[tinwhiskers] Re: the leachability study in the EPA article as it affects HR 2420 (the USA RoHS bill now in Congress)
- From: "Patrick Bruneel" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:47:58 -0500
Bob,
The EPA used a synthetic procedure which my not reflect the real world.
Here’s a link to a report from a Palo Alto landfill with high lead CRT’s.
http://www.westp2net.org/hub/hub36/Is_this_ban_necessary_CRT_.pdf
There is also a report released by the Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA) Applied Research Foundation. Released in March 2004, this concluded
that heavy toxic metals, including lead, did not pose an existing or future
health threat in municipal solid waste landfills.
According to the authors, "The study presents extensive data that show that
heavy metal concentrations in leachate and landfill gas are generally far below
the limits that have been established to protect human health and the
environment."
http://www.swana.org/sections/press/pr_viewdetail.aspx?pressId=96
There are a lot more reports and studies on leaching but I can’t find them
right now (all saying lead doesn’t leach from landfills because lead oxidizes
fast and lead oxides don’t dissolve in water).
Regards,
_____
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:19 PM
To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tinwhiskers] the leachability study in the EPA article as it affects
HR 2420 (the USA RoHS bill now in Congress)
Patrick,
I fail to understand the rational of the leachability study in the EPA article
you posted. It bears directly on any proposed legislation to ban lead. Before
we ban a substance, we ought to understand what the problem is. As I
understood lead toxicity comes from lead paint and lead in paint has been
banned for many years. Lead in gasoline (tetraethyl lead) has also been
banned. So why are we now banning lead in solder?
I quote (pages 2-37 to 2-38) from
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lfs-lca-final.pdf
The outputs from the landfilling process were based on a leachability study
conducted by the University of Florida (UF) in support of the LFSP. The study
conducted the EPA-approved toxicity characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP)
test on each of the solder types included in the LFSP. In addition to the TCLP
test, a less aggressive test method called the synthetic precipitation leaching
procedure (SPLP) also was conducted. The TCLP test uses acetic acid and sodium
hydroxide in the leaching fluid, and is expected to represent conditions in a
landfill. The SPLP uses sulfuric acid and nitric acid, which is intended to be
more representative of rainwater. Appendix C presents the draft report
describing the methodology and results. The leachate output data are used to
represent potential releases to water from landfilling. No further fate and
transport modeling is done in the context of this LCA, since the LCA does not
address specific locations for impacts and does not have the ability to
incorporate site specific fate and transport parameters. The output data used
in the LFSP are derived from the TCLP study; however, the acetic acid contained
in the TCLP leachate is known to more aggressively leach lead than other
metals. In response to concerns about whether the TCLP will over-estimate the
leaching from SnPb solder, an alternate analysis also was conducted using the
detection limits as a lower bound (Section 3.3.3).
From the leachability study results, which were provided in concentrations of
metal per liter of leachate, the data were converted to kilograms of metal
outputs per kilogram of solder (see Appendix C). Table 2-15 presents the data
used as the landfilling process outputs based on the leachability study. The
table shows that lead in the SnPb alloy leached to the greatest extent,
followed by bismuth in BSA. In addition, other outputs from the landfilling
process group include outputs from the diesel fuel production process.
I would like to see proof of the validity of the "TCLP" procedure that uses
acetic acid !! and sodium hydroxide !! and the even more aggressive "SPLP"
method that uses sulphuric !!! and nitric !!! acids.
The proof I'm looking for is a published study that reports MEASURED levels of
lead in groundwater in the vicinity of a landfill.
Has anyone seen such a report that lends credibility to these acid/base
cocktails used to "simulate" leaching from landfills? If that were true then I
would expect to see pH changes in groundwater and clearly we do not see that
here in New Hampshire where all our drinking water comes from aqufiers and we
have many landfills, and many of them are not lined (in fact there is a capped
SuperFund site in my town (North Hampton NH) which was capped not because of
lead levels, but because of chlorinated solvent levels in the aquifer under the
site (this was a dump for the USAF Pease AFB and other industries as well as
residences for many years).
I am a water commissioner in my town. I assure you all that I have never heard
of any reported lead levels in ground water. We have hydrocarbons and MbTE
(gasoline anti-knock compound now banned). I would think the use of tetraethyl
lead as an anti-knock compound for so many years before MbTE would have created
a lot of lead contamination of the ground water but this has not happened.
