The SCIP database requirements pose a challenge not just to companies in the EU, but also non-EU companies whose customers are in the EU. Companies not located in the EU are faced with requirements from EU customers as they face new regulations related to increased environmental pressure, such as the Waste Framework Directive. Hence, non-EU companies should understand the goals of the SCIP database and comply with its obligations.
Twice a year, the Candidate List of substances of very high concern (SVHC) is updated. The most recent update occurred on 19 January 2021. This brings the number of SVHCs to 211. However, when these unique substances are further broken down, the actual number of reportable substances including their substance groups is closer to 400.
The recent ECHA newsletter described ways on how companies can reduce their workload in relation to creating notifications to the SCIP database through supply chain communication. With the deadline for SCIP notifications coming up, being able to rely on supply chain communication to make use of simplified SCIP notifications or using referencing may be a desirable option for many companies.
The SCIP database is developed under the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) to take a step towards a circular economy. With the SCIP database, the product lifecycle is completed with information on substances of concern in articles. One of the things that are a hot topic of discussion is the dissemination of information and protecting confidential business information (CBI).
From 5th January 2021, companies affected by the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) have to submit notifications to the SCIP Database. Affected companies have had the opportunity to test the SCIP database since the SCIP prototype became available in February 2020. Since the launch of the SCIP database in October 2020, ECHA has received two million notifications! This indicates that many companies are at the forefront of managing their SCIP database requirements. Nevertheless, there are many more evaluating the best way to include this new requirement into their business processes. The move towards a more circular economy is being pushed on the European Union level. However, as it is a directive, the next question to ask would be: Has this EU directive been incorporated into national law by all member states?
If you’re placing mixtures on the market only for industrial use, limited submission to the poison centre notification sounds very appealing. You fulfil your notification obligation while providing only minimal data about your mixture. Sounds like a win, right?
Well, take a closer look.
Introducing a new tool into the IT ecosystem of your company is a key decision for a company. Besides evaluating the functionality of the tool, other less tangible factors such as ease of use and quality of support are some of the factors one needs to take into consideration. This article covers the tools that you can use to create SCIP database notifications and some points for consideration.
The goal of the CLP Art. 45 Annex VIII regulation is to harmonize mixture information for emergency health response. It was only a matter of time that the EU takes steps to standardize information for poison centres. As people can move freely within the EU, so can products. Especially for those who live close to national borders, it’s not unthinkable that you do your shopping in a country different from your place of residence.
The unique formula identifier (UFI) is the unambiguous identifier of products classified for health or physical hazards. From 1st January 2021, this 16-character code must appear on or in proximity to product labels.
The UFI will be used by poison centres in the event of an emergency call. Therefore, upon submitting a notification to the ECHA Submission Portal, only poison centres will know which mixture composition the UFI corresponds to. Our FAQ on UFI covers questions and answers about UFIs, including how you can generate a UFI.
It is common knowledge now that the data requirements for submitting a dossier in the poison centre notification (PCN) format is extensive. Besides the new data points such as the UFI and EU Product Category, the PCN format requires full composition of the product and other data such as pH value and hazard classification.
ECHA held a Webinar on 12th February covering topics surrounding creating notifications to the poison centres in accordance with CLP Art. 45, Annex VIII. The webinar consisted of two parts – regulatory updates and IT tools and guidance. The previous blog post focused on changes in the first amendment to CLP Annex VIII. In this blog post, we will focus on regulatory updates that we can expect in the second amendment of Annex VIII to CLP.
ECHA held a webinar on 12th February covering topics surrounding creating notifications to the poison centres in accordance with CLP Art. 45, Annex VIII. The webinar consisted of two parts – regulatory updates and IT tools and guidance. In this blog post, we will focus on regulatory updates as per the first amendment of Annex VIII to CLP. The first amendment, published on 10th January 2020, has been in force since 30 January 2020. The second blog post focuses on changes we can expect in the second amendment.
Under the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has developed the SCIP Database designed to capture information on articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) on the REACH Candidate List. This requirement of submitting information poses a significant challenge to companies to efficiently comply with their reporting obligations. We are excited to announce that our software, opesus EHS Product Notification, will support companies that are required to submit notifications to the SCIP database.
The Nordic Product Registers are among the most extensive chemical product registers in the world in terms of the required information as well as the quantity of registered products and substances. Well over 2,000 companies are obliged to report to the national authorities annually. Recent developments regarding legislation and the use of technology raise the question about the future of the Nordic Product Registers.