EU: universal PFAS restriction process enters its decisive phase: SEAC draft Opinion published – public consultation open

For several years, Member States and EU institutions have been working on an EU-wide so-called universal restriction for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) under the EU REACH Regulation. The formal restriction proposal (or ‘restriction dossier’) was originally submitted in 2023 by five Member States, subjected to broad public consultation which resulted in more than 5,600 stakeholder submissions, and a revised proposal was submitted by the same Member States in 2025 (see our blog post). Review of the formal restriction proposal (or ‘restriction dossier’) by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has been ongoing since the original restriction proposal was made, and until now it has not been known what the ECHA’s position on the restriction proposal will be. Now, ECHA has entered the final phase of its evaluation process. In March 2026, the ECHA published:

• the draft opinion of its Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) on the restriction proposal and opened a 60 day public consultation on its opinion. SEAC’s role has been to assess the proportionality of the restriction proposal by focusing on alternatives, costs, transition periods and sector‑specific socio‑economic impacts. 

• the final opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) (already dating from 2 March 2026), which is the final-stage scientific assessment within the restriction process. It is RAC’s task to evaluate hazards, emissions and risks of a substance subjected to a restriction proposal, and RAC has now confirmed that PFAS warrant a group‑wide restriction from a risk assessment point of view.

Both RAC and SEAC agree that a broad PFAS restriction is necessary. While RAC favours a stricter approach (i.e., a full ban) from a scientific viewpoint, SEAC considers a ban with use-specific derogations as most appropriate, taking socio-economic proportionality into account.

SEAC and RAC are independent scientific bodies attached to ECHA, and are required to formulate opinions on restriction proposals which then serve as the basis for the European Commission’s final decision on adopting a restriction (which, in this case, would be by way of a legislative act amending Annex XVII REACH). ECHA has published extensive information and guidance, as well as the original documents with all annexes, on its website.

Background

The PFAS restriction would bring about a paradigm shift in the way European substance regulation is undertaken, from substance-by-substance regulation to a systemic, group-based restriction on PFAS.

At the political level, there is a broad consensus within the European Commission, Council and Parliament for a broad PFAS phase-out, with exemptions only for “essential uses”. Communication by the Commission suggests the restriction is politically set, and the open questions concern how – not if – PFAS will be phased out (e.g., derogations, transition periods, feasibility requirements). The Commission also intends to expand PFAS regulation to emissions and remediation-based responsibility, which would make PFAS increasingly relevant to liability and physical sites/installations, not just product compliance.

Against this background, the SEAC consultation marks the moment companies should begin ensuring that their uses, constraints and socioeconomic realities are adequately reflected before the Commission drafts the final restriction proposal. In the legislative process, the ongoing consultation on the SEAC opinion is the last structured opportunity for companies to have a say on the design of the restriction. The consultation is aimed at collecting the missing evidence on proportionality, alternatives, costs, societal impacts and substitution feasibility needed to complete the socio-economic proportionality assessment, so there is still a chance to shape SEAC’s final conclusions on proportionality. Absent respective sector-specific input from stakeholders, SEAC may resolve to cover the identified substantial data gaps with recommendations for broad rules driven by precaution (e.g., generic transition periods, overlooked essential uses, and substitution assumptions).

The starting point: restriction options under the initial dossier

In the evaluation process, the three core restriction options of the initial dossier were assessed for the substance group of PFAS: restriction option 1 (RO1) (a full ban, subject to an 18‑month transition period), restriction option 2 (RO2) (a ban, also subject to an 18‑month transition period, with use‑specific, mostly time‑limited derogations), and, in addition, restriction option 3 (RO3) (continued use under strict conditions or emission‑related requirements for certain sectors). The proposal of the Member States that had submitted the dossier essentially corresponds to RO2 for all sectors, except for the manufacturing of PFAS, for which a time unlimited derogation subject to emission limit (so-called RO3b) was proposed.

The prelude: the conclusions of RAC

On the basis of the very high persistence and associated hazard profile of PFAS, RAC considers a full PFAS ban (RO1) as the scientifically appropriate option, as it delivers the most effective reduction of releases and avoids the “uncontrollable risk“ of PFAS emissions that the derogation‑based RO2 would leave in place. RAC also rejects grouped derogations for so-called “fully degradable PFAS” (i.e., fluoropolymers and volatile PFAS). In addition, RAC supports stricter steps to ensure all relevant PFAS are captured under limit‑value testing, and calls for broad, mandatory risk‑minimisation measures across any permitted uses under the restriction. As a result, the RAC opinion calls for a considerably stricter restriction than initially proposed.

