Industry experience of complying with their SCIP database obligations

© Assent Compliance 2021
Industry Experience of
Complying With SCIP Database
Obligations
Presented by: Raj Takhar, Senior Subject Matter Expert,
Materials Management & Chemical Reporting (Europe)
Email: Raj.Takhar@Assentcompliance.com
Presented at: Chemical Watch Global Business Summit
2021, March 9th 2021.

© Assent Compliance 2021 2
Agenda
1. About Assent Compliance Inc.
2. Background to SCIP Reporting Obligations
3.Comparing EU REACH Vs. EU Waste Framework
Directive (SCIP)
4. SCIP State of Play
5. Common Industry Concerns
6. Conclusions
7. Q&A
8. Useful Links

▪ SCIP reporting defined under EU Waste Framework Directive 2018/851 under Article 9:
▪ Much debate occurred over 2020 as to industry belief that the ECHA SCIP reporting
requirements exceeded EU REACH article 33 reporting.
▫ EU REACH Article 33 reporting requirements were updated via ECJ 2015 ruling
“Once An Article Always An Article” [O5A].
▫ The text states “pursuant to,” which translates to in accordance with/similar to.
Background to SCIP Reporting Obligations (i)
Understanding the Reporting Obligations

▪ Early 2020, Article 9(i) updated via EU member state CARACAL meetings:
▪ The key change is the use of formats and submission tools provisioned by ECHA as
opposed to existing EU REACH templates that may exist within Industry.
Background to SCIP Reporting Obligations (ii)

▪ As part of the original SCIP Stakeholder workshops in 2018, a non-paper was issued
by the commission that outlined the need to collect data and set out the conceptual
“duty holders” that ECHA defined for SCIP reporting obligations:
▫ EU Importers (importing articles from non-EU countries that contain SVHCs).
▫ EU Producers and Assemblers.
▫ EU Distributors.
Background to SCIP Reporting Obligations (iii)

EU REACH 1907/2006 (New Article Context)
▪ Manufacturers and importers of articles
have to adhere to the three substance lists
(Candidate/Authorisation/Restricted).
▪ Where a candidate list substance is
identified, there is the Article 33
requirement to report to downstream users
on the presence of an SVHC over 0.1
percent at the article level (Updated in
2015 to be considered as lowest article
within a complex article).
▫ Current state practice is to list the
SVHCs at the Article As Sold level,
as a bare minimum, additional Safe
Use is optional.
Comparing EU REACH Vs. EU WFD (SCIP)
Different Use Cases
EU WFD 2018/851 (Recycling & Recovery)
▪ Focus on SVHCs from Candidate List.
▪ Follows O5A.
▪ Additional data points:
▫ Clear identification of where in a
product structure the SVHC on the
affected article.
▫ Article Category (Tariff Codes).
▫ Safe Use — Updated in October 2020 to
cover normal use and whole life cycle
use (broader than EU REACH – not
released in normal use context).
▫ Clear identification of how the SVHC
arrived on the Article –
Mixture/Material form.

▪ 2,984 legal entities submitted nearly 7 Million SCIP Article Notifications by the end
January 2021.
Method of Transmission
▪ 15,183 records created via IUCLID Cloud Services (online).
▪ 464,521 records created via uploading of documents into the SCIP Submission
Portal.
▪ 2,578,814 records (84.1 percent) submitted via S2S.
Type of Submission
▪ 3,374,774 records were Simplified SCIP Notifications.
▪ 3,123,522 records were submitted as individual / complex articles.
▪ 19,333 records were submitted as referencing supplier SCIP submission numbers.
SCIP: State of Play (i)
Extracted From SCIP IT User Group Meeting on January 28, 2021

Common Errors (Validation Errors — see SCIP Validation Document):
▪ [BR719] Same notification cannot be submitted multiple times.
▪ [BR729] SSN: Same notification cannot be submitted multiple times.
▪ [BR731] Non-EU companies are not allowed to submit SCIP notifications.
▪ [BR730] SSN: “SCIP number” should be valid.
▪ [BR728] SSN: The “SCIP number” that is used for referencing belongs to the same legal entity that is
submitting the notification. Simplified SCIP notification cannot refer to a “SCIP number” from the
same legal entity.
▪ [BR711] “Article” cannot be reporting information regarding both complex object component(s) and
“concern elements.”
▪ [QLT702] The provided “reference substance” has conflicting identifiers.
▪ [BR714] All the “concern element” blocks provided should be complete: “material category” or/and
“mixture category (EUPCS)” must be indicated.
SCIP: State of Play (ii)
Extracted from SCIP IT User Group Meeting January 28, 2021

