WRITTEN QUESTION P-3519/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico.
Date: 2003-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, environmental impact, impact study, national implementing measure, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, storage of waste

C 78 E/570

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Directorate-General (DG)

Number of officials

Information Society DG

Fisheries DG

Internal Market DG

Regional Policy DG

Taxation and Customs Union DG

Education and Culture DG

Health and Consumer Protection DG

Justice and Home Affairs DG

External Relations DG

Trade DG

Development DG

Enlargement DG

EuropeAid Co-operation Office

Humanitarian Aid Office

Eurostat

Personnel and Administration DG

Budget DG

Internal Audit Service

European Anti-Fraud Office (1)

DG for Interpretation

DG for Translation

Publications Office (1)

Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels

PayMaster Office

Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg

European Personnel Selection Office (1)

546

202

311

417

309

504

499

197

1 385

352

264

244

797

134

534

946

359

64

141

562

1 685

436

501

276

195

84

(1)

These are inter-Institutional bodies whose staff are permanent officials of the Commission.

Total

18 670

(2004/C 78 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3519/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject: Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste

storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico

Knowing that:

(cid:1) on 13 November this year the Italian Council of Ministers approved a decree-law for the immediate
disposal of radioactive waste produced on the territory of Italy by creating a national dump in the

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/571

municipality of Scanzano Jonico in the province of Matera. About 60 million cubic metres of second
and third category nuclear waste,
i.e. waste which decays in the medium or long term and has
accumulated as a result of the decommissioning of Italian power stations and research activities, would
be transported to the site;

(cid:1) the decision was taken suddenly and unilaterally by the Italian government;

(cid:1) Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 was transposed into Italian national law
under Title X (‘Nuclear emergency’) of Decree-Law No 230 of 17 March 1995, but no implementing
decrees have yet been issued as regards:

(a)

(b)

(c)

the creation of a standing committee on information to be given the task of drawing up
precautionary information and stating the appropriate channels of communication for disseminat-
ing such information (envisaged in Article 133);

indicating the authorities and entities which should arrange for the dissemination of
precautionary information (envisaged in Article 134);

the

the cases in which the emergency plans applicable to the transport of radioactive materials are to
be applied and the procedures for doing so (envisaged in Article 125).

(cid:1) the European Commission is contributing funding of EUR 743 million to the Objective 1 programme
in the Region of Basilicata during the period 2000-2006. Chapter 2 (cid:1) ‘Development Strategy’ of the
for Basilicata states that sustainable development is the
ROP (Regional Operational Programme)
underlying aim of the ROP and therefore makes the policies which most directly and on an inter-
sectoral basis protect environmental health (protection of ecosystems, soil protection, water use and
waste management) particularly important, since the environmental character of the region creates a
positive image and intrinsic economic value. Furthermore, the description of the area points out that
most jobs are in the agricultural processing industry (fruit, vegetable and animal products).

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) what steps it will take in response to Italy’s sudden and unilateral adoption of the decision and its

failure to adopt the decrees implementing European Directive 89/618/Euratom?

(cid:1) what steps it will take if the Italian government’s move to concentrate the nuclear waste in Basilicata
proves to be in conflict with the region’s natural character as described in the documentation
justifying the funding and in the development guidelines funded by the European Union?

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Concerning the proposal to construct a radioactive waste repository in the municipality of Scanzano
Jonico in Italy, there are certain steps required by European legislation that must take place before any
development approval is given.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), requires an assessment to
be carried out of, inter alia, the environmental impact of any facilities designed for the final disposal or
long-term storage of radioactive waste or irradiated nuclear fuel.

Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3) requires an assessment of, ‘inter alia’, any
government plan or programme to dispose of radioactive waste. However, Member States have until
21 July 2004 to transpose this Directive into national legislation.

C 78 E/572

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Both assessments require information to be provided to the public ‘within a reasonable time in order to
give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion’ before consent is granted. The results of
the consultations with the concerned parties must be taken into consideration in the consent procedure.
Impacts on ‘human beings, fauna and flora’, ‘soil, water, air, climate and landscape’ and ‘material assets and
cultural heritage’ must be included in the assessment, together with the interactions between these factors.
Alternatives and mitigating measures must also be considered. Radiological effects will form part of the
impacts to be assessed.

If development consent is granted, specific measures under the Euratom Treaty and secondary legislation
will be applicable. All practices involving radioactive materials are subject to Council Directive 96/29/
Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general
there are notification
public and workers against
requirements under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in the case of disposal of radioactive waste.

ionizing radiation (4).

the dangers of

In addition,

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
(4) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2004/C 78 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-

favoured areas

In its reply to paragraph 78 of the Special Report, the Commission states that it is to carry out an overall
analysis of the impact of the support scheme for less-favoured areas by the end of 2003 (1).

1.
Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support
provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to
Parliament? If not, why not?

2.
In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be
able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional
auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a
summary of the reports received?

3. What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by
Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between
Member States?

‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural
4.
policy. The way in which these requirements (cid:1) for example,
‘good agricultural practice’ (cid:1) are
incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because
the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend
to eliminate this shortcoming?

(1) OJ C 151, 27.6.2003, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

1. and 2. Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the
less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was
done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in
2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post
evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.