In This Document, the Following Points Will Be Addressed

Comments on the Draft Manual Methodology for Identification and Assessment of Substances for Inclusion in the List of Restricted Substances (Annex II) under the RoHS2 Directive

The methodology has been significantly improved since the previous version and many of the comments made in the last round of consultations have been considered. We would like to thank the consultant for their work with addressing the comments submitted in the previous consultation period and thank for the opportunity to comment on the methodology being developed.

In this document, the following points will be addressed:

• methodology for pre-assessment (Part II);
• procedure when Member States make suggestions of new substances;
• availability of results from the substance assessments and in the work on developing the methodology;
• selection of substances for the detailed assessment in the current review; and
• opportunities for addressing impacts resulting from sub-optimal waste handling.

1. Methodology for pre-assessment (Part II)

The approach used for assigning the different substances scores and rankings as suggested for Part II of the methodology was discussed at the stakeholder meeting and it is mentioned in the meeting notes that the scoring system will be further refined. It is thus currently unclear exactly how the method for Part II will finally look andit is difficult to comment on this part of the methodology at this point.

The current version of Part II where the substances are assigned different scores has some disadvantages – it is for example difficult to see why a certain characteristic should be worth a score of 7 while another one should be worth 15. RoHS Article 6 provides a list of situations when the Commission should consider to include a substance in RoHS:

“when a substance, including substances of very small size or with a very small internal or surface structure, or a group of similar substances:

(a) could have a negative impact during EEE waste management operations, including on the possibilities for preparing for the reuse of waste EEE or for recycling of materials from waste EEE;

(b) could give rise, given its uses, to uncontrolled or diffuse release into the environment of the substance, or could give rise to hazardous residues, or transformation or degradation products through the preparation for reuse, recycling or other treatment of materials from waste EEE under current operational conditions;

(c) could lead to unacceptable exposure of workers involved in the waste EEE collection or treatment processes;

(d) could be replaced by substitutes or alternative technologies which have less negative impacts.”

The method used for the pre-assessment should ideally result in a selection of substances that fulfil one or more of the above listed criteria and would thus be valuable if it linked to the above listed criteria.

It would also be valuable if the information developed when doing assessments in Part II, as well as in other parts of the method, would be stored and made available for coming reviews, in order to facilitate the work with coming reviews and to avoid unnecessary costs.

1. Procedure for Member States’ suggestions

The periodic review done by the Commission and the proposals by the MS are two quite different cases, where the former is done on a regular basis to try to ensure that all substances contained in EEE that may have harmful effects for humans or the environment are considered for inclusion. Suggestions from Member States on the other hand are made when an MS has identified substances that are of particular concern and that may have been missed in the periodic review made by the Commission. The two somewhat different approaches for these two cases suggested by the consultant thus seem appropriate.

The aspects that need to be included in a suggestion from a Member State are listed in the RoHS Directive:

“With a view to achieving the objectives set out in Article 1 and taking account of the precautionary principle, a review, based on a thorough assessment, and amendment of the list of restricted substances in Annex II shall be considered by the Commission before 22 July 2014, and periodically thereafter on its own initiative or following the submission of a proposal by a Member State containing the information referred to in paragraph 2.”

[…]

“2. The proposals to review and amend the list of restricted substances, or a group of similar substances, in Annex II shall contain at least the following information:

(a) precise and clear wording of the proposed restriction;

(b) references and scientific evidence for the restriction;

(c) information on the use of the substance or the group of similar substances in EEE;

(d) information on detrimental effects and exposure in particular during waste EEE management operations;

(e) information on possible substitutes and other alternatives, their availability and reliability;

(f) justification for considering a Union-wide restriction as the most appropriate measure;

(g) socioeconomic assessment.”

The level of detail is not specified, but it seems unlikely that any MS would submit a large number of proposals – a concern that was raised at the stakeholder meeting – sinceno MS would have the capacity, or any reason to do this.

The Member State suggestions may not be as detailed as the detailed assessment proposed by the consultant in Part III in the methodology. However, if such a detailed assessment would be submitted by a Member State, one could wonder if at all it is necessary to go through Part II for such a suggestion or if instead the detailed assessment could be considered directly.

If instead a Member State proposal would not have the sufficient level of detail, which will probably most often be the case, and if the Commission wishes to do a pre-assessment on such proposals before commissioning a consultant to do a full detailed assessment, this pre-assessment ought to be linked to Article 6, paragraph 1 and could make use of the information provided by the MS.

1. Availability of material produced in the substance assessments and in the development of the methodology

During the last stakeholder meeting, it was suggested that the lists developed in Part I of the method should not be made available for the public. We would however like to emphasize the value of making the lists developed in Part I and Part II available, as both of these provide information that would be necessary to see to be able to follow the results of the different steps in the method. This information is crucial to be able to provide meaningful comments on the development of the method. The information would also be very useful in later substance reviews – forMember States, researchers and other interested. Lists of potentially hazardous substances contained in EEE have already been made available earlier, e.g. in the Öko-Institute report from 2008. If the lists are published along with other material developed in the project, while making sure that it is well communicated that they are no “ban” lists but rather material developed during the project, it should be possible to avoid the risk of confusion.

1. Selection of substances and number of substances for the detailed assessment in the current review period

It is currently unclear how many substances that will be reviewed, in this period and in coming periodic reviews that the Commission performs. What will the criteria be for determining this? Ideally, all substances that meet the predefined criteria in Part II should undergo a detailed assessment.

1. Opportunities for addressing impacts resulting from sub-optimal waste handling

It was discussed during the last stakeholder meeting whether handling of WEEE in developing countries and sub-optimal waste handling in the EU should be addressed in the substance review. Although it may not be possible for RoHS to ensure that all environmental and health risks linked to such waste handling are entirely avoided, since such a significant part of the EEE waste ends up in developing countries or is being disposed and treated in a way that it shouldn’t even within the EU, it would be valuable if also risks linked to such waste handling at least to some extent would be considered. Although 100% perfect sorting and disposal of WEEE is the ultimate goal, in reality, it is very difficult to achieve such high levels, especially for consumer products.

1 (4)