Description of socio-economic impacts

• Author: Clemm, Christan; Löw, Clara; Baron, Yifaat; Moch, Katja; Möller, Martin; Köhler, Andreas R; Gensch, Carl-Otto; Deubzer, Otmar
• Pages: 63-67

RoHS Annex II Dossier, final

Diantimony trioxide (flame retardant)

63

9 DESCRIPTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Approach and assumptions

The scope of this assessment requires a review of possible socio-economic impacts related to a

scenario in which antimony trioxide were to be added to the list of restricted substances specified in

Annex II of RoHS 2. This would restrict the presence of ATO in EEE to be placed on the market in

the future.

ATO is commonly used as a synergist together with halogenated flame retardants with the aim of

enhancing flame retardant properties. An added value of the use of ATO in these cases is explained

to be that lower quantities of the applied flame retardant can be used. In the case of a restriction, a

number of substitution routes could be chosen, depending on the component in which ATO is being

substituted and the level of required flame retardancy:

• Substitution of ATO with alternative synergists on the substance level;

• Phase-out of ATO at the cost of an increase in the amount of used flame retardant;

• Substitution through replacement of the applied flame retardant (elimination);

In this respect it is noted that some EEE will already be compliant with the new restriction, seeing

that some OEMs already specify ATO as a restricted substance in components and materials

purchased from the supply chain (see section 8.1.1) and have already completed the phase-out of

ATO.

The impacts related to the phase-out of ATO depend on the substitution route as well as on the

substitutes chosen. However, impacts related to ATO in use and waste management would be

expected to decline (depending on the approval of possible temporary exemptions).

Impact on chemicals industry

Impacts on this industry depend on the route (see section 8.1) chosen:

• In the case of a substance substitution a parallel increase in sales of other synergists would be

expected or of alternatives BFR free polymers, where the use of BFR-ATO is not required. Seeing

that ATO enables a reduction in the amount of BFRs added to polymers, a restriction of ATO

would entail a need to develop and test new flame retarded polymer systems. This is expected to

take several years and may also necessitate considerable investments in material research.

• Should manufacturers of EEE decide to omit the use of ATO as a synergist, it is understood that

larger quantities of BFRs would be necessary to establish the same levels of retardancy,

increasing sales of such substances.

• Elimination of the need for ATO through the replacement of the BFR with other flame retardants

shall result in an additional increase in sales of alternative flame retardants and a decrease in BFR

sales. It is noted that halogenated flame retardants and non-halogenated flame retardants are not

necessarily manufactured by the same producers and that this type of phase-out could lead to a

shift of business between various manufacturers. In relation to BFRs it is also noted that there are

only a few global locations where bromine is sourced. For example, both in Jordan and Israel,

bromine is sourced from the Dead Sea. In both countries, these chemical industries provide a

significant source of income and employment, while also having an impact on the surrounding