Towards a strengthened RoHS Directive

Norway has previously highlighted the need to strengthen the RoHS Directive in the ongoing revision. The EU legislation on chemicals is implemented in the Norwegian legislation through the EEA Agreement, including the RoHS Directive for electrical and electronic equipment and the more general REACH regulation. The outcome of the current trilogue negotiations is therefore of great importance to us.

On priority assessments and further substance bans

Norway believes that there is a sufficient basis for priority assessment of further substances under a revised RoHS Directive. We support the approach of the European Parliament in proposing a substantial number of substances for such priority assessment. Norway has previously highlighted the need for assessing MCCP, the additive use of tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), beryllium and beryllium oxide, silver used as biocide and arsenic and arsenic compounds.

It is crucial to ensure an efficient procedure to include further substance bans in Annex IV, regardless of whether new substances are added at this stage or not. The procedure must be a tool to pursue the objective of protecting human health and the environment, to avoid a negative impact on human health and the environment during waste management and to promote safer alternatives with less negative impacts. The procedure should include a thorough scientific assessment, and be based on the precautionary principle for managing uncertainty. It is important that the procedure shall fit in with other legislation such as the REACH regulation and that information obtained from such legislation can be used in the procedure. Nanoforms of substances should be included in any assessment.

Scope, exclusions and exemptions

Norway still supports that the RoHS Directive should have a broad scope including all electrical and electronic products with a few specific, clear exemptions with time limits. This would be the best way to minimize or remove grey areas. The impact assessment of introduction of a general scope of the RoHS Directive made by Denmark concludes that apart from a few specific applications there is no indication that it would be particularly difficult to replace the RoHS substances in the assessed products, but that a clearer definition of electric and electronic equipment (EEE) may be needed. 

Some more specific points:

• A broad scope should enter into force after 4 years. Some have proposed 8 years, which we regard as an undue delay of this important strengthening of the Directive.
• Photovoltaic panels (solar panels) should be included in “electrical and electronic equipment”. However, a longer delay than for other new product groups falling under the scope of the Directive might be considered.
• The obligation to avoid hazardous substances in Annex IV should also apply to accessories and consumables that are part of electric and electronic equipment and this should be made clear in article 4 of the Directive.
• Exemptions should be based on clear criteria that support the aim of protecting human health and the environment in those cases where the reliability of substitutes is not ensured, and where negative effects on human health, the environment and consumer safety caused by substitution would likely outweigh the positive effects.