Is it a hazard that RoHS is a toothless tiger?
20 February 2008
The RoHS directive is 18 months old and, like any toddler, is chaotic, unruly and causing havoc.
Is it just a phase though? Usually, whoever is in charge establishes the boundaries and if they are over-stepped, it becomes clear that this is unacceptable and does not produce benefits. By the same method, others learn vicariously what is appropriate behaviour and what should be avoided.
The maximum fine for each violation is £5,000. When you consider how much companies post in profits each corner, this is not likely to strike fear into many hearts. Especially as no-one has been fined yet. That’s good then, surely, we must all be safe and free from exposure to cadium, lead, mercury, hexavalant chromium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Great, job done. So why are we still concerned about how much lead is to be in military products and all the other exempt areas which are continually pushing back the deadline date for meeting RoHS?
I spoke to Chris Smith, technical manager, RoHS enforcement, National Weights and Measures Laboratories (NWML), the RoHS ‘enforcer’ in the UK. I asked brightly, how many nasty companies have been penalised and learned their lesson to date? In a year and a half, two companies have received a ‘simple caution’ which is an admission of guilt, explains Smith, but there is no penalty except a criminal record of the offence. After the simple caution is issued, the company has to take voluntary action to remedy the product. Which means? The NWML monitors the company to see if a programme of reform is put in place. How severe is this monitoring? According to Smith it can be a matter of weeks rather than months, although it is described as a ‘stretching time’ in which the company has to put right the product design. Are you quaking yet?
Obviously I am sounding unimpressed, so Smith volunteers new weapons in the arsenal against these hazardous substances. From 1 February, two new ‘potential penalties’ are available. Even then, the language is cautious -“potential”? One is to allow a court to place an order of remedy, which obligates the producer to remedy the fault instead of a fine. The second sounds a little more threatening. This is an enforcement notice which can enforce a product’s withdrawal from the market. Now this will hit them where it hurts! Before RoHS came into force Apple and Palm both lost out on market share with goods banned from sale in EU countries because they were not RoHS-compliant. Apple had to withdraw from sale and revise some of it desirable products, including the iSight, Airport basestation, iPod shuffle external battery pack and all of the eMac computer range in June 2006. Similarly, Palm had to temporarily stop shipping its Treo 650 smartphone in the height of smartphone mania.
And now, that RoHS is in full force? Nothing. Apart from the two simple cautions, there have been no fines, no censure. If the H in RoHS stands for ‘hazardous’ the substances must be dangerous. By definition, they must be eliminated. Shouldn’t there be some urgency in banning them and making sure the message gets across? Or is the enforcement complete in which case we should all be happy in the knowledge we live in a safe, non-hazardous world? Or should we put these substances in perspective and rename the directive RoNsnS (Restriction of Not-so-nice Substances), which is what the lack of enforcement would imply?
Contact Details and Archive...
Most Viewed Articles...