Lead in soil tends to turn to carbonates and other NON-soluable compounds.
Acid rain has not seemed to have that much of an effect.
By the way, the house I live in was built in 1878 and for many years it had
LEAD pipe (like the Romans used and as was used in England). No-one to my
knowledge got lead poisoning. People in NH live long lives. The Roman Empire
did not collapse from drinking water from lead pipe; as I recall, the Romans
were poisoned from lead laced wine that leached lead from the glaze in the
pottery vessels that the wine was stored in.
Anyone knowing otherwise on this subject is invited to comment.
Regards,
Bob Landman
H&L Instruments, LLC
_____
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Bruneel
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:36 AM
To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
Such a report has been done by the EPA in 2005 “Solders in Electronics: A
Life-Cycle Assessment”
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lfs-lca-final.pdf
If you look at page ES-16/table ES-4 and ES-5 it appears that SAC alloys have a
higher impact on the environment compared to Sn/Pb in areas:
Non renewable resource use, Energy use, Global warming, Ozone depletion and
Water Quality.
Since when have we (the US) become followers instead of leaders?
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:15 PM
To: White, Robert
Cc: 'tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
What this appears to be saying is that within a year the Federal
Government is going to issue some sort of edict, and the States may
not issue their own. That's probably a good thing. Left to their own
devices, California would legislate science and Natural Law, as they
have in the past.
Those on this list in the U. S. A, please tell your elected
representatives that any forthcoming legislation in this area needs to
be in compliance with www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm which
basically requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared.
The change to pure-tin-finishes and the attendant risk of
tin-whisker-related failures, as well as this legislation itself, both
appear to require an EIR.
Steve Smith
WR> Wow! Thanks for posting this. RoHS USA makes it’s appearance.
WR> Wonder what means I can use to provide feedback on the exemptions
WR> listed in Section 4 (a). I guess we need to work through our local
WR> Representative of the House? Does anyone know if IPC or any other group is
mounting a response?
WR> Best Regards,
WR> Bob White
WR> Director of Safety and Environmental Compliance
WR> Power-One, Inc.
WR> Tel: +1 805 384-5391
WR> Fax: +1 805 987-3781
WR> robert.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robert.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WR> ________________________________
WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Bruneel
WR> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:27 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> Hard to believe but check the link below
WR> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2420
WR> Patrick
WR> ________________________________
WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Southworth
WR> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:51 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> Thanks Judy
WR> Ron Southworth
WR> ________________________________
WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Little, Judy W
(EHCOE)
WR> Sent: Tuesday, 19 May 2009 1:35 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> Denny,
WR> Have you seen the wonderful video lessons in observing whiskers
WR> on the NASA Tin Whisker website? If not, just go to:
WR> http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/video/inspection/index.html
WR> Judy Little
WR> Honeywell, Clearwater, Florida
WR> ________________________________
WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fritz, Dennis D.
WR> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 20:16
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> Subject: RE: [tinwhiskers] R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> We will have that capability, in addition to several versions of
WR> ring lights, fiber-optic "goose neck" lights, etc. Seems to me
WR> that the "shine' or the reflection off the whisker is important. I have
the JEDEC spec.
WR> Denny
WR> ________________________________
WR> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gabriele Sala
WR> Sent: Sat 5/16/2009 5:45 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] R: Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> Hi Denny,
WR> Here (from JEDEC Std. 22-A121A ) you can find some help.
WR> In my experience Optical Stereo from 40X to 150X is good
WR> enough, it depends how deep you want to investigate.
WR> You must be careful when handling boards because whiskers are very fragile
WR> Just my 2 € ‘ cents
WR> Best Regards
WR> Gabriele Sala
WR> CT-91
WR> --------------------
WR> From the free download JEDEC Standards
WR> http://www.jedec.org/download/default.cfm
WR> Look for
WR> JEDEC Standard No. 22-A121A
WR> Test Method for Measuring Whisker Growth on Tin and Tin Alloy Surface
Finishes
WR> (Revision of JESD22-A121.01, December 2005)
WR> Last level JULY 2008
WR> Page 3
WR> 4.3 Optical stereomicroscope (Optional)
WR> Optical stereomicroscope with adequate lighting capable of 50X to 150X
magnification and capable
WR> of detecting whiskers with a minimum length of 10 microns, per Annex B. If
tin whiskers are
WR> measured with an optical system, then the system must have a
WR> stage that is able to move in three
WR> dimensions and rotate, such that whiskers can be positioned
WR> perpendicular to the viewing direction
WR> for measurement.
