Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.8.1-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I should like to make a few observations about the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
I will start, first of all, with the legal basis. The Commission is mistaken to refer to Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty, which pertain only to the health and safety of workers. They are not related to the safety standards for nuclear facilities. The Commission should have adopted the correct legal basis, namely Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty. According to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, this Waste Directive mainly sets unified timetables. This approach will benefit neither the nuclear energy sector, the environment nor the public.
As far as the disposal or storage options are concerned, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is of the opinion that there is no broad international consensus. Even in France, the nuclear energy country
national legislation requires a series of different options to be considered. As for timetables, not one single new Member State will be able to meet the timetable under the current circumstances, not even Finland, which will need another two years.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy also takes the view that the export of waste outside of Europe will have to be banned and that the proposed directive must be amended accordingly. The Commission must publish its current plans for the management and disposal and storage of radioactive waste of all Member States and allow comments to be made. It must draw up a list of waste whose export is not allowed – not into the atmosphere or into the sea – and may not qualify for disposal or storage. In addition, a proposal in the style of Aarhus must be established following compulsory consultation of the public.
With regard to the safety of nuclear plant, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is of the opinion that the current amendment to the directive will not lead to an improvement because the international, worldwide directives that are already in place are more or less taken as a basis. We also have to get off our chests the fact that the dismantling funds should be paid for by the nuclear energy sector itself and not by the taxpayer. We therefore take the view that the directive should be tightened up drastically so that it results in the introduction of the latest safety standards, compliance with which can be enforced effectively. This too is missing from the present proposals.
Finally, I should like to comment on the remarks made by Commissioner de Palacio about Kyoto. I assume that she was expressing her personal view and that she did not represent the view of the entire Commission, for she is not responsible for this dossier. I will therefore ignore her remarks with regard to Kyoto."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples