# CE2004084EN.01075301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/753 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/753

---

(2004/C 84 E/0849)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Conflict over pollution — between the Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) and the people and municipal authorities of Pontevedra

Subject:

The Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) has occupied, for the last forty years and more, under an administrative concession, an area of publicly-owned land on the shore of the Ría de Pontevedra. This land is now effectively part of the built-up area of the municipality of Pontevedra. The factory's presence prevents further urban development between the two coastal municipalities of Pontevedra and Marín. The company, formerly publicly-owned and now privatised, has as its main shareholder the Caixa Galicia bank, which also supplies its chair. Favourably located on the Ria, the Ence factory operates a highly polluting production cycle: the pollution affects both water and air, has given rise to numerous protests from the public, and has for years now been the source of an open conflict between the company and Pontevedra's municipal authorities: both the general public and the municipal council wish to see the factory moved elsewhere. However, Ence, with the support of the Galician regional government, intends to consolidate the factory's presence, and, indeed, aims to obtain ownership of the valuable land that it occupies: on that basis, it would build a paper manufacturing plant which would process part of the woodpulp now produced. Ence is now seeking to enter into partnership with a US enterprise with a worldwide presence, namely the Atlanta-based Georgia Pacific Corporation. This company is well-known for being involved in conflicts over the environment and safety, and has been affected by major accidents (fires, explosions and toxic leaks) leading to the loss of lives and abusive deforestation in third-world countries.

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Celulosas de Pontevedra factory, its polluting impact, its location on publicly-owned urban land, its conflicts with civil society and the municipal authorities of the Ria (especially the Pontevedra council), and the failure of the Galician regional government and the Spanish central government to take the necessary preventive action against the severe damage being caused by this company to the local society and economy?

Has the Commission taken action to prevent this serious damage? Has it taken any steps to institute the necessary surveillance and monitoring to stop the attempts to consolidate the woodpulp factory in its present location by building a new paper manufacturing plant in association with the Georgia Pacific Corporation?

Is the Commission aware that Celulosas de Pontevedra even wishes to end the publicly-owned status of the 430 000 m2 of coastal land on which its factory is located, with the aim of continuing its activities after the expiry of its administrative concession?

2

Will the Commission support the Pontevedra municipal council in its campaign to defend the publicly-owned status of the land occupied by the factory and have the factory moved elsewhere, in a context of job preservation and implementation of all the measures required to put an end to the present unacceptable pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

(16 March 2004)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have the necessary elements to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the installation in question meets the conditions established in the relevant Community legislation.

Questions concerning the possible occupation of the new site are not within the competence of the Community. A proposal to build a new paper manufacturing plant, or to change or extend an existing one, would require an environmental impact assessment under the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) if the plant was likely to have significant effects on the environment. This would require the public to be consulted and the competent authority to consider their views and the environmental effects. If of a mind to approve the application, the competent authority could attach any conditions which might be required, for example, to provide mitigation of those effects.

1

2

Concerning the possible harmful effects of the facilities one must take into account that the installation in question falls within the scope of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (3) (see activity 6,1 of Annex I). The Directive aims at a high overall level of environmental protection, by means of prevention and reduction of emissions to air, water and land, avoidance or reduction of waste production, energy efficiency, accident prevention and, upon cessation of activities, return of the site to a satisfactory state.

3

The plant has apparently been in operation for more than forty years and must, therefore, be considered as an ‘existing installation’ in the meaning of the Directive (see Article 2, point 4). According to Article 5 of the Directive, the competent authorities have to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that such an installation operates in full compliance with the provisions of the Directive by 30 October 2007 at the latest.

For this purpose, the competent authority has to issue an integrated permit (or, if appropriate, to reconsider and update an existing permit) containing emission limit values, equivalent parameters or technical measures based on best available techniques, taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions (see Article 9(4) of the Directive).

For the definition of best available techniques, the competent authority can base its requirements on a reference document for best available techniques (BREF) in pulp and paper manufacturing. This document is accessible on the web site: (http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FAbout.htm).

Data on the most relevant pollutants emitted by the installation are publicly accessible on the website: www.eper.cec.eu.int as of 23 February 2004.

With the aim of maintaining the air quality where it is good and improving it in other cases, Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (4) requires Member States to assess the air quality throughout its territory. Limit and target values, to be met by a defined attainment data (2005 to 2010), are set by accompanying Daughter Directives relating to air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10) and lead (5) or carbon monoxide and benzene (6). Industrial installations are of course potential sources for some of those components. Member States are obliged to report annually to the Commission the zones and agglomerations where any limit values plus a defined margin of tolerance (which is decreasing annually to become zero by the attainment date), are exceeded. In such zones Member States are obliged to draw up plans and programmes to demonstrate by which measures the limit values can be achieved. Up to now the Commission did not receive such plans or programmes from Spain relating to the suggested problem area around the industrial plant in question.

4

5

6

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

1

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

2

(3)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

3

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

4

(5)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

5

(6)  OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

6

---