EPA/742/F-95/015
THE EFFICIENT FACTO
RY
i ; " . ' " " ... - .
EPA and thePWBIndustry Team Up an
Environmental Assessment of Technologies
J o
By Deborah L, Boger
and fathering M. Hart
and Gary C. Roper
JhroughtheEPA's
Design for the
Environment Program,
EPA, industry and other
partners can produce
the information and
tools needed to make
environmentally
informed choices.
Since when does the PWB manufacturing indus-
try, work with. the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to do environmental
and other evaluations of new technologies? Since EPA's
Design for the Environment (DfE) Program began work-
ing with IPC, its member companies and other repre-
sentatives of the industry on the DfE PWB Project, that
is exactly what's been happening.
The purpose of the. Design for th<^ Environment
. Program is to .encourage business peoplspo incorporate
environmental considerations into wBa^pse tradijtoji-
ally been the sole decision-making parameters of de&lg
business: cost and performance
One way'EPA accom-
plishes this goal is by
developing voluntary
'partnerships with par-
ticular industry sec-
,. tors. Through these
partnerships, EPA,
industry and other
.partners produce.,the
information and tools
i needed to make envi-
ronmentally informed
choices. .. .
The work done in
these industrial sector
DfE projects typically can
be categorized into three
areas: technical work,
communication and
implementation: The
technical work involves
conducting a Cleaner
Technology Substitutes .
Assessment (CTSA). In a
CTSA, project partners
(i.e., EPA, industry, and
research and public interest
groups)' work together to
evaluate existing and emerg-
ing technologies. Project
participants Collect and develop human health and envi-
ronmental risk, cost and performance information
, about each of the technologies; the information is then
laid out in a flexible format so that business decision-
makers can assess trade-offs between alternatives. The
information in the CTSA is communicated to industry
and to the public, and EPA develops tools (such as train-
ing materials) to assist industry in implementing some of
the new technologies. (For more background on .the
DfE program, see .Circuitree, February 1995.) , _
1C
Off Printed Wiring Board Project Technical Work
History. In September 1994, EPA convened a DfE PWB
Project Technical Workgroup kickpff meeting.
Approximately 60 industry experts, EPA staff and uni-
versity and public interest group representatives attend-
ed. At that meeting, workgroup members mapped out
each step in the PWB manufacturing process. They then
identified four functional areas as potential, "use clus-
ters" for evaluation in the PWB GTSA.. A "use cluster" is
; of chemicals, processes or techndlogies that can
'^"'"Jor'one another in order to perform a specif-
^tjflbr example, all of the different technolo-
gies/pjiiessel that can substitute for each other to etch
inner layers would make -up
the "inner layer etching" use
cluster. The four use clusters
considered included the fol-
lowing: inner layer etching,
outer layer etching and plat-
ing, hot air solder leveling
and making holes conduc-
tive.
EPA and industry mem-
bers collected information
about the chemicals used
in each of these four use
clusters. EPA used the Use
Cluster Scoring System,
developed by its Office of
Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, to conduct a pre-
liminary comparison of
environmental and
human health risks and
pollution prevention
potential associated with
each cluster. Using the
. results of the scoring
system and taking into
account other consid-
erations such as worker
safety practices, regu-
latory burden and cost
to industry, project participants chose the
"making holes conductive" (toC) use cluster as the
focus of the CTSA. This selection was made in January
1995;' '' ..'. -- '
Technologies Being Evaluated
Once the use cluster for the CTSA was chosen, indus-
try representatives identified alternative technologies
used to accomplish the MHC function. These technolo-
gies are being evaluated in the CTSA,. which is being
conducted by the University of Tennessee's Center for
Clean Products and Clean Technologies and reviewed
120 CIRCUITREE/SEPTEMBE.R1995
-------
bv EPA. Criteria for including a technolo<>v
for evaluation in the CTSA were that it must
be an existing or emerging technology and
that there must be equipment and facilities
available to demonstrate its performance. Any
supplier was free to submit a technology as
long as it met the above criteria. The tech-
nologies identified for evaluation include the
following: electroless copper, carbon,
graphite, palladium, non-formaldehyde elec-
troless copper, conductive ink and conductive
polymer. Technologies that are not evaluated
in the CTSA may be described qualitatively in
a separate section of the document
CTSACompmnts
The CTSA includes three principal types
of information: human health and environ-
mental risk, cost and performance.
Environmental impacts other than
chemical risk will also be assessed.
