Nuclear power plants in Central and Eastern Europe[1]
OPINION
Doc. 6747
25 January 1993
Rapporteur: Mr GONZALEZ LAXE, Spain, Socialist.
I. Introduction
1. The Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities welcomes the report submitted by the Committee on Science and Technology, which focuses on issues of vital importance which may nevertheless be somewhat overshadowed by the multitude of complex problems currently facing the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
2. In particular, the committee appreciates the realistic tone of the report. It is indeed the case that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are in the throes of far-reaching economic and social change. Only factual analyses which take due account of the actual conditions in these countries can have a real impact on the situation.
II. The need for massive, co-ordinated aid
3. The analysis of the situation clearly demonstrates the necessity of massive, co‑ordinated aid in order to eliminate the operating risks associated with nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe, or to reduce these risks to a minimum. There are three main points here:
a. The need to mobilise substantial financial resources, reflecting a multilateral political commitment. We can only welcome the co-operation initiated by the twenty-four industrialised countries (G24), which clearly provide an appropriate forum for this purpose.
b. The need for a body to co-ordinate disbursement of financial resources and to monitor the way in which such resources are granted and used. The committee feels that an institution such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is suitable for this purpose.
c. The need for technical assistance based on objective, reliable analyses. The committee agrees that this "technical assistance" can be provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already proven its ability in this field.
But it is clear that assistance programmes which have already been initiated on a bilateral or Community basis will continue to be implemented, even if co-ordination with the aforementioned bodies remains highly desirable.
III. Concrete measures designed to reduce and eliminate risks
4. As has been pointed out, only co-ordinated, continuous, large-scale assistance can provide adequate safety guarantees. But in view of the deplorable condition of certain nuclear installations, urgent measures must be taken in cases where there is unanimous agreement that there is an immediate danger. In certain conditions, shut-downs of some nuclear power stations can represent the most efficient solution as well as the most economical one.
5. Of the various measures designed to remedy the current situation, the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities would like to focus on education and public awareness, for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can draw on vast experience in this area. The need for appropriate education is all the greater in view of the fact that the relative public indifference and/or lack of awareness on matters of nuclear safety in Eastern Europe (due to the lack of information under the communists) may easily, at the slightest incident, give way to alarmism and panic. Education is therefore vital, particularly at the following levels:
i. education in schools in problems of energy policy in general;
ii. education of politicians and civil servants at all levels;
iii. in-depth education of regional and local officials and the public in areas near nuclear power plants;
iv. training of plant personnel, including study trips to nuclear power plants in Western Europe.
IV. Diversification of energy sources and need for energy saving measures
6. Clearly, in view of the current economic climate in Eastern Europe, it will be very difficult for countries which are heavily dependent on nuclear energy to give up their nuclear power plants, unless other sources of energy are provided. Accordingly, analyses which advocate shutting down reactors or nuclear power plants should also put forward realistic proposals designed to meet the energy needs of the countries concerned. As this movement towards diversification could entail the continued or increased use of traditional thermal power stations, with all the negative repercussions on the environment that would result, it will be necessary to set up an assistance programme to bring about operating improvements in both ecological and economic terms. Simultaneously, the use of alternative energy sources (such as natural gas) and the development of renewable energy sources should be encouraged. In this context, measures of stimulation should be offered to Western investors, in order to boost their investments in energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources.
The committee considers that the bulk of the effort aiming at reducing negative effects of energy production consists in preventive measures towards energy-saving and preventing the waste of energy.
V. Measures to deal with nuclear waste
7. The committee also believes that special attention should be devoted to the management of nuclear waste in Central and Eastern Europe. Two types of problem need to be addressed in this connection:
a. problems arising in former Soviet satellites: the USSR previously stored and processed nuclear waste from these countries;
b. problems associated with the way in which nuclear waste is managed in the former Soviet Union itself, which gives rise to considerable concern.
8. The solutions adopted should take account of the principle of territoriality, according to which waste is processed as close as possible to the place where it is generated. Although the particular characteristics of this waste may justify its being transferred to specially adapted sites, or in specific cases even out of the country of origin, measures must taken, preferably by an international organisation such as the IAEA, to ensure that this takes place in conditions of openness and safety.
9. It will also be necessary to draw up an inventory of nuclear waste storage sites, particularly those located in the former Soviet Union, including sites which are no longer operational. This requirement arises from the way in which this waste was handled under the communists.
Reporting committee: Committee on Science and Technology (Doc. 6563).
Committee for opinion: Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities.
Reference to committee: Doc. 6563 and Reference No. 1769 of 7 February 1992.
Opinion: Approved by the committee on 14 January 1993.
Secretaries to the committee: Mrs Cagnolati-Staveris and Mr Sich.
[1] See Doc. 6736.