WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2769/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Fish kill at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain
Date: 1997-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, exchange of information, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, pollution of waterways, radioactive effluent, radioactive pollution

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/63

(98/C 117/77)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Fish kill at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain

On 18 July a leak of non-radioactive caustic soda into the River Calder occurred at the Sellafield nuclear complex
in  Cumbria,  Britain.  The  British  Environment  Agency  (EA)  has  estimated  that  over  1  000  eels  and  a  further
1 000 juvenile salmon and sea trout and many other fish were killed due to the spillage.

The cause of the spillage is believed to have been a defective valve from a storage facility on the Sellafield site.

Previous fish kills of this type have occurred at Sellafield. In April 1991, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) was
prosecuted by the National Rivers Authority for an acid spill into the Calder which killed over 1 500 fish and a
leak of polyelectrolyte in the nearby Black Beck which killed over 2 000 fish. BNFL was found guilty of both
offences and fined £2 000.

Has the Commission been notified of the recent fish kill? If so, what action has it taken and/or what action does it
propose to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1997)

The Commission has seen the reports in the press about the leak of non-radioactive caustic soda from British
nuclear fuels Ltd (BNFL) plant at Sellafield. However, there are no requirements for the company or the British
authorities to inform the Commission about such an incident. The Commission will not be taking any action
regarding this matter.

The investigation into the origin of the incident and requests for possible modifications to the installations or
procedures are only within the competence of the national authorities.

(98/C 117/78)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/97

by Encarnacio·n Redondo Jime·nez (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Protecting appellations of origin for European wines

There have been various reports in the media that the United States is drawing up legislation to continue using the
appellations  of  origin  of  EU  wines  for  wines  produced  in  the  US,  in  order  to  protect  the  interests  of
US winegrowers.

If  this  proves  to  be  the  case,  what  steps  would  the  Commission  take  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  European
winegrowers, for whom such legislation would obviously be damaging?

Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1997)

The  Honourable  Member  refers  to  an  amendment  to  the  1997  Revenue  Reconciliation  Act  introduced  in
Congress  by  Mr  d’Amato  and  subsequently  adopted,  which  codifies  certain  terms  used  for  many  years  in
conformity with United States legislation in the labelling of wines. These terms are names of European origin,
such  as  Champagne,  Moselle,  port  and  sherry,  used  in  the  United  States  for  American  and  imported  wines.
The list of terms in the amendment is in fact identical to that figuring in the technical rules in force (1).

The Commission is at present carrying out a legal analysis of the amendment to check its compatibility with the
World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.