REACH:REACH: Impact on NAFTA Companies and Impact on NAFTA Companies and
ChemicalsChemicalspresented by Edgar Rodriguez Sierrapresented by Edgar Rodriguez Sierra
REACH
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Registration
Evaluation
Authorisation and Restriction of
CHemicals
REACH – Across the pond
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Introduction to REACH REACH applies to chemical substances
Registration is required for chemical substances manufactured or imported into the EU
Registration priority and data requirements are based on manufactured or imported annual tonnages
Benefit from extended registration deadlines through pre-registration or late pre-registration
Share and assess data for chemical substances within Substance Information Exchange Fora (SIEFs)
Submit registration dossiers before or by the registration deadline
Introduction to REACH
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Introduction to REACH
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Who can register ? Legal Entities based in the EU ! Manufacturers Importers Only Representatives (OR)
Only Representatives are appointed by non-EU base manufacturers/NAFTA based manufacturers to handle all aspects of Registration
Fees and Charges Fees and charges are payable to the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA) pursuant to the REACH Regulation and apply to the registration of chemical substances
Fees and charges are based on the company size and the annual turnover
Impacts of REACH in NAFTA countries –Negative Aspects
Negative NAFTA based manufacturers without EU based legal entities
cannot register by themselves
Negative NAFTA based manufacturers without EU based legal entities
must appoint an Only Representative to handle Registration of their chemical substances
Negative Only Representatives pay fees and charges based on the size
and the annual turnover of the NAFTA based manufacturer they represent
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Impacts of REACH in NAFTA countries –Positive Aspects
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Positive Benefit from extended registration deadlines by pre-
registration through an Only Representative
Positive Benefit from extended registration deadlines by late pre-
registration through an Only Representative
Positive Small- and medium-sized NAFTA manufacturers benefit from
reduced fees and charges under REACH
Impacts of REACH in NAFTA countries –Negative Aspects
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Negative Certain chemical substances will become subject to
Authorisation and Restrictions in the near future
Negative Classification and Labelling for chemical substances will
become subject to change in 2010
Negative Data requirements for registration dossiers will lead to
additional testing
Impacts of REACH in NAFTA countries –Positive Aspects
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Positive Joint submission of registration dossiers leads to reduced
fees and charges
Positive Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI) by
appointing an Only Representative and/or Third Party Representative (TPR)
Positive All EU based manufacturers and importers must register
their chemical substances too
What general tools are NAFTA companies using for REACH ?
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
NAFTA based manufacturer with EU based legal entity
REACH-IT and/or IUCLID5 Pre-SIEFs/SIEFs Third Party Representative Services Consortia Supply Chain Communication
NAFTA based manufacturer without EU based legal entity
Only Representative Services Third Party Representative Services SIEFs Supply Chain Communication
Are there any challenges for the NAFTA chemical industry ?
Complying with pre-registration and late pre-registration deadlines
Finding and appointing a Only Representative
Protecting Confidential Business Information
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Are there any challenges for the NAFTA chemical industry ?
Collecting information up and down the supply chain
Authorisation of certain chemical substances
Restrictions for certain chemical substances
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Are there any challenges for the NAFTA chemical industry ?
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Sharing data with other registrants
Generating missing test data
Access to harmonized REACH approach of major EU industry associations (Cefic, AISE, VCI, FEICA, etc.)
Paying fees and charges
Is there any direct or indirect financial loss due to REACH ?
Implementing REACH into their Supply Chain will cause an increase of costs for NAFTA based manufacturers
Fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency
Costs for Only Representative or Third Party Representative Services
Costs for generating test data
Costs regarding compensation for sharing data
NAFTA based manufacturers are considering carefully the costs paying for REACH versus REACH exports
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Are there any NAFTA industry specific REACH exemptions ?
Example:Brazilian Chemical Industry is asking the government for tax relief under REACH in order to pay the large fees for registration
No NAFTA industry specific REACH exemptions in place or planned until today
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Are there any REACH consortia in the NAFTA region ?
