Document 58vwkmQDRqbj6Kyz5RGpOEb5

EUROPEAN COMMISSION ( J Ref. Ares(2020)7429744 - 08/12/2020 DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SMES Consumer, Environmental and Health Technologies REACH Brussels, GROW.D.1/ Virtual meeting between representatives of Plastics Europe Fluoropolymer Products Group (PEFPG) and Commission, on PFAS action plan after the announcement of the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) and Broad Restriction by European States on PFAS Participants: Plastics Europe (FPG): 29 NOVEMBER 2020 (16:00-17:00) , , , , Commission: , , (DG GROW), and (DG ENV) The FPG of Plastics Europe asked for a Webex meeting to exchange views on PFAS (per- and polyfluoro alkylated substances) Action Plan in the context of the publication of the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability as well as the initial stages of a broad restriction on PFAS that five European States are preparing (an Annex XV restriction dossier from NL, DE, DK, SE and NO). The representatives informed us that they have commented in the call for evidence that five European States have announced on a broad restriction on PFAS on all uses except the essential ones. They mentioned that they need time to gather data from the downstream users, they have discussions with ECHA and the MPs of EP. They took note of the Caracal paper on "essential uses" as observers. They gave a short presentation of the fluoropolymers and their criticality for the society as they are used in high value end applications. They referred to the grouping approach as a crucial element for the broad restriction on PFAS mentioning that a grouping approach should be based on chemical physical and biological similar properties of the substances. Therefore, they do not consider that a blank restriction on all PFAS based on persistence (the common property of all PFAS) is scientifically driven. They insist in defining smaller groups of fluoro-chemicals for grouping according to scientific definitions for the various categories and groups given in the literature for PFAS. For the essentiality concept, they claimed that there are no scientific criteria to differentiate an essential use from a non-essential use and something which is considered non-essential today, it may be essential after a decade in the future impeding the innovation. Finally, they were wondering how the essentiality concept will be interpreted and applied and which body will apply such a political decision. Commission explained that the starting point for the essentiality concept is the Montreal Protocol and discussions have started on the essential uses with a paper presented to the MSs in Caracal which is open for consultation and available for comments. Concerning grouping, Commission replied that there are thousands of PFAS substances, some of which are PBT/vPvB substances, but all of them are persistent and accumulate in the environment with the potential of adverse effects to human health and environment. Commission said that the MSs and ECHA intend to prepare restrictions that are large in scope (like the one in microplastics) to avoid regrettable substitution. For the broad restriction on PFAS, it is the responsibility of the MSs to prepare the draft Annex XV and the Commission has to act after receiving the ECHA opinion from the scientific committees. Finally, the Commission mentioned that the next steps of its work are described in detail in the PFAS action plan.