No Delay in SCIP Reporting
The European Chemicals Agency announced that “the SCIP database will be formally open for submitting notifications to comply with the legal obligation” in late October. While IPC and other industry associations continue to plead with the European Commission to delay the legal obligation to enter detailed SVHC data into the SCIP database that begins January 5, 2021, they apparently will not delay this date.
The industry associations make good points; however, the requirement is based on a directive that must be transposed into local law by every EU member state. Note, however, that enforcement is up to the member states. Can we expect this enforcement to be inconsistent?
I think we will hear more from the environmental NGOs who have been asking for Article 33(2) disclosures and who will use the database to identify inconsistencies.
The EU Chemicals Strategy
The European Commission published a chemicals strategy for sustainability on October 14, 2020. This is part of the EU’s zero pollution ambition, which is a key commitment of the European Green Deal.
The EU already “has a comprehensive framework comprising approximately 40 legislative instruments,” which includes REACH, CLP, RoHS and other regulations. However, they are finding that this is not driving the innovation in the chemical industry (and others, including electronics) necessary to achieve the European Green Deal’s goals – among other things, to “become a sustainable climate neutral and circular economy by 2050.”
Without sufficient incentive from its customer base – including the electronics industry – to innovate, and with the current framework not living up to expectations, the Commission determined that a new regulatory strategy is required.
REACH, for example, has been criticized for not focusing on polymers and mixtures, or “considering the combined exposure to multiple chemicals from different sources and over time.” Enforcement of the completeness requirement for chemical registration dossiers has also been poor, allowing registration and sale of chemicals while two-thirds of dossiers remain incomplete.
Furthermore, part of the strategy includes “simplifying and consolidating the legal framework.” Anyone subject to chemical regulation in the EU would agree that it is complex; electronic products alone must comply with a half-dozen or more different chemical and chemical-related regulatory requirements, based on the type of product and its target market. Their intent is to simplify the framework as well as achieve a goal of “one substance, one assessment.”
RoHS, REACH and now EcoDesign all have different approaches for chemical assessment (though EcoDesign’s approach appears to be very limited so far and RoHS’s methodology remains a draft), so this is a key interest of industry.
Enforcement is also up for revision: “A zero tolerance approach to non-compliance.” Two key areas are full compliance with REACH dossier information requirements (as noted above, only a third are compliant today!) and improved enforcement through market surveillance: almost 30 percent of the alerts on dangerous products on the market involve risks due to chemicals, with almost 90 percent of those products coming from outside the EU.
Only one substance class, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), is mentioned explicitly, as they “require special attention, considering the large number of cases of contamination of soil and water – including drinking water – in the EU and globally.” PFAS are extensively used, both directly and indirectly (i.e. in process materials and reacted as ingredients into polymers like PTFE), throughout the electronics supply chain.
The Commission intends to:
- address PFAS with a group approach;
- address PFAS concerns on a global scale through the relevant international forums (presumably such as, or including, the Stockholm Convention) and in bilateral policy dialogues with third countries; and
- drive innovation by providing financial support under research and innovation programs
The development and implementation of this strategy is likely to impact every electronics supply chain that touches the European Union. This is something we all need to keep an eye on and not wait for: more can certainly be done at every step of the supply chain to ensure the specification, development and manufacture of safer chemical substances and the products they are used in. All it takes is time, money, management buy-in, expertise and determination.
Brand owners and OEMs can start by understanding the substances used in your products – by asking your suppliers for “full material (or substance) declarations” (FMD) – and by knowing where in your supply chain the substance selection decisions are made. Component and material manufacturers can do the same. Make sure you respond with useful information, preferably in an XML format (i.e. IPC 1752A or B, or IEC 62474). Then evaluate at-risk materials and substances, and start making changes.
Packaging Materials Follow-Up
Following up on our previous column, the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse (TPCH) published the comments received on their draft model legislation. TPCH says the next step is to finalize the update of the TPCH Model Legislation in response to comments received. So we’ll keep our eye out for that.
Polycarbonates and the Eco-Design Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants
I have mentioned the European Union Eco-Design ban on halogenated flame retardants in displays (including monitors and TVs), implementing measure Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021, before. This comes into force on March 1, 2021. “Halogenated flame retardant” is defined as “a flame retardant that contains any halogen.” The halogens in the periodic table are bromine, fluorine, chlorine, iodine and astatine. The first three – bromine, fluorine and chlorine – are used in flame-retardant chemical compounds. Iodine and astatine are not.
While most people are familiar with the fact that bromine and chlorine compounds are the flame retardants used in the plastic materials most widely used in electronics (including PVC, ABS, PC/ABS, HIPS, etc.) a small amount of a fluorine-based flame retardant (generally under 0.5 percent wt/wt) may be added to polycarbonate polymers to meet UL94V-0 flammability requirements.
If your product is covered in the scope of 2019/2021 and uses a polycarbonate enclosure, check with your resin compounder regarding the use of fluorine-based flame retardants. Note that a flame retardant used for polycarbonate polymers, Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (KFPBS), is an SVHC as of January this year.
Visit DCA at www.DesignChainAssociates.com or email the author with any questions or comments on this post.
Statements of fact and opinions expressed in posts by contributors are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not imply an opinion of the officers or the representatives of TTI, Inc. or the TTI Family of Companies.
