WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ban on the Use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood.
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, carcinogenic substance, common commercial policy, import (EU), market approval, toxic substance, wood industry

C 46 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Is the Commission prepared to draw up a directive banning the use of impregnated wood as fuel for
3.
power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as compost in gardens and around trees, or as
a substitute for straw in cowsheds, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment?

(a)

If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?

(b)

If not, why is the Commission opposed to such a directive?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

The Commission understands that the Netherlands has recently introduced a ban on Dutch producers
using wood preservatives containing copper, chrome or arsenic, and on the wood so treated in outdoor
applications. The Commission has not yet received notification of this ban and has requested details from
the Netherlands authorities.

Following a review of certain provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1), the Commission
has had examined the risk of using arsenic for the preservation of wood. This examination has raised
concerns over certain aspects of the use of wood preservatives containing arsenic, mainly in relation to the
long-term effects of the disposal of wood so treated. However, no acute risk for the general population was
identified.

The industry has proposed a voluntary commitment to manage the risks identified. The Commission is
examining this proposal. Besides, the Commission is considering whether further restrictions on the
marketing and use of arsenic used for wood treatment under Directive 76/769/EEC are necessary.
Furthermore, Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
includes wood preservatives within its scope. The
the placing of biocidal products on the market (2)
Commission intends to adopt
this Directive, and wood
preservatives will be identified as a first priority for evaluation. The question of proposing a further
directive restricting the marketing of these biocides will be considered in the light of the results of the
evaluation.

in the near future measures to implement

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Written Question
E-0942/00.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(2) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(2001/C 46 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Ban on the Use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood

The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and
the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is
used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.

Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from
impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor
may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as
compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/87

However, it would now appear from press reports that the Dutch Government will turn a blind eye to the
exportation to other EU Member States of carcinogenic woodshavings for the production of chipboard,
toys and the like, thus contravening both the letter and the spirit of various EU directives.

Is the Commission aware of the exportation of carcinogenic woodshavings from the Netherlands to

1.
other EU Member States?

(a)

If so, which are those countries?

(b)

If not, will the Commission set up an inquiry, in view of the negative consequences for humans and
the environment and the infringement of various EU directives?

Has the Commission received from manufacturers and importers of impregnating salts and impreg-
2.
nated wood a survey of all relevant and available information on the exposure of humans and the
environment to arsenic acid (or salts therefrom), as stipulated in Regulation No 142/97? If not, what steps
has the Commission taken to ensure full and proper compliance therewith?

Is the Commission of the opinion that impregnated wood from construction and demolition waste

3.
should be collected and processed as dangerous waste pursuant to Directive 91/689/EEC?

(a)

If not, what are the Commission(cid:146)s arguments for not treating impregnated wood as hazardous waste?

(b)

Is so, is impregnated wood in the 15 EU Member States actually treated as hazardous waste?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

1.
The Commission is not aware of the export of woodshavings from wood treated with arsenic,
chromium and copper from the Netherlands to other Member States. These substances may be used under
certain conditions within the Community for the treatment of wood under Council Directive 89/677/EEC
of 21 December 1989 amending for the eighth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the
marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1).

The export of woodshavings is not an infringement of Community legislation if the prescribed procedure
is followed. Exports of such wastes are covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 of 1 February 1993
on the supervision and control of shipment of waste within, into, and out of the Community (2). For
exports of the woodshavings for recycling, the materials are listed in Annex III of this Regulation under
heading AC 170: treated cork and wood wastes. This means that the waste may be shipped if the shipment
is notified to the Member States involved in the shipment (country of export, country of import and
possible countries of transit) and no objections are raised to the shipment. Authorities may only object on
a limited number of grounds, e.g. if the waste cannot be treated in an environmentally sound manner in
the country of destination.

At this stage there are no indications that would justify an inquiry as requested by the Honourable
Member.

2.
The Commission has received information on arsenic acid under Commission Regulation (EC) No
142/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the delivery of information about certain existing substances as
foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (3). This information was used by the Commission in
an examination of the risk of using arsenic for the preservation of wood. This examination raised concerns
over certain aspects of the use of wood preservatives containing arsenic, mainly in relation to the long-
term effects of the disposal of wood so treated. However, no acute risk for the general population was
identified. The industry has proposed to deal with these risks by way of a voluntary agreement. The
Commission is examining this proposal. In addition, the Commission is at present considering whether
further restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic used in wood preservatives under Directive 76/
769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of

C 46 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
preparations (4) are necessary. Furthermore, Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products
on the market includes wood preservatives within its scope. The Commission intends to adopt in the near
future measures to implement this Directive, and wood preservatives will be identified as a first priority for
evaluation. The question of proposing a further directive restricting the marketing of these biocides will be
considered in the light of the results of the evaluation.

Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 defines hazardous waste (5) in Article 1(4) first
3.
indent, as wastes placed on a list of hazardous waste. This list was established by Council Decision
94/904/EC of 22 December 1994 (6). This list does not include impregnated wood from construction and
demolition activities as a hazardous waste. Therefore, the provisions of Directive 91/689/EEC do not apply.

The same Directive indicates, in Article 1(4) second indent, that any waste a Member State considers to
display one or more of the properties of Annex III to the Directive is also a hazardous waste. Member
States have to notify such cases to the Commission. These cases must be reviewed by the Commission in
view of possible adaptation of the Community list of hazardous waste. Up to now the Commission has
received notifications from the United Kingdom and Austria which consider impregnated wood to be (at
least partly) hazardous waste. The Commission is reviewing these notifications in the context of a larger
review of the hazardous waste list on a total of approximately 300 notifications. The Commission has the
intention to present a proposal for a review of the list, before the end of the year, to the Committee
established under Article 18 of Council Directive 91/156/EEC (7) of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
75/442/EEC (8) of 15 July 1975 on waste for an opinion. This proposal will take into account the
assessment made on the notifications from the United Kingdom and Austria on impregnated wood.

Regardless of its classification as hazardous or non-hazardous waste,
impregnated wood may only be
recovered or disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, that is,
without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the
environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a
nuisance through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special
interest

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Written Question
E-0941/00.

(1) OJ L 398, 30.12.1989.
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
(3) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997.
(4) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(5) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
(6) OJ L 356, 31.12.1994.
(7) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(8) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2001/C 46 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Renewable energy

Will the Commission say what progress it has made in assessing the Danish Government(cid:146)s plans to
introduce renewable energy coupons? Consumers will apparently be compelled to buy renewable energy
coupons in proportion to their consumption of electricity, which is a new form of taxation in all but
name. Does the Commission consider that these coupons are a tax on Danish consumers?

Will the Commission also say whether the CO2 levy on windmills, which are normally CO2 free,
consistent with current EU rules?

is