Morrison & Forester, an environmental-law firm comprising 19 offices around
the world, says that undoubtedly producers, retailers, and end users will welcome
the respite resulting from the fact that a "U.K.-wide network of WEEE collection
facilities will not be ready by the start of next year," as initially announced
by the DTI. According to the firm, the extra time will allow business users
to get up to speed, revisit their processes, and identify potential risks and
cost-effective means of complying with the impending laws.
Equipment covered under WEEE must be labeled to inform users not to dispose of the product and other waste. The label is a simple representation of a wheeled bin with a line drawn through it, as defined by the CENELEC standard EN 50419:2005 (Fig. 1). A black horizontal bar added to the bin indicates that the product was placed on the EU market after August 13, 2005.
Electronic waste
Consumers have wrestled with disposing their TVs, computers,
cell phones, and other electronics for years (Fig. 2). But research sponsored
by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates shows
that 95% of American consumers don't know the meaning of the term "e-waste." Also, 58% aren't aware of an e-waste recycling program in their community.
"Our research found that while nearly three out of four consumers have used or unwanted technology products in there homes, they aren't sure how to dispose of them," says David Lear, vice president for corporate, social, and environmental responsibility at HP.
Japanese companies have advanced well ahead of the rest of the world in recycling—not only with national laws covering the design and use of electronic products, but also their disposal. Through its Shared Responsibility Program, Sony Electronics promotes U.S. consumer-electronics recycling by reducing the burden placed on consumers and local governments. Sony pays for the recycling of all own-brand products collected through many cooperative recycling events. It also has established collection points.
So far, though, the federal government's response to e-waste disposal is slow. No federal laws cover recycling, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed for federal legislation that would specifically, or even broadly, cover electronics. (The EPA estimates that about 50 million computers became obsolete in 2003, but fewer than 6 million were recycled.) The few bills introduced are still tied up at some level of Congress.
One would give an $8/unit tax credit to companies that recycle at least 5000 display screens or computer-system units each year. Another piece of legislation would give manufacturers tax incentives to recycle.
At the state level, California is well ahead of other states with its Electronic Waste Recycling Laws (SB20/SB50). California charges consumers an upfront fee to underwrite an e-waste collection and recycling program. When consumers purchase a TV set or computer monitor, they must pay a fee ranging up to $10. The money goes to the state and is distributed to groups or local governments that collect and recycle the discarded equipment.
Maine's new e-waste law becomes effective in January. But it differs from California's law, as it requires all computers and TVs to be clearly marked with the manufacturer's name. It also says that manufacturers will, at some point, receive a bill for the cost of recycling their products. At least 14 other state legislatures have introduced legislation aimed at controlling electronics recycling or limiting the use of hazardous materials in electronics.
Just a start
All of these regulations are just the beginning of the push to rid the world
of toxic and other potentially recyclable materials. The EU requires the removal
of six hazardous substances—lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium,
polybrominated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl—but more may be
added.
Lead continues to be the design community's biggest concern, according to most Electronic Design readers. More than half (52.6%) of our survey respondents said use of lead in their products would have the biggest impact on the products their company makes, far exceeding the impact of any other RoHS-restricted material.
Paul Dickerson of Matric sees the long-term reliability of lead-free products as one of the biggest issues facing the industry. "Tin has two problems when you don't add lead," he says. "The first is the well-documented formation of tin whiskers. How long will it be before a tin whisker failure kills someone?" According to Dickerson, at least five satellites in orbit no longer function due to tin whiskers. The second problem, he says, is tin's tendency to disintegrate in cold environments.
Another problem will be compliance standards as well as who sets them. How
can one document that an assembly shipped to Europe is lead-free?"I can see
boatloads of products sitting on docks in Europe next July," says Dickerson.
Cost is another RoHS issue. Nearly half (48.2%) of Electronic Design's survey respondents expect their companies to increase the price of their products to comply with RoHS, while almost a third (29.9%) indicated that they don't expect the cost of their components to increase as a result of RoHS compliance. However, 24.5% anticipate paying 5% or more for RoHScompliant components.
OEMs, which are ultimately responsible for adhering to the EU's RoHS directive, have been the most aggressive in responding to the new rules. They're sending detailed questionnaires to their component suppliers, asking them to identify literally every substance in their products, including chemical compositions.
Several well-known exemptions to the RoHS do exist, though. In fact, that list
was recently extended to cover 19 "possible exemptions." These more recent additions
further muddy the waters for companies.
