It is clearly said that only some PFAS are toxic and bioaccumulative. Others are to be investigated. Chemistry sais that a majority of the PFAS are "only" persistant. Is only persistant enough to ban a product like Fluoropolymers that are not toxic, not bioaccumulative and do not degradate to any such product. Fluoropolymers are essential to fight against the global climate crisis!!!!
This is correct. Fluoropolymers are essential, for example, in high performance, high capacity and high efficiency industrial refrigeration and heat-pump installations. Alternative rubber types are not suitable for the natural, low/zero GDP refrigerants that allow these machines to reach their high efficiency at the pressures and temperatures at which they operate. If we ban PFAS completely, we lose access to these high efficiency machines and much more CO2 will need to be expelled for cooling and heating purposes, the necessity of both of which I hope are obvious. And this is one of many examples in the energy sector. Rubber O-rings also tend not to end up in the water supply or in my Big Mac, so the point of banning these escapes me entirely.
Hi, you can find the full report and annexes at: echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b. More info in our news: echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-proposal
Dear Sir/Madam, as mentioned in slide 3, there are roughly 10 000 PFASs. May i know where can we get a list of PFASs that containg "10 000 PFASs" that ECHA has identified? and is it the same list that what have in EPA PFAS Master list?
Thank you for your question. The restriction proposal does not contain a list of PFAS because the substances in scope are defined by their chemical structure rather than by their numerical identifiers. Therefore, we recommend that you refer to the definition provided in the Annex XV restriction report. Note that the proposal has been prepared by the national authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway - not ECHA.
You can find the slides here: echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2082415/2023-02-07_pfas+media+briefing_en.pdf/1661579d-353a-2fb0-1062-38fc3eb4bd78?t=1675849038730. You can also find the slides for our recent webinar on the PFAS restriction with the 5 Member States here: echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21388210/2023_04_05_ECHA_UPFAS_infosession_all_presentations.pdf/e4d9932e-4c6f-5950-601c-0cb8b5d8c441?t=1680595024744
A lot of very fluffy generalized information an lack of clear risk assessment done, tangible numbers, alternatives. There are potentially more than 7million PFAS (OECD) and how are you going to enforce the whole world? Measuring PFAS is already a major challenge in EOL products.
Dear Roland Thanks for your comment. ECHA's scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) are currently evaluating the proposed restriction by five EEA authorities together with the comments from the six-month consultation. The committees' opinions on the proposal will be adopted and published in due course. Once the opinions are ready, ECHA will send them to European Commission for decision-making.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Very important step. It will introduce deep modifications in our industrial and day-by-day approach.
It is clearly said that only some PFAS are toxic and bioaccumulative. Others are to be investigated. Chemistry sais that a majority of the PFAS are "only" persistant. Is only persistant enough to ban a product like Fluoropolymers that are not toxic, not bioaccumulative and do not degradate to any such product. Fluoropolymers are essential to fight against the global climate crisis!!!!
This is correct. Fluoropolymers are essential, for example, in high performance, high capacity and high efficiency industrial refrigeration and heat-pump installations. Alternative rubber types are not suitable for the natural, low/zero GDP refrigerants that allow these machines to reach their high efficiency at the pressures and temperatures at which they operate.
If we ban PFAS completely, we lose access to these high efficiency machines and much more CO2 will need to be expelled for cooling and heating purposes, the necessity of both of which I hope are obvious. And this is one of many examples in the energy sector.
Rubber O-rings also tend not to end up in the water supply or in my Big Mac, so the point of banning these escapes me entirely.
Good morning, where can find the official proposal document? Thanks
Hi, you can find the full report and annexes at: echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b.
More info in our news: echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-proposal
Dear Sir/Madam, as mentioned in slide 3, there are roughly 10 000 PFASs. May i know where can we get a list of PFASs that containg "10 000 PFASs" that ECHA has identified? and is it the same list that what have in EPA PFAS Master list?
Thank you for your question. The restriction proposal does not contain a list of PFAS because the substances in scope are defined by their chemical structure rather than by their numerical identifiers. Therefore, we recommend that you refer to the definition provided in the Annex XV restriction report. Note that the proposal has been prepared by the national authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway - not ECHA.
Good morning, is the presentation available anywhere? Thanks in advance!
You can find the slides here: echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2082415/2023-02-07_pfas+media+briefing_en.pdf/1661579d-353a-2fb0-1062-38fc3eb4bd78?t=1675849038730. You can also find the slides for our recent webinar on the PFAS restriction with the 5 Member States here: echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21388210/2023_04_05_ECHA_UPFAS_infosession_all_presentations.pdf/e4d9932e-4c6f-5950-601c-0cb8b5d8c441?t=1680595024744
A lot of very fluffy generalized information an lack of clear risk assessment done, tangible numbers, alternatives. There are potentially more than 7million PFAS (OECD) and how are you going to enforce the whole world? Measuring PFAS is already a major challenge in EOL products.
Dear Roland
Thanks for your comment. ECHA's scientific committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) are currently evaluating the proposed restriction by five EEA authorities together with the comments from the six-month consultation. The committees' opinions on the proposal will be adopted and published in due course.
Once the opinions are ready, ECHA will send them to European Commission for decision-making.