EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 4.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1278 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 
 
amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other 
phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents 
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 
COM(2010) 597  
SEC(2010) 1277  
 
EN 2   EN 1. I NTRODUCTION  
Phosphates are used in detergents to reduce wa ter hardness and allow detergents to perform 
efficiently. However, phosphates from deterg ents can adversely affect the aquatic 
environment and disturb the ecological bala nce by increasing the growth of algae, a 
phenomenon called eutrophication. Alternative wa ter-softening ingredie nts are available but 
with various performance limitations, partic ularly for more demanding cleaning tasks. 
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents1 harmonises the placing on the market of 
detergents with respect to the labelling of  detergents and the biodegradability of the 
surfactants they contain. In view of concerns about eu trophication, Artic le 16 of the 
Regulation required th e Commission to “ evaluate, submit a report on and, where justified, 
present a legislative proposal on the use of phosphates with a view to  their gradual phase-out 
or restriction to specific applications ”. The Commission presented the report in 2007 
concluding that the state of know ledge concerning the contribution of detergent phosphates to 
eutrophication was insufficient but developing rapidly2. Subsequent work to close the 
knowledge gap forms the basis for this impact assessment report, which analyses various policy options to address the us e of phosphates in detergents. 
2. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Why is the presence of phospha tes in detergents an issue? 
Phosphates in detergents contribute to eu trophication, a complex phenomenon in which 
elevated phosphate levels reduce the quality  of surface waters. The main sources of 
phosphates in the environment are: fertilisers,  metabolic waste from humans and livestock 
(urine + faeces), and detergents. The relative  importance of inputs va ries between Member 
States and water catchment areas. Although th e quantity of phosphor ous in detergents 
(110.000 t) is less than 10 % of that in ferti lisers (1.5 million t), all detergent phosphates are 
discharged into waste water and potentially  contribute to eutrophication, whereas most 
fertiliser phosphates remain in agricultural soil s and only a minor (but not fully quantifiable) 
fraction is washed out or erodes with soil into surface waters. The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC has le d to an increased focus on combating eutrophication. 
A probabilistic risk assessment model (INIA 2009)
3 has quantified the contribution of 
detergent phosphorus to eutrophication risks throughout the EU as between 2.3 % in the 
Mediterranean to 5.8 % in the Central Baltic eco -regions. However, the results are uncertain. 
The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)4 concluded that the 
INIA model is an innovative tool for calculations at the pan-European level although not 
suitable for estimating the contributions to eutrophication at regional or local level. Furthermore, SCHER could not determine whet her the data which were available for the 
probabilistic modelling were repr esentative of the whole EU. 
                                                
 
1 Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents, OJ L104, 
8.04.2004, p. 1. 
2 (COM (2007) 234), available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm  
3 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm  
4 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf  
 
EN 3   EN Deterministic calculations for the Danube River Basin (DRB)5 show that the replacement of 
phosphates in detergents can re sult in a reduction of 24 % phosphorus (P) from point sources6 
and in a reduction of 12 % from all sources.  
Both probabilistic and deterministic modelling thus agree that phosphates in detergents do 
contribute to some extent to eutrophication risks, but cannot fully quantify this. For some 
sensitive regions, the co ntribution of detergent phosphates to  eutrophication has been reliably 
quantified and found significant. The use of phospha tes in detergents th erefore results in a 
negative externality (eutr ophication) the costs of which are born by society in general, rather 
than by detergent formulators, who have no economic incentive to design detergents that 
reduce eutrophication risks. 
2.2. Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment 
Sewage treatment plants with tertiary trea tment can remove phosphates from waste water. 
However, only a part of the EU population is co nnected to municipal se wage treatment plants 
and not all existing plants are equipped with tertiary treatment. Most phosphate removal 
processes rely on chemical precipitation with iron salts which entails capital costs (for 
installing tertiary treatment) and operationa l costs, which depend on the quantity of 
phosphates eliminated. 
The annual operating costs for removing deterg ent phosphates from waste water have been 
estimated to be 10 million to 693 million €7. 
2.3. Fragmentation of the internal market  and the impact of mutual recognition 
In the absence of EU legislation, some Me mber States have taken national measures 
restricting the use of phosphates in detergen ts. Others have reli ed on voluntary action by 
industry to replace phosphates. Th is has led to a reduction in the use of phosphates from about 
250 000 t in the mid 1980s to about 110 000 t now. Phosphates in de tergents are still 
unrestricted in ten Member States. Consequen tly, the internal market for detergents is 
fragmented regarding their phosphate content,  and detergent produce rs are faced with 
divergent rules. 
Regulation (EC) No 764/ 2008 on mutual recognition8 requires Member States to accept any 
products (including detergents containing phosphat es) that are lawfully placed on the market 
of another Member State unless they can de monstrate specific reasons to the contrary. 
Member States have only 20 working days (or 40 days in complex cases) to respond to 
                                                 
