Evaluation of PFAS uses in new sectors
In the bustling corridors of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), anticipation was building as the scientific committees prepared for their upcoming meetings in June 2025. The focus of these meetings would be the evaluation of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in critical sectors such as medical devices, lubricants, and semiconductors. This effort was part of a broader initiative to form an opinion on the proposed EU universal restriction for this controversial group of substances.
Earlier in March, the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and the Socioeconomic Assessment Committee (SEAC) convened to discuss the implications of fluorinated gases (F-gases). These gases, widely used in heating, refrigeration, and foam-blowing agents, were identified as a significant source of PFAS emissions. The committees reached provisional conclusions regarding the applications of F-gases, as well as their impact on transport and energy sectors. However, the details of these conclusions remained confidential, with ECHA promising to publish its recommendations once the entire restriction proposal was evaluated.
As June approached, RAC was set to delve into the electronics and semiconductor sectors, while SEAC would continue discussions on these areas later in September. The complexity of the sectors under review was apparent to RAC chair Roberto Scazzola, who noted the extensive range of applications, from vehicle conditioning and renewable energy generation to storage and batteries.
The stakes were high. NGOs expressed concerns that granting derogations for certain industrial applications of F-gases could undermine efforts to address the PFAS issue. Meanwhile, the European Commission proposed splitting the universal proposal to allow continued use of PFAS in essential industrial applications where no alternatives were available, such as in green technologies and electric vehicles. This suggestion faced resistance from the five countries that submitted the restriction dossier—Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—who stood united in their opposition.
Throughout the process, SEAC chair Maria Ottati emphasized the need to consider alternatives, costs, and benefits of restricting F-gases. She highlighted the environmental advantages of reduced emissions and the economic challenges associated with clean-up operations. Many substances included in the PFAS proposal were already regulated under existing F-gas legislation, adding another layer of complexity to the discussions.
As the committees methodically worked through each sector, they aimed to adopt a single combined opinion by 2026. This opinion would then be forwarded to the European Commission, which would make the final proposal. The journey was long and intricate, but the goal was clear: to protect the environment and public health from the pervasive impact of PFAS.
More information is available at
https://echa.europa.eu/-/highlights-from-march-2025-rac-and-seac-meetings
—
