MILPITAS, CA – SEMI has issued a statement on RoHS on behalf of multiple industry associations reflecting their common view that caution should be taken when characterizing various substances for restriction. The statement, addressed to the European Commission and consultants Oeko-Institut and Fraunhofer IZM, is as follows:

In line with the Better Regulation agenda, we appreciate the methodology seeks to ensure coherence with other chemicals legislation, in particular REACH. Coherence between legislation will help avoid duplications. It is, however, important to keep in mind the differences between the pieces of legislation in terms of their scope and objectives. In this context, it should be clearly stated RoHS deals with the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). While we appreciate the coherence with other regulations, we consider it premature to transfer requirements of other laws, e.g. the Waste Framework Directive, into RoHS, and change the methodology based on presumptions from ongoing policy discussions, such as the chemical, product and waste (CPW) interface.

RoHS 2 predates the 2011 European Commission Recommendation on the definition of a nanomaterial, which is currently being revised. The description of a nanomaterial in the draft methodology does not align with the EU Nanomaterial definition and should be adapted. The draft methodology should apply a consistent assessment process on the substances, regardless of the size and structure. If there are no sufficient data demonstrating a nanomaterial meets the RoHS Directive Article 6(1)(a-d) criteria, it should not be recommended for prioritization in assessment and restriction.

RoHS deals with the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). It does not deal with chemicals used in manufacturing process that are not used in EEE. It does not add any value to take into account the manufacturing chemicals in the methodology, nor does it address any risk arising from the manufacturing process. The requirements for chemicals used in manufacturing have already been covered by REACH and CLP.

While we appreciate the focus [on] grouping substances on a case-by-case basis, there needs to be a balance between avoiding regrettable substitution and restricting substances that do not pose a risk. Substances can be grouped for assessment only if they have similar structure, common physio-chemical properties, equivalent hazard behaviors and toxicological effects and pathways, etc.

Taking into account the Better Regulation agenda, determination of substance grouping should be aligned with internationally recognized existing guidance. As such, it is key the OECD guidance1 and ECHA guidance2 are being referenced and the electrical and electronic industry is consulted on any grouping. It cannot be assumed members shall have similar classifications, as this is often the rationale for group restriction, where one member may constitute a substitute for another without scientific evidence.

• Prev
• Next