WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1004/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. The Commission's plans for nuclear energy in the Eastern European applicant countries
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU financing, EU programme, accession to the European Union, decommissioning of power stations, energy policy, environmental protection, nuclear energy, nuclear safety, soft energy













EUR-Lex - 91998E1004 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1004

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1004/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. The Commission's plans for nuclear energy in the Eastern European applicant countries  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0153 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1004/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (26 March 1998)Subject: The Commission's plans for nuclear energy in the Eastern European applicant countries1. Is it true that, in connection with enlargement to the East, the Commission intends to make more funds available for nuclear energy than for all other aspects of environmental policy put together? What is the exact breakdown of the funds allocated?2. Is it true that the Commission plans to make funds available from a new ISPA Fund to pay for the disposal of material from Eastern European reactors? How much money is involved? How, in detail, is the money to be used?3. Is not the Commission putting the cart before the horse with such plans? Is it not ecologically and economically necessary first to allocate funding for energy saving programmes and the promotion of alternative and renewable energy sources before disposal can be planned and financed? What is the Commission doing to facilitate the closing down of unsafe reactors?4. What is the point in 'disposal'? Is it not more expensive and more dangerous than making the reactors safe in situ? Could the proposed funding not be used more efficiently in other areas of environmental protection?5. Is it true that at present 'disposal of material from old reactors' is a national matter, to which the Euratom Treaty makes no reference? Ought not the Treaty accordingly to be amended before the Commission can take any action at all? Does the Commission envisage that even EU Member States which do not themselves produce any nuclear power should participate financially in the proposed measures?6. Does the Commission agree that promoting alternative and renewable energy sources would primarily benefit the industries of the applicant countries, whereas disposal would exclusively assist the Western nuclear industry? Is not the Commission thereby placing itself at the service of the Western nuclear lobby and damaging Eastern European industry?7. Is it true that the Commission is giving nuclear power priority over environmental protection at the urging of Commissioner Hans van den Broek? Does not the delay in producing the communication on environmental protection and enlargement to the East demonstrate that the Commission attaches little importance to environmental protection?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1998)1. and 2. The Commission has not yet defined the breakdown, among the various areas, of the expected financial support in the framework of the pre-accession strategy. This will depend on the arrangements to be made for the implementation of the accession partnerships with the individual candidate countries. The Community will have to specify its financial participation when a satisfactory comprehensive agreement has been reached with the countries concerned, taking into account the implications of various options in respect to future energy policies and when a proper estimate of the size of the funds which might be required will be available. Over the two years 1998-1999, a PHARE allocation of 50 MECU is envisaged for both years for multi-country nuclear projects. Beyond 2000, PHARE will continue to finance nuclear safety projects. The possibility to finance projects related to nuclear pollution under the environment component of the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) cannot, a priori, be excluded.3. and 4. Support for the decommissioning of plants will only be envisaged for those reactors which cannot be upgraded to international safety standards at reasonable cost.5. Support to the candidate countries for the decommissioning of nuclear reactors does not require a modification of the Euratom Treaty. It is up to the individual Member States to decide whether or not they would like to participate in the decommissioning of nuclear reactors in the countries concerned.6. and 7. On the basis of the accession partnerships, the Commission will further assist in the introduction of renewable and alternative energies as part of the overall energy reform in the countries concerned. This should allow them to be less dependent on nuclear power and activities in this area will benefit their populations and their economies. In the same way, the closure of the least safe reactors is a significant measure to improve environmental conditions.