Kay

Thank you for your corrections.

Current recycling is negligible and it is far from certain that making
electronics grade solders from recovered metals will be more economical
than from virgin metals, unless current standards and practices be
changed to permit increased impurity levels. The likely scenario is that
some of the recycled metals will be used for non-electronics
applications and the rest will be unsellable, until some crisis occurs
which will cause the price of tin to rocket up and purification will
become economical.

In any case, "yet again", you demonstrate your interest. Can you swear
to me that going lead-free in the electronics industry will not create
the need for one kilogram or one tonne or even thousands of tonnes more
tin from producer countries than would otherwise be the case?

Best regards,

Brian

Kay Nimmo wrote:
>
> Dear Brian
>
> You are wrong in your assumption that 20% of tin is used in solder. The
> figure is actually higher than that.
> Unfortunately, a number of your other 'facts' and assumptions regarding
> tin are also incorrect.
>
> You have also, yet again, neglected to incorporate the effects of
> increased solder recycling into your 'calculations' on increased metal
> mining, despite discussing promotion of recycling throughout your email.
> Perhaps it would be more informative to ensure that you consider this in
> any future postings.
>
> Kay Nimmo
>
> ****************************************
> ITRI Ltd, Kingston Lane,
> Uxbridge, Middx, UK, UB8 3PJ
> tel: +44 (0)1895 272406  fax: +44 (0)1895 251841
> email: [log in to unmask]
> web: http://www.itri.co.uk and
> http://www.tintechnology.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 17 July 2001 09:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Seeking interest in LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF LEADED
> ANDLEAD-FREESOLDERS:
>
> David
>
> A good and well thought-out document. Congratulations! There are perhaps
> two other points that you may care to hold in reserve:
>
> 1. most lead-free solders require about 50% more tin than
> lead-containing ones. Solder currently consumes about 20% of the tin
> mined and smelted today, therefore it is reasonable to suppose that, to
> meet the demand, tin production will increase by about 10%. Most tin is
> mined from relatively thin alluvial surface strata in tropical rain
> forests, mainly in Malaysia, Indonesia and S. America. In order to win
> this tin, vast areas (hundreds of square kilometres) of primary tropical
> rain forest have been permanently devastated, probably accounting for
> numerous extinction of species. Going lead-free will therefore
> exacerbate this devastation, which will not be to the benefit of
> tropical ecosystems.
>
> 2. the European WEEE Directive, which has already passed its first
> parliamentary hurdle, is targeted at the environmental effects lead may
> have after the end of useful life of equipment. It also envisages
> maximal recycling. The easiest part of an electronics assembly to
> recycle is certainly the solder. A hot oil (or similar) energetic
> "Jacuzzi" with directed nozzles will remove about 80% of the solder,
> containing 95% of the lead (what stays on will be essentially tin-rich
> copper intermetallics). This is not a very cost-intensive operation and
> the metal recovered will be an indeterminate alloy of roughly 50-% tin,
> 50-% lead and small amounts of copper, gold, nickel, iron etc. It is
> usable, as is, for much low-grade soldering (e.g. plumbing of
> non-potable water) or it can be repurified. Apart from the fact that no
> "cradle-to-grave" risk assessment has been made, this is a glaring
> weakness of the WEEE because, if the solder is recovered as is laid
> down, there is virtually no risk of lead entering the environment from
> solder in waste electronics equipment, in any case. In other words,
> there has been no holistic appreciation of the consequences.
>
> As you know, I have been actively engaged in environmental activities
> for many years and I have always supported actions which are likely to
> result in a better quality of life for present and future generations. I
> have never felt that this was the case, at least significantly, for the
> lead-free movement, which is being largely promoted by vested interests,
> especially the tin industry. My personal view is that we should recycle
> lead and tin to a maximum, if only to minimise the unnecessary depletion
> of limited resources. I feel Stewardship, with a capital S, is a must.
>
> The London-based Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), the world's
> largest technical learned society, with a world-wide membership of about
> 140,000 graduate engineers, has recently formed a series of Professional
> Networks (PN), one of which is called Engineering for a Sustainable
> Future (Eng4SF). Membership is open to all, including non-members of the
> IEE. I happen to have had the honour of being elected to the Executive
> Team (ET) of this PN. As this was launched only in May of this year, we
> are still feeling our way during this start-up period. However, I think
> that there could well be room for co-operation between the IPC, with the
> EIA, and the IEE on this issue, through this PN, even with the
> possibility of some financial participation (we have been allocated a
> small budget for studies). This would be an ideal area of interest for
> the Eng4SF PN because our aim is to maintain the holistic approach of
> Stewardship of resources and about 40% of the IEE membership is in the
> electronics industry, so we do have common ground. Obviously, I cannot
> make any commitments on my own, but, if you wish, I could certainly put
> the matter before my ET colleagues for discussion, if you would wish to
> explore this possibility. I'll not take any specific action until you
> give me the green light that the IPC and EIA would wish to enter into
> co-operation with this global organisation.
>
> I look forward to your reaction.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> David Bergman wrote:
> >
> > Dear Colleagues
> >
> > IPC has been working  with a small group of companies representing the
> Electronics Industries Alliance on a proposed project to examine the
> environmental impacts of lead vs. various lead free solders.  As you
> know, regulatory action in Europe is leading a lot of companies to plan
> future movement away from tin-lead solder.  We are concerned that there
> has not been a real evaluation of the environmental impact of such a
> shift.  As detailed in the proposal below, we have approached EPA to
> work with us in conducting a Life-Cycle Assessment of leading lead-free
> solders as well as tin-lead solder as a baseline for comparison.  EPA
> has approved the project, conditioned on an industry commitment for 50%
> of the funding.
> >
> > We (EIA &IPC) are in the process of contacting interested parties
> regarding their interest in helping to fund the project.  If your
> company would consider participating, please contact me at
> [log in to unmask], or Fern Abrams at [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave Bergman, IPC
> >
> > LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF LEADED AND LEAD-FREE SOLDERS:
> >         BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED APPROACH
> >         May 9, 2001
> >
> > BACKGROUND
> >
> > This project offers the opportunity to mitigate current and future
> risk by allowing the electronics industry to move in the direction of
> solders that pose the fewest risks and environmental impacts over their
> life cycle.  Currently, the U.S. electronics industry is facing
> significant legislative and market pressure  to phase-out the use of
> tin-lead solders and switch to lead-free alternatives, and the
> electronics industry has decided to make this switch.  Such a change
> could have a broad impact on public health and the environment, and
> managing the environmental impacts posed by this change is crucial to
> the long-term environmental sustainability of the U.S. and global
> economy.
> >
> > The European Union has focused on the potential risks associated with
> lead solder, and the electronics industry has conducted a fair amount of
> performance testing on the alternative solders.  However, EPA, the
> electronics industry, public interest groups, and many other
> organizations and interested parties recognize that to date, no one has
> conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential environmental
> impacts of the lead-free solder alternatives.  EPA's Design for the
> Environment (DfE) Program is in a unique position to provide technical
> expertise to address this important issue, based on DfE's experience in
> working with the electronics industry and with life-cycle assessment
> methodologies.
> >
> > Many companies, organizations, and individuals in the United States
> and other countries have expressed interest in obtaining objective,
> detailed information about the life-cycle impacts of lead-free solders.
> The electronics industry has established a goal of moving to lead-free
> solder within several years, and therefore is interested in knowing as
> soon as possible which options present the fewest risks to both the
> environment and public health.  It is also crucial to determine the
> potential impacts of the most promising alternatives  in order to
> determine whether any of these solders may present significant risks or
> previously unrecognized consequences through their use.  In addition to
> the question of risk, other issues, such as the availability of certain
> metals and potential differences in workplace exposures, need to be
> addressed.  The use of alternative solders will be a significant
> technological change for the electronics industry, and they would like
> to be confiden!
> t that
> > choices they make within the next few years will not later be found to
> pose important, unexpected risks.
> >
> >  Public interest groups, including the Silicon Valley Toxics
> Coalition, support an analytical evaluation of the environmental impacts
> of alternative solders used in the electronics industry.  While they
> would like lead solders to be phased out as quickly as possible, they
> also want to ensure that the electronics industry does not inadvertently
> select alternatives that seriously impact the environment and public
> health.  EPA's Office of Solid Waste has also expressed its support for
> this evaluation, which will help inform its work in addressing
> end-of-life issues associated with electronic products.  In addition,
> EPA Region IX supports the proposed project and has made electronics
> risk management and recycling a key regional priority.
> >
> > The U.S. electronics industry is a $550 billion per year industry, and
> its impact is destined to grow over the coming years.  Currently, 20
> million pounds of tin-lead (SnPb) solder is used annually.  According to
> NIST, the U.S. industry stands to lose approximately $420 billion in a
> three-year period following 2002, unless it is able to make a successful
> switch to an alternative solder.
