WRITTEN QUESTION P-2284/99 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Use of material classified as waste in Finland.
C 225 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 As regards Bulgaria, in line with the Commissionís October 1999 composite paper on the progress of candidate countries towards accession, an understanding was reached between the Bulgarian Government and the Commission, on 29th November 1999, stating that the Bulgarian Government was committed to definitively close units 1-4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant at the earliest possible dates. In this context, and on the basis of the commitment of the Commission for financial support, the Bulgarian Government commits itself to definitively close down units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant before the year 2003. On the occasion of the updating of the energy strategy which will be completed in 2002, Bulgaria will decide, in agreement with the Commission and taking account of the Nuclear safety account agreement and other relevant factors, on the definitive closure dates for units 3 and 4, which will be before the presently envisaged closure dates of 2008 and 2010, respectively. The Commissionís understanding is that the definitive closure of these units will take place in 2006 at the latest. (2000/C 225 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2284/99 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Use of material classified as waste in Finland The Commissionís proposed directive on the incineration of waste will give rise to serious problems in Finland. The proposed directive is drawn up with countries in mind in which waste management is based in complying with the directive Finland would be forced into a on mass incineration units. However, situation which would be in conflict with environmental efficiency. According to industryís own estimates there are at least 200 heating and power generation plants and industrial furnaces in Finland in which it is possible to safely co-incinerate harmless materials classified as waste. In addition to wood these include paper which is unsuitable for recycling for one reason or another, cardboard, textiles and harmless sludge from industrial processes. In our industries the materials classified as waste which are suitable for incineration are sorted at the place of origin in just the same way, mutatis mutandis, as in the household and commercial sectors. In this way it is ensured that no more harmful emissions arise from incineration than from ordinary fuels. The incineration plants are also efficiently supervised. The application of such limit values to plants which incinerate harmless materials classified as waste as an additional fuel is very problematic, if only because the continuous measurement of emissions is expensive and calls for high investments in measuring equipment. In Finland the long transport distances favour the use of small plants. Costs could well rise to such an extent that the use of waste as an additional fuel will cease to be profitable. Co-incineration can reduce the quantity of waste needing to be transported to landfill sites. The use of the energy content of materials sorted at source which are classified as waste, but which emit harmless combustion gases when burnt, contributes greatly to sustainable development. 1. What is the Commission doing to ensure that the drafting of the directive takes into account the efficient sorting of waste at source in Finland and the use of energy this makes possible? 2. Is it possible that the authorities supervising incineration could be given wider powers to be flexible in individual cases, where this is justified in the light of the type of waste and the technical level of the installation? 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/87 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1999) The Commission proposal on the incineration of waste (1) was adopted on 7 October 1998. The Parliament gave its first reading on 14 April 1999. The Council adopted the common position on 25 November 1999. When preparing the directive the Commission carried out intensive discussions with experts from all Member States as well as all others concerned. These discussions as well as the negotiations in the Council have led to a common position which takes into account the specific requirements of the Nordic Member States. The common position seeks to establish the same requirements for the co-incineration of waste as for the incineration of waste. For combustion plants co-incinerating waste, the emission limit values which apply are generally more stringent than those for plants not using waste. However, the problem is not always related to compliance with tighter emission limit values, but the costs for the measurement requirements of the directive. In order to deal with this the future directive provides for the possibility of obtaining an authorisation to reduce the frequency of the measurements, which should reduce the costs for operators. Article 11 (6) provides for the possibility to apply periodic measurements instead of continuous measurements for hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen fluoride and sulphur dioxide. In addition, Article 11 (7), which was initiated by the Finnish delegation in the Council, allows the frequency of periodic measure- ments of heavy metals and dioxin to be reduced under certain criteria. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the future directive already takes care of the specific requirements of Finnish waste management systems. Moreover the Commission would consider all new developments which could arise in the second reading in this respect. (1) OJ C 372, 2. 12. 1998 as modified by COM(1999) 330 final. (2000/C 225 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/99 by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules (13 December 1999) When a Danish national moves to Spain and thus establishes his place of residence and centre of interests in that country, that personís pension is taxed according to Spanish rules but, should the same Danish national instead choose to set up residence in Portugal, his pension is taxed according to Danish tax rules. In view of the Commission explain how a Danish nationalís lack of opportunity to enjoy freedom of movement in relation to the taxation of pensions is in accordance with the Treatyís fundamental and overriding principle of freedom of movement? laid down in the Treaty, will the fundamental principle of freedom of movement Although no Community legislation has been adopted on the right to tax income from pensions at EU level, is there not a risk in practice, as for instance in the above example, that a fundamental EU rule on freedom of movement is being contravened by national tax rules? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (6 January 2000) It is true that in the absence of harmonisation of personal income taxation European citizens are confronted with different tax rules when they take up residence in another Member State. This implies a different level of taxation which may in some cases influence the decision to envisage such transfer of residence