Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-281"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.12.2-281"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first and foremost, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland for the considerable commitment he has shown and for his well prepared recommendation for second reading. Together with the Council’s determination to arrive quickly at a common position, the report has helped with the efficient reading of the Commission’s proposal.
The proposed directive on waste incineration goes to the heart of environmental legislation: the protection of public health. The proposal will help reduce dioxin emissions from incineration by 90 per cent. As from 2005, when the directive begins to apply to existing plant, dioxin emissions from incinerators will be insignificant. Together with the directive on waste deposition, the directive on waste incineration will put a stop to methods of treating waste which do not take account of future generations’ needs and interests. Both directives constitute a firm basis for the sustainable treatment of the waste hierarchy, with improved preventative measures, better recycling and environmentally safe deposition of waste. I should like to remind you that there already exists a directive on a waste hierarchy. It is therefore obvious that, in this case, it is recycling that one should attempt, in the first place, to regulate. Unfortunately, Mr Bowe, it has been 11 years since the technical requirements in these directives were last reviewed.
43 amendments have been tabled. Of these, the Commission is able to approve eight in full, five in part and three in principle. The following amendments are aimed at clarifying the Commission’s proposal. The Commission is able to approve them in part, in principle or in full: 4, in principle, with the exception of the last section; 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, but only the elucidation of the two seconds; 12 and 14, second section; 17 in principle, but not the requirement continually to measure the levels of ammonia and mercury; 18, first section; 19, 22, and 24 in principle; 25: the figure of 500 milligrams for nitric oxides in new plant, together with the proposed new paragraph at the end; 27 in principle, together with Amendment No 43.
The Commission is not able to approve the first section of Amendment No 14. If the word “untreated” were to be deleted, it would no longer be possible to use mixed household waste in co-incinerators, something which would also apply to waste which had undergone extensive pre-treatment. The second section of this amendment is, in principle, acceptable. By introducing an explanation of the word “untreated”, the paragraph can be made less ambiguous.
The European Parliament’s Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 7, which are aimed at introducing provisions concerning the treatment of waste, cannot, for reasons of principle, be approved. The Commission’s proposal is aimed at introducing limits for emissions and at establishing operative conditions for all waste incinerated or co-incinerated, and this should not influence the legislation concerning the treatment of waste. The Commission is not able to approve Amendments 5 and 15 which are designed to introduce links to standards of air and water quality. Legislation of this kind already exists or is at present being prepared, for example the directives concerning air quality and coordinated measures to prevent and limit pollution, together with the proposed framework directive concerning water. The amendments would involve the provisions in these acts being duplicated or becoming more ambiguous. Amendments Nos 3, 16, 30 and 33-35 are not compatible with the directive’s structure and cannot therefore be approved.
There has been a certain amount of confusion concerning Amendment No 13 where a number of language versions have been changed but not the English language version. This amendment cannot, however, be adopted by the Commission. Articles 12 and 15 of the proposal concern access to information and reporting. They are now worded in such a way as to guarantee that all players have access to the information they require. The Commission therefore considers that Amendments Nos 20 and 21 are unnecessary. Amendments Nos 36-39 are designed to tighten up the requirements with regard to measurements. The Commission is not able to accept these because they would place an additional burden upon those responsible and because no justification of their real value can be provided.
Finally, Annexes II, IV and V are, as you know, the heart of the Directive, establishing the limits for emissions in the cases of coincineration and incineration. As I have already mentioned, the Commission accepts the proposed limit of 500 milligrams for nitric oxides in new cement kilns. This is also justified from the point of view of cost-income analysis. Any further amendment for the purpose of making the limits stricter or of removing from certain plants the right to be regarded as exceptions would threaten the delicate balance achieved in the common position. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32 40, 41 and 42.
With regard to Mrs Jackson’s question about the incineration of dead animals on farms, I would provide the following clarification. The incineration of dead animals is not included under the directive, and this in accordance with the exceptions defined in Article 2.2. As I have noted previously, the Commission accepts parts of Amendment No 4, which refers to Directive 74/442 and which indirectly makes it possible to exclude the incineration of infected animals on farms. We consequently accept this principle. The Commission is to investigate the possibility of extending the exception concerning radioactive waste also to include exceptions such as infected dead animals.
I understand that there is a debate going on in Great Britain, and perhaps in other places too, concerning the incineration of, for example, empty packages of insecticide etc. It is not, of course, the intention that these should be incinerated. That sounds dangerous. Nor does it sound as if one should be burning them at home in one’s backyard. I do not want to exclude our needing to review how the exceptions are to be worded once we have obtained more information and know exactly what types of plant are concerned. There was a certain amount of confusion because we at first believed that we were concerned here with dead animals and infected dead animals, of which we thought exceptions should be made."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples