WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Mislabelling of arsenic acid as pentoxide by the Netherlands as a result of mistakes in unambiguous new nomenclature for hazardous chemicals.
Date: 2004-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, chemical product, labelling, law of the sea, maritime safety, maritime transport, pollution from ships, statistical nomenclature, toxic substance, transport accident, transport document, transport of dangerous goods

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/363

(2004/C 84 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Mislabelling of arsenic acid as pentoxide by the Netherlands as a result of mistakes in

‘unambiguous’ new nomenclature for hazardous chemicals

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Ethiopian ship Andinet, which sank in the North Sea in late 2003
twenty miles off the coast of the Dutch island Texel, was loaded with vats of the carcinogenic and highly
toxic chemical arsenic acid, a substance which damages the skin and lungs if touched or inhaled, and is
used as an ingredient of the wood preservative CCA?

2.
Is the Commission aware that since 1992 the Government of the Netherlands has listed the chemical
compound ‘arsenic acid’ referred to in paragraph 1 as ‘arsenic pentoxide’, that this name change was
defended in 1995 by the then Minister of the Environment vis-à-vis the Dutch Parliament, and that the
choice of the name was justified by the desire to give substances clearer names at European level? When
did the Commission become aware of this new, misleading name in Dutch?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that dealing with arsenic acid pollution and arsenic pentoxide pollution
calls for quite different approaches and security measures, and that misleading labelling poses an increased
danger to human life when transferring loads and in emergency and cleaning operations?

4.
Does the Commission agree with the view stated on Dutch and Flemish television by the Flemish
Member of Parliament Johan Malcorps (of the Flemish Green party Agalev) that, given the misleading
labelling, the ship should never have been allowed to leave the port of Antwerp with this cargo on board?

How will the Commission prevent differing and misleading names for hazardous chemicals from
5.
continuing to be used by the individual Member States? When will a clear nomenclature that cannot give
rise to any misunderstandings be introduced?

Sources: TV Nederland 2, ‘Twee vandaag’ 23.1.2004 + TV Vlaanderen 1, ‘VRT Journaal’, 24.1.2004.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

1.
The Commission is indeed aware of the accident in question. The drums transported by the ‘Andinet’
definitely contained a mixture of arsenic pentoxide, chromium trioxide and copper oxide (which are also
the ingredients of CCA), according to the information provided by the producer and the shipping agent, in
particular through the Material Safety Data Sheet. Arsenic acid was not transported.

The Commission is not aware of any such change of name. According to chemical experts, arsenic

2.
pentoxide may easily form arsenic acid. This may be the explanation for the change of name.

the labelling applied by the Member States.

3.
As regards maritime transport of chemicals, there are particular Guidelines for the categorization of
noxious liquid substances in Appendix I of Annex II to the Marpol 73/78 Convention, which are relevant
irrespective of
the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which is the standard guide to all aspects of handling dangerous goods
It is mandatory for
and marine pollutants in sea transport, entered into force on 1 January 2004.
Governments to adopt this Code or to use it as the basis for national regulations when 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
stowage, segregation and handling, and emergency response action.

In addition,

C 84 E/364

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community
4.
vessel traffic and information system (1) includes provisions concerning notification of ships’ movements
and their cargoes. In particular, it requires operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify
the competent port authority and to provide certain pieces of information, including the correct technical
names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the United Nations (UN) numbers or International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes.

The Commission cannot have a formal position on a third party’s alleged comments on TV or in the press.
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the authorisation to leave a port is an exclusive competence of the
authorities of the Member States.

The nomenclature for chemicals has been internationally agreed for decades under the rules of the
5.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
In addition, CAS numbers (Chemical
Abstracts Services) and EC numbers provide assistance in identifying chemicals. The EU uses such
including for arsenic acid and arsenic
nomenclature and numbering systems for dangerous chemicals,
pentoxide.

(1) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0336/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Embryo research financed from the EU budget

(4 February 2004)

1. Why did the Commission,
in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise
proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial
agreement?

2.
Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on
ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the
Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree?

3.
Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on
11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the
decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a
Commissioner who thinks differently?

4.
In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to
disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to
ethical questions?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory
the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The

1.
nature which took place in the margins of
Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure.

The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these

2.
issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules.

3.
The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to
reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the
Council’s table.