Persistent organic pollutants: Informed decision making

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)aims to regulate POPs worldwide and the Regulation (EU) No 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants – or short: EU POPs regulation – implements and bans or restricts the manufacturing, marketing and use of POPs in the EU. The EU POPs regulation underwent recast in 2019, aligning definitions and terminologies with those in REACH regulation and the EU Waste Framework Directive. Substances listed in Annex I were updated.

As part of the EU law making processes, the EU Commission can further define the content of existing legislation via delegated acts without changing of course essential elements of the respective law as such. The Commission prepares and adopts delegated acts after consulting expert groups, – in this case the “Competent authorities for Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on Persistent Organic Pollutants” or short “POPs Expert Group” – composed of representatives from each EU country and stakeholders.

In June 2022, after the 26th POP Expert Group meeting and upon seeing the proposed thresholds,  EuPIA Members’ were surveyed to understand the impact on our sector – which was considered substantial.

What are Polychlorinated biphenyls and what is their problem?

PCB were produced on a large scale across the world between the 1930s and 1980s. Due to their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in a multitude of industrial and commercial applications in particular in lubricants in electrical and hydraulic equipment, in oil-based paint, plastics, insulation material, adhesives and tapes as well as carbonless copy paper.

Several countries limited the use of PCB already back in the 1970s. The use of PCB as a raw material or chemical intermediate has been banned in the EU since 1985. However, trace levels of PCB may unintentionally be generated in certain chemical processes such as the manufacturing of organic pigments where chlorine atoms are part of the chromophore or of a molecule involved in the process. Therefore, a complete elimination of unintentional PCB for organic pigments is simply not feasible even with the best manufacturing technology and raw materials.

It needs to be noted that the possibility of PCB emissions into the environment due to pigment use is minimal-to-non-existent because all manufacturing uses are being performed in controlled industrial systems.

PCBs and the EU POPs regulation until end 2024

The POPs Recast Regulation regulates PCBs:

• in Annex I but without a limit value for the presence as an Unintentional Trace Contaminant (UTC) in substances, mixtures and articles.
• in Annex IV with a concentration limit of 50 mg/kg relating to waste management

The absence of a UTC limit provided room for interpretation from a „zero“ limit for PCBs to a limit in organic pigments up to 50 ppm as set by pigment suppliers. In this situation the establishment of a UTC limit value seemed plausible. This should be done via a delegated act and was discussed over the last years in the POPs Expert Group:

• November 2021 – 25th Meeting: the EU Commission inquired with member states and stakeholders on the possibility of including a UTC limit value in Annex I without any concrete suggestions.
• June 2022 – 26th Meeting: EU Commission draft proposal setting a 10 ppm UTC limit for PCBs. Discussion continued in the Expert Group and many industry sectors started to look at this topic.
• November 2023 – 29th Meeting: EU Commission presented a new proposal for a limit equal to or below 0.1 mg/kg where PCBs are present in substances, mixtures or articles with a derogation for organic pigments: 25 ppm upon entry into force; 10 ppm three years after entry into force; 0.1 ppm six years after entry into force. 

There was no impact assessment conducted to evaluate what might turn out to be significant impacts to the EU industry nor on environmental/social benefits.

What did industry do? 

The Commission and several Member States wrongly thought that any action taken by industry over the last decades with regard to the presence of PCB in organic pigments has been limited only to the establishment of a determination method and the establishment of a self-applied limit value, even though PCB have already been banned or extensively restricted for decades also in pigments and many efforts were indeed done to eliminate them.

Whilst the need for very specific uses was acknowledged by regulators, some estimated that in the majority of applications exact pigments would not be needed, and that it would be easy to make end users accept a minor shift in colour tone.

Those views did not take into account that:

•  the 0.1 ppm is simply not technically feasible for the vast majority of the chlorinated organic pigments.
•  such a low threshold would eliminate 40 % of the colour spectrum (all blue end green).
•  the 0.1 ppm limit would not prevent the presence of PCBs e. g. in articles. For example imported articles meeting the low limit may contain more PCBs than articles manufactured in Europe with organic pigments containing 10 ppm PCBs.
•  none of the analytical methods available would allow to measure 0.1 ppm. The detection limit in ISO 787-28:2019, which was specifically developed for organic pigments, being at 1 ppm.

None of the analytical methods available would allow to measure 0.1 ppm. The detection limit in ISO 787-28:2019, which was specifically developed for organic pigments, being at 1 ppm.

EuPIA raised the issue first at CEPE level and further sought support from trade association from the value chain that were thought to be equally affected. The exchange with the pigment suppliers also needed to be coordinated. As stated the Commission finally went to propose a 0.1 ppm UTC limit. Downstream users and finished article manufacturers lack the technical knowledge relating to pigment manufacturing and were not able to engage in a discussion to propose an alternative limit.

Pigment suppliers estimate that none of the 35 chlorinated organic pigments under consideration will be able to meet the 0.1 ppm PCB content. Over half of these pigments are in regular use within the EU, and at least 14 may be considered as absolutely essential (due to their extensive use and the lack of alternatives). Their ban from future use would have an unseen economic and societal impact. Together the situation was analysed, arguments collected, discussion undertaken with the supplier associations and common positions prepared.

Last but not least a meeting of the industry downstream cross sector group and the Commission was set up and examples were prepared to show the real impacts of the loss in the colour spectrum which would be much more than just a minor shift in colour tones.

Following discussion after the 29th Expert group meeting, during the 30th Meeting the EU Commission presented a proposal maintaining the generic UTC limit value for final products at 0.1 ppm with a derogation for organic pigments and mixtures and articles containing organic pigments at 25 ppm upon entry into force and 10 ppm three years after entry into force. Stakeholders were invited to comment on the Commission’s proposal, including in writing after the meeting. Pigment suppliers confirmed that although challenging they could abide to those limits whilst keeping the colour spectrum as it is.

There were no major objections raised to the tabled Commission’s proposal for the delegated act during the 31st Meeting of the POP Expert Group on 29 November 2024. From then the Parliament and Council have two months to formulate any objections. If they do not, the delegated act enters into force and the whole chapter will be closed with hopefully an acceptable, feasible and enforceable outcome for all: regulators, industry and end users alike.