EEB

Press Release

EU takes tentative steps towards greener electronics

2nd June 2010

Members of European Parliament’s Environment Committee today voted on proposed amendments to the Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS). EEB was pleased to see that the broad majority of MEPs recognise the added value and specific nature of RoHS in regards to dealing with hazardous substances restrictions in the fastest growing waste streams. It also welcomed the vote on labelling of nanomaterials as well as the restriction of the use of nanosilver and long multi-walled carbon nanotubes.  

However, the Committee voted against phasing out dangerous Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), going against recent calls for action by leading electronics manufacturers and environmental NGOs [1].  

Christian Schaible, Chemicals Policy Officer at the EEB, said: “This is a missed opportunity. There are already products on the market free of the dangerous halogenated flame retardants and PVC [2], so MEPs could have simply rubber-stamped the phase out of these chemicals.”

Schaible also said the European Commission must begin to move much faster on this issue: “The Commission was asked way back in 1996 [3] by Parliament to reduce the presence of these hazardous substances. It has been almost 15 years now and little has changed in this legislation to reduce European citizens’ exposure to dangerous substances.”  

Parliament voted to add the substances to a candidate list which will now have to be reviewed by the Commission in Mid 2014 at the earliest, according to a comprehensive substance restriction methodology [4].

The ball is now in the European Council’s and Commission’s court. EEB believes that RoHS could be a tool for creating a state-of-the-art and socially responsible product performance legislation, with the right incentives for product innovation, and not to allow unnecessary risks for people and environment from hazardous chemicals. A Plenary vote is due on 7th July.

On nanomaterials, MEPs supported a number of provisions, including the labelling for all nanomaterials that can lead to exposure of consumers. Nanomaterials are already used in a number of consumer products such as mobile phones, computer key boards and mice, washing machines and fridges. There is increasing evidence that some of these nanomaterials have adverse impacts on human health, and that some of them may even behave like asbestos fibers, causing lung lesions that are precursor for cancer.

Louise Duprez, Nanotechnology Policy Officer at EEB, said: “By restricting highly controversial substances such as nanosilver and asbestos-like carbon nanotubes, MEPs have demonstrated that the EU should no longer take risks when it comes to consumer and environmental health.”
Contacts

Christian Schaible, EEB Chemicals Policy Officer, +32 22891094, christian.schaible@eeb.org

Louise Duprez, EEB Nanotechnology Policy Officer, +32 22891307 louise.duprez@eeb.org

Notes for Editors:

[1] Electronic giants and green groups push EU for flame retardants and PVC ban http://www.eeb.org/EEB/index.cfm/news-events/news/electronic-giants-and-green-groups-push-eu-for-flame-retardants-and-pvc-ban/

[2] Read ChemSec’s report http://www.chemsec.org/images/stories/publications/ChemSec_publications/Studies_alternatives.pdf

[3] The European Parliament, in its resolution of 14 November 1996 on the communication from the Commission on the review of the Community Strategy on Waste Management and the draft Council resolution on waste policy1, requested the Council and the Commission to put forward proposals to reduce the presence of hazardous substances in waste such as chlorine, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and other heavy metals.

[4] Substance restriction methodology: The future substance restriction should be carried out by the Commission with stakeholder involvement, 4 years after entry into force of RoHS, based –as currently- on the precautionary principle and consider from a comprehensive manner on whether the substance is detrimental to the environmentally sound recovery or disposal of WEEE, or has an adverse impact on human health or the environment during the use of EEE or treatment of WEEE. An impact assessment on the substitutes will also be carried out, and relevant information under REACH will also be considered. Final restrictions would be adopted through delegated acts.

The problem with BFR/CFR and PVC:
The restriction of halogenated flame retardants such as BFRs and CFRs and plasticisers classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction would have increased the reusability and recyclability of EEE and, at the same time, protect humans and especially vulnerable groups and highly exposed populations such as workers in the electronics recycling industry from cumulative exposure to chemicals that are scientifically demonstrated to pose severe health hazards. PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) have the potential to transform into some of the most toxic chemicals known which are dioxins and furans: these are global pollutants that are highly persistent in the environment and can cause cancer, birth defects and neurological damage. Chlorinated dioxins are generated from the burning of PVC and have been classified as one of the top global pollutants under the International Stockholm Convention.

Therefore their formation is both a local and global problem and damages health and environment at a global scale, irrespective of where they are formed.

Some phthalates which are used as plasticisers in PVC are classified in the EU as toxic to reproduction, recognised as Substances of Very High Concern under REACH ( ), and are also Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) ( ).

Annex IV:  lists the substances that would be restricted under ROHS. So far lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and polybrominated biphenils and polybrominated diphenyl ethers are restricted.

Compromise package 7 suggested to add Brominated and Chlorinated flame retardants and Cat1A + 1B phthalates to the substances to be restricted in the use of category 3(IT) and 4 (consumer products), as of Mid-2014. This compromise was rejected by a minor majority.

Annex III: is a priority list for future substance restrictions that will need to be considered according to the agreed methodology.