Document v1Z37BEwRDrMk8Mg7RMdNGNmE

RESTRICTED Reference 550/lO/t C3CD Sector Sroun on the Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals In the Snvlronnont. Reference - PCBs. Proposals for Concerted Action. KT/f7?) 37 - Background- X. 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 rical apparatus, 2. They have a relatively low oral toxicity, but can be accumulated and persist for long periods in fatty tissue. In I960 concern was expressed after studies of marine and fresh-vater fish and vildbirds demonstrated that the PCBs had become widely distributed in living organises 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 1969t when over 1000 people were poisoned after eating rice bran oil which bad been contaiminated by PCB containing oil leaking from a defective pipe in a food procuration factory. Action Taken by UK 3. As a result of this concern in March 1971 Monsanto Ltd (U.K) announced that it would restrict lto sales of rCB to those usen for which thoir cxcoptionul properties made them essential and in which they were onclosed so that there would be no loss to the environment. In practise thin meant they would only be sold to Transformer and capacitor manufacturers. (This same step had been taken by the parent company Monsanto USA aboil twelve months earlier). HONS 041154 OECD Involvement .4 Under the OECD notification scheme, several of tho smaller non- manafacturing countries announced their intention of bringing in controls on manufactured goods containing FCBs The USA asked the OECD to call a consultation meeting to discuss the situation. 5. This.consultation meeting was held at OECD in Paris on 3rd October 1972 (I. Prestt, CUSP and T.Wyatt DTI attended on behalf of the UJC.). The prime aim of the meeting was to get agreement among the 03CD countries (which represent the main manufacturers of PCBs) for control of FCBs without the different countries having to resort to unilateral imposition of a variety of national legislation. By tho tine this consultation meeting took place the manufacturers in Japan, Cermany and (at the last minute) France had followed the example of Monsanto. This only left Spsin 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 is. the manufacturer. 6. At the Sector Croup meeting of 22-24 liovember, paper EUV(72) 27 vaa 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 governing goods contains PCBs. . Korvay in particular proved tiresome (oven at or.a stage suggesting a World Conven tion should be agreed to control PCBs) and the fact that the USA had decided to introduce legislation and not rely on a voluntary agreement with industry did not help ths U.K. position. # 7. Kever-the-lcss SjJV(72) 27 now contains nost of the points the UK requested and will allow us to continue the control of PCBs according to the voluntary agreement announced in Karch 1971. This has been found to be satisfactory and Wfe have-no e'esire to alter this arrangement. MONS 041155 8. The two most important (literatiarts we had incorporated were (i) in 14(b) that limitations on PCBs should be by 'contra1) of the manufacture^'. ^Thia previously said 'licencing' which would have necessitated legislation^ die are not prapared to introduce legislation for this purpose^And (it) 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 Birv(72) 27 and in particular ensure no change is made to these two aeotlons. 9. The exception with which we do not agree comes at the end of 14 (b) (i) 'including also FCB containing products Ve got thisveakenod 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 oxercine. Our arguments are: A. The question at issue is simply whether countries like Norway which have no FCB 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 anilighting 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 FCB's at source. The Issues are examined in a Secretariat paper !ffiP/C0/PCB/72.2 of 15 September and the danger is there clearly foreseen that other countries would rollow Sweden's lead and introduce theisbwn disparate restrictions on l'CB containing products which would create a multiplicity of non-tariff barriers. It was with this threat that member countries manufacturing FCB'b were urged to agree to control FCB'a at source. HONS 041156 C. Thin they have now done, and one might have hoped that this would have removed any nece-sityfor countries to think of inter fering with trade in products containing PCB's. 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 Croup 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 shorld be sent as our written comment from our representatives on the Environment Committee. 11, This document should go as the brief to the IHt 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 Prostt 7th December 1972 Hoom 1119/04 '~ 2 r.arsham Stroot Central Unit on Environmental lollution Department of the Environment. . Tel. TIo. 212 5921 HONS 04 U5 7