LÕPLIK
A6-0279/2005
29.9.2005
RAPORT
Tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite kasutamine
(2005/2027(INI))
Tööstuse, teadusuuringute ja energeetikakomisjon
Raportöör:
Rebecca Harms
PE 359.896v02-00
SISUKORD
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI RESOLUTSIOONI ETTEPANEK................................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................7
MENETLUS..............................................................................................................................12
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI RESOLUTSIOONI ETTEPANEK
tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite kasutamise kohta
( 2005/2027(INI) )
Euroopa Parlament ,
– võttes arvesse komisjoni teatist tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite kasutamise kohta ( KOM(2004)0719 );
– võttes arvesse oma seisukohta esimesel lugemisel 13. märtsil 2002, et võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv, millega muudetakse direktiive 96/92/EÜ ja 98/30/EÜ elektri ja maagaasi siseturu ühiseeskirjade kohta;
ELT C 47 E, 27.2.2003, lk 350.
– võttes arvesse oma seisukohta teisel lugemisel 4. juunil 2003, et võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv elektri ja maagaasi siseturu ühiseeskirjade kohta, millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks direktiiv 96/92/EÜ;
ELT C 68 E, 18.3.2004, lk 211.
– võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 26. juuni 2003. aasta direktiivi 2003/54/EÜ, mis käsitleb elektrienergia siseturu ühiseeskirju ja direktiivi 96/92/EÜ
ELT L 176, 15.7.
2003, lk 37. kehtetukstunnistamist, ja sellega seotud Euroopa Parlamendi, nõukogu ja komisjoni 15. juuli 2003. aasta institutsioonidevahelist teatist demonteerimise ja jäätmekäitluse kohta;
– võttes arvesse Euratomi 13. mai 1996. aasta direktiivi 96/29/Euratom, milles sätestatakse põhilised ohutusnormid töötajate ja muu elanikkonna tervise kaitsmiseks ioniseerivast kiirgusest tulenevate ohtude eest;
EÜT L 159, 29.6.1996, lk 1.
– võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekuid võtta vastu nõukogu direktiiv (Euratom), millega määratletakse tuumarajatiste ohutuse alased põhikohustused ja üldpõhimõtted ( 2003/0021(CNS) ), ning võtta vastu nõukogu direktiiv (Euratom) kasutatud tuumakütuse ja radioaktiivsete jäätmete käitlemise kohta ( 2003/0022(CNS) ) ( KOM(2003)0032 );
– võttes arvesse komisjoni teatist nõukogule ja Euroopa Parlamendile tuumaohutuse kohta Euroopa Liidus ( KOM(2002)0605 );
– võttes arvesse Prantsuse Kontrollikoja 27. jaanuari 2005. aasta raportit demonteerimiskohustuste kohta ja eelkõige seda, et teistel eesmärkidel edaspidi demonteerimiseks mõeldud eraldiste kasutamine võib ühenduses tootjatevahelist konkurentsi moonutada;
– võttes arvesse komisjoni 22. septembri 2004. aasta otsust C/2004/3474 riigiabi kohta, mida Ühendkuningriik annab edaspidi tuumaettevõtte British Energy Group plc restruktureerimiseks;
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artiklit 45;
– võttes arvesse tööstuse, teadusuuringute ja energeetikakomisjoni raportit ( A6‑0279/2005 );
Tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimise tähtsus
1. tunnistab, et tuumaelektrijaamade nõuetekohasel demonteerimisel pärast nende lõplikku seiskamist on tähtsus inimeste ja keskkonna kaitsele;
2. märgib, et radioaktiivsus väheneb tohutult tuumakütuse eemaldamise järel pärast tuumaelektrijaama seiskamist.
Jääkradioaktiivsus nõuab aga siiski kõrget ohutustaset, mis vastab direktiivi 96/29/EURATOM (milles sätestatakse põhilised ohutusnormid töötajate ja muu elanikkonna tervise kaitsmiseks ioniseerivast kiirgusest tulenevate ohtude eest) nõuetele;
3. märgib, et tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimine võib mõnedel juhtudel edasi lükkuda demonteerimismeetmete jaoks puuduvate rahaliste vahendite tõttu ja seda tuleks seepärast vältida;
4. tervitab komisjoni kavatsust anda Euroopa Parlamendile kord aastas aru tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite kasutamise kohta;
Demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahalised vahendid
5. peab vajalikuks kanda hoolt selle eest, et kõigil tuumaettevõtetel igas liikmesriigis oleks piisavalt rahalisi vahendeid katmaks demonteerimisega, kaasa arvatud jäätmete kõrvaldamisega seotud kulusid;
6. kutsub komisjoni lähimuspõhimõtet nõuetekohaselt arvesse võttes üles määratlema täpselt iga liikmesriigi rahaliste vahendite kasutuseesmärgid, arvestades seejuures demonteerimisega ning selle käigus tekkivate radioaktiivsete jäätmete käitlemise, konditsioneerimise ja lõppladustamisega ;
7. märgib, et demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite haldamisele lähenetakse liikmesriikides erinevalt, ning nõuab rahaliste vahendite usaldusväärset haldamist;
8. nõuab nende rahaliste vahendite kasutamist ausateks investeeringuteks täielikus vastavuses moonutusi vältiva ELi konkurentsiõigusega ;
9. peab vajalikuks rahaliste vahendite haldamise ja kasutamise maksimaalset läbipaistvust ning välisauditi tagamist;
Ohutus- ja keskkonnaaspektid
10. peab komisjoni teatist ( KOM(2004)0719 ) võimaluseks juhtida tähelepanu tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimise ohutusaspektidele;
11. märgib, et inimeste ja keskkonna ohutust tuleb arvesse võtta igas tuumaelektrijaamade seiskamise etapis ning et varasemaid kogemusi tuleb võimalikult hästi ära kasutada;
12. võtab teadmiseks vahetu demonteerimise ja etapiviisilise demonteerimise strateegia olemasolu, mille vastavaid eeliseid ja puudusi tuleks kaaluda, pidades silmas reaktori asukohta ja omadusi;
13. on arvamusel, et inimeste ja keskkonna kaitsega seotud küsimused peaksid olema demonteerimisstrateegia valikul kõige tähtsamad;
14. märgib, et tuumaelektrijaama mahavõtmine või demonteerimine on osa tuumaõigusaktidest, mida hõlmab nõukogu 3. märtsi 1997. aasta direktiivi 97/11/EÜ (millega muudetakse 27. juuni 1985. aasta direktiivi 85/337/EMÜ, mis käsitleb teatavate riiklike ja eraprojektide keskkonnamõju hindamist) järjepidev rakendamine;
15. nõuab kõigis liikmesriikides selle tava läbivaatamist, mille kohaselt heidetakse tuumajaama demonteerimisel tuuma- ja kiirguskaitse õigusaktidega reguleeritud aladelt keskkonda madalradioaktiivseid aineid eriti suures koguses;
Majanduslikud aspektid
16. peab ohutuse kaalutlustel lubatavaks erandite tegemist, näiteks uutes liikmesriikides;
17. kahtleb, kas paljude liikmesriikide senised raamatupidamisreservid ja vastavad rahalised vahendid on tegelike vajaduste jaoks piisavad;
18. tervitab rahalist toetust, mida Euroopa Liit annab teatavatel põhitingimustel teatavatele demonteerimisprojektidele uutes liikmesriikides;
19. toetab komisjoni arvamust, et iga elektrijaama majandusliku elujõulisuse hindamisel tuleb konkurentsimoonutuste vältimiseks võtta arvesse ka tuumaelektrijaama demonteerimiskulusid nagu muude elektrienergia tootmise liikide väliskulud ja toetused;
20. märgib, et tuumaelektrijaama käitaja vastutab sellise kindlustuse hankimise eest, mis tagaks tsiviilvastutuse kogu demonteerimise ajaks ettenägematute sündmuste või avariide puhuks kooskõlas rahvusvaheliste vastutuskonventsioonidega;
21. märgib, et Pariisi konventsioon 29. juulist 1960 ning Brüsseli lisakonventsioon 31. jaanuarist 1963 on endiselt jõus ja EL ei saa neid ühepoolselt tühistada; veelgi enam, Euroopa Parlament nõustus oma 26. veebruari 2004. aasta õigusloomega seotud resolutsioonis ettepanekuga võtta vastu nõukogu otsus, millega lubatakse Pariisi 29. juuli 1960. aasta konventsiooni (kolmandate isikute vastutuse kohta tuumaenergia valdkonnas) osalisteks olevatel liikmesriikidel ratifitseerida Euroopa Ühenduse huvides konventsiooni muutmise protokoll või sellega ühineda;
o
o o
22. teeb presidendile ülesandeks edastada käesolev resolutsioon nõukogule ja komisjonile.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
According to the Commission, around 50 to 60 of the 149 nuclear power plants operating in the EU in June 2005 will be decommissioned in the next 20 years
1 COM(2004)0719 .
1 .
The average age of the nuclear power plants in operation is over 20 years, and many are more than 25 years old.
The lifespan (active life) of a nuclear power plant, like that of other technical installations, is limited.
