ECHA defends move to restrict fluoropolymers based solely on 'persistence'

Helsinki – The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published details of a recent webinar on proposed EU restrictions on the manufacture, sale and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Addressing the question of whether it can ban substances solely based on 'persistence', the agency claimed that REACH justifies restrictions when a “substance… is not adequately controlled”.

In the proposed restriction, PFAS are grouped based on "structural similarity that triggers similar hazards and risks among the substances covered, primarily related to persistence."

However, ECHA explained during the 5 April online discussion, the risk assessments included in the proposed restriction do not only rely on persistence.

“Persistence of PFAS in combination with other concerns, such as bioaccumulation, mobility or toxicity, leads to risks that are not adequately controlled,” it argued.

Meanwhile, the webinar heard that ECHA is encouraging joint submissions, for example by an association on behalf of a sector, to the six-month consultation over its proposals. 

“You can more easily justify how your contribution applies to the entire sector or use,” explained the Helsinki-based agency's briefing from the Q&A, published 3 May.

And, while different units within the same organisation can make individual submissions, ECHA urged contributors to “submit together wherever possible.”

In addition to ensuring a thorough representation of a sector, the joint submission will be easier to process and analyse, added the EU's chemicals-safety watchdog.

According to the agency, stakeholders based in non-EU countries can also submit relevant information for the consultation.

ECHA’s two committees – for risk assessment (RAC) and socio-economic analysis (SEAC) – will study the different aspects of the submissions when developing their opinions on the proposal.

RAC will give its opinion on whether the proposed restriction is appropriate in reducing the risks to the environment and to people’s health.

SEAC will give its opinion on the socio-economic impacts, i.e. benefits and costs to society, associated with the proposal.