LEADFREE Archives

August 2001

Leadfree@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:09:24 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Keith

Thank you for your clear descriptions of lead-free soldering programs and
implementation in Japan.  Although you took the time to address me, I believe
that others in the list may be interested  in your thoughts re the following
2 questions. Others may come up with more questions.

In a previous correspondance you stated that an extra levy on lead bearing
electronics at recycling centers is an important incentive for manufacturers
to go lead-free.  The reason for the extra levy is the cost of recycling lead
in solder, you stated.  You may anticipate that raises some questions.

Assuming that we are talking about the (A) recycling route rather than (B)
landfills or (C) incineration--

1. Presumably the boards are being recycled for tin, copper, and precious
metals, since they have more value.  But recycled lead is a byproduct of this
process. Noranda and ACS Refining in N. America are separating out or
recovering lead this way every day.  What is the economic justification for
an extra levy on lead bearing solder?

2. The costs that you have so ably referred to for setting up lead-free lines
far, far outweigh the cost of recycling lead on boards. (Add the additional
energy, capital equipment, and training costs.)  As you pointed out, the
smelting capacity is already in place to serve the battery industry.  If the
logistics of collection are being put in place, what is the economic or
environmental justification for lead-free solder?

If we are assuming landfill disposal, then we are back to the necessity to
separate out the other toxic metals, where we began.

If incineration is the route, electrostatic precipitation and bag houses
eliminate over 99% of heavy metal particulate release.  That's why OSHA has
certified all N. American installations.  I am sure that Japan is at least as
advanced.

Re statements that the rest of the world would be advised to follow any
unilateral mandate emanating from any source-- that raises a host of other
questions.  I won't go down that path for now-- hope someone else does.

I look forward to the day when all parties will participate in a scienific
risk assessment, birth to death, of all solder alloys.  The IPC-EIA - EPA
initiative sould be joined by every concerned company and government, all
over the world.

Harvey Miller

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2