WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Extension of the port of Sagunto (Valencia region, Spain).
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, harbour installation, impact study

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:

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

5 the type of waste water produced;

5 specific authorisations/regulations status for the discharges;

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

5 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:

5 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;

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/117

5 the new unloading zone which would be part of the extension could bring about the deterioration of

the underwater meadows where the Posidonia oceanica seagrass grows;

5 the installation of a thermal power station for the Unión Fenosa company will increase the ozone
emissions of the existing port, which, according to a report by the regional environment ministry,
over 1995-2000 exceeded, on 268 occasions, the WHO’s health protection threshold for such
emissions;

5 the impact assessment is based exclusively on the data supplied by the CEDEX institute, and takes no
account of the opinion produced by the Faculty of Geography of the University of Valencia and
specialists from the Polytechnic University concerning the negative impact of the port extension on
the protected natural area.

Can the Commission guarantee that the scheme for extension of the port of Sagunto, if implemented in its
present form, will not have adverse effects on the site of Community interest and special bird protection
zone known as the ‘Marjal dels Moros’?

Does the Commission consider that, given the complaints lodged by members of
environmental impact assessment has been carried out in compliance with the Community rules?

the public,

the

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The project has gone through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Final decision was
published in the Spanish Official Gazette on 14 of August 2001. It can be logically deduced that this
assessment has not considered the last storms, which happened in November 2001.

The EIA has taken into consideration the proximity of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and proposal Site
of Community interest (pSCi) Marjal del Moro, even though the Dirección General de Planificación y
Gestión del Medio on behalf of the Regional Ministry of Environment certifies that it is unlikely that the
project would have a significant effect on the aforementioned site. Nevertheless, the EIA has established
some preventive measures to control
the coastal erosion. For this purpose, a specific monitoring
programme will be established.

In relation to the Posidonia beds, the EIA establishes that all dredging activities will be done up to the
10 meter isobath. Also, in the case of dumping using a marine diffusion outlet pipeline, this has to be
located at least 3,5 and 4,5 kilometres from the posidonia beds.

the Spanish authorities have gone through an environmental
According to available information,
assessment procedure, as Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) requires for
this type of project. This procedure has included a public participation procedure.

In case the Commission receives new information that might prove that there is an infringement case, the
Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 172 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Disposal of contaminated mud in sandfill pits (’omputten’) and the Birds Directive

The province of Gelderland has earmarked the following seven nature reserves as ‘likely’ sites for deep sand
extraction followed by dumping of contaminated mud in the pits thus created (known in Dutch as
‘omputten’): Heesseltsche Waarden (municipality of Neerijnen), Lobberdensche Waard (municipality of