A member of the European Parliament, Finland's Piia-Noora Kauppi, said recently that the European Commission, in dealing with the future of Bulgaria's Kozlodui nuclear power plant, is "purposely crippling the economy of a struggling future member state". VELINA NACHEVA looks into the issues around the fate of the plant's units 3 and 4.
MEP Piia-Noora Kauppi told the European Parliament that the signing of an agreement on the decommissioning of Units 3 and 4 between the previous Bulgarian government and the European Commission was "one of the greatest blackmail scams in the Commission's murky history". The Sofia Echo asked her to clarify her views.
Why do you refer to the closure (decommissioning) of the two units as blackmail?
In 1999 the European Commission made the beginning of the accession negotiations with Bulgaria conditional on the closure of 4 units of Bulgaria's Kozlodui. This closure demand was based on the presumption that these units could not be economically upgraded to satisfy current safety standards. The European Commission refuses to review this agreement, even after the units have been economically upgraded and declared to meet all nuclear safety requirements, according to both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Council's Atomic Questions Group. I view that to make Bulgaria's EU accession dependable on the closure of these units, could be considered as blackmail, as Bulgaria heavily depends on the Kozlodui for its electricity supply, the development of its economy and the protection of its environment, and closure of these units is simply unnecessary.
Moreover, Bulgaria has invested more than 600 million euro in Kozlodui to address the safety concerns and the European Commission has given an additional 250 million euro to help them.
Would it be correct to say that there are lobbies within the EU, which define the policy of each country in its energy sector?
No, each member state develops its own energy policy, taking into account the general guidelines. There are, as well, anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear organisations that try to lobby at the EU institutions in order to influence decision-making with regard to the harmonisation of legislation in the field of nuclear energy. Before the enlargement, nuclear energy was in use in eight of the 15 EU Member States. Now the EU has grown to 25 countries, 13 of them users of nuclear energy and in 2007, 15 of the 28 member states will be 'nuclear'. The fact that there remains a slight majority of countries using nuclear energy will of course have an impact on the decision-making process.
To what extent could EU member states that lack energy sources for the development of their economies rely on nuclear power (for example as a percentage of their common energy needs) or would they have to resort to importing electricity?
Each member state is allowed to determine its own energy options, reflecting its natural resources and its energy needs. The share of nuclear energy in France, for example, is almost 80 per cent and if they wish to increase that share further, they are free to do so.
Not all experts expressed concern about the safety level in Kozlodui. Thus, why is there constant pressure for its closure?
Until the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, little was known in the EU and US about nuclear power plants in Central Europe and the New Independent States. With the Chernobyl disaster, international concerns about nuclear safety grew, further heightened by the difficulty of obtaining reliable information and co-operating on safety issues with the authorities in the region. The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1989 threw the nuclear sectors in the former Soviet Union into economic, technical and regulatory disarray.
Kozlodui has nothing to do with Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors.
Nuclear safety experts from the G7 countries considered it likely that many of the shortcomings at Kozlodui would be common to other similar Soviet-designed reactors. At its 1992 Munich summit, the G7 responded by putting in place a strategy to tackle the problem of nuclear safety in central Europe and the NIS. Reactors were classified according to one of two categories: those that could be upgraded and those that could not and should therefore be decommissioned. Unfortunately this decision was taken on political grounds and has done no justice to the upgraded Kozlodui B-4, which are now operating safely and reliably
To what extent nuclear energy is considered (in Brussels) a non-alternative as a source of electric energy?
The European Union does not consider nuclear energy as a non-alternative. Furthermore, it must be noted that each member states should be allowed to choose its own energy sources - nuclear included.
After the results of the peer review of Kozlodui done by EU experts, what measures does Bulgaria need to implement for the use of Kozlodui?
The working parties of the Council of the EU (the Atomic Questions Group/Working Party on Nuclear Safety (AQG/WPNS) have concluded that sufficient information was provided by Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA), Kozlodui, and the Ministry of Energy and Energy Resources (MEER), about the status of activities implementing AQG recommendations; there was evidence that all the recommendations had been addressed adequately.
Furthermore, many of the recommendations are already implemented, those remaining are in progress according to established schedules. The current status of planned actions, which still need to be carried out:
General Recommendations regarding the plant-specific safety improvements programs: under implementation as planned.
General Recommendations regarding completion of SARs and EOPs: under implementation as planned.
Specific Recommendations regarding implementation of specific up-grading improvements at Kozlodui units 3-4: further actions underway.
Specific Recommendations regarding high energy pipes at Kozlodui units 5-6: implementation underway.