In particular, changes in the properties of the materials in the reactor pressure vessel and the components of the primary cooling circuit through neutron irradiation, heat, mechanical wear and tear and corrosion make it necessary to shut down a nuclear power plant definitively after a certain active life.
Moreover, decommissioning may be necessitated by incidents or the discovery that the current safety level is insufficient for a particular installation.
Decommissioning and potential dangers
Even after a nuclear power plant has been shut down and the nuclear fuel has been removed, the plant must still be considered to be a nuclear installation as even a residual radioactivity of 10 17 Bq represents a danger to human beings and the environment.
High safety standards therefore also need to be observed during decommissioning.
A failure to take decommissioning measures following the closure of a nuclear power plant could have far-reaching consequences for the environment and people living in the vicinity.
This is a particular danger in the new Member States owing to a lack of financial resources.
After reactors have been shut down, the instability or permeability of the building structures creates risk: radioactive substances can escape through openings; contaminated liquids can seep into the ground through cracks and possibly pollute local drinking water.
In the long run, even unusual weather conditions can cause a problem.
A failure to implement decontamination measures increases the risk to the surrounding area.
Such dangers make it imperative to begin carrying out decommissioning measures when a nuclear power plant is shut down.
Decommissioning produces large quantities of radioactive waste.
To reduce these quantities, Directive 96/29/Euratom provides the possibility for low-level radioactive substances to be exempted from nuclear and radiation protection legislation and treated as conventional waste.
Many Member States make use of this possibility.
France, however, has developed its own concept for managing these substances with a repository adapted to meet the relevant safety requirements.
This practice, which is to be preferred, makes it possible to avoid uncontrolled release of radionuclides, which occurs to some extent under exemption, and/or their accumulation in the conventional area, something which cannot be excluded.
Decommissioning measures and strategy
The decommissioning of a nuclear power plant, from closure to greenfield, comprises a number of different activities.
Important decisions concerning safety need to be taken as part of a separate procedure which takes into account all aspects of the decommissioning and in which the directive on environmental impact assessment is consistently applied.
The Commission should verify whether this is actually the case in all Member States.
Two decommissioning strategies are possible:
In the case of immediate decommissioning , the measures are taken on a step-by-step basis without delay.
Given the continuing high risk, the complexity of the installation and the precautions necessary in dismantling and disassembling systems and components, as well as in demolishing buildings, this type of decommissioning requires more than 10 years.
A staged decommissioning comprises an interruption phase (between 30 and 100 years, depending on the country concerned), during which the reactor building and possibly parts of some adjoining buildings are cocooned.
In this phase, essential systems (ventilation, lighting, radioactivity measurement) continue to operate.
All other pipes and electric lines are cut off and sealed at the boundary of this area, as are all openings, with the exception of one exit.
The result (in so far as the structure of the building allows) is a monitored, hermetically sealed area from which practically no radioactive substances can escape.
The choice of decommissioning strategy should not be rigidly pre-determined or subject primarily to economic considerations; rather, it should be guided by the impact on humans and the environment.
Above all, negative consequences resulting from delayed or inadequate decommissioning must be prevented.
Both decommissioning strategies have advantages, which for the most part correspond to the disadvantages of the other strategy.
In each case, the decommissioning strategy should be chosen in a manner that is transparent and comprehensible for the public and the Commission.
In this regard, it would be sensible for the Commission to draw up a list of criteria to apply in choosing the decommissioning strategy which relate to the safety aspects concerning protection of humans and the environment.
In particular, the following criteria should be taken into account:
· the state of building structures;
· the hydrological conditions at the site;
· the quality of surface water and groundwater at the site;
· interaction with other installations;
· the availability of repositories;
· accident safety systems;
· the type of reactor;
· the level of residual radioactivity;
· the exposure of staff and inhabitants to radiation;
· the quantities of waste produced;
· dismantling techniques;
· staff issues;
· the subsequent use of the site;
· economic aspects.
With a list such as this, the EU could promote the attainment of important safety-related objectives in the Euratom Treaty and uniform EU standards without unduly encroaching on national powers.
The staged decommissioning strategy requires a considerably longer period of time.
In this case there should be a time limit applied, regular safety checks of the ‘cocoon’ and regular reports to the Commission.
It is also necessary to ensure that, should incidents or accidents occur during decommissioning, it is the plant’s former operator who is liable under civil law, not society.
Financing of decommissioning
According to the Commission, the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant is between EUR 200 million and EUR 1 billion
2 COM(2002)0605 .
2 .
These costs should be fully taken into account in an economic evaluation of the use of nuclear energy for producing electricity and heating.
In order to secure financing for decommissioning, the Commission is calling for the creation of funds to which the nuclear power plant operators would have to contribute throughout the active life of the plant.
