WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. EU enlargement and nuclear safety.
Date: 2000-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Armenia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, USSR, Ukraine, accession negotiations, common foreign and security policy, decommissioning of power stations

C 103 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Spanish authorities have not put forward the port of Laxe as an independent border inspection post
and therefore this location has not been inspected by the Commission. The question of whether an
inspection has been made by the Spanish authorities should more appropriately be addressed to them for a
response.

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990.
(3) OJ L 331, 17.11.1992.

(2001/C 103 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and nuclear safety

in nuclear
According to International Atomic Energy Agency figures, there have been 508 (cid:145)incidents(cid:146)
power stations from 1993 to date, or more than one for each of the 434 such power stations operating
world-wide, where 16 % of the energy consumed is now nuclear-generated. In Europe, the proportion of
energy produced by nuclear power stations is higher in the countries whose nuclear facilities are most
antiquated (cid:129) 45 % in the Ukraine, as much as 77 % in Lithuania (cid:129) and a substantial proportion of energy
is produced by (cid:145)potentially dangerous(cid:146) power stations such as Ignalina or Kola in Russia, Bouhunice in
Slovakia, Kozloduy in Bulgaria and Metsamor in Armenia. Even today, in the former Soviet Union, 15 of
the 58 power stations still in operation are the LWGR type,
identical to the one at Chernobyl, built
without any safety containment around the reactor itself.

In the course of the accession negotiations with the candidate countries and discussions on trade relations
with other countries:

1. What guarantees were obtained in terms of action to be taken to decommission these power stations?

2. On what conditions would the candidate countries be prepared to comply with the EU(cid:146)s requests in

this regard?

3. By what date should these facilities be decommissioned?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The closure agreements reached with Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria in autumn 1999 refer to the
following closure dates and are based on the cited decisions by the national authorities of these three
candidate countries.

the Slovak Government decided on
As the result of an intensive dialogue with the Commission,
14 September 1999 (Government Resolution No 801/1999) to close the Bohunice V1 nuclear power
plant. Reactor block 1 will be closed in 2006, and reactor block 2 in 2008.

Similarly, the Lithuanian Parliament decided on 5 October 1999 (Parliament Resolution No VIII-1348) to
approve the national energy strategy submitted by the Lithuanian Government. This strategy includes the
commitment to close the Ignalina nuclear power plant. Reactor unit 1 is to be closed before 2005.
The final decision on the closure of reactor unit 2 will be taken on the occasion of the 2004 review of the
national energy strategy. The closure is expected by 2009 as the Parliament resolution calls upon the
Government to establish an action plan to replace the RBMK-type Ignalina reactors by this date.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/7

The Prime Minister of Bulgaria met the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement on 29 November 1999.
On that occasion, the Commission and Bulgaria reached an understanding, signed by the Bulgarian
Minister of Foreign affairs, on the issue of the closure and decommissioning of units 1 to 4 of the
Kozloduy nuclear power plant. The Bulgarian Government committed itself to definitively close units 1
and 2 before 2003. The final decision on the closure dates for units 3 and 4 will be taken on the occasion
of the 2002 review of the Bulgarian energy strategy. According to the understanding, closure dates for
units 3 and 4 will be before the presently envisaged closure dates of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The
Commission(cid:146)s position is that the definitive closure of those units should take place in 2006 at the latest.

Honouring these closure commitments, the Commission has undertaken to provide financial assistance to
the implementation of the decommissioning of the Bohunice V1, Ignalina and Kozloduy 1-4 nuclear
power reactors as well as in support of consequential measures in the energy sector. Financing memoranda
on such support from PHARE funds from the 1999 budget have already been signed with Slovakia and
Lithuania, committing € 10 million to each of these countries. The Commission has firmly indicated
further annual support of € 20 million each over the forthcoming years. This support will amount to
€ 150 million for Slovakia as well as for Lithuania by the end of the present 2000-2006 financial
perspective. As part of the understanding reached with Bulgaria, the Commission offered a multi-annual
assistance package amounting to € 200 million for the period until 2006. The delivery of half of this
amount will depend on the confirmation of the understanding on definitive closure dates for units 3 and 4
in 2002. The Commission has further engaged in preparatory steps to deliver the bulk of this financial
support via European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD)-managed international grant funds
to be established during the course of this year. In addition, Euratom loans have been offered to the three
countries. On 18 April 2000, the Commission approved a loan of € 212 million for Bulgaria.

With regard to particular conditions which the three candidate countries set in return for their decisions to
close these reactors, it needs to be noted that Lithuania and Bulgaria made the reservations to take the final
decisions on the closure of Kozloduy units 3 and 4 and Ignalina unit 2 in the revised national energy
strategies to be adopted in 2002 (Bulgaria) and 2004 (Lithuania). The debate in some of these countries
has also exposed the wish of some political forces to link effective closure to financial assistance from the
Community. The Commission has categorically rejected such linkage, whilst agreeing to provide support to
the implementation of the decommissioning decisions as mentioned above. The Commission is closely
monitoring the implementation of necessary steps towards closure and decommissioning and has made its
financial assistance conditioned on the beneficiary countries(cid:146) compliance with the closure commitments.
This includes the adoption of adequate provisions under domestic legislation.

Apart from this, no particular (cid:145)guarantees(cid:146) in terms of action to be taken to decommission the reactors
were agreed. The Commission and the candidate countries are, however, aware that the negotiation
process on accession, in particular the opening and closure of negotiations on the energy chapter and the
ratification of the accession instruments themselves, offer the Community appropriate means to ensure
compliance with the closure commitments.

The end of the decommissioning effort is not predictable at this stage. The decommissioning process
covers a period of 50 to more than 100 years (final storage of spent fuel, nuclear waste and contaminated
debris). Its precise end is also influenced by the technical solutions chosen within various decommissioning
options.

(2001/C 103 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: EU enlargement and environmental protection

(12 April 2000)

The disaster caused by the Baia Mare gold mine in Romania polluting the waters of the Danube with a
huge quantity of cyanide has sounded more alarm bells concerning the parlous state of environmental
protection in the countries seeking accession. The situation is alarming in that none of these countries
meets all the requirements laid down by the EU.