Breathtaking Bias or Responsible Guidance?
In a remarkable twist of events, former users of Trichloroethylene have been left gasping by an announcement, seemingly supported by HSE, DEFRA and the Environment agency.
In essence these are the enforcement agencies tasked with protecting us and who say their advice is consistent and reliable. Sadly the numbers of population raising doubts about this is continuing to grow. As you read this you may already be hearing a voice in your head that confirms you are already a sceptic.
I, like everyone, have the desire to offer my trust to these organisations but sadly I have had such trust destroyed in recent years. I ask myself whether these institutions have lost their way or whether we are being let down by a handful of staff who have long since moved beyond good reason?
I hate politics in anything, rife as it is, so I won’t dwell, other than to wonder what lobbying exists that is so powerful as to corrupt credibility and lead to bias.
Before anyone rushes to claim innocence, I ask them to step into the real world and at least consider the complete perception given by recent actions. It’s for them to justify a stance that has not been left in doubt but it’s for the rest of us to judge what drives such a stance.
If you need some background to my comments visit the Surface Engineering Association website which lists a Voluntary Scheme for users of Trichloroethylene. A report is covered in their Autumn 07 edition of Watchword. There, you will see each of the organisations logos I mention above.
It begins with a note of a meeting in which HSE provided a Trichloroethylene Working Group, quoting clearly some connection to the Solvent Emissions Directive (SED). This meeting was not notified to the wider industry, who had an interest in this subject, something which is becoming all too common. Never forget HSE was a limited voice in Europe to oppose reclassification of Trike so their acceptance of it appears to remain alive.
Having written to DEFRA I should quote their response as follows,
“The reference to 2010 you mention would seem to align with a voluntary agreement for health and safety purposes, unrelated to SED”
My first question of DEFRA then is obvious. “If, as enforcers of SED you say it is unrelated to SED, why is your logo used as support for the scheme along with HSE and the Environment Agency?”
Having written to HSE twice I await a response.
Let’s begin first as far back as the 1990s.
Those of us involved in legislative issues for solvents were faced with two issues.
As a Carcinogen, Trichloroethylene became affected by the law governing the
use of Carcinogens to comply with EU Directives. What was the aim? To move
away from it by substituting the product.
The Solvent Emissions Directive of 1999 (1999/13/EC) set the rule that use in excess
of 1tonne per annum of a Carcinogen allowed a 6 year compliance period to
seek substitution. Contrary to October 2007 being held as that date for Trike, it is more accurate under this legislation to have July 2008 as the deadline.
Hundreds of companies have complied already, under great pressures from local
authorities, to meet these legal requirements. No wonder then that this
responsible and pro-active group are fuming at recent events.
Why is there such a fuss?
Having pressed for substitution by mid 2008 with sales fast diminishing, we now
hear of a saviour scheme for Trike. Despite clear legal obligations it seems it is
now suggested we can relax our concerns, but whose interest will it serve?
We are told the European Chlorinated Solvents Association (ECSA)
has pro-actively worked with EU authorities to develop an industry wide voluntary
commitment on the use of Trike. Of course they have. The alternative is to lose
sales. As ever the EU is being used to make decisions affecting us with no
consultation.
The clue is in the framework which says “To safeguard the long term sustainable
use of Trike”
Knowing a question of who it safeguards, given that it is a Carcinogen, would
arise, the scheme proposes the use of closed systems which are expensive and
not overly popular or convenient in the UK. Process times are very long.
On this matter DEFRA comment that the machine is irrelevant to SED as you are
required to seek substitution when using over 1 tonne per annum. I can vouch for
modern open top systems achieving this as well, if not better, than closed systems.
I know of closed systems using in excess of 5 tonnes per annum where open tops
use 5 to 7 litres per week. Don’t be misled. Exceed 1 tonne per annum of Trike in
any machine and you must comply with substitution demands.
So, here we have our first red herring with no comparative data in the UK to
support high investment in this system.
Of course the original question arises of DEFRA. Why are you involved with
supporting this scheme then as you rightly admit it does not generally impact on
SED issues?
The scheme asks remaining Trike users to sign up by December 31st 2007 to the
idea of committing to purchasing a closed system. By when….December 31st
2010! If signatures are not forthcoming by the end of 2008 can we expect the
dates to be extended? Even more relevant, can anyone who has already signed
give notice of withdrawing?
In essence Trike gains 2.5 extra years beyond the original dates set for moving to
an alternative. During this period there is no greater protection for health or
environment but there are of course winners. These are the suppliers of Trike who
pretend no alternative exists for your current Trike process. This is total rubbish.
Another issue raises itself. HSE, DEFRA and the Environment Agency give the
perception that their approval removes your liabilities. Your Lawyer would be clear
it does not.
We seem to have reached a point where our enforcing agents seem to say their
interpretation no longer demands the compliance with legal directives.
God help us then since power alone will rule our lives. This cannot be allowed to
go unchallenged.
There will no longer be a place for their accountability and in no time at all we will
not be able to continue in business or expect concern for our protection.
They say always to read the small print before giving your signature. Never has
their been a better time to heed this with regard to a voluntary scheme which
safeguards your supplier.
Always consult an independent process specialist with regard to your process
needs before signing up as a prisoner to a scheme you may well regret.
I await an explanation from the organisations at the heart of this scheme to argue
their case with transparency, never forgetting the story of the Donkey led to
water.
Personally, I think the water they offer is badly contaminated.
I also encourage Trade Associations to stop listening to one voice alone and
embrace fuller opinion on advice for their members. Encouraging the continued
use of Trike is not a responsible message and I doubt the people advising it
would ever want any member of their family to work with this product when safer
methods exist!
Notation; For the purpose of clarity I declare the interest of Enviro Tech Europe
Limited in this matter as the supplier of EnSolv within Europe, as we are currently
awaiting hearing dates in the European Court of First Instance in which
challenges are being made against EU decisions we consider to be illegal with
regard to reclassification of n-Propyl Bromide, the base chemistry of EnSolv, a
product approved by Boeing for aerospace vapour degreasing
· Go to Part Two
Click here for editorial report from the Surface Engineering Association magazine Watchword with their kind permission.
For further details see www.npb-is-safer.com
|
