Government▼Watch
Manufacturers will have to test the complete biodegradability of surfactants in their detergents and cleaning products under new rules proposed by the European Commission in September. Producers have always tested their surfactants, but this marks the first time they will be legally required to have test data available before a product is approved. If the European Parliament and Council of Ministers approve the proposals, manufacturers will have to demonstrate that they have tested the “ultimate” biodegradability of surfactants. This test measures the destruction of organic carbon rather than the older, less demanding “primary” test, that measures changes in the surfactant’s structure, which result in a loss of surface-active properties. The commission estimates that 3% of approved surfactants would not pass the ultimate test. The rules would apply to all surfactants, including cationic and amphoteric surfactants. These surfactants, used in products such as fabric conditioners and dishwashing products, were excluded from previous legislation. They account for about 10% of the market. Manufacturers would also be responsible for keeping data on all substances and preparations, including those that had failed tests. Labeling requirements would be extended to cover fragrances and preservation agents. The proposed test data requirements are a major concern for industry, says Hugh Thomas of The European Committee of Surfactants and their Organic Intermediates, a trade group. Obtaining such complete data would be very expensive and provide little or no benefit, says Thomas. Another concern is that some lowvolume and high-performance prod-
ucts, particularly industrial and institutional cleaning preparations, may not meet the new criteria. The commission’s requirements for companies seeking individual exemptions for these products would result in heavy testing burdens and expense, which may prove “unsustainable”.
The commission proposed the rules as a regulation rather than a directive. Unlike a directive, a regulation doesn’t need to be incorporated into national law and can be implemented in EU member states simultaneously, replacing five existing directives. —MARIA BURKE
Limits for fish farms Newly proposed U.S. EPA rules for the fish farming industry, the fastest growing sector of agriculture, attempt to harmonize a patchwork of state laws aimed at curbing nutrient and genetic pollution (Fed. Regist. 2002, 67, 57,871−57,928). If finalized by the target date of June 2004, the rules would mandate plans to control the escape of non-native and genetically engineered fish and mitigate the use of antibiotics and pesticides. The plans would be written into national water quality permits, already required for most operations, and would specify which best management practices (BMPs) would be used to deal with escaped fish, as well as pesticide and antibiotic use, says Marvin Rubin, branch chief of engineering and analysis at EPA’s Office of Water. BMPs would be selected on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the permit writer, whether that be a state or EPA regulator. The proposed rules don’t go far enough to prevent genetic pollution of wild fish stocks by genetically engineered and alien fish species because the BMPs are too vague and it is not clear they will be a mandatory part of the plan, says Tracie Letterman, fish program director for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy group. The proposed rules would also set national standards for total suspended solids in fish farm effluent for the first time, a move that will duplicate state standards already in place, says Randy MacMillan, president of the National Aquaculture Association, an industry group. JANET PELLEY
DECEMBER 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 451 A
PHOTODISC
EC proposes tough tests for surfactants
