Comments on ECHA’s Draft 10th Recommendation for Benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 1,2-anhydride (trimellitic anhydride; TMA) (EC number: 209-008-0) 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 TMA (EC number: 209-008-0). 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_tma_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.
	
Public version

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	
3521
2020/06/04	Germany,
Member State	The German CA supports the prioritisation of TMA from the Candidate List for the inclusion in Annex XIV.
Grouping with cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (HHPA) and hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride (MHHPA), which both were already recommended for inclusion in Annex XIV (9th recommendation), strengthen the prioritisation. TMA shows structural similarity with HHPA and MHHPA and a potential for being used in the same type of applications.
	Thank you for your opinion.	
				
3541
2020/06/04	Polyester Monomers Consortium (PMC) on behalf of SIEF Members,
Industry or trade association,
United Kingdom	All identified uses for TMA are Monomer or Intermediate.
TMA is not a suitable alternative to HHPA and MHHPA.

In attachment the supporting documents:
- Polyester Monomers Consortium - TMA Consultation June 2020
- TMA Phase II a – Use mapping update - Public Consultation
- AJIT Update: Analysis of Alternatives (to MHHPA and HHPA)	A.1.1.3. Prioritisation approach applied
A.1.2.1. Volume in the scope of authorisation
A.1.4.1. Relevant further considerations
A.2.01. Request to consider a more precise volume within tonnage range
A.2.02. Request to not apply grouping approach as TMA is not considered a suitable alternative for (M)HHPA	
		3541_TMA public consultation.zip
          		
3545
2020/06/05	SIR INDUSTRIALE S.p.A.,
Company,
Italy	Looking at the background document, it is stated that “Based on structural similarities benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 1,2-anhydride (TMA) might be used as a substitute for the substances cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (HHPA) and hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride (MHHPA), which were already recommended for inclusion in Annex XIV. There are indications on the potential for using the substances in the same type of application (hardener for epoxy resins).” and that “[…] this indicates the potential interchangeability of TMA, HHPA and MHHPA in the use as epoxy resin hardener. There is no information available showing that substitution is technically not possible in this use.”.
Now, we observe that the interchangeability of TMA, HHPA and MHHPA in the use as epoxy resin hardener is questionable: apart from chemical structure considerations (aromatic vs. aliphatic anhydride), while TMA is a solid with a melting point of 167.2 °C, Cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride has a melting point of 31.9°C and Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride is a liquid with melting point of -61.5°C  (4-isomer).
This means that, if HHPA and MHHPA can be used as liquid, TMA can’t. If it is true that it can be used in mixture with the HHPA and MHHPA, it cannot fully replace them and used alone.
Therefore considering that:

1. for TMA the total score of judgment parameters for assigning priority is 1, by far lower than the one of the other substances under examination (ranging from 25 to 45) and also than the one of HHPA and MHHPA (18)
2. the decision for prioritization seems to rely on “further considerations” (grouping considerations due to the possible use as a substitute for HHPA and MHHPA) which, for what above, is a questionable argument

as the other substances assessed for this recommendation round have higher priority, we observe that recommendation of TMA, because of its low priority, could be postponed.
	A.1.4.1. Relevant further considerations
A.2.02. Request to not apply grouping approach as TMA is not considered a suitable alternative for (M)HHPA	

II - Transitional arrangements. Comments on the proposed dates
No comments received.

III - Comments on uses that should be exempted from authorisation, including reasons for that
No comments received.