1 / 27

RESPONSIBLE CARE

RESPONSIBLE CARE. ดูแลด้วยความรับผิดชอบ. REACH – Evaluation, Authorization and Restrictions Athens – Greece 4 October 2011 Annamaria Frascaria Dow Belgium. Evaluation. 3 independent evaluation processes with 3 different objectives:

freddieh
Télécharger la présentation

RESPONSIBLE CARE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RESPONSIBLE CARE ดูแลด้วยความรับผิดชอบ REACH – Evaluation, Authorization and Restrictions Athens – Greece 4 October 2011 Annamaria Frascaria Dow Belgium

  2. Evaluation • 3 independent evaluation processes with 3 different objectives: • Compliance check: is the information submitted in compliance with legal requirements? • At least 5% of the dossiers must go through this evaluation. • Several criteria to prioritise: one of this being separate registration (opt-out)! • Examination of testing proposals: to avoid unnecessary animal testing; permission to undertake certain tests by submission of a testing proposal. Testing proposals which include animal tests undergo public consultation (art 40.2). All testing proposals are examined. • Substance evaluation: to clarify whether the use of a substance may cause harm to human health or the environment. Substances selected by ECHA in cooperation with Member States. Prioritised substances are evaluated. Process will start in 2012.

  3. Evaluation MSCAs Dossier evaluation Substance evaluation* Evaluation of Testing Proposals Compliance Check Examine any information on a substance Draft decisions on further information (Final decisions with potential involvement of MSC) * Process in preparatory phase, evaluation to be started in 2012 MSCA = Member State Competent Authority; MSC = Member State Committee 3 3

  4. Evaluation: compliance check • Compliance check: • Are information requirements fulfilled in line with regulation? • Are adaptations of standard infomation requirements and related justifications in compliance with the rules (Annex VII to X and general rules in Annex XI)? • ECHA to issue draft decision within 12 months of the start of the compliance check • Draft decision may require registrants to submit further information • Clock start ticking for registrant only when draft decision becomes final and sent to registrant • Other possible outcomes: • Quality Observation Letters (suggestions to improve quality of dossier and submit a ‘spontaneous update’) – clock starts ticking at receipt • No further action required.

  5. Evaluation: examination of testing proposals • Examination of testing proposals • Proposed test adequate and justified? • Unnecessary testing on animals avoided? • Possible outcomes: • Testing accepted as proposed with deadline for submission • Testing accepted but with changed testing conditions • Request to carry out additional testing • Testing rejected • If several registrants or downstream users of the same substance propose same test, agreement must be reached within 90 days on who performs the test otherwise ECHA decides. • Timing: • Non phase-in substances draft decision by ECHA within 180 days • Phase-in substances registered by Dec 1 2010: Dec 1, 2012

  6. EVALUATION : follow up actions Registrant comment on draft decisions • After receiving a draft decision • Registrant may comment and provide dossier update within 30 days • ECHA may adapt draft decision • After Member State Competent Authority provides a proposal for amendment • Registrant may comment within 30 days on a proposal for amendments (and update dossier if appropriate) • During Member State Committee procedure • Registrant who received draft decision may participate in MSC initial discussion on draft decision • ECHA and Member States may adapt draft decision

  7. Dossier Evaluation – challenge of next years About 1000 Compliance Checks on HPV’s to meet the 5 % target Selection is concern driven & random 580 dossiers with Testing Proposals received Covering 1500 hazard endpoints All of these to be examined by Dec 2012 ECHA carries out scientific evaluation & submits draft Decisions requesting further data from registrants http://echa.europa.eu 7

  8. Dossier Evaluation – Prioritisation • Compliance check criteria set by REACH • opt-out of a dossier submitted jointly • records of 1-10 tons / year includes only physical-chemical data • substances included in the Community Rolling Action Plan (CORAP) • Compliance check selection based on concerns • according to the risk of non-compliance • depending on the impact of non-compliance on safe use • Compliance check random selection • provides an overview of the quality of records

  9. Conclusion from evaluation reports Tips for successful registration from Identity of registered substance shall be clearly described Adaptation to standard testing regime must meet conditions of Annex XI or column 2 of Annexes VII – X of REACH  sufficient justification should be provided Robust study summaries should contain sufficient level  allow independent assessment Classification and labelling should be in line with hazards identified or harmonized classification and labelling Testing proposal shall be submitted for tests of Annex IX and X before undertaking it  potential enforcement actions Make consistent and well justified Chemical Safety Reports

  10. Scope, aim and outcome of dossier evaluation 10

  11. Substance evaluation will start ECHA is developing the first list of substances MSCAs can identify candidates & ECHA add others from other REACH processes based on a priority setting CoRAP ‘rolling’ 3-year list – proposal by end of 2011 – adoption Feb 2012 Member States to inform ECHA about capacity for evaluation Substance evaluation is to clarify risk(i.e. to get extra hazard &/or exposure data)with a view to using regulatory instruments 11

