WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discharge of toxic substances at a Greek Electricity Board (DEI) plant and the threat to public health.
Date: 2002-02-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, export of waste, hazardous waste, health risk, industrial hazard, man-made disaster, public health, transport of dangerous goods, waste disposal

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/103

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The EU has taken note with deep concern of reports from the OSCE Assistance Group, the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as the NGOs ‘Memorial’ and ‘Medecins sans frontieres’. On the
basis of these and other reports, the EU has raised the situation of Chechnya at all recent political dialogue
meetings with Russia and will continue to do so. This should come as no surprise, since the EU has
repeatedly spoken out loud and clear against all violations of human rights as well as against the plight of
the civilian population IDPs and refugees in Chechnya. The EU has consistently adopted a principled stand,
making clear to Russia that for as long as Chechnya is in turmoil, EU will continue to press hard for
change there.

Clearly, the EU condemns all terrorist acts in the strongest terms, it has always been understood that the
fight against terrorism and extremism must be conducted within the framework of the rule of law and full
respect for human rights. Indiscriminate use of force only threatens to sow a whirlwind to be reaped for
many years to come.

The Council believes that there is growing recognition of this in Russia. Indeed, some steps have been
taken in the right direction, albeit belatedly and not going far enough. The EU notably welcomed
statements by President Putin that members of the Russian armed forces responsible for human rights
violations will be tried and sentenced. The EU looks to the Russian authorities to follow this commitment,
and to prevent any future human rights violations.

Ultimately, the EU is convinced that only a political solution can solve the Chechen conflict. That is why it
is the firm and considered conviction of the Council that engagement is the best path by which the EU
may work to improve the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. It is the very fact of
the Union’s strategic partnership with Russia which allows for full and frank discussion of these issues.

A Troika visit of EU Heads of Mission in Moscow is planned for the coming months. This will be an
important chance for the EU to form its own assessment of situation.

(2002/C 205 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Discharge of toxic substances at a Greek Electricity Board (DEI) plant and the threat to public

health

An accident at a DEI plant at Kozani has resulted in chemical gases belonging to the category of toxic
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) which includes clophen being released into the atmosphere. This accident
was covered up by the DEI, and no scientific institute was therefore notified or asked to check for
environmental pollution resulting for the combustion of the toxic fluid; furthermore, no medical personnel
were asked to examine the workers involved.

Given that the replacement of condenser fluids by less hazardous substances has been an issue since 1991
and that the dioxins produced when clophen is burned are carcinogenic, will the Commission say:

1. What measures does it intend to take to protect public health, given the consequences of the above
accident, both for workers and for inhabitants of the region who were not informed or subjected to
medical examinations in good time?

C 205 E/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

2. Have the rules on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Directive
96/82/EC) (1) and concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Directive 96/61/EC) (2) been
respected?

3. Have sites been set up in Greece to store toxic waste, in accordance with Directive 78/319/EEC (3) and,

if so, where are they located?

4. Have shipments of hazardous waste been undertaken in Greece in accordance with Directive
84/631/EEC (4) on the supervision and control within the European Community of the transfrontier
if so, are the requisite
shipment of hazardous waste by industries and other undertakings and,
consignment notes available with sufficient information about the measurse that have to be taken to
ensure transport safety?

5. What measures does it intend to take to ensure that Greece complies with Directive 96/59/EC (5),
is considered to be toxic and hazardous waste which

(PCB)

given that polychlorinated biphenyl
produces dioxins?

6. Has Greece taken the necessary measures under Directive 91/689/EEC (6) to ensure that at sites where

tipping of hazardous waste takes place this waste is recorded and identified?

7. Has Greece complied with the rules of Directive 75/439/EEC (7) on the disposal of waste oils?

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.
(4) OJ L 326, 13.12.1984, p. 31.
(5) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
(6) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(7) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1),

The following Community directives that aim to protect workers’ health are applicable in this
1.
particular case:
the Carcinogens Directive 90/394/EEC (as
amended) (2), the Chemical Agents Directive 98/24/EC (3). These directives clearly establish the employer’s
responsibility in terms of providing the relevant information to workers and lay down the preventive
measures to be taken to avoid the occurrence of this type of accident. A reinforced health surveillance of
workers is foreseen in the Carginogens and Chemical Agents Directives. It is the task of the national
authorities to enforce the national provisions transposing these directives and to make their application a
reality. The Member States have then to react when the national provisions are not fulfilled. If there is
evidence that a Member State does not ensure the practical application of the transposition measures, the
Commission may react. Additional dispositions to protect more specifically the inhabitants living in the
vicinity of establishments where dangerous substances are present are foreseen in the frame of Council
Directive 96/82/EC as explained below.

2.
Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996, on the control of major accident hazards involving
dangerous substances, applies to establishments where the quantities of dangerous substances exceed
specific thresholds.
for each dangerous substance or category of dangerous substance two
thresholds are defined in the directive. When the quantity exceeds the upper threshold the full provisions
of the Directive apply (so-called upper tier establishment). When the quantity exceeds only the lower
threshold some provisions of the Directive apply (so-called lower tier establishment). Below the lower
threshold, Directive 96/82/EC does not apply.

In fact,

Should Directive 96/82/EC apply, then, apart from the measures aiming directly at avoiding accident,
additional measures, like public information or land use planning would apply. For the so called upper tier
establishments external emergency plans would have to be drawn up and tested at regular interval.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/105

to be included in the list of upper-tier Greek establishments
The DEI plant at Kozani seems not
communicated by the Greek authorities. Nevertheless, the Commission has requested further information
to the Greek authorities, in particular with a view to get the information on major accidents referred to in
Article 15 of the Directive 96/82/EC.

Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
(IPPC) covers combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 megawatt (MW) (point 1.1
in annex I). Under the assumption that the plant in question is an ‘existing installation’ in the meaning of
the Directive, e.g. an installation in operation or at least subject of a full request for authorisation before
end October 1999, the Greek authorities have to ensure that it operates in accordance with the Directive’s
requirements by end October 2007 at the latest.

3.
Under Article 8 (3) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste,
Member States have to communicate to the Commission the list of undertakings recovering and disposing
of hazardous waste (which includes sites where storage, pending subsequent disposal or recovery
operations, takes place). The Commission has launched in September 1998 an infringement case against
Greece for failure to communicate to the Commission all the undertakings managing hazardous waste in
Greece. The case is already brought before the Court (case C-33/2001).

As regards the Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
4.
control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (4) hereafter the shipment
Regulation, as amended, no infringement cases have been launched against Greece under Article 226 of the
EC Treaty. The Commission is not in possession of information proving that Greece is not fulfilling the
procedural requirements of the Regulation. But the Commission is investigating two complaints against
Greece. However, the primary subject of these cases is not the Shipment Regulation E it is only a
secondary element.

Should the Honourable Member have any information proving that Greece is failing to comply with the
requirements of the Shipment Regulation, he is invited to communicate that to the Commission.

In April 2000, the Commission launched an infringement procedure against Greece for failure to
5.
comply with Articles 4.1 and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996, on the disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), in particular for failing to submit a
summary of the inventory of equipment, a plan for disposal of such equipment and the guidelines for
collection and disposal of non-inventoried equipment. In the frame of an exchange of correspondence, the
Greek authorities communicated some information to the Commission. However, the latter considered that
this information was not sufficient pursuant to the obligations laid down in the Directive. Therefore, the
Commission has decided on 20 December 2001 to bring the matter before the Court.

6.
Although the Greek authorities have communicated in July 2000 the National Management Plan for
hazardous and non-hazardous waste, they have not taken the necessary measures to identify and record all
sites where hazardous waste is tipped pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 91/689/EEC. On the basis of a
complaint, the Commission has sent in December 2001 an additional letter of formal notice, in accordance
with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, considering that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2
and 6 of the aforementioned Directive.

The Commission has launched an infringement procedure on October 2001 against Greece for
7.
failure to implement Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, and in
particular for failure to implement Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 pertaining to the collection and regeneration
of waste oils.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.
(3) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(4) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.