You are on page 1of 2

3. 4.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 102/139

(98/C 102/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2859/97


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(11 September 1997)

Subject: Human rights abuses and excessive irradiation at Gorleben

Has the Commission seen the video evidence of blatant police brutality during the protects at Gorleben in
connection with the recent transports of nuclear waste?

Does the Commission feel that legitimate protest against such trans-boundary nuclear waste shipments (where
the Commission has a particular responsibility to the EU citizens) can ever justify the abuse of the human rights
of citizens of the Union?

Furthermore, has the Commission studied or tested the radiation emanating from the actual nuclear waste
transport containers in use, to check for compliance with standards based on ICRP 60, as well as generally
concerning the actual health of the drivers, police, protesters and general public, most specifically concerning
neutron radiation, and is the Commission aware of scientific claims that the radiation from the containers is up to
30 times more dangerous than stated?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission


(1 October 1997)

The Commission is perfectly aware of the subject of transboundary shipment of nuclear waste within the
Community. However, it is not in a position to comment on national measures taken to overcome resistance
against legally authorized activities in the nuclear sector.

The shipment containers in use are certified and type approved according to international and national
regulations and standards. During authorised handling and use, the protection of the population and workers
against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation is guaranteed by the application of national legislation,
regulations or administrative measures based on the Council Directive laying down the basic safety standards in
radiation protection (1). There is no evidence that these standards are not being applied.

The currently accepted scientific position on biological radiation effects is reflected by the 1990 recommenda-
tions of the International commission on radiological protection (ICRP) issued as Publication No 60. The new
basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom (2) mirrors the dosimetry concepts as provided by the ICRP and
there is no substantial evidence known which could give reason for modifying these internationally agreed
methods for monitoring and assessing doses involving neutrons.

(1) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.


(2) OJ L 159, 29. 6.1996.

(98/C 102/209) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2862/97


by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Investments in the Rovno and Kmelnitsky nuclear power stations in the Ukraine

The EBRD decided some time ago not to participate in the completion of the Rovno 4 and Kmelnitsky 2 nuclear
power stations in the Ukraine as investigations had shown that the investment did not meet the ‘least-cost’
criterion with which the Bank must comply. At present the EBRD has commissioned a second study to show
whether the completion of one of the plants would in fact satisfy the ‘least-cost’ criterion.
C 102/140 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 98

Does the Commission consider that following the EBRD decision, Euratom’s loan for the completion of the two
power stations should also be dropped?

Does it share my view that no new investment in one of the two power stations should be made until the EBRD
has decided whether it will provide a loan for its completion?

If the EBRD also withdraws from the part-financing of the completion of one of the two power stations, will the
Commission then follow that decision?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission


(23 September 1997)

The information available to the Commission does not confirm that the European bank for reconstruction and
development (EBRD) has decided against participating in the completion of the Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2
nuclear power plants. The EBRD is still investigating the economic aspects of the project. The Commission for
its part is also continuing the preparation of the Euratom loan for the project.

The Commission remains committed to the full implementation of the memorandum of understanding aimed at
the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 and obviously will take into account all relevant aspects in its decision
on the project financing. This will include the availability of the necessary complementary financing by the other
financial institutions, such as the EBRD, the need to seek guarantees for completion of the two reactors to
international acceptable safety standards and the overall need to obtain closure of Chernobyl, especially in the
light of a recent report from independent experts confirming the unsafe state of Unit 3 which at present is still in
operation.

(98/C 102/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/97


by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(11 September 1997)

Subject: Analysis and cooperation in the field of employment

The amended proposal for a decision on the EC’s activities of analysis and cooperation in the field of
employment (the ESSEN programme) does not yet appear to have been adopted despite the efforts of the Dutch
Presidency.

Is it likely that the proposal will be adopted before the extraordinary European Council on employment?

What effects will the delay have on the joint report on employment which is due to be debated by the European
Council in December at the close of the Luxembourg Presidency?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission


(20 October 1997)

The amended proposal for a Council Decision on Commission activities of analysis, research, cooperation and
action in the field of employment (1) is currently still under discussion in the Council.

The Commission can give no formal undertaking as to when this proposal will be adopted, but it would appear
that sufficient progress is being made on this matter in the Council to give grounds for hope that it will soon be
resolved.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, in the past, it has been able to fund its
research, analysis and cooperation measures in the area of employment, albeit out of limited resources. This
delay will therefore have only minor repercussions on the work concerning the joint report to be presented to the
European Council in December. If the Council were not to adopt the Decision, the situation would become far
more difficult from 1998 onwards.

(1) COM(95) 250, as amended by COM(96) 449.