WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2769/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Fish kill at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain
16. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/63 (98/C 117/77) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997) Subject: Fish kill at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain On 18 July a leak of non-radioactive caustic soda into the River Calder occurred at the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, Britain. The British Environment Agency (EA) has estimated that over 1 000 eels and a further 1 000 juvenile salmon and sea trout and many other fish were killed due to the spillage. The cause of the spillage is believed to have been a defective valve from a storage facility on the Sellafield site. Previous fish kills of this type have occurred at Sellafield. In April 1991, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) was prosecuted by the National Rivers Authority for an acid spill into the Calder which killed over 1 500 fish and a leak of polyelectrolyte in the nearby Black Beck which killed over 2 000 fish. BNFL was found guilty of both offences and fined £2 000. Has the Commission been notified of the recent fish kill? If so, what action has it taken and/or what action does it propose to take? Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997) The Commission has seen the reports in the press about the leak of non-radioactive caustic soda from British nuclear fuels Ltd (BNFL) plant at Sellafield. However, there are no requirements for the company or the British authorities to inform the Commission about such an incident. The Commission will not be taking any action regarding this matter. The investigation into the origin of the incident and requests for possible modifications to the installations or procedures are only within the competence of the national authorities. (98/C 117/78) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/97 by Encarnacio·n Redondo Jime·nez (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997) Subject: Protecting appellations of origin for European wines There have been various reports in the media that the United States is drawing up legislation to continue using the appellations of origin of EU wines for wines produced in the US, in order to protect the interests of US winegrowers. If this proves to be the case, what steps would the Commission take to safeguard the interests of European winegrowers, for whom such legislation would obviously be damaging? Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997) The Honourable Member refers to an amendment to the 1997 Revenue Reconciliation Act introduced in Congress by Mr d’Amato and subsequently adopted, which codifies certain terms used for many years in conformity with United States legislation in the labelling of wines. These terms are names of European origin, such as Champagne, Moselle, port and sherry, used in the United States for American and imported wines. The list of terms in the amendment is in fact identical to that figuring in the technical rules in force (1). The Commission is at present carrying out a legal analysis of the amendment to check its compatibility with the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights