WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ban on the Use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood.
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 Commissionís 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 Governmentís 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