Author Archives: Kal

About Kal

Kal Kawar, CIH, PE, has a bachelor's in chemical engineering and a master's in industrial hygiene. His professional experience includes serving as staff industrial hygienist for IBM's New York semiconductor manufacturing facility, and as industrial hygienist for IBM’s US headquarters. Now executive vice president of Actio, Kal taps more than 20 years' worth of chemical engineering, industrial hygiene, and environmental engineering experience. His far-reaching expertise with global regulatory challenges created by EPA, TSCA, REACH, RoHS, WEEE – and hundreds of others – aid in developing Actio software solutions for MSDS management, raw material disclosure compliance, and product stewardship in a supply chain.

Top 5 Questions About RoHS in 2011

Posted on by

Here are the top 5 things businesses need to know about RoHS in 2011.  And first, an overview of the RoHS directive.

RoHS overview

As of July 1, 2006, producers and importers of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) in the European Union (EU) must adhere to the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations (RoHS).

RoHS is a directive, not a regulation.  The difference is that a directive cares only about the result.  With RoHS, for example, the required result is the restricted use of certain toxic chemicals in electronics manufacturing.  How businesses achieve that result, or how member states handle governing that process, is up to each.

A regulation, on the other hand, delineates to each affected entity how to manage compliance with the law.  A good example of a regulation is the REACH regulation, which has a detailed process for substance registration, use, and data sharing.

RoHS restricts — and in some cases bans — the use of certain hazardous substances above a specified amount in the manufacture of electronics.  The key hazardous substances under RoHS are lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, as well as polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and  polybrominated  diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants.  Part of the RoHS objective is to prevent thousands of tons of banned substances from being improperly disposed of, thus protecting human health as well as the environment.

As of November of 2010, there was an update to RoHS called the 2010 RoHS Recast.  The restriction updates are best depicted in a table:

The product categories effected by RoHS include large household appliances, computer equipment, TVs, lighting, toys and video games, and vending and ATM machines. Two categories – medical devices and equipment and control and monitoring equipment – are currently exempt from RoHS compliance.  More details about effected and RoHS exemptions and categories can be found on the UK RoHS website.

Producers must now prepare documentation to show that their products are compliant before placing them on the market, and, if requested, provide the documentation to the RoHS Enforcement Authority within 28 days. Also, this documentation must be maintained for four years after the product is no longer made available on the market.

The effect of RoHS has extended well beyond the EU. Major electronics manufacturers have adopted changes on a global scale in order to comply with RoHS, regardless of where their products are sold. As a result, companies that supply parts to these manufacturers must also track and maintain accurate information about these components.

1. What is the RoHS – REACH Connection? REACH regulations restrict the use of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) in Europe and the importation of articles containing these substances from outside of Europe. RoHS complements REACH by limiting the amount of hazardous substances that can be used to produce EEE in Europe and defines the proper disposal of EEE waste.

2. Who is exempt from RoHS regulations? Private individuals making purchases from outside the European market are not required to comply with RoHS. Because the first importer of a product to the European market is responsible for complying with the regulations, businesses acquiring products from within Europe are also not required to comply.  Again, specifics about effected and exempt categories can be found on the RoHS website or in last year’s RoHS articles on the Actio Blog.

3. What are the costs and benefits of RoHS? According to the March, 2008 Final Report of the “Study of the RoHS and WEE Directives”, published by the environmental consulting firm Ecolas for the European Commission, RoHS has resulted in a major reduction of hazardous substances found in various products, reaping both environmental and economic benefits. You can view the report here.

Although RoHS presents many benefits, some of the costs associated with RoHS compliance have included R&D and capital costs, averaging 1.9% of annual revenues. For small and medium companies (SMEs), a consultancy called RSJ crunched the data and found the average cost of compliance for SMEs was as high as 5.2% of annual revenues.  That’s quite high.

Future and ongoing costs are estimated to the European Commission to average 0.4% of annual revenues.  These costs are due, in part, to increased administration and testing for compliance, the use of more expensive lead-free solder, the higher cost to manufacture lead-free components, and the lengthy exemption process.

