WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Phasing out of carcinogenic impregnated wood following the ban on new use and labelling of used material as toxic waste.
Date: 2003-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, hazardous waste, health risk, market approval, marketing, product safety, public health, semi-metal, wood industry

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/203

The Commission has decided that this proposal should be among the 43 important proposals within the
framework of the 2003 legislative and work programme, which should undergo an extended impact
assessment. The extended impact assessment is an important element of the Commission’s better regulation
action plan.

The Commission has now started preparing this impact assessment and intends to as swiftly as possible to
conduct it in order to be able to adopt the proposal.

(2003/C 192 E/245)

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?

Does the Commission recall that, in accordance with the recently adopted Directive 2003/02/EC (1),
3.
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 (cid:1) and, pending that, the screening off (cid:1)
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

C 192 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

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)
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.

type in certain industrial

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).

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/205

The enforcement of Directive 2003/02/EC is a matter for the Member States. The Commission does

5.
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.

(2003/C 192 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: Call for tenders for rail services in Denmark

(3 March 2003)

In response to a call for tenders to provide rail services in central and west Jutland in Denmark, the
operator at the time, DSB, was the lowest bidder but DSB’s offer was rejected by the Danish Transport
Minister. The contract was instead awarded to Arriva, the second lowest bidder.

The fact that DSB, as the lowest bidder, was rejected was a subject of much debate among the Danish
public and Arriva’s inability to comply with the agreement concluded has revived that debate.

Will the Commission therefore say whether the Danish government acted in accordance with current EU
rules when it rejected DSB’s bid and instead entered into a contract with Arriva to provide rail services on
routes in central and west Jutland?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The contract between the Danish Government and Arriva is subject to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1)
(hereafter the Directive). Rail transport services, the object of the contract, fall within the ambit of Annex I
B in the Directive, which in accordance with Article 9 of the Directive entails, that rail transport service
contracts are not subject to the full set of detailed provisions of the Directive.

Article 37 of the Directive provides that the contracting authority shall, before it may reject abnormally
low tenders, request details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall
verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received. This provision is not
applicable to services listed in Annex I B of the Directive.

However, the EC Treaty and the general principles of the EC Treaty are applicable as such also to services
It should, therefore, be assessed whether the
not subject to the detailed provisions of the Directive.
principle of non-discrimination, which entails equality of treatment of the tenders, was respected by the
Danish Government during the tender procedure.

At this stage the Commission does not dispose of information enabling it to assess whether there was an
incorrect application of Community rules by the Danish Government:
it therefore intends to further
enquire on these issues.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.