Comments on ECHA’s Draft 10th Recommendation for Terphenyl, hydrogenated (EC number: 262-967-7) and references to responses

The present document compiles the comments received during the consultation on the draft 10th recommendation for inclusion of substances in Annex XIV of REACH for Terphenyl, hydrogenated (EC number: 262-967-7). The consultation took place between 5 March and 5 June 2020.

For each of the comments there is also a reference to specific section(s) of a document containing the responses to comments (“Response document”, available at https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13640/10th_recom_respdoc_terphenyl_hydrogenated_en.pdf). The responses in the Response document are arranged by thematic block and level of information (see more detailed explanations at the beginning of that document.

Content
	
I - General comments on the recommendation to include the substance in Annex XIV
II - Transitional arrangements. Comments on the proposed dates
III - Comments on uses that should be exempted from authorisation, including reasons for that

I - General comments on the recommendation to include the substance in Annex XIV
Number / Date	Submitted by (name, submitter type, country)	Comment	Reference to responses	
3473
2020/04/08	IPI Global Ltd,
Company,
United Kingdom		A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.10. Suggesting a closed loop system as a technical alternative to reduce exposure below the recommended threshold
	
		3473_TERPHENYL, HYDROGENATED.pdf

3474
2020/04/14	Marstal District Heating Company,
Company,
Denmark	
It is very important not to regulate a substance before having an alternative substance.	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

3475
2020/04/22	AS NOVOTRADE INVEST,
Company,
Estonia	Dear Sirs.
Our company built a plant for the production of  hydrocarbon  resins in 2016. As a heat carrier for thermal processes in our technology , we use terminol T-66  for operation in a closed system with operating temperatures up to 300C.
The normal life period  of the T-66 is 15 years.
If a decision is made to authorize the T-66 and prohibit its use in future, we will need to switch to an alternative heat intermediate  of the same functional group.
For this reason, we have concerns that after some period of time, the alternative heat intermediate  may also fall under authorization. To avoid such a situation, it is necessary to simultaneously authorize all heat intermediate of the same functional group.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

3476
2020/04/23	Only Representative Organisation (ORO),
Industry or trade association,
Belgium	We would like to ask ECHA to delay the prioritization for the following reasons:

1. We understand that the substance Terphenyl, hydrogenated (CAS 61788-32-7) and the two existing proven alternatives (EC-No 258-649-2 and EC-No. 400-370-7) have been grouped together into a “technical functional group” due to their use as Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) and the potential PBT properties of the two alternatives. That is why an RMOA has been conducted by Finland on the two existing alternatives of Terphenyl, hydrogenated and the RMOA published on the ECHA Website https://echa.europa.eu/de/rmoa/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1834a0ed6. Moreover, the two alternatives are under Dossier Evaluation or CoRAP for identification of PBT properties, please see the two following links.

https://echa.europa.eu/de/pact?p_p_id=disspact_WAR_disspactportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_substanceId=100.053.300&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_jspPage=%2Fhtml%2Fportlet%2Fdisspact%2FdetailsPage%2Fview_detailsPage.jsp.
https://echa.europa.eu/de/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/community-rolling-action-plan/corap-table/-/dislist/details/0b0236e183ed8910

We do therefore ask to await the outcome of the PBT properties identification in order to avoid “regrettable substitution” of Terphenyl, hydrogenated and handle – if appropriate – all 3 substances as a “technical functional group” in the priority assessment. As an example the aprotic solvents (NMP, DMF and DMAC) could serve.

2. vPvB properties do of course qualify according to REACH Article 57 for inclusion into REACH Annex XIV. However, vPvB substances do not fulfill the T-criteria, and are considered of concern due to the precautionary assumption that increasing concentrations may cause adverse effects after prolonged exposure. A prioritization on applying the precautionary principle rather than taking due consideration of environmental relevance might not be the right approach for prioritization. Instead, a listing on the Candidate List as SVHC substance and restricting the verifiable risky uses, might be an adequate risk management measure.

We would therefore recommend to not include Terphenyl, hydrogenated into the prioritisation list now.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.11. Suggest that the priority given to vPvB substances is not right

3477
2020/04/23	SIA  "Liepajas energija",
Company,
Latvia	I think you should put not only T66, but all similar products in the same topic.  We afraid that we wont have alternatives in the future.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

3478
2020/04/28	Manucor spa,
Company,
Italy	The replacement of a potentially dangerous substance must always be implemented considering the management possibilities underlying the same use. For Manucor, the use of this substance is not direct, but indirect, as it is a component of the diathermical oil used in the company's thermal circuit. Therefore, the level of exposure of employees who may and rarely handle this material should be taken into account in the risk assessment.	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of Risks

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

3481
2020/05/06	Framatome,
Company,
France	Please read documents attached	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

Confidential attachment removed
		
3483
2020/05/14	Indorama Ventures Europe B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	Regulating terphenyl hydrogenated and its two HTF alternatives together, under the same timeframe, in a technical functional group would be highly recommended.  Should substitution of terphenyl hydrogenated with an HTF alternative be enforced, and then future regulation of the alternative delivers the same outcome, further costly substitution would be required to the then only remaining alternatives.

PET plays a key role in the plastics packaging circular economy.  It is essential for the packaging and transportation of food and drink and sanitary products.  PET packaging is the most collected and recycled polymer in Europe. Increasing the regulatory burden and costs on PET production, puts the circular economy at risk. Increased costs and regulatory burden could have the unintended consequence of shifting food and drinks manufacturers to packaging materials that have a higher carbon footprint and are less recyclable or do not have commonly available collection infrastructure.

Prioritisation of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) for inclusion in the Authorisation List (Annex XIV) – Section 6: Other on-going regulatory risk management activities can also be considered when deciding on which substances to include in a specific recommendation. This is to avoid undesired interference between different regulatory actions. Functional grouping should be taken into account by ECHA as part of its prioritisation.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.05. Consider RMOA as a regulatory risk management activity that could justify not recommending terphenyl, hydrogenated

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3484
2020/05/19	TEDAE,
Industry or trade association,
Spain		A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.08. Inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV creates uncertainty on replacement Roadmaps of several other Annex XIV substances

Confidential attachment removed
		
3485
2020/05/22	Adven Estonia AS,
Company,
Estonia	In our understanding the terphenyl hydrogenated product has no possible alternative as heat exchange liquid in its certain technology range. It can be used long periods(more than 10 y) in high temperatures, temperatures where water boilers are not reachable. This liquid is used in (CHP) technology where heat and power is generated from Renewable energy source like wood chips. Several CHP sites has been built in Baltic states with technology using terphenyl hydrogenated product in tightly closed systems as heat exchange liquid. Such CHP sites has been built with the help of renewable energy subsidy frame work, in order to achieve EU targets on the Renewable Energy shear in total Energy production portfolio. In addition this kind of subsidy is for making economically feasible new technology for renewable energy production like CHP sites using terphenyl hydrogenated product.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously
	
		3485_Use of terphenyl hydrogenated product.docx
		
3486
2020/05/25	JSC NEO GROUP,
Company,
Lithuania	We are sure that  terphenyl hydrogenated and its  heat transfer fluids (HTF) alternatives should be regulated together, under the same timeframe in a technical functional group.  This helps prevent regrettable substitution. In case only terphenyl  hydrogenated will be included in Authorization list, we will replace it to alternative product and  in case after some time our alternative product will be also included in Authorization list - then we will have obligation  to perform replacement again. Therefore it is necessary regulate not separately terphenyl hydrogenated but its alternatives together from the same functional group. This would help  to avoid replacement to other material from Authorization list.
ECHA should take functional grouping into account as part of its prioritization, noting that ECHA guidance1 states that “Other on-going regulatory risk management activities can also be considered when deciding on which substances to include in a specific recommendation […] to avoid undesired interference between different regulatory actions. Terphenyl hydrogenated and its HTF alternatives should be regulated together, because there are other regulatory documents and there is a risk of being left with no choice at all.
Currently there is no alternative which could replace all products from one technical functional group.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.05. Consider RMOA as a regulatory risk management activity that could justify not recommending terphenyl, hydrogenated

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3487
2020/05/26	SIPOL SPA,
Company,
Italy	We do not think authorization is an appropriate risk management option for terphenyl hydrogenated used as a Heat Transfer fluid (HTF) in closed industrial systems. Moreover, being thermally more stable than the alternatives for HTF, it is disadvantageous to consider the use of less stable alternatives subjected to a shorter shelf life, higher vapour pressure and therefore a higher potential safety risks.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire	
		3487_recom_com_call_for_info_questionnaire_en_SIPOL.pdf
		
3488
2020/05/26	Karl Heuft GmbH,
Company,
Hungary	“According to our understanding Terphenyl, hydrogenated (CAS 61788-32-7) and the two alternatives (EC-No. 400-370-7 and EC-No 258-649-2) have been grouped into a “technical functional group” due to their use as Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) and the potential PBT properties of the alternatives. That is why an RMOA has been conducted by Tukes/Finland on the two alternatives of Terphenyl, hydrogenated. The RMOA is published on the ECHA Website https://echa.europa.eu/de/rmoa/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1834a0ed6 [echa.europa.eu]. In addition, the alternatives are under Dossier Evaluation or Substance Evaluation for identification of PBT properties, according to the below links.

https://echa.europa.eu/de/pact?p_p_id=disspact_WAR_disspactportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_substanceId=100.053.300&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_jspPage=%2Fhtml%2Fportlet%2Fdisspact%2FdetailsPage%2Fview_detailsPage.jsp [echa.europa.eu].
https://echa.europa.eu/de/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/community-rolling-action-plan/corap-table/-/dislist/details/0b0236e183ed8910 [echa.europa.eu]

We therefore ask to await the outcome of the PBT properties identification of the alternatives in order to avoid “regrettable substitution” of Terphenyl, hydrogenated and to not include Terphenyl, hydrogenated now into the prioritisation list.”
	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use  heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3489
2020/05/26	Individual,
Hungary		A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

Confidential attachment removed
		
3490
2020/05/26	Individual,
Germany	According to our understanding Terphenyl, hydrogenated (CAS 61788-32-7) and the two alternatives (EC-No. 400-370-7 and EC-No 258-649-2) have been grouped into a “technical functional group” due to their use as Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) and the potential PBT properties of the alternatives. That is why an RMOA has been conducted by Tukes/Finland on the two alternatives of Terphenyl, hydrogenated. The RMOA is published on the ECHA Website https://echa.europa.eu/de/rmoa/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1834a0ed6 [echa.europa.eu]. In addition, the alternatives are under Dossier Evaluation or Substance Evaluation for identification of PBT properties, according to the below links.

https://echa.europa.eu/de/pact?p_p_id=disspact_WAR_disspactportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_substanceId=100.053.300&_disspact_WAR_disspactportlet_jspPage=%2Fhtml%2Fportlet%2Fdisspact%2FdetailsPage%2Fview_detailsPage.jsp [echa.europa.eu].

https://echa.europa.eu/de/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/community-rolling-action-plan/corap-table/-/dislist/details/0b0236e183ed8910 [echa.europa.eu]

We therefore ask to await the outcome of the PBT properties identification of the alternatives in order to avoid “regrettable substitution” of Terphenyl, hydrogenated and to not include Terphenyl, hydrogenated now into the prioritisation list.
	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3491
2020/05/27	Uniconfort srl,
Company,
Italy	There is not in the market an equivalent solution with comparable performances. A Functional Group would consent to the existing plant to continue working without changeing an enormous quantity of fluid.	A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3493
2020/05/28	Krahn Chemie Deutschland,
Company,
Germany	Terphenyl, hydrogenated is a part of the HTF. The HTF  is regulated according a lot of different rules and laws in Europe and so there is no need to regulate it even further.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

Confidential attachment removed
		
3497
2020/05/29	Eastman Chemical B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	Terphenyl hydrogenated is manufactured by Eastman under the commercial name Therminol 66 for predominant use (96% of total EU volumes) as a high-temperature non-pressurised heat transfer fluid (HTF) in closed systems on industrial sites. Where measures are implemented to ensure “technical tightness” (see for example DIN standard 4754), HTF systems carry negligible potential for environmental exposure. The remaining uses in the EU are in plasticiser applications, including sealants and underground cables.

Eastman agrees that the SVHC status of terphenyl hydrogenated is scientifically justified. We believe though that a broad REACH restriction eliminating all non-HTF uses and creating a limited derogation for industrial HTF systems that implement stringent containment measures would be a more effective risk management measure. Compared to inclusion in Annex XIV, such a restriction would be more compatible with the investment cycles of industrial sites that are designed to run on a specific HTF for periods well over 20 years. In addition, contrary to Authorisation, a restriction would offer protection from articles imported into the EU that might contain terphenyl hydrogenated as a plasticiser. This would help promote a level playing field between EU and third country manufacturers.

Inclusion of terphenyl hydrogenated in Annex XIV as part of the 10th recommendation would in our view also risk interfering with ongoing regulatory action on the two HTF alternatives to terphenyl hydrogenated as part of a functional grouping approach, in line with recent RMOA conclusions by Finland. This would likely create incentives for regrettable substitution. On the other hand, a REACH restriction aimed at eliminating uses with potential emissions and securing the technical tightness of HTF systems would limit the pressure towards regrettable substitution of terphenyl hydrogenated and could subsequently be extended to cover its two alternatives in the functional group.

To meet their functionality requirements, all high-temperature non-pressurised HTFs must possess physical properties that also make them likely to meet REACH Annex XIII criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation. They need to be long-lasting, capable of withstanding high temperatures, and very stable. These properties lead to specific environmental fate characteristics, including a lack of rapid biodegradation and low solubility in water.

Based on these stringent functionality requirements, the two main HTF alternatives to terphenyl hydrogenated - dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivative (CAS no.: 53585-53-8) and 6-(1-phenylethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene (CAS no.: 6196-98-1) - are also likely to display persistence and bioaccumulation. This is acknowledged in recent RMOA conclusions in which Finland assesses the two alternatives under a “functional grouping approach” for high temperature, non-pressurised HTFs.  The RMOA finds that the two alternatives “might have similar PBT/vPvB properties as terphenyl, hydrogenated” and that “to avoid regrettable substitution […] PBT/vPvB properties of the alternative substances should be assessed”.  It concludes that: “In order to prevent regrettable substitution, future risk management should, as far as possible, be carried out jointly for the functional group as a whole”.

We support the RMOA conclusions by Finland and note that ECHA’s general approach document on “Prioritisation of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) for inclusion in the Authorisation List (Annex XIV)” states that “Other on-going regulatory risk management activities can also be considered when deciding on which substances to include in a specific recommendation. This is to avoid undesired interference between different regulatory actions.”

ECHA’s background document for terphenyl hydrogenated in the 10th draft recommendation already refers to Finland’s RMOA on functional grouping and states that “It is noted that two substances having structural similarities and common uses with terphenyl, hydrogenated are currently under scrutiny by Finnish Authorities in the context of an RMOA. The ongoing RMOA activity […] is motivated by a functional grouping approach for high temperature, non-pressurised heat transfer fluids that might be used as substitutes for terphenyl, hydrogenated”.

Building on the possibility to take into account other on-going risk management activities envisaged in its general approach document, we would encourage ECHA to further clarify as part of its recommendation that Finland’s RMOA conclusions are now available on the ECHA website and that they encourage joint risk management of the entire functional group, to avoid regrettable substitution.

The RMOA documentation on the two alternatives to terphenyl hydrogenated is available at the following link on the ECHA website: https://echa.europa.eu/rmoa/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1834a0ed6

	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.1.5.7. Potential competitive disadvantage

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.05. Consider RMOA as a regulatory risk management activity that could justify not recommending terphenyl, hydrogenated

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3498
2020/05/29	ITELYUM Regeneration S.r.l.,
Company,
Italy	The Therminol 66-68 are fundamental as a thermal vector  to avoid having to install ovens to heat hydrocarbon streams that cannot be heated with high pressure steam due to the need to heat at T> 300 ° C.	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations	
				
3499
2020/05/29	Kraton Chemical BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Kraton Chemical use terphenyl hydrogenated (Therminol 66) as heat transfer fluid(HTF) in our plants located in Sweden and Finland for more than 20 years. As indicated by various companies during the public consultation for adding this substance to SVHC list, The substance has unique properties as heat transfer fluid, because it can be used up to 340°C without technical modification of the plan. The material is further used in a closed circuit, thus any kind of exposure to human or release to environment is not expected. Given the fact that the substance is used as an HTF is within a closed-system and so with negligible potential for exposure or releasing, we would respectfully argue that a Restriction under REACH would be a more proportionate and equally effective risk management option compared to Authorisation. Or the use of HTF should be consider as exempted from Authorization because the reality that it is used in a closed-system with hardly any exposure or releasing . Indeed, a Restriction could target those applications where there is actual potential for exposure while preserving core uses as an HTF. This would fulfill the requirements for a high level of environmental protection and prevent disproportionate regulation with significant economic and societal cost.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3500
2020/06/01	Mater-Biopolymer Srl,
Company,
Italy	In our view prioritisation of Terphenyl, hydrogenated contrasts to the fact that, as a result of a Risk Management Option Analysis, two possible alternatives of the substance as heat transfer fluids might have similar PBT/vPvB properties. Further information about them is needed, that eventually will be derived from new data generated by registrants and via CoRAP listing. If the alternatives are PBT/vPvB, the risk management option to be considered would be the inclusion in the candidate list, which therefore could sooner or later lead also them to prioritization for the inclusion in annex XIV of Reach regulation. This prove that these substances with terphenyl need to be regulated together in a technical functional group, that’s the way needed to prevent regrettable substitution. If a single substance from a (desirable) technical group is regulated in advance, we believe that regulatory consistency throughout the European Union could be mined.	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3501
2020/06/02	DEZA a.s.,
Company,
Czech Republic		A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3502
2020/06/02	Individual,
France	Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in a reaction of isomerisation of an epoxyde in aldehyde. Due to its inert property and the high boiling point of terphenyl hydrogenated, it allows to solubilise the catalyst and it is not distilled in our conditions.
Terphenyl hydrogenated is used to manufacture a chemical intermediate, that allows to get more than 1000 t/y of finished products.	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3504
2020/06/02	STEAG New Energies GmbH,
Industry or trade association,
Germany	it's not neccessary to search for other reglementations, because there are existing laws and reglementations for the substitiution of thermal-oils. We are handling therminol 66 for roundabout 10 years in a powerplant with district-heating-system and it works very well for us.	A.1.1.1. ECHA's obligation to recommend/prioritise substances on the Candidate List

A.1.1.2. Legal basis for prioritisation

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

3505
2020/06/02	ADM SIO,
Company,
France	High temperature is needed in our process (290°C on HTF) with low pressure vapour.
Silicone based HTF has been replaced by terphenyl hydrogenated HTF (due to vaporized HTF occasioning leakage on pumps and on boiler’s coil).
Terphenyl hydrogenated HTF is used on two chemical reactors for food and pharmaceutical processes.
First reactor is running for 40 years with Terphenyl hydrogenated HTF.
Second reactor was built in 2003 with silicone HTF (dimethyl polysiloxane) replaced 2 years ago by terphenyl HTF (due to vaporized HTF occasioning leakage on pumps and on boiler’s coil, due to gaz detection cells contamination).
	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3506
2020/06/02	Senne Energie GmbH,
Company,
Germany	Our energy systems, regenerative electricity generation, are approved in accordance with German emissions law and are checked annually by the responsible authorities.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations
	
		3506_Therphenyl is only a small part of Therminol 66 and gives enough safety standards.docx
		
3507
2020/06/03	The Association of Lithuanian Chemical Industry Enterprises,
Industry or trade association,
Lithuania		A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire
	
		3507_R-200602-0009, A_, ECHA, public consultation, hydrogenated terphenyl.pdf
		
3508
2020/06/03	Grupa Azoty S.A.,
Company,
Poland		A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems
A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)
	
