REACHSPOT

ECHA Launches C&L Inventory of Chemicals

2012-02-15T10:58:00.000-08:00

ECHA launched (today, February 15, 2012) the Classification and Labeling Inventory of chemicals on the EU market. You can view the ECHA press release, or go straight to key inventory reference links:

Public C&L Inventory: http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory
C&L Inventory Q&A: http://echa.europa.eu/support/faqs/q-a-on-the-public-cl-inventory
C&L Inventory Factsheet: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17242/factsheet_public_classification_labeling_en.pdf

Webinar February 16th: Supplier Data and Compliance

2012-02-15T08:31:00.000-08:00

This looks like a good webinar for REACH data gathering -- upstream and downstream. This is a paid webinar on Thursday February 16th at 1PM Eastern.

Cost: $99
Host: NAEM, the U.S. based National Association for Environmental Management

Experts from 3E Co. and Actio Corp. will show how EHS and sustainability managers can effectively create a cohesive, efficient and effective Compliance program resulting in a consistent source of supplier compliance data shared across the enterprise. Automating the process of supplier data management will be emphasized, along with best practices that apply to any such program.

Attendees will take away insights that include:

How leading-edge companies gather supplier data for REACH, RoHS, WEEE and TSCA compliance
Proven management systems that reduce regulatory and product stewardship risks throughout the supply chain
How to create quality programs that allow your company to connect automatically and meaningfully to suppliers, not just today but continuously over time
Techniques for using technology to streamline supplier relationships and compliance processes, saving time, money and headaches
How your company can collaborate with suppliers to support the needs and goals of both parties
Five best practices you may not have thought of

Source: NAEM web site via LinkedIn: Environmental, Health & Safety Compliance Network (you have to be signed into LinkedIn for that link to work, fyi)

Of the WWS category: Webinars Worth Sharing.

ECHA Study: New CLP Pictograms Unfathomable to Public

2012-02-10T11:41:00.000-08:00

Most readers will know that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) submitted a key report to the European Commission on January 20th, 2012. The report analyses efforts thus far to communicate hazards to the public via labeling and packaging. Report Title: Communication on the safe use of chemicals Report. Subtitle: Study on the Communication of Information to the General Public.

The report can be distilled to one simple finding: The general public has no idea what the new CLP label pictograms mean. Apparently two separate surveys found that the public doesn't understand the pictograms on the new CLP labels one iota.

Here's a quiz. How many of these pictograms do *you* immediately understand?

Danger:
rolling pins

Alert:
Native American

ceremonial wheel

Heads up:
Prime-time TV police drama
marketing swag

Answers to pictogram quiz
There aren't many calls for humor in our line of work but this is one of those calls. Here are the real answers:

Rolling pin = gas under pressure (!)
Native American ceremonial wheel = oxodizing substance or mixture (!)
Police marketing swag = health hazard (well, ok, that one seems reasonable after the first two)

Thus...
Industry should be encouraged, says the report, to bring product appearance and packaging more in line with the hazard information on labels, making use of behavioral drivers to amplify the label's message -- thereby promoting the associated safety behavior in consumers. Basically, industry is encouraged to keep explaining the labels.

Changes to the CLP labels themselves are not recommended. Authorities believe it's more beneficial to allow the public to get used to the new system – now in use globally – steadily improving the public's overall understanding of the hazards posed by chemicals and encouraging a safer use of household chemicals in particular.

According to Article 34 of the CLP Regulation, the European Commission will follow up by submitting a related report to the European Parliament and the European Council in order to, if justified, present a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation.

More information
Study on Communication on the safe use of chemicals to the General Public, submitted to the European Commission on 20 January 2012:
http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17203/clp_study_en.pdf

Risk Communication Network (RCN):
http://echa.europa.eu/en/web/guest/about-us/partners-and-networks/risk-communication-network

Article 34 of the CLP Regulation:
http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/clp/legislation

CLP Deadlines & Fees:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/12/30/europes-clp-regulation-overview-deadlines-and-fees/

13 New SVHCs Slated for Authorisation List (Ban)

2012-01-18T11:38:00.000-08:00

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is on the move -- and has named/proposed 13 new substances for the Authorisation List. This means ECHA recommends that 13 Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) should not be used without authorisation from now on. These substances are all classified because of their carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (or a combination thereof) properties. They are used in applications where there is potential for worker exposure.

The 13 chemicals in question are listed below, or you can view them on the ECHA web site: ECHA's 13 new chemicals.

From its list of candidate substances, ECHA says it prioritized the 13 substances in spring this year based on:

their hazard properties
the volumes used
the likelihood of exposure to humans

The Agency says it took comments into account from the public consultation period (between mid June and mid September). An overview of the authorisation process under REACH: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/authorisation

This is the third time that the Agency recommends substances for authorisation (the first was in June 2009 and the second in December 2010). More on 3rd recommendation: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/authorisation/recommendation-for-inclusion-in-the-authorisation-list/previous-recommendations/3rd-recommendation

ECHA also says it considered the opinion of the Member State Committee, whose majority supported ECHA's conclusion that all thirteen SVHCs should be included in Annex XIV. More on Member State Committee's opinion: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17087/opinion_draft_recommendation_annex_xiv_third_en.pdf [PDF]

The 13 substances are:
The thirteen substances and their main uses within the scope of authorisation are:

Trichloroethylene (carcinogen). A substance mainly used in surface cleaning, in textile scouring, in adhesives and as a heat transfer fluid.
Chromium trioxide (carcinogen, mutagen). A substance mainly used for metal finishing and as a catalyst.
Acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers (group containing: chromic acid, dichromic acid, oligomers of chromic acid and dichromic acid) (carcinogen). A substance that could be used to replace chromium trioxide in many of its uses.
Sodium dichromate (carcinogen, mutagen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in metal surface treatment.
Potassium dichromate (carcinogen, mutagen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in metal surface treatment and as a processing aid.
Ammonium dichromate (carcinogen, mutagen, toxic for reproduction). A substance with currently no uses in the scope of authorisation. It could however be used to replace other chromium(VI) substances.
Potassium chromate (carcinogen, mutagen). A substance mainly used in metal surface treatment.
Sodium chromate (carcinogen, mutagen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in metal surface treatment.
Cobalt(II) sulphate (carcinogen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in surface treatment processes and as a water treatment chemical, oxygen scavenger and corrosion inhibitor.
Cobalt dichloride (carcinogen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in surface treatment processes and as a water treatment chemical, oxygen scavenger and corrosion inhibitor.
Cobalt(II) dinitrate (carcinogen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in surface treatment processes and as a water treatment chemical, oxygen scavenger and corrosion inhibitor.
Cobalt(II) carbonate (carcinogen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used in fertilisers and in surface treatment processes.
Cobalt(II) diacetate (carcinogen, toxic for reproduction). A substance mainly used as a catalyst and in surface treatment processes.

REACH Regulation Threshold Amounts

2012-01-10T08:08:00.000-08:00

Overview / background to understanding threshold amounts For chemicals on the REACH regulation Candidate List, and there are currently 73 SVHCs listed, there are restrictions in terms of what quantity of that chemical you can use in your products and under what conditions these restrictions apply. A large part of the restriction is in terms of threshold amounts. These may not be exceeded under the law of REACH.

REACH thresholds: 0.1% For clarification, there are 4 main areas where the REACH threshold amount applies. The most important one for most businesses is the first. If any SVHC on the candidate list is present in an article with a concentration above 0.1% (w/w) and the total amount of the SVHC exceeds 1 tonne per annum, per producer or importer, you need to act. Just contact ECHA right away and ask what to do. If you do not want to draw attention on the matter just yet, contact a 3rd-party private chemical data supplier. Here is a list of 3rd-party tools for REACH (etc) compliance, prepared and published by a green chemistry association out of U. Mass. Lowell: GC3 Retailer Portal.

Notification requirement: You must submit notification to ECHA if any SVHC on the candidate list present in an article has a concentration above 0.1% (w/w) and the total amount of the SVHC exceeds 1 tonne per annum, per producer or importer. The SVHC candidate list is updated from time to time, with the most recent update in December of 2011.

Communication requirement: If any SVHC on candidate list is present in your product with a concentration above 0.1% (w/w), you are obliged to inform the recipients of the article along the supply chain about the chemical name(s) and how the article can be safely used. REACH further requires this information be made available within 45 days upon consumer request.

Restriction requirements: Article suppliers not only need to comply with the requirements of that SVHC, they also need to comply with the requirements of REACH Restriction. For example, AZO dyes and nickel release are on REACH restricted substances list (XVII of REACH).

Authorization requirements: Priority SVHCs on the candidate list will be included in the Annex XIV of REACH (the "Authorization List"). Those SVHCs will not be allowed to be used, placed on the market or imported into the EU after a date to be set -- unless the company is granted an authorization.

This post would like to send a shout out to the Textile and Leather Chemical Regulation & Testing Service who have put together a nice page on REACH and their information organization was helpful in creating this post.

Difference Between REACH Authorization List and Candidate List

2012-01-10T07:23:00.000-08:00

The audience for this blog is made up of people who typically do not need to cover the basics, but we get asked this question often enough to make an exception and clarify the REACH Candidate List vs. the Authorization List. The different lists are particularly confusing to some non-Europeans, professionals who are just a few degrees removed from REACH and ECHA -- far enough removed for a distinction between to similar lists to be confusing: which one is which? And the better question might be, which one is witch..?

What's the difference between the REACH regulation Candidate List and the REACH regulation Authorization List? That is the question.

Here is the answer: Substances on the Candidate List under REACH are simply chemicals "running for election" to be on the Authorization List. They are Candidates. They come to be candidates via a nomination followed by or as a result of a series of qualifications/testing to see if the substance is or isn't one of very high concern. If the chemical is a)nominated and b)deemed to be a substance of very high concern (SVHC), then it is named to the REACH Candidate List.

As a candidate, chemicals are subject to certain protocols, such as uses in restricted amounts in products or in manufacturing processes or in consumer uses or emissions/end of life releases/off-gassing/etc. These are known as REACH regulation threshold amounts. If you're a chemical and you are "elected" to the Authorization List then companies must be authorized to use you in their manufacturing. A good example is not cadmium, which is restricted under RoHS but not REACH [this sentence has been modified from the original, apologies for the error]. A good example is the chemical musk xylene, historically used in synthetic musk fragrances. To sell products in Europe you must be authorized by ECHA to make or sell products containing musk xylene.

(The biggest problem with this is that some materials from non-European countries, say China, may not show cadmium as an ingredient. But that's a supply chain material disclosure discussion for another day.)

The European Chemicals Agency, or ECHA, is obliged to regularly submit recommendations of substances that should be subject to authorization. The submissions are sent to the European Commission. ECHA is responsible for prioritizing substances from the Candidate List to determine which ones should be included in the Authorization List (also known as Annex XIV, think of a chemical as being "annexed" or marginalized, if that helps). The prioritization is based on ECHA's best information available on intrinsic properties, uses and volumes of the substances on the EU market.

In summary: the Authorization List is the list you do not want to be on, because then everything you do will have to authorized (like living in a bubble a la the Obamas). The Candidate List, currently at 73 SVHCs, is the domain of would-be A-Listers.

For more on threshold amounts: see REACH Regulation Threshold Amounts, a related blog post.

REACH and Grandfathered Parts Clauses

2012-01-01T12:39:00.000-08:00

Common question we're asked is, does REACH have a grandfather clause just the way ROHS has?

Answer: There is nothing stipulated in the current REACH law regarding older/in-use parts which have no data. However, there is an expected revision to REACH law in 2012 -- which will likely contain a "spare part clause" similar to RoHS End of Life restrictions. Some commentators have rather cheekily noted that the logic can run along the lines of: "repair as produced," which is funny, true, and unlikely to be on the label.

Cheers: here's to 2012.

December's 20 New SVHCs on the Candidate List

2011-12-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

ECHA slipped 20 new chemicals onto the Candidate List in December 2011. Not all of them had a comment period, which was interesting, setting a precedent for relatively sudden quakes of regulated SVHCs. One of the 20 was an endocrine disruptor, paving the way for future regulation of similar chemicals, such as BPA.

The 20 new substances include 18 new listings and two listings that increase the scope of prior listings. The ‘Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres’ and ‘Zirconia Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres’ open the scope of those items from the original listing, in hopes that all hazardous versions of the substances will be covered by the listings. (These two modified substances are additions to the existing list and not just modifications to original listings as can be mistakenly interpreted. ) Please note that ECHA recently updated its web site -- which is a good thing -- but links aren't all filled in yet so you may have to search a little.

The proposal to add these substances to the Candidate List was announced months ago. It's expected that 200+ substances will be added to the EU REACH Candidate List within the next 4 years.

Immediately when a certain substance is added to the REACH Candidate List, the supplier must report (see REACH Article 33) if the substance is above 0.1% of the product. Customers, therefore, can be in an unfortunate position, because the inclusion of an SVHC to the EU Candidate List will require suppliers to have reported the SVHC in the past and along the way.

Consider something ubiquitous like Formaldehyde: This process chemical is almost everywhere in plastics. But it wasn't reported consistently or reliably reported by suppliers. However, with its inclusion to the Candidate List there is a mandatory requirement to get Formaldehyde reported (if above 0.1%). So what do you do?

So, if you haven't done your full IMDS data reporting to your customers -- and let's face it, not everybody has -- and if you haven't received all your full IMDS reports from your suppliers, then you are need to somewhat urgently find some other way gathering supplier data to find out if you are compliant with REACH or not.

Here are good best practices for gathering and managing supplier data -- good article from Chem.Info magazine.

Hazard Assessment Guidance Part B

2011-11-16T06:07:00.000-08:00

Heads up on Guidance publication:

Part B of the Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment - Hazard Assessment- is now available in 22 EU languages. Reference name: Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment

You'll find guidance on the collection and assessment of the available information on the intrinsic properties of the substances to be registered, on the requirements specified by REACH, on the identification of data gaps and on the generation of the additional information required to comply with the Regulation.

The documents also aim at assisting industry in conducting Chemical Safety Assessments and preparing Chemical Safety Reports, when required, as part of a registration dossier (for a substance on its own or as part of a preparation or as released from an article), as part of an authorisation application or as part of downstream user obligations. It also sets out the basic principles for authorities preparing a risk assessment in support of a restriction proposal or a proposal to include substances into the authorisation regime, and when required as part of a Substance Evaluation.

http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_en.htm?time=1321452859

If you don't see what you're looking for, please contact us for more specific instructions on how to find it. Sometimes ECHA site and documents are very good, sometimes key info seems buried. Thank you.

European Commission Requests Nano-Guidance for Cosmetics

2011-11-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

The European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-General has requested guidance from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) on the safety assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics.

The guidance should include parameters that would be required in a safety dossier for nanomaterials, including alternative methods and suitable approaches to evaluate the safety of nanomaterials.

This will help implement Cosmetics Regulation (EC) N° 1223/2009 -- which imposes strict conditions and timelines on both responsible persons and the SCCS. Under the Cosmetics Regulation, notification starts in January 2013 while the Regulation enters into force in July 2013.

More details, terrible interface, here:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_q_056.pdf

REACHing 7 Generations Into the Future

2011-10-31T07:29:00.000-07:00

Environmental Leader (EL), the environmental business to business publication out of Colorado, USA, posted an article this morning about ISO's 14006:2011.

7th Generation The EL article evokes the Native American law known as the Great Law of the Iroquois, which encourages a company or an entity to think seven generations down the road before taking an action. Imagine your family 200 years ahead. Then determine whether the decision you’re about to make benefits your children, seven generations into the future.

The newly published ISO 14006:2011, Environmental management systems – Guidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign, gives guidance on incorporating so-called “ecodesign” into any environmental management system (EMS), quality management system (QMS), or similar management system.

- Environmental Leader, Environmental B2B

It's worth mentioning because it may help companies set up some sort of lifecycle assessment system that preemptively screens chemical ingredients for REACH and also for other purposes, such as greener design, emissions control (VOC emissions and so on) and for greater visibility in terms of product and waste constitution in industry in general.

This type of ISO standard -- an eco-design effort -- is along the lines of the 7th Generation thinking, it's said.

Arguably, so is REACH regulation itself.

Software for REACH Compliance

2011-10-26T11:28:00.000-07:00

Hadn't seen this before, from Bloomberg / Businessweek:

Actio Corporation and Atrion International announced the availability of REACHtracker(TM) 2.0, a SaaS solution for automating and managing supply chain communication and substance information collection processes for compliance under Europe's REACH legislation.

REACHtracker 2.0 provides a holistic substance view that integrates the relationships between finished products, raw materials and individual substances. The solution also provides enhanced communications features for upstream and downstream supply chain communications and customized visual reporting tools that alert organizations if any of their finished goods, raw materials, or substances are not in compliance so that they can take action to mitigate their risk.

New features include: Bill of Materials (BOM)-level data management, Automation and tracking data collection from suppliers and customers, Advanced alerts when a supplier has added, changed, or reviewed any data or when inventory is approaching and exceeding substance volume limits, Enhanced visual reporting features that enable organizations to see changes and threshold levels at-a-glance, Enhanced downstream communication tools for collecting usage data, Improved account access and data security through VeriSign's Secure.

More from Bloomberg: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10332258

How You and ECHA Can Avoid Animal Testing

2011-10-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) requests your help to avoid testing on innocent animals. This is a request for information from third parties on involving vertebrate animals.

REACH requires that new testing of a substance involving vertebrate animals is only carried out as a last resort. To ensure that the best use has been made of existing information, particularly information on existing vertebrate tests, ECHA publishes all test proposals involving vertebrate animals before the testing is done.

ECHA's test proposals on existing vertebrate animals are here.

Process continues as follows: after a testing proposal has been published, third parties have 45 days to submit scientifically valid information and studies, both of which must address the relevant substance and hazard endpoint, relating to the testing proposal.

Information on related registered substances is published at ECHA-CHEM website.

You are requested to provide a non-confidential version of the information, which ECHA may make available to the public. Any scientifically valid information and studies that address the relevant substance and hazard endpoint, relating to the testing proposal, will be taken into account by ECHA in preparing its decision. ECHA publishes its responses to these contributions for the testing proposals after adoption of the related final decision. Responses will indicate ECHA's conclusions drawn from the information provided by third parties. All confidential information has been removed. By doing that, ECHA wishes to improve the transparency of the process and encourage submission of relevant information.

Thanks for your cooperation. Let's keep REACh from mal-affecting fauna on its way to saving the world. Right?

2013 REACH Deadline: ECHA Says 'Act Now'

2011-10-18T06:37:00.000-07:00

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) recently launched a campaign to remind industry to start preparing for the second REACH registration deadline.

Companies manufacturing or importing chemicals in quantities at or above 100 tonnes per year are required to register these substances with ECHA by 31 May 2013.

The Agency has organized this awareness campaign to promote best practices in fulfilling obligations, also to publicize various tools and services that can help comply with REACH registration requirements. Geert Dancet, ECHA's Executive Director, asks for help in passing this message on, "so that companies start their preparations for registration earlier than last time and take full benefit from the best practice and our support tools to deliver dossiers of higher quality."

On ECHA's website, there is apparently a dedicated webpage for this initiative containing an agenda for events that ECHA is rolling out in relation to the REACH 2013 deadline; all relevant materials and links can also be found there. (That's nice in theory, but typical of ECHA's web experience, we could not easily locate the page.)

In addition, ECHA says it has designed a promotional web banner (a promotional web banner..?) that Member States, industry associations and other organizations can add to their REACH web pages. This banner will help to brand the 'Act now!' campaign in all EU countries. Additionally, by clicking on the banner visitors will be directed to the ECHA 'REACH 2013 - Act now!' campaign pages. (We could not find an instance of this banner, either..)

The point is: the 2013 REACH deadlines are coming, ECHA urges us to get started sooner than we did last time. Fair enough.

Don't Expect Miracles from REACH Review 2012

2011-10-03T07:12:00.000-07:00

No sweeping overhaul of the EU's controversial REACH chemicals regulation should be expected under the REACH review scheduled for next year, the European Commission told participants at a conference last week.

This was disappointing news to some, as there have been of course industry calls to ease REACH's challenging chemical registration system.

The REACH review is expected to include:

Test method costs and spends: an audit of the amount and distribution of funding made available by the EC for the development and evaluation of alternative test methods
REACH scope: whether to amend REACH scope to avoid overlaps with other EU legislation
ECHA: a review of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Lower tonnage substances: a review of registration requirements for lower tonnage substances

According to reports, Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik (pictured, right, image courtesy of Wikipedia) said he knows many are worried about whether the review "will change the rules of the game" but stressed that the review was a legal requirement and that the Commission would "only put forward a legislative revision if it were really needed and necessary".

Potočnik suggested that time was probably not ripe yet for major changes as it has only recently started being applied. "[This] legislation is just starting to function and we have still much to learn," he underlined, playing down expectations for deeper changes.

Read more here: http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/eu-plays-expectations-reach-review-news-507884

What's REACH's Impact on the EU Chemical Industry?

2011-09-14T06:57:00.000-07:00

ECHA invites you to complete this survey: http://www.cses.co.uk/reach_innovation_survey/

Another survey we recommend. Again -- like most business professionals today -- we are ill to the gills with entities so desperate for our attention that we're asked to complete a survey five times a day. We've noticed new agencies employing temporary workers to do nothing but complete these dang surveys -- which shows you how good the data is from most of these surveys. But that does not mean all surveys can be avoided or ignored.

When it comes to REACH regulation we feel that since REACH and ECHA and related parties try so hard, and their efforts are so genuine (however at times misguided!) -- we owe it to them and to the greater business community to pitch in with our feedback.

As such, here at REACHSPOT we endorse the survey re: the impact of the REACH Regulation on the "innovativeness" of the EU chemical industry. If you know anything about REACH's impact on the chemical industry, here's an opportunity to share what you've seen, deduced and forecasted.

ECHA invites you to contribute to this important review by completing this survey: http://www.cses.co.uk/reach_innovation_survey/

The survey is expected to remain open until 7 October 2011, but by all means respond right now while you're already in that mind-set.

Big Picture: The European Commission is carrying out an extensive review of the REACH Regulation that will report on the first lessons learned from the implementation of REACH.

The Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) has been commissioned by the European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry to conduct a study on the impact of the REACH Regulation on the "innovativeness" of the EU chemical industry.

The study includes an online survey of businesses across the European Union to receive feedback on key issues related to the implementation of the REACH Regulation. It is available in 22 EU languages.

Best regards to all.

Floor Coating and Cleaning Product Exposure Scenario Examples

2011-08-31T07:23:00.000-07:00

The new example exposure scenarios are featured in two publications that are now available on the ECHA website. Subjects:
1. exposure scenario re: the widespread use of a substance in floor coatings applied by workers
2. exposure scenario re: on the use of cleaning products by consumers.

In both examples, the substances are classified as hazardous to human health but with a relatively low hazard level.

Intended audience:
1. registrants, and 2. downstream users receiving extended safety data sheets (SDSs) for registered REACH substances.

Each publication includes:

exposure scenarios, exposure estimations and risk characterisations for the CSR and for communication via the SDS
a description of the methodologies applied
learning points and conclusions from the exemplification process
open questions where further work is needed

EXPOSURE SCENARIO FOR CHEMICAL SAFETY REPORT AND COMMUNICATION
EXAMPLE: PROFESSIONAL USE OF A SUBSTANCE IN FLOOR COATINGS
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/other_docs/es_professional_use_20110829.pdf

EXPOSURE SCENARIO FOR CHEMICAL SAFETY REPORT AND COMMUNICATION
EXAMPLE: CONSUMER USE OF A SUBSTANCE IN CLEANING PRODUCTS
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/other_docs/es_for_consumer_20110829.pdf

Nanomaterials Regulated By REACH

2011-08-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

Nanomaterials are regulated by REACH because they are locked down and ostensibly covered by the definition of a chemical "substance" in REACH. The general obligations in REACH therefore apply as for any other substance and there are no provisions referring explicitly to nanomaterials.

What are nanomaterials?

Nanomaterials are defined as chemical substances or materials that are manufactured and used at a very small scale (down to 10,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair). Nanomaterials are developed to exhibit novel characteristics (such as increased strength, chemical reactivity or conductivity) relative to the same material without nanoscale features.

Hundreds of products containing nanomaterials are already in use, including:

batteries
coatings
anti-bacterial cloth

Analysts expect these markets to grow to the USD $150,000,000,000 range by 2015 -- that's around 150 billion.

The European Commission (EC) says, amusingly, that "Nano innovation is expected in many sectors." The EC then lists the following examples of sectors where nano innovation will occur, in this order:

public health (are we supposed to feel safer?)
information society (what is that, exactly?)
industry
innovation (is this a sector now?)
environment (hm, guess this is a sector now... )
energy
transport
security
space (not aerospace, just, like, you know, sort of, space in general)

Anyway, that was fun, but you get the idea.

Nanomaterials do have the potential to improve quality of life for all and to contribute to each country's industrial competitiveness.

However, it's also true that the new materials may pose risks to the environment and raise health and safety concerns. Let the testing begin. For now REACH is the regulation we've got.

Background from 2007 treatise on nanomaterials

Subject: The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials.

The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks of DG Sanco of the European Commission was asked, in the light of current scientific knowledge and in relation to the general information and practices of chemicals risk assessment, to assess the appropriateness of risk assessment methodologies described in the current Technical Guidance Documents of the chemicals legislation for the risk assessment of nanomaterials, and to provide suggestions for improvements to the methodologies.

The Committee has examined the existing base of scientific knowledge and recognised that this subject is new and rapidly developing. The Technical Guidance Documents currently make very little reference to substances in particulate form. With respect to human health, the current methodologies described in the Technical Guidance Documents are generally likely to be able to identify the hazards associated with the use of nanoparticles.

REACH Survey - Recommended

2011-07-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

We're not big fans of surveys (or polls for that matter) because the type of person who stops their day to take a quiz is not typically the same type of person we want to do too much business with -- quiz-taking is for idle teenagers not business people and we all know that most polls and surveys are strictly a marketing tactic to "engage" the consumer while culling some fairly useless data to churn out later. In this case, however, we see an exception and are endorsing this REACH survey.

The Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) has been commissioned by the European Commission Directorate General Enterprise and Industry to conduct a study to assess the impact of REACH regulation on the operation of the single market and the competitiveness of the European chemicals industry.

This study is a part of the European Commission extensive review of the REACH regulation.

Feedback sometimes really can make a difference. Find it here: http://cses.co.uk/reach_survey

REACH Guidance for Dummies

2011-07-15T12:04:00.000-07:00

If new to REACH or wanting to catch up with general REACH guidance, try the new release of Guidance in a Nutshell.

The "Nutshell Guidance" briefly explains key points, such as:

what is meant by 'an article'?
what are obligations for registration, notification and communication?
what are the possible exemptions from these obligations?

Best links:
Guidance in a Nutshell on Requirements for Substances in Articles:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/nutshell_guidance_articles2_en.pdf

Guidance on requirements for substances in articles:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/articles_en.htm

General ECHA guidance website:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/index_en.htm

ECHA's Criteria for Accredited Stakeholders

2011-07-15T11:47:00.000-07:00

The European Chemicals Agency, or ECHA, defines a REACH stakeholder as "an individual, group, institution or government with an interest or concern, either economic, societal, or environmental, in a particular measure, proposal or event."

The Actio Blog (good resource for chemical regulations news and updates) reports that ECHA´s Management Board recently revised criteria that defines how stakeholder organizations are granted accreditation with ECHA. Here are the five eligibility criteria for so-called Accredited Stakeholders, as amended:

Stakeholder Criteria 1 - Established in and for the EU

An entity seeking status as an accredited stakeholder must be legally established within the EU/EEA and have activities at the EU level. (Organisations can explain the scope of their activities in the application form.)

Stakeholder Criteria 2 - Legitimate interest

The entitiy must have a "legitimate interest" in the areas of work of ECHA. (Organisations are expected to depict their legitimate interest in the application.)

Stakeholder Criteria 3 - Representative

The entity must be "representative" in the field of their competence -- ECHA’s Accredited Stakeholders should be representative of actors in their sector or field of competence. (Organisations are expected to set out why they can be considered "representative" in the application form.)

Stakeholder Criteria 4 - Non-profit

Entities must be "non-profit" and not exclusively represent individual companies; e.g., an organization which is not operating for its own commercial profit or gain but conducts its operations for the benefit of its members or of the general public. (Non-profit status may be evidenced by the founding document or any other suitable document and must be provided during the application process.)

Stakeholder Criteria 5 (optional) - Register

Organization must be registered in the "Register of Interest Representatives" maintained by the European Commission. (All organizations are requested to indicate their registration number in the application form.)

Full details: http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/echa-updates-criteria-for-accredited-stakeholders/

EU Courts Find Belgium Guilty of REACH Breach

2011-06-08T06:02:00.000-07:00

A surprise to many, Belgium was found guilty of REACH breach in a case that foreshadows major pending litigation in months/years to come. The verdict also demonstrates that EU courts have both low tolerance and low favoritism when it comes to REACH compliance and enforcement.

"The May 5, 2011 decision in the REACH Regulation case makes Belgium the first EU Member State to be condemned by the European Court of Justice for REACH breach. The case was related to infringement proceedings brought against Belgium by the European Commission for lack of compliance with REACH Article 126."
- Environmental Leader

Environmental Leader, the Colorado-based B2B publication focusing on environmental issues concerning business today, examines the Commission vs. Belgium case and its implications for compliance and enforcement down the road.

The article includes perspective from EU legal expert Peter Krugel, and features a graph showing relative REACH compliance penalties in EU member states.

(image of source article author K.M. Hurley, used by permission)

ECHA Updates REACH Guidance

2011-06-06T17:54:00.000-07:00

As advertised, today ECHA published revised Guidance Fact Sheet on Requirements for substances in articles.

This is a great opportunity to point out ECHA's fact sheet page. If you're looking for fact sheets about REACH, this page is a good resource:

http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/guidance3_en.htm

Of course we'd recommend you keep an eye on this blog to get the most relevant REACH information. But if you have time to browse and are interested in learning the ins & outs of REACH, it's good to know about the ECHA fact sheet page - and that they are updating the documentation there.

ECHA will publish more information on chemical substances

2011-05-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

Information from the registration dossiers that is contained in the Safety Data Sheet, which also included the names of registrants, is to be published on the ECHA dissemination web section in the near future. Companies will be able to keep this information confidential if they can provide valid reasons why it should be kept this way and if the reasoning is accepted by ECHA.

ECHA's information dissemination extention comes after a legal interpretation by the European Commission Sercies and the advice of its Management Board. The ruling by the commsion is based on the fact that the name of registrant is part of the information disseminated by the Agency, because it is contained in the Safety Data Sheet.

Any registrant can claim confidentiality and after they pay the required fees, ESCHA will investigate the claims to see if they are justified. Names of registrants of non-hazardous substances will be published on a voluntary basis.

ECHA will also make REACH registration number and whether the substance meets the criteria for PBT or VPVB publicly available as these are also contained in the Safety Data Sheet.

Information on how the information will be published and how confidentiality can be claimed will be made available shortly.

ECHA has already made information on thousands of registered substances freely accessible on its dissemination web section. this nicluded information from registration dossiers for 95% of all phase-in substances registered by the 2010 deadline.

The ECHA dissemination web section:

http://apps.echa.europa.eu/registered/registered-sub.aspx

China Names 8 Chemicals and Notifies Standards to WTO

2011-05-10T06:55:00.000-07:00

The Standardization Administration of China (SAC) has notified standards for eight substances to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The mandatory aspects concern:

quality requirements
symbols
labels
packaging
transport
safety

The standards are slated for adoption by August 3, 2011, which is 90 days after circulation by the WTO. This means the new Chinese standards are expected to enter into force in February 2012, which is 6 months after.

Comments deadline with the WTO: July 4, 2011.

China's 8 Chemicals:

The eight chemical substances are:

imidacloprid (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN811.doc)
gibberellic acid (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN812.doc)
pyridaben (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN813.doc)
chlorotoluron (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN814.doc)
chlorsulfuron (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN815.doc)
thiosultap-monosodium (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN816.doc)
deltamethrin (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN817.doc)
fluoroglycofen-ethyl (http://docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/g/tbtn11/CHN818.doc)

Most Important SDS Sections Are #2 and #3

2011-05-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

In the field, we often hear the question:

Which items of information in a Safety Data Sheet are most important?

Answer: As far as ECHA is concerned, sections 2 and 3 of the SDS are most important.

First, let's state that all information on and SDS is important. However, as the SDS serves primarily for occupational health and safety, the details on section 2 [hazards identification] and section 3 [composition/information on ingredients] are essential.

If a chemical safety assessment has to be performed for a substance or ingredients of a mixture, the related “instructions” for the safe handling of the product are addressed in guidance for exposure scenarios.

Where substance or mixture does not meet the classification criteria, safety-relevant statements may be necessary. Some key items of information can be suitable for inclusion under several points/headings, however, best practices are not to repeat statements too often – this impairs clarity and easy legibility. In these cases, cross-referencing is a best practice.

If necessary information on certain properties cannot be determined there is a simple way to proceed. The fact that the info can't be given must be stated along with the reasons why this is the case.

-- Guest blogger: Chris Nowak, Director, Actio Corporation, makers of MSDS Vault for SDS compliance, management and distribution.

June 2011 Upcoming REACH Deadline

2011-04-21T07:11:00.000-07:00

Companies must notify ECHA about Substances of Very High Concern in articles not later than 1 June 2011. Many business have assumed the deadlines have passed because there are no MAJOR REACH deadlines this year. It's true we are still relaxing after the rush of the first major deadline December 1, 2010.

However, because new SVHCs are added at irregular intervals, new deadlines apply at irregular intervals. It's important not to fall asleep at the wheel.

There are currently 46 SVHCs on the candidate list.

For the June, 2011 deadline, producers and importers of articles (furniture, construction products, clothing etc) have a legal obligation to notify ECHA if any Substance of Very High Concern included in the Candidate List is present in their articles. SVHC quantities to report are: above the threshold of 0.1% weight by weight and if the quantity of such substance in those articles is over 1 tonne per producer/importer per year.

Actio Blog broke it down this way last week:

Businesses who make or sell goods in Europe have a legal obligation to notify ECHA by June 1, 2011 if:

1. any Substance of Very High Concern that is on the Candidate List is present in their articles
2. such SVHC is above the threshold of 0.1% weight by weight and
3. the quantity of such substance in those articles is over 1 tonne per producer/importer per year

For background and comprehensible overviews for REACH, search Environmental Leader.

EU Data Protection Review

2011-04-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

A new resolution emphasizes the need for a comprehensive data protection framework, which includes the law enforcement sector.
Data management and data protection are a huge issue within REACH and CLP regulations.

On the hazardous substances data management note, last year ECHA incorrectly counted and reported the number of CLP notifications for substances in January. As noted in Environmental Leader:

The actual number of substances that ECHA received notification of is 107,067, instead of the previously announced number of 24,529, chemist Kal Kawar reports. The deadline for CLP notifications was January 3, 2011.

In terms of data protection, we saw a study recently that security is safer in the "cloud" than previously thought. This might make you wonder how safe data is not in the cloud. If interested, see this recap of the Cloud Data Security study. Apparently, during its 12- month analysis, Aberdeen analyzed 36 companies using on-premise solutions, and 22 using cloud-based services.

"The analysis shows that cloud-based solutions incur fewer security risks [than in-house software solutions]," reports CMSWire. CMSWire summarizes the study nicely.

In the new European Data Protection Commissioners resolution, the group members considered that all forward developments:

offer opportunities for a real improvement of the data protection framework
offer effective protection to all individuals under all circumstances
should be effective now and for a more distant future

For more on the resolution: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=EDPS/11/4&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Or try link to Europa release.

SVHC and SIN List Rumors

2011-03-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

ECHA and the Member States have agreed to include additional 106 substances in the Candidate List by 2012. Most dossiers will be provided by the Member States, indicating that the European Commission will support or even prepare dossiers.

Furthermore, all relevant SVHCs will be put on the Candidate List by 2020. The EU is committed to achieving the United Nations 2020 goal to minimize adverse effect of chemicals on health and environment.

At least 400-500 substances already collected by some Member States will find their way onto the Candidate List, some insiders say; others say up to 1200 chemicals will be named. For reference, there are currently just over 350 substances - including chemical mixtures - listed on the SIN list (Substitute it Now). The 2.0 version of the SIN list will be announced in May 2011.

REACHspotter chooses not to play guessing games. We report SVHC and SIN list updates as lists become final.

ECHA Wants YOU to Comment on Gallium Arsenide

2011-03-16T11:42:00.000-07:00

ECHA is requesting that interested parties submit info and comments on the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide and its metabolites, as well as on the read-across approach described in the opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment of 25 May 2010. This request follows a request from the European Commission for a supplementary scientific opinion.

Deadline for comments: April 25, 2011. Comment here:

https://comments.echa.europa.eu/comments/AnnexXVCLH.aspx?SubstanceName=Gallium%20arsenide&EcNumber=215-114-8%20%20&CasNumber=1303-00-0&carcinogenicity=

Why Gallium Arsenide: In 2009, France submitted a proposal for the harmonised classification of gallium arsenide as a carcinogen category. After the public consultation on the proposal (held in June/July 2009) ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) adopted the scientific opinion that gallium arsenide should be classified EU-wide as a carcinogen in category 1A.

For its opinion, RAC said it took into consideration a recently published IARC analysis which was not available to the Committee prior to the consultation process. The new IARC analysis supported RAC´s view on higher carcinogenity of gallium arsenide, which was made on 25 May 2010.

Due to the fact that new information became available after the first public consultation was launched, the European Commission had asked ECHA to organize a second public consultation to ensure that all relevant new data can be considered by the Commission in taking its decision.

ECHA is now calling for relevant new studies or information on the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide or its metabolic products which were not available to RAC for its first opinion and are not on the list of documents in RAC´s opinion of 25 May 2010. ECHA also asks for relevant comments on the read-across approach described in the same opinion.

http://echa.europa.eu/consultations/harmonised_cl_en.asp

ECHA Grants Registration Numbers to Almost All 1st Deadline Dossiers

2011-03-09T05:51:00.000-08:00

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has announced that REACH registration numbers have been granted for 20,175 of the 20,723 dossiers that were submitted by the first registration deadline. The precise total was 3,483 phase-in substances registered under REACH at that time.

ECHA says dissemination of information from those dossiers has been accelerated. Information will be disseminated from those REACH registration dossiers on all registered phase-in substances by year-end 2011. The agency further reports that on March 1, 2011 the database contained 691 records.

Information on registered substances can be found here: http://apps.echa.europa.eu/registered/registered-sub.aspx This is a relatively easy-to-use web page, kudos to ECHA.

