Schreiben an EU Kommission nach Antwort 12.02.2013
Subject: EIA TEREA Cheb s.r.o/Gelsenwasser – CHAP(2013)00189/D/002
Dear Ion Codescu,
Thank you for your answer and efforts. Based on your explanation and simply for the reason of a good neighborhood I asked the relevant authorities to give me and the affected public of the neighboring German Landkreise the opportunity to participate in a transboundary EIA Incineration Plant TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser).
But nevertheless, after your explanation, I fear my rights in Aarhus 3 (9) are violated by EIA Directive Appendix I and Espoo Convention Appendix 10b in EIA TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser).
Aarhus 3(9): Within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Convention, the public shall have access to information, have the possibility to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile and, in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities.
1. Aarhus 3(9) - in this in Europe binding European and international article of legal law I cannot find any reference that the concerned “environmental matter” does have to burn more than 100 tons of waste per day to allow me to participate and that there should not be a border between me (the public) and the concerned project.
2. “Within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Convention, the public shall have access to information,” – I do not have.
3. “have the possibility to participate in decision-making” – I do not have.
4. “have access to justice in environmental matters” – I am not able to.
5. “without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile” – I am discriminated, because Czech inhabitants in District Karlovy Vary can participate, do have access to justice in environmental matters although they may live in greater distance from the building site than me or other Germans.
6. “in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities”. I am discriminated because I have to beg my authorities and discuss with you just to be able to participate, while expert studies ordered by the authorities are telling me, I will be affected. It is up to the authorities to guard my rights given to me by European law. See also number 5.
Is the concernd incineration plant „decision making“ and an „environmental matter“ within the meaning of Aarhus 3 (9)?
Yes.
1. A bigger incineration plant is planned in Vresova in the same region. There should be a planning approval process for all these plants. The EU Commission seams to want to give high funds for these incineration plants. The public is affected by the impact of these incineration plants.
bankwatch.org/bwmail/53/feeding-fire-eu-money-blocked-one-czech-incinerator-yet-more-still-pipeline
Feeding the fire: EU money blocked for one Czech incinerator, yet more still in the pipeline
Bankwatch Mail | October 8, 2012 - fully attached under (1)
bankwatch.org/bwmail/51/eu-funds-czech-incinerators-balance-thanks-local-opposition
EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local opposition
Bankwatch Mail | March 13, 2012 - fully attached under (2)
2. TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) want to build more of these plants. The public statement of TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) Manager Steffen Zangermann in Frankenpost article: MVA Cheb Frankenpost – Eger weist Kritik der Umweltschützer zurück told us so.
Frankenpost article: MVA Cheb Frankenpost – Eger weist Kritik der Umweltschützer zurück www.frankenpost.de/regional/oberfranken/laenderspiegel/Eger-weist-Kritik-der-Umweltschuetzer-zurueck;art2388,2300212
I refer to the German text in article, not to my unprofessional English translation:
“Czech Republic has the same limits as in Europe…
we will keep these limits or fall below these limits …
we start with 3000 tons” …
German MVA Schwandorf burns 400.000 waste a year …
“nevertheless such a small powerplant is a profitable solution”, assures the TEREA Manger…
“Zangermann explains that these plants in the opinion of his company could give an important part of the answer to the requests of waste disposal in the neighboring country (Czech Republic)”...
“today two thirds of waste go untreated in disposals …
This, the Czech Government does not longer want to accept” …
Zangermann: “We do think it is more friendly for the environment not to transport this waste over long distances but to (ortsnah entsorgen) burn this waste close to the place where it is produced ...
we will do nothing that will not be accepted by inhabitants”.
Mr. Zangermann is speaking of „these plants in the opinion of his company could give an important part of the answer to the requests of waste disposal in the neighboring country (Czech Republic)”.
3. What is planned at the end of the day? A planning approval process for the whole region is necessary. „100 tons a day“ limit is the deadline of „no full public participating“ in EU Directive Appendix I or Espoo Appendix I art. 10b. Two plants would be over „100 tons a day“. And therefore the public shall have a full EIA and not be excluded. Some „small“ incineration plants without full public participating undermine public rights. Aarhus 3(9) is violated.
www.tschechien-online.org/news/19418-tschechien-baut-neue-mullverbrennungsanlagen/
Doch ohne neue Müllverbrennungsanlagen wird Tschechien die EU-Vorgaben zur Deponieentlastung kaum erreichen können. Derzeit gibt es nur drei Kraftwerke in Prag, Brno und Liberec, in denen jährlich 620.000 t Abfall thermisch behandelt werden können. Nach Informationen des Industrieministeriums sind elf weitere Verbrennungsanlagen in Planung. Sie sollen sich über das ganze Land verteilen und eine Gesamtkapazität von über 2,2 Mio. t pro Jahr haben. Als Standorte sind unter anderem Prag, Jihlava, Karvina und Most im Gespräch. Das Ministerium beziffert die Kosten auf 49 Mrd. Kc. Prag will den Bau solcher Anlagen mit Investitionszuschüssen von bis zu 25% fördern und Vergütungen für die Energiegewinnung aus Abfall zahlen. Außerdem sollen die Gebühren für die Deponielagerung erhöht werden, um Anreize für die alternative Müllverwertung zu schaffen.
BVSE -Tschechien investiert in Neue Sortiermaschinen, Recyclinganlagen und Müllverbrennung
4. Prof. Dr Thomas Foken of the Department of Micrometereology, University of Bayreuth, is warning of incineration plants in the region.The triangle between the spa`s Karlovy Vary, Marianke Lazne and Frantiskovy Lazne will be most affected, while the impact to Oberfranken may be small by west wind, but by east wind and inversion there may be higher concentration in Oberfranken than in the region of origin.
The Department of Micrometeorology of the University of Bayreuth, the Hydro-meteorological Service and the competent bodies of the Weather Bureau in Usti nad Labem and Environmental Station in Tusimice at Kaden have to be included into decision making process of TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) as well as into decision making processes of other incineration plants in the region. The analysis made in the following documentation can be used one to one for impact of incineration plant TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser), Prof. Dr.Foken told me.
Foken, T. (Hrsg.): Lufthygienisch-Bioklimatische Kennzeichnung des oberen Egertales in Bayreuther Institut für Terrestrische Ökosystemforschung (BITÖK): Bayreuther Forum Ökologie, Selbstverlag, 100, 69+XLVIII (2003)
opus.ub.uni-bayreuth.de/opus4-ubbayreuth/frontdoor/index/index/docId/648
Prof. Dr. Thomas Foken
University of Bayreuth
Dept. of Micrometeorology
D-95440 Bayreuth
Germany
Tel: +49(0)921 55-2293
Fax: +49(0)921 55-2366
email: thomas.foken@uni-bayreuth.de
www.bayceer.uni-bayreuth.de/mm/
More information:
Department of Micrometeorology of the University of Bayreuth, Prof. Dr. Thomas Foken
www.bayceer.uni-bayreuth.de/mm/en/mitarbeiter/pub/pub_mit.php
5. BMU and StMUG gave funds of 5.36 million of Euro to TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) for gas vessels, solar and other useful things to reduce the air pollution in Cheb, Fichtelgebirge and Erzgebirge. Now TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) wants to build an incineration plant right in the middle of the town of Cheb. Following attached - BMU “Umweltfreundliche Wärme- und Stromversorgung Cheb/Eger“:
Umweltfreundliche Wärme- und Stromversorgung Cheb/Eger.
Kurzbeschreibung: Durch Modernisierung der Erzeugungsanlagen für die Wärme- und ...
6. There are problems with incineration plant TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser), if I understand Matej Man`s submission for Arnika Praha right. Separately attached. Arnika demands a full EIA too. The public will be affected because the planned filters of this plant do not hold back Dioxin if I do understand right. Heavy metal problems may there be too. Mercury will not be kept in any filter. Filters that reduce mercury as far as possible will reduce the energy production of the plant.
Don't Burn, Recycle!
english.arnika.org/main-programmes/toxics-and-waste/projects-and-campaigns/dont-burn-recycle
Keep the Promise, Eliminate POPs in Waste!
english.arnika.org/ipen-cee/projects/keep-the-promise
Publications, reports, and other documents /Toxics and Waste Programme
english.arnika.org/reports-and-pulblications
7. The mercury contamination case Chemische Fabrik Marktredwitz CFM is not included into the plans of TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser). The European Waterframework Directive did not imagine EU fund for toxic waste remediation in contamination case CFM because it happened before the framework was adopted. A very high number of tons of mercury still are lying in the ground of the rivers and the meadows near the riverbanks from Marktredwitz to Cheb. There is no EU fund for to get it out, but there is a EU fund for incineration in this region to get more mercury in. TEREA s.r.o.Cheb (Gelsenwasser) is speaking of „high EU funding“. That is relevant for a decision making process within the meaning of Aarhus 3(9).
Jan Šamánek, Arnika mercury report Czech republic, inclusive Skalka lake.
ipen.org/hgmonitoring/pdfs/czech_republic-report-en.pdf
Czech press release can be found here:
arnika.org/pomuze-mezinarodni-umluva-ochranit-labe-ci-ohri-pred-kontaminaci-rtuti
The final report of Untersuchungsausschuss CFM
www.bayern.landtag.de/www/ElanTextAblage_WP11/Drucksachen/0000017500/11-17677.pdf
Wir haben oft alle Augen zugedrückt
www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13531948.html
5.2 Sanierungsfall Marktredwitz
Chemische Fabrik Marktredwitz (CFM): Die chemische Fabrik Marktredwitz war der bedeutendste Altlastenfall in Bayern. www.fachdokumente.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/10084/vkd0011.html
The public want to participate.