		3508_2020_Priorisation_T66_Public_consultation_ECHA. Part 1.docx
		
3509
2020/06/03	COMELT SPA,
Company,
Italy	Terphenyl Hydrogenated  is the most thermally resistant. They are all products specifically designed to go at high temperatures so it would be ideal to put them in a single functional group. The decision of a grouping would avoid changing all the fluid, the technology and everything that follows.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3510
2020/06/03	Leroux,
Industry or trade association,
France	We think that the terphenyl hydrogenated should be in the same functional group than the two HTF alternatives. If others products could be in the same group this could have bad impact on our installation. Our installation can't accept any type of product.
The functional grouping could also help in the priorisation in authorization list in ECHA. The differentiation of group can also prevent the interference between regulatory actions.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3511
2020/06/03	Blue Power Srl,
Company,
Italy	Terphenyl hydrogenated is one of the most thermally resistant. There are some products specifically designed to go at high temperatures so it would be ideal to put them in a single functional group. The decision of a grouping would avoid changing all the fluid, the technology and everything that follows.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3512
2020/06/03	Individual,
Germany	1) Kommentar zur Priorisierung und allgemeine Fragen
Von dem registrierten Mengenband werden über 95% des Terphenyl, hydriert in geschlossenen industriellen Anlagen als Wärmeübertragungsmedium eingesetzt. Terphenyl, hydriert weist eine sehr hohe Thermostabilität im Anwendungsbereich bis 350°C auf und kann in diesem Bereich drucklos eingesetzt werden. Die sehr hohe Produktstabilität hat zur Folge, dass Anlagen nach Erstbefüllung üblicherweise ca. 20 -30 Jahre mit dieser Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit gefahren werden. D.h. das Produkt hat einen sehr langen Lebenszyklus im Vergleich zu anderen Wärmeträgerflüssigkeiten, so dass die für ein gesamtes Anlagenleben benötigte Ölmenge auch mit Blick auf anfallende Entsorgungsmengen minimiert wird. Aufgrund von gezielten Wartungsmaßnahmen und jährlichen Ölentnahmen für die Überwachung der Ölqualität (0,5 Liter/Probe) ist in diesen Anlagen jährlich nichts oder nur ein Bruchteil der verwendeten Ölmenge nachzufüllen.
Die Anlagen sind entsprechend den technischen Anforderungen nach DIN 4754 errichtet und unterliegen regelmäßigen technischen Überprüfungen. Die Anlagen sind zudem mit Sicherheitsvorkehrungen ausgerüstet, damit im Havariefall kein unkontrolliertes Austreten der Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit erfolgen kann. Entsprechend dem Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG) und damit verbunden der Verordnung zum Umgang mit wassergefährdenden Stoffen (AwSV) werden Anlagenteile, die wassergefährdende Stoffe beinhalten, auf flüssigkeitsundurchlässigen Flächen errichtet. Diese flüssigkeitsundurchlässigen Flächen werden als Wannen zur Aufnahme des Flüssigkeitsvolumens im Havariefall gebaut und ausgelegt.
Der Einsatz von Terphenyl, hydriert als Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit erfolgt zwar in einer großen Menge, aber in geschlossenen Industrieanlagen und mit langen Lebenszyklen. Der Umgang mit dem Therphenyl, hydriert in Wärmeübertragungsanlagen wird als gesichert und beherrschbar angesehen. Eine Exposition in die Umwelt und damit die Wirkung als vPvB-Stoff wird als unwahrscheinlich bzw. sehr gering eingeschätzt.
Die Entsorgung des Terphenyl, hydriert (Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit) erfolgt nach dem langen Lebenszyklus durch Entsorgungsfachbetriebe durch thermische Verwertung.
Im RMOA von Finnland wurde die sehr begrenzte Anzahl möglicher Alternativen zu Terphenyl, hydriert recherchiert. 2 Stoffe (Dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivative; CAS 53585-53-8 und 6-(1-phenylethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene, EC-Nr. 400-370-7) wurden als mögliche Alternativen in Betracht gezogen. Die Datenlage zu den Substanzen lässt den Schluss zu, dass diese Stoffe ähnliche PBT / vPvB-Eigenschaften aufweisen wie Terphenyl, hydriert. Hierzu hat die ECHA für den Stoff Dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivative; CAS 53585-53-8 weitere Daten von den Registranten im Rahmen des Compliance Checks der Registrierungsdossiers nach Artikel 41 (REACH) bis zum 17.01.2021 eingefordert. Ebenso sind für 6- (1-Phenylethyl) -1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalin weitere Informationen zu umweltgefährdenden Eigenschaften erforderlich. Daher hat Finnland vorgeschlagen, diesen Stoff in den CoRAP 2020-2022 aufzunehmen, vor allem aus dem Grund, dass der Stoff das Potenzial für PBT / vPvB-Eigenschaften hat und ein Substitutionskandidat für den bereits identifizierten SVHC-Stoff Terphenyl, hydriert (vPvB) ist. Die Bewertung durch Finnland im Rahmen des CoRAP soll 2021 für 6- (1-Phenylethyl) -1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalin erfolgen. Aus dieser Zeitkette heraus ist es nicht sinnvoll, diese beiden genannten Stoffe als mögliche Alternativen für Terphenyl, hydriert anzuführen.
Chemische Stoffe, die in Hochtemperaturbereichen sehr stabil sind, werden auf Grund ihrer Molekülstruktur PBT / vPvB-Eigenschaften aufweisen. Daher wird vorgeschlagen, die als drucklose Wärmeträgerflüssigkeiten bei hohen Temperaturen in Frage kommenden Stoffe als „funktionale Gruppierung“ zu betrachten, um alternative Stoffe nicht in relativ kurzer Zeit ebenfalls auf Grund der PBT / vPvB-Eigenschaften den Zulassungsprozessen zu unterziehen. Dies birgt auch eine große Verunsicherung auf dem Markt in sich.
Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass es bei der Verwendung von Terphenyl, hydriert als Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit kein Risiko für die Umwelt gibt, da der Stoff in geschlossenen, technisch dichten Systemen verwendet wird und entsprechende technische und organisatorische Sicherheitsmaßnahmen angewandt werden. Die Exposition in die Umwelt ist dadurch nicht gegeben bzw. nicht signifikant. Die vPvB Eigenschaft des Terphenyl, hydriert kommt daher nicht zum Tragen.
Die Aufnahme von Terphenyl, hydriert in Anhang XVII mit gezielten Beschränkungen von Verwendungen, bei denen es zu Expositionen in die Umwelt kommt, ist ausreichend, um das Risiko für die menschliche Gesundheit und der Umwelt zu beherrschen.
RCC/LTB, 29.05.2020	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution	
		3512_Comment_FRAGOL_LTB_ZRF_Section A, B, C.pdf
		
3516
2020/06/03	SunPine AB,
Company,
Sweden	We use Therminol 66 (the substance is 100% Terphenyl hydrogenated) as a high temperature heat transfer fluid in closed systems on an industrial plant. The heat transfer fluid is key part to heat the production process for sustainable fuels. It is important the heat transfer fluid have good thermal stability and low vapor pressure. The fluid is used in a closed system and only neglectable emissions from the system occurs. Pumps and other critical equipment are located inside containment systems to prevent leaking fluid released into the environment. Therefore, there is very limited risk of spill onto soil. Process and maintenance procedures are in place to ensure proper handling of the heat transfer system, inspection programs for the equipment are in place. If any alternative heat transfer fluid having lower thermal stability or lower performance than Therminol 66 has to be used instead, it would require more frequent maintenance and  may me more frequent exchanges which would increases maintenance efforts and higher risk of emissions during those steps. Typical authorisation periods granted under REACH are too short to match life cycle of heat transfer fluids because systems are designed to run on a specified fluid for more than 20 years.	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.1. General principles for setting latest application dates/sunset dates

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3520
2020/06/04	Hydro Aluminium AS,
Company,
Norway	Hydro Aluminium AS uses terphenyl, hydrogentated (under the name Therminol 66TM) as a heat transfer fluid (HTF) in two sites in Norway (Årdal and Sunndal) in the production of pre-baked anodes for the primary aluminium production. This use should be included in Annex 1 of the background document for terphenyl hydrogenated.
The HTF is used in closed systems with secondary containment and any leakages to the secondary containment is collected and handled by appropriate waste contractors. Thus, there is no exposure to the environment during normal operation. Due to high thermal stability the lifetime of the HTF is 20 years and has a reduced risk of fires compared to other less thermostable HTF. The total amount currently in use at the two sites are around 40 m3 with an annual addition of 0.8-1.2 m3 due to leakages from process equipment (collected in secondary containment).	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

3523
2020/06/04	Individual,
Germany	TEIJIN
TEIJIN CARBON EUROPE GmbH
Vitsstraße 2
52525 Heinsberg
+49 2452 97705-0

Comments on priorisation results and general issues
Terphenyl, hydriert wird in 2 geschlossenen Anlagen als Wärmeträgeröl eingesetzt. In den Anlagen befinden sich seit 2006 (1. Anlage) bzw. 2009 (2. Anlage) in Summe 73 t Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit. Aufgrund der hohen Stabilität des Produktes und der damit verbundenen Produktlebenszeit ist ein Austausch nicht vorgesehen und war bis jetzt nicht erforderlich. Dies bestätigen auch die regelmäßigen Ölanalysen.
Die erforderliche Nachfüllmenge aufgrund von Wartungsmaßnahmen und Leichtsiederaustrag ist gering.
Die Anlagen stehen in einer Auffangwanne gemäß WHG, deren Volumen die komplette Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit aufnehmen kann. Die Wärmeträgeranlage hat eine Druck-, Durchfluss- und Füllstandsüberwachung, die im Havariefall die Anlage abschaltet.
Die Exposition und die damit verbundene Auswirkung der vPvB-Eigenschaft des Terphenyl, hydriert in die Umwelt werden durch die technischen und organisatorischen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen verhindert.
Die Entsorgung des Terphenyl, hydriert erfolgt bei den bisher angefallenen Kleinmengen gesichert durch Entsorgungsfachbetriebe.
Entsprechend RMOA (Finnland, vom 24.02.2020) stehen 2 mögliche Alternativen für Terphenyl, hydriert zur Diskussion. Beide Stoffe (EC 258-649-2 und EC 400-370-7) sind ebenfalls hochmolekulare Verbindungen, die in Verdacht auf PBT / vPvB Eigenschaften stehen. Die Untersuchungen und Datenerhebungen zur Klärung der PBT / vPvB Eigenschaften sind nicht abgeschlossen (evtl. erst 2022).
Alternativen, die ebenfalls in Verdacht auf PBT / vPvB Eigenschaften stehen, sind keine zielführenden Alternativen. Es ist auch nicht bekannt, ob diese Alternativen ebenfalls eine solche Produktlebenszeit mit stabiler Qualität aufweisen. Kurzlebigere Wärmeträgeröle würden zudem aufgrund des häufigeren Austausches eine größere Produktmenge auf dem Markt und im Entsorgungsbereich verursachen, was sicherlich nicht nachhaltig ist.

	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3529
2020/06/04	Nolte Holzwerkstoff,
Company,
Germany	Heizen einer Spanplattenpresse, seit 2012 in Betrieb, keine Lebenszeit festgelegt.	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3531
2020/06/04	Individual,
Germany		A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution
	
		3531_TeijinCarbon_Comments as pdf.zip
		
3532
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Chemie BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Due to the vPvB properties Terphenyl hydrogenated (EC 262-967-7 and CAS# 61788-32-7) meets the criteria set out in Article 57 of REACH for identification as a Substance of Very High Concern. However, in our opinion Terphenyl hydrogenated should not be included in Annex XIV to REACH or at least, the use as a heat transfer fluid should be exempted.
Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in the Shell Nederland Chemie plants (Industrial use) as a heat transfer fluid (HTF) where the temperature needs to be increased up to very high temperatures above 350 °C. For safe operations, it is of utmost importance that the HTF remains stable. For this purpose, we need a safe and reliable fluid that does not decompose at high temperatures.  In the past, several products/alternatives have been tested and Terphenyl hydrogenated fulfilled the temperature and stability requirements in our operations.
According to the ECHA website (substance infocard/brief profile) there is no harmonised classification and there are no notified hazards by manufacturers, importers or downstream users for this substance. However, terphenyl hydrogenated meets the criteria for a vPvB substance according to Article 57 (e) of REACH by comparing all relevant and available information according to Annex XIII of REACH with the criteria set out in the same Annex, in a weight-of-evidence determination.  Terphenyl hydrogenated used as HTF is only used in a rigorous closed system, i.e. exposure to environmental compartments is controlled to be minimal.
	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3533
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Due to the vPvB properties Terphenyl hydrogenated (EC 262-967-7 and CAS# 61788-32-7) meets the criteria set out in Article 57 of REACH for identification as a Substance of Very High Concern. However, in our opinion Terphenyl hydrogenated should not be included in Annex XIV to REACH or at least, the use as a heat transfer fluid should be exempted.
Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in one Shell Nederland Raffinaderij installation (Industrial use) as a heat transfer fluid (HTF) where the temperature needs to be increased up to very high temperatures above 300 °C. For safe operations, it is of utmost importance that the HTF remains stable. For this purpose, we need a safe and reliable fluid that does not decompose at high temperatures.  Terphenyl hydrogenated fulfilled the temperature and stability requirements in our operations.
According to the ECHA website (substance infocard/brief profile) there is no harmonised classification and there are no notified hazards by manufacturers, importers or downstream users for this substance. However, terphenyl hydrogenated meets the criteria for a vPvB substance according to Article 57 (e) of REACH by comparing all relevant and available information according to Annex XIII of REACH with the criteria set out in the same Annex, in a weight-of-evidence determination.  Terphenyl hydrogenated used as HTF is only used in a rigorous closed system, i.e. exposure to environmental compartments is controlled to be minimal.
	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3534
2020/06/04	DSM Engineering Materials,
Industry or trade association,
Netherlands	The group of heat transfer fluids consists predominantly of aromatic molecules (partly hydrogenated or not) with functional groups. The latter to establish stability at high temperature heating applications. The environmental issues with spills of these group are almost equal for all pure chemicals or chemical mixtures. A step wise authorization of one component (terphenyl hydrogenated), with the risk that substitutions will follow in the future doesn't seem logical from indutrial users point of view.	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3536
2020/06/04	Borealis AG,
Company,
Austria	Borealis would like to thank the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for this opportunity to comment on the draft proposal to include terphenyl, hydrogenated to REACH Annex XIV.
Borealis is a downstream user of terphenyl, hydrogenated using the substance as heat transfer fluid (HTF) in a closed system in our phenol production plant in Finland.

