WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/02 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission. Temelin nuclear power plant (atomic energy).
Date: 2002-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accidental pollution, decommissioning of power stations, health risk, nuclear accident, nuclear safety, radioactive pollution, safety standard

C 301 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Is the Commission now prepared to remove this condition, imposed pursuant to the framework agreement
between Parliament and the Commission, so that all members of the Budgetary Control Committee may
have access to the documents, in accordance with Annex VII to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 226.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission considers that the reasons for which the reports were provided on a strictly confidential
basis only to the President of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Rapporteur for the 1999
discharge are still valid.

(2002/C 301 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/02

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Temelin nuclear power plant (atomic energy)

(14 March 2002)

Are there any reports (technical and scientific data) based on the tests carried out at the Temelin nuclear
power plant under EU control which can be made available to MEPs?

Are there any statistics on the kinds of incidents leading to the shutdown of nuclear plants:

(a) without radioactive emissions?

(b) with radioactive emissions?

Are there any differences in the causes of the incidents in terms of shortage of materials, operational
defects or problems with safety equipment?

Which simulation models were used to assess the environmental pollution caused by the incidents,
particularly concerning the spread of (radioactive) pollution?

Are there any findings or comparisons of radioactivity measured and calculated at varying distances from
the accident?

Are there any records of effects on health or of recognised cases of illness caused by radioactive pollution
resulting from previous incidents?

What are the uniform safety standards that the Commission will require nuclear power plants to meet in
the future?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

In the so-called ‘Melk Process’ regarding the Temelin Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), the Commission chaired
an expert group with trilateral participation, addressing 29 issues of Austrian concern. This role was part
of the good offices of the Commission offered as a mediator facilitating a bilateral dialogue. During the
work of
these
documents were addressed to the respective other party. It is therefore not at the discretion of the
mediator of a process that finally led to the settlement of an international dispute to release these
documents. The ‘Conclusions of the Melk Process and Follow-up’ reflect the agreement of 29 November
2001 reached between the Governments of Austria and the Czech Republic and are publicly available.

the expert group, both sides exchanged a host of

technical documents. Obviously,

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/53

According to international agreements, all events that might have a potential impact on the safety of
nuclear power plants are classified according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). Annual
statistics of such events are usually published by the national regulatory authority, to which they must be
reported. The INES scale’s seven levels allow for a distinction between events (typically anomalies or
incidents) that do not leak radiation to the outside, and more serious events (typically accidents) that do.
Such incidents and accidents must be analysed with regard to their root causes, including material and
operational factors, as well as the functioning of safety systems.

There are a vast number of scientific studies on the effects of various radiation sources on human health.
These studies do of course vary considerably as to the approach and scientific methodology used. As there
are a number of natural radiation sources in the environment, and as human health is subject to manifold
other factors, it is notoriously difficult to establish an incontestable link between any given factor and a
particular disease.

Since 1975, the Commission has made sustained contributions towards a harmonisation of nuclear safety
criteria and requirements. Much has been achieved already. Harmonisation efforts are also being
undertaken by other organisations and associations (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), Western
industrial groups). The exercise obviously is a
European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA),
complex one, as it needs to bridge diverse technological, legal and regulatory traditions of the countries
operating nuclear power plants. Among other aspects, best existing practices to achieve a high level of
nuclear safety are at
the design,
construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants currently remains incumbent on the
operator and the national regulatory authority of the state having jurisdiction over the plant.

the basis of any such effort. The responsibility for the safety of

However,
the Commission is prepared to actively contribute to the establishment of a Community
dimension of nuclear safety, that would take into account the need for common safety standards for NPPs,
in line with the conclusions of the Laeken European Council.

(2002/C 301 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Use of by-catches

It is clearly standard practice in some fishing nations that by-catches must be landed with the rest of the
catch instead of being thrown back into the sea.

In which countries does the above procedure apply, and what experience has been gained with this

1.
method?

2.
Does the Commission see any possibility of discontinuing the current practice of throwing by-catches
(undersized fish, unwanted catches) back into the sea and landing and marketing them with the rest of the
catch instead, counting them against the relevant quota and thereby easing pressure on stocks to some
extent?

How is the Commission proposing to resolve the long-standing problem of by-catches and discards

3.
as part of the reform of European fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

is not particularly helpful

The term ‘by-catch’
in this context. Many fisheries simultaneously exploit
numerous species by each operation of the fishing gear. Usually, a relatively small number of species
predominates the catches with a larger number of species being less predominant. However, the less
predominant species are often of high value per unit weight and are therefore a welcome addition to the