WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1706/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Nuclear waste transport accident in Apach, Lorraine
22. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 21/85 It is impossible to give the cost of each individual delegation since the relevant appropriations are entered in chapter A6 of the Commissionís budget, where spending is broken down by item. Pre-1988, cost breakdowns were spread over the whole budget and cannot therefore now be isolated. Since 1990, the costs have been entered under chapter A6; they totalled ECU 112 million in 1990 and ECU 191 million in 1995. The increase was due largely to the opening of new Commission delegations in eastern Europe. (1) OJ C 319, 18. 10. 1997, p. 230. (98/C 21/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 May 1997) Subject: Nuclear waste transport accident in Apach, Lorraine At around 6. 30 a. m. on Monday, 4 February 1997, a train carrying nuclear waste from North Germany was derailed between Perl (D) and Apach (F) in France, near the Luxembourg border. As the Commission has not answered most of the questions in my Question P-0528/97 (1), I find myself compelled to repeat them: 1. What emergency plans had been drawn up? What measures do these prescribe in the event of an emergency? What evacuation plans exist for emergencies of this kind? At the time of the accident the train was travelling at 28 kph; up to what speed would the safety of the 2. Excellox 6 containers have been assured? As there would have been a catastrophe if the train had collided with a passenger train, why was the trainís 3. route not closed to passenger trains? 4. What were the reasons for the trainís circuitous route via this region where three countries meet? Why was the most direct route › via Belgium and the Netherlands › not selected? 5. Was the load-bearing capacity of the line checked and the maximum speed prescribed? 6. What were the levels of neutron irradiation and radiation exposure received by the rescue teams? (1) OJ C 319, 18. 10. 1997, p. 101. Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997) The emergency plans fall within the powers of the national authorities. In this instance the necessary action 1. was taken under the authority of the prefect. 2. The engineering performance criteria to be met by the containers have been set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the regulation on the carriage of radioactive materials, 1985 version, as amended in 1990 (safety collection No 6). The Excellox 6 containers must meet those criteria. At the time of the accident the train was not travelling on a major line but was in an area set aside for 3. shunting. 4. Matters concerning physical protection prompt the Member States, who alone are competent in this area, to lay down the route to be followed by trains. 5. and 6. question E-1561/97 (1) by Mr Ben Fayot. The Commission would invite the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to written (1) See page 71