EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 4.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1277 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to 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 
COM(2010) 597 final 
SEC(2010) 1278 final 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
1.1. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 1.1.1. Consultation of other Commission services................................................................. 6 1.1.2. Consultation of Member States.................................................................................... 6 1.1.3. Consultation of Industry and NGOs............................................................................. 6 1.1.4. Consultation of SMEs .................................................................................................. 7 1.2. Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board ............................................... 7 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. The use of phosphates in dete rgents and their contribution to the total phosphate load8 
2.2. Why the presence of phosphate in deterg ents is an environmental concern................ 8 
2.2.1. Contribution of detergent phosphorous to eutrophication ........................................... 8 2.2.2. Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment.............................................. 10 2.2.3. Failure of regional initiatives to prevent eutrophication............................................ 12 2.2.3.1. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea ................................................................................... 12 2.2.3.2. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River............................ 13 
2.3. Fragmentation of the internal market a nd the impact of mutual recognition............. 14 
2.4. Drivers of the problem ............................................................................................... 15 2.5. Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? ........................... 15 
2.6. How would the situation evolve  if no action is taken? .............................................. 15 
2.7. The EU right to act..................................................................................................... 17  
2.7.1. Legal basis............................................................................................................. ..... 17 
2.7.2. Subsidiarity ............................................................................................................ .... 17 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 18 
3.1. General Objective....................................................................................................... 18  
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 18  
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 8 
4.1. Option-1: No action at EU level, leavi ng the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) .............................................................................................. 18 
4.2. Option-2: Voluntary action by industry ..................................................................... 18 4.3. Option-3: Total ban of p hosphates in detergents ....................................................... 18 
4.4. Option-4: Restriction of phos phates in laundry detergents........................................ 19 
4.5. Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in detergents ............... 19 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 19 
 
EN 3   EN 5.1. Option-1: No action at EU level, leavi ng the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) .............................................................................................. 19 
5.2. Option-2: Voluntary action by industry ..................................................................... 21 5.3. Option-3: Total ban of phospha tes in all dete rgent products ..................................... 22 
5.3.1. Benefits of reduced eutrophication ............................................................................ 22 5.3.2. Benefits for Waste Water Treatment.......................................................................... 25 5.3.3. Costs of a ban of phosphates in detergents ................................................................ 25 5.3.3.1. Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives....................... 25 5.3.3.2. Reformulation & other costs for detergent producers................................................ 26 5.3.3.3. Technical feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents............................................ 27 5.3.3.4. Economic feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents ........................................... 28 5.3.3.5. Health and environmental aspe cts of STTP alternatives............................................ 28 
5.4. Option 4: Restriction of phos phates in laundry detergents ........................................ 30 
5.4.1. Benefits of reduced eutrophication ............................................................................ 30 5.4.2. Benefits for waste water treatment............................................................................. 30 5.4.3. Cost of a restriction on ST PP in laundry detergents .................................................. 30 
5.4.3.1. Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives....................... 30 5.4.3.2. Reformulation and other costs for detergent producers ............................................. 30 5.4.3.3. Technical and economic feasib ility and health and envir onmental considerations for 
alternatives to phosphates in laundry detergents........................................................ 31 
5.5. Option-5: Setting limit values for the c ontent of phosphates in  all detergents .......... 32 
5.5.1. Feasibility............................................................................................................. ...... 32 
5.5.2. Cost and benefit considerations ................................................................................. 33 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 33 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 36 
8. References.................................................................................................................. 38 
9. Glossary of acronyms................................................................................................. 39 
ANNEX I: TABLES AND FIGURES..................................................................................... 41 ANNEX II: Scientific studies and models ............................................................................... 48 
1. Establishing the scient ific knowledge on the contri bution of phosphorous in 
detergents to eutrophication - Commissi on studies and their evaluation by the 
Scientific Committees ................................................................................................ 48 
2. Development of the INIA pan-European  eutrophication model - Contribution of 
STPP based detergents to EU eutrophication risk...................................................... 50 
ANNEX III: SME consultation................................................................................................ 53 
 
EN 4   EN ANNEX IV: Sensitivity analysis for Option 4......................................................................... 59 
 
EN 5   EN Introduction 
Phosphates are used in detergents to combat  water hardness in order to allow efficient 
cleaning. Sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP1) (see section 9 for a glos sary of acronyms) is the 
most commonly used phosphate. In conjunction w ith surfactants, STPP allows detergents to 
perform efficiently in all washing conditions. 
More specifically, STPP has the fo llowing functions in detergents: 
• efficient sequestering2 of hardness salts (and keeping them in solution); 
• removal and prevention of encrustation on fibres; 
• enhancement of the washing process; 
• carrier for other detergent ingredients. 
Phosphates from detergents can contribute to  certain adverse effects in the aquatic 
environment. They act as nutrients which, in ex cess, cause an accelerated  growth of algae and 
higher forms of plant life to produce an undesira ble disturbance to the balance of organisms, a 
phenomenon called eutrophication. A lternative water-softening ingr edients are available, but 
with various performance limitations, particul arly for the more demanding cleaning tasks. 
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents3 harmonises the placing on the market of 
detergents, but only with respect to the labellin g of detergents and the biodegradability of the 
surfactants they contain. Nevertheless, in view  of concerns about eutr ophication, Article 16 of 
the Regulation also required the Commission to “evaluate, submit a report on and, where justified, present a legislative pr oposal 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 and concluded that the state of knowledge concerning the contribution of phosphates in 
detergents to eutrophication was still incomplete, but was developing rapidly
4. Further work 
conducted thereafter has been the basis for this impact assessm ent report, which analyses a 
number of policy options to address the use of phosphates in detergents. 
1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The Commission initiated a number of studies to establish whethe r restrictions on phosphates 
in detergents would be justified in orde r to reduce eutrophicat ion in the EU: WRc 20025, 
INIA pan-European eutrophication6, RPA7 (see Annex II). These studies provided the basis 
for the consultations mentioned below. The soci o-economic impacts of possible restrictions of 
phosphates in detergents and the environmental ri sks of alternatives to phosphates have also 
been assessed based on information available from these reports or further direct contacts with 
stakeholders as discussed in detail in secti ons 5.3 and 5.4. 
                                                 
1 STPP: Na5P3O10, CAS No 7758-29-4, EINECS No 231-838-7. 
2 Sequestering : The process of involving a chemical compound  or certain polymers that chemically tie up 
(sequester) other compou nds or ions so they cannot be involved in chemical reactions. 
3 Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents, OJ L104, 
8.4.2004, p.1. 
4 COM (2007) 234), available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm. 
5 Phosphates and alternative detergent builders. WRc (2002), Swindon, UK. 
6 Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/docs/ceep_study_final_report_042009_en.pdf. 
7 Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/f iles/studies/rpa_non_surf_organ_zeolites_en.pdf. 
 
EN 6   EN 1.1. Consultation and expertise 
1.1.1. Consultation of other Commission services DG Enterprise and Industry set up an Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) on 
phosphates in detergents to which the following Services were invited: DG Environment, DG 
Health and Consumer Protection, DG Joint Research Centre, DG Agriculture, and the Secretariat General. The IASG met in D ecember 2008, July 2009, January and March 2010 in 
order to accompany the preparati on of the impact assessment. 
1.1.2. Consultation of Member States  
The findings of the various Commission studie s concerning eutrophication and STPP use in 
detergents as well as the opinions of the Commission’s Scientific Committees on them have been extensively discussed at meetings of th e Working Group of the Competent Authorities 
responsible for the implementation of the Deterg ents Regulation, hereafte r referred to as the 
"Detergents WG”, namely in November 2006, July and December 2007, July 2008, February 
and November 2009. 
In the meeting of December 2007, Member States ' opinions were split regarding the need for 
legislative action at EU level.  It was agreed that the Comm ission would continue working 
together with Member States  and stakeholders to improve the knowledge base, by further 
improving the INIA model in line with th e recommendations of the SCHER opinion of 2007. 
In the July 2008 and February 2009 meetings , the Commission consulted on the preparation 
of the impact assessment and the update of th e INIA model. In the November 2009 meeting, 
the Commission consulted on the main conc lusions of the SCHER opinion on the updated 
INIA model as well as on various  policy options to be analysed in the Impact Assessment. 
Members States were invited to express their positions on their preferred option concerning the use of phosphates in detergents, either orally in the meeting or by sending written 
statements to the Commission in the subsequent weeks. 
By mid-January 2010, 24 Member States had communicated their preferred policy option
8. 
The majority (14) considered that an “EU ba n of phosphates in laundry detergents” would be 
the most appropriate measure, where “ban” actua lly means a restriction to no more than 0.2 to 
0.5% phosphorous per weight of detergent in  line with existing national measures. Six 
Member States favoured stricter measures: either for a “total ba n of phosphates” (3) or for “an 
EU restriction setting phosphates limit values in all detergents” (3). Four Member States 
favoured milder measures: “no EU action” (2) or “EU voluntary agreement” (2). The Member 
States with minority opinions could also agr ee with the option “EU ban of phosphates in 
laundry detergents”, if such a measure were to be proposed. 
1.1.3. Consultation of Industry and NGOs 
The meetings of the Detergents WG were also  attended by the relevant  industry associations. 
The European Phosphates Producer Industry (C EEP) opposes restrictions on phosphates in 
detergents at EU level, claiming that the sector  would be adversely affected to a significant 
extent. A similar statement was submitted by the VCI – Sector Group 'Phosphorsäure Salze' from Germany. The International Associatio n for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance 
Products (A.I.S.E.) would welcome an EU-wid e ban on phosphates in laundry detergents, but 
not in formulations for dishwasher and Industr ial and Instituti onal (I&I) detergents where the 
                                                
 
8 All Member State statements are available at:  
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/ enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents&vm=detailed&s
b=Title 
 
EN 7   EN use of phosphates is still consid ered essential to en sure adequate cleaning performance. The 
European Zeolites Producers Association (EUZEPA)9 confirmed that phosphate-free 
formulations have been devel oped by detergent formulators. 
The European Policy office of WWF attended some  of the Detergents WG meetings without 
making any interventions on a preferred polic y option. DG Enterprise and Industry also 
contacted the European Consumers' Organisa tion (BEUC), who did, however, not convey a 
position with regard to possible restricti ons on the use of phosphates in detergents. 
1.1.4. Consultation of SMEs 
Between July and September 2009, the Commission consulted small and medium size 
detergent formulators via the Enterprise Europe Network on their current use of phosphates 
and alternatives, and the imp acts of potential restrictions of phosphates on the companies. 
Replies were received from 107 companies located in 11 Member States. 63% were located in 
Southern Europe and most of those (~70 %) produced Industrial a nd Institutional (I&I) 
products, while about 40% also produced  laundry and dishwasher detergents. 
The majority of companies (58%) claimed that replacing phosphates with alternative 
substances would reduce cleaning performance, in  particular for Indust rial and Institutional 
(I&I) products, and a minority (20%) expected adve rse economic impact s such as higher 
production costs, decreased sales, loss of market  share, or need for new investments. See 
Annex III for further details. 
Given the rather technical natu re of the problem and the limite d number of actors affected, an 
internet-based public cons ultation was not conducted. 
1.2. Scrutiny by the Commission impact assessment board 
The impact assessment board of the European Commission10 assessed a draf t version of the 
impact assessment and issued its opinion on 16 April 2010. The impact assessment board made several comments and, in the light of those suggestions, the final impact assessment 
report: 
– clarifies the advantages of EU  action in the light of the cu rrent downward trend in the use 
of phosphates in detergents and the upward tr end in the connection of sewers to WWTP, 
and also that EU action is more efficient than  actions of Member States in the context of 
regional cooperation.  
– describes the expected costs a nd benefits and their development over time in more detail 
and ranks more clearly the options in te rms of efficiency and effectiveness. 
– gives further information on how the differ ent options will affect consumers and 
professional users of deterg ents and provides more information on the impacts of 
restrictions on water quality in countries where the use of  phosphates in detergents is 
already restricted. 
                                                
 
9 Zeolites are one of the possible substitutes of phosphates in detergents. 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab_en.htm. 
 
EN 8   EN 2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. The use of phosphates in detergents  and their contribution to the total 
phosphate load 
The four main sources of phosphates in the enviro nment are: fertilisers, metabolic waste from 
humans and livestock (urine + faeces), and de tergents. Within the EU-25, the major use of 
phosphates is in fertilisers with an estim ated consumption of around 3.5 million tonnes 
P2O5/year (equivalent to around 1.5 million t of phosphorous (P)/year)11. In comparison, 
about 1.8 million tonnes of phosphates-based de tergents were used in 2006 in the EU-25 
containing ca. 440,000 tonnes of P 2O5, equivalent to 110,000 tonnes of phosphorous. The 
relative importance of each sour ce varies from Member State to  Member State and from one 
water catchment area to anot her but, overall, phosphorous fr om STPP based detergents 
represents less than 10% of the phosphorous used in fertilis ers. However, all detergent 
phosphates are discharged into waste water, and therefore potentia lly contri bute to 
eutrophication, whereas most fertiliser phosphates remain in agricultural soils and only a minor (but not fully quantifiable) fraction is wa shed out of the soil into surface waters. Figure 
1 illustrates the significance of various phosphorus sources to dome stic wastewater in the UK. 
Human inputs via urine and faeces dominate domestic loads of phosphorus to sewer, with main contributions arising from the metabolis m of dairy products, m eat and cereals. Laundry 
detergents contribute with approximately 18%. Including phosphorus from dishwashing 
detergents increases the overall loads from detergents to 25%
12. 
Figure-1:  Sources of phosphorous in UK domestic waters  
 
Faeces
24%
Urine
42%Auto 
dishwashing
7%Laundry
18%Toothpaste
3%Mains supply
6%
 
2.2. Why the presence of phosphate in det ergents is an environmental concern 
2.2.1. Contribution of detergent phosphorous to eutrophication 
There are no concerns over adverse effects on hu man health associated with the use of STPP 
in detergents. Due to their physico-chemical properties, STPP are not distributed or 
transported to the atmosphere, therefore no e nvironmental risk related to STPP use in 
                                                 
11 EFMA (2005): Forecast of Food Farming and Fer tilizer Use in the Europ ean Union 2005-2015, 
available from the European Fertilizer Ma nufacturers Association (www.efma.org). 
12 UK Water Industry 2008 report. Available at:  
http://www.sniffer.org.uk/Resources/WFD88/Layout _Default/0.aspx?backur l=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sn
iffer.org.uk%3a80%2fproject-
search%20%20results.aspx%3fsearchterm %3dphosphorus&selectedtab=completed. 
 
EN 9   EN detergents is indicated in soil or air compartments (HERA, 200313). As already discussed, the 
prime environmental concern over th e use of phosphate in detergents is that they can lead to 
an excess of nutrients in the aquatic environmen t which, in turn, can cont ribute to problems of 
eutrophication. Elevated phosphate levels tend to pose a threat to  the biodiversity  of surface 
waters. The effects of phosphates on local ecology can be dramatic, particularly in smaller 
surface water bodies where there is less prosp ect of dilution. For example, high phosphate 
levels in the lower river Lea in London have caused the growth of excessive duckweed which needs to be removed regularly to main tain the ecological balance (DEFRA, 2008)
14. 
Similarly, releases of phosphates to lakes and rivers can result in increased plant growth and 
an over-abundance of algae. Various species of algae produce potent toxins which can poison 
fish thereby influencing the fishery production, but also pets and humans. 
Several EU Directives (Table 2 in Annex I contains an overview) aim to limit the 
concentration of nutrients such  as phosphorus and nitrogen in surface waters in order to 
counter eutrophication, but there is no EU legislati on that limits the use of phosphates in 
detergents. Detergents are discharged to the aquatic compartment via sewage systems which nowadays are increasingly connected to wa ste water treatment plants, following the 
implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD). The proportion 
of STPP from detergents that enter the aquati c environment (rivers, lakes, and eventually the 
maritime environment) varies considerably ac ross the Member States depending on the degree 
of tertiary treatment of waste water. Tertiary treatment remo ves phosphates but is costly and 
is not a legal requirement for all sewage discharges  (in particular smaller settlements are 
exempted and lack such treatment). Table 3 in Annex I gives a picture of the variability of waste water treatment in various EU Member  States and the phosphorous input into their 
surface water depending on the treatment proce sses in waste water treatment plants.  
The Commission has attempted to quantify the c ontribution of phosphorus  in detergents to 
eutrophication throughout the EU. The 2009 INIA  pan-European probabilistic eutrophication 
model concluded that the comb ined contribution of both laundr y and dishwashers detergents 
to eutrophication risks varies be tween the EU eco-regions, bei ng relatively highe r in Northern 
(5.3%) or Central Baltic (5.8 %) eco-regions as compared to Mediterranean (2.3%) and 
Atlantic eco-regions (3.2%)
15. The higher values obtained for the Northern and Baltic regions 
are in line with the well-established higher se nsitivity of surface waters in those regions to 
phosphates. 
In its opinion of November 200916, SCHER recognised the INIA m odel as an innovative tool 
to estimate the contribution of detergents to EU eutrophication risk, but stressed that the 
Committee was unable to check how representati ve the INIA data are for pan-European 
surface waters. Therefore, SCHER was not able to comment on the predictive capacity of the 
model (for more details see Annex II). SCHER al so noted that the model is not suitable for 
estimating the contributions to eutro phication at regional or local level. 
                                                 
13 Available at:  
http://www.heraproject.com/files/13-F-04-% 20HERA%20STPP%20full%20web%20wd.pdf. 
14 Consultation of options for controls on phosphates in domestic laundry cleaning products in the UK 
(DEFRA, UK, 2008),  available at:  
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ quality/water/waterquality/diffuse/non-
agri/documents/consultation2008-detergents.pdf. 
15 Full report available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/docs/ceep_study_final_report_042009_en.pdf. 
16 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf. 
 
