Request a Demo
In a webinar held by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) on April 5, 2023, five authorities from Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden formed a live panel to discuss the restriction proposal for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The proposal was co-drafted by the five countries to address the risks to the environment and human health from PFAS.
Weigh in the balance
The proposal dossier provides two restriction options (RO), both of which will enter into force as full ban 18 months after the restriction takes effect.
The difference is that RO2 will grant time-limited derogations for certain uses, which will make it a more proportional and appropriate method based on the analysis of alternatives and socio-economic considerations, explained Thijs de Kort, a Netherlands Coordinator for the Universal PFAS Restriction.
It is a trade-off between the cost of restriction and the societal cost of continued use. From a short-term view, a full ban will certainly be devastating for industry without solutions or technology to meet the requirement. If there is sufficiently strong evidence that technically and economically feasible alternatives are not available in the near future, a 12-year derogation will be granted. In the long term, the repercussion of inaction is unimaginable. Once released into the environment, PFAS can not be efficiently removed, which will lead to human and environmental exposure. Continued emission may lead to the contamination of natural resources such as soil, and water, which will cause unavoidable health effects, particularly for vulnerable populations like children.
Remediation is not always possible and if it is technically feasible it will be very costly. He added that if there is no alternative after 12 years of derogation, the general restriction will apply.
Restriction scope and exemption
In terms of restriction scope, there is a concern for products that were already on the market before the restriction takes effect. The restriction is targeted at products that are placing on the market instead of already on the market, Mr. Thijs reassured. Companies do not have to get rid of any PFAS equipment or products that they are already using. However, second-hand, recovered or recycled products/materials that are placing on the market do fall under the restriction.
When asked about the possible exemption for certain substances that are not covered by the proposed derogation, the panel clarified that the consultation offers the possibility to submit a request for exemption. Companies need to support and justify their cases with solid evidence that can be used on an EU level.
Why a universal ban?
Unlike the existing regulations targeting specific groups of PFAS that have proven harmful properties (eg., Long-chain PFCAs and TDFA subject to REACH restrictions in Annex XVII), this proposal intends to ban the entire group of PFAS.
Audun Heggelund, a senior adviser from the Norwegian Environment Agency explained the reasoning behind it: When defining PFAS by numerical identifiers (CAS No., etc.), it is possible to circumvent the restriction by inventing new PFAS substances that share similar properties but also harmful to the environment and human health that can be used in place of the regulated ones. This is what we called a regrettable substitution. But if we define a group of PFAS by its chemical structure formula, it will be impossible to breach the restriction. This is why the proposal does not offer a list of PFAS subject to restriction.
The panel recognized that the proposal is at an early drafting stage. For certain clauses, additional evidence is needed to justify the derogations. Stakeholders are welcome to comment on the dossier before September 25, 2023.