Chem.Info magazine reported that ECHA received registrations for approximately 400 substances listed as Category 1 or 2 Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMRs1) and more than 150 substances listed as R50-532 (very toxic to aquatic organisms); 27 of these substances are included in the Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC).

Guidance

Still wondering how and when to proceed with REACH? Guidance is here.

7 New Substances of Very High Concern

2011-02-25T06:28:00.000-08:00

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) proposes seven chemicals as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) and possible candidates for authorisation restriction/list. Comment is encouraged by April 7, 2011.

The seven proposed substances are carcinogenic and/or toxic for reproduction, and thus there is strong reason to believe they have serious effects on human health.

The status of cobalt dichloride is also up for re-evaluation due to its revised classification as both carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction. Cobalt chloride was originally identified in October 2008 as SVHC solely on its carcinogenic properties.

Anyone can comment on these seven proposed substances within the next 45 days:

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C6-8-branched alkyl esters, C7-rich
1,2,3-trichloropropane
2-ethoxyethyl acetate
strontium chromate
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C7-11-branched and linear alkyl esters
Hydrazine
1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone
(Cobalt dichloride)

Comments should focus on:

hazard properties that qualify the chemicals as SVHCs
general comments
further information on uses of and exposures to these substances
information on availability of safer alternatives

The complete list is here: http://echa.europa.eu/consultations/authorisation/svhc/svhc_cons_en.asp

Data points on chemical registration for the first major REACH deadline (Q4 2010) can be found here: http://chem.info/Articles/2011/02/Safety-REACHing-First-Results/

First 6 Chemicals on REACH Authorisation List

2011-02-17T09:06:00.000-08:00

Today, the European Commission has named 6 chemicals as the first entrants on the Authorization List, also known as put into the Annex XIV, which means these 6 substances are off the candidate list and have been, "sworn in" as banned substances. It's official!

The six substances of very high concern have today been moved from the candidate list to the authorisation list, known as Annex XIV, under the EU's REACH regulation (Regulation No 1907/2006 for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals).

5-ter-butyl-2,4,6-trinito-m-xylene (musk xylene)
4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA)
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)
bis(2-ethylexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)
dibutyl phthalate (DBP)

Background

Chemicals listed in Annex XIV are selected from a candidate list of SVHCs, or substances of very high concern, based on recommendations made by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

For more information and quotes from European Commission executives, check out the official public notice. This is a big deal.

REACH and CLP Inspections Come Downstream

2011-02-03T08:37:00.000-08:00

If your downstream customers use chemicals and substances, you need to know. Such users need to be providing you with information for REACH. Most companies know this -- it's one of the uniquenesses of REACH legislation.

Downstream users must provide information on substances - hazards and use risks. Making sure this information has been properly tracked, logged, stored and shared is the job of Inspectors.

On 26 January 2011, heads of EU Inspectors were trained on REACH and CLP responsibilities in downstream uses of chemicals. Head Inspectors reviewed practical examples. All received a manual to promote a "harmonized approach" to enforcement across the EU.

During downstream inspections, Inspectors will check for compliance in informing users about substances in mixtures, including information on whether substances therein have been registered or not.

CLP notification requirements and compliance will also be reviewed.

National inspectors are taking advantage of this Europe-wide initiative to increase awareness about obligations for downstream users. Enforcement expected to increase.

Inspections at national level will start this summer: 2011. ECHA's announcement here.

REACH Downstream Users and Risk Management

2011-02-03T08:29:00.000-08:00

Q: How do you manage risk in terms of downstream users and chemicals?

A: You read the directions.

One of the main elements of REACH is registration of substances, which obliges manufacturers and importers of substances to provide a defined set of information, in the form of a registration dossier, to the European Chemicals Agency. This information concerns the hazards of the substances and whether they could pose risks when being used.

Manufacturers working with, and importers of, certain toxic substances must assess the exact nature and extent of these risks in a ‘chemical safety assessment’.

Certain piquedly hazardous substances require authorization before they can be used. Further restrictions on substance uses are likely to either already exist or exist soon, so stay alert to this type of news.

Downstream users

REACH compliance means that downstream users must not place on the market or use any substances which are not registered in accordance with REACH. Downstream users will receive information on dangerous substances and preparations, including risks from their use and measures to control these risks, in safety data sheets, just as today. Some safety data sheets will have an annex, called an exposure scenario.

This exposure scenario will give more specific information on how to use the substance or preparation safely and how you can protect yourself, your customers and the environment from risks. If your use is not covered, communicate with your supplier with the aim of having your use covered by an exposure scenario or you may need to develop your own chemical safety report.

Risk management

Companies must comply with all set forth risk management measures. Companies must also comply with any restrictions on the use of the substance. And downstream users must communicate certain relevant information upstream and downstream in the supply chain.

Still confused? Here's 100 pages of clarification -- the official REACH guidance on the downstream user and exposure scenarios. Enjoy.

Jobs In Finland For ECHA and REACH

2011-01-26T06:05:00.000-08:00

Interested in relocating to Helsinki to work with REACH related programs? A career in chemical management might be something to consider.

The staff at ECHA -- the European Chemicals Agency that governs REACH -- is expected to grow to over 400 persons quickly. The recruitment process is happening now.

ECHA is actively seeking the expertise of leading experts in areas including:

chemicals
chemicals regulation
IT
law
human resources
finance
general administration

Interested? Check here: http://echa.europa.eu/opportunities/positions_en.asp

ECHA staff manages the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical substances manufactured, imported, and used in the EU. The ECHA staff also provides the Member States and the EU Institutions with high-quality scientific and technical advice on chemicals and assistance to Member States and registrants. The staff also handles software tools and information on both internal and external REACH software to support the tasks involved with legislating the REACH regulation.

Helsinki is a dynamic city these days -- and if the darkness gets you down, Greece is just a short plane ride away.

CLP Substance Notifications Changed to 107,067

2011-01-18T11:27:00.000-08:00

Breaking news: the original number of 24,529 given for substances notified under the CLP Regulation in Europe has been corrected by ECHA as of today.

The actual number of substances reported as of January 3 is: 107,067
Original number reported was: 24,529

As reported by the Green Thoughts blog at Circuits Assembly magazine, here are the details:

Corrigendum to the CLP statistics [from ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency] says that the 3.1 million Classification and Labelling notifications received by ECHA cover a total of 107,067 substances, not 24,529 as published on January 4, 2011 by ECHA.

Discrepancy in Substance Notification Numbers

The change in number is because a small number of bulk files were incorrectly counted as single substances, while in fact they contained notifications for many distinct substances. The discrepancy was identified during the initial analysis of the submitted Classification and Labelling notifications.

Numbers will continue to be updated so keep an eye out.

CLP Overview: Manufacturers and importers placing on the market a hazardous substance on its own or in a mixture, or a substance subject to REACH registration, shall notify its Classification and Labelling within one month to ECHA.

For more, go to http://echa.europa.eu/news/pr/201101/pr_11_01_clp_deadline_20110118_en.asp

Leave a comment here with any questions.

REACH CLP January Deadline News

2011-01-12T06:18:00.000-08:00

Recap of the January 3, 2011 CLP deadline under the REACH Regulation. For the January 2011 deadline, the most CLP notifications came from:

Germany: over 800,000
United Kingdom: over 500,000
France: nearly 300,000

Together, over 6,600 companies notified of at least one substance. Germany is usually in first place, indicating its robust manufacturing sector.

"It went extremely well," said Geert Dancet, Executive Director of ECHA. "We got over three million submissions of classifications in time by the deadline [midnight, January 3, 2011]."

Dancet called it "a real success."

The C&L inventory

The collected C&L data will be held in a central inventory. The public version will include substance identifiers and any relevant specific concentration limit or multiplying factor for each substance, and aspires to be available in May 2011.

According to the REACH Regulation (Article 119.1), the C&L inventory will contain
1. the classification and labelling information on substances submitted to ECHA through REACH registrations and CLP notifications
2. a list of substances that have harmonised classification in the EU

For companies who missed the deadline and are not sure how to proceed: best to handle it immediately -- use this ECHA web page to notify. Procedure:
1. apologize for being late
2. state a plausible reason
3. get on with it

More news as events warrant.

ECHA Reminds Us of CLP Deadline January 3

2010-12-23T11:31:00.000-08:00

ECHA's CLP regulation means that as of 1 December 2010 the new regulation entered into force, and many substances require you to notify the CLP classification to ECHA by 3 January 2011.

Importers and manufacturers must notify the correct classification and labelling of substances that are hazardous or subject to registration under REACH (which for those who don't know, is similar to the U.S.'s TSCA, or Toxic Substances Control Act).

For the January deadline, you needn't notify regarding substances previously registered under REACH -- unless the registered classification information needs updating.

Companies have already submitted successfully more than 2 million notifications. You have until 3 January 2011, 24:00 GMT to notify.

For all the glorious details, go here:
http://echa.europa.eu/news/pr/201012/pr_10_29_clp_last_call_20101221_en.asp

ECHA and EPA Formalize Alliance

2010-12-17T13:55:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, a partnership between ECHA and EPA was formalized through a statement of intent highlighted at the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) meeting in Washington, D.C.

The TEC, established to advance transatlantic economic integration between the United States and the European Union, issued a statement stressing the importance for enhanced cooperation on chemicals. The statement of intent provides the first concrete result of this effort.

The statement puts in place a process for EPA and ECHA to work together on a range of issues of mutual interest. These include:

toxicity testing
the hazard and risk assessment of chemicals
risk management tools
scientific collaboration
information exchange

For more information, see a write-up about the EPA - ECHA Partnership from the Actio Network Blog and see also this press release from EPA.

Stats from REACH Registration Deadline

2010-12-09T06:58:00.000-08:00

As of December 1, 2010, the European Chemicals Agency or ECHA had received 24,675 registration dossiers for close to 3,400 phase-in substances from all member states.

Top dossier submitted
23% - Germany
12% - United Kingdom

Registrations received
400 substances listed as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic
150 substances listed as very toxic to aquatic organisms

Twenty-seven (27) of the above substances are on the Candidate List of SVHCs.

Here's a good write-up at REACH Registration Hits First Milestone at the Supply Chain Data Mgmt blog, our newest partner blog. (Welcome.)

EHCA Holds Free Webinar on IT for Classification and Labeling

2010-12-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

December 14, 2010: ECHA is holding a webinar on classification and labeling (C&L) notifications. The webinar will be addressed to all companies with notification obligations and will focus on the main steps necessary to submit successful C&L notifications. The deadline for notifications to the C&L Inventories is midnight GMT on January 3, 2011.

According to REACH experts, Europe's CLP Regulation will take companies from the current classification and labeling directives to the globally harmonized system of chemical classification or GHS. CLP is now a requirement for doing business in Europe.

This webinar will likely be very helpful and informative. If you have questions about C&L technology -- and most of us do -- this is a great chance to get clarity.

Details:

Date: 14 December 2010
Time: 11:30 – 13:00 Eastern European Time (GMT +2)
Register at: https://echa-events.webex.com/echa-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=704992401
Registration deadline: 13 December 2010, 11:30 Eastern European Time (GMT +2)

IT tools will be a featured subject.

The webinar is open to all companies with notification obligations, is free of charge and on a first come first served basis. Up to 1000 participants can register and there are no limitations on the number of participants per company.

The webinar can be viewed on the ECHA website after the event. Each IT tool for notification can be seen separately, so companies can later view the part relevant for them.

ECHA has provided guidance, practical guides and tool manuals on the CLP regulation in 22 languages. Check the CLP section on the ECHA’s website. Further material and support can also be obtained from the national helpdesks.

CLP Information

Importers and manufacturers must notify the classification and labelling of substances placed on the market if they are:

Hazardous substances, on their own or in mixtures and irrespective of the tonnage; or
Subject to registration under the REACH Regulation.

Notification is free of charge.

Practical Guide 7- How to notify substances in the Classification and Labelling Inventory
http://echa.europa.eu/doc/publications/practical_guides/pg_7_clp_notif_en.pdf

Guidance on CLP
http://www.echa.europa.eu/clp/clp_help_en.asp
http://www.echa.europa.eu/help/help_docs_en.asp

C&L notifications – IT tools
http://echa.europa.eu/clp/inventory_notification/notification_how_en.asp

New REACH and CLP Regulation Amendments

2010-12-02T13:33:00.000-08:00

The European Chemicals Agency or ECHA has noted amendments to Europe's REACH Regulation. These amendments took place on 1 December 2010 – immediately following the first registration deadline.

The agency says the amendments, written in Article 58 of the CLP Regulation, impact information required for registering substances.

Registration dossiers submitted from now on must include:

Information on classification and labelling according to the criteria specified in Article 58.11 of the CLP Regulation
The dissemination of information taking into account the hazard criteria established by Article 58.7 of the CLP Regulation
The content of the chemical safety report will also be impacted by the hazard criteria established in Article 58.1 of the CLP Regulation

To help registrants with the new provisions, ECHA has released updated versions of a number of manuals and tools. These include:

Data Submission Manual 5 - How to complete a technical dossier for registrations and PPORD notifications
Technical completeness check plugin
Fee calculation plugin

In addition, ECHA has published Questions & Answers on the impact of the CLP Regulation on registration dossiers submitted outward from 1 December 2010. The document describes the most relevant modifications introduced by the CLP Regulation and affecting registration dossiers.

ECHA statement
Questions & Answers
IUCLID website

REACH-IT System Opens On Weekends

2010-11-10T06:27:00.000-08:00

ECHA has decided to keep the REACH-IT system open during weekends from 19 November until the first REACH registration deadline on 30 November 2010. This will be helpful. If you have questions on what that means, go here.

Meanwhile: don't get your REACH-IT account blocked by mistake. For security reasons, ECHA has limited the number of attempts users who can try to login to REACH-IT. After five attempts the account will be blocked.

You can avoid your REACH-IT account being blocked with a few simple pieces of knowledge - also, there's a way to proceed if your REACH-IT account is blocked. To get the facts, go to this online pdf doc from ECHA. The first thing is: only attempt to log in three times, four at the most; if it doesn't work, try again later, don't keep pushing.

Firms to miss the deadline

Euractiv reports that some French firms are set to miss the REACH deadline.

"On 25 October, 1,048 French companies had filed cases with the EU agency via the online REACH-IT portal. This represented 9.4% of the 11,000 requests registered across Europe on that date. Since the beginning of September, the number of notifications has soared."

ECHA says "Submit" !

ECHA strongly advises all Lead Registrants to submit registration dossiers at least two weeks before the deadline in order to leave enough time for the other SIEF members to submit their dossiers.

"All registrants are strongly advised to submit their dossier before the weekend of 27-28 November, so that they still have time before the deadline to address any shortcomings found during ECHA’s business rules check," says the agency.

Webinar on REACH registration payments

2010-11-03T05:57:00.000-07:00

If wondering about REACH invoicing and payments, you're not alone. To help, on November 9, the European Chemicals Agency, or ECHA, will host a webinar on invoices and payments. Webinar will outline best practices that companies can follow when entering the invoice-related information in their registration dossier. The idea is to help companies process payments promptly and rightly so that the registration number can be issued without delay.

Date: 09 November 2010
Time: 12:00 Eastern European Time (GMT +2) or 7AM in New York City, or U.S. Eastern Time (Daylight Savings Time in America ends on November 7)
Register here, now: https://echa-events.webex.com/echa-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=705485624
Registration deadline: 08 November 2010

The webinar is open to all registrants, is free of charge, and is filled on a first come first served basis. Up to 1000 can register -- and there are no limitations on the number of participants per company. So register today.

Background on REACH Registration

Registration fees are based on different parameters, such as tonnage band, company size and confidentiality claims. In order to ensure that the appropriate invoice is issued, it is important to understand how to enter the information correctly in the registration dossier and in REACH-IT. In addition, best practice should be followed to ensure a prompt processing of the payment, which is a pre-requisite to ECHA issuing a registration number and positive decision.

Foreshadow

A recording of the webinar will be available on the ECHA website after the event.

ECHA has previously conducted a range of lead registrant webinars which cover registration topics in detail and these are available at the link below. Further webinars are planned on the challenges faced by registrants in the preparation of their dossiers. The Agency will post updates on the website. http://echa.europa.eu/news/webinars_en.asp

How To Find EU REACH Information Easily

2010-10-29T04:51:00.000-07:00

Here's a new website we found that publishes ECHA updates in one place, news-feed-headline-style. It's actually quite handy: http://www.reachclub.eu/news. Take a look and see if you agree it's worth bookmarking. It's always a pleasure to recommend a site that makes finding REACH information easier.

On the note of finding information quickly: ECHA's web site can be quite hard to navigate when you're looking for official information about REACH. There are too many clicks to get from any page to where you want to be... you end up lost 90% of the time.

So this may help. Here are a couple of key spots:

The "About REACH " section of the ECHA guidance website provides overview of EU REACH.

11 new substances likely to be added to the Candidate List soon. This is unofficial but insiders say it's all but a done deal.

The REACH guidance documents provide explanatory information to the legal text. Final guidance docs and draft versions still being updated are available.

The REACH Navigator tool will help identify specific obligations under REACH.

The REACH Regulation and related legislation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Links to these texts can be found in the section on legislation of the ECHA website.

Frequently Asked Questions about REACH are also available for browsing.

Hope this helps. There's so much to know; every once in awhile it's good to go back to basics.

[Name that molecule, pictured at top, courtesy Wiki Commons:
it's actually 1,4dioxane - which is not at all on the SVHC list under REACH; but it looks cool here, doesn't it?]

New REACH Toolkit and 2010 Documentation Now Published

2010-10-19T11:42:00.000-07:00

A new ECHA Information Toolkit can now be found on ECHA's website. The toolkit helps registrants use available information and predict properties of substances via non-test methods to meet REACH information requirements.

The so-called "Information Toolkit" consolidates documents, practical information and prediction methodologies.

Registrants are, of course, responsible for the content of their dossiers and for making sure that adequate information is included to assess potential risks from their substance. The toolkit will help registrants fully describe relevant scientific arguments for using non-standard data or predicted properties data in their registration dossier.

takes on REACH in an excellent article. Click the logo.

Also, ECHA has finalized, approved and published key 2010 documentation including:

Work Programme 2011
MB/32/2010 final Consultation procedure for REACH-IT information requests
MB/24/2010 final Multi-Annual Work Programme 2011-2013
MB/12/2010 final General report 2009
MB/04-06/2010 final Revision of the rules of procedure of the Committees
MB/83/2009 final ECHA work plan with regard to testing methods
MB/77/2009 final Amounts paid in relation to the taking of evidence (in BoA procedure)
MB/73/2009 final Mission charter of the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission in relation to traditional agencies and independent bodies
MB/69/2009 final Budget 2010 and Establishment plan 2010
MB/59/2009 final Guide for the Reimbursement of travel, hotel and substance expenses
MB/57/2009 final “International Activities” Work Plan 2010
MB/56/2009 final Work Programme 2010
MB/50/2009 final Readiness of the Board of Appeal
MB/30/2009 final Decision concerning terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity
MB/20/2009 final Decision on the financial arrangements for transfer of a proportion of fees to the members states
MB/17/2009 final General report 2008
MB/09/2009_D final Revision of the rules of procedure of the Committees and the Forum (annex)

Plus:

MB/03/2009 final Multi-annual staff policy plan
MB/82/2008 final Work Plan International Activities
MB/78/2008 final Guide for the reimbursement of travel, hotel and subsistence expenses
MB/77/2008 final Rules for the Remuneration of Experts
MB/75/2008 final Declarations of the Board of Appeal
MB/69/2008 final Work Programme 2009 - Update of Annexes
MB/68/2008 final Budget and Establishment Plan for 2009
MB/59/2008 final Multi-Annual Work Programme 2009-2012

If you have any questions on the convolution of documentation or on what it means for your company, please consider the services offered by such emerging technologies such as:

REACHtracker http://www.reachtracker.com
reach-it http://echa.europa.eu/reachit_en.asp

and media:

Printed Circuit and Fab http://pcdandf.com/cms/ems-directory/7445-editorialcaveatlector
Environmental Leader http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/02/reach-regulation-the-5-most-commonly-asked-questions/

Happy reaching in 2011. See you back here before then.

