Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.13.2-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Like previous speakers, I should like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Lisi, for the quality of his work on a highly technical and particularly sensitive subject for our citizens.
Originally, Seveso III was supposed to be no more than what I would call an improved version of Seveso II. Following the tragedies of Baia Mare and Enschede, the revision of this directive was chiefly intended to broaden its scope to cover mining activities, and to reduce the thresholds for pyrotechnical substances.
On 21 September last year, the position changed following the catastrophe at the AZF factory in Toulouse, a very cruel reminder of the reality of the situation. In order to be effective, a law must, above all, be correctly applied. That was obviously not the case in Toulouse. No hazard study had been carried out in the building in which the explosion occurred. Nor had any reassessment been made – since 1995 – of the ammonium nitrates produced and stored, which is why, without calling into question the excellent provisions regarding risk assessment already laid down in Seveso II, I am in favour of making the obligations to be met by the operator more stringent. Article 9 is the backbone of this directive. We therefore need to take action, as it were, ‘upstream’, so that the safety report is drawn up with the greatest transparency and is updated as soon as any significant change occurs on the industrial site.
On this subject, the Liberal Group welcomes the adoption, at the committee stage, of Amendments Nos 17 to 19.
Turning to the safety report, and, more broadly, to another crucial aspect of this revision, the control of urban sprawl around industrial sites, I see that Member States have methods of calculating hazard limits which are very different, and in some cases contradictory, and that is why we welcome the vote in committee to adopt Amendment No 20, which seeks to implement, eventually, a single European method of calculation. As a Commission representative said to members of the French Parliament after the Toulouse disaster, a process which seeks to harmonise approaches without harmonising basic philosophies will never succeed.
That is why, and also for the sake of consistency, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is also in favour of Amendment No 55 on this subject. Also for safety reasons, we believe it is essential, as stipulated in Amendment No 39, to lower the thresholds for the fourth category of ammonium nitrates, those consisting of rejects, similar to the substances that exploded in the warehouse at the AZF factory.
Finally, Madam President, the competent national authorities must ensure compliance with the on-site obligations, which are to be reinforced here, by means of Seveso III.
We must never relax our campaign against the trivialisation of risks in certain industries. That must be our priority, in memory of the 52 victims of Toulouse and Enschede, as well as all the other victims."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples