India Proposes Groundbreaking EPR Regulations for End-of-Life Vehicles
In a significant move toward environmental stewardship, India's Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has unveiled a draft of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations for end-of-life vehicles, signaling the nation's commitment to fostering a sustainable economy. Published in the Gazette of India on January 30, 2024, the draft invites stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposals until February 29, 2024.
This regulatory initiative represents a pivotal step in expanding the scope of EPR across various sectors, aligning with the government's overarching agenda to promote sustainability. India has previously implemented EPR regulations in diverse domains such as plastic waste, batteries, electronic waste, waste tires, and used oils.
Scope of Application
As outlined in the draft, the EPR regulations will encompass producers, consumers, entities involved in vehicle testing, as well as those engaged in handling, processing, and recycling of end-of-life vehicles. However, specific exclusions apply to waste batteries, packaging plastics, waste tires, used oil, and electronic waste, which fall under distinct regulatory frameworks.
Responsibilities of Producers
Producers are entrusted with ensuring that both private and commercial vehicles introduced or available in the Indian market meet designated recycling targets, particularly regarding the recycling of steel from end-of-life vehicles. To fulfill EPR obligations, producers may either undertake recycling activities themselves or authorise third-party entities. Additionally, producers are mandated to obtain one-time registration with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and submit annual returns by June 30 each year, providing comprehensive data on vehicle steel usage and EPR compliance for the preceding fiscal year.
Collection and Recycling Facilities
End-of-life vehicles may be deposited at Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities (RVSFs) or designated Collection Centres by producers, registered owners, or bulk consumers. Collection Centres are responsible for collecting and temporarily storing these vehicles before forwarding them to RVSFs for further processing. RVSFs, in turn, are tasked with managing end-of-life vehicles in an environmentally responsible manner. Upon processing, EPR certificates will be generated for each RVSF based on the quantity of steel extracted from end-of-life vehicles, facilitated through an online portal.
Definitions and EPR Portal
The regulations provide clear definitions for key terms such as "producers," "registered owners," "bulk consumers," and "end-of-life vehicles" to ensure clarity and consistency in implementation. Additionally, a centralised online EPR Portal will be established for the registration of producers and RVSFs, filing returns, and facilitating the exchange of EPR certificates. The portal is slated to become operational within six months of the commencement of the EPR Regulations.
India's proposed EPR regulations for end-of-life vehicles signify a monumental stride toward environmental sustainability, reflecting a concerted effort to mitigate the adverse impacts of automotive waste while fostering responsible resource management in the automotive industry.
South Korea's Pioneering Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) System: A Paradigm Shift in Waste Management
In a bid to address longstanding challenges in waste management, South Korea has embarked on a transformative journey with its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. Recognising the limitations of traditional governmental approaches, South Korea has embraced the principles of EPR, aligning with global best practices advocated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
EPR: Redefining Producer Accountability
At its core, EPR redefines the responsibility of product manufacturers, importers, and sellers, extending it to the post-consumer stage of a product's life cycle. This strategic shift compels enterprises to proactively integrate environmental considerations into product design and take ownership of waste management throughout the product's lifecycle.
Key Components of South Korea's EPR Framework
1. Competent Authority
The Ministry of Environment (MOE) assumes a pivotal role in overseeing the implementation of EPR legislation, including setting annual obligatory recycling rates and providing support to local governments and the Korea Environment Corporation (KECO). KECO, although not a government entity, plays a crucial role in conducting inspections, verifying recyclability grades, and managing sustainability-related initiatives.
2. Main Regulations
South Korea has instituted a robust regulatory framework to underpin its EPR system, comprising key legislative acts and enforcement decrees. Notable regulations include the Framework Act on Resources Circulation, the Wastes Control Act, and the Resources Recycling Act, among others, each delineating specific provisions for waste management and resource reuse.
3. EPR System Implementation
Under South Korea's EPR system, manufacturers and importers of specified products and packaging materials are mandated to recycle a designated amount of waste generated from their products. Failure to comply incurs substantial recycling fees, surpassing the cost of recycling, thereby incentivising adherence to recycling obligations.
4. Product and Packaging Materials Subject to EPR
A diverse array of products and packaging materials fall under the purview of South Korea's EPR system, ranging from film products and batteries to tires and packaging materials across various industries.
5. Fulfilment of EPR Obligation
Producers obligated to recycle packaging must contribute to recycling efforts through collective initiatives facilitated by Recycling Business Mutual Aid Cooperatives. Alternatively, enterprises may opt for individual recycling endeavours, subject to approval by KECO. Strict reporting mechanisms ensure accountability, with non-compliance attracting recycling fees imposed by the MOE.
6. Recycling Obligation Fulfilling Mark
Enterprises that fulfil their recycling obligations are eligible to display the Recycling Obligation Fulfilling Mark on their products, signifying compliance with EPR regulations. To obtain this designation, enterprises must undergo a rigorous certification process, providing assurance of their commitment to sustainability.
Embracing a Sustainable Future
South Korea's pioneering EPR system heralds a new era of sustainable waste management, emphasising shared responsibility and environmental stewardship. By empowering producers to actively engage in waste reduction and resource recovery, South Korea is charting a course toward a cleaner, greener future for generations to come.
BASF and ECHA Forge Alliance to Propel Animal Testing Alternatives in Cosmetics Industry
In a landmark collaboration aimed at revolutionising cosmetic safety assessments, BASF has joined forces with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to drive forward innovative alternatives to animal testing. This strategic partnership underscores a collective commitment to advancing ethical and sustainable practices within the cosmetics sector while aligning with the European Union's stringent regulatory frameworks.
Tomasz Sobanski, leading the charge for Alternative Methods within ECHA's Computational Assessment and Alternative Methods Unit, emphasised the agency's pivotal role in steering the transition away from animal testing. He highlighted ECHA's proactive involvement in shaping the roadmap for phasing out animal testing in chemical safety assessments, a crucial step in response to the European Citizens' Initiative advocating for cruelty-free cosmetics.
"Our objective," Sobanski remarked, "is to integrate the wealth of knowledge garnered from our scientific endeavours and collaborations into this initiative, expediting the phase-out of animal testing in a methodical and responsible manner."
Central to ECHA's mission is the promotion of molecular biological methods as viable alternatives to conventional animal testing practices. Sobanski stressed the imperative of characterising hazards through molecular data, thereby transcending traditional organ or tissue-level assessments. However, he acknowledged the multifaceted challenges inherent in this paradigm shift, emphasising ECHA's proactive stance in identifying and addressing these obstacles.
To support the evaluation and implementation of Non-Animal Methods (NAMs) for chemical safety testing, ECHA has undertaken a multifaceted approach. Sobanski underscored the agency's active involvement in various OECD projects, international research initiatives, and regulatory research endeavors. Notably, ECHA spearheaded a pivotal workshop last May, focusing on critical needs for transitioning to animal-free regulatory frameworks for industrial chemicals. Additionally, the agency recently released a comprehensive report outlining strategies for advancing scientifically rigorous research pertinent to shaping future chemicals regulations, with a strong emphasis on minimising reliance on animal testing.
Through collaborative efforts such as these, BASF and ECHA are driving tangible progress towards a cruelty-free future in the cosmetics industry, bolstering consumer confidence in products while championing ethical and sustainable practices on a global scale.
Canada Proposes Measures to Mitigate Environmental Risks Posed by Substituted Phenols
In adherence to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Government of Canada is actively conducting a comprehensive evaluation of substances to ascertain their potential impact on human health and the environment. This meticulous process entails a thorough assessment of the intrinsic hazardous properties of substances and the degree of their exposure to humans and the environment.
Focus on Four Substituted Phenols
As part of its ongoing scrutiny, the government is currently directing its attention towards a subset of 15 substances within the substituted phenols group. Among these, four substances—identified by CAS RNs 118-82-1, 128-37-0, 36443-68-2, and 61788-44-1—have been flagged as potential sources of environmental concern due to their propensity to cause adverse effects on organisms if released into the environment.
Addressing Environmental Concerns
In response to these concerns, the Government of Canada is contemplating a spectrum of regulatory and non-regulatory measures for industrial formulation activities involving these substances. The overarching objective is to curtail their release into the environment and thereby mitigate potential harm.
Safety of Remaining Substances
It is pertinent to highlight that the remaining 11 substances within the group have been deemed environmentally benign. Their ecological hazard and exposure potential have been rigorously evaluated using the Ecological Risk Classification of Organic Substances (ERC) methodology.
While certain substances in this category may be associated with health effects, the assessment indicates no adverse effects on human health when considering exposure levels. These substances, utilised as antioxidants, may encounter humans through various channels, including drinking water, food, food packaging, and consumer products such as cosmetics.