(8) MVA Cheb BR
MVA Cheb Euroherz- Grüne Fichtelgebirge
MVA Cheb Blickpunkt – Artmann gegen Müllverbrennung
www.blickpunkt-verlag.de/bpws/nachrichten/landkreis_wunsiedel/art279956,2307137
MVA Cheb Frankenpost – Arnika gegen Müllverbrennung
www.frankenpost.de/regional/wirtschaft/Eger-will-seinen-Muell-verbrennen;art2448,2279334
Therefore I would like to ask you to check the compatibility of the concerned legal additions with Aarhus 3(9). And I would like to ask you to forward my arguments to the relevant departments who want to give EU funds for incineration plants in the concerned region and to the relevant body for Water Framework Directive mercury.
Thank you for your efforts.
Kind regards,
Brigitte Artmann
(1) bankwatch.org/bwmail/53/feeding-fire-eu-money-blocked-one-czech-incinerator-yet-more-still-pipeline
Feeding the fire: EU moneyFeeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU moneyFeeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU moneyFeeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU moneyFeeding the fire: EU money Feeding the fire: EU money blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, blocked for one Czech incinerator, yet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipeline yet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipelineyet more still in the pipeline
Bankwatch Mail | October 8, 2012
Back in August, the Czech Republic’s handling of municipal waste attracted criticism from the European Commission, when it was identified as one of several EU member states not doing enough to recycle as well as actually infringing European legislation.
Of these failing waste states, the Commission notes:
“Failings include poor or non-existent waste prevention policies, a lack of incentives to divert waste from landfills, and inadequate waste infrastructure. Heavy reliance on landfilling means that better waste management options such as re-use and recycling are consistently underexploited. The outlook is accordingly poor.”
This outlook will remain poor if the Czech Republic doesn't start reconsidering its fondness for waste incinerators.
Bankwatch has campaigned – often successfully – against several such projects. The most recent success came in the Czech Republic in August with the announced abandonment of plans to develop the GBP 185 million Karvina municipal waste incinerator with support from EU funds allotted in the current EU programming period 2007-2013.
But while the project will not be moving forward at this stage, it's not unlikely that Karvina will get another chance for EU funding support in the forthcoming programming period 2014-2020, since the current Czech government still proposes to favour incinerators over recycling.
The Karvina incinerator, officially called the Regional integrated centre for recovery of municipal waste in the Moravian-Silesian Region (in north-east Czech Republic), had been intended to be ready for operations in 2015. The promoter company is KIC Odpady, whose shareholders are the region and municipalities of Ostrava, Karviná, Havířov, Opava and Frýdek-Místek.
The project financing was heavily reliant on public money, in particular on EU Cohesion Policy money, a loan from the European Investment Bank, and regional and municipal budgets. Earlier this summer the European Commission deemed that it could only provide a 20 percent subsidy under Cohesion money for incinerator projects, while the promoters had been relying on a 40 percent figure – the CZK 1 billion shortfall has been a major factor behind the spiking of the project for now.
Another contributing factor has been a legal action brought by environmental groups, including Bankwatch member group Hnuti Duha, related to the planning of the incinerator. In January this year the Ostrava Regional Court issued a preliminary verdict that puts on hold the validity of the zoning and planning decision for the proposed incinerator site because a rare
dragonfly species lives in the vicinity. Since a valid zoning and planning decision is necessary for the construction permit and also for the application for EU funding, the decision posed a serious roadblock for the project.
There are wider issues and question marks about the Karvina incinerator’s suitability that Hnuti Duha has raised and that continue to dog the project:
The choice of incineration as a waste management option in the modified Czech National Waste Management Plan and the Regional Waste Management plan for the Moravian-Silesian Region has been controversial particularly as mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) of municipal waste has been identified in numerous studies as a more effective option. Indeed, the construction of a waste incinerator is viewed by some experts as a potential ‘lock-in’ option, preventing the development of separate collection and recycling.
NGOs and experts are concerned about the quality of the project’s environmental impact assessment process, particularly over the insufficient assessment of alternatives and the coherence of the Karvina incinerator project with the waste management hierarchy.
Moreover, the very design of the project includes the option of significantly scaling up its annual waste burning capacity of 192,000 tons per year. This potential expansion in the future contradicts the project’s environmental decision that stipulates that the capacity of an individual incinerator within a specific region or territory must not exceed half of the total annual production of municipal solid waste in that area.
According to Ivo Kropáček, waste campaigner for Hnuti Duha, “One major concern is that EU funds could thus be being lined up for future expansion of the Karvina incinerator. Yet there isn't sufficient waste and there's not going to be, unless of course there are plans to import waste from abroad.”
