The EU opens the door – finally – to debating RoHS and WEEE.

The EU has, as many of readers are aware, broadcast a request for information on the RoHS Directive’s impact on the electronics industry. Here is the text, in brief:

The Commission services have identified certain topics for the review. You will find below a non-exhaustive list of these possible topics to be addressed.

The Commission services will base their analysis of issues and selection of options for amendment on factual evidence.

1. Please provide us with any detailed evidence you currently hold that is relevant to our consideration of the identified topics.

In particular, we would like to receive studies and evaluations, which will allow us to analyze the full costs or benefits of provisions of the Directive and potential changes in the operation of the Directive.

As regular readers of this column are aware, I have for some time been raising awareness of the environmental lunacy of banning lead in solders and have, in fact, submitted to the EU many letters of support on various applications for exemptions. When I saw the request for data on the impact of RoHS from the EU in its full form, I was, to say the least, speechless.

To unilaterally inflict legislation on the electronics industry, which has subsequently defined a new term – “legislative virus” – and then turn around and ask, What was the impact? is like Attila the Hun invading and ravaging Italy, then asking the Italians, How was it for you?

Anyway, they did ask, and interestingly have engaged consultants ECOLAS and RPA to collect data by way of questionnaires for both RoHS and WEEE. These questionnaires are interesting, and worth a look insofar as possibly forwarding data to the EU on the costs of compliance; although the exact dollar figure for that will, I believe, never be accurately accounted.

Cost, of course, was not the reason that Rohsusa.com was established. Instead, it was launched to discuss the issues surrounding introducing into the global soldering market electronics substitute materials with a much higher environmental burden, without any research, thereby actually increasing the so-called “carbon footprint” of every piece of manufactured electronics on the planet, while, at the same time, vastly increasing the potential for further environmental impact.

I strongly recommend, though, that anyone with cost data fill out the questionnaire so that the EU at least understands some of the impacts – provided, that is, you can persuade your company, which in pursuit of RoHS compliance has likely spent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and stretched its engineering teams to their limits, to allow you to take time to look at and return the forms.

The IPC (ipc.org) has stepped up and is coordinating one effort; forms can be found on the IPC site and have been linked from Rohsusa.com as well. Please note that while the commission directly issued the call for information, the consultants are handling the surveys.

If you have any useful data on the costs of RoHS compliance you are willing to share, you may write in directly with a cover e-mail and the data. The e-mail address is env-rohs-directive-review@ec.europa.eu. Send paper copies of information you do not have electronically to European Comisión, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium.

Specifically, the commission is interested in RoHS compliance costs. Surveys and other data being gathered are actually a part of the requirements for reviewing the RoHS legislation in 2008. The effect is to take a look at the legislation’s impact from both an environmental and industry view, and effectively check the “state of health” of its progress. Interestingly, part of the review process requires looking at enforcement. The neat thing about this is that the EU’s call for data specifically carries this item as a possible review:

Mechanism for exemptions: Exemptions from the general substitution requirement of the RoHS Directive are permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific and technical point of view or if the negative environmental or health impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the human and environmental benefits of the substitution.

I think we can agree that one needs an overhaul. Until stakeholder consultation 6, item 15, which calls for a general exemption of lead in solders in electronics (based on the sound scientific data provided) on the basis that substitute solders are five to six times more environmentally damaging, no exemption request based on the environmental issue made it to public consultation: They were turned down on grounds of failing to be scientific or technical issues and therefore not worthy of consultation by the TAC Committee.

Let’s see justice done. Let’s see a review process where an unsound environmental law can be critically appraised and, if necessary, reversed through a combination of sound science, due diligence and good old-fashioned honesty.

I cannot help but quote one famous engineer named Doug who, upon seeing the call for data from the European consultants, issued this email: “There is another good old Iowa expression that says, ‘Never mud-wrestle a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.’ The point is the effort may only be worthwhile if anyone thinks there is a snowball’s chance in hell that EU or China politicians will admit to being wrong. I can’t see it happening.”

Doug may be right; we have seen much stalling on lead-in-solder exemption requests. My view is sending in the data is like voting, and if you don’t vote, you will not be heard. The decks may be loaded, but the game is still on.

John Burke is founder of RoHSUSA (rohsusa.com) and an advocate against the RoHS Directive; john@rohsusa.com.