9 Export and safe storage of mercury
| (27978)
14629/06
COM(06) 636
+ ADDs 1-2
| Draft Regulation on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury
|
| Legal base | Articles 133 and 175EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 26 October 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 November 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 15 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None but see footnotes 1 and 2
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 According to the Commission, mercury is both bio-accumulative
and highly toxic, with well-known effects on the nervous, immune
and reproductive systems, and it thus presents a "global,
diffuse and chronic" problem. The largest source of exposure
in developed countries is inhalation of vapour from dental amalgam,
though exposure to the most toxic form (methyl mercury) mostly
occurs through seafood, and is hence a particular problem in coastal
areas.
9.2 The chlor-alkali industry, which produces chlorine
and alkali by electrolysis, using either mercury, diaphragm or
membrane cells, is one of the most important industrial users
of mercury, and, in October 2002, our predecessors drew to the
attention of the House a Commission report[28]
on the implications of the mercury cell process being phased out
under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
(96/61/EC). This concluded that such a step would be desirable
environmentally, in that it would significantly reduce mercury
emissions, but that that it would lead to some 12,000-15,000 tonnes,
currently in a confined use, becoming generally available in the
Community in the coming years, which could present a higher risk
if it is not dealt with properly.
9.3 The Council subsequently invited the Commission
to present a coherent strategy to protect human health and the
environment from such an outcome, and it duly put forward in January
2005, a document[29]
which dealt with the reduction of emissions, the reduction of
supply and demand, the question of surpluses and reservoirs, protection
against dietary exposure, improved understanding, and support
for international action. Amongst other things, the document noted
that mercury is traded freely on the world market, with the Community
being a major exporter, and that the dramatic fall in its price
since the 1960s had encouraged its continued use outside Europe.
It also pointed out that, whilst mercury compounds used as pesticides
are subject to international controls, there are no such restrictions
on trading metallic mercury, where the main global supplier is
a Spanish state-owned firm, which buys for resale the surplus
from the chlor-alkali industry. It therefore suggested that the
export of mercury from the Community should be phased out by 2011
by means of an amendment to the measure concerning the export
and import of dangerous chemicals.
9.4 At the same time, however, the Commission also
noted that this would require Member States to store or dispose
of the mercury becoming available as a result of the changes taking
place in the chlor-alkali industry; that, although permanent disposal
would be the optimal approach environmentally, it was currently
too expensive and technically uncertain to pursue at Community
level; and that there was a need to examine ways of finding cost-effective
storage arrangements. It therefore intended to pursue with the
industry this last point in relation to surplus mercury from the
chlor-alkali industry, and to undertake a further study of the
need to handle the large amount of mercury in products already
circulating, once these become waste.
9.5 In their Report of 15 March 2005, our predecessors
noted that the Government had said that the use of mercury had
been greatly reduced in the UK in recent decades, that emissions
were regulated under a range of European Directives and by the
UNEECE Heavy Metals Protocol, and that the UK had warmly welcomed
the development of this Strategy. However, although the document
covered important ground, and usefully identified areas where
further steps can be taken, they commented that the action proposed
was in fairly general terms, and would give rise to a number of
more specific measures over the next year or two. For that reason,
they thought it sufficient at that stage simply to draw the document
to the attention of the House.
The current proposal
9.6 The Commission has now proposed in this document
that the export of metallic mercury from the Community should
— as previously envisaged — be prohibited from 1 July
2011, and that, from that date, mercury which is no longer used
in the chlor-alkali industry must be stored in such a way that
is safe for human health and the environment, including special
landfill provisions.[30]
In addition, Member States would have to submit information on
permits issued for storage facilities, as well as on the application
and market effects of the measure, so that the Commission can
assess the impact after four years of it coming into force. The
Commission would also track imports and exports of mercury between
Member States, as well as to and from the Community.
The Government's view
9.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 November
2006, the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food at the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) says that
the proposal fits broadly with agreed UK policy, and he points
out that the one UK company still involved in the chlor-alkali
sector has for some years been planning a phase-out of metallic
mercury exports in 2011, in line with the rest of the European
industry. The proposal is not therefore expected to have any additional
impact in the UK, and consequently a Regulatory Impact Assessment
has not been prepared.
Conclusion
9.8 As we have noted, this proposal would essentially
give legal effect to a step which was set out in an earlier strategy
document, and (though welcome in a wider environmental context)
it would have no practical impact in the UK. Consequently, although
we think it right to draw the proposal to the attention of the
House in view of the health risks posed by mercury, we see no
reason to withhold clearance.
28 (23822) 12210/02; see HC 152-xl (2001-02), para
13 (20 October 2002). Back
29
(26348) 5999/05; see HC 38-xi (2004-05), para 7 (15 March 2005). Back
30
The proposed storage conditions would also apply to two other
sources of metallic mercury - that arising from the cleaning of
natural gas and that which is a by-product of non-ferrous mining
and smelting operations. Back
|
