Print version

Non-EU firms need more flexibility for CLP notification

Chemical Watch clinic debates REACH, CLP challenges and solutions

Industry should push for greater flexibility regarding group classification and labelling notifications, especially relating to substances and preparations imported into the EU from non-EU manufacturers, delegates heard at Chemical Watch’s REACH and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Clinic in London this week.

The groundbreaking event, chaired by Chemical Watch editor Mamta Patel, used a round table format under Chatham House rules to enable delegates to openly debate with a panel of experts on a wide range of implementation challenges they are facing relating to REACH registration, CLP notification and Only Representative (OR) issues.

The expert panel comprised Jean-Philippe Montfort, partner with Mayer Brown, Steffen Erler, global technical director, Smithers REACH Services, Andrew Fasey, founder of Protection Through Knowledge and co-founder of The REACH Centre, and Tim Jessel, senior consultant with Trasys.

The panel was asked about the implications of ORs not being recognised by the CLP Regulation and how non-EU manufacturers who rely on ORs for REACH should approach notification of substances not covered by 2010 registration dossiers. In response, it said a solution put forward by the Directors’ Contact Group would be unworkable for some. The DCG and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have suggested ORs import small quantities of the relevant products so that they can make C&L notifications as importers. One panel member said that some foreign manufacturers export hundreds of different preparations containing hundreds different substances to many importers and suggesting that their OR physically import a few grams was “a joke”.

Delegates were also concerned about the security of sensitive information they might need to include in notifications and the group notification process – with the possibility of key information on product compositions or customers getting into competitors’ hands.

Another panel member proposed that ECHA should go further in recognising who could represent groups in group notifications – suggesting that it should be possible for EU-manufacturers and/or importers to appoint a representative to take responsibility for the notification, file it on their behalf and keep records of the list of manufacturers/importers represented for inspection by Member States enforcement authorities, rather than having to maintain that list in REACH IT. This would allow non-EU manufacturers to use their OR to notify on behalf of all their EU importers, including SMEs, in a pragmatic manner, while keeping the spirit of the notification obligation. He added that this could be done under the agency’s mandate to simplify notification procedures in particular for SMEs.

The argument was supported by other panel members who felt that the implications of CLP notification – which requires classifications for all hazardous substances to be notified irrespective of tonnages with no time limit – had broader consequences than anticipated and were not fully appreciated by companies throughout the supply chain.

© CW Research Ltd. You may circulate web links to our articles, but you may not copy our articles in whole or in part without permission.