BY PATRICK McLAUGHLIN
The European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, which went into effect on July 1, was discussed and written about virtually everywhere across the electronics industry for more than a year leading up to its early-summer effective date. Now that the run-up to RoHS is over, at least one distributor in the industry is seeing to it that the topic does not fade from design engineers’ minds and, in fact, has made efforts to focus increased attention on the environmental initiative in North America.
Through a combination of research, public statements, and calls for official action, Newark InOne (www.newarkinone.com) has keptRoHS in public view at a time when it could easily be overlooked.
“We believe North American distributors should adhere to the same standard in order to support their customers,” commented Paul Tallentire, Newark InOne’s president. The statement was part of the company’s announcement last month of its own process to ensure the products it sells comply with the standard.
That pronouncement came on the heels of a call, about a month earlier, for United States federal-level legislation on par with the EU’s RoHS. “National RoHS and WEEE [Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment] laws that mirror the European Union’s directives are in the best interest of the U.S. electronics industry-for manufacturers, distributors, and end users alike,” Tallentire stated.
He pointed to current legislative efforts occurring in the U.S. on a state-by-state basis not as progress, but as problematic. “Increasing and varying state-by-state rules are already causing problems for electronic manufacturers and distributors,” Tallentire claims. “The cost of tracking and meeting varying state requirements both now and in the future is almost too staggering to contemplate. Are we going to wait until we have 50 state laws with 50 flavors before we enact a uniform national standard for our industry? Or worse, are we going to wait for major cities to begin enacting their own individual laws?”
Tallentire’s and Newark InOne’s message is clear: Legislation at a federal level is a proactive and most-effective means of administering hazardous-substance restrictions within electronic equipment in the U.S. Tallentire adds, “Enacting national RoHS and WEEE rules is an environmentally responsible thing to do ... We’re currently out-of-step with other major countries in regard to electronic product rules. Like it or not, the EU is now the worldwide driver of rules affecting our industry. RoHS and WEEE rules are just the beginning. The EU’s Energy-using Products (EuP) and Registration Directive; the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive; the EU Packaging Directive; and the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) directives are also a concern and will have a dramatic impact on our industry.”
In between those two announcements, Newark InOne revealed that research it conducted in conjunction with Reed Business showed 30 percent of design engineers and component buyers sampled do not expect RoHS to have any real impact on their companies over the next year.
Reed deployed the survey to 914 subscribers to EDN and Purchasing magazines in September, and said that responses came from military/defense/aerospace, communications, and design consulting industries.
“RoHS does impact everyone who makes, uses, or buys electronic components,” Tallentire stated in response to the findings. “At a minimum, companies must deal with a record number of parts becoming obsolete. The research suggests that there will continue to be a very real need for ... information ... for many months to come.”
So, what is happening within the federal government?
Right now, it appears there is more to talk about concerning electronic-waste recycling than there is concerning restricting hazardous substances within electronics. Specifically, in July, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Robert Cresanti, released a report entitled “Recycling Technology Products: An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues.” While it appears to be the proverbial single step in the journey of 1,000 miles toward a federal law, for supporters of this kind of action, it is at least a step. The report, which is available at the Web site of the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration (www.technology.gov), outlines the issues that face manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, environmental organizations, and other groups. The Technology Department says the report also identifies possible areas of consensus among industry and other stakeholders on managing discarded electronics.
“Federally, we’re committed to help fashion a balanced, equitable solution so that we can not only preserve our environment but also our nation’s economic strength for our children,” Cresanti stated on the day his office released the report. He made the comment while addressing the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (www.isri.org). “Removing unnecessary burdens from the technology sector in order to enable them to compete in today’s global market remains critical for the industry and our nation,” he added.
Cresanti also made points echoing the concerns of Newark InOne’s Tallentire: “Over 10 countries have laws on recycling discarded electronics, and more are developing legislation. In the United States, five states have banned the disposal of cathode ray tubes from television and computer monitors in landfills. Four states have passed statewide electronics recycling laws, yet each with different requirements for manufacturers, retailers, local governments, and consumers.”
Cresanti continues, “How our electronics waste solutions are developed, and who is involved in the decision process, will affect the manufacture, marketing, and business models of U.S. companies. Industry is now facing a patchwork of international and state laws. Disparate requirements can lead to uncertainties, inefficiencies, and high compliance costs for companies.”
Technology Administration efforts dating back as many as five years have yielded some progress, which is detailed in the report, but also yielded some predictable snags. Cresanti said a 2004 public roundtable of stakeholders included representatives of electronics manufacturers, retailers, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental organizations, and recyclers. A subsequent Federal Register notice sought further commentary. “Stakeholders who participated in the roundtable and responded to our Federal Register request for comments agreed that a uniform, national system of electronics recycling is preferable to a patchwork of different state systems,” Cresanti stated.
“Unfortunately, stakeholders have not come to a consensus on the financing for a national system,” he added. “In fact, that has been the goal of discussions among stakeholders since 2001. The absence of a consensus has resulted in states experimenting with a variety of financing systems, from an advanced recovery fee paid by the consumer at the time of purchase in California, to producer responsibility in which the manufacturers of televisions and computer monitors are responsible for paying for the recycling system, as is the case in Maine and Washington State.”
One financing idea stakeholders do agree on is that whatever method is developed, it should apply nationwide, Cresanti reported.
While the slumbering giant of United States WEEE-type legislation may have been awoken, the notion that domestic RoHS-like regulations could pass through the legislative process with the same ease they enjoyed in the EU seems unlikely. Shortly before RoHS took effect, a burst of anti-RoHS activity unfolded. One such cause in particular, called Pushback, uses the Web site www.rohsusa.com to make the case against the directive’s widespread adoption. Pushback’s centerpiece document is a 2005 study from the EPA entitled “Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment.” Interested parties can download the report, funded by the EPA and researched by the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, from Pushback’s Web site.
Pushback takes two primary positions: that lead-free solders are not necessarily (perhaps not at all) more environmentally friendly than tin-lead solders, and that reliability is a significant concern in electronic equipment with lead-free solders. (Connector Specifier has covered the latter issue, including most recently in the article “Avoiding tin whiskers in Sn-Cu-plated connectors,” June/July 2006, p. 30.)
If and when RoHS-type legislation is proposed within Congress, those with ambitions and objectives in line with Newark InOne’s, as well as those with ambitions and objectives in line with Pushback’s, will be heard. And there is little doubt that each side will have voluminous scientific research to support its position. In that regard, the topic will remain front-and-center for the electronics industry.
Meanwhile, any element of the industry that does business in Europe has had to comply with the EU directive already, and those that do not claim such compliance face the fragmented, state-by-state laws that are about to go into effect.
