DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Cohesion
ENV.D.3 – Chemicals & Nanomaterials
Brussels, 30 November 2009
Doc. POP-CA5/08/2009
Summary Record of the
Fifth meeting of the Competent Authorities for the implementation of Regulation (EC) Nr 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Persistent Organic Pollutants
4November 2009
Centre A. Borschette
Rue Froissart, 36
BE-1040 Brussels, Belgium
The meeting was chaired by Astrid Schomaker (DG ENV).
COM apologised for the late uploading of some of the documents on CIRCA.
1.Adoption of the agenda (POP-CA5/01/2009)
The agenda was adopted with no change.
2.Adoption of the Summary Record of the 4thCA-meeting (16 January 2009) (POP-CA4/09/2009)
No comments were made at the meeting, however, as the draft summary record was uploaded on CIRCA a few days before the meeting, comments can be sent to the Commission by 20th November 2009.
3.Review of action table
COM went through the table and will prepare an updated version.
For Point 5: Status on ratifications: the following information was provided:
IE informed that theyare in the final stage of the procedure for ratifying the Convention and the Protocol.
ES started preparations for the ratification of the UN-ECE Protocol two years ago and would check and up-date the Commission on the current status and timetable for the finalisation of the ratification.
4.Commission Communication on Implementation of POPs Regulation (POP-CA5/02/2009)
COM presented the document POP-CA5/02/2009 that contains an annotated outline of the draft Communication and asked for comments from Members States (MS) on several issues.
DK indicated that information submitted during summer 2009 should be included in the Communication. COM confirmed that the communication will cover the period 2004-2006 and the information related to a period posterior to 2006 will be included in the next Communication covering the period 2007-2009.
Control of production, placing on the market and use
FR informed the participants that ECHA sent a list of substances pre-registeredby registrants located in their countryto every MS. Such a list could be used by POP CAs to contact the registrants that have pre-registered substances listed in the POP regulation to obtain further information on the registration and to initiate any appropriate action if necessary.
The difficulty to trace imports of POP substances, in particular in articles,was confirmed by several MS. However, MS were split on the usefulnessto develop substance specific tariff codes. COM proposed to consult the custom working group of the ECHA forum on this issue.
Stockpiles
COM informed that only 10 MS had reported stocks of articles/equipments containing PCBs. In order to clarify the obligation to report information on stocks of PCBs containing equipment under the POP regulation, COM proposed to modify the reporting format. MS supported this indicating that they have to do so also under the PCBs Directive.
NL indicated the need to cooperate with experts on waste for the elimination of PCBs.
The stocks of PCBs equipments were indentified as an issue to be included in the Communication. A workplan could be developed in view of the 2010 deadline of the PCBs Directive. The document prepared by NL on PCBs will be re-circulated in order to give to MS a second opportunity to inform COM on difficulties identified for the fulfilment of the obligations before the 2010 deadline.
Release production, minimisation and elimination of unintentionally produced POPs
COM proposed to assess the possibility to increase synergies between the different MS' obligations to report on unintentional releases of POPs under different regimes(e.g., EPER, EMEP, Stockholm Convention and POPs Regulation). Although there was support for the principle of increasing synergies on reporting, some MS raised some doubts on the need for such an initiative as they already reported the same data to the different regimes.Other MS pointed to the difficulty of creating such synergy as the regimes have different scopes and use different reporting formats.
MS agreed toinclude in the updated version of their NIPs an assessment of the fulfilments of the actions specified in their original NIP.
5.Upcoming tri-annual reporting - lessons learned from the first reporting
On the basis of an assessment on the previous tri-annual reporting, COM provided some suggestions to MS on how to improve the quality of their reporting.
6.Enforcement
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in fireworks
COM reported on the discussion of the pyrotechnics working group on the Chinese fireworks containing HCB imported in Denmark (cf. extract of the summary report of the pyrotechnics working group meeting: Annex II of docCA5/03/2009).
DKinformed the meeting about market surveillance of fireworks. The new information confirmed the presence of HCB (up to 12%) in imported Chinese fireworks. NL added that they had visited the Chinese authorities who seemed to be aware that HCB is prohibited. NL was hoping that the entry into force of the Pyrotechniques Directive would alleviate the problem. One problem for the authorities was the destruction of the illegal fireworks.
AT informed the meeting about on going project on the presence of HCB in fireworks. FR starts a similar project in 2010, as well as a study on the fate of HCB when fireworks are used. FR reported also some difficulties to find an appropriate waste treatment plant to treat fireworkwastes.
MS are invited to share the results of their studies with other MSusing CIRCA.
DK suggested that environmental Authorities should establish cooperation between safety Authorities on this issue. MS and COM supported this idea.
7.Update on international activities relating to the implementation of Regulation 850/2004 (POP-CA4/08/2009)
7.1. Information on inter-sessional work (incl. POP RC and UN-ECE Task force)
COM briefly informed on the outcomes of the 7th meeting of Task force of the UNECE POP protocol which was held in Plovdiv on 2-5 June 2009 and of the 5th meeting on the POP Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention which was held on 12-16 October 2009 in Geneva.
