WRITTEN QUESTION E-3164/02 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE)and Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Nuclear energy in Bulgaria.
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, International Atomic Energy Agency, accession to the European Union, decommissioning of power stations, nuclear safety, report

C 11 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

The annexes containing data concerning every Community programme financed since 1995 as well as
information on the interventions of the European Investement Bank (EIB) in South Africa are sent direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

A copy of the 2001 Report of the Delegation in South Africa, which contains more detailed information
on the projects listed in the above-mentioned annex are sent
to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat. The report
is also available from the Pretoria Delegation’s website (http://
www.eusa.org.za).

There has been no ‘ex-ante’ impact evaluation of the EPRD. However, the Commission is in the final stages
of completing a Country Strategy Evaluation (CSE) of the Community assistance to South Africa since
1994. The CSE is more specifically focused on the impact (ex-post evaluation) of the 1997-1999 MIP and
on the relevance of the current Country Strategy and MIP for 2000-2002. The draft CSE concludes, among
other things, that the current Union strategy is basically sound. Priorities are coherent with those outlined
in the post-apartheid Reconstruction and Development Programme policy framework. The Commission
has applied most recommendations from the earlier evaluation in 1999 and has also incorporated the
lessons learnt from earlier ‘pilot’ projects into an upgraded, comprehensive programme approach. In
relation to the impact of the 1997-1999 MIP, the evaluation has found evidence of impact in all main
areas. Statistics confirm progress in most social services sectors, except where massive rural emigration
creates ever-increasing needs. However, there are considerable challenges, which are identified as priorities
in the Government’s Medium Term Expenditure Framework, and which need to be considered as
crosscutting constraints for the effectiveness of the programmes. These include the human immunodefi-
ciency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic (projections for which make it
arguably the most serious problems for South Africa in the short and medium terms); de-centralisation and
local development; skills and capacity shortages, and the provision of sustainable livelihood for the most
disadvantaged.

The Commission has scheduled the evaluation report for publication towards the end of the year 2002.

(1) OJ L 198, 4.8.2000.

(2004/C 11 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3164/02

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

(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 (1)
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’.

Could the Commission now clearly give its opinion on the report of the IAEA? In particular could it
specify which are the ‘safety standards’ referred to by Mr Verheugen in his answer (if they are different to
those used by the IAEA)? Could the Commission also spell out the precise nature of the ‘deviations’
mentioned in the reply?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 6.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/31

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that Chapter 14 Energy of the accession
negotiations was provisionally closed for Bulgaria on 18 November 2002, reaching an agreement between
the Member States and Bulgaria on nuclear safety in this country, notably as far as Kozloduy units 3 and 4
are concerned.

In the Commission’s view this new information supersedes the questions raised by the Honourable
Members, since these questions were related to issues in discussion before this agreement was reached.

As to these specific questions, the Commission first recalls that it has no mandate to give an opinion on a
report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Commission will therefore limit its response
to recall the following facts.

The Commission also refers to the answer given to Written Question P-2718/02 by Mr Linkohr (1) on the
same subject:

(cid:1) The IAEA report to which the Honourable Members refer does not conclude that all safety standards
achieved at Kozloduy 3 and 4 have now reached the same level as at units of the same vintage
operating in the Union. The exact wording of this report is that ‘the plant operational safety (…) has
reached a level
the same vintage worldwide’. The
Commission recalls that the European concerns regarding Kozloduy units 3 and 4 are focused on the
original design-safety deficiencies of the unit-type VVER 440/230, that is in operation in Kozloduy
units 1 to 4. The comparative quotation made by the Honourable Members, therefore, does not
address the issue which is at the core of the European concerns regarding Kozloduy units 3 and 4.

that corresponds to the level of plants of

(cid:1) As regards design safety of units 3 and 4, the Commission recalls that this report of the IAEA on
Kozloduy Units 3 and 4 followed an IAEA expert mission, carried out from 24 to 28 June 2002. This
mission complemented three previous IAEA missions in the design and operational areas, in order to
assess all previous recommendations and suggestions made for Kozloduy NPP Units 3 and 4 including
design safety, seismic safety and operational safety. Nevertheless, based on a review of previous
recommendations, by its very nature this report does not conclude on whether the improvements
made to the design safety fully compensate the original design flaws,
in particular the lack of a
containment for this unit type, through results of the modernisation programme. The exact wording
in the course of the Modernisation
of this report on this issue is that ‘regarding Units 3 and 4,
Programme, the main safety functions were improved to the level, or in some cases beyond the level,
which meets the IAEA initial recommendations’.

(cid:1) Finally,

the Commission recalls the results of the Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of
Enlargement elaborated in June 2001 (2), followed by a Peer Review Status report in June 2002, both
of which were elaborated under the auspices of the Council. The situation and developments regarding
nuclear safety in candidate countries were undertaken by an ad-hoc formation of the Council Group
on Atomic Questions, namely the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS). Details of the Kozloduy
that has been ongoing over the last years, were taken into
NPP modernisation programme,
consideration and the report indicated that the current safety improvement programme on units 3
and 4 will help limit original deviations and ensure their operation during the period until their early
closure. In this report, Member State experts confirmed the need for firm closure commitments in
view of existing deviations from safety requirements and practices widely applied within the Union.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 1.11.2003, p. 13.
(2) http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st09/09181-a1en1.pdf.