Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | CONT | MARINESCU Marian-Jean ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | ITRE | BALČYTIS Zigmantas ( S&D) | Vladimir URUTCHEV ( PPE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the efficiency and effectiveness of EU funding in the area of decommissioning nuclear power plants in the new Member States.
The resolution recalls that the three EU candidate countries, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, operated old nuclear power plants (NPPs) which were agreed to be closed, and the accession negotiations led to early fixed closure dates for the units in the three NPPs concerned.
Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria have fulfilled their accession treaty commitments to close the respective units in the three NPPs in a timely manner: (a) Ignalina NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2004 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2009; (b) Bohunice V1 NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2006 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2008; (c) Kozloduy NPP Units 1 and 2 were shut down on 31 December 2002 and Units 3 and 4 on 31 December 2006.
Financial assistance : the EU recognised that the early shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these units in the three NPPs 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. Community assistance shall support these three Member States in coping with the financial and economical burden caused by early fixed closure dates, and to cover the cost of many important decommissioning activities, invest in energy projects with the aim of reducing energy dependency and help to mitigate the social impact of the decommissioning of the power plants.
Total financial assistance from the EU to the three Member States until the end of 2013 comes to EUR 2 847.78 million . Whilst differences among the NPPs exist, especially as regards fuel storage, in principle the programmes share the same technology. However, that there are considerable differences in the allocated amounts: Ignalina (2 units) EUR 1 367 million; Bohunice (2 units): EUR 613 million; and Kozloduy (4 units) EUR 867.78 million. The resolution notes 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. A high share of the funds was used for energy projects and not for the main aim of the financial assistance, namely NPP decommissioning, and the decommissioning itself is still in its initial stage.
Finalise plans : stressing the importance of the issue of safety, Parliament notes with concern that the detailed decommissioning plans of the three decommissioning programmes in question have not yet been finalised. It urges the relevant national bodies to finalise the plans. The Commission is asked to provide a detailed long-term financial planning of the decommissioning projects and describe the scope of the EU financing required to accomplish these plans. It is also asked to study ways of altering the EU’s methods of financing decommissioning operations in view of the strategies employed in the Member States, and simplifying the rules on management of the funds in such a way that they do not affect the safety and security of the decommissioning operations.
Ensure follow-up and clarify future financing : noting the completed audits and evaluations, Members consider that, taking into account the large amounts of money involved, the novelty regarding the utilisation of funds, the unknown factors which emerged throughout the process, and the numerous subsequent alterations, adaptations and allocation of additional amounts, the number and scope of the audits performed appear to be insufficient. Parliament 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, and it calls on the Commission to report annually to the Parliament on the improvements in use of the funds and on the likelihood that the accumulated funds for the decommissioning of these specific units in the three NPPs will be absorbed over the next three years.
The ECA audit which is still continuing should clarify certain issues such as whether the funds were used for the purposes for which they were intended, whether there are activities where OLAF is involved, and whether proper coordination among the three existing programmes occurred. As regards future activities to be financed from EU allocated amounts within the 2007-2013 period, Members feel further issues need clarifying, including whether there is still a need for further amounts to be allocated for energy projects or whether it is necessary to focus on the decommissioning projects.
Enhance the coordination of programmes : the resolution stresses that enhanced coordination between the three programmes is needed. It calls on the Commission to set up a Coordination Team, which should be in charge of supervising the elaboration of a final plan with a clear timetable and supervising the use of money allocated so far. The Commission is also called upon to explore possible ways of harmonising approaches to the funding of decommissioning in the EU in order to ensure timely accumulation of the necessary financial resources without compromising the safety and security of the decommissioning process.
Ignalina NPP : the resolution notes with concern that key waste infrastructure management projects (spent fuel storage and waste repository project) have experienced serious delays that incurred additional costs with respect to original estimates. It calls on the Commission to report on the results of the reassessment of the project timeline. Furthermore, a large part of the funds was allocated to energy projects, considerable financing is still required for decommissioning and national funds are not sufficient to cover this. Parliament calls for appropriate measures to be taken in this respect, particularly by the Member State.
Bohunice NPP : some decommissioning projects, such as the reconstruction of the area’s physical protection system, the historical waste treatment project and construction of the interim storage of RAW at the Bohunice site, have experienced significant delays in their implementation, and Parliament urges the Commission and the Slovakian side to take steps to prevent the delays and to avoid jeopardising the scheduled progress of decommissioning work.
Kozloduy NPP : Members note with concern a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of allocated public funds, and they call on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the remaining energy projects. They also call for an increase in the proportion of ‘Decommissioning and Waste’ projects in the remaining period of the Kozloduy programme.
