Commission plays down cancer risk in aircraft

Translated from an article in German on http://www.michael-cramer.e2u

29 June 2010: Despite medical evidence of the hazards of cancer-causing substances in cabin air, the commission and Member States are passing the buck and blaming one another.

Michael Cramer, transport policy spokesman for the Greens / EFA in the European Parliament says that contaminated cabin air is a risk for crew and passengers:

“When it comes to the avoidance of health hazards in the workplace, the protection of workers should have priority. So at least there are EU health and safety standards laid down. In the case of contaminated cabin air in aircraft it seems that for neither the EU Member States nor the European Commission is there adequate regulation to prevent carcinogenic chemicals such as beta-naphthylamine and tricresyl phosphate entering the aircraft cabin.

Despite repeated evidence and medical reports on the danger of these substances to crew and passengers, the two sides are still passing the buck.

The Commission refers to the obligation imposed on Member States to uphold their relevant EU health policies, and with it shirks its own responsibility by simply seeing itself as ‘guardian of the treaties’. The Member States, on the other hand, play down the issue, despite a large amount of evidence and grievances from affected pilots and flight attendants.

Following my written request, the Commission was informed by EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) that new measures may not be implemented until the end of 2011. This is not only procrastination of a seemingly troublesome issue to the EU, it is disgraceful to those affected. If aviation is already destroying our environment, we should at least be protecting the health of crew and passengers. Otherwise before take-off they may soon be saying ‘Please make sure your armrests are down, and stop breathing’”

Contaminated cabin air

Translated from an article in German on http://www.michael-cramer.eu

29 June 2010: The European Commission answers my inquiry by blaming the Member States for non-observance with EU health standards

An increasing number of flight attendants and pilots are complaining about contaminated cabin air in aircraft and the resulting health effects. For years, it has been known that unfiltered air containing carcinogenic chemicals are getting into the cabin. But neither the Member States nor the European Commission consider themselves responsible for policing their own health regulations for workers. My written request to the European Commission and the response from the EU Transport Commissioner, Siim Kallas is copied below.

WRITTEN QUESTION by Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Health risks posed by bleed air in aircraft cabins    

According to the ‘Markt’ programme broadcast on 29 March 2010 on the German WDR television channel (http://www.wdr.de/tv/markt/sendungsbeitraege/2010/0329/00_aerotoxic.jsp), modern aircraft (e.g. Airbus, Boeing) draw the air used to ventilate the cabin directly from the engines and circulate this unfiltered air in the aircraft cabin. This can allow substances that are harmful to human health into the aircraft.

1. Is the Commission aware that aircraft obtain their cabin air directly from the engines and pump this unfiltered air into the aircraft cabin? If so, what is the Commission's view of the fact that in this unfiltered ventilation system toxic oil fumes containing beta-naphthylamine and tricreslyphosphate, for example, can get into the aircraft?

2. It has now been medically confirmed that the chemicals beta-naphthylamine and tricreslyphosphate are very damaging for the human health system (carcinogenic) and can trigger Aerotoxic Syndrome. Despite this, the practice of drawing so-called ‘bleed air’ for the ventilation system in aircraft directly from the engines has not changed since the 1950s. What action does the Commission envisage in order to prevent this health risk to passengers and flight crew?

3. Do such aircraft take off and land in the European Union and which airlines use these planes?

4. Will the Commission look into this unfiltered ventilation procedure and, if necessary, ban it and/or have it replaced by another system? Does the Commission consider that this unfiltered ventilation system breaches European Union standards on the protection of health and safety at work?

5. What are the possible legal consequences, and will the European Commission be taking any initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

1. The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its answer to Written Questions P-3005/09 by Mrs Lucas(1) and E‑4453/09 by Mrs Brepoels(2). The Commission is aware of concerns expressed by the Honourable Member related to events of cabin air contamination and of potential for safety and health consequences. According to results of scientific studies to date, there is not yet conclusive and significant evidence on the risks for the health of crew members and passengers. In addition, such occurrences seem to be linked to rare cases of malfunctions of the air conditioning systems. The Commission is aware that several operators concerned have taken corrective actions to repair them.

Filtration systems for air pumped into the cabin are installed on aircraft. Several relevant scientific studies on this topic are ongoing in the United Kingdom, Australia as well as in the United States which should be finalised in order to identify whether new filtration systems might need to be installed.

2. At European Union level, Member States are responsible for enforcing the implementation of national legislation transposing Directive 89/391/EEC(3) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Directives 98/24/EC(4) on chemical agents and 2004/37/EC(5) on carcinogens and mutagens. Pursuant to these directives, employers have a general duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to work.

With the intention of protecting the safety and health of both aircrew and passengers, the Commission will continue to follow ongoing research projects and will carefully analyse the outcome of these studies, with the assistance of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU‑OSHA).

Indeed, EASA launched on 28 September 2009 a public call for information on this topic (A-NPA 2009-10), with the intention of gathering as much data as possible on this issue from all concerned stakeholders (including, among others, crew and passengers, airlines, manufacturers or national aviation authorities). The period for comments ended recently and EASA is analysing them. The results of the ongoing research and the A-NPA will be decisive as they may lead the Agency to propose legislative measures to the Commission or issue recommendations to the industry concerned, if appropriate.

EASA foresees a delivery of its conclusions on this task, after consulting a group of representatives from stakeholders concerned, by the end of 2011.

3. The aircraft identified in the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member are commonly used all over the world by both European and foreign operators.

4. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to previous question 2.

5. According to the information available at present, the legal implications are under the jurisdiction of the national authorities concerned.

Parliamentary question on www.europarl.europa.eu

Parliamentary answer on www.europarl.europa.eu

‘Markt’ programme referred to in parliamentary question ENGLISH  GERMAN