ECHA actions are not taxable

2010-10-08T06:19:00.000-07:00

Why are the activities of ECHA not taxable?

It is important to note that ECHA is not a private company or a service provider but a European public authority established by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 ('the REACH Regulation') which is directly applicable in all Member States. Article 102 of this Regulation provides that the Protocol of Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities shall apply to the Agency.

The protocol is part of EU Treaties also directly applicable in all Member States; according to the protocol, the Agency is exempt from all taxes.

The exclusion of ECHA activities and transactions from taxation also results from Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1) on a common system of added value tax, which stipulates:

"States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with those activities or transactions".

As it is not a taxable person, ECHA does not have a tax residence in any Member State and thus has no taxation number in Finland.

The invoices that ECHA sends to companies relate to fees for PPORD notification, registration and other submissions that ECHA collects pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 ('the REACH Regulation') and Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 ("the REACH Fee Regulation").

Thus, they do not concern private transactions but are fees under public law applicable in all Member States.

Based on Directive 2006/112/EC and particularly Article 13(1), these fees are not subject to taxation in any Member State.

In the absence of taxation of the fees in any Member State or elsewhere, ECHA shall not be bound to complete any formalities imposed on taxable persons for the avoidance of double taxation.

Here is a useful FAQ on REACH-IT payments: http://echa.europa.eu/reachit/reachit_faq_en.asp

Dr. Jakl won't hide: ECHA unanimously confirms 2nd term

2010-10-06T05:56:00.000-07:00

On 30 September 2010, the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) unanimously confirmed Austrian member Dr. Thomas JAKL as Chair for a second 2-year term. The confirmation occurred at the Board meeting in Helsinki.

Dr Jakl heads the Chemicals Policy Department of the Austrian Ministry of the Environment. He has been a member of the ECHA Management Board since the establishment of the Agency. He has chaired the governing Board since September 2008.

The Management Board also adopted the Work Programme 2011 which will be made available soon on the Agency's web site. The programme provides an overview of the Agency’s planned activities during the next three years. The years 2011-2013 are likely to see critical developments in the implementation of the REACH and CLP Regulations.

These "critical" REACH implementation developments include:

acceleration of ECHA’s scientific evaluation actions
start of substance evaluation performed by Member States and coordinated by ECHA
establishment of a classification and labeling inventory for substances
second registrations deadline with its updates of guidance
guidance tools and manuals
first applications under the new authorization procedure for substances of very high concern or SVHCs

The next meeting of the ECHA Management Board is scheduled for 16 and 17 December 2010.

Further Information:
http://echa.europa.eu/news/pr/201010/pr_10_21_mb_20101005_en.asp

ECHA will shut down the REACH-IT system Oct 1st

2010-09-29T08:34:00.000-07:00

ECHA will shut down the REACH-IT system for routine reconfiguration and maintenance on Friday 1 October.

Note: this sometimes means the entire ECHA site will be down. So don't worry if you find that to be the case; it will be back up eventually.

REACH-IT will be shut down at 02:00 o’clock Friday morning Helsinki time and should re-open during the afternoon. REACH-IT is a system for submitting dossiers. For more on software for REACH, see story called "The REACH Pandemic" here: http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/company/articles/the-reach-pandemic/.

Here's the official release on REACH-IT time offline: http://echa.europa.eu/news/na/201009/na_10_55_reachit_upgrade_20100929_en.asp

ECHA Proposals To Restrict Mercury Manufacture And Use

2010-09-28T06:24:00.000-07:00

On September 24, 2010, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) began a six month consultation on two proposals on the restriction of chemicals. Decisions about these two proposals would find their way into Europe's REACH Regulation. (More on REACH by environmental leaders here).

Ban on mercury?

The two new ECHA restriction proposals cover:

several mercury containing measuring devices and is from ECHA, prepared at the request of the European Commission
five phenylmercury substances and is from Norway

The ECHA proposal would see a ban on mercury used in industrial and professional settings for:

thermometers
sphygmomanometers
barometers
manometers
metering devices for the determination of softening point
pycnometers
strain gauges

Norway suggests that the substances should not be manufactured, placed on the market or used as a substance or in mixtures in concentrations above 0.01 % weight by weight.

Phenylmercury substances are used mainly as catalysts in the production of:

polyurethane coatings
adhesives
sealants
elastomers

So heads up if you are involved in the manufacture or distribution of any of those items.

What are phenylmercury compounds?

Mercury is released into the environment as a result of the life-cycle of the phenylmercury compounds.

The the phenylmercury compounds are:

Phenylmercury acetate
Phenylmercury propionate
Phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate
Phenylmercuric octanoate
Phenylmercury neodecanoate

Key deadlines for restricted-mercury resolutions

ECHA hopes that interested parties will submit comments by 24 December 2010. Detailed discussions of these restriction proposals begin in January 2011.

Final opinions of both the RAC and SEAC are slated for September 2011. Based on these, the European Commission will decide whether to further restrict via the REACH Regulation. For a good overview of REACH - see this article called the top ten questions commonly asked about REACH.

Update one day later: here's the official release, should've posted yesterday but it's worth adding now: http://echa.europa.eu/news/pr/201009/pr_10_18_restrictions_mercury_20100924_en.asp

Thanks for visiting Blogspot!

CLP Labeling Update: September 20, 2010

2010-09-20T14:58:00.000-07:00

Under CLP, U.S. companies need to know that they may have to reclassify, re-label, or repackage products, and make changes to current Material Safety Data Sheets or MSDSs; as well as being aware that a change of classification under CLP can lead to new responsibilities under REACH for each company.

Certain substances will be more severely classified, and more mixtures will be classified, says ECHA.

GHS - the Globally Harmonized Classification and Labeling of Chemicals

CLP is a stop-over between current directives and GHS. Under the CLP Regulation, Member States may send proposals for the harmonized classification of chemicals and substances that are:

carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and
toxic for reproduction or respiratory sensitizers.

Industry can also send proposals in some instances. For more information, go to: http://echa.europa.eu/clp_en.asp

ECHA Deadlines

The CLP Regulation comes with a CLP time line and deadlines. It requires that companies notify the European Chemicals Agency of the classification for substances. EU Importers will submit information to ECHA on behalf of U.S. exporters.

Deadline for notification to the Classification and Labeling inventory is: January 3, 2011.

Helpdesks

Helpdesks are to be established in each Member State to assist companies - especially SMEs - to understand their new roles and duties.

Compliance assistance can also be found via software vendors, such as:

http://www.reachtracker.com/
http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/products/
http://www.atrionintl.com/
and others.

If you have questions and are in the Product Stewardship community, consider joining a LinkedIn group where your questions and comments are heard and appreciated:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=68545&sharedKey=6AC7F20942D6

4,000 REACH registration dossiers submitted so far

2010-09-15T11:09:00.000-07:00

The European Commission reminded companies yesterday to register most widely used or most dangerous chemicals by the deadline of 30 November this year, less than 12 weeks from now.

Here is a deadline time line: REACH Time Line. It's clear.

The November registration is a key milestone of REACH, the EU Regulation on chemicals and their safe use.

REACH says that industrial operators must register any chemicals they manufacture or import in quantities above one tonne a year with the new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The CLP (Classification, Labelling), and Packaging) Regulation says they have to notify ECHA of the classification and labelling of all hazardous substances they place on the market, no matter what the production volume.

For more, see Top 10 Questions People Ask About REACH.

Companies are also reminded that they must notify the Classification and Labelling of their chemicals to European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by 3 January next year. So far about 4,000 REACH registration dossiers and 180,000 CLP notifications have been submitted to ECHA as of September 13, 2010.

REACH Timeline and REACH Pandemic: REACH Had a Big Week

2010-09-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

On the home page of Environmental Leader this week is an article called "REACH Regulation: The Five Most Commonly Asked Questions." Environmental Leader, of course, is the esteemed eco-business publication out of Colorado that has cornered the Product Stewardship audience and continues to publish excellent articles on everything business leaders need to know about Environmental regulation and thought. This article focuses on REACH.

Timeline for REACH Regulation

The article has a timeline with it - a refreshing graphic that shows the regulation in context of its decade-long implementation. The timeline is a little small but worth saving a copy if you can -- and pinning to the wall.

Circuits Assembly Journal: Is REACH Pandemic or Salvation?

With REACH, anything that helps gain a perspective is important. A regulation so young, so ambitious. The timeline helps. So does this article calling REACH a "pandemic." Which is, unfortunately, the reality of how most companies feel now that REACH is staring us in the face.

The recent article on REACH in Circuits Assembly noted that "millions of chemicals and mixtures" are affected by REACH. Good to call attention to mixtures - mixtures are a big challenge within REACH.

The article author - Sr. Editor and industry insider Mike Buetow -- wonders how, exactly, we are going to collect and register all these data. "Just knowing which companies are obligated to report information is a nightmare," says Buetow.

"The fundamental shift is not just the extent of substances to track," Buetow writes. "Rather, it’s the philosophical change that chemicals are guilty until proven innocent. Given the enormous difficulty chemical engineers have in separating the effects of one substance from others in its working environment, I can’t imagine how this will be accomplished." Enter software.

Jabil Circuit Rolls Out Actio Modules

"[Then] in researching solutions, I came across Actio (actio.net)," writes Buetow, "a New Hampshire-based company that has developed sophisticated software for organizing and managing material safety data sheets, and cross-checking them against the latest global regulations.

"Jabil, for one," Buetow reports, "is now rolling out some of the Actio modules across its entire enterprise."

The article nicely illustrates the pandoric threat of REACH and the hope technology offers for a solution.

Green Within REACH?

Let's remember: the idea behind REACH is good. Remember greening the manufacturing industry (or is that soooo last summer?) ? Well -- REACH is still trying. And according to the timeline, it's just getting started.

Pandora's box is open, and the hope at the bottom appears to be software. For more, try http://www.reachtracker.com or read a case study on solving REACH here.

Happy regulatory compliance to all.

Reach Registration: a Behind-the-Scenes Look

2010-07-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

Registration: a Behind-the-Scenes Look

REACH Deadline: Q3 2010.

For dossiers arriving after 30 September 2010, there will be a "floating" period -- about six months of uncertainty -- regarding the status of REACH registration. What will happen is: ECHA examines the dossier on arrival, and, if the dossier is not complete, ECHA writes to the registrant before 1 March 2011. Companies will then get a reasonable deadline (typically a further four months) to provide the information requested by ECHA. If that information is not provided satisfactorily, then the registration has failed, and there is no second chance. Failed means: the company does not receive a registration number and the substance cannot legally be manufactured or imported in the European Union – worse, any manufacturing or import since the registration deadline will have been illegal.

Submitting before the end of September will prevent companies being in an uncertain situation. Uncertain situations are risky business in today's changing regulatory landscape; it's important to have compliance details settled so a business can move forward. Please contact us for more information.

Benefits of Early Registration

The deadline for REACH registration is 30 November 2010 for the registration of high volume and potentially toxic substances. In order to be in compliance, companies or their representatives must register by that date.

There are notable benefits for registering before the drop-deadline, as itemized by a recent report from ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency. Risk-mitigation is the largest benefit. (For an overview of REACH regulation, see previous post on the Top Ten FAQs about REACH.)

Companies are accelerating their efforts to gather the necessary data, reports ICIS.com. Software solutions for REACH compliance can help some companies streamline operations and mitigate risk associated with chemical management in a product supply network. Still, even if using software, it is important to have an understanding of the big picture.

The November cut-off, the first of three Reach registration deadlines, covers dossiers for chemicals produced or imported in annual volumes of 1,000 tonnes or more. It also covers registration of substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction and chemicals used in quantities above 100 tonnes per year that pose long term risks to aquatic organisms, as stated by the RSC.

Benefits of submitting before October 1st are:

Resubmission

Companies that submit dossiers early (before 1 October) will get their Completeness Check result within 3 weeks and will have the time to resubmit. Should they fail the second time, they can even start the process again provided they are in a position to make a new submission before 1 December.

Later submissions will have only one chance to get through the entire registration process successfully.

As incentive for timely registration, ECHA is offering manufacturers, importers or only representatives a special service from ECHA’s Helpdesk. ECHA is ready to address Lead Registrants’ requests on a priority basis. When appropriate, assistance will be provided over the phone.

REACHtracker™ 2.0 Available Today

2010-03-01T10:57:00.000-08:00

Actio and Atrion Introduce REACHtracker™ 2.0 for Supply Chain Communication and REACH Compliance

REACHtracker™ 2.0 is a SaaS solution for automating and managing supply chain communication and substance information collection processes for compliance under Europe’s REACH regulation.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA and Montreal, Quebec, Canada – March 1, 2010 – Actio Corporation and Atrion International today announced the availability of REACHtracker™ 2.0, a SaaS solution for automating and managing supply chain communication and substance information collection processes for compliance under Europe’s REACH regulation.

REACHtracker™ 2.0 provides a holistic substance view that integrates the relationships between finished products, raw materials and individual substances. The solution also provides enhanced communications features for upstream and downstream supply chain communications and customized visual reporting tools that alert organizations if any of their finished goods, raw materials, or substances are not in compliance so that they can take action to mitigate their risk.

New features include:

• Bill of Materials (BOM)-level data management
• Automation and tracking data collection from suppliers and customers
• Advanced alerts when a supplier has added, changed, or reviewed any data or when inventory is approaching and exceeding substance volume limits
• Enhanced visual reporting features that enable organizations to see changes and threshold levels at-a-glance
• Enhanced downstream communication tools for collecting usage data
• Improved account access and data security through VeriSign’s Secure Socket Layer (SSL) technology

“REACH has driven raw material transparency requirements to an unprecedented level of market and regulatory attention,” said Russell McCann, President and CEO of Actio. “Material transparency regarding product and packaging composition, downstream use, and processes must exist in order for companies to manage change, reduce brand risk, and keep adequate business intelligence about a supply chain. Chemical-specific, multi-dimensional regulations and product labeling requirements demand substance-level disclosure from both upstream and downstream. REACHtracker™ provides this level of supply chain transparency.”

“Because REACH is a substance-based legislation, organizations must now be aware of the REACH registration status of all substances present in raw materials, including substances that are manufactured further upstream in the supply chain,” said Frank Arcadi, VP Product Strategy & Direction from Atrion “In addition, they also must be aware of who has purchased their products so that information and safety precautions regarding hazardous materials may be passed on. This is why automating supply chain communication is so important.”

REACHtracker™ 2.0 is available today. To learn more visit www.reachtracker.com.

About Actio Corporation
Since 1996, Actio Corporation has been helping companies and their supply chain networks to cost-effectively manage the complexities surrounding environmental compliance and the exchange of parts, substances and chemicals along the global manufacturing supply chain. Actio’s supply chain materials information management solutions are delivered as SaaS and encourage Six Sigma or a “best practices” approach for analyzing and managing parts, substance and chemical information in today’s complex regulatory environment. Actio solutions track raw material and part composition for compliance with global regulations including: REACH, RoHS, WEEE. For more information please visit Actio Corporation at www.actio.net. Review current information in the Actio Press Room.

About Atrion International
Atrion International Inc., founded in 1989, delivers the most reliable, product compliance solutions for both process and discrete manufacturers. By integrating the largest set of managed regulatory content into a prepackaged automated solution and connecting to key ERP systems, Atrion’s Product Compliance Solution ensures that products will reach customers with minimal risks to brand image and shareholder value. Atrion International is headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada with offices in the United States and Europe. For more information about Atrion International, visit http://www.atrionintl.com. Or you can subscribe to Atrion's RSS Feeds.

PR Contact:

Actio Corp.
Kathleen Hurley
Director, PR / Communications
(603) 433-2300, ext. 350
khurley@actio.net

MSDS VAULT, ACTIO REGULATOR and INTELLIGENTEXT are registered trademarks of Actio Corporation. REACHTRACKER, BOMTRACKER, MSDSXCHANGE, ACTIO GATEKEEPER, MSDS VAULT LABELMAKER and MATERIAL DISCLOSURE.COM are trademarks of Actio Corporation 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Textiles. What's in your pocket...?

2009-10-30T04:38:00.000-07:00

A report in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology said that a new ‘greener’ and cleaner chemical process* could revolutionize the leather-tanning industry.

This is something we don't talk enough about: what processes make the dyes, dye the clothes, tan the leather, fabricate the buttons on the new jacket?

What's in that upholstery, how was it made? The handbag? The thread? The needle?

As a teenager who hung around like-minded-prepschool-treehugging-wool-wearing teenagers, this point lurked in the back of my mind. Pals would fuss if someone's mom wore fur. But the damage done forests and rivers from chemicals used to make our shoes was somehow permissible.

It was confusing. It still is.

The great thing about the Green movement in industry is that we get to think, talk, blog, and comment about these things. Greening industrial processes. It's good. Humans are going to make things, especially tools, fabrics and furniture. So let's make things in a considerate, respectful fashion.

[As a recent wave of media said, Human Impacts on the environment have ancient precedents. Torben Rick, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, says the notion of hunter-gatherers respectfully living in perfect harmony with their environment is going the way of the dodo.]

[Obviously, the stakes are higher now -- with massive populations, a "sometimes unmindful" upper-foodchain, and tools that can blow up or pollute or climate-change the whole show -- so that it really does matter, now more than ever, what impact humans have when they make things.]

Stanley Tools makes tools. Stanley is addressing its food chain, what's in it, and tidying it up.

Herman Miller makes furniture, and they are streamlining operations toward visibility into their products, supply chains, chemicals therein and the properties thereof.

And what's in the clothes on our backs? What about dyes, tanning, or the process of twining microfibers together to make thread?

What IS a microfiber, exactly...?

Coach (handbags) uses software to manage chemicals in products at the retail outlet level. This is a good start.

The AATCC is the a leading not-for-profit professional association for textile design, materials, processing, and testing industries. They have a terrible web site but do good work. The December issue of AATCC Review plans to address questions about textiles, sustainability, greener processes. December will be an interesting issue.

If interested, while writing this it came up that the Smithsonian currently has an exhibition (and sale by looks of it) called Craft 2 Wear -- wearable art -- jewelry and clothes. Worth checking out. http://www.craft2wear.smithsonian.org/.

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why people shell out $80,000 for a dress -- or maybe why your wife shells out $hundreds for a handbag -- but you didn't hear that here -- check out this behind-the-scenes docu. It argues that a dress by Chanel is equal to a painting by Picasso, and that's why it's worth $80k. This blogging entity has no opinion on these things. But if you do, you can comment on this page.

*Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Report in Feb 2008. For more information about green chemistry visit GC3 or the Green Chemistry Institute.

Cleanware: software between Industry and a Greener Environment

2009-10-27T11:09:00.000-07:00

Clean is the word. Cleanware is the new word.

