20 Amendments of Bart STAES related to 2010/2104(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU recognised that the shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPs represented a significant financial and economical burden whichbut notes that both Bulgaria and Slovakia remain net exporters of electricity, despite this, these costs could not be fully covered by the Member States concerned, and therefore the Treaties of Accession, as well as subsequent Council Regulations for the implementation of these Treaties, provided for financial assistance to the respective Member States, however, the assistance was not intended to cover the full cost of decommissioning or to compensate for all economic consequences, or continue for an indefinite period,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with concern that the detailed decommissioning plans of the three decommissioning programmes in question have not yet been finalised and, as a consequence, that there is noinsufficient information on the timetables, nor on the costs of particular projects, nor on their sources of funding; invites therefore the corresponding national bodies to finalise the plans and the Commission to report on this process; staterecalls that the still ongoing Performance Audit, should clearly state whether or not further allocation of funds will be necessary afterlast EC commitment under the existing multi- annual framework programme will be made in 2013;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Fears that a lack of financial resources for decommissioning measures will delay the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and threaten the environment and human health;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that estimates for total financial assistance from the European Union to the three Member States from 1999 until the end of 2013 come to EUR 2 847.785 million. Although Since significant technological differences among the NPPs exist, especially as regards fueldecommissioning storage, in principle the programmes share the same technology. However, there are considerable differences in the allocated amounts: Ignalina (2 reactors): EUR 1 367 million, Botegies and nuclear waste management vary, there are obvious differences in the allocated amounts between Lithuanice (2 reactors ): EUR 613 million, and Kozloduy (4 reactors): EUR 867.78 milliona, Slovakia and Bulgaria;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Considers it necessary for the funds to be managed and their resources to be used with absolute transparency;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. CallsDeeply regrets the lack of annual reports from the Commission to the European Parliament on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants; calls therefore on the Commission to monitor and report annually to the EU Parliament on whether the improvements in use of the accumulated funds, which only started in recent yearfunds, continue in the future, and whether the prognosis that the accumulated funds for the decommissioning of these specific nuclear power plants will be absorbed over the next three years still holds true;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Invites the Commission to conduct an analysis in order to ascertain whether the possibility of allocating amounts for upcoming decommissioning projects until 2013 exists, especially since the decommissioning licences will be released for Bohunice in July 2011 and for Kozloduy in the end of 2011 and end of 2012;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Invites the Commission to provide comparative information on the implementation of the initial and revised schedules for different stages of the decommissioning processes, as well as the on measures in energy and social domains, prior to any further allocation of EU funds;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – introductory part
Paragraph 15 – introductory part
15. Suggests that, as regards future activities to be financed from theEU allocated amounts within the 2007-2013 period, further issues need clarifying;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 1
Paragraph 15 – point 1
· whether the already existing plans and strategies are complete or whether the possibility of adding new activities and subsequently additional funds still existsoverall temporary storage capacity and a procedure to select a final domestic disposal site for final radioactive waste are complete or not;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 2
Paragraph 15 – point 2
· whether there is still a need for further amounts to be allocated for energy projects or it is necessary to focus on the decommissioning projectsor not;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 3
Paragraph 15 – point 3
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the progress on the Bohunice programme, in particular in the area of energy projects, where most projects are currently under implementation, or have already been implemented;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. WelcomesLooks forward to the overall good technical and financial performanceCommission's assessment of the Kozloduy programme, and the reviewnotes the change of the decommissioning strategy for Units 1 to 4, which was changtransformed from an initial deferred dismantling strategy to an immediate continuously dismantling strategy;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes with concerns a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of public allocated funds; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the remaining energy projects and to report on the results; and expects to see an increase in the proportion of ‘Decommissioning and Waste’ projects in the remaining period of the Kozloduy programme;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Notes with deep concern the current strategy that for most irradiated fuel elements originating in the Republic of Bulgaria are to be reprocessed in Russia; as a result, the main hazards to human beings and the environment which are involved in handling the most hazardous product of the use of nuclear energy are displaced into a non-EU member state. Reprocessing on the one hand entails a very serious potential for safety hazards (very high radioactive emissions during normal operation and possible serious accidents) and on the other hand entails a major danger of proliferation and hence of the use of nuclear energy for belligerent purposes; reprocessing is not an acceptable method of disposing of irradiated fuel elements;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Urges, therefore, that rapid progress should be made on the final disposal of irradiated fuel elements and highly radioactive waste in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and in particular in Bulgaria;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses the need for administrative coordination betwat the Member States guaranteen the State Enterprise for Radioactive Waste (SERAW) and Kozloduy NPP, now responsible for Units 1-2 and Units 3-4 respectiveat the implementing authorities responsible for decommissioning be legally and functionally; invites the Bulgarian side to ensure that the divided management does not jeopardise the decommissioning process, and/or to bring together Units 1-4 under a common management as soon as possibledependent from any organisation promoting or operating nuclear power so that it does not jeopardise the decommissioning process;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that the Commission had experienced severe difficulties in obtaining information in the course of its studies;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that the purpose of the Community assistance is to support these three Member States in coping with the financial and economical burden caused by fixed closure dates, and not to cover the full cost of decommissioning; notes, however, that in all three cases the costs for decommissioning of the power plants have exceeded the planned EU assistance, and are also likely to exceed the initial estimates; notes also with concern that most of the funds were used for energy projects and not for the main aim of the financial assistance: NPP decommissioning;