WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3278/97 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Disposal of radioactive substances from the Windscale/ Sellafield reprocessing plant
Date: 1997-10-20
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, environmental protection, fuel reprocessing, health risk, industrial pollution, nuclear accident, public health, radioactive effluent, radioactive pollution













EUR-Lex - 91997E3278 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3278

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3278/97 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Disposal of radioactive substances from the Windscale/ Sellafield reprocessing plant  


Official Journal C 158 , 25/05/1998 P. 0076 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)Subject: Disposal of radioactive substances from the Windscale/Sellafield reprocessing plantOfficial Journal C 291 of 25.9.1997 contains the Commission's 'opinion concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the operation of the Sellafield solvent treatment plant ... in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty'. The Commission indicates that, even in the event of 'unplanned discharges of radioactive waste which may follow an accident' the dosage likely to be received by the population in other Member States 'would not be significant' from the health point of view.1. What precise information led the Commission to the conclusions set out in its opinion and will the Commission make this information available to Parliament?2. In view of the most recent findings of the Greenpeace environmental protection organization regarding the La Hague reprocessing plant, does the Commission not consider it wrong simply to discharge into the sea radioactive waste from the Windscale/Sellafield reprocessing plant?3. How does the Commission evaulate the effects of these discharges on the population living and working in the proximity of Windscale/Sellafield?4. Is the Commission aware of the high level of radioactivity affecting flora and fauna in the proximity of the Windscale/Sellafield reprocessing plant? How does the Commission consider that this occurred and when was the last time that the Commission carried out its own measurements in the vicinity of the plant?5. What view does the Commission take of the planned discharges in view of the standards laid down by the OSPAR Convention?6. On the basis of what information does the Commission feel safe in saying that even in the event of an accident - which is by definition an exception to the rule - no danger can possible arise?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf on the Commission (18 November 1997)1. Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires that each Member State shall provide the Commission with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form as will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. Commission Recommendation 91/4/Euratom on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty ((OJ L 6, 9.1.1991. )) specifies the information that Member States should provide in order to enable the Commission to give its opinion. In the case of the Sellafield solvent treatment plant, the United Kingdom government provided information as specified in Recommendation 91/4/Euratom. Under the terms of Article 37, the Commission consults a group of independent experts set up for that purpose by the scientific and technical committee (as laid down in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty). The information having been received by the Commission from a Member State government and drawn on freely in the report of the group of experts, it is for the government concerned to authorize the release of the general data and the experts' report.2. Discharges from nuclear sites are regulated within strict authorisations issued by national authorities. Such authorisations ensure that the resultant dose to members of the public not only complies with the limits set out in the Community basic safety standards but also is as low as reasonably achievable, the so-called ALARA principle. Enforcement of the ALARA principle has resulted in the continuing development of technology so that levels of radioactivity in discharges from Sellafield are now less than one percent of earlier values. The success of the application of the ALARA principle is evident when it is considered that this major reduction in discharges took place over a period when the quantity of irradiated fuel being reprocessed was increased significantly.3. and 4. It is the responsibility of individual Member States to ensure compliance with the basic safety standards and the Commission would intervene only if it thought that Member States were not exercising those responsibilities. However, the Honourable Member can be reassured that, in December 1993, under the terms of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission verified the environmental facilities established at and around the Sellafield site. It was concluded that suitable arrangements were in place for monitoring levels of radioactivity in the environment and for ensuring compliance with the Community basic safety standards. The Commission does not itself carry out a detailed evaluation of the effect of the discharges but it does scrutinize the reports received regularly from the United Kingdom to satisfy itself that these effects are not in breach of the basic safety standards. In addition, the Commission takes an interest in any other independent reports of other studies giving such environmental information. The Commission is not aware of any evidence of observable effects on flora and fauna.5. The Community is a contracting party to the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) convention. Thus, the Commission, acting on behalf of the Community, takes every opportunity to ensure that all contracting parties meet their obligations in respect of the convention. In the case of discharges from Sellafield, there is no evidence to show that the United Kingdom is not meeting its obligations.6. In the submission made under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the general data contained considerations of a large number of possible accident scenarios. To estimate the possible effects on other Member States, the accident with the worst possible consequences was chosen as a reference, even if it was extremely unlikely to arise. Consequently, all other considered accidents would have lesser consequences. The Commission considered fully the information provided before drawing up its opinion.