10/10/2014

CLP Regulations Reprint of our seven part series from the Arpal Group blog. All comments and feedback are very welcome. Contact Us

www.thearpalgroupblog.com

2

INTRODUCTION

A whole raft of new chemical legislation is winging its way towards companies involved with professional cleaning products, none more so than the new global system for classifying chemicals. This will change the hazard classifications and labelling of most cleaning chemicals currently being used in the workplace.

In a series of seven articles published on the Arpal Group blog between July and September 2014, we provided best practice advice to our customers and partners covering the new CLP Regulations. All seven articles are reproduced here in a free to download e-book.

We hope that our customers, distributors and end-users will find the advice provided to be very useful in ensuring that proper procedures are in place to cope with the new regulations.

Please do not hesitate to Contact Us immediately if you require further clarification on any of the points raised in the series of articles. We will be only too happy to share our experience and expertise in this area.

Arpal Group www.thearpalgroupblog.com

3

CLP Regulations

Introduction

1. Get Ready For Change With New Hazard Classification Labelling

2. Background & Evolution of Chemical Labelling Law

3. Labelling & Re-Classification of Existing Products

4. Top 4 Impacts on Chemical Formulations

5. Impact on B2B Customer Perceptions

6. Top 10 Areas of Focus & the Future Landscape

7. The Future Are You Concentrating?

4

1. Get Ready For Change With New Hazard Classification & Labelling

A whole raft of new chemical legislation is winging its way towards companies involved with professional cleaning products, none more so than the new global system for classifying chemicals. This will change the hazard classifications and labelling of most cleaning chemicals currently being used in the workplace.

The changes are quite radical. Chemical distributors and end users of cleaning products need to be fully aware of the implications of new hazard symbols and warnings on the chemicals they handle on a daily basis. Distributors of professional cleaning products need to lean on their manufacturing partners to ensure that they are regularly updated on legislative issues in order that their own end user customers are fully appreciative of the changes taking place and the impact on their business and staff.

Before considering what the new hazard classifications mean in practical terms, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider the impact of changing labels who will be affected and what type of products may be affected? In this series of blog posts we will examine all facets of these changes and the impact on manufacturers, distributors and end users.

Cleaning chemicals used in the workplace can include those directly used in an operational process and those used for general hygiene such as kitchen and catering sanitisers, dish wash detergents, floor and hard surface cleaners, furniture and glass polishes, toilet cleaners, disinfectants and hand care products.

Cleaning chemicals are used in almost every workplace with the market for professional cleaning chemicals in the EU being estimated at approximately 2.4 billion. There are almost 17 million professional users of cleaning products making it

5

one of the largest downstream chemical groups. It follows that a clear understanding of the new labelling requirements and user safety is of paramount importance.

The current symbols will change as below:

CLP

And a new symbol will be introduced:

This identifies chemicals that can cause very serious long term health effects. The symbol might be used where exposure to a chemical can cause damage to specific organs or parts of the body. For example sensitizers that can cause allergic reactions or substances that can cause lung damage by aspiration after swallowing.

Please note this list of pictograms is not exhaustive for full details and definitions please refer to www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classification/legal/clp-regulation.htm

Part 2 examines the background to the new labelling legislation and the reasons why it has evolved into the current pan European situation.

6

2. Background & Evolution of Chemical Labelling Law

The current changes are best understood within a wider context of the evolution of chemical labelling law in Europe.

The United States of Europe

In 1946 Winston Churchill said,

We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.

Today as we struggle to agree on whether this common endeavour is in the best interests of individual sovereign nations, there is no doubt that a common approach to safety across the United States of Europe can only be in the best interests of trade, consumer safety and environmental protection.

Harmonisation DSD and DPD

In 1967, the EEC passed a law to improve chemical safety within the Common Market by harmonising the various labelling systems used for dangerous chemicals across different member states into one system for the classification, labelling and safe packaging of chemical substances. The law was called the Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD), but did not adequately accommodate those companies manufacturing mixtures of different substances (professional cleaning chemicals).

