WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission. Arsenic acid.
Date: 2004-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, chemical product, exchange of information, labelling, maritime safety, maritime transport, toxic substance, transport accident, transport document, transport of dangerous goods

C 84 E/346

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

elections. With regard to the national elections of 7 March 2004, the Commission was informed by the
Greek authorities that they issued the necessary instructions on 8 January 2004 to all ministries and other
bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds, in accordance with the CSF requirements.

The Commission has no information at its disposal suggesting a breach of the rules on this subject.

(2004/C 84 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Arsenic acid

On 21 December, a large number of barrels of wood preservative were lost overboard from an Ethiopian
ship off the coast of the Netherlands. The ship had departed from England and had also called at the port
of Antwerp. Its ultimate destination was Ethiopia, via Bremen. An investigation has shown that there are
numerous questions to be answered concerning the registration and labelling of the barrels/substances and
the associated handling of the barrels/substances.

The wood preservative CCA contains copper oxide, chromium trioxide and arsenic acid. In 1992, the
1.
Netherlands Government decided to change the name of arsenic acid to arsenic pentoxide.
Is the
Commission aware that the name of one of the three active substances (arsenic acid) has been replaced by
a different name (arsenic pentoxide)?

2.
Does the Commission agree that these are two different chemical substances? According to disaster
response experts, the substances require different approaches to disaster response or recovery. (Different
UN numbers and GEVI (hazard identification) numbers).

3.

Have other Member States acted in a similar way?

4. What implications does this have in relation to Regulation (EC) No 142/97 (1), in which only arsenic
acid is mentioned as a classification?

5. What effect does this have on other legislation based on Regulation (EC) No 142/97?

6.

7.

Is the Netherlands Government seeking to evade European law by means of this classification?

If so, what measures will the Commission take to deal with this?

8. What role does Transport Directive 2002/59/EC (2) play with regard to this classification?

Did the competent authorities have a duty to notify other Member States of this transport operation,

9.
and did they comply in this case?

10.

If not, ought the ship to have left port?

How damaging is it if labels and bills of lading relating to toxic substances do not correspond to the

11.
content?

(1) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/347

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the decision adopted in 1992 by the Dutch Government according to
which arsenic acid was renamed arsenic pentoxide. Neither is the Commission aware of other Member
States having introduced similar modifications.

From a chemical point of view, arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide are two different compounds: the
chemical formula of arsenic acid is AsH3O4 and the substance name is arsenic acid (CAS # 7778-39-4 and
Einecs # 231-901-9); the chemical formula of arsenic pentoxide is As2O5 and the substance name is
diarsenic pentoxide (CAS # 1303-28-2 and Einecs # 215-116-9). The former substance is easily obtained
by dissolving the latter in water.

From a toxicological point of view, the two substances are equally toxic to humans and the environment.
Both have a harmonised classification as category 1 carcinogens (may cause cancer to humans), are
considered very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long term adverse effects in an aquatic
environment pursuant to annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967, on the approximation
of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
dangerous substances (1).

Although both the United Nations (UN) and International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code
identify these substances with different numbers, the emergency measures to contain pollution caused by
either one of the two substances are similar. Both substances are soluble in water. According to the IMDG
Code, they may only be transported by ships in watertight packages. Therefore, for both compounds, the
response to a disaster involves the recovery of the lost containers.

Indeed, only arsenic acid is mentioned in the priority list annexed to Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/
97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the delivery of information about certain existing substances pursuant
to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of
existing substances (2). Arsenic pentoxide is in none of the priority lists established pursuant to Article 8 of
Regulation (EC) No 793/93. The classification and labelling of dangerous substances is governed by a
different legislation, i.e. Council Directive 67/548/EEC.

However, arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide are both included in Commission Directive 2003/2/EC of
6 January 2003 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic (3) compounds according to
which the use of wood treated with arsenic in consumer applications (e.g.
in fencing and decking) is
banned as of 30 June 2004 at the latest. A derogation is provided for certain professional uses under
specific circumstances.

Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community
vessel traffic and information system includes provisions concerning notification of ships’ movements and
their cargoes. It requires notably operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify the
competent authority for the port of departure of several pieces of information,
including the correct
technical names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the UN numbers or the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes. However, the purpose of the Directive is not to set up
requirements concerning labelling or classification of dangerous or polluting goods.

According to Directive 2002/59/EC, the competent authorities do not have a duty to notify other Member
States on a routine basis, but they must be able to provide the information referred to in the Annex by
electronic means on request by another Member State, in particular in case of accident or for other safety-
related reasons. According to the Directive, the provision of information is not a condition for allowing
the ship to leave port.

As regards maritime transport of chemicals, Appendix I of Annex II to the Marpol 73/78 Convention
contains specific Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances. These provisions are
relevant irrespectively of the labelling applied by the Member States. In addition, the IMDG Code is the
standard guide to all aspects of handling dangerous goods and marine pollutants in sea transport. The
Code entered into force on 1 January 2004 and is mandatory for Governments for adoption or for use as

C 84 E/348

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

the basis for national regulations as they put the requirements of SOLAS 1974 and Marpol 73/78
Conventions into effect. The IMDG Code lays down basic principles; detailed recommendations for
individual substances, materials and articles; and a number of recommendations for good operational
practice including advice on terminology, packing,
labelling storage, segregation and handling, and
emergency response action.

(1) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.
(2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(3) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: EU participation in a project to build a multi-purpose hall in Brussels

The Brussels Capital City Region intends to build a multi-purpose hall in the ‘European district’, in the
so-called Van Maerlant block. According to the spokesman for the Brussels Chief Minister, Mr Ducarme,
the European Union has agreed to co-finance the project, meeting 30 % of the total cost.

Is this information accurate?

What specific undertakings have been given to the Brussels Capital City Region?

What added value does the proposed multi-purpose hall offer the European institutions when set against
the existing (and planned) infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The ‘Plan Médiateur’, a study commissioned by the Belgian government, produced ideas for 133 initiatives
on which the Belgian authorities are consulting the public. Among those ideas was one which would
involve the construction of a cultural centre in the Place Jean Rey the activities of which would be centred
round the concept of ‘European culture’.

In the ‘Plan Médiateur’ co-financing from the European Institutions (Parliament, Council, Committee of the
Regions, Economic and Social Committee and Commission) of up to 30 % for the whole project was
suggested.

The Commission welcomes the exercise as a contribution to the ongoing debate on ways to improve the
‘Quartier Européen’. As made clear in its Communication of 10 December 2003 (1), the Commission would
like to work in partnership with the Belgian authorities in efforts to achieve a variety of possible
improvements relating to the area.

However, the Honourable Member will wish to note that the Commission has yet to submit its comments
to the Belgian authorities on the Plan Médiateur and there have been no formal discussions of any kind on
any possible financial contribution.

(1) COM(2003) 755 final.