WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Revision of the Seveso II directive and the Rotterdam authorities' intention to relax safety regulations for the transport of fireworks by sea

1. The Commission proposal COM(2001) 624 C5-0668/2001 2001/0257(COD)(1) to amend the Seveso II directive (Directive 96/82/EC(2) of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances), which was put to the vote in the European Parliament on 3 July 2002, arose as a result of (a) the huge firework disaster on 13 May 2000 in Enschede in the Netherlands where licences for the storage and processing of fireworks had been liberally granted, local residents had not been informed and checks on compliance with regulations were insufficient and (b) the assurance given shortly after this disaster by Commissioner Wallström in answer to my question E-1733/00(3) and in discussions with four Dutch members of the EP.

2. What is the Commission's view of fact that the Rotterdam city authorities believe that their port is unfairly disadvantaged by the fact that all containers of Chinese fireworks are classified as fireworks in the highest risk category and that ships carrying three or more containers of Chinese fireworks are no longer allowed into Dutch territorial waters?

3. What is the Commission's view of the stance taken by the Rotterdam Port Authority that Chinese membership of the International Maritime Organisation means that the Chinese classification of fireworks is correct by definition and that is it is not only the effect of a potential disaster that must be taken into account but also the small likelihood of such a risk?

4. Can the Commission confirm that the same fireworks are allowed into other north-west European harbours and that containers of fireworks have been transported from the nearby Belgian port of Antwerp to Rotterdam by road for onward transportation in the Netherlands, possibly creating greater risks than transport by ship?

5. Will the situation described in paragraph 4 be allowed to continue after the entry into force of the recent amendment of the Seveso II directive?

6. Does the Commission share my view that the Rotterdam authorities' call for a level playing field with regard to conditions for the admission of large quantities of Chinese fireworks into EU ports can be better achieved by tightening up the safety rules applied to the admission of fireworks to other EU ports rather than by relaxing the safety regulations currently applied in the Netherlands?

7. What measures is the Commission taking to reduce the risk of explosions in the transport of fireworks in port areas?

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 357.

(2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

(3) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 76.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the views of the Rotterdam City and Port authorities to which the Honourable Member refers.

However, the Commission believes it is useful to set out the rules which apply to the transport of fireworks. The safety in transport of fireworks from a port to an inland destination by road and by rail is covered by Council Directive 94/55/EC(1) and by Council Directive 96/49/EC(2) respectively. These sets of rules contain all requirements for the transport, including general classification criteria based on tests.

After the storage accident in the Netherlands with fireworks, the Dutch authorities have been elaborating a default classification system to be used if no test data is available. Such systems are also in place in other Member States and their aim is to avoid excessive testing in clear cases. Such systems are therefore fully in accordance with the Community law if applied correctly. The Netherlands has proposed a harmonised default classification system in international fora (i.e. United Nations Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling), but as the available test results did not show a preference for that system, it has not been adopted.

The international rules on transport of dangerous goods for all modes are based on the United Nations Model Regulations on transport of dangerous goods and therefore those applicable by sea (UN IMDG Code) are nearly identical to the requirements of the Directives for the land transport with the technical requirements from the UN-ECE ADR(3) and RID(4) under COTIF(5). In any event, in order to be able to carry out the inland transport of fireworks in the Union, their classification should be confirmed by a Member State to COTIF or by a contracting party to ADR prior to carriage.

The Commission would like to add that the Directives on transport of dangerous goods guarantee a high level of safety during the transport and consequently there are no high risks involved in this transport.

Other rules apply to storage of fireworks within port areas. These rules are found in the Seveso II Directive(6), which obliges operators of establishments where dangerous substances are present in certain quantities to take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for man and the environment.

The Commission believes that the classification system of the Directives on land transport of dangerous goods takes better account of the hazard potential of fireworks than the risk phrases according to the Community legislation on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances. The Commission proposal(7) to amend the Seveso II Directive suggests therefore to make use of the this classification for the definition of the scope of the Seveso II Directive. In the Commission's opinion, the tightening of the scope of the Directive should contribute significantly to the prevention of major storage accidents involving fireworks.

Member States are responsible for ensuring the correct application of European and international rules. The Commission has no reason to believe that the Dutch authorities do not ensure full compliance with these rules.

(1) Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road, OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, as lastly modified by Commission Directive 2001/7/EC of 29 January 2001 adapting for the third time to technical progress Council Directive 94/55/EC, OJ L 30, 1.2.2001.

(2) Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail, OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, as lastly modified by Commission Directive 2001/6/EC of 29 January 2001 adapting for the third time to technical progress Council Directive 96/49/EC, OJ L 30, 1.2.2001.

(3) European Agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road.

(4) Regulations concerning international carriage of dangerous goods by rail.

(5) Convention concerning the international carriage by rail.

(6) Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(7) OJ C 75, 26.3.2002.