| · Back to Part One
Update for users of Trichloroethylene
Having spent most of my working life in the chemical industry I can say two things for certain. Firstly, the challenges facing Europe are enormous as a result of growing levels of regulation and I have never seen more confusion resulting from the guidance given to users. It would seem to be the consequence of so much regulation, as enforcers and product users alike feel the burden of pressures.
In the last two issues of Surface World there has been great concerns shared over the manner in which guidance has been offered via HSE and Defra regarding a voluntary scheme for Trichloroethylene (Trike). I have endeavoured to get further insight and must say that I have learned to have great regard for the difficulty investigative journalists must face.
I raised a question that reflected the comments of many. “Breathtaking Bias or Responsible Guidance?”
Predictably, those who were to receive my questions only saw the first part of the question and seemed to go into retreat, I assume to take advice. My point in raising the question was to allow a response that supported Responsible Guidance. Understandably HSE wished to refute the idea of bias. The only question left then must be “Is the guidance responsible?”
In a limited space I am now attempting to qualify some responses from the relevant enforcement agencies. For Defra, Mike Etkind responded and for HSE, the Chair of the Trichloroethylene Working Group, Andrew Lake was able to offer a first hand summary.
In introduction we must keep in mind two things:
- Following reclassification to R45 May Cause Cancer, users of Trichloroethylene in excess of one tonne per annum had obligations under the Solvent Emissions Directive (SED) to seek substitution in the “Shortest possible time” or within a target of six years ending June 2008.
- Article 4 of Carcinogen Directive 90/394/EEC sets the following requirement for all users of Trike:
“The employer shall reduce the use of a carcinogen at the place of work, in particular by replacing it, in so far as is practicable, by a substance, preparation or process which, under its conditions of use, is not dangerous or is less dangerous to workers' health or safety, as the case may be”
HSE commented “HSE has been evaluating its priorities for chemicals including those that cause, or have the potential to cause, cancer. Following a review of all category 1 and 2 Carcinogens, HSE has categorised Trichloroethylene as a low priority substance for its future intervention activity on Carcinogens. The Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (implemented in Great Britain by COSHH) and the Solvent Emissions Directive – provide adequate standards of control”
My first thought then would be why is a working group needed to meet with Trade Associations to discuss guidance that is already accurate?
As one of those invited Associations the Surface Engineering Association (SEA) comment “In June 2007 we were approached by HSE and asked if we would like to assist with the development of new guidance to provide an authoritative legal interpretation of the current situation regarding Trichloroethylene”
That subsequent guidance can be found on both SEA and EEF websites, emblazoned with the HSE, Defra and Environment Agency logos as its authority.
For a low priority there seems to be a good deal of effort here. It reports a New Voluntary Charter that in principle allows three further years of use of Trichloroethylene in open top vapour degreases on the basis of making a commitment to replace the machine exclusively with a closed system by December 2010!
I asked who had led the initiative of this working group looking at guidance.
HSE commented “As you said in your email there has been some confusion. Consequently HSE recently collaborated with Defra, EEF and SEA to produce guidance”
Defra report “The reference to 2010 you mention would seem to align to a voluntary agreement for health and safety purposes, unrelated to SED”
Does that seem odd then, that Defra attended the guidance meeting and subsequently gave permission to use their logo?
HSE state clearly that Trichloroethylene remains governed by existing regulation for Carcinogens. Defra say if you use over 1 tonne per annum the voluntary scheme has no relevance to existing SED obligations. You must comply.
Am I right or wrong to wonder then what makes the use of the product safer during a three year period when nothing changes until the end of 2010? What does the guidance tells us that is of new value?
If it is of low priority, I watch with interest to see what is the priority of HSE?
At the very least we must hope for consistency, given the long standing concerns which have already existed with Trike.
Such a consistent approach will relieve any issues of bias.
I have a serious concern regarding the official use of logos on guidance for a voluntary scheme. It is implied that suppliers of Trichloroethylene gain official support.
Ask yourself, if you agreed guidance with your own product, would you get permission to use the logos? To reduce confusion which misleads some to believe they now have HSE and Defra approval, I have asked these agencies to consider removing them and leaving the details of the meeting on record as an explanation of the voluntary agreement.
One writer drew my attention recently to EU Case Law Francovich v Italy 1991, in which it was accepted that any Government failing to adhere to a Directive can be sued by someone suffering ill health.
These are serious matters and inevitably, many feel it impossible to challenge those who claim authority over our lives.
What is vital for all of us is the need to understand what we are told and know that it is impartial and entirely in keeping with the law.
Product users have been on the rough end of legislation for years. Often it’s the same groups mapping out our lives. We are surrounded by misinformation and half truths and we need to get to the heart of the truth.
As they have spent so much time and care with Trichloroethylene, I have invited HSE and Defra to chair a broader meeting where anyone concerned about component cleaning and the future can share their thoughts. Suppliers, machine manufacturers, waste recoverers, product users and trade associations could use their experience to complete a puzzle that has been incomplete for too long in the minds of many.
In my experience the only way to get to the truth is for all concerned to be in the same room. It’s amazing how the landscape changes.
Given that the cost of a venue will be met externally at a time and date suited to the agencies involved, I see no reason to put this off.
As and when the agencies agree on the framework, Surface World will report the details. As a Finisher it will be a must do event on your list for 2008.
For further details see www.npb-is-safer.com
|
