PFAS: Second Consultation – What Matters Now

Simone Wilson

PFAS in dialogue, second consultation, final opinions, next steps. The milestones in the PFAS restriction procedure are clear. But how much room is still left to shape the outcome? The Committee for Risk Assessment is about to adopt its opinion, and the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis is preparing the draft of its assessment. This will be followed by a 60-day public consultation. By the end of 2026, the final opinions are to be submitted to the European Commission. How can industry make a meaningful contribution at this stage? That is what we are discussing today on the IDT podcast, which provides new perspectives and fresh impulses for industry and sealing technology. Joining me in the studio is Dr. Frauke Averbeck, scientific officer for REACH and CLP at the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or BAUA for short. Dr. Averbeck, I am very pleased to welcome you back, after you already helped classify the status of the procedure last spring. A very warm welcome.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Thank you very much, and I am also pleased to be here again.

Simone Wilson

My colleague Jörg Skoda is also here, Technical Director at IDT. Hello, Jörg.

Jörg Skoda

Hello, Simone.

Simone Wilson

My name is Simone Wilson. I am CEO of sealing specialist IDT and I will be guiding today’s conversation. Dr. Averbeck, to begin with, I would like to sort things out a little. The PFAS restriction process was launched at the beginning of 2023. The first public consultation then started in March 2023, thousands of comments were submitted, the proposal was intensively discussed and further developed. Now the second public consultation is coming up. Where exactly are we in the process today, and why is there this second round of participation?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Since the first public consultation, as you just said, many comments have been received. We reviewed and evaluated them — “we” in this case being the dossier submitters who submitted the original restriction dossier to ECHA. I believe we read more than 100,000 pages and combed through them for information, and that information has now been incorporated into the original dossier. Through this revision, the original dossier has now become what is called the background document. It is called a background document because it now forms the basis for the scientific assessment by ECHA’s two committees. We completed that work last year. In June 2025, we submitted the latest version, that is, the latest update of the background document, to ECHA, and it was then published in August. In addition, as dossier submitters we also prepared a summary, so that not everyone necessarily has to work their way through the 3,300 pages of the background document, but can instead find the most important key points in the summary and also see where in the background document they might look for specific information.

Simone Wilson

And now there is, on the one hand, the risk assessment and, on the other hand, the socio-economic analysis. But this second consultation ultimately relates to the latter.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. The second consultation relates to the draft SEAC opinion. That means this is purely about socio-economic aspects, but of course also once again about the state of alternative development. That also plays a major role here. Everything that the RAC, the Committee for Risk Assessment, is looking at is basically no longer part of this — unless one manages to build a bridge from risk-related information to the socio-economic impacts. So, for example, if emissions were overestimated and one can explain how that affects the socio-economic side, for instance SEAC’s cost assessment, then one can still bring in arguments on that detour. But RAC itself will no longer consider them separately.

Simone Wilson

But this second consultation phase was actually built into the process from the outset. In other words, it was part of the procedure.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

The second consultation phase is an integral part of the procedure. It is also provided for in the REACH Regulation, including the fact that it lasts exactly 60 days. That too is laid down in the Regulation and serves precisely to give stakeholders another opportunity to submit comments specifically on the socio-economic aspects and on SEAC’s opinion. The first consultation related to the dossier submitted by the dossier submitters. Now the point is to comment once again on the scientific assessment.

Simone Wilson

Exactly. That would have been my next question. In the first consultation, the focus may still have been somewhat on fundamental issues. How exactly should we understand the level we are now operating on? In other words, how would you describe the substantive difference between what was possible in the first consultation and what is possible now?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. Now it is really only about SEAC’s opinion. That will be published as soon as the draft has been finalized. Then the focus is specifically on costs, alternatives, and the question of what it would mean if I could no longer use PFAS in my business or in my products. What impact would that have? Those are the exact questions. And what is especially important here is that SEAC is struggling greatly with assessing proportionality. RAC assumes that a restriction is necessary in order to minimize emissions. That is also the basis, or the basic assumption, for SEAC. A restriction is necessary, and then, in essence, SEAC examines for each use whether an exemption is needed in order for the restriction to become proportionate. And in order to do exactly that, it currently lacks information for many use areas. That is why it is now important to submit this information again during the second consultation. The focus is particularly on the costs that would arise if PFAS could no longer be used. In other words: what would that mean in terms of substitution costs, would it lead to production stoppages, relocation abroad, and so on? Those are the aspects that are especially at the forefront here.

Simone Wilson

Good. So proportionality really is another important point to note here. And perhaps you could also briefly explain how this consultation is organized structurally, because there are changes here as well compared to the first consultation.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. In the first consultation, these were mainly questions that could be answered with free text in text fields and with attachments. This second consultation is much more structured by ECHA. There are many requirements as to what can be entered in the individual fields for the questions. In terms of basic structure, the questionnaire is divided into two parts. There is a general part, where comments can basically be submitted on each section of the SEAC draft opinion. And then there is a specific part, where one can provide information specifically on the 14 sectors addressed by RAC and SEAC. There is also what ECHA calls the use mapping, where it has shown in greater detail the level of granularity at which SEAC has dealt with the respective uses and sub-uses. And that is the level at which ECHA would now like to receive information, namely through these sector-specific questionnaires.

Simone Wilson

Thank you very much. Jörg, you have been closely involved in this topic from the start in various working groups and in exchange with the industry. Does this second consultation feel different from the first one? Has the discussion perhaps changed a bit over time? Could you give us some insight into that?

Jörg Skoda

Yes, above all from the perspective of the overall picture, when you look at what has happened over the past two years on this issue, there are several approaches. The new consultation phase that is coming up is causing major uncertainty because Dr. Averbeck just said that they restructured things. I see it a bit differently: it has been heavily limited, heavily cut back. We can now only enter 2,000 to 5,000 characters in some cases, and we may not necessarily upload documents. That does not make things easier. After all, we are talking about 10,000 substances. We are not talking about one single substance that you can somehow explain or replace. All the operators now have to determine where they can do without it and where they cannot. A huge number of tests are underway, far more than one can imagine, and this uncertainty is simply there. How am I supposed to explain in 2,000 characters — roughly one and a half to two A4 pages — why I absolutely need to work with a certain substance at a certain point? That makes things significantly more difficult. So I believe many people in this second consultation phase are not exactly hanging their heads, but when I am so heavily restricted in my documentation obligations — which I actually want to fulfill — then I have a problem.

Simone Wilson

Mm-hmm. Do you also feel that trust in the process is not exactly very strong as a result?

Jörg Skoda

Well, one can quite clearly say that this time the path chosen was not to ban every individual substance but to ban an entire group of substances. And I think they made that net a bit too big, in fact very full, because there is no differentiation at all. You always hear the same talking points. I do not know anyone who knows all 10,000 PFAS substances. We do not even know where they are all used. If one believes the literature and the media, we know that there are maybe around 300 to 400 that are actually critical. But painting everything with the same brush makes it more difficult, and we do not even know where it is actually used in every case. There are obvious examples like the Teflon frying pan — we do not even need to discuss that, I do not need one either. I have a ceramic pan; by the way, ceramic is not ideal either, but that is another matter. In the end, there are examples where you can directly say: yes, that can be dispensed with tomorrow. But there are so many applications that we simply cannot assess, and that also makes it difficult to provide clear, clean technical documentation explaining why something has to be done.

Simone Wilson

The group-of-substances approach was also something I found interesting. I remember our first conversation. You explained very well why that approach was chosen, because individual building blocks had been looked at and, ultimately, the authorities — not you personally, but the authorities — came to the conclusion that those individual solutions were not feasible and that the whole substance group needed to be examined. In our last podcast, we had Ms. Lücke-Brunk as a guest, and she said somewhat wistfully that she would of course have liked the developments of the last two and a half to three years, meaning technical developments, to be included now. But that was of course discussed in the RAC context. You already hinted at that a little. More specifically, is there now no real room left for that kind of information in this second consultation phase, or would you encourage companies that want to participate to still try to include such points somehow?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

I would definitely still try to include such topics. First, because they can of course try to make the connection to the socio-economic aspects so that SEAC can actually do something with the information. Second, one should bear in mind that the information will ultimately also go to the European Commission. And even if SEAC does not consider it now because it is really a RAC topic, it may still be helpful for the Commission when it forms its own view in the course of political decision-making later on. And perhaps one more word on the consultation itself: I can understand this very well. The character limit and ECHA’s strict requirements do indeed make things difficult. I also understand ECHA, which is under great time pressure and has of course seen what happened in the first consultation and how it went, and is now looking for a way to somehow cope with the comments. But I can also say that from BAUA’s side, we too find the approach ECHA has now chosen a bit too limited and too rigid. I can only recommend trying to provide information as specifically as possible nonetheless. And if there is documentation available, one should point out that ECHA has the option of requesting it if it would like more information.

Simone Wilson

You have already mentioned the character limit. In my world, I imagine you deal with this kind of thing every day and are an absolute expert at explaining complex matters clearly in a very small space. Do you perhaps have another tip for companies on how to proceed most effectively?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Because I can well understand that this is very difficult. When I think about having to explain any issue in 2,000 characters, my first reaction is also: how am I supposed to do that? I think it is really important to boil it down to what is essential — the truly relevant information. What is the function of the PFAS, where exactly is it used, and what significance does it have for the company if the PFAS can no longer be used? That really needs to be expressed in just a few sentences, perhaps supported by figures. Then there is also a question where you get another opportunity to explain how you arrived at the answers you gave in the previous questions. There I would try again to explain, as briefly and concisely as possible of course, how that was determined. And I would always try to add that we also have background information which we can make available.

Simone Wilson

But if I sense you correctly here, I get the impression that it is also very important to you that as many stakeholders as possible participate in this second consultation.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Yes, absolutely. I think that is very important, especially given the fact that SEAC is having such difficulty answering the question of proportionality and, at least at present, very often comes to the conclusion that it cannot say whether an exemption is necessary. I find that extremely concerning, I have to say. That makes it all the more important to provide ECHA and SEAC with the best possible information so that SEAC can actually carry out the task it has been given. One also has to keep in mind that the SEAC opinion, together with the RAC opinion, will ultimately form the basis for the European Commission and the Member States in deciding what a restriction can finally look like. And that does not help political decision-makers if a scientific committee is unable to make any statement.

Simone Wilson

Exactly. What would happen if they really could not make a statement?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

The Commission would have to find a way to deal with that. In the worst case, it would have to form its own picture. Theoretically, it could also commission ECHA again to examine the issue in more detail and provide a second opinion, but that too would simply cost time and, in terms of creating clarity on PFAS, might not be especially helpful at that moment.

Simone Wilson

Okay. Jörg, in the Sealing Technology Working Group, an open expert group that has been active for many years particularly in standardization and materials development, you formed a task force for the second public consultation. What was the thinking behind that?

Jörg Skoda

First of all, one has to say that it is really about understanding the language used by the authorities. I do not mean that in a negative way at all. When they talk about pressure equipment, I think of some kind of industrial system outdoors, but what they actually mean is a 3D printer. So it starts right there with the need to clear up misunderstandings. The second point is how to create a neutral document that people can use as a kind of guide. After all, the second consultation also deals a lot with internal company information that should not be made public. But then there is the question of how to deal with the general part: who is affected in what way, what can be anchored there, what can really be written, what makes sense? That is what we set out to do, with a particular focus, as you already said, on seals.

Simone Wilson

And what is the intended result? Are you developing a guideline, or how exactly should I imagine it?

Jörg Skoda

For the participants, it should become a kind of guide, though of course only a rough one. We will not be able to put detailed company specifics into it, because each company has to handle that itself. But we do want to say where we are technically affected, how we are affected, what we can submit jointly, and what could possibly be added. You can also split up information points. If I have 2,000 characters, I can use them for one aspect, and the next person can use theirs for something else. In that way, you can balance things out a bit. For me, that definitely makes sense. So yes, it will be a guide on how we deal with this.

Simone Wilson

And are you also dealing with the question of where we can enter certain remarks and information, in other words, with the structure of the consultation itself?

Jörg Skoda

Yes, that is the biggest problem with all these documents. We already had that in the first consultation phase. If you do not know what exactly the question is meant to ask, what belongs there and what does not, then people talk past one another. That is exactly what we are trying to prevent as far as possible. We will not manage it completely, but I do believe we are making a real effort to provide clean definitions for the individual questions and sub-points.

Simone Wilson

There is another particular challenge there, and we will come to that in a moment, because the sectors in which we would find ourselves no longer really exist in the same way. But first I have another question for you, Dr. Averbeck. At the beginning of the year, BAUA also provided information in two webinars, and you continue to do accompanying information work that offers important orientation. Where do you see typical misunderstandings in connection with the second consultation? Or perhaps, what are the questions that keep coming up again and again? That would also suggest that the need for information at this point is very high.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Yes, I think the highlight question in our webinars was actually the one we are about to come to, namely the sectors and what that actually means. As for typical misunderstandings, I am not even sure they are misunderstandings, but I do believe that many people feel the urge to go back to the background document they are now reading and improve information there or say this date is not correct, this has to be different, emissions are too high, costs are too high or too low, and so on. But that is precisely not the purpose of the second consultation. It is not about the background document and not about improving information in the background document. It is about enabling SEAC to express a view on proportionality. That is one aspect. Another aspect is the question of the consultation and the information SEAC would like to have. SEAC naturally wants as precise information as possible. Many people have found that difficult, as I have gathered. I think it is important to try to provide the most accurate data possible, but if that is not feasible, then perhaps it is still better to provide a rough estimate than nothing at all. And then explain how you arrived at that estimate. In the end, I think that helps more than doing nothing because one cannot state it precisely enough. And then of course the question always came up: what happens next, and when will the procedure be completed? I think we will come to that later as well.

Simone Wilson

And if you take a broader look, as I said, you are still out there engaging with people — how would you describe the general mood? What do you perceive from the participants?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Now, with regard to the consultation?

Simone Wilson

Yes, in the webinar, the webinars, or also the information events you hold, for example in associations — what is the overall mood there?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

It is actually quite mixed, I would say. I think there are great efforts to contribute and participate in a meaningful way, but also the same difficulties that you, Mr. Skoda, just mentioned: understanding at what point which information can be submitted at all. Then there is the problem of breaking things down into even further sub-uses, where in some cases SEAC goes even beyond what we as dossier submitters did. And then of course it is difficult, especially for small and medium-sized companies, to gather this information in the first place, to know where PFAS are present and where they need to contribute at all. And then there is also the level of detail. Yes.

Simone Wilson

But let me look at that from another angle. How great is the risk that information I have provided or submitted will not be taken into account because, for example, it was entered in the wrong place? Is that a real risk, or less so?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

I find it difficult to assess how ECHA will proceed. I do know that after its own webinar, ECHA said that it wanted to use artificial intelligence to have information summarized, which would then be manually evaluated further. And if they proceed very strictly and say, okay, we will only take information that was submitted in response to a specific question, then it is of course risky if someone provided the information elsewhere. In that case, it could happen that, at least for SEAC’s assessment, the information falls by the wayside and is not taken into account. Yes, I do see that risk. How great it really is, and how ECHA will ultimately handle it, one would have to ask ECHA.

Simone Wilson

Personally, I would say that is actually a very good point, because one could use artificial intelligence oneself to prepare one’s information in such a way that artificial intelligence can also find it easily. Once you know that, you can optimize for it. That would be my little hack tip at this point. But Jörg, you have also initiated an operator-side working group in which you yourself are not directly involved. From an industry perspective, is it clear what information is being requested now, or is there still uncertainty about what is really relevant?

Jörg Skoda

That question can always be answered in the same way: it is the complexity behind it all that makes it so incredibly difficult. Let us imagine we have one plant with five units in it. One of them needs fluoropolymers that fall under PFAS, which would then have to be banned because no substitute has yet been found, although people are desperately searching for one. And even that would not be the only problem. You might say one out of five units would fail. But the other four depend on the product from the first one. So it is not one unit that fails, but five. And then we get to the point I am most worried about, namely that people will say: I am not going to invest anymore, I will simply leave Germany or Europe and move to a country such as India or China, where people say they do not look so closely. That is what makes it difficult. And when people try to change things — we always say we have already been dealing with this for three and a half years. It took three and a half years for a single PFAS substance in Dr. Beckler’s case. Now we are talking about an entire substance group. So actually, even if one were to say we had twice as much time, we still have an enormous amount of new information that definitely will not make it into the current consultation process, I am pretty sure of that. So I simply believe we would need more time, or we would need the PFAS project to be broken up, so that one could say there are PFAS like, for example, Teflon, which we do not need and could ban tomorrow without a problem. But for areas that cannot yet be assessed, where we also do not know whether there are alternatives, I consider it simply too early. Even thirteen and a half years will not help there. If I think about the fact that we have now been struggling with this topic for three and a half years and are not making progress, then thirteen years of development time do not help me either, because I cannot develop it and at the moment I would not even know who could. And if we do find an alternative to fluoropolymers in our example, it will probably again be some kind of technical carbon-based material. Whether that is actually better remains to be seen. It does not have to be better.

Simone Wilson

So that means that, particularly on the operator side, the interdependencies among systems increase the level of complexity enormously. And then it becomes difficult to clearly identify what is actually affected and whether one has really thought of everything. Is that how I should understand it?

Jörg Skoda

Exactly. It is simply so cross-cutting, because technically we are really only affected in that we can submit information under “General” — we will come back to that — but some of those products themselves also contain the system, meaning PFAS, and that makes it significantly more complex and more complicated.

Simone Wilson

And that is perhaps another question for you. If I imagine a corporate group now, can it only submit information once as a single entity, or are there sub-groups within a corporate structure that can also submit information? I do not mean associations, but rather within a company structure.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

As I understood the consultation on ECHA’s side, there is no limit on the number of questionnaires one can submit. So one could also complete the questionnaire ten times in order to bring in as much information as possible.

Simone Wilson

So that means different people in the company at different points could all submit a questionnaire.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly.

Simone Wilson

That is another helpful point. Let us move to the sectors — the sword of Damocles that has been hanging over us a bit here and which I would also like to address openly. Over the course of the procedure, additional sectors were identified and added at the initiative of the dossier submitters, and now these areas are not being examined in greater depth. First of all, Dr. Averbeck, could you perhaps explain why this differentiation is no longer being pursued?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Yes, I would first like to go back a little further, namely to explain how it came about that we included these eight sectors. That emerged from the consultation and the information submitted in the consultation. And I would also like to point out in advance that not all eight sectors are new sectors as such. For example, technical textiles were actually already addressed in the original dossier under the textiles sector. But so much information came in and it became clear that the applications differ so much from the normal textiles sector that we eventually considered them separately. Seals, too, were partly covered in the petroleum and mining sector, but of course they also play a role elsewhere, so we said, okay, this is more of an overarching sector and we need to pull it out and look at it more generally. And truly new sectors in that sense are, for example, printing applications or explosives, which had previously played little if any role. From our point of view, it is very unfortunate that ECHA is not considering these sectors now. On ECHA’s side, this is connected with the fact that it is under heavy time pressure and has to complete its assessment by the end of this year. And ECHA is of the opinion that even looking at those eight sectors would not have been possible within the time frame available for the assessment.

Simone Wilson

And where exactly is that time pressure coming from?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

From the political side, from the European Commission, which is of course also under pressure and has repeatedly pledged to create clarity on PFAS. I believe it can really only do that once it actually has the committees’ opinions on the table. And yes, it is a kind of balancing act between investing more time to look at things in detail. We would of course have liked the sectors we looked at also to be assessed scientifically by ECHA. Unfortunately, ECHA has decided otherwise.

Simone Wilson

But Jörg, earlier you mentioned Teflon frying pans, and some things have already been decided, have they not? Recently there was something, I believe, on firefighting foams. So are there not also gradual decisions being made, or am I mixing things up here?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Yes, I think you are indeed mixing up two things. Parallel to our project of launching the so-called universal PFAS restriction, the European Chemicals Agency itself prepared a restriction dossier for PFAS in firefighting foams. We worked closely with ECHA on that because the timelines partly overlapped and we also wanted to make sure that both procedures were consistent, especially as regards the PFAS definition and the hazard and risk assessment. But because PFAS in firefighting foams was, first, submitted a year earlier and, second, concerns just that one application, it went through the regular procedure with the 12 months before RAC and SEAC and then the Commission decision. That is why we already have a decision there, but it is a separate procedure.

Simone Wilson

So that does not directly relate to the universal restriction procedure. But would it be conceivable that in the end we say, okay, some things can be decided, but other things simply cannot yet be decided?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

The Commission is very free in how it ultimately implements all of this. The basis is the background document and the RAC and SEAC opinions, but on that basis it can act relatively flexibly. It can even bring some things forward and say, okay, we regulate that first, while we initially exempt other sectors for an unlimited period and review them again later. It can even say that certain aspects should not be regulated under REACH at all because, in its view, they fit better into other regulatory areas. That option also exists for the Commission. So it is very flexible in that respect, and we will have to wait and see how it handles this. As for the eight sectors, the Commission also has room for maneuver there. For example, it could say that it dispenses with the RAC and SEAC opinions and submits a proposal based on the information in the background document. It might also look at what was nevertheless submitted during the SEAC consultation on these topics and then still make a proposal. The other option would be to commission ECHA again to provide an opinion specifically on those eight sectors, but that would of course again lead to a time delay.

Simone Wilson

Just so I understand correctly: in the standard course of things, the Commission would not coordinate with the committees again, but would rather consider the committees’ work finished, unless it explicitly asks them to assess the eight sectors, or SEAC to assess the eight sectors, once more.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. ECHA’s opinion is the basis on which the Commission acts. But it does not coordinate that again with ECHA. Instead, a discussion takes place first within the Commission among the various Directorates-General and then also with the Member States in the so-called REACH Regulatory Committee, where a Commission proposal is discussed.

Simone Wilson

It was important to me today to say openly that we are of course disappointed that these sectors are not being taken into consideration, but we always try to look forward. It does not help to prolong a problem-centered perspective. We still have to act. For us, the decisive question is therefore how companies can still act constructively, both with a view to participation in the second consultation and ultimately also with regard to innovation. Jörg, for us that does not mean standing still, but rather a signal to drive technological development forward. You are working in parallel with material manufacturers and customers on solutions, especially in the PTFE area. How is this state of the procedure affecting your work and your direction?

Jörg Skoda

Well, it naturally increases the pressure significantly because you do not know how it will end. Of course, one tries to use the options we already know. And we have many of them in sealing technology: we know graphite, we know fiber, we know metal, there are plastics that are more or less suitable. The problem is always that you hear many proposed solutions — this could be used, that could be used — and when you test them, you quickly realize that they simply do not work. So yes, it significantly increases the pressure. As for finding new materials, we cannot do that ourselves. We can only draw on what the market currently offers, and that is why we need appropriate support to help us move forward.

Simone Wilson

But you are also active in the plastics field and are indeed looking at topics and developments that move in the direction of not necessarily PFAS-free right away, but at least PFAS reduction and, where possible in the long term, PFAS-free. Could you say a bit more about that?

Jörg Skoda

Yes, of course we already have several trials underway together with customers and operators where we say, okay, right now we have a PEEK variant that still contains 20 percent PTFE, but that is at least an 80 percent reduction. We do not yet know the results. So yes, we are not PFAS-free yet, but we would have a significant reduction, which is already a meaningful statement. The next step will be that we have found someone who wants to develop plastics for us that are PFAS-free. I do not even know whether we are allowed to mention the names, but in the end we need someone who comes from the production side of these plastics and can supply us with the preliminary materials, which we can then test properly. So there is pressure, but there is also a great deal of helplessness because even the people — and I know little about chemistry, I have the feeling I did not pay enough attention in school either — but there are really people involved who say: what you currently have, this jack-of-all-trades in fluoropolymers, is not going to exist like that anymore, and we will not be able to replace it 100 percent. It simply will not work. That is what experts tell me, and I take note of it. But of course we are trying everything to find new materials and actually make many applications PFAS-free.

Simone Wilson

I recently put it very nicely — I think it was also in a comment on the podcast with Ms. Lücke-Brunk — that it is hard to innovate from an ejection seat. But at the same time, for us this is still something we tackle in parallel. It is not as if we are closing ourselves off to it. It is quite clear to us that we are pursuing this in parallel.

Jörg Skoda

If I may add something, it is not just us who keep trying to open up new innovations and new paths. Industry is often accused of not wanting to move and of building up a lobby. No, they also want to get away from these materials. Some of them are not cheap and they have both advantages and disadvantages. There is a good example of a company that has for years been trying to replace certain conveyor belts made of fluoropolymers, and they simply cannot do it. They would like to replace them because they are so incredibly expensive, but everything they have tried so far has meant that the belts lasted about two days and then there was nothing left of them. That is simply a problem you cannot get under control. I would like to come back to the eight sectors. My idea would actually be this: first of all, I believe the sectors were deliberately removed because otherwise we would need another three and a half years to discuss the whole thing. I still think those eight sectors were worked out extremely well by the authorities, including BAUA. It became clear that there were simply things that had not been on the radar. We are human, that is completely okay. And I think it also takes a certain greatness to say that these eight sectors are needed, that we had overlooked them in some way. To not consider them at all — yes, one can do that. But now we have the problem that operators are also under time pressure. They want to build new plants but cannot because they do not know what will happen next. The other side of the coin is: why not first remove those eight sectors, which are actually important, and assess them in a separate procedure? That again creates a time problem, giving operators another hurdle to deal with, but I believe that if one simply tries to solve the entire problem now with general statements, that can only fail in my opinion. I do not think it can work. That is my personal opinion. I have tried to form a picture, and in the end we are all seeing the same thing: we all want PFAS to be regulated, strongly regulated, but we are also seeing that in practice it simply does not work that way.

Simone Wilson

I would perhaps adopt BAUA’s perspective there for a moment. In reality, identifying those sectors was an original task of the procedure itself. I think you also said that in the first podcast. The point is to set a process in motion, but then you also need feedback from experts to check whether everything has been taken into account and where exactly you stand. I just wanted to say: not forgotten, but rather this is part of the process, correct, Dr. Averbeck?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. It is part of the process. But it is still true that they were not taken into account in the original dossier, at least not to the extent they perhaps should have been. We tried to repair that with the background document and with the inclusion of the additional sectors. That is precisely why it is so regrettable now that the committees will not deal with them in detail. For me, this is also a legal question because, in my personal opinion, it is actually the task of RAC and SEAC to deal with all the information in the background document. In my view, they are not doing that here. And I do not know to what extent ECHA has really examined that properly from a legal standpoint, and what possible consequences it might have in later litigation, should it come to that.

Simone Wilson

I have the feeling that we are not going to be able to moderate away the uncertainty here today, much as we might wish to. And as much as the committees are under time pressure, in the end it seems that no one is really helped by that, which is a bit unfortunate. Still, I would now like to look toward the rest of the procedure so that everyone, including our listeners, is clear on what happens next. Up to now, BAUA and the dossier submitters have been heavily involved. Now this is shifting more toward committee work at ECHA and then later the political decision phase, as we have already heard. So what does the timeline now look like more concretely, and when do you think a decision at the European level can realistically be expected?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

As I said, I think the SEAC consultation will begin toward the end of the month, at the end of March or the beginning of April. It then runs for 60 days, so we will be somewhere near the end of May. After that, SEAC will evaluate the comments, incorporate them into its opinion, and ECHA plans to finish by the end of the year and then submit the entire documentation to the Commission. “Entire documentation” means the background document, the committees’ opinions, and also, for example, the feedback on the comments received. Then the whole package will be with the Commission. Normally, if you look at the REACH Regulation, the Commission is supposed to submit a proposal for the regulation within three months. In practice, however, it rarely does so for other restrictions either. Usually we are looking more at delays of six to twelve months before a Commission proposal is actually on the table. Of course, with PFAS one has to see that the Commission is also under enormous pressure. The hope would therefore be that it submits a proposal as quickly as possible, and then at some point in 2027 discussions will take place in the so-called REACH Regulatory Committee, where it exchanges views with the Member States. Normally, the Commission will discuss and amend its proposal until it can be sure that it will receive the approval of the Member States in the Regulatory Committee. That can then certainly take four, five, or six meetings. The Regulatory Committee meets about every two months, so perhaps in the course of 2028 we will not yet have a decision, but I think a lot depends on what the Commission’s proposal looks like and how detailed it is. The more details there are, the broader and more detailed the discussions will presumably be.

Simone Wilson

But how likely is it that the procedure will be delayed again between March this year and December this year? Because if the character limits have now been introduced, but then all 200 employees at IDT, for example, submit a questionnaire, then in terms of the volume of comments nothing has really been gained, has it?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Perhaps ECHA will indeed be able to deal with this better with the help of artificial intelligence and the possibility of having answers summarized than we dossier submitters could, because we really had to read every single page ourselves. ECHA is very confident that it can do it by the end of the year. At the moment, that is all I can say, because I do not know how many comments will come in. I also expect there will be very many, perhaps even more than in the first consultation.

Simone Wilson

But that is not a hard deadline. If they really realize they cannot make it, then it could also take longer.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

It could take longer. It is a self-imposed deadline. And of course the Commission also wants something to be put forward by that point. Since ECHA is communicating this deadline quite openly, I think it will do everything it can to meet it in the end.

Simone Wilson

Okay, so we will have to wait and see. One thing that would also interest me: as we have just said, BAUA and the dossier submitters have been heavily involved up to this point. What exactly is your role now in the rest of the procedure and also in the future on this topic?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

At the moment, we are still supporting ECHA if there are questions about the background document. For example, we were heavily involved in the use mapping that ECHA prepared as support for the SEAC consultation, in the sense that ECHA consulted us again: do you see it the same way that this use fits into this sector, and so on? What we are also doing now is, on the one hand, continuing to follow the procedure at ECHA and making ourselves available for questions and, on the other hand, participating in events ourselves in the context of our helpdesk work and organizing events in order to provide as much guidance as possible for the upcoming consultation and give companies something to work with in preparing themselves. We ourselves will not have an active role in this consultation or in evaluating the comments. That is solely the task of ECHA and SEAC. And then we will come back into play when there is a Commission proposal, where we then have an advisory role toward our ministry. In practice, this means we also review the Commission proposal and, together with the other national authorities involved — namely the German Environment Agency and the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment — we form an opinion on the Commission proposal and pass that on to the Environment Ministry. The task of the Environment Ministry is then to coordinate a common German position with the other ministries. Naturally, our authorities’ position feeds into that, but it is of course not the only decisive factor.

Simone Wilson

And that would then be in 2027 or 2028 if everything runs as you have just outlined it.

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Exactly. As I said, that starts once a Commission proposal is actually on the table.

Simone Wilson

Jörg, I want to come back to you because earlier we spoke a little about innovation, but you are also quite pessimistic about whether this timeline can be managed. If you now look at where we are — early 2026, the first quarter — and then we are in 2028, what do you think can realistically happen in those two years in terms of development, especially in plastics technology?

Jörg Skoda

The general development is that in the last two years we have indeed already found solutions with the materials we know. When it comes to entirely new developments, however, companies that manufacture the raw materials are the ones being called upon. They face a major challenge. People would love to have something again that can be replaced one-to-one. But we know exactly that it will not work that way. In practice, that also brings many problems. If we now take the thirteen and a half years that we are supposedly going to get with the decision, well, by then I will be retired — that is one side of it — but the other side is that it will be tight, very tight, because at the moment I cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel for some applications. There are applications where we have said it works, and we are glad about that. But there are also many where it does not work, and at the moment I do not know how to deal with that. Those thirteen and a half years are difficult for me.

Simone Wilson

Would it be important for you, Dr. Averbeck, or for BAUA, to remain in contact with the people with whom you have already been exchanging views, in order to see how things are developing?

Dr. Frauke Averbeck

Yes, definitely. There is great interest in that on our side because of course in the end we also want to see what a restriction would actually achieve if there is one. And perhaps also to respond to Mr. Skoda’s question about the thirteen and a half years and how to deal with it: we also raised this issue in the background document, namely that particularly for the exemptions with thirteen and a half years, we see very great uncertainty regarding whether that period is really sufficient to develop alternatives within that time frame. That is why we strongly advocated introducing a review clause into the restriction, especially for these use areas, so that after a certain period — for example after eight or nine years — one would already check how development is progressing, what is happening, and whether it is foreseeable that the thirteen and a half years will be sufficient or whether more time is clearly needed. In that case, the period could also be extended proactively.

Simone Wilson

So rather a dynamic form of regulation at that point. That brings us to the end of our discussion. Dr. Averbeck, thank you again for your transparent classification, your openness, and your differentiated view of the next steps in the procedure. Jörg, thank you as well for your practical assessment. At the beginning, I asked how much room there still is to shape the outcome. Perhaps this conversation shows that it is less about room for maneuver in the traditional sense and more about concrete ways of shaping things — and these lie both in participation, in robust data, and in technological development. If I could make one wish in closing, it would be that the second consultation be used broadly and constructively by companies that ultimately contribute their practical experience and their data. The PFAS issue will continue to accompany us, both regulatorily and technologically. At the same time, it is only one part of a larger industrial transformation process. Here at IDT, too, we will now consciously move the topic somewhat into the background and once again focus more strongly on other exciting topics and future fields in our industry, including here on this podcast. Because we are convinced that innovation does not end with regulatory questions — it often begins right there. Thank you very much for listening. Stay connected with us until next time on the IDT podcast for new perspectives and fresh impulses in industry and sealing technology.