CleanTECH tends to mean windmills, solar panels, water purification and that kind of thing. It's a category of hardware towards a cleaner environment.

But we need software towards a cleaner environment. Call it cleanware.

A colleague here liked the idea, and came up with this definition: cleanware is software that helps clean the heavy, oily, legacy industrial footprint. Okay... and... please don't say "pedicure for big industry" or go there.

CleanWARE would be software for chemical accounting. With modules that act as a Regulatory concierge: constantly checking for new local, regional, global environmental policy and compliance mandates. A supply chain concierge: checking in with the supply chain. Compiling inventories, usages, changes in supplier soldering ingredients three tiers down. Rolling up BOM-data into threshold data-pies. Folding in the latest EPA, OSHA, ECHA and local environmental bits.

CleanWARE certainly exists. Actio Corp of course puts out the platform-agnostic suite of on-demand solutions to bridge between industry, chemicals, and the EPA (and OSHA, ECHA, et cetera). SAP has a few modules that address environmental regulation - they seem to work sufficiently with drawbacks - namely that all locations and all instances of an enterprise have to be on the same version of the ERP in order for it to work; this brings the attendant upgrade costs and consulting fees, because no organization ever upgrades at the same time worldwide, and often have different ERPs anyway. There are other cleanware would-be's in the space, too.

But for now, let's focus on the term: What do you think of cleanware software category? Think it's a good idea?

Wiki says: Cleantech is a term used to describe knowledge-based products or services that improve 1)operational performance, 2)productivity or 3)efficiency ... with respect to the environment (italics paraphrased).

Which is what we need software to be: knowledge-based products or services that improve 1)operational performance, 2)productivity or 3)efficiency ... with respect to the environment. Cleanware!

Web-based supply chain software comes to dominate the landscape

2009-10-22T14:35:00.000-07:00

In the future - specifically by 2015 - web-based supply chain software will dominate the landscape. This is a prediction by Dan Gilmore, the editor of a supply chain publication. We'll provide link to his article at the end of this post.

Glimore is making predictions about the supply chain five years from now. The prediction he is most confident about, he says, is that web-based supply chain software will dominate the landscape. There will be a point of critical mass when a straw breaks the camel -- or the tipping point is reached -- then all fall down and get SaaS solutions to manage the supply chain.

How exactly he got there he doesn't say. But considering he spent months working on this projection, there's probably something to it.

SaaS: America's next top model

Recently an AMR Research blogger, Bruce Richardson, ran a hot blog on the topic of SaaS. He quoted another blog (as you do...) called GigaOM as saying the following:

“Traditional legacy applications such as Oracle or SAP have a fully loaded cost of delivery of $1,000-$1,500 per user per month. Several years ago, Oracle On Demand got that cost down to $50-$100, whether it was Oracle-hosted or customer-hosted. Salesforce.com has squeezed that cost down even more to $7-$10, though admittedly just for the much lighter-weight CRM portion of the suite."

Is SaaS really that much cheaper -- one-tenth the price? Across how much time are we talking about?

Well, even if the cost gap is exaggerated in the quote, there is still a gap, and it seems transparent that on-demand solutions really are less costly in full deployment. They're quicker to ignite, easier to maintain, and more flexible in that they work with any and all legacy software, and also in the sense that you can cancel it -- it's not like you have multi-$milllions invested if you want to start over.

The rebuttal to SaaS is to say that analysts underestimate the relationship a traditional legacy app provider has with a company. Nay-SaaS-ers say that you can't put a price tag on the ERP-customer relationship (well, except for the industry-average 22% annual maintenance fee, not to mention consulting hourly fees, those extended SOWs, and incredibly costly enterprise-wide upgrades).

Certainly a SaaS provider also has a relationship with its customers. It's not as deep, but it's arguably not as controlling either. There's more free market and competitive spirit in the on-demand model which is likely why analysts like its chances. Which may make it the next supermodel.

Shakedown street

In the end, there will have to be a place for both, because SAP and Oracle rule the world and they are not so very much on-demand. Best Value is the most likely to succeed in the long, long, long run. SaaS is a relatively new phenomenon; we forget how young the software industry really is anyway. The market will have to shake it out; Gilmore predicts five years till shakedown.

The wildcard is that Best Value overall is not always Least Costly in dollars.

There was a very nice blog post yesterday about Best Value vs. Least Costly -- around the subject of software maintenance contracts. About TCO (total cost of ownership) and 3rd-party maintenance contracts vs. services by vendor. Blog post by the one and only Josh Greenbaum here and worth a read.

Back to our supply chain. One big voice out there in supply chain operations believes that The proverbial Market will endorse on-demand services over any other by 2015. His name is Dan Gilmore, he's the Editor of Supply Chain Digest. Here is his blog. His rumination on supply chain came in a newsletter containing the top ten changes we'd see in supply chains by 2015.

He writes:
"Web-based supply chain software comes to dominate the landscape: I haven’t completely been on this bandwagon until recently, but by 2015, this is how it is going to be – which has many major implications. More confident of this than about any other prediction on the list. Once this becomes the lead approach for almost all vendors, the shift will happen rapidly."

What do you think?

Supply chain solutions are available already for lots of things, but on-demand solutions are still slowly claiming pieces of a market that is rightfully, and inevitably, theirs. Supply chain management would be one.

What do you think? Are on-demand solutions to supply chain data management the inevitable progression?

More on GHS: how OSHA won't getcha but the market will

2009-10-20T15:14:00.000-07:00

GHS means a globally harmonized system of chemical classification and labeling. We need one. Because a product may be considered flammable or toxic by one agency or country, but not by another.

We can see by comparing a few hazards how complex it is to comply with all domestic and global regulations. Acute oral toxicity (LD50) is a good example. Although most existing systems cover acute toxicity, what is considered hazardous varies considerably. These differences allow the same product to be hazardous in one country/system and not in another! At the very least, the same product has different labels and SDSs.

Get into a conversion program. Start now. If you put all your data in a centralized, secure database like MSDS Vault or Actio’s Material Disclosure -- which is a quick-start software module for communicating with a supply chain on matters of substances and high concern -- you will not only be ready for GHS but you’ll be able to leverage that content.

That's where the ROI is: leveraging the content and saving so much time and tedious work.

“OSHA won’t drive GHS,” said Kal Kawar, CIH, Professional Engineer, EHS veteran, manufacturing industry expert, and national speaker on manufacturing best practices.

“The market will drive GHS,” he said.

Why? Because differences in hazards and SDS/labels impact both protection and trade.

In the area of protection, users may see different label warnings or safety data sheet information for the same chemical!

In the area of trade, the need to comply with multiple regulations regarding hazard classification and labeling is costly and time-consuming. Some multinational companies have estimated that there are over 100 diverse hazard communication regulations for their products globally. For small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) regulatory compliance is complex and costly, and it can act as a barrier to international trade in chemicals.

From the OSHA site:
Many countries already have regulatory systems in place for these types of requirements. These systems may be similar in content and approach, but their differences are significant enough to require multiple classifications, labels and safety data sheets for the same product when marketed in different countries, or even in the same country when parts of the life cycle are covered by different regulatory authorities.

This leads to inconsistent protection for those potentially exposed to the chemicals, as well as creating extensive regulatory burdens on companies producing chemicals.

For example, in the United.States (U.S.) there are requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The GHS itself is not a regulation or a standard. The GHS Document (referred to as "The Purple Book") establishes agreed hazard classification and communication provisions with explanatory information on how to apply the system. The elements in the GHS supply a mechanism to meet the basic requirement of any hazard communication system, which is to decide if the chemical product produced and/or supplied is hazardous and to prepare a label and/or Safety Data Sheet as appropriate.(end osha material)

Most want to know:
How do I:
-    prepare for GHS?
-    find a solution that automates conversion to GHS from current materials data (both raw materials and legacy MSDSs)?
-    show benefits and ROI? Can ROI be demonstrated in streamlining internal processes and six sigma initiatives?
-    show benefits in ongoing CSR and Public Relations?
-    quickly review all ingredients and harmonize their associated information?

Is there a way to automate conversion to GHS, increase ROI, streamline operations, leverage both legacy and future supplier-network chemical data -- and automate all these processes without making my own job redundant?

Kawar, resident expert on GHS, says, "Yes. Software modules are so sophisticated today they can leverage substance data stored in a relational database to solve regulatory challenges."

We've looked at some solutions. Here are some other solutions, an article from NetworkWorld, with a decent case study at the bottom of page 2 - about how Easton Sports solved its "hundreds of thousands of MSDSs" problem. This is an older article but the problem/solution stands. Story also discusses Cisco, IBM, and others so it's interesting all around.

OSHA prosposes rule to adopt Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication System

2009-10-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

A proposed rule to align the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) was published in the September 30 Federal Register.

From the OSHA site, here is the background of GHS.

Kal Kawar, CIH, PE, chemical and manufacturing industry veteran, offers the following:

“The landscape has changed in the past 30 years,” said Kawar, speaking from his Chicago office. “Global compliance – including REACH, RoHS and many other directives – has taken center stage. We are now talking about a Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) where the downstream user provides input into the uses of a product, and that input has to be incorporated into the extended SDS."

He adds, "Incidentally, software modules are so sophisticated today they can leverage substance data stored in a relational database to solve regulatory challenges." More of Kal Kawar's expertise on the subject of GHS is available.

"The proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the GHS will improve the consistency and effectiveness of hazard communications and reduce chemical-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Following the GHS approach will increase workplace safety, facilitate international trade in chemicals, and generate cost savings from production efficiencies for firms that manufacture and use hazardous chemicals."

A number of countries, including the United States, international organizations and stakeholders participated in developing the GHS to address inconsistencies in hazard classification and communications.

Taiwan's EPA has "new toxic substances control act"

2009-10-15T14:36:00.000-07:00

The R.O.C. (Taiwan) Environmental Law Library website has been developed as part of a project to create an English living environment in Taiwan. It aspires to enhanced international communication on Taiwan's environmental laws. The website presents Taiwan's environmental laws & regulations in Chinese and English, and provides access to Taiwan's environmental law terminology database.

Site publishes laws and updates on emissions and substances and everything in between. This is the Toxic Substances Control Act. Upshot: Taiwan is stepping up environmental law. Something to keep an eye on, for manufacturers, lawmakers, consumers -- and those making software to bridge the gap between.

Taiwan produces a lot of electronics - in fact - here's a directory of manufacturers in Taiwan and China. It's an extensive list.

Here's a decent article on Taiwan and toxic substances control.

BASF and Dow agree: patent portfolios should be rated

2009-10-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Chemical Processing (.com) reported that BASF and Dow Chemical jointly announced support for the Patent Asset Index.

The Patent Asset Index touts itself as a science-based metric. It seeks to be a more holistic way to assess a patent. It's a good idea that would be better if there was an assessment score for environmental responsibility or corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The metric emphasizes patent assessments based on:
- global perspective
- transparency
- a "more robust quality measurement"

All a little vague, but you can't argue with it.

Quote from Index creator, Professor Holger Ernst: "Patent Asset Index would be an important indicator for the sustainability of innovative strength, especially with regard to technology and R&D-oriented companies on a global level."

Quote from this blogger: "It would be good if someone would provide an example, e.g., 'Patent A would have a higher Patent Asset Index than Patent B because of __, __, and __.' "

Nevertheless, the thinking is correct. A patent portfolio is itself a key asset and should demonstrate its strengths wherever possible.

BASF on patents (and on bolstering its image):

"The essential role that patents play in the chemical industry is often ignored, and we are happy that we now have a better method to compare the patent portfolios of global companies even more accurately," said Dr. Andreas Kreimeyer, member of the Board of Executive Directors and Research Executive Director of BASF SE. "The method is valuable not only to demonstrate the importance of our patent portfolio to investors, but also to internally evaluate our patent strategy over time."

So how do you lock it down, make the metrics mean something? Can elements of assets be measured? And compared with other measurements?

There are of course software tools that help -- actual data -- on reporting on emissions and so on for products and assets. And the raw material disclosure product from Actio Corp.

An Index wouldn't hurt but sounds a little softer, more malleable. Time will tell.

Chemical Processing can be found at: http://bit.ly/AUKG3
The release can be read at: http://bit.ly/28aNFq
Patent Asset Index stuff -- including a graphic (woo-hoo!) -- can be found at: http://bit.ly/2k2eTv

Apple-cheeked midwest towns fail EPA air quality tests

2009-10-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press is reporting that parts of Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin failed to meet air pollution standards for microscopic particles. This can make it difficult to breathe. Not what you'd expect to find in the apple-cheeked heartland.

The Chicago Tribune says, "Counties in the Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee areas were among those the EPA says failed to meet standards."

Now, of course these towns aren't the San Franciscos of the world in terms of clean, green streets and low-emission vehicles and manufacturing practices. What's surprising is that these centers are actively industrial enough to produce a high concentration of air pollution.

Los Angeles makes more sense when you think of air pollution -- as there are 16 cars per household, judging from aerial shots of the stadium and surrounding parking lots during last night's Red Sox-Angels game. So LA makes sense, not the fresh-air fresh-pie farm country.

Pollution -- especially air pollution -- turns up in odd places.

As a sophomore in college I did a statistical report on air pollution. It turned out that Denver of all places had the highest concentration of carbon monoxide of any US city. That knocked my socks off. I'd visited Denver and Boulder many times and thought it pristine. The report had to be triple-checked.

Turns out that clean air comes into Denver over the Rockies and suppresses fumes rising -- or trying to rise -- up from Denver. So Denver had, in the late-80's, a very high carbon monoxide index.

Point is: you never know until you measure. Here would be a good place for a link to a purveyor of fine emissions testing equipment, but don't know any off top.

Hopefully will remember to come back and add link, as in fact we did see some great testing equipment recently at an AIHA show recently outside of Boston.

For more on the AP-Tribune piece on pollution in the heartland, click here. For more on EPA Fine Particle Designations and threshholds, click here.

For software that tracks and helps manage EPA Fine Particle Designations and threshholds, click just back there.

Have a great holiday weekend.

Copenhagen Communiqué: int'l business movement for climate change

2009-10-07T03:35:00.000-07:00

For those who haven't heard, the Copenhagen Communiqué is a document for climate change. It hopes to gather 1000 signatures from international business leaders by December, 2009. December 7-18 is the climate conference in Copenhagen.

Major global businesses such as SAP, Kodak, Barclays, Shell, Cisco, Actio, Air France, and British Airways have signed. The list of signatories is impressive. Almost 700 business leaders have signed the Communiqué so far, calling for “an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal” on climate change.

SAP published a press release about signing the Communiqué, and also announced it on Twitter. They've used it on their corporate sustainability page for PR. Subject is "Sustainability at SAP."

In just two pages (hard to keep a blog post down to that...!), the Communiqué sets out a business case for a strong and effective UN climate framework and offers a progressive global consensus on the shape of an agreement.

The point: if 1000 international business leaders -- from major to small -- can come together and agree on something and sign it, then 1000 international political leaders can come together and agree on something and sign it. The one indicates the other. Idea has been used before and works.

If you haven't yet, consider signing it. Talk to your Communications Department.

The Communiqué presents a unified front from the int'l business community. The unified message says, "We support emissions-control, SVHC- and VOC-control, and international environmental regulation -- for cleaner air and less climate change going forward."

The full text of The Copenhagen Communiqué is available at www.copenhagencommunique.com, in addition to the complete list of companies that have endorsed it so far and supporting quotes from Executives.

From the Copenhagen Communique press release:

On the morning of Tuesday, 22 September, the business leaders of over 500 companies from around the world published The Copenhagen Communiqué, calling on world leaders to agree on “an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change that responds credibly to the scale and urgency of the crisis facing the world today." Representative business leaders participated in a press conference in New York City to highlight the urgency of governments to agree a credible deal.

Press conference delegates:

 Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
 Sir John Sawyers, UK permanent representative to the UN
 Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways
 Sergey Generalov, CEO of International Investors and Chairman of the transport group FESCO (Russia)
 Gavin Power, Deputy Director, UN Global Compact Office
 Jose Manuel Entrecanales Doemcq, CEO and Chairman of the renewable energy company Acciona (Spain)
 Maria Ramos, CEO of ABSA Bank (South Africa)
 Ms. Roxanne Decyk, Chief Management/Government Relations Officer, Royal Dutch Shell plc
 Barbara Stocking CBE, Chief Executive, Oxfam
 Kim Carstensen, Leader of WWF's Global Climate Initiative
 Mr. Jim Hagemann Snabe, Executive Board Member, the business software company SAP (Germany)
 Mr. Jack Ehnes, Chief Executive Officer, California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS)
 Craig Bennett, Co-Director of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, based at the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (the organisation behind the initiative), to chair press conference

US toxic chemical review to become more like EU

2009-10-02T14:37:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, September 29, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (picture and nice NYTimes piece here) announced core principles that outline the Obama Administration’s goals for legislative reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA.

Administrator Jackson also announced plans for a major effort to strengthen EPA’s current chemical management program, and to increase the pace of the agency’s efforts to address chemicals that pose a risk to the public.

The measure is said to be closer to REACH regulation in the EU.

REACH is: new European rules on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals (REACH). The rules aspire to ensure that importers and producers of chemicals carry out basic health and safety testing for their products.

This is a great page - the EPA "News Releases by Date" - with comments on Jackson's announcement from US Senators and other leaders.

Kudos to EurActiv for an informative web page regarding the EPA and REACH-like regulation. Somehow, even that canary-yellow color works.

If the US is heading towards REACH-like legislation -- and it is -- now is not too soon for manufacturing companies to start implementing REACH tracking, BOM substance tracking, and/or more general chemical auditing software.

There are a handful of solutions out there, some SaaS, some not; pretty much all will integrate with any major ERP. Manufacturers might want to batten down the hatches with one of these solutions, the future is coming on fast.

Surprisingly strong turnout for industry conference in Needham, MA

2009-10-01T14:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday (September 30) there was a surprisingly strong turnout for an industry conference in Needham, MA. The conference was held by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, New England chapter.

Speaker sessions were packed to standing room only, and the "visit the vendors" sessions were gridlocked with chatting participants. Pleasant surprise.

Here's a quiz.

Is the plumpness of a local Association show:

1. a sign of economic recovery - at least in manufacturing
2. a sign of a down market trend, where people attend local shows instead of national
3. simple under-planning by the event organizers

Long answer: The flow, spacing, layout, and food/beverage set-ups were fantastic - which more or less rules out underplanning. Great conference feng shui does not happen by accident and in fact rarely happens at all. Hat-tips to the conference organizers.

It's hard to assume the strong turnout indicates a total market rebound. Optimism is welcome in this blog, mind you, but conservatively so.

The best answer is option #2: that people -- still keen to gather and share ideas -- are tending to keep it local. This makes so much sense it's hardly worth blogging about.

The one-day event is short and sweet. People like to get together. Makes sense to just pop down to the nearest metro center (Boston in this case) and get the latest and greatest.

Good speakers -- and good lunch -- are key.

Keynote speakers yesterday were David P. Ropeik, Barry Beder - both nationally recognized experts in the fields of risk communication and workplace health. AIHA’s Aaron Trippler spoke as well; Trippler is known for his broad knowledge of OSHA, federal and state governmental issues, and inside knowledge of what the future holds legislatively for EHS professionals.

Exhibitors were the usual suspects, but seemed to be a more polished version: environmental consultants, testing services, safety device salespeople, and ergonomic furniture folks. Sounds ordinary, but an unusually sharp, engaged, animated group. One vendor said, sounding surprised, they gathered four good leads (not a jar full of sure-why-not cards, but true, relevant interest from companies that can actually afford it).

