WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/02 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Nitrogen dioxide emissions from large-scale existing power plants in Spain.
Date: 2002-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Commission, European standard, Spain, air quality, chemical process, combustion gases, exchange of information, industrial pollution

C 277 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (3). Furthermore, the soft
obligation to ‘take due account of registrations and authorisations previously granted by another Member
State’ is turned to a clear obligation to initiate a particular mutual recognition procedure, obliging the
Member States to use their best endeavours to reach agreement within the newly established coordination
group.

(1) COM(97) 362 final.
(2) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2002/C 277 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Nitrogen dioxide emissions from large-scale ‘existing’ power plants in Spain

In reply to my written question (P-3645/01 (1) on Spain exceeding the nitrogen dioxide emissions limits for
large-scale ‘existing’ power plants laid down in Directive 88/609/EEC (2), the Commissioner said on
6 February 2002 that she had no data later than 1966. The Commission undertook to provide me with
data on the emissions in question, and referred to Directive 2001/80/EC (3) which extends the scope of its
predecessor and lays down stricter conditions regarding emissions. The group which had protested,
‘Ecologistas en Acción’ (Ecologists in Action) has recently written me again providing fresh proofs of the
government’s failure to comply with the legislation.

What has the Commission done in connection with this complaint?

What measures does it intend to take, within what time scale, to prevent these Regulations from being
breached, and thus guarantee respect for Community law?

Has the Commission replied to ‘Ecologistas en Acción’?

(1) See page 13.
(2) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Spain has submitted new data concerning the emissions of nitrogen oxides from ‘existing’
large
combustion plants in accordance with Council Directive 88/609/EC of 24 November 1988 on the
limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

The data submitted showed the following emissions:

? 1997: 270 kilotonnes (kt);

? 1998: 231 kt;

? 1999: 268 kt;

? 2000: 284 kt;

From the above it is clear that emissions of nitrogen oxides have increased above the emission ceiling
foreseen for 1998 (277 kt) further to Article 3 § 2 of Directive 88/609/EC and Annex II to that Directive.
It should be noted that the Directive does not foresee any emission ceilings for the other years.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/229

The facts raised by the Honourable Member have been assessed by the Commission. As a result of this, the
Commission has addressed a letter to the Spanish Authorities in order to request further information
concerning this case. The Commission will ensure that the provisions of the above mentioned Council
Directive are taken into account by the Spanish Authorities.

As soon as the Commission adopts a decision on this case, the complainant will be duly informed.

(2002/C 277 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Ambulance services

With regard to the European Committee for Standardisation’s new regulations such as ‘Medical Vehicles
and their equipment ? Road Ambulances’ and ‘Specification for stretchers and other patient- handling
equipment used on road ambulances’, to be effective from 6 June 2002, and the extra money that will
have to be spent as a consequence to allow all ambulances to meet the Committee’s requirements: Does
the Commission agree that, in areas where manufacturers cannot produce fully CEN-compliant vehicles,
and local NHS Trusts can only purchase them from abroad at a considerably higher cost (£78k as opposed
to £62k), the process becomes unreasonably difficult, expensive and technical? Does it not also agree that
in the case of Britain, the NHS contract for supplying ambulances, the ‘National Contract for Vehicle and
Bodybuild Conversions’, which, although not compliant with the new regulations, ultimately improves
quality and safety levels, should be sufficient?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

According to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993, on Medical Devices (1), manufacturers must
declare the compliance of their products with the essential requirements of this Directive, and not the
compliance with European standards. The use of standards is only one of the possible ways to comply
with the Directive’s requirements. The CEN standards referred to are implemented by all national standards
bodies, including in the United Kingdom, the British Standards Institute (BSI), that published them as BSI
standards: BS EN 1789:1999 (Medical vehicles and their equipment ? Road ambulances) and BS EN
1865:1999 (Specifications for stretchers and other patient handling equipment used in road ambulances).

The Commission has no reason to believe that NHS contracts, even if it would be different from the
Standards referred to, do not comply with the 1994 Medical Devices Regulations transposing Directive
93/42/EEC.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.

(2002/C 277 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus

Can the Commission confirm that in the accession negotiations with the Government of the Republic of
Cyprus, which are expected to be concluded in time for the Copenhagen Council, it has continued to
stress, as Commissioner Wallström made clear in June 2000, that ALL new investments should comply
with the environmental acquis, and, in particular, that any measures which may lead to the deterioration
of areas, such as the Akamas peninsula, likely to be proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network,
should be avoided?