WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Radioactive leak at the Tokaimura power station in Japan.
Date: 1999-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Japan, environmental impact, nuclear accident, nuclear safety

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/39

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community that are
employed often illegally by haulage firms in the Community. The Commission is very concerned about the
distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community and considers this
issue to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry.

For this reason the Commission has already written to the Member States in order to raise awareness of
the problem and to gauge Member States(cid:146) perception of how widespread the problem is.

As a first step towards exploring possible ways to address this issue, the Commission has asked the
Member States to establish an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules applied by them in
this area. Once the Commission has established an overview of the relevant rules and details determining
current practice, further action will be considered.

A key factor which must be acknowledged is that Member States are responsible to ensure the effectiveness
of enforcement arrangements within their territory. Clearly, breaches of minimum wage arrangements or
even of permitted driving hours and rest periods are unacceptable. That this should occur on an almost
systematic basis in some Member States is very disturbing. The Commission is also currently drawing up a
report on the uniform and effective enforcement of the Community rules on driving times and rest periods
based on submissions made by Member States which may result in legislative proposals in this area.

(2000/C 219 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE)
and Giuseppe Nistic(cid:242) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Radioactive leak at the Tokaimura power station in Japan

Will the Commission evaluate and provide information as soon as possible on the risks posed to the
population and the environment by the uranium leak at the Tokaimura nuclear power station in Japan on
30 September 1999, given that initial estimates suggest that the level of radiation in the vicinity of the
plant is fifteen thousand times higher than normal?

What steps will it take to monitor the situation in Europe to avoid a repeat of previous disasters such as
the Chernobyl accident (1986) and what preventive measures has it taken or does it plan to take with
regard to other nuclear power stations which could pose a threat to the health of European citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The facility in which the accident occurred at Tokai Mura in Japan on 30 September 1999 is a plant
involved in the preparation of nuclear fuel. It is not a nuclear power plant nor is it, as often incorrectly
identified, a reprocessing plant.

The Commission has been in close contact with the Japanese authorities and with the International atomic
energy agency (IAEA) concerning the evaluation of the accident and its impact on the population and the
environment. The IAEA has recently published a preliminary report on the subject. This identifies human
error and the flouting of safety regulations as the main cause of the criticality accident.

C 219 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Information available to date shows that radiation levels monitored at the boundary of the site rose to over
one thousand times normal background during the period of criticality, but returned to or near back-
ground levels the following day. Almost 100 people have been identified as having received enhanced
exposure to gamma and neutron radiation. With a few exceptions, they are employees of the plant or
emergency personnel. It is reported that very small quantities of radionuclides were released from the site
and that none have been detected in local farm products.

The Commission will continue to examine carefully the reports on the accident, in particular to see what
lessons can be learned to improve further nuclear safety in Europe.

It appears that inadequate training and poorly qualified personnel were important factors in this accident.
The Commission is preparing a study to examine the level of training in nuclear safety for operators and
other workers in nuclear facilities in the Community. It is important to be sure that lack of knowledge of
the hazards associated with nuclear technology will not put at risk the health of Europeans and that the
situation is in conformity with relevant Community directives on the basic safety standards.

In addition, research on the organisation and management of safety in the nuclear sector is included in the
research and training part of the Community(cid:146)s fifth framework programme (1). Research on nuclear reactor
safety is also included in the programme.

(1) OJ C 173, 7.6.1997.

(2000/C 219 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/99

by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Suspension of subsidies to Dutch companies under the ESF programme

In recent months I have been alerted to problems regarding ESF subsidies for projects in the Netherlands.
During the check made in Rijnmond and Gelderland (April 1999) shortcomings were discovered in the
accounts and the Commission intends to halt the subsidies to the Dutch projects.

Does the Commission really intend to halt subsidies to all projects under the ESF programme in the
Netherlands? If so, why?

Given that the Commission cannot intend that good projects should suffer as a result of bad ones, can the
Commission ensure that not all projects fall victim to two possible instances of carelessness in a single
project?

Can the Commission make an exception for the majority of the subsidised projects where it is certain that
the accounts definitely satisfy the requirements?

The shortcomings often arise as a result of the complexity of the procedures and the Commission(cid:146)s
slowness in making payments. How does the Commission intend to make the financial responsibility with
regard to projects simpler and more transparent?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

An audit on the implementation of the European social fund (ESF) during the period 1994-1997 was
carried out in the Rijnmond and Gelderland regions of the Netherlands by the Commission in April 1999.
The audit was requested by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the basis of findings during
previous audits conducted by the Commission.
the accounting records and
statements of expenditure related to ESF projects of six of the eight promoters audited (representing 95 %
of the funds audited) proved to be incorrect.

It was discovered that

On the basis of these findings, advance payments for ESF objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5b and the Community
initiative employment have been reduced in order to safeguard the financial interests of the Community,
on the basis of Article 21 of the Co-ordination Regulation Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of