How Do Chemical Regulations Influence the Lubricants Industry?

Share

© TakerWalker; graphic@jet

Chemicals are the unsung heroes that keep our cars running efficiently and safely. From the fuel that powers the engine to the lubricants that keep it running smoothly, chemicals are essential for mobility. Without them, cars as we know them today would not exist—neither combustion engines nor electric cars.

To achieve a desired function or performance feature in a material, we need reactive chemistry. It is the reactivity that make these chemicals so useful, but it can also pose hazards to health and the environment when the reaction is not limited to intended and controlled situations. Due to these intrinsic (toxic) properties, they need to be handled responsibly and managed in a sound way to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment. To ensure so, more and more countries have established or are in the process of establishing legislation regulating whether chemicals can be brought to the market and under which conditions (see Figure 1). All producers or importers that want to market chemicals or mixtures in these countries must comply with the respective chemical laws.

Figure 1. Chemical Regulations Around the World

Source: BASF

Types of Chemical Regulations

There are two types of chemical legislations: 

  • Inventory-based: Substances generally identified by a so-called CAS number must be listed in the inventory of a country (e.g., United States, Canada, China, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines and Japan) before being produced or imported and sold on the market. If not yet listed, a new substance notification is required. Upon positive review by the authorities, the new CAS number is then listed, allowing the substance to be placed on the market. 
  • REACH – Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals: The REACH regulation in Europe and REACH-like Regulations in South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Kingdom request every producer or importer of a chemical to hold its own registration. While companies who register the same chemicals (co-registrants) in general refer to the same (eco)toxicological data in their respective registration dossiers—and therefore share the costs for generating these data—every registrant is requested to submit its own dossier, including company-specific information on volume, production process and more. The requested amount of (eco)toxicological data depends on the volume placed on the market: The higher the volumes, the higher the information requirements and costs. 

European REACH Entering Phase 2

While all substances produced or imported in volumes exceeding 1 ton per year have already been registered as of 2018 under EU REACH, in South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the U.K., the registration phase is still ongoing, with a tiered approach based on tonnage bands (see Figure 2). So while industry efforts in these countries remain on gathering data and compiling registration dossiers, REACH has entered its second phase in the EU, the Evaluation of substances. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), or national competent authorities of EU Member States, have started to critically review the data submitted by industry (see Figure 3). In a best-case scenario, authorities do not find any reasons for further regulatory actions. However, they could also conclude that the current information is not sufficient and that further (eco)toxicological tests are warranted. 

Figure 2. REACH Abroad
Source: BASF

Based on the outcome of these additional tests—or based on the information previously provided—the authorities might decide on further regulatory measures, including harmonized classification and labeling (CLH), meaning it is mandatory for all actors to classify the respective substances accordingly. Proposing a CLH can be advantageous, though, provided it is based on sound scientific assessments, as the classification can trigger further regulatory measures. 

Substances that are classified as Cancerogenic, Mutagenic or Reproduction toxic category 1 (CMR Cat. 1), are persistent bioaccumulating and toxic or very persistent and very bioaccumulating (PBT/vPvB) or have an equivalent level of concern fulfill the definition as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) and can be added to the so-called Candidate List. 

Figure 3. Critical Review of Data
Source: BASF

The Candidate List prioritizes substances to be progressively substituted by less dangerous alternatives by eventually putting them on the authorization list (REACH Annex XIV). Substances included in this authorization list will not be allowed to be placed on the market after a specific sunset date, unless a company requests an authorization for a particular use, which is a resource-, cost- and time-consuming process. If granted, it will be active only for a limited period. 

In contrast to authorization, authorities can decide to implement restrictions for certain uses of hazardous chemicals. In such cases, only those uses mentioned in the restriction (i.e., uses presenting an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment) are banned. Restrictions can be specific, targeting only very distinct uses such as Chemical A in toys, or they can be broader, as exemplified by the ban of all CMR Cat 1 substances in consumer products. 

Potential Amendments of REACH

As a risk-based chemicals management system, REACH considers both the hazard of a substance—its intrinsic toxicological properties—and its exposure. Exposure tells us how a chemical is used: whether it is sprayed (potential for inhalation), intentionally put on the skin as a cream (dermal exposure), used as a food additive (intentional ingestion), embedded in a matrix (no relevant migration and exposure) or used only by professional or industrial workers who have access to protective equipment. 

Though REACH is known as the most comprehensive and strictest chemicals legislation globally, the European Commission intends to go further and in 2020 announced the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS). With the CSS, the EU Commission proposes to shift chemicals regulation from a risk- to a hazard-based approach, where chemicals are deselected based on intrinsic properties without taking exposure conditions into consideration. This will likely have significant implications on the European chemicals market, as the restriction of more chemicals will limit the toolbox of chemicals available for innovation. 

What’s in Scope for the Lubricants Industry?

Several chemicals applied in lubricants are currently facing regulatory pressure. For example, the two major members of a class of chemicals known as alkylated diphenyl amines (ADPAs), which are used as antioxidants in approximately 90% of lubricants, are proposed by the French authority for fulfilling criteria as reprotoxic category 1B, thereby qualifying as SVHCs. If this materializes, short-term, those ADPAs would not be allowed in consumer products > 0.3% anymore. 

Long-term, authorities might decide to implement additional regulatory measures. These include restriction of further uses or addition to the authorization list, which would result in a total ban. As industry, based on the interpretation of the available studies, does not agree to this classification, respective comments have been submitted to a public consultation through different industry associations. 

Preliminary results of a Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA) indicate that there are currently no drop-in alternatives available with the same technical properties. Given the reactive nature of antioxidants (i.e., the technical function they must fulfill), it is unlikely that chemicals with equal performance but less hazardous intrinsic properties can be invented. Since exposure to these antioxidants with typical treatment rates of ~1-3% is rather limited and the disposal of waste oil is regulated by law, the risk from ADPAs for human health and the environment can be considered rather low. Therefore, total bans do not seem to be the appropriate solution. But it should be carefully reviewed whether certain uses show an unacceptable risk, which would require respective restrictions, while all other (mainly industrial) uses would remain untouched. 

Other examples are TTZ (Metyl-1H-benzotriazol) and BTZ (1H-Benzotriazol), used as metal deactivators in lubricants and automotive liquids (coolants and brake fluids). They are known to suppress the chemical attack on the surface of copper and copper alloys and prevent it from blackening upon exposure to sulfur-containing lubricants at high temperatures. The German authority recently announced plans proposing a harmonized classification and labeling for both substances as, among others, Persistent Mobile and Toxic (PMT), followed by addition to the Candidate List and subsequent inclusion on the authorization list. 

BTZ and TTZ were previously used in dishwashing powder to prevent corrosion of silver cutlery. Through wastewater, BTZ and TTZ accumulated in surface, drinking and ground water. Since this is obviously an issue, industry agreed to voluntarily phase-out BTZ and TTZ in dishwashing applications to prevent their further entry into the environment. To ban all its uses, including the use in metalworking and automotive liquid products, seems disproportionate and will have severe impacts on a successful green transformation of Europe due to their use in electrical cars and wind turbines. 

Apart from these two substance groups, other substances used in lubricants could come under regulatory pressure due to hazardous properties only. It is important to understand that chemicals require certain functional groups to exert their functions. Therefore, it is unlikely that a totally different class of chemicals, which might have less hazardous intrinsic properties, would result in the same performance. However, it needs to be ensured that any misuse leading to adverse effects to humans or the environment is prevented through respective risk-minimizing measures. 

Consequently, banning entire groups of chemicals simply based on hazardous properties will likely result in lower-performing, potentially more expensive products and the generation of more waste due to reduced lifetime, which would consequently counteract Green Deal objectives. For example, the service life of lubricants stabilized with lower-performing antioxidants would decrease, resulting in more frequent replacement and the need for more raw materials and energy. 

Consequently, it is of the utmost importance for industry to remain in close dialogue with regulators to jointly implement sensible, scientifically justified measures ensuring the protection of human health and the environment, while still allowing the European chemicals industry to remain competitive. To defend this risk-based principle, the entire chemicals value chain needs to engage in regulatory processes by actively communicating its concerns and sharing relevant data on substance properties and uses. 

Is That All?

While there is more national chemicals legislation emerging, regulators are adding additional layers to existing ones. As part of the CSS, the European Commission is proposing to register polymers—which are currently exempted from REACH—and to evaluate entire groups of chemicals instead of reviewing them individually. In this context, the proposal to ban the entire group of PFAS (perfluorinated alkyl substances) molecules (about 10.000 substances) with only a few exemptions should be highlighted. 

Apart from these proposals directly associated with chemicals legislation, especially in Europe, sustainability-related regulations are being implemented. They include the following:

  • Circularity Requirements for Vehicle Design Regulation or Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. These regulations include recyclability requirements and distinct recycled plastic content targets for automobiles and packaging, respectively.
  • Green Claims Directive. This is intended to prevent false or misleading advertisement on environmentally friendly products.
  • Eco-Design for Sustainable Products Regulation. This aims to make all products placed on the European market more sustainable, durable, repairable and recyclable. Among others, lubricants have been agreed upon as a priority product group to be included in the first working plans by 2025. The exact scope and implications for the lubricants industry is not yet known.

Apart from these regulations, customer expectations are increasing regarding circularity requirements as well as Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs).

Outlook

It is clear that regulations will not go away and that we need to closely monitor and take respective measures to remain compliant. To prevent unwanted regulatory consequences, industry across the value chain needs to better engage with public authorities and advocate for the continuation of a risk-based approach, where only chemicals are banned in uses posing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. 

For this, industry needs to work together to develop convincing narratives showing that a certain regulatory proposal would not bring any additional safety but could have detrimental effects on Green Deal objectives, as alternatives are not available or have worse performance. Industry is committed to the Green Transition, and most companies have systems in place to steer their portfolio accordingly. However, to do so, a regulatory environment that stimulates investment and is based on sound science- and risk-based approaches is needed.  


Stefanie Deuser is head of product stewardship – performance chemicals for BASF.