BRUSSELS – Some substances, including halogenated flame retardants and PVC, should undergo further assessments for safe use in electrical and electronic equipment, said the European Parliament Environment Committee in a vote today.

The list of banned substances in the RoHS Directive should apply to all such equipment, unless specifically excluded, the committee said, and one such exclusion could be for renewable energy generation.

The committee approved its legislative report on the proposed recast of the Directive, and Members of European Parliament called for further evaluation of a number of substances not currently restricted. Assessment criteria should include the substance's potential health and environmental impact, they noted.

 

The European Parliament plenary vote is scheduled for July 5.

MEPs voted in favor of an open scope, meaning all electrical and electronic material would be covered by the legislation, unless specifically excluded. They recommended certain areas be excluded from the Directive's scope, including inter alia, renewable energy generation, certain large-scale installations and industrial tools, and material for military purposes and vehicles.

The committee suggested the European Commission propose further exclusions within 18 months after the recast Directive goes into effect.

Exclusions would be subject to review in 2014.

MEPs called for a ban on nanosilver and carbon nanotubes, and said other electrical and electronic material containing nanomaterials should be labeled, and that the manufacturers should be obliged to provide safety data to the EC.

Parliament is currently scheduled to vote in July on the committee’s recommendations for recasting the RoHS Directive.

Some non-governmental organizations have said they support the decision to extend the scope of the Directive into an open scope, including categories previously not covered by RoHS. Further substance evaluation is also welcome. However, some called the failure to introduce new restrictions on BFRs and PVC plastic a missed opportunity, while others felt the decision undermined efforts to introduce scientific protocols to support any new material bans.

IPC expressed disappointment in the vote to include broad families of chemicals, such as organobromines, in Annex III for priority assessment. "While an outright ban of these chemicals has been averted, the committee’s decision falls far short of supporting a rigorous scientific assessment that would ensure protection of the environment and human health," the association said.

The proposed process “lacks a rigorous scientific methodology and could therefore lead to additional substance restrictions that provide neither environmental nor human health benefits,” says Fern Abrams, IPC director of environmental policy and government relations.

While some organobromines, such as PBBs, have been identified as toxic, restricted under the RoHS Directive and voluntarily withdrawn from the market, other organobromines, such as TBBPA, have been found to be safe for human health and the environment by both the World Health Organization and the European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, according to IPC.

But ChemSec, an NGO that supports banning all BFRs, claimed that scientific evidence supports the notion that BFRs and PVC are overwhelming harmful, and derided the committee's decision not decide to ban the chemicals.

• Prev
• Next