Document DG8404kNK0r9D3dm2X7X9vL4O

Webinar: Restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in firefighting foams Questions and answers ECHA organised a webinar on 5 April 2022 on the restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in f irefighting f oams. This document is presented in the f orm of `questions and answers'. It does not address generic restriction issues, or other aspects of REACH, which are addressed on the ECHA website. It is based on the questions received before and during the webinar. Editorial changes have been made to improve clarity and similar questions have been combined. If you need f urther clarification or if a specif ic question that you asked has not been answered please contact us. The European Chemicals Agency does not accept any liability regarding the use that may be made of the inf ormation contained in this document. Use of the inf ormation in this document remains the sole responsibility of the reader. This document will not be updated. For the most up-to-date advice on restrictions, refer to our support material. 1 1. REACH restriction process-related questions Question Answer How long is the consultation on the Annex XV report open for? When do you expect that the restriction will enter into force? When (approx.) will the SEAC draft opinion be published/when will the consultation on the SEAC draft opinion start? Who is responsible for monitoring, inspection and enforcing the restriction? How are confidential contributions to the Annex XV report consultation taken into account? How far in advance of the different RAC/SEAC plenary meetings do we need to send in interim contributions for them to be taken into account? The consultation is open until 23 September 2022. The RAC and SEAC opinion is expected to be f inalised in Q2 2023 and will then be sent to the Commission for decision making. The Commission has three months to prepare a draft decision amending REACH Annex XVII. However, agreeing the decision typically takes longer than three months (sometimes >12 months depending on the complexity of decision). Therefore, the proposed restriction could enter into f orce in 2024 with the duration of transition sector specific periods starting f rom this point. The SEAC draf t opinion should be available af ter SEAC-57 in December 2022. The consultation on the SEAC draf t opinion should start around the same time. However, please note that opinion-making timelines may be delayed depending on, f or example, the number of comments received during the Annex XV report consultation. Member States are responsible f or the enf orcement of REACH. It is possible to provide confidential inf ormation or attach confidential documents to the webf orm. Your name or your company/association name can also be claimed confidential. We will maintain conf identially in line with the provisions f or EU institutions. Conf idential inf ormation may be used by the Dossier Submitter to justif y revisions to the proposal or by RAC and SEAC when developing their opinions. To ensure that the use of conf idential inf ormation can be referred to as transparently as possible in the either the Background Document or the RAC and SEAC opinions please also provide, where practicable, `non-confidential' summaries of confidential inf ormation (e.g., in the f orm of data ranges). Please submit inf ormation as soon as possible as this will help RAC and SEAC to identif y relevant issues f or their evaluation. Ideally, consultation comments relevant to the topics scheduled f or discussion at a plenary should be available immediately af ter the previous plenary concludes (i.e., ~three months before the scheduled plenary). Multiple submissions can be made to the consultation, so you do not have to wait until all parts of your submission are ready. Please consider making `placeholder' submissions to the consultation that set out what inf ormation you are collecting and at what point in the consultation it will be submitted. Please refer to slide 13 of the webinar to see when 2 Question Do you have a questionnaire with your specific questions available? How does this restriction affect Norway who are not part of the EU? How active does the manufacturer / distributor have to "monitor" the uses that a foam is placed onto the market for? Answer specif ic topics are scheduled f or discussion in RAC and SEAC as. this may also help you time your contributions. Yes, there is an inf ormation note f or the consultation (https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3d12e975-6a81-b28d-5b6b-1d4a2333f4de) and the consultation itself contains a webf orm with the specif ic questions outlined during the webinar. Please f ollow the instructions provided in the webinar to get access. Any restriction under REACH will be implemented in Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. REACH is a harmonising Regulation that is directly applicable in all EEA Member States. Manuf acturers of f irefighting foams (termed f ormulators under REACH) and distributors would not be allowed to f ormulate and/or place PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams on the EU market once the longest transitional period has passed (i.e. 10 years after entry into f orce). It is the responsibility of f ormulators and distributors to ensure that the f oams they f ormulate and/or place on the market 10 years after entry into f orce do not contain PFASs above the 1ppm threshold. However, as proposed, it is the sole responsibility of the users of the f oams to ensure that they do not use a f irefighting f oam containing PFASs f or a use af ter the end of a relevant transitional period specified in paragraph three and that six months af ter entry into f orce PFAS containing f irefighting f oams are only used on class B f ires. 2. Links to other legislation or REACH processes Question Answer How did the Dossier Submitter ensure that there was no overlap with pre-existing (e.g., PFOS, PFOA, C9-C14 PFCAs) or proposed (e.g., PFHxS or PFHxA) restrictions. It is not the intention of this restriction proposal to interf ere or relax the agreed phase out timelines f or already regulated PFASs like PFOA and related substances in f irefighting f oams. Our regulatory `baseline' assumes that these will progress as planned. However, f or PFHxA and PFHxA related substances (examples of C6 PFASs), the situation is dif f erent as currently there is only a proposal f or a restriction (by Germany). As such, the proposed restriction of PFHxA and PFHxA related substances by Germany was not part of the Dossier Submitter's regulatory baseline. In practice, this means that ECHA's proposed restriction overlaps with the Germany proposal and the decision maker will need to reconcile them af ter taking into account RAC and SEAC's opinions on the dif f erent proposals. RAC and SEAC have evaluated the German proposal to restrict PFHxA and PFHxA related substances (https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/- 3 Question Answer Upon use of the foam other laws may become applicable (for example, relevant soil or water legislation in a Member State). These laws are often based on `duty of care' meaning complete removal of pollution where it is cost effective to do so. Are these laws considered? When equipment previously used with PFAS-foam is cleaned is the allowed concentration after cleaning also 1 ppm? How does this proposal go together with other legislation e.g., the Drinking Water Directive or Environmental Quality Standards under the Water Framework Directive? Currently, under POPs PFOS is the only PFAS which required treatment for disposal. Does that mean PFOA foams etc can be discharged to WwTW for treatment? Could this proposal lead to a increase in discharge to sewer? /dislist/details/0b0236e18323a25d). Whilst RAC supported some aspects of the proposal relating to f irefighting f oams (i.e., to restrict municipal uses of f oams containing PFHxA and related substances) it did not support all of the proposals (i.e., to restrict uses of PFHxA f oam at industrial sites) as the analysis did not demonstrate that the proposed restriction was the most appropriate EU-wide measure to address the identif ied risks. SEAC could not conclude on the overall proportionality of the proposed restriction, but made recommendations that should a restriction be implemented there should be a f ive year transitional period f or class B f ires (subject to a review before entry into ef fect) and a 12 year transitional period f or f oams used to extinguish class B f ires in tanks with large surf ace areas (as well as any bunded area they are contained in). Therefore, we do not know the precise timeline f or the phase out of PFHxA. It could either the timeline proposed by Germany or the timeline proposed by ECHA. In general, in the event of an overlap between restrictions (i.e. where a substance is within the scope two or more restrictions) these would apply without prejudice and the strictest measure would apply. REACH applies without prejudice to other EU and Member State legislation. Where other legal provisions apply then they would continue to do so. However, the Dossier Submitter has concluded that existing legislation is not suf f icient to address the risks posed by PFASs in f irefighting f oams and that a REACH restriction is needed to ensure a consistent high level of human health and environmental protection across the EU. Yes, 1 ppm is the concentration of total PFASs in f irefighting f oams and it applies to equipment af ter cleaning. All relevant legislation would continue to apply and REACH applies without prejudice to any other legislation. In practice, the restriction could mean that the objectives e.g., of the Water Framework Directive or Drinking Water Directive are met as there is reduced PFAS pollution. Release reduction is in particular expected to avoid drinking water contamination and thereby considerable costs of development and implementation of efficient drinking water purification techniques. Please refer to paragraph 4.d of the proposed conditions of the restriction. This requires PFAS-containing waste with a concentration of PFASs above 1 ppm shall be treated adequately during disposal. It is noted that municipal WWTPs are not ef fective in removing/eliminating PFASs (see section B.4.5 and B.4.2.4). 