REACH arguments set to focus on future of 1,500 danger chemicals

The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will resume battle in September over the proposed EU chemicals legislation REACH.

The proposal is coming up for its second reading after the August recess and attention will focus on how long chemicals currently in use which might pose a health risk will be allowed to remain on the EU market.

The European Commission estimates that 1,500 chemicals "of very high concern" could be on the market today. This group includes products thought to be carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic.

At first reading, MEPs said that all these chemicals would have to be replaced by safer substitutes, where these were available. But according to the text agreed by national governments in the Council of Ministers last December, substitutes will not have to be found if a company can show that its chemical will be "adequately controlled" after authorisation.

Justin Wilkes of the environmental campaign group WWF said that allowing companies to side-step substitution by demonstrating adequate control would remove an incentive to develop safer alternatives. Even where a safer alternative already existed, he pointed out, it would not have to be considered by the European chemicals agency which will handle authorisations.

Environmentalists say that as no more than 20 chemicals a year would have to be substituted under the Parliament deal, producers could take more than a century to replace all chemicals of high concern.

Industry representatives say that adequate control is a sensible alternative to substitution.

"This appears to be a more balanced approach [than the Parliament text]," said Judith Hackitt of chemicals industry lobby group CEFIC. She warned that the idea of adequate control would have to be properly defined before being built into REACH.

Doubt still remains over which chemicals will be required to go through the authorisation procedure. MEPs and ministers last year said a candidate list of substances would have to be drawn up.

Industry lobbyists fear that a candidate list would become a blacklist, automatically discouraging the use of listed chemicals.

How long an authorisation might last is also a point of contention. Green groups and industry campaigners are split over the expiry date on authorisations along roughly the same lines as MEPs and governments.

CEFIC supports a Council position that the amount of time allowed to expire before an authorisation has to be renewed should depend on the chemical being authorised. "We should always look at the socio-economic benefits versus risks, for example," Hackitt said.

WWF supports a Parliament amendment which would make authorisations valid only for five years, regardless of the chemical being approved.

The MEP responsible for guiding REACH through Parliament, Italian socialist Guido Sacconi, published his second reading proposal in July, but he left out the authorisation problem to give MEPs more time to agree on a position.

Most MEPs are thought to support the tough line on authorisation that they took on the first reading. The centre-right EPP-ED, however, remains divided. Opposition from Parliament's largest group could tilt the balance away from the hard line on substitution.

Sacconi has asked MEPs to agree their position by 1September to avoid last-minute squabbling and compromises. The Italian MEP is hoping for a return to the first-reading position on authorisation. He says that the replacement of dangerous chemicals was the main reason that REACH was devised.

EU diplomats will discuss REACH after the August recess. Finland has said it is confident a final deal will be possible during its presidency of the EU, which ends on 31 December.

The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will resume battle in September over the proposed EU chemicals legislation REACH.