WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pre-accession procedure and progress of programmes to decommission and dismantle nuclear reactors in the CEECs.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, accession to the European Union, decommissioning of power stations, non-refundable aid, nuclear policy, nuclear power station

C 40 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

(2002/C 40 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Pre-accession procedure and progress of programmes to decommission and dismantle nuclear

reactors in the CEECs

Within the framework of the partnership ties between the European Union and certain applicant countries
of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), it is planned to close down nuclear reactors and units
which are unsafe and cannot be upgraded at a reasonable cost.

Given that in Bulgaria units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy plant are due to be shut down before the end of
2002 and reactors 3 and 4 before 2006 (VVER-440/230 reactors), in Lithuania unit 1 of the Ignalina
power plant is due to close before 2004 and unit 2 in 2008 (RBMK reactors) and in Slovakia the units of
the Bohunice VI plant (VVER-440/230 reactors) are due to close before 2006 and 2007, respectively, and
given also that the Commission is monitoring compliance with the commitments to shut down these
reactors as part of the implementation of the priorities of the accession partnership, will it say:

1. What stage have the procedures for drawing up plans and work for decommissioning reactors in the
countries in question reached, and does it consider that the timetables, phases and measures drawn up
are satisfactory as far as the implementation of the commitments is concerned?

2. What appropriations have been granted through international aid funds managed by the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as non-refundable aid for decommissioning work?

3. What appropriations has it granted to programmes for the reactors in question through Euratom, and
what financial aid has been given to the three countries in question to meet their energy sector needs?

4. How is the Commission monitoring the implementation of the programmes to decommission unsafe
to honour the

reactors and what measures are foreseen should the countries in question fail
commitments assumed under the partnership ties with the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

With regard to the introductory part of the Written Question, the Commission would like to clarify the
status as follows: The respective candidate countries have, to date, not confirmed dates for the closure of
Unit 2 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) and of Units 3-4 of the Kozloduy NPP. The confirmation
of the dates is the subject of contacts with the Lithuanian and Bulgarian Governments. The dates
mentioned by the Honourable Member reflect the expectations expressed by the Commission and, in the
case of the Ignalina NPP, as endorsed by the Member States in the framework of the Association Council.
With regard to Unit 1 of the Ignalina NPP, the Lithuanian closure commitment refers to the end date being
(cid:145)before 2005(cid:146). The closure commitment of the Slovak Republic with regard to the two units of Bohunice
V1 is (cid:145)by 2006 and 2008(cid:146).

With regard to the closure of Ignalina NPP Unit 1, the Lithuanian authorities and plant operator have
finalised the project pipeline of pre-decommissioning projects to be implemented over the period roughly
prior to the closure date. These project proposals have been submitted to the management and
contributors of the Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund. One of the projects refers to
the installation of a Project Management Unit (PMU) at the Ignalina NPP that will be responsible for
establishing the actual decommissioning plan. The PMU is to be installed during the summer of this year.
A tender procedure is currently underway. The Ignalina NPP created a Decommissioning Unit within its
management structure in April 2000.

With regard to the closure of the Kozloduy NPP Units 1-2 and of Bohunice V1, project proposals are
currently being finalised by the Bulgarian and Slovak authorities, in contact with the management of the
respective International Decommissioning Support Funds and the Commission.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/43

The planned measures for the decommissioning of the above-mentioned reactors are the subject of
constant scrutiny and dialogue,
the
Commission cannot provide a definitive appreciation as to whether it will be satisfied with the foreseen
measures, timetables and phases. It remains open if such satisfaction will be expressed by any given cut-off
date, as the Commission will monitor the elaboration and implementation of projects on a continuous
basis throughout the accession process.

thus being elaborated in an iterative fashion. At

this juncture,

The inaugural meeting of the Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund was held in London,
at the headquarters of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) as the Fund
Manager, on 5 April 2001. The meeting approved the above-mentioned PMU project as well as the work-
plan and budget of the Fund. Appropriations to the approved project will be granted in accordance with
the provisions of the respective grant agreement. Appropriations also depend on the ratification of the
Grant Framework Agreement signed between the Fund Manager and the Government of Lithuania. The
equivalent meeting of the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund was held on 15 June
2001, with an analogous outcome. The date of the meeting of the fund for Bohunice has not yet been
determined, but the meeting is foreseen for during this year. Appropriations to the decommissioning
projects in Bulgaria and Slovakia will only be made once the respective Funds will have become
operational at the forthcoming inaugural meetings of their Assemblies of Contributors.

To date, no Euratom loans have been granted for decommissioning purposes at the three nuclear power
plants.

to the
PHARE financial assistance programmes in the energy field have concentrated on support
elaboration of national energy strategies; the establishment of the framework conditions in candidate
countries for the internal energy market; and energy efficiency measures.

The Commission is monitoring the implementation of programmes to decommission the nuclear power
plants as part of its usual monitoring with regard to the accession process. This is reflected in the
Commission(cid:146)s Regular Reports that contain an evaluation of progress in the nuclear energy sector. Should
any candidate country fail to honour its commitments, the Commission will devise appropriate measures.
The Commission does not see any grounds to foresee such measures at present. The Commission would
also like to point out that the closure commitments are dealt with in the context of the Accession
Negotiations under the Energy Chapter.

(2002/C 40 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Competition on the internal electricity market

(17 May 2001)

On 5 March 1998, 10 March 1999 and 26 November 1999 I tabled questions to the Commission on the
compatibility of French electricity law with the electricity directive and European competition rules, in
relation in particular to the transfer of a token amount from the French electricity network to (cid:201)lectricitØ de
France (EDF) (cid:129) (Questions P-0776/98 (1), H-0258/99 (2) and H-0748/99 (3)). The Commission answered at
the time that it would look into the matter.

1.

Can the Commission inform me of the results of its investigations?

2.
Does the Commission agree that the transfer of the token amount of 1 franc by the French state(cid:146)s
electricity transmission network to EDF amounts to a form of state support incompatible with the Treaty
that distorts competition on the internal market?

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 157.
(2) Written answer of 13.4.1999.
(3) Written answer of 14.12.1999.