Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING     ***II
PDF 173kWORD 80k
22 March 2002
PE 314.333 A5-0097/2002
on the Council common position for adopting the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
(11356/1/2001 – C5‑0637/2001 – 2000/0159(COD))
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Rapporteur: Karl-Heinz Florenz
PROCEDURAL PAGE
 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

PROCEDURAL PAGE

At the sitting of 15 May 2001 Parliament adopted its position at first reading on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (COM(2000) 347 - 2000/0159 (COD)).

At the sitting of 13 December 2001 the President of Parliament announced that the common position had been received and referred to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (11356/1/2001 - C5-0637/2001).

The committee had appointed Karl-Heinz Florenz rapporteur at its meeting of 19 June 2000.

It considered the common position and draft recommendation for second reading at its meetings of 19 February 2001 and 21 March 2001.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Caroline F. Jackson, chairman; Karl-Heinz Florenz, rapporteur; Per-Arne Arvidsson, Hans Blokland, David Robert Bowe, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Marianne Eriksson (for Jonas Sjöstedt), Anne Ferreira, Laura González Álvarez, Robert Goodwill, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines, Daniel J. Hannan (for Martin Callanan), Anneli Hulthén, Piia-Noora Kauppi (for María del Pilar Ayuso González), Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola, Bernd Lange, Peter Liese, Torben Lund, Jules Maaten, Minerva Melpomeni Malliori, Erik Meijer (for Mihail Papayannakis), Jorge Moreira da Silva, Riitta Myller, Giuseppe Nisticò, Mauro Nobilia, Ria G.H.C. Oomen-Ruijten, Marit Paulsen, Fernando Pérez Royo (for Rosemarie Müller), Frédérique Ries, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Karin Scheele, Ursula Schleicher (for Emilia Franziska Müller), Peter William Skinner (for Catherine Stihler), Renate Sommer (for Carlos Costa Neves), María Sornosa Martínez, Bart Staes (for Hiltrud Breyer), Dirk Sterckx (for Astrid Thors), The Earl of Stockton (for John Bowis), Robert William Sturdy (for Avril Doyle), Charles Tannock (for Marialiese Flemming), Antonios Trakatellis, Kathleen Van Brempt, Phillip Whitehead and Eurig Wyn (for Alexander de Roo).

The recommendation for second reading was tabled on 22 March 2002.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.


DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (11356/1/2001 – C5‑0637/2001 – 2000/0159(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council common position (11356/1/2001 – C5‑0637/2001),

–   having regard to its position at first reading(1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2000) 347(2)),

–   having regard to the Commission's amended proposal ((COM/2001) 316(3)),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 80 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (A5‑0097/2002),

1.   Amends the common position as follows;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Council common position   Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1
Recital 9a (new)
 

(9 a) Workers employed in the collection and processing of waste are exposed to a particularly great variety of factors which adversely affect health. In order to prevent health and safety problems for such persons, implementing measures should also conform to the principles of risk prevention laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. The use of substances which become dangerous materials in the context of waste treatment should where possible be avoided in the manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment.

Justification

Reinstatement of Amendment 3 from first reading.

Amendment 2
Recital 11a (new)
 

(11a)   As product reuse, refurbishment and extension of lifetime are beneficial, spare parts need to be available.

(Reinstatement of Amendment 7 from first reading)

Justification

Reinstatement of Amendment 7 from first reading. For further justification, see Amendment 4.

Amendment 3
Article 2, paragraph 2 a (new)
 

This directive does not apply to the re-use of electrical and electronic equipment or its components, which are put on the market before the date mentioned in Article 4(1) . This includes the re-use of these components in new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market.

Justification

This amendment is intended to solve the contradiction between the RoHS directive and the WEEE directive with regard to reuse of WEEE. One of the priorities of the WEEE directive (and the European waste hierarchy) is the re-use of whole appliances or components (see e.g. Articles 1, 4, 6 of WEEE directive). The re-use of components of appliances which were put on the market before the entry into force of the ban of substances might be hindered if there is not a clear exemption from the scope of this directive.

The early discarding and destruction of technically very well re-usable EE equipment and parts thereof will cause an unnecessary and avoidable environmental burden, the consequences of which will also be felt in the years after the date mentioned in Article 4(1) . Replacement of the discarded re-usable EE-equipment and parts thereof, requires the manufacturing of new parts and equipment, which will also involve an environmental burden that can be avoided.

Amendment 4
Article 3, paragraph (b), subparagraph (ii)

(ii)   Resells under his own brand equipment produced by other suppliers, or

(ii)   Resells under his own brand equipment produced by other suppliers, where the reseller is not to be regarded as the producer, provided the name of the producer appears on the equipment in accordance with paragraph (i), or

Justification

The amendment seeks to take account of the problem of dual branding by ensuring that firms which put their own brand name on a product together with the name of the actual producer, but have no input into the product design, are outside the definition of the term 'producer' and are therefore exempt from the associated obligations.

Amendment 5
Article 4, paragraph 1

1.   By 1 January 2007 at the latest, Member States shall ensure that new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and/or polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).

1.   The Member States shall ensure that. from 1 January 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).

 

Member States are allowed to keep existing prohibitions of the above substances or to introduce such prohibitions prior to 1 January 2006.

Justification

Point 1 (first part): Reinstatement of Amendment 22 from first reading. The ban should enter into force by 2006 and not just by 2007.

Point 1 (second part): The Council introduced flexibility for Member States to allow for earlier restrictions. This flexibility should be made explicit.

Amendment 6

Article 4, paragraph 2

Justification

Point 1 (first part): Reinstatement of Amendment 22 from first reading. The ban should enter into force by 2006 and not just by 2007.

Point 1 (second part): The Council introduced flexibility for Member States to allow for earlier restrictions. This flexibility should be made explicit.

Amendment 6

Article 4, paragraph 2

2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications listed in the Annex.

2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium listed in the Annex.

Justification

Reinstatement of original wording of Commission text. The exempted applications should concern only those substances. We oppose the possible exemption of octa- and deca-BDE in a later stage, as well as the exemption of light bulbs. If we exempt 8 and 10-BDE, the ban on PBB and PBDE would be superfluous as a ban on PBB and 5-BDE will be installed overall.

Amendment 7
Article 4, paragraph 2a (new)
 

(2a)   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts and consumables for equipment and the repair of equipment placed on the market before 1 January 2006.

(Reinstatement of part of Amendment 9 from first reading not taken over by the Council.)

Justification

Reinstatement of part of Amendment 9 from first reading not taken over by the Council (reinstatement in the place provided in the common position).

Spare parts for electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market before the ban enters into force should be excluded from the scope of this directive to avoid equipment being discarded as waste because the spare parts needed for continued use could no longer be manufactured.

Amendment 8

Article 4, paragraph 2b (new)

2b.   The European Parliament and the Council shall decide, as soon as the necessary scientific data are available, and without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, on the prohibition of other hazardous substances and the substitution thereof by more environment-friendly alternatives which ensure at least the same level of protection for consumers.

Justification

Reinstatement of part of Amendment 10 from first reading To avoid any misunderstandings, it should be clear that further prohibitions should explicitly be dealt with by co-decision and not via commitology.

Amendment 9
Article 5

1.   Any amendments which are necessary in order to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress for the following purposes shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7(2):

1.   Any amendments which are necessary in order to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress for the following purposes shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7(2):

a)   establishing, as necessary, maximum concentration values up to which the presence of the substances referred to in Article 4 (1) in specific materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment shall be tolerated;

a)   establishing, as necessary, maximum concentration values up to which the presence of the substances referred to in Article 4 (1) in specific materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment shall be tolerated;

b)   exempting materials and components of electronic equipment from Article 4 (1) if the use of the substances referred to therein in those materials and components is technically or scientifically unavoidable or where the negative environmental and/or health impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental and/or health benefits thereof;

b)   exempting materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from Article 4(1) if their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components that do not require any of the materials or substances referred to therein is technically or scientifically impossible or where the negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof;

c)   carrying out a review of each exemption in the Annex at least every four years or four years after an item is added to the list with the aim of considering deletion of materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from the Annex if the use of the substances referred to in Article 4(1) in these materials and components is avoidable, provided that the negative environmental and/or health impacts caused by substitution do not outweigh the possible environmental and/or health benefits thereof.

c)   carrying out a review of each exemption in the Annex at least every four years or four years after an item is added to the list with the aim of considering deletion of materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from the Annex if their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components that do not require any of the materials or substances referred to in Article 4(1) is technically or scientifically possible, provided that the negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution do not outweigh the possible environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof.

2.   Before the Annex is amended pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall inter alia consult producers of electrical and electronic equipment, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations. Comments shall be forwarded to the Committee referred to in Article 7(1).

2.   Before the Annex is amended pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall inter alia consult producers of electrical and electronic equipment, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations. Comments shall be forwarded to the Committee referred to in Article 7(1). The Commission shall provide an account of the information it receives.

Justification

Reinstatement of parts of Amendments 11 and 33 as well as of part of Amendment 12.

