WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. Petrol and MTBE.
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, ethanol, groundwater, petrol, water pollution

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/107

the production quota is exceeded at EU level, all Member States are liable to pay a common co-
responsibility levy of up to 5 %.

Any Member State which has not exceeded its quota (or has not even used it up) is, therefore, financially
penalised for other Member States(cid:146) overruns.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is this co-responsibility levy appropriate?

Will the Commission take measures to amend the common organisation of the market in dried fodder?

(1) OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

On the occasion of the market reform Member States accepted a compromise whereby one of the
fundamental changes was a general reduction in aid in the event of overrun of the maximum guaranteed
quantity. The other changes were national guaranteed quantities (NGQs),
fixed aid per tonne and
application of the integrated administration and control system (IACs).

Under the provision in question the aid rate reduction if the MGQ is exceeded by up to 5 % applies equally
in all Member States. This was freely accepted by all Member States as an integral part of the compromise
package. In this context the Commission considers it an appropriate provision.

It has been applied only once, at the end of the 1998/1999 marketing year, and a proposal to withdraw it
would mean reopening discussion among Member States on the other features of the reformed scheme:
NGQs, aid rate, control rules etc. in the absence of any valid reason for major readjustment of the sector to
meet the wishes of a majority of Member States the Commission has no plans at present for proposing
modification of the market organisation to the Council.

(2001/C 46 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/00

by Ulla Sandb(cid:230)k (EDD) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Petrol and MTBE

With reference to the use of MTBE as an additive in petrol to raise the octane after removal of aromatics,
benzene and lead, is the Commission aware of the problems created by MTBE in the USA through seepage
into ground water?

Will the Commission take steps to investigate alternatives to MTBE, such as bioethanol extracted from
sugar cane?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the political and public concern about the contamination of water
supplies in the United States and recent statements by the American Environment Protection Agency (EPA)
and will keep abreast of developments.

C 46 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Methyl-tertiary-butylether (MTBE) is on the third priority list, published in 1997, of priority substances for
assessment, as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation
and control of the risks of existing substances (1) (Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January
1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/
93) (2). The Community risk assessment will address the possible environmental and human health
concerns in the Community, taking into account the American findings. When the risk assessment report
is finalised, it will be presented to the scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment
for independent peer-review.

The Commission addressed in August 1999 a letter to Member States asking for information on whether
they have encountered any problems with (water) pollution due to MTBE. As, until now, most Member
States have not sent any information at all, the Commission is not in a position to make a firm assessment
of the situation. To the Commission(cid:146)s present knowledge (cid:129) based on limited information (cid:129) there are no
significant problems with MTBE in water at Community level. Concerning drinking water, it should be
pointed out that under the new Drinking Water Directive (Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November
1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (3)) a Member State is obliged to set values
for additional parameters not included in the Directive where the protection of human health within its
territory or part of it so requires (Article 5.3).

Risk reduction measures will be recommended in those areas where concerns have been indicated and
legislative measures taken, if appropriate. At this stage, the Commission will review the need to investigate
alternatives to MTBE.

In any case,
in the framework of the agricultural non-food set-aside scheme, the production of raw
materials like sugarbeet or cereals intended for renewable energy purposes like bio-ethanol is allowed,
which offers processors access to raw materials at relatively low prices.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(2) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997.
(3) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2001/C 46 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Fall in the water table in the Les Mar(cid:237)nes region (Valencia, Spain)

Residents, landowners and farmers from the municipality of DŁnia in the Les Mar(cid:237)nes region (Valencia)
have complained that the drainage operations conducted by the Blau Verd S.L. construction company prior
to laying the foundations of luxury flats have caused the water table in local wells to fall by more than 1,2
metres. These operations, which have not undergone a standard environmental impact assessment, are
under way on a former camping site, where the aforementioned company has installed a number of
pumps which work around the clock to draw off the water so that the foundations can then be laid.

The water which the system of pumps draws off is channelled directly into a drainage system flowing into
the sea, the result being that numerous litres of a resource in short supply are being wasted in an area
particularly hard hit by drought. The complainants maintain that this practice has already caused several
wells which had never previously lacked water to run dry, the result being that, in addition to the impact
on the irrigation of orange trees, which are important to local agriculture, there is the risk of an ecological
disaster occurring in the medium term. In fact, the complainants have described the squandering of badly
needed water supplies as (cid:145)an assault on the environment(cid:146).