By Kelly Scanlon, Director, Environment, Health and Safety Policy & Research, IPC

On September 27, IPC submitted comments to the Platform on Sustainable Finance, an expert advisory group of the European Commission, expressing concerns over proposed criteria affecting the manufacturing of electric and electronic equipment (EEE) under the EU Taxonomy Regulation. IPC worked with its Environment and Health Strategic Management Team and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Industry Umbrella Project to prepare our comments. 

The EU Taxonomy is a classification system for sustainable economic activities, intended to help steer investments toward the defined sustainable activities and the climate and energy targets of the European Green Deal. It also introduces reporting obligations for companies falling under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which IPC wrote about here.

Under the Taxonomy, the European Commission is developing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities by defining technical screening criteria for each of six environmental objectives through “delegated acts.” The first delegated act, adopted in June, addressed environmentally sustainable economic activities that achieved climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives. A second delegated act is expected in 2022 for activities that achieve four other objectives: pollution prevention and control; transition to a circular economy; protection of water and marine resources; and protection of biodiversity and ecosystems.

IPC’s comments focused on three economic activities out of more than 100:

• • The manufacture of durable EEE;
  • The manufacture of circular EEE; and
  • The resale and/or remanufacture of used EEE.

Our comments addressed the electronic manufacturing industry’s concerns over the granularity and clarity with which the activities have been defined; the technical feasibility of implementing the proposed criteria; and the criteria’s far-reaching ambition. We believe the criteria should be further considered and refined to reflect both the broader legislative and policy context – such as overlaps with the RoHS Directive and REACH regulation – as well as the complexity and range of electronics manufacturing. We also noted that some of the proposed criteria are unsuitable for commercial/professional and high-reliability electronics.

IPC will continue advocating for the electronics manufacturing industry as the commission continues its work in establishing international standards and definitions for a sustainable finance system.

Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about this issue.

By Kelly Scanlon, Director, Environment, Health and Safety Policy & Research, IPC 

On September 27, IPC submitted comments on a proposed rule from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on reporting and recordkeeping requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). IPC coordinated with its electronics industry members as well as the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to prepare a consolidated response.

Some PFAS have uses in electronics manufacturing processes and products, and thus the rule has significant potential to affect electronics manufacturers and importers. Specifically, the rule would require manufacturers of PFAS and manufacturers (including importers) of articles containing PFAS (e.g., components and finished electronics goods) in any year since 2011 to report information to EPA regarding the "uses, production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards” of the chemical substance. The EPA has defined PFAS to include thousands of different chemical substances for which reporting and recordkeeping would be mandatory.

Although the proposed regulation could reduce the production and use of PFAS in nonessential applications, we believe that the reporting requirements would disproportionately burden electronics article manufacturers and importers, without yielding abundant or useful information to achieve the EPA’s goals.

For complex articles with global, multi-layered supply chains, it is extremely difficult for article manufacturers and importers to obtain information about traceable chemical substance content. Simply put, there is a limited ability to connect with and obligate all supply chain partners to reliably and accurately collect and report data on potentially thousands of chemical substances, which can be used in any number of different electronics manufacturing processes, parts, and components.

As such, IPC strongly recommends the exclusion of all electronics article manufacturers and importers from the proposed rule. To ensure the expedited reporting of useful data, we suggest that the EPA instead target reporting requirements to PFAS manufacturers, importers, and formulators and exclude electronics article manufacturers and importers. However, if electronics article manufacturers and importers remain within the scope of the rule, the EPA should implement a phased-in approach requiring a specific subset of PFAS to be added incrementally over time, based on data gathered from PFAS manufacturers, and with established de minimis thresholds for reporting. And regarding historical data, reporting should only include what is known as of the effective date of the final rule (e.g., limiting PFAS reporting to currently identified substances of concern or declarable substances).

In addition to the above recommendations, IPC also urges the EPA to consider:

• Limiting near-term reporting requirements to those PFAS with CAS Registry Numbers;
• Ensuring coherence with broader scientific and regulatory efforts to set forth a consistent PFAS definition in this rule;
• Ensuring coherence with existing reporting requirements for restricted substances in articles with de minimis exemptions as well as exemptions for byproducts and impurities; and
• Conducting an economic impact analysis for articles manufacturers (including importers) prior to deciding reporting obligations.

Altogether, our comments are intended to help the EPA better understand the data gaps; determine whether PFAS-containing articles should be within the rule's scope; and assist in developing a final rule that will successfully address the agency's information needs while minimizing potential burdens associated with the rule.

I invite you to review our full comments and let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about how this proposed rule will affect your business.