Rank: Forum user
|
Good monring all
Previous under Reach we issued a in house certificate stating that we met the reqiurements of Reach is this sufficient under UK Reach or do i need to do anything else?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Talk to HM Customs people.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/brexit.htm
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm baffled - what does REACH have to do with stainless steel parts?
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some forms of Stainless Steel as articles may necessitate communication duties e.g. for candidate SVHC's (Substances of Very High Concern) and notification duties e.g. to the SCIP (Substances Contained in Products) database. What would need clarification by the OP is what this original "certificate" contained - many early examples merely stated the substances had been pre-registered or registered as required and carried a comment regarding the presence of any candidate SVHC >0.1% w/w. Whilst EU and UK REACH are tightly aligned at present there are now some differences appearing e.g. under UK REACH there is no pre-registration, notification to the UK Poison Centre is voluntary (as is the generation of a UFI - Unique Formula Identifier), UK Down Stream Users of EU sourced products are now classed as importers, UK manufacturers who do not ship products to Europe do not need to make SCIP notifications. The HSE ran a series of webinars on 16th December 2020 - recordings are available on their Video Platform channel. A follow up session is taking place on 20th January 2021 https://hse-chemicals-brexit.co.uk/home?utm_source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EU-Exit-hse&utm_term=follow-up-event&utm_content=chemicals-23-dec-20
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Kate on 13/01/2021(UTC), Kate on 13/01/2021(UTC)
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some forms of Stainless Steel as articles may necessitate communication duties e.g. for candidate SVHC's (Substances of Very High Concern) and notification duties e.g. to the SCIP (Substances Contained in Products) database. What would need clarification by the OP is what this original "certificate" contained - many early examples merely stated the substances had been pre-registered or registered as required and carried a comment regarding the presence of any candidate SVHC >0.1% w/w. Whilst EU and UK REACH are tightly aligned at present there are now some differences appearing e.g. under UK REACH there is no pre-registration, notification to the UK Poison Centre is voluntary (as is the generation of a UFI - Unique Formula Identifier), UK Down Stream Users of EU sourced products are now classed as importers, UK manufacturers who do not ship products to Europe do not need to make SCIP notifications. The HSE ran a series of webinars on 16th December 2020 - recordings are available on their Video Platform channel. A follow up session is taking place on 20th January 2021 https://hse-chemicals-brexit.co.uk/home?utm_source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EU-Exit-hse&utm_term=follow-up-event&utm_content=chemicals-23-dec-20
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Kate on 13/01/2021(UTC), Kate on 13/01/2021(UTC)
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
if you bob over to the ECHA website and search for Steel you will find all the Information for the current list...
https://echa.europa.eu/search-for-chemicals
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Out of stupid curiosity I did look at the ECHA website and this is what it said about “Steel”- “ Hazard classification & labelling -According to the majority of notifications provided by companies to ECHA in CLP notifications no hazards have been classified.” A bit like Hitchhiker’s Guide To the Galaxy’s classification of earth. Not really surprising!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Three "named" entries for Stainless Steel including EC 912-49-00 classified as Flammable Solid, Eye Irritant.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Three "named" entries for Stainless Steel including EC 912-49-00 classified as Flammable Solid, Eye Irritant.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The purpose of the post is that i have to issue a REACH certificate to multiple car companies saygin we conform to eU and UK REach rules and we are struggling as it is a very complex area
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Appreciating your frustration would you care to enlighten us as to which regulation(s) and article(s) this certficate is being prepared to answer as a search of the REACH legal text for "certificate" reveals four references to aviation and one to training with paint stripper.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Appreciating your frustration would you care to enlighten us as to which regulation(s) and article(s) this certficate is being prepared to answer as a search of the REACH legal text for "certificate" reveals four references to aviation and one to training with paint stripper.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please can you outline how stainless steel is considered to be a flammable solid. We recently commissioned some material testing via a laboratory for explosive/combustible properties of plain carbon steel and stainless steel for the purposes of DSEAR assessment. Unsurprisingly the tests returned a result that steel (either type) is not flammable or explosive. In 30 yrs of being involved with mechanical engineering - and associated materials science, I can recall no text book or source of engineering material data that has ever indicated that stainless steel (even as a dust) poses any explosion or flammability hazard. There is no mention of stainless being an explosive/flammability risk on the HSE website or in HSG103 Safe handling of combustible dusts.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please refer to the ECHA web site where a pre-registration applied the classification to an entry made against the IUPAC name "Stainless Steel".
It was worthy of flagging beacuse it is so blatantly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please refer to the ECHA web site where a pre-registration applied the classification to an entry made against the IUPAC name "Stainless Steel".
It was worthy of flagging beacuse it is so blatantly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thought I'd posted here but lost it. Apologies if the gist of this turns up later. Get the MD to sign a fancy certificate saying not applicable for the purposes of REACH, specified item is not and does not constitute a chemical, substance or mixture. List the relevant standard for the stock material for reference. Beware of passivation or plating finishes though! e.g. Cadmium Plate is a no-no in several European Countries.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Metal dusts are a particular class of combustible dusts as they encompass a large family of energetic materials with diverse explosion sensitivity and severity properties. Specifically, metal dusts exhibit higher (adiabatic) flame temperatures than organic dusts, but either lower or higher maximum explosion pressures (Pmax) and deflagration indexes depending on the reactivity of the metal involved, the particle size distribution and the presence of an oxide film. They can be segregated as normally reactive (e.g. iron, steel, zinc), highly reactive (e.g. silicon), or extremely reactive (e.g. aluminium and magnesium), with a corresponding hazard class ranging from St1 to St3. In addition to be more reactive, fine metallic particles can be very sensitive to ignition sources (i.e. require very low amount of energy to ignite and start burning). Ultrafine particles (< 1 µm) can even be pyrophoric, i.e. they spontaneously burn when in contact with the air. Fine particles of aluminum, for example, can exhibit high KSt (> 300 bar.m/s) and Pmax (> 10 bar) values corresponding to a St3 classification, and low minimum ignition energy (MIE < 10 mJ), making difficult the prevention and mitigation of such deflagrations....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, metals burn in the right conditions and as SteveDM’s post reminded me of Aluminium and Iron oxide (Rust) when mixed together and ignited forms thermite and used to be used to weld railway track together. Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
…but are they supplying stainless steel dust (or nano particles) or stainless steel components which won’t catch fire. Remember anything will catch fire if you apply enough heat (plasma torch?) and oxygen. If REACH means that something made of stainless steel needs to be certified(?) then just about any object needs an SDS. Not what the regs were intended for.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
AK you are right ...the conversation got a wee bit diverted...I appologise if I contributed to that...unfortunately it is a compund and still registered in the REACh database... This might bring the conversation back in line... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/classifying-iron-and-steel
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks What has this to do with H&S? The link explains how different metals and alloys are classified for I assume tariff purposes not safety matters.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.