5 Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for a Transboundary 
River Basin (available at: http://www.icpdr.org/icpd r-pages/phosphorus.htm ). 
6 Point sources of phosphorous involve detergents, human metabolism and industry, but not fertilisers. 
7 Figures used were from: DEFRA, UK, 2008: 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ quality/water/waterquality/diffuse/non-
agri/documents/consultation2008-detergents.pdf ;  
A.O. Tanyi. Comparison of chemical and biological phosphorus removal in waste water – a modelling 
approach.  
EUREAU in 2010: Sweden 1-5 €/kg P, Hungary 7 €/kg P, Belgium 4,2 – 5 €/kg P (including sludge 
disposal) 
8 Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certa in national technical rules to products lawfully 
marketed in another Member States and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC. OJ L 218, 13.08.2008, 
p. 21. 
 
EN 4   EN manufacturers applying for mu tual recognition. Member Stat e administrations might be 
overwhelmed if many products la wfully placed on the market in other Member States, but 
with different phosphates content, were to be pla ced on their markets in a short period of time. 
2.4. Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? 
• Detergent formulators in the EU, without  a harmonised market for phosphates in 
detergents, have to comply with different rule s in the Member States and face extra costs. 
Imports of detergents into the EU are insignificant. 
• National public administrations  in Member States having established legislation on 
phosphates in detergents to combat eutrophicat ion might have increasing difficulties to 
enforce their legislation under their obligations on mutual recognition. 
• Waste water treatment plant (WWTP) operators with tertiary treatment face costs for 
removal of detergent phosphates from waste water. 
• Phosphates from detergents contribute to eutrophication in several EU regions, which 
creates adverse effects in the environment and can lead to negative economic consequences 
for fishery and tourism industr ies. Neighbouring regi ons sharing surface waters with the 
EU also suffer from phosphate outflows from the EU. 
3. A NALYSIS OF SUBSDIARITY  
Although eutrophication can be a loca l or regional problem most river basins in the EU extend 
across national borders. In particular, larger river basins (e.g. the Danube) and marine water 
bodies (e.g. the Baltic Sea) receive inflows fr om many different Member States. Experience 
shows that regional coope ration is not fully effective to reduce eutrophicati on at regional 
level. Furthermore, diverging national rules hi nder the free movement of goods. Action at EU 
level is the only way to ensure the free move ment of goods while effectively addressing 
eutrophication at regional level. The Member  States support EU action based on Article 114 
TFEU. 
4. O BJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE  
4.1. General Objective 
The general objective is to ensure a high level of  protection of the envi ronment from potential 
adverse effects of phosphates in detergents and to safeguard the internal market for 
detergents.  
4.2. Specific objectives 
– To reduce the adverse environmental effect s from eutrophication in surface waters, in 
particular due to the cross- boundary flow of waters containing phosphates from detergents. 
– To reduce phosphate discharges into su rface waters in a cost-effective manner. 
– To improve the free movement of detergen ts in the internal market by harmonising 
divergent national rules concer ning their phosphate content. 
 
