RAC and SEAC Committees Met in September

Details About the Meeting

In September, the RAC (Risk Assessment Committee) and SEAC (Socio-Economic Analysis Committee) held a meeting. During the meeting, an EU-wide proposal was introduced to restrict the use of PFAS in sectors such as petroleum and mining; textiles, upholstery, leather, apparel, carpeting; and food contact materials and packaging.

However, in this meeting, only the assessment of the petroleum and mining sector was completed, while other sectors will be addressed in subsequent meetings.

RAC agreed to review how PFAS emissions are calculated across various sectors, focusing on the waste stage, including emissions from waste disposal and incineration. This approach highlights the need to distinguish between PFAS particle emissions (solid) and those leaking from materials. Making this distinction is important because concerns related to fluoropolymer particles differ from those associated with non-polymeric PFAS.

The committees also identified which sectors will be addressed in upcoming meetings. In November, construction materials will be discussed for the first time, followed by discussions on fluorinated gas applications, transportation, and energy sectors after November.

Harmonized Classification and Labeling

RAC adopted thirteen opinions regarding the harmonized classification and labeling of hazardous substances. One of these opinions concerns Talc, for which the committee recommended adding the following classification:

• Carcinogen 1B, H350 (may cause cancer); and
• STOT RE 1, H372 (a substance that causes damage to lungs through prolonged or repeated exposure via inhalation).

RAC reviewed the database on Talc and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to support its classification as a potential carcinogen. According to ECHA, this conclusion is based on limited data from both animal studies and human studies.

RAC also assessed whether the carcinogenicity classification should apply to specific routes of exposure. Under the EU CLP Regulation, carcinogenicity classification is generally assumed to apply to all exposure routes unless it is conclusively proven that other routes do not cause the same hazard. In the case of Talc, there is insufficient information to confirm or refute the possibility that routes of exposure, including oral exposure, might cause the observed hazard. Therefore, the classification opinion does not specify any particular route of exposure.

Other key points discussed in the September meeting include:

• RAC and SEAC adopted 24 opinions regarding authorization applications and review reports for chromates.
• RAC reached a consensus on 13 draft opinions related to authorization applications and review reports, while SEAC reached consensus on 10 draft opinions.
• RAC adopted two opinions on occupational exposure limits (OELs).

For more details on the meeting, please refer to the annex published by ECHA.

This article was originated from ECHA.