Europe
a lot of SMEs may decide not to register their speciality chemicals leading to
possible shortages of key components of
coatings formulations.
Some trade organizations with large
numbers of SME members, not only
making coatings or their ingredients but
also coatings users, have been calling for
an easing of the administrative burden
of REACH on small companies.
Although the registration process
under the registration is now over half
complete, SME representatives are
wanting a relaxation of the safety data
requirements for chemicals in the 1-100
tonne bracket. This would mean that
the data obligations for chemicals in the
tranche would be less strict than those
for higher volume chemicals which have
already been registered.
The European Commission, the
Brussels-based EU executive responsible
for putting forward new legislation and
amendments to existing laws for approval by the European parliament and the
governments of the 28 EU member states,
has indicated its willingness to help SMEs
struggling to comply with REACH.
Environmentalists and NGOs campaigning on health and safety issues are
opposing any softening of restrictions of
high-risk hazardous chemicals.
On one key aspect of REACH – the
authorization of hazardous chemicals to
stay on the EU market – their discontent
is being shared by producers of chemicals and their raw materials.
The authorization process is seen as
being at the core of REACH because
its aim is to remove the most hazardous
chemicals from the market.
In the process, as currently applied by
the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),
responsible for administering REACH,
and the European Commission, the final
decision maker on authorizations, chemicals are first categorized as substances
of very high concern (SVHC) to become
candidates for authorization.
Once they are on the candidate list
their producers or distributors have to
apply for their authorization otherwise
the substances are in danger of being
banned. The vast majority of SVHCs are
classed as being carcinogenic, mutagenic
and toxic for reproduction (CMRs).
Applicants for authorization have
to provide evidence that the risks of
exposure to their chemicals are ad-
equately controlled or that the social
and economic benefits of their remain-
ing on the market outweigh these risks.
Authorizations are given only for spe-
cific uses of chemicals, which must be
substituted once safer and adequate al-
ternatives have been developed.
So far out of around 170 SVHCs, less
than 10 specific uses for seven chemicals
had been authorized late last year by the
European Commission after completing
the lengthy procedure.
“Unless the authorization is prop-
erly implemented, REACH will not meet
its goal of removing chemicals that are
harmful to people and the environment
from the market,” commented Tatiana
Santos, senior policy offices for chemicals
at the European Environmental Bureau, a
Brussels-based NGO, on the slow pace of
the process.
The European Commission last year
presented proposals for streamlining the
procedure, including easing the data re-
quirements in authorization applications
and giving more weight to socio-econom-
ic benefits of SVHC products staying on
the market.
The move on socio-economic advan-
tages was “an attempt to steer REACH
away from regulating chemicals based
on their intrinsic properties and towards
regulation based on other types of con-
cerns, mainly economic,” said ChemSec,
a Swedish-headquartered NGO.
“This (streamlining) could have un-
intended and counter-productive effects
on efforts by industry to invest in novel
greener chemical products as substitutes,”
claimed an investment group, headed by
Impax Asset Management, London.
ECHA triggered a furor in the
European coatings sector when it sup-
ported the authorisation last year of a
range of industrial coatings uses of the
lead sulfochromate yellow pigment
(PY. 34) and the lead chromate molyb-
date sulphate red (PR. 104), both classi-
fied as carcinogenic.
The application was made by
Dominion Colour Corporation (DCC)
of Canada, which argued in its submis-
sion that lead-free alternatives had for 30
years failed to replace PY. 34 and PR.104
because their performance was “simply
not good enough” while their extra cost
makes them “even more unsatisfactory.”
ECHA’s decision has yet to be en-
dorsed by the Commission, which is ex-
pected to come down in favour of it early
this year.
The agency’s recommendation for
a 12-year authorization has angered
coatings associations and producers
because for four years the industry has
been pursuing voluntary bans on the
use of lead pigments with companies
like AkzoNobel, BASF and Jotun mar-
keting alternatives.
The British Coatings Federation
(BCF) warned that EU authorization of
lead chromate paints would perpetuate
a global trade in lead chromate pig-
ments, including in countries with weak
regulations. “We believe that the EU
should be taking a lead in this issue and
enforcing a prohibition on the use of
lead chromates in paints,” the BCF said
in a statement.
The Swedish Paint and Printing Ink
Makers Association (SVEFF) was even
more forthright. “It should be a matter of
course to keep lead chromates off the EU
market, as well as to phase them out in
Canada and other countries where they
are still allowed,” it said in a joint decla-
ration with a Swedish nature conserva-
tion group (SSNC).
Meanwhile around 40 downstream
European and national associations,
mostly representing sectors in engineer-
ing and metal processing, many of them
major users of coatings, have been cam-
paigning for big changes in regulatory
controls on chemicals applied in their
production plants. Instead of being
obliged to apply REACH protection lev-
els, they want to be able to comply with
less onerous EU-wide occupation expo-
sure limits (OELs).
Experts reckon the campaign will not
achieve much because many OELs are
outdated and restricted in their scope.
Nonetheless the intiative underlines how
much unhappiness with REACH has extended down the supply chain. CW