  12. Authorization: process and considerations Candidate List expected to grow significantly during the next two years (statement from Commission of addition of 106 substances) Communication and notification requirements exist when a substance is listed on the Candidate List Art. 33 Art. 7 The first set of Substances (6) effectively subject to Authorisation was included already in Annex XIV: http://echa.europa.eu/reach/authorisation_under_reach/authorisation_list_en.asp 12

  13. Authorization: process – preparing an application Pre-Notify intent Echa_application_for_authorization@echa.europa.eu Allows better planning by ECHA Indicates which substances and for which uses Pre-submission meeting To focus on technical requirements of dossier (not on the content of the application); ask clarification on how to prepare and submit an application Prepare application Who? Manufacturer, Importer, DU or joint (no obligation to apply jointly). Can DU apply individually, enough information? For what? One or more uses, one or more Les, group of substances (Annex XI, Sec 1.5) Costs? Fee part of application, calculated by use(s), substances, size of company 13

  14. Elements of an application • Main elements – Art 62 of REACH • Substance identity • Applicants • Uses applied for • CSR (if not submitted as part of registration) • Analysis of Alternatives • Substitution Plan (if suitable alternatives available) • Additionally (application may include) • Socio-economic analysis • Justification for not considering certain risks to human health and the environment • Fee is part of the application!

  15. Content : some reflections High level of detail required! Start preparing early! Highly regulated sectors : substitution is a long process

  16. Possible application packages Adequate control & No suitable alternative Adequate control & Suitable alternative Socio-ec benefits > risks (No adequate control & No suitable alternative) Threshold & Non-threshold substances Threshold substances Threshold substances CSR Analysis of Alternatives Substitution Plan SEA Substance & Applicant info CSR Analysis of Alternatives SEA Substance & Applicant info CSR Analysis of Alternatives SEA Substance & Applicant info

  17. Resources: ECHA website http://echa.europa.eu/reach/authorisation_under_reach/authorisation_application/authorisation_how_en.asp

  18. Resources: CEFIC website http://www.cefic.org/Industry-support/Implementing-reach/Guidances-and-Tools1/

  19. After submission Draft opinions RAC + SEAC Final opinions RAC + SEAC Publication in OJ Decision by Commission Applicant may comment Start of obligations to communicate in the supply chain Open questions: What if authorisation is refused? What to do with stocks already in the supply chain?

  20. Authorization: consider that... • It is a lengthy, costly and labour intensive process with a large degree of uncertainty • Alternativesavailablefor all applications? • Canyou (and yourcustomers) switch before the application date? (concertedaction need to considercompetitionlaw issues) • Ifnot, do you want to continue this business in Europe? Costvs benefit? • Communicatewithyourcustomers / suppliers • ‘Living process’: authorisationgrantedfor a limited time  re-submission

  21. Conclusions • Applying for authorisation is new to everyone • Data sharing not a legal obligation • Large risk of infringement of anti-trust law • High level of detail required in the application dossier • Early start recommended! • Make use of opportunities to communicate with ECHA

  22. Restrictions • Safety net in REACH, manage risks not sufficiently addressed by other processes • All uses of a restricted substance not specifically restricted under Annex XVII are allowed under REACH (except if also listed on Annex XIV or subject to other legislation) within the limits of the Exposure Scenarios of manufacturers’/importers’ registration. • Decision for the restriction based on the two following cumulative elements: • a) an unacceptable risk to human health or environment, and • b) the risk needs to be addressed at a community wide basis level. • List of all restricted substances (specifying restricted uses) in Annex XVII of REACH

  23. Restrictions • Not a new concept! • Existing restrictions in the Marketing and Use Directive (76/769/EEC) carried over to REACH. • Directive 76/769/EEC was repealed on 1 June 2009. • Pay attention to Article 67(3) referring to more severe national restrictions, to be maintained until 1 June 2013, provided they have been notified. • Broad scope: • Any substance on its own, in a preparation or in an article may be subject, where justified, to restrictions. • Can apply to manufacturing, placing on the market (including importing) and/or all uses or to specific uses. • No tonnage threshold for a substance subject to restriction provisions.

  24. Restrictions Exemptions: • in scientific research and development, • for on-site isolated and non-isolated intermediates, • in PPORD, if this as well as the exempted quantities are specified in the Annex XVII, • for the use of substances in cosmetic products, with regard to risks to human health within the scope of the Cosmetics Directive

  25. Restrictions- process and timeline

  26. Restrictions- stay up-to-date! http://echa.europa.eu/reach/restriction/existing_restriction_en.asp

  27. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!

More Related