WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Availability of information on firms manufacturing and storing fireworks, and inclusion of such firms on the risk list of directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II).
Date: 2000-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, explosive, industrial hazard

C 89 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

Further to its answers to the questions cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out,
on the basis of the information submitted by the Member States to the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), that, Luxembourg apart, all those that still allowed firms to deduct
from their profits commissions paid to foreign public officials have now amended their legislation to end
this possibility and so apply the principles set out in the OECD recommendation of April 1996 and the
Commission communication of 21 May 1997 on a Union policy against corruption (1).

Luxembourg(cid:146)s government has, from the information it has provided to the OECD, already presented a bill
to the national parliament aimed at ending the deductibility of such commissions. It expects the bill to be
adopted before the end of the year.

is

Corruption in the private sector
the subject of a Joint Action adopted by the Council on
22 December 1998 on the basis of Article 31 (formerly K.3) of the Treaty on European Union (2).
Article 8 of the Joint Action requires each Member State, within two years of its entry into force on
31 December 1998, to submit appropriate proposals in the sphere of criminal law for consideration and
possible adoption by the competent authorities. The Council must assess the fulfilment by Member States
of their obligations under the Joint Action within three years of its entry into force. Only when the results
it be possible to determine whether tax measures are needed to
of this Joint Action are known will
supplement criminal law measures.

(1) COM(97) 192 final.
(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Availability of information on firms manufacturing and storing fireworks, and inclusion of such

firms on the risk list of directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II)

On Saturday, 13 May 2000 there was a major disaster in the Mekkelholt district of the city of Enschede
(Netherlands) caused by the explosion of the storage facility at SE Fireworks which resulted in a large
number of deaths and injuries.

The following three questions are asked:

1.

Immediately after the disaster a discussion was launched on the risk posed by this sort of firm to its
surroundings. This is the second time within ten years that a disaster has occurred with a firework
factory; in 1991 a factory exploded in the town of Culemborg.

According to the Ministry of Housing, Regional Planning and the Environment, there are 19 major
firework firms in the Netherlands with a capacity of 100-1500 tonnes (SE Fireworks had a capacity of
100 tonnes). These firms are not on the list of firms posing a serious threat to the environment which
have to meet the requirements of directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II).

The Seveso directive imposes certain obligations on firms to prevent serious risks and accidents for
firms and their surroundings. Can the Commission confirm that firework firms are not on the list of
risk firms?

2.

If so, does the Commission agree that (cid:129) in view of the serious nature of the disasters which can occur
with firework firms (cid:129) these firms should be covered by the European Seveso II directive? Is the
Commission prepared to take the necessary steps in this direction?

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/77

3. Does the Commission agree that throughout the EU there should be as much transparency as possible,
for the benefit of local residents, local councillors, the media and disaster control experts, on the
existence of risk firms and the permits issued by the authorities to such firms, because such
transparency can contribute to more informed decision-making on the siting of such firms and can
speed up the process of fighting fires and evacuating local residents?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

1. While it is true that the original Seveso Directive (Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on
the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (1)) contained a list of potentially dangerous
industrial activities in which the manufacture and storage of fireworks did not figure, a different approach
for fixing the scope was chosen in the Seveso II Directive (Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2)). This Directive has fully
replaced the Seveso II Directive since 3 February 1999.

The Seveso II Directive solely relates to the (cid:145)presence of dangerous substances in establishments(cid:146). Moreover,
the list of dangerous substances in Annex I has been reduced from 180 to around 50 substances in favour
of an enlarged and more systematic list containing generic categories, such as toxic, explosive or
flammable. With these changes, the scope of the Directive has been broadened and simplified. The
manufacture and storage of pyrotechnic substances is for the first time covered by the Directive within
certain threshold limits.

However, according to information received from the Dutch authorities, the establishment S.E. Fireworks
in Enschede was not covered by the Seveso II Directive because the threshold limits set by the Directive
were not met. The Seveso II Directive, like its predecessor, follows a two-tier approach meaning that two
different qualifying quantities (threshold limits) apply for each named substance and for each generic
category of substances mentioned in Annex I of the Directive. It is assumed that the risk of a major-
accident hazard increases with the quantities of substances present at the establishment. The threshold
levels for pyrotechnic substances are 50 tonnes (lower tier) and 200 tonnes (upper tier).

