WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/02 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Problems with the High Flux Reactor in Petten.
Date: 2002-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, environmental risk prevention, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, reactor cooling system

C 222 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

However, a declaration of market opening does not, of itself, make for a well functioning market.
Ineffective regulation, potential cross subsidies, inadequate unbundling and market concentration may still
mean that vertically integrated companies are able to frustrate the efforts of potential new suppliers.

An alternative indicator of the openness of a market in the process of liberalising is to examine the
proportion of customers that have made use of their ability to switch supplier, or to renegotiate with the
existing supplier. A table containing estimates of this parameter for, respectively, large users and then if
relevant smaller commercial users and households is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

This table shows that, for electricity in France, around 10-20 % of the eligible customers have switched or
renegotiated, which is only around 5 % of the total market. Similarly for gas, although 20-30 % of eligible
customers have switched from Gaz de France (GDF), this is again around 5 % of the total market.

This information is based on estimates submitted by Member States’ governments or national regulatory
bodies and refers to the cumulative period since market opening. i.e. 1999-2002 for electricity and 2001-
2002 for gas. In future, Eurostat is intending to encourage Member States to carry out an evaluation for
individual years on a regular basis.

(1) SEC(2002) 1038.
(2) Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the

internal market in electricity (cid:1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2003/C 222 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Problems with the High Flux Reactor in Petten

(14 October 2002)

The Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) manages the High Flux Reactor in Petten, which
belongs to the Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

On 26 September 2002, the TV programme Reporter revealed on the basis of documents from the plant
itself that a larger or smaller leak in the cooling system could deprive the reactor core of cooling water and
possibly cause it to melt (‘the possibility cannot be absolutely excluded’).

In the 1980s, the ‘Veldman scenario’ (a break in the cooling-water pipes) was developed. This scenario was
analysed in detail by a working party including former operator Veldman. The NRG considers it extremely
unlikely that this scenario would actually arise and says that, although the possible consequences would be
serious, the surrounding area would be unaffected.

The reactor should be thoroughly examined while not operating, in order to identify any possible safety
problems.

State Secretary Van Geel (Environment) is allowing much uncertainty to persist regarding this issue. His
letter to the Lower House of Parliament does indicate that the government has never ordered a serious and
thorough investigation of the possibility that the reactor core might be deprived of cooling water (‘in view
of the international practice then prevailing, whereby research reactors were not subjected to this type of
analysis’). It is not clear on what Van Geel bases the opinion of his Nuclear Energy Service that in the
event of a break there would not be any risk of an explosion.

Does the Commission agree that the safety of nuclear installations should always be beyond doubt?

Does the Commission agree that, as a precaution, the High Flux Reactor in Petten should temporarily cease
to operate until the reactor’s serious safety problems have been solved?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/29

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission is of the opinion that effective arrangements against potential radiological hazards need
to be established and maintained in nuclear installations in order to protect individuals, society and the
environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation from such installations.

The safety of the high flux reactor (HFR) is ensured by operating the reactor in compliance with the
relevant safety rules and regulations under the supervision and control of the competent national safety
authorities. In agreement with the safety authorities, a number of postulated accidental scenarios involving
major and minor coolant leaks including breaks in the cooling water pipes are currently under analysis.
The Commission,
in full agreement with the national safety authorities, considers that the postulated
scenarios do not represent a hazard that would require the HFR to cease to operate.

(2003/C 222 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: The Galicia-Portugal and Galicia-France-central Europe high-speed rail links

Can the Commission provide information on the state of progress,
in terms of both planning and
construction, on the proposed high-speed rail lines which are to link the main cities of Galicia with each
other and Galicia as a whole with Oporto and Lisbon in Portugal and with the European heartland via the
Iberian ‘meseta’ and France, given that the bulk of construction work on these links is planned for the
present programming period 2000-2006?

What is the level of Community funding allocated to these projects?

What are the expected completion dates for the various stretches of the planned lines?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2003/C 222 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2926/02

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Repeated infringements of EU law by the Member States

In 1999 the level of implementation of EU law was 94,53 %. However, there is a deep gulf between formal
and actual implementation.

Violations of EU law take many forms. Particularly when the infringement is deliberate, the Commission
ought to intervene directly. One instance of delayed reaction is in the case of the illegal taxation imposed
by Finland on removal
lorries, against which the Commission has not taken any action pursuant to
Directive 83/183/EEC (1), even though I informed the Commission of it over two years ago. This is
something which EU citizens should not be expected to put up with.