U.K. takes the lead in RoHS implementation

A key issue with the RoHS directive is the variety of ways it can be implemented. Each of the European Union's 25 member states can localize the directive, filling in details any way they want, which often creates confusion, complexity and cost.

United Kingdom authorities, however, have been on a mission to make the RoHS directive workable. Though the U.K. fell shamefully behind in WEEE implementation, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), as well as consultant groups such as ERA Technology Ltd., have been working closely with Brussels, trade associations and industry to shape RoHS as it goes from paper to practice.

Their proactive work in laying bricks for what could become an EU-wide RoHS system is for the longer term. In the short term, the U.K's own national system provides a look at how things may generally work across Europe after July 1, 2006.

"The U.K. has a realistic and clear model based on self-declaration and we hope other countries follow it,” said Ken Stanvick, senior vice president of San Francisco, Calif.-based Design Chain Associates LLC. He explained that the U.K. looks at a company's RoHS system and essentially asks if it is reasonable to expect a consistent supply of compliant products through this system.

A company needs to demonstrate that it has RoHS-compliant processes in place. "A lot of companies think due diligence is just showing a certificate of compliance from a supplier," said Stanvick.

Enforcement is the heart of any RoHS implementation. In the U.K., the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) carries that responsibility. Officially, the NWML has pledged that RoHS enforcement should be "based on an assessment of risk" as well as "intelligence led." Industry sources have interpreted that to mean the NWML will take an active and passive approach.

Initially, the NWML will probably perform spot checks on large electronics manufacturers who present the biggest environmental risk. "Every enforcement authority has limited resources and they have to target appropriately, in line with furthering aims of the directive," said Chris Robertson, head of reliability and failure analysis at environmental consultancy ERA Technology Ltd. in the U.K.

This means that authorities may initially take more interest in large high-volume manufacturers rather than smaller companies. A spot check may be as simple as contacting a company and asking for documentation to prove it has a viable system in place to address RoHS.

At the same time, officials will wait for the phone to ring. Whistle blowers are widely expected to support enforcement. "I've already had companies ring me and ask how they can complain because their competitors are not complying with the legislation," said Mark Shayler, managing director of U.K.-based environmental consultancy Eco3.

Another public pledge by the NWML is that "enforcement actions will not be disproportionate." Though the statement is open to interpretation, sources have taken it to mean that a company found to be non-compliant will have action taken against it in proportion to its practical efforts to meet RoHS obligations.

For example, a company that's breaking the law — declaring it's compliant but with no demonstrable steps in that direction &151; would be dealt with severely. A company that can prove due diligence in making best efforts but has one or two non-compliant components would, in this interpretation, have it easier.

Robertson said that the proportionate principle isn't written into guidance and any producer found to be non-compliant has broken the law. However, he believes a producer could provide mitigating evidence that would be taken into account as to what action is taken against the company.

Moreover, the NWML is widely expected to assist companies that have compliance difficulties, even though they may pull non-compliant products and impose fines, Robertson added.

Penalties vary by country

As for penalties, the U.K's fines are the middle ground in Europe. Authorities have imposed a maximum fine of 5,000 pounds ($9,500) (though for extraordinary breaches higher fines are possible). The maximum fine in France, for instance, is 1500 euros ($1,900) and in Ireland its 15 million euros. ($19.2 million).

Penalties follow the home authority rule across the EU, explained Shayler. If a producer is based in the U.K. and caught selling a non-RoHS product in France, French officials turn the case over to U.K. authorities, who impose their fine. "It goes back to the country where your head office is located," he said.

Non-standard penalties, not to mention enforcement practices, could be exploited. "Everyone may try to locate their head office in France [where penalties are low]," Shalyer said. "It could become an investment incentive."

To address this issue, the U.K.'s DTI has been driving the development of an informal pan-European enforcement network intended to bring some level of harmonized practices across Europe. Presumably the network would also find some common ground on the type of product inspection methods that legal authorities will use. The issue is still up in the air. "There is no published standard to which you can work," Robertson said.

Another issue raised is that various test equipment can provide a range of results. Environmental consultants said owning a piece of inspection equipment is different than knowing how to use it. "You must have appropriate training and personnel to run it or you're in danger of not getting the right results," Robertson explained.

X-ray fluoroscopy, for example, can give misleading results unless used by a very experienced technician, added Paul Chinery, managing director of Dionics Plc in the U.K., an environmental consultancy. Moreover, no one instrument can test for all six substances, he said. "It's a bit of mix and match."

Developing EU-wide standardized methods and practices, however, will take time. "The difficulty is that every member state jealously guards its legislative powers, particularly with regard to penalties applied," said Robertson. "Harmonizing specific details across Europe would be difficult to achieve."

Still, Chinery believes there's a good chance that large EU countries will generally follow the U.K.'s model. "The DTI has long been seen as a lead RoHS authority in Europe and has created the only guidance documents available on RoHS," he said.

The irony is that on July 1, he expects mass non-compliance. “Not one or two, but thousands upon thousands of U.K. companies won't fully comply," Chinery said. "The U.K. electronics industry is categorically unprepared."

In the U.S., the picture is mixed. Stanvick said based on surveys conducted by Design Chain Associates, large companies are most prepared. Perhaps 70% of mid-sized companies are ready and only half of the small producers will make the RoHS deadline.

"The smaller the company, the less prepared," Stanvick said. "Some haven't even started yet."

Click the link to see a copy of DTI's decision tree to help your company decide whether or not a product falls under the RoHS directive.

Editor's note: Watch for an upcoming article on what companies can do now before the July 1 deadline if they haven't started to prepare for RoHS compliance.

Original text is here