WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Revision of the Seveso II directive and the Rotterdam authorities' intention to relax safety regulations for the transport of fireworks by sea.
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Netherlands, explosive, maritime transport, safety standard, storage, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/139

imports of raw hemp and hemp seeds
specific provisions with regard to hemp imports. In particular,
intended for sowing must respect the 0,2 % THC limit. For their part, imports of hemp seeds not intended
for sowing can only be carried out by importers approved to this end. These importers have to provide the
competent authorities with the documents attesting that the imported seeds have not been used for
sowing.

In addition, hemp is also covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971, on the
common organisation of the market in the seeds (4). An aid can be granted for the production of seeds
intended for sowing of hemp varieties covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 above
mentioned.

Under these conditions, no significant traces of THC should be found on hemp products obtained from
hemp grown in the Community or from imported raw hemp or hemp seeds, falling under the above-
mentioned legislation. In addition, these insignificant traces of THC could not give any possibility to make
drug.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 280, 30.10.1999.
(3) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.
(4) OJ L 246, 5.11.1971.

(2003/C 92 E/190)

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

The Commission proposal COM(2001) 624 (cid:1) C5-0668/2001 (cid:1) 2001/0257(COD) (1) to amend the
1.
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?

C 92 E/140

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Does the Commission share my view that the Rotterdam authorities’ call for a level playing field with
6.
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.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/141

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.

(2003/C 92 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 July 2002)

Subject: The conclusions of the European Council in Seville: EU visa requirements for third-country citizens

and the case of Latin American countries in their relations with Spain and Portugal

The conclusions of the European Council in Seville envisage revising the list of third countries whose
citizens may be subject to visa requirements. In the case of Latin American countries, where many citizens
have dual nationality, that of the country concerned and of Spain or Portugal, and which in general have a
special human and cultural relationship with the countries of the Iberian peninsula, a decision to introduce
visa requirements would be in serious conflict with the simultaneously European and Latin American
nature of the societies and states concerned. Is such an unacceptable historical, cultural, human and
political situation likely to arise?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

In the context of the follow-up to the conclusions of the Seville European Council, the Commission, which
has exclusive right of initiative in this area, was instructed to review and make suggestions concerning the
possible amendment of Council Regulation 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be
in possession of visas when crossing the external borders.

On the basis of the Commission proposals, it will be for the Council to decide in due course whether
changes need to be made to Regulation 539/2001.

(2003/C 92 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2183/02

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: New alcoholic drinks and young people

Results from recent research reveal alcohol addiction in young people, caused by the consumption of fruit-
flavoured drinks which contain vodka, gin or rum.

The packaging and the advertising approach encourage young people to consume these concoctions,
which do not carry any warning whatsoever about their alcohol content.