WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3464/96 by Herbert BÖSCH to the Commission. Slow implementation of programmes on reactor safety using PHARE and TACIS funding
Date: 1996-12-09
Institutions: BOESCH, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, Commonwealth of Independent States, EU aid, EU financing, action programme, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, technical cooperation













EUR-Lex - 91996E3464 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E3464

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3464/96 by Herbert BÖSCH to the Commission. Slow implementation of programmes on reactor safety using PHARE and TACIS funding  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/96 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)Subject: Slow implementation of programmes on reactor safety using PHARE and TACIS fundingAccording to the 1995 Court of Auditors' report, the implementation rate is 56% for commitments and only 26% for payments, although reactor safety was classified as urgent and the Commission has announced a significant increase in the number of contracts.1. What problems lie behind the poor rate of implementation? If they lie with the CEEC and the NIS, what steps does the Commission plan to take to ensure better utilization of the appropriations?2. Which nuclear reactors in the CEEC and the NIS were originally included in this programme?3. For which nuclear reactors have projects or measures to raise safety standards already been(a) completed, and(b) started?4. What planned measures and projects have yet to be completed or are still outstanding?5. When are they expected to be completed?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 January 1997)1. The implementation of the projects in the nuclear safety sector has been delayed for a number of reasons. The definition of the programme outlines and of the detailed content of the individual projects between the beneficiary and the Commission proved to be more difficult than expected. The countries concerned had no internationally recognized nuclear liability regime in place (for some of them this is still the case). There were procedural difficulties, including difficulties in licensing of Community equipment in the Eastern countries. Then financial resources in the countries concerned were limited.2. The Phare and Tacis programmes include both generic activities which are of benefit to all nuclear power plants of a similar design and plant specific support through the on-site assistance programme. In this latter framework support has been given to plants in Russia (Kola, Balakovo, Kalinin, Leningrad, Smolensk, Beloyarsk), in Kazakhstan (Aktau), in Ukraine (Rovno, South Ukraine, Zaporoshje) and in Central Europe (Kozloduy).3-5. Within the framework of this direct on-site assistance, operational safety issues are addressed with the help of Community nuclear operators and equipment is supplied. Examples include the supply to Balakovo of a condenser cleaning system, the supply to Rovno of fire resisting painting and of a steam generator inspection system, the supply of non destructive testing equipment to Kalinin and South Ukraine and the supply of a computerized maintenance system at Smolensk and of a centralised information system of Sosnovy Bor. Several nuclear power plants have also received substantial amounts of spare parts. Other projects already decided are under way or will be started soon. Most projects are technically complex and need long periods of implementation covering design, fabrication, supply and installation.As the safety of nuclear installations is included as a priority in the current medium term planning for both the Phare and the Tacis programmes, direct support projects to the nuclear power plants will continue to be included in the programmes over the next years.