WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Projected regasification plant in Mugardos (Galicia, Spain): incompatibility with Community law

The Tojeiro Group is planning to set up a regasification plant in Mugardos, Galicia, expanding its extensive existing industrial complex in the same area (glue and resin factory, ship deballasting and degassing plant, oil storage facilities, etc.). Mugardos is thus already being subjected to severe environmental pressure from the plants owned by the conglomerate. A future gasifier could accordingly serve to exacerbate the adverse environmental and public health consequences which the locality is now suffering.

In addition, the planning of the regasification plant has infringed two key points of Community legislation:

- the plant has not been the subject of an environmental impact assessment (failure to comply with Directive 97/11/EC(1), which includes plants of the type concerned in Annex I);

- the plant does not conform to standard EN-1473 (transposed in Spain as UNE-1473), which calls for risks to the population to be rigorously assessed and measures taken to prevent possible accidents.

Furthermore, Tojeiro's other industrial installations have been giving rise to local protest (especially where Forestal del Atlántico is concerned) because:

- the locality is being exposed to high levels of noise pollution, possibly contrary to the European legislation on outdoor building machinery;

- noxious gases are being discharged into the air, in quantities apparently exceeding the permitted levels, a situation that may infringe a number of directives, including for example Directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants(2), Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste(3) and Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste(4) (since the freezing plant is used as in incinerator), or Directive 75/439/EEC(5) and the amendments thereto on the disposal of waste oils (all kinds of oil residues are burnt on the site);

- material is being dumped in the aquatic environment, involving a possible infringement of legislation such as Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(6) (as regards nitrates, which have to be controlled in accordance with Annex III), Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances(7), the legislation on drinking-water, etc.;

- the transport operations using the CP-3504 road do not conform to the criteria laid down in Directive 94/55/EC on the transport of dangerous goods by road(8);

- the shellfish sector is being affected so severely by the pollution as to constitute a violation of Directive 79/923/EEC on the quality required of shellfish waters(9). The list of examples could continue.

In the light of the foregoing:

- what steps will the Commission take to enable the mandatory environmental impact assessment of the regasification plant to be carried out and ensure that the plant conforms to standard EN-1473?

- would it be willing to open an inquiry into the possible failures to comply with Community legislation regarding the Mugardos industrial installations?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.

(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.

(4) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.

(5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

(6) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

(7) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.

(8) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7.

(9) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1310/01, E-1359/01 and E-1379/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission was unaware of the situation described by the Honourable Members regarding the Forestal Atlántico SA plant, or the plan to set up a regasification plant, and the proposed siting of the plant in the same district as the first, namely Mugardos, (Galicia).

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2) would appear, at first sight, to be applicable to this case.

Two conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously in order for Council Directive 96/82/EC of 16 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(3) (hereafter referred to as the Seveso Directive) to be applicable:

- the quantities of dangerous substances present in the establishment should exceed the limits set in Annex I to the Directive. The Annex sets two thresholds, a lower limit and an upper limit. If the quantity of the dangerous substance is less than the lower limit, the Seveso Directive does not apply. If the quantity of the dangerous substance is between the upper and the lower limits, then selected provisions of the Directive are applicable. If the quantity exceeds the upper limit, then all the Directive provisions are applicable. The lower limit for natural gas, for example, is 50 tonnes, and the upper limit 200 tonnes;

- the plant should not be in one of the excluded sectors listed in Article 4. It should be noted that the transport and intermediate temporary storage of dangerous materials, in ports for instance, are not covered by the Seveso Directive.

As regards compliance with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(4), the Commission is already aware that there are problems with its implementation in Spain, and has accordingly initiated infringement proceedings against Spain on the grounds of failure to transpose the Directive in due time.

Apart from this, the Commission has no reason to suppose that the Spanish authorities would not comply with current Community environmental protection legislation when authorising the plan in question.

The Commission will request further information from the Spanish authorities on this plan and on issues relating to the existing plant.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take whatever steps are needed to ensure that Community law is respected in all the cases in point.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.