Borealis agrees with the view of the Finnish competent authorities that terphenyl, hydrogenated and two other substances used as HTF (Dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivative (EC 258-649-2) and 6-(1-phenylethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene (EC 805-293-6) should be looked at as one technical function group. Since the evaluation of the latter substances is still ongoing, and tests are being performed, we suggest to defer defining the appropriate regulatory measure for terphenyl, hydrogenated until the hazard profiles of the other two substances are confirmed. Having the substances at different stages in the regulatory process may well lead to regrettable substitutions in that area.
Technical functional groups can help ECHA and the industry to avoid regrettable substitutions. The group of HTF is a good example of this. Known alternatives to terphenyl hydrogenated for its use as an HTF are likely to carry similar concerns in terms of their hazard properties and environmental behaviour due to their functionality. High stability at high temperatures, for example, is a pre-requisite for the function of a HTF and relates to high persistency in the environment. It is very important for a company to have a clear view and predictability on the regulatory fate of its chemicals and their alternatives. Qualifying alternatives is resource intensive and it is counterproductive and ineffective to transition without making sure that the hazardous profile of the substitute meets regulatory and safety requirements.
Therefore Borealis suggests ECHA to remove terphenyl, hydrogenated from the current recommendation and defer further regulatory actions until the other two HTF functional group substances have been evaluated by the Finnish authorities.	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3539
2020/06/04	Habasit Italiana spa,
Company,
Italy	Hydrogenated terphenyl is the most thermally resistant. They are all products specifically designed to go at high temperatures so it would be ideal to put them in a single functional group. The decision of a grouping would avoid changing all the fluid, the technology and everything that follows.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3540
2020/06/04	Krahn Italia Spa,
Company,
Italy	Terphenyl hydrogenated is the most thermal resistance molecule. Others alternative are as well specifically designed to reach high temperatures so it would be ideal to put them all together in a single functional group. The decision of including them in a group would avoid changing of fluid in terms of volume, technology and everything that follows.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3544
2020/06/05	Cordus GmbH,
Company,
Germany	We believe that it is not necessary to regulate terphenyl because e.g. there are already regulations and laws on the use of heat transfer oils.	A.1.1.1. ECHA's obligation to recommend/prioritise substances on the Candidate List

A.1.1.3. Prioritisation approach applied

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

3548
2020/06/05	Evonik Performance Materials GmbH,
Company,
Germany	In our opinion it is not necessary to regulate the hydrogenated terphenyl in its use as a heat transfer oil, because there are already regulations and laws in place on the use of heat transfer oils.
We have been using the heat transfer oil for more than 20 years. The oil is used in a closed system, which is gas-tight and  liquid-tight. It is used in accordance with the legal requirements. The thermal oil has a high chemical resistance with excellent chemical properties and a high thermo stability.  We rely on the product properties and safe availability.
	A.1.1.1. ECHA's obligation to recommend/prioritise substances on the Candidate List

A.1.1.3. Prioritisation approach applied

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

3549
2020/06/05	Indorama Ventures Química,
Company,
Spain	As Indorama Ventures Europe BV has mentioned, Regulating terphenyl hydrogenated and its two HTF alternatives together, under the same timeframe, in a technical functional group would be highly recommended.  Should substitution of terphenyl hydrogenated with an HTF alternative be enforced, and then future regulation of the alternative delivers the same outcome, further costly substitution would be required to the then only remaining alternatives.

PET plays a key role in the plastics packaging circular economy.  It is essential for the packaging and transportation of food and drink and sanitary products.  PET packaging is the most collected and recycled polymer in Europe. Increasing the regulatory burden and costs on PET production, puts the circular economy at risk. Increased costs and regulatory burden could have the unintended consequence of shifting food and drinks manufacturers to packaging materials that have a higher carbon footprint and are less recyclable or do not have commonly available collection infrastructure.

Prioritisation of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) for inclusion in the Authorisation List (Annex XIV) – Section 6: Other on-going regulatory risk management activities can also be considered when deciding on which substances to include in a specific recommendation. This is to avoid undesired interference between different regulatory actions. Functional grouping should be taken into account by ECHA as part of its prioritisation.

	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.05. Consider RMOA as a regulatory risk 
management activity that could justify not recommending terphenyl, hydrogenated

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3553
2020/06/05	Si-Ka-Tec GmbH coating engineers,
Company,
Germany	Regulation is not necessary as the application is safety-related - Sump tray and closed system is available	A.1.1.1. ECHA's obligation to recommend/prioritise substances on the Candidate List

A.1.1.3. Prioritisation approach applied

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

3554
2020/06/05	Polynt SpA,
Company,
Italy	details are reported in the attachment	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

Confidential attachment removed
		
3555
2020/06/05	AR Metallizing GmbH,
Company,
Germany	According to our knowledge Terphenyl, hydrogenated (CAS 61788-32-7) has actually two alternatives (EC-No 258-649-2 and EC-No. 400-370-7). Both have been grouped into a “technical functional group” due to their use as Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) and the potential PBT properties of all substances. Therefore the Finnish Competent Authority  has conducted a Regulatory Management Option Analysis (RMOA) on the two alternatives of Terphenyl, hydrogenated. The RMOA is published on the ECHA Website https://echa.europa.eu/de/rmoa/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1834a0ed6. In addition, the alternatives are under Dossier Evaluation or Substance Evaluation for identification of PBT properties within the REACH Processes.	A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

3557
2020/06/05	Individual,
Italy	The evaluation of the creation of a technical functional group that brings together all HTF, including terphenyl hydrogenated, could prevent the substantial and probably poorly feasible change of the HTF fluid used and the related technology.
	A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

3562
2020/06/05	Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (WKÖ),
Other contributor,
Austria	see document attached	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.1.5.7. Potential competitive disadvantage

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution	
		3562_su_284_StN_ Terphenyl_REACH_AnhXIV.pdf
		
3566
2020/06/05	Covestro Deutschland AG,
Company,
Germany		A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

Confidential attachment removed
		
3569
2020/06/05	Versalis S.p.A.,
Company,
Italy	In our opinion, it is a critical issue the prioritization of terphenyl hydrogenated related to lack of suitable alternative for this substance as HTF as reported in RMOA.
In RMOA two alternative substances have been identified (EC nr 400-370-7 and EC nr 258-649-2) on which it is reported the statement below:
“if these alternative heat transfer fluids in this RMOA are considered as PBT/vPvB substances [and this could be the case], SVHC identification would be the first RRM option to be considered, with authorisation or restriction as a potential follow-up measure. In order to prevent regrettable substitution, future risk management should, as far as possible, be carried out jointly for the functional group as a whole.”	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.03. Consider that Finnish RMOA (based on functional grouping approach) includes all alternatives to terphenyl, hydrogenated, for use in heat transfer systems

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.12. SEA call questionnaire

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

Confidential attachment removed
		
3573
2020/06/05	Individual,
Poland	Terphenyl hydrogenated has unique properties as heat transfer fluid, because it can be used up to 340°C. The material is used in a closed circuit, thus any kind of exposure is not expected.
In addition due to the stability of terphenyl hydrogenated  we even had not the necessity to exchange it.  We think that more restricted regulation of the use of terphenyl hydrogenated  would not led to a higher environment safety and only cost additional money, depending if an alternative heat transfer fluid is available or a new installation  of a heat transfer oil plant is necessary (Estimation starting from 0,2 up to 1 mln Euro). So we think that use of THF in closed ssytems should be exempted.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific 
Considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use
C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3574
2020/06/05	Rodun Benelux BV,
Company,
Netherlands	RODUN has concerns regarding the regulating of hydrogenated terphenyls used as heat transfer fluids independent of a clear view on the regulatory future of possible alternative substances.
RODUN is distributor of hydrogenated terphenyls since many years (since 2004) and is supplying this product for industrial and professional use as heat transfer agent.
The use of hydrogenated terphenyls (HTP) sold by RODUN is directly linked to the operation of closed, dedicated installations. The hydrogenated terphenyls are used in closed systems as heat transfer fluid (HTF) to control the temperature of various processes. For this function, the HTF operate at very high temperatures (>250-300°C) requiring a very high level of thermal stability. Users of the HTP are wide-ranging, spanning between large industrial installations such as large chemical manufacturing installations, to typical SME’s, all using the HTP in dedicated closed installations.
In case the substance would be included in the Annex XIV of REACH, the customers of RODUN would either have to replace the substance by the Sunset Date or would have to apply for an authorisation for the continued use of the substance.
it is highly unlikely that any SME companies could afford to apply for authorisation on their own. In the absence of a common initiative in the sector or an upstream application for authorisation, the customers of RODUN would be faced with significant economic implications if the substance would no longer be allowed for this use. Substituting the substance by a drop-in substitute at this point in time with the current technology of the heat transfer fluids (HTF) is not possible without a significant risk of regrettable substitution. Other known potential HTF alternatives are either regulated in the same way as HTP, are under scrutiny for the same concerns or have inferior properties leading to unsafe operation of the installation (plugging of the installation) and significant loss of reliability.
Even in case any of the customers of RODUN would consider applying for authorisation, the choice between the substitution or authorisation option can only be made correctly when there is full transparency regarding possible alternative substances. However, this transparency does not currently exist since some of the proposed alternative substances are still under scrutiny by the authorities, potentially leading to inclusion of these substances in the candidate list. Thus, on the one hand, in the case that the customers of RODUN were to apply for authorisation there could be a potential criticism that alternatives are available, but on the other hand, if they were to proceed with substituting the substance they could be faced within a relative brief timeframe with exactly the same challenge in case the substitute is included in the candidate list. This would lead to substitution costs being incurred which could have been avoided.
This means that RODUN is convinced that the prioritisation of hydrogenated terphenyls is premature until there is a clear view regarding the regulatory future of the potential alternatives. A better approach in this case would be to group the substances for the same technical function with similar hazard / SVHC status and to regulate them collectively.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.2.01. Request to authorise/regulate all substances used as Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF) as a functional group simultaneously

A.2.02. Request to postpone the recommendation of terphenyl, hydrogenated until regulatory future for alternative substances is clarified

A.2.04. Request to consider that alternative substances used as heat transfer fluids are likely to have similar hazardous properties

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

A.2.09. Commenting the burden for SMEs to prepare applications for autorisation	

II - Transitional arrangements. Comments on the proposed dates
Number / Date	Submitted by (name, submitter type, country)	Comment	Reference to responses	
3473
2020/04/08	IPI Global Ltd,
Company,
United Kingdom	page 6. We are proposing a Technical alternative to the handling recommendations provided in this document for reducing exposure to Terphenyl, hydrogenated) significantly below OELs in accordance with the EU[4],[5],[6] directives on carcinogens and mutagens – the IPI closed system has been proved effective for handling CMR liquids in Europe.
These Directives clearly acknowledge the usefulness of a closed system for the protection of workers. In fact, it is specifically mentioned that “where possible, a carcinogenic (mutagenic and reprotoxic) substance should be substituted with a less-hazardous alternative – otherwise carcinogens (mutagenic and reprotoxic) must, so far as is technically possible, be manufactured and used in a closed system to prevent exposure of workers”.
Together with the OQEMA-HSE study on Hydrazine Hydrate (Carc.1B) with level below 0.02 ppm, Archroma exposure result for Formaldehyde (carc.1B) with level around 0.03 ppm and SAFECHEM exposure to Tetrachloroethylene 25 times below the established level recommended, it confirms that using our closed loop system can help to reduce drastically the exposure of the operator and the environment even further below the threshold recommended by scientists and EU and World Regulatory Agencies.
Moreover, closed loop technology can also help compliance with the EU Circular economy[8] stipulations and amended EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste[9] with the latest Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/665 of 17 April 2019[10]  and the UN SDG[11] to protect the environment reducing the amount of plastic, metals, water, raw material, energy, etc. and gives a significant economic return for companies.
	Please see references to responses in section I	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3473_TERPHENYL, HYDROGENATED.pdf		
3475
2020/04/22	AS NOVOTRADE INVEST,
Company,
Estonia	Dear Sirs
For the latest application and Sunset dates it is necessary to consider the T-66 or other heat intermediate of the same functional groups, one should proceed from the following.
1. The plans of the company that built up a plant and purchase such heat intermediate for its technological solutions before sunset day. Our company planned to use the T-66 terminol over the next 30 years with an intermediate upgrade as its properties are lost. The first replacements were supposed no earlier than 2030-2031.
2. Investment plans of companies that built technologies using T-66.
The payback period of our entire investment in a plant for the production of petroleum polymer resins is calculated up to 2036.
If a decision is made to prohibit  the use of T-66, there is no guarantee that all technological equipment of the heaters and technological reactors will be able to work with alternative heat intermediate.
Haw this will be compensated to the investors?
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects	
				
