Thanks to all who responded. It appears RoHS assessment is suggested as a reasonable step to ensure the compliance. Unfortunately, there is no internationally recognised standard, i.e., ISO9000 or ISO14000 to follow. It leaves lots of room to debate the acceptance criteria.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 10 February, 2006 1:40 AM
To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Scott Xe
Subject: RE: [LF] Conformity certificates will not satisfy RoHS legislation
They are probably referring to "due diligence".
In the UK ONLY, the supplier of the equipment will probably not be found
guilty if the unit(s) supplied is(are) found to contain a banned
substance PROVIDING that he can show that DUE DILIGENCE was taken to
investigate various component and materials suppliers' claims of the
components and materials that had conformity certificates supplied.
This could take the form of supplier audits, laboratory analysis, AQL
audits, looking at your vendors records of how THEY audited THEIR
vendors etc.
THAT only applies in the UK ..........anywhere else you are going to end
up in court guilty as charged. The REAL use of a certificate from your
vendor is as proof in the final court of law when you are suing that
vendor for selling you components which are certified to be but are not
RoHS compliant, and claiming damages both for the court fines in Europe,
the loss of business, the cost of tear-down/re-manufacture/re-route to
somewhere other than Europe of the goods in question.
Hope that clarifies.
John Burke
Senior Manager - Operations , Optichron
[log in to unmask]
W: 510 249 5233
M: 408 515 4992
http://www.optichron.com
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/e/fps/2665502/
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Xe
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] Conformity certificates will not satisfy RoHS legislation
In ElectronicsWeekly.com, NWML said a statement of compliance from a
supplier of components or sub-assemblies is unlikely to be sufficient.
It suggests to take more reasonable steps to avoid committing the
offence. What are the reasonable steps? I have learnt that UK
government has issued a final RoHS guidelines and is there any
suggestion in there?
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------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/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
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 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
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 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
