WRITTEN QUESTION P-1870/99 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission. Ensuring the safety of nuclear power stations on the Kola Peninsula.
Date: 1999-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/41

20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards co-ordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing
financial instruments (1) and Article 2 of the Financial Regulation Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
No 2335/95 of 18 September 1995 amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable
to the general budget of the European Communities, with regard to the special provisions applicable to
research and technological development appropriations (2) until, for all projects, the frequency of occur-
rence and the size of the error could be determined (based on a sufficiently large number of projects).

Subsequent to the Commission audit, the Dutch authorities have audited 83 % of the 1997 ESF projects for
the above mentioned objectives. In the Dutch report on these additional checks, the erroneous amount has
been calculated at HFL 58,4 million (€ 26,5 million) which represents 22 % of the amount of the projects
audited and 17,5 % of the ESF funding for 1997. An estimate of the amount of the irregularity for the
years 1994, 1995 and 1996 still has to be finalised.

In reducing the ESF payments for the Netherlands, the Commission is unable to make a distinction
between projects that comply with the European and Dutch ESF regulations and those that do not. Indeed,
on the basis of the subsidiarity principle and the partnership between the Commission and the Member
State, it is the Member State which draws up the record of all expenditure incurred and certifies it. Since
the Dutch authorities have not yet produced a final payment claim for 1997 with corrected amounts, the
Commission cannot, according to Article 21 of the Co-ordination Regulation and Article 2 of the Financial
Regulation make advance final payments related to the subsequent annual instalments to the Netherlands.

Together with the Dutch authorities, the Commission is striving to find an appropriate and rapid solution
for this payment problem.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 240, 7.10.1995.

(2000/C 219 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1870/99

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Ensuring the safety of nuclear power stations on the Kola Peninsula

The Swedish Agency for Administrative Development has delivered a report to the Swedish Government
on the risks and need for action to safeguard important public services by the conversion of data-
processing systems to operate into the millennium. In respect of power station safety in Sweden, all
systems bearing on safety had been made safe by 1 July 1999. On the other hand, we know that risk
assessments are not available for nuclear power stations in several countries in the former Soviet Union.

Some 300 miles from Norrbotten where I live, the Polyarny Zori nuclear power station produces 63 % of
the electricity used on the Kola Peninsula; it is regarded as one of the ten most dangerous nuclear power
stations in the world. If there is an accident there at the millennium the impact on human life and the
environment in the Barents area could be catastrophic for an incalculable period.

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that Russia has acted or will be acting to prevent
accidents in its nuclear power stations?

C 219 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

The Commission has been following the potential nuclear safety implications of the year 2000 (Y2K)
problem since 1998 and has undertaken a number of actions, as well as collecting relevant information.
The International atomic energy agency has a Y2K programme to assist various states, including Russia.
The Agency is also co-ordinating international Y2K nuclear safety activities.

In June 1998,
the Commission discussed the Y2K problem with all European nuclear regulatory
authorities, and the Russian authority, Gosatomnadzor. At a meeting in January 1999, the Commission
again discussed the issue, asked for progress reports and offered assistance. Gosatomnadzor has since
requested assistance with developing regulatory procedures for Y2K and the project has been launched.
Gosatomnadzor again reported on the Y2K situation in Russian nuclear power plants during a meeting
in June 1999. No problems with safety critical systems had been identified and Gosatomnadzor planned to
execute Y2K inspections of nuclear power plants in the second half of 1999.

Rosenergoatom, the central utility that operates the Kola plant, recently carried out a mission to assess its
Y2K preparedness. The United States department of energy participated in this mission as an observer. The
mission found that the Kola plant has made progress with the process of assessing the effect of Y2K on its
systems. No problems with safety critical systems were found. Problems in a number of other systems were
identified. The plant intends to correct the most significant problems before the end of 1999.

The Commission has concluded a contract with the World association of nuclear operators and they have
visited Kola recently. Their mission has included assistance to the plant with its contingency planning.

As can be seen from the above, the Russian authorities have undertaken a number of actions and the
Commission is encouraging them to develop these actions further. Nevertheless it should be recalled that
nuclear safety is a national responsibility and it is the Russian operators and nuclear regulatory authority
that have responsibility for the safety of the plant, not the Commission.

(2000/C 219 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1874/99

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Noise pollution at Barcelona airport

For some time now, people living in close proximity to Barcelona airport, particularly inhabitants from the
Gav(cid:224) municipality, have been complaining about the high noise pollution levels of many aircraft making
their approach to the airport, even at night. It would appear that the culprits are often aircraft from the
former USSR which fail to comply with European regulations.

Can the Commission provide information on the extent to which the competent authorities at Barcelona
airport have been applying and taking further action on the relevant Community regulations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 1999)

The Commission has no evidence of any infringement of the Community legislation on aircraft noise by
the Spanish authorities, in particular by the authorities of Barcelona airport. The Commission can however
provide some general information concerning aircraft noise.