As the issue of cooperation between the Task force and the POP Review Committee was put on the agenda of the 5th meeting of the POPs Review Committee for information only, UK suggested that this cooperation should be discussed at the next POP RC meeting to obtain the view of the POP RC members. COM indicated that the Chair of the POP RC explained that it is up to the COP to decide on such cooperation and this was the reason why the issue was for information only.
SEindicated that it could be interesting to assess interactions between short, medium and long chain chlorinated paraffins. COM will contact RECETOX as the Director of RECETOX volunteered during the 5th POP Review Committee meeting to take on board a test case on toxic interactions between substances.
NL and DE indicated the need to include experts on waste management in the POPRC work related to the POPs in articles.
COM gave an overview of the on-going inter-sessional activities/programmes of the Stockholm Convention and asked MS to identify experts involved. These experts should be invited to inform the CA meeting on progress achieved within these activities. MS welcomed this proposal.
7.2. Nomination of new substances
[CLOSED SESSION].
8.Implementation of COP-4 decisions
Overview of COP-4 decisions
COM gave an overview of the outcomes of 4th COP of the Stockholm Convention which was held on 4-8 May 2009 in Geneva.
Annexes I, II and III
COM presented the time table and the legal and technical aspects of the amendments to the POP Regulation allowing a proper implementation of the COP4 decisions related to the listing of the nine new substances to the Convention. The vote is tentatively scheduled to place on the 21st of April jointly with the amendments to the waste related provisions (see below)
Several MS indicated they would need more time to study the questions raised by COM.
Replying to FR, COM indicated that any decision taken at the next Executive Body of the LRTAP Convention on adding new substances to the POP Protocol should be covered by another amendment of the POP Regulation due to the time constraints engendered by the deadline for the ratification of COP4 decisions (August 2010).
MS supported the addition of new CAS RN for the HCH entries, the deletion of all exemptions for HCH and DDT entries and the transfer of HCH, Chlordecone and HCB entries from Part B to Part A of Annex I.
On issues related to c-penta- and c-octaBDEs, NL and DE suggested to make references to the commercial forms to be as close as possible to the COP-4 decision text.
Onissues related to PFOS, NL raised some concerns on the difficulty to report on the uses of PFOS related compounds. Basically, apart of the data on PFOS in fire fighting foams and metal plating, there are no other data available. CZ indicated that the lack of concordance between the wording of exemptions in COP-4 decision and the ones listed in Annex XVII of REACH could be problematic when assessing the exemptions needed for the EU. In addition, CZ asked if every MS should inform the secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on their exemption requests or if this should be done in an EU coordinated approach. COM replied that several scenarios can be envisaged but COM has a clear preference for an EU coordinated approach. In addition, MS were invited to inform COM on any national procedure aiming at ratifying the COP-4 decisions.
Some discussion took place on the need to include threshold (i.e., % of PFOS content) below which any substance, mixtures or articles containing PFOS related substances can be legally placed on the market. The current EU legislation on PFOS has such thresholds but not the COP-4 decision on PFOS. CZ indicated a lack of analytical techniques for PFOS measurements. COM indicated that CEN is currently developing a test method to determine levels of PFOS and CEN should publish very soon a Technical Specification for PFOS that can be used as a European Pre-Standard.
COM should circulate its presentation after the CA meeting.
MS should provide comments on the questions raised in the COM's slides before the 20th of November.
Annex IV
COM presented the implications of the transposition of the waste related decisions of COP-4 in Community law. COM indicated that the listing of the 9 new POPs posed some challenges because some of the substances (tetra- and penta-, hepta- and octa-BDEs and PFOS) are still produced or contained in products in use and information about the uses (articles and waste streams, uses/processes, management options and costs, options for disposal amounts, concentrations and products containing them), as well as their wastes is lacking. In addition, COM pointed out that it is difficult to identify plastics containing BDEs within a mixed plastic waste fraction. Because of these problems, banning the recycling of BDE containing wastes could endanger existing recycling schemes (e.g. for electronic waste). When setting limit values, a balance has to be found in order to avoid diffusion of POPs in the environment without impeding existing recycling schemes.
SE indicated that the identification of plastics containing BDEs is technically possible and it does not represent major difficulties.
The Secretariat to the Stockholm Convention will commission a study in order to gather more information about PFOS and PBDEs in articles. Parties are requested to provide any information by July 2010. COM invited the MS to provide the EC with feedback so as to allow for one co-ordinated EU contribution to the study.
In parallel, COM will also commission a study with a different scope: it will cover all the new POPs and provide scientific basis for setting limit values (Annex IV and V of POP Regulation). COM will ensure information exchange with the Secretariat. MS will be invited to provide their comments and to participate in a workshop to discuss the results.
COM indicated that transposition of waste related provisions of COP-4 will require an amendment of Annex IV to the POP Regulation by Comitology decision.
However, COM stated that the results of the study will not be available until summer 2010, whereas the Convention requires ratification within 1 year.
Because of these time constraints, COM proposed two different options for the amendment of Annex IV.
