The essential-use concept: a valuable tool to guide decision-making on applications for authorisation under REACH?

BackgroundIn 2020, the European Commission published the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) in which it aims to increase the level of protection for human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals. Part of the implementation of the CSS will involve a reform of the REACH authorisation and restriction processes. One option for the reform of the authorisation process is to implement the essential-use concept as a tool to guide decision-making on applications for authorisation to make the process more efficient and to align it with societal needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether changes in the legal text that defines the authorisation process, and of the amount and type of information that applicants should provide in an application for authorisation, are needed to enable an implementation of the essential-use concept.ResultsThe results suggest that no fundamental changes in the regulatory requirements are needed and that applicants should already provide sufficient and relevant information to the authorities to determine if the use(s) applied for is (are) essential.ConclusionsAlthough the REACH authorisation already provides a legal and practical basis for an implementation of the essential-use concept, the feasibility of the essentiality assessment and its potential to make the decision-making on applications more efficient are highly dependent on the quality of the information provided and the clearness of decision criteria. However, if an applicant successfully demonstrates that the risk related to the use(s) applied for is adequately controlled, it could not be legally justified for the European Commission to refuse an authorisation by arguing that the use(s) applied for is (are) non-essential.

Automated summary

The purpose of the study is to investigate whether changes in the legal text and information required in an application for authorisation are needed to implement the essential-use concept. The results suggest that no fundamental changes are needed and applicants already provide sufficient information. If the risk related to the use is adequately controlled, it is not legally justified for the European Commission to refuse authorisation by arguing non-essential use.