仪器信息网APP

选仪器、听讲座、看资讯

立即体验

当前位置：仪器社区 >特色服务 > RoHS/WEEE指令 > 帖子详情

【原创】欧洲法院撤销RoHS指令对十溴联苯醚的豁免

才哥

2008/04/11

RoHS/WEEE指令

看到环保兄说2008年7月1日起，RoHS针对十溴二苯醚（Deca-BDE）的豁免会取消，于是在网上求证，终于找到该新闻。

European Court of Justice annuls Deca-BDE RoHS exemption

By Gina Roos
Electronics Supply & Manufacturing
(04/08/2008 4:31 H EST)

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has annulled the decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca-BDE) exemption to the EU Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, dated October 2005 (Decision 2005/717/EC), stating that the European Commission used an incorrect criterion, an EU risk assessment as the basis for exemption. This enters into force on July 1, 2008.

The exemption allowed the continued use of the Deca-BDE flame retardant in electrical and electronics products. Deca-BDE is commonly used to protect plastic components of electronic devices from the risk of fire. It is used in the formulations for the housings of televisions and appliances and in wire and cable applications, said Debra K. Durbin, director of corporate communications for chemical company Chemtura Corp. (Middlebury, Conn.)

The court has found that the commission has neglected its work in terms of checking whether substitutes were available to Deca-BDE and whether substitutes would have more negative effects than continuing with its use, said Kris Pollet, director EU law & policy, Pollet Environmental Consultants. They stayed clear of stating whether or not Deca-BDE is or is not safe to use but basically said the commission hasn't been diligent enough in their decisions, he said. (Click here for Pollet's analysis of the Court's decision.)

However, Pollet said the use of Deca-BDE as a substance has been subject of comprehensive risk assessment which has taken years with the outcome that the substance was considered to be safe for use. Now the court annuls the decision based on a technicality and ignores the conclusion of this risk assessment, Pollet said.

Deca-BDE underwent an EU risk assessment under Regulation 793/93/EC which identified no significant risks. The European Commission's decision was based on results of a ten-year EU risk assessment which evaluated 588 studies, according to The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF). The EC assessment concluded that the use of Deca-BDE did not pose health or environmental risks.

BSEF said the EU chemical Competent Authorities confirmed this conclusion in December 2007 after reviewing an updated risk assessment, which covers more than 1,000 environmental and health studies. "None of the alternative chemicals to commercial Deca-BDE have been subject to anywhere near the level of testing for which Deca-BDE has undergone," BSEF said.

Currently, there is a very established procedure for evaluating exemptions. The commission works with contractors that assess whether an exemption is justified, whether substitutes are available, etc., but at that point in 2005 when this exemption was taken it was still very new, Pollet said.

According to the April 1 decision, the ECJ ruled that procedural errors, and not a lack of scientific support or safety data has led to the annulment of the exemption.

"The Court has found that the Commission used an incorrect criterion, an EU risk assessment, as the basis for exemption since that is not one of the criteria provided for by the RoHS Directive. The Court did not question, nor was it asked to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the risk assessment for Deca-BDE, and that risk assessment is unaffected by the judgment. It is the RoHS Directive exemption, and only that exemption, which has been annulled and not the risk assessment. This means that flaws in the previous exemption process can be reviewed and corrected. It is important to stress that the exemption remains in force in order to allow this review to be carried out as a matter of urgency," stated former ECJ Judge Sir David Edward, in a comment on the ruling.

The BSEF is calling on the European Commission to examine Deca-BDE applications in electrical and electronic equipment "as a matter of priority" under the RoHS directive and "reconcile the inconsistency between the risk assessment, which found no need for restrictions on the use of Deca-BDE, and the provisions of the RoHS Directive, which would impose restrictions," said Dr Michael Spiegelstein, Chairman of the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, in a statement.

"We believe the Commission should either propose a new exemption for Deca-BDE, which we are confident meets the RoHS Directive criteria, or amend the RoHS and delete Deca-BDE altogether from its scope. The Court's decision establishes a clear "road map" for re-examining this matter, and we look forward to co-operating with the Commission in such a review," stated Spiegelstein.

However, the use of Deca-BDE has shrunk significantly over the past several years, and has been replaced by other brominated flame retardants, said Mike Goode, president of GoodeStart, a chemical and regulatory compliance consultancy (West Lafayette, Ind.). At the same time the use of phosphorus flame retardants in electronics has grown substantially mostly for TVs in Europe, which weren't using flame retardants, he added.

Users of Deca-BDE only have three months before the exemption expires.

Switching to an alternative is not always a simple matter, Durbin said. "Although there are alternatives that work in the same types of plastic as Deca, some of those alternatives require a change to the plastic formulation. No alternatives have been studied to the degree in health and environmental testing as Deca."

