Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-261"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.12.2-261"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for their fruitful cooperation. As a result of this, we have been able to table various amendments in a joint effort and reach agreement on a number of issues. This is illustrated by the compromise we reached on the scope of the directive. I would also like to thank the European Commission for providing the information and technical advice, which was extremely helpful.
As far as the continuous sampling of dioxins is concerned, this appears to be quite feasible. Belgium has started to use such a measuring technique in the wake of its dioxin crisis. A cumulative sample is taken for a one-month period. After this period, this sample is measured and the result gives a good indication of the levels of dioxin emitted during that month. Needless to say, this is a more effective monitoring method than the random measurement method used twice a year. According to experts, the costs are not higher since the measurement of cumulative samples is far cheaper. As such, the cost of the equipment for continuous sampling is recouped within the space of a few years.
At first reading, considerable improvements were made to the Commission proposal thanks to a great deal of support. It was at that stage that expectations were raised amongst the citizens. I strongly urge MEPs to meet these expectations. A consistent approach taken by the European Parliament will benefit our credibility amongst the citizens, especially those citizens living in the vicinity of plants which incinerate or co-incinerate waste.
In a civilised society, it is to be expected that waste should be processed in an effective and environmentally responsible manner. In the European Community, this will increasingly be done by incinerating waste and recycling energy. This process will obviously need to be closely monitored for emissions of dangerous substances. Once we have reached a point where, in order to counter the adverse effects on the environment, dangerous and organic waste, in particular, is no longer dumped, incineration should then inevitably deliver environmental benefits. By tightening up emission standards, a balance was struck at first reading between what is viable over a period of about five to seven years and what is necessary from an environmental point of view.
The emission values currently proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection are a reasonable compromise. It should, however, be noted that stricter requirements are already in place in a number of Member States. It is one thing to prescribe sound environmental standards but quite another to comply with these. Compliance requires adequate control which, in turn, requires proper monitoring. Just imagine a situation in which we laid down excellent standards for emissions of dangerous substances such as dioxins but, on the other hand, left the way open for exemptions from all kinds of monitoring obligations. We would then run the risk of not, on balance, making any progress, and the quality of air would not improve.
In addition, we also need to avoid a situation where it becomes clear there are long-term health risks for a reason which may not be immediately obvious, namely that the emission of harmful substances is not measured. We cannot justify the occurrence of illnesses, such as cancer or blood diseases, which we have not prevented because there was no obligation to measure the emission of harmful substances by incineration plants.
Mr Florenz was among those who were right to point out that clear measuring regulations are vital. I expect, therefore, that we will be joining forces in order to put a sound monitoring process in place.
As far as the scope of the directive is concerned, I am pleased to say that, thanks to good mutual cooperation, we have reached an acceptable wording. However, we need to bear in mind that, with this draft, we have deviated a long way from the first reading, in view of the fact that only untreated timber was then regarded as an acceptable exception.
Regarding the definition of coincineration plant, it is unfortunate that we were unable to reach agreement on this beforehand. After many discussions involving various Members and the European Commission, a simple solution, which may well be acceptable, has been found in the form of Amendment No 43. If waste were used as a replacement raw material, such as in the recycling of glass, the relevant process would fall outside the scope of the directive. If, on the other hand, only part of the waste were to be used as a replacement raw material, then this process
fall within the directive’s scope.
As for the recycling of energy, I would like to point out that, in November of last year, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the integration of environmental concerns into energy policy, in which it was requested that special attention be given to the application and development of the best methods for energy recycling. Consequently, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has made a recommendation that energy recycling by means of combined electricity/heat production should also apply to the incineration of waste.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has asked for ammonia levels to be measured. It is wrong, however, that the standards for ammonia should not apply to all installations. Accordingly, I have, for reasons of consistency, proposed an ammonia standard for cement kilns and for ordinary waste incinerators."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples