WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2857/97 by Michl EBNER to the Commission. Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft
Date: 1997-09-11
Institutions: EBNER, European Parliament
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, aircraft, atmospheric pollutant, civil aviation, combustion gases, environmental protection, environmental standard, oxide

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/83

(98/C 117/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/97

by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission

(11 September 1997)

Subject: Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft

In view of the fact that:

› 

it is technically possible to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft by up to 60%,

› 

there is no Directive on exhaust emission limits for aircraft,

› 

› 

the  issue  of  nitrogen  oxide  emissions  is  of  particular  interest  to  the  Union  in  terms  of  environmental
protection and the competitiveness of industry,

the Commission stated its intention in the communication on the way forward for civil aviation in Europe
(COM(94)  218  final)  to  cultivate  a  stronger  role  for  Europe  on  exhaust  and  noise  emissions  within  the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

will the Commission say whether a Commission proposal on reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft
will  be  forthcoming  in  the  foreseeable  future  and,  if  not,  whether  the  Commission  intends  to  submit  such  a
proposal?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 1997)

The  Commission  has  been  working  closely  with  the  Member  States  within  the  International  civil  aviation
organisation (ICAO) to promote the adoption of more stringent, yet technically feasible, global standards on the
limitation of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from aircraft engines. However, faced with the lack of progress
in  that  forum,  the  Commission  will  shortly  decide  whether  to  propose  a  directive  which  would  require  a
substantial reduction in those emissions compared to the current international standard.

(98/C 117/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(11 September 1997)

Subject: Comparison between the proposed completion of Khmelnitski Unit 2 and Rovno Unit 4 (K2/R4) in
Ukraine and the ongoing completion project on the Temelin reactors in the Czech Republic

Bearing in mind that the Temelin reactors are of the same basic original design as the Ukrainian Khmelnitski and
Rovno  nuclear  reactors  (Soviet  VVER-1000),  and  that  the  project  to  complete  the  two  reactors  in  the  Czech
Republic  using  a  mixture  of  Eastern  and  Western  technologies  and  safety  systems  has  run  into  endless
difficulties,  so  that  unit  one  is  presently  scheduled  to  start  in  1999/2000,  which  would  be  8  years  later  than
originally  planned  (in  1987,  start  date  from  Czech  Government  was  1992),  and  the  project  is  $2.2  billion
overbudget  at  the  last  count  (1986  estimate  by  Czech  Government  $1  billion,  1997  estimate  is  $3.2  billion),
mainly due to the need for a new Instrumentation and Control System, re-cabling, and other factors relating to
meeting Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry Fire and Chernobyl accident criteria, and considering that there are no
apparent plans at the moment at K2/R4 for a full Probabilistic Safety Assessment or a new Instrumentation and
Control System or the full separation of power and control cabling (although all of these are being carried out at
Temelin), are high costs and long lead times currently being avoided by not including these safety features in the
proposed project, and can the Commission be certain that such changes would not have to be introduced into the
K2/R4 project at a later stage to meet proper safety criteria, thereby giving rise to exactly the same problems as at
Temelin?