EEC)

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2005)618 - Restrictions on the marketing and use of perfluorooctane sulfonates (amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC).
document	COM(2005)618
date	December 12, 2006

table>(1)An OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) hazard assessment has been done on the basis of information that was available by July 2002. This assessment concluded that perfluorooctane sulfonates (hereinafter ‘PFOS’) are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to mammalian species and, therefore, indicate cause for concern.

(2)

The risks posed to health and environment by PFOS have been assessed in accordance with the principles of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (3). The risk assessment identified a need to reduce the risks to health and the environment.

(3)

The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (hereinafter ‘SCHER’) has been consulted. SCHER concluded that PFOS fulfil the criteria for classification as very persistent, very bioaccumulative and toxic. PFOS also have a potential for long range environmental transport and have the potential to produce adverse effects and therefore fulfil the criteria for being considered as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention (4). SCHER identified a need for further scientific risk assessment of PFOS but it also agreed that risk reduction measures might be necessary to avoid the re-occurrence of former uses. According to SCHER, on-going critical uses in the aviation industry, the semiconductor industry and the photographic industry do not appear to pose a relevant risk to the environment or human health, if releases into the environment and workplace exposure are minimised. With regard to fire-fighting foams, SCHER agrees that health and environmental risks of substitutes should be assessed before a final decision can be taken. SCHER also agrees with restricting the use of PFOS in the plating industry, if there are no other measures available that could be applied to reduce the emissions during metal plating to a significantly lower level.

(4)

In order to protect health and the environment, it therefore appears necessary that the placing on the market and the use of PFOS should be restricted. This Directive is intended to cover the major part of the exposure risks. Other minor uses of PFOS do not seem to pose a risk and they are therefore currently exempted. However, special attention should be given to plating processes using PFOS and therefore the releases from those processes need to be minimised by applying the best available techniques (hereinafter ‘BAT’) fully taking into account all relevant information contained in the BAT reference document on Surface Treatment of Metals and Plastics as developed for use under Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (5) (IPPC Directive). In addition, Member States should establish inventories of those uses in order to acquire information about the actual quantities used and released.

(5)

The semi-finished products and articles containing PFOS should also be restricted in order to protect the environment. The restriction should cover all the products and articles to which PFOS are intentionally added, taking into account that PFOS may have been used only in some distinct parts or in coatings of certain products and articles, such as textiles. This Directive should only restrict new products and should not apply to products already in use or on the second hand market. However, existing stocks of fire-fighting foams containing PFOS should be identified and their use should be allowed to continue only for a limited time to prevent possible further emissions from the use of such products.

(6)

To ensure ultimately the phase-out of uses of PFOS the Commission should review each derogation under this Directive when new information on the uses and safer alternatives developed gives grounds for it. The derogation should only be allowed to continue for essential uses on the condition that safer substances or technologies, that are technically and economically feasible, do not exist and BAT are applied to minimise emissions of PFOS.

(7)

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its salts are suspected to have a similar risk profile to PFOS, and consequently there is a need to keep under review the ongoing risk assessment activities and the availability of safer alternatives and to define what kind of risk reduction measures, including restrictions on marketing and use, if appropriate, should be applied within the European Union.

(8)	Directive 76/769/EEC (6) should be amended accordingly.

(9)	The objective of this Directive is to introduce harmonised provisions with regard to PFOS, thus preserving the internal market whilst ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, as required by Article 95 of the Treaty.

(10)

This Directive is without prejudice to the Community legislation laying down minimum requirements for the protection of workers, such as Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (7), and individual directives based thereon, in particular Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) (codified version) (8) and Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (9),