Product category:
Engineering Education, Resources and Standards
News Release from: BSEF
Edited by the Engineeringtalk Editorial
Team on 07 April 2008
Flame retardant objections were
"procedural"
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has provided that the EU RoHS exemption for Deca-BDE remains in place until 30th June 2008 to allow time for regulatory and marketplace adaptations.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that procedural errors, and not a lack of scientific support or safety data, have led to the annulment of an exemption to the EU RoHS Directive that was granted in 2005 for an important flame retardant The Court stressed that its decision rests primarily on "the dispute (which) has essentially arisen over the manner in which the Directive was drafted"
This article was originally published on Engineeringtalk on 30 Jun 2006 at 8.00am (UK)
Related stories
Flame retardant chemicals save lives and money
A recent study by the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute has produced a model which provides a complete analysis of all costs and benefits to society due to environmental restrictions.
CAE technology conference attracts big guns
This year's Altair Technology Conference will take place on 2nd November at the Heritage Motor Centre, Gaydon.
Jargon buster cuts through the ATEX jungle
ABB has published an "ATEX jargon buster" that helps motor users cut through the jungle of terms and definitions that make up the new ATEX Directives.
The Court's decision does not call into question the safety of the Deca-BDE.
The Court provided that the exemption remains in place until 30th June 2008 to allow time for regulatory and marketplace adaptations.
"This is an important public policy and fire safety issue and we encourage the European Commission to examine Deca-BDE applications in electrical and electronic equipment 'as a matter of priority' under the RoHS 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.
"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".
Asked to comment on the ruling, former ECJ Judge Sir David Edward said: "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".
• BSEF: contact details and other news
• Email this article to a colleague
• Register for the free Engineeringtalk email newsletter
• Engineeringtalk Home Page
Search the Pro-Talk network of sites
