Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) handbook [Second edition /] 9780081021590, 0081021593

Table of contents :
Front Cover......Page 1
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook......Page 2
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook......Page 4
Copyright......Page 5
Contents......Page 6
Contributors......Page 22
Preface......Page 26
1.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 30
1.2 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH E-WASTE......Page 32
1.2.1 Local......Page 34
1.2.2 Global......Page 35
Basel Convention......Page 37
Strategic approach to international chemicals management......Page 38
Environmental Management Group......Page 39
1.3.2 Solving the e-waste problem initiative......Page 40
1.3.3 Global e-waste statistic partnership......Page 41
1.3.4 International Telecommunication Union......Page 42
1.5 FUTURE TRENDS......Page 43
REFERENCES......Page 44
2 - The e-waste development cycle – part I, introduction and country status......Page 46
2.1.1 E-waste and sustainable development goals......Page 47
2.1.2 Three types of country e-waste development status......Page 51
2.2 THE NEED FOR A MORE ITERATIVE APPROACH......Page 53
2.2.1 The need for balance between legislation, financing, and technologies......Page 54
2.2.2 The need for an iterative approach......Page 56
2.2.3 The need for a more fact-based approach......Page 58
2.2.4 Learning by doing......Page 59
2.3 THE E-WASTE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE......Page 61
2.5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND INITIAL CONSULTATIONS......Page 65
2.5.1 Starting countries......Page 66
2.5.2 Emerging and established countries......Page 68
2.6 INVENTORY OF EXISTING POLICIES......Page 70
2.6.1 Starting countries......Page 71
2.6.2 Emerging countries......Page 72
2.7 PROBLEM (RE)DEFINITION......Page 73
2.7.1 Starting countries......Page 74
2.7.2 Emerging countries......Page 76
2.7.3 Established countries......Page 77
2.8 CONCLUSIONS......Page 79
REFERENCES......Page 80
3 - The e-waste development cycle, part II—impact assessment of collection and treatment......Page 86
3.1 INTRODUCTION AND READER'S GUIDE......Page 87
3.2 COLLECT MORE—E-WASTE QUANTIFICATIONS......Page 89
3.2.1 Starting countries......Page 90
3.2.2 Emerging countries......Page 91
3.2.3 Established countries......Page 93
3.2.4 Examples of e-waste quantifications......Page 95
3.3 TREAT BETTER—RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INNOVATION......Page 97
3.3.1 Starting countries......Page 98
3.3.2 Emerging countries......Page 99
3.3.3 Established countries......Page 102
3.4.1 Starting countries......Page 103
3.4.2 Emerging countries......Page 104
3.5 PAY ADEQUATELY—ECONOMIC IMPACTS......Page 107
3.5.1 Starting countries......Page 108
3.5.2 Emerging countries......Page 109
3.5.3 Established countries......Page 110
3.5.4 Eco-efficiency: optimizing the ratio between environmental impacts and costs......Page 113
3.6.1 Starting countries......Page 115
3.6.2 Emerging countries......Page 116
3.7 CONCLUSIONS......Page 117
REFERENCES......Page 118
4 - The e-waste development cycle, part III—policy & legislation, business & finance, and technologies & skills......Page 122
4.1 INTRODUCTION AND READERS' GUIDE......Page 123
4.2.1 Starting countries......Page 126
4.2.1.1 The legal basis......Page 127
The legal basis—primary responsibility......Page 128
Individual versus collective responsibility......Page 130
Setting the initial scope......Page 131
Setting basic definitions......Page 132
4.2.1.3 Choosing initial requirements......Page 133
Banning polluting practices......Page 134
Improving working conditions......Page 135
4.2.2 Emerging countries......Page 136
4.2.2.1 Update legal principles; extend the scope and set next goals......Page 137
Extending and updating the product scope......Page 138
Treatment targets......Page 139
4.2.2.2 Develop implementing acts and standards to align responsibilities......Page 140
Guidelines for treatment facilities......Page 141
4.2.2.3 Aligning stakeholder responsibilities......Page 142
4.2.3 Established countries......Page 143
Scope......Page 145
Improve quality of collection volumes......Page 146
“All actors report”......Page 147
Cooperation with other compliance organizations for other waste streams......Page 148
4.3 BUSINESS AND FINANCE......Page 149
Pilot project funding......Page 150
The basic financing mechanism......Page 151
4.3.2 Emerging countries......Page 152
Streamlining financing......Page 154
Penalties......Page 155
Positive financial incentives for collection and treatment in an economically level playing field......Page 156
4.4 TECHNOLOGIES AND SKILLS......Page 157
Pilot studies on collection and treatment......Page 158
Pre-processing......Page 159
End-processing......Page 161
Preprocessing......Page 162
Management......Page 163
Treatment......Page 164
DISCLAIMER......Page 165
REFERENCES......Page 166
5 - Implementation road map and conditions for success......Page 172
5.1 INTRODUCTION AND READERS' GUIDE......Page 173
5.2.1 Starting countries......Page 175
5.2.2 Emerging countries......Page 177
5.2.3 Established countries......Page 178
5.3 SELECTION OF OPTIONS......Page 180
5.4 IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP......Page 183
Stakeholder consultations......Page 184
A national implementation road map......Page 185
5.5 CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS......Page 188
5.6 MONITORING AND CONTROL......Page 189
Prepare for future auditing......Page 190
Data for enforcement, learning by doing......Page 191
Information needs for policy decisions and the next development cycle......Page 192
National WEEE monitoring......Page 193
Information management for enforcement, penalties and rewards......Page 194
Real-time auditing......Page 195
A national monitoring and control road map......Page 196
5.7.1 End user education......Page 197
5.7.1.2 Emerging and established countries......Page 199
Knowledge institutes and universities......Page 202
Law enforcement......Page 203
5.8 DESIGN FEEDBACK......Page 204
5.8.1 Design for recycling......Page 205
5.8.3 Information to recyclers......Page 207
5.9 CONCLUSIONS......Page 208
REFERENCES......Page 209
6.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 214
6.2.1 Mission of the WEEE forum......Page 215
6.2.2 The WEEE forum key figures benchmarking tool......Page 216
6.3.1 Birth of a project......Page 217
6.3.2 Ambitions of the WEEE label of excellence project......Page 218
6.3.3 Scope of the WEEE label of excellence project......Page 219
6.3.5 The WEEE label of excellence project broke new ground......Page 220
6.3.6 The business economics of the WEEE label of excellence project......Page 222
6.4 WEEE LABEL OF EXCELLENCE PROJECT PHASE I: STANDARDS......Page 225
6.4.1 General normative requirements......Page 226
6.4.3 Rollout of standards......Page 227
6.4.4 CENELEC and the afterlife of WEEELABEX standards......Page 228
6.5.1 The WEEE label of excellence scheme......Page 229
6.5.2 WEEE label of excellence auditors......Page 230
6.5.3 Operators......Page 231
6.6 CONCLUSIONS......Page 232
REFERENCES......Page 234
7 - Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment......Page 236
7.1 LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT......Page 237
7.2.1 Presence of hazardous substances in older electrical and electronic equipment and their functions......Page 241
7.2.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market after 2006......Page 243
7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROHS SUBSTANCE RESTRICTIONS......Page 249
7.4 DIFFERENTIATED APPROACHES FOR THE USE AND BANNING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES......Page 256
REFERENCES......Page 257
FURTHER READING......Page 259
8.1 THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF WEEE......Page 260
8.2 MATERIALS AND THEIR RECOVERY AND RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES......Page 263
8.3 LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY SCREENS AND THE TRANSITION TO NEWER TECHNOLOGIES......Page 266
8.4 THE LOSS OF SCARCE ELEMENTS......Page 269
8.5 NOVEL MATERIALS RECOVERY APPROACHES......Page 270
8.6 NEW MATERIALS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS......Page 274
8.7 RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......Page 281
8.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 283
8.9 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE......Page 284
REFERENCES......Page 286
FURTHER READING......Page 291
9 - Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment......Page 292
9.2.1 Component versus material reuse......Page 293
9.2.2 A comparison of options in component reuse......Page 295
9.3.2 Refurbishment......Page 298
9.3.3 Remanufacture......Page 299
9.4 ROLE OF THE THIRD SECTOR......Page 300
9.5.1 Variability in standards and quality of refurbishment and reused products......Page 301
9.5.2 Quality criteria for reuse and accreditation for reuse centers......Page 302
9.5.3 Design issues in remanufacturing......Page 303
9.5.5 Availability of information on product components, materials, and repair methods......Page 304
9.6.2 Customer demand......Page 306
9.6.5 New technologies......Page 308
9.7 SUMMARY OF WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REUSE AND REFURBISHMENT......Page 309
REFERENCES......Page 310
10.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 312
10.1.1 WEEE polymer types......Page 316
10.2 INTRODUCTION TO WASTE COLLECTION AND SORTING......Page 317
10.2.1 Waste collection......Page 318
10.2.2 Manual separation and sorting of WEEE polymers......Page 319
10.2.3 Automated separation and sorting of WEEE polymers......Page 320
10.2.4 Size reduction and granulation......Page 321
10.3.1 Air table sorting......Page 323
10.3.2 Flotation sorting......Page 324
10.3.3 Hydrocyclone sorting......Page 325
10.3.4 Electrostatic sorting......Page 326
10.3.5 Near infrared and optical sorting......Page 328
10.4.1 Densification (agglomeration)......Page 329
10.4.2 Compounding of WEEE using extrusion......Page 331
10.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WEEE LEGISLATION TO DATE......Page 333
10.6 REMANUFACTURING USING WEEE POLYMERS......Page 334
10.7 FUTURE TRENDS......Page 336
REFERENCES......Page 337
11.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 340
11.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF RECYCLING OF PCBS......Page 342
11.3 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR RECYCLING OF WASTE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS......Page 343
11.3.2 Physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs......Page 344
11.3.3 Size reduction and separation......Page 345
11.3.4 Human health affected owing to the physical recycling process of waste PCB......Page 346
11.3.6 Dismantling......Page 347
11.3.7 Technology for recovery of copper and other valuable metals......Page 348
REFERENCES......Page 351
FURTHER READING......Page 354
12.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 356
12.2.1 Composition and characterization of LCDs......Page 357
12.2.2 Barriers to recycling of LCDs......Page 363
12.3.1 Manual disassembly......Page 364
Manual disassembly processing for LCDs......Page 368
12.3.2 Automated processes for LCD recycling......Page 370
Automated disassembly processes for LCDs......Page 371
12.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS......Page 373
Liquid crystals in screens......Page 374
Mercury-containing backlights......Page 375
12.5 RECOVERY OF VALUABLE MATERIALS......Page 376
12.6 REUSE OF LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS......Page 377
12.7 FUTURE TRENDS......Page 378
12.8 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE......Page 379
REFERENCES......Page 380
13.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 386
13.1.1 Materials......Page 387
13.1.2 Ozone-depleting substances, blowing agent recovery......Page 388
13.2 CHALLENGES RELATING TO WEEE REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS......Page 389
13.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGASSING PROCESSES......Page 391
13.4 EMISSIONS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS......Page 392
13.5.1 Handling of removed oil/refrigerant......Page 394
13.6 TECHNIQUES FOR SEPARATION OF FRIDGE PLASTICS......Page 396
13.7 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE......Page 398
REFERENCES......Page 399
14.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 400
14.2 MAIN DIRECTIVES WORLDWIDE FOR SPENT BATTERIES......Page 401
14.3.1 Main processing routes......Page 407
14.3.2 Pyrometallurgical route......Page 408
14.3.3 Hydrometallurgical route......Page 412
14.4 FUTURE TRENDS......Page 417
REFERENCES......Page 418
15.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 422
15.1.1 Potential for recovering REEs from waste fluorescent lamps......Page 424
15.1.2 Composition of trichromatic phosphors......Page 426
15.2 WASTE FLUORESCENT LAMP TREATMENT AND PHOSPHORS COLLECTION......Page 427
15.3.1 Enrichment of trichromatic phosphors......Page 429
15.3.2 Monochrome phosphor recycling by physicochemical separation......Page 430
15.3.3 REE recovery by hydrometallurgy......Page 432
15.3.3.1.2 Leaching......Page 433
15.3.3.1.3 Kinetics and mechanisms of acid leaching......Page 436
15.3.3.1.4 Separation methods......Page 437
15.3.3.3 Pressure leaching......Page 438
15.3.3.5 Methods for improving the leaching behavior of phosphors......Page 439
15.3.3.5.2 Melting or calcination of phosphors with alkali materials......Page 440
15.3.4 Other methods......Page 441
15.4 CONCLUSION......Page 442
REFERENCES......Page 443
FURTHER READING......Page 450
16.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 452
16.2 TRENDS LEADING TO ECODESIGN REGULATION......Page 453
16.3 INTRODUCING THE ERP DIRECTIVE......Page 454
16.4 EXAMINING THE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE CONCEPT......Page 459
16.5 COMPARING ERP AND WEEE APPROACHES......Page 462
16.6 STATUS OF ERP IMPLEMENTATION AND COVERAGE OF END-OF-LIFE (EOL) ASPECTS......Page 464
REFERENCES......Page 469
17 - Sustainable electronic product design......Page 472
17.1.1 Why sustainable design?......Page 473
17.1.2 The design for sustainability movement......Page 475
17.2 DRIVERS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND ECODESIGN......Page 476
17.2.1 Legislation......Page 478
17.2.3 Ecolabels and social labels......Page 479
17.2.5 Standardization......Page 480
17.2.6 Market demand and consumer awareness......Page 481
17.3.1 Life cycle thinking and systems thinking......Page 482
17.3.2 Tools and rules for design for sustainability......Page 483
17.3.3 Considering the use phase of electronic products......Page 487
17.3.4 Design for reuse and recycling of electric/electronic products......Page 489
17.4.1 Choice of sustainable materials and processes......Page 493
17.4.2 Consideration of scarcity of resources in the design of electronic products......Page 495
17.5.1 Hewlett–packard: sustainable printing......Page 497
17.5.2 Kärcher GmbH: sustainable design of cleaning equipment......Page 498
17.5.3 Trevor Baylis's windup media player......Page 499
17.5.5 Sustainable design of a smartphone: the ecom phone......Page 500
17.5.6 The refugee radio......Page 501
17.6.2 Digitalization......Page 504
17.6.4 Human chip implants and biochips......Page 505
17.6.8 Moving from products to services and closed-loop concepts......Page 506
17.6.9 Electronic products as enablers for socioeconomic improvements......Page 507
17.7 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE......Page 508
REFERENCES......Page 509
FURTHER READING......Page 511
18 - Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe: learning from best practices in Switzerland, N .........Page 512
18.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 513
18.2 WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECOVERY IN EUROPE......Page 514
18.3.1 Legislative implementation......Page 516
18.3.2 The Swiss waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure......Page 520
18.3.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery......Page 521
18.4.1 Legislative implementation......Page 522
18.4.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery......Page 525
18.5.1 Legislative implementation......Page 527
18.5.2 The Swedish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure......Page 529
18.5.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery......Page 530
18.6.1 Legislative implementation......Page 531
18.6.2 The Danish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure......Page 532
18.6.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery......Page 534
18.7 BEST PRACTICES OF EUROPEAN WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECOVERY SYSTEMS......Page 535
18.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......Page 539
1: ABBREVIATIONS......Page 541
2: NATIONAL POPULATION AND WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT STATISTICS......Page 542
REFERENCES......Page 544
FURTHER READING......Page 548
19.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 550
19.2.2 1990s–2002......Page 553
19.3 EVOLUTION OF E-WASTE GENERATION QUANTITY IN CHINA......Page 554
19.4.1 Status of e-waste recycling industry......Page 555
19.4.2 Resource performance of e-waste recycling......Page 556
19.4.3 Environmental performance of e-waste recycling......Page 559
19.4.4 Summary of experience......Page 560
19.5.1 Imbalance between fund levies and subsidies......Page 561
19.5.3 Expanding of e-waste recycling industry......Page 562
19.5.4 Eco-design for environment......Page 563
19.6 THE WAY FORWARD......Page 564
REFERENCES......Page 565
20.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 570
20.1.1 EEE and WEEE growth drivers......Page 571
20.1.3 Stakeholder map......Page 573
20.2.1 An active informal sector......Page 575
20.2.2 A nascent formal industry......Page 577
20.2.3 Emergence of Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs)......Page 579
20.2.4 Models of collaboration between formal and informal sectors......Page 580
20.3.1 Infrastructure and eco-system challenges......Page 582
20.3.2 Lack of financing mechanism......Page 583
20.3.4 Accountability of all stakeholders......Page 584
Weaknesses......Page 585
20.4.3 Current E-waste Rules......Page 587
20.4.4 Comparison between E-waste rules 2011 and 2016/2018......Page 590
20.6 LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......Page 595
REFERENCES......Page 599
21.1 INTRODUCTION......Page 602
21.2 JAPAN'S HOME APPLIANCE RECYCLING SYSTEM: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND......Page 603
21.3 THE COLLECTION RATE......Page 605
21.4 COST AND RECYCLING QUALITY......Page 606
21.5 EXPORT PROBLEMS......Page 609
21.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR URBAN MINING......Page 611
21.7 CONCLUSIONS......Page 615
REFERENCES......Page 616
FURTHER READING......Page 618
22 - HP's WEEE management strategy......Page 620
22.1 HP'S CIRCULAR ECONOMY STRATEGY......Page 621
Product reuse and recycling......Page 622
Recycle materials and increase recycled content......Page 623
22.2.1 HP's strategy in compliance operations......Page 624
22.2.2 WEEE Directive implementation in member states......Page 625
22.2.3 Experience with multiple compliance solutions......Page 626
Experience with monopolies......Page 627
22.2.4 IT infrastructure for compliance management......Page 628
22.2.5 Visible fee......Page 630
22.2.6 Emergence of recycling standards (WEEELabex, CE standard)......Page 631
22.2.7 Maturity of producer responsibility organizations......Page 632
22.3.1 All WEEE flows and EPR 2.0......Page 633
The WEEE landscape is changing......Page 635
The principles of EPR 2.0......Page 636
Design for recycling......Page 640
Fluctuating resource prices......Page 641
22.3.2 Marriage made in heaven or marriage from hell? Circular economy and WEEE......Page 642
Preshipment testing is not feasible for a lessor......Page 643
22.4 CONCLUSIONS......Page 644
23 - Siemens' WEEE management strategy......Page 648
23.1 INTRODUCTION: WEEE AS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY......Page 649
23.2.1 The early Siemens access to environmental protection......Page 650
23.2.2 Siemens EP standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/3/5/7)”......Page 651
23.2.4 Principles and guidelines for environmental protection......Page 653
23.2.5 Management mechanism within Siemens as global acting company......Page 654
23.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF WEEE ASPECTS WITHIN THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT PROCESS......Page 656
Industrial goods......Page 657
23.3.1 Specification/product design......Page 658
23.3.2 Manufacturing......Page 659
23.3.3 Use phase......Page 660
23.3.4 Final stage as beginning of a new cycle used EEE or WEEE......Page 661
23.4 HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS AS AN EXAMPLE OF WEEE MANAGEMENT......Page 663
Phase 2: production......Page 664
Phase 4: disposal/recycling......Page 665
Refurbishment of complete system......Page 666
Good refurbishment practice according to IEC/PAS 63077, 2016: the process......Page 668
Reuse of components and extraction of spare parts......Page 670
23.5 FUTURE TRENDS......Page 671
23.5.3 WEEE reduction by material optimization......Page 672
Environmental sound product design......Page 673
Web links for additional information referring to environmental protection by Siemens and Siemens Healthineers......Page 674
REFERENCES......Page 675
24 - The history of the take-back and treatment of consumer waste electrical and electronic equipment at Philips......Page 676
24.2.1 The start of dealing with environmental concerns about products......Page 677
24.2.2 Getting facts about take-back and treatment......Page 679
24.2.3 Cooperation between Philips and Delft University of Technology......Page 680
24.3.1 The pilot project Apparetour (1997)......Page 681
24.3.2 The Dutch take-back and recycling law and its implementation (1998)......Page 682
Introduction......Page 684
Lifetime extension and product discarding......Page 685
The quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability and eco-efficiency concepts......Page 686
24.4.1 The Philips vision for the WEEE Directive......Page 687
24.4.2 What went wrong with the WEEE Directive? What are the avenues for improvement?......Page 688
24.5 WEEE DIRECTIVE RECAST (2008–13)......Page 689
24.5.1 Revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU......Page 691
24.6 RECYCLED PLASTICS......Page 692
24.6.1 Eight steps toward the implementation of recycled plastics......Page 693
24.7 CIRCULAR ECONOMY (2013–17)......Page 694
REFERENCES......Page 696
FURTHER READING......Page 698
25 - Creating a corporate environmental strategy including waste electrical and electronic equipment take-back and .........Page 700
25.1 POSITION OF TAKE-BACK AND TREATMENT IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY......Page 701
25.2.1 Making an environmental strategy......Page 702
Vision......Page 703
Strategy......Page 704
Road maps......Page 705
25.3.1 Environmental priorities in end-of-life treatments......Page 707
25.3.2 Product characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies......Page 710
25.3.3 Market characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies......Page 711
25.4.1 Introduction......Page 713
25.4.2 Data needed for making a waste electrical and electronic equipment strategy......Page 714
25.4.3 Issue lists for making decisions on WEEE Directive implementation......Page 715
25.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 717
REFERENCES......Page 718
B......Page 720
C......Page 721
D......Page 722
E......Page 723
H......Page 726
I......Page 727
L......Page 728
M......Page 729
P......Page 730
R......Page 732
S......Page 734
T......Page 735
V......Page 736
W......Page 737
Z......Page 738
Back Cover......Page 740

Citation preview

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook

This page intentionally left blank

Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook Second Edition Edited by Vannessa Goodship Ab Stevels Jaco Huisman

Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier The Officers’ Mess Business Centre, Royston Road, Duxford, CB22 4QH, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-08-102158-3 For information on all Woodhead publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Matthew Deans Acquisition Editor: Kayla Dos Santos Editorial Project Manager: Lindsay Lawrence Production Project Manager: Sojan P. Pazhayattil Designer: Victoria Pearson Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Contents Contributors ..................................................................................................................... xxi Preface............................................................................................................................. xxv

CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective .................................................................. 1 Ruediger Kuehr 1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................1 1.2 Problems associated with e-waste ........................................................3 1.2.1 Local...........................................................................................5 1.2.2 Global.........................................................................................6 1.3 Global e-waste management initiatives ................................................8 1.3.1 United Nations Environment Programme..................................8 1.3.2 Solving the e-waste problem initiative .................................... 11 1.3.3 Global e-waste statistic partnership ......................................... 12 1.3.4 International Telecommunication Union ................................. 13 1.4 Synergizing e-waste initiatives ...........................................................14 1.5 Future trends .......................................................................................14 References ...................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status ................................................................................................................. 17 Jaco Huisman, Ab Stevels, Kees Baldé, Federico Magalini, Ruediger Kuehr 2.1 Readers’ guide (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) .......18 2.1.1 E-waste and sustainable development goals............................ 18 2.1.2 Three types of country e-waste development status................ 22 2.2 The need for a more iterative approach..............................................24 2.2.1 The need for balance between legislation, financing, and technologies....................................................................... 25 2.2.2 The need for an iterative approach .......................................... 27 2.2.3 The need for a more fact-based approach ............................... 29 2.2.4 Learning by doing.................................................................... 30 2.3 The e-waste development cycle..........................................................32 2.4 Assessment of the country status........................................................36 2.5 Stakeholder analysis and initial consultations ....................................36 2.5.1 Starting countries ..................................................................... 37 2.5.2 Emerging and established countries ........................................ 39 2.6 Inventory of existing policies .............................................................41 2.6.1 Starting countries ..................................................................... 42

v

vi Contents

2.6.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................43 2.6.3 Established countries................................................................44 2.7 Problem (re)definition .........................................................................44 2.7.1 Starting countries .....................................................................45 2.7.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................47 2.7.3 Established countries................................................................48 2.8 Conclusions.........................................................................................50 Disclaimer ...................................................................................................51 References ...................................................................................................51

CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment ............................................................................................ 57 Jaco Huisman, Ab Stevels, Kees Baldé, Federico Magalini, Ruediger Kuehr 3.1 Introduction and reader’s guide ..........................................................58 3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications ...............................................60 3.2.1 Starting countries .....................................................................61 3.2.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................62 3.2.3 Established countries................................................................64 3.2.4 Examples of e-waste quantifications........................................66 3.3 Treat betterdrecycling infrastructure and innovation........................68 3.3.1 Starting countries .....................................................................69 3.3.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................70 3.3.3 Established countries................................................................73 3.4 Pollute lessdenvironmental impacts..................................................74 3.4.1 Starting countries .....................................................................74 3.4.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................75 3.4.3 Established countries................................................................78 3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts ...................................................78 3.5.1 Starting countries .....................................................................79 3.5.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................80 3.5.3 Established countries................................................................81 3.5.4 Eco-efficiency: optimizing the ratio between environmental impacts and costs .............................................84 3.6 Work safer - social impacts ................................................................86 3.6.1 Starting countries .....................................................................86 3.6.2 Emerging countries ..................................................................87 3.6.3 Established countries................................................................88 3.7 Conclusions.........................................................................................88 Disclaimer ...................................................................................................89 References ...................................................................................................89

Contents vii

CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation, business & finance, and technologies & skills ..................................................... 93 Jaco Huisman, Ab Stevels, Kees Baldé, Federico Magalini, Ruediger Kuehr 4.1 Introduction and readers’ guide ..........................................................94 4.2 Policy and Legislation ........................................................................97 4.2.1 Starting countries ..................................................................... 97 4.2.2 Emerging countries ................................................................ 107 4.2.3 Established countries.............................................................. 114 4.3 Business and Finance........................................................................120 4.3.1 Starting countries ................................................................... 121 4.3.2 Emerging countries ................................................................ 125 4.3.3 Established countries.............................................................. 127 4.4 Technologies and Skills....................................................................128 4.4.1 Starting countries ................................................................... 129 4.4.2 Emerging countries ................................................................ 133 4.4.3 Established countries.............................................................. 135 4.5 Conclusions.......................................................................................136 Disclaimer .................................................................................................136 References .................................................................................................137

CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success ................................... 143 Jaco Huisman, Ab Stevels, Kees Baldé, Federico Magalini, Ruediger Kuehr 5.1 Introduction and readers’ guide ........................................................144 5.2 Intervention options ..........................................................................146 5.2.1 Starting countries ................................................................... 146 5.2.2 Emerging countries ................................................................ 148 5.2.3 Established countries.............................................................. 149 5.3 Selection of options ..........................................................................151 5.4 Implementation road map .................................................................154 Planning interventions....................................................................... 155 Stakeholder consultations.................................................................. 155 A national implementation road map................................................ 156 5.5 Conditions for success ......................................................................159 5.6 Monitoring and control .....................................................................160 5.6.1 Starting countries ................................................................... 161 5.6.2 Emerging countries ................................................................ 164 5.6.3 Established countries.............................................................. 166 5.7 Awareness and education .................................................................168 5.7.1 End user education................................................................. 168

viii Contents

5.7.2 Training needs........................................................................173 5.8 Design feedback................................................................................175 5.8.1 Design for recycling...............................................................176 5.8.2 Green public procurement......................................................178 5.8.3 Information to recyclers .........................................................178 5.9 Conclusions.......................................................................................179 Disclaimer .................................................................................................180 References .................................................................................................180

CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project ......................... 185 L. Herreras-Martínez, P. Leroy 6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................185 6.2 What is the WEEE forum? ...............................................................186 6.2.1 Mission of the WEEE forum .................................................186 6.2.2 The WEEE forum key figures benchmarking tool ................187 6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project..............................................188 6.3.1 Birth of a project....................................................................188 6.3.2 Ambitions of the WEEE label of excellence project.............189 6.3.3 Scope of the WEEE label of excellence project....................190 6.3.4 WEEE label of excellence project deliverables.....................191 6.3.5 The WEEE label of excellence project broke new ground ............................................................................191 6.3.6 The business economics of the WEEE label of excellence project...................................................................193 6.4 WEEE label of excellence project phase I: standards ......................196 6.4.1 General normative requirements ............................................197 6.4.2 Specific normative requirements............................................198 6.4.3 Rollout of standards ...............................................................198 6.4.4 CENELEC and the afterlife of WEEELABEX standards.................................................................................199 6.5 WEEE label of excellence project phase II: conformity verification ........................................................................................200 6.5.1 The WEEE label of excellence scheme.................................200 6.5.2 WEEE label of excellence auditors .......................................201 6.5.3 Operators ................................................................................202 6.6 Conclusions.......................................................................................203 References .................................................................................................205

Contents ix

CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment ...................................................................................................................... 207 Otmar Deubzer 7.1 Legislative restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment ..................................................................208 7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment..........212 7.2.1 Presence of hazardous substances in older electrical and electronic equipment and their functions........................ 212 7.2.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market after 2006 .......................... 214 7.3 Environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions ........................................................................220 7.4 Differentiated approaches for the use and banning of hazardous substances .........................................................................................227 References .................................................................................................228 Further reading..........................................................................................230

CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment ........................ 231 Emma Goosey, Martin Goosey 8.1 The material content of WEEE.........................................................231 8.2 Materials and their recovery and recycling technologies .................234 8.3 Liquid crystal display screens and the transition to newer technologies ......................................................................................237 8.4 The loss of scarce elements ..............................................................240 8.5 Novel materials recovery approaches ...............................................241 8.6 New materials and their implications ...............................................245 8.7 Recycling and environmental impacts..............................................252 8.8 Summary and conclusions ................................................................254 8.9 Sources of further information and advice .......................................255 References .................................................................................................257 Further reading..........................................................................................262

CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment ...................................................................................................................... 263 W.L. Ijomah, M. Danis 9.1 Need for waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse....................................................................264 9.2 Reuse processes and their role in sustainable manufacturing ..........264 9.2.1 Component versus material reuse .......................................... 264 9.2.2 A comparison of options in component reuse....................... 266 9.3 Industry sector-specific example: refurbishment of computers ........269

x Contents

9.3.1 Repair .....................................................................................269 9.3.2 Refurbishment ........................................................................269 9.3.3 Remanufacture .......................................................................270 9.3.4 Upgrade..................................................................................271 9.4 Role of the third sector .....................................................................271 9.5 Issues in waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse....................................................................272 9.5.1 Variability in standards and quality of refurbishment and reused products ......................................................................272 9.5.2 Quality criteria for reuse and accreditation for reuse centers ....................................................................................273 9.5.3 Design issues in remanufacturing ..........................................274 9.5.4 Paradigm shifts affecting the use of refurbishment and reuse .......................................................................................275 9.5.5 Availability of information on product components, materials, and repair methods ................................................275 9.6 Future trends .....................................................................................277 9.6.1 Legislation..............................................................................277 9.6.2 Customer demand ..................................................................277 9.6.3 Cost savings ...........................................................................279 9.6.4 Competition............................................................................279 9.6.5 New technologies...................................................................279 9.7 Summary of waste electrical and electronic equipment reuse and refurbishment .............................................................................280 References .................................................................................................281

CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE ..................................... 283 R. Cherrington, K. Makenji 10.1 Introduction.....................................................................................283 10.1.1 WEEE polymer types.........................................................287 10.2 Introduction to waste collection and sorting ..................................288 10.2.1 Waste collection.................................................................289 10.2.2 Manual separation and sorting of WEEE polymers ..........290 10.2.3 Automated separation and sorting of WEEE polymers.............................................................................291 10.2.4 Size reduction and granulation ..........................................292 10.2.5 Waste washing ...................................................................294 10.3 Methods of sorting small-particle-size polymer waste...................294 10.3.1 Air table sorting .................................................................294 10.3.2 Flotation sorting .................................................................295

Contents xi

10.3.3 Hydrocyclone sorting.........................................................296 10.3.4 Electrostatic sorting............................................................297 10.3.5 Near infrared and optical sorting .......................................299 10.4 Conversion of WEEE to a reusable material..................................300 10.4.1 Densification (agglomeration)............................................300 10.4.2 Compounding of WEEE using extrusion ..........................302 10.5 Effectiveness of the WEEE legislation to date...............................304 10.6 Remanufacturing using WEEE polymers.......................................305 10.7 Future trends ...................................................................................307 References .................................................................................................308

CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards .............................................................................. 311 Abhishek Kumar Awasthi, Xianlai Zeng 11.1 Introduction.....................................................................................311 11.2 Economic benefits of recycling of PCBs .......................................313 11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards..............................................................................................314 11.3.1 Disassembling ....................................................................315 11.3.2 Physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs ...............315 11.3.3 Size reduction and separation ............................................316 11.3.4 Human health affected owing to the physical recycling process of waste PCB ........................................317 11.3.5 The best available technology with opportunities and challenges...........................................................................318 11.3.6 Dismantling ........................................................................318 11.3.7 Technology for recovery of copper and other valuable metals...................................................................319 Acknowledgments.....................................................................................322 References .................................................................................................322 Further reading..........................................................................................325

CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays .............................................................................. 327 K.S. Williams, T. Mcdonnell 12.1 Introduction.....................................................................................327 12.2 Liquid crystal displays....................................................................328 12.2.1 Composition and characterization of LCDs ......................328 12.2.2 Barriers to recycling of LCDs ...........................................334 12.3 Recycling processes for liquid crystal displays..............................335 12.3.1 Manual disassembly...........................................................335 12.3.2 Automated processes for LCD recycling...........................341 12.4 Hazardous materials in liquid crystal displays ...............................344

xii Contents

12.4.1 Substances of concern in LCDs.........................................345 12.5 Recovery of valuable materials ......................................................347 12.6 Reuse of liquid crystal display equipment and components ..........348 12.7 Future trends ...................................................................................349 12.8 Sources of further information and advice .....................................350 References .................................................................................................351

CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances .......................................................... 357 Christian Keri 13.1 Introduction.....................................................................................357 13.1.1 Materials.............................................................................358 13.1.2 Ozone-depleting substances, blowing agent recovery..............................................................................359 13.2 Challenges relating to WEEE refrigerators and freezers................360 13.3 Requirements for degassing processes ...........................................362 13.4 Emissions of volatile organic compounds......................................363 13.5 Future trends ...................................................................................365 13.5.1 Handling of removed oil/refrigerant ..................................365 13.6 Techniques for separation of fridge plastics...................................367 13.7 Sources of further information and advice .....................................369 13.8 Conclusions.....................................................................................370 References .................................................................................................370

CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries ...................................................................................................... 371 D.C.R. Espinosa, M.B. Mansur 14.1 Introduction.....................................................................................371 14.2 Main directives worldwide for spent batteries ...............................372 14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries...............378 14.3.1 Main processing routes ......................................................378 14.3.2 Pyrometallurgical route ......................................................379 14.3.3 Hydrometallurgical route ...................................................383 14.4 Future trends ...................................................................................388 References .................................................................................................389

CHAPTER 15 Rare earth metal recovery from typical e-waste .............................................. 393 Quanyin Tan, Jinhui Li 15.1 Introduction.....................................................................................393 15.1.1 Potential for recovering REEs from waste fluorescent lamps ..................................................................................395 15.1.2 Composition of trichromatic phosphors ............................397 15.2 Waste fluorescent lamp treatment and phosphors collection .........398 15.3 Recycling and recovery of REEs in waste phosphors ...................400

Contents xiii

15.3.1 Enrichment of trichromatic phosphors...............................400 15.3.2 Monochrome phosphor recycling by physicochemical separation ...........................................................................401 15.3.3 REE recovery by hydrometallurgy ....................................403 15.3.4 Other methods....................................................................412 15.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................413 References .................................................................................................414 Further reading..........................................................................................421

CHAPTER 16 ErP e the European directive on ecodesign ...................................................... 423 Nils F. Nissen 16.1 Introduction.....................................................................................423 16.2 Trends leading to ecodesign regulation..........................................424 16.3 Introducing the ErP directive..........................................................425 16.4 Examining the framework directive concept..................................430 16.5 Comparing ErP and WEEE approaches .........................................433 16.6 Status of ErP implementation and coverage of end-of-life (EoL) aspects ................................................................435 16.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................440 References .................................................................................................440

CHAPTER 17 Sustainable electronic product design .................................................................. 443 U. Tischner, M. Hora 17.1 Introduction.....................................................................................444 17.1.1 Why sustainable design?....................................................444 17.1.2 The design for sustainability movement............................446 17.2 Drivers for sustainability and ecodesign ........................................447 17.2.1 Legislation..........................................................................449 17.2.2 Green and sustainable public purchasing ..........................450 17.2.3 Ecolabels and social labels ................................................450 17.2.4 Eco and sustainable supply chain management.................451 17.2.5 Standardization...................................................................451 17.2.6 Market demand and consumer awareness .........................452 17.3 How to design for sustainability.....................................................453 17.3.1 Life cycle thinking and systems thinking..........................453 17.3.2 Tools and rules for design for sustainability .....................454 17.3.3 Considering the use phase of electronic products .............458 17.3.4 Design for reuse and recycling of electric/electronic products..............................................................................460 17.4 Sustainable materials and manufacturing processes.......................464 17.4.1 Choice of sustainable materials and processes ..................464

xiv Contents

17.4.2 Consideration of scarcity of resources in the design of electronic products.........................................................466 17.5 Examples of sustainable electronic product design........................468 17.5.1 Hewlettepackard: sustainable printing..............................468 17.5.2 Kärcher GmbH: sustainable design of cleaning equipment...........................................................................469 17.5.3 Trevor Baylis’s windup media player................................470 17.5.4 The fairphone .....................................................................471 17.5.5 Sustainable design of a smartphone: the ecom phone.......471 17.5.6 The refugee radio ...............................................................472 17.6 Future trends ...................................................................................475 17.6.1 Renewable energy sources.................................................475 17.6.2 Digitalization......................................................................475 17.6.3 Miniaturization and integration of functions .....................476 17.6.4 Human chip implants and biochips ...................................476 17.6.5 Biomimicry ........................................................................477 17.6.6 Smart materials and automatic disassembly ......................477 17.6.7 Smart systems and adaptronics ..........................................477 17.6.8 Moving from products to services and closed-loop concepts..............................................................................477 17.6.9 Electronic products as enablers for socioeconomic improvements.....................................................................478 17.7 Sources of further information and advice .....................................479 References .................................................................................................480 Further reading..........................................................................................482

CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe: learning from best practices in Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark ......................................................................................................................... 483 J. Ylä-Mella, E. Román 18.1 Introduction.....................................................................................484 18.2 Waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery in Europe .....485 18.3 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Switzerland .....................................................................................487 18.3.1 Legislative implementation ................................................487 18.3.2 The Swiss waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure .......................................................491 18.3.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery..................................................................492 18.4 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Norway 493

Contents xv

18.4.1 Legislative implementation ................................................493 18.4.2 The Norwegian waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure .....................................496 18.4.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery..................................................................496 18.5 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Sweden............................................................................................498 18.5.1 Legislative implementation ................................................498 18.5.2 The Swedish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure .....................................500 18.5.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery..................................................................501 18.6 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Denmark .........................................................................................502 18.6.1 Legislative implementation ................................................502 18.6.2 The Danish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure .....................................503 18.6.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery..................................................................505 18.7 Best practices of European waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery systems...........................................................506 18.8 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................510 Appendix 1: Abbreviations.......................................................................512 Appendix 2: National population and waste electrical and electronic equipment statistics...................................................................513 References .................................................................................................515 Further Reading ........................................................................................519

CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China.................................................................................... 521 Xianlai Zeng, Jinhui Li 19.1 Introduction.....................................................................................521 19.2 Exploration of WEEE management in China ................................524 19.2.1 General history...................................................................524 19.2.2 1990se2002 .......................................................................524 19.2.3 2003e10.............................................................................525 19.2.4 2011 and forward...............................................................525 19.3 Evolution of e-waste generation quantity in China........................525 19.4 Successful experience extracted from the past adventure ..............526 19.4.1 Status of e-waste recycling industry ..................................526 19.4.2 Resource performance of e-waste recycling ......................527

xvi Contents

19.4.3 Environmental performance of e-waste recycling .............530 19.4.4 Summary of experience .....................................................531 19.5 Potential lessons and gaps ..............................................................532 19.5.1 Imbalance between fund levies and subsidies ...................532 19.5.2 Procedure of subsidies utilization ......................................533 19.5.3 Expanding of e-waste recycling industry ..........................533 19.5.4 Eco-design for environment...............................................534 19.5.5 New catalogue of e-waste ..................................................535 19.6 The way forward.............................................................................535 References .................................................................................................536

CHAPTER 20 E-waste management in India ................................................................................ 541 Deepali Sinha Khetriwal 20.1 Introduction.....................................................................................541 20.1.1 EEE and WEEE growth drivers.........................................542 20.1.2 WEEE legislative framework in India ...............................544 20.1.3 Stakeholder map.................................................................544 20.2 Current WEEE management scenario ............................................546 20.2.1 An active informal sector...................................................546 20.2.2 A nascent formal industry..................................................548 20.2.3 Emergence of Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs)................................................................................550 20.2.4 Models of collaboration between formal and informal sectors.................................................................................551 20.3 Challenges of WEEE management in India...................................553 20.3.1 Infrastructure and eco-system challenges ..........................553 20.3.2 Lack of financing mechanism ............................................554 20.3.3 Lack of technical capacity and resources ..........................555 20.3.4 Accountability of all stakeholders .....................................555 20.3.5 SWOTdstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats .................................................................................556 20.4 Policy and legislation .....................................................................558 20.4.1 Regulatory framework .......................................................558 20.4.2 Evolution of E-waste rules in India ...................................558 20.4.3 Current E-waste Rules .......................................................558 20.4.4 Comparison between E-waste rules 2011 and 2016/2018 ..........................................................................561 20.4.5 Compliance with the rules .................................................566 20.6 Lessons and recommendations .......................................................566 References .................................................................................................570

Contents xvii

CHAPTER 21 WEEE management in Japan ................................................................................... 573 Fumikazu Yoshida, Haruyo Yoshida 21.1 Introduction.....................................................................................573 21.2 Japan’s home appliance recycling system: purpose and background ..............................................................................574 21.3 The collection rate ..........................................................................576 21.4 Cost and recycling quality..............................................................577 21.5 Export problems .............................................................................580 21.6 Economic analysis for urban mining..............................................582 21.7 Conclusions.....................................................................................586 References .................................................................................................587 Further reading..........................................................................................589

CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy .......................................................................... 591 Marta Jakowczyk, Daniel Seager, Kirstie McIntyre, Klaus Hieronymi 22.1 HP’s circular economy strategy......................................................592 Product reuse and recycling............................................................593 Recycle materials and increase recycled content............................594 22.2 HP experience during 10 years of WEEE in Europe ...................595 22.2.1 HP’s strategy in compliance operations ........................595 22.2.2 WEEE Directive implementation in member states ......596 22.2.3 Experience with multiple compliance solutions ............597 22.2.4 IT infrastructure for compliance management...............599 22.2.5 Visible fee ......................................................................601 22.2.6 Emergence of recycling standards (WEEELabex, CE standard)...................................................................602 22.2.7 Maturity of producer responsibility organizations.........603 22.3 Challenges with WEEE II and beyond.........................................604 22.3.1 All WEEE flows and EPR 2.0.......................................604 22.3.2 Marriage made in heaven or marriage from hell? Circular economy and WEEE........................................613 22.4 Conclusions...................................................................................615 References .................................................................................................616

CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy ................................................................. 619 M. Plumeyer, H. Würl 23.1 Introduction: WEEE as an important element of the overall environmental protection strategy ..................................................620 23.2 Siemens’ environmental business management .............................621 23.2.1 The early Siemens access to environmental protection.....621

xviii Contents

23.2.2 Siemens EP standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/3/5/7)”...............................................................622 23.2.3 The global Siemens Environmental, Health, and Safety principles ............................................................................624 23.2.4 Principles and guidelines for environmental protection ....624 23.2.5 Management mechanism within Siemens as global acting company ..................................................................625 23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process .............................................................627 23.3.1 Specification/product design ..............................................629 23.3.2 Manufacturing ....................................................................630 23.3.3 Use phase ...........................................................................631 23.3.4 Final stage as beginning of a new cycle used EEE or WEEE.................................................................................632 23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management .........634 23.4.1 Optimizing and continuous improvement, also in respect of WEEE................................................................635 23.4.2 Selected management examples for Siemens Healthineers products.........................................................637 23.5 Future trends ...................................................................................642 23.5.1 Corporate substance and material management.................643 23.5.2 Design for reuse and recycling ..........................................643 23.5.3 WEEE reduction by material optimization ........................643 23.5.4 Extended supplier dialogue................................................644 23.6 Sources of further information and advice .....................................644 References .................................................................................................646

CHAPTER 24 The history of the take-back and treatment of consumer waste electrical and electronic equipment at Philips .................................................. 647 Ab Stevels, E. Smit 24.1 Introduction.....................................................................................648 24.2 The period 1990e98.......................................................................648 24.2.1 The start of dealing with environmental concerns about products....................................................................648 24.2.2 Getting facts about take-back and treatment .....................650 24.2.3 Cooperation between Philips and Delft University of Technology ....................................................................651

Contents xix

24.3 Implementation of a take-back and treatment system in the Netherlands (1997e2000) ..............................................................652 24.3.1 The pilot project Apparetour (1997)..................................652 24.3.2 The Dutch take-back and recycling law and its implementation (1998) .......................................................653 24.3.3 Research of the Applied EcoDesign Group at Delft University of Technology ..................................................655 24.4 The WEEE Directive (2000e08) ...................................................658 24.4.1 The Philips vision for the WEEE Directive ......................658 24.4.2 What went wrong with the WEEE Directive? What are the avenues for improvement? .....................................659 24.5 WEEE Directive recast (2008e13) ................................................660 24.5.1 Revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU ..............................662 24.6 Recycled plastics ............................................................................663 24.6.1 Eight steps toward the implementation of recycled plastics................................................................................664 24.7 Circular Economy (2013e17) ........................................................665 24.8 Summary and conclusions ..............................................................667 References .................................................................................................667 Further reading..........................................................................................669

CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy including waste electrical and electronic equipment take-back and treatment .................... 671 Ab Stevels 25.1 Position of take-back and treatment in an environmental strategy............................................................................................672 25.2 Corporate environmental strategy...................................................673 25.2.1 Making an environmental strategy ....................................673 25.2.2 Vision, strategy, and road maps ........................................674 25.3 Product characteristics, take-back, and treatment...........................678 25.3.1 Environmental priorities in end-of-life treatments.............678 25.3.2 Product characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies.............................................................................681 25.3.3 Market characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies.............................................................................682 25.4 WEEE Directive implementation, materials recycling, and corporate environmental strategy....................................................684 25.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................684

xx Contents

25.4.2 Data needed for making a waste electrical and electronic equipment strategy ............................................685 25.4.3 Issue lists for making decisions on WEEE Directive implementation...................................................................686 25.5 Summary and conclusions ..............................................................688 References .................................................................................................689

Index ............................................................................................................................. 691

Contributors Abhishek Kumar Awasthi School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety, (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China, Beijing, China Kees Baldé United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany R. Cherrington University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom M. Danis Fujitsu Technology Solutions, United Kingdom Otmar Deubzer United Nations University, SCYCLE Program, Bonn, Germany Fraunhofer IZM, Berlin, Germany D.C.R. Espinosa University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Emma Goosey Eodum Ltd., Colchester, United Kingdom Martin Goosey Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom L. Herreras-Martínez WEEE Forum a.i.s.b.l., Brussels, Belgium Klaus Hieronymi HP, Bad Homburg, Germany M. Hora e-hoch-3, Darmstadt, Germany Jaco Huisman European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, Ispra, Italy W.L. Ijomah The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom Marta Jakowczyk HP, Sant Cugat de Valles, Spain Christian Keri Keri-Consulting, Vienna, Austria

xxi

xxii Contributors

Ruediger Kuehr United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany P. Leroy WEEE Forum a.i.s.b.l., Brussels, Belgium Jinhui Li School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Federico Magalini United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany Sofies, Weybridge, United Kingdom K. Makenji University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom M.B. Mansur Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil T. Mcdonnell University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom Kirstie McIntyre HP, London, United Kingdom Nils F. Nissen Fraunhofer IZM, Germany M. Plumeyer Siemens, Munich, Germany E. Román The Artic University of Norway, Campus Narvik, Narvik, Norway Daniel Seager HP, Sant Cugat de Valles, Spain Deepali Sinha Khetriwal Sofies India, Mumbai, India E. Smit Philips International, The Netherlands Ab Stevels Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Quanyin Tan School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China U. Tischner ec[o]ncept, Agency for Sustainable Design, Pulheim, Germany

Contributors xxiii

K.S. Williams University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom H. Würl Siemens, Munich, Germany J. Ylä-Mella University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Fumikazu Yoshida Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan Haruyo Yoshida Sapporo University, Sapporo, Japan Xianlai Zeng School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety, (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China, Beijing, China

This page intentionally left blank

Preface Waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) has been on the agenda of governments, industry and nongovernmental organizations for more than 20 years. In the early 1990s it seemed a relatively straightforward issue to deal with. The consistent application of “producer responsibility” and “polluter pays” principles was expected to keep the societal debate simple and quickly result in legislation that would be unambiguously applied in all member states of the European Union. Ecodesign, and in particular design for recycling, was supposed to assist in achieving high recycling rates and elevated levels of toxic control. Simultaneously this would reduce waste processing costs to almost zero. Current experience shows that take-back and treatment systems for WEEE have a high degree of complexity in practice. Therefore, organizations struggle with the development and implementation of these systems irrespective of whether the organizations deal with legal, technical, or economic aspects of take-back and treatment. This rapidly became clear when the European WEEE Directive was first transposed into national laws. It was then that the first divergences in interpretation of the directive occurred. In nation states where implementation rules had to be agreed among stakeholders, even more varied “rules of the game” have developed. More recently, the lack of a grip on all sorts of complementary flows, and the scavenging of valuable components and materials makes it difficult to adhere to renewed collection targets. Moreover, recent economic analysis shows two parallel universes being created: (1) a low-value/high-quality reported segment steered by national producer compliance schemes and complying with new standards for logistics and treatment; and (2) a nonreported high-value/low-treatment quality segment run by actors involved in metal scrap and the reuse and export of used equipment not adhering to quality standards. Although the intent and spirit of the WEEE Directive are quite clear and also broadly supported, the very complexity of the matter made it extremely difficult to effectively balance all environmental, technical, economic, and social interests in all states involved, in spite of the physics and economics being, in principle, identical all over the globe. Since the material composition of electronic and electrical products varies widely, there is also no “one size fits all” model in terms of technical solutions. Moreover, many variables must be taken into account when optimizing take-back and treatment systems that vary with time. The discarding behavior of users changes, and legal or illegal exports to outside the EU change, which affects the volume of WEEE to be treated inside the EU. Logistics, sorting, and reporting costs gradually increase, industrial infrastructures develop, treatment technologies become more sophisticated, energy and secondary materials prices fluctuate. Also the volume and cost of disposal of the fractions left over after treatment change as functions of time. Parallel to such developments, knowledge and know-how about take-back systems have increased tremendously as regards science, technology, and economic aspects. Over the years, the views on the original objectives are shifting from waste management, and control over potentially harmful substances as such, toward more circularity and higher material

xxv

xxvi Preface

efficiency. More attention is being given to replacement of primary raw materials by secondary raw materials as well as the decoupling of economic growth from energy and material footprints. Sustainable development requires a better understanding of the data gaps related to waste and secondary raw materials as an alternative source for primary extraction. This also means a modernization of relatively old, nonprioritized indicators in the monitoring of policies, currently reflecting only gross weights and not the actual social, environmental, and criticality dimensions of raw materials. This is why reliable data on WEEE and secondary raw materials are strategically so important for the future. The purpose of this current WEEE handbook is to assist readers in dealing better with those issues of WEEE relevant to their particular situations. For this purpose the book gives a comprehensive review of all items that could be applicable. The organization of the material in 25 chapters and the division of each chapter into a large number of sections will allow the reader to navigate quickly to items of direct relevance to them. The editors are happy that a vast number of leading experts have contributed to this book. This is the essential reason it will be such a valuable and powerful resource. We would also like to thank Woodhead Publishing for their initiatives, continuous support, and meticulous execution of the publishing tasks. The material presented in this handbook has global significance. The editors therefore hope that its contents will thoroughly and universally support the achievement of higher environmental gains at lower cost in the implementation of take-back and treatment systems throughout the world. For ease of use the chapters are clustered:  Chapters 1e6 cover the problems of e-waste from a strategic perspective starting with an overview of international developments in Chapter 1. Chapters 2e5 offer a comprehensive, tailor-made policy development road mapdfor countries starting their e-waste policies, countries with policies recently in place, and “established countries” in Chapter 2. The roles of data, stakeholder cooperation, and impact assessment are highlighted in Chapter 3. The main development areas of policy and legislation, technologies and skills, and education and awareness are covered in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides useful experience on the organizational process behind the development of e-waste policies and the role of monitoring and enforcement as well. The development of standards for logistics and treatment is covered in WEEE LABEX, Chapter 6.  Chapters 7e15 take a more technical and materials oriented approach. It begins with an introduction to the reduction of WEEE hazardous materials in Chapter 7, and then continues with a broader overview covering other materials in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 mirrors a best practice approach to waste management by considering, in turn, reuse and refurbishment, and mechanical recycling for plastics, circuit boards, and LCD screens (respectively Chapters 10, 11, and 12), followed by the specifics of treatment methods for some waste streams that present particular challenges due to complexity, toxicity, lifetimes and technological

Preface xxvii

developments, with refrigerators covered in Chapter 13, batteries in Chapter 14, and recovery of critical raw materials from e-waste in Chapter 15.  The Chapters 16 and 17 look preventatively at how design can reduce the cost and environmental impacts of electronic products and includes a chapter on the European legislation on ecodesign (Chapter 16) and sustainable design for products (Chapter 17).  Subsequently, Chapters 18e21 look at e-waste from a regional perspective, with individual chapters considering (best) practices in Europe (Chapter 18), China (Chapter 19), India (Chapter 20), and Japan (Chapter 21).  Finally, Part VI (Chapters 22e25) looks at waste management from a company perspective with valued contributions from Hewlett Packard (Chapter 22), Siemens (Chapter 23) and Philips (Chapter 24). These chapters highlight the many difficulties faced by international companies operating within this arena, facing global disparities in terms of legislation, local facilities, and environmental costs. The book ends with a chapter for those looking to create their own environmental strategies (Chapter 25). This highlights the current best practices/ considerations in dealing with electronic waste streams. Ab Stevels Eindhoven, NL Vannessa Goodship Warwick, UK Jaco Huisman Ispra, Italy

xxviii Preface

Wecycle, join us in recycling Wecycle is the e-waste compliance scheme of the Netherlands. Wecycle aims to collect as much e-waste as possible, and to this end collaborates with municipalities, charity shops, retailers, schools, and consumers. Wecycle guarantees optimum recycling; 70% to over 90% of the materials used in electronic appliances and energy-saving lightbulbs are recycled. This reduces the need to extract primary raw materials from nature, thus allowing us to sustain our way of life for future generations. wecycle.eu

Chapter

1

E-waste seen from a global perspective

Ruediger Kuehr United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany

CHAPTER OUTLINE

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Problems associated with e-waste

3

1.2.1 Local 5 1.2.2 Global 6

1.3 Global e-waste management initiatives

8

1.3.1 United Nations Environment Programme

8

Basel Convention 8 Strategic approach to international chemicals management 9 International Environmental Technology Centre 10 Environmental Management Group 10

1.3.2 Solving the e-waste problem initiative 11 1.3.3 Global e-waste statistic partnership 12 1.3.4 International Telecommunication Union 13

1.4 Synergizing e-waste initiatives 1.5 Future trends 14 References 15

14

1.1 INTRODUCTION According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2017, the world generated 44.7 million metric tons (MTs) of e-waste in 2016, and only 20% was recycled through appropriate channels (Baldé et al., 2017). Although 66% of the world’s population is covered by e-waste legislation, more efforts must be made to enforce, implement, and encourage more countries to develop e-waste policies.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00001-X Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

2 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

This development is fueled by a global information society growing at great speed. More and faster networks, and new applications and services delivered at increasingly higher speeds, have brought new opportunities to many people, including in the areas of health, education, government, entertainment, and commerce. At the same time, higher levels of disposable income, urbanization, and industrialization in several developing countries have led to growing amounts of electrical and electronic equipment, and consequently e-waste. Production, consumption, and final disposal of electrical and electronic equipment without wastes and harmful emissions; virtually no idea is more convincing and challenging. Though this may appear to be a crazy dream or simply impossible considering the current situation, it could be the visionary statement for many initiatives working toward a sustainable solution to the e-waste problem. It would take the final decoupling of the world’s energy demand from nonregenerative and uncontrollable sources that take remaining wastes for granted. It would also be based on a closed system for supply and its reverse, not allowing the loss and leakage of resources. The digital divide would be successfully closed, allowing everybody to benefit from speedy innovations in technology that make our lives and work easier, healthier, and more enjoyable, without revoking the future of coming generations. Harsh critics of such a vision have become more careful as some governments and international organizations, together with industry, science sectors, nongovernmental organizations, and local governments, have strongly supported the development of concepts for sustainable societies and have substantially invested in pertinent research that will explore if and how zero emissions/waste could become a new standard and a model for a sustainable society (Adams and Jeanrenaud, 2008). In 2015, the countries making up the United Nations (UN) adopted a set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development agenda. And though Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 12, “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns,” and 11, “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” only call for reducing the adverse environmental impacts of cities and communities by 2030 and substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse by the same year, they mark a milestone in global perspectives on e-waste because it is also clearly referred to as an emerging challenge.

1.2 Problems associated with e-waste 3

What challenges come with the e-waste problem and how would realizing the above-described vision solve them? Why is the e-waste problem increasingly attracting interest from politicians and the media as well as leading to initiatives around the globe? How much do existing initiatives address the e-waste problem and its multiple dimensions? What is the forecast for the way to move forward toward achieving the SDGs and the vision?

1.2 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH E-WASTE For at least the past 10 years, e-waste has become a catchword covering almost all types of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) that has or could enter the waste stream. E-waste has been growing exponentially because the markets for EEE are booming, not only because increasingly more products require electricitydeven clothing comes more frequently with electronic gadgets such as a pulse monitordbut also due to a growing middle class in many countries around the world. Therefore, many parts of the world are developing quickly and consequently are crossing the so-called “digital divide.” Rapid product innovation and replacement, especially in information and communication technologies (ICTs) and office equipment, such as replacements caused by frequent upgrading to the latest smartphone, are fueling the increase. Economies of scale have led to lower prices for many electrical goods, which has increased the global demand for many products that eventually end up as e-waste. Generally, e-waste is a term covering all end-of-life (EoL) products that use either a battery or a cord/circuitry. Hence, it includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, white goods (refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, etc.), home entertainment and stereo systems, toys, toasters, kettlesdalmost any household or business item, including medical devices such as magnetic resonance tomography scanners. A snapshot from the knowledge management tool C2P illustrates that thousands of definitions of e-waste in policies, regulations, decrees, guidelines, guidance documents, etc. still exist (Compliance and Risks, 2017). Based on these numerous definitions, the number of types of e-waste included in government-initiated analyses and collection programs differs across the world. The United States, for example, does not include white goods in its e-waste statistics, whereas these goods are included in the 10 e-waste categories in the legislation of the European Union (EU) and Japan. As a consequence, e-waste levels nationally cannot be easily compared, and accumulating all the numbers does not necessarily reflect the actual global e-waste amount.

4 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

In an attempt to harmonize e-waste statistics, members of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, such as OECD, ESCAPT, Eurostat, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the United Nations University (UNU), agreed in 2015 on a joint e-waste definition and methodology for its elicitation (Balde et al., 2015). Following the definition from the Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative (StEP), the partnership suggests a definition of e-waste: E-waste is a term used to cover items of all types of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and its parts that have been discarded by the owner as waste without the intention of re-use (Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP), 2014). Categorizing certain electrical and electronic equipment as “reusable” is a loophole used in international shipments to make money from what often should be formally classified as “e-waste”da clear break of the Basel Convention, which controls the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes including e-wastes and their final disposal (Basel). The Countering WEEE Illegal Trade project found that of the 9.4 MTs of e-waste generated in 2012 in the EU, 1.3 million MTs have been illegally exported (Huisman et al., 2015). In addition, substantial amounts of EoL EEE is kept in closets, cellars, and lofts and not entering the recycling chain. Moreover, substantial amounts are recycled outside of official take-back systems. For these reasons, a large quantity of the planet’s e-waste is unaccounted for, as it is not entering the appropriate e-waste recycling processes. Hence, a widely agreed-upon approach to estimate national and global e-waste generation is based on EEE put on the market. The lifetimes of product categories, in addition to other determinates, help in deriving total e-waste generation (Oguchi et al.). Together, all the world’s countries generated a staggering 49 million MTs or the equivalent of 6.7 kg per inhabitant (kg/inh) of e-waste annually in 2016, compared with 6.4 kg/inh generated in 2014. This is almost as much weight as 6700 Eiffel Towers each year. Based on current growth rates, worldwide e-waste generation is expected to increase to 55 million MTs, or 7.1 kg/inh, by 2021 (Baldé et al., 2017). E-waste is usually regarded as a waste problem that can cause environmental and health damage if not dealt with in an appropriate way (Schluep et al., 2009). The production of EEE is very resource-intensive. Therefore, e-waste contains various materials that are hazardous, valuable, and scarce. Common hazardous materials are heavy metals such as mercury, lead, chromium, and cadmium, and chemicals including ozone-depleting

1.2 Problems associated with e-waste 5

substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, phosphors, hexavalent chromium, polychlorinated biphenyl, and various flame retardants. All these can potentially lead to such things as impaired mental development, and lung, liver, and kidney damage caused by carcinogens released into the air, if not properly treated in the recycling process. However, additional dimensions are often overlooked: for example, the enormous environmental footprints and hence resource impact of EEE throughout its lifetime that results from its production, consumption and disposal (Kuehr and Williams, 2003), the implications of global supply chains and their reverse mechanisms in an appropriate recycling process at EoL, and the enormous social relevance of having access to EEE that allows one to benefit from access to information and globalization. E-waste is also increasingly regarded as an urban mine and hence a source of metals and scarce resources for production chains, thus reducing the environmental impact of mining virgin minerals from the earth’s crust (ProSUM). E-waste also contains many valuable materials such as iron, copper, aluminum, and plastics, and precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, that can be recycled. Therefore, from a resource perspective, e-waste is an urban mine providing tremendous resources for manufacturing and refurbishment. The UNU estimates that the overall resource perspective for secondary raw materials of e-waste is worth V 55 billion (Baldé et al., 2017). But in order to exploit the opportunities and simultaneously mitigate pollution, good policies are needed that facilitate the creation of an infrastructure to ensure that all collected e-waste is treated using state-of-the-art technologies, and that green employment opportunities are created.

1.2.1 Local In addition to various hazardous materials, e-waste also contains many valuable and precious materials. In fact, up to 60 elements from the periodic table can be found in complex electronics such as smartphones and tablets. Using the personal computer as an exampledthough cathode ray tube (CRT) computer monitors have now been replaced by flat-screens for a while, CRT monitors contain many valuable as well as toxic substances. One of these toxic substances is cadmium, which is used in rechargeable computer batteries and contacts and switches in older CRT monitors. Cadmium can bioaccumulate in the environment and is extremely toxic to humans; in particular, it adversely affects kidneys and bones. It is also one of the six toxic substances banned by the European Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (step-initiative).

6 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

Beyond CRT monitors, plastics including polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cabling are used for printed circuit boards, connectors, plastic covers, and cables. When burnt or landfilled, these PVCs release dioxins that have harmful effects on human reproductive and immune systems. Mercury, which is used in lighting devices in flat-screen displays, can cause damage to the nervous system, kidneys, and brain, and can even be passed on to infants through breast milk. Electrical goods contain a range of other toxic substances such as lead, beryllium, brominated flame retardants, and polychlorinated biphenyls just to name a few. Lead plays an important role in metal production processes, and attempts to design lead out of EEE production do not necessarily mean that it is no longer used. Even lead-free solder elements are coproduced with lead. This illustrates the need for a holistic view in analyzing the e-waste situation in working out possible solutions (Basel Action Network, 2007; Kuehr, 2010). Because of this complex composition of valuable and hazardous substances, specialized and often “high-tech” methods are required for processing e-waste as an urban mine in ways that maximize resource recovery and minimize potential harm to humans and the environment. Unfortunately, the use of these specialized methods is rare, with substantial quantities of the world’s e-waste treated outside of appropriate systems. Traveling great distances, mostly to developing countries, is one of these issues. There, crude techniques are often used to extract precious materials or recycle parts for further use. These local “backyard” techniques pose dangers to poorly protected workers and their local natural environment, made visible to the general public through many media campaigns (Schluep et al., 2009; step-initiative). Moreover, these approaches are very inefficient in terms of resource recovery, as recycling in these instances usually focuses on a few valuable elements like gold and copper (with often poor recycling yields), while most other metals are discarded and inevitably lost (step-initiative). In this sense, it can be demonstrated that resource efficiency is another important dimension in the e-waste discussion in addition to the ecological, human security, economical, and societal aspects.

1.2.2 Global In September 2015 the UN General Assembly adopted the SDGs as an outline for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A total of 17 goals and 169 targets were set to be achieved within the following 13 years to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. The environment is embedded in each of the 17 integrated goals, with e-waste specifically linking to a number of these targets. In particular, targets 3.9. 8.3, 8.8, 11.6, 12.4, and 12.5 relate to the issues associated with e-waste, and

1.2 Problems associated with e-waste 7

the UN Environment hosted Environmental Management Group (EMG) summarizes the e-waste relevance as follows (UNEP-EMG Secretariat, 2017):

SDG Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

SDG Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services. SDG Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.

SDG Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.

SDG Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

E-waste contains a number of hazardous components that when dismantled and processed inappropriately can threaten healthy lives through the contamination of water, soil, and air. The design of EEE should consider the absence of hazardous components, and dismantling and processing should be undertaken through environmentally sound activities. In developing countries, a large percentage of e-waste collection and processing is undertaken by the informal sectordboth unorganized and organized. These jobs are not decent, and formalization of this sector is required in order both to bring rights to these workers and also to ensure environmentally sound management of e-waste. Formalization will first and foremost require recognition by the state and the integration of these workers into the waste management system. By achieving this, labor rights are more likely to be protected. In some cases, worker organization and collectivity, as well as social solidarity economics, have led to e-waste worker groups being established. In some cases this has reduced the precariousness of employment for these workers. Over half the world’s population lives in cities, which consume an enormous 75% of the world’s natural resources. The rapid urbanization witnessed across the globe has led to the condensing of environmental and human health risks. The unsound management of ewaste in urban areas, such as low collection rates, disposal of e-waste through general household bins and not by required separate collection, and open burning and dumping, must be improved. In some cities, a move toward smart infrastructure and the use of ICTs for connecting communities and making waste collection more efficient is underway. Currently, the e-waste management practices most common in developing countries involve open dumping or the use of other chemical processes such as acid baths and amalgamation to separate valuable materials from e-waste. During the production of EEE, little attention is applied to ecodesign, which implies the absence of any life cycle thinking. Hence, much EEE still contains hazardous chemicals such as mercury or leaddwhich do not enable the durability of products. For some of these chemicals there are nonhazardous substitutes. But this does not yet apply for all chemicals.

8 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

SDG Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, repair, recycling and reuse.

By designing EEE that contains parts that are easily separable, constitute recycled metals, and are not hazardous, it is possible to prevent waste generation at EoL. It is important that EEE manufacturers shift from a planned-and-perceived obsolescence design and that consumers demand more-durable products. Manufacturers should also be encouraged to design products that are easily reparable and that allow for faulty components to be easily replaced. In addition, recycling and reuse would be more easily achieved if manufacturers were obligated to meet extended producer responsibility objectives. Currently, EEE is not designed with circularity in mind, but instead linearity, which fails to support prevention, reduction, repair, recycling, and reuse and instead supports a “throwaway society.”

Source: UNEP-EMG Secretariat, the United Nations and E-waste System-wide Action on Addressing the Full Life-cycle of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Geneva, 2017, unedited version.

1.3 GLOBAL E-WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES According to the UNU, by 2017 66% of the world’s population was covered by national e-waste management laws. This constitutes 66 of the 175 investigated countries, an increase from 2014 when 43% of the world population was covered by e-waste legislations. The large increase was mainly attributed to India, where legislation was adopted in 2016. The most populous countries in Asia currently have e-waste rules, whereas only a handful of countries in Africa have enacted e-waste-specific policies and legislation. Though in the past few years e-waste has moved onto the political agenda in many countries, and the number of actors and project activities have substantially increased, the number of global multistakeholder initiatives has decreased.

1.3.1 United Nations Environment Programme Basel Convention Since 2002, the Basel Convention has dealt with the environmentally sound management of e-waste including the prevention of illegal traffic to developing countries and capacity building for the better management of e-waste worldwide.

1.3 Global e-waste management initiatives 9

In 2017, Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) submitted final documents developed under the partnership to the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention. The Parties adopted, on an interim basis, the guidance document on environmentally sound management of used and EoL computing equipment. The parties further decided that PACE had successfully completed its mandate and it was thus disbanded. Interested Basel Convention regional and coordinating centers were invited to take the lead in implementing the activities listed in the work program set out in the concept note on a follow-up partnership to PACE (PACE). Recognizing that the Mobile Phone Working Group had successfully completed its mandate, in 2009 Basel COP 9 disbanded the working group and asked an ad hoc follow-up group to carry out any remaining tasks. The final guidance document was adopted in its entirety by the COP 10 held in 2011 (MPPI).

Strategic approach to international chemicals management The International Conference on Chemical Management is a platform established to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) was adopted in 2006 to review and discuss progress on implementation. The SAICM secretariat provides backing to the e-waste related work on Hazardous Substances within the Life Cycle of Electrical and Electronic Products, which facilitates the expertise of UNIDO, the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, and the UN International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) in leading activities to tackle the presence of hazardous substances throughout the life cycle of EEE. The secretariat addresses the need for more investments in the upstream part of the life cycle and the need to focus on ecodesign and safer alternatives to the toxic substances currently identified in e-waste (SAICM). SAICM has produced a “Compilation of best practices on hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products” (HSLEEP). In its resolution III/2 on emerging policy issues, the second International Conference on Chemicals Management called for a number of actions related to hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products. The SAICM secretariat continues to coordinate work on HSLEEP and to increase awareness on the need to address

10 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

hazardous substances in electronics through participation and the sharing of knowledge at regional and international forums (UNEP-EMG Secretariat, 2017)

International Environmental Technology Centre IETC, based in Japan and part of UNEP’s Division for Technology, Industry, and Economics, assists member countries on e-waste issues by promoting technologies to manage waste in an environmentally sound way to minimize significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. IETC provides expertise on e-waste management based on the e-waste guidelines that have been developed by IETC in the pastdin particular the three e-waste manuals (UNEP, 2007a,b). IETC is in a position to link across the system by providing support for downstream e-waste activities, including the technological practices of solid waste management (notably final disposal).

Environmental Management Group EMG is a UN systemwide coordination body on the environment and human settlements that was established in 2001. EMG membership consists of specialized agencies, programs, and organs of the UN including the secretariats of the multilateral environmental agreements. In 2016 EMG developed an Issue Management Group (IMG) on tackling e-waste. By using EMG members’ knowledge and experience, the IMG has the following objectives: n

n

to strengthen the coordination and promotion of joint programmatic and policy initiatives in the UN system, in the area of e-waste prevention and its environmentally sound management, based on necessary holistic life cycle approaches; To add value to already existing programs, mechanisms, and projects including developing ecodesign and life cycle approaches for EEE.

The IMG’s first report has brought together extensive research that highlights 24 international processes and agreements currently in place that play roles in the control and regulation of e-waste while also highlighting a further eight processes and agreements at the regional level. It identifies 154 prior, existing, and future e-waste initiatives and describes the expertise and involvement of 23 UN and related entities in tackling the global problem of e-waste. It also provides views by UN and related entities regarding further consideration of strengthening UN support for member states in their efforts to tackle the global problem of e-waste, with specific attention to the full life cycle of EEE, and puts forward conclusions as well as

1.3 Global e-waste management initiatives 11

recommendations for increasing the collaboration and coordination of efforts by the UN system in tackling e-waste (UNEP-EMG Secretariat, 2017). These are the key focus areas of the IMG in 2018.

1.3.2 Solving the e-waste problem initiative Development of StEP began during Berlin’s Electronics Goes Green conference in 2004 and formally launched in 2007. This was in response to the UNU’s work on information technology and environment supported by the UNEP and the UNCTD, coinitiated with Hewlett Packard and promotion team Wetzlar. With prominent members from industry, government, international organizations, NGOs, and academia, StEP’s overall aim is to develop strategies to solve the e-waste problemdglobally. StEP was founded to offer an impartial global platform for information exchange and developing sustainable solutions for e-waste management. Today more than 50 StEP institutional members from industry, academia, governments, NGOs, and international organizations work to reduce environmental and health risks and increase resource recovery worldwide from a holistic and science-based but nevertheless applied viewpoint (step-initiative). StEP is the only global multistakeholder initiative remaining after the successful termination of PACE under the Basel Convention. In the past years StEP has reorganized its work in response to a changed environment, especially because today many more actors are actively engaged in e-waste work than in its early days. However, StEP is working toward a definitive set of objectives and a clear-cut methodology for its goals. The criteria come under the following headings: a. Research and piloting

Overcoming the e-waste problem requires knowledge, leadership, and action. By conducting and sharing scientific research, StEP is helping to shape effective policy-making. Research is also key to reducing or replacing resources used in manufacturing. By fostering the generation of problem-solving ideas, StEP can support their implementation and analyze their effects. b. Strategy and goal setting While the overall goal is the elimination of e-waste as a problem, realities must be embraced along the way. Targets, goals, and strategies must account for the varying circumstances of different jurisdictions and markets. A key strategic goal is to empower proactivity in the marketplace through expanded membership, and to secure a robust funding base to support activity.

12 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

c. Training and development

StEP’s global overview of e-waste issues makes it the obvious provider of training on e-waste issues. The StEP E-Waste Academy brings together diverse groups of participants and trains them on key issues. A syllabus is being defined with the ultimate goal of expanding the StEP E-Waste Academy. d. Communication and branding Brand communication and awareness is vital, both within the membership and throughout the industry as a whole. One of StEP’s priorities is to ensure that members, prospective members, and legislators are all made aware of the nature and scale of the problem, its development opportunities, and how StEP is contributing to solving the e-waste problem. Membership in StEP is open to all who accept the StEP principles and agreement of cooperative work. For the coming months, StEP members have agreed to focus on projects such as (1) partnership models between the informal and formal sector, (2) Visionary PaperdE-waste in 2050/60, (3) establishing strategic alliance for sustainable waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management, and (4) jobs and e-waste; StEP will also continue its (5) webinar series and (6) expand its E-waste World Map with information on transboundary movement of e-waste and used EEE.

1.3.3 Global e-waste statistic partnership In the end of 2016 UNU, the International Solid Waste Association and the ITU decided to create the global e-waste statistics partnership to address the challenge that only about 40 countries in the world collect internationally comparable statistics on e-waste. Existing global and regional estimates are based on production and trade statistics but should eventually be replaced by nationally produced data. Therefore, this partnership initiative aims to a. collect data from countries and build a global e-waste database to track developments over time and to inform policy makers and industry b. enhance the understanding and interpretation of global e-waste data and communicate the data to the general public and relevant stakeholders c. map recycling opportunities from e-waste, pollutants, and e-wasterelated health effects

1.3 Global e-waste management initiatives 13

d. build national and regional capacity to help countries produce reliable and comparable e-waste statistics e. identify best practices of global e-waste management f. inform on SDGs 11.6 and 12.5 by monitoring relevant waste streams and tracking ITU Connect 2020 target 3.2. (Global E-waste Statistics Partnership) A first result of this cooperation is the second edition of the Global E-Waste Monitor, a follow-up of the groundbreaking Global E-Waste Monitor 2014, which raised a lot of attention on the issue of e-waste and was covered in major newspapers and television stations around the world. This report will come together with training and awareness-increasing workshops that attempt to globally improve and harmonize e-waste data collection.

1.3.4 International Telecommunication Union The ITU is the UN specialized agency for information and communication technologies. Currently it has membership of 172 countries and more than 700 private sector entities and academic institutions. In addition to ITU’s work on radio communications, it focuses on development and standardization. ITU’s Connect 2020 Agenda for Global Telecommunication/ICT Development sets out the shared vision, goals, and targets that ITU member states have committed to achieve by 2020. These targets shall be achieved in collaboration with stakeholders within the ICT system. With the adoption of the Connect 2020 Agenda, ITU Member States have committed to transitioning to “an information society, empowered by the interconnected world, where telecommunication/ICT enables and accelerates socially, economically and environmentally sustainable growth and development for everyone.” One of the key goals of the Connect 2020 Agenda is sustainability. Within this specific goal, target 3.2 addresses the issue of e-waste through a reduction in the volume of redundant e-waste by 50% by 2020 (UNEP-EMG Secretariat, 2017). To tackle e-waste, ITU develops international standards, facilitates collaboration, and raises awareness within the ICT industry. It promotes innovative ICT solutions in the e-waste domain and develops green ICT standards to reduce e-waste’s negative impact. ITU also produces reports, guidelines, frameworks, toolkits, and educational materials to raise awareness of e-waste among its member states, industry members, and academia. It also provides direct assistance in the planning and implementation of e-waste management techniques.

14 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

1.4 SYNERGIZING E-WASTE INITIATIVES The aforementioned initiatives are of global character, being in one way or another under the umbrella of the UN, though partly with certain regional foci due to existing funding schemes that are in the majority of cases not global. However, as all initiatives depend on voluntary contributionsdboth in cash and in-kinddand successful project acquisitions, the avoidance of duplication and an emphasis on synergizing efforts are not only prerequisites of its contributing members but also its supporters. A snapshot into the above initiatives might convey many overlaps and the duplication of activities, which were also highlighted by the EMG report. Aware that these initiatives share substantial areas of mutual interest and undertake complementary activities, there is common agreement to initiate close cooperation with all initiatives to better coordinate the work, establish one hub of e-waste data and information, and offer a platform for the exchange of best practices and continued dialogue on e-waste management systems among policymakers and representatives of small- and mediumsized companies. Nevertheless, given the high interest of many in the e-waste issue, future coordination attempts among, for example, donors in certain regions, are going to be necessary. The e-waste business has become lucrative for many, with some trying to be paid twice for their contributions toward a possible solution highlighting the urgent need for close coordination. Moreover, a close multistakeholder and transnational coordination is also necessary to ensure progress toward sustainable solutions. Due to its science-based multistakeholder approach, StEP appears well positioned for these assignments and provides the necessary recommendations for international and national policymaking, as it considers the complexity of the e-waste issue. A big challenge for all initiatives is obviously the need for successful integration of players from the South in cooperative work substantially driven by digital cooperative work via the Internet, conference calls, etc.

1.5 FUTURE TRENDS The global e-waste issue is still increasing in both numbers and visibility. The growing penetration of electrical and/or electronic components into all goods is without question. Intelligent clothes are increasingly winning market share in the same way as electrical vehicles and photovoltaics are gaining importance in the developed world. Certainly, transitional and developing countries still have a long way ahead to reach market saturation of EEE products, a situation annulled in (post)industrialized countries by speedy product innovation. But as all products substantially depend on

References 15

the limited resources of the earth’s crust, conflicts for these resources might also be on the rise, going beyond a certain dictation through prices. In consequence, to maintain a certain autonomy, states and companies ought to develop further strategies to maximize the return of equipment, further improve component and material recovery, and harmonize actions beyond borders, as the associated problems will only be solved transnationally through concerted action. In light of this, an increasing number of states around the world are starting to develop their respective e-waste management policies and legislation. Moreover, certain adaptation of present systems will be required, moving away from linear to holistic thinking and also allowing tests of the unthinkable in solving the problem, because this was and is the driver of innovation. Dematerialization and hence the purchasing of services that EEE provides, instead of purchasing the products as such, are regarded as one possible future trend toward a circular economy, a new catchphrase in recent years. This way, the EEE loops will be closed, thus avoiding leakage through low return rates, illegal shipments of e-waste will be substantially reduced, a design supporting the refurbishment and final material recycling will be further developed, and the digital divide will be further closed by offering services at special prices for those in need. In addition, a smart separation of work in the reverse supply chain and especially the various recycling steps, might also allow developing countries to successfully contribute to the appropriate treatment of their domestically generated e-waste (Schluep et al., 2009). This approach, introduced by StEP as the “best of two worlds,” is commonly seen as a possible way ahead. Raising awareness and thus psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects must move much more toward a focus on e-waste-related activities, because not all technical and technological solutions receive the necessary acceptance and support from consumers. Thus far, most efforts have concentrated on recycling aspects, substantially neglecting upstream issues such as reuse, design, and the drivers behind the low return rates of consumers even in countries with proper e-waste management systems in place.

REFERENCES Adams, W.M., Jeanrenaud, S.J., 2008. Transition to Sustainability: Towards a Humane and Diverse World. IUCN, Geneva. Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Fondeur Gill, S., Kern, M., Micheli, P., Magpantay, E., Huisman, J., 2015. E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators. United Nations Universit, IAS-SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/partnership/E-waste_Guidelines_ Partnership_2015.pdf.

16 CHAPTER 1 E-waste seen from a global perspective

Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegeman, P., 2017. The Global E-waste Monitor e 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. Basel Convention. http://www.basel.int. Basel Action Network, 2007. The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-Use and Abuse to Africa. Seattle. Compliance and Risks, 2017. C2P Database & Knowledge-Management Tool. Cork. http://www.complianceandrisks.com/. Global E-waste Statistics Partnership. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/ Pages/ewaste/globalewastestatisticspartnership.aspx. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Männistö, T., Bonzio, A., August 30, 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap. Lyon, France. http://www.cwitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CWIT-Final-Report.pdf. Kuehr, R., April 26, 2010. E-waste: not your normal trash. In: Our World 2.0. Available online: http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/e-waste-not-your-normal-trash/. Kuehr, R., Williams, E. (Eds.), 2003. Computer and the Environment. Understanding and Managing Their Impacts. Kluwer & UNU, Dodrecht/Tokyo. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/MPPI/MPPI GuidanceDocument/tabid/3250/Default.aspx. Oguchi, M., Murakami, S., Tasaki, T., Daigo, I., Hashimoto, S., 2010. Lifespan of commodities, Part II, methodologies for estimating lifespan distribution of commodities. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14 (4), 613e626. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/PACE/ PACEGuidelines,ManualandReports/tabid/3247/Default.aspx. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM) Project. http://www.prosumproject.eu/. Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). www.saicm.org. Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, C., Mueller, E., Wang, F., 2009. From E-waste to Resources, Sustainable Innovation and Technology Transfer Industrial Sector Studies. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris. Solving the E-waste Problem (Step), 2014. One Global Definition of E-waste, Step Green Paper. Bonn, Germany. http://www.step-initiative.org/files/step/_documents/StEP_ WP_One%20Global%20Definition%20of%20E-waste_20140603_amended.pdf. Solving the E-waste Problem (Step) Initiative. http://www.step-initiative.org. UNEP, 2007a. E-waste. In: Inventory Assessment Manual, vol. I. Osaka/Shiga. UNEP, 2007b. E-waste. In: E-waste Managament Manual, vol. II. Osaka/Shiga. UNEP-EMG Secretariat, 2017. The United Nations and E-waste System-Wide Action on Addressing the Full Life-Cycle of Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Geneva. http://unemg.org/images/emgdocs/ewaste/E-waste%20Synthesis%20Report%20-% 20unedited%20version.pdf. unedited version.

Chapter

2

The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status Jaco Huisman1, Ab Stevels2, Kees Baldé3, Federico Magalini3, 4, Ruediger Kuehr3

1

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, Ispra, Italy; 2Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 3United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany; 4Sofies, Weybridge, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

2.1 Readers’ guide (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) 18 2.1.1 E-waste and sustainable development goals 18 2.1.2 Three types of country e-waste development status

2.2 The need for a more iterative approach

22

24

2.2.1 The need for balance between legislation, financing, and technologies 25 2.2.2 The need for an iterative approach 27 2.2.3 The need for a more fact-based approach 29 2.2.4 Learning by doing 30

2.3 The e-waste development cycle 32 2.4 Assessment of the country status 36 2.5 Stakeholder analysis and initial consultations 2.5.1 Starting countries 37 2.5.2 Emerging and established countries

2.6 Inventory of existing policies

36 39

41

2.6.1 Starting countries 42 2.6.2 Emerging countries 43 2.6.3 Established countries 44

2.7 Problem (re)definition

44

2.7.1 Starting countries 45 2.7.2 Emerging countries 47 2.7.3 Established countries 48

2.8 Conclusions 50 Disclaimer 51 References 51

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00002-1 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

17

18 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

2.1 READERS’ GUIDE (ALSO COVERING CHAPTERS 3e5 OF THIS HANDBOOK) This chapter and Chapters 3e5 propose an iterative, multidimensional, and experience-based approach, called the e-waste development cycle. The e-waste development cycle proposed in more detail in Section 2.3 is purposely structured around key questions for each step of the development cycle to guide the reader through the most relevant elements. Table 2.1 lists these questions, including the numbering of the sections where more information is available. To support answering the above questions, for each step in the development cycle proposed in Section 2.3, the following approach is taken in each section for “starting,” “emerging,” and “established” countries (which are defined in Section 2.1.2): 1. Aim of the step in the development cycle.

A description of why the step is needed, the rationale and focus behind it, and the position in the development cycle in relation to other parts. 2. Characterization, key questions (per type of country). Characterization of the status in the country by means of elaborating on above key questions instead of providing of “precooked” answers. 3. Common issues, experiences, and recommendations. A description of the most observed common issues and of the probable tasks ahead. 4. Possible tools and information sources. A short listing of potential tools, experiences, and information sources available in the national and international domain.

2.1.1 E-waste and sustainable development goals Since the rise in sales of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), especially since the 1990s, societies are increasingly confronted with a multifaceted challenge when these products become e-waste or waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Electronics bring many improvements in basically every part of our daily life in the form of thousands of product types, applications for households and businesses as well as in all kind of energy, transport, and other infrastructures. At the same time, electronics contain a large variety of valuable components, materials, and elements plus toxic substances like mercury, cadmium, lead, and certain flame-retardants. Moreover, high global warming and ozone-layer depleting substances like

2.1 Readers’ guide (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) 19

Table 2.1 Key development questions posed (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) Development areas

Starting countries

Emerging countries

Established countries

Step 1: Country status: What is the status quo? Who is doing what? (Sections 2.5e2.7) Stakeholder involvement

The wider policy framework

Problem (re)definition

2.5.1 Which government entities to include and who from outside? 2.6.1 Which national and international regulations, policies, and standards are already in place? 2.7.1 What are the core issues and magnitude of the problem?

2.5.2 How are stakeholders currently organized? 2.6.2 How are the regulations in place functioning and how can implementation be improved? 2.7.2 What are root causes for lack of progress?

2.5.2 What are the current strengths and weaknesses of the e-waste system? 2.6.3 What are the structural obstacles difficult to overcome?

2.7.3 How to incentivize more collection and quality of treatment?

Step 2: How to collect more and treat better? (Sections 3.2 and 3.3) Assessment of collection

3.2.1 What basic data on e-waste volumes is available?

3.2.2 How to get better data for the complementary flows?

Assessment of treatment

3.3.1 How to improve formal and informal treatment?

3.3.2 How to optimize dismantling vs. mechanical treatment?

3.2.3 What is the quality of collected and reported volumes? How much scavenging takes place? 3.3.3 How to economically reward innovation in technology?

Step 3: What are the societal impacts (environmental, economic, and social)? (Sections 3.4e3.6) Environmental impacts

3.4.1 What are the most pressing environmental issues?

3.4.2 How to maximize environmental performance per collection category?

Economic impacts

3.5.1 How much funding is needed to set up initial infrastructure?

3.5.2 How to direct financing to treat complex fractions efficiently?

Social conditions

3.6.1 How many jobs are involved and what are the working conditions in the informal sector?

3.6.2 What are new job opportunities? How to improve health and safety?

3.4.3 How to improve environmental performance of complementary recycling? 3.5.3 How to realize a level playing field? 3.5.4 How to optimize eco-efficiency of the system? 3.6.3 How to enhance consumer education?

Step 4: How and where to intervene with Policy and Legislation? (Section 4.2) What needs to financed and how? (Section 4.3) What Technologies and Skills are needed? (Section 4.4) 4.2.3 How successful is Policy and Legislation 4.2.1 How to timely 4.2.2 How to run a successful revision? implementation in develop sensible reality? regulations for e-waste?

Continued

20 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

Table 2.1 Key development questions posed (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) continued Development areas

Starting countries

Emerging countries

Established countries

The legal basis

4.2.1.1 Who should be in charge?

4.2.3.1 How to improve proportionality and efficiency?

Scope, definitions, and requirements

4.2.1.2 Which products should be in the scope?

Responsibilities

4.2.1.3 How to include the informal sectors?

Business and Finance

4.3.1 What is affordable and what is not? Who can provide initial financial resources? Which financing mechanism to select? 4.4.1 How to develop a basic collection and treatment infrastructure?

4.2.2.1 Which elements need specifically to be updated and extended? 4.2.2.2 How to complement policies with implementation rules and standards? 4.2.2.3 How to align stakeholder responsibilities? 4.3.2 Does the financing mechanism work properly?

4.4.2 How to improve preprocessing? Where to send complex fractions?

4.4.3 How to steer and stimulate innovation beyond economic optimized levels?

Technologies and Skills

4.2.3.2 How to mature implementation rules?

4.2.3.3 How to mature stakeholder cooperation? 4.3.3 How to reward quality in collection and treatment beyond basic compliance?

Step 5: How to develop a national road map? (Sections 5.2e5.4) Implementation Roadmap

5.2.1 How to be both ambitious and realistic in the first policy round?

5.2.2 How to plan a review round carefully and well and on time?

5.2.3 How to target the more complex challenges in conjunction?

Step 6: How to successfully implement the policy framework/road map? (Sections 5.6e5.8) Monitoring and Control

5.6.1 How to develop a 5.6.2 How to improve 5.6.3 How to track system basic monitoring reporting and a more performance more real framework? How to structured monitoring time and establish smart measure progress? and enforcement enforcement? What indicators to use? framework? Education and 5.7.1.1 How to inform 5.7.1.2 How to extend consumer education and Awareness consumers about the continuously involve all end users? How to involve local initial collection collectors, municipalities, and regional authorities? infrastructure and enable quick learning for the informal sector? Design feedback 5.8.1 What about prevention measures in the policy framework? 5.8.2 How can green procurement and government asset management contribute? 5.8.3 What product information do recyclers need? (back to step 1: Country status and input to evaluation for the next development cycle)

2.1 Readers’ guide (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) 21

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and even components with safety issues during transport (lithium ion batteries) are also part of EEE. At the end of the life cycle, e-waste poses considerable problems in multiple domains. According to the latest Global E-waste Monitor, by 2016 the world had generated 44.7 million tons of e-waste. Of this volume only 20% is reported to be recycled through designated channels and only 41 countries in the world collect international statistics on e-waste (Baldé et al., 2017). This is showing a lack of assessment on the country level, although 66% of the world’s population is currently covered by some form of e-waste legislation, despite not everywhere enforced. However, discarded end-of-life electronic products are not confined within national borders. Both the production side of electronics builds on an extensive global supply chain as well as the final fate of many products distributed all over the globe. Efforts to collect and treat electronics in a responsible manner contribute to a global circular reverse supply chain instead of a linear one. It requires that more countries’ national e-waste systems and the eco-efficiency of existing systems are further raised. Developing these national e-waste systems goes beyond developing e-waste policies alone. For example, enacting stand-alone legislation on paper does not automatically create infrastructure for collection and treatment, nor does the presence of recycling infrastructures automatically result in the adoption of the best available technologies or internationally recognized standards. Creating producer responsibility organization does not necessarily make different stakeholders cooperate instantly. The development of national e-waste systems requires a whole range of policies, multistakeholder cooperation, interventions in many stages of collection, trade, and treatment, and both implementation and adaption of policies in a dynamic manner. Developing national e-waste systems obviously contributes directly to the Sustainable Development Goal #12 (SDG12), Responsible Consumption and Production, by reducing the net footprint of electronics products and its waste. It also contributes many other areas of the SDGs indirectly (see Fig. 2.1): E-waste repair and dismantling could offer job and income opportunities and less poverty (SDG1); more efficient technologies especially in waste treatment supports good health and reduces casualties (SDG3); proper reuse and recycling enables equipping schools in poor countries with electricity and access to the Internet (SDG4); upgrading treatment and the banning of highly polluting treatment practices reduce the stress on water systems in developing countries (SDG6); new energy technologies, in particular small scale solar power and energy storage, supports the development of rural areas (SDG7, see also Magalini et al., 2016b, 2017a,b); the creation of jobs and more responsible types of work foster economic growth (SDG8);

22 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

n FIGURE 2.1 The sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017.).

the recycling industry can be expanded and become more innovative and can provide materials and components for economic growth (SDG9); e-waste collection and repair reduces municipal solid waste amounts, environmentally sound management of e-waste mitigates the toxic effects of hazardous waste, and proper treatment reduces air pollution for sustainable cities and communities (SDG11); and finally, reclaiming materials and components replaces mining of primary resources and the control over CFCs from refrigerators, in particular, both reduce CO2 impact substantially (SDG13).

2.1.2 Three types of country e-waste development status The contribution of countries to the sustainable development goals differs due to different priorities per country in relation to the above goals. Therefore, three types of countries are targeted with this document. Distinguished are countries starting with e-waste policies or considering them, emerging countries that have e-waste policies and some forms of regulated collection and treatment in place, and established countries with take-back systems in

2.1 Readers’ guide (also covering Chapters 3e5 of this handbook) 23

place for a number of years and a considerable amount of regulated collection and treatment practices. Contrary to existing literature, in this chapter, these terms deliberately do not refer to their economic situation. Although a high correlation may exist, there are countries that are economically well developed but lacking national e-waste policies and collection and recycling infrastructure and also vice versa; there are also countries economically less advanced, but already developing their national system for electronics collection and recycling in the “emerging” countries group. The distinction is purposely made in this chapter as well as in Chapters 3e5 since different goals for developing national e-waste systems due to varying urgencies exist depending on the development status of the e-waste system: n

n

n

“Starting countries” are referred to as those without an e-waste system at all, or starting to explore lessons from other countries and considering drafting e-waste policies. Their main goal typically is: “disaster prevention” and realization of basic toxic control and initial infrastructure development. The focus is more on local (worker) protection and collection of the most hazardous items. The starting phase can include small pilots in collection and recycling that support figuring out basic environmental and economic parameters feeding decision-making processes. Also included are developing simple requirements desired for financing plus simple interventions, as well as improving the social conditions for e-waste workers by relatively simple measures providing a basis for potential (better) job creation. The nature of the steps to be taken are ideally as practical, noncapital intensive as possible, enabling quick learning with relatively little capital. “Emerging countries” are those with e-waste policies recently in place or still drafting legislation and/or discussing other measures. The main goal commonly is the actual implementation and expansion of the initial collection and treatment system as well as upgrading practices to make the system more mature and efficient. Often the main struggle is to modernize technologies and find better treatment options for various complex and hazardous fractions abroad when large facilities are not available in the country itself. Their main efforts commonly are to create a system that expands the initial collection system and more and more to include additional flows and incentives to the recycling industry to professionalize. The steps to be taken in this phase are to develop basic treatment standards, clear implementation rules, and the first steps in having a monitoring framework. “Established countries” are those that have e-waste policies implemented in practice, already reviewed their e-waste system and national

24 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

policies, and are modernizing and fine-tuning them. The main focus here is commonly on improved implementation and on including all waste flows in national reporting and monitoring systems. Their main goal commonly is to get more value from materials and components and critical raw materials from e-waste product streams, to improve the quality of what is collected, to stimulate an innovative recycling industry, secure high levels of depollution, and adapt and limit the financing to where the market does not function by itself. Here, full deployment of standards and having a full monitoring system in place are targeted. The above groupings are intended to discuss the linkages and main themes most commonly found in relation to the e-waste development stages. The groupings are not intended as strict divisions nor as a qualification of individual country performance but refer rather to their approximate development stage regarding e-waste. It is quite well possible that countries are rather established in certain parts and less so in others. To our knowledge, besides a few countries approaching, no countries have a fully established and completely efficient take-back system. The reason is that collecting everything and processing all fractions at the highest possible level evidently does not occur in any country See (StEP Initiative, 2009; StEP Initiative, 2014) for the various definitions used in this article.

2.2 THE NEED FOR A MORE ITERATIVE APPROACH There are a number of existing sources describing the complete development process for e-waste systems and many more describing specific parts of it. Many articles and reports are written at various development points in time and from various perspectives. Most of these touch upon the complex process that e-waste system development is. Some of the approaches focus predominantly on the legislative principles and implementation (Magalini and Huisman, 2007; StEP Initiative, 2010), others focus more on the development needed for countries without any e-waste management (Schluep, 2012; Schluep et al., 2012; Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017) or on countries emerging, for which technological options are being more discussed (Li et al., 2015; StEP initiative, 2016) and others focus more on countries with relatively well-established legislation and implementation like the European Union (EU) (Huisman et al., 2008; Magalini et al., 2016a) or the international developments like (Kuehr, 2018) in Chapter 1 of this handbook.

2.2 The need for a more iterative approach 25

In addition, many good examples for individual countries and regions are found in reports like those for the United States (US EPA, 2011), Japan (Yoshida and Yoshida, 2013), and Hong Kong (Lau et al., 2013). Also for Korea (Yang et al., 2015), China (Wang et al., 2013a; Zeng and Li, 2018), East and Southeast Asia (Honda et al., 2016), India (Ganguly, 2016), Brazil and South Africa (Ghosh et al., 2017), and also for many developing countries there are structured assessments available, and for many African countries (Schluep, 2012) as well. Only a few sources provide a more holistic and long-term perspective. When available, they are generally providing a rather linear approach by attempting to “copy-paste” the structures and measures of established ewaste systems to starting ones. Hardly any source provides a more flexible and iterative process focusing on the development at large, over long periods of time with changing priorities and with varying influences of stakeholders involved. Therefore, based on the conclusions from these existing approaches, combined with experiences observed in practice over many years, it is concluded that there are four basic needs for developing national e-waste systems, being the need to: n

n n n

Have balance between legislation, financing, and technological possibilities (Section 2.2.1) Have an iterative approach (Section 2.2.2) Have a more fact-based approach (Section 2.2.3) Have a differentiated approach (Section 2.2.4)

2.2.1 The need for balance between legislation, financing, and technologies Systemic issues require systemic solutions Legislation is important, but not the sole component of an e-waste framework. In almost all cases globally, the initiative for starting e-waste related legislation lies with national governments, their states or provinces. Adequate collection and treatment does require financing that is not automatically generated from the e-waste traders and recyclers whereas the revenues from secondary materials do cover the costs or the financing is not set aside to cover for logistics, depollution, and taking care of materials with a negative intrinsic value. Hence the start of e-waste system development usually means intervention in the markets (if present) with waste policies and regulations. However, the following must be considered: 1. Legislation is a vital but not the sole component for successful e-waste management. It is generally deemed necessary and even the prime

26 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

focus for many countries starting to develop their e-waste system. It can however not function without a proper implementation and enforcement and simultaneous structural financing of collection and recycling, development and transfer of technology and infrastructure, and cooperation of all actors involved in the product life cycle of electronics (Huisman, 2013). Furthermore, the actual efficiency under which a take-back scheme can operate like consumer behavior, lack of infrastructure and undesired trade, are usually both far outside the scope of legislation itself, beyond the control of the compliance scheme’s influence, and heavily determined by the social, economic, and cultural conditions of individual countries. 2. Business conditions and finance are a second area of high importance. Without proper financing for the right activities, e-waste systems do not develop or only partially. In all countries and all situations, there is always a difficult balance to be found by those parts that “cannot pay for themselves” versus arranging for collection infrastructure, depollution of materials and components with a negative value requiring expensive final processing in dedicated facilities. Ideally all of this must be done in the most cost-efficient way without causing competition disruptions for recyclers and traders. 3. When financing is involved, obviously those paying for the system and ultimately selecting technologies and innovations will have to align themselves. Here, independently of who pays primarily, either consumers, producers, recyclers, or government (entities), both fierce as well as continuous discussions over the respective financial interests are common and inevitable. Section 4.3 does not provide one single recommendation nor a single optimal financial mechanism but rather focuses on the various options available. This also includes the relations and consequences of financing to the other domains. This is also a goal-dependent element that will change over time when the national e-waste system evolves. When these discussions between the financing and the other domains are not synchronized, which is unfortunately also a common finding, then delays and malfunctioning are evitable. This is the main reason why in the planning and decision focused Chapter 5, where the goals and interventions options are discussed, the three key development areas of legislation and finance (Section 4.2), Business and Finance (Section 4.3), and Technologies and Skills (Section 4.4) are to be aligned in the policy development process. Simply said, legislation alone will not work if there is no matching funding and no infrastructure present to implement the desired goals in practice.

2.2 The need for a more iterative approach 27

Systemic issues require systemic solutions. Therefore, a national e-waste system development road map, including policy configurations as well as increased stakeholder cooperation and communication, increased knowledge exchange, training and education, plus research into successful strategies and basic fact finding are all required. Starting with policy analysis that considers political interests, the development of a feasible strategy toward sustainable solutions is possible. A multiplicity of factors such as the social and political inertia as well as economic interests and social contrasts, different interpretations of the present are comprehensively taken into account in the systemic approach proposed in Chapters 4 and 5. This approach is based both on scientific inputs as well as essential practical experiences gathered over the past 20 years in different countries and regions.

2.2.2 The need for an iterative approach A circular issue requires a circular solution The e-waste complexity requires a more circular solution for future generations instead of a linear solution. Taking into account the heterogeneous nature of e-waste products and an uneven distribution of the above issues per region, any approach in solving or mitigating the e-waste related problems has to be both tailor-made and preferably also include long-term evolution at the same time. The issues to solve are not just temporarily pressing but also affect future generations. In the long term, future generations will have to pay for the external effects of overconsumption and pollution in our generations. From this starting point, many sources and articles attempt to review, compare, and then filter the best approaches without taking the evolution component into play. It is understandable for academic authors, policy makers, and NGOs to be comprehensive in this regard. Nevertheless, practice shows a high degree of complexity, realization of progress is time consuming, as well as large differences per country, economy, and culture do exist. This usually means elements that are well functioning in established countries are “blindly” copy-pasted to countries where some elements are too far out in the future or not possible to align with existing economic conditions. Moreover, as introduced in Section 2.1.2, the goals for different countries are distinct and will change over time. Hence, it is important to note that EEE products have multiple societal impacts related to their consumption and recycling: n

Functionality: From a product design point of view, the first aspect is usually an inevitable material selection issue. Although not preferable for end of life, specific materials in electronic components and

28 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

n

n

n

n

n

products provide typical functionality that cannot be achieved to the same level by other means via substitutes. Almost the entire periodic table of elements is used in electronics due to complex functionalities. Often an environmental sacrifice in the material selection phase leads to functional and other gains in the life cycle load, like in lower energy consumption or product weights. Or recyclable materials are connected in such a way that separation becomes difficult and either labor or energy intensive. Potential toxicity: A clear environmental impact is intrinsic toxicity related to certain materials like cadmium, lead, and flame-retardants used in electronics design. Besides this, there is extrinsic and indirect toxicity coming from high energy consumption in extraction and refining and hydrometallurgical routes as well as from informal processing like stripping of circuit boards for gold in informal sectors. Emissions: Another type of environmental impact is direct nontoxic emissions from gases or substances present in electronics like CFCs from refrigerators with very high ozone layer depletion and global warming potentials. Indirectly, a large amount of environmental impacts is related to energy needed for material extraction, especially for precious metals and other metals with low ore concentrations and of course from incineration of plastics. Resources security: As a combined environmental and social impact, both long-term scarcity and short-term availability of materials is at stake. Most of the so-called critical materials are already scarce, so using more of them brings them closer to their depletion and generally higher energy consumption levels are needed for extraction. In other cases, there are fewer long-term concerns but significant fluctuations and short-term insecurities in the supply chain. Furthermore, another aspect is the strategic and political aspect related to certain critical materials coming from one of a few countries only. This applies to the certain elements with a geographically monopolistic potential or elements potentially critical for military equipment. Social: Another impact element refers to the social dimension. Here there are two subcategories: critical materials from conflict zones in, for instance, Africa, like tantalum and cobalt, and/or the sourcing of materials (both in extraction and waste) taking place in countries with social injustice (the ethical dimension), involving poor health and safety standards, inefficient extraction, and low-paid untrained personnel. Economically: Finally, of course the economic impact of collection and recycling is highly relevant. But also, as a consequence of the resource aspect, there is an economic dimension of sustainability when it comes to future availability and related prices of materials needed in

2.2 The need for a more iterative approach 29

EEE products. In the short term, this issue this is seen in forms of price instability as a result of speculation on raw material prices. An important source of information on how to arrange for the stakeholder consultations and ownership of topics is presented in Méndez-Fajardo et al., (2017). This document proposes a systemic design of the policy drafting process. However, these types of structured approaches are rarely feasible and cover many years with multiple parties involved. Commonly, long-term resources available for the suggested institutional, technical logistics, and methodological leadership that are proposed are not available. From a policy development perspective, to arrange for all of these above goals for all countries in the world, in one perfect development round, is virtually impossible. The necessary experiences, data, resources, and cooperation of actors are never available on time and in a balanced way. Moreover, the perspective toward the societal impacts and relevancies is very different for countries. Simply said, different priorities are based on the specific cultural and national context. Complex systems like take-back and recycling therefore require a growth model and many years to develop to higher performance levels as can be witnessed from the implementations in many of the established countries. This is the reason why in this and the next chapters, a more iterative approach is proposed.

2.2.3 The need for a more fact-based approach If you cannot label it, you cannot measure it. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. An independent, continuous, and structured search for key data related to the performance of the national e-waste system is not luxury but very instrumental to a fast, forward-looking, focused, and flexible development. Therefore it is recommended to systematically conduct assessment of the collection and treatment infrastructure and the system’s environmental, economic, and social impacts. Analysis of technical performance supports the selection of options independently to enhance the development of e-waste management significantly. Besides direct tangible results, a more factbased communication pattern with actors holding the data and thus the system controls pushes also for better alignment of long-term objectives. At the same time, in the long run, unnecessary costs and environmental impacts are prevented. Countries able to tap into targeted assessment can benefit from research capacity and are likely tuned to base policy development on available facts and thus also more capable, faster, and more ecoefficient in their development pace. Therefore, we present the structure of

30 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

Assessment

Interventions Development areas

Country status Collecion Treatment

Impact assessment Environmental Economic Social

Fact based and prioritised implementation roadmap

Policy and legislation Business and finance Technology and skills

Implementation Monitoring and control Education and awareness Design feedback

n FIGURE 2.2 The assessment versus interventions part of the e-waste development cycle.

the development cycle in two parts as illustrated in Fig. 2.2. In order to provide better clues in improving management, one needs to structure and label what parts are essential for developing national e-waste systems, which in turn forms the basis for assessment of the current situation, the thresholds, and the potential to improve. Therefore, the left-hand side of Fig 2.2 described in this chapter as well as in Chapter 3 provides the structure and assessment framework. The right-hand side described in Chapters 4 and 5 focuses more on the actual policy interventions and the management part in providing for different development stage experiences, tools, and improvement potential that are based upon the left-hand assessment side of Fig. 2.2.

2.2.4 Learning by doing One size does not fit all. This is one of the most important lessons drawn from years of experience in e-waste system development. 1. Many documents and discussions on the principles behind e-waste system development exist. However, principles do not bring change by themselves, only learning by doing provides direct feedback on what works well and what does not. Here, there is a difference between blindly copy-pasting versus learning from free experiences observed elsewhere. There are of course many free lessons from other parts of the world, in particular where the roles of physics, money, and technology are very similar. Local conditions can differ substantially, hence implementing free lessons from elsewhere to these conditions are preferable over lengthy discussion rounds about principles and what-if scenarios. Especially as mentioned in Section 2.1.2 for starting countries,

2.2 The need for a more iterative approach 31

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

initiating the process by running small collections and dismantling pilots is significantly speeding up the development process. The development inevitably costs money. This shows that from the start a decision who will pay and how needs to be taken as early as possible and adapted when needed. It will get broader acceptance when the chosen (initial or existing) financing level is transparent, delivering maximum performance and is as low as possible. Government entities can have an initiating, leading, and coordinating role, but need partners to execute policy measures. Here, a practical form that is not often selected is to establish a coordination group that includes, besides government, also producers and recyclers (or their associations). The advantage is that in this case there are always two out of three (government and recyclers) in favor of collecting as much as possible and of high quality and two out of three in favor of keeping costs as low as possible. More direct communication also stimulates working together to make the development a national success. Jointly starting or updating a national implementation plan is another benefit. Such plans can be compared against other experiences in the world and further supported by scientific research and technology development work. Products do not come back as individual pieces but as streams. Besides managing collection and the financing of treatment, also monitoring of the system is crucial. Since not every consumer, business, trader, and recycler will behave conscientious since making extra money at the expense of the environment is often tempting. That is why mapping and researching the type and size of informal treatment is relevant information. This forms the basis for attempting to maximize the inclusion of informal sectors and metal scrap traders as much as possible into the system, which in turn might even reduce the amount of rules in the long run without losing environmental benefits. The issue of noncompliance also requires pragmatic intervention by means of enforcement. Some of the less desired environmental practices are less impacting than others. Simply said, when for example washing machines end up in car shredders, this is far less an environmental concern than when this happens with CFC-containing refrigerators. Since one cannot control every individual piece of discarded electronics, differentiation towards types of e-waste will be needed to steer limited enforcement resources to the highest urgencies. Certain things are unpredictable. There is a wide range of external conditions that affect the implementation process. Hence, also legislation can be designed in a more dynamic way covering the basic elements in the core document from the start and connected implementing rules

32 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

in separate acts, implementing decisions, guidance documents, and FAQ’s. This allows for much quicker adaptation when actual development requires new directions. Such implementing decisions can later be formalized when needed in a second or third development round. Following the introduction of Section 2.1 and the rationale in Section 2.2 explaining why there is a need for a different approach to e-waste system development since countries are in very different development stages, the next Section 2.3 proposes the newly developed e-waste development cycle explaining what the steps are that can be taken and in which order.

2.3 THE E-WASTE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE Sometimes you go faster when running in circles. The main aim of policy analysis is best summarized by Thomas R. Dye: “Policy-analysis is finding out what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes” (Dye, 1976). E-waste policies can only be effective when they go beyond the realm of explanations and programs and are realized as intended by the plans for implementation. During this process various realization elements or phases can be observed in which the various actors play different roles. If these phases are pictured as forming part of a close series, the result is the policy cycle, a model of an iterative process. This in turn allows policies to be viewed as a process of problem solving, which can be divided into different sequences. This ewaste development cycle is combined with specific methods developed in the StEP community and over 20 years of experience in fact-based scientific support to different actors and countries (StEP initiative, 2018). Multiple research projects in different regions have been performed, from which valuable lessons are converted into this chapter. This includes knowledge from (Huisman, 2003; Huisman et al., 2003), which provided a first systemically conducted environmental and economic impact assessment applied to the review of the original European Union WEEE Directive (European Parliament and Council, 2003, 2012). This resulted in the extended impact assessment and listing of options to improve the European e-waste take-back and recycling regulations (Huisman et al., 2008). Furthermore, various StEP, UNU, TU Delft, and EMPA publications are used as a basis for Fig. 2.3 (Huisman et al., 2006; Stevels, 2007; Huisman et al., 2008; Huisman and Stevels, 2008; Gregory et al., 2009; StEP initiative, 2009; StEP initiative, 2010; GIZ, 2011; Wang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013a,b; Wang, 2014; StEP initiative, 2014; Magalini et al., 2016a,b; StEP initiative, 2016; Baldé et al., 2017; StEP initiative, 2018;

2.3 The e-waste development cycle 33

Existing policies

Stakeholder analysis

Problem definition

1.Assessment: country status Collection

Technologies

2. Assessment: collection and treatment infrastructure Monitoring and control

Education and awareness

Design feedback

Environmental impacts

Economic impacts

Social impacts

6. Conditions for success 3. Assessment : societal impacts Intervention options

Prioritisation of interventions

5. Implementation roadmap

Development framework

Policy and legislation

Business and finance 4. Development areas

n FIGURE 2.3 The e-waste development cycle.

Huisman, 2012; Schluep, 2012a; Schluep et al., 2012b; Mendéz e Fajardo et al., 2017; Magalini and Huisman, 2018; SRI project, 2018). The presented dynamic development cycle of Fig. 3.2 is meant to provide guidance on the complexity of the development process. It illustrates the key building blocks needed for successful take-back system development. As explained in Section 2.2, the left-hand side includes structured assessment, problem definition, and review of the status of collection and treatment infrastructure. This in turn forms the basis for environmental, economic, and social impact assessment (Chapter 3). The right-hand side represents the implementation steps including the key development areas being “Policy and Legislation,” “Business and Finance,” and “Technology and Skills” (Chapter 4). These three defined development areas are also commonly present in existing approaches and are positioned in Fig 3.2 at the heart of the development process. Chapter 5 provides guidance on how to align interventions from the previous three development areas in a structured manner. This in turn forms the basis for a national development road map. Sections 5.2e5.5 describes the prioritization and selection process for decisionmaking, as well as the timing, resources, and responsibilities needed for

Technology and skills

34 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

implementation. In Section 5.6 three commonly used development areas, being “Monitoring and Control,” “Education and Awareness,” and “Design Feedback” are positioned slightly differently compared to existing approaches. The reason is that they are important conditions and in particular Monitoring and Control requires continuous attention as it forms the necessary evaluation basis for starting a new development round. The development cycle is designed for use by all stakeholders that have a role in the take-back and recycling system and for policy makers specifically. It provides structure and overview of practices and tools that match best for specific situations prevailing in different countries, rather than being a description of “good or bad” practices. Although not used as a basis for the development cycle, after developing the approach of Fig. 2.3 and the finalization of this chapter as well as in Chapters 3e5, it was observed that it is rather similar to the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) approach used, for example, in the Environmental Management Systems Standard ISO 14001 (ISO, 2015). In this regard, the Plan stage is similar to the Country Status in red on the top left of Fig. 2.3. The Do phase is rather similar to the Development areas, and Implementation road map in blue on the right. The Assessment of Infrastructure and Impacts part in orange on the left is similar to the Check stage, sometimes also referred to as the Study stage (PDSA). The bottom green part on the right representing the actual Implementation part is similar to the Act stage of the PDCA approach. Despite these “accidental” similarities, the proposed approach here in Chapter 2, however, is not (intended to be) matching one to one with the ISO approach. The first reason is that there are multiple actors and organizations involved that do not nicely follow the structured approach since e-waste systems develop in a rather complex and partly unpredictable manner. The development is not a software product, (environmental) management system nor a production process that can usually be much more controlled. Therefore, the application of this structured approach is not strictly following the PDCA steps as it can delay the development process itself when one meticulously waits for each stage to be completed. The advice is rather to use the relevant parts and experiences presented in Chapters 3e5 to improve, steer, and speed up the ongoing process where possible. The idea behind the structure provided above is to illustrate elements required or improve successful take-back system development, which can be used proactively. Obviously there can be tension between a well-structured and timed approach and the complex and commonly chaotic play of things in reality. The fact that many actors are directly and indirectly involved makes it inherently difficult to arrange everything in perfect balance right from the

2.3 The e-waste development cycle 35

beginning. Therefore, it is important to highlight how the proposed experience-based approach can be used in practice. The main idea behind Fig 3.2 is that it should not be consumed as a “full menu” but relevant elements be selected “à la carte,” depending on the national situation. This à la carte idea is explained further with five “f’s”: n

n

n

n

n

First of all, those involved at the heart of the process, the development cycle, allows to be much more forward looking by means of illustrating the next stages one can take in the development. Secondly, the approach also brings more focusdnot everything is equally important in each round nor can all wishes be accommodated in one single round. Thirdly, leaving sufficient room for later adaptation and additions in a subsequent round that are not necessarily included in the present stage provides much more balance in the efforts to achieve the desired progress in a feasible manner and concentrates scarce resources to the most pressing issues. Fourthly, since the development process can be rather unpredictable, the à la carte and “learning by doing” nature of the approach provides flexibility as an important element in the process. Finally, timeliness is a major issue since basically all of the developed countries have struggled and debated long over major and minor items in the policy framework, thus severely slowing down actual implementation. Here, the urgency of the problem combined with the rapid changes in the electronics sector require a faster approach that focuses more on maintaining a good development pace rather than having the ultimate perfect policy framework.

To fuel a higher development pace, flexibility and some level of opportunistic forward looking in setting new goals is recommended. Therefore, considerable focus is given to the development of a policy framework that clearly describes the basic goals, principles, and mechanisms without describing every single detail. Here, proper balancing between the policy framework and implementation rules is considered crucial. By means of the e-waste development cycle, this chapter and the next Chapters 3e5 are postulating and trying to answer the following key questions: 1. What were the global and national responsibilities of some sample countries as regards the e-waste problem? How and to what extent did they have direct and indirect impact on environment and development? 2. Who were the key national actors and institutions formulating, implementing, and evaluating the e-waste policies, and how did they do it? 3. What is the net effect of these policies?

36 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

4. How could these policies be strengthened? What are the future perspectives, and what could the countries learn from each other? The next sections elaborate on the first step of the development cycle, including the description and evaluation of the country status (Section 2.4), which includes stakeholder analysis (Section 2.5), analysis of existing and adjacent policies (Section 2.6), and problem definition (Section 2.7), forming the starting point for Chapters 3 and 4.

2.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTRY STATUS For all countries, a key starting question is:

n

Step 1: What is the status quo? Who is doing what?

A first component for steering the development of e-waste systems is the description and understanding of the status quo in the country. The aim of the step is to have a structural assessment of the country status and who is involved in what and to understand existing or missing roles and responsibilities. The rationale of this step is to acquire more information about who can deliver to the intended goals. These country-dependent goals can for instance be increasing control over toxics, improving efficiency of measures by maximizing gains of recycling and reducing costs or social improvements. It is important to understand and describe who is organizationally necessary for the achievement of such goals and who affects success or failure in the development the national e-waste system. To address this, the first part of the assessment half of the development cycle of Fig. 2.3 (in red) is a mere qualitative description starting with a stakeholder analysis to identify key roles and actors as described in Section 2.5. Secondly, the national development of specific e-waste policies should be related to and aligned with related national and international policies and regulations as described in Section 2.6. Thirdly, from the analysis, a country-specific qualitative definition of focus areas becomes the start for both further assessments in the next stage as well as input for the description of development areas in Section 2.7.

2.5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND INITIAL CONSULTATIONS Who is involved in what is the first general but crucial question. Stakeholder analysis is the first step to understand who is and potentially can

2.5 Stakeholder analysis and initial consultations 37

be involved and a way to recapture who has been involved to what extent in actual implementations for emerging and established countries after previous development efforts. Obviously, specific socioeconomic conditions like the presence of relevant actors, cultural influences, and geographical aspects determine when and where interventions and changes in e-waste take-back and recycling systems can be made. It is recommended to perform stakeholder analyses or so-called value chain analyses, which also includes the data, processes, and value-added services (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001). The aim is a practical identification of what is unique for the specific country as well as identifying what is very common in comparison to other countries. Analyzing the roles of key players and their respective roles as well as the information flows in the country or region is particularly helpful to understand the problems in the next step. Simple mapping of the type and number of actors involved in all stages of market inflows, outflows, collection, reuse, trade, and treatment is very useful for understanding the mechanisms and thresholds in the current or future system. It forms a relevant starting point for possible solutions. Secondly, it also provides a structured overview in case dedicated stakeholder consultations are organized, like the approach in Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017) for starting countries or in case of country studies for emerging and established countries like in Huisman et al. (2012b) and Magalini et al. (2012)when more elaborate quantitative assessment is needed. Specifically for issues that are similar compared to other countries, one can build on solutions that worked in countries with comparable conditions or avoid those that have proven not to work.

2.5.1 Starting countries For countries starting with e-waste legislation, specific key questions to answer are:

n n

Which parts of the governmental organization have to be involved? Which partners outside government have to be looked for? Are they merely absent, present but not functioning properly, or do working relations not yet exist?

Since there is no existing evaluation of the current status in the country, the first step here for starting countries to identify “all basic information” that is retrievable. This includes information that is raised and transferred by different groups, individuals and institutions involved in the process, in a

38 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

timely and very basic manner. In most cases, when e-waste starts to become the subject of public debate and on the political agenda, usually no or very limited analysis framework exists. As a consequence, naturally these countries start to look at developed countries. The risk here is to overlook what is already available inside the country itself. Subsequently, there is copypasting of measures that are not transferable due to missing government and other actors, as well as capabilities not or not yet existing. It is advised to look internally first to which government entities can be involved, like the Ministry of Environment, Economy/Industry, Heath/Safety, Interior, and other executing agencies like a waste agency, customs, port and border authorities, and tax offices. Assuming there (temporarily) is a single leading organization, then also organization of events with recyclers, producers, importing, and reuse or other consumer organizations can be organized in second instance. Simultaneously, identifying internal or external (international) experts in the process for independent and experienced guidance is highly recommended and often a catalyst in the speed and focus of the development process. For example, besides containing a well-structured but linear assessment approach Schluep et al. (2012b) provides several useful templates for surveying various stakeholders developed by the Sustainable Recycling Industries (SRI) project, to provide a more structured and theoretical framework for the policy design process, particularly regarding the organization of stakeholder consultations and installing a systemic design team (Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017). When feasible, as suggested by the SRI project, it can certainly contribute to select an institutional, technical, and methodological leader. However, in the majority of cases, many more stakeholders are involved. These are frequently from different organizations having a vote in the process as well as. Secondly, due to frequent personnel changes over time, the suggested leadership cannot be sustained by few individuals. As a result, the development process and resulting stakeholder influence to it are generally more unpredictable and chaotic compared to the proposed ideal schema. Therefore, the analysis in this and the next stages requires more an à la carte approach in an à la carte world. What is common, though, is that it is recommended to have key representatives from the institutional side and academic or knowledge institutes trained and available in the future in a reviewing and supporting role. These researchers are preferably from the home country itself who understand the local conditions and can be available also in the longer term. Where needed they can be accompanied by knowledgeable international experts. As a first task in the development, doing a structured stakeholder analysis (even in the simplest form),

2.5 Stakeholder analysis and initial consultations 39

inventory of policies, and clear problem definition for the individual country is a valuable task that enhances the knowledge base for the national researchers. The stakeholder analysis is ideally organized parallel to stakeholder consultation to obtain data from the sector more directly. This supports the qualitative description of current issues and enables to find common ground in identifying possible solutions. Later in the process, one can start to also (re) describe possible roles of those involved. Recommended is to identify who is situated the best to tackle actual problems based on describing the needs, possible means and mandate to execute measures and how to avoid overlaps. These initial discussions should form the basis for identifying who is best positioned to be in charge for what elements and which entity ultimately takes the leadership on the implementation itself. This is an important basis for the later development of actual legislation and avoids developing legally sound measures but without the actors being present and able to convert them into action.

2.5.2 Emerging and established countries For emerging and developing countries, the focus is more to review the presences and roles of those already involved in case of a second and third loop. In particular, lack of progress can be related to the insufficient functioning, missing working relations, or the absence altogether of certain actors. The stakeholder analysis allows obtaining a deeper insight into the values and powers of the identified actors and the types and relevancy of the flows of money, power, and information. The aim of this step is to qualitatively describe the general situation of the e-waste value chain and in particular the role of those who are or should possibly be involved. Thus, key questions in this case are more related to the functioning and the dynamics between actors:

n

n

How are government entities, producers, consumers, recyclers, and waste traders currently organized? Are they all functioning as desired? From the previous implementation round (when conducted), what is the advice from academia and or experienced consultants and knowledge institutes? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the system at large?

40 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

Whereas for starting countries the stakeholder analysis can be relatively simply, for emerging and established countries it is advised to measure progress of stakeholders in more tangible ways, for instance, in the form of specific performance criteria. The need for this is that generally speaking, issues remain due to the complexity of the e-waste domain. Generally, there is substantial room for improvement in collection and recycling as well as in the efficiency of resources consumed. More often than not, this is due too little or too much coordination and frozen political positions of various actors. An externally steered and independent value chain analysis can be helpful to identify and describe stalled development. The results of such analysis can be based on the existing monitoring and control framework (when existing, see also Section 5.6) and by using the value chain analysis here again in a more in-depth manner. To facilitate this process and to provide more clarity, the following elements can be actively pursued by one or multiple stakeholders in order to increase understanding of the nature and size of the issues at stake: n

n

n

n

n

What are the current and desired roles of the current actors involved also in relation to existing policies and standards? What elements are the existing stakeholders satisfied about and what not? Who else is involved in collection and logistics, treatment, financing, registration, monitoring, reporting, and currently still not included in the system? What current environmental issues have their priorities and perspectives changed from gaining more insights from existing evaluations? What is the level and nature of inappropriate treatment in formal, informal, or not reported sectors? What are the costs involved in various stages and are there specifically high levels or inefficiencies reported?

In order to answer these questions, various tools exist to support the analysis. First of all, various reports and academic references have compared the implementation by various countries. Secondly, regular and wellstructured stakeholder consultations that preferably also include the inspection authorities and monitoring agencies when existing can be organized (Schluep et al., 2012). Structured and recurring dialogues between recyclers, consumers, producers, and government can support raising the necessary information by different groups, individuals, and institutions related to the existing performance of the system (MéndezeFajardo et al., 2017). Thirdly, a dedicated market survey can be performed by experts. The analysis usually includes a renewed and more quantitative mapping of actors in the recycling chain; qualitative description of environmental issues; the level and nature of

2.6 Inventory of existing policies 41

Import of e-waste and near Institutional & end of life EEE corporate consumer Second-hand industry

1 Distributors & retailers of used EEE

Refurbishers & repairers

Global industry

Communal collection

Consumer dumps e-waste with household waste

Formal recycling industry

Secondary resources are not recovered

Under harmful conditions Informal sector

Informal collectors/ scrap dealers

Private consumer

Official dumpsites

4

Emissions to the environment

Informal recycling

3

2 n FIGURE 2.4 Example of the mapping of actors and problems. Schluep, M., 2012. Reference Document on e-Waste Management. A. Mkama and C. Zavazava, ITU.

inappropriate treatment in formal, informal, or not reported sectors; and the levels and types of inappropriate disposal. For countries going through a second or third round, information from the evaluation phase should be added. Some mapping examples are presented in a graphical way at the end of Section 2.7 in Fig. 2.4. The aim of such an exercise should not be analysis alone but to define a basis to refocus on the long-term development goals. Hence, the outcomes are both the basis for setting new and more quantitative research questions related to collection and recycling infrastructure and the societal impact assessment of the current system as well as a new starting point for developing a new long-term implementation road map (see Section 5.4). All of this follow-up requires stakeholder interactions and commitment that comes from the actors themselves, supported by the (where then needed revised) legal framework and its actual implementation.

2.6 INVENTORY OF EXISTING POLICIES After having evaluated the stakeholder behavior in the previous section, closely related to it is the scan of what policies are already in place or not related to the national e-waste related ones (when existing). E-waste policies are often not developed as stand-alone policies and are embedded in more general solid waste policies and other related regulations, standards, and agreements, for instance, regarding restricted use of substances of concern, product design, other waste-type legislation like for batteries and vehicles, import and export rules for waste, waste treatment permits and licenses and standards, as well as organizational and financial requirements.

Informal dumping burning

5

42 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

The outcome of the stakeholder analysis step should be compared (again) and related to any existing policies and (international) regulations. Most countries usually have some form of generic legislation related to waste management, environmental management, and/or health-and-safety regulations on which one can further build on and align with. Other countries have already successfully implemented e-waste legislation and policies and require mere fine-tuning to better cover specific environmental goals, implementation needs, or updates due to technical and scientific progress. The same counts for prevention-related policies like Design for Recycling requirements (DfR), which will be discussed in Section 5.8, and restrictions to hazardous substances (European Parliament and Council, 2011), collection requirements, export/import bans like the Basel Convention (1989) and more dedicated or region-specific guidelines related to reuse and export. Additionally, the outcomes of a previous evaluation phase provide first clues for revising or terminating existing, double, or conflicting requirements and identification of elements previously missing.

2.6.1 Starting countries For many starting countries, there is no dedicated legislation at all (Baldé et al., 2017), let alone standards specifically for e-waste. In almost all cases though, the Basel Convention is adopted regulating the imports of hazardous wastes. The Basel Convention establishes procedures and control regimes for the shipment of waste, depending on the origin, destination, and route of the shipment, the type of waste shipped, and the type of treatment to be applied to the waste at its destination. It applies to e-waste as well and arranges what is allowed for export from OECD to non-OECD countries as discussed in the Deliverable 3.3 of the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) project. However, the implementation is often far from perfect, and in particular the cooperation between sending and receiving countries leaves room for improvement (Huisman et al., 2015). In order to maximize synergies in their effect and to avoid overlaps, misalignments, and imbalances, key questions to be answered at this stage for starting countries are:

n

How is the e-waste issue to be positioned in the national policies? Which national and international regulations, policies, and standards are already in place? Which entity is currently responsible for them?

2.6 Inventory of existing policies 43

Here, several tools and documentations exist with guidance on the policies and regulations mentioned. Since waste imports are frequently a concern for starting countries, besides the international rules, supporting documents and trainings are already available for customs and enforcement agencies. The CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015) has an elaborate mapping and set of overviews on the rules and regulations and their implementation and an elaborate recommendations road map. The successor DOTCOM.waste project in particular has established an online library that can be consulted (DOTCOM Waste project, 2017) and dedicated training materials in the form of a toolkit (only accessible for law enforcement agencies). More information on the development of national e-waste legislation itself follows later in Section 5.2. Finally, see also Chapter 23 in this book regarding Africa (Schluep, 2018).

2.6.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries with a first established e-waste policy, a key question is:

n

How are the regulations in place functioning and how can implementation be improved by related standards, guidelines, and other legislation?

For these emerging countries, quite often some patchwork exists and minor adjustments will not be sufficient for not matching major issues. A broader program after the initial round needs to be developed to tackle the more complex issues. In particular, developing both adequate and achievable collection and recycling goals based on the first rounds of experience is needed. This sometimes requires drastic revision to the original framework to enable change for issues where initial expectations did not materialize. In addition, the alignment with related policies and standards that focus more on the operational aspects need to be more targeted. Deubzer (2012) provides a thorough overview of the types of standards, principles, requirements, and certifications steps applicable. Chapter 6 of this handbook (Herreras and Leroy, 2018) provides valuable background behind the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) standard for WEEE for Europe. Finally, ISO (2017) also has developed guidance principles for the sustainability of secondary metals for international use.

44 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

2.6.3 Established countries For established countries, a key question is:

n

What are the structural obstacles that cannot easily be tackled to further improve collection and recycling?

For developed countries there are plenty of studies and assessments; see in particular also the related chapters in this book regarding Europe (Ylä-Mella and Román, 2018), China (Zeng and Li, 2018), India (SinhaeKhetriwal, 2018), and Japan (Yoshida, 2018). What can be observed is that in many cases structural and complex issues remain that are subject to recurring discussions but not fully tackled. Commonly, these issues are related to a significantly sized complementary trading and recycling sector and structural issues with not being able to economically reward more collection and higher quality of treatment as well as the insufficient monitoring and enforcement of noncompliance. In these cases there will be no easy policy fix that generates results quickly. The way to progress here is to enter a new development round with a specific redefinition of the problem, targeted analysis of the cause, and formulation of new interventions. For established countries, the nature of these issues is discussed at the end of Section 2.7.3.

2.7 PROBLEM (RE)DEFINITION From the analysis of the actors and the policies in the previous step, an initial problem definition is extracted. In case of a second or later development cycle, outcomes of the previous implementation round are included in the problem analysis here. Obviously the problems are commonly very different for starting countries, emerging countries, and established countries. For starting countries, existing sources describing the problem definition are commonly available. In Chapter 1 of this book, Kuehr (2018) and Baldé et al. (2017) provide a clear overview and multiple sources with respect to e-waste legislation initiation. Many StEP documents (Gregory et al., 2009; StEP Initiative, 2010; Schluep et al., 2012; StEP, 2016; Magalini et al., 2017a,b; Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017) are instrumental in determining the definitions and scope of e-waste products to be covered or not covered, product design interventions and determining the necessity of prevention-related measures, improvement of collection levels and treatment quality, both in

2.7 Problem (re)definition 45

formal and in informal sectors. The majority of these sources focus on a qualitative description of the issues at stake. Obviously, for starting countries there is ample (semi-)quantitative information available. Therefore, setting a clear problem definition at this stage should also make explicit what data and information exists and what does not exist for the identified issues.

2.7.1 Starting countries For starting countries, thus a key question is:

n

What are the dominant issues, the scope and magnitude of the problem within the e-waste domain?

These issues can be rather common for all starting countries as well as very specifically related to unique country conditions. The latter can relate to specific environmental impacts related to treatment practices and high toxicity levels for specifically present informal sectors (Puckett and Byster, 2002). The same counts for instance for undesired imports and exports, which can vary significantly depending on the geographic location and economic conditions. Large economic differences do occur between countries or even for regions in one and the same country due to, for instance, differences in population densities, wages, employment rates, and the size of formal and informal sectors. Other country-specific organizational problem areas can be lack of information and research (capacity) needed as a basis for further development, lack of finances or financial incentives for improving collection, and treatment quality. Related to infrastructure status, also lack of operational standards in logistics and treatment can play a role. More common types of issues occurring in most starting countries are related to typical discarding behavior of consumers due to lack of awareness and education on the related environmental problems. In addition, significant imports of e-waste, informal reuse, repair and cherry-picking practices, lack of formal collection infrastructure, lack of treatment capacity, and expensive return logistics are rather common. Frequently, this is also accompanied by weak governing structures and relatively poor economic situations. Although for many countries seemingly more urgent economic and social development problems exist, arranging for proper waste treatment can still assist significantly in the overall development as indicated with the link between the SDGs in Section 2.1.1. Hence, e-waste system development needs to be synchronized with the overall country’s economic

46 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

Table 2.2 Possible stakeholder involvement in the e-waste system development (Gregory et al., 2009) Directly active and primary stakeholders

Indirectly active and secondary stakeholders

Legislators: Responsible for legal consistency and for transposition and interpretations of the WEEE Directive’s environmental intent. Prime stakeholder for checking compliance of others, should avoid free riders and illegal imports/exports, low quality (licensing requirements) of treatment and of level playing fields regarding financing.

Producers can have three types of responsibilities:

Compliance schemes/producer responsibility organizations (PROs): Responsible for practical execution and efficient and effective organization via economies of scale, PR, auditing recyclers, and possibly via funding of research. Recyclers: Treatment quality and monitoring of outgoing material fractions. Repair and trade associations: Responsible for repairs, life-time extension, and imports of used products

Financially: If applicable, the financing mechanism itself should not promote doing less effort. n Organizationally: Producers are the only stakeholders with global organizing and logistic capabilities and potentially via their sales (and return) channels. n Product design: End-of-life and restrictions on substances aspects need to be balanced in general eco-design directions. Municipalities, retailers and informal collectors: Responsible for accessible local collection, avoiding illegal trading and “cherry picking,” and educating local consumers. n

Consumers: Responsible for collection at designated collection points. Door-to-door collectors: Responsible for effective collection and the initial trade of products toward reuse, repair, recycling, and also discarding of remainders.

development agenda. Here it is crucial that the financing mechanism as a minimum enables cost efficient collection and treatment and creates jobs for workers in a safe and environmentally sound manner. It should simultaneously also not terminate existing repair and trade jobs but rather convert and professionalize the informal sectors involved (Wang et al., 2012). Hence the explicit financial questions need to be quantified, as well as the intended costs and benefits of possible measures. A nonprescriptive example of the mapping of stakeholders and their possible roles in the form of a simple and generic matrix is converted from Gregory et al. (2009). It describes which stakeholders can be invited directly and indirectly related to their possible roles in the actual stakeholder consultation and later implementation stages (Table 2.2). A country-specific problem (re)definition can include qualitative description of the e-waste flows and status of reuse in formal and informal sectors. The key questions for this stage are to determine which products are to be included in the scope, which current pollution-related practices really need to be stopped, how basic collection can be arranged, as well as rough

2.7 Problem (re)definition 47

estimates of the costs involved for collection as well as treatment. For the latter, also a listing of possible facilities and the way they are organized should be developed. Many publications and tools exist, specifically also designed to assist young researchers to develop themselves regarding this matter as specialists for their home country. See, for instance, the StEP E-waste Academy series (UNU, 2018) with dedicated programs for scientists, managers, and policy makers as well as the dedicated tools for enforcement agencies (DOTCOM Waste, 2017).

2.7.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, key questions are:

n

What are the root causes for lack of progress? Are these primarily technical, economic, or organizational?

For emerging countries in the process of a first review of the implementation, the main message is not to accept lack of progress. Whereas the initial steps supposedly tackled the most pressing issues and pollution, starting a second round requires another focus more tuned to developing the system. Hence a more comprehensive redefinition of the issues at stake is usually required. It is observed that very often policies in emerging countries are very technically oriented, focusing on the use of specific preprocessing and end-of-life processing technologies (Li et al., 2015), but with less focus on the organization and economic circumstances to implement this. Organizational challenges can originate from not involving all stakeholders from the beginning or from not yet adequately tackling the economic and logistic challenges in the collection and recycling chains. Also often a limited scope of products is selected in the first round, which can be up for expansion to capture more types of e-waste. Hence, the basis of the initial policy needs to be widened beyond the priorities of the first development round. With all external documentations available, this exercise does not necessary request highly skilled international researchers. As an example, Fig. 2.4 is a graphical presentation of the main flows, key issues and their intervention locations in the end-of-life chain, derived from Schluep et al. (2012a). This research approach can easily be replicated by (new) researchers for the situation in the respective countries.

48 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

2.7.3 Established countries For established countries, a key question is:

n

How can collection rates be maximized and quality of treatment be economically rewarded?

Almost all emerging and established countries face structural issues in maximizing collection closer to the actual waste-generated volumes (Huisman et al., 2012b; Huisman et al., 2015; Magalini et al., 2015; Magalini et al., 2016a,b; Baldé et al., 2017; Odeyingbo et al., 2017). Similarly, they also struggle to economically reward higher quality in treatment and avoid the widespread trade and scavenging of the most valuable products and components (Magalini and Huisman, 2018) and how to recover also materials regarded critical but without sufficient concentrations or value to be recovered in existing treatment configurations (Huisman et al., 2017). The reuse value of e-waste is well known by local traders and collection points. Transferring ownership to producer responsibility organizations (PROs) and arranging for logistics and quality treatment generally costs more than the intrinsic material value. In most cases, these issues are recognized but the organizational and financing structures remain untouched, thus not leading to needed restructuring of the collection schemes. Even after many years of development both the flows and economics behind scavenging, export, and trade of second-hand equipment is commonly partially and only qualitatively understood and rarely described in more quantitative detail for roughly one-third of the waste flows (Huisman et al., 2015; Magalini and Huisman, 2018). Here it is advised to restart discussions on the objectives of the system and reorient how collection and recycling can be steered better economically beyond minimum compliance. Very often various forms of noncompliance are widely known and need to be reversed. It is recommended to develop a set of remediation and penalty measures when the legal framework is continuously violated. When a structured mapping of actors and the performance of existing policies is made on the basis of the previous steps, then the problem (re)definition can be improved. It is recommended to explicitly identify the specific places in the value chain where intervention can be done better to allow monitoring and enforcement to be applied more targeted. Finally, where information is missing, additional impact assessment and market surveys can be performed to better describe the renewed problem formulation as explained in the next Chapter 3.

2.7 Problem (re)definition 49

Regional

National

Container/waste processors 70

Incineration

Local

Retailer 3000+

Transport compliance system

FSC/DC compliance system

80% reuse Second hand market* 1000+

Households

Door-to-door collectors 500 – 1000

20% disposal Transport compliance system

Small business

Compliance scheme flows RSC compliance system

Municipal collection point 400 – 500 Regional scrap processor 80/e-waste processors 15

National (9) foreign recyclers (border areas)

End of logistic chain national recyclers 9

Regional processors 100–200 Complementary flow

Local collectors 1,000–2,000

Own contract Own contract Businesses

Refurbisher 4

Traders buy materials locally or regionally *Charity initiatives, 2nd hand shops,marktplaats.nl, domeinen, mobile phone collection

Export second hand appliances, e-waste, components complementary flow

n FIGURE 2.5 Example of a more quantitative mapping of actors. From Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P. and Wielenga, C.A., 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows, 2012b, United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany, March 15, 2012.

An example of a more detailed analysis of both the actual number of actors and the flows of e-waste at different levels can be found in Fig. 2.5 from the Dutch Future Flows study (Huisman et al., 2012). This study conducted an extended qualitative value chain analysis with a more specific quantitative market survey for the Netherlands. This in turned formed the basis for later quantification of the national WEEE flows and various interventions in the reporting over collection of complementary recycling flows in the years after the study. A further list of existing national studies can be found in Baldé et al. (2017), which includes information about all EU member states, Australia, Cambodia, China, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Hong Kong Special Administrative region of China, India, Japan, Macau Special Administrative region of China, Mauritius, Mongolia, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saint Lucia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan Province of China, Thailand, Turkey, and the United States.

50 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

2.8 CONCLUSIONS Environmentally sound management of e-waste contributes directly and indirectly to a number of sustainable development goals (Section 2.1.2). Managing e-waste is, however, not straightforward and needs special attention. It requires a mix of policy measures and national cooperation, plus baseline studies and monitoring of progress to realize various societal goals. The proposed e-waste development cycle and the first step of the analysis of the country status lead to the following conclusions: 1. One can use the proposed e-waste development cycle and its iterative goal-oriented steps to add more structure to the national developments of both starting and well-established e-waste management infrastructure. 2. Getting facts is instrumental to set priorities and differentiate the development where needed in a more experience-based approach rather than a principles-based attempt. 3. The e-waste development cycle provides for a more systematic strategy allowing to focus more resources to the elements most relevant. 4. The stakeholder analysis clarifies how to activate and call upon the necessary cooperation of those involved. 5. The inventory of policies aims to avoid overlaps, gaps, and misalignments with related policies and formulates the starting points for the later policy development. 6. The combined description of the country status provides for a clear (re)definition of goals and the starting point for further impact assessment and describes the needs for the policy framework. All of the above steps combined should provide countries a more forwardlooking, feasible, and focused approach to solve the e-waste problem. It should also be more versatile and result in faster development compared to more unstructured or attempts aiming to provide solutions in one single round. The next crucial step in the e-waste development cycle presents a structured assessment framework evaluating the status of collection (Section 3.2) and recycling infrastructure (Section 3.3) as well as the subsequent environmental impacts (Section 3.4), economic impacts (Section 3.5) and social impacts (Section 3.6). The impact assessment in turn ideally forms the basis for the heart of the development cycle with the three key development areas presented in Chapter 4, with Policy and Legislation presented in Section 4.2, Business and Finance in Section 4.3, and Technologies and Skills in Section 4.4.

References 51

From the options derived from Chapter 4, Chapter 5 describes how to come to a national implementation road map by listing all key intervention options in Section 5.2, the selection and prioritization in Section 5.3, and converting this into an implementation road map that includes the description of timing and resources needed in Section 5.4. Finally, important and direct and indirect conditions for successful implementation are listed in Section 5.6 related to Monitoring and Control, Section 5.7 regarding Awareness and Education, and in Section 5.8 regarding Design Feedback and prevention.

DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained therein. United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous organ of the UN General Assembly dedicated to generating and transferring knowledge and strengthening capacities relevant to global issues of human security, development, and welfare. The University operates through a worldwide network of research and training centers and programs, coordinated by UNU Center in Tokyo. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the UNU, nor does citing of trade names, companies, schemes, or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

REFERENCES Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-waste Monitor e 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn, Geneva, Vienna. Basel Convention, 1989. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. Basel, March 22, 1989. Dye, T.R., 1976. What Governments Do, Why They Do it and What Difference it Makes. University of Alabama Press. Deubzer, O., 2012. Recommendations on Standards for Collection, Storage, Transport and Treatment of E-waste. Principles, Requirements and Conformity Assessment. UNU, Bonn, Germany. StEP Green Paper, June 22, 2012. DOTCOM Waste Project, 2017. http://www.dotcomwaste.eu/resources/dotcomlibrary/ and. http://www.dotcomwaste.eu/training-modules-introduction/. European Parliament and Council, 2003. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union 37, 24 (Brussels, Belgium).

52 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

European Parliament and Council, 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 4 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast). Official Journal of the European Union 197/38 (Brussels, Belgium). European Parliament and Council, 2011. Directive 2011/65/EU on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Brussels, Belgium). Ganguly, R., April, 2016. E-waste management in India e an overview. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering 9 (2), 574. Ghosh, S.K., Debnath, B., Baidya, R., De, D., Li, J., Ghosh, S.K., Zheng, L., Awasthi, A.K., Liubarskaia, M.A., Ogola, J.S., Tavares, A.N., 2017. Waste electrical and electronic equipment management and Basel Convention compliance in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) nations. Waste Management and Research 34, 693e707. GIZ, 2011. List of Literature Related to the Informal Sector in Solid Waste Management. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2011-en-bibliography.pdf. Gregory, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2009. E-waste Take-back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the e-Waste Problem (StEP) (White Paper). Herreras, L, Leroy, P., The WEEE Forum and the WEEELABEX project. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook e second ed. V. Goodship, A. Stevels and J. Huisman. Cambridge/UK Woodhead Publishing Limited Huisman, J., Boks, C.B., Stevels, A.L.N., 2003. Quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability (QWERTY): concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value. International Journal of Production Research 41 (16), 3649e3665. Huisman, J., 2003. The QWERTY/EE Concept, Quantifying Recyclability and EcoEfficiency for End-of-Life Treatment of Consumer Electronic Products Ph.D. Thesis. Delft University of Technology. Huisman, J., Stevels, A., et al., 2006. Where did WEEE go wrong in Europe? Practical and academic lessons for the US. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, pp. 83e88. Conference Record. Huisman, J., Stevels, A.L.N., 2008. Eco-efficiency as a road-mapping instrument for WEEE implementation. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal 5 (1), 30e43. Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., 2012. Eco-efficiency evaluation of WEEE take-back systems. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. Woodhead Publishing Limited, pp. 93e119. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., 2012b. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. March 15, 2012. Huisman, J., 2013. Too big to fail, too academic to function. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17/2, 172e174.

References 53

Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., August 30, 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report. Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap, Lyon, France. Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tetre, F., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A., Wäger, P., Kushnir, D., Rotter, V.S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M., Downes, S., 2017. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM) - Final Report, 978-92-808-9060-0;978-92-808-9061-7, 2017/12/21. Honda, S., Sinha Khetriwal, D., Kuehr, R., 2016. Regional E-waste Monitor: East and Southeast Asia. United Nations University ViE e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. ISBN Ebook 978-92-808-7209-5. ISO, 2015. ISO 14001:2015 (EN), Environmental Management Systems - Requirements with Guidance for Use. www.iso.org. ISO, 2017. ISO/IWA 19:2017(en), Guidance Principles for the Sustainable Management of Secondary Metals. www.iso.org. Kaplinsky, R., Morris, M., 2001. A Handbook for Value Chain Research, vol. 113. Kuehr, R., 2018. E-waste seen from a global perspective. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Lau, W.K.Y., Chung, S.S., Zhang, C.A., 2013. Material Flow Analysis on Current Electrical and Electronic Waste Disposal from Hong Kong Households. Waste Management. Li, J., Zeng, X., Chen, M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Stevels, A., 2015. Control-alt-delete: rebooting solutions for the E-waste problem. Environmental Science and Technology 49, 7095e7108, 2015. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., May 5, 2007. Management of WEEE & cost models across the EU could the EPR principle lead US to a better environmental policy?. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., Mosconi, R., Gobbi, A., Manzoni, M., Pagnoncelli, N., Scarcella, G., Alemanno, A., Monti, I., 2012. Household WEEE Generated in Italy, Analyis on Volumes & Consumer Disposal Behavior for Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Balde, C.P., Habib, H., 2015. Quantifying Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment in Romania. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Baldé, K., van Straalen, V., Hestin, M., Lecerf, L., Sayman, U., Akpulat, O., 2016a. Study on Collection Rates of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Possible Measures to be Initiated by the Commission as Required by Article 7 (4), 7 (5), 7 (6) and 7 (7) of Directive 2012/19/ EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). March 8, 2016. http://ec. europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Final_Report_Art7_publication.pdf. Magalini, F., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Rochat, D., Huisman, J., Munyambu, S., Oliech, J., Nnorom, I.C., Mbera, O., 2016b. Electronic Waste (E-waste) Impacts and Mitigation Options in the Off-Grid Renewable Energy Sector. August 2016. Evidence on Demand, UK.

54 CHAPTER 2 The e-waste development cycle e part I, introduction and country status

Magalini, F., Sinha Khetriwal, D., Munyambu, S., 2017a. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Capacity Assessment for the Management of Electronic Waste (E-waste) in the OffGrid Renewable Energy Sector in Kenya. Evidence on Demand. Magalini, F., Sinha Khetriwal, D., Mugabo, C., 2017b. Sustainable Management of Ewaste in the Off-Grid Renewable Energy Sector in Rwanda. Evidence on Demand. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., 2018. WEEE Recycling Economics, Study Commissioned by EERA, February 2018 (Bonn, Germany). Méndez-Fajardo, S., Böni, H., Hernández, H., Schluep, M., Valdivia, S., 2017. A Practical Guide for the Systemic Design of WEEE Management Policies in Developing Countries, 978-906177-17-5, SRI project, September 2017. Odeyingbo, O., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2017. Person in the Port Project: Assessing Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria. UNU-ViE SCYCLE and BCCC Africa, Bonn, Germany. December 13, 2017. Pucket, J., Byster, L., et al., 2002. Exporting Harm; The Basel Action Network. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. www.ban.org. www.svct.org. Schluep, M., 2012. Reference Document on e-Waste Management. ITU. A. Mkama and C. Zavazava. Schluep, M., Muller, E., Ott, D., Rochat, D., 2012. e-Waste Assessment Methodology, Training & Reference Manual. EMPA, Switzerland. October, 2012. Schluep, M., 2018. WEEE management in Africa. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Sinha e Khetriwal, D., 2018. WEEE management in India. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. SRI project, 2018. Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound E-waste Management for Collectors, Collection Centers, Transporters, Treatment Facilities and Final Disposal in Ghana. EPA. February 2018. StEP Initiative, 2009. One Global Understanding of Re-Use eCommon Definitions (White Paper), vol. 6, 2009, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2010. White Paper on the Revision on EU’s WEEE Directive e COM (2008) 810 Final. StEP Initiative, 2014. One Global Definition of E-waste (White Paper), June 2014, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2016. Guiding Principles to Develop E-waste Management Systems and Legislation, Solving the E-waste Problem. Step White Paper, ISSN:2071-3576 (Online), 18.01.2016, Bonn Germany. StEP Initiative, 2018. StEP Worldmap. http://www.step-initiative.org/overview-eu.html. Stevels, A.L.N., 2007. Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronic Products (1993e2007). Published Privately Now Available Through, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Amazon. com. United Nations, 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. United Nations University, 2018. The E-waste Academy for Managers (EWAM) for Smalland Medium-sized Enterprises and Policy-makers. The E-waste Academy for Scientists (EWAS) for Young Researchers. http://ewasteacademy.org/.

References 55

US EPA, 2011. US Interagency task force on electronics stewardship. In: White House Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. July 20, 2011. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146. Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Ahlquist, D., Li, J., 2013a. E-waste in China: A Country Report. ISSN: 2219-6579 (Online), April 5, 2013, Bonn Germany. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Stevels, A.L.N., Baldé, C.P., 2013b. Enhancing e-waste estimates: improving data quality by multivariate InputeOutput Analysis. Waste Management 33 (11), 2397e2407. November 1, 2013. Wang, F., 2014. E-waste: Collect More, Treat Better; Tracking Take-Back System Performance for Eco-Efficient Electronics Recycling (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. March 2014. Yang, W.S., Park, J.K., Park, S.W., Seo, Y.C., 2015. Past, present and future of waste management in Korea. Material Cycles and Waste Management 17, 207e217. Yoshida, F., Yoshida, H., 2013. E-waste management in Japan: a focus on appliance recycling. In: 8th International Conference on Waste Management and Technology. October 2013. Yoshida, F., 2018. WEEE management in Japan. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Cambridge/UK Woodhead Publishing Limited. Ylä-Mella, J., Román, E., 2018. WEEE management in Europe: learning from best practice. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Zeng, X., Li, J., 2018. WEEE management in China. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

3

The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment Jaco Huisman1, Ab Stevels2, Kees Baldé3, Federico Magalini3, 4, Ruediger Kuehr3

1

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, Ispra, Italy; 2Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 3United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany; 4Sofies, Weybridge, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

3.1 Introduction and reader’s guide 58 3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

60

Starting countries 61 Emerging countries 62 Established countries 64 Examples of e-waste quantifications

66

3.3 Treat betterdrecycling infrastructure and innovation

68

3.3.1 Starting countries 69 3.3.2 Emerging countries 70 3.3.3 Established countries 73

3.4 Pollute lessdenvironmental impacts 74 3.4.1 Starting countries 74 3.4.2 Emerging countries 75 3.4.3 Established countries 78

3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4

78

Starting countries 79 Emerging countries 80 Established countries 81 Eco-efficiency: optimizing the ratio between environmental impacts and costs 84

3.6 Work safer - social impacts 86 3.6.1 Starting countries 86 3.6.2 Emerging countries 87 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00003-3 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

57

58 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

3.6.3 Established countries

88

3.7 Conclusions 88 Disclaimer 89 References 89

3.1 INTRODUCTION AND READER’S GUIDE Chapter 3 includes the second part of the e-waste development cycle, describing the assessment of collection and treatment and the environmental, economic, and social impacts forming the factual basis for the next steps. A key question for this part is:

n

Step 2: how to collect more and treat better?

In Chapter 2, a rather qualitative approach was followed. The next stage includes a more quantitative assessment. This provides a factual basis for describing the key issues in the development process, enabling later interventions to be more targeted. The primary objectives of e-waste development are to “collect more and treat better” (Wang, 2014). The second stage of the development cycle, the quantitative assessment stage, analyzes the current collection and treatment situation in more detail. This also includes substantiation of e-waste treatment in formal and informal sectors and focuses on areas of concern identified in the previous assessment of country status. The quantitative description includes an overview of technologies available and (simple or more complex) estimates and flow analysis of e-waste streams. Both main elements combined, being collection (Section 3.2) and treatment infrastructure (Section 3.3), constitute a baseline description of e-waste amounts collected and treated properly versus substandard or out-of-sight collection and treatment. In turn, the analysis provides the necessary e-waste volume information for the environmental (Section 3.4), economic (Section 3.5), and social impact assessments (Section 3.6) that follow. It is a matter of preference whether the analysis is performed subsequently after or jointly with the previous qualitative stage. The results of the assessment phase contribute to the setting of priorities later in the next stage in Chapter 4, which are related to policy development and implementation.

3.1 Introduction and reader’s guide 59

Table 3.1 Key development questions posed (covering Chapter 3 of this handbook) Development areas

Starting countries

Emerging countries

Established countries

Step 2: how to collect more and treat better? (Sections 3.2 and 3.3) Assessment of collection

3.2.1 What basic data on ewaste volumes are available?

3.2.2 How to get better data for complementary flows?

Assessment of treatment

3.3.1 How to improve formal and informal treatment?

3.3.2 How to optimize dismantling vs. mechanical treatment?

3.2.3 What is the quality of collected and reported volumes? How much scavenging takes place? 3.3.3 How to economically reward innovation in technology?

Step 3: what are the societal impacts (environmental, economic, and social)? (Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6) Environmental impacts

3.4.1 What are the most pressing environmental issues?

Economic impacts

3.5.1 How much funding is needed to set up the initial infrastructure?

Social conditions

3.6.1 How many jobs are involved and what are the working conditions in the informal sector? (Continue to step 4: Policy and Legislation, Business and

3.4.2 How to maximize the environmental performance per collection category? 3.5.2 How to direct financing to treat complex fractions efficiently?

3.6.2 What are new job opportunities? How to improve health and safety?

3.4.3 How to improve the environmental performance of complementary recycling? 3.5.3 How to realize a level playing field? 3.5.4 How to optimize the eco-efficiency of the system? 3.6.3 How to enhance consumer education?

Finance, and Technologies and Skills)

Specific questions are highlighted in the following Table 3.1 and for the full reader’s guide covering the Chapters 2e5, see Table 2.1: Like in Chapter 2, to support tackling these key development questions, for each step in the development cycle proposed in Section 2.3, the following approach is taken for “starting,” “emerging,” and “established” countries (as defined in Section 2.1.2): 1. Aim of the step in the development cycle: a description of why the step is needed, the rationale and focus behind it, and its position in the development cycle in relation to other parts. 2. Characterization, key questions (per type of country): characterization of the status in a country by means of elaborating on the above key questions rather than simply providing “precooked” answers. 3. Common issues, experiences, and recommendations: a description of the most observed common issues and of the probable tasks ahead.

60 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

4. Possible tools and information sources: a short listing of potential tools, experiences, and information sources available in the national and international domain.

3.2 COLLECT MOREdE-WASTE QUANTIFICATIONS Evaluation of the collection pathways and size of the EEE products placed on market (POM) and the amounts of e-waste generated, collected, and treated is relevant. This includes describing the market of EEE and WEEE in more quantitative terms as far as trading and recycling flows, e-waste in residual waste, and import and export amounts. There are obviously very different infrastructures and knowledge levels per country or region. Most starting countries may completely lack formal and sometimes even informal collection infrastructures, Other countries mainly collect through informal channels, whereas others have sophisticated logistics arranged, and highly detailed research methodology and outcomes available, regarding total flows of e-waste (Huisman et al., 2012; Magalini et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Wielenga et al., 2013; ADEME, 2013; Magalini et al., 2015). In principle, more than 900 different product types that can potentially be classified as e-waste exist (Baldé et al., 2017; Huisman et al., 2017) and constitute a wide range of values, average weights, and typical life spans streaming together in e-waste flows originating from households, businesses, and public space. The concepts, definitions, and methodology to quantify e-waste globally and nationally are summarized into the E-waste Guidelines (Balde et al., 2015; Forti et al., 2018). For emerging and even many established countries, usually little understanding about the whereabouts of e-waste flows exists. Basic or more advanced fact-finding is a key investigation activity irrespective of whether a first, second, or third loop is taken through the e-waste system development cycle sketched in Fig. 2.3. The advantages of having better information are numerous: it is a key ingredient for measuring environmental performance; it improves financial planning and investment decisions; it results in improved monitoring and control; and it helps in finding the most costeffective collection interventions. Data on the e-waste volumes are essential for setting the baseline for policy development. Hence a common key question for all types of countries is:

n

What collection data are available, which e-waste volumes have unknown whereabouts, and how can more tangible information be gathered in due course?

3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications 61

3.2.1 Starting countries For starting countries, there often is hardly any statistical information on the size of the e-waste problem. In practically all cases, distributed second hand product streams from more saturated markets enter a country via rail, road, or sea, dependent on the geographical location. As a result, the qualities and quantities of the various streams mainly entering a country are difficult to determine. Hence a key question for starting countries:

n

How can one get a first estimate of the e-waste volumes entering (and leaving) the country?

The aim of the investigation is to derive a first sketch of the main flows and connected values. In this case, looking for scientific precision is not at stake. Countries that import significant volumes probably already have an organized but largely informal domestic e-waste market. Here is it important to understand the mechanisms and values of importation in order to intervene properly. Actual trade flows are commonly a mixture ranging from waste products with very low values to significant product volumes with substantial remaining lifetimes (Huisman et al., 2017). Here an initial investigation at key entry points at the country’s ports and main roads, in cooperation with customs and port officials, is a possibility (Odeyingbo et al., 2017). Analysis of the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade project (Huisman et al., 2015) illustrates that logistics costs are key and are driven on one hand by avoiding sorting and purchasing costs at the source, and on the other by maximizing product resale value, including the possibility of repairs, at the destination. Nevertheless, the net result is often too much importing of low-quality products and an indirect contribution to waste generation after the product’s short last use in the destination country. Developing a first factual basis is helpful for gaining a better grasp of the situation. This can be started with a relatively simple national stock-andflow model that can include three parts of what is essentially the first version of a country study: 1. Develop simple mass balances starting with the net domestic consumption of new products. Here the UNU Global E-waste Monitor (Baldé et al., 2017) provides an initial assessment for almost all countries in the world. This can be complemented by and compared with basic sales data for a limited number of products such as computers, mobile phones, TVs, and refrigerators. Sources of information also include data from

62 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

producers, market analysts, and international organizations that focus on IT products and general economic development, such as the ITU, World Bank, IMF, and sometimes the country’s own trade statistics. 2. To develop collection systems, a useful approach is to start with small pilot projects in, for instance, dense population areas and/or simultaneous collection from government offices, schools, and academic institutions. For one of the earliest examples, see the work of Ploos van Amstel (1997). In many countries these projects, with the financing of collection above market value or with agreements to voluntarily hand over specific product volumes, provide great insights into the types of products that will return, and importantly they also generate the first volumes for testing various dismantling and mechanical recycling processes on a small scale to be established later at larger facilities. These pilot projects are instrumental in moving away from theoretical discussions about the level of financing needed for collection and recycling to a more fact-based and informative situation. 3. The size and routing of import flows, for instance second hand trade via ports, can be assessed. Here also, existing approaches such as the Person in the Port project involve port authorities in monitoring the size and qualities of imported volumes (Odeyingbo et al., 2017). Where any import data are missing, another possibility is to conduct a rather simple assessment of the product stocks in use and hibernated at households by means of simple questionnaires for a limited number of types. Here identifying suitable researchers or market intelligence companies is a good step toward developing a small but dedicated research basis at knowledge institutes interested in taking up this challenge in the future. The qualitative information and updated market and stakeholder descriptions of Section 2.7 concerning the actual functioning of the informal collection system, when it exists, can be included. This provides insights for understanding why certain products are traded away and against what prices. The outcome of the analysis is relevant for measures to be taken later and the costs associated with their implementation.

3.2.2 Emerging countries The majority of emerging countries have not yet constructed any “mass balances” regarding possible volumes. Typically, although some e-waste is collected, it is nowhere close to potential volumes. Information regarding amounts flowing in and out of the country is usually scarce. Moreover, reported collection volumes are commonly for the lowest value materials,

3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications 63

or only a limited number of product types are collected. Hence, a second more elaborate type of assessment is at stake here for emerging countries. Therefore, the following key question could be answered for emerging countries:

n

How can one get better data for all complementary e-waste flows?

The next steps are specifically recommended (when not done already): 1. One can set up national research consortia, with researchers taking a lead on first developing a more comprehensive e-waste stock-and-flows model. Here Wang et al. (2013) describes various model setups dependent on available data. Some emerging countries have already performed elaborate studies. Hence some examples (Huisman et al., 2012; Magalini et al., 2012, 2015) provide valuable lessons on how to approach this in the context of an emerging system and how to find interested researchers to develop this and take use of the tools and basic methods, as described by Wang et al., (2013), to a national level. 2. One can develop a more elaborate stock-and-flow model. Here the discussion can also be connected to plans for expanding the scope of products from the first limited scope. It is advised to use more “harmonized” e-waste classifications, such as those developed by Baldé et al. (2015) and Forti et al. (2018) from the beginning. This simplifies the assessment of waste generation potential and makes the input data and output results compatible with those of other countries; it also allows for structured monitoring of collection performance over time. In cases where life span information is missing, life span parameters from other countries with similar economic and trade situations can be used as proxies to construct a national stock-and-flow model. For model choices, one can find more detailed information in the work of Wang et al. (2013). 3. It can be complicated and time-consuming to find more detailed information beyond what is available from emerged collection channels. For determining the quantities involved, more elaborate consumer surveys in a reproducible format are likely needed (see also Schluep, 2012) as well as the determination of POM data from national statistics, producer or branch organizations, and trade statistics (Baldé et al., 2017). Regarding collection data, age information for equipment in stock or in the collected waste stream provides data for determining equipment life spans.

64 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

4. The most complex task is to gather information on the whereabouts of equipment collected outside of designated systems. Due to the widely distributed nature of e-waste volumes traded, one will find it impossible to track the fate of all volumes. However, targeted market assessment of the most representative items allows one to derive a rough quantitative assessment. In particular, receiving collection data for complementary channels may require substantial effort in reaching out to and building trust with metal waste traders and recyclers who are operating outside of designated channels (Huisman et al., 2012). It is highly advised that the assessment is started in a cooperative manner to ensure that the most relevant actors are thinking about how to increase reported volumes and improve transparency in the end-oflife chain. Specific cooperation with reuse organizations, waste traders, recyclers and their organizations, and professional e-waste handlers is instrumental for receiving information. The task may provide an opportunity to start establishing improved stakeholder discussions or even a national monitoring council with the most crucial members represented. The quantitative focus can be accompanied by semiquantitative assessment of the values of different products and components, and ideally the qualitative drivers behind complementary trade.

3.2.3 Established countries For established countries that lack a national monitoring council, that have no country assessment, or are in need of better information than currently available, the steps of the previous section can still be implemented, provided that one additional key question is tackled:

n

What data are available regarding the quality of collection amounts, and the scavenging of products and components in particular?

1. When stock-and-flow modeling from the previous round exists, a more comprehensive and reliable version can be created. In particular, measuring the stocks in society again can significantly increase the confidence in waste generation numbers. This forms the basis for determining the percentages collected and reported versus the share that is not. When a pool of established researchers already exists, the focus of such a round can also be on the quantities residing in businesses. This also counts for more professional types of equipment that are even

3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications 65

more distributed and generally present in small amounts in a wide range of dedicated applications. One can also benchmark market inputs, waste generation, and collected volumes internationally when similar models and product classifications are used and applied, for example, in the Global E-waste Monitor (Baldé et al., 2017), the EU’s WEEE Forum Key Figures report (WEEE Forum, 2010e2017), and the common methodology for measuring the collection target developed for the European CommissiondDG Environment (Magalini et al., 2016). This enables the transfer of valuable lessons from one country to others in the same region. 2. Especially where multiple compliance schemes and organizations are responsible for collection, it is recommended that one national monitoring council or working group is formed. When not done already, such a council preferably also includes government officials, recyclers, and trade organizations in developing a joint monitoring framework. More important, the identification of main leakages and types of undesired trade, export, volumes discarded with other municipal solid waste, and high-value items in low-value mixed scrap allows for better intervention in collection channels. When collection amounts can be tracked in relation to individual municipalities, monitoring and benchmarking of these volumes (normalized in kg per inhabitant to compare per capita; see Huisman et al. (2012) for an example) supports identification of other trade channels. This in turn supports interventions and the banning of illicit trade by means of enforcement. Examples and recommendations for developing such monitoring, including the exchange of information between enforcement agencies, is available in the recommendations section of the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade report (Huisman et al., 2015). 3. In addition, sometimes clearing houses exist for assigning individual shares of collection to compliance schemes and recyclers. Here ad hoc tools can be used and linked to national monitoring to determine the share of individual compliance schemes to the national totals to fairly assign collection targets and cost shares to individual schemes. By jointly providing data for and analyzing the results of a national complementary e-waste flows model, one can identify actual volumes to a much higher degree. 4. It also advisable to develop a specific scavenging index for the country for tracking the removal of valuable and environmentally relevant items, in particular the scavenging of refrigerator compressors, which lead to significant environmental pollution and climate warming in the very early stages of collection (Magalini and

66 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

Huisman, 2018). This also significantly affects the value of contracted collection volumes, thus feeding economic market distortion as will be discussed later in Section 3.4.

3.2.4 Examples of e-waste quantifications A first example of such fact-finding for various EU countries can be found in the UNU country studies for the Dutch (Huisman et al., 2012), Italian (Magalini et al., 2012), Belgian (Wielenga et al., 2013), French (ADEME, 2013), and Romanian (Magalini et al., 2015) collection systems. As an example of the fate of e-waste in Italy, the following Fig. 3.1 is presented. The left side of Fig. 3.1 shows the quantities placed on market, which add to the stock of consumers and businesses. The middle bar shows the waste generation potential, and the right bar shows collection amounts in both reported and complementary channels for a selection of countries. Highlighted on the right side is the magnitude of reported and nonreported quantities for Italy in particular. The results clearly show the role of the consumer at the beginning of the trading and collection chain for WEEE

25 Complementary recycling Export used EEE and treatment from reuse Lifetime extension

20

Uncertainty Warrenty retums

15

Reuse Bad disposal habits 10

Professional equipment Small household and IT Screens

5

Large household Cooling and freezing 0

Placed-on-market 2011 WEEE generated 2011 collected and treated

n FIGURE 3.1 Example e-waste quantification, Italy 2011, in kg per inhabitant (Magalini et al., 2012).

3.2 Collect morede-waste quantifications 67

not collected and ending up in residual solid waste and all sorts of reuse and export destinations. Based on such fact-finding approaches, respective producer responsibility organizations, recyclers, and governments are considering collection intervention options that improve national performance. Results from the studies behind Fig. 3.1 are improving stakeholder cooperation in changing the reporting conditions and ultimately improving control over collection and treatment. For example, in the Netherlands the mechanism of paying for e-waste collection has changed into a more efficient and less market-disruptive payment mechanism for reporting treated quantities outside the system when they are processed according to standards. More information on this “all actors report” approach is presented in Section 4.2.3. A second example showcases the large differences between regulated and reported parts of national e-waste systems and the nonregulated/nonmonitored sections related to the scavenging of products, materials, and components from the reported collection stream. Based on research by Magalini and Huisman (2018), the scavenging of both products and components “missing” is measured based on 13 companies that provided sampling information for 465 ktons of collection volume was well as collection details for 51 collection categoryecountry combinations that are well distributed throughout Europe. An example of the result for the scavenging of cooling and freezing (C&F) appliances is presented in Fig. 3.2. The graph shows significant volumes of

% CFC in collection

48%

Fridges

76% 21%

Freezers

3%

Product share in collection category

Aircons

22%

Missing cables

22% Scavenging level

7% 24%

Missing compressors Missing casings Missing other parts

2016 data based on 58,000 tons of equipment from17 locations error bars reflect standard error n FIGURE 3.2 Scavenging of cooling and freezing appliances, 2016. From Magalini, F., Huisman, J., February 2018. WEEE Recycling Economics, Study

Commissioned by EERA, Bonn, Germany.

68 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

CFC refrigerator compressors being removed prior to treatment, leading to significant ozone-layer depletion and global warming impacts and thus the clear need to continue intervening in the trade of such compressors in established countries. The above example demonstrates, first of all, that although CFC-containing C&F appliances were phased out from entering the market decades ago, the share in later waste generation is still significant. This ratio, as illustrated by the error bar, ranges from roughly 35% for richer countries to 70% for relatively poorer countries. The average EU share has dropped with roughly 10% compared with 4 years earlier (Huisman et al., 2015). From the volumes reported, around 20%e25% on average is entering treatment facilities without the compressors. Unfortunately, this percentage is higher for poorer countries with a relatively higher CFC share. The example is not only economically relevant, as the scavenging of cables further reduces the material value of the reported flows, it also illustrates that reporting only in weight does not reflect the underlying environmental priorities. In this EU example, besides ozone-layer depletion, the global warming effect of the CFC emissions is substantial. It equals an amount equal to roughly eight million tons of CO2 equivalent, or the annual emissions of six million passenger cars on the road.

3.3 TREAT BETTERdRECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INNOVATION Appropriate treatment of e-waste can contribute to both the prevention of serious environmental damage and to the recovery of valuable materials, especially for metals. The actual treatment steps usually comprise two stages: (1) preprocessing, which includes sorting and dismantling, and (2) mechanical separation and end-processing of fractions obtained from preprocessing into commodity materials again, such as individual metals produced by smelters and refineries and plastics from specialized facilities. In Section 4.4, as well as in work from the SRI project (2018), more information is provided on the various forms of preprocessing and end-processing technologies for different fractions. Generally speaking, improving the recycling infrastructure has multiple aims: gain control over potentially toxic components in an environmentally sound manner; recover valuable material maximally; prevent health and safety concerns for workers; and compliance with various social aspects that have impacts in local and national contexts. Obviously, countless configurations of treatment practices exist in different parts of the world, ranging from relatively simple manual work to more automated mechanical

3.3 Treat betterdrecycling infrastructure and innovation 69

treatment to very advanced automated end-processing of metals, plastics, and complex or toxic materials. A country’s entire configuration of processes and the logistic flows between them, referred to as the combined recycling infrastructure, thus ranges from basic, scattered, and informal in starting countries, toward greater automatization in emerging countries, to advanced and well-configured processing with significant economies of scale and investments that provide high environmental and economic performance for established countries.

3.3.1 Starting countries One obviously cannot abruptly transform a basic treatment infrastructure into an advanced one overnight. It takes considerable time to acquire the necessary capital, building, and human resources and deploy them in practice. Hence the aim of this step is to determine how treatment can be improved gradually under country-specific conditions. Therefore, the specific goals that depend on development status are rather distinct and are thus also the key questions. For starting countries, specific key questions are:

n

n

What are current treatment practices for e-waste, both formal and informal? How can fractions be steered to end-processing locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally?

Many sources describe all kinds of technologies available for e-waste treatment. However, the beginning for starting countries is to organize and upgrade existing, scattered dismantling operations into a more structured configuration. This creates, on one hand, better health and safety protection for workers but also some initial economies of scale for both valuable and toxic fractions at the same time. Following the UNU-initiated Best-of-2-Worlds (Bo2W) approach (Wang et al., 2012), the right balance needs to be found between funding slowly professionalizing dismantling activities that steer value recovery from e-waste, to secondly funding control over the most environmentally relevant rest fractions simultaneously. These fractions, such as CRT glass, mercury-containing components, and batteries, commonly have negative economic values. Therefore, a key challenge is to find local, national, regional, and international markets and buyers for both components at the same time. Groups of smaller countries or regions can alternatively team up to achieve economies of scale. A key step in the assessment phase is to search for these outlets and determine

70 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

what the logistical challenges are in getting these materials to the right end destinations. Here collection pilot trials can provide a first physical stream as test case material for determining national cost levels, logistical needs, and administrative challenges when sending out test batches of, for instance, printed circuit boards and batteries to destinations outside their country of origin. Specific tools, recommendations, and experiences can also be found from the UNU-coordinated e-waste academies for academia, managers, and policy-makers in the field (UNU, 2018), in particular the toolkits developed. In addition, the Bo2W original publication notes various applications in countries; for instance, by NGOs such as Worldloop (Worldloop, 2018) and the Oko-Institut (Manhart, 2015) with more elaborate organizational activities in concept implementation. Moreover, various development projects from the German GIZ contain experiences from transforming large informal sectors into more organized sectors to allow for better health and safety protection, increased values from better organizing trade, and improved workers’ rights in general (Gunselius, 2017). More technical guidance on what technology options are available for separation are described in Section 4.4 under Technologies and Skills.

3.3.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, a key question with regard to developing treatment infrastructure is:

n

n

How does one find the right mix between dismantling and mechanical processing? How does one efficiently organize the trading and logistics system in such a way that the critical fractions land at the proper end-processing facilities?

The below Fig. 3.3 shows, on the vertical axis, the possibility for developing larger-scale end-processing stages dependent on sufficient nearby volumes, logistics, and economic investment capacity. The horizontal axis shows the possibility for more manual dismantling-oriented processing versus more mechanical treatment, which is also largely dependent on country labor costs.

3.3 Treat betterdrecycling infrastructure and innovation 71

Market size increases

Potential countries to adopt the Bo2W philosophy

End-processing (establish local detoxification and refinery facilities) Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria

End-processing (share regional or global infrastructures)

EU

China, India

Uganda, Kenya, Ghana

Thailand, Ukraine, Columbia Egypt

Russia, Mexico, Brazil

US

Japan, Germany, France Canada South Korea Australia

Turkey Poland

Switzerland, The Netherlands Labor cost

Pre-processing (dominant in manual dismantling)

increases Pre-Processing (dominant in mechanical separation)

n FIGURE 3.3 Use of preprocessing and end-processing in various countries. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146.

The above Fig. 3.3 from Wang et al. (2012) gives a first idea for various countries with respect to the current types of preprocessing and end-processing. The UNEP report “Recycling: From E-waste to Resources” (Schluep et al., 2009) shows specific evaluations for different groups of countries as well as barriers to the successful transfer of sustainable e-waste recycling technologies. As the treatment of e-waste is the core physical activity for achieving higher sustainability levels, it is noted that for emerging countries, some important boundary conditions require attention. There is an inevitable limit to economic value for some e-waste categories, meaning that formal treatment is not automatically reaching breakeven economically. In some cases, the value of treatment can also cover some financing of fractions with negative values related to the purchasing, logistics, and storage, removal and control of toxic materials, and recovery of materials with relatively little value such as plastics. However, revenues from secondary materials often are not sufficient to cover all costs accruing through the entire treatment chain. Secondly, the main risk when implementing the Bo2W approach is that when not applied integrally as intended, it only leads to optimized cherry-picking activities. Therefore, the risks for stakeholders engaging in proper recycling are still high without a financing system and policy support as a safety net to cover

72 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

systemic deficits. In societies, environmental policy and recycling standards can facilitate the e-waste streams to proper channels for safe treatment. In addition, environmental value recovered from proper handling is to be encouraged or compensated for by policies that will avoid such cherry-picking. Without these preconditions, practicing Bo2W in developing countries will only have temporary success and lead to insufficient economic performance at a limited treatment scale in the long run. As experienced in pilot projects, a significant challenge to setting up an ecoefficient treatment system is to create trust between stakeholders. This is highly relevant for the relation between various end-processors at the end of the treatment chain toward dismantlers at the beginning of the chain. The latter are free to determine the destinations for their secondary streams. Alternative outlets in the informal market can offer higher prices due to inferior environmental performance at the same time. Selling valuables to the informal market, or not properly considering the waste after treatment, harms the flow to environmentally preferred state-of-the-art end-processors. A direct way to strengthen cooperation is to file formal contracts between (groups of organized) dismantlers and end-processors with explicit stipulation of material delivery and treatment quality while excluding informal recipients for the same fractions. Hence a key part of the assessment is to invest in the upgrading of fractions from secondary origin and find better connections for larger volumes into national industries and international trade networks in case they are more efficient for more complex materials. The Bo2W philosophy aims at a net stream of hazardous and precious metal fractions to the best state-of-the-art end-processing facilities available. Here the Basel Convention and the administrative load related to transboundary shipments, in particular for flows of hazardous fractions from dismantling facilities in developing countries to dedicated end-processing facilities in developed countries of such fractions, needs to be streamlined (Huisman et al., 2015). Economically, these costs are not that high in comparison with total system costs due to relatively low volumes with only a small portion of the fractions going to advanced end-processing. However, due to the administrative load, the costs per ton for the few containers involved are likely to be very high. Here it is not against the principles of the Basel Convention (Basel Convention, 1989), which exclusively restricts the shipment of e-waste from OECD to non-OECD countries. The Bo2W approach is therefore to be regarded as a transitional and complementary solution for developing and emerging countries and for countries that are just too small and lacking capital-intensive refineries and hazardous waste treatment facilities (Wang et al., 2012).

3.3 Treat betterdrecycling infrastructure and innovation 73

Often, the monitoring of collection and treatment processes is developed over time in emerging countries. However, there is a structural difference between mandatory reporting of compliance by the recycling sector, and monitoring for the purpose of tracking national performance over time in a more comprehensive manner. For individual compliance checks, the advice is to develop reporting, control, and auditing toolsdfor instance, like the WEEE Forum REPTOOLdto track the destinations of fractions, the actual level of control, and recycling efficiencies (WEEE Forum, 2018). At the same time, it is recommended that a national (and where needed anonymized) aggregation of such results is started to track progress, realize comparison of treatment performances, and measure the effectiveness of the policies and interventions that will be further discussed in Chapter 5.

3.3.3 Established countries Not only in developing countries, but also in established ones, the e-waste recycling industry is, generally speaking, rather immature. Schluep et al. (2009) states: “The main barriers originate from the lack of specific legal frameworks, low national priority for the topic, conflicting existing legislation and uncoordinated enforcement of the law. With regard to technology and skills, barriers are primarily defined through the lack of EHS standards, the strong influence of the informal sector, the lack of collection infrastructure, cherry-picking activities and low skills and awareness. Additional barriers assigned to business and financing topics include limited industry responsibility, high costs of logistics, possible exploitation of workers from disadvantaged communities, crime and corruption and false consumer expectations.” These barriers underwrite the need for a more holistic e-waste development cycle as well as much more attention to the sophistication level of the treatment infrastructure itself. The development of infrastructure and technical knowledge is an important element in overall take-back system performance. The outcomes are relevant for enabling key priorities for policy development and ways to improve toward more eco-efficient recycling. For established countries, a rather different key question applies:

n

How can we reward higher quality of treatment and stimulate innovation, in particular for recovery of hazardous and critical raw materials?

74 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

Most established countries have many technological options and usually rather optimized configurations for economic value recovery. At the same time, minimum treatment standards and protection levels for depollution are implemented. However, there is rarely an innovation and improvement agenda that goes beyond these minimum levels, and financing for additional efforts is rarely provided. Hence it is recommended to look into improved depollution and recovery of critical raw materials via alternative financing mechanisms and rewards (Magalini and Huisman, 2018). One example here is, for instance, to build in more direct technical performance requests in procurement contracts between recyclers and producer organizations. Obviously, in order to establish this, both the quality and the volumes need to be understood (from the previous step) in relation to the technical capabilities of the recyclers present. This topic of more focus for increasing recycling levels is further elaborated in Section 3.5, after the next environmental impact assessment part. This is because technical capabilities and environmental priorities need to be combined before elaborating on the economic impacts and thus the efficiency of the options available.

3.4 POLLUTE LESSdENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact assessment is an important step in identifying the societal consequences of e-waste and specifically for finding improvement potential and priorities for (re)defining policy objectives and where to interfere or not. Hence, a key question for all three country types is:

n

Step 3: What are the societal impacts (environmental, economic, and social)?

3.4.1 Starting countries For starting countries, impact assessment can be rather basic. Here, following the problem analysis from the initiation phase, it basically focuses on getting additional basic facts and figures beyond the already known issues from the country assessment, in a more structured way. Hence a key question is:

n

What are currently the most pressing environmental issues associated with e-waste?

3.4 Pollute lessdenvironmental impacts 75

Commonly for starting countries there are two core issues. One is the presence of already polluted sites requiring remediation. The second is to stop the continuation of such pollution by arranging collection and effective toxic control in treatment. Assessment of polluted sites is often requiring substantial effort. An inventory of the sites and determination of remediation actions requires the mapping of locations, volumes, and types of pollution. Important here is to distinguish the remediation and cleanup of existing sites from diverting flows and professionalizing recycling activities to less polluting levels. For the latter, depending on government priority-setting towards very local pollution, the first resources should be spent on banning the most harmful practices such as acid leaching of circuit boards and burning of copper wire. Secondly, finding the right and first outlets for further treatment of, in particular, the complex and hazardous fractions from treatment belong here as well. Many practical experiences and training materials can be found in the UNU e-waste academies toolkit (Magalini et al., 2012).

3.4.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, assuming more directly polluting activities are already reverted, the role of environmental impact assessment is somewhat different. Here a key question is:

n

n

How does one set priorities beyond basic treatment for the various e-waste collection categories? In which channels should preprocessing fractions end up to achieve maximum environmental performance and economic value recovery?

To enable improvements in collection and treatment, a more elaborate environmental impact assessment can either be performed in the country itself, or outcomes from existing studies representing similar conditions can be learned from. The key is to focus on improving the destination and treatment of the environmentally most relevant fractions that are different per collection category. Secondly, various technical improvements can be evaluated from an environmental point of view, supporting and also setting initial sets of standards for logistics and treatment. The impact assessment framework is advised to be conducted not just as oneoff studies, but also to keep track of performance over time, especially in terms of a weighted index for the level of control over toxic substances.

76 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

In this regard, various approaches and sector-specific impact assessment tools have already been developed for Europe and can be mirrored elsewhere. The QWERTY/EE tool is a software tool developed at TU Delft that evaluates the environmental and economic impacts of electronic products in the entire end-of-life chain (Huisman, 2003; Huisman et al., 2003). QWERTY stands for quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability. The EE stands for eco-efficiency. The general idea is based on environmental and economic quantification of three values. The minimum impact values (environmental and economic) correspond with the theoretical scenario of “all materials being recovered completely without any environmental impact or economic costs of end-of-life treatment steps.” The maximum values are defined as the theoretical scenario of “every material ending up in the worst possible (realistic) end-of-life route.” And finally, actual recycling scenario values are based on the environmental and economic performance of the end-of-life scenario under consideration and are compared with the prior two boundary values. The outcome can be expressed as percentages or in absolute numbers and be tuned to the national conditions or impact assessment themes desired as highlighted in Fig. 3.4 below. The outcome for either individual products, collection streams, or even all e-waste in the national territory can be used as weighted and thus prioritized indices tracking past and ongoing performance over time. An example outcome for a flat-panel TV is displayed above. It can illustrate effectively the priorities of different

Product weight 7% 15%

19%

6% 2%

3% 5% 3% 39%

ABS Ag Al (general) Au Ceramics Cr Cu Fe Glass (white, R=60%) Hg Ni Other average Pb Pd Plastics general PVC Sb Sn Steel low alloyed Zn

Environmental weight QWERTY (burden and gain!) 2%

1% 5%

7%

6% 7% 1% 34% 12%

1% 12% 11%

n FIGURE 3.4 Weight vs. environmental weight of a first-generation LCD TV (Balkenende et al., 2014).

3.4 Pollute lessdenvironmental impacts 77

materials such as trace amounts of precious metals, not just according to physical weight but rather as environmental weight to total product and even complete collection flows. In addition, the calculations describe the main causes of environmental losses and recoveries related to the materials present and thus form the basis of prioritization in the case of material substitutions. Based on the QWERTY/EE tool modeling the entire end-of-life chain (Huisman, 2003), an important shortcoming of general weight-based approaches as applied in traditional weight-based recycling targets is revealed. The approach allows for alternative prioritizing of different improvement options in the system. Moreover, due to weight-based targets, a substantial amount of documentation and reporting effort is focusing on what is entering treatment facilities, whereas actual performance is mainly determined by final end-processing efficiencies. Therefore, the QWERTY methodology, based on large-scale modeling of the e-waste collection, logistics, preprocessing, and end-processing chain, is later also applied, for example, in the EU revision of the WEEE Directive. A key lesson from this application for Europe is the considerable variety in environmental themes per treatment category due to different occurrences of the substances of environmental concern identified in the study (Huisman et al., 2008): n

n

n

toxicity effects most dominant in various environmental impact categories for flat-panel TVs and monitors as well as for energy-saving lamps due to their mercury content; avoid ozone-layer depletion and global warming potential due to the presence of CFCs in C&F appliances; resource depletion aspects, in particular for richer products such as small IT, laptops, tablets, computers, and mobile phones.

This rather condensed description of outcomes illustrates the role that structured impact assessment work can play, ultimately directly and indirectly proving essential guidance for options related to collection targets, separate treatment, and development of standards. Over the course of years, many of the options underpinned by the impact assessment have been adopted in the revision process of the WEEE Directive. For other emerging countries, dedicating resources to environmental impact assessment also helps to set more targeted goals such as material-specific requirements per collection category and to avoid general policy tools such as using generic weight-based recycling targets for all e-waste types that do not reflect the actual environmental priorities. Also, in relation to the next economic chapter, a better balancing between economic costs and environmental benefits is then made possible.

78 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

3.4.3 Established countries For established countries, despite all knowledge and implementation efforts, weak points and suboptimal solutions remain. Very commonly, environmental impact assessments are not made or updated, despite significant expenditures in running take-back systems. Thus a key question is:

n

n

How does one optimize the environmental performance of the formal e-waste system? Where is progress possible by incorporating complementary collection and recycling channels?

A common weak point is the impact of scavenging, complementary crossborder flows, and lower than desired actual levels of depollution when reported on a national level. Despite this, not many countries investigate with a more structured impact assessment that evaluates societal benefits against the costs of the system at large. Research can be costly but also can lead to significant benefits and savings. Assessment can support the removal of unnecessary requirements or changing more generic ones such as the aforementioned weight-based targets to more sophisticated material-related ones, in turn also supporting the development of reporting and treatment standards. For instance, in case of a product scope that is too elaborate, collection and recycling can also economically and ecologically function for certain types of equipment without legal requirements; for instance, in cases where toxicity levels are reduced drastically by product designs that have substituted hazardous materials with other (valuable) materials. This also counts for other cases where the principle of proportionality is violated, such as for certain professional equipment produced in very low numbers with long life spans and very high reuse and social value, such as specialized medical equipment moving to hospitals in developing countries. Here, keeping such products in scope leads to adverse societal effects. For more established systems, optimizing the balance between environmental aspects and costs is more relevant, and hence more information on ecoefficiency approaches is provided in the following section.

3.5 PAY ADEQUATELYdECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic impact assessment runs similar to the environmental one and contains the same sophistication levels. Determining economic value related to e-waste and reusable EEE flows supports options to reduce costs,

3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts 79

including administrative burdens for actors involved, and promotes more collection and higher quality of treatment.

3.5.1 Starting countries For starting countries, usually very little to no information is available on the level of financing needed to get started, and hence a key question is:

n

How much funding is needed for setting up an initial basic collection and recycling infrastructure?

In the very early stages of e-waste system development, access to funds for initiating the first activities is crucial. Therefore, the key questions posed here purposely do not include the kind of financing system needed or who should pay for what, nor who in the long run should control the funds collected. System development starts better with actual funding to test and start up some basic collection and treatment infrastructure and the collection of the key facts on the actual costs of various operations. Generally speaking, widespread discussion on these questions between key stakeholder groups as a first activity is frequently observed to be negatively contributing to actual solutions. As proposed in Section 3.2.1, ideally one could directly start with a collection and treatment pilot with relatively well-defined and representative volumes and practices. From such a pilot project, initial cost figures can be derived for the key factors: cost of acquiring the waste, residual value of components and materials with reuse values, costs for logistics at and from collection points, capital costs for simple processing steps, costs for dismantling by measuring average times per step by workers including depollution, values for the actual prices of valuable (metal) fractions, costs for nonvaluable (like plastics) and hazardous fractions (like CRT glass, batteries), and initial estimates for the share of these in total tonnages as well as the costs of export to more advanced facilities when not available in the country itself. Finally, management and reporting costs should be roughly determined and can be corrected assuming larger economies of scale in the near future. Again, in the e-waste academies toolkit (UNU, 2018) and various development projects mentioned on the StEP Initiative website, some particular initial information is available on the (reuse) value of various equipment types, which is a key threshold for collection. Here it should be attempted

80 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

to discriminate between such residual reuse value versus the material value of actual waste products, fractions, and components. Removing some first barriers to steering existing collection is needed for establishing e-waste dismantlers. Regarding dismantling, small technology investments can provide large improvements, such as assisting in buying better equipment such as cable strippers to avoid (less and less widespread) burning of cables and more pure copper recovery. In other cases, financing is needed for banning the most pressing pollution types such as acid leaching of circuit boards and the burning of plastic residues by means of more on-site monitoring and enforcement.

3.5.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, financing should increasingly focus on payments for both scaling up volumes and providing funds for fractions that are not economically viable for collection and recycling. Hence a key question here is:

n

How do we steer the financing more efficiently to the parts in the chain that are cost negative, in an eco-efficient manner?

In the starting phase, funding should be addressed toward the collection and treatment of smaller (pilot) quantities in order to get an initial understanding of the total chain. In a second development cycle, this should be changed toward moving away from financing profitable steps when economies of scale are slowly realized. For emerging countries a balance should be realized in time between local initiating actions versus realizing higher economies of scale via more mechanical treatment and upgrading of secondary streams. This also allows those parts of the markets to mature where possible without financial intervention. At the same time, however, the quantities of fractions with negative values need toxic controls to receive more structural payments. Here again, without assessment, updates to financing cannot be made due to a lack of key economic data. Specific attention should be given to further optimizing the level of dismantling versus mechanical processing over time, as often labor costs are increasing and economies of scale can make mechanical processing more attractive. Hence more continuous assessment is recommended, including shifting the focus from making the system effective toward making the national system eco-efficient. Hence a close connection to the environmental impact assessment is next.

3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts 81

3.5.3 Established countries For established countries, not many comprehensive studies exist on the actual costs of compliance and the functioning of the financial system at large in relation to the delivered quality of collection and treatment performance. Usually very little attention is paid to the quantification of compliance costs in reality, and how noncompliance can be avoided when monitoring is not there or only occasional. Hence a key question here is:

n

How do we determine country-specific compliance costs and financing mechanisms to overcome an uneven playing field, in particular for the highest-quality preprocessors?

Although several benchmarks exist with regard to total prices for e-waste treatment in Europe (WEEE Forum, 2010e2017), more attention is usually needed to determine whether finances are indeed directed toward the realization of compliance (Huisman et al., 2006; Huisman, 2013). In particular, when substantial competition exists between multiple compliance schemes in one country and/or recyclers without much monitoring, the economic driver to maximize profits on one hand and cutting compliance corners on the other are created. To illustrate this, the following example is made with cooperation of the European Electronics Recyclers Association recyclers in Europe (Magalini and Huisman, 2018): Fig. 3.5 is based on 20 confidential and anonymous responses from recyclers, allowing UNU to conduct the survey and to have insight into direct operational costs and their ranges across Europe. These values are direct cost components and not prices, which are determined also by other market conditions, overhead, and capital investments that are excluded here. The initial cost ranges provided were extended when a significant number of responses indicated higher or lower values than presented in a follow-up questionnaire conducted in 2018. The average costs (representing 2016 as the base year) have been calculated considering the mean of each cost interval, multiplied by the number of respondents that confirmed their company costs as belonging to the interval. The results indicate that, for example, for C&F appliances and CRTs, the costs of all reporting combined contributes about 20% of the total operational costs for full compliance, and the costs for full depollution and hazardous waste disposal make up roughly

82 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

€ 300

Reporting to authorities, compliance schemes,… Waste charachterization

€ 250

Audits € 200

Hazardous waste disposal € 150

Non hazardous waste disposal Labour - depollution

€ 100

Labour - processing Line maintenance

€ 50

Energy €– C&F

CRT

FPD

LHHA

SHA/IT

n FIGURE 3.5 Cost components of fully compliant recycling in V per ton, 2016 (Magalini and Huisman, 2018). *Presented costs are not total treatment costs

per category. Excluded are capital, depreciation, other staff, office costs, etc.

50% for CRTs and 60% for C&F. This illustrates both the attractiveness of avoiding compliance in badly monitored systems and thus that driving costs down by EPR schemes should be capped by understanding better on a national level what a viable cost level is. More conclusions on financing mechanisms and ways to prevent a race to the bottom are presented in Section 4.3. When collection quality results of Section 3.2 are combined with the outcomes of the other collection categories, the following results are obtained regarding the diverted material value of components being scavenged for the EU as a whole. For the limited number of components quantified, this added around 200 million EUR of material value that is supposedly in the reported side of the WEEE treatment market, which becomes a significant competition distortion element (Magalini and Huisman, 2018). Finally, not all types of scavenging are computed yet. An even larger economic effect is related to the absence of the most valuable products in the return channels. Due to the absence of EU-wide data for all collection categories, this kind of product scavenging index is not yet computed. What is known, though, is that for the Screens collection category compared with waste-generated volumes (Magalini et al., 2016), only 5%e15% of all laptops and tablets, and about 30%e50% of flat-panel monitors and TVs of

3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts 83

the supposed volume, are present in the return channels, whereas the socalled relative presence of negative-value CRT TVs would be about 125%e175% if the share of products was similar to the e-waste generation; see (Magalini and Huisman, 2018) for more details (Fig. 3.6).

€ 50

EU28+2 value of scavenged components (in million €)

1x

4x € 200

Million €

Million €

As illustrated, a common weak point is the impact of scavenging, complementary cross-border flows, and lower-than-desired actual levels of depollution in case this is reported at all on a national level. Despite this, not many countries conduct a more structured impact assessment that targets societal benefits against the costs of the system at large. Research can be costly but also can lead to significant benefits and savings. It can support the removal of unnecessary requirements. For instance, in the case of a product scope that is too elaborate, collection and recycling can also economically and ecologically function without legal requirementsdfor instance, in cases where toxicity levels are reduced drastically by product design. This also counts for other cases where the principle of proportionality is violated, such as for certain professional equipment produced in very low numbers, with long life spans, and very high reuse and social value, such as specialized medical equipment moving to hospitals in developing countries. Here keeping such products in scope leads to adverse societal effects. That also leads to the next section on eco-efficiency relevant for established countries.

€ 200 € 180

€ 45

€ 180

€ 40

€ 160

€ 160

€ 35

€ 140

€ 140

€ 120

€ 120

€ 100

€ 100

€ 80

€ 80

€ 60

€ 60

€ 40

€ 40

€5

€ 20

€ 20

€0

€0

€–

€ 120

€ 30 € 25

€ 25 € 20

€ 17

€ 15 €9

€ 10

WEEE generated EU28+2, 2016

C&F

1.7 Mt

Screens

1.3 Mt

LHA

3.4 Mt

SHA+IT

4.1 Mt

Based on scavenging level and the price per components. ‘Losses’ for 2016 are ageinst total WEEE generated EU28+2 = 10.4 million tons in total

Batteries Drives Circuit boards Cu/Fe coils, motors Compressors Cables

Largest contributions from: 1. Cables, 80 million € 2. Drives, 40 million € 3. Circuit boards, 30 million € 4. Compressors, 15 million €

n FIGURE 3.6 Total intrinsic material value of scavenged components, 2016, EU total (Magalini and Huisman, 2018).

84 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

3.5.4 Eco-efficiency: optimizing the ratio between environmental impacts and costs For established countries, despite all knowledge and implementation efforts, weak points and suboptimal solutions remain. Also for these countries, when both environmental and economic data are available, an additional key question is posed:

n

How do we maximize the eco-efficiency of the e-waste system by linking environmental and economic impacts?

By combining the environmental values and costs in one eco-efficiency approach, it is possible to link environmental effectiveness with cost efficiency. This helps answer a central question from a societal point of view: what environmental improvements can be achieved for the money invested? An example of this is presented below in reviewing various options for preprocessing and end-processing under a Chinese context from the Bo2W project (Wang et al., 2012). It shows the various environmental and economic outcomes of various levels of mechanical treatment versus more dismantling as well as disposal scenarios. Fig. 3.7 shows the basic idea behind the eco-efficiency calculations of the QWERTY/EE approach. The Y-axis represents an economic indicator (in this case V) for total costs along the recycling chain. The X-axis represents the environmental indicator. There are different end-of-life scenarios for the same product relative to a certain starting point (the origin in the figure). Such scenarios or options describe certain changes in end-of-life treatment or the application of certain technological improvements such as redesigned products, other preprocessing options, and separate or increased collection and treatment. In order to achieve higher eco-efficiencies, improvement options should lead to a change from the reference or starting point in the direction of the upper right part. However, options with a direction toward the down-left should be avoided (higher costs and higher environmental impacts), because from the point of reference, a lower eco-efficiency is realized. Fig. 3.7 shows clearly and unambiguously that the various recycling possibilities score much better than disposal and informal recycling options as well. For this particular case in China for 2012 for computer recycling, a full dismantling scenario is the best option among the more formalized options. From this, clear lessons and priority setting can be derived as illustrated for many scenarios developed by Huisman (2003). The application of

3.5 Pay adequatelydeconomic impacts 85

1.2

Economic gain

1.0 4

0.8

3

1 Direct shredding

2

0.6

2 Toxics removal+shredding

1

3 Bo2W (partial dismantling+shredding)

0.4

5

4 Bo2W (complete dismantling)

(€/kg)

0.2

5 Informal recycling (estimated)

–0.0 –400

–200

Economicloss

–600

200

6

–0.2

400

600

7

6 Controlled landfill 7 MSW incineration

–0.4 –0.6 Environmental loss

(mPts)

Environmental gain

n FIGURE 3.7 Eco-efficiency of WEEE treatment scenarios in China (Wang et al., 2012).

such eco-efficiency evaluations is a crucial activity in the development and implementation of e-waste policies. It quantifies where taxpayers’ money ultimately could be spent best, and where a low return on investment can be expected. However, theoretical values and eco-efficiency potential are not always exploited. In the case of the Bo2W approach in China, significant export of these critical and valuable fractions did not materialize due to administrative, management, and economic hurdles. The latter effect is mainly due to higher values of, for instance, reusable printed circuit board components compared with the raw material value. From the application of the Bo2W approach in India (Wang et al., 2012) and other countries (Worldloop, 2018), it is extracted that specific country business models that arrange for efficient payments and shipment of critical fractions to the right destination are desired. This contains both an organizational element to arrange for the administration and logistics and a dedicated financial clearance element. For instance, for fractions sold abroad such as printed circuit boards, one needs control over the quality of the bought materials to avoid cherry-picking of components of cherry-picked remainder board types as well as on-time payment, since informal collectors usually are in demand for direct cash. The logistic advantages originate from having an organization that acts as an intermediary between smaller semi-informal recyclers and integrated smelters abroad. These approaches should include not

86 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

only circuit boards but also less valuable critical fractions like batteries. Partial implementation of the Bo2W philosophy without taking care of all hazardous fractions leads to undesired “cherry-picking.” Hence an organization on the receiving end that takes care of hazardous content is needed, as participating end-processors are not in a position to set up a fully monitored material delivery system.

3.6 WORK SAFER - SOCIAL IMPACTS Social impact assessment, although rarely executed, is relevant for identifying the link between e-waste and the creation of jobs, of local health and safety issues, and the issue of digital divide. Also, increasing knowledge levels of the general public in general and especially of the need to collect and recycle more, is quite relevant for the long-term success of the e-waste system. In the end, it is the consumer who has to return e-waste and will also pay, no matter how the initial financing has been arranged. The role of consumers in the system and their awareness and willingness to separate and collect e-waste from other waste is therefore crucial. As indicated in the introduction to Section 2.1, development of e-waste systems not only contributes to responsible consumption and production and less wastedUN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12dbut also contributes directly or indirectly to almost all of the other SDGs and thus to the multitude of social dimensions behind them.

3.6.1 Starting countries For starting countries, usually concerns about the health and safety of e-waste (and repair) workers are high on the agenda. A key question here is:

n n

n

How many people are currently earning a living in the e-waste domain? What are they earning typically now? How many new jobs will be created if e-waste handling is improved? What can be improved regarding working conditions?

The meaning of e-waste domain in this regard should also include repair and dismantling activities, which are a substantial part of the economy for many countries. When creating the basic collection and dismantling infrastructure, the challenge is to involve these informal sectors in development instead of pushing them outside. Nevertheless, some transfer of jobs will happen when certain undesired and polluting informal practices are

3.6 Work safer - social impacts 87

banned. Therefore, assessing as quantitatively as possible how many workers may lose their jobs when informal practices are eliminated needs attention. Positively, development means more organization is needed, possible creating additional higher-level jobs and more income for workers. Various organizational forms uniting workers and traders are possible in the form of small SMEs and cooperatives as well as dedicated publiceprivate partnerships. A good source for more information related to the formalization of informal sectors, specific solid waste streams, and worker conditions is available via GIZ (2011) and Bonner (2009).

3.6.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, usually worker protections have evolved over time; however, they often still require attention. Secondly, when increasingly more manual work is converted into mechanical processing, the development of a more skilled workforce requires attention. Hence the key questions here are:

n

n n

What jobs should be kept, and what new job opportunities are possible? What skill developments are needed for this? How can health and safety conditions be improved as well as the organization of workers?

Specific assessment of worker safety can be conducted in particular via the starting of auditing and training on the job for e-waste workers. Various tools also exist here, again in the UNU e-waste academy series (UNU, 2018). Such training can be applied from the working level and also toward management, monitoring, and the enforcement domain. For both emerging and developed countries, information gaps still exist. In most cases, many consumers do not know what an e-waste collection point is or where to find it. In cities, often container parks are far away and difficult to reach for those without a car and who rely on public transport. In the long run, consumer education is an important element for the acceptance of e-waste systems and for proper disposal behavior in particular, as well as for reducing the scavenging levels of components and products to nonreported sections of the metal scrap trade.

88 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

3.6.3 Established countries As a follow-up for developing countries, key questions are:

n

How can consumer education be optimized to realize better (quality of) collection?

In surveys conducted for the FP7 project “Countering WEEE Illegal Trade,” the recommendation to enhance consumer education in various ways ranked number one among e-waste experts and enforcement agencies (Huisman et al., 2015). Also, in the StEP Whitepaper on guidance principles, this aspect is clearly on the radar screen for successful long-term development (StEP Initiative, 2016). Therefore, it is also recommended to not only conduct awareness campaigns, but also measure which means are most effective by repeatedly surveying the general public regarding their attitude, potentially incorporated in the e-waste quantifications as proposed in Section 3.2 (Schluep 2012; Schluep et al., 2012). It is important to identify the societal consequences (i.e., economic, environmental, and social aspects) of e-waste take-back and recycling, and specifically to find improvement potential and priorities for (re)defining legislative and other interventions. These are described in the next Chapters 4 and 5, focusing on the second part of the development cycle: the actual drafting, selection, and implementation of policy, financial, and technology interventions, for which the assessment of this Chapter 3 forms an important factual basis.

3.7 CONCLUSIONS The assessment of collection (Section 3.2), treatment (Section 3.3), and the related environmental (Section 3.4), economic (Section 3.5), and social (Section 3.6) impacts forms the necessary factual basis for understanding the heart of the development cycle with the three key development areas presented in Chapter 4, with Policy and Legislation in more detail in Section 4.2, Business and Finance in Section 4.3, and Technologies and Skills in Section 4.4. After this, the factual basis ideally forms a solid starting point for a national action plan for practical implementation by listing all key intervention options in Section 5.2, the Selection and Prioritization in Section 5.3, and converting this into an implementation roadmap that includes the description of timing and resources needed in Section 5.4. In all these subsequent chapters, the factual basis from this Chapter 3

References 89

assessment is a crucial ingredient. Finally, important direct and indirect conditions for successful implementation are listed in Section 5.6 related to Monitoring and Control, Section 5.7 regarding Awareness and Education, and Section 5.8 on the topic of Design Feedback.

DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for any use made of the information contained therein. United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous organ of the UN General Assembly dedicated to generating and transferring knowledge and strengthening capacities relevant to global issues of human security, development, and welfare. The University operates through a worldwide network of research and training centers and programs coordinated by UNU Centre in Tokyo. The designations employed and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, its authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of UNU, nor does the citing of trade names, companies, schemes, or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

REFERENCES ADEME, 2013. Study on the Quantification of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in France Household and Similar WEEE Arising and Destinations, Final Report. Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Fondeur Gill, S., Kern, M., Micheli, P., Magpantay, E., Huisman, J., 2015. E-Waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators. United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany, ISBN 978-92-808-4554-9 (electronic). Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-Waste Monitor e 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn, Geneva, Vienna. Balkenende, R., Occhionorelli, V., van Meensel, W., Felix, J., Sjölin, S., Aerts, M., Huisman, J., Becker, J., van Schaik, A., Reuter, M., 2014. GreenElec: Product Design Linked to Recycling, Going Green - Care Innovation 2014, 2014/11/17. Vienna, Austria.

90 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

Basel Convention, 1989. In: Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Basel, March 22, 1989. Bonner, C., 2009. Organising in the Informal Economy: Resource Books for Organisers. ResearchGate: http://www.wiego.org/program_areas/org_rep/index.php#ICCBooklets. Forti, V., Baldé, C.P., Kuehr, R., 2018. E-Waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators, second ed. United Nations University, ViE e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. GIZ, 2011. List of Literature Related to the Informal Sector in Solid Waste Management. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2011-en-bibliography.pdf. Gunselius, E., 2017. Improving the Improving the Sustainability of E-Waste Management, German Development Cooperation Focus. World Resources Forum. https://www. wrforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/24-10-2017_Gunsilius-Germandevelopment-cooperation_WRF.pdf. Huisman, J., 2003. The QWERTY/EE Concept, Quantifying Recyclability and EcoEfficiency for End-of-Life Treatment of Consumer Electronic Products (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology. Huisman, J., 2013. Too big to fail, too academic to function. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17/2, 172e174. Huisman, J., Boks, C.B., Stevels, A.L.N., 2003. Quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability (QWERTY): concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value. International Journal of Production Research 41 (16), 3649e3665. Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., August 30, 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap (Lyon, France). Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tetre, F., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A., Wäger, P., Kushnir, D., Rotter, V.S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M., Downes, S., 2017. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM) - Final Report, 978-92-808-9060-0;978-92-808-9061-7, 2017/12/21. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., 2018. In: WEEE Recycling Economics, Study Commissioned by EERA, February 2018, Bonn, Germany, 2018. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., Mosconi, R., Gobbi, A., Manzoni, M., Pagnoncelli, N., Scarcella, G., Alemanno, A., Monti, I., 2012a. Household WEEE Generated in Italy, Analyis on Volumes & Consumer Disposal Behavior for Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany.

References 91

Magalini, F., Crock, W., Kuehr, R., 2012b. In: EWAM ToolKit: Proceeding of 2012 GeSI & StEP E-Waste Academy Managers Edition. Magalini, F., Balde, C.P., Habib, H., 2015. Quantifying Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment in Romania. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Baldé, K., van Straalen, V., Hestin, M., Lecerf, L., Sayman, U., Akpulat, O., 2016. Study on Collection Rates of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Possible Measures to Be Initiated by the Commission as Required by Article 7 (4), 7 (5), 7 (6) and 7 (7) of Directive 2012/ 19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). March 8, 2016. http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Final_Report_Art7_publication.pdf. Manhart, A., 2015. In: Best-of-2-Worlds Closure Event Berlin Presentation, September 24, 2015. Odeyingbo, O., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2017. Person in the Port Project: Assessing Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria. UNU-ViE SCYCLE and BCCC Africa, Bonn, Germany. December 13, 2017. Ploos van Amstel, 1997. Apparetour e Back to the Beginning, National Pilot Project for Collecting, Recycling and Repairing Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the District of Eindhoven. Eindhoven. Ploos van Amstel Milieu Consulting B.V., 1997. Schluep, M., 2012. Reference Document on E-Waste Management. A. Mkama and C. Zavazava. ITU. Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, Mueller, E., Wang, F., 2009. Recycling e From E-Waste to Resources. UNEP - DTIE, Paris. July, 2009. Schluep, M., Muller, E., Ott, D., Rochat, D., 2012. In: E-Waste Assessment Methodology, Training & Reference Manual, EMPA, Switzerland, October, 2012. SRI project, 2018. In: Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound E-Waste Management for Collectors, Collection Centers, Transporters, Treatment Facilities and Final Disposal in Ghana, EPA, February 2018. StEP Initiative, 2016. In: Guiding Principles to Develop E-Waste Management Systems and Legislation, Solving the E-Waste Problem , Step White Paper, ISSN:2071-3576 (Online), 18.01.2016, Bonn Germany. United Nations University, 2018. The E-Waste Academy for Managers (EWAM) for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Policy-makers. The E-Waste Academy for Scientists (EWAS) for Young Researchers. http://ewasteacademy.org/. Wang, F., 2014. E-Waste: Collect More, Treat Better; Tracking Take-Back System Performance for Eco-Efficient Electronics Recycling (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. March 2014. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Stevels, A.L.N., Baldé, C.P., 2013. Enhancing e-waste estimates: improving data quality by multivariate InputeOutput Analysis. Waste Management 33 (11), 2397e2407. November 1, 2013. WEEE Forum Key Figures, 2010e2017. see. http://www.weee-forum.org/services/keyfigures-on-e-waste. Brussels.

92 CHAPTER 3 The e-waste development cycle, part IIdimpact assessment of collection and treatment

WEEE Forum, 2018. WEEE Forum Reporting Tool-REPTOOL. December 4, 2018. https://www.wf-reptool.org/. Wielenga, K., Huisman, J., Baldé, K., 2013. (W)EEE Mass Balance and Market Structure in Belgium, Study for Recupel. Recupel, Brussels, Belgium. Worldloop, 2018. http://worldloop.org/e-waste/worldloops-approach-to-e-waste-management/.

Chapter

4

The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation, business & finance, and technologies & skills

Jaco Huisman1, Ab Stevels2, Kees Baldé3, Federico Magalini3, 4, Ruediger Kuehr3

1

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, Ispra, Italy; 2Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 3United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany; 4Sofies, Weybridge, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

4.1 Introduction and readers’ guide 4.2 Policy and Legislation 97 4.2.1 Starting countries

94

97

4.2.1.1 The legal basis 98 4.2.1.2 Setting the initial scope and definitions 4.2.1.3 Choosing initial requirements 104

4.2.2 Emerging countries

102

107

4.2.2.1 Update legal principles; extend the scope and set next goals 108 4.2.2.2 Develop implementing acts and standards to align responsibilities 111 4.2.2.3 Aligning stakeholder responsibilities 113

4.2.3 Established countries

114

4.2.3.1 Proportionality and administrative burden 116 4.2.3.2 Update and mature implementation rules 117 4.2.3.3 Improve system efficiency and cooperation 118

4.3 Business and Finance

120

4.3.1 Starting countries

121

Pilot project funding 121 The basic financing mechanism 122 Setting up a registration system for market inputs Developing a business plan for dismantlers 123

4.3.2 Emerging countries

123

123

Financing for critical fractions 125 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00004-5 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

93

94 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Streamlining financing 125 Penalties 126

4.3.3 Established countries

127

Positive financial incentives for collection and treatment in an economically level playing field 127 Financing of collection in starting countries by established systems 128

4.4 Technologies and Skills

128

4.4.1 Starting countries

129

Pilot studies on collection and treatment 129 Pre-processing 130 End-processing 132 Management and organizational skills 133

4.4.2 Emerging countries

133

Preprocessing 133 End-processing and managing different fractions 134 Management 134

4.4.3 Established countries

135

Collection 135 Treatment 135

4.5 Conclusions 136 Disclaimer 136 References 137

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND READERS’ GUIDE This Chapter 4 provides the third part of the e-waste development chapters in this handbook, which were first introduced in Chapters 2 and 3. It describes possible interventions and experiences related to the key development areas of “Policy and Legislation,” “Business and Finance,” and “Technologies and Skills.” Development of take-back systems is a time-consuming and complex process. As proposed in Chapter 2, it is recommended to adapt an iterative and tailor-made approach for countries starting their e-waste policies, countries with systems in place and even for established countries with many years of experience, as there is still progress to be made. An iterative approach is needed due to the heterogeneous character of e-waste and its quickly changing material compositions and economic values, combined with different cultural and socioeconomic conditions and organizational and technical capabilities. It is therefore important to start tackling the issues with a realistic action agenda with a limited scope. In later cycles of policy development, more items can be added. The additional advantage of this strategy is “learning as you go” compared to more time-consuming linear approaches. For this reason, the next sections provide a comprehensive overview about what to consider on one hand as well as an “a la carte” action-based approach on the other hand. This dynamic character stimulates quicker piloting and developing of experience without having to specify every single detail.

4.1 Introduction and readers’ guide 95

Table 4.1 provides an overview of the key development questions as well as a readers’ guide for where to find additional information. For the full reader's guide covering the Chapters 2e5, see Table 2.1. The outcomes of the previous country and impact assessment phases in Chapters 2 and 3 usually lead to a multitude of defined problems and a collection of qualitative and quantitative facts. This forms the basis for further interventions in the development areas of Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance, and Technologies and Skills. The objectives for defining such new interventions or revising existing development components are structured around the starting points of “more collection and better treatment” into three levels:

Table 4.1 Key development questions posed (covering Chapter 4 of this handbook) Development areas

Starting countries

Emerging countries

Established countries

Step 4: How and where to intervene with Policy and Legislation? (Section 4.2) Policy and Legislation

The legal basis

4.2.1 How to timely develop sensible regulations for e-waste? 4.2.1.1 Who should be in charge?

Scope, definitions, and requirements

4.2.1.2 Which products should be in scope?

Responsibilities

4.2.1.3 How to include the informal sectors?

4.2.2 How to run a successful revision?

4.2.3 How successful is implementation in reality?

4.2.2.1 Which elements need specifically to be updated and extended? 4.2.2.2 How to complement policies with implementation rules and standards? 4.2.2.3 How to align stakeholder responsibilities?

4.2.3.1 How to improve proportionality and efficiency? 4.2.3.2 How to mature implementation rules?

4.2.3.3 How to mature stakeholder cooperation?

Step 5: What needs to financed and how? (Section 4.3) Business and Finance

4.3.1 What is affordable and what is not? Who can provide initial financial resources? Which financing mechanism to select?

4.3.2 Does the financing mechanism work properly?

4.3.3 How to reward quality in collection and treatment beyond basic compliance?

Step 6: What Technologies and Skills are needed? (Section 4.4) Technologies Skills

4.4.1 How to develop a basic collection and treatment infrastructure

4.4.2 How to improve preprocessing? Where to send complex fractions?

4.4.3 How to steer and stimulate innovation beyond economic optimized levels? (forward to Step 5, Implementation Road Map (Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4) and Step 6, Conditions for Success (Sections 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8)

96 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

1. Primary objectives are defined as direct environmental aims such as material and energy recovery, control over toxic emissions, less waste volume to landfill, and incineration. After defining them, these objectives can be translated into direct legal targets such as collection amounts and toxic control or material reclamation levels. They can also be translated into guidelines in accompanying standards or into less tangible development elements such as piloting or investing in better recycling technology (research). 2. Secondary objectives are defined as supporting and indirect objectives that support the primary objectives such as, for instance, the reduction of exporting from developed countries to developing regions and of importing in developing countries, which are prevention objectives to limit the level of environmentally relevant substances. Another example is aiming at increased life span and reuse quality by improved product quality. 3. Tertiary objectives are defined as those that support the overall efficiency of the take-back system and include, for example, enhancing infrastructure in collection and treatment, cost-effectiveness, and higher transparency and awareness levels amongst all stakeholders. These objectives obviously require formulations that are more precise in order to be further translated into legislation, adjacent policies and technology, and financing interventions. Ideally based on and combined with outcomes of the previous assessment steps sketched Chapters 2 and 3, this ultimately ends in a specific description of e-waste system objectives. In many countries, setting up e-waste legislation and adjacent policies has proven to be a significant incentive or even the sole activity triggering change. However, besides development of e-waste regulations, in essence there are three other main domains where initial decisions (for starting countries), improvement and extension decisions (emerging countries), and efficiency decisions (for established countries) need to be taken. The three domains are: 1. The legal basis, describing who is in charge at what time, that forms the main content regarding the development area of Policy and Legislation as presented in Section 4.2; 2. The financial basis, describing where funding is coming from to cover sustainable financing of collection and treatment for the development area Business and Finance as presented in Section 4.3; 3. The organizational basis, describing who will be executing various tasks and specifically what Technologies and Skills are needed in relation to arranging logistics, collection, and treatment as presented in Section 4.4.

4.2 Policy and Legislation 97

For all three domains in Chapter 4, the key questions listed in Table 4.1 for starting, emerging, and established countries form the starting point for describing common issues, tasks ahead, recommendations, and already available tools and useful sources of information. The focus of this chapter is to describe all individual intervention options. However, practical implementation requires alignment of possible interventions from the three development areas in conjunction. Therefore, the organisational process of practical goal setting, reviewing of different implementation options, and selecting of actual interventions is described in Chapter 5, which aims to accumulate the systemic efforts into one national road map.

4.2 POLICY AND LEGISLATION A key question for starting, emerging, and established countries regarding developing Policy and Legislation is:

n

Step 4: How and where should intervention (continue to) occur with Policy and Legislation?

4.2.1 Starting countries For starting countries, commonly without government involvement, little to no development is realized. Having one single organization in the lead at the beginning is instrumental for the initiating steps. In some cases, however, voluntary programs stimulated by producers, recyclers, and/or NGOs on smaller scales have emerged. In McCann and Wittman (2015), there is no distinction made between the initiating role and executing roles, which do not necessarily have to be the same and can alter later. For starting countries, based on the country status analysis of Sections 2.4e2.7, it is advised to use an existing overview of organizations (possibly) involved or construct a new or updated overview when not existing. In case no policy has been developed so far, the entirety of decisions regarding the legal basis, possible organizational arrangements, and the financing structure is challenging to comprehend. There are, however, plenty of examples available on how countries have approached the issues previously. Considering these examples makes it easier to develop a focused and country-specific agenda rather than starting from scratch or spending substantial efforts to reinvent the wheel. Commonly, the key issues for starting countries are the lack of formal treatment facilities, a strong informal sector, and substantial volumes of (il)

98 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

legal imports of e-waste and used products (McCann and Wittman, 2015). Often, organizational structures are also absent, such as those representing producers, recyclers, and government entities. These conditions vary country by country and are inherently different compared to the situation for emerging and established countries. The challenge is to adapt the drafting of Policy and Legislation for these conditions instead of copyepasting mature legal texts from established countries. The latter may introduce redundant or too-mature requirements that are unreachable for the specific situation in starting countries. Therefore, a key question here is:

n

How should sensible regulation for e-waste be developed that timely covers the necessary basics and is sufficiently comprehensive for future expansion?

To cover the basics for starting countries, the main policy elements suggested are with regard to the legal basis, who should primarily be in charge, and how to deal with usually well-established informal sectors. Secondly, a decision on the product scope and basic definitions is relevant, and thirdly, the key interventions and initial implementation rules need to be decided upon.

4.2.1.1 The legal basis For the legal basis, it is to be realized that the appropriate treatment of e-waste always costs money. There is a chain deficit irrespective of which country or region in the world is being considered. Financing of this deficit should therefore have a clear legal basis. Experience shows that if there is no strong legal basis for the financing part, discussions about this are endless because for financing, there are inevitable conflicts of interest between stakeholders. The actual options for financing mechanisms are elaborated upon in Section 4.3, while the legal basis for starting countries is discussed here. Although in most cases EPR (extended producer responsibility) is the starting principle, a range of possibilities and variants exist that delegate or distribute the responsibilities to actors in an alternative manner. Hence the key questions here are:

n n n

Who should primarily be in charge? How are the informal sectors included? How is an initial collection target substantiated?

4.2 Policy and Legislation 99

In many established countries, producer organizations have historically already been present. Thus, they are a logical choice for being assigned to take the responsibility from the legal basis, leading in the long run to less reliance on government entities as the (sole) initiating organizations. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish who is in charge of initiating the e-waste development process and who has a more coordination or delegated role in executing the legislation later. It is recommended to analyze this decision against the stakeholder analysis performed in the country assessment part of Sections 2.4e2.7. Here, ideally the current presence and functioning of key stakeholders is described. The analysis of the existence of and the strengths and weaknesses of, amongst others, (other) government entities, producer organizations, recyclers organizations, and reuse and repair associations, can support the decision regarding the assignment of responsibilities. Here, ideally speaking, a more positive starting point in the initial discussions is “who can contribute to what” rather than “who should pay.”

The legal basisdprimary responsibility McCann and Wittman (2015) distinguish two main options of having either government or producer responsibility organizations (PROs) in charge of managing the system. (In this chapter, “PRO” is used instead of third party organization (TPO) in the original version.) These two options are by far the most common; however, other possibilities do exist. In the Table 4.2, three more options are added, including the option to let individual producers steer collection and recycling entirely individually. This option can function for professional types of products and niche sections of the market that have a very direct collection possibility due to, for instance, lease contracts. However, for setting the initial scope in starting countries, inclusion of professional and low-volume equipment types may only complicate the basic steps required at this stage (see Section 4.2.1.2 for more details). Another option exists occasionally in a few emerging countries, which is the choice to put recyclers in charge of the system; the advantage is that the strengths and weaknesses of the collection and recycling market are commonly well known, and it may be easier to bring higher collection volumes into the reporting system. The disadvantages are potentially lower environmental standards, lack of transparency over the actual business activities, and the risk of solely preferring economic optimization over environmental concerns. A fifth and more complex option organizationally is to have a “three-partite governing” model, which sometimes coexists, for instance, in the form of a governing council adjacent to a PRO in some countriesdfor instance, for monitoring purposes only. This option for the system at large is somewhat theoretical. However, if feasible, organizationally it has a

100 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Table 4.2 Pros and cons of main entity in charge for the e-waste system management Entity in charge

Pro

Con

Government

Have powers of enforcement: for instance, by levying fines and ban noncompliant producers

Not always most efficient economically, as this can lead to additional layers of administration Can stifle (quick) innovation Money flowing into and out of government departments can be problematic Potential lack of enforcement mechanism Can focus too much on their members and do not have the wider community and environment as interested stakeholders No economic interest to maximize collection volumes and treatment quality No 100% control over collection channels Can focus only on own products Expensive to collect and sort only own products When producer is relative newcomer, little return volume expected. Less control over quality of treatment, risk of cherry picking only and economic optimization only.

No potential conflict of interest

PRO in charge

Individual producers

Recyclers

Recyclers, producers, and government

More flexibledcan adjust rules and outcomes more easily Easier for PRO than government to develop relationship with members

Business incentive as costs and program can more easily be controlled and influenced Only responsible for own (share of) products.

More grip on collection and treatment Less administrative and reporting burden There are always two out of three organizations in favor of more collection and higher quality of treatment. Similarly, two out of three organizations will be in favor of keeping costs down and proper reporting and monitoring.

More complex to arrange than a single stakeholder in the lead. Individual responsibilities potentially less clear

Last three rows extended from the original source: McCann, D., Wittmann, A., February 13, 2015. E-waste Prevention, Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the e-Waste Problem (StEP), Green Paper, Bonn, Germany. ISSN: 2219-6579.

substantial advantage in creating proper economic incentives for high collection rates and quality of treatment on one hand (government and recyclers will be in favor), and keeping the system cost-efficient on the other (government and producers in favor). The disadvantage, in particular for starting

4.2 Policy and Legislation 101

countries, is the added complexity in negotiations and the need to have all three organizations already available and relatively well organized from the beginning. Therefore, the option can also be considered at a later stage in the development process in a second or third development round. In all cases above, it is recommended to align the presence and strengths of the stakeholder actively present into a set of decisions and plans that will first assign who will be in charge of initiating the system and secondly who will receive operational responsibilities versus monitoring and control responsibilities. It can also be considered to change primary responsibilities over time, because those taking the initial lead may not be best positioned for mere operational tasks later on.

Individual versus collective responsibility The question of who is responsible is a relevant and necessary one. However, in the past many lengthy and fruitless discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of the EPR principle and of individual producer responsibility (IPR) have been held. From experience, the discussion on the starting principles and whether a “polluter pays principle” versus EPR, or “collective” versus “individual” responsibility, has delayed the decision process significantly. It also distracts, in particular, starting countries from the most pressing environmental issues, which is to realize “oldfashioned” end-of-pipe solutions first. This said, this does not mean that prevention measures should be ignored. There are many cases where product design and “design for recycling” as a subset of ecodesign are leading to less environmental accidents built in. Obviously, improved product design is a meaningful long-term prevention strategy as such. Besides the relevant point that external costs should be internalized somehow, the original idea of IPR is that when producers are responsible for recycling, to minimize costs they would make their products more recyclable. This envisioned design feedback loop in the previous version of the European Union’s (EU’s) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive (European Parliament and Council, 2003; European Parliament and Council, 2012) never materialized in reality (Huisman, 2013). This does not mean that design incentives should be discarded altogether. First of all, it is recommended that this area continues to be integrated and present in product policies instead of in waste policies to enable proper balancing with other ecodesign requirements. Secondly, it is recommended to be considered at a later development stage when both communication loops and reporting and analysis frameworks are more established and mature. Therefore, the topic of “design feedback” is discussed separately in Section 5.8.

102 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Various additional sources, StEP Initiative white and green papers, TU Delft and EMPA publications developed over the years contain more examples of combinations of decisions taken in various countries regarding EPRbased policy frameworks (Huisman et al., 2006, 2008; Gregory et al., 2009; StEP Initiative, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018; Schluep, 2012; Schluep et al., 2012; Stevels et al., 2012; McCann and Wittman, 2015).

4.2.1.2 Setting the initial scope and definitions Following the starting principles regarding who are responsible, the setting of the product scope, proper definitions, and the first standards require attention. For setting the scope and making adequate definitions, practice shows that it is impossible to cover all outstanding and possible issues directly from the beginning. A successful approach is therefore to use scarce financial, organizational, and technical resources primarily for tackling those issues that are most pressing and to aim for interventions that have the maximum immediate effect. In particular, the scope of products could include all types of products ideally. However, initially it can be much more effective and faster to have a reduced scope to keep the legal, organization, and financing measures proportionate. Therefore, for starting countries, the key questions are:

n n

Which products should be included in the initial scope? Which definitions are crucial?

Setting the initial scope The setting of the product scope has many consequences for basic management of the system. There are two basic options to start with, a limited scope consisting of the most relevant products or a full scope, potentially with certain exemptions (McCann and Wittmann, 2015). Generally speaking, the wider the scope, the more resources for registrations, expected volumes, and reporting, monitoring, and enforcement requirements will be needed, all adding to more complexity. The narrower the scope, the lower the expected volumes and the risk to leave relevant products untouched for the short and midterm. Here, the iterative approach of the development cycle allows starting countries to select a phased scope, allowing later extension by including more products (see also Section 4.2.2.2). The advantage of such a phased scope is to limit administration and registration burdens and to focus on the most environmentally relevant products first while maintaining the possibility for a full scope. The disadvantage can be that later such

4.2 Policy and Legislation 103

extensions are not made and the existing legal framework is left as is. When selecting the phased scope, the choice of which products to include can be based on the environmental relevancy of specific products and high shares to total volumes entering the market. From the EU WEEE Directive review study (Huisman et al., 2008), a clear prioritization of environmental issues is provided related to individual equipment types such as mercury in energysaving lamps and (older) LCD panels, CFCs from refrigerators and air conditioners, lead from the CRT glass of old TVs and monitors, and specific small and IT products with batteries such as laptops, tablets, and mobile phones, and possibly also batteries separately. These products are explicitly mentioned because they are clearly identifiable and can represent the collection category they belong to later, including additional product types that are relatively similar. Also, products with a high metal or precious metal content such as computers can be prioritized in the first definition of scope. See McCann and Wittmann (2015) for more background on the choices and later developments made in individual countries. A specific subset to consider is the option to focus on equipment in use by government and semipublic entities such as schools. Because ownership is already with the public sector, collection can be arranged more easily and can provide for the first volumes to be steered to pilot treatment facilities.

Setting basic definitions Directly related to scope decisions is the definition of actors in the chain and of various steps in the collection and logistics and of treatment. Even in established take-back system countries, many definitions are often incomplete, unclear, overlooked, or lacking. The consequence of this can be legal uncertainty or “escape routes” for stakeholders. Therefore, for example, definitions of “producer,” “recycler,” and “collector” are needed to adequately determine the legal status in relation to assigned responsibilities. This may seem trivial; however, experience shows that even minor differences and open interpretations between countries may lead to long discussions, legal issues, “escape routes,” and suboptimal implementation in the long run. In this regard, a good recommendation is to learn from what others have done and not to try to invent everything independently. Fortunately, substantial documentation on the matter is available. For various principles, requirements, and a summary of definitions related to standards for collection, storage, transport, and treatment of e-waste, one can refer to Deubzer (2012). Examples from now-established countries can be found in the EU WEEE Directive (European Council and Parliament, 2012) and StEP Initiative (2010). In StEP Initiative (2009), common definitions for reuse are found, and in StEP Initiative (2014), specific definitions for e-waste are

104 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

summarized. For starting countries, the SRI project (2018) provides a comprehensive and useful list of such definitions as well. Finally, for individual countries, the StEP Initiative World Map provides links to all available e-waste-related legal texts for all countries in the world with a policy framework and their scopes and definitions (StEP Initiative, 2018).

Setting an initial collection target Collection targets form an important incentive and translation of the ewaste policy objectives into tangible units. In the case of starting countries, the main difficulty is that not much information is available on what is achievable in coming years due to a lack of experience and data. In this case, the following sources provide benchmark information and timeseries as reference points for comparable conditions (Baldé et al., 2015a, 2017; StEP Initiative, 2018). In addition, Baldé et al. (2015b) provides guidelines and classifications for starting the data collection process based on international trade statistics for starting countries in order to substantiate market inputs. In case sufficient information is available, one can start with a single, simple weight-based approach reflecting the chosen product scope, and in later stages further develop more sophisticated options (see Section 4.2.2.1). Alternatively, one can also define what efforts need to be done in order to initiate collection, such as the setting up of a minimum number and type of collection points, or that products within scope from specific sources, such as government entities, schools, universities, and larger businesses, must be collected within a certain time frame, and then gradually expanding coverage of the collection system without yet specifying a tangible goal.

4.2.1.3 Choosing initial requirements The previous decisions on the legal basis and the scope and accompanying necessary definitions form the basis for the most important step in the initial policy development stagesdthe initial selection of requirements for national e-waste regulations. It can be rather complex to find a balance between the most pressing short-term objectives as well as preparing the framework for longer-term development, which is more difficult to envisage and for which resources and capacities are often not yet within reach.

n n

How far-reaching should the requirements be? How to involve the informal sector?

4.2 Policy and Legislation 105

Possible key interventions for starting countries relate to the involvement of the informal sector, the banning of the most polluting practices, improving working conditions, and limiting imports of low-quality used goods and waste where applicable. Supporting actions can be organizing first collection and treatment trials, which is further discussed in Section 4.3.1.

Involving the informal sector In case policy design is based on existing frameworks from established countries, the risk is that the informal sector either remains ignored or is reduced in areas where informal workers may provide necessary services for collection, repair, reuse, and waste treatment. These sectors do not directly contribute to the economy in the form of taxes (Bonner, 2009) and commonly do not take care of depollution of e-waste. Still, the informal sector can play an important role in providing sorting, repair, and reuse of electronics for low-income groups, providing many jobs, and collecting much larger volumes than formal sectors do in developing countries (McCann and Wittman, 2015; GIZ, 2011; Gunselius, 2017). The large involvement in dismantling activities that separate e-waste in purer fractions than achievable with modern mechanical separation technologies has a significant added value from both an environmental and an economic point of view (Wang et al., 2012). In most subsequent stages of treatment, there are specific disadvantages. Due to collection of the economically attractive fractions only and discarding or burning of the remaining, significant pollution frequently occurs. The economic efficiency and reuse value of products and components in the informal sector, combined with the absence of rules and taxation, poses an obstacle for developing a formal sector for the longer term. Organizationally, there are also opportunities that differ from those in emerging and established countries in the past. Smartphones offer a tremendous connectivity opportunity to inform and bring all parties involved in the e-waste sector together. So far, the potential of this opportunity has been grossly underestimated. Easily available information, exchange about best practices, dismantling instructions, quantities, and prices of secondary materials, available capacity, and possible outlets for valuable and critical fractions can be of great help, particularly for the informal sector.

Banning polluting practices

Important first intervention decisions are related to whether and where to keep the informal sector active in collection and dismantling. Here simple requirements can be proposed to avoid (further) pollution by banning the most impacting practices such as cable burning, acid leaching of printed circuit boards, the dumping (and burning) of plastics and other negatively

106 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

valued treatment fractions such as CRT glass, mercury components, and batteries. An example of a relatively simple change in practices is presented in Font (2014), providing simple and more efficient and thus affordable solutions to avoid cable burning. Positively, from collecting funds to professionalize the existing informal sector involved in the preprocessing stages, the accumulation of environmental relevant fractions can be realized. Here also, the role of municipalities should be defined, in case solid waste management is sufficiently organized, in facilitating own collection points and in permitting local collection points that can include informal recyclers and repair groups.

Reducing imports of low-quality goods Specifically for starting countries with a significant influx of used and waste electronics, implementing the Basel Convention properly can limit the final amounts of waste entering the country. Besides the Basel Convention (1989), many other national rules and guidelines exist to limit net export flows of environmentally relevant waste products to developing countries (UNEP, 2015). Important here is also to spend some effort on understanding the main routes and actors in the import of used equipment and wastes. According to the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) project (Huisman et al., 2015), specific cooperation and information exchange with the sending countries can reduce the share of undesired imported volumes. For more information on the policy decisions possible, see also McCann and Wittman (2015), StEP Initiative (2016), Odeyingbo et al. (2017).

Improving working conditions Usually, there is a lack of overview of the informal sector’s specific functioning and in particular actual working conditions, which can be far worse than can be monitored from the outside. Thus, formulating a clear strategy of whether to involve the sector is difficult to take. McCann and Wittman (2015); SRI project, 2018) contains various options to formalize the informal sector by improving the level of organization in the form of cooperatives and associations. They also provide options such as arranging for specific types of financing of activities or buying of residual waste fractions, the establishment of partnerships between formal recycling industry players, and informal collectors and preprocessors buying both valuable and nonvaluable fractions at the same time. The B02W concept (Wang et al., 2012) and subsequent studies (Manhart, 2015; WorldLoop, 2018) provide a specific approach for organizing the preprocessing merely by the informal sector and the end-processing stages more around formalized sectors. Although the concept provides for useful direction to evolve over time, the crucial element remains that funds are needed to compensate for negative values

4.2 Policy and Legislation 107

of (capital intensive) end-processing (abroad) and the logistics costs of complex fraction such as screens, CRT glass, brominated flame-retardant plastics, and batteries. Here, the Bo2W business model should be implemented integrally to avoid cherry-picking by taking care of all treatment fractions. Alternatively, when the seeking outlets for complex fractions is too cost-inefficient due to low volumes and/or high logistical costs, temporary storage of these fractions for later shipment can be considered.

Prepare for future updates and revision; provide a mandate to develop standards

The StEP White Paper “Guiding Principles to Develop E-waste Management Systems and Legislation” (StEP Initiative, 2016) contains additional elements and a range of case study examples that can be considered in initial stages. In short, the main recommendation is not to develop an “one round fits all” fully comprehensive legislation, but to start with relatively simple requirements to avoid polluted sites and gather funds to professionalize the existing informal collection and recycling activities as well as to block the most undesired import activities. Regarding setting targets, it is advised to set rules that are ambitious but still relate to the current situation and leave room to move quickly to the next stage in case improvements are indeed realized. Finally, revision deadlines for the way the scope is defined, as well as for the basic collection and treatment requirements in the first version, should be included. Finally, it is recommended to provide a mandate for developing the necessary implementation standards for collection and treatment. Section 4.2.2.2 provides more details here. Regarding initial reporting requirements, see also Section 5.6.1.

4.2.2 Emerging countries After the initial legal basis and assuming also the initial instalment of financing and development of the basic Technologies and Skills from the previous implementation round, the focus at this point is to develop a revision round of legislation efficiently and implementing acts and standards that can be updated more regularly than the legislative framework. For emerging countries with a first version of e-waste legislation enacted, a key question regarding the legal basis is:

n

How should a successful revision of the initial legislation be run?

108 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Commonly, the informal sector is present in emerging countries but gradually becomes more formalized and still needs improved working conditions. The same counts for the initial collection and recycling activities. Here, similarly, professionalization, realization of economies of scale, and connections to the international markets for recyclables and outlets for the critical fractions need to be established. Setting various standards and implementation guidelines is presented in Section 4.2.2.2. Extension of the initial scope and additional assigning of responsibilities is needed. Prior to this, Section 4.2.2.1 deals with the extension and improvement of the initial legal basis and specifically discusses the scope extension and the setting of the next system development goals. In Section 4.2.2.3, various additional interventions are discussed. Specifically, from a monitoring point of view, some reporting may take place, but more elaborate and reliable declarations over activities may be required. Also, improving control and further restricting imports is discussed. As an example of a second round development cycle, the study for the recast of the EU WEEE Directive for the European Commission provided where specific adaptations and/or new elements are possible. A full analysis of many intervention options for the EU related to scope, collection, recycling and recovery, recycling targets, reuse targets, and treatment requirements is presented in detail in Chapter 10 of Huisman et al. (2008).

4.2.2.1 Update legal principles; extend the scope and set next goals A key question regarding the legal basis for emerging countries is:

n

Which elements need specifically to be updated and extended?

There are basic principles for which the e-waste take-back and treatment system should be stable and not subject to constant change. However, the implementation rules connected to them should be easily adaptable to changing circumstances as the system develops. This may be due to increasing technical sophistication and skills, market prices, changing quantities, and the composition of e-waste volumes.

4.2 Policy and Legislation 109

Primary responsibility First, based on the country assessment from Sections 2.4e2.7, the specification of complementary responsibilities in collection, treatment, and reporting can be reviewed and altered where needed. See again Table 4.2 from Section 4.2.1.1, which provides options to shift, for example, certain organizational responsibilities to other stakeholders.

Extending and updating the product scope A second area of revision is the review of the scope. In case a limited scope is selected prior, an extension is possible to include more products. Here two possibilities exist. One is to expand with a listing of products that jointly form a collection category. The advantage here is that it is clear which products are targeted for future years. The disadvantage is that products change rapidly over time, making the lists possibly outdated at some point. Another option is to choose a more open scope like the EU WEEE Recast (European Parliament and the Council, 2012). Here the advantage is that newer products are automatically covered. The disadvantages are that there are always grey areas and certain exemptions needed to make the scope practical for declarations and reporting. Specific difficulties are related to dual-use products and whether professional equipment types should be covered. In some cases, financing requirements (see also Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2) are different for consumer versus business products. The FAQ of the WEEE DirectivedSection 3 (European Commission, 2014), contains some practical explanations and examples of what is covered by the legislation and what is not. McCann and Wittman (2015) provides three basic options to: firstly, exclude business products altogether in case these are already collected to high degrees; secondly, apply the same regime for business as for consumer products throughout; or thirdly, to specifically address and list the criteria in case a distinction between consumer and business products is required in relation to the defined goals, financing requirements, and/or reporting requirements. In addition to this, specific criteria are needed for excluding products with a strictly professional application and often a dedicated return channel such as, for instance, by dedicated installation (and decommissioning) companies. Here also, the FAQ section to the WEEE Directive (European Commission, 2014) contains specific criteria for exemptions in this case. In addition, more analysis on the advantages and disadvantages of different options regarding the scope, in particular for “part of other equipment, military equipment, medical equipment, large industrials tools,” can be found in Chapter 9 of Huisman et al. (2008).

110 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Collection targets and options As stated in Section 4.2.1.2, collection targets form an important incentive and translation of the e-waste policy objectives into tangible units. It is advised to set targets that are ambitious with respect to the current situation, but that are not so overambitious that they are perceived to be unrealistic and discourage further action. In case an initial collection target is used, the basic options to expand from an original target are the following: 1. Maintain the defined targets. 2. Apply specific targets per collection category. 3. Change from a simple weight-based target to a percentage of market input and/or waste generated. The purpose of more elaborate collection targets is to stimulate collection, in particular of equipment with significant environmental impacts. In addition to these targets, additional requirements are possible to improve the collection infrastructure, for instance via specification of the type, number, and access to collection points for consumers. There is substantial information available on the design, level, and implementation of collection targets in Huisman et al. (2008) and in the specific study to develop a common methodology for the collection targets for all countries in the EU (Magalini et al., 2016).

Treatment targets Setting specific targets for treatment can be challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of the various treatment categories and the changes in composition of products over time. This is particularly the case due to rapid miniaturization and the increasing use of plastics instead of metals. Treatment targets can ideally be defined per collection category or be material focused when expressed as a minimum recycling or recovery rate. They can additionally also be defined as removal targets for hazardous substances, capturing levels for greenhouse gases, or recovery rates for critical raw materials. They can also be defined as rather qualitative or specific minimum thresholds to be achieved. The obvious purpose of recycling and recovery targets is to increase the actual amount of recycled content. A substantial amount of literature is written on the meaningfulness and scope of weight-based recycling targets such as in Huisman (2003), Huisman et al. (2008), as well as in the more recent EU review of these targets in Seyring et al. (2015). In most cases, a weightbased target is used. There are, however, other options, ranging from more simple requirements dedicated to the treatment of specific negative value

4.2 Policy and Legislation 111

fractions such as CRT glass and plastics to very complex options such as environmentally weighted equivalents, which are not recommended here for direct application due to the level of modeling and impact assessment work that needs to be standardized and commonly agreed upon. It should be noted that even when using relatively simple weight-based targets, the definition of what is included is crucial and not always meaningful (Kalisvaart et al., 2000). This applies for instance when the weight of the fractions entering a recycling facility is counted instead of the actual recovery of, for instance, the metal content itself. As such, a weight based target can be a driver for higher inputs of residue materials instead of as-clean-aspossible inputs. In any case, when considering whether to use specific types of treatment standards, the challenge is to develop requirements that form an actual incentive for recycling beyond the economic optimization of recyclable content with a positive value. Options to further explore this are presented in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3 for established countries. In many countries, setting minimum requirements is arranged by implementing dedicated WEEE treatment standards (see the next Section 4.2.2.2, which also reflects on reuse targets).

4.2.2.2 Develop implementing acts and standards to align responsibilities The development of a national e-waste system is dynamic, and the formulation of legal requirements per definition cannot cover every single detail. To allow for flexibility, it is recommended to complement policies with a series of implementation rules and standards. Hence, a key question for emerging countries is the following:

n

What is needed to complement initial policies with implementation rules, standards, and agreements?

From the previous legislative framework, a translation into practical terms is necessary. The outcomes can, for instance, consist of a set of elements that support more collection, better treatment, higher reuse levels, more transparency in reporting of final product and recycling fractions final destinations, enhanced toxic control, technical development of the recycling industry, higher reclamation of relevant materials, less local and toxic emissions and safety of workers, better separation of e-waste from residual waste, and various system organizational improvements.

112 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

E-waste standards have clearly evolved over the last few years. The technical guidelines from the SRI project (SRI, 2018) structures are a good example of such guidelines for collectors, collection centers, logistics, preprocessors (recyclers), and end-processing (disposal). The European WEEE-CENELEC standards series 56025 (CENELEC and EERA, 2017, Herreras and Leroy, 2018) provides clear guidance. These standards are split into the standards themselves (CENELECdEN 50625) and their technical specifications (CENELEC TS-50625). For an overview, see also (JRC, 2018). Older documentation exists that covers more generic global standards (ISO, 2017) and specific US standards (R2 and E-stewards) (Deubzer, 2012).

Guidelines and standards for collectors and collection centers, and transport and logistics Both the SRI project (2018) destined for starting and emerging countries and the European CENELEC standards (CENELEC and EERA, 2017) provide a specific listing of the implementation requirements related to registration, prohibited activities, management requirements, and materials management related to storage, transport, and handling (including requirements for the safety of workers). In addition, for collection centers, data erasing, packaging, and record keeping requirements are applicable and available. Also, requirements related to transboundary movements, transport documentation, and road traffic requirements are available. CENELEC specifically has the technical specification with more information numbered as (CENELEC e TS 50625-4).

Guidelines for treatment facilities Various standards are available for reference. The SRI project (2018) includes specific rules per collection category for depollution and the monitoring of depollution (EERA and CENELEC, 2017). The CENELEC series provides detailed instructions for depollution with target values for batteries and other limit values for the removal of hazardous substances. In addition, management requirements are listed, and downstream monitoring requirements for hazardous fractions aim to provide necessary transparency. In particular, the (CENELEC e EN 50625-1) standard contains general requirements followed by specific standards per collection category: (CENELEC e EN 60625-2-1) for lamps, (CENELEC e EN 60625-2-2) for displays, (CENELEC e EN 50625-2-3) for cooling and freezing, and (CENELEC e EN50625-2-4) for PV panels. Templates for record keeping are provided, enabling comparison for monitoring purposes.

4.2 Policy and Legislation 113

Guidelines for final processing Specific WEEE-derived guidelines are rather scarce, partly because many end-processing facilities treat quantities from multiple origins. However, in Europe the (CENELECdTS e0625-5) drafted outside the original mandate covers the end-processing of copper and precious metals fractions. See also EERA and CENELEC (2017). More information on the development process of the WEEELABEX (source project)/CENELEC is available in Chapter 9 of this handbook (Herreras and Leroy, 2018).

Reuse targets and preparation for reuse CENELEC has standards for reuse preparation (EN 50614). Reuse is obviously ranked higher in the waste hierarchy; however, not much practical documentation is available to realize higher repair levels and longer life spans of equipment (Bakker et al., 2014), as well as data security. Chapter 5 of the StEP Green Paper contains some e-waste prevention possibilities (McCann and Wittmann, 2015). The few existing guidelines are mainly focused on the prevention of damage to reusable products in the logistics process and access to these products at the initial sorting stages. More information on the advantages and disadvantages of targets for reuse and whether they should be included in the e-waste legal framework or in adjacent policies can be found in Seyring et al. (2015), in Section 9.4 of Huisman et al. (2008) and Chapter 9 of this handbook (Ijomah and Danis, 2018). Design-related legislation and other policy interventions are not included here. The reason for this is that the main focus is on the e-waste management framework and less on prevention, which is an important topic discussed separately in Section 5.8.

4.2.2.3 Aligning stakeholder responsibilities With an updated legal framework and specific implementation rules, the next step is to align stakeholder responsibilities to the proposed adjustments. Hence the key questions are:

n n n n

How can stakeholder responsibilities be aligned? What additional interventions are possible? Which measures can have an immediate effect? Are there sufficient resources for the various stakeholders to apply the implementation rules?

114 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

A clear identification of who is primarily responsible for execution of the drafted requirements supports the implementation. This also means analysis of whether the intended actor is indeed able to fulfill the selected requirements from the previous step in practice. An example table for the EU describing all stakeholder responsibilities is found in Huisman and Stevels (2008). It shows what specific direction could potentially lead to more consensus and harmonization and thus to more eco-efficient collection and treatment of WEEE. A further, more elaborated version is provided in Table 4.3, also based on Gregory et al. (2009).

4.2.3 Established countries For established countries where Policy and Legislation plus all implementation rules have existed for several years, they are likely to be revised from those of the original framework. Commonly, despite all efforts, there is still quite a distance from the desired situation for various reasons. Substantial e-waste flows bypass the designated systems and control mechanisms due to economic realities in certain parts of the e-waste and metal trade sectors. Therefore, optimization and broader coverage of the system are the main objectives in this third loop. This can, for example, be realized by changing the economic incentives (see Section 4.3.3), reviewing the proportionality and efficiency of requirements (Section 4.2.3.1), fine-tuning the scope (Section 4.2.3.2), and more direct intervention based on “real-time” monitoring of collection and recycling performance (Section 5.6.3). Hence the general questions for established countries are:

n n

How successful is the implementation in reality? Where in the collection and recycling markets do economic mechanisms not promote higher collection and treatment quality?

A key word for established countries is flexibility. This means that there is preparedness to change if practice shows that the set of rules that has been set before does not work effectively and/or that expectations about the rules turn out to be incorrect.

4.2 Policy and Legislation 115

Table 4.3 Stakeholder lessons from eco-efficiency studies/system implementations worldwide (Gregory et al., 2009) Legislators Adhere to “better regulation” and “minimizing the administrative burdens” principles: for example, in the EU, 28 different transpositions and interpretations of the WEEE Directive have led to high costs, disorder, delays, and lost focus on the original environmental intent. Increasing harmonization can improve compliance and avoid free-riding. Enforcement is essential to avoid free-riding, illegal exports, and low quality of treatment, and to create positive incentives for collection. Producers have three types of responsibilities Financially: Whatever financing mechanism is applied for the collection categories with net costs, the mechanism itself should not promote doing less. Organizationally: Producers are the only stakeholders with global organizing capabilities. More development of transnational or even global approaches should be welcomed that improve economies of scale, recycling knowledge, and better collection and treatment. Product design: From an eco-efficiency perspective, design should be focused on avoiding specific recycling “accidents.” It is challenging to design away net collection and recycling costs. Furthermore, it is difficult to establish a design feedback loop that includes old appliances collected (sometimes 20 þ years old) and new products. All design-for-recycling motivated product design changes should be evaluated from a life-cycle perspective to ensure that end-of-life considerations are balanced with other ecodesign principles. Take back systems/compliance schemes Develop a joint strategy and positioning towards an “Ideal WEEE Framework” based on compromise instead of debating individual issues separately. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for all WEEE. Solutions tailor-made for different subsectors (IT, CE, White Goods, Lighting equipment) have completely different environmental priorities and economic models as well as incomparable breakdowns of take-back costs. Realize economies of scale: Educate consumers to hand in old products, make logistics efficient, and aggregate treatment and auditing standards for recyclers. The introduction of market instruments that encourage positive competition for more collection should be further researched. Municipalities Maximize collection: Avoid illegal trading and “cherry picking.” Provide easily accessible, free of charge collection points for consumers. Mandatory hand-in to compliance schemes can decrease (illegal) trading of collected goods. Furthermore, educate local consumers on easily accessible waste collection points. Retailers Maximize collection: Better retail involvement means more service to consumers with more easily accessible collection points and a direct fulfilment of producer obligations for their own-branded products. An “all-for-all” takeback mechanism should be considered: selling a product category means take-back of any type of equipment free of charge with an obligation to forward collected waste to compliance schemes. Recyclers Develop “best available” technologies and practices for the recycling sector, particularly monitoring practices for outgoing material fractions. Avoid illegal secondary trading with its associated adverse environmental effects by installing and complying with transparent substance flow monitoring and reporting. Consumers Maximize collection: Hand in old products. Consumers will pay in the end, regardless of whether costs are made visible or internalized. Inspection authorities/Enforcement agencies Develop inspection plans and arrange for communications with the collection and recycling sector to enable “smarter” inspections.

116 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

4.2.3.1 Proportionality and administrative burden The efficiency of the system at large can be improved, and streamlining in reporting and removal of superfluous requirements may add to such efficiencies. Hence a key question here is:

n

How can proportionality and efficiency be improved?

Whereas in previous rounds, a lot of attention is given to compliance as such and wider coverage of the legal framework and implementation rules, as a consequence the environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency is not necessarily considered again. In some cases, areas may have been regulated or rules have become superfluous. Because of increasing awareness or business-to-business arrangements, proper collection and recycling ideally have become the norm instead of the exception. Superfluous requirements can be considered for termination in case environmental evidence can be provided that (parts of) the collection and recycling market can arrange for proper collection and recycling itself. Also, in cases where the administrative burden can be proven to be extreme in comparison to insignificant quantities affected based on the proportionality principle, similarly requirements could be loosened or terminated or the related reporting could be simplified and streamlined. As a basis for optimization, Section 3.5.4 provides an eco-efficiency approach that can be used for determining where to apply changes in the established system. Monitoring of performance data, as discussed in Section 5.6.3, can be used to compute various improvement options as well as the consequence of removing specific requirements with little effect on the overall system performance.

Scope The advantage of an open scope option as proposed for emerging countries in Section 4.2.2.2 is that often the product scope needs to be expanded to new or other environmentally relevant items that enter the market. The disadvantage is that this also applies to equipment types that, due to their value, specific functioning, and/or underlying business model, evidently are collected and treated properly. For instance, professional medical appliances with a high “social development value,” undergoing refurbishing and export to healthcare sectors in developing countries, can be taken out of scope. In particular, in cases where a circular economy-based business model arranges

4.2 Policy and Legislation 117

for maintenance, repair, decontamination, and decommissioning, removal from scope or exemptions in case contractual arrangements can be evidenced, should be considered to remain flexible and targeted in implementation.

Termination of rules Also, in other areas, there may be room for reducing administrative burden and removal of requirements where the market has successfully professionalized collection and treatment practices. Accounting for the outputs from the country analysis and impact assessment steps (Chapters 2 and 3), termination decisions can be made in the last steps of the e-waste development model. It is recommended in the monitoring and reviewing round after the current development cycle to not only focus on additional requirements but also at the removal of unnecessary, ineffective, and outdated elements. Thus, termination has a character similar to that of selection. If political action was successful or the framework conditions change to such an extent that the measures seem pointless, parts of the legal framework and implementation rules can be discontinued completely. Although this activity is seldom planned systematically, the rationale behind this step is that by doing so, long-term public support and acceptance remains; in particular, also from industry stakeholders when negotiating more extended cooperation to improve the efficiency of the system where most needed.

4.2.3.2 Update and mature implementation rules

n

How to mature and update implementation rules?

Improve quality of collection volumes The standards and their accompanying technical specifications introduced in Section 4.2.2.2 need regular maintenance and updates due to the rapidly changing compositions of EEE products and sometimes due to new recycling process innovations. It is recommended to link this discussion directly to the monitoring and reporting framework and in particular to the harmonized formats for batch testing and analysis of the chemical content of products and fractions and the analysis of collection quality as highlighted in Section 3.5.3. More information and templates can, for instance, be found in Magalini and Huisman (2018) and from the ProSUM project (Huisman et al., 2017; Rotter at al., 2017).

118 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Improve quality of treatment As already illustrated in Section 3.5.3, often the collected volumes in the designated system are the oldest and lowest product types that are frequently scavenged for valuable components. This has clearly both an environmental and economic effect. Section 3.5.4 discussed how to better monitor this. However, the information is relevant for updating and maturing existing implementation rules. For instance, for determining depollution threshold values, the scavenging effect has a detrimental influence on what can be achieved compared with more complete collection. In the case of Europe, the WEEE Directive (Annex VII in European Parliament and Council, 2012) does not (yet) contain specific requirements on reporting the amounts of hazardous components obtained from selective treatment and their destinations. Adding such reporting requirements in the future can support more transparency and form an incentive for higher treatment quality. See also Section 4.2.2.2 on reporting under CENELEC/WEEE LABEX standards in this regard. It should be noted that some individual countries have made the CENELEC standards mandatory in their national transposition of the WEEE Recast Directive (European Parliament and Council, 2012).

4.2.3.3 Improve system efficiency and cooperation

n

How to mature stakeholder cooperation?

“All actors report” Correct reporting is indispensable for managing the system after rules have been set. Continuous attention for the system through reporting and analysis of the reporting is needed to keep it going well and to identify issues that must be addressed in the next stage of the e-waste cycle. EU countries face the common problem of nonreporting, incorrect reporting, and underreporting of collected and treated WEEE amounts. Nonreported and incorrectly reported WEEE flows are particularly prone to illegal trade and improper treatment. It has been observed that some compliance schemes only monitor and control a part of the WEEE collected and treated. In addition to this, many holders and recyclers of WEEE already report, but not to a unified database on a national level. In some countries, producers and compliance schemes report WEEE collected to different competent bodies, sometimes using different, and worse, incompatible codifications. Another recurring issue is the mixing of WEEE with mixed metal scrap. Improved

4.3 Business and Finance 119

reporting will enable more accurate country- and EU-level statistics and other monitoring linked in particular to estimating the “true amounts of illegal WEEE” shipped annually from Europe to developing countries. Various country studies have attempted to quantify WEEE flows outside the reported systems [(Huisman et al., 2012; Magalini et al., 2012, 2015) as well as the CWIT project from a European perspective (Huisman et al., 2015)]. Subsequently, the EU study regarding a common methodology for measuring collection rates (Magalini et al., 2016) highlighted the need to improve reporting through all routes. The actual reporting possibilities and templates will be further discussed in Section 5.6.2. As an example of how requirements look from a legal point of view, the EU WEEE DirectivedRecast (European Council and Parliament, 2012) states that such information should become available (Art.7) and needs to be actively gathered by Member States (Art 16). Also, the corresponding FAQ document (European Commission, 2014) clarifies that they should adopt measures to involve all actors in WEEE collection and receive the information of WEEE quantities collected through all routes (European Commission and Digital Europe, 2017). The latter reference highlights different practices and tools in development to improve reporting by the metal scrap sector. In some countries, it is made mandatory in the national implementation to report these volumes, but reluctance in the sector to report either mandatorily or voluntarily remains. This counts specifically for valuable but illegal volumes that are commercially very attractive. The value of improved reporting can be further exploited when key stakeholders are involved in both the research and the analysis as well as the interpretation of the mechanisms behind noncompliant and complementary collection and treatment. The examples of the UNU country studies did not only generate new information but were also pivotal in feeding and focusing stakeholder discussions via joint analysis of the results on how to achieve upcoming collection targets.

Cooperation with other compliance organizations for other waste streams Some synergies may exist in reporting and management between related waste sectors such as systems for collection and treatment of batteries, vehicles and plastics, for example. In particular related to batteries, more jointly covering this waste stream from an organizational point of view can lead to significant synergies. Also, monitoring and comparing results for both streams in conjunction makes sense, because large volumes of batteries are often embedded in electronics products and are recovered separately in e-waste treatment facilities.

120 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

4.3 BUSINESS AND FINANCE It is of utmost importance that fund management is directed toward maximizing collection and treatment. Financing of downstream e-waste activities and allocation of economic responsibilities along the downstream chain have proven challenging in countries with existing take-back schemes and in countries discussing potential take-back system architectures (Magalini and Huisman, 2007). Hence a key question is:

n

Step 5: What needs to be financed and how?

Often at the beginning of the stakeholder discussion in starting countries, the first question asked is: “Who should pay what?” The posed question is purposely different by asking first: “What needs to be financed and how?” The reason is that due to too much focus on “who,” the “what,” “why,” and “how” of the financing system moves out of sight. Financing enables proper funding to be available to ensure environmentally sound treatment and downstream activities for all waste arising in the country in any given period. It ideally also covers wider support activities including monitoring and enforcement as well as awareness raising and research. Allocation of specific roles and responsibilities when it comes to financing system does not mean addressing only one stakeholder. Many different systems and models coexist. Closely related to the choice for the legal basis as described in Section 4.2.1, the mechanism by which stakeholders financially contribute to different activities varies, and many models exist. For starting countries in particular, the chosen system objectives, intervention areas, and principles need to be translated into a basic financing configuration that matches ambitions. The financing determines to a large extent the responsibilities of relevant stakeholders at local, national, regional, and global levels. From a general perspective, three main stakeholders could bear financial responsibility for end-of-life electronics products (Gregory et al., 2009): n

Producers: This is implementation of various degrees of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle. It can be argued that even though a producer may bear “by law” financial responsibility, customers will eventually pay the end-of-life costs as an increase of the product price, even when no up-front external charges are paid at point of sale.

4.3 Business and Finance 121

Consumers: This can be seen as an implementation of the “polluter pays principle,” whereby the polluter is recognized as the person responsible for discarding an end-of-life appliance (or buying the appliance many years before). All of society: As e-waste is a societal problem, having an impact not only on consumers but also on the entire population (both in terms of environmental and societal impacts), one can also argue systems could be financed by the entire society (i.e., by taxpayers) (Gregory et al., 2009).

n

n

4.3.1 Starting countries For starting countries, the specific key questions are:

n n n

What is affordable in the start-up phase and what is not? Who can provide initial financial resources? Which financing mechanism should be selected for my country?

Pilot project funding As a first step, options should be considered for the very first stages separately from the final financing mechanism and financing level decision. The rationale is that financing for early learning scale activities is smaller and makes it easier to arrange and speed up the development process. Some options exist for the financing of these first more exploratory steps: 1. A small government fund is the first option. The advantage of starting with one’s own financial resources allows for full control over the agenda and priorities and does not yet require full cooperation with other actors. Another advantage is that it is easier to arrange in case a pilot collection trial is conducted with equipment from government entities. 2. Funds from the private sector from producers, recyclers, or both. The advantage here is direct involvement of actors later needed for expanding the system. The disadvantage is that later, hesitations may arise to scaling up and providing for more structural financing. 3. Development project funds are an alternative source when limited national resources are available. Various examples include the UNU Ewaste Academies (UNU, 2018), UNIDO funding for Ethiopia, Uganda, Vietnam, and Cambodia (Magalini, 2015), from the German BMZ/GIZ

122 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

in Ghana (Gunselius, 2017), and the Swiss SECO-funded SRI projects in Colombia, Peru, Ghana, Egypt, and India (SRI project, 2018; Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017). The advantage here is not just external funding but also the availability of global experts for developing e-waste management who are working directly on these programs. Many of these projects have funding for a variety of topics and are rather different in focus and coverage.

The basic financing mechanism The purpose of selecting the finance mechanism is to ensure structural financing over many years in a stable manner. The basic choices were firstly published by Magalini and Huisman (2007), later elaborated upon by Gregory et al. (2009), and more recently updated by McCann and Wittmann (2015): 1. The up-front fee finances all activities in the system at the time of placing a product on the market. For example, this can be accomplished by joining a PRO or by financing one’s own take-back system or collective compliance scheme. 2. Visible fees for historic waste generate revenues from final users to cover waste management costs. The visible fee mechanism was originally introduced by the EU WEEE Directive as a means for producers to share with consumers the burden of financing historical waste. Producers are therefore allowed to share financial responsibility with consumers to cover the costs of historical waste. However, its use has been extended under the EU WEEE Recast (European Parliament and Council, 2012), so that it is now also a mechanism for financing future e-waste. 3. Market share compliance costs are used to allocate market share based on the volume of product placed on the market in a given time frame, usually 1 year. In order to avoid cross-subsidization, the market share is generally calculated either at a product or a product category level. The obligation on producers comes in two forms. Firstly, there can be a requirement to pay the relevant percentage of total operating costs of the entity collecting and recycling the e-waste arising on their behalf. Alternatively, clearing houses (entities responsible for the allocation of responsibility between all producers) can be established to arrange for the collection and recycling of the appropriate amount of e-waste that arises. 4. Return share compliance cost: an alternative is the concept of allocating responsibility based on return market share, which is one way of implementing IPR. This relies on random auditing of the e-waste that is being returned through the take-back system. This method is applied

4.3 Business and Finance 123

at a product level or a product category level. It requires that the system manager, either a government or PRO, record the brand and volume of each product in order to be able to calculate the percentage of returns that each producer is responsible for. 5. An end of life fee is paid by generators of e-waste (i.e., the last owner of a product who decides to recycle it) to an entity who assumes responsibility for recycling the e-waste at the moment it is handed over to the recycler. The fee covers collection and recycling costs. In Table 4.4, some additional advantages are included for the upfront visible fee because a key problem for starting countries is the lack of resources for investment in collection and recycling infrastructure. More information is available in various StEP publications, of which McCann and Wittmann (2015) is the most recent.

Setting up a registration system for market inputs Here, there a two basic options: (1) the most common is to establish a producer compliance scheme in charge of setting up a market input registration system for products chosen to be in scope, and (2) another possibility is to use trade statistics, when sufficiently reliable, in the first instance to avoid setting up a costly and time-consuming new system. Obviously, in the first case producer associations are logic placeholders, and in the second case this is preferably an independent authority such as a department of trade that has access to import, export, and when applicable, production statistics.

Developing a business plan for dismantlers In Spitzbart et al. (2016), a small tool is provided for business newcomers in e-waste treatment in starting countries. To avoid rudimentary methods due to a lack of economic knowledge, the StEP-Business-Plan-Calculation-Tool supports entrepreneurs in setting up an economically viable e-waste recycling business in an environmentally sound manner. The tool is available at the StEP website (Spitzbart et al., 2016).

4.3.2 Emerging countries The key questions for emerging countries are:

n n

How does the chosen financing system function? How can it be refined and adopted where needed?

124 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Table 4.4 Pros and cons of different fee systems

Pros

Upfront fee

Visible upfront fee

POM-based market share

Simple

Simple

Only actual costs are raised Specific for product types

Transparency to consumer creates awareness Creates funds available upfront to invest in infrastructure Cons

Inflexible

Inflexible

POM not necessarily reflective of actual share of recycling volume

Easily generates surplus

Easily generates surplus

Difficult to address deficits when insufficient funds are raised for a specific product type Need to account for e-waste collected through producer’s own take-back systems

Difficult to address deficits

Need to account for e-waste collected through producer’s own take-back systems For the first years, funding source needs to be identified as funding is retroactive

Creates additional administrative burden

Need to account for e-waste collected through producer’s own take-back systems

Return share

End-of life fee

Only actual costs are raised Most accurately assigns cost to producers causing most impact Accounts for where product arises as waste and where product POM does not matter In many countries, brand owner will not be the importer and therefore assigning responsibility to the correct party will be challenging Requires additional work to perform auditing

Simple Transparent to the consumer

Potential to act as a disincentive to recycle

Major surpluses are raised

Additional work means additional administrative cost

For the first years, funding source needs to be identified, as funding is retroactive Producers are required to create financial provisions to cover the cost of recycling their entire installed base.

Updated from source: McCann, D., Wittmann, A., February 13, 2015. E-waste Prevention, Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the e-Waste Problem (StEP), Green Paper, Bonn, Germany. ISSN: 2219e6579.

4.3 Business and Finance 125

Financing for critical fractions For emerging countries lacking their own end-processing facilities, special attention is needed to find proper outlets for complex fractions. Here, specific financing and the underlying organizational efforts are needed to gather sufficient volumes for shipment and to arrange for the necessary paperwork related to transboundary shipments, with work by McCann and Wittmann (2015), Wang et al. (2012), Schluep et al. (2009) containing more information on this topic. An important task is to arrange the handover of critical fractions from informal collectors and recyclers to dedicated collection points or formal recyclers. This is either for free or for a small fee, thus making the additional effort worthwhile. For key fractions with a negative value such as batteries (including lead-acid ones), CRT glass, BFR plastics, plastics from cable stripping, LCD displays, and preferably intact, mercurycontaining CFL tubes from flat panel displays, the right price level needs to be determined. A challenging task is to set up a network of collection points, preferably in urban areas first. Often the collection of valuable fractions is also not arranged automatically. For valuable fractions such as metals and printed circuit boards, formal recyclers often face cash-flow problems because of delayed payments when end-processing fractions are only paid out after being first shipped, then assayed, and finally processed often months after initial delivery. Here, the B02W follow-up projects (Manhart, 2015; WorldLoop, 2018) provide some guidance and lessons from individual country implementation attempts.

Streamlining financing Assuming the financing mechanism is implemented and the funds available, the arrangements commonly can be better streamlined to improve collection and treatment operations where specifically needed. In many cases there are deficits, surpluses, or financial flows that are not directed to the right place in the recycling chain. The original financing mechanism and the levels chosen are frequently adjusted to changing economic realities, material and labor price changes, increasing volumes, and connected improved economies of scale. In order to adapt timely and adequately, sufficient information is required, as also exemplified in Section 3.5.3. Key areas of attention are (Magalini and Huisman, 2007): n

The positive and negative effects of competition. When sufficient volumes are present, sometimes multiple compliance schemes function in the same country, potentially reducing prices. On the flip side,

126 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

n

n

n

n

competition should not take place via the lowering of collection and treatment quality as discussed also in Section 4.3.3. The effect of economies of scale is a very important economic parameter. In general, the larger the scheme, the lower the price per ton that can be asked for collection and treatment. The effect of relatively high or low primary raw material prices. Here, specific agreements can be made between recyclers and compliance schemes to reduce the risk when lower than contracted and/or to share profits in case they are higher. The accumulation of visible fee funds and/or guarantees. Sometimes past prognoses were too pessimistic, causing interfinancial resources of significant sizes. Besides direct costs for logistics and treatment, resources for indirect costs include service, R&D, awareness campaigns, information and education, etc. It should be noted that stiff competition potentially undermines the development of skills, innovation in technologies, and education and awareness.

Penalties Penalties are a specific area not often considered or embedded in the legal framework or accompanying the implementation rules. In cases of noncompliance in collection and treatment, penalties are regularly arranged for in adjacent general solid waste regulations. What is specific for e-waste systems, however, is free-riding by producers who do not correctly register their quantities placed on the market or do not register them at all. When multiple compliance schemes exist, implementation rules are helpful to allocate the shares of quantities and thus costs, including monitoring, consumer education, and skills development costs over the systems at present. Additional specific measures in the form of penalties to reduce free-riding are recommended. Regarding illegal recycling and trade toward developing countries, penalties vary greatly in terms of monetary fines and prison durations (Huisman et al., 2015). According to the CWIT project, generally in Europe, participation in WEEE illegal activities does not appear risky to offenders because of the low probability of being prosecuted and sentenced. Even if cases are successfully prosecuted, the penalties foreseen in legislation and/or the penalties applied in court decisions are typically low. In many cases, the fines imposed are less than the profits to be gained from one illegal shipment. Specific recommendations to improve the economic incentive of penalties are available in Deliverable 6.1dRecommendations related to the EU Legal Framework from the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015). This includes a further elaboration on assessing and increasing

4.3 Business and Finance 127

penalty levels, ways to harmonize the classification of offense types, and how to take further-reaching measures in those cases where organized crime is suspected to be involved. More information regarding organizing and managing enforcement is included in Section 5.6.

4.3.3 Established countries For established countries, the key questions are:

n n

n n

Why are certain volumes treated outside the designated systems? How can quality in collection and treatment beyond basic compliance be rewarded? Is financing efficiently steered toward the point of desired intervention? Are there sufficient funds for research and innovation in collection and recycling?

Positive financial incentives for collection and treatment in an economically level playing field An important driver for not reporting all quantities collected and treated is often the much higher value of reuse of valuable products and components from collected volumes. A second driver is compliance costs when reporting and following the logistical and treatment standards mentioned in Section 4.2.2.2. Even when these costs are, relatively speaking, a small share of total costs (see Section 3.5.3 for an example), a major concern is still that the effect of avoiding compliance costs seems to be orders of magnitude higher than the margins of these companies operating in competitive markets. Hence, noncompliance is economically rewarding and potentially leads to competitive distortion at the expense of environmental performance. It is therefore recommended to investigate how operational costs are built-up, such as the costs in the example provided in Section 3.5.3. It is important here to understand the difference between the costs of full compliance versus the main option below such levels of collection per category (Magalini and Huisman, 2018). What can be arranged in the case of established countries is to specifically and independently determine compliance cost components based on actual (and anonymized) information regarding price difference for the various cost elements related to compliance. This includes costs for reporting, sampling, and mass balance reports, the costs for depollution per collection category and the effect of scavenging of products, components, and materials that degrades material revenues by constructing a

128 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

scavenging index. Based on this, there are certain strategies possible to mitigate the effect of higher compliance costs. For example, producer compliance schemes can offer dedicated prices for the entire sector to always cover the minimum compliance costs. Alternatively, technical and financial offers could be weighted in such a way that higher performancede.g., higher depollution levelsdis adequately rewarded, and the effect of scavenging is specifically addressed in contract negotiations with PROs.

Financing of collection in starting countries by established systems One option that is relatively unexplored is the followingdfrom a circular economy thinking point of view, many products originating from wellestablished markets end up in developing countries. In order to create a net flow of both toxic and recyclable materials relevant for new production cycles to the country of original production and consumption, an idea can be for established countries to finance and arrange for collection in starting countries. The advantage is that, especially when the financial resources are available, this allows PROs to realize their collection targets in starting countries on one hand while speeding up the realization of collection and treatment infrastructure on the other. This is potentially instrumental for countries where a lack of financing is often the most pressing obstacle. The disadvantage is that such schemas require substantial cooperation between countries, and arranging for evidence that collection and treatment is indeed taking place remotely.

4.4 TECHNOLOGIES AND SKILLS This section focuses on the Technologies and Skills required specifically for collection, treatment, and the further management and training of those who are active in daily operations. The purpose is that beyond the legal framework and the financial resources discussed in the previous sections, the logistical resources and technologies available determine to a large extent how collection and treatment will function. The management side, being the human resources and skill sets available, is obviously very relevant for developing national e-waste systems. Hence a key question for all three types of countries is:

n

Step 6: What Technologies and Skills are needed?

4.4 Technologies and Skills 129

4.4.1 Starting countries For starting countries, the main challenges are to start with basic education of processors regarding environmental, health, and safety processes, to start small pilots in populated areas alike the “Best-of-2-Worlds” approach (Wang et al., 2012), and to organize a take-back loop of critical fractions and the corresponding administrative procedures for return waste shipments. Hence some key questions are:

n n

n

How can a basic collection infrastructure be developed? What are the technologies, investments, and skills to be mobilized to get better e-waste treatment? Which basic management skills are needed?

Pilot studies on collection and treatment As a first step in developing collection infrastructure, following the pilot project financial advice of Section 4.3.1, it is highly recommended to start collection trials on a small scale in urban areas. Single or multiple pilot projects can provide valuable insights into the types of equipment available for recycling and their respective values and compositions, including valuable and critical materials and components. In 1997 in the Netherlands, one of the earliest case studies was conducted (Ploos van Amstel, 1997). At that time, collection experience and closely connected recycling experiences were instrumental in speeding up infrastructure development. They provided the key first parameters for determining what technologies and costs levels can be expected. From a treatment perspective, valuable insights are obtained in the composition and share of treatment fractions and what local options exist for further processing. It is advised to develop a simple dismantling and shredding protocol where applicable to determine, per collection category. the quality of copper, aluminum, steel, plastics, glass, and residue fractions as well as the quantities of critical components such as printed circuit boards, motors, cable, CRT glass, batteries, etc., and their subsequent treatment options as well. In addition, accompanying experiences regarding working conditions, storage, and handling are gathered in this phase.

130 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

As a template for starting countries regarding which basic technologies are potentially available and possible process setups, the UNEP report (Schluep et al., 2009) provides a useful overview Table 4.5. As already indicated and listed in Section 4.2.2.2, the SRI project (SRI, 2018) provides additional checklists and guidelines for collectors, collection points, and treatment facilities.

Pre-processing The role of preprocessing is well described in the EWA toolkit and copied here entirely (UNU, 2012): “The aim of pre-processing phase is to liberate the materials and direct them to adequate subsequent final treatment processes.

Table 4.5 Separation and dismantling criteria for E-waste Desired treatment/action 1. Separate before treatment a. Toxic/hazardous materials Cooling fluids and foam Mercury backlights PCB capacitors Batteries b. High-value materials Reusable components Circuit boards (High- and medium-grade) Circuit boards (Low-grade) 2. Dismantle, liberate, sort Clean plastics Cathode ray tube glass Ferrous metals Nonferrous metals: Al, Mg

Nonferrous metals: Cu, Pb, Sn, Ni, precious metals Others

Controlled removal and disposal Controlled depot Controlled depot Sort and process in specialized plants Refurbish and sell Process in integrated nonferrous/copper smelters Upgrade (manually) and process in an integrated manner Smelters Process further with appropriate technologies Process further with appropriate technologies; glass to glass producer, CRT glass to CRT glass producer or lead smelter. To integrated steelmaking facility or to steel scrap or resmelter (electric arc furnace) To secondary aluminum or magnesium resmelter or other appropriate technology. (Low-quality scrap can also be used in steelmaking as a reducing agent (feedstock recycling) Process further with appropriate technologies Process further with appropriate technologies

From Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, Mueller, E., Wang, F., July 2009. Recycling e From E-Waste to Resources, UNEP - DTIE, Paris.

4.4 Technologies and Skills 131

Pre-processing technologies can vary accordingly to the specific waste stream. E-waste and generally speaking different devices are grouped for the end-of-life management according to specific technologies and processes needed in the downstream phases. Hazardous substances have to be removed and stored or treated safely while valuable components/materials need to be taken out for reuse or to be directed to efficient recovery processes. This includes removal of batteries, capacitors etc. prior to further (mechanical or manual) pre-treatment. The batteries from the devices can be sent to dedicated facilities for the recovery of cobalt, nickel and copper.” “For devices containing ozone depleting substances such as refrigerators and air-conditioners, the de-gassing step is crucial in the pre-processing stage as the refrigerants used (CFC or HCFC in older models) need to be removed carefully to avoid air-emissions. For CRT containing appliances (e.g., monitors and TVs) coatings in the panel glass are usually removed as well before end-processing. LCD monitors with mercury-containing backlights need special care too, as the backlights need to be carefully removed before further treatment.” “The circuit boards present in ICT equipment and televisions contain most of the precious and special metals as well as lead (solders) and flame retardant containing resins. They can be removed from the devices by manual dismantling, mechanical treatment (shredding and sorting) or a combination of both. It has to be noted that pre-processing of e-waste is not always necessary. Small, highly complex electronic devices such as mobile phones, MP3 players etc. can (after removal of the battery) also be treated directly by an end-processor to recover the metals” (see also Huisman, 2004). “After removal of the hazardous and other special components described above, the remainder of the ICT, cooling or television devices can be further separated in the material output streams by manual dismantling or mechanical shredding and (automated) sorting techniques. Fractions are usually iron, aluminium, copper, plastic etc. It is of utmost importance that the generated output streams meet the quality requirements of the feed materials for the end-processors. A mismatch between the two can lead to the creation of difficult or non-recyclable fractions. Well-known examples are the limits on copper content in fractions for iron/

132 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

steel recycling, or the limits on iron, nickel and chromium content in aluminium fractions. Furthermore, a quality mismatch can lead to the loss of material resources. For example, aluminium would not be recovered during end-processing when mixed with an iron/ steel fraction or with a printed wiring board fraction, iron/steel is not recovered during aluminium recycling, and copper/precious metals are not recovered during iron/steel recycling. The challenge is to define the right priorities and find a balance in metals recovery that considers economic and environmental impacts instead of only trying to maximize weight based recovery rates, regardless of the substances involved. Another aspect could be the mismatch in physical aspects of the materials, such as particle size. One could think of shredded e-waste material while the smelters can easily take un-shredded material” (UNU, 2012).

End-processing The role of end-processing is also described and copied from the EWA toolkit (UNU, 2012): “The end-processing from output fractions after pre-treatment takes place at multiple destinations, depending on takes place at multiple destinations, depending on the fractions. Ferrous fractions are directed to steel plants for recovery of iron, aluminium fractions are going to aluminium smelters, while copper/lead fractions, circuit boards and other precious metals containing fractions are going to e.g., integrated metal smelters, which recover precious metals, copper and other non-ferrous metals, while isolating the hazardous substances. Hazardous fractions are also directed to specific environmentally sound treatments/plants. Both ferrous and non-ferrous smelters need to have state-of-the-art off-gas treatment in place to deal with the organic components present in the scrap in the form of paint layers and plastic particles or resins containing flame retardants. During smelting formation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dioxins can appear and their formation and emission have to be prevented. Alternatively, painted scrap, such as painted aluminium can be de-lacquered prior to smelting using appropriate technologies with off-gas control equipment.” “For treatment of circuit boards, it is of utmost importance that the smelter is equipped with state-of-the-art off-gas treatment equipment, since otherwise dioxins will be formed and emitted. Standard copper

4.4 Technologies and Skills 133

smelters or hydrometallurgical (leaching) plants however, are not advisable for circuit board treatment due to inadequate handling of toxic substances (such as lead, cadmium or organics) and lower metal yields. In hydrometallurgical plants the special handling and disposal requirements necessary for the strongly acidic leaching effluents (e.g., cyanide, nitric acid, aqua regia) have to be diligently followed to ensure environmentally sound operations and to prevent tertiary emissions of hazardous substances.”

Management and organizational skills The UNU E-waste Academy series, held since 2010, has two versions for scientists (EWAS) as well as managers and policy makers (EWAM). The academy provides both basic information about the topic from a global perspective specific training related to the different steps relevant for local situations, technologies, management, financing, funding possibilities, standards, monitoring, and enforcement. More information is provided in Section 5.7 and at https://ewasteacademy.org/(UNU, 2018). Finally, a wealth of information is available in StEP publications (see also http://www.step-initiative.org/publications.html), most notably the UNU Global E-waste Monitors (Baldé et al., 2015; Baldé et al., 2017) and the StEP Initiative World Map (StEP World Map, 2018), which includes an overview of market volume estimates for each country, and where available, collection data per country.

4.4.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, the key questions are:

n

n

How can an optimal mix in simple versus more advanced technology be achieved? Where should the more complex fractions be sent?

Preprocessing The B02W project (Wang et al., 2012) shows (at that time) the expected development from dismantling operations to more mechanical processing as illustrated in Fig. 4.1. With increasing labor costs over time, the higher the dismantling level, the more these costs play a role compared with the higher value of separated components and materials. As a result, full

134 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Partial dismantling

Complete dismantling

Shredding

1 0.9

Net profit (€/kg)

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

n FIGURE 4.1 Transformation of preprocessing methods influenced by increasing labor costs in China

(2000e09 based on statistical data; 2010e35 is forecast). Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146.

mechanical separation becomes less attractive over time, and increasingly more mechanical processing and shredding of components from partial dismantling will take place. It is advised here to regularly compute the optimum level of dismantling for remaining the most profitable.

End-processing and managing different fractions Regarding end-processing and efforts to steer the right fractions to the right destinations, the EWAM toolkit (see in particular the questions and answers provided on pp. 51 and 52 of (UNU, 2012)) provides detailed information. Additionally, the same sources also provide many useful links to video materials that provide additional background in a visual format.

Management Following the development of implementation acts and standards as mentioned in Section 4.2.2.2, the personnel and facilities will need to acquire licensing and training where relevant. Various documents (Deubzer, 2012; CENELEC and EERA, 2017) and the UNU E-waste Academies (UNU, 2018) provide a wide range of available training information.

4.4 Technologies and Skills 135

4.4.3 Established countries For established countries, the key questions are:

n

n

Where can the quality of treatment by new or improved technologies be improved? How can innovation and treatment efficiency beyond economic optimized levels be stimulated?

Collection Commonly, most systems still do not capture all flows, nor do they provide full recovery of all critical and environmentally relevant fractions. Understanding collection volumes is specifically discussed in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. UNU has provided many examples and reference materials (Huisman et al., 2012; Magalini et al., 2012, 2015; Wielenga et al., 2013), harmonization templates (Baldé et al., 2015; Huisman et al., 2017), and quantification tools (Wang et al., 2013) for application in other countries. For more information regarding implementing the all-actors models, see Section 4.2.3.3, the section on Monitoring and Control in Section 5.6.3, and the results from a dedicated workshop on this topic in European Commission, DG Environment and Digital Europe (2017).

Treatment Several needs for further innovation to enhance metal recovery in preprocessing and end-processing are highlighted in in particular in pp. 135e136 of Reuter et al. (2013). Few innovation incentives exist for optimizing depollution and the recovery of elements with low economic values. The topic and financial intervention possibilities are already discussed in Section 4.3.3. Regarding skills and stakeholder exchange, a creation of further dialogue and a positive investment climate for long-term improvement is recommended. Administrative hurdles for small companies to apply for technology innovation funds need to be streamlined. In Europe, specific innovation funds such as the EU Horizon 2020 funds and the European Institute of Innovation & TechnologydRaw Materials are investing in a substantial number of technology projects, of which many focus on increasing the recovery of secondary raw materials and critical raw materials in particular, of which Huisman et al. (2017) is just one example. For a broader overview

136 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

of research and innovation activities in Europe, see EIT Raw Materials (2018) and the Raw Materials Gateway tile of the RMIS (JRC, 2018).

4.5 CONCLUSIONS Based on the e-waste development cycle approach and the country status of Chapter 2 and the structured assessment and factual basis from Chapter 3, the output from this Chapter 4 forms the heart of the policy development process with many possible interventions in the domains of Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance, and Technologies and Skills introduced. The individual options are obviously interrelated, and many considerations are to be balanced in the actual decision process. Chapter 5 provides further guidance on how to develop a coherent and feasible national action plan for practical implementation from the information provided in this chapter. This is done by listing all key intervention options in Section 5.2, the selection and prioritization in Section 5.3, and converting this into an implementation road map that includes the description of timing and resources needed in Section 5.4. Finally, important direct and indirect conditions for successful implementation are listed in Section 5.6 related to Monitoring and Control, Section 5.7 regarding Awareness and Educationn, and Section 5.8 regarding Design Feedback.

DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous organ of the UN General Assembly dedicated to generating and transferring knowledge and strengthening capacities relevant to global issues of human security, development, and welfare. UNU operates through a worldwide network of research and training centers and programs coordinated by the UNU Centre in Tokyo. The designations employed and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the UNU, nor does citing of trade names, companies, schemes, or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

References 137

REFERENCES Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., den Hollander, M., 2014. Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. Journal of Cleaner Production 69, 10e16. Baldé, C.P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2015. The Global E-waste Monitor e 2014. United Nations University (UNU). Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Fondeur Gill, S., Kern, M., Micheli, P., Magpantay, E., Huisman, J., 2015. E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators. United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. ISBN: 978-92-808-4554-9 (electronic). Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-waste Monitor e 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn, Geneva, Vienna. Basel Convention, 1989. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Basel, March 22, 1989. Bonner, C., 2009. Organising in the Informal Economy: Resource Books for Organisers. ResearchGate: http://www.wiego.org/program_areas/org_rep/index.php#ICCBook lets. CENELEC and EERA, 2017. European Standards for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Overview available at: https://www.cencenelec.eu/news/ publications/Publications/WEEE-brochure.pdf. Deubzer, O., 2012. Recommendations on standards for collection, storage, transport and treatment of e-waste. In: Principles, Requirements and Conformity Assessment, StEP Green Paper, June 22, 2012. UNU, Bonn, Germany. European Commission, 2014. Frequently Asked Questions on Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available through: ec.europa. eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/faq.pdf. Brussels, April 2014. European Commission, DG Environment and Digital Europe, 2017. Joint Workshop on “all WEEE Flows”, Brussels, February 14, 2017. European Institute of Innovation & Technology Raw Materials, 2018. https:// eitrawmaterials.eu/, last accessed August 29, 2018. European Parliament and Council, 2003. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European parliament and of the council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union 37, 24. Brussels, Belgium. European Parliament and Council, 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European parliament and of the council of July 4 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast). Official Journal of the European Union 197 (38). Brussels, Belgium. Font, R., 2014. The Moral Dilemmas of E-waste. https://www.ictworks.org/the-moraldilemmas-of-e-waste/#.W3WW-l4zZaQ. GIZ, 2011. List of Literature Related to the Informal Sector in Solid Waste Management. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2011-en-bibliography.pdf. Gregory, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2009. E-waste Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the e-Waste Problem (StEP), White Paper. Gunselius, E., 24 October 2017. Improving the improving the sustainability of e-waste management, German development cooperation focus. World Resources Forum. Herreras, L., Leroy, P., 2018. The WEEE forum and the WEEELABEX project. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic

138 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Huisman, J., 2003. The QWERTY/EE Concept, Quantifying Recyclability and Ecoefficiency for End-of-life Treatment of Consumer Electronic Products (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology. Huisman, J., 2004. QWERTY and Eco-efficiency Analysis on Cellular Phone Treatment in Sweden: The Eco-efficiency of the Direct Smelter Route versus Mandatory Disassembly of Printed Circuit Boards. Delft University of Technology. Huisman, J., Stevels, A., Marinelli, T., Magalini, F., 2006. Where did WEEE go wrong in Europe? Practical and academic lessons for the US. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, Conference Record, pp. 83e88. Huisman, J., Stevels, A.L.N., 2008. Eco-efficiency as a road-mapping instrument for WEEE implementation. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal 5 (1), 30e43. Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. March 15, 2012. Huisman, J., 2013. Too big to fail, too academic to function. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (2), 172e174. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap, August 30, 2015, Lyon, France. Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tetre, F., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A., Wäger, P., Kushnir, D., Rotter, V.S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M., Downes, S., 2017. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM) - Final Report, 978-92-808-9060-0;978-92-808-9061-7, 2017/12/21. Ijomah, W., Danis, M., 2018. Refurbishment and re-use of WEEE. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. ISO, 2017. ISO/IWA 19:2017(en), Guidance Principles for the Sustainable Management of Secondary Metals. www.iso.org. JRC, 2018. Joint Research Centre - Raw Materials Information System. http://rmis.jrc.ec. europa.eu/. Kalisvaart, S., Huisman, J., van Schaik, A., Stevels, A.L.N., 2000. Choices in defining recyclability. In: Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green Conference, Berlin, Germany, 427e433. Manhart, A., 2015. Best-of-2-Worlds Closure Event Berlin Presentation, September 24, 2015.

References 139

Magalini, F., Huisman, J., May 5, 2007. Management of WEEE & cost models across the EU could the EPR principle lead US to a better environmental policy?. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., Mosconi, R., Gobbi, A., Manzoni, M., Pagnoncelli, N., Scarcella, G., Alemanno, A., Monti, I., 2012. Household WEEE Generated in Italy, Analysis on Volumes & Consumer Disposal Behavior for Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., 2015. Financing Models for Sound E-waste Management in Ethiopia. Cyrcle Consulting for UNIDO eGEF. May 29, 2015. Magalini, F., Balde, C.P., Habib, H., 2015. Quantifying Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment in Romania. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Baldé, K., van Straalen, V., Hestin, M., Lecerf, L., Sayman, U., Akpulat, O., 2016. Study on Collection Rates of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Possible Measures to Be Initiated by the Commission as Required by Article 7 (4), 7 (5), 7 (6) and 7 (7) of Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), March 8, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Final_Report_Art7_ publication.pdf. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., January 2018. WEEE Recycling Economics, Study Commissioned by EERA. Available via: https://www.eera-recyclers.com/files/unueera-brochure-online-v5-002.pdf. Bonn, Germany. McCann, D., Wittmann, A., 2015. E-waste Prevention, Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP), Green Paper. ISSN-22196579, Bonn, Germany, February 13, 2015. Méndez-Fajardo, S., Böni, H., Hernández, H., Schluep, M., Valdivia, S., 2017. A Practical Guide for the Systemic Design of WEEE Management Policies in Developing Countries, 978-906177-17-5, SRI project, September 2017. Odeyingbo, O., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2017. Person in the Port Project: Assessing Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria. UNU-ViE SCYCLE and BCCC Africa, Bonn, Germany, December 13, 2017. Ploos van, A., 1997. Apparetour e Back to the Beginning, National Pilot Project for Collecting, Recycling and Repairing Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the District of Eindhoven. Ploos van Amstel Milieu Consulting B.V, Eindhoven. Reuter, M.A., Hudson, C., van Schaik, A., Heiskanen, K., Meskers, C., Hagelüken, C., 2013. UNEP International Resource Panel, Working Group on the Global Metal Flows - Metal Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure, a Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. Rotter, V.S., Chancerel, P., Emmerich, J., Habib, H., Hallberg, A., Huisman, J., Korf, N., Kushnir, D., Løvik, A.N., Mählitz, P., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Wagner, M., 2017. Protocols for CRM Content in Waste Flows and Data Quality Assessment, ProSUM Project - Deliverable 4.4, October 2017. Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, Mueller, E., Wang, F., 2009. Recycling e from E-waste to Resources. UNEP - DTIE, Paris. July, 2009. Schluep, M., 2012. WEEE management in Africa. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK.

140 CHAPTER 4 The e-waste development cycle, part IIIdpolicy & legislation

Schluep, M., Muller, E., Ott, D., Rochat, D., 2012. E-waste Assessment Methodology, Training & Reference Manual. EMPA, Switzerland. October, 2012. Seyring, N., Kling, M., Weissenbacher, J., Hestin, M., Lecerf, L., Magalini, F., Sinha e Khetriwal, D., Kuehr, R., 2015. Study on WEEE Recovery Targets, Preparation for Re-use Targets and on the Method for Calculation of the Recovery Targets, Final Report. European Commission. April, 2015. Spitzbart, M., Herbeck, E., Schluep, M., 2016. Business Plan Calculation Tool for Manual Dismantling Facilities, Solving the E-waste Problem Green Paper. ISSN:1234-5678 (Online), ISSN: 9234-5678 (Print), January 2016. SRI project, 2018. Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound E-waste Management for Collectors, Collection Centers, Transporters, Treatment Facilities and Final Disposal in Ghana. EPA. February 2018. StEP Initiative, 2009. One Global Understanding of Re-use eCommon Definitions (White Paper), vol. 6, 2009, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2010. White Paper on the Revision on EU’s WEEE Directive e COM (2008) 810 Final. StEP Initiative, 2014. One Global Definition of E-waste, (White Paper). June 2014, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2016. Guiding Principles to Develop E-waste Management Systems and Legislation. Solving the E-Waste Problem , Step White Paper. ISSN:2071-3576 (Online), 18.01.2016, Bonn Germany. StEP Worldmap, 2018. http://www.step-initiative.org/overview-eu.html, last accessed August 29, 2018. StEP Initiative, 2018. Business Plan Calculation Tool for Manual E-waste Dismantling Facilities. http://www.step-initiative.org/business-plan-calculation-tool-for-manual-ewaste-dismantling-facilities.html. Stevels, A.L.N., Huisman, J., Wang, F., 2012. Waste from electronics (e-waste) governance and systems organization. In: Steffen Lehmann, R.C. (Ed.), Designing for Zero Waste, Consumption, Technologies and the Built Environment. Earthscan, London and New York, pp. 131e144. UNEP, 2015. Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electrical and Electronic Waste and Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-waste under the Basel Convention, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, June, 2015. United Nations University, 2012. EWAM ToolKit. In: Proceedings from the 2012 GeSI & StEP E-waste Academy e Managers, Edition (EWAM). United Nations University, 2018. The E-waste Academy for Managers (EWAM) for Smalland Medium-sized Enterprises and Policy-makers. The E-waste Academy for Scientists (EWAS) for Young Researchers. http://ewasteacademy.org/. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Stevels, A.L.N., Baldé, C.P., November 1, 2013. Enhancing ewaste estimates: improving data quality by multivariate inputeoutput analysis. Waste Management 33 (11), 2397e2407.

References 141

Wielenga, K., Huisman, J., Baldé, C.P., March 2013. WEEE Mass balance and market structure in Belgium, study for Recupel. Brussels, Belgium. Worldloop, 2018, http://worldloop.org/e-waste/worldloops-approach-to-e-waste-management/, last accessed August 29, 2018.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

5

Implementation road map and conditions for success

Jaco Huisman1, Ab Stevels2, Kees Baldé3, Federico Magalini3, 4, Ruediger Kuehr3

1

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Unit D3, Ispra, Italy; 2Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 3United Nations University, Sustainable Cycles Programme, (UNU e ViE e SCYCLE), Bonn, Germany; 4Sofies, Weybridge, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

5.1 Introduction and readers’ guide 5.2 Intervention options 146

144

5.2.1 Starting countries 146 5.2.2 Emerging countries 148 5.2.3 Established countries 149

5.3 Selection of options 151 5.4 Implementation road map 154 Planning interventions 155 Stakeholder consultations 155 A national implementation road map

156

5.5 Conditions for success 159 5.6 Monitoring and control 160 5.6.1 Starting countries

161

Prepare for future auditing 161 Developing institutional capacity 162 Data for enforcement, learning by doing 162 Information needs for policy decisions and the next development cycle 163

5.6.2 Emerging countries

164

Effective auditing 164 National WEEE monitoring 164 International monitoring of export of critical fractions 165 Information management for enforcement, penalties and rewards 165 Information needs for policy decisions, the next development cycle 166

5.6.3 Established countries

166

Real-time auditing 166 Review existing data collection processes and modernise targets 167 A national monitoring and control road map 167

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00005-7 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

143

144 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

5.7 Awareness and education 5.7.1 End user education

168 168

5.7.1.1 Starting countries 170 5.7.1.2 Emerging and established countries 170

5.7.2 Training needs

173

Knowledge institutes and universities 173 Policy makers and recycling start-ups 174 Law enforcement 174

5.8 Design feedback

175

5.8.1 Design for recycling 176 5.8.2 Green public procurement 178 5.8.3 Information to recyclers 178

5.9 Conclusions 179 Disclaimer 180 References 180

5.1 INTRODUCTION AND READERS’ GUIDE Chapters 2e4 of this Handbook covered the first six steps of the proposed e-waste development cycle. This chapter builds on the previous Chapter 4 that generates various intervention options in the domains of Policy and Legislation (Section 4.2), Business and Finance (Section 4.3), and Technologies and Skills (Section 4.4). So far these options are discussed rather individually. The development objectives and requirements listed in this previous chapter, however, need to be aligned to enhance interrelations, to avoid contradictions and overlaps. Hence, this part 4 of the e-waste development cycle focuses more on the actual decision process itself. It provides mechanisms to place the possible interventions in perspective in order to take the right decisions based on understanding the interrelations between various options. The following steps as described in Table 5.1 are therefore a listing of all intervention options (Section 5.2), the selection and grouping of options and their feasibility, and the potential roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved (Section 5.3). The outcome is a new or revised e-waste development framework that ideally is transformed into a national road map that also provides timing and resources in relation to the decisions taken (Section 5.4). For the full reader’s guide covering the Chapters 2e5, see Table 2.1. Finally, the new or revised road map needs to be implemented in practice. Here, three additional development areas are regarded as crucial conditions to success and require more continuous attention (Section 5.5): “Monitoring and Control” is required to monitor performance over time, to intervene in case of noncompliance, and to provide facts and figures for a next development round in Section 5.6. Secondly, “Awareness and Education” in

5.1 Introduction and readers’ guide 145

Table 5.1 Key development questions posed (covering Chapter 5 of this handbook) Development areas

Starting countries

Emerging countries

Established countries

Step 7: How to develop a national road map? (Sections 5.2e5.4) Implementation Road Map

5.2.1 How to be both ambitious and realistic in the first policy round?

5.2.2 How to plan a review round carefully and well on time?

5.2.3 How to target the more complex challenges in conjunction?

Step 8: How to successfully implement the policy framework/road map? (Sections 5.6e5.8) Monitoring and Control

5.6.1 How to develop a 5.6.2 How to improve 5.6.3 How to track system basic monitoring reporting and a more performance more real framework? How to structured monitoring and time and establish smart measure progress? enforcement framework? enforcement? What indicators to use? Education and 5.7.1.1 How to inform 5.7.1.2 How to continuously involve all end users as well Awareness consumers about the initial as local collectors, municipalities, and regional authorities? collection infrastructure? Design feedback 5.8.1 What about prevention measures in the policy framework? 5.8.2 How can green procurement contribute? 5.8.3 What product information do recyclers need? (back to step 1: Country status and input to evaluation for the next development cycle)

particular of consumers is crucial for both collection as well as the long-term societal acceptance of the policy framework (Section 5.7). Finally, providing “Design Feedback” by means of advancing design for recycling (DfR) is an important preventive product policy-related domain that is described separate so far from the waste management policies. In addition, also the role of green public procurement and product design information is discussed in Section 5.8. Similar to the previous chapters, Table 5.1 provides an overview of the key development questions as well as a readers’ guide on where to find the information more directly. For a more complete reader’s guide covering all chapters, see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. A general question for all three country types in each development round is:

n

Step 7: How to develop a (next) national road map?

The timing of how and when an intervention is translated into a requirement in the form of a tangible target, often depends on other requirements as well as infrastructure, technologies, and skills available. Therefore, planning and alignment of interventions is particularly needed and depends on the

146 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

resources available. As an example, Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017) provides a description of how this process can be organized, applied to the case of the ewaste policy development process in Colombia. In addition to four key questions presented by this source, a fifth one is added here:

n

n n n n

What strategies and actions will be used to achieve the strategic objectives? Who will carry out these strategic objectives? When should they be carried out and for how long? How will the results be measured or confirmed? How do the various intervention options relate to each other?

5.2 INTERVENTION OPTIONS 5.2.1 Starting countries In addition to the above five questions that apply to all countries, for starting countries, specific key questions are:

n

n n

How to be both ambitious and realistic with the first policy initiating round? What will be the first goals to be achieved in our e-waste situation? How to arrange this legally, organizationally, and financially?

Since a fully completed e-waste system development process can easily take more than 20 years, it is important for starting countries to select interventions that are the most relevant for the short term and that are both ambitious and realistic at the same time. As highlighted in Section 2.1.2, the main goals for starting countries are typically “disaster prevention,” achieving “basic toxic control,” and developing initial infrastructure for both collection as well as treatment. From this perspective it is important not to be overly ambitious, too far reaching or too complex at this stage. At the same time, the first draft of the legal basis should not hinder later extension and revision. Hence, the recommendation is to set the first responsibilities and definitions carefully as introduced in Section 2.1.2. Secondly, alignment of the interventions is importantdfrom the first draft of the legal basis, specifying interventions not just individually but also in relation to what needs to be arranged and by whom is instrumental for planning purposes. Here, the role of the financial

5.2 Intervention options 147

instruments and the organizational measures should address how things are executed and when. Per definition in complex processes like this, not every step will run according to plan. There should be room for flexibility and timely adaptation, which can be specifically included in the process by using an iterative approach and planning various revision milestones scheduled ahead. It is advised here to set also a specific date for a first full revision of the adapted policy framework. As an example, based on the three development areas described in Sections 4.2e4.4, a listing of possible intervention options in these domains is presented in Table 5.2. This table includes specifically the key areas specified in Chapter 4 but can be dependent on the country specifics and subsequent deviating preferences, including also other intervention options. Table 5.2 provides some examples of who could be involved as well as an aimed timing per planned intervention. Obviously this should be adapted to the country-specific goals as deemed necessary. When available, results from the suggested steps from

Table 5.2 Example listing of intervention options for starting countries Policy and Legislation (examples from Section 4.2.1)

Who is involved? (examples)

Entity primarily in charge

Ministry of Environment

Scope Involvement of the informal sector Banning polluting practices Improving working conditions Import restrictions Future extensions

Ministry of Commerce Reuse and repair association Environmental inspectorate Ministry of Social Affairs Customs Ministry of Environment

Business and Finance (examples from Section 4.3.1) Pilot funding source Market input register Business conditions for dismantlers Financing mechanism and fee levels

Who is involved? (examples) NGO or international partner Producer responsibility organization Ministry of Commerce Ministry of Commerce

Coordinating entity

Producer responsibility organization

Technologies and Skills (examples from Section 4.4.1) Setting up collection points

Who is involved? (examples) Repair association

Setting up dismantling activities Shipment trials of critical fractions

Contracted recycling start-ups Ministry of Environment and Customs

When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) After 6 months/until 1st full revision in þ5 years þ1 year/idem þ1 year/idem þ1.5 years/idem þ2 years/idem þ1 year/idem Review study þ4 years/1st full revision in þ5 years When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ1 year þ1.5 years/þ2.5 years þ2 years/þ3 years þ2 years/þ3 years and again at 1st full revision in þ5 years þ1.5 years/at 1st full revision in þ5 years When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ2.5 years/at 1st full revision in þ5 years þ2.5 years/idem þ3 years/idem

148 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

the stakeholder analysis of Section 2.5 can specifically feed the middle column, and as well, the problem definition results from Section 2.7 can assist in determining the first and last column of Table 5.2.

5.2.2 Emerging countries For emerging countries, the extension of the legal framework, the coverage that the chosen financing provides, and organizational improvement needs to be aligned based on the lessons from the first implementation round and from a first evaluation and assessment exercise, when available (see Sections 2.5 and 2.7 for stakeholder analysis information and the renewed problem definition). Hence a key question here is:

n

How to plan a review round carefully and well on time?

As discussed in Section 2.1.2, the goal for emerging countries is to have a successful implementation of the first legal framework and realization of the collection and recycling targets set. This is needed in order to mature, professionalize, and expand the existing system. In order to propose more ambitious requirement and targets compared to the original basic ones from the first legal framework, some follow-up question are put on the table:

n n

n

n

n

How would a second road map for the next 5 years look like? What are the strengths and weakness of the current implementation (which can be based on the assessment as highlighted in Section 2.5 when available)? To what extent is a more thorough revision of the legal framework necessary? What is the willingness of other stakeholders to cooperate and to implement further interventions? Which stakeholders are convinced that a second revision is needed and how to convince the remaining ones?

Again as an illustration, example intervention options from Chapter 4 are provided here for emerging countries in Table 5.3:

5.2 Intervention options 149

Table 5.3 Example listing of intervention options for emerging countries Policy and Legislation (examples from Section 4.2.2)

Who is involved? (examples)

Review responsibilities

Ministry of Environment

Scope extension/update (review of) Collection target Recycling and reuse targets Implementation rules collection Implementation rules treatment Rules for shipments of critical fractions Future revision Business and Finance (examples from Section 4.3.2) Review of financing mechanism and levels Consumer education, R&D funds Business conditions for pre-processors Allocation of costs Technologies and Skills (examples from Section 4.4.2) Accessibility collection points Certification of facilities Optimizing preprocessing

Ministry of Commerce Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment Producer Responsibility Organization Producer Responsibility Organization Customs Ministry of Environment Who is involved? (examples) Ministry of Commerce Producer Responsibility organization Ministry of Commerce, Recyclers Association Producer Responsibility organization Who is involved? (examples) Producer Responsibility organization Independent 3rd party Recyclers Association

5.2.3 Established countries As discussed in Section 2.1.2, commonly the goal for established countries is to improve efficiency of collection and treatment on one hand, as well as to target the more complex challenges. In almost all cases the collection volumes can be maximized and quality and control over treatment improved. The latter particularly applies to recover more materials beyond those with positive economic values, including harmful substances and critical raw materials. Finally, how to realize actual incentives to improve product design feedback remains a relevant item. Therefore a key question here is:

n

How to target the more complex challenges in relation to each other?

When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ6 months/at 2nd revision þ5 years þ1 year/idem þ1 year/idem þ1.5 years/idem þ1.5 years/idem þ2 years/idem þ1.5 years/idem 2nd revision þ 5 years When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ1 year/idem þ1.5 years/idem þ2 years/idem þ1.5 years/idem When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ2.5 years/idem þ3 years/idem þ3 years/idem

150 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

By definition, policy and implementation cannot keep pace with new product types and technologies, rapidly changing product, component, and reuse values. This is subsequently posing different recycling challenges compared to the past. The same counts for market dynamics in collection and trade and technology options in treatment like changes in sorting, separation, and end-processing technologies. This is posing new challenges and opportunities compared to existing treatment requirements and standards. Hence, it makes sense to streamline and update existing implementation rules on a more continuous basis as well as leaving more and more of such implementation responsibility to nongovernment stakeholders. This potentially allows making revision rounds much faster and better informed compared to current revisions in order to remain updated according to technical and scientific progress. In this light, the discussion on who is responsible for what and when differs significantly compared to the previous development rounds. As an example, here Table 5.4 provides an overview of some of the possible interventions and changes to the e-waste system, where many stakeholders are more empowered to execute their respective responsibilities. In the longer term, when monitoring systems become more mature, reliable, and transparent, transfer of responsibilities can take place leading to less government involvement, particularly in more operational tasks.

Table 5.4 Example listing of intervention options for established countries Policy and Legislation (examples from Section 4.2.3) Proportionality of the scope Administrative burden Implementation rules update System efficiency Design feedback loop Business and Finance (examples from Section 4.3.3) Economic level playing field Consumer education, R&D funds Reward quality of treatment Finance collection in starting countries Technologies and Skills (examples from Section 4.4.3) Collection by all actors Innovation, enhanced critical raw materials recovery and toxics control

Who is involved? (examples) Ministry of Environment Ministry of Commerce Independent 3rd party Independent 3rd party Ministry of Commerce Who is involved? (examples) Recyclers Association and Producer Responsibility Organization Producer Responsibility Organization Producer Responsibility Organization Producer Responsibility Organization and NGOs Who is involved? (examples) Producer Responsibility Organization Producer Responsibility Organization and research institutes

When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ1 year/at 3rd revision þ5 years þ1 year/idem þ1.5 years/idem þ2 years/idem þ2 years/idem When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ1 year/at 3rd revision þ5 years þ1.5 year/idem þ2 years/idem þ1.5 year/idem When to be implemented/when to be reviewed? (examples) þ2.5 years/at 3rd revision þ5 years þ3 years/idem

5.3 Selection of options 151

5.3 SELECTION OF OPTIONS For all three country types, the listing from the previous Section 5.1 is one element needed for the decision process. Due to the intervention options being closely related to each other, the options in the nonexhaustive lists of Tables 5.2e5.4 need to be seen in relation to each other. To illustrate the complexity of setting a requirement and how potentially overlapping with other elements the detailing of an intervention option can be, the example of specifying “a collection target” as presented in Chapter 11 of Huisman et al. (2008). This example illustrates that in case of using a collection target, proper legal definitions, a well-defined scope, a functioning registration system, specific financial agreements, as well as a monitoring framework for the collected volumes are all needed in conjunction in order to implement the intervention in practice. From the listing of all interrelations between the interventions options, ideally a complete set of potential options is derived and the selection process starts. This is the most central and decisive step within the development process and includes selection, evaluation of the options, and conversion into legal text and accompanying policy documents: 1. The first step is the selection of the intervention options under Policy and Legislation and, explicitly, description of the relation to the development areas Business and Finance as well as Technology and Skills. An example of this exercise for starting countries for describing the relations of an intervention related to the “product scope” is presented in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Grouping of intervention options, example for starting countries for one policy intervention Policy and legislation intervention

Affects other interventions:

Product scope

Pilot funding source Market register

Setting up collection points Setting up dismantling activities Shipment trials of critical fractions Fee levels

How to align: Ideally the funding and the pilot project(s) covers the same selected products, or representative target products in scope. Idem, the product scope should also be described in practical terms with a simple FAQ and examples of products being inside/outside the scope. The collection points, the first dismantling activities, and the trials with removing and shipping critical fractions should be organized in order to specifically target the collection of the selected products.

For the scope specified, the pilot study and initial collection and recycling trials should also give first reference values for the fee levels under the chosen financing mechanism.

152 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

More elaborate lists of options are also provide in Chapter 9 of Huisman et al. (2008) for multiple possibilities proposed for the revision of the European Union (EU) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive regarding adapting the product scope, its definitions, and alternatives; revising collection targets; setting recycling and recovery targets; and enhancing reuse as developing more effective treatment requirements and standards. 2. The second step is the evaluation of options: The anticipated improvement potential of the various options is evaluated, ranked, and prioritized based in relation to environmental, economic, technical, and social impacts. The central questions to answer are: How much improvement is expected in these individual areas? And: How feasible is using the option in practice? Matrices providing a summary overview of the ranking and feasibility of this part are displayed in Chapter 10 of Huisman et al. (2008) for the selected improvement areas. A simplified example of this part of the selection exercise is presented in Table 5.6, adapted from Huisman et al. (2008) for presenting the impacts of adapting an existing product scope. 3. The third step is the actual translation of selected options into legal text and corresponding nonlegal requirements: Here proposals for actual translation of the most promising options are formulated. For example, in Section 10.6 of Huisman et al. (2008), specific conclusions and alignment of options is provided, forming the basis for the actual political decision process in the years following the EU WEEE Directive study. Here, as an example of the interconnectedness, one of the core recommendations was to reform the product scope, originally structured along individual electronics subsectors and branch organizations reflecting more the market inputs, into a waste stream oriented scope, structured along the most common grouping of waste streams like Large Household Appliances, Cooling and Freezing, etc. This change simultaneously will facilitate the alignment of treatment requirements and standards as well as the reporting requirements according to the collection categories used in practice. Additionally, in the writing process of the legal text, having independent research and technical support in the background can avoid overlaps and contradictions, which improves the clarity and quality of the legal framework. The same counts for thinking over possible rebound effects, which are to be considered as well.

5.3 Selection of options 153

Table 5.6 Evaluation of the impacts of individual intervention options Description of the intervention options Add new types of equipment (including parts) Exhaustive list of equipment types Differentiate B2B/B2C per (sub)category Exclude “real” professional B2B equipment

Define a waste stream oriented scope

Define scope by means of criteria list Define scope by means of reference to other nomenclatures, int. trade statistics

Environmental impacts

Economic impacts

Low. Current scope already covers the most relevant products. Very low. Only a small number of products are affected. Neutral

Varies per categories

Neutral

Positive

Social impacts D administrative burden Negative. Different provisions for parts built in or purchased for service. Low: lists needs to be kept updated constantly. Positive: Ensures level playing field. Positive

Neutral, most professional products are already undergoing specific collection, refurbishing, and treatment due to high values. Positive. Allows more specific environmental target setting also in line with treatment standards to be developed where really needed. Neutral

Positive. Less administrative burden.

Very Positive

Positive

Positive

Neutral

Neutral

Can streamline company reporting in the long term. Can only function when key products are also well represented in trade codes

Positive

Adapted from Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). United Nations University, Bonn, Germany.

As a reference tool, illustrated in Fig. 5.1 with the example of the EU, StEP (2018) provides a geographical StEP World map covering e-waste data for all individual countries. The source can be used to directly see which countries and regions have legal instruments in place. With one click to the specific documents, a complete repository of legal texts is available as a reference, including also the history of the legal documents and key country parameters (Fig. 5.1).

154 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

n FIGURE 5.1 Screenshot of the StEP e-waste world map information for the EU. From StEP Initiative, 2019: http://www.step-info.org/overview-eu.html.

5.4 IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP For all three country types, the previous Sections 5.2 and 5.3 provide an overview of what needs to be tackled, the options to intervene, their interrelations, as well as the subsequent impacts. The output of this is ideally

5.4 Implementation road map 155

updated and consistent legal texts and corresponding policy documents. However, the practical implementation benefits substantially when having a structured plan on top of this. Practical implementation calls for a structured and explicitly communicated plan: A clear road map where all issues to be addressed are covered as unambiguously as possible. In this road map each issues can be tagged with a time schedule for realization and an “owner,” being a person primarily in charge for the realization. The plan ideally includes a time path and wider conditions to derive to a successful national e-waste development. The main reason behind this advice is that often the perception exists that having a well-designed legal framework suffices and will automatically generate the intended results if everyone follows the rules. Unfortunately, experience shows that the chief bottlenecks are commonly in the implementation phase. Hence, the entire outcomes of Sections 5.2 and 5.3 need to be converted into a national development road map or action plan. The plan can provide for the practical organization of stakeholder consultations, provide appropriate timing of the chosen interventions, as well as allow to measure progress against the targets, indicators, and milestones set.

Planning interventions The Sustainable Recycling Industries (SRI) project (Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017) makes a useful distinction between an action plan on one hand and a monitoring plan on the other hand. In this document, the latter is discussed in Section 5.6.2, including the topic of indicators to measure progress. It, however, does make sense to develop both plans at the same time to align the timing and execute them individually later where it requires different roles and responsibilities. The difference between this chapter and the SRI approach is that here a more iterative development is suggested instead of one single round, with goals that can be too far reaching for starting and emerging countries in particular. Specifically for the scheduling of milestones, Chapter 8 of Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017) provides useful examples of original versus revised timelines applied in the example of Colombia. It is, however, suggested here to leave out too far-fetched development elements in the case of starting and emerging countries and instead schedule a revision round in advance.

Stakeholder consultations At certain points in the policy development process, the need for extended stakeholder consultations is high. Depending on the decision culture in

156 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

the country, it is advised to plan several milestones allowing interaction and discussion about various proposals. This can provide valuable information regarding the feasibility, the magnitude of the desired improvement potential, as well as insights into potential rebounds or undesired administrative burden. It is recommended to instruct stakeholders to provide actual evidence and facts that either confirm or reject the effects of the intended interventions. This is done because experience shows that stakeholders tend to communicate positions rather than enhancing the documents. The same counts for proposing alternatives that are possibly more effective. These need to be substantiated. Based on the provided fact basis and analysis of the various feedback, the evaluation of options could be adapted if necessary and the steps described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 can be updated where necessary. Again, depending on whether there is a first, second, or later policy cycle, these steps can be performed in high or low detail. It is recommended to incorporate an evaluation to provide room to remove previous requirements that have become outdated or do not function sufficiently, for instance, due to technical or scientific progress. In later stages, to receive acceptance for the revised framework when available in the form of draft legal texts, it is recommended to request feedback on the draft legal texts and simultaneously to involve stakeholders to determine a feasible timing needed for implementation as well as a description of the resources needed from an organizational and financial point of view. The stakeholder feedback forms an important forward-looking input to the next proposed step: the (co-)organization of a national implementation plan.

A national implementation road map The rationale behind a national implementation plan is to ultimately achieve active stakeholder commitment to execute and implement the policy framework and concurrently steer progress in the other development areas at specific stages in the collection and recycling chain. The advantage of clearly formulating such a national road map is that all key information, the allocation of roles and responsibilities, as well as timing and resources, are converging into one reference document. This can be made available for both the actors involved and to the general public, making the decision and implementation process more visibly accessible. However, compared to the number of e-waste publications and country assessments, so far there have not been that many road maps published via the coordinating stakeholders themselves. The most relevant examples

5.4 Implementation road map 157

are found in Wath et al. (2010), Schluep et al. (2012), Schluep, 2014, and Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017). Depending on the specific country needs and the information that is available or not from previous implementation rounds, the following components can be included in the road map document. The following list also contains examples and references, which can be used as a reference: n

n

n

n

n

n

A list of key issues and objectives, when available from the problem definition discussed in Section 2.7. Other examples and visualization are, for instance, available in Chapter 8 of Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017). A list of the specific requirements in the three domains of Policy and Legislation, Business and Finance, and Technologies and Skills, as highlighted as examples in Tables 5.2e5.4, including the main targets, the timing for achieving them, and the main responsible actors. A listing of existing and related policies, cross-referenced in relation to the new or updated requirements. Here, the analysis results from Section 2.6 can be displayed, for instance, in a simple table format. Other examples are published for Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark in Ylä-Mella and Román (2018), for India in Wath et al. (2010), and for several countries in comparison in Li et al. (2015). A frequently updated and online FAQ document can be provided for recurring key questions from both implementing actors, producers, as well as consumers and other business end users. An elaborate example is available in European Commission (2014). This also supports the communication of responsibilities in practical terms than more difficult-to-comprehend legal texts. A list of key responsibilities per stakeholder. Here, results can be taken from the stakeholder analysis in Section 2.5 or by elaborating on Table 4.2 from Section 4.2.1 (McCann and Wittman, 2015), additionally from the Annex K in Schluep et al. (2012), and the elaborate example of Colombia in Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017). A list of working groups supporting the implementation can be instrumental. Dependent on the national situation, describing the relevant technical, communication, legal and finance groups, as well as the coordinating entity or monitoring bodies can be provided in the form of a diagram or list. This can explicitly show the desired information flows and controlling responsibilities. Informative examples are available in the Figs. 4 and 5 from Wath et al. (2010) for India, Chapter 8 of Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017) for Colombia, and Fig. 22.8 of Zeng and Li. (2018) in this handbook.

158 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

Awareness and education

Distributors and retailers of new EEE

Global industry Official dumpsites

Institutional and corporate consumer

Second-hand industry Distributors and retailers of used EEE

Communal collection

Donations Informal sector Informal collectors/ scrap dealers

Private consumer Refurbishers and repairers

Policy and Legislation

Formal recycling industry

Business and Finance

Informal recycling

Technology and Skills

Informal dumping and burning

Monitoring and Control

n FIGURE 5.2 Example of visualizing the intended interventions in the end-of-life chain. Schluep, M., Muller, E., Ott, D., Rochat, D., 2012, E-Waste Assessment Methodology, Training and Reference Manual. EMPA, Switzerland, October, 2012.

n

n

A mass flow diagram with the main quantities when available. Here, useful examples are provided in Section 3.2, as well as in Yoshida (2018) and Zeng and Li (2018) in this handbook. Closely related, and possibly visualized in the same system diagram, the location of the main interventions in the end-of-life chain. A good example summarizing proposed actions at specific points in the value chain by affected stakeholders in one diagram is derived from the EMPA e-Waste Assessment Methodology in Schluep et al. (2012), which is also applied in a “Case study E-waste management” for the GIZ (global chemicals waste platform in 2014, Schluep, 2014). Fig. 5.2 is a further iteration of Fig. 2.4 in Section 2.7.3 and provides a clear visualization of the points in the end-of-life chain where the interventions are supposed to make an impact.

On top of the proposed national road map, key conditions for successful implementation are discussed in the next sections.

5.5 Conditions for success 159

5.5 CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS Obviously, the development road map from the previous section needs to be converted into actions in practice. For starting, emerging, and established countries, a general key question is:

n

Step 8: How to successfully implement the national e-waste development road map?

Here it has been chosen to deviate from previous sources like (Schluep et al., 2012), which includes Monitoring and Control plus Awareness and Education respectively as fourth and fifth development areas. In this chapter these two areas are positioned more as a continuously ongoing step in the implementation phase. The main reason is they are important conditions to success as well as of a different nature compared to the other development areas mentioned in Sections 4.2e4.4. They require continuous attention and are more indirectly empowering of the stakeholders involved. These conditions for succes, including the additionally suggested prevention area of “Design Feedback,” cannot be managed “top-down.” This part of the implementation relies more on the willingness and continuous improvement from those involved in a more “bottom-up learning by doing” manner. To support this, it is proposed that the national e-waste road map is also extended with the following items, which will be elaborated upon in the next sections: n

n

n

A monitoring road map, including responsibilities, resources, and timing. For more information, see Monitoring and Control Section 5.6 as well as the example of Chapter 6 in Méndez-Fajardo et al. (2017). Another example of a road map for emerging countries is available in the conclusions of the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) report as recommendations for law enforcement entities in Huisman et al. (2015); see also Section 5.6.2 and Fig. 5.3. A list of training needs and allocation of resources for end user communications. See also Section 5.7 for more information. A continuous discussion can be planned on how to arrange for more Design Feedback. This additional area has a “special prevention

160 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

character” and is recommended to go beyond setting basic product requirements in product policies. Therefore, Design for Recycling possibilities (Section 5.8.1), an information feedback loop to recyclers (Section 5.8.2), as well as the potential role of Green Public Procurement (Section 5.8.3) are discussed as a third area of development in Section 5.8.

5.6 MONITORING AND CONTROL The purposes of developing monitoring and control mechanisms are multiple: n

n

n

n

Adequate and complete reporting of market inputs, both via sales of new equipment as well as via second-hand imports, requires attention to avoid “free riders” as much as possible. Requirements can include the registration of producers and amounts placed on the respective market; financial obligations, including, for instance, auditing and some bookkeeping requirements, dependent on the chosen financing mechanism. Noncompliance here can potentially undermine an economically level playing field for producers when not reporting. Reporting on performances provides both knowledge and transparency needed to monitor progress of the implementation on a national scale and to report against the targets set in Section 5.3. This is ideally reflected in the road map and its milestones from Section 5.4. To control and enforce in case of noncompliance or undesired practices in collection and treatment. Data on quantities and fractions from treatment are important for analysis required by enforcement agencies. They serve as a basis for investigation and detection of noncompliance, enforcement action, prosecution, and ultimately penalizing and sentencing of the most severe cases of environmental, economic, and social damages to society (Huisman et al., 2015). Here, any existing standards for logistics, pre- and end-processing developed as introduced in Section 2.2.2 should be accompanied by monitoring of the results from collection and treatment according to these standards. Here, the economic consequences can be significant as well. See Section 3.5.3 for information on the economic order of magnitude (in euros per ton) of “competition distortion” in these cases as well as the recent information with compliance costs information from (Magalini and Huisman, 2018). It forms the basis for a mid- to long-term next evaluation round and country assessment as presented in Section 4.2 and any renewed impact assessment as discussed in Section 4.3.

5.6 Monitoring and control 161

Obviously this step in the development cycle is to be tuned closely to the other information intensive assessment steps in the development cycle. The same counts for collection and treatment. Control is recommended for instance via benchmarking and field checks on whether collected amounts are handed over to recyclers, treatment standards and reporting over recycling performance, and enforcement and appropriate penalties on illegal waste shipments are relevant (Schluep et al., 2012). When present, Monitoring and Control is also applicable to technical standards and auditing procedures for recycling processes. Typical examples of lack of enforcement can be found in Section 11.5 of the UNU WEEE Review study (Huisman et al., 2008) regarding collection amounts specifically in Huisman (2010), regarding transboundary shipments to other countries are described in Huisman et al. (2015). Regarding involvement and enabling of competent law enforcement bodies, this is specifically described in Section 5.7.2. Obviously, due to differences in the development status of the country and the general availability of information, the Monitoring and Control actions are different for starting, emerging, and established countries.

5.6.1 Starting countries For starting countries, often there is not much complete information and commonly reporting standards are not yet implemented. Hence some of the key questions are:

n

n n

n n

How to make first “terms of reference” to measure progress? What indicators will be used? How to develop basic monitoring capacities? What basic information do enforcement agencies need in the midterm? What will be a good time table for evaluation moments? Who can deliver information and who can evaluate?

Prepare for future auditing There are various reporting standards available in the literature, as well as from various countries and compliance schemes. Typically, auditing of performance cannot take place yet in the case of starting countries, since there is little information or time series of key information available. Therefore in drafting the initial reporting templates, it is recommended to limit the

162 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

reporting formats to cover the basic information as well as to be able to expand in coming years in such a way that more detailed auditing procedures can be realized covering more information. It is recommended to use harmonized formats where possible that allow comparing market input, collection, and treatment information along the same categories with other countries as well as in relation to classifications already in use internationally (Baldé et al., 2015). Using disconnected and self-invented codifications can hamper traceability and comparison of information in the end. In addition, the specific Deliverable 6.1 of the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015) provides an overview of codes already in use in the international and EU domain. It also contains specific recommendations regarding the distinction between waste and second-hand products, possible definitions, compatibility tables, and collaboration possibilities between stakeholders using the reporting formats in practice.

Developing institutional capacity A key decision in the early stages is to decide and assign who will be in charge of the monitoring of the system at large and how the information flows will be handled. It is advised to establish a first monitoring body with a specific mandate from the national government entity in charge. In addition, a limited number of representatives from the producer and recycler associations as well as a neutral technical expert can be included. In the early stages, the role of the monitoring body or technical working group can be kept rather simple to aim specifically at the gathering of basic information and providing key monitoring information. In later stages, also specifying research assignments and involving of more national experts from universities or research institutes may be applicable. Here it is important to trigger research capacity and knowledge provision for the longer term, which will be discussed next in Section 5.7.1. Interested researchers can also be closely involved from the beginning in the suggested pilot projects, in particular by allowing access to the first monitoring results. It also obviously makes sense that these experts are also involved in the early country status assessment steps in order to be able to analyze in conjunction the qualitative information, the stakeholder assessment (see Section 4.2), and the more quantitative performance from the monitoring in the coming years.

Data for enforcement, learning by doing It is important to distinguish three types of information relevant for (future) enforcement action. Firstly, data is needed regarding market inputs both for sales and second-hand imports. Here, in the beginning stages

5.6 Monitoring and control 163

monitoring, depending on the chosen product scope, can be limited to checking the initial declaration of equipment placed on the market, the units and average weights declared, and enforcing that there no obvious free riders absent in the registrations. Secondly, the collectors and recyclers receiving quantities from the commencing system can be visited and requested to provide simple mass balances and evidence of proper depollution as well as simple checks on the processing configurations. Thirdly, specifically for countries with significant imports of secondhand equipment, in cooperation with the port authorities or customs, inspections can take place at ports and roads crossing the national borders. Here, the experiences in the Nigerian “Person-in-the-Port” project (Odeyingbo et al., 2017) gives many practical clues on how import processes look like, how to set up analysis protocols to measure the import volumes and their qualities, and how to control and enforce better in the future. For these three enforcement areas it is recommended at this stage in time to focus more on the information gathering processes themselves and the identification of key areas of noncompliance. This should support and indicate to the sector it is becoming supervised via visible presences and inspections. When applied in a proactive dialogue format, the sector can be suggested to professionalize by itself over time, rather than restricting the sector by maximizing penalties early on.

Information needs for policy decisions and the next development cycle Reliable reporting is indispensable for “managing” the system after the rules have been set. Continuous attention to the system through reporting is needed to keep it going well and to identify issues that have to be addressed in the next stage of the e-waste cycle. Here, the monitoring information is essential for the preparation for a first evaluation stage (see Sections 2.7, 3.2, and 3.3) and ultimately a second development cycle. Instead of providing answers, in this step it is relevant to identify clearly what Monitoring and Control information would be needed to answer key follow-up questions such as: How can achievements be quantified in relation to the set targets and objectives? Where is noncompliance economically rewarding and low inspection risk making regular enforcement needed? What are the economic or other drivers behind this? How to collect signals from the sector itself? In addition, the Monitoring and Control information is specifically of relevance for conducting a more structured country assessment and mass flow analysis later on as presented in Section 3.4.3.

164 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

5.6.2 Emerging countries Whereas for starting countries the focus in this step is to develop a basic reporting system, for emerging countries with more information and reporting standards, formats, and exchanges generally established, the focus here should be more on the analysis of the information that is regularly not exploited to the extent possible. Especially the actual enforcement chain is a common weak point due to lack of resources, experiences, and communication channels. Therefore, a key question for emerging countries is:

n

How to improve reporting and a more structured monitoring and enforcement framework?

Effective auditing A structured evaluation framework capable of tracking market inputs and outputs, the performance of collection, and quality of treatment is instrumental for steering the efficiency of the e-waste system. In this regard, as a subsequent step in addition to establishing reporting, the active auditing and interpretation of results allows to intervene where quantities are missing and performance is not in line with the financing provided. Especially for Europe, the WEEE Forum and its members have constructed reporting templates of market inputs and collection information, as well as realized the exchange of information in the so-called WEEE Forum key figures tool, and provided benchmarking information via a web-based application, which is informative for monitoring purposes and benchmarking between different countries (WEEE Forum, 2010e2017). Similarly, the WEEE Forum and its members have established a monitoring tool for the reporting of treatment performance and downstream operations (WEEE Forum, 2018), which is also aligned with the technical treatment requirement of the WEEE LABEX/CENELEC mentioned in Section 4.2.2.2. Here, the advantages in the long term are better depollution results, increased traceability, and transparency and harmonization of requirements for operators. For more information, see Chapter 6 of this handbook (Herreras and Leroy, 2018).

National WEEE monitoring As shown in Section 3.5.3, in many cases, selling products for reuse or fractions for treatment acquired through informal collection are neither reported in official statistics nor traced. Furthermore, not all European

5.6 Monitoring and control 165

countries place an obligation on preprocessors to report and record the amounts and destinations of all types of input and output fractions. Obviously, informal collection activities do not appear in official statistics. Accurate mass balance calculations, based on reliable quantitative data, are crucial to determine progress toward achieving WEEE collection targets or the amounts of e-waste that end up outside the official WEEE chain. See the Deliverable 6.4 of the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015) for more details and proposed actions.

International monitoring of export of critical fractions In case materials are transferred interregionally and become less traceable, a common international platform for assessing the treatment quality and mass balance could help to monitor the treatment and improve the mutual trust. For e-waste standards such international exchange does exist; for trade of complex materials this is not the case. A new idea and recommendation is to seek possibilities to arrange this in similar ways as the certification and due diligence programs that are emerging for primary minerals. Having such a framework or international market information exchange would also allow for producer organizations to seek to reach compliance goals that are more country independent, similar to the international fate of their products. For more information on the benefits of this, see also Wang (2014) and the Best-of-2-Worlds project results (Wang et al., 2012).

Information management for enforcement, penalties and rewards In the law enforcement field, commonly a lack of information exchange and a lack of statistics about illegal WEEE activities is observed (Huisman et al., 2015). By definition, statistics on illegal activities related to WEEE are not reported in a structured manner. This CWIT project report provides several actions for improvement that can be taken up in the further development of the e-waste system for emerging countries (and likely many established systems as well), that is, to put in place formal agreements for the exchange of information between law enforcement, judicial authorities, and the WEEE industry. Secondly, it is recommended to consolidate and implement an operational intelligence management system that handles management and use of waste information at enforcement agencies and use intelligence to prioritize and direct resources toward the operations and policies that will be most effective. More details can be found in Deliverable 6.2 (use restricted to law enforcement agencies) of the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015). For information on the use of penalties, see Section 4.3.2.2.

166 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

Information needs for policy decisions, the next development cycle For emerging countries, the questions are the same compared to those posed in Section 5.6.1. These questions can be the input for second evaluation and third development cycle of the e-waste system. Here, the Monitoring and Control information is also specifically of relevance for conducting a more structured country assessment and mass flow analysis later on as presented in Section 3.2.4. Finally, also comparison and benchmarking is possible based on quite a number of studies presented there. Finally, for an example of a Monitoring and Control plan, see also the SRI report (Méndez-Fajardo et al., 2017) and Fig. 5.3 next in Section 5.6.3.

5.6.3 Established countries For established countries with more mature Monitoring and Control frameworks, some specific key challenges commonly remain. In practically all cases, still not all market flows and treatment fractions are being controlled that take place outside the designated reporting systems.

n n n

How to involve all flows and streamline enforcement? How to track system performance more in real time? How to establish smart enforcement?

Real-time auditing Some countries have included the “all actors” model as mentioned in Section 4.2.3.3, which enables also more direct and real-time monitoring of ideally all collection and treatment volumes in the country. In addition, where CENELEC (EU) or other treatment standards are available, making these mandatory at the same for these “all actors report” quantities allows more direct benchmarking in the long run and thus intervention possible when the treatment quantities are also understood better. In addition, see the scavenging assessment of Section 3.5.3 based on Magalini and Huisman (2018). In this respect there are many best practices available in countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, France, and Belgium, where the compliance schemes and authorities are closely cooperating in improving the monitoring of the system and taking actions like addressing directly actors in the trading chain when they are structurally remaining noncompliant. This also applies to the collection channels. In the Netherlands for instance, information normalized in kilograms per inhabitant for each municipality is available,

5.6 Monitoring and control 167

allowing to address specific collection points that for some reason are clearly underperforming (Huisman et al., 2012). Finally, also understanding the material composition from e-waste collection and treatment is relevant for understanding future compositions and the content of valuable, hazardous and critical raw materials (CRMs). Here, the ProSUM project also provides specific protocols to measure CRMs in waste flows in its Deliverable 4.4 (Rotter et al., 2017; Huisman et al., 2017). Further additional practical suggestions to improve the inclusion of all quantities in the Monitoring and Control framework can be found in the Deliverables 6.1 and 6.4 of the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015).

Review existing data collection processes and modernise targets Data gaps in national and international reporting severely affects the meaningfulness of the monitoring of various policy instruments, as well as in the monitoring and comparing of progress made over time. It is important to understand and tackle these data gaps in order to better substantiate targets for collection and treatment and ultimately for circular economy monitoring. Here, a recent publication from the ORAMA project (Huisman et al., 2018), provides a comprehensive assessment of these data gaps, obstacles in the data collection process and an inventory of recommendations that is converted in all sorts of possible actions and case studies to improve data availability and quality. This also relates to quickly changing perspectives on the relevance of raw materials in established countries. Over time, the views on the original perspectives of e-waste legislation is changing from more waste management and control over potentially harmful substances, towards more circularity and higher material efficiency. In the long term this means that originally simple weight based indicators should be replaced by more meaningful and targeted environmental, social and economic ones like sketched in Sections 3.4e3.6. It is recommended for established countries to conduct research on this subject as a basis for modernising previously defined targets. Here, (Huisman et al., 2018) provides a list of priority actions to improve the required data collection processes as well as harmonisation needs and classifications to achieve this in the long term.

A national monitoring and control road map For established countries, after a successful third evaluation, possibly even a fourth development cycle could be considered. This fourth round is not included in these chapters, since there is basically no experience available. It is likely that the main needs to improve even further lie in a more

168 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

continuous and effective monitoring and enforcement of what has been developed rather than additional new rules and regulations. Therefore, the approach of the sketched third development round is expected to be adequate when followed in the suggested “à la carte” manner. As an example of a more comprehensive Monitoring and Control road map, combining primarily short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations for emerging and established countries, is presented in Fig. 5.3 derived from Huisman et al. (2015). It illustrates the possible timing and responsibilities of various actions that can be taken. More detailed information for each element in Fig. 5.3 is available in the CWIT report and the specific recommendation reports created by the project.

5.7 AWARENESS AND EDUCATION Interestingly, Fig. 5.3 indicates another interesting finding from the CWIT project. The highest ranked recommendation from surveying both the electronics industry and recycling community as well as representatives from the law enforcement chain is to increase the consumer awareness and specifically to continue to provide information on how and where consumers can hand in discarded products. The main rationale provided (Huisman et al., 2015) is that education is the most basic action that is driving longterm change. Consumers are always the starting point for collection, thus the quickest win is when consumers increasingly bring old WEEE products to the appropriate collection points increasing collection and decreasing leakages like small appliances ending in the general waste bin. In addition to this, providing information on the system performance is regarded as an important ingredient for the long-term acceptance of the costs of the e-waste system. This also aligns with the rationale behind releasing the national implementation road map to the public. In this section, besides improving awareness of consumers, also further education by means of capacity building and training of all stakeholders involved is discussed. This includes the target audiences of researchers, producers, government entities, recyclers, and law enforcement agencies.

5.7.1 End user education The term “end user education” is used here, since consumers are not the only source of e-waste. Specifically for emerging and established countries, B2B users, industry and the public sector are contributing a significant portion of the total discarded volumes.

5.7 Awareness and education 169

1-3 years

Key recommendations

Primary responsibility

3-5 years

>5 years

1.2 Improve collection

1.4 All actors report

1.3 National WEEE monitoring

2.4 Smarter inspections

2.3 National WEEE networks

4.3 International WEEE networks

Consumers, producers collection points

Producers, recyclers, policy makers

Producers, recyclers, law enforcement agencies, policy makers

Law enforcement agencies, NGO’s, international organisations

4.4 Improved prosecution and sentencing

Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges

1.1 Educate consumers 2.1 Improve treatment Support measures

2.2 Improve reuse 3.1 Waste codifications

Support policies

3.2 Consistent guidelines 3.4 Harmonised penalties

3.3 Train authorities Support for law enforcement

4.2 Law enforcement agencies capacity building 4.1 Information management system

n FIGURE 5.3 Monitoring and control recommendation road map. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap, August 30, 2015, Lyon, Francebib_Huisman_et_al_2015.

For starting countries, key questions related to end user education and training and capacity building are:

n

n

How to inform consumers about the initiation of collection infrastructure? How to enable quick learning for the informal sector?

170 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

5.7.1.1 Starting countries Consumer involvement is a key ingredient to obtain collection volumes. In newly evolving e-waste systems, informing consumers is an important element to be developed. In the long term, knowledge and awareness support the development of the social norm and motivation of consumers to contribute and accept the policy development as well as the visible or invisible costs. Noticeable here is that the collection is usually organized completely different in starting countries and often at rather high levels but not being directed to formal channels. See also Section 3.2.1. This also affects how awareness actions should be organized, since it does not makes sense to improve consumer awareness when official collection infrastructure is omitted. Therefore, a first possibility in case pilot projects are conducted and initial legislation is enacted is to actively communicate these development steps in the country to various media, newswires, and other formats in an engaging style. Secondly, depending on the funds initially made available, specific communication campaigns can be rolled out to increase awareness of informal collectors steering their collection volumes and the hazardous content of products to the right channels. Here, another recent SRI project provides more insights on the current practices and more sustainable alternatives in Karcher et al. (2018). Various examples are available in the Deliverable 6.4 from the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015). It is recommended to grow these campaigns over time starting with very basic information in the starting periods, for instance, on the environmental and economic reasons to collect and recycle e-waste and in particular in where collection points are made available. It is also recommended that in case consumer survey information is available, see Section 3.6.3 and Annex C of Schluep et al. (2012) to adapt the approach to the main information and awareness gaps identified.

5.7.1.2 Emerging and established countries For emerging as well as established countries, key questions are:

n

n

How to extend end-user education and continuously involve all end users? How to involve local collectors, municipalities, and regional authorities?

5.7 Awareness and education 171

For emerging countries, the initial programs for education of end-users can be continued, extended, and intensified to more media channels and formats. Here many examples exist, in particular in Europe of smart TV commercials, projects involving children at school to collect, and other best practices. One of the most inspiring projects is the Dutch Wecycle school project (Wecycle, 2018), teaching and involving children from primary schools into collection campaigns and providing a range of teaching materials. Similarly, many of the WEEE Forum members have their own national campaigns and examples accessible via their respective websites. In many cases, also various collection projects are organized regarding general municipal solid waste by individual municipalities and regions. As an example, the project states that for Sweden the cooperation between municipalities and producers as well as recycling centers, combined with a high level of awareness, has led to substantial increases in the volume collected per inhabitant. A concern, however, is the efficiency of rather scattered approaches (COLLECTORS project, 2018). In many cases substantial costs are spent on relatively low quantities collected, and a wide variety of practices are reinvented repeatedly. It is therefore recommended to evaluate existing approaches and best practices that are working in other countries. An example of analysis specifically on behavior of consumers is presented in Fig. 5.4, derived from the Italian country study conducted in 2011 (Magalini et al., 2012). It shows to which collection channels consumers (think they) have discarded old appliances. The information including the

1%

4%

10%

25% Retailers Municipal collection points

13%

Life extension Reuse Bad habits Warranty replacement

3%

Do not know/do not remember

44%

n FIGURE 5.4 WEEE disposal method by waste stream in Italy, 2011, in weight%. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., Mosconi, R., Gobbi, A., Manzoni, M.,

Pagnoncelli, N., Scarcella, G., Alemanno, A., Monti, I., 2012. Household WEEE Generated in Italy, Analysis on Volumes and Consumer Disposal Behavior for Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany.

172 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

details per collection category provides some important findings. This allows intervening in some of these channels when the equipment does not land in the designated reported channels, in particular when the actual volumes from adjacent market assessment show indeed discrepancies to the desired channels consumers have indicated. See also the EU study on the common methodology for measuring the collection rates of the WEEE Directive in Magalini et al. (2016) for more information regarding the collection practices and volumes in the EU member states. Additionally, a relatively new project is taking inventory of, amongst other waste streams, best WEEE collection practices in Europe. The COLLECTORS project (2018) is designed to provide more structured information in the coming years. Another important aspect is the security of collection points. There are many cases known of robbing, stealing, and scavenging of e-waste from collection points. Here various actions and investing in security measures are possible; see also Huisman et al. (2015). Communication to business owners is often underdeveloped. This is especially a concern when the (revised) product scope (see Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.1) includes B2B appliances. The volumes of both small WEEE, in particular office equipment, in enterprises as well as more professional equipment can be a considerable part of the total (Huisman et al., 2012). Without proper collection information, substantial amounts of e-waste end up in the unsorted general waste stream as well as in complementary trade outside the designated channels. This leads to lack of control over quality of treatment and these amounts potentially are a source for (illegal) exports. Therefore, it makes sense to dedicate resources to communication of the actual legislation being applicable to business end users as well. Using supporting guidance documents and frequently asked questions, accompanying standards and agreements, as well as making the presence and functioning of national registers explicit via their respective branche organisations, should inform this sector regarding its responsibilities. These documents should explain what the criteria are for professional equipment to be regarded within scope of the policy framework or not. A final consideration regarding consumer awareness is the use of a visible recycling fee or even deposit. The basic fact that consumers are paying the external costs of collection and recycling has a high awareness factor in itself. There are potential financial drawbacks since there is a risk to accumulate too much funds, as well as the risk of creating monopolies of associations in charge of them. However, when implemented in a cost-efficient and transparent manner, including the possibility for other actors to have a vote in the spending of these funds in a smart manner,

5.7 Awareness and education 173

then a visible fee or deposit system for selected appliances can form an accelerating component of the system. This is due to the presence of both the financial funds and the awareness component as crucial longterm development incentives.

5.7.2 Training needs For all three country types, there are (evolving) training needs for various stakeholders. Key questions are:

n

n n

How to involve the key stakeholders and enable quick learning for the informal sector? What are the key training needs for the various actors? How to improve stakeholder collaboration and research?

Knowledge institutes and universities For starting countries, generally speaking, universities and (independent) knowledge institutes can greatly assist in supporting the system as discussed in many of the assessment and monitoring sections and obviously in the technical experience related to standards and requirements. Here, various training tools exist that avoid starting from zero, like the EMPA E-waste assessment manual (Schluep et al., 2012), many green and white papers from the StEP community (Gregory et al., 2009; StEP Initiative, 2009; StEP Initiative, 2010; Deubzer, 2012; StEP Initiative, 2014; StEP Initiative, 2016; McCann and Wittman, 2015; StEP Worldmap, 2019), and as a dedicated international training course the E-waste Academy for Scientists (UNU, 2018). A Massive Open Online Course is also available to those having a fresh interest in the e-waste challenge from the EU-funded climate Knowledge Innovation Center (Climate KIC, 2017), which can be used privately as well as part of a university course. For established countries, it is recommended in addition that government entities and producer associations jointly develop a research agenda and provide key funding as well to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. In this regard, many practically formulated e-waste assessment studies have proven to provide valuable information as well as to improve the communication and understanding between the key actors steering the next development stages to new levels. See also Section 3.2.4.

174 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

Policy makers and recycling start-ups For policy makers and recyclers starting their business, a dedicated version of the E-waste Academy for these two groups exists called E-waste Academy for Managers (UNU, 2018). Viable business development and mutual understanding between policy makers and managers of recycling facilities is an important element to realize the necessary infrastructure for recycling. Recently, a specific Business Boot Camp addition to the E-waste Academies series is planned for small entrepreneurs (UNU, 2018). Various tools for the informal sector to professionalize from basic processing techniques to more advanced and economically more efficient ones are available in these sources; see also SRI project (2018) for useful treatment guidelines. Additionally, a business plan calculation tool is available via the StEP website enabling basic economic calculations for developing business plans (Spitzbart et al., 2016; StEP Initiative, 2019).

Law enforcement For starting countries, the focus is commonly on enforcement on waste imports, less on collection and treatment as these are still evolving. Specifically for law enforcement agencies, which includes inspectorates, customs, port and border authorities, and judges and prosecutors, the DOTCOM.waste project provides specific training materials and recommendations. These (restricted) materials are specifically made available for enforcement agencies via the website of DOTCOM Waste project (2017). For emerging and established countries, in addition to the DOTCOM.waste training materials, also several organizational measures can strengthen the capacities of law enforcement agencies. Generally, there is a lack of knowledge, since the law enforcement agencies are trained to handle many illegal activities of which illegal e-waste trade and environmental crime is only a tiny sector compared to more dangerous threats related to trade in drugs, narcotics, weapons, etc. This constitutes a fundamental challenge for law enforcement agencies and commonly prioritizes environmental crimes in particular lower on the agenda due to other more pressing items. Without adequate skills and knowledge and allocated resources, it is challenging to detect, investigate, and prosecute illegal e-waste activities (Huisman et al., 2015). The CWIT project contains detailed suggestions and actions that improve the communication, training needs, practical guidelines, and public-private partnership ideas that may be relevant for emerging countries. Additionally, technical equipment and means are needed to test and store seized shipments as well as human resources. Here it is recommended to include in the e-waste development road maps and in the monitoring plan a dedicated inspection paragraph that plans for the resources needed.

5.8 Design feedback 175

Since e-waste trade is by definition not confined to national borders, a final element of improvement is to facilitate international cooperation and the exchange of information between sending and receiving countries in particular. See the Deliverable 6.2 of the CWIT project (Huisman et al., 2015) for more information.

5.8 DESIGN FEEDBACK Electronic products are changing rapidly in their size, composition, and connections between materials and components. The following trends are observed, all affecting the composition and presence of materials in electronics, as well as the recycling potential (Huisman et al., 2017). Products are becoming: n

n

n

n

Smarter: products are increasingly fitted with sensors and other technologies like in wearables, IoT appliances. Also smart TVs, LED lamps, scales, smoke detectors, thermostats, dispensers, watches, phones and even tennis rackets and sport shoes are examples of products rapidly changing in this respect. Smaller: Miniaturization of hardware with more functionality performed by smaller and smaller devices. Examples include planar transformers with less energy consumption per function, fewer circuit board materials in basically all smaller and medium-sized appliances. The result is usually lower value per kilogram of product and higher dispersion rates of minor elements. Multifunctional: Increasingly there is more convergence of multiple products from different categories becoming more integrated and combined. Examples are voice-activated speakers, smart refrigerators, and home diagnostics. More cross-over products. These are products that were initially expensive in the business domain but rapidly become cheaply available in the consumer domain. Examples are 3D printers, drones, medical devices, VR, robotics, etc.

Due to these trends, prevention via improved Design for Recycling obviously remains an important strategy. So far, no product-related requirements are mentioned in relation to their inclusion in the Policy and Legislation part of the e-waste development cycle here. The reason is on one hand that product end-of-life requirements need to be embedded in other eco-design strategies and policies. On the other hand, individual and, in particular, smaller countries will not have sufficient leverage to influence products produced for the global market. Here, country by country varying design requirements can cause significant fragmentation. Nevertheless, the following legitimate key question remains for the following sections.

176 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

5.8.1 Design for recycling Irrespective of the country development status, a key question often asked, regards prevention:

n

Should prevention via design requirements to improve recycling not be included in the policy framework?

The following quote from Huisman (2013) is still regarded relevant: “There simply is no financial mechanism that pays back upfront redesign investments in reduced end-of-life costs that are incurred roughly 10 years later. Products do not come back individually to the original producer, but in various mixed collection streams, and sorting back into brands is expensive. Moreover, the value of e-waste is well known by local traders and collection points. Transferring ownership to producer responsibility organizations (PROs) and arranging for logistics and quality treatment generally costs more than the intrinsic material value. Processing facilities vary greatly in sophistication and material prices are very dynamic and unpredictable. Thus, requiring all this to be addressed upfront in product design, many years before the actual disposal of products, has just proved to be naïve.” With this analysis, the recommendation for countries starting with e-waste policies is not to incorporate prevention-oriented design measures in the waste management oriented legislation but preferably in generic ecodesign and product related policies. Besides keeping focus on the necessary waste management requirements, (“one policy for one main goal”) according to Huisman (2013), eco-design requires a careful balancing act, preferably as early as possible in the early product-creation stages. What is good for recycling may not be so good, for example, for materials selection or energy consumption (Bakker et al., 2012). In practice, a lot of creativity is required to achieve long-term societal goals and higher levels of sustainability: more functionality with fewer materials, more quality, products that last, instead of “fast-food electronics,” and further dematerialization (Bakker et al., 2014). It is likely that such creativity is actually hampered by static legislative requirements and long compliance checklists, rather than being supported. To improve product design, it is suggested that it is more effectively supported to some degree by having more procedural elements, life cycle assessments, ecodesign checklists, and marketing of green products in annual environmental reports of producers. However, more relevant for the long term is to have eco-design structurally embedded in the inside core of the product creation

5.8 Design feedback 177

and integration process and permanently resident in corporate culture and management bonus systems internally, rather than in external legal compliance layers. Design for recycling activities can take shape in very simple forms, like following specific design strategies and rules. Secondly, they can also be based on actual dismantling (or shredder tests when prototypes) and previous designs or warranty goods are available. Thirdly, they can be based on more advanced simulations in cases where it is difficult to determine separation characteristics or when more complex compositions and connections are at stake, or in the case that it is simply too expensive to destroy valuable new products. n

n

n

As an example of the first approach, a both effective and economically attractive design strategy is to simplify the product architecture, limit the number of screws used by just sketching where materials are incompatible and having a troublesome connection. When done properly, this leads to better liberation and lower assembly costs at the same time, see for example Bakker et al. (2012). A drawback here is that very general design rules are not targeting the specifics and heterogeneous nature of many electronic products, which requires making different design compromises in a tailored way. See Stevels (2007) for a compilation of many different cases. As an example of the second approach, the GREENELEC project (Balkenende et al., 2014) conducted a range of redesign tests for LED lamps, LED TVs, and medical displays based on extensive analysis and actual shredder tests. Various design guidelines are derived to improve the selection of materials, the connections between these materials and the liberation of the electronic components. The project displayed various actual product improvements that after redesigning made it into the market. Regarding the third approach, one of the lessons of Balkenende et al. (2014) is that more detailed recycling tests and process simulations may provide valuable design information. One important constraint here is the availability of information from the electronics industry regarding product chemical content. For improving designs, the position of the materials by Full Material Declaration and Bill of Materials data is crucial. Commonly, the combined information of material composition and exact location is not available. Such information should become more widely available than what is observed nowadays to increase transparency on product content, as well as to improve product designs and to enable more advanced recycling assessments.

178 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

5.8.2 Green public procurement A design feedback possibility that is not always considered is green public procurement (GPP):

n

How can green procurement and government asset management contribute?

Authorities are an important buyer of electronics and commonly of office IT equipment in particular. For emerging and established countries, a relevant eco-design and Design for Recycling incentive may also come from green purchasing. For the EU a GPP handbook exists (European Commission, 2016), which includes primarily energy requirements for IT equipment. The area of green procurement has been explored substantially in the United States. The EPEAT program (Green Electronics Council, 2018) is used by government procurement programs worldwide and focuses more on electronics products. The criteria include more than design for recycling considerations only, with product longevity, substance management and reuse, repair, and recycling aspects covered as well. From a practical point of view, the US government online procurement tool provides a useful overview of products available as well as the government practices, requirements, and case studies (SFTool, 2018). Finally, since authorities are also a generator of discarded e-waste, paying attention to proper collection and treatment of the own discarded assets and in some cases using these for collection and recycling pilots in the case of starting countries makes sense. Here, there is also an important risk mitigation element to be noted. It is detrimental for the development of national e-waste policies when illegal trade and substandard recycling of own government assets is exposed to the general public.

5.8.3 Information to recyclers

n

What product information do recyclers need?

5.9 Conclusions 179

In the European Union still only attempts are made to arrange for the information flow from producers to recyclers on new items placed on the market under the scope of the EU WEEE Directive e Article 15 (European Parliament and Council, 2012). Ideally, a feedback loop is created to inform recyclers when and where to expect troublesome designs, specific substances and components of concern, and more general recycling and preparation for reuse information. For this purpose, as an example the I4R platform has been created (I4R platform, 2018) in Europe. Per collection category the platform provides example products and information about which substances and components potentially have hazardous content and need to be selectively removed. The information however is very generic for the main product groups and does not contained detailed product dismantling data, nor repair nor composition information, nor information about changes in product compositions over time. Therefore, the actual usefulness of the information for everyday recycling practices remains to be seen. It is recommended to recyclers in emerging and established countries to investigate these developments for own financial planning and technical adaption of recycling processes for the future products. One possibility to do this in the recycling industry itself is to conduct dedicated treatment trials, by sorting out the youngest products, which are always present in limited shares in the return streams, and analyze the material composition to determine the value, concentrations of key substances, and newly appearing materials that may hinder the existing recycling processes in the future.

5.9 CONCLUSIONS The national e-waste development approach as presented in Chapters 2e5 has many advantages for setting up efficient take-back systems. The most important benefits of the proposed comprehensive and à la carte e-waste development cycle are described by six keywords, which are to be kept in mind when dealing with complex matters of e-waste: n

n

n

Focused and goal oriented: Due to the complexity of the e-waste problem, the development goals differ per country and change over time. The iterative approach allows focus on the respective goals. Fact based: An independent fact-based approach allows for more neutral decision-making processes, which is crucial since interventions are affecting many different stakeholders and economic interests and provide for more eco-efficient e-waste system development. Flexible: Setting up and operating a take-back and treatment system is a complex operation in which there is a lot of “learning along the way.” Simultaneously, external developments like new technical and

180 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

n

n

scientific progress and market price changes have a big impact. Therefore, take-back systems require more “organic” and iterative development compared to existing linear manuals and guidance documents available so far. Faster and feasible: By not attempting to fix everything in one round, a faster and more tailor-made process supports timely implementation under widely varying contexts. It also improves the feasibility by concentrating scarce resources to the most pressing issues. Forward looking: Applying the iterative approach of the e-waste development cycle provides perspective plus preparation time to achieve further reaching goals to be tackled in the next development round.

DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained therein. United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous organ of the UN General Assembly dedicated to generating and transferring knowledge and strengthening capacities relevant to global issues of human security, development, and welfare. The University operates through a worldwide network of research and training centers and programs, coordinated by UNU Center in Tokyo. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the UNU, nor does citing of trade names, companies, schemes, or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

REFERENCES Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Fondeur Gill, S., Kern, M., Micheli, P., Magpantay, E., Huisman, J., 2015. E-Waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators (electronic). United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany, ISBN 978-92-808-4554-9. Balkenende, R., Occhionorelli, V., van Meensel, W., Felix, J., Sjölin, S., Aerts, M., Huisman, J., Becker, J., van Schaik, A., Reuter, M., 2014. GreenElec: Product Design Linked to Recycling, Going Green - Care Innovation 2014, 2014/11/17, Vienna, Austria.

References 181

Bakker, C., Ingenegeren, R., Devoldere, T., Tempelman, E., Huisman, J., Peck, D., 2012. Rethinking eco-design priorities; the case of the econova television. In: Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green 2012þ Conference, Berlin, September 2012. Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J., den Hollander, M., 2014. Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. Journal of Cleaner Production 69, 10e16. Climate KIC, 2017. https://learning.climate-kic.org/courses/e-waste-mooc#who-s-it-for-isthis-the-right-course-for-me. COLLECTORS project, 2018. https://www.collectors2020.eu/the-project/scope/wasteelectrical-electronic-equipment-weee/. Deubzer, O., 2012. Recommendations on standards for collection, storage, transport and treatment of e-waste. In: Principles, Requirements and Conformity Assessment, StEP Green Paper, June 22, 2012, UNU, Bonn, Germany. DOTCOM Waste project, 2017. http://www.dotcomwaste.eu/resources/dotcomlibrary/. http://www.dotcomwaste.eu/training-modules-introduction/. European Commission, 2014. Frequently Asked Questions on Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available through. ec.europa. eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/faq.pdf. Brussels, April 2014. European Commission, 2016. DG Environment, Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement, third ed., ISBN 978-92-79-56848-0 Brussels, Belgium, 2016. European Parliament and Council, 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 4 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (Recast), 197/38. Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium. Green Electronics Council, 2018. EPEAT Overview. http://greenelectronicscouncil.org/ epeat/epeat-overview/. Gregory, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2009. E-waste take-back system design and policy approaches. In: Solving the E-Waste Problem (StEP), White Paper. Herreras, L., Leroy, P., 2018. The WEEE Forum and the WEEELABEX project. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., Maurer, C., Ogilvie, S., Poll, J., Delgado, C., Artim, E., Szlezak, J., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., 2010. WEEE Recast: From 4 kg to 65%: The Compliance Consequences, UNU Expert Opinion on the EU WEEE Directive. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Huisman, J., 2013. Too big to fail, too academic to function. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (2), 172e174. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap, August 30, 2015, Lyon, France.

182 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tetre, F., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A., Wäger, P., Kushnir, D., Rotter, V.S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, A., Habib, H., Wagner, M., Downes, S., 2017. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM). Final Report, ISBN: 978-92-808-9060-0; 978-92-808-9061-7, 2017/12/21. Huisman, J., Baldé, K., Bavec, S., Wagner, M., Loevik, A., Herreras, L., Chancerel, P., Emmerich, J., Sperlich, K., Modaresi, R., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Forti, V., Mählitz, P., Schillerup, H., Horvath, Z., Bobba, S., Eilu, P., Anta, M., Aasly, K., Stanley, G., Csaba, V., Kiss, J., Szabó, K., Nickolova, V., 2018. ORAMA Project Deliverable 2.2, Recommendations for Improving SRM Datasets and Harmonisation, December 7, 2018. I4R platform, 2018. Information for Recyclers Platform. https://i4r-platform.eu/. Karcher, S.Y., Valdivia, S., Schluep, M., 2018. From Worst to Good Practices in Secondary Metals Recovery, Fact Sheets, Sustainable Recycling Industries (SRI) St. Gallen, Switzerland, July 2018. Li, J., Zeng, X., Chen, M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Stevels, A., 2015. Control-Alt-Delete: rebooting solutions for the e-waste problem. Environmental Science and Technology 49, 7095e7108. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., Mosconi, R., Gobbi, A., Manzoni, M., Pagnoncelli, N., Scarcella, G., Alemanno, A., Monti, I., 2012. Household WEEE Generated in Italy, Analyis on Volumes & Consumer Disposal Behavior for Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. United Nations University, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Wang, F., Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Baldé, K., van Straalen, V., Hestin, M., Lecerf, L., Sayman, U., Akpulat, O., 2016. Study on Collection Rates of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Possible Measures to be Initiated by the Commission as Required by Article 7 (4), 7 (5), 7 (6) and 7 (7) of Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), March 8, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Final_Report_Art7_publication. pdf. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., 2018. WEEE Recycling Economics, Study Commissioned by EERA. Available via. https://www.eera-recyclers.com/files/unu-eera-brochure-onlinev5-002.pdf. McCann, D., Wittmann, A., 2015. E-waste prevention, take-back system design and policy approaches. In: Solving the E-Waste Problem (StEP), Green Paper. ISSN-2219-6579, Bonn, Germany, February 13, 2015. Méndez-Fajardo, S., Böni, H., Hernández, H., Schluep, M., Valdivia, S., 2017. A Practical Guide for the Systemic Design of WEEE Management Policies in Developing Countries. ISBN 978-906177-17-5, SRI project, September 2017. Odeyingbo, O., Nnorom, I., Deubzer, O., 2017. Person in the Port Project: Assessing Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria. UNU-ViE SCYCLE and BCCC Africa, Bonn, Germany. December 13, 2017. Rotter, V.S., Chancerel, P., Emmerich, J., Habib, H., Hallberg, A., Huisman, J., Korf, N., Kushnir, D., Løvik, A.N., Mählitz, P., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Wagner, M., 2017. Protocols for CRM Content in Waste Flows and Data Quality Assessment. ProSUM project - Deliverable 4.4, October 2017.

References 183

Schluep, M., Muller, E., Ott, D., Rochat, D., 2012. E-Waste Assessment Methodology, Training & Reference Manual. EMPA, Switzerland. October, 2012. Schluep, M., 2014. Case Study E-Waste Management, Global Chemicals and Waste Information Platform. Available via: https://www.global-chemicals-waste-platform. net/hazardous-waste/e-waste-weee.html. SFTool, 2018. In: https://sftool.gov/greenprocurement. Spitzbart, M., Herbeck, E., Schluep, M., 2016. Business plan calculation tool for manual dismantling facilities. In: Solving the E-Waste Problem Green Paper. ISSN:12345678 (Online), ISSN: 9234-5678 (Print), January 2016. SRI project, 2018. Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound E-waste Management for Collectors, Collection Centers, Transporters, Treatment Facilities and Final Disposal in Ghana. EPA. February 2018. StEP Initiative, 2009. One Global Understanding of Re-Use eCommon Definitions (White Paper), 6, 2009, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2010. White Paper on the Revision on EU’s WEEE Directive e COM (2008) 810 Final. StEP Initiative, 2014. One Global Definition of E-Waste (White Paper), June 2014, Bonn, Germany. StEP Initiative, 2016. Guiding Principles to Develop E-waste Management Systems and Legislation, Solving the E-Waste Problem. Step White Paper, ISSN:2071-3576 (Online), 18.01.2016, Bonn Germany. StEP Worldmap, 2019. http://www.step-info.org/overview-eu.html. StEP Initiative, 2019. http://www.step-info.org/overview-eu.html. Stevels, A.L.N., 2007. Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronic Products (1993-2007). Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Published privately now available through. Amazon. com. United Nations University, 2018. The E-waste Academy for Managers (EWAM) for smalland medium-sized enterprises and policy-makers. In: The E-Waste Academy for Scientists (EWAS) for Young Researchers. http://ewasteacademy.org/. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A.L.N., Hagelüken, C., 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management 32 (11), 2134e2146. Wang, F., 2014. E-Waste: Collect More, Treat better; Tracking Take-Back System Performance for Eco-Efficient Electronics Recycling (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. March 2014. Wath, S., Vaidya, A.N., Dutt, P.S., Chakrabarti, T., 2010. A roadmap for development of sustainable e-waste management system in India. The Science of the Total Environment 409 (2010), 19e32. October 16, 2010. Wecycle, 2018. Wecycle School Project. https://www.wecycle.nl/scholen#. WEEE Forum Key Figures, (2010e2017). See http://www.weee-forum.org/services/ key-figures-on-e-waste, Brussels. WEEE Forum, 2018. WEEE Forum REPTOOL. https://www.wf-reptool.org/index.php/ features-benefits. Yoshida, F., 2018. WEEE management in Japan. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK.

184 CHAPTER 5 Implementation road map and conditions for success

Ylä-Mella, J., Román, E., 2018. WEEE management in Europe: learning from best practice. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK. Zeng, X., Li, J., 2018. WEEE management in China. In: Goodship, V., Stevels, A., Huisman, J. (Eds.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, second ed. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge/UK.

Chapter

6

The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

L. Herreras-Martínez and P. Leroy WEEE Forum a.i.s.b.l., Brussels, Belgium

CHAPTER OUTLINE

6.1 Introduction 185 6.2 What is the WEEE forum?

186

6.2.1 Mission of the WEEE forum 186 6.2.2 The WEEE forum key figures benchmarking tool

6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6

Birth of a project 188 Ambitions of the WEEE label of excellence project 189 Scope of the WEEE label of excellence project 190 WEEE label of excellence project deliverables 191 The WEEE label of excellence project broke new ground 191 The business economics of the WEEE label of excellence project 193

6.4 WEEE label of excellence project phase I: standards 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4

187

188

196

General normative requirements 197 Specific normative requirements 198 Rollout of standards 198 CENELEC and the afterlife of WEEELABEX standards

199

6.5 WEEE label of excellence project phase II: conformity verification

200

6.5.1 The WEEE label of excellence scheme 200 6.5.2 WEEE label of excellence auditors 201 6.5.3 Operators 202

6.6 Conclusions 203 References 205

6.1 INTRODUCTION In August 2008, the European Community awarded funding under its LIFE program to a WEEE Forum project (LIFE07 ENV/B/000041) that aspired to take waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00006-9 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

185

186 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

management in Europe to the next level by laying down, on the one hand, a set of European standards with respect to the collection, sorting, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of all kinds of WEEE, and on the other hand a set of rules and procedures to guarantee harmonized conformity verification. The project concluded on December 31, 2012. Its key deliverables are uniform conformity verification procedures related to monitoring and auditing; standards (including technical requirements and documentation as well as reporting obligations); the “auditor’s toolbox”d i.e., manuals, checklists, and audit forms; a pool of auditors familiar with WEEE processing technologies and trained to perform audits corresponding to the standard; a WEEE label of excellence (WEEELABEX) office; and a visual identifier to identify physical operations that conform with the standards.

6.2 WHAT IS THE WEEE FORUM? 6.2.1 Mission of the WEEE forum The WEEE Forum (www.weee-forum.org) is an international nonprofit association speaking for 36 WEEE collection and recovery organizationsd alternatively referred to as “producer responsibility organizations” (PROs) and “WEEE systems”dall of them run on behalf of producers. It was set up in the early 2000s. The 36 PROs are based in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It is the largest organization of its kind in the world. WEEE Forum members in 2018 were: Amb3E, Appliances Recycling, ASEKOL, ANZRP, Consorzio Remedia, Ecodom, Eco-systèmes, Ecotic, Eco Tic, Ecotrel, EES Ringlus, EGIO, Electrocyclosis Cyprus, Electronic Products Recycling Association, ElektroEko, Elektrowin, El-Kretsen, elretur, Environ, Fotokiklosi, NORSIRK, Recipo, Recupel, Renas, Repic, RETELA, RoRec, SENS, SWICO, UFH, Úrvinnslusjóður, Wecycle, WEEE Ireland, WEEE Malta, WEEE Recycle, and Zeos. The WEEE Forum’s mission is to help PROs succeed operationally, take back and report e-waste efficiently, and be known as promoters of a circular economy. It engages in the general debate on e-waste policy matters in Europe and globally (see Section 4.2.2). “WEEELABEX” is the WEEE Forum’s most important standardization project, in terms of both financial resources and scope, since its inception.

6.2 What is the WEEE forum? 187

Based on a growing body of know-how, the WEEE Forum also seeks to be a center of competence that allows member organizations to make constructive contributions to the general debate on electrical and electronic waste policy matters. The association assists its members in the development of their activities in a sustainable manner within existing regulatory and legislative frameworks.

6.2.2 The WEEE forum key figures benchmarking tool In recent years, the WEEE Forum has developed a set of “key figures” (KFs) and a web-based KF tool that allow its member organizations to benchmark their operations with their peers. Each year the membership of the association submits quantitative data describing the tonnages of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market by producers associated with those organizations, the quantities of WEEE that member organizations have collected, and the costs related to WEEE system management. All data are collected confidentially through a secure web-based application, and all overviews are generated anonymously. Each WEEE Forum member can use the KF tool to generate overviews of the data range that it is interested in. The data are statistically analyzed, averages are calculated, and minimum/maximum ranges are provided to external interested parties. In 2016, the member organizations properly collected and secured proper treatment of a total of more than 2.1 million t (Mt) of WEEE. WEEE Forum members have collected over 17 Mt of WEEE since the foundation of their organizations. Some types of WEEE have huge potential environmental impactsdfor example, cooling equipment containing ozone-depleting substances and/ or global warming gases (CFC, HCFC, and HFC). Some types are important because of the presence of critical raw materialsdfor example, though not exclusively, in categories 3 (consumer electronics) and 4 (information and communication technologies, or ICT). In both cases, it is important to ensure proper collection in these categories. In 2015, organizations representing a large majority of the WEEE Forum properly collected and secured proper treatment for more than 350,000 t of cooling equipment (approximately 7.8 million units) that equates to more than 10 Mt of CO2. This is the equivalent of 50 bn km driven by an average car (over a distance of 10,000 km, one car releases around 2 t of CO2 on average, meaning that through the environmentally sound recycling of a single refrigerator, up to 2 t of CO2 can be saved). They collected almost 95,000 t of small household appliances, more than 310,000 t of consumer

188 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

electronics and ICT equipment, and more than 13,000 t of lamps. For more information on the WEEE Forum’s “key figures benchmarking tool” see http://www.weee-forum.org/services/key-figures-on-e-waste.

6.3 CONTEXT OF THE WEEELABEX PROJECT 6.3.1 Birth of a project Despite a large array of European laws, primarily directives, developed since the early 1970s and aimed at harmonization of national legislation, environmental policy in Europe is to a very large extent in the hands of member states. Solutions to environmental problems typically arise at the national level. Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland were among the first jurisdictions, in Europe as well as globally, to develop producer responsibility legislation addressing the growing mountain of electrical and electronic waste. As a direct result of these bodies of legislation, producers established, at national levels, “WEEE systems”di.e., organizations that took on WEEE collection and management responsibilities on behalf of producers. As time went by, and starting in earnest with the entry into force of Directive 2002/ 96/EC on WEEE (Directive 2002/96/EC) (hereinafter referred to as “the Directive”) in February 2003, WEEE compliance schemesdthe generic term for organizations that provide compliance with the Directive and are not all run on behalf of a collective grouping of producersdwere set up in all 27 member states. Consequently, before long, Europe could count more than 160 compliance schemes. As they were being set up, each PRO in the WEEE Forum developed its own set of “normative requirements” in its contracts with operators, notably logistics companies and electronic waste processors. Each of them required their business partners to meet certain predetermined technical specifications and levels of compliance, both based on national (or subnational) legal requirements and arising from business needs. Needless to say, operators in Europe ended up facing a patchwork of different (types of) requirements from a huge range of compliance schemes. It did not take long for the PROs of the WEEE Forum to realize that it would make sense, both for themselves and for processors and producers, to harmonize these requirements. From about 2005 to 2010, the WEEE Forum started to develop standards for the proper collection and management of cooling equipment containing ozone-depleting substances and/or global warming gases (CFC, HCFC, and HFC) and later, in collaboration with CECED (Europe’s association of household appliance makers) and

6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project 189

the European Electronics Recyclers Association (EERA), standards related to cooling equipment containing hydrocarbons. In 2007, PROs in the WEEE Forum suggested harmonizing contractual requirements for all 10 WEEE categories. A project plan was developed and submitted to the European Commission under the LIFE program, a European Union financing instrument that promotes, among other things, environmental governance. The multiannual project was dubbed “WEEELABEX” (short for “WEEE label of excellence”). On July 28, 2008, the LIFE committee, an EU body composed of representatives of member states and the European Commission, approved the plan. The cost of the project was slightly more than one million euros. The EU agreed to finance 50% of the total eligible budget. After 5 months of project preparation, the project took a swift start on January 1, 2009. EU financing of the project ended on December 31, 2012 (though it may be considered to have lasted until the formal setting up of the WEEELABEX Organisation in April 2013). Various working groups were created, and stakeholders from the producer and processor communities were involved in their activities. In early 2010, CECED (renamed APPLiA), DIGITALEUROPE (ICT and consumer electronics makers in Europe), ELC (the European Lamp Companies federation), and EERA took seats in the project’s steering group.

6.3.2 Ambitions of the WEEE label of excellence project The WEEELABEX project designed, on the one hand, a set of European standards (or “normative requirements”) with respect to the collection, sorting, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of all kinds of WEEE, and on the other hand a set of rules and procedures to guarantee harmonized conformity verification. The project affected most of the parties with whom the PROs of the WEEE Forum had contractual relationships, essentially logistics companies and electronic waste processing firms. Compliance with the WEEELABEX set of normative requirements obviously did not confer immunity from legal obligations. The standards are not intended to create trade barriers. In August 2009, the WEEE Forum signed a contract of cooperation with the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), one of the three official EU standards bodies, and most importantly, the WEEELABEX standards served as a starting point in developing CENELEC standards (see Section 4.4.4).

190 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

6.3.3 Scope of the WEEE label of excellence project Globally, and in Europe in particular, there exist many different types of standards, certification programs, markings, labels, and so forth. In order to avoid misunderstandings, a clarification about the project’s scope was created: 1. The project concerns all steps in product and material flow including collection and (tangentially) preparation for reuse. 2. The requirements related to collection activities are to be implemented, to the extent that they can be contractually enforced, by all WEEE systems of the WEEE Forum and those who contract to do so. They are designed to encourage collection points to play their important role in the WEEE stream. 3. Operators processing WEEE that are subject to the standard would ultimately undergo conformity verification and audits. 4. The requirements laid down in the standard are minimum requirements. WEEE systems are entitled to stipulate requirements that go beyond the standards’ requirements if they are environmentally more ambitious. 5. Only sites of operatorsdas opposed to companies or legal entities as suchdwill be identified as being “WEEELABEX compliant.” 6. Operators must be in a position to assess the conformity of their activities with the standards and to demonstrate that they have contracted with WEEELABEX (or WEEELABEX-equivalent) partners. 7. Auditors performing audits in view of conformity verification should be trained in accordance with the standard and would join a pool of auditors. 8. The project could be considered open nature in the sense that any organization that accepts the WEEELABEX project’s rules of governance and constituent obligations can join the scheme. 9. The standards were expected to be, at the least, acknowledged by the various administrative bodies in Europe in charge of implementation and enforcement of the provisions in the Directive transposed in national (and subnational) regulation. The member states would be called on to integrate them into their permitting policy. In 2017, the points above were still valid; however, it should be noted that the WEEE Forum members that had committed to follow WEEELABEX requirements joined the WEEELABEX Organisation. Therefore, point 2 requires revision: 2. The requirements related to collection activities are to be implemented, to the extent that they can be contractually enforced, by all WEEE

6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project 191

systems of the WEEELABEX Organisation and those who contract to do so. They are designed to encourage collection points to play their important role in the WEEE stream.

6.3.4 WEEE label of excellence project deliverables By the end of 2012, the project produced, among other things: n

n

n

n n

n

a set of governance rules specifying terms and conditions for organizations to join the WEEELABEX community standards or “normative requirements,” including technical requirements and documentation and reporting obligations uniform conformity verification procedures related to monitoring and auditing, and the sanction and cancellation procedures the “auditor’s toolbox”di.e., manuals, checklists, and audit forms a pool of auditors familiar with WEEE processing technologies and trained to perform audits corresponding to the standard a label of some sort to identify physical operations that are in conformity with the standards

In the years following the project’s end, the WEEELABEX Organisation updated and adapted the documents to its needs. Some of these documents are publicly available on the WEEELABEX Organisation website. In early 2016, the WEEELABEX Organisation obtained a “certificate of accreditation” issued by the Czech Accreditation Institute, a member of the International Accreditation Forum. The WEEELABEX accreditation is applicable throughout Europe as well as worldwide, and covers the certification of WEEELABEX auditors (ISO 17024) and WEEE treatment operators (ISO 17065). EPEAT, a US-based registry for green electronics, recognizes the certificates issued by the WEEELABEX Organisation. It should be noted that at the time of writing, the WEEELABEX Organisation is adapting the documents of the scheme, including auditing tools, to the CENELEC standards requirements.

6.3.5 The WEEE label of excellence project broke new ground One legitimate and obvious question is to what extent WEEELABEX broke new groundd i.e., in what terms the project was novel and added value to the WEEE market: n

For the first time ever, a uniform set of normative requirements was created that affected all parties involved in WEEE operations and covered all 10 WEEE categories; i.e., the legal scope of the directive

192 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

n

n

n

was laid down and implemented by relevant parties in the WEEE collection sector in Europe. In other words, it was not an academic, descriptive, or partial exercise; it had an immediate and significant impact on the entire WEEE chain from collection to disposal and was specifically adapted to the European legal framework. The set of standards was not only acknowledged by some authorities but resonates globally as well. WEEELABEX, together with CENELEC, became mandatory for the treatment of WEEE in some EU member states, such as the Netherlands, Ireland, France (only CENELEC), Belgium, and Lithuania. This bolstered the WEEELABEX Organisation’s role and activities in Europe. Furthermore, WEEELABEX, together with CENELEC, was considered in the draft Commission Delegated Regulation laying down detailed rules supplementing those in Article 10(2) of Directive 2012/19/EU (Directive 2012/19/EU), the recast of the original 2002 Directive on WEEE, in particular the criteria for the assessment of equivalent conditions for the treatment of WEEE exported outside the Union. At the time of writing, this proposal has not been released yet. According to a report (Report from the Commission, 2017) from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, the purpose of the CENELEC standards was to guide EU operators in complying with the WEEE Directive and operators outside the EU in complying with the legislation on equivalent treatment conditions outside the EU. Since these standards were under development by CENELEC and not yet finalized at the time of writing, it remains to be seen, but it is quite likely that operators in other parts of the world will wish to adhere to the same set of CENELEC principles (and WEEELABEX by extension). The project was begun to produce requirements to be integrated into contracts between WEEE systems and operators. Those requirements ended up becoming formal EN standards that affected operators in the market, not just those with whom the PROs of the WEEE Forum have entered into contractual terms. The recast Directive introduced in article 8 the specific concept of “minimum quality standards” (Text from report from the Commission, 2017). In connection with the requirement in Article 8(5) of the Directive on proper treatment, the Commission issued a mandate requesting that European standardization organizations develop European standards for dealing with WEEE treatment and covering the processes of recovery, recycling, and preparation for reuse. Standards would reflect the state of the art (Mandate M518). These materialized in the form of the CENELEC EN series of standards, most of which were based on the WEEELABEX set of standards. Article 8 of the recast WEEE

6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project 193

n

n

n

Directive initiated a requirement that some EU member states such as the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland, and Lithuania transpose the recast WEEE Directive with mandatory compliance for WEEE treatment standards. In other countries, such as Italy, an internal agreement of the WEEE sector facilitated the requirement that facilities treating screens and temperature exchange equipment become WEEELABEX compliant. At the time of writing, the European Council and the European Parliament were negotiating on the Circular Economy package, comprising four legislative proposals on waste submitted by the Commission on December 3, 2015. These new proposals amend six waste-related legislative directives: Waste Framework, Packaging Waste, Landfill, Electrical and Electronic Waste, End-of-Life Vehicles, and Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators. The legislative proposals provide additional measures to reduce and control waste, boost recycling, and improve resource use. It should be noted that the presidency proposed that the Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out technical minimum standards for treatment activities that require a permit when they benefit human health and the environment (Council of the European Union, 2017). Implementing Acts are legal instruments that ensure the uniform application of legislation. WEEELABEX allows parties to monitor downstream operations and lays down uniform, specific, and comprehensive reporting and documentation obligations, some of which are not, as such, legally required. The reporting follows the principles and reporting format provided by WF-RepTool, the WEEE Forum’s web-based tool that allows operators to calculate and communicate recycling and recovery quotas in a consistent manner to WEEE systems. In April 2013, the WEEELABEX Organisation was officially set up in Prague, Czech Republic. For the first time ever, a European scheme was constructed that harmonizes the rules for verifying conformity with normative requirements. The scheme is of a private nature. The WEEELABEX Organisation is an international not-for-profit legal entity set up to train auditors in WEEELABEX conformity verification methodology and to promote the adoption of CENELEC standards by operators and member states as a means to improve WEEE management practices in Europe.

6.3.6 The business economics of the WEEE label of excellence project The WEEELABEX project would not have been worth the trouble if the business model was shaky or no financial or commercial return on

194 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

investment was expected. The best environmental projects are those that marry environmental values with genuine commercial principles. It is obvious that costs are involved in setting up and running a European scheme of this nature and scope. However, overall costs are expected to be outweighed by benefits. Costs that have typically been borne by WEEE systems will shift to the newly set up WEEELABEX entity, but due to economies of scale, overall costs are expected to be less significant than the aggregated individual costs of all WEEE systems. The WEEELABEX Organisation is an international nonprofit legal entity based in Prague. On the cost side for the organization’s secretariat/notary in Prague, known as the WEEELABEX Office, are expenses associated with governance, ISO accreditation for auditor and operator schemes, coordination and quality assessment of the certification system, training sessions and workshops for auditors and operators, coordination and maintenance of an experts committee, an IT platform for submission, and the management of applications, audit documents, etc. A system of fees ensures that the organization has enough resources to comply with its commitments. Fees have been established for various stakeholders and programs: n

n

n

n

WEEELABEX members; usually these are WEEE PROs, who instigated the WEEELABEX project, and others who support the initiative. WEEELABEX members have access to a summary of the audit report for all listed facilities and may participate in the governing duties of the organization. Nonfounding members who choose to join after November 1, 2013, are expected to pay V3000 annually. WEEELABEX auditors, who benefit from use of auditing tools and the WEEELABEX brand. They also receive constant updates about the certification process and participate in an annual meeting aimed at improving their auditing skills and expertise. The annual fee for auditors in 2017 was V300. WEEELABEX listed facilities, who benefit from use of the WEEELABEX brand. The fee for operators is based on the scope of the audit (number of streams audited) and in 2016 was set at V500 per stream annually. In addition, an application fee for operators applying to become a listed facility for the first time, which in 2017 was set at V300 (one-time fee). WEEELABEX training for auditors and operators. In 2016, the 5-day general training for auditors cost around V1750, and the 3-day basic training for operators cost circa V1000 (VAT excluded). Both trainings take place in Prague.

6.3 Context of the WEEELABEX project 195

Other costs are associated with the implementation and certification of WEEELABEX: n

n

Consultancy services to help operators meet WEEELABEX criteria. In some instances, operators must make changes in the management of their processes and/or the structure of their facilities. Audit costs are set and agreed upon between the WEEELABEX auditor and the party financing the audit. WEEELABEX auditors set their own fees, and these are not regulated by the WEEELABEX Office. Audits may be financed by WEEE systems or operators. In some instances, WEEE systems may provide financial aid to operators by covering part of the audit costs.

In 2016 the WEEE Forum carried out a study to assess the impact of WEEELABEX implementation. The study concluded that costs to become WEEELABEX certified clearly depend on the original situation of the operator. The higher the original quality of its operations and processes, the lower the costs to implement WEEELABEX. Implementation costs were estimated to be below V20,000 for more than half the operators who responded to the survey. It is expected that these costs will go down in subsequent years as treatment plants become WEEELABEX certified. The costs identified in the survey mostly relate to consultancy services and changes in the management and processes of WEEE treatment activities. Auditing costs associated with the first audit were estimated to be below V10,000 for half of respondents. The average total cost was less than V13,500. The estimated cost of the surveillance audit, which is compared with the first audit as a relatively simple and straightforward exercise, did not exceed V8500. The main advantages of the overall WEEELABEX program identified by respondents were n

n n

n n

n

better depollution results due to the high levels set by WEEELABEX or EN standards (systems) better traceability of waste (systems) a uniform set of standards for all WEEE treatment plants (systems and operators) better regulatory compliance by operators (operators) conducive to the image of an environmentally responsible corporation (systems) detailed set of requirements (systems)

196 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

The top obstacles to implement and verify WEEELABEX, and disadvantages, were n

n n n n

too much time required to meet administrative requirements (operators) too much time required to prepare audits and batches (operators) costs and lack of support from authorities (systems) long overall process (operators) high costs to adapt treatment process and facilities (operators)

Audit costs appeared in third place together with lack of documents available in the local language (feedback from operators). Regarding obstacles to implementing WEEELABEX in the WEEE market, operators mention the long and complex conformity verification process and the lack of support from authorities. Interestingly, costs are not considered a top-of-the-list obstacle to implementation.

6.4 WEEE LABEL OF EXCELLENCE PROJECT PHASE I: STANDARDS The 4-year project can be nicely divided into two phases: the first 2 years focused on the development of standards, while the second, mainly covering 2011e12, focused on the uniform set of conformity verification rules. The standards aimed to n

n

n n n

n

n

achieve effective and efficient treatment and disposal of all WEEE in order to prevent pollution and minimize emissions promote high-level and high-quality recovery of secondary raw materials prevent inappropriate disposal of WEEE and the fractions thereof ensure protection of human health and safety prevent illegal (cross-boundary) shipments of WEEE and the fractions thereof prevent the shipment of WEEE and its fractions to operators who fail to comply with this standard or an equivalent set of requirements create a level playing field for fair competition among all actors in the WEEE chain

The standards are based on objectives of the community’s environment policy aimed at preserving, protecting, and improving environmental quality, protecting human health, and utilizing natural resources prudently and rationally. That policy is based on the precautionary principles that preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at the source, and polluters should pay. The requirements are also based

6.4 WEEE label of excellence project phase I: standards 197

on the presumption that operators adhere to the principle of due diligence in all activities. Due diligence includes understanding all obligations to which a company is subject as well as transparency with business partners. The WEEELABEX standards package structurally consists of three documents, one aimed at operators performing collection of WEEE, one aimed at logistics operators, and one for treatment operators. These were lodged with the CENELEC organization and were the basis for developing a set of CENELEC standards that are now replacing WEEELABEX in the WEEELABEX Office’s certification scheme (see Section 4.4.4).

6.4.1 General normative requirements The normative document on treatment consists of part I, concerning general normative requirementsdi.e., pertaining to all types of WEEEdand a set of annexes stipulating depollution guidelines and monitoring principles, requirements concerning batches, and rules concerning the determination of recycling and recovery quotas; and part II, concerning specific normative requirements pertaining to specific types of WEEE. Part I, concerning general normative requirements in the normative document on treatment, distinguishes, apart from clauses with provisions concerning scope, definitions, and normative references, between administrative and organizational requirements on the one hand and technical requirements on the other. Administrative and organizational requirements: n n n n n n

legal compliance technical and infrastructural conditions training downstream monitoring preparation for reuse shipments

Technical requirements: n n n n n n n n n

handling storage depollution depollution monitoring further treatment storage of fractions recycling and recovery disposal of fractions documentation

198 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

The other two normative documents, on collection and logistics, contain provisions equivalent to those specified in the document on treatment. Even though WEEELABEX served as the basis for CENELEC requirements, there are differences between the two standards. The process for developing CENELEC documents received feedback from a wider group of stakeholders and followed an approval process that involved CENELEC national committees. However, in 2017, the WEEE Forum, together with the WEEELABEX experts committee, conducted a comparative analysis of WEEELABEX part I (general normative requirements) and EN 50625-1:2014 (Collection, logistics & Treatment requirements for WEEE. General treatment requirements). The main conclusion of the analysis was that most identified differences were of low relevance, some were improvements to WEEELABEX standards requirements (such as the addition of photovoltaic [PV] panels in the scope and requirements associated with depollution and plastics), and only a few crucial differences were outlined. These crucial differences mostly concerned the nature of the CENELEC standard document, as it does not contain the legal requirements that are explicitly mentioned in the WEEELABEX standards (e.g., the operator shall hold a permit).

6.4.2 Specific normative requirements Part II, concerning specific normative requirements in the normative document on treatment, pertains to specific types of WEEE, in particular appliances containing cathode ray tubes (CRTs) (e.g., old-fashioned TV sets), flat-panel displays (FPDs), lamps, and cooling equipment. More information can be accessed on the WEEELABEX pages of the WEEE Forum website (WEEELABEX). Specific EN standards have been developed by CENELEC for temperature exchange equipment, lamps, displays, and PV panels. A separate technical specification on collection and logistics was approved in September 2017 by CENELEC’s national committees and was being processed for publication at the time of writing. Other standards not directly based on WEELABEX, such as a technical specification on final metal fractions and an EN standard on preparing for reuse, were under development at the time of writing.

6.4.3 Rollout of standards At its meeting in Amsterdam on April 1, 2011, the WEEE Forum General Assembly approved the standards and decided that they would not be subject to modification for a period of 18 months (until October 1, 2012). During those 18 months, a number of PROs of the WEEE Forum “tested”

6.4 WEEE label of excellence project phase I: standards 199

(parts of) the standards and gathered experience about implementation on the ground by operators. In April 2013, the WEEELABEX Organisation was set up, and with it a distinct group of PROs supporting WEEELABEX implementation. The WEEE Forum remains the holder of the standard, and since 2011, the English version of the treatment standard has been translated into Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, and Greek. A new clause was introduced in the treatment standard to create version 10.0 in 2014. The new clause, 5.8.4, concerns the disposal of fractions; the clause was needed for EPEAT qualification. No additional changes to the WEEELABEX standards have been applied since that year, and WEEE Forum members agreed that to avoid conflicting requirements, equivalent WEEELABEX requirements would be replaced in due time by CENELEC requirements.

6.4.4 CENELEC and the afterlife of WEEELABEX standards In January 2013, the European Commission issued mandate M/518EN (Mandate to the European Standardisation). The objective of the mandate was to create one or more European standard(s) for WEEE treatment that reflected the state of the art. It was agreed that the WEEELABEX standards would serve as the starting point in developing the CENELEC standards. CENELEC technical committee TC 111X, “Environmental aspects for electrical and electronic products and systems,” was in charge of developing what became the EN 50625 standard series. Through TC 111X, CENELEC supports European legislation by addressing the general environmental standardization needs of the electrotechnical sector. CENELEC cooperates with other relevant organizations such as the International Electrotechnical Commission, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), and the European Commission. The European Commission mandates that CEN-CENELEC prepares the environmental standards and keeps CENELEC and the European Commission in contact. TC 111X" comprises all CENELEC members, affiliates, and cooperating partners who wish to take part (CENELEC). Several working groups were created to develop the EN 50625 series of standards dealing with WEEE treatment. European Commissionemandated TC 111X has developed (or is developing) the following set of standards and each supporting technical specification (TS): n n n

EN 50625-1 and TS 50625-3-1 for general treatment EN 50625-2-1 and TS 50625-3-2 for lamps EN 50625-2-2 and TS 50625-3-3 for displays (CRTs and FPDs)

200 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

n

n n n n

EN 50625-2-3 and TS 50625-3-4 for temperature exchange equipment (for these, there are previous versions of EN documents: EN 50574-1 (2012) and TS 50574-2) EN 50625-2-4 and TS 50625-3-5 for PV panels TS 50625-4 for collection and logistics TS 50625-5 for final treatment (focus on metals) EN 50614 for preparation for reuse

These EN European standards cover all product categories of the WEEE Directive, including PV panels (which for obvious reasons were out of the scope with the WEEELABEX standards).

6.5 WEEE LABEL OF EXCELLENCE PROJECT PHASE II: CONFORMITY VERIFICATION Laying down a set of principles and normative requirements for operators to meet is one thing, but monitoring and enforcing the implementation of those requirements is another. All monitoring activities fall under the heading of “conformity verification.” The project issued a guidance on conformity verification architecture (the B04 WEEELABEX Guidance Document, currently available on the WEEELABEX website) that sets forth the main principles of the verification scheme.

6.5.1 The WEEE label of excellence scheme After setting up the WEELABEX Organisation in 2013, the role of the WEEE Forum remains as the holder of the WEEELABEX standards, and the WEEELABEX Organisation became the training center and holder of the WEEELABEX conformity verification scheme. Both organizations keep close communication and participate in joint activities, such as WEEELABEX technical committee meetings, and both act as spokespersons on behalf of WEEELABEX standards and organization vis-à-vis the main stakeholders. Three constituent bodies make up the WEEELABEX organization: the WEEELABEX General Assembly, the WEEELABEX Governing Council, and the WEEELABEX Office. The WEEELABEX Office is the secretariat of the organization. It assures the high-quality performance of WEEELABEX initiatives, acts as a notary (where appropriate) and supervisor of governance processes, initiates updates of WEEELABEX requirements, certifies auditors and operators based on documented and accredited processes, and verifies compliance with applicable WEEELABEX rules.

6.5 WEEE label of excellence project phase II: conformity verification 201

In 2017 the WEEELABEX Organisation had 32 members from 17 different countries. A “WEEELABEX conformity verification governance” was published in 2015, setting the principles of the scheme; it was agreed that the approach of the WEEELABEX scheme is decentralized in nature. Audits are conducted by WEEELABEX auditors. The WEEELABEX Office records the outcome of conformity verification and certifies (or uncertifies) the processes concerning the (candidate) WEEELABEX operators. The initiative of WEEELABEX conformity verification can be with either an operator unilaterally seeking to have its processes audited or a WEEELABEX system seeking to have processes at a (potential) supplier audited. Early 2016, the WEEELABEX Organisation obtained a “certificate of accreditation” issued by the Czech Accreditation Institute, a member of the International Accreditation Forum. The WEEELABEX accreditation covers the certification of WEEELABEX auditors (ISO 17024) and the certification of WEEE treatment operators (ISO 17065). In general, the conformity verification system is a set of steps to determine treatment operator compliance with the requirements of the WEEELABEX Treatment Standard (WEEELABEX B04): n

n

n

n

n

n

self-assessment by the treatment operator to ensure that it is ready for the conformity verification process; selection of the WEEELABEX lead auditor (by the WEEELABEX system or the treatment operator initiating the conformity verification process), and if required, additional members of the audit team; completion and submission of a Declaration of Intent by the treatment operator to the WEEELABEX Office with supporting documentation specified; conformity verification audit performed by the WEEELABEX lead auditor working to the audit process requirements (and using the audit tools) set out in the A04 Auditor Manual; completion of the audit report and summary report by the WEEELABEX lead auditor and submission to the client and/or treatment operator and the WEEELABEX Office (summary report only); and certification (or not) of the treatment operator as a WEEELABEX operator.

6.5.2 WEEE label of excellence auditors Not just anybody is entitled to verify the conformity of operations. Those parties that express an interest in being involved in WEEELABEX

202 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

conformity verification are subject to a uniform training program and confidentiality and impartiality rules. Since 2016 they must be certified as WEEELABEX auditors (based on ISO 17024). During a transitional period that lasted until June 2016, WEEELABEX auditors could be second-party (WEEELABEX member employees) and third-party. All audits must now be carried out by third-party auditors (auditors not employed by any WEEELABEX System): “a third party auditor may request the services of a second party auditor (auditor that is employed by a WEEELABEX System) in exceptional cases where there is a lack of auditors or where the third party auditor is being assessed to become a lead auditor. An auditor (Lead auditor or Auditor) employed by a WEEELABEX System may therefore perform a WEEELABEX audit only as a member of an audit team comprising of at least one third party auditor (auditor that is not employed by any WEEELABEX System). All members of the audit team shall be committed to impartiality and confidentiality according to ISO 17024 and ISO 17065. Contractual relationship between the auditor(s) and the audited operator shall be managed by the third party auditor (auditor that is not employed by any WEEELABEX System)” (WEEELABEX A02). Different typologies (lead auditor, auditor, and specialist auditor) and corresponding profiles of WEEELABEX auditors were created based on their experience and training. The WEEELABEX document “A02 Auditor’s Profile” provides a thorough description of the eligibility criteria for WEEELABEX auditors. A training and continuous qualification procedure was also set up. Besides the general training, specific training is required for auditors dealing with temperature exchange equipment and lamp treatment processes. A regular qualification and quality review process was in place following ISO 17024. In April 2017, the WEEELABEX Office counted 67 auditors of different types and nationalities. Since its foundation, the WEEELABEX Office has carried out 15 auditor trainings with a total of 99 trainees.

6.5.3 Operators The operators are the parties in the WEEE market who are subject to conformity verification. The document “B03 Eligibility for treatment operators” sets the criteria for identifying the types of operators who fall within the scope of WEEELABEX certification (WEEELABEX B03): n n

Type 0: manual cannibalization of appliances (no depollution) Type 1: manual dismantling, including all or some depollution

6.6 Conclusions 203

n

n

n

Type 2: mechanical treatment (pretreatment and intermediate treatment, or specific manual treatment) including some or all depollution (where indicated) Type 3: advanced mechanical treatment, including some or all depollution (where indicated) Type 4: end-processing (pure fractions) or incineration/energy from waste facilities

In 2017, Type 1 and 2 operators fell within the scope of WEEELABEX certification. At the time of writing, the WEEELABEX Organisation started a plan to widen the scope of its activities to Type 3 operators and make it effective in 2018. WEEELABEX operators may get certified for one or more of the seven process streams available (temperature exchange equipment, lamps etc.). In April 2017, there were 160 WEEELABEX facilities associated with 237 WEEELABEX streams.

6.6 CONCLUSIONS The WEEELABEX scheme was in 2017 the only accredited system specifically designed for the European market. The WEEELABEX standards played a distinct role in the development of the CENELEC standards, which have already become a legally binding requirement for WEEE facilities in some EU member states. It remains to be seen whether CENELEC will become legally binding across Europe with reference to treatment of exported European WEEE. Echoing some of the conclusions from the impact assessment performed by the WEEE Forum, WEEELABEX (and CENELEC by extension) in those EU member states where adherence to the WEEELABEX (or EN 50625) standards is mandatory, the WEEELABEX quality approach toward WEEE treatment, logistics, and collection is pervasive and impressive. In the short period following the end of the WEELABEX project in 2012, not only have the standard requirements contributed to the creation of the renowned CENELEC standards, but also the WEEELABEX organization has grown exponentially and now holds an accredited certification scheme for auditors and operators. More than 160 facilities were WEEELABEX compliant in 2017, and a number of countries such as France, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Lithuania have made these requirements mandatory. Making EN 50625 legally binding across Europe, either through an EU implementing act or by member states choosing to make compliance mandatory, would level the playing field in Europe.

204 CHAPTER 6 The WEEE forum and the WEEE label of excellence project

The main advantages of the overall WEEELABEX program identified in the WEEE Forum study are: n

n n

n n

n

better depollution results due to high levels set by the WEEELABEX (or EN) standard (systems) better traceability of waste (systems) a uniform set of standards for all WEEE treatment plants (systems and operators) better regulatory compliance by operators (operators) conducive to the image of an environmentally responsible corporation (systems) detailed set of requirements (systems)

The top disadvantages and obstacles to implementing and verifying WEEELABEX: n

n n n n

too much time required to meet administrative requirements (operators) too much time required to prepare audits and batches (operators) costs and lack of support from authorities (systems) long overall process (operators) high costs to adapt treatment process and facilities (operators)

Costs to become WEEELABEX certified clearly depend on the original situation of the operator. The higher the original quality of its operations and processes, the lower the costs of WEEELABEX implementation. Audit costs appear in third place together with lack of documents available in the local language in terms of obstacles (feedback from operators). Regarding obstacles for implementing WEEELABEX in the WEEE market, operators mention the long and complex conformity verification process and the lack of support from authorities. Interestingly, costs are not considered at the top of the list of obstacles to implementation. A mandatory legal requirement or at least a national agreement among WEEE systems is the most effective strategy to improving the implementation of WEEELABEX in Europe. In countries where WEEELABEX is mandatory, more support from the authorities and pressure on noncompliant operators would be the right policies. The sharing of audit costs, while at the same time lowering the burden on operators, remains the most sensible argument for implementing WEEELABEX. Actors in the market can take different types of concerted actions to promote the implementation of WEEELABEX, and even individually, WEEE systems can promote WEEELABEX.

References 205

For more information, see the WEEELABEX pages on the WEEE Forum website (WEEELABEX), including frequently asked questions.

REFERENCES www.cenelec.eu. Council of the European Union, April 28, 2017. Interinstitutional File 2015/0275 (COD). Brussels. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). European Community LIFE Programme (‘L’ Instrument Financier Pour l’Environnement’ e Financing Instrument for the Environment) Financing the WEEE Forum Project (LIFE07 ENV/B/000041). Mandate to the European Standardisation Organisations for Standardisation in the Field of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Directive 2012/19/EU (WEEE). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Exercise of the Power to Adopt Delegated Acts Conferred on the Commission Pursuant to Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Brussels, 18.4.2017 COM, 2017, p. 172 (final). WEEELABEX A02 Auditor’s Profile. WEEELABEX B03 Eligibility of Treatment Operators. WEEELABEX B04 Guidance Document. WEEELABEX pages on www.weee-forum.org, http://www.weee-forum.org/weeelabexproject.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

7

Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment Otmar Deubzer United Nations University, SCYCLE Program, Bonn, Germany; Fraunhofer IZM, Berlin, Germany

CHAPTER OUTLINE

7.1 Legislative restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 208 7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 212 7.2.1 Presence of hazardous substances in older electrical and electronic equipment and their functions 212 7.2.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market after 2006 214

7.3 Environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions 220 7.4 Differentiated approaches for the use and banning of hazardous substances 227 References 228 Further reading 230

Terms and Definitions EEE Electrical and electronic equipment EoL End of life HMP solder High melting point solder PBBs Polybrominated biphenyls PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers PWB Printed wiring board, printed circuit board RoHS 1 Directive 2002/95/EC restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment RoHS 2 Directive 2011/65/EU restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment WEEE Directive Directive 2012/19/EU

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00007-0 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

207

208 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

7.1 LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), in addition to including precious and other valuable and scarce metals, contains toxic substances. After the turn of the 21st century, governments started legally restricting the use of well-known hazardous substances such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. The European Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2), is a template for various substance restriction regulations worldwide; a template to a lesser degree is the Restriction, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) Regulation, (EC) 1907/2006. Besides substance restrictions, the REACh Regulation in particular contains stipulations and tools that increase the pressure on producers to replace hazardous substances that are not (yet) banned. Despite the obligation to collect and treat e-waste separately from private households according to the WEEE Directive (2003), “[.] significant parts of waste EEE will continue to be found in the current disposal routes inside or outside the EU. Even if waste EEE were collected separately and submitted to recycling processes, its content of mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium VI, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) would be likely to pose risks to health or the environment, especially when treated in less than optimal conditions. [.] Taking into account technical and economic feasibility, including for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the most effective way of ensuring a significant reduction of risks to health and the environment [.] is the substitution of those substances in EEE by safe or safer materials [.] to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of waste EEE and decrease the negative impact on the health of workers in recycling plants.” (RoHS, 2011). The recast directive RoHS 2 (RoHS, 2011) thus continues the policy of Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS 1). It is a precautionary measure demanding the avoidance of hazardous substances in the production stage of products in order to protect health, safety, and the environment and to improve the end-of-life (EoL) situation of EEE. Though often interpreted to mean information and communication technology products such as computers and mobile phones, the term “electrical and electronic equipment” in the EU legally covers a much wider range of products, listed in RoHS Annex I, that require electrical energy. With a few

7.1 Legislative restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 209

exclusions listed in RoHS Art. 2(4), the current RoHS Annex I categories of EEE within scope are: large household appliances small household appliances IT and telecommunications equipment consumer equipment lighting equipment electrical and electronic tools toys, leisure, and sports equipment medical devices monitoring and control instruments including industrial monitoring and control instruments 10. automatic dispensers 11. other EEE not covered by any category above 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Category 11 was added to the scope of RoHS 2 in the transition from RoHS 1 (RoHS 1) to RoHS 2 (still in effect as of 2018), and the definition of “EEE” was extended. Within the above 11 categories, “EEE” now includes all equipment [.] “which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 V for alternating current and 1500 V for direct current.”1,2 “Dependent” in this context “[.] means, with regard to EEE, needing electric currents or electromagnetic fields to fulfil at least one intended function.”3 With this definition, practically all equipment requiring electricity or electromagnetic fields is in the scope of the RoHS directive. RoHS 2 and EU WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU (WEEE Directive), regulating the EoL of EEE, share the first part of the above definition. Only RoHS, however, defines the term “dependent,” resulting in the situation 1 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast), RoHS 2, European Union (1 July 2011), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:32011L0065:EN:NOT, Art. 3 (1). 2 European Parliament and Council 4 July 2012 2012 “Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): Text with EEA relevance,” Recast WEEE Directive European Union, http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri¼CELEX: 32012L0019&qid¼1521452247976. 3 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast), Art. 3 (2).

210 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

that all types of EEE falling under any category from 1 to 11 in RoHS Annex I and complying with the above definition are categorized as EEE. This extension in particular adds almost all nonroad mobile equipment such as compressors, lawn mowers, handheld devices like chainsaws, etc. having combustion engines to the scope of RoHS 2 (cat. 6) because these types of equipment employ spark plugs that require electrical current and electronics for controlling the engine. Other equipment with additional electrical functionsde.g., running shoes with blinking lights or electronically adjustable damping (cat. 7)dremain outside the scope of the WEEE Directive4 but have come into the scope of RoHS 2. For EEE, RoHS 2 restricts the use of:5 n n n n n n

cadmium (0.01%) hexavalent chromium (0.1%) lead (0.1%) mercury (0.1%) polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) (0.1%) polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (0.1%)

The bracketed percentages are threshold limits for these substances. They do not apply in reference to the total weight of EEE, but in homogeneous materials.6 Starting from July 2019 onward, the substances that will be restricted step by step are:7 n n n n

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) (0.1%) butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) (0.1%) dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (0.1%) diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (0.1%)

From July 22, 2019 onward, the above substance restrictions will be applicable to EEE of categories 1 to 6, 10, and 11. For EEE in categories 8 and 9 (medical devices, monitoring and control instruments), the restrictions will

4 See report on NTV about the decision of a German court, https://www.n-tv.de/ratgeber/ Laufschuh-bleibt-Schuh-article271301.html (in German language); even though the interpretation is assumed to be of importance for the EU, the decision is only valid in Germany as long as the European Court of Justice as the court of last resort has not taken such a decision. 5 Id., Annex II. 6 “homogeneous material” means one material of uniform composition throughout or a material, consisting of a combination of materials, that cannot be disjointed or separated into different materials by mechanical actions such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding and abrasive processes (RoHS Art. 3 (20)). 7 Amendment of the RoHS Directive, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ ?uri¼CELEX:32015L0863&from¼EN.

7.1 Legislative restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 211

apply from July 22, 2021 onward. For electrical and electronic toys (cat. 7), REACh entry 51 in Annex XIV already restricts the use of DEHP, BBP, and DBP. The restriction of DIBP will additionally apply to these toys from July 22, 2019 onward. Due to the global character of the electrical and electronics industry, manufacturers produce most EEE for global markets. It can hence be assumed that the substance restrictions apply not only to EEE sold in the EU but also in other markets. Despite these restrictions, however, RoHS-compliant EEE still contains restricted substances in concentrations exceeding the maximums of 0.01% for cadmium and 0.1% for lead, hexavalent chromium, and mercury. Producers of EEE have to find alternatives to avoid using the six substances restricted by RoHS 2. A restricted substance can be either substituted or eliminated. Substitution means that the restricted substance is replaced by one or more substances that are not restricted in order to achieve RoHS compliance. Tin, silver, and copper, for example, may replace lead in solders (see Fig. 7.9). Elimination means shifting to a technology that does not require the restricted substance. The use of conductive adhesives instead of solders is an example of elimination. Conductive adhesives do not contain lead but silver or other conductive substances. The shift from soldering technology to adhesive technology makes the use of solder, and thus lead, obsolete where applicable. Hazardous substances are used because they have specific uses that are strongly related to their physical and chemical properties. Substitution may thus be impossible in some cases, and alternative technologies that avoid restricted substances may not be available. For these cases, RoHS 2 allows the continued use of restricted substances. Such exemptions can be granted: n

n n

if the substitution or elimination of the restricted substance is scientifically and technically impossible; if substitutes are not reliable; if the substitution or elimination causes higher overall adverse impacts on the environment, health, and safety than does the continued use of these substances.

RoHS 2 (RoHS, 2011) additionally allows socioeconomic impacts and availability of substitutes to be considered to a certain degree when granting exemptions. RoHS 2 (RoHS, 2011) currently lists 41 main exemptions with some subspecifications for general use in EEE (Annex III) and 43 exemptions in Annex IV that may be used only in medical equipment (cat. 8)

212 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

and monitoring and control instruments (cat. 9). RoHS-compliant equipment hence may still contain lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. No exemptions have been granted so far allowing the continued use of PBB or PBDE.

7.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 7.2.1 Presence of hazardous substances in older electrical and electronic equipment and their functions Despite the ban in RoHS 2, producers still use the above mentioned hazardous metals due to legal exemptions listed in RoHS Annexes III and IV. The core reason for these exemptions is that they have useful physical and chemical properties so that they cannot be substituted or eliminated in some applications in EEE. Lead, for example, has a low melting point in tinelead solders, thus allowing low-temperature soldering that avoids exposing printed wiring boards (PWBs) to high thermal stress during production. Lead is ductile, thus preventing the early breakage of solder joints and components under thermomechanical stress, can be used for vacuum sealing of specific components, and prevents whiskers that might cause short circuits, to give some examples. Whiskers are thin needles growing out of surface coatings, for example on the pins of electronic components, as Fig. 7.1 illustrates. Industry has gathered a lot of experience with handling and processing lead-containing solders in the manufacturing of EEE over the decades.

n FIGURE 7.1 Whisker on the tin finish of a component pin. (Philips, modified)

7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 213

A shift to less hazardous substances often makes manufacturing more complex, or at least the production processes have to be changed and adapted as soon as the necessary research and experience provides sufficient knowhow. At the same time, most hazardous materials are cheaper than their potential substitutes. Thus, even if hazardous substances can be substituted with more environmentally friendly substances, the EEE industry often does not apply them unless legally required. Fig. 7.2 shows typical applications of the substances regulated in RoHS 1 and 2. These substances were still present in EEE placed on the EU market prior to July 2006. Producers had to conduct comprehensive supply chain investigations and analyses of all product parts to ensure the phaseout of the banned substances and to enable the monitoring of RoHS compliance in their supply chains. Metal parts such as housings and screws in EEE produced prior to 2006 may be protected against corrosion with a layer of carcinogenic hexavalent chromium. Some components in older EEE, such as specific switches and the backlights of liquid crystal displays, contain mercury. Hazardous organic substances such as polychlorinated biphenyls may still be found in larger capacitors. Plastics in EEE use brominated flame retardants to cope with fire safety requirements. Some substances of this group have a high dioxin and furan potential if they burnde.g., PBBs and PBDEs. They were banned from 2006 onward and should no longer have been used in EEE placed on the EU market after 2006.

Mainframe(metal parts)

Mainframe(plastics parts)

Components

PWB

n FIGURE 7.2 Parts of electrical and electronic equipment that contained RoHS-regulated substances

prior to 2006 (Zollner Elektronik AG).

214 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Older cooling and freezing equipment was produced with CFCs and HCFCs, which deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and have high global warming potential. They have been used because they are not inflammable. They were substituted step by step in new equipment by pentane and other less ecotoxic substances starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987 (van der Linde, 1994; UNDP, 2005). Still, old cooling and freezing equipment with (H)CFCs comes back from the markets and must be treated accordingly. In the EU, the share of cooling and freezing equipment containing (H)CFCs generally is around 25%e30%, but can be 40% and more depending on the member state (WEEE Forum, 2018). It can be assumed that this share is much higher in developing countries, because often old cooling and freezing equipment is imported from industrialized countries, and the equipment coming back from the domestic market is older as well.

7.2.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market after 2006 The brominated flame retardants PBB and PBDE could be phased out in new EEE put on the market after June 2006. In cases where new EEE contains either of these two brominated flame retardants, it clearly does not comply with RoHS 2. Due to exemptions, in particular in RoHS Annex III, new EEE still contains lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium. Almost all exemptions in the RoHS 2 are worded in a way that restricts the use of banned substances to a specific technical application in certain types of devicesde.g., the use of lead in flip chip packages according to exemption 15. This allows a clear identification of lead contents in EEE and e-waste, and even its exact localization within devices. Sources of lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and mercury for such exemptions can be easily identified with a look into Annex III or IV of the RoHS Directive. Fig. 7.1 gives an overview of the total annual amounts of lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium in EEE placed on the EU market every year due to the most relevant exemptions in RoHS Annex III. The exemptions in RoHS Annex IV can only be used for medical devices (category 8 of RoHS Annex I) and in monitoring and control instruments (cat. 9). In addition, these devices may use the exemptions in RoHS Annex III as well. No data are available for the amounts of regulated substances in category 8 and 9 EEE. Because they are produced in low numbers compared with other categories of EEE, they would add only very small amounts to the total

7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 215

volumes of lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium used in EEE and were therefore neglected in the table. The EU represents roundabout one-third of the world market. Because the EEE industry is global, and products are produced for the world market, most EEE produced in the world is RoHS compliant regardless of the market in which it is sold. The global volumes of RoHS-regulated substances in EEE are thus around three times higher than in Fig. 7.3 The use of lead in soldersdusually up to 40% by weightdof servers, etc. under exemption 7b accounted for one of the largest amounts of lead in EEE that was put on the market after 2006, together with lead in high melting point (HMP) solders. Exemption 7b expired in July 2016 so that EEE within the scope of this exemption since that time no longer contains lead solder unless other exemptions allow for it (exemptions 7a and 15). Lead is and will continue to be applied in almost all types of EEE due to exemption 7a and the exemption series 7c in RoHS Annex III and in flip chip packages in EEE due to exemption 15. Exemption 7a is a material-specific exemption that deployed around 10,000 t of lead worldwide in around 11,000 t of HMP solders (Deubzer, 2007), containing at least 85% lead by weight prior to enactment of RoHS 2. RoHS 2 (RoHS Directive, 2011) does not restrict their use. As long as they contain at least 85% lead, producers of EEE can use them wherever they want. Actually, they are mainly used in specific applications where they cannot yet be substituted for technical reasons. Leadcontaining HMP solders still are indispensable in several applications, according to producers. These solders are used to form high-reliability electrical connections in large ball grid array (see Fig. 7.4) or solder column packages as well as some discrete devices in high-reliability electronics. The lead content facilitates solder joints with a high resistance to thermal fatigue and electromigration failure. Fig. 7.5 shows the use of HMP solders to form high-conductivity thermal interfaces to the back of a semiconductor device, also known as die attach, in power devices and discrete semiconductors. These typically are used in high-reliability applications, such as server applications. Further on, HMP solders are used as a sealing substance between tubular plugs and metal casesde.g., in crystal resonators and crystal oscillators as shown in Fig. 7.6. These applications can be found in many products including PCs and cellular phones.

216 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Renewal until 2021 with some scope restrictions

6a/b/c lead as alloying element in steel (≤ 0.35 %), aluminium (≤ 0.4 %), copper (≤ 4 %) Several thousand tonnes per year

7a lead (≥ 85 %) in high melting point solders

Minor reductions (miniaturization)

Renewal until 2021

Around 10,000 tonnes per year 7b lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems, network infrastructure equipment for switching, signalling, transmission, and network management for telecommunications

Exemption expired in July 2016

Around 15,000 tonnes of lead per year

7c-I,-II, -III, -IV Lead glassand andceramics ceramics lead ininglass

Exemption capacitors Renewal Exemptionexpired expiredfor for low low voltage voltage capacitors Renewal until until 2021 2021

Several hundred to few thousand per year in EU Few thousand tonnes tonnes per year Exemption expired for one shot thermal cut- Restriction to specific applications offs

8b cadmium in electrical contacts

2014: few dozens of tonnes of Cd per year 9 hexavalent chromium in absorption refrigerators

1

Few thousand kilograms of hexavalent chromium FCPs

15 lead in flip chip packages (FCPs) 2008: around 10 tonnes of lead 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2

2014: around 3 tonnes of lead 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Current proposal of the European commission after last review in 2016

1

Limit of 0.75 % Cr6+, expiry in 2019

2

Renewal with scope restrictions until 2021

*

Where only figure for European or worldwide use of lead were available in the sources, it was assumed that Europe accounts for one third of the total consumption of EEE

n FIGURE 7.3 Estimated amounts of lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium used in electrical and electronic equipment worldwide due to exemptions in

RoHS Annex III (Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009/2016).

7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 217

n FIGURE 7.4 Ball grid array component with high melting point solder balls (Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009).

Sealing material Semiconductor chip

Copper lead High melting temperature type solder material

High melting temperature type solder mount material Lead frame

Exterior plating Lead frame

n FIGURE 7.5 Schematic cross-sectional view of internal semiconductor connections with die attached (Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009). Remark: please note that the “lead frame” in Fig. 7.5 does not refer to the substance “lead” but to the function of the frame. The frame does not consist of lead!

Passive components may require the use of HMP solders in internal connections to withstand the high temperatures in soldering processes, especially those using lead-free solders. Fig. 7.7 shows such an application. Varying lead content allows for adjusting of the melting point of these HMP solders to meet manufacturing requirements. HMP solders containing lead in the aforementioned applications are used in many components that are commercially available and used by most electrical and electronics sectors (Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009), including: n n n

n n

passive components such as resistors and capacitors rectifiers power semiconductor devices, such as MOSFETs and power transistors voltage regulators solder joints in equipment that operates at >100 C

218 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Metal case

High temperature lead-containing solder Plug

n FIGURE 7.6 Schematic view of a crystal unit (Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009).

Lead wire

Soldering area

Lead wire n FIGURE 7.7 Passive component using HMP solders (“soldering area”) for internal solder joints

(Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut, 2009). Remark: please note that “lead wire” does not refer to the substance “lead” but to the function of the wire as a lead. The wire does not consist of lead!

7.2 Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment 219

n n

n n n n

some types of fuses RF modules, attenuation modules, and high-frequency switches in telemetry medical devices quartz crystal oscillatorsdsome types position sensor coils inductor coils (some types) surface-mount transformers

Another large source of leaddup to several thousand tonnes worldwide in new EEE dhas been and still remains exemption 7c, which allows the use of lead in the ceramics of capacitors and the glass of components such as thick-film capacitors and resistors. There are manifold further applications of lead glass in electrical and electronic components. Like the components using HMP solders with lead, many of these components are standard electronic components that are applied in large numbers in most EEE. They are a source of lead in almost all e-waste, even though the lead is bound in the ceramics and glass. The various examples show that new EEE can still contain large amounts of lead despite its ban in the RoHS Directive, even though the total amounts have been reduced considerably compared with the situation prior to 2006. The remaining lead is restricted to PWBs, however, so at least the lead that can be liberated during the treatment of e-waste. Cadmium has been and will continue to be used in the electrical contacts of new EEE, though in some cases cadmium-free contacts may be used as well. The EU Commission’s April 2018 proposal for the future wording of exemption 8b foresaw the continued use of cadmium until 2021 in circuit breakers, thermal sensing controls, thermal motor protectors (excluding hermetic thermal motor protectors), and alternating current (AC) switches rated at 6 A and more at 250 V AC and more, and 12 A and more at 125 V AC and more; in direct current (DC) switches rated at 20 A and more at 18 V DC and more; and switches for use at voltage supply frequencies  200 Hz. The cadmium in new EEE will therefore be restricted to these types of devices. Further exemptions in Annexes III and IV allow the use of cadmium, either in filter glasses (exemption 13b) where the cadmium is sealed in the glass or in limited quantities in medical equipment and monitoring and control instruments (see RoHS, Annex IV). Up to 0.75% by weight of hexavalent chromium is allowed in the cooling solution as an anticorrosion agent in the carbon steel cooling systems of absorption refrigerators until December 31, 2019. Absorption refrigerators placed on the EU market thereafter will no longer contain

220 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

hexavalent chromium, and the same will probably apply to markets outside the EU. Exemptions 1 through 4 allow the use of mercury in fluorescent lamps known as compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs, “energy-saving lamps” and other fluorescent lamps). On the market, LED lamps continue to gain market share in lamp sales at the cost of fluorescent lamps. Whereas LED lamps do not contain mercury, CFLs and other fluorescent lamps cannot function without mercury. Because mercury-free fluorescent lamps are not produced, these lamps will continue to require specific treatment at their EoL to prevent emissions of mercury into the environment, and they already must be handled with specific care during collection, transport, and treatment. Fluorescent lamps known as cold cathode fluorescent lamps were until a few years ago used for backlighting in flat-panel TV displays and monitors. Like fluorescent lamps, these flat-panel displays must be handled with care and treated separately to avoid emissions of mercury. Later models of flatpanel displays use LED backlights and therefore do not need specific treatment if they can be clearly identified and separated from older flat-panel displays. The collection and separate treatment of e-waste are hence required for mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of lead-based soldering. The amount of lead still present in EEE is another environmental driver for EEE collection and treatment to minimize lead emissions into the environment.

7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROHS SUBSTANCE RESTRICTIONS The environmental benefits of the substance regulations in RoHS 2 have been highly controversial, even in discussions prior to the directive’s implementation. The substitution of the restricted substances posed a technological challenge for EEE producers. Though many of these substitutions were difficult, the most comprehensive task was the substitution of lead in solders and finishes. Until 2006, soldering with tinelead solders with around 37% lead was the standard bonding technology in the electrical and electronics industry (Deubzer, 2007). Therefore, an environmental and economic assessment was conducted of lead substitution in solders and finishes used in EEE. Even though some parts of the assessment may not reflect current

7.3 Environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions 221

development conditions exactly, the basic insights and conclusions are still valid, so the results are presented here. Solders and finishes have had various applications in EEE: n

n

n

Solders were used to fix electrical and electronic components to PWBs. The standard solder used was tinelead solder with 37% lead. Solders were used in packages of electronic components. The solders used were tinelead solders with a high share of lead (at least 85% lead). Finishes were used as surface layers for the lands of PWBs and the pins of electrical and electronic components to achieve better solderability. A common tinelead solder for finishes was SnPb20. Other solders with varying shares of lead were applied as well.

Alternative bonding technologies such as gluing with conductive adhesives, for technical and economic reasons, were not viable general alternatives for eliminating the use of lead in bonding. Their use for lead substitution in solders was hence the most appropriate alternative. Even though RoHS 2 only applies to EEE on the European market, RoHS-restricted substances were phased out globally for most EEE. Most EEE is manufactured for the world market so that substance restrictions in an important market trigger their worldwide phaseout. Globally, prior to the banning of lead, EEE manufacturers used around 90,000 t of lead-containing solders for various purposes as illustrated in Fig. 7.8.

SnPb PWB finishes 2% SnPb solder wire 4%

SnPb Component Finishes 1% Lead-free solders 2%

PbSn-solders 12%

SnPb paste 8%

SnPb bars 70%

n FIGURE 7.8 Composition of the tinelead solder market for the electrical and electronics industry prior to 2006 (Deubzer, 2007).

222 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

(a)

SnZnBi 0.3 %

SnCu 21 %

SnAg 10 % SnAgBi 0.4 %

SnBi 4%

(b)

Au/Pd 5%

SnCu 4% SnAgCu 15%

Ni/Au 49%

Ag 10%

SnAgCuBi 0.8 %

SnAgCu 64 %

Sn 17%

n FIGURE 7.9 Lead-free solders (left) and finishes for the replacement of lead solders and finishes (Deubzer, 2007).

RoHS 1 forced the substitution of around 28,000 t of lead in solders and finishes worldwide (Deubzer, 2007). Industry uses a variety of lead-free finishes and solders because a drop-in lead-free solder solution is not available. Fig. 7.9 shows a substitution scenario for different lead-free solders and finishes in the global manufacturing of EEE based on interviews with producers in 2000 giving reflecting their preferences at that time (Deubzer, 2007). The lead-free solders and finishes used depend on the exact application and manufacturers’ preferences. Fig. 7.10 shows the additional consumption of metals for lead-free solders and finishes as a percentage of annual worldwide mining production. 25%

23%

20%

15%

10%

5%

7% 4% 0.002%

0.02%

Cu

Ni

0.0002%

0.3%

0.0003%

Zn

Au

Pd

0% Sn –5%

Ag

Bi

Pb –0.8%

n FIGURE 7.10 Additional uses of metals in electrical and electronic equipment for lead-free soldering as a percentage of annual mining (Deubzer, 2007,

values rounded).

7.3 Environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions 223

It was assumed that worldwide, around 10% of EEE is collected and treated in order to recycle the metals. Lead-free soldering in this scenario would moderately increase the use of tin and silver in EEE; however, this should not seriously endanger supplies. Other metals show only slight increases in demand. The ban of lead eliminates around 23,000 t of lead from solders and finishes (Deubzer, 2007) assuming a global collection and treatment rate of around 10%. This amount corresponds to roughly 1% of annual lead mining and even less in comparison with the annual use of lead. It must be mentioned, however, that prior to the ban of lead, e-waste was the second-biggest source of lead in household wastes with around 17% of the total (Landesamt, 2003). The four percentage shares for tinebismuth solders that will potentially replace lead-containing solders (see Fig. 7.9) could surprisingly result in more than a 20% increase in bismuth mining (Deubzer, 2007). Such an increase could stress bismuth supplies considerably, which is particularly critical considering its origin. Around 85% of primary bismuth has originated from lead mining (Deubzer, 2007). This situation brings up an aspect that has been neglected so far in the banning and substitution policies of heavy and other hazardous metals. Metals are interlinked with ores. Even though mines are called “lead mines” or “copper mines,” lead and copper are just the main economic drivers of mining, whereas other metals are co-mined with those two. Fig. 7.11 illustrates the interlinkage of metals in ores. Lead ores are an important source of several other metals. In addition to 85% of bismuth, around 30% of silver has originated from lead mining. The ban of a metal can thus influence the mining and supplies of other metals or can even result in more mining of the banned metal in order to have sufficient amounts of substitutes for the banned metal. To appraise this situation, the horizontal efficiency concept was introduced (Deubzer, 2007). It is a model that ensures that metal bans avoid the situation described above. The horizontal efficiency hH is defined as follows: ecological resource value of metals used from mined ores ecological resource value of mined metals P mi $wi $li hH ¼ iP mi $wi

hH ¼

i

224 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Mn

Oxide ores

Ti Mn

Cr

CaSi

Al

As

Mg

Co

Sn

Mg

Al Mn

CaSi

Ga

Mg Mn

PGM

Al

Ni

Mn

Mg

Au

In

Sulfide ores

Cu

Ag

Co Sb

Cu

As

Ag

Bi

Ti

Pb

Au

Ni Rh

Rh

Co Bi

Os Fe

Ru

CaSi

Hg

In

Bi Nb

Os As

Sb Hg

Cu

Pb

Mg

Ru Rh

Zn Sb

Ta

Se

Te

Te

Mn

As

Ir

Co

As

CaSi

W Zn

Au

Zn

Pd

Mo Ir

Pt

Fe

Ag

Ag Pt Cu

V Mg

Zr

Sn

Pb

Cd

Nb

Ta

Ti

Ni

Sn

Cr

Al

Inpurities in base metal ores

Zn

Ge

Hg Fe

Cr

Br

Cl

Al V

Fe

B

Ga

Fe

Fe

Mg

Fe

Li

V

Pb

As Fe

Cr

Cu

Cu Ti

Fe

Cu

Ni

Zn

Al

V

Fe

Cr

Sulfide and oxide ores

CaSi Se

Sb

n FIGURE 7.11 Interlinkage of metals in ores (Verhoef, Reuter in Deubzer, 2007).

Equation 7-1: Definition of horizontal efficiency. mi mass of metal i in mined ores. i type of metal. wi ecological value of metal in ore. li overall use rate of metal i contained in mined ores in % The “ecological resource value” can be interpreted as scarcity that may, for example, be measured with the surplus energy concept used in life cycle analysis (Goedkoop, 2001).

7.3 Environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions 225

1 Resource value mined

Increase 1 Current resource value mined

Decrease

Current resources value used

Resource value used from mined ores

n FIGURE 7.12 Change of horizontal efficiency through lead substitution by bismuth (arrow) (Deubzer, 2007).

The horizontal efficiency complements the well-known material efficiency saying that less material should be used in a product or service to achieve the same functionality or service result. As this kind of efficiency applies to upstream material use after mining and refining, it was demarcated as “vertical efficiency” as opposed to the horizontal efficiency that applies before materials can be used upstream. Fig. 7.12 shows that the use of bismuth instead of lead increases the horizontal efficiency of lead mining. The substitution of lead by bismuth may decrease the demand for lead. Thus the resource value mined can decrease as well because less lead ore is mined. Even though bismuth is mined with lead, lead mining produces a surplus of bismuth that so far has not been put on the market. If this surplus bismuth is used instead of being disposed of, the resource value of mined lead ores increases. The result is an increase in horizontal efficiency as the arrow indicates in Fig. 7.12 (Deubzer, 2007). The above substitution scenario reduces the use of lead in electronics but increases the use of their substitutes and thus triggers a variety of environmental and resource effects. The scenario reflects what was thought to be plausible in the early 2000s and may not reflect the actual situation. More recent data, however, are not available. Nevertheless, the above scenario is still useful in showing the impacts of lead restriction in EEE as stipulated in the RoHS directive. Tinesilver

226 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

solders, sometimes with additions of other metals such as copper, and tinecopper solders with and without additions, are most commonly used in the EEE industry nowadays instead of tinelead solders, in addition to other solders. For finishes, mainly pure tin, and to a minor degree nickel/gold type and palladium finishes have replaced the former tinelead-based finishes. The general findings of the 2007 assessment can therefore still be considered valid. The restriction of lead has considerably reduced the toxicity of EEE. This is an important success because consumers still dispose of part of their e-waste with household waste (Deubzer, 2017), so it must be assumed that neither the valuable nor the toxic materials in this e-waste are recycled and thus may cause damage to the environment. This applies in particular to e-waste items, which due to their small size can fit into normal household waste containers (Huisman et al., 2007). Around 16% (1.5 mio t) of e-waste arising in the EU is exported, most likely to developing countries and countries with market economies in transition (CWIT project). Some exported equipment is still functional and is repaired, refurbished, and reused in the countries of import (Odeyingbo, 2011). The environmental, health, and safety problems start once this equipment becomes obsolete. (Sepúlveda, 2009) showed that the concentrations of lead (Pb), PBDEs, polychlorinated dioxins, and furans, as well as polybrominated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs and PBDD/Fs), in air, dust, soil, water, and sediments in e-waste recycling areas of China and India may exceed the pollution observed in other industrial and urban areas by several orders of magnitude. Such levels of pollution pose a serious environmental and human health threat. Improper e-waste recycling techniques such as dumping, dismantling, inappropriate mechanical treatment, burning, and acid leaching were identified as root causes of the pollution (Sepulveda, 2009). The reduced toxicity of e-waste resulting from the RoHS directive is therefore an important contribution in improving the environmental and health situations, in particular in developing countries. On the other hand, the ban of lead in solders and finishes has increased the use of materials such as tin, silver, gold, and palladium, which compared with lead are geologically scarcer and consume more energy and generate other environmental burdens during mining and refining. This applies in particular to the precious metals gold and silver. The use of precious metals particularly is the main reason for an increased energy consumption due to the ban of lead. Higher melting points of lead-free solders are another, even though minor, driver for increased energy consumption due to the higher

7.4 Differentiated approaches for the use and banning of hazardous substances 227

temperature in the soldering processes. At the same time, the use of scarcer materials such as precious metals may burden future generations for which these materials may become even scarcer. In these aspects, the RoHS directive contributes to climate change and decreases the sustainability of material supplies. Higher collection rates and adequate pretreatment of e-waste, however, would direct more metals from the e-waste to smelters, where in particular precious metals and copper can be recycled (more than 95%) in copper and similar smelters, and to a lesser degree the recycling of tin, bismuth, and others that are increasingly used in EEE as lead substitutes. Recycling of precious metals saves large amounts of energy and scarce resources. Collection and proper treatment of e-waste can thus reduce energy consumption and the loss of valuable resources, but cannot compensate for them completely. Finally, the life cycle cost of lead-free soldering is considerably higher. The substitute metals tin, bismuth, and in particular precious metals, are more expensive than lead. Recycling of e-waste can recover some of this value, but recycling has costs as well, and overall recycling rates are far below 100%. The increased energy cost for soldering processes is not the main cost impact. In total, the operative life cycle cost of lead-free soldering, comprising material and energy costs, amounted to around 1000 million euros per year globally for the producers of EEE after the transition to lead-free soldering (Deubzer, 2007). This does not yet include costs for research, training, and new equipment. The question of whether the ban of lead in solders and finishes actually is environmentally friendly cannot be answered on the basis of natural science. It is a societal decision whether the avoided emissions of hazardous lead are more important than increased energy consumption, higher losses of scarce metals, and a higher overall cost.

7.4 DIFFERENTIATED APPROACHES FOR THE USE AND BANNING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Proper treatment of e-waste can limit the impacts of hazardous substances in e-waste. The know-how and technologies are available and are applied in at least some developed countries. Toxic heavy metals such as lead can be recycled to a certain degree or can otherwise be controlled and prevented from release into the environment. High amounts of e-waste arising in developed countries, however, are not collected separately and thus they probably are not treated according to the state of the art. Nevertheless, it

228 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

can be assumed that in such countries, environmental legislation that sets emission limits for hazardous substances into the air, soil, and water at least limits environmental and health damage even in those cases where e-waste is not treated according to the state of the art. Developing countries and countries with market economies in transition lack appropriate treatment technologies for e-waste. Environmental legislation is either not in place or poorly enforced. Hazardous substances in EEE under these circumstances can cause serious environmental and health damage. At the same time, these countries have the highest growth rates for EEE. The annual increase of around 22% for information and communication equipment in China8 is just one example of this trend. Imports of e-waste into developing countries exacerbate the problem. Given the fact that most EEE is produced for the global market and thus sold around the globe, conditions in developing countries should be a main driver for the substitution or elimination of hazardous substances in EEE. As these substitutions and eliminations may cause other unwanted effects on the environment and resource consumption and may be costinefficient, other possibilities should be checked before legally restricting the use of certain hazardous substances. Transferring e-waste collection and treatment technology and know-how to developing countries, as well as increasing separate collection and state-of-the-art treatment in developed countries, may be more appropriate and allow for the management of hazardous substances rather than their substitution. Better collection and treatment would at the same time facilitate more recycling of scarce resources such as precious metals applied in EEE, and such hazardous substance management measures could produce highly positive side effects. In each case, the substitution or elimination of hazardous substances in EEE should be based on a risk analysis that accounts for the environmental, resource, and cost effects of substitutes and the impacts of alternative approaches.

REFERENCES Deubzer, O., January 2007. Explorative Study into the Sustainable Use and Substitution of Soldering Metals in Electronics - Ecological and Economical Consequences of the Ban of Lead in Electronics and Lessons to Be Learned for the Future (Ph.D. thesis). TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, ISBN 978-90-5155-031-3. Retrievable from: https:// repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Af9a776cf-57c3-4815-a989-fe89ed59046e? collection¼research.

8 StEP-Initiative: What is e-waste, http://www.step-initiative.org/initiative/what-is-e-waste. php.

References 229

Deubzer, 2017. Presentation at the Berliner Recycling Conference, Results of the CWITProject. Retrievable from: http://www.vivis.de/images/Konferenzen/RuR/2017/ Praesentationen/2017_RuR_Deubzer.pdf. www.cwitproject.eu. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/ALL/?uri¼CELEX:32002L0096. Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut 2009. Carl-Otto Gensch, Stephanie Zangl et al., Ökoinstitut Freiburg; Dr. Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM: Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress under Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS Directive); Final Report, 19 February 2009, Download from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/ report_2009.pdf. Fraunhofer/Öko-Institut 2016. Carl-Otto Gensch, Yifaat Baron et al., Ökoinstitut Freiburg; Dr Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM: Assistance to the Commission on Technological Socio-Economic and Cost-Benefit Assessment Related to Exemptions from the Substance Restrictions in Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Study to Assess Renewal Requests for 29 RoHS 2 Annex III Exemptions; final report, 7 June 2016, Retrievable from: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_ Pack_9/RoHS-Pack_9_Part_LAMPS_06-2016.pdf (lamps) and http://rohs. exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/RoHS-Pack_9_Part_ SOLDERS_06-2016.pdf. Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., June 22, 2001. The Eco-indicator 99 - A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report, third ed. http://www. pre.nl/. Huisman, J., United Nations University, et al., 2007. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Final Report, 5 August 2007. Annexes: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu_annexes. pdf. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf. Landesamt, 2003. Zusammensetzung und Schadstoffgehalt von Siedlungsabfällen. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umweltschutz, Augsburg. Odeyingbo, Segun, 2011. Assessment of the flow and driving forces of used electrical and electronic equipment into Nigeria and within Nigeria; master thesis at BTU Cottbus, supervised by Dr. Otmar Deubzer, BTU Cottbus; Mathias Schluep, Empa, in cooperation with and supported by united Nations university. BTU Cottbus, 2011. van der Linde, C., Gallen, H.S., in collaboration with the Management Institute for Environment and Business (MEB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Competitive Implications of Environmental Regulation in the Refrigerator Industry, 1994. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0045-04.pdf/$file/EE-004504.pdf. RoHS 1. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:32002L0095. EN:NOT. RoHS, July 1, 2011. Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Recast). RoHS 2European Union (EN:NOT). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:32011L0065.

230 CHAPTER 7 Reduction of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Sepúlveda, A., Schluep, M., Renaud, F.G., Martin Streicher, Kuehr, R., Hagelüken, C., Gerecke, A.C., 2009. A review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released from electrical and electronic equipments during recycling: examples from China and India, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30, 28e41. ELSEVIER. http://ewasteguide.info/files/Sepulveda_2010_EIAR_0_0. pdf. UNDP, 2005. Jan Fedorowicz, in Collaboration with UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, World Bank: The Montreal Protocol e Partnerships Changing the World. http://content.undp.org/ go/cms-service/download/publication/?version¼live&id¼3287286; last. WEEE Forum, 2018. E-mail Communication Otmar Deubzer with Lucia Herreras. WEEE Forum. April 2018; not published.

FURTHER READING Nissen, 2001. Entwicklung eines ökologischen Bewertungsmodells zur Beurteilung elektronischer Systeme (Ph.D. thesis Nils Nissen). TU Berlin (in German language only). http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2001/230/pdf/nissen_nils.pdf. REACh, 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri¼CELEX:32006R1907:en:NOT. Verhoef, E.V., 2004. The Ecology of Metals (Doctoral thesis). TU Delft, The Netherlands, ISBN 90-9018857-6 (copromoted by M.A. Reuter). WEEE directive. European Parliament and Council 4 July 2012 Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) 2012. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/ ?uri¼CELEX:32012L0019&qid¼1521452247976.

Chapter

8

The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Emma Goosey1, Martin Goosey2

1

2

Eodum Ltd., Colchester, United Kingdom; Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

8.1 The material content of WEEE 231 8.2 Materials and their recovery and recycling technologies 234 8.3 Liquid crystal display screens and the transition to newer technologies 237 8.4 The loss of scarce elements 240 8.5 Novel materials recovery approaches 241 8.6 New materials and their implications 245 8.7 Recycling and environmental impacts 252 8.8 Summary and conclusions 254 8.9 Sources of further information and advice 255 References 257 Further reading 262

8.1 THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF WEEE The modern electronics industry developed in parallel with the transistor, which was invented by William Shockley at Bell Laboratories in 1948. More recently, the evolution of the integrated circuit has enabled electronics to pervade all walks of life and to provide functionality that was unimaginable when the first transistors were produced. The widespread use of electronics has undoubtedly brought huge benefits to both individuals and society, particularly as the producers of electrical and electronic equipment have typically managed to improve performance and functionality in each new generation of products, while also reducing costs. This has also led to the commoditization of electronics, especially in consumer devices, and, as a result, for the last 20 years or so, there has been increasing concern about the fate of the materials used in appliances as products reach end of life and become waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00008-2 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

231

232 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

(Mmereki et al., 2016; Baawain et al., 2017; Gtoze et al., 2016; Serensen et al., 2015). These concerns have led to the introduction of legislation that has forced producers to take responsibility for their products, not just during their service lives but at end of life as well (extended producer responsibility). Legislation such as the WEEE and Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directives have thus had a major impact on the choices of materials that can be used in products, since some important materials have been proscribed, while others offer benefits from an end-of-life recycling and recovery perspective (Long et al., 2016; Arduin et al., 2016; Parajuly et al., 2016). In addition, the economics of materials supply and their management across the whole product life cycle are now key factors that inform the choices of materials used in future products and define those that need to be developed to replace unacceptable or scarce materials (critical raw materials) (Salhofer et al., 2015; Perez-Belis et al., 2015; Iannicello-Zubiani et al., 2016; Chancerel et al., 2015). One of the key factors that will determine the choice of the most appropriate technology for recycling is the material composition of WEEE (Parajuly and Habib, 2017; Parajuly and Wenzel, 2017a) (Table 8.1). However, the term WEEE covers a very wide range of products, from small consumer devices, such as mobile phones, to larger items including televisions, desktop computers, and white goods including washing machines and tumble dryers (Menad et al., 2016; Gotze et al., 2016). The other important evolution in recent years has been the increasing use of electronics in automotive applications, from engine management systems to infotainment systems and safety features, etc. There are clearly significant differences in the types of equipment that constitute the various categories of WEEE, but also even within individual products (Ardente et al., 2014; Andersson et al., 2016). In the previous version of this chapter, the transition from cathode ray tube (CRT)-based televisions to those employing liquid crystal displays (LCDs) was used as a very apposite example. That transition has effectively been completed, yet a further technological evolution is now underway with

Table 8.1 Materials composition (% by weight) of the four products covered by HARL in 2005 Material

Television

Washing machine

Air conditioner

Refrigerator

Glass Plastic Iron Copper Aluminum Other

57 23 10 3 2 5

e 36 53 4 3 4

e 11 55 17 7 10

e 40 50 4 3 3

8.1 The material content of WEEE 233

the LCDs beginning to be replaced by organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology. Also, the last few years have seen the move from incandescent lighting to light emitting diode (LED) technology in industrial, consumer, and automotive applications. The transition from lead-based to lead-free solder has been mandated for many products put on the market in Europe since July 2006, and most of the lead-containing electronics have already reached their end of life and been recycled. Similarly, the proscription of cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium, as well as certain brominated flame retardants, has led to compositional changes and heralded the introduction into the waste stream of a wider range of materials. In addition, developments are taking place to eliminate the presence of other halogenated compounds from WEEE, including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) from circuit board compositions (Sober and Tisdale, 2017). This in turn has had ramifications for any new recycling technologies that are developed to address individual waste streams. In particular, it has also meant that recyclate intended for reuse in new electronics applications was not able to contain any of the proscribed materials. For example, there has been a need to ensure that recycled plastics do not contain any proscribed brominated flame retardants (ChemTrust, 2017) if they are to be recovered for reuse rather than incinerated for energy recovery. Most types of electrical and electronic products contain varying quantities and types of plastics. It has been understood for some time that there is a need to minimize the range of plastics used in electrical and electronic products in order to facilitate more effective recycling. The situation can be further complicated by the fact that there are compatibility issues, not only between individual classes of polymers but also between the many different products that are produced for each class. Examples of some of the plastics commonly encountered in EEE are listed here: n n n n n n n

acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) polycarbonate (PC) PC/ABS blends high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) polyphenylene oxide blends (PPO) polyethylene and polypropylene (PE and PP) polylactic acid (PLA) and related natural polymers.

However, it should be noted that it is quite common to find many more types of materials used in specialist applications, such as fluorinated polymers in high-frequency electronic substrates. The ability to find uses for recycled plastics largely depends on the type of polymer, the cost compared to virgin material, and the work needed to produce recovered material with

234 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

the required purity and quality. For example, the separation of materials and the removal of potential contaminants such as labels, screws, and fixings can significantly increase the cost of recycled materials. It is also important to consider the implications of recycling plastics that contain brominated flame retardants, due to the increasing proscription and unpopularity of these materials.

8.2 MATERIALS AND THEIR RECOVERY AND RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES Traditional materials recycling approaches for end-of-life electrical and electronic products have often been focused on the basic separation of metals from nonmetals using various proprietary high-volume processes based on mechanical shredding, comminution and separation technologies that produce ferrous and nonferrous metal fractions, along with plastic and other fractions (Zeng et al., 2016; Zeng and Li, 2016; Charles et al., 2017). Hammer mills and shredders are the most common comminution devices that are used to reduce WEEE to smaller-sized fractions from which it is possible to isolate individual material streams (Ueberschaar et al., 2017). The standard approaches employed to separate these liberated materials can then include various combinations of other techniques such as manual sorting, magnetic and eddy current separation, use of air tables, etc. Examples of the different materials recovery and recycling approaches used for large and small domestic appliances are detailed below. For larger domestic appliances, which contain significant quantities of metal, the schemes used are relatively straightforward, including: n

n n n n

preshredding decontamination, i.e., removal of cables and other easily removable components and metal and plastic items shredding magnetic removal of the ferrous metal component eddy current removal of nonferrous metal fraction remaining polymeric component, possibly for subsequent sorting.

However, for small domestic appliances, where there is a greater variety of both products and material types, the processes may be more complex, for example: n

n n

manual pretreatment, e.g., for removal of individual components, e.g., ink cartridges, batteries and cables, etc. removal and separation of individual components mechanical separation to give coarse ferrous and nonferrous fractions, as well as a fine material fraction

8.2 Materials and their recovery and recycling technologies 235

n

n n

use of a picking station to remove remaining items such as fitted batteries, capacitors, electric motors, printed circuit boards, and any identified hazardous materials granulation to give further nonferrous and ferrous fractions separation of nonferrous from polymeric fractions.

In the past, the metals have typically been consigned to a refining process, while the plastics were either incinerated to recover the embodied energy or sent to the Far East for manual sorting, recovery, and reuse in secondary applications. However, because of the disparate nature of the materials used in electrical and electronic products (Parajuly and Wenzel, 2017b), complete separation and recovery of all of the materials is not possible within the typical economic constraints that normally apply. For example, the plastics waste stream generated by the established primary WEEE treatment processors in the United Kingdom and Europe is usually not a simple mixture of a few polymer types (Bovea et al., 2016), and there is a need for new high-efficiency separation processes that can generate discrete highpurity polymer recyclate streams. Such processes must be highly efficient and able to handle and remove a wide range of contaminants such as dirt, glass, stones, rubber, wood, card, paper, cables, etc (Rahimi and Garcia, 2017). Although contamination is often present, the mechanical processes used by recyclers do usually manage to separate out at least four basic different material fractions, which are ferrous metal, nonferrous metal, plastics, and printed circuit board (PCB) fragments (Ardente et al., 2014; Suresh et al., 2016; Cucchiella et al., 2015). The metal and PCB fractions are normally consigned to pyrolysis-based metal refining treatments (Goosey and Kellner, 2002; Holgersson et al., 2017). The manufacturers of electrical and electronic products use a wide range of different polymers and formulations within their products, which leads to the recyclate produced by these mechanical processes being complex in composition. Polystyrene-based polymers and polypropylene account for a large percentage by weight of all plastics used in the manufacture of these products (Catelli de Souza et al., 2016). In large household appliances, the most commonly used polymer types are polypropylene, polyurethanes, and the styrene-based materials (Goosey and Stevens, 2009; Bovea et al., 2016). Unfortunately, the additional use of many other small polymer parts produces a complex waste stream that has many implications for the subsequent separation of a fraction for recovery and recycling. This is a situation that can be further complicated by the presence of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which, while being recyclable, causes problems because of its halogen content (Suresh et al., 2016; Guzzonato et al., 2017).

236 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

As reported earlier, many of the plastics used in electrical and electronic product applications are flame retardant grades and this property has traditionally been imparted via the use of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) such as the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and Tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), and more recently organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs). Given that many of these are now proscribed by legislation (PBDEs, HBCDDs) or under review (TBBPA), there are widespread concerns about both the use and impacts of these materials. Many manufacturers have made commitments not to use them in their products, but there is still a need to segregate polymers containing BFRs from those without them when recycling at end of life (U.S. EPA, 2015; Guzzonato et al., 2017; Martinho et al., 2012; Thanh Truc and Lee, 2017). Rapidly identifying flame-retardant grades of polymers in a mixed waste stream is not an easy task, and methods for their detection tend to be based on the use of a range of advanced spectroscopic techniques, as detailed in the report Fh-ICT (2001) including: n n n n n n n n

n n n

near infra-red (NIR) (Menad et al., 2013) mid infra-red (MIR) reflection(Maris et al., 2015) Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) (Thanh Truc and Lee, 2017) MIR pyrolysis Raman scattering mass pyrolysis sliding spark (spark ablation) X-ray fluorescence (Gallen et al., 2014; Abassi et al., 2016; Schlummer et al., 2015) MIR acousto-optic tunable filter (MIR AOTF) laser-induced plasma spectroscopy (Barbier et al., 2013). Laser ablation

Annual consumption of PVC is currently estimated at around 62 million tons (IHS Chemical), with many hundreds of millions of tons in existence around the world, and there is a real need to develop new recycling processes for this polymer. PVC recycling is difficult because of the relatively high separation and collection costs, the potential for loss of material quality after recycling, the low market price of PVC recyclate compared with virgin PVC, and, therefore, the limited potential for reuse (Suresh et al., 2016). Several routes are available for recycling PVC materials, including simple size reduction (fragmentation, regrinding, and pulverization), mechanical contaminant removal (via melt filtration, tribo-electric separation, air classification, etc.), dissolution methods (such as the Solvay VinyLoop process), and feedstock recycling. Feedstock recycling of PVC is thought to be coming to technical maturity, allowing for as much as 10% PVC, provided the

8.3 Liquid crystal display screens and the transition to newer technologies 237

halogen content remains between 0.1% and 1% (www.PVC.org). For feedstocks with over 30% PVC, the system must be set up to recover hydrochloric acid and requires high thermal treatment costs; from an economic or an environmental perspective, it is doubtful whether it will ever play a significant role in PVC waste management. There are clearly significant opportunities to develop new materials recovery and recycling processes for PVC (Thanh Truc & Lee, 2017; VinylPlus, 2014). In Japan, recycling of domestic electrical appliances such as TVs, washing machines, refrigerators, and air conditioners is carried out in a much more controlled way than it is in Europe, and this enables different approaches to be adopted that can produce a better quality recyclate that is more likely to find reuse (Japan’s Plastic Waste Management Institute, 2016). Such end-oflife appliances are transported to recycling centers that employ what are effectively production lines operating in reverse. In this way, there is an opportunity to remove plastic equipment casings manually, and these can then be more easily segregated according to polymer type. This makes subsequent processing much easier and enables clean, good quality polymer streams to be produced via mechanical processing and reformulation. These output polymers are then typically used in lower-grade applications in new products. It is interesting to note that the larger Japanese electrical and electronics manufacturers are heavily involved in the end-of-life and recycling operations via ownership of recycling facilities. This not only enables them to be involved in the whole life cycle of their products but it also gives them an internal outlet for recycled materials.

8.3 LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY SCREENS AND THE TRANSITION TO NEWER TECHNOLOGIES Over the last 15 years or so, the ability of liquid crystal-based devices (LCDs) to provide large area, full color displays has led to their widespread use in TVs, computer monitors, and related applications. Such has been the degree of change that, even in waste streams, the previously long-established CRT-based televisions and computer monitors are becoming a rarity. From a materials end-of-life and recycling perspective, there have been a number of major impacts of this move to LCD technology. Firstly, the materials used in each type of display are very different, and it is interesting to note that this change in technology effectively represented the same type of shift as that from the use of thermionic valves to discrete transistors. The older CRT technology was based on the use of glass vacuum tubes and metals, whereas flat panel LCDs utilize solid-state technology and novel organic compounds, which in turn have required the additional use of a wider range of disparate and often higher value materials.

238 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

LCDs have been appearing in waste streams for many years now, and recyclers have developed methods for processing them in an efficient manner that enables as much of their materials as possible to be recovered for reuse. LCDs contain a number of valuable materials, such as the liquid crystals themselves, indium, tin, gold, and other metals, and there is clearly some additional value via the various other materials and components they contain (Cucchiella et al., 2015; Amato et al., 2017). This has generated considerable interest from recyclers, who are keen to recover the maximum value from recycling such displays. However, early LCDs also contained hazardous materials such as mercury. LCDs need a backlight source to make the display effective, and this was typically achieved by the use of miniature strip lights placed behind, or at the edges of, the display to produce a uniform white illumination transmitted through the liquid crystals to the viewer. These so-called cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) typically contained small amounts of mercury, which is highly toxic. An example of a CCFL, its associated driver circuitry, and warning label from a laptop computer are shown in Fig. 8.1. As an early rival to LCDs, plasma screens were introduced, using chemical phosphors. However, the plasma screens are not as energy efficient as LCDs

n FIGURE 8.1 Compact fluorescent tube, driver circuitry, and warning label removed from a laptop computer.

8.3 Liquid crystal display screens and the transition to newer technologies 239

and can have a shorter lifetime, thus they are considerably less popular, but offer brighter and higher contrasting screens, providing clearer images for action movies and sports. For recycling purposes plasma screens never contained mercury, but contained neon or xenon gas, and large quantities of sheet metal w50% (ferrous and nonferrous metal), 20% glass, 10% circuit board, and 10% fines, with the remaining 10% belonging to plastics, cables, wires, and others (WRAP, 2010). Mercury presents a major problem for recyclers, since the CCFL tubes are very delicate and easily broken, leading to the potential for mercury contamination and exposure in recycling facilities. This includes exposure to workers involved in the manual disassembly of such devices and contamination of materials and the local environment when mechanical techniques, i.e., comminution and shredding, are used as part of the materials separation and recycling process. The issues around the presence of mercury in older LCDs were therefore significant and represented a challenge for recyclers who had to handle end-of-life LCD TVs and monitors. However, several years ago, LCD manufacturers introduced light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as backlights instead of the mercury-containing fluorescent tubes, and these are now the dominant backlight technology (Fernandez et al., 2015). Unfortunately, there are still large numbers of displays that contain mercury backlights, and these will continue to be found in the waste stream for many years to come. There is thus still a real need to provide safe and economically viable end-of-life processing and treatment of end-of-life displays. Although, the move from CRT to LCD technology has occurred in the last 20 years, display technology has continued to evolve, and it has been known for a number of years that LCDs are likely to be increasingly replaced by displays based on OLED technology. OLED displays are attractive for a number of important reasons. They have the potential to be thinner and lighter, while also giving a brighter image with better contrast and more rapid refresh rates. Also, importantly, because the diodes emit light, OLED displays do not require backlights or filters. From both a materials and endof-life perspective, they represent another change that will require new thinking and approaches if the maximum value is to be recovered during recycling. OLEDs are also considered to be a positive development from an environmental perspective in that they consume less power, require fewer raw materials, and can be manufactured using greener materials. Although the OLED display is still some way from becoming dominant in the TV market, the devices are already widely used in smaller electronics display applications. The market for OLED displays was valued at w$16 billion in 2016

240 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

and is predicted to grow to $57 billion by 2026 (Fuscaldo, 2017). There is clearly a substantial amount of materials value contributing to these figures, and thus there will be strong incentives for the development of new OLED recycling technologies that have a focus on maximizing recovered value.

8.4 THE LOSS OF SCARCE ELEMENTS Significant growth in the production of electronic devices has put huge demands on the supply of materials needed to manufacture these products. In some cases, there is no immediate problem in supplying the requisite materials, but for some of the other rarer materials that are often needed there are increasing concerns about their continuing supply, as the known accessible reserves are either finite or they may be restricted by their producer countries. Over the last 30 years or so, there has been a significant migration of electronics manufacturing capability from the West, i.e., Europe and the United States, to the Far East and particularly to China. The result has been that most of the consumer electrical and electronic appliances used in the West are actually produced in China. This has led to the scenario that, while the materials needed to make these products are required in China, at end of life they are typically often a long way from where they could be reused (Mueller et al., 2015). Access to these materials also has strategic implications and ensuring security of supply has become a concern. This is because developing countries such as China increasingly control the supply chains of key elements and minerals through the use of export tariffs and restrictions in order to protect their own internal demands that arise from fast technological growth. In addition, some of the more important elements required for current electronics production are largely extracted from mineral deposits in China. For example, China supplies about 95% of the world’s rare earth elements, and, in 2016, its six major suppliers decided to stockpile 5000 tons of nine of the key rare earth metals with the government planning to create a national reserve by buying 15,000 tons from them. There have thus been growing concerns in the West about the continued supply of these strategically important metals, and new approaches to their sourcing are beginning to be adopted. One route would be to establish new primary sources by opening mines where there are reserves, but consideration has also being given to potential secondary sources, e.g., by recovering the materials from waste electrical and electronic products. One such example is neodymium, which is used in the magnets found in computer hard drives and which can thus be found in relatively high concentrations in end-of-life computers, etc. (Spercher et al., 2014; Habib et al., 2015).

8.5 Novel materials recovery approaches 241

8.5 NOVEL MATERIALS RECOVERY APPROACHES Companies undertaking materials recovery from WEEE typically try to keep the number and complexity of any treatment stages to a minimum for the simple reason that each stage used adds additional costs that cannot be recovered, thus reducing the overall return obtained from the recovered materials. For example, the plastics fraction from the treatment of WEEE is typically in the form of a mixture of flakes of all the common types of polymers that are a few centimeters in size. Current options for their subsequent treatment, recycling, and/or disposal include some further types of sorting and grading or incineration for energy recovery. While it is possible to use the mixed polymer waste for energy recovery via incineration, the process is often compromised by the presence of PVC, which is commonly found in this type of product. When incinerated, PVC decomposes to give a range of persistent organic pollutants that are highly toxic and that require the incinerator facility to be equipped with scrubbers, etc. If the PVC could be selectively removed, it would enable the remaining materials to be more safely incinerated. Ideally, however, it would be preferable to separate the individual polymer types; at the moment, if such sorting is required, it is undertaken manually, often by low-paid workers in China. These workers are apparently able, with the minimum of equipment, to identify individual types of plastics, and when these have been sorted they are recompounded into recycled materials that are used by molders in China to make new products. There are various mechanical methods that can be used to reduce the size of the plastics arising from WEEE, and each recycler tends to use their own proprietary variations on a basic theme (Cesaro et al., 2016). For example, shredders are used to carry out initial size reduction on large pieces of WEEE-derived plastics. Shredders utilize a rotary and slow speed chopping, ripping, and tearing action to reduce the size of the plastic pieces, and the actual final material size is determined by forcing material through a fixed-aperture screen. Shredders can function even if there is a degree of metallic contamination such as from clips, screws, or inserts that may be present with the plastic, and thus there may need to be a subsequent metal removal stage. Typically, a shredder would be used to produce materials with at least one dimension in the size range of 20e50 mm. Where it is necessary to reduce the particle size further, polymer flakes can be introduced into a granulator or grinder, which is designed to produce fine granules of plastic. These machines use the scissor or guillotine cutting action of close-tolerance sharp blades spinning at high speed. The ultimate output particle size is determined by a rigid mesh screen that is

242 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

often positioned close to the cutting zone and is usually less than 10 mm in size. Granulators have a low tolerance for metal contamination in the feed materials, as it can blunt or damage the edges of the cutting blades. Depending on the source of the material to be treated, it may be necessary to undertake demetallization prior to the granulation stage in order to avoid damage to the equipment. In conventional mechanical WEEE treatment processes, there can be three stages where metal is removed, including: n n

n

Removal of large pieces of metal prior to shredding. Removal of screws, inserts, and other smaller pieces prior to granulation. Removal of fine metal residues after granulation.

There are a number of established techniques available for the removal of metals, and examples of these and their equipment are given here: n n n n n

Permanent or over-band magnetsdfor removal of large ferrous pieces. Magnetic head rollersdfor ferrous and some stainless steel removal. Eddy-current separatorsdfor removal of nonferrous metals. Inductive metal removal methodsdfor all types of metal. Vibrating tables and air-classifiersdfor fine particle removal.

New materials recovery technologies are also needed for some of the more specialized materials that are increasingly found in electronics applications. One such example is the metal indium, which is widely used to manufacture the indium tin oxide (ITO) transparent conductive electrodes that are found in most displays. Indium is only used in relatively small quantities in individual displays, but there is a clear need to find efficient and economical ways of recovering this valuable metal from the large number of displays reaching end of life. Technically, the recovery of indium from end-of-life LCD displays is not particularly difficult, but it will probably require a multistage approach (Amato et al., 2016). One such approach was proposed during a multipartner research project into liquid crystal recycling that was supported by the United Kingdom’s Technology Strategy Board. This approach involved the removal of the actual displays themselves from the display assembly, followed by comminution and subsequent dissolution of the indium tin oxide. Following some further treatment stages, the indium could be recovered electrochemically, after which it is further purified. It should also be noted that other electronics-related applications are being proposed for indium, and these could actually lead to increased demand for the metal. For example, there is growing use of compound semiconductor materials in photovoltaic (PV) applications. One such material is

8.5 Novel materials recovery approaches 243

copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS). This thin film semiconductor material can give efficiencies of over 20%, and thus it is a promising material for use in PV applications. CIGS thin film solar cells have been under intensive development for many years as potential low-cost, high-performance rivals to silicon, but so far they have not been cost competitive. Nevertheless, work is continuing, and if the predicted 25% e40% reductions in production costs can be achieved, there will be significant scope for increased market penetration. At end of life these cells could provide a valuable supply of indium, gallium, and other materials. Solar cells are a rapidly growing area of electronics, experiencing a compound annual growth rate of 40% between 2010 and 2016 (Fraunhofer ISE, 2017), and in 2016 they contributed to over 300 TWh of power generation and a global electricity share of 1.3% (BP), produced from panels on a variable scale up to 2 m long. Within these panels the surface is constructed of individual PV cells, with a standard size of 156 mm2. Common formats include 60, 72, or 98 PV cells, depending on whether they are for residential or commercial use. The PV cells can be made from crystalline silicon wafer structures with the addition of various dopants. The most common PV cell materials include: n

n

n

Silicon o Multi-Si o Mono-Si (>20% efficiency) o Amorphous silicon (A-Si) (noncrystalline) o Crystalline silicon (advanced) Thin film o CIGS o Cadmium telluride (CdTe) o CIGS alternatives, heavy metals Other o Organic PV/dye sensitized (OPV)

The silicon wafers are attached to electrical contacts consisting of palladium/silver, nickel or copper, and an antireflective coating is added to reduce surface reflectivity. These coatings are often titanium dioxide or silicon oxide based. Following this, the entire cells are encapsulated using materials such as silicon rubber or ethylene vinyl acetate. A simple aluminum frame is used to support the entire structure, with a perfluorinated background membrane, and glass or plastic cover. Because of the use of this wide range of materials and the way the cells are constructed, it is very difficult to deconstruct them and separate materials for recycling.

244 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

In 2016, end-of-life solar panels contributed >43,500 tons of waste, which is expected to rise to between 60 and 78 million tons by 2050. As a result of the anticipated influx of panels, the European Union has adopted PV-specific waste regulations under the WEEE Directive’s Extended Producer Responsibility. The materials present in PV cells include many critical materials, at low concentrations. With 90% of a panel comprising glass, plastic, and aluminum, the final 10% can be difficult to recover. This 10% can contain silver, tin, lead, copper zinc, indium, gallium, selenium, cadmium, and tellurium (IRENA, 2016). Recycling mechanisms currently require panels to be recycled based on their technology. Despite the small material weight of metals in solar panels, almost 50% of the value of a panel is from silver (48%), followed by aluminum (26%), silicon (11%), and glass, and copper (8%). The importance of the material recovery for scarce materials like indium is the impact it can have on the market price. However, recycling techniques for solar panels have been researched for many years now, with no definitive method. The primary challenge is the delamination of the ethylene vinyl acetateelaminated glass. The main process is through crushing and various sorting techniques (manual, magnetic, screening, automated) to support the separation of glass, metals, and other materials. Once separated, further chemical treatments are conducted to recover individual elements. Clearly, with a finite primary supply of indium, there is a growing need to implement efficient recovery processes. However, also because of the finite supply of indium and the current limited ability to recover it economically, there is research underway to develop alternatives to indium tin oxide that can utilize more abundant materials. Examples of these are discussed later in this chapter. Although the introduction of new materials may necessitate the development of complementary materials recovery and recycling technologies, there are also measures that can be utilized to enable recycling to be undertaken more efficiently. For example, if information can be provided to recyclers about the specific materials and components used in a particular product, it would enable more informed decisions to be made about their recovery and recycling. One such approach to the provision of this type of information involves the incorporation of intelligence into a product via the use, for example, of an embedded wireless component that can provide data to recyclers. This approach involves embedding wireless components known as radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags into the multilayer circuit boards used in many electronic products (Scruggs et al., 2016). These devices enable product-specific life cycle information to be

8.6 New materials and their implications 245

available to recyclers so that they can make more informed decisions about the value of a product and thus the best way to undertake recycling. The information can include a use profile, a bill of materials, details of the product’s manufacturer, disassembly guides, location of valuable components, and specific materials content, e.g., hazardous materials or materials of high value. At end of life the RFID devices can be remotely interrogated via a wireless reader that provides real-time information to enable recyclers to make decisions about the best reuse, recovery, and recycling strategies to implement on an individual product basis. As they are radio-based devices, no line of sight is needed to interrogate them and one reader can be used to address multiple tags over a range of up to approximately 10 m (depending on the product, reader power, operation frequency, etc.).

8.6 NEW MATERIALS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS The continuing introduction of new and better performing electrical and electronic products has often been made possible through the development and application of innovative novel materials. Sometimes the use of these materials enables incremental improvements in existing products, but they may also lead to the introduction of completely new technologies that offer a paradigm shift away from the established approaches. The previous shift from CRT-based televisions to those employing LCDs and now to LEDs is perhaps one of the best known examples of how an emerging new materials technology can enable new products to evolve with superior properties, performance. and end user appeal. The use of LCDs, and now OLEDs, has also diffused into a wide range of complementary products such as computer displays, mobile phones. and other portable devices (Holgersson et al., 2017). Another good example is in battery technology, whose development is being driven by the rapidly growing demand for electric vehicle power supplies and energy storage devices. Although not strictly classified as WEEE, these batteries contain large quantities of valuable materials, both in the individual cells themselves as well as in the electronic charging and power management circuitry they contain (Sommer et al., 2015). At the moment, end-of-life treatment of these large batteries has not become a significant issue, but as demand rises rapidly over the next 20 years, much more attention will need to be paid to battery recycling, materials recovery, and reuse options. There are many other materials innovations that are likely to emerge in the future, and while these will undoubtedly enable new and improved products to be manufactured, they will also have specific treatment requirements at end of life in terms of recycling, recovery, potential environmental impact,

246 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

etc. It is beyond the scope of this short chapter to cover these in detail, but a few examples are now cited in order to give an overview of some of the implications of new materials development. Materials in WEEE are often present to support the electronic function of the product or as aesthetic design. Flame retardants are added to improve the safety of the equipment (UL 94 VO fire safety standard) preventing ignition, and then providing a steady burn/smolder rate, which allows people more time to vacate premises but also helps reduce the overall temperature and speed at which the fire spreads. Therefore, flame retardants (typically TBBPA) are often added to PCBs to prevent ignition when the board is in operation. In addition, the casings and housing of many electronics are flame retarded to prevent the ignition of electronics from both internal and external sources (in the past PBDEs have been used, but more recently OPFRs). The presence of these chemicals in electronic materials has repercussions on the recycling and material recovery. One issue is the toxicity of the flame retardants. The impact on human health can be significant, and thus recycled plastics containing flame retardants are restricted from some applications, including children’s toys, food packaging and containers, and medical devices, in order to limit human exposure (Ionas et al., 2016). In addition, there are potential environment-related problems that can be caused by leaching (migration throughout the environment) and incineration (dioxin and furan production). For many years, PBDEs and polybrominated biphenyls were used in plastic casings and TBBPA in PCBs. The PBDE group of chemicals consists of three main formulationsdpentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDEdwith octa and deca being favored for electronics and penta for furniture and foam applications. They consist of a halogenated structure, which is relatively low cost to manufacture, compared to the use of other fire-resistant materials. The formulations penta and octaBDE were banned in Europe back in 2003, because of their persistence, bioaccumulative and toxic nature (Directive 2002/95/EC). Deca BDE eventually followed suit in 2013. As these compounds were being phased out, HBCDD became more common, but it too has been banned in Europe (since 2014). Due to the lifetime of some electronic products, the presence of these brominated flame retardants in WEEE is still prevalentdso much so that they are not safely being disposed of and are ending up in sensitive new applications (Guzzonato et al., 2017). In addition, the use of polytetrafluoroethylene, commonly known as PTFE, used in the high-frequency PCB substrates, is beginning to undergo review by the International Electrotechnical Commission and is likely to be prohibited in electronics by the Technical Committee 111. PTFE is considered

8.6 New materials and their implications 247

to be a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical affecting humans and the environment; its use has been prohibited from many other applications (nonstick frying pans, food products, clothing, etc.), and its elimination from electronics supports the reduction of its release to the environment and movement to make electronics halogen-free. Light-emitting diodes were first demonstrated in the 1950s, but in the last 5 years they have become much lower priced and more widely used. They have now replaced conventional light sources in a wide range of applications from domestic luminaires to car headlights. LEDs are effectively solid-state equivalents of miniature light bulbs that are available with a range of light outputs (colors) and that have extremely good reliability with long service lives. These LEDs come in many forms and are employed in different ways, depending on the preference of the manufacturer and the specific product. From an environmental perspective, LED lighting is considered to be more sustainable, as it offers greatly enhanced operational lifetimes and better energy efficiency. Also, LEDs do not contain mercury. However, LEDs do contain other elements with questionable environmental credentials, specific examples being gallium and arsenic. This means that there are issues to be addressed regarding these materials when undertaking recycling operations at end of life. LED lights are primarily semiconductors, with the addition of europium, yttrium, gallium, germanium, and indium to provide different colors. The use of LED lighting is much less energy intensive than incandescent and fluorescent lighting, but currently the use of critical raw materials means that their high demand may impact the scarcity of these elements, and alternatives should be sought (Pavel et al., 2016). To deal with recycling issues, LEDs have been allowed to be recycled with gas diffusion lighting, as it only represents 1% of the end-of-life lighting market RECOLIGHT1. However, they are considered to be WEEE (along with fluorescent and gas discharge lamps) and require careful recycling because of their nickel content, as well as possible lead and arsenic, used to produce color. LED lights contain PCBs used to control the circuits and supply electricity to each diode chip, and they also include the glass bulb cover, silicone rubbers, a metal holder used to hold the LEDs in place, and a plastic casing. Separation of these materials is relatively simple, and could be conducted manually, with over 95% of the content being recyclable. However, automated techniques tend to see bulbs crushed and separated using a series of physical separation techniques, including a bar scree, magnetic field, and a gravimetric separator for nonferrous metal separation.

248 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

RECOLIGHT1 and LUMICOM2 are compliance schemes set up by the industry to provide support for the recycling of “WEEE” lighting. The compliance scheme is in place to support recyclers as recycling costs are no longer covered by the WEEE scheme. A further challenge to recyclers is presented through the presence of noncompliant LEDs (sold by companies that are not WEEE registered), which have been estimated at as much as 20% of the UK market. For the future it seems likely that OLEDs will ultimately displace LCDs in a similar manner to how LCDs replaced CRTs. The most immediate new display technology that is currently beginning to be introduced commercially for large area displays is based on the use of OLEDs, and it has been predicted that, by 2020, the use of OLED displays for TVs will be greater than that of LCDs. Using the same technology, OLED lighting is likely to replace LED light bulbs in the mid-term (2025, Pavel et al., 2016). OLEDs are a type of LED in which the emissive electroluminescent layer is formed from a film of organic compounds, as opposed to conventional LEDs, which utilize compound inorganic semiconductor materials. Their key advantage is that, because the OLED structure emits light, there is no need for a backlight in typical display applications. There are two types of OLEDs from a materials perspective: those based on small organic molecules and those that use polymers. OLEDs offer a number of other advantages for displays, but they have also exhibited a number of disadvantages, such as sensitivity to moisture and a reduced light output capability, both of which have received considerable attention in recent years in an attempt to extend their longevity and improve their performance. OLEDs will enable display technology to move to very thin lightweight displays, which may also be operated using organic thin film transistors, and this could ultimately lead to far fewer materials being required for a given display area than is currently the case. Another display technology, which has received much attention and has moved to commercial exploitation since the original version of this chapter was written, is based on the use of quantum dots. A quantum dot is a type of semiconductor material with electronic properties somewhere between those of bulk semiconductors and discrete molecules. There has been a lot of recent interest in using quantum dots as LEDs to make displays (QD-LEDs) and other light sources. The first proof-of-concept quantum dot display was produced over 10 years ago (Nanowerk News, 2006), and quantum dots are increasingly being considered important materials for

1 2

https://www.recolight.co.uk. http://www.lumicom.co.uk/.

8.6 New materials and their implications 249

Table 8.2 Posttreatment heavy metal contamination in standard e-scrap and LCD displays (author’s unpublished data) Material

Mercury (ppm)

Cadmium (ppm)

Lead (ppm)

Low-grade steel LCD steel Low-grade aluminum LCD aluminum Low-grade waste LCD waste

1000 3000 153 25 46 66

1000 3000 153 25 46 66

510 1800 25 19 59 22

future displays. There have been various display products designed that use quantum dots and, as they can be made to emit white light, they have found use as backlight light sources for conventional LCDs. For example, quantum dots have been utilized to enhance the performance of backlighting for LCDs. In this case the quantum dots were used to convert the output of a blue LED to relatively pure red and green light, so that this combination of blue, green, and red light experienced less absorption of unwanted colors by the filters found behind the liquid crystal part of the display. By using this type of approach, it is possible to provide better light throughput and enhanced image colors. Sony began offering this technology in some of its TVs in 2013, and by 2015 several companies, including Sony, LG, and Samsung, were offering TVs that used quantum doteenhanced LED backlighting. While this approach does enable display technology to improve, it is an iteration of the conventional liquid crystal display. For the future, it is possible that there may be quantum dot LED displays, but at the time of writing these still seem to be laboratory based (Table 8.2). The materials originally used to produce quantum dots have often included materials such as cadmium, e.g., cadmium selenide and cadmium sulfide, which are now effectively proscribed in many applications including consumer electronics. Consequently, alternative materials will be needed before they can be widely used in displays, and there are reports of a range of quantum dots having been produced that are free of restricted and hazardous materials (Lim et al., 2013); see, for example, the website of the company Nanoco,3 which claims to have developed a range of restricted metal-free quantum dots that show bright emission in the visible and near infrared. At a perhaps more prosaic level, there have been moves to develop new polymers for electrical and electronics applications that are not derived 3

Nanoco Ltd., www.nanocotechnologies.com.

250 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

from petrochemical-based precursors. A well-established biodegradable polymer that has received a lot of attention in recent years is polylactic acid (PLA). This is a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester that is derived from renewable resources, including corn starch, wheat, and sugar cane. Over the years there have been a number of attempts to replace the conventional plastics used in mobile phone and laptop cases with more sustainable materials, such as PLA. For example, the NEC Corporation developed a flame-resistant biodegradable PLA resin that avoided the use of halogen or phosphorus-based flame retardants and, instead, used a proprietary metal hydroxide. More recently, Chinese researchers have developed degradable PLA/metaleorganic framework nanocomposites that demonstrated good mechanical, flame-retardant, and dielectric properties for the fabrication of disposable electronics (Shi et al., 2017). However, if new materials such as PLA do find increasing use in electrical and electronic applications, there are likely to be issues around how they are best treated at end of life. Concerns have already been voiced that PLA has not yet been properly tested for recyclability and that it could be detrimental to the established recycling systems currently in use for the more traditional range of polymers. There are several ways that the PLA from end-of-life products can be processed. For example, it could be landfilled, combusted, composted, or, ideally, recycled. It has been reported in a European study that the environmental impact of recycling PLA is more than 50 times better than composting and 16 times better than combusting it. Interestingly, the widespread use of PLA in 3D printing applications has encouraged a lot of new dialogue about the possibilities for recycling and reusing the material, and one recent example was the recycling and remanufacturing of 3Dprinted continuous carbon fiberereinforced PLA composites (Tian et al., 2017). 3D printing is another new technology that requires new materials and is becoming a ubiquitous tool for fabricating prototype and small production run devices and components for a wide range of applications including specialized electronic components and devices. For example, PLA- and ABS-based filaments are finding their way into microwave electronics research where they are being deployed as either substrates (Ketterl et al., 2015) or for the rapid prototyping of waveguide structures (Cadman et al., 2017). While the microwave properties of the standard materials are not yet optimal, particularly in terms of loss, new types of filaments are beginning to emerge specifically for this specialized area of electronics, albeit at present in ABS. In 2016, the Voxel8 company released a “Developers Kit” that enables the fabrication of 3D-printed PLA structures with embedded highly conductive silver ink features. This has enabled the UK’s EPSRC-funded research project, SYMETA (www.symeta.co.uk), to

8.6 New materials and their implications 251

explore the creation of metamaterial-based RF substrates using PLA with its dielectric properties modified via the inclusion of silver cubes (Njoku et al., 2011). This is just one example of the many and varied types of advanced electronics applications that can use PLA and similar materials via 3D printing. Consequently, it will be essential that appropriate end-of-life strategies are developed for handling these types of components and devices. There are concerns about the finite supply of a number of key materials used in electronics applications, and, in addition to the development of new recovery methods, there is also research work underway to develop alternative materials; see, for example, the Critical Metals in End-of-Life Products (Punkkinen et al., 2017). A detailed review of the research is beyond the scope of this chapter, but an example worth citing is that of indium, which has a number of key applications in electronics, as described above. Indium is used in indium tin oxide, which is the transparent conductive film found in many displays; to give an indication of the scale of the demand for this metal, the total transparent conductor market is projected to have a value of w$8.5 billion by 2026, showing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of more than 9% from 2016 to 2026. Although indium-based films will continue to have a major role, researchers have been working to develop alternative materials, and it is estimated that the market for materials to replace indium tin oxide is already approaching a value of $2 billion (prediction for 2018). In addition to providing direct replacements for indium, it is hoped that some of the new materials will have enhanced properties, e.g., there is a need for more flexible transparent conductors that can be used in plastic electronics applications. The key properties that are important with these types of film are transparency, conductivity, flexibility/resiliency, and cost. One approach is to produce alternative oxide materials such as antimony tin oxide, but these tend to exhibit the same issues as indium tin oxide, and so intrinsically conductive polymers and nanomaterials such as those employing graphene are also being developed. Some examples of potential replacements for indium tin oxide are as follows: n

n

n

Antimony tin oxideda lower cost, indium-free oxide material, but which still exhibits the same problems, e.g., lack of flexibility. PEDOT/PSSda conducting polymer made from polyethylene dioxythiophene and polystyrene sulfonic acid, which is highly transparent but needs conductivity enhancements to equal the performance of indium tin oxide. Carbon nanotubesdthese nanomaterials are solution based and are thus easier and cheaper than ITO to deposit on glass and plastic surfaces. A transparent tangled mat only a few nanometers thick can provide similar conductivity to indium tin oxide.

252 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

If, as predicted, there is continuing use of these types of new materials to replace indium tin oxide, there could be new issues to be addressed as products containing them reach end of life. Although the use of conducting polymers may not present a major problem, the presence of antimony may require more attention, and there are also concerns about the potential health and safety impacts of carbon nanotubes (Kolosnjaj-Tabi et al., 2017).

8.7 RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Much of the legislation that has been introduced to address the problems of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment has focused on the waste of valuable resources and the need to recycle and recover rather than consign to landfill. Consequently, the legislation has set increasingly stringent recycling targets in terms of the actual amounts of waste that have to be addressed. While there has also been complementary legislation to proscribe the use of certain hazardous materials such as lead and a range of brominated flame retardants, the broader environmental impacts caused by the end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment have been less well considered. This is increasingly important because the global volumes of WEEE are continuing to grow each year and because there are concerns that only a relatively small proportion of it is treated in the most beneficial and benign manner. Worldwide e-waste generation is expected to be almost 50 million tons in 2018 with recent annual growth rates between 4% and 5%. This means that growing volumes of WEEE are still having a significant environmental impact, especially as large quantities are reported to be falling outside the officially approved processing and treatment routes. For example, an EU-funded project, “Countering WEEE Illegal Trade” (CWIT) (Huisman et al., 2015), found that in 2012 around 4.7 million tons of WEEE was wrongfully mismanaged or illegally traded within Europe alone. It has been estimated that less than 30% of global e-waste is handled via the accepted best practice recycling channels. Given that the amounts of WEEE will continue to grow in the future, it is becoming increasingly important that this waste stream is treated in a truly holistic way that realizes all of the available benefits of moving from landfill to recycling, while also minimizing the negative environmental impacts. To date the focus has often been on simply reducing the amounts of WEEE destined for landfill rather than considering the overall environmental impacts. There are a wide range of collection and treatment approaches that can be adopted, and they vary in complexity. It is increasingly becoming

8.7 Recycling and environmental impacts 253

clear that some of these processes themselves may also have a negative environmental impact (Tansel, 2017). For example, the European legislation has led to the creation of new logistics networks for collecting WEEE, and it has been found that under certain circumstances, the environmental impact of these networks can be higher than the impact of noncollection (Barba-Guitérrez et al., 2008). The legislative drive is material centric (Williams, 2016), often incentivizing recovery of plastics, copper, iron, and steel (c. 80% by weight (Bigum et al., 2012)), but a typical smartphone can contain over 40 different materials. Many of these are not targeted by recycling as they contribute little toward reaching the legislative recycling (weight) targets and require too many additional recycling steps to make the process economical (e.g., Bigum et al. (2012) estimated palladium recovery costs of almost US$6000 per kg of waste material). However, from an environmental perspective, more significant environmental savings can be achieved by aiming to recycle critical raw materials (as stated by the Raw Materials Initiative, a three pillared strategy adopted by the EU in 20084) such as platinum group metals and rare earth elements, present at low concentrations in electronic components (Nelen et al., 2014; Tansel, 2017). Anthropogenic mining for CRMs is 2e20 times less energy intensive per kg than geological mining (van der Voet et al., 2013). However, the environmental impact is often not matched by the economic savings. In a life cycle assessment commissioned by Fairphone (2017), recycling impacts were assessed. The optimal process was dismantling and selective smelting, compared to direct smelting, or shredding, physical preprocessing, and metallurgy. Using this method, metal losses were below 4% and global warming potential was the lowest for the three processes. Despite this, less than 40% of the materials in the phones were recovered. This recovery figure demonstrates the issue of recycling by weight, as the majority of the phone can be classified as recycled, by simply utilizing the materials as a fuel source. Yet, the benefit of material recovery, be it just one-third of the product’s weight, has a much more significant outcome on the impact of recycling. There are challenges though to recovering these materials from high-grade electronic products, and much of this is to do with the ability to dismantle goods and the prevention of waste. The Fairphone is designed in modules, but the majority of consumer goods are designed for aesthetic benefits. This can result in large resources of labor being required to dismantle electronic goods, and especially in Europe, the economic return does not support this. Therefore, there is considerable pressure on original equipment manufacturers to adopt “design for disassembly” and “waste prevention through 4

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/policy-strategy_en.

254 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

design,” and more recently “design for remanufacturing.” The benefits of quick disassembly methods to separate materials directly affects the economic return and encourages recyclers to segregate materials for higher value waste streams. In addition, the presence of multiple metals in mechanically separated streams poses a challenge to their separation and production of high-grade secondary raw materials (Uberschaar et al., 2017) using hydro- or pyrometallurgical processing. However, the benefits of design in minimizing the use of materials, optimizing the type and range of materials used, as well as how materials are recovered, can have huge impacts on the outcome of recycling. Moreover, negating the need for recycling is the best method to reduce environmental impacts, extending the lifetime of a product through reuse, and remanufacturing has the smallest impact of all (Rodriuez-Garcia and Well, 2016). Whilst Directive 2009/125/EC (EcoDesign) is in place to encourage this, the relatively cheap movement of WEEE to regions with low operational costs has not incentivized local recycling in Europe or North America, but, research (Soo and Doolan, 2014) suggests that environmental benefits offered by recycling can be negated by the impact of shipping waste. After recent developments by China (which takes 70% of electronic waste globally (Zhang et al., 2012)) to restrict scrap imports to the country, many WEEE recyclers may need to address recycling on a more local basis, and examine WEEE for the hidden value, which is currently lost.

8.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The development and implementation of new materials have been key factors enabling the continued wide proliferation of electrical and electronic products in all walks of life. However, the large volumes produced have also resulted in the emergence of huge quantities of waste materials being generated when they reach end of life. This has major environmental and sustainability implications, and there has long been a need to apply new materials management approaches to end-of-life waste electrical and electronic products. The implementation of producer responsibility legislation such as the WEEE and RoHS Directives forced electronics and electrical equipment producers to consider end-of-life implications at the design stage of their products. This has resulted both in a change in the types and quantities of materials used in electrical and electronic products and in the approaches required at end of life to enable better recycling rates to be achieved. However, there is still progress to be made, and, as both new materials and products are introduced on a commercial scale, new recycling and recovery methods will be needed. This need is also being

8.9 Sources of further information and advice 255

compounded by an acknowledgement that some materials of critical and strategic importance are also in finite or controlled supply, yet they are present in WEEE. New materials are continuing to emerge that enable improved product performance, as well as reduced environmental impact from a life cycle perspective, and this trend is likely to continue as consumers demand new products and as legislation proscribes the use of conventional materials. It will be important to ensure that viable end-of-life treatment and recovery technologies are available to handle both these new materials and to enable the recovery of valuable materials that are in finite supply from primary sources.

8.9 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE There are numerous sources of further information relating to the specific materials-related contents of this chapter, and some useful examples follow. In the United Kingdom, the Environment Agency is a public body whose principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of government. The Environment Agency provides information and advice on complying with the WEEE Regulations to producers of electrical or electronic equipment and the waste management industry. There is a large amount of information on its website; see, for example, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/electrical-and-electronicequipment-eee-producer-responsibility. Also in the United Kingdom, the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has supported work into the recycling of materials from electronics waste, and more details, including downloadable versions of reports, can be obtained by visiting their website at www.wrap.org.uk and especially at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/category/materials-and-products/electrical-andelectronic-goods. Another key organization involved with end-of-life electronics and materials recycling is the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER). ICER is a cross-industry association focusing on WEEE, and it is a source of knowledge and expertise, as well as being the key forum for industry. ICER members include equipment producers, retailers, waste management companies, WEEE treatment facilities (recyclers), and producer compliance schemes. More information can be found at the ICER website: www.icer.org.uk.

256 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

A UK company that has been actively involved in the recycling of plastics from WEEE is Axion Polymers Ltd, Langley Road South, Salford, Manchester, M6 6HQ. Visit http://axiongroup.co.uk/products/recycled-plastics/ for more details. Information on the REACH Regulations is available from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is based at Annankatu 1800120 Helsinki, Finland. Information is also available at the ECHA website: http:// www.echa.europa.eu. In Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information and advice on environmental legislation such as the WEEE and RoHS Directives. The EPA is headquartered at P.O. Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, County Wexford, Ireland, and further information is also available at the EPA website; http://www.epa.ie. Another good source of information on all aspects of electronics waste and related materials can be found in the proceedings of the biannual Joint International Congress and Exhibition known as “Electronics Goes Green.” The proceedings are published by Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. An example is the proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green 2008 Joint International Congress and Exhibition e Merging Technology and Sustainable Development edited by Herbert Reichl, Nils Nissen, Jutta Müller, and Otmar Deubzer, ISBN 978-3-8167-7668-0, and available from Fraunhofer Institut Zuverlässigkeit und Mikrointegration (IZM), Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, 13355 Berlin, Germany (see http://www. electronicsgoesgreen.org). Greenpeace International has been very active in highlighting the global issues associated with end-of-life electronics and in promoting best practice in recovery and recycling of materials. It provides a wide range of useful information on greener electronics on its website. See, for example, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to educate consumers and others about the reuse and recycling of electronics. See, for example: https://www.epa.gov/recycle. The Japanese electronics company Panasonic (Matsushita) has taken a proactive approach to the recovery and recycling of materials from end-of-life electronics, and in Japan, it operates the PETEC facility (Panasonic Eco Technology Centre). See http://panasonic.net/eco/petec for more information.

References 257

Innovative technologies for recycling WEEE and batteries are currently under development across the United Kingdom. These processes look toward achieving zero waste, and focuses on the recovery of critical raw materials, rare earth elements, and high value metals, as well as separating materials for selective recovery. Two such projects are the CoLaBATS FP7 project, and the PLATIRUS H2020 project. The CoLaBATS project has developed selective recovery of cobalt, lanthanum, cerium, copper, nickel, and other materials from waste batteries (www.colabats.eu), whilst the PLATIRUS technology is developing a novel small-scale recycling pilot for recovering platinum and other critical raw materials from electronic waste (www. platirus.eu).

REFERENCES Abassi, G., Saini, A., Goosey, E., Diamond, M.L., 2016. Product screening for source of halogenated flame retardants in Canadian house and office dust. The Science of the Total Environment 545, 299e307. Amato, A., Rocchetti, L., Beolchini, F., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of different end-of-life LCD management strategies. Waste Management 59, 432e441. Amato, A., Rocchetti, L., Fonti, V., Abo Atia, T., Altimari, P., Moscardini, E., Toro, L., Pagnanelli, F., Beolchini, F., 2016. Recovery of critical metal from LCDs and Liion batteries. In: Electronics Goes Green 2016þ Proceedings, ISBN 978-3-00053763-9. Andersson, M., Soderman, M.L., Sanden, B.A., 2016. Are scarce metal in cars functionally recycled? Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.031. Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., Recchioni, M., 2014. Recycling of electronic displays: analysis of pre-processing and potential ecodesign improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92, 158e171. Arduin, R.H., Charbuillet, C., Berthoud, F., Perry, N., 2016. What are the environmental benefits of increasing the WEEE treatment in France?. In: Electronics Goes Green 2016þ Proceedings, ISBN 978-1-5090-5208-0. Baawain, M., Al-Mamun, A.B., Omidvarborna, H., Al-Amri, W., 2017. Ultimate composition analysis of municipal solid waste in Muscat. Journal of Cleaner Production 148, 355e362. Barba-Gutiérrez, Y., Adenso-Díazb, B., Hopp, M., 2008. An analysis of some environmental consequences of European electrical and electronic waste regulation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 481e495. Barbier, S., Perrier, S., Freyermuth, P., Perrin, D., Gallard, B., Gilon, N., 2013. Plastic identification based on molecular and elemental information from laser induced breakdown spectra: a comparison of plasma conditions in view of efficient sorting. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 88, 167e173. Bigum, M., Brogaard, L., Christensen, T.H., 2012. Metal recovery from high-grade WEEE: a life cycle assessment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 207e208, 8e14.

258 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Bovea, M.D., Perez-Belis, V., Ibanez-Fores, V., Quermades-Beltran, P., 2016. Disassembly properties and material characterization of household small waste electric and electronic equipment. Waste Management 53, 225e236. Cadman, D., Shiyu, Z., Vardaxoglou, J.C., 2017. Rapid prototyping of waveguide and horn antennas. In: Presented at the 11th European Conference on Antennas & Propagation (EUCAP 2017), Paris, 19-24th March. Catelli de Souza, A.M., Cucchiara, M.G., Ereio, A.V., 2016. Abs/HIPS blends obtained from WEEE: influence of processing conditions and composition. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 133, 34. Cesaro, A., Marra, A., Belgiorno, V., Guida, M., 2016. Effectiveness of WEEE mechanical treatment: separation yields and recovered material toxicity. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 2656e2662. Chancerel, P., Marwedem, M., Nissen, N.F., Lang, K.D., 2015. Estimating the quantities of critical metals embedded in ICT and consumer equipment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 98, 9e18. Charles, R.,G., Douglas, P., Hallin, I.H., Matthews, I., Liversage, G., 2017. An investigation of trends in precious metal and copper content of RAM modules in WEEE: implications for long term recycling potential. Waste Management 60, 505e520. Chem Trust, 2017. No Brainer: the impact of chemicals on Children’s brain development: a cause for concern and a need for action. Chem Trust accessed at: www.chemtrust.org. uk/brain. Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S.C., Rosa, P., 2015. Recycling of WEEEs: an economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51, 263e272. Fairphone’s Report on Recyclability: Does Modularity Contribute to Better Recovery of Materials?, 2017. Fairphone. Available online at: https://www.fairphone.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/FairphoneRecyclabilityReport022017.pdf. Fernandez, M.R., Casanova, E.Z., Alonso, I.G., 2015. Review of display technologies focusing on power consumption. Sustainability 7, 10854e10875. Fh-ICT, December 2001. High Quality Plastic Materials from Electronic Wastes by Use of Combined Identification Methods and New Handling Technologies. COMBIDENT Final Technical Report, EU Contract No BRPR-CT98-0778 (undertaken by the Fraunhofer-Institut für Chemische Technologie, Pfinztal, Germany). Fraunhofer, I.S.E., 2017. In: Photovoltaics Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ISE, with Support of PSE AG, Freiburg, 12 July 2017. Accessed online at: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/ Photovoltaics-Report.pdf. Fuscaldo, D., 2017. Samsung to Open World’s Largest OLED Factory. Investopedia, June 30th 2017 Accessed online on 15th August 2017 at: www.investopedia.com/news/ samsung-open-worlds-largest-oled-factory/. Gallen, C., Banks, A., Brandsma, S., Baduel, C., Thai, P., Eaglesham, G., Heffernan, A., Leonards, P., Bainton, P., Mueller, J.F., 2014. Towards development of a rapid and effective non-destructive testing strategy to identify brominated flame retardants in the plastics of consumer products. The Science of the Total Environment 491, 255e265.

References 259

Goosey M. T. and Kellner P. R., reportEnd of Life Printed Circuit Boards, a Scoping Study Report for the DTI (August 2002), Available for download; http://www.cfsd.org.uk/ seeba/TD/reports/PCB_Study.pdf (accessed 3 May 2011). Goosey, M.T., Stevens, G.C., 2009. Materials used in manufacturing electrical and electronic products. In: Hester, R.E., Harrison, R.M. (Eds.), Chapter 2 in Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 27; Electronic Waste Management. Royal Society of Chemistry, ISBN 978-0-85404-112-1. Gotze, R., Boldrin, A., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Physico-chemical characterization of material fractions in household waste: overview of data in literature. Waste Management 49, 3e14. Guzzonato, A., Puype, F., Harrad, S.J., 2017. Evidence of bad recycling practices: BFRs in children’s toys and food-contact articles. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 19, 956e963. Habib, K., Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2015. Tracking the end-of-life flow of resources in electronic waste e the case of computer hard disk drives. Environmental Science and Technology 49, 12441e12449. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02264. Holgersson, S., Steenari, B-M., Björkman, M., Cullbrand, K., 2017. Analysis of the metal content of small-size Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) printed circuit boardsdpart 1: Internet routers, mobile phones and smartphones. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 133 (June 2018), 300e308. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2017.02.011. Huisman, J., Botezatu, I., Herreras, L., Liddane, M., Hintsa, J., Luda di Cortemiglia, V., Leroy, P., Vermeersch, E., Mohanty, S., van den Brink, S., Ghenciu, B., Dimitrova, D., Nash, E., Shryane, T., Wieting, M., Kehoe, J., Baldé, C.P., Magalini, F., Zanasi, A., Ruini, F., Bonzio, A., 2015. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime. Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap, August 30, 2015, Lyon, France. ISBN Print: 978-92-808-4559-4 ISBN Electronic: 978-92-808-4560-0, Report available at: http://www.cwitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CWIT-FinalSummary1.pdf. Iannicello-Zubiani, E.M., Cristiani, C., Dotelli, G., Stampino, P.G., 2016. Recovery of valuable metals from electronic scraps by clays and organo-clays: study on bi-ionic model solutions. Waste Management 60, 582e590. Ionas, A.C., Ulevicius, J., Gomez, A.B., Brandsma, S.H., Leonards, P.E., Van De Bor, M., Covaci, A., 2016. Children’s exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) through mouthing toys. Environment International 87, 101e107. IRENA, 2016. Solar PV in Africa: Costs and Markets. International Renewable Energy Agency, ISBN 978-92-95111-48-6. September 2016 (PDF). Japan’s Plastic Waste Management Institute, 2016. An Introduction to Plastic Recycling. Plastic Waste Management Institute. Accessed online at: http://www.pwmi.or.jp/ei/ plastic_recycling_2016.pdf. Ketterl, T.P., Vega, Y., Arnal, N.C., Stratton, J.W.I., Rojas-Nastrucci, E.A., CordbaErazo, M.F., Abdin, M.M., Perkowski, C.W., Defenbaugh, P.I., Church, K.H., Weller, T.M., 2015. A 2.45 GHz Phased Array Antenna Unit Cell Fabricated Using 3-D Multi-Layer Direct Digital Manufacturing. Kolosnjaj-Tabi, J., Szwarc, H., Moussa, F., 2017. Carbon nanotubes: culprit or witness of air pollution? Nano Today 15, 11e14.

260 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Lim, J., Park, M., Bae, W.K., Lee, D., Lee, C., Char, K., 2013. Highly efficient cadmiumfree quantum dot light-emitting diodes enabled by the direct formation of excitons within InP@ZnSeS quantum dots. ACS Nano 7, 9019e9026. Long, E., Kokke, S., Lundie, D., Shaw, N., Ijomah, W., Kao, C.C., 2016. Technical solutions to improve global sustainable management of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in the EU and China. Journal of Remanufacturing 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1 3243-015-0023-6. Maris, E., Botane, P., Wavrer, P., Froelich, D., 2015. Characterizing plastics originating from WEEE: a case study in France. Minerals Engineering 76, 28e37. Martinho, G., Pires, A., Saraiva, L., Ribeiro, R., 2012. Composition of plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by direct sampling. Waste Management 32, 1213e1217. Menad, N., Guignot, S., Houwelingen, J.A., 2013. New characterization method of electrical and electronic equipment wastes (WEEE). Waste Management 33, 706e713. Menad, N., Kanari, N., Menard, Y., Villeneuve, J., 2016. Process simulator and environmental assessment of the innovative WEEE treatment process. International Journal of Mineral Processing 148, 92e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2016.01.018. Mmereki, D., Li, B., Baldwin, A., Hong, L., 2016. The generation, composition, collection, treatment and disposal system and impact of e-waste. In: Mihai, F.-C. (Ed.), Chapter 4 in E-Waste in Transition e from Pollution to Resource, ISBN 978-953-51-2500-6. Mueller, S.R., Wager, P.A., Widmer, R., Williams, I.D., 2015. A geological reconnaissance of electrical and electronic waste as a source for rare earth metals. Waste Management 45, 226e234. Nanoco: website: http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/content/AdvancedMaterials/ CadmiumFreeQuantumDotsQFQDHeavyMetalFree.aspx. Nanowerk News, June 23, 2006. First Quantum Dot Display Manufactured. http://www. nanowerk.com/news/newsid¼593.php. Nelen, D., Manshoven, S., Peeters, J.F., Vanegas, P., D’Haese, Vrancken, K., 2014. A multidimensional indicator set to assess the benefits of WEEE material recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production 83, 305e316. Njoku, C.C., Whittow, W.G., Vardaxoglou, J.C., 2011. Effective permittivity of heterogeneous substrates with cubes in a 3-D lattice. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propogation Letters (Special Issue on Metamaterials) 10, 1480e1483. Parajuly, K., Habib, K., Cimpan, C., Liu, G., Wenzel, H., 2016. End-of-life resource recovery from emerging electronic products e a case study of robotic vacuum cleaners. Journal of Cleaner Production 137, 652e666. Parajuly, K., Habib, K., Liu, G., 2017. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Denmark: flows, quantities and management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 123, 85e92. Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2017a. Potential for circular economy in household WEEE management. Journal of Cleaner Production 151, 272e285. Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2017b. Product family approach in E-waste management: a conceptual framework for circular economy. Sustainability 9, 768. Pavel, C.C., Marmier, A., Tzimas, E., Schleicher, T., Schuler, D., Buchert, M., Blagoeva, D., 2016. Critical raw materials in lighting applications: substitution opportunities and implication on their demand. Physica Status Solidi A 213 (11), 2937e2946. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201600594.

References 261

Perez-Belis, V., Bovea, M.D., Ibanez-Fores, V., 2015. An in-depth literature review of the waste electrical and electronic equipment context: trends and evolution. Waste Management and Research 33, 3e29. Punkkinen, H., Mroueh, U.M., Wahlstrom, M., Youhannan, L., Stenmarck, A., 2017. Critical Metals in End-of-life Products: Recovery Potential and Opportunities for Removal of Bottlenecks in Recycling, ISBN 978-92-893-4990-1 (TemaNord). Rahimi, A., Garcia, J.M., 2017. Chemical recycling of waste plastics for new materials production. Nature Reviews 1. Rodriguez- Garcia, G., Well, M., 2016. Life cycle assessment in WEEE recycling. In: Chagnes, A., Cote, G., Ekberg, C., Nilsson, M., Retegan, T. (Eds.), WEEE Recycling: Research, Development, and Politics. Elsevier, pp. 177e208. Salhofer, S., Steuer, B., Ramusch, R., Beigl, P., 2015. WEEE management in Europe and China e a comparison. Waste Management 57, 27e35. https://doi.org/10.1021/ es501572z. Schlummer, M., Vogelsang, J., Fiedler, D., Gruber, L., Wolz, G., 2015. Rapid identification of polystyrene foam wastes containing hexabromocyclododecane or its alternative polymeric brominated flame retardant by X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. Waste Management and Research 33, 662e670. Scruggs, C.E., Nimpuno, N., Moore, R.B.B., 2016. Improving information flow on chemicals in electronics products and E-waste to minimize negative consequences for health and the environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 113, 149e164. Serensen, S.,Y., Johansen, K.D., Rytz, B.K., Malmgren-Hansen, B., Fischer, C.H., Borggard, C., 2015. Danish WEEE Market. Danish Protection Agency, ISBN 97887-93283-63-3. Available online: www.mst.dk/english. Shi, X., Dai, X., Jiawei Li, Y.C., Huo, C., Wang, H., 2017. Degradable poly(lactic acid)/ metaleorganic framework nanocomposites exhibiting good mechanical, flame retardant, and dielectric properties for the fabrication of disposable electronics. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 56, 3887e3894. Sober, D., Tisdale, S., 2017. PTFE is about to be Banned by IEC TC111. I Connect007, 0710-2017 (Available online: iconnect007.com/printfn/print.php?cdrID¼105218). Sommer, P., Rotter, V.S., Ueberschaar, M., 2015. Battery related cobalt and REE flows in WEEE treatment. Waste Management 45, 298e305. Soo, V.K., Doolan, M., 2014. Recycling mobile phone impact on life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP 15, 263e271. Spercher, B., Kleijn, R., Kramer, G.J., 2014. Recycling potential of neodymium: the case of computer hard disk drives. Environmental Science and Technology 48, 9506e9513. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501572z. Suresh, S.S., Mohanty, S., Nayak, S.K., 2016. Composition analysis and characterization of waste polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recovered from data cables. Waste Management 60, 100e111. Tansel, B., 2017. From electronic consumer products to e-wastes: global outlook, waste quantities, recycling challenges. Environment International 98, 35e45. Than Truc, N.T., Lee, B.K., 2017. Selective separation of ABS/PC containing BFRs from ABSs mixture of WEEE developing hydrophilicity with ZnO coating under microwave treatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 329, 84e91.

262 CHAPTER 8 The materials of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Tian, T., Liu, T., Wang, Q., Dilmurat, A., Li, D., Ziegmann, G., 2017. Recycling and remanufacturing of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 1609e1618. Uebershaar, M., Geipiing, J., Zamzow, M., Flamme, S., Rotter, V.S., 2017. Assessment of element-specific recycling efficiency in WEEE pre-processing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 124, 25e41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Flame Retardants in Printed Circuit Boards; Final Report. EPA Publication 744-R-15-001. Accessed online at: https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pcb_final_report.pdf. van der Voet, E., Salminen, R., Eckelman, M., Norgate, T., Mudd, G., Hisschier, R., Spiker, J., Vijver, M., Sellnus, P., Posthuma, L., de Zwart, D., van de Meent, D., Reuter, M., Tikana, L., Valdiva, S., Wager, P., Hauschild, M.Z., de Koning, A., 2013. Environmental Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles. United Nations Environment Programme. http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/54666484/ Environmental_Challenges_Metals_Full_Report.pdf. VinylPlus, 2014. PVC Recycling Technologies. Vinyl Plus. Accessed online at: http:// www.vinylplus.eu/uploads/Modules/Documents/ok_brochure_pvc_14-03-2014.pdf. Williams, 2016. Chapter 3. Global Metal Reuse, and Formal and Informal Recycling from Electronic and Other High-tech Wastes. Izatt, Metal Sustainability, Global Challenges, Consequences and Prospects. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp. 52e84. WRAP, 2010. Demonstration of Flat Panel Display Recycling Technologies. WRAP. Accessed on line at: www.wrap.org.uk. Zeng, X., Gong, R., Chen, W.G., Li, J., 2016. Uncovering the recycling potential of “new” WEEE in China. Environmental Science and Technology 50, 1347e1358. Zeng, X., Li, J., 2016. Measuring the recyclability of e-waste: an innovative method and its implications. Journal of Cleaner Production 131, 156e162. Zhang, K., Schnoor, J.L., Zeng, E.Y., 2012. E-Waste Recycling: where does it go from here? Environmental Science and Technology 46, 10861e10867.

FURTHER READING Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available for download at: https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/weee-evidence-and-national-protocols-guidance/wasteelectrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee-evidence-and-national-protocols-guidance. Weee-forum, 2017. The WEEE Forum 15 years on!. Published online at. www.weeeforum.org. Nassar, N.T., 2015. Limitations to elemental substitution as exemplified by the platinumgroup metals. Green Chemistry 17, 2226e2235. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4gc02197e. Zhang, S., Ding, Y., Liu, B., Chang, C., 2017. Supply and demand of some critical metals and present status of their recycling in WEEE. Waste Management 65, 113e127. Zheng, Z., Li, J., 2014. Spent rechargeable lithium batteries in e-waste: composition and its implications. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering 8, 792e796. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0705-6.

Chapter

9

Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

W.L. Ijomah1, M. Danis2

1

2

The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Fujitsu Technology Solutions, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

9.1 Need for waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse 264 9.2 Reuse processes and their role in sustainable manufacturing 264 9.2.1 Component versus material reuse 264 9.2.2 A comparison of options in component reuse 266

9.3 Industry sector-specific example: refurbishment of computers 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3 9.3.4

269

Repair 269 Refurbishment 269 Remanufacture 270 Upgrade 271

9.4 Role of the third sector 271 9.5 Issues in waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse 272 9.5.1 Variability in standards and quality of refurbishment and reused products 272 9.5.2 Quality criteria for reuse and accreditation for reuse centers 273 9.5.3 Design issues in remanufacturing 274 9.5.4 Paradigm shifts affecting the use of refurbishment and reuse 275 9.5.5 Availability of information on product components, materials, and repair methods 275

9.6 Future trends 9.6.1 9.6.2 9.6.3 9.6.4 9.6.5

277

Legislation 277 Customer demand 277 Cost savings 279 Competition 279 New technologies 279

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00009-4 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

263

264 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

9.7 Summary of waste electrical and electronic equipment reuse and refurbishment 280 References 281

9.1 NEED FOR WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REFURBISHMENT AND REUSE Key manufacturing challenges include pollution, natural resource depletion, waste management, and landfill space, and increasingly severe legislation now demands a reduction in the environmental impacts of products and their manufacturing processes. The accelerating pace of technology effectively renders sectors of products obsolete almost as soon as they are purchased. This is especially true for electronic and electrical equipment, where ever-improving gadgets provide many benefits but unfortunately also now contribute toward these products becoming our most rapidly growing waste stream. The quantities of waste generated each year from electrical and electronic products will continue to rise (Ijomah and Chiodo, 2010). However, product life cycle analysis demonstrates that the disposal phase contributes substantially to the environmental impacts of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Hawken, 1993; EEC Council Directive on hazardous Waste, 1991; EEC Council Directive on hazardous Waste, 1994), particularly in products containing materials that are toxic, scarce or valuable, or have high energy content. Within WEEE there is a combination of all these situations, for example including batteries, quality plastics, precious metals, and toxic solder. Reuse and refurbishment of WEEE are therefore critical because of the significant environmental impacts of WEEE.

9.2 REUSE PROCESSES AND THEIR ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING 9.2.1 Component versus material reuse The general reuse strategies include recycling, repair, reconditioning, and remanufacturing; all are important sustainable manufacture strategies because they help to limit landfill and the need for virgin material use in production. Since they typically involve some degree of disassembly, they are also called disassembly processes. However, they are not all equal. Repair, reconditioning, and remanufacturing (also known as component reuse, product recovery, and secondary market processes)

9.2 Reuse processes and their role in sustainable manufacturing 265

are the various production processes that use components from used products and are preferable to recycling (material reclaim/recovery or material reuse). Recycling describes the series of activities by which discarded materials are collected, sorted, processed, and used to produce new products (NRC, 1999). Product recovery has several advantages over recycling (Ijomah, 2010): n

n

n

n

Product recovery is an “addition” process, whereas recycling is a “reduction” process because product recovery adds value to waste products by bringing them back to working order; recycling, on the other hand, reduces the product to its raw materials. Less of the energy and resources used in the product’s original manufacture is lost via product recovery. The reason here is that product recovery keeps products as whole as possible, thus retaining the energy and resources used during original manufacture. Recycling by reducing the product to raw material results in a loss of the bulk of energy and resource inputs. This loss is even greater if factors such as the resources and energy used in raw material extraction and transportation are included. Energy and resource expenditure to obtain a useful product again from the waste product is greater via the recycling approach. This is because with recycling, energy is expended twice: firstly, in “reducing” the product to raw material (e.g., by smelting), and secondly, in turning the reclaimed materials into useful products. Designers may be unwilling to use recycled material because they are unsure of the quality (Chick and Micklethwaite, 2002). The highest form of product recovery, remanufacture, is typically much more profitable than recycling, especially for large, complex, mechanical, and electromechanical products.

The decision to use product recovery should be carefully considered, as under certain circumstances it can be counterproductive to sustainable development, for example by assisting inefficient products to stay in circulation longer than may be desirable. This may occur after the market entry of newer-generation products that tend to be more environmentally friendly and cost-effective in operationdfor example, new-version washing machines typically require less water, detergent, and electricity. Ideally, product recovery should be used when it would be both profitable and environmentally beneficial to do so. Other issues to consider include the establishment of new business models that include an effective reverse logistics system to ensure adequate quantities of used products (cores) to support product recovery processes. The reason here is that used products are

266 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

the primary “raw material” source in product recovery: firstly, they cannot begin without used products to rebuild, and secondly, components to assist product rebuilding should ideally be obtained from failed similar products because using virgin components would raise production costs and hence product price. This is particularly important, as consumers will purchase recovered products only if they are significantly less expensive than new alternatives (Ijomah, 2002; Ijomah and Childe, 2007). Ensuring adequate core supply is especially difficult in the case of domestic products because it is impossible to have a definition or statement of lifetime for such products. The reason here is that it cannot be determined when the products will come to the end of their lives. This depends entirely on the consumer; some consumers may use their products only until a new version comes to market, while others use them as long as they will operate no matter the level of inefficiency. Product recovery processes should also ideally be relatively localized to avoid large carbon footprints from transportation if parts of the process were undertaken in different locations, or worse, used products were exported for processing and then imported back into the country of origin for sale. Within the product recovery processes there is a hierarchy based primarily on quality. Remanufacturing is at the top of this hierarchy because it is the only product recovery process that can bring used products to standards equal to those of the new alternative in terms of quality, performance, and warranty. The following section outlines the key differences between remanufacture and other product recovery processes and describes the major advantages of remanufacturing.

9.2.2 A comparison of options in component reuse The three major component reuse options are not equal but rather exist on a hierarchy with remanufacture at the top, followed by reconditioning and then repair. Remanufacturing is the process of returning a used product to at least its original performance specifications from a customer perspective and giving the resultant product a warranty at least equal to that of a newly manufactured equivalent (Ijomah, 2002; Ijomah et al., 2004). Currently, remanufacturing is typically profitable for large, complex mechanical and electromechanical products with highly stable product and process technologies (Ijomah, 2002; Ijomah et al., 2007a) as well as materials and components that are costly to manufacture or may become costly in the future. The value of reusing these products’ components relative to the cost of disassembly makes manual disassembly worthwhile and enables the profitable remanufacture of these products.

9.2 Reuse processes and their role in sustainable manufacturing 267

Remanufacturing can be differentiated from repair and reconditioning in four key ways (Ijomah, 2002): n

n

n

n

Remanufactured products have warranties equal to those of new alternatives, whereas repaired and reconditioned products have inferior guarantees. With reconditioning, the warranty typically applies to all major wearing parts, whereas for repair it applies only to the component that has been repaired. Remanufacturing generally involves greater work content than that of the other two processes, and as a result its products tend to have superior quality and performance. Remanufactured products lose their identity, whereas repaired and reconditioned products retain theirs, because in remanufacturing all product components are assessed, and those that cannot be brought back to at least their original performance specifications are replaced with new components. Remanufacture may involve upgrading a used product beyond its original specifications, which does not occur with repair and reconditioning.

Table 9.1 defines and differentiates repair, reconditioning, and remanufacturing. Fig. 9.1 shows the three processes on a hierarchy based on the work content they typically require, the performance to be obtained from them, and the value of the warranty they normally carry. The key advantage of remanufacturing over reconditioning and repair is that it permits an organization to combine the key order winners of low price and product quality, especially because remanufacturing includes increasing the performance and quality of a used product beyond its standards when new. This ability of remanufacturing to deliver high quality is

Table 9.1 Definitions of Secondary Market Processes (Ijomah, 2002; BSI, 2010) Remanufacturing

Reconditioning

Repair

The process of returning a used product to at least the original equipment manufacturer’s performance specifications from a customer perspective and giving the resultant product a warranty at least equal to that of a newly manufactured equivalent. The process of returning a used product to a satisfactory working condition that may be inferior to the original specifications. Generally, the resultant product has a warranty that is less than that of a newly manufactured equivalent. The warranty applies to all major wearing parts. Repairing is simply the correction of specified faults in a product. Generally, the quality of a repaired product is inferior to that of the remanufactured and reconditioned alternative. When repaired products have warranties, they are less than those of newly manufactured equivalents. Also, the warranty may not cover the whole product but only the component that has been repaired.

268 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Work content

Warranty

Performance

Key: Remanufacturing Reconditioning Repairing n FIGURE 9.1 The hierarchy of secondary market production processes (Ijomah, 2002).

especially important to “A” class manufacturers and “customers” who value the reputation of their service and brand name above a low product cost. Xerox is a key example of successful remanufacture because its copiers typically undergo seven life cycles. This means that seven revenue streams are generated from the manufacture of a single product, and materials are diverted from landfill or recycling at least six times (Gray and Charter, 2006). The disadvantage of remanufacture compared with lesser product recovery processes is that it is generally more expensive because of the greater resource and work content involved. Thus there are many products where remanufacturing would be cost-prohibitive given the current remanufacturing technology and knowledge base. Domestic appliance remanufacturing, for example, would not be viable as a profitable business. This is because the cost of processing items such as refrigerators and stoves for recycling continues to decrease, and according to AMDEA (2008) would be less than £5.00 in 2009, whereas the value obtained at the treatment plant continues to increase. Also, the value of steel doubled between 2002 and 2006 (AMDEA, 2008), thus increasing the profitability of recycling relatively low-price goods having good metallic content. The authors’ interviews of major domestic appliance manufacturers, such as LEC Refrigeration and Merloni, indicate that the remanufacturing of domestic appliances is costprohibitivedat least within the EU. The main reason is the cost of the manual

9.3 Industry sector-specific example: refurbishment of computers 269

labor involved in remanufacturing as well as costs for things such as testing to safety standards. Such tests are expensive to run, and though their costs in new manufacture can be limited by running them in batches, in remanufacturing the tests must be undertaken individually.

9.3 INDUSTRY SECTOR-SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: REFURBISHMENT OF COMPUTERS The refurbishment of computers and other office products such as printers has been occurring for more than 20 years and was led not by the original manufacturers but by independent specialists who identified a commercial opportunity. Most manufacturers still do not address this as a priority in serving their customers or the market, and so the naturally occurring demand is still mainly satisfied by independent providers. The rework of computers and printing products can be broadly grouped into three categories; repaired, refurbished, and remanufactured. A growing number of manufacturers have now implemented processes to provide used equipment to their customers, with some utilizing their in-house capabilities and others engaging independent specialists as service providers. In the absence of legislation and standards, accepted practices will vary among used equipment providers (be they manufacturers or specialists), but the following descriptions provide a guide to product expectations within the three categories of the IT market sector as observed by the authors.

9.3.1 Repair The act of fixing or correcting a fault, a defect, or damage is called a repair. An electrical or mechanical repair brings a product back to a functional working state, whereas a cosmetic repair restores a product that has minor exterior surface damage and/or blemishes (such as scratches, dents, cracks, and chipping). A product can be repaired in the field by a service technician or by a dedicated service or repair facility at the manufacturer or specialist. Testing is performed only to ensure that the repair did in fact eliminate or fix the specific identified defect. Repairs are inherent activities in the more extensive processes of refurbishment and remanufacturing.

9.3.2 Refurbishment One of the two processes most associated with reused products, refurbishment provides a cleaned and repaired product in full working order with minimal or no visual flaws. Unlike a field repair or upgrade (see discussion below), refurbishment is performed in a factory setting with operational

270 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

specifications where a more expanded tool set, cleaning solutions, solvents, paints, and other surface treatment capabilities are involved. Upgrade here describes returning a used product to a greater performance or quality standard than it had when new. While the refurbishment process does not seek to increase the product’s original manufactured capability, higher-capacity components may be added if original parts are no longer available or if later higher-capacity parts are of comparable cost. A refurbished product generally carries a limited warranty dependent upon the supplier (original manufacturer or independent specialist), age of product, and price charged.

9.3.3 Remanufacture Remanufacturing is more complex than refurbishment; it is a detailed and comprehensive disassembly and reassembly process that brings a used product back to at least its specified state as original equipment. Dependent upon the processes of the remanufacturer (whether original manufacturer or independent specialist), the disassembly process can preserve the identity of the original product (via its serial number), or a completely new system identity can be created (supported by a new serial number). Remanufacture includes the thorough cleaning, testing, and diagnosis of all the disassembled parts. Dependent upon commercial viability, the worn, failing, and obsolete components are either repaired or replaced. Repairs to components and subassemblies may be carried out by the remanufacturer or sent to product specialists. Upgrades to hardware parts are also provided where commercially viable, and software and firmware engineering changes developed since the product was introduced are also included in the remanufacturing process. Remanufacturing is performed in a factory setting with supporting tool and test sets equivalent to those used in current production with instructions contained in floor-controlled process documentation. As products are completely disassembled, original factory settings can be reset or adjusted. New features and upgrades can be added so that products share the latest technology that is available with current production models. Remanufactured products can thus have capabilities equivalent to current production models, are tested to the same levels, and are generally sold on an “as-new” basis with a comprehensive or as-new warranty. It should be noted that the accepted industry term for remanufacturing in IT is more akin to rebuild, as very little is actually remanufactured in the same way that a component is originally manufactured. Most computer and printer suppliers will use specialist manufacturers for the fabrication of

9.4 Role of the third sector 271

key components and subassemblies (such as CPUs, memory chips, and optical and hard disk drives), and the cost of replacement with a current production part is generally less than the cost of trying to repair the older failed product. The labor cost to determine a fault and then repair and test it generally outweighs the cost of quickly replacing it with a new (and often upgraded) component. Most manufacturers will also not invest in a specific element of a production process to handle such repaired products, as the economies of scale are inferior to the high throughput of new manufactured parts. Thus the most common solution is that of replacement for a part or subassembly.

9.3.4 Upgrade A repair can be a part of a refurbishment or remanufacturing process, as can an upgrade. Upgrades can be developed to fix customer satisfaction issues or be planned events in the product life cycle, especially where that product is complex and designed for extended life. An upgrade generally enhances or improves the performance of a product by increasing its function or capacity and involves the substitution, replacement, or addition of components (hardware) or applications (software) to increase a product’s original capability. As with a repair, testing is limited and only to ensure that the upgrade was installed correctly and is working properly. Some upgrades may increase a product’s capability beyond its technology level when originally manufactured, whereas others can improve a product’s capability to that of the latest production performance. This is based on the forward compatibility of a product, which is dependent upon functional flexibility in design and manufacture that provides the ability to enhance a product throughout its life cycle. Upgrades can also result from a lack of availability of the original component, and thus both repairs and refurbishment can contain upgrades through lack of choice.

9.4 ROLE OF THE THIRD SECTOR Although secondary market processing, particularly remanufacturing of domestic appliances, may not be justifiable on environmental or profitability grounds, it may be justifiable in terms of its societal benefits, for example by addressing poverty, unemployment, or lack of skills. The great decision

272 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

to be made in considering secondary market processing of certain product types such as domestic appliances is whether their environmental and profitability disadvantages can be offset by their immense societal benefits plus the environmental benefits of reworking products from other sectors. It could be that the positive societal impacts outweigh the environmental disadvantages. The societal benefits of secondary market processes include employment creation, creation of a living for the local community and for people selling secondhand goods, provision of goods for poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford them, and provision of training for low-skilled and unskilled labor. The societal benefits of secondary market processes can be illustrated through the work of EMMAUS, a Catholic charity for the homeless (www.emmaus.org.uk). EMMAUS takes donated products requiring rework and helps homeless people rework the products under supervision. This arrangement has several key benefits: n

n

n n n

The homeless benefit by having a roof over their heads, paid employment, confidence, and new skills to help them start again. EMMAUS benefits by using the excess profits to continue their various charitable causes. Employment is created for the technician supervising the ex-homeless. Poor people benefit because they can afford to purchase goods. Employment is created.

9.5 ISSUES IN WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REFURBISHMENT AND REUSE 9.5.1 Variability in standards and quality of refurbishment and reused products The authors’ observations and work within industry indicate that in contrast to the handling of products once they have reached the end of their usable lives, no current legislation in the EU or other developed economies and regions directs the reuse of computer equipment through refurbishment or remanufacturing. Existing WEEE legislation covers the responsibilities and requirements for the effective treatment of products once they are defined as waste, but as yet there is nothing to guide users and manufacturers on reuse or extended use. Without legislation, there is little framework for industry standards, and with the majority of refurbishment in the hands of independent specialists, there are variations in the levels of rework and the quality of output. Being commercially driven, independent providers will generally seek the most cost-effective options to return a system to a working order such that it

9.5 Issues in waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse 273

may benefit from a second productive life, and so market offerings become variable and complex. Some industry associations that represent both manufacturers and independent providers have attempted to clarify equipment rework processes through the creation of definitions, but as yet these have not been developed into recognized national or international standards that can be independently audited to provide recognized levels of accreditation.

9.5.2 Quality criteria for reuse and accreditation for reuse centers As previously stated, there is little regulation in the area of reused IT, and thus the standards and quality levels across providers to the used IT market vary widely. The clearest current control is legislation over the sale of goods, in that a product may not be misrepresented and must be fit for purpose and as described. Thus most products offered for sale are merely described as “used” without any further clarification. Some manufacturers may further differentiate their offerings by describing their products as ex-demonstration, ex-fair, ex-loan, ex-rental, etc. This typically applies to newer used equipment that is less than 12 months old. Occasionally some manufacturers will sell off excess new-product inventory or overstock through their used product channels at lower prices, even if unopened and in new condition. Most manufacturers and larger independent providers identify their product rework processes with other business accreditations held, such as international ISO or CEN standards or standards from national bodies such as BSI and DIN. In the United Kingdom, BSI has provided a standard that in part covers the definitions and procedures for the reuse and resale of used IT equipment in BS 8887 (BSI, 2009). This standard has the acronym MADE, for manufacture for assembly, disassembly, and end of life (EoL). Within some subparts in part 2 of BS 8887 are process descriptions for rework levels and the reoffering of such equipment back to the market. At present this standard serves as a voluntary guide to the industry with no certification or accreditation process yet in place to confirm correct practice by a provider (be they manufacturer or independent). Many providers of used equipment also have a waste treatment license for their rework facilities to ensure compliance with legislation for the correct disposal of waste created in rework processes. As with some repair work, some used equipment providers may subcontract this recycling work to third-party specialists.

274 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

9.5.3 Design issues in remanufacturing Optimizing reuse and refurbishment would require changes to design methods because design is the stage of the product life cycle that has the strongest influence on environmental impacts (Graedel and Allenby, 1995) and also sets product capabilities. This would initially raise product prices and thus would be initially costly, but would lead to long-term profitability, especially given increases in waste disposal costs and other environmental legislation. A key problem here is designers’ lack of expertise in designing products for reuse (see, for example, Ijomah et al., 2007a). As extensively discussed by Ijomah et al. (2007b), a key issue in designing products for reuse is avoiding features that prevent the product or component from being brought back to at least like-new functionality. These include: n

n

n

nondurable material that may lead to breakage during refurbishment (manufacturing, repair, or reconditioning) or deterioration during use to the extent that the product is beyond “refurbishment”; joining technologies that prevent the separation of components or are likely to lead to component damage during separation; for instance, epoxy resin adhesive bonding may be used to facilitate rapid assembly but hinders disassembly without damage resulting in even greater refurbishment and reuse requirements; features that require banned substances or processing methods or that may make returning to functionality cost-prohibitive.

However, many key determinants of the potential for refurbishment and reuse fall outside the designer’s control. These include legislation, demand, fashion, and manufacturers’ prohibitive practices. Legislation can have a positive impact because it requires organizations to undertake addedvalue recovery of their products and makes waste disposal increasingly more expensive. This may encourage manufacturers to design refurbishable products. However, when legislation bans the use of a substance, products containing it cannot be reintroduced to the market and hence would not be reused. Refurbishment and reuse are appropriate only where there is a market for the reworked product. Thus fashion-affected products are inappropriate because users may prefer the newer product no matter the quality and cost of the refurbished alternative. Some customers demand newness as a lifestyle choice, and thus some productsdespecially those with a relatively low initial financial outlay or in prominent locations within homesdare generally less amenable to profitable refurbishment and reuse. Manufacturers’ prohibitive practices such as patents, intellectual property rights, and anticompetitive manufacturing also hinder refurbishment and reuse. For example, some printer manufacturers have designed their inkjet

9.5 Issues in waste electrical and electronic equipment refurbishment and reuse 275

cartridges so that they self-destruct when empty, thus preventing their remanufacture. However, if there are no old products to cannibalize, good parts cannot be obtained from existing used products, or the technology for producing new parts becomes obsolete, product refurbishment is no longer possible.

9.5.4 Paradigm shifts affecting the use of refurbishment and reuse Traditionally, safety, performance, and cost are the key considerations in manufacturing decisions. However, changing global and business circumstances are forcing organizations to reanalyze their strategic decisions so that additional factors such as raw material costs and environmental legislation are also considered design and manufacturing decisions. This is leading to paradigm shifts that affect reuse and refurbishment. Two key ones here are the move from product sale to the sale of capability (the move to “product-service” systems; Ijomah et al., 2007b; Ijomah, 2009; Sundin et al., 2009) and the move by some companies away from manufacturing to assembly or bought-out parts. Regarding the first, manufacturers have traditionally transferred their product ownership to customers at sale. Today some manufacturers are opting to keep ownership of their product and instead sell the product’s capability to the customerdan example being “power-by-the-hour” in the aerospace industry. The manufacturer acts as a service provider and takes any risks associated with the product’s failure. As the customer purchases only the guarantee of provision of capability, the focus changes to the customer’s satisfaction with the capability provided, and the issue of the product’s newness (number of life cycles) becomes less important. Refurbishment and reuse reduce the costs to the organization of adopting the service business model; for example, maintenance costs are reduced through the use of refurbished and reused components, and remanufactured or refurbished whole engines can be used in place of more expensive all-new engines. In the latter case, to save costs some producers now purchase components from countries with lower labor costs and simply assemble these parts. This is leading to a loss of the practical engineering skills required for remanufacture.

9.5.5 Availability of information on product components, materials, and repair methods There is a clear difference here between the position of the original manufacturer and the independent specialist refurbishment provider. The original manufacturer will have access to all the original manufacturing information as well as subsequent engineering changes throughout the product’s

276 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

production run (covering hardware, firmware, and software). Most manufacturers provide a dedicated production line or bench areas for rework to maintain a single focus for the production of new products, but some companies (such as Ricoh with its printers) run their reworked products for reassembly down the same production lines as new products. Necessary comprehensive information is generally provided by the manufacturer should it outsource the rework to a contracted service provider, who may operate on-site at the manufacturer’s location(s) or at its own off-site location(s). The manufacturer will also have access to spare parts holdings and the original component suppliers as well as the supply of newer and current parts to upgrade products that are reworked. Independent specialist refurbishers have greater challenges in rework, as they operate without the authority of the original manufacturer. They do not have access to process data and component suppliers and thus must achieve their comparative operational capabilities in other ways. Required components are purchased from the open market in either new or used condition, and sometimes directly from authorized and independent maintenance providers or the manufacturer’s own distribution or channel partners. In some instances complete systems will be purchased for spare parts harvesting to enable component replacement in products being reworked. Product knowledge and expertise is acquired through the hiring of staff who are former employees of the original manufacturer or its authorized sales and service partners. Owing to the range in size of independent specialists, rework capabilities vary in terms of process scale and depth, but even larger independents cannot invest to completely replicate the original manufacturer’s production or rework environments. The methods of repair and rework will be broadly similar among the manufacturer, authorized agent, and independent specialistdto test the product, rework to the required level, and make ready for reuse. Independent specialists will generally take the most cost-effective route to bringing a used product back to a repaired or refurbished working condition, whereas the manufacturer may choose to invest more in rework time and cost to provide a premium-standard used product with a commensurate warranty. All parties employ decision processes that assess the product to be reworked at various stages to ensure that the level of rework chosen enables viable resale at a profit and not a loss. Some manufacturers will not target high profit in the resale of used equipment, as they are keen to make the offering

9.6 Future trends 277

as competitive as possible against independent suppliers, and support their customer as more of a service in this area.

9.6 FUTURE TRENDS Interest in used equipment is likely to increase as demand for sustainability and responsibility in product manufacturing continues to grow. Manufacturers are focused on continual improvement for their new products, principally to ensure commercial success and survival, and they continue to develop greener products that have lower carbon impacts in use and higher raw materials recovery when recycled at EoL. Additional focus is now being placed on design-for-disassembly, originally intended to reduce costs as products were dismantled into their major materials groups for recycling (plastics, metals, precious metals, etc.). The design-for-disassembly approach also facilitates rework activities by making component and subassembly exchange quicker and easier, for example through the use of plastic clips as opposed to parts that are screwed in place with metal screws. For those manufacturers actively engaged in providing used equipment, such activities continue to be a small single-digit percentage of their overall hardware sales revenues, and sometimes only a fraction of a single percent. Niche activities not offering economies of scale are therefore not a priority. Thus focus and attention in the competitive area remains on designing and manufacturing ever-better new products, with future attention to reworked product likely to be driven by only four main factors.

9.6.1 Legislation As with WEEE legislation in the EU, manufacturers will only act (and incur costs) if required to maintain compliance with legislation. At present the WEEE legislation only covers responsibilities for electrical and electronic equipment at the point when it is declared and treated as waste, but future extensions to this legislation could move into the part of the product life cycle immediately preceding this point, when equipment is used or reused. Reused electrical and electronic equipment legislation could provide targets for manufacturers to ensure a contribution toward raw materials sustainability through the reuse or extended use of previously manufactured products.

9.6.2 Customer demand Existing demand for reused IT equipment is driven by three main factors, some of which may develop further into stronger reasons to deploy such products.

278 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

n

n

n

Used equipment offers an attractive proposition for customers who are limited to a lower price point than that of new equipment. Similar to buying a used car, a larger or better-equipped product can be acquired for the same investment needed to buy an inferior-standard new product. In challenging and competitive economic times, this option becomes more attractive. Support and maintenance costs are important factors in the total cost of ownership of IT equipment, and these can be contained by maintaining a homogeneous environment where all products are the same. Supporting a common platform reduces the need for staff training, repair tools, and spare parts inventories and also provides a stable platform for deployed applications, making the role of software support engineers more straightforward. Thus the choice to purchase used equipment is based on the need to consume more of what the customer already has and provides additional required capacity by acquiring previous-generation technology that matches the existing infrastructure. Hardware life cycles and innovations are now deployed faster than software developments, and thus applications may continue to run just as effectively on previous-generation technology and display no benefit when run on the latest systems. Thus a perception of “good enough computing” is developing, where a more cost-effective solution can be applied to a business need without business performance and efficiency impacts.

Combining these three existing elements delivers compelling solutions for some customers, and all potentially could become of greater interest to the market in the future. As well as seeking to lead the market through product improvement and innovation, most manufacturers will also respond to qualified and substantive customer demand, especially if a trend is identified. Should the market continue to develop an interest in “green” or sustainable products, greater attention may be given to reworked product offerings. Many companies seek to demonstrate their green credentials to customers and stakeholders through efficient practices and responsible procurement; thus the purchase of recycled products such as pens, paper, and furniture could also be extended to electronic products to demonstrate a green contribution toward materials sustainability. Should this area of demand establish a long-term niche in the market, many manufacturers may respond by devoting more attention and resources to this area.

9.6 Future trends 279

9.6.3 Cost savings Competitiveness in the marketplace drives all suppliers to seek cost savings in all aspects of their business, and if market demand for reused equipment were to develop, thus allowing for greater economies of scale, manufacturers may perceive that an economic advantage can be realized in the area of providing reworked products. Being able to sell the same product twice, with a smaller investment through rework compared with the costs of new manufacture, may become a more interesting business case that manufacturers will respond to in the future.

9.6.4 Competition Not many manufacturers will lead as strongly or independently as Apple, and most will tend to deliver evolution more than innovation in IT product offerings. Following an innovator, one or two first movers will lead the market, after which the rest will be drawn to follow to ensure that they do not suffer a comparative or competitive disadvantage against the competition. Thus if a number of manufacturers drive more focus and attention to the reused equipment market based on any factor above, others will be prompted to follow suit. Another factor that may attract more interest in reused IT equipment in the future is diminishing returns from energy efficiency. Market offerings now include products that draw zero watts of electricity in standby mode, which cannot be improved upon. Products are also drawing less energy when in operation, but the comparative savings are reducing over time. Thus in the near future, products returning to market as reused will not be as inefficient as those in the past, and as the greater carbon impact is in the use of a system (compared with manufacture), the differential between new and used systems in this respect is narrowing.

9.6.5 New technologies The remanufacture of small-sized WEEE products at EoL is not typically profitable, as their volatile technological pace and small size make their disassembly by conventional means overly expensive. The high cost of manual disassembly (potentially worsened by a design that unintentionally or sometimes intentionally makes it more difficult) can result in a low return on investment for remanufacturing the product. This stops businesses from engaging in remanufacturing and so prevents business and the environment from benefiting from this more sustainable production technique. “Active disassembly” (AD) is an alternative to conventional dismantling techniques

280 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

that enables the nondestructive self-disassembly of a wide variety of consumer electronics on the same generic dismantling line, thus reducing disassembly cost (Chiodo and Boks, 2002). AD is an alternative to conventional dismantling that can remove the barrier of expensive manual disassembly. AD enables cost-effective, nondestructive self-disassembly for a wide variety of WEEE and is particularly suited to high-value consumer electronics. Furthermore, AD can be carried out for different products on the same dismantling line, thereby exponentially reducing disassembly costs. The AD technique has been applied to a variety of electronic products since the 1990s (for example, Chiodo et al., 1997; Masui et al., 1999; Nishiwaki et al., 2000; Li et al., 2001; Braunschweig, 2004; Jones et al., 2004; Klett and Blessing, 2004; Duflou et al., 2007), but AD was originally designed with the intension of reducing disassembly costs in recycling. However, work is now being undertaken to use AD to extend profitable remanufacturing to small-sized WEEE, an area where disassembly cost has traditionally made remanufacturing economically unviable (see, for example, Ijomah and Chiodo, 2010).

9.7 SUMMARY OF WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REUSE AND REFURBISHMENT Within manufacturing, the need for sustainable development is being addressed by promoting the reuse processes (recycling, repair, reconditioning, and remanufacturing). There is an urgent need to advance the reuse and refurbishment of EoL WEEE over most other solid waste categories because of its greater adverse environmental impacts plus rapidly increasing quantities. Currently, legislation regarding WEEE is inadequate, leading to disparity in the standards and quality of reworked products as well as poor customer perception and snobbery against them. For example, refurbished computer and printing equipment is generally presented back to the market as “used,” but there is rarely any description regarding the extent of rework carried out to present the product in full working order for its next life cycle. In the absence of any legislative requirements, neither manufacturers nor independent specialists will reveal the history of a product and any faults or failings previously experienced. The focus is on the provision of a working system at a competitive price compared with a new product, underpinned by a limited level of warranty generally related to the level of rework and price. Other issues in WEEE reuse and refurbishment include original equipment manufacturers’ actions to prevent refurbishment (e.g., individual producer responsibility), legislation, and poor expertise in design-for-reuse. Reuse and refurbishment are being affected by industry paradigm shifts. The

References 281

key ones are manufacturers moving from a product sale to service sale business model and from manufacturing and assembly to assembly only. The former favors refurbishment and reuse by reducing customer demand for newness in the products they use. The latter hinders refurbishment and reuse due to loss of the practical engineering skills required.

REFERENCES AMDEA, 2008. Interview by Authors of AMDEA in 2008. Braunschweig, A., 2004. Automatic disassembly of snap-in joints in electromechanical devices. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress Mechanical Engineering Technologies ’04; 23e25 September 2004. BSI, 2009. BS 8887-2:2009 e Terms and Definitions, BS 8887-1:2006 e General Concepts, Process and Requirements. Produced by British Standards Institute Technical Product Specification Committee (TDW/004/0-/05 Design for MADE BSI). BSI, 2010. BS 8887-220:2010 e Design for Manufacture, Assembly, Disassembly and End-of-Life Processing (MADE). Chick, A., Micklethwaite, P., 2002. Obstacles to UK Architects and Designers Specifying Recycled Products and Materials, Design History Society Conference. The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 3e5 September 2002. Chiodo, J.D., Boks, C., 2002. Assessment of EoL strategies with active disassembly using smart materials. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 2, 69e82. Chiodo, J.D., Ramsey, B.J., Simpson, P., 1997. The Development of a Step Change Design Approach to Reduce Environmental Impact through Provision of Alternative Processes and Scenarios for Industrial Designers. ICSID, Toronto. August 1997. Duflou, J.R., Willems, B., Dewulf, W., 2007. Towards self-disassembling products: design solutions for economically feasible large-scale disassembly. In: Brissaud, D., Tichkiewitch, S., Zwolinski, P. (Eds.), Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development. Springer, pp. 87e110. EEC Council Directive on Hazardous Waste, 1991. EEC Council Directive on Hazardous Waste, 1994. Graedel, T., Allenby, B. (Eds.), 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall. Gray, C., Charter, M., 2006. Remanufacturing and Product Design. Available online at: http://www.cfsd.org.uk/Remanufacturing%20and%20Product%20Design.pdf. Hawken, P., 1993. The Ecology of Commerce e A Declaration of Sustainability. Harper Collins, pp. 45e46. Ijomah, W.L., 2002. A Model-based Definition of the Generic Remanufacturing Business Process (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Plymouth, UK. Ijomah, W.L., 2009. Addressing decision making for remanufacturing operations and design-for-remanufacture. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2 (2), 91e102. Ijomah, W.L., 2010. The application of remanufacturing in sustainable manufacture. Proceedings of the ICE - Waste and Resource Management 163 (4), 157e163. Ijomah, W.L., Childe, S.J., 2007. A model of the operations concerned in re-manufacture. International Journal of Production Research 45 (24), 5857e5880.

282 CHAPTER 9 Refurbishment and reuse of waste electrical and electronic equipment

Ijomah, W.L., Chiodo, J.D., 2010. Application of active disassembly to extend profitable remanufacturing in small electrical and electronic products. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 3 (4), 246e257. Ijomah, W.L., Childe, S., McMahon, C.A., 2004. Remanufacturing: A key strategy for sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design & Manufacture for Sustainable Development, UK, 1e2 September 2004. Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P., Newman, S.T., 2007a. Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18 & 19), 4513e4536. Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P., Newman, S.T., 2007b. Development of design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacture. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (6), 712e719. Jones, N., Harrison, D., Billet, E., Chiodo, J., 2004. Electrically self-powered active disassembly. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers e Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 218 (7), 689e697. Klett, J., Blessing, L., 2004. Selection and modification of connections. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17e20 May 2004, pp. 1283e1288. Li, Y., Saitou, K., Kikuchi, N., 2001. Design of heat-activated reversible integral attachments for product-embedded disassembly. In: Proceedings of the EcoDesign ‘01: Second International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, 11e15 December 2001, pp. 360e365. Masui, K., Mizuhara, K., Ishii, K., Rose, C., 1999. Development of products embedded disassembly process based on end-of-life strategies. In: Proceedings of the EcoDesign ‘99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, 10e11 December 1999, pp. 570e575. Nishiwaki, S., Saitou, K., Min, S., Kikuchi, N., 2000. Topological design considering flexibility under periodic loads. Structural Multidisciplinary Optimisation 19, 4e16. NRC, 1999. Buy Recycled Guidebook. http://www.nrc-recycle.org/brba/Buy_Recycled_ Guidebook.pdf. Sundin, E., Lindahl, M., Ijomah, W., 2009. Product design for product/service systems: design experiences from Swedish industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20 (5), 723e753.

Chapter

10

Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

R. Cherrington1, K. Makenji2

1

2

University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom; University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

10.1 Introduction

283

10.1.1 WEEE polymer types

287

10.2 Introduction to waste collection and sorting 10.2.1 10.2.2 10.2.3 10.2.4 10.2.5

288

Waste collection 289 Manual separation and sorting of WEEE polymers 290 Automated separation and sorting of WEEE polymers 291 Size reduction and granulation 292 Waste washing 294

10.3 Methods of sorting small-particle-size polymer waste 10.3.1 10.3.2 10.3.3 10.3.4 10.3.5

Air table sorting 294 Flotation sorting 295 Hydrocyclone sorting 296 Electrostatic sorting 297 Near infrared and optical sorting

10.4 Conversion of WEEE to a reusable material

294

299

300

10.4.1 Densification (agglomeration) 300 10.4.2 Compounding of WEEE using extrusion

302

10.5 Effectiveness of the WEEE legislation to date 304 10.6 Remanufacturing using WEEE polymers 305 10.7 Future trends 307 References 308

10.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the practices for mechanical recycling of waste polymers from electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), the principle of the techniques, and the equipment used in these processes. The materials considered here are commonly available thermoplastic polymers that are Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00010-0 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

283

284 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

likely to be recovered from the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment. The waste materials discussed originate from domestic postconsumer waste streams; however, industrial waste materials of a similar nature could also be recovered using these techniques. The mechanical recycling methods discussed in this chapter were developed for a variety of plastic waste from different manufacturing processing methods, including injection molding, extrusion, and some of the lesserused processes such as compression molding or blow molding that are rarely used in the manufacture of EEE. Recycling materials from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) sources enables valuable savings on energy and depleting resources. Table 10.1 shows the energy savings for different recycled material types with amounts of recovering waste plastics of over 80% (Cui and Forssberg, 2003). Mechanical recycling methods are growing in popularity as every person who comes into contact with domestic or industrial recycling schemes has an influence upon the end result. Techniques are often used that do not affect or change the base properties of the material being recycled (Dodbiba et al., 2002), and a high purity end product can be achieved. The impact of personal sorting can reduce subsequent work efforts that positively affect the cost and effective segregation of the waste that in turn will improve the purity of the final waste material (Waste & Resources Action Programme, 2006). Table 10.2, adapted from (Bernstad et al., 2011), illustrates the origin of electrical and electronic feedstock types from 2006 to 2009. It is clear from the data that one-third of the recovered waste materials comes from personal computers (PCs) and nearly 20% from TVs. Waste from TVs and PCs accounts for over half of the total, and is therefore easier to manage into recycling systems than lower-volume products.

Table 10.1 Energy saving for recycled materials Materials

Energy savings (%)

Aluminum Copper Iron and steel Lead Zinc Paper Various plastics

95 85 74 65 60 64 >80

10.1 Introduction 285

Table 10.2 Source and percentages of WEEE feedstock Type of WEEE

% of source separated WEEE

PCs, inc accessories TVs Food preparation Audio hi-fi Vacuum cleaners Lamps DVD/VHS players Miscellaneous, including toys, telephones, music, games and cameras Light bulbs, including lowenergy and fluorescent Personal care Musical keyboards Cables

34 17.8 11.3 7.9 6 5.3 3.8 3.3

3.14 3.02 3 2

Research indicates (Dodbiba et al., 2008) that TVs are typically made up of 51% glass, 12% steel, 8% copper, 2% aluminum, 3% printed circuit boards, 6% polystyrene, 3.5% polyvinyl chloride, and 1% polyethylene. The typical material waste fractions from all researched WEEE products are listed in Table 10.3 (Ongondo et al., 2011). There appears to be no consistent data on the types and quantities of polymers collected from WEEE schemes; however, the most common are

Table 10.3 WEEE materials and % fractions Material type

% Fraction

Metals Plastics Cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) screens Metal/plastic mixtures Pollutants Cables Printed circuit boards Others

60 15 12 5 3 2 2 1

Adapted from Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., Cherrett, T.J., 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management 31, 714e730.

286 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Table 10.4 Polymer types, abbreviations and applications Polymer

Abbreviation

Typical applications

Density (g/cm3)

Acrylonitrile styrene acrylonitrile Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene Acrylic Polytetrafluoroethylene Liquid crystal polymer Polyacetal/acetal Polyamide/nylon Polyamide-imide Polybutylene terephthalate

ASA ABS PMMA PTFE LCP POM PA PAI PBT

1.00e1.20 0.35e1.26 1.05e1.20 0.30e0.60 1.38e1.82 1.40 1.05e1.15 1.45 1.10e1.60

Polyethylene terephthalate Polycarbonate Polyethylene Polyetheretherketone Polyetherimide Polyphenylene oxide Polyphenylene sulfide Polypropylene Polystyrene Polysulfone Polyurethane Polyvinylchloride Styrene-acrylonitrile

PET PC PE PEEK PEI PPO PPS PP PS PSU PU PVC SAN

Housings, trim Housings, trim Lenses, lighting Gears, bearings Coatings, RF shielding Gears, bearings, insulators Structures, clips, casings Bearings, insulators, connectors Switches, connectors, insulators Films, screens Screens, casings Packaging Hinges, switches, membranes Sensors, connectors Housings, valves Connectors, housings Packaging, cases Housings, trim High temperature applications Connectors, coatings Seals, trim Housings, trim

1.40 1.20 0.90e0.96 1.25e1.30 1.30e1.70 1.10e1.30 1.35e2.26 0.90e0.91 1.05e1.13 1.24e1.40 1.05e1.25 1.39e1.40 0.91e1.17

engineering grades. Engineering polymers are materials that exhibit good mechanical and thermal properties in a wide range of conditions (Tarantili et al., 2010). Some typical examples used in electrical and electronic equipment are highlighted in Table 10.4 and denoted by asterisks. Research conducted by Schlummer et al. in 2007 has characterized polymer fractions collected from WEEE. The summarized results are shown in Fig. 10.1. The Waste and Resources Action Programme has also conducted studies to identify the polymer fractions collected from WEEE feedstock. Polystyrene (PS), high impact PS, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) accounted for more than 49% of all the polymers identified, whilst polypropylene (PP) accounted for only 23% (Freegard et al., 2006). While there is variability in the data due to different studies, the type of WEEE product being recycled, geographical issues, and local collection schemes, it is clear that engineered polymers are high on the list of materials being recovered.

10.1 Introduction 287

ABC / PC, 13%

PPO / PS, 18%

ABS / PVC, 9%

ABS, 32% HIPS, 29% n FIGURE 10.1 WEEE polymer material types (ABS, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; PC, polycarbonate; PPO, poly (p-phenylene oxide); PS, polystyrene; PVC,

polyvinylchloride).

The processes for mechanical recovery of differing polymer types are very similar, the only difference being the contamination nature of the final recovered polymer type. If similar materials are used in the production of electrical and electronic items, there is less potential for contamination in the recycling system.

10.1.1 WEEE polymer types There are numerous thermoplastic materials used in EEE, and commonly used types, abbreviations, typical applications, and material density range are listed in Table 10.4 (Cui and Forssberg, 2003; Makenji, 2010; Bovea et al., 2016). Some polymers may be blended with other types to improve properties or to reduce costs. These polymers when blended together, without modification, will give poor properties owing to their immiscible natures. For selected polymers, compatibilizers such as maleic anhydride may be used to improve their miscibility, which in turn will improve the material properties; however, this will increase costs (Mark and Kroschwitz, 2003; Carrasco-Guigón et al., 2017). Thermoset polymers used in EEE, such as epoxies, phenolics, polyurethanes, and polyesters, can also be mechanically recycled using the techniques described in this chapter. The polymers described in this section can be compounded with organic or inorganic, particulate or fiber fillers to enhance properties or to reduce material costs (Mark and Kroschwitz, 2003). Filled polymers are labeled in accordance to ISO 1043 (Sarath et al., 2017; International Organization for Standardization, 2011) to identify the type, form, and quantity of the filler present, e.g., GF30%. “G” denotes

288 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Table 10.5 Identification of different materials and forms of fillers (International Organization for Standardization, 2011) Symbol

Material

Symbol

Form or structure

B C D E G K L M N P Q R S T W X Y Z

Boron Carbon Alumina trihydrate Clay Glass Calcium carbonate Cellulose Mineral, metal Natural organic, e.g., cotton, sisal Mica Silica Aramid Synthetic organic Talcum Wood Not specified Yarn Others not included in this list

B C D F G H K L M N P R S T V W X Z

Beads, spheres, balls Chips, cuttings Fines, powder Fiber Ground Whisker Knitted fabric Layer Mat (thick) Nonwoven (fabric, thin) Paper Roving Flake Twisted or braided fabric, cord Veneer Woven fabric Not specified Others not included in this list

the filler type (glass), “F” the form of the filler (fiber) and the level of the filler present. Table 10.5 shows the filler types that are typically used and the identification of the forms of the fillers used.

10.2 INTRODUCTION TO WASTE COLLECTION AND SORTING Once the WEEE products have been collected from domestic, centralized collection points, retailer or industrial sources, they undergo sorting, size reduction, further separation, and preparation into a usable material. The initial sorting is generally a “rough” segregation of differing material types, as listed in Table 10.3. Granulation of the product reduces the material to a manageable size before further separation. This second separation stage is a more refined process to segregate the polymers into discrete family types using density, triboelectric, spectra, and visual characteristics of the waste. Once the materials are separated into their individual generic types their density is increased, especially if the waste is in film or low bulk density form. This is necessary in order to produce a usable pellet or alternatively the

10.2 Introduction to waste collection and sorting 289

Sorting (manual or automatic)

Granulation

Washing

Recyclate

Densification (agglomeration and extrusion)

Separation

n FIGURE 10.2 Flow diagram of the mechanical recycling process of WEEE polymers.

material may be extrusion compounded, which is the most common technique for compounding a number of different types. The overall recycling process, following WEEE collection, illustrated in Fig. 10.2, produces a final product known as a recyclate and can be reused to remake a new product.

10.2.1 Waste collection WEEE products are collected within the European Union (EU) at municipal waste collection sites where they are identified and segregated from other waste material. Household products account for 87% of all of the WEEE collected (European Parliament and of the Council, 2012). The responsibilities for the collection lie with the electrical and electronic producers, retailers, distributors, and by local municipalities. Generally, WEEE materials follow a simple route of collection or are transported to a municipal waste facility and then transferred to a centralized collection center ready for treatment. This system can be problematic as some WEEE is traded or treated at unauthorized facilities or exported outside the EU. It is reported that almost 25,000 tons were exported in 2008; however, the material is treated under the WEEE Directive and is therefore classed as being legally managed. Fig. 10.3 shows a typical flow of materials during the initial collection phase of the process. In this process the solid lines represent routes that have been accounted for. The unaccounted material, represented by dotted lines, accounts for up to 74% of all of the WEEE material available (European Parliament and of the Council, 2012). Fig. 10.4 shows the waste collected at the SIMS WEEE recycling facility based in Newport, South Wales. The image shows the mixed and contaminated nature of the waste materials and highlights why sorting is required to enable the materials to be extracted into their valuable fractions (SIMS, 2018 #65).

290 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Consumer

Waste bin

Municipal site 2nd hand market Retailer

Collection centre Export

Trader

Export

Unauthorised treatment

Transport

Authorised treatment

n FIGURE 10.3 Typical WEEE collection system. Adapted from European Environment Agency, 2012. WEEE Put on the Market, Collected and Recycled/Recovered/ Reused in 23 European Countries (kg/person), All Figures Relate to 2006 [Online]. Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/weee-put-on-themarket.

n FIGURE 10.4 SIMS WEEE recycling facility, Newport, South Wales. Image courtesy of SIMS Recycling Solutions.

10.2.2 Manual separation and sorting of WEEE polymers Manual separation uses people to sort the waste by hand. Waste is transported via conveyor belts that pass by operators who sort into bins. Different operators may “pick” different materials or just one material type depending upon the facility. This type of facility can accurately segregate waste with up to 95% efficiency (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002) and requires a low capital investment.

10.2 Introduction to waste collection and sorting 291

n FIGURE 10.5 Photograph of a manual WEEE separation facility. Image courtesy of SIMS Recycling Solutions.

This process has the disadvantage of being labor intensive, and effective training is required to improve the quality of the waste and minimize potential contamination (Waite, 2013). Fig. 10.5 illustrates the manual separation process at a SIMS recycling facility (SIMS, 2018 #65). Owing to the labor-intensive nature of this sorting method, it is more likely to be used in countries where there is a low-cost base for manual labor. A common undertaking by high-wage or developed countries is to send waste to low-wage countries to manually sort the waste and remake products destined for developed countries (van Beukering, 2001).

10.2.3 Automated separation and sorting of WEEE polymers An alternative method of waste separation uses automated equipment and has been commercially available for a number of years. The process uses the physical characteristics of the waste to determine its type and appropriate separation route. These systems are more cost effective to operate, but the quality of the waste is generally lower if the feedstock source is variable. If, however, the feedstock from a single product type is closely controlled, the recovered material will be of a higher purity. The process adopted by SIMS Recycling Solutions for recycling up to 700,000 fridge freezers per annum is as follows (SIMS, 2018 #65): n

Upon arrival, glass, wood, cables, mercury switches, and other contaminants are removed from the fridge freezers.

292 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

n

n

n

n

n

n

The cooling fluids that contain ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, are drained under controlled processes for sound environmental disposal. The units are then placed on a conveyor belt and fed into the recycling process. This is conducted in a sealed nitrogen-rich atmosphere that serves the dual purpose of reducing the risk of explosions and providing a carrier medium to capture the ODS. A sieving technique is used to separate and extract the polyurethane foam from the other material to a typical size of 2 mm. The foam acts as the insulating material in the cavities of the walls and door of the fridge, and it contains the majority of ODS within a fridge. The polyurethane foam is heated and dried to maximize the liberation of ODS within the granulated foam. The ODS gases are released into a nitrogen-rich atmosphere where they are collected and reduced in temperature to 180 C to allow the nitrogen and ODS to be separated through condensation. The ODS is then collected for destruction, and the nitrogen is recycled for further use. The ODS gases are shipped in canisters for sound environmental destruction by heating them to 2000 C, at which temperature the gasses are broken down into gas and ash. Once the ODSs have been removed from the fridges, they are further processed to separate the plastics, ferrous and nonferrous metals in the same way as general WEEE.

In an automated facility, high- and low-density wastes are separated by using this difference in density. The waste products move along a conveyor belt, the higher density materials are allowed to drop down an incline through a curtain using gravity, and the lighter materials remain on the inclined conveyor. Sensors are used to detect chloride ions in PVC, which are then ejected to a separate container. The remaining waste is carried along the conveyor and granulated to a small flake size (Waite, 2013).

10.2.4 Size reduction and granulation Some research has focused on automated dismantling of WEEE (Kopacek and Kopacek, 1999; Menad, 2016; Cong et al., 2017); however, this does not appear to have gained much popularity in the recycling industry due to the complex nature of dismantling different product types. Common size reduction is completed through granulation, and individual material fractions are then separated. This approach also enables a high throughput (Zuidwijk and Krikke, 2008).

10.2 Introduction to waste collection and sorting 293

Rubber, 1.50% PA, 0.50%

PE, 2% PP, 2%

PUR, 2% PVC, 5%

ABS, 10%

HIPS, 77%

n FIGURE 10.6 Image of a plastics granulator showing the exposed blades. Image courtesy of Herbold USA.

During the first stages of the granulation process, large bales of waste are broken down by shredding them to 25e50 mm. The shredded waste is then granulated to a particle or flake approximately 3.2e9.5 mm. The granulation process also frees any product labels, which are then removed along with any loose debris. An image of a granulator with the blades exposed is shown in Fig. 10.6. Granulation is based on a rotary cutting system. The equipment needs to have mechanical stability, quick blade change, easy cleaning, and high performance. Granulators are of a welded construction, and bearings are fitted externally to prevent grease contamination or the potential of dust fines entering the bearing. The screen must be easily interchangeable to allow for different flake sizes as required. The blades create a double-angle cut and are located diagonally to the rotor in a straight line with the stationary blade set at the same angle as the rotary blades, but in the opposite direction. The rotary and stationary blades are set apart to a preset gap between each other. The blades are ideally fixed into the machine to allow fast changeovers. The processing of polymers with fillers through the granulator will significantly wear the blades and thus will require regular removal and sharpening. The screen enables the granulated waste to fall through by gravity (Brandrup, 1996). The size of holes provisioned on the screen dictates the size of the granulate particle.

294 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Other granulation types are profile, rotary, feed, edge, large, and pipe, developed for use where certain product types may not efficiently granulate in a standard setup (Goodship, 2007). Any fibers in composite WEEE materials will become damaged during granulation, and subsequent process steps such as extrusion compounding and injection molding will damage fibers further.

10.2.5 Waste washing The granulated WEEE is then passed through a washing tank where the waste is cleaned to remove adhesive residues from labels and dirt debris. Water and surfactants are typically used in this process. NOREC uses acetic acid ester in its process to remove inks and organic contaminates of waste plastics (Pascoe, 2000). It is reported that the washing process can add approximately £100 per ton of recycled waste polymer. The waste is then sieved where the polymer is recovered and fine debris is removed. The water used in the process is normally reused repeatedly, and waste materials are thoroughly rinsed and passed through to the separation method (Pascoe, 2000).

10.3 METHODS OF SORTING SMALL-PARTICLE-SIZE POLYMER WASTE This section discusses the different technologies used for the sorting of domestic or industrial WEEE manufactured using plastic materials, following sorting by large fraction, granulation, and washing. The different technologies work on the basis of the different characteristics of polymers, density, triboelectric, spectra, or visual aspect. It is quite common for these technologies to be used in isolation, as multiple stages of the same process, or in conjunction with more than one process to provide a continual refinement to the final purity of the output material.

10.3.1 Air table sorting The air table unit has a porous base provisioned with a velocity-controlled air fan on the underside and an eccentric drive that enables vibration in the longitudinal axis. The deck is tilted from the inlet end to the outlet end, which creates a “slide slope.” The deck is also tilted from side to side, which creates an “end slope.” The waste polymer enters at the inlet and travels onto the porous deck. The vibration of the deck, in conjunction with the airflow from the fan, causes light materials to float on the deck while denser materials sit in contact with the deck. The dense particles travel uphill with the vibration. At the end of

10.3 Methods of sorting small-particle-size polymer waste 295

Rotator

Rotating blades

Stationary blade n FIGURE 10.7 Simplified diagram of the air table separator.

each stroke of vibration the direction of the deck is reversed, and because of the momentum, the denser materials continue up the deck until they exit into a collection bin. Meanwhile, the lighter particles move downwards and are collected in a separate collection bin (Triple/s Dynamics, 2009). A simplified diagram of the unit operation is illustrated in Fig. 10.7. Studies by Dodbiba et al. (2005) have shown that this technique is more than 85% efficient at separating two different material types when the difference between the material densities is greater than 0.45 g/cm3. The particle size also has an impact on the effectiveness of the air table. In order to ensure good separation for an equal mix of PP and PET, the particle size should be between 1.59 and 2.38 mm with an airflow velocity of 1.8e2.2 m/s.

10.3.2 Flotation sorting Water has a density of 1.0 g/cm3 and this property can be used effectively and simply to separate light and heavy polymer fractions. Flotation sorting uses a large tank of agitated water with a light detergent, which prevents capillary action of the solution. The waste enters at one end of the tank and travels toward the opposite end and either sinks or floats depending upon the density of the material separation that occurs. The material sinks if the density is >1 g/cm3 or floats if it is 80%

306 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

(Balart et al., 2005; Tarantili et al., 2010). The mixed or contaminated nature of WEEE is the result of the inaccurate material separation process. Quite often these separation processes are used in conjunction with each other to identify and separate the main component polymer to the highest level of purity. Studies using the air tabling and triboelectric separation methods in series with each other have shown that using these two processes results in higher purity than one process used in isolation (Dodbiba et al., 2005). In a study of granulated PP, PVC, and PET, it was discovered that triboelectric separation was an effective technique to separate low-density PP from PVC and PET. The air tabling was effective at separating PET and PVC where material densities are between 1.3 and 1.5 g/cm3; overall the studies achieved a final material purity over 95%. Research using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy conducted by Balart et al. (2005) has established that virgin ABS and PC does not degrade as a result of the first manufacturing process. It was observed that very little degradation occurred to the recovered resins by comparing them with unprocessed polymers of the same grade. The study also concluded that the materials had reduced mechanical properties when blended at 20%e80% wt PC, attributed to partial miscibility of the different polymers. In mixes of 10%e20% wt PC there was a negligible decrease in mechanical properties for processing conditions similar to typical styrenic materials. The positive results are attributed to the similar rheological properties of the amorphous polymers. When processed with rapid cooling rates the phase separation of the polymers was avoided, resulting in an “artificial” compatibility. Similar studies (Tarantili et al., 2010) show a good correlation to Balart’s research, indicating that processing of ABS with small levels of PC is a viable solution for reusing WEEE. ABS shows significant potential for WEEE recycling and experiments into processing with small levels of PC have been successful. However, there are problems with voids in the polymer melt that dramatically reduce the mechanical properties of the material. During recent studies (Arnold et al., 2009) concerning the effect of volatiles in a range of ABS sources, it was noted that high levels of voids in the polymer resulted in reduced flexural strength, failure to strain, and stiffness. Analysis of emissions during processing showed that the volatile compounds were the result of polymerization residuals and degradation of the initial service life of the article rather than reprocessing of WEEE. The experiments showed high levels of void formation during processing, and extrusion venting is recommended to remove them during compounding. Little literature exists regarding other

10.7 Future trends 307

polymers as the effort appears to be around the reprocessing of ABS, which is used in huge quantities for WEEE products. A different approach to WEEE collection and recycling lies in the reuse market for certain product types. Mobile phone reuse is a good example of a family of products having a second life following their primary use.

10.7 FUTURE TRENDS Mechanical methods for recycling WEEE materials are popular for the following reasons: n n n n n

cost effective can handle disparate materials easy to provision and operate can process large volumes of products/materials relatively high levels of purity w90%.

Current research appears to be focused on refining WEEE polymers or processing the impure recyclate with improved mechanical properties. Some of the studies have yielded excellent results when different polymer separation technologies are used in conjunction with each other. Current research to improve material purity is based on the addition of tracers into the polymer matrix. This enables them to be easily identified using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (Bezati et al., 2010) or radiofrequency identification (Luttropp and Johansson, 2010) during the sorting and separation stages of mechanical recycling. Further research in these areas will continually offer the WEEE recycling industry solutions, striving to improve material purity. Research around the thermal processing of impure materials is providing an excellent solution for processing disparate materials. Some research into the use of maleic anhydrideebased compatibilizers shows good mechanical properties; however, it appears to be the result of improved morphology between the different polymers (Elmaghor et al., 2004) and not as a result of the maleic anhydride. Studies with recovered and reused ABS and ABS/High Impact PolyStyrene (HIPS) materials in repeated cycles do not show any significant loss in mechanical properties (Arnold et al., 2009); however, what is not understood is the effect of compatibilizers and additives used to enable mixed materials to be processed together. Further research in compatibilizers and the effect they have on the recycling and material life cycle is needed to assess the benefits they may offer.

308 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Designing consumer products using limited or single material types would have a large positive impact on the purity of WEEE polymer material (Fiksel, 2011). A similar methodology was taken by automotive industry to meet the requirements of the End-of-life Vehicle Directive (Stauber and Vollrath, 2007). The author suggest that product designers should investigate the use of dissimilar materials so that they can be easily separated, enabling more effective sorting of mixed recovered materials. Schemes such as the mobile phone reusing scheme and eBay are a very good way of reusing WEEE and preserving valuable energy and material resources. These schemes will become increasingly popular and innovative reducing or preventing WEEE from occurring.

REFERENCES Agarwal, S.K., 2005. Wealth from Waste. APH Publishing Corporation. Arnold, J.C., Alston, S., Holder, A., 2009. Void formation due to gas evolution during the recycling of AcrylonitrileeButadieneeStyrene copolymer (ABS) from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Polymer Degradation and Stability 94, 693e700. Balart, R., Lópezh, J., García, D., Dolores Salvador, M., 2005. Recycling of ABS and PC from electrical and electronic waste. Effect of miscibility and previous degradation on final performance of industrial blends. European Polymer Journal 41, 2150e2160. Bernstad, A., La Cour Jansen, J., Aspegren, H., 2011. Property-close source separation of hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment e a Swedish case study. Waste Management 31, 536e543. Bezati, F., Froelich, D., Massardier, V., Maris, E., 2010. Addition of tracers into the polypropylene in view of automatic sorting of plastic wastes using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Waste Management 30, 591e596. Bledzki, A., Kardasz, D., 1998. Fast identification of plastics in recycling processes. Polimery (Poland) 43, 79e86. Bovea, M.D., Pérez-Belis, V., Ibáñez-Forés, V., Quemades-Beltrán, P., 2016. Disassembly properties and material characterisation of household small waste electric and electronic equipment. Waste Management 53, 225e236. Brandrup, J., 1996. Recycling and Recovery of Plastics. Hanser Publishers. Burat, F., Güney, A., OLGAÇ Kangal, M., 2009. Selective separation of virgin and postconsumer polymers (PET and PVC) by flotation method. Waste Management 29, 1807e1813. Carrasco-Guigón, F., Rodríguez-Félix, D., Castillo-Ortega, M., Santacruz-Ortega, H., Burruel-Ibarra, S., Encinas-Encinas, J., Plascencia-Jatomea, M., Herrera-Franco, P., Madera-Santana, T., 2017. Preparation and characterization of extruded composites based on polypropylene and chitosan compatibilized with polypropylene-graftmaleic anhydride. Materials 10, 105. Chung, C.I., 2011. Extrusion of Polymers: Theory and Practice. Hanser Publishers. Coates, G., Rahimifard, S., 2009. Modelling of post-fragmentation waste stream processing within UK shredder facilities. Waste Management 29, 44e53.

References 309

Cong, L., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J.W., 2017. Integration of dismantling operations into a value recovery plan for circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 378e386. Cui, J., Forssberg, E., 2003. Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 99, 243e263. Dimitrakakis, E., Janz, A., Bilitewski, B., Gidarakos, E., 2009. Small WEEE: determining recyclables and hazardous substances in plastics. Journal of Hazardous Materials 161, 913e919. Dodbiba, G., Haruki, N., Shibayama, A., Miyazaki, T., Fujita, T., 2002. Combination of sinkefloat separation and flotation technique for purification of shredded PET-bottle from PE or PP flakes. International Journal of Mineral Processing 65, 11e29. Dodbiba, G., Sadaki, J., Okaya, K., Shibayama, A., Fujita, T., 2005. The use of air tabling and triboelectric separation for separating a mixture of three plastics. Minerals Engineering 18, 1350e1360. Dodbiba, G., Takahashi, K., Sadaki, J., Fujita, T., 2008. The recycling of plastic wastes from discarded TV sets: comparing energy recovery with mechanical recycling in the context of life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 458e470. Douglas, E., Birch, P.R., 1976. Recovery of potentially re-usable materials from domestic refuse by physical sorting. Resource Recovery and Conservation 1, 319e344. Elmaghor, F., Zhang, L., Fan, R., Li, H., 2004. Recycling of polycarbonate by blending with maleic anhydride grafted ABS. Polymer 45, 6719e6724. European Environment Agency, 2012. WEEE Put on the Market, Collected and Recycled/ Recovered/Reused in 23 European Countries (kg/person), All Figures Relate to 2006 [Online]. Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/weee-put-onthe-market. European parliament and of the council, 2012. Directive 2012/19/eu, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 4 July 2012, on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Fiksel, J., 2011. Design for Environment, second ed. McGraw-Hill Education. Freegard, K., Tan, G., Coggins-Wamtech, C., Environmental, D.F.D., Alger, M., Cracknell, P., Ivv, A.M.F., Studds, P., Green, E.F.W.Y., Huisman, J., 2006. Develop a Process to Separate Brominated Flame Retardants from WEEE Polymers Final Report. Gent, M.R., Menendez, M., Toraño, J., Isidro, D., Torno, S., 2009. Cylinder cyclone (LARCODEMS) density media separation of plastic wastes. Waste Management 29, 1819e1827. Goodship, V., 2007. Introduction to Plastics Recycling. Smithers Rapra. Gundupalli, S.P., Hait, S., Thakur, A., 2017. A review on automated sorting of sourceseparated municipal solid waste for recycling. Waste Management 60, 56e74. Harper, C.A., 2002. Handbook of Plastics, Elastomers, and Composites. McGraw-Hill. International Organization For Standardization, 2011. ISO 1043-2 Plastics e Symbols and Abbreviated Terms. Part 2: Fillers and Reinforcing Materials. Kikuchi, R., Kukacka, J., Raschman, R., 2008. Grouping of mixed waste plastics according to chlorine content. Separation and Purification Technology 61, 75e81. Kopacek, B., Kopacek, P., 1999. Intelligent disassembly of electronic equipment. Annual Reviews in Control 23, 165e170. Luttropp, C., Johansson, J., 2010. Improved recycling with life cycle information tagged to the product. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 346e354.

310 CHAPTER 10 Mechanical methods of recycling plastics from WEEE

Makenji, K., 2010. Mechanical Methods for Recycling Waste Composites Management, Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites. Woodhead Publishing. Mark, H.F., Kroschwitz, J.I., 2003. Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology. John Wiley & Sons. Mcdougall, F.R., White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2008. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory. Wiley. Menad, N.E., 2016. Chapter 3 - physical separation processes in waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling A2 - chagnes, A. In: Cote, G., Ekberg, C., Nilsson, M., Retegan, T. (Eds.), WEEE Recycling. Elsevier. Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., Cherrett, T.J., 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management 31, 714e730. Pascoe, R.D., 2000. Sorting of Waste Plastics for Recycling. Rapra Technology. Rhyner, C.R., Schwartz, L.J., Wenger, R.B., Kohrell, M.G., 2017. Waste Management and Resource Recovery. CRC Press. Rozenstein, O., Puckrin, E., Adamowski, J., 2017. Development of a new approach based on midwave infrared spectroscopy for post-consumer black plastic waste sorting in the recycling industry. Waste Management 68, 38e44. Sarath, P., Bonda, S., Mohanty, S., Nayak, S.K., 2017. Identification and thermomechanical characterization of polymers recovered from mobile phone waste. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 19, 1391e1399. Scheirs, J., Kaminsky, W., 2006. Feedstock Recycling and Pyrolysis of Waste Plastics: Converting Waste Plastics into Diesel and Other Fuels. J. Wiley & Sons. SIMS, 2018. Newport Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recovery, reuse and recycling centre. Available from: https://www.simsmm.co.uk/locations/newportgwent/. Stauber, R., Vollrath, L., 2007. Plastics in Automotive Engineering: Exterior Applications. Hanser Publishers. Tachwali, Y., AL-Assaf, Y., AL-Ali, A.R., 2007. Automatic multistage classification system for plastic bottles recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 266e285. Tarantili, P.A., Mitsakaki, A.N., Petoussi, M.A., 2010. Processing and properties of engineering plastics recycled from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Polymer Degradation and Stability 95, 405e410. Tchobanoglous, G., Kreith, F., 2002. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Mcgraw-Hill. Triple/s Dynamics, 2009. Dry Separations for the Processing Industry. Technical White Paper. VAN Beukering, P.J., 2001. Recycling, International Trade and the Environment. Kluwer Academic publ. Waite, R., 2013. Household Waste Recycling. Wang, Y., 2000. Compounding in Co-Rotating Twin-Screw Extruders. Rapra Technology Ltd. Waste & Resources Action Programme, 2006. UK Plastics Waste e A Review of Supplies for Recycling, Global Market Demand, Future Trends and Associated Risks. Xanthos, M., Todd, D.B., 2002. Plastics Processing. Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Zuidwijk, R., Krikke, H., 2008. Strategic response to EEE returns: product eco-design or new recovery processes? European Journal of Operational Research 191, 1206e1222.

Chapter

11

Recycling printed circuit boards

Abhishek Kumar Awasthi1, 2, Xianlai Zeng1,2

1

School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China; 2Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety, (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China, Beijing, China

CHAPTER OUTLINE

11.1 Introduction 311 11.2 Economic benefits of recycling of PCBs 313 11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards

314

11.3.1 11.3.2 11.3.3 11.3.4

Disassembling 315 Physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs 315 Size reduction and separation 316 Human health affected owing to the physical recycling process of waste PCB 317 11.3.5 The best available technology with opportunities and challenges 318 11.3.6 Dismantling 318 11.3.7 Technology for recovery of copper and other valuable metals 319

Acknowledgments 322 References 322 Further reading 325

11.1 INTRODUCTION Printed circuit boards (PCBs) are the supplier of electronic components and electronic interconnections (Akcil et al., 2015; Awasthi et al., 2016a). The key advantage of PCBs lies in its capability to greatly reduce the errors of routing and assembly and to increase the degree of automation and fabrication efficiency. Due to decades of development, PCBs have been constantly contributing to the improvement and progress of people’s modern lives (Arshadi and Mousavi, 2014).

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00011-2 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

311

312 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

These PCBs are used to mechanically support and electrically connect electronic components using conductive pathways, tracks, or signal traces etched from copper sheets laminated onto a nonconductive substrate, employed in the manufacturing of business machines and computers, as well as communication, control, and home entertainment equipment. PCBs are an essential part of almost all electric and electronic equipment, and have revolutionized the electronics industry (Ghosh et al., 2015). China shares almost half of the overall PCB industries’ market and is the fastest developing country in the PCBs production. In China, the total WEEE that is domestically generated and illegally imported, over 500,000 tons of waste PCBs, needs to be treated every year, and the quantity is mounting every year owing to falling average lifetime of electronic goods. There are three major types of PCB construction: (1) single-sided, (2) double-sided, and (3) multilayered. Single-sided boards have the components on one side of the substrate. When the number of components becomes too much for a single-sided board, a double-sided board may be used. Electrical connections between the circuits on each side are made by drilling holes through the substrate in appropriate locations and plating the inside of the holes with a conducting material. The third type, a multilayered board, has a substrate made up of layers of printed circuits separated by layers of insulation. The components on the surface connect through plated holes drilled down to the appropriate circuit layer. This greatly simplifies the circuit pattern (Sanapala, 2008). Copper is the most commonly used material for traces. Simple methods involve plating the entire board with copper, and then etching away unnecessary areas through a mask (stencil) to leave the required traces. More complex methods allow traces to be added onto a bare board. Each approach has associated pros and cons (Awasthi et al., 2016c, 2017a). Some boards require the use of gold for sensitive, low-voltage applications or lead-free (RoHS) compliance. Copper traces usually demand the use of a nickel barrier layer before gold-plating. This is to prevent gold from migrating into the copper. Indiscriminate use of nickel can result in huge losses to impedance (Yu et al., 2016a,b). A typical circuit board module includes a PCB and a variety of circuit board components soldered to the printed circuit board. The PCB is generally a laminated board with circuit traces on external surfaces of the board or at interlayer levels within the board, and the electrical components are typically light-emitting diodes (LEDs), processors, memory devices, clock generators, resistors, cooling units, capacitors, and virtually any other type of electrical component (Ghosh et al., 2015). PCBs generally comprise a

11.2 Economic benefits of recycling of PCBs 313

Table 11.1 Typical PCB components and their major compositional components Electronic component

Majority composition or materials

Resistors Capacitors

Ceramic, carbon Aluminum, electrolyte, plastics, etc., copper leads Steel, copper Plastic cases, copper leads, silicon Plastic cases, copper leads, silicon Copper, plastic Aluminum, steel Aluminum

Inductors, transformers Integrated circuits Transistors, diodes Connectors Mounting brackets Heat sinks

Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Chapter 13 e Recycling Printed Circuit Boards. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, pp. 287e311.

composite of organic and inorganic materials with external and internal metal traces, permitting assembled electronic components to be mechanically supported and electrically connected. The components themselves are a mixture of often quite sophisticated construction and include the components listed in Table 11.1. Additionally, the value of precious metals in waste PCBs are more profitable than in mining ores, which makes their recycling significantly important in terms of both environmental and economic views (Table 11.3). The average content and value ratio of different metals in PCBs is as presented in Table 11.2. As clearly seen, Au, Cu, Pd, and Ag metals account for nearly all of the economic material value in waste PCBs. For that reason, waste PCB recycling mainly is concerned with extraction of these valuable metals above all else.

11.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF RECYCLING OF PCBS Waste PCBs are about 3% by weight of the total amount of waste EEEs. The recycling for waste PCB outcomes in quite a large variety of materials being part of the whole assembly, with the possibility of significant environmental impacts arising from both the material resources use and the effects of disposal. Precisely, a significant percentage of the embodied materials are metals that are valuable recycling as presented in Table 11.4.

314 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

Table 11.2 Metal composition of waste PCBs (%) Element

Sn

Pb

Cu

Fe

Al

Sb

Zn

Ni

Cr

Cd (g/t)

Au (g/t)

Ag (g/t)

PCB ECs Total

10.12 3.20 6.0

3.20 0.68 1.7

21.62 13.80 16.9

0.21 19.49 11.8

1.36 6.91 4.7

0.001 6.11 3.7

0.056 5.66 3.4

0.036 0.65 0.4

0.027 0.53 0.3

0.53 14.45 8.9

e 40.76 24.4

194.91 112.68 145.7

Yang, C., Li, J., Tan, Q., Liu, L., Dong, Q., 2017. Green process of metal recycling: co-processing waste printed circuit boards and spent tin stripping solution. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 5, 3524
3534.

Table 11.3 Metal content and economic value of waste PC boards (per ton) Metals

Content (%)a

Metal price ($/kg)b

Potential value ($)

Value ratio (%)

Cu Al Fe Ni Pb Sn Ag Au Pd Total

9.7 5.8 9.2 0.69 2.24 2.15 0.06 0.023 0.01 29.87

3.6 1.7 0.4 10.5 1.2 13 315 24,434 6100 e

349.2 98.6 36.8 72.5 27 279.5 189 5620 610 7282

4.8 1.35 0.51 0.99 0.37 3.84 2.6 77.17 8.38 e

a

Chris et al., 2007. London Metal Exchange, Nov., 2008. Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Chapter 13 e Recycling Printed Circuit Boards. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, 287e311. b

High worth of PCBs and possible risk to both the environment and human health drive the need for waste PCBs to be treated in an environmentally sound way (Awasthi et al., 2017a). The recycling of waste PCBs is a big challenge, due to the components, diversity and material complexity, as well as manufacturing processes (Li et al., 2015).

11.3 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR RECYCLING OF WASTE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS Several technologies have been established and studied by the global scientific community, and it is very important to know the recycling technological innovations in management of PCBs. Therefore, the recent status of the international articles dealing with recycling of PCB is briefly discussed.

11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards 315

Table 11.4 The estimated benefits in terms of energy saving by recovery of resources from PCBs S.No.

Material

Energy savings (%)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Aluminum Copper Iron and steel Lead Zinc Paper Plastic

95 85 74 65 60 64 >80

Data Source: Cui, J., Forssberg, E., 2004. Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials B99, 243e263.

11.3.1 Disassembling The present recycling technologies offered for e-waste recycling must include a preliminary sorting or initial disassembly step. The dismantling/depollution of hazardous components is very important along with a very valuable step to get components, such as cables and PCBs, cell batteries and capacitors, etc., in order to achieve the successful recovery of secondary resource materials (Awasthi et al., 2017b,c). The automated disassembly of EEEs is innovative, it is mainly appropriately applied in developed countries (Duan et al., 2011). In addition, the hazardous materials are partly removed, mainly in case of small product WEEEs. This suggests that significant amounts of hazardous substances are still contained in the mechanical crushing step, which causes substantial distribution of different pollutants and perhaps decreases the amounts of valued recyclable resources (Song et al., 2015). Electronic components (ECs) have to be dismantled from PCB assembly as the best option to minimize the environmental pollution, and for resource conservation and reuse of components (Zlamparet et al., 2017).

11.3.2 Physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs Waste PCB mechanical recycling can be generally divided into two main steps. The first step is disassembly and/or separation of different components as well as materials, commonly by mechanical or metallurgical treating to upgrade the desirable material content (Awasthi et al., 2017b). Shredding, electrostatic separation, and supercritical extraction are the

316 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

main technologies employed in this step. The second step is the further separation or screening and processing of metal streams; this is possibly the most important step from environmental and economic perspectives. Several methods are available to extract metals from postprocessing waste PCBs (Yang et al., 2013, 2016; Xue et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016). These technologies can be varied in terms of their economic feasibility, recovery efficiency, and environmental impact (Zeng et al., 2017). In the recycling of waste PCBs, selective dismantling is an essential process as subsequently: (1) The reuse of components has been become first priority; (2) Dismantling the hazardous components is very important; and (3) It is also important to recover the highly valuable components and high-grade materials such as batteries in order to simplify the subsequent recovery of materials. Most of the recycling plants operate with manual dismantling. For example, a typical dismantling process is operated at Ragn-Sells Elektronikåtervinning AB in Sweden (Cui and Forssberg, 2004). A multiple-use tool is used in the dismantling process for eliminating hazardous components in addition to recovery of valuable components and reusable materials.

