1 of 25

Carbon footprint, LCA and sustainability of plating on plastics

1

2 of 25

Content

Context and regulatory topics
kg CO₂e/kg proprietary chemistry
kg CO₂e/m² finished parts
Summary and outlook

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

2

3 of 25

Context�Regulations

4 of 25

Sustainability is mainstream in our business

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

4

Reduce CO₂ emissions

“Carbon Neutral” or “Net-Zero” emissions are demanded

Provide long term sustainable solutions

Chrome-free etching (CFE)

Cr(VI)-free and non-PFAS decorative solutions

Regulations

Substances

Examples: Cr(VI), PFAS

Reduce resource consumption

Water, chemicals, waste. Increase the use of recycled raw materials (e.g., metals)

Reduce materials consumption

The primary goal of our sustainability concept is to protect the environment, end users, production workers in the industries we serve, as well as our staff.

To achieve this, we work intensively on developing green alternatives to the conventional processes and systems used in today’s plating industries.

Our target is not only to comply with chemical regulations but to raise the standards even higher with our self-imposed commitment to eliminate hazardous chemicals from our product range wherever possible.

Over the last decade, we have focused significantly on making our portfolio more environmentally friendly. We are committed to reducing the use of hazardous chemicals and are at the forefront of developing less harmful processes that go beyond industry standards.

MKS Atotech is fully committed and focused on sustainability with main pillars as replacing harmful substances, reducing consumption of chemicals, of water reducing waste. We also regenerate our chemistry with auxiliary equipment installed on line. And finally we have to take care of our global CO2 emission footprint.

5 of 25

REACH – Chromium trioxide CTACSub authorizations

Use 2 (FC) and Use 3 (DECO/POP)

Authorizations are still in pending status/on hold

No update expected in 2023

No ban in April 2024 or 2024 or September 2024 as seen in some press articles

Users can continue to use Cr(VI) under the terms of the respective applications

Note for Use 2: Monitoring still mandatory

Please refer to CTACSub Q&A

Press release on ECHA website 11 October 2023�All news - ECHA (europa.eu)
Timeline: best case scenario, ~ 3 years �→ Q4.2026
Until Cr(VI) is de-listed from Annex XIV and transitions to Annex XVII, the current regulatory framework under Annex XIV remains in place

Applications for authorization, review and adoption of decisions

Next update: Q4.2024�Publication of the restriction dossier

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

5

Current update

From authorization to restriction

6 of 25

Press release 11 October 2023 Source: All news - ECHA (europa.eu)

Background: high workload for both ECHA and EU Commission coming from the high number of applications for authorizations – beyond available resources / delays
Effect: transition of chromium (VI) substances from authorization process to restriction process
Timeline: in a best-case scenario, the Commission expects that a restriction could be adopted ~3 years from the receipt of the mandate by ECHA�Mandate sent by Commission published in the Registry of Intention on 11 October 2023
Scope: all uses of substances (chromium trioxide/chromic acid)
Target: find the most appropriate way to control the risk from these substances, while encouraging substitution

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

6

Source: All news - ECHA (europa.eu)

7 of 25

Overview of regulations

Chromium trioxide or Cr(VI)

Europe REACH Annex XIV�Sunset date since 2017, where the use is only allowed under authorization
CTACSub application: still pending

The use for decorative and plating on plastics (Use 3) can still continue under the terms and conditions of the application
No ban of Cr(VI) expected in 2024

News from Oct. 2023: transition from authorization to restriction

PFAS*

Europe REACH Annex XVII�Expected ban mid 2027 (restriction process ongoing)

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

7

*per* and poly*fluoroalkyl substances

8 of 25

More from the Q&A Source: DocsRoom - European Commission (europa.eu)

How will the restriction take into consideration already granted authorizations?

