referitor la propunerea de decizie a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului de modificare a Directivei 76/769/CEE a Consiliului referitoare la restricţiile privind introducerea pe piaţă şi utilizarea anumitor substanţe şi preparate periculoase (diclormetan)

(COM(2008)0080 – C6‑0068/2008 – 2008/0033(COD))

(Procedura de codecizie: prima lectură)

Parlamentul European,

–   având în vedere propunerea Comisiei prezentată Parlamentului European şi Consiliului (COM(2008)0080),

–   având în vedere articolul 251 alineatul (2) şi articolul 95 din Tratatul CE, în temeiul cărora propunerea a fost prezentată de către Comisie (C6–0068/2008),

–   având în vedere articolul 51 din Regulamentul său de procedură,

–   având în vedere raportul Comisiei pentru mediu, sănătate publică şi siguranţă alimentară (A6–0341/2008),

1.  aprobă propunerea Comisiei astfel cum a fost modificată;

2.  solicită Comisiei să îl sesizeze din nou, în cazul în care intenţionează să modifice în mod substanţial această propunere sau să o înlocuiască cu un alt text;

3.  încredinţează Preşedintelui sarcina de a transmite Consiliului şi Comisiei poziţia Parlamentului.

“Despite good ventilation, stripping of small areas, immediate collection of stripped off paint residues and closing of paint stripper cans, the exposure limit (100 ppm) is regularly exceeded. Therefore, one must use self-contained respirators at such work places, except it is proven without doubt through measurements that for specific paint strippers or through special protection procedures the exposure limit is not exceeded.

Filtering masks are not an effective protection. When using respirators, general precaution examination has to be applied to the persons wearing them. If the paint stripping work will last more than 20% of the weekly work hours, a special permission has to be requested from the responsible regulatory body for workplace safety.”

VCI - the German Chemical Industry Association, 2000

1. Introduction

Dichloromethane (DCM) is a colourless chemical compound with a penetrating ether-like or mild sweet odour. The key markets are: production of pharmaceuticals, solvent and auxiliary applications, paint stripper manufacture and adhesives. Of the total production of 244 000 tonnes in 2005, 13 000 tonnes of "virgin" DCM were used for paint strippers (ca. 5%), with another 1 500 - 11 000 tonnes being reclaimed from pharmaceutical production for use as paint stripper.

DCM has a unique profile of adverse effects to human health - and it is listed as one of 33 priority substances under the Water Framework Directive. DCM-based paint strippers contain between 60-90% of DCM. DCM boils between 30-40°C and is extremely volatile - i.e. it evaporates very fast. DCM is classified as a carcinogen category 3. It has a narcotic effect, leading to depression of the central nervous system, loss of consciousness, and to cardio-toxicological effects at high exposure, with a direct risk of death as a result of misuse. Other effects include irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, lung oedema and acute effects on the heart, liver and kidneys. It also leads to light-headedness and headache.

According the Scientific Committee on Health and Environment Risks, a major concern from the toxicity of DCM is the risk to especially susceptible populations. Children are more susceptible due to a potential for higher exposure (higher ventilation rate than adults; the concentration of DCM is higher at floor level). People with a predisposition to cardiovascular disease may be at a higher risk, too.

According to the Commission, between 1989 and 2007, 18 fatalities (9 for industrial use, 8 for professional use, 1 for consumer use) and 56 non-fatal injuries have been registered in the EU.

The risks from DCM in paint strippers have been assessed in three Commission studies (1999, 2004 and 2007) - all of which concluded the need for risk reduction measures for consumer and professional use, and two of which also called for further risk reduction measures for industrial use

See Commission impact assessment accompanying the proposal

Various alternatives to DCM-based paint strippers are already available on the market: physical/mechanical stripping, pyrolitic/thermal stripping, and chemical stripping involving other chemicals than DCM. Alternative chemical paint strippers are the most widely used. They contain a large variety of chemicals. These substances have very diverse hazard profiles and could pose other risks to the user than DCM. However, according to the Commission studies and its own impact assessment, on balance, there are alternatives with a (much) better human health and environmental hazard and risk profile.

A number of European countries have already put in place national measures to ban or substitute DCM (Austria, Denmark, Sweden) or are in the process of doing so (Germany).

2. Why ban consumer use of DCM?

There is no way to ensure the safe use of DCM by consumers:

- they are not able to assess the risk;

- they do not have access to the same equipment (especially engineering controls) as users involved in industrial uses - and in some cases, the working conditions at home may be much worse than those for tradesmen (for example, paint stripping may be undertaken in a basement, or an enclosed area with closed windows, due to bad weather, or in the presence of vulnerable persons such as children, elderly relatives or those with health conditions); and

- they do not know about the adequate personal protection equipment, and even if they did, it would be highly unlikely that they would be ready to pay for it (cost of independent air supply with compressor and mask, plus appropriate gloves: ca. € 2750; cost of DCM paint stripper: ca. € 10/litre).