There's something nice about a local Association event. All of you (except that vendor from New Jersey) root for the same baseball team. In Boston, that's as good as a blood relation.

Overall, great day. Kudos also to the Sheraton, Needham for excellent service and a great lunch.

Most folks will still attend the really big events in the coming 12 months -- like AIHce in Denver and NAEM in Albequerque. But meanwhile, "keep it local" seems to be a winning ticket.

Point well taken from Wal-Mart Senior Vice President of Int'l Supply Chain, Gary Maxwell

2009-09-28T06:41:00.000-07:00

“We really believe customers are going to expect to understand the full lifecycle of products—what is in it, what happens to it when they use it, and where does it go after it is over?”
- Gary Maxwell, Wal-Mart SVP, Int'l Supply Chain

That pretty much sums up the modern challenges for the global supply chain. Transparency is a two-fold challenge.

The first aspect (fold?) of the challenge is the paradigm shift from "my secret ingredients" to sharing ingredient-level information with interested parties. To be more accurate should say: sharing enough of ingredient-info - because the whole recipe need not be revealed in lurid detail, if the sharing is done right.

Grandmother would turn in her grave if she knew we divulged that the secret ingredient was Vanilla -- but REACH, RoHS and WEEE regulation and customer inquiry, as Wal-Mart Exec rightly points out, are the modern authority.

However, to keep our analogy, with environmental transparency and compliance we usually don't need to tell the authorities precisely how much Vanilla we're using, just that it's in there, and that it's less than a gallon.

The second piece of the challenge is actually doing it: managing the information for transparency to meet the needs of modern consumers and regulations. That's where product lifecycle management software comes in, particularly those that deliver information at the substance level. Is it Vanilla? What's in the Vanilla? Different Vanillas use different solvents, usually alcohol, how much? Which kind? How was the solution prepared?

Someone has to keep track of this stuff - all through a supply chain, all over the world.

So, Wal-mart's SVP of International Supply Chain Gary Maxwell says, “We really believe customers are going to expect to understand the full lifecycle of products—what is in it, what happens to it when they use it, and where does it go after it is over?” This was from Maxwell's speech in Chicago last week. His statement is easy to agree with. But one more question: how? How are we going to provide that kind of visibility, with an international supply chain like a plate of spaghetti or tangle of twine across the globe?

The answer to that would have to lie in substance-level materials information management -- extended out to a supply chain. These days that's either a module for ERP like SAP or Oracle -- which comes with its attendant upgrade and consultant costs -- or an independent, online module, like Actio Corp's solution line, which isn't free either, but overall costs less in short and longer term. http://www.actio.net

Are there other solutions for substance-level compliance and guided transparency that are SaaS? Please leave a comment if you know of any.

More soon.

EPA Finalizes the Nation’s First Greenhouse Gas Reporting System/Monitoring to begin in 2010

2009-09-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

In response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161) [if anyone reads beyond the title page of that document, please comment and advise re: contents]

Let's start again:
In response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the EPA has issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions.

Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFE).

The final rule was signed by the Administrator on September 22, 2009.

EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.

Press release 9/22/09:

On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.

Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.

The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.

More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

A little web research yields:

There is emissions reporting software to meet the need. Found a company called Idexx, "a worldwide leader in innovative products and services for veterinary, food and water applications" (words from their homepage at http://www.idexx.com). They use an online software service for LIMS laboratory information management. The software is called Regulator, and can manage sustainability initiatives by rolling up greenhouse gas emission inventories and providing accurate, auditable reporting by location.

Idexx apparently uses the software more for LIMS laboratory information management, as stated, but the interesting thing about Regulator is that it can be used for: software product for emissions tracking by facility: hazardous air pollutants (HAP) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - largely for reporting purposes. Companies can use real-time data to calculate the total atmospheric release of hazardous emissions. Triggers can be set and individuals notified when air permit thresholds are dangerously close to boundaries.

The makers of Regulator say that so far they only have one customer -- an international electronics giant -- who uses Regulator for emissions tracking. They would not release the customer's name.

Kind of refreshing for that customer to request anonymity -- especially given that they actually are pretty darn green, at least in the regulatory compliance sense. Most companies would be shouting their emissions tracking to the world, hoping Newsweek would pick it up and call them compliant. Pardon the digression.

REACH links from RSC (not Royal Shakespeare Co)

2009-09-23T08:45:00.000-07:00

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) is a European Union law, regulation 2006/1907 of 18 December 2006 whose implementation began on 1 June 2007. The legislation covers the production and use of chemical substances to address safety, to phase out the use of hazardous chemicals and to encourage innovation to replace these.

The documentation consists of 1,000 pages of text and 30,000 chemicals are to be registered over 11 years. There are a number of informative free of charge websites from authoritative sources to help with understanding this regime for the regulation of chemicals.

CEFIC REACH summary
CEFIC provides a brief explanation of the main steps and processes of REACH
European Commission general FAQ
FAQs provided by the EU on how REACH works, industry obligations, guidance, benefits and costs
REACH GHS
REACH and the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labeling

[from RSC]

Members of the Royal Society of Chemistry can access reputable full text e-books, journals and databases in the Virtual Library. For example:

From Engineering Village's Chemical Business NewsBase (CBNB):

"REACH: past, present and issues for 2009 and beyond", Chimica Oggi/Chemistry Today, Vol. 27, Focus on REACH Supplement, p. 4-5, Jul/Aug 2009.
"Carbon black wins registration under REACH", European Rubber Journal, Vol. 191, No. 4, p. 11, Jul/Aug 2009.
"Wacker completes expansion of Shanghai facility/REACH registration", Paint & Coatings Industry (PCI), Vol. 25, No. 7, p. 17, Jul 2009.
"Coatings chemicals named in REACH authorization priority list", European Paint and Resin News, Vol. 47, No. 6, p. 12-13, Jun 2009.

From EBSCO's Business Source Corporate database:

"REACH Now a Reality", Circuits Assembly, Jul 2009, Vol. 20, Issue 7, p. 8.
"New REACH Compliance Guidelines", Products Finishing, Jul 2009, Vol. 73, Issue 10, p. 10.
"Ready for Reach?", ICIS Chemical Business, 6 Aug 2009, Vol. 275, Issue 23, p. 16.
"Where have we reached with REACH?", Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, Jun 2009, Vol. 21, Issue 6, p. 50.

As part of the services of the Chemistry Search Service, RSC can supplement the information above with references retrieved from Chemical Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Science. Members can carry out their own high quality research from the Virtual Library simply by logging in to a resource with their membership number and password.RSC members can access premium chemical science full text e-books, journals and databases remotely for free.

[Whenever I see RSC I assume it's the Royal Shakespeare Company. More fun to read the above with that in mind. Anyway -- included RSC bits here because it's interesting to note what their recommended pubs are.]

15 New Candidate SVHCs proposed by ECHA

2009-09-03T05:31:00.000-07:00

ECHA says that interested parties have 45 days from September 1st, 2009 to provide comments regarding the identification of any proposed substance as a SVHC. ECHA encourages additional information related to use, exposure, alternatives and risks.

For reference, list of proposed SVHCs is below. Coal tar pitch at high temperatures is last on list. Politicians and lawyers are not yet listed. ha ha.

2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Anthracene oil
Anthracene oil, anthracene paste, distn. Lights
Anthracene oil, anthracene paste, anthracene fraction
Anthracene oil, anthracene-low
Anthracene oil, anthracene paste
Diisobutyl phthalate
Aluminosilicate, Refractory Ceramic Fibres
Zirconia Aluminosilicate, Refractory Ceramic Fibres
Lead chromate
molybdate sulfate red (C.I. Pigment Red 104)
Lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34)
Acrylamide
Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate
Coal tar pitch, high temperature CAS number: 65996-93-2

"It would facilitate the evaluation of comments to receive them in English," is how the ECHA web site puts it.

Cheers.

A note about SESHA, EHS for High Tech, the New England chapter

2009-08-30T06:51:00.000-07:00

I have a fondness for SESHA, EHS for High Technology, particularly the New England chapter. I like what they do. If you're not interested go ahead and skip this post. But we all have our soft spots and SESHA is one of mine.

Here's a revised (so as to be product-agnostic) version of press release about a small SESHA event last August outside of Boston:

Thought-leaders attended EHS for High Tech (SESHA) mini-conference in Beverly, MA, on August 20, 2009. Honeywell Analytics, Actio Corporation, and Axcelis Technologies – the host company – were event sponsors. The agenda addressed the current state of semiconductor, photovoltaic and related high technology industries in regards to relevant legislation and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) regulations. Event attendees focused on, among other things, software automation tools to solve product compliance challenges.

Compliance challenges include REACH – an acronym for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH is legislation that went into effect on June 1, 2007. It requires that companies register all chemicals and substances in their products if manufacturing in, or importing into, the EU.

Under REACH, products can be effectively banned simply for lack of substance registration. A modern manufacturer needs to know what substances are going into its vendors' parts and materials, from soldering to product packaging.

The event also addressed Bill-of-Materials (BOM) tracking, chemical waste and emissions (HAPs and VOCs) reporting, the ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) directive, and general principles of environmental compliance in a modern manufacturing supply chain.

"These events often become think tanks as we are all able to share best practices relating to product compliance," said Chris Nowak, Director of Business Development at Actio Corporation. "A lot has changed recently in the semiconductor and electronics space. Global compliance – including REACH, RoHS [wiki link - sorry - official gov link "appears to be broken"] and many other regulations and directives – has been a challenge for companies with European market share or market share aspirations.

"There's always the question of how SaaS software can manage materials – down to the substance level – in a manufacturing lifecycle and throughout a global supply chain," said Nowak. "The community wants to hear that there is a secure, permissions-based, automated solution that is cost-effective, painless to implement, and works with any ERP such as SAP or Oracle."

[Nowak of course goes on to suggest there's such a solution in his company's products. Would like feedback from users on this. All I could find online in cursory search is this article from Manufacturing Business Technology, about Stanley Works manufacturing co using Actio software -- something called REACHtracker -- to manage data across a supply chain for compliance in Europe. Lowering REACH chemicals compliance pains at Stanley Works. ]

Hosted by Axcelis, the August 20th SESHA event was designed to assemble thought-leaders in electronics and electrical equipment manufacturing. The conference was sponsored by companies addressing environmental compliance, including Actio Corp, Axcelis and Honeywell Analytics.

For further information on SESHA conferences and events, please visit http://www.seshaonline.org.

India’s Chemical Exports to Face Acid Test

2009-06-08T11:28:00.000-07:00

FYI from HELSINKI: The Indian chemicals industry may find it difficult to export their products to European countries after November 2010. The European commission (EC) has recently passed a new legislation, 'Reach', making it mandatory for companies to produce animal safety data and risk management data and also to register with EC to be able to sell their products in the countries.

Indian chemical exporters will now have to make significant investments to comply with the new global norm. "Becoming Reach-compliant is very costly and a time consuming exercise for a company," an Indian industry official said. The cost of conducting tests and completing paper work for Reach could cost anywhere between $50,000 to $2,000,000. A number of Indian companies are of the view that business in the European market may not be worth this investment, an official with a chemical industry association said.

The new norm comes in the backdrop of India and the EU (European Union) locking horns over the seizure of some Indian drug consignments in ports of EU over allegations of counterfeits.

The EC, on the other hand, argues that the latest legislation is an attempt to ensure safety of environment and human beings through chemical safety analysis. "The credibility of the chemical industry rests upon this new legislation and they need to ensure that they produce chemicals that are safe for environment and people. The new law aims to ensure safety of people and places of production in the complete supply chain," EC environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

Chemical companies have a year to register substances under Europe's new Reach legislation. The registration process, involving cumbersome paperwork, could make it a rough ride for Indian companies that are planning to double chemical production by 2015, an industry analyst said.

"It may have some impact on trade but the idea behind the legislation is to leave the risk management system in the hands of the industry and to start with a flow of information that would correspond with the supply chain," European Chemicals Agency director Andreas Herdina said.

REACH Now a Reality for Circuits Assembly

2009-05-15T09:30:00.000-07:00

News from BRUSSELS -- As of June 1, all EU suppliers are now required to comply with a raft of substance restrictions under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation.

The substance restrictions apply every time an article is supplied (including components, sub-assemblies and finished equipment) and enforcement action can be taken at any point in the supply chain. The substance restrictions also apply to distributors that resell components and sub-assemblies, and retailers that resell finished equipment.

The 53 substance restrictions are detailed in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation (as amended) and cover a range of applications. In addition to substances already restricted under the RoHS Directive, there are 19 additional REACH substance restrictions that can be relevant to electrical and electronics equipment and hardware.

More substances are expected be added to the list by the European Chemicals Agency and EU Member States. However, the list of REACH restricted substances is expected to develop more slowly than the REACH Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern, which may grow by up to 25 substances per year according to the ECA. Substances on the Candidate List require declaration if the component, sub-assembly or finished equipment contains more than 0.1% w/w of that substance.

REACH enforcement is carried out through Member State regulations and is coordinated across Europe by the ECHA Forum for Exchange for Information on Enforcement. In France, for example, companies that do not comply with REACH restrictions face a maximum prison

Final Report on Review of RoHS Annex Available

2009-04-07T14:15:00.000-07:00

The Final Report of Öko-Institut e.V. and Fraunhofer IZM on the adaptation to scientific and technical progress under the RoHS Directive has been published on the website of the European Commission.

Access it using this URL or by clicking the 'download' button below.

http://ec.europa. eu/environment/ waste/weee/ pdf/final_ reportl_rohs1_ en.pdf

2009-04-03T07:18:00.000-07:00

China's State Council announced on Wednesday March 4th that Premier Wen Jiabao had signed China's final waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) regulation (Chinese only) . As we previously reported, a draft of this regulation had been issued in August of last year.

China Environmental Law Blog commented that they have not had an opportunity to review the regulation in detail, but they do have a few observations.

1. The products to be covered by the regulation is not clearly defined, but will apparently be set forth in a Catalogue to be completed before the effective date of the regulation.

The regulation speaks primarily of "electronic products" and "electrical waste." It also appears to cross-reference the China RoHS regulations, although it fails to formally identify those regulations. This would lead one to conclude that the new regulations only apply to those types of products which are characterized as "electronic information products" under the RoHS regulations. However, the FAQ issued with the regulation also mention washing machines, air conditioners, copiers, faxes, and printers. Thus, it may be necessary to seek more clarification on this coverage issue.

2. The regulations only appear to impose recycling obligations (at least in the form of paying into a National Electronics Discarded Electrical Products Treatment Fund) upon producers and importers of covered products. Sellers appear to be required to provide recycling drop off locations, but the additional extent of their obligations is unclear.

These regulations don't become effective until January 1, 2011.

California Green Chemistry Initiative - breaking news

2008-12-17T09:19:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the California Environmental Protection Agency released the Green Chemistry Initiative Final Report of Recommendations. The six proposals contained in the report accelerate California's move toward a clean, green and sustainable economy, and mark a quantum shift in environmental protection. The recommendations within the report are the result of a worldwide collaboration between Cal/EPA and experts from all sectors during an 18-month process that began in April 20, 2007.

Review the California Green report at: www.dtsc.ca.gov/greenchemistry

RoHS & WEEE: Commission proposes Revised Laws on Recycling and Use of Hazardous Substances

2008-12-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

Improving implementation and enforcement of laws on electrical and electronic equipment and cutting unnecessary administrative burden are the main objectives of the revised directives proposed by the Commission today. The directives on the collection and recycling of electrical and electronic equipment and on the restriction of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment – the so-called WEEE[1] and RoHS directives[2] – have been in force since 2004 but there is room for further improvement and simplification. The proposed directives set higher but more flexible targets on the collection and recycling of electrical and electronic equipment and introduce greater coherence with other EU legislation.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "As modern society increasingly relies on electrical and electronic equipment it is very important that they have as little impact on the environment as possible. Making sure that certain hazardous substances do not find their way into these products and that they are properly collected and recycled when no longer used is absolutely vital. This is an opportunity for EU companies to innovate and have access to valuable raw materials as the EU seeks to maintain its leadership role in becoming a resource-efficient economy which minimises the products' environmental and health effects throughout their life-cycle."

Too few products collected and recycled:

EU legislation to restrict the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and to promote the collection and recycling of such equipment has been in force since August 2004. More than four years later only about a third of electrical and electronic waste is reported to be treated in line with these laws and the other two thirds is going to landfill and potentially to sub-standard treatment sites in or outside the European Union. Apart from losing out on valuable secondary raw materials, this is especially worrisome since inadequately treated products pose major environmental and health risks. The illegal trade to non-EU countries also continues to be widespread. Moreover many electrical and electronic products not complying with the substance restrictions have been found in the EU.

Legislation on electrical and electronic equipment has proved difficult to implement and enforce by market actors and public authorities. The Commission proposes measures to address these difficulties and reduce the cost of putting into effect the revised directives.

New collection and recycling targets and greater coherence:

The objective of the proposed directives is to develop a better regulatory environment, one that is simple, understandable, effective and enforceable. The scope and definitions of both directives would thus be clarified. The proposed directives would also improve their compatibility with other EU legislation such as the Waste Framework Directive and REACH and the recent "Marketing of Products" package. They would enhance the implementation and enforcement of current provisions and lessen the administrative burden on businesses. Under the new WEEE directive registration and reporting obligations for producers would be harmonised and national registers would be made interoperable. It is estimated that savings under the proposed revised directives would amount to some €66 million. The directives also seek to better control the illegal trade of electrical and electronic equipment.

The proposed revised RoHS directive would cover medical devices and monitoring and control instruments. A list of "priority" substances posing particular environmental concerns when used in electrical and electronic equipment will be assessed in line with REACH with a view of a possible ban in the future. Complying with the requirements of the directive will also be made easier with the introduction of the CE label for electrical and electronic equipment.

The proposed revised WEEE directive sets a new binding target for the collection of electrical and electronic equipment. The current collection target of 4 kg per person per year does not properly reflect the situation in individual Member States. Some Member States where the consumption of electrical and electronic equipment is widespread would have more ambitious targets under the new directive while others with smaller markets will have less ambitious targets. The Commission proposes to differentiate the targets by setting mandatory collection targets equal to 65% of the average weight of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market over the two previous years in each Member State. The recycling and recovery targets of such equipment now include the re-use of whole appliances, and weight-base targets will increase by 5%. It is also proposed to set targets for the recovery of medical devices.

Last Day To Pre-Register for REACH

2008-12-07T23:24:00.000-08:00

REACH-IT status update (01/12/2008 14:00)

Today is the last day to pre-register: pre-registration closes on 1 December at 24:00 GMT. REACH-IT is working extremely well: we have less concurrent users than last week, so the system is quite fast today.

In order that we can keep REACH-IT working well for everyone, ECHA asks:

-Please do not to enter REACH-IT unless you want to submit pre-registrations.
-Prepare bulk files off-line.
-Do not run automated scripts. Offenders' accounts will be blocked.

Please remember:
Modifications and additions to information submitted can be made after the pre-registration period.

Bulk pre-registration files are steadily being processed. Please do not send your bulk file again, unless you have received a failure message within 3 hours.

Pre-registration numbers for bulk files may be assigned in the days after 1 December.

Proof of submission is received within a few minutes via your REACH-IT mailbox. The time of submission is used to determine if the pre-registration was in time.

