Resolution on the Mochovce nuclear power plant
Date: 1995-03-16
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, terms for aid













EUR-Lex - 51995IP0420 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IP0420

Resolution on the Mochovce nuclear power plant  


Official Journal C 089 , 10/04/1995 P. 0163 





B4-0420, 0484, 0485, 0492, 0496 and 0499/95Resolution on the Mochovce nuclear power plantThe European Parliament,- having regard to its resolution of 16 February 1995 on the Mochovce project ((Minutes of that Sitting, Part II, Item 10.)),- having regard to its resolutions of 15 December 1993 on nuclear safety in the countries of eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States ((OJ C 20, 24.1.1994, p. 107.)) as well as on nuclear safety ((OJ C 20, 24.1.1994, p. 110.)),- having regard to Council Decision 94/179/Euratom amending Decision 77/270/Euratom, to authorize the Commission to contract Euratom borrowings in order to contribute to the financing required for improving the degree of safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in certain non-member countries ((OJ L 84, 29.3.1994, p. 41.)), and Parliament's opinion of 20 January 1994 on this subject ((OJ C 44, 14.2.1994, p. 169.)),- having regard to the hearing held by its Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy on 1 March 1995, which was attended also by members of other committees concerned (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, Committee on Budgets and Committee on Budgetary Control),- having regard to the contributions from the invited representatives and experts at this hearing,A. whereas the European Union has a major role to play in the decision-making process regarding the construction of the Mochovce nuclear power plant,B. whereas, in accordance with its prior positions on nuclear safety, Parliament attaches great importance to a coherent strategy which provides the highest degree of safety possible for its citizens; whereas it is therefore vital that no doubts whatsoever remain about the safety of a nuclear power plant under construction, in particular if such a project is co-funded by the European Union,C. whereas the granting of a credit for the completion of the Mochovce power station by the EBRD and the European Union could possibly be considered to be a precedent for similar projects in Eastern Europe,D. whereas, in particular, the scenarios completely failed to take account of the question of disposal of the nuclear waste accruing during operation of the nuclear power station,E. whereas the question of full responsibility in the event of an accident has not been resolved,F. whereas, in particular, the planned safety concept for the Mochovce reactor - no containment and use of a bubble condenser - would fail to receive a licence in any EU Member State,G. aware of the deep concern of large sections of the populations of the Slovak Republic and neighbouring countries, in particular Austria, where 1.2 million signatures against this project have been collected,H. whereas on 2 March 1995 the President of the Commission stated before the European Parliament that the loan for improving the Mochovce power station would be subject to very strict and very formal conditions and would be dependent on the shutdown of the Bohunice plant,I. acknowledging that the European Union has an important role to play in helping the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in their efforts to improve the safety and efficiency of their nuclear power plants currently in operation; concerned in this context about the best use of the Euratom borrowings,J. whereas Parliament has always insisted that short-term measures must be accompanied by a coherent strategy providing in particular for the replacement and dismantling of the least safe nuclear power stations; concerned in this context about the contradictory information by the Slovak authorities regarding the possibility of a shut-down of the Bohunice power plant,K. whereas nuclear power generation must be considered in the context of competition with other sources of electricity and account must be taken of the likely trends in demand, particularly in the light of the potential and the efforts to rationalize energy use,1. Considers that every country, both inside and outside the European Union, has the right to decide whether or not to choose the nuclear option, as long as safety rules are strictly respected and the country concerned is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty;2. Considers that financial aid from the EBRD and the European Union should be granted only under the following conditions:- verification by Euratom that EU safety standards are strictly applied;- establishment of a contractually binding timetable ensuring the closure of blocs 1 and 2 of the Bohunice nuclear power plant and an evaluation of the safety situation in the other blocs of this plant;- holding of a public hearing in Austria according to the rules laid down in the ESPOO Convention;- clarification of which long-term arrangements are foreseen for the disposal of nuclear waste;3. Is furthermore of the opinion, after hearing the experts on 1 March 1995, that there still remain serious doubts about the future safety of the Mochovce nuclear power station; is in particular not convinced that the required Western safety standards will be achieved;4. Calls for the decision on granting the credit to be deferred pending an examination of the economic viability of a gas-steam power plant compared with the Mochovce nuclear power station option, as provided for in the agreement between Prime Minister Meciar and Chancellor Vranitzky;5. Is further not convinced that the completion of the Mochovce nuclear power station represents the least-cost option; points out that there is evidence that alternative solutions exist which are economically equally viable; notes in this context especially the option of gas turbines;6. Calls on the Commission to state how and when the individual recommendations of the risk audit study are to be complied with and carried out;7. Asks the EBRD, the EIB and the Commission therefore not to grant any funding to this project as long as doubts remain about the fulfilment of the safety conditions stipulated in paragraph 2; calls for a Commission statement and a report from Euratom, within the next six months, on the achievement of these conditions and asks that this report be forwarded to the European Parliament as soon as possible;8. Calls on the Commission to give the Slovak Republic all possible support in implementing sound alternative solutions to their energy needs, if they so wish;9. Calls further on the Commission to submit to it as soon as possible, after having spoken to the countries concerned, an energy development plan in Central Europe as requested by this Parliament in its abovementioned opinion of 20 January 1994, the objective of which should be the diversification of electricity production sources, the efficient use of energy and the reduction of dependence on nuclear energy;10. Demands that this plan, which should be primarily based on renewable and non-polluting energies (such as hydroelectricity or gas) be treated as a financial priority;11. Instructs its Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy to draw up at the same time, in the form of an own-initiative report, the political guidelines for cooperation with Eastern Europe and the CIS in the field of energy policy;12. Asks the Commission to take the initiative to call a high-level regional conference on the subject of energy development and environmental protection in Central Europe;13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EBRD, the EIB and the Slovak Government.