WRITTEN QUESTION P-0782/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Safety in ports.
Date: 2001-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, common transport policy, competence of the Member States, harbour installation, maritime safety, operational programme

C 261 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

According to press reports a company known as (cid:145)Nuclear Manufactures (cid:129) New Technologies and
Advanced Services, located in Bosco Marengo (Alessandria Province), has in its possession two examples
of an instrument known as(cid:146)total body(cid:146), which is able to measure the amount of uranium present the a
human body.

In the light of this, will the Commission say:

(cid:129) Whether it is aware of the existence of this instrument?

(cid:129) Whether it thinks it should be used to carry out tests on soldiers who took part in the NATO
campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo or who are still in the Balkans, in order to find out for certain
whether uranium contamination occurred and on what scale?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The instruments mentioned by the Honourable Member are presumably (cid:145)body counters(cid:146), which are used
for the control of the incorporation of radioactive matter by the human body. There are many of these
instruments in use in different Member States, but the Commission has no specific information on the
ones in Bosco Marengo.

A body counter may in particular cases not be suitable to determine the quantity of radionuclides present
in the human body.

The soldiers who were in the Balkans are thought to have adsorbed only very small amounts of depleted
uranium. Depleted uranium itself emits alpha radiation which is not detectable, and the low energy gamma
rays emitted by decay products are attenuated by the body tissue. In addition, the body rapidly eliminates
most of the absorbed uranium. As a consequence, it seems that the absorption of depleted uranium by the
soldiers may not be detectable by this technique, and other methods (bio-assay) may be preferred.

The question of whether or not to conduct tests on soldiers who served in the Balkans is a matter for
Member States, not the Commission.

(2001/C 261 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0782/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Safety in ports

In a communiquØ issued on 21 February 2001, the Greek Union of Merchant Mar(cid:237)ne Masters (PEPEN)
points out that in many Greek ports, there are shallow waters, incorrect signalling of reefs and uncharted
sandbanks, dilapidated jetties,
lack of port
terminals and a total absence of passenger facilities, creating serious problems for safe shipping.

lack of mooring bollards, poorly illuminated lighthouses,

Problems of this kind have been identified in 31 Greek ports, including Piraeus, Heraklion, Rethymnon,
Samos, Paros, etc. where passenger traffic is intense, especially during the summer months. Following the
inclusion of many port development schemes in Community programmes, a number of infrastructure
projects have been carried out but the shortcomings persist as those projects have only covered the
minimum requirements.

In the light of the recent accidents in Europe, safety must be the paramount objective of Community
activity in the shipping sector. Can the Commission, therefore, say to what extent Greek ports have the
necessary infrastructure, whether they meet the required safety standards and whether the projects to be
funded under the 3rd CSF have been selected?

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/195

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that there is no Community framework
establishing minimum safety requirements for ports infrastructure on the specific issues raised.

Moreover, for such aspects, there is no obligation for Member States to communicate to the Commission
the state of infrastructure equipment, nor of compliance with safety prescriptions (national or interna-
tional) of ports within their territory.

Member States bear full responsibility for ensuring safety in their ports.

However, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the following two pieces of
European legislation will strengthen and enhance safety in port procedures; in general:

(cid:129) Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
requirements and harmonized procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers. This
proposed Directive will translate the IMO Bulk Loading and Unloading Code into Community Law
and currently is in first reading.

(cid:129) In addition, Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port reception
facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, ensures that all EU ports will have the necessary
facilities to meet the waste delivery needs of all ships using them. This Directive, which has to be
implemented by December 2002, also provides the foundation for a continuous dialogue between
ports and their users in the context of waste management planning.

The operational programme (OP) (cid:145)Road axes, ports, urban development(cid:146) under the Community support
framework for Greece during the 2000-2006 programming period, provides mainly for interventions to
improve port facilities of Pireaus, Lavrio and Patras. Interventions to other ports to be defined at a later
stage will be co-financed either by the above mentioned OP or other regional OP, or by the cohesion fund.

The precise ports and the characteristics of projects to be co-financed will in any case be decided by the
managing authority of the respective OPs, on the basis of criteria to be defined in the programming
complement. For the cohesion fund, the final co-financing decision is taken by the Commission, on the
basis of the Member States proposals.

(2001/C 261 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0785/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: The importation of fish into the EU

In 2000, 405 000 tonnes of fish were imported into Italy, 56 % of which came from EU countries. The
remaining 44 % came from third countries such as Argentina, Morocco, Thailand and Colombia.

Around a quarter of the fish imported from these countries is farmed. In view of the fact that in the EU
there are regulations in force designed to safeguard the hygiene of the tanks used for fish farming, can the
Commission say:

1. whether quality and hygiene checks are carried out on fish imported from third countries;

2. whether in the fisheries agreements signed with third countries the European Commission has
provided for measures in line with those in force in the EU in order to ensure a high standard of
health protection?