Gordon
1) I was agreeing with you that the definition does appear to exclude
Cadmium oxide and am trying to find out more but it takes time. I certainly
wasn't saying trust me which is why I put the health warnings in.
2) RoHS is a single-market directive, I don't have to make it one. UK
though isn't responsible for what other member states do with their
implementation legislation. Anyone can appeal to the EC and the courts if
they feel that any MS has gone beyond the directive's requirements.
3) I thought I'd apologised for the confusion over corrossion prevention and
explained what the situation is as best I can.
I shan't respond to further postings unless I get some answers regarding
Cadmium oxide.
Regards
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Davy, Gordon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 June 2004 21:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] RoHS Directive - cadmium in electrical contacts
Nick,
In your posting you say that the UK won't treat the two uses of cadmium
(plating and electrical contacts) any differently. (You didn't say if you've
decided yet what to do about cadmium oxide in contacts.) Yet it seems clear
to me that cadmium used as a constituent of a contact fails the definition
for cadmium plating that you quoted. Beyond that, you say that the Marketing
and Use directive [76/769/EEC as amended] specifically mentions allowing
cadmium for the use of making a reliable electrical contact. Yes, paragraph
3.3, which you didn't quote, says explicitly that the restrictions on
cadmium plating don't apply to cadmium used for electrical contacts. I take
that paragraph to show that the drafters of this directive recognized the
distinction between the two uses. (If anyone else is interested in reading
the exact language, the directive can be viewed at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/markrestr/consoli
d_1976L0769_en.pdf
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/markrestr/consol
id_1976L0769_en.pdf> .)
The problem is that the only exemption that the RoHS directive grants to the
use of cadmium is as plating (and then subject to the restrictions in
76/769/EEC as amended). So while this other directive is more tolerant of
cadmium as a contact material than as plating, it cannot override the fact
that the RoHS directive, for whatever reason, prohibits all uses other than
plating.
I don't mean to over-dramatize the situation, but you seem to be saying to
manufacturers "trust me, we're going to see to it that everything will be OK
if you use cadmium in your electrical contacts." If you are going to expect
a manufacturer to make decisions based on such an assurance (particularly
since, as you say, you are not a lawyer), I think someone needs at least to
show the legal basis by which that manufacturer would be able to claim in
court - anywhere in Europe - that it's OK by the RoHS directive to use
cadmium in electrical contacts, when RoHS allows its use only for plating.
The UK enabling legislation by itself, even if it blends the two uses that
76/769/EEC as amended distinguishes, does not seem sufficient to meet that
challenge. I don't know how else to make my point.
I wish you well in your effort to make RoHS a single-market directive, but
what are manufacturers supposed to do if you don't succeed? What if one or
more of your counterparts in other countries doesn't agree that cadmium in
contacts is the same thing as cadmium in plating? By the EU rules and the
fact that manufacturers can't afford to create more than one version of any
one product, once a directive has entered into force, it only takes an
adverse interpretation by one EU member country (or one individual enforcer
anywhere) to remove a freedom. In contrast, all must be in agreement to
grant one. (That's why, even though we had no influence on the EU's RoHS
directive and are not directly covered by it (we hope), those of us in the
military electronics business here in the US are still facing the prospect
of reduced product reliability, due to the anticipated disappearance from
the
marketplace of many components in styles we have been used to buying.)
Regardless of how the confusion on the final point of my last posting
occurred, let me try again. You mentioned in passing that you expect to see
in the UK enabling legislation a prohibition on the use of cadmium for
corrosion prevention. My points were two:
1. Corrosion prevention is what cadmium plating is used for. If you
prohibit cadmium for corrosion prevention, then contrary to RoHS, you
prohibit cadmium plating.
2. Point 1 notwithstanding, preventing the use of cadmium based on its
purpose is unenforceable, as the inspector has no basis for judging purpose,
but only composition and structure. (A manufacturer could for example claim
that the plating's purpose was really adhesion promotion (if buried) or
appearance (if not), and then what?)
I agree that there seems to be some confusion. On the one hand you seem to
be planning to promote legislation that would give manufacturers the freedom
to use cadmium as a constituent of electrical contacts as well as plating.
Yet on the other, you seem to be planning to remove the freedom to use
cadmium for corrosion prevention. Since I can't be sure what you intend, I
implore you: don't do that! The RoHS directive is bad enough without now
without the UK removing more freedom. I hope that before legislators took
such a step, they would make the cost-benefit analysis:
* Cost: increased WEEE due to corrosion losses.
* Benefit: poisonings prevented.
The cost would be a certainty. However, for the benefit, in spite of
repeated invitations, no one has stepped forward to present any supporting
data. One can't claim to prevent poisonings without pointing to any
happening before the freedom is revoked. If you can show a cost but can't
show a benefit, then the proposed restriction fails the analysis, regardless
of how it fares in the legislature.
Given the EU rules and the prevailing sentiments that risk must be driven to
zero regardless of cost, I'm concerned that you are more likely to succeed
in removing the freedom to use cadmium for corrosion prevention than in
granting it to use cadmium as a constituent of an electrical contact. Please
say you don't intend to do this.
Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]
410-993-7399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
in partnership with MessageLabs.
Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
for further details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
|
