|
Introduction |
|
The Government published the 'Sustainable
Production and Use of Chemicals' on 27 July 1998. Consultation
finished on 27 October. This note summarises consultees' views on
the ideas set out in the Consultation Paper and the way forward.
Over 100 consultees responded, including professional associations,
NGOs, 13 trade associations and 12 environmental or health groups. |
| Consultation step in right direction |
There was widespread support for the consultation paper being
a step in the right direction towards developing a new and sustainable
policy on chemicals in the environment. |
| Consensus in consultees views |
Consultees generally:
- agreed that progress to assess and manage risks from existing
chemicals1 was too slow;
- supported a continuing dialogue between different interested
parties;
- recognised that the environmental impact of chemicals crosses
national boundaries;
- agreed that controls were needed at EU (and international)
level.
|
| Large differences between consultees' views |
Nevertheless there are large differences between consultees' views,
in particular on:
- the proper scope of the review;
- effective methods for speeding up assessments;
- the correct rationale for controlling chemicals;
and information exchange with the public.
|
|
Scope |
| Industry wants focused review |
Consultees from within industry were generally content with the
scope of the document as set out, and wished to concentrate on chemicals
with high production volumes which have wide spread dispersive uses.
A number commented that they did not think it helpful to include
discussion of the chemical industry's eco-efficiency. |
| Others want broad remit |
Most other consultees wished to see a wider programme of review
covering all types of chemicals, particularly agro-chemicals, and
all sources of human exposure, particularly waste and consumer products.
|
|
Speeding up Assessments |
|
Current Risk Assessments under NONS and ESR |
| NONs needed but bureaucratic |
Some consultees from within industry consider that NONS2
is overly bureaucratic and has depressed innovation. Their concerns
focus on chemicals for research and development, polymers, intermediates,
and processing aids which are consumed during manufacture (and for
which there is little exposure to the general public but exposure
of workers.) Industrial consultees would like to see the requirements
more closely linked to the likely risk. However, other consultees
are opposed to any diminution of the requirements. |
| Resource and target ESR |
There was more in-depth discussion of ways to improve risk assessments
carried out under the Existing Substances Regulations. Consultees
were generally agreed that chemical producers should provide more
information and that there are insufficient resources dedicated
to the programme; environmental groups propose that industry bear
more of the cost and industrial consultees propose that Member States
should honour their obligations.
Some trade associations and companies were concerned that the
current process is overly bureaucratic. They suggest that the
current assessments are unnecessarily thorough, repeating work
already known. They propose that the first stage of a risk assessment
should quickly identify what potential risks a chemical could
pose and that the assessment following should be targeted on addressing
those areas. Consultees also asked for better administration of
the overall programme at EU level and for inclusion of any environmental
benefits.
|
| Improve scientific basis of ESR |
Other consultees, including environmental groups, non-departmental
public bodies and consultants, questioned whether the scientific
basis of current assessments is adequate. They asked for inclusion
of tests for endocrine disrupters and exposure to mixtures, and
monitoring to check predictions. |
|
Self-Assessments |
|
'Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals' suggested that the
manufacturers and users of chemicals should carry out self-assessments
of the environmental risks posed. |
| Industry supports limited voluntary scheme |
A number of trade associations were supportive of a self-assessment
scheme. However, they proposed that it should be a European wide
scheme operating on a voluntary basis; industry would provide initial
risk assessments on the agreed priority products within a reasonable
time frame. A few industrial firms and professional bodies also
supported self-assessments, particularly those consultees who come
into regular contact with the more stringent regulations which govern
particular chemical uses. However, there were concerns, particularly
from the metals industry, that self-assessment was not feasible
for those industrial companies which use a large number of chemicals
and that self-assessment by industry would not be credible with
the public. |
| Self-assessments not seen as credible by some |
Most environmental and health groups shared the view that industrial
self-assessments are not credible, warning against too much reliance
on voluntary measures. They proposed that statutory assessments
should be carried out by independent assessors but be funded by
industry. |
| Auditing and guidance needed |
There was widespread support from all groups for independent audit
of assessments and, if the assessments were carried out by industry,
for guidance and additional help for the smaller companies. |
|
Chemical Controls |
| Positive Licensing Regime proposed by environmental
groups |
The environmental and health groups which responded to the consultation
are calling for a radical programme of reform to the current legislation.
