[tinwhiskers] Re: IPC expresses concerns on possible ROHS revisions
- From: Norman Dancer <ndancer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:09:57 -0700
I'm probably alone, but sometimes I wonder if selling to the EU
is worth it. Just where are they on the electronic purchases list? Ah well.
Just dreaming, I guess.
Norman Dancer
Senior Engineer
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:27 PM
To: tin whiskers forum
Subject: [tinwhiskers] IPC expresses concerns on possible ROHS revisions
http://www.edn.com/blog/690000269/post/1080028908.html?nid=3351&rid=1458594938
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
IPC expresses concerns on possible ROHS revisions
IPC today reported on its recent ROHS-revision focused workshop in
Brussels<http://www.ipc.org/ipcbrussels> and -- like a growing number of
electronics supply chain companies, organizations, and experts - noted concerns
with the Öko-Institut's proposed expansion of ROHS substance restrictions.
Öko-Institut was contracted by the European Commission to study the inclusion
of additional hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment under
ROHS. Right now, ROHS still stands at restricting the original six materials:
lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl and
polybrominated diphenyl ether.
In the Öko-Institut's draft report to the EC, it recommended the restriction of
TBBPA (Tetrabromobisphenol A), a flame retardant used to protect more than 80%
of printed circuit boards and found to be safe by a comprehensive European
Union risk assessment, according to IPC. In addition to TBBPA, HBCDDs
(Hexabromocylcododecanes), several phthalate plasticizers, and all organic
compounds containing chlorine and bromine are included in the report as
suggested bans.
"IPC is concerned that Öko-Institut's recommendations are arbitrary and lack a
sound scientific basis. Implemented, these recommendations will have a
significant negative impact on our members," Fern Abrams, IPC's director of
government relations and environmental policy, said in the organization's
statement today.
IPC isn't alone in its concerns. Newark's Gary Nevison recently contributed a
Critical Links<http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257.html> blog to EDN on the
banning of flame retardants and the harmful affect doing so could have. In
"Flame retardants ignite
controversy<http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/post/1740027974.html>," Nevison
questioned the risk-benefit balance based on assessments of the ROHS directive.
He, like Abrams, has also expressed concerns over the Öko-Institut's practices
and wonders if the EC is keeping immediate human safety, like that from
electronics fires, in mind when setting its regulations.
Abrams, who I recently interviewed on this topic, noted that IPC held the
meeting in Brussels to make sure that all technical issues were considered by
the commission when they drafted the ROHS revisions.
Attendees at the IPC meeting included members of the EC and the ROHS Technical
Advisory Committee from Brussels and the United Kingdom; and representatives
from European Space Agency; EU Commission consultant ERA Technology; Rockwell
Collins; AT&S (Austria Technologies & Systemtechnik); Philips Healthcare;
Henkel; BAE Systems Platform Solutions; Lockheed Martin; Aerospace Industries
Association of America; American Embassy Brussels; Avantec; Isola GmbH; and
EADS.
IPC said that it is working with the meeting attendees to develop a white paper
in response to the proposed restrictions.
Other related posts: