1 / 23

European Commission Enterprise and Industry

Commission review on phosphates in detergents – Preparation of impact assessment analysis. TAIEX Workshop on the Implementation of EU Detergents Regulation Bucharest, 21 - 22 September 2009. European Commission Enterprise and Industry. Introduction to phosphates in detergents.

tacita
Download Presentation

European Commission Enterprise and Industry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commission review on phosphates in detergents – Preparation of impact assessment analysis TAIEX Workshop on the Implementation of EU Detergents Regulation Bucharest, 21 - 22 September 2009 European CommissionEnterprise and Industry

  2. Introduction to phosphates in detergents Detergents Regulation (648/2004 (EC)): Article 16 (1) “By 8 April 2007, the Commission shall evaluate, submit a report and, where justified, present a legislative proposal on use of phosphates with a view to their gradual phase-out or restriction to specific applications” ► Phosphates, mainly in the form of sodium tri-polyphosphate (STPP), are commonly used as builders in detergents, enhancing their cleaning efficiency. (STPP in detergents releases ~110.000 tP/year. Major use of STPP is in fertilisers →1.5 mt P/year) ►No adverse health effects have been reported for STPP but there is a prime environmental concern that:“by increasing P- load on the environment, P- based detergents may contribute to eutrophication” [1] OJ L104, 8.4.2004, p. 1 ► Since mid-1980s a move towards phosphate-free detergents led to an increased use of zeolites (main alternative builders)

  3. 100 100 100 100?? 100?? Degree to which EU market is P-free (Laundry Detergents) (RPA, 2006) EU-25 (2006) P-free: ~66% EU-27 (2009) P-free: >70%

  4. Current Legislative status in EU •No harmonized EU legislation on phosphates in detergents. MS can maintain or introduce national measures (subsidiarity) •Several MS have either imposed legislative measures (IT, NL, SE, FR, CZ) or set up voluntary agreements (IE, AT, DE,FI) with IND formulatorsto reduce or eliminate phosphates in laundry detergents Existing EU legislation on phosphates- eutrophication (I) The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) (II) The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EEC) (III)The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (IV)The IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) Definition of Eutrophication under the UWWTD “The enrichment of water by nutrients especially (N and P compounds) causing an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms and the quality of the water concerned”.

  5. INIA Eutrophication RA model ● In early 2000, the EC contracted WRc to carry out a study on STPP substitution in detergents (+availability of alternative builders) A scientific opinion of SCTEE (2003), recommended that: “A quantitative assessment of the extent of eutrophication in EU waters in relation to P- load from different sources, and in particular STPP in detergents, should be performed on the basis of existing information”. ● CEEP (European Detergent Phosphate Industry) volunteered to carry out a study:“European Quantitative Eutrophication RA of STPP in Detergents” in collaboration with INIA- (Spanish Nat. Instit for Agr.Food Res.Tech). ● In the meetings of the EC Detergents WG, Commission, MS and other stakeholders agreed to the necessity of such study at EU level.

  6. INIA Eutrophication RA model The INIA eutrophication model was developed covering 303 EU field cases in 2 european eco-regions: Mediterranean and Atlantic NC and2 eco-systems: Deep and shallow lakes INIA Target: To develop and apply an EU probabilistic RA model for eutrophication + associate detergent STPP emissions (+ other P-loads) INIA report (October 2006)http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents Major conclusions of INIA study ► The difference between the total risk and risk without P-detergents was ~ at 2.5-10% on Mediterranean and ~0.5-3% Atlantic-N&C regions. ► In both analysed eco-regions the eutrophication risk did not increase linearly at higher phosphorous concentrations. ► Additional eutrophication risks related to detergent P are variable in different regions as a result of the varying characteristics.

  7. COM (2007) report on phosphates in detergents In December 2006, the Commission submitted the INIA report to SCHER for evaluation of its scientific quality, methodology & results In April 2007, the Commission submitted to the European Parliament a preliminary report (Com_2007_234) concerning the use of phosphates in detergents (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents) The COM report summarised the -by early 2007- available evidence concerning contribution on P-detergents on eutrophication in EU. ◄The Commission will conduct an Impact Assessment Analysis concerning the use of STPP in detergents in order to conclude the most proportionate and adequately justified measure at EU level. ◄ Meanwhile, MS can maintain or adopt national measures where this can be justified (and be notified to EC under Directive 98/34/EC).

  8. SCHER opinion on INIA RA model In November 2007, SCHERpublished an opinion on the INIA report (available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm) SCHER recognised that the INIA model presents a novel tool to assess in a quantitative manner the risks of eutrophication due to phosphorus release at EU level, but identified certain key weaknesses such as : limited data base (a) to develop the model which may not represent european lakes (b) for the validation of the developed approach SCHER proposed that prior to the application of the INIA model for risk managements purposes, the science presented in the report should be further developed, in particular considering the results of other EU eutrophication studies (Baltic Sea, Danube River etc,) and data available from the Intercalibration (IC) exercise of EU-WFD.

  9. Scientific improvement of INIA RA model In the course of 2008, the Commission (DG-ENTR) facilitated the contact of INIA with other EU sources and eutrophication projects. ◄Meeting at JRC-Ispra (June 2008)Possibilities to use the IC data for the development of the INIA model were discussed. Following submission from JRC of IC data, mainly from Central Europe Area, a good agreement between JRC and INIA databases was confirmed. ◄Scientific workshop in Stockholm (BNI institute, September 2008) Modes of cooperation and implementation of the INIA methodology into Baltic (marine water) models research projects were explored. ◄ Scientific meeting in Vienna (hosted by ICPDR, December 2008) INIA discussed ways of cooperation withDANUB eutrophication projects which have developed models predicting nutrient inputs (e.g Moneris) and contain a large amount of monitoring data.

  10. Madrid Eutrophication Workshop (March 2009) ● A scientific workshop was organised by INIA to present the outcome of their calibration/validation efforts and exchange ideas with EU experts ●It was commonly agreed that the model database was significantly improved following mainly incorporation of JRC data (WFD-IC) Major improvements of updated 2009 INIA model ● Effect assessment:The combined INIA-JRC database allowed the estimation of conditional probability distributions for 4 ecoregions & 2000 points (Central/Baltic, Northern, Atlantic, & Mediterranean) (instead of 2 eco regions-300 points in 2006 INIA model) ● Risk communication: The 2009 INIA model provides risk values for: Total eutrophication risk, risk excluding laundry detergents, risk excluding dishwashing detergents, risk excluding both detergent types

  11. 2009 INIA model Summary of results for the contribution of detergents to the eutrophication risk in the 4 ecoregions. Values are presented as % of eutrophication risk.

  12. COM Mandate to SCHER on the 2009 update model Following the formal submission of updated INIA model in April, the COM send a new mandate asking SCHER to comment whether: ◄ the scientific quality of the report has been significantly improved following the validation exercise and specificallywhether there was sufficient consideration of IC-WFD available data & efficient use of ecotypes/eco-regions to properly estimate the EU eutrophication risk; ◄the updated INIA report evaluated the findings of DRB and Baltic Sea studiesin order toconsider additional factors playing role in eutrophication process and clarify its mechanisms in marine waters; ◄ whether or not the results of the updated model following validation and recalibration indicate that P-use in detergents contributes significantly to EU eutrophication risk. (SCHER was requested to evaluate statistical analysis of INIA results)

  13. COM Impact Assessment analysis on STPP in detergents ◄ As required by the COM report on phosphates (Com_2007_234), DG-ENTR has started the preparation of an Impact Assessment (IA) analysis (Autumn 2008), in parallel with the update of the INIA report. ◄ The first step included collection of all available information (scientific and socio-economic data) from MS and other stakeholders (+discussion at WG meetings)and in particular from related industry European Phosphate Industry-CEEP, European Detergent Formulators-AISE ◄The IA study will examine a range various policy options. The analysis of their impacts will be conducted taking into consideration the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency (including practicality, economic impact and monitorability).

  14. Cost & Benefits of P-substitution in detergents (RPA-2006) Benefits of P-substitution in detergents (RPA 2006) Key benefit:reducing the phosphorus load to the environment which, in turn, will reduce the problem of eutrophication. In qualitative terms, greatest benefits would accrue in countries with: - high phosphate detergents use; - low provision of tertiary treatment in waste water plants; - existing severe problem of eutrophication.

  15. Cost & Benefits of P-substitution in detergents (RPA-2006)

  16. Option-1: No restrictions of phosphates in detergents at EU level, leaving responsibility for action to MS (Subsidiarity) ● CEEP informed of a 50% reduction from 2004 to 2008 in EU STPP consumption. ● If no legislative action will be taken at EU level, the current situation and trends would remain unchanged. MS having already measures in place could continue to maintain them and could proceed with the adoption of further national measures. ● Subsidiarity has been favoured by a number of MS during the meetings of the Detergents WG. Measures at national level (e.g via WFD implementation) or by several MS in co-operation (Baltic Sea, DRB initiatives) might be an efficient and effective policy option. ● The lack of EU law would prolong the existing situation of P trans-boundary flow within the EU. In addition, the cost of WWTP operation needs to be considered. ● AISE claim: the existence of different rules for Member States would cause a failure in the establishment of a functioning internal market for detergents.

  17. Option-2. Voluntary action by industry at EU level ● In a few EU countries (Ireland, Austria, Germany etc.) voluntary commitments by industry are in place to phase out phosphates in detergents. ● CEEP claims that such an EU voluntary agreement is equal to a ban for them. ● AISE possesses the knowledge and experience in managing voluntary commitments. (e.g Laundry Sustainability Project –LSP) However, AISE opposes to a voluntary phase-out of P in household laundry detergents ( “complicated anti-trust law”). ●Voluntary commitments are subject to the risk of free-riding when one or more companies do not adhere to them (“Czech” example). ●Setting up a formalised voluntary commitment at EU level, agreeing on the necessary standards would be feasible but difficult given the unwillingnessof IND to participate (+would create a significant administrative burden to companies and associations).

  18. Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergent products ● Benefits of P-substitution: (2006 RPA analysis) ● Cost of P- substitution:(a) Disruption of P-supply chain (CEEP-2009). Termination of STPP production in EU would have knock-on effects leading to plant and site restructuring and closures, while other P-based products, will be affected. (b) Reformulation: Change in formulation may place many SMEs at a disadvantage leading to a loss of their market share to international companies – Reformulations costs could vary from 5000 € to 100.000 € per formulation. ●Existence of technically and economically feasible alternatives to STPP: (a) Environmental issues (SCHER 2007, 2009):Uncertainties concerning the increased environmental risk due to higher use of phosphonates and in particular polycarboxylates in P-free formulations (COM investigation is ongoing..). (b) Technical-economic feasibility: price of STPP 10-20%higher than of zeolites but increased use of more expensive polycarboxylates may balance the product price. A total P-ban may be problematic in terms of practicality as no technically feasible alternatives exist in ADW and I&I detergents (AISE and SMEs consultation).

  19. Option-4: Prohibition of phosphates in laundry detergents ● A few MS have already banned STPP in laundry detergents either with legislative (IT, NL, SE, FR) or voluntary masures (AT, GE, IE, FI) so that now zeolites dominate EU laundry market (>70%). This tendency itself may indicate that a EU law may have limited added value and effectiveness compared with the “no action” scenario. ● CEEP-2009:The majority of EU STPP production goes into domestic laundry detergents and dishwasher market cannot absorb excess production in case of a P-ban in laundry, which would inevitably lead to closures of STPP production units leading to a total of 3000 –5000 job losses in the EU. ● SMEs formulators of laundry detergents claim: heavy reformulation costs , higher cost of final products up to >40%, lower performance of P-free detergents, in particular poorer rinsing and higher temperature wash. ● However, as 60% of STPP consumed in EU is still used in laundry products, this use may still be a significant source of exposure. The effectiveness of such a policy option would become clearer once the eutrophication risk will have been properly evaluated(2009 INIA provides estimation for contribution of laundry to EU risk).

  20. Option-5:Restriction of phosphates in detergents up to a certain level ●Several countries (e.g NO, IT, PL) have established varying maximum P limits in detergents products, which are usually higher in dishwashers than in laundry products. ● If a single upper limit would be established for phosphates in detergents throughout the EU, it is possible that this would be higher than the existing ones in national legislation of certain Member States. ● Then MS would either need to repeal or submit requests under Article 95 of the Treaty to be authorised to maintain their current legislation. This will create significant administrative burden for the MS and for the Commission. ● AISE (2008) has recommended in 2008 a limit value equivalent of 2,5 gr P per wash (as P) for ADW detergent products as best estimated value to allow flexibility in design and sustainability (given that such a restriction should not be implemented before 2012 to allow sufficient time for reformulation of current products. However AISE recommends no restriction level for laundry or in I&I products.

  21. Further developments-Next Steps 1. SME consultation (essential requirement of new COM IA guidelines) DG ENTR addressed questionnaires to EU SMEs (detergent formulators) via a list provided by CEEP. The ENTR Europe network has been also involved. Consultation and analysis of responses will be completed in Autumn 2009. • Overview of the SME Questionnaire • Product portfolio(type detergents, P-free/P-based, number of product lines, etc.) • Reformulation of detergents (How frequently they reformulate, average reformulations costs, price of P-based compared to alternatives etc.) • Consequences of possible phosphate restrictions (feasibility of P replacement in their formulations, effects on performance, economic consequences). • 2. Preparation of 2009 SCHER opinions • SCHER opinion on INIA model will serve as the main scientific input for the IA report. SCHER involved an independent expert on statistics. • SCHER opinion on polycarboxylates will offer complementary information. • SCHER opinions will have been finalised by end of November 2009

  22. Further developments-Next Steps 3 Further discussion with MS and other stakeholders concerning the analysis of IA policy options in the next meeting of Detergents WG (scheduled for 24th of November 2009). Expressed positions and further material (as well as the outcome of SCHER opinions and SME consultation)will be carefully considered during further progress of IA report. 4 Completion of the draft IA level in early 2010. Outcome of IA analysis, concluding a recommended policy option at EU level is expected at early February 2010following discussion and consultation with associated Commission Services (DG-ENV, DG-SANCO, DG-JRC). 5. Submission to Impact Assessment Board (by end of 1stquarter 2010) Consultation with IAB and revision of the IA report following IAB remarks. If a proposal for Community action will emerge, it would be adopted in written procedure in the course of 2010.

  23. Commission review on phosphates in detergents – Preparation of impact assessment analysis TAIEX Workshop on the Implementation of EU Detergents Regulation Bucharest, 21 - 22 September 2009 European CommissionEnterprise and Industry

More Related