WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/03 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Construction of the Fenice special/toxic waste incinerator.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Italy, environmental impact, hazardous waste, impact study, industrial project, toxic substance, waste incineration

C 65 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

launched pursuant

(cid:1) Does the regions’ recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which
where not
to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the
Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the
Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,
partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and
undermining the cohesion policy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions P-0260/03 and P-0261/03
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds, sets out the conditions for eligibility of expenditure related to an operational
programme.

The Community Support Framework for Italian Objective 1 regions states that during the ‘first phase of
implementation’ (1) and in the interest of continuity programmes can finance ongoing actions, provided
they are consistent with the objectives, strategies and procedures of the programmes themselves (at the
measure level) as well as with Community legislation and the rules of the Structural Funds. It is assumed
that the Honourable Member refers to this ‘first phase of implementation’ period when he makes reference
to so-called ‘support’ projects in his question.

Evidence of the outcome of this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure must be included in the
programme annual implementation reports for the year 2002, which have to be approved and forwarded
to the Commission by programme monitoring committees concerned before June 2003.

Under the subsidiarity principle of the Structural Funds, expenditure incurred under the Objective 1
programmes is declared at the level of measures; thus it is not possible for the Commission to make a
distinction among projects financed under the ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure and the selection
procedures/criteria agreed under the Programme Complements.

As this ‘first phase of implementation’ procedure is limited to the take-off phase of the Objective 1
programmes approved, and as it does not allow the financing of projects which are in contrast with
programme objectives and implementation rules, the Commission has no evidence that it will jeopardise
the development objectives and strategies agreed under the Community Support Framework and the
operational programmes.

So far as additionnality is concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 states that
its respect must be verified at the mid-term review. This is expected to take place at the end of 2003.
Within that framework, the Commission will ensure that the concept of additionnality is respected for the
whole Community Support Framework relating to Objective 1 in Italy.

(1) During this period, which ended in June 2002, programme monitoring committees had to approve project selection
criteria within the framework of the Programme Complements. These criteria are used thereafter for the selection of
projects under the different measures in the programmes.

(2004/C 65 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/03

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Construction of the ‘Fenice’ special/toxic waste incinerator

(7 February 2003)

The problem of the ‘Fenice’ special/toxic waste incinerator, a project called for by the Fiat Group, dates
back to 1994.

The Fenice spa company decided to set up a plant in the commune of Verrone, Biella province, to
incinerate waste classed in the ‘special and hazardous’ category, under the terms of Decree/VIA 11/08/
1995.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/25

The environmental impact study submitted by Fenice SPA dates back to 1993, and the anemometric data
on which it was based were compiled by the Cameri Airport weather station in Novara province. However,
recent studies in the possession of the Biella provincial authorities, supplied by the Italian regional
environmental protection agency ARPA, and the checks that can now be carried out at an observation post
in the commune of Verrone have produced entirely different findings from those originally submitted by
Fenice SPA. In the light of this information, completion of the project appears even more ill suited to the
surroundings, bearing in mind the distinctive form of the land in the Biella area and the precipitation that
occurs there, which prevent noxious substances being dispersed. In addition, the area has a substantial
concentration of industry and a high death rate from tumours. Moreover, as far as the disposal of solid
urban waste is concerned, Biella province already has a technology park. The ‘Fenice’ facility would thus be
not only a foreign body extraneous to the surroundings, but also the biggest plant to have been built in
Italy.

Waste originating from Fiat factories in Piedmont and Lombardy was mentioned in connection with the
project covered by the environmental impact assessment, but the new regional waste plan which has since
been approved does not refer to any agreements on that subject between Piedmont and Lombardy regions
along the lines recommended in the VIA decree.

Does the Commission know about the project and is it aware that Community funding has been requested
to enable it to be implemented?

Can it say whether the following apply in this case:

(cid:1) Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the

environment;

(cid:1) Directive 91/156/EEC (2) amending Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste, which requires Member States
to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or using processes
or methods that could harm the environment;

(cid:1) Directive 84/360/EEC (4) on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants?

Furthermore, given the huge discrepancies in the studies conducted and the potential health risk to the
citizens of all 82 communes in Biella province, as well as the risk to the environment itself and the future
of the area concerned, can the Commission say what steps it will take regarding the case in question to
ensure that the Community legislation in force is properly implemented and prevent the incinerator being
built?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(4) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

According to the informations at the disposal of the Commission, this is a private project which does not
fulfill the eligibility criteria foreseen in the Piemonte operational programme to qualify for a Community
co-financing through the Structural Funds.

Under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1),
Member States shall ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the
environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for
development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are
identified in the annexes. Projects listed in Annex I are made subject to an environmental
impact
assessment procedure (EIA).

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member is covered by Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC, as
amended. Therefore, it is to be made subject to an EIA procedure.

C 65 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Based on the information given by the Honourable Member, it seems that an EIA procedure was carried
out on the project in 1995 (concluded by Decree/VIA 11/08/1995) in the light of an impact study
submitted by the developer in 1993. In addition, it appears that recent studies by the local authorities
produced entirely different findings from those originally submitted by the developer, that in the meantime
no development consent has been granted for this installation and that, at present, the developer has
decided to set up the installation under the terms of the Decree/VIA 11/08/1995.

In light of the above, the Commission would stress that, in general,
in case where the EIA has been
concluded but no development consent has been granted and if the state of the environment changes or
there are different findings regarding the impact of the project on the environment between the time the
assessment was undertaken and the time consent was granted, it follows that the assessment may need to
be updated or extended accordingly. Hence, new information relating to likely significant environmental
effects of the project must be taken into account during the development consent procedure. In particular,
as regards this specific case, the situation seems to be at too early a stage: on the basis of the information
it can be deduced that no administrative procedure of request for
given by the Honourable Member,
development consent of the project, based on the Decree/VIA 11/08/1995, is under way. In the light of
the above, given the lack of specific grounds for the complaint on the application of the EIA Directive, no
breach of the Directive can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide additional
information enabling the Commission to identify potential breach of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified,
the Commission would be able to investigate this matter.

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991, applies to disposal and recovery operations, including incineration of waste. However,
this Directive does not contain any requirements applicable to the planning stage of a disposal or recovery
installation.

Regarding the applicability of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air
pollution from industrial plants, if the planned hazardous waste incinerator has a capacity exceeding 10
tonnes per day, then Directive 84/360/EEC does not apply, because it is superseded by Council Directive
96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, on integrated pollution prevention and control (2). However,
if the
capacity is smaller, Council Directive 84/360/EEC applies. More importantly, Directive 2000/76/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (3), applies. Directive
2000/76/EC will apply to existing plants, as defined in the Directive, from 28 December 2005, while as
regards new plants its provisions apply as from 28 December 2002. Finally, the incineration of hazardous
waste is regulated by Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous
waste (4), which will be repealed by Council Directive 2000/76/EC.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(3) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
(4) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 65 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Carriage of oil in sensitive sea areas

In the Baltic there are several areas such as the Gulf of Finland, the Danish sounds, or the Åland Islands
where the natural environment is particularly vulnerable to the risks posed by shipping. It is presumably
the case that in the North Sea, on the Atlantic coasts, and in the Mediterranean there are also easily
identifiable areas of a similar kind, where it might be necessary to restrict the carriage of dangerous
substances by sea in order to avert risks.

Is the Commission willing to consider designating Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in EU territorial waters
so as to ensure that the carriage of dangerous substances by sea through those areas can be restricted
where necessary (for instance as dictated by weather and other conditions)?