WRITTEN QUESTION E-2298/02 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Aggregate grinding plant in the industrial zone of Entrevias (Tarragon, Spain).
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, access to information, application of EU law, cement, environmental impact, environmental law, exchange of information, location of industry

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/217

In order to assess the general health and environmental risks of lead, the Commission had requested the
views of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE).

In its opinion of 5 May 2000, the CSTEE expressed the views that exposure of humans to lead levels that
may surpass the safety limit may come from a variety of sources (air, soil, water and food, products) and
via a variety of routes (inhalation, oral, etc). The CSTEE identified emissions from leaded petrol
combustion, paints, lead shot ammunition, lead water pipes as the major, but not the only, sources of
lead contamination which could eventually lead to exposure of humans. Children were identified as
particularly sensitive to the effects of lead even at exposure levels that are at or below the safety threshold.
At the same time the CSTEE recognised that exposure of humans to lead in the Community is declining,
mainly due to the decline in the use of leaded petrol. It also urged the Commission to carry out additional
work to identify additional uses of lead in products that may contribute to the overall exposure to lead and
to assess the potential risks.

In response to the CSTEE request, the Commission commissioned a study to identify and assess the risks to
human health and the environment related to the use of lead in products. The study has just been
completed and has identified a wide range of applications of lead that could contribute to the overall
exposure. The results of the study have been submitted to the CSTEE for critical review.

This study did not identify lead-treated wicks as a source of exposure to lead in the Community. However,
the Commission has been informed recently through its regular contacts with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Committee (US CPSC) of the results of the latest investigations on the potential health risks
associated with lead treated candle wicks. Low-income adults who tend to buy and use more the cheaper
candles with lead-treaded wicks and children of families that use candles with lead-treated wicks were
identified as the two high exposure population sub-groups.

According to the latest information received from the US CPSC and mentioned in the 22 June 2002 report
of the ‘New Scientist’ magazine, the amount of lead particles released when candles with lead-treated wicks
burn for a long period of time (four hours per day over 15-30 days) can result in blood lead levels above
the recognised safety limit.

The Commission has requested all pertinent information from the US CPSC in order to submit it for
review to the CSTEE so that the Committee can include this particular exposure situation in its overall
assessment of potential risks associated with the use of lead in various products. On the basis of the CSTEE
opinion, the Commission will in due time propose appropriate risk reduction measures for those uses that
are found to result in exposures of concern.

(2003/C 28 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2298/02

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

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Aggregate grinding plant in the industrial zone of Entrevias (Tarragon, Spain)

The company Cementos Esfera S.A. has set up an aggregate grinding plant for the manufacture of cement
in the industrial zone of Entrevias (Tarragon, Spain), a densely populated area, where there are two nursery
schools and a number of State schools, and barely 300 metres from housing. A petition bearing more than
16 000 signatures opposes the plant’s location on the planned site (with a licence for 240 000 tonnes/year
and a production capacity of 1 100 000 tonnes/year) in view of potential pollution and damage to health.

Does the Commission already know about the plant?

C 28 E/218

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Can the Commission say whether the following directives have been implemented in this case:

(cid:1) 85/337/EEC (1), amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public

and private projects on the environment;

(cid:1) 88/609/EEC (3) on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion

plants;

(cid:1) 96/61/EC (4) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

(cid:1) 90/313/EEC (5) on the freedom of access to information on the environment?

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, what steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with
Community law in this particular case?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
(5) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in this written question.

As regards the implementation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, this type of project has not been included in the Annexes to the Directive.
Installations for the manufacture of cement are, however, mentioned in Annex II, point 5(b). An impact
assessment may be necessary for such installations if they are likely to have significant environmental
effects.

As regards Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain
pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, this type of installation is not covered by the
Directive.

With regard to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control, this Directive does not apply to the case at issue either.

On the other hand, Article 3(1) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
to information on the environment provides that, save as provided in that Article, Member States must
ensure that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to
any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.

Article 3(4) of the same Directive says that a public authority must respond to a person requesting
information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide
the information requested must be given.

However, Article 4 of this Directive states that a person who considers that his request for information has
been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek
a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system.

There is nothing in the written question to indicate any infringement of Directive 90/313/EEC in the case
in question.

The Commission will send a letter to the Spanish authorities asking for their comments on the points
raised by the Honourable Member and on compliance with obligations arising out of Community
environment law which may be applicable in this case.

Whatever the circumstances, in its role as guardian of the Treaties the Commission will take the necessary
measures to ensure that Community law is respected in each individual case.