Document YjzEY5ZgGzDgGrwg6Vyo9QOOD

RESTRICTED ' ' Reference 550/lO/l C3CD Sector Croup on the Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals in the Environment. m.?rencv - PCSs. Procosals for Concerted Action. E?r/(T2) 27. Background 1. The FCBs are a stable group of synthetic chemicals, first marketed in 1930. They have been used for a variety of purposes, the cost common being as a plasticiser in paints and varnishes in carbonless copying paper as an additive to lubricants and in elect rical apparatus. 2. They have a relatively low oral toxicity, but can be accuaulatad and persist for Ion; periods in fatty tissue. In I960 concern was expressed after studies of oarine ar.d fresh-water fish and vildbirds demonstrated that the PC3s had become widely distributed in living organises in many parts of tha world. Additional concern arose as s result of accidents. The nost outstanding example taking place in Japan in Spring of 1969, when over 1000 people were poisor.ed after eating rice bran oil which had been contalminated by PCS containing oil leaking frou a defective pips In a food preparation factory. Action Taker, h* UK Aa a result of this concarn in March 1971 Monsanto Ltd (U.K) annc-inced that it would restrict ita sales of TUB to tiiosn uses for which thoir crcoptional properties made them essential and in which they were enclosed so that there would be no lose to the environment. In practise this meant they would only be eold to Transformer and capacitor manufacturers. (This ss%e step had been taken by the parent oompany Monsanto USA aboit twelve months earlier). MOWS 201467 OSSP_Invo1 jp rant 4. Under the OECD Notification scheme, savaral of the smaller nonmanafacturing countries announced their intention of bringing in controls cn manufactured goods containing PCBs The USA asked the OECD to call a consultation seating to discuss the situation. 5. This, consultation seating was held at 02CD in Faria on 3rd October 1972 (l. Prestt, CUSP and T.Wyatt DTI attended on behalf of the UJC.). The prise ais of the costing was to get agreement among the OECD countries (which represent the sain sanufacturera of FCBa) for control of FCBa 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) France had followed the example of Konsanto. 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 UX, socewhat unexpectedly in view of the outcome of the Consultation meeting, found itself having to fight against demands for detailed regulations governing goods contain," FCBs. . Norway ia particular proved tiresome (oven at one ata>Te suggesting a Vo rid Conven tion should be agreed to control FCBa) and the fact that tha USA had dsolded to introduce legislation and not rely on a voluntary agreement villi' Indue try did not help the U.JC. position. ' # 7. never-the-less SNY(72) 27 now contains most of tha points the UK requested and will allow us to continue the control of PCBs according to the voluntary agreement announced in Kaxch 1971. This hea been found to be satisfactory and we have"no desire to alter this arrangement. HONS 201448 8. Tho two most important alt#ration* we had Incorporated were (i) in 14(b) that limitations on PC3s should be by `contripj of the manufacture)'. previously amid 'licencing' which would have necessitated legislation^ 4Je are not propared to introduce legislation for this purpose']}ind (ii) in 14(c) the exemption of capacitors from restrictions on labelling and disposal. It is most important that wa do not agree any general weakening of EiIV(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 PCS containing products Ve 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 purpoee of this whole OECD oxercine. Our arguments are: A. The question at issue is simply whether countries like Torvsy which have no PCD industry of their own should or should not be encouraged to Introduce their own restrictions on trade in capacitors and transformers and on sleetrical appliances aid lighting fittings which contain then. B. The Swedish C overwent has already introduced such restrictions and it was this action which gavs increased urgency to attempts to reach Agreement on control of PCB'a at source. The issues art examined in a Secretariat paper XP/co/PCB/72.2 of 19 September end t$ danger is there clearly foreseen that other countries would follow Smarten's lead and introduce theiyfewn dieparsto restrictions on TCD containing products which would creato s multiplicity of non-tariff barriers. It was with this threat that member countries manufacturing FCB's were urged to agree to control FCB'e at eource. MOMS 201469 C. -TMr. they hcve now done, and one night have hoped that this would have removed any necessity for countries to think of inter fering with trade in products containing PCB'e. 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 waye of tackling a particular environmental problem - by regulating trade in the products containing the pollutant or by controlling the uss of the pollutant at source. The ill effects on trad# of taking the first course instead of the second sre obvious and acknowledged. Yet the Sector Croup is proposing that we should take both courses at once, thus combining the disadvantages of a superfluity of controls with an unnecessary interferonce with trode. Action Required 10. The UK point of view as outlined in para 9 shovld 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 pars 8 and (b) he can follow up the attack first mads in writing to the environment committee of pars. 9. Ian Proett 7th December 1972 Room K19/04 2 i ardham Street '~ Central Unit on Environmental lollution Department of the Environment, . Tel. Wo. 212 3921 MOWS 201470