Document 6wbow721xapJ48g3n3k3V1396

/>semr | Pp----------y HeofaUndit: Sustainable Chemicals European Commision Avenue de Beaulieu, 1160 Brussels Fe Dear] ! October 16,2020 75 ! Thark youforyour letterofJune 22, 20201 whichyou provided more information regarding the rationale behind certain actionins the movementof PFOA restriction fom EU REACH to U POPs. We wantetdo write you back followingour feedback on PO~amPendsed exemption fr PFOA submitted on September 28,2020. Regarding the statement tht the European Commision followed the decision of the Conferenceof the PEaurrtoipeseaonf CtohmemSitsoicoknhoslhmouClodnnvoetntoiofnollwohwetnhe daemceinsdiionngofEtUheCPOoPs,nwfe ewoorufltedhensPtarcrotnigeleyswshugegnesctontshiadtertihneg amendment of EU POPs withouta more comprehensive understanodfitnheg diferences between them SEMI did, a5 you sa, send a positon paper announcing a changeofview relate to derogatons for the Stockholm Convention, butt is important to note we did not assert simply that was `not needed" We explained that no specific exemptions were required under the tockhom Convention because of the Unintentional Trace Contaminants (UTC) concept tha is present therein. Specfical, we wrote: "We now understthaatnandy PFOA thatmight be present in fuaropolymers or fluoroslastomers used in our sector is present oly 35 an unintentional contaminant or purty, and serves no intended purpose or performance function inthe materils used in products for our sector. We also understand tht the anticipated concentrations of any such impurity in materials used in products and articles used in semiconductor manufacturing are very low, Therefore we believe that these cases wil be adequately addressed by the operation ofthe Stockholm Convention's "reUqTuCi"reedxiemnpotridonetro(ian cNcootmemo(id) aotfeAtnhneexprAeseanncdeAonfnseuxchB)c,onatnadmitnhaatntn.o" specific exemptions are We believed the European Commission understands tht the concept of UTC as t operates in the Stockholm Convention is quite diferent from How t operates in EU POPs. However, o be clear: + UTC inot defined in the Stockholm Convention and i, therefore, subjective consideration hich, a5 you can see above, SEMI flt well adresed the situation ofthe PFOA that could be Inpressteanrkt ncoanrttriascte,sEiUn oPuOrPssupspeltsy cahadeifni,nition of UTC for each substan restricted, and UTC: are defined differently among the substances. Our letter stating no specic exemptions were required was related to how the concept of UTC is expresed nthe Stockholm Convention. Our positon garding the need fo exemptions in EU POPs was, of course, quite different because of how the conceptofUTC i deine in EU POPs. SEMI Europe | Rue de la Science 14, 1040 | EU Transparency Register: 402302029423-14 Tel: +32 (0) 2609 53 18 | wwiw.semi.org/eu semr We are also puzzled by the statement that a derogation was not granted under the Stockholm Convention and, "as a consequence, has not been granted under the POPs Regulation." We have heard this statement often repeated as a sort of de facto rule, but even a casual analysis of the two documents indicates it is not a rule at all. We note, for example, that there are no exemptions in the Stockholm Convention for latex printing inks or plasma nano-coatings, however these were given derogation in EU POPs. Likewise, there is no exemption in the Stockholm Convention for "articles containing PTFE micropowders" and yet a derogation is granted in EU POPs. lt seems clear that the transposition rules do indeed allow for the provision of a derogation in EU POPs that does not appear as an exemption in the Stockholm Convention. Page 1 2 Finally, it is stated that the European Commission did not receive any justification for a higher UTC limit value for semiconductors [sie] equipment. This is a curious assertion, because in response to the public consultation in December 2019 regarding the introduction of a PFOA restriction in EU POPs, SEMI submitted feedback which suggested a UTC level for articles (regardless of their destination - such as to semiconductor manufacturing equipment) and included many points of rationale, including declarations from fluoropolymer article manufacturers showing they do not assert 'PFOA present' to a particular threshold. Our industry has been struggling for years to get the attention of ECHA and/or the European Commission to fully understand a few essential points about PFOA in fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers. PFOA can be present in articles made from these fluoromaterials above the 25-ppb limit because of decisions made by raw fluoromaterial manufacturers at the start of a deep 1 supply chain over which semiconductor equipment manufacturers have no practical influence in order to get information nor set actions. Semiconductor equipment manufacturers must not be confused with companies that produce consumer goods such as cell phones and laptops who tend to have very strong control over their supply chains because of component volumes and much more direct economic relationships. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the afore-mentioned practical issues with the European Commission. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerelv,'---- SEMI Europe President SEMI Europe Director of Public Policy 1 Deep with respect to companies such as semiconductor equipment manufacturers who assemble products, to a large extent, from components purchased out of catalogs. SEMI Europe I Rue de la Science 14, 1040 1 EU Transparency Register: 402302029423-14 Tel.: +32 (0) 2 609 53 18 1 www.semi.org/eu