WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/02 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Waste-water depuration plant at Novelda — Monforte del Cid, Valencia Region.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, infringement of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), urban area, wastewater, water treatment

C 28 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Sale and marketing of tobacco products

Has the Commission made, or does it intend to make, any assessment of the effectiveness (in terms of
discouraging smoking or raising public awareness of health issues) of the use in Canada since 1 January
2001 of colour illustrations and warnings on cigarette packs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In the course of the preparatory work for the Commission’s Decision on the rules for the use of colour
photographs,
(in terms of
the Commission will evaluate the research assessing the effectiveness
discouraging smoking and raising public awareness of health issues) of the Canadian system in use since
1 January 2001. The Canadian regime calls for the inclusion of colour photographs or other illustrations
inside the health warning areas covering 50 per cent of the display surface.

(2003/C 28 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Waste-water depuration plant at Novelda (cid:1) Monforte del Cid, Valencia Region

The Novelda depuration plant at Monforte del Cid (Region of Valencia) was included in the National
Waste-water Depuration Plan by means of an agreement signed on 27 February 1995 (Official Bulletin 16/
12/95) and declared to be of public interest. Since then no project has emerged, although it will serve a
population of more than 30 000 people, who at present have no alternative but to discharge their waste
water into the already contaminated river Vinalopó. This situation is in blatant contravention of Council
Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, Articles 3 and 4 of
which set a deadline of 31 December 2000 for this size of population to be provided with waste-water
collection and depuration systems.

In view of this blatant infringement, what steps will the Commission take to remedy the problem and
improve the situation?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1) lays down clear
objectives as regards deadlines and the environmental targets to be achieved.

It should be noted that urban areas with a population equivalent (p.e.) (2) above 15 000 must have
secondary (i.e. biological) collection and treatment systems at the latest by 31 December 2000.

The Commission is currently checking whether all major urban areas in the EU comply with the above
Directive and may shortly initiate infringement procedures against Member States in which delays have
caused the date specified to be missed.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/163

In the case of Spain, the Commission is aware of these delays and a general infringement procedure will be
initiated for all towns which fail to comply with these obligations, which may include the towns referred
to by the Honourable Member in this written question.

As it is, the Commission has sent a letter to the Spanish authorities to find out more about the waste water
treatment plant at Novelda (cid:1) Monforte del Cid, in Alicante Province, in the Autonomous Community of
Valencia.

It should also be noted that the Commission recently initiated an infringement procedure against Spain,
under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, for failure by the Spanish authorities to provide sufficient information
as to how Directive 91/271/EEC is being applied. A letter of formal notice has therefore been sent since
the Spanish authorities have in particular failed to submit a general report regarding implementation or
any information concerning industry. The Commission has also sent letters of formal notice to several
other Member States for the same reason.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2) Unit of measurement of organic pollution representing the average pollution produced per person per day.

(2003/C 28 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1973/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: High-speed train from Madrid to the Region of Valencia

The Spanish Ministry for Public Works intends to carry out the project to build the Madrid (cid:1) Valencia
Region high-speed train without having seriously considered the alternatives, such as modernising and
improving the existing lines and using fast tilting trains, which are better suited to the mountainous
terrain, could use existing track, subject to appropriate improvements, and hence could reduce the
environmental impact.

Can the Commission ascertain whether a ‘strategic’ environmental assessment of this project has been
carried out by the Spanish Government, comparing the economic, social and environmental costs of the
Madrid (cid:1) Valencia high-speed train with alternatives using fast tilting trains to cover the same route on
existing track, after adapting and modernising it?

Although Spain is finding it difficult to fulfil the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol, opting for the high-
speed project would only enhance a system based on high consumption. In accordance with forecasts of
230 direct trains arriving in the city of Valencia every day, there are plans to build a new platform for only
12 long-distance trains, whilst the rest would continue to use track which has almost reached ‘saturation
point’. Furthermore the high-speed option means investing more in minority traffic and less in busier
traffic (local and regional lines), with a medium-term investment to the detriment of State investment in
more socially useful projects.

In the year 2000 EUR 2,87 per suburban-train passenger and almost EUR 1 382 per high-speed train
passenger was invested in Spain. With regard to the Madrid (cid:1) Valencia high-speed train project and the
European structural aid requested, does the Commission envisage funding this high-speed train line, which
is not one of the priorities for the trans-European transport network?

Does the Commission not consider that European funding should be used for rail infrastructure serving
larger passenger numbers?