Document Mb8GJD7DNRjkRq2XOyg14jML

Aktdetaljer Akttitel: Re: APPLiA contribution to the Call-forEvidence on PFAS Aktnummer: 190 Sagsnummer: 2020 - 15422 Akt-ID: 3898602 Dato: 18-10-2021 12:51:55 Type: Indgende Dokumenter: [1] Re APPLiA contribution to the Call-for-Evidence on PFAS.eml [2] APPLiA comment paper_ss airconditioners_28-01-2021.pdf [3] fpren50625-1-general-treatment-standard.pdf (MEDTAGES IKKE) [4] GEN - 1273.01 - Excerpt Price monitoring Q1-2021.pdf (MEDTAGES IKKE) [5] APPLiA comment paper_PFAS_F-Gases Summary Report_15-102021.pdf Den 12. juli 2024 Til: P1 El ), restrictiePFAS E7 ), P2 E2 ), P3 E3 ), DE ( El El ), P4 E4 ), Toke Winther (M@mst.dk), E5 E5 Fra: P5 E6 Titel: Re: APPLiA contribution to the Call-for-Evidence on PFAS Sendt: 18-10-2021 12:51 Bilag: APPLiA comment paper_ss airconditioners_28-01-2021.pdf; fpren50625-1-general-treatment-standard.pdf; GEN - 1273.01 - Excerpt Price monitoring Q1-2021.pdf; APPLiA comment paper_PFAS_F-Gases Summary Report_15-10-2021.pdf; Dear, As complementary information to my previous email sent to you on Friday 15 October, please find attached accompanying documents that provide further and detailed information to take into consideration while reading our comment paper. Thank you very much and I remain at your disposal for any question. Kind regards, P5 P5 APPLiA 0: +32 Til Home Appliance Europe T1 From: P5 < E6 > Date: Friday, 15 October 2021 at 17:32 To: " El TI < El < E7 >, Il E2 < E3 TI < E3 < El >," E4 Il < < @ mst.dk>, " E5 < E5 Cc: P7 < E7 >, > Subject: APPLiA contribution to the Call-for-Evidence on PFAS E4 P6 E7 E2 El >, @mst.dk" E8 Dear, I am contacting you on behalf of APPLiA, the European Association of home appliances - www.appliaeurope.eu We would like to contribute to the current call for evidence launched in view of the preparatory phase of the restriction proposal on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) intended by the 5 Member States, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Our written contribution is attached and we would like to kindly invite you to consider it as it provides key inputs and information from the home appliance sector, especially related to F-Gases, to feed into the current process of evaluation. We kindly thank you for the consideration and we remain at your disposal for any question. Best regards, P5 P5 APPLiA : +32 Til Home Appliance Europe T1 == AKT 3898602 == [ Re: APPLiA contribution to the Call-for-Evidence on PFAS == Dokument 2 == [ APPLiA co... == APRA\ Home Appliance Europe Bld. Brand Whitlock 114 0 B-1200 Brussels 0 +32 2 738 78 15 Lara Carrier @applia-europe.eu Naomi Marc @applia-europe.eu Comment Paper I 28/01/2021 APPLiA's comment paper on the Commission final report regarding non-fluorinated gases alternatives for new split air-conditioning systems APPLiA, the EU trade Association representing manufacturers of home appliances, including heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment, would like to inform competent authorities of its stance regarding a final report called "The availability of refrigerants for new split air conditioning systems that can replace fluorinated greenhouse gases or result in a lower climate impact". We would like to reiterate some of our comments and concerns, regarding some statements of the Commission's final report, as well as its main conclusion, especially related to the potential of propane (R290) in small single split air-conditioning systems with a cooling capacity below 7kW. Back in April 2020, APPLiA had already provided input and further recommendations2 to both the Consultant in charge of the study (Oko-Recherche), and DG CLIMA. This paper reflects the home appliance sectorial position, and APPLiA further invites EU, national, and international competent authorities in charge of the fluorinated gases policy-area, to kindly address our concerns and consider our recommendations along the future impact assessment exercise, part of the upcoming evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 ('F-Gas Regulation'). Finally, we would like to formalize our request to receive the list of equipment using R290 as kindly inquired in point 8 of this comment paper. 1. Reversible air-to-air heat pumps missing in the report' scope (section 1, p.1) APPLiA would like to remind authorities that the scope of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EU) 517/2014 involves reversible air-to-air heat pumps that are directly cooling, but also heating. Reversible air-to-air heat pumps are increasingly used not only to cool, but also to provide heating to buildings in an energy efficient manner. Thus, not only contributing to the decarbonisation of the building sector, but also to the future energy-efficiency improvements required, as a result of upcoming (stricter) Ecodesign requirements. Indeed, the upcoming energy efficiency requirements for Air-condition will increase by as much as 30%. This should not be omitted when considering alternatives in splits. 2. R466A is not yet classified under standard EN 378-1 or ISO 817 (Table 1, p.3) We would like to highlight that R466A has not been classified as "Al" yet under standard EN 378-1 or ISO 817. Consequently, we believe that its presence in Table 1 of the final report is not accurate, since, presently, R466A cannot be identified as one "of the most relevant refrigerant alternatives currently available for split systems". The current lack of classification needs to be mentioned in this context. 1Report from the Commission, C(2020) 6637, Brussels 30.09.2020 (here). 2 APPLiA/Eurovent joint Position paper on Article 21(4) and new small single-split air-conditioning systems under the F-Gas Regulation (EU) 517/2014, Brussels 20th April 2020. 1 www.applia-europe.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe Comment paper, Brussels 28th January 2021. 3. The Ecodesign Directive is a dynamic piece of legislation (section 2.2, p.4) The Ecodesign Directive implementing regulation for air-conditioners with a rate capacity of up to 12kW, is a dynamic piece of legislation. Typically, its energy-efficiency requirements are getting stricter with time, at each revision. The impact on energy efficiency of the appliances (be it positive or negative) needs to be taken into account when potential restrictions for refrigerants are considered. Indeed, the upcoming energy efficiency requirements for Air-condition will become as much as 30% stricter. In general, it is worth to emphasise that transparency within the Ecodesign process is ensured via several and regular stakeholders' meetings and consultations forums. Finally, we would invite the EU Commission to take into consideration the Ecodesign methodology (MEErP) which includes a complete life-cycle assessment including the refrigerant use. 4. Caution is needed when R290 is identified as a generic alternative for new single split air-conditioning systems (section 3.1, p.5, Technical Annex, p.10) We would like to, first, remind about the current low level of training of service personnel and certification for A3 refrigerants, such as for R290. Thorough training on A3 refrigerants, such as R290 is not yet part of any EU certification scheme with regards to installers and service companies, since the refrigerant does not fall under the requirements of Regulations (EU) 517/2014 and (EU) 2067/2015. As such, a considerable safety-risk currently exists when considering using R290 as a refrigerant in small split air-conditioning applications in the EU. Therefore, "trainings on flammable refrigerant use for installers and service companies" is an essential measure to implement, further, establishing an EU-wide qualification/verification program for such alternatives is equally as essential, i.e. R290 needs a certification scheme for installers and service companies at the EU-level, prior it is considered as being a "real" alternative by the competent authorities. Safety of use, installation, servicing, maintenance of equipment using A3 can currently not be guaranteed. Further, using R290 needs specific technical and legal requirements to be fulfilled, such as safety-classified stores (i.e. warehouses) to stock the charged units with the refrigerant, strict transport-measures, etc. All the points mentioned before should be considered whenever discussing R290 as an alternative to R32 for small single-split air conditioners. We believe that R290 cannot, at this moment, be considered as a generically viable alternative for all new single split systems. The conclusion on R290 from the final Commission report lacks supportive explanation and/or scientific evidence substantiating it. For this reason, we believe that further assessment is needed throughout the f-gas preparatory study currently being carried out, before moving to such conclusions and using these as an input to the F-Gas Regulation review process. 5. Using R32 in new single split systems results in a reduction of charge of 20% or more (section 3.2, p.6) We would like to inform that the possible reduction of charge, as a result of using R32, is greater than 20% (in some models already up to 30%) compared to using e.g. R410a, very much depending on the system's design. Further, Ecodesign requirements have indeed an impact on the charge amount, with higher efficiencies typically needing more refrigerant. However, we would like to highlight that this latter statement applies to all refrigerants, not only to R32. As a complementary information to the next statement found in the final report "[...] R32 units are also fully cost-effective compared to R410A", we would like to inform that total material costs for R290 units are higher than for units running on R410A or R32, even if the refrigerant R290 itself has a lower cost. Indeed, R290 units need more copper, aluminum, and other metals to achieve the same capacity output as R32 units, for example, due to the chemical characteristics of R290. www.appliaeurope.eu 2 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe Comment paper, Brussels 28th January 2021. 6. Addressing the restricted use of R32 in public and high-rise buildings in France (section 3.2, p.7) Concerning the "Market readiness" of A2L and A3 refrigerants in Europe, we would like to remind that the use flammable refrigerants (A2L and A3) is presently restricted in some public and high-rise buildings in France. This latter situation is consequently preventing the installation of equipment with A2L/A3 and other flammable refrigerants in those buildings. This remains a major barrier to the transition to flammable refrigerants. The current CH35 cannot be considered as a sufficient improvement and further work is needed there. Despite the Commission's comments on the draft French legislation through the TRIS procedure, the French final legislation was not modified yet and is not in line with the CE marking/harmonized approach and the rules of the EU single market. Therefore, in our view, it is important to highlight the French situation when discussing the "Market readiness" of flammable refrigerants in the EU. It is equally important to address this situation and remove such a restriction in public and high-rise buildings in France. 7. Rectifying the Conclusions of the final report regarding identifying R290 as a viable refrigerant for all new single split systems (section 4, p.8) Since the Consultant, ko-Recherche, did not study all the related and existing models of split systems, indoor units types, and piping lengths that are necessary for the EU market, we consider that such a generic conclusion, i.e. identifying R290 as a viable refrigerant for all new single split systems, should not be provided by the Commission in its final report. We strongly recommend to further address the concerns as raised throughout this paper, and not to import the conclusions from the final report, "as such", to the F-Gas review preparatory study. A thorough assessment including cooling and heating, of all different types of indoor units, piping lengths, future Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) levels, and additional potential energy improvements (the consideration should not only be made in relation to the MEPS as consumers are encouraged to go for higher energy labels than the MEPS), would be necessary to conclude if, and for which applications, R290 could be a viable alternative. Further, regarding the choice of a refrigerant by a manufacturer, we would like to inform that it relies on several aspects, such as (i) technical feasibility, (ii) safety, (iii) energyefficiency (and further improvements potential of such refrigerant), (iv) cost-effectiveness, etc. Therefore, considering and identifying a refrigerant as a "real" alternative for new small single-split air conditioners should not be solely based on the fact that it would be technically possible to build-up an appliance to use such gas in such equipment. In addition to the choice of refrigerants (and their related GWP impact), reducing their charge in equipment, avoiding leakage, and increasing their recovery and reuse will also contribute in mitigating climate change and reaching the (reduced) CO2 emissions targets. We also have a comment on the following generic statement as found in the final report: "[...] A further significant reduction of the GWPs of alternatives to e.g. below 150 may be possible in small single split systems in the medium term if the above constraints are addressed effectively". As formulated, this would apply to all versions of such small systems. We do not support such an absolute conclusion at this stage. Lastly, regarding the time frame ("medium term") of this possibility, it will still take many years for a refrigerant with a GWP below 150 to be recognised under ASHRAE, ISO and EN standards, and for products to be developed using such refrigerants. www.appliaeurope.eu 3 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe Comment paper, Brussels 28th January 2021. 