ClientEarth comments to SEAC draft opinion for Cr(VI) restriction

ClientEarth welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the draft opinion of ECHA’s socio-economic committee (SEAC) for the restriction of Chromium VI.

Chromium VI has been regulated in the EU under the REACH Regulation, with its uses banned unless specifically authorized. Recently, a proposal has been made to change the regulatory approach from an 'Authorisation' system to a 'Restriction' system, according to which all companies will be allowed to use it subject to compliance with exposure limits.

Our contribution raises concerns around the contradictions at the heart of SEAC’s draft opinion that, while it indicates multiple inconsistencies, uncertainties and methodological biases behind the proposed change, it still concludes for the proposed restriction to go ahead. 

We found multiple weaknesses in SEAC’s draft opinion:

• It relies mainly on industry-provided data, without taking due account of independent peer-reviewed scientific literature;
• It fails to conduct an adequate assessment of the availability of alternatives;
• It gives greater weight to industry effects of the restriction over the health and environmental costs of continued exposure to Chromium VI;
• Finally, SEAC cannot properly conduct the analysis necessary to determine whether the proposed restriction is, in fact, the most appropriate risk management option due to key information missing.

Based on these findings, we suggest SEAC to stay its opinion until a complete and robust dossier is provided, or assess more carefully alternative restriction options. With this purpose, our contribution contains substantive recommendations for a more stringent regulatory approach for Chromium VI, such as a broad ban with transition periods where alternatives are not available. In our view, such an approach is more likely to achieve a proportionate and effective level of environmental and health protection while taking due account of socio-economic considerations.