Update on EU PFAS ban: Plastics industry says general regulation “neither proportionate nor justifiable”

28 Sep 2023 --- The plastic industry warns that the current proposal to restrict PFAS in the European Economic Area does not differentiate between the different substances that need to be regulated individually. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has received more than 5,600 comments from organizations, companies and individuals on the proposal to restrict PFAS.

Meanwhile, Plastics Europe Germany asserts that fluoropolymers, which play an essential role in industrial processes, energy, heat and mobility transition and digitalization, and according to OECD criteria, are not considered products of low concern and are therefore harmless. 

“We suggest a derogation for fluoropolymers in the dossier. Although PFAS-producing companies investigate options to move away from PFAS polymerization aids, it will be necessary to continue using those for now. We need an enabling framework for such a transition,” Alexander Kronimus, managing director for Climate & Circularity at Plastics Europe Germany, tells Packaging Insights.

Authorities in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden prepared the restriction proposal. It was submitted to ECHA in January 2023 and aims to reduce PFAS emissions into the environment and make products and processes safer for people. The six-month consultation ran from March 22 to September 25.

A proportional ban?
There is significant criticism in the plastics industry against an all-encompassing PFAS ban. “We are plastic,” an initiative of the leading industrial associations in the plastics industry, has brought together the various positions of plastics machine construction, plastics manufacturers and plastics processing companies. 

Kronimus says a ban on PFAS endangers the European high-tech industry.“Fluoropolymers – representing a minor fraction of all PFAS substances – are non-toxic and not bioavailable substances and are deemed to have no significant environmental and human health impacts. Therefore, a general ban on PFAS is neither proportionate nor objectively justifiable,” Kronimus tells us. 

Furthermore, plastics machine manufacturers say the PFAS ban threatens the existence of many companies and that the current regulatory proposal seeks to ban all fluoropolymers used in seals, hoses, fittings, pumps or valves. 

The manufacturers warn that there is no substitute for these materials in many applications. The Association of German Mechanical and Plant Engineering (VDMA) calls for exceptions for PFAS substances that are in machines and do not come into contact with the environment. 

“We support the protection of people and the environment and therefore also that everything is done to prevent harmful substances from entering the environment,” says Thorsten Kühmann, managing director of the Plastics and Rubber Machinery Association in the VDMA. 

“The substances used in machines are generally not harmful to health but are necessary for their functionality. The current PFAS regulation is a prohibition regulation that excludes all substances, whereas only truly dangerous substances should be excluded. This approach alone helps people and the economy alike.”

Fact-based regulations
Regulating chemicals to protect human health and the environment is paramount, asserts Kronimus. “Whatever we do, safety must always come first.”Modern medical applications and the energy transition are inconceivable without PFAS, says Plastics Europe.

When asked how governments and the EU should act to protect the industry’s interests, he says that “regulations and restrictions must be fact-based and specific in the first place, to be effective by leveraging benefits and protection from risks or even harm.”

“PFAS polymers are significant substances used, for example, for transformation technologies such as electrolyzers and fuel cells. Therefore, a differentiated approach is required to further allow for the non-toxic polymers as one of the enablers for the transformation to climate neutrality and for meeting the goals of the Green Deal,” explains Kronimus. 

In addition, Ingemar Bühler, general manager at Plastics Europe for Germany, says that the transition periods are often inadequate. “The regulatory proposal still needs to be improved in many areas.” 

Evaluation comes next 
ECHA says the received comments will be checked by its scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC).

The five countries who prepared the initial proposal will also review the consultation input and may update their initial proposal based on it.

RAC and SEAC evaluate the proposed restriction and consider the relevant information received through the consultation. The committees develop their independent, scientific opinions over a series of meetings, where draft opinions are discussed. Attention is given to all aspects and impacted sectors.

ECHA says it will deliver the final opinions to the European Commission while ensuring scrutiny by the scientific committees. Once the committees adopt their opinions, they will be communicated to the public.

The EC and EU member states will decide on the restriction.

By Natalie Schwertheim