RoHS Exemptions: Winners, Losers and Why
A report has been published by the EU on the reasons for the recent changes in exemptions to the RoHS directive. This 148 page report details the case made by each requestor, supporting evidence, the process followed, and the final decision. It is another invaluable tool for any company that might want to seek an exemption. A link to the report is in the "Focus on WEEE" box on the RoHSwell.com home page and at the end of this article.
Back in January, 2006 I reviewed the then current batch of exemption requests in stakeholder consultation three. For the most part, the obvious losers lost and the obvious winners won. At that time I drew attention to a pair of requests that narrowed and clarified the Cd exemption, number eight in the annex.
Beginning on page 25 of the report, the pair of Cd requests are explained and the entire review process is well documented. The wording of the exemption went through some evolution prior to 1 July 2006 and there were multiple requests to make additional phrasing changes. Industry confusion about scope, the need for a transition period, and the 4-year annex validity cycle were all considered by the review team. In addition, the team arranged an expert meeting in May which was also attended by applicants and stakeholders.
First considering Cd in electrical contacts, the report takes three pages to present a summary of the justifications and observations from supporting documents and the expert meeting. The reviewers acknowledged the complexity of the issue and highlighted the agreement between all parties. Concluding that a general exemption was inappropriate, and that a transition period was clearly needed, the team opted to revise the exemption and include a deadline. For clarity, they also split the exemption in two, separating the electrical contacts and plating applications.
The second request to exclude one-shot thermal cut-offs from the exemption was given similar treatment, even though the correct conclusion was obvious. In this case, the applicant requested that one-shot thermal cut-offs be explicitly excluded from the Cd exemption. For justification, the applicant, NEC-Schott, states they substituted AgCuO for AgCdO three years ago. In addition, competitors have also announced Cd-free replacements, testing has demonstrated equal or superior performance and all relevant safety standards have been met. Again, the Oko-Institut team did the right thing and approved the exclusion, with a one-year transition period.
The new wording for both changes:
8. (a) Cadmium and its compounds in electrical contacts until 1 July 2009, except for mechanical pellet-type one-shot thermal cut-offs as from 1 July 2007 and except for applications banned under Directive 91/338/EEC amending Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
AND
8. (b) Cadmium plating as defined in Directive 91/338/EEC except for applications banned under Directive 91/338/EEC amending Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.
An example of a failed request is "Lead in customer designed or single source integrated circuits," starting on page 34. The lengthy and complex argument put forth by the applicant essentially amounted to a list of economic impacts and a life-time buy constraint. Both of these arguments were rejected by the team since the directive does not consider these impacts. The team did acknowledge the argument that the affected components would be discarded anyway, and would thus still have an environmental impact. However, this was not enough to justify the requested exemption.
More interesting to me is that neither the applicant nor the team considered that processes exist to remove Pb containing terminal finishes and thus make the components compliant. The E-Certa company offers such a conversion process. I think this information should be considered in all future requests for life-time buy and Pb exemptions.
Another successful example, one I originally tagged with poor chances, was the exemption of Pb in solder for transducers in high-power loudspeakers (page 46). The transducers are used in high reliability applications such as fire and security sounders. The high sound levels used (100 dB and up) exert extreme stresses on the transducer's solder joints. Testing has failed to find a Pb-free solution that will endure the required 100 hours of continuous operation.
Where I saw a weak case, the Oko-Institut team went into greater depth, obtaining more documentation. The test data supplied by the applicant, the lack of contrary comments and the safety aspects drove the decision to grant the exemption. The new wording:
Lead in solders for transducers used in loudspeakers with sound pressure levels of 100 dB(A) and more for products that have to comply with the test requirements of the standard EN54-3.
As I see it, adaptation to technical progress works. Exemptions are being granted where the request is reasonable, scientifically sound, backed up by data and a change in wording is presented. The technical team correctly cut through the political chaff tossed out by change opponents and focused on the data. The results have strengthened the RoHS directive and reduced uncertainty. This makes life easier for compliance engineers everywhere.
Additional Resources
Oko-Institut Report (PDF 880 KB)
Exemption Request Contact: Anna Passera European Commission DG Environment, Unit A.2., Avenue de Beaulieu/Beaulieulaan 5, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium Anna.Passera@cec.eu.int.
Exemption Checklist (PDF)
Convert Pb-bearing parts to RoHS compliant, E-Certa
So You Want a RoHS Exemption, January 2006 article.