The AQG/WPNS has not considered further monitoring activity on the recommendations of the AQG/WPNS to be necessary.
Nuclear energy has a positive role in the discussions on security of EU's energy supply, sustainable development, and CO2-free energy production.
AN international marathon in defence of nuclear energy and against the decommissioning of two units of Kozlodui nuclear power plant concluded with the handing over of a petition entitled "Preserve Kozlodui, Build Belene NPP" to Bulgaria's Energy Minister Milko Kovachev.
The petition, addressed to Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg, insisted on the non-closure of the units.
"Kozlodui's plant is modern and secure. The closing down of the reactors will be a political mistake," the petition said.
Almost 300 nuclear workers from 15 countries protested in Sofia against the expected closure of reactors 3 and 4 of Kozlodui.
"Our message to the Bulgarian Government is simple: please let Kozlodui live," said Andre Maisseu, president of the World Council of Nuclear Workers (WONUC).
Kovachev said that Bulgaria has relied and would continue to rely on nuclear energy.
He said the petition he accepted defended Bulgaria's position about the operation of Kozlodui.
Asked whether it was possible that the timeline for the decommissioning of power units 3 and 4 would be reconsidered, Kovachev said that "When a given country makes a promise and makes commitments, it should have a predictable policy".
Negotiating the terms of its accession with the European Commission, Bulgaria undertook to close down Units 3 and 4 of Kozlodui in 2006, much ahead of the end of their service life in 2008-2010.
And the EU Presidency says:
Austin Gormley, Charge d'Affaires embassy of Ireland
BULGARIA has continued to implement the recommendations contained in the June 2001 Council Report on Nuclear Safety in the context of enlargement. The law on the Safe Use of Nuclear Energy adopted in 2002 has set the legislative and regulatory framework in this area.
As the Presidency, we welcome the commitment of the Bulgarian Government to respect the undertakings entered into at the time of provisional closure of the Energy Chapter with respect to the future closure of units 3 and 4 of Kozlodui. We also welcome the publication of the recent peer review report on nuclear safety in Bulgaria which examined operational safety issues. The peer review also gave due respect to the closure commitments for units 3 and 4.
The European Commission has proposed a substantial package of financial assistance to alleviate the economic, environmental and social costs of closure of units 3 and 4. This assistance will, in our view, be important in ensuring that the economic and social welfare of the region within which the Kozlodui NPP is situated is protected.
MEP Piia-Noora Kauppi told the European Parliament that the signing of an agreement on the decommissioning of Units 3 and 4 between the previous Bulgarian government and the European Commission was "one of the greatest blackmail scams in the Commission's murky history". The Sofia Echo asked her to clarify her views.
Why do you refer to the closure (decommissioning) of the two units as blackmail?
In 1999 the European Commission made the beginning of the accession negotiations with Bulgaria conditional on the closure of 4 units of Bulgaria's Kozlodui. This closure demand was based on the presumption that these units could not be economically upgraded to satisfy current safety standards. The European Commission refuses to review this agreement, even after the units have been economically upgraded and declared to meet all nuclear safety requirements, according to both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Council's Atomic Questions Group. I view that to make Bulgaria's EU accession dependable on the closure of these units, could be considered as blackmail, as Bulgaria heavily depends on the Kozlodui for its electricity supply, the development of its economy and the protection of its environment, and closure of these units is simply unnecessary.
Moreover, Bulgaria has invested more than 600 million euro in Kozlodui to address the safety concerns and the European Commission has given an additional 250 million euro to help them.
Would it be correct to say that there are lobbies within the EU, which define the policy of each country in its energy sector?
No, each member state develops its own energy policy, taking into account the general guidelines. There are, as well, anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear organisations that try to lobby at the EU institutions in order to influence decision-making with regard to the harmonisation of legislation in the field of nuclear energy. Before the enlargement, nuclear energy was in use in eight of the 15 EU Member States. Now the EU has grown to 25 countries, 13 of them users of nuclear energy and in 2007, 15 of the 28 member states will be 'nuclear'. The fact that there remains a slight majority of countries using nuclear energy will of course have an impact on the decision-making process.
To what extent could EU member states that lack energy sources for the development of their economies rely on nuclear power (for example as a percentage of their common energy needs) or would they have to resort to importing electricity?
Each member state is allowed to determine its own energy options, reflecting its natural resources and its energy needs. The share of nuclear energy in France, for example, is almost 80 per cent and if they wish to increase that share further, they are free to do so.