11.3.3 Size reduction and separation Firstly, cutting, crushing, and grinding are procedures used to reduce waste PCBs in pieces of different particle sizes. It is recognized that cutting methods are considered better choices than crushing for the recycling processes of waste PCBs (Fig. 11.1). The purpose of crushing is to strip metals from the base plates of waste PCBs. Crushing technology is intimately related to not only energy consumption of crushing equipment but also further selective efficiency (Li and Zeng, 2012). A number of methods are available in order to separate the valuable material and nonmaterial, established principally on three different bases: physical, magnetic, and electrostatic. Out of these, the magnetic separation is applicable in a dry environment; a stable magnet iron separator then uses an eddy current system and wet environment. Certainly additional methods applied to separate both metallic and non-metallic materials must be able to separate based on electrostatic theory. Normally, these approaches depend on high electrostatic voltage, although we can use the multiroller separation devices with high voltage. With the electrostatic separation it is possible to get a powder of copper with a high content. Other mechanical procedures depend on the range of size, mass, shape, as well as density of the particles. Screening has not only been utilized to prepare a uniformly sized feed to certain mechanical processes but also to upgrade metals

11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards 317

Waste PCB

Unit components

Dismantling

Residues PCBs

Crushing

Screening / separation Metals such as copper

Non-metals

n FIGURE 11.1 Brief outline of mechanical processes for the recycling of waste PCBs. Redrawn from

source: Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Chapter 13 e Recycling Printed Circuit Boards. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, 287e311.

contents. Screening is necessary because the particle size and shape properties of metals are different from that of plastics and ceramics. The primary method of screening in metals recovery uses the rotating screen, or trammel, a unit that is widely used in both automobile scrap and municipal solid waste processing.

11.3.4 Human health affected owing to the physical recycling process of waste PCB As using the spraying water method and sound insulation measures are adopted, the human health damage resulting from industrial dust and noise is very little from the above analysis. So we mainly present the damage from the metal ions in wastewater. The main metal ions are Cu, Au, Cd, Pd, Pb, Sn, Ni, and Ag in wastewater (Table 11.5). However, there are

Table 11.5 The human toxicity of metal in wastewater (mg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq) Metal ion

Cu

Cd

Pb

Sn

Ni

The equivalency factor for human toxicity Environmental impact on human toxicity Total of environmental impact on human toxicity

1.3 0.546

2.3 0.345

1.2 0.24 14.3

1.7E-2 8.5E-4

3.3E2 13.2

Reproduced from Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Chapter 13 e Recycling Printed Circuit Boards. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, 287e311.

318 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

metals, viz. Cu, Cd, Pb, Sn, and Ni, that cause damage to human health or to human toxicity, which are presented in Table 11.5.

11.3.5 The best available technology with opportunities and challenges In developing countries, mainly primitive technologies are the main obstacle to the recycling of waste PCBs. During the manual dismantling process in informal recycling sites, e-waste recyclers use chisels, hammers, and cutting torches to open solder connections and separate numerous types of metals and components. Many times PCBs are simply cooked on a coalheated plate and melted. Undoubtedly, the manual dismantling process in informal sites in China was quite common about 15 years ago, however, it has been prohibited according to Chinese environmental law. In fact, such practice is still reported with little development by using an electric heating plate system. The fact that the PCB assembly is one of the fastest growing sources of waste in many developing countries has focused attention on the need to recycle, recover, and reuse materials that have been consigned to informal dismantling sites. In developing countries such as China, India, or Nigeria, the above-mentioned methods have been widely used as well. The major common point of these disassembling technologies is the recovery of the solder remaining on the board by subjecting it to a temperature much higher than the molten point of the solder. In these processes of PCB assembly dismantling, pyrolysis under high temperature heating, during which the toxic products from resins and adhesives are decomposed, is a common occurrence (Williams et al., 2008).

11.3.6 Dismantling Dismantled PCB assemblies have a significant environmental impact because they contain different heavy metals and halogen-containing flame retardant, for example, cadmium (pins), lead (soldering tin), mercury (switches, round cell batteries), brominates, and mixed plastics that can seep into the environment if not properly managed (Song et al., 2015). Cell batteries might ignite or leak potentially hazardous organic vapors if exposed to excessive heat or fire. Explosion may result if a capacitor is subjected to high currents and heating. The round cell batteries and capacitors that are large or contain polychlorinated biphenyl should be manually removed and separately disposed by following an appropriate method. The circuit boards can then be sent to a facility for further dismantling

11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards 319

(for reuse or reclamation from ICs that contained precious substances or soldering tin) and copper recovery (from bare board) works (Zeng et al., 2017). Substitutes for lead in solders are currently being developed, but are not yet in production (Duan et al., 2011). While the melting of soldering tin could lead to the separation and recycling of electronic components, in addition to the melting of soldering tin, the mechanical strength of the pin that is packaged to the through hole is another key factor in separating the components.

11.3.7 Technology for recovery of copper and other valuable metals In developing new technology for waste PCBs, most researchers have focused on the technology by which the valuable metals can be separated and recovered from waste PCBs. Firstly, very simple incineration (without any control system in incineration, open burning, etc.) was used to recover valuable metals from waste PCBs, this practice lacked proper environmental and human health protection (Awasthi et al., 2016b); although this process is banned in China, it is still summarized (Song and Li 2014). Pyrometallurgy is a technology for recovery of non-ferrous metals and precious metals from waste PCBs. Pyrometallurgy involves incineration, smelting in a plasma arc furnace or blast furnace, drossing, sintering, melting, and reactions in a gas phase at high temperature. The pyrolysis process is the chemical decomposition of organic materials by heating in the absence of oxygen or any other reagents (Quan et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2013). Pyrolysis of organic materials contained in waste PCBs leads to the formation of gases, oils, and chars that can be used as chemical feedstocks or fuels (Ebin and Isik, 2016; Vehlow and Mark, 1997). There are some pilot-scale studies on the recovery of metals from waste PCBs by using pyrolysis in China (Li et al., 2010). Hydrometallurgy is one more conventional technology for the recovery of precious metals from waste PCBs. The main steps in hydrometallurgy consist of a series of acid or caustic leaches (such as cyanide leaching, halide leaching, thiourea leaching, and thiosulfate leaching, etc.) of solid materials (Akcil et al., 2015). The solutions are then subjected to separation and purification procedures, for example, precipitation of impurities, solvent extraction, adsorption, and ion exchange to isolate and concentrate the metals of interest. Consequently, the solutions are treated by electrorefining process, chemical reduction, or crystallization for metal recovery (Yang et al., 2017; Ha et al., 2014).

320 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

Mechanical/physical recycling method for waste PCBs is based on the differences of materials in physical characteristics (including density, electric conductivity, magnetic susceptibilities, etc.). Owing to its better environmental properties (such as comparatively generating less wastewater), easier operability and high efficiency, additionally nonferrous metals and precious metals contents have gradually decreased in concentration in PCBs (Song et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2017). Through mechanical recycling process for waste PCBs, the materials can be separated out into metallic and non-metallic. There are about 30% metallic materials after separation, which is hard to recover, because the fractions concentrated on metallic materials obtained from these processes are still a mixture of various metals (copper, aluminum, lead, zinc, etc.) (Wang et al., 2017; Yoo et al., 2009). The present mechanical technologies (pneumatic separation, electrostatic separation, etc.) focus on recovering the copper, but the studies on further separation of the mixed metals are relatively fewer in cases of studies in China (Wu et al., 2009). In order to further separate the concentrated fraction in metals and increase the copper content in the metallic mixture, vacuum metallurgy separation method was presented in some studies (Huang et al., 2009). Zheng et al. (2009a,b) studied a novel fluidized bed process technology for recycling glass fibers for non-metallic materials. The glass fibers are collected at high recovery rate by cyclone separators without violating the environmental regulations. Physical recycling of the non-metallic fractions is an efficient recycling method without environmental pollution, such as waste water generation, but needs capital investments in terms of equipment setup (Li and Zeng, 2012). Thus, more research should be done to develop comprehensive and industrialized usage of the non-metallic fractions recycled by physical methods. The trend in chemical recycling methods for the non-metallic fractions from waste PCBs is in order to make the best of advantages over physical recycling of the non-metallic fractions to compensate the higher cost of chemical recycling methods. The treatment and elimination of hazardous substances contained in the non-metallic fractions is an ultimate method to delete the pollution. The research in this area is just beginning and the challenges caused through technical and economic feasibility should not be underestimated (Guo et al., 2009). To achieve a clean separation among the metallic and the non-metallic fractions from waste PCBs is a way to reduce the contents of heavy metals in the non-metallic portions and therefore is an approach to minimize the potential environmental risk for the recycling of the non-metallic fractions. The removal of flame retardants and bromine recovery seem to be a way to treat hazardous substances contained

11.3 Emerging technologies for recycling of waste printed circuit boards 321

in the non-metallic fractions from e-waste and to reduce the pollution caused by the formation of PBDD/Fs. The flame retardants contained in waste PCBs are usually reactive ones, which cannot be extracted before the degradation of the thermosetting resins. Catalytic hydrogenation can be an effective way to remove most of the hazardous toxic compounds in the oil produced by chemical recycling of the non-metallic fractions from waste PCBs (Yu et al., 2016a). The bioleaching method is based on microbial capability to utilize organic and inorganic substrates, in that way removing the metals. Many investigators have studied the potential of bioleaching method for leaching metals from waste PCBs (Arshadi and Mousavi, 2014; Awasthi et al., 2016a,b,c; Karwowska et al., 2014). In this context, Willner and Fornalczyk (2013) studied the different parameters, such as the effect of pH, inoculum concentration, and the oxidationereduction potential of bioleaching of copper metal from waste PCBs applying a bacterial culture of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Generally, fungi have a promising ability to produce various types of organic acids, and different kind of metabolites can be used in the process of metal leaching from waste PCBs. These fungal-produced organic acids plays a significant role in the metal speciation step in key fungalmediated processes (fungi such as Aspergillus niger and Penicillium sp.) (Awasthi et al., 2017a; Brandl et al., 2001). In addition, a number of researchers have studied the feasibility of copper bioleaching from finemilled waste PCBs (at concentration up to 10.0 g/L), and around 90% Cu recovery was achieved by using mesophilic microbes (Bas et al., 2013; Brandl et al., 2001). Each technology has certain limitations, advantages, and disadvantages (Awasthi et al., 2016c, 2017a). Therefore, it is essential to develop a more appropriate process for the more effective and ecofriendly recycling of waste PCBs. In this context, Awasthi et al. (2016a,b,c) suggested an integrated system by means of combining physical and biological methods for better metal recovery, however, this approach needs detail research for better understanding. Therefore, this chapter highlights the significant progress with the waste PCBs recycling, in standings of technological improvement. Besides, the existence of various kinds of PCBs in electronic equipment could be a possible supply of secondary resources (e.g., raw materials) in terms of resourcefully achieving the circular economy approaches. Without any doubt, these waste PCBs show great potential value, but the number of formal recycling plants appropriate for its management, is relatively less globally.

322 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is supported by “National Key Technology R&D Program” of China (2017YFF0211604), and Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China (No. SWMES 2017-12). We are also thankful to Dr. Jinhui Li, Professor, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing China, for guidance, suggestions and kind support.

REFERENCES Akcil, A., Erust, C., Gahan, C.S., Ozgun, M., Sahin, M., Tuncuk, A., 2015. Precious metal recovery from waste printed circuit boards using cyanide and non-cyanide lixiviantsda review. Waste Management 45, 258e271. Arshadi, M., Mousavi, S.M., 2014. Simultaneous recovery of Ni and Cu from computerprinted circuit boards using bioleaching: statistical evaluation and optimization. Bioresource Technology 174, 233e242. Awasthi, A.K., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2016a. Environmental pollution of electronic waste recycling in India: a critical review. Environmental Pollution 211, 259e270. Awasthi, A.K., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2016b. Relationship between electronic waste recycling and human health risk in India: a critical review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23 (12), 11509e11532. Awasthi, A.K., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2016c. Integrated bioleaching of copper metal from waste printed circuit boardda comprehensive review of approaches and challenges. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 21141e21156. Awasthi, A.K., Zlamparet, G.I., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2017a. Evaluating waste printed circuit boards recycling: opportunities and challenges, a mini review. Waste Management and Research 35 (4), 346e356. Awasthi, A.K., Li, J., 2017b. An overview of the potential of eco-friendly hybrid strategy for metal recycling from WEEE. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 126, 228e239. Awasthi, A.K., Li, J., 2017c. Management of electrical and electronic waste: a comparative evaluation of China and India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76, 434e447. Bas, A.D., Deveci, H., Yazici, E.Y., 2013. Bioleaching of copper from low grade scrap TV circuit boards using mesophilic bacteria. Hydrometallurgy 138, 65e70. Brandl, H., Bosshard, R., Wegmann, M., 2001. Computer-munching microbes: metal leaching from electronic scrap by bacteria and fungi. Hydrometallurgy 59 (2e3), 319e326. Chris, Y., Yuan, H., Zhang, C., et al., 2007. Experimental studies on cryogenic recycling of printed circuit board. Journal of Advanced Manufacture Technology 34, 657e666. Cui, J., Forssberg, E., 2004. Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials B99, 243e263. Duan, H., Hou, K., Li, J., Zhu, X., 2011. Examining the technology acceptance for dismantling of waste printed circuit boards in light of recycling and environmental concerns. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 392e399.

References 323

Ebin, B., Isik, M.I., 2016. WEEE recycling. CHAPTER 5- Pyrometallurgical Processes for the Recovery of Metals from WEEE. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8033630.00005-5. Ghosh, B., Ghosh, M.K., Parhi, P., Mukherjee, P.S., Mishra, B.K., 2015. Waste printed circuit boards recycling: an extensive assessment of current status. Journal of Cleaner Production 94, 5e19. Guo, J.Y., Guo, J., Xu, Z.M., 2009. Recycling on non-metallic fractions from waste printed circuit boards: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 168, 567e590. Ha, V.H., Lee, J.C., Huynh, T.H., Jeong, J., Pandey, B.D., 2014. Optimizing the thiosulfate leaching of gold from printed circuit boards of discarded mobile phone. Hydrometallurgy 149, 118e126. Huang, K., Guo, J., Xu, Z., 2009. Recycling of waste printed circuit boards: a review of current technologies and treatment status in China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 164, 399e406. Jadhav, U., Su, C., Hocheng, H., 2016. Leaching of metals from printed circuit board powder by an Aspergillus niger culture supernatant and hydrogen peroxide. RSC Advances 6 (49), 43442e43452. Karwowska, E., Andrzejewska-Morzuch, D., Lebkowska, M., Tabernacka, A., Wojtkowska, M., Telepko, A., Konarzewska, A., 2014. Bioleaching of metals from printed circuit boards supported with surfactant producing bacteria. Journal of Hazardous Materials 264, 203e210. Li, J., Zeng, X., Chen, M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Stevels, A., 2015. “Control-Alt-Delete”: rebooting solutions for the E-waste problem. Environmental Science and Technology 49 (12), 7095e7108. Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Chapter 13 e Recycling Printed Circuit Boards. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. A Volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, pp. 287e311. Li, J., Duan, H., Yu, K., et al., 2010. Characteristic of low-temperature pyrolysis of printed circuit boards subjected to various atmosphere. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, 810e815. Quan, C., Li, A., Gao, N., et al., 2010. Characterization of products recycling from PCB waste pyrolysis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 89, 102e106. Sanapala, R., 2008. Characterization of FR-4 Printed Circuit Board Laminates Before and After Exposure to Lead-Free Soldering Conditions. University of Maryland [Thesis]. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/8362/umi-umd-5671.pdf?sequence¼ 1&isAllowed¼y. Song, Q., Zeng, X., Li, J., Duan, H., Yuan, W., 2015. Environmental risk assessment of CRT and PCB workshops in a mobile e-waste recycling plant. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22, 1e8. Song, Q., Li, J., 2014. Environmental effects of heavy metals derived from the e-waste recycling activities in China: a systematic review. Waste Management 34 (12), 2587e2594. Vehlow, J., Mark, F., 1997. Electrical and Electronic Plastics Waste Co-Combustion with Municipal Solid Waste for Energy Recovery. Available from: www.APME.Com. Wang, J., Guo, J., Xu, Z., 2016. An environmentally friendly technology of disassembling electronic components from waste printed circuit boards. Waste Management 53, 218e224.

324 CHAPTER 11 Recycling printed circuit boards

Wang, F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, T., Zhang, G., Yang, X., He, Y., Wang, L., Duan, C., 2017. Metals recovery from dust derived from recycling line of waste printed circuit boards. Journal of Cleaner Production 165, 452e457. Williams, E., Kahhat, R., Allenby, B., 2008. Environmental, social and economic implications of global reuse and recycling of personal computers. Environmental Science and Technology 42, 6446e6454. Willner, J., Fornalczyk, A., 2013. Extraction of metals from electronic waste by bacterial leaching. Environment Protection Engineering 39, 197e208. Wu, J., Li, J., Xu, Z., 2009. A new two-roll electrostatic separator for recycling of metals and nonmetals from waste printed circuit board. Journal of Hazardous Materials 161, 257e262. Xue, M., Xu, Z., 2013. Computer simulation of the pneumatic separator in the pneumaticelectrostatic separation system for recycling waste printed circuit boards with electronic components. Environmental Science and Technology 47 (9), 4598e4604. Yang, C., Li, J., Tan, Q., Liu, L., Dong, Q., 2017. Green process of metal recycling: coprocessing waste printed circuit boards and spent tin stripping solution. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering 5, 3524e3534. Yang, J., Lei, J., Peng, S., Lv, Y., Shi, W., 2016. A new membrane electro-deposition based process for tin recovery from waste printed circuit boards. Journal of Hazardous Materials 304, 409e416. Yang, X., Sun, L., Xiang, J., Hu, S., Su, S., 2013. Pyrolysis and dehalogenation of plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a review. Waste Management 33, 462e473. Yoo, J., Jeong, J., Yoo, K., et al., 2009. Enrichment of the metallic components from waste printed circuit boards by a mechanical separation process using a stamp mill. Waste Management 29, 1132e1137. Yu, G., Bu, Q., Cao, Z., Du, X., Xia, J., Wu, M., Huang, J., 2016a. Brominated flame retardants (BFRs): a review on environmental contamination in China. Chemosphere 150, 479e490. Yu, M., Zeng, X., Song, Q., Liu, L., Li, J., 2016b. Examining regeneration technologies for etching solutions: a critical analysis of the characteristics and potentials. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 973e980. Zheng, Y., Shen, Z., Cai, C., et al., 2009a. The reuse of nonmetals recycled from waste printed circuit boards as reinforcing fillers in the polypropylene composites. Journal of Hazardous Materials 163, 600e606. Zheng, Y., Shen, Z., Ma, S., et al., 2009b. A novel approach to recycling of glass fibers from non-metal materials of waste printed circuit boards. Journal of Hazardous Materials 170, 978e982. Zeng, X., Duan, H., Wang, F., Li, J., 2017. Examining environmental management of e-waste: China’s experience and lessons. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 72, 1076e1082. Zlamparet, G.I., Ijomah, W., Miao, Y., Awasthi, A.K., Zeng, X., Li, J., 2017. Remanufacturing strategies: a solution for WEEE problem. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 126e136.

Further reading 325

FURTHER READING Awasthi, A.K., Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Li, J., Rosa, P., Terzi, S., Wei, G., Zeng, X., 2018. Modelling the correlations of e-waste quantity with economic increase. The Science of the Total Environment 613e614, 46e53. Brandl, H., Faramarzi, M.A., 2006. Microbe-metal-interactions for the biotechnological treatment of metal-containing solid waste. China Particuology 4, 93e97. Coombs, C., 2001. Printed Circuit Handbook, fifth ed. McGraw Hill. Estrada-Ruiz, R.H., Flores-Campos, R., Gamez-Altamirano, H.A., Velarde-Sanchez, E.J., 2016. Separation of the metallic and non-metallic fraction from printed circuit boards employing green technology. Journal of Hazardous Materials 311, 91e99. Gu, W., Bai, J., Dong, B., Zhuang, X., Zhao, J., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Shih, K., 2017. Enhanced bioleaching efficiency of copper from waste printed circuit board driven by nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes modified electrode. Chemical Engineering Journal 324, 122e129. Hadi, P., Xu, M., Lin, C.S.K., Hui, C.W., McKay, G., 2015. Waste printed circuit board recycling techniques and product utilization. Journal of Hazardous Materials 283, 234e243. Kemmlein, S., Hahn, O., Jann, O., 2003. Emissions of organophosphate and brominated flame retardants from selected consumer products and building materials. Atmospheric Environment 37, 5485e5493. Li, J., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y., 2007. Application of corona discharge and electrostatic force to separate metals and non-metals from crushed particles of waste printed circuit boards. Journal of Electrostatics 65, 233e238. Mdlovu, N.V., Chiang, C.L., Lin, K.S., Jeng, R.C., 2018. Recycling copper nanoparticles from printed circuit board waste etchants via a microemulsion process. Journal of Cleaner Production 185, 781e796. Marques, A.C., Cabrera, J.M., Malfatti, C.F., 2013. Printed circuit boards: a review on the perspective of sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management 131 (15), 298e306. Rocchetti, L., Amato, A., Beolchini, F., 2018. Printed circuit board recycling: a patent review. Journal of Cleaner Productioń 178, 814e832. ́ Sheldon, R.A., 2016. Green chemistry and resource efficiency: towards a green economy. Green Chemistry 18 (11), 3180e3183. Xiang, D., Mou, P., Wang, J., Duan, G., Zhang, H.C., 2007. Printed circuit board recycling process and its environmental impact assessment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 34, 1030e1036. Zhan, L., Xiang, X., Xie, B., Sun, J., 2016. A novel method of preparing highly dispersed spherical lead nanoparticles from solders of waste printed circuit boards. Chemical Engineering Journal 303, 261e267. Zeng, X.L., Gong, R.Y., Chen, W.Q., Li, J.H., 2016. Uncovering the recycling potential of “new” WEEE in China. Environmental Science and Technology 50 (3), 1347e1358.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

12

Recycling liquid crystal displays

K.S. Williams and T. Mcdonnell University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

CHAPTER OUTLINE

12.1 Introduction 327 12.2 Liquid crystal displays

328

12.2.1 Composition and characterization of LCDs 12.2.2 Barriers to recycling of LCDs 334

12.3 Recycling processes for liquid crystal displays 12.3.1 Manual disassembly

328

335

335

Manual disassembly processing for LCDs 339

12.3.2 Automated processes for LCD recycling

341

Automated disassembly processes for LCDs 342

12.4 Hazardous materials in liquid crystal displays 12.4.1 Substances of concern in LCDs

344

345

Liquid crystals in screens 345 Mercury-containing backlights 346

12.5 Recovery of valuable materials 347 12.6 Reuse of liquid crystal display equipment and components 12.7 Future trends 349 12.8 Sources of further information and advice 350 References 351

348

12.1 INTRODUCTION Liquid crystal displays (LCDs) have become the dominant technology in televisions and monitors in our homes and offices (Torii, 2009). This has led to LCDs displacing traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) equipment within the display waste stream (Armishaw et al., 2007). However, as yet the electronic recycling industry has only received low volumes of LCDs into their waste stream. This is because the majority of LCDs are still in their working phase. The longevity of CRTs in the marketplace has seen the development of specific recycling techniques to process this technology (Menad, 1999). In contrast, the rapid emergence of LCDs onto the market has meant that little is

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00012-4 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

327

328 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

known about their composition (McDonnell and Williams, 2010a) and how to process them. Under the European Union (EU) Waste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE) Directive, both CRT and LCD technologies are classed as hazardous waste, requiring the selective removal of components and substances of concern (EU Commission, 2003a). This chapter discusses the treatment of waste LCDs from a recycling perspective. It includes not only legislation and technology but also the many environmental challenges faced by the industry. When one considers any recycling processes for LCDs, the most important factors are: (1) the material composition and (2) the location of any hazardous components within the equipment. The removal of the hazardous components and the associated environmental protection requirements are intrinsic to the recycling process (European Parliament, 2008). As a direct result, increasing legislative controls and best practice standards will eventually be applied to the waste management industry that recycles LCDs (McDonnell, 2011; WEEE Forum, 2011). The recovery of valuable materials is paramount to the viability of any recycling operation. Changes in technology and costs of repair and refurbishment are all factors that will either promote or act as barriers to reuse. Current industrial processes that have been developed and are under development are discussed. The future trends in LCD technology and their eventual succession by new technologies are reviewed.

12.2 LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS 12.2.1 Composition and characterization of LCDs A typical construction of LCD monitors and televisions consists of a front frame surrounding a flat display panel revealing the screen. The LCD panel is secured to the front frame and the removable back cover is attached to the front frame by an array of screws. Fig. 12.1 is an exploded side view schematic showing the front frame, back cover, and typical components in LCD equipment. Display image signals and power connections are introduced through rear panel electrical connectors to electronic printed circuit boards (PCBs) servicing the LCD panel. Fig. 12.2 shows a typical construction of an LCD television with the back cover removed. Front frame and back covers are manufactured from injection molded plastic with integral fixing bosses. These bosses provide anchor points for: (1) metal brackets to secure the LCD panel in the front frame; (2) locating structural steelwork to provide unit rigidity; (3) attaching loudspeakers; and (4) securing the back cover.

12.2 Liquid crystal displays 329

LCD unit Front frame

Back cover

Input / output PCB LCD panel

Power supply PCB

Stand

Input image signals

Power input

- Signal or power distribution PCB - Printed circuit board n FIGURE 12.1 Exploded schematic of typical components contained in LCD equipment.

Moulded boss for backcover fixing Front frame

Control Electronics

Display electronics under LCD panel cover

LCD panel fixed to front frame n FIGURE 12.2 Typical LCD panel mounted in front frame of 3700 television.

330 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

The LCD panel is a self-contained unit fitted with all the necessary electronics to form images on the screen (Fujitsu, 2006). An LCD television or monitor can therefore be conveniently divided into two areas: (1) support components and (2) the LCD panel (Williams and McDonnell, 2010). However, the LCD panel is not a suitably rigid structure to carry all the support components. Therefore, increasing quantities of pressed steel supports and frameworks are used in LCDs to provide rigidity and anchor points. In LCD monitors, it is usual to find a pressed steel frame to: (1) carry the LCD panel; (2) provide an anchor for the equipment stand; and (3) provide fixing points for electronic boards. In contrast, for LCD televisions an interlinking set of pressed steel supports are used to: (1) connect together the front frame, the LCD panel and the electronic boards; and (2) provide an anchor point for the stand. As the LCD equipment screen size increases the steel content also rises. Tables 12.1 and 12.2 show the typical material composition of a 1500 screen size LCD monitor and a 3700 screen television. It is clear from Tables 12.1 and 12.2 that the highest material weight is that of steel followed by plastics contained in the support components (front frame and back cover) and finally the LCD panel. Composition of the monitor and television shows that the LCD panel represents 26% and 49% of the unit weight, respectively. To achieve the WEEE Directive material recovery targets of 75% of the monitor or television, the LCD panel must be disassembled for material recycling (EU Commission, 2003b). The disassembly and separation of the support

Table 12.1 Compositional analysis of a 1500 LCD monitor Support components

kg

LCD panel

kg

Internal steel Plastics ABS/HIPS Electronics Cables Others Total for components

1.14 0.79 0.30 0.20 0.08 2.51

Aluminum back and frame Plastics LCD screen and electronics Backlights Cables and others Total for LCD panel

0.11 0.44 0.30 0.03 0.01 0.89

ABS/HIPS, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene/high impact polystyrene. Adapted from McDonnell, T.J., 2011. A Study on Recycling Liquid Crystal Television and Monitors and the Impact of Mercury on the Processes (Ph.D. thesis). University of Central Lancashire.

12.2 Liquid crystal displays 331

Table 12.2 Compositional analysis of a 3700 LCD television Support components

kg

LCD panel

kg

Internal steel Plastics ABS/HIPS Electronics Cables Others Total for components

4.94 3.40 1.47 0.28 0.33 10.42

Steel frame and back Plastics LCD screen and electronics Backlights Cables and others Total for LCD panel

6.07 1.57 1.95 0.24 0.41 10.24

Adapted from McDonnell, T.J., 2011. A Study on Recycling Liquid Crystal Television and Monitors and the Impact of Mercury on the Processes (Ph.D. thesis). University of Central Lancashire.

components only would be insufficient to meet the Directive’s material recovery targets. The LCD panels are self-contained units, fitted with all the necessary electronics to process images on the screen. Liquid crystal screens are light transmissive with images formed by arrays of primary color filters arranged as pixels. The unique properties of liquid crystal allows light to be twisted by the alignment of liquid crystal molecules to form a prismatic effect. The use of light polarization filters oriented at different angles provides a method of creating a light shutter when the crystal is subject to an electric field. By controlling the time the light shutter is operative in the three color pixels determines the shade of color at that point. The combination of thousands of these controllable pixels allows the formation of color images on the screen. The light sources used to create bright screen images in the majority of LCDs are compact tubular fluorescent lamps known as cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) (Fujitsu, 2006). These lamps contain small amounts of mercury to create vapor discharge during operation. The discharge of ultraviolet radiation excites a mix of phosphors lining the tube, creating a high-intensity white light source (Kahl, 1998). The CCFLs are arranged to provide rear screen illumination. It should be noted that there are different lamp configurations in monitors and television displays. In monitors there are typically one to three lamps mounted in carriers at the top and bottom of the screen edges. These lamps light a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) light guide to create screen illumination; see Fig. 12.3. This is in contrast to televisions where the CCFLs are arranged in arrays across a rear light tray behind the screen; see Fig. 12.4 (McDonnell and Williams, 2010a). The number of lamps used in the television array increases as a

332 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

Front frame LCD screen Optical films CCFL tubes

Light guide Inner frame CCFL tubes mounted in metal carrier with flying lead connector

Rear tray Control electronics

n FIGURE 12.3 Typical construction of a 1500 screen LCD panel.

Front frame LCD screen Inner frame Optical films Plastic diffuser CCFL electrode cover CCFL tube array Rear tray

n FIGURE 12.4 Typical construction of a 3700 television panel.

12.2 Liquid crystal displays 333

25 Key M - monitor TV - television

Number of lamps

20

15

10

5

0 14"M

15"M

17"M

19"M 20"M 20"TV 26"TV 30"TV 32"TV 37"TV 42"TV Screen size and equipment type

n FIGURE 12.5 Number of CCFL lamps contained in LCD monitors and televisions (M ¼ monitor,

TV ¼ television).

function of screen size. Fig. 12.5 shows the average number of lamps used with the varying screen sizes of LCD monitors and televisions (McDonnell and Williams, 2010b). The construction used by manufacturers of monitor display panels for locating and electrically connecting lamps is common across the industry. The majority of lamps are mounted in “U”-shaped channel metal carriers. These lamps are connected to the control electronics by electrical flying leads terminated in plug-style connectors, illustrated in Fig. 12.3. The CCFL carriers are usually retained in position with a single screw fixing. However, in contrast, the method of fixing and electrically connecting lamps in television panels varies with LCD panel manufacturer. The most widely used configuration is a series of lamps mounted in a distributed array as shown in Fig. 12.4. The number of CCFL lamps used in LCD monitors and televisions increases with screen size as shown in Fig. 12.5. It should be noted that television screen sizes >2000 contain more lamps due to the change from lamp carriers (used in monitors) to lamp arrays in televisions (Figs. 12.3 and 12.4). In the majority of television panels straight lamps are held in place using a variety of methods such as crimping, rubber mounts, or solder jointed at

334 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

either end. In contrast to the monitors, where CCFLs can be easily removed from the panel, the removal of lamps from televisions requires full panel disassembly.

12.2.2 Barriers to recycling of LCDs LCDs in common with CRTs are classed as hazardous waste under the WEEE Directive (EU Commission, 2003b). The Directive requires that this form of WEEE must be separately collected and that hazardous components listed in the Directive’s Annex II must be removed during treatment. The principal components in the LCD panels of concern are the LCDs and the mercury-containing backlights. However, the hazardous nature of liquid crystal has been changed on the release of a briefing note from the UK Environment Agency in 2010 stating, “liquid crystal displays which do not contain mercury backlights or where these have been removed are classed as non-hazardous” (Environment Agency, 2010). This leaves the mercury-containing backlights as the only key hazardous component contained in the majority of LCD monitors and televisions in this particular waste stream. The rapid emergence of LCDs onto the multimedia display market has meant that relatively few have entered the electrical waste stream. Consequently, the recycling industry’s focus so far has been solely on the CRT waste stream, treating LCDs as more of annoyance than a serious waste stream (Allen, 2008; McDonnell and Williams, 2010b). The industrial focus on CRTs was confirmed by research in 2009 that showed that LCDs represented only 2% of the display waste stream (McDonnell and Williams, 2010a). This was also supported by another independent European study (Krukenberg, 2010). In 2010, a follow-up study showed that this percentage had risen to 3.6% (McDonnell, 2011) and this trend is set to increase. The rising volume of this waste stream has understandably turned the attention of the display recycling industry to the challenges that LCDs pose. A far too common criticism from the recycling industry has been the lack of data available on the construction and the material content of this equipment (Lim and Schoenung, 2010; Rifer et al., 2009). This has meant that recycling techniques for LCDs have remained underdeveloped (Eastern Research Group Inc., 2007). The lack of techniques to effectively deal with LCDs has been highlighted in the EU WEEE Review report conducted by Huisman et al. (2007) who concluded that the environmental risk from mercury escape during treatment was a key issue. The report suggested that the environmental protection regarding the mercury recovery had priority over the

12.3 Recycling processes for liquid crystal displays 335

economic costs of developing the processes (Huisman et al., 2007). From a recycling perspective this means the removal of the mercury for recovery is the priority in the treatment process (McDonnell, 2011). The lack of familiarity with LCD in the industry has left the development of recycling techniques for this equipment as a “wait and see” policy leaving a few companies to “trail blaze” new technologies. However, it is clear that the volumes of waste LCDs are rising and WEEE display recyclers will have to tackle LCDs as the traditional CRT volumes diminish. The reluctance of some sections of the display recycling industry to become “LCD prepared” could be a false economy as environmental mismanagement of this waste stream could ultimately be a costly mistake in prosecutions and reputation loss.

12.3 RECYCLING PROCESSES FOR LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS 12.3.1 Manual disassembly As the LCD waste stream develops, display recycling facilities will have to turn their attention to developing suitable disassembly lines for LCD. The current techniques for manual disassembly of CRTs require the removal of the tube from the equipment for separation and removal of leaded glass and screen phosphors. The robust nature of the CRT tube means that the equipment casing, electronic control, and image display PCBs are arranged around this central structure. More importantly, from a disassembly perspective, the low number of fasteners (100 cm2 mercury-containing backlights electronic PCBs components containing restricted brominated flame retardants.

The first two components listed above present the WEEE recycling industry with its key challenges in developing tailored treatment techniques for LCDs (Stevens and Goosey, 2009). The remaining components in the list, although important in the environmentally sound treatment of LCD, are known items present in other established electrical waste treatment techniques such as CRT recycling (Stevens and Goosey, 2009). Two important reports have been produced. These are “Flat Panel Displays: End-of-Life Management Report” (Eastern Research Group Inc., 2007) and the “2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) for the EU Commission” by Huisman et al. (2007). They independently concluded that mercury from LCD backlights will be a primary component of concern in recycling LCD equipment. Furthermore, it can be stated that without data on the fate of mercury released from the backlights of LCD equipment during disassembly (and its subsequent recovery), the recycling industry is understandably reluctant to invest in unproven automated recycling techniques.

12.4 Hazardous materials in liquid crystal displays 345

12.4.1 Substances of concern in LCDs Liquid crystals in screens The majority of liquid crystals used in the screens of monitors and televisions are supplied by only a few manufacturers: Merck KGaA Germany, Dainippon Ink & Chemicals Inc. Japan, and the Chisso corporation Japan (Lee and Cooper, 2008). The quantity of liquid crystals used in a typical LCD screen is 0.5 mg cm2 (Martin et al., 2004). They are formed from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and include both biphenyls and phenylcyclohexanes (Takatsu et al., 2001). Modern liquid crystals for display applications are mixtures of up to 20 different chemical compounds (Matharu and Wu, 2009). The exact composition of these mixtures is proprietary information held exclusively by the manufacturers. This has led to uncertainty as to their true eco-toxic performance in the environment (Eastern Research Group Inc., 2007). The liquid crystal manufacturers have released results from studies demonstrating the low toxicology of their own liquid crystals (Martin et al., 2004; Takatsu et al., 2001). Research by Heinze et al. (2000) suggests that certain liquid crystals do have negative biological impacts in water. However, it not clear whether the tested liquid crystals were used in television and monitor displays. In line with the issued EU Commission Directive (1991) on Manufacturers Safety Data Sheets for chemicals, liquid crystal manufacturers have produced such data sheets. As an example, the Merck data on liquid crystal MLC-6405100 LC for LCD states the following: (1) quantitative data on the ecological effect of this product are not available, and (2) liquid crystal material must not be allowed to enter waters, waste water, or soil (Merck KGaA, 2003). This gives a very ambiguous picture of the apparent benign properties of liquid crystals. Liquid crystal eco-toxicity tests conducted by Merck in conjunction with the German Federal Environment Agency have not resulted in the imposition of any special requirements for the disposal of liquid crystals (Merck KGaA, 2000). In 2010 the UK Environment Agency clarified the UK position on liquid crystal in end-of-life LCD displays, stating that “evidence on the ecotoxicity of liquid crystals from LCD posed little threat to the environment” (Environment Agency, 2010). It is the view of the UK Environment Agency that LCDs are nonhazardous components providing mercurycontaining backlights are not present (Environment Agency, 2010). This effectively removes the requirement for removal of the liquid crystal screen during treatment of end-of-life LCDs in either manual or automated disassembly processes.

346 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

Mercury-containing backlights The majority of LCD monitors and televisions sold use mercury-containing fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) to provide the rear screen illumination (Lim and Schoenung, 2010); see Section 14.2. These lamps operate using mercury vapor discharge to excite phosphor coatings on the tube wall to produce white light (Kahl, 1998; Mester et al., 2005). The composition of a CCFL comprises a hollow glass tube made of borosilicate glass with a triphosphor coating lining the internal wall and electrodes for electrical conduction (Kahl, 1998). The triphosphors contain rare earth elements that include yttrium and europium (Rabah, 2008). The standard electrodes used in CCFLs mainly consist of molybdenum or nickel with a caesium compound coated on the exterior (Sugimura et al., 2009). The lamps are cylindrical in design with wires connecting the electrode to the outside of the tube through a hermetic glass seal (Sugimura et al., 2009). The tubes range from 2.0 to 6.5 mm in diameter. Other constituents of CCFLs include: (1) Penning gases (argon and neon), and (2) elemental mercury reservoirs (Kahl, 1998). The numbers and arrangement of lamps in LCD equipment vary and increase with larger screen area. LCD equipment can contain from 2 to 22 lamps (McDonnell and Williams, 2010b). Research by Mester et al. (2005) has shown that the varied locations and removal techniques of CCFL backlights in LCD notebooks makes it difficult to design simple mechanical extraction processes. Research by McDonnell and Williams (2010b) on a broader range of LCD equipment, including televisions, showed that the fixing methods of CCFL lamps vary among manufacturers of LCD panels. This suggests that recyclers will have to employ panel-specific techniques to remove CCFLs during manual disassembly (McDonnell and Williams, 2010b). The conclusion of Mester et al. (2005) was that manual disassembly was not feasible, but acknowledged that there is a lack of automated processes with the required facilities to remove mercury. The study concluded that the only feasible solution to the treatment of LCD was automated shredding with a suitable mercury extraction unit. The ReLCD project conducted by Kopacek (2008) concluded that manual disassembly of LCD notebooks offered the optimum economic solution. Disassembly studies on LCD equipment have shown that CCFL lamps are discovered broken during disassembly (McDonnell and Williams, 2010b; Mester et al., 2005). It is clear that the fragility of CCFLs in LCDs will lead to breakages during manual disassembly or automated shredding of LCD panels. For both processes the airborne release of mercury from CCFLs has a significant eco-toxicity potential (Lim and Schoenung, 2010). For mechanical crushing and shredding of LCDs, the contamination of the shred material with mercury from the lamps and its removal is the significant

12.5 Recovery of valuable materials 347

challenge (Li et al., 2009). This is supported by Morf et al. (2007) who suggest that the preshredding separation and collection of mercury-containing components is an effective method to avoid contamination of the output fractions. Irrespective of the treatment method, the containment of mercury and its recovery is the key challenge in the safe environmental treatment of LCDs containing mercury backlights. As highlighted in the WEEE review, conducted for the EU Commission, Huisman et al. (2007) stated, “Due to the absence of recycling solutions for LCD, the high risk of mercury emissions from these panels points to a strict target setting for mercury removal without causing health and safety risk.” They also suggest that treatment costs per LCD unit will be high, with recycling targets a secondary priority (Huisman et al., 2007).

12.5 RECOVERY OF VALUABLE MATERIALS Previous research in recycling LCD equipment has mainly focused on the display panel and the recovery of valuable materials such as liquid crystals, plastics, and precious metals (DIUS, 2009; Eastern Research Group Inc., 2007; Li et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2004). Many of these research projects have shown that the recovery of materials is possible. However, this has not been translated into a commercial disassembly recycling scenario. Typically materials recovered from LCDs with a commercial value are: n n n n n n n n

zinc-coated steel aluminum PMMA light diffuser optical-enhancement films recyclable plastics ABS, HIPS, and polycarbonate PCBs cable copper content indium in the screen.

As shown in Tables 12.1 and 12.2, the large weight of steel and aluminum relative to the equipment mass has an obvious recycling value and in common with other types of WEEE, reprocessing and recovery are already established. The PMMA and optical-enhancement films are of pure optical quality and will be subject to reuse and alternative applications, although as described previously the display recycling industry is just starting to explore the possibilities as the waste stream develops. PCBs recovered from LCDs vary in the complexity of the semiconductor components and other valuable metals. The main boards such as digital image processing and those associated with the LCD display panel are the highest value from a resource recovery perspective. This is because of the high use of precious metals. However,

348 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

the reuse and repair market for functioning electronic boards also present the recycling industry with a potentially enhanced revenue stream above the scrap value of the circuit boards. The use of separate PCBs inside LCDs requires interconnecting cables carrying digital signals and power distribution. These cables will have a copper wire content, and with recycled copper values rising on the commodity markets, this provides another revenue. A rare metal targeted for resource recovery is indium. This is contained in the indium tin oxide used as a transparent electrical conductor on the inner faces of the glass screen (EU Commission, 2011). This material has been shown to be recoverable by the Sharp Corporation (2009). It is estimated that the global usage of indium in the LCD manufacturing industry is 20 t (Matharu and Wu, 2009), and with a fluctuating cost of around $800 per kg (Metal Prices, 2011), the value of the annual market is $16 million. New technologies in transparent electrical conductors are presenting alternatives in the form of carbon nanotube deposition. This latest “graphene” technology has the potential to remove the dependency of the LCD industry on indium in the future. However, it is suggested from a recycling perspective, that recovery of materials from LCDs will only occur in dedicated plants incorporating a range of technologies to recover the diverse materials found in LCDs. It is unlikely that manual disassembly AATFs would undertake the investment in individual recovery technologies without a clear commercial advantage.

12.6 REUSE OF LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS The growth in LCD screen size has been controlled by the development of factories capable of handling and cutting the larger sizes of glass for screen manufacture. These facilities are referred to as manufacturing generations, and clear emergence of larger size LCD equipment can be traced from the development of larger screen size capacity factories since 2000 (Semenza, 2007). Early development of LCDs for multimedia applications drew criticism on the poor switching response time of the liquid crystal. This resulted in screen image motion blur and a narrow screen viewing angle for users. Continuous improvement in the technical performance of LCDs has seen the optimization of liquid crystals used in televisions (Pauluth and Tarumi, 2005). The earlier types of liquid crystal, such as the twisted nematic, have been superseded by faster response vertical alignment and interplane switching varieties of liquid crystal mixtures in the LC panel (Matharu and Wu, 2009).

12.7 Future trends 349

The progress in LCD technology since 2000 has brought about advances in the LCD panel in terms of picture resolution and types of crystal employed, thus creating obsolescence in the equipment in a relatively short period of time. For older models of LCD monitors and televisions, the availability of earlier technology screens and parts is limited by the manufacturers. This leaves second user parts as the only solution to the refurbishment and reuse of older LCD equipment. The unavailability of original equipment manufacturer parts has been addressed in the Eco-label Directive for televisions, which requires manufacturers to maintain a supply of parts for 7 years after a product has been discontinued (EU Commission, 2009a). The emphasis on refurbishment and reuse is highlighted in the proposed recast of the WEEE Directive in which 5% of WEEE is the target for refurbishment and reuse (EU Commission, 2009c). As AATFs develop techniques for the recycling of end-of-life LCDs, the high value of second user parts and equipment will promote the refurbishment and reuse of repairable LCDs in the waste stream. The release of the publicly available specification British Standard PAS141: 2011 on the procedures and regulation of refurbishment and reuse of used and waste equipment (BSI, 2011) has laid the foundations in the establishment of a confident market in reuse of electrical and electronic equipment.

12.7 FUTURE TRENDS The rapidly changing technology of the display market has largely seen the CRT replaced by flat panel displays in developed regions worldwide with LCD as the dominant display equipment of choice (Torii, 2009). The latest change in display application technology is the rapid move to light-emitting diode (LED) backlight units, replacing mercury-containing CCFL. With these changes in backlighting technology, a new generation of LCD highdefinition televisions (HDTVs) equipped with LED backlighting appeared on the market in 2009. This trend is set to continue with the marketing vice president of the Sharp Corporation announcing all Sharp HDTVs will be 100% LED backlit by 2012 (Reisinger, 2009). The forecast for market penetration of LED backlighting is estimated at 66% or more of all large screen televisions by 2014 (DisplaySearch, 2009). However, given the growing environmental issues and legislative direction, this percentage may be achieved sooner as manufacturers head for the high green ground. The drivers for the move to LED backlighting are: (1) power consumption savings; (2) removal of toxic mercury from these products; and (3) enhancement of the contrast ratio of the screen. Manufacturers such as Apple, Dell, and Samsung have committed to the introduction of LED backlit LCDs, citing the removal of mercury and environmental concerns from customers as

350 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

driving policy (Apple Inc., 2009; Dell Inc., 2009; Thompson, 2009). The main barrier to universal adoption of LED backlight units (BLUs) has been the higher cost (Chang, 2005). The move to LED BLU will allow manufacturers to reduce the environmental impact of LCDs with lower power consumption, but the other important factor is the elimination of mercury from these products. The latest technology to threaten the dominance of the LCD is the new organic light emitting diode (OLED) array (McDonnell and Williams, 2008). The technology has been proven and a number of manufacturers have commercially available models on the market. The barriers to the wider introduction of this technology are the high production cost and affordability, but it is envisaged that this will be the successor technology to LCD (McDonnell and Williams, 2008). The technology behind OLED displays uses luminescent inks to create images on the screen. The composition of these inks remains proprietary information. The recycling of OLED displays will result in another environmental uncertainty as to their potential negative impact. This will be a similar situation to the adoption of LCDs over CRTs.

12.8 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE Research and development organizations: 1. Centre for Waste Management, University of Central Lancashire: www.uclan.ac.uk/cwm: Research and development of recycling processes. Monitoring and evaluation. 2. C-Tech Innovation, Capenhurst, Chester, UK: http://www. ctechinnovation.com: liquid crystal recovery research. Government and advisory bodies: 1. CIWM: Chartered Institution of Wastes Management: www.ciwm.co.uk 2. WEEE Forum: European Association of WEEE collection and recovery organisations: www.weeeforum.org 3. ENDS Report: Environment, Carbon and Sustainability journal: www.endsreport.com 4. IEMA: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment: www.iema.net 5. JEITA: Japan Electronics and Information Technologies Industries: www.jeita.or.jp/english

References 351

6. ICER: Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) is an association of member companies dealing with the recycling or treatment of waste from all electrical and electronic equipment: www. icer.org.uk 7. EA: Environment Agency in the United Kingdom: www. environment-agency.gov.uk 8. DEFRA: UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: www.defra.gov.uk 9. BIS: UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: www.bis. gov.uk 10. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme: www.unep.org 11. European Union: Europa official website of the European Union: www.europa.eu Commercial recycling and materials recovery organizations; 1. Recycling Lives Limited, Preston, Lancashire: Display equipment recycler (AATF): www.recyclinglives.com 2. Mercury Recycling Ltd., Trafford Park, Manchester: Specialist mercury recovery processors (AATF): www.mercuryrecycling.co.uk

REFERENCES Allen, D., 2008. Personal Communication to TJ McDonnell. Recycling Lives Ltd., 4 February. Apple Inc., 2009. ‘The World’s Greenest Lineup of Notebooks’. Available at: http://www. apple.com/macbookair/environment.html. Armishaw, M., Winne, S., Blanch, M., 2007. ‘Disposal of TV Equipment: Possible Impact of Digital Switchover’, AEA Technology, Market Transformation Programme Project Report January 2007. Didcot, Oxford, UK. Böni, H., Widmer, R., 2011. ‘Disposal of Flat Panel Display Monitors in Switzerland’, Swico Recycling, Final Report by Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA) for Swico Recycling. Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 28e34. Available at: http://swicorecycling.ch/downloads/497/344540/swico_schlussbericht_ e_2010.pdf. BSI, 2011. ‘Reuse of Used and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (UEEE and WEEE). Process Management. Specification’, PAS 141:2011. 132 British Standards Institution, London. Chang, S.C., 2005. The TFT-LCD industry in Taiwan: competitive advantages and future developments. Technology in Society 27 (2), 199e215. Cryan, J., Freegard, K., Morrish, L., Myles, N., 2010. ‘Demonstration of Flat Panel Display Recycling Technologies’, Axion Consulting and Waste Resource Action Program (WRAP), MDD014, Banbury, Oxon. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Flat_ Panel_Display_recycling_technology_report.0d462064.9820.pdf.

352 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

Dalrymple, I., Wright, N., Kellner, R., Bains, N., Geraghty, K., Goosey, M., Lightfoot, L., 2007. An integrated approach to electronic waste (WEEE) recycling. Circuit World 33 (2), 52e58. Dell Inc, 2009. ‘Dell’s Chemical Use Policy: Elimination of Mercury’. Available at: http:// www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/Chemical_Use_Policy.pdf. DisplaySearch, 2009. ‘Q2’09 Quarterly LED & CCFL Backlight Report’. Display Search, Austin, Texas, USA. Available at: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/ displaysearch/hs.xsl/090729_led_backlight_penetration_rate_in_lcd_tvs_expected_ to_ surpass_ccfl_backlights_in_2014.asp. DIUS, 2009. Collaborative Research and Development Project. REFLATED’, Department for Industry, Universities Skills. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/ corporate/migratedd/publications/s/scienceinnovation_web.pdf. Eastern Research Group Inc, 2007. Flat Panel Displays: End of Life Management Report. final report. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division, King County, USA. Available at: www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/takeitback/ electronics/documents/FPDReport.pdf. Environment Agency, 2010. Classification of Electronic Display Devices. UK Environment Agency. Available at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/ documents/Business/Flatscreen_Brief__Mar2010.pdf. Environment Agency, 2011. Regulatory Position Statement: The Treatment of Liquid Crystal Display Units Containing Mercury to Comply with BATRRT. UK Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/ documents/Business/MWRP_RPS_111_LCD_treatment_-_Aug_2011.pdf. EU Commission, 1991. Commission Directive (91/155/EEC) of 5 March 1991 Defining and Laying Down the Detailed Arrangements for the System of Specific Information Relating to Dangerous Preparations in Implementation of Article 10 of Directive 88/379/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, p. L76. EU Commission, 2003a. Directive 2002/95/EC of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Official Journal of the European Union, European Parliament, Strasbourg, pp. 19e23. L37. EU Commission, 2003b. Directive 2002/96/EC of 27th January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Official Journal of the European Union, European Parliament, Brussels, pp. 24e29. L37. EU Commission, 2007. ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures, and Amending Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation’ (EC) No 1907/2006’. Interinstituitional File of the Official Journal of the European Union, Council of the European Union, Brussels, pp. 14e63, 2007/0121 (COD). EU Commission, 2009a. Commision Decision 2009/300/EC of 12th March 2009 Establishing the Revised Ecological Criteria for the Award of the Community EcoLabel to Televisions. Official Journal of the European Union, pp. 3e8. L82. EU Commission, 2009b. DIRECTIVE 2009/161/EU of 17 December 2009 Establishing a Third List of Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values in Implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC and Amending Commission Directive 2000/39/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, pp. 87e89. L 338.

References 353

EU Commission, 2009c. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Re-cast. Interinstituitional File of the Official Journal of the European Union, Council of the European Union, Brussels, pp. 1e31, 2008/0241 (COD). EU Commission, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Tackling the Challenges in Commodity Markets on Raw Materials. COM(2011) 25 final. European Commission, Brussels, pp. 12e20. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/rawmaterials/files/docs/communication_en.pdf. European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Waste Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, European Parliament, Strasbourg, pp. 3e30. L 312. Fujitsu, 2006. Fundamentals of Liquid Crystal Displays e How They Work and What They Do. White Paper. Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc., USA, USA, pp. 3e5. Heinze, L., Kainowski, G., Heppke, G., 2000. Experiments for the assessment of biological effects of LCD material on the environment. In: International Conference and Exhibition Micro Materials, pp. 941e946. Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Ogilvie, S., Maurer, C., Artim, C., Delgado, C., Stevels, A., 2007. 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) for the EU Commission. United Nations University, Germany. Final Report. ISO, 2000. ISO 11469:2000 Plastics e Generic Identification and Marking of Plastics Products. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva Switzerland. Available at: http://www.iso.org. Kahl, J., 1998. Understanding Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps: Lamp Construction and Physics. JKL Components Corporation. Available at: http://www.jkllamps.com/ apnotes/ai007a.pdf. Kopacek, B., 2008. ReLCD: recycling and re-use of LCD panels. In: Reichl, H., et al. (Eds.), Electronics Goes Green 2008 Conference. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 703e705. Krukenberg, N., 2010. Challenges and conditions in the collection, transport and treatment chain of LCD displays. In: 9th International Electronics Recycling Congress, Salzburg, Austria, 21 January. Lee, S.J., Cooper, J., 2008. Estimating regional material flows for LCDs. In: 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 1 May, pp. 1e6. Li, J.H., Gao, S., Duan, H.B., Liu, L.L., 2009. Recovery of valuable materials from waste liquid crystal display panel. Waste Management 29 (7), 2033e2039. Lim, S., Schoenung, J.M., 2010. Human health and ecological toxicity potentials due to heavy metal content in waste electronic devices with flat panel displays. Journal of Hazardous Materials 177 (1e3), 251e259. Lockerbie, A., 2011. Taking the fear out of flat panels. In: MRW: Materials Recycling Week, 6 May, pp. 17e18. Martin, R., Simon-Hettich, B., Becker, W., 2004. Safe Recovery of Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) in Compliance with WEEE. Electronics Goes Green EGG 2004, Berlin, 6e8 September. Matharu, A., Wu, Y., 2009. Liquid crystal displays: from devices to recycling. In: Hester, R.E., Harrison, R.H. (Eds.), Issues in Environmental Science and

354 CHAPTER 12 Recycling liquid crystal displays

Technology: Electronic Waste Management, vol. 27. RSC Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 201e209. McDonnell, T.J., 2011. A Study on Recycling Liquid Crystal Television and Monitors and the Impact of Mercury on the Processes (Ph.D. thesis). University of Central Lancashire. McDonnell, T.J., Williams, K.S., 2008. Crystal Clear. The Journal for Waste & Resource Management Professionals, pp. 26e27. McDonnell, T.J., Williams, K.S., 2010a. Commercial recycling of LCD and its challenges: a UK perspective. In: 9th International Electronics Recycling Congress, Salzburg, Austria. 21 January. McDonnell, T.J., Williams, K.S., 2010b. Liquid Crystal Displays: Knowledge Exchange and its Role in the Treatment of Mercury Containing Backlights in Liquid Crystal Display Equipment. The Enviromentalist (May), pp. 10e16. McDonnell, T.J., Williams, K.S., 2011. The Location and Character of Mercury in Waste LCD Backlights. Centre for Waste Management (UClan) and Waste Resource Action Program (WRAP), MDD028 Summary Research Report (WRAP), Banbury. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Flat_Panel_Display_recycling_technology_ report.0d462064.9820.pdf. Menad, N., 1999. Cathode ray tube recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26 (3e4), 143e154. Merck, KGaA., 2000. Liquid Crystals in Liquid Crystal Displays: Statement of the German Federal Agency Concerning the Ecotoxicology of Liquid Crystals in Liquid Crystal Displays. http://www.merck-chemicals.co.uk/lcd-emerging-technologies/liquid-crystalsin-lcds/c_LTub.s1LkKIAAAEWOF4fVhTp. Merck, KGaA., 2003. Merck Safety Data Sheet According to EC Directive 91/155/EEC Product Name MLC-6405-100 Licrystal (Registered Trademark) Catalogue No. 126472. Mester, A., Fraunholcz, N., van Schaik, A., Reuter, M.A., 2005. In: Kvande, H. (Ed.), Characterization of the Hazardous Components in End-of-life Notebook Display. TMS, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1213e1216. Morf, L.S., Tremp, J., Gloor, R., Schuppisser, F., Stengele, M., Taverna, R., 2007. ‘Metals, non-metals and PCB in electrical and electronic waste e actual levels in Switzerland’. Waste Management 27 (10), 1306e1316. Pauluth, D., Tarumi, K., 2005. Optimization of liquid crystals for television. Journal of the Society for Information Display 13 (8), 693e702. Metal Prices, 2011. Indium Metal Commodity Value. Available at: http://www. metalprices.com/pubcharts/Public/Indium_Price_Charts.asp. Rabah, M.A., 2008. Recyclables recovery of europium. and yttrium metals and some salts from spent fluorescent lamps. Waste Management 28 (2), 318e325. Reisinger, D., 2009. Sharp Sees HDTV’s Future Mapped Out. Cnet News 16. Available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10283255-17.html. Rifer, W., Brody-Heine, P., Peters, A., Linnell, J., 2009. Closing the Loop: Electronics Design to Enhance Reuse/recycling Value. Final Report. Green Electronics Council in collaboration with the National Centre for Electronics Recycling and Resource Recycling, Inc., USA, pp. 12e15. Available at: http://www.greenelectronicscouncil. org/documents/0000/0007/Design_for_End_of_Life_Final_Report_090208.pdf. Semenza, P., 2007. Can anything catch TFT LCDs? Nature Photonics 1 (5), 267e268.

References 355

Sharp Corporation, 2009. Developing Technology to Recover Indium from Waste LCD Panels. Sharp Social and Environmental Activities. Available from: http://sharpworld.com/corporate/eco/environment/technology/case2.html. Stevens, G.C., Goosey, M., 2009. Materials used in manufacturing electrical and electronic products. In: Hester, R.E., Harrison, R.H. (Eds.), Issues in Environmental Science and Technology: Electronic Waste Management, vol. 27. RSC Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 40e73. Sugimura, T., Hata, H., Sugimura, H., Tamura, S., Takahaski, K., Yamagishi, K., Nishikata, H., 2009. Electrode, Method for Producing Electrode, and Cold-Cathode Fluorescent Lamp. US20090218928. NEC Lighting Ltd., Tokyo (patent). Takatsu, H., Ohnishi, H., Kobayashi, K., Becker, W., Seki, M., Tazume, M., Nakajima, T., Saito, H., Simon-Hettich, B., Naemura, S., 2001. Investigation activity and data on safety of liquid crystal materials. Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals 364, 171e186. Thompson, I., 2009. Samsung touts its green credentials. In: Samsung Press Conference San Francisco 26 August 2009. Available at: http://www.businessgreen.com/v3/ news/2248461/samsung-touts-green-credentials. Torii, H., 2009. LCD TV Outlook Improves; CRT Demand Plummets. Display Search, Austin, Texas, USA. Available at: http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/ displaysearch/hs.xsl/090928_lcd_tv_outlook_improves_crt_demand_plummets.asp. United Nations, 2009. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.3. United Nations, New York and Geneva. Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev03/03files_e.html. WEEE Forum, 2011. WEEELABEX Normative Document on Treatment v9.0: Specific Requirements for the Treatment of Flat Panel Displays. Report Date 2 May 2011. WEEE forum, Brussels, pp. 39e43. Available at: www.weee-forum.org/ weeelabexproject. Williams, K.S., McDonnell, T.J., 2010. Liquid crystal displays: environmental management in removal and recycling of mercury-containing backlights. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 36 (3), 383e393.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

13

Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

Christian Keri Keri-Consulting, Vienna, Austria

CHAPTER OUTLINE

13.1 Introduction

357

13.1.1 Materials 358 13.1.2 Ozone-depleting substances, blowing agent recovery

13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5

Challenges relating to WEEE refrigerators and freezers Requirements for degassing processes 362 Emissions of volatile organic compounds 363 Future trends 365 13.5.1 Handling of removed oil/refrigerant

359

360

365

13.6 Techniques for separation of fridge plastics 367 13.7 Sources of further information and advice 369 13.8 Conclusions 370 References 370

13.1 INTRODUCTION In the impact assessment for the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Directive recast, the predictions made during the 1990s estimated the tonnage of electric and electronic equipment (EEE) put on the EU15 market at 7 Mt. The more recent United Nations University (UNU) study (United Nations University, 2008) estimates that the amount of new EEE put on the EU27 market in 2005 was 10.3 Mt per year due to the expansion from EU15 to EU27. The latest available figures of Eurostat show an amount of c. 6.5 Mt for 2006 (this is comparatively low, because reports of some big member states are still missing) and 10.1 Mt for 2008. Based on current trends of a moderate yearly growth rate of 2.5%, sales of new EEE can be reestimated to rise to 10.8 Mt per year by 2011. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00013-6 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

357

358 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

12

Million tonnes

10 8 6 4 2 0 2005 (UNU)

2006 (Eurostat reports)

2008 (Eurostat reports)

Market Input

2011 (estimate)

2015 (Eurostat reports)

Waste arising

n FIGURE 13.1 Market input of EEE and amount of WEEE.

In the explanatory memorandum of the WEEE Directive, the amount of EEE arising as waste (WEEE) was estimated in 1998 for the EU15 at 6 Mt. The new estimate of the UNU study for the current WEEE arising across the EU27 for 2005 is between 8.3 and 9.1 Mt per year. The actual figure based on the reports of the member states to Eurostat is c. 1.4 Mt for 2006 and 3 Mt in 2008. Latest data from 2015 show a market Input of about 10 Mt and around 4 Mt of WEEE collected (see Fig. 13.1). The increase in the WEEE arising since 1998 is due to expansion of the European Union (EU), the growth in the number of households and higher consumption per capita. The percentage of cooling and freezing appliances can be estimated to be approximately 25% of the large household appliances (Elektroaltgeräte Koordinierungsstelle Austria GmbH, 2010) and therefore they represent the second largest group.

13.1.1 Materials The three main materials found in electrical and electronic scrap are metals, glass, and plastics. The material composition of an average refrigerator is shown in Fig. 13.2. Ferrous metals account for more than 50%, nonferrous metals for ca. 8%, and plastics for 20%e25% of waste. Other essential materials are oil and cooling agents.

13.1 Introduction 359

Iron PU PS Aluminium Glass Copper Compressoroil Blowing agent Refrigerant

n FIGURE 13.2 Average material composition of refrigerators.

13.1.2 Ozone-depleting substances, blowing agent recovery Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) were developed in the United States in the early 20th century and became widely used as refrigerants and for making plastic foams producing refrigerators and freezers until the early 1990s, when it was found that these chlorinated gases damaged the ozone layer. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, and very stable, which makes them ideal for use in appliances in private households. However, it is their stability that creates environmental problems today. Ozone molecules form a layer in the stratosphere, 10e50 km above the Earth. This layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) radiation and, in particular, from most of the ultraviolet B radiation (UVB). UVB is the main cause of sunburn and skin damage, and a decrease in ozone levels will result in more UVB reaching the Earth’s surface. The destruction of ozone by ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) has been recognized since 1974. Research has identified CFCs and HCFCs as the primary ODSs (National Academy of Sciences, 1982). When CFCs are released into the atmosphere they are not broken down immediately but are transported into the stratosphere, where they are eventually broken

360 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

down by UV radiation. The breakdown of CFCs releases chlorine, which then acts as a catalyst for the destruction of the ozone layer. In 1985, the first scientific evidence of the ozone hole over the Antarctic was reported (Farman et al., 1985). In 1994, this hole measured about 25 million km2 (NASA, http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html). Moreover, in addition to the hole that appears over the Antarctic each spring, there is a similar ozone hole forming over northern Europe. While productive steps have been taken to reduce and ban the use of CFCs in manufacturing processes, findings (Morrisette, 1989) suggest there remains an urgent need to eliminate ODSs from our environment. So ozone depletion remains a current issue. Council Regulation (EC) No. 3093/94 of December 15, 1994, on substances that deplete the ozone layer amended by Regulation 2037/2000/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 29, 2000, on substances that deplete the ozone layer banned their manufacture and regulated their treatment. Owing to the long life cycle of cooling appliances, those gases still make up a significant part of today’s WEEE stream. In many countries, the use of ODSs has been reduced dramatically or phased out. The focus is now on the reduction of HCFC consumption, which is due to be reduced to 90% by 2015 and phased out by 2030 according to the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). There are now several blowing agents that do not destroy the ozone layer. European refrigerator manufacturers nowadays use cyclopentane as a blowing agent in polyurethane foam insulation, in place of CFC, HCFC, and HFC. Cyclopentane has none of the environmental dangers of CFCs or HCFCs, but it does carry potential health and safety risks. Cyclopentane has zero ozone-depletion potential and a global-warming potential that is less than one hundredth of that of CFC-11 (UNEP, 1994). But it is flammabledits flash point is below 20 Cdand it can be highly explosive when mixed with air. This has confronted the fridge recycling plants with a new set of challenges, especially those using traditional technology.

13.2 CHALLENGES RELATING TO WEEE REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS The main climate-related impacts of WEEE derive from the release of CFCs due to inappropriate treatment or disposal of cooling and freezing appliances. Based on the latest available reports of the member states to Eurostat (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/ wastestreams/weee), the total market input of large household appliances

13.2 Challenges relating to WEEE refrigerators and freezers 361

in 2008 was 4.18 Mt and the total amount collected was 1.78 Mt, giving a collection rate of 37%. Derived from the Austrian figures that include specific reports for large household appliances and refrigerators and freezers, the percentage of refrigerators can be assumed to be c. 25% of the large household appliances category. Based on these figures, the amount of fridges and freezers bypassing proper collection and treatment is at least 730,000 t. Assuming an average weight of 44 kg, this means up to 16.6 million refrigerators or freezers. Around 80% of these are estimated to contain ODSs with an average of 0.4 kg of CFCs in the refrigerant and insulating foam per appliance. Given the fact that an average European refrigerator represents therefore a CO2 equivalent of 2800 kg, this suggests that the greenhouse gas release from cooling and freezing appliances would be around 37 Mt of CO2 equivalent a year. This gives a monetized value of the damage having a magnitude of more than 1 billion euros per year, declining each year to low levels by 2025. This decline comes as the CFC ban in cooling and freezing equipment results in lower numbers of appliances containing CFCs. More than three-quarters of the ODSs released from refrigerants and foams in cooling and freezing equipment due to improper treatment or disposal will most likely happen between 2017 and 2025, depending on the rate at which ODS-containing equipment enters the waste stream. With any low target regarding the collection rate of WEEE and in the absence of a specific target for the separate collection of refrigerators and freezers, a large percentage of them, between 40% and 60%, will not be subject to proper treatment. The main reasons are the relatively expensive treatment (to remove the CFCs and HCFCs) and the option to treat other more profitable appliances, in terms of the value of secondary raw materials in relation to treatment costs, to achieve the given target. It is a well-known fact that there is an enormous quantity of refrigeration appliances containing CFCs that are still in operation in European households (about 200 million old devices). The tremendous climate relevance of this group has to be taken into consideration (more than 500 Mt of CO2 equivalents may be emitted by these waste appliances in the oncoming years). Against this background, waste refrigeration appliances have to be considered the most hazardous group within the WEEE products. So one of the major objectives of the WEEE Directive should be the collection of all waste cooling appliances and their environmentally sound treatment, but this is not explicitly stated either in the actual WEEE Directive or in the impact assessment published by the European Commission.

362 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

13.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGASSING PROCESSES Regulation 2037/2000/EC requires that ODSs contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump equipment should be recovered for destruction, recycling, or reclamation during the servicing and maintenance of equipment or before the dismantling or disposal of equipment. In principle, emissions from equipment covered by the WEEE Directive should be avoided. Improving the recovery of ODSs contained in fridges and freezers could be achieved by strengthening the provisions contained in the directive, notably by inserting concrete values or a minimum recovery rate for ODSs contained in specific categories of fridges and freezers. It is still a common misapprehension that the reason for the collection and treatment of old fridges is to recover the refrigerant from the cooling circuit at the back of the unit. The real reason, and by far the more complex task, is to recover, store, and destroy the blowing agent enclosed in the insulating foam. Although most fridge recycling plants are able to process waste refrigeration appliances regardless of the refrigerant in the cooling circuit or the blowing agent in the polyurethane foam, the fridge recycling industry must consider which strategy to follow in that field. A recent study carried out by the Öko-Institut e.v. (2007) stated that the most beneficial approach is to process all CFC, HCFC, HFC, and cyclopentane fridges together in a single specialized recycling plant. As part of the life cycle assessment, the study examined the following four scenarios with respect to their environmental impact: n

n

n

n

Mixed-mode processing: joint processing of CFC-containing and CFC-free appliances at the same time with no prior sorting of waste appliances before treatment. Parallel processing: separate processing of CFC-containing and CFCfree appliances where prior sorting before treatment is required. Treatment in two different plants at different sites: first step in the fridge plant (removal of the refrigerant from the cooling circuit) and second step processing of fridges containing ODS in the fridge recycling plant and a separate processing of pretreated CFC-free appliances in a car shredder. Use of a car shredder and fridge plant: complete treatment (steps one and two) of CFC-free appliances in a car shredder and CFC-containing appliances in specialized fridge recycling plants.

In all of the environmental criteria used, the mixed processing mode proved to be significantly better than the other three. The conclusion of this study is remarkably clear: any prior sorting of waste fridges and freezers into CFCcontaining and CFC-free appliances has a significant negative effect on the

13.4 Emissions of volatile organic compounds 363

most important environmental criteria. This joint treatment may be used to argue that the requirement of specific values or rates for recovery of ODSs or refrigerants and blowing agents is impossible to stipulate.

13.4 EMISSIONS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS A recently published study by the Austrian research institute FHA in close collaboration with the Institute for Statistics and Probability Theory at Vienna Technical University commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment, and Water Management and the RAL Quality Assurance Association for the Demanufacture of Refrigeration Equipment has cast new light on the treatment of end-of-life refrigeration appliances containing hydrocarbons (FHA, 2008). The results of the field study conducted support the above-mentioned approach of joint treatment of waste refrigeration equipment. The tests performed at an Austrian recycling plant generated valuable data on the processing of waste refrigeration appliances containing hydrocarbons like cyclopentane. The study also includes a forecast of how the fraction of so-called CFC-free appliances in the waste stream will grow over the coming years. In many recycling companies it is now common practice to adapt the fridge recycling plants originally designed to treat CFC appliances and to collect the climatically hazardous CFCs. These are now used for the joint processing of all waste types of waste refrigeration appliances. The primary question addressed in the study was to analyze what quantities of hydrocarbons can be recovered from CFC-free appliances when processed in state-of-the-art fridge recycling plants. The study also aimed to look at differences between processing batches of CFC-containing and CFC-free fridges and joint processing modes and to determine if and how the CFC and HC recovery rates achieved in joint processing compare with those in batch processing. In order to generate data on the amounts of hydrocarbons recovered during processing, the plant was run for several days processing only HCcontaining appliances. Three different mass balance analyses due to three categories of sizes of fridges and freezers in accordance with the common international definitions (Type one appliances: domestic fridges with a storage capacity of up to 180 L, Type two appliances: domestic fridge-freezers with a storage capacity in the range of 180e350 L, and Type three appliances: domestic chest freezers and upright freezers with a storage capacity up to 500 L) of the batch processing of HC appliances were carried out.

364 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

Following the tests of batch processing, three tests were conducted to examine the joint processing of CFC and HC appliances. Each test was performed on a sample of 1000 appliances. In the first test the ratio of CFC to HC appliances corresponds approximately to the composition of the waste refrigeration equipment currently being sent for treatment (15%); in tests two and three, the proportion of appliances with a hydrocarbon blowing agent was raised to 30% and 50%, respectively. The intention of tests two and three was to simulate the composition of the waste input stream in the coming years. The aim of these three tests was to assess whether the CFC and HC recovery rates achieved by the joint processing of CFC and HC appliances were better than, worse than, or the same as those achieved in batch processing. The data indicate that joint processing of waste refrigeration had no negative effect on the recovery rate of CFCs and HCs and is therefore environmentally preferable to batch processing. The advantage results mainly because no additional sorting or transport is required. Statistically established and reliable data concerning the quantities of CFCs contained in the different types of refrigerator appliances have been available for some time (Umweltbundesamt BRD, 1998), but this information has not been available for hydrocarbon appliances so far. The tests carried out in batch mode showed that processing recovers a statistically reliable average of 130 g of hydrocarbon blowing agent from a type one appliance, 230 g of HC from a type two appliance, and 340 g of HC from a type three appliance of the insulation foam. An interesting but worrying fact, however, was that in addition to cyclopentane, the hydrocarbons recovered were found to contain around 20% of other volatile organic compounds. In particular, the fraction of the CFC R141b was particularly high. The tests carried out in joint processing mode confirmed the data acquired in the batch mode tests. When combined with the equivalent data already available for CFCs, the expected values for recovered blowing agents calculated based on the relevant ratio of HC to CFC appliances treated in all three tests carried out in joint processing mode could be achieved. In all three tests of the joint processing of HC and CFC appliances, the actual quantities of blowing agents recovered were greater than the calculated expectation values. The results clearly refute any suggestion that the recovery of hydrocarbons would adversely affect the recovery of CFCs. Regarding the recovery of the refrigerants in the cooling circuit, a series of tests were carried out based on the vacuum extraction of the refrigerant from 100 undamaged appliances. In order to get reliable data, it is essential that undamaged appliances and defective appliances can be clearly

13.5 Future trends 365

distinguished. In the case of CFC appliances, an appliance is generally deemed to be defective if the pressure in the cooling circuit is measured to be 0.2 bar or less. However, it was found that the pressure in the cooling circuit of the HC appliances was very often around 0.2 bar or less. The question whether HC appliances tend to lose refrigerant from their cooling circuits much earlier than CFC appliances, or whether the pressure in the cooling circuit of an HC appliance is inherently much lower than that in a CFC appliance, could not be answered. As a result, the conclusions regarding amounts of recoverable refrigerants are not as clear cut as those from tests involving 100 CFC appliances. An interesting “by-product” of the study was the information related to missorting of appliances at the recycling plant. Even when the CFC and HC appliances were sorted and separated by qualified workers, around 1.6% of the incoming appliances were incorrectly sorted. This figure confirms the sorting error rate of 1% that was assumed in the life cycle assessment study published by the Öko-Institut e.v. (2007).

13.5 FUTURE TRENDS A further important part of the Öko-Institut study was the statistically reliable computation of the relative proportions of CFC and HC appliances in the waste stream sent for treatment in the future (see Fig. 13.3). The study shows that the proportion of HC appliances in the waste stream is not growing at the rate usually assumed up until now. As a result, the need for environmentally sound processing of waste refrigeration appliances containing CFCs will remain for many more years. It is obvious that the need to have recycling plants capable of recovering CFCs from waste refrigeration equipment will remain at least until the year 2020. Results show that the percentage of CFC-free appliances has increased to more than 60% but there are still more than 30% of appliances containing CFCs.

13.5.1 Handling of removed oil/refrigerant In order to prevent any negative effects to the environment, waste cooling and freezing appliances shall only be stored in suitable areas, taking into account the type of wastes and their hazard potential with weather-resistant covering, with impermeable and, if necessary, oil- and solvent-resistant surfaces, with spillage collection facilities and, if necessary, decanters and cleanser degreasers (BGBl, 2006). In addition, the transportation of waste cooling and freezing appliances shall be environmentally sound. Therefore, waste cooling equipment shall be transported and stored in such a way that any damage is prevented that may result in the release of ODSs or other

75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5 0

Percentage Pentane Appliances

85

95

366 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Year n FIGURE 13.3 Percentage of CFC-free refrigerators in the refrigerator waste stream.

refrigerants. Waste cooling equipment shall be secured against slipping and shall not be transported or stored upside down or lying on parts of the refrigeration circuit. Further to the requirement to use the best available treatment technology for recovery and recycling, article 6 paragraph 1 of the WEEE Directive stipulates the “removal of all fluids” as a minimum standard and absolute requirement applicable to all treatments of refrigeration equipment covered by the directive. This means that specific extraction and collection of the fluids is necessary so that they can be subject to further environmentally sound treatment. The uncontrolled leakage of fluids from refrigeration equipment when treated in a car shredder would therefore be definitely not in line with the requirements of the directive. The preprocessing stage, commonly called step one of the treatment process, involves the evacuation of the refrigerant-oil mixture from the cooling circuit and the subsequent separation of the mixture into its components by passage through a sequence of thermal and pressure treatment units. The refrigerant is filled into a compressed gas cylinder and is subsequently

13.6 Techniques for separation of fridge plastics 367

destroyed. The oil is separated and collected and recycled. Once the cooling circuit has been evacuated, the empty compressor is cut from the appliance. The glass, cables, mercury switches, and capacitors are also removed. All components and modules containing contaminants or pollutants are removed from the appliance for separate processing and recovery of the secondary raw materials or disposal. One of the most specific and detailed requirements regarding the treatment of waste refrigerators and freezers is the Austrian ordinance for treatment obligations for certain types of waste, published on December 3, 2004 (BGBI, 2004). According to this ordinance any waste fridge recycling process must comply with the following quality requirements. Prior to the treatment of the insulating foam, the contents of the refrigeration circuit shall be extracted and preliminary dismantling shall be performed (called step one). n

n

n

n

n

n

n

Refrigerant and compressor oil shall be extracted together without any losses, and shall be separated or their separation shall be arranged. The proper evacuation of the refrigeration circuit shall be ensured by monitoring devices that shall be adapted to the extraction system selected and to the volume of the appliance treated and shall be integrated into the extraction system. Suitable measurement equipment shall be used to indicate the number of appliances treated and the quantity of CFC/HCFC/HFC extracted. The amount of refrigerant (CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs) recovered has to be at least 115 g per appliance (determined as pure substance). The residual quantity of R12 (or other CFC, HFC, or HCFC) in the refrigerator oil has to be less than 0.1% by weight. The emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (HC) from the treatment of CFC-free cooling appliances shall not exceed 50 mg carbon per m3. Adequate fire and explosion prevention shall be guaranteed.

Evidence must be provided that these figures have been achieved in the annual plant performance test and have been met by the operational performance of the plant averaged over the year.

13.6 TECHNIQUES FOR SEPARATION OF FRIDGE PLASTICS The recycling quotas of the WEEE Directive for refrigerators and freezers are achievable only if the insulation material is mechanically recycled. Furthermore, the material used is mainly polystyrene, which represents a high value in terms of the market prices for this secondary raw material.

368 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

The techniques for separation are usual ones like swim sink separation and hydrocyclone classifiers. The second major fraction of plastics is the polyurethane foam (see Fig. 13.2). The recovery of CFCs from the insulating material is the most important aspect of the whole recycling process, as only about one-third of the ODSs are in the cooling circuit. By far the largest fraction of these substances is contained in the insulating foam. In this second processing step, the pretreated appliances are shredded and the various materials (metals, plastics, and foam) of the fridge cabinet are separated from each other. In order to release the blowing agents still contained in the pores of the insulation foam, the shredding and grinding especially of the foam is one of the major aspects of the whole recycling process. Because of the high vapor pressure of the ODSs, it is necessary that these treatments take place in an absolutely gas-tight treatment plant. Owing to the explosion risk of cyclopentane from the CFC-free appliances, it is necessary to use nitrogen in order to prevent explosion. After the shredding and grinding, plastics and metals are separated by common techniques like air classifier, magnetic separator, and sieves. The evaporated ODSs within the enclosed environment are then led to active carbon filters or fed into a cryocondensation unit for separation. In the case of active carbon filters, the ODSs are later desorbed from the filters, liquefied, and stored followed by their destruction in a high-temperature thermal “cracking” reactor, such as the one operated by Solvay in Frankfurt (http://www.solvay.de/standorte/frankfurt/wissenswertes/0,49941-4-0,00. htm) or in high-temperature incinerators. The CFC-free polyurethane powder may be recycled further on or used as oil-absorbing material (http:// www.usg.at/englisch/oekopur.html). Here again the Austrian ordinance for treatment obligations lays down specific requirements regarding the treatment of the insulation foam, commonly called step two: n

n

The amount of CFCs, HFCs, and HCFCs (determined as pure substance) recovered from the various types of refrigeration equipment has to be at least: o 240 g per type one appliance (domestic fridge with a storage capacity of up to 180 L) o 320 g per type two appliance (domestic combined fridge-freezers with a storage capacity between 180 and 350 L) o 400 g per type three appliance (domestic freezers with a storage capacity up to 500 L). The residual quantity of CFCs, HFCs, or HCFCs in the insulation foam has to be less than 0.2% by weight.

13.7 Sources of further information and advice 369

n

n

The residual quantity of polyurethane foam adhering to either the metals or the plastics fractions recovered during the treatment process shall not exceed 0.5% by weight. VOCs (HC) contained in the insulation foam have to be recovered. The emission of VOCs from the treatment of CFC-free cooling appliances shall not exceed 50 mg carbon per m3.

Here, too, evidence must be provided that these figures have been achieved in the annual plant performance tests and have been met by the operational performance of the plant averaged over the year.

13.7 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE In compiling the Austrian regulations concerning the treatment of waste refrigeration equipment, the government has chosen to adopt major elements of the guidelines on the disposal of refrigeration equipment published by the German Federal Environmental Agency UBA and of RAL’s GZ 728 quality assurance test specifications. According to their homepage (http://www.ral-online.org/index.html), the RAL Quality Assurance Association for the Demanufacture of Refrigeration Equipment Containing CFCs was created to guarantee quality in the fridge recycling process and to ensure compliance with existing environmental standards. The Quality Assurance and Test Specifications are a comprehensive compilation of requirements that cover all stages of the demanufacturing process. With complete documentation and logging stipulated for every step, the RAL standard ensures that demanufacturing is a totally transparent process. The quality assurance specifications for the demanufacture of CFCcontaining refrigerators and freezer appliances focus on the two main stages of refrigerator recycling. The first stage involves the collection and storage of the waste appliances, and the second stage is concerned with their processing. The processing stage is itself further divided into step one (extraction of CFC refrigerant from the cooling circuit), step two (extraction of CFC blowing agent from the insulating material), and finally, the handling of the output material streams from step one and step two. For further details use the link http://www.ral-online.org/html_engl/verantwortung.html. The WEEE Forum is a European association of 39 electrical and electronic waste collection and recovery systems. According to their homepage its mission is to provide a platform for cooperation and exchange of best practices, and in so doing, optimize the cost-effectiveness of the operations of the member organizations, while striving for excellence and continuous

370 CHAPTER 13 Recycling cooling and freezing appliances

improvement in environmental performance. Regarding the requirements for the treatment of WEEE and refrigerators, there is only a draft version of the WEEELABEX available, which is still under development.

13.8 CONCLUSIONS The treatment of refrigerators and freezers is a very complex task that should be carried out in an environmentally sound manner due to the high possible environmental impact of cooling and blowing agents. Also the introduction of new cooling and blowing agents with less impact to the climate did not lead to lower technical specifications for the treatment. On the contrary, from an environmental point of view standards have to be developed in order to align the quality of collection and treatment in Europe.

REFERENCES BGBl, 2004. II No. 459/2004 Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über Behandlungspflichten von Abfällen (Abfallbehandlungspflichtenverordnung). BGBl, 2006. II No. 363/2006 Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, mit der die Abfallbehandlungspflichtenverordnung geändert wird (AbfallbehandlungspflichtenVO-Novelle 2006). Elektroaltgeräte Koordinierungsstelle Austria GmbH, 2010. Tätigkeitsbericht 2009. Farman, J.C., Gardiner, B.G., Shanklin, J.D., 1985. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal CLOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315, 207e210. FHA (Gesellschaft für chemisch-technische Analytik GmbH), 2008. Studie über die Verwertung von KW-Kühlgeräten bei der AVE Österreich GmbH in Timelkam. Statistische Auswertung Univ.-Prof. DI Dr. Klaus Felsenstein Institut für Statistik und Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie (TU-Wien), Wien. Morrisette, P.M., 1989. The evolution of policy responses to stratospheric ozone depletion. Natural Resources Journal 29, 793e820. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003006.html. National Academy of Sciences, 1982. Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Reduction; An Update. Öko-Institut e.v., 2007. Life Cycle Assessment of the Treatment and Recycling of Refrigeration Equipment Containing CFCs and Hydrocarbons (Darmstadt). Umweltbundesamt FG III 3.2, 1998. Leitfaden zur Entsorgung von Kältegeräten. Stand, Berlin. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 1994. Cyclopentane: A Blowing Agent for Polyurethane Foams for Insulation in Domestic Refrigerator e Freezers. United Nations University, 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) e Final Report. Study No. 07010401/2006/442493/ ETU/G4; Brussels.

Chapter

14

Recycling batteries

D.C.R. Espinosa1, M.B. Mansur2

1

2

University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

CHAPTER OUTLINE

14.1 Introduction 371 14.2 Main directives worldwide for spent batteries 372 14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries 378 14.3.1 Main processing routes 378 14.3.2 Pyrometallurgical route 379 14.3.3 Hydrometallurgical route 383

14.4 Future trends References 389

388

14.1 INTRODUCTION A battery consists of one or more electrochemical cells connected in series or parallel aimed at producing electrical energy. Each cell generally has an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte. The electrical energy is produced by chemical reactions that result in a transfer of electrons from the anode to the cathode. The amount of power available in a battery is limited owing to the changes on the chemical species during such reactions. Primary batteries are assumed to be discharged when their chemicals are consumed. However, for a secondary or rechargeable battery, an external source of power can be used to change the direction of the flow of electrons, thus reversing the electrochemical process until the chemical species in the anode and cathode are restored to their original states, allowing its use again. Therefore, rechargeable batteries instead of primary ones are preferable from an environmental point of view because the number of spent batteries to be treated can be reduced. Batteries are the power source for portable electrical and electronic devices (computers, mobile phones, toys, and so on), tools, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, automobile starters, light vehicles (e.g., motorized wheelchairs, electric bicycles, golf carts), etc. The use and discharge of batteries is Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00014-8 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

371

372 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

growing throughout the world along with such devices. In fact, world demand is forecast to rise 7.8% per year to $120 billion in 2019 (World batteries, 2015). In Brazil, the annual consumption of batteries is estimated at around 1.2 billion units or nearly 6 units/year/person; in the USA, Japan, and Europe, it ranges between 10 and 15 units/year/person. The number of mobile phone users worldwide is forecast to surpass 5 billion by 2019, with approximately 50% of the total being in China and India (Statista, 2017). Although batteries are a component of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), they must be recycled separately. They might be removable or fixed inside EEE, but should be disassembled and recycled by specific processes. Consumers and recyclers might not be aware of the existence of built-in batteries. The separation of batteries from EEE is costly because it is done manually, but nevertheless recyclers should not neglect this important operation. In some municipalities of Japan, consumers need to separate batteries from small waste EEE, especially mobile phones (Terazono et al., 2015). The main characteristics of the most-used batteries are shown in Table 14.1, including application, advantages, and disadvantages, while their typical metal composition is depicted in Table 14.2. Spent batteries may represent an important secondary source of metals that normally can be found at very high concentration levels, sometimes even higher than those found in natural ores. In addition, some metals are quite expensive, such as cobalt and nickel, and can be found in significant amounts in NiCd, NiMH, and Li-ion batteries. Therefore, the recovery of metals from spent batteries is also convenient for economic reasons because large amounts of solid waste can be reused as secondary raw material.

14.2 MAIN DIRECTIVES WORLDWIDE FOR SPENT BATTERIES Many directives have been elaborated from the beginning of the 1990s concerning the adequate destination of spent batteries in order to avoid metal contamination of soil and water resources. The very first directives were focused mainly on NiCd batteries, which were mostly used in mobile phones at that time, as well as on the progressive reduction in the use of mercury, cadmium, and lead in some types of batteries. Nowadays, issues such as collection systems, reduction of other heavy metals, banning the use of mercury in the production of batteries (according to Terazono et al. (2015), approximately 6%e10% of zinc carbon and alkaline batteries discarded in Japan still could be regarded as containing mercury), and recycling procedures are highlighted in the current directives of several countries

Table 14.1 Main characteristics of commercial batteries Type of battery

Anode/negative electrode

Cathode/positive electrode

Zincecarbon

Zn

Alkaline

Main applications

Advantages

Disadvantages

MnO2

Ammoniac, ZnCl2, and water

High gas formation; sealing system must be efficient due to high sensibility to oxygen.

Domestic general use.

Zn

MnO2

KOH

More expensive than ZneC battery.

Domestic general use.

Silver

Zn

AgO

KOH or NaOH

Low energy capacity due to its small size.

Lead

Pb

PbO

H2SO4

Current density is higher than Zneair battery; best service at low temperatures; good resistance to leaking; high efficiency with heavy discharge. Higher current density; good performance to intermittent and continuous discharges; good life and resistant to leaking; lower internal resistance; good mechanical resistance and low gas-production rate. Electrical characteristics are similar to Hg battery with higher voltage (1.55 V); very low self-discharge rate. Compared with other secondary batteries, it is the most economical; maintenance is not required.

Military use; systems that require instantaneous release of energy. Automotive use.

Contains lead; heavy.

Continued

14.2 Main directives worldwide for spent batteries 373

Electrolyte

Type of battery

Anode/negative electrode

Cathode/positive electrode

Electrolyte

Advantages

Disadvantages

Nickele cadmium

Cd

Ni(OH)2

KOH

Contains cadmium.

Wireless devices, cameras, and phones.

Nickelemetal hydride

AB5 type: MmNi3,5Co0,7 Mn0,4Al0,3 AB2 type: V15Ti15Zr20 Ni28Cr5Co5Fe6Mn6 C

Ni(OH)2, cobalt oxides, and additives

KOH

Durability is not affected when stored even at charge; some models can perform 30,000 cycles of charge and discharge. Higher energy per volume and weight compared with NiCd; does not contain cadmium.

Production cost is higher than NiCd but lower than Li-based batteries.

Portable devices, mobile phones.

LiCoO2

Organic solvents and/or salt solutions (LiPF6)

Higher current density; higher use life; higher nominal voltage.

High cost.

Li

LiFePO4 or LiMn3O6

Solid polymer electrolyte, polyethylene oxide, and LiCF3SO3

Its plastic character and hence flexibility means it can be made in different shapes and thinner configurations.

Relatively low life cycle and efficiency.

Portable devices, mobile phones, hybrid vehicles. Electronic devices, hybrid vehicles.

Lithium-ion

Lithiume polymer

Main applications

Adapted from Mantuano, D.P., 2005. Desenvolvimento de uma rota processual hidrometalúrgica para a recuperação de metais provenientes de baterias de celular descarregadas (M.Sc. thesis). UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, p. 203 (in Portuguese).

374 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

Table 14.1 Main characteristics of commercial batteries Continued

14.2 Main directives worldwide for spent batteries 375

Table 14.2 Typical metal composition of commercial batteries (Veloso et al., 2005; Silva and Afonso, 2008) Element Ag Al Cd Ce Co Cr Cu Fe K La Li Mn Nd Ni Pb V Zn

Zincecarbon1

Alkaline1

Silver

NiCd2

NiMH2

Lithium2

0.019 15e20 0.43e5.5 0.6 0.017

0.5e2.0

4.6e24

2.5e4.3 0.020e0.080

12e20a

29e40

20e25

28.2e30.8

0.2e1.0

0.17 5.5e7.3

0.3e0.7

5e10 4.7e25

1.4e6.6 23e30

26e33

0.083

0.007

0.01 0.005

15e20

0.81e3.0 0.96e4.1 25e46

1.5be5.5c 10e15d 12e15e 15e20c

5 1

12e21

8.7e12.1

0.06

2

Note: Includes dry black powder only; Considering the whole battery. a Li-ion (Co). b Li-ion (Co, Ni, Mn). c Liepolymer (V). d Li-ion (Mn). e Li-ion (Ni).

as depicted in Table 14.3. According to these directives, the adequate destination of spent batteries may involve methods such as landfill disposition, stabilization, incineration, and/or recycling processes. Safe disposal in landfills and the stabilization of battery residues has become increasingly more expensive due to the increasing amount of waste produced and the limited storage capacity of sanitary landfills and special waste dumpsites. Incineration of batteries is also expensive, and it can even cause mercury, cadmium, and dioxin emissions into the environment (Bernardes et al., 2004). In fact, the recycling of spent batteries appears as the most adequate destination for this type of waste. As pointed out by Conard (1992), the recycling of wastes is important because it may contribute to the benefit of future generations and to the preservation of raw materials. In the particular case of batteries, it is still necessary to develop an efficient collection system in order to receive the spent batteries consumed worldwide (Mantuano et al., 2006).

0.092e1.6

Country

Directives

Main characteristics

Brazil

CONAMA 257 (1999), updated by CONAMA 401 (2008)

China

Regulation on Restriction of Hg in Batteries (QZHG, 1997) Universal Waste Rule (1995)

CONAMA Resolution 257 was the first law dedicated to the conscious use of batteries in Latin America. It established the requirements for the reuse, recycling, treatment, and final disposal of batteries containing Pb, Cd, Hg, and their compounds, as well as electronic products that contain integrated nonreplaceable batteries in their structures. Manufacturers and importers are responsible for processing and/or final disposal of batteries returned by users. It also imposed a gradual reduction in the limits of Hg, Cd, and Pb in the composition of batteries, from January 2000 to January 2001. In 2008 it was replaced by CONAMA Resolution 401. It established an even more significant reduction in the levels of Hg, Pb, and Cd in several types of batteries. It also intended to give more effectiveness to the postconsumption responsibility of the manufacturers and importers of batteries, according to which they become bound by the full cycle of their products, not only purchase by consumers. Manufacturers and importers must be registered, submit a technical report containing physical and chemical composition of batteries produced, and a plan for managing used batteries. Places that sell batteries must include collection points and return collected batteries to manufacturers or importers. Advertising materials and packaging of batteries must clearly show symbols indicating the appropriate destination and warnings about the risks to human health and environment. Manufacturers, importers, and distributors will be encouraged to promote environmental education campaigns for postconsumer spent batteries. Banned, from January 2001, the manufacture of ZneMn and alkaline batteries containing more than 0.0025% by weight of Hg, and 0.00001% by weight of Hg from 2005. Primary, rechargeable, and button cell batteries were excluded from these limits. Reduced the amount of waste to landfills, encouraged recycling and proper disposal of hazardous wastes, and reduced regulatory burdens on businesses that generate these wastes in order to facilitate compliance. Provided standardization for the collection, storage, and transportation of NiCd batteries, other rechargeable batteries, and certain Hg-containing batteries. Standardized the labeling of NiCd and lead-acid rechargeable batteries and products containing them. Banned the sale or offer for promotional purposes of alkaline and ZneC batteries containing intentionally introduced Hg and button cells of Hg oxide (except button cells with up to 25 mg of Hg), unless the manufacturer or importer defines the collection site for recycling or proper disposal. Manufacturers and importers must propose a chronogram to eliminate the production and marketing of certain batteries containing Hg; the label must contain information on the chemical composition, the recycling symbol, and a sentence indicating that the consumer must send it for recycling or proper disposal. Traders with annual sales exceeding $1 million must, from July 2006, install collection points and receive (free of charge) batteries of all types and brands as well as creating publicity campaigns about the benefits of recycling. For internet sales, they must inform consumers about the return of batteries or how to dispose of them properly.

USA

Mercury-containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (Battery Act, 1996)

376 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

Table 14.3 Directives for batteries in Brazil, China, USA, Japan, and the European Union

Japan

Law for the Promotion of the Effective Utilization of Resources (1999, revised in 2001)

European Union

Directive 1991/157/EC updated by Directive 2006/66/EC

14.2 Main directives worldwide for spent batteries 377

Valid for NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, and lead-acid batteries. Governs the positioning of recycling symbols, letters, and colors to identify each battery, including on the packages of batteries, according to specific law for the recycling of packages; labeling of the type of material used in the body of the batteries; and development of new designs for easy removal of batteries from equipment. Manufacturers are responsible for recycling collected batteries. Recycling targets were established: above 60% for NiCd, 55% for NiMH, 30% for Li-ion, and 50% for lead-acid. Electronics manufacturers must recycle or pay for it or transfer the collected batteries to the battery manufacturers, who must receive them without cost. Valid for all types of batteries except those used in security equipment, for military purposes, and to be launched into space. Batteries with Hg content higher than 0.0005% by weight (except button cells, whose Hg content can be less than 2% by weight) and portable batteries with Cd content above 0.002% by weight (except those for use in alarm systems and emergency medical equipment and cordless power tools) are prohibited from commercialization after September 2009. Adopt necessary steps to promote and maximize the selective collection of batteries and minimize household waste disposal; ensure that distributors of portable batteries accept their return free of charge, and manufacturers of industrial batteries, or third parties on their behalf, accept the return of spent batteries from consumers; collect 25% of all used batteries by September 2012, increasing to 45% by September 2016; require that the manufacture of products incorporating batteries is accomplished only on the condition that they are easily replaced after use by consumers and that they are also informed how to proceed to allow their disposal; ensure, from September 2009, that all batteries are collected and treated using the best available techniques in terms of health and environment (batteries must be handled and stored temporarily in places totally waterproof or in suitable containers; treatment must include, at least, the removal of all fluids and acids); recycle by September 2010 at least 65% of lead-acid, 75% of the NiCd, and 50% of other battery types; encourage the development of new technologies for recycling and treatment for all types of batteries; encourage technological innovations that improve the performance of batteries; inform consumers through campaigns of the effects of substances used in batteries on human health and the environment; the need to send such waste to resellers, systems for collecting and recycling available, the importance of their participation in this process, and the meaning of the symbols listed on labels and packaging. The labels on the batteries must be visible, legible, and indelible, and indicate their power, the chemical symbols Hg, Cd, and Pb for batteries containing levels higher than 0.0005% of Hg, 0.002% of Cd, and 0.004% of Pb, respectively, and symbols not to discard in the trash. All producers of batteries must be registered in the countries where they sell their products (Directive 2009/603/EC).

378 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

According to CONAMA 401/2008 (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente, Brazilian Environmental Agency), the most adequate destination of spent batteries must minimize environmental risks and adopt technical procedures for collecting, reusing, recycling, treating, and final disposal of such wastes. Such aspects are discussed as follows.

14.3 METHODS FOR THE RECOVERY OF METALS FROM SPENT BATTERIES Recycling processes of waste materials such as batteries must be as simple and cheap as possible. The current processes used to recycle portable batteries include pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical techniques (Salgado et al., 2003; Bernardes et al., 2004; Espinosa et al., 2004). Most collection programs receive all types of batteries, so the chemical composition of battery waste might be very irregular, as shown in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. Most recycling processes were developed to recycle only a few types of batteries. Therefore, initially it is necessary to sort the batteries in order to segregate the ones that cannot be treated by that specific process. For example, in general, a process that treats ZneC and alkaline cells does not admit contamination with NiCd batteries. However, the situation observed in collection systems is the mixing of different types of batteries. Unfortunately, there is no correlation between shape and size with the composition of batteries. This characteristic complicates the sorting processes. This step, allied with transportation, increases the total cost of recycling processes. With the exception of NiMH batteries, in general, battery recycling processes are viable only through funding or legal obligationdi.e., the revenue does not cover the cost of operation (Bernardes et al., 2004). The battery collection rules in municipal waste management in Japan were reviewed by Terazono et al. (2015).

14.3.1 Main processing routes Battery recycling processes are composed basically of two main steps, waste preparation and metallurgical processing. The waste preparation step begins with the screening of the waste, segregating it by chemical type. The sorting might be composed of several steps in order to improve separation efficiency. These steps might contain manual segregation and segregation using pieces of equipment developed specially for this operation. The pieces of equipment developed to this end apply several techniquesdfor example, mechanical separation, magnetic separation, X-ray imaging, and optical sensors to read bar codes located on the waste material (Bernardes et al., 2004).

14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries 379

After sorting, the material to be recycled is prepared for the metallurgical process through physical conditioning operations. These operations are based on typical ore dressing unit operations, such as crushing, comminution, magnetic separation, electrostatic separation, and dense medium separation (DMS). The crushing involves the fragmentation of the waste, and its main goal is to separate most of the polymeric or metallic cover from the internal material that contains the target metals to be recycled. The main goal of the comminution step is to diminish the particle size in order to liberate the several types of material. The other cited operations have the objective to separate materials according to specific characteristics. Magnetic separation is applied to separate magnetic materials (such as iron and their alloys) from nonmagnetic material. Electrostatic separation aims to separate conductive material from nonconductive, roughly metal from nonmetal. The DMS technique segregates materials having different densities. Therefore, the objective of the waste preparation step is to concentrate the fraction of waste that contains the target metals using physical methods that present relatively low costs of processing. Hence, even considering the limited efficiency of such processes, these operations might diminish the overall cost of the recycling process, thus diminishing the amount of material that should be treated by metallurgical processing. Metallurgical processing can basically follow three different routesd pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and hybrid processesdthat use techniques from pyro- and hydrometallurgy to obtain metals or metal compounds. There are several battery recycling facilities around the world. Table 14.4 presents some examples of battery recycling processes, showing the treated materials and their limitations (Bernardes et al., 2004).

14.3.2 Pyrometallurgical route Pyrometallurgical recycling processes use high temperature to process wastes, aiming at the reclamation of target metals. During heat treatment of battery waste, several reactions may take place such as decomposition of compounds, reduction, and evaporation of metals or compounds (Espinosa et al., 2004). All pyrometallurgical processes for the recycling of batteries share the common step of evaporating a metal to segregate it from other materials that have higher boiling points. Therefore, the goal of these processes is to evaporate Hg, Zn, and/or Cd.

Process

Route

Treated material

Limitation

Observation

SUMITOMO

Pyrometallurgical

NiCd and Pb-acid batteries

Lithium battery recycling process is patented.

Recytec

Pyrometallurgical

SNAM-SAVAM

Pyrometallurgical

Household cells (alkaline, ZneC, Zneair, and mercury), NiMH Most types of batteries, including fluorescent lamps NiCd, NiMH, and Li-ion batteries

INMETCO

Pyrometallurgical

Mercury

Accurec

Pyrometallurgical

Dust from furnaces containing iron, zinc, and lead and also several types of batteries: NiCd, NiMH, NiFe, Li-ion, and ZneMn NiCd, NiMH, and Zncontaining batteries

TNO BATENUS ZINCEX RECUPYL

Hydrometallurgical Hydrometallurgical Hydrometallurgical Hydrometallurgical

NiCd batteries Most types of batteries Zinc bearing materials Most types of batteries

UMICORE

Hybrid

Li-based and NiMH batteries

NiCd batteries

The process treats portable and industrial batteries.

A hydrometallurgical step is used in the process of NiMH battery recycling to reclaim rare earth metals. Li-ion recycling process is being developed. Mercury Mercury NiCd, lead, and button batteries NiCd batteries

380 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

Table 14.4 Examples of battery recycling processes (Espinosa et al., 2004; Mantuano, 2005)

14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries 381

Zinc-containing batteries can be recycled by pyrometallurgical processes, since the boiling points of the containing metals (Hg, Zn, and Mn) are very different. During heat treatment, after water evaporation, the elimination of Hg through evaporation takes place due to its low boiling point. Frenay and Feron (1990) observed that thermal elimination of Hg, which is linked to chlorine ions of the electrolyte, should be performed at 600
C. Conversely, Xia and Li (2004) found that 450
C is enough to remove Hg under vacuum. After Hg decontamination, zinc also can be recovered through distillation but at temperatures higher than 907
C (zinc boiling point). The global discharge reaction of either an alkaline or a ZneC cell can be expressed as (Sayilgan et al., 2009): Zn þ 2MnO2 / Mn2 O3 þ ZnO

(14.1)

Therefore, one should expect to find in the waste of spent batteries not only metallic Zn, but also ZnO, MnO2, and Mn2O3. Zinc oxide, when heated above 920
C under atmospheric pressure and in the presence of a reductor (such as the carbon constituent of these types of batteries), is reduced according to the following reaction (Rosenqvist, 2004): ZnO þ CO / ZnðvÞ þ CO2

(14.2)

Since the temperature at which the reaction occurs is above the Zn boiling point, Zn is produced directly in vapor form. Consequently, the recycling process must be carried out at temperatures above 920
C in order to evaporate most of the Zn. Manganese remains solid throughout the process, but during heating, prereduction of the manganese oxides to MnO occurs due to the carbon present in the charge. The material that remains solid is composed mainly of MnO and iron (from the metallic cases). Pyrometallurgical processes for the recycling of electric arc furnace dust (and Zn-bearing materials), such as INMETCO and Waelz, accept ZneC and alkaline batteries in the charge. In such processes, the comminuted material is mixed with a carbon-based reductor. This mixture might then be agglomerated in the form of pellets depending on the process. Following this, the mixture or pellets are put into an open-hearth or a rotative furnace operating at temperatures up to 1350
C. During the process, Zn and other volatile compounds or elements are captured in the gas treatment system (Bernardes et al., 2004; Espinosa et al., 2004).

382 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

Spent batteries

Sorting

Physical / mechanical treatment

Heat treatment (controlled atmosphere)

Cd

Material containing Fe, Ni and Co

n FIGURE 14.1 Generic flow sheet of operations for the pyrometallurgical recycling of NiCd batteries.

The classic recycling processes for NiCd batteries are typically pyrometallurgical and based on Cd distillation. Fig. 14.1 shows a schematic flow sheet of a theoretical pyrometallurgical recycling process for NiCd batteries. During heating, after water evaporation, the decomposition of Cd and Ni hydroxides takes place as follows (Espinosa and Tenorio, 2004): NiðOHÞ2ðsÞ / NiOðsÞ þ H2 OðgÞ T ¼ 230
C

(14.3)

CdðOHÞ2ðsÞ / CdOðsÞ þ H2 OðgÞ T ¼ 300
C

(14.4)

The recycling process can be carried out with or without the presence of a reducing agent (usually carbon based). In order to avoid the use of a reducing agent, the total pressure of the system must be about 104 bar to enable the decomposition of CdO at 850e900
C to produce Cd vapor (Espinosa and Tenório, 2004). If the process is carried out with the aid of a reducing agent, reduction of the oxides of nickel and cadmium is thermodynamically possible at relatively low temperatures. The boiling point of metallic Cd is 767
C, so above this temperature Cd is produced directly into vapor form. Generally, the pyrometallurgical process to recycle NiCd batteries is performed at temperatures of about 900
C under vacuum, under inert atmosphere, or by imposing a reducing atmosphere (Espinosa and Tenório, 2006). The controlled atmosphere is necessary to avoid the oxidation of the produced metallic Cd. Metallic cadmium is produced with 99.9% purity

14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries 383

and can be used in numerous applications including the production of new NiCd batteries. The material that remains solid during the treatment is composed basically of Ni, Fe, and Co and can be used in stainless steel production. Pyrometallurgical recycling processes for NiCd batteries also treat NiMH batteries mixed in the charge; however, only Ni is recovered, and the rare earth elements present in this latter type of battery are lost in the process. According to Sun et al. (2017), pyrometallurgy smelting is still the main technology used in China for spent lead-acid battery recycling. In addition, vacuum reduction technology has been evaluated to treat lead and NiCd batteries (Lin and Qiu, 2011; Huang et al., 2010).

14.3.3 Hydrometallurgical route A typical flow sheet for the recovery of metals from spent batteries using hydrometallurgical methods is shown schematically in Fig. 14.2. Firstly, batteries must be classified by type because metal composition varies significantly as shown in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. Then, after dismantling for the removal of iron scraps, plastic cases, and paper, the internal content of the battery is submitted to a leaching step in order to transfer metals of interest from the solid phase to the aqueous solution. Acid and alkaline solutions are normally used, as well as oxidant and reducing agents. Recently, organic

Spent batteries Sorting

Physical / mechanical treatment

Leaching

Solution purification

Metal reclamation

Solvent extraction Ion exchange Precipitation Cementation

Precipitation of compounds Electrolysis

Compound or metal n FIGURE 14.2 Flow sheet depicting the main steps for hydrometallurgical recycling of batteries.

384 CHAPTER 14 Recycling batteries

acids (citric and malic acids in the presence of hydrogen peroxide, H2O2) have been introduced as environmentally friendly reagents to leach cobalt and lithium from Li-ion batteries with promising results (Li et al., 2013). For example, in the leaching of Znecarbon or alkaline batteries, selective leaching of zinc and manganese can be achieved using sequential leaching steps with dilute H2SO4 solution in order to preferentially extract zinc, followed by leaching of the remaining residue with concentrated H2SO4 solution with H2O2 in order to extract manganese (Veloso et al., 2005). The following reactions may occur in the dissolution of zinc and manganese oxides: ZnO þ H2 SO4 / ZnSO4 þ H2 O

(14.5)

Mn2 O3 þ H2 SO4 / MnO2 þ MnSO4 þ H2 O

(14.6)

Mn3 O4 þ 2H2 SO4 / MnO2 þ 2MnSO4 þ 2H2 O

(14.7)

MnO2 þ H2 SO4 þ H2 O2 / MnSO4 þ 2H2 O þ O2

(14.8)

In fact, zinc oxide can be fully dissolved by sulfuric acid solutions according to Eq. (14.5). On the other hand, the dissolution of Mn2O3 and Mn3O4 oxides is partial because the MnO2 produced is insoluble (Eqs. (14.6) and (14.7)). For instance, the leaching of alkaline battery powders with 1.0% (v/v) H2SO4 at 90
C for 2 h results in the dissolution of only 43% of the total manganese originally present in the powder (Salgado et al., 2003). A similar result (dissolution of 40% of manganese and 100% of zinc oxides) was obtained using 0.7% (v/v) H2SO4 at 70
C and 3 h (Souza et al., 2001). Therefore, to leach 100% of the manganese present in the powder, the use of H2O2 as a reduction agent is a plausible alternative. In addition, the removal of potassium from the powder of Znecarbon and alkaline batteries may also contribute to reducing the consumption of H2SO4 in the acidic leaching step. In the case of Li-ion batteries, alkaline solutions of NaOH were used to leach aluminum in a selective way, followed by acid solutions of H2SO4 in order to leach cobalt and lithium (Ferreira et al., 2009). Many other aqueous systems including HCl, citric acid, malic acid, HNO3, and H2SO3 in the presence or not of H2O2 have been evaluated to leach Li-ion batteries as shown in Table 14.5. After leaching, the aqueous solution is submitted to a purification step that may comprise several separation methods such as cementation, precipitation, solvent extraction, adsorption, ion exchange, and others. Finally, the metal species are recovered from the purified solutions as pure metals or metal oxides, hydroxides, and/or salts.

Table 14.5 Summary of operational conditions for metal recovery from Li-ion batteries Leaching step

References

Leaching agents

T (
C)

S/L ratio (g/mL)

NaOH, followed by H2SO4 þ H2O2

30 to 70

1/10

Shin et al. (2005) and Swain et al. (2007)

H2SO4 þ H2O2

75

1/10 and 1/20

Li et al. (2013)

Citric acid þ H2O2 and malic acid þ H2O2

90

1/20

Mantuano et al. (2006)

H2SO4

80

1/30

Dorella and Mansur 2007)

H2SO4 þ H2O2

65

1/30

Main liquor treatment results

Main leaching results

Methods

Reagents

Alkaline leaching: Al (60%), Co (negligible), and Li (10%). Acid leaching of Al, Li, and Co around 80%e100%. H2O2 improved LiCoO2 leaching, mainly Co Co (>93%) and Li (>94%) at the presence of H2O2 (5%e15% v/v). Granulometry effect was found significant for Co leaching Co (>90%) and Li (100%) with citric acid (1.25 M) þ H2O2 (1% v/v) and with malic acid (1.5 M) þ (2% v/v) Low recovery of Co (30%). Acid concentration and temperature were found significant

Crystallization by evaporation

e

Purified CoSO4$H2O was obtained

e

e

e

e

e

e

Solvent extraction

Cyanex 272

Co (75%) and Li (100%) at the presence of H2O2 (1% v/v)

Precipitation and solvent extraction

NH4OH and Cyanex 272

Co/Li separation at pH ¼ 5. Co/Al and Co/Cu separations were found difficult Al (80%), Co (8%), and Li (13%) were precipitated at pH ¼ 5. A stripping solution Co (63 g/L) and Li (0.4 g/L) was obtained

Continued

14.3 Methods for the recovery of metals from spent batteries 385

Ferreira et al. (2009)

Liquor treatment step

Leaching step Leaching agents

T (
C)

S/L ratio (g/mL)

Lee and Rhee (2002, 2003) Zhang et al. (1998)

HNO3 þ H2O2

75

HCl, NH2OH, HCl, and H2SO3

Nan et al. (2005)

Lupi et al. (2005)

References

Liquor treatment step Main liquor treatment results

Main leaching results

Methods

Reagents

1/100

Co (95%) and Li (95%) with H2O2 (1.7% v/v)

Precipitation

Citric acid

Pure LiCoO2 was obtained

80

1/100

Co (>90%) and Li (>90%) with concentrated NH2OH HCl and HCl. Low metal recoveries obtained with H2SO3

Solvent extraction

D2EHPA and PC-88A

NaOH and H2SO4

25 and 70

1/10 and 1/5

NaOH leached Al (98%) selectively. Co (>90%), Li (>90%), and Cu (99.9%) and Li (12.6%) extracted with 0.9M PC-88A Co (90%) precipitated with 0.5% impurities. Cu (97%) and Co (97%) extracted with ACORGA and Cyanex 272, respectively Co (100% extracted). Electrolysis solution obtained containing Co ( H2SO4 H2SO4 showed the best leaching results: Y & Eu: H2SO4 > HNO3 > HCl; Tb: HCl > H2SO4 > HNO3; Ce: H2SO4 > HCl > HNO3 HNO3 was the best for dissolution, whereas HCl and H2SO4 showed almost similar results and the leaching efficiency of ammonia was low. However, HNO3 was excluded because the toxic gases NO, NO2, and N2O were generated during leaching. The three acids exhibited similar leaching abilities for Y (91%e99%) and Eu (85% e90%), and H2SO4 significantly suppressed the dissolution of Ca and Sr in the leaching solution.

rates of Y and Eu were 92% and 98% under optimal conditions (1.5 mol/L [M] sulfuric acid, 343 K), but La, Ce, and Tb could only be leached out in concentrated sulfuric acid at high temperatures. Impurities in the leaching solution were removed by adding aqueous ammonia. The quantity of aqueous ammonia used was six times the molar quantity of REEs in leaching solution. The precipitate was then separated from solution and redissolved using HCl. The recovery of Y and Eu in leaching solution reached more than 99.1% by oxalate precipitation after purification. The final recovery of Y and Eu after pneumatic classification, sulfuric acidic leaching, and oxalate precipitation was about 65%, with a grade of 98.2%. A further step was carried out in their subsequent studies (Takahashi et al., 2002); the coprecipitation behaviors of leaching solution without impurities (simulated

Leachant(s) H2SO4

HCl H2SO4

H2SO4, HCl

H2SO4

406 CHAPTER 15 Rare earth metal recovery from typical e-waste

solution) were investigated, and resultant (Y, Eu) containing compounds after oxalate coprecipitation were sintered for red phosphor (Y2O3: Eu3þ) synthesis under various operational conditions such as temperature, time, and flux. The red phosphor that met commercial application requirements was synthesized with a total recovery of approximately 85% for Y and Eu. Except for the physicochemical separation of monochrome rare earth phosphors, Mei et al.‘s (2009) group conducted studies on REEs by using hydrometallurgy. Waste fluorescent tubes were crushed in acetone, and the hazardous substance mercury was treated using a sulfide precipitationcoagulation-activated carbon adsorption process in Xie’s (2007) study. An artificial mixture of trichromatic phosphor was used as experimental material and hydrochloric acid as leachant for hydrometallurgical recovery of REEs. Hydrogen peroxide was added in order to oxidize Eu2þ to Eu3þ, facilitating the subsequent precipitation, and impurities in the leaching solution were removed by using ammonia and concentrated hydrochloric acid. Rare earth oxalate was obtained by oxalic acid precipitation, and the rare earth leaching and precipitation rates under optimum experimental conditions were 93.19% and 94.98%, respectively. Similarly, research by Wang et al. (2011) used a method from a previous study to recover REEs in phosphor from waste fluorescent tubes. After experimental conditions optimization (HCl: 4 M, solidliquid ratio 100 g/L; stir intensity: 600 rpm; reaction temperature 60
C; amount of hydrogen peroxide 4.4 g/L; reaction time: 60 min) the total leaching rate for REEs was 89.95%, of which Y accounted for 96.28%. The oxalic acid precipitation rates for REE oxalates reached 94.98%. The composition of final compounds after roasting was tested by X-ray fluorescence, and rare earth oxides accounted for 99.35% (Y2O3: 92.10%, Eu2O3: 7.35%); it was suggested that the crystallization of Y2O3 was of high purity after X-ray diffraction analysis. Research on recovering REEs in phosphor from waste fluorescent tubes was conducted by Hongmei Li’s group (Fu, 2008), and comparisons were made of the leaching efficiency of REEs by different acids. The leaching solution was processed by a commercial extractant P507 (2-ethylhexyl phosphoric acid mono-2-ethylhexyl ester) for REE separation. The leaching sequence was: sulfuric acid > nitric acid > hydrochloric acid. The leaching rates of Y, Eu, and the impurity element Al were 75.3%, 71.5%, and 49.1%, respectively, when leached for 8 h by 2 M sulfuric acid at 37
C and stirring velocity of 250 rpm. During the extraction process, 92.4% and 84.5% of Y and Eu could be extracted into the organic phase when the pH was 5, and only 20.4% for the Al. The Y and Eu could be separated by adjusting the pH of the aqueous phase. Nevertheless, the REE leaching efficiency could be

15.3 Recycling and recovery of REEs in waste phosphors 407

improved by raising the reaction temperature and increasing the concentration of sulfuric acid and the stirring velocity. These increased the leaching efficiency of impurities as well, thus affecting the extraction process. Similar results were obtained using waste phosphor from the fluorescent tube production process as experimental materials for REE recovery (Li, 2010). A study by De Michelis et al. (2011) focused only on the recovery of Y from waste phosphor. The effects of various leachants (hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and ammonia) were tested in preliminary experiments with different temperatures and reaction times. Nitric acid was excluded because it would generate the toxic gases NO and NO2 as well as N2O. Ammonia was excluded because of its low leaching rate for Y (about 10%). Factors affecting the leaching efficiency of Y were investigated by full factorial experiments using hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid as leachants and a solidliquid ratio of 20%. An acid concentration of 4 M and a reaction temperature of 90
C proved to be the optimal conditions. Although hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid showed similar leaching efficiencies for Y, sulfuric acid was preferred for its precipitation with calcium, barium, and lead ions, which could provide a preliminary purification to the leaching solution, facilitating the subsequent processes. Y was recovered using oxalic acid; the leaching and precipitation rates of Y were more than 90% and 80%, respectively, in a laboratory-scale experiment. A processing simulation of a recycling plant with a capacity of 1000 tons of waste fluorescent tubes showed that 7 tons of yttrium oxalate could be produced, and the process showed a positive return on investment with an appropriate utilization of glass, ferrous materials, and nonferrous scraps, as well as avoiding the disposal cost of the lamps.

