Today, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee held an exchange of views with the Commission on their progress in developing proposals for CLP and REACH Regulation, and with ECHA on their work on the PFAS Restriction.
It was interesting to see the Commission not respond to the concerns raised by MEPs (Arena & Hazekamp) on the use of secondary legislation.
If you missed the exchange you can watch it below – the first 46 minutes.
See the Otter transcript below.
So we have a very busy voting day as well. But in parallel, we have this session. So we start with the the adoption of the agenda. I guess there is no issue we move to the changes and adjustments, nothing special beyond remote participation.
On the reporting back on trial logs, just a few words to share the fact that we started the Pops, trial log, and next trial is foreseen for May 31. And as well on those yesterday, we are heading quite well, and we have a trial log on Wednesday. That might be the final one, or the final one will be beginning of June.
Then we move to Agenda Item number four. And we will have today an exchange of views with the Commission and with a QA regarding the PFS regulation in the context of the upcoming proposals to amend rich and CLP regulations. So quite extensive and very sensitive.
We know that the chemical agenda will be very hard on the Envy table for the next semester. So we move the first with the Commission and then to a QA you have as a whole 15 minutes you are three. So please try to stick to five minutes each. And I guess we start with you. But actually,
thank you very much for president and it’s a real pleasure for me to be here for the first time in the DG env committee. Following my appointment last autumn is Deputy Director General in DG environment and I’m looking forward very much to working with the committee in the months ahead. Very happy to have happy with Toyosu Christine Schreiber from Digi grow a responsible director for the Koch chemicals file, and Peter Van Zandt from eka. I will try to be brief. But my first message, of course, is that the European Green Deal and the zero pollution ambition for a toxic free environment is very much at the heart of the chemical sort of strategy for sustainability. And that we believe that this is even more the case under the common difficult circumstances with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, as the ambition of the European Green Deal deals precisely with the existential crisis that we’re facing a need, of course to be confronted head on in order to avoid do further geopolitical spillover effects and social unrest.
Moving to the key theme of the discussion today, which is the implementation of the chemical strategy for sustainability, our objective of course is to tackle the most harmful substances. And that is why we are first revising the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals and then a bit later on the reach regulation, which come alongside ongoing discussions as well on some of the sectoral product legislation, for example, on food contact materials, cosmetics, and toys to ensure all together that the
legal framework for chemicals in the European Union ensures that the most harmful substances are phased out in consumer products and for professional uses, unless their use is proven to be essential for society. My colleague, Kristen Schreiber, will speak a little bit more about the recently adopted reach restriction roadmap and specifically the action that we are taking on PFAs. So I will just in the remaining time mentioned that on the CLP revision, we have made some good progress in recent days in our recent internal discussions on the impact assessment, which means that we are on track for presenting to the college proposals we hope after the summer break. The reach revision is more complicated. We are deeply engaged in the ongoing discussions on the impact assessment. We were hoping with this, these proposals to include in line with the strategy on sustainability at the extension of the generic generic risk approach for the most harmful classes of chemicals, in both consumer products in some professional uses, as we already had in the existing text for carcinogenic and other similar substances, but we will also then bring into the equation endocrine disruptors and the most substitutes or toxic substances in the environment. And we believe that with the generic approach, we should be
able to provide better protection and also greater clarity for industry, because these harmful substances will be based on the presumption that they will not be allowed unless their use can be demonstrated to be essential for society. The reach revision is intended to come forward with proposals from the Commission either at the end of 2022, or depending on the progress that we make in our internal discussions early in 2023. But but we are certainly determined to make progress as quickly as possible.
I just like to before finishing say a word about stakeholder outreach, and in particular, the high level roundtable that we have put together in order to support the work of the Commission in taking forward this ambitious legislative agenda. This is a high level group, bringing together representatives of industry, civil society, academia, as well as international organisations and member state representatives, in order to accompany the work that we are developing and make sure that we are best in we have the best available evidence base for the work that we’re doing, but also a good understanding of how the ideas that we’re developing resonate in the broader stakeholder communities. And we’re very grateful for members of the high level roundtable also for the work that they are doing a sort of ambassadors for change in the outreach to the wider community. And I’m interested in particular, because we have the next meeting of the high level roundtable already this week.
We already have from the Roundtable, a very useful report on enforcement from the previous work. And a second work report will be examined at the meeting this week on research and innovation, and the principle of safe and sustainable debt by design. I would also say that it’s a great place for us to draw on some of the inputs that we receive from the community. I mentioned in passing a very useful analysis of costs produced earlier in the year by the cific. group representing the chemicals industry, looking at what the potential consequences for the generic risk approach could be in the sector. Although I would say that that analysis was inevitably somewhat broad brush, since it was not able to reflect in any detail or in in a specific way, the policy options that the commission is currently analysing for the impact assessment. So all in all, Mr. President, I’m very grateful to have this opportunity with the stakeholder engagement in the high level roundtable. And the the ambitious agenda that we have. We believe that with the chemical strategy for sustainability, we’re making a powerful connection collective contribution to the European Green Deal, even in the present difficult geopolitical context. I hand over now to Mrs. Shriver.
Yes, thank you. Let me follow follow up. I mean, Patrick already mentioned the major proposals we are preparing on CLP and reach on the think, according to flag on the generic approach to risk assessment as really is crucial that we significantly speed up the substitution of the most harmful chemicals, and you refer to it particularly consumer and professional products. And to do so we actually need to extend the Commission’s mandate to introduce this generic restrictions and plans implementation and similar way as we had done in the restrictions roadmap, which you have seen, which was published in April.
And we also need to reform the authorization and restriction processes, because they have to become more efficient and fit for the higher ambitions which we have now with a chemical strategy. So here we need to recognise that the current level of micromanagement and rituals authorizations cannot be maintained. And we are therefore promoting broader derogations, which will apply to all companies for a particular use, rather than dealing with authorizations on an applicant, applicant basis. And let me just lay on the restriction roadmap, we have been working on the implementations of the initiatives which were identified there. And in particular, we have recently launched the inter service consultation for restriction on microplastics, which I think has been long awaited. And once we get the relevant eco opinions, we also plan to swiftly proceed with a plan road restrictions of PFAs substances, first and firefighting firms and later broader restriction, which is currently being prepared by five member states. So here, Peter Van Zandt from Mecca will let you more about the state of blank. And let me also say that in order to achieve the substitution as fast as possible, and also to make sure that this innovation actually happens in Europe, we need to give the necessary investment certainty for the concerned industry. And that’s why all these plans are embedded in a so called Transition pathway towards safe and sustainable chemicals, in order to make sure that, that we have the overall holistic approach to this to this endeavour. And here again, this pathway is being elaborated in close cooperation with stakeholders, and will among others also be discussed.
The high level roundtable to which Patrick alluded, and we expect to publish this by the end of the year. And let me finally say one word on the basic regulation for AQa. Here’s this plan legislation follows. It’s also referred to in the chemical strategy and will require a lot of changes in actors governance and financing structures. So, in order to achieve all the objectives, we need a new eco basic regulation which will be scheduled as well for next year. And this regulation aims to actually simplify and clarify the legal framework in which eco operates and also better defines the tasks and expected outcomes, and should also optimise and rationalise the functioning of the different eco bodies. And the initiative aims to put in place I would say, a sustainable financing model to ensure flexibility and also an optimal use of the combined resources of Achor deriving from the various chapters of the commission budget. So because income, as you know, comes from fees and charges combined with an EU balancing contribution, and issues and hopefully become more stable, sufficient for the operations of the agency, and also, to the extent possible, more predictable. So let me stress once again, that through all these different endeavours, we are strongly committed to the objectives of the chemical strategy for sustainability. And personally also very much looking forward to working here with the ENV committee and the European Parliament. And I think it’s a good moment now I’m see we’re perfectly on time to pass the floor to my colleague, if you’re not an eco, who can go more into depth in particular on the P FAS restriction, which I think is very much of interest to you. Thank you
Mr. Chair, Honourable Members, I’m happy to be here representing ACCA. Today, as long as the selection process for a new executive director is ongoing, I would like to shortly summarise our contribution to implementing the chemical strategy for sustainability. And also to inform you about the ongoing work on the restriction of PFAs. No doubt, the chemical strategy is a key element of the Green Deal, to phase out harmful chemicals to protect human health and the environment, and also to innovate towards a green chemistry. The Commissioner has formally requested eka to support on different work streams, including the impact assessment for the for reach review, the same for the impact assessment for the Classification and Labelling and packaging, regulation review, to support also on the one substance, one assessment concepts. And finally to provide support on establishing yourself standing basic regulation for ACCA. Last year, ACCA has provided its report on the functioning of reach and CLP. And this from the experience and learnings that we have found from the operation of these legislative instruments that we are advising now the Commission on how the further implementation can be improved in the future for the revision of these frameworks.
In the framework of the chemical strategy, the one substance one assessment is of course, also a concept that provides opportunities to provide more synergy towards the operation, and implementation of chemicals regulation.
And the main focus in this area is on improving the coherence of scientific advice that we provide to the institutions on chemicals management. And this can come from different actions, better coordination between EU authorities, also a re attribution of the scientific work that the commission is looking into towards the agencies, and finally facilitating also the work of the agencies in the implementation towards more harmonisation. It is clear that AGIS work can be more efficient, could be more consistent, and could provide more impact if there is a further alignment of the legislative frameworks. So we are working on our side very much to look at the different instruments and databases, how we can provide a technical support for that. But also we need more alignment on the legislation aside to be really ready to respond to this political ambition. One of the deliverables of the chemical strategy as the restrictions roadmap as was already mentioned, and ACA has provided inputs to delivering that restrictions roadmap, nonetheless, from our work on the grouping of chemicals, because looking at chemicals in groups is really a way to make sure that we can speed up risk management but that we can also avoid regrettable substitution of chemicals. And this brings me actually to the P FOSS topic, because P FOSS is indeed one of the groups of chemicals, big groups of chemicals, where this group approach is being used and the CSS has indicated that there is a need to phase out the use of P FOSS in the EU unless the US is considered essential. The problem would be for substances is that they
are very persistent in the environment. And as long as releases to the environment continue people, but also nature, animals in the environment will be exposed to increasing amounts of PFAs.
B FOSS frequently contaminate the groundwater the surface water and soils and are also found in our drinking water. And therefore, we can also find them by bio monitoring and wildlife and in humans, cleaning up pee fast contamination is very, very difficult and also very costly.
exposure to certain key facets have been also related to health problems. For example, certain pee fast are toxic for human reproduction and can harm development of foetuses several P FOSS have been found to to cause cancer, and some p FOSS are also suspected of interfering with the hormonal system. They are endocrine disruptors. That’s why the European Commission and the member states have decided to take action against all p fast chemicals. And by restricting the whole class of course, we can avoid this regrettable substitution. Eka has published in February our restriction proposal for P FOSS in firefighting foams. And this proposal is now in consultation phase.
This restriction will not compromise fire safety there are alternatives available until the 23rd of September I invite all interested parties to participate and provide his input on the restriction proposal on the risks and all the socio economic aspects. And we expect that the committee’s the scientific committees of ACA will provide their opinions in the beginning of next year 2023. Also we are expecting by January 2023. A proposal on the broader application of P Foss and growth restriction of P FOS from different countries that have been preparing what we call the universal P FOSS restriction. We believe that this will respond to the request from the Commission to indeed, phase out be fast and afford regrettable substitution. Thank you very much.
Thank you, thank you to the three of you. We will start now and the first round with the members. We start obviously with the EPP and Peter lizard
who is supposed to be connected
sorry, chair, there has been a misunderstanding. Normally, Maria’s Iraqi should speak on behalf of the EPP but she’s not yet ready. So to make it less complicated, I will say a few words, and Maria can come in to the second round.
So thank you for this presentation and the important information. I think it’s a good idea to have broader derogations and not to be
so specific, because these are sometimes SMEs have to deal with the applications. And if you have a broader approach, not every company has to do the work. We have to act, the substances are persistence and can create problems for health. So in general, I think it’s good. I have a question on the frame essential for society. You know, we are having a very big priority now on our feet 455 package. And I would ask mainly the commission, if they take into account their assessment that sometimes chemical substances are needed to do the transition, and if this would be covered by us that is essential for the society. Thank you.
Thank you, Peter. We moved to Maya Vienna for snd.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you for those presentations, listening to our different experts. Something came to mind.
If we were to use polluter pays and cost wouldn’t just be seen by industry as a customer as to restriction but it costs to production.
And the presentation we heard we heard an argument saying okay, industry looks at to the cost of restriction where he would have to pay
if there were more restrictive laws.
I think we have to get companies involved more in the paying for repairs when it comes to health pollution.
I think it’s very difficult for
For the public sector to really evaluate what the cost is. And the impression we have is that industry is looking at nonproduction. Whereas the public looks at the cost of repairing the damage done.
Reach and CLP is true, they have contributed to better protect our health and the environment from biochemical hazards. And we’ve seen various improvements, there are still improvements to be made. And the commission has committed itself to deal with some of the problems in the chemical strategy. I have various questions. Some have already been raised by experts when it came to timing,
but
pollution environmental pollution by these Pf bfas We see this increasing and becoming ever more dangerous.
The restrictions they’re on and you said this at the beginning, we should be able to eliminate all non essential usages of the P FOSS
but DGN V.
We’ve heard from them that the PFS restrictions won’t have anything to do with essential usage as a definition in it to the restrictions. So commission
question to you in PFS restrictions? Will you have non essential usage restrictions there in as you committed to doing
on reach and CLP?
Parallel there’ll be one priority over time in CLP and another end reach don’t have as much information on the form that these reviews will take? Will it be co decision?
Or will it be comitology? Lots of rumours out there has to be said. But the EP does have to play its role as CO legislator in these reviews. And then finally, the roadmap, the restriction roadmap
or we’ve had a recent publication, a banning concerning
elements by 2030. That’s going to be a key tool.
But what about the implementation of that roadmap?
If you look at the deadlines,
and
for these group restrictions to be brought in, will that allow us to be for all of that to be implemented in the deadlines set? Renew.
Thank you, Pascal and welcome to our guests. I’m really happy that our honourable guests mica paid us visit to Brussels. I think that we are all impatiently waiting to know who will be the next head of the agency and will help us to translate the vision for safe and sustainable chemicals into reality. Now recently, the Commission published the already mentioned roadmap for restoration of targeted substances and vice president Timmermans miss that action will be taken during the mandate of this commission. And actually, you know, even having talked to the industry, the users of chemicals are highly welcoming drama because it gives them kind of a list of chemicals to look at and start substituting Nevertheless, the roadmap itself is not a guarantee of an extension of generic approach and of a swift increase of the protection levels. What I think we need is a commitment in regards of timing for delivery of each restriction plan and an allocation of resources really, without having sufficient resources. Nikah it’s not going to happen. So when it comes to the P FAS, the dossier from ex members is expected to to be submitted in January 23. Now I’m wondering if there is a possibility within a car to speed up the process in the committee’s Because indeed, as I said, these are this is something where every day, we are getting more and more contaminated. And these chemicals are just building up up in the food chain. So the faster we act, the more protection we have unless cancer.
Second mode, would you improve in terms of the restriction and authorization procedures? And to the commission? Well, we have to act on on hazardous chemicals. This is obviously very clear. And I think now with this situation, yes, we need to keep on looking on the energy transition aspect on the security aspect.
But we have to keep an eye also on the safety aspect and on the circular economy. And I think it’s important to have the all the criteria together because if we split them we might venture and invest companies might invest into fall substitute that will create even more problems. So I think we need to keep an eye on both. But
can you therefore guarantee that the commission and your DJs are really standing behind the level of ambition as it was expressed in the CSS and that it’s translated into the reach of phone, but also specifically
On the
essential use because there’s some rumours that there might be also introduction of saved views that are next together with essentially us now, is it true? Can you comment in any way of that? And what’s the point of introducing the essential use when you have saved views, which could be a massive loophole? Thank you very much.
Thank you, we move to the green superpowers.
