# CE2004078EN.01010401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/104

---

(2004/C 78 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2340/03

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   National site for radioactive waste in Sardinia

Subject:

The Italian press recently published reports that the government intends to choose Sardinia as the location for the possible single national radioactive waste dump.

A report by Enea (the national authority for new technologies, energy and the envirnoment) ruled out islands as possible locations for the disposal of waste, precisely in order to avoid the danger of environmental disasters in the event of an accident during transport by sea.

In an order issued in March 2003 the Italian Government gave the company Sogin full responsibility for choosing the national site for the radioactive waste dump. Unlike Enea, Sogin decided that the island criterion would no longer be considered as an exclusion factor in the choice of site.

In view of all this, does not the Commission consider that:

| 1. | the choice of the location for the single radioactive waste dump should be made after consulting the populations concerned, as European legislation requires; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the choice of the location for the single radioactive waste dump should be made after consulting the populations concerned, as European legislation requires;

| 2. | the economic problems of islands should be a valid reason for excluding them when a site is being chosen; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the economic problems of islands should be a valid reason for excluding them when a site is being chosen;

| 3. | a nuclear-free region such as Sardinia, whose main resource is tourism, is entitled to oppose a possible decision making it the location for a radioactive waste dump? |
| --- | --- |

3.

a nuclear-free region such as Sardinia, whose main resource is tourism, is entitled to oppose a possible decision making it the location for a radioactive waste dump?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

(12 August 2003)

The responsibility for managing radioactive waste rests with the country of jurisdiction. In the interests of all concerned, any programme for the long-term management of waste must ensure full stakeholder participation in the decision-making process, thus enabling a proper appraisal of any impacts.

In this context, it is important to note that any site for the final disposal of radioactive waste — or for storage of such wastes for more than 10 years — must be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) (as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)) before development consent is given. This legislation requires that the EIA shall identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of the project on human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape as well as material assets and cultural heritage. The interaction between the above-mentioned factors should also be addressed in the EIA. Consultations with the public and other authorities likely to be concerned by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities have to be carried out and the decision for development consent should take into account the outcomes of the above consultations and information provided in this context. Finally, the decision has to be made available to the public.

1

2

Currently, 85 % of all such wastes in the Union are regularly disposed of at surface or near surface disposal sites. Volumes of waste are very small compared with other forms of waste, and no health or safety impacts have been detected at any of the disposal sites concerned. It is possible that there could be, on balance, economic benefits for any region hosting a site.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

1

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

2

---