15.3.3.1.3 Kinetics and mechanisms of acid leaching The kinetics and mechanisms of hydrochloride acid leaching of rare earth oxide in fluorescent substances were first studied by Shimakage et al. (1996). The results showed that higher reaction temperatures and stirring velocities could increase the leaching rate of REEs. The leaching sequence was Y > Eu > La > Tb > Ce, and the maximum leaching rates of La, Tb and Ce were only about 4.2%e4.5%. As analyzed in Arrhenius plots, the apparent activation energies of yttrium oxide and europium oxide were 20.3 and 18.5 kJ/mol, respectively. The leaching rate equations for yttrium oxide and europium oxide in aqueous hydrochloric acid solutions were formulated based on the experimental results obtained. It was suggested that the ratelimiting step of the rare earth oxide leaching reaction could be the process of Hþ passing through Nernst’s boundary layer by diffusion. These results cannot be compared, as there are no other studies on this topic.

408 CHAPTER 15 Rare earth metal recovery from typical e-waste

15.3.3.1.4 Separation methods As constituent elements of phosphors, metals such as Mg, Al, Ca, Ba, and Sr would be dissolved into the solution by acids, which are impurity elements in the recovery of REEs. The most commonly used method for removing impurities in the current research has been hydroxide precipitation by ammonia. But, as ammonia nitrogen could cause secondary pollution, specific steps should be taken to remove ammonia. Another method for the separation of REEs and impurities was oxalate precipitation. However, oxalate precipitation could not obtain the mutual separation of REEs. The resultant final products in previous studies were mixtures of Y2O3 and Eu2O3 after precipitation and calcinations. Therefore, it was unsuitable for the recovery if other REEs in phosphors could be leached out sufficiently. There have been other studies focused on the separation methods of leaching solutions of waste phosphors. Nakamura et al. (2007) were concerned about the separation between REEs and impure elements and their mutual separation after the REEs in the phosphors were completely leached into solution. They used PC-88A (2-ethylhexyl phosphonic acid mono-2ethylhexyl ester) in kerosene to extract REEs from the aqueous phase of a phosphor material leaching solution. Extraction equilibrium expressions for the trivalent (La, Ce, Eu, Tb, Y, and Al) and divalent (Ca, Sr, and Ba) metals for both single- and multicomponent systems were established. After theoretical calculation based on the extraction equilibrium expression, a simulated separation process flowchart was proposed. Theoretically, 15 stages were needed for recovering Y, and 98.1% and 97.8% could be obtained for the purity and recovery, respectively, of Y. Then, another 10 more stages were necessary for separating Tb and Eu. The estimated purity and recovery of Tb could reach 85.7% and 58.1%, respectively. The final purity and recovery of Eu were expected to reach approximately 100% and 52.8%. However, the recovery of Tb and Eu were relatively low, and no practical operation results were reported from further study. Yang et al. conducted research on using ionic liquid as an extractant for REE separation in a leaching solution of an artificial mixture of phosphor materials using nitric acid (Yang et al., 2012). The efficiency and influence factors of extraction for bifunctional ionic liquid extractants (A336)(P204) and (A336)(P507) were investigated (A336, Aliquat336, or tricaprylmethylammonium chloride; P204, di(2-ethylhexly)phosphoric acid), and a comparison was made with general extractants P350 (di-(1-methylheptyl) methyl phosphate), TBP (tri-n-butyl phosphate), Cyanex923 (mixture of straight chain alkylated phosphine oxides). It appeared that (A336)(P204) and (A336)(P507) showed better extraction effects than P350, TBP, but

15.3 Recycling and recovery of REEs in waste phosphors 409

lower than Cyanex923. Moreover, bifunctional ionic liquid extractants had the advantages of being easily stripped and could be recycled efficiently. The total recovery of REEs could reach 95.2% by 5e7 stages of countercurrent extraction. There was, however, a drawback for practical application: the viscous macromolecular extracted complexes generated during the extraction process would form a third phase in the extraction system, which would have to be eliminated with iso-octanol. Compared with the traditional extraction methods, ionic liquid extraction has shown higher selectivity and stronger adsorption capacity of REEs (Liu et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2013). However, the separation of REEs by ionic liquid extraction is at the stage of lab research, and there is an urgent need for more research on the extraction mechanism and potential application methods. Furthermore, the cost of ionic liquid is also a prohibitive factor for practical application.

15.3.3.2 Supercritical fluid extraction Supercritical fluid extraction with carbon dioxide (CO2) as a solvent offers advantages when compared to conventional solvent extraction, such as low viscosity, high diffusivity, low toxicity, and chemical inertness (Cui et al., 2005; Erkey, 2000; Lin et al., 1993). A study by Shimizu et al. (2005) focused on REE extraction from phosphor materials for FLs, and during the process the supercritical carbon dioxide (SFeCO2) containing TBP complexes with HNO3 and H2O was used as an extraction system. Although Y and Eu could be extracted with an efficiency of over 99% under optimal experimental conditions, the extraction efficiencies of La, Ce, and Tb were lower than 7%; these results were similar to those of other studies (Shimakage et al., 1996; Takahashi et al., 2001). The cost-intensiveness of the supercritical fluid extraction process, together with the instability of the system, resulted from reaction uncertainty, making the process not commercially viable.

15.3.3.3 Pressure leaching Recovery of REEs in phosphor from waste fluorescent tubes by pressure leaching using sulfuric/nitric acid mixture was studied by Rabah (2008). Waste fluorescent tubes were broken in 30% aqueous acetone to avoid mercury vapor emissions. The waste phosphor was leached for 4 h using 4 M sulfuric acid/nitric acid in an autoclave (125
C, 5 MPa); the leaching rates of Y and Eu reached 96.4% and 92.8%, respectively. After impurities were removed, the resultant rare earth salts were converted to rare earth thiocyanate. The conversion drastically decreased with increasing temperature, and the extents of conversion were about 90% for both Y and Eu under ambient temperature (25
C). The thiocyanate was extracted into the organic phase using

410 CHAPTER 15 Rare earth metal recovery from typical e-waste

trimethylbenzylammonium chloride as solvent. Maximum extraction rates of 98.8% and 96.5% could be obtained for Y and Eu, respectively. The solvent loaded with rare earth thiocyanate was then mixed with N-tributyl phosphate and nitric acid (1 M); finally, the REEs were stripped as nitrate salts. Stripping rates of both elements could approach as high as 99% under 125
C. Europium nitrate was then separated from yttrium nitrate by dissolving in ethyl alcohol. Thermal reduction with hydrogen was used to produce Y and Eu metals. The results of preliminary economic analysis suggested that it was a promising method for the overall process of waste fluorescent tube recycling, but that further study on an industrial scale was needed.

15.3.3.4 Two-stage leaching In rare earth phosphate phosphors, Y and Eu in red phosphor (Y2O3:Eu3þ) existed in the form of oxides that could be leached out easily, but the La, Ce, Pr, and Tb in green and blue phosphors were in the form of phosphate crystals, which required concentrated sulfuric acid or nitric acid for leaching. Taking advantage of this phenomenon, a two-stage leaching method was used by Yang et al. for REE recovery in waste phosphors (Yang et al., 2013). First, 5 M sulfuric acid was used for Y and Eu leaching; then, concentrated sulfuric acid and nitric acid were used for leaching the rest of the REEs. To separate the REEs from the impurities, a recently developed extractant, DODGAA (N,N-dioctyldiglycol amic acid), was applied using an ionic liquid (IL) (C4mim)(Tf2N) (1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide) as the extracting solvent. Comparisons of extraction efficiency of DODGAA in IL (C4mim)(Tf2N), DODGAA in n-dodecane, and P507 in ndodecane were made as well. It was demonstrated that the DODGAA in (C4mim)(Tf2N) exhibited a higher attraction to the REEs under investigation, and the Y and Eu could also be stripped completely when an acid solution with proton concentration greater than 1 M was used. The reasons for the different leaching behaviors of REEs (Ce, Tb, and Pr) in first- and secondstage leaching under the same conditions are not clear. Although the decline in the extraction ability of extracting solvent, ionic liquid (C4mim)(Tf2N), was no more than 10% for Y after five cycles of extracting, the leaking of (C4mim)(Tf2N) was the issue negatively affecting the application of the procedure, in addition to the high cost of ionic liquid.

15.3.3.5 Methods for improving the leaching behavior of phosphors The dissolution of target elements in waste phosphors into the leach solution is critical for successful REE recovery (Yang et al., 2013). When recovering REEs from phosphors by hydrometallurgy, concerning the structures

15.3 Recycling and recovery of REEs in waste phosphors 411

of green and blue phosphors in trichromatic phosphors, the following observations have been made: for CeMgAl11O19, Tb is of a magnetoplumbite structure (Park et al., 2007); for LaPO4, (Ce, Tb) is of a monazite structure (Wang et al., 2005); for BaMgAl10O17, Eu is of a b-alumina structure (Kim et al., 2002); and for (Sr, Ca, Ba)10(PO4)6Cl2, Eu is of an apatite structure (Huang et al., 2011). The REEs Tb, Ce, La, and Eu in green and blue phosphors are difficult to leach out under moderate conditions, as presented in former studies; this is particularly true for Eu and Tb, which are of much higher value than the others. Therefore, exploring effective methods to improve the leaching behavior of phosphors is a promising way to increase the profitability of REE recovery processes. Methods using mechanochemical treatment, melting, or calcination of phosphors with alkali materials have also been investigated.

15.3.3.5.1 Mechanochemical treatment Mechanochemical treatment had attracted much attention for lowering reaction temperatures and increasing dissolution and formation of watersoluble compounds and reaction rates. Thus, mechanochemical treatment exhibits potential benefits for hydrometallurgy (Baláz et al., 2005). The effects of using mechanochemical treatment (planetary ball milling) as a pretreatment method for acid leaching for recovering REEs in waste phosphor were studied by Zhang and Saito (1998). It was demonstrated that planetary ball milling could improve the leaching rate of REEs significantly. With 3 min of grinding, 70%e80% of the Y and Eu in waste phosphor could be leached out in ambient temperature (298 K) in 1 h by 1 M HCl, whereas the percentage for Y and Eu in phosphor without mechanochemical treatment was EEE, http://www.urbanmineplatform.eu/urbanmine/eee/weightpercapita c Eurostat 2019a - Database: Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by waste management operations (env_waselee), https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/data/database d Data from SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2017 (Technical report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2017); SENS eRecycling 2016 (Annual report 2016) http://report2016. erecycling.ch/2016/2016-annual-report-figures-figures-figures From Urban Mine Platform, 2019; Eurostat, 2019a; Eurostat 2019c; Swico et al., 2017; SENS eRecycling, 2016.

18.3 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Switzerland 489

Table 18.2 Swiss legislation related to WEEE management Legislation and regulations Ordinance on the Return, the Take Back and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, 814.620 Ordinance on the Reduction of Risks relating to the Use of Certain Particularly Dangerous Substances, Preparations and Articles (Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance), 814.81 Ordinance on Movements of Waste, 814.610

In force

Amended/revised

1998

2005 and 2013

2005

2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016

2005

2009, 2013, and 2015

As Switzerland is not a member of the EU nor did it sign the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, it is not obligated to implement EU directives in its national legislation. Thus there are some differences between the WEEE legislation and collection systems in Switzerland and the EU. For instance, Swiss WEEE legislation covers only the first seven categories introduced in the WEEE Directive (2002)/96/EC (FOEN, 2017). Hence the categories 8 Medical devices, 9 Monitoring and control instruments, and 10 Automatic dispensers are not included in the WEEE statistics provided by the Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland (FOEN). Moreover, the Swiss system does not differentiate collection from private households and other sources. Thus the WEEE data provided by FOEN are always given as total volumes without differentiation of the sources generating WEEE. The legal background for Swiss WEEE law is two-sided. On the one hand, an owner is obligated to give back an end-of-life appliance, while on the other, all retailers must take back any appliances free of charge (FOEN, 2017). The legislation, however, does not define how the industry should carry out their responsibility to manage and finance their WEEE recycling. According to Switzerland’s official strategy within EPR, each operational industry sector can decide for itself how to establish the recycling system. Table 18.3 sums up the Swiss WEEE management system and its main stakeholders.

490 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Table 18.3 Swiss WEEE management system: stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities Actor

Roles and responsibilities

Governmental bodies

The federal government plays the role as overseer, framing the basic guidelines and legislation. Authorities participate in the overall controlling and monitoring of the WEEE system as a licensing authority for recyclers. Manufacturers and importers bear the economic and physical responsibilities for their products. PROs (SENS, SWICO Recycling, and SLRS) are nonprofit organizations that manage the day-to-day operations of the systems including setting recycling fees as well as licensing and auditing recyclers. The Swiss Foundation for Waste Management, established in 1990. Its main activities are to supervise and monitor recycling of all WEEE and to take care of domestic equipment, especially white goods such as refrigerators and freezers. SENS approves WEEE treatment operators for the collecting, transporting, and recycling of WEEE. The management system is integrated in an IT database that complies with the WEEE Directive. The open database can visualize material and money flows. The Swiss Economic Association for the Suppliers of Information, Communication and Organizational Technology, established in 1994. It takes care of end-of-life ICT and consumer electronics from the informatics, office electronics, and telecommunication sectors as well as from the graphics and dental industries. The Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation, established in 2005 to be responsible for the system of discarded lamps and luminaires. Distributors and retailers bear a part of the information responsibility of products. They are obligated to take back products in categories they sell irrespective of whether the product was sold by them or whether the consumer purchased a similar product in replacement. They are also responsible for monitoring the amount of ARF clearly in consumer invoices. Consumers are responsible and obligated by law to return discarded devices to retailers or designated collection points free of charge. They bear financial responsibility through the ARF on new products purchased. Recyclers must adhere to minimum standards on emissions and take adequate safety measures concerning employees’ health. Recycling facility authorizations to operate are granted by the cantonal government and licensed by the PROs.

Manufacturers, importers, and Producer responsibility organizations (PROs)

SENS

SWICO Recycling

SLRS Distributors and retailers

Consumers

Recyclers

The Swiss WEEE system is voluntary and based on the fundamental ideology that it was designed to be more flexible and cost-effective than government-run systems. Currently, responsible producers, being both manufacturers and importers, have organized as nonprofit producerresponsibility organizations (PROs) to manage WEEE recovery. The authorities’ role has been restricted to controlling and monitoring the

18.3 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Switzerland 491

results of the different stakeholders in the WEEE management system. Because consumers pay an “advance recycling fee” (ARF) or “advance recycling contribution” (ARC) when purchasing new equipment, they can return their discarded equipment free of charge whenever it becomes waste. The ARF system is differentiated according to costs of collection and treatment of WEEE categories. In 2017, the ARF varied from 0.1 Swiss francs (CHF) for certain small IT/office devices to CHF 60.00 for refrigeration, air-conditioning, freezing, and room-air treatment units with compressors (SENS Foundation, 2016; SWICO Recycling, 2017a). For electrical devices purchased abroad or online, ARF is often excluded from prices. In those cases, Swiss consumers can make a voluntary ARF contribution of CHF 5.00 by sending a mobile phone text message to SENS (SENS eRecycling, 2017).

18.3.2 The Swiss waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure Currently, three nonprofit PROs are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Swiss WEEE collection system, with more than 6000 collection points. The Swiss Foundation for Waste Management (SENS eRecycling) supervises and monitors the recycling of WEEE in Switzerland and additionally takes care of household appliances, especially white goods. It also approves WEEE treatment operators for collecting, transporting, and recycling of WEEE to the system integrated in the IT database complying with the WEEE Directive. SENS eRecycling currently has over 450 collection sites across the country, and in addition, hundreds of reception points at the premises of retailers, manufacturers, and importers. All points have sufficient services relevant for private consumers (e.g., customer-friendly opening hours and competent on-site assistance). Additionally, municipalities can participate in WEEE collection by organizing specific municipal collection days in cooperation with SENS eRecycling, or alternatively, they may register as an official collection point of SENS. In addition to permanent collection, SENS eRecycling offers a pick-up service to companies registered with the SENS online system (SENS eRecycling, 2017). The other main WEEE operator in Switzerland is The Swiss Economic Association for the Suppliers of Information, Communication and Organizational Technology (SWICO Recycling), which looks after end-of-life ICT and consumer electronics from the informatics, office electronics, and telecommunication sectors as well as from the graphics and dental industries. SWICO Recycling currently has approximately 600 collection

492 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

points nationwide, and in addition, hundreds of reception points at retailers and manufacturers premises around the country. Additionally, companies can make an online collection order at any time (SWICO Recycling, 2017b). The third Swiss PRO, The Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation (SLRS), was established to take care of discarded lamps and luminaires (FOEN, 2017). SLRS cooperates closely with SENS eRecycling for all technical and logistic aspects of the disposal process and the collection infrastructure, whereas it focuses on the financing aspects of the end-of-life management of lighting equipment (e.g., amount of ARF and costs of disposal) and represents the interests of manufacturers and importers. All major importers of lamps (there are currently no domestic manufacturers) and almost all of major manufacturers and importers of luminaries in Switzerland participate in the SLRS system.

18.3.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery

145,000

17.5

140,000

17.0

135,000

16.5

130,000

16.0

125,000

15.5

120,000

15.0

115,000

14.5

110,000

14.0

105,000

Collected WEEE (kg/capita)

Collected WEEE (tonnes)

The WEEE volumes collected through the network in Switzerland have reached a steady annual level over the years as can be seen in Fig. 18.1. Total volumes have varied between 130,000 and 140,000 tonnes, or 16e17 kg/capita, per year since 2011. Because of the take-back obligations

13.5 2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year Quantity in total

Quantity per capita

n FIGURE 18.1 Amount of collected WEEE in Switzerland, 2011e16. Based on data from SWICO, SENS, and SLRS.

18.4 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Norway 493

set by Swiss law, collection volumes are estimated to be equal to around 85% of total EEE put into the Swiss market annually (SWICO Recycling, 2017b). Devices turned in at any point in the WEEE collection network are transported directly to the recycling plants of companies specializing in electronic waste. In accordance with the Ordinance on Movements of Waste, EEE is classified as “other controlled waste.” Thus waste disposal companies are required to have the authorization of the canton in which the equipment is located, or in case of the export and import of such waste, the authorization of the FOEN is required. Only functioning equipment operating as intended and not containing any banned substances (e.g., CFCs) is qualified as used or second-hand equipment (FOEN, 2017). After being transported to treatment plants, hazardous and other problematic components (e.g., mercury switches, PCB capacitors, and batteries) are firstly dismantled and separated manually to direct those parts to special disposal plants to ensure the safe final treatment of hazardous components. The remaining fragments of WEEE (e.g., plastics, iron, aluminum and tin, zinc, nickel, and precious metal alloys) are then sorted and channeled to the actual material recycling. The dismantling and sorting of WEEE into recyclable fractions are carried out domestically, whereas the actual reprocessing stages of recyclable fractions are mainly completed in other European countries because the required reprocessing systems are not available in Switzerland. The lack of appropriate recycling possibilities concerns, in particular, the reprocessing of nonferrous metals. Export to countries that are not members of the OECD or EU is prohibited (FOEN, 2017).

18.4 WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT IN NORWAY 18.4.1 Legislative implementation Norway passed “The Act 1976 relating to the control of product and consumer services” in 1976, becoming a global forerunner in putting the EPR principle into a legislative context. The Norwegian Ministry of Environment made a voluntary agreement with the electric and electronic industry and business sector in Norway around two decades later, and an EPR system for WEEE financed by manufacturers and importers was established in Norway in 1999. Norwegian WEEE legislation and its amendments are summarized in Table 18.4.

494 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Table 18.4 Norwegian legislation relating to WEEE management Legislation and regulations

In force since

Amended/revised

The Product Control Act The Waste Regulations:

1978 1998

2000 and 2009 2005, 2006, and 2013

Chapter 1dWaste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Chapter 11dHazardous waste Chapter 13dTransfrontier shipment of waste

Even though Norway is not a member of the EU, it is a signatory of the EEA Agreement and is thus obliged to implement EU directives in its national legislation. Norway thus amended its WEEE legislation in 2006 and 2013 to comply with the WEEE Directive. The major amendments made to Norwegian WEEE regulations in 2006 were (1) WEEE take-back companies must be approved by the Norwegian authorities, (2) each EEE producer/importer must be a member of an approved waste producer association, and (3) a nationwide EEE register/database on EEE should be established for better monitoring WEEE (Román et al., 2008). In Norwegian legislation, the definition of WEEE is broader than it is in the EU. In addition to the 10 categories set by the WEEE Directive (2012)/19/ EU, the Norwegian legislation also includes the following four categories (Norwegian Waste Regulations, 2012): n

n n

n

Category 11: Automatic machines for selling beverages, food, and cash points as well as equipment delivering automatic products; Category 12: Cables and wires; Category 13: Electronic equipment for transferring people and/or goods (e.g., passenger and freight lifts, moving staircases, winches); Category 14: Mounted rigid equipment for heating, air-conditioning, and ventilation.

While the first 10 categories focus mainly on WEEE from households, the inclusion of these 4 additional WEEE categories is focused on the national responsibility for taking care of business- and industry-related WEEE. Table 18.5 sums up the Norwegian WEEE management system and its main stakeholders.

18.4 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Norway 495

Table 18.5 Norwegian WEEE management system: stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities Actor

Roles and responsibilities

Governmental bodies

The Ministry of Climate and Environment plays the role as overseer, framing the basic guidelines and legislation. The Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) acts as a control authority and approves all collectively or individually financed WEEE take-back companies operating in Norway. It also manages the Norwegian WEEE register. Established in 2006 and owned by the Norwegian Environment Agency, its main tasks are to collect data about the production, import, and export of EE equipment provided by the Norwegian Customs and Statistics Norway as well as gather data regarding the collection and treatment of WEEE from authorized WEEE take-back companies. It also provides information on legislation, approves WEEE take-back companies, and identifies companies operating as free riders. Three collectively financed WEEE take-back companies (ERP Norway AS, NORSIRK AS, and RENAS AS) were registered and authorized by the Norwegian Environment Agency in 2017, with more than 5100 member companies. No individually financed take-back companies exist in Norway at this moment. A nonprofit company established in 1997 and owned by The Electro Association and Energy Federation of Norwegian Industries (Bransjeforeningen Elektro og Energi). Originally established for collecting only B2B WEEE but today they cover also consumer WEEE. Initially named Elretur AS, established in 1999. A nonprofit WEEE take-back company owned by Consumer Electronics Trade Foundation, Norwegian EE Suppliers Foundation (Norske Elektroleverandørers LandsforeningdNEL), ICT Norway, and Abelia. Renamed NORSIRK AS in 2017 when Eurovironment AS and ELSIRK AS merged to Elretur. Established in 2011. A part of the European Recycling Platform (ERP), established in 2002 by Braun, Electrolux, HP, and Sony to implement the European Union’s WEEE Directive. The pan-European organization that operates 25 compliance schemes across 40 European countries. The only business-based authorized WEEE take-back company in Norway. Municipalities are obliged to collect WEEE. Collection is put into practice through intermunicipal companies and additional municipal collection points. In-store reception ensures collection.

WEEE register (EEregisteret)

Authorized WEEE take-back companies

RENAS AS

NORSIRK AS

ERP Norway AS (European Recycling Platform)

Municipalities and intermunicipal companies

The Norwegian database, called EE-registeret, ensures that collected WEEE is managed according to legislation. The register contains information on EEE producers and importers recorded by the Norwegian Customs and Excise Authorities, enabling the identification of any companies operating as free ridersdi.e., not meeting their obligations under Norwegian regulations. The register also provides information on legislation for producer and importer compliance with the rules, and collects and collates data from WEEE take-back companies (Norwegian Environmental Agency, 2017). Information recorded in the database acts as a basis of system financing. All Norwegian producers and importers operating in the EEE sector are

496 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

obliged to be a member in one of authorized take-back companies and pay a member fee adjusted for their production or imports that covers the expenses for handling their WEEE.

18.4.2 The Norwegian waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure According to Norwegian waste regulations, all WEEE take-back companies operating in Norway must be approved by the national authorities. Take-back companies must ensure free WEEE collection from households, municipalities, enterprises, and distributors. In practice, they must collect and accept WEEE equivalently from the geographical areas of Norway where their member companies are located. To do that, the country has been divided into different collection areas that are managed by each logistics subcontractor. To ensure sufficient competition in the Norwegian WEEE management sector, the Norwegian Environmental Agency approved three collectively financed take-back companies to collect and recycle WEEE in Norway. Two of these, NORSIRK and RENAS, are nonprofits owned by the Norwegian electrical and electronic industry and business sectors. They have been in the WEEE business almost 20 years. NORSIRK was established in 1999 (named Elretur at that time) for taking care of consumer WEEE (B2C WEEE), and RENAS in 1997 for industrial WEEE (B2B or nonhousehold WEEE). Today, both of them cover all WEEE categories from both segments (NORSIRK, 2017; RENAS, 2017). The third currently authorized WEEE take-back company, ERP Norway, was established in 2011 to provide compliance services in Norway for member companies who have expanded their business to multiple European countries. The Norwegian WEEE collection network is wide and comprehensive. RENAS has more than 3000 national and international member companies from a diverse range of industries, and it operates nationwide through 180 collection centers and 16 treatment plants. Respectively, NORSIRK had about 2500 WEEE collection points in operation in 2017, which are typically managed by EEE distributors, municipalities, and intermunicipal companies.

18.4.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery The volume of WEEE collected through the Norwegian collection network has reached a high and steady annual level over recent years as shown in

160000

30

150000

29 28

140000

27

130000

26

120000

25

110000

24

100000

23 22

90000

21

80000

20

70000

19 18

60000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year Quantity excluded from the WEEE directive Quantity in compliance with the WEEE directive

Quantity per capita in total Quantity per capita in compliance with the WEEE directive

n FIGURE 18.2 Amount of collected WEEE in Norway, 2010e16. Based on data from EE-registeret and Eurostat.

Fig. 18.2. The total volume of collected WEEE has annually been more than 140,000 tonnes since 2011, or more than 28 kg/capita per year. When considering compliance with the WEEE Directive, collected amounts have ranged from 100,000 to 110,000 tonnes, or approximately 20 kg/capita per year. Annual collection rates in Norway (i.e., collected volumes divided by average of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years) are high and have varied between 55% and 60% for categories 1e10 since 2010 (Eurostat, 2019a). The main reason for such a high WEEE collection rate is the contract made between the Ministry of the Environment in Norway and Norwegian EEE importers and producers concerning an overall national WEEE collection target. The collection target set in the agreement covers all 14 categories of Norwegian WEEE legislation and is currently as high as 80% (Norwegian Environmental Agency, 2017). In Norway, collected WEEE is transported to treatment companies for sorting and manual dismantling, and from there, separated hazardous components are directed to special hazardous waste treatment, recyclables to material recycling, and residuals to energy recovery. As the Norwegian PROs acting in a competitive national market, their business models differ from each other, and the agreements between PROs and WEEE operators

Collected WEEE (kg/capita)

Collected WEEE (tonnes)

18.4 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Norway 497

498 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

(e.g., transporters and treatment companies) vary between PROs around the country (Kjellsdotter Ivert et al., 2015). Norwegian WEEE has traditionally been treated partly domestically and partly abroad because the number of treatment facilities for WEEE in Norway is limited. At this moment, most treatment facilities in Norway deal with the sorting and dismantling of WEEE, not actual end-of-life operations (Kjellsdotter Ivert et al., 2015). Additionally, treatment facilities are mainly located near the capital, Oslo, and thus there is still some unexplored potential for new business and reverse chain management of WEEE (Ylä-Mella et al., 2014). In 2010, the shares of WEEE treatment by countries for categories 1e10 were about 58% domestically in Norway, 31% in EU member states, and the remaining 12% coming from outside the EU. In recent years, the share of domestically treated WEEE has declined to 37%, while the volume treated in EU member states has increased considerably to 57%. The share of WEEE treatment outside the EU has diminished in every year and was only 5% in 2016 (Eurostat, 2019a).

18.5 WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT IN SWEDEN 18.5.1 Legislative implementation Sweden implemented its first national WEEE regulation in 2001. It was amended in 2005 according to WEEE Directive (2002)/96/EC and RoHS Directive (2002)/95/EC as the Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products (Swedish code of Statutes, 2005:209). Later, Swedish WEEE legislation was revised in accordance with the recast WEEE Directive so that the current ordinance (Swedish Ordinance, 2014: 1075) on producer responsibility for EEE was implemented in its entirety in 2015. Swedish WEEE legislation and its main revisions are summarized in Table 18.6. The foundation of the Swedish waste management system is the general obligation of municipal refuse collection set by Swedish law. The law states that the local authorities of municipalities are responsible for the management of all household wastes, including WEEE, and their practices should be designed in accordance with the waste management policy adopted by the Swedish government and Parliament. Although local authorities may contract with the private sector to put daily activities into practice, they remain responsible for administering waste management according to the law. Table 18.7 sums up the WEEE management system and its main stakeholders in Sweden.

18.5 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Sweden 499

Table 18.6 Swedish legislation relating to WEEE management Legislation and regulations

In force

Amended/revised

Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products, NFS 2018:11 Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic waste, 2014:1075 Ordinance on producer responsibility for light bulbs and luminaires, 2000:208 EPA Regulations on pretreatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment, NFS 2018:11

2001

2005

2014

2000

2005

2005

2013

Table 18.7 Swedish WEEE management system: stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities Actor

Roles and responsibilities

Governmental bodies

The Ministry of Environment and Climate is responsible for government agencies tasked with applying the laws and carrying out activities decided by the Swedish Parliament and the Government. The Swedish Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) is the government agency that carries out assignments relating to the environment in Sweden, the EU, and internationally. It administers the producer register and approves collection systems for consumer WEEE. Register of electrical and electronic equipment and batteries established in 2005 due to EU WEEE legislation. Administered and operated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. All producers dealing in consumer electronics in Sweden must be a member of a nationally approved collection system. In 2017, there were two approved collective systems (El-Kretsen AB and Recipo Ekonomisk förening) for household WEEE. Producers dealing in other than household WEEE are not obligated to join a collective scheme but may choose to take care of their individual producer responsibility. Established in 2001. A nonprofit company owned by 21 trade organizations. The main actor in the collection and recycling of WEEE in Sweden, having agreements with all 290 Swedish municipalities. Initially named Elektronikåtervinning i Sverige (EÅF), and established in 2007. It is responsible for about 25% of electricity products and batteries placed on the Swedish market. In close cooperation with the European Recycling Platform (ERP) since 2014. Manage collection points for household WEEE.

EEB register

WEEE take-back companies

El-Kretsen

Recipo

Municipalities

500 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

18.5.2 The Swedish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure El-Kretsen is the main actor in the collection and recycling of WEEE in Sweden. It is a nonprofit organization established in 2001 as the result of an agreement between Swedish trade associations, municipalities, and county administrations. Currently, El-Kretsen is owned by 21 business associations, and charges paid by affiliated members are based on their own costs. El-Kretsen has a nationally approved collection system divided into two categories depending on the source of collected and recycled WEEE. Household collection is called “Elretur” and is cooperated with Avfall Sverige (the Swedish Waste Management Association of Local Authorities and Regions representing the municipalities), whereas municipalities and contracted transport carriers administer jointly the collection of B2B WEEE. In the case of household WEEE, El-Kretsen has agreements with all 290 Swedish municipalities. Its collection network reaches the majority of the population nationwide and covers 99% of Swedish WEEE collection (Kjellsdotter Ivert et al., 2015). In 2017, El-Kretsen had around 1,500,000 local collection points, 600 recycling centers, and 30 regional recycling sites across the country (El-Kretsen, 2017). The disposal services that El-Kretsen provides are free of charge, including for businesses using a return certificate. The return certificate means that the party disposing of objects guarantees that the number of returned units corresponds with the undertaking’s purchase of new equipment. The basic feature of the Swedish WEEE system is efficient material flows; recycling operations are centralized and transportation optimized. El-Kretsen has divided the country into different collection areas based on volume, logistics costs, and the locations of preprocessing plants. For each collecting area, El-Kretsen makes a single sourced contract with one treatment plant. Cash flow between El-Kretsen and pretreatment service providers rests on material value and is totally business-based. In the case of a negative material value, El-Kretsen pays to the treatment service provider (Ylä-Mella et al., 2014). El-Kretsen was the only actor in WEEE in Sweden until 2008, when another nonprofit WEEE association, the Swedish Association of Recycling Electronic Products (Elektronikåtervinning i Sverige Ekonomisk förening, EÅF), was launched as a producer organization. In 2017, EÅF had more than 100 member companies in Sweden. It primarily uses its members’ shops and warehouses as collection points, but EÅF has also spread collection points close to consumers across the larger Swedish cities. Consumers can turn in any type of WEEE to the system irrespective of which producer

18.5 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Sweden 501

put the product on the market. This is made possible through a clearinghouse shared with El-Kretsen, enabling a financial clearing procedure with the purpose of equally sharing the costs of WEEE take-back and recycling among producers in Sweden (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). In 2014, EÅF started to work in close cooperation with the European Recycling Platform (ERP) because international electronics manufacturers operating in multiple European countries wished for a single solution through local presence in Sweden for fulfilling the new EU rules in compliance with the WEEE Directive (ERP, 2014). As part of expansion operations to the Nordic region, EÅF changed its name to Recipo Ekonomisk förening and started to operate in Denmark in 2017. Additionally, it has included Norway in its operating area from the beginning of 2019. (Recipo, 2019).

18.5.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery

190000

19

180000

18

170000

17

160000

16

150000

15

140000

14

130000

13

120000

12

110000

11 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year Qantity in total

Qantity per capita

n FIGURE 18.3 Amount of collected WEEE in Sweden, 2010e16. Based on data from Eurostat.

Collected WEEE (kg/capita)

Collected WEEE (tonnes)

The WEEE volume collected through the Swedish collection network is at a high level annually. As shown in Fig. 18.3, the total volume was more than 160,000 tonnes, or over 17 kg/capita/year, through 2013. In 2014 and 2015, the annual total volume decreased to 140,000 tonnes due to the trend toward smaller and more lightweight electronics. Notwithstanding this trend, when counted numerically, more products were being collected in 2014 than in

502 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

earlier years (Avfall Sverige, 2016). Again in 2016, the amount of the collected WEEE was significantly higher, amounting to more than 163,000 tonnes or (16.5 kg/capita) per year. Despite the variations in annual WEEE volumes, annual collection rates in Sweden (i.e., collected volumes divided by average EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years) have exceeded 60% since 2010 (Eurostat, 2019a). El-Kretsen is responsible for organizing the transportation of collected WEEE from all municipal collection points and partly from stores, as compared with Recipo, it is responsible only for its own share of in-store collection. In practice, large recycling companies typically take care of WEEE pretreatment, dismantling, and end-of-life operations for collected WEEE in Sweden. El-Kretsen has contracts with approximately 30 regional transporters that pick up WEEE from municipal collection points and transport it to 30 pretreatment facilities in Sweden. Correspondingly, Recipo’s WEEE is taken care of nationwide by the recycling companies Stena Technoworld and Ragn-Sells (Kjellsdotter Ivert et al., 2015). The majority of recycling companies operating with Swedish WEEE are large wellestablished metal producers with their own metal manufacturing plants in Sweden, which enables domestic treatment for all WEEE collected in Sweden.

18.6 WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT IN DENMARK 18.6.1 Legislative implementation Denmark introduced its first WEEE regulation in 1999 as Statutory Order No. 1067 from the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Six years later, in 2005, the WEEE Directive was implemented in Danish national legislation by amending the Danish Environmental Protection Act and issuing the Danish Statutory Order on placing on the market of electrical and electronic equipment and management of waste electrical and electronic equipment (The WEEE Order). Recently, Danish WEEE legislation has been revised with subsequent amendments. Danish WEEE legislation and its amendments are summarized in Table 18.8. The Danish Producer Responsibility System (Dansk Producentansvars System, DPA) was established in 2005 for administrating rules and handling the national producer register in pursuance of the amendment of the Environmental Protection Act. DPA is a nonprofit organization that operates the national EE register and manages the operational WEEE recycling system in Denmark. It also has tasks related to the guidance, supervision, and

18.6 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Denmark 503

Table 18.8 Danish legislation relating to WEEE management Legislation and regulations

In force

Amended/revised

The Environmental protection Act: Producer responsibility for electronic waste, No. 385/2005 Statutory Order on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Management “WEEE Order,” No. 130/2014 Statutory Order on Shipments of Waste and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), No. 132/2014

2005

2014

1998

2005, 2010, 2011, and 2014

2014

support of the actors within the Danish WEEE system (Kjellsdotter et al., 2015). All producers and importers of EEE must register in the national producer responsibility register to sell their products legally on the Danish market. Producers and importers may choose to join a collective scheme or may take care of the duties themselves as individual compliers. Also, businesses in the EU who are not established in Denmark but deal in distance selling (e.g., internet trade) directly to end-users in Denmark are required to assume their producer responsibility by designating an authorized representative in Denmark (DPA System, 2017). Table 18.9 sums up the Danish WEEE management system and its main stakeholders. In the Danish system, DPA calculates the statutory fees for WEEE and receives reports on collected volumes and other required information from Danish producers and importers. DPA makes allocations of geographical municipal collection points between producers and PROs based on market shares from the previous year. This procedure is unique in the EU for eliminating competition for collected WEEE volumes (Kjellsdotter et al., 2015).

18.6.2 The Danish waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery infrastructure EPR is not a strong environmental driver toward producers because it does not have a long legislative history in Denmark. The implementation of producer responsibility has put forward a centralization of the WEEE recycling system in Denmark. WEEE producers have not played roles as stakeholders in WEEE management in Denmark as they have in Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden, and Danish local authorities (i.e., municipalities) are responsible for household collection by law. They make agreements with WEEE recycling companies. WEEE collection companies are not required to have any approval from Danish authorities. Therefore, the Danish system is not as strongly regulated as ones in another Nordic countries and Switzerland.

504 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Table 18.9 Danish WEEE management system: stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities Actor

Roles and responsibilities

DPA System

A nongovernmental and a nonprofit company working on behalf of the Danish EPA. A number of administrative tasks associated with WEEE legislation have been transferred from the Danish EPA to the DPA System. The tasks are described in the Danish WEEE order, including, e.g., administrating an EEE product register, clearing WEEE quantities to be taken back by EEE producers/PROs, and allocation of municipal collection points to producers/PROs. Register of electrical and electronic equipment established in 2005. Administered and operated by the DPA. Each producer of EEE can fulfill requirements set in the WEEE Order by taking care of producer responsibility individually or by transferring tasks to PROs. In 2015, there were four PROs in Denmark (Elretur, ERP Denmark, RENE, and LWF).There is no authorization of WEEE take-back systems or PROs in Denmark because the focus of legislative requirements is not on the WEEE take-back system but primarily on producers and municipalities. A private, nonprofit association owned by various industry associations and established in 2005. It deals with all kinds of WEEE regardless of type or source. Lyskildebranchens WEEE Forening, established in 2005. A nonprofit producer association focusing only on light sources. A commercial and the only foreign WEEE and battery take-back system in Denmark, operating since 2005. A part of the European Recycling Platform (ERP), established in 2002 by Braun, Electrolux, HP, and Sony to implement European Union’s WEEE Directive. A panEuropean commercial organization operating through 25 compliance schemes across 40 European countries. Distributors of EEE have the right to collect WEEE from private households but are not obliged to do so by law. Must establish collection points for collection of WEEE and register them to the DPA System. They are free to choose WEEE collection schemes they wish but must deliver and sort WEEE into at least five fractions at a collection site, from where producers/collective schemes can then pick it up.

EEE register Producers/PROs

Elretur LWF RENE ERP Denmark

Distributors Municipalities/local authorities

Currently, four PROs operate in Denmark: Elretur, ERP Denmark, RENE, and LWF (Lyskildebranchens WEEE Forening). LWF focuses only on light sources (LWF, 2017), whereas the other three take care of all EEE categories. LWF and Elretur are nonprofit associations, while ERP Denmark and RENE are commercial ones. Elretur, established in 2005, is currently the largest take-back company in Denmark with a major share of WEEE collection and around 1000 member companies in 2017 (Elretur, 2017). Almost all WEEE in Denmark is collected through municipal recycling centers, where households and companies can deliver all kinds of wastes. About 400 collection points across the country were receiving WEEE in 2013 (DPA System, 2017). At collection sites, end users must separate their

18.6 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Denmark 505

WEEE into the following six fractions: (1) large household appliances, (2) refrigeration equipment, (3) small household appliances, (4) screens and monitors, (5) light sources, and (6) photovoltaic panels. Moreover, portable batteries and accumulators must be collected as a separate fraction. Recipo is the latest PRO entering the Danish WEEE market. It has operated in Sweden since 2008 (initially named EÅF) and recently expanded its operation area to Denmark. It became a collective EPR system in September 2017, and now it operates around 300 collection sites for electronics and batteries in Denmark (Recipo, 2017).

18.6.3 Collected waste electrical and electronic equipment and its recovery

90000

16

85000

15

80000

14

75000

13

70000

12

65000

11

60000

10

55000

9

50000

8

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year Quantity in total

Qantity per capita

n FIGURE 18.4 Amount of collected WEEE in Denmark, 2010e16. Based on data from Eurostat.

Collected WEEE (kg/capita)

Collected WEEE (tonnes)

The collected WEEE volume in Denmark has exceeded 70,000 tonnes, or 12 kg/capita, per year since 2010. As seen in Fig. 18.4, collection amounts in recent years have decreased, which can be attributed to the trend toward smaller and more lightweight electronics similar to the experience in Sweden. Despite of decreased collection amounts, the collection rate (i.e., collected volumes divided by the average of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years) has remained at a relatively constant level of 50% in recent years (Eurostat, 2019a).

506 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

When consumers have returned their WEEE to the Danish municipal collection sites, Elretur picks it up and delivers it to approved treatment facilities across Denmark. Currently, the number of Danish treatment facilities for WEEE is limited, and the majority operate only in pretreatment and dismantling of WEEE, not in actual end-of-life operations (Kjellsdotter Ivert et al., 2015). A major share of WEEE is treated domestically in these plants but still a considerable amount is exported to other EU member states for final treatment. The ratio of treatment countries has been relatively constant in recent years, at around 70% for domestic treatment and 30% for treatment within the EU. (Eurostat, 2019a).

18.7 BEST PRACTICES OF EUROPEAN WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT RECOVERY SYSTEMS To measure and track trends in waste generation and in particular aspects of EU waste management, the EU has defined certain waste-related indicators. The main aims of these indicators are to provide information on progress toward EU policy objectives and to help EU countries improve their environmental performance. Currently, the “recycling rate of e-waste” is one of five waste-related indicators in the EU, highlighting the importance of the proper treatment of WEEE. Data for the e-waste recycling rate indicator are collected from the Eurostat database under the WEEE Directive (2012)/19/EU; it considers the chain from EEE put on the market to WEEE collection and treatment. The recycling rate includes volumes collected for treatment and the rate of recycling at treatment facilities, whereas the collection rate equals the collected volumes divided by the average sum of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years. The overall e-waste recycling rate can therefore be defined as the “collection rate” multiplied by the “reuse and recycling rate” at treatment facilities, and it assumes that the total amount of collected e-waste is indeed sent to treatment/recycling facilities (Eurostat, 2019c). Thus the most relevant environmental improvement potentials of the current WEEE recovery are connected to higher collection amounts and to the quality of WEEE treatment (Huisman et al., 2007). The superiority of European forerunners’ WEEE management systems introduced in the previous sections is illustrated in Fig. 18.5 by comparing national WEEE recycling rates with the average for the EU28.

18.7 Best practices of European waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery systems 507

Overall e-waste recycling rate (%)

70 60 50

65

65

62 63

59

58 48

60

58

50

46 47

52 50

48

47

60 55

53 42

40

49

43

38 29

30

32

30

29

41 41 36

20 10 0 2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Year Switzerland

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

EU28

n FIGURE 18.5 Overall e-waste recycling rates (in the compliance with the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU) in Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark

compared with those of the EU28, 2011e2016. Based on data from Eurostat, SWICO, SENS, SLRS and Urban Mine Platform. (Eurostat, 2019c).

Fig. 18.5 shows that all case countries clearly exceed the average overall WEEE recycling rate in the EU28. Since 2011, the highest recycling rates have achieved in Switzerland and Sweden. Switzerland has reached a steady annual level of 60%, while annual recycling rates in Sweden have ranged from 52% to 65%. Norway and Denmark have also managed well, having recycling rates between 38% and 50% during the reference period. When considering the trend in overall recycling rates, it seems that there has been some variation in the percentages of case countries, but the average recycling rate in the EU28 is clearly increasing. Next, some similarities and differences of the systems are pointed out to demonstrate the best practices implemented in European WEEE management. It is common to all four countries that they established their WEEE regulations before the EU WEEE Directive became operative in 2003. Additionally, they all already had advanced and well-established national public waste management with long operational histories at that time, which facilitated their buildup of well-functioning WEEE management systems on a national basis. Among stakeholders managing WEEE, producers and/or industrial organizations have played an important role in Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden. They have proved to be valuable and successful promoters for good practices in WEEE management by addressing EPR demands to their member companies. SWICO, SENS, and SLRS in

508 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Switzerland, RENAS and NORSIRK in Norway, and El-Kretsen in Sweden are all owned by various national branch organizations of electrical and electronic industries. These interest organizations have established nonprofit-based WEEE management companies with membership fees and payments resting on the volumes of EEE produced and covering the proper treatment of end-of-life products. The business and industry organizations’ contribution to EPR shows that communication between stakeholders gives successful results in taking care of the environment. Building up national WEEE registers was a main requirement set in WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC). In all case countries, the national registers are today well-functioning elements of solid WEEE management systems. They may operate under different organizations but their functional duties are same in all cases. The main aims of the registers are to monitor the total amounts of exports and imports of EEE and WEEE, potential “free riders” (producers who are not members of authorized waste companies), and the total amounts of nationally collected, treated, and reused (as parts and/or whole devices) WEEE. As Norway and Switzerland are not bound by free trading within EU law, their registers of EEE and WEEE are more comprehensive than similar ones in EU member states. This is a benefit for Switzerland and Norway, as it enables them to control the total export and import of EEE and WEEE in detail. The dominant issue in the whole EU context is the management of consumer WEEE. This is reflected in the WEEE categories listed in the Directive and in the annual collection targets set for member states. EU statistics contain “collected other sources than private households,” which is supposed to be industrial WEEE from trade and industry. However, the financial system has been built up to cover the costs of collection, treatment, and recycling for consumer WEEE. The weak demands toward B2B WEEE in the Directive may reflect a lack of political willingness to put environmental demands on industry. Norway is the only European country that has expanded its WEEE category list to include B2B products. WEEE collection has been realized through various methods. In all four countries, the basis of collection rests on a nationwide network of permanent reception points with diverse locations. Nowadays, collection point locations are moving to be nearer consumers, from central municipal collection sites to retail shops and premises, typically being a compromise between bringing in and collection. In the most sparsely populated areas, households can deliver their WEEE to mobile collection realized by lorries

18.7 Best practices of European waste electrical and electronic equipment recovery systems 509

and/or trucks, together with other fractions of hazardous municipal wastes. However, the real-life realization of the collection requirements set in the Directive has raised a discussion about the total load of WEEE transportation to the environment (Barba-Gutiérrez et al., 2008; Gamberini et al., 2010; Wäger et al., 2011). For example, in the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland), recycling companies are mainly located in the southern parts of these countries because sparsely populated Northern parts of the countries generate relatively small amounts of WEEE, and thus recycling there is not economically favorable. Thus WEEE is transported to the southern parts of Nordic countries. As the logistics are mainly routed by trucks, long distances result in some environmental harms such as, for example, noise, potential traffic accidents due to, for instance, extreme winter conditions, and air emissions resulting from considerable fossil fuel consumption (Ylä-Mella et al., 2014). However, a recent study relating to environmental impacts of WEEE conducted by Kjellsdotter Ivert et al. (2015) shows that the potential climate impact as global warming potential from EEE materials production is significantly higher than the environmental impacts from WEEE transportation. Therefore, the best option from an environmental standpoint is to extend the life span of EEE devices in use and, after their end-of-life, recycling them as efficiently as possible. In all four countries, the financial system of WEEE management follows the logistics route where EEE turns into WEEE. There are, however, national differences. In Switzerland, the whole WEEE recovery system was built up by nonprofit organizations that take care of certain device categories. The Swiss system rests on voluntariness and it is designed to be costeffective and flexible without strong participation by government authorities. In Norway, the WEEE system was built by two concurrent nonprofit organizations, RENAS and NORSIRK (initially Elretur) for taking care of WEEE from different sources (RENAS for B2B and Elretur for B2C). However, business-based ERP Norway later entered the Norwegian WEEE market. The argument for accessing business-based companies in the Norwegian WEEE system was to open up the national recycling market to competition. In contrast, El-Kretsen had a monopoly status in the Swedish market for a long time, which enabled it to develop the Swedish WEEE recovery system very effectively in its early years of operation. The Danish WEEE system was built differently from those mentioned previously. In Denmark, private companies operate on all levels within collection, transportation, and treatment from municipalities, industry, and business. Denmark puts no authorization demands on the WEEE-management sector except for municipalities.

510 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

In total, the driving force for EPR in WEEE management on a national basis seems to be a greater influence in Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden than in Denmark. The high collection rates in Denmark show that some other factors benefit their WEEE collection. It is reasonable to assume that the Danish long history of waste management in general contributes to the separate collection of WEEE. The other promoting factor of the Danish WEEE recovery system might be that is has less demanding logistic routes compared with those of other Nordic countries.

18.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WEEE is one of the most rapidly increasing waste streams in the world, and there is no doubt that the amount of WEEE will increase in future years. Thus we face enormous challenges in managing it properly. Since WEEE contains a combination of valuable recyclables and hazardous components, management systems should pay high attention to effective and appropriate treatment. Globally today, there are huge differences among countries in the way WEEE is managed. Europe is regarded a forerunner of WEEE management. In this chapter, the WEEE management systems implemented in Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are introduced as good examples of successful national realization of WEEE management in Europe. All these countries manage the collection and treatment of WEEE comprehensively well and carry it out through the functional and stable systems with various committed stakeholders. In order to analyze the best practices of WEEE management, the national systems have been introduced in detail in previous sections. The systems have several similarities that partly explain their effectiveness and high environmental quality, but on the other hand, they also have certain characteristics that differ from each other and make their systems unique. In summary, there is a lot to be learned from these four systems for creating an efficient and fair WEEE recovery system. The following general recommendations can be implemented: n

Legislative framework. It is not enough to implement the WEEE Directive as such in national legislation as it must also be country owned and led. All relevant national stakeholders should participate in the lawmaking process, and their interests should be sufficiently considered to ensure the successful implementation of legislation (Más, 2016). Stakeholders’ key responsibilities should also be developed and defined on a national level. Experiences from Europe have shown that unclear definitions and concepts in WEEE legislation may

18.8 Conclusions and recommendations 511

n

n

n

n

lead costly and inefficient implementation of WEEE take-back systems. Extended producer responsibility. Producers should remain primary financially responsible stakeholders and should have easier access to WEEE. Even small groups of EEE producers can be sufficient to start an EPR-run WEEE take-back system if the fees on products cover their actual treatment costs. Certain legal requirements related closely to EPR, namely “producer compliance schemes,” “visible fees,” and “product design,” have contributed significantly to the success of WEEE management systems implemented in European countries (Más, 2016). Experiences from European countries show that municipalities are the most important stakeholders in the collection of household WEEE. It should be considered whether requirements for municipalities should be expanded to also cover B2B WEEE collection. Financing systems. In general, the stream of money must follow the WEEE stream to ensure that the real costs for total WEEE management are covered. In the EU, member states are important stakeholders in developing compliance schemes. At a national level, authorized WEEE take-back companies are important stakeholders to be included in the system. WEEE collection and logistic systems. Producers and official national interest groups should work together to improve the sorting and collection of WEEE. Logistic routes for WEEE transportation on a national and a continental level should be optimized. The collection points for WEEE must be located as near to consumers as possible. The collection system should not be built up by differentiating brands because it would raise transportation costs unnecessarily. Additionally, collection for B2B and B2C WEEE (from businesses and households) should be integrated into the same logistic system. Consumer awareness should be increased and financial incentives implemented to stimulate the collection and sorting of WEEE. Advanced waste management systems. An efficient WEEE management system is more easily built up with advanced and wellfunctioning routines of public waste management. In nations where WEEE management is inadequate or totally lacking, a system for upstream and downstream WEEE treatment should be planned and established at same time to make the recycling system as efficient as possible. To ensure the success of the WEEE management system, all relevant domestic stakeholders should participate, and their interests should be considered in the planning and implementation process (Más, 2016).

512 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

n

APPENDIX 1: ABBREVIATIONS

AR Authorized representativeda legal entity established and designated by one or more foreign companies situated in EU countries to assume their legal producer responsibility in Denmark ARC Advance recycling contribution; see ARF ARF Advance recycling feedfinances the present collection, transportation, and treatment of WEEE as well as management of the WEEE system in Switzerland Avfall Sverige The Swedish Waste Management Association B2B Business-to-business (nonhousehold) products/waste B2C Business-to-consumer (household) products/waste CHF Swiss francs Downstream Waste stream from collection point to treatment or recycling site DPA Danish Producers Responsibility System EEA European Economic Area EEE Electrical and electronic equipment EEB register Register of electrical and electronic equipment and batteries in Sweden EE registeret Norwegian register for data regarding the production, import, and export of EEE as well as collection and treatment of WEEE El-Kretsen The Swedish producer responsibility organization for WEEE and batteries Elretur The Norwegian producer responsibility organization for WEEE and batteries ELV End-of-life vehicle EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPR Extended producer responsibility ERP European Recycling Platform, the producer-responsibility organization for WEEE, batteries, and packaging across Europe EU15 15 EU member states until April 2004: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, and Sweden EU25 EU15 with the accession of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia in May 2004 EU27 EU25 with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in January 2007 EU28 EU27 with the accession of Croatia in July 2013 e-waste Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (both e-waste and WEEE are used in literature) EÅF Elektronikåtervinning i Sverige Ekonomisk förening, currently named Recipo. The Nordic producer-responsibility organization for WEEE and batteries FOEN Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland Free riders Those who consume resources without paying for it or who pay less than full cost GDP Gross domestic product LWF Lyskildebranchens WEEE Forening, the Danish lighting recycling foundation

Appendix 2: national population and waste electrical and electronic equipment statistics 513

Norsirk AS The Norwegian EEE producer responsibility organization for WEEE, packaging, and batteries OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OMW The Swiss Ordinance on Movements of Waste ORRChem The Swiss RoHS lawdOrdinance on the Reduction of Risks relating to the Use of Certain Particularly Dangerous Substances, Preparations and Articles ORDEE The Swiss WEEE lawdOrdinance on the Return, the Take Back and the Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment PPP Polluter-pays principle PRO Producer-responsibility organization Recipo The Nordic EEE producer-responsibility organization for WEEE and batteries RENAS The Norwegian EEE producer-responsibility organization for WEEE, batteries, and packaging RENE AG The European EEE producer-responsibility organization for WEEE, batteries, and packaging acting in Denmark RoHS Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances SENS eRecycling The Swiss Foundation for Waste Management SLRS Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation SWICO The Swiss Economic Association for the Suppliers of Information, Communication and Organizational Technology UNU-IAS United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability Upstream Waste stream from waste holder to collection point WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment, synonym for e-waste

n APPENDIX 2: NATIONAL POPULATION AND WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT STATISTICS

Table A18.1 Swiss population and WEEE statistics, 2011e16

Year

Populationa

EEE put on marketb (tonnes)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

7,912,398 7,996,861 8,089,346 8,188,649 8,282,396 8,417,730

221,868 221,100 217,166 219,862 225,341 225,538

Collected WEEE in totala,c (tonnes) 132,856 135,995 131,479 133,326 133,789 137,888

Collection rate [%]

Treated WEEEc (tonnes)

Treatment rate of WEEEc [%]

Overall WEEE recycling rate [%]

64.9 65.3 60.7 60.6 61.0 62.4

118,610 129,100 127,900 126,600 132,100 131,800

89.3 94.9 97.3 95.0 98.7 95.6

58.0 62.0 59.1 57.6 60.2 59.7

% % % % % %

Collection rate ¼ collected volumes divided by the average of EEE put on the market in the previous three years. Overall e-waste recycling rate ¼ Collection rate multiplied by the treatment rate of WEEE (assumes that the total amount of collected e-waste is indeed sent to treatment/recycling facilities). a Data from SENS eRecycling Annual Reports (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). b Urban Mine Platform (2019): Urban Mine > EEE, http://www.urbanmineplatform.eu/urbanmine/eee/weightpercapita c Data from Technical reports of SWICO, SENS and SLRS (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)

514 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Table A18.2 Norwegian population and WEEE statistics, 2010e2016

Year

Average populationa

EEE put on marketb (tonnes)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

4,889,252 4,953,088 5,018,573 5,079,623 5,137,232 5,188,607 5,234,519

181,579 184,887 186,084 180,569 182,236 177,512 182,766

Collected WEEE in totalc (tonnes)

Collected WEEE within cat. 1e10b (tonnes)

Collection rate for categories 1e10b (%)

Overall WEEE recycling rate for cat. 1e10d (%)

138,330 147,013 143,790 146,017 147,526 146,571 146,148

107,767 109,823 104,905 104,927 107,236 105,592 102,577

54.9 58.6 58.4 57.0 58.3 57.7 57.0

45.3 48.4 46.4 46.5 47.5 50.4 49.3

Collection rate ¼ collected volumes divided by the average of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years. Overall e-waste recycling rate ¼ collection rate multiplied by the rate of recycling at the treatment facilities (assumes that the total amount of collected e-waste is indeed sent to treatment/recycling facilities). a

Data from EurostatdPopulation statistics (2019b). Data from EurostatdWEEE statistics (2019a). Data from Annual reports of EE-registeret (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017a). d Data from EurostatdWaste indicators (2019c). b c

Table A18.3 Swedish population and WEEE statistics, 2010e2016 Year

Average populationa

EEE put on marketb (tonnes)

Collected WEEEb (tonnes)

Collection rate (%)

Overall WEEE recycling ratec (%)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

9,378,126 9,449,213 9,519,374 9,600,379 9,696,110 9,799,186 9,923,085

232,403 231,640 219,160 242,668 237,925 256,890 259,030

161,444 176,580 168,612 176,567 144,858 143,955 163,237

57.0 66.5 63.7 77.5 62.7 61.7 66.4

55.3 64.9 62.6 64.9 52.7 51.6 55.5

Collection rate ¼ collected volumes divided by the average of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years. Overall e-waste recycling rate ¼ collection rate multiplied by the rate of recycling at the treatment facilities (assumes that the total amount of collected e-waste is indeed sent to treatment/recycling facilities). a

Data from EurostatdPopulation statistics (2019b). Data from EurostatdWEEE statistics (2019a). c Data from EurostatdWaste indicators (2019c). b

References 515

Table A18.4 Danish population and WEEE statistics, 2010e2016 Year

Average populationa

EEE put on marketb (tonnes)

Collected WEEEb (tonnes)

Collection rate (%)

Overall WEEE recycling ratec (%)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

5,547,683 5,570,572 5,591,572 5,614,932 5,643,475 5,683,483 5,728,010

147,557 141,964 141,925 138,437 152,358 154,842 158,595

82,931 84,319 76,200 72,080 71,557 72,482 71,209

48.3 55.5 52.5 50.1 50.8 50.3 47.9

41 50.1 46.5 37.6 42.3 43.0 41.4

Collection rate ¼ collected volumes divided by the average of EEE put on the market in the previous 3 years. Overall e-waste recycling rate ¼ collection rate multiplied by the rate of recycling at the treatment facilities (assumes that the total amount of collected e-waste is indeed sent to treatment/recycling facilities). a

Data from EurostatdPopulation statistics (2019b). Data from EurostatdWEEE statistics (2019a). Data from EurostatdWaste indicators (2019c).

b c

REFERENCES Avfall Sverige, 2016. Swedish Waste Management 2016. http://www.avfallsverige.se/ fileadmin/uploads/Arbete/Remissvar/swm_2016.pdf. Baldé, C.P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2015. The Global E-Waste Monitor e 2014. United Nations University, IAS e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global E-Waste Monitor e 2017. United Nations University, International telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. Barba-Gutiérrez, Y., Adenso-Díaz, B., Hopp, M., 2008. An analysis of some environmental consequences of European electrical and electronic waste regulation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 481e495. Commission Directive 2002/95/EC of 27 January on the Restrictions of Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS). Commission Directive 2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Danish Environmental Protection Act: Producer Responsibility for Electronic Waste. Act No. 385 of May 25, 2005. www.dpa-system.dk/en/WEEE/ProducerResponsibility/ LegislationinDenmark. Danish Statutory Order on Placing on the Market of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Management of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment No. 130 of February 6, 2014. https://www.dpa-system.dk/en/WEEE/ProducerResponsibility/ LegislationinDenmark. Danish Statutory Order on Shipments of Waste and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) No. 132 of February 6, 2014. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on End-of-life Vehicles (ELVs).

516 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators and Repealing Directive 91/157/EEC. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (Recast). DPA System, 2017. Danish Producer Responsibility. https://www.dpa-system.dk/en/DPA. EE-registeret, 2010. Annual Report 2009 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/File/ EE-registerets%20%C3%A5rsrapport%202009.pdf. EE-registeret, 2011. Annual Report 2010 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/File/ EE-registerets%20%C3%A5rsrapport%202010.pdf. EE-registeret, 2012. Annual Report 2011 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/File/ EE-registerets%20%C3%A5rsrapport%202011.pdf. EE-registeret, 2013. Annual Report 2012 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/File/ EE-registerets%20%C3%A5rsrapport%202012.pdf. EE-registeret, 2014. Annual Report 2013 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/file/ %C3%85rsrapport2013.pdf. EE-registeret, 2015. Annual Report 2014 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/file/ 2014%20EEregisterets_arsrapport.pdf. EE-registeret, 2016. Annual Report 2015 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/file/ %C3%85rsrapport%202015.pdf. EE-registeret, 2017a. Annual Report 2016 [in Norwegian]. http://www.eeregisteret.no/file/ %C3%85rsrapport%202016.pdf. EE-registeret, 2017b. The WEEE Register - the Register of Producers of Electrical and Electronic Equipment. http://www.eeregisteret.no/ShowHTML.aspx?file¼English. htm. El-Kretsen, 2017. El-kretsen - Together for Sustainable Development. http://www.elkretsen.se/english/. Elretur, 2017. Welcome to Elretur. http://www.elretur.dk/. ERP, European Recycling Platform, 2014. European Recycling Platform Enters the Swedish Market. http://www.en.erp-recycling.fi/news/european-recycling-platformenters-the-swedish-market/. ERP, European Recycling Platform, 2017. About European Recycling Platform. http://erprecycling.org/. Eurostat, 2019a. WEEE statistics - Database: Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by waste management operations (env_waselee). https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/web/waste/data/database. Eurostat, 2019b. Population statistics - Database: Population on 1 January (tps00001). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Eurostat, 2019c. Waste related indicators: Recycling rate of e-waste. https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat//web/waste/recycling-rate-of-e-waste. FOEN, Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland, 2017. Guide to Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/ topics/waste/guide-to-waste-a-z/electrical-and-electronic-equipment.html. Gamberini, R., Gebennini, E., Manzini, R., Ziveri, A., 2010. On the integration of planning and environmental impact assessment for a WEEE transportation network e a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, 937e951.

References 517

Gottberg, A., Morris, J., Pollard, S., Mark-Herbert, C., Cook, M., 2006. Producer responsibility, waste minimisation and the WEEE Directive: case studies in ecodesign from the European lightning sector. The Science of the Total Environment 359 (1e3), 38e56. Hischier, R., Wäger, P.A., Gauglhofer, J., 2005. Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 525e539. Huisman, J., Magalini, F., Kuehr, R., et al., 2007. 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final report. Contract No: 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4/ENV. G.4/2006/0032. University Nations University, Bonn. Germany. Kjellsdotter Ivert, L., Raadal, H.L., Fråne, A., Ljungkvist, H., 2015. The Role of the WEEE Collection and Recycling System Setup on Environmental, Economic and Socio-economic Performance. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. Report No. B 2243. http://www.ivl.se/download/18.343dc99d14e8bb0f58b853f/ 1446478784955/B2243.pdf. LWF, 2017. Lyskildebranchens WEEE Forening. http://www.lwf.nu/. Más, H., 2016. Transplanting EU Waste Law: The European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive as a Source of Inspiration to Brazilian Law and Policy [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Groningen, Netherlands. http://www. rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/transplanting-eu-waste-law(15c413f8-67f54456-8a65-c41961d2debd).html. NORSIRK, 2017. WEEE-rep Norway. http://norsirk.no/weeerepnorway/. Norwegian Environmental Agency, 2017. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. http://www.environment.no/topics/waste/avfallstyper/waste-electrical-and-electronicequipment/. Norwegian Waste Regulations, 2012. Norwegian Regulations Relating to the Recycling of Waste (Chapter 1): Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. http://miljodirektoratet. no/en/Legislation1/Regulations/Waste-Regulations/. Recipo, 2017. Nordic Producer Responsibility. https://recipo.com/. Recipo, 2019. Recipo launches in Norway. https://recipo.se/en/recipo-launches-in-norway/. RENAS, 2017. RENAS - Norway’s Leading Compliance Scheme. http://renas.no/english/. RENE, A.S., 2017. Denmark e Individual Responsibility Executed Collectively. http:// www.rene-europe.com/en/rene-compliance-schemes/denmark.html. Román, E., Ylä-Mella, J., Pongrácz, E., Solvang, W.D., Keiski, R., 2008. WEEE management system e cases from Norway and Finland. In: Proceedings of Joint International Conference and Exhibition Electronics Goes Green 2008þ. Merging Technology and Sustainable Development, pp. 795e803. SENS eRecycling, 2012. Annual Report 2012. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/publications. SENS eRecycling, 2013. Annual Report 2013. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/publications. SENS eRecycling, 2014. Annual Report 2014. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/publications. SENS eRecycling, 2015. Annual Report 2015. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/publications. SENS eRecycling, 2016. Annual Report 2016. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/publications. SENS eRecycling, 2017. SENS ERecycling: Bring it Back. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/ sens-erecycling-bring-it-back.

518 CHAPTER 18 Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Europe

SENS Foundation, 2016. Tariff and Appliance List 2017. http://www.erecycling.ch/en/ downloads. Sinha Khetriwal, D., Kraeuchi, P., Widmer, R., 2009. Producer responsibility for e-waste management: key issues for consideration e learning from Swiss experience. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 153e165. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. WEEE Directive in Sweden e Evaluation with Future Study. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ ISBN/8400/978-91-620-8421-9/. Swedish regulation (NFS 2018:11) by the Swedish EPA on pretreatment of WEEE (in Swedish) http://www.swedishepa.se/Guidance/Laws-and-regulations/Foreskrifterallmanna-rad/NFS/2018/NFS-201811—Om-yrkesmassig-lagring-och-behandling-avelavfall/. Swedish Ordinance (2014:1075) on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment (In Swedish), http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/ svensk-forfattningssamling/_sfs-2014-1075. Swedish Ordinance (2000:208) on producer responsibility for filament bulbs and certain lighting equipment, http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svenskforfattningssamling/forordning-2000208-om-producentansvar-for_sfs-2000208.http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfsr. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2012. Technical Report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2011/2012. http:// www.SWICOrecycling.ch/en/news-media/publications. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2013. Technical Report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2013. http://www. SWICOrecycling.ch/en/news-media/publications. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2014. Technical Report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2014. http://www. SWICOrecycling.ch/en/news-media/publications. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2015. Technical Report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2015. http://www. SWICOrecycling.ch/en/news-media/publications. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2016. Technical Report 2016. http://www.SWICOrecycling.ch/en/ news-media/publications. SWICO, SENS, SLRS, 2017. Technical Report SWICO/SENS/SLRS 2017. http://www. SWICOrecycling.ch/en/news-media/publications. SWICO Recycling, 2017a. ARF Tariff. http://www.SWICOrecycling.ch/en/ administration/arf-tariff. SWICO Recycling, 2017b. SWICO Recycling. http://www.SWICOrecycling.ch/en/home. Swiss Ordinance on the Reduction of Risks relating to the Use of Certain Particularly Dangerous Substances, Preparations and Articles (Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance, ORRChem), 814.81. http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/8/814.81.en.pdf. Swiss Ordinance on Movements of Waste, vol. 814.610. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/ classified-compilation/20021080/index.html. Swiss Ordinance in the Return, Takeback and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ORDEE), 814.620. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/ 19980114/ index.html. Urban Mine Platform, 2019. Urban Mine > EEE put on the market, in use and generated as WEEE each year. http://www.urbanmineplatform.eu/urbanmine/eee/weightpercapita. Wäger, P.A., Hischier, R., Eugster, M., 2011. Environmental impacts of the Swiss collection and recovery system for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a follow-up. The Science of the Total Environment 409, 1746e1756.

Further Reading 519

Ylä-Mella, J., Poikela, K., Lehtinen, U., Tanskanen, P., Román, E., Keiski, R.L., Pongrác, E., 2014. Overview of the WEEE Directive and its implementation in the Nordic countries: national realisations and best practices. Journal of Waste Management 18, article ID 457372, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/457372.

FURTHER READING Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS).

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

19

WEEE management in China

Xianlai Zeng and Jinhui Li School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

CHAPTER OUTLINE

19.1 Introduction 521 19.2 Exploration of WEEE management in China 19.2.1 19.2.2 19.2.3 19.2.4

524

General history 524 1990se2002 524 2003e10 525 2011 and forward 525

19.3 Evolution of e-waste generation quantity in China 525 19.4 Successful experience extracted from the past adventure 526 19.4.1 19.4.2 19.4.3 19.4.4

Status of e-waste recycling industry 526 Resource performance of e-waste recycling 527 Environmental performance of e-waste recycling 530 Summary of experience 531

19.5 Potential lessons and gaps 19.5.1 19.5.2 19.5.3 19.5.4 19.5.5

532

Imbalance between fund levies and subsidies 532 Procedure of subsidies utilization 533 Expanding of e-waste recycling industry 533 Eco-design for environment 534 New catalogue of e-waste 535

19.6 The way forward References 536

535

19.1 INTRODUCTION Since 2000, rapid changes in the economic and social landscapes have been stimulated by information and communication technologies and high-tech industries (Williams, 2011; Zeng et al., 2015; Zhang and Liu, 2015). The electrical and electronic industries approximately occupy 100% of the indium, 72% of the ruthenium, 50% of the tin, 44% of the copper, 34% of the silver, and 22% of the mercury mined globally every year (Reuter et al., 2013; Baldé et al., 2017). Waste electrical and electronic equipment

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00019-7 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

521

522 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

(WEEE), or e-waste, is identified as one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world (Cucchiella et al., 2015; Kirby and Lora-Wainwright, 2015; McCann and Wittmann, 2015). In case of treasure hunting, recycling for e-waste can provide a huge amount of valuable resources to sustain and renew the electronics and energy utilization (Sun et al., 2016; Tan and Li, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). E-waste also contains amounts of toxic substances, such as lead, cadmium, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and brominated flame retardants (Chen et al., 2016; Song and Li, 2015). In recent years, its informal disposal (e.g., open burning, improper acid leaching) in backyards and lowtechnology recycling enterprises released massive toxic pollutants, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, and heavy metals (Ghosh et al., 2016; Ogunseitan et al., 2009; Tao et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2013b; Zhu et al., 2015). Therefore, e-waste is an emerging and critical environmental issue, and highlights the need for increased resource recycling in from developed to developing countries (Heacock et al., 2016; Perkins et al., 2014; Yoshida et al., 2016). Greenpeace reported that informal recycling of e-waste imposed a serious burden on the environment and human health in many developing countries (e.g., China, India, and Nigeria) (Cobbing, 2008; Garlapati, 2016; Orlins and Guan, 2016; Sthiannopkao and Wong, 2013). China is not only the largest producer and consumer of electrical and electronic products (EEPs) but also the country most seriously polluted from illegal e-waste importation and informal recycling (Gu et al., 2016; Li et al., 2013; Tue et al., 2013). Ulteriorly, China would generate 15.5 and 28.4 million tons of WEEE in 2020 and 2030, respectively, and has already overtaken the United States to become the world’s leading producer of e-waste (Duan et al., 2016; Zeng et al., 2016). Rapid increases in urbanization and population density have led to a more fragile ecological environment, especially in the densely populated east and fragile ecological west of China (Labunska et al., 2015). On January 1, 2011, China implemented the Management Regulation on the Recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Products (WEEE regulation), supported by a couple of technical guidelines and policies (Wang et al., 2013a; Zhang et al., 2012). On January 1, 2015, the new Catalogue of WEEE Recycling (Batch 2) was issued, in which the number of WEEE types covered by the regulations was increased to 14 (Fig. 19.1).

19.1 Introduction 523

TV RG Catalogue one

WM AC

WEEE

MC RH EWH GWH PT Added catalogue

CP FM MN MP SMT

n FIGURE 19.1 The catalogue of WEEE recycling in China. Reticulate circle (ranged from TV to MC): first catalogue; White circle: added EEEs in the new catalogue. AC, air conditioner; CP, copier; EWH, electric water-heater; FM, fax machine; GWH, gas water heater; MC, microcomputer; MN, monitor; MP, mobile phone; PT, printer; RG, refrigerator; RH, range hood; SMT, single-machine telephone; TV, television; WM, washing machine.

Prior to these new listings, the Chinese government had already implemented some more extensive regulations related to e-waste management during the period 2001e08, including a prohibition on the importation of e-waste and the Administrative Measure on Pollution of E-waste (Zhou and Xu, 2012). Seven national ministries, led by the Ministry of Finance, phased in the WEEE “old-for-new” (or trade-in) policy in 2009e12 (Cao et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2014). As an alternative approach, this “old-fornew” policy took an economic approach to enforcing the collection of WEEE for formal recycling. Later, more enforceable WEEE regulations were legislated, setting up an extensive formal recycling system, funded by levies on EEE producers, with government subsidies for the recyclers (Salhofer et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2013).

524 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

In order to improve the sound management of e-waste for the future, we will examine China’s WEEE regulations and policies, summarize the successful experience related to industry development and environmental benefits, and identify the dominant lessons and challenges. We seek what could contribute to the future of China’s e-waste management and provide a valuable reference for other countries and regions.

19.2 EXPLORATION OF WEEE MANAGEMENT IN CHINA 19.2.1 General history Fig. 19.2.

19.2.2 1990se2002 In this era, some regions in the southeast, like Guiyu town and Qingyuan in Guangdong province, and Taizhou in Zhejiang province, were the main sites to dispose of e-waste using backyard techniques (Tong and Wang, 2004). The e-waste problem was derived of the lack of legislation, without a formal recycling network for e-waste, or mature technology. Illegal transboundary movement and informal recycling of e-waste exacerbated serious environmental pollution and ecological degradation in southeast China.

Comprehensive legislation and mature technology

Easy burning and acid leaching

National pilot

“Old-fornew” Implementation measures

2009 2000 Improper Co-existing phase dismantling phase

WEEE regulation and RoHS regulation

2012 Development phase

2020 Health operation phase

n FIGURE 19.2 E-waste management experience in China. Reprinted with permission from Zeng, X., Li, J., Stevels, A.L.N., Liu, L., 2013. Perspective of electronic waste management in China based on a legislation comparison between China and the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production 51(0), 80e87. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

19.3 Evolution of e-waste generation quantity in China 525

19.2.3 2003e10 Recognizing the severe pollution caused by informal recycling, the Chinese government, National Development and Reform Commission, designated Qingdao City, Zhejiang Province, Beijing City and Tianjin City, as the trial demonstration administrations to establish the formal recycling system and management approach. The four formal national enterprises are: Qingdao Haier Group Company, Hangzhou Dadi Environmental Protection Company, China Huaxing Group Company, and Tianjin Datong Copper Industry Company. As introduced previously, some regulations initially were just drafted in China. The e-waste recycling process was developed from the laboratory to the field plant. But without the support of funding subsidy, the four pilots could not survive to and adequately process e-waste. Thus, the period presented the coexisting of informal sector and national pilot company. Until the year of 2009, the “old-for-new” Implementation Measures for Household Appliances was enforced. A huge number of e-wastes could be taken back from consumers to fill up the recycling enterprises.

19.2.4 2011 and forward China WEEE regulation is enabling a promising sound management of ewaste, and more than 100 licensed enterprises have been engaged in the e-waste recycling. Some formal recycling process has been initially established at the field level. The new legislation including WEEE regulation and RoHS regulation will continue to be a huge challenge until at least 2020, not only for the Chinese government to supervise the implementation and preparation work of the regulation agencies but also for the relevant stakeholders, including producers, distributors, recycling operators, and enterprises to learn and implement the rules (Fu et al., 2018). The recycling and recovery processes are being developed from common e-waste to intractable e-waste parts such as waste printed circuit board (PCBs) and cathoderay tube (CRTs) (Chen et al., 2018).

19.3 EVOLUTION OF E-WASTE GENERATION QUANTITY IN CHINA With the rapid production and consumption since 2000, in 2014 China generated 8.53 million tons (Mt) of WEEE, exceeding the United States by 7.07 Mt (Zeng et al., 2016). China’s amount of WEEE was about 4.63 Mt in 2010, but it will rise to 15.6 Mt in 2020, and 28.4 Mt in 2030, with an annual increase rate of 25.7% (Fig. 19.3). This rate far exceeds the reported growth rate for global e-waste and municipal solid waste, which further confirms that it is the fastest-growing solid waste stream. Also, since

526 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

30

Total weight (Mt)

25 20 15 10 5

30

29

20

28

20

27

20

26

20

25

20

24

20

23

20

22

20

21

20

20

20

19

20

18

20

17

20

16

FM

20

15

SMT RH

20

14

20

13

20

12

20

11

TV

20

AC

20

RF WM

20

10

0

Year DPC MP

Copier

Printer

LPC Monitor

EWH GWH

Importation

n FIGURE 19.3 Evolution of e-waste generation in China from 2010 to 2030. Reprinted with permission from Zeng, X., Gong, R., Chen, W.Q., Li, J., 2016.

Uncovering the recycling potential of “new” WEEE in China. Environmental Science & Technology 50(3), 1347e1358. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

the total weight of global generation in 2016 was 44.7 Mt, China’s quantity accounted for nearly 20% of the global amount (Baldé et al., 2017). The current accounting ratio of e-waste is almost equal to the Chinese share of the total world population. In other words, the average per capita amount of China’s WEEE generation in 2016 reached the world average level, although this was still significantly less than the per capita value for the developed nations. But the Chinese rate is rising quickly and by about 2030 may surpass those of the Americas, Oceania, and even Europe (China may have 1.6 billion people in 2030). Additionally, the decrease of WEEE importation and rise of domestic WEEE are resulting in a sharp decline of importation proportiondshare of imported WEEE in total WEEEdfrom 19% in 2010 to 5% in 2015. It is anticipated that the illegal importation of e-waste will disappear owing to the stricter ban of waste importation enforced beginning in January 2018 (State-Council, 2017).

19.4 SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST ADVENTURE 19.4.1 Status of e-waste recycling industry Driven by above-mentioned policies and regulations in China, the new ewaste recycling enterprises greatly proliferated. By September 2015, 109 licensed and certified enterprises across the country had been authorized to receive the subsidies (Fig. 19.4), creating a capacity to handle 150 million

19.4 Successful experience extracted from the past adventure 527

490 441 392 343 294 245 196 147

1st batch (N = 42) 2nd batch (N = 21) 3rd batch (N = 28) 4th batch (N = 15) 5th batch (N = 3)

98 49 0

n FIGURE 19.4 Distribution map of WEEE dismantling amount (in 2013) and enterprises in China (in 2015). The unit is
104, and color circles indicate the

batches in which the recycling facilities obtained the license of subsidy. Reprinted with permission from Zeng, X., Duan, H., Wang, F., Li, J., 2017. Examining environmental management of e-waste: China's experience and lessons. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72, 1076e1082. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.

units of WEEE in 2016. China has employed the best available recycling technologies, characterizing manual dismantling, mechanical treatment, deep recovery, and ultimate disposal. As a result, the total confirmed dismantled volume was around 70e75 million units in the years 2014e16, and the recycling rate of 35% reached the level of developed countries or regions like the United States and European Union (EU) (Fig. 19.5). Formal recycling facilities are now available throughout the country, and informal recycling is shrinking for five types of WEEE.

19.4.2 Resource performance of e-waste recycling Based on combination of physical separation technologies of e-waste recycling (Ruan and Xu, 2016), here we roughly drew a material flow diagram of current e-waste recycling in a typical enterprise for WEEE recycling in China, which is clearly illustrated in Fig. 19.6.

528 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

'Old-for-new'policy

WEEE fund

140

90

120

80 70

100

60

80

50

60

40 30

40

20

20

10

0

Amount recycling rate (%)

Amount (million unit)

(a)

0 2010

2011

Actual reycling amount

2012

2013

2014

2015

Theoretical genetation amount

2016 Recycling rate

(b) 45

Weight recycling rate (%)

40

40 33

35

35

30 25 20 13

15 10 5 0

U.S. (2013)

EU-27 (2009)

China (2014)

Worldwide (2009)

n FIGURE 19.5 (a) China’s formal recycling rate of e-waste in amounts from 2010 to 2016; (b) The comparisons to other countries or regions in weight recy-

cling rate. China’s data from CHEARI, 2015. White Paper on WEEE Recycling Industry in China in 2014, CHEAA, Beijing; CHEARI, 2016. White Paper on WEEE Recycling Industry in China in 2015; CHEARI, 2017. White Paper on WEEE Recycling Industry in China in 2016; U.S.‘s data source from USEPA, 2015. Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-life Electronics. http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm, and other data from the reference by Li, J., Zeng, X., Chen, M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Stevels, A., 2015b. “Control-Alt-Delete”: Rebooting solutions for the e-waste problem. Environmental Science & Technology 49(12), 7095e7108. Adapted with permission from Zeng et al. (2017). Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.

Using informal process, valuable materials including aluminum, plastic, iron, and copper could be recycled from e-waste (Wang et al., 2013a). Governed by WEEE regulations, more formal processes were employed to yield plastic, iron, aluminum, copper, nickel, and new products, which can be recovered from nonmetallic powder of waste PCBs (Hadi et al., 2015).

19.4 Successful experience extracted from the past adventure 529

TV Panel glass

Wire Deflection coil Speaker Tuner Polyurethane foam Compressor Motor Transformer coil Others New products

Recycling Air conditioner

Washing machine

Funnel glass

Refrigerator

Iron

Plastics

n FIGURE 19.6 Material flow analysis of e-waste recycling in a typical enterprise of China (measured by tons). The thickness of line indicates quantity of mate-

rial flow. Some data from Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., Zeng, X., 2013. The life cycle assessment of an e-waste treatment enterprise in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 15(4), 469e475 and copper content is approximately 10% by w.t. in PCBs. Reprinted with permission from Zeng et al. (2017). Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.

Here the material recycling rate is defined as r ¼

R
100% T

(19.1)

where r is the material recycling rate (%), R is total weight of all the achieved valuable products (ton), and T is total weight of input WEEE (ton). Therefore, the current material recycling rate with formal process is r ¼

4077:13 þ 1704:86 þ 0:52 þ 107:8 þ 132:448 þ 880:992 þ 1701:77
5% 16118 þ 2236 þ 2122 þ 272 þ 35
100% ¼ 33:4% (19.2)

530 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

where 5% is the estimated recycling rate of CRT funnel glass, because most CRT funnel glass currently went to landfill and only one licensed company could recycle a small proportion. And the material recycling rate with informal process is r ¼

4077:13 þ 1704:86 þ 107:8 þ 132:448
100% ¼ 29% 16118 þ 2236 þ 2122 þ 272 þ 35

(19.3)

In many industrial nations, pyrometallurgical process of e-waste recycling is the most popular, for instance, in Umicore, Kaldo, and Noranda smelting plant in the EU (Cui and Zhang, 2008). In this situation, only plastics and metals could be substantially recovered, so that recycling rate in the EU was just around 29%. Thus, the elevated recycling rate driven by WEEE regulation is approximately 4.4%. Consequently, a large quantity of resources is recycled, compared with China’s traditional informal recycling and developed countries’ process (crushing, screening, and smelting), additional 5% material recovery has been achieved (e.g., recovered from nonmetallic materials of waste PCBs (Hadi et al., 2015)). More materials than some developed countries with smelter process (e.g., Umicore) were substantially recovered from waste PCBs (Hadi et al., 2015) and CRTs (Maschio et al., 2013) for new products.

19.4.3 Environmental performance of e-waste recycling Compared with informal processing, the emission of heavy metals such as lead can be reduced when CRT funnel glass of color TVs is appropriately recycled. However, very few substances are recovered in hydrometallurgical process in China. Therefore, assuming a 5% recycling rate and 25% composition of lead in CRT funnel glass (Herat, 2008; Yuan et al., 2014), in 2013 the lead emission reduction was about 1800 tons. Approximately 2.1 tons of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerant could be collected for safe disposal, which means the equivalent CFCs could been reduced that can be discharged into the atmosphere. Song et al. (2013) firstly carried out the life cycle assessment of an e-waste treatment enterprise in China. When 1 ton of e-waste was recycled in the recycling enterprise, the recycling of metals could bring the most important environmental benefits, accounting for 52.42% of the total benefits, followed by plastics recycling, PCB treatment, and funnel glass reuse. The environmental benefits were, first, in human health, accounting for 48.52%, and then in resources (41.61%) and ecosystem quality (9.87%). E-waste recycling could bring large environmental benefits through avoiding energy

19.4 Successful experience extracted from the past adventure 531

use and emissions to air or water, etc. Here, the highest benefits were from emissions avoided from arsenic and cadmium (ion) to water, accounting for about 49% of the benefit, attributable to the avoidance of extraction and processing of these metals. Because of the high energy requirements in the extraction and processing of the materials, avoiding consumption of fossil resources appears to be more important than the other three environmental impacts (e.g., metal resources, emissions to air, and emissions to water). The e-waste treatment could reduce the potential impacts on the environment and human health, e.g., for abiotic depletion and marine aquatic eco-toxicity 1.16
102 kg Sb eq and 2320 kg 1.4-DB eq could be avoided through the treatment processes, and the other impact categories were also similar. In 2016, China’s current processing technologies could also achieve some environmental benefits by removing from direct disposal 1800 tons of lead, 2685 tons of refrigerant, and over 11.55 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions (CHEARI, 2017). Pollution control requirements have also been put into practice in recycling activities, so that the health of recyclingoperation workers is appropriately protected. And all of this additional activity has stimulated the economy by creating more than 50,000 new jobs in the e-waste recycling industry.

19.4.4 Summary of experience The overall effects of this new approach could be seen as follows. First, the most effective regulatory core in China, in contrast to the regulations in developed countries, is the “old-for-new” policy and the WEEE “producer-pays” funding. The economic incentives are crucial to the success of the new WEEE regulations; the subsidiesdtotaling 615 million USD in 2014dare responsible for diverting a huge amount of e-waste from the informal recycling sector into formal recycling channels (Fu et al., 2018). Second, environmental maintenance and management costs have been internalized to significantly change the e-waste flow and destroy the economic incentives that historically drove the informal recycling sector (Schluep, 2016), which profited by avoiding the costs of environmental conservation and sound process management. The new subsidies for recyclers now cover these costs. Third, China needed to develop its own approach to recycling WEEE; it would not have been feasible to try to duplicate other countries’ experiences or processes. The best available technology (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEPs) of e-waste management are predominantly based on locally available technology. China is still a developing country where the pursuit of individual economic interests remains the primary incentive for dismantling workers and companies. Manual dismantling operations generally employ more workers, an approach that is more

532 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

workable in practice in China (He and Xu, 2014; Li et al., 2015b). Finally, an effective and practical management system has been well established, including permitting, reporting, auditing, inspection, information systems, and funding systems. A new recycling enterprise initially obtains the license and permits from the local Ecology and Environment Bureau (EEB), and reports its recycling volume, once it is up and running. The local EEB or the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) could audit and inspect the operation and recycling volume through the information system and onsite inspection. Once it is formally approved, the recycling enterprise could start receiving its subsidies, based on its recycling volume.

19.5 POTENTIAL LESSONS AND GAPS When we reviewed the history, at least five lessons or challenges could be identified from China’s new management progress.

19.5.1 Imbalance between fund levies and subsidies The imbalance between fund levies and subsidies may lead to an unsustainable WEEE funding policy. When EEPs enter the market, producers or importers charge consumers a recycling fee for their WEEE, to pay for the levy. This prepaid fund becomes the source for recyclers’ subsidies, once they are verified to be treating the WEEE properly. The sustainability of this subsidy relies primarily on a large volume of EEP salesda volume that must be higher than the volume of WEEE generated. However, the standard levy from the producer is still far below the standard subsidy for the recycler (Fig. 19.7), which results in a gap of $0.3 billion every year

Fund standard (USD/unit)

25 20.00 20 15

12.31 10.77

10.77

10 6.92 5 2.00

1.85

1.08

1.08

1.54

0 TV

Refrigerator

Washing machine

Air conditioner

Personal computer

Levying from producer Maximum subsidy for recycler

n FIGURE 19.7 Standard of fund levying and granting for WEEE recycling (USD/unit). Data source from the MEP links at http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2012-05/30/

content_2149195.htm.

19.5 Potential lessons and gaps 533

(Xu, 2015). Even though the prepaid fund can grow during the EEPs’ lifespan through interest or other return on investments, the fund will be insufficient to cover 100% of the recyclers’ costs for the more effective processing methods they are required to use. China’s generation of WEEE will promptly reach 15.5 and 28.4 million tons in 2020 and 2030, respectively (Zeng et al., 2016), which could further aggravate the imbalance without effective control (Chen et al., 2018; Zhao and Yang, 2018). Furthermore, the huge up-front capital expenditure needed to set up a recycling enterprise may not be recouped for years, and the delay between business start-up and the receipt of subsidies creates an economic burden for the recycler. On the other hand, raising the levy to increase the subsidy fund would put an undue burden on the EEP producer. To mitigate this fund unsustainability, reducing the subsidies may be more reasonable and feasible than increasing the levies.

19.5.2 Procedure of subsidies utilization Tedious procedures related to auditing the operations and dispersing the subsidies have decreased the efficiency of the payment system. The Chinese government set up an independent account for the fund, some of which is supported by a levy from producers and importers. After 12e18 months of recycling operations, new recyclersdincluding treatment and downstream enterprisesdcan submit documentation of their recycling achievements to the MEE or the local EEB, who will audit their recycling amounts and methods. Later, the auditing results will be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance. About 1 year later, the recycler can finally start to receive the subsidy from the Ministry of Finance (Fig. 19.8) (Zeng et al., 2013). This tedious procedure reduces the efficiency of the subsidy system and wastes many government resources. Over a 100 persons are required for a 1-week onsite audit of each recycling enterprise.

19.5.3 Expanding of e-waste recycling industry The e-waste recycling industry has grown so rapidly that neither domestic nor foreign processing technologies have been fully transferred or utilized. China’s e-waste recycling industry has rapidly increased from only a handful to over 100 formal enterprises in 3e5 years (Li et al., 2015a). However, the experience and technology from developed countries have not been transferred or well adapted to fit China’s situation. To successfully combat the informal treasure hunting for e-waste, recycling enterprises grew quickly without proper technological application. BAT and BEP are the fundamental

534 CHAPTER 19 WEEE management in China

Fund collection SAT, customs

Producer/importer Audit MEE/EPBs

Audit result

State treasury

Fraction Treatment enterprise

Downstream enterprise

MOF

Paying subsidy Recycler Fund

WEEE

Supervision

n FIGURE 19.8 The three flow of fund, WEEE, and supervision in China’s WEEE management. MOF, ministry of finance; SAT, state of administrative tax. Reprinted with permission from Zeng et al. (2017). Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.

approaches for e-waste management, but these are always evolving. Currently, because the deep recovery industry for e-waste in China is still in its infancy (Li et al., 2015b), the government subsidies include grants for e-waste preprocessing involving dismantling and mechanical treatment. To maximize the utilization of e-waste, updated technology and facilities expansion are urgent for responding to emerging challenges.

19.5.4 Eco-design for environment Eco-design is not widely practiced by Chinese EEE producers. Only a few of the large EEP producers participate in e-waste recycling in China; most producers simply pay the required fees and have no concern about whether their products are easily dismantled and recycled when they become e-waste, often ignoring the environmental impact of their products. Such attitudes may cause a decline in eco-design and designing for recycling in the initial production phase of the life cycle. By contrast, the EU WEEE directive includes a framework for eco-design in the production of EEP, which must be taken into account to facilitate dismantling and recovery of end-of-life products (Li et al., 2015c). Both reuse and recycling of e-waste components and materials should be carried out. To make this change in effect, the linkage between producer and recycler needs to be strengthened, because currently recyclers operate without producer involvement in most of the market.

19.6 The way forward 535

19.5.5 New catalogue of e-waste The new catalogue, which adds nine new categories of e-waste to regulation requirements, puts enormous pressure on some stakeholders. Although the totally recycling rate reached 34.6%, the recycling rate of microcomputers, air conditioners, washing machines, and refrigerators was far less than 20%, which is the minimum requirement in WEEE regulation (Fig. 19.9). More important is that significant differences between large WEEE and small WEEE in the new catalogue can result in many challenges in terms of collection, fund accounting, and recycling technologies. In light of the current low recycling rate (6.6

>14.4

>67%

19.4

7.3

6.9

14.2

73.2%

16.0

4.29

>6.91

>11.2

>69%

22.4

10.5

>5.1

>15.6

>70%

collected by producer systems and commercial actors and the respective total recycling this represents over the amount of WEEE generated. The studies demonstrate that on average one-third of all WEEE generated is collected by producer systems and on average another one-third by commercial collectors. Although the Directive required member states to report all WEEE separately collected, only the volumes collected by producer systems was reported to the EU (Fig. 22.7). Therefore the revised Directive (Article 16.4 of Directive 2012/19/EU) clarifies that all WEEE flows, i.e., volumes collected by producers’ systems as well as all other collected volumes, should in the future be reported by member states.

The principles of EPR 2.0 This new situation where several WEEE streams represent a value and where commercial actors are engaged in collecting and recycling significant volumes of WEEE, raises the important question of how producers should respond to these changes. Should producers or their appointed PROs compete with commercial collectors and recyclers for access to WEEE? How to ensure fair access to the waste? Should there be some specific requirements for an actor to be allowed market access? Under what conditions should producers remain active in the WEEE recycling chain and ultimately what is their role in a future scenario where all WEEE has a value and is collected and recycled by actors other than producers or their PROs?

608 CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy

End user

Waste bin ~10%

Municipalities

Retailers

Installers

Charity orgs.

Scrap dealers

Export ~20% (mainly reuse)

Domestic treatment Producer collection

Private collection Not reported to producer’s WEEE system

Reported in producer’s WEEE system

n FIGURE 22.7 WEEE flows chart.

First of all, under the assumption that commercial recyclers reach the same treatment results and use the same quality standards, competing for access to waste means that the net cost of WEEE recycling for producers (purchasing agents) will increase, while there is likely to be no environmental benefit. Furthermore, PROs who outcompete recyclers’ access to waste beyond market value using producer funds would disrupt the commercial playing field. And finally, the question is also whether PROs, which essentially are collective groupings of producers, that attempt to compete against single commercial recyclers are acceptable from an antitrust point of view. If producers want to compete with recyclers for access to waste, this should be done on an individual level, for instance, by implementing an individual take-back system. In EPR 2.0, producers can continue to fulfill their requirements under EPR legislation while allowing commercial recyclers to be active on the WEEE market if: 1. The quality of WEEE treatment is ensured. A legal framework is in place that ensures that all WEEE collected is recycled against the same

22.3 Challenges with WEEE II and beyond 609

treatment standards, including WEEE that is exported for treatment abroad.1 2. Conformity with the standards and the legal framework is enforced by member states on all WEEE collected and recycled, including those volumes treated by commercial recyclers. 3. All WEEE flows that meet the minimum treatment standards are reported and registered as being recycled so that these volumes are reflected in the total collection and recycling results in any given jurisdiction. Under these three conditions it would not be necessary for producers or their PROs to remain involved in the collection of WEEE insofar as commercial collectors and recyclers wish to manage all volumes independently. It may even be deemed counter efficient for producers and PROs to prevent commercial actors, or to compete with commercial actors for access to WEEE for recycling. Ultimately this practice could artificially inflate the costs of recycling without any environmental benefit. Producers could allow commercial actors access to the WEEE market and still be assured that all WEEE is being properly recycled and monitored. The introduction of the producer responsibility principle with the implementation of the WEEE Directive in 2005 has driven producersdeither by participation in PROs or in individual systemsdto collect as much WEEE as possible, thereby contributing to the achievement of the member states’ collection target. Producers have always strived for maximizing the collection, demonstrating that way the producers’ commitment to deal with WEEE. In some countries, in order to maximize the collection and in order to avoid WEEE streams disappearing in alternative channels, producers have decided to grant subventions to parties performing collection. These subventions covered the logistical effort and use of storing space provided by retailers, municipal collection points, etc. This system has indeed led to a steady increase of the collection rates for the official reporting, but seems now to flatten out as competition with commercial actors becomes more apparent; for some WEEE streams prices offered by such actors equal or even out price subventions granted by producers. Although this subvention system has proven to be effective today, this initiative can be seen as a

1 Producers and PROs have collaborated with other stakeholders on such treatment standards and today several high-quality standards exist, such as WEEELABEX, R2, and e-Stewards, all three of them recognized by EPEAT, a global rating system for greener electronics. Producers support the European Commission’s mandate to CENELEC to develop harmonized European standards, based on the WEEELABEX standards, as a means to demonstrate and assure proper treatment of WEEE.

610 CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy

voluntary contribution of producers to increase the official reporting of collection rates for the national authorities. With the introduction of the “all flows concept,” the collection and treatment of WEEE will be driven by market forces; anybody handling WEEE should have the obligation to register and report quantities as well as ultimate recycling and recovery rates. In this system, there would no longer be any need for producers to grant subventions to any party performing collection efforts, as all collected WEEE, whatever legal channel it ends up in, will be reported to the responsible authorities. Some commercial recyclers may still be less interested in collecting and recycling WEEE without involvement of producers. Proper depollution and treatment of hazardous materials is costly, and requiring all recyclers to meet these requirements may mean that some WEEE streams are no longer interesting for commercial recyclers and these volumes would thus fall back to producers or their PROs. Should this scenario materialize, the overall treatment quality of WEEE recycling will increase. However, it has to be noted that many commercial recyclers already meet high-quality standards like WEEELABEX, R2, and e-Stewards. At the same time, allowing commercial recyclers to handle WEEE doesn’t excuse producers from all their responsibilities under the EPR principle; it only means that producers and PROs do not need to compete with commercial actors for access to valuable WEEE. The producers and PROs would still need to ensure that all separately collected WEEE arising at the collection points and that is not commercially interesting to collect by commercial recyclers is still collected and undergoes proper recycling. In such circumstances, it is important that whole WEEE items not deemed commercially interesting by commercial actors are handled and managed by producers rather than only the material fractions within those WEEE items not deemed commercially interesting being handed over to producers. Producers and their appointed PROs would act as dynamic2 safety nets to capture all WEEE that is not collected and recycled by commercial parties. In this new paradigm, the role of the producer is to ensure, together with other stakeholders like authorities, that waste is treated in compliance with standards and a proper collection infrastructure is available. This would be a fundamental change in how producers fulfill their responsibilities under EPR legislation; the principles could be referred to as

2

Dynamic refers to the fact that the safety net will capture more or fewer WEEE streams over time depending on the evolution of the resource market.

22.3 Challenges with WEEE II and beyond 611

“EPR 2.0.” Extended Producer Responsibility 2.0 is an environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the take-back, recycling, and final disposal of the product if those tasks are not already executed by other actors, under the condition that these actors meet the same minimum treatment standards as producers and all recycled waste gets reported to the relevant government bodies.

Design for recycling The concept of EPR as developed by Thomas Lindhqvist has a strong link to the design of the product. By making producers responsible for the cost of recycling, there should be an incentive to design products that are easier to recycle. As the cost of recycling has gone down over the last years to a point where many products generate positive revenue, the link to design has become less obvious. Furthermore, in recycling systems where producers still face a net cost, these net costs are often caused by logistics that have no direct link to the design of products. If commercial actors collect and recycle WEEE, the incentive for design for recycling will arguably decrease even more. However, as WEEE becomes valuable more producers will consider collecting and recycling their own products in an individual takeback system (possibly in addition to membership of a PRO), a trend that is noticeable in professional products. In these individual systems the feedback loop to the design of a product is stronger than ever before in PROs. The same could also be considered true when producers are acting as a safety net for noncommercially interesting products or WEEE streams. Only those products that result in a net cost are financed by producers under the safety net model. Often the very reason these products are still not commercially interesting to collect and recycle is related to the required depollution steps that swing the profit/cost balance into the negative. Such a system could arguably be seen to offer a stronger feedback loop to the design of a product than in a system where producers are required to collect all WEEE valuable and costly. Producers may be more directly incentivized to design out features of products that lead them to fall within the safety nets of producers.

612 CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy

Producer sampling has potential Product categories could also be refined to include sampling the amounts of a specific producer in each waste stream. This would reward responsible producers who design for reliability and durability, as HP’s research has shown that the amount of HP products that appear in the WEEE stream is much lower than HP’s market share. This is because customers use HP products longer, and HP products are more likely to be reused, which also keeps them out of the waste stream for longer. This means HP products typically appear in the waste stream after 10 years.

Recognition of manufacturer’s own programs Another important next step would be to allow manufacturers to reconcile what they collect internally with their legislative target. This would reward producers for their achievements in recovering WEEE directly from their customers, and allow a greater budget for implementing effective takeback and cash-back programs.

Fluctuating resource prices Resource prices are driven by demand and supply and are by definition unstable. Although recent years have shown an upward trend in resource prices, which is expected to continue, there is no guarantee that prices will remain at current levels or will further increase. If a situation occurs that resource price will decrease, this will have a direct impact on the profitability of recycling and this may lead to a reverse trend where commercial recyclers decide to collect less WEEE, which means more WEEE will need to be collected by producers. Producers need to ensure that the collection and recycling systems set up by them are flexible enough to deal with these fluctuations in price. In order to be ready for such fluctuations, producers may decide to always keep a minimum collection network in place that can be scaled up quickly in case resource prices decrease and volumes of WEEE increase. In EPR 2.0, producers ensure that they will always be able to collect and recycle WEEE that is handed over to them; situations where the collection system set up by producers cannot deal with the sudden increase of WEEE will be avoided at all cost. This may mean that even in a situation where all WEEE can be recycled for a profit, producers may decide to keep a collection network in place to collect some volumes of profitable WEEE that can be scaled up quickly in the event of fluctuating resource prices.

22.3 Challenges with WEEE II and beyond 613

22.3.2 Marriage made in heaven or marriage from hell? Circular economy and WEEE The transformation from a linear economy (make-use-dispose) to a circular system requires policy measures to foster transnational resource efficiency without adding complexity of regional waste legislations. Policy makers have perhaps focused too much on preventing waste dumping that they may have inadvertently hindered initiatives to capture residual value from used products. The implementation of the forthcoming WEEE Directive recast raises concerns that it may hamper producers’ ability to move (export/import) all necessary used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE) into countries where centralized repair lines are located and make the repair/refurbishment operation nonviable. Similar measures may be also adopted by the Basel Convention amplifying this impact to the global level. HP utilizes a series of repair hubs. A repair hub receives defective HP products from all around Europe and beyond to perform diagnosis and repair operations. After repair, the products are sent back to customers or local exchange pools. High-value spare parts (e.g., motherboards) are sent for refurbishment to the production facilities (e.g., in China) as in-depth product knowledge is required to ensure the same quality and reliability as of new spare parts. It is essential for the viability of this centralized repair operation that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are able to continue the process of shipping UEEE to the repair facility to keep repair cost at a level that is acceptable to customers. Directive 2012/19/EU on the WEEE has established new requirements for the shipments of UEEE. Annex VI of this Directive requires that all Used EEE shipped across borders is fully functional and tested as such; otherwise it must be shipped as waste. There are two exceptions for warranty products and professional products, however, these exceptions are unclear and, consequently, not sufficient. The two exceptions under annex VI of Directive (2012)/19/EU, if not properly defined, would lead to a situation where a significant amount of shipments would be not considered exempted and would need to be shipped as waste. This would effectively render the operation noneconomically viable, leading perversely to the premature generation of waste. Furthermore, in light of circular economy, leasing models prompt OEMs to design sustainable products not through force or regulations but through economic incentives. When consumers lease instead of purchase, companies need to consider not only what happens at the moment a product is sold but also what happens during use and maintenance and when it

614 CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy

comes back and have the ability to move it to centralized refurbishment facilities. However, a leasing business has little in common with more general collection and recycling activities.

Leasing businesses explained The most significant point of difference is that lessors assume residual value in the equipment they lease. Consequently, the lessor does not recover its full investment in the leased equipment from the rental proceeds of the initial lease. If the lessee chooses to return the leased equipment upon expiration of the lease, the lessor will only be able to recover its residual investment through reselling or re-leasing the equipment. A lessor’s ability to get the asset back to refurbish, resell, and remarket equipment is therefore critical. The lessor will be required to write off its residual investment and would incur significant losses if it is not able to do so. Additionally, as part of ancillary “new-for-old” and other take-back schemes, lessors often purchase a customer’s used IT equipment with a view to refurbishing, repairing, and remarketing that equipment. Lastly, it is noted that leasing contracts always require lessees to maintain equipment in good working order and to replace any damaged equipment with functional equipment.

Repair and refurbishment is necessary Lessors must refurbish and, if necessary, repair equipment prior to resale or re-lease. The refurbishment/repair process is an essential element in any access over ownership program. At a minimum, the lessor will test for functionality and ensure data has been removed from the machine. It is also noted that effective repair/refurbishment facilities must contain wellmaintained testing equipment and other refurbishment apparatus and must be administered by highly skilled technicians. It is not economically practical for a lessor to establish centers conforming to these standards in every country in which it conducts business. Consequently, most leasing operations make use of regional repair centers. The current regional approach allows for the scaling up of facilities and investment in the capital equipment and trained employees necessary for the effective and responsible operation of reuse programs.

Preshipment testing is not feasible for a lessor As noted earlier, it is not economically feasible for a lessor to establish an effective and responsible reuse facility in every country in which it conducts business. As such, if transboundary shipments of UEEE may not be

22.4 Conclusions 615

permitted, the only other option would be to test equipment on a customer’s premises or establish testing operation in every country. However, given the substantial size of lessors’ asset portfolios, this is not economically or administratively feasible. It would be very costly for the lessor. As importantly, this approach would be unacceptable to customers. The process would be extremely disruptive to any customer. It would require the customer to make business critical systems available for testing prior to return and also raises significant business continuity, occupational health and safety, liability, confidentiality and data privacy issues. Consequently, requiring lessors to test equipment prior to shipment will significantly increase the risk that large volumes of valuable, postlease equipment will be prematurely diverted to recycling or disposal rather than managed for continued use.

Role of the leasing industry The leasing industry plays a critical role in enabling businesses, governments, consumers, and other organizations to obtain and use EEE economically and in an environmentally responsible fashion. It is imperative for lessors to be able to move equipment quickly to its repair/refurbishment centers. If they are unable to do so, there is a significant risk that large volumes of valuable equipment will be prematurely diverted to recycling or disposal rather than managed for continued use. The consequential social and environmental results would be overwhelmingly negative. The negative economic impact on leasing businesses and the information technology sector (which relies heavily on leasing activity) would also be significant. Under Annex VI of the WEEE recast there is very limited scope to continue shipments of end-of-lease EEE and asset management volumes. Policy makers seek to prevent used and obsolete electronics being mishandled, in particular consumer products. However, introducing inordinately broad waste classifications will not achieve this objective. Instead, these actions may shut down legitimate operations while illicit actors continue their practices. This runs counter to every tenet of sustainable development.

22.4 CONCLUSIONS The rapid pace of innovation and obsolescence in electronic products is increasing the urgency for a circular economy in which used products and materials are repurposed and kept in use as long as possible. Since the launch of HP’s industry-leading Planet Partners return and recycling program, more than a quarter century ago, the company has driven this transformation in the industry, reflected in print supplies closed-loop

616 CHAPTER 22 HP’s WEEE management strategy

recycling programs; use of recycled content in hardware; product-as-aservice offerings such as HP Managed Print Services (HP Managed Print Services), HP Instant Ink (HP Instant Ink), and HP Device as a Service (HP Device as a Service); innovative packaging designs; and HP product repair, reuse, and recycling (HP product repair) options. Connecting circular economy strategy to resource efficiency is critical to business success, so HP designs its products and services following the principles of energy efficiency, materials innovation, and design for recyclability. HP promotes regulatory frameworks that support efforts to extend products’ lives through repair and reuse. Transitioning purchasing from a transactional model to a service model will tighten the linkage between product design and value recovery at end of service. HP also encourages responsible legislation on collection and recycling of used electronics that takes into account shared responsibilities, measurement of waste flows, workable flow systems, harmonized recycling standards, and fair allocation of obligations. HP does not allow the export of electronic waste from developed to developing countries, and engages with governments worldwide to help improve national and international legislation governing the movement of electronic waste, such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal. HP strongly supports the updated language in the Technical Guidelines that recognizes the appropriate movement of nonworking products between countries to allow for proper repair or responsible recycling. Through industry-leading repair, reuse, and recycling programs, and product-as-a-service business models, HP aims to keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, while driving further closed-loop innovations.

REFERENCES EAR Annual Statistics, 2012. Elektro-altgeräte Register, Germany. EUWID, 2013. Overview of the German recycler market. EUWID Recycling and Waste Management Issue 1/2013. Expansion Country Economy, 2018. Copper Price Trend. Available at: https://countryeconomy. com/raw-materials/copper. Gartner, 2017. Gartner Announces Rankings of the 2017 Supply Chain Top 25. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3728919. Goldprice, 2018. Gold Price Europe. Available at: https://goldprice.org/gold-price-euros. HP Device as a Service. Available at: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/services/daas.html. HP Instant Ink. Available at: https://instantink.hpconnected.com/us/en/r. HP Managed Print Services. Available at: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/solutions/printservices/services.html. HP Product Repair, Reuse, and Recycling. Available at: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hpinformation/environment/product-recycling.html.

References 617

HP, 2014a. HP Global Citizenship Timeline. Available at: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/ globalcitizenship/09gcreport/commitment/timeline.html. HP, 2014b. HP Recycling Standard. Available at: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/ globalcitizenship/environment/recycle/finalrecstds.pdf. HP, 2017a. HP Recycling Vendors Transparency List. Available at: http://h20195.www2. hp.com/V2/GetDocument.aspx?docname¼c05403198. HP, 2017b. Sustainability Report 2016. Available at: http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/ GetPDF.aspx/c05507473.pdf. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., March 15, 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Wang, F., December 2012. Household WEEE Generated in Italy. United Nations University, ECODOM. National WEEE Register Netherlands, 2017. Available at: http://www.nationaalweeeregister. nl/english/reports.html. Ökopol, December 2011. WEEE Flows in Germany. UNEP, 2015. Emissions Gap Report. Available at: https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/ theme/13/EGR_2015_301115_lores.pdf. United Nations University, March 2013. F-fact, Recupel, Mass Balance and Market Structure of (D)EEE in Belgium. WEEELabex, 2017. Conformity Verification. Available at: http://www.weeelabex.org/ conformity-verification/operators/. WRAP, February 2011. Market Flows of WEEE Materials.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

23

Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

M. Plumeyer and H. Würl Siemens, Munich, Germany

CHAPTER OUTLINE

23.1 Introduction: WEEE as an important element of the overall environmental protection strategy 620 23.2 Siemens’ environmental business management 621 23.2.1 The early Siemens access to environmental protection 621 23.2.2 Siemens EP standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/ 3/5/7)” 622 23.2.3 The global Siemens Environmental, Health, and Safety principles 624 23.2.4 Principles and guidelines for environmental protection 624 23.2.5 Management mechanism within Siemens as global acting company 625

23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process 627 Consumer products 628 Industrial goods 628

23.3.1 Specification/product design 23.3.2 Manufacturing 630

629

Operational environmental protection 631 RoHS and WEEE-compatible production aids 631

23.3.3 Use phase 631 23.3.4 Final stage as beginning of a new cycle used EEE or WEEE

23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management

632

634

23.4.1 Optimizing and continuous improvement, also in respect of WEEE 635 Phase Phase Phase Phase

1: 2: 3: 4:

specification/product design 635 production 635 use 636 disposal/recycling 636

23.4.2 Selected management examples for Siemens Healthineers products 637 Material usage and environmental product declaration 637 Refurbishment of complete system 637 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00023-9 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

619

620 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

Good refurbishment practice according to : the process 639 Reuse of components and extraction of spare parts 641 High-quality recycling 642

23.5 Future trends 23.5.1 23.5.2 23.5.3 23.5.4

642

Corporate substance and material management Design for reuse and recycling 643 WEEE reduction by material optimization 643 Extended supplier dialogue 644

23.6 Sources of further information and advice

643

644

Environmental sound product design 644 Usage of preowned components in new electrical engineering products 645 Eco-designdthe competitive advantage 645 Web links for additional information referring to environmental protection by Siemens and Siemens Healthineers 645

References

646

23.1 INTRODUCTION: WEEE AS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY This chapter is concerned in particular with the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management strategy of Siemens AG, which is more precisely described using the example of Siemens Healthineers. Although special focus is put on the topic WEEE here, the handling of WEEE (Directive, 2012/19/EU), Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) (Directive, 2011/65/EU), and other standards should not be considered as an isolated matter. For example, the use of hazardous substances in an electronic product has a strong impact on the ease or difficulty in recycling that product. A broad “cradle-to-cradle” view for the products becomes more and more importantdeven for the “end” in the life cycle, which is by now a precursor of the “beginning.” This means that products, components, or materials may have more than one life cycle to take into account with reuse, refurbishment, or recycling. When looking at the product life cycle, the cumulated energy consumption associated with the product should be taken into account as well as the material choices. Therefore, today WEEE management is much more than collection and exploitation of electric and electronic waste. It is furthermore a sensible recirculation of appropriate electronic devices up to the refurbishment of complete equipment. The consequent result must flow in added value both for the customer, e.g., by savings within the purchasing, and for the manufacturer, e.g., by savings within the use of resources and to complete the product portfolio as well as to win new customers. In this comprehensive survey, not just a consideration of the pure WEEE but rather

23.2 Siemens’ environmental business management 621

a consideration of all waste generated within the life cycle of a product is imperative. This includes waste generated during manufacturing, distribution, use, service/maintenance, and also disposal of electric and electronics products. Consequently, WEEE management includes both product-related and operational environmental protection.

23.2 SIEMENS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 23.2.1 The early Siemens access to environmental protection For Siemens AG, environmental protection is a business task, a social responsibility, and a success factor, particularly as customers increasingly assign value to environmentally sound products. The challenges existing worldwide, such as management of material resources, energy management, and reduction of global warming, can be mastered only with innovative production procedures and with an ambitious environmental management. Siemens looks back to a long tradition of environmental protection. The foundation of the Siemens business department “environmental protection” goes back to the year 1971, a time when environmental protection hardly played a role in the public awareness. But all efforts in this direction started to raise more and more public interest and also it was to perceive that increasingly the legislature intended to develop more activities for environmental protection. Siemens recognized this tendency early, took the initiative, and invested to create this special department. Siemens was one of the first major corporations promoting environmental awareness. This was a historic time for the laying of the foundation stone of a Siemens management system for product-related and operational environmental protection. At that time, essential focal points of the newly founded business department were: n

n

Support of Siemens divisions with the design of environmentally friendly products. The Siemens business department for environmental protection affairs coordinated the company’s representation to ministries, federal institutions, and trade associations as well as the corporate representation of interests. Coordination and support of observation, measurement, evaluation, and improvement of the environmental characteristics of products. Here the Siemens business department for environmental protection affairs was involved in the coordination tasks, obtained expert advice regarding

622 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

n

company-wide information, and also informed different institutions within the company. Thus a broad knowledge base was developed concerning environmental protection topics in the whole company. Assistance with the buildup and expansion of an environmentally compliant system of manufacturing products.

