WRITTEN QUESTION E-2053/00

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Pollution levels in Cartagena (Murcia, Spain)

Cartagena has been one of the seven most polluted towns in Spain since air pollution monitoring began in 1960. The situation has steadily deteriorated since 1996 and unprecedented pollution levels were recorded in 1999.

Various studies that have been carried out by experts into the effects of pollution in Cartagena point to an increase in the mortality rate, in the use of health care services, in respiratory disorders and other illnesses and in the use of medicines. The findings of those studies have however been kept from the public for fear of causing alarm.

The latest outbreaks of pollution have caused anger in political and cultural circles and among civil society. The criticism has been aimed mainly at Potasas y Derivados, a company based in El Hondón, which, over the past weeks, has exceeded the permitted air pollution levels on an almost daily basis, leading the local environmental authorities to order the company to reduce the plant's output for a period of over twelve hours.

The conclusion of an agreement for the company's relocation has raised much controversy owing to the fact that it sets no deadline for either the shut-down of the current plant or the necessary investment in the new plant, simply stating that the El Hondón plant will remain in production until the new plant is brought into operation.

1. Is the Commission aware of this alarming situation?

2. Would it not agree that the following directives have been breached:

(a) Council Directive 84/360/EEC(1) on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants:

(b) Council Directive 92/62/EC(2) on ambient air quality assessment and management;

(c) Council Directive 1999/30/EC(3) relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

(d) Council Directive 90/313/EEC(4) on the freedom of access to information on the environment?

3. Can the Commission say how this situation is being followed up?

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

(2) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55.

(3) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Honourable Member specifies just one plant, Potasas y Derivados, which, according to the limited information in the hands of the Commission, produces fertilizers and has not been subject to any investigation by the Commission in the past.

The production of Potasas y Derivados is within the scope of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants(1) (no production threshold is specified in Annex I, p. 4 of the Directive). The Commission has no information about either current emission levels or emission limit values established in the operating permit of this plant. This information is essential for assessing compliance with the Directive. Under Article 13 of the Directive Member States shall implement policies and strategies, including appropriate measures, for the gradual adaptation of existing plants belonging to the categories given in Annex I to the best available technology, taking into account in particular the plant's technical characteristics, its rate of utilization and length of its remaining life, the nature and volume of polluting emissions from it, the desirability of not entailing excessive costs for the plant concerned, having regard in particular to the economic situation of undertakings belonging to the category in question.

It appears that the Spanish authorities have taken measures to solve the problem. According to the Spanish newspaper La verdad http://www.laverdad.com/servicios/especiales/municipios99/muamu55.htm it was recently agreed to relocate the plant within three years.

Member States are responsible for ensuring the observance of air quality limit values for sulphur dioxide and particulate matter as set out in Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates(2), for lead (Council Directive 82/884/EEC of 3 December 1982 on a limit value for lead in the air)(3) and for nitrogen dioxide (Council Directive 85/203/EEC of 7 March 1985 on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide(4)). The Commission has not been informed that these limit values have been exceeded.

Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management(5) and Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air(6) taken together require

Member States to assess concentrations of sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM10) and lead in accordance with new requirements from 19 July 2001. New limit values for sulphur dioxide, PM10 and lead are to be met by 1 January 2005 and for nitrogen dioxide by 1 January 2010. Member States will have to develop attainment programmes for the worst areas, showing how the limit values will be met on time.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(7) states that Member States shall ensure that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person on request and without having to prove an interest. Paragraph 4 of the said Article points out that a public authority shall respond to a person requesting information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide the information requested must be given. However, Article 4 of the same Directive indicates that a person who considers that a request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system. In these circumstances and in the light of the information available to it, the Commission does not see that Directive 90/313/EC has been breached in the case concerned.

The summary information supplied by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to presume that the abovementioned Community Directives have been breached. However, the Commission does not rule out the possibility of investigating the question raised by the Honourable Member in more detail if he is able to provide information with evidence of a breach of the Community law applicable.

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(3) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.

(4) OJ L 87, 27.3.1985.

(5) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(6) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(7) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.