EN 10   EN In some sensitive European areas deterministic models have been used to calculate the 
contribution of phosphates from detergents to  eutrophication. Calcul ations for the Danube 
River Basin (DRB) (Wat er Research Project17) show that the replacement of phosphates in 
detergents can contribute significantly to the reduction of phosphates discharges by point 
sources18. Replacement of phosphates in detergents in the DRB countries was estimated to 
result in a 24% phosphorus (P) reduction from point sources and in a reduction of 12% from 
all sources.  
In summary, although it has not been possible to quantify with confidence the contribution of 
phosphates from detergents to eutrophication at the EU level, both probabilistic and 
deterministic modelling agree that they do cont ribute to eutrophication to some extent. For 
some sensitive regions, the contribution of de tergent phosphates to eutrophication has been 
reliably quantified a nd found significant. The use of phos phates in detergents, therefore 
results in a negative externality (eutrophicatio n) the costs of which are born by society in 
general, rather than by detergen t formulators, who have no incentive to design detergents that 
reduce the risk of eutrophication. 
2.2.2. Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment 
Sewage treatment plants with a tertiary stag e should be capable of removing P down to a 
concentration of 1mg/l in the outflow according to the requirements of the UWWTD. This can 
require removal of more than 90% of the P pres ent in inflows. However, only a part of the 
population is connected to munici pal sewage treatment plants (a s shown in Annex I, Table 3). 
EUROSTAT reports that 90% of the EU-25 p opulation is connected to sewage treatment 
systems, but another source gives a lower estimate of 80% (E-Water 2007)19. Furthermore, 
not all existing plants are yet equipped with a te rtiary treatment stage, nor is it feasible to 
connect low-density rural populations to WWTP.  The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 
concludes that the degree  of connection to WWPT with a tert iary stage varies from about 90% 
in Northern Europe to about 20% in Eastern and Southern Europe. 
Although biological nutrient removal is an option, the majority of phosphate removal 
processes rely on chemical precipitation, pr edominantly by dosing with iron salts during 
tertiary treatment. Phosphate elimination thus entails capital costs (for installing tertiary 
treatment) and operational costs, which depend on the total quantity of phosphates eliminated. 
Source control of phosphorus would thus lead to  lower concentrations of phosphates entering 
WWTP and lower capital investment  and operational costs. There ar e quite wide variations in 
the published costs for building and ope rating tertiary treatment in WWPT. 
As an example RPA calculated in 2006 th at in the UK about 75,000 t/year of STPP 
(equivalent to 19,000 t of phosphorous ) are used in detergents, but  only 27% of the population 
are connected to WWTP with tert iary treatment. Removal costs are estimated at about €30 per 
kg phosphorus for capital and operating cost s combined. Removal of 27% of 19,000 t 
phosphorous in existing tertiary treatment pl ants was therefore costing about €154 million20 
annually. According to a DEFRA report in 2008, elimination of phosphate s from detergents 
could lead to savings in operating costs at existing plants in the order of €2.5 million per 
annum (i.e. for the 27% of phosphorous being rem oved in tertiary treatment). Combining the 
                                                 
17 Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for a Trans-
boundary River Basin (available at: http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/phosphorus.htm). 
18 Point sources of phosphorous involve detergents, human metabolism and industry, but not fertilisers. 
19 E-water (2007). The role of De tergents in the phos phates balance of Euro pean surface waters 
http://www.ewaonline.de/journal/2007_03.pdf. 
20 0.27 * 19.000.000 kg * € 30/kg = € 153.9 million. 
 
EN 11   EN figures from the RPA and DEFRA reports, (m arginal) operating costs of €0.49/kg P can be 
calculated21. The same DEFRA report also gives costs in a range between €8.9 and €16.5 
million/year for the UK if the total of 19,000 tonne s of P had to be removed, i.e. less than 
€1/kg P. These would therefore appear to be operating costs. Based on the UK figures, 
operational costs thus seem to be between €0.4 6 and €0.87/kg P. Extrapolation for the entire 
EU for a complete removal of 110,000 t P from detergents would lead to operational costs 
between €50 million and €96 million (assuming 100%  connection to ter tiary treatment). 
Taking into account the present degree of connection to tertiary treatment varying between 20% and 90%, the cost for P removal in WWT P would lie somewhere in the range of €10 
million to €86 million. 
A similar operating cost, namely €0.47/kg P, can be obtained by consider ing solely the costs 
for buying ferric salts for the chemical treatment  of waste water. Results from one such 
calculation using the EFOR model
22 would give a total cost for annual ferric salt consumption 
for the EU of €51.3 million for the tertiary treatment of waste wa ter if extrapolated for the 
treatment of 110,000 t P estimated to be in all de tergents in the EU. Fo r the present degree of 
connection to tertiary treatment varying betw een 20% and 90%, the cost for P removal in 
WWTP would lie somewhere in the range of €10 million to €45 million. 
The European Federation of National Associat ions of Drinking Water Suppliers and Waste 
Water Services (EUREAU) has provided costs es timates for P removal in the range €1-7/kg 
P23 i.e. 2 to 7 times higher than the figures above. With the same assumptions regarding 
connection to WWTP plants, total costs for P re moval would be in the range of €20 million to 
€693 million. 
Some interesting qualitative in formation concerning the tertia ry treatment of phosphorus was 
provided by Ofwat24 indicating that the price for chemi cals used for P removal (e.g ferric 
salts) may increase in the future due to supply constraints while a switch in technology to 
meet stringent effluent standards maybe also re quired. In addition P remo val will significantly 
increase the quantity and change the composition of sludge produced, which is likely to require additional investment in sludge tr eatment and disposal technologies, possibly 
including additional incinerators. 
A report from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
25 in 2008 gives some 
indication concerning the costs of nutrient reduc tions to the Baltic Sea as shown in Table 1 
below. The main conclusion of that study is  that restricting phosphates in detergents 
phosphates would be the most cost  efficient measure to take in  order to reduce phosphates in 
the Baltic. 
In conclusion, phosphates from detergents in waste water lead to significant operating costs 
for existing tertiary waste water treatment. At  current removal rates (taking into account 
connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment), operational costs are estimated between 
€10 and €693 million per year. Costs for full re moval would be significantly higher, as 
investments into construction of tertiary tr eatment for 100% removal of phosphates from all 
wastewater would lead to very  high capital costs and higher operational costs. Detergent 
phosphates thus constitute a negative externality not only with respect  to the environment 
                                                 
21 €2.5 million / (0.27*19,000,000 kg) = €0.487/kg. 
22 A.O.Tanyi.Comparison of chemical and biological phosphorus removal in waste water – a modelling 
approach. 
23 Sweden 1-5 €/kg P, Hungary 7 €/kg P, Belgium 4,2 – 5 €/kg P (including sludge disposal). 
24 Ofwat (2007). Water Framework Directive Eco nomic Analysis of Water Industry Costs. 
25 Costs of nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea (2 008). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 
 
EN 12   EN where tertiary waste water treatme nt is not in place, but also on the running costs of tertiary 
waste water treatment plan ts where they exist. 
Table 1:  Calculated marginal costs for phosphorous  reductions to the Baltic Sea from 
emission reduction at sources (€/kg P)  
 P free 
detergents Livestock 
Reduction Fertiliser  
reduction Sewage 
treatment Plants Private 
sewers 
Denmark 10-42 2324-4413 0-10024 56-124 234-239 
Finland 13-48 934-1591 0-1095 56-164 234-316 
Germany 25-123 3950-5507 0-9131 56-304 234-585 
Poland 16-26 456-540 0-506 38-130 197-317 
Sweden 10-91 1092-4169 0-3797 56-229 234-447 
Estonia 16-27 710-847 0-255 38-126 197-307 
Lithuania 13-19 109-163 0-147 38-115 196-281 
Latvia 17-33 424-596 0-269 38-135 196-328 
Russia 12-42 879-1911 0-1855 38-202 197-491 
Source: Costs of nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea (2008). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences  
Finally it should be noted that tertiary waste water treatment is required only for centres of 
population above 10,000 according to the UWWTD. Detergent phosphate discharges in rural 
areas would therefore continue to contribute to eu trophication even after when all WWTP are 
equipped with tertiary treatment.  
2.2.3. Failure of regional initiatives to prevent eutrophication  
Individual Member States alone cannot deal  with eutrophication resulting from trans-
boundary flows of phosphates into wa ter bodies in their territories, or those shared with other 
countries. However, such problems could potenti ally be solved through co-ordinated action 
by the Member States concerned in the river ba sin management context of the WFD, or in 
regional co-operation strategies. In fact, regi onal co-operation to co mbat eutrophication in 
sensitive EU areas has been in place for a numb er of years and is supported by the EU or the 
United Nations. Nevertheless, progress has been  slow and the negotiating position of EU 
Member States vis-à-vis their non-EU counterpa rts is weakened by lack of common rules at 
EU level. 
2.2.3.1. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea This strategy has been established in  a Commission Communication in 2009 and is 
complemented by a more analytical Action Plan
26. Certain priority areas are identified in 
order " to make the Baltic Sea Region an en vironmentally sustainable place ’. The first 
                                                 
26 COM 2009 (248) final). The action plan is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/action2009.pdf  
 
EN 13   EN thematic priority includes reductions of nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea to acceptable levels, 
such as of nitrogen and phosphorus which are both significant contribut ors to eutrophication 
of Baltic Sea waters. Among the Flagship project to achieve this target, it is recommended to 'remove phosphates in detergents in countries wh ere this is not yet the case as recommended 
by HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan' . Sweden and Estonia are the leading countries of this 
initiative with a deadline for action of  31 December 2012. Within  the framework of 
HELCOM activities and recommendations, Latv ia has implemented a ban of phosphates in 
laundry detergents (at 0.5% P w/w) since July 2009, while Poland has recently informed of their intention to take simila r legislative action by imposing a limit value of 0.5% P in 
washing powders for consumer use (with a transition period until 2014). 
2.2.3.2. International Commission for th e Protection of the Danube River 
The International Commission fo r the Protection of the Danube  River (ICPDR), which has 
been established in 1998 and is supported sc ientifically by a num ber of United Nations 
Development Projects, has coordina ted certain initiatives in order to reduce the environmental 
impact of eutrophication in the DRB Area. ICPDR adopted in D ecember 2009 the policy 
recommendation to countries of the Danube River Basin  to proceed with national legislation 
and/or further voluntary agreements to repla ce phosphate-based detergents to protect the 
Danube and Black Sea from eutrophication whil e awaiting the outcome of the Commission’s 
evaluation of the need for measures at the EU level. 
ICPDR  has informed the Commission  that the Danube countries have endorsed in December 
2009 the Danube River Basin Management Plan (DRBMP)
27 which is a good example of 
international and integrated river basin mana gement according to the EU Water Framework 
Directive. The emission of phosphates via househol d detergents is significant in the DRB area 
and in case of wastewater treatment without a ter tiary stage the respective P loads find a direct 
way into the aquatic environment. P emissions due to laundry and dishwasher detergents in 
the DRB are estimated at 9,190 t/a. which ac counts for 15.7% of total P emissions. A 
limitation of phosphates is identified as the mo st economical and effective means combined 
with the already existing measures. In reachin g these conclusions, the ICPDR had extensive 
discussions over the past two years with the detergent producing indu stries and developed 
strong collaboration with DG Environment of the Commission and other stakeholders.  
ICPDR28 noted in 2008 that the ecological si tuation in the Black Sea has improved 
considerably in the last decade (reduced eu trophication, disappearance of anoxic conditions 
etc.) not only due to nutrient removal at WWTP bu t also due to the replacement of phosphate-
containing laundry detergents in some DRB countries. Neverthele ss, more than 10 years of 
cooperation has not yet succeeded in fully achievi ng the intended objectives. For example, the 
Black Sea Trans-boundary Diagnos tic Analysis and the UNDP-GEF Black Sea Ecosystem 
Recovery Project – Danube impact on the stat us of the Black Sea (ICPDR, 2008), have 
indicated that the Danube River Basin is still the largest pollution contributor to the Black Sea in general and the Western part of the Black Sea in particular. A significant fraction of the 
nutrients (58% nitrogen, 66% phosphorus) received by the Black  Sea come from the Danube 
River and these loads have resulted in seve re eutrophication problem s. For the period 1988-
2005, the Danube, as one of the major rivers discha rging into the Black Sea, was estimated to 
introduce on average abou t 35,000 tonnes of P into the Black Sea each year. 
                                                
 
27 Available at: http://www.icpdr.org/participate/da nube_river_basin_management_plan  
28 ICPDR (2008). P-free detergent: Issues and current status. 6th Standing Working Group Meeting of 
ICPDR. 
 
EN 14   EN Both of the above regional projects have cal led on the Commission to restrict the use of 
phosphates in detergents as a complementary measure essential for the success of their 
activities. 
2.3. Fragmentation of the internal market  and the impact of mutual recognition 
Member States are concerned to a greater or lesser degree by the problem of eutrophication. 
Pending harmonisation at European level, some Member States have taken national measures 
(for details see Annex I, Table 1) restricting the use of phospha tes in detergent formulations, 
which were notified and evaluated in accordance  with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC29 
to be justified and proportionate. Other Memb er States have relied on voluntary agreements 
with industry to reduce the us e of detergent phosphate. Thos e combined national measures 
have resulted in a reduction in  the use of phosphates from about 250,000 t P in the mid 1980s 
to about 110,000 t now. Phosphates in detergents are still unrestricted in ten Member States. Consequently, the internal market  for detergents is fragmented  at the moment regarding the 
phosphate content.  
In the future, this fragment ation of the market could unde rmine the existing national 
restrictions if deterg ent manufacturers choose to make fu ll use of the principle of mutual 
recognition. Although the principle of mutual r ecognition is long-estab lished, its application 
has been rather limited due to uncertainties ove r its application. With the clarification brought 
by the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 on mutual recognition
30, Member 
States are obliged to accept any products (and thereby also detergents  containing phosphates) 
that are lawfully placed on the market of anot her Member State unless they can demonstrate 
that there are specific reasons to the contrary. Member States could face significant pressure 
as they have only 20 working days (or 40 days  in complex cases) to respond to manufacturers 
applying for mutual recognition. Member Stat es administrations might be overwhelmed if 
many products lawfully placed on the market in  other Member States , but with different 
phosphates content, were to be placed on th eir markets in a shor t period of time.  
It is also unclear how the situation would de velop in those Member States that rely on 
voluntary commitments by national industry a ssociations to phase -out phosphates in 
detergents. New economic operators relying on the rule of mutual recognition might start 
placing products on their markets and they might not feel bound by the existing voluntary 
commitments. 
Detergent formulators adjust the composition of  laundry detergents to local water hardness 
conditions and washing habits (e.g. higher temper atures and harder water in Mediterranean 
countries, compared to lower washing temperatures  and softer water in Nordic countries), and 
therefore have no incentive to use formulations complying with the strictest rules on phosphates in all Member States. Quite on the contrary, the existe nce of divergen t rules in the 
Member States concerning phosphates may lead to higher costs for companies operating in 
several Member States as they have to manufacture products w ith different builders. A.I.S.E 
has informed the Commission that additional costs arise from: 
• Research & Development costs:
 Separate/ additional formulation development involving P 
and P-free platforms, associated industrial validation. 
                                                 
29 Directive 98/34/EC, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. 
30 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 cert ain national technical rules to products lawfully 
marketed in another Member States and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC. OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p 21. 
 
EN 15   EN • Supply costs:  The cost in lost economics of scale of buying less of one commodity (P), 
costs of managing orders and stocks of P and P alternative(s), costs of managing stocks of 
extra finished products etc. 
• Manufacturing costs:  Cleaning costs, handling becau se of promotional campaign 
production, additional instal lation of manufacturing line(s), labelling etc. 
• Administrative costs:  Monitoring different national legislat ions for potential changes, other 
regulated chemical management costs etc. 
However, AISE has not been able to quantif y these extra costs. SMEs operating only in 
Member States with no restrictions on phospha tes have no incentives to develop phosphate-
free formulations due to the f act that other Member States have taken legislative actions. 
2.4. Drivers of the problem 
Both, the costs caused by eutrophication and the ones incurred by waste water treatment 
companies for removing phosphates are borne by society at large. De tergent producers have, 
therefore, no economic incentive to replace  phosphates with altern atives in detergent 
formulations.  
Action by individual Member States is not capab le of addressing eutrophication due to trans-
boundary flows of phosphates in certain sensitiv e EU regions, e.g. the DRB area or the Black 
Sea. 
In the absence of harmonisation, Member States  will continue to maintain or adopt national 
measures with different scopes and limitations.  
2.5. Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? 
• Detergent formulators who without a harmonise d market for phosphates in detergents have 
to comply with different rules in the Member  States and face extra costs. Only detergent 
formulators in the EU are affected as imports of detergents are insignificant. 
• National public administrati ons in Member States havi ng established legislation on 
phosphates in detergents to combat eutrophi cation might have increasing difficulties to 
enforce their legislation under their obligations on mutual recognition of  detergents 
lawfully placed on the market in other Member States. 
• Waste water treatment plant operators with te rtiary treatment face costs for removal of 
detergent phosphates from waste water. 
• Phosphates from detergents continue to contri bute to eutrophication in several EU regions, 
which creates adverse effects in the envi ronment and can lead to negative economic 
consequences for fishery and tourism industr ies. Neighbouring regions also suffer from 
phosphates outflows from the EU, e.g. th e non-EU part of the Black Sea.  
Information as to what extent the different stake holders are affected is presented in section 5.1 
(analysis of option 1). 
2.6. How would the situation evolve  if no action is taken? 
As already set out in section 2.1 overall consump tion of phosphates in detergents has declined 
in recent years and this trend is expected to continue, as a consequence of the combined effect of legislative and voluntary meas ures in the majority of EU Me mber States (see section 2.3). 
Table 1 in Annex I contains an overview of the measures taken in the Member States and the 
presence of phosphates in laundry detergents. With an average conc entration of around 25% 
STPP in phosphate detergents, the peak consum ption (in the early 19 80s) was probably in 
 
EN 16   EN excess of 1 million tonnes of STPP/year (equiv alent to 250.000 t P/year) which has now more 
than halved due to the introduction of alternat ives. According to CEEP , there are currently 7 
STPP production sites in the EU (compared to 9 sites in 2008) with an  overall production of 
270 000 tonnes in 2008 (compared to ~515.000 t onnes in 2007), and exports 100,000 tonnes 
in 2008 (compared to ~190.000 tonnes in 2007). Th is trend might be expected to continue 
because several additional Member States are preparing to adopt national legislation (e.g. Poland, United Kingdom). 
The use of phosphates in the different categorie s of detergents products can be broken down 
as follows:  
(i) Laundry detergents
 
According to data from CEEP31, laundry detergents account ed for 60% of the total 
STPP use in the EU in 2007. However, during the last decade, the STTP 
consumption for household laundry products ha s significantly decreased as a result 
of legislative actions  or voluntary agreements to phase  out phosphates in a number of 
EU Member States. A further reducti on of the use of phosphates in laundry 
detergents is triggered by the growing market share of  phosphate-free liquid laundry 
detergents. Nevertheless, phosphate-based laundry detergents are still common in 
Eastern European countries.  
(ii) Dishwashing detergents  
Dishwashing detergents are still mainly  phosphate-based and account for ~30% of 
the STPP use in the EU (CEEP, 2008).The  consumption of phosphates for this 
application has been stable betwee n 2004 and 2007. With the introduction of 
phosphate-free laundry detergents, the contribu tion of dishwashing detergents to the 
total detergent phosphates rele ase has risen to about 25%. 
(iii) I&I detergents  
I&I detergents account for 8% of th e STPP use in the EU-27 (CEEP, 2008). 
According to the European Detergent Formulat or Association (A.I.S .E), this specific 
use of phosphates is more pro cess- rather than product-dr iven. Therefore, if in a 
given process STPP is necessary, 100% of the products used in this process are 
STPP-based and if not applicable or not necessary, no STPP are used. 
Eutrophication will continue in several sensitive EU regions with phosphates input from 
trans-boundary flows, albeit with a declining trend due to the d ecreasing use of phosphates in 
detergents.  
Waste water treatment plant operators with tertiary treatment will continue to face costs for 
removal of detergent phosphates from waste water, albeit with a declining trend due to the 
decreasing use of phosphates in detergents.  
Detergent formulators will face an increasing fragmentation of the internal market as 
additional Member States are planning to introduce national legislation on phosphates in 
detergents. However, faced with a greater dive rsity of national rules, detergent formulators 
operating across the EU may either decide simply to comply with the strictest rules or, on the 
other hand, they may decide to try to avoi d compliance with them by application of the 
Regulation on mutual recognition.  
                                                 
31 CEEP (2008). Statement available at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/ enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents/ceep_assessment  
 
EN 17   EN National public administrations in Member States having established legislation on 
phosphates in detergents to co mbat eutrophication might have  increasing difficulties to 
enforce their legislation under th eir obligations on mutual recogni tion of detergents lawfully 
placed on the market in other Member States. 
2.7. The EU right to act 
2.7.1. Legal basis The legal basis of the proposal to be accompanie d by this impact assessment is Article 114 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 11 4 has the objective to 
establish an internal market while ensuring a hi gh level of protection of human health and the 
environment. 
2.7.2. Subsidiarity 
Measures taken by individual Member States are an effective way to deal with eutrophication 
at a local / national level and may also be the mo st appropriate course of action given the fact 
that conditions, both in the environment and in the use of detergents, may well vary between 
the Member States. However, 60% of the EU  are part of international river basins
32 and 
therefore action at local level may not be suff icient to address issu es of trans-boundary 
importance. Pollution by nutrients may not be  detrimental to the water bodies where the 
discharges are located but may affect water bodies downstream.  
The WFD, which requires Member States to ac hieve good ecological and chemical status of 
surface water by 2015, also requires Member Stat es to prepare programmes of measures 
which may include, where justified, mandatory  action, or voluntary agreements to limit 
phosphates in detergents in order to tackle th e eutrophication problem in their territories. 
According to the WFD, such measures have to be cost-effective a nd proportionate. In the 
recent meeting of WFD Strategic Coordinati on Group (February 2010), Hungary was the only 
Member State confirming planned action to re duce phosphates in deterg ents within the WFD 
Programme of Measures. More specifically, the National Rive r Basin Management Plan of 
Hungary contains as complementary measure on nutrient removal actio ns for limitation of P 
content by 2012 in laundry deterg ents, and by 2015 in dishwash er detergents as legally 
binding restrictions. Where necessary, Member St ates sharing the same river basin can co-
operate in the framework of the river basin management.  
As set out in section 2.2.3, in larger river basins such as the Danube, which cover territories in 
several Member States, and in larger lakes or marine water bodies (such as the Baltic Sea) 
which receive inflows from many different Memb er States, combating eutrophication could in 
principle be achieved through the coordinate d action of the individual Member States. 
However the experience at regi onal level in the Danube River Basin and the Baltic indicates 
that reliance on action by Member States only  might not be fully sufficient despite a high 
level of cooperation over a number of years and action by most Member States concerned.   
The Danube River Basin and Baltic Sea initiatives  both believe that legislative action at EU 
level would be more effective in reducing in puts of phosphates from detergents than co-
ordinated action by the Member States concerne d. For instance, the International Commission 
for the Protection of the Danube River (IC PDR), has recently informed the Commission 
                                                 
32 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union' 
First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC SEC(2007) 363, 
available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/w ater-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm   
 
EN 18   EN (December 2009) that "although the Danube River Basin includes both EU and non EU 
Member States, a limi tation at EU level would provid e a positive ince ntive to non EU 
countries participating in the ICPDR to take si milar measures to limit the use of phosphates 
in detergents" . In addition, the Environm ent Council in its conclusi ons of December 2009 on 
the Commission Communi cation on an EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea, has invited the 
Commission to present without delay proposals for EU legisla tion with a view to banning 
phosphates in detergents. 
Thus, Member States accept that Community  action is appropriate to achieve the 
eutrophication objectives of the WFD as  earlier discussed in section 1.1.2. 
3. O BJECTIVES  
3.1. General Objective 
The general objective is to ensure a high leve l of protection of the environment from the 
potential adverse effects of phospha tes in detergents and to ensure  a well functioning internal 
market for detergents.  
3.2. 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, 
thus supporting the achievement of  the objectives of the WFD by 2015. 
– To contribute to a cost-effective solution to  the reduction of phosphate discharges into 
surface waters. 
– To improve the functioning of the internal ma rket for detergents through a reduction of the 
divergence of existing rules concerning the co ntent of phosphates in detergents, which 
create barriers to trade. 
– To avoid possible future burdens for public ad ministrations for developing and justifying 
national measures in the absence of harmonised Community measures. 
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. Option-1: No action at EU level, leavi ng the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 
This would mean that the stat us quo would continue, i.e. no EU  legislation concerning the use 
of phosphates in detergents would be introduc ed. Member States could maintain existing 
restrictions or take action as appropriate and justified under the circumstances in their 
territories, or in the contex t of regional cooperation.  
4.2. Option-2: Voluntary action by industry  
A voluntary EU-wide commitment for a phase-out and the substitution of STPP by zeolites or 
other substances would be made by detergen ts formulators. The commitment could be 
recognised by the public authorities and the resu lts achieved would have to be assessed at 
regular intervals.  
4.3. Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in detergents 
This option would establish a ban of phosphates in all detergents at EU level. The need for a 
review of phosphates use in detergents was a requirement set under Regulation (EC) No 
648/2004 on detergents (Article 16(1)), whic h harmonises the placing on the market of 
 
EN 19   EN detergents by considering the biodegradability of surfactants and setting additional labelling 
rules. Restrictions or bans under this Regula tion can be imposed only on grounds of the (non-) 
biodegradability of surfactants. Therefore a chan ge of the scope of the detergents Regulation 
would be required, or alternatively a new Regul ation could be drawn up, or the ban could be 
imposed in the framework of the REACH Regulation33. 
4.4. Option-4: Restriction of phos phates in laundry detergents  
This option would restrict the use of STTP in laundry detergents, which is the most common 
category of detergents used by consumers, while allowing further use in dishwasher 
detergents and I&I detergents. With regard to the possible legislation to be used, the same 
comments as for option 3 apply. 
4.5. Option-5: Setting limit val ues for the content of pho sphates in detergents  
The content of STPP would be limited at one or  several concentration levels in the various 
detergent formulations (laundry, dishwashing and I&I).  With regard to the possible legislation 
to be used, the same comments as for option 3 apply. 
5. A NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
The analysis of the impacts of the various policy options has been conducted taking into 
consideration results of the scientific analysis of the contribution of phosphates in detergents to eutrophication risks in the EU , as well as the criteria of  effectiveness and efficiency 
(including practicality, socio-economic impacts, and monitorability). Information has been mainly derived from the INIA study on eutrop hication risks associated with phosphates in 
detergents and the RPA report co ncerning zeolites and other builders as STPP alternatives, as 
well as the remarks of the SCHER on the evalua tion of these reports. The marketing data and 
estimated costs refer to the latest informa tion available to the Commission at the time of 
writing this impact assessment from discussions with all stakeholders at meetings of the 
Detergents WG and through further consultation of stakeholders.  
5.1. Option-1: No action at EU level, leavi ng the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 
If no legislative action will be taken at EU level,  the current situation and trends would remain 
unchanged. The use of phosphates in detergents w ould continue to decline over time, due to 
the ongoing trend of phosphate replacement by dete rgents manufacturers and actions taken by 
Member States. However, as mentioned in sect ion 2.6, the trend is slow ; it has taken about 25 
years to reduce phosphate use by 50%. 
Member States having already measures in plac e could continue to maintain them and could 
proceed with the adoption of further national measures to replace phosphate-based detergents 
where this can be justified on environmental gro unds (e.g. on the basis of the objectives to be 
reached under the WFD).
 Member States wishing to introduce "technical regulations" falling 
under Directive 98/34/EC will ha ve to notify the Commission and justify that these measures 
are in accordance with the requi rements of the Direc tive. It should be noted that the WFD 
provides a mechanism whereby Member States  can demonstrate thro ugh a risk analysis 
(Article 5) and the establishment of a cost-eff ective programme of measures (Article 11) that 
restrictions on phosphates in detergents are ju stified and proportionate. Current experiences 
                                                 
33 Title VIII and Annex XVII of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on REACH provide for criteria and a 
procedure to restrict the production,  placing on the market and use of  substances that pose unacceptable 
risks to human health or the environment, that need to be addressed at EU level.  
 
EN 20   EN from Member States have indicated that measures  at national level, such as restrictions of 
STPP in detergents via legislative actions or voluntary agreement (or a combination of both) 
can effectively tackle eutroph ication when trans-boundary flows are not the issue. For 
instance, Italy has imposed legi slative restriction of phosphates in detergents since early 80s, 
and this has resulted in a significant reducti on in the phosphates load and subsequently an 
improvement in the eutrophication status of Ita lian lakes and the Adriatic Sea. Similarly, 
Switzerland reported improvements in the water quality of Lake Gene va after legislative 
restrictions on phosphates in laundry de tergents were introduced in 1985. 
Member States could also decide to act in a co-ordinated matter, where particular regional 
issues require such action. However, as de scribed in section 2.2.3, experience shows that 
regional initiatives in the Baltic Sea and Da nube River Basin have not yet succeeded in 
dealing with trans-boundary flows, and EU re strictions of phosphates in detergents are 
requested by those initiatives, most recently in the 2010 Council Conclusions on the Baltic Sea Action Plan and the Ministerial Declara tion of the Danube River Protection Convention 
in February 2010. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised measures at EU level makes more 
difficult the task of EU Member States in advancing nutrient reduction measures with 
neighbouring non-EU countries for common water bodies such as the Black Sea or the Baltic 
Sea. 
Phosphates from detergents would continue to contribute to eutrophicati on – in particular in 
sensitive areas where phosphates input is a result of trans- boundary flows- albeit with a 
declining trend due to the (slow) decrease in the use of phosphates in detergents as set out 
above. Waste water treatment companies would c ontinue to face operational costs for removal 
of phosphates from detergents. The future devel opment of these costs is more difficult to 
forecast: on the one hand, the (slow) decreasi ng trend in phosphate use will reduce costs over 
time, whereas on the other hand, 
it is expected that connection rates to WWTP with tertiary 
treatment will increase in the coming years in particular in EU-12 Member States, as transition 
periods for full compliance with the UWWTD requirements for wastewater collection and treatment expire only by 2015/2018. Overall costs will, therefore, likely see a peak around 
2015, and thereafter a decreasing trend. 
In addition, if no action is taken at EU level, the existenc e of different rules in the Member 
States would continue to const itute a failure in the establishment of a functioning internal 
market for detergents. This causes compliance costs for companies operating in several Member States, although they could decide  to produce only phosphate-free detergents. 
Furthermore, current market trends show in creasing shares for liquid laundry detergents, 
which do not contain phosphates. Fragmentation of  the internal market would be an advantage 
for SMEs working only on national markets. On  the other hand, Member  States and industry 
would potentially face burdens related to the mu tual recognition of products lawfully placed 
on the markets of other Member States, if these differ in phosphates content. 
As mentioned in section 1.1.2, “no EU Action”  was favoured by only two Member States 
during the meeting of the Detergents WG  in November 2009. They argued that the 
complexity of eutrophication and the large region al differences within the EU militate against 
adopting uniform rules at EU level. Instead of  STPP restrictions at EU level, they would 
prefer a mixture of measures such as: a be tter implementation of the WWTD and WFD, better 
practices in the use of phosphate fertiliser s, and better information to the public.  
Conclusion:
 The policy option “no EU action”  is effective for tackli ng the eutrophication risk 
at national level. However, it does not seem to  be effective to address the problem at short 
term at regional level, where co-ordinated  action of several Member States involving 
considerable resources in each of them wh ich could be more burdensome than single 
 
EN 21   EN Community action. Still, in the light of current  market trends, the eutrophication risk would 
decline, albeit only slowly, whilst costs for P removal from wastewater might see a maximum 
at around 2015 before declining slowly. This op tion would not improve the functioning of the 
Internal Market, nor would it a void the potential administrative burdens for authorities and 
industry linked to mutual recognition. 
5.2. Option-2: Voluntary action by industry  
In a number of EU Member States voluntary action by detergent fo rmulators have been 
successful in tackling the problems caused by phos phates in detergents (see Annex I, Table 
1), but there have al so been failures.  
Voluntary commitments face the risk of free -riding when one or more companies do not 
adhere to them. This can easily occur when th e number of actors is high, and liability is 
collective rather than individual. Therefore, th e effectiveness of any non-statutory controls 
such as voluntary commitments or marketing/adve rtising initiatives is reliant on support from 
all stakeholders. A voluntary commitment in the Czech Republic failed due to such a lack of 
support. In 1995, the Czech government and the Czech Association of producers of Soaps, 
Cleaning Agents and Detergents – CSDPA - wh ich was set up by 5 companies representing 
90% of the market agreed to a gradual de crease in the amount of phosphates and other 
substances in water34. The programme initially had some su ccess so that the total amount of 
phosphates in laundry detergen ts decreased from 9,000 tonne s in 1995 to 5,065 tonnes in 
2003, at which point 36.6% of the overall amount  of detergents produced were phosphate 
free. However, this initial success was er oded by increasing sales of phosphate-based 
detergents by non-members of the associati on. As of 2000, the sale  of phosphate-containing 
detergents from producers other than associatio n members started to in crease from a market 
share of 10%, at the time when the voluntar y agreement was signed, to 50% by 2005 (as 
illustrated in Figure 1 of Annex I). The Czech aut horities attribute this change mainly to the 
entry of new companies (in particular SME prod ucers of P-based products) into their national 
market, and also to a change in consumer behaviour.   
Sweden concluded an agreem ent with industry to reduce the content of phosphates in 
automatic dishwasher detergents by 40% per wei ght, but this was not re spected in practice. A 
similar experience from a recent campaign on compact detergents wa s reported by Slovenia. 
In other Member States (e.g. Ireland, Germ any), however, voluntary withdrawal of 
phosphate-based detergents from the market has proven to signifi cantly reduce levels of STPP 
entering WWTP. 
The European phosphate industry (CEEP) did not s ee itself in a position to participate in a 
voluntary commitment to eliminate or reduce phosphate use in detergents. For CEEP, the 
impacts for the participating co mpanies of a "voluntary" indust ry phase-out of phosphates in 
detergents in Europe would be id entical to those of a legal ban. 
A.I.S.E represents detergent formulators at EU  level. It comprises a network of 35 national 
associations throughout the EU and some of the multinational detergent formulators and 
covers a total of 942 member co mpanies active in soaps, deterg ents or maintenance products. 
The estimated total market value of A.I.S.E.’s full membership (EU 27, plus Croatia, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey) is around €41.1 billion (A.I.S.E annual review, 2008
35). AISE possesses knowledge and experience in managing 
                                                 
34 The full text of Agreemen t can be found on the Ministry of the Environment of Czech republic website: 
www.env.cz/AIS/web.nsf/pages/voda_ochrana  
35 Available at: http://www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf  
 
EN 22   EN successful voluntary commitments. For example, in 2006-2007 A.I.S.E. carried out a two-
year Laundry Sustainability Project (LSP) w ith the objective to foster the sustainable 
consumption of laundry detergents across Europe, placing particular focus on the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe, where companies committed to reduce the dosage of a standard 
washing machine load by at least 33% in wei ght and 25% in volume.  According to data 
presented in A.I.S.E.'s 2007 annual review, th e project was a success a nd attracted interest 
from many local companies that participated reaching an average of 80% of total market 
share. Therefore, in theory such a sustainabi lity project could serve as a template for a 
voluntary phase-out of phosphates in detergents in  the EU. Such an expectation was, in fact, 
expressed by ICPDR in December 200836 indicating that ‘ further increase in phosphates-free 
detergents is strongly expected as a result of  the Project Laundry Sustainability Program in 
the identified priori ty (DRB) countries’.   
However, A.I.S.E informed the Commission in 2008 that it could not commit to a voluntary 
phase-out of phosphates in household laundry detergents for the following reasons: 
• The ability of a trade associ ation like A.I.S.E or its nati onal association affiliates to 
enforce a ban is extremely lim ited since the decision to market phosphate-free products 
lies with the companies. In addition, while A.I.S.E repres ents more than 80% of the 
products on the market, not all detergent manuf acturers are members of A.I.S.E or one of 
its affiliated national associ ations. Therefore, A.I.S.E cannot guarantee that such a 
voluntary action would deliver the phosphates reduction levels expected, or that it would 
be implemented effectively.  
• In addition, a voluntary ban must be implemente d in compliance with anti-trust law, which 
makes it all the more complicated. 
• Even if a voluntary action focusing on phos phates in household l aundry products was a 
workable option, it is unlikely that such an action would prevent certain Member States 
with the most pronounced eutrophication issu es to develop more restrictive national 
legislation. This trend has already started. So the concerns of the companies with respect 
to the Single Market would remain. 
Conclusion:  A formalised voluntary commitment at  EU level, agreeing on the necessary 
standards, ensuring participa tion by all actors concerned a nd guaranteeing monitoring of 
compliance by all EU companies could be feasible and would in principle be capable of 
achieving all the intended objectives. However, the main actor required – A.I.S.E – is unwilling to do so. Furthermore, it would be rather complicated and may create a significant burden to companies and associations to ensure full market coverage, in particular also all 
small and medium-sized detergent formulator s, and to the monitoring authorities.  
5.3. Option-3: Total ban of phospha tes in all detergent products 
A total ban of phosphates in dete rgents throughout the EU is the option with the greatest 
potential to achieve the intended objectives with in a short period of tim e. However, technical 
feasibility, potential environmental impacts of alternatives and socio-economic impacts on the 
industry need to be examined.  
5.3.1. Benefits of reduced eutrophication 
A benefit associated with a move to phosphate free detergents is a reduction in eutrophication 
through a reduction in the phosphate discharges  into the aquatic e nvironment by 110.000 t P 
                                                
 
36 All ICPDR statements and reports at: http://www.icpdr.org  
 
EN 23   EN annually (by contrast, most of the 1,5 million t of  P used in fertiliser remains on arable land). 
However, the benefit is difficult to quantify or monetise.  
The 2009 INIA model revealed that phosphates in  laundry and dishwashers detergents would 
increase the likelihood of eutrophication in EU  waters between 2.3% for the Mediterranean 
and 5.8% for the Central Baltic eco-regions, respec tively. However, the accuracy of the INIA 
results is uncertain because it is not known wh ether the data on which the calculations are 
based are representative. Neve rtheless, SCHER concluded that  detergent phosphate does not 
play a major role in eutrophication in an overall EU perspective (see A nnex II for more details 
on the INIA calculations and the SCHER opinion37). Greater contributions are calculated for 
sensitive regions with phosphates input from tr ans-boundary flows, such as the Baltic and 
Danube River Basins (see secti on 2.2.1 and Annex I, Table 4).  
The costs of eutrophication ar e difficult to monetise because  of, on the one hand, the 
complexity of the phenomenon and the number of  different impacts it can cause, and on the 
other hand because these are non-market impact s for which prices cannot be attributed. 
Environmental impacts include, for example, re ductions in the fish pop ulation due to algae 
toxicity, which can lead to a reduction in in come for fishermen. Other impacts, such as 
reductions in attractiveness as tourism destinations, recreational value (for instance impacts on bathing due to algae bloom or increase in jelly fish populations) or impacts on species 
variety (biodiversity ) are more difficult to express in monetary terms.  
Available methodologies to infer values for non-market impacts are revealed or stated 
preferences, which try to derive  the willingness to pay (or willi ngness to accept) a particular 
outcome. A number of studies have been undertak en to value reductions in eutrophication, for 
instance by directly asking individuals whether they would be willing to pay a certain amount 
to finance an improvement in the situation. Ho wever, the scenarios a nd parameters evaluated 
in the studies differ, which limits comparability of the results
38. Some studies try to derive 
willingness to pay (WTP) estimates per household and year, others per kilogram of nutrient 
avoided and yet others per day trip to a pa rticular area. The size of the environmental 
improvement (i.e. level of eutrophication reduct ion) being valued differs in each study, along 
with the baseline situation. Therefore, even where the same unit of measurement is used, 
values cover huge ranges (from for example 29 Euros per year  and household to 727 Euros 
per year and adult in two different studies). There is therefore no generally accepted value for 
the valuation of the environmental damage cau sed by eutrophication or for the valuation of 
the benefit of reducing eutrophica tion. One of the reasons for the lack of a standard value is 
that impacts on the water environment are s ubject to significant temporal and spatial 
variation, i.e. the size of the impact of eutr ophication will vary according to where and when 
the eutrophication occurs. In addition, results of economic valuation studies are highly context dependent and the estimates of willingness to pay are greatly de pendent on income levels (i.e. 
a person's WTP is based on, among other things, their income).
 This means that the 
determination of a standard valu e that takes account of  these variations is extremely difficult. 
Furthermore, the numbers of households that coul d be associated to di fferent situations are 
unknown. Given these very signific ant uncertainties, the present impact assessment does not 
try to monetise the benefits  of reduced eutrophication. 
                                                 
37 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf  
38 Some relevant studies can be found at the following links: ENVALUE database 
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalue/ , EVRI database http://www.evri.ca/ , RED database 
http://www.red-externalities.net/ , Ecosystem Services Database or ARIES database http://esd.uvm.edu/  
 
EN 24   EN The RPA report of 2006 contained a more simplisti c analysis of the benefits of a move to 
phosphate-free detergents in the EU. According to  this analysis the gr eatest benefits of a 
European ban of phosphates in detergents, in qua litative terms, would acc rue in those Member 
States with: 
• a high use of phosphates in detergents; 
• a low provision of tertiary waste water trea tment (resulting in signi ficant phosphorus loads 
being discharged to rivers/lakes/seas) and  
• existing severe problems of eutrophication. 
Estimates of per capita consumption of phosphate s-based detergents (used in both laundry and 
dishwashers) are given in Tabl e 5 of Annex I, based on info rmation from the RPA report. 
From the same study, approximate estimations of  national populations c onnected to tertiary 
waste water treatment are presented in Table 6 of  Annex I while an indica tion of the extent of 
(or, in a few countries, concern over) eutrophica tion within each country is illustrated in Table 
7 of Annex I. 
As an indicator of which countries would have th e greatest potential bene fits if they were to 
become ‘phosphate-free’, a combination of the th ree factors (by use of a scoring system) led 
to the results summarised in the following Table 2. 
Whilst this approach is fairly simplistic, it demons trates that the (potential) benefits associated 
with a ban of phosphates in detergents vary  significantly among Memb er States. Obviously, 
in countries which are already ‘phosphate -free’, or which have a very good UWWTD 
implementation or have no eutroph ication issues (e.g. Ma lta), there are generally few benefits 
to be obtained. In its statement39 of January 2010, Denmark conc urs with such a conclusion: 
“In Denmark a restriction on phosphates in detergents would not benefit the aquatic 
environment to any large extent, as 90% of the sewerage is treated in WWTP with effective P 
-removal”.  However, there could be significant be nefits in some Member States (Czech 
Republic, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary etc). 
Table 2: Qualitative benefits of Moving to Phosphate-Free Detergents 
Score  Description  Member States  
>10 Maximum Benefits  Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia 
5-10 Some Benefits  Greece, Cyprus, Estonia, UK, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Belgium, France 
1-5 Few Benefits  Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, 
Slovenia, Italy, Netherlands, Germany 
0 No Benefits  Malta 
                                                 
39 Available at:  
http://circa.europa.eu /Members/irc/enterprise/wgde t/library?l=/phosphates_deterg ents/detergents_phosphatespdf/_
EN_1.0_&a=d  
 
EN 25   EN In conclusion, although the benefits of a total ban of phosphates in detergents from reduced 
eutrophication can be assessed qu alitatively, they cannot be satis factorily quantified and will 
vary strongly across the EU. In the light of cu rrent market trends, the benefits of avoided 
eutrophication from a ban will decline, albeit only slowly, but will materialise much faster 
compared to option 1. 
5.3.2. Benefits for Waste Water Treatment 
As described in section 2.2.2, removal of phospha tes from detergents has significant cost 
benefits for the operatio n of WWTP. At current treatment conditions, a ban of phosphates in 
detergents would save operators of ex isting WWTP between €10 million to €693 million 
annually in operating costs. The future developmen t of these benefits is somewhat difficult to 
forecast: on the one hand, the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use in detergents (about 
50% over the past 25 years i.e. 2% per year) will reduce benef its of a ban over time, whereas, 
on the other hand, it is expected that connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment will increase 
in the coming years in particular in EU-12 Member States, which will increase the benefits in 
terms of avoided treatment costs. Overall benefits of a ban will, therefore, likely see a peak around 2015, and thereafter are expected to dimi nish over time. However, compared to option 
1, benefits will materialise much faster through the implementation of this option. 
5.3.3. Costs of a ban of phosphates in detergents 
5.3.3.1. Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives 
CEEP contends that STTP produced for use in detergents is a “commod ity” product, and that 
a home market base is essential for the surviv al of any STPP manufact urer. Where a company 
loses its “home” STPP market, the resulting reduction in production/sa les volumes destroys 
competitiveness for other markets where local pr oducers still have a “h ome” sales base with 
lower transport and export costs.  In particular, without a home market in Europe, a European 
producer cannot compete effectively outside Europe with Asian or South American 
producers. CEEP reported that there are now 7 STPP producing pl ants in Europe which would 
be affected in the event of a ban of phosphates in detergents. C EEP estimated that a total ban 
of STPP in all detergents could be expected to lead to a total of 3 000 – 5 000 job losses in the 
EU. Closures of STPP production will have knock- on effects leading to overall plant and site 
restructuring and closures, while other phospha tes based products (e.g. in the food industry) 
will also be affected as they use common intermediates such as purified phosphoric acid. Without the use in detergents, it is probabl e that the production of phosphoric acid and its 
purification would no longer be ec onomically viable in Europe, so that the EU would finally 
become dependent on imports (in particular from North Africa and other phosphates-rock 
producing areas). CEEP estimates that in  2007 around 190,000 t of STPP were exported from 
the EU leading to a contribution to the EU ba lance of payments at slightly over €100 million. 
The loss of the European laund ry STPP markets would thus imply the loss of this export 
economy. However, it has to be noted that e xports had already declined to 100,000 t in 2008 
despite the absence of any legisl ative action on phosphates by the EU. 
Purified (industrial grade) phosphoric acid has a wide range of uses. These include food grade 
phosphates (in low volumes, but requiring very hi gh purity) and a wide range of different 
phosphates for different specific applications  including also the pharmaceutical industry, 
ammonium phosphates (used in hi gh-grade garden fertilisers,  fire extinguishers, yeast 
products, for example), dicalcium phosphates (u sed in dental and ot her medical products, 
animal feeds), phosphates for the electronics indu stries, and in metal surface preparation prior 
to painting (e.g. car industry).  According to CEEP, the termination of STTP production and 
the ensuing closure of phosphoric acid purifi cation plants would probably lead to the 
termination of these high-techno logy, high-value-added products  in Europe. However, this 
 
EN 26   EN claim seems somewhat exaggerated, as downs tream users could replace domestic production 
of purified phosphoric acid with imports. 
According to the report by WRc in 200640, the EU currently contribut es to less than 10% of 
the world’s STPP production. Therefore, while an  EU ban on STPP use would transfer STPP 
manufacturing to countries outside  the EU, such as China and India, the economic loss of this 
would not be considered gr eat in overall EU terms.  
RPA indicates in its report in  2006 that losses for phosphates pr oducers would be offset, to a 
greater or lesser extent, by an e xpansion of activities of the EU producers of  zeolites (as main 
alternatives to STPP at this time). There are currently nine  EU zeolite manufacturers with 
plants in Hungary, Italy, UK, Spain (two), Germany, Belgium, Slovenia and Netherlands. 
However, this was not confirmed by the Euro pean zeolite producer association (EUZEPA) 
who claim that in case of an EU  ban of phosphates in detergents  no increases (or very limited) 
in the production of zeolites, th e turnover of their companies, or  the creation of new job in the 
sector should be expected.  According to information provided by EUZEPA in January 2010 
zeolites are no longer the main substitutes for p hosphates in detergents. The trend is more 
towards use of various mixes of co-builders li ke citrates, polycarboxyla tes and/or polymers, 
and, therefore, STPP are not re placed by equal amounts of zeol ites as alternat ive builders. 
Furthermore, the consumption of powder deterg ents is decreasing, as they are replaced by 
liquid detergents in which no builders are necessary.  
5.3.3.2. Reformulation & other costs for detergent producers  
It can be expected that larger detergent formul ators operating in several or all Member States 
would find it relatively easy to substitute dete rgents containing phosphates with comparable 
alternative formulations as th ey normally already offer phospha te-free detergents in those 
Member States where phosphates have alrea dy been phased out. There might still be some 
marginal costs associated with re-branding.  
The situation becomes more complex for smalle r formulators (in particular SMEs) serving 
only their domestic markets with detergents  based on phosphates. The SME consultation 
(details are presented in Annex III) yiel ded information on product reformulation. SME 
detergent formulators informed that they re formulate their products on average every 3.5 
years with an average cost of about €5,600. The one-off reform ulation costs for replacing 
phosphates were estimated to be  on average at about €10,800. Th e large majority of SMEs 
(~60%) also claimed that possible modifications to their production line s would be required in 
case of STPP substitution. Moreover, ~25% of the SMEs informed of expected adverse economic impacts to their companies from a potential EU ban of STPP in all detergent 
products such as: 10-20% economic loss (e.g. hi gher cost of production due to use of more 
alternatives to achieve a similar cleaning performa nce), decreased sales, loss of market share, 
need for new investments, loss of clients etc.  
According to the report of RPA in 2006, change in formulation may well place SME 
formulators at a disadvantage leading to a loss of  their market share to the large international 
companies - particularly in those countries with limited experience of zeolite detergent 
formulation (such as Poland). However, such di sadvantages might be reduced if a sufficiently 
long transition time would be foreseen be fore phosphates restrictions would apply. 
Membership statistics for A.I.S.E suggest that  there could be a few hundred SME formulators 
across the EU-27 (> 600 in 2007) each producing several formulations.  Assuming that each of 
                                                
 
40 Available at: http://www.undp-drp.org/pdf/1.8_Detergents/1.8% 20Detergent%20Inception%20Report_WRc-f.pdf  
 
EN 27   EN the 600 SMEs would formulate on average between  4 and 22 products (estimate based on the 
information contained in Annex III) and aver age reformulation costs of ca. €11.000, total 
(one-off) reformulation costs would be between €26 million and €142 million. 
5.3.3.3. Technical feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents Adequate performance of alte rnative builders to phosphates is important for both private 
consumers and professional users. A.I.S.E c onsiders that alternatives for phosphates are 
available and are widely accepted by consumers in the area of household laundry products. 
However, this is not yet the case for automatic  dishwashing (ADW) products because of more 
demanding technical requirements. A report from  A.I.S.E in 2009 based on a consultation of 
its members
41, identifies the following alternatives to  STPP in ADW products:  sodium citrates 
(in combination with polymers/polycarboxy lates), sodium phosphonates, gluconate, 
polycarboxylates; methylglycin  diacetic acid (MGDA). A ma jority of the respondents 
identified certain point s of concern including: 
• Limited production capacity/volum es in relation to a number of  alternative substances for 
various reasons such as novelty  of substances demand from  other industries, limited 
number of suppliers. 
• Greater difficulty in formula ting tablets without phosphates due  to limitations related to 
tablet production (e.g. stabilit y, hygroscopy/water absorption). 
• Key product performance attributes/dimensi ons that are impacted when replacing 
phosphates in ADW such as: soil suspension/di spersion, certain soils/stains, spotting and 
filming; reduced rinse aid function etc. 
Consequently, in order to achieve complete pho sphates-free ADW detergents that will have 
the current level of cleaning performance, further innovation and significant additional 
investments will still be required.  
In the I&I sector, there are, according to A.I. S.E, no satisfactory replacement substances for 
phosphate available today that would not impact e ither on performance, or chemical load (e.g. 
higher surfactant use), or water and energy use, or would lead to increasing use of ingredients 
with potential adverse e ffects on health or environment, if they were to be used in higher 
quantities, e.g. nitriloacetic acid (NTA)  and ethylendiammine tetra acetate (EDTA). Table 8 
in Annex I contains further details. 
Input on the technical feasibility of STPP alte rnatives was also provided during the 2009 SME 
consultation (details are given in Annex III). Th e situation was relative ly balanced concerning 
the question as whether currently it is tech nically possible to replace phosphates in their 
detergent formulations, with 42% of SMEs repl ying positively. A clear majority of the total 
replies (58%) indicate d, though, that SMEs expect less efficient washing and reduced 
cleaning performance  as the main adverse effects of replacing phosphates.  
According to this consultation, th e main alternative builders, in decreasing order of use, were: 
phosphonates, citrates, polycarboxylate s, zeolites, EDTA and NTA. It seems that zeolites are 
no longer the builders most commonly used by thes e SMEs, in contrast to what was noted by 
RPA in 2006 when zeolites dominated the market of STPP alternatives. This is consistent 
with information from EUZEPA in 2010 that zeol ites are no longer the main substitute for 
                                                 
