By Ajay Persaud, IPC EHS Fellow and Master of Public Health Student at The George Washington University

Policy makers in Europe and North America are eyeing a variety of changes to environmental, health and safety regulations to encourage a “circular economy” and reduce the risks of using flame retardants in electronics products.

That was the main theme of a recent IPC/Chemical Watch event in which experts discussed important policy developments around flame retardants used in the electronics industry from both European and North American perspectives. More than 270 people participated online. The panelists represented standards development (ECOS and IPC) and industry (electronics and chemicals production):

• Adrian Beard, Head of Market Segments, Clariant Corporation;
• Ioana Popescu, Senior Program Manager, ECOS;
• Kelly Scanlon, Director of Environment, Health, Safety Policy and Research, IPC (Moderator); and
• Joel Tenney, Director of Advocacy, ICL.

Here is a summary of the discussion:

What are the emerging policies affecting flame retardants used in electronics in North America and Europe?

In the European Union, policy makers are developing an eco-design framework for consumer electronics, as well as new regulations to remove halogenated flame retardants within stands and enclosures of electronic displays starting in March 2021. New regulations regarding halogenated flame retardants may be placed on other electronic products, as well.

Also in Europe, the Circular Plastic Alliance, an industry-based group is working to promote greater production and use of recycled plastics. While the recycling of flame-retardant-containing plastics may be feasible for the foreseeable future, challenges lie ahead in terms of regulating the chemical make-up of consumer electronic products. Previous measures aimed at reducing the use of halogenated flame retardants, such as an electronics tax enacted in Sweden, have had limited success and spurred a negative public response.

In the United States, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is evaluating a petition to evaluate the use of non-polymeric halogenated flame retardants in electronic casings, focusing on the potentially hazardous chemical endpoints that could be present. On the state level, Washington State recently announced it is assessing the potential risk that flame retardants pose to consumers. Similarly, on the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year launched a risk assessment of TBBPA and other flame retardants.

What are the industry standards that shape the definitions and descriptions of flame retardants used in electronics?

The representative from ECOS shared that basic flammability standards for electronics have not significantly changed, and the EU has not established any electronic product safety standards. Rather, flammability standards pertain more to product performance outcomes.

One important point was that there should be no health and safety compromise involved in meeting electronics safety standards by solely adding flame retardants. Instead, designers should consider fire safety standards while not compromising on the potential toxicological and environmental impacts that halogenated flame retardants may cause. The focus should be shifted from primarily utilizing flame retardants to meet safety standards to considering changes in materials choices, as well as performance-based approaches for electronics manufacturing.

Ideally, what data and information is needed to make better decisions about flame retardant chemicals and their use in electronics?

The ICL representative highlighted that industry decision-makers should shift their focus to consider the whole value chain rather than any particular components of electronic products. By utilizing new data tools that capture decision-making drivers, industry can improve their understanding of the value chain from a holistic viewpoint.

What innovations and technologies are needed to remove the need for flame retardants in electronics, or will we always need them?

Panelists stated that the conversation is moving away from the hazardous effects of flame retardants to focus more on the downstream impacts, such as recycling and reuse. In the context of the circular economy concept, industry must look at material streams from end-to-end if they are to increase the ability to recycle and reuse electronic components. Special attention must be placed on both conservation of electronic components and the reuse of materials through innovative methods such as label technologies so consumers and e-waste sites are better informed about what chemicals a product may contain and how it may be reused. Other environmental considerations such as a product’s carbon footprint are also coming to the fore.

How do you see the European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan shaping future conversations about flame retardants used in electronics – and not just in the EU but elsewhere?

All panelists noted an ongoing, global shift in how we can use circularity to reframe discussions about chemicals and products. When considering how to recycle or reuse a product, a variety of specific choices and tradeoffs will have to be made. While a manufacturer may be able to increase a product’s recyclability, changes in materials or components may have to be implemented. In addition, the Circular Economy Action Plan will have to address not only the mechanical aspects of recycling but also the chemistry of recycling and reuse, given that consumer electronic products contain flame retardants, and the manufacturing processes can be energy-intensive. Innovative projects that enable circularization include markings on electronic products to indicate the presence of flame retardants as well as improving data and information sharing across the product value chain.

