Strasbourg, 05/04/2011 (Agence Europe) - The debate at the European Parliament, in plenary on Wednesday 6 April on the lessons for Europe of the ongoing nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant after the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on 11 March, revealed the divisions at the European Parliament both between and within political parties, and divisions between countries on the future of nuclear energy. The 736 MEPs will, however, have to agree on a common resolution. Moreover, although all MEPs agree that stress tests have to be carried out on all 165 nuclear power stations in Europe, along with Switzerland, Russia and the Ukraine, in addition to planned plants and those being built, to determine how they would fare in a series of disaster situations, the MEPs are concerned about the independence of the parties carrying out the tests and are demanding transparency.
There was quite a large number MEPs present at the start of the debate, where Green MEPs held up banners opposing nuclear energy and Hungarian Minister Enikö Györi, on behalf of the EU Council of Ministers, and EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, on behalf of the European Commission, explained the importance of the stress tests and a speedy review of the EU nuclear safety rules. The energy commissioner said he wanted to expand the stress test criteria and his department was in the process of drawing up tests with ENSREG (a group of national nuclear safety authorities) to cover risks other than earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, age and type of reactor, loss of cooling systems and emergency systems, namely collisions with airplanes and other terrorist attacks. Oettinger said that the EU would do all it could to extend the tests to neighbouring countries where there are nuclear power plants, like Russia, Switzerland, the Ukraine and Armenia, and countries considering building them, like Turkey and Belarus.
Corien Wortmann-Kool of the Netherlands explained the Conservative (EPP) party's commitment to nuclear power, saying that pan-European stress tests were needed in all nuclear power plants, using common criteria and if the power stations failed the tests, then the member states must pledge to take immediate measures to correct the situation, but nuclear power cannot be thrown away. Her French colleague Gaston Franco said that people should talk about improving nuclear safety rather than nuclear power as such because it is a key element of energy independence and tackling greenhouse gases. Slovenia's Romana Jordan Cizelj said she strongly opposed the shutting down of nuclear power stations, but her Austrian colleague Richard Seeber disagreed with his fellow EPP parliamentarians by calling for a gradual phasing out of nuclear energy in Europe.
Explaining that nuclear power is different from other sources of energy because it can cause enormous damage to communities and populations in a very short time, both in the country itself and across borders, Sweden's Marita Ulvskog called on the EU, on behalf of the Social Democrats (S&D), to take harmonised decisions as soon as possible on safety issues and to develop a strategy for shutting down nuclear power plants across Europe in the short and medium-term. Dutch MEP Kathleen Van Breempt said it was unacceptable for nuclear power stations that were more than 40 years old to still be operating and called for nuclear power stations to be tested to see how they would react to a series of risk. French S&D MEP Catherine Trautmann said that nuclear power might not generate much carbon dioxide, but it uses up limited resources and is potentially dangerous. She called for fully transparent stress tests and for an independent EU nuclear regulator to be set up.
Calling for nuclear stress tests to be dealt with at international level, Lena Ek of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Liberals (ALDE), said the tests did not go far enough because the technological and geographical risks need to be examined, along with the cumulative impact of a series of breakdowns, like electricity blackouts, breakdown of water supply systems and unreliable backup systems. She called for the tests to be carried out by genuinely independent experts. Britain's Fiona Hall said that member states had to be honest and open about the real cost of nuclear power in terms of insurance, radioactive waste, state intervention in the event of accidents and disasters and state aid. She called, on behalf of the ALDE, for a moratorium on the building of new nuclear power stations until the stress test results are known.
On behalf of the Greens, Germany's Rebecca Harms and France's Michele Rivasi questioned the independence of the national nuclear safety authorities that will be running the stress tests, deciding on the criteria and assessing the results. Harms said the Greens want the stress tests to be based on the prospect of phasing out nuclear power because the only safe nuclear power station is one that is never built, as Luxembourg Green Claude Turmes put it, adding that a Europe has to be created where all energy is 100% renewable.
Speaking on behalf of the ECR Group, Giles Chichester of the UK, an ardent admirer of nuclear power, called for people not to react quickly, arguing that one had to differentiate between reactors built 50 years ago and new power plants, and one had to know exactly what had happened in Japan before considering any action. Polish MEP Konrad Szymanski stressed the importance of the EU's neighbours carrying out the same stress tests on their nuclear plants. (E.H./transl.fl)