> >
> > Risk Concern to the Environment, Community, Workers
> > The primary solder currently in use in the U.S. electronics industry
> is a tin-lead alloy.  Lead and lead compounds are toxic chemicals that
> persist and bioaccumulate in the environment.  Lead is a heavy metal
> that has been linked to developmental abnormalities in fetuses and
> children that ingest or absorb lead.  The Department of Health and Human
> Services has determined that lead acetate and lead phosphate may
> reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens, based on animal studies.
> These compounds are of particular concern because they remain in the
> environment for significant periods of time, concentrate in the
> organisms exposed to them, and bioaccumulate through the food chain.
> >
> > There is significant concern related to the mining of lead, recycling
> of leaded products, and the treatment and disposal of products
> containing lead.  Lead is released into the air or groundwater during
> mining, treatment of waste, and disposal.  Worker safety issues have
> also been raised with the use of tin-lead solder, due to possible
> workplace exposures.  Exposure occurs during manufacturing, and during
> recycling/re-manufacturing processes.
> >
> > It is also important to examine the potential differences in risks and
> impacts that may be presented by the alternative solders.  The following
> are examples of issues that should be addressed in an evaluation of the
> solders:
> >
> > · The higher operating temperatures of some of the lead-free solders
> may increase the amount of hand soldering that is required.
> > · There may be differences in energy consumption for material
> production and soldering processes, because of their required operating
> temperatures.
> > · Some alternative metals, such as silver, are more resource and
> energy intensive to mine than others.
> > · The presence of tertiary alloys may make recycling more challenging
> and less attractive economically, leading to potential end-of-life stage
> issues.
> > · Increased production of bismuth, a co-product of lead mining, is
> expected to require an increase in lead production.
> > · The availability of some metals, such as bismuth, may not be great
> enough to support the project demand for use in soldering applications.
> >
> >  · Some alternatives, such as silver, may have higher leachability
> than lead, and may lead to aquatic toxicity concerns.
> > · Some lead-free solders "contaminate" the electronics wastestream,
> such that it can no longer be recycled.
> >
> > In light of these issues, and the electronics industry's plans to move
> away from leaded solders, the industry and the DfE Program have
> discussed evaluating the life-cycle environmental impacts of tin-lead
> solder and several promising alternative solders.  A proposed approach
> for the life-cycle assessment of the solders is presented below.  We
> expect that the information would be used by the electronics industry to
> select the lead-free solders that work well for a given application, and
> that pose the fewest risks to public health and impacts to the
> environment.
> >
> > LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT STUDY APPROACH
> >
> > Life-Cycle Assessment Components
> > Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a process to evaluate the relative
> environmental burdens and resource consumption associated with a product
> or process.  The life-cycle stages evaluated in an LCA begin with raw
> material extraction and extend through processing, manufacture, use, and
> end-of-life disposition.  A traditional LCA has four components, which
> are discussed below.
> >
> > Goal Definition and Scoping
> > The first step in an LCA is to define the goals and scope of the
> project.  The goal definition and scoping document presents the purpose,
> goals, boundaries, and assumptions anticipated in the study.  For
> example, the project team will identify the specific solder alloys and
> fluxes to be evaluated and the life-cycle activities to be included in
> the life-cycle inventory.
> >
> > Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI)
> > The LCI is the quantification of material inputs and outputs from each
> unit or sub-process within the product system life-cycle.  The
> inputs/outputs that are collected include raw materials, ancillary
> materials, and energy/resources used.  Outputs include air emissions,
> water effluents, releases to land, primary products, and co-products.
> Assumptions and modeled data are also used, as necessary.
> >
> > Impact Assessment
> > The life-cycle impacts assessment does not determine the actual
> impacts but links the data gathered from LCI to impact categories.  It
> quantifies the relative magnitude of contributions to the impact
> categories:  ecotoxicity impacts (aquatic and terrestrial); human health
> toxicity (occupational & public, acute & chronic); resource consumption
> (renewable & non-renewable); energy use; water use; landfill space use;
> global warming; ozone depletion; photochemical smog; acidification;
> local air quality (PM10); water eutrophication; local water quality
> (BOD, TSS, pH); and aesthetics (odor).  With regard to human health and
> ecotoxicity impacts, the project team would evaluate all chemicals
> identified in the life-cycle inventory stage, both those that are
> regulated and those that are not currently regulated.
