Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-18-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030618.11.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, first of all, a special thank you goes to the rapporteur, Mr Lisi, for his valuable work on this proposal.
Amendment No 6 does not constitute an added value; on the contrary, there is no need for separate guidelines setting out a methodology on minimum safety distances, as it should be possible to derive these distances from the technical database that will be created as a tool to help assess the compatibility between Seveso sites and sensitive sites.
Furthermore, the Commission continues to be of the opinion that a development of incentive schemes and/or funding for the relocation of establishments is a task for Member States – this is subsidiarity. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept Amendment No 7.
To conclude, let me confirm the Commission’s position on all amendments. The Commission accepts Amendments Nos 8 to 11. Amendments Nos 1 to 7 and Amendments Nos 12 and 13 are not acceptable.
I would like to emphasise that it is in our common interest to have this proposal adopted and implemented as quickly as possible.
As you are aware, the Commission proposal under discussion seeks to broaden the scope of the Seveso II Directive in the light of the Baia Mare and Enschede accidents. Furthermore, it seeks to incorporate the recommendations of two studies, one dealing with carcinogens and the other with substances which are dangerous to the aquatic environment.
Whilst the Commission proposal did not originally contain measures related to the Toulouse accident, a number of amendments proposed by Parliament have been incorporated into the Commission’s amended proposal and subsequently into the Council’s common position. I would like to stress again that it was not the intention of the Commission to effect a major overhaul of the Seveso II Directive. I shall now comment on some of the proposed amendments.
Amendments Nos 9 to 11 on risk mapping and potassium nitrate were already accepted by the Commission during the first reading and consequently they figure in the Commission’s amended proposal. These were the only three amendments that were fully rejected by the Council when adopting its common position. The Commission continues to support these amendments and can furthermore accept Amendment No 8 related to training for emergencies.
I am pleased to tell you that a proposal for a directive on the management of mining waste was adopted by the Commission on 2 June 2003. The measures in the proposal complement those outlined in the Seveso II Directive and include the establishment of a major accident prevention policy and a safety management system. These measures will apply to those waste management facilities that present an accident risk but will not be covered by the revised Seveso II Directive.
In our opinion, the Seveso II Directive should only apply to the most dangerous mining activities where chemical processes are involved and chemical substances are stored on site. The Seveso II Directive should not be transformed into either mining legislation or waste legislation. Therefore the Commission cannot agree to deleting the words ‘chemical and thermal’ as proposed in Amendments Nos 1 and 2.
We also reject Amendment No 12 which proposes making a reference to Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, and Amendment No 13, which seems to suggest that there are gaps in the coverage of mining sites through the two proposals. In our opinion this is not the case.
Amendments Nos 3 and 4 would lead to requiring operators of Seveso lower-tier sites to include information on training measures in the notification and to inform the competent authority in the event of a modification of an installation, establishment or storage area. In our view this would introduce bureacratic burdens without improving safety. A notification should only provide certain minimum information. The issue of training is already appropriately addressed in the Directive; moreover, in the event of modifications, the reviews of the major accident prevention policy and the safety management system are important, not the notification.
I acknowledge Parliament’s strong wish to reinforce Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive. However, the Commission and the Council have already accepted related amendments presented in the first reading."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples