Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.8.2-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Miller, the Commission's view on this issue is at one with that of the Council and – in so far as I can judge – with that of the European Parliament. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted a national energy strategy in 1999. As part of this, it has decided that Block 1 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant is to be decommissioned by 2005 and that the final decision on the decommissioning date for Block 2 will be taken in 2004 in the context of the national energy strategy review.
The Commission stated at the time that it understood that Block 2 had to be shut down by 2009. This is a matter of logic: if 2005 is the latest date for Block 1 to be shut down, it follows from the envisaged lifetime of the two nuclear power installation units that 2009 is the latest date for the decommissioning of Block 2.
As regards Block 1, the Commission took it into account that Lithuania had commenced extensive preparations for decommissioning and shutting down. I am working on the assumption that the decommissioning is actually to take place before 2005.
As far as Block 2 is concerned, the Commission has stated – as I have already said – that the decommissioning is to take place by 2009 at the latest. Over and above that, the Commission and the Member States believe that the timetable for the decision on decommissioning should be compatible with the timetable for Lithuania's accession to the European Union. I spoke about this in depth only a few days ago with the new Lithuanian government in Vilna – it was actually the main topic of conversation in Vilnius – and I got the impression that the Lithuanian parliament and government had well understood the message that they now have to think about how the timetable for the decisions about Ignalina Block 2 has to be revised with a view to their own timetable for joining the European Union.
Let me take this opportunity to point out that it is precisely with regard to Ignalina that the Commission views compromises as impossible. Ignalina is a nuclear power plant of the same type as Chernobyl, one that experts are generally convinced is not retrofittable and cannot be brought up to acceptable safety standards. It is our firm conviction that this Chernobyl-type nuclear power plant is a source of real danger to human beings, and we will therefore be unable to withdraw our demand."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples