WRITTEN QUESTION P-0263/04 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Safety at Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, aid policy, cooperation policy, coordination of aid, environmental cooperation, industrial hazard, nuclear safety, radioactive waste

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/189

(2004/C 84 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Sewage treatment plants

In the sewage treatment sector, companies wishing to sell equipment to the Republic of Ireland require
approval of their products by the Irish Board of Agreement. Would the Commission agree that the cost of
obtaining such approval is a barrier to trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Honourable Member did not specify which type of sewage treatment equipment has to be approved
by the Irish Board of Agreement. Therefore, it is difficult to assess whether the equipment falls within the
scope of Directive 98/37/EC of
the Council of 22 June 1998 relating to
machinery (1) or within the scope of any other Community Directive ensuring the free movement of the
relevant equipment. It is also difficult to assess whether the equipment is covered by Article 4 (2) of
Council Directive 89/106/CEE of 21 December 1988, on construction products (2). If so, the approval
scheme should be examined in the light of the relevant directive. Approval by the Irish Board of
Agreement of products relating to pertinent requirements already regulated at Community level is not
allowed.

the Parliament and of

If, however, such equipment would fall outside the scope of the relevant directive(s) or if the pertinent
requirements are not regulated in the relevant directive(s), the requirement to submit these products for
approval to the Irish Board of Agreement should be assessed in the light of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC
Treaty. Article 28 of the EC Treaty prohibits measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative import
restrictions, and covers all commercial rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially,
intra-Community trade. However, these trade restrictions
could be justified under Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under the mandatory requirements accepted by the
Court of Justice, if these restrictions are necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives of
public interest set out in Article 30 or accepted by the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2004/C 84 E/0230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0263/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Safety at Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station

Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station is located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, some 200 km
from Helsinki. The four reactors at the power station, which was built in 1973, are of the same RBMK
type as the reactor involved in the Chernobyl disaster.

In 2003 the operating permit for the power station’s oldest reactor expired. Russia’s Nuclear Energy
Ministry, Minatom, wanted the power station to be allowed to operate for another 15 years, no less.
Apparently Russia’s radiation safety authorities have granted the oldest reactor a five-year extension of its
permit.

C 84 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Norwegian environmental organisation Bellona recently reported on safety problems and financial
difficulties at Sosnovyi Bor. According to Bellona, the power station’s spent nuclear fuel stores were full
years ago, radioactive emissions into the Gulf of Finland are an everyday occurrence, embezzlement of
funds and thefts of equipment have occurred at
the power station, safety regulations have been
systematically disregarded, and the plant’s fire safety is poor. Bellona states that Finland’s radiation safety
authorities have played down the seriousness of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor. It has become more
difficult to obtain reliable information about safety at Sosnovyi Bor as its management has prevented
access to the region, using the threat of terrorism as a pretext.

Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station is a ticking time-bomb. A group of NGOs based in Russia and the
Baltic region has accordingly launched a campaign in favour of the power station’s closure.

Nuclear safety is one of the priorities in relations between the EU and Russia. What is the Commission’s
view of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor? What has the Commission done to eliminate the safety risks
there? Have Tacis funds been allocated to Sosnovyi Bor? Has the issue of safety at Sosnovyi Bor been
discussed as part of the EU-Russia energy dialogue? Has the Commission, at Parliament’s request, explored
the possibilities of setting up an international environmental and nuclear non-proliferation supervisory
authority to coordinate assistance in dealing with radioactive waste and environmental problems caused by
it in Russia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question No H-39/04 put by
Mrs Aaltonen (1) at the February 2004 part-session.

(1) Written answer of 10.2.2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Consumer credit

In its various forms (personal loans, assigned credit, permanent credit, credit cards, etc.), consumer credit
accounted in 2003 for more than EUR 510 billion, or 13 % of household consumption in the euro zone.

Since 1987, when it was established, the sector has expanded spectacularly; new types of services have
given rise to increasingly diverse national laws, so that the legal framework needs to be brought up to date.
In this context, the Commission’s efforts to harmonise Member States’ legal provisions are warmly to be
welcomed.

However, although this type of credit can help to encourage consumption, it may also, if poorly managed,
increase the indebtedness of many households which have fallen victim to the crisis and can thus even
play a proactive role, contributing to the economic decline by holding back consumption at the wrong
moment.

Inadequate protection of consumers in the Commission proposal caused the report to be rejected in
plenary and to be referred back to committee because Parliament felt that it did not meet current needs.

In the face of such a barrage of criticism, is the Commission prepared to alter its position?