COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the  Proposal for a  REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents  IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Date: 2010-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: free movement of goods, market approval, polishing and scouring preparations

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1278 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other 
phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 

COM(2010) 597  
SEC(2010) 1277  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Phosphates are used in detergents to reduce water hardness and allow detergents to perform 
the  aquatic 
efficiently.  However,  phosphates  from  detergents  can  adversely  affect 
environment  and  disturb  the  ecological  balance  by  increasing  the  growth  of  algae,  a 
phenomenon  called  eutrophication.  Alternative  water-softening  ingredients  are  available  but 
with various performance limitations, particularly for more demanding cleaning tasks. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  648/2004  on  detergents1  harmonises  the  placing  on  the  market  of 
detergents  with  respect  to  the  labelling  of  detergents  and  the  biodegradability  of  the 
surfactants  they  contain.  In  view  of  concerns  about  eutrophication,  Article  16  of  the 
Regulation  required  the  Commission  to  “evaluate,  submit  a  report  on  and,  where  justified, 
present a legislative proposal on the use of phosphates with a view to their gradual phase-out 
or  restriction  to  specific  applications”.  The  Commission  presented  the  report  in  2007 
concluding that the state of knowledge concerning the contribution of detergent phosphates to 
eutrophication  was  insufficient  but  developing  rapidly2.  Subsequent  work  to  close  the 
knowledge  gap  forms  the  basis  for  this  impact  assessment  report,  which  analyses  various 
policy options to address the use of phosphates in detergents. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  Why is the presence of phosphates in detergents an issue? 

Phosphates  in  detergents  contribute  to  eutrophication,  a  complex  phenomenon  in  which 
elevated  phosphate  levels  reduce  the  quality  of  surface  waters.  The  main  sources  of 
phosphates  in  the  environment  are:  fertilisers,  metabolic  waste  from  humans  and  livestock 
(urine  +  faeces),  and  detergents.  The  relative  importance  of  inputs  varies  between  Member 
States  and  water  catchment  areas.  Although  the  quantity  of  phosphorous  in  detergents 
(110.000 t) is less than 10 % of that in fertilisers (1.5 million t), all detergent phosphates are 
discharged  into  waste  water  and  potentially  contribute  to  eutrophication,  whereas  most 
fertiliser phosphates remain in agricultural soils and only a minor (but not fully quantifiable) 
fraction  is  washed  out  or  erodes  with  soil  into  surface  waters.  The  Water  Framework 
Directive 2000/60/EC has led to an increased focus on combating eutrophication. 

A  probabilistic  risk  assessment  model  (INIA  2009)3  has  quantified  the  contribution  of 
detergent  phosphorus  to  eutrophication  risks  throughout  the  EU  as  between  2.3 %  in  the 
Mediterranean to 5.8 % in the Central Baltic eco-regions. However, the results are uncertain. 
The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)4 concluded that the 
INIA  model  is  an  innovative  tool  for  calculations  at  the  pan-European  level  although  not 
suitable  for  estimating  the  contributions  to  eutrophication  at  regional  or  local  level. 
Furthermore,  SCHER  could  not  determine  whether  the  data  which  were  available  for  the 
probabilistic modelling were representative of the whole EU. 

1 

2 

3 
4 

Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on detergents, OJ L104, 
8.04.2004, p. 1. 
(COM (2007) 234), available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/index_en.htm 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_116.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Deterministic calculations for the Danube River Basin (DRB)5 show that the replacement of 
phosphates in detergents can result in a reduction of 24 % phosphorus (P) from point sources6 
and in a reduction of 12 % from all sources.  

Both  probabilistic  and  deterministic  modelling  thus  agree  that  phosphates  in  detergents  do 
contribute  to  some  extent  to  eutrophication  risks,  but  cannot  fully  quantify  this.  For  some 
sensitive regions, the contribution of detergent phosphates to eutrophication has been reliably 
quantified  and  found  significant.  The  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents  therefore  results  in  a 
negative externality (eutrophication) the costs of which are born by society in general, rather 
than  by  detergent  formulators,  who  have  no  economic  incentive  to  design  detergents  that 
reduce eutrophication risks. 

2.2. 

Costs for phosphate removal in waste water treatment 

Sewage  treatment  plants  with  tertiary  treatment  can  remove  phosphates  from  waste  water. 
However, only a part of the EU population is connected to municipal sewage treatment plants 
and  not  all  existing  plants  are  equipped  with  tertiary  treatment.  Most  phosphate  removal 
processes  rely  on  chemical  precipitation  with  iron  salts  which  entails  capital  costs  (for 
installing  tertiary  treatment)  and  operational  costs,  which  depend  on  the  quantity  of 
phosphates eliminated. 

