WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3570/98 by W.G. van VELZEN Beating the millennium bug - the nuclear industry
Date: 1998-12-01
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN VELZEN W G
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Central and Eastern European countries, International Atomic Energy Agency, USSR, computer systems, exchange of information, nuclear industry, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, technical cooperation













EUR-Lex - 91998E3570 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3570

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3570/98 by W.G. van VELZEN Beating the millennium bug - the nuclear industry  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3570/98by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission(1 December 1998)Subject: Beating the millennium bug - the nuclear industryThe millennium bug is tightening its grip on Europe. Priority in tackling the problem must be extended to vital sectors, in particular the energy sector. The potential impact of the millennium bug on nuclear installations remains unclear, both in the European Union and outside it. For safety and public-health reasons, it is crucially important for Europe to be fully aware of the approaches to the problem being adopted by the nuclear industry, not only in the EU but also in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.1. Has the Commission established an inventory of how the millennium bug is being tackled by nuclear-power stations and regulators in EU Member States?2. Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the number of nuclear power plants and their locations in Central and Eastern Europe, in particular in Ukraine and Russia, that are receiving technical assistance under EU aid programmes (as a proportion of the total number of nuclear power plants in those countries)?3. Can the Commission specify the extent to which there is cooperation in the approach to the millennium bug between regulators in Central and Eastern Europe and those in the European Union? Have any agreements been concluded in that connection, and, if so, in what do they consist?4. What action has the Commission taken or will it take to strengthen awareness of the millennium bug among regulators in Central and Eastern Europe, and is the Commission prepared to allocate additional funding for that purpose?5. Has the Commission also allocated funding under the TACIS programme for raising millennium-bug awareness and/or tackling the problem in military nuclear installations in Russia and other former Soviet republics?6. Can the Commission confirm that nuclear power plants in the Ukraine are required to submit an outline of their efforts to tackle the millennium bug to the regulator? Can the Commission state whether nuclear power plants in Russia have also been required to submit such an outline, and if so, with what results?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(20 January 1999)The Commission recognises the importance of the millennium bug, as illustrated in its recent communication(1). A communication on how the Community is tackling the Year 2000 problem was presented to the European Council in December(2). This highlights concerns regarding the energy sector, in particular the situation with regard to nuclear power stations in Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) and the New Independent States (NIS). In general, the Commission does its utmost to promote awareness of the issue, publicising the already available information and stimulating discussion amongst expert peer groups. In addition to the communications, there is an Internet website giving information on the millennium bug.In response to the specific points raised by the Honourable Member the Commission would like to state the following:1. The safety of nuclear installations is mainly the Member States' responsibility. Information provided informally via expert groups suggests that Member States have implemented programmes to address the issue. Although each programme differs in detail, it can be said that each requires the licensee to identify systems that might be affected, to rank them by nuclear safety significance, to test each in turn and to modify or replace any that fail. Regulatory authorities are reviewing the content of these programmes and are monitoring their execution. In some Member States, attention is now beginning to turn to areas such as requiring increased operating staff numbers and avoiding maintenance activities over the critical dates.2. The assistance given to the nuclear power installations in the CEECs and NIS is detailed in a communication(3) to the Council and to the Parliament. The AIEA is the lead international organisation so far as the Year 2000 problem is concerned.3. The Commission is therefore only promoting dialogue among regulatory organisations to increase awareness of the problem and generate peer pressure for action.4. The Commission's Concert group, involving senior nuclear regulators of 25 Community, CEEC and NIS countries, discussed the issue at its June 1998 meeting. The issue will be discussed again at the group's meeting in January 1999. Such discussions increase awareness and generate peer pressure to adopt best regulatory practices. Community regulators are in continuous contact with their CEEC and NIS counterparts at working level and are well placed to raise their awareness. As yet, no specific funding needs related to this issue have been identified.5. The TACIS programme provides for nuclear safety assistance to civil nuclear power plants but not to military installations, and so the Commission has not undertaken any activities in this area.6. Nuclear safety is a national responsibility and each country must decide what actions are appropriate for it. The national nuclear regulatory authorities are key players in determining the extent of these actions, hence the Commission attributes great importance to the activities described under point 4 above.(1) COM(98) 102.(2) COM(98) 593.(3) COM(98) 134.