Log in
Skip to main content
What topic are you interested in?

Subscribe | About | Help

< All Topics
Print

Chemicals Coffee Time Monthly, May 2026

Posted
Updated
ByEmma

Dear Reader,

May has been another busy month for regulatory change, and it was also ChemUK26, which was a marvellous event. Thanks again to the organisers, Ian Stone and the Easyfairs UK team for donating a stand to the Chemical Regulations Self Help Group, and to everyone who participated.

I’m looking forward to ChemUK27, on 19th and 20th May 2027 in Hall 5 at the NEC, already!

Hearing from the HSE, DEFRA and the UK

GB-CLP survey…

It’s the last few days (closes midnight Sunday 31st May) for a survey the HSE are running on whether GB should adopt some of the recent CLP changes which have been made in the EU, specifically

  • EU’s six new hazard classes
  • refill stations
  • digital labelling – non-obligatory information
  • digital labelling – telephone number replaced with digital contact

You can participate here: https://hseesat.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4IKK2DZSbwjYRMi

Note that this is a detailed survey which is clearly aimed at companies in the supply chain, so I encourage all of our readers selling chemical products into GB, whether based here or not, to participate.

…and a survey from DEFRA on UK-REACH guidance

DEFRA are requesting feedback on the guidance document for UK-REACH. It’s a quick survey which you can take here: https://defragroup.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Z2C9seCXt1KwCO?Q_CHL .

GB-CLP C&L inventory officially withdrawn

On 21st May, the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/484 came into effect, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/484/made/data.pdf.

This allows a fast-track adoption of Harmonised Classifications from the EU into the GB-CLP Mandatory List, and removes the requirement for the UK to have a C&L notification database (which was never publicly available anyway).

There are also some tweaks to the REACH SDS provisions to remove references to the GB C&L notification database.

The SI also amends BPR to extend approval deadlines, and PIC to refer to the EU’s PIC list held within Regulation (EU) 2019/1021.

Many thanks to Alison Potts of WSP for reminding us about these changes, which are mostly made to improve workability. She notes that they have been pushed through so fast that they were published before they were notified to the WTO.

UK to follow EU PFAS restriction

During ChemUK, there was another development on handling chemicals, which Phil Rowley, retired but open to a little light consultancy, and one of our regular correspondents, spotted in a news snippet from ChemicalWatch.

DEFRA have announced that they will follow the EU’s restriction on PFAS, see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chemical-watch-new-and-events-by-enehesa_chemicalregulation-reach-pfas-activity-7463532212739796992-i6Q_.

It is another “straw in the wind” indicating a desire to adopt EU opinions.

People who are true experts in PFAS think that the EU’s definition of hazardous PFASs is far too wide, and that it should be targeted towards the smaller chain molecules where there is more evidence of harm. (Ironically, this is exactly what the HSE’s approach to PFAS has been, and it must be very frustrating for their technical specialists to be ignored). Again, “watch this space”.

More GB-MCL Technical Reports published

The HSE are very busy publishing opinions to keep up to speed with the EU’s RAC opinions. The latest batch includes:

  • Silica, amorphous, fumed, cryst.-free; Pyrogenic, synthetic amorphous silica, nano [1] Silica gel, pptd., cryst.-free; Precipitated silica, silica gel,colloidal silica, amorphous, nano [2]
  • Hydrogen peroxide solution…%
  • Chlorophacinone (ISO); 2-[(4-chlorophenyl)(phenyl)acetyl]-1Hindene-1,3(2H)-dione
  • 8-Methyldecan-2-yl propionate; 8-methyldecan-2-yl propanoate (8-MD-2-P)
  • Dodine (ISO); dodecylguanidinium acetate
  • Milbemectin (ISO);[Reaction mass of milbemycin A3 (CAS 51596- 10-2) and milbemycin A4 (CAS 51596-11-3)]
  • Strontium decanoate, branched; strontium neodecanoate; [1] strontium di(acetate); [2] strontium tartrate; strontium (2R,3R)- 2,3-dihydroxybutanedioate [3] strontium oxalate; [4] strontium chloride; [5] strontium nitrate; [6] strontium sulphate; [7] strontium carbonate; [8] strontium hydrogen phosphate; [9] strontium hydroxide; [10] strontium 5-[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]- 2-carboxy-4-cyano-3-thiopheneacetate [11]
  • Methyl isothiocyanate
  • Propyl [3-(dimethylamino)propyl]carbamate monohydrochloride; propamocarb hydrochloride

You can download the updated spreadsheet from this webpage https://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classification/classification/publication-template.htm, and the new entries are identified by the term “New!” in the Reference column (A). The spreadsheet also opens automatically at the most recent entry.

As usual, these Technical Reports will need to be signed off by the Minister (although with all of the political turmoil we’ve had recently, this person may change soon!), before they are adopted into GB-CLP, but they do provide a bit of a warning about what may be coming in.

Keeping an Eye on ECHA and the EU

EU-REACH update not going ahead

The big news from the EU this week is that the much-heralded REACH revision, otherwise known as “REACH 2.0” is not going ahead.

This was announced late on 27th April, and there is a good review of it here from a lawyer called Matteo Squeo.

The actual announcement was caught on video here, at 19 m 23 secondshttps://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/fr/webstreaming/envi-committee-meeting_20260427-1900-COMMITTEE-ENVI

Hat tip to Mick Wragg of The Raven Product Stewardship for sending this through.

Interestingly, “The Commissioner indicated that simplification and modernisation will instead be pursued through Comitology. Further initiatives concerning the enforcement of REACH were also announced, without any indication of timing.”

Call me cynical (or just experienced in the ways of the EU), but I suspect that many of the proposals in REACH 2.0 will end up being brought in via committee, and the main difference will be a lack of industry input and ability for people to comment on proposals. After all, we already have the dreadful CLP label formatting proposals turning up again.

To counteract my pessimism, one of our readers has explained that the new process means that the annexes may be changed (but presumably not other aspects of the regulation). They think that this means polymer registration ends, but that items which could be changed through the annexes like the MAF concept, Mixture Assessment Factors, may still be an option. However, another correspondent agrees that polymer registration has gone, but also thinks MAFs are dead.

Clearly, there will be some changes to EU-REACH, and it will be important to see what happens and to read the small print carefully. Watch this space!

Lithium OEL proposals

Phil Rowley also writes: You may have already seen it, but ECHA have published a document re possible OELs for some lithium compounds. This is part of a consultation which is running until 1st June 2026, see https://www.echa.europa.eu/oels-pc-on-oel-recommendation.

The document can be downloaded here: https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/1229a79f-67df-f85d-2ea3-86304c3b4a85, and the affected compounds are:

  • lithium carbonate
  • lithium chloride
  • lithium hydroxide

Many thanks to Phil for spotting this.

Lithium hydroxide and lithium hydride already hold UK Workplace Exposure Limits (see EH40/2005, 4th Edition, 2020 here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/eh40.pdf, and it will be interesting to see whether the UK extends this to lithium carbonate and lithium chloride, should the EU OEL proposals go through as planned.

According to the Gestis database at https://ilv.ifa.dguv.de/substances, lithium hydride is already an EU-wide OEL; Germany, Sweden and Switzerland already have OELs for Lithium and its compounds; and Ireland has an OEL for lithium hydroxide.

EU’s new Transfrontier Shipment of Waste rules

The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste rules might not seem to affect the chemical industry, but if your waste is being processed in the EU, or you are using waste materials as feedstock from the EU, you may be affected by these changes.

There’s a good summary here: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-waste-shipment-regulation-and-diwass-platform-go-live-2026-05-21_en .

Many thanks to David Meehan of Mammoet Ferry Transport, who highlighted the EU changes at ChemUK last week. He is finding that the new system is quite complicated to deal with, and may lead to delays with shipping wastes into the EU.

EUDR updates

The 5th edition of EUDR Frequently Asked Questions was published, which tells you something about the complexity of EUDR, and the number of amendments which have been made. A bit of light reading for you at a mere 95 pages: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hmar4530_faq-update-5th-iteration-finalpdf-ugcPost-7455607716867170304-Tu60

At the same time, it looks like EUDR will not be updated, see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tara-jacola-a4568a13_press-corner-activity-7457078542049271808-W5du

However, Denis Thompson of Aloe Environmental Consulting commented on LinkedIn:

Just to pick up on EUDR – here is a link to a post I made two week ago. The reality is that EUDR has not gone away, even after the latest meetings, and business in the UK (and elsewhere) who are part of EU supply chains will still need to have systems in place to help them meet the requirements of the regulation. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/denis-thompson-912084272_eudr-supply-chain-infographics-3rd-edition-activity-7452018414266662912-QJpC/

Many thanks to Denis for sharing this useful link.

SVHCs

Steven Brennan of Foresight.io has an interesting article on Linkedin, where he states that “Candidate List ≠ inevitable Authorisation List.” See https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-steven-brennan_e-0011052026-activity-7459985308013465600-bVp1.

While this is a welcome acknowledgement inside the EU, I do think that unless there is a mechanism to remove SVHCs which have been assessed and will not be Authorised, the stigma of SVHC will remain.

Phil Rowley reminds us that California’s ‘Proposition 65’ list has a few substances which have been removed when new or better evidence showed that the original justification for their inclusion was no longer valid, which seems to be a better way of doing things.

Divergence details

Lead weights used in angling

If you’ve ever seen one of the LinkedIn videos which accompany our weekly email newsletters, or have been on a Teams or Zoom call with me, you may have noticed a picture on the kitchen wall behind me. This is a print of a drawing of some fly-fishing flies which were tied by Oliver Edwards.

So I was intrigued to see a note from Steven Brennan about the European Union’s restriction on lead shot in angling, see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-steven-brennan_d-2026-1101634-ugcPost-7460627834215137281-x5pE

I was truly astonished to find that “The proposal would amend Annex XVII of REACH to restrict lead in fishing sinkers, lures, fishing wires and drop-in sinkers, with the aim of reducing lead releases to the environment and poisoning risks to birds and other wildlife.”

