Document xj5v11Xa3oYGVDNNDEBE7wNQ0

Apparel & Footwear International RSL Management Group afirm-group.com 24 September 2023 European Commission RE: Annex XV Restriction Report, Proposal for a Restriction - Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Annex XV Restriction Report, Proposal for a Restriction Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management Group (AFIRM) was established in 2004 with a mission to reduce the use and impact of harmful substances in the apparel and footwear supply chain. AFIRM is a memberdriven organization of the world's leading apparel and footwear companies collaborating precompetitively to promote chemicals management in the manufacturing of finished products. The group's focus is the elimination or minimization of hazardous chemicals in apparel, footwear, and related products through harmonized voluntary requirements that meet or go beyond global regulations. As a technical center of excellence, AFIRM members recognize the importance of using the best available science, green chemistry, and risk assessment principles to better manage chemicals within their supply chains and products. Since its founding, AFIRM has developed tools to assist the supply chain in implementing restricted substance lists (RSLs), presented live training on chemicals management to thousands of apparel and footwear suppliers, and developed an industry bestpractice RSL ("the AFIRM Restricted Substances List") that has been adopted by many leading companies within AFIRM and across the industry. More information about AFIRM is available at http://www.afirmgroup.com/. Comments on Annex XV Restriction Report, Proposal for a Restriction Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) AFIRM shares the goal of this proposal to protect human health and the environment, and we continue to work towards this end via supply chain outreach and education on how to transition away from PFAS. In fact, most AFIRM member brands have already begun transitioning away from intentional use of PFAS or have successfully completed their phaseouts of certain or all PFAS uses. This has been a difficult process given the complex material inputs and global supply chains involved in manufacturing apparel and footwear - and consumers' demand for highperforming products. Our comments are built upon our member brands' years of leadership and innovation in seeking alternatives to PFAS chemicals, our proven track record of establishing voluntary and regulatorydriven requirements on hazardous chemicals in products, and for implementing those requirements across a large, distributed, and complex global supply chain for apparel and footwear products that consumers use and trust. For more information on AFIRM's work phasing out PFAS, please see our comprehensive industry guidance here. 1 PFAS Restrictions and Circular Economy Considerations PFAS are highly persistent substances, and some are also quite volatile. Consequently, cross contamination from PFAScontaining materials and contamination from environmental media are common. Even with the robust manufacturing control programs AFIRM member brands use to manage chemicals in their supply chains and products, PFAS may still be found above practical quantitation limits (PQLs) in materials that were not intentionally treated with PFAS and do not contain PFASbased membranes like polytetrafluoroethylene (`PTFE'). This issue will be amplified as industry transitions to more circular business models by utilizing increasing amounts of pre and postconsumer recycled content in new products. Articles containing intentionally added PFAS will continue to enter recycling streams for many years, if not decades, and there is currently no economically viable way for recycling sorters to know with certainty whether an incoming product contains PFAS or not - let alone how much. As such there is no way for them to sort products containing PFAS out of the recycling process, and any yarns/threads made from recycling streams that had PFAScontaining materials mixed in may be contaminated with measurable amounts of PFAS. For example, apparel containing a waterproof membrane would be expected to have about 200,000 parts per million (ppm) PTFE, meaning it would take potentially thousands of equalweight "PFASfree" products to dilute residual PFAS to concentrations in recycled products safely below 50 ppm total fluorine. AFIRM recommends that the dossier submitters and Commission ensure the proposed PFAS restrictions do not compromise circular economy goals or potentially make the use of recycled content unviable in the European Union. Accounting for unintentionally added PFAS from crosscontamination or from recycled content sources, AFIRM is cautiously optimistic that the 50 ppm total fluorine limit (total organic fluorine specifically) will be achievable in most situations within a few years' time - including in circular materials specifically - based on testing experience of members to date. However, the feasibility of compliance with the proposed 25 part per billion (ppb) limit on individual PFAS analytes and the 250 ppb total sum limit on PFAS in recycled materials is largely unknown. Practically, these limits will be difficult to implement in recycled materials and will likely result in the discarding, destruction, or energy intensive rework of noncompliant batches. AFIRM appreciates that the proposed 50 ppm total fluorine limit is nearly aligned with enacted law in the US State of California, which will apply a 50 ppm limit on total organic fluorine in apparel beginning in 2027 after applying a 100 ppm total organic fluorine limit beginning in 2025.2 However, the EU, California, and other jurisdictions planning to restrict PFAS should recognize that recycled content could contain PFAS above the proposed or currently enacted limits, and therefore a potential exemption or waiver from liability for recycled content should be allowed if there is no direct safety risk to the wearer. This will help to ensure that necessary investments in circular business models and infrastructure continue and that extended producer responsibility (EPR) goals can be met under, e.g., proposed updates to the EU Waste Framework Directive3 and similar EPR legislation under development in California4. 1 AFIRM's `PFAS Phaseout Guidance' was initially published in May 2023 and is available in multiple languages with additional translations currently in process: https://afirmgroup.com/pfasphaseoutguidance/ 2 See California AB1817 Product safety: textile articles: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 3 See Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste 4 See California Senate Bill 707 - Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2023 PFAS Test Methods Need Further Development for Articles Proper intentional use of PFAS in the textile sector is likely to result in concentrations of at least several thousand ppm total fluorine in relevant components of articles in most circumstances. However, total fluorine may be present in components of finished articles in the hundreds of ppm even if PFAS are not intentionally added. It may not be possible to definitively identify the source of fluorine content in such products: the detected fluorine may be present due to unintentional PFAS contamination or the presence of non-PFAS fluorine-containing compounds such as fluoride salts used upstream in the supply chain. For example, chemical formulations utilizing inorganic fluorine compounds, e.g., fluoride salts, are used in various textile manufacturing processes. At this time the techniques employed within global commercial lab networks for determining total fluorine in textiles and leather (e.g., EN 14582:2016 and ASTM D7359:2018) are unable to reliably distinguish between organic and inorganic fluorine in those substrates. It is therefore not always possible for textile brands to provide authorities with adequate "proof for the fluorine measured as content of either PFASs or non-PFASs" as required upon request in the proposed restriction. AFIRM suggests that the EU support the rapid development of a validated test method capable of reliably differentiating between inorganic and organic fluorine in textile and leather substrates (including related trims) to avoid inadvertently prohibiting fluorine-containing compounds that are not PFAS. Demonstrating compliance with existing total fluorine test methods will be costly, timeconsuming, yet still not ensure compliance with the targeted PFAS analysis required for individual PFAS proposed for restriction to 25 ppb and 250 ppb as a total sum. Because intentional use of PFAS in textiles and leather should result in thousands of ppm total fluorine in most instances, AFIRM also recommends allowing for a single total organic fluorine test method to demonstrate compliance with the law. This would effectively ban PFAS from being intentionally used in products placed on the market while allowing for effective enforcement by market surveillance actors and preventing unnecessary testing burdens. AFIRM additionally recommends that sell-through provisions are included for non-compliant products previously produced and available on the market prior to the effective dates of any enacted PFAS restrictions. This will help to avoid the destruction of goods suitable for use and resulting environmental impacts. On the effective dates, any new products (not previously offered for sale) should be within scope of the restriction. We appreciate your consideration of AFIRM's comments based on our member brands' collective experience phasing out PFAS and other substances of concern as you look to finalize this important piece of legislation. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions or information requests. Sincerely, Nathaniel Sponsler AFIRM Group Director @phylmar.com EU Transparency Number: 477838445914-27