41 Available at: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/ enterprise/wgdet/library?l=/phosphates_detergents/detergents_2009
pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d  
 
EN 28   EN phosphates in detergents as the trend is more to ward use of various mixes of co-builders like 
citrates, polycarboxylates and/or polymers. 
5.3.3.4. Economic feasibility of STPP alternatives in detergents According to A.I.S.E, as for any product, it  makes sense economica lly that changes in 
supply/demand balance of an ingredient su ch as STPP could encourage suppliers to 
commercialise alternatives that may not have b een seen as economically viable previously. 
An assessment of the economics of phosphates versus  possible alternatives is complicated by 
the frequent and often unpredictable changes in  raw materials availability such as phosphate 
rock, oil, ethylene, etc. It s hould be noted that switching to a lternatives may not only require 
full reformulation but may also entail process changes, especially in the I&I sector, with 
related additional costs. In that context, A.I.S.E argues that harmonised EU legislation 
regulating the use of pho sphates would avoid distortion of the Single Market and undue costs 
to the consumer.  
CEEP has claimed that the additional cost for th e detergents industry (whi ch will be passed to 
the consumer) of manufacturing phosphates- free detergents would correspond in a 
conservative estimate to 1% of detergents ingred ient costs or 0.2% increase in price to the 
consumer. CEEP has recently (2009) informed  that this figure refers only to the ongoing 
material costs, and does not include the “one-o ff” R&D, factory equipment and other change-
over costs of reformulation. Considering that a ccording to AISE the total market value of 
soaps, detergents and maintenance products (for both household and I&I products) for 2008 is 
estimated to be €36 billion (EU 27 + Norway), the above-mentioned 0.2% value would correspond to about €72 million.  
In contrast, 60% of the SMEs that participated  in the 2009 SME consultation reported that the 
price of phosphates was on average ~46% higher than the price of alternative build ers in their 
products, although the situation was variable betw een the Member States. As a consequence, 
they claimed that the retail price of P-based products may actually be about 19% higher that 
that of products based on STPP alternatives . However given the problem of technical 
performance caused by the use of STPP alternativ es in particular in ADW and I&I products as 
explained above, it seems that SMEs and their c lients are ready to accept such difference of 
the retail price in the lig ht of better performance.  
5.3.3.5. Health and environmental aspects of STTP alternatives Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (H ERA) reports for STPP alternatives have 
demonstrated that their use of in household de tergents does not cause significant health or 
environmental risks. Concerning zeolites both the HERA report
42 and the 2003 SCTEE 
opinion43 concluded that their use in detergen ts does not pose any direct health or 
environmental risks although it would lead to an increase in the use of associated co-builders 
such as polycarboxylates and phosphonates. In  addition, the 2006 RPA report reviewed the 
health and environmental effects of other STPP alternatives, and this report together with any 
other available scientific evidence was furthe r evaluated by SCHER. In its opinion of 2007, 
SCHER identifies no problem for the use of citr ic acid, however indicated some uncertainties 
for: (a) phosphonates and EDTA for which further investigation would be  required to clarify 
some uncertainties; (b) polycar boxylates and their co-polymers as particular emphasis was 
given on some existing uncertainties, mainly concerning the effects of these ingredients in aquatic and terrestrial envir onmental compartments. A summary of the SCHER opinion on 
                                                
 
42 Available at: http://www.heraproject.com/fi les/8-F-04-%20HERA%20Zeolite %20full%20V3%20web%20wd.pdf  
43 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/sct_opinions_en.htm  
 
EN 29   EN the RPA and HERA reports is given in A nnex II. In 2009, the producer industry has 
committed to further investigations in orde r to clarify the remaining concerns on 
polycarboxylates.  
The main polycarboxylates producer in the EU (B ASF) does not expect a significant increase 
of polycarboxylates use as a consequence of a p hosphates ban in the EU due to a trend to an 
increased use of liquid laundry detergents wh ich do not contain polycarboxylates (or other 
alternatives to STPP). A.I.S.E. confirmed this tr end and noted that it is, in general, expected 
that use of liquid laundry detergents continues to  grow (especially in Western Europe), which 
will reduce the consumption of polycarboxylates. In  Eastern European countries there may be 
a time lag in this trend as c onsumers still mainly use powder laundry detergents. A phosphate-
ban might lead to a short-term increase in  polycarboxylate consumption, until liquid laundry 
detergents become established in these countries.  
It should be noted also that countries with l ong-standing legislative re striction on phosphates 
(e.g Italy, Belgium) informed that no adverse h ealth or environmental effects from use of 
STPP alternatives have been observed in their territories. Table 8 of Annex I summarises the main functions and environmental issues of the most commonly used STPP alternatives. 
There are no significant differences in ener gy use between P-contai ning and P-free laundry 
detergents as washing temperature (the largest fa ctor in energy use) is primarily influenced by 
the presence of other ingredients such as surfactants and enzymes. 
Conclusion:
 A total ban of detergent phosphate would be the most effective policy option for 
reducing the eutrophication risk th roughout the EU and w ould in particular also address trans-
boundary flows of phosphates in ri ver basins or marine waters  shared by several Member 
States – quantification or monetisa tion of the benefits of this re duced risk is not feasible. In 
the light of current market trends, the benef its of avoided eutrophication from a ban will 
decline, albeit only slowly, but will mate rialise much faster than in option 1. 
Elimination of all phosphates in detergents would reduce op erational costs for WWTP under 
current conditions in the order of €10 million to €693 million per year. Due to the (slow) 
decreasing trend in phosphate use and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatme nt costs will likely see a peak around 2015, 
and thereafter are expected to diminish over time. However, compared to option 1, benefits 
will materialise much faster through the implementation of this option. 
This option would ensure a fully harmonised inte rnal market for detergents, thus eliminating 
any additional costs for industry and administ rations due to the current fragmentation and 
avoiding potential new costs from the requireme nts for mutual recognition. The option would 
also be more efficient than individual acti on by all Member States concerned, where regional 
co-operation is required.  
A ban of phosphates in the en tire EU would cause advers e economic impacts on SME 
formulators (the majority of which mainly form ulate I&I products) leadi ng to a loss of their 
market share to the large inte rnational companies. Total reformulation costs (one-off) are 
estimated in a range of €20 – €142 million. When comparing the lower estimates of reformulation costs and benefits in avoided wa ste water treatment costs, net benefits would 
accrue after 2 years, whereas using the higher estim ates would lead to net benefits within one 
year already. However, currently no technically  feasible alternatives exist for I&I products, 
while issues of technical performance have not  been completely resolved for ADW products. 
The actual costs for replacing phosphates in ADW and I&I would therefore be much higher as 
additional significant investments in research  and innovation would be necessary. A ban of 
 
EN 30   EN phosphates despite the lack of alternatives for ADW and I&I detergents would also have 
negative consequences for consumers a nd professional users of detergents. 
Phosphates producers would suffer from plan t closures and job losses of 3000-5000, which 
would not be offset by additional production or jobs for zeolite producers. Producers of other 
alternatives might see such economic benefits, but no quantitative informa tion is available.  
At the discussions of the November 2009 meeti ng of the Detergents WG, this policy option 
was favoured by 3 Member States that have al ready restricted the use of phosphates in 
laundry detergents and see such a measure as a step forward to  further combat eutrophication 
in their waters. 
5.4. Option 4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents 
This option is similar to option 3, but as it w ould affect only laundry detergents and not ADW 
or I & I detergents, the magnitudes of benefits and costs will be different.  
5.4.1. Benefits of reduced eutrophication  
About 60% of STPP in the EU is currently us ed in laundry detergents  according to CEEP. 
Their elimination will reduce the risks of eutrop hication similar to option 3, albeit to a smaller 
extent. As in option 3, these benefits cannot be quantified or monetised. In the light of current 
market trends, they will decline, albeit only slow ly, but will materialise much faster compared 
to option 1. 
5.4.2. Benefits for waste water treatment  
The benefits to WWTP are accordingly 60% of those of option 3, namely between €6 million 
to €415 million annually for the operating costs.  Due to the (slow) decreasing trend in 
phosphate use and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment the benefits in 
terms of avoided treatment costs will likel y see a peak around 2015, and thereafter are 
expected to diminish over time. However, co mpared to option 1, benefits would materialise 
much faster through the implementation of this option. 
5.4.3. Cost of a restriction on STPP in laundry detergents  
5.4.3.1. Impacts on the phosphates industry and on producers of alternatives 
CEEP has recently contended that the majority  of EU STPP productio n goes into domestic 
laundry detergents, whereas the dishwasher de tergent STPP market alone does not offer the 
demand necessary to absorb excess production in  the case of an EU ban of phosphates in 
laundry detergents. In addition, industrial an d food phosphates involve considerably lower 
volumes and different qualities of product, an d could not take up excess detergent STPP 
production. Therefore, a laundry detergent phosphate  ban would lead to closures of some 
STPP production units, and could le ad to a total of 1000 – 1650 j ob losses in the EU. CEEP 
also considers that given that the zeolite in dustry currently faces over-capacity, and the 
significant STPP export markets which would be lost, it is improbable that these job losses 
would be compensated by job creation elsewher e. As mentioned in section 5.3.3.1, this has 
also been confirmed by EUZEPA. 
5.4.3.2. Reformulation and other costs for detergent producers From the consultation of SMEs formulators of  laundry detergents c oncerning the impact of 
potential STPP restrictions, it emerged that repl acement of phosphates in  laundry detergents is 
in principle possible (fea sibility of alternatives is explai ned in option 3) but some companies 
assert that the zeolite based products will ha ve a lower performan ce and there will be 
problems with laundry powder in the clothes after washing. The problem is generally 
 
EN 31   EN perceived as more severe in th e Mediterranean, where water is harder compared to the very 
soft water conditions in Scandinavia, and woul d therefore concern more the SMEs in these 
countries. Overall, it is possible that a sma ll number of SMEs that are specialised in 
phosphates-based laundry detergents could loose their market share to the advantage of the 
large multinational companies.  
The 2009 SME consultation revealed that 50 % of the responding SMEs produced laundry 
detergents (solely or in addi tion to other types) with on average 4 production lines. With 
similar estimation as previously given in optio n 3 (for a total of 600 European SMEs and an 
average reformulation cost of ~€11.000) total reformulation costs for substituting phosphates 
for SMEs producing laundry detergents will be  ~€13.2 million. However, it should be noted 
that detergent manufacturers need to reformulate their products on a regul ar basis to maintain 
competitiveness, so that allowing sufficient ti me for reformulation may be a more important 
issue than cost. 
5.4.3.3. Technical and economic feasib ility and health and enviro nmental considerations for 
alternatives to phosphates in laundry detergents 
These factors have already been examined as part of the analysis of option 3. A.I.S.E and 
SME's have confirmed that a replacement of ph osphates in laundry deterg ents is technically 
feasible without loss of performance for private consumers, and is not expected to lead to 
higher product costs (apart from the reformula tion costs mentioned in the preceding section).  
Apart from the remaining uncertainties around polycarboxylates already discussed in option 
3, no adverse effects on human health or the environment are expected.  
Conclusion : A ban of phosphates in laundry detergen ts would reduce the eutrophication risk 
throughout the EU and would in particular also a ddress trans-boundary flows of phosphates in 
river basins or marine waters shared by several Member States – albeit to a somewhat lesser 
extent than option 3. A quantification or monetisation of the benefits of this reduced risk is 
not feasible. Benefits will decline over time in the light of market trends, albeit only slowly, 
but will materialise much faster compared to option 1. 
Elimination of phosphates in laundry detergen ts would reduce operatio nal costs for WWTP 
under current conditions in the order of €6 million to €415 million per year . Due to the (slow) 
decreasing trend in phosphate use and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatme nt costs will likely see a peak around 2015, 
and thereafter are expected to diminish over time. However, compared to option 1, benefits 
would materialise much faster throug h the implementation of this option. 
Total reformulation costs (one-off) for laundry detergent formulators are estimated at ~€13.2 
millions, but there would not be any significant problems with regard to technical or economic feasibility otherwise. Ne ither private consumers nor prof essional users of detergents 
will be adversely affected. When comparing the reformulation costs and benefits in avoided waste water treatment costs, using the lower estimates for avoided costs in waster water treatment would lead to net benefits within 3 years, whereas using th e higher estimates would 
lead to net benefits within one year already. A nnex IV contains a sensitivity analysis for the 
comparison of costs and benefits of  option 4 for various scenarios.  
A transition period of ca. 3 year s in line with normal reformul ation cycles would reduce costs 
for adaptation by SME formulators of laundry dete rgents somewhat more, in particular for 
those located in new MS as  recently underlined by Pola nd, Hungary and others. CEEP 
estimates job losses of ~1000-1650 in phosphates producing companies, which would probably not be offset by gains for zeolites producers.  
 
EN 32   EN This option would ensure a fully harmonised in ternal market for laundry detergents, thus 
eliminating any additional costs for industr y and administrations due to the current 
fragmentation and avoiding poten tial new costs from the requireme nts for mutual recognition. 
The option would also be more efficient th an individual action by all Member States 
concerned, where regional co-operation is requi red. Full harmonisation w ould not be achieved 
for ADW or I&I detergents. However, it should be noted that only very few Member States 
(e.g. Sweden, France) have informed of their intention to extend thei r existing legislative 
restrictions for phosphates in la undry detergents to I&I and ADW products in the future (with 
appropriate transition periods).  
At the discussions of the November 2009 meeti ng of the Detergents WG, this policy option 
was favoured by 14 Member States, as the most  appropriate and effective policy option. It 
should be noted that further consultation with Me mber States in 2010 revealed that, in spite of 
the availability of efficient alternatives, a requirement for a zero c ontent of phosphorus in 
laundry detergents would be impr actical for reason of technical performance (but also due to 
the use of phosphonates as co-builders to zeol ites). Therefore, for regulatory purposes a 
certain limit value (expressed as elemental phosphorous) will have to be defined.  
Member States would prefer a harmonised limit close to their existing national limits. Italy 
and the Czech Republic have imposed in their law a limit of 0.5% P w/w. Latvia and Poland are proposing the same limit in their draft nationa l legislation, which is  not yet adopted, whilst 
UK is envisaging a vey similar limit of 0.4% P w/w. Sweden and Norway restrict phosphates 
at 0.2% P w/w. The lower restriction level impos ed by Nordic countries may be associated to 
their “soft water” conditions which therefore require fewer quantities of phosphonates as 
STPP alternative builders to ach ieve the same cleaning perfor mance of the product. Looking 
beyond the EU, since the early 1970s and the Cl ean Water act of 1972, an increasing number 
of US States - starting first w ith voluntary agreement - implemented either complete or partial 
bans of phosphates in laundry de tergents with phosphorous cont ent usually limited to 0.5% by 
weight. More recently, Canada has informed of their intention to impose a 0.5% w/w limit for P in laundry detergents. An EU limit will ther efore be set somewhere in the range of 0.2 – 
0.5% w/w in further consultations with the Member States. 
5.5. Option-5: Setting limit val ues for the content of phos phates in all detergents  
5.5.1. Feasibility At the meeting of the Detergents WG in November 2009, three Member States favoured 
setting different limit values for P in laundry, ADW and I&I detergents as most proportionate 
risk management measure. Whereas there is a la rge degree of consensus that limit values for P 
in laundry detergents should be  in the range 0.2 – 0.5%, there is much less consensus on 
appropriate limits for P in  ADW and I&I detergents.  
Italy has set a limit of 6% P by mass for ADW detergents. Norway has adopted a limit value 
of 3.8% by mass for ADW detergents and 10% fo r I&I detergents. This shows already that 
opinions on the appropriate limit va lues are widely diverging and practical experience is not 
yet much developed. There would, therefore, be a risk that a final compromise at EU level 
would not be accepted by those Member States w ho have already set a lower limit in national 
legislation, which could lead to  requests under Article 114 TFEU  by these Member States to 
maintain the national legislation for ADW and I&I detergents. Such requests trigger 
significant work for the requesting Member State and the Commission to adopt a formal 
decision on the request within 6 months.  
A.I.S.E favours a quite different approach  for ADW detergents, namely, a limit value 
equivalent to 2,5 grams P per wash. A ‘grams-pe r-wash’ limit will allow more flexibility for 
 
EN 33   EN further compaction of ADW detergents, which is s een as a key to enhanced sustainability via 
reduced chemicals use, reduced packaging, and reduced transportation,  thus enabling lower 
energy consumption and therefore lower CO 2 emissions. The limit value corresponds to the 
current phosphates ceiling criteri on of the EU Ecolabel. A.I.S. E believes manufacturers could 
meet such a requirement by 2012. For I&I detergents A.I.S.E. believes continued use of phosphates is necessary given the performance le vel required for those applications and the 
diversity of formulations and therefore no technically acceptabl e limit can be proposed for the 
time being. 
5.5.2. Cost and benefit considerations 
In general, the cost and benefit estimations as indicated in the analysis of options 3 and 4 are 
also valid for this option, as the existing limits  mainly impact the deliberate use of phosphates 
in detergents: at 0.5% (or lower) P w/w in la undry detergents, practic ally no phosphates can 
be added to laundry detergents, as solely P from phosphonates (co-builder s for zeolites) will 
already come close to this limit value. Depe nding on where the limit values for ADW and I&I 
products would be set (if indeed harmonised valu es could be proposed at this time), impacts 
on companies from the adoption of this policy opti on at EU level would be similar to those of 
a total ban, because extensive re formulation would be necessary. 
The benefits for eutrophication and for the reduced cost of wa ste water treatment would be 
intermediate between options 3 and 4. 
Conclusion
: This policy option could be effective, in theory, in reducing the eutrophication 
risk at EU level by reducing the STTP use in a ll detergent formulations. However, in terms of 
practicality, it would not be eas y to agree on common EU restri ction levels for ADW and I&I 
detergents that would be feas ible and technically / economica lly viable. Given the current 
performance limitation in ADW and I&I products, further investigation would be required in 
order to agree on technically feasible phosphate levels. Sett ing limit values that are not 
accepted by all Member States could lead to high administrative burdens for submitting and 
deciding on requests for deroga tion under Article 114 TFEU. 
6. C OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
A comparison of the examined policy options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, 
environmental impacts, and economic cost/benefit estimations is given below in Table 3.
 
EN 34   EN TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF THE EXAMINED POLICY OPTIONS  
OPTION EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY ENVIRO NMENAL IMPACTS COST/BENEFITS 
Option-1:   
No action at EU 
level, leaving the 
responsibility to act to the Member States 
(baseline option)  Neutral:  Current trends 
would continue, 
eutrophication risk 
maybe be effectively tacked only at national 
level, overall use of 
phosphates in detergents would 
gradually decrease.  Neutral: This option would 
not improve the functioning 
of the Internal Market (MS 
could still adopt diverging rules) nor would it reduce 
the administrative burdens 
to administrations and industry linked to mutual 
recognition.  Neutral:  not sufficient to 
combat eutrophication at 
regional level, where co-
ordinated action of several Member States would require 
considerable resources from 
each of them, but gradual decrease expected in the light of 
decreasing phosphates use. Neutral: total costs in waste water treatment plants with tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to €10-693 million 
per year (only for chemical treat ment), maximum expected around 
2015 due to increasing connectivity to WWTP but thereafter gradual decrease due to slowly decreasing phosphates use. 
Option-2 :  
Voluntary action by 
industry  (+)  
A formalised voluntary 
commitment at EU 
level, agreeing on the 
necessary standards, ensuring participation 
by all actors concerned 
could be, in theory feasible and effective.  (-) 
Considering the current 
unwillingness of the 
relevant industry to organise 
such voluntary action, the measure does not appear to 
be feasible.  (+)  
In theory, it could reduce the 
eutrophication risk throughout 
the EU.  (-)  
Administrative costs for industry and local supervising bodies for 
setting up, enforcing and monitoring voluntary commitments can 
be significant.  
Option-3:   
Total ban of 
phosphates in detergents 
 (++)  
It would be an effective 
policy option in reducing the 
eutrophication risk 
throughout the EU.  (++)  
This option would improve 
the functioning of the Internal Market and would 
reduce the administrative 
burdens to administrations and industry linked to 
mutual recognition 
A single action at EU level 
would be more efficient 
than multiple actions by (++)  
The option would yield the 
greatest benefits in terms of reduced eutrophication risks. It 
would  reduce cross-boundary 
flow of phosphates in river basins or marine waters shared 
by several Member States. 
Benefits would decrease slowly 
over time due to decreasing 
trend in phosphates use, but 
would materialise much faster (--)  
Total reformulation costs for SMEs are roughly estimated in a 
range of €20 – 142 million (one-off).  
Total savings in waste water treatment plants with tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to €10 to €693 
million per year. Due to the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary 
treatment the benefits in terms of avoided treatment costs will 
likely see a peak around 2015, and thereafter  are expected to 
diminish over time. However, compared to option 1, benefits 
would materialise much faster through the implementation of this 
option. 
 
EN 35   EN Member States.  
 than in option 1. When comparing the lower estimates of reformulation costs and 
benefits in avoided waste water treatment costs, net benefits would 
accrue after 2 years, whereas using the higher estimates would lead to net benefits within one year  already. However, there are 
currently no technically feasible a lternatives exist for I&I products, 
while issues of technical performance have not been completely resolved for ADW products. This would lead do significant costs 
for research and innovation. Consumers and professional users 
would be adversely affected. 
Job losses of 3000-5000 are expected by P-industry, which will 
only be partly offset by gains in the production of alternatives.  
Option-4:  Restriction 
of phosphates in laundry detergents  
 (+)  
It would be an effective 
policy option in 
reducing the 
eutrophication risk throughout the EU 
considering that 60% of 
STPP is used in laundry detergents.  (+)  
It would ensure a fully 
harmonised internal market 
for laundry detergents, thus 
eliminating any additional costs for industry and 
administrations due to 
market fragmentation and the requirement for mutual 
recognition.  
A single action at EU level 
would be more efficient 
than multiple actions by Member States. (+) 
The option would lead to 
benefits in terms of reduced 
eutrophication risks, albeit 
somewhat lower than option 3. It would be effective to reduce 
cross-boundary flow of 
phosphates in river basins or marine waters shared by several 
Member States. 
Benefits would decrease slowly 
over time due to decreasing 
trend in phosphates use but would materialise much faster 
than in option 1. (++)  
Total reformulation costs for SMEs are roughly estimated in a 
range of €13 million and SMEs.  
Total savings in waste water treatment plants with tertiary 
treatment for phosphate removal would amount to between €6 and €415 million. Due to the (slow) decreasing trend in phosphate use 
and increasing connection rates to WWTP with tertiary treatment 
the benefits in terms of avoided treatment costs will likely see a peak around 2015, and thereafter are expected to diminish over 
time. However, compared to option 1, benefits would materialise 
much faster through the implementation of this option. 
Comparing the reformulation costs and benefits in avoided waste 
water treatment costs, when using the lower estimates net benefits would accrue within 3 years, wher eas using the higher estimate 
would lead to net benefits within one year already  
Technically and economically f easible alternatives exist. 
Job losses of 1000-1650 are expected by P-industry, which will 
only be partly offset by gains in the production of alternatives. 
Option-5:  Setting 
limit values for the 
content of 
phosphates in 
detergents   (+)  
Similar to Option 3.  (-)  
It would not be easy to 
agree on common EU limits 
that would be feasible, in 
particular for I&I and ADW detergents.  (+)  
Impacts somewhere between 
options 3 and 4.  (--) 
Impacts on companies would be somewhere between those of 
option-3 or 4 (dependent on the restriction limit) 
Significant administrative burden ar e expected for MS, that would 
submit requests under Article 114 of the Treaty to be authorised to maintain their current legislation.  
 
EN 36   EN In conclusion, option 4 (restriction of pho sphates in laundry detergents)  would be an 
effective and proportionate measure to reduce the eutrophication risk throughout the EU. It 
addresses the cross-boundary fl ow of phosphates from the main  detergent source in river 
basins or marine waters shared by several Me mber States more effectively than Member 
States can do alone or in regional agreements. It would create a fully harmonised internal market for laundry detergents. Costs for indust ry and administrations due to the current 
fragmentation and the requirement for mutual recognition would be eliminated. This option 
would be easily accepted by Member St ates and detergent formulators.  
The measure would be proportionate  as technical and economically feasible alternatives for 
phosphates in laundry detergents are available (c ontrary to ADW and I&I detergents). Neither 
consumers nor professional users would be ad versely affected. Detergent formulators would 
need to spend about €13 million on reformulati on as a one-off cost, which would be largely 
offset by reduced costs for removal of phosphates in WWTP of the order of €6 to €415 million per year. Comparing the reformulation costs and benefits in avoided waste water 
treatment costs and using the lower estimates, net benefits would accr ue within 3 years, 
whereas using the higher estimat es would lead to net benef its within one year already. 
Removal of phosphates from laundry detergents appears thus to be a more cost-efficient 
measure for nutrient elimination in waste wate r than waste water treatment. In addition, 
compared to option 1, benefits would materia lise much faster through the implementation of 
this option. To accommodate the reformulation into their normal product development cycle, SMEs would need several years to adapt their whole range of products.  
The most significant negative impacts would be  on phosphate producers who would loose part 
of their market with closure of some plants and expected job losses of 1000 - 1650. However, 
it has to be noted that use of phosphates in dete rgents has already declined significantly in the 
past and phosphates producers would have to adapt to this trend in any case. 
Option 3 would generate high benefits when onl y comparing direct reformulation and waste 
water treatment costs. However, there are curren tly no technically feasible alternatives for I&I 
products, while issues of technical performance have not been completely resolved for ADW 
products. This would require si gnificant additional efforts in  research and innovation. A 
number of EU SMEs may be adversely affect ed. In addition, option 3 would result in 2000-
3000 additional job losses compared with optio n 4. Option 4 would allow reaping significant 
net benefits without raising problems re garding performance or availability. 
Option 4 was favoured by the majority of Member  States, as indicated during the meeting of 
the Detergents WG in November 2009 and by wr itten statements sent  to the Commission.  
The policy option could be implemented in a number of ways: by amending Regulation (EC) 
No 648/2004 on detergents, by an ad hoc regulation, or by imposing restrictions under 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REA CH), although the latter would mean that the procedures 
foreseen in REACH will have to be followed, wh ich would lead to further delays in adopting 
the envisaged restrictions. 
There would be no impact on the EU budget.  No significant impacts on administrative burden for enterprises are expected. 
SME impacts have been described in various sections (see also Annex III B). 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Monitoring the implementation of  a ban of the use of phospha tes in detergents should be 
relatively straightforward, given that suitable systems have b een established either under the 
 
EN 37   EN Detergents Regulation or under other legislativ e frameworks that impose restrictions of 
chemicals (e.g. monitoring mechanisms under the REACH Regulation). Monitoring restrictions of phosphates in detergents will only be a ma rginal addition to obligations to 
monitor an existing range of restrictions on ch emical substances already being monitored. 
Additional efforts might be required by customs se rvices (or other authorities in the Member 
States in charge of monitori ng imports), but again, the necessary structures and practices 
should already be in place with regard to a nu mber of other substances which are already 
restricted and have to be monitored.  
Eutrophication will be regularly monitored unde r the WFD (at least every 6 months for 
phytoplankton and every 3 years for other aquatic fl ora). The reports of the Member States on 
the design of the monitoring programmes (Art. 8 WFD) show that monitoring of 
eutrophication is largely in place.  
The Commission will also monitor further deve lopments with regard to technical and 
economic feasibility with regard to the repla cement of phosphates in ADW detergents, and if 
appropriate, consider an extension of the re strictions for the use of phosphates to ADW 
detergents. 
 
EN 38   EN  
8. R EFERENCES  
1. DEFRA (2008).  Consultation on options for control of phosphates in domestic 
laundry cleaning products in England. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/qual ity/water/waterqua lity/diffuse/non-
%20agri/documents/consu ltation2008-detergents.pdf ) 
2. DRMP (2009).  Danube River Basin District Management 
(http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/danube_rbm_plan_ready.htm ) 
3. HERA (2003).  Sodium Tripolyphosphate (STPP) CAS: 7758-29-4. 
(http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm?SUBID=13 ) 
4. HERA (2009).  Polycarboxylates used in detergents. 
(http://www.heraproject.com/file s/32-F-HERApolycarboxylates_2009-04-
08.pdf  ) 
5. INIA (2009).  Model validation using the WF D Intercalibration data, model 
recalibration and Pan-European Asse ssment of the eutrophication risk 
associated to the use of  phosphates in detergents. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/sectors/chemicals/files /docs/ceep_study_final_r
eport_042009_en.pdf ) 
6. RPA (2006).  Non-surfactant Organic Ingr edients and Zeolite-based 
Detergents. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/ente rprise/sectors/chemica ls/documents/specific 
chemicals/detergents)  
7. SCHER (2009). Opinion on model implementation and quantification of the 
eutrophication risk associated to the use of phosphates in detergents.  
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf
) 
8. SCHER (2010). Opinion on updated HERA Repor t on Polycarboxylates in 
Detergents. (http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opi
nions_en.htm ) 
9. WRc (2006).  Recommendations for the reduction of phosphorous in 
Detergents. Danube  Regional Project. http://www.undp-
drp.org/pdf/1.8_Detergents/1.8%20Dete rgent%20Inception%20Report_WRc-
f.pdf 
 
EN 39   EN 9. G LOSSARY OF ACRONYMS  
A.I.S.E International Association for Soap s, Detergents and Maintenance Products 
ADW Automatic Dishwashers BAT Best Available Techniques CEEP European Detergent Phosphate Industry CSDPA Czech Association of producers of Soaps, Cleaning Agents and Detergents 
DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DRB Danube River Basin DRBMP Danube River Basin Management Plan EDTA Ethylendiammine tetra acetate EEB European Environmental Bureau EFMA The European Fertilizer  Manufacturers Association 
EINECS European Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances EUZEPA European Zeolites Producers Industry  JRC Joint Research Centre HELCOM Helsinki Commission HEDP 1-Hydroxy ethane  diphosphonic acid 
HERA Human and Environm ental Risk Assessment 
IASG Impact Assessment Steering Group  I&I Industrial and Institutional  ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 
INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigaci ón y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria 
LSP Laundry Sustainability Project MGDA Methylglycin diacetic acid NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NTA Nitriloacetic acid P Phosphorous P(AA-MA)  Copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic acid PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration REACH Registration Evaluation Authorisation of Chemicals 
RPA Risk & Policy Analysts SCHER Scientific Committee on H ealth and Environmental Risks 
SCTEE Scientific Committee on Toxicit y, Ecotoxicity and the Environment 
 
EN 40   EN SMEs Small Medium Enterprises 
STPP Sodium tripolyphosphates TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UNDP/GEF United Nations Development Program/Global Environment Facility UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive  WFD Water Framework Directive  WTP Willingness To Pay WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plants   
 
EN 41   EN ANNEX I: TABLES AND FIGURES  
Table 1: Degree to which EU Member States were  Phosphate-Free in laundry detergents in 
2009. Type of measures (combined data from RPA-2006 and other sources) 
Member State Population 
(~millions) % P-free 
Detergents  Type of measures to reduce STPP in 
laundry detergents 
Belgium 10.4 100 National legislation  
Czech Republic 10.2  35 National legislation (0.5% P w/w) 
Denmark 5.4 80 No measures (initiative of producers for P free 
detergents)  
Germany 82.5  100 Voluntary agreement + legislation  
Estonia 1.3 20 No measures 
Greece 11.0 50 No measures 
France 59.9 100 National law (total ban) 
Ireland 4.0 100 Voluntary agreement  
Italy 57.8 100 National law (0.5% P w/w) 
Cyprus 0.7 20 No measures 
Latvia 2.3 From 15 →100 Preparation of national legislation 
(0.5% P w/w) 
Lithuania 3.4 20 No measures 
Luxemburg 0.4 100 No measures 
Hungary 10.1 30 No measures 
Malta 0.4 20 No measures 
Netherlands 16.2 100 National law  
Austria 8.1 100 National law  
Poland 38.2 From 15 →100 Preparation of national legislation 
(0.5% P w/w) 
Portugal 10.4 30 No measures  
Slovenia 2.0 95 Voluntary agreement  
Slovakia 5.4 20 No measures  
Spain 42.2 40 No measures  
Finland 5.2 90 Voluntary agreement  
Sweden 9.0 100 National legislation (0.2% P w/w) 
United Kingdom 59.5 From 55 →100 Preparation of national legislation 
(0.4% P w/w) 
EU-25* 456.0  66  
* There are no national measures to restrict the use of phosphat es in detergents in either 
Bulgaria or Romania. 
 
EN 42   EN  
Table 2: Existing EU legislation to  combat eutrophication  
Directive Requirements for MS 
Directive 91/271/EEC  (UWWTD)  
concerning urban waste water treatment  
 Tertiary treatment (whi ch removes phosphates) 
is required at waste water treatment plants serving agglomerations of more than 10,000 population equivalents, and which discharge into areas sensitive to eutrophication; 
Directive 91/676/EEC44 concerning the 
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.   Member States are required to identify 
vulnerable zones and to establish and implement 
action programmes in order to reduce water 
pollution from nitrogen compounds.  
Directive 96/61/EC45 concerning 
integrated pollution prevention and control  
 Member States are required to issue permits for 
certain industrial installations according to the best available techniques (BAT). Annex III of the Directive, the indicative list of the main polluting substances to be  taken into account for 
fixing emission limit values, includes substances which contribute to eutr ophication, in particular 
nitrates and phosphates.  
Directive 2000/60/EC46, the Water 
Framework Directive (WFD),  has led 
to an increased focus on eutrophication and to a more holistic approach to water management
47.  
 Member States must enact programmes of 
measures to ensure th at water bodies throughout 
the EU reach "good status" by 2015. In cases where WFD monitoring and assessment shows 
that phosphorus inpu ts are significantly 
contributing to eutrophication, Member States must implement measures to address this problem. 
 
