Environmental Project, 1141 – Deca-BDE and Alternatives in Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Deca-BDE and Alternatives in Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Preface

Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive) specifies that, from 1 July 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) put on the market are not to contain polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), polybrominated di phenyl ethers (PBDE), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd) or hexavalent chromium (Cr⁶⁺) for specified equipment categories.

Article 5(1)(b) of the RoHS-directive makes it possible to exempt materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from the ban in the directive if their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which are not banned by the directive is technically or scientifically impracticable. Furthermore the provision also makes i possible to grant an exemption where the negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof.

In accordance with a procedure referred to in Article 7(2) of the Directive, during 2005 the Commission evaluated the applications of one of the PBDEs, Deca-BDE. With the Commission Decision 2004/717/EC of 13 October 2005, Deca-BDE in polymeric applications was added to the list of exemptions.

Denmark has instituted legal proceedings against the Commission’s decision to exempt Deca-BDE from the ban decreed by the RoHS Directive.

This report forms part of the scientific documentation that is needed to support the case before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The purpose of the study is to identify and describe suitable alternatives to the brominated flame retardant Deca-BDE, and to determine whether substitution of the alternative substances is possible from a scientific or technical point of view. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency has concurrently initiated an environmental and health assessment of selected alternatives in order to compare any negative environmental or health impacts caused by substitution with the environmental and health benefits of the substitution.

The study has been guided by a Steering Group consisting of Torben Nørlem and Frank Jensen, Danish Environmental Agency, and Carsten Lassen, COWI.

The report has been prepared by Carsten Lassen and Sven Havelund, COWI A/S (Denmark), André Leisewitz, Öko-Recherche GmbH (Germany), and Peter Maxson, Concorde East/West Sprl (Belgium).

The information presented here reflects the combined view of the authors. The publication of the report does not necessarily imply that the contents reflect the views of the Danish EPA.