4. Are there environmental benefits to RoHS? There are measurable environmental benefits to a well-executed and enforced RoHS program. Such environmental benefits include:

•    reduction of lead (Pb) use in products by 82,700 tons in the EU
•    reduction of cadmium (Cd) use in products by 14,200 tons
•    reduction of mercury (Hg) use in products by 9,500 tons due to changes in copiers and fluorescent light bulbs
•    reduction of mercury in waste streams by 6,900 tons

5. What are the big-picture benefits? Much analysis has been done leading to projections on the potential benefits of RoHS on a global scale.  Reports seems to show that primary benefits include:

•    increase of communication across the supply chain serves as a platform for the implementation of REACH and other initiatives
•    less leaching in landfills because WEEE contains less hazardous material
•    the use of lead-free solder increases the incentive to recycle because it contains silver and gold
•    the push for other countries and industries, such as aerospace and IT, to move to cleaner processes and reduced use of hazardous materials.

5 Case Studies on REACH Compliance

Posted on by

For companies still wondering how their situation fits into REACH, the following case studies may help. These case studies address compliance in a variety of scenarios. The five instances of how-other-companies-did-it represent common situations. The case studies address both upstream and downstream scenarios.

1. Downstream user under REACH (with confidential uses)
A medium sized company supplying preparations to the marine sector consider implications of keeping this use of a substance confidential from their suppliers; find out what further action they may need to follow as a downstream user under REACH.

2. Global manufacturing company seeks to automate the collection of supplier data for REACH
A Fortune 500 manufacturer and retailer with operations worldwide seeks to automate supplier chemical data collection as much as possible for compliance with REACH.

3. AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and famous furniture company Herman Miller along with an automobile agency voice software testimonials on software products they use to manage substance-level compliance with substances under REACH and similar regulations.

4. An alloy producer (see also RoHS) clarifies duties under REACH
A producer of alloys determines that under REACH it is the component metals that constitute the alloys they manufacture that are within the scope of registration and for one of these that they import they will have registration obligations.

5. REACH and a company importing a solvent from the US
A company importing a solvent for the first time from outside the EU is concerned about having missed the preregistration deadline but finds they can pre-register and get help from other SIEF members.

These case studies — unless otherwise indicated and linked above — may be found on the web (at the time of this posting) at the following URL:  hse.gov.uk/reach/casestudies/index.htm.

IPC Responds to EPA on Electronics Stewardship

Posted on by

On March 11, IPC responded to a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) request for public comment. EPA’s request for comment was regarding its embryonic National Framework for Electronics Stewardship.

IPC responded by first saying that it appreciated the opportunity to comment on EPA’s Solicitation of Input from Stakeholders to Inform the National Framework for Electronics Stewardship (Docket ID # EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0185).  Then:

IPC believes that EPA’s goal of encouraging the design, manufacture, procurement, and use of greener electronics should begin with a definition of a green electronic product.

This is in fact an excellent point.  At a recent high-level symposium for “Green Chemistry,” roughly 500 managers and executives gathered to share ideas on the subject of green chemistry.  In my working group, 250 well-educated individuals sat in a large conference room to discuss the business implications of Green Chemistry.  Very quickly it came to light that almost no one present agreed on what Green Chemistry meant.

Definition of green in manufacturing. Some, myself included, thought “green chemistry” would be a topic as defined by Paul Anastas and J.C. Warner, and a discussion of green product manufacture would be about materials and finished goods screened against the original 12 principles of Green Chemistry.  A few folks thought we would discuss law in terms of state-level green chemistry legislation, risk and litigation.

The slight majority in the room had never heard of the 12 principles of Green Chemistry; these folks thought Green Chemistry was synonymous with Sustainability, itself an undefined term.

Truly:  no definition is correct until we define these terms once and for all, and then continue to define our terms consistently as we go along.  Upshot:  the conference collateral and agenda should have defined Green Chemistry on every page.  In fact, every Sustainability conference or paper ought to do the same until we all know the definitions without thinking.

With that said, we can only applaud IPC for its sensible call for definitions of “green electronic product,” as the term will be used in the new national framework for electronics stewardship.