Option 1: i) As a first step, new POP substances are listed in Annex IV, but without associated concentration limits. As foreseen in Art. 7.4 (a) of the POP Regulation, until concentration limits are established, each competent authority may adopt or apply concentration limits or specific technical requirements in respect of the disposal or recovery of waste under this point". ii) Once scientific data become available, limit values will be set at EU level
COM pointed out that, in case one (or several) MS do not set concentration limits (or technical requirements), no derogation could be granted and POPs would have to be destroyed or irreversibly transformed and recycling of wastes (especially plastic wastes) containing these POPs would become impossible. Furthermore, a distortion of the Internal Market could not be ruled out in this scenario. However, this interpretation was challenged by some MS.
Option 2: i) As a first step, new POP substances are listed with associated provisional concentration limit values in Annex IV, based on available data and proposals of the MS. ii) Once thorough scientific data are available, concentration limits will be reviewed and Annex IV amended where appropriate.
COM pointed out that under this scenario, neither the Internal Market nor existing recycling schemes would be distorted. However, in the absence of sound, uncontested scientific data, justification of the limit values may be difficult and the environmental benefits uncertain.
In order to implement this option, the Commission would invite the Member States to share any available data on the new POPs, especially BDEs and PFOS.
COM clarified that following the introductory presentation of questions related to the amendment of Annexes I-IV, MS would be able to submit comments in writing by 20 November 2009. A further discussion of the options for an amendment of the POP Regulation would take place during a dedicated meeting, to be scheduled in January/February 2010, during which COM would aim to present a draft text of the implementing measures.
FR pointed out that the impact of an amendment on existing recycling schemes (such as WEEE) should be assessed. NL expressed its reservations regarding setting limit values without a scientific basis since this could entail legal problems. DE, FR and DK stated that they would not be in a position to decide about the option to choose and would require additional information.
DE asked COM for its opinion on the derogations under Art. 7.4 of the POP Regulation (this review is foreseen by the end of 2009). COM explained that the final position will be communicated. However, it indicated that a preliminary analysis suggests that there seems to be no reason for suppressing the possibility for MS to make use of derogations under Art. 7.4. COM pointed out that derogations may be needed in the future because of the listing of new POPs.
CZ offered to submit data regarding PBDEs in WEEE that have been provided by a company.
9.Any other business
No AOB.
10.Next meeting and closure
Due to the need to discuss in more details the implementation of COP-4 decisions, the COM announced that anexpert/CA meeting will be organisedin the first trimesterof 2010.
1
11.Action list
Follow-up to 5th POPCA meeting of 4 November 2009 – List of Actions
Section A – Carried forward from previous POPCAmeetings
Action By / Description of action / Deadline / Comments to be sent to whom / DSR sectionMS / Review and update list of CA representatives / When necessary / / 3a
COM / Provide access to Circa for all Members and Observers / On request / / 3a
MS that have not ratified / Inform about status of ratification / ASAP / / 3b
MS / Forward formally missing reports in accordance with Art 12 / ASAP / / 3c
COM / Revisethe paper on improving coordination of monitoring programmes / ASAP / / 5a
MS / Provide comments to the COM on PCBs and identification of equipment
(The report from NL) / ASAP /
/ 4a
Section B –Tasks originating from 5th CA Meeting
Action By / Description of action / Deadline / Comments to be sent to whom / Agenda ItemCOM / Up-load to CIRCA draft minutes of the meeting and presentations / 20/11/2009 / / -
MS / Provide comments on the draft minutes of the 4th CA meeting / 20/11/2009 / / 2
COM / Up-load to CIRCA final minutes of the 4th CA meeting / 27/11/2009 / / 2
MS / Provide comments/answers on the draft outline of the Commission Communication and on questions raised during the Commission's presentation / 13/11/2009 / / 4
COM / RecirculateNL report on PCBs for comments / 13/11/2009 / / 4
COM / Consult the custom working group of the ECHA forum on how to trace import of POP substance / ASAP / / 4
MS / Forward annual reports (year 2009) in accordance with Art 12 / 20/05/2010 / / 5
MS / Forward triannual reports (years 2007-2009) in accordance with Art 12 / 20/05/2010 / / 5
MS / Establish cooperation between safety Authorities and environmental Authorities(Fireworks) / ASAP / / 6
A, F and any other MS / Make available the report of ongoing projects of HCB in fireworks / ASAP / / 6
COM / Contact RECETOX to select chlorinated Paraffins as a test case on interaction between chemicals / 13/11/2009 / / 7.1
MS / Provide nameand contact details on experts involved in inter-sessional activities of the Stockholm Convention / 20/11/2009 / / 7.1
MS / Inform COM on the ongoing/foreseen national ratification procedure of the COP-4 decisions / ASAP / / 8
MS / Provide the COM with studies, data and/or inventories for the new POPs which have been listed during COP-4 / ASAP /
/ 8
MS / Provide comments on the implementation of the COP-4 decisions / 20/11/2009 /
/ 8
COM / Communicate date of the next CA/expert meeting / ASAP / / 10
1