Front End I Electronic Components Supply Network
Into 2019 with more environmental legislation…
As the UK transitions towards a post-Brexit economy, few organisations dispute the need to continue to harmonise environmental legislation and standards for goods and services with the rest of the EU. Mechanisms already in place will need to be upgraded or solutions found that ensure that UK organisations continue to contribute to new initiatives and retain the ability to usefully benefit from them. In the light of planned new and revised global environmental legislation, ecsn chairman, Adam Fletcher, reviews a change to the US Safe Drinking Water legislation that may impact UK-based organisations exporting to California
Adam Fletcher O
ver the last quarter there has been a surge of interest in what at first glance appears to be a sensible and highly laudable piece of established California legislation. The ‘Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act 1986’ - today often referred to as “Proposition 65” or even ‘Prop 65’ - seeks to protect drinking water from pollutants and particularly from harmful chemicals. The list of pollutants maintained and published each year by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, now covers over 900 chemicals, including it is believed around 100 used in the production of electronic components and equipment. The list also includes chemicals used in manufacturing and construction, by-products of chemical processes such as those found in motor vehicle exhaust emissions, and a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic substances, including pesticides, solvents, common household products, food, drugs
10 February 2019
and dyes, that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other forms of reproductive harm. When a chemical is added to the list under Prop 65 legislation, all organisations with more than nine employees have 12 months to ensure that they are either fully compliant with the legislation or exempt under US ‘safe harbor’ rules. Under the threat of lawsuits and without the means to test all their products for compliance many organisations adopted a default position and simply added a generic warning either on the external product packaging, within the documentation pack or by publishing and erecting prominent notices stating: “WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.” Despite these measures over $180M was paid out to settle lawsuits between 2010 and 2017, a figure that significantly understate the full cost of the great many out-of-court settlements. It’s apparent that US courts believe that generic warnings have little impact or value and as a result changes to Prop 65 legislation came into effect at the end of August last year. Warnings today must (a) name at least one of the listed chemicals that prompted the warning, (b) include the URL
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov as a source of additional information, and (c) feature a yellow, triangular warning symbol with the prominent legend…
WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including arsenic, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information, go to
www.P65Warnings.ca.gov
Legislators reasoned that the simple act of naming even a single listed chemical would prompt organisations to fully compare their products with the Prop 65 chemical list and with the knowledge gained, provide more comprehensive and relevant warnings. However, the exposure limits pertaining to electronic components and systems is badly drafted and the method used to calculate consumer
Components in Electronics
exposure to the products may at best be described as opaque.
Adding to costs, again To comply with Prop 65, organisations must ensure that their manufacturing processes and the components they source from supply network partners do not contain any of the chemicals currently appearing on the OEHHA list, or if present, levels do not exceed the arbitrary limit. Every electronic component or piece of electronic equipment must be fully compliant with the legislation or carry specific warnings detailing the territories where the product may not be sold or used. It’s become commonplace for highly visible ‘pop-ups’ to appear on US E- commerce websites advising that a product may not be purchased for shipment to California. The fear of ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing class-action cases in Californian courts for minor infringements that may result in swinging financial penalties is forcing many manufacturers to temporarily ban the shipment of their products to California. Once again, opaque and poorly defined environmental legislation is adding to the cost and complexity of manufacturing and selling electronic components and systems on international markets, whilst creating even more consumer confusion.
Impact in the UK So how does Prop 65 impact global electronic components markets? Answer: In a very similar way that the REACH and RoHS legislation impacted the European electronic components market. What set out to be predominantly about significant threats to health has started to impact many other industries that were well outside the scope of the measures originally planned. ‘Mission creep’ and forceful lobbying by environmental groups to get additional substances listed means that the legislation now impacts all organisations who place a product on the Californian market whether they are the manufacturer, distributor, retailer or online
reseller. And this problem is very likely to escalate. History show that what begins in California tends to be speedily replicated in other US states. Environmental legislation is rightly very important to society, but it needs to be carefully crafted and proportional to the risks involved. Side effects and/or unintended consequences arising from poorly drafted legislation can have an enormous negative commercial impact: “I’m not convinced that environmental legislation has struck the right balance today and investigation into its overall societal impact, costs and benefits should to be ongoing”, Fletcher says. “In the meantime, I encourage all organisations to actively engage with their partners both up and down their electronic components supply network to ensure they are in possession of all the information required to ensure regulatory compliance”. Adam Fletcher is chairman of the
Electronic Components Supply Network (ecsn), a business association established in 1970 that today offers support to all organisations with an interest in electronic components throughout their entire lifecycle. He is also chair of the International Distribution of Electronics Association (IDEA), an association of individual country electronic components associations whose objective is to share best industry practice.
Further information about The Electronic Components Supply Network and afdec may be found at the following website:
www.ecsn-uk.org with regular industry updates available to all on the Breaking News pages.
www.ecsn-uk.org
www.cieonline.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
