WRITTEN QUESTION P-0768/03 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission. PINC (Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community).
Date: 2003-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, European standard, nuclear fuel, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, report, safety standard, waste management

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/129

Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (1)). In addition, the Candidate Country would have
to investigate whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which might fall under the protection of
the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2)) or the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3)) at some point in the future.

The Biebrza National Park is of outstanding natural value. In addition, it seems more than likely that
Biebrza will be identified as a Natura 2000 site on Polish accession. This implies that strict conservation
rules apply. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires all Member States to carry out a full assessment of
all alternatives to a proposed investment that risks having a negative environmental impact on a possible
Natura 2000 site. If no alternative exists, the investment can only be allowed if it demonstrates overriding
public interest and all compensatory and mitigation measures have been applied.

The Commission has written to the Polish authorities to draw their attention to these matters and to seek
assurance that the requirements set out in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive have been applied in this case.
The Polish authorities have stated that a prognosis of the environmental impact of the proposed route has
been prepared by the two municipalities concerned. A decision on the conditions for land development
and use, determining the location of the road, has not yet been taken. They have undertaken to keep the
Commission informed about further developments.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2003/C 268 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0768/03

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: PINC (Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community)

Can the European Commission explain why the requirement, in the Euratom Treaty, to publish illustrative
nuclear programmes has been ignored for the last few years? Does the Commission agree that this
demonstrates the anachronistic nature of the Euratom Treaty, which should be replaced, with the relevant
sections (such as that on nuclear safety) incorporated into a new treaty?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

the Euratom Treaty states that

Article 40 of
‘the Commission shall periodically publish illustrative
programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets’. However, the Treaty does not
specify the frequency of publication.

Since the adoption of the Treaty, the Commission has published three illustrative programmes in 1966 (1),
1972 (2) and 1985 (3), followed by an update in 1989 (4). A fourth illustrative nuclear programme (PINC)
was published in 1997 (5).

On 29 November 2000, the Commission adopted a Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the
security of energy supply (6), in which the contribution of nuclear energy was considered along with all
other energy sources. The Green Paper and the Annexes to it contained all the figures for the production
of nuclear energy.

C 268 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s view concerning the Euratom Treaty. It should
be remembered that this Treaty forms the basis of an important set of rules which include, among other
things, inspection mechanisms to ensure nuclear safeguards and new initiatives with regard to nuclear
safety, the management of decommissioning funds and the management of radioactive waste. Furthermore,
Parliament considers the organisation of the monitoring of non-proliferation to be exemplary (7).

Following on from the recommendations of the Laeken Council in December 2001, the Commission on
6 November 2002 adopted a communication Nuclear safety in the European Union (8) and, after seeking
the views of the group of experts provided for in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, on 30 January 2003 (9)
adopted two proposals for Directives, one defining the basic obligations and general principles in the field
of the safety of nuclear installations and the other on the management of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste. In conformity with the procedure provided for in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, the
proposals for Directives have been forwarded to the Economic and Social Committee. When the
Committee has expressed its opinion, which is expected very shortly, the texts will be officially sent to the
Council and Parliament. These two proposals for Directives, which are novel as regards the approach
proposed, confirm the relevance of the Euratom Treaty.

In view of:

(cid:1) the fact that no new capacity is being launched at the moment and that the main analyses given in the

1997 PINC and the Green Paper still apply;

(cid:1) the broad discussion which has taken place following the Green Paper, during which nuclear energy

aspects have played a considerable part;

(cid:1) the discussions which will shortly be starting in Council on the subject of the nuclear package; and

(cid:1) the forthcoming enlargement in May 2004,

the Commission believes it is not advisable to consider the publication of a new illustrative nuclear
programme in the immediate future. The situation may evolve and lead to the publication of a further
PINC if the decisions on the construction of new facilities or the postponement of closures in some
Member States are confirmed.

(1) EUR 2773, March 1966.
(2) EUR 5011, 1.7.1972.
(3) OJ C 169, 8.7.1985.
(4)

‘The nuclear power station design and construction industry and completion of the European single market. Update
of the illustrative nuclear programme adopted by the Commission in 1984 and published in 1985’, COM(89) 347
final.

(5) COM(97) 401 final.
(6) COM(2000) 769 final.
(7) Rübig Report on the Commission’s report on the operation of the Office for the Monitoring of Euratom Safety in

1999-2000 (adopted by Parliament on 8 July 2002).

(8) COM(2002) 605 final.
(9) COM(2003) 32 final.

(2003/C 268 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Extension of the harbour at Altea (Alicante, Spain)

The plan to extend the harbour at Altea in order to accommodate watersports facilities has caused outrage
in the region on account of the possible effects which the project, if put into effect, might have on the
coastline, which is already suffering from overdevelopment.