• Chlorine Online Home
• Discover the chlorine universe
• Discover the European chlorine industry
• Euro Chlor Regulatory Affairs
• Energy - Climate NEW
• Euro Chlor Science Programme
• REACH update - Consortia
• Euro Chlor Technical Corner
• News room
  • Categories
  • Search
  • Archived
  • Photo library
• The Euro Chlor Federation
• The European Chlorinated Solvent Association (ECSA)
• The Chlorinated Paraffins Sector Group
• Library
• Useful links
• Contact us
• Access keys

Brussels, 27th February 2003 - - Euro Chlor is disappointed that SNM/EEB have chosen to severely misrepresent Euro Chlor's position on pure mercury , which will no longer be needed by the industry as producers progressively change from mercury cells to membrane technology.

SNM/EEB claims that Euro Chlor has signed an agreement that will result in thousands of tonnes of cheap mercury being put on the world market. In fact, we clearly described in a presentation at the Sustainability Conference in Brussels earlier this week that our federation had gone to unprecedented lengths to ensure that the market will not be disrupted. In an agreement with the only mercury mine in Europe, it has been agreed that for each tonne of mercury returned from chlorine producers to the mine, one less tonne of mercury will be mined. The phasing of plant conversions over the course of the next 15 - 20 years or so will ensure that arisings of mercury will be less than the current legitimate demands for new material. In the event that such demand declines in the future, Euro Chlor has promised that it will look at other permanent storage solutions. The chlorine industry emphasises that there is presently no restriction to placing mercury on the open market, which would increase the amount of mercury available in circulation on the market and could indeed cause prices to fall; the fact that they have chosen not to do so is an indication of the serious intent of their social responsibility.

It is worth noting that in a recent European Commission report to the Council on this topic, the former states that while permanent disposal of surplus mercury would be the optimal environmental solution, appropriate methods are not yet developed and could affect the competitiveness of the European chlor-alkali industry. The Commission report adds that any solution must take into account the global situation, be sustainable in the long-term and be attentive to the risk of internal market distortions. It says that there are two ways of making progress towards meeting these objectives - extension of the Euro Chlor agreement with Almaden to chlorine producers in Accession Countries and inclusion of mercury within the PIC procedures. These are not mutually exclusive. Euro Chlor is actually working on the first and has no objection to the second.

We also deplore the alarmist tone of the SNM/EEB press release issued after the conference. Apart from it being untrue that we are "throwing thousands of tonnes of cheap mercury on the world market," it is nonsense to suggest that all of this would end up in the food chain. We are also puzzled by the comment that it would cause a "proliferation of environmental and health disasters, similar to the devastating gold mine spill in Baia Mare in Romania in January 2000."

The Baia Mare incident was the result of a rupture of a dam containing cyanide-contaminated wastes and had no connection whatsoever with mercury. (Note: There are two technologies for gold mining. One entails using cyanide and the other is mercury-based. EEB/SNM may have been "confused.")

Finally, we would point out that the reference to "dismantling [of mercury cell installations] is obligatory by 2007 under EU legislation" is just untrue. By 2007, chlor-alkali plants will have to work under authorisation of an IPPC permit, utilising BAT. BAT for process selection is defined as membrane or asbestos-free diaphragm technology. However, the IPPC directive stipulates that for a variety of reasons, BAT for existing plants must be considered on an individual plant basis. Any decisions concerning conditions of the operating permit is one for national authorities alone.

The guidance document (BREF) on chlor-alkali gives a list of recommended actions for those mercury plants where continued operation is approved and immediate conversion is not deemed appropriate. It is estimated that many mercury-based plants will be granted an IPPC permit to continue operating beyond 2007.

Overall, we believe it be regrettable that SNM/EEB have used the opportunity of a genuine attempt by Euro Chlor to hold an exchange or views by stakeholders on the sustainability of chlorine to issue such a distorted view of the industry's initiative.

To return to news click here