WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Final storage facility for nuclear waste - Windscale/Sellafield reprocessing plant - EU participation

The Irish Government has already lodged a complaint with the Commission against a project that is designed to establish a final storage facility for nuclear waste on the site of the Windscale/Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK. In addition to the shortcomings highlighted in the compulsory environmental impact assessment, criticisms have also been voiced by scientists who have identified fundamental mistakes in the planning of the facility; for example, the first leaks would occur after no more than 40 years.

1. What is the nature of the Commission's involvement in this project for a final storage facility?

2. What is the amount of EU funding that has already gone into the project and what amounts are still due to be invested in it?

3. How does it view the shortcomings criticized by the Irish Government in connection with the required environmental impact assessment?

4. How does it view the criticisms levelled by scientists at the safety of the projected final storage facility?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1997)

The Commission is, of course, aware of the recent decision by the British Environment Secretary to dismiss NIREX's appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the rock characterisation facility (RCF). More generally, however, as the Commission has pointed out, in its answer to Question H-76/95 by Mr Fitzsimons during question time at Parliament's February 1995 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (February 1995). )), the planned NIREX facility at Sellafield was an underground laboratory designed as a research facility to allow investigation of the geological characteristics of the Borrowdale volcanic series (BVS) as a possible host for underground disposal of low - and medium -level radioactive waste. This rock characterisation facility (RCF) would not itself have been used for disposal of radioactive waste. The principal reason for constructing the laboratory would have been to test the suitability of the rock as a geological host and barrier, and thus to resolve uncertainties such as those mentioned by some scientists.

The Commission was not called to give its views on the NIREX proposal nor on remarks made by any other parties in the discussion.

1. The Commission has supported research on groundwater flow in the area as part of its shared-cost research and development programme 1990-1994 on radioactive waste management and disposal.

2. The Commission participation in the activity was 2 mecu. No further financial support is currently envisaged.

3. The facility would have been a non-nuclear research installation. An environmental impact assessment in line with Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) is not mandatory. NIREX did, however, produce an environmental statement concerning the planned facility. Copies of this were made available to the Commission. Moreover, the application to construct the facility has been subject to standard British planning permission procedures which allow the views expressed by the public to be taken into account, and led ultimately to the refusal by the British Environment Secretary referred to above.

4. In general, the Commission considers a scientific approach, including the construction of underground laboratories, to be appropriate to investigate the question of suitability of host rock formations for the disposal of radioactive waste. However, such projects must be considered on a case by case basis.