- Taking stock: second peak conquered
- Smaller companies share their experiences on REACH registration
- Ensure technical equivalence before applying for an EU or national authorisation for a biocidal product
- Are you importing or exporting hazardous chemicals?
- ENES5: Focus on mixtures
- How to find information about chemicals on ECHA's website
- First substance evaluation decisions to be finalised
- Lost in translation? Go to ECHA-term
- ECHA Science: Evaluation of grouping and read-across
- Wanted: practical examples from industry
- Member States agree on the practical actions of the SVHC Roadmap 2020
- Brazil interested in learning from ECHA's experiences
Send your feedback to:echanewsletter (at) echa.europa.eu
Article related to: REACH
Smaller companies share their experiences on REACH registration
First time small and medium sized enterprise (SME) registrants had a say about their experiences in registering their chemicals under REACH through a survey ECHA conducted in October. The highlights of the results are summarised below. More information about the conclusions and follow-up actions will be presented at the REACH SME workshop on 10 December 2013 in Brussels.
Lead registrants (16 respondents):
- 69% indicated that the communication was at least somewhat frequent and helpful in the SIEFs;
- 69% indicated that they had used the services of a consultant for the main content of the IUCLID file work;
- All were at least somewhat satisfied with the support offered by the consultant;
- Provided for the participants of the joint submission:
- only the data set: 32%
- chemical safety report: 27%
- data set, chemical safety report and support to establish the IUCLID file: 23%
- data set, the chemical safety report, support to establish the IUCLID file and advice on the post-submission follow-up: 18%
- 56% invoiced their costs by tonnage band.
- 73% felt that the communication helped to establish friendly working relationships within the SIEFs, 71% said that the communication had built trust, 62% said the communication within the SIEFs had enabled best practice to be shared;
- 61% indicated that the communication had failed to continue post-submission;
- 22% created the main data set content themselves, 38% used a consultant and 40% said that the content had come from the lead registrant;
- 97% were at least somewhat satisfied with the consultants' support;
- Only 16% claimed that they had difficulties in sharing data. The most commonly occurring difficulties were receiving information from the lead registrant and cost of data;
- 89% received access to data in good time;
- 62% said that they had to pay for access to data and/or contribute to the costs of studies that were not part of their information requirements;
- 61% felt that the Letter of Access costs were disproportionate and unreasonable.
Individual registrations (17 respondents):
- 47% indicated that they had been aware of other companies who had registered their substance or were intending to do so;
- Reasons for registering individually included:
- was not seen as necessary;
- difficulties in dealing with consortiums.
- 88% used a consultant for constructing the main content of the data set of the IUCLID file work;
- 93% said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the consultants' support.
The ‘Survey of 2013 SME registrants' was conducted from 30 September until 18 October 2013.
Addressed first-time SME registrants (lead registrants, members and individual registrants).
The survey was sent to 705 registrants who successfully registered their substances for the 2013 REACH registration deadline.
Responses were received from 143 people.
The questions concerned the registrants' awareness, the registration process - functioning of SIEFs, joint submissions, data sharing, cost sharing and submisssion tools - support given by ECHA, the national helpdesks or other actors and SME self-classification.
Text by Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli
Sign in to comment and/or rate this article.
Biocidal Products Committee:
26 February-1 March
Committee for Risk Assessment:
6-8 March and
Committee for Socio-Economic
Management Board meeting:
23-27 March (tentative)
Member State Committee:
20-24 April (tentative)