Community Spotlight

                                                                                                              Andrew Fasey and REACH

 

 

 

 

 

 

MCS America News, Volume 3, Issue 1,  January 2008.

 

 

Would you share something about yourself and your background?
 
I have been working on international regulatory chemicals issues for almost 20 years. I am currently advising companies and other stakeholders on the implications of REACH (The Registration, Evaluations, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals Regulation) and the GHS (Globally Harmonised System for the classification and labeling of chemicals) and how to address compliance issues. I have two main ‘claims to fame’. First, I was one of the authors of the European Commission’s proposal for REACH and subsequently acted as a Special Advisor on REACH to the Government of Finland during their Presidency of the EU when they brought negotiations in the EU on REACH to a successful conclusion. Second, whilst working for the UK Government I was part of the IOMC (Inter-Organisation Progamme for the Sound Mangement of Chemicals) drafting group that prepared the GHS.   
 

Do you feel that industrial chemicals have been effectively governed around the world?

 

No. Whilst the authorities have largely ‘done their best’ it is clear that the management of chemicals has been inadequate globally. The development of legislation is always to an extent incremental but progress has been too slow. There is insufficient data on the properties of the vast majority of chemicals in use, the communication of information in the supply chain on the properties of chemicals, and how chemicals can be used safely.  The promotion of chemical innovation and the encouragement of safer processes is poor. The old EU legislation did not encourage innovation and may even, inadvertently, have discouraged it.

 

What is the new chemical regulatory system in the European Union known as REACH?

 

REACH is the Eurpean Union’s (UN) attempt to correct some of the shortcomings of the old regulatory regime. It is a complex legal, technical and scientific piece of legislation and will be supported by many thousands of pages of guidance. It will lead to a data-set being established for all substances manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in quantities of 1 metric tonne or more per year per manufacturer or importer; the data required increasing in proportion to the tonnage. This process is known as Registration and will in the cases of all registrations over the 10 tonne threshold also require risk management measures to be identified for the uses of the substance. ‘Substances of very high concern’ (SVHC) will potentially be subject to authorisation;   this is a system whereby all uses of chosen SVHCs will need to be specifically authorised. It is hoped that the authorisation process in particular, and REACH as a whole, will lead to the substitution of SVHCs with safer alternatives and processes. There are many other important components of REACH but the Registration and Authorisation elements are perhaps the most important.

 

How did you become involved in REACH?

 

I have been working in the international regulatory chemicals field for many years. I had been involved in the development and implementation of many pieces of EU chemicals legislation and international development programmes and had seen at close hand the strengths and limitations of the various pieces of legislation and programmes. I was therefore well placed to work for the European Commission when they asked for support to turn the White Paper ‘A future EU chemicals policy’ into legislation. Once I left the Commission after publication of the REACH proposal I was in a very good position to help other stakeholders such as the Government of Finland to progress the REACH proposal through the complicated EU negotiating process and industry to understand the implications of REACH and prepare for its introduction.

 

What process will REACH require for evaluation of chemicals before they are registered?

 

Manufacturers and importers of substances (on their own and in mixtures) should pre-register their substances (second half of 2008) in order to take account of the tonnage related registration deadlines. Following pre-registration, all potential registrants of the same substance need to cooperate to share data to develop a single hazard data-set per substance and to make proposals for testing if needed to complete the data-set; the requirements of the data-set are prescribed in the legislation and are tonnage dependent. The potential registrants can then prepare their own risk assessment (known in REACH as a chemical safety assessment) to identify appropriate risk management measures or cooperate with each other to do this. The registration itself is the hazard data-set and the chemicals safety assessment (if required).

 

Will REACH be banning any current chemicals?

 

Existing bans and restrictions on chemicals will be carried forward under REACH. The restrictions process under REACH will lead to further bans and restrictions being introduced over time. The authorisation process will mean that only certain uses, if any, of authorised substances will be allowed. REACH will also lead to chemicals being ‘deselected’ and withdrawn from the market once there is greater information available on their properties and safe use. 

