WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Storage of environmentally damaging waste by the Georgsmarienhütte steelworks

1. Part of the subsidy of over DEM 80 million which Georgsmarienhütte steelworks in 1993 received from the Land of Lower Saxony, went on the recycling (feedback into the production process) of 250 000 tonnes of converter dust and 80 000 tonnes of blast-furnace sludge (with high concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, mercury plus oil waste), stored illegally at Westerkamp in Georgsmarienhütte. Following the abandonment of the recycling plan these highly toxic substances are still being stored in the same place without bottom insulation and demonstrably are heavily polluting soil and groundwater (see Professor Hollmann's expert opinion). Nonetheless the Land, via its district government Weser Ems, approved the location as well as the mixing, levelling and surface covering, while further discharges into the environment continue in the absence of lateral and bottom insulation. In view of the increasing environmental pollution, does the Commission approve of the storage of toxic substances authorised by the authorities of Lower Saxony at Westerkamp?

2. Were the Lower Saxony authorities right to approve the installation as an intermediate storage site, thereby evading a procedure with public participation which would have been required had it been classified as an ultimate site, even though the facts, and in particular the style of the installation, suggest that no transfer of the deposits is intended?

3. A research project with the Greek University of Patras and the Clausthal-Zellerfelt Higher Technical Institute into the possibilities or recycling has been announced and has been financially supported by the Land of Lower Saxony.

(a) Has the Commission also funded this alleged research?

(b) Is the Commission aware of the results of this alleged research; if not, is it awaiting them?

4. Does the Commission plan, if it has not already done so, to follow up the information in this question and to take any necessary action?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

Some waste from the iron and steel industry will be classified as hazardous in the European Waste List as from 1 January 2002, if it contains dangerous substances. At present it can be hazardous waste, if it is classified as such at national level.

The treatment of waste is regulated by Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2).

Article 4 of this Directive states that waste must be disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

- without risk to the water, air, soil and plants and animals,

- without causing a nuisance through noise and odours,

- without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Directive any establishment or undertaking which carries out disposal operations must obtain a permit from the competent authority.

These provisions apply to disposal and recovery operations, including the storage of waste prior to disposal or recovery.

In addition, for hazardous waste, Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991, on hazardous waste(3) applies.

Member States are required to apply Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(4) by 16 July 2001. This Directive lays down specific requirements for landfills, including provisions on the thickness and permeability of the base and sides of the landfill as well as provisions on the surface sealing.

Deposits of waste of more than one year before disposal and more than three years before recovery are landfills and must comply with the requirements of the Directive. However, the Directive does not apply to landfills that were closed before the date of its implementation.

Recent official information received from the German authorities confirms that Community funding was not used for the scientific work. The Commission has therefore no knowledge about the results of this work.

The Commission would need more precise information on this case to be able to assess if there is a breach of Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(4) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.