The Discussions are Constructive
The official meetings on the PFAS restriction proposal in the EU are making progress.
Two and a half years ago, five EU countries proposed to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to regulate all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the EU, including fluoropolymers. Juliane Glüge says that it is not yet clear when and in what form the restriction can be expected. As a representative of the European Chemical Society, she has been an observer in the ECHA committees discussing the restriction proposal and derogations from the outset.
She has now stepped down from this position for professional reasons. In the CHEManager interview with Uta Neubauer, she draws a positive interim conclusion.
Interview with Juliane Glüge, formerly ETH Zürich
CHEManager: The process initiated in the EU to regulate the entire PFAS class is running slowly. Are you frustrated that the process is taking so long?
Juliane Glüge: I am rather positive, because the way the proposal has been discussed so far is going in the right direction. The two ECHA committees [see infobox, page 9] are looking at the problem rationally, both in terms of the impact on the environment and the consequences for European competitiveness. The complexity of the problem and the amount of data require a certain amount of time.
For some use sectors - including cosmetics, ski wax and textiles - there are already preliminary opinions from the ECHA committees. What derogations are on the horizon?
J. Glüge: Unfortunately, I am not allowed to comment on specific derogations. What I can say, however, is that a third restriction option is currently being evaluated for some sectors. The first option is a total ban on all PFASs. The second option, which has been favoured so far, proposes derogations for certain uses, mostly limited in time. The third option, which is now also being examined in some cases, is about preventing emissions instead of banning PFASs completely in certain uses.
Is this new option an alternative to a ban?
J. Glüge: Yes, at least in some cases. This third option could be used if the socio-economic impact of banning a particular PFAS use is disproportionate, for example because there will be no technical alternative in the foreseeable future. Certain conditions would then have to be met in order to avoid emissions.
Is the new option aiming at fluoropolymers such as PTFE?
J. Glüge: Not directly. But I have discussed with other scientists what it could mean for fluoropolymers. Emissions during the production are the big issue here. It's not enough just to look at the risks of a product in use. Fluoropolymer production in Europe generates several hundred tons of emissions every year, some of which are PFASs themselves, including monomers as well as by-products and intermediates. It is still unclear to what extent emissions from the production of fluoropolymers can be further reduced. Unfortunately, the questions we sent to the responsible regulatory authorities and producers were only answered in very general terms.
Fluoropolymer production in Europe generates several hundred tons of emissions every year, some of which are PFASs themselves, including monomers as well as by-products and intermediates.
Industry associations are calling for fluoropolymers to be excluded from the planned restriction. Even the former Green Minister for Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck, has warned against over-regulation. Do such statements influence the processes at ECHA?
J. Glüge: It doesn't play a role in the committee's work; the inclusion of fluoropolymers has not changed. In addition to myself and other representatives of non-governmental organizations, representatives of European industry associations such as CEFIC and PlasticsEurope also sitting in the meetings, but we all have observer status. We are only allowed to speak to a limited extent and then only contribute technical knowledge, not opinions. At EU Commission level, on the other hand, we are already seeing a lot of lobbying and I am curious to see whether the Commission will finally adopt the proposed restriction or change it considerably.
When can we expect a decision from the EU Commission and a comprehensive PFAS restriction?
J. Glüge: I assume that it will take at least until the end of the year for the two committees to conclude their discussions and deal with all sectors in which PFASs play a role. The committees will then present their opinions to the public. Comments on the opinion of the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) can then be submitted for 60 days. Considering the comments in the SEAC opinion would certainly take until the end of 2026. The restriction proposal and the opinions will then go to the EU Commission for a decision. This means that the 18-month transition phase could begin in 2027 at the earliest. Only then would the production, import and placing on the market of PFASs and products containing PFASs for which no derogations apply, actually be banned in the EU.
The long road to PFAS regulation
In January 2023, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted a dossier to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) calling for a restriction on all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), including fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, trade name Teflon). During the public consultation from March to September 2023, over 5,600 comments were received and incorporated into the dossier. ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) are currently working on the issue. RAC is examining whether the proposed restriction is appropriate to reduce risks to health and the environment. SEAC looks at the social impacts. The committees meet four times a year and hold sector-specific discussions. The proposal for a PFAS restriction will be submitted to the EU Commission in 2026 at the earliest. An 18-month transition period is planned following the Commission's decision. Bans will probably not take effect before 2028.
The two ECHA committees are looking at the problem rationally, both in terms of the impact on the environment and the consequences for European competitiveness.
In France, PFASs will be banned in cosmetics, ski wax, clothing and footwear already from 2026 on. Have you noticed different attitudes in the EU countries?
J. Glüge: It's hard to say. There are only one or two representatives from each EU country on the committees. Some committee members are more critical and ask more questions. But there is no one who doesn't see the problems surrounding PFASs and would work against the restriction. The discussions are very constructive. France has probably realized that the process at EU level takes a long time. However, the French regulation is quite limited and is certainly not enough to solve the entire PFAS problem.
Although you consider the committee's work to be effective, you recently resigned your position as representative of the European Chemical Society. Why?
J. Glüge: It has to do with my new job. I will leave ETH Zurich after twelve years and will move to the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment. There I am also working on PFASs, but then on the side of the regulators. It would therefore be a conflict of interest if I were to continue to sit in the ECHA meetings representing a non-governmental organization. Amanda Rensmo from Stockholm University is now taking over. She is researching PFASs and PFAS alternatives in the energy transition. She already took part in the meetings at the beginning of June.
About the person
Juliane Glüge studied biosystems engineering at the University of Magdeburg and received her doctorate from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich in 2016 with a thesis on polychlorinated biphenyls and other environmentally persistent chemicals. Until the end of May, she conducted research on PFASs at ETH Zurich; in September, she will move to the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment. Until recently, she represented the European Chemical Society in the ECHA committees on the planned PFAS restriction.