Several REACH Consortia already in place and working in the EU
No REACH related Consortia in place in the NAFTA region
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Conclusions
Failure to meet REACH compliance means that NAFTA based manufacturers will lose access to the export market in the EU
Substantial production, use and export by NAFTA based manufacturers of chemicals already identified by the EU as so called Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) will lead to Authorization and Restrictions
Increasing costs regarding REACH compliance is an additional burden for NAFTA based manufacturers
Small- and medium-sized NAFTA companies have to cope with REACH fees and charges
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Conclusions
NAFTA based manufacturers without EU based legal entities must use external support to comply with REACH
NAFTA based manufacturers exporting into the EU have to ensure that their chemical substances (products) fully comply with the new regulation
NAFTA organizations will be in closer contact with European groups and associations
No Data (No REACH Compliance) – No Market !
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Do Similar Regulations Exist in the United States?
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Potential Impacts on Brazilian Exports of Chemicals to the U.S.
No but the United States has ChAMP
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)
In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the ChAMP.
The ChAMP encompasses EPA’s efforts to meet U.S. commitments under the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), as well as enhancements to the Agency’s existing chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
U.S. commitments under the SPP
Assess and initiate action, as necessary, on over 6,000 existing organic chemicals manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at or above 25,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr)
Includes High Production Volume (HPV) and Moderate Production Volume (MPV) chemicals
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
HPV Chemicals
Manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at or above 1 million lbs/yr
EPA developing Risk-Based Prioritizations (RBPs) using hazard data obtained under the HPV Challenge Program, use and exposure data obtained under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), and other available data
HPV Chemicals to be classified for follow-up actions as Low Priority, Medium Priority, High Priority, or High Priority with Special Concern
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
MPV Chemicals
Manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at or above 25,000 lbs/yr but less than 1 million lbs/yr
Use and exposure data available under the IUR only for MPV Chemicals manufactured in or imported into the U.S. at or above 300,000 lbs/yr at any one site
EPA developing Hazard-Based Prioritizations (HBPs) using Structure Activity Relationships (SARs), Canadian categorization results, and other available data
MPV Chemicals to be classified for follow-up actions similarly to HPVs, but the nature of the actions will likely differ
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
TSCA Program Enhancements
In September 2008, EPA announced two enhancements to its existing chemicals program under the TSCA:
1. TSCA Inventory Reset2. Inorganic HPV Challenge Program
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
TSCA Inventory Reset
EPA believes that many of the approximately 83,000 chemicals listed on the current Inventory are no longer in commerce in the United States.
Based on this belief, EPA has proposed to reset the Inventory by removing those chemicals that are no longer being manufactured or imported.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
TSCA Inventory Reset (continued)
Under EPA’s proposal, the public version of the Inventory would be posted online.
Companies would then certify the chemicals that they have manufactured or imported within a specified timeframe.
Companies would certify their chemicals online using a secured website.
Following the reset, a new chemical notice would be required if a company decided to manufacture or import a chemical that was removed from the Inventory.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
IHPV Challenge Program
Inorganic chemical substances are defined as chemical substances that do not contain carbon, or contain carbon only in the form of: carbonato (=CO3), cyano (-CN), cyanato (-OCN), isocyano (-NC), or isocyanato (-NCO) groups, or the chalcogen analogues of such groups.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
IHPV Challenge Program (continued)
The proposed Inorganic High Production Volume (IHPV) Challenge Program is modeled after the HPV Challenge Program, which focused on organic chemicals.
The IHPV Challenge Program will challenge the chemical industry to gather or develop and submit to EPA the data needed:
1. to characterize the physical-chemical properties, toxicity, and environmental fate of IHPV chemicals, and
2. to enable assessment and initiation of needed follow-up actions.
Potential impacts on Brazilian exporters to the U.S.
Near-Term: Requests from U.S. importers for data on
organic HPV chemicals, organic MPV chemicals, and inorganic HPV chemicals
Restrictions on some organic HPV chemicals Removal of chemicals from the TSCA
Inventory followed by new chemical notice requirements for U.S. importers
Opportunities for improved relationships with U.S. importers
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Potential impacts on Brazilian exporters to the U.S. (continued)
Longer-Term: Restrictions on some organic MPV chemicals
and inorganic HPV chemicals Declining markets for restricted chemicals
resulting from customer de-selection Increasing numbers of requests for
substitutes for restricted chemicals Opportunities for sales of more
environmentally-friendly and safer chemicals
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Do Similar Regulations Exist in Canada?