EN 5   EN – To avoid possible burdens for public administ rations for developing and justifying national 
measures in the absence of harmonised EU measures. 
5. P OLICY OPTIONS  
5.1. Option-1: No action at EU level (baseline option) 
Member States would maintain existing restri ctions on phosphates in detergents, or introduce 
new ones. 
5.2. Option-2: Voluntary action by industry 
Detergents formulators would commit volunt arily to replace ST PP by alternatives. 
5.3. Option-3: Total ban of pho sphates in all detergents 
Phosphates would be banned in  all types of detergents. 
5.4. Option-4: Restriction of phos phates in laundry detergents  
Phosphates would be restricted only in laundr y detergents and not in dishwasher (ADW) 
detergents or in Industrial a nd Institutional (I&I) detergents. 
5.5. Option-5: Setting limit val ues for the content of pho sphates in detergents  
The content of phosphates in various types of detergent would be limited to certain 
concentration levels. 
6. A SSESSMENTS OF THE IMPACTS  
6.1. Option 1: No action at EU level, leavi ng the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 
Eutrophication at local level could be tackled ap propriately without EU action. However, this 
is different at regional level, where even co-ord inated action of several Member States has not 
been fully effective. Member States co-operating in the Baltic Sea Strategy and the Danube River Basin have called for EU action. This opt ion would not improve the functioning of the 
Internal Market, nor would it avoid burdens to administrations and industry linked to mutual 
recognition. In the light of current market tre nds, eutrophication risks from detergents may be 
expected to decline, albeit sl owly. Costs for phosphate removal from wastewater are expected 
to peak at around 2015 due to higher connection ra tes to WWTP (in particular in EU 12) and 
will then slowly decline in line with  market trends for phosphates use. 
6.2. Option 2: Voluntary action by industry 
A voluntary commitment at EU level could in theory achieve the intended objectives. 
However, A.I.S.E., the European detergent form ulators association whic h represents 90 % of 
the market, is unwilling to make such a commitment. 
 
EN 6   EN 6.3. Option 3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergent products 
A total ban of phosphates in dete rgents would be most effec tive for reducing eutrophication 
risks at EU level. It is not feasible to quan tify or monetise the benefits, which would slowly 
decline in line with market trends for phosphates use.  
The option would reduce operating costs for WWTP by 10 to 693 million € per year. Over 
time, avoided costs would initi ally increase and peak at ar ound 2015 in line with higher 
connection rates to WWTP and then slowly decl ine in line with market trends for phosphates 
use. Total reformulation costs for detergent manufacturers (one-off) would be 20-142 million €. Net benefits would thus accrue within 1 to 2 years. However, there are currently no technically feasible alternatives for I&I product s, while issues of technical performance have 
not been completely resolved for ADW products . This would lead to significant additional 
costs for research and innovation - particular co ncerns were expressed by SMEs formulators. 
Consumers and professional users would face problems from less performing detergents. 
Phosphates producers would face plant closures  and 3 000-5 000 job losses, which might only 
be partially offset by gains for alternatives producers.  
No risks to human health or the environment have been identified for the alternatives to 
phosphates, but some uncertainties remain concerning phosphonates,  polycarboxylates and 
EDTA due to incomplete data. 
This option would fully harmonise the internal market in detergents, thus eliminating any 
additional costs for industry and administrations  due to the current fr agmentation and avoid 
burdens from the requireme nt for mutual recognition. 
6.4. Option 4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents 
Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents would be  less effective in reducing 
eutrophication than Option 3 (60 % of phosphates are used in laundry de tergents). However, 
the difference cannot be quantified or monetised. 
Reduced operational costs for WWTP are estim ated at 6 million to 415 million € annually, 
with the same trends over time as described in Option 3. Total reformulation costs (one-off) 
for laundry detergent formulators are estimated at about 13 million €. Net benefits would thus 
accrue within 1 to 3 years. 
There would not be any problem s with regard to technical or economic feasibility of 
alternatives and no performance problems for c onsumers and professional users. Phosphate 
producers estimate job losses of ~1 000-1 650, wh ich would probably not be fully offset by 
gains for producers of alternatives. 
This option would ensure a fully  harmonised internal market fo r laundry deterg ents, but not 
for ADW or I&I detergents. So far only two Memb er States (Sweden, France) plan to restrict 
phosphates in I&I and ADW products in the near future. 
Option 4 was preferred by 14 Member States at  the November 2009 meeti ng of the Detergents 
Working Group. This option is closest to the majority of existing national rules which, 
however, do not totally ban phosphorus, but impose limits in the range of 0.2 to 0.5 %. Therefore, a limit value at EU level would have to  be selected in further consultations with the 
Member States. 
 