Careful analysis of existing authorization has been requested�In particular in regard to risk management measures (exposure/emissions data)
The restriction may include derogations with differentiated transition periods for different uses and availability of alternatives
However, these derogations may not necessarily reflect granted authorizations in terms of timing and/or scope�

Procedure:

Simultaneous de-listing from Annex XIV and amending Annex XVII to introduce a restriction
In between: Annex XV dossier (restriction dossier preparation)�

Management of authorizations and applications of authorizations in the transition period

The current regulatory framework (Annex XIV) will remain in place
Submission of applications, review of applications and adoption of decisions

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGMENT IN CASE C-144/21 (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VS. COMMISSION)�What is the judgement about:

The Court partially annulled the Commission Decision, granting an authorization for Uses 2 (FC) [as well as a part of 1, 4 and 5]
The effects of the annulled decision are maintained from one year (monitoring, controlling)

Main findings:

The uses need to described with a level of granularity that allows a meaningful analysis of alternatives
Justify the need for functionality/performance: burden of proof
Exposure data to be representative and based on adequate measurements, especially in applications covering multiple sites

Next step:

New draft decision to be prepared for Uses 1, 2, 4 and 5

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

8

9 of 25

Chrome, Cr(VI), chromium trioxide, trivalent chromium?

Elemental solid metal, not harmful to human health

Alternative non-harmful way to plate chrome

Strong oxidizer and CMR�Target of EU-Regulations

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

9

Metallic chrome (Cr⁰)

Trivalent chromium (Cr^III)

Hexavalent chromium (Cr^VI)

Chrome plating: process of electroplating chrome metal onto a prepared surface from a chromium containing solution

10 of 25

Market and demands

Either via:

OEM requests: kg CO₂e/m² finished parts
Tiers: same as above

Supply chain/our customers:�kg CO₂e/kg specialty products

Regulations/laws/restrictions & responsibility acts
Different approaches �No harmonization of carbon footprint methodology or standards for automotive
Examples:

Start with top consumers, such as: steel, aluminium, polymers, electronics, tyres, glass�(battery for EV separated topic)
Multi-suppliers’ involvement

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

10

OEM set targets�Carbon neutrality

Apple 2030�Intel 2040
Stellantis 2038�Renault 2040 EU, WW 2050�VW 2050�Mercedes-Benz 2039�Volvo Cars: 2040

Ford 2050�Toyota 2030/50�Hyundai 2045�GM 2040

�

Supply chain �impact

MKS Atotech�impact

11 of 25

GHG Scope Definition

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

11

12 of 25

Toyota

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

12

13 of 25

Project context and overview | Introduction

Supply chain & OEMs

Objective: �kg CO₂e/m² finished part

This is what the supply chain needs to do to fulfill the OEMs’ requests
Manufacturing of a plated plastic part, from “cradle-to-gate”, including the plating line, the products & raw materials, effluents, etc.

MKS Customers

Objective: �kg CO₂e/kg specialty product

This is what the supply chain requires from chemical suppliers
From “cradle-to-gate”, including raw material, transport, manufacturing at Atotech facilities
Pilot project in Europe�

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

13

14 of 25

Project context and overview | Introduction

Parts with “chrome-like appearance” for external application

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

14

Plastic pretreatment

Decorative plating�

Chrome

Copper

Nickel

Process steps for a chrome plated part:

Chrome:�Past: Cr(VI) �Now: trivalent chromium

Etching: �Past: chromosulfuric acid�Now: chrome-free etching

Project scope: Life cycle potential analysis (hot spot analysis) according to ISO Standards 14040 and 14044, carried out with a neutral project partner (Third Party Evaluation by LCS https://www.lcslcs.de/home.html)

15 of 25

kg CO₂e/kg

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

15

16 of 25

kg CO₂e/kg product | Methodology

Basis for data:

Products composition MKS Atotech
Production process information MKS Atotech
Raw material components:

Consultant own database and software databases
Literature, patents, other public data
Industrial production processes information on components
Modeling when/if necessary – for specialty chemicals not available in databases

Energy and data source: EU27 boundary conditions
Including packaging

Eco-profiles calculated in accordance to ISO standards 14040 series
Information available on request

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

16

Resource extraction

Material supply

Energy supply

Chemistry production

Packaging / Delivery

Use at our customers

Gate-to-gate

Cradle-to-gate

We are working with our consultant on a cradle to gate calculation from raw material extraction to the delivery product to the gate of our customer.

Taking care of material and energy supply .

Then our main job is chemistry production, for that we did a mean value of two of our European plants both in Germany and Slovenia. Then packaging and delivery to the gate of our customer.