3477
2020/04/23	SIA  "Liepajas energija",
Company,
Latvia	We plan to use T66 at least  for 20 years at our power plant and any restrictions can cause negative consequences for our business.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3478
2020/04/28	Manucor spa,
Company,
Italy	The substance is contained in Therminol 66. This substance is certainly not the only diatherrmic medium that can operate in the Manucor circuit.
There is an annual review plan for oil refilling that have to be implemented to support the exhausted one and modulate oil performances.
Manucor has an oil circuit with about 18,000 litres of diathermiaic oil. It proceeds with an annual purchase of about 3000-4000 litres and a strategic stock of about 1200 litres. The complete replacement of Diatheric Oil is not something currently in Manucor's strategic plan. Considering an average cost of about 7 euros/litre, the Manucor should budget about 140,000 euros of investment. At the moment Manucor cannot sustain such a 1:1 substitution	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects	
				
3480
2020/04/30	Torr-Coal Production Centre,
Company,
Belgium	oil buffer (terphenyl hydrogenated) of about 10,000 kg (purchasing costs about 60,000 euro) is used as a heat transfer fluid in a closed industrial system. This system is used to cool down hot flue gases from 700 degr. Celc. to 150 degr. Celc. It has been decided about 10 years ago yo use this
terphenyl hydrogenated oil as heat transfer fluid to have the possibility to use the transferred heat for electricity production by means of a Turboden ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) machine.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3481
2020/05/06	Framatome,
Company,
France	Please read documents attached	Please see references to responses in section I	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3483
2020/05/14	Indorama Ventures Europe B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	Terphenyl hydrogenated is used as a Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) in processing equipment used to produce Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).

The investment cycle for the construction of PET assets is circa 50 years.

Most PET plants operated by Indorama in the EEA region use this terphenyl fluid in some form as a heat transfer medium. A breakdown per use of alternative substance as a function of phase out or authorization requires a far more detailed analysis then in the current time frame can be given. Furthermore a reduction in plant capacities of PET commodity resins would also impact upstream industry for the monomers production, like terephtalic acid and ethyleneglycol in the EU. A gradual disappearance of PET industry in the EEA would also deteriorate capability in (chemically) recycling plastics, in particular pet as it is one of the best recyclable plastics in the EU.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3485
2020/05/22	Adven Estonia AS,
Company,
Estonia	We are using terphenyl hydrogenated product Therminol 66 (T66)) in our combined heat and power plant (CHP) that is using renewable biomass (wood chips) as a fuel
and we producing heat for district heating for local town.
Plant is using T66 as internal heat transfer fluid only. It is used only inside the boiler and has no exposer for outside environment. Life time of this oil can be at least 15 years. Investment life time for technology using terphenyl hydrogenated product is comparable of typical heat boilers and can be 20 to 30 years.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects
	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3485_Use of terphenyl hydrogenated product.docx		
3486
2020/05/25	JSC NEO GROUP,
Company,
Lithuania	Our plant is designed to be operated with HTF with high thermostability and states in liquid stage at  330 C temperature.  Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in our site from 2005 Y. It is used  in closed system without any contact with environment. In case to avoid overheating of HTF monitoring of process is performed 24/7. Under such stringent operating conditions Terphenyl hydrogenated can be safely operated for many years. We are going to run for next 20-30 years without significant changes.
If the substance is included in Annex XIV to be eventually phased out, it would be negative from economy and environment point – 560 t of terphenyl hydrogenated  should be utilized as hazard waste while it could successfully be used in closed heat transfer system for many years.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3487
2020/05/26	SIPOL SPA,
Company,
Italy	In general, hydrogenated terphenyl is used as a heat transfer fluid (HTF) in a closed system that does not come into contact in any way with the final product. For this reason, the substance is considered absent in the final product as not intentionally added. The use as a heat transfer fluid with high thermal stability guarantees a long life cycle, of over ten years, with periodic annual checks on the state of degradation of the HTF and any topping up with new material. The disposal of this product, solutions and any by-products is carried out always following the indications of the law on environmental protection and waste disposal and the requirements of each relevant local authority. In our opinion the normal LAD times must also be re-adjusted considering the impacts on the production sites and on the production processes.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3487_recom_com_call_for_info_questionnaire_en_SIPOL.pdf		
3491
2020/05/27	Uniconfort srl,
Company,
Italy	Uniconfort manufacture and install Biomass CHP plant coupled with ORC where the Terphenyl, hydrogenated is used as Thermal high temperature fluid in a close circuit to transfer the heat generated in a biomass furnace to a heat exchager for ORC working as well as hot water heat distribution for example for District Heating. The useful lifetime of this kind of plant is cosidered at least 20 years, for this reason the authorization time frame included LADS are too short compare to the investment cycle for Terphenyl, hydrogenated.	B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3493
2020/05/28	Krahn Chemie Deutschland,
Company,
Germany	There is no other fluid / possible to operate a thermooil System by temperatures >300 °C with such high thermo stability. The fluid protect the Thermo oil System and increase the safety and efficiency of the plant. If you are using other fluids, there is a high Generation of high Boiler, deposits inside the Coils of the heater (damage of the Coils and high safety risks) and damage of important components. Additional Advantages is the high Flash Point after many years of Operation according to other fluids. You operate the Thermo oil plant with highest operational security for people and environmental. There are no alternative products.
So the fluid is use for a lifetime  of 20-25 years  to Keep the running costs low.
Because that more than 300 Biomass/ORC customers are using this fluid in Germany/Austria and Switzerland to produce green energy. The calculation for Investment is >20 years’ operating without oil changes.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

Confidential attachment removed
		
3497
2020/05/29	Eastman Chemical B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	As noted in the previous section, 96% of all terphenyl hydrogenated in the EU is used as a high-temperature, non-pressurised heat transfer fluid (HTF) in closed systems on manufacturing sites. Industrial HTF systems are typically constructed to run on a particular fluid for periods well over 20 years.

Typical Authorisation timeframes - including LADs, sunset dates, and review periods granted for Annex XIV substances - are much shorter than 20 years and therefore ill-suited, in our view, to allow for continued safe use of terphenyl hydrogenated in HTF systems. It is important to note that the two available alternatives to terphenyl hydrogenated in high-temperature, non-pressurised HTF systems are likely to carry the same concerns in terms of persistence and bioaccumulation. Inclusion in Annex XIV is therefore expected to prevent industrial sites currently running on terphenyl hydrogenated from operating sustainably, in the absence of viable alternatives displaying less hazardous properties.

These challenges are recognised in the recent RMOA conclusions by Finland on a functional grouping approach for high-temperature non-pressurised HTFs, which state that: “It is understood however that the investment cycles for heat transfer fluids on industrial sites may extend beyond the typical authorisation review periods granted under REACH”.

We would encourage ECHA to take this information into account and reference these challenges in the recommendation process and background documents.

	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer	
				
3498
2020/05/29	ITELYUM Regeneration S.r.l.,
Company,
Italy	The Therminol 66-68 are used in several boilers to heat hydrocarbon streams required in industrial process.	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3499
2020/05/29	Kraton Chemical BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Consider the time to search, test and implement a potential substitutes, we believe a minimal of 2 year transition period is needed. So the sunset date should be no earlier than year 2023.	B.1.1. General principles for setting latest application dates/sunset dates

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

3500
2020/06/01	Mater-Biopolymer Srl,
Company,
Italy	Therphenyl hydrogenated is used for many years at our site as heat transfer fluid (HTF) and heating circuit is specifically designed for a heating fluid with the property of that substance. Total capacity of the installation is about 100 tons of fluid. As heat transfer fluids partially degrade at high temperature, a periodical refill is needed (normally 5 tons/ year; fluid is fully replaced  approximately every 20 years).
We believe that the timing of cycle of use of the fluid is not compatible with the time frames typical of authorisation.  It can be said that the whole operability of our industrial plant depends on the heat transfer fluid. If the supplier applies for an authorisation for the use as heat transfer within the latest application date and authorisation is granted for that use, we know it would be limited in time (as usual). After expiry, a renewal of the authorisation needs to be requested and typical review periods under REACH Authorisation are 4, 7 or 12 years.
	B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3502
2020/06/02	Individual,
France	Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in a reaction of isomerisation of an epoxyde in aldehyde. Due to its inert property and the high boiling point of terphenyl hydrogenated, it allows to solubilise the catalyst and it is not distilled in our conditions.
Terphenyl hydrogenated is used to manufacture a chemical intermediate, that allows to get more than 1000 t/y of finished products.	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3504
2020/06/02	STEAG New Energies GmbH,
Industry or trade association,
Germany	We use, like discribed, therminol 66 in a powerplant with attached ORC-process for district-heating-systems. For us, it's only a heat-transfer-fluid to bring the heat to the ORC. The powerplant was filled with this oil by the deliverer of the plant. The powerplant has to run 14 years longer, to the year 2034 and in this time, the thermooil is needed.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3505
2020/06/02	ADM SIO,
Company,
France	Heat transfer fluid set point is at 280°C (can reach 295°C in boiler’s coil).
Heat transfer fluid is also used to cool the product.
HTF quantity is about 2 x 1500 liters.
Terphenyl hydrogenated HTF is replaced every 7/8 years (same frequency for silicone HTF).
	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3506
2020/06/02	Senne Energie GmbH,
Company,
Germany	Our systems have been using Therminol 66 for many years without loss and are therefore very efficient and low-maintenance

