RoHS: update on last developments
We would like to update you on last developments as regards the RoHS Directive:
A. RoHS Restriction: Phthalates
Orgalime has submitted the amendment to the European Commission to include an exemption for spare parts containing the four phthalates. The Commission confirmed its willingness to resolve this issue before the adoption of the delegated directive.
Background
As a reminder, The European Commission tabled its proposal for restricting four further phthalates (DEHP, DBP,BBP and DIBP) under the RoHS Directive in December 2014. However, as it is formulated, the proposed amendment of Annex II does not include an exemption for spare parts containing the four phthalates and potentially needed to repair an EEE placed on the market before the entry into force of the restriction (i.e. 2019 for all EEE, except for EEE categories 8-9, for which the transitional period is 2021).
B. Updates on European commission activities: draft delegated acts amending Annexes III & IV
The European Commission has forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council for their scrutiny three delegated directives on RoHS exemptions:
• Commission Delegated Directive amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex IV to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead in polyvinyl chloride sensors in in-vitro diagnostic medical devices
• Commission Delegated Directive ../…/EU amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex IV to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for mercury in intravascular ultrasound imaging systems
• Commission Delegated Directive ../…/EU amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for cadmium in illumination and display lighting applications and Annex
C. Updates on Oko-institut activities on exemptions
The Oko-Institut announced that they have started a new RoHS project for the evaluation of “applications for granting, renewing or revoking exemptions”. A stakeholder consultation will start in March 2015.
The Oko-Institut will assess renewals requests on four exemptions (More information is available here and here):
7(b) - Lead in solders for RF switching matrices and associated RF signal distribution equipment for telecommunications
9(b) - Lead in bearing shells and bushes for refrigerant–containing compressors, with a stated electrical power input of only 9 kW or lower for the HVACR industry, with expiry date three years after the publication of the amended RoHS Annex
13(a) - Lead in white glasses used for optical applications
13(b) - Cadmium and Lead in filter glasses and glasses used for reflectance standards
D. Cross industry project on RoHS exemptions submit 11 renewal dossiers
At the end of January, the cross industry project for the ‘Application for Renewal of RoHS2 Exemptions’ submitted 11 dossiers for renewal of exemptions under RoHS 2. The dossiers submitted so far under the cross industry project cover the following exemptions: 4(f), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 7(a), 7(c)-I, 7(c)-II, 7(c)-IV, 15, 34, 37.
In terms of next steps, the Guidance document for applications for exemptions, available on DG Environment website, includes a description of the evaluation process which will now follow, and of the decision making process within the Commission (please see p. 8-9).
E. Follow up UBA methodology
End of January, an informal DG ENVI RoHS WG meeting took place on future substance restrictions. Please find herewith update following the meeting of the informal DG ENVI RoHS WG on future substance restrictions (follow up UBA methodology):
• The meeting was chaired by Mr Michele Canova, who will succeed Mr Eberl as responsible RoHS desk officer as of end of March 2015. Mr Canova is a chemical engineer by profession and has worked in the JRC before. Mr Eberl was sick and did not attend the meeting.
• Some 20 Participants, including Member States (UK, NL, DK), COM (DG ENV, DG ENTR REACH unit), Mr Singhofen (adviser of the Greens in the EP), some 10 industry representatives (including Orgalime, Cefic, Eurometaux, DigitalEurope, SEMI, ESIA, JBCE), Ökoinstitut, Malte Becker Consulting, Paul Goodman (ERA Technology). CHEMSEC (NGO) withdrew from the platform and was not present.
• No agenda or working documents have been sent to participants beforehand. Some participants challenged again the composition and working method of the WG and seemed to prefer mandating the RoHS TAC instead of this group, which received mixed feedback. In any case, the meeting brought a fresh momentum to the group and its debate on a future COM guidance document on future substance restrictions.
• Regarding the ongoing identified work streams of the WG (prepared by core groups previously), the following way forward has been agreed:
o Working document on data quality and gaps: was perceived as most advanced and consolidated with practically no controversial points. Some would like to see the part of data gaps be deepened. Mr Canova will consolidate the latest draft within the next weeks and send it to WG for final comments.
o Working document on Grouping: was very difficult to prepare in the core group with many controversial points; the latest version succeeded in aligning views to a very large extent, however, NGOs then withdrew. Mr Canova will consolidate the remaining points and circulate the so updated paper to the WG for finalisation. The document is largely based on the REACH guidance document on grouping. Some asked this paper to be particularly submitted to the RoHS Member States expert committee (TAC). Key industry comments include the following: grouping cannot be based on one criterion, but several; substances cannot be judged together if their alternatives are not the same; if data exist, no grouping should happen at all;
o Working document on Substitutes Assessment: at the previous meeting, Mr Eberl announced to revisit the draft of the core group together with the paper on “link between article 5 and article 6” (led by Mr Singhofen). As you may remember, there was the conflicting issue of what to do in the case of no substitute being available. Some suggested that nevertheless a restriction could be set in place and industry should seek exemptions, while the substitute assessment draft suggests to explore if other tools, such as work protection legislation, could be identified (via the RMO-A) to tackle the risk of concern. The debate showed that a possible compromise line could perhaps be developed on the basis of using the information of substitutes to determine not only the transition deadline but also precise scope of the restriction (e.g.: narrow down the scope to those categories where substitutes are close to being available).
The core group substitutes assessment has been asked to revise the earlier draft by the end of February. It will then be presented to the WG for comments.
Another point raised was the question if the Commission can initiate an exemption on its own (i.e.: and table it together with a new substance restriction proposal), or if an industry application would always be necessary. There was agreement that the Commission can initiate exemptions on its own.
o Working document on Member States proposals (art. 6.2): There seems to be general acceptance to agree on a 4 years review interval. However, conflicting views persist on when this 4 years should actually start. Some raised the concern of inefficient use of Member States resources, financial and human, if Member States proposals were not followed up immediately by the Commission. I referred to the possibility of Member States to file REACH annex XV dossiers instead and the REACH-RoHS Common Understanding paper now allows to start the restriction process under REACH but end it with setting the restriction under RoHS. There was wide support for synchronising RoHS and REACH dossiers. The RMO-A process would be useful to ensure that resources can be used most efficiently (no double dossiers) and that risks can be addressed via the best suited tool for a given case.
• A next meeting is envisaged for spring; the precise date will be determined according to progress either for mid-March (before Mr Eberl will leave his function) or otherwise for April.
