WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Illegal residues in the Palancia river (Valencia, Spain).
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, aquatic environment, industrial pollution, infringement of EU law, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/115

(2002/C 172 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Illegal residues in the Palancia river (Valencia, Spain)

(17 January 2002)

The Hydrographic Confederation for the Júcar valley (CJH) has recently lodged a complaint with the
municipal authorities of Sagunto (Valencia region, Spain) over the presence of illegal residues in the
Palancia river, originating in the Montiver industrial complex. These residues are mainly waste water, but it
is suspected that residues of toxic oils could also be present. Their origin lies in agreements made by those
running the Montiver complex with companies before the zone was properly developed: the zone is not
linked up to the municipal sewer network.

The Sagunto municipal council has said in reply that it is working on an integrated action plan to deal
with all of the problems related to the Montiver complex, which was created over thirty years ago.
However, for some unknown reason the proposals of this plan have still not been made public, while no
economic assessment of the costs of development of the zone is as yet available to the council.

These residues have been seriously affecting the Palancia river for too long.

Does the Commission intend to open an investigation to determine whether the authorities concerned are
in this case in breach of Directive 76/464/EEC (1) on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
discharged into the aquatic environment?

Does the Commission not consider the fact that the Montiver complex has operated for over thirty years
without being linked up to the sewer network of Sagunto to be an obvious breach of Directive
91/271/EEC (2) on urban waste-water treatment, given that the Commission itself set the end of 2000 as
the deadline for installation by the Member States of collection and treatment systems in urban areas of
more than 15 000 inhabitants?

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission was not aware of the circumstances of the site Montiver raised by the Honourable
Member.

With regard to industrial discharges, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
waste-water treatment (1) foresees in principle two possibilities:

; in case of discharges of industrial waste water into a collecting system and an urban waste water
treatment plant, the discharges have to be subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations by
the competent authorities or appropriate body;

; in case of direct discharges of

into a receiving water-body, Directive
91/271/EEC lays down provisions for several industry branches (listed in Annex III of the directive)
producing biodegradable waste-water and representing more than 4 000 population equivalents (p.e.).

industrial waste water

In principle, there is no binding obligation to connect the industrial area to the public treatment plant of
Sagunto; the industrial area could have an individual waste-water treatment on its own. For this reason no
compelling connection of compliance of the waste-water treatment of the industrial area and the waste
water treatment of Sagunto must be given. If the agglomeration of Sagunto is in compliance with the
deadline of 31 December 2000 is currently under assessment.

In case of other industry branches than the above Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
the
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of

C 172 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Community (2) has to be applied. In principle, there are a number of regulations for List I substances which
require a specific authorisation based on the European emission limit values or national emission standards
where the sector is not explicitly covered by the respective Community directives (in particular Council
Directives 82/176/EEC (3), 83/513/EEC (4), 84/156/EEC (5), 84/491/EEC (6), 86/280/EEC (7)). However, based
on the provided information that ‘only’ toxic oils are discharged, these directives would not apply. These
II substances. According to Article 7 of Directive
pollutants would fall under the category of
76/464/EEC, Member States shall establish pollution reduction programmes for those substances having a
‘deleterious effect on the aquatic environment’ including the prior authorisation of discharges containing
these list II substances.

list

For an assessment how far an infringement of Directive 91/271/EEC and/or 76/464/EEC is given in the
above industry area, it is necessary to receive additional information on:

; the size (in terms of p.e.) of the industrial area;

; the type of waste water produced;

; specific authorisations/regulations status for the discharges;

; foreseen treatment of the waste water produced by that area;

; the chemical substances contained in the discharge.

The Commission has sent a letter to the Spanish authorities asking for the information on the above and
requesting their observations with regard to the application of Directives 91/271/EEC and 76/464/EEC in
this case. The Commission will not hesitate to undertake all the necessary steps, to ensure full compliance
with European Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.
(3) Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by

the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, OJ L 81, 27.3.1982.

(4) Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges

OJ L 291, 24.10.1983.

(5) Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by

sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, OJ L 74, 17.3.1984.

(6) Council Directive 84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of

hexachlorocyclohexane, OJ L 274, 17.10.1984.

(7) Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain
dangerous substances included in List I the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC OJ L 181, 4.7.1986 amended OJ L 221,
7.8.1986; OJ L 158, 25.6.1988.

(2002/C 172 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Extension of the port of Sagunto (Valencia region, Spain)

(17 January 2002)

The port authority of Valencia is currently considering a scheme for extending the facilities of the port of
Sagunto with the objective,
inter alia, of siting a regasification plant and other maritime commerce
installations at the new wharf. In respect of this scheme, an environmental impact assessment has been
published (OJ 194, 14.8.2001), setting out a number of conditions for ensuring the stability of the
coastline and preventing adverse effects on the site of Community interest and special bird protection zone
known as the ‘Marjal dels Moros’.

Nonetheless, numerous complaints against this scheme have been lodged by environmental organisations,
trade unions and political parties, on grounds including the following:

; the impact assessment does not take account of the alteration being produced in the shoreline, now
worsened by the severe storms of 11 November 2001 (erosion may have a serious impact on the site
of Community interest and special bird protection zone); extension of the port would compound these
problems;