IPC will continue to collaborate with Chemical Watch to organize additional educational events on flame retardants in electronics. For more IPC information about this and other environment, health and safety topics, contact Kelly Scanlon, IPC’s director of EHS policy and research.

by Matthew Chalkley, Supply Chain Management and Operations Consultant; Kelly Scanlon, Director, Environment, Health and Safety Policy & Research, IPC 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of 4,730 man-made chemicals (OECD, 2018), the two most well-known of which are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). PFAS are used in a wide variety of consumer products and industrial applications because of their unique chemical and physical properties, including oil and water repellence, temperature and chemical resistance, and surfactant properties.

There is evidence that certain PFAS can accumulate and stay in the environment and in the human body for long periods of time and lead to adverse human health outcomes.

In July, IPC completed a screening study to gain a better understanding of the evolving policies shaping the production and use of PFAS. The study examines how these policies may affect the electronics industry depending on which PFAS substances are involved and how they are used within the myriad of electronic equipment and electronics manufacturing processes.

The IPC study shows that the semiconductor industry, in particular, is very reliant on PFAS.  The study also indicates that fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a type of PFAS, are used for insulating cables in a variety of electrical and electronic applications. PTFE-insulated wires and cables can be used in harsh environments and in use cases where high-volume data transmission is required, such as automotive electronics, medical equipment, and data centers.

Additionally, PTFE and other fluoropolymers can be used in rigid, flexible, and hybrid printed circuit boards, especially those PCBs used for high frequency and microwave applications.

IPC needs you to review the preliminary findings from our screening study confirm whether we have accurately captured the uses of PFAS in electronics products and processes.  Also, we rely on your feedback to let us know whether the uses of PFAS we describe are unique to electronics, and how you would rank the criticality of PFAS to the performance of the electronics. Please send your feedback to Kelly Scanlon, IPC’s director of environment, health, and safety policy and research, by August 28.

The screening study has already provided IPC with the insights needed to respond to a Call for Evidence from the national authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The information they receive will aid those authorities as they prepare a joint REACH restriction proposal to limit the risks to the environment and human health from the manufacture and use of PFAS.

We ask that you review and confirm our screening study findings and recommendations. And please feel free to share any additional supporting data and information that would be beneficial as we continue our PFAS journey. IPC Contact: Kelly Scanlon.

By David Krause, Senior Toxicologist at Healthcare Consulting & Contracting (HC3), and Kelly Scanlon, IPC director of environment, health, and safety policy and research

As the COVID-19 pandemic has persisted, we’ve learned a lot of surprising things about the virus and the disease, as well as how to prevent potential exposures. IPC is alert to the evolving science and government policies, and today we are releasing new information aimed at helping our members assess and manage risks in their workplaces.

In April, IPC hosted a webinar to share the best practices known at that time for worker health protection in the electronics manufacturing industry. We produced a report to address questions regarding screening, physical distancing, and response plans. In May, IPC produced a framework for employers and employees to use when selecting face coverings and masks.

This week, we released a new guidance document aimed at dispelling myths related to COVID-19 infection. Workplace Measures to Manage COVID-19 Risk: Dispelling Myths with Effective Methods answers questions we have received, including those related to cleaning, disinfecting, and contact tracing. We provide answers grounded in science and supported with evidence.

We have also made updates to Face Coverings and Masks: Protecting Each Other on the Job. The update includes new information how different types of face coverings and masks are tested to determine their effectiveness. It also delves into the efficacy of face coverings, masks, and respirators with exhalation valves, which do provide some protection but do not capture as much virus in exhaled breath, resulting in less protection of nearby workers.

If your company is concerned about COVID-19 risk issues, please join us for a free, members-only webinar, COVID-19: Best Practices for Assessing Workplace Risk, on Wednesday, September 9 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm Eastern time. This webinar will answer some of the most challenging questions employers and employees are facing right now. IPC will share best practices for assessing workplace risks, as well as resources and tools you can use to navigate the dynamic science and government policies.

What pandemic-related issues are you struggling with? We welcome your questions and will take them into consideration as we prepare the webinar. Please contact Kelly Scanlon with your concerns.

