WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/00 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Nuclear safety ‐ Temelin power station.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accession negotiations, competence of the Member States, liberalisation of the market, nuclear safety

C 174 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

existence of a strong and independent nuclear regulatory body, capable of enforcing a high level of nuclear
safety. This is a key element of the Commission(cid:146)s responsibility to work towards a successful finalisation of
the ongoing accession negotiations. According to Agenda 2000, the Temelin reactor type has been
classified in the category of reactors upgradeable at reasonable cost.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the reply given to Written
Question E-2682/00 (1) by Mr Wuori on the safety of the Temelin NPP.

(1) See page 6.

(2001/C 174 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/00

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Nuclear safety (cid:129) Temelin power station

Some extremely alarming facts have come to light concerning the safety culture at Temelin nuclear power
station. The power station(cid:146)s completion was delayed by nearly ten years on account of technical problems
and cost factors affecting the building work, the additional costs arising partly from Western safety
standards. The power company CEZ has nonetheless brought forward the commissioning of the power
station, inter alia with an eye to the company(cid:146)s future privatisation, and nuclear fuel began to be loaded
into the Temelin 1 reactor at the beginning of July 2000.

Independent observers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Greenpeace, have
reported that there are serious technical and safety problems associated with the commissioning of
Temelin. At the beginning of July, Greenpeace published internal documents concerning the safety culture
at Temelin which give rise to doubts as to how safe the nuclear reactor will be when in use. The
documents reveal that, in building the number one reactor, test procedures which accorded with safety
standards were not adhered to, that these procedures were altered because of unsatisfactory results and that
the management of Temelin resorted to temporary safety solutions. The IAEA meanwhile has criticised the
inadequacy of inspections by the Czech nuclear safety authority (SUBJ) this year. According to the IAEA,
inspections will be carried out. The CEZ(cid:146)s final
the SUBJ cannot guarantee that sufficient impartial
assessment of Temelin power station has been declared secret on commercial grounds, and because of
this the SUBJ has not allowed Greenpeace to inspect the document in question.

This year the Czech Republic will already be exporting 25 % of its energy production. This being so,
virtually the whole of Temelin power station(cid:146)s production capacity will be used to provide electricity for
export. At the same time, however, in the EU accession negotiations the Czech Republic is asking for
Community rules on the liberalisation of the energy market not to apply to the new Member States before
2007. According to these rules, trade in energy must be based on reciprocity.

Does the Commission consider that Temelin power station complies with technical and operational
nuclear safety standards applicable in the EU Member States? Can the appropriate authorities in the
Czech Republic guarantee that high standards will be adhered to? Have the appropriate parties in the
Czech Republic forwarded information about nuclear safety to the Commission regularly? How is the
Commission dealing with the issue of nuclear safety in the accession negotiations? What view does the
Commission take of the possibility of delaying the liberalisation of the energy market in the applicant
countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The issue at stake is to ensure that the Czech national standards and the national nuclear safety regulator
(SUJB) impose a high level of nuclear safety, as repeatedly demanded in Agenda 2000 and (European)
Council conclusions. In July, the Coreper mandated the Atomic Questions Group to address the issue of a
high level of nuclear safety in the context of enlargement. The Commission is actively co-operating in this
exercise.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/7

The Honourable Member refers to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on the situation in
the Czech Republic. Such reports aim to identify shortcomings and to encourage specific improvements.
The Commission welcomes the IAEA work to ensure the efficiency of the regulatory authority and
monitor the safety environment in the Czech Republic, in view of the commissioning of the Temelin
Nuclear power plant (NPP). The Commission has involved SUJB in various working groups with regulatory
authorities of Member States to help strengthen SUJB(cid:146)s capacities further. The Commission has, already
over a period of several years, provided assistance in developing a strong and independent nuclear
regulatory body in the Czech Republic. The level of professional effectiveness of the national nuclear
safety regulators in candidate countries will also be an element of attention under the current efforts
undertaken by the Council. The Czech Republic has repeatedly forwarded information to the Commission.

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is also drawn to the recent publication of the report on nuclear safety
in candidate countries carried out by the Western European Nuclear Regulators(cid:146) Association (WENRA)
which concludes that the safety improvement programme for Temelin units 1-2 is the most comprehen-
sive ever applied to a VVER-1000 reactor and that the two units should reach a safety level comparable to
that of currently operating Western European reactors, provided a few safety issues which still require
clarification are resolved.

The negotiations with the Czech Republic on the energy chapter were opened in November 1999. The
Union(cid:146)s common position does not indicate any willingness of the Member States to grant extended
transition periods on the liberalisation of the electricity market. The Lisbon European Council expressed
the Union(cid:146)s intention to speed up the liberalisation process. This policy aim will also impact on the
liberalisation process undertaken by candidate countries. Among the elements of the functioning of the
internal energy market are reciprocity and compliance with environmental standards.

(2001/C 174 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Consistency in the application of the precautionary principle

How can the Commission justify a blanket ban on six phthalates when, after reviewing the single
unreplicated piece of research on the dangers of phthalates, its own Scientific Committee (cid:129) the Scientific
Committee for Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) (cid:129) concluded that there was no
identifiable risk that could lead to a justified ban, whilst at
the same time refusing to consider
precautionary measures to protect children (who are known to be more sensitive to electromagnetic
radiation) from the potential hazards of using mobile telephones, given that there exists a body of
published research which casts doubt on the safety of mobile-telephone use in adults and the fact that,
as M. Laurent Bontoux admitted to the Environment Committee when giving evidence for the Commission
on 24 May, there is no known explanation for the doubling in the incidence of brain neoplasms (tumours)
over the past ten years?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Commission has, on previous occasions, extensively presented to Parliament
the reasons and
justifications for a ban on certain phthalates in toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the
mouth by babies under three years old.

The adverse toxicological effects of the phthalates in question are well established. Full details of the
subject may be found in the relevant opinions of the scientific committee on toxicity, eco-toxicity and the
environment (SCTEE), which are easily available on the Commission web-site.