Webinar on PFAS Universal Restriction Proposal hosted by EFCTC
On 23rd May EFCTC hosted a webinar on the universal PFAS restriction proposal and its possible impact on F-gases.
Presentations by the Norwegian Environment Agency, ECHA, EPEE and the foam sector provided an excellent overview of the F-gas key aspects and issues set out in the restriction proposal, and the proposal’s potential negative impacts of such a broad restriction from industry’s perspective. The presentation by ECHA explained how to respond to the public consultation emphasising that submissions must be supported by evidence. There were over 180 participants in the webinar from trade associations, regulators, industry and journalists. Here are some of the issues highlighted by the presenters and in the Q&A session. Other newsletter items in this issue provide additional information on important issues raised in the webinar.
Audun Heggelund, Norwegian Environment Agency, explained PFASs in scope of this restriction proposal are either persistent themselves or degrade to other persistent PFASs, with persistence due to the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond, which applies also to those F-gases that fall under the definition of PFAS. He highlighted the TFA Harmonized Classification H412- harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects (Aquatic Chronic 3) [see explanatory note 1] and mentioned that TFA is persistent in the environment, mobile in water and a very persistent very mobile (vPvM) substance. He highlighted the difficulty of removing TFA in drinking water purification processes and mentioned the increasing levels of TFA in rainwater and beech tree leaves. Heggelund added that if there is naturally occurring TFA, it is only found in the oceans [see explanatory note 2]. He also commented that the F-gas Regulation does not address persistency in the environment.
Bastian Zeiger, European Chemical Agency, explained that a REACH restriction proposal report has to prove that a restriction is the most appropriate measure to address the identified unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The ECHA Committees – the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) assess the ‘Effectiveness’ of a proposed restriction and consider if it is proportionate to the risk, taking into account socioeconomic impacts. The two committees formulate opinions based on the dossier submitter’s assessment and take into account comments sent by third parties to the public consultation. Zeiger emphasised that comments made without supporting evidence are unlikely to have an impact and that joint submissions by sectors are encouraged. The decision making steps involve the European Commission with the support of the REACH Committee, and the Council and Parliament.
Torben Funder Kristensen, on behalf of EPEE, explained the interplay between the Ecodesign Directive, the F-gas Regulation Revision and the PFAS restriction proposal, commenting that the so called “natural refrigerants” cannot always guarantee the same level of safety, energy efficiency and affordability compared to F-gases. He highlighted a powerful tool, the EPEE HFC Outlook EU Model (developed since 2012 and in recent years used in partnership with UNEP), which shows that the emissions of refrigerants are decreasing year by year, indicating progress in reducing environmental impact. In his conclusions, he stated that vapor compression systems are pivotal in modern society and that their optimized functionality and efficiency is a multi-decade engineering evolution in which the fluorine based substances, F-gases and fluoropolymers, are regarded as critical design elements, and that a holistic view is necessary to take into account the effects of EU policy on the RACHP sector as a whole.
Paul Ashford, regulatory advisor to the Foam Sector, discussed the use of F-gases as blowing agents for high-efficiency thermal insulation. He explained there is not a generic derogation preventing the optimisation of energy saving potential where space is constrained, as thinner insulation profiles can create more resource-efficient building elements and lower embodied carbon. He highlighted that building renovation is the key action required in the built environment (the ‘Renovation Wave’ initiative). As further evidence is required for the potential time limited derogation for F-gases as blowing agents for PU spray foam, he pointed out that the Montreal Protocol Foams Technical Options Committee has tried to identify non-fluorinated alternatives for over 25 years. In that case, the main issue with alternatives are relates to process safety and the risk of accumulation of flammable blowing agents in constrained spaces.
Highlights of the Q&A sessions. Although only limited time was available, two interesting topics were discussed. Firstly, it was pointed out that the presentations by industry contained new information that was not available during the restriction dossier proposal preparations, such as the use of fluoropolymers for RACHP and the challenges of finding alternatives for PU spray foam blowing agents. This evidence should be submitted during the public consultation. Secondly, there was a question about the May 2023 publication by the Montreal Protocol Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and its conclusions regarding the environmental effects and possible regulatory approaches for TFA. Audun Heggelund commented that he was aware of this publication but stated that the EEAP used a classical risk assessment, which is a different approach than the one used by the five dossier submitters. The EEAP conclusions about TFA are reported in other items in this newsletter.
Overall, EFCTC considers that the webinar was successful in highlighting to regulators the complexities for the use and potential replacement of F-gases in the RACHP and foam sectors. At the same time, it allowed regulators to explain why they believe the restriction proposal is appropriate for F-gases, taking into account the derogations. Finally, industry was encouraged to submit evidence to the public consultation process, with joint submissions by sector groups encouraged.
Notes
Explanatory note 1. About the TFA harmonised classification: The TFA Harmonized classification “H412 - harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects” (Aquatic Chronic 3) was highlighted in the presentation by Audun Heggelund, Norwegian Environment Agency. However, this classification is based on the data available in 2008 when the CLP Annex VI was published. Since that time, new data have been generated and included into the TFA registration dossier which means that the Aquatic Chronic 3 classification is no longer scientifically justified. If the data available currently were to be used to determine the classification, TFA would not be classified. However, changing/removing a harmonised classification in Annex VI is only possible via the initiative of a member state, and this has not been proposed, as far as EFCTC is aware.
Explanatory note 2. About TFA occurring naturally in the oceans: EFCTC newsletter item (March 2023) An Inventory of Fluorspar Production, Industrial Use, and Emissions of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) in the Period 1930 to 1999 - Fluorocarbons discussed the strong evidence for TFA occurring naturally in the oceans. EEAP 2022 reaches a similar conclusion that TFA in the oceans and endorheic lakes are very unlikely to be all from anthropogenic sources. “One of these locations, the Dead Sea, had a reported concentration of 6400 ng/L. The Dead Sea is in a rift valley with a history of geological faulting and with a volume of 114 km³, so that this concentration is equivalent to 730 tonnes of TFA. That this amount of TFA (measured in the 1990s) is all from anthropogenic sources is very unlikely, and geogenic sources are more plausible.”