WRITTEN QUESTION P-0713/04 by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission. Management of the risk assessment process on zinc.
Date: 2004-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: environmental risk prevention, health risk, metal pollution, report, scientific committee (EU), scientific report, zinc

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/855

(2004/C 84 E/0947)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0713/04

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Management of the risk assessment process on zinc

(4 March 2004)

In 2002 I raised concerns about the management of the risk assessment of zinc and its possible premature
closing-off without taking into account all relevant and new research. Carried out under the existing
chemicals legislation, this first risk assessment of a bio-essential metal
is a precedent for future risk
assessments. It is also becoming a case study of mismanagement of a process which should be based on
best-available science.

My concerns have recently been renewed by the release of the final draft risk assessment report on zinc,
which simply misinterprets or ignores the outcome of 18 months of research funded by industry and what
is considered to be the best available science. The preparation of this report also raises fundamental
fairness and transparency regarding the very selective approach to
questions of over-conservatism,
available science that has been used to justify and maintain initial draft conclusions drawn two years ago.

In a parallel development, a recent CSTEE opinion on complaint 1999/5056/NL criticises a similar risk
assessment for not having used a transparent method of selecting data and for not having provided
sufficient scientific justification to show the presence of environmental risks.

In this context, can the Commission explain:

1. What steps have been taken or are being considered to ensure that the issues raised in the CSTEE
opinion are avoided in the risk assessment for zinc, for which the same rapporteur has responsibility?

2. How will the Commission ensure that research and scientific developments are not systematically
ignored in an attempt by a rapporteur to validate its initial conclusions and that the risk assessment
for zinc is brought to a level of quality sufficient for decisions on risk to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The drafting of the risk assessment report on zinc has now been in process for almost 10 years. It is a
good example of very detailed discussions between all stakeholders in the technical meetings. The
Commission shares the Honourable Member’s opinion that the assessment of a chemical substance like
zinc has to be sound by including all relevant research.

The Honourable Member refers to the comments of the CSTEE about the lack of clarity in the data
selection process in the assessment of the use of copper containing anti-foulings and the lack of sufficient
scientific information. In the case of zinc, a large amount of data has been presented in an extensive
document, very detailed discussions took place in the Technical Meetings on risk assessments carried out
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (1) and Member States experts have reached consensus on the
criteria for data selection and the way the data should be used.

The industry was given the opportunity and the time to carry out an additional research program, based
on the expectation that additional scientific information would improve the quality of
the report.
Meanwhile, the results are available and give a better understanding of the behaviour of zinc in the
environment, and will be incorporated in the draft risk assessment report by the rapporteur.

On 8 and 9 March 2004, the draft report was discussed again in a Technical Meeting with all stakeholders.
The meeting was chaired by the European Chemical Bureau. An agreement was reached on the
conclusions regarding the risks for the compartments ‘water’ and ‘soil’. Further discussion is still needed for
the risk assessment for ‘agricultural soil’.

C 84 E/856

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

We expect that agreement can be reached on the open issues in the coming months. In line with the
normal procedure for risk assessments carried out under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, the final
report will subsequently be sent to the CSTEE for their opinion on the scientific basis of the conclusions.
A summary of these conclusions will subsequently be published in the Official Journal of the European
Union as a Commission recommendation.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing

substances, OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2004/C 84 E/0948)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0714/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: Conversion of ENEL’s ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia

ENEL’s ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia is in the process of being converted into a coal-fired
power plant that would be highly noxious and have a devastating impact on the environment (carbon
dioxide (cid:1) CO2 (cid:1) emissions an average of 40 % higher than for oil and 50 % higher than for methane,
at higher costs). This flies in the face of the precautionary principle and of the opposition of the general
public, as unanimously expressed in the referendum held by the municipalities of Civitavecchia and
Tarquinia but nevertheless opposed and disregarded by ENEL and the Ministry for Productive Activities.

Already in the area, the incidence of tumours, respiratory diseases and all the illnesses linked to the
presence of fine dusts is much higher than the average, being 50 times greater than the national and
regional average. The district is already at a serious environmental risk and already has three power
stations, two special refuse disposal sites and heavy traffic both at sea and on land. Despite the notification
sent to Italy, there have been continued violations of Directive 96/62/EC (1) and Directive 1999/30/EC (2) in
the field of air quality, and specifically of the requirement
to provide daily information on PM10
concentrations.

The Civitavecchia combustion plant will also be a source of severe toxicity in terms of carbon dioxide,
arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, chromium and nickel. Directive 2001/80/EC (3) on the limitation of
emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants has also been infringed, since
Italy has failed to transpose this into national law (a matter which the Commission has already referred to
the EC Court of Justice).

With regard to this situation, what urgent measures will the Commission take to appropriately prevent
damage being occasioned, in terms of health and the environment, by pollution from ENEL’s Valdaliga
Nord power station to the people of Civitavecchia and the neighbouring municipalities of Allumiere, Blera,
Cerveteri, Ladispoli, Tarquinia and Tolfa, bearing in mind Italy’s longstanding and repeated failures to
comply with, and violations of, the principles laid down in the Treaty and the urgent need to prevent
serious and irreparable damage to the environment, health and the local economy?

(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
(3) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The fact that the ENEL’s ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia is in the process of being
converted into a coal-fired power plant
in itself contrary to any provisions of Community
environmental law.

is not