EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/63

(2004/C 78 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) and Per-Arne Arvidsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Nuclear safety principles applied to the EU accession countries

We refer to the proposal for a Council Directive setting out basic obligations and general principles concerning the safety of nuclear installations (1). The Directive proposes common safety standards and verification mechanisms to guarantee the application of common methods and criteria with regard to nuclear safety throughout the enlarged EU. The Directive is based on the Nuclear Safety Convention concluded under the auspices of the IAEA and lays down a precise legal framework for the nuclear safety system.

Given the forthcoming harmonization of safety rules and practices in connection with the IAEA safety system, and having regard to the view of the European Parliament as expressed in a resolution on the accession process adopted in June 2002 concerning the open-minded approach that should be adopted to the future of the two nuclear units 3 and 4 at Kozloduy in Bulgaria, and taking account of the observations and recommendations of the IAEA inspectors, could the Commission specify how account is being taken of the view of the European Parliament and the IAEA assessments at the accession talks with Bulgaria?

Given the substantial upgrading which has been done to Kozloduy Units 3 and 4 in the period 1991-2002, which, according to the IAEA Safety Review Mission conducted in June 2002, has addressed all the original safety concerns and has brought the units into line with the IAEA nuclear safety standards, considering, furthermore, the existence of an independent and professionally staffed nuclear regulator in Bulgaria, and noting the Union's demand for an early closure of these reactors in the context of the Accession Conference negotiations on the energy chapter, could the Commission explain how it intends to apply the principles of the Convention on Nuclear Safety to the solution of Kozloduy 3 and 4 issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

With regard to the current state of the accession negotiations on the issue of nuclear safety in units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station, the Commission would remind the Honourable Members that, in the framework of the Accession Conference, Chapter 14 (Energy) was provisionally closed with Bulgaria on 18 November 2002. The terms of the agreement between the Member States and Bulgaria on nuclear safety, in particular as regards units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station, are set out in the EU common position. The Bulgarian Government has undertaken to close units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station in 2006. As regards the peer review under the auspices of the Council, the European Union will send an expert mission to Bulgaria as soon as possible, before the conclusion of the accession negotiations. The EU also notes Bulgaria's expectation that the Community will continue to provide financial assistance (linked to the consequences of the early closure of certain units of the Kozloduy power station) and is willing to consider this matter.

The Commission considers that the questions raised by the Honourable Members concerning units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station must be understood and reassessed in this framework. With regard to period prior to the abovementioned agreement, the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the answers it gave at the time, notably that to Written Question E-3164/02 from Mr Matikainen-Kallström et Mr Rovsing (2).

The Commission would point out that, like all the other nuclear installations in the candidate countries, units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station were evaluated by the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) under the auspices of the Council. The evaluation gave rise to recommendations, and the WPNS monitored the implementation of those recommendations in the first half of 2002. The WPNS considered that the implementation of five recommendations required further close monitoring, and in its reports of June 2001 and 2002 it stressed that the improvements made to units 3 and 4 should be understood in the context of the units being closed in 2006.

(1) COM(2003) 32 final.

(2) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 30.