Mr. Klaus KOEGLER
DG Environment
Unit G.4. Sustainable production and consumption
European Commission
Rue de la Loi 200
1049 Brussels
Belgium
22 May 2007
Subject: The review of Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the use of Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS)
Dear Sir,
Following the consultation from the European Commission on the review of the RoHS Directive, the European Partnership for Energy and the Environment (EPEE) is pleased to provide its comments on the priority topics identified by the European Commission.
We welcome this opportunity to comment at an early stage and would be pleased to continue being involved throughout the review process.
The European Partnership for Energy and the Environment ( was formed in September 2000 to represent the interests of the air-conditioning, heat pump and refrigeration industry. Our central mission is to contribute to the development of effective European policies which have the aimto reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of refrigerants.
A number of products made and marketed by EPEE members are covered by the WEEE and RoHS Directives. In many cases our members rely on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as the ‘refrigerant of choice’, which are now covered by the F-Gas Regulation 842/2006 adopted last year.
Please find below our comments on the “possible topics of the review” proposed by the European Commission which are of specific importance to EPEE members (we followed the order of the topics as per in the consultation document).
1.2Substances covered
At this stage, EPEE has no substance to propose for further inclusion.
However, we are aware of attempts to include HFCs as hazardous substances under the RoHS Directive.
We are strongly opposed to such an inclusion, which would be counter-productive from both an environmental and safety point of view, and cannot be justified on the intrinsic properties of HFCs:they are non-flammable, non-corrosive,have very low toxicicity, and moderate operating pressures. Therefore HFCs are safer than the existing alternative refrigerants, such as hydrocarbons, ammonia and carbon dioxide. In view of these properties, HFCs cannot be classified as Hazardous Substances.Moreover, they are critical in achieving high levels of energy-efficiency at acceptable cost in many critical applications with a widespread use.
In addition, the use, handling and disposal of HFCs are alreadycovered by the F-Gas Regulation 842/2006 adopted last year. This Regulation imposes strict standards in terms of containment, recovery, leak checks, and training of appropriate staff. Our industry is committed to minimise F-gas emissions through better containment and ensuring that the Regulation is successful in reducing HFCs emission rates.
1.3Technical changes to the scope of the Directive
With regards to the RoHS Directive, the most important point for our industry is to have a clear, well-defined scope. From the start, it has been clear that the scope of the directive was broadly used equipment available to the general public.
In view of the fact that WEEE and RoHS have a different legal base (95 for RoHS, 175 for WEEE), where RoHS clearly seeks to maintain the principle of free circulation of goods, EPEE is in support of a formal separation of the scope of the two directives.
Consequently, we believe that fixed installations should continue to be excluded from the scope of the RoHS Directive. According to the WEEE Directive article 2.1 “equipment which is part of another type of equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive” is interpreted in the Commission’s Frequently Asked Questions document as also covering fixed installations. Hence, if the RoHS and WEEE scope are to be separated, we would urge the Commission to continue excluding fixed installations from the scope of the Directive. For additional information, please see our enclosed contribution on WEEE which we sent to the European Commission in August 2006.
1.5Facilitating implementation
Given the current implementation problems, EPEE strongly recommend to the Commission to review the possibility for RoHS being a new approach Directive. This would enhance the clarity of the requirements and exemptions. The new approach has indeed some major advantages such as essential requirements, harmonised standards, compliance methods, which are very clear to apply for the industry. It would thus facilitate the enforcement of the RoHS Directive.
In addition, we consider it important that the Commission provides an appropriate transition period for the review of the Directive. If the scope was to change, or should exemptions be added or removed, manufacturers would need time for implementing these revisions.
I trust that the information contained in this letter will be of relevance and of interest to you. Should you have any questions or require any additional input, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Friedrich P Busch
Director General
EPEE