SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (SEA) PUBLIC VERSION

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (SEA)

PUBLIC VERSION

Legal name of applicant(s): SAES Getters S.p.A.

Submitted by: SAES Getters S.p.A.

Substance:

Use title 1:

Potassium Chromate, EC 232-140-5, CAS 7789-00-6

Sodium Chromate, EC 231-889-5, CAS 7775-11-3

Use of Sodium and Potassium chromate in the

fabrication of alkali metal dispensers for production of

photocathodes

Use title 2: Use of alkali metal dispensers containing sodium and

potassium chromate for production of photocatodes

Use number: 1 & 2

EC number: CAS number

231-889-3 SODIUM CHROMATE 7775-11-3

232-140-5 POTASSIUM CHROMATE 7789-00-6

Use number: 1&2 Socio-Economic Analysis

2

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 6

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 The context ........................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 The role of Potassium or Sodium chromate in the AMD ..................................................... 11

1.3 Identification of alternatives to Potassium or Sodium Chromate ........................................ 12

1.4 Non-use scenario. ................................................................................................................. 12

1.5 Continued use scenario ........................................................................................................ 14

2. AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 15

2.1. Aim .......................................................................................................................................... 15

2.2. Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 16

3. APPLIED FOR “USE” SCENARIO .............................................................................................. 18

3.1. Analysis of substance function ................................................................................................ 18

3.1.1 Concerned equipment and application ........................................................................ 20

3.2. Market and business trends including the use of the substance .............................................. 25

3.2.1 Related Market ............................................................................................................ 28

3.2.2. Annual tonnage .......................................................................................................... 28

3.3. Remaining risk of the “applied for use” scenario .................................................................... 28

3.4. Human health and environmental impacts of the applied for use scenario ............................. 29

3.4.1 Risk assessment associated to the exposure to Cr-VI ........................................... 29

3.4.1.1 Results of the environmental monitoring in Avezzano Plant – AMD Unit ............. 29

3.4.1.2 Calculation of carcinogenic incremental risk ........................................................... 31

3.4.2. Number of people exposed ........................................................................................ 31

3.5. Monetised damage of human health and environmental impacts ........................................... 31





3

3.5.1 Mortality and Morbidity.............................................................................................. 31

3.5.2 Environment and man-via-environment impacts and monetised damage of the “applied for use” scenario ..................................................................................... 35

4 SELECTION OF THE “NON-USE” SCENARIO ........................................................................ 35

4.1. Efforts made to identify alternatives ....................................................................................... 35

4.1.1. Research and development ......................................................................................... 35

4.1.2. Data searches ............................................................................................................. 35

4.2. Identification of known alternatives ........................................................................................ 37

4.3. Assessment of shortlisted alternatives ..................................................................................... 42

4.3.1. Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................... 42

4.3.1.1. Substance ID, properties, and availability ...................................................... 42

4.3.1.2. Technical feasibility of Alternative 1 ............................................................. 43

4.3.1.3. Economic feasibility and economic impacts of Alternative 1 ........................ 45

4.3.1.4. Availability of Alternative 1........................................................................... 46

4.3.1.5. Reduction of overall risk due to transition to the Alternative 1 ..................... 46

4.3.1.6. Conclusions on Alternative 1 ......................................................................... 46

4.4. The most likely non-use scenario ............................................................................................ 47

5 IMPACTS OF NOT GRANTING AUTHORISATION ................................................................ 47

5.1 Identification of key impacts .................................................................................................... 47

5.2 Questionnaire survey ................................................................................................................ 48

5.3 Economic impacts .................................................................................................................... 49

5.2. Human Health or Environmental Impact ................................................................................ 54

5.3. Social impacts ......................................................................................................................... 54

5.4. Wider economic impacts ......................................................................................................... 56

5.6. Uncertainty analysis ................................................................................................................ 56





4

6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 59

6.1. Comparison of the benefits and risk ........................................................................................ 59

6.2. Information for the length of the review period ...................................................................... 61

6.3. Substitution efforts committed by the applicant if an authorisation is granted ....................... 61

TABLES

Table 1 Scope of the socio-economic analysis ...................................................................................... 18

Table 2 Sales AMD-Country ................................................................................................................. 28

Table 3 AMD turnover associated to AMD for selected SAES's customers ( ). Source: SAES ................................................................................................................... 28

Table 4 years of Life Lost (YLL) for Use 1 ........................................................................................... 33

Table 5 YLD and intermediate data ....................................................................................................... 34

Table 6 Synthesis of YLLs, YLDs and monetised damage of mortality and morbidity related to the excess cancer risk associated with lung cancer, Use 1 ................................................................... 35

Table 7 Summary of test results concerning alternative substances ...................................................... 37

Table 8 Critical issues of molybdate salts .............................................................................................. 37

Table 9 What would happen if the authorisation is not granted ............................................................ 41

Table 10 Costs of chromate salts and molybdate salts (€/Kg). Source: SAES ...................................... 45

Table 11 Multi-steps process ................................................................................................................. 46

Table 12 Job losses ................................................................................................................................ 55

Table 13 Parameters used fort the monetised impact on human health, fort the calculation of the financial and social impacts ........................................................................................................... 59

Table 14 Comparison of impacts for the applied for Use and the Non-use scenario ............................. 61

FIGURES

Figure 1 The SAES Getters S.p.A. and its branches and member companies ....................................... 10

Figure 2 Alkali Metal Dispenser – AMD ............................................................................................... 19





5

Figure 3 Examples of some devices made with the inclusion of AMD ................................................. 22

Figure 4 Photomultiplier ........................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 5 Examples of image sensors...................................................................................................... 25

Figure 6 Comparison between European and non-European market ..................................................... 26

Figure 7 SAES Sales regions ................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 8 Synthesis of the impact categories of the "applied for use" scenario ...................................... 29

Figure 9 Green AMD manufacturing flow chart.................................................................................... 43

Figure 10 Impacts of Non-use scenario ................................................................................................. 48

Figure 11 Consequences on the associated market ................................................................................ 53

CHARTS

Chart 1 Application fields of the AMD produced by SAES .................................................................. 22

Chart 2 Comparison between potassium chromate and potassium molybdate (reaction of time) ......... 44

Chart 3 Comparison between sodium chromate and sodium molybdate ............................................... 45





6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AfA Application for Authorization

AMD Alkali metal Dispenser

ATEX Atmosphèeres Explosibles (199/92/EG & 94/9/EG)

AoA Analysis of Alternatives

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

CLP Classification, Labelling and Packaging

CMR Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Toxic to Reproduction

CSR Chemical Safety Report

DSD Dangerous Substance Directive 67/548/EEC

DU Downstream User

EC European Commission

ECHA European Chemicals Agency

EEA European Economic Area

ES Exposure Scenario

ESDS Extended Safety Data Sheet

ERC Environmental Release Category

EU European Union

GC-MS Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrum

LAD Latest Application Date

LE Legal Entity

LoA Letter of Access

LR Lead Registrant





7

MOS Margin of Safety

OC Operational Condition

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PPM Parts Per Million

PV Present Value

R&D Research and Development

RAC Risk Assessment Committee

RCR Risk Characterisation Ratios

REACH Restriction Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals

RMM Risk Management Measure

RPE Respiratory protective Equipment

SCOEL Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits

SEA Socio-Economic Analysis

SVHC Substance of Very High Concern

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation

WTP Willingness To Pay





9

1. SUMMARY This socio-economic analysis aims at assessing the comparative socio-economic impact of

the use and non-use scenarios for the potassium and sodium chromate which, mixed with

reducing substances and metallic alloys, is inserted in a dispenser designed to work as

photosensitizer agent of the surface of electronic equipment.

The applicant, SAES Getters S.p.A. (hereinafter SAES) is a member of the SAES group,

while previous applicant company was SAES Advanced Technologies S.p.A1. SAES is well

renowned as manufacturer of articles and applications, including the dispenser based on

sodium and potassium chromates, used for the manufacturing of photocathodes for the

activation of photosensitive surfaces, which are successfully used in several sectors including

home automation, automotive, army, aerospace, telecommunication.

Potassium Chromate and Sodium Chromate are listed under Annex XIV of the REACh

regulation. As these are carcinogenic substances, for which a threshold “no-risk” value

cannot be identified, a socio-economic assessment is needed to verify whether an

authorisation can be granted on the basis of socio-economic consideration. In the present

case, the socio-economic impact associated with the residual risk deriving from the use of a

small amount of the two substances resulted negligible either in absolute values or when

compared with the large socio-economic impact associated to the non-use scenario in case the

authorisation is not granted.

For this reason, based on the conclusions of the analysis discussed in this report, SAES

hereby submit its request for the authorization of using Potassium Chromate for a 7 years

period. This is the minimum timeframe needed for the completion of research and

1 On November 15, 2016 the official Merger Act was stipulated: effective as the accounting date of December 31, 2016, the company SAES Advanced Technologies S.p.A., has been merged by incorporation in the parent company SAES Getters S.p.A., Therefore, SAES Getters S.p.A. has taken over seamlessly in all contracts and commercial relationships, both active and passive, which refer to SAES Advanced Technologies S.p.A. Since the activity under the new Company only started few weeks before the application submission, some documents reported in the dossier indicates “SAES Advanced Technologies S.p.A” as a reference company





10

development activities aimed at identifying, testing and placing on the market a suitable

chromate-free alternative to the substance.

1.1 The context SAES Getters S.p.A. is since 70 years provider of technologies based on the “getter”2

technology, with the key mission to promote and sustain technological innovation. Although

SAES Getters group is a multinational group with branches located worldwide, the Alkaline

Metal Dispensers (AMD) based on the two substances for which an authorisation is sought

are designed and manufactured since over than 30 years by SAES Advanced Technology

S.p.A., member company of the SAES Getters group.

Figure 1 The SAES Getters S.p.A. and its branches and member companies

In term of specific turnover, the market of AMD devices may be considered small: the yearly

turnover is in the order of euro, and less than workers are involved in the 2 A getter is widely defined as a deposit of reactive material that is placed inside a vacuum system.





11

manufacturing and marketing of this device. However, this market is for many reasons

strategic:

• The downstream direct customers, manufacturing photocathodes based on the AMD

technologies, represent an important “associated market” which will be endangered in

case SAES is not anymore capable to provide, among other services and equipment,

the AMD devices;

• Beside the direct impact on SAES, the impact deriving from the non-availability of

the AMD devices on the downstream industry may be very large for the EU market,

as AMD is a key component for the manufacturing of photosensitive surfaces of

photocathodes having a very large number of application in strategic sectors like

medical equipment, military equipment, communication, etc. The socio-economic

impact on these downstream industries is orders of magnitude larger than the impact

directly exerted on SAES.

1.2 The role of Potassium or Sodium chromate in the AMD In short, the manufacturing of AMD starts with small metallic strips where a subtle layer of

Potassium or Sodium chromate are deposited, together with metallic alloys used as reducing

agents (usually zirconium-aluminium). Through special machinery, these strips are

subsequently closed to form a metallic wire with a longitudinal, micrometric opening. Being

known to SAES the hazard features of chromate substances, the manufacturing of AMD

occurs basically in enclosed systems with very limited release in the workplace, and with the

adoption of strict risk management measures to prevent exposure of workers.

The AMD are usually encapsulated in vacuum systems (the photocathodes) with the main

role to provide a source of alkaline metal for the manufacturing of photo-sensitive surfaces.

In general, it has to be recalled that the getter technologies operate under vacuum in

encapsulated devices, therefore no release or chromate or of alkaline metals is expected in

normal condition from the photocathodes. The amount of chromate substances needed to

manufacture each photocathode is in the order of few milligrams, no chromate is normally

present in finished photocathodes, but only in the photocathode manufacturing line.





12

The role of Potassium or Sodium Chromate is to release Alkaline Metals (potassium or

sodium) at a very specific rate and under very specific condition of vacuum and temperature,

as explained with more detail in this document and in the CSR.

Alkaline metals generated by the dispenser are very reactive. The alkali metal release

reaction, which occurs under vacuum and at high temperature (usually 500-800 )°C), is

extremely fast. The role of the photocathodes is to convert the incident light into a current of

electrons, by means of photoelectric effect (or photoemission).

1.3 Identification of alternatives to Potassium or Sodium Chromate In the last ten years, the Research and Development sector of SAES undertook a number of

tests and researches aimed at identifying a suitable alternative to chromates substance. The

key requirement for these alternative substances is their capability to release alkaline metals

at the same rate of chromate substances, when exposed to the same conditions of temperature

and vacuum. The researches focused on the use of other salts like vanadate, molybdate,

tungstate, silicate and titanate salts.

Currently, only molybdate salts seems approaching the properties of the chromate salts.

However, the release profile of molybdate salts cannot yet ensure the same quality of the final

photo-sensitized surfaces, therefore their application is still limited to a restricted number of

products not requiring very high performance.

Based on the above, SAES is currently focusing on the development of a molybdate-based

“green” AMD, to be placed on the market after a test period which has to involve also the

production and testing of specific photocathodes by their main first-level customers.

1.4 Non-use scenario. As explained in detail in this document, based on the answers received from the questionnaire

surveys which involved SAES and some of the most important customers, the AMD based on

Potassium or Sodium chromate are still considered an indispensable device for the

manufacturing of most properly performant AMD. The non-use scenario could have a

number of possible sub-scenarios:





13

• One of the possible sub-scenarios could be the resettlement of the manufacturing

of the AMD outside Europe. This sub-scenario is considered unlikely as SAES,

when asked about this possibility, declared that this is not in compliance with their

strategy, and that in any case that would expose SAES to the uncertainties related

to the unknown permitting procedure in the hosting country (for details see

Appendix 6). The resettlement, beside its direct socio-economic and occupational

impact, would result in the temporary interruption of the production of the AMD

for the time needed for the permitting and setting of a new manufacturing outside

EU. The interruption of the AMD production could negatively affect the first level

AMD customers, and would cause a temporary shortage in the availability of

photocathodes and photo-sensitized surfaces.

• Another possible, more probable sub-scenario could be the interruption of the

manufacturing of the AMD using potassium or sodium chromates, until a new

“chromate-free” AMD would be available. That would require longer time than

resettling the manufacturing of AMD, as there would be the need to redesign not

only the AMD itself, but also the downstream products and processes including

the photocathodes and all the electronic equipment relying on it and on photo-

sensitized surfaces. The impact associated to this situation would be obviously

greater than the impact associated to the resettlement of the production.

The socio-economic impact associated to the non-use scenario may be summarized as

following:

In case of interruption until the development of a “chromate-free” AMD:

• Loss of job amounting to jobs directly associated to the production of AMD, and to

jobs among the first level key SAES customer, and to to jobs in the

market of devices based on photo-sensitized surfaces;

• The loss of an amount of financial turnover in the EU totalling about 0,5 M ( )

€, directly to the sales of the AMD, to around 1-3 million ( ) € deriving

from the loss of services related to the AMD sales, up to 200 million

€ associated to the 2 of the Tier 1 SAES customers based in Europe, up to





14

300 million € related to the wider market of electronic

devices relying on the photo-sensitized surfaces

• Socio-economic consequences related to the reduced availability of military

equipment based on the photocathodes manufactured with AMD or on photo-

sensitized surfaces.

• Socio-economic consequences related to the reduced availability of medical

equipment including imaging devices relying on the photocathodes manufactured

with AMD or on photo-sensitized surfaces.

The socio-economic impact associated to the “resettlement scenario” has been quantified

assuming an impact on the first and second level market equivalent to the interruption of the

AMD lasting for 1 years, and the socio-economic impact associated to the permanent closure

of the SAES AMD department in Europe. Incidentally, one of the consequences of the

“resettlement scenario” would be the interruption of research and development activities

related to the “chromate-free” AMD, to be carried out in Europe, as these would be not

anymore strategic for the continuation of the business.

1.5 Continued use scenario In case the authorisation for the use of potassium chromate and sodium chromate would be

granted for the requested timespan, the following socio-economic impacts have been

calculated:

• socio-economic impact associated to the health risk for the workers directly dealing

with the manufacturing of the AMD: the incremental risk of developing a

carcinogenic pathology is in the order of 1.22×10-4 (or one case over around

workers exposed for the whole duration of their life). Considering that workers are

directly exposed, the number of expected casualties is in the order of (7.32×10-4).

Translated into monetary impact, that would result in less than 700€.

• The socio-economic impact associated to the health risk for the workers assembling

photocathodes containing the AMD is considered negligible.

• There are no other negative impacts associated to the continuation of the use of AMD

for the time required for the development and placing on the market of the “chromate-





15

free” AMD. Incidentally, in case the authorisation would be granted, the

development of a “chromate-free” AMD would become strategic and SAES would

unavoidably place a significant effort in term of knowledge and financial resources to

ensure that this goal is achieved within the set deadline.

2. AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

2.1. Aim SAES Getters S.p.A. is applying for the authorisation for the use of Potassium Chromate (EC

No 232-140-5, CAS No 7789-00-6, UPAC Name dipotassium chromate), and Sodium

Chromate (EC 232-140-5 and CAS 7789-00) for a 7 years period. These substances are use as

source of alkaline metals in Alkaline Medal Dispenser devices, which have the function to

prepare photo-sensitive surfaces in electronic applications.

Potassium and Sodium chromates are both identified as substances meeting the criteria of

Article 57 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACh) due to their classification

as carcinogens (category 21) and mutagens (category 21) and according to Article 57 of

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACh), they are included in Annex XIV.

Furthermore, these substances are listed in Annex VI, part 3, Table 3.2 (the list of harmonised

classification and labelling of hazardous substances from Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC2)

of Regulation (EC) No 1272/20083 as carcinogen category 24, R49 and as mutagen category

25, R46 (May cause heritable genetic damage). This classification of potassium chromate in

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 shows that the substance meets the criteria for classification

as carcinogen and mutagen in accordance with Article 57 (a) and Article 57 (b) of REACh.

As for these substances, it is not possible to determine a threshold in accordance with Section

6.4 of Annex I. of the REACh regulation, the authorisation cannot be granted on the basis of

demonstration that the risk is adequately controlled. In compliance with article 60, Paragraph

4 of the REACh regulation, the purpose of this Socio-Economic Analysis is therefore to bring

information concerning:





16

• the risk posed by the uses of the substance, including the appropriateness and

effectiveness of the risk management measures proposed;

• the socio-economic benefits arising from its use and the socio-economic implications

of a refusal to authorise as demonstrated by the applicant or other interested parties;

• the analysis of the existing alternatives;

• available information on the risks to human health or the environment of any

alternative substances or technologies.

This socio-economic analysis is part of the Application for Authorisation (AfA) dossier,

which also includes a Chemical Safety Report and the Analysis of Alternatives.

2.2. Scope The devices where the substances for which the authorisation is sought (the Alkaline Metal

Dispensers, AMD) have the general function of preparing photo-sensitive surfaces used in

several electronic applications.

As explained in detail in this document, the substances (Potassium Chromate and Sodium

Chromate) constitute the sources of Alkaline Metal in the AMD devices.

AMD have the form of small metal alloy wires, with a thin longitudinal opening. These wires

are used as photo-cathode components. There are 3 progressively larger market levels

associated with the AMD devices:

1. The production of the AMD, where the substances are incorporated in the wires,

carried out by SAES group;

2. The production of photocathodes using AMD, which have the function to prepare

photo-sensitive surfaces (direct customers of SAES group);

3. The production of electronic devices making use of the photo-sensitive surfaces

prepared with AMD-based photocathodes (customers of SAES group direct

customers).

Although – as from the analysis carried out in the CSR- the risk associated to the use of AMD

is mostly limited to level 1 (the manufacturing of AMD), the socio-economic effect of the use





19

Within the dispenser’s container a fine, closely controlled diameter, metal wire is placed

which partly obstructs the slit eliminating any undesired escape of loose particles. This type

of dispenser can be supplied as a continuous wire or as a pre-cut linear or curved wire of the

desired length.

The particular shape of the filament allows to prevent the undesired release of mixture

particles. Figure 2 shows the different forms of dispensers available on the market.

Figure 2 Alkali Metal Dispenser – AMD

A more detailed description of the role of AMD in the photosensitization of a surfaces is

reported in paragraph 2.1. "Tasks performed by the substance and process description" of the

Analysis of the Alternatives - AoA.

SAES already undertook a significant effort in the research and development of “chromate-

free” alternatives to the chromate based AMD.

It has to be recalled that any alternative substance should fulfil the following technical

requirements:

• Very pure alkali metal films are required;





20

• The rate of evaporation of the alkali metal has to be strictly controlled and must be

reproducible;

• In the photocathode, a high vacuum free of any contaminating gases must be

achieved, to ensure the formation of high quality photosensitive surfaces;

• No loose particles must be present within the photocathode tube;

• Rate of evaporation of the alkali metal must be reproducible;

• The dispensers must be available in different configurations which can fit into each

photocathode and release the desired total quantities of alkali metals.

To date the only alternative capable to approach the technical requirements needed for the

manufacturing of high-quality photosensitized surfaces is represented by the molybdate salts.

Unfortunately, as detailed in paragraph 4, the alternative substance has still a number of

technological issues preventing the immediate replacement of the chromates.

For over 70 years SAES has been committed to the development of applications and devices

based on the “getter” technology, and developed important technological innovations such as:

• Ultra-high vacuum systems;

• Ultra-purity gases ending;

• Vacuum thermal insulate devices;

• Other range of hi-tech markets where vacuum electronic devices are utilized.

The next section describes the application fields of the dispenser and the final products made

with its inclusion.

3.1.1 Concerned equipment and application

The AMD devices manufactured by SAES satisfy the needs of a wide network of customers

which in turn manufacture equipment and technologies marketed in different industrial

sectors





21

• Military;

• Medical;

• Science and research;

• Aerospace;

• Communication;

• Entertainment.

The next picture summarizes in graphical form some of the equipment relying on the SAES

AMD devices, and manufactured by key customers of SAES.





23

The description of the functionality of some of the most important devices based on AMD is

reported below.

Photomultipliers

One of the main applications of AMD is represented by photomultipliers, which are vacuum

tubes containing:

• A photocathode, where the AMD exerts its function as described below;

• A chain of dynodes;

• An anode.

The AMD is inserted internally in the photocathode, and once powered, it photosensitizes the

surface of the photocathode.

The process that takes place in the photomultiplier is as follows: the incident photon hits the

photocathode, which is constituted by the photosensitive surface, placed inside the window of

the device insertion. The electrons are ejected from the surface as a result of the photoelectric

effect. These electrons are directed from 'the focusing electrode towards the electron

multiplier, in which electrons are multiplied by the same secondary emission process. This

process allows to transform the kinetic energy of the electrons to light which in turn is

converted into images.

The photomultiplier tubes, belonging to the class of vacuum tubes (tubes that operate in the

presence of vacuum), are extremely sensitive detectors of light in the ultraviolet, visible and

infrared ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum.

These detectors multiply the current produced by the incident light as much as 100 million

times (i.e., 160 dB), allowing it to detect the images even when the incident light flux is very

low.

The application fields of the photomultipliers are:

• The defence sector for example: night vision goggles;





24

• Scientific research sector for example: field of nuclear physics concerning the study

of particles or in astronomy for the detection of stellar bodies present in galaxies;

• Medical sector for the medical diagnostic and in particular for the realization of TAC

devices;

• Film Industry for scanning films.

The following figure shows the working principles of a photomultiplier.

Figure 4 Photomultiplier

Low light imaging sensor

Another important AMD application is in the field of image sensors. These sensors convert

an optical image into an electrical signal and are then key component used in devices that

handle images electronically. The dispensers, positioned in the first stage of these

apparatuses, activates the photosensitive surface, which reflects the image that is focused on a

grid composed of a myriad of small point-like sensors which individually convert the

detected light.





25

Figure 5 Examples of image sensors

The image sensors are used in the production of digital cameras, surveillance systems,

environmental monitoring systems and in digital thermography.

3.2. Market and business trends including the use of the substance Alkali Metal Dispenser (AMD) have been made available by SAES (the only manufacturer in

Italy and Europe) for over 30 years. Traditional AMD, containing Potassium chromate and

Sodium chromate, are the ideal solution for the manufacturing of photosensitive surfaces. As

described in Paragraph 3.1.1. AMD is used in different market sectors, in EEA and Non-

EEA countries.

SAES purchases potassium and sodium chromate from European and non-European

providers, to mix them with a metal alloy (Zr and Al). This mixture is placed in the AMD (K-

AMD and Na-AMD) which are then sold to downstream users (Tier 1), who manufacture

“intermediate products” like photocathodes. Level 2 customers are typically firms that buy

these intermediate components to assemble the final devices available on market.

Figure 6 summarises the role of SAES in the supply chain, in European and non-European

market.





26

Figure 6 Comparison between European and non-European market

Because of the technical specification of the AMD, SAES is able to cover both the European

and non-European markets. Figure 7 provides estimate of SAES’s market share in the

regional markets worldwide. The European market represents 77% of SAES sales, whilst

USA and ASIA markets represent the remaining 23%.





29

It can be stated that the risk for general population is negligible. The handling of the mixture

containing chromates salts is well managed with general and personal protection equipment

as well as safety procedures and training of the operators.

3.4. Human health and environmental impacts of the applied for use scenario A synthesis of the impacts on human health and on environ of the “applied for use” scenario

is given below:

Figure 8 Synthesis of the impact categories of the "applied for use" scenario

3.4.1 Risk assessment associated to the exposure to Cr-VI

According to the RAC/27/2013/06 Rev.1 and to exposure scenario stated in the CSR, only the

incremental carcinogenic risk associated with the exposure to Cr VI has been considered.

3.4.1.1 Results of the environmental monitoring in Avezzano Plant – AMD Unit





30

Following the conclusions of the environmental monitoring in AMD Unit – Appendix 2-

conducted by SAES3, the risk caused by the toxicity of the chromium present in the AMD

dispenser and traceable in the normal processing cycle, is considered to be low for the human

health and low for the environment. The environmental monitoring report takes into account

the presence of hazardous substances, and the duration and frequency of worker’s exposure.

The report substantiates the presence of a very low risk for human health and environment

with considerations concerning the discontinuous exposure to this substance, the meticulous

use of PPE, and the periodic monitoring adopted by the company, the risk.

3 Enviromental Monitoring performed by ECOCONSULT S.r.l. for SAES Advanced Technologies S.p.A., Industrial site 67051 Avezzano (AQ) (2012) – “Indagine Ambientale eseguita nell’ambito della valutazione dei rischi per la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori” (see Annx 1)





31

3.4.1.2 Calculation of carcinogenic incremental risk

To calculate the financial cost associated to the incremental risk of fatal illness (cancer) the

excess risk calculated in the CSR is adopted as a starting point.

This excess risk has been estimated in 6.38×10-5. This value concern all the possible route of

exposure of the worker.

3.4.2. Number of people exposed

As described in the CSR, the risk of exposure to chromate salts in the "use 1" scenario,

affects the following category of workers:

- Workers dedicated to the formulation of the mixture of chromate salts with the Al-Zr

– Scenario 1 ( worker);

- Workers dedicated to the packaging of AMD – Scenario 2 ( workers).

- For Use 2 no worker exposure is involved

3.5. Monetised damage of human health and environmental impacts

3.5.1 Mortality and Morbidity

Several summary measures of population health have been devised, including the Quality-

Adjusted Life Year (QALY), the Disability-Adjusted Life Expectancy and the Healthy Life

Year. The benefits and challenges of these measures have been examined in several

publications4 5 6 7.

According to the WHO recommendations8 and since that approach is one of the most widely

used, it was chosen to assess the impacts of both mortality and morbidity associated with an

4 Anand, Hanson, Disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. Journal of Health Economics, 16:695-702, 1997

5 Williams, Calculating the global burden of disease: time for a strategic reappraisal? Health Economics, 8:1-8, 1999 6 Murray, Lopez, Progress and directions in refining the global burden of disease approach. Geneva, World Health Organization (GPE Discussion Paper No 1), 1999b 7 Murray, Salomon, Mathers, Lopez, Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002

8 WHO, Enviromental Burden of Diseases Series, n. 1 - Introduction and methods, Assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels, 2003.





32

excess risk of cancer through one combined measure: the Disability-Adjusted Life Years or

DALY.

The DALY method is recommended by ECHA for the assessment of mortality and morbidity

impacts9.

The following methodology is based on the general WHO methodology for the calculation of

DALYs.

DALY is a combined measure of the period of time lived with disability and the period of

time lost due to premature mortality:

DALY = YLL + YLD

Where:

YLL = years of life lost due to premature mortality

YLD = years lived with disability.

In such an approach, time is used as a common currency for non-fatal health states and years

of life lost.

Disability weights are thus used to formalize and quantify social preferences for different

states of health, measured as number on a 0-1 scale, where: “0” is assigned to a state of ideal

health and “1” to a state comparable to death. In the current case, disability weight is

conservatively assumed as 1.

The basic formula for calculating the years of life lost (YLL) is the following:

YLL = N * L

Where:

N = number of deaths

L = standard life expectancy at age of death (in years).

The number of deaths (N) is supposed to be the total excess risk of cancer. Life expectancy at

age of death (L) is calculated by subtracting the standard life expectancy (75 years in Italy10)

and a worst-case estimate of death which in present case is conservatively assumed to be 50

9 ECHA, Guidance on socio-economic analysis, Gen., 2011.

10 Exposure Factors Sourcebook for European Populations (with Focus on UK Data) – Report No 79, Brussels, June 2001.





35

Table 6 Synthesis of YLLs, YLDs and monetised damage of mortality and morbidity related to the excess cancer risk associated with lung cancer, Use 1

*considering a 19.55% inflation rate over the 2003-2016 period

3.5.2 Environment and man-via-environment impacts and monetised damage of the “applied for use”

scenario

Environmental considerations, possible release and risk for general population are

nevertheless discussed and analysed in the CSR; the conclusion of the CSR is that the risk

related to the potential release due to the use of chromate salts is considered as negligible.

Furthermore, possible release and risk for general population are discussed in the CSR.

The conclusion of the CSR is that the risk for general population due to the use of chromate

salts is considered as negligible.

4 SELECTION OF THE “NON-USE” SCENARIO A significant work of research on the development of possible alternatives to the Potassium

and Sodium Chromates has been carried out by SAES since 2008 by SAES’s Research &

Development division (R&D). Unfortunately, this effort did not lead to the identification of a

substance alternative to potassium and sodium chromate, with comparable technical

characteristics (see paragraph 4.1.1). SAES considers necessary a period of 5-6 years to

continue studies and perform testing, validation and implementations steps of alternative

substances that can possibly replace chromate salts in the manufacturing of the AMD.

4.1. Efforts made to identify alternatives

4.1.1. Research and development

Given the importance of AMD production for SAES and its customers, a significant work of

research, testing and benchmarking of potential alternatives was carried out by SAES’s

Research & Development sector, over the last 8 years. Today, SAES’s researchers are still

working to identify a suitable substance for the manufacturing of a chromate free AMD.

4.1.2. Data searches In the course of these studies the following alternatives were evaluated:





36

Vanadate salts

The same mixture has been produced to be applied within some meters of wire

and evaluate the behaviour in comparison with the Chromate

The technological problem in using this kind of salts

has been the tendency in modify/enlarge the wire dimension, letting loose the release control

of the metal, resulting in unpredictable signal precision.

Tungstate salts

The release temperature for the metal was too low, letting therefore the chamber full of

undesired impurities

further essays have highlighted the same problem of wire enlargement than Vanadate,

therefore this salt has been excluded from the R&D program.

Silicate salts

Silicate salts have been completely discarded due to the high quantity of produces gases

during use

Titanate salts

Titanate demonstrated a strange and unmanageable behaviour to humidity

Information concerning alternatives substances to the use of chrome salts, have been found

through a bibliographic research and laboratory tests on the possible alternatives available on

the market.

The table below summarises the results obtained from these studies:





38

The non-use scenario are summarised here as follows:

Non-use scenario 1

The more likely non-use scenario implies the interruption of the manufacturing of AMD

based on sodium and potassium chromate. In the meantime, SAES could decide to develop a

new AMD for high end products, or to completely abandon this market. The non-use scenario

would involve the closure of SAES’s plant in Avezzano (EU).

Non-use scenario 2

An option which has been considered is the relocation of operations to a non-EU country.

This would theoretically enable the production of AMD containing sodium and potassium

chromate. The delocalisation will guarantee a continuous supply of AMD until the sunset

date.

In any case, it will not possible to establish the new plant in time for the sunset date of

September 2017. This means a closure of AMD production plant, with the stop of the supply

of SAES’s dispenser for European and non-European downstream users.

Non-use scenario 3

To avoid the exiting from the market, SAES could begin selling green AMD (chromate free)

but this, in the short time, would involve two types of consequences:

• The price of molybdate salts is higher than those of chromate salts (see Paragraph

4.4.3). This would mean selling the AMD Green at a higher cost than the current one,

although the influence on the final price is limited.

• Sale should be limited to non-high performing product.

In other word at this stage this cannot be considered a scenario alternative to sodium and

potassium chromates, as the final products that can use the so called “green” AMD are

currently pertaining to a very different, non-high end market compared to the market of the

sodium and potassium chromate AMD. This scenario could potentially limit the impact on

SAES but would be not effective to limit the impact on Tier 1 and Tier 2 markets which will

be affected by the shortage in the sodium or potassium AMD. As demonstrated by the answer





39

to the questionnaire, the key Tier 1 customer need time to adapt their products to the “green”

AMD, and currently is not proven that this adaption could actually be achieved. For this

reason, scenario 3 has not been considered, as this is not substantially different from the

scenario 1.





41

production of the AMD.

AMD to EU countries.

Restarting the supply of Na or K based photocathodes

is not allowed to import AMD to EU countries.

Consequences for consumers.

Loss of turnover in European market.

Loss of jobs in the EU

3) SAES shifting to AMD Green market

SAES will buy the molybdate of sodium and

potassium at prices higher than those of

chromate of sodium and potassium.

The selling price of AMD Green will be higher.

SAES will sell non-high performance product to remain in the market.

The Tier 1 customer will buy higher-priced and

lower performance AMD. They will lose Tier 2

customer manufacturing high-end products.

Until adaptation to green photocathode is

completed, there will be issues concerning the

functioning of the products made with the green AMD, therefore

harming the credibility of Tier 1

Short term interruption of the production of

some high-end articles.

Testing different photocathodes for the same purpose. Search

for other providers than EU Tier 1 in case SAES is not allowed to import AMD to EU countries.

SAES, tier 1 and Tier 2 customers will stop the production of high-end products until suitable alternative to Na or K

AMD are fully tested and certified in the short

term.

Consequences for consumer

Loss of jobs in the EU s.

Table 9 What would happen if the authorisation is not granted

4.3. Assessment of shortlisted alternatives

4.3.1. Alternative 1

4.3.1.1. Substance ID, properties, and availability

The Molybdate salts have the formula Me2(MoO4)

Na2(MoO4): CAS 7631-95-0 – EC 231-551-7 – Not classified according to CLP Regulation.

The substance has been registered as a mono-constituent in its an-hydrate and hydrate form

according to REACH Regulation in a tonnage band > 1000 tons/Year by several EU

producers/importers.

According to the notifications provided by companies to ECHA in REACH registrations no

hazards have been classified.

K2(MoO4): CAS 13446-49-6 – EC 236-599-2 – Some notifications indicate the substance as

irritant for skin, eye and respiratory tract, nevertheless no confirmation with real data has ever

been provided. It has still not been registered It is not expected to have a different

toxicological /risk profile than the analogous sodium salt

The manufacturing process includes

Mixing of the molybdate powder with the reducing agent (St 101 powder).

