WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Enlargement of the Port of Ferrol (outer port).
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, application of EU law, architectural heritage, cultural heritage, exchange of information, harbour installation, impact study, protected area

C 115 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Fresh details concerning the Mugardos regasification plant

(5 October 2001)

In connection with questions E-1310/01, E-1359/01 and E-1379/01 (1) I should like to add that the
considerable public alarm roused by the planned Mugardos regasification plant has brought together all the
various citizens’ groups opposing the project, who have set up the ‘Comité Ciudadano de Emergencia para
la Ría del Ferrol’ (Citizens’ Emergency Committee for the Firth of Ferrol). General of the Reserve José
Gabeiras Montero has been appointed honorary chairman of this Committee.

General Gabeiras, who has expert knowledge of the position with regard to the Ferrol Military Arsenal, has
informed the competent bodies of the proven fact that the planned regasification plant is to be located at
800 metres from the Navy Arsenal 8 which means that any accident involving a liquefied gas tanker in
such a location could detonate the contents of the Arsenal and result in thousands of deaths.

General Gabeiras claims that the strategic value of the Ferrol harbour to the Spanish Navy and as a NATO
base are dependant on the site’s natural defences and those provided by the Spanish military base, but the
installation of the regasification plant and its gas tanks would make the whole defence system so
vulnerable that the site would be rendered strategically worthless.

Could the Commission stress to the Spanish authorities just how seriously this would jeopardize the safety
conditions obtaining in the town of Ferrol and its surrounding area?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 117.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

In connection with the investigation of this issue, the Commission has just received a reply from the
Spanish authorities and is currently examining it.

The Commission contacted the Spanish authorities to draw their attention to the potential risk of locating
a regasification plant near an arsenal and to request information on measures planned or taken to avoid an
accident.

(2002/C 115 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Enlargement of the Port of Ferrol (outer port)

(5 October 2001)

With regard to my previous question E-1225/01 (1) on the enlargement of the Port of Ferrol (outer port) by
the Ferrol Port 8 San Ciprián Port Authority, a project which will affect the Natura Network 2000 area of
Costa Ártabra 8 Cabo Prioriño 8 Ensenada de Caneliñas, I should like to make the further observation
that the intended construction of an outer port will also mean the destruction or possibly removal and
reconstruction of a historic buildings complex comprising the San Carlos/San Cristóbal/Canelas/Cariño y
Viñas fortification and coastal defence batteries.

In the so-called ‘best case scenario’, the fact is that the removal to another site of these strategically
designed and located historic fortifications will mean that their entire raison d’être has been destroyed.

Deemed to be buildings of cultural interest, the fortifications are individual pieces of a larger complex
which involves the Castle of la Palma, the Castle of San Felipe and the Ferrol Military Arsenal. Efforts are
being made to get Unesco to declare the entire complex a world heritage site.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/153

Have the Spanish authorities responded to the Commission’s request for information on the environmental
impact of the enlargement of the port, in the wake of my question E-1225/01?

What steps is the Commission going to take if the response is unsatisfactory? Can the Commission also
take into account the presence of a site of historic interest in the area affected by the harbour project?

Does the Commission have plans to take emergency action to prevent irreversible damage to this area of
outstanding natural beauty and historical and artistic importance, given that the construction work in
question is already being put out to tender?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 199.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

As indicated in its answer to Written Question E-1225/01, the Commission has contacted the Spanish
authorities asking them for their observations on the facts reported and detailed information concerning
the project.

The very comprehensive reply transmitted by the authorities indicates that the area where the project is to
be developed is not located within a site of Community importance (SCI) and that the work involved in
enlarging the port will be carried out outside the area proposed by the Spanish authorities as a site of
Community interest known as Costa Ártabra.

The Spanish authorities have indicated that following the revision of the list of proposals for site of
Community interest, the area of the project has remained outside the new proposal because of the
degradation of the area and the absence of priority habitats that led to the site being designated. However,
the authorities have informed the Commission that the SCI known as ‘Costa Ártabra’ has been enlarged by
567 hectares.

However, it should be noted that the abovementioned revision took place after the impact assessment for
this project was carried out, but the Commission has at any rate verified that the area where the project
would be developed does not have priority habitats or species within the meaning of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

From the reply received from the Spanish authorities it may be concluded that the impact assessment
carried out for the project complied with the procedure provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EC of
27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/
337/EEC on the assessment of the effect of certain public and private projects on the environment (3).

Upon verification of the latest data of the Spanish ornithological society SEO/Birdlife, the Commission has
ascertained that the project is not located within an area of Community importance for birds (ZICO) as
indicated in the reply from the Spanish authorities.

As regards the possible removal of the architectural or cultural heritage from the area referred to by the
Honourable Member in this question, point 5 of the statement concerning the assessment carried out for
the project indicates that before the construction work is embarked upon a study will have to be carried
out, with measures concerning the buildings of cultural interest that could be affected by the project; the
project will have to be in conformity with the requirements of the competent authorities.

The Commission will contact the Spanish authorities to find out what measures have been taken by the
authorities for the conservation of the historic buildings that could be affected by the project.

At this point in time and given the information currently available, the Commission has not established
the existence of an infringement of Community law in this particular case. Accordingly, it has not taken
any emergency action in view of the possible consequences which this project may have on the region.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.