WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. New Temelin nuclear power-station.
Date: 2001-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, enlargement of the Union, nuclear power station, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, safety standard, testing

C 115 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

significantly, are being generously subsidised by users when they pay their monthly bills. In a recent
appearance before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Mr Monti, Commissioner, reversed
his initial opposition to the Spanish Government’s ban on the entry of foreign companies armed with
public capital and demonstrated an indulgent attitude towards such a measure.

How does such a decision affect the competitiveness, on the market in public companies, of the actions of
those wishing to acquire another company?

If the reason for refusing to allow French, German or Portuguese public companies to buy shares in
companies from other European countries is the fact that they have received public aid, does the same
apply in the case of the CTC received by Spanish electricity companies?

For the purpose of speeding up the liberalisation of the electricity sector, would courses of action other
than the ones taken by the Spanish Government (which prevent the internal market from being achieved)
not be more effective?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2001)

The Commission is neutral as regards the public or private character of companies, in accordance with
Article 295 of the EC Treaty (former Article 222). Consequently, the public character of a company is not
deemed relevant under the competition rules when it decides to acquire another company.

The EC Treaty and Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules
for the application of Article 88 (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty (1) spell out the Member States’
obligations and the Commission’s powers in the state aid field. These rules do not provide for a Member
State to prevent public companies from another Member State from acquiring shareholdings in companies
located in the first Member State on the pretext that the companies in question had received state aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) (former Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty. Therefore no legal problems
arise in connection with the question raised by the Honourable Member.

In answering the Honourable Member’s third question, the Commission refers to its Press Release of
20 June 2001 (2) which indicates that, in the meeting held on that date, the Commission reiterated the
need for the Council of Ministers and Parliament to adopt without delay the March 2001 proposals for the
full liberalisation of Community energy markets. It also stated that it was determined to ensure that the
Treaty’s competition rules were applied in full in the energy sector.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
(2)

IP/01/872.

(2002/C 115 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: New Temelin nuclear power-station

The Commission is surely aware that since October 2000, according to press reports, as many as 18 faults
have occurred at the new Czech Temelin nuclear power-station, which has entered the technical trial stage.

Does the Commission know the nature of these faults?

Can it say that safety standards at the power-station are as high as those accepted in the Union?

If not, what steps will it take to protect Union citizens from the risks posed by inadequate safety standards?

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/15

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission is aware of the events at the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) mentioned by the
Honourable Member. According to international practice, events occurring at nuclear installations are
classified according to the so-called INES scale (International Nuclear Events Scale). A recent Operational
Safety Review Team mission by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted that the events
reporting system at the Temelin NPP has a sufficiently low threshold. Up to 15 events were classified in
accordance with the INES methodology as conforming to INES 0 and none as INES 1 or higher. The
Commission is not aware of any different classification warranted with regard to other events.

It is also a common operational experience that the number of events is relatively higher during the initial
test phase of a new reactor. The frequency of events usually decreases after that period. It is unfortunate
that some press reports have highlighted automatic or manual shut downs at the Temelin NPP during the
early start-up phase as hazardous incidents although a shut down is a deliberate measure to preclude any
possibility of nuclear safety events even happening.

The responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear power plants lies with the operator under the
supervision of the respective national nuclear regulatory authority. On behalf of the Community, the
Atomic Question’s Group of the Council has recently concluded a report on ‘nuclear safety in the context
of enlargement’. The Commission has provided expert support to the elaboration of this report. The
towards holding them to the
Commission will orient
implementation of the recommendations contained in the said report and will provide them assistance in
this task.

interventions with candidate countries

its

(2002/C 115 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1826/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Plastics used in dentistry

On 18 October 1999 I put a written question relating to the PVC bite plane, used in orthodontic
treatment for children and young people, and containing the compound DOP (di-octylphthalate) which is
harmful to health.

In its answer E-2053/99 (1), the Commission said it would seek further information, from amongst others
the Finnish authorities, and ask the scientific committee’s advice if it appeared necessary. In the light of the
above, what measures has the Commission taken?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

As indicated in the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2053/99 on the
subject of phthalate use in orthodontic treatment (1), additional information has been obtained from the
Finnish Authorities (National Agency for Medicines) and the Medical Technology industries association
(Eucomed).

The Finnish authorities confirmed that they have examined in detail the safety of phthalates used in
orthodontic applications, including their migration behaviour. As the basis for the toxicological and risk
analysis evaluation of phthalates in orthodontic applications the Finnish Agency for Medicines used the
opinion of the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE).