主题：【原创】欧洲法院撤销RoHS指令对十溴联苯醚的豁免

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