The  annual  operating  costs  for  removing  detergent  phosphates  from  waste  water  have  been 
estimated to be 10 million to 693 million € 7. 

2.3. 

Fragmentation of the internal market and the impact of mutual recognition 

In  the  absence  of  EU  legislation,  some  Member  States  have  taken  national  measures 
restricting  the  use  of  phosphates  in  detergents.  Others  have  relied  on  voluntary  action  by 
industry to replace phosphates. This has led to a reduction in the use of phosphates from about 
250 000 t  in  the  mid  1980s  to  about  110 000 t  now.  Phosphates  in  detergents  are  still 
unrestricted  in  ten  Member  States.  Consequently,  the  internal  market  for  detergents  is 
fragmented  regarding  their  phosphate  content,  and  detergent  producers  are  faced  with 
divergent rules. 

Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 on mutual recognition8 requires Member States to accept any 
products (including detergents containing phosphates) that are lawfully placed on the market 
of  another  Member  State  unless  they  can  demonstrate  specific  reasons  to  the  contrary. 
Member  States  have  only  20  working  days  (or  40  days  in  complex  cases)  to  respond  to 

5 

6 
7 

8 

Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for a Transboundary 
River Basin (available at: http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/phosphorus.htm). 
Point sources of phosphorous involve detergents, human metabolism and industry, but not fertilisers. 
Figures used were from: DEFRA, UK, 2008: 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/diffuse/non-
agri/documents/consultation2008-detergents.pdf;  
A.O. Tanyi. Comparison of chemical and biological phosphorus removal in waste water – a modelling 
approach.  
EUREAU in 2010: Sweden 1-5 €/kg P, Hungary 7 €/kg P, Belgium 4,2 – 5 €/kg P (including sludge 
disposal) 
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  certain  national  technical  rules  to  products  lawfully 
marketed  in  another  Member  States  and  repealing  Decision  No  3052/95/EC.  OJ  L  218,  13.08.2008, 
p. 21. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
manufacturers  applying  for  mutual  recognition.  Member  State  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 their markets in a short period of time. 

2.4.  Who is affected, how and to what extent by the current situation? 

•  Detergent  formulators  in  the  EU,  without  a  harmonised  market  for  phosphates  in 
detergents, have to comply with different rules in the Member States and face extra costs. 
Imports of detergents into the EU are insignificant. 

•  National  public  administrations  in  Member  States  having  established  legislation  on 
phosphates  in  detergents  to  combat  eutrophication  might  have  increasing  difficulties  to 
enforce their legislation under their obligations on mutual recognition. 

•  Waste  water  treatment  plant  (WWTP)  operators  with  tertiary  treatment  face  costs  for 

removal of detergent phosphates from waste water. 

•  Phosphates  from  detergents  contribute  to  eutrophication  in  several  EU  regions,  which 
creates adverse effects in the environment and can lead to negative economic consequences 
for  fishery  and  tourism  industries.  Neighbouring  regions  sharing  surface  waters  with  the 
EU also suffer from phosphate outflows from the EU. 

3. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSDIARITY 

Although eutrophication can be a local or regional problem most river basins in the EU extend 
across national borders. In particular, larger river basins (e.g. the Danube) and marine water 
bodies (e.g. the Baltic Sea) receive inflows from many different Member States. Experience 
shows  that  regional  cooperation  is  not  fully  effective  to  reduce  eutrophication  at  regional 
level. Furthermore, diverging national rules hinder the free movement of goods. Action at EU 
level  is  the  only  way  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  goods  while  effectively  addressing 
eutrophication at regional level. The Member States support EU action based on Article 114 
TFEU. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIATIVE 

4.1. 

General Objective 

The general objective is to ensure a high level of protection of the environment from potential 
adverse  effects  of  phosphates  in  detergents  and  to  safeguard  the  internal  market  for 
detergents.  

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

–  To  reduce  the  adverse  environmental  effects  from  eutrophication  in  surface  waters,  in 
particular due to the cross-boundary flow of waters containing phosphates from detergents. 

–  To reduce phosphate discharges into surface waters in a cost-effective manner. 

–  To  improve  the  free  movement  of  detergents  in  the  internal  market  by  harmonising 

divergent national rules concerning their phosphate content. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
–  To avoid possible burdens for public administrations for developing and justifying national 

measures in the absence of harmonised EU measures. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

5.1. 

