WRITTEN QUESTION P-1443/02 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Dangerous substances in wood.
Date: 2002-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, environmental impact, hazardous waste, health risk, marketing, metals, wood industry

C 52 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1443/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Dangerous substances in wood

are wood preservatives which contain copper,

Creosotes
compounds.
The authorisation for creosote was withdrawn in the Netherlands on 10 July 2000 after the CTB (College
for the authorisation of pesticides)
the use of copper-based wood preservatives causes
unacceptable damage to the environment. The CTB also said that risks to public health could not be ruled
out,
in particular in the case of play equipment and the use of wood treated with copper-based
preservatives by private individuals (in the form of fences and so on).

chromium and arsenic

found that

Each year in the Netherlands alone approximately 300 000 kilos of arsenic acid and some 600 000 kilos of
chromium trioxide enter the water, soil and air in an uncontrolled way via wood treated with creosote.
The annual volume of the trade in wood treated with creosote in the Netherlands is approximately
700 000 cubic metres.

On the basis of the whole chain approach it can be assumed that the substances are released at different
stages. The wood treated with creosote that is released in the form of waste from building and demolition
work contains between 2 500 mg/kg and 6 000 mg/kg of chromium and between 1 500 mg/kg and 2 500
mg/kg of copper.

Waste wood treated with creosote should be disposed of and processed like dangerous waste. However,
this is not what happens in practice.

Waste wood of this kind is processed into wood chips and put back on the market as a secondary raw
material in the form of chipboard or burned in electricity power stations and marketed as ‘green power’.
The last of these processes produces fly ash, which is used as a filling material in construction and road
building. In this way, arsenic and chromium are spread through the water, soil and air forming a threat to
public health.

What progress has been made with regard to the compulsory submission (by the Member States) of
dossiers on active substances under Directive 98/8/EC (1)?

Does the Commission not share my view that the spread of arsenic and chromium in the soil, air and
water is a serious threat to public health?

What steps will the Commission take under Regulation 793/93/EC (2), Regulation 1488/94/EC (3) and
Regulation 142/97/EC (4) in relation to practice in the Netherlands?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.
(4) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that Member States are
not obliged to present dossiers on active substances under Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. According to
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (1), which establishes the first phase of the review programme of all
existing biocidal active substances,
it is the producers, formulators or associations thereof who, until
28 March 2002 had to notify under Article 4(1) whether they want to have their active substances
included into Annex I of the Directive. Overall the Commission has received about 450 notifications and is
currently verifying their completeness and analysing their contents.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/73

Notifiers will then have to present full dossiers at a later stage. For wood preservatives and rodenticides the
deadline has been set at 28 March 2004, whereas for other product types the dates and priorities will be
fixed in the second Review Regulation, which the Commission is currently preparing. According to
Article 5(3) and 8 (3) and (4) of Regulation 1896/2000, Member States may indicate their interest to have
further active substances included in Annex I of the Directive and will then have to provide full dossiers
later. So far, no Member State has used these provisions.

The Commission is fully aware of the concerns regarding the pollution of the environment by arsenic,
chrome and other heavy metals. Several compounds of arsenic and chromium are on the various priority
lists established in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the
evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. The related risk assessments are ongoing and
once finalised will be submitted to the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(SCTEE) for peer-review. If deemed necessary, a recommendation for an appropriate strategy for limiting
the risks will then be adopted by the Commission, assisted by a Committee of representatives of the
Member States.

In the particular case of copper chromium arsenic (CCA) wood preservatives, the Commission is currently
preparing a revision of the restrictions already contained in Directive 76/769/EEC (2). Based on a specific
risk assessment mandated by the Commission and the opinion of the CSTEE on this assessment, the
Commission has drafted a new Directive, which further restricts the use of CCA to essential uses. This draft
had been submitted to a public consultation via internet (3). After an assessment of the responses received,
a new draft was presented for informal consultation to the Member States. Subsequently, on the basis of
the reactions from the Member States, a new draft will be elaborated and submitted for final adoption.
Furthermore, as regards the disposal of CCA-treated wood, this type of waste is classified as hazardous
waste,
the requirements of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
fulfil
therefore its disposal must
12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (4).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to
in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products, OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(2) 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, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(All relevant documents and replies to the consultation can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/
chemicals/index.htm).

(3)

(4) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2003/C 52 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1460/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question concerning Annex IIa to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71

On 15 April 2002 I put a Written Question to the Commission concerning Annex IIa to Article 10a of
Regulation 1408/71 (1) (P-1119/02 (2)). Commissioner Diamantopolou answered that question on 8 May
2002. However, she failed to deal with all the points I raised, hence this follow-up question seeking, once
again, a comprehensive answer, not least to my third question, namely how the Secretary of State could
have been quoting from the review at that time.

In her answer to my question (P-1119/02), the Commissioner states that no formal talks have been held. Is
it possible that the Secretary of State could have learnt, in the course of informal talks, the Commission’s
view on the inclusion of Wajong in the annex referred to above?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 254.