| |
|
To
What and Whom does the RoHS Directive Apply?
RoHS is a European directive and it applies to electrical and electronic
equipment (EEE) within the European market place. So anyone trading in
EEE within the market must be prepared to comply even though they may
be based outside the zone. While the original emphasis was placed on manufacturers
the term 'producers' is more relevant. A producer can be a manufacturer
and seller of EEE, but he could also be a reseller of EEE using his own
brand or a professional who imports or exports EEE into a member State,
Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein. The directive applies to these producers
of EEE.
What
are these 'Certain' Hazardous Substances?
This bit is straight forward, they are: lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium
(Cd), hexavalent chromium (Cr VI), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDE). The latter two are manufactured compounds used
as flame retardants in plastics used in a variety of domestic objects
including computers, TVs, furniture (hard and soft), stereos etc (but
note RoHS applies only to EEE). They are regarded as being harmful to
the environment and endanger the health of wildlife and probably humans.
The four metals are very toxic to fauna, as discussed elsewhere on this
site, and have historically been used widely. Lead is ubiquitous in EEE,
having been an alloy in most solders from ever. To identify a few examples
for the others: mercury is used in some lamps and certain electrical switches;
cadmium is a valuable alloying metal for copper, a metal plating material
and has long been used in batteries; and chromium VI is widely used to
prevent corrosion in iron-based alloys.
All of these must be absent from EEE or, if present, reduced below a specified
concentration. Broadly, the limit is 0.01% by weight in homogenous materials
Are there exclusions to RoHS?
Yes, quite a few applications were recognised or subsequently negotiated
as qualifying for exclusion. The definitions of which types are excepted
from the RoHS ban are complex and doubtless will be a moving target for
some time to come. There are some over-arching exceptions such as equipment
using voltages in excess of 1,500 V dc or 1,000 V ac and large-scale stationary
industrial tools. Otherwise it seems to us that the exceptions are allowed
where there are no alternative substances, where alternative substances
are clearly too costly, where security (national, military or functional)
is key to the role of the components or devices and where reliability
depends uniquely on the presence of the substances.
Some examples for exclusions applied to lead are: high melting point solders
used in chip manufacture, networks and servers, in piezoelectronic devices
and in glass of cathode ray tubes and in electronic components and fluorescent
tubes where its presence gives strength.
For mercury: certain types of fluorescent lamps and other specialist lamps.
For cadmium: plating for electrical contacts.
For hexavalent chromium: as an anti-corrosion of the carbon steel cooling
system in absorption refrigerators having special applications.
The above examples are only identified to give a flavour of the small
print. Below is a decision tree transcribed, with minor changes, from
Annex B of the Government Guidance Notes on RoHs regulations, Consultation
Draft, July 2004. This gives a much better insight as to what might
be included within the scope of RoHS. However, some questions are not
fully answered and under no circumstances should the information be considered
as definitive. Producers should rely on independent legal advice on compliance.
|
|
| |
|
Are there Sanctions in the UK for Non-compliance?
There certainly are. If a producer is believed to be breaching the directive,
that person can be ordered to produce a report in defence, showing, for
example, that compliance has in fact been met or maybe that it is someone
else's fault or that he's very sorry and won't do it again. In the event
of non-compliance and conviction a regulated fine can be imposed. The
precise legal minutia may differ in different countries within the UK.
What are the Costs and Benefits of Introducing the
New Legislation?
To be brief, the aggregated financial costs will be enormous; but the
environmental benefits will also be very great. Exact financial costs
will not be known until the system is fully operational and even then,
no doubt, there will still be hidden expenses not accounted for. To be
fair to our bureaucrats a lot of time and effort has been put into analysing
where the costs will occur, the magnitudes and knock-on effects where,
for example, enterprises may cease to be viable with the new regulatory
burdens.
So how much will it cost? You don't really expect a pat answer, do you?
The best we can offer are UK figures based on a DTI consultation
report on the Regulatory Impact Assessment of implementing RoHS (Part
VII, RoHS, RIA, July 2004). They loudly proclaim that it is impossible
to quantify the figures accurately. Their best guesstimates for Capital
and Operating costs (for the first ten years after the Directive
is implemented) range from £105 million to £126 million per
year.
Research and Development costs are less precise and most are
attributable to the restrictions on the use of lead. They are between
£170 million and £330 million per year (up to the date the
Directive is implemented). Interestingly, despite the dominance of lead
as a factor in this context, EEE only accounts for a small proportion
of the overall consumption of lead in the UK.
It should be noted that these costs are in addition to other expenditures
in implementing the WEEE directive.
As for the benefits, they are mainly environmental and really
these can't be quantified, but by no means should they be underestimated;
it is a desirable trade-off. There are some financial benefits, for example
reduced operating costs for implementing WEEE, and a healthier society
will be less expensive to maintain and individuals should be more productive.
As an adjunct there are new industries in the making. The technical legalities
have spawned a new enterprise of consultants to help producers comply
with the complex regulations. New test instruments have been developed
and are being sold, which can analyse products to see if they contain
allowable amounts of the restricted materials.
Is the RoHS ban going to be a Regulatory Nightmare?
For some, it will be. Small enterprises who are 'producers' of EEE within
the Single Market will be particularly vulnerable. If their products require
that they need to carry out R & D to adapt it will be particularly
hard for them to cope. Also they will be hardest hit in dealing with the
bureaucracy (familiarisation and paperwork) to achieve compliance with
all the extra regulations.
The UK government has to some extent tried to anticipate the additional
regulatory burden placed on businesses. The Better Regulation Commission
was formed and has adopted the slogan Less is More. At the request
of the UK PM they have looked at a methodology to reduce the burden of
bureaucracy on enterprises. The principles investigated and recommended
include the new Dutch approach of introducing a target for reducing administrative
costs to reduce paperwork and a 'One in, One out' rule where new regulations
have to be matched by deregulatory measures. We hope that these techniques
are applied to good effect.
Summary
Electrical and electronic equipment has developed to include some toxic
materials which are dangerous if released into the environment. The EU
has taken steps to protect the environment by introducing controls at
the point of manufacture to minimise the amount of certain hazardous substances
appearing in EEE in the Single Market. This action is defined in the RoHS
directive.
At the same time there is another linked control aimed at apportioning
responsibility for the eventual safe and economic disposal of EEE waste.
This action is defined in the WEEE directive. The two are inextricably
entwined.
The environmental benefits should be considerable but at the same time
the costs will be very substantial. Some costs are easily observed but
others are only felt indirectly. Environmentalists, and others, will feel
the price is worth it.
The responsibilities for RoHS are laid at the door of manufacturers although
some equipment assemblers and entrepreneurs are included so that the term
'producers' is more appropriate. These producers are left with the problem
of most of the cost of compliance but no doubt the lion's share of this
will be passed on to the consumers indirectly.
The legislation is enshrined in legal definitions, conditions and caveats
and consequently will prove quite burdensome, especially to small enterprises.
To read the reference page on WEEE, click this button
 . |
