Today, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) made public its plans to split the upcoming PFAS restriction, citing time constraints and the EU Commission’s Industry Action Plan from July as the main reasons. The split means that eight so-called “further sectors” will be left out of the restriction process going forward. These are: printing, sealing, machinery, explosives, military, technical textiles, broader industrial uses, and other medical applications.
But keeping them in the restriction is absolutely fundamental. First of all, they are sources of considerable PFAS use and emissions. Take sealing applications, for example, a category that is expected to use 1.3 million tons of PFAS over the next 30 years. Secondly, they are also important to keep the comprehensive, holistic approach of the restriction proposal (which has always been the intention of the dossier submitters).
The PFAS restriction should be a top political priority
It’s important to remember that this isn’t just any run-of-the-mill restriction we’re talking about. It deals with one of our time’s biggest environmental crises. The extreme persistency of PFAS chemicals, combined with their exceptionally wide range of uses, means that the only way to come to grips with the PFAS crisis is to “turn off the tap” with a universal approach that covers all uses.
“The only way to come to grips with the PFAS crisis is to “turn off the tap” with a universal approach that covers all uses”
Still not convinced ECHA’s decision is a disaster for the PFAS restriction? Here are five more reasons:
Time constraints is not an excuse
ECHA blames this decision on time constraints. But this is not good enough. It lacks respect for EU citizens and the planet as a whole. Dealing with the PFAS crisis should be a top political priority. Also, it’s much more important to get this restriction right than to rush through the process simply to clear the desk.
The EU Commission will not have the full picture
This is the first time in history that ECHA has chosen to split a chemical restriction in this way. Such a fragmented approach undermines transparency and the PFAS restriction process as a whole. Since the scientific committees will not include them in their opinion, the EU Commission will not have the full picture when shaping the final restriction proposal. The Commission should consider this unacceptable. It also clearly contradicts the commitments made in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which states that all PFAS should be phased out from all uses in the EU, allowing only critical uses for society where no alternatives are available yet.
“It’s much more important to get this restriction right than to rush through the process simply to clear the desk”
It rewards industries for withholding information
This decision rewards industries for withholding information in the public consultation. This is totally unacceptable. It should be the other way around. ECHA claims that the authorities previously lacked information about the eight “further sectors”, but this is no longer the case. The dossier submitters of the PFAS restriction proposal have provided a full background on them.
Progressive companies get punished
As for the companies that were forward-looking and already invested in substituting PFAS in these eight additional use categories, they are now being punished: the “level playing field” is gone, and they risk losing future market shares. Clarity and anticipation of legislation are very important; without clear rules and predictable timelines, innovation loses all its incentives.
Safer alternatives are already available
Speaking of the market, the decision from ECHA seems to completely ignore the fact that safer alternatives are already available for parts of the excluded uses. Take technical textiles as an example; ChemSec dedicated an entire webinar to safer alternatives for this category last year.
