WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/02 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Construction work on the Puxeiros-Tui motorway (Galicia).
Date: 2002-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, groundwater, public works, water protection, water supply

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/247

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

A European research project entitled ‘Automotive Drive Using Pneumatic Batteries with oil/hydraulic
interface and fast refilling performances’ addressed this topic in 1997 under the contract number
BRST-CT97-5084. This project failed to reach the stated objectives, namely a zero emission pneumatic
driven vehicle.

The Commission is aware of the compressed air powered vehicles being developed in the South of France
by Mr Guy Negre and the company MDI. A presentation of Mr Negre’s work and vision for compressed air
vehicles was made to the Commission services as early as 1999. It has also been informed that the first
homologation test initially planned for the first half of 2000 has not taken place yet.

The Commission can only contribute to the costs of a demonstration project provided a consortium
submits a proposal
in line with the rules of participation stipulated in the Community Framework
Programme for Research and Development. All eligible proposals submitted in response to a call are
evaluated by the Commission according to clearly established rules guaranteeing impartiality and
transparency. The Commission is assisted in this task by independent experts, competent in the relevant
field and selected from a database drawn up as a result of a call for candidature. The first call for proposals
under the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development is expected to be
published in November 2002.

(2002/C 301 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Construction work on the Puxeiros-Tui motorway (Galicia)

On 7 March 2002 a complaint was forwarded to the Commission by the association of residents affected
by the work on the A9 motorway in Galicia, relating to the stretch Mos Porriño/Salceda de Caselas/Tui
(i.e. the interchange for Rebullón and the Portuguese border). One of the objections made was that the
construction work was not preceded by the mandatory environmental impact assessment. This has led to
major problems, especially with regard to the accumulation of river water, since the transversal drainage
tubes for the road surface have not been correctly positioned. The defective evacuation of these tubes is
causing flooding, spillage, sedimentation and other disturbances, with grave consequences for crops and
housing and for the lives of residents.

The complainants further state that the lack of an environmental impact assessment means that no account
has been taken of the considerable increase in noise pollution.

Can the Commission provide information on the action taken so far on the above complaint?

Does the Commission not consider that this motorway construction project falls within the scope of
Directive 97/11/EC (1) and that an environmental
impact assessment should therefore have been
mandatorily carried out?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure the protection of the local inhabitants, who
could be affected by water pollution arising from sedimentation generated by the construction work, with
its inadequate drainage system? Does the Commission not consider that seepage and spillage risks exist
with respect to the aquatic environment, and that these risks could be in breach of the provisions of
Directive 80/68/EEC (2) on the protection of groundwater and Directive 76/464/EEC (3) on discharge of
dangerous substances into the aquatic environment?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

C 301 E/248

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Commission was unaware of the situation reported by the Honourable Members and did not in fact
receive the complaint mentioned by them until after receiving this written question and the accompanying
annexes.

Given the information available, the Commission cannot at this stage issue an opinion as to whether the
directives referred to in the written question have been contravened and has, therefore, registered the
complaint with a view to obtaining further information on the matter.

(2002/C 301 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Operation of the rapid alert system in response to nitrofen contamination

In May 2002, it was reported that the weedkiller nitrofen, which is banned in the EU, had been found in
cereals in Germany and in poultry feed made from them. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying
down the general principles and requirements of
food law, establishing the European Food Safety
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), a Member State is required to notify
the Commission immediately of any serious direct or indirect risk to human health arising from a foodstuff
or animal
feed which comes to its attention, and the Commission is to forward this information
immediately to the members of the network. However, according to the Belgian press Germany only
informed the Commission and the Member States which appear to have been involved, while the other
Member States received insufficient official
information (De Morgen, 15 June 2002). The letter of
30 May 2002 from the Dutch minister to the Lower House of Parliament (Parliamentary Paper 26991, no
67) does not mention the role of the rapid alert system in the dissemination of information about the
nitrofen contamination. The letter states that the information was received from the German authorities.

Can the Commission confirm that the rapid alert system came into operation for the purpose of

1.
forwarding information about the nitrofen contamination in Germany?

2. What is the Commission’s assessment of the way in which the rapid alert system operated?

If the rapid alert system did not operate satisfactorily, can the Commission say why this was, in its

3.
view, and what improvements it intends to make?

4.
Does the Commission agree that confidence in European rules and procedures relating to food safety
is essential and that proper communication concerning European action is important? What arrangements
has the Commission made for such communication?

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission confirms that the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, established by Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles
food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
and requirements of
procedures in matters of
the network on the
contamination by nitrofen in the feed and food chain. The Commission considers that the information
exchange through this system functions very well. However, the system depends on the information

food safety, was used to inform the members of