• powder filled wire. This phase is carried out in a dedicated drawing

machine- the powder load is mg/cm for Na and mg/cm for K;

• Cutting of filled and closed wire, in different lengths;





47

alternatives are still under development and the use of a substance that goes to replace the

chromates, such as the molybdate salts, not yet allows the realization of a technologically

performing product, as the current AMD.

4.4. The most likely non-use scenario As described in the AoA, SAES identified a potential alternative, however from the results

obtained until now, the molybdate salts is far to be considered a viable alternative in short

term. For this reason, the estimated time to find an alternative substance that can reproduce

the same technological characteristics of AMD containing potassium or sodium chromate, is

2024.

5 IMPACTS OF NOT GRANTING AUTHORISATION

5.1 Identification of key impacts The socio-economic impacts of not granting an authorisation for continued use of potassium

and sodium chromate may be summarized as following:

• The loss of turnover in the EU associated to the direct production of AMD, and to the

first level key SAES customers, and to the wider market of electronic devices relying

on the photo-sensitized surfaces (second level customers).

• Loss of jobs directly associated to the production of AMD, to the first level SAES

customers, and to jobs in the market of devices based on photo-sensitized surface.

• Socio-economic consequences related to the reduced availability of military and

medical equipment based on final devices manufactured with AMD.

Figure 10 summarized the socio-economic impacts of not granting authorization.





48

Figure 10 Impacts of Non-use scenario

5.2 Questionnaire survey A vast majority of the direct impacts of SAES’s “non-use” scenario will affect SAES and its

Tier 1. To estimate this impact, a questionnaire survey for SAES’s Tier 1 customers has been

designed. The objective of this questionnaire was to gather detailed information about the

impacts for Tier 1 in case of authorisation denial.

The questionnaire (Appendix 3) contains the following data:

• Company details;

• Business description (activities, gross income, number of employees)

• Information about the use of the dispenser and its functional role in the final

device/product;

• Impacts deriving from the interruption of the furniture of the dispenser (socio-

economic impacts);





49

• Testing of alternative technologies to substitute Potassium and Sodium chromate

AMD.

SAES sent the questionnaire to all its EU customers, but unfortunately received only 2

questionnaires duly filled, one from and the other one from (see Appendix4).

5.3 Economic impacts The economic impacts associated to the non-use scenario, both for SAES and its customers,

may be summarized as following:

SAES

• Costs associated to the interruption of the production of AMD;

• Costs of closure of the SAES plant in Avezzano;

• Costs of establishing a new AMD manufacturing plant in SAES's existing production

plant outside EU with an associated one year interruption of the AMD manufacturing

SAES’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 customers

• The interruption of the AMD production would cause the interruption of the

production of photocathodes containing AMD (Tier 1customers) and a temporary

shortage in the availability of photo-sensitized surfaces for Tier 2 customers;

• That would make necessary the identification of alternative technologies and of

suppliers outside EU, with a temporary shortage of final devices and increase of their

final price.

The specific turnover associated to the sales of AMD is small. (see Table 2, Sales AMD-

Country). However, AMD is strategic in the downstream market as it is used for the

manufacturing of high value equipment. Therefore, the shortage of AMD devices will have a

domino, multiplicative effect downstream.

Direct loss for SAES

The detailed data related to the sales of Sodium and Potassium Chromate AMD are reported

in Appendix 6.





50

As from the turnover data, the direct loss for SAES deriving from the interruption of the

production of Sodium and Chromate based AMDs will be in the order of 0,5million (

) euros per year, out of which associated to potassium based AMD and

associated to the sodium based AMD. European customers represent the largest

market for SAES, covering 77% of the overall AMD market. The aggregate turnover

information concerning the period 2013 – 2016 is reported in the Table 2 (Paragraph 3.2).

However, it should be stressed that the direct loss for SAES does not only concern the loss of

turnover deriving from the AMD sales. An additional elaboration of the turnover for some

key SAES customers revealed that there is an associated market for customers purchasing

AMD. In other words, a significant fraction of the SAES turnover derives not only from the

selling of AMD devices but also from services associated to that products. The aggregated

data related to the associated market for selected customers (

are reported in Table 3, Paragraph 3.2.1. (for details see Appendix 2). For these

customers, the turnover of products and services associated to AMD represented in the years

2013 - 2015 from 7 to 8 times the turnover directly related to the AMD sales. Although this

kind of elaboration is not available for all the SAES customers who purchase AMD, it gives

an idea of the strategic relevance of AMD market for SAES. Based on these figures it may be

conservatively assumed that the turnover loss for SAES would be at least 3 times larger than

the market directly related to AMD devices. Therefore, the direct loss for SAES associated to

the interruption of production of AMD devices should be estimated in the order of 1 to 3

million €

Direct financial loss for SAES’s Tier 1

The purchaser of the AMD and AMD related services use these devices for the

manufacturing of electronic components, mainly photocathodes. As explained in Paragraph

5.1, questionnaire survey was designed. Questionnaires were sent to a number of SAES Tier

1 to understand how they would be affected by the interruption of the AMD supply. Only two

SAES customers and ) answered to the questionnaire. Their answers are

summarized below:





54

In this SEA a socio assessment of the resettlement scenario has been therefore carried out

adopting the following assumptions:

1. the direct socio-economic impact for SAES will remain unchanged, as the business

related to the manufacture of AMD will be moved outside EU; that would imply the

closure of the SAES facility in Italy.

2. the direct socio-economic impact for the EU Tier 1 and Tier 2 customers will remain

unchanged if the import of AMD in EU will be restricted;

in case the import of AMD will be allowed (for instance if AMD is considered as an article

pursuant to article 7 of the REACh regulation, and if the chromium-VI content of these

articles is kept below than 1000 ppm in compliance with the ROHS directive 2002/95/CE)

then the economic impact is limited to one year of AMD production, whilst it may be

assumed that the social impact (loss of jobs) is reduced as the workers can be temporarily

assigned to different tasks.

The socio-economic impact is then similar to the already described in case of interruption of

the production of AMD, with the only difference that in case the import of chromium-based

AMD would be allowed, the impact for Tier 1 and Tier 2 would last for a period not

exceeding one year. That could allow Tier 1 and Tier 2 customers to adopt strategies to face

the temporary shortage of this device, and would reduce the social impact.

5.2. Human Health or Environmental Impact No significant impacts or benefit for the human health or the environment are foreseen in the

context of the “non-use” scenario.

5.3. Social impacts This section summarises the expected social impacts of the non-use scenario.

The primary impact on this type considered is the unemployment associated to the closure of

SAES plant in Avezzano. It is assumed that the result of the closure of SAES’s plant would

cause a period of unemployment also for the first level SAES customers and for the

companies in the market of devices based on photosensitive surfaces.

The same leverage principle used for calculating the multiplicative financial impact along the

supply chain can be adopted to calculate the impact in term of expected loss of jobs. To this





56

for Belgium (where is located). Considering 40h working week and 240 working days

per year, the annual average labour productivity per worker would be €.