By Kelly Scanlon, IPC Director, EHS Policy and Research

The Asia-Pacific region is home to several of the world’s largest nations and many of its most dynamic economies. The governments in this region have generally established comprehensive environmental, health and safety policy frameworks, with a variety of approaches and enforcement mechanisms.

Because these policy frameworks have so much importance for our members, IPC monitors and engages in selected, high-priority environmental policy matters in the Asia-Pacific region. Most recently, we have focused on RoHS- and REACH-like regulations that may affect the chemicals and electronic products that are manufactured or imported into countries in the region.

To help our members, IPC has created six white papers, each of which highlights the history of chemical regulations, current regulatory systems, recent regulatory updates, and anticipated trends in the following countries:

• China
• Japan
• Singapore
• South Korea
• Taiwan
• Thailand

In addition, we publish news on the latest developments in the weekly Global Advocacy Report and on IPC’s website. We welcome your review and feedback.

by Alison James, senior director, Europe, Government Relations

Today, IPC joined with almost 40 other industry groups in calling on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to postpone the January deadline for a new chemicals database and to study related issues further before it goes forward.

Under current plans, companies supplying articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the EU market will be obligated to submit information on these articles to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) beginning on 5 January 2021.

IPC supports the intent of the SCIP database to make information about SVHCs available throughout the life cycle of products and enable “circular economy” efficiencies. However, the development and implementation of the database has raised serious doubts about its workability, proportionality, and value. Specifically, we believe the ECHA failed to finalize the database within a timeframe that would enable companies to develop, test and adapt their own systems to meet the January deadline. Moreover, contrary to the EU Better Regulation principles, the requirements were adopted without any prior stakeholder consultation or impact assessment.

To date, the relevant parties have resisted calls for a postponement of the deadline, but IPC and our industry colleagues hope that by shining a spotlight on the flaws in the process, we can persuade the EC to take a more measured, reasonable approach. In the weeks ahead, we will continue to work with you and European policy makers to advocate for a better policy outcome.

View industry joint news release and the list of signatories.

Please contact me if you have any questions and/or want to be involved.

This week, IPC played a role in two different presentations offered by two different organizations on one common theme: the need for accurate, workable exchange of data about substances in products throughout the supply chain.

On September 23, Kelly Scanlon, IPC’s director of environment, health and safety policy and research, presented to the workgroup on materials and substances declaration at the International Aerospace Environmental Group’s  (IAEG’s) fall meeting. Kelly’s presentation highlighted IPC’s efforts to monitor, meet, and engage on emerging policies such as the U.S. EPA’s risk evaluations of high-priority substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the European Commission’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.  Kelly’s presentation to IAEG was sandwiched between presentations on the need to harmonize materials declaration standards and the usefulness of standards to enable compliance with policies, including the policy that is driving the creation and implementation of the EC’s Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database.

Then on September 24, Chemical Watch sponsored a free webinar on “IPC-1754-AM2: Materials and Substances Declaration for Aerospace, Defense, and other Industries,” focusing attention to the recent amendment to this IPC standard. Patrick Crawford, IPC’s manager of the materials declaration and data exchange standards, gave an overview of the IPC-175x family and then had a software solutions provider and an aerospace and defense representative demonstrate real-world use cases for data exchange.  The presentations explained the technical features of the standard and the business case for its adoption.

For more information about IPC’s materials declaration and data exchange standards, please contact Patrick Crawford, IPC’s manager for design standards and related industry programs, and for more information on IPC’s policy advocacy on this topic, contact Kelly Scanlon.

By Kelly Scanlon, director, environment, health and safety policy and research

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approaching a critical phase of deliberations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the next several steps in the process will have major ramifications for electronics manufacturers, who need to focus on this issue now to protect their own long-term interests and help IPC advocate for the industry.

The EPA’s process for assessing and managing risks from existing chemicals has three basic steps: prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management.

Currently, there are two cycles of this three-step process happening at the same time, for two different sets of chemicals. In the first cycle, EPA is nearing the completion of 10 risk evaluations; in the second cycle, EPA is just beginning the risk evaluations for 20 more high-priority chemical substances.

