WRITTEN QUESTION No. 886/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Kozloduy and funding for Bulgaria
Date: 1997-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU aid, action programme, financial aid, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, technical cooperation, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E0886 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0886

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 886/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Kozloduy and funding for Bulgaria  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0054 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0886/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)Subject: Kozloduy and funding for BulgariaIn reply to repeated questions concerning the outdated Kozloduy nuclear reactor in Bulgaria, the Commission gave its assurance (6 January 1997, answer given by Mr Van den Broek ((E-3001/96, OJ C 96 of 24.3.1997, p. 48. ))) that Bulgaria had received PHARE funding to guarantee the safety of the area and that, in general, projects 'are subject to monitoring and evaluation and the Court of Auditors performs systematic missions' to verify the correct use of the funds.In a previous reply ((P-2854/95, OJ C 51, 21.2.1996, p. 54. )), also by Mr Van den Broek (5 December 1995), concerning PHARE, it was stated that funding was provided for three training courses on 'off-site emergency measures in the event of nuclear accidents' and that Bulgarians were taking part in them.The new Bulgarian Energy Minister, Mr Stoilov, publicly acknowledged the serious accident risks arising from the operation of the Kozloduy plant. However, the Bulgarian Government has for years consistently refused to shut down the plant while, at the same time, the Bulgarian authorities are continuing to make repeated requests for economic assistance from the EU.In view of this:1. What exact amount is being paid by the EU to Bulgaria in connection with the Kozloduy nuclear reactor, when were the funds granted and how were they used?2. What exact undertakings were given by the Bulgarian authorities concerning the shutting down of the Kozloduy plant and which of these undertakings were respected?3. Did the Commission make it clear to Bulgaria from the outset that there is a real danger of a disaster similar to Chernobyl and that the present situation is unacceptable?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)1. In the area of nuclear safety, Phare has supported a comprehensive programme since August 1991. Total Phare assistance in this field amounts to 62.3 MECU. The main objectives of the assistance have been:- operational safety improvements, mainly through an on-site assistance team at Kozloduy, a twinning programme and a housekeeping programme;- near term technical improvements (design safety studies and equipment deliveries);- enhancing regulatory regimes supporting the Bulgarian regulator;- waste and fuel cycle;The total assistance was distributed as follows:- operational safety 17.75 MECU- design safety 11.00 MECU- support to the regulator 7.50 MECU- equipment 10.30 MECU- waste 8.40 MECU- support to the programme implementation unit 3.80 MECU- unit 1 reactor pressure vessel testing programme 3.50 MECU2. The nuclear safety account (NSA) concluded in 1993 an agreement with Bulgaria in order to accord a grant of 24 MECU for safety improvements in Kozloduy units 3 and 4. As a part of the agreement, the Bulgarian government committed itself to close down units 1 to 4 of the plant as soon as a certain number of conditions are fulfilled. The Commission fully supports the objectives of the nuclear safety account agreement and has frequently urged the Bulgarian government to work towards implementing them as soon as possible.These conditions included that units 1 and 2 will be closed as soon as sufficient replacement energy is available by putting the Chaira pumping station on line and either the Varna thermal power plant or one of the Kozloduy 5 and 6 units are modernised. For units 3 and 4, the agreement states that they will be closed as soon as the energy situation allows it, but in any case as soon as Kozloduy 5 and 6 are modernised and conversion of Sofia, Kostov and Republika district heating plants to combined cycle co-generation of heat and power is completed. None of these conditions are yet fulfilled, so there has been no breach of the agreement on the Bulgarian side.3. The Kozloduy nuclear power plant has six reactors of the VVER type (pressurised water reactors), whereas the Tchernobyl reactors are of the RBMK type (graphite moderated - water cooled reactors). The Tchernobyl accident was specific to the RBMK reactors, and hence not applicable to the VVER reactors.The Commission has nevertheless funded a wide range of studies to evaluate the risk of accidents in the Kozloduy units 1-4 (the oldest) and to issue recommendations to minimize the risk as much as possible. All those studies and recommendations are known to the Bulgarian authorities and operators.