WRITTEN QUESTION P-2523/99 by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission. Chernobyl.
C 225 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 There are also plans for a waste water purification plant (likewise to be financed by the EU) to be sited in the same area, less than 100 yards away from the abovementioned project. This is discouraging local residents from undertaking subsidised conversions of their homes to make them suitable for rural tourism. In the same location, approval has been granted for short hiking trails funded by the Spanish Govern- mentís Future programme through the regional tourist board. They too are beneficiaries of EU funding. 1. Is the Commission aware of this contradictory situation? 2. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to sort out this matter? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 January 2000) The Commission was not aware of these projects funded under the Community Initiative Leader II in 1999 in the region of Murcia. However, the facts related by the Honourable Member do merit the attention of the Commission. The Commission is making enquiries of the Member State and will keep the Honourable Member informed about the result of this investigation. (2000/C 225 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2522/99 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Sprat catches To enable fishermen to keep abreast of important decisions of significance for them, will the Commission say how long it takes in the Commission to deal with a proposal on sprat catches, from the drafting stage through to finalised proposal? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 January 2000) The elapsed time from the initiation of work by the services to the adoption of the proposal by the Commission may be about six weeks. This includes consultation, translation and the very procedure of adoption. However, this time may be extended if, during the process, changes are made to the proposal following comments by associated services. (2000/C 225 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2523/99 by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Chernobyl I am alarmed at the decision by Ukraine to put back on stream reactor 3 at Chernobyl nuclear plant. The Institute of Nuclear Protection and Safety (IPSN) has called for this reactor to be closed down as a matter of urgency, as it is seriously damaged. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/157 Given the particular weather conditions, and notably the very low temperatures which have forced the Ukrainian government to put the nuclear reactor in question back on stream, and the failure of the European Union and the G7 countries to provide economic assistance, will the Commission explain EU policy on this issue after so many years and say whether any assessment has been made of the serious risk facing European countries, and in particular the Balkans, from accidents at nuclear plants with records like Chernobyl? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The Commission shares the concern about the safety of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The incident that took place in unit 3 on 1 December 1999, only four days after the unit had restarted operation, highlighted the serious problems that affect the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Radioactive fall-out from this plant could potentially affect the whole of Europe. In this respect the Balkan region cannot be singled out. The Commissionís policy with regard to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has for several years been based on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in 1995 between the government of Ukraine, the governments of the group of seven most industrialised countries and the Commission. This formulates a co-operative approach on the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive programme to support the decision of Ukraine to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000. The programme addresses power sector reform, energy investment, nuclear safety and a social impact plan. Through the Tacis programme, the Community has provided substantial support in all these areas. This includes support for the development of replacement electricity generation capacity, the development of a decommissioning plan for units 1-3 and the construction of pre-decommissioning facilities at Chernobyl. It should also be mentioned that the Community has made the largest contribution to the Chernobyl shelter fund intended to transform the current shelter around unit 4 into an environmentally stable system. The Commission takes the firm view that the only operating unit at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant should be definitively closed in the course of the year 2000 as provided in the MoU. This will also enable continued close co-operation with Ukraine in all the relevant areas. The progress of this co-operation is dependent on the overall development of the Ukrainian economy. In this context, the Commission welcomes the confirmation by President Kuchma after his re-election that he is determined to progress with the necessary economic reforms. The Commissionís commitment to increase nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe is also demon- strated by the recent agreements concerning plant closures reached between the Commission and the governments of Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. PHARE funds will be used to support the implementation of these closure agreements. (2000/C 225 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2527/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Collapse of Attica Road Bridge The Commissionís reply (1) to my question E-2176/98 (2) on quality control in respect of projects under- taken as part of the Second CSF states: á on the basis of Greek law 2372/96, a specialised undertaking with an international reputation selected on the basis of a general competition has been charged with carrying out spot checks on the basis of a range of samples of co-funded projectsí