Thank you, Chair and thank you for being here to commission and a QA. Martin has already asked some of the questions which I had jotted down. So I will just move to the ones that where I am not sure whether there have been really asked, Can the commission confirm that there is no delay for a seen at the moment, at least concerning the reach revision proposal, because it’s expected in December 22. But we have seen numerous delays on Green Deal legislative actions, and therefore I would be very interested to know whether this is still on the list for December. And also, Vice President Timmermans committed that action will be taking on during the Commission’s mandate on the restrictions roadmap. So I wondering when we will actually say see the first mandate for restriction and I would be very grateful for having more than just a year, but rather a bit more precise. Because in the roadmap texts, it’s only a years but let’s take the year 2024. For maybe some of us, it would be interesting to know whether we see it in January or whether it will be under under next mandate of the parliament and also of the commission. Concerning the PFAs. I was attending part of the HBM for EU Conference, which took place a couple of weeks ago, where we had have seen that P FAS were already present in children’s blood and I was wondering what kind of action is the commission planning to take in order to find out more about the current level of pollution in humans but also in the environment? There’s a lot of things we still do not know we have seen several sites all over the EU where there is PFS contamination of soil and also of groundwater and surface water. Is there a special programme being planned in order to find out more about the contamination? And are they funds being attributed to the remediation of these sites, as there is a lot of drinking water of Europeans being in danger. Thank you.
Thank you before moving to the next speaker, I will formally open under catch the eye sessions or put your name on the list either in the room or electronically.
Then we move to ID there is no speaker for ID so we move to ECR we are supposed to have empirical Fiocchi. That is he’s late so we move to the left and as a GM.
Thank you. Well, Pascal.
Thank you, Pascal. I’d like to thank EPA for this proposal for a PFS ban
and to deal with these hazardous materials, but it’s a concern that the commission
is leaving this back door open for essential use.
We need to make sure that these hazardous substances cannot get into our bodies and into the environment. They’d have to be banned.
And we have to do that as quickly as possible.
I don’t understand how these very hazy hazardous materials are still being used in all different types of products, even food packaging that has to come to an end not just in Europe but worldwide.
In the chemical strategy, it says that the commission is going to make sure that they cannot be used in the EU these elements
but since
it’s just we’ve just been talking in circles since
What about hazardous pesticides and other chemical substances? What is that what is the deadline? What are the timetable going to be when we’re going to have this PFS ban? And also when it comes to the production of these and export of them not just inputs
CLP reach reviews there the EP has to have its full say
these essential changes which are of extreme importance. For for the Green Deal it can’t this cannot be left to people deciding behind closed doors. Can you
promises commission
that this will go through the ordinary legislative procedure. Finally
commission and Ecker
I know that you know what’s happening with three M in Flanders
risk responsibility for
taking for dealing with the PFS issue are in and around Antwerp.
They’re just denying the fact that there is a health emergency
commission eka. What can you do just to deal with all these lies? Thank you.
Thank you. So as there is only one speaker for the catch the eye we are going to merge the two sessions. We start with some mature for the greens.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Chair, obviously all puffers
hazardous for our health. What we’ve seen in Antwerp, that’s one of the biggest health emergencies. We’ve seen this century.
We were talking about a complete ban in Europe.
But that will will that be enough to deal with future scandals? I don’t think so.
We need to have the burden of proof changed.
Companies will have to show
that what they’re producing is safe before they can place them on the market.
And we’d also like a circularity test
because sometimes material is reused
PFAs can get into the environment that way they stay there and they would then they would fail the test. So eka can you support this this test approach Thank you
Okay, so we try to reach peak of your key for ECR. And also a message to a better reserved by SPRI key for EPP is not connected.
If you want to have one additional voice from dpps right now.
Okay, so we move now to the answers to the question. So the three of you I have to you to decide on the order.
Well, thank you. Thank you very much President and thanks to the Honourable members for the thought provoking and very constructive questions, which I think are extremely valuable in the context of this discussion. And I think that today’s debate indeed shows the strong commitment of the commission to have a full and open discussion with the relevant committees and instances of the European Parliament on the important issues raised by the revision of the CLP and reach and of course, when the commission comes forward with a the the implementing legal texts to take this forward, we will be based too clearly, on our treaty prerogatives, on the issues of substance that have been raised, Mr. Luiza on the question of
how we see the concept of the central use, and this is very much at the heart of what we’re seeking to achieve in the revision of region in particular combined with the
DE JANEIRO generic approach being extended to a much larger range of hazardous substances than is the case today. And the criteria that we are considering in relation to essential use are things which are either critical for society, or necessary for health and safety, and for which there is no alternative, no viable substitute. So there’s the broad terms in which we are conducting this discussion. And we had a very productive workshop a few months, a few weeks ago, where over 600 participants were able to from across the spectrum of the stakeholder community to take us further into these topics.
I strongly agree with Mrs. Elena’s point about the need for our work in this area, not only to look at the potential costs and consequences for the industry, recognising of course that we have a strong interest in maintaining smooth functioning of the internal market and a strong and competitor
to chemicals industry in the European Union. But it is indeed a challenge that sometimes the potential negative
impacts in terms of health and public health and the environment are more difficult to quantify, but are nevertheless a vital part of the overall assessment of the cost benefit of what we’re trying to achieve. And so the emphasis that she puts on the cost of repairing the damage from the uncontrolled use of,
of hazardous chemicals is extremely well made. And maybe I wasn’t clear, in my reference to the to the PFOs. Specifically, it was not that I do not see the essential use concept being a part of our future policy in this area, it’s just that we do not yet have pieces within the general approach and therefore not yet subject to to this concept of essential use.
Or Mr. Hastings questions. I mean, certainly, I
am
ready to confirm that the Commission remains committed to achieving a high level of ambition in the implementation of the chemical strategy for sustainability. And the point that he makes about the need for the authorization procedures to take sort of broad context including on issues like circularity is also well made.
The issue of safe use is concept which already I think, fingers in some of our thematic and horizontal legislation, but certainly is not a pretext for diminishing the level of protection for the
for the public health and environmental consequences of the controlled use of hazardous substances for which the context of essential use is extremely important.
Mrs. Polis asked her questions about the timing of adoption of the Reach regulation. And I confirmed that the date that we have in our mind at the moment is the is December 2022. But as she also rightly says,
Our experience is that sometimes the internal discussions and in particular, the preparation of our impact assessment, which needs to go on many
inputs from consultants and others can take a little bit more time. And so I do not exclude that we push back into the
beginning of 2023. But But I think that when the the the political objective remains very clearly that the Commission under the present mandate should certainly put forward proposals in good time for the council deliberation in the into institutional process. I just take the advantage also of the question that you raised on on the monitoring of the potential effects on humans of some of the, the the hazardous chemicals that we’re discussing, I just happy to mention the result of a recent horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, specifically on human bio monitoring, which was published in April of this year, the HBM. For you project, which is indeed, produced a lot of very valuable data and information on chemical occurrences in humans that are Europe wide scale, and in particular, on exposure to phthalates fevers beset by phenols, flame retardants, and led, which were found in many
parts of the population, which I think clearly confirms the need to ban these substances from Con consumer goods.
So I think that’s many of the questions, perhaps just
on
Mrs. Hudson camps question I understood about also the question of banning exports of substances that are banned within the European Union, that is something to which we are committed in the strategy. And we are presently considering what would be the best legal vehicle to take that forward? I think I’ve answered some of the questions. But the questions in particular on PFAs more specifically, and on the roadmap that I had to post and anything else, of course, thanks.
Yes, thank you. I mean, I would like to come back on the on the question for Mrs. Powers, but also others on how we are actually going to sort of implement the roadmap. Will there be delays? I think it’s fair to say I can reassure you that I mean, it’s a it’s an ongoing it’s an ongoing process. We are actually sending on a constant basis mandates to ACA, I mean, most most recently, we have one on
integration version of for PVC. We have the famous microplastics one which is close to close to it.
option one, we have one medium chain, chlorinated paraffin. So I think it’s a constant process. And as as explained, we have I think what was important, but we wanted to show you that we have this roadmap, which clearly spelled out calendar, which stretches in the lead all the way until 2030. But based on, on priorities on where the most immediate need for action is that we actually have a clearer, clearer perspective on this. So I think it’s important to underline, I would also like to come back on the point, which I think was quite important with federalism made on the on the point that chemicals needed for the overall transition. I think this is of course, part of the of the of the of the overall consideration when you also look at, at substitution at the wider picture of the green and
green transition from a book from a broader perspective. And that’s why we also developing the transition pathway to make sure that you have this board perspective with all the different requirements, because of course, they are and rightly so, I mean, they are many challenges, to which industry needs to adapt and where industry needs to profoundly transform. And I think this is a relevant, relevant aspect which which was which was mentioned. And on just maybe on I mean, I think FIFA has also we will put in the on the on the most substantial work, I think we can hear from from from ACCA, which is to to avoid some content may be unnecessarily based on the essential youth consequent papers. I mean, at the moment. We know i mean this, this will be a
restriction under the under the current under the current process. And there, it’s actually up to member states to come forward the moment to say whether they want to include the concept of consent of the central US or not, I think it’s quite clear that if we’re talking about papers in firefighting foams, in particular uses where you don’t have any substitution, I think we will probably all come to the conclusion that if you can’t extinguish electric battery, you would probably you introduce this concept here. But this is basically I mean something which will then be your suggestion when I mean this member states have started this process, what they how they want to take this is this forward. I think we all agree that I mean, as I said before, I’m very persistent, very dangerous, and that we might want me to make sure that they are limited in intimidated, not all possible applications, but maybe I’ll pass the frozen to if you still have time, just for one or two pages and from echo on the actual process of the work on Pcell FIFA.
Yes, thank you very much. And also to respond to the question of how quickly can we provide the opinion to the commission, of course on this very important file? Will you recognise, of course that this is important to to make sure that the advice is at the commission and also for the scrutiny of the parliament in a way that is not only speedily but it is also very well
developed.
In the sense just to say how the process works. The proposal for firefighting foams restriction has been
published in February, we have done open to public consultation, which will take us six months, in order to speed up the work committees are already preparing for their work on the on the opinion making. But of course, after the six months consultation, we have to take into account the comments, we have to look at them. And since this is such a big group of chemicals that we are looking at, we need to do that, of course in a very good way to make sure that the advice that we give to the commission is also very solid in order to take this forward. So I think the speeding up is not so much from how quickly can we provide the opinion but it is much more of the big group of chemicals that we are looking at because we have been working on P FOSS substances over the past decades. Several of them have been restricted, but it is now that we are really catching up with this very wide restriction and really speeding up the risk management in terms of
the scientific advice essential use criteria we do not have. So how do we look at the different applications? We look indeed at whether alternatives are available, but also how quickly can these alternatives be put in place?
And actually, we have found that there are alternatives in many sectors. In some sectors, like in the petrochemical industry, where you have flammable liquids and sometimes mixtures of flammable liquids. And when you have installations under this vaso directive, that’s where it is more complicated and where maybe some more time it will be needed to find the right alternatives. But that is all looked at on a scientific basis in order to provide the best possible advice of how to phase out can happen. Some of them can happen directly and others will take a little bit more time.
Finally, there was a question on what I consider school
To improve on restrictions authorizations, well I think some elements have been already mentioned by the colleagues from the commission when we look at authorization, we have been dealing with specific exemptions very detail exemptions one by one that is taking time and resources and perhaps that could be looked at in a broader sense as was already mentioned, we also think that there is possibilities to better ride synergies between the restriction and authorization processes, so to align them better So, these are some of the ideas that we have in this in this framework. And of course, as we said we are supporting the commission to bring this forward thank you
thank you to the three of you. So we are
now at the end of this first exchange of views and of course it’s the start of longer travel together.
Thank you for that and we make a very short break before moving to the next agenda agenda item for you to leave the Room.
Hi Aaron,
Interesting indeed! What is your take on the COM’s reply ‘when we bring forward our implementing legal texts, (to address adaptations to REACH/CLP) we will do so on the basis of our Treaty prerogatives…’?
Take care, Vicky
They want to do a lot of updates by secondary legislation. It was an oblique response to the concerns raised by some MEPs that they did not want comitology to be used. I may be wrong.