WRITTEN QUESTION P-0531/04 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of a salt-water spa and discharge of thermal salt water from the spa into the River Spree without an environmental impact assessment.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Germany, application of EU law, environmental impact, impact study, tourist infrastructure, water protection

C 84 E/424

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0494)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0531/04

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Construction of a salt-water spa and discharge of thermal salt water from the spa into the River

Spree without an environmental impact assessment

A salt-water spa is to be built in the town of Burg in Land Brandenburg, Germany. The plans provide for
the thermal salt water from the spa to be discharged directly into the River Spree. As a result, the water
quality of the river will deteriorate. Current technology involves compressing and depositing the salt.
However, discharging it
impact
assessment. Brandenburg’s regional government intends to finance the project using EU funding from the
ERDF.

into the water has been approved without a prior environmental

Is the Commission of the opinion that an envrionmental impact assessment was required in the

1.
above case under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (1))?

If so, does the Commission intend to call on Brandenburg’s regional government to comply with EU law?

If not, how does the Commission intend to guarantee the implementation of and compliance with the EU’s
Water Framework Directive?

Is the Commission of the opinion that it is compatible with the principles of the Structural Funds as
2.
set out in Article 12 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (Regulation
(EC) No 1260/1999 (2)) that the construction of a salt-water spa in Burg can be directly supported, or its
development indirectly supported, by the ERDF despite the failure to comply with the Water Framework
Directive?

If so, how does it justify this?

If not, will it call on Brandenburg to repay the funds?

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Many of the provisions in the Water Framework Directive (1) are not yet operational. As regards discharges,
the Water Framework Directive regulates, inter alia, that point source discharges liable to cause pollution
must be subject to prior regulation or authorisation by December 2009 at the latest (cf. Article 11(3g)).
In this respect, the Directive does not require an environmental impact assessment sensu Council Directive
85/337/EEC (2) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3). However, the principles and objectives of the Water
Framework Directive must be considered by the competent authority when issuing such a permit.

Moreover, Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC on environmental impact
assessment is not applicable in this case.

Although the obligation of prior authorisation under the Water Framework Directive would not be
applicable in this case, existing Community legislation such as Directive 76/464/EEC (4) provides for similar
obligations. However, based on the information available to it, the Commission has no reason to suspect
that the authorisation issued by the authorities contradicts this Directive.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/425

In consequence, no incompatibility with Article 12 of the Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (5) could be seen
and therefore no payment interruption or repayment of funds is foreseen.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy.

(2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(4) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into

the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

(2004/C 84 E/0495)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0532/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Nuclear submarines docked at Santo Stefano Island, Sardinia

US Navy nuclear submarines are docked at the base on Santo Stefano Island,
in the La Maddalena
archipelago, in Sardinia. Recently, an incident with potential radioactive effects was recorded. In Sardinia
and Corsica, several movements have been alerting the authorities to the potential danger of nuclear
pollution in the area.

Has the Italian Government informed the European Commission about the presence of nuclear submarines
at Santo Stefano Island, as required by Article 37 of the Euratom Directive on Crossborder Effects? If not,
what measures will the Commission take?

Does the Commission consider that Santo Stefano Island fulfils all
accommodation of nuclear submarines?

the conditions required for the

Under Directive 89/618/Euratom (1), Member States are required to ensure that the population likely to be
affected in the event of a radiological emergency is given information about the health-protection measures
applicable to it and about the action it should take in the event of such an emergency. Can the
Commission indicate where this obligation is being fulfilled by the Member State involved?

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission has received no information from the Italian government on the presence of nuclear
submarines at Santo Stefano Island.

Under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, each Member State must inform the Commission of any plan for
the disposal of radioactive waste which could result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or
airspace of another Member State.

Discharges under normal conditions due to the operation of the propulsion reactor of the miliary nuclear
submarine in question are the responsibility of the United States which is the State responsible for the
authorisation and operation of the submarine and its components, but is not subject to the provisions in
Article 37.

As regards emergency measures within the meaning of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 Nov-
ember 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to