Transcript Drivers for Halogen
IPC Low Halogen Electronics Standard Task Group 4-33a
&
JEDEC JC14 Committee
March 30, 2009 S. Tisdale, Intel & S. O’Connell, Dell Task Group Co-Chairs 1
Current Status of Ballot
IPC Ballot Results
Yes Votes – 28 No Votes – 23 Comments – 77 pages
JEDEC Results
Yes Votes – 11 / 15 No Votes – 6 / 2 Abstains – 3 / 3
Note : 4 No Votes in JEDEC have been resolved and changed to Yes Votes 2
Major Groupings - Comments
Should be guideline not a standard
No Scientific Justification
Homogeneous Materials
Elemental Br / Cl
900ppm vs 1000ppm
Iodine & Fluorine Inclusion “Low Halogen” vs “Halogen Free” terminology 3
Guideline vs Standard
“There are too many technical comments that need addressed before this document could be considered for publication. In addition it should be a guideline only until further data is generated to make rational technical decisions as to the test methods and requirements for each material.”
4
No Scientific Justification
“Change title to “Limits for using materials objectional to Greenpeace in electronics”* “Note: this standard is not based on scientific consensus or environmental impact.” “As currently drafted, this standard is only directed to very specific types of halogenated products and even more specifically to certain “flame retardants” or PVC. This is discriminatory. It is based on Greenpeace dogma and does not have scientific consensus. Therefore the title, scope and purpose should be clearly stated as such. In addition, because standards from credible ANSI based organizations such as IPC are generally known to be based on consensus science rather than marketing, a disclaimer (*note) should be clearly attached to the title.” “A few IPC members have assumed according to Greenpeace dogma that certain flame retardants and PVC
deserve
being singled out from other halogens and all other materials because they may create dioxin emissions during manufacturing or upon burning. Singling out requires in depth explanation because emissions of PTBs during manufacture and burning of alternative materials is also an important and pertinent subject broader than just dioxins, flame retardants and PVC. The scope should be broader and should include Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), furans, and other PTBs that are emitted from any and all materials that might be used to replace flame retardants or PVC in electronics. If these alternatives are used to replace the feared large volumes of BFRs or PVC in electronics, then the alternatives’ emissions in turn may impact the environment more negatively. This is because different materials may create or emit larger volumes of PTBs or may even be more toxic, impactful on the environment. This could be true even if the alternatives are used in lesser quantaties than BFRs or PVC in electronics.”
5
Homogeneous Material
“Limits on Br, Cl should apply to all homogeneous materials, and not be limited to only a subset of compounds that are vaguely defined. The draft standard is not independently verifiable through testing and creates loopholes that can be exploited. A standard that adopts limits on elemental Br, Cl (regardless of their source), on each homogeneous material is recommended as it is the only rigorous and measurable approach.”
6
Elemental Br / Cl
“Standard should address Br/Cl, not BFR/CFR/PVC. Proposal introduces a subjective threshold of 'intended as a flame retardant'. INTENT cannot be measured. Furthermore, it is not clear why Br/Cl that is not a FR would be acceptable for the environment. Hence, the proposed standard would create confusion and would see limited acceptance.”
7
Threshold Limits – 900ppm vs 1000ppm
“IPC4101 is referenced and Printed Circuuit Boards are listed but the levels for BR and Cl are different.” “Is the PCB definition still: Bromine (Br) < 900 ppm (0.09%) Chlorine (Cl) < 900 ppm (0.09%) Total concentration of Both Cl and Br < 1500ppm (0.15%)” “What is the reason for the difference? Should the limits be the same? If not the same this should be noted or the reference to PCB laminate removed and limited to other materials”
8
Inclusion of I & Fl – All Halogens
“The scope should be for the halogens F, Cl, Br, and I and should not single out what types of materials those elements are bound to.” “The material is not truly halogen-free, or low-halogen if half of the halogens are arbitrarily excluded from the scope. No reason is provided as to why F and I are not included here other than saying that Cl and Br are the primary halogens used in electronic components. In fact, fluorine is also used in certain connector parts and cable systems and is considered part of the flame retardant package. Fluorine is also used in low loss PWB applications. Iodine is indeed much less common.”
