Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.13.2-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the tragic accidents which have recently affected the chemical industry and, above all, the people living in the vicinity of the sites and the environment, could not escape the European Union’s notice. Baia Mare, Aznalcóllar and, in particular, Toulouse and Enschede, have become synonymous with human and environmental tragedies to which we have a responsibility to provide a clear response. It is against this sensitive backdrop that the Commission presented to Parliament and the Council its proposal for a directive amending Directive 96/82 of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, better known as the Seveso II Directive.
This proposal is the product of in-depth scientific analysis. We must therefore acknowledge the Commission’s intention to tackle the shortcomings of Directive 96/82 in a constructive spirit, which means that we can now send a clear message to both the chemical industry and the people. We will do everything possible to ensure that adequate control measures are adopted and observed.
As rapporteur, I have tried to favour a methodological approach based both on the scientific basis of the proposed amendments and an evaluation of the impact that they will have on the European economic system. It is certainly not an easy matter to introduce or strengthen precautionary rules so it is absolutely essential that we find a fair balance between the need to lay down changes that are sustainable for the chemical industry and the need to send the public a clear message of safety.
The method for identifying the necessary changes is clear: taking the conclusions of the two accidents as a basis to ensure that such accidents are not repeated. In practice, the proposal modifies two fundamental criteria: the minimum thresholds for the presence of substances in sites and the inclusion or reclassification of new activities or dangerous substances, in order to strengthen controls and reinforce accident prevention. All this will, of course, increase the number of sites affected by the new directive considerably, but we must not forget that what is at stake here are public safety and environmental protection against substances which could cause irreparable damage. I will therefore avail myself of this methodology to give you a brief account of the substantial changes proposed by the Commission and the amendments tabled by this House.
The accidents that occurred at Baia Mare in Romania and Aznalcóllar in Spain have led the Commission to bring mining operations and landfill sites within the scope of the directive too. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has, at the proposal of the rapporteur, specified the conditions for inclusion of sites and mining operations, specifying that all sites in which preparation or processing of hazardous substances takes place, irrespective of the type of processing, fall within the scope of the Seveso II directive. Moreover, we have stipulated that this applies solely to plant, mines and quarries which are in operation and not to mere storage areas.
Secondly, the disaster in Enschede has led the Commission to draw up new provisions on explosives. Despite the various proposals made by Members, the Commission’s proposal has been deemed the most suitable for the intended purpose. Lastly, the accident in Toulouse, which occurred at a time of growing insecurity, has left a lasting impression in the minds of us all. For technical reasons and because of lack of time, the issue of ammonium nitrate, the substance responsible for the explosion, has not been addressed by the Commission. With the full support of the Commission, Parliament and the Council are currently endeavouring to fill this gap.
The issue of ammonium nitrate is extremely complex and it has required a great deal of debate to establish the appropriate subdivision and thresholds for the different types of ammonium nitrate to limit the risks of accident to a minimum. What we have to work out is whether we should adopt the more rigid position at European level as regards thresholds or whether, on the basis of Article 176 of the Treaty, we should allow any States which consider it necessary to adopt additional, more restrictive measures, as, moreover, they are already able to do.
For my part, I am again tabling in plenary an amendment which provides for a higher threshold for the fourth category of ammonium nitrate products, to ensure without a shadow of doubt that agricultural holdings are excluded from the directive’s scope. Then there is one last thing we must do, which I will mention briefly and which we included in our report: we must call upon the Commission to send us a proposal within a reasonable timeframe defining criteria and methodologies to be used for land use planning – another serious problem which has emerged – in other words, deciding where plant should be located. Lastly, and this is my very last point, I would remind you that the Commission has endeavoured to strengthen provision for public information, which is something I feel will be especially beneficial and, above all, which we have a duty to our fellow citizens to provide.
I would like to end by thanking all my colleagues who have taken part in and contributed to this process and the committee’s secretariat."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples