Official Journal CE 364, 20/12/2001, P. 19
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/19 (2001/C 364 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (27 March 2001) Subject: Radiological sampling at military ranges where depleted uranium munitions have been tested What plans does the Commission have, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty, to conduct radiological sampling at military ranges or other sites in the UK and France where depleted uranium munitions have been tested? (2001/C 364 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001) Subject: Test firing of depleted uranium shells Does the Commission consider that the test firing of depleted uranium shells into coastal waters within the European Union is covered by the OSPAR Convention? (2001/C 364 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001) Subject: Surveys of environmental radioactivity What surveys of environmental radioactivity are currently being conducted by the Commission or its agents? (2001/C 364 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 March 2001) Subject: Firing of depleted uranium shells into the Solway Firth, United Kingdom What evaluation has the Commission made of the environmental survey conducted by consultants W.S. Atkins on behalf of the British Ministry of Defence in 1994, released in January 1995, into the impact on the marine and terrestrial environment of the test-firing of depleted uranium shells in the United Kingdom into the Solway Firth (from the Dundrennan range near Kirkcudbright, in Scotland) and at Eskmeals (Cumbria, in England)? Is it aware of any similar survey conducted by France into its depleted uranium testing site at Granat? Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2001) Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment. In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament’s February 2001 part-session (1) that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission’s understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention. C 364 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.2001 As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter. The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission’s attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France. On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium. (1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001. (2001/C 364 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (27 March 2001) Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project In reply to Question P-0009/01 (1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that the Commission was aware that the AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which was involved in both Aventinus and Sensus via its test centre for language technology, was a government body reporting to the office of the German Federal Chancellor. Mr Liikanen thereby implicitly acknowledges that the Commission was ‘aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst’. To avoid any misunderstanding about the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, with Aventinus and Sensus, I should like to know: does the Commission acknowledge, explicitly and unambiguously, that it was aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst? (1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (1 August 2001) The Commission services were aware at the time of the signature of the Sensus contract, that the Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA) was a test centre for language technology, a public body reporting to the German federal chancellery. They were not informed of any relationship between AfA and the Bundesnachrich- tendienst (BND) until towards the end of the project. In any case, there was no legal impediment to the participation of AfA, or indeed the BND, in the Sensus project..