                                                 
44 Directive 91/676/EEC, OJ L375, 31.12. 1991, p.1 
45 Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p.26 
46 Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L327, 22.12.2000, p.1. 
47 Directives 91/271/EEC, 91/767/EEC and 96/61/EC are "basic measures" under the WFD and must be 
coordinated and, where necessary complement ed to achieve the mandatory objectives. 
 
EN 43   EN  
Table 3:  Phosphorus sources (deterge nts and human wastes) from  wastewater to surface 
water considering no treatment  (gross loadings) or secondary (Scenario 1) and tertiary 
(Scenario 2) treatment, respect ively (UK Water Industry, 2008) 
Population 
connected to 
WWTP (%) Gross input (%) 
No sewage treatment Scenario 1 
Secondary treatment Scenario 2 
Tertiary treatment Country 
 P-
Det Human 
Wastes Sum P-
Det Human 
Wastes Sum P-
Det Human 
Wastes Sum 
Austria 86 8 66 74 7 57 64 4 31 35 
Belgium-
Luxembourg 40 7 72 79 6 65 71 6 57 63 
Denmark 89 12 55 67 10 45 55 5 21 26 
Finland 81 6 47 53 5 37 42 2 17 19 
France 79 23 53 76 20 46 66 13 29 42 
Germany 93 7 70 77 6 61 67 3 30 33 
Greece 50 27 53 80 24 48 72 21 40 61 
Ireland 70 3 53 56 2 42 44 1 25 26 
Italy 75 2 76 78 2 67 69 1 46 47 
Netherlands 99 7 72 79 6 63 69 2 26 28 
Portugal 42 34 46 80 31 41 72 28 37 65 
Spain 89 24 48 72 21 41 62 10 20 30 
Sweden 93 7 53  60 6 42 48 2 15 17 
United 
Kingdom 88 26 59 85 24 54 78 15 35 50 
Czech 
Republic 72 16 63 79 14 56 70 10 40 50 
Hungary 57 16 58 74 14 50 64 11 39 50 
Poland 58 13 63 76 12 56 68 9 44 53 
EU-18 mean 80 15 61 76 13 53 66 8 33 41 
Source: Wind et al. (2007). 
Note: Wastewater from population not connected to  WWTP received 30% P-reduction by default. WWTP 
connection according to Eurostat (2006). 
 
 
EN 44   EN Table 4:  Summary results of the INIA model for the contribution of phosphat es from detergents 
to the eutrophication risk in the tested EU eco-regions (Values are presented as 
percentages of the eutrophication risk) 
 
Risk contribution  
Mean  
Median  
10thPercent  
90thPercent 
Central /Baltic 
Laundry (L) 3.1 0.8 0.0 9.6 
Dishwashing (D) 2.7 3.1 0.6 4.8 
L+D 5.8 4.5 2.0 10.4 
Mediterranean 
Laundry (L) 1.2 0.9 0.0 3.2 
Dishwashing (D) 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.9 
L+D 2.3 1.7 0.5 4.5 
Northern 
Laundry (L) 2.0 1.9 0.3 3.2 
Dishwashing (D) 3.3 3.6 0.6 4.9 
L+D 5.3 5.7 1.0 8.0 
Atlantic 
Laundry (L) 1.5 1.6 0.5 2.3 
Dishwashing (D) 1.6 1.8 0.6 2.5 
L+D 3.2 3.5 1.2 4.9 
 
 
EN 45   EN  
Table 5: Annual Use of Phosphates in Dete rgents Per Capita (RPA, 2006)  
Score Description Applicable Member States 
1 Very Low (<2 
kg/person) Slovenia, Luxembourg, Italy, Austria, Ireland, 
Belgium, Germany, Netherlands 
2 Low (2-4 kg/person) Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, 
Denmark, Sweden, Finland 
3 Medium (4-6 
kg/person) France, Greece, UK, Malta, Czech Republic 
4 High (>6 kg/person) Cyprus, Portugal, Poland, Spain 
 
Table 6: Percentage of Population Connected to  Waste Water Trea tment Plants with 
Tertiary Treatment (RPA, 2006)  
Score Description Applicable Member States 
1 High (>75%) Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands 
2 Medium (20-
75%) Austria, Estonia, Cyprus, UK, Italy, Poland, France (?) 
3 Low (<20%) Luxembourg, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Spain, 
Portugal, Ireland, Slovenia, Malta, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia 
 
Table 7: Extent of (Concern over) Eutrophication (RPA, 2006)  
Score Description EU-15 EU-10 
0 No sensitive areas  Malta 
1 Some sensitive areas France, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Portugal, Spain, 
UK Hungary, Slovenia, 
Cyprus 
2 Entire territory 
(effectively) designated 
as ‘sensitive area’ Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Sweden, 
Luxembourg, Finland, 
Netherlands, Germany Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, 
Slovakia, Czech 
Republic 
 
 
EN 46   EN  
Table 8: Properties of some alternatives to STPP in dete rgents (Sources: 2008 UK Water industry report & 
2008 Commission report on non surfactant organic ingredients48) 
Name  Description  Environmental issues  
Polycarboxylates  Polymers are used as co-builder in 
detergent because of  their “threshold 
effect” which means that optimal 
effectiveness is obtain at low levels. In 
hard water they precipitate and the dispersing effect is lost. Therefore these 
are only effective in water softened by 
addition of a zeolite or complex. agent. Although polycarboxylates do not readily 
biodegrade, it is unlikely that their use in detergents would lead to significant risks 
to consumers or to the environment due to 
their low toxicity and ecotoxicity. However, further clarification of the risk to 
the terrestrial compartment is on-going  
Phosphonates   
Phosphonates are mainly used in cleaning products as  chelating agents 
and/or scale inhibitors There is a broad consensus that 
phosphonates degrade slowly and may present a risk to the environment with 
concern being focused on the potential 
aquatic chronic toxicity of HEDP (and its salts) to Daphnia. Terrestrial toxicity is low 
and their presence in sewage sludge does 
not present a significant risk.  
EDTA and EDTA 
tetrasodium salts 
 Used as a chelating agent to complex 
water-hardness ions in water.  Available data indicate that EDTA and its 
salts may be of certain concern to the 
environment with regard to their use in industrial and institutional (I&I) cleaning 
but not for household detergents (where 
their use is limited). 
NTA and salts Nitrilotriacetic Acid 
(NTA) NTA chelates water-hardness ions less 
strongly than EDTA but has a superior 
biodegradability Although NTA appears not to be of 
concern to the environment, its presence in 
a detergent (as for EDTA) excludes the 
award of an eco-label due to its potential carcinogenicity (classified as a Category 3 
Carcinogen with an R40 label)  
 
Sodium citrate   Citrates are naturally occurring 
compounds which biodegrade rapidly 
and which have water-softening 
properties similar to those of NTA. Sodium citrate is rapidly and completely 
biodegradable under aerobic and anoxic 
conditions, it is not expected to bio-
accumulate in organisms and has a low toxicity to aquatic organisms 
Sodium silicates  have good builder properties 
and stabilise the bleach system. They 
also inhibit the corrosion of stainless 
steel and aluminium by synthetic 
detergents. 
 Once soluble silicates reach the aquatic 
environment, they are diluted and 
depolymerise rapidly to give molecular 
species indistinguishable from natural 
dissolved silica. The removal of silica in several WWTP was measured ~10%  
                                                 
48 Commission Report (COM_2009_0208) on non surfactant organic ingredients available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0208:FIN:en:PDF  
 
EN 47   EN Figure 1:  Development of market share of Associa tion members and free-riders in the Czech 
Republic following the voluntary agreement for the phase-out of laundry P-based detergents 
1995-2005 (UNDP, 2006) . 
 
 
EN 48   EN ANNEX II: Scientific  studies and models  
1. E STABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF 
PHOSPHOROUS IN DETERGENTS TO EUTROPHICATION - COMMISSION STUDIES AND 
THEIR EVALUATION BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES  
As one of its first activities  with regard to phosphates in  detergents, the Commission 
contracted a study to WRc to investigate the costs and bene fits of substituting phosphorus49 in 
household detergents with other builders, and to  recommend the most ap propriate methods of 
reducing phosphorus concentrations in surf ace waters. The study, published in June 200250, 
concluded that:  
(i) a ban of phosphates in detergents, t hough it would result in P-load reductions 
of 40%, would not suffice alone to subs tantially improve eutrophication at EU 
level;  
(ii) zeolite A is a suitable alternative to  STPP, in terms of non-adverse effects on 
humans, energy used, and sludge production. 
The Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxi city and the Environment 
(SCTEE) gave a first opinion in March 2003 on  the WRc report, iden tifying a number of 
weaknesses, in particular mentioning that th e report’s conclusions were not adequately 
substantiated. Following submission of additiona l data in the HERA reports on STPP and 
zeolites A, SCTEE adopted an updated opinion in November 2003, concluding that: “ within 
the EU area, the  contribution of phosphate-ba sed detergents to eutrophication is extremely 
variable country by country as  well as in different hydrog raphic basins as a function of 
human activities and land use”. Furthermore, the SCTEE proposed that a quantitative 
assessment of the extent of eu trophication in EU waters in re lation to phosphorus load from 
different sources, and in particular in relati on to STPP contribution, could be performed on 
the basis of a literature r eview on existing experimental and modelling information, produced 
on the evolution of the eutrophi cation problem and on the recover y of eutrophic water bodies.  
In line with the SCTEE opinion, a further st udy was undertaken to obtain quantitative 
estimates of the effects on eutrophication of switching from phosphate-based to phosphate-
free detergents. The study was financed by th e industry federation for detergent phosphates 
manufacturers (CEEP - Centre Européen d’Et udes des Polyphosphates), and performed by a 
consultant, Green Planet Research, in collabora tion with INIA (Spanish  National Institute for 
Agriculture and Food Research and Technolog y). A methodology for a probabilistic risk 
assessment was developed by INIA by Septem ber 2005, and was refined in the light of 
discussions with a group of 17 experts on eutrophication at a workshop held in Madrid in 
November 2005. The final report  entitled “Development of a European Quantitative 
Eutrophication Risk Assessment of Polyphosphates in Detergents”51 was published in October 
2006 and concluded that:  
• additional eutrophication risks related to detergent phosphates are very variable in the 
different regions of the EU as a result of fact ors such as the hydrolog ical charac teristics, 
population density and agricultural intensity; 
                                                 
49 In environmental reports the term “phosphorous” denotes phosphorous compounds in general. 
50 Report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/envir onment/water/phosphates  
51 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm  
 
EN 49   EN • in both analysed ecoregion types, i.e. (i) Atla ntic, Northern and Cent ral European shallow 
lakes, and (ii) Medite rranean water bodies, the eutrophication risk did no t increase linearly 
at higher phosphorus concentrations.  
The Scientific Committee on Health and Enviro nmental Risks (SCHER) reviewed the INIA 
report and adopted an op inion in November 200752. SCHER identified a number of key points 
which were not adequately addressed (e.g a limited and non representative data base to 
develop a European model, limited data used  for the validation etc.). Overall, SCHER 
proposed that  prior to the application of  the model and the use of the results, the science 
presented in the INIA report should be further developed. In line with the SCHER remarks the 
INIA model was recalibrated and validated with da ta from the Intercalibration Exercise of the 
Water Framework Directive. The validated INIA model (“MODEL VALIDATION USING 
THE WFD INTERCALIBRATION DATA, MODEL RE-CALIBRATION, AND Pan-
EUROPEAN ASSESSMENT OF THE EUTROP HICATION RISK ASSOCIATED TO THE 
USE OF PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENTS) was submitted in April 2009 and was 
subsequently forwarded by the Commission to SCHER for its further evaluation and an 
updated scientific opinion. More  detailed information about th e INIA reports and the SCHER 
opinions are given in section 2.  
In parallel, the Commission had asked RPA (Ris k & Policy Analysts Ltd) to conduct a study 
in order to fill the data gaps  concerning the use, properties and environmental impact for a 
range of non-surfactant organi c detergent ingredie nts including STPP and zeolites and to 
assess the socio-economic impacts of switching  from phosphate-based detergents to zeolite-
based detergents.  
The final RPA report was published in 2006 and found that some of the additional co-builders 
needed for zeolite-based detergents, are al so used in STPP-based detergents, though in 
smaller concentrations. A switch to zeolite-based detergents would therefore not necessarily introduce a greater number of co-builder s ubstances into the environment, but their 
concentrations might increase. An opinion of  SCHER on the RPA report was published in 
June 2007
53, confirming its main findings and conclu ding that a move to zeolite-based 
detergents: (i) would not increase the health risk s, (ii) would possibly increase environmental 
risks due to higher amounts of polycarboxyla tes and phosphonates, which are potentially 
harmful for the environment, but not to a signifi cant extent. Taking into consideration that the 
use of polycarboxylates in the EU  has significantly in creased in the last decade (from 50,000 
t/y in early 2000 to 80 000 t/y in 2 007) linked to their application in quite larger quantities of 
phosphate-free detergents, the Commission asked SCHER to review an updated HERA report 
on polycarboxylates54 from 2009 and to evaluate the re maining environmental concerns 
concerning the use of these ingredients in detergents. 
In its opinion on polycar boxylates of January 201055, SCHER notes that the updated HERA 
report on polycarboxylates in detergents includes some new studies and addresses some of the 
drawbacks highlighted in the previous SCHER opinion56. However, SCHER considers that 
there are still some concerns related to data gaps and to inadequate interpretation of the 
available information in term s of risk characterisation: 
                                                 
52 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm  
53 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm  
54 Available at: http://www.heraproject.com/RiskAssessment.cfm  
55 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/scher_opinions_en.htm  
56 Available at/ http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_109.pdf  
 
EN 50   EN (a) for the terrestrial compartment:  the proposed PNECs cannot be accepted, due 
to misinterpretations of the studies and the lack of information on soil 
microbial functions so that a PEC/PNEC  ratio well above 1 could be estimated 
at least for P-AA/MA, and thereby a poten tial environmental risk for the soil 
compartment could result from the us e of polycarboxylates in detergent 
formulations; 
(b) for the aquatic environment:  as the tonnage placed on the market has increased, 
and as additional uncertainties have been observed in the PEC estimation 
presented in the revised HERA report, current PEC/PNEC could be even higher, therefore, a potential regional risk for the aquatic environment cannot 
be disregarded. 
Overall, SCHER considers that based on the av ailable information, a potential environmental 
risk has been identified and refined risk asse ssments should be required before it can be 
concluded that these chemicals are of low environmental concern . Industry (BASF) has 
announced that further research w ill be carried out in order to cl arify the remaining concerns.  
10. D
EVELOPMENT OF THE INIA  PAN -EUROPEAN EUTROPHICATION MODEL - 
CONTRIBUTION OF STPP  BASED DETERGENTS TO EU EUTROPHICATION RISK  
According to INIA, the risk fo r eutrophication cannot be directly  defined as the likelihood for 
nutrient enrichment, but as the likelihood fo r this enrichment to provoke undesirable 
disturbances. Therefore, the definition of wh ich level of disturbanc e is considered as 
undesirable in EU waters would be  a critical part of a risk assessment that could offer the 
scientific basis for considering risk management measures. 
The major conclusion of the first INIA model calculations was that: “t he difference between 
the total eutrophication ri sk and the risk without phosphate- based detergents  is typically 
around 2.5-10% based on the Mediterranean effect  assessment, and around 0.5-3% based on 
the Atlantic, North & Central shallow effect assessment” 
SCHER recognised in its opinion  of 2007 that the model developed by INIA presents a novel 
tool to assess, in a quantitative manner, the ri sks of eutrophication due to phosphorus release. 
SCHER supported the INIA conclusion that additional eutrophication risks related to 
detergent phosphates are very vari able in different regional situ ations as a result of varying 
regional characteristics such as hydrology, popul ation density and agri cultural intensity. 
In addition, SCHER underlined that: 
1. As the values selected for some key factors (e.g P output) are not sufficiently 
representative for all EU situations, the final aquatic Total Phosphorus (TP) 
concentration from detergents and the resulting risk for eutrophication maybe 
underestimated by the INIA model; 
2. more model validation using monitoring data  is required before the estimations of 
overall risk can be supported; 
3. considering the uncertainties and limitations  identified in this opinion, more work is 
needed to accurately estimate the magnit ude (and significance) of the eutrophication 
risk throughout the EU.  
In line with SCHER's recommendations, DG Ente rprise and Industry first encouraged an 
active collaboration between INIA and Joint Re search Centre. In a meeting at Ispra (June 
2008) it was agreed that INIA would consider the da ta obtained within the inter-calibration 
process of the WFD implementation, the analysis  of which could be cr ucial for the further 
 
EN 51   EN refinement of the model. In addition, the Co mmission established contacts between INIA and 
scientists from regional eutrophi cation projects such as the Ba ltic Sea project and the Danube 
River Basin (DRB) project.  
In a workshop organised in Madrid (March 20 09), with the participa tion of eutrophication 
experts from these projects and DG Joint Research Centre, INIA presented the outcome of their validation and calibration exercise of the model, in particular concerning the effect 
assessment and risk characterisation tools. Th e final INIA report was submitted in April 2009 
with the following significant developmen ts as compared to the report of 2006: 
• Following the inclusion of the WFD Interca libration data, the 2009 INIA model contains 
an extensive dataset of 2000 points, coveri ng 4 eco-regions (Nor thern, Central/Baltic, 
Atlantic and Mediterranean), instead of only 300 points and 2 eco-regions in the 2006 
model. The statistical analysis  confirmed clear differences between eco-regions, with the 
more northerly showing greater sensitivity to eutrophication, whereas the Mediterranean 
eco-region showed an adaptation to higher natural levels of phosphorous.  
• Following the SCHER recommendations and the s uggestions from the experts, a new set of 
deterministic scenarios has been included in  this report using r ealistic total phosphorus 
(TP) concentrations. For facilitating the comparisons, the scenarios are based on a similar set of default environmental values, using European averages. For each eco-region, the population weighted average consumption of  phosphate-based detergents is used. 
Comparisons are presented for three con centrations, 50, 100 and 150 µg phosphorus/L for 
the Northern eco-region, and 50, 150 and 300 µg phosphorus/L for Central Baltic, Atlantic, 
and Mediterranean eco-regions. 
• The updated model apart from total risk al so estimates the remaining risk excluding 
laundry or dishwashing detergents . Table 4 in Annex I summaris es the INIA results for the 
contribution of detergents to  the eutrophication risk in va rious EU eco-regions. According 
to the results, the combined contribution of both laundry and dishwashers detergents to eutrophication risk varies between the EU eco-r egions, being relatively  higher in Northern 
(5.3%) or Central Baltic (5.8%) as compared  to Mediterranean ( 2.3%) and Atlantic eco-
regions (3.2%).  
• Other SCHER recommendations were also implemented in the new report such as the use 
of triangular distributions as a simplifi cation in the probabilis tic model, and the 
consideration of other European eutrophicati on projects (such as DRB and Baltic sea). 
In May 2009, the Commission submitted a mandate to SCHER asking whether the scientific 
quality of the report has been  significantly improved following the validation exercise. More 
specifically, SCHER was requested: 
(a) to assess the new results of  the INIA model, in particul ar, the differences between the 
total eutrophication risk a nd the risk without variou s types of phosphate-based 
detergents and to evaluate the sta tistical analysis of the whole model; 
(b) to comment whether or not the results of the updated model indicate that the use of 
phosphates in detergents contributes signifi cantly to the eutr ophication risk at 
European level;  
(c) to conclude whether all re levant aspects of the eutrophi cation process are sufficiently 
covered by the validated INIA report, in lin e with the earlier re marks of the SCHER 
opinion in 2007.  
 