The possibility of substitution (or lack of it) as a reason for deletions (or additions) to the Annex should be broader than just the specific use of substances in specific materials in components. The wording proposed by the Commission might allow for exemptions of materials and components, the design of which requires substances or materials listed and Article 4(1), while a different design or the use of different materials and components could actually replace the substances or materials listed in Article 4(1).

Health impacts should not only be considered on the negative side, but also on the positive side, and consumer safety aspects need to be considered as well.

The information submitted by the various stakeholders should be made publicly available.

Amendment 10
Article 6

Before * , the Commission shall review the measures provided for in this Directive to take into account, as necessary, new scientific evidence.

Before * , the Commission shall review the measures provided for in this Directive to take into account, as necessary, new scientific evidence.

In particular the Commission shall by that date present proposals for including in the scope of this Directive equipment which falls under categories 8 and 9 set out in Annex IA to Directive 2001/ /EC (WEEE).

In particular the Commission shall by that date present proposals for including in the scope of this Directive equipment which falls under categories 8 and 9 set out in Annex IA to Directive 2001/ /EC (WEEE).

The Commission shall also study the need to adapt the list of substances of Article 4(1), on the basis of new scientific evidence and taking the precautionary principle into account, and present proposals for such adaptations, if appropriate.

The Commission shall also study the need to adapt the list of substances of Article 4(1), on the basis of scientific evidence and taking the precautionary principle into account, and present proposals to the European Parliament and Council for such adaptations, if appropriate.

 

Particular attention shall be paid during the review to the impact on the environment and on human health of other hazardous substances and materials used in electrical and electronic equipment. The Commission shall examine the feasibility of substituting such substances and materials and shall come forward with proposals to the European Parliament and the Council to extend the requirements laid down in Article 4, as appropriate.

* *** Two years after the entry into force of this Directive..11356/1/01 REV 1 9
* *** Two years after the entry into force of this Directive..11356/1/01 REV 1 9

Justification

Reinstatement of part of Amendments 35, 34 and 15.

To avoid any misunderstandings, it should be clear that adaptation of the list of substances in Article 4(1) should be dealt with by co-decision and not via commitology.

Amendment 11
Annex, point 7, indent 1

–   Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. tin-lead solder alloys containing more than 85 % lead),

–   Lead in high melting temperature type solders,

Justification

Any definition of high melting temperature type solders should be left to the commitology procedure under RoHS and the Technical Adaptation Committee as referred to in Article 7. If you set a threshold level, by definition you are stifling innovation to produce more environmentally peformant electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). The current market for EEE is demanding greener products. This is now not only a competitive issue, but also a matter of stimulating the fastest possible rates of environmental improvements between products with the introduction of each generation of new technology.

(see also justification for the amendment to Annex, point 7, indent 2.

Amendment 12
Annex, point 7, indent 2

–   Lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems (exemption granted until 2010),

–   Lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems,

Justification

It should be left to the commitology procedure under RoHS and the Technical Adaptation Committee referred to in Article 7 to review the exemptions on a case-by-case basis as and when new technological developments occur . An arbitrary phase-out date of 2010 for servers and storage equipment as proposed by the Council is likely to lead to a situation where manufacturers have to start using less reliable technology as there are no reliable alternatives to lead currently available for use in high-end equipment such as servers.

Solders need to withstand high processing temperatures that are needed to solder the components onto the printed circuit boards that will be assembled into the final appliance. This is the reason why lead in "high temperature type solders" needs to be exempt.

The same provisions should prevail for servers as for network infrastructure, where no defined deadline is introduced. Both these exemptions are under scrutiny in the commitology procedure.

The end of life vehicles directive did not define a threshold level for lead solder but gave the aforementioned committee a mandate to assess technological developments and define dates and thresholds.

(1)Texts adopted 15.5.2001, Item 13.
(2)OJ C 365, 19.12.2000, p. 195.
(3)OJ C 240, 28.8.2001, p. 303.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

In its common position, the Council adopted 23 of Parliament's amendments from first reading in their entirety, in part or in principle.

In two important areas, the Council ignored or did not take sufficient account of Parliament's amendments, viz:

-   simultaneous entry into force of the ban on substances from 1 January 2006, and

-   exemption from the ban of spare parts and consumables for equipment placed on the market before the ban entered into force.

Three of the rapporteur's four amendments, therefore, (1, 3 and 4) are reinstatements of amendments from first reading or reinstatements of the substance of those amendments.

One amendment (2) gives a more detailed definition of the term 'producer'.

Last updated: 4 July 2002Legal notice