7

DSD was clearly a step forward in terms of safety within the single market, but as most products used for cleaning and disinfection are formulations containing a mixture of different chemicals rather than single substances, DSD could only be applied in a fairly limited way. The principles of DSD were extended to cover mixtures (or preparations) and in the 1980s a complimentary directive was introduced called the Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD).

The DSD and DPD apply in all EU member states, but as they are directives (not regulations) each country is allowed to implement the law in their own way, as long as the general principles are followed. This means that the hazard symbols are the same in every country along with the terminology of the safety warnings used on the label. Common standards for packaging safety are also agreed to facilitate the safe movement of dangerous chemicals between countries.

CHIP

The two European Directives DSD and DPD have been implemented in the UK by a law called the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations, also known as CHIP, and many chemical users of professional cleaning products will be familiar with the orange and black hazard symbols which have appeared on chemical products for many years.

Example hazard symbols:

On-Going Revisions

Within Europe there are thousands of chemical substances in use and numerous ways in which these can be mixed together to make a diverse range of chemical products. As technical development knowledge has evolved, so has knowledge and research on the dangers that chemicals present. As a result the DSD and DPD have been revised and updated many times, almost on an annual basis.

More recent changes to DSD and DPD considered the potential harmful effect of chemicals on the environment as well as dangers to humans. Consequently within UK law, CHIP has also been revised several times to keep pace with European Directives, with the most recent version, CHIP4, passing into UK law in April 2009.

Outside the European Union: A Global Perspective

8

Although DSD and DPD (and CHIP) have evolved in Europe into systems that provide common safety information to end users across most of the continent, elsewhere in the USA, Japan and other areas of the world, alternative hazard classification and labelling systems are in place.

With a view to relaxing barriers to allow trade on a global basis, conflicting safety information on chemical products crossing borders is a cause for concern where there might be a danger to people handling the chemicals in different parts of the world and to the environment where they are used.

International trade in chemicals is huge. The United Nations fully recognises the dangers of hazardous substances and chemical products crossing borders and the potential impact that could occur because of confusion or irregularities between hazard classification systems and labelling used in different countries.

An international agreement to address the problem was reached during the 1992 Rio Summit. The UN created a committee of experts with the intention that all existing hazard classification systems should be brought together into a single, globally harmonised system known as GHS. GHS offers common methods for hazard classification (deciding what dangers are presented by a chemical), hazard symbols and the provision of safety information.

The Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Classification and Labelling is not an entirely new concept; prior to its development there were common systems in place for the transport of hazardous products between different parts of the world by sea and by air. It can be seen from the development of GHS that many of the hazard classifications, such as acute toxicity and physical hazards, that are used in the transport sector are also used in GHS. GHS was adopted by the UN at the end of 2002 and has been updated every two years since, with the fifth revised version being published in 2013.

The CLP Regulation

Although there was general agreement to adopt GHS at the United Nations, the process of change from national systems to the new GHS system is not taking place at the same pace throughout the world and some countries have decided only to partially implement GHS. In the EU, it was agreed to replace DSD and DPD with European Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (generally referred to as the CLP Regulation or CLP for short).

CLP adopts the GHS system devised by the United Nations and came into force on 20 January 2009 in all EU Member States. In the UK, CHIP will effectively be replaced by CLP and a transition period has been allowed to re-classify chemical mixtures, convert product labels to show the new GHS hazard symbols and update safety data sheets. The transition period effectively ends in June 2015 and by this date newly manufactured chemical products should be labelled with the CLP/GHS symbols if classified as hazardous.

9

3. Labelling & Re-Classification of Existing Products

European Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 covering the classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances and mixtures came into force on 20th January 2009 in all EU Member States including the UK. Generally known by its abbreviated form the CLP Regulation or just plain CLP, the new Regulation adopts the United Nations Globally Harmonised System (GHS) on the classification and labelling of chemicals across all European Union countries.

