WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/85 On the basis of the figures the Province of Turin does not meet the criteria of Article 4(5) and (6). The Commission pointed out however that the zones of the province could perfectly well be submitted as national priority areas for Objective 2 under the criteria of paragraphs 7 to 9 of Article 4. On 11 October 1999 the Commission invited Italy to draw up with all speed a revised Objective 2 zoning proposal in line with the regulatory provisions unanimously adopted by the Council after full considera- tion of the situation. The Commission regrets that no proposal has yet been received. It has several times drawn to Italyís attention the need for urgent action so as not to penalise the areas in question. Italy is the only Member State for which it has not yet been possible to adopt Objective 2 zoning. The Commission Decision of 1 July 1999 sets at € 2 522 million (1999 prices) Italyís Structural Fund allocation for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 programming period. This is unaffected by the delay in designating the qualifying areas. As soon as the list of these has been adopted by the Commission on the basis of a revised proposal, it will fall to Italy to decide how the allocation is to be split between the areas concerned. Assistance must be concentrated on those worst affected. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/00 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. Is the Commission prepared ü in line with the Dutch example ü to draw up a directive banning in view of the negative consequences for humans and the 1. products made from impregnated wood, environment? (a) If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction? (b) If not, why is the Commission opposed to a European ban on products made from impregnated wood? Is the Commission prepared to draw up a directive banning the cutting-up of impregnated wood, in 2. 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 a European ban on products made from impregnated 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