UNITED - POPSchm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-PO… · Web viewUNITED NATIONS SC...

UNITED

UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/INF/7

UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/INF/7

UNITEDNATIONS

SC

UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/INF/7*

Stockholm Conventionon Persistent OrganicPollutants

Distr.: General24 November 2015

English only

Persistent Organic Pollutants Review CommitteeEleventh meeting

Rome, 19–23 October 2015

Agenda item 5 (a)

Technical work: consideration of a draft risk

management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl

ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Comments and responses relating to the draft risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Note by the Secretariat

As referred to in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/2, the annex to the present note sets out tables listing the comments and responses regarding the draft risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE). The present note including its annex, which has been reproduced as submitted by the intersessional working group, has not been formally edited.

Annex

Compilation of comments on the draft risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

1. Minor grammatical or spelling changes have been made without acknowledgment. Only substantial comments are listed.

2. Table 1 (page 2–10) lists comments and responses relating to the third draft of the risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE) and table 2 (page 11–36) lists those to the second draft.

Table 1. Comments and responses relating to the third draft of the risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Source of Comment

Para

Comments on the third draft of the risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Response

Australia

-

Australia understands and appreciates that should c-decaBDE be listed, the Basel Convention would be tasked with determining methods that constitute environmentally sound disposal of c-decaBDE containing waste and low content limits. However, in addition to this, we consider that waste matters are integrally linked to the obligations taken on with listing (via article 6) and hence need to be incorporated into considerations and decision-making throughout the Stockholm process where possible. Disposal is very relevant to the socio-economic consideration that informs the decision at the Annex E stage. We are of the view that it would be very beneficial where possible for more of these waste elements to be considered at the Annex E stage so that the POPRC and the COP can make an adequately informed decision. We are concerned that quarantining such matters to Basel to be undertaken only after listing may not allow for such consideration. Experience shows that the timeframe between a listing coming into force and Basel guidance being developed can be up to 6 years. In the meantime, the Article 6 requirements are usually in force for many countries. In this regard, we consider that several of the comments made by the Netherlands remain pertinent.

We agree that information on waste related issues are of relevance to the Annex F evaluation of c-decaBDE. We have to the extent possible sought to include information on relevant waste related issues in the c-decaBDE risk management evaluation. Concerning the comments by the Netherlands, these have been responded to in previous commenting rounds.

Canada

29

Please remove in order to remain consistent with changes in the Executive summary.

“The most effective control measure would be to list c-decaBDE in Annex A of the Convention with no exemptions for production and use.”

Not accepted. Text has been edited in the Executive summary to reflect paragraph 29.

Canada

39

Move the following text to the end of the same paragraph:

Many countries and regions globally have the capacity to incinerate POPs, such as in hazardous waste incinerators or by co-processing in cement kilns. However, a general overview of the global capacity or the capacity for incineration in specific regions is not available.

Accepted.

Canada

40

Suggested editing of text:

Waste containing c-decaBDE above the low POP content level can be landfilled only in specially engineered landfills as provided by the Basel Convention guidance (Basel Convention 1995, 2015; Stockholm Convention 2012a). Waste containing c-decaBDE below the low POP content level should be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with pertinent national legislation and international rules, standards and guidelines.

Accepted.

Canada

135

Please remove in order to be consistent with changes in the Executive summary.

Not accepted. Text has been edited in the Executive summary to reflect paragraph 135.

European Union (European Commission)

-

We would like to thank the drafting group for taking on board most of our recommendations and comments. From the responses to our comments we learned why some suggestions weren’t/couldn’t be taken on board. Nevertheless we would again like to emphasise that quantitative data (on production volumes, costs, see our respective comments), which we know is difficult and sometimes even not possible to obtain, would always add to the quality of a risk management options analysis. Furthermore we think that some concrete examples on impacts (to HH/ENV, which occur due to exposure to DecaBDE) would improve the document – please see our specific comments in the document. Overall we support the concluding statement of the risk management evaluation to list DecaBDE in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention.

In line with Annex E and F of the Stockholm Convention and the outline agreed upon by POPRC for risk profiles and risk management evaluations quantitative data on production volumes, emissions etc. should be included and described in detail in the risk profile and not the risk management evaluation. A short overview of relevant information from the risk profile should however be provided in the risk management evaluation. Such information is provided for c-decaBDE and includes to the extent possible the quantitative information requested by the EU.


7

If examples of impacts (to HH/ENV) are available, it would be beneficial to mention some of them (not necessarily within this paragraph (as it is the executive summary part of the document) but perhaps later in the document).

Text has not been edited because effect on human health and environment is not the focus of the risk management phase and these subjects was covered in the draft risk profile for c-decaBDE (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10/Add.2). See also above response to comment.


49

Please rephrase:

When screening and separation techniques are not readily available, recycling should be avoided at concentrations which (?) are assumed to be above the low POP level.

Accepted.


52

If possible, a brief description could be added how “reliable” the drafter considers these concerns to be: However, at a later stage Parties and some Observers have raised a concern regarding service and replacement of parts in articles already in use and identified a possible need for exemptions in the transportation sector. In addition, some Parties have indicated a possible need for a recycling exemption in line with what was agreed upon for other listed PBDEs.

Text has been edited in response to the comment.


102

As mentioned already previously, and if possible, examples of impacts could be listed:

…lead to significant adverse effects, such as….. to human health and/or the environment.

Text has not been edited because effect on human health and environment is not the focus of the risk management phase and these subjects was covered in the draft risk profile for c-decaBDE (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10/Add.2)


131

How reliable? Verifiable at all?

“Parties and some Observers have raised a concern regarding service and replacement of parts in articles already in use and identified a possible need for exemptions in the transportation sector”.

Text has been edited in response to the comment.

Japan

5

This document only focuses on the effects of recycling past articles containing c-DecaBDE to the environment; however, it does not discuss social and economic impacts by stopping recycling plastics or adding more cost on separating articles possibly containing c-DecaBDE. Since RME should consider both aspects, more analysis on the potential impacts on the circular economy should be discussed in this document. If necessary, POPRC12 in 2016 can focus on such aspects since decision on c-DecaBDE would be taken in the COP7 in 2017 at the earliest.

Social and economic effects of not allowing recycling are discussed in paragraphs 112 and 113. A new sentence summarizing the information in paragraphs 112-113 has been included in paragraph 5.

Japan

48


Chapter 2.2 focuses on the efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals. In line with the outline for the risk management evaluations, social and economic effects of any proposed restrictions, including that of allowing or not allowing recycling are discussed in Chapter 2.4 “Summary of information on impacts on society of implementing possible control measures”. In particular, the social and economic effects of allowing/not allowing recycling are discussed in paragraphs 112 and 113.

Japan

134


Social and economic effects of not allowing recycling are discussed in paragraphs 112 and 113. A new text summarizing the information in paragraphs 112-113 has been included in paragraph 134.

Netherlands

General

Netherlands generic comments decaBDE risk management evaluation version 03.06.2015

We are supportive of listing decaBDE in the Convention. However, we do think that the RME can still be improved considerably in addressing the challenges that Parties may encounter if decaBDE is listed as such

We are glad that the drafter(s) have taken note of the various comments that have been submitted in the previous two rounds on recycling and waste (1). We would appreciate if that topic is presented in a more balanced way and would propose to incorporate a recycling exemption in the suggested risk management measures.

Further main topics that have not or have hardly been addressed in the risk management evaluation at present are re-use (2) and enforcement in relation to illegal export (3), and we think that those still should be incorporated. The sections on economic aspects and social costs (4) and on separation techniques (5) should be much more balanced in our opinion. The various topics have been summarized below per topic, details are incorporated in the RME itself.

In general, the document is quite long (27 pages + reference list). It is suggested to shorten it considerably, for instance by moving certain information to the supporting document. Suggestions have been provided in the RME.

