Hi Bob I would like to quote from a document produced by the Leadout project team. It is a 2005 document but I bring it to the forum because it might tell us something about why we are where we are. For those of you who might not know, let me tell you the LEADOUT project was a paneuropean one in which there were participants from 10 different European countries and the aim of it was to provide support to the electronics industries on the transition to leadfree solders. On their website www.leadoutproject.com <http://www.leadoutproject.com/> they say it was one of the largest European funded projects on leadfree technologies. The project started in 2004 and ended in 2007. This document is called “Environmental Impact Report on the Industrial use of LFS” (for Lead Free Soldering) and is available at http://www.leadoutproject.com/projectos/0009_LeadOut/pub_deliverables/D5_3_1-Environmental%20Impact%20Guide%20Report.pdf . I quote from it: 3.2 - Emissions to water and soil (leaching) When electronic equipment reached its end-of-life it was normally sent to landfills where due to the action of rain some leaching of heavy metals occurred, causing contamination problems to soil and groundwater. This was investigated in LEADOUT project (6) by doing leaching tests of PCBs and slags from LFS and Pb solders. The results were compared with the limit values of the Council Decision 2003/33/CE, reaching the following conclusions: Lead is leached and thus PCBs and slags from processes using lead solders are considered as hazardous waste and have to go to landfills for hazardous waste. By moving from Pb solders to LFS this problem stops to exist and the waste is classified as inert allowing it to be deposited in ordinary landfills reducing disposal costs. Some solder suppliers recycle slag and thus the leaching problem is eliminated. A conclusion from the LEADOUT work (6) is that LFS processes are cleaner, from leaching test point of view, than the traditional Lead-based solder soldering processes. As you can see it looks some leaching of heavy metals occurs from electronic equipment in landfills. A remarkably precise quantitative statement coming from a team of experts in 10 different countries. Anyway it is not just an opinion. This was investigated with the conclusion that “lead is leached”. Did they run the leaching tests with PCBs and slags as the report seems to say assuming slags are thrown to landfills?. You might be curious about this (6) reference and want to know about the methodology applied in this investigation. At the end of the document on the References list, #6 is: “Industrial report on Health & Safety impact on the use of LFS at SME”, LEADOUT project report ref. LOUT/ISQ/DEL-64. Unfortunately neither a search on the Leadout website or a google search reaches any result on that document. Maybe the report was leached too and is now contaminating some deep aquifer supply. Pedro Tort Quality Manager DigiProces, S.A. Solsones, 87 - P.I. Pla de la Bruguera P.O. Box 127 E-08211 CASTELLAR DEL VALLES TEL. +34 937 142 132 FAX. +34 937 142 072 www.digiproces.com _____ De: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Bob Landman Enviado el: lunes, 25 de mayo de 2009 6:19 Para: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [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/