WRITTEN QUESTION No. 127/98 by Eryl McNALLY to the Commission. Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, Article 3 paragraph 2(a), (b) and (f) and Article 5 paragraph 2
17. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 223/119 (98/C 223/152) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0127/98 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (22 January 1998) Subject: Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, Article 3 paragraph 2(a), (b) and (f) and Article 5 paragraph 2 I would like to draw the Commissionís attention to the Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1), Article 3 paragraph 2(a), (b) and (f) and Article 5 paragraph 2, concerning the reporting and authorization of practices with regard to ionizing radiation. The new threshold for Caesium-137 below which reporting is not necessary is now 10 000 Bq/kg. Given that considerably lower levels of radioactive substances have, in the past, led to affected meat products being banned and have been implicated in cases of leukaemia clusters, does the Commission not believe that the limits set out in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom are, in fact, too lax? Can the Commission explain how the Council justifies the limits set and the provisions made in the Articles mentioned above? (1) OJ L 159, 29. 6. 1996, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 February 1998) Article 3. 2 of the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation (96/29/Euratom) refers to exemption levels in terms of total activity and activity concentration below which practices need not be reported. In terms of activity concentration the list of nuclide-specific values replaces the single value of 100 Bq/g for artificial radionuclides laid down in earlier directives (Council Directive 80/836/Euratom as amended by Council Directive 84/467/Euratom of 3 September 1984 amending Directive 80/836/Euratom as regards the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (1)). In the case of caesium-137 as for a large number of other important radionuclides the exemption value is now indeed 10 Bq/g (i. e. 10 000 Bq/kg), which is more restrictive by a factor of ten. Lower levels of radioactivity were specified for meat and other foodstuffs in the case of radiological emergency (Council Regulations 90/737/EEC of 22 March 1990 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station (2) in the context of the accident at Chernobyl and 87/3954/Euratom of 22 December 1987 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (3) in any other case of radiological emergency). In the case of radiological emergency, the criteria adopted covered the situation in which foodstuffs might become contaminated and members of the public would receive doses internally over a long period as a result of ingesting radioactivity in foodstuffs. It is for that reason it is necessary to have lower reference values for foodstuffs. Exemption levels pertain to the administrative requirement of reporting a practice involving radioactive substances and the values were derived on the basis of a range of scenarios which considered occasional inadvertent ingestion but not protracted ingestion. Exemption from such reporting does not imply that other relevant requirements of the basic safety standards or other legislation are not applicable. Indeed, the deliberate addition of radioactive substances in the production of foodstuffs is prohibited (Article 6. 5), irrespective of the resulting contamination level. (1) OJ L 265, 5. 10. 1984. (2) OJ L 82, 29. 3. 1990. (3) OJ L 371, 30. 12. 1987