LEADFREE Archives

May 2005

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:
"James, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Thu, 19 May 2005 16:43:23 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (221 lines)
RoHS is a single market directive with the requirements being the same

in all states. So no state can have "more or less draconian

requirements".



The WEEE may vary with only deminimus levels defined. 



Regards,

Chris

____________

 



-----Original Message-----

From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner

Sent: 19 May 2005 16:16

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [LF] Data gathering and maintenance requirement for RoHS

compliance



Blair,



There are two issues:



1. Legal due diligence

2. Supply chain due diligence



The directive doesn't say anything about either; the UK law has been

described here before; other EU member state laws may be more or less

draconian in their requriements. Note that whatever the laws are, they

don't

care about anything other than the 6 materials. So for legal due

diligence

you simply have to concern yourself with the 6 materials (in their

myriad

forms) in homogeneous materials as defined by the TAC.



On the other hand, supply chain due diligence at this point in the game

is a

necessity, and has different requirements. Understanding how well your

suppliers understand "homogeneous" and RoHS requirements is key to

ensuring

that your products will comply with the laws. We have found, and

continue to

find, significant misunderstandings within our clients' supply base.

These

manufacturers must either come up to speed or be dropped from the

AML...which is happening.



Regarding EuP, it does seem to define the need for more complete

material

composition reporting, but don't expect that to be described more fully

until later this year or early next, and even then it won't be a legal

requirement until and unless "implementing measures" are adopted. It's a

framework directive, and, if the industry doesn't pull it's act together

voluntarily, directives affecting specific product classes will be the

next

likely step.



By the way, John Burke, your message below saying that "you will need it

to

prove a route to compliance unless you are using a contract manufacturer

in

which case you can get him to do it" is wrong in one sense. The

"producer"

needs to prove due diligence. What avenue the producer (OEM) chooses to

take

to do that is up to them, but they'd better use a trusted and

knowledgeable

source to do it. Very few contract manufacturers have any capability to

do

this, much less the knowledge to do so (in my experience only a couple

of

the top five can).



Mike



On Thu, 19 May 2005 05:22:51 -0700, Blair K. Hogg

<[log in to unmask]> wrote:



>Thanks all for the replies.

>

>Chris and Nigel are saying that I don't need the ppm data, if all of my

suppliers cert that the parts are compliant, I'm OK. I'm leaning towards

agreeing with them.

>

>On this side of the pond MA/NY DDave is suggesting that I do need the

ppm

data. So we have a difference of opinion. BTW, Dave, I was up in your

area

two weeks ago, checking out new SMT equipment at NepCon.

>

>I don't see what having the ppm data gets me, if the directive applies

to

individual parts. But I know how govt agencies can work when enforcing

these

kind of regulations, so I'm worried.

>

>Blair

>

>

>

>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/19/05 08:05AM >>>

>Yes you will need it to prove a route to compliance unless you are

using a

>contract manufacturer in which case you can get him to do

it.....someone has

>to do it to show due diligence in case there are any issues downstream.

>

>Here is another link to get the data validated....

>

>http://www.rohsusa.com

>

>You can also get software through companies like E2open, worth checking

out

>for larget corporations.

>

>John

>

>------------------------------------

>Avanex

>John Burke

>Senior Manager RoHS Compliance

>[log in to unmask]

>40919 Encyclopedia Circle

>Fremont

>CA 94538

>tel: 510 897 4250

>fax: 510 979 0189

>mobile: 510 676 6312

>------------------------------------

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Blair K. Hogg

>Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:05 PM

>To: [log in to unmask]

>Subject: [LF] Data gathering and maintenance requirement for RoHS

>compliance

>

>

>Avnet (US distributor) was here today making a presentation on a

service

>they are offering to customers (either free or for a fee, based upon

level

>of service) that will collect and organize data for RoHS compliance.

>Something in their presentation stirred up a few brain cells and I

decided

>to go to this forum to see how everyone else is approaching compliance,

or

>demonstration of compliance.

>

>Avnet will supply the materials content in ppm for each of the RoHS

>substances, along with other component data such as weight.

>

>I'm wondering if I really need this information.

>

>The directive covers "homogenous materials" as needing to be compliant

and

>the accepted interpretation is that everything down to the plating on

the

>leads of a resistor must be compliant. I don't see where the breakdown

in

>ppm per part and weight are important. If I was taking the approach

that my

>product weighed 25kg, I could have 25g of lead and be at the 100 ppm

level,

>however, with the homogenous materials approach this doesn't matter.

>

>So what I am looking for is a statement from the supplier or

manufacturer

>that the part is RoHS compliant in itself. If all of the parts I use

are

>compliant, and my processes are compliant, then the assembly is

compliant by

>default.

>

>Do I need the materials content data for anything? I have heard that

some

>customers are asking for this, as opposed to simply asking for a

statement

>of compliance.

>

>Thanks,

>

>Blair Hogg

>QA Manager

>GAI-Tronics Corp

>



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

-------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

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

-------





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

This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential

information intended for a specific individual and purpose.  If you are not

the intended recipient, delete this message.  If you are not the intended

recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on

this message is strictly prohibited.



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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2