Prioritisation of Substances of Very High Concern
► Preparing the Proposal
Once a substance has been identified as an SVHC and put on the Candidate List, a Member State Competent Authority may consider proposing it for prioritisation. Member States usually do this once a year.
In developing such a proposal, a two-tiered approach is used by the MSC:
- The first tier consists of a weighted scoring approach to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposal. On top of its intrinsic properties, the substance’s use must be widely dispersed and it should be supplied in high volumes.
In particular, the presence of an effect threshold has played a decisive role, forcing Industry to devote great attention to this aspect in its assessment of the substance. The scoring system is under regular review to integrate learning lessons from past prioritisations. The relevance of establishing a distinction between threshold and non-threshold substances was part of the last review in 2013.
- The second tier consists in enriching the scoring with regulatory effectiveness checks that are more qualitative.
Regulatory coherence should be guaranteed by ensuring
- No proposals to prioritise one compound of a chemical family whilst ignoring others that display similar properties and can be used as substitutes for the substance under consideration
- All identified uses are not already subject to specific Community legislation to control risks
- A significant use of the substance is not kept outside the scope of Authorisation
- None of the uses identified for Authorisation result in releases that are either insignificant or comparable to releases resulting from natural sources
Industry comments received during prior consultations may come into play at this stage. However, due to the time period between both consultations, it will be necessary to update the submitted information to ensure that the most accurate and recent data are taken into account.
The materials and information included in this publication are provided
as a service to you and do not necessarily reflect endorsement by the
Nickel Institute. The Nickel Institute is not responsible for the accuracy
of information provided from outside sources.
Users are advised to seek their own professional advice.