Below we present the 10 main differences to watch out for in the new CLP system.

Current Position

Chemical substances that were previously regulated by DSD, and CHIP in the UK, have already moved to the CLP system with a timescale of June 2015 allowed for re-classification of chemical mixtures. The authorities will allow a further 2 years for products that are classified and labelled in accordance with CHIP (normally identified by square orange hazard symbols) to pass through the supply chain.

So in effect by June 2017 all hazardous products on the market will have the new CLP warning symbols (diamonds with a red border) and associated warning messages on the label and safety data sheet.

The CLP hazard classification system is different from CHIP, and in some cases new hazard symbols will appear on labels of existing chemical products where previously there was no hazard symbol. It should be noted that this does not mean that the chemical itself is any more dangerous than it was before, it is simply a consequence of the way in which the new classification system is followed.

10

Hazard classification is an exercise carried out to decide the potential dangers presented by each chemical. This in turn determines what hazard symbols should appear on the label and the safety advice that must be provided. Under CLP, different methods and criteria are used for the classification process and in some cases we will see cleaning products, which previously had no orange hazard symbols when classified under CHIP, now having a danger symbol when the same product mixture is classified according to CLP.

The 10 Main Differences of CLP

1. Classification criteria and classification methods are different for some types of hazard, so some chemical products may be classified more or less severely.

2. New hazard pictograms (diamonds) will replace orange hazard symbols on labels

(see below).

3. Although many of the icons within the pictogram are similar to those used in CHIP, CLP introduces some new icons.

4. The CHIP warnings that appear under the orange hazard symbols such as Corrosive,

Toxic, Irritant, etc.., are no longer used with the more generic DANGER or WARNING appearing on a CLP label.

5. New wording will appear on product labels with H (Hazard) statements and P

(Precautionary) statements replacing Risk and Safety phrases. Some of the wording is similar, but expect to see more warning statements than before.

6. Mathematical calculations are used to predict hazard classifications as this avoids any need for the unethical testing of chemicals on animals that was prevalent many years ago. For more information on alternate testing methods over animals please see Part 4 below.

11

7. Calculations are used for both the current CHIP classification system and for the new CLP system. However, the thresholds of ingredient concentration triggering a hazard classification are generally lower under CLP. This has significant implications for product labelling.

8. The chemical composition of a cleaning product may remain unchanged but the

hazard classification and labelling may change quite radically. This can be illustrated in the table below:

9. Almost all surfactants used in cleaning products are classified as R41 (risk of serious damage to eyes) in the CHIP system. In the CHIP calculation method, a chemical mixture would need to contain 10% or more to trigger the same R41 classification for the product and an orange IRRITANT symbol would be used on the label. Under CLP, we only need 3% surfactant in the formulation to classify the product as needing the pictogram with the corrosive icon and a mere 1% is enough to add the exclamation mark pictogram to the label.

10. The same corrosive danger symbol could appear on product labels where there

is no evidence of corrosive effects to the skin as CLP uses the same symbol to show that a product has the potential to attack metal surfaces. The physical test to show effects on steel and aluminium is new and was not required under CHIP and relates more closely to transport regulations.

12

4. Top 4 Impacts on Chemical Formulations

Part 3 above provided examples of how the new CLP Regulations trigger hazard classifications for cleaning chemicals at much lower concentrations than previously required under CHIP. So what options are available to the formulator or chemical distributor?

1. We could dilute the product mixture so that the ingredient concentrations fall below the new concentration thresholds set by the CLP Regulations. However, a reduction in concentration will reduce product performance. Supplying less concentrated products is not environmentally responsible as we would effectively be shipping more water, using more packaging and increasing road miles.

2. We could try to communicate the message that hazard pictograms are not

something to cause undue concern for the professional user, but serve as a reminder of the potential danger if the chemical is not handled and stored properly.

3. We could introduce dispensing systems to reduce the risk of contact with

concentrated chemicals.

4. We could consider alternative methods of hazard classification demonstrating that a hazard warning is not required.

Point 1 above illustrates one of the more difficult aspects of CLP classification. We might face a scenario where a widely used and relatively safe product, such as washing up liquid, would need a Danger pictogram triggered by the surfactant content being

13

higher than 3%. Even the washing up liquid sitting by the sink at home is likely to contain 10-20% surfactant!

It necessarily follows that manufacturers who provide robust formulations with the required levels of surfactants to clean busy commercial premises will begin to see more of their portfolio covered with additional pictograms and risk phrases.

In-Vitro Testing: A Viable Alternative to Animal Testing

CLP allows the use of an alternative method of hazard classification that removes the need for some of the hazard symbols that would be derived from the standard calculation method used by formulators. The alternative method involves carrying out an in-vitro test on the product.

In-vitro testing is a relatively recent test protocol developed to avoid the need to test on animals. Most manufacturers of cleaning products do not have an in-house laboratory capable of carrying out a CLP approved and validated in-vitro test such as OECD 431 used to show whether a product is corrosive to skin. This requires specialised techniques more commonly found in life science labs with costs running into many thousands of pounds.

We have practical experience in this area. In 2010, we were asked by a European distributor to prove that one of our leading products was not skin corrosive. Testing was carried out in accordance with OECD 431. An in-vitro skin corrosion test was carried out using EpiSkin - a synthetic Reconstructed Human Epidermis (RHE) model. As expected, our product, Deep Clean, proved to be non-corrosive but the costs of proving this were significant.

The increasing trend of manufacturers having to jump through legislative hoops at great cost may not be appreciated by the general market. Whilst the original motivations for such legislation are admirable and good news for the consumer, the administrative and financial burden on suppliers is high.

It is estimated that 80-90% of professional cleaning products currently available would be classified as hazardous using the CLP calculation method. With the hundred or so cleaners and disinfectants that we current market, considering in-vitro testing by an external laboratory would be cost prohibitive when we have no reasonable way of passing this on to customers.

So, either the market swallows the costs, or if costs cannot be passed on reasonably to the customer, then the lack of alternative test methods offered by CLP means that almost all cleaning products, apart from more dilute ready-to-use products, will carry a hazard classification.

14

5. Impact on B2B Customer Perceptions

Part 5 discusses the likely impact of the new CLP Regulations on our B2B customers. Rest assured, we will keep you fully informed of developments as the new regulations come into force. We will ensure that expert advice is provided at all times to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime.

Our customers depend on the benefits provided by the hygiene chemical industry from disinfectants that reduce the risk of food poisoning to detergents that clean clothes. Chemicals are often associated with negative impacts on health and the environment, but the fact is that chemicals are necessary to make business run smoother and make life safer for everyone. The paradox is that there will always be a need to balance the perceived negative effects with the positive benefits of using chemical products and services.

CLP (Classification, Labelling, and Packaging) provides a uniform global system for hazard classification of professional cleaning products. While we generally welcome the new regulations, we do have some reservations about how our customers will react to the safety and environmental implications of continuing to use regular cleaning products that will now be labelled with a Danger (corrosive icon) pictogram.

Will some customers stop using CLP labelled products because they are now perceived to be more dangerous than before? This would be an unnecessary action to take as in most cases the formulation would be exactly the same as before. There is no need to change the products you use.

Whilst it is important to treat all professional cleaning products with respect, the higher surfactant and biocide active concentrations in professional formulations are there for an important reason to get the job done. Offering weaker products to the

15

market to avoid the need to use CLP symbols does not offer a satisfactory alternative for the cleaning professional.

Under the new CLP Regulations, the potential health hazards associated with the product are exaggerated by the pictogram used. For example, the Danger pictogram to indicate that a liquid might corrode metal surfaces over a period of time is the same one used for a chemical that will burn the skin, even though the hazard classification might conclude that it does not. How is the customer to rationalise this fact at point of use? Suppliers need to keep their customers fully informed and up-to-date.

