WRITTEN QUESTION P-3449/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Promotion of nuclear safety in the central and east European countries and the new independent states

The European Union promotes the enhancement and strengthening of nuclear safety in the central and east European countries (CEEC) and the new independent states (NIS) through the Tacis and PHARE programmes. In its annual report for 2000, the Court of Auditors noted the following: The objective of these measures is still to help to bring nuclear plants in the CEECs and the NISs up to European safety standards. At the end of 2000, these European standards had still not been defined, nor had the Commission yet established, as the Council and the Parliament had requested, its own indicators for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the programmes

In its answer to the Court of Auditors' annual report, the Commission countered: In this context, the Commission considers that if the accession negotiations can be conducted without reference to a formal set of EU standards, then a fortiori these should not be necessary in order to assess the effectiveness of the Commission 's PHARE and Tacis programmes, as the Court continues to insist.

It is not only the Court of Auditors but also Parliament and the Council which advocate such a definition of internal criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the programmes.

The Commission:

- Will it therefore say which specific criteria are currently used to evaluate the effectiveness of the PHARE and Tacis programmes?

- In what practical form and when does the Commission intend to respond to the Court of Auditors' criticism that at the end of 2000 these European safety standards had still not been defined, by making changes in the management of the PHARE and Tacis programmes to improve their effectiveness?

- If the Commission does not intend to improve the effectiveness of the programme, how does it justify that in the light of the Court of Auditors' demands for changes?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

There are presently no common European safety standards, and such standards could only be defined through the joint will of all Member States. However, the Council has requested the Commission to ensure that high standards of safety are applied in Central and Eastern Europe (Cologne, June 1999). The Commission has been carrying out this mandate in two phases. Initially, we concentrated our efforts on those reactors which could not reasonably be brought up to a safety standard equivalent to those of Western reactors, and we obtained undertakings from the countries concerned that these plants will be closed ahead of schedule.

Working together with the Council, the Commission then went on to lay down a methodology for assessing the safety of nuclear plants in the candidate countries. This methodology enshrines a European vision of nuclear safety, without going as far as to define European safety standards. The approach was approved by a report adopted by the Council in May 2001 (9181/01)(1) which contained recommendations to the candidate countries. The seven candidate countries which have nuclear power plants have accepted these recommendations, and a mechanism to monitor their implementation should be operational as of January 2002.

As regards the question of indicators, the budget for the TACIS action programme for 2001 drawn up by the Commission covered the following tasks:

- defining indicators;

- evaluating past programmes.

The preliminary study phase showed that:

- as regards improvements in the overall safety performance of nuclear power stations and, more generally, of the whole nuclear safety system (legislation, effectiveness and independence of national nuclear safety agencies, inspection arrangements, training and technical competence of the operator and the safety agency, etc.), it is almost impossible to define specific indicators to determine the part which the PHARE or Tacis programmes played in relation to other contributions (bilateral agreements, the International Atomic Energy Agency (UN) (IAEA), and the beneficiaries' own input). Only the overall result can be assessed, independent of its origins;

- however, there are plans to analyse how far Tacis projects are consistent with those funded by other donors, and how well they are integrated with national modernisation plans.

Thus, the lack of an acquis or general benchmarks on nuclear safety creates an obstacle to the definition of indicators on specific improvements in nuclear safety in a beneficiary country. The request for the Commission to introduce nuclear safety standards has to be seen in the light of the Council's apparent difficulties in endorsing and cooperating in their preparation. In its Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement in June 2001 (9181/01/corr.)(2), the Council insisted that this exercise does not lead to any transfer of competencies from the Member States to the Community. This suggests that the issues raised in the Written Question could justifiably be addressed to the Council.

Nevertheless, with regard to the PHARE 2001 programme of Community support to candidate countries in the field of nuclear safety, the Commission has scrutinised all projects to establish whether they provide support to the beneficiary to meet the recommendations of the Council Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement. This focus will be further refined on the basis of the monitoring mechanism to be implemented under the Spanish Presidency that will evaluate the measures undertaken by the candidate countries to implement the Council Report's recommendations.

The preparation of indicators under the Tacis programme will, of course, also be of value to the evaluation of PHARE-funded projects. In general, however, there is already no doubt that the nuclear safety situation in PHARE beneficiary countries has significantly improved since the establishment of Community support programmes in the field of this area in the early 1990s, and that these improvements have been in part a consequence of PHARE-funded measures.

(1) http://register.consilium.eu.int/utfregister/frames/introshfsEN.htm.

(2) http://register.consilium.eu.int/utfregister/frames/introshfsEN.htm.