▪ The process of collecting supply chain data for EU REACH should be well established.
▪ Companies need to regularly review Candidate List updates and request data from
supply chain.
▪ Areas where lack of understanding are still commonplace:
▫ Companies often state EU REACH is about chemicals and they do not have
reporting obligations under EU REACH citing Article 7(2).
◆ This covers the RE aspects of EU REACH, not the ACH aspects, following
updates to the lists.
▫ Companies often request EU REACH Article 33 data from suppliers at the “Article
As Sold” level.
◆ This is where the confusion over the legal text of EU REACH merely states
article, whilst the updated ECJ 2015 ruling clearly defines the need to
collect at lowest level article level and report data accordingly.
Common Industry Concerns (i)
Begin With EU REACH 1907/2006 as the Starting Point

▪ ECHA Substances of Concern In articles, as such or in complex objects
(Products) (SCIP) database, Prototype Q2 2020, From October 28, 2020 database was
available for use, effective date in regulation from January 5, 2021.
▪ SCIP requires EU REACH reporting data at the O5A level, which in turn requires correct
contractual verbiage in contracts.
▫ The need to report SCIP information may require review of existing contract terms.
▪ Strong supplier training and guidance is required to cover both EU REACH and EU SCIP
reporting requirements.
Common Industry Concerns (ii)
EU Waste Framework Directive 2018/85 (SCIP) Reporting

▪ EU WFD 2018/851 is a directive that requires member state national transpositions, a number
of national transpositions have allowed for exemptions for defence.
▫ Some transpositions named ECHA as the agency to report to.
▫ Germany transposed the obligation to report to the agency, however:
◆ An allowance was made for regulator to allow for additional powers to allow for
company specific exemptions:
◇ In order to perform such action, the national MSCA would need to adopt a
PPORD type approval process — not anticipated.
◇ Being granted an exemption in one member state transposition does NOT
negate the need to report data into the SCIP database where products flow
into other EU member states, which adopt full reporting — if granted = double
reporting + costs of doing so.
Common Industry Concerns (iii)
Implementations & Exemptions

▪ Some trade associations having raised issues and threatened to launch legal
actions against performing SCIP article reporting, using the legal text of EU REACH
Article 33 as justification:
▫ The ECJ is likely to maintain its original O5A decision.
▫ There are 7 million SCIP Article Notifications already transmitted into the ECHA
SCIP database in contrast to the argument to maintain as EU REACH.
▪ Data transmitted into the IUCLID (ECHA Cloud Services) by design is only meant to
be shared between a manufacturer and a regulator. In order to share data it needs
to be exported and imported in the standard IUCLID .i6z format.
▫ ECHA will be releasing a public portal from the end of March/April 2021.
Common Industry Concerns (iv)
Implementations, Exemptions, Public Portal

▪ Collecting and reporting information into the ECHA SCIP database should be
considered in two distinct steps:
▫ Collect relevant SCIP information from the supply chain [data collection]:
◆ If your supply chain is located in the EU, then the expectation is that they
should have performed relevant SCIP Article Notifications.
◆ If your supply chain is non-EU located and your are importing into the EU,
then the burden of data collection and reporting falls on you.
◇ Issues arise over:
▪ Identification of article categories – Navigate to Access2Markets
define a country of origin as non-EU and a destination as EU. The
EU TARIC system uses shorter digits than north America.
▪ Do not rely on automated approaches as the same component
may be used in several context = several EU TARIC Codes.
Common Industry Concerns (v)
Data Collection Vs. Data Submission

▪ Data Submission — With the relevant SCIP data on-hand:
▫ Review the ECHA SCIP Dissemination document – understand the
possibility to mask data in SCIP Article Datasets and Dossiers (ECHA SCIP
Dissemination Document).
▫ SCIP Article notifications can take place against (i) individual articles; (ii)
articles contained within complex articles, and (iii) product families.
◆ Take care when generating any product family groups
(individual/complex) – follow the Quasi-Identical criteria – sameness in
chemistry, function, and article categories.
◆ Work bottom up – group articles, complex objects.
Common Industry Concerns (vi)
Data Collection Vs. Data Submission