There are alternatives, including Chemtura's Firemaster 2100 as a functional replacement with the highest bromine content. In addition, brominated epoxy oligomers can be used in styrenic and polyester formulations for effective flame retardant performance.

"A choice of technology exists, but reformulation costs need to be considered, as well as approval times for new formulations. Typical approval times can range form 12-24 months depending upon the severity of the flammability rating," Durbin said

相关话题

lenovoliu

第1楼2008/04/11

太喜欢了。。。

0

高卧东山

第2楼2008/04/11

尽管目前仍无十分确定的研究结论支持十溴联苯醚的危害。。

0

Haillas

第3楼2008/04/12

真是大快人心事呀.

0

小鸟飞翔

第4楼2008/04/12

怎么不把重点用颜色表示出来？？

0

guo1836

第5楼2008/04/14

是完全禁用还是恢复限值1000PPM呢？在内容中没看出来。

0

blandery

第6楼2008/04/14

太费劲了，看得我眼都花了

0

fank-long

第7楼2008/04/14

其实早就该禁止了！

0

steven_sela

第8楼2008/04/16

限制越来越多了，对厂家的要求不断提高啊

0

才哥

第9楼2008/04/17

欧洲法院只是认为该项豁免存在程序上的错误，此次撤销该豁免。从这个角度来看限制应该依然是1000ppm。

以下内容并非前面英文的全文翻译，但是涉及此事件的前因后果，供大家参考。

欧洲法院(European Court of Justice, ECJ)于4月初发布公告，欧盟委员会2005年公布的RoHS指令豁免项目存在程序上的疏忽，因此废除委员会决议2005/717/EC (RoHS指令补充决议)第二项第9a条对聚合物中Deca-BDE（十溴二苯醚）的豁免，裁定将于2008年7月1日执行。因此针对Deca-BDE的豁免只能延续到2008年6月30日。
Deca-BDE是一种重要的高效溴化阻燃剂，广泛应用于电子电气产品的防火塑胶部件中。此前，欧盟委员会(European Commission)将Deca-BDE列为RoHS指令的豁免项目，但2006年，欧洲议会(European Parliament)和丹麦获得其它会员国的支持，在欧洲法庭上提出，他们相信市场上可以找到更为安全的Deca-BDE替代品。
据悉，欧洲法院此次裁定的主要依据是：欧盟委员会豁免Deca-BDE出现了程序性错误，RoHS指令中没有提到风险评估结果可以作为豁免条件。前欧洲法院法官大卫•爱德华（David Edward）爵士同时也指出，欧洲法院的判决没有对阻燃剂Deca-BDE的安全性提出任何质疑，只是裁定RoHS指令中对Deca-BDE豁免的决定判决无效，而并不涉及Deca-BDE风险评估结果，这就意味着豁免的程序性错误是可以被审议和纠正的。
针对欧洲法院的判决结果，溴科学与环境论坛（BESF）主席迈克尔•斯皮格思泰因（Michael Spiegelstein）博士发表声明：从RoHS指令中豁免Deca-BDE是一项重要的公共政策，事关防火安全问题。Deca-BDE是应用于电子电气产品中的最有效的阻燃剂之一，经过了全面的、长期的生物安全性和环境安全性研究，被证明对人体和环境没有风险，不必采取防范措施。而且由于Deca-BDE的应用，每年可以挽救成千上万人的生命和财产。BESF将敦促欧盟委员会按照RoHS指令的要求，优先研究这一问题，并且尽快解决风险评估结果和RoHS指令的衔接问题。他建议，欧盟委员会应重新提出符合RoHS指令标准的Deca-BDE豁免，或者修改RoHS指令，将Deca-BDE从指令中删除。

鉴于目前很多知名厂商（如Sony等）的企业标准中均明确指出不豁免Deca-BDE，另外也有研究表明，Deca-BDE在产品中有可能会出现转化，如在产品中使用Deca-BDE做阻燃剂，可能会带来其他PBDE项目超标的风险。因此，建议广大客户尽量避免在产品中使用Deca-BDE，同时积极研究其他高效阻燃剂作为替代，以使自己的产品规避风险和保持持久的竞争力。
guo1836 发表:是完全禁用还是恢复限值1000PPM呢？在内容中没看出来。

0

world209

第10楼2008/04/22

有没有官方出处啊？

0

查看更多

近期热榜

热门活动

猜你喜欢最新推荐热门推荐更多推荐

品牌合作伙伴

日立科学仪器

珀金埃尔默仪器（上海）有限公司（PerkinElmer）

珀金埃尔默仪器（上海）有限公司（PerkinElmer）

日本电子株式会社

赛默飞世尔科技

马尔文帕纳科

上海仪电科仪

梅特勒托利多

布鲁克核磁

举报帖子

点赞用户

好友列表

加载中...

正在为您切换请稍后...