(Debate: Wednesday 26 March 2003 - Vote: 27 March 2003)

Parliament approved a proposed directive curbing the use of nonylphenol (NP) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE), which are used eg in detergents, resins, plastics, stabilisers in the polymer industry, phenolic oximes, and paints.

Cement also comes within the scope of the directive because it can contain small amounts of chromium-6, which is classified as carcinogenic and sensitising, and can induce painful, disabling, allergic eczema in people exposed to wet cement preparations.

The Commission wanted to restrict the marketing and use of NP and NPE and of preparations containing them, and of cement containing more than 2 parts per million chromium-6.

Parliament's Environment Committee sought to widen the Commission proposal to include components of pesticides and biocides, as well as preparations for sale to the general public, and food packaging. It also called for a limit value to be set for NP and NPE in sewage sludge spread on land.

Also, the Environment Committee wanted restrictions on all cement products containing more than 2 ppm chromium-6, and further legislative action to restrict other uses of chromium-6.

Parliament, Commission and Council collaborated closely to find a compromise, avoiding the need for a second reading and a conciliation procedure.

The text adopted by Parliament is on www.europarl.europa.eu - see this link.

The Council gave its final approval by qualified majority on 19 May 2003.

More on the European Commission website: Chemicals Industry: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/index_en.htm

Link to Parliamentary report by Lannoye (A5-0044/2003) via http://www.europarl.eu.int/plenary/default_en.htm or this link.

 

European Parliament debate (excerpts), 26 March 2003

[ Link to full debate here ]

Erkki Liikanen, Commission. - This is an important directive, as it would introduce a ban on the cleaning agent 'nonylphenol' that has been identified as posing unacceptable risks to the aquatic environment. It is a very far-reaching proposal, as it bans the marketing and use of nine different applications where the substance could be released into the aquatic environment. The proposed directive will therefore encourage the marketing and use of safer alternatives.

Furthermore, the proposal sets a strict limit for chromium-6 in cement, as chromium-6 has been shown to induce disabling and allergic eczema, especially among cement workers. In the EU each year, hundreds of new invalidity cases occur which cause high costs for the occupational insurance systems.

The proposed directive provides not only for the protection of human health and the environment, but also preserves the Internal Market, as it would introduce harmonised rules throughout the Community.

Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE) (Cons, Yorkshire and the Humber). - We have come together on three important issues: firstly, on the issue of cement. Nobody argues with the fact that hexavalent chromium causes dermatitis but, of course, we must not forget that only 50% of dermatitis cases are linked to this particular cause. As the rapporteur has said, dosing cement with ferrous sulphate counteracts this problem.

The initial suggestion from the Commission was that we should limit this dosing to cement used for manual use. But the whole of Parliament agreed this was very hard to define as even, for example, when one is pouring a large motorway bridge or laying a large floor, there is a certain amount of manual work involved in grouting or finishing.

The compromise we came to was only to exempt uses in closed industrial applications, for example, the manufacture of concrete blocks, concrete lintels or other products of that type. The second issue regarding cement was the risks of long-term exposure. The rapporteur has talked about the carcinogenic and mutagenic problems of chromium-6 but, of course, nobody is realistically suggesting that the levels of chromium-6 in cement pose a risk. However, we need to look at the problem without raising undue concerns which would worry the workers in this industry and make the insurance industry very cagey indeed. It is important that we set limit values and that we do so in a sensible way, although we already have limit values set in the United Kingdom.

On the issue of nonylphenol, this is an aquatic pollutant, and although many in the committee tried to talk about health risks and bring in other factors, we must concentrate on the case at hand, which is making sure that nonylphenol does not reach water courses and is banned in applications where there is no alternative.

We need exceptions and the problem of using nonylphenol ethoxylate as a co-formulant in pesticides is one that we addressed. The compromise is to allow existing pesticides to continue until the end of their licensing period, but it will be banned in new pesticides. Incidentally, we still allow them to be used in spermicides in condom production where there is no alternative.

David Bowe (PSE) (Labour, Yorkshire and the Humber). - Firstly with regard to cement, we have made substantial progress. The problem has been recognised and identified across the whole of Europe. Cement is a major cause of eczema for all workers in occupations involving the regular use of cement. Various experiences and various construction projects utilising cement that has been ameliorated with ferrous sulphate have demonstrated that the sensible use of this cement makes a very substantial reduction in the number of incidents of eczema within the industry. It is clear that making this mandatory could bring considerable improvements for many workers across the whole of Europe. Whilst we have had to accept some compromises to reach a first reading agreement, we have reached a reasonable compromise, although we must continue to examine the problems associated with the use of cement in closed systems. In reality, I do not think I have ever seen a closed system myself in any factory anywhere where cement does not leak, squeeze or squirt out somewhere in the system and come into contact with workers on a fairly regular basis. We must continue to look at this issue.

As regards nonylphenol ethoxylate, again we have made substantial progress - progress that I regret cannot result in an immediate implementation of complete controls on it. But the compromises we have reached are reasonable. Firstly, only where those uses are really inevitable, for example in the use of spermicides, have we allowed the continued use and we are still concerned to find appropriate and suitable alternatives; and secondly, where we have decided to end the use of these things, for example as a co-formulant in pesticides, we have given a reasonable phase-out time and reasonable opportunity for the industry to bring forward new formulations that are appropriate and efficacious for use without the use of nonylphenol ethoxylate, which is again a reasonable compromise. Altogether, we can all commend this report to the House tomorrow morning and consider it a job well done, congratulate the rapporteur and look forward to early implementation of this proposal and a substantial saving in costs and compensation towards industrial injuries caused by cement and probably towards human health caused by nonylphenol ethoxylate.

(Online June 3rd, 2003)

(Updated June 6th, 2006)

[ top ]