 

I understand that authorisation will be required for the use of certain chemicals.  What does this mean?

 

All SVHCs (broadly speaking CMRs, PBTs, vPvBs and other substances with properties of equivalent concern) are potentially subject to authorisation; a list will be published and other SVHCs added over time as they are identified. The idea is that a few of these substances will be selected every year and all those using these substances will need to submit a case demonstrating that they can be used safely for each individual use or, failing that, there is a socio-economic reason why the use of the substance should be allowed to continue. All unauthorized uses would de facto be banned.

 

Who will be the governing authority to carry out REACH?

 

The operation of REACH will be managed by the new European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. The European Commission will continue to have powers to introduce new, or amend the existing, legislation. All the EU Member States will have enforcement responsibilities within their boundaries.

 

Will REACH encourage more research studies on chemical?

 

It is hard to say. However, as all stakeholders become more aware of the risks posed by chemicals the pressure to research new and better ways of doing things may increase. I think it is likely that REACH will encourage research into the development of new approaches to identify the properties of chemicals; this may include computer modeling approaches ((Q)SARs)*, toxicogenomics, and non-animal test methods. REACH covers the whole life cycle of chemicals; I expect increasing emphasis to be given to environmental fate assessment for chemicals after they are used. I would hope that greater resources will be given to the development of safer chemicals than those currently used but with the same use characteristics. The principles of green chemistry should be further developed so that a wider range of companies can apply these principles in practice.

 

How do you think REACH will affect those with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and ?

 

REACH does not specifically address MCS. However, over time we will have a far better understanding of the effects of individual substances and we will be able to apply this knowledge to the issue of MCS; for example, we may be able to make a link between chemical structure and/or effects and the incidence of MCS. If there is a known issue with MCS and a registered substance it would be good practice to address this in the chemical safety assessment and in the relevant hazard and risk assessment tools (e.g. safety data sheets).

 

What can we do to establish similar chemical regulation the United States?

 

It is not up to Europeans to advise the US on its regulatory requirements and/or the deficiencies in its existing legislation! Indeed, the EU can learn a lot from the US in the area of computer modeling of effects. The US has to consider whether chemicals are sufficiently well managed, for both human health and the environment, and whether innovation and the replacement of dangerous chemicals and processes by safer ones is encouraged sufficiently. If the answer to either of these questions is no then you should perhaps consider revising or replacing existing legislation. It is however vitally important that the various national and international programs are compatible and that information generated under one system can be shared with another. Whilst the EU hopes that REACH will improve the management of chemicals the US would be well advised to monitor its successes and failures to help ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated.

 

Are there any problems with REACH?

 

This remains to be seen, however, I do have some concerns. The authorisation process may be overly slow and cumbersome to deal with the perhaps 1500 SVHCs, and could conversely lead to the withdrawal of substances which are needed and for which there are no adequate replacements. Many companies will struggle to cope with the scope and complexity of REACH which may lead to poor business decisions being made. The data-set for low volume substances is limited (for good competitiveness reasons), but this could perhaps be addressed in REACH 2. The requirement for all potential registrants to share data to prepare a single hazard data-set may sound like a good idea but the practical implications (e.g. agreeing on the data to be used, how the costs will be attributed, holding discussions in up to 20 languages, SMEs having to ‘hold their own’ with large multi-nationals) are going to make this process a nightmare. Resolving these data sharing issues and then preparing a registration dossier by the end of 2010 will be challenging to say the least. Enforcement is the responsibility of the individual EU Member States; it is certain that there will be some difference in interpretation and enforcement of the law, despite the best efforts of the agency, resulting in an un-level ‘playing field’. 

 

Andrew Fasey can be contacted at:

andrew.fasey@ptkltd.com

 

Copyrighted © 2008  MCS America