8. Request for a list of examples of equipment using R290 As the EU Commission has highlighted in its final report, in pages 5 and 8, APPLiA would like to kindly understand the (scientific) evidence, based on existing and expected future EU and national legislation, that the Commission used to state and conclude on R290. For instance, we would be highly interested in receiving from DG CLIMA, a list of equipment (e.g. brand, model) currently using R290 units in the EU, and in other parts of the world. This latter list of equipment would allow APPLiA to share valuable information with its members, for them to further assess and understand the possibilities and limits of use of such a refrigerant in future and new small single-split air conditioning systems in the EU, as well as to also potentially provide DG CLIMA with relevant information about the feasibility or possible limitations of such equipment examples. We invite all competent authorities, EU, national and international ones, to consider our input as laid down in this comment paper. We further kindly recommend EU competent authorities to take into account and consider our arguments, as well as address our concerns, whenever the impact assessment exercise starts, i.e. along the start of the evaluation process of the F-Gas Regulation. www.appliaeurope.eu 4 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe == AKT 3898602 == [ Re: APPLiA contribution to the Call-for-Evidence on PFAS == Dokument 5 == [ APPLiA co... == APPLIK Home Appliance Europe Bld. Brand Whitlock 114 B-1200 Brussels G +32 2 738 78 15 Naomi Marc @applia-europe.eu 15/10/2021 APPLiA's comment paper on a document called "Report summary FGas uses" accompanying the a call-for-evidence process concerning an upcoming PFAS REACH restriction proposal. APPLiA, the EU Association representing manufacturers of home appliances, including residential refrigeration, heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment, would like to inform competent authorities of its stance regarding a document called "Report summary F-Gas uses: Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR), foamblowing agents, solvents, propellants, cover gases and fire suppressants" (summary report'), within the context of an upcoming per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) REACH restriction proposal from five Member States. As a reminder, APPLiA participated in the first Call-for-Evidence (CfE) process from the Member States, back in July 2020. We also provided a contribution to the Exponent consulting company as mandated by the competent authorities, nevertheless, we fail to see the home appliance sector's input being taken into consideration in the summary report, and further in the CfE process. As a CfE exercise2 has been launched by these Member States back in July 2021, APPLiA would like to provide specific input and feedback to some sections of a summary report accompanying such a CfE. Our particular comments would thus follow the structure of the summary report with the following key messages: This paper reflects the home appliance sectorial comments and further recommendations with regards to a published document called "Report summary F-gas uses", which accompanies a new CfE exercise. The content of this comment paper is to be considered within the context of the products' scope that the Association covers, which is domestic equipment, including domestic refrigerators and freezers, domestic thermodynamic water heaters, domestic heat pump tumble driers and domestic fixed single/multi split air-conditioners with a power range below 12kW. APPLiA key messages: According to its chemical formula, R-32 should neither be identified, nor be covered by the scope of the RoI and its further related new CfE exercise; Misalignment between the collected quantitative data, and related estimations, with the information available in the Inventory that should be rectified; The use ofF-Gases in heat pumps incorporated in white goods to decrease in the future and it should be highlighted in the Summary Report; Data on market prices to be clarified and rectified; We recommend placing home appliance sector's insulation-application in balance with other foam blowing agents applications and their related (estimated) emissions data on F-Gases; Concerning recycling/reclaiming of F-Gases sites, these need to be in full compliance with the Atmospheric Explosive (ATEX) Directive and related codes, in view of preventing and protecting workers against explosions; 1 Report summary F-Gas uses, published online 19.07.2020 (here). 2 Direct link to the CfE exercise available online here. 1 www.applia-europe.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 Reminder of several key pieces of legislations still missing from this report' section: Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC and the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 with the followed key requirements Directive amending the Energy Performance of buildings (EU) 2018/844 and Directive amending the Energy Efficiency (EU) 2018/2002; We would suggest an EU-wide approach, i.e. further developing a uniform and consistent approach to set requirements on HVACR equipment using F-Gases across all Member States; R-32 as a non-PFAS alternative and R-290 as non-viable alternative for all equipment, especially split A2A heat pumps; Need for the reference quantitative data used to develop such a summary report and its accompanying Appendixes. APPLiA products' scope is constituted of the following residential equipment using refrigerants or foam blowing insulation gases: Refrigerators and freezers; Heat pump water heaters (without space heating function); Ice cream makers; Dehumidifiers; Heat pump tumble dryers; Washer dryers; Fixed single/multi split air conditioners (<12kW); Double duct air conditioners; Dishwashers with heat pump technology. The natural refrigerants regularly used in our industry include R-600, R-600a and R-290, while the synthetic ones cover R-134a, R-410A, R-407C, R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze, as well as blends of such F-Gases. The first point of this comment paper discusses the situation of R-32, as this latter does not meet the definition of PFAS statement, which we support. As such, we would like to highlight some important messages around this refrigerant, and its crucial role in the wellfunctioning of certain HVACR equipment and the non-necessity to address it under the Registry of Intention (RoI) and further to include such a substance in a REACH Annex XV dossier proposal. 1. The situation of difluoromethane (R-32) (Point 2 "Main PFAS substances", p.3) According to our assessment, R-32 should neither be identified, nor be covered by the scope of the RoI and its further related new CfE exercise. The definition used by the five Member States to identify PFAS is as follows: "X-(-CF2-)n-X' with n 1 and X, X' not being H (thus including X-CF3) meaning fluorinated substances that contain at least one aliphatic carbon atom that is both, saturated and fully fluorinated, i.e. any chemical with at least one perfluorinated methyl group (-CF3) or at least one perfluorinated methylene group (-CF2-), including branched fluoroalkyl groups and substances containing ether linkages, fluoropolymers and side chain fluorinated polymers." www.appliaeurope.eu 2 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 The chemical formula of R-32 is CH2F2, and its 2-D chemical structure is as follows: R-32 should not be identified as a PFAS throughout the summary report as published by the five Member States. There is no presence of a fully fluorinated aliphatic carbon atom. We would recommend the competent authorities to update the summary report accordingly, by further removing R-32 from the list of substances found under Appendix I, and further including this substance within the list of non-PFAS alternatives as found under Appendix VII, specifically for the HVACR Market and Foam-blowing applications Tables (p.24-25). R-32 should be considered as a viable non-PFAS alternative throughout the summary report, during the CfE process, with a view of proposing a PFAS REACH restriction proposal which would be fully in-line with both the OECD-recommendations3, and the identified definition for PFAS as proposed by the five Member States' competent authorities in July 2021 via the publication of their RoI. In Annex I of this comment paper, we provide some insightful information on the tropospheric degradation of R-32. As a more general observation from our side, we believe it is essential to promptly determine the RoI scope, and further the Annex XV dossier scope, as regularly changing those would create legal uncertainty and be detrimental to relevant stakeholders within the context of this dossier. 2. General comment on the data-source from which stems the data-collection exercise (Point 3 "Tonnage band", p.3) The chosen EU reference for the data-collection to gather specific information on PFAS, including tonnages and emissions, i.e. the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory of data, is the appropriate source. As such, we fully support keeping consideration on this Inventory during any future work of the competent authorities to build their PFAS REACH restriction proposal. Nevertheless, we would strongly recommend to fully align the collected quantitative data, and related estimations, with the information available in the Inventory. For instance, regarding Table 1 of page 4, and its next explanatory paragraph: "In 2018 in total, 30,671 tonnes/a F-gases are filled into new products for the first time during their manufacturing process, while 492,173 tonnes/a are found in operating systems (Annual stocks in operating systems refers to products that already contain Fgases and are in operation) used in EU-27 & the United Kingdom (UK) & Iceland (IS) & Norway (NO) (EU, 2020a). Remaining in products at decommissioning is 19,724 tonnes/a F-gases. From the GHG Inventory data for 2018, refrigeration and air conditioning account for 78% (24,093 tonnes/a) of the total amount of these F-gases filled into new manufactured products and 82% (404,315 tonnes/a) of the F-gases in stocks." The (bold) highlighted above-tonnage figure cannot be retrieved from the GHG Inventory data. Also, a comparison with the most recent and for industry reliable EEA Report 15/2020 on Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2020 and more specifically with table A5.23 on intended applications of EU bulk supply of F-Gases is not possible in a realistic manner. 3 Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance, OECD Series on Risk Management No. 61, July 2021, available online here. 3 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 On a general note, we would appreciate receiving from the Consultant and/or from the competent authority liable for the F-Gases summary report, the reference quantitative data used to develop such a summary report and its accompanying Appendixes. Indeed, the current content of the summary report, the information gathered in such a document, does not allow to fully understand, and corroborate the outputs of the summary report and the figures of its related Appendixes. Also, please note that not all HFCs are meeting the definition of PFAS (e.g. R-32), therefore, it may be that the (estimated) figures provided in the summary report would need to be reviewed and modified (i.e. deducted) accordingly. 3. Figure 2: Trends of F-Gases supplied for use in products and equipment in EU-28 (2007-2019) (Point 5 "Manufacturing & market price + market development", p.6) Firstly, we would like to kindly point out that a spelling mistake exists in the summary report, as it should read "Trends in the supply in EU-28 of data 2007-2019 have been reported in the table in Appendix II and illustrated in the figure 3 (and not 2 as currently found in the document). We would like to provide comments on the next paragraphs, particularly regarding the underlined part: "Change in demand for refrigeration specifically (leaving aside air conditioning and the use of heat pumps) is likely to follow a mix of population and economic growth over time. However, continued growth of 2.77% has been forecast for refrigeration in Europe over the period 2021-2025 (Statista, 2021). Forecasts beyond 2025 have not been identified relative to units sold, and information on changes in demand for refrigeration as a consequence of climate change is available but does not relate directly to the number of units sold, which is a better proxy for demand for F-gases. The baseline for the use of Fgases in this sector, covering refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps, is anticipated to grow strongly up to 2025 and beyond." We expect the use of F-Gases in heat pumps incorporated in white goods to decrease in the future, i.e. for instance no anticipated growth expectations with regards to heat pumps for tumble dryers, but rather the opposite. It is forecasted that the stock of heat pumps used to decarbonise the building stock will grow in the coming years in order to allow the EU to reach its decarbonisation targets. We would appreciate it if this difference could be clearly highlighted in the summary report, as well as taken into consideration during the development of the Annex XV dossier proposal from the competent authorities. "As for insulation, it has been forecast that growth of 8%/year globally will occur in the insulation market over the period 2020 to 2024 (Global Insulation, 2020). However, a lower estimate of growth in the sector has been quantified for Europe of 3.48% annually over the period 2015-2027 (Pavel, 2018), with wool minerals, and plastic foams (EPS, XPR and PUR) being the dominant materials for insulation. Increased use of PFAS-bearing foams for building insulation where the service life of materials is long will take decades to feed through to the waste sector." Concerning "insulation", the forecasted growth as mentioned herein above concerns building insulation, not HVACR equipment insulation covered by the scope of APPLiA. 4. Data regarding market prices or number of production sites for F-Gases used in different applications (Point 6 "Market price & No. of production sites", p.7) Regarding the next statement as found in the summary report: www.appliaeurope.eu 4 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 "Detailed information on the market price or number of production sites is not given for the F-gases used in different applications." We would like to recommend the authorities to further check the latest information as gathered by Oeko-Recherche, mandated by DG CLIMA, with regards to the monitoring of refrigerant prices against the background of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (Q1 of July 2021)4. You will find the pdf-document accompanying this comment paper. 5. Data and estimations on "emissions" (Point 7 "Emissions", p.7) Regarding the next statement as found in the summary report: "From the GHG Inventory data (2018) and UN Methodology, it is apparent that the implied emissions during the manufacturing of products and equipment is generally between 0 - 3 % of the F-gases used and mainly from foam blowing agents (closed-cell). By contrast emissions from stocks are significantly higher as would generally be expected and are in the range 0 - 13%. Commercial and industrial refrigeration, mobile and stationary air conditioning accounting for 83% of the total emissions from stocks. In total, the emissions of F-gases in 2018 from the different uses were as follows: Manufacturing of products and equipment: 1,696 tonnes /a Stocks (i.e. service-life): 38,806 tonnes /a" As already mentioned above, concerning the underlined part, we believe that it is important to breakdown the application "insulation" into different sub-categories of application per sector, including the building sector (i.e. foam blowing agents using FGases for insulation purposes), and the home appliance sector (i.e. where for instance very limited quantities of HFOs can be used for insulation materials of refrigerators). On the estimated emissions data for "insulation" as mentioned throughout the summary report, we strongly believe that the F-Gases emissions are primarily stemming from building insulation, not from the home appliance sector. As such, we would highly recommend placing our insulation-application in balance with other foam blowing agents applications and their related (estimated) emissions data on F-Gases. On another note, we would also like to provide further explanations and clarifications with regards to the importance, for the home appliance sector, of hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs). As correctly highlighted in the summary report through this next paragraph: "Industry stakeholders have underlined the importance of Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and fluoroketone (FK) alternatives during the development of this dossier. Primarily this is because in a number of applications they can substitute the function provided by other Fgases alone or in blends, whilst at the same time having significantly lower global warming potential (GWP). The relative proportion of HFOs compared to other F-gases has been increasing from 2016 - 2019 from 6 to 24%." HFOs are already and will continue to be essential F-Gases with regards to certain applications/equipment covered by APPLiA' scope. 4 Monitoring of refrigerant prices against the background of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014, Q1 July 2021, cfr. accompanying pdf-document to this comment paper. 5 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 As a general message on heat pump technology, to reach the new climate targets as laid down in the provisional agreement by both the Parliament and the Council on the European Climate Law5, this type of new and more advanced technology will need to be deployed on a large scale, instead of pursuing with the more conventional technology. As such, it is important to understand that, for some applications (like heating of buildings), F-Gases, including HFOs, are and will continue to play a central role with a view of reaching those climate targets by 2030, and later on by 2050. Furthermore, we should also keep in mind that 80% of GHG emissions today are related to energy production and energy consumption. The heating and cooling sector represents almost 50% out of the total and final energy consumption. On this latter, 80% out of those 50% is allocated to fossil fuels being used for heating purposes. Therefore, it is important to emphasise that heat pump-based technologies' deployment is highly necessary to mitigate GHG emissions in the EU and achieving the climate targets, as well as for the decarbonisation of buildings under the Green Deal, and the decarbonisation of the energyinfrastructures (e.g. demand side flexibility) as put forward in the Energy System Integration Strategy. We highly recommend the five Member States competent authorities to fully take into account this latter goal, i.e. decarbonisation of buildings and energy-infrastructure, whenever working on their future PFAS REACH restriction proposal. To conclude under this point, we would like to provide a general comment on the wastetreatment of refrigerants under the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU. Annex VII, on the selective treatment for materials and components of WEEE equipment referred to in Article 8(2), requires that as a minimum a range of substances, mixtures and components have to be removed from any separately collected WEEE. This includes chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) or HFCs, and hydrocarbons (HC). In addition, for equipment containing gases that are ozone depleting or have a GWP > 15, such as those contained in foams and refrigeration circuits, the gases must be properly extracted and properly treated. Ozone-depleting gases must be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009. The collection, logistics and treatment requirements for WEEE can be found in the WEEE standard FprEN 50625-1. As such, the industry and infrastructure in place in the EU for the recollection chain of those substances at the end of life for home appliances is well-established. Hence, industry is able to properly contain the dispersion of those substances in the environment. 6. Workers exposures (Point 8 "Worker exposures", p.8) Concerning the next paragraph of the summary report, particularly the underlined part: "Worker exposures to F-gases in plant manufacturing equipment or putting the gases into product should be small, given the need to use closed systems (mentioned by many respondents to the call for evidence). Outside of the manufacturing plant, however, there may be greater exposure of workers, for example at sites reclaiming refrigeration equipment at the end of its service life." We would like to highlight that, concerning recycling/reclaiming of F-Gases sites, these need to be in full compliance with the Atmospheric Explosive (ATEX) Directive and related codes, in view of preventing and protecting workers against explosions. Indeed, the ATEX Directive describes what type of equipment and environment is allowed for work in an explosive atmosphere. Its codes apply to all equipment intended for use in explosive atmospheres. 5 Provisional agreement on the European Climate Law, available online here. 6 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 Also, these sites must be compliant with several other pieces of legislations stemming from the F-Gas Regulation, i.e. accompanying implementing acts, including: Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2008 of 2 April 2008 (available online here). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2066 of 17 November 2015 (available online here). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2067 of 17 November 2015 (available online here). 7. Missing legal requirements under the list of legal texts of the summary report (Point 9 "Summary of existing legal requirements", p.8) We would like to highlight that there are several key pieces of legislations still missing from this report' section: Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC and the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369: Air conditioners and comfort fans: (EU) No 206/2012 & (EU) No 626/2011 Water heaters and hot water storage tanks: (EU) No 814/2013 & (EU) No 812/2013 Air heating products, cooling products, high temperature process chillers and fan coil units: (EU) No 2016/2281 & N/A Household Refrigerating appliances: (EC) No 643/2009 & (EC) No 1060/2010 Household Tumble driers: (EU) No 932/2012 & (EU) No 392/2012 Household combined Washer driers: N/A & 96/60/EC Household Washing machines: (EU) No 1015/2010 & (EU) No 1061/2010 Space heaters and combination heaters: (EU) No 813/2013 & (EU) No 811/2013 These legislations and their specific requirements apply to HVACR equipment using FGases and should thus be carefully considered whenever developing the Annex XV dossier proposal. Also, the next pieces of law should be taken into account: - Directive amending the Energy Performance of buildings (EU) 2018/844 - Directive amending the Energy Efficiency (EU) 2018/2002 As a general comment, we would like to highlight that there is a certain accretion of diverging requirements on HVACR equipment using F-Gases, particularly at national levels, which further create a challenging environment for manufacturers of household products using such substances. In order to tackle this issue, we would recommend settling an EUwide approach, i.e. further developing a uniform and consistent approach to set requirements on HVACR equipment using F-Gases across all Member States. The list highlights indeed the main legal texts applying to both F-Gases and the applications/equipment using such substances. Nevertheless, several existing national rules are missing from the list, and we would like to highlight them below, specifically concerning three different Member States: France, Italy and Spain. 1 France: Etablissements Recevant du Public, ERP, Article CH35; 2 Italy: The Presidential Decree No 151 of 1 August 2011 identifying the activities subject to fire prevention controls and regulating the authorisation procedures and controls; 3 Spain: Royal Decree 138/2011; www.appliaeurope.eu 7 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 These pieces of national legislations should be fully taken into consideration throughout the work of the Member States in developing a PFAS REACH restriction proposal, within the context of the F-Gases policy area. Indeed, they specifically limit, or even restrict, the use of flammable refrigerants (A2L and A3) in some public and high-rise buildings, including propane (R-290). Thank you for further referring to our comments under point 8 of this comment document, to understand our views on R-290, and the fact that this substance has been inappropriately identified as one of the viable non-PFAS alternatives for use in all applications/equipment covered by APPLiA's scope. 8. R-32 as a non-PFAS alternative and our views regarding the alternatives as suggested in the summary report As already mentioned, and further recommended under point 1 of this comment document, R-32 should neither be identified, nor be covered by the scope of the RoI and its related new CfE exercise. The summary report should be modified and updated accordingly, by further removing R32 from the list of substances found under Appendix I, and further including this substance within the list of non-PFAS alternative-substances as found under Appendix VII, specifically for the HVACR Market and Foam-blowing applications Tables (p.24-25). Regarding the next wording used to describe the Table of Appendix VII "Assessment of the availability of fluorine-free alternatives (...)", we would recommend deleting the underlined part of the explanatory phrase, and replacing with this next more appropriate wording: "Assessment of the availability of non-PFAS alternatives for each use disaggregated into subapplication level." Indeed, we believe it is important to recognise and consider that some specific fluorinebased substances such as R-32, are viable alternatives for the proper functioning of certain HVACR applications/equipment, without meeting the definition of PFAS (neither the RoI definition, nor the OECD recommended one). As such, the Tables of Appendix VII should be updated accordingly, fully aligning with the objectives of the PFAS REACH restriction process, i.e. reducing the use and emissions of recognised/identified persistent substances meeting the PFAS definition). We would also appreciate receiving some clarification on the different reference sources of information from which the list of non-PFAS alternatives is stemming from. Last but not least, concerning the herein below statement as found in the summary report, on the underlined part: "Review of the properties of these options (alternatives) indicates a variety of issues. The major constraints relate to safety, technical factors and legislation. However, in many cases the technical issues may be solved in the design of equipment." We would like to point out that CE conformity is absolutely necessary whenever placing on the market any HVACR equipment. As such, CE marking indicates that a product has been assessed by the manufacturer and deemed to meet EU safety, health and environmental protection requirements. It is required for products manufactured anywhere in the world that are then marketed in the EU. Concerning the choice of a refrigerant by a manufacturer, we would like to inform that it relies on several aspects, such as (i) technical feasibility, (ii) safety, (iii) energy- efficiency (and further improvements potential of such refrigerant), (iv) cost-effectiveness, etc. Therefore, considering and identifying a refrigerant as a "real" alternative for HVACR equipment should not be solely based on the fact that it would be technically possible to build-up an appliance to use such gas in such equipment. www.appliaeurope.eu 8 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 In addition to the choice of refrigerants (and their related GWP impact), reducing their charge in equipment, avoiding leakage, and increasing their recovery and reuse will also contribute in mitigating climate change and reaching the (reduced) CO2 emissions targets. The barriers to perform the switch towards non-PFAS alternative refrigerants need to be primarily addressed. It should not be forgotten that transition towards new refrigerants takes time, this is a parameter that cannot be forgotten whatever the application considered. Any upcoming REACH restriction on F-Gases would also need to be fully in line with the Ecodesign and energy label specific product rules and studies, as well as with Circular Economy objectives. Specifically, on highly flammable refrigerants (A3 refrigerants), including R-290, there is currently a low level of training of service personnel and certification. Thorough training on A3 refrigerants is not yet part of any EU certification scheme with regards to installers and service companies, since the refrigerant does not fall under the requirements of Regulations (EU) 517/2014 and (EU) 2067/2015. For equipment that is not factory sealed a safety-risk currently exists for the installation and servicing if R-290 would be used as a refrigerant. Therefore, training on flammable refrigerant use for installers and service companies and an EU-wide qualification/verification programme is essential. R-290 needs a certification scheme for installers and service companies at the EU-level, prior it is considered as being a "real" non-PFAS alternative. Safety of use, installation, servicing, maintenance cannot be guaranteed with A3 refrigerants for equipment that needs a large amount of refrigerant, such as split air conditioners. Using R-290 needs specific technical and legal requirements to be fulfilled, such as safety-classified stores (i.e. warehouses) to stock the charged units with the refrigerant, strict transport-measures, etc. All the points mentioned before should be considered whenever discussing R-290 as a refrigerant, regardless of the amount used in an appliance. To conclude, R-290 cannot, at this moment, be considered as a generically viable non-PFAS alternative for all equipment, especially split A2A heat pumps or HVACR or other applications that would need more than 150gram of R-290. Several applications such as household refrigerators and freezers, and gradually also heat pump tumble driers, however already safely use less than 150 grams of flammable refrigerants since many years.. This latter statement should be carefully considered by the Member States competent authorities during the development process of the future Annex XV dossier proposal on PFAS under REACH. We attach our position paper on small singlesplit air-conditioners and R-290 as an accompanying document to this comment paper. On another note, Energy efficiency is an important factor to consider during the development of the PFAS Annex XV dossier proposal. Care should be taken that any upcoming PFAS REACH restriction does not conflict with that principle, e.g. any upcoming PFAS REACH restriction proposal does not jeopardize the possibility to fulfill the appliance minimum energy efficiency requirements of the EU Ecodesign legislation. 9. Methods used & uncertainties (Point 13, p.14) As also mentioned at the beginning of this comment paper, we would appreciate receiving the reference quantitative data used to develop such a summary report and its accompanying Appendixes. For instance, we would be keen in acknowledging the data used to calculate the IEF factors, as well as the values of the IEF factors used to calculate and provide the output figures (e.g. estimated emissions data) as found throughout this summary report and its Appendixes. This latter would enable us to understand the methodology used, as well as the equation used to estimate the emissions data: Emissions = activity data x emissions factors. In addition, regarding this next specific question from the summary report: 9 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 It is unclear if the application stationary air conditioning includes F-gases used in heat pumps We would like to understand whether the competent authorities in charge of this summary report are referring to their own classification, or other? In any case, we would prefer to have a separate classification and further assessment regarding stationary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment. 10. Appendixes - APPLiA general comments Once again, we would like to highlight that the figures found under the Summary Report Appendix cannot be aligned with the information found in the EEA Report 15/2020 on Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2020 and more specifically with table 15.23 on intended applications of EU bulk supply of F-Gases. With regards to these unclarities, we would appreciate receiving the reference quantitative data used to develop such a summary report and its accompanying Appendixes. For instance, we would be keen in acknowledging the data used to calculate and provide the output figures as found in Appendixes IV and V. We invite the five Member States to consider our input as laid down in this comment paper. We further kindly recommend those EU competent authorities to take into account and consider our arguments, as well as address our concerns and recommendations throughout their work to propose an upcoming PFAS REACH restriction dossier. APPLiA and its members remain fully available to discuss the points raised in this comment paper. www.appliaeurope.eu 10 APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 ANNEX I - TROPOSPHERIC DEGRADATION OF R-32 The breakdown of R-32 will occur (almost) exclusively in the troposphere and will be initiated by the diatomic molecule OH, i.e. the hydroxyl radical. As seen in Figure 1 herein below, the degradation scheme will proceed via various freeradical or short-lived molecular intermediates, more particularly, to give the intermediate product carbonyl fluoride (COF2). In the troposphere COF2 has a lifetime measured in days and is predominantly removed by incorporation in water droplets followed by hydrolysis (reacts instantly) and rain out. Reaction with OH radical or photolysis are too slow to be of any significance.6 It is converted to hydrogen fluoride (HF) and carbon dioxide (CO2) by hydrolysis7. The tropospheric lifetime of COF2 by physical (wet) removal is estimated at 7 days and its GWP is < 1. 8. Further, the intermediates peroxynitrate (CHF2O2NO2) and hydroperoxide 6 IPCC/TEAP Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons Chapter 2 pages 152 and 153 7 Difluoromethane (HFC-32) CAS No. 75-10-5 (Second Edition) JACC No. 54, June 2008, available online here (link to be added) 8WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58, 2018. Appendix A . 11 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 (CHF2O2H) that may be formed along the degradation process of R-32 are extremely shortlived. It is equally as important to highlight that, since R-32 contains neither chlorine nor bromine, it has no effect on stratospheric ozone. Also, as a result of R-32' low reactivity with OH, the refrigerant would not contribute significantly to the formation of ground-level ozone. The atmospheric lifetime of R-32 is 5.4 years9 which means that it is well-mixed in the atmosphere and HF from its degradation would be widely dispersed at extremely low atmospheric and rainwater concentrations. Further, the HF formed from R-32 and scavenged in rainwater would represent a negligible-acidity, at least 25,000 times less than the acidity arising from the global natural and anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). As such, the contribution of R-32 to acid rain would be negligible10. Fluorides are naturally released into the environment through the weathering and dissolution of minerals, and in emissions from volcanoes and in marine aerosols. The major natural source of hydrogen fluoride emissions to the atmosphere is volcanoes. These emissions are estimated to range from 0.6 to 6 million metric tons per year11. On average, <10% of these emissions are a result of large eruptions that are efficiently ejected into the stratosphere. Passive degassing is a major source of tropospheric hydrogen fluoride. Soil naturally contains fluoride, and resuspension of soil by wind also contributes to the atmospheric burden of fluorides in the form of soil minerals12. Another source is sea salt aerosol, which releases small amounts of gaseous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride salts into the air. The marine aerosol is potentially a major source of tropospheric hydrogen fluoride13. However, these releases would be confined to the air over the oceans. Human exposure to fluoride is well understood and includes from the addition of fluorides to dental products14. Concerning HF, particularly, the toxicological profile of such a substance as found in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) database does not provide any information on its PBT assessment, as this latter does not apply, i.e. it is neither relevant, nor required for inorganic substances15. HF is a colourless, corrosive gas that may fume in air. This substance is also highly soluble in water. HF and its aqueous solutions present an acute hazard by inhalation or dermal exposure. Data on this substance were available for developing acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL). As such, marked sensory irritation can occur at exposures greater than 9 AR6 IPCC Working Group I- Climate Change 2021, The Physical Science Basis- 7.SM Chapter 7: The Earth's 2 energy budget, climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity - Supplementary Material 10 Difluoromethane (HFC-32) CAS No. 75-10-5 (Second Edition) JACC No. 54, June 2008, available online here. 11 Symonds RB, Rose WJ, Reed MH. 1988. Contribution of Cl- and F-bearing gases to the atmosphere by volcanoes. Nature 334:415-418. 12 Biologic effects of atmospheric pollutants: Fluorides. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants, 239. 13 Friend JP. 1989. Natural chlorine and fluorine in the atmosphere, water and precipitation. United Nations Environmental Programme/World Meteorological Association. Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1989. Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental Acceptability Study Report. 14 2006 World Health Organization (WHO). Fluoride in Drinking-water by J. Fawell, K. Bailey, J. Chilton, E. Dahi, L. Fewtrell and Y. Magara. ISBN: 1900222965. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK. 15 ECHA database, Registration dossier of Hydrogen fluoride, CAS number: 7664-39-3, available online here. 12 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe APPLiA comment paper, Brussels 15th October 2021 3ppm for 1 hour16. However, these hazards are not relevant to the extremely low rainwater concentrations from the atmospheric degradation of R-32. Our HVACR applications using R-32 cannot provide such concentration levels of HF in the atmosphere, which would in turn cause adverse health effects on organisms. Thus, as these HF conditions cannot be found in any type of natural environment due to potential emissions of R-32, we further recommend taking into consideration this aspect during the development of the Annex XV dossier proposal. Finally, PFAS are defined as a group of organic substances containing a strong carbonfluorine bond. Due to the R-32 boiling point of -51.7C, when released to the environment it will enter almost exclusively into the ambient air and have little tendency to partition to the hydrosphere, biota, sediment or soil. It has low potential for adsorption (low log Kow) and is expected to rapidly volatilise. R-32 breaks down completely in the atmosphere to inorganic substances that are naturally occurring. 16 Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals: Volume 4, 2004, available online here. 13 www.appliaeurope.eu APPLiA Home Appliance Europe Aktdetaljer Akttitel: RE: EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases Aktnummer: 138 Sagsnummer: 2020 - 15422 Akt-ID: 5535245 Dato: 11-07-2022 16:28:06 Type: Indgende Dokumenter: [1] RE EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases.eml [2] 2022_07_01_EFCTC_PFAS_FF.pdf Den 12. juli 2024 == AKT 5535245 == [ RE: EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases == Dok... == Til: DE ( El ( El ) Cc: P1 ( El ), P2 ( E2 ), P3 ( E3 ), P4 ( E4 ), Toke Winther (Mmst.dk), ' P5 ( E5 ), P6 ( E6 ) Fra: P7 ( E7 ) Titel: RE: EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases Sendt: 11-07-2022 16:27 Bilag: 2022_07_01_EFCTC_PFAS_FF.pdf; Dear Mr E8 Thank you for your response, we of course understand that you and your team are quite busy at this time. EFCTC is following closely the restriction process and has already extensively contributed to both the 2020 and 2021 consultations with relevant information about F-gases, their uses, and the industry sector in general. Aiming at contributing further, at the beginning of this year, we have contracted an independent consultant (Ricardo Energy & Environment) to conduct a socioeconomic assessment on the F-gases sector. The final report is expected for the fall, and we are currently looking into possible projects to collect additional information to be provided in the context of the 2023 ECHA public consultation. For your convenience, please see attached the presentation that EFCTC shared during the FPP4EU Collaboration Platform event on 15 June with some more information about our work. Should you have any questions about the ongoing and upcoming activities of EFCTC, please do not hesitate to contact me. In the meantime, I wish you a lovely summer break. Kind regards, P7 Original Message From: ChemG < El > Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 11:04 AM To: P7 < E7 > Cc: P1 < El >; P2 < E2 >; P3 < E3 >; P4 < E4 >; 'Toke Winther' < @mst.dk>; P5 < E5 >; P6 < E6 > Subject: AW: EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases External email - Think before you click on links and attachments. AZ: 721 65/03.00854-R Dear Ms P8 , Thank you for your request for a meeting. During the last two years, the five countries have put much effort in gathering information on the tonnages, emissions, functionality, alternatives and economic impacts of potential restrictions of PFASs. This information was received in two consultation rounds and in addition several studies by external consultants were performed. In the restriction dossier (including Annexes) the information will be presented and based on this one or more restriction options will be proposed. At this stage we are quite busy with the preparation of the restriction proposal and therefore, would refrain from having a meeting right now. Please also note that submission of the dossier to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is foreseen in January 2023 and will be followed by a 6 months consultation period where you will have the possibility to comment on the proposal and provide relevant input. After the two scientific committees (RAC and SEAC) have formulated their opinions, the dossier will be handed over to the European Commission and a policy decision will be taken. More information on the restriction procedure can be found on ECHA's webpage: https://echa.europa.eu/restriction-process Best regards, for the German CA P9E8 Dr. P10 E8 baua Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) Bundesstelle fur Chemikalien Chemikalienbewertung und Risikomanagement Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Federal Office for Chemicals Evaluation of Chemicals and Risk Assessment Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1 - 25 D - 44149 Dortmund, Germany phone: 2013 fax: 2679 e-mail: El Ursprtingliche Nachricht Von: P7 < E7 > Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Juli 2022 16:52 An: E8 P10 < E8 >; P12 < E9 > Cc: ChemG < El >; P1 < El >; P2 < E2 >; P3 < E3 > Betref EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases Dear Mr. E8 and Ms. P13 , My name is P7 Consoli, and I am writing to you on behalf of the European FluoroCarbons Technical Committee (EFCTC), a sector group of Cefic, to propose a meeting concerning the REACH Restriction on PFAS and its relevance to F-gases. EFCTC is currently working on activites aimed at the generation and collection of information on F-gases to be provided in the context of the restriction process, and we would welcome an opportunity to share with you and your team in more detail what is being done by the group, and to receive your feedback. I would tentatively propose an online meeting in the coming weeks, depending on your availability. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you in advance. I wish you a lovely weekend. Kind regards, P7 , EFCTC Sector Group Cefic | Halogens Industry Sector +32 T1 European Chemical Industry Council - Cefic AISBL Rue Belliard 40, 1040 Brussels, Belgium EU Transparency Register n 64879142323-90 www.cefic.org <http://www.cefic.org/> |www.fluorocarbons.org <https://www.fluorocarbons.org/> <https://specialty-chemicals.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/News-App-email-signature.png> <https://cefic.org/responsible-care/2022-european-responsible-care-awards/? utm_campaign=Responsible%20Care%20Awards%202022-Anyone&utm_source=Cefic-outgoing-emailsignature&utm_medium=post-organic&utm_content=Responsible-Care-Awards2022&utm_term=Europe_cefic_Anyone___Responsible_Care_Awards_2022___post-organic_ResponsibleCare-Awards-2022_06/01/2022> == AKT 5535245 == [ RE: EFCTC meeting request in the context of impact of PFAS restriction on F-gases ] == Dokument 2 == [ 2022_07_01_EFCTC_PFAS_FF ] == EFCTC work on the proposed REACH restriction July 2022 The European Chemical Industry Council, AISBL - Rue Belliard, 40 1040 Brussels - Belgium Transparency Register n6487914232390 Outline 1. About us 2. Fgases and their uses 3. HFCs, HFOs, and nonfluorinated refrigerants: differences 4. How Fgases are regulated 5. Why are Fgases used? 6. EU Action on PFAS - Target - Why Fgases are different and should not be restricted under REACH 7. Reviewed Fgas Regulation proposal 8. What about TFA? 9. Practical examples of potential impacts of a ban on Fgases 10. What EFCTC is doing - Cooperation and reach out - Independent SocioEconomic Analysis (SEA) 11. EFCTC position and messages 2 1. About EFCTC The European FluoroCarbons Technical Committee is a sector group of the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and represents the companies Arkema, Chemours, Daikin Chemicals, Honeywell and Koura. 