EN 7   EN 6.5. Option 5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in all detergents 
This policy option could be effective in reduci ng the eutrophication risk by setting different 
limits for laundry, ADW and I&I de tergents. However, it would not  be easy to agree on limits 
for ADW and even more so for I&I detergents due  to the diversity of technical requirements 
(many I&I detergents are formul ated specifically for each customer's industrial plant). 
Imposing any given limit value would be expected  to trigger multiple requests for derogation 
under Article 114 TFEU with related administra tive burdens for national administration and 
the Commission. 
7. C OMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS  
OPTION Effectiveness Efficiency Environmental-
Impacts Costs/benefits 
Option-1 : 
No action at EU 
level (baseline 
option)   (0)Current trends 
continue  (0)No change (0) 
Slowly decreasing 
eutrophication risks (0) 
Costs for P removal remain at 
10 m - 693 m € annually, 
peaking in 2015 then slowly 
decreasing 
Option-2 :  
Voluntary action  (+)  
Could be effective.  (-)  
Industry unwilling to 
cooperate.  (+)  
Reduction of 
eutrophication risks (-) 
Significant burden for 
industry to monitor  
Option-3 : 
Total ban of 
phosphates in detergents (++) 
Would eliminate 
100 % of phosphates in 
detergents. (++) 
Full harmonisation 
of the Internal Market through a 
single EU action.  (++) 
Greatest and fastest 
reduction of eutrophication risks. (--) 
Reformulation costs for 
SMEs between €20 m – €142 m (one-off). Savings in 
WWTP 10 m to 693 m € 
annually. Net benefits in 1 to 2 years, but no alternatives 
for ADW and I&I detergents 
– adverse effects on users. 
3000-5000 jobs lost.  
Option-4 : 
Restriction of 
phosphates in laundry 
detergents (+) 
Would eliminate 
60 % of phosphates in detergents. (+) 
Fully harmonised 
internal market for laundry detergents 
only. (+) 
Significant and fast 
reduction of eutrophication risks. (++) 
Reformulation costs for 
SMEs ~ 13 m €. Savings in WWTP 6 m to 415 m € 
annually. Net benefits in 1 to 
3 years. Alternatives available. 1 000-1 650 jobs 
lost. 
Option-5 : Limit 
values for the content of 
phosphates in 
detergents  (+) 
Between Options 3 
and 4.  (-) 
Difficult to agree on 
limits for I&I and 
ADW detergents.  (+) 
Between Options 3 
and 4. (-)  
Effects on operators and users 
between Options 3 and 4. 
Burdens from derogation 
requests under Article 114 TFEU.  
 
Option 4 appears to be best. It would reduce the eutrophication risk from the cross-boundary 
flow of detergent phosphates more effici ently than Member States can do alone. 
 
EN 8   EN The measure would be proportionate as technically  and economically feasible alternatives for 
phosphates in laundry detergents are available. Detergent formulators would need to spend 
about 13 million € on reformulation as a one-off co st which would be largely offset within 1 
to 3 years by reduced P removal costs in WWTP in the order of 6 to 415 million € per year. Removal of phosphates from laundry detergents is  more cost-efficient for nutrient elimination 
than waste water treatment. Compared to Option 3 there ar e no problems in finding well-
performing alternatives and hence no negative effects on detergents users. 
Negative impacts would be on phosphate producers w ho would lose part of their market with 
closure of some plants and job losses of  1 000-1 650. However, use of phosphates in 
detergents has already declined  significantly in the past a nd phosphate producers would have 
to adapt to this trend in any case. 
The option would ensure a harmonised internal ma rket for laundry detergents. The majority of 
Member States prefer this option. 
There would be no impact on the EU budget and no significant administrative burdens for 
enterprises. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Monitoring mechanisms established under the Detergents Regulation or the REACH 
Regulation can be used and monitoring the content of phosphates in detergents would 
constitute only a marginal addition to ex isting obligations. Eutrophication is already 
monitored under the Wate r Framework Directive.