Morrison & Forester, an environmental-law firm comprising 19 offices around
the world, says that undoubtedly producers, retailers, and end users will welcome
the respite resulting from the fact that a "U.K.-wide network of WEEE collection
facilities will not be ready by the start of next year," as initially announced
by the DTI. According to the firm, the extra time will allow business users
to get up to speed, revisit their processes, and identify potential risks and
cost-effective means of complying with the impending laws.
Equipment covered under WEEE must be labeled to inform users not to dispose of the product and other waste. The label is a simple representation of a wheeled bin with a line drawn through it, as defined by the CENELEC standard EN 50419:2005 (Fig. 1). A black horizontal bar added to the bin indicates that the product was placed on the EU market after August 13, 2005.
Electronic waste
Consumers have wrestled with disposing their TVs, computers,
cell phones, and other electronics for years (Fig. 2). But research sponsored
by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates shows
that 95% of American consumers don't know the meaning of the term "e-waste." Also, 58% aren't aware of an e-waste recycling program in their community.
"Our research found that while nearly three out of four consumers have used or unwanted technology products in there homes, they aren't sure how to dispose of them," says David Lear, vice president for corporate, social, and environmental responsibility at HP.
Japanese companies have advanced well ahead of the rest of the world in recycling—not only with national laws covering the design and use of electronic products, but also their disposal. Through its Shared Responsibility Program, Sony Electronics promotes U.S. consumer-electronics recycling by reducing the burden placed on consumers and local governments. Sony pays for the recycling of all own-brand products collected through many cooperative recycling events. It also has established collection points.
So far, though, the federal government's response to e-waste disposal is slow. No federal laws cover recycling, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed for federal legislation that would specifically, or even broadly, cover electronics. (The EPA estimates that about 50 million computers became obsolete in 2003, but fewer than 6 million were recycled.) The few bills introduced are still tied up at some level of Congress.
One would give an $8/unit tax credit to companies that recycle at least 5000 display screens or computer-system units each year. Another piece of legislation would give manufacturers tax incentives to recycle.
At the state level, California is well ahead of other states with its Electronic Waste Recycling Laws (SB20/SB50). California charges consumers an upfront fee to underwrite an e-waste collection and recycling program. When consumers purchase a TV set or computer monitor, they must pay a fee ranging up to $10. The money goes to the state and is distributed to groups or local governments that collect and recycle the discarded equipment.
Maine's new e-waste law becomes effective in January. But it differs from California's law, as it requires all computers and TVs to be clearly marked with the manufacturer's name. It also says that manufacturers will, at some point, receive a bill for the cost of recycling their products. At least 14 other state legislatures have introduced legislation aimed at controlling electronics recycling or limiting the use of hazardous materials in electronics.
Just a start
All of these regulations are just the beginning of the push to rid the world
of toxic and other potentially recyclable materials. The EU requires the removal
of six hazardous substances—lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium,
polybrominated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl—but more may be
added.
Lead continues to be the design community's biggest concern, according to most Electronic Design readers. More than half (52.6%) of our survey respondents said use of lead in their products would have the biggest impact on the products their company makes, far exceeding the impact of any other RoHS-restricted material.
Paul Dickerson of Matric sees the long-term reliability of lead-free products as one of the biggest issues facing the industry. "Tin has two problems when you don't add lead," he says. "The first is the well-documented formation of tin whiskers. How long will it be before a tin whisker failure kills someone?" According to Dickerson, at least five satellites in orbit no longer function due to tin whiskers. The second problem, he says, is tin's tendency to disintegrate in cold environments.
Another problem will be compliance standards as well as who sets them. How
can one document that an assembly shipped to Europe is lead-free?"I can see
boatloads of products sitting on docks in Europe next July," says Dickerson.
Cost is another RoHS issue. Nearly half (48.2%) of Electronic Design's survey respondents expect their companies to increase the price of their products to comply with RoHS, while almost a third (29.9%) indicated that they don't expect the cost of their components to increase as a result of RoHS compliance. However, 24.5% anticipate paying 5% or more for RoHScompliant components.
OEMs, which are ultimately responsible for adhering to the EU's RoHS directive, have been the most aggressive in responding to the new rules. They're sending detailed questionnaires to their component suppliers, asking them to identify literally every substance in their products, including chemical compositions.
Several well-known exemptions to the RoHS do exist, though. In fact, that list
was recently extended to cover 19 "possible exemptions." These more recent additions
further muddy the waters for companies.