UK Annual Reporting Deadline for 2023 PIC Chemical Exports and Imports Nears
The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently issued a crucial reminder to all entities involved in the export and import of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) chemicals. According to the notice released on 23 January 2023, companies must diligently submit detailed reports of their activities throughout 2023 by the looming deadline of 31 March 2024. This annual reporting obligation is enshrined in Article 10 of the GB PIC Regulation and carries legal weight.
Detailed Reporting Requirements
Fulfilling this requirement entails providing the HSE with precise quantities of PIC chemicals, quantified in kilograms, that have been either exported from or imported into Great Britain (comprising England, Scotland, and Wales) during the preceding year. To streamline compliance, the HSE has furnished templates on its official website, facilitating the reporting process and ensuring companies can adhere to the stipulated requirements efficiently.
Additionally, the annual report mandates the inclusion of PIC chemical movements to or from Northern Ireland (NI). While reporting exports and imports within the European Union does not necessitate specifying the involved EU country, documenting movements to or from Northern Ireland is deemed beneficial for record-keeping purposes.
Exemptions from Reporting
Certain PIC chemical transactions are exempt from this reporting mandate. Notably, these exemptions encompass:
- Requests for special reference identification numbers (RINs) for exports designated for research and analysis purposes, provided they do not exceed 10 kg per year to each importing country.
- Imports intended for research and analysis, limited to quantities not surpassing 10 kg per year from any country.
- For mixtures and articles, reporting is only required for the quantity of PIC chemical contained within them.
NIL Returns
In instances where a company has not exported a specific PIC-listed chemical in 2023, despite having submitted an export notification for it, the submission of a NIL return is imperative to confirm this status.
Submission Guidelines
Completed templates must be promptly dispatched to ukdna@hse.gov.uk no later than 31 March 2024. To facilitate streamlined processing, the subject line of the email should prominently feature the text "GB PIC - Annual Reporting - Article 10 - 2023 - [company name]."
Publication of Data
Furthermore, the HSE plans to unveil aggregated and anonymised data later in the year on its official website. This publication aims to provide stakeholders with valuable insights into the trends and volumes characterising PIC chemical trade throughout 2023, fostering transparency and informed decision-making within the industry.
EU’s Siloxane Restrictions Prompt Cosmetic Industry Reforms Amid UK Assessment Anticipation
The cosmetics industry finds itself in a state of flux as it grapples with the impending need for mass reformulation of products containing siloxanes D4, D5, and D6 to comply with REACH restrictions in the EU, and potentially the UK. Amid concerns about the dearth of acceptable alternatives, Olivia Santoni, Director of Regulatory Affairs at CTPA and Bloom Regulatory, sheds light on the implications and the broader issue of regulatory disharmony between the EU and UK.
The ongoing inconsistencies between EU and UK REACH regulations continue to inject uncertainty into the industry, with cosmetics companies bracing themselves for the reformulation of siloxane-containing products in one or both markets. This inevitability poses a significant challenge, as there exists no one-for-one substitute capable of replicating all the specific performance characteristics of these ingredients in personal-care products, as stated by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA).
Siloxanes, derived from silicone, play a pivotal role in cosmetics, offering skin softening, imperfection smoothing, and moisturising properties in hair-care products. Notably, Octamethylcyclotetrasilxane (D4) and Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) have already faced restrictions in rinse-off products in both the EU and UK since January 2020, owing to environmental concerns. However, the EU's recent proposal to extend restrictions to Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) in rinse-off products and impose restrictions on all three siloxanes in leave-on cosmetics further complicates the regulatory landscape.
While the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) conducts its own assessment to determine additional risk management measures for these ingredients, it is apparent that the siloxane restrictions will necessitate reformulation efforts within the industry. Despite efforts to provide scientific and usage information to aid the assessment process, the lack of viable alternatives poses a significant challenge.
The divergence between EU and UK regulations not only complicates compliance efforts but also widens the gap between the two markets. The EU's recent ban on microplastics, for instance, has raised concerns within the UK cosmetics industry, prompting the HSE to undertake an evidence project to review data on intentionally added microplastics and their associated risks.
In light of these developments, industry stakeholders stress the importance of compatible regulatory approaches between the EU and UK to ensure smooth trade and mitigate negative consequences such as reduced consumer choice and increased business costs. However, as regulatory disparities persist, the industry must navigate a complex regulatory landscape while striving to uphold safety and environmental standards.