9
Terminology – Low Halogen vs HF
“Replace subtitle
"BFR/CFR and PVC-Free"
Definition By :
Halogen-free Definition:
and in thefirst sentence below replace as "BFR/CFR and PVC-Free" by "Halogen Free”
10
Path Forward
JEDEC
Continue to try to resolve remaining 3 No Votes Pass the current draft in JEDEC
IPC
Resolution of the 77 pages of comments needs to be completed Updated draft sent out for re-ballot Target for resolution is by end of Q2’09 Re-ballot (if possible) will be as soon as comment resolution is completed Note : Any technical revision based on IPC comments will force a re-ballot in the JEDEC committee as well.
11
BACKUP
12
Purpose of Standard
Definition of low halogen (not regulatory requirement)
Establish an industry standard for the definition and threshold limits associated with “low-halogen” electronics, including electronic components, electronic assemblies, cables and mechanical plastics.......
Taken from section 1.1 of IPC/JEDEC J-STD-709
13
Status
Standard was out for ballot and comments on January 26 th for both IPC & JEDEC http://members.ipc.org/committee/drafts/4-33a_d_J709PSB.zip
21 day JEDEC ballot / comment period ended 23 Feb 2009 30 day IPC balloting / comment period ended 1 March 2009
14
Key features
Single class definition BFR/CFR/PVC only Not all Br and Cl compounds Definition based on
plastics
in component Threshold levels 1000ppm Elemental, but only if source is BFR/CFR/PVC
15
DEFINITION
16
Compromised Component Definition
A Component must meet all of the following requirements to be defined as “BFR/CFR and PVC-Free”: 1.
All Printed Board (PB) and substrate laminates shall meet Br and Cl requirements for low halogen as defined in IPC-4101B. Printed Board (PB) and substrate laminates do not include the solder mask . Solder mask is considered a plastic material (Section 2 below).
2.
For components other than Printed Board (PB) and Substrate laminates:
Each plastic
within the component contains < 1000 ppm (0.1%) of Bromine [if the Bromine (Br) source is from BFRs] and < 1000 ppm (0.1%) of Chlorine [if the Chlorine (Cl) source is from CFRs, PVC or PVC congeners]. Higher concentrations of Br and Cl are allowed in plastics of components other than Printed Board (PB) and Substrate laminates as long as their sources are not BFRs, CFRs, PVC or PVC congeners.
17
4-33a Subcommittee Update
Purpose of standard Status of standard Key features of current draft Modified component definition Thresholds Testing Deadlines for commenting and voting
18
Good Aspects of the Compromise
1.
Component definition 2.
Allows many components to declare compliance by design (if no plastics are present, part is compliant, like MLCC) 3.
Has the good features of homogenous material, but focuses on likely locations of BFR/CFR/PVC
19
Outstanding issue with compromise
Still may be difficult to test each plastic in certain parts
20
THRESHOLDS
21
Survey 1 - 900 ppm vs. 1000 ppm threshold
Since 63.5% Respondents Support the 1,000ppm Threshold Limit, the Definition in the Standard Will be Based on 1,000ppm 22
TESTING
23
Analysis and Testing
No specified/required analytical techniques Definition in Section 5 specifically says: Although the elemental analysis for Br and Cl can be performed by any analytical method with sufficient sensitivity and selectivity, the presence or absence of BFRs, CFRs, PVC and PVC congeners must be verified by any acceptable analytical techniques and/or material declaration that allow for the unequivocal identification of the specific Br or Cl compounds, or by appropriate material declarations agreed to between customer and supplier.
Section 6 gives more detail on test approach
24
Contact Information
Stephen Tisdale Intel Corporation 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
CH5 – 155 Chandler, AZ 85226 Phone : 480-554-4234 Email : [email protected]
Scott O’Connell Dell Inc One Dell Way MS: 6630 Round Rock, TX 78682 Phone: 512-723-2512 Email: [email protected]
Fern Abrams IPC 1901 N Moore Street, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 703-522-0225 Email : [email protected]
25