plans submitted forthedisposal ofradioactive waste andanyrelated
problems areexamined ,usually take twoorthree days .
TheSecretariat forthegroup ofexperts isprovided byDGV/E/2 .
1)Division "Radioactive waste andprevention andsafety measures in
nuclear installations "

ANNEXEI
ANLAGEI
31.XTI.1981
SAŒVERS'ffijNDIGENGRUPPE
GROUPED'EXPERTS
EXPERTS' GROUP
(Article37oftheEURATCMTREATY)
MitgliedseitFachgebiet
Membredepuis Spécialité
Membersmce Speciality
BELGIQUE
H.DOPCHIE 1960 Techniquenucléaire
Directeur
Association Virupotte
935,ChdeWaterloo
1180BRUXELLES
Dr.A.LAPONTAINE 1968 Santépublique
Directeur
del'Institutd'Hygièneet
d'Epidémiologie
14,rueJulietteWytsman
1050BRUXELLES
P.STALLAERT 1974 Santépublique
Ministèredel'Ekiploiet
duTravail
Administration delaSécurité
duTravail
53,rueBelliard
1040BRUXELLES

~>3~ ANNEXE I
ANLAGE I
Mitglied seit
Membre depuis
Member sinceFachgébiet
Spécialité
Speciality
DANEMARK
L.HANNXBAL 1975 Health protection
The National Board ofHealth
National Institute ofRadiation
Hygiene
Frederikssundsvej 378
2700 COPENHAGEN
0.V©LLMŒ>-LARSEN 1978 Health protection
Health Physics Division
Ris0 National laboratory
4000 R0SKEIDE
DEUTSCHLAND (BUNDESREPUBLIK )
M.TSCHERNER 1977 Strahlen -um
TÜV-Rheinland Umweltschutz
Postfach 101750
5000 KDIW 1
Dipl.-Phys .L.F. FRANZEN 1974 Kerntechnik
Gesellschaft fürReaktor -
sicherheit mbH
Glockengasse 2
5000 KÖLN 1
Dr.W.P0HL 1969 Unweltschutz
Präsident desBayer .Landesamts
für Umweltschutz
Rosenkavalierplatz 3
8000 MÜNCHEN 81

-J,- ANNEXEI
ANLAGEI
Mitgliedseit
Msnbredepais
MembersirceFachgebiet
Spécialité
Spéciality
Dr.-Ing.KarlZUEHLKE 1966 Kerntöchnik
Kemforschungszentrum
Karlsnahe GmbH
Postfach3640
7500KAKLSRUHE 1
FRANCE
J.CHANTEUR 1975 Santépublique
MinistèredelaSanté
S.C.P.R.I.
B.P.no35
78110LEVESINET
R.COULON 1978 Protectionsanitaire
ChefduServiced'Etudes
généralesdeProtection
Département delaProtection
Sanitaire
Centred'EtudesNucleaires
B.P.no6
92260PONTENAY-AUX-ROSES
J.JACQUET 1971 Hydrologie
ChefduDépartement "Environnement Météorologie
AquatiqueetAtmosphérique "
Electricite deFrance
B.P.ro24
78400CHAT0U
Dr.H.JAMMET i960 Protectionsanitaire
ChefduDépartanentdela
ProtectionSanitaire
Centred'EtudesNucléaires
B.P.no6
92260FONTENAY-AUX-RQSES

-5- ANNEXE I
ANEAGE I
Mitglied seit
Manhre depuis
Member sinceFachgebiet
Spécialité
Speciality
GRECE
Ass .Professor P.KOSTAMIS 1981 Health protection
Alexandra Hospital
Vas .Sofias Av.
ATHENS 611 ,GREECE
Dr.A.HADJIANTONICU 1981 Health protection
Head Health Physics Div .
Greek Atonie Energy Ccrrrussion
Democritos N.R.C.
Aghia Paraskevi ,Attikis
ATHENS ,GREECE
IRLANDE
C.CUNNINGHAM 1976 Health protection
Nuclear Energy Board Ireland
20,Lower Hatch Street
DUBLIN 2
J.D. CUNNINGHAM 1974 Health protection
Nuclear Energy Board Ireland
20,Lower Hatch Street
DUBLIN 2

ANNEXE I
ANLAGE I
Mitglied seit
Itenbre depuis
Manber sinceFachgebiet
Spécialité
Spéciality
ITALIE
Dott .ssaCarla BROFFERIO 1976 Radiological Protection
Direzione Centrale Sicurezza
Nucleare eProtezione Sanitaria
Divisione Protezione dell' Ambiente
C.N.E.N.
Viale Regina Margherita ,125
00198 ROMA
Dott .Pietro CAGNETTI 1970 Meteorologv
Dipartimento delle Ricerche
diSicurezza Nucleare e
diProtezione Sanitaria
Gruppo diMeteorologia
C.N.E.N. /C.S.N. Casaccia
S.P. Anguillarese Km1+300
00100 FOMA
Ing .Guiseppe RLJSSINO 1978 Nuclear techniques
ENEL-Settore Inpianto e
Sicurezza Nucleare
Via G.B. Martini ,3
00198 R0MA
Ing .C.SENNIS frcm 1962 to1969 Radiological protection
Direzione Centrale Sicurezza and since 1978
Nucleare eProtezione Sanitaria
Divisione Protezione
dell Ambiente
C.N.E.N.
Viale Regina Margherita ,125
0198 RQMA

ANNEXE]
ANTAOR 1
Mitgliedseit
Marihredepuis
ManbersinceFachgebiet
Spécialité
Specialitv
LUXEMBOURG
1978 TechniquenucléaireJ,P.HOEïMANN
Ministèredel'Energie
19r21Bd.Royal
LUXEMBOURG
Dr.P.KAYSER 1962 Santépublique
DirectiondelaSanté
37,rueGlesener
LUXEMBOURG
PAYS-BAS
Dr.P.HAGEL 1980 AouaticEnvironmental
Rijksinstituut voor Protection
Visserijonderzoek
Haringkade 1
1976-CPUMJIDEN
Ir.C.J.VANDAATSELAAR 1965 Nucleartechniques
AdviseurbijhetDirectoraat-
GeneraalvandeArbeid
Ministerie vanSocialeZaken
BalenvanAndelplein 2
VOORBURG
Dr.J.WEBER
MinisterievanVolksgezondheid
enMilieuhygiëne
12,Dr.Reijerstraat1974 Healthprotection
LEIDSCHENDAM

ANNEXE I
ANIAGE I
Mitglied seit
Manbre depuis
Member sinceFachgebiet
Spécialité
Speciality
ROYAUME-UNI
W.S. GRONCW 1974 Nuclear Safety
Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate
Health andSafety Executive
Thames House North .Millbank
LONDON SW1
B.R. HOOKWAY 1976 Environmental radio -
Department oftheEnvironment logical protection
Rcmney House
Marsham St.
LONDON SW1
N.G. KELLY 1980 Radiological protection
National Radiological Protection
Board
HARWELL ,Chilton ,
Oxfordshire 0X11 0RQ
Dr.N.T. M3TCHELL 1976 Aquatic Environmental
Ministry ofAgriculture , Protection
Fisheries and Food
Fisheries Radiological Laboratory
Directorate ofFisheries Research
Pakefield Road
Lowsstoft
SUFFOLK NR33OHT