Total number of pre-registrations: 2,212,129

California Passes Chemical Regulation Law, EPA Gathering More Health Information

2008-11-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on two bills, California has initiated the first of its kind, state-level chemical oversight program.

The legislation gives the Department of Toxic Substances Control the power to set up a framework for dealing with chemicals of concern. Problem chemicals are currently dealt with on a substance-by-substance basis, ending up in sometimes-contentious legislation. Critics of the system say that legislators don't have the ability to become experts on every chemical that can be harmful to humans and the environment, and that legislation is sometimes driven by emotions and lobbying rather than research.

Assembly Bill 1879 gives the Department of Toxic Substances Control until 2011 to set up a science-based process for identifying, evaluating and regulating chemicals, taking into account manufacturing, use and disposal. A panel of scientists will advise the department. The other bill, SB 509, sets up a state-run website to act as a clearinghouse of chemical information directed at consumers.

The bills come on the heels of the state's Green Chemistry Initiative, which has put forth numerous ideas on how to advance green chemistry. The Initiative has brought together a variety of stakeholders for discussions on how to inform consumers about chemicals, alter consumer protection laws, add green chemistry to education and expand similar efforts.

Federal Oversight

The U.S. EPA is also looking to expand chemical oversight efforts, but at the federal level. As part of its Chemical Assessment and Management Program, the EPA is working on a program to encourage chemical companies to provide health and safety information on inorganic high production volume chemicals. Inorganic chemicals are any substances that do not have carbon atoms, and include a broad list with the likes of cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel. A high production value (HPV) chemical is a chemical manufactured or imported in quantities higher than 1,000,000 pounds a year.

The EPA already has gathered information on some 2,200 organic HPV chemicals. The voluntary program for inorganic HPV chemicals would include a two-three year period of gathering data, taking advantage of similar work by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada and the European Union's REACH efforts. The EPA would then begin a prioritization assessment of chemicals.

In addition, the EPA is planning to update the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory of industrial chemicals, which has more than 83,000 entries, to accurately reflect chemicals in use today by removing chemicals no longer manufactured or imported.

REACH Chemicals Regulation Hit by Computer Problems

2008-09-07T20:27:00.000-07:00

'The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is responsible for running the European Union's new Reach scheme to regulate the production and use of chemicals, is still struggling to put its IT system fully into operation more than two weeks after the start of the project's pre-registration period.

Chemical producers and importers have six months (from 1 June) to pre-register the chemicals they handle - or face being forced to take them off the EU market.
The Helsinki, Finland-based ECHA had warned in May that it was having problems resolving teething problems with the system for bulk pre-registration of substances. But it indicated that its IT facility would be working properly within a fortnight of the start of pre-registration.
Now ECHA officials are saying that 'sometime in the coming weeks' its IUCLID 5 software for processing Reach data should be functioning effectively enough to handle pre-registrations of large numbers of chemicals from single files, which would allow companies to submit data on hundreds of chemicals virtually at the touch of a single button.

'Many companies have prepared files for bulk pre-registration,' says Jo Lloyd, technical director at REACHReady, London, a Reach support service set up by the UK Chemical Industries Association (CIA). 'Now they will have to wait until ECHA has sorted out the bugs in its system.'

Some businesses have instead been pre-registering each substance individually. By 13 June, 7,363 substances had been pre-registered while 1,427 companies had signed up with the agency in order to submit Reach data.
By the end of November around one million pre-registrations are expected to have taken place. These are likely to cover around 30,000-40,000 substances, an average of 25-30 per pre-registering company.

Companies want to pre-register their products as quickly as possible in order to reassure their customers of their commitment to registration, and to give themselves a competitive edge over competitors slower off the mark. Distributors in particular want pre-registration to go smoothly because of their need to satisfy the requirements of a wide range of suppliers, many of them producers outside Europe, and a large numbers of small downstream users.
'It is outrageous that ECHA has not been able to process bulk submissions from 1 June,' says Peter Fields, chief operating officer for Azelis, one of Europe's largest chemical distributors. 'It is not right, fair or moral that they have not been able to meet a starting date which is written into the Reach regulation.'

Massive task:
Pre-registration requires data on the identity of substances and the production tonnage of the chemicals, factors that determine the deadline for full registration. The first full registrations for substances with an annual output of 1,000 tonnes or more must be completed by 2010, while for other chemicals the deadlines extend to mid-2018.
'We understand that the ECHA will . make bulk pre-registration submissions possible for end June or beginning of July,' says Lena Perenius, executive director of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic). 'The industry is eagerly waiting for this, and if this promise is kept we feel that it will be ready in time.'

But some companies fear that these initial glitches in the agency's computer system will be the first of many difficulties that the ECHA and the European Commission will face in dealing with the massive task of pre-registering and then fully registering every single substance available on the market which has an annual production of more than one tonne.

The chemicals went in one by one:
Despite the hitches, some large chemical producers have managed to enter enough chemicals one by one in the ECHA databank to announce that they have started pre-registration. SABIC Europe, the Netherlands-based subsidiary of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), the Saudi Arabian petrochemicals giant, has been able to pre-register a number of products so that it can start the procedure of registering its commodity chemicals by the 2010 deadline.
'We've pre-registered manually a cluster of chemicals in one of our business units,' explains Juliette van de Ven, SABIC Europe's communications advisor for Reach. 'We wanted to make sure we were one of the first petrochemical companies to pre-register its chemicals
Sean Milmo

EPA's ChAMP

2008-08-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

ChAMP: The Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) is a new initiative announced by EPA that sets forth an integrated approach to chemical assessment and management throughout North America. The origins of ChAMP date back to August 21, 2007 when the United States, Canada and Mexico entered into a trilateral agreement during a meeting held in Montebello, Canada, with each country vowing to take action to facilitate the sharing of scientific information and increasing the understanding of risk management approaches used in the regulatory assessment of chemicals. ChAMP is the roadmap that EPA has developed that will allow the United States to meet its commitment under the Montebello Agreement. ChAMP builds upon the HPV Challenge Program.

Further information on ChAMP may be obtained on EPA's web site: http://www.epa.gov/champ/

REACH SVHC Substances

2008-07-02T14:29:00.000-07:00

Under the REACH regulations, everyone has been eager to see what the SVHC substances will be. Here is the proposed SVHC 16 that was just released:

The proposal includes the following 16 substances:

- Anthracene
- 4,4'- Diaminodiphenylmeth ane
- Dibutyl phthalate
- Cyclododecane
- Cobalt dichloride
- Diarsenic pentaoxide
- Diarsenic trioxide
- Sodium dichromate, dihydrate
- 5-tert-butyl- 2,4,6-trinitro- m-xylene (musk xylene)
- Bis (2-ethyl(hexyl) phthalate) (DEHP)
- Hexabromocyclododec ane (HBCDD)
- Alkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)
- Bis(tributyltin) oxide
- Lead hydrogen arsenate
- Triethyl arsenate
- Benzyl butyl phthalate

More information about the Proposed Candidates List is located here:

http://echa. europa.eu/ consultations/ authorisation/ svhc/svhc_ cons_en.asp

Click on 'Link to the Annex XV report' for details on each substance.

Once the list is finalized and in effect, Authorization will be required if companies use these substances.

REACH SVHC Substances

2008-07-02T11:52:00.000-07:00

Under the REACH regulations, everyone has been eager to see what the SVHC substances will be. Here is the proposed SVHC 16 that was just released:
The proposal includes the following 16 substances:

- Anthracene - 4,4'
- Diaminodiphenylmeth ane
- Dibutyl phthalate
- Cyclododecane
- Cobalt dichloride
- Diarsenic pentaoxide
- Diarsenic trioxide
- Sodium dichromate, dihydrate
- 5-tert-butyl- 2,4,6-trinitro- m-xylene (musk xylene)
- Bis (2-ethyl(hexyl) phthalate) (DEHP)
- Hexabromocyclododec ane (HBCDD)
- Alkanes, C10-13, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)
- Bis(tributyltin) oxide
- Lead hydrogen arsenate
- Triethyl arsenate
- Benzyl butyl phthalate

More information about the Proposed Candidates List is located here:
http://echa. europa.eu/ consultations/ authorisation/ svhc/svhc_ cons_en.asp

Click on 'Link to the Annex XV report' for details on each substance.

Once the list is finalized and in effect, Authorization will be required if companies use these substances.

REACH Getting Some Attention In The United States

2008-06-13T14:30:00.000-07:00

This is one of the few press pieces we have seen about REACH from a United States source. Hopefully, this kind of information will begin elevating the awareness for U.S. companies about the potential consequences REACH may have on their EU business market.

href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103569.html?referrer=emailarticle">Washington Post Article

REACHtracker

2008-04-22T06:34:00.000-07:00

SaaS solution facilitates identification and management of supplier substance pre-registration and registration intentions under REACH legislation

Boston, Massachusetts, April 23, 2008—Actio in partnership with Atrion International today announced the availability of REACHtrackerTM, a SaaS solution for managing supply chain communication and substance inventory for pre-registration and registration obligations under Europe’s new REACH legislation. REACHtrackerTM enables companies to initiate supply chain cooperation by leveraging structured e-mail communications and secure on-line questionnaires that facilitate the otherwise complex, time-consuming process of gathering and managing supplier substance registration intentions—the critical first step towards REACH compliance.

“REACH poses significant supply chain risk for companies selling products and raw materials into and within the EU,” stated Russ McCann, Actio’s President. “If a company is unaware of the registration status of their raw materials, they could face manufacturing disruption or worse, prohibition. REACHtrackerTM eliminates this risk by providing a collaborative environment to capture substance data and REACH intentions, on an ongoing basis, throughout the supply chain.”

REACHtrackerTM enables companies to build email campaigns that direct suppliers to enter substance information and declare their REACH registration intentions via a secure on-line questionnaire that links directly into a substance information management database. The progress of each supplier can be tracked and follow-up e-mail campaigns can be conducted for non-responsive suppliers. REACHtrackerTM also provides a dashboard to manage supplier contact information, as well as sophisticated parametric reporting tools that enable data to be rolled up into an unlimited number of custom reports. Once all substance information is collected, REACHtrackerTM automatically generates and uploads pre-registration XML files.
“Atrion is very pleased to have been able to continue the collaborative nature of our partnership with Actio,” said Patrick Lavoie, President at Atrion. “By providing Atrion’s regulatory insight and market validation, REACHtrackerTM is a viable REACH solution for companies facing the complexities of the European Union’s REACH Legislation.”

REACHtrackerTM fully supports Verisign’s Secure Socket Layer (SSL) to ensure security of data flow throughout the supply chain. The solution is also fully integrated with Actio’s Chemical Management Solutions enabling the automatic pre-screening and authorization of new chemicals, (M)SDS management, inventory tracking using ERP systems, storage and dissemination of raw material information.

REACHtrackerTM is currently available in both the North American and European Union and is co-marketed by both Actio and Atrion International.

About REACH
REACH is a substance-based regulation which mandates that every substance used in the manufacture of an article or preparation needs be identified and assessed. If greater than one ton is purchased or used, then the material must be registered with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). REACH obligations correlate directly to a company’s REACH role within the supply chain. Typically a substance manufacturer would register the chemical so the downstream users can continue to use the substances in their products. If for example, a supplier chooses not to register a particular substance, then the downstream customer must either register the substance itself or discontinue use of the substance. The deadline for pre-registration is December 1st 2008.

About Actio Corporation
Since 1996, Actio has been helping companies and millions of their employees, in a wide range of industries, cost-effectively manage the complexities surrounding the use of chemicals in the global workplace. Actio is a leading provider of chemical management solutions delivered as SaaS (software as a service). Our chemical management portfolio manages all phases of the chemical life cycle, enabling corporations to utilize Six Sigma or a “best practices” approach for chemical management. Actio solutions track raw material chemical composition for compliance with global regulations including: REACH, RoHS, WEEE. For more information about Actio Corporation, visit www.actiocms.com

About Atrion
Atrion International Inc., founded in 1989, delivers the most reliable and dependable product compliance solutions for multi-national ‘formula-based’ companies. Compared to other solutions, Atrion integrates the largest set of ‘expert’ regulatory content into a proven & pre-packaged automation solution. Able to ‘connect’ to key ERP systems, Atrion’s material compliance solution delivers the peace of mind that products will reach customers, with minimal risks to brand image and shareholder value. Additionally, Atrion and its certified SAP® partners provide a robust solution which compliments SAP’s REACH offering. Atrion International is a global software company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada with offices in the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific.

Going Beyond Compliance to Manage Business Risks from Toxic Products

2008-04-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

By: Richard Liroff

This column is excerpted from a longer article, "Toxic Lockout" scheduled for publication in the May/June 2008 issue of The Environmental Law Institute's Environmental Forum.

The hollow façade of federal environmental and product safety regulation makes it essential that corporate managers and the investors in their companies, look beyond mere compliance with federal law to effectively and strategically manage the business risks from toxic chemicals in the products they manufacture and retail.

The robust media coverage of product recalls in recent months has highlighted the sad state of federal law and regulation. It's truly like the Potemkin villages of old -- a false front suggesting that the federal government is protecting public health and the environment when in reality existing laws, regulations, staffing and budgets are grossly deficient and have been for many years. The recent congressional uproar over declining staffing and limited budgets at the Consumer Product Safety Commission brings to mind the famous scene in the movie Casablanca, where Captain Renault closes down the gambling in Rick's café and declares "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here" and is then handed his winnings by the croupier.

The following is just one of many available examples: Eleven years have passed since Congress told EPA to establish a screening and testing program for hormone disrupting chemicals, EPA's chronically, dismally underfunded program still is many years away from completing development of the screens and tests. EPA's program lags even as scientific evidence about the impacts of these chemicals multiplies; without the program in place, EPA's ability to respond is hobbled.

So states are stepping forward to fill the void. California's clearly the leader, inspired by regulatory developments in Europe over the last several years. There are now 27 nations in the European Union; California's adopted so many of Europe's chemical regulations that it's jokingly been suggested that California should consider becoming number 28.

Following the E.U., California has adopted new laws on brominated flame retardants, toxic chemicals in electronics goods, cosmetics safety and phthalates in toys. A senior marketing VP for a major retailer commented on this pattern at a meeting with IEHN participants: "We look over there in Europe because what happens in Europe comes over to the States. We look at California and the East Coast because that's what's going to shape the marketplace for us."

California's not alone. Similar initiatives have been launched in Washington, New York, Maine and Massachusetts, among others. In mid-December 2007, Maine Governor John Baldacci announced he will incorporate into his 2008 legislative package some of the recommendations of a task force on reducing toxic chemicals in consumer products. He can select from recommendations including publication of a list of chemicals of high and moderate concern, requiring disclosure by companies of these chemicals in their products and restricting chemicals in consumer products when safer alternatives are available and affordable.

The recommendations from the Maine task force reflect a newly established E.U. regimen for chemicals management called REACH. For companies managing supply chains, the most noteworthy and potentially worrisome near-term component of REACH is the publication in mid-2009 of chemicals whose characteristics make them substances of very high concern for potential substitution. Regardless of how quickly E.U. regulators act on the list, there'll be a tremendous incentive for socially responsible retailers to get ahead of the curve and to ask their suppliers to eliminate these chemicals from supply chains.

B2B initiatives complement those from the states. Wal-Mart's sustainability policies, including its precautionary preferred substances (chemicals) policy, have drawn considerable attention. The health care sector, responsible for 16 percent of U.S. GDP, is a hotbed of safer chemical initiatives, observing the precept of "first, do no harm." Consorta is a group purchasing organization (GPO) representing 60 percent of all the Catholic health care systems in the U.S. Consorta's just launched Evergreen magazine, captioned "The magazine for environmentally preferred healthcare purchasing." The journal will go to at least 50,000 healthcare managers and its regular chemical feature will focus on such substances as mercury, flame retardants, phthalates and pesticides.

So what do all these developments mean for corporate managers and for the investors assessing their companies? First, a company with a federal compliance mindset has its head in the sand and will be ill-prepared for toxic lockouts of products from various marketplaces. Second, a company needs to systematically gather information from its suppliers on the toxic chemicals in its supply chain, even though this can be quite difficult where supply chains are quite extended and local regulations and political cultures are not supportive of disclosure.

Third, those companies launching sustainability initiatives must have strong chemical foresight mechanisms developed where appropriate-akin to the foresight mechanisms insurance companies have evolved to flag emerging risks and establish suitable goals and metrics for toxicity reduction to ensure success in potentially turbulent chemicals markets ahead. Fourth, beginning the safer chemicals journey, especially for companies with no prior experience or internal expertise, can be an intimidating process. Companies should aggressively explore opportunities to partner with companies within and outside their businesses and with those NGOs that have developed strong technical competencies, to speed their journey.

For their part, investors should heed the lessons from 2007's recalls of various consumer products: the companies they invest in need solid policies and practices in place for tracking chemicals in products ... or face toxic lockouts from the marketplace, reputational damage, sizeable reductions in shareholder value and possibly lawsuits.

North American Companies in Jeopardy of Missing REACH Deadline

2008-03-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

Despite a November 30 deadline, business leaders appear lax about taking steps to comply with the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals legislation, or REACH, according to a survey released March 11 by PricewaterhouseCoopers, titled “Waking up to REACH.” Two-thirds of North American organizations have limited knowledge of the operational impacts the European Union (EU) legislation could have on their business. There is also concern that North American companies will miss important REACH deadlines, consequently suffering significant business disruptions.

The clock begins ticking on June 1 for companies to begin REACH pre-registration, which provides manufacturers and exporters of chemicals to Europe six months to complete the process. In anticipation of this looming deadline, PricewaterhouseCoopers surveyed 241 senior executives across six industries in 29 countries to gauge readiness and reaction to REACH. The survey shows that two in five companies appear to have limited awareness of the regulation and one in four executives feels Europe’s newest rules on chemicals and their safe use will have no impact on their business.

REACH became law on June 1, 2007, to streamline and improve the former legislative framework on chemicals in the EU. REACH places greater responsibility on the industry to manage the risks that chemicals may pose to health and the environment. It applies to all chemicals – those used in industrial processes as well as in products such as cleansers, paints and appliances – meaning upstream and downstream in the chemicals supply chain.

“REACH ensures that the industry maintains some accountability in improving the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals,” said Saverio Fato, global leader of PricewaterhouseCoopers Chemicals practice. “That being said, U.S. companies that are facing these new regulations do not appear to be on track for compliance, which may lead to operational problems down the line.”

Large companies have greater awareness of the legislation than smaller ones and the survey found that European companies are best prepared for REACH, as they are most aware of the legislation. Among industries, chemical companies lead the way on awareness followed by pharmaceuticals; industrial manufacturing; forest, paper and packaging; retail and consumer; and automotive.

The survey found that not only is REACH awareness low among North American companies, but most survey respondents had not discussed the European law with customers or suppliers to determine the impact on their supply chains. In comparison, half of European companies surveyed said they’ve initiated contact with suppliers concerning REACH.

This apparent lack of action to contact suppliers and engage in discussions with downstream companies and customers could negatively affect business. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) estimates between 10 percent and 30 percent of classified chemicals that are listed with the ECHA will disappear as a result of REACH. Early communication with downstream companies and suppliers, whose businesses may be adversely impacted by the disappearance of these substances, is essential to maintain supply chains.

Most organizations said they have not yet completed risk assessments on how REACH will impact their businesses. Only 10 percent had completed a detailed assessment, 30 percent completed some risk assessment and 31 percent had no risk assessment. North American and Asia-Pacific companies are the worst offenders in terms of not carrying out the necessary level of risk assessment to measure the impact of the REACH legislation.