	A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3506_Therphenyl is only a small part of Therminol 66 and gives enough safety standards.docx		
3509
2020/06/03	COMELT SPA,
Company,
Italy	The company deals with the thermal reactivation of activated carbon. The fumes deriving from the heat treatment are sent to a post-combustor from which they pass directly into a heat exchanger with Terphenyl Hydrogenated. Terphenyl Hydrogenated has the task of transferring heat first to a steam turbine and then to an ORC cycle turbine, where the recovered heat is transformed into electricity.
The lifetime of the investment in diathermic oil is greater than 20 years, so the timing of the LADs and in general of the authorization process leading to the date of replacement of the fluid are too tight.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3510
2020/06/03	Leroux,
Industry or trade association,
France	The Terphenyl hydrogenated is used since more than 20 years as thermal fluid in a close system for our atomization tour. We should not change anything in our operting system soon. So the timeframes of the autorisation procedure and the latest application deadline is not in adequation with our possibility of changement.
The ternphenyl hydrogenated is use in a close circle of 40000liters. each years, we change only 2000liters of product. We can't mixed products. So a global changement of our quantity would have a big impact.
Our atomization tour can't work without this thermal fluid so we can't have long break on the installation regularly.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3511
2020/06/03	Blue Power Srl,
Company,
Italy	We use terphenyl hydrogenated for the transfer of thermal energy from a boiler to the heat exchangers in an ORC. Terphenyl takes heat from the fumes and gives them to a lower temperature organic fluid. The fluids works in a closed circuit with an expansion tank and an underground tank allows the recovery and management in case of emergency or maintenance. The lifetime of investment is more than 20 years so we would need more time.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3512
2020/06/03	Individual,
Germany	2) Kommentar zur vorgeschlagenen Zeitschiene für Zulassungsantragsstellung und Sunset Date
Industrieanlagen, die mit Therphenyl, hydriert als Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit befüllt sind, laufen zwischen 10 und 30 Jahren.
Manche Anlagen, die eine sehr hohe thermische Stabilität für eine gesicherte Anlagenverfügbarkeit benötigen, z.B. bei der Energieversorgung von Raffinerien, planen regelmäßige Stillstandszeiten für Wartungsarbeiten in Abständen von 6 Jahren ein. Die Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit selbst wird nur nach jedem 2. Stillstand, also nach 12 Jahren, ausgetauscht.
Eine Festlegung des LAD in den nächsten 18 – 24 Monaten würde für die meisten Anlagen einen Wechsel der Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit bedeuten, obwohl ein Wechsel erst viel später bzw. gar nicht geplant gewesen wäre. Die Entsorgung der Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit aus den geschlossenen Anlagen würde einen zusätzlichen, aber vermeidbaren Aufwand im Umgang mit dem langlebigen Stoff bedeuten.
Aufgrund der möglichen Fristen entsprechend des Zulassungsverfahrens und des im Falle einer Zulassung begrenzten Zulassungszeitraumes sind große Unsicherheiten mit der Verwendung als langlebige Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit verbunden.
Die beiden möglichen Alternativen (Dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivative; CAS 53585-53-8 und 6-(1-phenylethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene, EC-Nr. 400-370-7) stellen auch in diesem Zulassungsprozess eine große Unsicherheit dar. Zum einen ist noch gar nicht sichergestellt, dass diese Stoffe keine PBT / vPvB Eigenschaft besitzen, zum anderen liegen die Fristen für die Informationsbereitstellung für die Bewertung der Stoffe in den Jahren 2021 bzw. 2022.
Die Aufnahme von Terphenyl, hydriert in Anhang XVII mit gezielten Beschränkungen von Verwendungen bei denen es zu Expositionen in die Umwelt kommt, ist ausreichend, um das Risiko für die menschliche Gesundheit und die Umwelt zu beherrschen.
RCC/LTB, 29.05.2020	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.1.5.8. Uncertainty as to whether authorisation will be granted

B.1.2.1. Extensive time needed in the supply chain to get organised for preparing application (e.g. due to high number of users)

B.2.01. Request to set the timelines  in a way that the analysis of alternatives can take into account the outcome of ongoing data generation for alternative substances

B.2.02. Request to assign same sunset date for all substances with similar technical function that are included in Annex XIV, to avoid regrettable substitution	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3512_Comment_FRAGOL_LTB_ZRF_Section A, B, C.pdf		
3516
2020/06/03	SunPine AB,
Company,
Sweden	To exchange the heat transfer system would be very costly. The timeframe is also very short from ECHA. We are currently buildning a new factory that will operate on same heat transfer system type. The time to prepare and change should this chemical be banned is too short for industrial plants.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3523
2020/06/04	Individual,
Germany	TEIJIN
TEIJIN CARBON EUROPE GmbH
Vitsstraße 2
52525 Heinsberg
+49 2452 97705-0

Comments on the proposed Latest Application (LAD) and Sunset dates:
Unsere Anlagen laufen mit dem Wärmeträgeröl seit der Erstbefüllung, d.h. seit 14 bzw. 11 Jahren. Ein Austausch ist nicht vorgesehen und gemäß Ölanalysen auch nicht in absehbarer Zeit notwendig.
Wir stellen Carbonfasern her und sind Zulieferer u.a. für die Sektoren Luft- und Raumfahrt, Windkraftanlagen sowie Automobilindustrie. Für diese hochsensiblen Industriebereiche mit hoher Anforderung an die Produktqualität wäre eine Umstellung der Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit auf noch nicht bekannte und nicht geprüfte Alternativen in der kurzen Zeit von max. 24 + 18 Monaten nicht möglich. Eine Umstellung auf die im RMOA identifizierten Alternativen kommt für uns zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht in Frage, da auch deren dauerhafter Einsatz nicht gesichert ist.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.2.06. Suggest that inclusion of terphenyl, hydrogenated in Annex XIV will create incentives for regrettable substitution

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.01. Request to set the timelines  in a way that the analysis of alternatives can take into account the outcome of ongoing data generation for alternative substances

B.2.02. Request to assign same sunset date for all substances with similar technical function that are included in Annex XIV, to avoid regrettable substitution

3532
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Chemie BV,
Company,
Netherlands	The HTF is received in 23 m3 containers from our supplier and unloaded with Nitrogen pressure into our storage containers without exposure to the environment. It is heated in our furnaces before it is used in our reboilers and heaters. Fresh material will be supplied from our storage tank to fill up our heating loop. During the lifecycle of the product in our plant the product is kept in a rigorously closed system. There is a drain for decomposed material and the decomposed HTF waste is processed by a certified chemical waste handler. The lifecycle of this product is estimated at 8 years based on the rate of decomposition and the rate at which fresh material is supplied into the heating loop.
Our plant is operating as a TIER 1 plant which means every step is balanced in safety, efficiency and operating parameters. This can only be achieved after years of operating experience. A significant change, such as replacing the HTF will disrupt the optimal operating performance of the plant and it will take years before it operates as a TIER 1 again. Before approving a substitute, any new HTF needs to be tested on its material compatibility (the different heating systems), usability (the viscosity and high temperature) and long-term stability (lifecycle).
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects	
				
3533
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV,
Company,
Netherlands	HTF is stored in a dedicated storage tank and used in one of our (new, 2018 start-up) installations. It is heated in a furnace to the desired high temperatures (>300 C) to supply heat to the process via the heating loop. During the lifecycle of the product in our plant the product is kept in a rigorously closed system. The lifecycle of this product is estimated at 8-10 years based on data of the supplier.
Our plant is a very new plant with new state of the art equipment to ensure that leakages or fugitive emissions are minimized. The plant is integrated within a refinery with a significant amount of other installations. For all installations all steps are balanced in safety, efficiency and operating parameters. A significant change, such as replacing the HTF will disrupt the optimal operating performance of the plant itself which in turn may also have an effect on other refinery installations. Moreover, before approving a substitute, any new HTF needs to be tested on its material compatibility (the different heating systems), usability (the viscosity and high temperature) and long-term stability (lifecycle).
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects	
				
3534
2020/06/04	DSM Engineering Materials,
Industry or trade association,
Netherlands	DEM is using terphenyl hydrogenated in polymer plants as heat transfer medium (3 separate systems). In a closed circulation system the terphenyl hydrogenated is heated in a gas fired boiler and via circulations pumps transported to local consumer (heat exchangers). The temperature range of the hot oil rail is 315 – 320 °C. The systems are equipped with an expansion tank, which just as other parts of the equipment are connected to a storage tank (first filling, draining for maintenance). This tank is also in use as emergency blow down tank. It is therefore during operations.
The design life time of our plants from an investment perspective is normally 20 years. That means normal preventive and predictive maintenance should cover the life time of the installation. Of course the installation can operate for many more years, but extra capital expenditure projects are required.
The present systems are running 4, 14 and 20 years. For the oldest system we are now modernizing the gas burner control. Whenever (internal) safety and regulatory requirements demand, systems are modified and updated.
With respect to LAD, sun set dates and life cycles of our plant it will never fit and lead to uncertainties and business and operational risks.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer	
				
3536
2020/06/04	Borealis AG,
Company,
Austria	Within Borealis we use terphenyl, hydrogenated in phenol and cumene processes for transferring heat to distillation towers in closed circulation. The HTF is heated in a specific heater and pumped into several process heat exchangers where energy is transferred to the process. The cooled transfer fluid flows back to the heater to be reheated. The plant was designed and constructed to run on terphenyl, hydrogenated and has been running since 1981. The hot oil heater system was renewed in 2015. The expected lifecycle of the system is 30+ years. That means that technically we do not need nor plan to exchange the 280 tons of HTF within the next 25+ years. Exchanging the HTF now would entail a major investment for Borealis, as well as creating 280 tons of hazardous waste. The exchange can only be done in the course of the 5-year turnaround cycle. The next one is scheduled for 2025.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3539
2020/06/04	Habasit Italiana spa,
Company,
Italy	Our process uses HTF to transfer heat from a separated gas burners to the heating tunnels of spread coating lines through which a technical fabric being coated with spreadable liquid or viscous polymers is being dried, gelled or cured.
Therminol 66 is the used HTF. It flows in a closed circuit, being pumped through gas heated multi-tubular heaters where it picks up the heat that is downstream transferred to the materials to be cured, gelled or dried in air ventilated heating tunnels, through oil/air tube bundle heat exchangers .
The system has been designed to work for life with hydrogenated terphenyl because of its high boiling point and low vapor pressure (in order to avoid pressurized systems), of its low viscosity over operating range to ensure proper heat transfer and low pour point to enable easy start-up at ambient temperatures, of its excellent thermal and oxidation stability to provide long fluid life.
The lifetime of my investment in diathermic oil is greater than 20 years so the timing of the LADs and in general of the authorization process leading to the last fluid replacement date are too tight.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

Confidential attachment removed
		
3540
2020/06/04	Krahn Italia Spa,
Company,
Italy	Terphenyl Hydrogenated is used in closed and controlled systems as Heat transfer fluid to transport heat wherever it's needed. Normally systems are designed starting from an heater and connected to the users station by tubes, valves and pumps that let the fluid to circulate in a closed and controlled system. Systems are specifically designed and build in order to run with this type of molecule for life. Lifetime of investments in Heat transfer fluid is more than 20 years, so the timing of the authorization process, including LAD, are too tight.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3544
2020/06/05	Cordus GmbH,
Company,
Germany	We use heat transfer oil to heat up our air driers efficiently.
It is the preferred solution because of its long lifecycle due to thermal stability and therefore advantageous cost-benefit ratio.  We plan to use our heat transfer oil system for additional two decades.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban	
				
3549
2020/06/05	Indorama Ventures Química,
Company,
Spain	As Indorama Ventures Europe BV has mentioned, Terphenyl hydrogenated is used as a Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) in processing equipment used to produce Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).
The investment cycle for the construction of PET assets is circa 50 years.

Most PET plants operated by Indorama in the EEA region use this terphenyl fluid in some form as a heat transfer medium. A breakdown per use of alternative substance as a function of phase out or authorization requires a far more detailed analysis then in the current time frame can be given. Furthermore a reduction in plant capacities of PET commodity resins would also impact upstream industry for the monomers production, like terephtalic acid and ethyleneglycol in the EU. A gradual disappearance of PET industry in the EEA would also deteriorate capability in (chemically) recycling plastics, in particular pet as it is one of the best recyclable plastics in the EU.

