WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/02 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Radioactive discharges.
Date: 2002-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, United Kingdom, algae, fuel reprocessing, international meeting, marine pollution, radioactive waste, research report

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/113

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council considers that it is not for it to give an opinion on the positions of private bodies such as that
referred to by the Honourable Member.

(2002/C 229 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s views on the United States’ international port security policy

The international port security measures which have been put forward by US Senator Hollings in the form
of a security proposal could have far-reaching consequences. The first ominous reports suggesting that a
mere ten ports would have the exclusive right
to supply goods to the USA and concerning the
exhaustiveness with which containers would have to be scanned at the external ports prove to have been
based mainly on rumours. Nonetheless, the US’s security measures will have a considerable impact on
European ports.

What will the Commission do to secure agreement among the Member States when this problem is
debated at the next meeting of the International Maritime Organisation? How will the Commission raise
the issue of potential unilateral, protectionist regulations in the light of the international trade agreements
concluded under the auspices of the WTO? What view does the Commission take of the possibility of an
increase in container scanning, and can it provide a comparative calculation of the time and expense
which will be involved in scanning each container?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The US security measures would only be acceptable within the international framework of rules established
by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and the ILO (International Labour Organisation),
particularly as regards measures with extraterritorial
impact. International rules forbid the adoption of
unilateral measures that would affect trade

Working parties have been set up in international fora to study the issue of checks on containers and
persons and consider future regulatory action. The Member States and the Commission are currently
working with industry to reach a European consensus on these issues, as witness the recent session of a
special IMO working group.

(2002/C 229 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Radioactive discharges

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) has said in its latest annual report, published in
January this year, that measured radioactive technetium-99 in seaweed from the Sellafield radioactive waste
and plutonium processing plant in England is 150 times worse in the north-east of Ireland than that found
in seaweed on the south and west coasts. RPII also reaffirmed that the discharge of radioactive waste from
Sellafield is still ‘the dominant source of contamination in the Irish marine environment.’ The report also
said the levels of technetium-99 are still considerably above pre-1994 levels and remain ‘a significant cause
of concern’.

C 229 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Since the United Kingdom radiological protection authorities and government ministries continue to play
down the hazard posed by continued radioactive waste discharges from Sellafield, will the Commission
now convene a round table of experts, open to public scrutiny, to examine why the different radio-
protection authorities in two Member States take such different views on radiological risk for Sellafield?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

As confirmed in the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0334/02 (1) the Commission is
aware of extensive variation in the concentration of radionuclides in seaweed from place to place but the
absolute concentrations have no radiological significance.

The report ‘The radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in
North European marine waters, project’Marína‘’ (Radiation Protection 47, 1990) is in the process of being
updated and will consider these matters. This report will be subject to subsequent discussion in the
relevant Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Committee and an appropriate international conference. Consequently, the
Commission does not believe it appropriate to convene a round table of experts to consider the matter
also.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 120.

(2002/C 229 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Europe’s current ‘heavily fisheries-dependent’ regions

In the early days of the so-called Blue Europe, a mechanism for allocating fisheries quotas in Community
waters was worked out in terms of heavily fisheries-dependent’ European regions; within the CFP, this
became known as the ‘relative stability’ mechanism. At that time, these regions included Greenland, which
is now outwith the EU, Ireland, which no longer falls within the GDP criteria for cohesion regions, while
regions such as Galicia, amongst others, were not included since they did not form part of the EU (or the
EC as it then was). Galicia is currently an Objective 1 cohesion policy region, and its ‘heavily fisheries-
dependent’ status is unquestionable, as its socio-economic indicators clearly show.

Regulation (EC) 3760/92 (1) obliges the Commission to draw up a report on the economic and social
situation of coastal regions. Parliament rejected the document bearing this title which accompanied the
Green Paper, deeming it sloppy, incomplete and lacking homogeneous regional comparative analyses, and
called for a fresh report as an absolute priority.

Is the Commission going to heed the EP’s opinion and draw up a new study clearly defining which

1.
European regions are currently ‘heavily fisheries-dependent’?

2.

If so, when will the EP receive this study? If not, why is it not being carried out?

Does the Commission not believe that in order to tackle the reform of the CFP, it is essential to

3.
update the extent to which European regions are dependent on fisheries?