1.Recycling

Various Parties and observers (a number in the 1st round and Australia, Canada, ACEA, Japan, and The Netherlands in the previous round) have noted that there should be attention for an exemption on recycling comparable to the one for the other BDEs listed in 2009. Although that has been noted by the drafters, we do not find anything of this in the suggested management measures, nor in the concluding statement. Therefore, we propose to put an exemption comparable to the one for the other BDEs in bracketed text in chapter 3.3.

2.Re-use

The RME hardly mentions re-use anywhere in the text of the RME. The only place where re-use is mentioned is in paragraph 112, last sentence. It is an open sentence not addressing the problems that may arise when listing decaBDE. We think that it is necessary to pay serious attention to this issue in the RME as it may inform Parties and observers properly on the consequences of listing, and we also think that it is necessary to discuss this topic at POPRC.

Re-use has been addressed within the European restriction dossier and we assume that the drafters are familiar with that dossier. Therefore we propose to incorporate text on this issue in the draft management evaluation which is in line with the European restriction dossier and address this topic as well in the suggested management measures. The Convention addresses re-use in article 6.d.iii. If no exemption or acceptable purpose is incorporated, selling and buying 2nd hand textiles containing decaBDE is not allowed any more. The consequences for 2nd hand textile handling in general have not been explored in this risk profile, which is a serious omission.

3.Illegal exports and enforcement

Export of illegal waste to developing countries benefit more from better enforcement in the countries of origin than by developing and imposing new legislation as proposed in the present Risk management evaluation. The latter approach lays the burden in the developing countries rather than in the exporting ones.

On the international trade and illegal exports, we are of the opinion that the solution lays in monitoring and enforcement of the existing regulation in exporting (developed) countries rather than in making new regulations that should improve the situation in the countries of destination. By the approach proposed, the burden is put on the importing countries rather than on the exporting ones.

Enforcement is not mentioned at all in the text of the RME, which is an omission. Specifically countries that have already phased out decaBDE or have prohibited export of decaBDE containing electric and electronic waste may have experiences on this item that should be shared here with other parties.

4.Economic aspects and social costs

Annex F request to provide relevant relating to socio-economic considerations associated with possible control measures to enable a decision to be taken by the Conference of the Parties. Such information should reflect due regard for the different capabilities and conditions among the Parties and should include consideration following an indicative list of items provided in annex F.

It strikes us that the words ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ appears for the first time in paragraph 36 and 88 respectively, neglecting this topic entirely in the executive summary. We have added a sentence in the executive summary to reflect the uncertainties.

The RME lacks data and definitely does not provide a balanced insight in the socio-economic considerations related to listing decaBDE. Most essential is the lack of insight in the applications in which decaBDE is or has been used, the distribution of decaBDE among these applications and the amount of decaBDE present in the various waste streams. That makes consideration of the economic aspects and social costs almost impossible. Therefore it is striking to read the conclusion in paragraph 101 that gives the impression that a restriction on the use of decaBDE are considered small and outweighed by the benefits of an elimination/regulation. Chapter 2.4.4 does not provide any data for backing up that statement. As indicated below, such data are available, but have not been incorporated in the RME. And references indicating the uncertainties around the various waste streams containing decaBDE have also not been incorporated for reasons that only the drafters know.

Considerations on socio-economic aspects have been made in Leisewitz & Schwarz 2000a (http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/formulation-of-proposals-for-measures-to-be-taken) in chapter 5.5: “Disposal costs: Next to the manufacturing costs, the costs incurred in connection with disposal are becoming more important (for example as a result of the electronic scrap directive, waste classification and incineration guideline). In contrast to the production costs, these are almost always costs accruing in economic enterprises as the result of corresponding legal acts imposing upon the enterprises costly obligations (taking back of end of life products, recycling, environmentally compatible disposal) as to the handling of waste. This cost type is, in other words, highly dependent upon politics.”

In that light it is important to know a countries policy on incineration, landfill and other ways of disposal and these differ considerably already within Europe (see reference on plastic waste in para 45). Thus, worldwide costs may differ considerably as well. In the last decade Norway has increased the tax on landfilling and decreased the tax on incineration in order to promote the latter, which is important to understand the focus on incineration in this RME. The above considerations should not be omitted from the dossier and a more worldly view would be welcomed.

The Environmental authority in Norway has completed a study into the costs and benefits of a ban on deca-BDE in 2004. This investigation shows that decabromodiphenylether in Norway is found in products within the transport sector and to a lesser extent in other products on the market. The report concludes that a separate Norwegian ban will lead to big problems and costs of transport. The report (http://www.sft.no/nyheter/dokumenter/dekabde_forbudsvurdering070904.htm) was not retrievable for us, but we think that it is important to share this information in this RME. The reference from which the citation is taken, and provided in the comment on 2.4.4, also speaks about a Swedish paper on this topic.

We think that a more balanced view on the costs of identification, increased enforcement and investments for waste management because of listing of decaBDE is definitely necessary. Cost for some countries may be limited if they already have phased out decaBDE, but for other countries it is definitely not costless. We have included a number of references in the RME that provides a clearer picture of these aspects and are of the opinion that they should be incorporated to come to a proper decision.

5.Separation techniques

It should be noted in the text of the RME that separation techniques currently are not able to separate between specific substances in an automatic and rapid way, which has also been noted by Australia, BSEF, Canada, Japan, and the Netherlands in the previous commenting round. In contrast to the observation in NCM (2014a) below and the comments on the RME in the 2nd round, the document still gives the impression that separation of decaBDE containing plastics can easily be performed.

NCM (2014a) is cited on various places in the RME. NCM (2014a) states on page 53 on the separation of BFR containing plastics (thus, more broadly than decaBDE where we are speaking of here!!): “It is evident that effective separation of WEEE plastics in this fashion involves at least two and possibly three separate steps – separation of PP, removal of BFRs and separation of the styrenics. In practice there will be other plastics fractions in the overall mix, at small but more than trace concentrations. Further handling of the float and sink fractions at each stage is obviously necessary, along with the regeneration / recycling of float medium and downstream drying. This implies fairly complex process plant, which in turn requires considerable investment. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this presents something of a barrier to new players in the WEEE plastics separation market, and that the apparent concentration of commercial-scale working expertise in WEEE plastics recycling is unsurprising. Nonetheless, there appear to be few significant technological barriers to the separation of WEEE mixed plastics.”

We propose to incorporate the above text from NCM (2014a) on costs and the complexity clearly in the text in chapter 2.4.4 of the RME and to provide the information that currently it is not possible to identify individual substances in the waste stream instantly in chapter 2.2 of the RME.

We would appreciate if the facts added to the document can be incorporated and in case they cannot, that they will be incorporated in the background document.

To be considered at POPRC-11.

Netherlands

3

Comment on “The amount of c-decaBDE used in plastics and textiles globally varies but up to about 90% of c-decaBDE ends up in plastic and electronics while the remaining % ends up in coated textiles, upholstered furniture and mattresses.”

Strange grouping of categories. Suggests that c-decaBDE is also used in electronics other than plastics used in electronic equipment.


Netherlands

4

Comment on “Due to the historical- and present use of c-decaBDE as a flame retardant, a large number of products in use will become waste in the future.”

Any product will become waste in the future, please remove this sentence


Netherlands

5

Delete “At present, recycling of c-decaBDE containing plastics and textiles is not known to occur to a great extent.”

Add “There is no full insight in the amount of recycling of decaBDE containing plastics.”

Please remove, para 46 tells something else: “A report published in 2002 by the Basel Action Network, claimed that 50 to 80 % of the e-waste collected for recycling in the western USA is exported to Asia, of which 90% is destined for China. Furthermore, it was reported that of the amount of e-waste collected in developed countries and sent for recycling, 80 per cent ends up being shipped (often illegally) to developing countries to be recycled by hundreds of thousands of informal workers (ILO, 2012).”


Netherlands

6

Delete “some”. Add “various”.

Several parties and observers commented on recycling in this round: ACEA, Australia, Canada, Canadian Vehicle, Japan, and Netherlands.

And there were also several that commented in the previous round.

Would propose to replace some by several.


Netherlands

6

Comment on “However”.

