With no major wrist-slaps coming out of Europe, attention shifts to the soon-to-awaken giant.
By Patrick McLaughlin & Betsy Ziobron
RoHS-Restriction of Hazardous Substances-is the European Union (EU) directive (2002/95/EC) that went into effect on July 1, 2006 and required vendors throughout the industry to restrict levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and two fire retardants in electrical and electronic products entering the European market. The run-up to July 1 was significant, to say the least. “A tremendous amount of money went into compliance,” says Steve Schultz, director of strategic planning and communications with Avnet Logistics (www.avnet-logistics.com). Some vendors unveiled all-new part numbers for their RoHS-compliant products, while others kept existing product numbers. Overall, huge amounts of effort and money went into making products compliant and setting buyers straight on new/old, compliant/ non-compliant product numbers.
Also on the minds of many as the EU approached the day RoHS went into effect was the extent to which, and manner in which, enforcement would be carried out. Some predicted that early on, one or two high-profile violations would be made public, sending a message to the entire industry. Now, nearly a full year after the directive went into effect, no such conspicuous violations have been reported, and enforcement has not been much of an issue at all.
“The way the RoHS directive was written,” Schultz explains, “includes a requirement for member states to put enforcement into place. Each member state bears responsibility for enforcement. For example, if the U.K. finds a problem, there is no formal mechanism to communicate to the other member states.
“Even if an EU state was ready to enforce,” he continues, “it would need to train people to do so. The consensus today is that there are not enough people qualified to enforce the directive.”
In addition, he says, there are legal considerations to make before enforcement begins. For instance, how does a state identify which companies to (suspiciously) examine? EU nations may take an approach that can be compared to sifting for gold-allowing all the sand and water to go through the sieve while searching for that larger object that might be what you’re really looking for.
These nations may use a matrix that considers companies’, and industries’, pasts. Has a company or industry had a history of environmental infractions? Are they producing products that are most likely to be problematic? “Lead paint, which is banned in the U.S., is an example,” Schultz points out. “Any product that had that type of paint in it might be higher on the matrix.”
Companies with a history of non-compliance with other regulatory issues, such as importing and exporting, also may not “pass through the sieve” and find themselves under scrutiny concerning RoHS.
Overall, however, the area of enforcement has been quiet. “The bottom line,” Schwartz says, “is that very few companies have the concern they had before the effective date. Notably, my phone is not ringing on this issue. Prior to July 1, 2006, I was on the phone every day,” with manufacturers discussing compliance. “On the effective date, some companies were only half-way there [to compliance]. Today, they’ve all gotten there.”
That sentiment appears to hold true across electronics industries, including connectors and cabling systems, which include connectivity hardware. In late 2005, cabling vendors were being bombarded daily with RoHS concerns from customers while dealing with the logistical nightmare of information management, determining which products to convert, changing manufacturing processes to comply, and retesting and recertifying the new products.
At that time, the prevailing attitude was that there was little motivation for making RoHS-compliant versions of products that were not big sellers. Today, that attitude has changed.
Says Todd Harpel, director of marketing for cable manufacturer Berk-Tek (www.berktek.com), “While RoHS is not a U.S. initiative, we knew that it was something that our factories abroad would have to abide by. We, therefore, felt it was beneficial for us to also comply here in the States. As a result, we undertook the effort of identifying what materials needed to be changed in all of our manufacturing facilities, and we are now 100% RoHS-compliant on all copper and fiber cables.”
Examining exemptions
Exemptions have been a debatable RoHS issue due to the directive’s generic and often confusing language, not to mention the appealing possibility of avoiding immediate compliance. Consequently, several proposed exemptions are under review or pending review by the EU Commission. When RoHS first came on the scene, some believed the term “equipment” did not apply to network cabling, and that cabling was a “fixed installation” and, therefore, exempt. That perception has shifted.
