European Producers and Importers of PTBs ÖKOPOL, Hamburg

A report commissioned by WWF (DRAFT)

Agenda Item 3SPS(1) 01/3/6-E (L)

Original: English

OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH EAST ATLANTIC

MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON PRIORITY SUBSTANCES (SPS)

ISPRA (SECRETARIAT): 5-8 FEBRUARY 2001

European Importers and Producers of Chemical Substances Suspected

to have a PTB Profile

Presented by

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)

Background

1. OSPAR 2000 had agreed on arrangements to obtain at least 3 months prior to OSPAR 20001 more reliable data on those substances which where grouped in A*, B*, C and D (cf OSPAR 00/20/1, Annex 7). According to, SPS will be invited to examine the new information with regard to the “selection box” substances and to make arrangements for the finalisation of a proposal to HSC 2001 and OSPAR 2001 regarding the addition of further substances to list of substances for priority action (SPS(1) 01/1/1-E, 13-15).

2.In order to raise awareness among importers and producers of substances which DYNAMEC has selected for further work (Group A-D), and aiming to promote the information gathering process, in October and November 2000 a letter on behalf of the WWF was sent to 64 companies possibly importing or producing suspected PTB substances. About 40 substances were included in this data collection exercise. Industry was asked to provide information on market volumes, substance uses and any data indicating that the substance could not reach the marine environment, due to i) insignificant releases to water and atmosphere or ii) fast mineralisation in the environment. The preliminary findings and conclusions are presented in the attachment.

Action Requested

3.SPS and the members of the Informal Group of Experts are invited to examine the information and make use of it as appropriate.

1

European Producers and Importers of PTBs ÖKOPOL, Hamburg

A report commissioned by WWF (DRAFT)

DRAFT

European Importers and Producers of Chemical Substances Suspected to Have POP-like Properties

A report commissioned by WWF

By

Kerstin Heitmann

Andreas Ahrens

ÖKOPOL Hamburg

Institute for Environmental Strategies

January 2001Preface

This study was carried out in the context of OSPAR’s Strategy to protect the marine ecosystem against long term effects of man made substances released from land based sources. The goal of this work is to cease within one generation (by 2020 the latest) emission losses and discharges of hazardous substances that could reach the marine environment. This goal is based on the assumption that slowly degrading and bioaccumulating synthetic chemicals, once released into the marine environment, may persist there for a long time and could cause hardly predictable effects. At the same time this work also promotes the protection of freshwater ecosystems against persistent, toxic and bioaccumulating substances.

Between 1998 and 2000 an ad hoc Working Group under OSPAR worked out a mechanism to select and prioritise substances which may be of concern with regard to the marine environment (DYNAMEC Mechanism). The outcome of this work was a long List of Substances of Possible Concern (about 400 substances) and a subset of 80 substances which were distributed into 6 categories according to the type of further work to be carried out. About 32 substances were prioritised i) either for identification of sources and reduction measures (Group A and B) or ii) for compilation of hazard data by industry (Group A* and B*).

The present study carried out on behalf of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) aims

 to identify the current European producers or importers of the prioritised substances

 to investigate whether or not the substances still occur on the EU market or whether they are exported in relevant amounts

 to compile basic information on uses and market volumes

  • to evaluate to which extent the identified companies are ready to respond to concerns with regard to the long term effects their products may cause in the environment.

The findings and conclusions of the present study may contribute to the work of the Contracting Parties under OSPAR and in particular to the work of the Chemical Industry towards a better understanding and increased availability of information on the flows of hazardous substances on the European market.

Any comments on the present draft study are welcome and will be considered in preparing the final version.

Hamburg, 19.01.2001

Kerstin Heitmann

Andreas Ahrens

This draft study is not meant for publication. It shall be used for work in the framework of OSPAR SPS only.Table of ContentsPage

1. Background 4

2. Objective4

3. Selected Substances4

4. Structure of the Target Group5

5. Main results6

6. Conclusions and Recommendations9

Appendices

Appendix 1a – Data Sources11

Appendix 1b - Selection criteria and cut-off values with respect to Persistency, 14
Toxicity and Liability to Bioaccumulate ("PTB criteria")

Appendix 2 - Groups of potential PTBs according to OSPAR 2000 Briefing 16Document on DYNAMEC

Appendix 3a - Companies producing or importing potential PTBs App 3-1(Industrial Chemicals)

Appendis 3b – Companies producing or importing potential PTBs App 3-11(Pesticides)

Appendix 4a – Potential PTBs (Industrial Chemicals)App 4-1

Appendix 4b – Potential PTBs (Pesticides)App 4-6

Appendix 5a – Letter (Industrial Chemicals)App 5-1

Appendix 5b – Letter (Pesticides)^App 5-2

1. Background

The study is about 42 chemical substances, suspected to have a PTB[1] profile and 64 European companies possibly producing or importing these substances. The substances were identified by the OSPAR DYNAMEC Ad Hoc Working Group based on criteria and data sources listed in annex 1b. It is thought that PTB substances mineralise so slowly in the environment (persistent = P) that they can reach the marine ecosystems once released into the environment. If they also tend to bioaccumulate (B) and can cause toxic effects (T) any releases to the environment should be eliminated. This applies in particular to uses where these substances are introduced into the environment on purpose (pesticides) or relevant, unavoidable losses occur due to i) wide dispersive use or ii) inappropriate pollution prevention and control at single industrial sites.

2. Objective

The study aims to contribute to the identification of substances for which the producers or importers fail to demonstrate that i) the substance degrades so rapidly that there is no relevant risk of effects in the marine environment or that ii) uses are limited to “closed” systems from which no relevant losses occur. Substances which are neither inherently safe nor used under safe conditions would be top priorities for a rapid phase out.

In order to get first hand information, we directly approached the companies placing the suspected PTBs onto the EU market. In doing so it was also possible to evaluate the companies’ response according to the level of awareness, the readiness to provide relevant information and the willingness to inform the public. These responses are regarded as an indicator for the level of implementation the companies have reached with regard to i) CEFIC’s Responsible Care Concept and ii) appropriate instruments for Product Stewardship.

3. Selected Substances

In 2000, OSPAR’s DYNAMEC Working Group selected 80 among 250.000 screened substances as potential new candidates for risk reduction measures with regard to the marine environment. These 80 substances where clustered into 6 “management”- groups as listed in appendix 2. The current study has its focus on substances which are obviously on the market in the EU and which potentially have PTB properties (halflife water > 50 to 60 days or not inherently degradable, aquatic toxicity < 1 mg/l or CMR substance, bioconcentration factor > 500 or logPow > 4). 32 substances fulfilling these criteria where clustered in Group A and B (see appendix 2). These substances are called “PTBs” in the context of the current study. For the present study, 9 substances more having a severe PTB profile (POP-like substances) were included, although OSPAR DYNAMEC had classified them as being not relevant in terms of exposure (shadowed in appendix 2). The reason for including these substances was that information obtained from the European Data Base IUCLID (update October 1999) indicated these substances to be on the market in a volume > 10 t/a. For two substances (Miconazole, CAS 22832-87-7 and 2-Propenoic acid, (pentabromophenyl)methylester[2]), CAS 59447-55-1) no producer or importer could be identified on IUCLID. These two substances where excluded from the further work even though they may be on the market and may pose a risk due to their suspected PTB profile.

4. Structure of the Target Group

Among the 40 chemicals under scrutiny there were 25 industrial chemicals, 14 pesticides and 1 pharmaceutical. 5 of the industrial chemicals exclusively occur on the EU market in production sites for chemical substances (raw material, intermediate, processing media, by products recovered onsite). These substances would be of no priority concern with regard to the marine environment if the producer could demonstrate that losses from production site are insignificant. This seems for example to be the case for HCB, HCBD and Nitrofen, for which DOW and CLARIANT specified losses of less than 10 kg/a via discharge per site.

Among the 40 substances there were only 9 substances for which more than 3 companies are involved in production and import. Following the current EU rules on confidentiality, for all other substances in the current study the market volumes would have been regarded a business secret. However, during the study industry provided data on the current market volumes and uses or discharges for about 18 substances (from 14 companies). This may indicate that some companies in Chemical Industry are ready to disclose such exposure information for the sake of public information.

Among the 64 companies to which a letter with a request for information was sent (list with companies, addresses and characterisation of response see appendix 3) there were 19 importers, 27 producers and 7 companies being importers and producers at the same time. Thus the role of the substance importers which are not large chemical producers at the same time is important.

8 companies had stopped production or import of the suspected PTB substance between 1991 and 2000, while 3 companies have sold the corresponding business to another company.

3 relevant companies were identified during the study which did not appear in IUCLID or as a notifyer in the framework of the EU existing pesticide program. In addition, several companies have changed names and management structure due to mergers. The current EU system to identify producers or importers of certain substances and the responsible person in these companies to get further information is neither up-to-date nor user friendly.

Among the 64 companies only 3 companies produce or import more than 5 different suspected PTB substances at the same time. The total number of actors on the market is consequently that large that effective implementation of industries’ Responsible Care Concept needs much more efforts than CEFIC has invested up to now. This is in particular true with regard to the importing companies.

5. Main results

5.1 Although registered on IUCLID as substances placed on the market[3] or registered as pesticide in one of the member states, 10 substances turned out being in fact not on the market anymore. This may indicate the need to set up an EU system on market occurrence of substances (including pesticide substances) which is more up-to-date than the current IUCLID.

Table 1: Substances not on the EU market anymore

  • Aldrin and Fenvalerate (Shell Netherlands stopped production 1993 (Aldrin), Sumitomo stopped production/import in Europe in 1998 no new authorisation in EU under 91/414 (Fenvalerate)
  • Tetrasul (Animert) (last registration in France has recently expired)
  • HCB, HCBD and 1,2,3,4 Tetrachlorobenzene (waste disposed off onsite Chemical Industry or trace contamination in chemical products)
/
  • Pentachlorothiophenol (Bayer stopped production in 1993)
  • Urea, N, N´-bis[(5-isocyanato-1,3,3-trimethyl-cyclohexyl)methyl- (Degussa stopped production)
  • Diosgenin, Hormone (Schering does not produce in Europe, however import with pharmaceutical products possible)
  • Clofenotane (Enichem stopped production)

5.2 Identification of the relevant companies as well as departments and persons in the companies responsible for placing the suspected PTBs on the European market was rather time consuming. This was due to the fact that i) active pesticide substances are only partly registered on IUCLID under Reg 793/93, ii) the company addresses and contact points on the IUCLID data base are rather outdated, iii) that splitting and merger of chemical companies during the last five years has created a situation where the industry itself appears to have partly lost tracks on who is who. However, except for 4 substances (1 drug, 2 pesticides and 1 industrial chemical), producers and importers could be identified. We ensured that all 64 companies have received the request for information although for some companies it was rather difficult to identify the correct address and right contact person.

5.3 Among the 14 active pesticide producers/importers, 5 companies were sufficiently open to communication and provided useful information. The same applies to 9 producers/importers of industrial chemicals. These companies seem to have the basic management structure in place for the implementation of Responsible Care and Product Stewardship.

Table 2: Open Companies

  • Rohm & Haas (Italy)
  • Dow AgroScience (Germany/France)
  • BASF (Germany)
  • Aventis CropScience (Germany, France, UK)
  • BAYER (Germany)
  • Dow Chemical (Germany)
/
  • Technochemie (Germany)
  • Clariant (Germany)
  • Novartis Animal Health (Austria, Switzerland)
  • Durez (Belgium)
  • Dow Corning (Belgium)
  • Wacker (Germany)

5.4 Among the 64 companies 12 did not respond, though they definitely received the request. 1 company responded, however it clearly expressed its unwillingness to release any information (EXXON). Among this group we find a significant high share of i) importers and ii) producers in France and Italy. This may be partly due to the fact that Italy is not a contracting party to OSPAR and partly due to language problems.

Table 3: Non-communicative Companies

  • Exxon (Netherlands)
  • Shell (Netherlands)
  • Shell (France)
  • SNPE (France)
  • DIACHEM SPA (Italy)
  • ISAGRO SPA (Italy)
/
  • PAC S.R.L (Italy)
  • Elf Atochem (Paris, France)
  • Ethyl Petroleum Additives (UK)
  • Flexsys (Belgium)
  • Noroxo (France)
  • SCAM (Italy)

5.5 Based on several phone talks it became obvious that the majority of the responsible persons in the companies were not aware of the fact that their product is under evaluation under OSPARs Strategy with Regard to Hazardous Substances. We take that as an indicator for the need to improve CEFIC’s internal communication.

5.6 Most of the companies did not provide the requested information to a full extent. In particular information on i) valid data on degradation of pesticides and industrial chemicals under relevant conditions (mineralisation half-life in surface water and sediments), ii) use patterns of industrial chemicals outside the Chemical Industry and iii) the percentage of losses from closed systems in the Chemical Industry is lacking. Thus for about 70 % of the substances covered in this study the assumption that they are potentially PTBs or even POP-like substances and that they may reach the marine environment has to be maintained for the time being. Based on the available information, the following substances are among the top priorities for a phase out of use in open systems.

Table 4a: Substances suspected to have a PTB profile and uses open to the environment

Substance / Justification to maintain the Concern

Dicofol (Acaricide)

Trade Name:

Kelthane Neu

/
  • POP-like PTB in open use.
  • Production of 1500 to 1800 t per year by Rohm and Haas in Barcelona, world wide export.
  • Data on degradation provided by Rohm and Haas Italy provide for rapid primary degradation in water, however slow mineralisation in water- sediment systems (> 60 days); main metabolite pp-Dichlorbenzophenone;

Endosulphan
(Insecticide) /
  • POP-like PTB in open use.
  • Use has declined to 500 t/a in Europe however production at Aventis Crop Science may be still high (export to cotton producing countries)
  • No information available what HPV importers in Italy do with Endosulphan.
  • Despite declining use in Europe measured concentration in river water (COMMPS data set) is still around 0.1 µg/l (90-perctle, all isomers) and 80 µg/l in Sediments (90-perctle, alpha isomer).

Chlorpyriphos
(Insecticide) /
  • Suspected POP-like PTB (according to OSPAR fact sheet) in open use
  • Production is about 3000 to 4000 t/a by DOW, 75% export
  • Producing companies not notified to IUCLID by now (DowAgro Science as data provider under 91/414)
  • The B and T criterion is clearly fulfilled according to OSPAR fact sheet, substance is also assigned R 53.
  • DOW data suggest sufficient degradation in the environment However according to COMMPS monitoring based ranking the substance has a medium exposure score for water. Hence occurrence in the environment is obviously not “occasional incidence and short lived” as DOW suggests.
  • The available US risk assessment does not cover the marine environment.

Tetrabrombisphenol A /
  • PTB, certain share of market volume sold for open uses. About 10% (approximately 1000 t/a) may be used as additive flame retardant, hence leaching may occur.
  • Imports by Eurobrom (NL), Albemale (B), Dow (Ger), Great Lakes (F)
  • Management of end of service life products containing TBBA yet insufficient in EU.

1,2,3 and 1,2,4
Trichlorobenzene /
  • PTB, certain share of market volume sold for open uses. 80% export out side EU, excluding open uses (by two of the three manufacturers) difficult outside Europe; low discharge only applies to European manufacturers
  • About 10.000 t/a production by BAYER (Ger), ESAR (F), Elf Atochem (F)
  • Main transport atmosphere, one month half-life in atmosphere, bioaccumulation observed in some organisms (EUROCHLOR 2000 b)
  • PEC < PNEC water according to EUROCHLOR Risk Assessment not applicable for sediment and bioaccumulation

Table 4b: Substances suspected to have a PTB profile and the producer/importers did not provide sufficient information to rule out relevant exposure
Substance / Justification to maintain the concern
Cyclododecane /
  • Suspected PTB, no information on uses available, HPV substance
  • Both producers did not provide any information, DEGUSSA (Ger) and
    Elf Aquitane (F)

Alcohols, C 11-15, /
  • Suspected PTB, no information on uses available, HPV substance
  • Both producer did not provide any information, EXXON (Nl) and NOROXO (F).

Neodecanoic Acid /
  • Suspected POP-like substance, no information on uses availabe?,
    HPV substance
  • Producer (Shell Netherlands) did not provide any information

4 tert Butyltoluene /
  • PTB, wide dispersive use according to IUCLID, HPV substance
  • One of the both producers did not provide any information (DEGUSSA, Ger), the answer from the other producer is still pending.

Hexadecafluoroheptane /
  • Suspected POP-like substance, MPV substance
  • no further informations about properties an uses are made available (MITENI)

HMDS /
  • PTB, wide dispersive use according to IUCLID, HPV substance
  • CES did not provide sufficient information that relevant releases from wide dispersive can be ruled out

5.7 For 2 substances (Octylphenol and HMDS) the producers provided information through the CEFIC sector group. Although taking quite a long time for response quality and extent of data was not better, compared to single companies, that reacted immediately. It can be concluded that CEFICs current sector group management does not lead to an increase of public available information with respect to both, quality and quantity.