Document jyvwvj38Bv5gpv5nkN1rDjQy2

alternatives to fluorinated aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)".] 1. What has been adopted for the Danish and Norwegian armed forces ? Do you have any information ? (the specificity of their uses). Would it be possible to learn from the DK where they have adopted the F3 , in which applications? Unfortunately neither the Danish nor Norwegian armed forces replied to our survey, so I do not have precise information on this. However, I think it is a good idea to ask them. 2. The stakeholder (one) was the Eurofeu from the workshop but I find it speculative. Are the applications similar to those of aerospace ? From the information we received from the MoDs a couple of weeks ago, some of them indicate that the presence of ammunitions in proximity with fuel and people is a characteristic which require the foam to be particularly effective in preventing large losses in case of a fire incident. Unfortunately we did not receive a lot of detailed justifications for this. However, I would consider them different from the aerospace sector due to the presence of ammunitions and marine uses. Note that I understand from your colleague that military ships are exempted from the IMO conventions, and therefore also from the scope of the EU Marine Equipment Directive which is the regulatory tool which would be needed to be used to transpose the REACH requirements to ships. Therefore, if I get it right, a REACH restriction would (1) not be applicable to military ships and (2) need to be implemented via the Marine Equipment Directive for the civil ships. Kind Regards [1] According to the IPEN publication on "Fluorine-free firefighting foams (3F) viable alternatives to fluorinated aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)".