Just over the horizon, the EPA will begin to consider and then propose actual risk management strategies for the first 10 of these chemicals. By law, the EPA is required to take action to address such risks within two years after a risk evaluation is published. This will be the first time that the EPA is doing risk management under the 2016 amendments to TSCA, so it’s a unique opportunity to get involved.

Thus, now is the time for our industry to get organized, collaborate, and prepare to advocate our views on how the EPA should address any unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. The EPA is seeking input from us, and our expertise will be critical to forging smart solutions to manage and address risks.

Which chemicals are we talking about?

Since June 2020, the EPA has published three final risk evaluations for:

• methylene chloride (CAS 75-09-2);
• 1-bromopropane (CAS 106-94-5); and
• cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster chemicals (CASRN 25637-99-4, 3194-55-6, and3194-57-8), including hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).

Notably, each of these risk evaluations mentions the use of these chemicals in electronics.

• For methylene chloride, the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical as a solvent in industrial processes where electronics equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing takes place presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health.

• For 1-bromopropane, the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical as a solvent for cleaning or vapor degreasing in the manufacturing of electrical equipment presents unreasonable risks of injury to human health.

• For HBCD, the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical in solder paste or flux presents an unreasonable risk to the environment.

To manage unreasonable risks, the EPA has several regulatory options at its disposal, including the ability to prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict their manufacture, processing, or distribution for particular uses; to regulate the manner or method of their disposal; to regulate how risks are communicated to consumers and various supply chain actors; and/or to require monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping.

If you have information that is relevant to these proceedings, we need to hear from you. Specifically, if you have information on safe and essential uses; on safe and effective alternatives; or on uses that have been phased out or can be phased out; then now is the time to get ready to work with IPC and engage with the EPA. 

The IPC Government Relations team will facilitate and coordinate a unified industry response. Ultimately, the EPA needs our knowledge and expertise to arrive at solutions that protect human health and the environment and enable our industry to thrive.

By Alison James, senior director, government relations, Europe

Last April, European Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders announced he is planning in 2021 to propose legislation with binding due diligence obligations as part of a broader package on sustainable corporate governance. While the exact scope of the proposal is to be determined, it is expected to be broad and cover electronics manufacturing companies. The new requirements would likely obligate companies to establish due diligence systems that identify supply chain risks including forced labor and environmental pollution, and to take steps to mitigate them.

Electronics manufacturers support public and private sector efforts to improve environmental health and human rights around the world, and we have an interest in working constructively with policymakers to ensure that new regulatory requirements are both effective in combatting the issue of concern and practical for the companies affected.  

As always, IPC will keep you informed about this legislation’s progress, and we invite your perspectives to help frame our advocacy. As an industry, we must be involved in this policy discussion.

Why are mandatory requirements going to be proposed?

Both civil society and the European Parliament have long called on the European Commission to fully implement the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) in Europe. Under the new Commission led by EC President Ursula von der Leyen, sustainable corporate governance is on the list of strategic objectives as part of the European Green Deal agenda.

Earlier this year, a study conducted for the EC concluded that voluntary measures have not been effective in encouraging companies to identify, account for, and mitigate social and environmental impacts in their supply chains. COVID-19 has accelerated efforts to ensure that Europe emerges from the crisis in a sustainable, fair, and responsible manner while keeping environmental and social challenges at the top of its agenda.

What has happened since Commissioner Reynders’ announcement?

Reynders’ announcement was met with an avalanche of reactions. Among the EU institutions, the idea has received strong support from the German Presidency of the EU Council (a post which rotates among Member States every six months), which held a large virtual conference on Human Rights and Decent Work in Global Supply Chains earlier this month. The event underlined Germany’s willingness, along with Portugal and Slovenia, to support EU-wide due diligence legislation. In fact, Germany is currently planning its own national supply chain law, for which a proposal is expected early next year. Such national laws already exist in other Member States, including France. EU-wide rules would thus avoid a fragmentation of the Single Market, with different rules applying in different Member States.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs is preparing two non-binding reports on the topic (here and here), outlining their demands for EU sustainable corporate governance and due diligence legislation. In particular, the MEPs are focusing on a broad definition of scope, liability aspects, enforcement, and “proportionality” for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs).

