REACH PROPOSAL

The selection of these compounds was made on the grounds of their toxicity, environmental stability, and tendency to undergo biomagnification the intention was to move toward their removal from the natural environment. In the REACH proposals of the European Commission (EC published in 2003), a similar list of 12 POPs was drawn up, the only differences being the inclusion of hexachlorobiphenyl and chlordecone, and the exclusion of the by-products, dioxins, and furans. The objective of the EC directive is to ban the manufacture or marketing of these substances. It is interesting that no fewer than eight of these compounds, which are featured on both lists, are insecticides. 

On 14 March 2005 Members of the European Parliament began discussion of detailed proposals for 111 amendments to the REACH proposals based on a report from the Environment Committee, the Industry Committee and the Internal Market Committee. It is unlikely that any proposals will be made for further amendments. 

The first reading of the proposed REACH Regulation by the European Parliament is scheduled for November 2005 at the earliest. The rapporteurs for the lead Environment and Industry Committees, Guido Sacconi and Lena Ek respectively, have proposed extensive amendments to REACH. Hartmut Nassauer, the rapporteur for the Internal Market and Consumer Committee, also responsible for the European Parliament s opinion on the REACH proposal, has issued a report suggesting extensive amendments, and in essence has suggested REACH is completely redrafted. The Internal Market and Consumer Committee vote has been postponed from 5 September 2005. 

The EU Member States, through the Council of Ministers, will work towards a compromise position. The Council of Ministers has already suggested many amendments to the REACH proposal. 

In what is being called the most far-reaching overhaul of European Union environmental policy ever, the European Commission released a draft policy proposal on May 7 that, if enacted, would require virtually all manufacturers of chemicals to provide risk assessments and other information regarding products they sell or ship into the EU. Chemicals would also have to be registered with the EC and many downstream users of products that contain chemical entities would have to file paperwork as well. The Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, or REACH, proposal would apply to approximately 30,000 new and existing chemicals, and test data would have to be developed on some 5000 specific chemical entities, many of which have been commonly used for decades. EUROPEAN COMMISSION... 

A safer alternative is one that does not meet the requirements for a substance of very high concern as defined in the authorisation procedure of the REACH proposed regulation. Obviously, every effort must be made to select the least hazardous alternative within this universe of "safer" chemicals. 

These loopholes In the REACH proposal will effectively mean that even the most hazardous substances could be granted authorisations for continued production, even when safer alternatives are available. Adequate control does not prevent releases Into the environment and the Intrinsic properties of chemicals of very high concern mean these releases will lead to ongoing exposure and continued build up of these chemicals in the environment and in human beings. 

During the development of REACH the EU Commission held extensive dialog with stakeholders before and after the proposal was presented. Stakeholders sent over 6000 responses during the REACH Internet consultation and contributed to the REACH Impact Assessment both before and after the launch of the Commission REACH proposal in 2003,75 One of the purposes of the collaboration was to help the EU Commission improve the design and cost effectiveness of the system. 

This publication is significant given the fact that the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) proposal entered into force in the European Union in June 2007. Additionally, the regional consultation of the Strategic Agreement on International Chemicals Management (SAICM) in Asia was held in May 2007. 

A great deal of controversy surrounds the business effects of REACH. Environmental NGO argue that the chemical industry is crying wolf over the potential negative effects that the regulation will have on EU businesses [283]. NGO support this assertion with the fact that the cost estimates for implementing the current REACH proposals represent only about 0.05 % of the annual turnover of the EU chemical industry (about 400 billion) [283]. The costs to downstream chemical users represent <1% of their total turnover of around 425 billion [283]. 

To promote international competitiveness of the EU chemical industry and encourage innovation, the REACH proposal ... 

The proposed systems framework for EU decision-making under REACH seeks to counterbalance the weaknesses and to draw on the strengths of the national approaches while addressing the points shown in Table 7.1. Specifically, the framework would fuse hazard, technical and risk-benefit approaches to risk management (Table 7.2). Compared with the current process of chemical legislation and the recent REACH proposal, the systems framework would avoid a linear substance-by-substance approach by applying a set of decision-making rules based on hazard and use to all chemicals (Section 5.3.1). 

The REACH proposal should give greater responsibility to industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances. Manufacturers and importers will be required to gather information on the properties of their substances, which will help them manage them safely, and to register the information in a central database. A Chemicals Agency will act as the central point in the REACH system it will run the databases necessary to operate the system, co-ordinate the in-depth evaluation of suspicious chemicals and run a public database in which consumers and professionals can find hazard information. 

REACH Implementation Project. REACH Proposal Process Description June 2004. 

---