Understanding your processes and risk awareness is more important than the hazard itself.

The symbols being used in CLP are meant to be emotive. Customer knowledge and professional health & safety training for all staff handling chemicals are critical. It is the RISK or likelihood of being harmed that is the important issue rather than the HAZARD symbol on the product label. This message needs to be communicated clearly. When you see a hazard symbol on a product, read what is actually written on the label, read the Safety Data Sheet and ensure that appropriate precautions are taken relevant to your cleaning task.

An analogy might be a Rottweiler dog. Often considered to be a dangerous animal, how do you reduce the risk of being bitten? Muzzle the dog! It is still a dangerous dog, but the risk of it biting you is eliminated due to the muzzle. Staff training along with the selection and correct use of personal protective equipment is the metaphorical muzzle for cleaning chemicals.

Potential Impact on our B2B Customers

As with all well intentioned legislation, the administrative burden on manufacturers and business customers may be significant. Let there be no mistake, the CLP change in chemical classification will have wide ranging implications for the professional cleaning industry manufacturer, distributor and business customer. One can only imagine the downstream costs involved with re-art working and printing billions of new chemical labels.

1. There will be a dramatic increase in the number of chemical products labelled with the corrosive pictogram. This is not because they have become more dangerous. Rather, it is the direct result of the new system of classification. CLP has reduced the concentration threshold for ingredients to trigger hazard classification.

2. In reaction to the new CLP symbols, especially the increase in the number of

symbols on product labels, there will be a proportionate increase in the requirement and provision of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) for staff using professional cleaning products. Many businesses do not provide adequate quantities of PPE for staff. This will now become a top priority for employers. It is here to stay, so lets just get on and deal with it in a calm and professional manner.

16

3. It could push many chemical manufacturers into producing weaker products to fit

a less hazardous classification. Arpal Group are firmly of the view that this would be a retrograde step in terms of cost control and environmental impact. Because more volume of product would need to be used, consumable costs would increase as would the cleaning time required and the supply chain carbon footprint.

4. It could create a barrier to research and development within the industry and the

ability of companies to innovate with new ingredients. One thing is for sure, new ingredients will not be cheaper than established surfactants no matter what the green fan base profess.

5. It will provide health & safety officers with a potential administrative nightmare as

all current COSHH risk assessments will have to be re-done or at least checked to see if they are fit for purpose. Arpal Group anticipate a new generation of Consultancy Company emerging from this and other legislative issues facing the industry.

6. There could be a Risk Tsunami brewing because of customer misconceptions that

cleaning professionals are being exposed to a higher level of danger (not true).

7. Although the UK does not have a litigious culture in its DNA, you can be sure that more claims will be made against businesses as a result of these changes, and an increase in unnecessary medical intervention when accidents do occur.

Please do not hesitate to Contact Us if you require any advice on how the new regulations will affect your business. You can keep up-to-date with the changes taking place by registering on the Arpal Group blog or by connecting with us on Twitter and LinkedIn.

17

6. Top 10 Areas of Focus & the Future Landscape

Given the complexity of the new CLP Regulations, Part 6 provides a summary and synthesis of previous articles identifying the ten key issues of particular relevance to our customers.

Rest assured, we will keep you fully informed of future developments in this critical area.

1. The new CLP product hazard classifications for chemical mixtures (formulations) must be implemented by manufacturers by June 2015; however, authorities will allow a further 2 years for existing products that are classified and labelled in accordance with CHIP (normally identified by square orange hazard symbols) to pass through the supply chain.

2. All new products launched after June 2015 must adhere to the CLP labelling and hazard classification system but it makes sense to label in accordance with CLP for new products launched before the cut-off date.

3. Look out for new labels, supporting product information and Safety Data Sheets (SDS). The CLP hazard information is more detailed and is designed to give businesses and users as much information as possible on the safety and environmental impacts of product use.

