Design Chain Associates July 2018 Newsletter

July 10, 2018

Welcome to the July 2018 Design Chain Associates E-mail Newsletter!

In addition to DCA's newsletters, keep an eye on DCA's bi-monthly articles in TTI's MarketEYE Resource Center.

If you've received this newsletter, are not on the DCA mailing list and would like to be, please sign up.

Before diving in, I want to express my gratitude to the people who presented at our day-long semiconductor and electronics session at the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference in Portland, OR on June 17:

First of all, my deepest thanks to my intrepid co-chair, Dr. Leo Kenny of Intel
And for keynoting our session on the 20th anniversary of the publication of his seminal volume Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Dr. John Warner of the Warner Babcock Institute
Dr. Dan Herr of University of North Carolina Greensboro's Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering
Dr. Carol Handwerker of the Purdue University School of Materials Engineering
Dr. Royce Francis of the George Washington University School of Engineering & Applied Science
Dr. Bill Bottoms of Third Millennium Test Solutions
Fumie Weiby of Intel
Brandon Kobilka of IBM
Sarah O'Brien, Director of Green America's Clean Electronics Production Network
John Katz of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Southwest Regional Office
Jennifer Reece of HP, and
Dr. David Widawsky of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division, in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

as well as all of our attendees. Some great work is being done throughout the industry and the opportunity for more is incredibly broad. Think of it this way:

When this industry focuses on an issue, works together in a pre-competitive manner to define the playing field (e.g., wafer size standards) and competes on it, the potential for rapid and profound improvement is extraordinary; Moore's Law is the classic example. Imagine if we could define a similar trajectory for environmental and human health performance?

The Call for Symposia for the 2019 GC&E Conference is now open and, while I have to say we're only in the earliest possible stages of thinking about sessions, it's not too early for you to start offering up ideas for both sessions and presentations. Feel free to email me with ideas and questions. And here's a hint: with nearly 200 SVHCs, ECHA is pointing out lots of opportunities.

California Prop 65 DOES Apply to Non-Consumer Products

A software company that shall remain nameless recently produced a guide to California's updated Prop65 regulatory requirements (see my recent TTI MarketEYE article for more info). It stated that if your products are not sold to "consumers", the Prop65 regulatory requirements do not apply; (Federal) OSHA requirements do. Ultimately that is incorrect and misleading, regardless of whether your product is an article, a mixture or an individual chemical substance.

California OSHA (of course we have to have our own state version of a federal law...sigh) incorporates Prop65 and ultimately requires employers to be aware of potential chemical exposure and communication of the fact that an employee may be exposed to Prop65 chemicals (and others). This is why substance and mixture suppliers are required to provide Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) (which effectively will meet the Prop65 communication requirement for occupational exposure), and it's why article manufacturers that sell into industrial/commercial/professional markets must follow Prop65 communication and labeling requirements. There are no SDS provision requirements for articles either federally or in California; but there is a requirement for provision of information regarding Prop65 (and other hazardous) substances that an article manufacturer's product could expose an occupational user to. This requirement can be managed by following Prop 65's warning procedures or others, as applicable.

California OSHA's Hazard Communication guidance says "Employees need to know ahead of time the identity and hazards of all chemicals to which they may be exposed, including chemicals listed under Proposition 65. Once they have this knowledge, they will understand the need to protect themselves and are more likely to observe the company's safety rules." For Prop65 substances, this means providing an SDS (for substances and mixtures) or a Prop65 label (for articles).

OEHHA, the agency responsible for the Proposition 65 regulation, says "a business can comply with Proposition 65 by complying with state and federal occupational training and warning requirements when a warning is required under the federal or California Hazard Communication Standard...In the event that there is an occupational exposure to a Proposition 65 listed chemical with no warning requirement for the chemical under these laws, a Proposition 65 warning may still be required."

Addressing occupational exposure to Prop65 listed substances is required.

EU RoHS Update - Round 1 of Stakeholder Comment Ends

The Stakeholder consultation held as part of a "Study to support the review of the list of restricted substances and to assess a new exemption request under [EU] RoHS 2 (Pack 15)" is now over. Contributions have been received for all 7 substances under assessment and can be viewed under the substance specific pages:

Oeko Institut says "The received contributions shall be evaluated and shall be taken into consideration in the assessment of the 7 substances." Review the responses for the substances you're concerned with and get prepared for the next stakeholder consultation.

More SVHCs under REACH

ECHA has added ten new SVHCs to the Candidate List as of June 27. ECHA's news release provides use information which could be helpful in determining the potential for any of the new SVHCs to be present in your products.

Lead has been added as an SVHC. For the electronics industry, where lead is restricted under the RoHS Directive, this engages a subtle issue in the interplay between RoHS and REACH. As it is the element lead that has been identified as an SVHC (as opposed to a lead compound, of which 31 are already listed), concentrations of elemental lead at the article level above 0.1%wt/wt must now be disclosed. This means that products using components and materials that take, for example, Annex III group 6 exemptions for lead in aluminum, copper or steel as well as group 7, 15 and others where lead is used elementally rather than in a compound, may need to be disclosed.

Longer term, the potential for inclusion of elemental lead into Annex XIV ("authorisation") could create challenges for EU/EEA-based manufacturers of parts or materials that take a RoHS exemption for lead. The Commission addresses options in such a situation in their Common Understanding document.

San Francisco Flame Retardant Regulation

The Flame Retardant Chemicals in Upholstered Furniture and Juvenile Products Ordinance, No. 211-17 ("Ordinance") was signed by the Mayor (Lee, RIP) on November 3, 2017 and will go into effect on January 1, 2019 (for Covered Products with electrical or electronic components containing or made with a flame retardant chemical at a level above 1,000 parts per million, this sales ban will go into effect beginning July 1, 2019).

The regulations implement the ordinance, define compliance requirements and establish the mechanism for manufacturers and others to petition for a waiver. Beginning July 1, 2018, petitioners may use this form to submit a petition for a waiver from strict compliance from the ordinance. Make sure to download and fill out the Google Sheet embedded in the form and attach as an Excel file before submitting.

Note that manufacturers of upholstered furniture or juvenile products that contain electronics (such as gaming chairs or battery-operated infant swings, respectively) should determine whether they will need to petition for a waiver since flame retardants are broadly used in electrical and electronic components and materials. I'm, of course, available to help you assess your situation.