WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/04 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Garigliano nuclear power station.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Campania, decommissioning of power stations, environmental impact, nuclear fuel, nuclear safety, project evaluation, protected area, radioactive waste, transport of dangerous goods

C 88 E/194

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Garigliano nuclear power station

The Garigliano nuclear power station, built in 1964 in the municipality of Sessa Aurunca (Caserta) on a
bend in the Garigliano river, was closed in 1978 and de-activated in 1982 and was the first power station
to be decommissioned by the Italian government under an earlier government decision.

In a petition dated 28 May 2003 and registered by the Commission Secretariat under No 2003/4763 (cid:1)
SG (2003) A/7079 local residents and environmental groups in the municipalities in the north of
Campania and the south of Lazio detailed of breaches of EU legislation that had occurred in the passive
security measures so far taken at the power station.

Can the Commission clarify the following points:

1. Bearing in mind that at the mouth of the river Garigliango and in the surrounding pine forests there
are three special protection (SPA) or special conservation areas (SCA) of Community interest falling
within the Natura 2000 network, are all the passive safety operations, including the transfer of fuel
rods to Saluggia, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure under Directive 85/337/
EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) (transposed in Italy by DPCM (Prime ministerial decree)
337 of 10 July 1988 and 27 December 1998 and subsequently amended) as well as the impact
evaluation required by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC (3) (cid:1) Ministerial order of 3 September 2002
published in the Italian Official Journal No 224 of 24 September 2002)?

2. Was it compatible with the relevant legislation to invoke a state of emergency up until 31 December
2003 in relation to the safest possible disposal of radioactive waste deployed in the Lazio, Campania,
Emilia Romagna, Basilicata and Piemonte regions and to appoint a special Commissioner, namely the
chairman of the nuclear plant management company SOGIN (Società di gestione degli
Impianti
Nucleari) SpA, and delegate to him the safe disposal of nuclear materials, in particular spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as well as the planning of decommissioning procedures for the
Garigliano, Trino Vercellese, Caorso and Latina nuclear power stations in derogation from Article 6 of
Italian law No 349 of 8 July 1986, and the regional EIA regulations?

3. Can the decommissioning of the stack, the walls of which are contaminated with radioactive dust, be

carried out without an EIA procedure?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

Environmental
impact assessment (EIA) is mandatory under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, for the dismantling or decommissioning of nuclear power
stations or reactors. In relation to the first and third questions posed by the Honourable Member, there is
nothing in the Directive to suggest that any part of the decommissioning operations could be excluded
from the EIA.

The Commission has already registered a complaint on the Garigliano nuclear power station mentioned by
the Honourable Member for possible bad application of Directive 85/337/EEC, on EIA, as modified by
Directive 97/11/EC, and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The information given by the Honourable Member has been added to
the complaint file which is under assessment by the Commission.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/195

Should the Commission conclude that Community law is being breached in the case in question, it would
not hesitate, as the Guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement
procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community
law. The Commission will,
in addition, explore whether the planned operations comply with the
provisions under Title II, Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty.

(2004/C 88 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/04

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe

In view of findings made in the Court of Auditors Annual Report for the financial year 2002, more
precisely the part entitled ‘Report on the activities of the 6th, 7th and 8th European Development Funds’,
Chapter V (cid:1) ‘A special case: The decision taken by the General Affairs Council and the monetary situation
in Zimbabwe’, (1), I would like to ask what the Commission is going to do about the waste of EDF
resources (reduction of the value of the EDF resources by 89 % as noted by the Court of Auditors in
Paragraph 68(a)) and the misuse of these resourcesby those members of the Mugaberegime who are listed
in the ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 (2) concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of
Zimbabwe’ (Article 2 and Annex 1) but are nevertheless able to obtain foreign currency at the fixed
exchange rate of Zimbabwean ZWD 55/USD 1 at a time when their fellow countrymen have been obliged
to pay Zimbabwean ZWD 1 500/USD 1?

Will the Commission, in light of this scandalous misuse of EU money, stop these kinds of facilities for
foreign exchange with countries who insist on keeping fixed exchange rates, or will the Commission allow
this to happen in the future?

Could the Commission please elaborate why ‘after the Commission delegation had drawn attention to this
development,
it was instructed to continue to apply the fixed exchange rate when it replenished the
accounts used to finance projects and programmes financed by the Community’(see Court of Auditors
Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 63) despite the fact that ‘the Commission incurred a very
heavy loss during 2002 at any point when it paid funds into project accounts held in Zimbabwean dollars’
(see Court of Auditors Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 64)?

(1) OJ C 286 of 28.11.2003, pp. 355 et seq.
(2) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 4.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not accept the Court of Auditors’ analysis of the situation for the following reasons:

(cid:1) the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal
(see the Commission’s reply to paragraph 62 of the Court’s report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on
several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the
Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending
the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks;

(cid:1) the Commission was bound, in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by
the procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising
Officer
the funds, and the rules agreed for their
implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility
of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country’s banks. This is what the
Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic;

in relation to the management of

(NAO)