Category Archives: nl2015q1

Conflict Minerals Reports due June 1, 2015 – Apple First to File

For those companies that are required to disclose their conflict minerals status under U.S. SEC rules, the 2014 Conflict Minerals disclosure (SEC Form SD) and conflict minerals report are due on Monday June 1, 2015.

Apple was the first company to file their 2014 conflict minerals report, several months ahead of the deadline. In being first, the Apple sets the bar before some other U.S. electronics manufacturers have even started writing their report. To no one’s surprise, Apple declared that the use of conflict minerals within their supply chain to be conflict indeterminate – this is the last of two years when they may claim this status.

In the conflict minerals report, Apple explains the steps that they have taken and the progress that they have made towards eliminating conflict minerals that directly or indirectly fund armed groups in the DRC. Apple explains that its Conflict Minerals program is driving its supply chain to use only smelters and refiners that have been certified to the Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative’s Conflict-Free Smelter Program (CFSP). The report provides statistics that 199 of 225 smelters and refiners in its supply chain have been verified as conflict free or are in the audit process for certification. This is more than double the number of smelters and refiners identified in 2013.

The main body of the Apple Conflict Minerals Report is less than 10 pages in length. An additional 10 pages is provided for a table (Annex I) listing all of the smelters and refiners that were identified in Apple’s supply chain.

SVHC Threshold based on Components – ECJ Takes First Step in Ruling

The European Court of Justice has taken a first step in ruling that the REACH SVHC concentration threshold should be interpreted based on the “Once an Article, Always an Article” principle.

In its original guidance on reporting SVHCs in articles, the European Commission suggested that the 0.1% threshold should be based on the weight of the entire article as imported or as provided to the customer. However, six countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) disagreed with this guidance. The dissenting countries argued that an SVHC that is above the 0.1% level in any individual article (component) within a product may pose a health or environmental risk and should trigger the reporting and communication obligations for the SVHC.

The difference in opinion between the two sides created a lot of ambiguity for industry, but industry generally followed the methodology given in the EC guidance document because of the sheer difficultly in meeting the obligations based on SVHC levels in each component in the product.

Legal proceedings were launched in France and are now forcing a resolution to the standoff. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), which has the final say in matters of EU regulatory interpretation, has been asked to rule on the question. As a first step toward a preliminary ruling, the Advocate General, an official legal advisor, has delivered his opinion. The Advocate General reviewed the regulatory text as written and found that there was no legal justification for the 0.1% w/w concentration to be applied to an article that is make up of many components that are themselves articles. He recommended that the preliminary ruling by the ECJ should interpret the REACH Article 33 communication obligations and REACH Article 7(2) notification to ECHA should be based on SVHC content in each original article (component) in the product.

The Advocate General’s opinion states:

V –  Conclusion

124. I therefore propose that the Court answer the request for a preliminary ruling as follows:

(1)      If the other conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the REACH Regulation are satisfied,

(a)      the producer of an entire article consisting of component articles which, despite being integrated into an entire article, retain a shape, surface or design of their own, but were made or assembled by other producers, is required to notify ECHA if a substance meeting the criteria in Article 57 and identified in accordance with Article 59(1) is present in the entire article above a concentration of 0.1% weight by weight (w/w); and

(b)      the importer of an entire article consisting of component articles which, despite being integrated into an entire article, retain a shape, surface or design of their own is required to notify ECHA if a substance meeting the criteria laid down in Article 57 and identified in accordance with Article 59(1) is present in a component article above a concentration of 0.1% weight by weight (w/w).

(2)      The supplier of an entire article consisting of component articles which, despite being integrated into an entire article, retain a shape, surface or design of their own is required to provide information to recipients and, on request, consumers under Article 33 of the REACH Regulation on a substance meeting the criteria in Article 57 and identified in accordance with Article 59(1) if it is present in a component article above a concentration of 0.1% weight by weight (w/w) and relevant information is available to the supplier.

If the Advocate General’s opinion is accepted by the ECJ, the impact on industry will be significant. Even manufacturers that have been collecting SVHC information from suppliers may be impacted. The declaration of SVHC content in supplier parts is typically triggered based on 0.1% weight of the part provided by the supplier.  If the supplier part is itself composed of multiple articles, an SVHC in a subpart that exceeds the 0.1% threshold may be masked.

Many manufacturers would need to develop new material and SVHC risk assessment processes and collect new material declarations from their suppliers. Contact ECD Compliance for additional information on the impact of this ruling or for assistance in developing conformity assessment procedures.

 

CEN/CENELEC – Standardization Roadmap for 2015

The European Standardization Bodies CENELEC and CEN (which are the EU regional counterparts to IEC and ISO respectively) have published their 2015 roadmap of new standardization activities. This roadmap reflects the mandates that the two SDOs (standards development organizations) have received from the European Commission (EC) to develop standards needed for future regulations. It provides manufacturers with insight to emerging regulatory areas for environmental compliance of products sold in the EU.

In the Environment section of the roadmap, standardization requests from EC/EFTA include:

  • M/424 – Water Framework Directive
  • M/478 – Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
  • M/503 – Ambient air quality legislation
  • M/513 – Gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions
  • M/514 – Volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions
  • M/518 – Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  • M/526 – Adaptation to Climate Change

Elements of EU Work Programme for 2015 include:

  • 4. Waste recycling
  • 6. Air quality and industrial emissions
  • 4. Climate change and Resource Efficient Europe

Other standardization and activities relevant to the EEE industry and to be developed in 2015 include:

Resource efficiency – CEN and CENELEC will continue discussions with the European Commission with the aim of identifying possible standards that could contribute to the implementation of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571), which is one of the flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 Strategy. It is possible that some new standardization activities will be launched in 2015.

Substances of high concern – CEN will complete the development of a standardization roadmap in relation to substances of high concern in articles, based on consultations with industry representatives and other stakeholders. The aim of this exercise is to identify which new standards might be needed to support the implementation of relevant European legislation such as the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation, the Waste Directives, the POP (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Regulation, and the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment) Directive.

Several standards already exist within the EEE industry to address substance of high concern; however, few such standards exist for other products. Therefore, CEN has been asked to look at possible standards across all products (not just EEE). The key risk for the EEE industry is if any of the standards conflict with the existing EEE standards and force the EEE industry to change its procedures for restricted substance control.

 

EnergyStar – Update on Large Network Equipment (LNE) Test Method

For the emerging large network equipment (LNE) Energy Star specification , the U.S. EPA and DOE are requesting stakeholders to provide comments and proposals on two test method issues that were discussed at the January 30th, 2015 meeting: the use of the snaked traffic topology, and the ambient temperature requirement. Additional information on the issues and the request for proposals is provided in the request letter posted on the Energy Star LNE website.

The U.S. EPA will also be hosting a series of working group sessions to discuss outstanding issues related to developing an LNE specification.

On January 30th, 2015, the U.S. Environment Protection agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hosted a meeting to discuss the ENERGY STAR® Large Network Equipment (LNE) program. In acknowledgement of the complexity of LNE products, during that call, EPA proposed hosting a series of phone – based working sessions over the coming months to discuss key outstanding issues. With this letter, EPA is outlining the topics and timing for those conference calls. EPA welcomes stakeholder feedback on additional topics for discussing during the working calls.

 

California – 14 substances added to California Proposition 65

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added 14 substances to the California Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer. The newly added substances include:

  • the substance group dibenzanthracenes and the individual substances making up the group that were not already listed.
  • N- nitrosomethyl-n-alkylamines with alkyl chain lengths of 3 to 12 and 14carbons (The N-nitrosomethyl-n-alkylamines with 1 and 2 carbons were already listed in prop 65.)

Table 4: Fourteen (14) Substances Added to California Proposition 65

ChemicalCAS No.Toxicological Endpoints
Dibenzanthracenes---cancer
Dibenz[ a,c ]anthracene215-58-7cancer
Dibenz[ a,j ]anthracene224-41-9cancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -propylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -butylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -pentylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -hexylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -heptylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -octylamine cancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -nonylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -decylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -undecylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -dodecylaminecancer
N-Nitrosomethyl- n -tetradecylaminecancer

Organizations have 12 months to comply with the prop 65 warning requirements once a substance is added to the list; therefore products that are an exposure risk for any of these substances must be labelled by December 26, 2015.

 

 

Canadian Mercury Regulations to Impose Tight Restrictions on Mercury in Batteries

In our December post titled “Products Containing Mercury Regulations published in Canada,” we discussed the scope and general prohibitions and exemptions of the recently published Canadian “Products Containing Mercury Regulations (SOR/2014-254)“. In this second article on the Regulations, we examine some of the technical aspects of the Regulations including the maximum concentration limits and how these compare with the EU RoHS Directive and the EU Battery Directive.

Maximum Concentration Limit

The concentration of mercury allowed in the Canadian Regulations aligns with the EU RoHS restriction of 0.1% mercury in homogeneous materials. This allows EEE manufacturers and importers to leverage their conformity assessment procedures and to use existing supplier material declarations, test reports and other technical documentation (as per EN 50581).

Batteries

For batteries, the maximum concentration levels specify the same numerical percentage as in the EU Battery Directive; however, there are important differences in the basis of calculation. The Canadian mercury regulations reference the weight of mercury in homogeneous materials whereas the weight of the entire battery is the basis for calculation in the EU Battery Directive.

Canadian Products Containing Mercury Regulations

(l) a battery, other than a button cell battery, that has a mercury concentration of 0.0005% or less by weight in homogeneous materials; [are excluded]

EU Battery Directive

1.(a) all batteries or accumulators, whether or not incorporated into appliances, that contain more than 0,0005 % of mercury by weight; and [are prohibited]

As a result, the Canadian Regulations are much stricter than the EU Directive and battery manufacturers may have more difficulty in verifying conformity to this requirement.

Button Cell Batteries

Both Canadian and EU restrictions provide short-term allowances for mercury in button cell batteries that phase out in 2015.  The Schedule in the Canadian Regulations provides an exemption for up to 25mg per button cell battery that expires on December 31, 2015. In the EU Battery Directive, the mercury prohibitions in button cell batteries are specified in Article 4, paragraph 2, allowing up to 2% mercury by weight of the battery:

4(2). The prohibition set out in paragraph 1(a) shall not apply to button cells with a mercury content of no more than 2 % by weight until 1 October 2015.

The Canadian Regulations set the long-term mercury threshold at 0.0005% based on the weight of each homogeneous material; whereas the EU Battery Directive sets the threshold based on the weight of the entire battery. The Canadian Regulations specify the concentration limits in subsections 2(m) and 2(n).

(m) beginning on January 1, 2016, a button cell battery that has a mercury concentration of 0.0005% or less by weight in homogeneous materials; [are excluded]

(n) from January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2019, a button cell battery that is incorporated into a medical device that is intended to remain in the body for at least 30 consecutive days; [are excluded]

The Canadian Regulations provide an exclusion for button cell batteries in implanted medical devices; whereas, the EU Battery Directive provides an broader exclusion to the mercury prohibition for all portable batteries in medical devices.

Testing

An earlier draft of the Canadian mercury regulations proposed mandatory testing of products containing mercury; however this requirement was removed in the final regulations (to the relief of manufacturers and importers).

Future Articles on the Mercury Regulations

In future articles examining the Products Containing Mercury Regulations, we will discuss

  • the mercury exemptions provided by the Regulations and how the exemptions compare to those provided in the EU RoHS Directive
  • what if your product requires mercury, but there is no exemption listed — how manufacturers and importers may apply for a temporary permit
  • marking, labeling and reporting requirements for products that contain mercury above the maximum concentration limit
  • accreditation of test labs

ECD Compliance provides manufacturers and suppliers with services to track global environmental product requirements and assess the impact to their products and markets, including the Canadian Products Containing Mercury Regulations.

The Products Containing Mercury Regulations (SOR/2014-254) is available from the Canada Gazette.