WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1300/98 by Franco MALERBA to the Commission. Harmful substances (asbestos) in the buildings of the Brussels I (Uccle) European School
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MALERBA
Subjects: Brussels region, European school, asbestos, building materials, building safety, health risk, public health, safety standard













EUR-Lex - 91998E1300 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1300

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1300/98 by Franco MALERBA to the Commission. Harmful substances (asbestos) in the buildings of the Brussels I (Uccle) European School  


Official Journal C 386 , 11/12/1998 P. 0110 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/98by Franco Malerba (PPE) to the Commission(29 April 1998)Subject: Harmful substances (asbestos) in the buildings of the Brussels I (Uccle) European SchoolThe presence of asbestos in the buildings of the Brussels I (Uccle) European School has already been pointed out on several occasions in the past, including in Written Question No 2203/92(1) by Mrs Gröner. On that occasion the Commission underestimated the seriousness of the problem, acknowledging only that "on a previous occasion, it had been necessary, in one building only, to replace materials which might have posed a problem in the long term".It has emerged, however, that according to the preliminary asbestos survey of 24 October 1997, which is still incomplete, at least 9 of the European School buildings contain asbestos, which urgently needs to be removed.This being the case, is the Commission prepared to respond positively to the concerns expressed by the Brussels I Parents' Association, particularly as far as the following points are concerned:- the absolute necessity to carry out the work (removal of asbestos, demolition, clearing debris) while pupils are absent;- the need, before any work is begun, to draw up a detailed, comprehensive survey of the materials containing asbestos and a detailed plan of the work scheduled;- the tender specifications for the firms carrying out the work must detail the procedures to be used and the frequency and nature of on-site checks (in the presence of independent experts);- the parameters to be applied (tolerance thresholds) must be based on the most advanced standards of medical research and the most recent European laws, and reflect the increased awareness of the dangers of exposure to fibres (p.m. tolerance thresholds: in Germany, 0.5 fibres per litre; in Belgium, 10 fibres per litre);- the need to sign a protocol of agreement between the Belgian Régie des Bâtiments, the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the parent representatives governing implementation of the above points and including the option of closing down the site and applying dissuasive penalties in the event of the terms being breached?These points are set out in a letter of 16 March 1998 from the Commission representative on the Board of Governors of the European Schools to Mr André Flahaut, the Minister responsible.Is the Commission prepared, if no undertaking is given as regards the above criteria, to deem Belgium to have failed in its statutory obligations under the agreement of 12 April 1957 establishing the European Schools?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(4 June 1998)The Convention on the Statute of the European School, signed by the original Member States on 12 April 1957, and the Protocols drawn up by reference to that Statute, are applied by the Board of Governors of the European Schools.This intergovernmental body takes the necessary decisions for the efficient operation of the schools. In accordance with Article 12 of the Statute, it signed the agreement with the Government of Belgium on 12 October 1962 with a view to ensuring the best material and moral conditions for the operation of the European Schools located in Belgium.The Belgian Government undertook to provide the schools with the buildings they need and to maintain and insure them in accordance with the rules which govern property owned by the Belgian State.The Commission, which is a member of the Board of Governors, has already replied to a written question on asbestos found in the premises of the Brussels I European School (Uccle). (The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission answer to written question E-2203/92 by Ms Gröner(2)).Since the host State is directly responsible for some of these matters, the Commission merely supplied the information known to it.The provision of information is not the same thing as the statement of a Commission position.The Commission attaches great importance to the safety of the European Schools; it will be highly vigilant in ensuring that a complete inventory of the asbestos is made, that management programmes are implemented and that the work (removal of the asbestos, demolition, clearing débris) is carried out strictly in accordance with existing provisions. The work is planned for the Summer holidays.Lot No 1 of specification No 98/30.2234/034/01 drawn up by the Régie des Bâtiments (Public Property Administration) for the construction of new classrooms and a gymnasium for the primary section included the removal of the asbestos prior to any demolition work. This specification includes taking all the precautions required by Belgian legislation for this type of work.The specification also states that the parameters to be applied (the work plan to be drawn up before any demolition or removal of the asbestos takes place, signs and signals, the cordoning off of the work sites in question and the tolerance thresholds with regard to the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres on the work place) will be those laid down by the general regulation on protection at work. This regulation complies with Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983, as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991.Since the legal provisions to be applied are mandatory, the Commission sees no need for an agreement to be signed between the Régie des Bâtiments, the Board of Governors and the parents' representatives regarding the application of the abovementioned points.The Commission feels that it cannot pass judgment on alleged intentions. Failure to meet obligations must be proven before it can be criticised.(1) OJ C 86, 26.3.1993, p. 15.(2) OJ C 86, 26.3.1993.