4 3. Scope of the restriction Question There are reported to be over six million PFASs that meet the OECD definition (see Schymanski et al. 2022 and PubChem. Are these PFASs being considered by ECHA? How can it be ensured that the foam agents, which can still be placed on the market as refills with a transitional period of 5 years, are only used on fires of fire class B? In the Annex XV report does paragraph two in the right-hand column on page 51 (the conditions of the proposal restriction) apply to portable and mobile fire extinguishers? How should the term "use" be interpreted? Does it apply to everyone who handles fire extinguishing foam (suppliers, service organisations etc.) or only the "end users"? When looking at restriction option three, what about deliveries to EEA countries? Transitional periods are proposed for a number of sectors. Is there a diversification possible for fire services based on their specific responsibilities? For example, for a rural fire service protecting mainly residential and agricultural area 18 months might be feasible. For a fire service protecting a large industrial ((petro)chemical, harbour transport, ...) area 18 months is short - can this be prolonged to the 5 years (for other sectors)? Paragraph 4d of the proposed restriction requires adequate treatment of PFAS-containing waste. How will it take effect? Does it only apply to end users or does it affect all actors working with waste management? Does it mean that municipal Answer All substances meeting the OECD def inition of a PFAS are within the scope of the restriction proposal. The proposal is that it is the responsibility of the users of foams to ensure that PFAScontaining f oams are only used on class B f ires during the transitional period. The establishment of a "PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams management plan" (see paragraph 4 c. of the proposal) should address this issue. Yes, it is the intention that paragraph one and paragraph two applies to portable and mobile f ire extinguishers. The term use (under Article 3 of REACH) means: processing, f ormulation, consumption, storage, keeping, treatment, f illing into containers, transfer from one container to another, mixing, production of an article or any other utilisation. Please tell us about any implications of this in the consultation on the Annex XV report. Restriction option 3 bans the f ormulation and placing on the market of PFAS firefighting f oams and thus also indirectly the export of PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams from 10 years after entry into f orce. A ban on f ormulation therefore means a halt of production of PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams in the EU. The proposal includes extended transitional periods f or municipal f ire services in charge of industrial f ires for Seveso establishments. The proposed restriction column 2 paragraph 3.b. states: 18 months af ter entry into f orce f or municipal f ire services (except if also in charge of industrial f ires f or establishments covered by Directive 2012/18/EU (Seveso III) and f or use in these establishments only). Please submit any inf ormation regarding a f urther diversification of the use sectors identif ied by the Dossier Submitter. The proposed restriction column 2 paragraph 4.d requires adequate treatment of collected PFAS-containing waste with a concentration of PFASs above 1 ppm. Municipal wastewater treatment is indeed excluded, irrespective of any pre-treatment, due to its low ef f iciency at removing PFAS f rom wastewater. Instead, PFAS-containing waste will need to undergo other adequate treatment (please refer to Appendix 2 and 3 of the Background 5 Question wastewater treatment is excluded, irrespective of pre-treatment and what results pre-treatment achieves (for example, if drinking water quality is achieved)? How will the import of raw materials involved in the manufacturing processes of firefighting foam concentrates (type AFFF/AR) be restricted and what restriction terms will be handled? What about fire services operating at airports? And those belonging to the petrochemical industry/Seveso? What transitional periods apply to these uses? Is there any list of PFASs available, which contains all concerned substances (similar to the Candidate list of SVHCs)? Regarding paragraph 4c of the proposed restriction: Will a site-specific `PFAS-containing firefighting foams management plan' have to be prepared for inspection just after the six months or industry has to start preparing it six months after entry into force? The proposal refers to firefighting foam Answer Document). If possible, please provide inf ormation on treatment (and pre-treatment) technologies which are ef fective and ef ficient at removing PFASs f rom wastewater (with reference to Appendix 2 and 3). The proposal aims to restrict the f ormulation of PFAS-containing f irefighting foam concentrates and the placing on the market and use of f irefighting f oams. The proposed restriction would not apply to the manuf acture of PFAS ingredients of firefighting f oam concentrates per se as these could also be used in other types of applications/mixtures. Fire services operating at airports would need to switch to PFAS-free firefighting f oams within 5 years after entry into f orce (see paragraph 3 (f ) of the proposed restriction). Firef ighting activities f or industrial f ires for establishments covered by Seveso (this includes petrochemical installations) would be able to continue to use PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams f or Class B f ires until 10 years after entry into f orce (see paragraph 3 (e)). This includes municipal f ire services in charge of industrial f ires at such establishments but only f or use in these establishments. There have been indicative lists published by ECHA f or some PFAS `arrowheads', such as f or PFOA and related substances and PFHxA and related substances, but we cannot guarantee that they are comprehensive. See Annex B.1 of the Background Document to the RAC and SEAC opinion on the PFOA restriction proposal available at https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/e40425c6-590f-8df7-2cd9-0eef79527685. See also the indicative non-exhaustive list of substances belonging to the PFHxA restriction proposal available at https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/7da473c1-7f27-df349e6a-46152ef10d4b. We recommend that you refer to the OECD def inition of PFASs instead, which is based on a specif ic chemical structure. We will include links to the indicative lists in our written response. The proposed restriction would require a site-specific `PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams management plan' to be ready six months af ter entry into f orce. Such a plan would need to include details of the conditions of this use including how emissions are minimised. The plan must also be revised annually and kept available f or inspection upon request. The proposed restriction is intended to apply to all f irefighting f oams, including 6 Question "concentrates". How should this be interpreted? Are these paragraphs only applicable to users of concentrates and not of ready-to-use (or premix) applications such as handheld fire extinguishers? In the Annex XV report on page 51, what is the difference between paragraphs 1 and 2 in column 2 (the conditions of the proposed restriction)? Is there an official method to analyse PFASs on packaging materials? Is there a specific list of PFASs that should be analysed? As part of restriction option 4, would it be possible/relevant to include a restriction on export? (Restriction on placing on market, use and export (transitional periods per sector of use) with derogation mechanism for Seveso/defence). Could it have an impact on the emission reduction assessment under option 4? Under restriction opinion three, why is it proposed that the ban on export would apply at the end of the longest transitional period applicable for the placing on the market in the EU (i.e. 10 years)? Answer concentrated f oams that are f urther processed before they are used. This includes ready to-use applications and thus handheld f ire extinguishers. Paragraph 1 applies to placing on the market of firefighting f oams. In other words, any actions related to supplying or making available, whether in return f or payment or f ree of charge, to a third party including import. Paragraph 2 applies to use of such f oams, e.g., processing, f ormulation, consumption, storage, keeping, treatment, f illing into containers, transfer from one container to another, mixing. Please tell us about any implications of this in the consultation on the Annex XV report. The restriction proposal applies to f irefighting f oams and the proposed limit value applies to concentration of PFASs in f irefighting f oam concentrates. It does not apply to packaging materials. For testing methods please consult Annex E.7. Please provide your proposal via the consultation. It will be considered by the Dossier Submitter and RAC and SEAC. The proposed transitional periods are set to allow the development of fluorine-free f irefighting f oams and the adaptation of existing f irefighting systems while providing a similar level of f ire protection as under the use of PFAS-containing f oams. Formulation (and thus export) is proposed to be allowed until the end of all transitional periods. A ban of f ormation and placing on the market f or specific sectors with shorter transitional periods was not considered by the Dossier Submitter to be practical. Please provide any comments or additional inf ormation you have regarding transitional periods. 4. Concentration limit, analytical methods and sampling, cleaning of equipment Question When cleaning equipment, we are always asked how we analyse the remaining fluorine on the surface of the components like tubes, valves, etc. Answer For the purposes of compliance with the proposed restriction the operator would need to ensure that the f oam inside the installation or ready-to-use application does not exceed the 1 ppm limit f or PFASs, not the quantity of PFASs on the internal surf aces of equipment. 7 Question Testing rinse water may therefore not be representative, in particular for a generic testing method like TOF. Will there be a definition on how to collect appropriate samples from a system (e.g. from which part of a system)? Will a specific analytical method be enforced? Can the proportionality of the 1 ppm concentration limit be explained? A risk-based approach does not seem to be included in the assessment of the threshold value of 1000 ppb. Shouldn't the threshold value in a mobile system be different from a fixed system with secondary containment or on-site water treatment system? May premix fire extinguishers be refilled with fluorine-free extinguishing agents? Answer If the installation or application previously contained PFAS-containing f irefighting f oam then it is unlikely that is will be possible to achieve the concentration limit without f irst cleaning the equipment. The proposed restriction does not prescribe a sampling method nor a specific analytical method. The intention is to enable the use of generic analytical methods (such as f or example total organic f luorine by combustion ion chromatography). Note that non-PFAS f luorinated substances may be contained in the f oam. For such cases, a labelling requirement was introduced (see column 2 paragraph 7 of the proposed restriction) to avoid the need f or PFAS-specific methods. Please submit any inf ormation regarding the analytical method, the enf orceability of the proposed concentration limit and/or the requirement to clean equipment prior to (re-)filling with PFAS-free alternative foams. Guidance on decontamination would also be welcomed (please refer to Appendix 1 in this context). Please make sure to submit relevant data underpinning your inf ormation and justif y why it may be relevant f or specific sectors or uses. Regarding an appropriate concentration limit f or PFASs in f oams and equipment that previously used PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams, stakeholder input suggests that a PFAS concentration of 1 ppm can be achieved using a relatively simple cleaning process and would avoid the majority of emissions. Lower concentration limits are achievable with more complex and costly cleaning processes. However, setting a lower concentration limit would lead to a relatively small additional reduction in PFAS emissions, compared to the overall reduction achieved by the restriction and is therefore less desirable f rom a costef fectiveness perspective. There is no European (or internationally) standardised analytical method f or PFASs in f irefighting f oams. Analytical methods are f urther described in Annex E.7. Please submit inf ormation via the consultation that would justif y setting dif ferent threshold values f or f ixed systems. (E.g. can all f ire-water be contained? Which methods are used to treat it? What is their ef ficiency in decomposition of PFASs?) Yes, premix f ire extinguishers can be ref illed with PFAS-free extinguishing agents. However, it is important to note that ref illed extinguishers need to comply with the 8 Question If a 1 ppm concentration limit for PFASs in the firefighting foam is established, when will it be tested? The foam may contain less than 1 ppm when first placed in the fire suppression system, but then in 3 months could have 50 ppm and 2 years 2 000 ppm. Is surface sampling necessary? Local regulators may not be experts, and there may be a need for guidance on surface sampling. Will the restriction make it impossible to use old foam-extinguishers with PFAS-free foam? Answer concentration limit of 1 ppm, which will most likely require cleaning of the extinguisher prior to the ref ill. Please submit any inf ormation you consider relevant in this context. Operators need to ensure that the f irefighting f oam always meets the proposed concentration limit of 1 ppm. See also the answer to the f irst question in this section on "Analytical methods and sampling" above. Please submit any inf ormation you consider relevant regarding this issue. No, surf ace sampling is not necessary. Please submit inf ormation as to whether the proposed restriction would be more effective, practical and monitorable if surface sampling were to be implemented. No, but the extinguishers will likely need to be cleaned bef ore refilling them to achieve the proposed concentration limit. See also the answer to the f irst question in this section on "Analytical methods and sampling" above. Please submit any inf ormation you consider relevant in particular if you envisage dif f iculties regarding the disposal (rather than ref ill) of extinguishers. 5. Environmental impact / aspects Question The Annex XV report assumes that the entire 18 000 tons of PFAS-containing fire-fighting foam ends up in the environment. A figure of 470 tonnes per year in the EU is also mentioned. Please can you explain the different figures? Answer 18 000 tons is the total amount of PFAS-containing f irefighting f oam concentrates sold in the EU per year. These 18 000 tons are estimated to contain 470 tons of PFAS (i.e. they also contain other ingredients). In the exposure assessment, the Dossier Submitter assumes that all PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams currently placed on the EU market replace depleted stock (live incidents and training) or expired stock. The limited inf ormation available to the Dossier Submitter regarding the disposal of collected f ire-water f rom either live incidents and training, as well as regarding the disposal of expired stock indicated a widespread reliance on municipal sewage treatment plants, which are not effective in removing PFAS. Fire-water not collected is assumed to either enter the soil or surf ace water or marine water. For this reason, the entire f igure of 470 tons of PFAS contained in f irefighting f oams sold in the EU annually is assumed to be released into the environment. 9 Question Have the emissions from portable fire extinguishers, including use by SMEs and households been estimated? Does the PFAS content of water used for diluting firefighting foam concentrate (e.g. in fire extinguishers) also count towards the proposed concentration limit? Is the incineration of PFAS foams considered as a safe disposal? Is it of interest if we submit information to the consultation about the extent of soil and groundwater pollution, that we have measured in a broad inventory exercise in our region? Answer Please submit any inf ormation you consider relevant regarding these assumptions and make sure to underpin it with reliable data. Please also justif y why the inf ormation you submit is representative of a sector or use. Yes, these emissions have been estimated and are included in the estimate f or ready-touse applications. However, please note that individual estimates are not available f or subcategories of emissions i.e. SMEs and households, f or example. Yes, operators must ensure that the resulting f irefighting f oam adheres to the proposed 1 ppm concentration limit. Incineration of PFAS f oams is considered to minimise releases of PFAS associated with the waste lif ecycle stage, if conducted appropriately. Please refer to Appendix 2 and 3 of the Annex XV report. Please submit any additional inf ormation you have regarding the saf e disposal of PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams in the consultation. Yes, please submit any monitoring data and accompanying inf ormation via the consultation. The Dossier Submitter and Committees will consider this inf ormation during the opinion-making. 6. Costs and benefits Question Are remediation costs of PFAS polluted soil and polluted groundwater considered in the costbenefit analysis of this proposal? Answer Remediation costs are considered qualitatively in the impact assessment. The dossier submitter considers that there are potentially signif icant benefits in terms of the reduced remediation costs that will arise f rom the restriction of PFAS-containing f irefighting f oams. According to past research efforts, the order of magnitude of avoided remediation cost could be hundreds of millions of euros (assuming tens of sites across the EU requiring remediation at the cost of tens of millions of per site) to billions of euros (assuming hundreds of sites across the EU requiring remediation at the cost of tens of millions of per site). Further inf ormation, e.g. on the total number of sites, on the use of PFAScontaining f oams per site or on the implementation and ef fectiveness of best practices in terms of containment and clean-up would be required to assess to which extent remediation is avoided given this particular restriction proposal. In the absence of detailed inf ormation, remediation costs are acknowledged qualitatively and must be considered to be covered by the quantitative estimate for reduced releases which is used as proxy of human health and environmental impacts. 10 Question Are the costs of removing PFASs from drinking water and during wastewater treatment considered in the socio-economic impact assessment? 7. Alternatives Question Fluorine-free foams are mainly synthetic foams based on mixtures of surfactants and, in many cases, the use of polysaccharides. Do you think this could be a possible alternative? Answer The Dossier Submitter would be interested in evidence on this topic (see no. 6 in the list of specif ic inf ormation requests). If you are able to share additional inf ormation on the costs of removing PFAS from soil and water, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. Link to the list of specif ic inf ormation requests in the inf ormation note on restriction report: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3d12e975-6a81-b28d-5b6b1d4a2333f 4de Yes, the costs of removing PFASs f rom water resources are considered qualitatively in the impact assessment. The Dossier Submitter considers that the use of PFASs in f irefighting f oams contributes to the general PFAS exposure to a relevant extent. Due to their properties, most PFASs are dif ficult to remove f rom drinking water. To avoid exposure via drinking water it would be necessary to develop effective treatment techniques or develop uncontaminated water resources. Both of these options are costly to society. However, these avoided costs have not been quantif ied due to lack of data. In the absence of detailed inf ormation, removal costs are acknowledged qualitatively and must be considered to be covered by the quantitative estimate for reduced releases which is used as proxy of human health and environmental impacts. The Dossier Submitter would be interested in evidence on this topic (see no. 6 in the list of specif ic inf ormation requests). If you are able to share additional inf ormation on the costs of removing PFAS from drinking water, waste water and sewage sludge, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. Link to the list of specif ic inf ormation requests in the inf ormation note on restriction report: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3d12e975-6a81-b28d-5b6b1d4a2333f 4de Answer The assessed alternative substances to PFASs in f irefighting f oams have been grouped into 4 general groups: 1. Hydrocarbons; 2. Detergents; 3. Siloxanes; and 11 Question Do you have information on alternatives to PFAS containing firefighting foams with comparable performance for defence purposes with seawater / salt water? How about compressed air foam systems (CAFS) primarily focused on Class A fires? Special foams are used in these systems. A 6-month period may be problematic for an effective transition to structural firefighting foam (SFFF) in these systems. Are silicones or siloxanes being used as a substitutes for PFAS. Does the transition periods proposed for civilian and defence ships take into account the difference in storage volume required between