Comparable MIMs Approach

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Article 45 (5) of the CLP Regulation
Advertisements

ExESS Steps to handle CLP classification For Mixtures 7 januari 2011Stepwards CLP calculation for Mixtures1.
1. European Commission Status GHS Implementation in the European Community Global Thematic Workshop on Strengthening Capacities to Implement the GHS Johannesburg.
REACH and SDS Requirements Presented by Paula Laux Senior Regulatory Specialist Wercs Professional Services.
Chapter 3 Project Initiation
July 11 th, 2005 Software Engineering with Reusable Components RiSE’s Seminars Sametinger’s book :: Chapters 16, 17 and 18 Fred Durão.
Your Presentations Fall 2005 Software Engineering Computer Science and Engineering Qatar University.
HR lesson 2.
REACH: Protecting Your Supply Chain Georjean L. Adams EHS Strategies, Inc. November 17,
1 Harmonised classification of substances (Annex VI of the CLP Regulation)- Example of substance classification Semira Hajrlahović Mehić, LL.M.
SCHC, 9/27/2005 US Implementation of the Globally Harmonized System The GHS Journey Continues…
GHS CLASSIFICATION ONLINE. Registration: Click on “Register”
Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive Competent Authority & Data Reporting HSE/DECC Consultation Events - Spring 2014 EU Offshore Directive.
Proposal for a new UNECE regulation on recyclability of motor vehicles Informal Document GRPE Reply to the Comments of the Russian Federation Informal.
European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists Product Information Versioning & Product ID Number Herbert Desel GIZ-Nord Poisons Centre.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
Assessing Quality for Integration Based Data M. Denk, W. Grossmann Institute for Scientific Computing.
Definition of a Vehicle Type for IWVTA + Extension of Approvals SGR Transmitted by OICA.
Communication in the Supply Chain
Checking the Exposure Scenario. Purpose of this presentation 2 This presentation, with notes, was prepared by ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, to.
SCP / Sps / REACH Objective : Safe use of chemicals.
CLP Up-date (The classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances and mixtures) (DIRECTIVE 2008/112/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF.
Malaysia Update on “draft” proposal for the Environmentally Hazardous Substance (“EHS”) Notification and Registration Scheme.
REACH – Consequences of CLP Lars S. Rasmussen, The Wercs 2009 Global User Group June 2009 The Desmond Hotel, Albany, NY (WATER ●
Harmonisation of Information for Poison Centres COM review Art. 45(4) CLP Regulation CARACAL November 2013, Brussels Roberto Scazzola DG Enterprise.
Dr. E.Kunz Head of Global Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals Corporate Product Stewardship GPS Safety Summary and Safety Data Sheets OBJECTIVES.
Abstract A step-wise or ‘tiered’ approach has been used as a rational procedure to conduct environmental risk assessments in many disciplines. The Technical.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FFP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
REACH & CLP Downstream user overview 1. Purpose of this presentation 2 This presentation, with notes, was prepared by.
POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Communication: Safety Summary
DUCC Mixtures TF October 2016
REACH Compliance Jim Casper March 2011.
REACH 2018 Find your co-registrants and prepare to register jointly.
Agenda 5.11 General Regulations
PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTATION FOR CONSTITUENT BODIES MEETINGS
Outcome TFCS-11// February Washington DC
Constructive Cost Model
Quality Management Systems – Requirements
Chemical substances self – classification issues Lithuanian approach
Pressure Equipment Workshop September 2007 – Day 1
The general obligations regarding self-classification under the CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 Sylvain BINTEIN.
Click anywhere to get started…
Effective supply chain communication
Management of product authorization for in situ cases (IGS)
Notifications for poison centres according to Annex VIII CLP
Case C-528/16 on Mutagenesis
Assessment and verification
Legal framework of territorial classifications and typologies for European statistics – state of play NUAC meeting, Brussels June 2015 Gorja Bartsch.
Questions you may get from your EU customers, and
Assessment and verification
New Assessment & Test Methods
This presentation document has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational.
Update on issues related to the EU Ecolabel
Group III Ways to Establish Good Communication in the Chain „Manufacturer, importer, Downstream User – Competent Authority“ Seminar on Chemical Substance.
GSC: Standardization Advancing Global Communications
Commission Regulation (EC)
Financial Control (FC)
On-going work on Art 17 & Art 12 - agenda item 6
NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK AMENDMENT BILL
EU Food Safety Requirements: - Hygiene of Foodstuffs -
based on WP29/2018/157, SLR-28-09rev1, SLR-28-12
ESS approach and support for Declaration of Conformity (CE-marking) Fredrik Håkansson ESS Accelerator Collaboration Board Meeting Trieste
Point 5: CLP classification for mixtures
WP on the implementation of the Biocidal product family concept:
This presentation document has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational.
Your Safety Data Sheet Software Solution
What is an MSDS sheet?.
Electronic Export Control Classification Declaration (eECCD)
Presentation transcript:

