Impact assessment

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 28 February 2023

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Executive summary

Defra held a call for information about two substances that had been proposed for listing as new Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) by the Stockholm Convention’s POP Review Committee (POPRC). These substances were:

• UV-328
• Dechlorane Plus.

This call for information was held to help understand the financial impact of banning these substances if they were listed as POPs on the Stockholm Convention. Information collected was also to be used to help with drafting risk management evaluations for these substances.

Respondents were asked to provide information on the two substances, relating to their:

• production
• use
• emissions
• monitoring
• any alternatives
• impacts on society
• efficiency
• efficacy of proposed control measures
• costs
• waste disposal

This information helps with deciding if there is any need for specific exemptions and acceptable uses of the substances.

Number of responses

2 responses were received for UV-328 from:

• Itac Ltd, a UK-based coatings and adhesives manufacturer
• The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), the trade association for the UK motor industry

One response was received for Dechlorane Plus. This was also from SMMT.

Responses

UV-328

Coatings and adhesives producer, Itac Ltd indicated that in 2021 they produced over 2 tonnes of finished articles for industrial use. These contained UV-328 which was being used as a UV light absorber at an average concentration of 0.12%.

The technical feasibility for the efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals was considered. These goals refer to targets or measures to reduce or eliminate releases from:

• intentional production and use
• unintentional production
• stockpiles
• waste

Measures aimed at reducing or avoiding risks associated with long-range environmental transport were also considered. Itac Ltd indicated a possible control measure would be the replacement of UV-328 with suitable alternatives and environmentally sound management of obsolete stockpiles. However, the transition costs for evaluating alternatives and managing stockpiles had not been calculated.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), reported that in the automotive industry, UV-328 is used to slow the ageing of parts exposed to UV light (via photo-oxidation).

SMMT said the automotive industry has already started investigating its uses of UV-328 and substitution is in progress for many applications. There are plans to phase out the use of UV-328 by 2026 in vehicles already in production and for new vehicle models. The phase out time is related to the technical challenges of testing alternatives. Safety rules require that when a material’s chemical property changes, a comprehensive test regime is required to ensure durability, safety and quality are not affected.

It was indicated that if control measures are implemented before the phasing out of UV-328 is complete, the automotive industry may require a time-limited exemption.

It was also indicated that a longer phase out time for the supply of legacy spare parts will be needed. SMMT stated that it is not economically or technically feasible for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs)who supply these parts to carry out the testing. This is because the annual volumes of spare parts produced may not be high enough to ensure profitability whilst accounting for the additional testing costs. SMEs who provide these parts also may not have the information and understanding of component performance requirements to carry out the testing.

It was indicated that the implementation of a ban before the phase out of UV-328, both in production of vehicles and in legacy spare parts, would have significant impacts. The supply of spare parts would be compromised, reducing the service life of older vehicles. The cost of this to consumers and the circular economy has not been estimated. The impact on vehicle production has not yet been assessed, as this was dependent on when a ban is introduced.

SMMT also reported that for the automotive industry, alternatives (specifically other phenolic benzotriazoles) are available. Identification of other applications of UV-328 in the UK are needed in order to assess whether these alternatives are suitable for all uses.

Dechlorane Plus

SMMT reported that Dechlorane Plus (DP) is used in the automotive industry mainly as a flame retardant, and that the automotive industry aims to completely phase out the use of DP by 2026 for vehicles already in production and for new models. The phase out time is related to the technical challenges of testing alternatives. Safety requirements require that when a materials’ chemical property changes, a comprehensive test regime is required to ensure durability, safety, and quality are not affected. If control measures are implemented before phasing out of DP is complete, the industry may require a time-limited exemption.

It was also reported that a longer phase out time for the supply of legacy spare parts will be needed; SMMT stated that it is not economically or technically feasible for the SMEs who supply these parts to carry out the testing. This is because the annual volumes of spare parts produced may not be high enough to ensure profitability whilst accounting for the additional testing costs. SMEs who provide these parts also may not have the information and understanding of component performance requirements to carry out the testing.

It was indicated that an immediate ban on the use of DP in legacy spare parts would have a significant impact on the supply of spare parts, reducing the service life of older vehicles. The cost of this to consumers and the circular economy has not been estimated. The impact on vehicle production had not yet been assessed, as this was dependent on when a ban is introduced.

Government response

Defra incorporated these responses into a summary for each of substance, which were then submitted to the Stockholm Convention, contributing to their process of drafting risk management evaluations for each substance.

See what was submitted to the Stockholm Convention for UV-328.

See what was submitted to the Stockholm Convention for Dechlorane Plus.

Following submission, drafts of the POPRC’s risk management evaluations were published and made available for comments for an 8-week period. No comments were received.