IPC’s letter to EPA on electronics stewardship. The IPC letter articulated that before developing a framework for electronics stewardship, the EPA ought to establish a definition for a green electronic product. Defining a green electronic product, it said, ensures that all impacted stakeholders will be working from a common starting point. Yes!

There is no need to recreate the entire document here, but there is a second particularly relevant point:  the need to consider the fact that some attributes may be less damaging to the environment in one way, say sourcing or end of life, but be more damaging in another way such as in processing emissions and waste. In IPC’s words:

For example, as shown in EPA’s lead-free solder study, the substitution of tin-lead solder for lead-free solder resulted in increased energy use associated with the higher operating temperatures required for manufacturing electronics with lead-free solder.  This increase in energy use was projected to cause higher air pollution, acid rain, stream eutrophication and global warming impacts.

That study serves as an important reminder that there are environmental trade-offs when substituting one substance for another. The EPA must lead the way in determining what attributes are of most importance in defining a “green electronic product.”

IPCs letter is signed by Stephanie Castorina, manager, Environmental Programs for IPC.  The entire document may be viewed here.

Green manufacturing index. Perhaps a hierarchal, ranked, feature set matrix would be a good start.  If the major electronics associations, industry consortia, EPA, and the new Task Force for Electronic Stewardship could agree on a ranking system to establish a green index in manufacturing, that index could be used to determine and define “green electronic products,” also to ensure that one evil wasn’t swapped for another.

With a Green Manufacturing Index we could move forward with a unified theory of electronics recycling, which would simplify a lot of things. Stay tuned.

Electronics Stewardship: EPA Creates Task Force

Posted on by

On Nov. 8, 2010, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley established an interagency Task Force to develop a national strategy and recommendations for improving Federal stewardship of used electronics.  The Task Force was to be co-chaired by the US Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, and Council on Environmental Quality.

Currently, regulation is done on a state-by-state basis.  The map below from EPA may help.

Universal waste regulations can vary between states; and states can add different types of wastes or modify the category.  The map (courtesy EPA) shows the states that have universal waste regulations and which of those states have added different waste categories (in green).

Universal waste is a category of waste materials deemed to be “lower risk” hazardous waste generated by a variety of people.  This waste includes CRTs which includes of course computer monitors, TVs, phones, and similar electronic devices.

Murky? It can be. The point of this federal Task Force is to, among other things, pursue federal legislation and therefore condition and possibly comb out the tangle of provincial law on electronics waste in the US.

Electronics Stewardship Task Force mission. The Task Force mission is towards American businesses, government and citizens working together to manage electronics throughout the product lifecycle — from design and manufacturing through use and eventual recycling, recovery, and disposal.  It’s a bold idea.  The deadline for the group to produce a national framework is May 6, 2011.

By May 6, the Electronics Stewardship Task Force will produce a national framework for:

  1. Directing Federal agencies to exercise all appropriate authorities to achieve the electronic stewardship goals, consistent with domestic and international law.
  2. Developing a system-based approach to the long-term design, management and disposal of Federal used electronics.
  3. Information gathering and tracking, regulatory options, and best management practices for used electronics that can be used by the Federal agencies and leveraged to the private sector.
  4. Building partnerships in the public and private sector for sustainable electronics management nationwide.
  5. Reducing exports of used electronics to developing countries that lack the capacity to properly manage them, and assess how federal agencies can improve their ability to deter these exports.
  6. Building capacity within and share best practices with developing countries, so they can improve their ability to safely handle used electronics, while promoting economic development.

Electronics Stewardship framework background. Unwanted or discarded electronics not reused or recycled represents a lost opportunity to reuse functioning electronic equipment and components, such as cellphone and computers/laptops or recover valuable resources, such as precious metals, plastics or minerals that are found in scarce or critical supply.

Additionally, used electronics may be exported to developing countries that lack capacity to manage them appropriately and result in negative impacts to human health and the environment.

The majority of electronics recyclers in the United States refurbish, repair, or pre-process (demanufacture, shred, sort) used electronics to prepare them for the final recovery step. Facilities that further recover raw materials, through smelting and refining (end-processing), are mostly located outside the United States.

Such facilities can convert electronics scrap into

  1. high grade copper and precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, and palladium),
  2. new CRTs, or
  3. new plastics

all of which can be reused in the marketplace.

The current comment period ended on March 11. There will be another opportunity to comment on the Framework developed by the Task Force after it is delivered to the Council on Environmental Quality, which, again, is slated for May 6, 2011.

Electronics Stewardship current regulation. Currently, there are no federal mandates that require electronics recycling or restrict unwanted electronics equipment from solid waste landfills in the United States.

Bear in mind that EPA does, however, control how cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors (for instance, from TV and computers) are managed domestically – especially if they are subject to hazardous waste regulation. EPA requires notifications if CRT monitors are exported for recycling.

A growing number of states are mandating collection and recycling of used electronics. In addition, there are now two electronics recycling standards and accredited certification and innovative product stewardship software programs that address the handling of used electronics throughout the recycling chain.

For more, see: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/03/01/2011-4505/solicitation-of-input-from-stakeholders-to-inform-the-national-framework-for-electronics-stewardship#p-56

European Agencies Ban Six Chemicals

Posted on by

In REACH and chemicals news, it was announced in Europe that six dangerous substances are to be phased out. This means that manufacturers who use these chemicals in their products — or have absorbed them somewhere in their supply chain — will have to:

a) know about those offending product ingredients, and

b) find replacement raw materials if the company is to conduct business in Europe legally.

The Commission decision follows the successful first phase of REACH’s registration and notification of chemicals. It’s all a part of REACH, Europe’s initiative to make the use of chemicals safer.

European Commission Vice President Antonio Tajani said, “Today’s decision is an example of the successful implementation of REACH and of how sustainability can be combined with competitiveness. It will encourage industry to develop alternatives and foster innovation.”

What it means is that six substances of very high concern — also known as SVHCs — have been moved from the candidate list to the authorization list, known as Annex XIV, under the EU’s REACH regulation. Annex XIV is like chemical-Alcatraz, substances there cannot be placed on the market or used unless they get a special clearance from the Agency and authorisation is granted for a specific use. All SVHC listings, selections and classifications are based on recommendations made by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

The following six chemical substances of very high concern are the first entrants in the Annex XIV:

1. 5-ter-butyl-2,4,6-trinito-m-xylene (musk xylene)

2. 4,4′-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA)

3. hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)

4. bis(2-ethylexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

5. benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)

6. dibutyl phthalate (DBP)

If your company uses any of these substances – even in tiny quanitites – or if these substances appear magically in your product from a mysterious supply chain source – a timetable for substitution will have to be submitted. These six substances have been determined to be either carcinogenic, toxic for reproduction or persistent in the environment and to accumulate in living organisms, and will be banned within the next three to five years.

Environment Commissioner Janez Potonik said: “Chemicals are everywhere in the modern world and some of them can be very dangerous. Today’s decision is an important step towards better protecting our health and the environment.”

Additional substances will be added to Annex XIV in the future.

The Commission also says it will put forth a greater number of known substances of very high concern for inclusion in the candidate list. The Commission and the European Chemicals Agency say they are fully committed to achieve this goal, and are expecting the “active engagement of the Member States.”

SVHC background. As we’ve reported previously in this blog, the SVHC list is simply a list of Substances of Very High Concern. “Only the European community could come up with such a tactful term for ‘highly toxic stuff,'” as a recent article in Environmental Leader put it.

By 2012, over 165 substances are expected to be listed on the SVHC candidate list. The list includes substances which are:

* Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or toxic to Reproduction

* Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative (vPvB) (defined by REACH criteria), and/or

* Identified as causing probable serious effects to humans or the environment of an equivalent level of concern as those above, e.g. endocrine disrupters — for reference, in the US there are 134 suspected endocrine disruptors.

The latest SVHC candidate list is online here at the ECHA site, and if that site is down — as it often seems to be — go to the June 2010 SVHC candidate list hosted by Actio.

www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/

EPA Denies Requests for Chemical Confidentiality

Posted on by

Last summer, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated it would reject confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies (see our previous post: EPA to reject confidentiality claims).

EPA says it already notified five companies that the identities of 14 chemicals associated with a number of health and safety studies submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and claimed as confidential are not eligible for confidential treatment.  The chemicals were unnamed.

More chemical names connected with health and safety studies will be released in the future.

This newsflash is of particular interest for those that manufacture (defined by statute to include import) and/or process chemical substances and mixtures subject to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).

“The public deserves access to critical health and safety information on chemicals, but if the name of the chemical is kept secret in the health and safety report, the information is of no real value to people,” said Steve Owens, EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).

Owens said the agency is committed to increasing the American people’s access to this important information.

And the caveat is…The agency plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies provided to the agency under TSCA.  The only caveat comes if and when your chemical identity contains process or mixture information that is expressly protected by law.  That will take some convincing.  And some research and legal expertise.

Timeframe: 31 days. So how long do companies have to pursue the caveat or, if not, to watch their data go public?  The last paragraph of the EPA letter sent to companies states:

“EPA will make the information available to the public on the thirty-first (31st) calendar day after the date of your receipt of this determination…”

For more information on chemical transparency initiatives in U.S. manufacturing, go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency.html

For information on technology to manage chemical transparency initiatives in US manufacturing, try the products page on the Actio  website or try: http://www.materialdisclosure.com.

http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/

Salaries for Supply Chain Managers: 2011 US and China

Posted on by

Salaries for Supply Chain management in the US and China are not as different as you might expect.

In the US as of Feb. 1, the median expected salary for a typical Supply Chain Manager is $95,964, while the boss, the Chief, averages just over $200,000 per year.

In China’s booming economy, the salaries for Supply Chain management aren’t dissimilar to the US.  A Supply Chain Executive who is conversant in the three primary languages:

  1. English
  2. Chinese
  3. Supply-Chain-ese

can expect around $120,000 per year in total compensation — and that’s in mid-sized manufacturing cities (1-5 million people) where the cost of living is so low that the average worker earns only $3,000 a year.

First let’s look at the US Supply Chain management salaries, and briefly describe the role.

The figure is based on survey data collected from thousands of companies of all sizes, industries and locations and is courtesy of a website using live data.

What does a Supply Chain Manager do, exactly? A Supply Chain Manager manages and oversees overall supply chain operations. Supply Chain Operations participation includes:

  1. Purchasing and inventory of materials
  2. Selection of vendors
  3. Recommending ways to improve productivity, quality, and efficiency of operations
  4. Coordination and resolution of (i.e., taking responsibility for) issues regarding existing and new products
  5. Interacting with customers to ensure that all requirements are being met.
  6. Being familiar with a variety of the field’s concepts, practices, procedures and language
  7. Reliance on experience and judgment to plan and meet goals
  8. Leading teams and directs others
  9. Creativity, quick thinking and latitude is expected
  10. Reporting to top management.

The focus and objectives of a Supply Chain Manager in Melbourne, Florida, for instance, was recently posted to include the following focus and objectives:

  1. Responsible for the performance of the supply chain capability in timely, cost effective delivery of related materials for cross-continental program “roll outs”
  2. Support the Installation Manager and other Team Leaders in driving continuous improvement
  3. Work closely with Value Engineering team to refine bill of material contents, creating savings along the program’s lifecycle.

Other desirable skills include: Project Management skills, excellent teamwork, interpersonal, analytical and conceptual skills; enthusiastic attitude, positive outlook, and possession of a demonstrated ability to work with, and motivate, other people; exceptional written and verbal communication skills, experience in team development and leadership, and a keen understanding of information systems that support manufacturing operations within the position’s scope.

The Supply Chain Manager’s boss. The median expected salary for a typical Top Supply Chain Management Executive in the US is $214,431  (source: HR data as of February 2011).

This job requires the planning and directing of all aspects of an organization’s supply chain policies, objectives, and initiatives, with a significant logistics focus which includes overseeing the organization’s inventory, warehousing, distribution and transportation functions as well as exercising big-picture expertise in a variety of the field’s concepts, practices, and procedures.

Salary for Supply Chain Manager or Executive in China. Bob Liu, C.P.M., CPIM, is President of China Supply Chain Services (CSCS) , an Executive Search Partner for China Supply Chains.  The firm is based in both Fremont, CA and Shanghai, China.

Liu reported recently that a Chinese company can pay $1,000 a month or less to hire a Supply Chain Purchasing Manager with over 8 years purchasing experience.  But … this person would have minimal English skills.

Minimal English skills are fine if you’re a Chinese company with a Chinese market — but for a an international company with a broader supply chain, salaries start to look different.

You can expect $10,000/month for a Supply Chain Manager in China who can:
•    Participate in or lead English-speaking conference calls
•    Develop the supply base strategy in China
•    Manage the complete China supply chain.

So it’s suggested you don’t rely on local salary statistics, for instance, even China salary figures from the venerable South China Morning Post (SCMP).  Because often those salary stats are for local hires working for local Chinese employers.  They apply to most of the workforce but not the sub-set that a Westerner would be looking at.

Trilinguals speak Chinese, English, and Supply-Chain-ese. For Western companies, the most desirable Managers are so called “trilinguals.”  Triliguals speak English, Chinese and the unique, arguably peculiar, language of Supply Chain Management.

It’s hard enough communicating with someone from our own country who doesn’t speak Supply Chain.  We don’t want to try that in China.  Trilinguals are a rare commodity, and, therefore, worth more on the market.

In cities like Shanghai, the cost of living is high relative to the more rural parts of China, and comparable to some cities in the U.S. such as Buffalo, NY, for instance.

(Graphic courtesy numbeo’s Cost of Living calculator.)

Smaller cities near Shanghai within 100 miles include Kunshan, Taicang and Wuxi (population approx. 4.3 million).  Housing and labor are more affordable in cities like Wuxi, and so is the labor.

These “smaller” cities are often unfamiliar to Westerners, but are said to be the current manufacturing base in China.  Many China-based manufacturing facilities and distribution centers end up in such a locale as Wuxi.

In fact, these cities are not as small as they sound. For example, the greater Wuxi area has a population close to that of Washington, DC or the greater Boston area.  Not a small workforce.

We must bear in mind that over 150 cities in China have a population of over 1 million people.

For perspective, the US has 10 cities that size.

So again, it’s important to note that even in these “smaller” Chinese cities, compensation packages for high level and so-called trilingual Executives are quite competitive.  In one example, in 2009 a Supply Chain Procurement Director for a German company earned a compensation package of close to $150,000 / year.  In the same city, a local worker makes an average of $3,000 a year.

The upshot is that for a Supply Chain Executive for a Western company or who can liaise with one, the salaries are going to be comparable to the rest of the world; slightly lower but only slightly.  For more on this, may we recommend this article.

Logistics in the US. A recent Logistics Management magazine report found that supply chain professionals in the U.S. are in fact “well-compensated.”

It certainly helps that median salaries for professionals on the logistics side show a rising trend:

  • $80,000 per year in 2006, 2007, 2008
  • $85,000 per year in 2009
  • $88,000 per year in 2010.

Some 25% of logistics workers received a raise in 2010.  Of those, the average raise was 4.8%.

Supply Chain Professionals in general did well in 2009, according to ISM’s annual report (June 2010).

  • $71,348 experienced Supply Management Professional (without Manager title or higher)
  • $50,506 entry-Level Supply Management Professional (without Manager title or higher).

ISM’s report is for the 2009 calendar year, in US dollars.

We hope this helps you in your work, research, market evaluations and Supply Chain Management.  Please let us know if it does!

http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/salaries-for-supply-chain-managers-2011-us-and-china/

REACH’s Complete List of Registered Substances

Posted on by

ECHA announced its list of publishable Phase-In substances under REACH regulation that were registered as of Jan. 24, 2011.

Every product is made from substances, and substances in some articles need to be registered with the European Chemicals Agency or ECHA if the products are intended to be brought to market.  Which products?  Almost any manufactured product that has a chemical in it:  clothing, furniture, plastic cases for electronic devices, motor vehicle parts, printed circuits, as well as process manufacturing products such as pharmaceutical drugs, solder and paint.

EU REACH regulation recognizes three primary deadlines for registering substances, see REACH timeline.  The first deadline was Nov. 30, 2010.  The next two deadlines are May 31, 2013, and May 31, 2018.  The deadline depends on the tonnage band and the hazardous properties of the substance.

About 30,000 substances are expected to be available in the database after expiry of the last registration deadline in 2018.  There are currently about 1/10th of that listed, just over 3000.  It’s expected that the number of substances listed in the database will increase over time, as we’ve said before, as companies will submit more registrations dossiers as we go.

List of REACH publishable Phase-In substances

Below is a preview of the list of publishable Phase-In substances under REACH regulation.  These were substances that were registered as of Jan. 24, 2011. ECHA has published this information on Registered Substances primarily so companies can start to use the data to bolster and gauge their own internal data processes and fortify their REACH software.  The information in the database was provided by companies in registration dossiers.

Please be aware that ECHA does not verify the information before dissemination, so some viewer discretion is advised.

Notice the bottom of the page says there are 62 pages of substances.  We won’t run them all here.  To see the full list, go to the ECHA database.

Please note that the ‘Registered As’ columns in the official ECHA published list (as above) are identified as follows:
•    FULL Indicates registration under REACH Article 10 as a full dossier
•    OSII Indicates registration under REACH Article 17 as an on-site isolated intermediate (OSII)
•   TII Indicates registration under REACH Article 18 as a transported isolated intermediate (TII)
•    ‘Yes’ Indicates the substance registration under REACH is complete
•    ‘In Proccess’ Indicates a dossier on the substance has been successfully submitted to ECHA and is being processed, i.e. the completeness check results are pending

As only publishable substances are listed, the list does not contain phase-in substances where the IUPAC name is claimed confidential under REACH Art 119(2)(g).  The list also doesn’t contain substances which are non-dangerous and not listed in EINECS.

A chemical named John Doe

If you want to keep your chemical name confidential in terms of ECHA registration, you must come up with an alias. As with most things REACH-related, there is a specific methodology for this.  You must provide an adequate public name as a precondition for the acceptance of a confidentiality claim for the chemical IUPAC name.

If ECHA rejects a confidentiality claim for the IUPAC name, the IUPAC name will be published. It’s best to take the time to create a public name the correct way.

The way to derive a public name for a substance are presented in the ECHA manual. There is a process for masking of various structural elements from the IUPAC name in order to derive a public name with just one level of masking. The one level of masking keeps it simple. If you feel your chemical needs additional levels of masking, a special request and allowance can in certain circumstances be made.

The full database contains a variety of information on the substances which companies manufacture or import: their hazardous properties, their classification and labeling and how to use the substances safely.

www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/

ECHA Enhances Enforcement of CLP

Posted on by

On Jan. 25, some 29 countries from the European Economic Area sent 70 participants to ECHA  headquarters in Helsinki to strengthen the national harmonized enforcement of CLP, reports Chris Nowak of Actio, makers of chemical management software.

“The idea is,” Nowak explained, “that if ECHA takes the time to create skilled trainers, they will cascade their knowledge through training events in their own countries.

“We’ll see how it goes.  Both the enforcement of and penalties for REACH are somewhat episodic so far. Certainly well-trained inspectors are the cornerstone for the effective enforcement of CLP and REACH; but consistent legislative parameters would be helpful, too.  Surely we’ll be discussing this in some detail in Houston next month,” Nowak said.

CLP stands for the EU Classification, Labeling and Packaging Regulation.

Look forward to seeing how the “trickle down” enforcement works out for ECHA.  Enforcement has been a tricky aspect as the Agency charges forth in its admirable efforts to manage chemicals in the marketplace.

“We’ll see how it goes…”

www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/

CLP Next Steps Include Public Inventory Lists

Posted on by

CLP Regulation passed a major CLP deadline on January 3, 2011.  CLP stands for Classification, Labeling and Packaging of chemicals. It’s a legal obligation affecting manufacturers and distributors doing business in Europe.

The European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, said that 3,114,835 notifications of 24,529 substances for the Classification and Labelling Inventory, either hazardous or subject to REACH registration, were submitted by the midnight Jan. 3 deadline, as reported by Occupational Health & Safety Magazine.

For this January 2011 deadline, the most notifications came from:

  1. Germany: over 800,000.
  2. United Kingdom: over 500,000.
  3. France: nearly 300,000.

Together over 6,600 companies were notified of at least one substance.

“It went extremely well,” said Geert Dancet, Executive Director of ECHA.  “We got over three million submissions of classifications in time by the deadline [midnight, Jan. 3, 2011].  I think it’s a real success.”

Jack de Bruijn, director of risk management, said, “We will put all the information which we have received into a public version of the inventory, which we hope to have available by May of this year.  And the main aim of that inventory is actually for companies to check whether they can better self-classify their chemicals.”

The C&L inventory. The collected data will be held in a central inventory called the C&L inventory. The public version of the inventory will also include substance identifiers and any relevant specific concentration limit or multiplying factor for each substance.

According to the REACH Regulation (Article 119.1), the C&L inventory will contain

  • The classification and labeling information on substances submitted to ECHA through REACH registrations and CLP notifications.
  • A list of substances that have harmonized classification in the EU.

ECHA says that the full database will be accessible to Member State Competent Authorities, and non-confidential information in the inventory will be made public on the ECHA’s website.

“And with that increased transparency,” said de Bruijn, “we hope that we will contribute considerably to the safer use of chemicals in Europe, in particular the chemicals which are used in workplaces and by the general public.”

Again, the classification and labeling inventory will be published in spring/summer 2011.

If a company has flagged the IUPAC name confidential, and where relevant, the Agency will publish an alternative name in the public inventory.

Missed deadline. Companies that missed the deadline and are not sure what to do may contact an advisor such as Chris Nowak at Actio for ideas that are particular for each unique business situation.  To handle the situation directly — use the CLP notification web page, which is what you would use whether you’re late notifying or not.

If you missed the deadline but act quickly, penalties may be minimal or nonexistent.  ECHA wants you to notify.  There is every impetus for ECHA to make CLP notification as reasonable as possible.  Remember: this is a relatively new mind-set as well as project to manage, so no question is too small or naive.  There are few experts, so start where you are, ask questions, and share what you learn with others who are probably wondering, too.

Background on CLP. Classification, Labeling and Packaging regulation relates to chemical substances and mixtures. It introduces into the EU the criteria of the United Nations Globally Harmonised System — also known as GHS conversion — toward classifying and labeling chemicals.

One aim of the CLP regulation is to improve the protection of human health and the environment. One way of protecting human health is by publishing criteria for defining when a substance or mixture displays properties that lead to its classification as “hazardous.”

It’s too bad the CLP Regulation has such a complicated name — the concept is quite simple.

The CLP big picture is that hazardous chemicals and mixtures, when registered under REACH Regulation, require some sort of uniform classification system; this way all participants are using consistent terms, measurement units, and pictographs. Simple.

CLP is a legal obligation, yes, but it’s also common business sense.  Of course we would would want uniform communication standards in terms of classification, labels, and packaging when it comes to hazardous materials. It sounds cost-effective, too.  OSHA estimated last year that GHS, for instance, would result in time-to-market ROI, international trade cost reduction, and savings resulting from greater job safety and less injury.

Also, we should consider cost savings from lean operations resulting from streamlined processes; never mind cost-savings in time, paper and clerical labor, and the priceless ease-of-reporting to stakeholders such as the EPA, REACH agencies, any regulatory bodies, customers, board members, the public at large.

Finally,  in standard communication documents, there are significant risk management returns to consider. No entity is really resisting CLP or GHS because it makes sense from an Environment, Health and Safety or EHS angle, as well as from the business side.

Long live the green!  Both sides of it: for the environmental stewardship folks and for the Finance department.