More smoke and mirrors
If the Czech government realises its plans to prioritise waste incineration over recycling, Karvina and similar projects will continue to be put forward for EU funding. A new Action plan for biomass, accepted by the Czech government just last month, sends all the wrong signals though. This document contains:
A plan for increasing volumes of municipal solid waste (a 29 percent increase by 2020).
A plan to stop increasing the recycling ratio of municipal solid waste.
A plan to build incinerators to handle two million tons of municipal waste (there are currently three incinerators operating in the Czech Republic with capacity of only around 630,000 tons).
A sit down between the European Commission and the Czech Ministry of Environment also in September to discuss the country's waste management performance did not bring any indications – at least in public – of improvements. Moreover, the last week of September saw the publication of the first draft of a new national waste management plan for 2013-2022. Contained in this document are controversial proposals to build incinerators – potentially 14 or more – to deal with 2.6 million tons of municipal waste. Hnuti Duha has already slammed these proposals as completely unrealistic as likely costs would amount to at least GBP 2.6 billion over eight years.
It can only be hoped that the Commission will maintain close scrutiny of these developments, and not incentivise more ill-conceived, unpopular projects with the promise of future EU funding.
Institution: EU Funds
Theme: Resource efficiency
Location: Czech Republic
(2) bankwatch.org/bwmail/51/eu-funds-czech-incinerators-balance-thanks-local-opposition
EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local EU funds for Czech incinerators in the balance thanks to local opposition opposition oppositionopposition opposition
Bankwatch Mail | March 13, 2012
The European Commission is considering financial support for three new major municipal waste incinerator projects in the Czech Republic. The total cost for these projects is EUR 520 million and the projects have also requested a subsidy from the current Operational Programme for Environment (OPE) totalling EUR 184 million.
Legal background
In preparing its national waste management plan (WMP), in 2002 the Czech Ministry of Environment commissioned economic analyses of two possible solutions. One solution permitted the construction of municipal waste incinerators and the second was based on a combination of waste prevention, a high degree of sorting, recycling, composting and mechanical biological treatment of residual mixed municipal waste. A study prepared at Charles University in Prague concluded that the recycling option would require between EUR 64-260 million more than the investment proposal based on the construction of incinerators (EUR 400-596 million).
The eventual 2003 WMP aimed at increasing the Czech Republic's recycling rate and featured the intention to no longer invest in municipal waste incinerators. However, the necessary changes in national waste legislation to ensure meeting these targets in the WMP have not been realised over the last nine years. In 2009, indeed, the caretaker Czech government updated the WMP without debate or assessment of the environmental impacts. The main reason for doing so was to cancel point No. 4.i.: "not to support construction of new municipal waste incinerators from state funds." The aim was to allow the regions to apply for EU grants for municipal waste incinerator projects.
Projects
They may now be legitimately seeking EU funding assistance, but three major incinerator projects are facing strong local opposition and a range of problems.
The territorial permission for the Karvina incinerator published by the Moravian-Silesian Regional office has already been judicially challenged by the municipality in Horní Suchá and environmental groups. Under a preliminary court decision the territorial permission has been deemed to be non-valid until the final decision of the court. In the Czech legal system, an
outcome could take years, and the project is legally halted until the final decision of the court. Thus it is most likely that there will be no chance for the Karvina incinerator project to be financed for construction from the current 2007-2013 EU funds programming period.
The territorial permission for the Chotíkov incinerator, provided by the Touškov municipality, has been stopped by the investor. The granting of the permission has been deemed to be biased by the Region office in Plzen, though the investor is thought to be preparing to obtain another territorial permission in the near future. Whether the Chotikov incinerator project will be able to rely on EU funds from the current programming period is still up in the air.
The project to build an incinerator in Most is currently undergoing an appeal related to territorial proceedings. The proposed incinerator is located in the Ustecký region that has the highest ratio of municipal waste production in the Czech Republic. Environmentalists argue that decreasing the region's waste generation to the level of the national average could prevent the same capacity of waste as the planned incinerator.
What next?
Politicians in the Czech Republic appear intent on seeking out the 'easiest' solution to fulfil EU waste directives, namely mass burning without prior sorting. What this means of course is that full waste bins will be emptied not in landfills but instead in incinerators.
If these plans are realised the waste system will essentially stay the same, with waste prevention taking a back seat. In fact, current predictions foresee a two percent rise in waste volumes per year. The target of a 50 percent recycling ratio of municipal waste, as included in the WPM, appears to have been overly ambitious. The decisive factor for the future of these incineration plans remains the financing, and the European Commission surely has some serious thinking to do about whether it will green light Czech landfilling in the sky, also known as incineration.
Institution: EU Funds
Theme: Resource efficiency
Location: Czech Republic
zurück