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Marian-Jean MARINESCU (EPP, RO) on the efficiency and effectiveness of EU funding in the area of decommissioning nuclear power plants in the new Member States.
The report refers to the old nuclear power plants (NPPS) operated in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. The committee notes that Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria have fulfilled their accession treaty commitments to close the respective units in the three NPPs in a timely manner. However, all three Member States tried to re-negotiate their political commitments regarding closing the reactors and this led to delays in the process. 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, but it was not clearly decided whether the assistance should cover the full cost of decommissioning or compensate for all economic consequences. Members note that due to the limited EU experience and data in the field of decommissioning, the financial assistance was decided without the possibility of defining a financial ceiling, and there were still no clear conditions for specification on ceilings even after the plans for decommissioning had been drawn up, which meant that further financial assistance had to be decided on a stage-by-stage and case-by-case basis. Total financial assistance from the EU to the three Member States until the end of 2013 comes to EUR 2 847.78 million. Whilst differences among the NPPs exist, especially as regards fuel storage, in principle the programmes share the same technology. However, that there are considerable differences in the allocated amounts: Ignalina (2 units) EUR 1 367 million; Bohunice (2 units ): EUR 613 million; and Kozloduy (4 units) EUR 867.78 million.
The committee notes 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. A high share of the funds was used for energy projects and not for the main aim of the financial assistance, namely NPP decommissioning, and the decommissioning itself is still in its initial stage. Members stress the importance of the issue of safety, noting with concern that the detailed decommissioning plans of the three decommissioning programmes in question have not yet been finalised. They urge the relevant national bodies to finalise the plans. The Commission is asked to provide a detailed long-term financial planning of the decommissioning projects and describe the scope of the EU financing required to accomplish these plans. It is also asked to study ways of altering the EU’s methods of financing decommissioning operations in view of the strategies employed in the Member States, and simplifying the rules on management of the funds in such a way that they do not affect the safety and security of the decommissioning operations.
Members go on to take note of the completed audits and evaluations. They also note the differing situations among the Member States regarding the amounts disbursed in 2009, mostly due to the different timing of the closure. They consider that, taking into account the large amounts of money involved, the novelty regarding the utilisation of funds, the unknown factors which emerged throughout the process, and the numerous subsequent alterations, adaptations and allocation of additional amounts, the number and scope of the audits performed appear to be insufficient. The committee 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, and it calls on the Commission to report annually to the Parliament on the improvements in use of the funds and on the likelihood that the accumulated funds for the decommissioning of these specific units in the three NPPs will be absorbed over the next three years.
The ECA audit which is still continuing should clarify certain issues such as whether the funds were used for the purposes for which they were intended, whether there are activities where OLAF is involved, and whether proper coordination among the three existing programmes occurred. As regards future activities to be financed from EU allocated amounts within the 2007-2013 period, Members feel further issues need clarifying, including whether there is still a need for further amounts to be allocated for energy projects or whether it is necessary to focus on the decommissioning projects.
They stress furthermore that enhanced coordination between the three programmes is needed in order to ensure better planning of activities and sharing of experience gained amongst them, the EU as a whole can also benefit from this experience and the committee invites all parties involved to develop best decommissioning practices and to ensure the best use of the experience and data gained amongst the other Member States with nuclear power plants.
It goes on to note with concern the lack of an EU team of coordinators and experts of all three projects , and calls on the Commission to set up a Coordination Team, which should be in charge of: (i)supervising the elaboration of a final plan with a clear timetable, (ii) supervising the use of money allocated so far; (iii) establishing whether there is further need for an EU role and if so, determining the exact level of EU involvement; (iv) deciding upon responsibilities, including the role of the EBRD, and overseeing the finalisation of the decommissioning process.
The report also calls on the Commission to explore possible ways of harmonising approaches to the funding of decommissioning in the EU in order to ensure timely accumulation of the necessary financial resources without compromising the safety and security of the decommissioning process.
Ignalina NPP : the report notes with concern that key waste infrastructure management projects (spent fuel storage and waste repository project) have experienced serious delays that incurred additional costs with respect to original estimates. It calls on the Commission to report on the results of the reassessment of the project timeline. Furthermore, a large part of the funds was allocated to energy projects, considerable financing is still required for decommissioning and t national funds are not sufficient to cover this. The committee calls for appropriate measures to be taken in this respect, particularly by the Member State.
Bohunice NPP : some decommissioning projects, such as the reconstruction of the area’s physical protection system, the historical waste treatment project and construction of the interim storage of RAW at the Bohunice site, have experienced significant delays in their implementation, and the committee urges the Commission and the Slovakian side to take steps to prevent the delays and to avoid jeopardising the scheduled progress of decommissioning work.