The MHG CTSA will be a tool for
industry decision-makers to use to
assess trade-offs between different
technologies that effectively make
holes conductive. The document
will not rank technologies, nor will it
endorse one technology over anoth-
er. Rather, it will characterize' attrib-
utes of each technology so that busi-
nesses can decide which alternative
makes sense for them in their partic-
ular situation. For example, a board
shop in the southwest may find that it
makes more sense to employ a prod-
uct line with frter water rinses
because of water conservation con-
siderations; a shop jn the northeast
may find it more economical and
environmentally preferable to
employ a product line that generates
less sludge. A CTSA allows compa-
nies to dedde what is best for them
in light of comprehensive environ-
mental information about each
option.
Human Health and Environmental Risk
The.MHC CTSA will include a characteri-
zation of the human health and environmen-
tal risk associated with each technology evalu-
ated. In order to perform this risk characteri-
zation, EPA and the UT Center for Clean
Products are working with suppliers of the
industry to collect information about chemi-
cals used in each technology. The hazard to
human health (e.g., reproductive toxicity
developmental toxicity, cardnogenicity) and
the environment (e.g., aquatic toxicity, bioac-
cumulation) posed by each of these chemicals
is then assessed.
general population exposure to these chemi-
cals and chemical emissions to the environ-
ment. Once all of the hazard and exposure
data are collected, the UT Center for Clean
Products will characterize the risks posed by
each of the evaluated technologies.
Cost
The cost of operating each technology is
also calculated in the CTSA. In order.to make
these calculations, EPA and the University of
Tennessee worked extensively with suppliers
and users of the technologies to identify fac- '
tors involved in assessing purchasing and
operating costs. Suppliers and users of each
technology will provide detailed information
on pricing, equipment maintenance, disposal
requirements, bath life and water use to
The perfor-
mance demon-
stration is an
opportunity to
collect informa-
tion on cost,
chemical expo-
sure and natural
resources use.
inform the cost evaluation. Much of the infor-
mation used in the calculations will be derived
from the performance demonstration
described below.
gies. Because information wjH be collected
from production facilities, the performance
demonstration is'also an opportunity to col-
lect information on cost, chemical exposure,
energy and natural resources use.
The general plan for the performance
demonstration is to collect information about
.alternative technologies at sites where the
technologies are already being used. The
facilities, that will be used as test sites were
identified by suppliers of the technologies.
The sites include production facilities, testing
facilities (beta sites) and supplier testing facil-
ities.
For the purposes of this performance
demonstration, the MHC process is defined as
everything from (and including) the desmear
step to (and including) 0.1 mil of flash plat-
ing. In order to. minimize 'differ-
ences in performance due to process-
es outside this defined MHC func-
tion, the panels (10018"x 24" 8-layer
multilayer panels) used for testing
will all be manufactured and drilled
at one facility. From there, three
. panels will be shipped to each testing
site to be processed through the
site's MHC line. An on-site observer
will be present at each processing site
to record data such as bath operating
temperatures, cycle time, room venti-
lation, rack cleaning methods, fre-
quency of bath additions and annual
pounds of sludge generated. - This
information will be incorporated
into the CTSA.
After the panels at each demon-
stration site have been processed (up
to 0.1 mil flash), they will be shipped
. to a single'facility where they will be
electroplated up to 1.0 mil of copper.
Coupons will be routed and sent for
electrical and mechanical testing.
Electrical testing will be done
using the Interconnect Stress Test
(1ST); developed by Digital
In addition, EPA and the UT Center for
Clean Products are working with project par-
ticipants and other representatives of the
industry to collect information on worker and
«Z WWWE/SOTEMKiUMS '
Performance
One of the most important aspects of any
technology is how well it performs. The PWB
Project is in the 'midst of conducting a "per-
formance demonstration" to evaluate the per-
formance of the technologies evaluated in the
CTSA, The methodology for this perfor-
mance demonstration was developed with
extensive input from all project participant
groups. It was designed simply -to indicate
characteristics of a technology's performance,
_ not to define parameters of performance or to
substitute for thorough on-site testing; it is
intended to be a "snapshot" of the technolo-
Equipment of Canada Ltd. The 1ST is an
accelerated method for testing the failure
modes' of printed wiring board interconnects.
1ST creates the required temperatures electri-
cally within the interconnect, while other
methods create required temperatures exter-
nally. Traditional mechanical* testing (IPC
Standard RB 276) will also be conducted on
standard AT&T B coupons. In addition, there
will be remaining coupons so it will be possi-
ble to carry out further tests in the future
should anyone wish to do so.
