EBFRIPEUROPEAN BROMINATED FLAME RETARDANT
INDUSTRY PANEL
www.firesafety.org - www.ebfrip.org

A SECTOR GROUP OF

31 October, 2000

REVIEW OF THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PROPOSALSON WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

DG Environment Explanatory Memorandum

4.1.2 Landfilling of WEEE
Page 10: “when brominated flame retarded plastic . . .
are landfilled, . . . polybrominated diphenylethers(PBDEs) . . . may leach into the soil and groundwater.”

4.1.3 Recycling
Page 11: “Due to the risk of generating dioxins andfurans, recyclers usually abstain from recycling flame

EBFRIP Comments•

It is not clear which brominated flame retardants(BFRs) are being referred to here. Indeed the broadterm “BFRs” is mixed and confused here with theterm “PBDEs”, which only refers to threecommercial PBDEs.

•

The proposal does not give any evidence orscientific reference to potential soil or groundwater
problems.

•

Extensive experiments have been carried out looking
at leaching behaviour of plastics containing PBDEs.
These experiments (conducted according to
generally accepted protocols) indicate an extremely
low potential of BFRs to leach from landfills.
(APME1, Norris1 2 et al.)•In fact, the physical/chemical properties of the
PBDEs indicate they are unlikely candidates forleaching. For example, the water solubility of DecaBDE is <0.1 ug/L and therefore has no propensity tomove into groundwater. In addition, Deca-BDE
ether is expected to absorb strongly to soil which
will effectively limit its movement.
New studies show that recycling of plastics
containing the PBDE flame retardant Deca-BDE ispossible, e.g. that a HIPS/Deca-BDE plastic (one of•1

M. Norris, J. W. Ehrmantraut, C. L. Gibbons, R. J. Kociba, B. A. Schwetz, J. Q. Rose, C. G. Humiston, et. al.
Toxicological and environmental factors involved in the selection of decabromodiphenyloxide as a fire retardantchemical, Applied Polymer Symp., 22, 195-219 (1973)
2

Norris et. al. Evaluation of decabromodiphenyloxide as a flame retardant-chemical, Chem. Human Health
Environ., 1, 100-116 (1975)
Av. E. VAN NIEUWENHUYSE 4, bte 2 – B-1160
BRUXELLES

TEL. 32 (0) 2 676 72 11 – FAX 32 (0) 676 73 01 –TELEX 62444

retarded plastics from WEEE.”

the highest volume plastic FR combinations) can berecycled several times and still comfortably meetsthe German Dioxin Ordinance. 3•

Another study looked into workplace exposure
during recycling of HIPS/Deca plastic: this study
demonstrated that the extrusion process complies
with the strictest German workplace regulations4.

Page 11: “ In view of the lack of proper identification ofplastic containing FR and the inherent difficulty in
distinguishing FR plastic form ordinary plastic, mostrecyclers do not process any plastic from WEEE.”•

New methods for automatic identification of FRplastic combinations are available5. The real reason
that recyclers do not tend to process much WEEE
plastics is because there is no market for thesematerials when recycled.

Page 15:“5-8- and 10BDE are mainly used in printed
circuit boards, in plastic covers . . . “.

•Printed wiring boards (PWB) typically do notcontain any of the three commercial PBDE flame
retardants. PWBs are almost exclusively flame

retarded with TBBPA, which is not under
examination here
5. Legislation on Hazardous substances
5.2 Risks proposed by the targeted substances•

Page 15: “ … that PBDEs formed the toxic
polybrominated disbenso furans (PBDFs) andpolybrominated disbenso dioxins (PBDDs) during
extrusion, which is part of the plastic recycling process.”6

The mentioned experiment was looking at PBTplastic. This plastic type requires high extrusion
temperatures and is thus more susceptible to D/Fformation. Hence the results of that study can not be
extrapolated to other plastic FR combinations
extruded at lower temperatures.

•2

comfortably meets the German Dioxin Ordinance. 7

Page 16: “ . . . high concentrations of PBDE have beenfound in the blood of workers in recycling plants.”“Various scientific observations indicate that PBDEs
might act as endocrine disruptors.”

Page 16: “The presence of polybrominated biphenyls(PBB) in Arctic seal indicates a wide geographic
distribution . . .”•The use of the term “high” in this instance isdebatable. The reported amounts were in the rangeof ng/g lipid weight (that is 0.000000001 g/g lipid.).
Given the extremely low toxicity of Deca-BDE andthe minimal exposure, no adverse effects are
expected.

•

The EU Human Health Risk Assessment on DecaBDE has assessed the risk of workers exposed to
Deca-BDE. Even in a worst-case scenario thatassumed Deca-BDE exposures about 10,000 times
higher than those measured at the recycling plant, it
was concluded that there is no risk to workers(margin of safety of >216).

•

No scientific references are given to justify thispoint.

•

It is also not clear which PBDE flame retardant orcomponent is being referred to.

•

PBBs are the only brominated flame retardants
referred to in an initial Commission screening list of
potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

•

The production of PBB has been phased out.

3

ANNEX IV : Memorandum on Scientific Evaluation
15. Dose (concentration)-Response (effect) Assessment
15.1 Adverse effects on human health- PBB and PBDE•PBBs and the three PBDEs have diverse
toxicological properties and should not be discussed
together.

Page39: “ . . . lower brominated technical PBDE
compounds show effects above all on the liver but also on
thyroid hormone and affect the behaviour of experimental
animals…The highly brominated compounds included intechnical Octa-BDE and Deca-BDE are persistent, haveeffects on reproduction and can cause tumour formation in
the liver.”•It is not clear what is exactly meant by “lower
brominated technical PBDE compounds” and“highly brominated compounds”.

•

Extensive testing has determined that Deca-BDE
does not cause effects on reproduction.

•

The commercial Octa-BDE product has not beentested for carcinogenicity so that the statement “cancause tumour formation” is incorrect.

•

Deca-BDE has been tested for carcinogenicity in
two species at tremendously high doses by the US
National Toxicology Program (NTP)8. The results
showed no conclusive evidence of carcinogenicity.
Deca-BDE is not listed as a carcinogen by IARC,
OSHA or NTP.

•In the same paragraph it is mentioned that “thesecompounds” are persistent and that they can betransformed to lower-brominated compounds. This
argumentation is contradictory and inconsistent.

“There are scientific data which support the assumptionthat these compounds can be transformed into lowerbrominated compounds.”•

There is at present no evidence that Deca-BDE(assuming that is what the authors mean by “highly
brominated compounds”) is debrominating underenvironmentally relevant conditions.

Page 40:“ Lower brominated PBB are highly toxic . . .”•The production of PBB has been terminated.

15.2 Adverse effects on the environment- Brominated Flame Retardants•

This subtitle is inconsistent in that it refers to all
BFRs where previous titles referred to the PBB and(three) PBDE flame retardants only.

•

The argumentation is inconsistent. The same
paragraph states that Deca-BDE is persistent and, atthe same time, that it is degraded.

•

No references are given to prove that Deca-BDE
debrominates. Studies published in literature, thatfound decomposition of Deca-BDE under the
influence of light have been using unrealistic
conditions: the compound had been dissolved in an
organic solvent (e.g. toluene) before irradiation.
Conditions typically encountered in the environment
do not involve the presence of organic solvents.

Page 40: “Octa- and Deca-BDE are persistent, both
microbially and biotically in water and air. Successive
debromination in UV light and sunlight has, however,been demonstrated for Deca-BDE.”

8National Toxicology Program, Technical report no 309, 1986

4

•Within the framework of the EU Risk Assessment
on Deca-BDE, two extensive studies are underway
on possible debromination (anaerobic sediment andsolid surface photolysis) of Deca-BDE. Results are
expected in 2001.

Page 42: “ The presence of PBB . . .”•The production of PBB has been stopped“ . . . with food as the major source. . . . There areindications that diet is another exposure source for
PBDEs.”•

Diet has not been determined to be the source of
PBDEs detected in various biological samples.
Several studies have attempted to draw correlations
between body levels and diet and none have beenable to find a correlation.

•

No reference is given to prove this.

•In case the authors refer to a publication by Sjodin et
al: The major PBDE congeners determined in bloodof recycling workers was BDE 183 and BDE 209 =Octa-BDE and Deca-BDE. The EU Human Health
Risk Assessment on Deca-BDE used a worst-casescenario of 5 mg/m3 to estimate the risk associatedwith that exposure. This level is higher by a factorof 50 000 than the exposure levels experimentally
determined for Swedish recycling workers. The Risk
Assessors concluded that even at these worst-caseconcentrations of 5 mg/m3, there is no risk posed to
the workers with a large margin of safety.

16. Exposure Assessment- PBB and PBDE

17. Risk Characterisation- PBB and PBDE
Page 44: “ Elevated blood concentrations of Octa-BDE
have been shown in occupational categories of people
handling computers.

518. Contribution of WEEE to the General Risks
18.1 Current use in EEE of the substances under
examination- PBDE and PBB
Page 44: “ Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) andpolybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) account for
approximately 1% and 9% respectively.

•

The production of PBB has been stopped.

“ The use (of PBDE) is mainly in four applications: inprinted wiring boards, . . .”•PBDEs are not used to flame retard printed wiringboards. These are almost exclusively flame retarded
with TBBPA, which is not under examination here.

•

The heading’s reference to BFRs is inconsistent andconfusing•

As the authors confirm, in standard municipal waste
incinerators there is no relationship between thebromine content of the waste and dioxin formation.

•

There are additional studies that prove that WEEE
can be safely added to municipal waste incineratorsand that even artificially high bromine
concentrations did not affect dioxin formation.9 This
study has not been considered by the proposal.

•

This sub-heading is inconsistent and confusing inthat it refers to all BFRs where previous titles
referred to the PBB and (three commercial) PBDE
flame retardants only.

•

Within this time frame anything might or might nothappen. It is suggested to work with a realistic
timeframe which can be scientifically assessed.

•

This subtitle is inconsistent in that it refers to all
BFRs where previous titles referred to the PBB and(three) PBDE flame retardants only.

•

New studies show that plastics containing DecaBDE can be safely recycled, and that the potential
formation of brominated dibenzofurans and18.2 Problems associated with current management of
WEEE- Brominated Flame Retardants

Page46: “ . . . polybrominated dibenzofurans and dibenzo–p-dioxins can be formed from PBDEs and PBBs undercertain conditions. . . .However, data from municipal
waste incinerators in the Netherlands did not show any
significant relationship between dioxin formation and thebromine content of the waste. However further research isnecessary . . .”“ . . . further research is necessary in order to assess thisissue. In particular, . . . assess the threshold above which
the content of halogenated substances would influence theformation of Dioxins”
Landfilling of WEEE
- Brominated Flame Retardants

Page 47: “ Although leaching of the compounds fromplastics on a short-term scale is small . . . The time scaleof the exposure scenario can therefore reach hundreds ofyears.
Recycling of WEEE
- Brominated Flame Retardants

Page 48: “ . . . during recycling of plastics containing
brominated flame retardants, brominated dibenzofurans
and brominated dibenzo-p-dioxins may be formed.”

9

Electrical and electronic waste co-combustion with Municipal Solid Waste for energy recovery, APME report,
Jurgen Vehlow, Frank E. Mark, Feb. 19976

brominated dibenzo-p-dioxins is minimal.10 11“ Various studies suggest that the risk of generation ofdioxins is a reason for the complete lack of recycling ofplastics containing brominated flame retardants.”•

No references are given to prove that statement.

