WRITTEN QUESTION P-3657/03 by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission. Storage of nuclear waste.
Date: 2003-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, competence of the Member States, environmental impact, impact study, irradiated fuel, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, underground storage of waste

C 78 E/846

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(Tonnes)

Member State

Licences applied for

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Belgium

Ireland

2 483

733

3 167

5 626

6 552

6 474

14 635

6 775

14 966

14 903

1 483

3 588

0

0

United Kingdom

16 706

20 312

18 964

19 456

14 866

8 504

2 000

Total EU

25 663

35 679

28 905

40 048

36 322

13 575

2 000

The reason why the figures for the second half of 2001 and for 2002 are much lower than in previous
years is that during that period the non-quota import duty on barley was low or even nil for long periods,
thus reducing the advantage of using the quota.

(2004/C 78 E/0900)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3657/03

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste

The Italian Government has issued a decree stipulating that all nuclear waste currently in Italy is to be
stored in Scanzano Jonico, in a rock-salt deposit a few metres underground.

The storage location is less than one kilometre from the sea and close to a river, a few metres from a gas
field and in an earthquake-prone area.

According to studies carried out in the USA on waste stored in saline formations, over time radioactive
material generates a rise in temperature and movement in the saline fluids which causes corrosion of the
containers and therefore release of waste into the environment; scientists cannot guarantee that over time
the presence of the waste will not be dangerous for the town’s population.

In view of the above, can the Commission intervene by blocking this ridiculous decision, both because it
constitutes a real threat for the residents of the area living a few metres from the site, and because it is
detrimental to the Metapontino plain, an area located in the centre of Basilicata, Puglia and Calabria which
plays host to the most developed agrifood businesses in the south of Italy and has areas with excellent
tourist facilities?

How does the Commission intend to deal with the issue of radioactive waste at Community level, with a
view to protecting citizens’ health to the highest possible degree?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Concerning the proposal to construct a radioactive waste repository in the municipality of Scanzano
Jonico in Italy, the Commission notes that the original decree of the Italian government has been amended
and that Scanzano Jonico is but one option amongst other potential sites to be identified and assessed by a
commission of experts.

The Commission recalls that each Member State is responsible for the management of all spent fuel and
radioactive waste under its jurisdiction.

The Commission has already taken steps to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. In its
proposed new Directive on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste under discussion in the
Council, Member States will be required to prepare programmes for the safe management of such wastes,
including their disposal.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/847

However, existing european legislation already requires that certain steps must take place before any
development approval is given.

Council 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 (1) 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.

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

the dangers of

In addition,

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply P-3519/03 by Mr Turco (4).

(1) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
(4) See page 570.

(2004/C 78 E/0901)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Undisclosed research on organic farming

Electronic information networks contain details of contracts, bearing the reference ‘QLK-2000-0112’, for
research into current trends in organic farming and food and conversion of production, which were
concluded under the fifth research framework programme and apparently covered all the Member States.

Several of the studies produced under those contracts are obtainable in electronic or other forms and dated
2002 or 2003.

It is also possible, using the Agriculture Directorate-General’s site, to consult recently dated working
documents and reports on exactly the same subject. Strangely, however, their bibliographies do not
mention any of the studies produced under the fifth framework programme, which were presumably
already in preparation in 2000.

Can the Commission say whether it is true that two different Commission departments were engaged in
parallel activities related to the same subject, employing similar techniques (surveys), but did not pool their
efforts and did not even bother to tell each other what they were doing?

Can it say why it has deliberately withheld the ‘QLK-2000-01112’ studies from public consultation?

Does it have any idea of the costs to economic, social, and administrative players entailed in its policy of
non-communication and excessive secrecy, starting with the overlapping within its own departments?