WRITTEN QUESTION P-1103/01 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. Urban Waste Water Directive.
Date: 2001-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, United Kingdom, biodegradability, dairy industry, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/171

However, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question refers to practices in the United Kingdom that are not
required in Community law.
in transposing the Community Directives within their national
legislation,
the United Kingdom has not opted for more frequent checks and inspections than the
Directives require.

Indeed,

On the first point, Community law (1) requires that heavy goods vehicles in all Member States undertake
a regulated roadworthiness inspection at least once every year. The Directive establishes minimum testing
and inspection intervals leaving Member States the possibility to require more frequent testing of vehicles
registered on their territory if they wish. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland(cid:146)s legislative requirements
for checking HGVs are in compliance with the Directive, i.e. they both require annual roadworthiness
inspections.

On the second point, there are no Community requirements that require vehicles to be weighed when
boarding a ferry but it is the operators responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are within the statutory
maximum weight
their ferries are not
overloaded. The Commission has no knowledge of an established link between maritime accidents and the
overloading of lorries. It should also be noted that systematic controls of lorries at internal Community
frontiers are not permitted (2).

limits and the ferry company(cid:146)s responsibility to ensure that

Concerning the third point on tachograph checks, Community legislation (3) defines the content of checks
at installation or repair and minimum frequency for periodic inspection and sets minimum standards
the
during road side checks and in transport companies.
Commission produces a biennial report (4) on the level of compliance on the basis of information provided
by the Member States. Such reports do not show particular discrepancies in the level of compliance as
reported by the individual Member States.

In the context of Directive 88/599/EEC,

(1) Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating

to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the
frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (OJ L 390, 30.12.1989) and Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3912/92 of 17 December 1992 on controls carried out within the Community in the field of
road and inland waterway transport in respect of means of transport registered or put into circulation in a third
country (OJ L 395, 31.12.1992).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (article 12
and Annex I Chapter VI), (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985) and Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on
standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of
certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in
road transport (OJ L 325, 29.11.1988).

(4) COM(2000) 84 final.

(2001/C 340 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1103/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Urban Waste Water Directive

Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment seeks to protect the environ-
ment from the harmful effects of both domestic and industrial waste water discharges. Creameries in
certain peripheral areas of
the
requirements of the implementing legislation. Certain operators are having to build expensive pipes to
pump their biodegradable waste, such as surplus whey, out to sea.

facing grave financial difficulties because of

the EU are, however,

Is it permissible, under the rules of the Directive, for a company to build an outflow pipe from its premises
that would feed its biodegradable waste into the outflow pipe from a local waste treatment plant, after the
treatment stage, so that both sets of discharge are pumped out to sea, provided that suitable arrangements
are made for the metering of both sets of discharge separately? In this context, is the Commission aware of

C 340 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

the problems faced by the creameries in Campbeltown and Rothesay, and, should the above proposal not
be permissible, would it suggest the most practical way in which those operators might dispose of their
waste?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

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

(8 May 2001)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste water treatment (1) covers
domestic waste water sources as well as a range of industrial waste waters which does not enter urban
waste water treatment plants before discharge to water bodies.

Creameries as well as other plants of the agro-food sector are indeed addressed by the Directive, however
the provisions are limited:

(cid:129) firstly, only larger milk processing plants are covered by the Directive, i.e. those with a pollution load

of their waste water equalling a city of 4000 inhabitants or more ((cid:145)population equivalents(cid:146)).

(cid:129) secondly, the level of treatment required is flexible and largely left to Member States. Whilst for urban
waste water treatment plants the Directive established numerically defined limit values, the provisions
for milk processing plants etc., are very flexible: Member States have to ensure that such waste water
(cid:145)respects conditions established in prior regulations and/or specific authorisations(cid:146) article 13(1); the
sixth (cid:145)whereas(cid:146) clause of the preamble refers to (cid:145)appropriate treatment(cid:146) for such discharges.

As for the specific questions, the following information can be provided:

(cid:129) It is for the authorities within the United Kingdom to establish the conditions for the specific cases of
Campbeltown and Rothesay or at a general level, and to implement them within the time schedule set,
i.e. 31 December 2000. The Directive does not entail an obligation to expensive piping systems for
sea disposal but does not prohibit them either, as it is in this context very flexible.

throughout

(cid:129) As for practical solutions to waste water problem of creameries, a range of solutions exists for such
the United Kingdom and other Member States. Given the
appropriate treatment
implementation responsibility of
the British authorities as well as the technical and scientific
experience with possible solutions available in the United Kingdom, it seems appropriate to consider
such solutions with responsible bodies such as the Scottish Executive and/or the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency. The Commission would of course in this context confirm its willingness to
cooperate upon request of those authorities.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2001/C 340 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Health and consumer protection

1.
I would be grateful if the Commission could confirm what consultation took place with the Scottish
salmon farming industry regarding the ISA withdrawal scheme, approved under Commission Decision
2001/186.