.PDF | 302kb
This briefing evaluates the effectiveness of emission control measures as potential alternatives to a restrictive approach to the regulation of PFAS, i.e. a restriction on production and marketing. Representatives of the PFAS industry have been repeatedly highlighting the benefits of a regulatory approach focused on risk control compared to the costs of a restriction, a possibility foreseen under the REACH Regulation.
In light of this claim, we explore two main questions:
Is this framework sufficiently protective, i.e. is it enough to mitigate the current and future impact of PFAS emissions compared to a restriction under REACH?
Our legal assessment leads to two main findings. First, existing regulations, including the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the occupational health and safety or waste regulations, are insufficient to establish a robust prevention framework—similar to the outcomes that could be achieved through a REACH restriction. Second, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the implementation and enforcement of these rules, which raises further concerns regarding their overall effectiveness compared to a restriction.
More specifically, we show that while PFAS production falls in the scope of the IED, not all manufacturers may be affected, notably if they operate below the legal thresholds. Moreover not all industry sectors that are using PFAS fall within the limited number of activities covered by the IED.
Second, even PFAS polluters regulated by the IED are subject to permits lacking ambitious emission limit values for PFAS prevention and/or reduction. Reporting requirements for IED installations under the Industrial Emissions Portal Regulation (IEPR) are very weak on PFAS. So far only PFOA, PFHxA and PFCs are listed in the relevant Annex II. As of July 2027, operators will have to have in place an Environmental Management System with a chemical inventory, including for chemicals subject to REACH restrictions. However, this seems to be in the first place a tool for self-regulation, as enforcement is as of today unclear.
Beyond the IED, we also highlight that other pieces of legislations, including on the protection of workers and waste, simply fail to provide any protective systems against PFAS.
In the absence of a strong regulatory framework, industry led initiatives are undoubtedly essential to incentivize responsible manufacturing practices and their implementation as soon as possible. However they can never be as ambitious and effective as strict regulation.
In light of these findings, our briefing suggests to keep the REACH restriction as the preferred risk-management option for PFAS, while continuing to develop stringent emission control rules whenever needed.