WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1634/96 by Johanna BOOGERD-QUAAK to the Commission. Security at the Petten reactor
Date: 1996-06-12
Institutions: BOOGERD-QUAAK, European Parliament
Subjects: Netherlands, United States, ecology movement, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, radiation protection, radioactive waste, storage of waste













EUR-Lex - 91996E1634 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1634

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1634/96 by Johanna BOOGERD-QUAAK to the Commission. Security at the Petten reactor  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0091 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1634/96 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 1996)Subject: Security at the Petten reactor1. Is the Commission aware of the Greenpeace demonstration on 26 April 1996 on the site of the Petten research reactor in the Netherlands ((Noord Hollands Dagblad, 27 April 1996: 'Beveiliging is een lachertje' by Bert de Jong. ))? Can the Commission explain how this site, where there are supposed to be additional security measures because of the presence of highly enriched uranium, could be entered relatively easily and non-violently? Can the Commission say how this is compatible with its assertion, in answer to written question P-0576/96 ((OJ C 173, 17.6.1996, p. 68. )), that 'spent reactor fuel may stay temporarily in safe storage at Petten'?2. How does the Commission view its responsibility with regard to security of research reactors of the Joint Research Centre and protection of the population? Does the Commission have any knowledge of the security of the reactor? Does it feel that it is adequate? Can it indicate why the additional security measures which the fuel supplier (the United States) insisted on have never fully been implemented?3. Is it true that because of the inadequate security the United States is no longer prepared to supply highly enriched uranium to Petten? Is it true that the owner (the Joint Research Centre, Brussels) and the operator (Energy Research Centre, the Netherlands) of the Petten research reactor are not prepared to switch from highly enriched to low enrichment uranium? If so, what are the reasons?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)1. & 2. The Honourable Member is invited to note the answers to written question P-1169/96 by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p.37. )) and E-1259/96 by Mr van Velzen ((see page 47. )) concerning the Greenpeace demonstration at Petten on 26 April 1996.The Commission as owner and licence holder of the high flux reactor (HFR) is responsible for the security of the reactor as well as the internal security of the Joint research centre (JRC) Petten site, the external security being the responsibility of the Dutch authorities.The security measures which are being applied are directed against all possible incidents concerning unauthorized interference with plant processes, materials and equipment, the internal JRC Petten security measures being fully in agreement with the measures to be taken by the police in case of alarm, and the response by the guards or police being dependent on the nature and gravity of the incident. From the beginning of the Greenpeace incident the security measures worked in accordance with established procedures. There was no question of unauthorized interference with plant processes, materials or equipment, and the response by the police was in accordance with the nature and gravity of the incident.3. As indicated in the Commission's answer to written question 522/91 by Mrs Goedmakers ((OJ C 311, 2.12.1991. )), the Commission carefully investigated the possibility of conversion of the HFR to the use of low enriched uranium. The Commission came to the conclusion that the HFR could not be converted in the foreseeable future, for reasons of performance loss and prohibitive costs. The two high flux reactors which belong to the United States (US) Department of energy are probably, for similar reasons, also still using high-enriched uranium. This position was communicated to the US authorities in 1987. On the basis of the US Energy Policy Act of 1992 the United States are no longer supplying high enriched uranium (HEU) to non-US research reactors, including the HFR at Petten.Furthermore, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that within its new programme, the HFR will produce around 60% of medical radio-isotopes in Europe. Each year, 7 million patients benefit from this radio-isotopes production.