1. Group II Self-Classification Issues Leading to Uncertainties regarding the Application of Seveso Seminar on Chemical Substance Self-Classification Issues in the Context of Seveso Directive Vilnius, 23 October 2013

2. Group II – Question a)
How should the competent authority proceed in cases where the information in the notification or SDS is insufficient or inadequate?
Difficult legal aspects in some member states discussed, but correct information is the duty of the operator.
Dialogue with the establishments in order to resolve the issuis important
Approach of supplier one example given
Discussion regarding the changed classification of nitric acid and the need for information and guidance from DG environment
Notes from the WG-discussion:
Austria: if the operator information is not correct there is a flaw in the notification it is a tricky legal background
Slovena: would officialy/legally not doubt the information provided, but might contact the vendor
Ireland: Correct information is the duty of the operator
UK: Reach/ CLP people would pass the information back up the supply chain, more difficult to to this from the Seveso Competent Authority
Mark/ Germany: 16 länder different practices. Same inspectors look at both SDS and Seveso. Insufficient information might have serious impact, dialogue with the establishments in order to resolve the issue, and disuss the eventual impact on the site.
Portugal – same competent authority both for Seveso and for REACH/CLP – makes dialogue operator-supplier- authority easier, and the problem is more easily resolved during discussions
Iceland – talk to the establishments, start a dialogue in order to make it right
Discussion regarding the changed classification of nitric acid and the need for information regarding changes in classification made by the ECHA Risk Assessment Committee
Article 19 – prohibition of use mentioned…
Difficult for authorities to make changes in a

3. Group II – Question b)
How should the competent authorities deal with the complexity of the verification of dangerous substances inventory, and accordingly with the decisions on application of the Seveso Directive and on the tier of the establishment, particularly in relation to Seveso warehouses?
Verification of notifications not a focused topic , maybe some work for us to do in this area
Examples given on difficulties with different classification of the same substance in warehouses – the warehouse owner receives SDS from companies renting space.
Spot checks SDS
From the discussions:
UK : Warehouses a different animal, storing products for others. Can be 3000 chemicals in one warehoure. Warehouse owner dependent on the information given by the ”tenant”. Have seen 3 different classifications of the same substance in one warehouse. But the warehouse owner is the responsible Comah site. The owners do not always understand the importance of this, and the risks involved. UK accepts the classification given by the site, takes their words for it.
May take spot checks on a few of the safety data sheets during inspections?
Austria: What about non Seveso sites with wrong classifications – should have been Seveso with a correct classification. Difficult to follow up.
Ireland: How much details should we look into when looking at the SDS and notifications? Germany: Chemical warehouses need permits and there are regulations controlling how many/much chemicals (maximum) can be stored on site. The inspectors can go into their data-systems and look at their inventory lists. Too many details cannot be handled though.
In UK the planning authorities can put restrictions on how much chemicals to have on site.
germany: spot checks based on inventory lists sent in before the inspection. Poorly run sites are a nightmare.
UK lawyers are evaluating whether the authorities can publish the notifications from industry in their websites without verifying the correctness of the information.

4. Group II – Question c)
Given that there is variation in notified classifications of the same dangerous substances in the C&L inventory, how should the Seveso competent authorities deal with this?
Recommendation to the DG environment to make a formal request to ECHA to do the necessary data mining to deteremine which are the substances whose variations in C&L notifications could impact the application on the Seveso Directive?
AItaly: sometimes they must accept two different classifications. (I did not catch all the things he was saying)
Mark: Not only the Seveso CAs must be expected to deal with this, the commission must have a role. There must be clarification of which priorities and desitions the ….
CA have to accept the classifisations – if we find discrepances in this matter we must direct the problem to ECHA/ the Committee… change seveso???
C&L Platform – ask industry to be active
The NA must be given enough information regarding substances in order to ensure a correct follow up of Seveso.
Establish a mechanism from ECHA to NA – consultation before decisions have been made?
Suggest directly to the commission that ”the commission should make a formal request to ECHA ……” that the DG environment ….makes a formal ….carry out neccessary danger mining to …. Where the variation i C&L notification can impact Seveso…..

5. Group II – Question d) A lot of discussion without reaching consensus
What practical measures could be taken to ensure homogeneous application of Seveso to waste and the substances that are believed to be generated during loss of control of an industrial chemical process?
A lot of discussion without reaching consensus
Some countries have waste classification guidelines to assist industry
Germany: Guidance on the classification of Waste, diff - icult sometimes to have a good classification of waste
A waste classification database in one of the länder, have mede a recommentation to use this guidance but it is not mandatory. Waste has to be classified according to annex I …Description on where the waste comes from, the caracteristic of the waste…. Good starting point – feedback from industry.
Austria has a similar guidance.
Belgium: problems with note 5 in Seveso I?? Difficult..
Waste has to be classisfied in accordance with Seveso, but not according to CLP.
UK – should there be safety data sheets for different kind of wastes
Waste framework directive mentioned –
Loss of control of an industrial chemical process – calssification of substances :

6. Group II – Question e)
If a change in self-classification information determines the application of the Seveso Directive, how would the competent authorities define which dates could be considered as a start for application of the new classification and, accordingly, of the requirements of the Seveso Directive?
Harmonized : 18 month time period for applying the harmonized classification + 12 months from the day it comes into effect to produce a new Seveso notification
Self classified: immediate application of new classification + Seveso timeframe
CLP deals with time limits for harmonized classification (18 months) , but …
Updating your SDS necessary within given timelimits/ deadlines in REACH/ CLP – supplier must update in due time-
For the end user: within the Seveso directive time limits after reception of an updated data sheet, of the new information from the supplier.
A supplier must keep all documentation for at least 10 years
Under CLP duties to get hold of new information/ keep updated/ timeframes depending on the severity of the classification? ??
- Harmonized: 18 month time period for applying the classifiacation (also if you are under seveso?) 18 months to come into effect +12 months from the day it comes into effect to produce a new notification + 12 months to produce a new SR(??)
– self classified - immediate application + seveso timeframe? (will be the preferred route in the coming years?)
Encourage sites to implement as soon as possible ….
Article 7 2 b of the directive: you are required to inform the CA when…..
A clear statement concerning this will be needed in a Q& A or procedure….