WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Radioactive leak at the Tokaimura power station in Japan.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/39 Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1999) The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community that are employed often illegally by haulage firms in the Community. The Commission is very concerned about the distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community and considers this issue to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry. For this reason the Commission has already written to the Member States in order to raise awareness of the problem and to gauge Member Statesí perception of how widespread the problem is. As a first step towards exploring possible ways to address this issue, the Commission has asked the Member States to establish an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules applied by them in this area. Once the Commission has established an overview of the relevant rules and details determining current practice, further action will be considered. A key factor which must be acknowledged is that Member States are responsible to ensure the effectiveness of enforcement arrangements within their territory. Clearly, breaches of minimum wage arrangements or even of permitted driving hours and rest periods are unacceptable. That this should occur on an almost systematic basis in some Member States is very disturbing. The Commission is also currently drawing up a report on the uniform and effective enforcement of the Community rules on driving times and rest periods based on submissions made by Member States which may result in legislative proposals in this area. (2000/C 219 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Radioactive leak at the Tokaimura power station in Japan Will the Commission evaluate and provide information as soon as possible on the risks posed to the population and the environment by the uranium leak at the Tokaimura nuclear power station in Japan on 30 September 1999, given that initial estimates suggest that the level of radiation in the vicinity of the plant is fifteen thousand times higher than normal? What steps will it take to monitor the situation in Europe to avoid a repeat of previous disasters such as the Chernobyl accident (1986) and what preventive measures has it taken or does it plan to take with regard to other nuclear power stations which could pose a threat to the health of European citizens? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1999) The facility in which the accident occurred at Tokai Mura in Japan on 30 September 1999 is a plant involved in the preparation of nuclear fuel. It is not a nuclear power plant nor is it, as often incorrectly identified, a reprocessing plant. The Commission has been in close contact with the Japanese authorities and with the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) concerning the evaluation of the accident and its impact on the population and the environment. The IAEA has recently published a preliminary report on the subject. This identifies human error and the flouting of safety regulations as the main cause of the criticality accident. C 219 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Information available to date shows that radiation levels monitored at the boundary of the site rose to over one thousand times normal background during the period of criticality, but returned to or near back- ground levels the following day. Almost 100 people have been identified as having received enhanced exposure to gamma and neutron radiation. With a few exceptions, they are employees of the plant or emergency personnel. It is reported that very small quantities of radionuclides were released from the site and that none have been detected in local farm products. The Commission will continue to examine carefully the reports on the accident, in particular to see what lessons can be learned to improve further nuclear safety in Europe. It appears that inadequate training and poorly qualified personnel were important factors in this accident. The Commission is preparing a study to examine the level of training in nuclear safety for operators and other workers in nuclear facilities in the Community. It is important to be sure that lack of knowledge of the hazards associated with nuclear technology will not put at risk the health of Europeans and that the situation is in conformity with relevant Community directives on the basic safety standards. In addition, research on the organisation and management of safety in the nuclear sector is included in the research and training part of the Communityís fifth framework programme (1). Research on nuclear reactor safety is also included in the programme. (1) OJ C 173, 7. 6. 1997. (2000/C 219 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/99 by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Suspension of subsidies to Dutch companies under the ESF programme In recent months I have been alerted to problems regarding ESF subsidies for projects in the Netherlands. During the check made in Rijnmond and Gelderland (April 1999) shortcomings were discovered in the accounts and the Commission intends to halt the subsidies to the Dutch projects. Does the Commission really intend to halt subsidies to all projects under the ESF programme in the Netherlands? If so, why? Given that the Commission cannot intend that good projects should suffer as a result of bad ones, can the Commission ensure that not all projects fall victim to two possible instances of carelessness in a single project? Can the Commission make an exception for the majority of the subsidised projects where it is certain that the accounts definitely satisfy the requirements? The shortcomings often arise as a result of the complexity of the procedures and the Commissionís slowness in making payments. How does the Commission intend to make the financial responsibility with regard to projects simpler and more transparent? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1999) An audit on the implementation of the European social fund (ESF) during the period 1994-1997 was carried out in the Rijnmond and Gelderland regions of the Netherlands by the Commission in April 1999. The audit was requested by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the basis of findings during previous audits conducted by the Commission. the accounting records and statements of expenditure related to ESF projects of six of the eight promoters audited (representing 95 % of the funds audited) proved to be incorrect. It was discovered that On the basis of these findings, advance payments for ESF objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5b and the Community initiative employment have been reduced in order to safeguard the financial interests of the Community, on the basis of Article 21 of the Co-ordination Regulation Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of