The subject of the consultation: SEAC’s draft conclusions on proportionality

SEAC’s draft opinion includes detailed socio‑economic evaluations for the 15 main sectors originally considered in the Annex XV dossier (sectors 1-15), as well as a more limited review of additional sectors subsequently added by the Member States later in the process (sectors 16-23, see our blog post), and of PFAS manufacturing.

Overall restriction approach

SEAC agrees that a broad PFAS restriction is necessary, aligning with RAC. While SEAC stresses that it does not agree with all substantive elements of the initial dossier’s proposal, and is unable to reach a conclusion in several areas due to limited data availability, it considers a REACH restriction on PFAS as a group to be the most suitable EU‑wide regulatory measure, provided that key elements of the dossier proposal are adjusted.

SEAC emphasises that it relies on RAC’s recalculated emission estimates (rather than those of the initial dossier), namely an effectiveness (reduction potential) of 96% for RO1 and 76% for RO2. According to RAC, this difference translates to 700,000 tonnes of additional PFAS emissions over a 30-year period. This raises the central question of how much residual PFAS emission shall be tolerated in exchange for use‑specific derogations for the sake of socio-economic proportionality.

Significant data gaps

SEAC repeatedly stresses that its assessment of the PFAS restriction is marked by significant data gaps across sectors, uses and sub‑uses, which hinder its ability to draw robust conclusions on alternatives, costs, benefits and proportionality, underlining that many of the initial dossier’s assumptions – particularly regarding substitution potential, cost magnitudes and the feasibility of risk‑management measures – cannot be validated. SEAC highlights that the breadth and complexity of the proposal, combined with limited and uneven information, prevents a comprehensive evaluation and introduces substantial uncertainty into almost every aspect of the assessment. Stakeholder evidence is required to help resolve these uncertainties and determine whether proposed derogations, transition periods and risk‑management conditions are proportionate or require revision.

While SEAC is unable to fully assess the proportionality of RO1 due to missing data, it concludes that the socio‑economic impacts of a full ban (RO1) appear excessive and would likely be not proportionate, emphasising that use‑specific derogations are fundamentally necessary to ensure proportionality. SEAC, thus, identifies RO2 as the most appropriate Union‑wide measure in principle, but stresses that its proportionality overall cannot be confirmed, either, due to persistent data gaps on alternatives, transition timelines and economic impacts and benefits across many use sectors.

Central point: derogations

SEAC holds that derogations under the PFAS restriction should not be justified solely on the basis that alternatives are unavailable or limited (as the initial dossier had largely assumed). Instead, SEAC proposes that sector‑specific alternatives assessments be undertaken and that each derogation be substantiated by a combined evaluation of substitution potential, PFAS emissions associated with the use, and the socio‑economic costs, benefits, and costs of non‑action – going significantly beyond a simple alternatives‑listing approach. SEAC notes that several uses show “sufficiently strong evidence for low substitution potential”, which is one reason why a full ban (RO1) would impose disproportionate burdens. However, SEAC stresses that the emissions profile and associated societal and economic impacts must also be considered, and that an “acceptable loss of performance” may exist where alternatives do not fully match PFAS performance, provided that the minimum functional and safety requirements of the specific use are still met (particularly distinguishing between safety‑critical and non‑critical applications). 

SEAC places significant weight on the long‑term societal costs associated with continued PFAS emissions, basing its assessment of the benefits on available projections for the costs of ongoing releases, focusing on persistent and accumulating future liabilities, including environmental remediation costs, impacts on public health, and losses in ecosystem services. In particular, SEAC references a study which makes a “conservative estimate” that the remediation of the most contaminated sites alone would amount to 2 trillion euros over a period of 20 years, and another study by the Commission estimating costs up to 21.6-712.9 billion euros per year assuming full compliance with the EU Drinking Water Directive. While SEAC notes that the exact figures could not be confirmed, it concludes that they clearly provide an important indication of the magnitude of impacts of PFAS emissions.

SEAC’s draft overall conclusions on derogations reflect a mixed and often inconclusive picture: while several proposed exemptions are considered justified, many others are deemed not justified under SEAC’s expanded criteria, and a large number remain undetermined due to insufficient evidence across alternatives, emissions and socio‑economic impacts.

Exemptions which are typically seen in substance bans and phase-outs, such as for spare parts and recycling streams, are partly supported by SEAC, with SEAC recognising their relevance for sustainability and circular‑economy considerations, whilst stressing that granular information is missing to delineate when such exemptions are warranted. At the same time, SEAC explicitly notes that additional derogations may ultimately be necessary to ensure proportionality, but – in alignment with RAC – rejects any derogation for supposedly “degradable PFAS” (i.e., fluoropolymers and volatile PFAS, see above), as well as several other significant exclusions proposed by the initial dossier, including for active substances (biocides, plant protection products, medicinal products) and parts of research and development (SR&D/PPORD) activities. Overall, SEAC’s assessment underscores that derogations will remain narrow, evidence‑based exceptions, and that definitive conclusions depend on the additional data stakeholders provide during the consultation.

SEAC makes clear that, in many areas, the available data does not yet allow it to confirm whether proposed derogations and transition periods are proportionate. In particular, SEAC calls for further input on use‑specific performance requirements, safety and regulatory constraints, realistic substitution timelines, cost impacts and emissions data. SEAC supports the initial dossier’s approach of using standard transition periods (five or twelve years, in addition to the general 18‑month transition phase), linked to the strength of the evidence on alternatives and regulatory approval needs. However, the opinion repeatedly notes that, where quantified and substantiated evidence is missing, SEAC cannot confirm whether a derogation is necessary. 

In that situation, and given the prevailing political objective of a broad PFAS phase‑out, it appears that the political decisionmakers will favour more restrictive outcomes. In practical terms, this means that industry input might help the political decision makers to determine whether a use is preserved, narrowed, or phased out. Input on derogations should substantiate not only the feasibility of substitution but also why the residual emissions from the continued use are acceptable when measured against these quantified and unquantified long‑term societal costs.

In their revised restriction proposal published in 2025, the Member States had included eight additional sectors (see our blog post) – namely printing applications, sealing applications, machinery applications, other medical applications (e.g. pharmaceutical packaging/excipients), military applications, explosives, technical textiles, and broader industrial uses such as solvents and catalysts. SEAC now explicitly notes that no sector‑specific evaluation was performed in relation to these additional sectors, as these uses were not part of the original scope of the restriction dossier – however, we understand that uses have been considered as far as they were initially included in the 15 sectors first covered by the restriction proposal. As a result, SEAC was unable to assess whether the derogations proposed by the submitters of the dossier for these sectors are justified, nor whether additional derogations might be necessary to ensure proportionality. To avoid regulatory gaps, SEAC therefore recommends an interim, time‑limited generic derogation for all uses in these eight sectors until a full proportionality assessment can be undertaken. In practical terms, for these sectors the outcome is still highly fluid: robust, use‑specific data from industry may determine whether interim derogations are maintained, narrowed, expanded, or phased out.

Risk Mitigation Measures

SEAC takes a cautious but critical stance on the risk‑mitigation instruments proposed in the initial dossier. While the Committee considers reporting obligations a generally suitable tool for monitoring PFAS uses and emissions, it stresses that the proportionality of this approach cannot be assessed due to insufficient data and that the associated costs may be substantial. 

SEAC also in principle supports PFAS management plans for industry, but finds the dossier’s proposed site‑specific management plans for fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) – when used under derogations – neither practical nor appropriate, pointing to potentially high costs and significant enforcement challenges. SEAC views RAC’s broader proposal to extend monitoring, reporting and adopt emissions minimisation duties to all PFAS SEAC as even more difficult to enforce, with likely even higher costs and feasibility – again – impossible to judge without better evidence.

On supply‑chain information duties, SEAC agrees with RAC’s objective of improved communication but explicitly highlights the enforcement difficulties of RAC’s proposal and again calls for guidance to address practicality issues. Together, these points create concrete pressure fields for stakeholder input in the consultation: companies are given an opportunity to argue which reporting or management obligations are necessary, proportionate and implementable, and which would impose disproportionate administrative or enforcement burdens.

The stakeholder consultation

The consultation on SEAC’s draft opinion is structured to capture both sector-specific and crosscutting information. ECHA has published a guidance document for respondents to the consultation. Dedicated sections of the EU Survey website invite detailed input for the sectors SEAC has evaluated, while other sections allow stakeholders to address any PFAS use, including uses in the eight additional sectors for which SEAC has not carried out a full sector-specific evaluation (see above).

In the sector-focused parts of the survey, SEAC is seeking granular socio-economic evidence, broken down as far as possible to the level of specific uses and applications, as outlined in a PFAS use map by sector published by ECHA as an annex to the afore-mentioned guidance document. SEAC’s evaluation logic requires companies to identify their exact sector, use category, sub-use and application, so PFAS users should consider categorising their PFAS use corresponding to SEAC’s hierarchy (“sector → use → sub‑use → application”) before responding. Without this categorisation, submissions might potentially be misplaced.

The scope of the consultation includes information on the availability as well as technical and economic feasibility of alternatives, realistic substitution timelines (including testing and regulatory approvals), potential loss of performance or functionality and associated safety or regulatory implications, as well as impacts on costs, competitiveness, employment and supply security and the wider societal effects of losing or restricting a use.

Stakeholders are also asked to explain the feasibility and costs of risk management measures attached to continued uses, in particular the reporting, monitoring and other operational conditions envisaged under restriction option RO3 and by RAC, to provide information on the costs and practicalities of analytical and monitoring methods.

Beyond the sector‑specific sections, the consultation includes questions on cross‑cutting subjects, such as SEAC’s treatment of uncertainties and additional conditions, via the so-called “general survey”. This offers an opportunity to supply evidence, e.g., on issues like substitution potential and acceptable loss of performance across sectors, safe‑use scenarios relevant to continued uses, the status of “degradable PFAS”, and data supporting or challenging contentious derogations (for example for active substances or SR&D/PPORD) – as well as on the eight additional sectors which were not included in the initial restriction proposal (see above). In contrast, ECHA has stressed that information related to RAC’s already final opinion, e.g., on hazards, emissions and risks, without reference to the socio-economic analysis, as well as data already submitted during the consultation of the initial restriction proposal as such and mere policy statements, will not be considered.

The survey allows respondents to submit confidential information, provided each confidential response is clearly marked and justified. Anonymous submissions are not possible, as SEAC must be able to contact respondents to clarify or supplement the information provided.

Given SEAC’s repeated statement that it cannot fully assess the proportionality of the proposed restriction and many of the suggested derogations due to missing data, this consultation is effectively the decisive moment for companies using PFAS. The breadth, credibility and granularity of their socio‑economic input now will influence SEAC’s final proportionality assessment and thus the scope, duration and conditions of any PFAS derogations the Commission eventually proposes.

What happens after the consultation?

Following the consultation period, SEAC will review the received feedback and is expected to adopt its final opinion by the end of 2026, which will then be submitted to the European Commission. On this basis, the Commission will prepare the legislative proposal and, without further mandatory public consultation, submit it to the REACH Committee (composed of Member State representatives). Based on recent public announcements by the Commission (see our blog post) and the conclusions of RAC and SEAC summarised above, it is likely that the Commission will generally follow a rather strict overall approach in the legislative restriction proposal (whereas the details will notably also depend on the outcome of the ongoing consultation reflected in SEAC’s final opinion). After review and comments by the REACH Committee, the proposal will be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council for scrutiny, who may object to the proposed restriction measure by way of a veto. If no veto occurs, the restriction will be added to Annex XVII of EU REACH and, thereby, enter into force.

As the Commission intends, over time, to holistically address manufacture, use, emissions and remediation across the life cycle, the universal restriction under EU REACH is expected to serve as a central legal anchor, to which other frameworks – such as industrial emissions law, water law and product-specific regimes (e.g., packaging, toys, food contact materials) – will increasingly connect.

What should businesses do now?

Companies manufacturing, importing, or using PFAS in the EU or European Economic Area (EEA) should review the draft SEAC opinion and evaluate the impact on their specific sector, use category, sub-use and application.

On this basis, all affected businesses should consider submitting comments in the consultation which is ongoing until 25 May 2026, even if they have already shared comments during the earlier consultation on the initial proposal as such – taking into account that this consultation offers an opportunity to shape the basis for the legislative proposal by the Commission. The notes and guidelines mentioned above (including the PFAS mapping by ECHA) should be taken into account.

Beyond the consultation, businesses should continue preparing for the future restriction, inter alia by mapping their PFAS-related exposure, including their supply chain (also beyond the restriction as such, e.g. in relation to industrial emissions as well as potential liabilities for soil and groundwater impacts), and keeping an eye on any regulatory developments which may affect their business activities.

In addition to its direct legal effects (i.e., the prohibition to use, manufacture or place on the market the relevant PFAS, if no derogation applies), the restriction will likely also have a wider impact by “outlawing” the whole group of PFAS as hazardous and banned substances – this “vibe shift” may also influence liability questions, in particular if used by courts as indications in future court proceedings. This further emphasises the relevance of the restriction proposal beyond its actual wording as such.

Our EU-based environmental law team continues to monitor regulatory developments and advise clients on strategic regulatory planning and future compliance.