The IPC has approximately 2,700 member companies. These roughly can be divided into six groups: designers, board manufacturers, contract assemblers, suppliers, original equipment manufacturers and associates (such as government and academia). Since 1957, the organization has been heralded as a standards and specification development leader. Through the auspices of more than 100 volunteer committees and task groups, the IPC has until recently developed and update standards and specifications “by building industry consensus.”

I well remember the work I was involved in as a member of the task group that drafted the first HDI guidelines back in the early 1990s. Over the course of many months, a core group of interested parties from a cross-section of OEMs, fabricators and suppliers banded to develop many of the terms and specifications we now associate with the HDI standards. The tasks were tedious and at times it seemed like reaching consensus was unbearably protracted, but in the end, the document was one that could truly be said to reflect a concurrence of opinions from all interested parties. Given the IPC charter, group participation and spirited debate was not only allowed, it was encouraged as we tested the suitability of the documents we were drafting to meet the needs of the industry.

It seems, however, times are changing. The IPC/JEDEC J-STD-709, currently titled, Limits for Bromine and Chlorine in Flame Retardants and Polyvinyl Chloride in “Low Halogen” Electronic Products, is a document developed by a consortium of companies who paid to initiate a project through HDPUG. This document was later brought to the IPC for consideration as a standard.

There has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding this standard. In 2008, when the EU risk assessment concluded its eight-year study that found that bromine-based flame retardants such as TBBPA (used to manufacture PCB laminates) do not pose a human or environmental risk, many low-halogen/halogen-free initiatives ran aground. Members of the J-STD-709 task group continued to question the purpose and even the validity of the standard. One outspoken member was even asked to resign from a leadership position on the committee.

It has been said that this document (J-STD-709) is something that the (IPC) membership wants. It is true that there is a very high level of interest on the part of the membership, but many companies involved in the task group are participating out of concern over how the standard would impact their businesses, not because they support limitations on halogen-containing materials in electronics. In task group meetings, it has been stated that the standard is more for show (read: marketing) than substance, and that it does not attempt to provide a scientifically supported reason for why a company would need to limit the halogen content in its products.

During a 30-day document review period last fall, some 106 comments were received from a total of 32 individuals representing 31 separate companies. Of these, more than 20% were technical objections that questioned the document, starting with the Forward, which sets the tone and the direction for what follows. These comments ranged from a call to delete the Forward or parts of it, to recommendations to eliminate the standard altogether because there is no legislative precedent to limit halogens in electronics.

Objections to the Forward related in part to the statement, “brominated and chlorinated flame retardants and PVC have been identified for reduction in electronic products.” One commenter rebutted this, saying, “The text makes the action appear to be an industry consensus position, when in fact we are unaware that any industry body has so acted.” Another commented that the premise of the document was in conflict with IPC-WP/TR-584. One thing is clear, this standard is far from reaching a consensus within the organization.

The latest revision to the draft document, dated Jan. 19, 2009, is now available for review. We have the opportunity (and responsibility) to lead the industry in the right direction and, to that end, the standards that are sponsored by organizations like the IPC can and will reflect on the global definition of low-halogen and halogen-free for many years to come. If you are not currently involved, this is the time (and the time is very short) to get involved. Let’s be sure that this standard as drafted is something that will provide benefit for the industry as a whole.

Consensus is simply that – and cannot be managed into conformity.