EN 52   EN SCHER adopted an opinion on the updated INIA model in November 200957 In summary, 
SCHER concluded that overall the INIA (2009) report has been  considerably improved in 
terms of the assumptions, default values and espe cially in the size and geographic coverage of 
the surface water data used to develop, re-calibrate and validate the model. SCHER is of the 
opinion that this modelling approach may be  considered appropriate for the envisaged 
purpose. However, as a detailed  evaluation of the new data ta ken from the Water Framework 
Directive data base was not presented in the updated INIA report, SCHER was unable to 
check how representative the data are for pan- European surface waters. Therefore, SCHER is 
not able to comment on the improved predictiv e capacity of the mode l. Actually, SCHER 
concluded that this possible weakness concer ning data quality (e.g. EU relevance) may 
substantially influence the resu lts of the model application. 
More specifically, SCHER expressed concerns about the following issues. 
(a) In the updated INIA database, the lake  typology is not always described in a 
consistent and transparent manner (e.g. Me diterranean, Northern (macrophyte)). In 
addition, when the typology information is re ported, the lake select ion does not seem 
representative of pan-European lake typolog ies. For example (i) in Nordic and Baltic 
ecoregions the majority (1341 out of 1523) are shallow or very shallow lakes and (ii) 
in the Mediterranean ecoregion most ( 71 out of 90) lakes are reservoirs.  
(b) The JRC database can be considered as co mplementary to the first INIA database in 
terms of European ecoregions covered. Ho wever the information provided is not 
sufficient for judging if the complete data base is representativ e of the European 
situation as far as the eco logical status (bad (G-) or good (G+) is concerned). 
(c) In the INIA/ Green Planet report, the es timation of the P contribution from different 
sources is calculated from EU-27 data, including many countries where detergent P 
has already been banned or co ntrolled up to very low levels . As such, the use of these 
data for the calculation led to the conclusion that at the pan-EU continental level, the 
reduction of risk due to elim ination of detergent phosphorus is low. It should be clear 
that if only data are used from countries where detergent phosphorus  is still used, the 
detergent phosphorus contribution may be  much greater leading to different 
estimations of risk. 
Overall, SCHER concluded that the results of th e model indicate that, at the present time, at 
pan-European scale the contribu tion of phosphate based detergents  does not play a major role 
in the eutrophication process. However, in co ming to this conclusion  SCHER underlines that 
it is important to be aware of a ll the reservations about the repr esentativeness data used in the 
report. SCHER also commented that the model is not suitable for estimating the contributions to eutrophication at regional or local level. 
                                                
 
57 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf  
 
EN 53   EN ANNEX III: SME consultation  
(A) Summary of results of the consultation  with EU SME detergent formulators via 
Enterprise Europe Network (SME Panel on use of phosphates in detergents) 
The ENTR questionnaire which addressed to SM Es is given in section C of this Annex 
1. Profile of the companies (question-1)   
Out of the responding 107 companies , 3 were producers of posphates/zeolites and one was a 
formulator from Israel. The rest of SMEs ( 103) matched the profile of EU SME formulators 
of detergents so the analysis below is ba sed on their replies. They are distributed 
geographically in 11 EU Member States as following:  
Italy: 25, France: 21, Spain: 12, Poland: 12 Sw eden: 8, Portugal: 6, Germany: 6, Estonia: 5, 
Austria: 4, Lithuania: 2, Slove nia: 2. Therefore ~63% of the SMEs are locate d in southern 
Europe and ~37% in centra l/northern Member States.  
Considering that according to A.I.S.E (Europe an Detergents Formulators) there are ~600 
SME detergents formulators in Europe (incl uding no-EU countries), the number of 103 EU-
SMEs seems quite representa tive (~20% of the total) 
Out of the 103 SMEs, the majority (49%) employ between 10-49 people, followed by 33% 
micro-SMEs that employ less than 10 people,  while the rest (~18 %) employ between 50-249 
people. 
The SME questionnaire is att ached (with the questions corr esponding to their number in the 
tables).  
2. Product Portfolio (question-2) 
Types of produced detergents (question-2.1) : Laundry-L, Dishwashers-D, Industrial & 
Institutional-I&I  
40% produce all types of detergents (L,D and II), 16% L and D, 9% D and I&I, 2% L and 
I&I, 26% only I&I, 6% only L, 1% only D. 
From the figures provided by the 40% of the SMEs  that formulate all t ypes of detergents, it 
emerged that in average they produce: 
% of total SME production average number of product lines 
L D I&I L D I&I 
25% 18% 35% 4 4 14 
Both the average % values of total production and number of pr oduct lines seem to indicate 
that I&I detergents are the main  product category of those SMEs.  
Considering also that another 26% of SMEs pr oduces only I&I detergents, it can be concluded 
that I&I is the most important detergent type (in terms of production) type for the majority of 
the European SMEs.  
Use of phosphates as main builders or formula tion with alternatives (question 2.2, 2.3)  
Only 15% of the SMEs use phos phates as the only builders  for the formulation of their 
products (question 2.2i) . 60% of these SMEs are located in Southern Europe (4 in Italy and 3 
in Spain), which is reasonable considering that  use of STPP is more essential under the “hard 
water” conditions in th e Mediterranean area.  
 
EN 54   EN 75 SMEs (73% of the total) also formulate detergents with alternative builders other than 
phosphates (question 2.2ii) . 25 SMEs are using only alternative builders (question 2.2iii), 
which corresponds to a higher percentage (25%) co mpared to that of the companies that use 
only phosphates (15%) 
Out of the 85% of SMEs, which are not excl usively phosphate-dependent, 59 SMEs informed 
of the precise alternatives they use (question 2.3),  the following being the most important 
ones (in order of decreasing use expressed in number of SMEs ): phosphonates (18), citrates 
(18), polycarboxylates (17), zeol ites (15), EDTA (10), NTA (9), surface active agents (6), 
silicates (3), sodi um sulphate (3). 
Interestingly, zeolites are not the most  commonly used builders among these SME 
formulators, probably due to the fact that most  of them were I&I formulators rather than 
producers of laundry detergents. Citrates, po lycarboxylates and phosp honates are the most 
widely used builders. In most of the cases, those builders are used alone or in combination, 
but not very often as co-bui lders for zeolites (in contrast  to their use in the laundry 
formulations). EDTA and NTA we re also significantly used.  
3. Reformulation of detergents (question 3) 
60 SMEs gave information on the frequency of  their product reformulation which is on 
average every 3.5 years. Furthermore 32 SMEs in formed on the cost of reformulation, which 
was calculated on average at a bout €5600. In very few companies provided separate figures 
for each type of detergent, and these numbers were averaged in terms of both cost and time of reformulation. 
4. Price of phosphates and consequences (question 4) 
58% of the SMEs informed that the price of phosphates was on average ~46% higher than the 
price of alternative builders in their products, whereas the rest (42%) indicated no price 
difference in their markets (question 4.1).  It should be noted that  the situation was variable 
within the EU, as for instance in Germany, Aust ria and Spain, phosphates are sold at rather 
higher-than the average-prices while in Fran ce, Italy and Poland the differences are much 
lower and quite often zero.  
76 companies provided feedback to the question as whether the difference of phosphate prices 
compared to the price of alternativ es may influence the retail price (question 4.2).  55% of the 
responders answered positively and some provi ded figures which on average resulted in an 
18.5% higher retail price of the detergents. Furthe rmore, 42% of the SMEs contended that the 
recent price increase for phosphates did not lead to an increased use of alternatives whilst 
33% answered positively, whereas the rest had no opinion on this issue ( (question 4.3). 
5. Consequences of possible phosphate restrictions 
The situation was relatively ba lanced concerning the question as whether it is technically 
possible for SMEs to replace phosphates in their detergent formulations (question 5.1). 89% 
of the SMEs gave their opinion: 42% of these companies replied YES, with no clear 
differences observed between Mediterranean or Central-Northern Member States. Spain and 
France represented the most extreme cases  (accounting for ~75% of NO and YES 
respectively), although the water of both countries  has similar hardness. A recent STPP ban in 
France for laundry detergents may explain this na tional tendency. Similarl y, in other countries 
with long established legislative restrictions of  STPP in laundry detergen ts, such as Italy and 
Sweden, YES was the dominant reply as exp ected (56 and 60% respectively) whereas, 
interestingly enough, in Poland, where the softne ss of water may make the use of STPP not 
crucial) 70% of SMEs replied NO.  
 
EN 55   EN An important question of this investigation was  whether replacing phosphates with alternative 
substances would have an effect on th e performance of th e detergent product (question 5.3) . A 
clear majority of the total (58%) replied YES, and a few provided further feedback as to what 
such effects would be and any economic impact for their companies  (question 5.2) . Even in 
countries with long-standing re strictions of phosphates in laundry detergents (e.g Italy, 
Germany) there is a clear majo rity of YES. 39 SMEs provid ed feedback about the adverse 
performance effect from a potential phosphate s substitution in their products, the large 
majority of which claimed less efficient washing and reduced cleaning performance . Not 
surprisingly, almost all these SMEs produce I& I products claiming a non adequate function of 
the STPP substitutes. However, a few SMEs stressed that similar performance problems are observed in phosphate-free laundry or dishwashers formulations leading to corrosive products 
and reduced cleaning action (e.g spots in dishwasher etc.). 
Furthermore, 24 SMEs informed of certain expected adverse economic impacts on their 
companies from a potential EU ban of STPP in all detergen t products such as: 10-20% 
economic loss, due to higher cost of production due  to use of more alternatives to achieve a 
similar cleaning performance, decreased sale s, loss of market share, need for new 
investments, loss of clients etc. 
46 SMEs provided figures about the costs for re formulation for replac ing phosphates in their 
products.  The one-off costs for reformulation was found to be on average at ~ 10.800 euros. 
The large majority of SMEs (~60%) also cl aimed that possible modifications to their 
production lines would be required in case of STPP substitution. Finally, 50 companies 
informed that they had already replaced some  or all of the phospha tes in their products 
(question 5.5).  For 48% of those SMEs, the overall cost of the STPP substitution were greater 
than anticipated, for 18% less, whereas fo r the rest costs were as expected.  
 
EN 56   EN  
(B) Outline of the SME Test on phosphates in detergents as described in this IA report 
(1) Consultation with SMEs representatives See sections 1.1.3., 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.2, 5.4.3.1, 
5.4.3.2. as well as Annex III. 
(2) Preliminary assessment of businesses likely to be affected See sections 1.1.3. and 2.5., as well as Annex 
III. 
(3) Measurement of the impact on SM Es See sections 5.2., 5.3.3., 5.3.4, Conclusions 
of 5.3 and 5.4 as well as Annex III. 
 
(4) Assess alternative options and mitigating 
measures Considering that (a) the one-off costs for 
replacing phosphates are estimated to be on average double to the normal cost of product reformulation occurrin g every 3.5 years, (b) 
no technically feasible alternative currently exist for certain detergents products (such as: I&I and ADW), it would be appropriate to 
envisage sufficiently long transition period in case the chosen option is Option -3; -4 or –5. (See conclusions of sections 5.3., 5.4., and 5.5).  
 
 
EN 57   EN 
 
(C) QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EUROPEAN SMEs CONCERNING THE USE OF 
PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENT FORMULATIONS 
1. Company details  
Company name:  __________________________________________________  
Address:  __________________________________________________  
Telephone/Email:  __________________________________________________  
No of employees:  __________________________________________________  
 
2. Product portfolio  
2.1. What kind of detergents do you produce: 
  No of product lines?  % of your production?  
Laundry ______(Y/N ------ ------ 
Dishwasher detergents ______(Y/N) ------ ------ Industrial/Institutional (I&I) ______(Y/N) ------ ------   i. Do you use phosphates exclusively
 ? ______(Y/N) 
or ii. do you also formulate detergents with alternative builders? ______(Y/N) 
or iii. do you use only  alternative builders (e.g zeolites)? ______(Y/N) 
 
2.3. If you replied Y to 2.2. (ii), (iii), which al ternative builders do you use and in which type 
of detergents? __________________________________________________ 
3. Reformulation of detergents  
Please specify by product category 
 3.1 How often do you reformulate (in 
years)  3.2 Average cost of reformulation 
(€) 
Laundry ------ ------ Dishwashers ------ ------ 
 
EN 58   EN I&I ------ ------ 
 
4. Price comparison  
4.1. What is the price of phosphates compared to  the price of alternat ives in your products? 
______ ( %) 
4.2. Does the difference influe nce the retail price? ______(Y/N)
If Y, please specify: ______ ( %) 4.3. Has the recent price increase for phosphates led 
to an increased use of alternatives? ______(Y/N)
 
5. Consequences of possible phosphate restriction
 
5.1. Would it be technically possible to replac e phosphates in all of the detergents that 
you produce, ______(Y/N) 
or only in certain categorie s? (If so, please specify) ___________________________ 
5.2. If Phosphate replacement is  not possible, why not? ___________________________ 
5.3. Would replacing phosphates w ith alternative substances  have an effect on the 
performance of your detergents? ______(Y/N) 
if (Y) please specify: 
what are the effects on the performance? ____________________________ any economic consequences for your company? ____________________________ 
5.4. What costs would be involved for repl acing phosphates in your products? please 
specify: 
one-off costs for reformulation? ______ (€)
possible modifications to your  production line(s)? ______(Y/N)
 
5.5. If you have already replaced some or all of the phosphates in your products, 
were your costs greater or  less than anticipated? ______ 
Any other comments? ______________ 
6. Any other information/data which you would like to provide to the Commission on 
this issue?  
 
EN 59   EN ANNEX IV: Sensitivity analysis for Option 4  
By offsetting the one-off reformulation cost s for laundry detergents  against annual cost 
savings for WWTP operators (under the assumption that the connectivity to waste water treatment plants would remain stable over 10  years), using a discount rate of 4%, and 
assuming a trend to reduce phosphate consumption of 6% per year, the cumulative net savings 
in the years following the introduction of a ban on  P in laundry detergents would be as set out 
in the tables below. The break-even year  is highlighted in yellow background. 
Scenario 1 : WWTP costs = €0,48 / kg P removed, 20% of waste water treated 
Year  1 2 
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reformulation 
cost -13,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
WWTP cost 
savings 6 5,4 4,8 4,2 3,6 3,0 2,4 1,8 1,2 0,6 
Net cumulative 
effect -7,2 -1,2 4,2 9,0 13,2 16,8 19,8 22,2 24,0 25,2 
 
Scenario 2 : WWTP costs = €4 / kg P removed, 50% of waste water treated  
Year  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reformulation 
cost -13,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
WWTP cost savings 132 119 106 92 79 66 53 40 27 13,2 
Net cumulative effect 119 251 356 449 528 594 647 686 713 726 
 
Scenario 3 : WWTP costs = €7 / kg P removed, 90% of waste water treated  
Year  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reformulation 
cost -13,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
WWTP cost savings 415 373 332 290 249 207 166 124 83 41 
Net cumulative effect 401 775 1107 1397 1646 1854 2020 2144 2227 2269