5.4. Wider economic impacts There are no direct informations on the wider economic impact associated to the interruption

of supply of AMD devices from SAES for second-level customers. However, based on

information gathered on the final price of final opto-electronic equipment relying on the Na

or K photocathodes, either from research on the web and direct interviews (Appendix 4), it

was found that the cheapest equipment are the night vision goggles, which are sold at price

ranging from 3000 € to 6000 €. The cost of RMN equipment is in the order of million euros,

whilst radiological and fluoroscopy systems have a cost in the order of hundred thousand of

euro. Therefore, as a minimum the leverage effect would be in the range of 300 to 600 €. This

is a very conservative estimate as Na-K photocathodes are usually adopted for the production

of high end military and medical devices, whilst other devices found in the consumer market

– like night vision goggles used for entertainment purposes – may be also manufactured with

other less performing photocathodes. However, adopting this very conservative estimate, the

financial impact associated to the interruption of the supply of Sodium and Potassium

chromate photocathodes would range from 94.3 to 188.6 million euro.

5.6. Uncertainty analysis An effort was made all along the document to outline a realistic scenario based on

conservative assumptions. In all the cases, given the potential risk associated to the

substances for which the authorisation is sought, the estimates were conducted in such a way

to provide the lowest economic impact in case of non-granting of the authorisation, and the

highest impact in case of granting of the authorisation.

For instance, although several Tier 1 customers exist, as only 2 customers answered the

questionnaire, the financial direct impact for Tier 1 was calculated assuming the existence of

these customers only, which is clearly only a fraction of the customers really impacted by the

unavailability of the AMD devices.





59

for one million euro turnover

on SAES figures –yearly turnover / workers ratio)

on the figures normalized by the average wage for Netherland and Belgium)

to the number of jobs provided by the and in their answer to the questionnaire.

Yearly turnover figure for the calculation of the loss of job among Tier 1

Multiplicative

Based on the turnover of the 2 Tier 1 customers who answered the questionnaire

All the EU Tier 1 customers of SAES

Based on the turnover of the 2 Tier 1 customers who answered the questionnaire

The two customers who answered the questionnaire represent as an average around half of the EU market in the years 2013/2016. Therefore, the assumption undervalued the impact for Tier 1 customer of around 2 times

Table 13 Parameters used fort the monetised impact on human health, fort the calculation of the financial and social impacts

6 CONCLUSIONS The aim of this Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA) is to describe the socio-economic impacts of

a non-granted authorisation for the use of chromium salts according to the use description

defined in section 3 and to compare them to the residual risks to human health in case of a

granted authorisation.

The approach is in line with ECHA guidance. Given the aims of the SEA, the analysis

purposefully sought to characterise certain impacts but also, where appropriate, to undervalue

the social and economic impacts associated to the non-use scenario, and overvalue health

impacts associated to the use scenario. This approach supports confidence in the findings of

the assessment.

6.1. Comparison of the benefits and risk Based on the assessment carried out in sections 3.4 and 5, it may be affirmed that the socio-

economic benefits in case of continued use largely outweigh the risks arising from the use of

substances (sodium chromate and potassium chromate). In absolute term, considering the

very limited amount of the use , the severe countermeasures adopted to prevent the





62

REFERENCES

Bruker - Products. (2016). Tratto da Sito web Bruker: https://www.bruker.com/products/mr/nmr.html

ECHA - Guida alla preparazione dell'analisi socioeconomica nell'ambito di una domanda di autorizzazione. (2011, Gennaio). Tratto da Sito web ECHA: http://echa.europa.eu

ECOCONSULT S.r.l. (2012). Indagine ambientale eseguita nell'ambito della valutazione dei rischi per la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori. D.lgs. 81/08 e s.m.i. TITOLO IX - SOSTANZE PERICOLOSE, CAPO I - Protezione da agenti chimici, CAPO II - Protezione da agenti cancerogeni e m. Avezzano: ECOCONSULT S.r.l. per SAES Advanced Technologies.

European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, ECETOC. (2001). Exposure Factors Sourcebook for European Populations (with focus on UK data). Technical Report, Brussels.

EUROSTAT. (s.d.). Tratto da http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/labour-costs/main-tables.

SAES GETTERS - Consolidated sales by geographic area. (2016). Tratto da Sito web SAES Getters: https://www.saesgetters.com/sites/default/files/documents/Slide%20conf%20call_H1%202016.pdf

Stroo HF, R. T. (2005). Dermal bioavailability of benzo[a]pyrene on lampblack: implications for risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem, 24(6), 1568-1572.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA. (1985). Development of statistical distributions or ranges of standard factors used in exposure assessments. Tratto da http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/presentations/efast/usepa_1985b_development_of_statistical_distributions.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA. (2011). Exposure Factors Handbook, 2011 Edition. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office for Research and Development, Washington DC, 20460.

VanRooij JG, D. R.-B. (1993). Absorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons through human skin: differences between anatomical sites and individuals. Journal of Toxicolocgical and Environmental Health, 38(4), 355-368.





64

business data for SAES.

Consequences on the

associated market 51

Strategic data: Detailed values of

revenues derived from the sales of

AMD for 2013 and 2016, constitute

strategic business data and cannot be

disclosed for confidentiality reasons.

Tonnage 17, 27 Strategic data: it cannot be disclosed

for confidentiality reason.

y 0

y 0

8 y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 8

y 9

y 9

y 0

y 0

y 0

y

T

y 0

T

y 0

y 8

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 6

y 6

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y

y 8

y

0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y

y 0

y 0

6 y 0

6 y 0

y

y 0

y 0

y

y 0

y

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

y 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6 0

6 0

6 0

6 0

0

0

8 6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9 0

3

0

3

0

3

0

6

9

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

8

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

9

0

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6 0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

Official name

Address of head office

Name of the reference person

Phone

e-mail

Web site of the society

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Devices / equipment / productSector of use (medical,

industry, research…)

Number of customers

per sector

Percentage of non-EU

market (%)

Approximate Percentage of

the market size of the

equipment by sector in the

last 5 years

Attach an image of the

product

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Technical-economic Impacts

Business budget concerning the sale of devices making use of the

dispencer

Residual quantities in stock

Number of employees involved in the processing of products that use

the dispenser

Profits

Costs for the purchase of the dispenser

Gross income

Profits

Informations about the use of the dispenser

Please describe the production cycle leading to the product that make use of the dispencer

Please describe what is the functional role of the dispencer in the device/product

Total cost

AMD (Alkali Metal Dispenser) data

Number of AMD purchased

Number of employees

Share capital

SEA- SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Questionnaire for data collection

General informations

Firm name and address, contact person

Budget and firm size

Gross income

Business Description

Activities, type of manufacturing:

APPENDIX 3

Questionnaire

Please list and describe the devices / equipment / products that make use or contain the dispencer and assess their market size

Short technical description of the device /

equipment / product

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Alternative technolgy

Technology Sustained cost (€) Expected cost Sustained cost (€) Expected cost Sustained cost (€) Expected cost

NO NON EU EU

Social consequences (add more if

needed)

Strikes

Need to support to worker family

Redued salaries

Reduced jobs

Reduced gender equality

Change in the customer welfare

Other consequences (please describe)

NOYES

Has your firm ever tested alternative technologies (other kind of dispenser) or other substances instead of chromates? If YES, please describe the physical and technological

characteristics.

Describe the alternative technologies.

Results obtained with the use of the alternative tecnology: (please enter a short description of positive and negative results in the table below)

Positive Negative

In case of failure to suplly the dispenser, what are the corrective meaures taken?

