109
Among these were pentaBDE and octaBDE . The initial risk assessment for
pentaBDE recognised the need for risk reduction measures (ECB 2000 ); additional
studies highlighted further problems, as exemplifi ed above. Based on the risk
assessment, the EU in 2004 eventually prohibited use of not only pentaBDE but
also octaBDE (EC 2003a ). The additional regulation of decaBDE was intensively
debated, but the outcome of the European Parliament and Council co-decision procedure, despite that the former body wanted a ban, was that the substance was not
banned.
10 In spite of that, political and legal processes concerning implementation
of the ROHS directive on electric and electronic products (EC 2003b ), which
banned pentaBDE and octaBDE from 2006, led to a 2008 ban of decaBDE as well
(ECJ 2008 ; Eriksson et al. 2010a , 2010b ).
11
In parallel, the 2003 WEEE directive (regulating waste from electrical and electronic equipment) set recycling and reuse targets which were relevant in conjunction to some plastics with brominated fl ame retardants (EC 2002 ).
More recently, decaBDE has been registered under the REACH regulation (in
September 2010, based on the data from the previous EU risk assessment ) and in
2012 it was placed on the so-called Candidate List , as a Substance of Very High
Concern (SVHC) . It thereby became a substance in need of potential authorisation
and restriction,
12 which in 2013 led the European Chemicals Agency to start preparing a restriction proposal (ECHA 2014 ).
Turning to environmental quality and the Water Framework Directive , the linked
Priority Substance Directive originally set various environmental quality standards
for surface water for 33 substances or groups of substances, which Member States
were obliged to comply with as a main rule by 2015 (EC 2008b ) and partly through
means specifi ed in the WFD. Among these substances, pentaBDE belonged to a
subgroup of particular concern referred to as ‘priority hazardous substances’,
whereas octaBDE and decaBDE were considered ‘priority substances’. In the recent
amendment of the directive, standards for PBDEs were both amended and widened
to include biota, for which the requirements must be met by 2021 at the latest (EU
2013 ).
Just as for PCBs , the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008a ) includes
descriptors that cover PBDEs, and based on monitoring programmes and a programme of measures to be implemented by 2015–2016, the overall target of ‘good
environmental status’ is supposed to be reached by 2020. In the context of the Baltic
Sea, this work is coordinated by HELCOM and linked to the implementation of
BSAP.
10 Not restricting decaBDE was based on the recommendation of the EU 2002 risk assessment
report, written by France and the UK, which stated environmental risks to be acceptable, partly
based on the view that decaBDE did not bioaccumulate, even though the report recommended
monitoring and further health-related studies. In addition, industry committed to reduce emissions.
When the report was updated with the same general conclusion in 2004, it was criticised by the
Commission’s advisory Scientifi c Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (see further in
SCHER 2005 ; Eriksson et al. 2010b ).
11 Since then, the ROHS directive has been further amended.
12 UK submitted an Annex XV Dossier to ECHA proposing decaBDE as a SVHC.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…
Among these were pentaBDE and octaBDE . The initial risk assessment for
pentaBDE recognised the need for risk reduction measures (ECB 2000 ); additional
studies highlighted further problems, as exemplifi ed above. Based on the risk
assessment, the EU in 2004 eventually prohibited use of not only pentaBDE but
also octaBDE (EC 2003a ). The additional regulation of decaBDE was intensively
debated, but the outcome of the European Parliament and Council co-decision procedure, despite that the former body wanted a ban, was that the substance was not
banned.
10 In spite of that, political and legal processes concerning implementation
of the ROHS directive on electric and electronic products (EC 2003b ), which
banned pentaBDE and octaBDE from 2006, led to a 2008 ban of decaBDE as well
(ECJ 2008 ; Eriksson et al. 2010a , 2010b ).
11
In parallel, the 2003 WEEE directive (regulating waste from electrical and electronic equipment) set recycling and reuse targets which were relevant in conjunction to some plastics with brominated fl ame retardants (EC 2002 ).
More recently, decaBDE has been registered under the REACH regulation (in
September 2010, based on the data from the previous EU risk assessment ) and in
2012 it was placed on the so-called Candidate List , as a Substance of Very High
Concern (SVHC) . It thereby became a substance in need of potential authorisation
and restriction,
12 which in 2013 led the European Chemicals Agency to start preparing a restriction proposal (ECHA 2014 ).
Turning to environmental quality and the Water Framework Directive , the linked
Priority Substance Directive originally set various environmental quality standards
for surface water for 33 substances or groups of substances, which Member States
were obliged to comply with as a main rule by 2015 (EC 2008b ) and partly through
means specifi ed in the WFD. Among these substances, pentaBDE belonged to a
subgroup of particular concern referred to as ‘priority hazardous substances’,
whereas octaBDE and decaBDE were considered ‘priority substances’. In the recent
amendment of the directive, standards for PBDEs were both amended and widened
to include biota, for which the requirements must be met by 2021 at the latest (EU
2013 ).
Just as for PCBs , the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008a ) includes
descriptors that cover PBDEs, and based on monitoring programmes and a programme of measures to be implemented by 2015–2016, the overall target of ‘good
environmental status’ is supposed to be reached by 2020. In the context of the Baltic
Sea, this work is coordinated by HELCOM and linked to the implementation of
BSAP.
10 Not restricting decaBDE was based on the recommendation of the EU 2002 risk assessment
report, written by France and the UK, which stated environmental risks to be acceptable, partly
based on the view that decaBDE did not bioaccumulate, even though the report recommended
monitoring and further health-related studies. In addition, industry committed to reduce emissions.
When the report was updated with the same general conclusion in 2004, it was criticised by the
Commission’s advisory Scientifi c Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (see further in
SCHER 2005 ; Eriksson et al. 2010b ).
11 Since then, the ROHS directive has been further amended.
12 UK submitted an Annex XV Dossier to ECHA proposing decaBDE as a SVHC.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…