The Globally Harmonised System and Chemical Regulation: Challenges for the Cleaning Industry. Background of the new legislation

Transcription

1 The Globally Harmonised System and Chemical Regulation: Challenges for the Cleaning Industry Background of the new legislation The Globally Harmonized System of Classification seeks to protect people and the environment from the mismanagement of chemicals by classifying them according to their hazard using internationally harmonising hazard communication systems. This will be achieved through the creation of a labelling system based on pictograms which are intended to be universally comprehensible 1. The first edition of UN s GHS was published in 2003, with updates agreed to take place every two years. The European Union proposed the Classification, Labelling and Packaging System (CLP) in response to the GHS, which completely revises the current legislation on the classification and labelling of chemicals. CLP Regulation became legally binding for all EU member states on the 20th January Under the transitional arrangement it then will become mandatory on all chemical substances by 30th November 2010 (and mandatory for mixtures by 31st May 2015). The CLP Regulation will gradually replace the current rules of dangerous substances directives (DSD) and directives for preparations (DPD), meaning that all substances and mixtures will need to be classified, labelled and packaged only in accordance with the CLP. Making the change from DSD/DPD to CLP In the CLP hazards are separated and labelled according to two types: environmental hazards and physical hazards. In some cases companies will have already begun to conduct reclassifications of their products as necessary for placing on the market, so should have sufficient information available to help them reclassify using the new system. The reclassification can be based on both test data and bridging principles. The 'bridging' principal, where the classification of substances

2 is read across from similar mixtures is encouraged, albeit with certain exceptions (carcinogenic, germ cell mutagenic or reproductive toxic substances, for example). One to one translation of hazards between the DSD/DPD and CLP is not possible if there is insufficient information to allow an assessment to be made for a particular end use. In this case CLP imposes an obligation on the supplier to carry out new testing for physical hazards, which would entail greater expense to the products manufacturer. The CLP states that the producer should initially use a method based on a calculation using the ingredients known hazard classifications to arrive at the products hazard classification. The CLP Regulation is different from the DPD in that it encourages the use of animal or human data on the product where available. If such tests are not available one should make comparisons using similar products or use expert opinion. If none of these options are available the user should use calculation methods based on the hazards of the ingredients. But the CLP Regulation gives clear precedence to the use of data on similar mixtures using bridging principles or expert judgment and weight of evidence. Advantages of the CLP It is hoped the regulation will enhance the scientific basis for international accord on safe use of chemicals and provide a technical basis for the management of chemicals. Human health and the environment are both at the centre of the development of sustainable practices. The CLP is designed install internationally effective communication channels relating to the damage associated with each chemical hazard. The new system affects all products, from washing-up liquids to all purpose cleaners. Disadvantages of the CLP It should be assumed that some products currently classified as

3 hazardous will need reclassification. The simplicity of the classification system means that cleaners will find it far more difficult to distinguish between products which are relatively safe and products which are relatively hazardous. Although some substances will be re-labelled to a similar level of hazard as before others will be labelled with more severe hazards such as irritant and corrosive, due to the new systems tendency to opt for the safest option. Over-cautious labelling means that personal protective equipment will be needed for more operations than before, at a greater financial cost to the manufacturer and inconvenience to worker. The new classification systems preference for reformulating chemical mixtures means greater usage overheads, due to transportation and formulation, for small and medium enterprises. Business Realities Because in many cases manufacturers will not have access to data or expert opinions, the classifications applied will be based on the calculation method which will require specialist advisors. While big multi-national companies will have access to animal and human test experience, opinion from experts is also prohibitively expensive and smaller manufacturers are placed at a disadvantage. Animal testing, which becomes more prominent in the new classification, is an area which smaller manufacturers are reluctant to enter due to the stringent regulation by the EU Chemicals Agency and the public relations challenges in the UK. The disparate methods for classification in the CLP Regulation create a less attractive environment for product development. Under the old system it was easier to know in advance the likely classification of a product, and therefore the likelihood of a classification which was commercially viable. The systems favouring of mixtures over substances means that unsustainable practices for water logistics will arise. The manufacturers and users of chemicals will be more likely to transport water over large

4 distances, while water storage will also become a challenge in some circumstances. Exporters to the EU have been particularly vulnerable to non-compliance. Unless they are accorded access to compositional information, they have no other option than to rely on the classification and labelling provided by external sources. The due diligence they should exercise may include a request for assurance that the classification is accurate, which will have to be sought externally. Highly-concentrated products will suffer greatly from a newly rigid hazard classification, thus making them less attractive to consumers. Conclusions The most sustainable way to use chemical based cleaning products is to use the correct measurement in the right frequency. The risk of misclassification through overcautious labelling decreases the prospect of this. The symbols which are mandatory will sometimes suggest that the product is more dangerous than it is, thus perpetuating misconceptions about cleaning chemicals. This may result in using too little or too much of certain chemicals, which could be harmful to the user and the environment. The rigid calculation rationale of the CLP Regulation treats detergents and cleaning products very harshly. It makes classification easier for larger companies to classify their products. The CLP Regulation requires classification using systems that are inaccessible to many manufacturers, placing larger corporations at an advantage over their smaller competitors. Such a global input from countries that are operating very different systems will cause consensus to be based on maintenance of the safest option for each endpoint. By raising barriers around products which used to be considered relatively safe will make them indistinguishable from genuinely harmful ones, this

5 adversely affecting the safety of the user. New Hazard Chart The danger symbols from the present EU system will be replaced by CLP pictograms for health hazards, physical-chemical hazards and environmental hazards. 1 CLP Hazard Explosive Self Reactive Organic Peroxide Flammable Gases Flammable Aerosols Flammable Liquids Flammable Solids Pyrophoric Self-Reactive Self-Heating Contact with water, emits flammable gas Organic peroxide Oxidizing gases Oxidizing liquids Oxidizing solids Gases under pressure Corrosive to metals

6 Acute toxicity Very toxic (Fatal) Toxic Corrosive (causes severe skin burns and eye damage) Serious eye damage Respiratory sensitiser Mutagen Carcinogen Reproductive toxicity Systemic Target Organ Toxicity Aspiration hazard Acute toxicity Harmful Skin irritation, Serious eye irritation, Respiratory irritant Skin sensitiser Narcotic Acute Hazard Chronic Hazard