Proposition 53K1539

Proposition de résolution relative aux mesures de sécurité, d'information et de coordination à mettre en oeuvre à la suite des incidents survenus à l'Institut national des Radioéléments (IRE).

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick
LE Catherine Fonck

Submission date

June 1, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

audit irradiation health risk resolution of parliament nuclear safety risk management public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 12, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

I will now speak on behalf of my group.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the incident that occurred in August 2008 at the site of the National Institute of Radio Elements (IRE) in Fleurus was immediately followed by a motion of the House, a recommendation that advocated the establishment of a sub-commission Nuclear Security.

The creation of this subcommittee demonstrated the attention and willingness of our parliament to analyze, propose and ensure to the IRE a maximum level of nuclear security and nuclear security and radiation protection, as well as a better communication with respect to the neighbors and all our fellow citizens. One of the tasks entrusted to the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee was to examine aspects that may not have been addressed in the previous legislature, relating to this incident that occurred to the IRE in August 2008.

The IRE is a leading institution in nuclear medicine through the production of radioisotopes, notably iodine 131. This activity concerns both the diagnostic phase and the treatment of cancer. This is not only a major public health issue, but also a research and development issue for the future of our country.

Obviously, the importance of the role and missions of the IRE does not alter the safety requirement of workers and/or residents of the site. Although progress has been observed at the IRE level, improvements still need to be made.

The resolution proposal that we are discussing today is therefore aimed not only at nuclear security, which should be maximized, but also at improving and transparency of the IRE communication in case of incidents.

But while the initial proposal had the great merit of asking adequate questions and highlighting the shortcomings found following the various incidents that occurred in recent years at the IRE, the considerations and requests that were made could not fully satisfy the expectations and proposals of the various groups.

This is why the discussions in the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee were intense and passionate, each of whom sincerely wanted to move forward to improve the original text submitted by Catherine Fonck and thus effectively and concretely strengthen security and information in case of crisis.

Personally and like my colleagues, I sincerely welcome the constructive work that has been done, work that has helped to improve the quality, the effectiveness of the text by involving it in a technical and technological reality. For if one often wishes to ⁇ perfection, one must not forget that behind every legislative proposal, there is a ground reality, a scientific reality and a technological reality.

For example, two points of the original arrangement came into conflict. One of these points referred to the obligation for the IRE to reduce its iodine emissions to reach zero level. Another point was the obligation to reduce permitted emission limits according to progress.

The new formulation contained in the final text, namely “tending towards zero emission level” thus allows to maintain the requirement of less emissions, but within a framework and a realistic and evolving technological reality.

Dear colleagues, under the impulse of the chairman of the Nuclear Security Subcommittee whose action I want to welcome here, we have opted for the consensus model that allows us to submit to you this fully amended text, which meets the expectations of all the groups. It was unanimously voted in the House Committee.

This will, I am sure, enable concrete improvement of security, clarification and coordination of the IRE communication.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior has also committed to implementing the recommendations made, which I can only welcome.

In matters of such importance and which are ⁇ close to my heart, I look forward to the fact that the good will and the involvement of each and every one allows Parliament to play a major role in this issue of improving nuclear security.

This common goodwill is the proof, in my opinion, that consensus, if it gives rise to nutritious debate, always concludes with a positive outcome.

I would like to speak about the procedure.

This text has actually reached consensus. Consensus is not the goal. The goal is that things change in the IRA. It would be interesting for the Minister responsible for nuclear security to be present at this session for this debate. She could hear what the members of the committee have to say to her. They worked on this topic. At the end of many hearings, they have reached the result that we present today and that we will vote soon.

A good parliamentary work is done, in this case in its conclusion, in the presence of the competent minister. I do not want, by this, to play the procedure, but I think, and Mr. Ducarme acknowledges, that it would be ⁇ useful that Mrs. Milquet is among us.

First, we have changed the Minister of the Interior. Second, I’m not sure I can find Mrs. Milquet now. So I ask you. I can wait the necessary time and suspend the session or postpone the point to next week or invite any minister. We have formalism.

I will not deny the urgency of the matter, urgency which dates back a decade! For me, the priority is that the competent minister attends the debate, that she can replicate or tell us of her commitments. If it is necessary to postpone the debate for a week to ⁇ this, I would rather be in favour of it, even if I was available to intervene on the substance.

I ask the Assembly. Will we postpone this point to next week? (Acceptance of consent)

The point is postponed to next week.

Mr. Speaker, it should be stated in the report: "Applause fed on the banks of the PS".

Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe