WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/02 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE), Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE)and Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission. Protection against exposure to asbestos.
Date: 2003-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, asbestos, environmental protection, export of waste, occupational health

C 222 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Nevertheless Dr Perucci continued to be summoned regularly to meetings of the Scientific Committee until
November 2002.

In December 2002 he was considered as no longer holding office and was replaced seven months before
the end of his term of office,

In view of the fact that the term of office of members of the EMCDDA Scientific Committee is three years
and can be renewed, does the Commission not consider that the early termination of Dr Perucci’s
appointment constitutes an infringement of that principle?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 1993 on the establishment of a
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the Scientific Committee of that Centre
consists of one representative from each Member State appointed for a three-year period.

Since the Member States appoint the members of the Scientific Committee, they may also relieve them of
their duties.

The Commission cannot legally intervene in the composition of the Scientific Committee or in the
appointment of Member States’ representatives.

(2003/C 222 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/02

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE), Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE)
and Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Protection against exposure to asbestos

(13 January 2003)

1.
Given that the amended Directive 83/477/EEC, when adopted by the Council, will bring about
substantial improvements in the protection of workers against asbestos-related risks, but that it falls short
in protecting the wider environment and preventing exposure to asbestos outside the immediate
workplace, is the Commission prepared to consider what initiatives could be taken at European level to
minimise exposure to asbestos affecting those living and working around sites and buildings containing
asbestos and the environment as a whole?

2.
Is the Commission prepared to take appropriate steps in order to establish whether national registers
of sites and buildings containing asbestos would be a useful instrument (a) in determining the extent of the
problem of potential asbestos contamination, and (b) in connection with precautionary measures to be
taken in the event of disasters?

3.
Has the Commission taken note of the fact that there are strong indications that asbestos-polluted
waste originating from the Netherlands has been ‘illegally’ dumped in Belgium? If so, what measures can
the Commission take to end this practice?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The proposal for a Directive (1) amending Council Directive of 19 September 1983 on the protection
1.
of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (2) contains provisions to prevent the
spread of asbestos dust at the workplace. Obviously, such measures also help prevent asbestos being
released into the environment, thus boosting the protection of people working and living in the vicinity.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/121

is balanced and efficient in
The Commission considers that the text of the abovementioned proposal
protecting workers at source in stipulating: ‘Before beginning demolition or maintenance work, employers
shall take, if appropriate by obtaining information from the owners of the premises, all necessary steps to
identify presumed asbestos-containing materials. If there is any doubt about the presence of asbestos in a
material or construction, the applicable provisions of this Directive shall be observed.’

2.
The Commission is not at present prepared to take steps on the question of registers either regarding
their role in determining the extent of the problem or in connection with precautionary measures.
Nevertheless, in the event of an accident, for example a fire, affecting sites and buildings contaminated
with asbestos, precautionary measures could consist in (increased) fire protection of those sites and
buildings. In this particular respect, a register of sites and buildings contaminated with asbestos might be
useful.

From the perspective of Community legislation on waste management, it is important to underline

3.
that:

(a) 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 Community (3) defines mandatory control procedures that must be
applied to control shipments of waste between Member States. In particular, a very stringent control
procedure applies concerning disposal of waste presenting risks
to human health and the
environment, which involves prior notification of the intended shipment and prior written consent
by the relevant authorities before the shipment may take place.

(b) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (4) on waste, as amended, stipulates a number of key
obligations for Member States in connection with the management of waste, which includes asbestos
waste. Specifically, Article 4 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that
waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or
methods which could harm the environment. In particular, this must be done without risk to water,
air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without
adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

In addition, Member States are specifically required under that provision to take the necessary measures to
prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.

The Commission is not aware and has not been informed of grounds to suggest that there have been
illegal shipments of asbestos waste from the Netherlands to Belgium nor that methods used to deal with
such waste lawfully shipped from the Netherlands to Belgium are in contravention of Community rules.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
(2) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.
(3) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
(4) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2003/C 222 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3890/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Sapard programme in 2001

In order to prepare the applicant countries for accession, the European Union has planned various pre-
accession programmes, notably the Sapard programme, which aims to facilitate the adaptation of
agricultural structures in future Member States. The budget for the Sapard programme was EUR 520 mil-
lion in 2000 and 520 million in 2001. According to the Böge report,
‘the take-up rate for Sapard at
31 December 2001, after two years in operation, amounted to only 6,48 %’. According to the President of
the Court of Auditors, of the EUR 520 million set aside for 2001, only 9,2 % was used, of which only
EUR 1 million has in fact been spent in the applicant countries.