EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/272

(2004/C 78 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Development of new nuclear power stations

Commenting on the recent power failure in Italy, European Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has stated that the failure was partly due to Italy's decision to close three nuclear power stations. As part of the liberalisation of the energy market within the EU, the Commission evidently wishes to encourage a further expansion of nuclear power in the Member States (La Quinzaine européenne, 3 November 2003). The former President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, in her present capacity as France's Minister of Industry, advocates the further development of the third-generation EPR (European pressurised reactor) type of reactor. Unlike most Member States, France and Finland in particular have opted not to ‘freeze’ their nuclear power. On the other hand, the previous Belgian government (1999-2003) decided that ultimately Belgium should cease to produce nuclear power.

Does not the Commission consider that a moratorium on nuclear power or a phasing-out of the existing power stations conflicts with the proposed liberalisation of energy? What position will the Commission adopt with regard to Member States which wish to close their power stations?

Does the Commission consider that new power stations may be built on condition this is, if necessary, accompanied by the introduction of more flexible environmental regulations?

With a view to the forthcoming liberalisation of energy, will the Commission in due course propose uniform environmental regulations applicable in all Member States which will give Member States the option of building/authorising new nuclear power stations if they so wish?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

The debate opened up by the Commission following the adoption on 29 November 2000 of the Green Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ has revived discussion of energy options for the Member States and for the enlarged Union as a whole. The final report on the Green Paper (1), adopted on 26 June 2002, which identifies the conclusions to this wide-ranging debate stresses the need to keep all options open as regards energy production.

The reactions to the Green Paper have shown clearly that the nuclear factor remains an inseparable part of the debate. Nuclear power accounts for around 35 % of electricity production in the Union thus reducing its dependence on fossil fuels.

The use of nuclear power to produce electricity is entirely a matter for the Member States. Each Member State retains its sovereignty in relation to the means to be used to achieve security of energy supply. A major lesson of the debate on the Green Paper as regards nuclear energy is that the future of that sector depends on finding a clear and unequivocal answer to the question of the processing of radioactive waste and that a high level of nuclear safety must be ensured.

The Union has committed itself on a number of occasions, including the Laeken Summit in December 2001, to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety on its territory. For this reason, the Commission adopted, on 30 January 2003, two proposals for Council directives in the field of nuclear safety and management of radioactive waste (2). These two proposals, the legal basis of which is the Euratom Treaty, are currently being discussed within the Council. In accordance with Article 31 of that Treaty, the opinion of Parliament has been sought.

The approach adopted by the Commission in its two legislative proposals is legal and political rather than normative. The intention is to take internationally agreed principles and give them force of Community law. The implementation of these principles within a Community framework will make it possible to ensure that all nuclear operators obey the same rules and are subject to the same constraints. Such an approach will help to ensure healthy competition on the internal electricity market.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.

(2) COM(2003) 32 final.