WRITTEN QUESTION E-1894/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Toxic-waste management in the Valencia region.
Date: 2003-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, hazardous waste, impact study, waste management

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/109

(2004/C 58 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1894/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Toxic-waste management in the Valencia region

(6 June 2003)

The Valencia Regional Government has still not solved the serious problem of managing urban solid waste
(USW) and toxic waste, as the Commission has been informed by means of reports on the cases which are
most damaging to the environment.

These include:

(cid:1) the Dos Aguas (Valencia) refuse dump, which is suspected of polluting groundwater intended for
human consumption and whose proximity to major residential areas is causing local people problems
such as exposure to bad smells and to a range of allergies and respiratory ailments (see E-1261/98 (1)
and E-0631/99 (2));

(cid:1) the Fervasa (Quart de Poblet y Aldaia) USW dump, which causes leaching and bad smells and which is

infested by rats and parasites (see E-2084/01 (3) and E-2260/02 (4)).

In addition to these cases of poor waste management there are other ones which also pose a serious threat
to the environment and to the health of the people living in proximity to the sites.

A growing awareness of such threats has prompted major protests amongst local inhabitants. Particularly
significant are the as-yet unresolved case of the above-mentioned Dos Aguas refuse dump and that of the
Real de Montroi toxic-waste dump which is run by the VER company and which has recently been closed
pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment condemning its many irregularities.

In its response to the many cases reported the Commission, having carried out a brief inquiry, usually
announces that it has been assured by the Spanish authorities that the sites in question have all undergone
a mandatory environmental impact study and have qualified for the requisite local and regional licences.
However, one of the most telling arguments put forward by the local people affected is that construction,
management and emission permits are not granted in accordance with the rules and that the terms and
conditions laid down in Spanish law and Community directives are not met.

Has the Commission had an opportunity to check for itself that impact assessments have been carried out
(and that licences and permits have been granted for the above-mentioned sites)
in accordance with
Spanish law transposed from EU legislation and with Community directives?

Does the Commission not consider that it should do more than simply examine the data supplied by the
Spanish authorities and that it should re-open its inquiry into Dos Aguas and Fervasa?

Is the Commission intending to make representations to the Valencia regional authorities in order to
in the case of a highly
ensure that waste is properly managed (this being particularly important
industrialised and densely populated region where the issue has a major impact on the tourist industry)?

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 103.
(2) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 110.
(3) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 182.
(4) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 211.

Joint answer
to Written questions E-1893/03 and E-1894/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission has not seen the report on waste management in Valencia drawn up by the Unión
General de Trabajadores (UGT), to which the Honourable Member refers in this Written Question.
Consequently,
it cannot say whether the authorities in the Valencia region may be failing to apply
Community legislation regarding hazardous waste properly.

C 58 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

However, the Commission will examine the problem raised by the Honourable Member once it receives
the report referred to in the Written Question.

The Commission does not have the power to require a Member State to choose a specific site for the
construction of a waste treatment facility, or to require the creation of such a site. That choice falls under
the powers of the national authorities.

The Commission has not been informed about
the toxic waste dump at Real de Montroi or the
irregularities which led the Supreme Court to force it to close down. The problem regarding this facility is
therefore now resolved as a result of the Court’s judgment.

With regard to the other facilities referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point
out that it has launched two investigations of its own regarding the Dos Aguas facility and the Fervasa
waste treatment centre. Scrutiny of these two cases has revealed that the former was authorised following
an impact assessment study and a favourable finding by the competent authorities. However, the waste
treatment centre did not undergo an impact assessment study since it was authorised in 1977, long before
Spain joined the Community.

In the light of the information provided by the Spanish authorities about these facilities, the Commission
has not found any infringement of the applicable Community legislation.

However, as it announced to the Honourable Member in its reply to Question 2260/02 (1) and in a letter
to the Honourable Member on 8 November 2002 regarding the Fervasa treatment centre, the Commission
does not rule out the possibility of examining the waste management problems referred to when it receives
the relevant information.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003.

(2004/C 58 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1895/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Mineral Resource Extraction Plan and Natura 2000 areas in the Valencia region

In the draft version of the Mineral Resource Extraction Plan relating to the clay sector in the Valencia
region (which is currently available for public consultation), 25 of the 94 SCI areas proposed by the
regional government for inclusion in the Natura 2000 Network (1) are described as ‘suitable subject to
evaluation’ (i.e. subject to an environmental impact assessment) for mining purposes.

Under the Plan, such important Natura 2000 sites as Penyagolosa, the Caroig mountain ranges, the river
Palancia and the Hoces del Cabriel (amongst others) are identified as containing clay deposits. Only in the
natural parks and in certain special protection areas for birds are mining operations banned.

Does the Commission consider the draft Mineral Resources Plan to be compatible with the conservation of
the biodiversity found in the Natura 2000 areas which the regional government itself has designated?

Does the Commission consider that SCI areas can legitimately be declared as ‘sites suitable, subject to
evaluation, for mining purposes’ when mining operations in protected areas are explicitly banned under
Community law on the grounds that such activities are highly damaging to flora,
fauna and the
environment?

(1) Source: Valencia Regional Government, Ministry for Industry.