Document MJ9BZmXB9XdwBbVVQ5edLKmVx

15.05.2023 Comments of Rudolf Group for Annex XV restriction report Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) A) General Comments Rudolf GmbH submits the following comments to participate in first discussions in ECHA`s Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC). Rudolf GmbH actively supports a regulation concerning PFAS only for uses, which can be readily covered by available alternatives. Furthermore it is mandatory, that the situation, for PFAS, which are already covered by other restrictions under REACH remain unchanged. Especially for undecafluoro-hexanoic acid (PFHxA), it's salts and PFHxA-related substances it is important under socio-economic aspects, that it is possible to rely on the regulation in place. A lot of investments have been done under the praemission, that certain exemptions will be granted for undecafluoro-hexanoic acid (PFHxA), it's salts and PFHxA-related substances. These are quite important: Before we go into the details of our worries, we want to briefly highlight only those features that are unique to C6 perfluorinated polymers and which currently cannot be substituted by fluorine-free alternative technologies. - Repellence Against Blood, Oils, Solvents and other Liquid Chemicals with Low Surface Energy: By their physico-chemical properties, perfluorinated polymers are currently and most likely will ever be the only class of substances able to repel liquids such as blood, solvents, petrol and other liquid chemicals with low surface energy. This is key feature for many protective fibres treated including firefighting jackets, medical gowns and other workwear for individuals likely to come in touch with hazardous material. - Low Flammability: Due to their inherent chemical structure, perfluorinated polymers exhibit low flammability features that is superior to all alternative fluorine-free water repellents. In fact, C6 perfluorinated polymers have specifically been designed and are state-of-the-art treatments that assist the low flammability of flame retardant fibres. Flame retardant fibres treated with C6 perfluorinated fibres are nowadays found in many public buildings e.g. furnishings or the textile covering of motor compartments of cars in which the treated textiles additionally exhibit diesel repellence. - Chemical Inertness: The exceptional strength of the carbon-fluorine bond provides perfluorinated polymers with the best inertness towards challenging chemicals and conditions. For instance, (C6-) perfluorinated polymers are the only substance class available for filtration media that are chemically resistant to toxic and most aggressive hydrogen fluoride arising in industrial waste incineration. The latter air pollutant is kept in control along with other emissions by treated high-temperature gas filters installed in these facilities. - Soil Repellence: Though perfluorinated polymers are best known for their oil repellency, they also exhibit repellence towards dry soil as the only class of repellent polymers. In fact, some fluorine-free alternatives attract dry soil actively resulting in treated articles being shortened in their life-span and thus leading to more waste. Moreover, quick dirt build-up on surface of treated articles leads to the water repellent performance being broken down much faster. - Low Dosage Actives: Although various fluorine-free alternative technologies are available that can almost match the performance of C6 perfluorinated polymers if only water repellence is required e.g. for outdoor apparel, all of these alternatives have to be dosed at least at three times the actives amount to achieve comparable results. This finding again makes C6 perfluorinated polymers the more sustainable solution as fossil fuels are saved. - Best Laundry Wash Resistance: Due to their strong adherence to substrates, C6 perfluorinated polymers show the best resistance to laundry washes thus extending the lifetime of treated articles. This property allows for long-lasting sustainable solutions and saves from unnecessary waste. - Beneficial Ecological and Toxicological Profile Compared with Long-Chain C8 Perfluorinated Polymers: Unlike long-chain C8 PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA, the short-chain PFHxA is neither a substance of very high concern (SVHC) nor a PBT or CMR substance under REACH. Hence, C6 perfluorinated polymers were adopted as the more favourable industrial standard in terms of environmental and toxicological profile. It is important to know that there is no direct use for PFHxA and their salts and this compound occurs only as an impurity in ranges in the ppb region in our emulsion concentrates containing C6-perfluorinated polymers. Recent published studies also show that human exposure to PFHxA is low and infrequent. As seen from the characteristics list above, C6 perfluorinated polymers are essential for many advanced and start-of-the-art technical applications of modern human life. Their unique features have led to many uses not only in articles in which their protective character is well apparent e.g. the firefighting jacket but also to applications which are vital for our society and in which this type of substances is not replaceable. Due to the aforementioned importance of C6-perfluorinated polymers Rudolf is deeply concerned that the restriction proposal in its current state may a) ban many essential textile uses, for which fluorine-free alternative technologies are not available yet and will therefore lead to unreasonable consequences such as industrial norms involving safety and reliability of applications not being met anymore b) If the proposal becomes adopted in its current state, we fear it will shut down the production and commerce of C6 perfluorinated polymers for all textile applications in the EU including the ones exempted under the current proposal. Manufacture for the proposed exemptions only will become completely uneconomical forcing EU-based producers including Rudolf to shut down their production of C6 fluorinated polymers altogether. c) In the best case scenario, production of C6 fluorinated polymers will be shifted to Far East countries with less controlled industrial and environmental standards resulting in more uncontrolled PFHxA emissions and contradicting EU's efforts for less global pollution. In this case, the EU would heavenly depend on supply of technology which is used for the manufacture of protective gear such as face masks, medical gowns, firefighting jackets, etc. The Corona virus pandemic is now showing us how vulnerable our society is with the EU completely depending on supply of personal protective equipment such as face masks from Far East countries. However, the more realistic and worrying scenario involves global shut-down of the short-chain C6 chemistry and resurrection of the environmentally and toxicologically harmful long-chain C8 chemistry. This assumption is based on the experience that in Far East countries the C6 technology is currently used only for exporting treated articles into the European market, while for the domestic uses the better performing C8 technology is still the state-of-the-art treatment. So, if the nowadays widely accepted C6 chemistry, recently introduced as the new industrial standard with a more favourable environmental and toxicological profile compared to C8 chemistry, is now abandoned, then manufacturers in the Far East will have no incentive to discontinue their production of C8 perfluorinated polymers. In fact, we already see Asian manufacturers scaling up their production capacity for C8 perfluorinated polymers today. This effect will contradict EU's efforts for less global pollution with long-chain C8 PFAS. In summary, both scenarios describe that exempted applications and articles involving C6 fluorinated polymers under the current restriction proposal will be extremely difficult or even impossible to sustain. d) Many European companies have invested significant resources into transitioning their products and applications from C8 to C6 perfluorinated polymers to sustain their business models on an environmentally more favourable technology. These investments were made on the perspective of future earnings. If these efforts become shattered by the proposed restriction, jobs in the European textile industry, which is heavenly focussed on producing advanced technical textiles, will be lost and companies will be shut down. In this respect, the present restriction proposal will not achieve its desired effect to the extent of even contradicting REACH restriction principles according to which a restriction "shall take into account the socio-economic impact of the restriction, including the availability of alternatives" (Art. 68 (1)). Rudolf GmbH would like to underline that such impacts will be far reaching. If no derogation is granted, the German plant will have to close down, resulting in direct job losses from production, R&D, marketing and sales of C6 chemistry. Currently we achieve a substantial part of our turnover with the manufacture and commerce of C6 fluorinated polymers at our Headquarters in Geretsried. Detailed figures have been provided separately in our confidential business information. Rudolf, as a sustainable and innovations-driven company, actively supports the movement to chemical alternatives with lower ecological impact wherever possible. Rudolf GmbH is currently working on its 4th generation of fluorine-free water repellents that are finding more and more acceptance in the outdoor and fashion apparel industry. However, many of our customers create advanced and highly specialised applications with C6 perfluorinated polymers that currently cannot be replaced with fluorine-free technology. Most of these applications will be banned under the proposed restriction and hence, essential product applications, markets and jobs in the European textile industry are at stake.