Brominated Flame Retardants |
|
|||
| Table 5.1 Survey of national activities
concerning regulation, soft regulation, risk and hazard assessment activities and national
positions on the issue of brominated flame retardants
|
||||
| Country | Action - regulation | Action - soft regulation | Risk / Hazard ass. | National position |
| Austria | PBB and TRIS: manufacture, supply, import and use of compounds as chemical or preparation are banned 1) | Supports international regulation of PBDE and BFRs in general | ||
| Belgium | No specific actions have been taken to ban certain uses of selected BFRs or to implement major measures to control, limit or reduce their risks (1994) | Awaits an international strategy | ||
| Denmark | PBB s2) and TRIS 2), 3) are banned in textiles, respectively textiles with skin contact | BFRs are on the Danish List of Undesirable Substances | The present substance flow analysis and assessment of alternatives 1998/99 | Restrictions on these substances are desired because of their diffuse distribution in the marine environment |
| Finland | PBB banned in textiles with skin contact 2) | Supports international restrictions on the use of BFRs | ||
| France | PBB banned in textiles with skin contact 2) | Undertakes jointly with the UK risk assessment of OcBDE and DeBDE 4) | ||
| Germany | Prohibitions on products contaminated with PBDDs/PBDFs Regulation on producer/importer's responsibility at the waste stage |
Voluntary substitution of halogenated comp | An investigation of flame retardants at the German market is planned to be finished year 2000 | PBB and PBDE must be banned |
| Italy | Voluntary substitution of halogenated compounds through implementation of internal industrial standards 4) | |||
| Japan | Voluntary phase out of PBB, hexaBDE and tetraBDE | DeBDE is considered as a highly safe chemical | ||
| Norway | PBB and TRIS banned in textiles with possible skin contact 2) | The release of BFRs must be significantly reduced before the year 2010 | An investigation of the domestic flow of BFRs is planned to be carried out in 1999 | |
| The Netherlands | Promulgation of regulation of PBB/PBDE was in 1994 on hold | Voluntary reduction of use of BFRs in end products | National risk assessments of PBB and PBDE in 1991 and 1994 | There is a strong preference for international measures |
| Sweden | PBB and TRIS banned in textiles with possible skin contact 2) | The Swedish Government states that: PBB and PBDE will be
phased out and the use of other BFRs should be limited Voluntary substitution in textile and telecommunication industries |
Sweden has assigned HBCD for risk assessment in the EU 4) | Special attention is devoted to PBDE and PBB |
| Switzerland | PBB and PBB containing products: manufacture, supply, import and use are banned | Advocate for a phase out of PBDE | ||
| United Kingdom | TRIS and PBB are banned in textiles with possible skin contact 2) | Undertakes jointly with France risk assessment of OcBDE and DeBDE. Has assigned PeBDE for risk assessment 4) | ||
| United States | No action | 1979: Voluntary phase out of PBB | Under way: Risk assessments of:
|
1994: No national position on BFRs |
| 1) | Austrian ordinance BGB1.No.210/1993 and /79 /. |
| 2) | Implementation of EC Dir. 76/769 |
| 3) | Danish ordinance No 1042, §16/ 14-12-95 / 17-12-97. |
| 4) | Risk assessment of existing substances, regulation 793/93/EEC |
| 5) | Examples are the following internal standards adopted by: ENEL – National Agency for Electric Energy – and FS – National Railway – (CEI 20-37 standard); Milan City Underground (standard based on Sheet G 8998); and Marina Military (NAVI 3A075 standard). The achievement of these standards tends to exclude the use of halogenated flame retardants. |