18

4. Train employees to recognise and understand the new label information and try not to scare end-users, the labels simply provide the message use me properly and treat me with respect and you will be able to clean effectively and safely.

5. Ensure that the way you use chemical cleaning products is in accordance with advice from the supplier. If you are using large quantities of commercial detergents, you should speak to your supplier about providing controlled dosing systems which limit and control the delivery of cleaning fluids. We will discuss controlled dosing systems in more detail in future blog posts.

6. Follow the advice contained on the new labels, Safety Data Sheets and any supporting product guidance information provided. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and labelling can often appear daunting to the customer or end-user, so ask your chemical supplier for advice to help gain real-world information about the products (Product Guidance Sheets for example) to compliment the official technical documentation.

7. Check whether product hazard classifications have changed. A reputable chemical supplier will give forward notice on this and a timeline well in advance of changes being made. To suddenly receive chemicals with new, more emotive hazard symbols may cause unnecessary anxiety to the end user.

8. Evaluate the risks to workers and update your workplace COSHH risk assessments if necessary. Ensure that cleaning staff have the right Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) if they are protected the risk of harm is minimised considerably.

9. If you are an employer, communicate these changes to your employees. Ask your chemical supplier to put together a short communication and forward it onto staff to show that you are working in collaboration with key suppliers to keep staff safety at the top of the agenda.

10. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about the new labels or the products safety data sheet.

One good facet of this change is that consumers will be encouraged to read the new labels thoroughly to gain a better understanding of the chemical products being used in the workplace.

19

7. The Future Are You Concentrating?

As discussed in Parts 1 to 6, CLP will effectively lower the concentration levels that trigger the addition of a hazard symbol to the product label. The impact is that most professional cleaning products will feature one or more CLP hazard symbols and the formulator will find it ever more difficult to develop an effective product that can be diluted before use that has no hazard symbols.

Consider the predicament faced by a company that promotes the eco-friendliness of their hard surface cleaner as it features no hazard symbols on the label, but actually contains up to 99% water to achieve this. A simple equation follows: less active chemical = more bottles of chemical required = more packaging waste = more road miles. In this case, the seemingly eco-friendly surface cleaner has a significant, if less obvious, environmental impact in terms of waste and CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

Professional cleaning products are used in huge quantities every day across all types of businesses. With the ever present climate of having to bring consumable costs down and being mindful of the environmental impacts these types of products present, forward thinking manufacturers need to invest in developing chemical concentrates, essentially getting the most out of a bottle, rather than putting less in. As long as the hazardous concentrate is packaged robustly and dispensed safely, the danger is controlled and the risk to the user is minimised.

An example is a super concentrated kitchen sanitiser which may be classified in concentrate form with an array of CLP hazard symbols as follows:

20

However, when diluted through a chemical mixing station the ready-to-use cleaning solution carries no hazard symbol at all as it is safely pre-mixed with water at dilutions of up to 100:1.

RP Adam undertakes to have all our products re-classified in accordance with CLP, relevant product labelling altered and accompanying Safety Data Sheet (SDS) information updated before the June 2015 deadline. We are also preparing to launch a series of super concentrated cleaners and disinfectants fully CLP compliant, with an innovative safety packaging mechanism.

Look out for our next series of blog articles tackling the thorny subject of the Biocidal Products Regulations (BPR) and the massive changes that will occur as a result for manufacturers, distributors and end user business to business consumers of professional cleaning products.

More Information

The detailed CLP Regulations can be found on the EC website:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/documents/classification/index_en.htm

The layout and contents of Safety Data Sheets is governed by European legislation called REACH and more information can be obtained using the link below:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/index_en.htm

For businesses based in the UK, the HSE website offers a wide range of practical information relating to CLP, REACH and all legislation relating to safety in the workplace. The HSE website provides guidance that is easily accessible and will help with staff training, COSHH risk assessments, etc. Follow the link below and use the search facility at the top right of the page to find further information.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/