12 RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF PERFLUOROCTANE
SULFONATES
(27097)
15552/05
COM(05) 618
| Draft Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluoroctane sulfonates
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 5 December 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
13 December 2005 |
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 5 January 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| To be discussed in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
12.1 Perfluoroctane sulfonates (PFOS) belong to a group of chemicals
which have been commercially available in the form of salts, derivatives
and polymers. According to the Commission, PFOS-related substances
have in the past been used mainly as providing resistance to grease,
oil and water for materials such as textiles, carpets, paper and
in general coating, but current uses are now principally in such
areas as chromium plating, photography, photolithography, fire
fighting foams and hydraulic fluids for aviation. However, the
Commission also notes that a hazard assessment carried out by
OECD in 2002 concluded that PFOS were persistent, bio-accumulative
and toxic to the environment and to human health, and that this
view was also taken by a subsequent environmental risk assessment
carried out by the UK.
The current proposal
12.2 Against this background, and in the light of the endorsement
of these assessments by the Community's Scientific Committee on
Health and Environmental Risks, the Commission has now proposed
that Council Directive 76/769/EEC, which restricts the marketing
and use of certain dangerous substances, should be amended in
order to address the risks posed by PFOS. More specifically, it
has proposed that these should not be used or placed on the market,
either as a substance or as a constituent of preparations, in
a concentration equal to, or greater than, 0.1% by mass. However,
this provision would include derogations where PFOS are used in
critical applications in photolithography processes and photography;
as mist suppressants in chromium plating; in aviation fluids;
and in fire fighting foams. In addition, their use would be permitted
in controlled closed systems where the emission limit is less
than 1µg
per kg, and where such a release corresponds to less than 0.1%
by mass of the PFOS used in the system.
12.3 The Commission claims that the volumes used
in the areas to which the derogations would apply are small, and
that, by preventing the use of PFOS in applications such as carpets,
textiles, leather, paper and packaging, the proposal would cover
the greater part of the exposure risks. It adds that the advantages
and disadvantages of regulating these uses should be subject to
impact assessments, but it also says that the main objective of
the Directive is to preserve the internal market by means of harmonised
provisions which ensure a high level of protection for human health
and the environment.
The Government's view
12.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 5 January 2006,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Sustainable Farming
and Food) at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Bach) points out the extent to which the Commission's proposal
is based on work carried out in the UK. He also says that the
Government had subsequently developed draft proposals which would
have involved an immediate ban on the storage and use of PFOS
and PFOS-related substances at above 0.1% by mass, and a ban on
the importation of fire fighting foams containing PFOS (though
the use of existing stocks of such foams would have been permitted
where they are used as vapour suppressants and on oil fires).
There would also have been a five year derogation for fire fighting
foams, and critical applications in photography and photolithography,
in order to allow the development of technically feasible and
demonstrably safer substitutes, with a two year derogation for
all chrome plating applications (though it would also have been
possible in each of these cases to seek an extension of the derogation
in question eighteen months prior to the end of the period). The
use of PFOS in aviation hydraulic fluids, and for the purposes
of research, development and analysis, would have been exempted
from the regulations. The Minister comments that "the Commission
proposal therefore broadly fits with agreed UK Government policy
subject to negotiation through the co-decision process".
12.5 He has also drawn to our attention the partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment which was produced for his department
in order to help develop the proposed national measures. This
confirms the persistent, bioaccumulative and highly toxic nature
of PFOS, as well as the extent to which exposure to them has been
associated with instances of bladder cancer, and it also points
out that, whilst there has been a phasing out of their use in
existing consumer applications, this has been due principally
to the major global producer of PFOS having withdrawn from manufacture,
rather than as a result of technological innovation or an industry
initiative. It therefore concludes that there remains a potential
market for the resumed use of PFOS in those areas, which would
be several orders of magnitude higher than those from current
uses, and that any measures taken to address the latter problem
would need to be accompanied by steps to prevent the further use
of historical applications.
Conclusion
12.6 As the Minister has pointed out, the measures
envisaged in this document are based on an analysis of the risks
arising from perfluoroctane sulfonates which is similar to that
carried out by the UK in developing its own proposals for national
legislation, and, not surprisingly, the steps proposed in the
two instances are similar. However, in each case, derogations
have been proposed for certain current use, and, although we understand
the reasons for this, it is clearly desirable that such derogations
should be as limited as possible, given the persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic nature of these substances. We were therefore concerned
to note that —
unlike those in the draft UK regulations —
the derogations proposed by the Commission are open-ended, rather
than time limited. Consequently, whilst we see no need to withhold
clearance, we would like to know whether the UK intends to press
in the discussions on this proposal for the derogations to be
limited in this way.
|
