A tough line taken by ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) on the proposed restriction on chromium trioxide (VI) substances could amount to a de facto ban for Europe’s surface treatment sector, potentially driving production outside the region, industry representatives have said.
Consultation feedback now under way on socio-economic impacts is expected to play a key role in shaping the restriction, as stakeholders assess whether tighter risk controls are feasible. The measure, intended to replace the current authorisation regime for uses of 11 CrVI substances, is anticipated by the end of 2028.
The 60-day consultation on ECHA’s Committee for Socio‑Economic Analysis (SEAC) draft opinion runs until 17 August.
In its 1 June opinion, RAC departed from the approach set out in ECHA’s original restriction dossier by backing significantly stricter conditions for continued use, including a much lower worker exposure limit (WEL) – 0.1µg/m³ – and short transition period of 18 months.
By contrast, the agency had proposed a ban with use‑specific derogations tied to a range of exposure and emission thresholds under different options, allowing more flexibility for certain applications. Stakeholders say RAC’s position, if adopted in the final proposal, could severely constrain Europe’s plating and surface treatment industry.
SEAC’s draft opinion does not endorse a single restriction option but evaluates the proportionality of the different approaches, including RAC’s stricter position.
"SEAC seems to be sitting on the fence," said Bernadette Quinn, deputy business leader for substitution at consultancy Apeiron-Team. "However, there are nuances in the opinion that imply that the RAC recommendation or other more strict options could be proportionate" with longer transition times.
For Quinn, the key question is whether the proposed limits would allow continued use in practice or instead operate as a de facto ban for some activities, with longer transition periods merely delaying – rather than avoiding – phase-out.
RAC’s opinion makes no allowances for aerospace and defence uses, where substitution is lengthy due to qualification and certification requirements, even when alternatives are technically feasible, she said. In 2024, these industries were granted 12-year authorisations for critical uses.
Unclear final shape
It is unclear where the restriction will ultimately land, Quinn said, adding: "I do not see RAC’s proposal being taken forward for all uses, and at the same time the careful wording of SEAC’s draft opinion suggests the committee is also struggling to determine the most appropriate approach."
A parallel review of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for CrVI under the Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic substances Directive (CMRD), alongside ongoing tightening of emission controls, has exacerbated concerns over the proposed restriction’s proportionality.
Matthias Enseling, chairperson of German-based surface treatment and electroplating industry association Vecco, said that even using the best recognised industrial techniques, companies cannot achieve the low exposure level set by RAC.
"This is de facto a ban for the backbone of the surface treatment industry in Europe," he told Chemical Watch News & Insight.
The only way to meet the limits, he added, would be to completely enclose plating lines, which would require major investment running into millions of euros and several years of implementation.
Industry concerns around the restriction have intensified amid warnings from the sanitaryware industry – echoed by several MEPs – that an accelerated phase‑out could lead to significant market disruption.
ECHA’s public consultation last year on the initial dossier saw companies across several sectors arguing for the least stringent of three proposed options, and a minimum 36-month transition period.
But NGOs and several member states voiced support for stronger controls, citing the carcinogenic nature of chromium VI and the need for harmonised, enforceable emission limits.
ECHA will submit its opinion to the European Commission following SEAC’s, after which the EU executive will take a decision.