Kozloduy NPP : Members note with concern a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of allocated public funds, and they call on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the remaining energy projects. They also call for an increase in the proportion of ‘Decommissioning and Waste’ projects in the remaining period of the Kozloduy programme.
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0123/2011
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0054/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0054/2011
- Committee opinion: PE456.644
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE458.505
- Committee draft report: PE454.642
- Committee draft report: PE454.642
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE458.505
- Committee opinion: PE456.644
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0054/2011
Activities
- Roberta ANGELILLI
- Zigmantas BALČYTIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jaroslav PAŠKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Georgios STAVRAKAKIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Csanád SZEGEDI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU
Plenary Speeches (1)
Amendments | Dossier |
92 |
2010/2104(INI)
2011/02/03
ITRE
23 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas during the accession negotiations the Lithuanian, Slovak and Bulgarian governments
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that the environmental and social costs of the decommissioning procedures should be borne by investors and factored in when deciding on the deployment of nuclear energy;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recognises the importance of sound and transparent management of financial resources, with appropriate external supervision, to ensure fair competition on the energy market; considers that, for the purpose of awarding contracts, it would be desirable to apply a criterion of Community reciprocity for the benefit of European enterprises, with the application in particular of the principles set forth in Article 58 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating, inter alia, in the energy sector;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that EU allocated funds were not intended to cover the full cost of decommissioning or to compensate for all economic consequences; recognises the importance of sound and transparent management of financial resources, with appropriate external supervision, to ensure fair competition on the energy market; restates that the ultimate goal of closure and decommissioning of the 3 NPPs is safety;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recognises the importance of sound and transparent management of financial resources, with appropriate external supervision, to ensure fair competition on the energy market; recommends transparency and public participation in this field;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses the need to give priority to allocation of EU funds into decommissioning in itself, underlines the necessity for the three NPPs to submit a detailed final decommissioning plan, which is indispensable for drawing a financial scheme capable of avoiding risks and uncertainties;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that premature decommissioning has a direct impact on the energy resources (and their prices) of the Member States concerned; believes that the development of alternative, low emission and competitive energy resources should be promoted in coping with the negative consequences and due consideration should be given to establishing appropriate compensation mechanisms to cover the costs of decommissioning up to the definite stage from where the three countries can bear the remaining costs by themselves;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that early closure decommissioning ha
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that decommissioning has 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 and waste disposal;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that enhanced coordination between the three programs is needed in order to ensure better planning of activities and sharing of experience gained amongst them; the European Union as a whole can also benefit from this experience as reactors are taken out of service at the end of their economic lives; therefore invites all parties involved to assure achievement and collection of best decommissioning practices and to ensure the best use of the experience and data gained amongst the other Member States with nuclear power plants;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion 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 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls for the introduction of insurance funded solely by the nuclear power plant operator, without State aid, to cover the operator’s civil liability during the entire decommissioning period against unforeseen incidents or accidents;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that, if the decommissioning procedure is harmonised, account should be taken of the relevant administrative structures of the Member States, and the resource management procedure as such ought to be simplified;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Regrets the lack of annual reports from the Commission to the European Parliament on the use of financial resources allocated for the decommissioning of these three nuclear power plants; calls the Commission to report on a yearly basis to the European Parliament and the Council on the use of these financial resources giving a complete and precise budget of the costs for decommissioning;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPs represented a significant financial and economical loss and ongoing burden which could not be fully covered by the Member States concerned,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the polluter-pays principle should be applied to the financing of decommissioning operations and that nuclear operators should ensure that adequate financial resources to cover future decommissioning costs are set aside during the productive life of nuclear installations; however, in these three cases the denial of the full operational life of early closed NPPs prevented the necessary finance from being set aside;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. 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 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that, in a liberalised energy market, nuclear power plant operators, like every other competitor, must be fully responsible, legally and financially, for the consequences of their actions;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that decommissioning operations can pose risks to public health, for this and future generations, and the environment if the necessary measures are not taken in time and that sufficient financial resources should therefore be
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that limited EU experience exists in the field of nuclear decommissioning, therefore stresses that the issue of safety is of utmost importance for the decommissioning of early closed NPPs in question and this should be respected in any future decisions by all parties involved;
source: PE-458.492
2011/02/04
CONT
69 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the accession negotiations of three EU candidate countries, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that the early closure of the reactors prevented the planned accumulation of needed amounts in respective national funds designed to cover all costs associated with the decommissioning of the plants;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes also that all the three Member States, based on results of the modernization programmes and recent safety assessments at these NPPs, tried to re-negotiate their political commitments regarding closing the reactors and this could have led to some delays in the
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers that the financial aid should be allocated to cover the full costs of the decommissioning operations, enable this work to be completed on schedule and ensure a high degree of safety for the decommissioning work and social measures to cushion the impact of the closure of the nuclear power plants, and be used effectively;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Notes
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution 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 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the three EU candidate countries, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes with concern the inexistence of a EU team of coordinators and experts of all three projects, which would have enabled the decommissioning programme to be treated as a whole package based on EU experience, thus enabling synergies between the three cases;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes the lack of a clear distribution of responsibility among the participants in the financing and the participants in the process of decommissioning; believes that the Commission should be the main responsible for the implementation of the EU assistance and a joint management with the EBRD should be put in place;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Notes that
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution 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 Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that, taking into account the large amounts of money, the novelty regarding the utilisation of funds, the unknown factors which emerged throughout the process, followed by numerous alterations, adaptations and allocation of additional amounts, the number and scope of the audits performed is insufficient; regrets that the Commission's Mid-term evaluation of the decommissioning assistance to Lithuania and Slovakia of September 2007 did not cover Bulgaria ( which was already receiving assistance at the time);
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution 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 10.