Our consultant have a quite large database and access to data from large chemical suppliers.

Our Eco-profile is calculated in accordance with ISO 14 040 standards.

We did it end of March this year so we consider that these values can be use for a maximum of 3-5 years.

If a big change in the life cycle analysis occurred like changing energy source then we have to recalculate our Eco-profiles.

C'est un étiquetage environnemental. Un écoprofil est élaboré volontairement par un industriel, selon une approche multi-critère et multi-étape faisant appel à la méthodologie de l'analyse du cycle de vie. C'est la ''photographie à l'instant t'' des impacts environnementaux du produit.

17 of 25

Methodology – calculation procedure

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

17

Example of modeling of specialty chemicals, with identification of complete supply chain and intermediate steps:

Calculation of important inputs and outputs for each step - for modeling of materials:

Images: courtesy of LCS https://www.lcslcs.de/home.html

After you did this for all compounds you need you can go for calculation.

If you look at every process to manufacture each intermediary and for each and every single process, you need to look at which are the precursor of the raw materials.

You need to look at the energy supply.

You need to look at all the emissions you have.

Your main product which at the end either is the finished product or is another intermediate and then the byproduct and so on, including at the end the Waste exhaust energy,

So with all inputs like this we will be able to do calculation taking into account recycling and at the end having our kg CO2 for main and by products.

you don't take into account the footprint of nether the build up or the demolition of the operation, equipment and infrastructure.

This is actually not included because of the minor relevancy.

18 of 25

kg CO₂e/m²

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

18

19 of 25

kg CO₂e/m² part | Methodology

Cr6 vs Cr6-free vs paint vs PVD – “chrome-like appearance”

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

19

Electroplating

Chemistry: including raw materials

Chemistry consumption including lifetime
Metals: mostly “virgin” except Cu
Ni, Pd, Cr recycling will have to be added at a later stage

Virtual plating line:

Cycle time based
Energy, rectifiers, rack movement, filters, cooling/heating, exhaust, air/water supply
Waste and waste water (excluding transport)

Parts and production data

Caps
Reject rate, rack occupancy and throughput
Average thickness for external application

Paint: chosen as a 3 layers system

Primer: water based
Base: water based
Topcoat: solvent based

PVD: primer / PVD / topcoat

Primer: water based
PVD
Topcoat: solvent based

State-of-the-art “virtual” plants based in EU
Curing gas oven
Assumptions on reject rate, rack occupancy, formulations, production methods, overspray, etc. based on literature and expert consultant knowledge

Competitive technologies

Now we go for comparison between Chrome plating / PVD / Painting

based on a chrome like appearance as I explained in the begining of my presentation

We asked the consultant to also look at hotspots and to compare different technologies.

So to be able to do a comparison, basically what the consultant has done is build virtual plants.

The consultant decided to be in a “state of art “virtual plant based in Europe

the consultant had the experience of all of these different technologies because they have done life cycle analysis for other companies, we have asked them to actually do this kind of study for us to understand where different technologies are standing.

we use the metals as virgin, so coming from the mining supply except for the copper the copper is actually used as a recycled source

We taking care of each parameter as reject rate, rack occupancy

So it is the reason one we have for paint primer and base as water base with only the top-coat in a solvent based process

For PVD primer is a water based too

Then the PVD coating itself

And the topcoat as solvent based

Assumptions on reject rate rack occupancy , process are coming from consultant and from literature

20 of 25

Comparison of main contributors

Energy vs materials

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

20

Comparison of contributors

Energy Mix Electricity & Gas

Hotspots:

Paint/PVD: gas/ovens
Electroplating: rectifiers

Materials

Hotspots:

Paint/PVD: organics
Electroplating: metals

VOC to CO₂

Additional contribution for paint/PVD

Energy: contribution to carbon footprint is highest for all technologies, however, electroplating shows in short term the highest potential for reduction with implementation of renewable resources�

Materials: electroplating shows a high potential for reduction with implementation of recycled materials (metals) in the supply chain

�Cr(VI)-free and non-PFAS solutions equivalent/slightly lower than Cr(VI), depending on process

Data: EU-27 energy mix, reference parts average, electroplating* average Cr6/Cr6-free

CO₂ Footprint

The difference between electroplating and paint and PVD is a really the difference it means, for example, electroplating paint.