However is not in its place here, as the previous sentence is on recycling and the sentence is definitely not on recycling.


Netherlands

7

Add “A restriction on c-decaBDE might have an economic impact on the recycling industry, but the economic costs and benefits are hard to predict.”

Costs appear in para 36 of the RME for the first time. We think that is should get a place in the executive summary. This is a citation from para 112.


Netherlands

20

Add “In Norway a phase out schedule was implemented phasing out electronic equipment in product categories 8 and 9 in July 2014, product category meical devices and in vitro diagnostics in July 2016, Product Category 9 industrial monitoring and control instruments in July 2017 and EEE that have not previously been regulated and which are not covered by the 1st and the 3rd items in July 2019.”


Netherlands

20

Comment on “The ban, which entered into force in 2008, includes all uses except the use of c-decaBDE in means of transportation.”

According to the Norwegian regulation we retrieved, there is a scheduled phase in of the prohibition for dekaBDE in electronics:

For EEE in the following product categories, the prohibition in subsection from:

a) Product Category 8 and 9: July 22, 2014.

b) Product Category 8 medical devices for in vitro diagnostics: 22. July 2016.

c) Product Category 9 industrial monitoring and control instruments: 22. July 2017.

d) EEE that have not previously been regulated and which are not covered by a) to c): 22. July 2019.

And

First paragraph does not spare parts recovered from EEE that were traded on the EEA market before 1 July 2006 and used in EEE traded on the EEA market before July 1, 2016. It is assumed that reuse takes place in controllable, enclosed return systems between companies, and that the consumer be informed that parts consist of recycled material.

We would urge to give a clear picture of the prohibition as it shows that Norway used a scheduled phase out and as it shows how Norway acted on the re-use of decaBDE containing materials.

The Netherlands asked already for a clear picture in the previous commenting round, but got the answer: Comment noted, however the experiences with phasing out c-decaBDE in Norway have not been compiled in a report and is therefore not described in the risk management evaluation. We think that it is very important to share experiences as the ones noted above to provide a balanced RME.

See:

https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2004-06-01-922

Comment on “Following this ban recycling of waste containing c-decaBDE is not allowed.”

Recycling is regulated by the waste directive, so probably the 0.25% indicates whether a material may be recycled or not.


Netherlands

21

This resulted in agreement with three large worldwide producers of c-decaBDE to voluntarily phase-out the export import of c-decaBDE to Canada.


Netherlands

21

“As part of this encouragement, the U.S. EPA developed a Design for the Environment and Green Chemistry alternatives assessment for c-decaBDE to aid users in selecting suitable alternatives. In addition, the U.S. EPA proposed an update to the PBDE Significant New User Use Rule (SNUR) and simultaneously proposed a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 4 test rule for c-pentaBDE, c-octaBDE, and c-decaBDE.”


Netherlands

22

Comment on “in scanners, vacuum cleaners, video cameras, printers, fax machines, multifunction devices, digital disc players, voice recorders, colour television broadcasting receivers, mobile hard disk drives, cameras, ink for ink jet printing, leather and synthetic leather, digital stencil duplicator, microcomputers and displays, household electric washing machines, room air conditioners, furniture, refrigerators, ballasts for tubular fluorescent lamps and household microwave ovens”

Could this be replaced by “various electronic equipment”?


Netherlands

23

Comment on “Other industrial stakeholders have also implemented/ launched voluntary initiatives. In 1986, the German Chemicals Industry Association (VCI) voluntarily agreed to discontinue the use of c-decaBDE because of concerns about the potential for brominated dioxins/furans emissions from incomplete combustion in the products.”

Firstly, emissions were not the reason for action, but the fact that the brominated dioxins/furans appeared in the plastics. Secondly, concern was not only on decaBDE but on all BDEs and thirdly, there was not an agreement to discontinue the use. Please see text in Pohle, 1990, Polybromierte diphenylether, UWSF-Z. Umweltchem. Okotox. 2 (3) 148-150 (1990):

Im Jahre 1986 wurden vom Verband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI), vom BFRIP und vom UBA weirere ersetzungs- untersuchungen von Flammschutzmitteln und flammgeschfitzten Kunststoffen eingeleitet. Erste orientierende Laborversuche zeigten, daf~ vor allem bei Zersetzungstemperaturen von poly-bromierte Diphenylether enthaltende

Kunststoffe um 600 oC~ grossere Mengen PBDF gebildet werden.

Unter dem Eindruck dieser Ergebnisse informierte der VCI den Bundesminister ffir Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktor-sicherheit (BMU) fiber den Sachverhalt. Dabei wurde darauf hingewiesen, dafg sich die Mitgliedsfirmen des VCI verstarkt um die Entwicklung von Ersatzprodukten bemfihen werden. Informationen fiber substituierte Mengen von polybromierten Diphenylethern wurden halbj~ihrlich bis

1989 vom Verband der Kunststoffer-zeugenden Industrie zur Verffigung gestellt (BMU 1989). In Form einer Presseer klairung unterrichtete der VCI am 29.08. 1986 die Offentlichkeit yon diesem Sachstand (VCI 1986).

The article further reports on the research carried out by VCI:

In den Jahren 1987 und 1988 wurden die initiierten Untersuchungs-programme zur PBDD/PBDF-Bildung und zur Toxikologie von PBDD/PBDF durchgeffihrt.

Please adapt the text accordingly!


Netherlands

23

Comment on “(ECHA 2012c)”

A better reference here is: UBA 2003, https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/2386.pdf

See also Pohle (1990) for the background (UWSF-Z. Umweltchem. Okotox. 2 (3) 148-150 (1990))


Netherlands

23

Add “The commitment was only of limited effect (Leisewitz & Schwarz, 2001).”


Netherlands

23

Move “C-decaBDE is nevertheless still being extensively used in many countries.” to the end of the paragraph.


Netherlands

24

Comment on “world total production of PBDEs (KemI 2005; RPA 2014) and the total global production”

What is the difference between “world total production” and “total global production”?


Netherlands

28

Given that BDE-209 the main constituent of c-decaBDE, i.e. BDE-209, is likely as a result of its long range environmental transport to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted (UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10/Add.2, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10), and mindful of the precautionary approach set forth in Article 1 of the Convention, the aim of any risk reduction strategy for c-decaBDE should therefore be, as far as possible, to reduce and eliminate emissions and releases of c-decaBDE.


Netherlands

30

Comment on “Labelling of products containing POPs”.

Although we do not believe that much in labelling, we would propose to add ‘new products’ to prevent any confusion about labelling products already in the chain.

The need for labelling further needs more elaborate argumentation. It now appears off-side in para 73 and 106.


Netherlands

31

Though many of the Parties and Observers supports listing c-decaBDE in Annex A without exemptions, some various Parties and Observers have also identified the need for a possible exemption for recycling in line with what was provided for the already listed POP-BDEs.


Netherlands

32

Comment on “Moreover, for a wide range of the applications where c-decaBDE is used other FRs have already replaced c-decaBDE (KemI 2005). In addition, some of the exemptions claimed by the transportation sector may not to require an exemption under the Convention because they concern products and articles that have already been placed on the market.”

According to the presentation given early June at RAC still decaBDE is foreseen to be used in the near future. Comments from ACEA and BSEF and Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Ass. In the present RCOM also indicate differently.


Netherlands

2.2

Comment on “2.2 Efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals”

Considerable problems can be expected in the waste phase. A thorough discussion on this topic, based on available data and not in considerations, is therefore required.

Firstly, because the amounts put on the market of decaBDE are expected to be much larger than that of HBCDD (see for instance the Norwegian Action plan for the reduction of emissions of brominated flame retardants. Updated November 2009, http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/Global/dokumenter/tema/kjemikaler/bromerteflammehemmere_handlingsplan2009.pdf

which show a 2-3 times higher Norwegian consumption in 2007 for decaBDE and Eggen & Ottesen (2008). Bromerte flammehemmere i isolasjonsmaterialer, http://www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjoner/Rapporter/2008/2008_081.pdf

Besides the concentrations, use of decaBDE was much more scattered.


