1 / 29

Implementation of the GHS in the EU

Implementation of the GHS in the EU. Andrew Fasey andrew.fasey@ptkltd.com. Innovators Roundtable 16 November 2005 Charlottesville, USA. Why I am here. PTK Ltd (now - ??) Senior Special Fellow for the UN on GHS Implementation REACH, GHS (industry, EU governments, WHO)

trilby
Télécharger la présentation

Implementation of the GHS in the EU

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. Implementation of the GHS in the EU Andrew Fasey andrew.fasey@ptkltd.com Innovators Roundtable 16 November 2005 Charlottesville, USA

  2. Why I am here • PTK Ltd (now - ??) • Senior Special Fellow for the UN on GHS Implementation • REACH, GHS (industry, EU governments, WHO) • DG ENTR (2001 - 2004) • ongoing development of GHS: UN & OECD • implementation of GHS in the EU • author (1 of) of REACH • UK govn: international chemicals policy (1997 –2001) • author (1 of) of GHS: IOMC drafting group • Head of UK delegation to the UN GHS Committees • Acting Head of UK delegation to IFCS III (Bahia Declaration) • policy on chemicals strategy White Paper • DG ENV chemicals unit (1994 – 1997)

  3. Summary • As many questions as answers • NOT to describe the GHS • Position of the EU institutions • Commission • Council • Issues to be addressed, options, likely solutions • Scope & Building Blocks • REACH • Downstream legislation • Annex 1 • Transport

  4. European Commission • WP: GHS to be considered as part of REACH • EM to the Directive amending 67/548/EEC, 29 October 2003 – 2003/0257(COD) “it is the intention of the Commission to propose the inclusion of the … GHS into Community Law as soon as possible” & more specifically “the Commission will come forward with the necessary proposals for having it adopted at the same time as the final adoption of the REACH legislation”

  5. European Council “invites the Commission to … analyse its implications for Community legislation and consider … the need to submit proposals for its implementation” • 7 June 2001 on the WP • 24 June 1999 on the development of the WP

  6. International Context • Rio, 1992– Chapter 19 of UNCED Agenda 21 • Development by IOMC, to end 2001 • UN CETDG/GHS – agreed Dec 2002 • UN ECOSOC – adopted July 2003 • IFCS III -operational by 2008 • WSSD, Jo’burg – operational by 2008

  7. Context • GHS is voluntary • Options etc necessary for political agreement • Increased harmonisation over time • Reduced ‘ownership’ problems • Living document • Improve over time in light of experience

  8. EU – Implementation Issues • Existing comprehensive C&L system • Substances (67/548/EEC) • Preparations (99/45/EEC) • Applies to all sectors (apart from transport) • Downstream legislation • 30+ pieces affected • Major implications • REACH • Timing, implementation period • Part of or stand-alone

  9. EU – Implementation Issues • Non-GHS elements • GHSify or as now • Scope and building blocks • Annex I – harmonised C&L • New EU MS • Competence • Commission or MS • Timing European Commission proposal - end 2005?

  10. Scope / Building Blocks • Freedom to implement • options &/or • classes &/or • categories • For example: • Sensitisation options • CMR options • Transport: classes • Acute toxicity category 5

  11. Scope / Building Blocks • Choices (not mutually exclusive) • As close to current EU scope as possible • All GHS, apply to supply-side • Consider each BB, option, class, category on merit • All GHS, apply to each sector as needed • International harmonisation

  12. Scope - Issues • Impact on downstream legislation • Over 30 refer to C&L • e.g. Seveso Directive, Worker Protection legislation • Comparison EU vs. GHS • Substances • Mixtures • Labelling • Over-labelling • Risk based • Consumers / users

  13. REACH • Timing • Before • Ideal but politically possible? • After • Duties need to be repeated e.g. C&L • Change in status e.g. authorisation • At same time • Onerous but logical BUT IF REACH DELAYED?

  14. Regulatory Instrument • Regulation • Article 95 (internal market) • Stand-alone • Relevant to many pieces of legislation incl. REACH • Easier to update • Incorporate other C&L legislation e.g. transport? • Part of REACH • After 1st reading • Too big a change? • Dragged down by REACH or vice versa?

  15. Downstream Legislation • 30 + pieces of legislation • How affected • Impact assessment • Sector by sector • Choices per sector • GHS classes/categories • Existing EU criteria • Introduce specific criteria • Assume ‘equivalence’

  16. Downstream Legislation Examples • Waste • Prior Informed Consent (PIC: Rotterdam Convention) • Detergents • Seveso (major accident sites) • Worker protection

  17. Seveso Directive Options • Acute toxicity 1 & 2 • Acute toxicity 1, 2 & 3 • 200 mg/kg • Convention to harmonise with GHS • Acute toxicity 1, 2 & 3 and change qualifying quantities • Change aggregation criteria

  18. Transfer all to GHS Regulation Huge resource requirement to reclassify Potential to delay Against principle of self-classification in GHS WTO concerns Benefits to H, S & E Consistency, harmonisation Transfer CMRs and respiratory sensitisers to GHS Regulation Consistent with REACH Easy for CMRs Few respiratory sensitisers Rest of Annex 1 to C&L Inventory (EU format) Annex 1 to 67/548/EEC

  19. Transport • Substances: differences between transport (UNRTDG, chap 3.2) and Annex 1 (67/548) • Single inventory? • Harmonisation across supply and transport • Implementation date by modal bodies (ADR, RID, IMO) – 1 Jan 2007 • Multi-lateral agreements – GHS add to the problem? • Conventions e.g IMDG Code => GHS?

  20. Other Issues • Weaknesses in GHS • guidance • Gaps in coverage • Language & translation (massive in EU) • 3rd country implementation • Yes / No • Costs / benefits • Common date • New EU MS • overload

  21. Implementation Period Assuming GHS & REACH at same time • 3 years • REACH requirements in advance • 1st registration deadline • C&L inventory deadline • 11 years • REACH requirements in advance • Last (current) REACH deadline • Mixed e.g. • Substances then preparations • To REACH requirements • 11 years (e.g.) for all non-REACH

  22. Implementation Period • Long period • Spread costs • Enable resources to cope • Teething problems ironed out • Short period • Less confusion over dual system • Benefits realised more quickly

  23. Ongoing Issues • ‘Model’ Regulation? • Continual improvement • Competence – MS or Commission? • EU coordination • MS and 3rd country involvement • Codification of hazard statements (essential for EU & internationally)

  24. Ongoing Issues • Sensitisation • Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) • Terrestrial toxicity • Water reactive substances • Inhalation toxicity • Neurotoxicity • S-phrases / precautionary statements

  25. Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Options • No label • EU symbol • GHS symbol • No requirements

  26. Structure of EU Legislation • Keep as close to GHS as possible • Merge C&L for substances and mixtures (as in GHS) • Transport and supply kept separate as different legal basis • Legal Articles – describe what, how, when • General issues • Hazard identification, evaluation and classification • Packaging • Hazard communication: labelling (SDS to REACH) • Links to REACH (in REACH or GHS?)

  27. Structure cont. • Annex 1 – classification and labelling criteria • Annex 2 – hierarchy • Annex 3 – hazard statements • Annex 4 – precautionary statements • Annex 5 – harmonised EU C&L

  28. Conclusion • EU plans to implement the GHS • Proposal by end 2005… • Downstream legislation = biggest concern • Many questions of principle • Many detailed questions • First mover advantage? • Progressive global harmonisation

  29. Contact Andrew Fasey andrew.fasey@ptkltd.com www.ptkltd.com

More Related