LEADFREE Archives

November 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:
Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:15:23 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (109 lines)
Tom Ellison and John Burke will be discussing related issues at our CPMT
evening meeting March, 2006, Sunnyvale Ramada.  Check <www.cpmt.org/scv>
in a few days.


--- Thomas Ellison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Harvey,

 I think what might be beneficial is a talk about the compliance
 challenges for small and medium sized companies. These challenges may
 eventually impact the survival of these companies particularly if they
 sell to customers in the E.U.  Here are some of the challenges when you
 get to the practical, implementation level of RoHS:

 ************************
 Product Conversion Issues
 There is significant expense in just reviewing every component of every
 product for RoHS compliance. It is usually much more involved than just
 re-specifying RoHS compliant parts on the AVL.  At some point, you may
 encounter a component where it is difficult to eliminate the offending
 RoHS element (Cd, Pb, etc.) and still make your product work.

 Major corporations have been very active in proposing exemptions to the
 E.U.  Steve Andrews (TAC repr for G.B.) indicated at the last San Jose
 IPC/JEDEC Lead Free Conference that the bar would be raised in the
 future for these proposals -- much more extensive and compelling data
 would be required to get exemption consideration in the future. This
 type of research, compilation and lobbying is expensive -- I fear small
 companies do not have the resources to get their exemption added to the
 list.

 ***************************
 Compliance
 Ensuring compliance is difficult when you have hundreds of part numbers
 from multiple suppliers, the simplest of which have 5 or more
 homogeneous constituent layers. The limits set by the E.U. appear to be
 set at such low levels that extensive calibration with standards are
 required to make screening with XRF equipment useful. While you can
 always send samples from each supplier for each part number to an
 outside lab for analysis, this gets expensive very quickly: 100's of P/N
 X 4-5 Suppliers X multiple lots = $$$$. If you are a large customer, you
 can "order" your suppliers to analyze everything and send you the
 results (for free of course).  This does not work so well if you are
 smaller customer.

 Just following the more popularly stated protocols are difficult and
 expensive. (CoC from each supplier, audit testing of multiple lots,
 documentation of the results, etc.)  In addition to the analytical
 chemistry involved, one has to set up some type of system for the folks
 doing the screening to factor in the several pages of exemptions now in
 place.  They must know when it is "OK" to have Pb, Cd, Br and when it is
 not.  For example, Pb in the solder or terminations is "NOT OK" in a
 resistor but Pb in the glass passivation of the resistor "IS OK" because
 of an exemption for "Lead in glass of electronic components".

 Perhaps the untold story in all of this, is what happens when the
 samples reach the chemistry lab.  For a piece of plastic, it's simple:
 cryogrind it (without getting Cr from the stainless steel grinding
 blades getting into the sample), take the powder and dissolve it in a
 solvent and analyze it with ICP-AES.  But how do you deal with a
 resistor?  Remember, Pb in the terminations is "NOT OK" but Pb in the
 passivation oxide layer "IS OK" per Exemption 5 of the Annex of the
 Directive.  An 0402 resistor weighs perhaps, 0.5 mg in total.  Most of
 the methods require several grams of sample.  Do you grind up a lot of
 0402 resistors to get a couple of grams? But when you grind it up, the
 Pb you find is a mixture of the good Pb (passivation layer oxide)and the
 bad Pb (from the termination)!! Admittedly, I'm focusing attention on a
 very small part on an assembly but the law does say 0.1% Pb in any
 homogeneous constinuent layer.

 What will an E.U. inspector do on August 2006?? Well, the point is,
 we're not sure what he/she will do. I have asked this question of many
 national RoHS Testing labs and even Steve Andrews (TAC representative
 for Britain).  So far I have received only answers such as "Hummm, we'll
 have to give that further consideration and get back to you".

 *******************************
 Tin Whiskers
 Everyone is rightfully afraid of tin whiskers from 100% tin plated
 components. Various mitigation strategies are being advocated. Most
 customers are now demanding extensive testing if a Cu/Sn termination is
 used.  Suppliers have done precious little testing -- at least that they
 are willing to share openly.  These tests are time consuming, expensive
 and, as far as I know to date, don't really prove that a part will be
 whisker free.  The tests are the best that science has to offer at
 present but, once again, multiply these testing requirements for 4-5
 suppliers over hundreds of parts and you have a huge expense.  Even if
 all you try to do is collect and complile test data from each supplier,
 the task is large when you have hundreds of part numbers and multiple
 suppliers.

 One mitigation stategy advocates switching to a nickel barrier between
 copper and tin terminations to reduce the likelihood of Tin whiskers.
 Over the last year we have seen a number of excellent papers raising
 concerns about Kirkendahl voiding when Tin-Nickel interfaces are exposed
 to extensive thermal aging.  One wonders if we aren't replacing the
 devil we know with the devil we don't? Are we really just substituting
 "3 point bend" tests and "drop" impact tests for Tin whisker testing
 when we request a nickel barrier?

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