Netherlands

34

Add text “According to information presented in Section 2.3, the phase-out of c-decaBDE in new products is technically feasible and may be accomplished within a short time-frame given that alternatives for all known uses are available and accessible, except for a limited number of exemptions where users/producers have indicated the need for a longer time-frame.”


Netherlands

34

According to Buekens and Yang (2014) EEE have an average service life of 3-12 years globally, with large object objects having longer service life.


Netherlands

34

Comment on “In some developing countries, service lives of different c-decaBDE products may be even longer than the 12 years indicated above.”

Maybe another number of years is meant here, but at least something along these lines is necessary.


Netherlands

35

Introducing waste management measures, including measures for products and articles upon becoming waste, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, would ensure that wastes containing c-decaBDE at concentrations above the low POP content are disposed of in an effective and efficient way such that their POPs content is destroyed or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.


Netherlands

36

Comment on “(NCM, 2015a).”

The NCM 2014a cited here report in their summary:

“The plastics mix is relatively separable – the technologies appear well-established, however the necessary capital expenditure is considerable. Large throughputs are required, thus representing a barrier to market entry. In principle there are deep end-use markets for recycled WEEE plastics, but the picture in practice is more difficult. Near closedloop recycling potential is currently very limited and the marketplace for recycled plastics is competitive. Concerns include quality issues and worries about hazardous materials and effective competition with other, more mature, recycled plastics sources such as packaging waste.”

On page 27 the report remarks: “The plastics mix varies considerably for different WEEE product groups, and this is important for the separability of plastics in a technical and economic perspective.”

And on page 28: “The biggest general barrier to the recyclability of all plastic fractions is the potential for hazardous substances, as described in the following section.”

And on page 53 on the separation of BFR containing plastics (thus, more broadly than decaBDE where we are speaking of here!!): It is evident that effective separation of WEEE plastics in this fashion involves at least two and possibly three separate steps – separation of PP, removal of BFRs and separation of the styrenics. In practice there will be other plastics fractions in the overall mix, at small but more than trace concentrations. Further handling of the float and sink fractions at each stage is obviously necessary, along with the regeneration / recycling of float medium and downstream drying. This implies fairly complex process plant, which in turn requires considerable investment. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this presents something of a barrier to new players in the WEEE plastics separation market, and that the apparent concentration of commercial-scale working expertise in WEEE plastics recycling is unsurprising. Nonetheless, there appear to be few significant technological barriers to the separation of WEEE mixed plastics.

Those are important socio-economic considerations. Remarks on the investments to be made were also made by Japan in the previous round (comments page 3, para 9). Those were not granted by the authors in the 1st round, but we would urge to take these considerations seriously and on board.

We would urge the authors of the RME to take up some of these considerations both in the section on efficacy and on cost-benefit to come to a more balanced picture of the endeavours to encounter worldwide. Until present the RME does not present such a balanced view but such balance is a necessity to come to a good decision at POPRC.


Netherlands

36

Add “According to NCM (2014a) the plastics mix varies considerably for different WEEE product groups, and this is important for the separability of plastics in a technical and economic perspective. The plastics mix is relatively separable – the technologies appear well-established, however the necessary capital expenditure is considerable. Large throughputs are required, thus representing a barrier to market entry. In principle there are deep end-use markets for recycled WEEE plastics, but the picture in practice is more difficult. Near closed loop recycling potential is currently very limited and the marketplace for recycled plastics is competitive. Concerns include quality issues and worries about hazardous materials and effective competition with other, more mature, recycled plastics sources such as packaging waste is competitive.”


Netherlands

37

Waste can also be sorted using other optical methods. Similar to the XRF technology these technologies are compatible with automatisation automation and separates wastes based on colour, shape or polymer type.


Netherlands

37

Add “Techniques that separate plastics on the basis of substance identification within a short time span enabling automated sorting currently do not exist. NCM (2014a) remark about the currently available techniques “This implies fairly complex process plant, which in turn requires considerable investment. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this presents something of a barrier to new players in the WEEE plastics separation market, and that the apparent concentration of commercial-scale working expertise in WEEE plastics recycling is unsurprising. Nonetheless, there appear to be few significant technological barriers to the separation of WEEE mixed plastics.”

Comment: I think these remarks, which are cited from the comments made previously and NCM (2014a) put the story in a more balanced perspective.


Netherlands

38

Comment on “(IVM 2013)”.

Please refer to IVM/IVAM, 2013 instead of IVM 2013 and do this throughout the dossier


Netherlands

38

Comment on “Collectively these studies illustrates that sorting out and removing c-decaBDE containing parts prior to destruction and recycling operations would be an important and effective measure to avoid further distribution of c-decaBDE contained in waste. Policies on extended producer responsibility could play a key role in implementing these practices.”

Please refer to IVM/IVAM 2013


Netherlands

39

Comment on “Many countries and regions globally have the capacity to incinerate POPs, such as in hazardous waste incinerators or by co-processing in cement kilns. However, a general overview of the global capacity or the capacity for incineration in specific regions is not available.”

Although we agree in a general sense, the first sentence lacks a feeling of reality and the second one only applies to policy for hazardous or POP substances still to be incorporated in new products. If you mean that producers are responsible for the waste treatment of the products they have produced in the past and which now show to contain substances we do not want any more, than reword the paragraph.

For the first remark, please see:

http://en.volkswagen.com/en/company/responsibility/recycling/recovery_process.html

Danish practice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzlD7vh10PE

UK demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXfitusZ9qY


Netherlands

39

Comment on “(NCM 2004)”.

Does not appear in reference list.


Netherlands

40

Comment on “(Stockholm Convention 2012a)”

In order to understand the viewpoint provided in para 39 and 40 it is essential to understand that Norway has an overcapacity in incineration. Taxes on incineration have been decreased during the last decade, whereas those for landfilling have been increased. Therefore a shift from landfilling to incineration has taken place.

See for instance: Minutes from the Nordic workshop in Oslo 12.09.12, http://morerecycling.no/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Minutes_workshop_120912.pdf


Netherlands

43


Please refer to IVM/IVAM, 2013 instead of IVM 2013 and do this throughout the dossier


Netherlands

44

This is already stated in para 34.


Netherlands

45

Comment on “(ECHA 2014a)”.

Website of the European Commission:

A second challenge is linked to resources conservation. Nearly 50% of plastic waste in the EU is still landfilled. Therefore, much energy and processed raw material is lost instead of being recycled into new products.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm

Please for data on plastic recycling see Plastics Europe Plastics – the Facts 2013

An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data:

http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20131014095824-final_plastics_the_facts_2013_published_october2013.pdf

The graph on page 26 indicates that even within Europe there is a large difference in recycling, energy recovery and disposal (landfill).

I would say recycled plastics go for 100% to new products, where would they otherwise go?


Netherlands

46

Comment on “(often illegally)”.

This then clearly asks for enforcement of existing legislation, not necessarily new/other legislation


Netherlands

47

Comment on “(ref to be inserted)”.

Ref still lacking.


Netherlands

47


Please refer to IVM/IVAM, 2013 instead of IVM 2013 and do this throughout the dossier.


Netherlands

47

Comment on “Based on these findings a restriction on recycling will likely have limited economic implications for the recycling industry”.

DecaBDE has been used in mattresses and upholstery if I read the RME. According to ECHA 2014a these are not recycled. However various websites show me otherwise:

Please see on mattresses: http://bedtimesmagazine.com/2010/02/mattress-recycling/

http://www.hildinganders.com/good-stories/good-thinking/europes-bedding-industry-met-in-budapest

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/bed_mattresses_report.pdf

http://www.greenhotelier.org/our-themes/waste/hilton-worldwide-announces-mattress-recycling-program/

Upholstery:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/projects/en/projects/greenup

And on other possible fabrics:

http://www.soexgroup.com/us/group.html

So, it might be good to indicate here that it is difficult to estimate the economic implications. Two sentences before this one it is indicated that the situation regarding management of textile waste is uncertain.


