WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2857/97 by Michl EBNER to the Commission. Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft
16. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/83 (98/C 117/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/97 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (11 September 1997) Subject: Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft In view of the fact that: › it is technically possible to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft by up to 60%, › there is no Directive on exhaust emission limits for aircraft, › › the issue of nitrogen oxide emissions is of particular interest to the Union in terms of environmental protection and the competitiveness of industry, the Commission stated its intention in the communication on the way forward for civil aviation in Europe (COM(94) 218 final) to cultivate a stronger role for Europe on exhaust and noise emissions within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), will the Commission say whether a Commission proposal on reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future and, if not, whether the Commission intends to submit such a proposal? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997) The Commission has been working closely with the Member States within the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO) to promote the adoption of more stringent, yet technically feasible, global standards on the limitation of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from aircraft engines. However, faced with the lack of progress in that forum, the Commission will shortly decide whether to propose a directive which would require a substantial reduction in those emissions compared to the current international standard. (98/C 117/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (11 September 1997) Subject: Comparison between the proposed completion of Khmelnitski Unit 2 and Rovno Unit 4 (K2/R4) in Ukraine and the ongoing completion project on the Temelin reactors in the Czech Republic Bearing in mind that the Temelin reactors are of the same basic original design as the Ukrainian Khmelnitski and Rovno nuclear reactors (Soviet VVER-1000), and that the project to complete the two reactors in the Czech Republic using a mixture of Eastern and Western technologies and safety systems has run into endless difficulties, so that unit one is presently scheduled to start in 1999/2000, which would be 8 years later than originally planned (in 1987, start date from Czech Government was 1992), and the project is $2. 2 billion overbudget at the last count (1986 estimate by Czech Government $1 billion, 1997 estimate is $3. 2 billion), mainly due to the need for a new Instrumentation and Control System, re-cabling, and other factors relating to meeting Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry Fire and Chernobyl accident criteria, and considering that there are no apparent plans at the moment at K2/R4 for a full Probabilistic Safety Assessment or a new Instrumentation and Control System or the full separation of power and control cabling (although all of these are being carried out at Temelin), are high costs and long lead times currently being avoided by not including these safety features in the proposed project, and can the Commission be certain that such changes would not have to be introduced into the K2/R4 project at a later stage to meet proper safety criteria, thereby giving rise to exactly the same problems as at Temelin?