# CE2004088EN.01066402.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/664 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/664

---

(2004/C 88 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units

Subject:

Given that the agreement dated 29 November 1999 between the Council and the Bulgarian Government (brought about by the Commission) to close four units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant as a condition of Bulgaria's accession to the EU was based on 10-year-old criteria, and given that, in 2002, the IAEA declared that these units ‘now correspond to the level of improvements seen at plants of similar vintage elsewhere’ and that we are awaiting the result of the Council's peer review of November 2003, will the Commission agree that a positive outcome of that review should lead to their advising the Bulgarian Government and the Council to review the closure agreement dates on the grounds that they no longer have a technical basis?.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3992/03 and E-3993/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

(11 February 2004)

Bulgaria committed itself, in the framework of the accession negotiations, to close Units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant before the year 2003. Bulgaria furthermore committed itself to close Units 3 and 4 of the plant in 2006. Regarding the so-called ‘peer review’ mechanism under the auspices of the Council, the Union mandated the dispatch of an expert mission to Bulgaria, as agreed in the accession negotiations.

Honouring its commitments regarding the closure of Units 1 and 2, Bulgaria closed down these two Units (VVER-440/320 type-reactors) for decommissioning at the end of 2002.

The expert mission, conducted under the auspices of the Council of the Union during the period 16-19 November 2003, was composed of representatives from Member States. The Commission participated as an observer. The scope of the mission, as defined by the Council, was essentially to monitor and verify in situ the status of the implementation of the relevant recommendations contained in the 2001 Report on Nuclear Safety in the context of Enlargement and the subsequent 2002 Peer Review Status Report, both reports produced by the Atomic Question Group (AQG) within the Council of the Union. Therefore, the expert mission was not only limited to monitoring the implementation of the recommendations for Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, but also included inter alia issues related to the Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Authority.

The work of the expert mission is part of the peer review mechanism established for Bulgaria, and has to be considered as a continuation of the previous work conducted within the Council through the Group dealing with Atomic Questions and its ad hoc formation, the Working Party on Nuclear Safety. The peer review mechanism is a continuous process based on exchange of information between Candidate Countries and the Union. Consequently, the technical exercise conducted under the expert mission does not constitute a complete new evaluation of the situation of nuclear safety in Bulgaria.

The Commission recalls that the evaluation of nuclear safety in Candidate Countries, as reflected in the above AQG reports, has been conducted with a view to defining the Union's position on a ‘high level of nuclear safety’, and it has been the result of a considerable collective effort under several Union presidencies. A high degree of convergence on the substance of technical and organisational requirements and good practices has been achieved in the Union. In several areas, these requirements go further than those contained in international instruments. This common Union perspective has been reflected in the evaluation with regard to nuclear power plants.

Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (VVER-440/230 type-reactors), as is the case with the remaining nuclear installations in Candidate Countries, have been evaluated in a consistent and harmonised manner, and for these Units the AQG Reports have stressed the importance of their definitive closure in 2006. The safety improvement programmes defined for these units should be accordingly regarded within the context of this closure date. Therefore the peer review mechanism, which involves the carrying out of expert missions, is by no means intended to reassess the feasibility of the operation of Units 3 and 4 beyond 2006.

Bulgaria should continue with the implementation of all the recommendations contained in the AQG Reports with regard to the priorities assigned, including the full implementation of the safety improvement programmes in place. Taking into consideration the results of the expert mission, the Council Group dealing with Atomic Questions will prepare a complete report in line with the mandate and the scope of the peer review exercise. This report is expected to be finalised by end of April 2004 and will constitute an updated version of the 2002 AQG Report.

---