TECHNET Archives

June 2006

TechNet@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:
John Burke <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, John Burke <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:03:50 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (307 lines)
TO:  <http://www.rohsusa.com/page19.html> 

European Commission  <http://www.rohsusa.com/page19.html> 

DG Environment, Unit G4 – Consultation Directive 2002/95/EC 

B-1049, Brussels, Belgium. 

Attention of Mr Stavros Dimas 

 

Dear Commissioner,

 

I am writing with regard to the exemption review process carried out and
minuted at the December 2004 TAC committee meeting.

 

It is my belief that the review process has effectively failed to fully
address and provide due diligence, to the very reason for including Article
5(1)(b) in the legislation.

 

Article 5(1)(b) states:

 

(b) exempting materials and components of electrical and electronic
equipment from Article 4(1) if their elimination or substitution via design
changes or materials and components which do not require any of the
materials or substances referred to therein is technically or scientifically
impracticable, or where the negative environmental, health and/or consumer
safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the
environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof;

 

In line with the requirements and intent of Article 5(1)(b) in 2004, an
exemption request: 

 

http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/DownLoad/kheZATJMmqG9dxh38TPD7tUY4qMGtOpIxcgH
cJczKBUO6SauCVRyP2lHrMxdOBrtpLnEsrpFBYT4Sx6D1q6uVPe_Z-qp66D5/SUGc-/EC_Check_
list.pdf

 

was submitted to the EU through the correct channels on the appropriate
documentation by RM Sommer Consulting Ltd who stated that:

 

RM Sommer Consulting Ltd believes that the industry standard eutectic
Sn63/Pb37 solder should be exempt from the substance restrictions of article
4(1). The grounds of this submission for exemption lie in article 5(1)(b).
It is the view of RM Sommer Consulting Ltd that the negative environmental
and/or health impact of the alternatives are likely to outweigh the
environmental and/or health benefits. The supporting evidence for this is as
follows:

· The environmental impact study by Ed Smith and Kristine Swanger of K*Tec
Electronics concluded “The data from these experiments shows that lead free
solders leach at levels that would cause them to be classified as a
hazardous waste”. 

· The paper “Is this Ban Really Necessary? A Critical Investigation of the
CRT Ban: by Clark Akatiff details an investigation of the Palo Alto landfill
that has existed since the 1930s. It has an estimated 20,000 –100,000 CRTs
disposed there from 1982 to 2002. These CRTs are part of televisions and
computer monitors, both of which have a high level of associated electronics
using eutectic Sn63Pb37 solder. Additionally, given the age and type of
equipment the electronics would be predominantly through-hole technology
which uses x10+ more solder per joint than modern Surface Mount Technology.
This makes this study representative of worst case for EEE waste. The lead
content of the leachate pumped out contained, at worst case 1 part per 100
Million – 500 times lower than the EPA actionable level. The lead levels
from the 10 monitoring wells ranged from undetectable to 1.3 parts per 100
Million – 1/400th of the EPA actionable level worst case.

· Dr Laura Turbini, from the Centre for Microelectronic Assembly and
Packaging provides a well rounded argument supported by a plethora of data
and like minded research in her presentation “The Real Environmental Cost of
Lead Free Soldering”

 

During the review process for this and other exemption requests, (under Item
6) for the meeting of the TAC on 22nd October 2004, the agenda items were
described as:

 

1.      Presentation of the progress report on the study by ERA Technology
and discussion,

2.      DecaBDE,

3.      Lead in lead-bronze bearing shells,

4.      Crystal glass, 

5.      Request by Xerox Océ,

6.      Additional requests for exemptions.

 

The exemption concerning the environmental concerns of the lead – free
replacements were to be discussed under item 6 – Additional requests for
exemptions.

 

Item 6 has this entry on the officially agreed minutes:

 

6        Additional requests for exemptions.

The Commission asked Member States to provide a list of the exemptions that
could be retained for a study. 

