WRITTEN QUESTION P-2281/99 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Enlargement strategy and nuclear safety.
Date: 1999-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Central and Eastern European countries, accession negotiations, energy policy, enlargement of the Union, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/85

At its meeting on 9 November 1999, the Industry Council noted with concern the report(cid:146)s findings and
called for a series of actions to address the situation. It wanted the Commission to pursue its efforts to
establish a level playing field for the sector by immediately engaging Korea in constructive consultations
with a view to halting the unfair competition. Further it called upon industry, Member States and the
Commission to seek as much detailed evidence as possible of the alleged anti-competitive behaviour, in
order to take appropriate action under the World trade organization (WTO). It wanted Member States to
urge the International monetary fund (IMF) and World Bank to continue to investigate whether the
conditions and assumptions for IMF rescue packages are fully respected. Finally Member States and the
Commission were to pursue their efforts to establish a level playing field for the sector in the appropriate
in
international fora,
order to enforce fair competition rules. The Council also welcomed the Commission(cid:146)s determination to
continue to meet its obligations under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 and to report on
developments as soon as necessary.

including the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD),

(1) COM(1999) 474 final.

(2000/C 225 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2281/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Enlargement strategy and nuclear safety

The European Commission has changed its negotiating strategy and now seeks to enable accession
negotiations with all applicant states in order to avoid a division into two groups.

Is a deadline for decommissioning reactors Nos 1 and 4 at
precondition for opening negotiations with Bulgaria?

the Kozloduy nuclear power plant a

What line is being taken on Slovakia, which, to comply with Austria(cid:146)s requirements, could only accede to
the EU if it had closed down its Bohunice nuclear power plant by the year 2006?

What timetable does it propose for opening negotiations with the countries of the second group in
relation to this problem?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Community attaches particular attention to nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe. The European Council in Cologne stressed the importance of nuclear safety in the context of
enlargement and called on the Commission to examine this issue thoroughly in its next regular reports on
the progress of candidate countries towards accession. Nuclear safety will be subject to continued scrutiny
and supportive action by the Commission in the pre-accession period.

As for reactors in candidate countries that are not upgradeable to international safety standards at a
reasonable cost (Ignalina in Lithuania, Bohunice V1 in Slovakia and units 1-4 of the Kozloduy in Bulgaria),
the Commission, in line with the positions taken by the Council and the Parliament, has been seeking their
earliest practicable closure through commitment of the concerned countries on realistic closure timetables,
consistent where applicable with assumed international obligations. The Commission has also declared its
willingness to assist these countries in implementing such timetables both technically and financially.

Following discussions with the Commission, Lithuania and Slovakia recently took decisions for closure of
older reactors, and have been revising their energy strategies accordingly. In the case of Slovakia, the two
Bohunice V1 reactors will be closed by 2006 and 2008, respectively.

C 225 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

As regards Bulgaria, in line with the Commission(cid:146)s October 1999 composite paper on the progress of
candidate countries towards accession, an understanding was reached between the Bulgarian Government
and the Commission, on 29th November 1999, stating that the Bulgarian Government was committed to
definitively close units 1-4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant at the earliest possible dates. In this
context, and on the basis of the commitment of the Commission for financial support, the Bulgarian
Government commits itself to definitively close down units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant
before the year 2003.

On the occasion of the updating of the energy strategy which will be completed in 2002, Bulgaria will
decide, in agreement with the Commission and taking account of the Nuclear safety account agreement
and other relevant factors, on the definitive closure dates for units 3 and 4, which will be before the
presently envisaged closure dates of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The Commission(cid:146)s understanding is that
the definitive closure of these units will take place in 2006 at the latest.

(2000/C 225 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2284/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Use of material classified as waste in Finland

The Commission(cid:146)s proposed directive on the incineration of waste will give rise to serious problems in
Finland. The proposed directive is drawn up with countries in mind in which waste management is based
in complying with the directive Finland would be forced into a
on mass incineration units. However,
situation which would be in conflict with environmental efficiency.

According to industry(cid:146)s own estimates there are at least 200 heating and power generation plants and
industrial furnaces in Finland in which it is possible to safely co-incinerate harmless materials classified as
waste. In addition to wood these include paper which is unsuitable for recycling for one reason or another,
cardboard, textiles and harmless sludge from industrial processes. In our industries the materials classified
as waste which are suitable for incineration are sorted at the place of origin in just the same way, mutatis
mutandis, as in the household and commercial sectors. In this way it is ensured that no more harmful
emissions arise from incineration than from ordinary fuels. The incineration plants are also efficiently
supervised.

The application of such limit values to plants which incinerate harmless materials classified as waste as an
additional fuel is very problematic, if only because the continuous measurement of emissions is expensive
and calls for high investments in measuring equipment. In Finland the long transport distances favour the
use of small plants. Costs could well rise to such an extent that the use of waste as an additional fuel will
cease to be profitable.

Co-incineration can reduce the quantity of waste needing to be transported to landfill sites. The use of the
energy content of materials sorted at source which are classified as waste, but which emit harmless
combustion gases when burnt, contributes greatly to sustainable development.

1. What is the Commission doing to ensure that the drafting of the directive takes into account the
efficient sorting of waste at source in Finland and the use of energy this makes possible?

2.
Is it possible that the authorities supervising incineration could be given wider powers to be flexible
in individual cases, where this is justified in the light of the type of waste and the technical level of the
installation?