18 Amendments of Ivailo KALFIN related to 2010/2104(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the accession negotiations of three EU candidate countries, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, operated old Soviet design nuclear power plants (NPPs) which could not be economically upgraded to EU safety standards, and needed to be closed, and the accession negotiations led to fixed closure dates for theled to fixed early closure dates for the units in three NPPs concerned,
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas during the accession negotiations the Lithuanian, Slovak and Bulgarian governments committed themselves, as part of their Accession Treaties, to close early nuclear reactors which could not, in some cases, be economically upgraded to the required level of safety,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU recognised that the early shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPunits represented a significant financial and economical burden which 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 wais not intended to covering the full cost of decommissioning or to compensateing for all negative economic consequences, from the early closure,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the assistance started before accession and before the NPPs were shut down, thus threspective fundits were made available on an annual basis before the Member States were able to make full use of themshut down, and they accumulated within the International Decommissioning Support Funds (IDSFs) while administrative preparations continued,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 16 #
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 no 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; states that the still ongoing Performance Audit, should clearly state whether or not further allocation of funds will be necessary after 2013;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that early closure decommissioning hasve a direct impact on the energy resources (and their prices) of the Member States concerned; believes that the development of alternative and competitive energy resources should be promoted and due consideration should be given to establishing compensation mechanisms to cover the costs of decommissioning in case of early closure;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes, according to data available at the end of 2009, a different situation among Member States regarding the amounts disbursed: Ignalina: total EUR 1 367 million, committed EUR 875.5 (64.04 %), disbursed EUR 760.4 (55.62 %), Bohunice: total EUR 613 million, committed EUR 363.72 (59.33 %), disbursed EUR 157.87 (25.75 %), Kozloduy: total EUR 867.78 million, committed EUR 567.78 (65.42 %), disbursed EUR 363.149 (41.84%), mostly due to the different timing of the closure;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – introductory part
Paragraph 14 – introductory part
14. Notes that the most extensive and thorough evaluation, the ECA audit, is still ongoing; suggests that this should provide clarifications regarding the use of funds as well as viable proposals for the future; suggests that, being a full performance audit, it should clarify, among other matters, the following;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – point 3
Paragraph 14 – point 3
· whether the money allocated ensuredcontribute to increasing safety in the decommissioning activity;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – introductory part
Paragraph 15 – introductory part
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 1
Paragraph 15 – point 1
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 2
Paragraph 15 – point 2
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – point 3
Paragraph 15 – point 3
Amendment 60 #
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 early 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;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that the concept of European Union solidarity has effectively mitigated the economical consequences of the early closure in the energy sector; notes, however, that at the time of preparation of this report, the decommissioning itself has not actually commenced;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that the ultimate goal of the early closure of the NPPunits in question, and of their decommissioning, was and still is the issue of safety; invites, therefore, the Council, the Commission and the Member States to bear that in mind in any future decisions concerning nuclear decommissioning in general and these three decommissioning programmes in particular;