> >
> >  Impact scores can be aggregated by different categories.  For
> example, global warming impacts can be aggregated for:
> >
> > · one inventory item (e.g., CO2 release from a certain chemical);
> > · a process that includes contributions from several inventory items
> (e.g., electricity generation);
> > · a life-cycle stage that consists of several processes (e.g., product
> manufacturing); or
> > · a product or materials (e.g., solder) over its entire life-span.
> >
> > The LCIA will help identify risk reduction opportunities for product
> design and chemical substitution changes.
> >
> > Improvement Assessment
> > The information generated by the LCIA would allow the electronics
> industry to perform improvement assessments of specific products, and
> redirect efforts towards products and processes that reduce the release
> and use of toxic chemicals, and that reduce risks to public health and
> the environment.  Each electronics manufacturer could identify the
> importance of different impact categories, and weight those categories
> accordingly when conducting an improvement assessment.
> >
> > Specific Life-cycle Assessment Tasks
> >
> > A project team would be assembled with representatives from U.S. EPA,
> the electronics industry and major trade associations, research and
> academic institutions, and public interest groups.  The project team
> would look to contractors and/or academic institutions to conduct
> specific LCA tasks.  Conducting a life-cycle assessment for the solder
> alternatives is expected to include the specific tasks described below.
> >
> > 1. Life-Cycle Scoping and Goal Definition
> >
> > The project team will prepare a goal definition and scoping document
> that will guide data collection and evaluation for the LCI and LCIA
> phases of the project.  The document will include a statement of the
> purpose of the study; the system to be studied; the intended use of the
> results; limitations on its use for other purposes; data quality goals;
> reporting requirements; and the relevant type of review process.  It
> will also describe the geographic and temporal boundaries, system
> boundaries, data requirements, decision rules, and other assumptions.
> >
> > 2. Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis
> >
> > This task involves collecting data in order to quantify accumulated
> environmental burdens (material inputs and outputs) from all stages in
> the life of a product or material's industrial system, including
> resource extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposition.
> Major burden categories include raw material and fuel inputs, and solid,
> liquid, and gaseous emissions and effluents.  Emissions of pollutant
> categories (i.e., VOCs, BOD, Nox, etc.) will also be quantified.
> >  It is likely that most LCI data for the materials extraction
> processes, and for the manufacturing of major materials and chemicals
> (e.g., for use in fluxes), will come from existing LCI databases.
> Solder alloy producers, electronics assembly companies, electronic
> product manufacturers, and electronic product recyclers will be the
> primary data sources for all other processes and life-cycle stages.
> >
> > 3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment
> >
> > This task involves the translation of the environmental burdens
> identified in the LCI into environmental impacts or risks.  The project
> team will enter the LCI data into an LCA toolkit that will characterize
> the burdens and assess their effects on human and ecological health, as
> well as other effects such as smog formation and global warming.  For
> the chemicals identified in the LCI, hazard summaries will be developed.
> The hazard summaries will include chemical properties and environmental
> fate information, a summary of health hazard concerns, a quantitative
> dose-response assessment, a summary of safety hazard concerns, and a
> summary of ecological concerns.
> >
> > OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
> >
> > Leachability Study
> >
> > The DfE Program and electronics industry representatives have
> discussed conducting a study of the leachability of silver and other
> heavy metals from solder alloys, to assess the potential for aquatic
> toxicity concerns.  This study could be done concurrently with the LCA.
> >
> > Performance and Cost
> >
> > In addition to presenting the results of the life-cycle assessment for
> the tin-lead and lead-free solders, we will provide an overview of
> performance testing results and cost information, based on existing
> available data provided by the electronics industry.
> >
> > SCHEDULE AND PROJECT COST
> >
> > The LCA study of tin-lead and lead-free alternative solders is
> expected to take approximately three years to complete, with preliminary
> results available after two years.  The ability to meet this time frame
> will depend in large part on the degree of commitment and involvement
> that the industry partners bring to the project.
> >
> > The projected cost for the LCA and leachability studies is $650,000.
> Industry members and EPA staff have discussed sharing the cost of these
> studies equally, and the Electronic Industries Alliance and IPC are now
> interested in hearing from electronics industry members who would be
> willing to contribute to this effort.
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> ***
> > David W. Bergman, CAE
> > Vice President Standards, Technology & International Relations
> > IPC
> > 2215 Sanders Road
> > Northbrook, IL  60062-6135  USA
> > 847-790-5340 Phone  847-504-2340 Fax
> > Mobile 847-867-1388
> > [log in to unmask]
> > www.ipc.org
> >
> ************************************************************************
> ***
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources &
> Databases > E-mail Archives
> > Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> > information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases
> > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------