Environmental Groups Sue ECHA for Refusing to Release Names of Chemical Manufacturers

Two European environmental groups have sued the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for refusing to release the names of chemical manufacturers and importers of some of the most hazardous chemicals in the EU.  The lawsuit claims "several violations of European laws designed to promote transparency, democracy, and legitimacy in EU policy-making."  ChemSec, a Swedish-based NGO, was joined by environmental law organization ClientEarth in filing the suit.

The chemicals in question are the 356 chemicals on ChemSec's "SIN (Substitute it Now!) list."

The list comprises chemicals identified as Substances of Very High Concern under the EU chemicals regulation REACH. These are chemicals that can cause cancer, damage our reproductive system, or alter our DNA, as well as toxic substances that accumulate in nature with serious and long-term irreversible effects.

Last week I reported that ChemSec had added 22 chemicals to their SIN list based on their potential endocrine disruption effects.  Under the EU chemical control law, REACH, ECHA is required to give special attention to these "substances of very high concern." In their lawsuit, ChemSec and ClientEarth argue that:

ECHA has a track record of being slow to disclose information about chemicals; pressure from the chemicals industry has so far been successful in making delays characteristic of the Agency's approach, despite this policy's clear contravention of REACH and EU principles established for almost 20 years.

According to Vito Buonsante, toxics lawyer at ClientEarth: 

The public’s right to information on chemicals is a basic principle of the REACH Regulation. ECHA must not be allowed to withhold information on such a critical issue, especially as it relates to chemicals found in consumer products and present in the EU in large quantities. We have exhausted all avenues to make ECHA meet its transparency obligations and are now compelled to go to court.

More information on the lawsuit can be found on the ChemSec and ClientEarth web pages.

NGO Adds 22 More "Endocrine Disrupter" Chemicals to its SIN List

An international chemical secretariat, Chemsec, has released an update to its "Substitute it Now!" list, aka, SIN List.  The first SIN list contained 356 chemicals that the NGO felt qualified as "substances of very high concern."  SIN 2.0 adds another 22 substances based solely on "their endocrine disrupting properties."  Chemsec argues that many of these are "commonly found in toys, food packaging, and cosmetics." According to their press release:

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with our hormone system and have been increasingly linked to a range of health problems including cancer, diabetes, behavioural and attention deficit disorders, as well as impaired fertility. We are all exposed to a range of EDCs via everyday consumer products as well as via food and water.

Chemsec believes that EDCs pose a significant threat to human health, and that while the EU has committed to addressing this threat, they have "so far not properly regulated their use.  Chemsec notes that hundreds of chemicals are considered of high concern, the EU has so far only designated 46 "substances of very high concern" under the REACH chemical control law, and of those, not a single one was listed specifically for their endocrine disrupting properties.


More information on the 22 new chemicals added to SIN 2.0 can be found on Chemsec's web site.

The list of 22 can be viewed here as a PDF file.

Chemsec's full SIN List database can be searched here.

ECHA Provides Tools to Help Chemical Companies Prepare Authorization Applications for REACH

Now that the first deadline for REACH registration has passed, and responsible parties at registering companies have had a chance to take a vacation and catch up on other work, it's time for some companies to turn their attention to the "A" in REACH - Authorization.  And the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has now provided some tools to help companies do just that.

Authorization, of course, is the part of REACH where ECHA has determined that a particular "substance of very high concern" presents too great a risk and therefore intends to remove it from commerce.  Manufacturers of those chemicals put onto Annex XIV of REACH, the authorization list, must apply to receive authorization to continue using the chemical.  If no authorization is granted the chemical will be banned from commerce in the EU at the end of the specified sunset perios, which for the handful of chemicals added so far is 2014 or 2015.  If authorized, the chemical would be limited to uses that are critical and can be controlled, and where there are no available substitutes, and for only a limited period of time allotted to find or develop a substitute.

The new tools include "templates to document an analysis of alternatives, a socio-economic analysis and a substitution plan."   There is also a "Fee Calculator" to estimate how much it will cost to submit their application (but not how much to prepare the application). There are also a new Data Submission Manual that "explains in detail how to prepare an Application for Authorisation using IUCLID 5.3, and how to use the web forms for dossier submission."

More information is available on the ECHA web site.

Guidance on how to prepare the authorization application can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Guidance on how to prepare the socio-economic analysis can be downloaded as a PDF here.

EU Coalition Argues that Regulations Help Innovation of New Chemicals

Yesterday I suggested that regulation under the newly proposed Safe Chemicals Act in the United States would actually stimulate innovation and development of new, safer chemicals in contrast to concerns by industry that regulation hinders innovation. In a timely piece of news, today I came across a new report published by the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec), a coalition founded by four non-profit organizations in Europe. ChemSec is the organization that previously released a SIN List of dangerous chemicals.

The report is called "Electronics Without Brominated Flame Retardants and PVC – a Market Overview" and the basic conclusion is that "greener, more environmentally-friendly electronics are possible!"

ChemSec notes that many companies are moving in this direction, and argues that "to stimulate this development, regulators, nationally and globally, have the opportunity, and responsibility, to establish legal frameworks confirming the elimination of replaceable, toxic chemicals used in electronics." They believe taht EU legislators can "confirm sustainable developments like the one reflected in the ChemSec Market Overview, by taking action on brominated flame retardants and PVC."

So apparently the RoHS Directive in the EU has stimulated innovation and development of alternatives that would not have been attempted if the costs of proving safety were not included in the business calculus. Thus, as I noted yesterday, it is highly likely that the Safe Chemicals Act will provide incentives for innovation. It can do this both by accurately counting the costs of safety and by providing financial and regulatory incentives for development of green chemistry.

Assuming that the bills actually are passed and become law.