Breathing space for RoHS running out
28 January 2008
The European Commission planned that lead should be phased out of electronics by banning it from non-critical equipment first, with a long-term view of eliminating it from all electronics once lead-free technology had been proven safe. The deadline for that second tranche is now only two years away and the jury is still out as to if the technology can be trusted.
When lead-free meant that Japanese DVD players had an environmental conscience, everybody was happy. It was the right thing to do. And if they broke then it was of little consequence as they were firstly so cheap to start with and secondly, obsolete by the time they did break, even if that was only a couple of years later.
To take this creditable notion forward to encompass the majority of electronics manufacturing was a big step, and there were those among us who thought that the European Commission’s acceptance of the health and environmental benefits of restricting the use of lead was unnecessarily hasty.
Did they consider that the alternative solders would reflow at higher temperatures, increasing the carbon footprint of the process? Or that the environmental impact of getting alternative materials out of the ground are in some cases less pleasant and more impactful than mining and processing lead? In fact one of the sources of silver, which the earth is running out of, was as a by-product of lead mining. Now I suppose it is the other way round.
And did they assume that if the transition to lead-free processes went well when it was first introduced, then it would be reasonable to impose the same limitations on all electronics – like cars, planes, medical, and other critical applications. Of course they did, but industry is not so sure that this assumption is necessarily correct. The IPC has prepared a report highlighting some of its concerns and it says something for the scale of the problem that a subject such as tin whiskers has only one brief mention in the four page document, while some would argue that until more is known about this phenomenon then it is cause enough not to extend the scope of RoHS.
The IPC’s call is for a science-based approach which is not always familiar territory to bureaucrats who see ‘THE ENVIRONMENT’ as what is happening to rainforests and polar bear populations, and if something is ‘BAD’ it should be banned. I think the IPC’s strategy makes perfect sense. The industry has shown enormous inventiveness and responsibility in reaction to the laws thrust upon it relating to this issue, and I hope that the EC takes that into account when analysing its review of the legislation. Maybe it is in part due to the extended bedding in period of the RoHS legislation in the first place, but we still do not know with certainty the long term reliability of a circuit constructed with lead-free solder joints. The IPC and others are merely saying we have to have this information before migrating the technology to critical applications.
I have posted the full IPC submission to the European Commission on the web site for your interest. But this does not have to be a lone voice. The EC is accepting feedback as part of the consultation process until 13th February. So if you would like to add to the argument then follow this link to the EC’s web site .
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...