REACH

1
REACH

• ETUC Presentation. 11 March 2005
• Jos Delbeke
• Director
• Air Chemicals
• DG ENV C

2
Reminder why do we need REACH?

• Current chemicals management system is
  inefficient
• Difficult to identify risks difficult to
  address risks
• Lack of information about most substances on the
  market
• Burden of proof on public authorities
• No efficient instrument to deal with problematic
  substances
• Lack of incentives for innovation
• Lack of confidence in chemicals

3
Progress in co-decision Timing

• Nov 2003 Proposal submitted to Parliament and
  Council

• Decision making in EP and Council 2004-2006
• Parliament 1st reading Autumn 2005?
• Political agreement btw MS end 2005?
• REACH in force 2007?

4
Progress in co-decision

• Ad-hoc Working Party on Chemicals established
  (November 2003, 12 meetings)
• Parliament Environment Committee lead
• Suspected timetable
• Opinions Spring 2005
• Voting in ENVI Summer 2005
• First reading vote in plenary Autumn 2005
• Economic and Social Committee
• Additional Opinion on REACH

5
Key elements

• Prioritisation
• Right balance (hazard/risk)
• Short/long term impacts
• 1-10 tonnes testing requirements
• OSOR
• Mandatory sharing
• Workability
• Agency
• Stronger?

6
Economic Benefits

• Simplification
• Level playing-field for new and existing
  substances
• Improved innovation (encourage substitution, not
  forced)
• higher demand for safer substances
• higher registration thresholds
• more RD flexibility

7
Health benefits

• Commission, (REACH Impact Assessment 2003)
  respiratory and bladder cancers, skin and
  respiratory disorders
• Health benefits of 50 billion (order of
  magnitude)

• UK Regulatory Impact Assessment
• Between 18 and 37 cancer death reduced per year
  will be enough to generate a positive
  cost-benefit ratio of the regulation
• OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at
  work)
• Occupational skin diseases are estimated to cost
  the EU 600 million each year, resulting in
  around 3 million lost wd.

8
Environmental Benefits

• Orders of magnitude
• EC JRC pollution prevention
• costs of dredging and clean-up contaminated
  soil/sewage sludge of at least 11 billion in the
  next decade for the EU15 alone (11-110 billion)
• Nordic Council
• Costs associated to PCB pollution between 15 up
  to 75 billion (up to 2018)
• Finnish Ministry of Environment
• Remediation of contaminated soil future clean-up
  costs for Finland up to 1.2 billion in the next
  two decades.

Conclusion Benefits are difficult to estimate
but significant and undisputed
NL workshop on REACH IA
9
Costs

• Impact Assessment
• Direct costs 2 billion
• Total costs (inc to downstream users) 2.8 - 5.2
  billion
• Substance loss 1-2 (to be further
  investigated)
• 60 of direct costs from testing
• An indication of the amount of information
  industry has about its chemicals?

10
Further work on benefits

• Objective
• Complementary work to Commission IA
• Methodology
• Case study approach on potential harmful
  substances
• Avoid the legacy from the past (pollution)
• Assess the effectiveness of REACH in reducing the
  remaining chemical hazards
• Timetable
• To be finalised in September 2005

11
Commissions Interim Strategy

• Commissions practical preparations
• Before REACH coming into force Jan 2004 early
  2006
• In co-operation with industry and MS
• Refocus Current Activities
• REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs)
• RIP 1 Process descriptions (available on ENV
  website)
• RIP 2 Development of IT systems (REACH-IT)
• RIP 3/4 Guidance Documents (industry/authorities)
  
• RIP 5/6 Preparation for start-up of Agency
• RIP 7 Commission preparations
• Strategic partnerships

12
Guidance Industry/Authorities

• Guidance prepared by consultants commented
  on/steered by stakeholders.
• Projects started
• Chemical Safety Report (synergies with worker
  protection law)
• Information Requirements
• Substance Identity
• Started Feb 05
• Downstream-User Requirements
• Carrying out a Socio-Economic Analysis
• Preparation of Annex XIV Dossiers (Authorities)
• Restrictions Harmonised CL Serious and
  irreversible effects
• To start mid 05
• Fulfilling the Requirements for articles
• Others to come during 2005/2006

13
Strategic partnerships (SP)

• Objective
• Prepare REACH compatible dossiers (mainly with
  MS) for current work (e.g. substance evaluation)
• Developing guidance in partnership
• Testing specific aspects/impacts of the operation
  of REACH
• Strategic Partnership On REACH Testing (SPORT)
• a partnership between industry, the European
  Commission and Member States initiated by CEFIC.
  Also involving NGOs, Trade Unions, animal welfare
  org., etc.
• to simulate the implementation of REACH by all
  main actors
• an opportunity to test and establish the
  workability of REACH, and identify solutions if
  problems are found,

14
Conclusion

• REACH should be in-force by 2007
• Impact Assessment work
• Balance between cost and benefit
• Commission is preparing for REACH implementation
• REACH-IT guidance strategic partnerships