Portal de Lorca

www.portaldelorca.com

• Home
• Business
• Hotels
• Restaurants
• News
• Advertisement

The Councillor for the Environment has stated that the 2011 amendment was merely imposed a disparate limits, which more than contribute to the reduction (as requested by EU Directive), running a total elimination

Councilman Environment of the City of Lorca, Melchor Morales, has reported that Municipal Government Team will present at the regular full this morning a motion requesting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, by your department given rise corresponding to the Cabinet for its approval effective contemplating amending the Public Water Regulation, approved by Royal Decree 849/1986, of 11 April, establishing distinct quality objectives for Chrome Chromium III and VI, and restoring the quality limit for Chromium III on 2 mg / l, as stated in the Regulation before its amendment in 2011.

Cabrera Morales explained that this measure would benefit significantly to the tanning industry in our town, of which 420 families currently living form directly, and it is estimated that another 1,000 indirectly.

In fact it is anticipated that, if not carry through the modification requested, the tanning sector, after overcoming successive crises and perform different actions to modernize facilities that have consolidated their recovery would be locked in a real "dead end" assuming eventually the disappearance of the sector and the consequent loss of direct and indirect employment and wealth generated by these industries.

The current problem stems from the modification made by the Government of Spain in 2011 which increased so outrageously restrictive concentration of chromium III (generated by the tanning sector).

In fact we must remember that the European Community Directives advocate reducing the presence of this element, which also is not in the list of priority substances called reduction, not setting any emission limit for chromium.

The Councillor for the Environment has stated that the 2011 amendment was merely imposed a disparate limits, which more than contribute to the reduction (as requested by EU Directive), running a total elimination.

Along with the above we indicate it is shown that Chromium III is non-toxic, while yes it is Chromium VI, which it would be appropriate quality objectives, differentiating between the two established.

The non-differentiation of the two has meant that in many cases have been classified as toxic chromium element, without differentiation.

Countless research conducted around the world has shown that Chromium III is completely harmless.

Melchor Morales stressed that the limits given do not obey the dictates of Community legislation, resulting in the current forecast applicable emission limits is excessive and unattainable.

Given that the toxic substance is actually Chromium VI, not the III, so it should set targets of different quality.

Source: Ayuntamiento de Lorca