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