Most of the environmental groups which responded have signed the
Friends of the Earth joint statement (www.foe.co.uk/camps/indpoll/suschem.htm).
That statement calls for the removal over time of all synthetic
chemicals which are bioaccumulative or persistent, unless they are
essential for a specific function. It also looks for a move to a
positive licensing system whereby industry would have to show that
the chemical was safe beyond reasonable doubt and that it fulfilled
a real need. Other environmental groups echo these sentiments. |
| Industry opposes reversed burden of proof |
Consultees from within the chemical industry however, are specifically
opposed to any proposals which would reverse the burden of proof,
believing that this would be detrimental to the economy and to society.
Many support the precautionary principle. However, they considered
that it should be used sparingly. Whilst parts of the chemical industry
concede that there may be occasional instances when a decision to
control a chemical is necessary on the basis of hazard data alone,
the general view was that action should only be taken after an assessment
of risks and the socio-economic information. Persistence and bioaccumulation
alone should not automatically require controls unless the chemical
is also toxic and there is a credible route of exposure. The metals
industry is further concerned that all metals are persistent and
suggests that bioavailability is a better marker for control. |
|
Involving all Stakeholders |
|
There was wide support for a better dialogue between interested
parties. In particular, there were calls from all sides for improvements
to the Chemicals Release Inventory and for a stakeholder forum.
Many consultees offered to be actively involved in the forum. |
|
Stakeholder Forum |
| Many views on role of Stakeholder Forum |
Consultees identified a number of different roles for a forum
including:
- prioritisation of chemicals;
- a centre of excellence providing scientific and technical
advice;
- the audit function for self-assessments;
- powers to require adoption of specific risk management measures;
- ecoefficiency measures;
- management of the research programme;
- dissemination of information and advice;
A few industrial consultees were more guarded in their welcome,
wishing to restrict the forum to setting criteria for prioritising
chemicals. Environmental groups were keen to ensure that any scientific
advisory committees had no vested interest in favour of industry,
and asked for financial help to ensure that the environmental sector
can contribute properly. Both environmental groups and the industrial
sector asked for Government-led dialogue, whilst other bodies including
consultants and members of the public preferred the forum to be
independent. It was also suggested that there should be parallel
organisations at local and European level. |
|
Chemical Release Inventory |
| Improve and expand CRI |
There was support for internet access to the Chemical Release
Inventory. Environmental groups and members of the public have asked
for a comprehensive database building on the American Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). It would enable people to find out what chemicals
are in any product and give monitoring and safety information. There
was also a call for CRI's extension to Scotland. Industry consultees
were more concerned to ensure that information on the CRI is up
to date, accurate, and appropriate to the audience, as misleading
information can be very difficult to counteract. It should also
respect commercial confidentiality. Some were concerned that the
public does not understand the distinction between risk and hazard;
they saw a role for the Government to educate the public. Others
wanted research to establish what the public are most concerned
about. |
|
International Action |
| Equal rights and competitiveness demand international
action |
International action was seen as being important by many consultees.
Industrial stakeholders were concerned that national measures would
lead to reduced competitiveness, confusion, and duplication of tests
to meet different standards. Environmental and health groups were
keen to pursue an ethical international chemistry policy, so that
unsafe chemicals were not used in developing countries. However,
they were keen to ensure that the need for an international approach
is not used to delay action. Although there was some support for
a framework convention, a number of consultees were keen to explore
exactly what it would do before committing themselves. |
| Research |
Many helpful comments were offered in respect of research programmes.
There was also a call to coordinate research requirements internationally.
|
