In response to the proposed restriction of all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the European Union (EU)'s European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) and the Korea Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) submitted comments to the ECHA and the World Trade Organization's Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO TBT) Enquiry Point, respectively on September 25.
PFAS are known to be persistent in the environment and human body because they are not easily decomposed. Nevertheless, their ability to resist water, oil, chemicals, and heat, coupled with their stable molecular structure, makes them widely used across various industries for their waterproof, oil-repellent, chemically resistant, and heat-resistant attributes.
Korea’s industrial sector is voicing concerns that a full ban on the use of PFAS could significantly disrupt the production and export of our products, particularly in the absence of viable alternatives. MOTIE has ardently spurred industries to provide feedback, offering explanatory documents, organizing seminars, circulating guidelines for submissions, and facilitating consultations. So far, the semiconductor, display, battery, and automobile sectors have submitted their comments. The recent submission of comments by MOTIE reflects a collaborative stance with the industrial sector.
The comments contained both concerns and stipulations. Concerns addressed the challenge of finding alternatives within the suggested grace periods of 5 or 12 years, which could disrupt the global supply chain; a potential upheaval in the production of batteries and semiconductors as well as recycling of batteries, which could delay the adoption of electric vehicles and obstruct carbon neutrality and circular economy initiatives; a full ban on over 10,000 types of PFAS without individually assessing their environmental and human effects raises concerns of overregulation; and furthermore, the lack of detailed molecular information for many industry-used PFAS complicates the determination of their regulatory status.
Considering these concerns, the comments presented the following several stipulations: that a more pragmatic grace period should be established with a clear understanding of the status and required timeframe for developing alternatives; regulatory exceptions should be considered for PFAS integral to medical devices, electric vehicles, semiconductors, and other items that serve significant medical, societal, or safety functions, or for which no technological or economic alternatives are foreseeable for a considerable time; and that regulations should also be confined to PFAS proven to be harmful to humans and the environment after thorough assessment.
MOTIE highlighted its commitment to monitor the discussions and consistently convey the opinions of the Korean government and industry through trade dialogues with the EU.