WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Ending exports of materials containing asbestos from EU Member States to third countries after the introduction of a ban on asbestos use within the EU.
Date: 2002-04-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: asbestos, export monitoring, export restriction, occupational safety, third country

C 229 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

This derogation only applies to transport by sea. If a shipper wants to use a non-dedicated container for
the transport of the oils or fat by sea, the previous cargo must be one included in the acceptable previous
cargo list. If the oil or fat is not going to be refined, for example virgin oils, or the container is not
stainless steel or epoxy lined, the three previous cargoes must be substances from the acceptable previous
cargo list. All the other transport (road, rail, by canal) must be in dedicated ‘foodstuffs only’ containers.

In addition, all the other provisions and health requirements foreseen by Directive 93/43/EEC apply, in
particular:

* the food business operator (i.e. the owner of the ship), has to apply the principle of Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and identify those points critical to the safety of the cargo and
control potential hazards to health at these critical control points (Article 3);

* ensure that containers are used for foodstuffs only unless the conditions in the derogation apply

(Annex, Chapter IV); and that

* containers are kept clean, good repair and designed to allow effective cleaning and disinfection

(Annex, Chapter IV);

* there must be effective separation between one part of a container and another part

if

two

commodities are transported at the same time (Annex, Chapter IV);

* if necessary, the container must be capable of transporting the food at the appropriate temperature,

with monitoring of the temperature (Annex, Chapter IV).

The full and correct implementation of all these hygiene provisions is considered to give adequate
guarantees concerning a potential contamination.

It is for the Member States to organise and carry out official controls in order to ensure the correct
implementation of hygiene requirements by food operators. In this regard, the Commission has not been
informed about any particular problem related to residues of previous cargoes in oils and fats transported
by sea in accordance with Directive 96/3/EC.

Nonetheless the Commission has recently requested the Scientific Committee to reconsider its previous
opinion on the potential risks to human health arising from transport in ship tanks of oils and fats. On the
basis of an updated opinion, the Commission will, therefore, review as a priority the current Directive and
the list of substances. The Commission also intends to revise Directive 96/3/EC in the light of the
experience gained from the Member States’ control activities

The Commission’s objective is to further improve the Directive to ensure a higher level of protection,
taking also into due account international standards, in particular at Codex Alimentarius level.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.

(2002/C 229 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Ending exports of materials containing asbestos from EU Member States to third countries after

the introduction of a ban on asbestos use within the EU

1.
Does the Commission recall that during the European Parliament’s debate in plenary on 10 April
2002 on the subject of ‘exposure to asbestos at work’ (1) several speakers asked whether after 2005, when
a general ban on the use of asbestos will come into force in the EU in view of the serious public health

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/193

risk it poses, exports of asbestos, asbestos products and asbestos waste from the EU to third countries
would still be possible, and that the Commission replied that unfortunately, for complex reasons, this
question had still not been satisfactorily resolved?

2. What is the current volume of the exports in question? Which materials containing asbestos are
involved and to which countries do the exports go?

Are there Member States which take the view that they would be put at an unfair disadvantage by a

3.
ban on exports?

4. What other factors still stand in the way of implementation of a ban on exports of this kind?

5.

How can the introduction of an export ban still be achieved?

6. What would be the first date on which an export ban could come into force after all the necessary
procedures had been completed?

7. What is the Commission doing towards achieving the introduction of a ban as early as possible?

(1) COM(2001) 417 * C5-0347/2001 * 2001/0165(COD) * A5-0091/2002.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The Commission took the decision in 1999 (Commission Directive 1999/77/EC (1)) to expand the ban on
marketing and use to all varieties of asbestos fibres. This ban also covers products containing these fibres.
As a result of the adoption of these restrictive measures, the volume of exports of asbestos has fallen
dramatically over the last two years and now stands at a very low level. Between January 2001 and
November 2001, the total volume of EU exports of asbestos to third countries stood at 266,2 tonnes (2), as
against 8 991 tonnes for 2000. In 2001, asbestos was exported, in descending order by tonnage, to the
following third countries: Turkey, India, Cuba, Sri Lanka and Angola.

With regard to the export of waste (Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (3)), this has already been banned
since 1994 to countries which are not in the European Free Trade Association for all waste containing
asbestos intended for final disposal and also, since 1 January 2002, to countries which do not belong to
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for all waste containing asbestos
intended for recovery.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 (4) lays down an obligation to notify exports to third countries of all
varieties of asbestos, with the exception of chrysotile. Under this Regulation, the international PIC (Prior
Informed Consent) procedure is also specifically applied to crocidolite. The PIC procedure was drawn up in
the course of work carried out under the aegis of the FAO (5) and the UNEP (6), and was ratified by the PIC
convention. Negotiations are being conducted under this convention (7) to also include all categories of
asbestos, including chrysotile, in the list of substances subject to the PIC procedure.

The Commission’s proposal for a new Council regulation concerning the export and import of dangerous
chemicals (8), which will implement the PIC Convention in the Community and replace Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2455/92, already covers all types of asbestos (including chrysotile). This proposal has already
been submitted to the Parliament and the Council. One of the specific provisions of this new regulation is
that the importing country must give its explicit consent for the export to take place.

All of these measures should help ensure that the population and the environment in third countries are
effectively protected against the risks arising from international trade in asbestos.

C 229 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

In the meanwhile, and in accordance with the provisions of recital 10 of Commission Directive 1999/77/
EC, the Commission has consulted the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(CSTEE) and asked it to conduct an analysis of scientific data since 1999 in order to re-assess the effects on
health of chrysotile and its substitutes (cf. the answer given by the Commission to Written Question No
E-0200/02 by Messrs Tannock, Arvidsson and Trakatellis (9)).

(1) Commission Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to
Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(asbestos) * OJ L 207, 6.8.1999.

(2) Source: Eurostat.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste

within, into and out of the European Community * OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 of 23 July 1992 concerning the export and import of certain dangerous

chemicals * OJ L 251, 29.8.1992.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

(5)
(6) United Nations Environment Programme.
(7) The PIC Convention was adopted on 10 and 11 September 1998 at the Rotterdam conference, under the aegis of
the FAO and the UNEP. On 31 May 2002, 72 countries had signed the PIC Convention (+ EC), and 21 countries
had ratified it. The Convention will enter into force once it has been ratified by 50 countries.

(8) COM(2001) 803 final.
(9) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 197.

(2002/C 229 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Procurement of emergency vaccines

What procedures are each of the Member States following in the procurement of emergency supplies of
vaccine to counter any possible terrorist threat?

(2002/C 229 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1200/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Competitive tendering of contracts

Does the Commission take the view that the UK government’s award of a contract for the supply of
smallpox vaccines to PowderJect without competitive tendering is a breach of EU law?

(2002/C 229 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Notification of contracts

Will the Commission state whether in its view a vaccine contract for the sum of £ 32 million placed by a
Member State ought to be notified for open competition under the procedures of the procurement
directives?