APPENDIX 6
Memorandum from EEF
INTRODUCTION TO
EEF
EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, has a
membership of 6,000 manufacturing, engineering and technology-based
businesses and represents the interests of manufacturing at all
levels of government. Comprising 12 regional Associations, the
Engineering Construction Industries Association (ECIA) and UK
Steel, EEF is one of the UK's leading providers of business services
in health, safety and environment, employment relations and employment
law, manufacturing performance, education, training and skills.
EEF's main interest is in the implications of
this proposal for downstream users of chemicals and substances.
While improvements have been made to the proposal
for the REACH system, there are still areas where the system will
be unworkable. It must be improved with the following objectives:
— is not overly costly or bureaucratic
to operate;
— does not provide non EU producers
with a competitive advantage;
— targets chemicals of the most concern;
and
— protects the environment and human
health.
The proposal takes no account of the fact that
most chemicals and substances are extremely valuable for society
(they are not all "bad" or "toxic") and that
EU companies already comply with strict legislation to minimise
impacts and have an interest in protecting the health of their
staff and customers. The EU has world leaders in manufacturing
and their innovation and productivity must not be stifled by this
proposed system.
EEF'S KEY
CONCERNS WITH
THE PROPOSAL
1. Responsibility for the Chemical Safety
Report is not clear
There is a lack of clarity in the current draft
on the requirements to register downstream uses. The text on this
is not clear and we have heard different views from the Rapporteur,
Signore Sacconi to what the text appears to say. He believes that
Chemical producers are obliged to cover all notified uses in their
Chemical Safety Report, unless the manufacturer has asked them
not to do so on grounds of confidentiality. The text says:
"Downstream users must prepare chemical
safety reports in accordance with Annex XI for uses outside the
conditions described in an exposure scenario included in the safety
data sheet supplied to them."
The main confusion seems to lie in whether or
not a chemical producer chooses to produce a chemical safety report
for a usage they are aware of but have not previously sanctioned.
2. Speciality Chemicals may be withdrawn,
affecting performance and productivity
EEF is pleased that the requirement to register
a substance for 90% of its uses has been cut, but concerned that
substance producers may choose not to register their substance
at all, due to the effect that the costs of testing would have
on the economics of their product. Such products may be effectively
taken off the market by their producers. The most likely substances
that will be affected will be small volume, speciality substances,
for example, additives in oils, paints and coatings, other solvents
and other substances that improve the efficiency of the process.
This could have implications for performance and productivity
in manufacturing. It could also reduce the performance and quality
of many consumer products.
The Rapporteur of the EU Parliament Environment
Committee, Guido Saccone, has said that he recognises the risk
that speciality substances may be taken off the market but believes
that this is not as great as the risk to the environment and health
of chemicals. EEF disagrees.
3. Cost and Bureaucracy
EEF welcomes the flexibility in allowing downstream
users to conduct their own Chemical Safety Reports, for example
in cases where they want to keep use of a substance commercially
confidential— but fears that this may not be feasible for
smaller companies to do. The system as it is currently designed
will mean significant cost for companies at all levels in the
supply chain.
4. Substances for registration should be based
on risk, not production quantity
Selection of substances for registration should
not be based on basic production tonnages but on a measure of
risk (incorporating hazard/exposure). The key is to develop a
robust measurement of risk. Some elements of the EU Parliament
accept that prioritisation based on production tonnages isn't
logical but hasn't yet heard a good proposal for an alternative
based on risk. One proposal is based on the amount of occupational
exposure a substance potentially has. Another is based on ecotoxicity.
5. Imported final articles must be incorporated
into the REACH system
EEF believes that the failure to apply REACH
requirements to constituent substances of finished articles imported
into the EU leaves a loophole that will have impacts on competitiveness,
whilst not helping to improve any environmental or human health
protection. Companies producing equivalent products within the
EU will have to have the constituents tested under REACH and may
move production out of the Community in order to maintain production
costs and competition with India, the Far East or the USA. The
same REACH system should apply to all imports, whether they are
substances or finished articles. This is one element of the proposal
on which we agree with the green groups, who want a level playing
field to encourage all companies to substitute hazardous substances
for less harmful ones. There are at least two precedents for applying
the same system to imported whole products already in EU legislation—the
End of Life Vehicles Directive where importers must require self
declaration from suppliers that components do not contain banned
substances, and the Cosmetics Directive, where producers importing
cosmetic products must provide testing information.
Guido Saccone has expressed the view that EU
producers will find some compensation in the long term via the
added value that REACH brings to their products. He believes that
REACH will benefit innovation and quality. EEF believes that the
opposite will be the case.
