|
EU
Studies Need to 'Simplify' RoHS
Study of the RoHS directive
COM(2005) 535
Directive 2002/95/EC - RoHS
In March 2008, the
Final Report of the "Study of the RoHS and WEE
Directives" was released by Arcadis Ecolas. The study includes a
lengthy discussion of the accomplishments,
costs and benefits of the RoHS directive, while noting
the difficulty of
quantifying the many intangibles of economic production.
Another goal of the
study was to find ways to "simplify" RoHS as part of COM
(2005) 535 "Strategy for the
Simplification of the Regulatory Environment." For the EU,
simplifying RoHS means making it more "cost-effective". What this seems
to mean is not adopting less regulation, but making the various
environmental regulations more consistent with each other and their
implementation consistent between Member States. The approaches taken
by China, Japan, South Korea, and some US states were also
reviewed.
|
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. |
|
During the
consultation period, twenty-seven revisions to the RoHS
directive were proposed by stakeholders.
Nine of these proposals were disadvised (not recommended) by Arcadis Ecolas
in the Final Report. Eight proposals were advised with the
caveat that they would be difficult to implement. The remaining
ten proposals were advised (recommended) without reservation and
are listed below by category: |
|
Distributing the administrative burden across suppliers: |
|
5. |
Standardized compliance testing methods
- how producers can demonstrate compliance at the homogeneous
level using an agreed-upon sample disjointment and testing; IEC
62321 is a standard under development which could be used; ISO
17025 certified laboratories would be recognized in all Member
States |
|
Bringing more market reality into the exemption process: |
|
11. |
Add timeframes to exemptions -
specific timeframes that take into consideration the degree of
availability of substitutes and time needed for product
re-design, implementation of new production processes and
effects on the supply chain; expiration dates motivate
transition to substitutes |
|
12. |
Grant time-limited derogation for new product development
- allow use of RoHS restricted materials for a limited period of
time in order to stimulate innovation of new technology
|
|
13. |
Add criteria: whether economic costs
outweigh environmental benefits - since consumption of
RoHS substances is product-specific, evaluation must be done on
case-by-case basis; particularly relevant for Category 8 & 9
equipment and for national security |
|
16. |
Copy strategy
used in Packaging Directive - directive sets forth
criteria for products that are excluded; annex provides examples
of included and excluded products (illustrative) which is
revised under the Comitology process; all products covered by
criteria are excluded; burden of proof is on the producer |
|
Coping with unequal implementation in Member States: |
|
18. |
Business as usual - legal basis for
RoHS is article 95 and harmonization (Member States cannot
impose more stringent requirements) whereas legal basis for WEEE
is article 175 (Member States may use locally adapted
solutions); there is no easy solution |
|
20. |
Splitting up RoHS and WEEE definitions and
exemptions (solution 4) -
definition of EEE categories moved from WEEE annexes to a
separate Commission Decision comparable with the List of Waste
Decision 2000/532/EC |
|
Clarifying definitions: |
|
22. |
"Equipment" which is part of another type
of equipment - equipment means any stand alone apparatus
or any apparatus that is
identifiable as a replaceable stand-alone apparatus even when it
is connected to or included in another apparatus |
|
23. |
“Homogeneous material” - a material
of uniform composition throughout that cannot be disjointed by
mechanical actions such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing,
grinding and abrasive processes (RoHS FAQ);
maximum concentration value in homogeneous materials or
in separate components smaller than 4 mm3 (China RoHS
limit value) |
|
24. |
“Large scale stationary industrial tools”
- machines or systems, consisting of a combination of equipment,
systems, finished products and/or components, each of which is
designed to be used in industry only, permanently fixed and
installed by professionals at a given place in an industrial
machinery or in an industrial building to perform a specific
task; they are not intended to be placed on the market as a
single functional or commercial unit (RoHS FAQ) |
For information on the
current status of
RoHS Recast,
please follow the link.
This summary of the study of RoHS by Arcadis Ecolas is designed to provide you with an accurate, easy-to-understand
overview of the topic 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.
RSJ provides a number of
RoHS compliance services that can be tailored
to the needs of your company.
We provide awareness training, BOM scrub, compliance program
implementation, compliance software evaluation, product risk assessment,
as well as RoHS reporting services. We are here to help you!
Back
to News Index
Copyright ©
Dec 2010 -- All Rights
Reserved
RSJ Technical
Consulting
PO Box 867705, Plano, Texas 75086 |
