Danish PR: After 10 years of hard work Denmark has succeeded in getting 117 carcinogenic nickel compounds added to the EU list of dangerous substances.
Thereby the compounds may no longer be sold to consumers. The compounds are now also covered by severe working environment limitations, including demands for substitution. The new regulation is the result of a risk assessment of nickel and nickel compounds that Denmark has carried through on behalf of EU and which has documented that the compounds are carcinogenic.
This is a reality after the Member States today have granted the Commission a mandate to add a long list of dangerous compounds to the list of dangerous substances in directive on dangerous substances.
“I am extremely happy that we have succeeded in convincing the EU that these nickel compounds are carcinogenic and should be banned. This is a good day. We must work together to limit the use of dangerous chemicals”, says Danish Minister of Environment Troels Lund Poulsen (Liberal).
----------------------------
Nickel Institute response: The Nickel Institute believes the conclusion reached by the EU to classify certain nickel substances using read-across and based solely on solubility in water, is not scientifically sound.
Stephen Barnett, president of the Nickel Institute, commented: “A simple example of why the methodology used is incorrect would be to compare sodium chloride and sodium cyanide. They are both water-soluble substances with similar chemical structures. People deliberately add sodium chloride (table salt) to their food, but sodium cyanide is a deadly poison and even in the tiniest quantities will kill you. Classifying both substances equally is clearly nonsense”.
He continued: “Because of the complexity, in March of this year, our industry convened an independent panel of international experts to look at the criteria and methodology used to produce the nickel classifications. The panel members concluded, on the basis of their professional and expert examination, that the criteria and methodology used in this case was not sufficient for a regulatory decision.”
---------------------
Eurometaux comment: Paola also identified a press release from DEPA (see below), which raises further concerns. In particular, it should be noted that, although DG ENV has stated that “the nickel classification entries would only trigger a change of labelling and certainly no ban”, the press release demonstrates the opposite. The reaction of DEPA is, furthermore, in clear opposition to the main aim of REACH, namely science (risk) based decision making.
Please note that this situation sets a very dangerous precedent for the metals industry at large.