• EN - English
  • NL - Nederlands
Parliamentary question - E-4631/2007(ASW)Parliamentary question
E-4631/2007(ASW)

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

Directive 1999/77/EC[1] prohibits the placing on the market and use of chrysotile fibres and of products to which these fibres are intentionally added. The restriction entered into force on 1 January 2005. An exception was made in the case of diaphragms in electrolysis installations existing before 15 August 1999 for which Member States may permit the continued use of chrysotile diaphragms until the installations reach the end of their service life or until suitable asbestos-free substitutes become available. The derogation is to be reviewed by the Commission before 1 January 2008.

The derogation was discussed with Member States and Industry at meetings of the Commission Working Group responsible for managing the directive. The first discussion took place on 12 July 2006 at which industry argued in favour of maintaining the derogation. The Commission invited the companies concerned to submit information on the efforts undertaken to find alternative materials, on the measures applied to ensure the safety of workers and on the disposal of waste containing asbestos. The analysis of the comprehensive material submitted was discussed at a further meeting of the Working Group on 3 July 2007.

The assessment was that satisfactory asbestos-free substitutes were available for high-voltage electrolysis installations but not for low-voltage installations, that the operation of the latter installations does not pose a risk, and that consequently there is no justification for ending the derogation. Member States and Industry agreed with the Commission's assessment and the review therefore concluded that the derogation could be maintained. The specific points raised by the Honourable Member are answered below.

1. The justification for the derogation for diaphragms in electrolysis installations was based on two considerations: the lack of suitable asbestos-free substitutes and the absence of risk. The Working Group discussions therefore involved experts who could provide information on those specific issues, namely representatives from industry concerning the availability of asbestos-free substitutes, and Member State representatives who have evaluated the installations concerning risks to health and the environment. The assessment of the material submitted to the Commission was made available to both the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) who were also invited to attend the Working Group meetings but neither organisation did so and no input was received from them. A report[2] on the assessment by the Working Group is publicly available for comments.

2. The Commission is aware that Polymerix diaphragms are used for the production of chlorine in high-voltage electrolysis installations. Polymerix diaphragms have been tried in low-voltage chlor-alkali installations and were found to be unsuitable. A continuation of the derogation for the latter installations would therefore not contravene Directive 1999/77/EC.

3. At the meeting of the Working Group in July 2007 Sweden reported that one company was still using chrysotile asbestos diaphragms for the production of hydrogen. Sweden was asked to supply details to the Commission. Some information has already been received, and more has been requested. Directive 1999/77/EC permits Member States to exempt any type of electrolysis installation — derogations are not limited to chlor-alkali installations.

4. The Commission has no reason to believe that the granting of derogations has resulted in risks to human health or to the environment. Member States competent authorities have inspected those installations where diaphragms are installed to ensure that the worker protection and hazardous waste legislation concerning asbestos is respected, in particular in relation to the provisions of Directive 83/477/EEC[3], as amended by Directive 91/382/EEC[4], Directive 98/24/EC[5] and Directive 2003/18/EC[6], which lay down the obligations that employers have to strictly follow as regards works that potentially expose workers to asbestos. No cases of exposure in excess of permitted levels have been reported. The hazard properties of asbestos are well known and ascertaining the risks from asbestos at particular installations requires in-situ monitoring of the levels of exposure, not research.

5. Subject to further clarifications concerning the Swedish installations, and in the absence of contrary evidence received before the end of 2007, the Commission does not envisage proposing to end the derogation. The abovementioned report on the review process provides details of the research effort that has been made to find asbestos-free alternatives. The potentially suitable alternative diaphragm materials have all been tested by industry and there appears to be little prospect of developing suitable asbestos-free alternatives in the short term.

OJ C 191, 29/07/2008