WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/03 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission. A major accident, within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 (Seveso II), at the petrochemical works in Porto Marghera on 28 November 2002.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, accident prevention, application of EU law, chemical accident, chemical industry, civil defence, competence of the Member States, environmental impact, environmental law, location of industry

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/87

Commission: all budgets (Administration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official
Publications, OLAF, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training and the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)

Institutions: Commission, Parliament and European Ombudsman, Council, Court of Justice, Court of
the Regions and Joint organisational
Auditors, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of
structure.

(2003/C 242 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/03

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: A major accident, within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996

(‘Seveso II’), at the petrochemical works in Porto Marghera on 28 November 2002

Knowing that:

(cid:1) on 28 November 2002 there was a major accident (cid:1) as defined in Article 3 of Directive 96/82/EC (1)
of 9 December 1996, known as ‘Seveso II’ (cid:1) inside the petrochemical works at Porto Marghera
(Venice, Italy), where a large explosion, followed by a fire, occurred in two stores of chlorinated pitch,
causing the uncontrolled release of toxic substances such as dioxins. Four people were injured in the
explosion and the entire population of the built-up areas of Marghera and Mestre (around 200 000
people) were put on a state of alert and urged to stay at home;

(cid:1) DCE and VCM are carcinogenic substances included in Annex I, Part I of the ‘Seveso II’ Directive;

(cid:1) in June 2000 the company owning the plants submitted to the Ministry for the Environment an
environmental compatibility application for a project to step up the production capacity of both VCM
and DCE;

(cid:1) the assessment carried out by the National Committee for Environmental

Impact Assessment
concluded with a negative opinion (1 August 2002) and the opinion of the Ministry for Cultural
Assets and Activities was also negative;

(cid:1) environmental

impact assessment is an instrument allowing the population and institutions to be
acquainted with the contents of the investigation report and the final opinion adopted by the
committee,
impact
assessment (cid:1) informing the public.

the fundamental principles of environmental

thereby implementing one of

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) why, more than five months after the EIA committee delivered its opinion, has the Minister for the
Environment not taken steps to issue a decree announcing the environmental incompatibility of the
application to increase the production of VCM and DCE;

(cid:1) why, in the current Community legislative context, it has not yet launched a global inspection of all
the chemical plants in Porto Marghera, which pose a real danger to security and the health of the
resident population and workers?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Commission’s powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty. Under Article 211, the
Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States.
Therefore, it has the power to check how Member States apply Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), but it has not the power

C 242 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

to replace Member States in their responsibilities. Under Article 18 of Directive 96/82/EC, it is up to the
authorities of
inspections, or other control measures
appropriate to the type of establishment concerned. Therefore, the Commission is not competent to launch
inspections of plants covered by the Directive.

the Member States to organize a system of

However, as it is not aware of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission
will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure, within the
limits conferred on it by the Treaty, the compliance with Community law.

The Italian decree finalising the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) procedure on the project to
increase the production capacity of both vynil chloride monomer (VCM) and dichloretane (DCE) at Porto
Marghera (EIA decree)
in itself under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2), after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3). It may become
relevant if and when a development consent is granted.

is not relevant, at this stage,

Under Article 9 of the Directive ‘When a decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken,
the competent authority or authorities shall inform the public thereof in accordance with the appropriate
procedures and shall make available to the public the following information:’

(cid:1) ‘the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto,’

(cid:1) ‘the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based,’

(cid:1) ‘a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the

major adverse effects.’

Based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission observes that the decision to
grant or refuse development consent has not been adopted yet in this specific case. Therefore, at present,
the lack of publication of the Italian EIA decree is not relevant under the Directive and no breach of
Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, can be identified.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 242 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject: Storage of peak discharges of river water and fair burden sharing between upper and lower

reaches of rivers in Member States

Does the Commission consider that flooding of European rivers can no longer be regarded as isolated
1.
incidents but as a growing structural problem caused by the felling of forests, draining of agricultural land,
canalisation and narrowing of the upper reaches of rivers, the more rapid melting of glaciers in the Alps,
higher rainfall as a result of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect, the settlement of land and
the 1,2 cm a year rise in the sea level?

2.
Is the Commission aware that many of these problems originate in the upper reaches of the rivers
Oder, Elbe, Rhine, Maas, Scheldt and Danube, whereas so far virtually the entire responsibility for finding
solutions has been left to the countries in the lower reaches of these rivers, which means that some present
or future Member States of the EU are passing the problems on to other Member States?