EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/153

(2004/C 65 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Health hazard posed by fuels in military use

The aircraft fuel Jet-Propellant 8 (JP-8), which is suspected of posing a serious health hazard (cf. for example, New Scientist of 13 June 2001), is present in large quantities in military installations and pipelines throughout the European Union.

The Commission:

1. Does it not agree that, in accordance with the environmental information directive, the public has a right to receive information on possible hazards, particularly since no trade secrets need be divulged in this case?

2. Does it know what additives are contained in JP-8 and what their exact chemical composition and concentration is? Does JP-8 contain or release 1.2-dibromoethane in any form?

3. What health effects does JP-8 have, particularly as a result of exhaust fumes, aerosols and vapours? What investigations and tests is knowledge of these effects based on?

4. Does JP-8 have components that are subject to more stringent limit values or widely banned in civil use?

5. How are airfield employees and those living nearby protected from the dangers of JP-8? What protective measures are in existence or planned?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty establishes a derogation whereby the Member States may take such measures as they consider necessary for the protection of the essential interests of their security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials.

The Member States have systematically interpreted Article 296 in an extensive manner, wishing to maintain strict national control over all aspects of the production of and trade in defence goods, thus excluding the military sector from the application of the EC Treaty rules.

However, the case-law (1) of the Court of Justice interprets this derogation in a more restrictive manner:

— the Member States cannot claim a ‘reservation of sovereign rights’ within the meaning of public international law and do not have discretionary powers of judgment;

— the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to monitor the use made of the concept of protection of the essential interests of security (as regards need, pertinence and proportionality);

— Article 196 does not limit the Community's powers ratione materiae.

This case-law was confirmed by a recent judgment (2) of the Court of Justice, which refers specifically to Article 296.

With this in mind, the Commission can provide the following information in reply to the various questions asked by the Honourable Member:

1. Article 7 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (3) requires Member States to provide general information to the public on the state of the environment. From early 2005 onwards, this provision will be replaced by more detailed provisions on the active dissemination of environmental information, as laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 (4). However, both Directives provide that Member States may refuse access to information, if disclosure would adversely affect national defence. In such cases, Member States are also not obliged to actively disseminate information.

2. and 3. The Commission has no information on the composition of JP-8 or its additives. Should it contain 1,2-dibromoethane, then please note that this substance has a harmonised classification as a carcinogen (category 2, so it can be assumed to provoke cancer in humans); is toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin and if swallowed; is irritating to the eyes, respiratory system and skin; and is toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. The combustion of JP-8 may produce totally different substances from 1,2-dibromoethane, which may be much more or much less toxic. Scientists observe such effects when they study the ‘chemistry of the flame’. The Commission has no information on this, however.

4. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (5) provides that within the context of his responsibilities, the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers. To that end, the employer shall be in possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, decide on the protective measures to be taken and, if necessary, the protective equipment to be used. These obligations are further defined in Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 (6) on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work and in Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 (7) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work. At present, there is no European limit value for occupational exposure to 1,2-dibromoethane.

5. The Commission has no information concerning the precautionary and protective measures taken in or around military installations.

(1) Case 222/84 Johnston v. Chief Constable [1986] ECR 1651.

(2) Case 414/97 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [1999] ECR I-05585.

(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(4) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.

(5) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(6) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(7) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.