News & InsightsNewsletterLegislation Hub

Foresight

Foresight
AboutContactLog in
Book a Demo
Foresight logo
All News & Insights

European Chemicals Agency Board of Appeal Dismisses Evonik Operations GmbH's Appeal

REACH
8
October 2024
•
420
Dr Steven Brennan
Evonik contested an ECHA decision requiring additional histopathological data for a chemical substance.
ECHA building in Finland
Quick prompts

AI Generated

Get to the point quicker with prompts - a smarter way to get the information you need from our articles.

Summarise this article

AI Assistant

This feature and much more is available on our platform. If you would like early access, please leave your email and we'll get in touch.

We'll be in touch when the Assistant is ready.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Mountains

The Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has dismissed an appeal filed by Evonik Operations GmbH regarding a contested decision on the registration compliance for a chemical substance. The decision underscores the ECHA's rigorous enforcement of compliance under the REACH Regulation, aiming to protect human health and the environment.

Background of the Case

The appeal (Case A-004-2023) revolved around a follow-up compliance check concerning the substance 2,4,6-tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol. Initially registered by Air Product Chemicals PLC, the registration responsibility was later transferred to Evonik Operations GmbH. The substance was registered under Annex X of the REACH Regulation, indicating a high volume of use exceeding 1,000 tonnes per year.

The dispute began in November 2016 when the ECHA required the original registrant to submit additional toxicity data, including a 90-day sub-chronic toxicity study and an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS). The latter was to be conducted according to the OECD Test Guideline 443, focusing on potential endocrine-disrupting properties.

Key Points of the Contested Decision

The contested decision, adopted by the ECHA on 9 December 2022, concluded that Evonik's EOGRTS was insufficient. Specifically, the ECHA found that histopathological investigations were missing for:

  • Selected reproductive organs in Cohort 1B animals at all dose levels.
  • Identified target organs (liver and spleen) in Cohort 1B animals at all dose levels.
  • Organs demonstrating treatment-related changes in male and female animals of the parental (P0) generation and Cohort 1A at low and mid doses.

The ECHA asserted that the absence of these histopathological examinations prevented a reliable determination of the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for organ toxicity, a critical measure in assessing the safety of chemical substances.

Arguments and Findings

Evonik Operations GmbH contested the decision on two primary grounds:

  1. Histopathological Investigations in Cohort 1B: Evonik argued that these investigations were unnecessary as the substance was not definitively identified as an endocrine toxicant and that the results from Cohort 1A were not equivocal. However, the Board of Appeal upheld the ECHA's position, citing that previous studies indicated potential endocrine-disrupting effects, necessitating further investigation.
  2. Investigations of Organs in the P0 Generation: The company also claimed that repeating the histopathological examinations of male animals in the P0 generation at low and mid doses would not provide additional valuable information, given the data from a prior 90-day study. The Board disagreed, noting that the REACH Regulation requires these studies to be comprehensive and consistent with test guidelines. The prior study's data did not fully substitute for the missing information, particularly due to differences in statistical power and study design.

Outcome

The Board of Appeal found no merit in Evonik's arguments and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. As a result, the original ECHA decision stands, and Evonik must fulfil the outstanding data requirements or face potential enforcement actions from Member State authorities.

Moreover, the appeal fee will not be refunded as the appeal was not decided in favour of the appellant. The Board also rejected Evonik's request to reset any deadlines related to the contested decision, emphasising that compliance obligations remain in effect from the date of the Board's ruling.

Read the source story

Read this article now for free!

You have read 3 articles.
Create a free account
or
Log in
to finish reading this article now.

Subscribe to our weekly digest

Sign up to receive our newsletter every Tuesday and get access to all of our content.

By creating an account, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Trusted by professionals at

Dupont
ECHA - European Chemicals Agency
Energizer
Chemours
This is some text inside of a div block.

Get Foresight Today

Stay compliant, reduce risk, and protect your business with our AI-powered chemical policy monitoring—tailored just for you.

Global monitoring of 1,200+ sources
Expert-reviewed, trusted regulatory alerts
Instant risk identification for 350k+ substances

Ready to supercharge your policy monitoring workflow?

We’ll be in touch soon with more details and support to help you get started.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Share with a friend
Copy link

Related Articles

Paint coatingsReport Suggests Restrictions on Methylenedianilines Amid Carcinogenic and Environmental Concerns

May 9, 2025

Automotive chrome platingEU Proposes Chromium(VI) REACH Restriction to Safeguard Worker Health

May 2, 2025

Industrial coatingRegulatory Action Proposed for Amine-Terminated Aliphatic Ethers

April 17, 2025

Foresight regulatory experts
Streamline your chemical compliance
Easy-to-use product compliance management for small and mid-sized manufacturers — mitigate risk and protect market access.
Get started
Subscribe to Foresight's newsletter
Stay ahead with the latest news & insights
Join 1,000s of compliance professionals getting the latest insights right to their inbox for free, every Tuesday.
100% free. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Stay ahead with the latest news & insights
Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter covering news, events, and expert insights.

Related articles

Paint coatings

Report Suggests Restrictions on Methylenedianilines Amid Carcinogenic and Environmental Concerns

ECHA flags methylenedianilines for potential restrictions in EU due to health and environmental risks; industry urged to monitor developments.

9

May 2025

REACH
Automotive chrome plating

EU Proposes Chromium(VI) REACH Restriction to Safeguard Worker Health

The EU's proposed Chromium(VI) restriction could reshape REACH compliance and exposure controls across industry. Learn what it means for your business.

2

May 2025

REACH
Industrial coating

Regulatory Action Proposed for Amine-Terminated Aliphatic Ethers

ECHA proposes compliance checks and future restrictions for amine-terminated aliphatic ethers. Understand how this affects your regulatory obligations.

17

Apr 2025

REACH
CLP
Foresight
Providing critical insights, analysis, and guidance to help businesses anticipate changes, make informed decisions, and stay ahead.
News & Insights
Newsletter
Legislation Hub
Coverage
Contact
About
© 2025 Foresight. All rights reserved.
SitemapTerms of servicePrivacy policyCookie policy