Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

So based on the results from the harmonization analysis, you can see that the number of criteria that were identified as relevant to PWBs is very limited; and it’s mainly because PWBs are consistently exempt from the criteria, and even when they’re included, its usually optional. In total, there were four overlaps among all three standards, and all of them were required criteria. So first, all manufacturers have to conform with the EU Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (or RoHS), which phases out four heavy metals (and as of 2019) two classes of organo-bromines, and four phthalates were added to the list. The second criterion requires that all electronic components be replaceable to facilitate repair and reuse. And this is beneficial for extending the useful life of the product, which delays the environmental impacts from landfilling and incineration. And the last two criteria, require a product take-back service, and to comply with a Qualified Electronics Recycling Standard. But the fate of the PWB component past a certain point is still unclear, and many PWBs are still shipped to developing countries where they accumulate in landfills, and informally recycled by burning them in open pits, which is a severe public health hazard for those communities. Now, we’re looking at the overlaps and discrepancies between two standards at a time, across each environmental performance category. And the only other area of overlap was between the IEEE and NSF standards in the category of Restricted Toxic Substances, and both of them were optional criteria. So first, both standards consider it optional to phase out Bromine and Chlorine from all PWB laminates. But the discrepancy is that, TCO makes it a requirement to eliminate all halogenated substances from PWBs, and the non-halogenated substances have to be benchmarked using the GreenScreen chemical assessment method with a score of more than 2, which means “Use, but search for Safer Substitutes”. The second criterion, is the optional reduction of substances on the EU REACH regulations, which stands for the Restriction, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemical Hazards; and this includes both the Authorization list of chemicals and the Substances of Very High Concern. And together, they consist of 72 substances, including process chemicals, additives, mixtures, isolated intermediates and many others. But I want to point out that the REACH regulations have already been harmonized with GreenScreen; so this is an example of how harmonization can simplify the steps to compliance. And in the safer material alternatives category, there were no specific criteria that addressed the PWB component. But TCO does have a list of Accepted Substances for Process chemicals, and those are also benchmarked with a score of more than two. And this was the only relevant criteria in this category. Now, we’re looking at Design for Repair and Reuse category. And this comparison table, summarizes the partial overlaps and discrepancies among all three standards. And the five criteria on the left were all present in some form, but they didn’t align in terms of their other specifications. So first, all three standards acknowledged non-destructive and easy disassembly, using commonly available tools to facilitate repair and reuse, and this is a core principle of design for environment. The second criterion is providing step-by-step instructions for disassembly, including a schematic diagram of the PWB, and this was only required by NSF; it was considered optional by IEEE, and TCO listed it as a Sustainability Performance Indicator, which means it must be reported on, but it’s not required in their scope of mandates. The third criterion is to include a minimum number of features that are upgradeable, repairable or replaceable; and this was required by both IEEE and TCO, but it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the NSF standards And with that, the amount of time that replaceable components are made available for service repairs, is also different across all three standards. And Lastly, IEEE was the only standard that requires PWBs to be labeled as a component requiring selective treatment, and this is one of the regulations under the EU directive of 2012. And in the end-of-life management category, there were no criteria that specifically addressed PWBs. Now, I’d like to show you the results from the analysis of gaps and challenges. And this is a side-by-side comparison of the PWB lifecycle impacts from each emission phase, and the existing (or non-existing) G.E.S criteria for the material or process involved. And between them represents a gap in regulation, and a gap in technological innovation; which are both needed to drive the sustainable development of PWBs. So in the first phase, carbon emissions, airborne particulates, and the depletion of non-renewable petroleum reserves are, the main impacts from epoxy resin formulation. And the toxicity comes from TBBPA reagents, intermediates and byproducts, which can escape as fugitive emissions. And across all three standards, the hazards from raw material extraction were not addressed, and there were no recommendations for safer material alternatives to epoxy. But, the toxicity from TBBPA was acknowledged, and TCO was the only standard to require the elimination of all halogens from PWBs. In the second phase, energy consumption and chemical processes are the two main contributors to global warming potential. And the toxicity comes from the manufacturing byproducts, which are released in the form of volatile organic compounds, acid fumes, spent solvents, copper and scrap. And all three standards require the manufacturer to establish an Environmental Management System that complies with the ISO 14000 family of standards, and to calculate the Corporate Carbon Footprint. But it’s not clear to what extent the PWB supply chain is covered by this criteria, because there is a limit on the number of suppliers included in the scope of the standards. The standards also require a chemical hazard assessment and disclosure, but again, this is only for the top suppliers, and the top chemicals used by volume and annual spend. So there is a lack of supply chain transparency when it comes to PWBs. Also, there were are no specific recommendations for waste minimization from PWB manufacturing processes. In the consumption phase, there are no emissions from the PWB component when it's contained in a device, but the board is prone to defects and damage from heat, moisture, or impact either from the manufacturing processes or from consumer-use. And aside from the IPC performance specifications, there are no G.E.S criteria that address the durability of the board. So there is a need to incorporate more design for environment strategies in this category. And lastly, landfilling and incineration releases more carbon, more particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants, like dioxins, furans, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons into the air, water and soil. And the main gap here, is the lack of a waste management infrastructure for epoxy composites. But even in the absence of that, there is no framework to compare the different disposal pathways, and alternatives to the worst-case, end-of-life scenarios. So throughout the printed wiring board lifecycle, there are many material and process needs that can be developed through innovation. But we need international standards to create a market incentive for manufacturers to invest in research and development. And we need the standards to act as a groundwork for designers so they can troubleshoot these issues and come up with innovative solutions. And EPEAT is a great framework that can be used to harmonize G.E.S; but it needs to include component-specific criteria for PWBs, and it needs to be updated more often to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation. So I’d like to mention some of the current research areas that can be incentivized through G.E.S. And this begins with the selection of environmentally benign materials and processes, because 80% of all environmental impacts are determined in the early design phase. So currently, there is a lot of promising data to support using bio-based composites as alternatives to epoxy; and efforts are going into making it recyclable, bio-degradable, and even compostable. And this is an effective strategy to minimize waste and toxicity, because it addresses front-end and back-end issues from the early design phase, to target environmental impacts throughout the life cycle. And alternative materials will involve different manufacturing processes and steps, so the key is to examine trade-offs using LCA and sensitivity analyses, to compare the environmental risks and benefits from innovation, and avoid rebound effects. And still, any product that enters the market will have some sort of environmental impact associated with its production and disposal, so, it’s very important to extend the useful life of products by incorporating more design for environment strategies from the early design phase. And lastly, it’s important to identify where it makes sense to have closed material and energy loops by integrating systems across the supply chain and establishing an infrastructure for the re-circulation of materials. All of these knowledge gaps can be informed by core sustainability concepts, and integrated into G.E.S to promote a circular economy for PWB products.