WRITTEN QUESTION E-1245/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Construction of a dump for red mud produced by bauxite processing in the Sea of Portoscuso (Cagliari), Sardinia

On 28 May 2002, Eurallumina SpA, a company that annually produces over one million tonnes of aluminium oxide and treats around two million tonnes of bauxite using the Bayer process, producing some one million tonnes of red mud per year, submitted a plan for the construction of a new dump (roughly 80 ha in surface area and 18 m high, with a total volume of 13 m m3) to the Region of Sardinia and the City of Portoscuso. Red mud is a waste product whose high alkalinity is caused by the presence of residual sodium carbonate (initially 12 pH, falling to 10,5 pH when treated with sulphuric acid and water). The dump is to be situated in the sea opposite the present red mud dump (120 ha), which is currently being phased out of use.

The planned new dump would further aggravate environmental damage to an area described in 1990 as being at heightened risk of environmental crisis, pursuant to Article 7 of Law No 349 of the Italian Republic of 1986, and would seriously hinder the development of tourism on the gulf where the islands of San Pietro and Sant'Antioco are situated, as well as on the nearby Boi Cerbus Lagoon, a humid zone of Community interest.

Given the fact that the municipal authorities of Portoscuso have already stated their readiness to support the planned new dump, before even carrying out any careful analysis of its potential impact on the environment, an analysis upon which any prior authorisation depends, does the Commission not consider that this project may be in breach of the framework directive on the protection of waters and, more specifically, the directive concerning pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into territorial waters?

Considering that this important production process employs around 500 workers in the region, can the Commission state whether it would be possible to contribute to the financing of alternative, more environmentally-friendly solutions that would allow Eurallumina SpA to continue production in the event of the cost of such alternative solutions proving unsustainable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 2003)

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), Member States are obliged to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. The project mentioned by the Honourable Member could fall within the scope of the Directive, Annex II point 11(b) Installations for the disposal of waste. For projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or by setting criteria or thresholds whether a project is to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure.

As regards Community nature legislation, as the Honourable Member correctly indicates, the area of the Boi Cerbus lagoon is included in a site of Community importance proposed by Italy for the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) with the name Punta S'Aliga. Article 6 of the same Directive requires Member States to avoid the deterioration of the habitats and disturbance of the species for which sites have been designated. In particular, Article 6(3) requires an appropriate assessment of a project or plan likely to have a significant effect on a site and Article 6(4) specifies the conditions under which such a plan or project can be approved.

As regards Community waste legislation, the dumping of red mud from alumina production into the sea is a waste disposal operation according to the Waste Framework Directive, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(4), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(5). As such it must be in conformity with the provisions of the Directive, in particular its Article 4 which requires, inter alia, that waste is disposed of without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, and without adversely affecting places of special interest. Where the deposit of such waste occurs onto or into land, it needs in particular to comply with the operating and technical requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(6).

In addition, the permit for this project should also comply with the requirements under Council Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry(7), as modified by Council Directives 82/883/EEC of 3 December 1982 on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry(8), 83/29/EEC of 24 January 1983(9) and 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment(10).

Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(11) protects all waters including coastal waters, and sets the objective to achieve/maintain good quality (good status) by 2015 at the latest. It covers all sources of impacts including the disposal of waste, and is complemented by a non-deterioration clause, i.e. deterioration of water status below present levels is as a rule not allowed. However, the information given by the Honourable Member has not revealed any specific grounds of complaint on the application of the abovementioned Directives to the specific case. Therefore, in the light of the above, no breach of the abovementioned Directives can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to the abovementioned Directives, the Commission would also be able to investigate this matter.

With regard to possible co-financing from the Structural Funds, more details would be required on the nature of any alternative solutions in order to assess their eligibility under the operational programme for the region. It should also be borne in mind that it is the Member State which assumes general responsibility for the implementation, follow-up and effectiveness of Structural Fund initiatives.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(5) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(6) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(7) OJ L 54, 25.2.1978.

(8) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.

(9) OJ L 32, 3.2.1983.

(10) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(11) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.