Document 85JLaJgGQKvaYYbxdQ08pn1Ey

RESTRICTED \ ' ` * " Reference 550/lO/l OECD Sector Group on the Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals in the - Environment. ` .. \ Reference -- PCBs. . Proposals for Concerted Action. E!Tf(j2) .27.. Background 1. The PCBs are a stable group of synthetic chemicals, first marketed in 1930. They have been used for a variety of purposes, the most common being as a plasticiser in paints and varnishes in carbonless copying paper as an additive to lubricants and in elect ; /i I4 rical apparatus. I : 2. They have a relatively low oral toxihity, but can be accumulated i. and persist for long periods in fatty tissue. In I960 concern was . expressed after studies of marine and fresh-water fish and vildbirds demonstrated that the PCBs had become widely distributed in living organisms in many parts of the world. Additional concern arose as a. result of accidents. The most outstanding example taking place in Japan in Spring of 1969* when over 1000 people were poisoned after eating rice bran oil which had been contaiminated by PCB containing oil leaking from a defective pipe in a food preparation factory. Action Taken bv UK 3. As a result of this concern in Karch 1971 Monsanto Ltd (U.K) annc'uiced that it would restrict its sales of PCB to those use3 for which their exceptional properties made them essential and in which they were enclosed so that there would be no loss to the environment. In practise thi3 meant they would only be sold to Transformer and capacitor manufacturers. (This sagie step had been taken by the parent company Monsanto USA abort twelve months earlier). DSW 282527 STLCOPCB4063856 03C_D Involveme nt 4. Under the CECL notification scheme, several of the smaller nonmanafacturing countries announced their intention of bringing in 'controls on manufactured goods containing PCBs The U3A asked the OECD to call a consultation meeting to discuss the situation. 5. This, consultation meeting was held at 03CD in Paris on 3rd October 1972 (i. Prestt, CUZP and T.Wyatt DTI attended on behalf of the UJC.). The prime aim of the meeting was to get agreement among the OECD countries (which represent the main manufacturers of PCBs) for control ' of PCBs without the different countries having to resort to unilateral imposition of a variety of national legislation. By the time this consultation meeting took place the manufacturers in Japan, Germany and (at the last minute;1 France had followed the example of Monsanto. This only left Spain and Italy without voluntary controls operated by their manufacturers. As a result it was agreed that control of PCBs could be adequately brought about within the OECD countries by restrictions at source ie. the manufacturer. . ... 6. At the Sector Group meeting of 22-24 November, paper ENV(72) 27 was drawn up. The UK, somewhat unexpectedly in view of the outcome of the Consultation meeting, found itself having to fight against demands for detailed regulations govaning goods contains PCBs. . Norway in particular proved tiresome (even at one stage suggesting a World Conven tion should be agreed to control PCBs) and the fact that the U3A had decided to introduce legislation and not rely on a voluntary agreement with industry did not help the U.K. position. 7. Never-the-less SNV(72) 27 now contains most of the points the UK requested and will allow us to continue the control of PCBs according to the voluntary agreement announced in March 1971. This has been found to be satisfactory and we have~no desire to alter this arrangement. DS\N 282528 --aja* -iuw, uri. M -'-At. -Ax .+t , STLCOPCB4063857 "T %; '*-. i >; * i i ii i 1 .. i i i 8. The two most important alterations we had incorporated were (i) in 14(b) that limitations on PCBs should be by 'control of the manufacture^'. ^This previously said 'licencing* which would have necessitated legislation^ dfe are not prepared to introduce legislation for this purpose)[/lnd (ii) in 14(c) the " exemption of capacitors from restrictions on labelling and disposal. It is most important that we do not agree any general weakening of EITV(72) 27 and in particular ensure no change is made to these two sections. '9. The exception with which we do not agree comes at the end of 14 (b) (i) 'including also PCB containing products We got this weakened by the additon of 'as far as useful and practicable' but we do not feel the need for this statement, indeed would argue that its inclusion negates the main purpose of this whole OECD exercise. Our arguments are: A. The question at issue is simply whether countries like ITorway which have no PCB industry of their own should or should not be encouraged to introduce their own restrictions on trade in capacitors and transformers and on electrical appliances aid lighting fittings which contain them. ' B. The Swedish Government has already introduced such restrictions and it was this action which gave increased urgency to attempts to reach agreement on control of PCB's at source. The issues are examined in a Secretariat paper !!CP/C0/PCB/72.2 of 15 September and the danger is there clearly foreseen that other countries would follow Sweden's lead and introduce theiykwn disparate restrictions on TCB containing products which would create a multiplicity of non-tariff barriers. It was with this threat that member countries manufacturing PCB's were urged to agree to control PCB's at source. ' ' "~ ' . . DSW 282529 STLCOPCB4063858 C. This they have now done, and one might have hoped that this would have removed any necessity for countries to think of inter fering with trade in products containing FCB'3. But on the con trary we now have a document in which we all invited to agree to undertake such interference. . D. The OECD Environment Committee is supposed to concentrate on the economic and trade aspects of environmental problems. Here is a situation where there are two alternative ways of tackling a particular environmental problem - by regulating trade in the products containing the pollutant or by controlling the use of the pollutant at source. The ill effects on trade of taking the first course instead of the second are obvious and acknowledged. Yet the Sector Group is proposing that we should take both courses at once, thus combining the disadvantages of a superfluity of controls with an unnecessary interference with trade. Action Required 10. The UK point of view as outlined in para 9 should be sent as our written comment from our representatives on the Environment Committee. 11. This document should go as the brief to the UK ambassador to safeguard our position at the Council meeting where he can (a) ensure there is no retreat of para 8 and (b) he can follow up the attack first made in writing to the environment committee of para. 9. Ian Prcstt 7th December 1972 Room U19/04 ' *~ 2 i-.arsham Street Central Unit on Environmental l ollution Department of the Environment. Tel. TIo. 212 3921 . n. ;<ry,r- DSW 282530 STLCOPCB4063859