The availability and adequacy of resources for decommissioning as well as for management of radioactive waste must be guaranteed.
Such resources need to be guaranteed over a period of several decades.
‘To this end, the creation of decommissioning funds independent from the operators and specifically earmarked for the decommissioning of their nuclear installations is the best option to achieve the objective of decommissioning the installations in conformity with all the necessary safety conditions.’
3 ( 2003/0021(CNS) ), ( 2003/0022(CNS) ) and COM(2003)0032 .
3
Since the liberalisation of the internal market in energy in Europe, if not earlier, and in the context of integrated product liability, those responsible for a nuclear power plant, i.e. its operators, have had to demonstrate that they have secure access to sufficient resources for decommissioning.
This access must be regulated in law by each Member State in such a manner that sufficient resources are available without creating a potential for distortion of competition in the liberalised energy market.
According to the Commission, the reality is somewhat different.
For example, provisions in Germany total more than EUR 30 billion.
These resources have been used by energy supply companies using nuclear energy to acquire other energy companies or other companies in other sectors of the economy.
Massive economic advantages result, with regard both to competitors who also possess nuclear power plants but have no access to provisions, as well as to competitors who use sources of energy in respect of which provisions for the disposal of installations are not required or are only required to a very limited extent.
In the future, these economic advantages must be abolished in order, from an overall environmental perspective, to prevent all renewable energy and investments in efficiency being prejudiced.
In other Member States there are insufficient resources in these funds and it is clear already that substantial demands will have to be made on the taxpayer.
This applies not only to the new Member States but also, for example, to France, whose electricity supply depends in large part on nuclear power and where there is a dominant State enterprise.
The money in the fund is also used by EDF to buy up or acquire a stake in other enterprises.
The French Court of Auditors has strongly criticised the lack of clarity regarding decommissioning obligations, the fact that the active life of a plant can be changed arbitrarily, the lack of transparency in the presentation of accounts and, as a result of all this, a lack of transparency in the State’s obligations.
In a section on adequate financial resources, it explains in particular that in an electricity market which is becoming more open to competition every day, using provisions which have been earmarked for future decommissioning for other purposes could create distortions of competition between producers in the Community
4 Cour de Comptes (Court of Auditors): ‘Dismantling nuclear installations and managing radioactive waste’, 26 January 2005,
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/brp/notices/054000069.shtml .
4 .
To safeguard the environment and the precautionary principle in the EU Treaty and in the interests of a liberalised energy market, the availability of sufficient financial resources for decommissioning must be guaranteed by a system of funds harmonised at EU level but independent for each Member State.
In determining the structure and size of the fund, priority consideration must be given to the safety aspects in order to prevent, on a sustained basis, possible consequences for humans and the environment.
The directive to be drawn up by the Commission should take account, inter alia, of the following aspects:
· the start and duration of payments and the minimum level of resources to be accumulated in the fund;
· the method of calculating decommissioning costs;
· the permanent separation between the funds and the budgets of the undertakings concerned, putting them beyond the access of those undertakings, and their establishment at a bank or other public or publicly-controlled institution;
· a ban in the event of a failure to observe this strict separation as well as State control of cross-subsidies and their misuse;
· the purposes for which the resources in the fund can be used (taking into account the costs of management, including disposal);
· a ban on the temporary withdrawal of resources from the fund for investments not linked to the installation.
MENETLUS
Pealkiri
Tuumaelektrijaamade demonteerimiseks mõeldud rahaliste vahendite kasutamine
Menetluse number
2005/2027(INI)
Menetlusalus
art 45
Vastutav komisjon istungil teada andmise kuupäev
ITRE
10.3.2005
Nõuandev komisjon / Nõuandvad komisjonid istungil teada andmise kuupäev
CONT
10.3.2005
ENVI
10.3.2005
Arvamuse esitamisest loobumine otsuse kuupäev
16.3.2005
14.3.2005
Tõhustatud koostöö istungil teada andmise kuupäev
Raportis sisalduv(ad) resolutsiooni ettepanek(ud)
Raportöör(id) nimetamise kuupäev
Rebecca Harms
15.3.2005
Endine raportöör
Arutamine komisjonis
20.6.2005
13.7.2005
Vastuvõtmise kuupäev
26.9.2005
Lõpphääletuse tulemused
poolt:
vastu:
erapooletuid:
35
1
4
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud liikmed
Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Renato Brunetta, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Nils Lundgren, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Dominique Vlasto
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed
Malcolm Harbour, Edit Herczog, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Vittorio Prodi, Esko Seppänen
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed (kodukorra art 178 lg 2)
Ulrich Stockmann
Esitamise kuupäev – A6
29.9.2005
A6-0279/2005