What are the next steps?

The European Commission is expected to open a public consultation very shortly, during which all stakeholders can provide their comments. The legislative proposal is expected in Q1 2021. It is now time for companies to engage in the legislative process by sharing sector-specific insights, challenges, and best practices. IPC will work with its Government Relations Committees to contribute to the public consultation and engage with the European Commission.

Does your company have a robust due diligence system in place? How do you work with your supply chain to mitigate risks? If you would like to contribute or if you have any questions, please contact me at AlisonJames@ipc.org.

by Kelly Scanlon, director, environment, health and safety policy and research

On October 28, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) formally launched the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database. Any company importing, producing, or supplying products on the EU market that contain substances of very high concern will have to comply with the database reporting requirements. Specifically, if your company places on the market any articles with SVHCs on the REACH Candidate List above 0.1% weight by weight then the company must submit information on these articles to the SCIP database as of January 5, 2021.

Despite urgings from IPC and other associations, the European Commission rejected the possibility of an ex-post impact assessment. Under the current timeline, the regulatory obligations regarding the database are set to come into effect on January 5, 2021, just 10 weeks after the database was unveiled for the first time. However, industry advocacy will continue, and IPC recently signed a cross-industry letter to the German Presidency of the European Union and heads of the European Council and European Parliament, reiterating the need for a more workable solution.  IPC will continue advocacy efforts and stresses the need for companies to increase their awareness about this regulatory requirement.

ECHA has tools available to help you to meet reporting obligations and be sure to tune into the ECHA’s November 19 webinar if you have any questions about the notification process, and let us know if we can help you. 

By Chris Mitchell, vice president, Global Government Relations

Even as officials around the country are finalizing the results of the 2020 U.S. elections, members of Congress are preparing to return to Washington, where a busy legislative agenda awaits them. Very little time is left before the end of the year, and Congress has a slew of unfinished business.

Here is a rundown of what we at IPC are pressing members of Congress to prioritize in the waning days of 2020.

• COVID-19 Recovery – Congressional leaders now concur that a fourth COVID recovery package is critical. IPC agrees. Enacting a COVID-recovery package will help sustain and revive affected communities, not to mention the wider economy, which the electronics industry is helping to drive. Significant differences remain over the size of the bill and its policy priorities. IPC has and will continue to fight for extension of the Paycheck Protection Program, business tax deductions, reasonable liability relief, modified unemployment benefits, and state and local government aid. We also have pushed for federal assistance to support compliance with Section 889 and infrastructure improvements.

• National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Congress is late in finalizing the annual defense authorization bill, which sets priorities and policies for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Enacting this legislation into law is a top November/December priority for Congress and the electronics industry. The FY 2021 NDAA is likely to include new trusted supplier requirements and sourcing restrictions on printed circuit boards and assemblies used in sensitive defense and COTS technologies purchased by DoD. This provision arguably is the industry’s most significant legislative achievement ever and cements the idea that every nation should have access to secure and resilient supply chains for electronics.          

• Appropriations – More than a month into FY 2021, Congress has yet to enact a single spending bill. The government is currently operating on a “continuing resolution” through December 11, by which date Congress will need to act to avert a government shutdown. Given their many months of work to date, appropriators should be able to negotiate a final package relatively quickly once congressional leaders agree on topline spending levels. Congress may need to pass another short-term CR, but we expect an omnibus package on the President’s desk this year.  

IPC backs funding for a variety of U.S. federal programs that support the innovation, resiliency, and security of U.S. electronics manufacturing. IPC also is championing a “plus up” in the defense spending bill to launch a new five-year, $40 million research effort related to lead-free electronics. Congress appropriated the project $5 million last year, and for FY 2021, the House has allocated $10 million. The Senate has yet to act, but we will stay laser-focused on this important priority.       

We are optimistic that, with the elections behind us, Congressional leaders are in a better place to complete these legislative measures. To that end, we, at IPC, will continue to provide opportunities to you and your peers to communicate your support of these bills at the appropriate time. Please stay tuned!

As always, please do not hesitate to reach out to your IPC Government Relations team to get involved or ask any questions about IPC’s advocacy activities.