HSE Chemicals Legislative Reform Proposals

5.1.1 Assimilated Regulation EU No. 649/2012 on the Export and Import of Certain Hazardous Chemicals (known as ‘GB Prior Informed Consent’ or ‘GB PIC’) implements the UK’s obligations under the international Rotterdam Convention on international trade in certain hazardous chemicals. The main objectives are to promote shared responsibility and cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals and to protect human health and the environment by providing importing countries with information on how to store, transport, use and dispose of hazardous chemicals safely.

5.1.2 GB PIC goes significantly beyond the Rotterdam Convention by extending the requirements to chemicals that meet the criteria to be considered as being ‘banned’ or ‘severely restricted’ in Great Britain (GB), not just those that have been agreed for listing under the Convention. GB PIC requirements also apply irrespective of the intended use of the chemical in the importing country and to exports to all countries, not just those that are parties to the Convention.

5.1.3 GB PIC requires companies to notify the first export in any year of any hazardous chemical that is in the GB PIC list to any importing country (including the EU and movement to NI) at least 35 days before the intended date of export. Some chemicals, those in Parts 2 and 3 of the GB PIC list, additionally require the consent of the importing country before export can take place.

5.1.4 When the UK left the European Union, the EU PIC Regulation was retained in GB under section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The proposed changes aim to remedy issues in the assimilated Regulation that have been identified through experience of operating GB PIC, so they are more appropriate for the UK.

5.1.5 Since the establishment of the GB PIC regime, the number of annual export notifications administered by HSE, the GB PIC Designated National Authority (DNA) has increased as the regulatory requirements now apply to export of listed chemicals from GB to the EU and to movement from GB to NI under the Windsor Framework arrangements. Although the transition to GB PIC has not presented any significant challenges to the operation of the regime, there are some limited and technical changes that HSE propose to make to ensure that the legislation is proportionate to the needs of GB. The intended result would be that the UK can continue to implement its international obligations within the required timescales.

5.2 Removal of the Special Reference Identification Numbers procedure

5.2.1 GB PIC does not apply to small quantities of listed chemicals (not exceeding 10kg in any year from each exporter to any importing country) being exported for the purposes of research and analysis that are unlikely to affect human health or the environment. However, exporters of these chemicals must obtain from the DNA, a Special Reference Identification Number (‘Special RIN’ or ‘SRIN’) and include it in their export declaration. A Special RIN is also required where the export of a chemical relates to an emergency situation.

5.2.2 The Special RIN is not a requirement of the Rotterdam Convention, and it does not implement any provision of that Convention. No further use is made of the Special RIN by HSE or UK customs authorities, nor is it a requirement of importing countries. The Special RIN procedure was introduced into the EU PIC Regulation when the ePIC system for electronic submission of export notifications was established. The GB PIC DNA no longer uses ePIC and the Special RIN serves no useful purpose in the operation of the GB PIC Regulation. Chemicals exported under the Special RIN procedure are excluded from GB PIC annual requirement to report the quantities of listed chemicals that have been exported or imported during the previous year. HSE therefore proposes the removal of the Special RIN procedure.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the Special Reference Identification Number (SRIN) procedure?

If you answered ‘don’t know’, please go to the next question. Otherwise, please briefly explain the reason(s) for your response.

Approximately how many SRINs does your organisation apply for in a typical year?

Please enter a whole number or indicate ‘DK’ if you don’t know or are unsure.

Are there any unintended consequences which you think may result from ‘Removal of the Special Reference Identification Numbers procedure’?

If ‘yes’, please briefly explain what these unintended consequences might be.

5.3.1 The GB PIC Regulation makes provision for the DNA to grant a one-year waiver from the explicit consent requirement at the request of the exporter and on a case-by-case basis where no response has been received from the authorities in the importing country to repeated requests for consent. Certain conditions must be met before a waiver can be granted such as evidence that the chemical is authorised or used in that country.

5.3.2 The current waiver provision applies certain hazard criteria to the use of the waiver for those chemicals that are listed under the Rotterdam Convention such as classification as carcinogenic or meeting the criteria to be considered persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, going significantly beyond what the Convention requires. This can create a barrier to the export of a chemical that falls within these criteria when the importing country fails to respond to a consent request. HSE considers that removing the hazard criteria that attach to chemicals listed under the Rotterdam Convention and streamlining the waiver conditions so that the same requirements apply to all chemicals that require the explicit consent of the importing country would facilitate decision making by the DNA and provide greater regulatory clarity.

5.3.3 Where there has been no response from the importing country to repeated requests for explicit consent, this proposal would allow the DNA to grant a one year ‘waiver’ for any Rotterdam Convention-listed chemical where the intended use of the chemical is not in a category for which it is listed in Part 3 of the GB PIC list and there is evidence from official sources that the chemical has been used in or imported into the importing country in the last five years.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the hazard classification criteria that apply to the Designated National Authority’s consideration of a waiver from explicit consent to import for Rotterdam Convention-listed chemicals?

If you answered ‘don’t know’, please go to the next question. Otherwise, please briefly explain the reason(s) for your response.

Approximately how many waivers does your organisation apply for in a typical year?

Please enter a whole number or indicate ‘DK’ if you don’t know or are unsure.

Are there any unintended consequences which you think may result from ‘Waiver from requirement for explicit consent to import' proposal?

If ‘yes’, please briefly explain what these unintended consequences might be.

Please provide any additional comments you have on any of the PIC proposals.

5.4.1 Article 23 of the GB PIC Regulation provides an ongoing power to update the Regulation, but this power is limited to technical changes to the annexes of the Regulation. HSE is seeking the creation of an ongoing power under which GB PIC and its supporting legislation can be amended to:

• Implement any future changes to the Rotterdam Convention to ensure that the UK can continue to meet its international obligations as a Party to the Convention and Make non-scientific and non-technical changes to improve compliance with or clarity of the legislation for duty holders, Devolved Governments and other regulators
• Implement scientific and technical aspects of international agreements beyond the Rotterdam Convention such as international treaties or UK Free Trade Agreements, which may enable the UK to meet its international commitments without imposing new regulatory regimes on businesses

Are there any unintended consequences which you think may result from the creation of an ongoing power under which GB PIC and its supporting legislation can be amended?

Please briefly explain the reason(s) for your response if you answered “Yes” in the previous question. Otherwise, this is the end of the survey.

5.5.1 The proposals likely to yield savings to businesses would be those related to the reform of the waiver process and the removal of the Special Reference Identification Number procedure. Any savings are not yet estimated, but given the low volumes of business activity in these areas, savings are expected to be minimal. We will develop this analysis further through consultation on detailed proposals.