Nick,

Thanks for your reply. Based on your comments, it appears that I didn't adequately communicate my concern, so I'd like to try again, since I regard this as an important issue. Here in brief is what I was trying to say:

1.      Alloying of cadmium with silver in an electrical contact is substantially different from plating cadmium on a surface. (The process for producing it is different, the structure of the material is different, and the purpose is different.)
2.      In a court challenge, these differences would surely be considered, even if it is widely believed that the intent of the EU legislators was to include this use along with plating in the Annex exemption (and I'm not sure this is so), and even if it actually is the intent of the UK regulation writers to make this inclusion. (A court could decide that the regulators exceeded their authority.)
3.      Manufacturers are at risk of an adverse interpretation by a single enforcer in a single country.
4.      Even if the enforcer's ruling is overruled by a court, by the time the decision is handed down, the value of the impounded equipment will have greatly diminished. (A new thought: environmental activists may decide to appeal any ruling favorable to the manufacturer, thus prolonging the agony.)
5.      Even a favorable ruling wouldn't apply for the rest of the EU, so the risk would remain.
6.      Because of this risk, many manufacturers won't use cadmium for electrical contacts, even if the UK regulations explicitly allow it.
7.      The result of this avoidance will be bad for the environment.

One comment confuses (and raises a new concern for) me. You say "Although allowed for electrical contacts, it won't be allowed for anything else eg. corrosion protection in the listed product categories." In your earlier Lead-free posting you said that you interpreted the intent of the legislators to be prohibiting the use of cadmium as a pigment. The RoHS directive exempts cadmium plating, so it is, as you know, allowed. But cadmium plating's function is corrosion protection. Can you explain what you mean in saying that cadmium won't be allowed for corrosion protection? (In fact, as stated, this would be an unenforceable rule, as an enforcer would be able to determine only the structure of cadmium found by inspection, not its purpose.) I'm concerned because a lack of a common understanding will surely lead to more disruptions in the implementation of this directive.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------