WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/98

by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Cross-border dioxin pollution caused by household waste incinerators in Halluin (France) and Menen (Belgium)

In connection with this matter, Commissioner Paleokrassas replied on 5 May 1994, to question E-0020/94(1) that the Commission was unable to determine whether the Belgian authorities had asked the French authorities for information on the household waste incinerator plant in Halluin.

Since then Belgium has clearly transposed EU Directives 84/360(2) and 85/337(3) into national law, but it is unclear whether France has done so. It is, however, clear that with regard to the new Halluin incinerator no further exchange of information has taken place between the authorities, and that the Communauté Urbaine de Lille-Métropole is not interested in it, but that there is also very serious cross-border dioxin pollution from the older incinerators in the area. This has made it necessary in recent months to withdraw contaminated milk from sale on both sides of the border. While the French Minister for the Living Environment has requested the Prefect of the Département of the Nord to take the old incinerators in Halluin, Sequedin and Wasquehal out of production, in application of the Ministerial Decree of 25 January 1991, Belgium has taken no decision regarding the Menen incinerators in application of its decision of 1 June 1995 regarding Vlarem II.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission:

1. To what extent have the two countries already transposed the two directives fully and correctly into national law, and to what extent might French or Belgian local policy with regard to this local case conflict with such transposition?

2. What measures, if any, does the Commission propose to take to ensure that its directives are complied with in this local case, not only with regard to the exchange of information but also in connection with the drawing up of an environmental impact assessment both on the new incinerator and on the pollution caused by the old incinerators?

3. Has the Commission already requested from both the Belgian and the French authorities the figures for dioxin and furan emissions from the old incinerators, and if so, what are these figures?

4. What stage has been reached in working out European standards for dioxins in milk and dioxins in the air, and within what time-scale does the Commission predict that these will be implemented or transposed into EU law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants stipulates that the best available technology not entailing excessive costs is to be applied to incinerators to prevent air pollution. However, it does not set emission limit values for dioxins and furans. Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(4) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants(5) do not set such limit values either. However, Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(6) sets a limit value of 0,1 nanograms per cubic metre (ng/m3) applicable from 1 January 1997 to plants for which the permit to operate was granted before 31 December 1996 and from 1 July 2000 for other plants.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment stipulates that plants for the incineration of hazardous waste must be made subject to such an assessment, whereas plants for the incineration of non-hazardous industrial and domestic waste must only be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

It is clear from the above that regulations vary considerably depending on the type of waste incinerated and the date the incinerators the Honourable Member refers to in her question were first put into service. Without more detailed information on the subject the Commission is unable to assess whether the situation described by the Honourable Member is compatible with Community law. The Commission would therefore ask her to forward any relevant details she may have.

If the Commission finds that Community law has been infringed, it will not fail to take all appropriate steps, including the institution of infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the legislation is complied with.

Except in the case of plants incinerating hazardous waste put into service after 31 December 1996, the Commission cannot check whether incinerators comply with a harmonised emission limit value. Therefore, it felt there was no need to request the information mentioned by the Honourable Member from the Member States concerned, since, as such, it would not show whether Community law had been infringed.

The Commission is currently reviewing Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC. The legislative proposal that it will make shortly should include a limit value for dioxins and furans such as that which is already included in Directive 94/67/EC for hazardous waste.

As regards ambient air quality objectives, the Commission does not plan to draft proposals in the near future, given that the substances concerned are not mentioned in Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management(7).

Maximum limits for contaminants in foodstuffs are fixed at Community level in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) 315/93 of 8 February 1993, laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food(8). No maximum limits for dioxins in milk are fixed or under discussion at Community level for the time being.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.1995, p. 19.

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

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(5) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.

(6) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(7) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(8) OJ L 37, 13.2.1993.