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Potential Impacts on Brazilian Exports of Chemicals to Canada
No but Canada has the Chemical Management Plan
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Canada – CMP - The Challenge Program – Overview
February 2007 – “Challenge to Industry” launched by Minister of Health and Minister of Environment
Involves approximately 200 substances identified as “high priority” by DSL categorization
Substances still in commerce in Canada Why high priority?
Bioaccumulate, are persistent and inherently toxic to aquatic organisms AND/OR
Pose a high hazard (great potential for exposure) to human health
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Canada – The Challenge Program
“Batches” of 15-20 substances released every quarter
Release of each batch includes: Substance profiles, Mandatory surveys (CEPA 1999 Section 71 Notices), Voluntary questionnaires Industry responsibilities: Industry to provide specified information Industry to comment on substance profiles
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Canada – The Challenge Program
Government will review surveys to determine further action Example – “Batch 1” Substances Final
Screening Assessments 9 substances determined “toxic” and
recommended for addition to Schedule 1 and/or addition to virtual elimination list
6 substances determined not “toxic” and no further action is currently required
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Canada – The Challenge Program
Example – “Batch 2” Substances Draft Screening Assessments
12 substances proposed as “toxic” with proposal to add to Schedule 1 and/or addition to virtual elimination list
5 substances proposed as not “toxic” 3 proposed no further action 2 proposed to issue Significant New
Activity provisions
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
REACH Impact in Canadian Chemical Industry
“The following information was obtained during a conversation with Mr. Gordon Lloyd, VP Technical Affairs, Canada’s Chemical Producers and I was given permission to include in this presentation.”
A large number of Canadian chemical companies are at the multinational level, therefore, any and all of the REACH issues were handle through the sister or parent companies in Europe. Furthermore, the impact is low and some of the REACH issues that the U.S., Mexico, and Chile may have, were not as evident in Canada.
There was no input requested by the EU from the NAFTA chemical industry block regarding Polymers.
Canada believes that in the near future NAFTA will encounter exporting bottom-necks. There will be a significant problem with the supply of materials to Europe, and a higher impact for small size companies
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
REACH Impact in Canadian Chemical Industry (continued)
Canada does not agree with REACH’s requirements of more scientific testing for chemicals. The current CMP’s chemical safety assessments meets all of the REACH requirements
REACH is incredibly expensive for the Canadians companies in regards to:
Pre-registration Pre-SIEF and SIEF Representation OR representation General REACH consulting
There is a need for more training, especially, in the areas of industry responsibility of downstream users and the regulatory requirements imposed by REACH. Now, the chemical companies are re-acting and it is creating a problem during pre-registration
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Do Similar Regulations Exist in Mexico?
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
No, but Mexico is a Member of the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP)
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
REACH Impacts on the Mexican Chemical Industry
“The following information was obtained during a conversation with Mr. Ruben Garcia, REACH Coordinator, National Association of the Chemical Industry (ANIQ), Mexico and I was given permission to include in this presentation.”
ANIQ confirmed that his office is currently working in evaluating the economical, logistical, and operational impact of REACH in the Mexican chemical industry.
ANIQ knows that several Mexican companies have used their parent or sister companies in Europe to pre-register and be their OR legal entities.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
REACH Impacts on the Mexican Chemical Industry
ANIQ developed an online survey for all members to provide REACH feedback information regarding: Monies spent in pre-registration and consulting fees, business lost, type of chemical companies mostly affected, specific problems dealing with Europe, and others. However, the response to ANIQ’s survey has been delayed due to privacy issues among members.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
REACH Impacts on the Mexican Chemical Industry
ANIQ stated that most of the feedback regarding the impacts of GHS and REACH within NAFTA are been discussed in the meetings of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation or CEC. www.cec.org
ANIQ will be attending the March 31 – April 3, 2009, CEC San Antonio, TX conference to discussed with the Canadian and US counterparts issues regarding REACH and GHS.
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
April 7, 2009 ©ChemADVISOR, Inc. 2009
Thank you.Obrigado.
Gracias.