Consultation on Restricting the Marketing and Use of Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs) in Scotland
Chapter 1: Background
1.1 The UK took responsibility under the European Community Existing Substances Regulation (ESR) (EEC 793/93) to assess the risks associated with the use of SCCPs. On the basis of the UK assessment, Member State technical experts agreed that the use of SCCPs in metal working and leather processing posed a risk to the aquatic environment. No significant risks to human health were identified. The UK commissioned Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd to prepare a risk reduction strategy to address the issues raised in the risk assessment.
1.2 The UK risk reduction strategy formed the basis for a European Commission proposal to harmonise controls on SCCPs across the European Union under the Marketing and Use Directive (76/769/EEC). European Commission Directive 2002/45/EC was adopted in June 2002. It requires Member States to introduce controls on SCCPs in metalworking fluids and leather finishing. The controls must come into effect by 6 January 2004 at the latest.
Chapter 2: Approach to Introducing Controls on SCCPs
2.1 A number of options were examined for introducing controls on SCCPs to reduce risks to the environment. This included consideration of voluntary controls and other methods that would have the effect of reducing the impact of SCCPs on the environment. However, the effective operation of the single market in Europe requires that controls on marketing and use of products be harmonised as far as possible. The UK therefore supported the European Commission in proposing a directive that would harmonise controls on SCCPs under the Marketing and Use Directive (76/769/EC).
2.2 EC Directives require that Member States transpose applicable requirements into national law within a set period. The Executive proposes that this be done for Directive 2002/45/EC by Regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
2.3 In 1995, the Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR) issued Decision 95/1 aimed at phasing out the use of SCCPs as a plasticiser in paints and coatings; as a plasticiser in sealants; in metalworking fluids; and as a flame retardant in rubber, plastics and textiles. The UK maintained a reserve on Decision 95/1. The Executive has given careful consideration to including restrictions on additional applications in the proposed Regulations. However, it is noted that OSPAR 95/1 was considered in drawing up the EC Directive (2002/45/EC) that requires controls on SCCPs to be introduced. The approach agreed at EU level was to commission a review of all remaining uses of SCCPs with a view to deciding at a later date whether further compulsory restrictions are required. The Executive believes that introducing further compulsory restrictions on a unilateral basis at this stage could cut across the single market approach currently being pursued. The regulations will therefore be limited to restricting the marketing and use of SCCPs in metalworking and leather finishing. The draft regulations are attached at Annex I.
Do consultees have any comments on the approach to introducing controls on SCCPs or the draft regulations at Annex I?
Chapter 3: Summary of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
3.1 A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was commissioned by the UK Government to assess the impact of the EC proposals on business in the UK. This is attached at Annex III.
3.2 Risk benefit analysis (carried out by the UK Government on behalf of the EU) concluded that a ban on the use of SCCPs in all metal working fluids is expected to impact on 26,000 establishments in the UK which may incur additional annual costs of approximately 4m from increased fluid prices - although some of this may be absorbed by the formulators - but spread across a very diverse industry. The impacts on the leather industry will be minor. In the UK only one tanner using SCCPs has been identified and the economic impacts of a ban will be less than 2,000 across the industry as a whole.
3.3 Since Directive 2002/45/EC was adopted, it is believed the metalworking sector has continued to move away from using SCCPs. Our conclusion is therefore that the costs of a ban in metalworking may be significantly lower than the RIA estimate of approximately 4m for the UK. One factor that may confound this assumption is if metalworking companies have chosen to use Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs) as a substitute for SCCPs. MCCPs are also being considered for risk reduction action at EU level and have been identified as chemicals of concern by the UK Chemical Stakeholder Forum. Although there is currently no compulsory requirement to move away from the use of MCCPs, businesses may incur additional costs by moving to chlorine-free solvents as a voluntary measure or in anticipation of possible statutory restrictions on MCCPs.
3.4 The RIA looks at impacts on a UK basis. The Executive does not believe there is a significant variation in the pattern of use of SCCPs across the UK. The costs of introducing restrictions in Scotland are therefore likely to be a fraction of those for the UK as a whole. If it is assumed that the Scottish metalworking industry accounts for approximately 10% of the UK industry, this means the industry in Scotland may incur additional annual costs of up to 400,000 from increased fluid prices. Impacts on the leather industry in Scotland will be negligible, as they are for the UK industry as a whole.
Do consultees have any comments on the range of costs identified by the draft RIA?
Do consultees believe that the Executive's assumption that costs to the metalworking industry in Scotland will be approximately 10% of those for the UK as a whole is correct? If not, what do consultees believe would be a more accurate assessment of the regulatory impact in Scotland?