Governments fan flames after retardant reprieve

Date: 08/09/05

A coalition of member states is contemplating challenging the European Commission at the European Court of Justice over a decision to allow the use of a potentially harmful flame-retardant in electronic goods.

After member states failed to reach a majority one way or the other on whether to authorise or ban decaBDE, a Commission official confirmed that the executive was set to approve its use, although she would not give a precise date.

MEPs have already adopted a resolution opposing the Commission's proposal and in June six environment ministers, led by Sweden, wrote to Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas to express their opposition to the use of the substance.

Aside from the potential health and environmental risks, the coalition argued that a technical committee should not be able to 'unban' decaBDE.

The substance was originally banned under an EU law on the use of certain hazardous substances (the RoHS directive), which is to come into force in 2006. Since its adoption in 2003 the Commission has published a number of exemptions, which must be approved by a qualified majority of member states in a technical committee. But if they cannot decide, the Commission adopts its proposal.

"If you read the [RoHS] directive, it is impossible for the technical committee to remove a substance," said a Swedish official. "It is a legal problem but we are also very concerned about the properties of this substance."

She said that the government would consider challenging the Commission at the European Court of Justice if it goes ahead with the exemption.

"If the Commission adopts the proposal we can do nothing but take them to the Court, but we have not taken a position yet," she said.

The issue is particularly sensitive because national delegations are under pressure from those large industries that have already invested in finding alternatives to decaBDE in advance of the ban.

The US computer maker Dell is one such company, and its director for environmental affairs has already written to Dimas to express his concern, as has a group of state legislators in the US who argue that the exemption will "hamper efforts to regulate decaBDE in the United States".

The Commission based its decision to 'unban' decaBDE on a risk assessment, published in 2004, which deemed it safe for use. But the amount of scientific literature published on the subject has led to a review of the assessment, which will be published later this month.

According to health organisations, decaBDE may pose a risk to both humans and the environment risk. They have pointed to possible neurotoxic disorders and bioaccumulation as a result of exposure to the substance.

"It is bureaucratic, to say the least, to consider 'unbanning' a substance if there is an imminent revaluation of the risk assessment which could prove that it is unsafe," said Christian Farrar-Hockley of the European Public Health Alliance.

Article reports that a coalition of EU Member States was contemplating challenging the European Commission at the European Court of Justice over a decision to allow the use of a potentially harmful flame-retardant in electronic goods. After an agreement could not be reached among Member States whether to authorise or ban the substance decaBDE, the European Commission said it was set to approve its use. DecaBDE had originally been banned under an EU law on the use of certain hazardous substances (the RoHS directive). The article touches the wider legal issue of how to remove substances from the banned list in general.

European Commission: Eur-Lex: Directive 2002/95/EC […] on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00190023.pdf

---