The level of commitment and participation
on the part of IPC members and the industry
in support of this project has been very high
from the outset.- Participants. in the perfor-
mance demonstration have been particularly
involved in Fending technical expertise and
direction for a successful evaluation of the
-------
technologies. Suppliers that have submitted
technologies for evaluation , in the perfor-
mance demonstration .include Atotech
USA; Electrochemicals Inc.; Enthone-OMI
Inc.; LeaRonal Inc.; MacDermid Inc.;
Shipley Co.; Solution Technology Systems;
and W.R. Grace & Co. Each of these suppliers
has submitted names of production facilities
at which they would like their product :lines
tested. '.'...,
. In addition, a number of companies have
volunteered their time and resources to take
part in completing the performance demon-
stration. H-Rindustries Inc. will manufacture
and drill the panels using core materials
donated by ADI/Isola. Hadco Corp. will elec-
troplate the panels once thev have been
processed'through the MHC. lines and rout'
the'coupons. '.DEC Canada has volunteered
an 1ST machine for electrical testing, and the
technical wprkgroupiis still looking for an
ihdependent^laboratofy to conduct mechani-
cal testing:-' .'-.. -y ^*
The perfqrmancetdemonstration work-
group also Has coordinated its efforts with
other-industry groups involved in evaluating
PWB technologies. :At the IPC Expo in San
Diego last May, DfE performance demonstra-
tion workgroup participants met with IPC's
Plated Through Via (PTV) Subcommittee to
discuss the DfE performance demonstration.
The PTV Subcommittee is' conducting a
DRILL ROOM
Have, increased orders,
equipment breakdowns,
quick delivery requirements,
smaller holes and subsequent
decreased stack heights
caused a bottleneck in your
drill room?
If so, we have the machine time you need,
Since its inception in 1974, our
Midwest Circuit Drilling division "
has provided drilling, routing and
repointing for a variety of companies
both large and small, local and
distant. We have the capacity to
handle the high production runs^ yet
the flexibility to do your prototype
and small production lots.
Single or double-sided, multilayer 01
fixtures, before you "no quote" a job
that is beyond your drill room
capacity, give Midwest a call.
9400 Midwest Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44125
(216)662-1548
Fax (216) 587-1656
Forgurfree brochure
please call
or write
Larry Hodson,
Midwest Circuit Products.
round-robin test of board testing-methods,
and the 1ST technology is one test method
involved in ''that round-robin. The artwork
and detailed characteristics of the panels in
the DfE performance demonstration are a
slight variation of the artwork and characteris-
tics used in IPC's round-robin testing. The
PTY Subcommittee also plans to do some sort
of evaluation of the emerging direct metal-
lization technologies; however, they are '
waiting for the results of the DfE perfor-,
mance demonstration to direct their efforts
in this area.
Looking Ahead
Because of the current interest in,tech-
nologies to make holes conductive and the
number of new technologies available for use,
the DfE PWB Project hopes to complete its
evaluation of these technologies within a
short time frame. The performance demon-
stration site visits are expected to be near
completion by the end of .September 1995, -
and the electroplating of the boards will take
place soon after that. The electrical testing
may extend to early 1996. Information from
the performance demonstration will be inte-
grated into the CTSA, a draft of which is
expected by late 1996. " ,
The next DfE PWB Project meeting will be
held in Providence, Rhode Island, ,30
October 1995, in conjunction with IPC's fall,
meeting. By this date, a number of project
documents, such as the PWB Industry and
Use Cluster Profile, the Printed Wiring Board
Pollution Prevention and Control Survey, and
the Federal Environmental Regulations
Potentially Affecting the Computer Industry
will be available. In addition, a project fact
sheet and two pollution prevention case stud-
ies are now available.' .
For.More Information
The DfE PWB Project team encourages all
interested parties to participate in the pro-
ject, ,either by joining the Technical or
Communication Workgroups, by attending
, project meetings, or by asking that EPA
include them on the project mailing list. For
more information about the DfE Program or '
the DfE PWB Project, to obtain copies of doc-
uments mentioned in this-article, or to be
added to the mailing list, contact. EPA's
Pollution Prevention Information-Clearing-
house (PPIC), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., S.W. (3404), Washington,
D.C., 20460. C '
Deborah L. Boger and Katherine M. Hart are
Environmental Protection Specialists with EPA's
Design for the Environment Staff (Washington,
D.C.). Gary C. Roper is vice president of process '
engineering at H-R industries Inc.,: .Richardson,
Texas, and is a member of the IPC Environmental,
Health & Safety (EHS) Steering Committee. '. ' ':
124 CIRCUITREE/SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
------- |