Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 45kWORD 10k
28 April 2021
E-002283/2021
Question for written answer  E-002283/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE), Monika Vana (Verts/ALE), Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE), Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel (Verts/ALE), Sarah Wiener (Verts/ALE), Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE)
 Subject: Earthquake risk in connection with the Paks II nuclear plant

According to the information available(1), a significant discrepancy has emerged from the location approval process for the Paks II nuclear plant between the results obtained by baseline studies on the earthquake risk of the site and the official application submitted by the MVM II company for site approval by the Hungarian nuclear supervisory authority. This is because findings from the basic paleoseismic data collected were omitted from the application which suggest that the active Dunaszentgyörgy-Harta (DH) fault runs beneath the Paks site, and this has been corroborated by a new study(2).

The current recommendations of the IAEA and Hungarian Government Regulation 118/2011. (VII. 11.) state that no nuclear plant may be constructed on a fault designated as active.

1. Does the Commission share the view that the DH fault is active?

2. What is the Commission’s assessment of the omission of paleoseismic findings on the DH fault from the baseline studies in the application submitted by the MVM II company, and will the Commission arrange for an independent evaluation of the Hungarian location approval process to take place?

3. Will the Commission take action to ensure that the path of the DH fault under the planned construction site is verified in a transparent manner when the excavation pit for Paks II is dug out?

Supporter(3)

(1)Bodoky, T. J., Hungarian Geophysics, Vol. 61 (2020), No 4, pp 203–213
(2)https://english.atlatszo.hu/2021/04/09/according-to-a-new-study-geological-research-on-paks-ii-npp-site-underestimates-earthquake-risk/
(3)This question is supported by a Member other than the authors: Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE)
Original language of question: DE
Last updated: 17 May 2021Legal notice - Privacy policy