Activities of Vladimir URUTCHEV related to 2010/2104(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION The Efficiency and effectiveness of EU funding in the area of decommissioning nuclear power plants in the New Member States
Amendments (24)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas during the accession negotiations the Lithuanian, Slovak and Bulgarian governments committed themselvesagreed, as part of their Accession Treaties, to close nuclear reactors which could not be economically upgraded to the required level of safetysome of the older nuclear reactors with fixed early closure dates,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
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, and the accession negotiations agreed, as a condition of entering the accession negotiations, to close some of the older nuclear power plants (NPPs) which led to fixed closure dates for the three NPPs concernedidentified reactors,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
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 not intendedlimited and insufficient to cover the full cost of decommissioning nor to compensate for all economic consequences,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with satisfaction that Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria have fulfilled their accession treaty commitments to close their reactors in a timely manner: Ignalina NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2004 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2009; Bohunice V1 NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2006 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2008; Kozloduy NPP Units 1 and 2 were shut down on 31 December 2002 and Units 3 and 4 on 31 December 2006;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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 process but not to the end dates;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the financial assistance was decided without a ceiling being clearly specifieddue 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; there was still no clear conditions for specification on ceilings even after the plans and strategies for decommissioning had been drawn up and this allowwhich predetermined further financial supplementation to occurassistance to be decided on a stage-by- stage and case-by*case consideration;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 18 #
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 not enough detailed information on the timetables, nor on the costs of particular projects, nor on and 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 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. CTaking into account the various strategies employed by the Member States, calls on the Commission to explore possible ways to harmonise approaches to the funding of decommissioning in the EU, taking into account the various strategies employed by the Member Stat in order to ensure timely accumulation of needed financial resources, without compromising the safety and security of the decommissioning process.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that estimates forthe total financial assistance from the European Union to the three Member States until the end of 2013 come to EUR 2 847.78 million. Although differences among the NPPs exist, especially as regards fuel storage, in principle the programmes share the same technology. However, there are considerable differences in the allocated amounts: Ignalina (2 reactors): EUR 1 367 million, Bohunice (2 reactors ): EUR 613 million, and Kozloduy (4 reactors): EUR 867.78 million;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. BelieveConsiders 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 ismay appear to be insufficient;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to monitor and report on whetherthat the improvements in use of the accumulated funds, which only started in recent years, continue in the future, and whetheron the prognosis that the accumulated funds will be absorbed over the next three years still holds true;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Invites the Commission to conduct an analysis in order to ascertain whetherthat the possibility of allocating amounts for upcoming 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 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
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 ensure that the divided management does not jeopardise the decommissioning processanalyze and timely implement necessary improvement measures with regard the divided management, and/or to bring together Units 1-4 under a common management as soon as possible;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that the Commission had experienced difficulties in obtaining information in the course of its studies;Deleted
Amendment 59 #
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 closure dates, and not to cover the full cost of many important decommissioning activities; 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 mostthat a high share of the funds wereas used for energy projects and not for the main aim of the financial assistance: NPP decommissioninginevitable projects in the energy sector and the main activities and projects on NPP decommissioning are under implementation or expected to start soon;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that the concept of European Union solidarity hacontributes effectively to 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 notis at the stage of its actually commencedment;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that the ultimate goal of the early closure of the NPPs in question, and ofissue of safety is of the ultimate importance for their decommissioning, was and still is the issue of safety of early closed NPPs in question; 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;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
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;