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the 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 quickly, and the accession negotiations led to fixed closure dates for the three NPPs concerned, and whereas these Member States could not find the necessary funds to carry out the decommissioning,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the Commission to monitor and report on
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution 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 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission to conduct an analysis in order to ascertain
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission to allocate further funding for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants concerned only if the Court of Auditors of the EU has not expressed serious reservations;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution 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 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 – introductory part 14. Notes that
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 – introductory part 14. Notes that the most extensive and thorough evaluation, the ECA audit, is still ongoing; suggests that this should
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 – point 3 · whether the money allocated
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – introductory part Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – introductory part 15. Suggests that, as regards future activities to be financed from
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU recognised that the shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPs represented a significant financial and economical loss and ongoing 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 was
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 1 Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 1 · whether the
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 2 Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 2 · whether there is still a need for further amounts to be allocated for
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 3 Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 – point 3 Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Calls on the Commission to immediately set up a Coordination Team, which should be in charge of: - supervising the elaboration of a final plan with a clear time-table, - supervising the use of money allocated so far, - establishing whether there is further need for an EU role and if so, determining the exact level of EU involvement, - deciding upon responsibilities, including the role of the EBRD and overseeing the finalisation of the decommissioning process;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Notes that a large part of the funds was allocated to energy projects, that considerable financing is still required for decommissioning and that national funds are not sufficient to cover this: the State
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Welcomes the progress on the Bohunice programme
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU recognised that the early shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Notes with concerns a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of public allocated funds
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Notes a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of allocated funds. Calls upon the Commission to monitor the implementation of the remaining energy projects and to report on the results;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Stresses the need for comprehensive administrative coordination between the State Enterprise for Radioactive Waste (SERAW) and Kozloduy NPP, now responsible for Units 1-2 and Units 3-4 respectively; invites the Bulgarian side to
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Stresses th
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25.
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Notes that the Commission had experienced severe difficulties in obtaining information in the course of its studies;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU recognised that the shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPs 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
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution 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;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Believes that the concept of European Union solidarity
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Notes that the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants concerned, which do not meet the minimum safety standards in force, should be assigned the highest priority in the interests of the safety and health of all the people of Europe;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that the ultimate goal of the early closure of the NPPs 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; calls on the Commission to arrange for adequate coordination with the Member States and to establish precise timetables for the completion of the projects;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that the ultimate goal of the early closure of the
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that the
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 – subparagraph 1 (new) Calls on the Commission to study ways of altering the EU’s methods of financing decommissioning operations in view of the strategies employed in the Member States and their national administrative structures, and simplifying the rules on management of the funds in such a way that they do not affect the safety and security of the decommissioning operations;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses that enhanced coordination between the three programs is needed in order to ensure better planning of activities and sharing of experience gained amongst them; the European Union as a whole can also benefit from this experience as reactors are taken out of service at the end of their economic lives; therefore invites all parties involved to assure achievement and collection of best decommissioning practices and to ensure the best use of the experience and data gained amongst the other Member States with nuclear power plants;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU recognised that the shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these NPPs represented a
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the assistance started before accession and before the
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes
source: PE-458.505
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
events/2/date |
Old
2011-03-14T00:00:00New
2011-03-13T00:00:00 |
events/3/docs |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE454.642New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-454642_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE458.505New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-458505_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE456.644&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AD-456644_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0054_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0054_EN.html |
events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/2 |
|
events/2 |
|
events/3/docs |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-54&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0054_EN.html |
events/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-54&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0054_EN.html |
events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-123New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0123_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
CONT/7/03329New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|