3 3. HFCs, HFOs, and nonfluorinated refrigerants: differences Fluorinated gases different generations developed safe to use, as they are nontoxic and generally non flammable Currently most used Fgases are: HFCs and HCFCs higher GWP; phased down under ODS and Fgas Regulations HFOs and HCFOs very low GWP; Containment/reporting included in new Fgas; suitable substitutes for HFCs Nonfluorinated refrigerants Substances with low Global Warming Potential (GWP) (01) Safety issues in terms of flammability, pressure and toxicity Production linked to fossil fuel production Examples: CO2 (R774), NH3 (R717), Hydrocarbons: Isobutane (R600a) and Propane (R290) Note: no one size fits all: each application might require a different gas or blend based on their properties and safety in use 5 4. How Fgases are regulated Source: Danfoss DKRCC.PB.000.W3.22 The use of Fgases has been already successfully regulated for several years 6 5. Why Fgases are used? Fgases can confer energy efficiency and safety when used in properly designed and operated equipment. They play a key role in decarbonising critical European industries relying on heating and cooling technology. Ref. https://www.fluorocarbons.org/applications/ 7 6. EU Action on PFAS Target PFAS in the scope of the RMOA* prepared by the 5 initiating countries have the following structural formula (dated 23 February 2022) and definition: PFAS are defined as substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl (CF3) or methylene (CF2) carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it). Meaning: fluorinated substances that contain at least one aliphatic carbon atom that is both, saturated and fully fluorinated, i.e. any chemical with at least one perfluorinated methyl group (CF3) or at least one perfluorinated methylene group (CF2), including branched fluoroalkyl groups and substances containing ether linkages fluoropolymers and side chain fluorinated polymers. The majority of F-gases fall into the current scope *Regulatory Management Option Analysis (RMOA) is an assessments of regulatory needs 8 6. EU Action on PFAS Why Fgases are different and should not be restricted under REACH 1. Different chemical properties Fgases: Do not persist and degrade completely in the atmosphere The degradation processes for Fgas are well known Many only create nonpersistent degradation products that occur naturally. A small group breakdown to produce very small concentrations of a naturally occurring inert and nonbioaccumulative substance called trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which is persistent Fgas Reg is currently under revision EFCTC Website, TFA as an atmospheric breakdown product 2. Already successfully managed by Fgas Reg (517/2014) & MAC Dir (70/156/EEC) Aims at reducing Fgas emissions by two thirds of 2010 levels by 2030 Quota system Limiting and phasing down the total amount of the most important Fgases Banning the use of Fgases in some new types of applications Preventing/containing emissions of Fgases from existing equipment MAC Directive prohibits the use of Fgases with a GWP 150 in new types of cars and vans introduced from 2011, and in all new cars and vans produced from 2017 EFCTC Position Paper "Published evidence supports very low yields of TFA from most HFOs and HCFOs", 9 August 2021 9 7. Reviewed Fgas Regulation proposal Steps in the right direction Enhanced control of placing HFCs on the market, effective vetting of all companies Reinforced legal provisions facilitating improved border control and enforcement against illegal trade Improved containment measures, endoflife treatment Alignment with international agreements (Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol) Room for improvement Further engagement with value chain to understand impact of phase down More frequent mandatory leakage controls Mandatory reclamations Better containment provisions can address the persistency concerns for PFAS 10 8. What about TFA? Global effects of TFA from HFCs and HFOs have been studied extensively1: The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) provides a comprehensive summary (2021) for Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and points out that most PFAS have different properties from TFA2. - Trifluoroacetic acid continues to be found in the environment, including in remote regions, although not at concentrations likely to have adverse toxicological consequences 3,4. - Current concentrations of TFA salts and related compounds in soil and surface waters do not present risks of adverse effects in aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. - Humans could be exposed to TFA via drinking water and food but there is no evidence to date of adverse effects on health - TFA salts are of low acute toxicity to mammals under conditions relevant to environmental exposure. - There are multiple sources of TFA: Industrial processes and as a transformation product of pharmaceutical and agricultural products. TFA is also a transformation product of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in the atmosphere Revision of FGas Reg offers a good opportunity to minimise emissions of Fgases and hence reduce the quantities of TFA generated from their breakdown. 1: Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4363002000001x. See sections 7.8 to 7.11 for Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). 2. https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/eeap 3. David, L. M.; Barth, M.; HglundIsaksson, L.; Purohit, P.; Velders, G. J. M.; Glaser, S.; Ravishankara, A. R. Trifluoroacetic acid deposition from emissions of HFO1234yf in India, China, and the Middle East Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2021. 4. Lindley, A.; McCulloch, A.; Vink, T. Contribution of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HydrofluoroOlefins (HFOs) Atmospheric Breakdown Products to Acidification ("Acid Rain") in the EU at Present and in the Future. Open J. Air Pollut., 2019, 8, 8195. 11 9. Practical examples of potential impacts of a ban on Fgases Without careful consideration and design of any restriction there are potentially huge changes to everyday life for people living inside, and even possibly outside, the EEA. For example: - Obsolesce of hundreds of millions of existing Refrigeration, Air conditioning and Heat Pump systems including car, van and truck Air Conditioning systems when maintenance or servicing is required due to unavailability of refrigerants. - Existing standards, regulations and codes impose constraints on location and charge size for all refrigerants, constraining systems and performance in the absence of Fgases. Some current designs are impractical without Fgases. - Energy efficient solutions for refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump systems could be limited. - Safe operation could be compromised without FGas (mild or no flammability, nontoxic). 12 10. What EFCTC is doing Cooperation and reach out Liaising with downstream users and associations to provide support in understanding the possible restriction. - EPEE, EHPA, APPLiA, EHI and others Cooperation with authorities - European Commission, Member States, European Chemicals Agency 13 10. What EFCTC is doing Independent SocioEconomic Analysis (SEA) Socioeconomic assessment on the impact of a possible ban on Fgases and of the contribution certain fluorinated gases (Fgases) to the economy and wider society Several downstream users and associations have joined the effort We aim at providing the authorities with complete set of information on Fgases Our SEA will be used to support a response to the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) consultation on a new proposal to restrict PFAS that includes Fgases The extent of this restriction is yet to be entirely defined and can still change along the consultation process 14 10. What EFCTC is doing Independent SocioEconomic Analysis (SEA) Objectives of the SEA: Provide an overview of the direct and attributable economic contribution of the Fgas industry, with support from members of EFCTC Outline economic and societal benefits generated along the downstream value chain from the use of Fgases in various critical applications or sectors; your production is one of such critical applications of Fgases Identify alternatives to Fgas in various critical applications and their costs compared to the current situation with the use of Fgases, thanks to your contribution to this consultation Data gathering/literature review of relevant market & PFAS Mapping of substances/ mixtures to priority uses Stakeholder Consultation (Survey & Interviews) Volume & P28 Assessment Economic Assessment to the Economy & Society Economic Assessment of F-gases by use 15 11. EFCTC position and messages `PFAS' is a big universe of thousands of chemicals. Certain Fgases (HFC, HFO and HCFO) are a category in `PFAS', but do not share the same chemical properties or uses with other categories of PFAS. Subgrouping in PFAS must be made for better hazard and risk assessment as well as assessment of the needs for a REACH restriction. EFCTC believes that concerns with Fgas could be, and are being, addressed in a different manner, and that Fgas should not be covered by a global REACH Restriction to avoid any conflict with other legislation, i.e. FGas Regulation. Fgases contribute to EU Green Deal achievements and decarbonisation goals. 16 11. EFCTC position and messages FGases are already successfully managed by the Fgas Regulation currently undergoing a review process to strengthen the containment provisions EFCTC calls for a sensible and sustainable regulatory approach Double regulation of Fgases would put an excessive burden on downstream users and the uncertainty would put innovation at risk Green Deal and decarbonisation goals difficult to achieve EFCTC encourages authorities to engage in dialogues with downstream users to better understand the possible repercussions on the sector 17 Questions? Contacts: P10 Consoli, E13 EFCTC Secretariat EFCTC newsletter: Home Fluorocarbons 18 Thank you. About Cefic Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, founded in 1972, is the voice of large, medium and small chemical companies across Europe, which provide 1.1 million jobs and account for 15% of world chemicals production. Cefic members form one of the most active networks of the business community, complemented by partnerships with industry associations representing various sectors in the value chain. A full list of our members is available on the Cefic website. Cefic is an active member of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), which represents chemical manufacturers and producers all over the world and seeks to strengthen existing cooperation with global organisations such as UNEP and the OECD to improve chemicals management worldwide The European Chemical Industry Council, AISBL - Rue Belliard, 40 1040 Brussels - Belgium Transparency Register n6487914232390 REACH Restriction process Ongoing Q1 2023 By Q1 2024 202425 MidJanuary 2023 20 Aktdetaljer Akttitel: RE: Hydrogen Europe - inquiry meeting on PFAS Aktnummer: 91 Sagsnummer: 2020 - 15422 Akt-ID: 6060004 Dato: 12-10-2022 10:54:53 Type: Indgende Dokumenter: [1] RE Hydrogen Europe - inquiry meeting on PFAS.eml [2] Hydrogen Europe position paper on PFAS ban_External.pdf Den 12. juli 2024 Til: Toke Winther (ffl@mst.dk) Cc: Hovedpostkasse (ffi@mst.dk), P1 El Fra: P2 ( E2 Titel: RE: Hydrogen Europe - inquiry meeting on PFAS Sendt: 12-10-2022 10:54 Bilag: Hydrogen Europe position paper on PFAS ban_External.pdf; Dear Toke Winther, This is a kind reminder regarding the below invitation to a meeting discussing topics relating to the PFAS restriction proporal. We believe it would be most beneficial to have a discussion on the issue. Would you be available for a call/meeting on this topic next week perhaps? In the meantime, please find attached Hydrogen Europe's position on the PFAS topic. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, P2 P2 Officer, Industry Policy Mobile: +32 Ti E2 www hydrogeneurone eu I Instagram, Linkedln I Twitter [.r.* .0.\ 24 - 28 October 2022 European ,.a*5 .yf... Brussels, Belgiuinri Hydro egn . euhydrogenweek.eu EU Transparency Register: 77659588648-75 From: P2 Sent: 06 October 2022 11:24 To: @mst.dk Cc: ffi @mst.dk; P1 El Subject: Hydrogen Europe - inquiry meeting on PFAS Dear Toke Winther, I am writing to you on behalf of Hydrogen Europe, the association representing the entire European hydrogen value chain, in connection with the proposed general PFAS restriction. As you may know, certain PFASs are in use in key applications (e.g. membranes in PEM electrolysers, in fuel cells) in the hydrogen supply chain. These substances are essential to the functioning of hydrogen technologies and without any foreseen viable alternative for the time being. Their ban would therefore have terrible impacts on the hydrogen rector, which is crucial for Europe to reach its Green Deal objectives. We have already had great discussions on this topic in the past year with your colleagues from the German and Dutch competent authorities and with Brintbranchen. We understand that in order to bring more light to this very particular but essential issue, it would be most beneficial if we also had a discussion together on the topic. Would you perhaps be available for a call this month on the topic? In the meantime, please find attached our position paper on what a general PFAS restriction would mean for the hydrogen ecosystem. Kind regards, P2 Officer, Industry Policy Mobile: +32 T1 E2 www.hydrogeneurope.eu |Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter EU Transparency Register: 77659588648-75 == AKT 6060004 == [ RE: Hydrogen Europe - inquiry meeting on PFAS ] == Dokument 2 == [ Hydrogen Europe po... == THE EU'S CHEMICALS STRATEGY, PROPOSED BAN OF PFAS, AND IMPACT FOR THE HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL SECTOR. Key messages 1. PFAS are essential to the proper functioning of fuel cell and electrolysers. 2. No alternative to PFAS today comes close to the same KPIs - research can play a role but no foreseen fluorinefree breakthrough in the near future. 3. Emission risks are extremely limited (both in terms of environmental and human exposure) and fluoropolymers are `polymers of low concern'. 4. Best practices for the industry and incentivisation can and should be set up to limit emissions at a maximum and to foster recovery of materials at end of life (for which there is already an inherent incentive because of the PGM + fluorine economic value). 5. Not exempting electrolysers and fuel cells from the PFAS ban would threaten the whole European fuel cell and electrolyser industry and its global competitiveness, as well as jeopardise the achievement of the EU's Hydrogen Strategy targets and climate objectives. I. Introduction Hydrogen has seen an unprecedented development in the year 2020. From an innovative niche technology, it is fast becoming a systemic element in the European Union's (EU) efforts to transition to a climate neutral society in 2050. It will become a crucial energy vector and the other leg of the energy transition - alongside renewable electricity - by replacing coal, oil, and gas across different segments of the economy. The rapid development of hydrogen is not only important for meeting the EU's climate objectives but also for preserving and enhancing the EU's industrial and economic competitiveness. The EU Chemicals Strategy for sustainability released on October 14th, 2020, plans for the ban and phasing out of all per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), "allowing their use only where they are essential for society." PFAS are chemicals that are used in the hydrogen value chain, not least of electrolysers and fuel cells. As no substitute is available today, an incautious ban would thereby impact both directly and heavily the hydrogen industry, and would jeopardise the achievement of the EU's Hydrogen Strategy targets and decarbonisation objectives. The term PFAS represents a broad family of chemistries containing fluorine and carbon, which encompasses a wide range of chemicals. Following the OECD definition used by the five countries driving this ban proposal, there are more than 4,700 PFAS. These chemicals all have varying physical and chemical properties, health, and environmental profiles, uses, and benefits. 29/09/2021 Page 1 of 15 II. PFAS in the EU's regulatory framework and policy plans 1. What are the institutional plans to restrict PFAS, not least those used across the hydrogen value chain? How is the hydrogen industry concerned by these plans? Institutional plans and ongoing process to restrict PFAS Under current EU chemicals legislation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of Chemicals), national authorities at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) can file their intention to develop a regulatory management option analysis (RMOA) - formerly `risk management option analysis'. These are voluntary case-by-case analysis carried out by countries or the ECHA, "to help authorities clarify whether regulatory action is necessary for a given substance and to identify the most appropriate measures to address a concern." In May 2020, the Netherlands (submitter), as well as Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark (co- submitters), via their respective chemicals/environmental national authorities, filed a dossier to carry out a RMOA. In this framework, these national authorities had published a Call for Evidence and information on the use of PFAS in May 2020 (NB: deadline to answer was 31 July 2020) in the ambition of going towards a ban of PFAS. Those Member States had sent a letter to the Commission to ask for an EU action plan to address the concern posed by PFAS. The RMOA they initiated is still `under development' as of today and should be completed some time by mid 2021. It will be the basis for a Registry of Intention (RoI) under REACH before the ECHA. An RoI triggers a REACH Restriction process according to Article 68 (1) and defines the scope of the restriction. It consists in the preparation of Annex XV dossier (lasts up to 12 months), which external stakeholder can then comment on under a 6-month public consultation. ECHA's Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) will also draft an opinion on the dossier, which can also be commented on during a 2-month public consultation. Eventually, the work of the ECHA (planned for 2023) will feed into a draft proposal from the European Commission to restrict PFAS in the EU under REACH (planned for 2024) and could enter into force around 2025. In parallel, the EU Chemicals Strategy, published by the European Commission in October 2020, reaffirmed this objective of "phasing out the use of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the EU, unless their use is essential." The policy measures put forth in the strategy plan for a change in the policy and regulatory approach of PFAS. The Strategy draws the following observations and conclusions: 1. Regulating all PFAS together as a chemical class: The Commission wants to phase out from the current approach based on regulation of individual or of groups of closely related PFAS as it has led to substitution with other PFAS, which are becoming an increasing concern. The very high number of PFAS would make it impossible to do a substance-by-substance assessment. Therefore, PFAS should be addressed with a group approach, under relevant legislation on water, sustainable products, food, industrial emissions, and waste. 2. Restrict all uses of PFAS except those that are essential for society and which currently do not have alternatives that provide the same level of performance should be allowed1. For such uses, society could accept the related costs, until suitable alternatives are available. 1 The strategy foresees already the complete ban of PFAS in fire-fighting foams, e.g. 29/09/2021 Page 2 of 15 3. Developing a definition of essential use: at present, there is no agreed definition of what an `essential use' is or of what criteria could be used to define those uses. The European Commission could contribute to the debate by developing a policy document on the concept of essential use. 4. Support R&I for remediating PFAS contamination in the environment and in products. 5. Support R&I to develop alternatives. Discussions on the definition of `essential uses' are therefore currently being held amongst Member States competent authorities, the conclusions of which are expected to feed into the ongoing REACH Restriction process. Relevance for electrolysers and fuel cells Electrolysers and fuel cells are principally concerned by the action of the Chemicals strategy which focuses on a proposed ban of a large category of chemicals called PFAS. The core of both proton exchange membrane (PEM)2 water electrolysers and PEM fuel cells is an electro-chemical reaction through a membrane in which certain types of PFAS are used. A very large proportion of planned projects involving electrolysers and fuel cells (and in some applications 100%) are based on this PEM technology. Amongst tracked water electrolysis projects to be completed by 2030 in EU/EEA/UK for which information is available, PEM electrolysis accounts for 53% of the projects and 13% of the capacity3. In the case of alkaline water electrolysis (ALK), a diaphragm (e.g., Zirfon) is used instead of a membrane and does not contain PFAS. Yet, like for the PEM technology, PFAS types (i.e., TFE) are used in the product, e.g., as sealing materials and gaskets. ALK electrolysis accounts for 38% of the projects and 77% of the capacity. The remaining shares belong to solid oxide technology projects and projects combining multiple technologies for which the capacity cannot be split.4 In the hydrogen value chain, a subset of PFAS called fluoropolymers is used to manufacture proton exchange membranes. Henry et al. (2018) in the Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (2018)5 prove that fluoropolymers meet the OECD criteria to be defined as `polymers of low concern' (PLC). They verifiably do not pose a risk to human health or the environment as they do not dissolve or contaminate water, are not found in drinking water, and cannot enter or accumulate in a person's bloodstream. The procedure kickstarted in May 2020 by some Member States aims at restricting all PFAS as one homogenous group in the EU and at phasing out the production, import, sale and use of all non-essential PFAS, including in products marketed in the EU. The Member States are in the process of defining the scope of the restriction before filing the RMOA report with the ECHA in the summer of 2021. This scope currently includes fluoropolymers, thus potentially impacting the manufacture of proton exchange membranes. With no substitute available today, the impact of an ill-considered ban on all PFAS would be to severely inhibit the manufacture and use of PEM fuel cells and electrolysers, because these technologies depend on gas-impermeable proton-conducting fluoropolymer membranes, which comprise fluoropolymers. Not only 2 The PEM acronym also sometimes stands for "polymer electrolyte membrane," which essentially refer to the same membrane type. 3 Hydrogen Europe data. Out of 250 operating and planned projects and 104 GW of water electrolysis projects that Hydrogen Europe tracks within EU/EEA/UK by 2030, electrolysis type is available for 9,085 MW and 112 unique projects. It is therefore just an "excerpt" based on available information and is not meant in any way to represent future market shares of these technologies. 4 Ibid 5 Henry et al. (2018), A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 316-334. Retrieved on: https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4035. 29/09/2021 Page 3 of 15 would a ban dangerously threaten the European hydrogen value chain industry, but it would also jeopardise the achievement of the EU Hydrogen Strategy and of the Green Deal objectives. III. PFAS in the hydrogen sector 2. What are the exact types of PFAS used along the H2 value chain, where (in which products) are they used, and why? Within the very large family of PFAS, which includes around 4,700 substances, it is useful to distinguish some sub-categories. Amongst the various PFAS types, fluoropolymers are used in PEM electrolysers and fuel cells and in alkaline electrolysers. In plain language, fluoropolymers are simply a speciality plastic that underpins electrolyser and fuel cell systems. Here are the types of fluoropolymers used in Membrane Electrode Assemblies (MEA) - constituting the core of an electrolyser or fuel cell stack: - In MEA: o Membranes: The membrane is the core component that, with the catalyst, separates protons and electrons and provides the proton conductivity (thereby producing electric current) while separating the reactants: hydrogen and air (oxygen), in the case of a fuel cell. In the case of an electrolyser, the electric current and the catalyst coated membrane split water into hydrogen and oxygen, hence hydrogen production and oxygen as a by product. To manufacture these membranes, "materials providing the best association of conductivity, chemical stability and mechanical strength are Perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) ionomers such as Nafion, Aquivion, 3M Corporation ionomers. The high proton conductivity of PFSA-membranes is correlated with their morphology in which ionic domains are well-percolated and phase-separated from hydrophobic domains that provide mechanical strength,"6 a claim very widely shared across the industry. The ionomer membrane consists of perfluorinated copolymers that carry sulfonic acid groups so they can act as ion exchanger and are therefore called ionomers. Mechanics of the ionomers is relatively poor, so almost all current membranes include a polymer reinforcement made from polymer fibers. Most commonly, a reinforcement of porous PTFE is used, comparable to the Gore-Tex-Material, which is filled with the ionomer and to which layers of pure ionomer are attached, meaning the reinforcement thickness is only at a fraction of the total membrane thickness. "The chemical structures of these PFSA ionomers are shown [on Figure 1 below: (a) Nafion; (b) 3M ionomer and (c) Solvay Aquivion ionomer]. Each ionomer consists of a highly hydrophobic PTFE backbone and hydrophilic side chains each terminated with a sulfonic acid group (-SO3H). The hydrophobic PTFE backbone provides effective mechanical stability, whereas the pendant sulfonic acid groups form interconnected domains with the absorbed water and are responsible for the conduits for proton transport. The 6 Rakhi Sood, Sara Cavaliere, Deborah Jones, Jacques Rozire. Electrospun Nanofibre Composite Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell and Electrolysis Membranes. Nano Energy, Elsevier, 2016, 10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.06.027. hal-01342720. 29/09/2021 Page 4 of 15 difference between these ionomers is the length of their hydrophilic side chain and their equivalent weight (i.e., reciprocal of the ion exchange capacity). The side chain is the shortest for the Aquivion ionomer (made by Solvay) and longest for Nafion."7 Figure 1: Three example types of ionomers used in membranes In contrast to a few years ago, the Chloralkali electrolysis industry now usually uses a membrane process. Yet, unlike PEM electrolysis, Chloralkali electrolysis process is based on two layers: one made of a PFSA membrane and the other one of a PFCA membrane. Flemion (by Asahi Glass Company - AGC) is an example of PFCA (Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids) membrane used in Chloralkali electrolysis and therefore based on a fluorinated carboxylic polymer. Nafion, in addition to PEM electrolysers and fuel cells, is used in Chloralkali electrolysis to act as a PFSA membrane. It is also used in direct-methanol fuel cells (DMFC). Aciplex (by Asahi Kasei Chemicals) is another example of PFSA membrane used in PEM electrolysers and fuel cells, as well as in Chloralkali electrolysis. o Gas Diffusion Layers (GDL): These consist of carbon fibre paper or felt/nonwoven. The GDL substrate currently contains PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), also commonly known as Teflon (a brand name from Chemours). It is used as hydrophobic agent and - depending on the GDL type - also as binder. The hydrophobic impregnation is necessary to avoid flooding of the cell, thus making the operation of the fuel cell possible. The amount of PTFE in the GDL is usually between 8 and 20 % relating to the total GDL weight. o Microporous layers (MPL): GDL are often equipped with an additional layer at the interface to the electrode, called microporous layer or MPL. The smooth MPL layer equalizes the GDL surface and, therefore, prevents damage of the membrane by fibres from the GDL substrate and improves electrical and thermal contact between GDL and the electrode. A mix of PTFE is also used for MPL because of its hydrophobic properties. o Finally, the electrodes (anode and cathode), which are attached to the membrane, contain a certain amount of the ionomer too - whose type depend on the used membrane. It enables an ionic connection between membrane and active catalyst sites, which is necessary for the overall function of the fuel cell. 7 Wang, Chen & Krishnan, Veena & Wu, Dongsheng & Bledsoe, Rylan & Paddison, Stephen & Duscher, Gerd. (2013). Evaluation of the microstructure of dry and hydrated perfluorosulfonic acid ionomers: Microscopy and simulations. Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 1. 938-944. 10.1039/C2TA01034H. 29/09/2021 Page 5 of 15 - Some typical sealing materials, such as gaskets, in electrolysers and fuel cells, as well as in equipment in the distribution network (regulator membranes, meters, etc.) are also made of TFE or fluorine rubber made of fluorinated elastomers (also called `fluoroelastomers'). A product example is Viton, a trademark of the Chemours company. Fluoroelastomers are composed of i) copolymers of hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and vinylidene fluoride (VDF or VF2), ii) terpolymers of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP), or iii) perfluoromethylvinylether (PMVE) containing specialties. Figure 2: Schematic representation of a Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA)8 3. What are the weights of the PFAS types respectively used in the H2 value chain? What can we estimate those weights to be in 2030? Before all, it should be mentioned that the estimations given below are only based on the current state of the technology, and do not account for possible efficiency improvements. Proton exchange membranes' thickness for fuel cells used in automotive applications is typically under 20 m, whereas thickness is usually over 100 m for membranes for electrolysers. In total, a 60-kW PEM fuel cell stack with a total weight of 28.5 kg contains the following amounts of fluorinated components: 2.5 kg sealing material (fluoroelastomer including TFE; seal-on-MEA assumed) 8 Rakhi Sood, Sara Cavaliere, Deborah Jones, Jacques Rozire. Electrospun Nanofibre Composite Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell and Electrolysis Membranes. Nano Energy, Elsevier, 2016, 10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.06.027. hal-01342720. 29/09/2021 Page 6 of 15  0.2 kg ionomer membrane (PFSA ionomer reinforced with some PTFE) 0.15 kg PTFE in the GDL The weights presented above per component clearly show that finding fluorine-free sealants would enable the large substitution of PFAS demand, whereas the amounts in catalyst-coated membrane (CCM) and GDL are much lower. Switching to a different sealing concept, i.e., using a metal-bead seal with an elastomer layer will reduce the amount of elastomer significantly compared to an injection-molded volume seal. Using the same data, without consideration for possible ameliorations and assuming the CCM and GDL will still contain fluorinated compounds by then, this distribution would imply a PTFE/TFE need of 44.25 tonnes, and a PFSA ionomer (e.g., Nafion) need of 3.25 tonnes to reach an indicative 1 GW of fuel cell capacity. Based on a prospective demand of 100,000 trucks and 1,000,000 light vehicles on the roads by 2030, the total of required PFSA would amount to around 500 tonnes. Yet, there is no clear estimate today on the future fuel cell capacity needs for 2030, aggregating the various applications (all transport modes, stationary applications...).9 Besides, it is obviously extremely unlikely for the fuel cell capacity to be reached by one unique technology, in that case, PEM. If the EU was to reach its Hydrogen Strategy objective of 40 GW of electrolysis capacity by 2030 only with PEM technology (which requires the PFSA membranes), we would need a maximum of 500 tonnes of PFSA, using the following assumptions: Operating voltage of 2 V, current density of 2 A/cm, 50% of membrane is within the active area, 127 m membrane is used, density is 0.25 kg / m. In the case of Nafion, nearly all material makes it into the end-product (<10% would be lost in manufacturing). Just like for fuel cells, it is extremely unlikely for the electrolysis capacity to be reached by one unique technology, in that case, PEM (cf. page 3). The estimation therefore represents an upper bound for the accumulative PFAS use in electrolysers through 2030, and the actual use is likely to be much lower, also because of the gradual improvements for the technology. It is very difficult to make predictions past 2030 because cell construction, mode of operation, and market size are all unknown. Besides, Hydrogen Europe is in the process of collecting operational water electrolysis projects. While the collection process is not complete yet, we can say that there are more than 58 operational water electrolysis projects that Hydrogen Europe knows of, constituting 97 MW. Out of those, 21 projects representing 38 MW use ALK. 27 projects representing 48 MW use PEM. The rest is unknown or solid oxide technology. Based on the same 40 GW capacity benchmark, other PFAS use for the sealing materials would roughly amount to 2,500 tonnes at manufacturing, resulting in about 1,250 tonnes in the end-product. 4. At which stage(s) (manufacturing, use, disposal) do PFAS used in the H2 value chain pose a risk? What is their level of danger? 9 The IEA tables over 15 million fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2030, in: IEA, Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, 2021. As a complement, Table 1 on page 9 of the report `Value Added of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Sector in Europe' (FCH 2 JU, 2019) provides some estimates for 2024 and 2030, but in amounts of units and not in MW/GW capacities. Looking at today's data, based on tables page 41 of the same study and assuming a 78% share of PEMFC in Europe, we can deduct an adopted capacity of 116 MW of PEMFC in Europe (forecast for 2020). URL: https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Value%20Chain%20study%20SummaryReport_v2.02.pdf 29/09/2021 Page 7 of 15 o Manufacturing: If any, production of the polymers is probably the stage with the main risk of environmental exposure, because the building blocks and solvents are fluids. After the polymer is synthesised, purified, and treated, it poses minimal risk. The ionomer dispersion is a liquid but is mixed with precious metals and has a low likelihood of making it into a waste stream. The solid polymer membrane has an even lower risk for environmental release. When membranes are processed or cut during manufacture, the PFSA belongs to a fluoropolymer and remains stable, or waste are collected and either recycled by professional recycling companies or sent to chemical waste. o Use: The PFAS are sealed inside an engineered product (electrolyser or fuel cell) as a PFSA proton exchange membrane (only for PEM fuel cells and electrolysers), and as a PTFE-based GDL or sealing materials, among others. It should be stressed that an electrolyser or fuel cell stack is not a consumer product that can be lost or leaked into the environment. The PFSA ionomers used in electrolysers and fuel cells, which are B2B products, are chemically stable at their intended use as they only start to degrade at temperatures above 250C. There is no normal operation condition where that temperature level will be reached as it also would have a negative impact on the performance. Therefore, during normal operation and manufacturing, PFSA does not pose a risk. In case of electrolyser operation, it is mostly covered by water (<100C) and in fuel cells cooled to stay below 120C. Industries are running assessments to ensure that emission risk at use stage is indeed negligible. Although fluoropolymers are persistent, they are not bioaccumulative or toxic. They therefore do not meet the PBT (Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic) criteria, and thus cannot be classed under substances of very high concern (SVHCs) category under REACH10. Moreover, fluoropolymers constitute a distinct PFAS category as they are solid, inert, stable, safe, and do not degrade into other PFAS. According to Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management11, perfluorinated polymers like PTFE, PFA and FEP do not pose any significant threat to human life or to the environment and meet the OECD "polymers of low concern" criteria. Said fluoropolymers should be classed as such. o Disposal: At end of life, the PFSA material can be fully recovered for electrolysers and fuel cells. Moreover, there is an overwhelming economic imperative to recover PEM stacks at the end of the life cycle in order to reclaim and recycle the expensive PGM (Platinum Group Metals) catalysts contained within the membrane/electrode assemblies, as well as the fluorine. Recycling processes enable the recovery of the fluorine contained in the PFSA material, for instance in the form of calcium fluoride, made of fluorspar, or fluorite (which is on the EU's 2020 critical raw materials list). Calcium fluoride can then be used as a raw material input for further production of fluorine-containing material. Therefore, it is unlikely that associated fluoropolymer components will enter the general waste stream. Furthermore, it should be noted that the PFSA membrane can be recovered totally intact at the end of its lifecycle as demonstrated in the UKRI project Frankenstack12. Recent peer-reviewed studies on the disposal of end-of-life PTFE have shown incineration to be an appropriate way to dispose of the fluoropolymer too, with no environmental concern. The study carried out by 10 Henry et al., A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 316-334, 2018. Retrieved on: https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4035. 11 Ibid 12 https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=133704 29/09/2021 Page 8 of 15 Aleksandrov et al. in 201913 found that the combustion of PTFE under typical waste incineration conditions and using Best Available Techniques (BAT) did not generate PFAS. It also showed that "PTFE can be almost fully transformed to fluorine as hydrofluoric acid (HF)." They concluded that the municipal incineration of PTFE should therefore be considered an acceptable form of waste treatment. They tested for the presence of 31 different PFAS and 11 of these were detected but deemed to be due to contamination from the environment. 5. What are the alternatives to the PFAS currently used in the H2 value chain, if any? By when could they become available? What is the potential for research? Are there alternatives to PFAS in fuel cells and electrolysers? Membrane o Fluorine-free ionomers and membrane materials have been around in science for decades. Research work has been ongoing for hydrocarbon membrane and sulphonated polyetheretherketone (PEEK) membrane development, for instance. Usually, properties and performance of these materials can be reasonably good whereas the durability is often poor, as oxidation by oxygen radicals, which are inevitably generated at the cathode electrode, occurs. The non-fluorinated membrane concepts, that are currently available from suppliers, are not produced in high enough volumes and above all still highly immature, lasting only dozens of hours against lifetime requirements of >25,000 hours. Of course, those ionomers are still rather new, potentially promising, and the situation may change in the future. Activities to replace the conventional perfluorinated ionomers by fluorine-free materials have existed for the last 25 years but so far, no commercial product has indeed been released due to poor oxidation stability. Fuel cell manufacturers are in close contact with the manufacturers of the components to test the materials at relatively early stage and thus identify and qualify promising materials, promote their industrialisation and replace the current perfluorinated compounds, as early as possible. However, building from past experience, it is impossible to know for sure when a validated alternative material may be available in volume, meaning that to reach our 2030 climate goals and beyond, the existing perfluorinated materials are required to be able to scale up electrolysis and fuel cell technologies and enable the fulfilment of their decarbonisation potential. o As for the reinforcement material, promising approaches are currently made to replace the PTFE by fluorine-free compounds like electrospun PBI-type materials. The commercial use of these reinforcements is expected to begin not before five to ten years, also motivated by superior mechanical properties compared to those of PTFE. Gas Diffusion Layer (GDL) o Hydrophobisation of the GDL is today always achieved by the use of PTFE. Currently, the PTFE impregnation of the GDL cannot easily be replaced and some effort will have to be made to find alternative hydrophobising agents that are as durable as PTFE. It would surely be desirable to set up funding for projects with the aim to find replacement for the PTFE in the GDL, a topic that has 13 Aleksandrov et al., Waste incineration of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) to evaluate potential formation of per and PolyFluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) in flue gas, Chemosphere, Volume 226, 2019, Pages 898-906, ISSN 0045-6535, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.191, (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653519306435). 29/09/2021 Page 9 of 15 not been addressed widely in the past. It will perhaps be possible to replace the PTFE in the GDL - probably not before 10 years - if the right incentives are triggered (i.e., relevant funding and research in this area). Sealing material o Due to the harsh environment in combination with the sensitivity of the MEA for contamination, very stable sealing materials are required. Fluorine-free-elastomers are under evaluation but contamination of the MEA - limiting its lifetime - as well as oxidative deterioration of the material itself are issues. They indeed suffer from dimensional stability and require mechanical reinforcement. Therefore, fluorinated sealing materials are today a standard for water electrolysis technologies and will surely be standard for another 10 years at least. However, for environmental and cost reasons, efforts are made to eliminate the PFAS from the sealing materials as soon as possible. Some elastomers without fluorine exist and could potentially be used in the future for this function. Those could be cheaper but are, today, not as chemically stable, hence the need for further R&D here. As for gas-permeability and cost, the fluorine-free materials are superior to fluorinated elastomers thus also from technical and economical point of view, replacement of these materials is desirable when possible. In a nutshell, the material properties of perfluorinated polymers are unique and impossible to replace in the near future. Restrictions on fluoropolymers, including PTFE and PFSA ionomers, would render several critical applications from water electrolysis, fuel cells, to hydrogen transport technologies unfeasible or would dramatically reduce their service life, efficiency and increase the probability of malfunction. All polymeric alternatives' performance, such as that of hydrocarbon membranes, is still very low because they suffer from reduced thermal and chemical stability, reduced efficiency (e.g., higher ionic resistance) and/or inapplicable mechanical properties and have high deterioration rates and short life expectancies. Previous R&D has shown that there is no business case for building electrolysers based on hydrocarbon membranes. Therefore, we can say that there are no alternative substances available. Could R&I on remediating PFAS contamination make sense for fuel cells and electrolysers? PFSA ionomers are significantly stable, mechanically very strong and trapped inside membrane/electrode assemblies containing expensive catalysts. Therefore, they cannot leak or contaminate anything during use. If there is contamination caused by PEM fuel cells and electrolysers, it is so small that for current systems it has not been detected. Current analysis for fuel cell shows only F- (fluorine anions) as contaminants, which are non-toxic in these concentrations. Moreover, their recovery at end of life is driven by the desire to recover and reuse the catalysts (to keep fuel cells and electrolyser costs down). Therefore, there is very little chance of the membrane entering the general waste stream, besides of the very low contamination risk. Fluoropolymers such as PFSA ionomers and PTFE should be seen by the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency as a discrete class - especially in the case of sealed B2B products like in the hydrogen and fuel cell industry - and separate from other PFAS types, many of which are deemed dangerous for the environment and human health. 29/09/2021 Page 10 of 15 Could R&I to develop alternatives to PFAS make sense for fuel cells and electrolysers? There are no alternatives to PFSA membranes that offer same durability, gas impermeability, thermomechanical performance, efficiency, and current density, or that provide minimum acceptable levels thereof for the membranes to fulfil their function. R&D efforts to achieve competitive alternatives have been undertaken with hydrocarbon membranes for years, but nothing has come close to fluorocarbon membranes. In the last 5-6 years, the major membrane manufacturers have invested heavily in response to the promise offered by hydrogen technologies and recent improvements have enabled further cost and performance improvements in Nafion membranes. Alternative materials that are currently being studied are hydrocarbonated sulfonated polymers that suffer from dimensional stability and require mechanical reinforcements. Important R&D efforts are still required in order to find viable solutions to replace PFSAs. Over fifty years of development place Nafion (and equivalents thereof) in an outstanding position for building electrolysers and fuel cells. Any compromise in durability or efficiency due to another type of membrane will reposition the techno-economics to an unacceptable position. In the longer term, we cannot exclude that fluorine-free membranes could be developed. In fact, we should continue looking in this direction. Today, there is some new low-TRL research in laboratories ongoing on the subject. These efforts should be further supported, and Hydrogen Europe takes notes of the EU's plans to bolster research further. Indeed, there is always potential for research, but it can be diversionary and a waste of resources, unless the same KPIs that apply to PEM technology today are those targeted. Hydrocarbon membranes are therefore a possibility, but they will need to reach the same KPIs of today's technologies and then become commercialised and integrated into OEM products, and be introduced into the marketplace, which is not foreseen at the very least before 10 years. All in all, it remains clear that research will not yield results in time to allow the industry to abstain from the use of fully developed, industrially available products, necessary for the establishment of a hydrogen economy in Europe and for the achievement of the Hydrogen Strategy and the European Green Deal. IV. Impact assessment and Recommendations to policymakers 6. How will `essential uses' of PFAS be defined in the context of the plan to phase out PFAS? Is the use of PFAS in fuel cells and electrolysers an essential use? The concept of essential uses dates back from the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), which defines a use as essential if it is "necessary for health, safety or is critical for functioning of society" and if "there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives". Under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, the European Commission has started a debate with all REACH Competent Authorities to define the term `essential uses'. The debate is at very early stage and many questions remain open. One of the most controversial question is if the term `essential' refers to the broad 29/09/2021 Page 11 of 15 application or product that the PFAS is used in or the specific use (functionality) of the PFAS within the product. The Strategy's action plan indicates that the criteria for essential uses will be defined in the period 2021-22. Fluoropolymer stability translates to unique, durable, lasting performance in critical uses and applications. In the hydrogen industry, as outlined above, fluoropolymers should be deemed essential, until alternatives with comparable KPIs become available. The Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability states that "the criteria for essential uses of these chemicals will have to be properly defined to ensure coherent application across EU legislation, and will in particular take into consideration the needs for achieving the green and digital transition." Let us remember what is at stake. First, the European Hydrogen Strategy fixes the ambitious objective of 40 GW of electrolyser capacity and 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen production by 2030, which requires a rapid scaling up. Second, Europe is the industrial leader in hydrogen technologies (both fuel cells and electrolysis) and the European Commission identified hydrogen as a strategic value chain. The use of PFAS in the hydrogen and fuel cell industry can therefore be considered as an essential use for society, whether from an energy and climate perspective or from an industrial and geostrategic perspective. Allowing PFAS use in this industry meets both criteria of Montreal Protocol definition of essential use and allowing it will indeed leave society better off from a socio-economic14 and environmental perspective15. Overall, the EU must ensure consistency across its different policies and plans and avoid undue barriers to the uptake of electrolysers and fuel cells. It is therefore not timely to add another one on top now. Finally, just as in the spirit of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) upcoming proposal in the case of CO2 emission reduction, the EU needs to secure a level playing field with its trading partners and competitors. Without it, the EU will lose its industrial lead in this blossoming sector, in the favour of non-EU electrolyser and fuel cell manufacturers in regions where PFAS could be less regulated. 7. What would an incautious PFAS ban mean for the hydrogen industry and for Europe? An incautious ban of all PFAS would be a killer for the hydrogen industry, from the jobs and revenues it provides and will provide, to the key role it is to play to reach decarbonisation and system integration objectives. PFAS use is at the core of numerous hydrogen applications, not least many electrolyser and fuel cell types. Whereas it cannot be estimated today which will be the exact importance of respective electrolyser and fuel cell technologies in the future, PEM electrolysers and fuel cells are notably expected to reap significant market shares and could possibly prove more suited to some kinds of environments, such as offshore (not least due to higher surface energy yield and better reactivity to load factor). PEM technology would be particularly affected since it requires the use of a PFSA membrane. Besides, alkaline water electrolysis, along 14 The sector could create 5.4 million jobs (hydrogen, equipment, supplier industries) and generate 820bn in annual revenue by 2050 (hydrogen and equipment) (FCH 2 JU, Hydrogen Roadmap Europe, 2019; URL: https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Hydrogen%20Roadmap%20Europe_Report.pdf) 15 Hydrogen use could abate an annual 560 Mt of CO2 and reduce by 15% local emissions (Nox) relative to road transport by 2050 (FCH 2 JU, Hydrogen Roadmap Europe, 2019; URL: https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Hydrogen%20Roadmap%20Europe_Report.pdf) 29/09/2021 Page 12 of 15 with all electrolysers and fuel cell types, would also be badly impacted since PFAS, particularly PTFE and TFE, are used as sealants, i.a., in those products. Therefore, an incautious ban on the use of PFAS would set back the PEM fuel cell industry from a point where it is approaching commercialisation, to a research and development phase in the EU. This would be a tragic outcome as the hydrogen industry is finally experiencing a breakthrough. For the EU, the ban would result in holding back a technology that is needed to reach the Unions ambitious climate targets especially when it comes to the decarbonisation of industry and heavy-duty transport as outlined in the EU's hydrogen strategy. It would dramatically harm the competitiveness of the EU's hydrogen and fuel cell industry. In a nutshell: no PFAS, no PEM fuel cells & electrolysers, no EU H2 strategy successful roll-out. 8. What best practices can the industry propose to legislators, to ensure the risks posed by PFAS used in the H2 value chain are limited and controlled at all stages (manufacturing, use, disposal)? At manufacturing stage, legislation should frame and incentivise best practices fostering minimum risk and waste and limiting emissions from processing aids and all PFAS kinds. This should be a path to follow for the industry. At disposal stage, recycling of MEAs at end of life, while maximising the recovery rate and minimising incineration should be a best practice. Building on recommendations set forth in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (2018), "responsible incineration of fluoropolymers, adhering to regulatory guidelines, at the end of their life cycle," as well as "recycling, reuse, and closed loop systems"16 should pave the way forward to regulate PFAS at end of life. Those recycling practices of fuel cells and electrolysers will enable to "control" the PFAS risk at end-of-life stage and recover the contained fluorine (which is a critical raw material identified by the EU). The precious metal content of PEM fuel cells and electrolysers and the inherent economic value are an incentive as such to put forward recycling habits17. There is or should be an economical imperative to do this, preventing that none of the fluorinated material in the stack be released into the environment by use or disposal of the stack. Upon recycling of the stack, the GDLs (including PTFE) and sealings (including PTFE) are likely burnt in special facilities which capture fluorine containing compounds from the off-gas by reaction with calcium hydroxide resulting in calcium fluoride, that is used again as a raw material for production of fluorine-containing material. Here the closed loop seems given. As for the membrane and electrodes (which are laminated, thus cannot be physically separated from each other), there are two ways to recycle. Today, the most common technique is to ash the catalyst-coated 16 Henry et al., A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 316-334, 2018. Retrieved on: https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4035. 17 Examples here: https://info.ballard.com/technical-note-recycling-fuel-cells; https://www.umicore.com/en/newsroom/news/umicore- fuel-cell-catalysts--0/ 29/09/2021 Page 13 of 15 membrane (or even the entire MEA including GDLs and possibly sealing), dissolve the residue in acid and use this as a base for recycling of the noble metals. Upon this process the same happens as described above, the fluorine-containing polymers burn and release hydrofluoric acid (HF), which is captured. An alternative process that is currently under evaluation is to dissolve the ionomer from the unit, which can be achieved by using conventional solvents - usually an alcohol-water-mixture - at high temperature and pressure. The ionomer is transferred into the liquid phase and can be separated from electrocatalyst and reinforcement. Aim of this process is to try and recycle the ionomer, which is also a very expensive material, so recycling is commercially attractive, too. If this process can be successfully done is still an open question. Besides, setting a legal obligation for manufacturers to take the units back and carry out recycling to recover the various PGMs while isolating the fluorine would be an easy way to start the process. Since the hydrogen market is still a nascent one, the more the volumes of electrolysers and fuel cells coming to end of life will grow, the more efficient processes will be put in place to make use of the larger fluorine quantities to capture and recover. In addition, the development and optimisation of relevant recycling processes should be established and supported by relevant funding, so that a maximum of the materials in the stack can be recycled or disposed of with minimum environmental impact. In the perspective of further used recycling methods and their improvements going forward, combustion of PTFE under typical waste incineration conditions and using Best Available Techniques (BAT) should be applied as it is considered an acceptable form of waste treatment that does not generate other PFAS (please see paragraphs on disposal, page 8). In a nutshell, the main PFAS used are PFSA ionomers, PTFE, and TFE. Fluorine can be recovered from all of them, as part of 100% recyclable MEAs for PEM water electrolysers and PEM fuel cells. Several recycling techniques exist and are being experimented by the industry. Yet, both the hydrogen and fuel industry and those recycling techniques are at a nascent stage, explaining why most PFSA/PTFE materials are still being incinerated today. Recycling and recovery processes should be developed further, ramped up, and receive appropriate public funding for this. In the meantime, PTFE incineration has been recognised as an acceptable form of waste treatment that does not generate other PFAS. V. Conclusion Due to the concerns raised by the negative impacts of many PFAS on human health and on the environment, Hydrogen Europe understands the need for an institutional approach restricting these substances further at manufacturing, use and disposal stages. Yet, public authorities should be made aware that, even though a group approach is foreseen for a phasing out, PFAS remain an extremely large group of various substances (over 4,700) and that regulatory differentiations should be made both considering their types (e.g., fluoropolymers are substances of low concern) and the sectors/products at hand, not least based on: The environmental and human exposure to PFAS in those products (fuel cells and electrolysers are sealed B2B products and cannot be regulated in the same way as textile or food packaging). 29/09/2021 Page 14 of 15  The essentiality of sectors/products to reach fundamental objectives, such as that of the EU Green Deal, and on the essentiality of those PFAS for enabling the good functioning of those products. The way forward should therefore focus on the regulatory incentivisation to: 1) implement circular economy practices across the value chains (closed circle and recycling/reusage at disposal stage) in the short and medium term; and to 2) pursue research efforts to find non-PFAS alternatives at a same level-playing field in terms of KPIs offered by PFSA membranes, PTFE, and TFE for fluoroelastomers (i.e., considering quality, lifetime, efficiency and cost aspects) and to provide for the appropriate resources for that purpose. The variety and quality of PEM membranes available today is excellent compared to only a few years ago. Manufacturers have invested heavily recently because they see rising sales to fuel cells and electrolyser manufacturers in the context of the growing acknowledgment of hydrogen technologies, not least under the Green Deal. Therefore, the timing of this potential ban on PFAS would be extremely ironic given the effort, R&D experience and investment risks that the stakeholders have made in this niche area to date. What is at stake here are significant jobs growth potential in European industry, strategic autonomy of key value chains such as that of electrolysers and fuel cells, as well as the objectives of the EU Hydrogen Strategy, of the Energy System Integration Strategy, and of Member States, not least electrolyser and fuel cell capacity targets. Manufacturers are about to install new and much larger electrolysers and fuel cells facilities and hydrogen production plants. If a ban of proton exchange membrane were to be imposed, the first thing that would happen is the relocation of manufacturers outside of Europe before starting to build more and larger factories there. For all these reasons, the use of PFAS in fuel cells and electrolysers needs to be classified as an essential use for society, because there is no alternative, because PFAS are essential for the functioning of this industry's products, and because hydrogen fuel cells and electrolysers will be a cornerstone in achieving our energy and climate objectives. Besides, environmental and health risks are extremely limited and incomparably differ from B2C products where exposure to PFAS is higher. Given the above and while the industry commits to keep looking out for alternative materials, fuel cells and electrolyser manufacturers should be exempted from any proposed PFAS ban if we want to deliver on the EU Hydrogen Strategy and our climate objectives. 29/09/2021 Page 15 of 15