WR> 4.4 Optical microscope (Optional)
WR> Optical microscope with adequate lighting capable of 100X to 300X
magnification and capable of
WR> measuring whiskers with a minimum length of 10 microns, per Annex B. For
tin whisker
WR> measurements, the optical system must have a stage that is able to move in
three dimensions and
WR> rotate, such that whiskers can be positioned perpendicular to the viewing
direction for
WR> measurement.
WR> 4.5 Scanning electron microscope
WR> Scanning electron microscope (SEM) capable of at least 250X
WR> magnification. An SEM fitted with
WR> an X-ray detector is recommended for elemental identification.
WR> From:
WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WR>
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?>]
On Behalf Of Fritz, Dennis D.
WR> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:41 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
WR> tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> What is your whiskers inspection methodology?
WR> I am getting ready to do a study with Purdue undergraduate
WR> interns (who work for a VERY attractive price for our program).
WR> We will determine both the extent of whiskers growth on commercial
WR> boards - scrap cell phones and laptops, and the ease of
WR> measurement by "semi-skilled" operators. We will be using optical
WR> microscope, enhanced digital microscope, and simple SEM.
WR> Can you share your proceedures?
WR> Denny Fritz
WR> SAIC - Merrillville, IN
WR> ________________________________
WR> From:
WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behal f of Jim Bunn
WR> Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 10:55 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> I think they are saying it works if the thickness is at least
WR> 2mils. Or maybe that the coating is better than nothing.
WR> We have a lot of uncoated stuff out there running a test right
WR> now. And it's pretty comprensive considering the voltage levels
WR> that we are using in the PCUs. I'm suprised that we have not had some kind
of problem.
WR> ________________________________
WR> From:
WR> tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Pedro Tort
WR> Sent: Thu 5/14/2009 7:48 AM
WR> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WR> Subject: [tinwhiskers] New study on coating to mitigate whiskers
WR> The National Physics Laboratory in UK has undertaken a study on
WR> the capability of different coatings to mitigate tin whiskers
WR> growth. The results of this investigation reinforces the findings
WR> of Jay Bruse and Dr. Henning Leidecker who back in 2007 found the
WR> Uralane 5750 Polyurethane was an effective mitigation strategy for
WR> tin whiskers provided the nominal coating thickness was 2mils.
WR> I quote from the first issue of the NPL Electronics Interconnection
Newsletter:
WR> "The use=2 0of conformal coatings is seen as the only practical
WR> means of controlling whisker growths shorting adjacent conductors
WR> on a PCB. NPL has studied three types of coating, to assess their
WR> effectiveness for inhibiting whisker growth.
WR> Two coatings, polyurethane and paraxylene both were found to
WR> reduce the growth of whiskers for up to 150 days of testing,
WR> compared with failure of 14 days for uncoated samples. The acrylic
WR> coating was found not to perform as well as the others in parallel
WR> tests. All coatings failed to provide sufficient protection in
WR> areas of insufficient coating coverage, at corners and sides of the test
samples."
WR> Pedro Tort
WR> Quality Manager
WR> DigiProces, S.A.
WR> Solsones, 87 - P.I. Pla de la Bruguera
WR> P.O. Box 127
WR> E-08211 CASTELLAR DEL VALLES
WR> TEL. +34 937 142 132
WR> FAX. +34 937 142 072
WR> www.digiproces.com<http://www.digiproces.com/>
WR> This email and any files contained therein is confidential and
WR> may contain privileged information. If you are not the named
WR> addressee(s) or you have otherwise received this in error, you
WR> should not distribute or copy this e-mail or use any of its
WR> content for any purpose. Please notify the sender immediately by
WR> e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error and delete it from your
system
WR> No virus found in this incoming message.
WR> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
WR> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.30/2115 - Release Date: 05/14/09
17:54:00
WR> No virus found in this incoming message.
WR> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
WR> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.32/2117 - Release Date: 05/17/09
16:58:00
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.consultingscientist.us
http://www.pickensplan.com/
Other related posts:
