WRITTEN QUESTION No. 176/97 by Edith MÜLLER to the Commission. Underwater pipelines in Gijón (Spain) (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1997-02-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MUELLER EDITH
Subjects: EU financing, Principality of Asturias, Spain, action programme, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, inshore grounds, pipeline transport, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 91997E0176(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0176(01)

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 176/97 by Edith MÜLLER to the Commission. Underwater pipelines in Gijón (Spain) (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/97 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (3 February 1997)Subject: Underwater pipelines in Gijón (Spain)The European Union is funding, inter alia under Resider II, a substantial part of plans for the treatment of waste water on the Asturian coast drawn up by the Confederación Hidrográfica del Norte.Using these funds, underwater pipelines to discharge waste water into the sea are about to the built at Avilés and Gijón before detailed plans for the construction of treatment plants have been drawn up, which will mean that waste water is discharged into the sea without first having been treated.This goes against the provisions of the 'Plan Nacional de Saneamiento y Depuración de Aguas Residuales' adopted on 17 February 1995 by the Spanish Cabinet, which stipulates that urban waste water entering collection systems must first be treated, and Directive 91/271/EEC ((OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. )) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.It is also in breach of the 'precautionary' and 'preventive action' principles on which Community environment policy is based, pursuant to Article 130r of the Treaty on European Union.The coastal area affected by the underwater pipeline projects is of considerable ecological and economic importance (tourism and fishing); this applies in particular to the western coastline of Capo Peñas, which has been designated a 'protected landscape' under the 'Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales de Asturias'.The Commission has itself stated - in an interpretation of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - that waste water treatment projects with a major environmental impact - such as the one before us - must be subjected to an assessment.What steps does the Commission intend to take with a view to ensuring that the above treatment plans comply with Community legislation on the treatment of urban waste water? Can it state whether an environmental impact assessment is to be carried out on the planned pipelines?Does it intend to institute infringement proceedings, pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union, against the Spanish Government for failing to comply with the provisions of Article 130r of the Treaty, regarding the 'precautionary' and 'preventive action' principles which apply in the environmental field?Is it willing, if necessary, to freeze the Community funds if the plans are not revised and the treatment plants built before any sewage is discharged into the sea?Supplementary answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)Further to its answer of 13 March 1997 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997. )), the Commission is now in a position to provide the following additional information.Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment stipulates that there is a general need for secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, at the latest by 31 December 2000, for all discharges of waste water from agglomerations of more than 15 000 population equivalent (p.e.) (population equivalent being a unit of measurement currently used to quantify the pollution of waste water and corresponding to the organic load discharged per person per day). The time limit is extended to 31 December 2005 for all discharges from agglomerations of between 10 000 and 15 000 p.e., as well as for discharges to fresh-water and estuaries from agglomerations of between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.By way of derogation, Member States also had the option, under Article 6 of the Directive and at the latest by 31 December 1993, of identifying specific less sensitive areas as marine water bodies or areas in which the discharge of waste water does not adversely affect the environment of the area in question, or of adjacent areas, as a result of morphology, hydrology or specific hydraulic conditions. In these less sensitive areas, discharges of urban waste water of less than 150 000 p.e. may be subjected to treatment less stringent than secondary treatment but must, at the very least, undergo primary physical or chemical treatment, with the additional proviso that, on the basis of comprehensive studies, it is clear that such discharges will not adversely affect the environment. Member States shall provide the Commission with all relevant information concerning the abovementioned studies.As regards discharges from agglomerations of more than 150 000 p.e., Article 8.5 of the Directive stipulates that in exceptional circumstances, when it can be demonstrated that more advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefits, such discharges into less sensitive areas may likewise be subjected to less stringent treatment. In such circumstances, Member States shall submit beforehand the relevant documentation to the Commission.The Commission has not received notification from the Spanish authorities regarding the identification of less sensitive areas, nor has it received any information on possible studies or any documentation of the kind mentioned above.According to the information available, the plans for the wholesale drainage of the areas of Avilés and Gijón (drawn up on the basis of ad hoc studies cofinanced by the ERDF and within the framework of the NPCI - Asturias 1987-1991) provide for a vast set of coordinated actions including not only underwater pipelines to discharge waste water but also collection systems and treatment plants, with the overall aim of improving the environment.In this connection, the administrations concerned (central, regional and local) have drawn up ad hoc agreements for the implementation of the various projects envisaged. These agreements, which have been published in the Official State Gazette (cf. BOE No 125 of 26 May 1993 for the Avilés area and BOE No 144 of 17 June 1991 for the Gijón area), provide for investment totalling some 13 billion pesetas for each of the areas in question.Certain projects envisaged under the abovementioned plans have been the subject of cofinancing from Community funds, following the submission of applications by the national authorities and depending on their degree of technical and financial maturity. It should be pointed out that, in the case of the Resider II operational programme referred to by the Honourable Member, the initial plan is for a collection system at Avilés and a treatment plant at Gijón as well as for an underwater pipeline at Gijón, as indicated in the question.Consequently, the Commission considers that, while the underwater pipeline projects for the discharge of urban waste water at Avilés and Gijón may constitute a first stage in a process leading to the discharge of waste into the sea, they are not sufficient on their own to ensure compliance with the Directive. Secondary or equivalent treatment facilities will need to be in place before the expiry of the time limits indicated above.In its capacity as guardian of the Treaty, the Commission is responsible for monitoring the transposition and implementation of Community legislation and, in the event of non-compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC within the prescribed time limits, it will examine the relevant documentation in the framework of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.As regards Directive 85/337/EEC, the Commission has no information on the carrying-out of an environmental impact assessment. However, in the case of the work listed in Annex II to the Directive, such an assessment is not compulsory. In point of fact, it is up to the competent authorities to request such an assessment if they consider that the nature of the project (size of the project, siting, etc.) render this necessary. By the same token, it would appear opportune to point out that any form of participation involving Community funds is conditional on compliance with Community standards, including those relating to the environment.