Reaching for ROHS recast

Gary Nevison, legislation expert for element14 and its US arm, Newark, explains the recent review and reworking of the EU ROHS environmental-compliance directive.

Interview conducted and edited by Suzanne Deffree -- EDN, November 18, 2010

Why is this directive being reworked?

A: It's ROHS law that it had to be reworked after four years. The initial recommendations came in December 2008, and, since then, it's been discussed at some length. The kind of proposed scope has changed many times in the last year. Taking place behind the scenes are meetings with the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council of Ministers, who have to agree on a final draft. The intention is to reach an agreement so that the proposal can get a "first-reading approval." If we can get the first-reading approval, then the implementation of the new ROHS directive could be as early as 2013.

There are three meetings in which the three [groups] get together, but after the first two meetings they have not reached agreement. It's possible that they won't reach agreement in the third, and discussions will go on into 2011. A second reading agreement would probably mean implementation in 2014. If it went to a third reading, implementation would go to 2015.

What are the main points of the ROHS recast?

A: The changes to the scope are significant. One of the proposals is that there will be a Category 11; there are now 10 categories, although categories 8 and 9 [medical and monitoring-and-control instruments, respectively] are yet to be implemented in the original ROHS. Category 11 would be defined as all electrical and electronic equipment, unless specifically excluded. Not all member states agree-certainly, the United Kingdom is one that does not agree-because they feel this [step] should not go ahead without a full risk assessment. This [development] will happen whether they like it or not, so the United Kingdom, for example, is now lobbying for more exclusions. ROHS will become an open-scope directive, including all equipment unless otherwise excluded.

The next key thing is the number of excluded substances. The proposal that was on the table [in October] was that there would be two more substances [nanosilver and carbon nanotubes] restricted on top of the original six in the ROHS directive. Then there's a further list of 37 substances that will be proposed for priority assessment with a ban possibility. Many of these substances would be the substances of very high concern, currently that REACH [registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemical substances directive] regulates. ... The other proposal is one restricted substance [nanosilver] and to drop the list of 37 substances.

Member states are looking for exclusions in the usual areas: military and national security, large-scale industrial tools, and transportation-those kinds of things. There will be a considerable number of exclusions from this open scope. But that is still to be voted on, as well.

Some industry and trade organizations are petitioning for ROHS to become a more REACH-like directive. Do you see that happening?

A: What you may see is that one of the big problems with ROHS is how it goes about its restricted substances. People want the final decision to move more toward a REACH approach. They don't want the ROHS directive simply to ban substances moving forward. As an overview, the ROHS directive bans substances based on hazards. If a substance is hazardous and there are alternatives, then it can be banned.  REACH restrictions are introduced only if risk to human health or the environment can be proven, after complete risk assessment. There is a movement to move the ROHS process toward REACH approach to adopting restrictions. That [movement] is not part of the vote, but I do think in time to come that will happen. ... What it probably will mean is that substances may get restricted much quicker, and that is going to be a big impact on the designer. We've already seen REACH with 38 substances of very high concern, whereas ROHS has been six substances since July 2006.

Will ROHS at some point become a CE (Conformité Européenne)-mark directive?

A: ROHS will become a CE-mark directive, which means that for every piece of equipment that has a CE mark there will have to be an awful lot more information provided to the user than what is today. There will have to be technical documents and declarations of conformity that will have to be kept on file for 10 years. There will be a lot of technical data that has to be provided for design engineers. The manufacturer [provides this data], and there is a legal obligation on the importer and on the distributor-obligations fed down from manufacturers, importers, and distributors. Basically, it's about providing more technical data, declarations of conformity, keeping lists of nonconformity, lists of noncompliance, and what corrective action has been taken. There's impact right down the supply chain, but the onus is mainly on the manufacturer. That [scenario] is well on its way to happening.

ROHS is well-known, but what other key legislation should designers be aware of?

A: At the minute, ROHS recast is dominating the space. The other one would be REACH, of course. REACH is bringing the industry to its knees in Europe because of the information and safety-data requirements. The one around the corner that, if it finally takes off, will take over is China ROHS, but that [initiative] is still dragging a bit. Beyond that is India ROHS, but that is in the very early stages. Things such as the energy-efficient directives are still moving along at a steady pace; the battery directive is in; the waste directives are moving incredible slow, so the WEEE [waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment] recast won't be done at the same time as the ROHS recast. There are lots of little bits coming through. I don't think there are going to be many biggies in the near future. I now spend more than half my time firefighting these small, local bits of legislation. There's a lot going on.