WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Gypsum quarry in Moralet (Alicante — Spain).
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, access to information, environmental impact, impact study, law relating to information, mining operation, noise

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/57

Some examples that can be mentioned are:

(cid:19) the possibility for Member States to send police officers to the Member State where an international
competition is played, with the task of tracking supporters and, where authorised, co-operate with
local authorities;

(cid:19) the development of common standards for Member States hosting international sporting events;

(cid:19) adoption by the Council of recommendations as regards the prevention and control of disorder at

football matches.

(2002/C 172 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Gypsum quarry in Moralet (Alicante (cid:19) Spain)

(21 December 2001)

A gypsum quarry has been operating illegally in the district of Amoladoras (Moralet) since 1998. On
several occasions neighbours have complained about it to various public authorities because of the health
hazards, respiratory problems (caused by too much dust) and noise affecting the local population. At first
the protests (cid:19) supported by the ombudsman of Valencia (cid:19) led the city council to promote a ‘report’ on
environmental impact as a pre-condition for the possible granting of a licence. However, although the
report approved the installation it did not take account of the existence of neighbouring settlements (cid:19)
situated only 20, 40 and 80 metres from the quarry (cid:19) nor did it propose measures to reduce the impact
that running the quarry might have on the surroundings and on the health of neighbours.

Although it does not meet the minimum environmental and public health requirements, the quarry is still
operating without a municipal licence.

Since, because of its characteristics, the Moralet quarry:

(cid:19) comes within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and subsequent amendments (environmental

impact) as an ‘extractive industry’ within the meaning of Annex II;

(cid:19) comes within the field of application of Directive 90/313/EEC (2) (information on the environment),
pending the entry into force of the amended version), according to Article 2(b), which mentions
‘activities … which give rise to nuisances’.

What steps will
the Commission take to guarantee compliance with the provisions of Directive
85/337/EEC in this case, in order to ensure that a proper environmental impact assessment is carried out?

How does the Commission intend to guarantee the local population’s right to accurate information on the
possible risks inherent in the quarry, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 90/313/EEC?

Can the Commission ensure that the gypsum quarry at Moralet does not infringe Community legislation as
regards the overall category of noise prevention, especially noise caused by machinery?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment could

C 172 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

be applicable in this case, since Annex I includes quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the
site exceeds 25 hectares and Annex II covers projects of this class not included in Annex I.

Under Article 2 of the Directive projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of
their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before
consent is given.

Projects of the classes listed in Annex I must be made subject to an assessment in accordance with
Articles 5 to 10. For Annex II projects, the Member States must determine through a case-by-case
examination or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project should be made subject
to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. For a case-by-case examination or when laying down
thresholds or criteria, the Member State must take into account the relevant selection criteria set out in
Annex III. The decision taken by the competent authorities must be made available to the public.

Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Directive 97/11/EC. However, under Article 3(2) of Directive
97/11/EC, if a request for authorisation was submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive
85/337/EEC prior to the amendments shall apply.

Under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information
on the environment (3) 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 that 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 refusing to provide
the information requested must be given and based on one of the exceptions laid down in Article 3(2)
and (3).

In addition, Article 4 of Directive 90/313/EEC provides that a person who considers that his request for
information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public
authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant
national legal system.

Solely on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member the Commission is unable to
establish whether the Spanish authorities received a request for access to information from the local
population relating to the dangers of the quarry,
to which they may have reacted in a way that
contravened 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 transposing legislation.

At present there is no Community legislation limiting noise emissions caused by the use of machinery on
sites such as quarries. However, under Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise
emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors (4), from 3 January 2002 the Member States
must ensure that certain types of equipment used outdoors meet certain noise emission requirements
before they are placed on the market or put into service. In particular, Article 12 of the Directive lays
down noise emission limits for various items of equipment,
including certain types of compaction
machine, excavator-loaders and dumpers.

At any event, the Commission will contact the Spanish authorities to ask for their comments on the
situation reported by the Honourable Member, in order to ensure that Community law is observed in this
case.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(4) OJ L 162, 3.7.2000.