|
EU
Studies Need to Simply RoHS
Study of the RoHS directive
COM(2005) 535
Directive 2002/95/EC - RoHS
A draft final report
titled "Study of the RoHS
Directive," which is described by EUROPA as being "related to the simplification of the RoHS and WEEE
Directives," was issued in December 2007. The study was prepared by
Arcadis/Ecolas, and the period for public comment ended on January 31,
2008.
This study is part of the
European Commission's legislative
simplification exercise began October 2005; see COM
(2005) 535. The goal is to develop legislation that is "more
transparent, more focused, more cost effective and more accepted
by the target groups" while maintaining the same level of
environmental protection. Comparison with the approaches taken
in China, Japan, South Korea, and some US states is to be
made.
The study includes a
lengthy discussion of the
accomplishments,
costs and benefits of the RoHS directive, while noting
the low level of responses from industry and the difficulty of
quantifying what is sometimes unquantifiable. There is an acknowledgment
that RoHS has produced some unintended consequences, while remaining
bullish on the desirability of implementing yet more environmental
regulation.
|
Stakeholder problems
with the implementation of RoHS include: |
|
|
Inconsistencies between Member States in determining which
products are within the scope of RoHS. For example, closed
circuit TV is considered category 9 (exempt) by UK and
Germany but category 4 (not exempt) by Belgium and the
Netherlands |
|
|
Inconsistencies between Member States in
interpreting key terms
such as 'put on the market', 'homogenous material' and 'lead
free'. 'Put on the market' is variously
interpreted as the country's own national market or the
entire European Community Market, but the examples on pages
97 and 123 contradict each other, perhaps giving an
unintended example of the confusion surrounding the issue.
|
|
|
Inconsistencies between Member States in
the procedures for demonstrating
compliance. Ireland requires documented
self-certifications from suppliers; Greece, Hungary and
Latvia requires corporate commitments to RoHS compliance;
Germany and Portugal require technical documentation in
their national languages and laboratories certified to
international standards. |
|
|
Inconsistencies between Member States in
test methods and analysis
of products, largely due to different interpretations of the
term 'homogenous material', such that the same product
tested under different methods may be compliant in some
countries but not in others. |
|
|
Inconsistencies between Member States in
enforcement and penalties.
Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and UK regard the lack of
appropriate documentation as a statutory offense. Penalties
for the same offense range from €1,270 in Poland to
unlimited in the UK. Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,
Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden also allow prison sentences. |
|
|
'Free
riders' whose
noncompliant products go undetected because of insufficient
market surveillance. Free riders are estimated to account
for 10% to 20% of products (by volume), with noncompliance
concentrated among smaller firms and importers. |
|
|
Disproportionate burden on small
and medium enterprises (SME). RoHS implementation
costs (past and one-time future) average 5.2% of annual
revenues ("turnover") for SME, against an average of 1.1%
for all companies. Small companies with small labor forces
must meet the same obligations, without the economy of scale
available to larger companies. |
|
|
Unwieldy
exemption process. Industry believes process is overly long
and drawn out, lacks transparency and clear deadlines. The
constant list of expanding exemptions creates a condition of
uncertainty which makes the directive less effective. |
|
|
Possibility
for one upstream player to trigger the
premature withdrawal
of a key exemption by notifying the Commission of the
availability of a new technology, creating a potential
monopoly. Issues over patents and licensing of new
technology need to be addressed. |
|
|
Lack of
economic criteria for withdrawing a RoHS exemption. The commercial reality of manufacturers
should be considered including whether the new technology is
widely available, as well as lead times needed for product
redesign, changes in manufacturing processes and supply
chain development. |
|
The modest proposals coming from this study constitute a
request for standardization between Member
States rather than a true simplification
of RoHS itself: |
|
|
Amend RoHS to
provide clear definitions of the terms
'put on the market', 'equipment which is part of other
equipment', 'homogeneous materials' and 'large scale stationary
industrial tools' in order to assure consistency across Member
States in determining which equipment is within the scope of
RoHS and which is not. |
|
|
Adopt a
harmonized approach to compliance and
enforcement across all Member States, especially
concerning how companies are required to demonstrate compliance,
be it through testing, self-declaration, provision of
documentation, etc. |
|
|
Adopt a
harmonized approach to market
surveillance by Member States in order to ensure fair
competition across the internal market. |
If you would like assistance in
preparing your company for the expected changes to RoHS, please
email
or call at 972-679-8996.
This summary is
intended to give you an easy-to-understand overview and does not
constitute legal advice. The actual standard in the original language
should be reviewed and used for all business, legal, and product
compliance purposes.
top
Copyright © 2008 -- All Rights
Reserved
RSJ
Technical Consulting
PO Box 867705, Plano, Texas 75086 |
