Legal History
With heated recent debate over the scope of the EU RoHS
Directive, it seems likely that fewer exemptions will now be
given, particularly for most Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(IEEE), which will now be covered by the directive. CE marking
will now be a requirement, along with the labelling of products
using nano-materials.
Likely changes to restricted substances attracted the most
attention in recent debate. The list of restricted substances will
likely be expanded following the December 2009 Draft Report
on a recasting of the RoHS. New additions suggested by the EU
Parliament Rapporteur included: Chlorinated plasticisers,
Polyvinylchloride (PVC), Brominated flame retardants,
Chlorinated flame retardants, Dibutylphthalate (DBP),
Butylbenzylphthalate (BBP), Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).
These changes are likely to come as amendments to Article IV
(Annex IV) regarding restricted substances and Article 6a
detailing the list of priority substances for reconsideration in the
next edition of the directive. The review process has followed the
REACH 1907/2006/EC methodology.
Despite these suggestions, the European Parliament
Environmental Committee instead voted that some of these
substances (including PVC, phthalates) be included only in
Annex III, as substances for further evaluation. This is likely to
coincide with an additional expansion of priority substances in
Annex III, especially including those listed as substances of very
high concern (SVHC) in the REACH candidate list. Those that
may be considered as priorities include PVC, SVHC in the
REACH candidate list, Organochlorines, Organobromines, and
Diisobutylphthalate (DIBP).
Should substances be restricted if there are no safer
alternatives?
Debate over the restriction of hazardous substances is ongoing.
On one hand, governments and environmental groups
emphasise the importance of environmental protection. They
note that restriction of substances creates incentives for
manufacturers to use non-toxic alternatives as well as to invest
in developing new, more environmentally friendly types of
technology.
Industry stakeholders however claim that in many cases either
no safe alternatives exist to the substances in question, or that
proposed alternatives merely shift risk from the environment to
other areas of concern.
An example is PVC, known not to be toxic in itself, but regarded
as toxic due to additives include in the polymer which can be
problematic at end of life treatment. Additives that provide
flexibility to PVC have a high chance of containing phthalates.
Industry bodies point out that the safety of PVC could be
assured if these additives were replaced with safer substances.
The industry has argued that PVC is materially safer than
alternatives given its long term stability and flexibility, which
safeguards against electrical surges due to freely accessible
current.
Given the concerns on both sides, the debate over substance
restriction continues. It is clear however that the outcome of
these discussions will affect not only consumers in the
European Union, but also those further afield. For example,
people in third world countries may be affected by EEE wastes;
as such wastes are often shipped to their countries for
‘recycling’ purposes.
For a wide range of consumer products, SGS can aid your
business with chemical testing and consultancy work.
For further information contact: reach@sgs.com
You must be logged in to post a comment Login