WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2296/98 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Compliance with the Euratom Directive
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: United Kingdom, harmonisation of standards, health legislation, ionising radiation, public health, radiation protection, radioactivity, safety standard

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/39

As for the sector explicitly mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission work programme for
1998 foresees the adoption of a Commission initiative on waste from electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE). Information technology (IT) equipment, including fax machines, would be part of the scope of
such a measure, as well as various kinds of consumables, such as cartridges. This legislation should allow
consumers to return such equipment and components free of charge for the purposes of recycling.

(1) COM(96) 399 final.
(2) OJ L 365, 21.12.1994.
(3) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.

(1999/C 135/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive

Article 6 of the Euratom Directive requires that no practice involving exposures to radiation should be
adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society to offset the radiation
detriment it causes.

In the legal judgment in the case of R v. HMIP & Others ex parte Greenpeace Ltd & Lancashire County
Council (1994) Mr Justice Potts ruled that Ministers had erred in law in concluding that justification of the
authorisation (to discharge radioactivity) was not needed and that there was a legal obligation to justify the
grant of authorisations.

However, since then, the THORP reprocessing plant has consistently failed to keep any of the goals on
which this judgment was reached. On this basis, what action does the Commission intend to take against
Britain to ensure compliance with the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) does not differ in effect from the previous
Directive (Directive 80/836/Euratom (2) as revised by Directive 84/467/Euratom (3)) on the principle of
justification, which principle applies to types classes or categories of practice. Determination of the
justification of any new classes or types of practices is the duty of the Member State. It should take place
before the introduction of the class or type of practice and as early as possible to reduce the influence of
the already incurred costs in balancing economic and social factors against health detriment. The
communication (4)
from the Commission concerning the implementation of Council Directive
96/29/Euratom states that ‘Compliance with this principle can be safely assumed in respect of a new
class or type of practice by the existence or laying down of regulations specifically concerning the class or
type of practice’. However the newly introduced proviso of Article 6 (2) of that Directive reflects that there
might be a need to review the justification of existing classes or types of practices.

When transposing the new basic safety standards before 13 May 2000 as required by the Directive the
United Kingdom will communicate its draft legislation according to the Article 33 procedure of the
Euratom Treaty. The Commission will make appropriate recommendations on the provisions related to the
principle of justification with a view to harmonising the provisions applicable in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.
(3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.
(4) OJ C 133, 30.4.1998.