Implementation of Eco-Design:
Implementation of Eco-Design: |
|
It is advisable to separately look at:
as there might be different regulations related to the two and it is often easier to do something in relation to your own production. Further, the tools in the 'Environmental calculator' are designed for the dual approach.
We will look at an example of a manufacturer who has a PCB assembly line. The manufacturer is planning to improve his product and production over a three years period.
A part list for a typical PCB-product and for the process chemicals applied in the production have been listed, see table 1 and 2.
 |
|
Table 1. Parts list
|
 |
|
Table 2. Process chemicals and the EU-classification from the safety data sheets
|
The manufacturer enters the parts list into 'Environmental Calculator II' (available from the Download Page) and gets among others the output in table 3, showing that some of the substances in the product are scored with 'U' and 'P' in the UPM-scoring system, and that some of the substances appear on other lists.
 |
| Table 3. Output from the macro 'Banned_Restricted_Substances' in environmental calculator II |
However, as also explained in association with the Environmental Calculator, it is advisable to make a manual check as well, because some substances may occur as 'groups' without CAS-numbers on the lists of banned and restricted chemicals. He therefore applies the 'Manual_check_for_dangerous_chemicals_tool' (available from the Download Page) and thereby discovers that some of the other constituents appear on some of the lists. Table 4 summarises the substances in the product, which appear on any of the lists and with at least 'U' or 'P' scoring.
 |
| Table 4. The substances in the product appearing on regulatory and other lists |
Finally, the manufacturer takes a closer look at the process chemicals. For the 'pure substances', he simply applies the 'UPM_generator_tool' (available from the Download Page) to acquire a UPM-scoring. For the products consisting of more substances he takes a closer look at the safety data sheets. He sees that the substances declared on the solder paste are: tin, lead, silver and colophony and that the only declared substance on the cutting fluid is chlorinated paraffins. By application of the 'Manual_check_for_dangerous_chemicals_tool' and the 'UPM_generator_tool' he gets the results summarised in table 5.
 |
| Table 5. Process chemicals with UPM scoring and list appearance |
The design-team starts to discuss the goals to set.
Everyone agrees that it is a good idea to first meet all present product and production regulations. The first goal is therefore:
The team knows that the customers may ask for products without brominated flame retardants. The customers are therefore asked specifically on the subject, and the major customer declares that in two years time he will demand products without brominated flame retardants. The next goal put up is therefore:
The team now takes a look at table 4 and 5. They see that antimony trioxide, brominated flame retardants, chromium, lead, nickel, chlorinated paraffins and colophonium are on the list of undesirable substances and that cobalt is on the effect list. They have already decided to remove the brominated flame retardant, but can something be done to the other components?
Cobalt, antimony trioxide, chromium, and nickel are present in some of the components, and the components suppliers have informed that these substances cannot be removed. Therefore, there is at present little to be done with these substances. The major amount of lead, however, comes from the solder paste. One in the team has heard that lead will become banned in a couple of years (RoHS-directive) and furthermore lead is specifically mentioned in the 'Guidance document on the application of substances under special attention in Electric & Electronic Products'. However, the team has also heard that it is difficult to substitute lead. It is therefore decided to put up the following goal:
At present, it is difficult to do something about the colophony (and similar flux materials) in the solder paste, as there are no alternatives. However, the safety department declares that tight control has been put up in order to prevent skin contact with solder paste. It is decided to once more instruct the operators on safe handling of solder paste.
The team now looks at the UPM-scores. It can be seen that besides the above substances, there are no U and only two P substances; concentrated chloric acid has a P-scoring for health and cutting fluid has a P scoring for environment. In the discussion, which follows, it is revealed that the chloric acid is diluted before use and therefore in daily use it is to be regarded as a manageable substance. However, concerning the cutting fluid (which is used in the machine maintenance department) it is decided to find an alternative, which is not classified. A goal is therefore put up:
The safety department does not find this ambitious enough. The safety department points out that UPM is a very crude scoring. Several of the M substances are still classified according to the EU criteria. The department is especially concerned with 2-butanone, which is an organic solvent. An extra goal is therefore set up:
The team finally decides to review the goals in one year. Further, the design team and safety department find that some of the safety data sheets give very limited information, especially in relation to the environmental classification of the products. It is therefore agreed that the purchase department should be asked to demand updated safety data sheets along with future delivery of process chemicals. If the suppliers claim that the chemical should not be classified according to the criteria, a signed statement of this should be required.
|