WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1859/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants
Date: 1998-06-16
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, United Kingdom, budget, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, storage

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/7

The list of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund in Spain and Portugal over the last three years was sent
to the Honourable Member in reply to his Written Question P-4150/97. The list of projects financed by the
ERDF in the Guadiana Basin in Spain and Portugal is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to
the Parliament Secretary.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998.

(1999/C 135/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1859/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

Subject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants

(16 June 1998)

In its answer to my question E-663/98 (1) on the reliability of Euratom safeguards, the Commission stated
that ‘as long as resources are available, the Commission will continue to perform continual inspections at
the Dounreay site’. It goes on to say that it ‘is not aware either of any shortcomings in its safeguarding
operations or of any dumping of safeguarded materials at the Dounreay site’. However, the April bulletin
of the European Atomic Forum, concerning the contents of the waste shaft I mentioned, writes that, as the
type of radioactive waste is not precisely known, a study will first be carried out of the surrounding
hydrogeology and the best disposition of boreholes and instruments’.

Are the resources available to the Euratom authority adequate to continue to conduct all inspections

1.
required in European nuclear plant at regular intervals in future?

2. What is the annual cost of such inspections, and how much would be needed, in Euratom’s view, to
continue to perform all necessary inspections?

Can the Commission categorically rule out the presence in the Dounreay nuclear waste shaft of

3.
substances which should in fact be subject to its inspection?

In this connection, how does the Commission respond to the statement by the nuclear industry that

4.
the contents of the shaft are unknown?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

1.
In a time of limited public budgets the Commission will continue its endeavours to allocate the
financial and human resources necessary to meet the safeguards obligations in the nuclear installations of
the Community. The attention which the Parliament pays to this issue is highly appreciated and support
continues to be welcome.

2.
In 1997, the operational expenses of the Euratom Safeguards Directorate (excluding personnel) were
ECU 15,8 million and are ECU 16,0 million for 1998. The current estimated budget requirements for the
following four years according to the indicative financial programming established by the Commission
are as follows: 1999 ECU 16,4 million; 2000 ECU 16,8 million; 2001 ECU 17,1 million;
2002 ECU 17,4 million.

3.
Upon accession of the United Kingdom, the routine operation of the Dounreay waste disposal shaft
mentioned by the Honourable Member was already terminated. Thus, the Commission could not verify the
information on the nuclear inventory received from the operator.

Regarding the nuclear material contents of that shaft,

4.
documentation which is being evaluated.

the Commission has received some