Quick answer. REACH/SVHC compliance for a polyurethane foam flame retardant is not a single checkbox — it is a per-substance, per-shipment obligation. Any component present above 0.1% w/w of an ECHA Candidate List substance triggers an Article 33 disclosure duty within 45 days of a customer request, and the list itself changes twice a year, usually in January and June. For PU foam specifically, the substances that actually matter are TCEP, TDCPP, and the chlorinated phosphates under active evaluation — not "flame retardants" as a blanket category.
Most procurement teams ask their polyol or flame retardant supplier one question: "are you REACH compliant?" That question has no clean answer, because REACH does not certify companies — it regulates individual substances, at specific concentration thresholds, in specific applications.
This checklist breaks the regulation down to what a foam formulator, QA manager, or import compliance officer actually needs to verify before a flame-retardant polyol system goes into a purchase order, a mattress core, an insulation panel, or a seating component.
Why "REACH Compliant" Is the Wrong Question for a Flame-Retardant Polyol System
REACH (EC 1907/2006) holds registration dossiers for tens of thousands of substances manufactured or imported into the EU above 1 tonne/year. Being "REACH registered" only means a substance has a dossier on file with ECHA — it says nothing about restriction status or SVHC listing.
The SVHC Candidate List is the layer that matters for flame retardants. Listing is based on CMR properties, PBT/vPvB behavior, or endocrine-disrupting effects confirmed through ECHA's Member State Committee process. Article 33 disclosure duties apply immediately on listing, before any formal restriction under REACH Annex XVII.
For source data instead of a secondhand summary, the ECHA Candidate List table is the live, authoritative register — not a static PDF that goes stale after the next biannual update.
Exporters shipping the same foam formulation to both the EU and US face two separate frameworks. REACH runs on the SVHC/Article 33 mechanism above; the US instead regulates flame retardants case-by-case under TSCA, summarized on EPA's TSCA flame retardants page. Clearance for one market does not carry over to the other.
The Flame Retardants Actually Used in PU Foam — and Their Current SVHC Status
Three chemistries cover most flame-retardant PU foam formulations: chlorinated phosphate esters, inorganic fillers like aluminum trihydroxide (ATH), and intumescent phosphorus compounds like ammonium polyphosphate (APP). Their regulatory status is not uniform, and treating them as one category is where compliance gaps start.
| Flame Retardant | CAS No. | Typical Use in PU Foam | REACH/SVHC Status | Typical Loading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCEP | 115-96-8 | Legacy rigid/flexible foam | SVHC-listed (reproductive toxicity); restricted in select consumer articles under Annex XVII | Phased out |
| TDCPP (TDCP) | 13674-87-8 | Flexible foam, upholstery | SVHC since Dec 2014 (reprotoxic 1B) — Article 33 applies above 0.1% w/w | 8-14 phr where still used |
| TCPP | 13674-84-5 | Rigid & flexible foam, most common phosphate ester | Not SVHC-listed; under active ECHA substance evaluation for CMR concerns | 10-18 phr |
| ATH (aluminum trihydroxide) | 21645-51-2 | Rigid foam, non-halogen systems | Not SVHC; fully REACH registered, no CLP hazard classification | 40-120 phr |
| APP (ammonium polyphosphate) | 68333-79-9 | Rigid foam, intumescent char formers | Not SVHC; REACH registered | 15-25 phr |
| Melamine | 108-78-1 | Flexible foam, synergist with phosphorus FRs | Not SVHC; REACH registered | 10-20 phr |
TCPP is the one to watch. It carries no SVHC listing today, but it remains under active ECHA substance evaluation for reproductive toxicity concerns. Formulations built around it should have a documented fallback to an APP- or ATH-based system ready before any future listing, not after.
Rigid PU insulation should not be confused with EPS or XPS foam board, where hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) was the SVHC- and POP-listed flame retardant of concern before its phase-out under the EU POP Regulation. PU systems have not relied on HBCDD; the phosphate ester and mineral-filler chemistries in the table above are the actual exposure points for a PU formulator.
Oxygen index performance across these systems is measured under ASTM D2863, the standard practice for the minimum oxygen concentration needed to sustain candle-like combustion, or the equivalent ISO 4589-2 procedure — the reference formulators use to compare loading levels across the chemistries above.
The REACH Article 33 and Article 7(2) Documentation Chain
REACH creates two separate obligations once an SVHC crosses 0.1% w/w in an article, and buyers routinely conflate them.
| Document | Legal Basis | Trigger | Response Window |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety Data Sheet (SDS) | REACH Annex II | Automatic for hazardous substances/mixtures | Supplied with first shipment, reissued on reclassification |
| Article 33 SVHC declaration | REACH Article 33 | SVHC >0.1% w/w in an article, on customer request | 45 days, free of charge |
| SVHC notification to ECHA | REACH Article 7(2) | SVHC >0.1% w/w AND >1 tonne/year across all articles | Ongoing filing obligation |
| Certificate of Analysis (CoA) | Contractual/quality, not REACH itself | Every production batch | Issued per shipment |
| Full Material Disclosure (FMD) | Downstream OEM requirement (automotive/electronics), not itself a REACH filing | Requested by OEM customer, e.g. an IMDS entry | Per formulation change |
The 0.1% w/w threshold is calculated on the finished article, not the raw additive. A flame retardant delivered at full concentration and let down to 12-15 phr in a foam formulation can land on either side of that line depending on final foam density — a calculation the polyol supplier should run for you, not one to assume from a generic datasheet.
The ECHA REACH overview lays out how Article 33 and Article 7(2) interact with registration and authorization. Most compliance gaps we see in customer audits trace back to Article 33 being treated as optional instead of a statutory 45-day clock.
A Working Checklist Before the Purchase Order Is Signed
At RFQ Stage
- Request full SVHC screening against the current Candidate List, dated within the last 6 months.
- Ask for CAS numbers of every flame retardant component, not the trade name alone.
- Confirm directly whether TCPP, TDCPP, or TCEP appear in the formulation at any concentration.
At Sample Approval
- Cross-check every CAS number against the live ECHA Candidate List — do not rely on a supplier's compliance letter dated years earlier.
- Request LOI data under ASTM D2863 or ISO 4589-2 for the specific density and loading ordered, not a generic datasheet value.
- Verify the formulation also clears REACH Annex XVII restricted-substance limits, which apply independently of SVHC status.
- Confirm MOQ and lead time for the compliant grade versus any legacy grade still sitting in the supplier's inventory.
At Every Shipment
- Match the CoA batch number to the SDS revision date on file.
- Re-verify SVHC status after every January and June Candidate List update — a compliant formulation in March can fall out of compliance by July.
- Retain Article 33 correspondence for at least 10 years for building products carrying CE marking obligations.
How SPC Builds Compliance Into Custom Flame-Retardant Polyol Systems
As the formulator of the base polyol system rather than a distributor blending additives in afterward, we control which flame retardant enters a system before it creates a disclosure obligation at all. Systems built around ATH or APP instead of TCPP avoid the Article 33 clock entirely for buyers who want that certainty.
Every production batch ships with a CoA and current SDS matched to that lot number, and SVHC screening is re-run against each Candidate List update rather than reissued from an old template. Loading adjustments — moving a rigid foam system from 15 phr to 22 phr APP to reach a higher LOI target for a specific fire-test requirement — run as documented formulation changes with before/after test data attached, not verbal assurances.
MOQ for a custom flame-retardant grade starts at 1 tonne per formulation, with typical ex-works lead time of 15-20 days once a sample is approved. Buyers replacing a TDCPP or TCEP-based legacy system can request a side-by-side LOI and SVHC comparison against their current supplier's grade before committing volume. Current formulation and compliance documentation is available through our flame retardant polyol systems page, or directly through our technical contact form.
FAQ
Q: Is TCPP an SVHC under REACH?
Not on the current Candidate List. TCPP (CAS 13674-84-5) is under active ECHA substance evaluation for CMR concerns, which means it could be proposed for listing at a future biannual update, but it carries no Article 33 obligation today.
Q: What concentration threshold triggers an Article 33 SVHC declaration?
0.1% weight-by-weight of the SVHC substance in the finished article, calculated on the article as delivered — not on the raw flame retardant additive before dilution into the foam.
Q: How often does the ECHA Candidate List change?
Typically twice a year, usually January and June, though ECHA can add substances outside that cycle. A formulation screened in one cycle needs re-screening at the next update, not an annual review.
Q: Can polyurethane foam meet fire standards without a halogenated flame retardant?
Yes. ATH and APP-based systems reach comparable LOI values to TCPP systems at higher loading — 40-120 phr for ATH versus 10-18 phr for TCPP — which raises foam density and cost per cubic meter but removes SVHC monitoring exposure entirely.
Q: Does a REACH-registered flame retardant automatically mean it is SVHC-free?
No. Registration and SVHC listing are separate steps. A substance can be fully REACH registered, meaning ECHA has a dossier on file, and still sit on the Candidate List — which is why CAS-level screening matters more than a supplier's general REACH statement.