Comparable MIMs Approach

General Annex VIII CLP Description of the product (mixture) exact concentration or concentration ranges of substances and/or mixtures in mixtures MIMs generic product identifiers

General Annex VIII CLP Downstream users defining products (mixtures) by substance concentration ranges can exchange substance and MIMs suppliers, as long as the submitted concentration range does not change, without the need to update the submission or to create new UFIs. When using MIMs, this requires exact knowledge of the composition of the MIMs, which in practice is not given. Downstream users defining products (mixtures) by MIM concentration ranges cannot. In this case each combination of MIMs is considered an individual mixture, requiring an individual UFI. An exchange of a MIM by a comparable MIM requires a submission update and a new UFI.

The MIM Problem Topping up of silos  separation of delivery batches not possible MIMs are mixed in the silos  targeted, detailed UFI distinction is not possible

Appointed bodies / poison centres Preferences Appointed bodies / poison centres Prefer knowing the composition of mixtures by substances rather than by MIM, as it safes valuable time that is needed to compile the the detailed information of a MIM (which in itself can contain one or more MIMs) and identify the substances contained in a mixture and their concentration ranges. Downstream users Prefer submitting substance based compositions as it provides greater flexibility and greater confidentiality. However, in general they lack the necessary information.

Comparable MIMs Approach Component Downstream user can define a group of MIMs that are interchangeable within a component of his product (mixture) while delivering the same technical performance know the classification for health and physical hazards for each of the MIMs used know the components of each MIM used as well as their concentration ranges, as indicated in chapter 3 of the respective SDS do not know the composition of MIM in the necessary detail to determine the composition of substances in accordance with the criteria of Annex VIII, CLP MIM1 MIM2 MIM3

Comparable MIMs Approach Component Appointed bodies know everything downstream users of MIMs know know from the preceding MIM submissions further the composition of MIMs in accordance with the criteria of Annex VIII (more precise than in SDS) know the composition of the mixture can determine from the composition of the mixture and the detailed composition of the contained MIMs the concentration ranges of contained substances can verify if the determined composition ranges of each substance meet the conditions for product to be submitted as one mixture (one UFI) or several mixtures MIM1 MIM2 MIM3

Verification of comparability of MIMs – Step 1 Component Downstream user indicates for relevant mixture component the MIMs that are interchangeable and therefore comparable (e.g. by indicating several UFIs for the same mixture component) As a pre-condition for the submission of a group of comparable MIMs all MIMs within the group must have the same classification for health and physical hazards, indicate in section 3 of the safety data sheets (according Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) the same components with similar concentration ranges, belong to the same product category as referred to in Section 3.4 of Part A and be used within the mixture inside the same concentration range according section 3.4 of Part B. MIM1 MIM2 MIM3

Verification of comparability of MIMs – Step 2 Component Appointed body operates a software with access to the data base, which automatically verifies if the information for all listed comparable MIMs has been submitted (is available) and determines from the existing information the min/max substance concentration within a group of comparable MIMs MIM1 MIM2 MIM3 “Group of comparable MIMs”

Verification of comparability of MIMs – Step 3 Appointed body (automatically, via Software) Determines the substance composition of the submitted mixture, based on the substance composition of the “Group of comparable MIMs” and their submitted concentration in the mixture Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 “Group of comp. MIM1” “Group of comp. MIM2” “Group of comp. MIM3” min X1 % – max X1 % min X2 % – max X2 % min X3 % – max X3 % Final (submitted) mixture

Verification of comparability of MIMs – Step 4 Appointed body (automatically, via Software) Verifies if the composition ranges of each substance meet the conditions for the product to be submitted as one mixture (one UFI) Final (submitted) mixture CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5 CR6 CR 7 Do all comparable MIMs within one group contain the same relevant substances? Do all Concentrations ranges comply with Table 1 respective Table 2? YES -> Submission admitted with one UFI NO -> Submission not accepted

Conclusions The proposal… seems to be good, but we don’t yet know how much it will reduce the problem is currently the (only and therefore) best available is complex and not easy to understand requires the support from appointed bodies and Member States needs to be “sold”