WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/00

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

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Relocating the Empresa Nacional de Celulosa-Electroquímica del Noroeste (ENCE-ELNOSA) industrial complex, located in the town of Pontevedra on the estuary of the same name in Galicia

The industrial complex comprising the public undertakings ENCE, which produces paper pulp, and Elnosa, which produces chlorine, is located a few hundred yards from the town centre of Pontevedra, on the banks of the estuary of that name, and close to the town and port of Marín. At the present time the complex is a contributory factor to the steady deterioration of the shellfish and fish-rich waters of the estuary, and spoils living conditions in the towns concerned thanks to the air pollution it produces, seriously hindering both towns' urban development. If the chemical plant did not exist, Pontevedra and Marín would form a single town planning area. The space occupied by the factories and by a vast lagoon into which their waste water is discharged, is on the coast, in one of the most richly endowed natural areas in Galicia.

The industrial complex stands on land held under an administrative concession, which is legally bound to run out in the year 2018, under Article 62(2) of the Spanish law on coastlines. Furthermore, the complex is illegal. In 1989 the threat it represents, and unremitting protests by local people, forced the Galician Government to sign an agreement with ENCE on limits for discharges into the sea, as a pre-condition for using a drainage channel to take the waste waters to the middle of the estuary, and in 1991 the government ruled that Elnosa was to be temporarily closed down. ENCE failed to meet the terms of the agreement signed, with the result that as late as 1998, the Galician Government

was still refusing to allow the use of the drainage channel for waste water, while Elnosa continued to discharge mercury, without authorisation and in quantities over the legal limits. Spanish government departments such as the National Institute of Toxicology claim that the waste water from ENCE can be classified as toxic, and may be seriously affecting the environment, and departments of the University of Santiago believe that the mercury levels in the estuary's shellfish are above the recommended limits of 0,1 ppm.

Given that the complex cannot, in any case, make any economic or industrial projections beyond the year 2018, when the administrative concession of the shoreline land which it occupies runs out, and bearing in mind the much-suffering local population's opposition to the complex, does the Commission intend to take the requisite steps, having ascertained the economic, social and environmental damage caused and studied the problem in collaboration with the Galician and Spanish administrations, to have Elnosa relocated immediately and to negotiate the relocation of the ENCE installations to a suitable site, according to a strict timetable and in the near future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is not the Commission's responsibility to relocate companies. However, if it can be demonstrated that the installations in question have infringed Community environmental law, the Commission could take the necessary steps to ensure compliance. This could include initiation of the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

From the information provided by the Honourable Member, it appears that Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(1) is not yet mandatorily applicable to the two installations, since the deadline for application of the Directive is October 2007. The case should therefore be studied with reference to the relevant Directives concerning discharges to water and emissions to air.

It should be noted that the Commission has already examined a complaint regarding the possible infringement by the installations in question of several Community Directives concerning air and water pollution. No evidence of infringement could be found and the case was closed at the end of 1999.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.