After a full

investigation of the accident, the Commission will evaluate the qualifying quantities
2.
assigned to pyrotechnic substances and make proposals for amendments to the Seveso II Directive,
if
appropriate. This process will be carried out in close co-operation with the Member States, the Parliament
and other interested parties.

The Commission does indeed agree that throughout the Community there should be as much

3.
transparency as possible in decision-making on the siting of hazardous industrial establishments.

Therefore, the Seveso II Directive contains a new provision recognising that the implications of major-
accident hazards should be taken into account in the land-use planning policies of the Member States.
i.e. the prevention of major accidents and the
These are obliged to pursue the aim of the Directive,
limitation of their consequences for man and the environment, through controls on the siting of new
establishments, modifications to existing establishments and new developments such as transport links,
locations frequented by the public and residential areas in the vicinity of existing establishments. In the
long term, land-use planning policies shall ensure that appropriate distances between hazardous establish-
ments and residential areas are maintained. Member States shall also ensure that all competent authorities
and planning authorities responsible for decisions set up appropriate consultation procedures. The
inclusion of this provision can be regarded as a major step forward in the process of major accident
mitigation.

Moreover, the visualisation of risk in geographical maps is important. In the context of industrial risk
management, maps can create a visual and thus (cid:145)immediate(cid:146) understanding with regard to hypothetical
major accidents and their effect on the immediate surroundings. Therefore, the major accident hazards
bureau established within the Joint research centre of the Commission is developing a Seveso plants
information retrieval system (SPIRS). The objective of SPIRS is to establish a map of all Seveso plants in the

C 89 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Community and to support Member States in their risk management related decision-making processes by
providing a flexible tool to rank the risk potential of such plants.

(1) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

(2001/C 89 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1740/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the appropriations provided for the
applicant countries Cyprus and Malta are moved from chapter B4 of the budget, concerning external aid,
to chapter B7, concerning pre-accession aid, in accordance with the guidelines for the 2001 budget that
Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 48)?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

As part of the a revision of the financial perspective (1), the Commission has proposed transferring the
amounts relating to financial support for Cyprus and Malta from heading 4 to heading 7. The aim of this
transfer is to harmonise the treatment of these two countries with that of the other candidate countries
already part of heading 7, which covers pre-accession (the Regulation on the pre-accession strategy for
Cyprus and Malta was adopted on 13 March 2000 (cid:129) Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000) (2).

In this context, a subheading for the Mediterranean countries under heading 7 is being proposed (because
Cyprus and Malta cannot avail themselves of the Ispa and Sapard pre-accession instruments).

The amount of this transfer for the period 2001-2006 is € 20 million per year.

On the more strictly budgetary front, under the 2000 budgetary procedure, two new headings were
created under Title B7-0: B7-040 (cid:145)Pre-accession strategy for Malta(cid:146) and B7-041 (cid:145)Pre-accession strategy for
Cyprus(cid:146). These two headings were given a token entry (p.m.), since the relevant amounts are still entered
under heading B7-4012 (cid:145)Pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta(cid:146).

In view of the adoption of the above-mentioned regulation, the Commission proposes to allocate amounts
to the two new headings in the preliminary draft budget (PDB) 2001. These will be € 7,5 million for Malta
(B7-040) and € 11,5 million for Cyprus.

(1) COM(2000) 262 final.
(2) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.

(2001/C 89 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/00

by JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 May 2000)

Subject: Framework for the (cid:145)sanctions(cid:146) against Austria (cid:129) Commission report

It was recently publicly reported that the Austrian Chancellor, Mr Wolfgang Sch(cid:252)ssel, has asked the
Commission to draw up a rigorous report on the situation in Austria with reference to the (cid:145)sanctions(cid:146)
agreed and in force against Austria in the context of the EU. This report is to be prepared in time for the
forthcoming European Council, to be held in Santa Maria da Feira on 19 and 20 June 2000.