All:
Sorry for entering this debate so late. The virus/worm has put me out of
business for awhile.
I'll pose this question to any interested parties re halogenated vs non
halogenated laminates. (and maybe get lots of e-mail flying about.)
It was my understanding that the reason for banning the halogenated
materials was to reduce/eliminate the formation of halogenated
dioxins/furans that might be formed in an un-controlled (or poorly
controlled) incineration/materials recovery process.
Now anyone who's been following the news has heard that dioxins/furans are
"the most toxic" materials that exist. However, from what I have read in
journals such as Environmental Science and Tecnology they also appear to be
formed in forest floor debris. And have been found in bentonite clay
deposits that date from way before the pre-industry (pre-human even!) era.
It also appears that the data (out side of toxicity to test animals) that
human exposure data (including the Agent Orange and Italian release at
Seveso) seem to indicate that these materials are much less of a danger than
predicted from lab tests.
My question is: Has the scientific rational behind this ban been questioned?
Is it simply enough to say the material is toxic at some level to animals
and accordingly ban an entire class of materials that do provide for human
safety?
I hope someone out there has real data on this, i.e. not like the "data"
that promted "lead free." Is this an issue of real substance?
And I welcome any comments and clarification on my description of the
dioxin/furan issue.
Greg Munie
-----Original Message-----
From: Hilty, Robert D [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 5:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] WEEE/RoHS clarification required
Brian:
Certainly a good point. In my conversations with the major flame retardant
manufacturers, all of them have been able to point to research showing the
recycle ability of BFR (brominated flame retardants). I don't immediately
recall the methodology used to reclaim the BFR. I think you missed the main
point of my note - there is a discrepancy between WEEE and RoHS regarding
the use of BFR and the products to which the directive applies. RoHS bans
limited BFR while WEEE bans all BFR. This is presumably due to the fact
that acceptable engineering alternatives do not exists for all applications
of BFR, so only the most hazardous ones (PBB and 5-8 PBDE) were banned. As
such, the infrastructure to accept WEEE that contains BFRs must be
developed.
Bob Hilty
Tyco Electronics
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 3:25 AM
To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Hilty, Robert D
Subject: Re: [LF] WEEE/RoHS clarification required
Bob
How can you remove brominated organic compounds that form an integral
part of the polymer structure? The only way would be by pyrolisation, in
which case the polymer would be decomposed to produce a whole load of
potential by-products, each nastier to humans and the environment than
the others. As this would be an uncontrolled process, such substances as
hydrogen bromide, tribromoacetic acid, carbonyl bromide etc. spring to
mind. It is also quite probable that some regulated ozone-depleting
compounds, such as methyl bromide, could be produced. In a properly
constructed, maintained and run plant (if such exists), most of these
gases could be prevented from being emitted into the atmosphere, but
they will still exist in a different form (e.g., as a water solution in
a scrubber) that is still a toxic and hazardous waste. Cans of worms
come to mind.
Brian
Hilty, Robert D wrote:
> Forum:
> My read on the WEEE directive is that brominated flame retardants are not
> banned, but must be removed prior to disposal. I believe this requirement
> will hold true for electronics manufactured prior to 1JAN, 2007. Thus,
the
> infrastructure for collection and disassembly will need to be in place for
> electronics that are already in the marketplace, or in use, that will be
> disposed after 2007. If the infrastructure is already in place, then what
> would drive manufacturers to pay a premium or performance penalty for Br
> free products?
>
> Bob Hilty
> Tyco Electronics
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Bergman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] WEEE/RoHS clarification required
>
>
> Brian,
>
> There is no targeting of TBBPA under the RoHS directive. FR-4 laminates
> do not need to be replaced by legislation. Some might feel pressure to
> change due to the disassembly and segregation portion of the WEEE
> directive. But this is not a ban by any means.
>
> Regards,
> Dave Bergman, IPC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [LF] WEEE/RoHS clarification required
>
>
> I've just received the August IPC Review.
>
> On p. 6, there is an article, "Lead Time on Lead Free Dwindles". This
> re-states the deadline of 1 July 2006 for total lead-free soldering for
> products sold in Europe (ignoring the few named exceptions).
>
> On p. 4, there is an article, "IPC Quells Flames of Halogen-Free Issue",
> which claims, after study, that there is no reason not to use
> halogenated flame retardants, such as TBBPA.
>
> It is my understanding that the same EU directives require all laminates
> and plastics in electronics assemblies to use non-halogenated flame
> retardants, presumably from the same date (I have not checked this in
> the actual directives).
>
> Does this not reveal an extremely dichotomous polity on the part of the
> IPC? On the one hand, the IPC has gone hell-for-leather towards the
> lead-free goal, without an ounce of proven scientific reason. On the
> other hand, the IPC is opposing the halogen-free part of the same EU
> legislation, despite the fact that emissions of incinerated
> halogen-containing laminates may contain some highly hazardous and
> polluting substances, as shown by scientific studies. At the same time,
> it may lull exporters to the EU and members within the EU into a false
> sense of security into thinking that brominated flame retardants are
> here to stay, rather than be mandatorily substituted within a few years.
>
> I need clarification on this paradoxical dichotomy.
>
> Brian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------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:
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---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: 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---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: 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---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: 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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: 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
