LEGISLATION - REGULATORY OVERVIEW IN EUROPE

National policies on BFRs

Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) are chemical substances which are subject to EU legislation implemented at national level. No specific restrictions exist in individual Member States that would discriminate the treatment of BFRs in one Member State versus another Member State. However, some countries have attempted to initiate national restrictions which have been condemned as unlawful by the European Commission. For example, infringement procedures were issued by the European Commission against The Netherlands in 2002 and Denmark in 2003. In the case of the Netherlands this has successfully led to an unlawful ban of one BFRR being reversed. Below we summarise the status of the sometimes conflicting national policies on BFRs.

Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Netherlands

Sweden

Contrary to EU law, a partial ban of Deca-BDE exists in Sweden since 1 January 2007.  Two other major brominated flame retardants, HBCD and TBBPA, have been the subject of examination in Sweden without restrictions being introduced. 

TBBPA and HBCD

In December 2005, the Swedish Government requested KemI, the body in Swedenresponsible for evaluating and managing chemicals, to evaluate the potential for a national ban on TBBPA and HBCD. Following a period of stakeholder consultation, KemI advised the Swedish Government on 15 March 2006 to await the outcome of EU Risk Assessments on these substances, stating that: “A ban that does not make it possible to use TBBPA in the manufacturing of printed circuit boards for electronics would most probably results in the manufacturing & importing of most electronic products coming to a halt

A comprehensive national ban would (…) have very considerable adverse practical and economic consequences for society. The flame-retarded epoxy resin is a basic material for the manufacture of laminate for printed boards and for encapsulation of electronic components. More than 95 per cent of all the world’s printed boards are made from epoxy resin flame-retarded with TBBPA. A national ban covering this use would consequently lead to considerable costs and would directly and indirectly affect tens of thousands of jobs within the electronics industry and the part of the manufacturing industry that is dependent on electronic products. (…) Nor would a ban covering this use of TBBPA lead to any known benefits to health and the environment.”  No restrictions have been introduced.

For more information go to:
http://www.kemi.se/templates/News____3803.aspx

Deca-BDE

A partial ban of Deca-BDE has been in place in Sweden since 1 January 2007. This partial ban concerns textiles, furniture and some cables.  Exempted from the ban are major applications such as electrical and electronics as well as automotive applications.

This unilateral action ignores the results of a comprehensive EU risk assessment of Deca-BDE, which did not identify any risks either to health or to the environment. By targeting a highly tested chemical, the Swedish Government goes against the spirit of the EU legislation REACH, which requires that all substances should be tested before they can be put on the market. Furthermore, it encourages the use of less assessed alternatives.

On 21 March 2007, the European Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Swedish Government making clear that the Commission considers this unilateral measure by the Swedish government to be neither justified on grounds of environmental protection in Sweden, nor necessary and proportional.  This is the first stage in formal EU legal infringement proceedings.  Following this, the European Commission and the Swedish Government are currently in dialogue in order to address the incompatibility of the Swedish measure with European law.

Norway

A proposal of June 2007 from the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) intended to restrict the use of 18 chemical substances in consumer goods including the flame retardants HBCD and TBBPA when used as an additive. The Norwegian government notified the European Union on its project. This notification opened a three month period for EU Member States and the European Commission to submit their comments on the proposal.

In parallel, the proposal was subject to a three month national stakeholder consultation process.

Opposition to this proposal was expressed by the European Commission, some Member States, EFTA and members of WTO. In Norway, among 70 stakeholders replied to the consultation, and a majority was against this proposal.

Arguments against indicated this proposal was acting ahead of EU RA conclusions and Reach implementation. 

Norwegian authorities will now take all comments into account and decide on next steps.

Denmark

The Danish Environment Protection Agency issued an action plan in 2001 followed by a campaign against BFRs. The latter was challenged by the European Commission. However, there is no Danish intention for a national ban and a commitment to follow EU policy.

In March 2001, the Danish Environment Protection Agency (EPA) published an Action Plan for Brominated Flame Retardants. The report concludes that a ban of all BFRs is seen as appropriate in order to achieve the Danish objective to reduce findings of BFRs in the environment,. While BSEF agrees with the underlying objective, BSEF disagrees with its conclusions and calls for a differentiated policy for each BFR product taking into account their different characteristics and properties.

Further to this study Danish EPA launched a campaign against BFRs in autumn 2001. Following a complaint registered by the European Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel (EBFRIP), the European Commission has issued an infringement procedure against Denmark in April 2003. The Commission stated that the campaign constituted a unjustified measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction in terms of Article 28 of the EC Treaty and that it could not be justified on the basis of Article 30 of the EC Treaty or on the jurisprudence of the ECJ.
BSEF has met with key Danish stakeholders. In the meetings, it was confirmed that Denmark will base its position on BFRs on EU policy debate moving ahead and will not introduce or propose individual national policies. BSEF will seek continued dialogue with relevant stakeholders in Denmark.

Netherlands

Summary: Reversed Dutch National law restricting production, use and import of BDBPT in the Netherlands between 5 March 2002 and 3 March 2003
On 5 March 2003, the Dutch Environment Ministry lifted a temporary ban imposed for a year on a brominated flame retardant chemical named Brominated dibromopropyl ether of Tetrabromobisphenol A (BDBPT), also called by various commercial trade names, including FR 720, HP 8OO, PE 68, FC121K and FG3100 and is identified by the CAS number 21850-44-2.
BSEF welcomed the lift of this temporary ban on BDBPT in the Netherlands as it proved unjustified and lacked scientific evidence. The product is not found in the environment and an initial risk assessment on acute toxicity in January 2002 commissioned by the industry for the Dutch Government showed the substance was of no concern.
BDBPT is used in applications ranging from waste water pipes to kitchen hoods in Europe and in a wide range of electronic equipment worldwide.