Navigating the U-PFAS Restriction: Updates and Implications
FPP4EU’s Collaboration Platform event on 27 March 2025 provided a venue for downstream users to address their questions directly with dossier submitters Dr Frauke Averbeck, Scientific Officer, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) and Thijs de Kort, Deputy Head of Bureau, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM).
Evolving restriction
This restriction proposal process has been, and remains a learning curve for all parties involved. Based on the input into the 2023 third party consultation, the dossier submitters have considered another restriction option (RO), supplementing the two originally proposed (RO1: Full ban of all uses, and RO2: Ban with use-specific derogations). More specifically, RO3 would allow continued use under strict conditions that minimise emissions over the full life cycle i.e., where adequate control of risks might be achievable through means other than a ban. They also added a multitude of uses and significantly adapted the background document.
Next steps of the evaluation process
The dossier submitters explained that seven of the nine background document updates have already been completed. They confirmed that there will be no more than nine updates, meaning all uses will be incorporated in these reviews.
The ECHA Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Assessment Committees (RAC and SEAC) will review all these updates, and the resulting SEAC draft opinion will subsequently be open for a 60-day consultation. Aware of the challenges industry will face in providing comments on such a large file within a 60-day timeframe, the dossier submitters will advise ECHA to share the background document publicly ahead of time. They also advise downstream users not to delay preparations until the start of the consultation, but to start based on publicly available conclusions from RAC and SEAC meetings. Given the large scope of the consultation, the dossier submitters would understand a request for a prolonged consultation period, but this may legally not be possible and will be up to ECHA to investigate.
Industry stakeholders would find it helpful to see the background document and the SEAC opinion as soon as possible to optimally prepare their comments, provide additional information where needed, and resolve some potential misunderstandings.
Conclusion
Navigating the U-PFAS Restriction proposal has proven to be a complex and evolving process for all parties involved. The dossier submitters have made significant progress, completing 7 out of 9 background document updates, and are committed to ensuring that all uses are incorporated in these reviews.
The consideration of alternative restriction options, such as RO3, highlights the ongoing efforts to balance environmental protection with practical industry needs. Ultimately, the collaboration and proactive engagement of all stakeholders will be key to striking the right balance for this universal PFAS restriction.