“In the beginning, some were under the impression that the cabling in the walls did not have to be compliant, but I believe that perhaps the cost to comply did not turn out as high as initially thought,” says Mike Barnick, senior manager for solutions marketing on CommScope’s (www.commscope.com) Systimax brand. “I also believe there is peer pressure. Once some become compliant, it becomes the thing to do, and vendors had to decide whether they were going to get in the game.”
According to Chuck Schumacher, corporate RoHS and WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) compliance program manager for Panduit (www.panduit.com), “Since the beginning, our position on exemptions has been that they are temporary provisions of the law that allow companies to sell existing stock and provide some time to modify manufacturing processes. Our goal was to be 100% compliant without taking advantage of any exemptions because the exemptions will eventually go away.” According to the RoHS directive, exemptions will be reviewed at least every four years with the goal of eventually eliminating those exemptions unless there is no proven alternative technology.
Some RoHS exemptions have been clearly stated and are likely to remain, such as equipment used for national security applications and the 4% lead by weight found in today’s copper alloy.
“There have been studies that show lead-free processes to not be as reliable, and that is why military, nuclear medicine, and other critical applications are exempt from that requirement,” says Dave Sauder, director of corporate quality for ADC (www.adc.com). “We interpreted the RoHS directive to require pretty much everything we make to be compliant with no exemptions, except of course the copper exemption. We use a lot of copper, and you just can’t buy it without 4% lead-it’s what makes copper machineable.”
Avnet Logistics’ Schultz points out that even among some military applications, which are exempt, RoHS-compliant products are used. He explains, “The Department of the Navy funded research on how to strip the plating from RoHS-compliant leads, then re-apply tin-lead to avoid tin whiskers. But for many of their operations, they had to ask themselves ‘what products really need tin-lead?’” For programs like missiles and satellites, he says, the best-performing products are necessary. But for general office products, the process of re-applying tin-lead to leads was overkill.
The China factor
If anyone thinks the overall RoHS situation is ho-hum because part numbers are in order and enforcement in Europe is still taking shape, one word will change that perception: China. That nation is already in the first phase of its hazardous-substance-restriction program, which undoubtedly will change the worldwide landscape once fully enacted.
Currently, the chemical restrictions in China’s program are exactly the same as those in RoHS, although more chemicals may be included on the restricted list in the future. But unlike the EU, China RoHS requires every electrical and electronic product to be labeled with hazardous substance levels and a “safe use” period, which indicates the number of years that environmental protection is required for the product. The directive also calls for mandatory testing of all electronic products in one of China’s certified testing facilities before they can receive government compliance certification.
For now, any product can be sold into China as long as it is properly labeled; however, a catalog of products that China plans to publish this year will eventually list all products required to meet RoHS hazardous substance levels. Originally, that catalog was supposed to be published in 2006, and the end-of-2007 projection for its publication is an estimate.
From a practical standpoint, the gatekeepers of China’s program are the country’s customs locations. Reportedly, the regulations’ interpretation may vary in different parts of the country. “Some may be rigid, and others not so rigid,” comments Schultz.
Closer to home, several states like California continue to draft and adopt legislation, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA; www.nema.org) made a recent environmental pledge with their “call to action” on restricted substances. Under phase one of the plan, all NEMA companies that manufacture products within the scope of the EU’s RoHS will be required to meet RoHS compliance in all markets by July 1, 2010. Phase two calls for NEMA members to restrict hazardous substances for nearly all other NEMA products by July 1, 2014.
“With China RoHS a reality and the many other initiatives on the horizon, our RoHS team is still quite active,” says Panduit’s Bernie Westapher. “We have a group that maintains vigilance on environmental regulations worldwide so that we can take immediate action to comply when it’s relevant to our product lines. At this point, I don’t believe any company could say that they’re done dealing with these initiatives or know when they will be done.”
PATRICK McLAUGHLIN is chief editor of Connector Specifier. BETSY ZIOBRON, a freelance writer, also contributed to this report.
