DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.3 - Chemicals and Nanomaterials
Directorate C – Industry
ENV.C.2 – Sustainable production and consumption
Brussels, 16 July 2010
Meeting of the Technical Progress Committee of Directive 67/548/EEC
Meeting of the Committee for the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress of EC Legislation on Waste (TAC)
23 April 2010
Conference Centre A. Borschette, Rue Froissart, 36, room 1D,
B-1040 Brussels
The Committees discussed the draft Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) N° 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants to adapt it to technical progress as regards Annexes I to V. The meeting was co-chaired by Astrid Schomaker, Head of the Chemicals and nanomaterials Unit (DG ENV) and Thorsten Brunzema of the Sustainable production and consumption Unit (DG ENV).
1.OPENING OF THE MEETING
The meeting started at 9.15. The chairperson welcomed the participants and explained the objectives of the meeting.
2.AGENDA OF THE MEETING
The agenda was adopted without changes (no comment).
3.DISCUSSION ON THE Commission Regulation amending Regulation N° 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants to adapt it to technical progress as regards Annexes I AND III
COM made a presentation on the background for the amendment of Annexes I and III and the draft measure. A discussion on the enacting terms and the Annexes followed.
3.1.Annexes I and III
- Polybromodiphenyl ethers(polyBDEs):
The issue regarding the quantitative threshold value for the Unintentional Trace Contaminant (UTC) was the main issue discussed. NL proposed to keep the same threshold value as the one in the annex XVII to REACH (0.1%) and asked about the possible impact of the value proposed by COM (0.001%). DE suggested following the approach and definition as under RHoS (0.1%). Ireland wanted to know the impact of lowering the current level. BE proposed to merge all polyBDEs for consistency with RHoS for calculating the %. DK supported the threshold proposed by COM. PL supported NL and estimated that the cost is too high in comparison with the environmental benefits and questioned the possibility to analyse polyBDEs at such low levels. IT raised some concerns with regard recycling industry and indicated that we should avoid provisions which have negative impact on recycling industry. CY wanted some clarification of the definition of "produced from recycled materials" does it mean 10% or 100%.NL proposed to add wording allowing the use of polyBDEs containing articles already in use in the Union before the entry into force of this Regulation.
COM replied that as polyBDEs listed in the proposal are not used in the EU since 2004, they should not be present in products elaborated from virgin materials. So, lowering the existing threshold has no socio-economical impact. In addition, as the current threshold is maintained for products elaborated from recycling materials, COM did not expect any socio-economical impacts for the recycling industry. With regards the RHoS definition, it could not be used as the RHoS definition covers additional polyBDEs congeners (e.g., decaBDE). COM confirmed that the current analytical techniques give the possibility to analyse individual polyBDEs at concentration of 0.001% or even lower. COM agreed that a clarification was needed for "produced from recycled materials" and suggested to add "partially or fully" before it. COM also agreed on the need to include a wording allowing the use of article already in used as proposed by NL.
- PFOS
NL suggested to introduce similar wording as the one agreed for polyBDEs regarding the possibility to use articles already in use. UK supported by Germany, proposed to link the reporting obligation from MS with the exemption of specific uses when the quantity of PFOS released into the environment is minimised.
COM agreed to include these two proposals to the text.
- Other chemicals
No comments from MS
3.2.Articles
COM clarified how the possible timing issues should be solved. No comments from MS.
3.3.Recitals
Few modifications were introduced on the basis of MS's comments.
4.CONCLUSIONS
The Committee gave a favourable opinion on this proposal as modified during the meeting by Qualified Majority.See detail in the table below.
Poland and Portugal voted against the proposal.
Cyprus abstained.
Latvia and Malta were not represented
Total weighted votes in favour: / 295Total weighted votes against: / 39
Abstentions: / 4
Not represented / 7
TOTAL: / 345
On the request of MS, COM confirmed that a Q&A document is under preparation and it will be on the DG Environment website when the Commission Regulation modifying annexes I and III of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on Persistent organic pollutants is published.
In addition, COM has been given the mandate from MS to adapt the timing of the article 2 as appropriate.
The meeting of the REACH Committee ended at 18h00. COM thanked all MS for their support and closed the meeting.
1