6. Safety data sheets are effective and should
remain
EEF supports the simplification of the REACH
proposal by allowing the use of Safety Data Sheets (SDS) to facilitate
data exchange. We believe that these are effective and provide
accurate information. We have not seen evidence of problems with
their voracity, and believe that any misunderstandings are on
the part of operators not reading or understanding them properly.
7. Recyclates in products should be exempted
from REACH
There is a potential clash between the Producer
Responsibility initiatives that require use of higher quantities
of recyclate in new materials (eg End of Life Vehicles Directive)
and REACH. When recycled substances are used to make products,
will these have to be tested according to REACH? In some cases,
member states are struggling to develop successful markets in
recyclate, for example, with recycled plastics. Requiring these
substances to be tested once they have been recycled would unfavourably
affect the economic viability of the process. We will put forward
an amendment that recyclates should be exempted from REACH.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
MANUFACTURING IN
THE PROPOSAL
The EEF believes that the EU proposals for a
new chemical strategy will have implications for the majority
of EEF members as they will be classed as "downstream users"—those
companies outside the chemical industry using additives, stabilisers,
lubricants, specialised paints, paints, plastic coatings and films
etc.
These implications include:
— A lowering in the availability of
speciality, films, or coatings, oils (including lubricants), paints
dyes and inks etc which effect the supply of these products in
the long term.
— An increased financial burden on
SMEs who will be required to register and possible test new chemicals
within the REACH system.
— A reduction in the confidentiality
within the development of new products and processes for chemicals
used in items or articles, hampering opportunities for competitive
advantage.
As a result of REACH, chemical suppliers will
be looking very closely at the costs of testing. A large amount
of testing and administrative work could be required to enable
substances to be registered. If the supply of chemicals is reduced
this could have significant knock on effects for the availability
of certain speciality, films or coatings, oils (including specialist
lubricants), paints, dyes and inks in the manufacture of finished
articles.
Under the REACH system manufacturers developing
such innovative processes and products would become responsible
for comparatively more testing and risk assessments of new substances
or new unintended uses of existing substances. Whilst not rejecting
industry's (ie both chemical manufacturers and downstream users)
responsibility to test and risk-assess existing and new chemicals
the EEF sees the need for measures to be taken that ensure that
innovative and responsible companies do not suffer from a competitive
disadvantage.
REGISTRATION—IMPLICATIONS
FOR DOWNSTREAM
USERS
These provisions oblige downstream users to
consider the safety of their uses of substances, based primarily
on information from their supplier and to take appropriate risk
management measures. They also allow authorities to have an overview
of the uses of a substance as it moves through the supply chain
and so can, if necessary, request further information and take
appropriate measures.
The registration provisions oblige manufacturers
and importers of substances to obtain, where necessary by performing
new tests, knowledge on the substances they manufacture or import
and to use this knowledge to ensure responsible and well-informed
management of the risks which the substances may present.
Manufacturers and importers shall address the
risks of any use identified to them by their downstream users.
A downstream user has the right not to identify a use, in which
case he would have responsibility for performing a chemical safety
assessment. Conversely, the manufacturer is not obliged to supply
a substance for a use that he feels he cannot support.
Registration requires submission of a technical
dossier containing information on the substance and information
on risk management measures, as well as starting at 10 tonnes—the
chemical safety report that documents the choice of these measures.
The information requirement is modulated by tonnage, since this
gives an indication of the potential for exposure. There are provisions
on generation of information, which aim to ensure that it is of
acceptable quality.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
UK STEEL DIVISION
The Eurofer NCP Working Group (formed jointly
by SSPG and the Eurofer Environmental Committee) identified four
specific issues that may affect the iron and steel industry:
— substances used in steel (eg iron,
nickel, chromium, etc);
— substance used in the production
of steel (eg pickling acids);
— substances used on steel (eg zinc,
chromates, etc); and
— substances that are by-products (eg
slag).
ROLE PLAYED
BY THE
UK GOVERNMENT
EEF supports the work of the DTI's downstream
users' group to discuss their particular implications. There is
a proposal for this to be merged with a similar group run by the
CBI, which would be acceptable as long as there is still government
representation on the group.
Defra has not included all industry groups in
its consultation meetings to date.
One of the most important actions for government
at this stage is to garner support and co-ordinate lobbying effort
from other member states, particularly in the accession countries.
We need a strong voice from industry across Europe to ensure that
this proposal is as practical and workable as possible. UK trade
associations are already moving in this direction and can support
government in this work.
December 2003
| 