It's something about 25% less and for PVD could be 10% less.

So the comment of the consultant was that I give you what I consider best case scenario, state of the art best plant with all the best possible in terms of installation chemistry and everything for paint as well as PVD.

And This is why they described it as state of the art.

VOC coming from top coat

the contribution to the footprint, the contribution from the energy part is highest than the materials themselves.

If we look at electroplating, we have in short term high potential for reduction with implementation of renewable resources and this is a common saying that at the end paint and PVD still require gas ovens.

21 of 25

With molding and ABS resin

Injection molding and plastics:

MKS CONFIDENTIAL | | FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

21

Energy

Materials

VOC to CO₂

Impact of injection molding and resin materials (ABS)�*Approximation: assumed comparable for all technologies

Molding and resin

22 of 25

Deep dive 1 – Electroplating energy

Energy hotspots – analysis made on reference part

Main contributors: rectifiers (energy + cooling)
Processes heating/cooling: small contribution

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

22

*of the total energy contribution GWP CO₂e

Plastic pretreatment

Decorative plating�

Chrome

Copper

Nickel

Plastic

POP total: ~10%

Cu, Ni, Cr: ~90%

Contribution of each process step to the total energy footprint:

23 of 25

Deep dive 2 – Electroplating materials

Material hotspots – analysis made on reference part

POP: minor impact from proprietaries, major impact from etching & metals/salts
DECO: minor impact from the proprietary chemistry, most of the contribution is from the metals/salts�Quantitative results will be largely impacted by the metal thicknesses

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

23

Plastic pretreatment

Decorative plating�

Chrome

Copper

Nickel

Plastic

~20-25%*

Cu, Ni, Cr: ~75-80%*

*of the total chemistry contribution GWP CO₂e

Contribution of each process step to the total material footprint:

>90% comes from the Cu/Ni/Cr metals/salts

I have the same slides for the materials for, for the plastic here we have the etching itself, which is between 15 and and 20% the activator and the electroless nickel are contribution about 5%.

The copper is below 10% and here the reason why copper is 10 and nickel is 50 is because copper carbon footprint has been taken from a recycled source and everything else is actually from a mining source.

So the detail is about 50%, the Chrome is below 20% and if we look at the end copper, nickel, Chrome but also the electroless nickel and the activator more than 90% of the carbon footprints is actually not coming from the proprietaries, but from the metals alone.

In the case of the copper and the nickel, the soluble anodes.

And what it means as well is since that source of nickel here is a mined nickel.

Of course, as soon as you go to recycled nickel then you will get that carbon footprint tremendously.

24 of 25

Summary

We have kg CO₂e/kg data for many products in DECO/POP (first focus: Europe)

Available data will be provided on request with NDA

Renewable energy and recycled materials are keys to reduce the carbon footprint of our products (kg CO₂e/kg) and of the manufactured parts (kg CO₂e/m²)
Comparison of plating vs paint vs PVD: preliminary comparison on virtual lines
End-of-life: grave concept

Recycling of plated plastics components after end-of-life

Chromium trioxide-free and non-PFAS solutions deliver a comparable or slightly lower carbon footprint than their Cr(VI)-containing predecessors

Chrome-free etching as well as trivalent chromium are in production for the automotive industry at multiple locations today

MKS CONFIDENTIAL

24

So at the end this is your summary.

Now we have the carbon footprint data for many products in DECO POP, with the first focus in Europe.

We have data available which is provided on request with non disclosure agreement.

We have done that many, many times already.

Renewable energy and recycled materials are important keys to reduce the carbon footprints of our products, as well as the manufacturer parts, and we have done.

We have done a comparison of plating versus paint to versus PVD, which is a preliminary basic combination which is showing that electroplating has the lowest carbon footprint

plated plastic components can be recycled.

There is a value chain for all the metals.

Instead of just being a stripped that paint layer, which you can do nothing with it, but besides burning it, there is actually a value chain for the metal layer, and then at the end the plastics that you have recycled.

25 of 25

Thank you for your attention