To ban or not to ban: The case for and against flame retardants and PVC

The ROHS (restriction of hazardous substances) directive is currently being reviewed with extensive discussions by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The European Parliament environment committee had proposed that all brominated and chlorinated flame retardants and PVC should be banned by ROHS. However, due to overwhelming opposition, this has been dropped and replaced by a requirement that the European Commission considers as a high priority: whether it is necessary to restrict these substances, as well as several others.

Green groups have been lobbying for these substances to be banned with support from some consumer electronics manufacturers, whereas most manufacturers are opposed to these restrictions. So why are there such diverse opinions on these substances?

Green groups incorrectly claim that most organobromine and organochlorine compounds are hazardous. When the research data is fully evaluated, there is no evidence of harmful effects for the majority of these substances and only a few have been found to be hazardous and these are already, or will soon be, restricted by EU (European Union) legislation. When assessing the toxicity of substances, it is important that all data is considered and that each study is evaluated to determine if the research was carried out properly and also, it is realistic — this is not always the case.

It is not uncommon for some organizations to select the research that suits their aims, rather than provide full unbiased assessments of all research as is done by the few comprehensive EU risk assessments that have been carried out. Green groups are correct, however, when they say that uncontrolled burning of plastics that contain these substances and also PVC can cause the emission of very toxic and carcinogenic dioxins and furans, although these substances are also emitted from home refuse burning, metals manufacture and wood preservatives, as well as the open burning of waste. Problems occur if waste from electrical equipment is recycled in developing countries by burning on open fires, as this emits dangerous levels of dioxins and furans. Banning these substances in the EU only would have almost no benefit. First, it will be many years before the existing stock of equipment that contains organohalogens reaches end-of-life; second, in Asia, most of the e-waste currently being recycled is domestic and so EU legislation would have no effect; and third, burning halogen-free plastics on open fires emits different dangerous substances, in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are also toxic and carcinogenic. Clearly a different solution is needed.

Some consumer electronics manufacturers have policies of not using halogenated flame retardants or PVC. This is partly in response to pressure from green groups and may also give a marketing advantage - a “greener” image. These manufacturers would benefit from these substances being banned as this would make it easier for them to force their suppliers to change the materials used in components that they use.

Most manufacturers however are opposed to banning these substances. The health and environmental benefits of such as ban are uncertain and appear to be limited, whereas the cost of substitution would be extremely high. A recent report found that the cost of replacing PVC could be as much as €20 billion (about $24.7 billion) per year, although this may be an over-estimate. Many of the possible alternatives have not been tested as extensively as the most common organohalogen flame retardants and PVC, and although most are probably safe, this cannot be known with certainty.

There is no doubt that substitutes exist for PVC and for organobromine and organochlorine flame retardants for most, but not all applications. However, substitution is often not as straightforward, as these are seldom drop-in replacements. Plastics will usually need to be completely reformulated and their properties may be different and reliability could be affected in some cases. Substitutes will usually be more expensive — if they were cheaper then manufacturers would already have changed! Is there a real benefit from not using these substances? This is currently far from certain. It seems likely that it will be the responsibility of the European Commission to answer this question by carrying out an impact assessment to determine whether the very high cost justifies the benefit, whatever these turn out to be from their study.

Other issues

As the proposal to ban additional substances has been dropped by the European Parliament environment committee (apart from two nanomaterials), there may be enough agreement between the European Parliament and Council of Ministers on the main ROHS issues for them to agree on a recast directive before the end of 2010. The main change would include an open scope with the exclusion of transport, large-scale stationary industrial tools and renewable energy technology. The exclusion of fixed installations is also possible, but there is less agreement on this issue. Additional substance restrictions would be introduced by the European Commission and not as part of the recast process. This will use a procedure based on the one used for REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemical) substance restrictions, but taking account of waste disposal issues. The exact procedure is not yet decided, but will be based on proven risk (not only hazards) and on impact assessments that consider all potential alternatives. Changes to the exemptions procedure are also likely, but exact details are subject to continued negotiation.

Written with thanks to Dr. Paul Goodman, ERA Technology trading as Cobham Technical Services.