Options YES

Please enter the expected and already sustained cost on research, development and testing of alternative technologies in euro

Research Development Testing / certification

Describe the expected or current cost for dispencers based on alternative chemicals (non-chromate) per unit in Euro

Expected costCurrent cost

Please enter gross income in Euro deriving from the sale of the devices that make use of the dispencer

Devices (please compile a line for each device)Income

All our produced devices make use of the dispensers

Choice of another supplier

If YES, where?

Socio-economic Impacts

In case of failure to supply the dispenser, which are the expected impacts on your business? (For example: closure of the productive unit, closure of the involved sector or transfer of

production in a country outside EU).

If YES, it has already been found?

Where is it?

Do you ever consider the possibility to transfer the production

of the device making use of the dispencer to an other country?

In case of failure to supply the dispenser, there are other significant social consequences?

Justify the answer

Technology

Official name



Phone

e-mail


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Number of customers

per sector


market (%)




last 5 years


product

all optoelectronic devices

Industry, defense, medical, science,

medical

see website

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

APPENDIX 4

Questionnaire filled



equipment / product

optoelectronic devices convert low levels of light

from various wavelengths into visible quantities of

light at a single wavelength.





PHOTONIS is a leading multinational high-technology group, with experience in manufacture, sales and innovation specializing in photo sensor imaging technologies since 1937.

PHOTONIS is a global manufacturer of electro-optic components used in the detection of ions, electrons and photons. We innovate and engineer quality components for integration into a variety of applications

such as night vision optics, digital cameras, mass spectrometry, physics research, space exploration and many others.


Gross income



Profits



Image intensifier tubes (IITs) are optoelectronic devices that allow many devices, such as night vision devices and medical imaging devices, to function. They convert low levels of light from various wavelengths

into visible quantities of light at a single wavelength.

Optoelectronic devices convert low levels of light photons into electrons, amplify those electrons, and then convert the electrons back into photons of light. Photons from a low-light source enter an objective

lens which focuses an image into a photocathode. The photocathode releases electrons via the photoelectric effect as the incoming photons hit it. The electrons are accelerated through a high-voltage potential

into a microchannel plate (MCP). Each high-energy electron that strikes the MCP causes the release of many electrons from the MCP in a process called secondary cascaded emission. The MCP is tilted to

encourage more electron collisions, thus increasing the amount of emission of secondary electrons.

The electrons all move in a straight line due to the high-voltage difference across the plates, which preserves collimation, and where one or two electrons entered, thousands may emerge. A separate (lower)

charge differential accelerates the secondary electrons from the MCP until they hit a phosphor screen at the other end of the intensifier, which releases a photon for every electron. The image on the phosphor

screen is focused by an eyepiece lens. The amplification occurs at the microchannel plate stage via its secondary cascaded emission.


Total cost

The dispenser is one of the critical components to create the photocathode as described above. The photocathode is crucial for the performance of the final product.



Number of employees

Share capital

Technical-economic Impacts

Business budget concerning the sale of devices making use of the

dispencer



the dispenser

Profits


Gross income

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



not known yet

NO NON EU EU

no

no

Social consequences (add more if

needed)

Strikespossible bankruptcy

Need to support to worker familypossible bankruptcy

Redued salariespossible bankruptcy

Reduced jobspossible bankruptcy

Reduced gender equalitypossible bankruptcy

Change in the customer welfarepossible bankruptcy

Other consequences (please describe)possible bankruptcy

The impact will be high since all our devices make use the dispenser


Justify the answer

Technology

Choice of another supplier possibly

If YES, where?

Socio-economic Impacts

In case of failure to supply the dispenser, which are the expected impacts on your business? (For example: closure of the productive unit, closure of the involved sector or transfer of

production in a country outside EU).


Where is it?





All our produced devices make use of the dispensers


characteristics.

No, currently testing alternatives from SAES


N.a.


Positive Negative


Options YES




Expected costCurrent cost

NOYESX

X

X

X

X

X

Official name



Phone

e-mail


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

0 0 0 0

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 5



Number of customers

per sector


market (%)




last 5 years


product

23HRCMedical 4,00

We do not sell to end-client All types together 8 %

23ATCMedical 3,00

31CM (several types)Medical 4,00

38CM (several types)Medical 2,00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

€ 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015





Argus Imaging B.V.



X-Ray Image Intensifiers for Medical Systems. (Turning X-ray into visible light for the doctor to perform their diagnosis/actions)


Gross income

Profits

Number of employees

Share capital



Our produst consists of an input screen turning X-ray into weak light. On top of this inputscreen we vaporize the alkali's to make the photocathode. The photocathode turns the weak light into electrons.

The electrons are accelerated through our vacuum tube to intensify the image. The electrons are turned back into light by an outputscreen with fosfor.


The dispensers are used as a container to release alkali metals to create a photocathode.



Total cost



the dispenser



equipment / product

X-RAY Image Intensifier, 23 CM wide




Technical-economic ImpactsBusiness budget concerning the sale of devices making use of the

dispencer

Gross income

Profits




All together refer to baove number mentioned


Cr6 free dispensers


cr6 free 20000 25000 20000 25000 30000 120000

NO NON EU EU

X

X

X

X

Social consequences (add more if needed)

Strikes

Need to support to worker family

Redued salaries

Reduced jobs

Reduced gender equality

Change in the customer welfare

Other consequences (please describe)


characteristics.Prototypes provided without CR6+


Prototypes without CR6+


Positive Negative

Elimination of potential dangerous material. Other parameter characteristics (current, pressure) of alkali release in time.

Proces adaptations and optimisation is time and money consuming. Unexpected




Technology Current cost Expected cost

16 16

YES NO Justify the answer


Options YES

Choice of another supplier X


Where is it?

X II's provide lowest X-ray Dose per picture

X

X

X

X

X

X



If YES, where?

Socio-economic ImpactsIn case of failure to supply the dispenser, which are the expected impacts on your business? (For example: closure of the productive unit, closure of the involved sector or transfer of production in a

country outside EU).

All of the above mentioned


Poland 4,8 7,6 7,9 8,1 8,3 8,6 18,3% 3,5%

Portugal 11,3 12,2 13,3 13,3 13,0 13,2 20,4% 1,4%

Romania 1,9 4,2 4,1 4,4 4,6 5,0 22,0% 8,2%

Slovenia 11,2 13,9 15,6 15,3 15,6 15,8 15,9% 1,2%

Slovakia 4,1 7,3 8,9 9,2 9,7 10,1 26,4% 3,5%

Finland 24,4 27,1 31,3 32,0 32,5 33,0 22,4% 1,3%

Sweden 29,0 31,6 37,3 38,2 37,3 37,4 32,1% 0,1%

United

Kingdom 21,5 20,9 21,7 20,9 22,3 25,7 16,8% 15,2%

Norway 30,1 37,8 56,4 56,3 54,0 51,2 18,1% -5,1%2

2 : Data not available; * Italy: data up to 2012 are not strictly comparable over time due to methodological breaks. France and Austria: data for 2013, 2014 and 2015 are taken from national sources. Denmark: data dor 2013 and 2014 are taken from national sources. Spain and Romania: data for 2014 is taken from national sources. *** 2014 data instead of 2015. Discrepancies between the growth rates derives from the 2014 and 2015 values and he growth rates reported in the table are due to rounding.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (SEA) PUBLIC VERSION

Documents

Transcript of SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (SEA) PUBLIC VERSION