WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/01 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Poligás plastic gasification plant in Ribesalbes (Valencian Community).
Date: 2001-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, atmospheric pollutant, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental standard, impact study, pollution control measures, public health, waste incineration

C 81 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

What is the Council(cid:146)s position regarding the Council of Europe(cid:146)s damning report on Turkey? What is its
view of the constant threats by Turkish officials against Cyprus, an applicant country for accession and a
Member State of the UN? Will the Council call on the Turkish authorities to refrain from any action or
statement which indicates their intent to destabilise the south-eastern Mediterranean, or which might result
in an unprecedented environmental disaster, since there are obvious risks involved in setting up reactors in
earthquake-prone regions?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The EU has clearly indicated to Turkey, on the occasion of meetings for political dialogue and in particular
at the last Association Council, that it expected Turkey to comply with all its international obligations,
particularly in the field of human rights, including the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The priorities set out by the EU in the Accession Partnership also include the guaranteeing and
implementation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights.

Turkey is well
informed of the positions of the European Union concerning the Cyprus question, as
expressed on several occasions, namely by the Helsinki and Nice European Councils and in the Accession
Partnership under the heading of (cid:145)Enhanced Political Dialogue and Political Criteria(cid:146), and during meetings
for political dialogue with Turkey. The EU fully supports the efforts of the Secretary General of the United
Nations to achieve an overall agreement on the problem of Cyprus that respects the relevant UN Security
Council Resolutions, and to reach a positive conclusion to the process begun in December 1999. It is also
aware of the content of Resolution 1256 (2001) on the (cid:145)Honouring of obligations and commitments by
Turkey(cid:146), which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted on 28 June 2001 during its
23rd session.

The question of the installation of a nuclear reactor in northern Cyprus has not been raised with the
Council.

(2002/C 81 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/01

by Francisca Sauquillo PØrez del Arco (PSE) and Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: PoligÆs plastic gasification plant in Ribesalbes (Valencian Community)

(18 July 2001)

The PoligÆs plant, which converts incinerated plastics into gas, has recently been set up in the town of
Ribesalbes, Castell(cid:243)n province, and come into operation in the face of strong opposition from local
residents and environmentalist groups.

The public have specifically been protesting, among other things, at the fact that:

(cid:129) No environmental impact assessment has been carried out. The Valencian Government has merely
issued an environmental impact statement, but this was alarmingly sketchy because, for example, it
completely failed to mention heavy metals, dioxins, and furans.

(cid:129) Although it was displayed for inspection, the business plan was not publicised. The public therefore

did not learn of its existence and could not make any kind of case against the plant.

(cid:129) The plant is situated too close to the main residential area and consequently poses health risks (highly

toxic gas emissions, contamination of waters, acid rain, etc.).

(cid:129) The waste plastics are not being properly stored (the drums have been obtained from other plants and

previously contained hazardous substances).

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/119

In the light of Directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (1), Directive
88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion
plants (2), Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste (and in particular Article 12 on public
participation) (3), Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment (4),
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (5), and the various regulations on protection of waters, and bearing in mind both the
widespread public opposition to the plant and the fact that the Commission has the role of upholding
Community legislation:

(cid:129) Would the Commission be willing to check whether the Ribesalbes plant is operating in accordance
with emission limits, the criteria governing storage of hazardous substances, and the requirements laid
down in Community legislation regarding the cleanliness of waters?

(cid:129) Could it determine whether the plant was approved in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC on
impact assessment and whether proper access to the necessary information was

environmental
afforded at the time, as required by the relevant Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(5) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

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

(27 September 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Members.

the Commission is unable to comment on any possible
On the basis of
misapplication of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from
industrial plants (1).

the information given,

With regard to Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of
the information supplied by the
certain pollutants into the air
Honourable Members in their written question does not indicate that the Directive is applicable in this
particular case. The Directive only applies to combustion plants the rated thermal input of which is equal
to or greater than 50 megawatts.

from large combustion plants (2),

The provisions of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
2000 on the incineration of waste (3) are applicable as from 28 December 2005 to existing installations
and from 28 December 2002 to new installations.

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment (4) stipulates that the public authorities are required to make available information relating to
the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.

Paragraph 4 of the said Article stipulates that the public authority must 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, and must be based on one of the exceptions laid down in
Article 3(2) and (3).

The Commission is unable, solely on the basis of the information reported by the Honourable Members, to
establish whether the Spanish authorities have received a request for access to information to which they
may have failed to react appropriately, possibly in breach of the provisions of the Directive.

Should the authority which received a request for access have refused it in breach of the provisions of the
Directive, it would be for the person who made the request to seek a review as provided for both in
Article 4 of the Directive and in the Spanish legislation transposing it.

C 81 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

The information supplied by the Honourable Members does not enable the Commission to determine
whether Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment (5) has been disregarded.

Accordingly, the Commission will shortly be sending the Spanish authorities a request for information on
the reported situation so that it may check that the relevant Community legislation has been properly
applied.

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.
(2) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988.
(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(5) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2002/C 81 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Compensation from Germany for former Italian military internees (I.M.I.)

A satisfactory outcome is in sight in the long-running matter of compensation for former internees and
workers detained in Germany during the Second World War.

However, because of the incorrect legal definition of their status and the related failure to allow for the fact
that they, as prisoners forced to work in German factories, were not covered by the Geneva Convention,
Italian military internees are in danger of suffering unfair discrimination compared with other former
internees and may thus be completely debarred from receiving the compensation being offered.

Not least in the light of Parliament(cid:146)s resolution B2-1475/86/rev. on compensation for persons formerly
employed as slave labour in German industry (1), can the Council say what representations it will make to
the German Government to help resolve this delicate issue and prevent unwarranted discrimination against
the former I.M.I.?

(1) OJ C 36, 17.2.1986, p. 129.

Reply

(27 November 2001)

The Council is not competent to give an answer to the question raised by the Honourable Member of
Parliament.

(2002/C 81 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Delay in approval of new BSE tests

(18 July 2001)

From 1 July 2001 each Member State, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Austria, Sweden and
Finland, must test all slaughtered cattle aged 30 months or more for BSE.

The BSE tests must undergo trials by DG Sanco at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Geel in order to
receive approval. At present the market is divided among three manufacturers whose tests have been
approved since 1999. Other manufacturers have submitted new tests for approval since then. At the
beginning of 2001 the approval of these new tests was scheduled for April/May this year, which would
have meant early access to this large market for the new manufacturers. However, this approval is now not
expected until the end of August 2001.