Organo tin compound

Subject: European Commission proposal for a Decision to restrict the marketing and use of certain organostannic compounds

Following the proposal of the 19 June we were concerned to hear at the last meeting on 2 July that the content of the proposal might be changed to a proposal restricting DBT for applications other than those that have been found problematic and were thus listed in article (6) of the 19 June proposal.

The fact that DBT was reclassified as CMR 2 should not lead to a total ban in all consumer applications but rather it means that the risks in different applications need to be adequately controlled.  Alternatively, if the goal is a reduction of the consumers’ daily intake of tin organic compounds as a whole, it seems unjustified to target all applications, especially as RTV-1 sealants contribute, in worst-case assumptions, to only 0.4 % of the daily intake. Consequently, FEICA would like to point out that it does not make sense to restrict RTV-1 sealants, either from the risk point of view, or from the point of view of the contribution to the daily intake.

There are a large number of different applications for RTV-1 sealants, including sealing sanitary ware in the bathroom, joint sealing around windows and construction glazing, and gap filling on building facades. Although some of them are not typical consumer applications, in many member states professionals buy the RTV-1 sealants in the consumer hardware stores. The long term durability and quality of these products is vital, as these sealants are high performance products, designed to last many years. For example a sealant for a building facade will stay put for up to 30 years, its resistance to exposure to water and sunlight is essential. A bathroom sealant will likewise stay in situ for many years. There are combinations of aesthetic and technical features that make these sealants unique, such as the fact that they are available in all colours, and they are easy to apply. They are resistant to abrasion and withstand even harsh cleaning agents. Their fast skin formation keeps dust from settling into the sealant surface and they have an outstanding mould growth resistance.

DBT is used as catalyst and influences the shelf life, mechanical performance and aging characteristics of the sealants. A phase-out of DBT in RTV-1 sealants would create substantial difficulties for sealant manufacturers especially SMEs that make up a large part of our sector.

Alternative catalysts including DOT catalysts for RTV-1 sealant applications are already being researched. However, it is still unsure if an alternative system can be found for all applications. Furthermore, alternative products need many years to be proved and developed. A number of tests need to be carried out in-house to see if alternative products have the same or improved technical performance and aesthetic qualities. Performance tests related to ageing, UV and water resistance, will take several years even with the use of accelerated test methods. Once the required characteristics are met, the product needs to be validated by an external laboratory according to public standards like ISO11600 or SNJF (for details of which steps are needed to prepare a substitution of DBT with DOT, please consult the CES position letter from 19 November 2007, Annex II). These procedures cost a lot of time and money that place most – especially the SMEs – at a considerable disadvantage.

Since catalysts such as DBT are vital for the formulation of RTV-1 sealants it is necessary for formulators to be able to use a larger variety of them. Restricting or phasing-out the use of a key substance such as DBT in RTV-1 sealants would result in a significant reduction in the ability to meet market needs. Non-functional products with an inferior life span will cost time and money for all parties involved as they will have to be replaced more frequently. There is also the environmental aspect to take into account as more sealants would be used over an equal amount of time. Moreover, the sealants targeted are sealants that have, in many cases, replaced solvent based products.

For all of the above reasons, we believe that only problematic applications should be restricted as agreed in the original proposal dated 19 June. However, if the Commission has already taken the decision to extend the ban in the use of DBT to RTV-1 sealants, FEICA would strongly support a phase-out timeframe of 6 years to allow the industry, including SMEs to work on alternatives and satisfactorily evaluate the tests needed.

Finally we would like to advise the Commission that RTV- sealants are also marketed as adhesives (sealants and adhesives are very difficult and sometimes impossible to distinguish from each other). Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we would like to point out that in case of general restrictions of the marketing and use of DBT, RTV-1 sealants and adhesives should be exempt (or allowed a longer phase out period).

July 23^rd 2008