▪ SCIP Article notification reporting is here to stay, it forms a strong source of data
to support the EU Green Deal and indeed the EU Chemical Sustainability Strategy
for Toxic-Free Environment:
▫ The scope of number of SVHC substances to be added to the Candidate
List are likely to rise sharply as part of the green agenda.
▫ The January 2021 Candidate List update saw 89 additional substances
being added.
▪ SCIP is here to stay maintaining a compliant process requires continual
revalidation of data.
Conclusions (i)
Summary

▪ Understand the flow of articles within an organisation — determine source supplier
regions (EU/Non-EU) to determine potential Duty Holder obligations.
▪ Establish dynamic supplier contract terms as opposed to specific regulations in
scope of reporting.
▪ Re-baseline existing EU REACH reporting to ensure suppliers identify SVHC
information at the O5A level.
▪ With EU REACH data available:
▫ Identify the articles against which additional SCIP information will be required
(as opposed to combining REACH and SCIP).
▫ Collate the additional SCIP information from the subset of suppliers identifying
SVHCs in Articles (estimated at 5–7 percent of all articles).
Conclusions (ii)
Suggested Actions

▪ With the required SCIP data available:
▫ Create article datasets and dossiers (follow ECHA SCIP Dissemination document):
◆ Individual articles.
◆ Complex articles.
◆ Product family grouping if applicable (follow Quasi identical rules) – submit
as single article dataset.
◆ Determine you downstream user types as guidance will be required to
ensure customers that (a) customers that consume supplied articles into
other products (reference), and; (b) customers that merely distribute without
making changes to articles (SSN), understand the required SCIP Article
Notifications they need to make (Reference/SSN).
Conclusions (iii)
Suggested Actions

▪ Update data as new information arises:
▫ New information from EU REACH and EU SCIP data collection processes.
▫ New products containing articles with newly identified SVHCs.
▫ Removal of Articles with SVHC content.
▪ The key is to maintain static SCIP Article Notifications – DO NOT
CHANGE article name, Primary Article Identifier Type, and Primary
Article Identifier Type Value data within a Article dataset.
Conclusions (iv)
Suggested Actions

TEMPLATE
Questions/
Discussion

▪ EU WFD 2018/851 Legal Text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018L0851
▪ ECJ Case C-106/14: Once An Article Always An Article - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62014CJ0106
▪ Non-paper on the implementation of Articles 9(1)(i) and 9(2) of the revised Waste Framework
Directive 2008/98/EC - https://eurospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/annex-3-com-non-
paper-wfd-20062019.pdf
▪ EU Candidate List of substances of very high concern for Authorisation:
https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table
▪ EU WFD 2018/851 list of national transpositions: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex:32018L0851
Useful Links (i)
Links to Documents Discussed in This Presentation

▪ ECHA Key tips for successful SCIP notifications:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/28213971/key_tips_for_successful_scip_noti
fication_en.pdf/452a0fb6-2a91-ca37-034e-7b3c09a695be.
▪ Validation rules for SCIP notifications:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/28976980/validation_rules_for_SCIP_notifica
tions.pdf/5323b9e5-4c15-7cad-3bcc-5f4994d407bd
▪ Dissemination and confidentiality in the SCIP Database:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/28213971/dissemination_confidentiality_sci
p_en.pdf/e0efbea1-d8ec-b67c-de8f-1838b480db6d
▪ ECHA SCIP Candidate Reference Substances Package:
https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-package
Useful Links (ii)

▪ EU Green Deal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-
deal_en
▪ EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A667%3AFIN
▪ EU Access2Markets website: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content.
▪ ECHA SCIP IT User Group 28th January 2021:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/28213971/20210128_scip_it_user_group_pre
sentation_en.pdf/169acc1e-2b1f-fd25-6b95-e1f67d51a6f3
Useful Links (iii)

Industry experience of complying with their SCIP database obligations

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Industry experience of complying with their SCIP database obligations (20)

More from raj takhar (12)

Recently uploaded (20)

Industry experience of complying with their SCIP database obligations