Netherlands

47

Add “Re-use of textiles has been a topic in the Socio-economic analyses of a restriction on decaBDE as a prohibition on decaBDE may also lead to limitations of the second hand market of textiles. The restriction does not apply to articles already on the market before the date of the restriction, but the Stockholm Convention clearly forbids re-use in article 6.d.iii (ECHA, 2014, http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a3f810b8-511d-4fd0-8d78-8a8a7ea363bc). Therefore, to allow the second hand textile market an exemption need to be considered.”


Netherlands

48

PBDE commercial Commercial PBDE mixtures c-penta- BDE (tetra- and pentaBDE) and c-octa octaBDE (hexa- and heptaBDE) octa are listed in Annex A of the Convention with specific exemptions for recycling.


Netherlands

48

Comment on “Failure to do so will inevitably result in wider human and environmental contamination and the dispersal of PBDEs into matrices from which recovery is not technically or economically feasible. Furthermore, PBDEs should not be diluted since this would not reduce the overall quantity in the environment.”

There are some Norwegian reports and folders on cellular rubber used for insulation . Would appreciate if you share the data and experiences with us.

SFT (2006) SFT 2006 ta2159

Eggen & Ottesen 2008 Eggen & Ottesen 2008_081 Bromerte flammehemmere i isolasjonsmaterialer, which contains measurements on these materials.

If it cannot be corporated here, please add these experiences & data in the background document.


Netherlands

49

Comment on “When screening and separation techniques are not readily available, recycling should be avoided at where concentrations are assumed to be above the low POP level.”

Please reword.


Netherlands

49

Comment on “Furthermore, waste containing c-decaBDE should not be exported to developing countries with limited capacity or technology to treat the waste in an environmentally sound manner and protection of workers is limited or lacking.”

Key is a proper enforcement in the countries of export!!


Netherlands

50

The absence of decreasing trends in the environment following voluntary measures by the industry to reduce emissions during production and industrial use (ECHA 2014a) suggests that implementation of BAT/BEP is not sufficient the emissions during service life and the waste stage are much higher than during production, and that a ban on production and use is necessary to fully eliminate c-decaBDE releases in these phases of its life-cycle life cycle as well as from articles in use.


Netherlands

56

Presented below (Table 3) are the categories of materials and sectors and products for which c-decaBDE has been or is currently used, (Table 2.3.1 (U.S. EPA 2014a); see also further info in Table 1-5 in UNEP/POPS/POPRC.11/INF xx).


Netherlands

70

It is suggested to review whether all (lengthy) paragraphs of section 2.3.2 are necessary to reach this conclusion.


Netherlands

73

Comment on “For sofas purchased after the global ban on pentaBDE in 2005,”

Please add the source on the global ban for pentaBDE.

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentabromodiphenyl_ether

Government of Australia prohibited production and import in 2007, so there was definitely no global ban in 2005!

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8e81d7e1-a379-4590-b296-19e14a72d909/files/factsheet.pdf

Netherlands

76

Comment on “wool”.

Wool consists of keratin, not of cellulose.


Netherlands

78

Similar to the previous comment, it is suggested to review whether all wording of section 2.3.3 is necessary to reach this conclusion.


Netherlands

89

Comment on the textile section. Is it possible to provide some quantitative data on replacement of decaBDE in textiles compared to previous use?


Netherlands

97

Comment on “The incorporation of FRs can potentially temporarily slow fire spread and subsequent heat release for a very short time in order to enable people to escape, but they also increase the toxicity of the fire emissions and introduce other risks due to the chemicals themselves.”

A somewhat more balanced view would be fine. Potentially temporally doubles with the very short time so can be omitted. The time is in the case of furniture about 12 seconds to be precise.

E.g. see the website of the American Chemical Council, who also provides an explanation for the 12 seconds; http://flameretardants.americanchemistry.com/FAQs/Safety-Regulations.html

Q: California has a tougher flammability standard for furniture than the rest of the country. Why is it so important to keep those standards in place?

A: In 1975, with the implementation of Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117), California set the toughest furniture flammability standards in the United States and is currently the only state with fire safety regulations for upholstered furniture. TB 117 requires upholstered furniture to withstand 12 seconds of an open flame, from heat sources such as candles, lighters and matches, without igniting. The state’s continued support for maintaining the standards outlined in TB 117 is not only an endorsement of the important fire protection function of flame retardants, but also a recognition of the critical safety net 12 seconds may offer someone who is trying to escape a fire, particularly those most at risk (i.e. children and the elderly).

In 2003, the New Zealand Fire Service Commission conducted research to assess whether new regulations to improve the fire safety of upholstered furniture should be introduced in that country. The commission’s March 2003 published research included an analysis of TB 117. According to the report, In California, where mandatory standards for home furnishings have been in place since 1975, incidences of fire death, injury and property loss have fallen faster than in the United States as a whole. In addition, between 1978 (three years after TB117 was implemented) and 1995, the number of deaths in the United States where upholstered furniture was the first item to be ignited declined by 58.1 percent. The number of upholstered furniture fires declined by 68.4 percent.


Netherlands

98

Comment on “Children resistant lighters have also been mandatory in EU since 2006 (WHO, 2014).”

This statement does not exist in WHO 2012.


Netherlands

101

This paragraph suggests that a lot of the information from 2.4.1-2.4.3 can be eliminated/shorted in the current document as this has been concluded upon in a previous POPRC.


Netherlands

102

Repeats para 101 and can be omitted.


Netherlands

105

Comment on “A recent study showed that by applying appropriate risk management measures in a Swedish electronics recycling facility BDE-209 does not pose a risk to worker’s health (Rosenberg et al., 2011; Thuresson et al., 2006). However, worker’s in developing countries and countries with economies in transition are more likely to be more exposed to BDE-209 and other substances than workers in developed countries because risk reduction measures are typically not in place or not fully enforced (Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2011; UNEP/POPS/POPRC.10/10/Add.2; ILO 2012).”

Please see our remark on paragraph 106 concerning Egypt and Ghana. Keeping the material in Sweden in this case is probably a better option than when it is transported to other countries with less risk management measures. The economic rules driving the export should be taken seriously.


Netherlands

106

Comment on “[Considering the wide use of c-decaBDE in EEE, and that e-waste is the world's fastest growing waste stream (StEP 2013).] EEE and e-waste is of particular concern.”

The reason for this sentence and mentioning decaBDE is far from clear, one would expect a conclusion after this sentence which does not come.


Netherlands

106

Comment on “illegally”.

This then clearly asks for enforcement of existing legislation, not necessarily new/other legislation


Netherlands

106

Comment on “A ban on recycling of c-decaBDE containing material may also promote innovative processes to detect POPs in waste and thus contribute to systems of labelling products through the whole life-cyclelife cycle and in the end possibly stimulate to higher recycling rates because the recyclate is known not to contain hazardous chemicals. It could also positively affect the worker’s conditions, particularly in developing countries e.g. by acting as a trigger for the formalization of the recycling industry (ILO, 2012). ILO (2012) indicates the complexity of illegal transport of electronic waste and proposes several solutions, among which enforcement of existing regulations.”

The paragraph above describes the problems of recycling in developing countries. The reasoning is that therefore recycling should be banned.

We think that a proper handling of waste in the country of origin and enforcement on illegal exports is key to solving the problem of decaBDE described above. We do not think that a full ban on recycling on its own is a good solution as it neglects reality and current practice.

Comment on “ILO, 2012”.

It would be good if the authors take note of the report by Bleher 2014, Recycling options for thermoplastics from WEEE that focuses on the problems with BFRs in WEEE in e.g. Egypt and Ghana. The report also incorporates some economic considerations that drive export and recycling. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2143/2014-696-en.pdf

See conclusion of the report: “In contrast, in option 2 higher revenues might be obtained by not insisting on environmental best management solutions. Then, a cooperation with a recycling company in Europe which is able to process and re-sell all types of plastic and flame retardent content is recommendable. This option accepts a dissemination and dilution of persistant BFR contents in recycling products but still represents an significant improvement to the current situation in Ghana or Egypt.

Practically, the most challenging problem is that the concrete mixture of the already accumulated thermoplastics at the dismantling facilities in Ghana or Egypt is unknown and any prize estimation therefore vague. A business partner needs to be identified who is willing to receive and process a test shipment. Company talks indicate that a test shipment needs to have a weight of at least 50 tons (Wilkinson 2013).”


Netherlands

107

Add “The Convention prescribes how to handle sewage sludge with decaBDE above the low POP limit in article 6.1.d: Disposed of in such a way that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants.”


Netherlands

108

This para can be reduced to a few relevant sentences.


Netherlands

2.4.4

Comment on “2.4.4 Economic aspects and social costs”

From our literature search we learned that both Norway and Sweden has carried out a cost-benefit analysis on their phase out of decaBDE.

www.biogassforum.no/.../IAN%204%202004.pdf

PRODUKTPOLITIK 4/2004

Norge har nu vurderet konsekvenserne af et forbud mod deca-BDE

Environmental authorities in Norway have just completed a study into the costs and benefits of a ban on deca-BDE. This investigation shows that decabromodiphenylether in Norway which are found in products within the transport sector and to a lesser extent in other products on the market. The report concludes that a separate Norwegian ban will lead to big problems and costs of transport.

The Swedes will by the end of November 2004 also come up with an explanation that illustrates the consequences of a ban of decabromodiphenylether (deca-BDE).

We found reactions to the report, but could not retrieve the original version, unfortunately. The link provided for the Norwegian study is: http://www.sft.no/nyheter/dokumenter/dekabde_forbudsvurdering070904.htm

We would be very happy if the drafters incorporate the data from the Norwegian study and we would be even more happy if they can make it available.

Another report that should be incorporated is Leisewitz & Schwartz 2001 who provide information on costs in chapter 5.5.

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/formulation-of-proposals-for-measures-to-be-taken

A citation is provided on page 1 of the RME.


Netherlands

109

To what extent is enforcement included in the costs?


Netherlands

110

Comment on “A restriction/ban on the manufacture of c-decaBDE therefore yields no cost (or impact) for the majority of countries worldwide”.

Please provide data or a cost estimation for this statement.

I doubt monitoring costs, enforcement costs and cost related to identify and separate the substance in the waste stage have been accounted for in this statement. If so, please provide.


Netherlands

110

Comment on “without substantial technical modifications at the manufacturing plants.”

Please provide a reference for this statement.


Netherlands

112

Comment on “strictly regulated the use of c-decaBDE in EEE, meaning that recycling of WEEP in these countries would not necessarily be affected if c-decaBDE is listed in the Convention.”

As we can learn from previous paragraphs quite some WEEE is transported from these countries to developing countries. Furthermore the authors neglect that decaBDE is not only present in WEEE, but also in a number of other applications. For these, recycling will be affected.


Netherlands

112

Add “However, when listed in the Convention, reuse is prohibited according to article 6.d.iii.”


Netherlands

114

Comment on “1.23 of EU gross domestic product.”

%???


Netherlands

119

Comment on “c-decaBDE”.

Should probably be BDE-209.


Netherlands

119

Comment on “without substantial additional costs.”

Please add reference and indicate whether such a method is also feasible in a waste treatment/recycling facility. Although we are aware that such methods are under development, we seriously doubt if such a method is available in real practice, which means that the current statement is misleading.


Netherlands

121

Comment on “If c-decaBDE is listed in the Convention, the Conference of the Parties may therefore wish to task POPRC with updatingupdateing the Guidance for the inventory of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) on Persistent Organic Pollutants to assist parties of the Convention in their phase-out of c-decaBDE (UNEP 2014a).”

Is it not the task of this draft RME to provide Parties to the convention to provide insight in the challenges to and the consequences of phase out of deca-BDE?

The inventory has not been drafted by POPRC. So propose to leave it open whether the secretariat take this task or POPRC.


135

Comment on “Annex F information submitted by Parties and Observers, no critical uses of c-decaBDE have been identified. In addition to the indicated need for a recycling exemption as discussed above. However, a few Observers have identified some requirements for exemptions for the automotive and the aerospace industry.”

Various Parties and observers have noted that there should be attention for an exemption on recycling compared to the one for the other BDEs. Although that has been noted in the text before, we do not find anything of this in this paragraph. Therefore, we propose to put an exemption comparable to the one for the other BDEs here in bracketed text.


Netherlands

135

Comment on “[This suggests that a complete phase-out of c-decaBDE from all uses is possible and that exemptions for production and use are largely not critical.]”

We propose to skip this sentence as it is misleading. Although in itself the sentence is precise and correct, it supposes that the requested exemption is not necessary.


Netherlands

137

Add “[with exemptions for ….].”


Netherlands

Ref

Comment on “IVM (2013) POP Stream, POP-BDE waste streams in the Netherlands: analysis and inventory (R13-16). Institute for Environmental Studies, The Netherlands.”

Please refer to IVM/IVAM, 2013 instead of IVM 2013 and do this throughout the dossier.


Sweden

37

Please rewrite sentence to. “Sweden reported that plastic from ELVs usually ends up in the Shredder Light Fraction (SLF), which is mainly incinerated and in some cases landfilled.”

Accepted.

Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF)

7

BSEF remains with the observation that the conclusions agreed by POPRC and reflected also in this document are not based on a scientifically robust weight of evidence approach, but rather on selective quotes of certain studies of questionable reliability. This comment also refers to the wording in section 1.2. (para 13) on bioaccumulation and biomagnification, which is incorrect for BD209 itself, section 2.4.1 (para 103, 104), section 2.4. (para 108) and 3.1 (para 127).

We would like to reiterate our view that a scientifically sound WoE approach should not be based on the amount of literature published, but on an analysis of the content of studies and publications with regard to their reliability, appropriateness of the scientific methodology and conduct of the study, repeatability of the results, and the relevance of the study for the assessment of the property under consideration. Only papers that are considered of sufficient quality and relevance should be used in the further WoE approach. Further the consistency or non-consistency of different lines of evidence needs to be weighed. (see for example SCENIHR. 2012. European Union, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks Memorandum on the use of the scientific literature for human health risk assessment purposes – weighing of evidence and expression of uncertainty, 19 March 2012, DG Health and Consumers.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_s_001.pdf ).

In our opinion had an appropriate approach have been followed, the conclusion would show that current levels found in the environment would not lead to any concerns with regard to developmental, neurotoxic or endocrine effects, confirmed by robust scientific studies. The same is the case for the alleged bioaccumulation or biomagnification of BDE209 as pointed out in several comments to POPRC.

In BSEF’s opinion, BDE-209 does not meet the criteria for adverse effects as result of its long range transport.

Information noted, but no amendments were made to the text. The information in this paragraph is based on peer-reviewed scientific literature and the conclusions of POPRC-10, which by analysing the available literature and using a weight-of-evidence approach in a precautionary approach in line with Article 1 of the Convention reached the conclusion that “C-decaBDE with its main constituent BDE-209 is likely, therefore, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted.”.

BSEF

13

Please see comment above.

See above response to comment.

BSEF

20

For a clearer understanding on the reasons of the EU, particularly rate of degradation, we suggest that these should be stated here. “DecaBDE is very persistent and widely detected in many environmental compartments (including wildlife species). On the basis of the available data it can be concluded that there is a high probability that DecaBDE is transformed in the environment to form substances which themselves have PBT/vPvB properties, or act as precursors to such substances, in individual amounts greater than 0.1% w/w over timescales of a year.”

Not accepted as this section/ chapters focuses on regulatory measures. Moreover a more recent assessment of the risks posed by decaBDE has been conducted by the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC). According to the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) Opinion on an Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions on DecaBDE

(ECHA/RAC/RES-O-0000006155-77-01/D)

Adopted 2 June 2015:

“According to the ECHA Member State Committee (Agreement adopted 29 November 2012), decaBDE fulfils the criteria of Articles 57(d) [PBT] and (e) [vPvB] of the REACH Regulation on the basis that “there is a high probability that it is transformed in the environment to form substances which themselves have PBT/vPvB properties, or act as precursors to such substances, in individual amounts greater than 0.1% w/w over the timescale of a year”. On the basis of available information the MSC could not conclude that decaBDE itself fulfilled the criteria of Articles 57(d) and (e)”.

