Posted on December 28, 2011 by David Wagner

Thirteen More Substances Proposed for EU Ban

This post was written by David Wagner.

As we discussed early in 2011, the European Commission agreed to ban six substances under the European Union’s REACH law. Now, with the year winding down, 13 more substances have been submitted to the Commission for inclusion of the list of banned substances. On December 21, the European Chemicals Agency formally submitted to the European Commission a list of 13 substances it said should be banned under REACH. If a ban is imposed, companies will be able to request authorization to continue to use the substances in specific cases if no alternatives are available.

The substances are seven chromium compounds (chromium trioxide, chromic acid, sodium dichromate, potassium dichromate, ammonium dichromate, potassium chromate, and sodium chromate), five cobalt compounds (cobalt sulphate, cobalt dichloride, cobalt dinitrate, cobalt carbonate, and cobalt diacetate), and the solvent trichloroethylene. These thirteen substances already are listed as “substances of very high concern” under REACH.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on February 23, 2011 by David Wagner

Six Chemicals Are Banned under EU's REACH Law

This post was written by David Wagner.

After 2½ years of consultations and studies, last week the European Commission formalized the first bans on chemicals under REACH (Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals). Under the terms of the ban, musk xylene; solvent hardener 4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA); flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD); and plasticizers bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) must be phased out, with various sunset dates set between 2014 and 2015.

With this determination, the “authorization” part of REACH is now in play. Depending on the substance, companies have between 24 and 30 months to apply for authorizations to continue to use the substances in specific applications. Requests for authorization must be accompanied by a substitution plan and evidence either that the substances can be used safely or that there is a strong socioeconomic case for their continued use.
 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on April 9, 2009 by David Wagner

UK Solicits Comments to Proposed WEEE and RoHS Revisions

This post was written by David Wagner.

The UK's Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) published a consultation on April 7 soliciting public comment on European Commission proposals to revise the WEEE and RoHS Directives. The consultation paper highlights the significant changes and poses questions for industry and others to address. Among other revisions, the proposal would establish under WEEE new collection targets for Member States and new targets for recovery and reuse/recycling. The proposal would also likely increase WEEE financing costs for producers. The proposed revisions to RoHS would include the possible review and restriction of four substances, specifically: hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD); bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP); and dibutylphthalate (DBP). Consultation responses (i.e., public comments) are due May 13, 2009.

The WEEE Directive (or Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) aims to minimize the environmental impact of electrical and electronic equipment by encouraging its reuse, recycling and recovery when it is discarded at end of life. The RoHS Directive (or the Restriction on the use of certain Hazardous Substances Directive) ensures that all Member States observe similar restrictions on the levels of six hazardous substances in the same categories of electrical and electronic equipment.
 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on October 10, 2008 by David Wagner

Nanoscale Carbon and Graphite No Longer Exempt Under REACH

This post was written by David Wagner.

On Oct. 8, 2008, the European Commission amended REACH to remove nanoscale carbon and graphite from its list of exempted substances. The substances were originally listed in REACH's Annex IV, meaning they were exempt from REACH requirements because they were considered to be of minimum risk because of their intrinsic properties. Following a review and a report by an expert committee, the Commission changed its position. According to the regulation, there is insufficient information for carbon (CAS No. 7440-44-0) and graphite (CAS No. 7782-42-5) to be listed in Annex IV, "in particular due to the fact that the concerned EINECS and/or CAS numbers are used to identify forms of carbon or graphite at the nano-scale, which do not meet the criteria for inclusion" in Annex IV. As a result, both substances are now required to be registered under REACH.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on July 24, 2008 by David Wagner

Keeping Up With Nanotechnology in the United States

This post was written by David Wagner.

Over the past few months, nanotechnology has been in the news.  Four items are worth noting:

  • In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined a California technology company for failing to register nanomaterial under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.  The $208,000 fine was based on the company's failure to register its products as pesticides and for allegedly making unverified claims relating to the antimicrobial capabilities of the nano-silver coatings used in its computers keyboards and mouse accessories.
  • In May, a scientific report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology discussed a possible link between carbon nanotubes and the development of precursors of mesothelioma.
  • Shortly thereafter, NGO groups petitioned USEPA, calling for the review and control of some 260 nano-silver products. See Posting "Citizen Petition for Regulation of Nano-Silver (June 16, 2008).
  • Then in June, the European Commission issued guidance in addressing nanomaterials under REACH, its new chemicals regime.  The guidance indicated that for the nanoscale form of a substance on the market in bulk, the European Commission may require additional information on the specific properties or additional risk management measures. While there is still significant uncertainty about the regulation of nanomaterials, companies working with nanomaterials should closely track what scientists say, what NGOs threaten, and what regulators do both here and abroad.  There is increasing scrutiny of chemical substances throughout the world, and understanding recent developments and the related legal requirements will likely mitigate liability exposure and the business risk associated with nanomaterials. 
Tags: , , ,