•

The overriding reason why plastics containing
brominated flame retardants are currently not being
recycled is due to economics: There is currently nomarket for recycled plastics of this type. The lack of
the market is not due to the presence of brominatedflame retardant in the plastic.

“ . . .personnel at an electronics-dismantling plant showed. . . exposure of high levels of PBDE . . .”•No references are given to prove that statement.

•

In case the authors refer to a paper by Sjodin et al:
Personnel at the electronics dismantling plant inquestion did not show evidence of exposure to highlevels of PBDE. In fact, the measured air levels
were very low and the measured blood levels (in the
ng/g lipid range) were exceedingly low.

•

The major PBDE congener that those workers were
exposed to was Deca-BDE. The EU Human Health
Risk Assessment on Deca-BDE used a worst-case
exposure of 0.5 mg/kd*d to estimate the risk
associated with that exposure. This level is higher
by orders of magnitude than the exposure levels
experimentally determined for Swedish recycling
workers. The Risk assessors concluded that even at
those artificially high concentrations there is no risk
posed to workers.

•

There already exist regulations for occupational
exposure to hazardous compounds in place. Any
issues related to occupational exposure should be
handled under existing EU worker safety protocols.

“ … special protective measures could be implemented …
coherent enforcement of such measures … cannot beensured.”10

Analysis of a Decabromodiphenyloxide blend, a HIPS plastic, the HIPS plastic containing the DecaBDPO andSb2O3, and the repeatedly recycled HIPS/Sb2O3/DecaBDPO plastic for partially brominated Diphenylethers and8 polybrominated Dibenzo(p)dioxin and Dibenzofuran congeners; Report No. 60425-001-B01 by S. Hamm, GfA
Gesellschaft fuer Arbeitsplatz- und Umweltanalytik mbH
11

Determination of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and PBDD/Fs during the Recycling of High Impact
Polystyrene Containing Decabromodiphenylether and Antimony Oxide. S. Hamm, M. Strikkeling, P. Ranken, K.P.
Rothenbacher; Chemosphere, accepted for publication

719. Risk Reduction Strategy by Substitution
Alternatives to the substitution
Page 49, first paragraph: “Clearly, the substitution of theconcerned substances would provide the best protection of
the concerned (recycling) workers.”

Substitutes“The targeted hazardous substances are alreadycompeting against other safe or less dangerous materials
for a large number of applications.”•

This implies: a) that recycling workers’ health isbeing put at risk by the presence of the substances
listed in the RoHS proposal, for which there is noevidence; b) that standard worker health and safety
preventative measures are somehow not applicable;
and c), if the DG Environment wishes to beconsistent, that any substance found at any level in a
recycling plant should be phased-out, which ofcourse would make the production of electrical andelectronic equipment impossible in the first place.

•

No evidence is given for this statement. We do notknow whether or not other flame retardants are safeor less dangerous, because there is only limited
available information on their toxicology.

•

Whereas the data set on the commercial PBDE
flame retardants is quite extensive, there is little
knowledge about the effects of so-called“alternative” flame retardants.

•

The independent Swedish consultancy Orango
concludes that “ there is a definite risk that somecompanies may chose alternative, non-halogen flame
retardants that actually may turn out to be worse
from an environmental standpoint than the BFRs
they substitute.”12•

Further, the US National Academy of Sciencesemphasized the critical fire prevention role of FRs
and cautioned against “too conservative” anapproach to environmental and health impacts:“Overestimating risks from FRs might result in a net
adverse effect on public health if the uses of FRs that
could reduce the risks of death and injury from fires
were avoided because of minor toxicologic risks
estimated through such conservative assumptions”.13
The NAS reviewed the toxicology ofdecabromodiphenyl oxide in this report and found it
suitable for use in upholstered furniture.

12

P. Hedemalm et al., “Brominated Flame Retardants, A global status report”, Orango AB, March 2000

13

“Toxicological Risks of Selected Flame-Retardant Chemicals”, National Academy of Sciences, April 2000

8