“The BD suggests that the rate at which decaBDE may form lower molecular weight PBDEs of concern in sediments/soils is between 0.1 and 10 % w/w per year, although there are several uncertainties and limitations in the underlying laboratory and field studies that lead to this estimate”.

BSEF

22

BSEF-China confirms that the Chinese Guidance on Dismantling and Production Management of e-waste 2015 requires the separation of all PBDE FRs including Deca-BDE. However the second half of the sentence is incorrect. These wastes are not deemed to be ‘hazardous waste’ and do not need to be disposed of as hazardous waste under the current framework in China.

Please see the published joint Guidelines from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgg/201412/t20141219_293232.htm

Comment noted. However, the information is contradicted by information from other sources and we have not received comments from China to indicate that the information provided in the text is incorrect.

BSEF

26

Add “…based on modelling” in the first sentence.

Accepted with some modifications.

BSEF

30

BSEF would like to suggest that a little additional clarity be added to this sentence. The reference given is the Technical Guidelines under Basel. In our understanding this document refers to the need to label containers filled with POP waste not to labelling POP products. The document notes difficulties with the identification of POP containing products through appearance or markings, and instead provides a list of places in which POP-BDEs may have been used.

Not accepted. Both are actually right according to the general guideline:

UNEP/CHW.12/CRP.18/Add.1

4. Labelling

122. Labelling of products containing POPs may be a necessary measure in order to effectively manage the products upon becoming wastes.

123. Labelling of POP wastes containers is a basic safety feature and important for the success of any waste management system. Each waste container should be labelled to identify the container (e.g., ID number), the POP present and the hazard level.

For HBCD listing in SC, the intention was labelling of products. No amendments were made to the text.

BSEF

32

BSEF suggests deleting this final part of the text as fire safety standards do not dictate the method of achieving fire safety, but rather set the requirements to ensure a good level of fire safety is met. In this regard there is no link between fire safety standards and phase-out of commercial Deca-BDE.

Not accepted. Although fire-safety standards and regulations do not dictate the use of FRs they have implications for the use of FRs and a re-evaluation of how fire-safety can be achieved with less use/ no use of FRs and by alternatives approaches can help reduce the demand for hazardous FRs.

BSEF

32

BSEF wishes to suggest that further analysis of the specific requests for exemption submitted by the transport sector be conducted to ensure that the generic exemptions provided for in the Convention actually covers the different aspects of these exemption requests.

Comment noted.

BSEF

37

BSEF thanks the rapporteur for amending this paragraph but would like to reiterate that any pre-selection of all brominated compounds in a non-discriminatory way, in place of a method of identifying the specific POP listed compound, will likely significantly impact recycling.

Comment noted.

BSEF

37

BSEF requests to rephrase this sentence as it is unjustified and inappropriate to imply that all bromine containing products would be unwanted. There are many brominated products on the market which are effective and have excellent health and environmental safety profiles.

Text has been edited.

BSEF

57

BSEF would like to reiterate its comment on earlier drafts of the RME with regard to the considerations related to effectively reducing incidences of fire.

There are several elements to consider including materials, detection and suppression.

Due to the risks posed by internal electrical short circuits, heat release during use and the potential for ignition from external sources, it is extremely important to use ignition resistant plastics, especially if these plastic items are used close to electrical current. As electrical and electronic items get smaller the electrical intensity increases and the total fuel load of the application must also be taken into consideration.

Comment noted, but no amendments were made to the text. See also response to similar comment to paragraph 32 above.

BSEF

61

BSEF suggests amending this wording to provide greater clarity for those Parties not familiar with the status of the DBDPE Evaluation in the EU.

Please rewrite to:

“However, DBDPE is undergoing substance evaluation in the EU due to some concerns with regard to possibleits potential PBT/vPvB characteristics that are being addressed through a request for further testing but are so far not supported by the available data (ECHA 2014b, UK EA 2007).”

Not accepted. This information is covered by the existing text which recognizes that “DBDPE is undergoing substance evaluation in the EU”.

BSEF

65

BSEF would suggest that it should be made clear that this information provided by the manufacturer is not publicly available and so cannot be verified.

Accepted.

BSEF

70

BSEF requests to delete this specific reference to non-halogenated alternatives as it is discriminatory; there are many halogenated products available on the market that provide highly effective fire safety solutions and have good health and environmental safety profiles.

Not accepted. The text provides information that is relevant when substituting c-decaBDE.

BSEF

70

BSEF would request to delete the second half of the sentence in order to align with the amended wording on DBDPE in para 61.

Not accepted. Note however that the paragraph has been amended in response to other comments.

BSEF

73

BSEF would suggest to delete this part of the paragraph or to provide some clarification as none of the references given appear to provide evidence of the use of commercial Deca-BDE in furniture.

To avoid any confusion “..c-decaBDE and other..” was deleted from the first sentence in the highlighted text. The sentence now reads “However, FRs are still widely used in furniture”.

BSEF

97

BSEF would like to thank the rapporteur for introducing some changes to this paragraph in line with earlier comments but would request to delete this phrase on toxicity which we believe is misleading particularly in context of the following sentence. Several toxic gases produced in fires are not linked to the presence of flame retardants. Our earlier explanation is provided again below. We would also suggest to include the references provided which support our position.

During a fire, dioxin formation may occur under certain conditions, originating from different materials which do not necessarily contain flame retardants. Other toxic gases such as CO, HCN and PAHs, which are not linked to the presence of flame retardants, are much more dangerous in the event of fire.

A recent study compared emissions from the combustion of foams with and without flame retardants. The peer reviewed study showed that the use of foam with flame retardants combined with a good barrier material can instead reduce toxic gas emissions, including dioxins. Indeed, in case of small ignition sources, when flame retardants are present, they slow or stop fire so there is little to no smoke released. For larger ignition sources, the study showed no difference between the flame retarded foam and non-flame retarded foam when it came to the release of chlorinated dioxins.

The application of flame retardants in many products such as electronics, furnishing, and buildings play a key role in helping meet fire safety standards and regulations

Flame retardants allow longer escape times in case of fire as well as allowing longer response time.

References:

• Blomqvist, Andersson and Simonson, “Fire Emissions from Products with and without BFRs and the Hazard of Exposure for Fire Fighters and Clean-Crews”, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden (2010)

• Blais, M. and Carpenter, K. (2013) “Flexible Polyurethane Foams: A Comparative Measurement of Toxic Vapors and Other Toxic Emissions in Controlled Combustion Environments Foams With and Without Fire Retardants”, Fire Technology Journal

• The Alliance for consumer safety in Europe (ACFSE) carried out, in 2010, fire resistance test of 27 typical household sofas, one from each EU Member State. Each sofa was a two- or three-seater sofa costing less than €400. Their tests demonstrate that furniture manufactured to the UK standard delays the development of a fire by at least 15 minutes longer than even the very best the rest. Link to website: http://www.areyousittingcomfortably.en/about-the-campaign

Not accepted. The existing text already clarifies that some of the toxic gases produced in fires are not linked to the presence of flame retardants e.g. “Several toxic gases are produced during fire, some of which are linked to the presence of BFRs while others are not.”

BSEF

103

BSEF would suggest to amend this as the data in the risk profile showed that levels are constant, not increasing.

Accepted. Text has been edited.

BSEF

105

BSEF notes that none of the regulatory reviews of Deca-BDE have identified a concern for worker health and would like to draw Parties attention to our earlier comments on this paragraph.

No amendments were made to the text. However, elevated c-decaBDE levels have been detected in workers both in developed and developing countries. As indicated in several studies and as mentioned in the text the main concern is for workers in developing countries.

