1 / 18

The History of REACH The European Union Proposal for Chemicals Management

This article provides an overview of the history of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals) and discusses the need for a new chemicals management policy in the European Union. It highlights the inefficiencies and challenges of the current system and outlines the objectives of REACH. The article also mentions international initiatives on chemical assessment and the support for REACH from the Council and European Parliament.

jrick
Télécharger la présentation

The History of REACH The European Union Proposal for Chemicals Management

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. The History of REACHThe European Union Proposal for Chemicals Management Framing a Future Chemicals Policy Boston (MA), April 27, 2005 Robert Donkers, Environment Counselor Delegation of the European Commission to the US

  2. REACH – an overview of its history • Informal Environment Council at Chester (UK) in Spring 1998 • November 1998: Commission Report on performance of the existing legislation followed by Council Conclusions requesting new EU policy • February 2001: White Paper published • June/November 2001: Conclusions Environment Council/Resolution EP • September 2001- March 2002: Technical Working Groups + studies • May - July 2003: Internet consultation on internal draft • 20 May 2003, early notice to WTO Members • 29 October 2003: Draft REACH regulation adopted by Commission • 21 January 2004: Proposal notified under the TBT Agreement • Today: under discussion in European Parliament and Council of Ministers (still subject to modification).

  3. WHY do we need REACH? Current system for chemicals management is inefficient • Difficult to identify risks – difficult to address risks: • Lack of information about most substances on the market • Lack of incentives for innovation, in particular of less hazardous substitutes. US rate of new notifications 3 to 4 times higher

  4. The Current EU Chemicals Policy Problems • Distinction between new and existing substances, September 1981 • New substances heavily regulated, 0.01 % of marketed volume • Existing substances virtually not regulated, 99.9 % of marketed volume Burden of the Past

  5. The Current EU Chemicals Policy Existing substances • Existing substances can be used without testing (100,106 existing substances registered in EINECS) • 30,000 to 70,000 on the market • Burden of proof on public authorities • No efficient instrument to ensure safe use of the most problematic substances • Risk assessments too slow: few substances assessed • Insufficient resources on the part of Member States: heavy delays (4 to 6 years for some substances) Lack of Confidence in Chemicals

  6. New substances – Knowledge of dangerous properties 70% dangerous 3.500 new substances 100% tested

  7. Existing substances Knowledge of dangerous properties ? 30,000 existing substances 2600 HPV substances *: 3 % … tested 11 % … Base Set 15 % … almost Base Set 15 % … no data 56 % … often data for acute toxicity *… Evaluation by the ECB. HPV = high production volume(>= 1000 tonnes/year/ manufacturer). These substances make out over 95% of the chemicals on the market.

  8. Knowledge about chemicals is needed for • Classification and labeling Self-responsibility of industry does not work (see Commission Report, November 1998) • Producer liability For long-term effects it will never work, because cause-effect relationships difficult to demonstrate • Safety at work legislation Occupational limit values, etc. • Consumer Protection and Product Safety • Local production permits For installation permits, etc. • Environment legislation (waste, water, air, IPPC)

  9. Costs to address Asbestos • Removal from buildings • Berlaymont (Commission HQ): € 0.12 billion • Public buildings in Berlin (West), Cologne, Bremen: € 1.63 billion • Liability claims • US: (Re-) insurance companies pay billions of $. Halberton “settles” for $ 5 billion • UK: Lloyds in difficulties some years ago

  10. A New EU Chemicals Policy Objectives of REACH • Sustainable Development • Protection of human health and the environment • Maintain/enhance innovation/competitiveness • Maintain the Internal Market • Increased transparency and consumer awareness • Integration with international efforts • Promotion of non-animal testing • Conformity to WTO obligations Substitution and precaution underpin system

  11. International initiatives on “existing” substances Current state of play • US EPA started programmes to assess 2,800 HPV. Further action will follow as necessary. to assess 23 chemicals relevant for children • Canada launched a programme covering 23,000 DSL chemicals • Japan has also started action • OECD has started a hazard assessment programme on 4,100 HPV • ICCA established in Oct. 1999 a voluntary global programme of accelerated testing and hazard assessments by 2004 of around 1,000 of the 4,100 HPV. CEFIC is responsible for 40 % of these

  12. Commission WorkingGroups • Testing, Registration and Evaluation • Risk Assessment • Accelerated Risk Management and Authorisation • Substances of very high concern: PBT and VPVB • Substances in products • Classification and Labelling, including GHS • Information through the supply chain, including safety data sheets

  13. Council and European Parliament Strong support for White Paper Council • PBT and vPvB substances under Authorization scheme • Secure workers’ protection • Supportive measures for in particular SMEs European Parliament • Only time-limited authorizations and when applicant is developing alternative • Yearly report on volumes • No substances of very high concern in consumer products from 2012 and no authorisations after 2020

  14. Impact on US Suppliers? • Alleged discrimination • Substances in articles (Article 6) • Application of REACH to EU and non-EU manufacturers • The principle of least trade restrictiveness • Other concerns • Inconsistent application by EU Member States • Compatibility with international efforts • Effects on innovation • Protection of confidential information

  15. Substances in articles • Concern: Alleged discrimination against non-EU producers of articles that are imported into the European Union. • Response: Article 6 is not discriminatory against articles imported into the European Union: • EU producers and importers have the same duties – otherwise major loophole in protection. • Scope limited to dangerous substances that are released (intended or non intended). • Proposal to limit provisions to a substance list inconsistent with the principle of industry responsibility and difficult to identify the substances in advance.

  16. The principle of least trade restrictiveness • Concern: REACH is more trade restrictive than necessary: • potential for duplication of testing and risk assessments. • authorisation is disproportionate and unworkable; decisions are based on hazard • General concerns about workability and burden on industry but no clear examples given • Response: • individual registrations necessary (but co-operation encouraged and generation of new data is last resort) • authorisation is limited in scope, workable and decisions are taken based on risk • impact assessment indicates: benefits outweigh costs • Interim strategy to prepare for the introduction of REACH

  17. Compatibility of REACH with international efforts to control chemicals • Concern: REACH is incompatible with international and other initiatives, such as the US, OECD, ICCA HPV programmes, Canadian PBT scanning and the GHS • Response: • REACH is complementary to such programmes and starts later • REACH uses OECD test guidelines incl. in vitro, MAD • Information generated under the HPV programmes may be used for REACH, as long as registrants can demonstrate they have a right to use the studies and the studies are of good quality via IUCLID • Any information generated under other programmes can be used if appropriate (see REACH annex IX), including non-GLP data, (Q) SARs etc. • The EU is planning to implement GHS by law. Proposal expected in course of 2005

  18. Summary - Current & New Policy Current New Burden of proof Mainly regulator Mainly industry Registration and testing requirements 10 kg for new substances None for existing substances  1 t for all substances Tailor-made for higher tonnages. Authorisation for CMR, PBTs, vPvBs Exemptions For R&D new substances More flexibility for R&D and intermediates Risk management Limitation or ban (Dir. 76/769/EWG) Accelerated risk management on the basis of targeted risk assessment and application of precaution Database IUCLID Central database (ECB) Access for the public

More Related