PFAS-based and PFAS-free foams, and the possible impact on the stability of existing ships? Answer 4. Protein f oams. Please refer to Annex E.2 f or more inf ormation. The dossier submitter would be interested in any new evidence on this topic. If you are able to share additional inf ormation on synthetic f oams based on mixtures of surfactants and the use of polysaccharides, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. Please make sure to submit relevant data underpinning your inf ormation and justif y why it may be relevant f or specific sectors or uses. Annex E2 of restriction report contains several sector-specific analyses of the technical f easibility of alternatives. Among the covered sectors are the f ollowing: defence applications, marine applications, and of f-shore oil extraction. If you are able to share additional inf ormation on def ence purposes with seawater / salt water, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. Could you please provide inf ormation on this issue as the answer to specific inf ormation request 2 in the consultation on the Annex XV report: Are the proposed transitional periods (see Table 3 and Section 2.8.2 of the Annex XV report) appropriate to implement alternative (PFAS-free) firefighting foams (incl. any time required for additional performance testing and/or adaptation of the fire extinguishing systems/process)? Section E.2.2.3 in Annex E.2 of the restriction report covers the assessment of siloxanes in the context of the analysis of alternatives, although there is limited inf ormation available. Certain siloxanes are identif ied as SVHC based on their PBT and/or vPvB properties (cyclic D4, D5, D6) and others (linear siloxanes) are currently undergoing PBT-assessment (e.g. octamethyltrisiloxane). Furthermore, D4, D5, D6 are subject to an ongoing restriction process that would not allow their use in f irefighting f oams if adopted. The restriction is subject to decision making. If you are able to share additional inf ormation on the potential of siloxanes / silicones as alternatives, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. The Dossier Submitter would be interested in inf ormation on this topic (see no. 2 in the list of specific inf ormation requests). If you are able to share additional inf ormation on relevant transitional periods, please submit your contribution in the context of the ongoing consultation. Please include an analysis of the impacts of any inappropriate transitional period and a justif ication f or the representativeness of the provided inf ormation for the sector or use in the EU/EEA. Link to the list of specif ic inf ormation requests in the inf ormation note on restriction 12 Question For my organisation the performance of fluorine free foams in comparison to the PFAS-containing foams is crucial. If there is not enough accepted proof, would this influence the scope and transitional periods of the proposal? Answer report: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/3d12e975-6a81-b28d-5b6b1d4a2333f 4de Please submit any inf ormation regarding alternatives and their technical f easibility. Remember to provide data to support your claims as well as a justif ication f or why your inf ormation is valid f or the whole sector or use. 8. General issues Question How will this restriction proposal feed into the discussions on a universal restriction of PFASs under REACH? Do you have a recommendation to evaluate what is considered as "PFAS free"? Of course, if it is below the restriction values, a chemical is not necessarily "PFAS free". Nevertheless, this slogan is being used for advertisement. Should there be a clear definition of what is meant by "PFAS free"? What legal consequences should be expected for non-compliance? Will the EU add a specific waste-code (like for waste containing PCB) for waste containing PFAS? If not is there not a problem for the traceability and for the proof of an "adequate treatment"? It appears that there may be limited capacity for the destruction of PFAS containing foams. How should the end user deal with the limited capacity in relation to the phase-out periods? Answer A restriction proposal f or PFASs in other uses (`universal' PFAS restriction) is currently being developed by f ive countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and is scheduled to be submitted to ECHA in January 2023 f or opinion making by RAC and SEAC. The restriction on f irefighting f oams prepared by ECHA is based on the same approach to substance grouping, hazard and risk assessment as is planned f or the broader restriction. The RAC and SEAC opinions on the f irefighting f oams proposal may prompt revisions to the universal restriction. ECHA recommend that manufactures advertise their products in relation to compliance with applicable or proposed legislation, such as the existing restrictions under the POPS regulation or REACH. Enf orcement is the responsibility of Member States. ECHA does not consider that this is necessary f or operators to comply with the conditions of the restriction. However, please tell us why you think that this is important in the consultation. ECHA does not consider that there is limited capacity f or f oam disposal in the EU. Please provide any inf ormation you consider relevant in this context, in particular inf ormation regarding the availability of adequate disposal methods or capacity. 13