	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.6. Socio-economic benefits of continued use

A.1.5.7. Potential competitive disadvantage

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects	
				
3553
2020/06/05	Si-Ka-Tec GmbH coating engineers,
Company,
Germany	Heat transfer oil is used in an explosion-proof dryer unit, in a closed system. Use of the oil is necessary because only through this the plant can be operated - long life and stable processes. Operation of the plant with other thermal oils is currently not possible. The life of the plant is more than 30 years	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.5. Availability of suitable alternatives

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

3557
2020/06/05	Individual,
Italy	Therphenyle hydrogenated is used as thermal heating fluid in manufacturing processes that require very high temperature . Actually this HTF is the only one that guarantees thermal performance and long product life with no degradation. Our manufacturing plant are constructed on this heating technology and therphenyl hydrogenated is always confined in a closed heating system. The LAD timing is not consistent with the lifetime of the investment.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.03. Consider typical authorisation timeframes (LAD, SD, review periods) not suitable for the use as HTF as life-cycles/ investment-cycles are typically longer

3569
2020/06/05	Versalis S.p.A.,
Company,
Italy	In our Plants the use of terphenyl hydrogenated is performed only in closed system and there is no need for fluid replacement or purification. Only a minimal top-up operation is performed in order to compensate for venting and small losses during maintenance operations, with new oil at ambient temperature and pressure, delivered in circulation pumps suction piping.
In case of Authorization of terphenyl hydrogenated, to minimize the impact on manufacturing processes and risk management, we could totally replace terphenyl hydrogenated with an alternative substance (immiscible) only during the planned shutdown of our Plants (almost 3 years).
For this reason, we strongly suggest to opt for the following date:
• Latest application date (LAD): Date of inclusion in Annex XIV plus 24 months
• Sunset date: 18 months after LAD	B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3574
2020/06/05	Rodun Benelux BV,
Company,
Netherlands	In respect of avoidance of a possible regrettable substitution, for all the substances with similar technical function that are included in Annex XIV, the same sunset date should be established. While in general this is not always possible, in this case it is especially relevant since there are several alternative substances which are under scrutiny for similar hazard properties as the hydrogenated terphenyls.
The following can be noted regarding the hazard profiles of the other synthetic HTF not containing HTP:
- The substance dibenzylbenzene, ar-methyl derivate, is currently subject to a compliance check by ECHA, requesting additional information relevant to the PBT/vPvB assessment (source RMOA by Finland dd 24/2/2020 regarding EC 258-649 and EC 400-370-7).
- The substance tetrahydro-(1-phenylethyl)-naphtalene, present in other HTF, is currently included in the CoRAP (added by Finland) for the purpose to clarify the PBT/vPvB status of the substance (source RMOA by Finland dd 24/2/2020 regarding EC 258-649 and EC 400-370-7).
- HTF containing biphenyls (EC 202-163-5): substance is included in the CoRAP list and under investigation by Portugal for suspected PBT properties. This substance was not included in the RMOa of Finland on EC 258-649-2 and 400-370-7.
At least, the sunset date of the hydrogenated terphenyls should be such that the analysis of alternatives for an application for authorisation of hydrogenated terphenyls can take into account the results of the ongoing or planned investigations of these substances. However, a more efficient path forward to arrive at the same risk management with more legal certainty would be to postpone the prioritisation and subsequent inclusion in Annex XIV by at least 5-7 years. Because of the closed nature of the installations and the operational conditions, this can be done without any relevant additional exposure to HTP from the use as HTF.

	B.1.1. General principles for setting latest application dates/sunset dates

B.1.1.1. Legal background

B.1.1.2. ECHA's proposal for 
sunset dates

B.1.1.3. ECHA's proposal for latest application dates

B.1.2.2. Lack of alternatives, socio-economic aspects

B.2.01. Request to set the 
timelines  in a way that the analysis of alternatives can take into account the outcome of ongoing data generation for alternative substances

B.2.02. Request to assign same sunset date for all substances with similar technical function that are included in Annex XIV, to avoid regrettable substitution	

III - Comments on uses that should be exempted from authorisation, including reasons for that
Number / Date	Submitted by (name, submitter type, country)	Comment	Reference to responses	
3475
2020/04/22	AS NOVOTRADE INVEST,
Company,
Estonia	Dear Sirs
We recommend to exempting T-66 for same companies or users.
We would like to propose for companies which are  using the  terminol T-66 in closed and strictly controlled conditions to allow the use of the T-66 as heat intermediate . This product T-66  is one of the best product for heat transfer and thermal stability.  If T-66 are used in closed technologies ther is no impact on environment.
The manufacturer could take from customer the terminal T-66 back after use for regeneration and reuse/produce new one	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3477
2020/04/23	SIA  "Liepajas energija",
Company,
Latvia	We use T66 in termooil boiler in closed circle system. It`s a very safety system with various leakage control system. We haven`t any leakages during the plant operation for last 8 years. We plan to use T66 at least for 20 years without exchange.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

3480
2020/04/30	Torr-Coal Production Centre,
Company,
Belgium	It is expected that this heat transfer system will be operational for at least 20 years without significant maintenance costs.
Replacement of this terphenyl hydrogenated oil means a lot of costs: disposal as chemical waste; purchase of a substitute (is this already available?); possible modifications to the existing equipment in connection with this replacement.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation	
				
3481
2020/05/06	Framatome,
Company,
France	Please read documents attached	See references to responses in section I	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3483
2020/05/14	Indorama Ventures Europe B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	Authorisation requirements should not apply to HTF uses in closed, tight, non-pressurised systems requiring an operational temperature of between 300 to 345 degrees C, in industrial processes, as long as operators are trained with respect to Safety and Environmental guidelines published on the Material Safety Data Sheet and that all potential risks are assessed and deemed manageable.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3485
2020/05/22	Adven Estonia AS,
Company,
Estonia	We strongly recommend to exempt terphenyl hydrogenated product in case it is used as heat exchanger liquid as it is not exposed to the environment during the usage.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation
C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)
	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3485_Use of terphenyl hydrogenated product.docx		
3486
2020/05/25	JSC NEO GROUP,
Company,
Lithuania	Authorisation requirements should not be apply to HTF uses in closed systems on industrial sites, because these uses does not pose a threat to the environment – there is no emmisions to atmosphere, no effluents to water or other environment components. All HTF system is under control 24/7 – Distributed control system (DCS) is used.  Thus all risks to environment  are eliminated.
For the above reasons authorisation requirements should not be apply to Terphenyl hydrogenated  as HTF  uses in closed systems on industrial sites.

Restriction (REACH restriction) in our suggestion should be applied to terphenyl hydrogenated. It can only be used as heat transfer fluid in closed systems.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3487
2020/05/26	SIPOL SPA,
Company,
Italy	In our opinion terphenyl hydrogenated for heating closed systems should be exempted from authorization. The relevant area of risk is already regulated via worker safety regulations. The use of HTF for scientific research and development should be exempted from authorization.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.2. Generic exemptions

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)
	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3487_recom_com_call_for_info_questionnaire_en_SIPOL.pdf		
3491
2020/05/27	Uniconfort srl,
Company,
Italy	We consider the utilization of Terphenyl, hydrogenated in a close circuit as safe, for this reason such a restriction (just use in close circuit) would be more than sufficient instead of an authorization	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions	
				
3493
2020/05/28	Krahn Chemie Deutschland,
Company,
Germany	
The Operation of HTF fluids in heat Transfer plants is always in a closed Loop without any contact to the environment. The heater manufacturer design the complete system with a lot of different safety Equipment according to local rules and authorities request. Annual safety inspections of the plant and oil quality protect the system - changes can be recognized and remedied in good time.

	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3497
2020/05/29	Eastman Chemical B.V.,
Company,
Netherlands	Whereas uses in closed industrial systems are not subject to general exemptions under REACH, we would encourage ECHA to review the compatibility of Authorisation requirements with high-temperature, non-pressurised heat transfer fluid (HTF) uses in closed systems on industrial sites with investment cycles often extending beyond 20 years.

Based on the reasons described in the previous sections, Eastman would support a broad REACH restriction eliminating all non-HTF uses and creating a limited derogation for industrial HTF systems that implement stringent containment measures as a more effective risk management measure compared to Authorisation.

The recent RMOA assessment conducted by Finland for high-temperature, non-pressurised HTFs indicates that “a potential restriction could e.g. define mandatory containment measures that industrial sites should implement to prevent environmental emissions from HTF systems”, that “restriction as a risk management measure has the advantage that it can be targeted at the uses posing a risk. […] In the case of authorisation this is not that straightforward”, and that “as substances discussed in this RMOA are either identified or suspected PBT/vPvB substances, exemption of any uses from potential restriction would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that there is limited exposure to the environment from the full lifecycle of these substances for these specific uses.”
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions	
				
3498
2020/05/29	ITELYUM Regeneration S.r.l.,
Company,
Italy	The authorization requirements are not applicable to HTF used in clodes and controlled systems. It could be necessary a restinction.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.2.07. Understand that authorisation requirement is not applicable to HTF used in closed and controlled systems

3499
2020/05/29	Kraton Chemical BV,
Company,
Netherlands	As mentioned in the "Comments on the prioritisation results and general issues" section, we believe the use of this substance as heat transfer fluid(HTF) could be exempted because it is operated in close system.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3500
2020/06/01	Mater-Biopolymer Srl,
Company,
Italy	In relation to use of terphenyl, hydrogenated as HTF: Heating circuit is a fully closed system and the possibility ok leaks is minimized with specific safeguards as safety switches or containment system for the storage vessels. The entire system can be drained completely using drain valves only in order to confine the substance at distance from the main plant. Refill of the fluid is done using a pump with suction from substance’s drum and the discharge side is connected with the heat transfer fluid collection tank. Exposition for workers or environment is negligible. The entire system is designed using components which require limited maintenance. Valves have bellows and weld ends. Flanged connections are reduced to an absolute minimum. All pumps have mechanical seal with quench system. All pumps have stand-by installed, which facilitate maintenance activity without the need of a general plant stop and consequent production loss. Opening of the equipment and pipes for maintenance purposes is regulated by specific procedures. The decomposition products of terphenyl hydrogenated are collected in the totally closed system into a vent line, condensed and send in a dedicated collection tank. Storage vessels are equipped with strict containment system. In our view, considered the closed system (as per the said conditions above) and that the possibility of exposure is really minimized,  also believing that the situation is quite the same in other sites that use therphenyl hydrogenated as HTF, the particular application as heat transfer fluids at industrial sites can be surely eligible to be exempted from authorisation.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3502
2020/06/02	Individual,
France	Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in a distillation column in a continuous process. Our company use around 200 kg of terphenyl hydrogenated to manufacture 20 T of final product.
Terphenyl hydrogenated is used in a reaction of isomerisation of an epoxyde in aldehyde. Due to its inert property and the high boiling point of terphenyl hydrogenated, it allows to solubilise the catalyst and it is not distilled in our conditions.
	A.1.1.5. New information and next steps towards the final recommendation	
				
3504
2020/06/02	STEAG New Energies GmbH,
Industry or trade association,
Germany	I think we have the experience to use it farther, like in the past, because we have a sealed System and that's why we have reduced contacts to the Minimum. I don't see the Advantage of a new restriction for us.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

3506
2020/06/02	Senne Energie GmbH,
Company,
Germany	Therminol 66 are extremely important for our systems and there is no alternative in this temperature range and continuous load	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation
	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3506_Therphenyl is only a small part of Therminol 66 and gives enough safety standards.docx		
3508
2020/06/03	Grupa Azoty S.A.,
Company,
Poland	In our opinion uses comprising operation in closed tight systems without any possibility of leakage should be exempted from the authorisation requirement.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)
	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3508_2020_Priorisation_T66_Public_consultation_ECHA. Part 1.docx		
3509
2020/06/03	COMELT SPA,
Company,
Italy	The authorization requirements are not applicable to HTF as the use of the substance occurs in closed and controlled systems. There is no need for an authorization but a restriction on the use of this substance as HTF in closed systems.
	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.2.07. Understand that authorisation requirement is not applicable to HTF used in closed and controlled systems