Those executives surveyed who are in the know about REACH said there would be risks to implementing the law. Most (54 percent) cited the cost and time involved, followed closely by supplier risk (49 percent). Only 14 percent of executives surveyed feel REACH will have a positive impact on their businesses; the majority is withholding judgment until the legislation goes into effect.

When asked what action companies were most likely to take as a result of the REACH legislation, an overwhelming 66 percent said they were ensuring suppliers adhere to REACH compliance deadlines, otherwise known as supply chain assurance. Another 46 percent said they would take action to help suppliers comply with REACH, and 45 percent said the legislation would require them to renegotiate or modify their supplier contracts.

“While an 11-year timeline to register chemicals may seem like a long time, it will certainly be a huge undertaking to register the 30,000 or so existing chemicals for REACH compliance. Only those companies that meet pre-registration deadlines for REACH will truly capitalize on the legislation. This includes continuing to operate business as usual and qualifying for an extended timeline to register existing substances used in the European market,” said Fato.

“The pre-registration process is not very time-consuming, but it is required in order for companies to secure access to the EU market,” added Dr. Hans Schoolderman, director of sustainability and climate change services for PricewaterhouseCoopers. “If handled properly, the legislation can enhance the bottom line by increasing the customer confidence in product safety. Consumers have little to no tolerance for chemicals that are a risk to human health and the environment. It is good practice and good governance for companies to be transparent to their customers regarding their products and the safe use of the products – and REACH will help get us there.”

For more information and to access the full report, visit: www.pwc.com/chemicals.

North American Companies in Jeopardy of Missing REACH Deadline

2008-03-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

Despite a November 30 deadline, business leaders appear lax about taking steps to comply with the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals legislation, or REACH, according to a survey released March 11 by PricewaterhouseCoopers, titled "Waking up to REACH." Two-thirds of North American organizations have limited knowledge of the operational impacts the European Union (EU) legislation could have on their business. There is also concern that North American companies will miss important REACH deadlines, consequently suffering significant business disruptions.

The clock begins ticking on June 1 for companies to begin REACH pre-registration, which provides manufacturers and exporters of chemicals to Europe six months to complete the process. In anticipation of this looming deadline, PricewaterhouseCoopers surveyed 241 senior executives across six industries in 29 countries to gauge readiness and reaction to REACH. The survey shows that two in five companies appear to have limited awareness of the regulation and one in four executives feels Europe's newest rules on chemicals and their safe use will have no impact on their business.

REACH became law on June 1, 2007, to streamline and improve the former legislative framework on chemicals in the EU. REACH places greater responsibility on the industry to manage the risks that chemicals may pose to health and the environment. It applies to all chemicals – those used in industrial processes as well as in products such as cleansers, paints and appliances – meaning upstream and downstream in the chemicals supply chain.

"REACH ensures that the industry maintains some accountability in improving the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals," said Saverio Fato, global leader of PricewaterhouseCoopers Chemicals practice. "That being said, U.S. companies that are facing these new regulations do not appear to be on track for compliance, which may lead to operational problems down the line."

Large companies have greater awareness of the legislation than smaller ones and the survey found that European companies are best prepared for REACH, as they are most aware of the legislation. Among industries, chemical companies lead the way on awareness followed by pharmaceuticals; industrial manufacturing; forest, paper and packaging; retail and consumer; and automotive.

The survey found that not only is REACH awareness low among North American companies, but most survey respondents had not discussed the European law with customers or suppliers to determine the impact on their supply chains. In comparison, half of European companies surveyed said they've initiated contact with suppliers concerning REACH.

This apparent lack of action to contact suppliers and engage in discussions with downstream companies and customers could negatively affect business. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) estimates between 10 percent and 30 percent of classified chemicals that are listed with the ECHA will disappear as a result of REACH. Early communication with downstream companies and suppliers, whose businesses may be adversely impacted by the disappearance of these substances, is essential to maintain supply chains.

Most organizations said they have not yet completed risk assessments on how REACH will impact their businesses. Only 10 percent had completed a detailed assessment, 30 percent completed some risk assessment and 31 percent had no risk assessment. North American and Asia-Pacific companies are the worst offenders in terms of not carrying out the necessary level of risk assessment to measure the impact of the REACH legislation.

Those executives surveyed who are in the know about REACH said there would be risks to implementing the law. Most (54 percent) cited the cost and time involved, followed closely by supplier risk (49 percent). Only 14 percent of executives surveyed feel REACH will have a positive impact on their businesses; the majority is withholding judgment until the legislation goes into effect.

When asked what action companies were most likely to take as a result of the REACH legislation, an overwhelming 66 percent said they were ensuring suppliers adhere to REACH compliance deadlines, otherwise known as supply chain assurance. Another 46 percent said they would take action to help suppliers comply with REACH, and 45 percent said the legislation would require them to renegotiate or modify their supplier contracts.

"While an 11-year timeline to register chemicals may seem like a long time, it will certainly be a huge undertaking to register the 30,000 or so existing chemicals for REACH compliance. Only those companies that meet pre-registration deadlines for REACH will truly capitalize on the legislation. This includes continuing to operate business as usual and qualifying for an extended timeline to register existing substances used in the European market," said Fato.

"The pre-registration process is not very time-consuming, but it is required in order for companies to secure access to the EU market," added Dr. Hans Schoolderman, director of sustainability and climate change services for PricewaterhouseCoopers. "If handled properly, the legislation can enhance the bottom line by increasing the customer confidence in product safety. Consumers have little to no tolerance for chemicals that are a risk to human health and the environment. It is good practice and good governance for companies to be transparent to their customers regarding their products and the safe use of the products – and REACH will help get us there."

RP Newswires

Lack of Information on Chemicals Tops Concerns in EU Survey

2008-03-14T16:40:00.000-07:00

The latest three-yearly survey of EU citizens' attitudes towards the environment has found that the health risks of chemicals in products was the most frequently cited issue on which citizens felt they lacked information. This was followed by genetically modified organisms in the 2007 Eurobarometer survey. Three-quarters of EU citizens said they would pay for more green products although only 17% had done so in the previous month. Four in five people believed that environmental issues directly affect their quality of life.

Download Report

Awareness of REACH is Low

2008-03-14T06:46:00.000-07:00

Global companies weigh risks and rewards of Europe's newest law on the safe use of chemicals

Despite a November 30 deadline for taking steps to comply, our ‘Waking up to REACH*' shows awareness of REACH is low, especially outside Europe and the chemicals industry. Failure to meet the terms of this European regulation could lead to a ban on exports to the EU and is a growing concern to EU-based companies.

241 senior executives across six industries in 29 countries were interviewed on gauge readiness and reaction to REACH. Download the full report here.

Interesting Article from Sustainableisgood Website: Cost vs. Price of Sustainability

2008-03-12T10:35:00.000-07:00

What does it cost for a manufacturer to deliver a more sustainable product or package to our retail store shelf and what should the resulting price be to us as consumers?

There is a perception that going green increases a manufacturer's cost, but does it really? We have found that the answer is, not usually, especially if it is done correctly. There is also an equally inaccurate idea out there that we as consumers are willing and perhaps even eager to pay a premium for a more sustainable product or package. As a consumer who happens to be in the packaging business; the answer is definitely not, unless the higher price is truly necessary and justified.

These perceptions open the door for CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) manufacturers to quietly raise prices. Today I confirmed what I already suspected. While doing something positive for the environment, going green has become an opportunity for manufacturers to improve the profitability of a mature and perhaps less profitable product.

"Cleaning up" in the detergent aisle
Being the well trained husband that I am, I made my trip to the nearby, big box retail store, knowing the laundry detergent my wife wanted me to buy and what I should pay for it. I headed straight for the detergent aisle ( I told you I am well trained) and immediately saw the 200 ounce bottle that we usually buy and the brand new, concentrated version, bragging about its increased strength and the fact that only one half of the usual amount was now needed.

"That's great," I thought, knowing enough about packaging to appreciate the fact that the new version's design meant -

- overall less packaging
- substantially less plastic resin used
- reduced corrugated usage
- lower inbound material and outbound finished product shipping costs
- a smaller carbon footprint
Then I took a closer look at the numbers that were NOT in big, bright, bold print.

Reformulating, Resizing and best of all ... Re-pricing
The 200 ounce bottle, which sells for $9.99, promised it was good for 64 loads. The new 100 ounce bottle, the one that was double strength so only half the usual amount was now needed, also sells for $9.99 - but promised only 52 loads.

The bottom line for my sustainable purchase? A load of laundry which used to cost my family 13.2 cents in detergent now, thanks to the new sustainable design, will cost 15.6 cents per load. That, my co-consumer friends, amounts to a price increase of 18.2% - a splendid windfall for the manufacturer by any standard!

Of course, these calculations do not even take into account that we are all creatures of habit. No doubt, the manufacturer realized and even projected that most of their customers would use more than the recommended "half" of their more expensive product, despite the new concentrated formulation and labeling. Hmmm ... sell the consumer more product at a substantially higher profit margin? You got to love this sustainability! And incidentally, the big box store I shop at, the one that took credit publicly for driving the package design change, isn't complaining about the windfall, probably because they are participating in it.

Justice or Justification?
If confronted, I am sure this unnamed manufacturer of laundry detergent would justify the higher price by citing higher than anticipated conversion costs, retooling charges, a need to recoup their sustainability investment, and the cost of building public awareness.

Sorry, Mr. CPG Manufacturer, we know this change LOWERED your costs substantially, not increased them. Certainly there were some temporary conversion costs for this well publicized and applauded change but for a manufacturer of your size, and the sales volume of this product, your ROI will probably be measured in weeks or months, not in years.

Do you really want to improve your public image? How about announcing that because of the difficult economic times many families are currently experiencing, you are going to make these terrific eco driven changes PLUS reduce the price of your product by 10%! Wouldn't that look great as a headline on CNN, Fox and every other news outlet? I am willing to bet that profits would increase anyway! Why? Because your good deeds would attract new customers in droves and keep current customers with you longer – quite possibly forever.

Wall Street – the motive and the movie
I spent twelve years of my packaging career working for a publicly traded, multi-billion dollar corporation, so I understand why increasing shareholder value and enhancing profit margins may drive many of these sustainable changes and decisions. But manufacturers and their shareholders need to learn that moving to more sustainable packaging can and should be immensely profitable without an accompanying, unjustified price increase.

Consumer, beware! Don't pay a premium for any product simply because it or its packaging is sustainable. Examine the numbers and insist that the manufacturers pass the sustainable savings on to you.

Small and mid-size manufacturer, beware! There is much to be learned –good and bad - from the CPG giants about how to develop and promote sustainable products and packaging. Above all, it is essential to think strategically about sustainability, in terms of both product development and pricing. (More on this in an upcoming article.)

Anyone who has ever seen the 1987 film "Wall Street" will never forget the classic line spewed out by the evil Gordon Gekko – Green is good. Or was it Greed Is Good? I hope in this new sustainable world, the two words are not becoming synonymous.

Dennis Salazar is the president of Salazar Packaging, Inc., a certified MBE (Minority Business Enterprise) company specializing in packaging products, equipment and solutions. With over thirty years in the packaging industry, he is known for his tongue in cheek sense of humor as well as his sustainable packaging passion and expertise.

To contact Dennis, please visit his web site: www.salazarpackaging.com

Kodak, Wal-Mart to Recycle Materials From Photo Kiosks

2008-03-10T14:55:00.000-07:00

ROCHESTER, N.Y. and BENTONVILLE, Ark., March 6, 2008 -- Kodak and Wal-Mart aim to recycle two million pounds of waste annually with a drive to recycle used materials from in-store photo kiosks.

The program is starting at 4,100 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores and will prevent thermal printer ribbon, spools and cartridges, all mostly made of recyclable plastic, from reaching landfills. Kodak is also reducing the amount of bubble wrap used in packaging the materials, cutting the weight and size of packages.

The partnership was inspired by initiatives on both companies' parts. Wal-Mart aims to eventually be zero waste and one of Kodak's Responsible Growth principles is to reduce the environmental impact of its products.

Each store will collect the recyclable materials and send them to Wal-Mart centers where they will be separated and processed for reuse.

Wal-Mart's company-wide zero waste goal is one of many green initiatives it has announced in the last two years, including planning to be powered by renewable energy and working with suppliers to reduce the impact from packaging.

News from Greenbiz.com

Exemptions Under REACH

2008-03-10T12:37:00.000-07:00

REACH applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of 1 tonne per year or more. Generally, it applies to all individual chemical substances on their own, in preparations or in articles (if the substance is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use from an article).

Some substances are specifically excluded:

•    Radioactive substances

•    Substances under customs supervision

•    The transport of substances

•    Non-isolated intermediates

•    Waste

•    Some naturally occurring low-hazard substances

Some substances, covered by more specific legislation, have tailored provisions, including:

•    Human and veterinary medicines

•    Food and foodstuff additives

•    Plant protection products and biocides

Other substances have tailored provisions within the REACH legislation, as long they are used in specified conditions:

•    Isolated intermediates

•    Substances used for research and development

SMEs Facing Big Challenge with REACH

2008-03-05T13:41:00.000-08:00

Whether manufacturers, importers, downstream users or distributors, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) doing business in Europe must comply with Reach regulations. Even if a company produces less than the 1 tonne/year lower limit for registration, Kline & Company recommends that SME's preregister products. In doing so they become part of a Substance Information Exchange Forum (SIEF) that includes companies registering the same chemical substance, making it possible for members to share data and costs.

Without in-house expertise and the necessary financial resources, many SMEs will find registration costs uneconomical and may no longer offer certain products in the European market. Those that are downstream users may be left searching for new suppliers or substitutes for key raw materials if their suppliers don't register these materials.

The act of preregistering does not mean that a company must ultimately register a product. But it does give SMEs an opportunity to see who else is in the SIEFs for certain compounds and "opens up strategic opportunities for SMEs to divest product lines, purchase new lines, or even acquire competing companies," according to Kline. Also, any chemical substance with an annual volume of greater than 1 tonne/year not preregistered during June 1 to November 30, 2008 will be banned from production or marketing in the EU as of December 1.

Separately, Indian chemical industry officials have conservatively estimated that the country could lose as much as $2.2 billion (Euro 1.5 billion) in trade if companies in the country elect not to comply with Reach and therefore cannot trade with the EU. Compliance with Reach is very expensive, according to one trader, and definitely will have an impact on profits. But many in India believe that companies will preregister so that they can continue to do business with Europe.

Changes in EU Cosmetic Laws

2008-03-03T10:03:00.001-08:00

A proposed new regulation intended to replace the existing EU Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC) has been published following a period of consultation. The document, still very much in draft form, can be viewed at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0049:FIN:EN:PDF

Streamlined Data: TRI - Toxics Release Inventory Reports

2008-02-28T19:39:00.000-08:00

Companies opt to provide less information on Toxics Release Inventory Reports
MORE CHEMICAL makers are submitting less information to EPA about their releases of toxic substances, according to data the agency has provided to C&EN.

In late 2006, the agency made a change to requirements for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports. The modification allowed more facilities to use a shortened form when filing annual TRI reports (C&EN, Jan. 1, 2007, page 10). The long form asks for the volume of the substance released and whether the chemical is released to air, water, or land; the short one does not require either piece of information.

"It is reasonable to assume that some of this change [in reporting] occurred as a result of the rule" allowing the use of the short form for releases or disposal of less than 2,000 lb of any chemical listed on TRI, the agency says in a statement. Previously, facilities could use the short form only if they released or disposed of less than 500 lb per year of a listed substance.

EPA data show that chemical makers filed 3,879 short forms to report TRI releases in 2006, the first year affected by the regulatory change. That is 623 more than, or a 19% increase from, the 3,256 short forms filed by this sector for 2005 releases, according to the agency. EPA released 2006 TRI data in late February.

Meanwhile, the chemical wholesale sector increased its use of the short form by 22% between 2005 and 2006, from 1,266 short forms filed in 2005 to 1,543 in 2006, the EPA data show.

For all industries, use of the TRI short form in 2006 was up 13% over 2005, according to the agency.
But EPA adds, "We cannot say with any certainty how much of the increase is due to the rule change." Facilities could have lowered their releases to have qualified to use the shorter form, the agency says.

The rule change, championed by the Bush Administration, has drawn ire from Congress and environmental groups, who say it will reduce the amount of information available to the public about releases of chemicals. The Government Accountability Office determined that the rule change will cause the public to lose a substantial amount of information about chemical releases although facilities filing TRI reports will, on average, save only $900 a year (C&EN, Feb. 12, 2007, page 58).

Knowing Your Raw Materials

2008-02-27T14:41:00.000-08:00

Determining chemical liability depends on your industry, the composition of your products and where the products are marketed. Chemical liability also extends to employee's in the workplace and the customers who ultimately purchase your products.

The key to managing your chemical liability is knowing exactly what raw materials make up your finished goods, what impurities are in the raw materials and where the raw materials are being processed into intermediaries or finished goods.

In January 2007, Innovest Strategic Value Advisors published a report titled Cross Cutting Effects of Chemical Liability from Products. The report is published from an investor point of view and highlights the challenges and key drivers that we face producing products for the domestic and global marketplace. Key drivers include: REACH, California's chemical tracking legislation and multiple global regulations that deal with climate change.

We are all familiar with the traditional drivers of EHS, employee safety and governmental regulation, but now must consider the magnitude of all the shareholders and investors who collectively support our enterprises. According to Innovest: "This has been a record-breaking year for shareholder resolutions pertaining to toxics in products. The trend was reinforced this May via a joint statement by seventeen investing organizations collectively representing more that $22 billion in assets under management. The initiative calls for other investors to join with them in supporting shareholder resolutions seeking better disclosure regarding capital at risk pertaining to toxics in products. A similar initiative called the Carbon Disclosure Project also started three years ago at a correspondingly low level and now represents $31 trillion in assets under management representing 225 of the world's largest and most influential institutional investors." For enterprises that have begun implementing chemical management systems, the transparency required for shareholder disclosure will be a huge competitive advantage as will the increased responsiveness to detailed customer requests.

Innovest further believes that Walmart is going to substantially impact the marketplace with their chemical screening policy which emphasizes PBTs (persistent bioaccumulative toxicants). Walmart is requesting that manufacturer's supply a comprehensive list of all the components that make up their products. For manufacturers this is a time consuming, costly undertaking unless a chemical management system has already been put in place.

REACH Workshop - 14 April 2008

2008-02-26T08:34:00.000-08:00

Final Countdown to Pre-Registration and Registration of Chemicals:

The workshop aims to alert companies that they should not miss the pre-registration "window". It will explain the key elements of pre-registration and registration under REACH, focusing on practical aspects for companies to comply. It will also provide up-to-date information on the REACH guidance documents and tools to support companies, and discuss what is done or can be done to raise awareness of these topics.
More

REACH the Basics, London (March 11, 2008)

2008-02-26T08:17:00.000-08:00

If you're looking for an introduction to the REACH legislation, and to gain an understanding of what this means for you and your business, then this is the event for you.
This workshop is designed to help companies with the practical implementation of the REACH regulation. The comprehensive programme includes talks from a range of experts covering the implications for manufacturers, importers and users of chemicals throughout the supply chain.
There will also be plenty of opportunity to network and quiz the REACHReady experts about this most complex and far-reaching of regulations.
Click here for Full details and the Booking Form.