WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/99 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Dealing with the millennium bug.
C 225 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 (2000/C 225 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/99 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (19 October 1999) Subject: Dealing with the millennium bug In less than ninety daysí time, the new century will be upon us. In order to forestall public concern about the possible adverse impact of the millennium bug, the European Parliament asked the Commission at the beginning of this year (A4-0014/1999) (1) to inform it every three months, until the turn of the century, about progress in the EU in tackling the millennium bug. Regrettably however, the European Parliament has yet to receive any additional information from the Commission on the subject. 1. Why has the express request of Commission now give Parliament the information requested by 1 December 1999? the European Parliament not been complied with? Will the In reply to a previous question by the undersigned (No 3570/98) (2), the Commission wrote that 2. ánuclear safety is a national responsibility and each country must decide what actions are appropriate for ití. The fact remains, however, that any adverse consequences of the Year 2000 problem in the nuclear sector could affect public health and the economy throughout the EU or in large parts of it. What it undertake to tackle cross-border coordinating activities has the Commission undertaken and/or will problems within the EU arising from the millennium bug? 3. The approach being adopted to the millennium bug in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is is being done at nuclear installations. The IAEA is the lead unclear, particularly as regards what international organisation in this field. Does the Commission have any up-to-date information from the IAEA and if so, can it indicate what the situation is as regards tackling the millennium bug in the nuclear sector in Central and Eastern Europe? 4. In view of the possible consequences for the EU, as referred to in question 2, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, to prevent any crossborder problems between the EU and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and have any agreements been reached on this? If so, what? (1) OJ C 153, 1. 6. 1999, p. 52. (2) OJ C 341, 29. 11. 1999, p. 8. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1999) 1. The Commission regrets that its reorganisation has led to perturbations in the administration which have delayed its response to the request of the Parliament within the timeframe which was originally specified. Nevertheless, the Commission has prepared communications to the Council and Parliament on Community progress in tackling the millennium bug for the first (Q1) and second (Q2) quarters of 1999. The Q1 1999 report should be adopted in the beginning of November 1999, and the Q2 1999 report should follow closely during November 1999. The Q3 1999 report is currently in preparation and is expected to be available in December 1999. 2. Member States have indicated that they have taken measures to address the potential risk posed by the millennium bug to their nuclear power plants (NPP). They advise that there is no significant threat to nuclear safety. There is therefore no need for the Commission to increase its co-ordinating activities in the field of civil protection and exchange of radiological information. 3. The International atomic energy agency (IAEA) has now undertaken ten missions to various nuclear power plants, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe or the New Independent States. The aim of these 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/35 missions is to help the nuclear power plants assess the extent of their millennium bug problem. To date, these missions have found no problems in safety critical systems. They have found that 10-20 other systems, most of which provide information to operators, may be affected by the problem on each reactor. Failures in these systems, although not intrinsically unsafe in themselves, could, therefore, unduly overload NPP operators and lead to errors that jeopardise safety. All Central and East European countries and New Independent States have programmes to address the problems found and they intend to complete the necessary actions before the end of 1999. The Commission is in regular contact with the IAEA and is co-ordinating its assistance activities with those of the IAEA. Currently, the Commission is providing Y2K-related assistance to a number of nuclear power plants and regulatory authorities. 4. The Commission has raised the issue of the millennium bug on various occasions with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and has received assurances that they are aware of the problem and have programmes to address it. In many areas, these countries appear to be adopting similar contingency plans to those of Member States. Representatives from these countries have also attended two workshops hosted by the Commission, the first on electricity grids and Y2K in July 1999, and more recently, a two day event which examined the Y2K preparations being carried out in various critical infrastructures, which took place at the end of September 1999. The minutes of these meetings are available on the Commissionís Y2K website: http://www. ispo. cec. be/y2keuro/year2000. htm. The Commission is also represented on the steering committee of the International Y2K co-operation centre and participates in the activities which it organises in various regions throughout the world. There are no specific agreements in effect with these countries relating to the millennium bug, other than the assistance activities being carried out in the nuclear sector. The general approach taken has been to encourage the sharing of information and expertise. (2000/C 225 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (5 November 1999) Subject: Phare In its Special Report No 3797 the Court of Auditors pointed out irregularities in the context of the PHARE programme. I should therefore like clarification of the extent to which the Commission has taken account of the criticisms levelled by the Court of Auditors, in particular: What has been done in the second stage of the Phare project to prevent contracts being broken down into several parts by SMEs so that the approval threshold is not exceeded, thereby precluding the Commission from fully exercising its supervisory function? The Court of Auditors criticised the proliferation of SMEs, which prevented synergy effects from emerging. What has the Commission done to prevent this problem, and when were concrete steps taken? Does the Commission have any information on the value of contracts concluded by direct agreement and without a tender procedure? Does the Commission have information on how often and to what extent the costs of the original projects were exceeded and what costs were incurred for the EU as a result? What was the level of costs for SMEs in the 1990-1996 Phare programme? To what extent were the Phare appropriations available for the 1990-1996 programming period used up?