Option-1: No action at EU level (baseline option) 

Member States would maintain existing restrictions on phosphates in detergents, or introduce 
new ones. 

5.2. 

Option-2: Voluntary action by industry 

Detergents formulators would commit voluntarily to replace STPP by alternatives. 

5.3. 

Option-3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergents 

Phosphates would be banned in all types of detergents. 

5.4. 

Option-4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents  

Phosphates  would  be  restricted  only  in  laundry  detergents  and  not  in  dishwasher  (ADW) 
detergents or in Industrial and Institutional (I&I) detergents. 

5.5. 

Option-5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in detergents  

The  content  of  phosphates  in  various  types  of  detergent  would  be  limited  to  certain 
concentration levels. 

6. 

ASSESSMENTS OF THE IMPACTS 

6.1. 

Option 1: No action at EU level, leaving the responsibility to act to the Member 
States (baseline option) 

Eutrophication at local level could be tackled appropriately without EU action. However, this 
is different at regional level, where even co-ordinated action of several Member States has not 
been fully effective. Member States co-operating in the Baltic Sea Strategy and the Danube 
River Basin have called for EU action. This option would not improve the functioning of the 
Internal Market, nor would it avoid burdens to administrations and industry linked to mutual 
recognition. In the light of current market trends, eutrophication risks from detergents may be 
expected to decline, albeit slowly. Costs for phosphate removal from wastewater are expected 
to peak at around 2015 due to higher connection rates to WWTP (in particular in EU 12) and 
will then slowly decline in line with market trends for phosphates use. 

6.2. 

Option 2: Voluntary action by industry 

A  voluntary  commitment  at  EU  level  could  in  theory  achieve  the  intended  objectives. 
However, A.I.S.E., the European detergent formulators association which represents 90 % of 
the market, is unwilling to make such a commitment. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Option 3: Total ban of phosphates in all detergent products 

A total ban of phosphates in detergents would be most effective for reducing eutrophication 
risks at EU level. It is not feasible to quantify or monetise the benefits, which would slowly 
decline in line with market trends for phosphates use.  

The  option  would  reduce  operating  costs  for  WWTP  by  10 to  693 million  €  per  year.  Over 
time,  avoided  costs  would  initially  increase  and  peak  at  around  2015  in  line  with  higher 
connection rates to WWTP and then slowly decline in line with market trends for phosphates 
use. Total reformulation costs for detergent manufacturers (one-off) would be 20-142 million 
€.  Net  benefits  would  thus  accrue  within  1  to  2  years.  However,  there  are  currently  no 
technically feasible alternatives for I&I products, while issues of technical performance have 
not  been  completely  resolved  for  ADW  products.  This  would  lead  to  significant  additional 
costs for research and innovation - particular concerns were expressed by SMEs formulators. 
Consumers and professional users would face problems from less performing detergents. 

Phosphates producers would face plant closures and 3 000-5 000 job losses, which might only 
be partially offset by gains for alternatives producers.  

No  risks  to  human  health  or  the  environment  have  been  identified  for  the  alternatives  to 
phosphates,  but  some  uncertainties  remain  concerning  phosphonates,  polycarboxylates  and 
EDTA due to incomplete data. 

This  option  would  fully  harmonise  the  internal  market  in  detergents,  thus  eliminating  any 
additional costs  for  industry  and  administrations due to  the  current fragmentation and avoid 
burdens from the requirement for mutual recognition. 

6.4. 

Option 4: Restriction of phosphates in laundry detergents 

Restriction  of  phosphates  in  laundry  detergents  would  be  less  effective  in  reducing 
eutrophication than Option 3 (60 % of phosphates are used in laundry detergents). However, 
the difference cannot be quantified or monetised. 

Reduced  operational  costs  for  WWTP  are  estimated  at  6 million  to  415 million  €  annually, 
with the same trends over time as described in Option 3. Total reformulation costs (one-off) 
for laundry detergent formulators are estimated at about 13 million €. Net benefits would thus 
accrue within 1 to 3 years. 

There  would  not  be  any  problems  with  regard  to  technical  or  economic  feasibility  of 
alternatives  and  no  performance  problems  for  consumers  and  professional  users.  Phosphate 
producers estimate job losses of ~1 000-1 650, which would probably not be fully offset by 
gains for producers of alternatives. 

This option would ensure a fully harmonised internal market for laundry detergents, but not 
for ADW or I&I detergents. So far only two Member States (Sweden, France) plan to restrict 
phosphates in I&I and ADW products in the near future. 

Option 4 was preferred by 14 Member States at the November 2009 meeting of the Detergents 
Working  Group.  This  option  is  closest  to  the  majority  of  existing  national  rules  which, 
however,  do  not  totally  ban  phosphorus,  but  impose  limits  in  the  range  of  0.2 to  0.5 %. 
Therefore, a limit value at EU level would have to be selected in further consultations with the 
Member States. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
6.5. 

Option 5: Setting limit values for the content of phosphates in all detergents 

This policy option could be effective in reducing the eutrophication risk by setting different 
limits for laundry, ADW and I&I detergents. However, it would not be easy to agree on limits 
for ADW and even more so for I&I detergents due to the diversity of technical requirements 
(many  I&I  detergents  are  formulated  specifically  for  each  customer's  industrial  plant). 
Imposing any given limit value would be expected to trigger multiple requests for derogation 
under Article 114 TFEU with related administrative burdens for national administration and 
the Commission. 

7. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS 

OPTION 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Option-1: 
No action at EU 
level (baseline 
option) 

 (0)Current trends 
continue 

 (0)No change 

Environmental-
Impacts 

(0) 
Slowly decreasing 
eutrophication risks 

Costs/benefits 

(0) 
Costs for P removal remain at 
10 m - 693 m € annually, 
peaking in 2015 then slowly 
decreasing 

Option-2:  

Voluntary action 

(+)  
Could be effective. 

(-)  
Industry unwilling to 
cooperate. 

(+)  
Reduction of 
eutrophication risks 

(-) 
Significant burden for 
industry to monitor 

Option-3: 

Total ban of 
phosphates in 
detergents 

(++) 
Would eliminate 
100 % of 
phosphates in 
detergents. 

(++) 
Full harmonisation 
of the Internal 
Market through a 
single EU action. 

(++) 
Greatest and fastest 
reduction of 
eutrophication risks. 

Option-4: 

Restriction of 
phosphates in 
laundry 
detergents 

(+) 
Would eliminate 
60 % of phosphates 
in detergents. 

(+) 
Fully harmonised 
internal market for 
laundry detergents 
only. 

(+) 

Significant and fast 
reduction of 
eutrophication risks. 

(--) 
Reformulation costs for 
SMEs between €20 m – 
€142 m (one-off). Savings in 
WWTP 10 m to 693 m € 
annually. Net benefits in 1 to 
2 years, but no alternatives 
for ADW and I&I detergents 
– adverse effects on users. 
3000-5000 jobs lost. 

(++) 
Reformulation costs for 
SMEs ~ 13 m €. Savings in 
WWTP 6 m to 415 m € 
annually. Net benefits in 1 to 
3 years. Alternatives 
available. 1 000-1 650 jobs 
lost. 

Option-5: Limit 
values for the 
content of 
phosphates in 
detergents 

(+) 
Between Options 3 
and 4. 

(-) 
Difficult to agree on 
limits for I&I and 
ADW detergents.  

(+) 
Between Options 3 
and 4. 

(-)  
Effects on operators and users 
between Options 3 and 4. 

Burdens from derogation 
requests under Article 114 
TFEU.  

Option 4 appears to be best. It would reduce the eutrophication risk from the cross-boundary 
flow of detergent phosphates more efficiently than Member States can do alone. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
The measure would be proportionate as technically and economically feasible alternatives for 
phosphates  in  laundry  detergents  are  available.  Detergent  formulators  would  need  to  spend 
about 13 million € on reformulation as a one-off co st which would be largely offset within 1 
to 3 years by reduced P removal costs in WWTP in the order of 6 to 415 million € per year. 
Removal of phosphates from laundry detergents is more cost-efficient for nutrient elimination 
than  waste  water  treatment.  Compared  to  Option  3  there  are  no  problems  in  finding  well-
performing alternatives and hence no negative effects on detergents users. 

Negative impacts would be on phosphate producers who would lose part of their market with 
closure  of  some  plants  and  job  losses  of  1 000-1 650.  However,  use  of  phosphates  in 
detergents has already declined significantly in the past and phosphate producers would have 
to adapt to this trend in any case. 

The option would ensure a harmonised internal market for laundry detergents. The majority of 
Member States prefer this option. 

There  would  be  no  impact  on  the  EU  budget  and  no  significant  administrative  burdens  for 
enterprises. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring  mechanisms  established  under  the  Detergents  Regulation  or  the  REACH 
Regulation  can  be  used  and  monitoring  the  content  of  phosphates  in  detergents  would 
constitute  only  a  marginal  addition  to  existing  obligations.  Eutrophication  is  already 
monitored under the Water Framework Directive. 

EN 

8 

   EN