Not all experts expressed concern about the safety level in Kozlodui. Thus, why is there constant pressure for its closure?
Until the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, little was known in the EU and US about nuclear power plants in Central Europe and the New Independent States. With the Chernobyl disaster, international concerns about nuclear safety grew, further heightened by the difficulty of obtaining reliable information and co-operating on safety issues with the authorities in the region. The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1989 threw the nuclear sectors in the former Soviet Union into economic, technical and regulatory disarray.
Kozlodui has nothing to do with Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors.
Nuclear safety experts from the G7 countries considered it likely that many of the shortcomings at Kozlodui would be common to other similar Soviet-designed reactors. At its 1992 Munich summit, the G7 responded by putting in place a strategy to tackle the problem of nuclear safety in central Europe and the NIS. Reactors were classified according to one of two categories: those that could be upgraded and those that could not and should therefore be decommissioned. Unfortunately this decision was taken on political grounds and has done no justice to the upgraded Kozlodui B-4, which are now operating safely and reliably
To what extent nuclear energy is considered (in Brussels) a non-alternative as a source of electric energy?
The European Union does not consider nuclear energy as a non-alternative. Furthermore, it must be noted that each member states should be allowed to choose its own energy sources - nuclear included.
After the results of the peer review of Kozlodui done by EU experts, what measures does Bulgaria need to implement for the use of Kozlodui?
The working parties of the Council of the EU (the Atomic Questions Group/Working Party on Nuclear Safety (AQG/WPNS) have concluded that sufficient information was provided by Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA), Kozlodui, and the Ministry of Energy and Energy Resources (MEER), about the status of activities implementing AQG recommendations; there was evidence that all the recommendations had been addressed adequately.
Furthermore, many of the recommendations are already implemented, those remaining are in progress according to established schedules. The current status of planned actions, which still need to be carried out:
General Recommendations regarding the plant-specific safety improvements programs: under implementation as planned.
General Recommendations regarding completion of SARs and EOPs: under implementation as planned.
Specific Recommendations regarding implementation of specific up-grading improvements at Kozlodui units 3-4: further actions underway.
Specific Recommendations regarding high energy pipes at Kozlodui units 5-6: implementation underway.
The AQG/WPNS has not considered further monitoring activity on the recommendations of the AQG/WPNS to be necessary.
Nuclear energy has a positive role in the discussions on security of EU's energy supply, sustainable development, and CO2-free energy production.
AN international marathon in defence of nuclear energy and against the decommissioning of two units of Kozlodui nuclear power plant concluded with the handing over of a petition entitled "Preserve Kozlodui, Build Belene NPP" to Bulgaria's Energy Minister Milko Kovachev.
The petition, addressed to Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg, insisted on the non-closure of the units.
"Kozlodui's plant is modern and secure. The closing down of the reactors will be a political mistake," the petition said.
Almost 300 nuclear workers from 15 countries protested in Sofia against the expected closure of reactors 3 and 4 of Kozlodui.
"Our message to the Bulgarian Government is simple: please let Kozlodui live," said Andre Maisseu, president of the World Council of Nuclear Workers (WONUC).
Kovachev said that Bulgaria has relied and would continue to rely on nuclear energy.
He said the petition he accepted defended Bulgaria's position about the operation of Kozlodui.
Asked whether it was possible that the timeline for the decommissioning of power units 3 and 4 would be reconsidered, Kovachev said that "When a given country makes a promise and makes commitments, it should have a predictable policy".
Negotiating the terms of its accession with the European Commission, Bulgaria undertook to close down Units 3 and 4 of Kozlodui in 2006, much ahead of the end of their service life in 2008-2010.
And the EU Presidency says:
Austin Gormley, Charge d'Affaires embassy of Ireland
BULGARIA has continued to implement the recommendations contained in the June 2001 Council Report on Nuclear Safety in the context of enlargement. The law on the Safe Use of Nuclear Energy adopted in 2002 has set the legislative and regulatory framework in this area.
As the Presidency, we welcome the commitment of the Bulgarian Government to respect the undertakings entered into at the time of provisional closure of the Energy Chapter with respect to the future closure of units 3 and 4 of Kozlodui. We also welcome the publication of the recent peer review report on nuclear safety in Bulgaria which examined operational safety issues. The peer review also gave due respect to the closure commitments for units 3 and 4.
The European Commission has proposed a substantial package of financial assistance to alleviate the economic, environmental and social costs of closure of units 3 and 4. This assistance will, in our view, be important in ensuring that the economic and social welfare of the region within which the Kozlodui NPP is situated is protected.