Here in the UK, lead weights were banned outright in all 4 member countries way back in 1986! See “The Control of Pollution (Anglers’ Lead Weights) Regulations 1986” athttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1992/body.

There have been a few regulatory amendments to appear comply with the EU, who are very be late to the party on this. Yet it’s been known for decades that swans (in particular) will eat lead fishing weights, and become poisoned as their crops break them down into small enough particles to allow lead into their bloodstream.

If you are interested in the details, there’s some useful info here, in the EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (ANGLERS’ LEAD WEIGHTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2015 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/815/pdfs/uksiem_20150815_en.pdf.

Steven noted that: Unfortunately the EU proposal won’t restrict the type of lead weights used by recreational anglers that these swans get exposed to. Here’s an episode of John Wilson’s ‘Go Fishing’ on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFIJeWQv_KY.

Many thanks to Steven for highlighting this. It would seem that the EU isn’t necessarily as environmentally friendly as they make out.

Environmental Permits

Phil Rowley writes again: An interesting article about an EU Directive which has just come into force in all the member states :- https://alkaliconsultants.com/compliance-guides/permits/environmental-permitting-regulations-2026-update-uk (parts of this are being adopted in the UK as well, such as tighter air emission limits to meet BAT, details in the article)

Phil has also sent through a link to the Directive itself: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=OJ:L_202401785

Is GB going to adopt EU hazard classifications wholesale?

There has been some confusion about GB-CLP and the new EU hazard classes, so I pulled together a timeline of evidence:

  • Originally, we were told that GB-CLP would only adopt the new EU hazard classes if thy were brought into GHS first, and the HSE seemed quite firm on this stance.
  • However, the first indication of changes in the approach to hazard classification showed up in the autumn of 2025, when the Secretary of State did not sign off on the HSE’s Technical Opinion on a couple of proposed Mandatory Classifications, instead choosing to follow the EU’s Harmonised Classifications, although they did sign off on some other divergent MCs (see https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/archive-2/chemicals-coffee-time-3rd-october-2025/).
  • Then we had the HSE’s consultation at the start of May on whether the new EU hazard classes should be adopted into GB-CLP (along with other recent EU-CLP changes), which was a direct indicator that they may be adopted, as mentioned above

The picture as a whole seems to have changed from allowing the HSE to make up their own minds on CLP classification towards following the EU exactly, under both REACH and CLP, and I suspect it is being driven by the current Labour Government’s desire for a closer relationship with the EU. Watch this space!

Process Safety Corner

Recent incidents:

Insights:

Infographic of the Month

Courage used to be described as the supreme virtue, and this excellent infographic by Tanmay Vora reminds us of three different types we could all have more of: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tnvora_sketchnote-courage-leadership-activity-7454863054392967168-7z2x

The Weekend Watch/ Read

A fascinating read on “Hidden pipelines”, which you can find here.

The Weekend Recipe

As it’s been warm recently, here is a sweet treat which doesn’t involve baking, a peanut butter and chocolate fridge cake. This recipe can be made with ordinary digestives and butter, or you can make it gluten free and dairy free with a little substitution.

Peanut butter fridge cake (my own recipe)

  • 60 g digestive biscuits (or use Morrisons Gluten Free Dairy Free digestive biscuits)
  • 30g butter or 25g margarine (or a little bit more, you want the peanut butter mixture to coat the biscuits easily, but not be so soft it breaks up when you want to eat it, and yes, that is the voice of experience)
  • 30g sugar
  • 60g crunchy peanut butter
  • melted chocolate for the topping (70% Lindt recommended)

Crush the biscuits to crumbs and put on one side. Beat the butter or margarine, sugar and peanut butter (Sun Pat recommended) together and stir in the biscuits. (Margarine tends to be a bit more moist, so I’ve cut down the quantity of margarine from 30g to 25g. Pack into a greased, lined tin and store in the fridge for at least 3 hours until solidified. Top with melted dark chocolate. Store in the fridge.

Reasons to be Cheerful

For May, I thought we could have some more Countdown funny videos:

Many thanks for reading this LinkedIn newsletter, and many thanks to everyone who has contributed, through sending in links, queries, comments etc. If you have anything you’d like to share, please email me or send a DM, and I’ll do my best to include it in the next Chemicals Coffee Time Monthly.

It would be great if you’d like to subscribe to this newsletter on LinkedIn if you haven’t already, and if you want to get the news early, and much, much more (because we can’t include everything in this monthly round-up), you can sign up to our weekly email newsletter here: https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/. (This website includes the email archive, with both open-access and subscriber-only content).

Look forward to chatting to you in late June or early July.

Kind regards,

Janet

Janet Greenwood, TT Environmental Ltd

PS We’re happy for you to use this content in your own social media or newsletters, as long as you credit Chemicals Coffee Time. Please note that this newsletter highlights issues which may be of interest to your business, but is not intended as specific advice. We always recommend that you should do your own research. If you need consultancy help, please book a Quick Consultancy Call here: (https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/quick-consultancy-calls/), or Quick Consultancy Email here: https://chemicalscoffeetime.co.uk/quick-consultancy-emails/

Table of Contents