BSEF

114

Please delete “EDC”

Please see our earlier comment on this issue

Not accepted since the amount of peer- reviewed literature showing endocrine disrupting effects after decaBDE exposure is growing. Furthermore, this was agreed on by the POPRC.

BSEF

121

The following sentence has been removed without explanation, BSEF suggests that this sentence was valid and would recommend reinserting it.

Accepted.

BSEF

132

Note evidence provided in BSEF comments on the first round and reflected in the earlier text. With the right personal protection equipment and ventilation there is no risk to workers from waste management or recycling as dust exposure can be controlled.

Noted, and in previous chapter this has been described, but due to the fact that illegal dismantling of decaBDE containing products is so common and affect so many poorer peoples and children it could be worth mentioning that for this group a ban would be beneficial.

International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)

-

One idea that might be useful for the drafters to introduce with respect to the chemical alternatives proposed for DecaBDE is contained in Article 3 paras 3 and 4. These paragraphs are under-utilized in the Committee’s work and quite relevant to avoiding the replacement of a POP with a chemical (like DBDPE) that will likely have POPs properties or even be nominated for evaluation.

Comment noted. No amendments were made to the text.

IPEN

5

Suggest adding the following text: “The recycling of materials containing PBDEs was previously addressed by both the COP and the POPRC. The POPRC recommended against recycling materials containing listed POP-BDEs and COP5 encouraged Parties and other stakeholders to implement this recommendation”.

Not accepted because this is the Executive summary. The text has instead been incorporated in the main text of the document.

IPEN

6

Suggest adding the following text: “However, at a later stage some industry observers suggested a possible exemption in the transportation sector for service and replacement of parts in articles already in use. In addition, a small number of Parties have suggested a possible recycling exemption for materials containing c-decaBDE, despite POPRC recommendations against this practice for other listed POP-BDEs. A”

Some of the suggested text has been added. See revised text.

IPEN

39

Suggest rewriting: “However, a general overview of the global capacity or the capacity for incineration in specific regions is not available. Incineration at high temperatures in accordance with the Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP Guidelines is generally considered an effective manner to destroy POPs like c-decaBDE/PBDEs or products containing these chemicals, such as in hazardous waste incinerators and by cement kiln co-incineration (Basel Convention 2015). However, the Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP Guidelines does not recommend the co-processing of electronic waste or unsorted municipal garbage and other waste of unknown composition in cement kilns”.

Text has been edited in response to other comments.

IPEN

40

Suggested text edit: “Where neither destruction nor irreversible transformation is the environmentally preferable option, for waste with a POP content above the low POP content, other environmentally sound disposal techniques may be used. Specially engineered landfills may be one option, however, the long-term fate of c-decaBDE in landfills is not well understood and landfills are believed to be the most prominent c-decaBDE emission source from waste (ECHA 2014a)”.

Accepted.

IPEN

42

Suggest adding the following: “The Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP Guidelines prioritize source reduction including minimization of quantity of wastes and reduction of toxicity and other hazard characteristics”.

Accepted.

IPEN

42

Suggest to remove the following text: “Reuse of articles may also reduce the overall amount of waste and prolong the service life of an article containing c-decaBDE, and thus the emission from this phase of the life”

Accepted. Sentence has been deleted.

IPEN

43

Text suggestion: “The Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP Guidelines notes that waste from shredder plants have to be carefully evaluated to determine if the incinerator can handle them without risk of harm to human health or the environment. Parameters include chlorine and bromine content, aluminium content, heavy metal content, calorific content and burnout behaviour. High concentration of bromine may lead to formation of brominated compounds such as polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PBDD) and polybrominated dibenzofurans PBDF and neglecting the limits of the incineration plant will result in operational problems (e.g. the necessity of repeated shutdowns due to cleaning of the grate or heat exchangers) or in a bad environmental performance (e.g. high emissions into water, high leachability of fly ash)”.

Not accepted. This information is already provided in the text.

IPEN

44

Suggested text: “POPRC recommendations on elimination of brominated diphenyl ethers from the waste stream note that the objective is to eliminate brominated diphenyl ethers from the recycling streams as swiftly as possible. Failure to do so will inevitably result in wider human and environmental contamination and the dispersal of brominated diphenyl ethers into matrices from which recovery is not technically or economically feasible and in the loss of the long-term credibility of recycling”.

Accepted.

IPEN

53

Suggested text edits.

Text has been edited in line with what was done in the Executive summary

IPEN

-

Minor editorial comments to chapter 1.

Accepted.

IPEN

57

Add reference to SC Article 3 paragraph 3 and 4:

“The Stockholm Convention requires Parties that have regulatory and assessment schemes for new chemicals to take measures to regulate with aim of preventing the production and use of new chemicals that exhibit the characteristics of POPs. In addition, Parties should take POPs criteria into account when conducting assessments of chemicals currently in use.”

Accepted.

IPEN

61

Add: “US EPA has identified DBDPE as a high hazard for developmental toxicity, a high hazard for bioaccumulation, and a very high hazard for persistence based on empirical data. In addition,”

Accepted.

IPEN

70

Rewrite as suggested: DBDPE ismay be the most likely industry substitute for c-decaBDE in most plastics, but other of the above mentioned alternatives or non-chemical techniques may offer a more sustainable long-term alternative to c-decaBDE than DBDPE.


IPEN

74

Many of the techniques and inherently-resistant materials are not complex.

Delete: “more complex solutions involving”.

Accepted.

IPEN

82

Add: “but is more sustainable as a long term alternative.”

Accepted

IPEN

96

Add: “and some do not require any chemical additives.”

Not accepted as this is covered by the existing sentence.

IPEN

99

Rewrite as suggested.

Accepted.

IPEN

106

Rewrite text to “Although recycling of materials that do not contain hazardous chemicals is widely assumed to be environmentally and economically beneficial, recycling of materials containing POPs and other hazardous chemicals should be avoided to protect human health and the environment.

Accepted.

IPEN

109

“…the difference in costs might gradually decrease due to economies of scale and industry experience with productionchange in response to the increasing demand for alternatives (ECHA 2014a).

Ref: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/economics_of_pvc_revised.pdf

Not accepted. New information provided is already covered by the existing text.

IPEN

112

Rewrite as suggested.


IPEN

131

Suggest editing text.

Accepted and text has been edited in line with what was done in the Executive summary.

IPEN

133

Suggest editing text: “destroyed or irreversibly transformed or otherwise disposed”.

Accepted.

IPEN

134

Suggest editing text: “A small number of Parties have suggested a possible recycling exemption for materials containing c-decaBDE, despite POPRC recommendations against this practice for POP-BDEs. Recycling of materials”.

Some of the suggested text amendments were accepted.

IPEN

135

Text suggestion: “A few industry Observers have raised the possibility of exemptions in the transportation sector for service and replacement of parts in articles already in use. However, probation and rest”.

Accepted some of the suggested text edits.

Table 2. Comments and responses relating to the second draft of the risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Source of Comment

Para

Comments on the second draft of the risk management evaluation on decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)

Response

Australia

-

The RME provides an opportunity to outline the likely impacts of c-decaBDE in all countries and the various approaches to management of c-decaBDE containing articles. Drawing on previous experiences with c-pentaBDE and c-octaBDE, reports suggest that large numbers of countries may have challenges to separate waste streams and to implement waste management measures. Accordingly, Australia’s comments aim to highlight areas in the RME where the management practices for c-decaBDE would benefit from further exploration of the range of variable technologies and management practices. The following areas are examples of where broader discussion should be included if possible. See comment to paragraphs 30, 45 and 127 below.

Comment: It would be helpful if possible to elaborate on the availability of alternatives in commercial supply in a broader range of countries. It is recognised that this may be difficult where information is scarce and of course is complicated in situations where articles are produced in one country and exported to others. It is likely that articles containing c-decaBDE remain in current use, with varying lifespans before disposal. It would be helpful therefore if the discussion could expand upon the availability of waste sortin

UNITED - POPSchm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-PO… · Web viewUNITED NATIONS SC...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED - POPSchm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-PO… · Web viewUNITED NATIONS SC...