WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Phasing out of carcinogenic impregnated wood following the ban on new use and labelling of used material as toxic waste

1. Is the Commission aware that since the 1980s the Dutch company Billiton, a subsidiary of Shell, has been able to dispose of a yearly 300 000 kilos of arsenic compounds (creosote salts) as a wood preservative by impregnating European wood with them, giving it the more durable characteristics of tropical hardwoods, and that this was possible because arsenic acid, which had long been considered toxic, and which even in small quantities can penetrate the human skin on contact, damaging genetic material and causing cancer, had been referred to in official records by the deceptive name of arsenic pentoxide?

2. Are there reliable and accessible data on the length of time during which, and the extent to which, in the EU Member States and the candidate countries wood for children's playground equipment, house building, garden furniture, fences, harbour installations, telegraph poles and agricultural fencing has been treated with arsenic acid or the possibly even more dangerous chrome VI? In which Member States did this happen most, and in which least?

3. Does the Commission recall that, in accordance with the recently adopted Directive 2003/02/EC(1), impregnated waste wood is deemed to be toxic waste and impregnation of wood with arsenic acid is to be prohibited in future, but that currently there is still a loophole in the protective rules in that impregnated wood still being used for its original purpose can remain in use, with the proviso that gloves must always be worn to handle it?

4. Why is a difference made in the treatment of impregnated wood that is still in use and that of the carcinogenic material asbestos, which was also frequently used as an inexpensive and practical building material, and which is now being actively removed from structures intended for habitation, work or recreation?

5. How, in the opinion of the Commission, is the elimination and, pending that, the screening off of current applications to take place? What complementary measures does the Commission expect from the Member States and the candidate countries, how much longer will it take for solutions to be found, and what EU incentives does it plan to implement after the introduction of Directive 2003/02/EC?

Source: the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, 12 February 2003

(1) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

1. The Commission is not aware of the alleged activities of the company referred to. As regards the current use of arsenic in the treatment of wood, Council Directive 89/677/EEC of 21 December 1989(1) which amends for the eighth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC of

27 July 1976 on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations(2) prohibits the use of these compounds in the preservation of wood generally and only allows their use in solutions of inorganic salts of the CCA (Copper, Chromium, Arsenic) type in certain industrial installations. Arsenic acid is the arsenic compound used in the formulation of CCA. In addition, Member States may authorise on their territory the use of preparations of DFA (dinitrophenol, flouride, arsenic) in certain applications.

2. The Commission does not have the data to enable a comprehensive reply to be given on this aspect. However, an assessment of the risks from the use of arsenic in wood preservation(3) carried out for the Commission identified that it has been used in the preservation of wood for many years (since the 1930s) mainly in formulations of the CCA type. The formulation of the CCA and its fixation to the wood has changed over that time. The report also identified that throughout the early 1990s there has been a steady decline in the world market for CCA wood preservatives. In 1996, the Community market for CCA was estimated at 11 000 tonnes per year which represents a decline in the overall market of over 50 % compared to that of 1989. The study further identified a number of principal use areas of CCA-treated wood including fencing, playground equipment and constructional timber.

As regards usage of CCA-treated wood in the Member States, the Netherlands have introduced measures having the effect of a ban on the use of copper based wood preservatives including CCA. The Commission is discussing these national measures with the Netherlands in the light of the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the justification of a notification by the Netherlands to introduce national measures concerning wood treated with copper substances(4).

The Commission is also aware of a general ban in place on the import, sale and use of arsenic treated wood in Denmark(5).

3. Waste wood containing hazardous substances has been classified as hazardous waste pursuant to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000(6), as last amended by Council Decision 2001/573/EC of 23 July 2001(7), which revised the European list of hazardous waste.

As regards Commission Directive 2003/2/EC of 6 January 2003, relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic(8), this bans the use of wood treated with arsenic in consumer applications (e.g. in fencing and decking). In relation to professional and industrial uses, the Directive allows the use of a certain type of CCA formulation containing arsenic only for treating wood for specific applications provided that the structural integrity of the wood is required for human or livestock safety and skin contact by the general public during its service life is unlikely, and that the waste is treated as hazardous waste by an authorised undertaking. The treated wood must also comply with certain labelling requirements.

4. The choice of risk reduction methods in any individual case must relate to the degree of risk identified. In the case of arsenic, the human health risks identified in the assessment essentially relate to childrens' health from the use of arsenic-treated wood in playground equipment and to human health generally from the disposal of arsenic-treated wood. The disposal risk relates mainly to household burning of waste wood treated with arsenic. The CSTEE evaluated this risk assessment(9) and concluded that the main risks had been correctly identified. The CSTEE further advised, in the light of a serious knowledge gap in relation to arsenic-treated wood in landfills, to exercise caution by limiting the use of arsenic-based wood preservatives to those situations where it is absolutely necessary. As a result of this risk assessment, Directive 2003/02/EC introduces a number of measures described above which the Commission believes will bring significant benefits to the protection of consumer health and the environment in general within the Union.

As regards the use of existing wood, measures introduced under Directive 2003/02/EC are not retrospective and it is for the Member States to consider any such measures that might be deemed necessary nationally.

In this context, it should also be noted that the American Environmental Protection Agency has examined this issue and has stated that it does not believe there is any reason to remove or replace CCA-treated structures, including decks and playground equipment(10).

5. The enforcement of Directive 2003/02/EC is a matter for the Member States. The Commission does not plan any Union incentives following the adoption of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 398, 30.12.1989.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(3) Assessment of the Risks to Health and to the Environment of Arsenic in Wood Preservatives and of the Effects of Further Restrictions on its marketing and use, 1998.

(4) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/out163_en.pdf.

(5) Notification 96/0242/Dk.

(6) OJ L 226, 6.9.2000.

(7) OJ L 203, 28.7.2001.

(8) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003.

(9) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/out18_en.html.

(10) http://www.epa.gov/epahome/headline_021202.htm.