WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/03 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE)and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units.
Date: 2004-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, accession to the European Union, decommissioning of power stations, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

C 88 E/664

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

support system for banana producers in the ACP countries fails to meet the most basic requirements as
regards transparency and objectivity, and that banana producers in Côte d’Ivoire are unacceptably placed at
a disadvantage.

When will the Commission propose the necessary amendments to the rules in force?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The individual amounts being allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1609/1999 (1). In particular, the cost, insurance, freight (CIF) price as shown in the Eurostat statistics is
used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and third countries suppliers,
whereas the importance of the banana sector in the economy of the countries concerned is reflected by
fixed calculation factors listed in the Commission Regulation. This calculation basis is uniform for all
beneficiaries and thereby ensures transparency and objectivity.

Recently representatives of the banana growers on the Ivory Coast have approached the Commission and
expressed their concern about the method used when establishing the relevant data on import into the
Community. The Commission is looking further into the matter and will also be discussing the issue with
the Member States’ customs administrations in the near future.

This has been communicated to the banana growers organisation on the Ivory Coast (OCAB) in recent
correspondence.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers
of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3992/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE)
and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Presentation of the peer review on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant

Referring to the letter from the President of Bulgaria, Mr Parvanov, to the Council and the Commission
dated 24 October 2002 requesting a safety peer review of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant’s units 3 and
4, and bearing in mind that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for that review were issued to the Commission
on 28 January 2003, recalling that the peer review then took place on 16 and 17 November 2003, can
the Commission now confirm that no more time will be wasted in conveying the expected positive results
of the review to both Council and the Bulgarian Government with a recommendation that the closure
demand for the said units, now having no technical or economic justification, be withdrawn and that no
pre-condition of plant closure should exist with regard to the accession of Bulgaria to the European
Union?

(2004/C 88 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE)
and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units

Given that the agreement dated 29 November 1999 between the Council and the Bulgarian Government
(brought about by the Commission) to close four units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant as a condition
of Bulgaria’s accession to the EU was based on 10-year-old criteria, and given that, in 2002, the IAEA
declared that these units ‘now correspond to the level of improvements seen at plants of similar vintage

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/665

elsewhere’ and that we are awaiting the result of the Council’s peer review of November 2003, will the
Commission agree that a positive outcome of that review should lead to their advising the Bulgarian
Government and the Council to review the closure agreement dates on the grounds that they no longer
have a technical basis?.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3992/03 and E-3993/03
given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Bulgaria committed itself, in the framework of the accession negotiations, to close Units 1 and 2 of the
Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant before the year 2003. Bulgaria furthermore committed itself to close Units
3 and 4 of the plant in 2006. Regarding the so-called ‘peer review’ mechanism under the auspices of the
Council, the Union mandated the dispatch of an expert mission to Bulgaria, as agreed in the accession
negotiations.

Honouring its commitments regarding the closure of Units 1 and 2, Bulgaria closed down these two Units
(VVER-440/320 type-reactors) for decommissioning at the end of 2002.

representatives

The expert mission, conducted under the auspices of the Council of the Union during the period
16-19 November 2003, was composed of
from Member States. The Commission
participated as an observer. The scope of the mission, as defined by the Council, was essentially to
monitor and verify in situ the status of the implementation of the relevant recommendations contained in
the 2001 Report on Nuclear Safety in the context of Enlargement and the subsequent 2002 Peer Review
Status Report, both reports produced by the Atomic Question Group (AQG) within the Council of the
Union. Therefore, the expert mission was not only limited to monitoring the implementation of the
recommendations for Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, but also included inter alia issues
related to the Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Authority.

The work of the expert mission is part of the peer review mechanism established for Bulgaria, and has to
be considered as a continuation of the previous work conducted within the Council through the Group
dealing with Atomic Questions and its ad hoc formation, the Working Party on Nuclear Safety. The peer
review mechanism is a continuous process based on exchange of information between Candidate Countries
and the Union. Consequently,
the technical exercise conducted under the expert mission does not
constitute a complete new evaluation of the situation of nuclear safety in Bulgaria.

The Commission recalls that the evaluation of nuclear safety in Candidate Countries, as reflected in the
above AQG reports, has been conducted with a view to defining the Union’s position on a ‘high level of
nuclear safety’, and it has been the result of a considerable collective effort under several Union
presidencies. A high degree of convergence on the substance of technical and organisational requirements
and good practices has been achieved in the Union. In several areas, these requirements go further than
those contained in international instruments. This common Union perspective has been reflected in the
evaluation with regard to nuclear power plants.

Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (VVER-440/230 type-reactors), as is the case with the
remaining nuclear installations in Candidate Countries, have been evaluated in a consistent and harmonised
manner, and for these Units the AQG Reports have stressed the importance of their definitive closure in
2006. The safety improvement programmes defined for these units should be accordingly regarded within
the context of this closure date. Therefore the peer review mechanism, which involves the carrying out of
expert missions, is by no means intended to reassess the feasibility of the operation of Units 3 and 4
beyond 2006.

Bulgaria should continue with the implementation of all the recommendations contained in the AQG
Reports with regard to the priorities assigned, including the full implementation of the safety improvement
programmes in place. Taking into consideration the results of the expert mission, the Council Group
dealing with Atomic Questions will prepare a complete report in line with the mandate and the scope of
the peer review exercise. This report is expected to be finalised by end of April 2004 and will constitute an
updated version of the 2002 AQG Report.