Moving forward to the next TAC meeting of 10th December 2004 I find on the
agenda this item 5 which deals with the new requests for exemptions. The
agenda item states the following:


5.      Directive 2002/95/EC – Article  5(1)(b)


The Commission explained that since the 1st stakeholder consultation a
number of new exemption requests had been received. These requests had to be
submitted to a new stakeholder consultation as required by article 5(2) of
the RoHS directive. The Commission services were planning to launch the 2nd
stakeholder consultation in December. The chair said that two main items had
to be discussed in relation to the additional requests for exemption
received: 1) the possibility to grant time-limited exemptions and, in
parallel, to launch a new study. The study would be used as a basis to
subsequently confirm or delete the exemptions; 2) how to deal with new
exemption requests submitted after the 2nd stakeholder consultation.

As a reaction to the 1st question, Member States gave comments on specified
entries:

-         entries 6, 8, 10 and 17 might be glass-related items and might be
part of the more general exemption as in the draft decision, the Commission
reacted that proper grouping is needed;

-         entry 19: as this is normal solder, it should not be studied;

-         entry 21: it was suggested not to mention the appliance as other
appliances might also use the closed-loop system; however, single exemptions
per appliance need to be requested and substantiated by industry in order to
have the possibility to control them;

-         entry 23: there might be other industries asking for a similar
exemption so the Commission services are looking if there is a possibility
to have an exemption for applications that are part of another equipment not
falling under the scope of the directive. 

So basically the application was turned down as “not to be studied” under
entry 19 since it was “normal” solder even though at that time there was
sufficient evidence, to support the application for further study, given the
gravity of the application and the potential environmental Impact of pushing
forwards with a lead in solders ban for electronics. (on a point of protocol
I cannot find any evidence that it was ever submitted for stakeholder
consultation). Had a study been launched at that time it would have turned
up further evidence since at that time (2004) the university of Stuttgart
lifecycle study had been publicly available for over a year.

Since that time there is more evidence to support this application, and I
have provided to the EU much documentation which is a matter of record at
http://rohsusa.com/page20.html as a further submission for removing the lead
in solders ban on the basis that the environmental impact of the
replacements is far higher than the impact of the current materials. I have
additionally supported many of the current applications for lead in solders
exemptions under the current 5th round of stakeholder consultation, with the
same sets of data.

So to the purpose of this communication: 

 

I request that the lead-in-solders ban under:

 

DIRECTIVE 2002/95/EC ON THE RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT (ROHS). 

 

Be suspended, and that an exemption be granted for all classes of solder
used in electronics containing lead, under the precautionary principal given
the huge weight of evidence that the replacements are going to cause
environmental damage, and that the spirit of Article 5(1)(b) be met in doing
so:

 

Article 5(1)(b) states:

 

(b) exempting materials and components of electrical and electronic
equipment from Article 4(1) if their elimination or substitution via design
changes or materials and components which do not require any of the
materials or substances referred to therein is technically or scientifically
impracticable, or where the negative environmental, health and/or consumer
safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the
environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof;

 

Article 6 states:

 

Particular attention shall be paid during the review to the impact on the
environment and on human health of other hazardous substances and materials
used in electrical and electronic equipment. 

 

In concluding, here is a definition of the precautionary principal from the
organization “Wingspread”

 

“Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When
an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically.

 

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should
bear the burden of proof.

 

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed
and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also
involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no
action.”

 

Summary

 

And so in conclusion I ask on behalf of the environment, that lead in
solders for electronics use, shall be exempted under the precautionary
principal, and that in doing so the intent of article 5(1)(b) be met, since
above and beyond the “precautionary principal” definition above, there is
ample weight of scientific evidence to support this action on the basis that
all available replacements have a far higher environmental impact, 

 

If necessary the exemption could be granted for a 2 year period while all of
the data is studied and reported, which would make up the two years lost
since the 2004 submissions.

 

I would be very grateful if you could give this matter your personal
attention since the environmental impact from no action on this matter will
be great.

 

Respectfully submitted to 

European Commission  <http://www.rohsusa.com/page19.html> 

DG Environment

 

By John Burke

 

RoHSUSA 15 June 2006

 

 


---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts 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