WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3868/98 by W.G. van VELZEN to the Commission. Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)
Date: 1998-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN VELZEN W G
Subjects: France, Netherlands, United States, export of waste, fuel reprocessing, irradiated fuel, nuclear power station, nuclear reactor, radioactive waste, storage of waste

15.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 297/111

(1999/C 297/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3868/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)

We have noted the answers of 20 November 1998 by Mrs Cresson, on behalf of the Commission, to my initial
questions on the problems with the storage capacity for nuclear waste from the High Flux Reactor in Petten
(E-3041/98) (1). It is clear from your answers that this problem falls within the remit of the Joint Research
Centre (JRC) since it is responsible for operational matters.

The ’second-string solution’ referred to in your answer will also create major problems, since the reactor

1.
building’s tank is reaching capacity. Will the Commission now speedily search for a new solution?

2.
The Commission’s answer states that waste management is a national matter. However, we are talking
here about a JRC which is run by the Commmission. Is the solution to this problem not then partly the
Commission’s responsibility? Will the Commission now bring in other EU Member States to help to resolve
this problem?

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 75.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

1.
The solution proposed for the storage of the High flux reactor (HFR) spent fuel elements in case of
delayed availability of the storage at the Habog facility ‘Centrale organisatie voor radioactif afval’ (COVRA
project) namely storage in the reactor pound, is indeed a limited solution. At the end of 1999 all storage space
in the pound will have been used and other solutions are necessary.

As the fresh fuel was made of American origin material, one other option would be to send the spent fuel back
to the United States, as was done before 1988. But a prior condition imposed by the American authorities is a
commitment to convert the HFR from present highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to low enriched uranium
(LEU) fuel. However such a conversion is a costly technical operation. It should not inflict losses on the
technical characteristics of this reactor, which produces about 60 % of radio-pharmaceutical products used in
Europe, nor reduce its competitive edge in this market which is already very tight. Appropriate studies have
therefore been launched and, if a positive outcome is obtained, spent fuel could be sent back to the United
States in 1999. The HFR budget would have to be adjusted to such an expensive solution.

Reprocessing in France was analysed as well. This option has some advantages but it necessitates the return of
waste to the Netherlands after several years. Furthermore, reprocessing in France, with relative correlated
actions, is an expensive solution not covered by the HFR budget.

2.
No Member State has a well established, accepted and licensed waste disposal facility for high level waste
or spent fuel, and for the time being there is an obligation to return waste to the country where the plant is
situated. No trend towards an internationalisation or even ‘europeanisation’ of waste storage is foreseen.

(1999/C 297/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Application procedure for NGO funding

Would the Commission please indicate how applications from NGOs for funding from Item B7-6000 are
appraised and prioritised?