WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/02 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE)and Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Council. Nuclear energy in Bulgaria.
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, International Atomic Energy Agency, accession negotiations, competence of the Member States, decommissioning of power stations, nuclear energy, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/103

(2003/C 155 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE)
and Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Nuclear energy in Bulgaria

We refer to the seminar in the European Parliament at which the future of the Bulgarian nuclear plants at
Kozloduy was discussed on 1 October 2002, and to the answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the
Commission on 23 September 2002 to Written Question E-2121/02 tabled by Mrs Matikainen-Kallström
and Dr Adam.

At the Parliament seminar, the Director of Nuclear Safety of the IAEA presented the report of a recent
expert safety mission. This concluded that the safety standards achieved at Kozloduy 3 and 4 had now
reached the same level as units of the same vintage operating in the EU.

In his answer to the previous written question Mr Verheugen suggested that the Kozloduy NPP units 3 and
4 ‘continued to harbour a number of deviations from safety requirements’, and he said that on these
grounds the EU Member States required closure of these units by ‘no later than 2006’.

Could the Council give its opinion on the safety report of the IAEA on Kozloduy units 3 and 4? In
particular could it confirm which safety requirements it is using as the basis of its judgement (if they are
different from those used by the IAEA), and the reasons why, in spite of the conclusions of the IAEA safety
report, Kozloduy units 3 and 4 must be closed? In this context could the Council explain the ‘deviations’
referred to by Mr Verheugen on its behalf?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The Council, as a preliminary remark, would like to point out that nuclear safety is not of Community but
of national competence. The Council further underlines that it is not in the habit of commenting on
statements of European Commission members.

Regarding the core of the Honourable MEPs’ question, the Council would like to draw the MEPs attention
to its reply to Written Question E-1363/02.

It will nevertheless remind them of the global framework of the situation:

(cid:1) At the Accession Conference at Ministerial level with Bulgaria on 18 November 2002, it was agreed
that the chapter energy does not, at this stage, require further negotiations. This agreement was
reached also on the basis of Bulgaria’s commitment to close units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear
Power Plant in 2006. It was also agreed that the EU will mandate the dispatch of an expert mission to
Bulgaria as soon as possible before the overall conclusion of the negotiations. Its mandate will be in
line with the Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement and the Peer Review Status
Report. These experts will monitor the implementation of the recommendations contained in these
reports, also giving due respect to the abovementioned closure commitments.

(cid:1) In this context, the EU General Position in the accession negotiations is recalled concerning the
importance of a high level of nuclear safety and environmental protection, as reflected in relevant
Council Conclusions. The EU is determined to keep under close review throughout the accession
process the issues covered therein. The EU will continue to monitor the situation of nuclear safety in
Bulgaria until accession, recalling that responsibility for the safe design, construction, operation and
decommissioning of nuclear installations remains incumbent on the State having jurisdiction over it.