ZVO points out weaknesses of the latest ECHA study

(Oct 2020/OM) - In an open letter to Bjorn Hansen, Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency ECHA, the German Surface Treatment Association (ZVO) comments on the study "Impacts of REACH restriction and authorization on substitution in the EU" published by ECHA in July 2020. We are publishing the ZVO's statement in full here:

The ZVO welcomes that ECHA tries with the study to capture the real effects of restrictions and authorizations - here with regard to the requirement for substitution of uses of SVHCs (Substances of Very High Concern).

From practical experience of companies, ZVO agrees with some of the results and conclusions, for example that the effect of restrictions on substitutions is more effective than authorizations. Sustainability guidelines, like any type of regulation, also naturally lead to testing for alternative options. Further, customer demand or requirements lead directly to consideration of alternatives if the current technology cannot meet the new requirements.

However, safe alternatives rarely achieve financial benefits and/or competitive advantages at the same time. Otherwise, substitution efforts would already have been undertaken to improve these two key business objectives. Further, reductions in emissions to the environment and worker exposure are inherently seen as the most important benefits of substitution, as they are the reasons for the substitution required by regulation.

However, the ZVO also cannot understand some of the recommendations drawn from the study. For example, the substance grouping approach was not the subject of the study and no statements were made about it. The benefit of substance grouping can therefore not be derived from this study. The ZVO has prepared a position paper on substance grouping that points out the not inconsiderable dangers from this chemically and technically questionable approach.

Similarly, there is no data on the background of networks and technical cooperation in the context of this study. The ZVO already repeatedly pointed out that the complex interconnections of supply networks would lead to numerous, conflicting technical approaches. Especially for SMEs, which are involved in numerous independent supply chains, such an approach is not feasible.

The ZVO urgently points out that the study has various scientific weaknesses that greatly reduce the value of its conclusions and call its objectivity into question. This will be illustrated by the following criteria for careful scientific work. First, the reproducibility of the study's results has not been verified. Since this study stands alone so far and has not been confirmed by independent analogous studies, it is, in the view of the ZVO, not suitable for the justification of measures. Its conclusions are to be regarded merely as hypotheses. According to the rules of careful science, these are to be regarded as the basis of a usable theory only after independent falsification tests have been passed.

Furthermore, the validity of the study is questionable in some aspects. For example, evaluation criteria are not cleanly defined and overlap. The evaluation thus suggests direct influences of criteria, although they are consequences and not causes. Example Figure 7: "Market concerns" and "sustainability concerns" are to a considerable extent a consequence of "regulation" and therefore not independent!

It should also be emphasized that the study is not representative; the number and selection of participants do not allow any general statement or conclusion to be drawn. Example Figure 2: There is no consideration of what proportion of all companies was covered. For chromium trioxide, 32 answers are available; on the other hand, the Annex XV document assumes 18,000 surface coating plants, according to which 1,500 SMEs are affected in Germany alone! Accordingly, the study apparently covers less than one percent of the affected companies or plants!

Irrespective of this, the accuracy of the study and its statements must be called into question. Statements are made that are not covered by the study. Example Figure 18: The study author draws the essential conclusion that the companies see substitution as a way to improve their "public image. However, this aspect is not present in the evaluation! The study also makes arbitrary evaluations. Example Figure 18: It is not understandable why an "increase in the number of employees" should represent a benefit. Experience shows that an increase in the number of employees is an economic disadvantage for the same production, especially since personnel costs generally represent the largest cost block in a surface technology company.

In contrast, significant results are not evaluated and are not included in the conclusions or recommendations. For example, significant one-time and annual cost increases are reported on pages 43 and 44. A material result is also generated from this. Nevertheless, the aspect is not considered further.

A closer look reveals that the accuracy of the study must be classified as low. Example Figure 3: A percentage representation as here provides a false picture and suggests apparent accuracy. In total, four distributors, possibly dealers, responded regarding seven substances or "uses". Since the study was based on nine substances with twelve "uses", no quantitative statements on the question objective are possible.

While the ZVO agrees in principle with the objectives of the study, it strongly suggests that the following conclusions be drawn from the present document. For example, the study's investigations should be extended to a representative number of affected companies. Furthermore, the studies should be conducted in an open-ended manner independent of regulatory authorities and receive sufficient funding.

It is also important to add negative examples to the content considered by the study, as many substitution efforts failed. It would be important to analyze these cases as well. Companies need information on which approaches and contents did not lead to success or to economically, technically or environmentally regrettable substitutions. ECHA respectively the European Commission should provide a portal to these experiences.

In principle, an improved funding situation for research institutes should be created only for basic research on alternative technologies. Targeted substitution of certain industrial processes will have to be carried out by industry itself - because only here are the specifications to be met known. It would therefore be welcome if funding for supply chain-specific research and development were made available to a greater extent and more easily. In addition, it is imperative that the study content be expanded to include long-term experience with the substitution solutions, such as market acceptance, product safety and similar points.

Likewise, it must be added which changes in the risk were caused by the substitution. However, this follow-up analysis must not exclusively cover the emission of the substance in question. Rather, questions about other environmental impacts caused by process changes must also be answered. These include, for example, additional wastewater, energy requirements, recyclability, or by-products. Also to be considered are new or additional emissions at the workplace, such as from dust (respirable A and E fractions, etc.) and other risks (acute toxicity, fire hazard, explosion hazard, product safety).

Finally, above all, the economic consequences must not be left out in order to realistically assess substitution effects. They must be considered and reported on equally. Existential effects are to be expected here, especially for SMEs. It is also indispensable to refer to the shifts of market shares in Europe and worldwide caused by the regulatory forced substitution.

The ZVO offers active cooperation in the implementation of the proposed aspects at any time. The Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik e.V. (ZVO) represents the interests of raw material and process suppliers, equipment manufacturers, component manufacturers, service providers, coaters and electroplaters in the German electroplating and surface treatment industry. Its member companies are active in the field of surface finishing with metals or metal compounds from liquid process media. For customer industries, politics and authorities, the ZVO is the central point of contact for economic, environmental, energy and educational policy issues relating to electroplating and surface technology.

Central Association for Surface Technology e.V. (ZVO)
www.zvo.org