Blog Layout
ADCR Consortium article published on Chemical Watch
ADCR Consortium article published on Chemical Watch
Chemical Watch published an article on the ADCR Consortium (on 8 August)
The article points out that seven Aerospace & Defence companies have taken the initiative to address the issues faced by the sector when it comes to the authorisation of chromates under the EU’s REACH Regulation. The focus is on 8 chromates that have already gone through the REACH authorisation process, with sunset dates of September 2017 or January 2019.
Chemical Watch quotes Steve George of Rolls-Royce, the chair of the group of seven companies,
“A "key lesson" from the first set of applications is that the only way to ensure the uses of concern to every aerospace and defence supply chain are fully covered, is for much wider participation from among these (downstream user) companies.”
As noted on the homepage, the launch meeting of the ADCR Consortium will be held in Brussels on 20 September 2019. Prior to the launch event, stakeholders interested in learning more about the ADCR consortium and the issues facing this sector can register to attend a webinar, where there will also be the opportunity to ask questions (https://www.adcr-consortium.eu/adcr-re-authorisation-webinars).
Update: 10/10/2019:
Please contact adcr-info@rpaltd.co.uk for more information, or to request access to the recording of the webinar.
Other news items:
On 20 April 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU issued its judgment in Case C-144/21 European Parliament v European Commission . The case concerned an action brought by the Parliament for the annulment of the Commission's Implementing Decision of 18 December 2020 granting authorisation of certain uses of chromium trioxide (the original CTAC authorisation). As expected, the Court annulled the authorisation decision, but maintained the effects of the decision until the Commission issues a replacement decision. This will very likely be a rejection of the authorisation, as directed by the Court in the present judgment. The judgment followed the Opinion of the Advocate General of 27 October 2022 , and is based on the following factors: Lack of representativeness, reliability and completeness of the submitted worker exposure data, leading to an insufficient risk assessment, based on which the Commission was not in a position to conclude that the socio-economic benefits of the uses in question outweighed their risks to human health. Failure by the Commission to ascertain that there were no suitable alternatives for the uses in question. The Court also considered that the conditions had to be met at the time the decision was adopted. This meant that the Commission could not remedy the lack of sufficient data by providing the obligation for applicants for authorisation to provide additional information in the review reports, such as exposure scenarios and related risk management measures, which were lacking in the risk assessment. However, the Court also stipulated that the effects are to be maintained for only one year from the date of the judgment, which means in practice that the Commission only has until 20 April 2024 to issue its replacement decision. This limit was unexpected; it was not included in the AG's opinion, but has likely been included in order to emphasise the seriousness of the above-described issues with the annulled authorisation, and ensure that these are remedied in future applications, whilst pushing the Commission to take corrective action as soon as possible via the replacement decision.