As a result of the above, and taking into account the fact that alternatives are available, and their use is likely to result in little if any economic impact to the consumer, consumer uses of DCM-based paint strippers should be banned.

3. Why ban professional use of DCM?

Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work sets out a clear hierarchy of norms. Employers shall first seek to replace a hazardous chemical by another chemical or process which, under its condition of use, is not hazardous or less hazardous, and only apply protection and prevention measures where such substitution is not possible. Given the availability of safer alternatives, it is clear from current EU law on workers' health and safety that DCM should be substituted.

DCM bears the safety phrase "do not breathe gas/fumes/vapour/spray". Given its very high volatility, the only way to comply with this is to use independent air supply respirators. However, the full equipment costs around € 2750 - and working in a full-body overall with an oxygen flask and fluororubber gloves is rather unpleasant, and therefore rarely undertaken.

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are regularly exceeded significantly, even in conditions of good ventilation, including outdoor use (see also the introductory quote). Note that DCM only becomes detectable to the human nose at concentrations well above OELs. Professionals might think they are not exposed because they do not smell anything - yet they may already be well above the OEL.

It also bears the safety phrase "avoid contact with skin and eyes" and "Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves". However, the different types available all have serious limitations: The cheapest ones (EVA - ca. € 10/pair) have little mechanical strength, and DCM will break through quickly. PVA gloves (ca. € 25/pair) have a good chemical resistance, but cannot be used where water is present. Fluororubber gloves (€ 50/pair) are the most appropriate, but DCM will break through at the latest after 3 hours.

Importantly, current enforcement practices are inherently inadequate, especially due to the large number, small size and mobile nature of the enterprises involved.

Finally, EU legislation on workers' health and safety does not apply to self-employed workers, which however represent a significant number of painters and decorators.

In summary, current legislation on workers' health and safety either does not apply (self-employed workers) or is largely ignored (no substitution, inadequate personal protection), and is not enforced.

4. Economic impact

The Commission proposes a ban on the professional use of DCM in paint strippers, unless a Member State establishes a training and licensing system for such use. This stands in contrast to the recommendations of the RPA impact assessment from 2007

RPA - Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd, UK

The Commission estimates the costs for its training and licensing proposal at € 1,9 million in the first year and € 1,3 million in the subsequent years ( training of 10 000 employees). The licensing of 10 000 individuals and 800 businesses would result in further costs of € 1,34 million. These costs do not yet include the costs of engineering controls and/or personal protective equipment (PPE).

It is interesting to compare these figures to the estimated profits of the manufacturers of DCM. The annual profit for the industry is estimated at between € 430 000 and € 1,1 million for professional use by RPA.

In other words, if 10 000 employees and 800 businesses were to be trained and licensed across the EU, the costs for this would clearly outweigh the profits of the manufacturing industry. It is difficult to see why professional users and authorities should pay millions for training and licensing (and additional millions for PPE) to uphold a comparatively small profit for the manufacturer.

Moreover, many DCM manufacturers also offer alternatives to DCM, so they could compensate part if not all of their losses by shifting to alternatives.

5. The "risk reduction measures" proposed by industry

The manufacturers of DCM propose the following measures instead of a ban for consumers:

- container equal to or smaller than 1 litre,

- narrow-neck containers with child-safe closure,

- addition of vapour retardant,

- a visible safety label requiring use only with adequate ventilation.

For professional use, they propose the following measures:

- addition of vapour retardant,

- provision of safety information.

The impact assessment by RPA has shown clearly that these measures are entirely inadequate. In fact, most of them are non-measures, as they represent the status quo. The most common container size for consumers is already 1 litre. Narrow-neck containers with child-safe closure are already mandated by law. While narrow-necks may be effective in reducing spillage, they do not reduce exposure during use (the user still needs to decant (parts of) the content into a jar, so that in the end exposure would not be reduced).

Almost all products on the market contain vapour retardants - above all to increase the effectiveness of DCM, as it would otherwise evaporate before it can be fully effective as a paint stripper.

DCM already has to be labelled by law to warn the user not to breathe gas/fumes/vapour/spray (appropriate wording to be specified by the manufacturer). Adding a provision on "adequate ventilation" adds nothing and is of no use: what does it mean, all the more so since the human nose can detect DCM only at levels well above occupational exposure limits?

Finally, it goes without saying that manufacturers are already obliged by law to provide safety information to downstream professional users.

All in all, the measures proposed by industry - and unfortunately echoed by some Member States - are to be seen as a cynical attempt to stop a long overdue restriction of a chemical with a unique profile of adverse effects with suggestions that are already status quo, and that have clearly failed to provide adequate protection.