WASHINGTON – While enactment of the RoHS Directive made waves, what’s been less visible is enforcement. This week, Fern Abrams, IPC’s director of government relations and environmental policy, discussed the association’s role with regard to RoHS and other looming “green” issues. 

The means for enforcement have been a longstanding concern of suppliers and users. IPC, whose board years ago issued a position statement asserting that despite the lack of scientific evidence to support the elimination of lead, its ban was essentially a foregone conclusion, assists members in looking for leaded materials, but puts the onus on compliance squarely on the supply chain. “We have a number of conference sessions and paper presentations that focus on RoHS compliance,” Abrams said, at which supply chain members speak about their experiences with the legislation, including ways to detect lead. Yet “first and foremost, IPC is a standards-making body that focuses on education and assistance for regulatory compliance.”

The association has a certification program specific to RoHS. Interested companies complete a pre-audit questionnaire, then undergo a two-day onsite independent audit, Abrams explained. A committee of EMS providers, OEMs and suppliers developed the checklist and audit.

However, although IPC has a history of educating US Customs officials on identifying PWBs and assemblies, it does not get involved in enforcement. (RoHS, of course, is not federal US law.) Abrams said she hasn’t heard of any specific instances of RoHS violations. “Enforcement in Europe and enforcement in the US are different. Most violations have been handled quietly.”

Moreover, IPC doesn’t have an official RoHS policy position endorsed by its board, she said. “We have taken an active role in pointing out our concerns about the lack of science behind proposed provisions,” Abrams says. “They have not examined the existing data,” which “does not support recommendations.”

New on the radar is carbon tracking. The direction of that movement is unclear, Abrams said. “It’s hard to say where it’s going; there is a lot of international concern about climate change, but the position in the US is more cautious, more skeptical. Some existing models are not complete.” IPC is a proponent of looking at the full lifecycle, she noted.

Several standards are in the works for carbon tracking, Abrams said. “Most are private programs. The EPA has more than one. They are all voluntary programs at this point.”

Abrams is unsure the extent this will affect the electronics industry. “More important is not the carbon in manufacturing, but the energy used when products are in use,” she said. “There are no easy answers to these problems.”