3510
2020/06/03	Leroux,
Industry or trade association,
France	As we are working in a close system without any conctat with the others installation and equipement, we suggest to exempt from Autorisation requirements this product.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3511
2020/06/03	Blue Power Srl,
Company,
Italy	We think that the authorization should not be applicable to HTF in closed and controlled systems. A good idea is the restriction on the use of this substance as HTF in closed systems.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3512
2020/06/03	Individual,
Germany	3) Kommentar zum Punkt Ausnahmen
Die Anwendung von Terphenyl hydriert als Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit erfolgt in geschlossenen Anlagen die nach DIN-Norm 4754 "Wärmeübertragungsanlagen mit organischen Wärmeträgern" technisch dicht errichtet werden und weitere technische Richtlinien wie die VDI-Richtlinie 3033, die Druckgeräterichtlinie 97/23 EG, das AD 2000 Regelwerk sowie die Betriebssicherheitsverordnung (BetrSichV) einhalten. Im Wasserhaushaltsgesetz und der Verordnung über Anlagen zum Umgang mit wassergefährdenden Stoffen sind Anforderungen festgehalten, die eine Exposition von umweltgefährdenden Stoffen in die Schutzgüter Wasser und Boden verhindern.
RCC/LTB, 29.05.2020	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
		See the corresponding embedded attachment in Part I: 
3512_Comment_FRAGOL_LTB_ZRF_Section A, B, C.pdf		
3516
2020/06/03	SunPine AB,
Company,
Sweden	Uses in closed systems with no risk of spill onto soil is a low risk to the environment. In our case I believe the highest risk is transporting it onto site.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

3523
2020/06/04	Individual,
Germany	TEIJIN
TEIJIN CARBON EUROPE GmbH
Vitsstraße 2
52525 Heinsberg
+49 2452 97705-0

Comments on uses (or categories of uses) that should be exempted, including reasons for that:
Unsere Anlagen sind nach DIN 4754 und weiteren technischen Richtlinien von Fachfirmen errichtet worden. Terphenyl, hydriert wird als Wärmeträgerflüssigkeit in geschlossenen, technisch dichten Anlagen verwendet. Eine Exposition des Stoffes in die Umwelt wird durch die Einhaltung von z.B. der Verordnung zum Umgang mit wassergefährdenden Stoffen (AwSV) und der Betriebssicherheitsverordnung (BetrSichV) verhindert.
	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3529
2020/06/04	Nolte Holzwerkstoff,
Company,
Germany	Heizen einer Spanplattenpresse, seit 2012 in Betrieb, keine Lebenszeit festgelegt.
Verwendetes Öl: Mobil Therminol 66
Das verwendetete Öl wird jährlich analysiert .	Please see references to responses in section I	
				
3532
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Chemie BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Terphenyl hydrogenated can be safely used as an HTF in a closed system, implying that the risk is properly controlled as mentioned in art Article 58.2 of the REACH legislation. It is a safe and stable product which can withstand high temperatures. Replacing such a liquid with a new to be selected product would require several assessments. Based on our experience and judgement, any substitution with the same stability at high temperatures is highly likely to be equally persistent to the environment. This would lead to a new product that fulfils the criteria of SVHC and again potentially subject to authorization.
Therefore, we propose to exempt the use as a Heat Transfer Fluid from authorization.
	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3533
2020/06/04	Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV,
Company,
Netherlands	Terphenyl hydrogenated can be safely used as an HTF in a closed system, implying that the risk is properly controlled as mentioned in art Article 58.2 of the REACH legislation. It is a safe and stable product which can withstand high temperatures. Replacing such a liquid with a new to be selected product would require several assessments. Based on our experience and judgement, any substitution with the same stability at high temperatures is highly likely to be equally persistent to the environment. This would lead to a new product that fulfills the criteria of SVHC and again potentially subject to authorization.
Therefore, we propose to exempt the use as a Heat Transfer Fluid from authorization.
	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3534
2020/06/04	DSM Engineering Materials,
Industry or trade association,
Netherlands	It is not well understood that substances, which due to the main function of the substance and the combined strict safety and operational requirements are lifted to an higher classification level. During operation all actions are focused on keeping the substance in the closed system and any outbreak or action to open the equipment is put under strict internal Safety, Health and Environment procedures, including isolation of substances, waste removal and waste control.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation	
				
3536
2020/06/04	Borealis AG,
Company,
Austria	In Borealis operations, terphenyl, hydrogenated is used as heat transfer fluid in a closed process on an industrial site. The risk for exposure to the environment is extremely low. Due to the stability of terphenyl, hydrogenated only about 0.4% losses are observed in a year due to cracking of the substance to lighter fractions. These fractions are collected and sent for further treatment to a hazardous waste treatment plant. Terphenyl, hydrogenated is specifically good for high temperature heat transfer. Its use requires less replenishment because of thermal degradation compared to potential replacements which is a strong point looking at the overall sustainability of the current solution. Another point that underlines the suitability of our current HTF is the fact that it does not cause any process safety concerns should it get into contact with the other chemicals used in the plant.
Since there is no exposure to the environment from the HTF use of hydrogenated terphenyl, we do not see authorisation as a proportionate regulatory measure for this type of use. Compared to Authorisation, a Restriction could target uses of concern, preserve closed system HTF uses, and generate greater risk reduction capacity at the manufacturing stage by imposing “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) release limits. This would generate environmental benefits with manageable implementation costs for industry.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban	
				
3539
2020/06/04	Habasit Italiana spa,
Company,
Italy	The authorization requirements are not applicable to HTF as the use of the substance occurs in closed and controlled systems. There is no need for an authorization but a restriction on the use of this substance as HTF in closed systems.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.2.07. Understand that authorisation requirement is not applicable to HTF used in closed and controlled systems

Confidential attachment removed
		
3540
2020/06/04	Krahn Italia Spa,
Company,
Italy	The authorization requirements are not applicable to HTF as the use of the substance occurs in closed and controlled systems. There is no need for an authorization but a restriction on the use of this substance as HTF in closed systems.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

A.2.07. Understand that authorisation requirement is not applicable to HTF used in closed and controlled systems

3544
2020/06/05	Cordus GmbH,
Company,
Germany	The ban on the use of terphenyl as component of heat transfer oil in industrial locations does not make sense from our point of view since there are sufficient security standards to be followed.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban
A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3548
2020/06/05	Evonik Performance Materials GmbH,
Company,
Germany	From our point of view, it makes no sense to ban the terphenyls as heat transfer oils, since they are handled by us in closed systems and the handling is already subject to strict legal requirements.
The heat transfer oil is used in our systems indoor. During the use of the heat transfer oil, a small quantity is degraded to low-boiling substances, which are removed by distillation from time to time. The dedicated distillation unit is also placed indoor next to the system. The low-boiling products are disposed of by incineration. The purified heat transfer oil is then charged back into the system.
The loss of product because of degradation is then compensated by fresh product. This is delivered in drums and is directly transferred to the system by vacuum pumps. The refilled quantity per year is less than 100 litres.
During all handling steps, the employees are wearing chemicals protective suits, gloves and independent respiratory protective devices. Furthermore, there is an exhaust system of the building operating all the time. The exhausted air is charged through a gas wash filter system.
According to the measures taken, there is no exposure to humans and environment possible under normal operating conditions.

In the event of a ban, we would have to replace all of our heat transfer oil and dispose it.
	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)	
				
3549
2020/06/05	Indorama Ventures Química,
Company,
Spain	Authorisation requirements should not apply to HTF uses in closed, tight, non-pressurised/ low pressure systems requiring an operational temperature of between 300 to 345 degrees C, in industrial processes, as long as operators are trained with respect to Safety and Environmental guidelines published on the Material Safety Data Sheet and that all potential risks are assessed and deemed manageable.

	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

3553
2020/06/05	Si-Ka-Tec GmbH coating engineers,
Company,
Germany	From our point of view, a ban makes no sense because the use of the thermal oil is safety assured. There is no contamination of air, water, soil and workplace.	A.1.5.2. Authorisation is disproportionate and/or means a ban

A.1.5.3. Use specific considerations

A.1.5.4. Control of risks

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

3554
2020/06/05	Polynt SpA,
Company,
Italy	details are reported in thi attachment	Please see references to responses in section I	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3557
2020/06/05	Individual,
Italy	The therphenyle hydrogenated is already currently used in a closed heating system applying strictly controlled conditions. The use of therphenyl hydrogenated as heating fluid should only met restriction requirements in order to be used in closed systems.	A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

3566
2020/06/05	Covestro Deutschland AG,
Company,
Germany	see confidential attachment	Please see references to responses in section I	
		
Confidential attachment removed
		
3569
2020/06/05	Versalis S.p.A.,
Company,
Italy	The industrial use as HTF in closed system, should be exempted from the Authorisation, because there is not environmental risk in this condition.	C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation

C.2.01. Consider exempting the use as heat transfer fluid (HTF)

Confidential attachment removed
		
3574
2020/06/05	Rodun Benelux BV,
Company,
Netherlands	RODUN is aware that within the current legislative framework, there is no justification why the use of hydrogenated terphenyls should be exempt from authorisation. Currently the substance is not explicitly regulated by another EU-wide legislation which could have the same substitution impact that authorisation could have.
However, RODUN does not consider authorisation as an appropriate regulatory measure to manage the residual risk of the continued use of hydrogenated terphenyls as heat transfer fluid. From the description of the use and the non-availability of suitable alternatives, it is clear that several users of hydrogenated terphenyls as HTF will apply for authorisation. Installations with a high level of containment will be able to demonstrate low risk together with a sound socio economic case for the continued use and thus are likely to obtain an authorisation. Substitution of the current substance will always entail a risk for the safe and economic operation of the manufacturing site, and will as such always be a cost for substitution. On the other hand, the expected reduction of emission and exposure of such substitution of the use of HTP as HTF are negligible:
• The substance is used in a closed installation.
• Emissions from those installations are non-existent
• Emissions and exposure during filling are minimized
• The number of filling operations is minimized due to the quality of the HTF used
Furthermore, authorisation is considered to not be an appropriate or proportional tool for the regulation of the use of the substance due to:
• the substance is not used in a consumer context
• at no point during the use is there any exposure to the consumer
• authorisation forces the applicant to search for an alternative for which the introduction cost is significantly higher compared to any expected reduction in environmental exposure
In conclusion, in this case authorisation is not a good option to regulate the use of the substance and to manage the residual risk of the use of the substance.
Obviously, a restriction for this substance which would no longer allow the use of the HTP for professional and or industrial use as HTF, would have the same economic and safety implications as no authorisation. In that case the customers of RODUN would have no other option than to substitute the use of the HTP by the least non-suitable HTF or to completely replace their installation. Based on current knowledge, other HTF’s will result in inferior reliability of the installations, an increased operating hazard or have similar hazard profiles as HTP.
A different technology, using steam or electricity instead of a thermal oil is possible, but the use of high-pressure steam in professional environments is complex, requires more space and requires frequent inspections. For this level of process change it would not be possible to adapt the current installations, but rather would require a total replacement of the installations. This would mean that the customers of RODUN, often SME’s, would be faced with significant additional investments and would need to scrap installations in good working conditions. Furthermore, a significant additional investment would be required to implement the use of high-pressure steam in the relevant industrial processes.
Other regulatory measures such as the definition of standard best practices for the use of HTF, could achieve an equally high impact on the protection of the environment.
The mandatory compliance to such standards would also lead to reduction of the risk either by requiring upgrades to the installations or through substitution when better alternative are available. However, operators of installations, currently not entailing any risk, would benefit from their advanced technology and would not be subject to extra costs.
In that sense, the priority of listing hydrogenated terphenyls for the use as heat transfer fluid on Annex XIV is low, compared to other substances of very high concern. Such a listing would thus be effectively a waste of resources both for authorities and industry. Based on this reasoning, the use of HTP as HTF should be exempt from inclusion in Annex XIV or at least have a much lower priority compared to other substances.
	A.1.1.2. Legal basis for prioritisation

A.1.1.3. Prioritisation approach applied

A.1.5.1. Potential other regulatory actions

C.1.1. General principles for exemptions under Art. 58(2)

C.1.3. Aspects not justifying an exemption from authorisation