The supportive role of the business department for environmental protection affairs included the clarifying of principles of environmentally compliant manufacturing. Furthermore, the department was already involved in internal and external working groups and committees. In this way the first company-wide management organization for operational and productrelated environmental protection was established. Since then, the environmental management strategy has been consistently developed and adapted to the new requirements.

23.2.2 Siemens EP standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/3/5/7)” As early as 1995, Siemens introduced an internal environmental design standard: the internal Siemens standard “SN 36350 e environmental-friendly products and plant engineering.” The company-wide validated standard is adopted in all Siemens divisions and is now the Siemens EP Standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/3/5/7).” It regulates the environmentally sound organization of products and plants with consideration of their entire life cycle. It also qualifies Siemens to develop environmentally friendly technologies. Hereby it is to be considered that 90% of the environmental impact of a productdduring the entire life spandis already specified in the phase of development by functional requirements, design and other criteria. Therefore it has to be considered that most of the EEE products generate their main influence on the environment mainly within the phase of use. However, the end-of-life phase should not be discounted, because materials and material recovery play an increasing role. Moreover, a global company like Siemens has to comply with the particular legislation in the different countriesdnot only within Europe but also for the Americas, Asia, and others. This demands a strategy that reaches the maximum possible of international coverage. As a consequence, Siemens EP Standard is concerned especially with the management of materials (e.g., RoHS) and includes the exploitation of used equipment (WEEE). Siemens also goes beyond legal requirements. As an example, in the context of the internal Siemens program Fit4 2010, on a voluntary basis Siemens began to change over manufacturing to

23.2 Siemens’ environmental business management 623

lead-free soldering procedures as well as RoHS conformity for such products that are not subject to the RoHS Directive for the restriction of the use of certain dangerous materials in electrical and electronics devices. The Siemens EP Standard describes the integration of the environmentally compatible product and equipment layout into the management systems. It corresponds without exception to the specifications of the International Electrotechnical Commission standard “Environmentally conscious design for electrical and electronic products” (IEC 62430, 2009). A manual with examples supports development engineers with the application of the standard in the context of the product and equipment layout. This manual includes the following aspects that must be considered within project engineering: n n n n

rules for all life cycle phases of a product rules related to plant engineering and construction; integration of environmental aspects into the product life cycle; aspects of management.

Additionally, the Siemens EP Standard and the associated manual contain among other things strategies for: n

n n n n n n

reduction of resources consumption (materials, electric power, water; improvement of the energy efficiency); environmentally compatible technologies; restriction of hazardous substances (e.g., RoHS); materials that require declaration and material restrictions; ecological requirements in packing; customer information and product environmental declaration; requirements for recycling (e.g., WEEE).

An analysis tool supports the developers during the measurement and evaluation of the improvements, which are obtained by a new layout of products and equipment. This toolbox is a semiquantitative evaluation tool, which contains several checklists, out of the Siemens EP Standard. It represents a self-assessment tool for all developers during the product engineering process. Furthermore life cycle assessments (LCAs) are applied increasingly. LCAs are utilized to evaluate thinkable environmental impacts of a product or of processes in the context of all the stages of a product life cycle. The application manual contains information and recommendations regarding the employment of materials, such as plastics or metals, that are suitable for recycling. The toolbox is improved constantly. Examples

624 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

of ecologically outstanding products are compiled in the Siemens Environmental Portfolio.

23.2.3 The global Siemens Environmental, Health, and Safety principles A corporate philosophy is absolutely essential, with the mission that a worldwide acting company with more than 350,000 employees is able to operate in a globally common way. This philosophy is based on the Environmental Protection, Health Management, and Safety (EHS) Principles of Siemens. The “Siemens Business Conduct Guidelines” provide the basis of the worldwide environmental management policy. From this, the EHS Principles are deriveddwith the structure of responsibilities, reporting lines, and the control system in the company. The EHS Principles are made concrete and supplemented in topic-specific guidelines, for example, in the guidelines for operational environmental protection or in the guidelines for product-related environmental protection. In turn, the guidelines for product-related environmental protection refers to the Siemens EP Standard. The organization of the WEEE is covered in these guidelines. All in all, a set of rules arises, which are obligatory for all subsidiaries and enterprises with more than 50% share in an estate. The principles regulate the EHS cooperation of the different enterprise units and they define the organization, the obligations of the management, and the employees in all EHS functions. EHS Principles are developed on structure of the ISO Standard for environmental management systems ISO 14001 (ISO, 2015), and they also contain important structures and communication paths of the EHS organization. This organization intervenes European-wide in the WEEE management. The EHS Principles specify requirements for a comprehensive EHS management system (EHS MS), which has to be carried out by each Siemens organizational unit. The EHS MS is compulsory worldwide for all employees and for all processes used by Siemens. By this means a company-wide basis is given for the application of a worldwide applicable WEEE management system.

23.2.4 Principles and guidelines for environmental protection From the Principlesdwhich define the cooperation of the enterprise units and the organization as well as the obligations of the management and the employeesddifferent EHS standards are derived. Global guidelines

23.2 Siemens’ environmental business management 625

were developed to meet Siemens’ requirement of a consistent approach to environmental protection. Among other things, the Siemens EP Standard deals with the substantial stations of the products in their entire life cycle. As well as the avoidance of dangerous substances in products, the separate collection and exploitation of electrical waste increasingly plays an important role. In the WEEE management strategy the fact that different countries have pertinent regulations is also taken into consideration, for example, the countries of the European Union (EU), China, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Canada, South Korea, and the different states of the United States. In the future, additional countries will follow in this approach. This means that the basic requirements for the productsdindependent of the countriesdare determined in the Siemens EP Standard. The regional Siemens organizations, which are responsible for the different countries, are responsible for identifying and implementing country-specific requirements to product specifications. This happens for each country designated for delivery and is oriented toward the highest demands. In this context it is important to recognize that in Europe the EU WEEE Directive is used in some nonEU countries as a basis for similar regulations. This knowledge is the basis for the worldwide WEEE management strategy of Siemens. In particular, consumer and/or household and IT products play a basic role. The Siemens manual for product-related environmental protection aims, just like the EU WEEE Directive, to prioritize the avoidance of waste of electrical and electronics devices. Beyond that, Siemens seeks to encourage the reuse, recycling, and other forms of the exploitation of such wastes in order to reduce the quantity of waste that is landfilled and in order to preserve valuable secondary raw materials. These requirements must be considered during the design phase of product development. Products should be designed in such a way as to reduce energy consumption, material use, and generated waste as much as possible in with their production and during their use. Siemens had long adhered to product responsibility on a voluntary basis before the WEEE Directive was put into force by the European Union.

23.2.5 Management mechanism within Siemens as global acting company An organized management mechanism enables Siemens to handle the specific WEEE requirements within the different European countries as well as within the different business units in the world. The WEEE management strategy of Siemens must consider that Siemens produces both pure industrial goods, which in many cases do not fall under the EU WEEE directive,

626 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

and consumer products, which must be treated in accordance with the needs of the EU WEEE Directive. This does not simplify the situation for the total enterprise, because, within the combination of industrial and consumer goods, the fact that different material and manufacturing methods as well as different collecting and recycling procedures are often linked must be taken into account. One of the first measures that Siemens took was the company-wide demand to design step by step all industrial goods in conformity with the RoHS Directive for the restriction of the use of certain dangerous materials in electrical and electronics devices, even if they do not fall under the Eu RoHS and WEEE Directives. The product’s end of life was also taken into account when making the decision to remove hazardous substances because this means that recovered materials can be reused in the future in a universal way as basic materials for new productsdboth within the industrial range and within the range of consumer products. This becomes feasible even if collecting and recycling paths are distinctly different for industrial and consumer products, i.e., public collecting points are used for consumer products and professional disposers or recyclers are used for industrial goods. In the context of the WEEE management strategy, Siemens also had to consider the organization of the take-back paths as well as the take-back organizations involved (worldwide and in particular for Europe). It is important for the implementation of the Siemens guidelinesdand therefore for the implementation of the WEEE management strategydto consider that worldwide registration obligations exist in some countries for manufacturers and/or initial distributors. Siemens fulfills the requirements of the WEEE Directive and takes part in common collecting systems in most EU member states, which were developed in coordination with branch associations. Alternatively, Siemens signs individual contracts with specialized recycling enterprises. Contract conditions regulate the Siemens standards so that with the collection and recovery, material cycles are closed and valuable resources are preserved. Particularly in Europe, compliance with the registration obligation must be considered in each member state. At Siemens the performance is organized in such a way that in each European country the particular national regional companies are obligated to it. They have to register the quantities of Siemens products that are imported into “their” countries and that fall under the WEEE Directive. Within this framework the return flow of WEEE to the regional organized collecting points is also regulated. In the

23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process 627

context of industrial goods, bilateral contracts regarding the returning of WEEE are made with certified business partners. For this Siemens mandates preferred contractors, who can act and who are allowed to act Europe-wide. In this way the material stream can be affected purposefully by Siemens. In this context, our many years of experience shows that with our own initiatives for taking back, refurbishment, and reselling of used products and plants, a successful business model can be achieved in some product categories. Moreover, refurbishment and reselling is in consequence of the lifetime extension of equipment a real contribution to environmental protection. In this chapter a typical example is represented by the description of the products of Siemens Healthineers.

23.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF WEEE ASPECTS WITHIN THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT PROCESS The integration of all environmental protection aspects in the entire product life cycle management (PLM) processdalso with view to WEEEdis an important target. This is essential for a “cradle-to-cradle” (McDonough and Braungart, 2002) philosophy at each step of product life cycle. The core statement of this philosophy is “waste equals food.” This means, for products, that a purposeful selection of materials, in which the next use is kept in mind, would be therefore trend-setting. It would be an ideal to reach nearly zero landfill. Fig. 23.1 shows a material stream cycle. In this example the term material can signify base material or the extraction of spare parts or the reuse of components or the refurbishment of systems. Within the framework of this philosophy, an intensive analysis of the boundary conditions is essential. In our case a reasonable differentiation between consumer products and industrial goods and their specific needs in the beginning of the life cycle is a basic requirementdnot least for WEEE requirements in the end stage. Utilisation

Production

Product life cycle

Waste management

Landfill

Material allocation Material return

n FIGURE 23.1 Material stream cycle. © Siemens.

628 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

Consumer products Because of the fast innovation speed of some consumer products, their life cycle becomes shorter and shorter. Since consumer products have a relatively short life span, there has been in industry a general move away from using expensive materials toward more cost-effective substances (e.g., using plastic mountings instead of metal parts). This trend is worth recognizing because nearly no reuse of components or refurbishment of many consumer products is to be obtained. The majority of manufacturers have standardized the materials used for consumer products.

Industrial goods Manufacturers of industrial goods often get their old devices or plants back again. These products usually have a lifetime of more than 10 up to 20 or even 30 years. For this reason it makes sense to use technically long-lived materials. Because the quantities and value of materials used in industrial goods are higher than in consumer goods, the refurbishment and recycling of used devices are more profitable. To find the right way for the enterprise and for the product range, it is necessary to consider the business strategy, the product strategy, and design strategy in accordance with ISO/TR 14062 (2002). In the context of appropriate strategy tracking, the clarifying and monitoring of the following recycling-referred objectives are considered as necessary for the WEEE strategy development: n

n

n n

n

n

n n

n

environmentally related up-to-date requirements of the market and customer; inquiry of the present and future legal requirements (e.g., WEEE Recast); analysis of predecessor and competitor products; investigation of relevant environmental aspects and associated impact on the environment during the entire product lifetime; determination of the necessity of a concept for the treatment of the old products; inclusion and consideration of the current recovery situation (categories, collecting rates, etc.); inclusion of the derived environmentally related development targets; consideration of the development goals in the product specifications and monitoring of the achieved objectives; development of new WEEE objectives on the basis of the improvement strategies.

23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process 629

According to the experience of the product developer, the implementation of the WEEE strategy can be quite complicated. For this reason, consideration of all product life phases takes place via process-integrated environmental protection systematics.

23.3.1 Specification/product design Within the framework of the product-related environmental protection, Siemens optimizes products over their entire life cycle, as far as the enterprise can have an effect on it. This is particularly important because the manufacturing of a product only causes a comparatively small part of the impact on the environment within the product lifetime. The majority of environmental effects caused by the product are generated in the utilization phase. However, it is possible to influence this within the planning and development phase of the product. The manual of the Siemens EP Standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN 36350-1/2/3/ 5/7)” shows essential points for the setting up of a WEEE management strategy: n

n

n

Aspects for design and development, e.g., o legal requirements o concept for the treatment of the old products (reuse, recovery, removal) o determination of relevant environmental aspects o evaluation of potential competition o environmental-referred development objectives. Aspects of the procurement and production, e.g., o product weight, material diversity, number, and variety of product parts o employment of usable materials when possible o avoidance of hazardous materials (aspects of dangerous property goods) o minimization of the production wastes o optimization of the manufacturing processes and the energy consumption o usability of alternative materials. Selling and service aspects, e.g., o environmental compatibility of the packing o advice and standards for the disposal of packing, operating supplies, and of the old product o consideration of the property of dangerous goods

630 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

environmentally relevant customer information o information on resource-efficient modes of operation (energy, water, etc.) o service procedures that protect resources. Aspects of use, e.g., o design the product to be long-lived, easily repairable, and upgradeable o avoid health and environmental impacts from materials, noise, and radiation. Aspects of the disassembly and disposal, e.g., o disassembly and disposal instructions o information concerning declarable materials o information concerning product parts for selective handling (WEEE Directive) o easy dismantling of products (connections, find ability, disassembling steps, standard tools, changes of position during the disassembling, etc.). o

n

n

The aspects stated above are outlined in the design specification of the product. The guidelines regarding the aspects of disassembly and disposal describe conditions for recovery procedures with maximum preseparation and sorting of the materials. When other recovery procedures are expected (e.g., shredding followed by separation processes), then suitable guidelines according to the technical requirements must be selected or modified. When required, additional LCAs will be carried out in order to quantify the impact of the product on the environment during its entire life cycle.

23.3.2 Manufacturing The production of the product plays rather a subordinate role in the WEEE management strategy. However, this is a very important supply chain management phase as welldnot only regarding industrial environmental protection but also regarding product-related environmental protection by using RoHS/ WEEE-convenient auxiliary materials for production, such as cathartics, oils, grease, or adhesives. For completeness, two aspects regarding the manufacturing are mentioned here: the aspects of operational environmental protection and the use of RoHS and WEEE-compatible production equipment.

23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process 631

Operational environmental protection The product and service spectrum of Siemens is vast and the conditions at the respective locations vary greatly. A broad product spectrum causes complex challenges. With the integration of new branches of the business, the operational environmental issues have changed significantly and they are likely to change further in the future. The most important environmental aspects on a company level are energy and water consumption, emission of greenhouse gases, material efficiency, waste that arises, and coherent circular economy aspects.

RoHS and WEEE-compatible production aids Customers increasingly value products that are produced in an environmentally sustainable way, which corresponds to the specifications of the RoHS and WEEE Directives. For example, professional contract manufacturers for surface-mounted devices are asked by their customers whether their products are contaminated, e.g., by mixing lead and lead-free procedures. Here too the avoidance of dangerous materials and the search for suitable alternative materials applies. For this reason, special attention is necessary, not only for the development of products but also during the production planning. It means that at a very early stage of the development, both developers and production planners have to agree on a common strategy in the context of the PLM. Thus the avoidance of production waste also applies to manufacturing and should be regarded under the WEEE criteria.

23.3.3 Use phase The use phase in a product’s life cycle is also characterized by WEEErelevant aspects, e.g., the use of spare parts, which is also relevant in the area of refurbishing, recovering, or recycling. A particularly important aspect in the utilization phase is that often spare parts of electrical equipment or plants fall under the WEEE Directive. Therefore, which kinds of spare parts are to be used must be differentiated exactly. Here it can be spare parts, which either do not fall or directly fall under the WEEE Directive. In the latter case, in turn, whether the part is supplied directly to the recovery (in the context of the WEEE) or whether it will be prepared for later use must be differentiated. In the interest of increased user friendliness and for useful preservation of resources for the manufacturer, the products and plants should be so designed that few repairs are required. As a rule this leads to less WEEE arising from broken-down equipment.

632 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

Beyond this, design of products and plants that allows a direct repair by the service technician on site also leads to a substantial saving of resources. In this case the exchange of complete modules or components can be avoided. In particular with the use of modules and spare parts for industrial goods, special attention should be paid to the early observance of legislation, even if these are not yet applicable for industrial goods. An example of this could be the RoHS Directive, because if modules or components are affected by such a directive at a later point of time, then the use within a refurbishment system can lead to substantial problems. In particular the use of so-called “Quagan” spare parts, which are qualified as new, is to be given special consideration. Quagan means “qualified as good as new” (Belli et al., 2013); this term was introduced for the first time in the International Electrotechnical Commission 62309 (IEC, 2004), in order to make clear that it concerns not new parts but those that equate to a new one after being tested. Therefore, Quagan designates the condition of a part that has already been used once or several times. However, it differs from a conventional used part because it is subjected to a defined and documented quality inspection, which must be passed, possibly after a revision. The necessary degree of the quality inspection and/or documentation depends on the application and/or the market requirements.

23.3.4 Final stage as beginning of a new cycle used EEE or WEEE Recovery objectives determined in the WEEE Directive must be achieved at the end of the product life cycle. Naturally this requirement is more pronounced for consumer products, which are collected on communal collecting yards, as for products that do not fall under the WEEE Directive. In this phase all relevant settings of specification, product design, manufacturing, and use become apparent in the management of used EEE or WEEE. In the early stage of development, an optimization of the combination “Design for recycling” and “Design for refurbishing” is of greatest importance, especially in the context of a balanced WEEE management strategy. Refurbishing is a particular process of renewing to produce a product in a condition that is very close to that of a new one. Refurbished systems, spare parts, or components can be considered refurbished if they reach at least original equipment manufacturer quality from the customer’s point of view, with a warranty equivalent to that of a new product.

23.3 Significance of WEEE aspects within the product life cycle management process 633

The refurbishing process consists of several steps. A basic sequence is given, but depending on the product refurbished, the particular steps may change from product to product. Typical steps are: n n n n n

n n

sampling of the complete product; inspection and identification of defects; disassembly of the product; cleaning of all parts; reconditioning of parts (and replacement with new parts where required); reassembly of product; testing to verify the product functions as a new product.

Often the costs and benefits of “recycling” are compared with those of “reuse of parts and components” as well as “refurbishment,” and often the needs of these processes are at odds. On the one hand, the current the WEEE Directive sets out recommendations primarily on recycling, while on the other hand purposeful reuse and refurbishment are considered more beneficial by the manufacturer because of the preservation of resources and by the customer because of the savings they can make. Another field of tension is between the rising demands of increased functionality of products from the market, and the requirements of the ROHS and WEEE Directives, which expect an unproblematic recycling of as simple as possible electronic devices and components. Apart from the fact that reuse and refurbishment seem to contradict the life cycle energy consumption, the topics of material optimization and recycling can also conflict with each other. For this reason, a smoothly operating WEEE management strategy that achieves the optimum compromise between these fields of tensions is necessary. A substantial indicator for this is the achievement of the greatest possible customer satisfaction with a good added value for the manufacturer and an optimum of environmental protection. Often these properties are not at odds with a purposeful strategy conversion. A typical example is technically sophisticated electrical devices with a high functionality of materials, which are particularly long-lived, designed as basis for a reasonable reuse and refurbishment (in contrast to typical low-budget consumer products that are often discarded shortly after the end of the guarantee period). Another example could be the flexible design of product components, enabling the energy consumption to be improved by an upgrade within a refurbishment process. Irrespective of product type and WEEE processing

634 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

method (whether recycling, reuse, or refurbishment) is that the search for resource-efficient technologies and materials is fundamental. Furthermore, this plays a substantial role within the supplier dialogue, whether the supplier provides only materials or semifinished products or whether he is a system supplier. The following sections give an overview of the activities of the Siemens Healthineers within the range of refurbishment, reuse, and recycling.

23.4 HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS AS AN EXAMPLE OF WEEE MANAGEMENT Innovation cycles for health care products are much shorter than the economic life cycle of these investment goods. Rapid innovation cycles in medical technology often make it necessary to replace medical equipment a long time before it reaches its economic end of life. Early replacement of the newest technology in medical equipment worldwide makes sense if the value of the replaced equipment is saved for reuse. Medical equipment is designed for a planned lifetime by Siemens Healthineers. When putting the medical equipment into service for the first time, Siemens Healthineers provides safety and effectiveness for a certain period under the assumption of scheduled maintenance procedures. The effective lifetime of medical equipment can differ from the planned lifetime by Siemens Healthineers. There are functional and economic reasons: n n

n

the medical equipment is no longer safe and effective; the medical equipment no longer meets the applicable safety or performance standards; the replacement of medical equipment is due to new technology becoming available.

Fig. 23.2 for planned lifetime gives an overview about the correlation between planned lifetime, effective lifetime, and reuse (Plumeyer and Braun, 2011). Reuse enlarges the functional and economic life of medical equipment. At the end of its life cycle, medical equipment needs to be processed for recycling as electrical and electronic waste. As a result of the replacement of medical equipment and in the context of a recycling economy, sustainable resource management is required. At the end of the day, replacement and proper reuse of medical equipment provide value to a new user.

23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management 635

Planned lifetime by manufacturer

Lifetime first installation

Put into service

Lifetime next installation

Reuse

End of life

n FIGURE 23.2 Context of planned and effective lifetime and reuse. © Siemens.

23.4.1 Optimizing and continuous improvement, also in respect of WEEE The implementation of integrated product policy at Siemens Healthineers ensures that the environmental protection aspects of the total product life cycle are taken into consideration, from early in the product development through to the end of life. This progressive, comprehensive system not only allows for outstanding progress in environmental protection but also secures financial advantages due to lower energy and material consumption. With each new product, attention is paid to the reduction of negative impact on the environment. The more the different phases of the product life cycle interlink, the more environmentally friendly and the more resource efficient the products are. At Siemens Healthineers the life cycle of a product is divided into four major phases, which are subject to constant optimization and continuous improvement.

Phase 1: specification/product design In the product design phase, Siemens Healthineers regards the environmental influences of a new product during its entire life cycle. With the given environmental protection objectives for each new product, the product impacts can be influenced quite well, for example, through early consideration and determination of the materials used and energy consumption.

Phase 2: production Transport of the product is also included as well as production. It ends with delivery to the customer. Effects on the environment result mainly from the

636 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

delivery chain and the production process, for example, in material, energy, and water consumption, waste as well as different emissions play a significant role. A primary task of environmental management is to avoid harmful environmental impacts or at least to minimize possible impacts.

Phase 3: use In this phase medical devices have a great influence on the environment, for example, by their energy consumption. The consumption of operating materials and spare parts is important in this phase, which in turn affects the WEEE management strategy for operating materials and spare parts. Within the product design phase, possible negative environmental impacts are minimized as much as possible. In addition, customers receive appropriate information in order to be able to use their devices in as environmentally friendly a way as possible and how to handle operating materials and used spare parts.

Phase 4: disposal/recycling Siemens Healthineers developed a four-level return concept: refurbishment, component reuse, spare part extraction, and recycling (see Fig. 23.3). Owing to the exact knowledge of the materials used for the products, Healthineers can supply the details of materials intended for reuse and therefore minimize negative impacts on the environment. In addition, the information Siemens Healthineers provides explains how products should be dealt with after their expiry date.

Waste management

Refurbishment

Refurbished systems

Reuse of components

Spare part extraction

n FIGURE 23.3 Siemens Healthineers product take-back strategy. © Siemens.

Recycling

23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management 637

23.4.2 Selected management examples for Siemens Healthineers products Material usage and environmental product declaration Not only does Siemens keep to the existing legal requirements concerning the products, in some cases it goes far beyond that. A detailed overview of environmentally relevant aspects of a product is made available to the customers in the environmental product declaration (EPD), which Siemens Healthineers provides for many products. At a glance the customers receive environmentally relevant information about their product or a technical solution. It is very important for the customer to know a product’s properties (e.g., material contents, energy consumption, radiation intensity, or maintenance costs) and this plays a significant role in the purchase decision (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg Behörde für Standtentwicklung und Umwelt, 2008). Therefore, Siemens Healthineers equips each product with product information in order to make its ecological advantages visible. The integrated standardized data sheet permits a fast and manufacturer comprehensive comparison of the devices, regarding impact on the environment and saving potentials. Valuable data and references regarding the handling of used EEE and WEEE are given in the product environmental explanations. Furthermore, all materialsdnot only hazardous substancesdare basically registered. These facts are demonstrated in, for example, the life cycle of material and energy balances, explicit weight reductions, energy savings, and in very high recycling quotas. Siemens Healthineers is continuing to expand the EPDs by providing even more details.

Refurbishment of complete system Used medical equipment is a valuable asset that has to be preserved. By saving resources due to refurbishing products, Siemens Healthineers helps their customers to cut their CO2 emissions and improve their environmental performance. If used medical equipment is reused it needs to be processed in a dedicated way to avoid risks for users, patients, and health care providers to make sure that the medical equipment is as safe and effective as when it was new. Not all sold used medical equipment fulfills these ethical and social criteria. Refurbished medical equipment placed on the market and put into service shall meet the requirements for safe and effective use as specified by Siemens Healthineers. There shall be no difference whether the medical equipment is new or refurbished.

638 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

Not all used medical equipment is suitable for refurbishment. There are different key factors that determine whether medical equipment is suitable for refurbishment: n

n

n

n n

The intended use defined by Siemens Healthineers, which means that, e.g., single-use devices should not be refurbished. The medical equipment fulfills all applicable safety and performance standards. The planned lifetime defined by Siemens Healthineers, i.e., medical equipment that reaches its useful end of life defined by Siemens Healthineers should not be refurbished. Existing service/maintenance history for the medical equipment. Existing service/maintenance procedures for the medical equipment.

It is important to understand that refurbishment is different from maintenance, fully refurbishing, or manufacturing. Refurbishment means actions taken, such as repair, rework, update of software/hardware, and/or replacement of worn parts against original parts, to restore used medical equipment into a condition of safety and effectiveness comparable to when it was new (IEC/PAS 63077, 2016). All actions during refurbishment are performed consistently with product specifications and service procedures defined by Siemens Healthineers for the particular type of medical equipment, without significantly changing the finished medical equipment’s performance, safety specifications, and its intended use as specified in its original registration. The Siemens Healthineers approach of refurbishment of complex systems is not seen under waste hierarchy (Directive, 2008/98/EC) because the medical equipment used for refurbishment will not extend the planned lifetime defined by the original manufacturer (see Fig. 23.2; Plumeyer and Braun, 2011). Medical equipment for refurbishment is directly purchased as products from customers. The list of users of refurbished systems is not limited to small hospitals or countries with limited health care budgets but includes well-known leading medical institutes. The worldwide market for used medical equipment has been growing rapidly; the largest market for Siemens Healthineers is the United States followed by the EU (Braun and Arglebe, 2007). In most countries around the world the market for used medical equipment is not regulated by governments. Some countries established bans or restrictions on the import of used medical equipment to protect public health and safety (US Department of Commerce, 2008). Usually the ban on imports does not distinguish between high-quality refurbished medical equipment

23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management 639

and secondhand equipment of undefined quality, with the effect that health care providers of more limited means are denied access to the safe and economical medical equipment they need. It is not only the improper refurbishment of used medical equipment that poses a risk. Compared with new medical equipment, used medical equipment may bear additional health risks for patients, users, and the environment, for example, from contamination or missing required maintenance. Beyond these equipment and market-related issues, the choice to reuse medical equipment could be due to increased environmental awareness of manufacturers and users. Reuse of used medical equipment may be a way for organizations to contribute to a closed-loop recycling management and to a sustainable society.

Good refurbishment practice according to IEC/PAS 63077, 2016: the process Based on several approaches, different manufacturers in the health care industry followed a common position on the refurbishment of medical imaging equipment defined and published by the European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR) named good refurbishment practice (GRP) (COCIR, 2009); it was then published as an IEC PAS standard (IEC/PAS 63077, 2016). GRP makes sure that medical equipment processed in this way will meet all quality, performance, and safety standards applicable when the medical equipment was put into service for the first time. Fig. 23.4 describes the Siemens Healthineers five-step refurbishment process (Plumeyer and Braun, 2011). 1. Selection of medical equipment for refurbishment, based on: a. intended use of the medical equipment; b. planned lifetime by Siemens Healthineers; c. applicable standards; d. service/maintenance history and existing procedures. 2. Disassembly, packing, and shipment of used medical equipment for refurbishment: a. The used medical equipment needs to be checked before disassembly regarding unit identification.

Selection

Disassembly packing shipment

Refurbishment

Packing shipment installation

n FIGURE 23.4 Five-step refurbishment process. © Siemens.

Services

640 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

b. The used medical equipment needs to be disassembled in a way that it will not be damaged. It should be in the same condition as it was before disassembling (i.e., avoid additional risks due to disassembling). c. If the medical equipment was used in a special environment (e.g., emergency room, laboratory) it might be necessary to decontaminate it before disassembly. d. The medical equipment is packed and shipped so that it will not be damaged. e. Appropriate actions are taken to avoid violation of privacy rules concerning patient data stored on the relevant medical equipment. 3. Refurbishment: a. A refurbishment plan has to be described and followed to define the equipment configuration (e.g., according to customer order) within the scope of the original product registration from Siemens Healthineers when the equipment was put into service for the first time. b. The used medical equipment is systematically cleaned and disinfected before refurbishment, because of its use in a medical environment. c. Cosmetic refurbishment is done in conformance to the refurbishment plan. d. Mechanical and electrical refurbishment and system configuration in accordance with the refurbishment plan. e. Inspection, identification, and replacement of worn parts or components. f. Worn parts or components are to be repaired or replaced with original parts or original spare parts or original components. g. Additional parts or components necessary to meet customers’ requirements are original parts or original spare parts or original components or original accessories. h. Provide original manufacturer’s user documentation in the required language or in a verified translation. i. With the installation of safety updates (hardware/software) all applicable safety updates that are released for this type of medical equipment are performed. j. With the installation of performance updates all applicable performance updates that are released for this type of medical equipment are performed. k. For any medical equipment refurbished, performance and safety tests are to be verified so that it meets the defined performance and safety specifications for its type.

23.4 Health care products as an example of WEEE management 641

l. After successful completion of all necessary refurbishment actions, Siemens Healthineers labels the medical equipment. 4. Packing, shipment, and installation of refurbished medical equipment: a. The packing and shipment of the refurbished medical equipment are the same as for new medical equipment and meet the applicable performance and safety standards. b. Refurbished medical equipment is installed following the same installation procedures as new medical equipment. 5. Postmarket services: a. After the installation of refurbished medical equipment, Siemens Healthineers provides services and support similar to the relevant type of new medical equipment. The refurbishment of used medical equipment using this process produces safe and effective medical equipment. Refurbishment contributes to a sustainable society. But only if the refurbished medical equipment is as safe and effective as when it was new is it applicable for users, patients, and health care providers and can contribute to a sustainable society. With regards to a circular economy, refurbishment saves resources and energy (DITTA, 2015).

Reuse of components and extraction of spare parts The reuse of components and the extraction of spare parts must be separated according to product take-back strategy. The reuse of components describes the technical process of repairing, refurbishing, or reconditioning of products or components that have not become waste (e.g., reuse of X-ray tubes). The extraction of spare parts describes the technical process of repair, refurbishment, or refabrication (e.g., rework) of products or components that have become waste, i.e., preparation for reuse according to the directive on waste (Directive, 2008/98/EC). At Siemens Healthineers X-ray tubes as components are successfully reused. The components reused are mostly gained within the customer services activities of Siemens Healthineers. They are processed in a dedicated quality process. Highly used X-ray tubes have an average lifetime up to several years. Some components, especially nonwearing parts of the Xray tube, can be reused. After disassembly at the customer’s site and transport to Siemens Healthineers, the X-ray tubes are thoroughly quality checked in a defined process. After checking the reusable nonwearing parts, they may be reused or have to be refurbished. The reconditioned components can be used for the manufacturing process of X-ray tubes if they are qualified as good-as-

642 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

new according to IEC 62309 (IEC 62309, 2004). Around 50% of the weight of an X-ray tube will be reused (Illini, 2007). Siemens Healthineers recovers components or spare parts for preparation for reuse out of end-of-life products as part of WEEE management. The components are recovered and handled according to the applicable requirements, e.g., electrostatic discharge. The recovered components will be sent back to the original manufacturer of the component or spare part for repair or refurbishing because only the original manufacturer has the knowledge, tools, and processes to do this work. Following this process, the recovered components are put back into the spare part loop of Siemens Healthineers. At the end the components become available for the customer services once again as qualified as good as new according to IEC 62309 (2004).

High-quality recycling After planned lifetime, according to Fig. 23.2 a Siemens Healthineers system can no longer be used in a safe and effective way and has to be treated under the local waste regulations to prevent any harm coming to the user and to the environment. For example, in Germany Siemens Healthineers offers its customers a certified waste management process (executed by service providers under Siemens Healthineers control) to take back their medical equipment if they become end-of-life products and need to be treated and processed in a dedicated way in compliance with local waste management regulations.

23.5 FUTURE TRENDS For producers of high-end technologies the shortage of rare raw materials plays a more and more significant role. Future technologies will change the requirements for raw materials drastically. Many EEE technologies depend on conventional metals such as copper and silver, but now there is a growing demand for special metals such as lithium, gallium, indium, and rare earths. Therefore, long-term strategies to preserve valuable raw materials or to find new designs and materials are essential. This means that the possible conflictsddescribed in Section 23.3.2dare no longer inevitable conflicts but much more useful mutual complements controlled by an intelligent WEEE management strategy. To simplify the efforts within these attempts, the following short description outlines future trends that will help manufacturers and suppliers in their work.

23.5 Future trends 643

23.5.1 Corporate substance and material management Numerous legal demands limit the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic products. For a globally acting company, a corporate database for substances and materials is a constant challenge, especially against the background of an increasing number of RoHS and WEEE-related directives and regulations worldwide. In order to conform to these regulations, Siemens Healthineers has developed a material data information system. This information system permits an overview of the substances and materials used in the products. This facilitates not only the preparation of EPDs but also supports the further development of a comprehensive substance and material management. The exact knowledge of all used substances and materials helps in the continuous improvement of reuse and recycling processes. The corporate substance and material management works in harmony with the extended supplier dialogue and information exchange tool described in Section 23.5.4.

23.5.2 Design for reuse and recycling Resource efficiency is going to be immensely important in the future. Design for reuse and recycling during product development will become essential for a proper and efficient handling of used EEE or WEEE. To reach the best compromise between reuse and recycling, the trend that seems likely to continue is that industry activities will focus less on individual products and more on product families, based on similar technologies and used raw materials. The advantages of this concept are that it is both efficient and versatile, so the collection for reuse is no longer aligned to different product lines. Parts or components from various different products can be used for several other products in turn. The strategy of product families based on similar technologies also entails further development strategies for a more sophisticated module-oriented design of components, which allows an ingenious combination of different modules in different products. This will enable more straightforward separation and collection of materials within the recycling process.

23.5.3 WEEE reduction by material optimization Both the scarcity of required rare raw materials and the quantity of WEEE materials present immense problems for the future. In this context new

644 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

technologiesdlike nanotechnologydmay help overcome these problems by providing substitutes for rare materials and significantly reducing the quantity of material used in products. Already, research is being carried out in this area, for example, to substitute gold and silver as contact materials, to substitute nickel as a conductor, and to substitute magnets of rare earth materials with innovative nanomaterials. It will also become a future trend to search for nanocompositions of plentiful substances to replace materials or technologies that are based on rare materials. The future trend will be less waste of EEE by specific material substitution, reduction, and increased circular flow through reuse and recycling.

23.5.4 Extended supplier dialogue An extended supplier dialogue will become increasingly significant to determine the optimal materials and technologies to make RoHS and WEEE compliance more convenient. Certain components of Siemens products are not produced by Siemens directly but are supplied. Therefore close cooperation with suppliers is indispensable. For example, Siemens Healthcare and COCIR initiated a web-based database, called BOMcheck (www. BOMcheck.net). BOMcheck stands for bill of materials and is a constantly updated list of materials contained in the products. BOMcheck supports the manufacturers to fulfill their legal responsibilities concerning the restrictions of materials. Both suppliers and manufacturers profit from substantial cost savings from this web-based solution. This declaration tool supports suppliers with the material declarations, by explaining legal requirements. BOMcheck contains many mechanisms, which allow the information to flow automatically through the delivery chain. Suppliers at different stages in the delivery chain can enter their data accordingly. Thus time expenditure is reduced substantially. The obligation to use BOMcheck will be extended to Siemens supplier contracts.

23.6 SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION AND ADVICE Environmental sound product design Dr. Ferdinand Quella was the head of the Siemens corporate Department of Product-related Environmental Protection in Munich. He is the initiator of the Siemens Standard SN 36350, now Siemens EP Standard “Specifications for Environmentally Compatible Product and System Design (formerly SN

23.6 Sources of further information and advice 645

36350-1/2/3/5/7),” and he was significantly engaged with the further development of this standard. The following book (see below) considers that the discussion of environmental sustainability of products will often be led from the point of view of e-waste utilization. To design an environmentally sound product, it is necessary to consider the complete life-cycle of the product. This means treatment from the marketing stage up to utilization: Quella, F., 1998. Umweltgerechte Produktgestaltung. Verlag Publicis MCD, Erlangen-München.

Usage of preowned components in new electrical engineering products The main objectives of the following book (see below) are the provision of technical decision criteria for the reuse of components, to specify rules for product improvements, and to set ecological decision criteria for reuse. An additional aim is the explanation of the legal and normative background: Belli, F., Quella, F., Bohnstedt, J., 2013. Einsatz gebrauchter Komponenten in neuen Produkten der Elektrotechnik. VDE Verlag, Berlin-offenbach.

Eco-designdthe competitive advantage Dealing with environmental issues should no longer be considered simply as a cost of doing business. Effective environmental improvements to a company’s products and services can be turned into business opportunities. The next book (see below) was written with the express purpose of helping managers of companies, in particular of small-to-medium-sized enterprises, to better deal with environmental challenges and address customer requirements, all in order to turn their environmental investments into competitive advantages. Several examples are provided throughout the book: Wimmer, W., Lee, K.-M., Quella, F., Polak, J., 2010. Ecodesign e The competitive Advantage. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York.

Web links for additional information referring to environmental protection by Siemens and Siemens Healthineers www.siemens.com www.siemens.com/sustainability www.healthcare.siemens.com www.bomcheck.net www.cocir.org

646 CHAPTER 23 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy

REFERENCES Belli, F., Quella, F., Bohnstedt, J., 2013. Einsatz gebrauchter Komponenten in neuen Produkten der Elektrotechnik. VDE Verlag, Berlin-Offenbach. Braun, M., Arglebe, C., 2007. Gebraucht und doch wie neu e aufarbeitung von bildgebenden medizinischen Systemen. Medizinprodukte Journal 14. Jahrgang Heft 4. COCIR, 2009. GRP Guidelines Version 2, 2 Oct. 2009. COCIR, Brusels. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives, Brussels. Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Brussels. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Brussels. DITTA, 2015. Refurbishment of Medical Devices: Contribution to Circular Economy. DITTA, Brussels. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg Behörde für Standtentwicklung und Umwelt, 2008. Mehr Transparenz für Umwelt und Budget! Integrierte Produktpolitik: Umweltinformation für bildgebende Diagnostikgeräte, Hamburg. IEC 62309, 2004. Dependability of Products Containing Reusable Part e Requirements for Functionality and Test. IEC. IEC 62430, 2009. Environmentally Conscious Design for Electrical and Electronic Products. IEC. IEC/PAS 63077, 2016. Good Refurbishment Practices for Medical Imaging Equipment. IEC. Illini, P., 2007. Enhanced Recovery and Recycling of X-ray Tube Assemblies at Siemens AG Medical Solutions. EMAS-Newsletter No. 4. EU Publications Office, p. 8. ISO 14001:2015. Environmental Management Systems e Requirements with Guidance for Use. ISO. ISO/TR 14062, 2002. Environmental Management - Integrating Environmental Aspects into Product Design and Development. ISO. McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press, New York. Plumeyer, M., Braun, M., 2011. Medical electrical equipment e good refurbishment practice. In: Hesselbach, J., Herrmann, C. (Eds.), Globalized Solutions for Sustainability Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Conference, Braunschweig, Germany, 2e4 May 2011 on Life Cycle Engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig. Springer, pp. 497e500. US Department of Commerce, 2008. International Trade Administration: Global Import Regulations for Pre-owned (Used and Refurbished) Medical Devices. Washington, DC. http://www.ita.doc.gov.

Chapter

24

The history of the take-back and treatment of consumer waste electrical and electronic equipment at Philips Ab Stevels1, E. Smit2

1

2

Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Philips International, The Netherlands

CHAPTER OUTLINE

24.1 Introduction 648 24.2 The period 1990e98

648

24.2.1 The start of dealing with environmental concerns about products 648 24.2.2 Getting facts about take-back and treatment 650 24.2.3 Cooperation between Philips and Delft University of Technology 651

24.3 Implementation of a take-back and treatment system in the Netherlands (1997e2000) 652 24.3.1 The pilot project Apparetour (1997) 652 24.3.2 The Dutch take-back and recycling law and its implementation (1998) 653 24.3.3 Research of the Applied EcoDesign Group at Delft University of Technology 655 Introduction 655 The relative importance of uncertainty factors in product end-of-life scenarios 656 Lifetime extension and product discarding 656 The quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability and eco-efficiency concepts 657

24.4 The WEEE Directive (2000e08)

658

24.4.1 The Philips vision for the WEEE Directive

658

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00024-0 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

647

648 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

24.4.2 What went wrong with the WEEE Directive? What are the avenues for improvement? 659

24.5 WEEE Directive recast (2008e13)

660

24.5.1 Revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU

24.6 Recycled plastics

662

663

24.6.1 Eight steps toward the implementation of recycled plastics

664

24.7 Circular Economy (2013e17) 665 24.8 Summary and conclusions 667 References 667 Further reading 669

24.1 INTRODUCTION In line with its vision to make the world healthier and more sustainable through innovation, Philips engaged itself from the very beginning, in the 1990s, in the take-back and treatment issues of discarded consumer electronic products. It has been a long journey, described in this chapter to a large extent in historical order. This is relevant because the process has been dynamic with several unexpected turning points. Many experiences and lessons from the past are still relevant today, so describing this history is by no means dealing with a period that is definitely over. Ab Stevels was involved in these matters from January 1, 1993, to his retirement from Philips on September 1, 2004. However, in his capacity as parttime professor in Applied EcoDesign at Delft University, his engagement continued until it officially ended on December 1, 2008. Some content in this chapter has been described in the book Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronic Products 1993e2007 by Stevels (2007): Chapters 7 (“Recycling of Electronic Products,” 128 pp.), 8 (“Organizing Take-Back and Recycling,” 34 pp.), and 9 (“Legislation,” 58 pp.). This book is available on request from the author. Eelco Smit joined Philips in 2011 and since then has worked in the sustainability department where he has been responsible for the recycling strategies for the company’s consumer products.

24.2 THE PERIOD 1990e98 24.2.1 The start of dealing with environmental concerns about products The publication of the Brundtland report (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) evoked much attention for environmental issues about products. Whereas production processes came

24.2 The period 1990e98 649

into the limelight as early as the 1960s, it took several decades before the resulting products became the subject of scrutiny. In this initial phase, materials, particularly the presence of potentially toxic materials and the waste of discarded products, were addressed. The debate among stakeholders started in the early 1990s, and soon a large variety of proposals for legislation/regulation and/or voluntary action were discussed. Electronic and electrical products were at the core of these discussions. This category of products was perceived to be “hazardous” in both the use and the disposal phase. Moreover, the installed base and volume of discarded products were growing faster than GDP. In this initial phase, the emphasis was on “toxics.” Remarkably, “resources,” let alone “energy,” played a lesser role. Ecodesign/design for the environment was seen as the preeminent way to solve the problems associated with electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and the waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The current view of ecodesign as the minimization of environmental impact over a product’s life cycle (with all the compromises included as a result) was not yet in place. Parallel to the optimistic view on what ecodesign could achieve, a concept had also been developed that was seen by many as a simple solution for WEEE problems: the concept of extended and individual producer responsibility (EPR/IPR). This is the idea that if producers are made responsible for the costs of end-of-life, they will redesign their products (design for recycling) so that these costs will be reduced to zero or even turn into a profit. As a result of the developments in the early 1990s, Philips decided to engage strongly in sustainability, and with its EcoVision programs it started focusing on energy efficiency, first in operations and next on products by making them “greener.” Since 2000, Philips has been accelerating its sustainability activities by expanding the coverage of its programs to all aspects of the business. In 2016 Philips launched its new sustainability program, Healthy People Sustainable Planet (Philips, 2016), which lays down the company’s goals until 2020. The program has a clear link toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015), and as reflected by the name of the program, Philips focuses on SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (Healthy People) and SDG 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns (Sustainable Planet). To ensure coverage of all aspects of the company, the Healthy People Sustainable Planet program defines a set of targets on: n n n

sustainable innovation, sustainable operations, and sustainable supply chain.

650 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

24.2.2 Getting facts about take-back and treatment From the very beginning it was clear to Philips that take-back and treatment systems should be built on facts rather than principles; this concept is still valid today. Moreover, for discussions about future legislation (these had already started in 1993 in Germany and the Netherlands), it would be advantageous to know as much environmental and financial detail as possible. Furthermore, since EPR was supposed to apply to individual companies, the opportunities to get a competitive advantage through take-back ranked high on the agenda. Finally, opportunities to lower cost in related domains (for instance production costs) were to be explored as well. Philips was excellently positioned to get facts to optimize take-back and treatment systems: n

n

n

n

The Mirec company (today SIMS) belonged to the Philips group. It started in World War II as an operation to alleviate resource problems and developed during the 1990s into a full-fledged internal recycling operation. Its main scope was to deal with industrial waste and production rejects, but basically all the expertise was in place to treat postconsumer waste as well. The Mirec operation provided rapid insights into disassembly and mechanical processing/operations with regard to both technicalities and cost. Moreover, Delft students (see following discussion) had access to Mirec to test their ideas in practice. Glass for the picture tubes of TVs was produced in-house as well. The Glass division developed methods that allowed postconsumer glass to be recycled in its melting tanks. This kind of capability was seen as a special asset, particularly if producers would be seen as individually responsible for secondary material streams. Philips at one time had a plastics and metalware production group. Expertise about the potential use of recycled plastics was derived from this group. Soon the quality of recycled material required and the maximum amounts of such material that could be applied in the externally visible and inner parts of new products could be mapped. Flame retardants in plastics are a special issue. On one hand these are needed for safety reasons, while on the other there are problems associated with them in the environmental domaindas regards both potential toxicity and (hampering) recycling. Flame-retardant-free housings (of, for instance, TVs) complying with safety regulations would therefore be a bonus from any perspective. The Philips Centre for Manufacturing Technology had great expertise in this field.

24.2 The period 1990e98 651

As can be seen above, Philips was operating on a practical basis to get insights and to lower its end-of-life costs. The connection with Delft University of Technology had the ambition to dig deeper. This will be discussed in the next section.

24.2.3 Cooperation between Philips and Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology (DUT) was and is deeply interested in environmental and sustainability matters and is looking actively for cooperation with industry. After a period in which some Delft students did their graduation projects at Philips, a formal cooperation agreement was made in 1995. This included free exchange of information, sponsoring of PhD students by Philips, and the establishment of a (part-time) chair in Applied EcoDesign at DUT. Under this umbrella numerous activities were carried out; an overview is given in Stevels (2007): n

n

The issue of which products to disassemble manually and which to separate mechanically. By considering products as a “hierarchy,” productesubassemblyesub-subassemblyepart, the appropriate borderlines could be traced. Environmental and economic considerations yielded almost identical answers regarding this issue. An important conclusion was that products with a weight of less than 5 kg can be best treated mechanically. A table of standard disassembly times was developed for TVs and monitors under the PhilipseDelft program (see Tables 24.1 and 24.2). The data in this table turned out to apply to all CE products with an average bandwidth of 10%e15%. Moreover, the data were supported by a theoretical model (Boks et al., 1996). The important effect of the

Table 24.1 Standard disassembly times (s) Screws Glue joints Screws not directly accessible Clamps Screws to be broken Wire connections Change screw driver Electrolytic condensator (capacitor) (elco) from printed wire board (PWB)

6.5 12.0 10.5

Nuts/bolts Display from PWB Click, simple

11.5 25.0 3.5

15.5 18.5 2.0 4.0 4.5

Cooling plates Click, complicated Axis, etc. Nails Bending joints

26.0 7.5 9.0 13.0 6.0

652 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

Table 24.2 Disassembly benchmark TVs Gross time (s) 1. Getting ready 2. Mains cord/plug 3. Unscrew back cover 4. Clean and sort back cover 5. Take out and sort PWB 6. Take out and sort speaker 7. Deflection unit 8. Get cathode ray tube (CRT) out 9. Clean and sort CRT 10. Clean and sort front cover Total

TV1

TV2

TV3

TV4

TV5

18 18 56 34

24 20 66 42

38 12 16 22

32 16 32 44

34 12 28 14

24 20

18 16

22 56

18 54

16 22

34 72

26 50

30 74

32 70

28 90

74 74

62 58

68 74

46 44

46 82

424

380

414

386

372

availability of such data was that disassembly analyses of products could be done up front; prototypes were no longer needed. Even more important, disassembly times could be correlated with assembly times of products. This triggered a wave of “design for product architecture simplification”; this activity contributed directly to cost reduction. The aforementioned disassembly items have been discussed extensively by Stevels and Boks (2002). At the moment of publication, no formal cooperation between DUT and Philips is in place. However, on a frequent basis, students from DUT and other universities join Philips for internships and graduation projects. The fresh ideas of students and academia help Philips to do research on relevant sustainability topics and deep dives on topics that may not yet fit directly with day-to-day business priorities.

24.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF A TAKE-BACK AND TREATMENT SYSTEM IN THE NETHERLANDS (1997e2000) 24.3.1 The pilot project Apparetour (1997) In 1997 an opportunity to do a pilot project for take-back and recycling helped to start implementation of a national take-back system in the years that followed.

24.3 Implementation of a take-back and treatment system in the Netherlands (1997e2000) 653

The project, called Apparetour, brought a wealth of findings that were often on the positive side of expectations, but sometimes surprises occurred as well: n

n n

n

n

n

Most discarded goods came back through the municipal waste yards, not through shops or a take-back service. Almost all goods returned had no reuse value. The recycling percentages that could be realized on treatment were very high (partly due to the almost complete absence of small plasticdominated items). Mechanical processing followed by separation was much more effective than anticipateddas a result, the amount of manual disassembly to be done was limited. Detoxification turned out to be relatively simple. Halogenated flameretardant plastics were kept in the copper stream. In the subsequent smelting processes, control was through flue gas purification. Costs were higher than the projections of the government but much lower than the ones by industry (and approximately in line with Philips projections).

The results of Apparetour brought events into flux; in a burst lasting only a few months, decisions were made about the Dutch take-back and recycling scheme for WEEE. All stakeholders supported these to a large extent. Apparetour showed that rather than developing a take-back and recycling system based on assumptions and opinions, setting up a pilot project is a much more effective way to generate learnings about real-life recycling solutions. The power of doing pilots is still valid today, and much of the work that Philips is doing these days on the Circular Economy is based on small pilot projects, an approached inspired by the Lean startup methodology (Ries, 2011).

24.3.2 The Dutch take-back and recycling law and its implementation (1998) The Dutch take-back and recycling law was passed in a time path parallel to the Apparetour project. The law formulated, in a strict way, the extended IPR and gave the environmental ministry strong powers to control the implementation of individual companies. Under the law, these had to notify the ministry about technical and financial details of their take-back and recycling schemes and get approval for them. Soon it became clear that the “soup did not have to be swallowed as hot as it had been served.” It was made clear that individual responsibility could

654 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

also be fulfilled in a collective way. There are many good reasons for this dual approach. These range from environmental (lower environmental load of collection), technical (economies of scale), financial (investment, economies of scale), and finally administrative (in the case of strict individual responsibility, the ministry had to process and approve 600 notifications of companies putting products on the Dutch market). On the other hand, keeping the principle of individual responsibility gave strong empowerment to intervene in case something went wrong. The biggest surprise, however, came from the financial side. Recycling fees could be levied on consumers for the purchase of new products, provided that 75% of the companies in a sector (like consumer electronics) supported the idea. This rule solved many problems such as changing market share over time and free riders from inside or outside the sector. It prevented companies from applying strategies to minimize collection to limit costs, and laastly the issue of structural deficits in recycling costs. Philips had calculated, for instance, that for plastic- and glass-dominated products such as TV and audio, recycling (excluding logistics) according to the legal requirements would remain as a cost even if the best ecodesign was applied. These developments led to a change of mind at Philips. Whereas there had been an inclination to go alone (economies of scale, know-how, in-house channels for secondary materials), the availability of consumer fee changed the landscape, and Philips became a strong supporter of the collective takeback and recycling system, the Dutch Association for Recycling of Metal/ Electronic Products (NVMP). Take-back and treatment of WEEE started in the Netherlands on January 1, 1999 (for bigger equipment) and January 1, 2000 (for smaller equipment). Two organizations took care of organizing take-back: NVMP for household appliances and consumer electronics and ICT Milieu for IT and telecom equipment. In both cases, these organizations operate through contracting recyclers and transportation companies (for transport from municipalities to recyclers) through a competitive bidding process. Government reporting is taken care of, as is providing information to the general public. Consumers can deliver their discarded goods for free to the systems. However, for NVMP products there was a visible recycling fee at purchase, whereas for ICT products there was none. Since these products (except for computer monitors) have low weight and contain more metal and precious metal than those of the NVMP, costs for most ICT products were close to zero.

24.3 Implementation of a take-back and treatment system in the Netherlands (1997e2000) 655

Philips has supported NVMP throughout and has seen it as the reference model for WEEE implementation in EU member states as of the year 2005. In the year 2000, Delft studies showed that it was technically possible to introduce bonusemalus systems in collective processing. In this way, good ecodesign could be rewarded. The introduction of such systems would have brought Philips substantial benefits. In the start-up phase of NVMP, this issue had a low priority, however. In a later stage it was abandoned because the amounts involved were expected to diminish but most of all because management wanted to keep industry ranks closed. The start of the take-back and treatment systems in the Netherlands around the turn of the century gave Philips very good terms of reference for the European WEEE debate that was about to start. This debate was to be much more complicated; 27 member states were to be involved. Moreover, Philips had a strong position in the Netherlands because of its roots and high market share. Finally, other industry sectors such as IT and telecom, which have clearly different views on WEEE issues, were more vociferous in the industry federation. The Philips-supported research at Delft University, however, brought many insights. These could be the basis for further development of the take-back system. Basically, this work pointed to differentiation in the requirements per product group and called for tailor-made solutions. This is to be described in the section that follows. In later years, several changes occurred in the Dutch WEEE landscape. In 2011 the possibility to charge a visible fee was no longer allowed by law, although NVMP still exists as the body through which producers finance and determine the strategy of the recycling system. The part of the organization that organizes the take-back and recycling and is visible to the consumer was renamed Wecycle. In 2012 ICT Milieu joined the NVMP setup to form one collective take-back and recycling organization. In 2013 a competing scheme, WEEE NL, was set up and gave producers an alternative route to compliance with legal requirements.

24.3.3 Research of the Applied EcoDesign Group at Delft University of Technology Introduction Although partly Philips-sponsored (Dutch government agencies contributed a larger amount), the goal of this work has been primarily to understand the

656 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

fundamentals of take-back and treatment systems. Through this work, more effective legislation was thought to be supported, although it was realized that the political component in all these matters would stay big. From a Philips perspective, the work was bringing potential enhancements to the Dutch system (see Section 24.2.2). The basics of the Delft work have been laid down in three dissertations that are summarized in the following material.

The relative importance of uncertainty factors in product end-of-life scenarios This research by Boks (2002) analyzes the effect of economic, technological (material qualification, treatment), and juridical (legislation) developments for the variety of scenarios that can be envisaged (with the year 2001 as a baseline). The four consumer-electronics product categories considered were products dominated by metal, plastic, glass, and precious metals. The calculation models show that the biggest cost impacts are caused by fluctuations in precious metal (Au, Pd) prices. This particularly holds true for miniaturized products. Achieving economies of scale is highly relevant for plastic- and glass-dominated products. Legal requirements (high recycling percentages to be achieved, removal of potential toxics) have relatively little impact. There is one exception to this: requirements of high collection rates imply return premiums to be paid to consumers. This will push up costs. A similar conclusion would also hold for a legal obligation to apply metal housings for products to avoid flame retardants or to push up recycling percentages. Also, the effect of other items like fluctuations in copper prices, changes in mechanical processing and logistics costs is less drasticdalthough these are substantial in absolute terms.

Lifetime extension and product discarding At the instigation of Philips, much research attention has been paid to issues such as lifetime extension of consumer electronics products and “postefirst user” and “secondhand” (products that have been discarded by their first user) business (Rose et al., 2002; Stevels, 2007). For TV and audio products, there turned out to be little environmental potential product lifetime extension and/or reuse, at least compared with the usual discarding and material recycling scenarios. Also, ecodesign, with the aim of improving current products in these respects, could contribute

24.3 Implementation of a take-back and treatment system in the Netherlands (1997e2000) 657

in only a limited way. The chief reason for all this that in the product categorydin contrast to IT and telecomdwear and tear dominate replacement behavior. Replacement of durables has been studied extensively by van Nes (2003). The discarding behavior of consumers could be quantitatively described for the various product categories. Combined with the work of Rose, it showed that for reuse scenarios at levels higher than material reuse, the chief benefit is economic rather than environmental. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that such benefits can only be reached if the structure of the value chain allows this.

The quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability and eco-efficiency concepts A PhD project that had a profound impact on the attitude of Philips toward WEEE is the work on the quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability (QWERTY) and eco-efficiency (EE) concepts (Huisman, 2003). In this work, models were developed that allowed for the complete environmental and economic mapping of material recycling chains. To do so, a large amount of data had to be collected, but once this had been achieved, a large number of hot issues could be analyzed properlydper product category as well as for individual products. The analysis showed that the eco-efficiency (environmental gain/cost) of take-back and recycling varied greatly among EE products. It was the highest for precious metal-dominated products (like cell phones and DVD players). Metal-dominated products such as computers were second. Glass-dominated products (TVs, monitors) had a relatively low ecoefficiency, whereas plastic-dominated products ranked even lower. Some products had a very high eco-efficiency. This is not due to recycling but to control of toxicity (for instance, of chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] in refrigerators/freezers). Others had a moderate eco-efficiency, at least if toxicity was properly controlled (liquid crystal display [LCD] TVs). Moreover, the QWERTY/EE tool enabled analysis of the merits of existing ecodesign concepts for the products, logistics, and treatment of WEEE, and finally of the WEEE Directive itself (first its drafts, then the implementation of the Directive, and now its recasting). In comparative studies, improvement proposals for design, investment in technology, and modification of legislation also could be studied and prioritized. Through this approach, for instance, road maps for the WEEE Directive could be published (Huisman, 2003).

658 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

24.4 THE WEEE DIRECTIVE (2000e08) 24.4.1 The Philips vision for the WEEE Directive The work at Philips and the connection with the Delft research (see Sections 24.2.3 and 24.3.3), and practical experience with take-back in the Netherlands (see Sections 24.3.1 and 24.3.2), excellently positioned the company for WEEE discussions. For Philips, there were three underlying ideas in the debate: n

n

n

The intent of the WEEE Directive is clear (“maximum environmental gain at minimum cost”); however, owing to the complexity of takeback systems, the best approach can be formulating the general principles accompanied by implementation guidelines for member states. Solutions that work for one product category or business sector are not necessarily the best for others (there is no “one size fits all”). This is in fact a call for allowing differentiation in approaches. Times have changed. The ideas of 1995, on which the Directive was based, need to be updated with the insights and knowledge that were acquired later.

On the basis of these, Philips had a clear strategy (see also Stevels and Huisman, 2003): n

n

n

Maximum environmental gain at minimum costs implies the quest for economies of scale. Sector solutions would imply that fees paid by consumers had to be allowed for products where there was a structural recycling deficit (a cost that could not be reduced to near zero through design). The knowledge acquired after 1995 implies that ideas about reuse, organization of collection, disassembly/mechanical treatment, Annex II (removal of hazardous substances), and the importance of upgrading secondary streams were to be revised.

This was altogether a far more ambitious agenda than had been realized before in the Netherlands. However, the NVMP system was functioning very satisfactorily, so in practice this was a good reference position. In the opinion of the authors, the WEEE Directive was already outdated when it was introduced in 2005. The main reason for this was that the EU failed to translate the principles and ideas of 1995 into realistic environmental goals for collective recycling and toxicity control and was reluctant to go for differentiation in product categories. Moreover, it did not realize that after the Directive came into effect, implementation in the member states would be an issue in itself. Since no guidelines had

24.4 The WEEE Directive (2000e08) 659

been prepared to steer these processes, there were in practice 27 different regulations rather than 1 with a very strong common basis. This caused much extra organizational and administrative effort for Philips. In many member states, its ideas regarding technical implementation could be only partly realized.

24.4.2 What went wrong with the WEEE Directive? What are the avenues for improvement? In the opinion of Philips, basically three things went wrong with the WEEE Directive: n

n

n

Lack of clear goal-setting. Basically, the two goals are recycling and the control of toxics. In the initial version of the WEEE Directive, the emphasis was on toxic control. Soon this changed to recycling in view of the preparation of a separate Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. However, the exemptions in RoHS in particular mean that there is a “gap” that is not closed by Annex II for the treatment of toxics in WEEE. Depending on the product group, the two goals have different priorities: toxic control for refrigerators/freezers (CFCs), LCD TVs and monitors (mercury in backlights), recycling for telecom and other miniaturized products (precious metals), and metaldominated products (metals), whereas other categories (for instance, CRT-containing products and most plastic-dominated products) have a “mixed priority.” Regardless of the precise priority, this situation calls for differentiation in requirements regarding collection, treatment, and dealing with secondary streams. Attributing responsibilities. It is a societal interest to realize the goals just mentioned at the lowest cost (for society). In the end, citizens must pay directly or indirectly for take-back and treatment, and generally speaking they are prepared to do so provided there is environmental value for the money. Therefore, there is a logic in attributing responsibilities in the end-of-life chain to those actors which can achieve the best environmental gain (either in terms of recycling or in toxic control over cost ratios). The best ratios will be scored by those actors with the most capability and power to influence outcomes to the positive. Experience has shown that technical and financial responsibility should coincide. If this is not the case, either take-back systems do not work optimally or cost a disproportional amount of money. Complementary WEEE streams. When the concept of EPR was developed, it was foreseen that producers would be financially and operationally responsible for the collection and recycling of WEEE. As a result, all obligations concerning minimum treatment requirements and

660 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

reporting obligations were directed toward producers. After a few years, studies such as Dutch WEEE Flows (Huisman et al., 2012) started to reveal that in addition to producers, other actors such as municipalities and commercial recyclers were collecting and recycling profitable WEEE fractions. As these complementary WEEE streams were not governed by the rules of the WEEE Directive, the amounts of products collected and recycled by these actors were not transparent, as the minimum treatment requirements did not apply. This situation put the environmental objectives of the Directive at risk. The fact that these three fundamental issues were not properly addressed meant that member states had to find their own way out during implementation. The recast of the WEEE Directive that was started by the European Commission in 2008 provided an opportunity to fix some of these problems in an updated WEEE Directive.

24.5 WEEE DIRECTIVE RECAST (2008e13) The first WEEE Directive required that within 5 years after this Directive went into force, the European Commission had to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council based on the experience of the application of the Directive. The report could, as appropriate, be accompanied by proposals for revision of the relevant provisions of the Directive. Between 2007 and 2008 the European Commission released several studies (Sander et al., 2007; Huisman et al., 2008) that would form the basis for recasting the Directive. For Philips, the priorities in the WEEE recast were the following: n

n

Harmonization. As stated in Section 24.4.1, lack of clear guidance from the commission meant that European member states had to make their own interpretation of the WEEE Directive when transposing this in their national laws. This led to different requirements being implemented that, for instance, created unnecessary administrative burdens on producers. All actors, all WEEE flows. The existence of complementary flows of WEEE that were recycled outside of the PROs (Section 24.4.2) meant that reports from member states on the amounts of WEEE collected and recycled by producers did not provide a complete picture of the total amount of WEEE that was recycled. During the WEEE recast, the producer community argued that all actors that were recycling WEEE had to report all WEEE that was recycled and had to meet the treatment requirements of the Directive.

24.5 WEEE Directive recast (2008e13) 661

n

n

n

n

Treatment standards. Although annex II of the WEEE Directive described requirements for the selective treatment of materials and components, it lacked the required detail to ensure that all WEEE would be recycled in an environmentally sound way. In 2009 the WEEE Forum started work on standards that described the way that WEEE had to be recycleddthe WEEELabex standards (WEEE Forum, 2013). During the WEEE recast, the producer community argued that WEEElabex had to become formal European Standards and should apply to all actors and all WEEE flows that were being recycled. This would ensure that all WEEE recycled by all actors would be recycled using an environmentally sound process. Differentiated recycling fees. Philips has always argued that products that are easy to recycle should pay lower recycling fees than those that are complicated to recycle. At first it was assumed that the concept of IPR would drive this cost differentiation. Reality, however, showed that producers decided to set up collective recycling systems to create economies of scale that reduce cost and allow for investments in new technologies. This collective approach meant, however, that the individual ecodesign incentive was lost. During the WEEE recast, we have tried to introduce the concept of differentiated recycling fees that would allow producers to pay lower recycling fees to the collective recycling solution for easier-to-recycle products. Targets on percentage of waste generated. The first WEEE Directive set a static collection target of 4 kg per inhabitant per year. This target was very easy to reach for countries with high sales of EEE and mature collection systems, but was much more difficult to reach for some new member states that had joined the European Union after publication of the Directive. As a result, it was suggested that a target be set based on the percentage of products placed on the market. Industry, however, argued that it would take at least 7 years after the moment of sales until products would become WEEE. As such, a collection target based on the amount of WEEE that was actually generated by consumers in a year was found more appropriate. Less focus on visible fee. As Philips has been undergoing a transition toward becoming a health tech company, it has over time divested from product categories such as TVs, consumer electronics, and lighting. This means that the current product portfolio has a much lower recycling cost than the product portfolio of the early 2000s. As such, the need for visible recycling fees is much lower and no longer a priority for Philips.

662 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

24.5.1 Revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU On July 24, 2012, the recast of the WEEE Directive was published in the Official Journal of the European Union as Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 4, 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). If we look back to the Philips priorities, the recast of the directive was a partial success: n

n

n

n

n

Harmonization was only partly achieved. The Directive did not lead to a direct harmonization but in several accounts, the European Commission was given power to develop implementation acts that should lead to harmonization. An example is article 16.3, which requires the Commission to adopt implementing acts establishing the format for registration and reporting and the frequency of reporting to the register. All actors, all WEEE flows. Article 16.4 of the WEEE recast clearly states that member states must ensure that WEEE collected through all routes, prepared for reuse, recycling, and recovery had to be reported. Treatment standards. Article 8.5 of the WEEE Directive required the European Commission to request that European standardization organizations develop European standards for treatment, including WEEE recovery, recycling, and preparation for reuse. The European Commission was also given power to adopt implementing acts that would lay down minimum treatment standards based on these standards. The European standardization organizations have developed these WEEE treatment standards through the EN 50625 series (CENELEC, 2014), but to date the European Commission has not adopted these implementing actions even though producers, recyclers, and compliance schemes have requested that it does so. To date only France, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Lithuania have made conformity with EN 50625 or WEEELabex normative requirements a compulsory part of national law. Differentiated recycling fees. Only Recital 23 of the WEEE recast refers to the option of differentiated feeds, and the concept has not been introduced in any of the articles of the Directive. Targets on percentage of waste generated. As the views of member states diverged on the method to set collection targets, it was agreed to include both options in Article 7.1 of the Directive. From 2019, the minimum collection rate to be achieved annually was set at 65% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years, or alternatively, 85% of WEEE generated.

24.6 Recycled plastics 663

24.6 RECYCLED PLASTICS In 2008 Philips started a program for sustainable innovation with a series of workshops to investigate the possibilities for closing the loop of its products. The program was inspired by the cradle to cradle concept as published by Braungart and William McDonough in 2002. People from different functions and departments brainstormed about business model possibilities, alternative materials, and value chain management. These workshops delivered tangible results in different areas and included four flagship products, one of which was the Senseo Viva Café Eco. The workshops were the start of a wider program on the implementation of recycled plastics. There are four main drivers for the recycled plastics program as previously described in Smit (2014): Cost down: Using recycled plastics can create a clear cost benefit compared with virgin plastics, and this can be a great driver for using more recycled plastics. Exact pricing of recycled plastics depends very much on their specifications: polymer type, technical specifications, color, location, and of course demand. However, even for high-quality recycled plastics, doubledigit savings are possible compared with virgin plastics. Material scarcity: Estimations of remaining oil volumes depend on many factors, and as oil prices increase, the volume of oil that can be drilled will also go up. At the end of 2013, total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels, which was estimated to meet 53.3 years of global production (BP, 2014). Shortages in raw materials will result in higher prices, a trend already visible from 2000 onward. Until 2000 the commodity price index on average fell 0.5% for every percentage point of growth in GDP; since 2000 this trend has reversed, and commodity prices rose 1.9% for every percentage point of growth in GDP (Lacy et al., 2014). Using recycled plastics can help producers become more independent from oil and the unavoidable price increases related to oil. Higher recycling rates to comply with legislation: The recast of the WEEE Directive has led to higher recycling targets being implemented on the electronics industry. Recycling rates achieved by the industry have been dominated by the metals fraction of products. As the share of plastics in products increases and targets are raised, it is also important that plastics get properly recycled to ensure that targets can be reached. Producers can improve recycling results by applying pressure on their downstream recyclers to improve efficiencies, but there must also be a market for the recycled plastics so that recyclers can sell these materials. Producers can help create such a market by using recycled plastics in their

664 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

products. This has the indirect benefit of raising the recycling results of EPR schemes that will allow producers to meet their future legal recycling obligations. Environmental Benefits: Recycling plastics has the obvious benefit that it will decrease the amount of waste that goes to incineration or landfill. The exact environmental footprint of recycled plastics will differ per material, as collection and recycling methods may differ between these materials. However, it is generally accepted that recycled plastics have a clear environmental benefit. In 2006, 2010, WRAP published life-cycle analysis data on a variety of materials (PVC, PP, PE, PET) and concluded that recycling was more sustainable than incineration and landfill, with recycling being around 50% better on average. The recycled plastics program has led to a huge increase in the consumption of recycled plastics at Philips. In 2010, 35 tons of recycled plastics were used; by 2017, this had grown to over 1800 tons.

24.6.1 Eight steps toward the implementation of recycled plastics In 2014 Philips realized that a successful transition to recycled plastics could not be achieved in isolation. Many producers would have to start using recycled plastics to create a big enough commercial opportunity for recyclers to invest in new technologies. To help other producers implement recycled plastics, Philips created an eight-step plan based on practical experience in working with recycled plastics. These steps have been published in Smit (2014): 1. Create an overview of total plastics consumption per polymer type and application. For instance, through a Pareto analysis, show where the big volumes of plastics are used and where the focus of the program should be. 2. Focus on high-volume polymers used by the entire industry as described in Plastics the facts (PlasticsEurope, 2016). As these virgin materials are used in high volumes, it means also that high volumes of recycled materials are available on the market. 3. Focus on nonvisible parts and dark-colored parts, as these are relatively easy to replace. When possible, stay away from food contact and skin contact parts, as these are very complicated. 4. Identify possible suppliers of recycled plastics and consider looking at external certifications such EuCertPlast (2014) to ensure a high-quality supply base. EuCertPlast is a project aimed at creating a European certification for postconsumer plastics recyclers.

24.7 Circular Economy (2013e17) 665

5. Define critical-to-quality specifications and review recycled plastics against these criteria. Consider doing lab-scale tests to check the properties of recycled materials against these critical specifications. 6. Consider starting your recycled plastics effort on an existing product through a life-cycle change. New product launches are always under great time pressure to reach the market on time. A first introduction of recycled plastics may cause delays, so instead of risking a delay in going to market, it may be better to introduce recycled plastics in a product as a life-cycle change, which often do not have very strict deadlines. Do select a product with a mold that enables recycled plastics. 7. When the company progresses toward introducing recycled plastics in new products that still need to be launched, do ensure that the mold is optimized for recycled plastics: a. Do not make molds too complicated. b. Do ensure good venting of the mold. c. Do not go for a very thin-walled mold design. d. Do consider texturing parts to mask the visual limitations of recycled plastics. 8. Once the product and recycled material are selected, trial the material in a production run of sufficient size. After the trial run, test parts on all critical parameters to ensure that the recycled plastics meet all requirements.

24.7 CIRCULAR ECONOMY (2013e17) In 2010 the Ellen MacArthur Foundation was launched with a mission to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. In 2012 the concept of a Circular Economy grew in popularity after the launch of the report Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012), which was the first-ever economic report examining the potential of the circular model, Launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the report quantified the $630 bn value of the circular economy opportunity in Europe. This report gained the interest of Philips, and after a review of the Circular Economy’s potential for the company, Philips joined the Ellen MacArthur Foundation as a global partner. A Circular Economy aims to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources and ecosystems by using those resources more effectively. By definition, it is a driver for innovation in the areas of material, component, and product reuse as well as for new business models such as solutions and services. In a Circular Economy, the more effective use of materials

666 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

enables more value creation, both by cost savings and by developing new markets or growing existing ones. The ecological principles that are addressed in the Circular Economy approach are similar to methodologies such as cradle-to-cradle, biomimicry, and the natural step, all aiming to use natural resources more smartly and effectively. The big difference in the Circular Economy approach is that the starting point is economic value creation, with improvement in ecological aspects a derivative and not the other way around. Although Philips fully embraced the concept of a circular economy in 2013, it already had much experience with circular economy principles. As such, the program was not new but offered a good umbrella to combine several existing activities into one clear program and to communicate on these activities both internally and externally. An existing Circular Economy activity is the recycled plastics program, as discussed in Section 24.6, and second is the refurbishment of large-scale healthcare equipment. In the Philips Diamond Select program, the company provides reliable refurbished imaging systems at an attractive price so customers can afford up-to-date technology and provide a wider variety of high-quality services to patients. Since 2013 Philips has focused its efforts on the circular economy around four key characteristics, all with the goal of expanding Circular Economy thinking into new projects: n n

n

n

access over ownership, pay for performancede.g., pay per scan business model innovations, from transactions to relationships via service and solution models reverse cycles including partners outside current value chainsde.g., upstreamedownstream integration and cocreation innovations for material, component, and product reuse, products designed for disassembly and serviceability

In the first years of the circular economy program, most activities for consumer products were oriented toward the characteristics of reverse cycles and innovation for material reuse. A good example of such an initiative is the Performer Ultimate vacuum cleaner, FC8955. For this product, old Philips vacuum cleaners are collected in Western Europe and recycled by its partner Coolrec. Another partner, Veolia, mixes the plastics from recycled vacuum cleaners with other recycled plastics to create a new high-quality recycled plastics grade that is used by the Philips factory in Poland to produce the new Performer Ultimate. Circular Economy thinking has resulted in recycled materials becoming an integral part of Philips’s product design, and Performer Ultimate is the first vacuum cleaner

References 667

specifically designed using recycled plastics. By cocreating with recyclers and suppliers of recycled materials, Philips used its combined expertise to improve the quality of materials. In recent years, more emphasis has been given to other characteristics, with a focus on performance- and access-based business models. First with a focus on sleep & respiratory care products, and in 2017 through pilots with access-based business models for the Lumea and Blue Control product lines.

24.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Philips has engaged strongly in take-back and treatment issues. In the first phase there was a strong emphasis on getting more facts on such systems. Key questions were what the environmental and economic effects are of such operations and whether green performance, low cost, and competitive advantage can be combined. The cooperation with Delft University turned out to be very useful in answering many questions in the field. These activities positioned the company well for negotiating with the Dutch government about a recycling law for electronic products. Practical experience through a pilot project, as well as solving the structural financial benefit in take-back and treatment, formed the basis for the Dutch system to start as of January 1, 1999. Over time, the focus of Philips on take-back and treatment has shifted from managing regulatory compliance to creating value for the business. Implementation of the first WEEE Directive revealed clear improvement opportunities, which became a priority for Philips during the WEEE recast. The shift toward value creation was clearly visible in the implementation of the recycled plastics program, and since then has gained traction through the Circular Economy program.

REFERENCES Boks, C.B., 2002. The Relative Importance of Uncertainty Factors in Product End-of-life Scenarios (Doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Design for Sustainability Lab, Delft. Boks, C.B., Brouwers, W.C.J., Kroll, E., Stevels, A.L.N., 1996. Disassembly modeling: two applications to a Philips 2100 television set. In: Proceedings from ISEE’96: The IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (6e8 May, Dallas). BP, 2014. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statisticalreview-of-world-energy/review-by-energy-type/oil/oil-reserves.html.

668 CHAPTER 24 Treatment of consumer WEEE

CENELEC, 2014. EN 50625-1, “EN 50625-1 on Collection, Logistics & Treatment Requirements for WEEE - Part 1: General Treatment Requirements. CENELEC, Brussels. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012. Towards the Circular Economy, vol. 1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes. EuCertPlast. http://www.eucertplast.eu/en/. Huisman, J., 2003. The QWERTY/EE Concept: Quantifying Recyclability and Ecoefficiency for End-of-life Treatment of Consumer Electronic Products (Doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Design for Sustainability Lab, Delft. Huisman, J., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Ogilvie, S., Maurer, C., Artim, E., Delgado, C., Stevels, A., 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final Report. United Nations University, Bonn. Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, C.A., 2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows. United Nations University, ISP e SCYCLE, Bonn. Lacy, P., Keeble, J., McNamara, R., Rutqvist, J., Eckerle, K., Haglund, T., Buddemeier, P., Cui, M., Sharma, A., Cooper, A., Senior, T., Pettersson, C., 2014. Circular Advantage, Innovative Business Models and Technologies to Create Value in a World without Limits to Growth. Accenture Strategy. Philips, 2016. https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/sustainability/our-approach/ambition2020.html. PlasticsEurope, 2016. Plastics e the Facts 2016 an Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. PlasticsEurope. Ries, E., 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Publishing, New York. Rose, C.M., Ishii, K., Stevels, A.L.N., 2002. Influencing design to improve product end-oflife stage. Research in Engineering Design 13, 83e93. Sander, K., Schilling, S., Tojo, N., van Rossem, C., Verson, J., George, C., 2007. The Producer Responsibility Principle of the WEEE Directive Final Report. Okopol, Germany. Smit, E., 2014. Learnings from Philips consumer lifestyle recycled plastics program. In: Proceedings from CARE Innovation’14: The 4th International Symposium and Exhibition towards a Resource Efficient Economy (17e20 November, Vienna). Stevels, A.L.N., 2007. Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronic Products: 1993e2007. Delft University of Technology, Design for Sustainability Lab, Delft. Stevels, A.L.N., Boks, C.B., 2002. The lasting advantages of disassembly analysis: benchmarking applications in the electronics industry. In: Proceedings from CARE Innovation’02: The 4th International Symposium and Exhibition on Electronics and the Environment (25e28 November, Vienna). Stevels, A.L.N., Huisman, J., 2003. An industry vision on the implementation of WEEE and RoHS. In: Proceedings from EcoDesign’03: The 3rd International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing (8e11 December, Tokyo). United Nations, 2015. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Further reading 669

van Nes, C.N., 2003. Replacement of Durables: Influencing Product Lifetime through Product Design (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University, Rotterdam. WEEE Forum, 2013. WEEELABEX Normative Document on Treatment V10.0. WEEE Forum, Brussels.

FURTHER READING Michaud, J., Farrant, L., Jan, O., Kjær, B., Bakas, I., 2010. Environmental Benefits of Recycling e 2010 Update. WRAP, Banbury.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter

25

Creating a corporate environmental strategy including waste electrical and electronic equipment take-back and treatment

Ab Stevels Professor Emeritus, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

CHAPTER OUTLINE

25.1 Position of take-back and treatment in an environmental strategy 25.2 Corporate environmental strategy 673

672

25.2.1 Making an environmental strategy 673 25.2.2 Vision, strategy, and road maps 674 Vision 674 Strategy 675 Road maps 676

25.3 Product characteristics, take-back, and treatment 678 25.3.1 Environmental priorities in end-of-life treatments 678 25.3.2 Product characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies 681 25.3.3 Market characteristics and reuse/remanufacturing strategies 682

25.4 WEEE Directive implementation, materials recycling, and corporate environmental strategy 684 25.4.1 Introduction 684 25.4.2 Data needed for making a waste electrical and electronic equipment strategy 685 25.4.3 Issue lists for making decisions on WEEE Directive implementation 686

25.5 Summary and conclusions References 689

688

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00025-2 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

671

672 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

25.1 POSITION OF TAKE-BACK AND TREATMENT IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY The take-back and treatment of discarded products are only parts of a comprehensive environmental strategy. Such a strategy considers the complete life cycle of a product: production of materials and components, assembly, use phase, and end-of-life phase. Between these phases, a lot of packaging and transport occurs as well. The average environmental effects for electronic products are given in Fig. 25.1. This figure indicates that for the total life cycle, energy consumption (in the use phase) dominates. The average of 70% has a spread between 45% (cell phones) and more than 90% (refrigerators). Materials (and auxiliary materials) represent 35% of the load on average, whereas packaging and transport represent a maximum of 10%, even if goods are produced overseas. Take-back and recycling represent a “bonus” of only 15%. This figure is low because take-back and treatment involve energy consumption, materials cannot be recouped for 100% so they end up in lower grades, and because waste remains even after treatment, thus representing an environmental load. However, strong societal drivers are drawing attention to take-back and treatment. There is a lack of landfill space in densely populated areasdfor instance, in most countries of the European Union. Moreover, the conservation of resources and value as well as greater control of potentially toxic substances plays an important role from both emotional and rational perspectives. This, combined with the fact that in the past little attention

% of total life cycle load (approximate) 80 70 60 50 40

70

30 20

35

10 10

0 –10 –20

Energy consumption

Materials application

Packaging & transport

–15 Recycling

n FIGURE 25.1 Average environmental load of an electronic product over its lifecycle.

25.2 Corporate environmental strategy 673

was paid to electronics waste, is strong justification for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. From a business perspective, more intensively considering end-of-life of products can lead to several enhancements of an environmental strategy so that it goes beyond legal compliance: n n n n n

n

n

new business models: “trade-in/trade-up” instead of selling “new” only life-cycle extension business and selling of upgrades remanufacturing and component reuse: “postconsumer business” use of recycled materials (cheaper than virgin ones) focus on “monomaterial” plastic application (increase of recyclability but also volume discount on purchasing) simplification of product architecture (recycling but also lower assembly cost) reduction of potential toxic content

From a strategic perspective, giving attention to take-back and treatment consists of much more than simply following up on legal requirements, customer wishes, and challenges from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). When handled properly, there is a substantial business opportunity as well.

25.2 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY 25.2.1 Making an environmental strategy Making an environmental strategy should preferably be an explicit process. This creates awareness, unleashes creativity, and provides necessary links with other business processes. Simultaneously, the collection of facts and figures creates the basis for performance measurement after implementation of the strategy. Basically, making an environmental strategy is nothing special. The same procedures can be used as with other business strategies, such as performing a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. The only difference is that the scenarios underlying such an analysis should be described in both environmental and monetary terms. For the environmental part, a simplified life-cycle analysis using eco-indicators (such as Eco-indicator 99) will do. Generally speaking, products exhibit a positive correlation between monetary and environmental load, so reduction strategies generally work out positively in both fields, be it sometimes with quite a different effect in absolute terms. Therefore, in practice few real contradictions occur between

674 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

environmental and monetary considerations, although this belief is a widespread prejudice in both the internal and the external value chains of companies. Nevertheless, it is important to use the two “languages.” This is because of the variety of audiences to be addressed; some want to know more about the environmental aspects, while others are more interested in financial matters. A specific strategy for take-back and treatment is related to a comprehensive environmental strategy like the one connecting the environment and business strategy in general. This implies that for such specific strategies, similar approaches can be followed. Also, here there are perceived contradictions, particularly between product architecture simplification and the modular structure of products, and between material reduction and recyclability.

25.2.2 Vision, strategy, and road maps Vision Making an environmental strategy starts with formulating a “vision”: Where are we now and where do we want to be in, for instance, 5 years? Visions should be sufficiently challenging to drive improvement but sufficiently realistic to be successful. This has little to do with legislation (legal compliance is a minimum requirement for any strategy) but a lot with customer expectations. Customers are not necessarily proactive in buying “green” (environmentally friendly) products (Stevels, 2000). In Chapter 6 of Stevels (2007), it is demonstrated that although in Western Europe, 75%e80% of people say they are prepared to buy green products, their actual behavior shows positive interest of only 25%. Some 50% of the public are sympathetic or neutral, whereas about 25% are outright negative. A more recent investigation (Pascual and Stevels, 2006) showed that onethird of the general public in Western Europe consists of price buyers (low price) with a neutral or negative attitude toward green products. Slightly better is the situation for “tech buyers” (latest technology and features), also representing one-third of the public. Only for quality buyers (nice design and quality of life) do green products get a positive (or neutral) reception. In other regions of the world (America, Japan), tech buyers represent a larger percentage. In countries with low incomes, price buyers dominate. The environmental vision of a company should match customer attitudes but also apply globally, simply because most electronics companies operate worldwide. Customer attitudes toward “green” buying also vary by product sector: IT and telecom equipment is associated with utility and therefore has

25.2 Corporate environmental strategy 675

more tech buyers; consumer electronics are associated with fun/pleasure (relatively many quality buyers). Household appliances are a combination of utility and convenience (price buyers, quality buyers). Factors such as the ones just described mean that in actual practice, the explicit and implicit environmental visions of electronics companies are quite different. Consequently, their attitudes regarding the take-back and treatment of WEEE will be quite different as well.

Strategy To realize the vision, a strategy is needed. A strategy describes, in general terms, the types of actions required to complete a goal. In the environmental field, three types of actions exist: n

n

n

Defensive actions. These include the achievement of compliance with legal requirements and fulfilling the (explicit) requirements of (chief) customers. Actions to prevent bad publicity belong to this category as well. In this domain, the issue of “how to realize the compliance” is the most important issue. As regards take-back and treatment, the questions to be answered are: Should we go alone as a company or join collective systems? To what extent should we make coalitions with competitors? and Should we strive for fees paid by customers? Actions to achieve cost reductions through “green” strategy. For endof-life treatment (and often for upfront costs as well) such actions include ecodesign of products (simplification of product architecture, lowering chemical content, going for monomaterial and material reductionsdhere a balance between a reduction in kilograms to be treated and cost per kilogram must be sought). Also, the application of recycled material belongs to this category. Moreover, the supply chain can contribute (enabling ecodesign, take-back in place of processed fractions, etc.). Actions to generate more business through “green” strategy. For takeback and treatment this includes the enhancement of current business by introducing trade-in/trade-up options and selling upgrades for products already in the market. Also, remanufacturing and reuse businesses fall into this category.

To make an appropriate strategy to realize the vision, a detailed analysis (“getting facts”) is of great importance; it is the experience of the author of this chapter that the very fact-finding process to support the environmental strategy has many ramifications for business issues that are completely outside the environmental strategy; i.e., they are not “green as such.”

676 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

An analysis of “green” factors can have the SWOT analysis structure often used in such processes. Considering opportunities and threats forms the external part of the analysis. Opportunities and threats change over time and are profoundly influenced by trends such as increased consumer awareness, increasing legislation and legislation-related demands, such as limitations on disposal in landfills and incineration, and more “green” taxes. Also, advancements in technology and greater availability of environmental tools are significant developments to assess. Finally, increasing prices of raw materials and energy profoundly influence the environmental strategies to be followed. The strengths and weaknesses assessment forms part of the internal analysis. Typical internal issues include the availability of know-how and skills, the integration of green strategy in the business process, and the systematic nature and completeness of environmental reporting. Also, management of green technology and ecodesign, and leveraging green supply chain management and green communication to stakeholders, are to be considered. In last named part, what is happening in the world outside the company, is analyzed; this includes looking at what the competition is doing. Also, in the environmental field being better than the competition is highly relevant for the customers of a business; in practice it is even more important than scoring well in absolute terms. It should be noted that the opposite holds true for stakeholders such as NGOs and academia; here, green is considered in absolute terms rather than relative ones. For take-back and treatment, getting environmental and economic facts forms the basis of any strategy-making process. If the internal skills to do so are insufficient, cooperation can be sought with recyclers and academia; today, searching on the Internet is of great help as well. In this way the end-of-life properties of products brought to market can be established. Benchmarking with respect to products of competitors will allow strategy makers to learn how to improve and to identify sources of competitive advantage. Combining such data with the parts of the SWOT analysis that are relevant for take-back and treatment creates end-of-life strategies that match well with the business and its outside stakeholders.

Road maps A road map is a further specification of the environmental strategy in the form of items, a timetable for the realization of targets, and the factors

25.2 Corporate environmental strategy 677

responsible for realizing the target. For electronics companies, such road maps have six chapters: n

n

n

n

n

n

Chapter 1 is about the implementation of policies, programs, and road maps (and their updates) in the organization. Regular updates and progress/performance measurement are to be addressed as well. Chapter 2 is the business chapter and specifies items about “green” products. For take-back and treatment, this chapter addresses financial items as well. Chapter 3 is the product design chapter. It deals with ecodesign, including “design for recycling.” Chapter 4 is the manufacturing chapter. It deals with reduction in the use of utilities and materials/auxiliaries in production. Also, remanufacturing, reuse of components, and use of recycled materials are located here. Chapter 5 is specifically about programs relating to ISO 14001 implementation and the realization of internal targets. Also, the status/progress of take-back programs is considered in this chapter. Chapter 6 is about the organization, deployment and education, and budget performance of environmental activities. External communication also can be positioned under this heading.

Good environmental road maps, including specific items for take-back and treatment, have proved in practice to be a very powerful tool for managing activities. Progress in performance can be measured in an easy way as well. For instance, Philips Consumer Electronics (Boks and Stevels, 2002) has introduced an environmental key performance indicator (EKPI) that is defined as follows:

EKPI (%) ¼ SAi* score per item. In this formula, Ai is the weight of importance of road map item i. The sum of all As totals 100%. The score item can be: 1 ¼ OK ¼ “green” or 0.5 ¼ more or less fulfilled ¼ “yellow” or 0 ¼ not fulfilled ¼ “red” Values for Ai are to be dependent on product characteristics, the maturity of environmental implementation in the business, and legislation. Ai can be changed as a function of time and are therefore flexible. In this way, maximum relevance for EKPI is ensured. Therefore, EKPI can be (and is) used to score the environmental parts of incentive schemes for (senior) executives.

678 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

25.3 PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS, TAKE-BACK, AND TREATMENT 25.3.1 Environmental priorities in end-of-life treatments In practice for electronic products, materials recycling is the dominant endof-life treatment. From a purely environmental perspective it ranks fourth in the hierarchy of preferred end-of-life destinations. The complete priority ranking is given in Table 25.1 (see also Stevels, 2007, Chapter 7). This table gives priority to each end-of-life strategy based purely on environmental concerns. It does not account for technical and value chain feasibility considerations or cost aspects. Most likely, such issues play important roles in practice. Nevertheless, it was determined worthwhile to investigate under what conditions higher-ranking strategies (1e3) can be implemented. A first attempt to do this qualitatively was made in 2000 by Rose. Type of ownership, product price, size, weight, and average use time were identified as the main parameters for determining the best strategy possible. Apart from product characteristics, value chain issues, such as relations with suppliers, recyclers, and secondhand markets, were demonstrated in the same work to have big impacts on identifying the best strategy.

Table 25.1 Environmental hierarchy of end-of-life strategies for products discarded by their first owners Priority rank 1. Prevent discarding 2. Reuse of product a. reuse as complete product b. reuse after servicing c. reuse after remanufacturing 3. Reuse of parts of product a. reuse of subassemblies b. reuse of components 4. Material recycling a. back to original application b. in lower-grade applications c. back to feedstock (plastics) 5. Energy reuse (use as fuel, plastics) 6. Incineration a. with energy recovery b. without energy recovery 7. Disposal as waste a. controlled b. uncontrolled

25.3 Product characteristics, take-back, and treatment 679

The same study by Rose focused on the quantitative differences between different end-of-life strategies. Taking disposal of the existing product as a baseline scenario, the environmental gains of applying higher-ranking end-of-life strategies were calculated (Rose, 2000). To make the calculations, several assumptions had to be made, and as such can be contested to a certain extent. However, the primary goal was to get a feel for the order of magnitude of differences in environmental load when applying different scenarios. For 2800 TVs, this led to the outcome shown in Table 25.2. It is concluded from this table that for scenarios 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4a, the environmental gains with respect to disposal are substantial. Based on these calculations, scenarios 1, 3a, and 3b also can be expected to show substantial gains. Taking scenario 4a (materials recycling with disassembly where appropriate) as a baseline, the gains of reuse scenarios with respect to materials recycling are limited; even doubling the product lifetime provides only a 30% gain against the recycling scenario alone. There is a significant difference in the environmental effects of end-of-life strategies for TVs between scenarios 1e4a and 4be7. This split is between materials recycling with disassembly and materials recycling with shredding/separation only. It is important to realize that all gains in Table 25.2 are small, particularly compared with the total life-cycle impact for 2800 TVs (without any recycling or reuse bonus), which is approximately 4000 millipoints (Rose et al., 2002). This is largely due to energy consumption in the use phase, which accounts for 80% of the environmental load of this type of product. The study therefore concludes that the first priority is to pay attention to the energy consumption of new-generation TV products rather than to improving reuse characteristics. For other electronic products, calculations have been made that lead to conclusions similar to those just mentioned.

Table 25.2 Environmental gains of end-of-life scenarios for 28" TV with disposal (scenario 7) as a baseline Scenario 2a. Reuse (doubling lifetime) 2b. Service (extended lifetime 4 years) 2c. Remanufacture 4a. Recycle (disassembly) 4b. Recycle (shred/separate only) 7. Disposal

Environmental gain (according to Eco-indicator 95 method) 396 357 344 291 77 baseline

680 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

Table 25.3 Comparison of environmental impact of materials and processing of components/subassemblies Component

Material impact (%)

Processing impact (%)

IC Diode Line output transformer Deflection unit 28” TV FR-2 print with copper strips Electrical condensators Connector Potentiometer Copper wire Surface-mount device components

80 19 91 99 74

20 81 9 1 26

69 56 88 96 51

31 44 12 4 49

In a second study, efforts have been made to determine the relative merit of reuse strategies for subassemblies/components and materials. In such calculations, the environmental impact of producing materials in component/subassembly is determined (the “material” impact). This result is compared with the impact associated with manufacturing those materials to achieve appropriate form and function (the “processing” impact). The results are given in Table 25.3. It is concluded from this table that for most components the material impact is much higher than the processing impact. This suggests that the environmental difference between a material (only) recycling strategy and a reuse strategy will be relatively small. Combined with the fact that almost all discarded products are suitable for recycling, this makes having a strategy in place aimed at the recycling of products is an effective baseline for the conservation of resources and value. On top of that, strategies to achieve higher levels of reuse, for quite a few electronic products, is an environmental bonus. The deciding factors for doing so in practice are often economic aspects (for instance, there are only small environmental gains but bigger profits in the reuse of subassemblies/components as opposed to the recycling of materials) and value chain factors (reuse of these components is profitable, but an appropriate value chain cannot be organized).

25.3 Product characteristics, take-back, and treatment 681

25.3.2 Product characteristics and reuse/ remanufacturing strategies Although Section 25.3.1 concludes that applying end-of-life strategies that rank higher than materials recycling brings relatively small environmental gains with respect to that baseline, there is still a gain in absolute terms. If this absolute gain can be combined with (substantial) gains in an economic sense, there is a strong rationale to go for high-level strategies. Rose (2000) and Rose et al. (2002) have investigated this issue in great depth. Primarily, product characteristics have been related to preferred end-of-life strategies. By using numerical values for the characteristics and applying a calculation program, preferred end-of-life strategies can be obtained. In this end-of-life design advisor program, the following parameters play a role: n

n

n

n

n

Wear-out life: Long wear-out life is correlated with lower-level reuse strategies such as materials recycling unless wear-out is concentrated in a few parts/products with degraded functionality that are therefore difficult to sell. A study by van Nes (2003) showed that on average, wear-and-tear is 45% of the cause of discarding by first owners. This percentage is much higher than average for refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, and washing machines. Technology cycles: Short cycles for technology in products are favorable for high-level reuse strategies; the resulting products can be sold to customers who are not so much interested in the latest technology or who have low budgets. The van Nes study shows that on average, 30% of electronics fall into this category, with computers and phones scoring much higher percentages. Level of integration: High levels of parts integration make high-level reuse strategies problematic due to technical problems. Number of parts: For products with a high number of parts, materials recycling will most commonly be applied because of the high costs involved in making these products suitable again for secondhand markets. Design cycle: The potential for higher levels of reuse is high with short design cycles; products will be sold to customers who are not interested in the latest design.

It should be realized that these strategy recommendations are based on product characteristics only. In practice, there can be quite a few other reasons why users want to dispose of their products. An important one is change in civil status (marriage/divorce, death) or removal, which accounts for 15% of disposals on average (van Nes, 2003). The prospects

682 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

for realizing a higher level of reuse for this category turned out to be quite mixed. This is different for the last category considered by van Nesd discarding products simply because new ones have come to market, the product is not liked anymore, or simply because people want to spend money on new items. To make the right strategy, it is recommended that companies collect information about why people discard their products. The next step to be taken, if the potential for high reuse levels has been identified, is to find markets for such products. It should be realized that even if the conditions for success as far as product characteristics and markets are fulfilled, there can be obstacles in the internal value chain. In many companies there is a widespread belief that selling new products only is the right strategy even in an era where the “circular economy” idea is gaining ground. It is concluded in this section that strategies for the reuse of products can be economically successful if the product characteristics sketched, as in the preceding discussion, for the resulting “postconsumer” products allow for this. Apart from that, market conditions must be considered as well. Most markets for electronic products are characterized by a fast increase in functionality over time. The functionality ambitions of customers go along with that. This also holds for the category of customers with an interest in postuse products. Therefore, in practice only high-end products returned by first users before the end of the technology cycle will be successful candidates for reuse/remanufacturing. For computers and telecom products, the increased-functionality ambition is high, so there is quite a lot of potential for this category. The opposite holds true for washing machines and refrigerators; TVs fall somewhere in between.

25.3.3 Market characteristics and reuse/ remanufacturing strategies Applying strategies to increase remanufacturing can be highly beneficial if the hardware business is to be combined with consumables or software. Examples of this are inkjet printers requiring brand-specific ink cartridges and game consoles requiring software. In such cases, most of the profit is made through consumables and/or software. It therefore pays to maximize the “fleet in the market.” Even if there is a financial deficit in remanufacturing, the total business proposition can be quite positive. Such a strategy can be enhanced by actively promoting trade-in/trade-up schemes for first users; in this way the number of products with an age lower than the length of the technology cycle can be substantially increased. In a proprietary study

25.3 Product characteristics, take-back, and treatment 683

(Rose et al., 2002), the authors demonstrated that such a combination of strategies can be environmentally beneficial and economically attractive. Implementation failed, however, because the company concerned decided to sell only new products. Active engagement in remanufacturing and reuse can also be realized through subcontracting with third parties that specialize in the field. When the flow of goods is sufficiently controlled, the risks of damage to brand image and of price erosion caused by new market launches are quite low. However, if there is no such control, and discarded goods are exported to second or third world countries before remanufacturing and reuse, there is much more potential for negative fallout. This happened, for instance, when the borders of Eastern Europe opened in 1990. This is relevant today as well; although the export of e-waste is forbidden by the Basel Convention, export for reuse is allowed in most cases. It is estimated that in the Netherlands, some 15% of total WEEE disappears from the country through (il)legal exports. It is suspected that most of this will end up in the informal recycling sector or will be improperly reused; in practice, very little of it will end up in state-of-the-art remanufacturing, or even worse, is likely to end up in an uncontrolled waste dump in the country to which it is exported. Despite this, there is considerable potential for the reuse and remanufacturing of products in the developed world. This can be concluded by comparing the figures for units sold and number in the market. For TVs, this points to a period of 8 years for first use. The average life at discarding, however, is 12 years. This suggests a large amount of secondary use. Other indications are the observation that the amount of discarded products coming back through trade is relatively low. Apparently, in this sector there is a business in postconsumer goods. Also, trading of goods returned at municipal recycling centers occursdin some countries in Europe, municipalities even have official contracts with dealers in secondary goods (or have export contracts). All of this takes place outside the channels used by producers; the author’s opinion is that there would be environmental potential and added value if producers engaged themselves more actively in secondary markets. This potential is bigger than may be anticipated from numbers alone. Many users feel negatively about a brand when products must be discarded completely because of something that is perceived by them as (or really is) a minor defect. Also, high examination and repair costs create frustration. Even if a product really must be discarded, there is still the idea that it has value. Producers who can deal well with such issues generate significant goodwill and brand loyalty as a result.

684 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

Add-ons to these secondary consumer markets could be created by including returns from business-to-business commercial activities and repaired production rejects. Even in such cases, reuse and remanufacturing activities will stay relatively limited. The WEEE Directive therefore rightly focuses on materials recycling.

25.4 WEEE DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION, MATERIALS RECYCLING, AND CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY 25.4.1 Introduction It was explained in the previous sections that a comprehensive corporate environmental strategy in the field of take-back and treatment entails much more than just implementation of the WEEE Directive. Compliance with the WEEE Directive is basically a defensive item. However, it is a defensive item that is in constant flux. This is because many of the ideas behind the WEEE Directive are excellent, but optimizing its implementation is complicated. This requires that issues in the field of collection, treatment, and upgrading must be addressed jointly. Moreover, priorities must be setd for instance, between optimum material recovery and securing toxic control. Another hot issue is how to deal with the informal sector inside and outside the EU. This sector is processing large WEEE volumes as well (Huisman et al., 2010). Member states have struggled as a result, and unfortunately this has resulted in big differences in the forms that companies presently use to realize compliance. Simultaneously, the amount of e-waste collected and processed must increase substantially. This could result in a situation where companies will no longer join forces to maximize environmental results but rather to keep rising costs under control. How the concept of the circular economy will impact take-back and treatment is unsure for the time being. In this concept, “critical materials” have a special position. Most of these occur in low concentrations in current electronic products. To recoup these with a high yield while keeping efficiencies for the chief constituents, new processes will need to be developed. Whatever happens, new treatment rules and implementation practices must be developed. Moreover, there will be changes in transportation costs, the material compositions of products, and technologies for treatment. Also, the prices that can be obtained for secondary materials or that must be paid for residual waste will change, resulting in additional dynamics. All these matters mean that companies must have detailed knowledge about all these items in order to position themselves optimally in discussions and to make the best choices within the latitude that the future WEEE Directive allows.

25.4 WEEE Directive implementation, materials recycling, and corporate environmental strategy 685

25.4.2 Data needed for making a waste electrical and electronic equipment strategy In this section, lists of items about which data can be helpful in making the take-back and treatment strategy of an organization are presented. This is not an exhaustive list; neither is completeness required to make decisions. For each item, it is mentioned where the data can be helpful. Products and treatments Product characteristics: n

Total weight of product

n

Constituent materials

n

Presence of toxics that have been specifically removed or could increase the cost of disposal of residuals Product architecture, number and type of fixtures

n

Determination of recycling efficiency Comparison with competitors/ products Potential of material reduction (ecodesign) Material composition of product Presence of critical materials Value of secondary materials Determination of recycling efficiency (physical, economic, environmental) Cost, cost reduction potential

Disassembly cost Cost reduction potential from simplification of architecture

Collection of products: n

Amounts of products discarded in relation to products sold 10 years ago

n

Reason for discarding

n

Age of products handed in

Cost of take-back and treatment Position on payment on basis of return volume or on basis of market share today Opportunities for reuse/remanufacturing or life-extension services Potential for competitive advantage

Treatment of products: n n n

Economies of scale of recyclers Availability of latest e-treatment technology Possibility to perform company-specific treatment, return/supply of secondary materials

Cost of treatment Environmental performance, cost Competitive advantage

(Continued)

686 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

Secondary streams resulting from treatment: n n

n

Leverage recyclers versus secondary stream upgrades Structure of stream combination or separation Final destination of secondary streams

Cost of treatment Cost and environmental performance Environmental performance

Data sets n

Environmental data set (for instance, eco-indicators):

n n n

n

Determination of environmental performance Setting priorities for recycling versus toxic control Proving environmental improvement or equivalency of actions in ecodesign, technology, or system organization Support of discussions with stakeholders

Prices/cost data set (per member state): n

(Secondary) materials

n

Transportation costs Recycling costs Overhead cost of PROs Administrative costs

n n n

Choices of transportation companies, recyclers, PROs (professional recycling organizations) Identifying best practices

Data about competition: n

Products

n

System operation

Identify opportunities for competitive advantage Identify partners for cooperation

25.4.3 Issue lists for making decisions on WEEE Directive implementation The issues listed in the following table are to be decided based on the data just mentioned; to be effective as an organization, priorities must be set. Although the WEEE Directive works out differently in member states of the EU, and interpretation of the basic rules and provisions is different as well, it is the author’s experience that as little differentiation as possible should be allowed inside the organization.

25.4 WEEE Directive implementation, materials recycling, and corporate environmental strategy 687

Business issuesdoptimization of the environmental gain/cost ratio: n

n n

n n n

Realizing economies of scale in all take-back and treatment operations Using best available technologies in treatment Apply ecodesign o Fewer materials o Less material diversity o Application of secondary material o Fewer potential toxic substances o Simplify product architecture Get fees from customers for take-back and treatment Explore reuse/remanufacturing and life-extension services Let take-back from private consumers piggyback on take-back from business customers

Increase gain/cost ratio

Increase gain/cost ratio

Chiefly environmental gain in take-back, mostly cost reductions elsewhere in the company

Cost reduction New business Mostly cost reduction

WEEE Directive implementation issues: n

Involve PROs (collective systems)

n

Mixed system (mixture of collective/individual) Differentiation of system choice depending on size of member state Get cross-border solution

n

n

Improve gain/cost ratio Reduce complexity for own organization

For optimum results in gain/cost complexity reduction Environmental gains (secondary stream processing) Economies of scale

Debate issues (industry federations, other stakeholders, member states/ Commission/European Parliament): n n n n

n

harmonization of rules clarifying of definitions attribution of (shared) responsibilities simplification of WEEE Directive by splitting between a basic directive and implementation rules that can be updated with faster procedures differentiation according to environmental priorities (e.g., recycling versus toxic control)

688 CHAPTER 25 Creating a corporate environmental strategy

n n n n n n

how to close the gap with RoHS scope of the Directive collection amounts treatment (recycling quotes, Annex II) fees guarantees

Future issues (“what if”): n n

raw materials prices go up strongly China opens its borders for recycling

25.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The take-back and treatment of discarded products is only part of a comprehensive environmental strategy. For electronic products, its potential to contribute to reducing the environmental load of products is relatively small. However, since the ramifications of addressing reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling can be substantial in environmental, business, and customer satisfaction terms, it is worthwhile to consider take-back and treatment in considerable detail. Owing to this interlinkage, first the making of environmental strategies is considered. Subsequently, take-back and treatment aspects are considered. It is concluded that product characteristics determine the best strategy to a large extent. Because of the large variety of such characteristics, the optional strategies followed by companies will be quite diverse. This holds for reuse, remanufacturing, recycling, and even for the control of potential toxics. Because the WEEE Directive is basically still a “one size fits all” approach developed on principles rather than science, in practice there are many issues linked to achieving maximum environmental gain at minimum cost. To make the best of this complicated situation, it is recommended that data are collected about product characteristics, discarding and collection, potential treatments, and (upgrading of) secondary streams. Combined with data about environmental effects and price/cost, this will allow businesses to come to the most eco-efficient solutions. These solutions primarily apply to business issues related to take-back and treatment generally, and more specifically to WEEE Directive implementation issues. However, the data will also be helpful for finding positions in debates with other stakeholders, including industry itself. The WEEE Directive is still in full development, so looking to data-based “what if” scenarios will be helpful for business and society.

References 689

REFERENCES Boks, C.B., Stevels, A.L.N., 2002. Managing sustainability in electronic companies. In: Proceedings from TSPD’02: The 7th International Conference on Towards Sustainable Product Design (London, 28e29 October). Huisman, J., 2010. The Dutch WEEE Flows. See. http://ec.europa.eceu/environment/ waste/weee/pdf/Report_Dutch_WEEE_Flows. Pascual, O., Stevels, A.L.N., 2006. Maximizing profitability with ecovalue. In: Nagasawa, S., Hayashi, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of Eco Design 2006 Asia Pacific Symposium. NPO EcoDesign Promotion Network, Tokyo, pp. 131e137. Rose, C.M., 2000. Design for Environment: A Method for Formulating Product End-of-life Strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Manufacturing Modeling Lab, Stanford. Rose, C.M., Ishii, K., Stevels, A.L.N., 2002. Influencing design to improve product end-oflife stage. Research in Engineering Design 13, 83e93. Stevels, A.L.N., 2000. Green marketing of consumer electronics. In: Proceedings from EGC ’00: The Joint International Congress and Exhibition on Electronics Goes Green (Berlin, 10e12 September). Stevels, A.L.N., 2007. Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronic Products: 1993e2007 (Design for Sustainability Lab, Publ. No. 17). Delft University of Technology, Delft. van Nes, N., 2003. Replacement of Durables (Ph.D. dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

This page intentionally left blank

Index ‘Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” indicate figures and “t” indicate tables.’

A A336. See Aliquat336 (A336) AATFs. See Approved authorized treatment facilities (AATFs) ABS. See Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) AC. See Alternating current (AC) Access-based business model, 667 Accountability of stakeholders, 556e558 Accreditation for reuse centers, 273 WEEELABEX, 191 Acid leaching, kinetics and mechanisms of, 407 Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), 233, 286, 306e307 Active disassembly (AD), 279e280 Active informal sector, 548 Ad hoc tools, 65 Adaptronics, 477 Administrative burden, 116e117 Advance recycling fee (ARF), 490e491 Advanced spectroscopic techniques, 236 Advanced waste management systems, 511 Aesthetics, 465 Agglomeration, 300e301 Air conditioners, 580 table sorting, 294e295 tabling method, 306 Aliquat336 (A336), 408e409 “All actors report” approach, 66e67, 118e119 “All actors” model, 166e167 Alternating current (AC), 219 Alternative bonding technologies, 221 Amazon Kindle, 478 Ammonia, 407 Amorphous silicon (A-Si), 243 Antimony, 467 Antimony tin oxide, 251 Apparetour pilot project (1997), 652e653 Applicability, 545te546t

Applied EcoDesign Group Research at DUT, 655e657 Approved authorized treatment facilities (AATFs), 339, 349 Aqueous systems, 384 ARF. See Advance recycling fee (ARF) ATSDR. See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Attention, continuous, 33e34, 118e119, 159, 163 Attributing responsibilities, 659 Auditing/audits, 185e186, 194, 201 costs, 195e196 effective, 164 preparing for future, 161e162 real-time, 166e167 Auditor toolbox, 185e186, 191 WEEELABEX, 201e202 Authorized dealers, 560t Authorized dismantler, 560t Authorized recycler, 560t Authorized refurbisher, 560t Autodesk integrated ecomaterials assessment, 466 Automated processes for LCD recycling, 341e344 automated disassembly processes, 342e344 automated LCD recycling facility, 343f Automated separation and sorting of WEEE polymers, 291e292 Automatic disassembly, 477 Awareness and education, 168e175 end user education, 168e173 training needs, 173e175

B B04 WEEELABEX Guidance Document, 200 Backlight units (BLUs), 349e350 Banning polluting practices, 105e106 Barium (Ba), 401 Basel Ban Amendment, 106

Basel Conference of Parties (Basel COP 9), 9 Basel Convention, 4, 8e9, 42, 72, 106, 569 amendments, 581e582 BAT. See Best available technology (BAT) Batteries, 69e70, 371e372 recycling processes examples, 380t technology, 245 BBP. See Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) BEPs. See Best environmental practices (BEPs) Berlin’s Electronics, 11 Best available technology (BAT), 531e532 Best environmental practices (BEPs), 531e532 Best-of-2-Worlds approach (Bo2W approach), 69e72, 84e86, 106e107, 125, 129, 134 BFRs. See Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) Bill of materials check (BOMcheck), 644 Biochips, 476 Biodegradable materials, 454 Biodiversity and protection of natural areas, 465 Bioleaching method, 321 Biomimicry, 477 BIS. See UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 210 Bismuth, 467 Blowing agent recovery, 359e360 BLUs. See Backlight units (BLUs) Bo2W approach. See Best-of-2-Worlds approach (Bo2W approach) BOMcheck. See Bill of materials check (BOMcheck) Bonusemalus systems, 655 British Standards Institute (BSI), 273 Brominated flame retardants (BFRs), 236, 522 BS 8887 standard, 273

691

692 Index

Bulk consumer, obligations for, 545te546t Business. See also Circular economy economics of WEEELABEX project, 193e196 and finance, 120e128 for emerging countries, 125e127 for established countries, 127e128 for starting countries, 121e123 models, 265e266, 673 plan development for dismantlers, 123 Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), 210 (1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide) (C4mim)(Tf2N), 410

C C&F appliances. See Cooling and freezing appliances (C&F appliances) Cadmium, 4e5, 219, 249, 522 Cadmium telluride (CdTe), 243 Calcination of phosphors with alkali materials, 411e412 Calcium (Ca), 401 halophosphate phosphor, 400e401 Capacity development, 571 Carbon dioxide (CO2), 409 Carbon nanotubes, 251 Catalytic hydrogenation, 320e321 Cathode ray tubes (CRTs), 5, 198, 327e328, 394e395, 525 CRT-based televisions, 232e233 glass, 69e70, 110e111 CCFLs. See Cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) CEAMA. See Consumer Electronics and Appliances Manufacturers Association (CEAMA) Cementation method, 387 CEN. See European Committee for Standardization (CEN) CENELEC. See European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) Central government ministries, 560t Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 552, 560t CFCs. See Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

CFLs. See Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM), 350 Cherry-picking, 556 China environmental problems, 581e582 experience extracted from past adventure environmental performance of ewaste recycling, 530e531 resource performance of e-waste recycling, 527e530 status of e-waste recycling industry, 526e527 summary of experience, 531e532 exploration history, 524 1990e2002, 524 2003e2010, 525 2011 and forward, 525 WEEE management catalogue of WEEE recycling in, 523f e-waste generation quantity evolution, 525e526 eco-design for environment, 534 expanding of e-waste recycling industry, 533e534 imbalance between fund levies and subsidies, 532e533 new catalogue of e-waste, 535, 535f procedure of subsidies utilization, 533 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 4e5, 18e21, 292, 359e360, 364, 530, 576, 657 CFC-free polyurethane powder, 368e369 recovery, 368 Chloroform, 402 Chromium, 4e5 CIGS. See Copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) Circular economy, 468e469, 593, 613e615, 665e667, 684 leasing businesses, 614 leasing industry role, 615 preshipment testing, 614e615 repair and refurbishment, 614 strategy, 592e595

product reuse and recycling, 593e594 recycle materials and increasing recycled content, 594e595 CIWM. See Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) Cleaner waste fractions, 484e485 Cleaning equipment, 469 Closed-loop concepts, 477e478 CoLaBATS FP7 project, 257 Cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs), 220, 238e239, 331e334, 333f, 346, 394e396 Collection, 60e68, 135 center, 560t collective responsibility, 101e102 emerging countries, 62e64 established countries, 64e66 examples of e-waste quantifications, 66e68, 66f guidelines and standards for collection centers, 112 improving quality of collection volumes, 117 mechanism, 545te546t rate, 506, 576e577 starting countries, 61e62 target, 104 and options, 110 “Collector”, 103e104 guidelines and standards for, 112 Commercial batteries, 373te374t Communication, 462 and branding, 12 to business owners, 172 Community’s environmental objectives, 486 Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), 220, 555 Competitive bidding process, 654 Complementary WEEE streams, 659e660 Complex systems, 29 Component reuse, 264e265 comparison of options in, 266e269 Computers refurbishment, 269e271 refurbishment, 269e270 remanufacturing, 270e271 repair, 269 upgrade, 271

Index 693

Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente (CONAMA), 375e378 Consultation forum, 432 Consumables, 458 Consumer(s), 121, 490t awareness, 452e453 and bulk consumers, 560t involvement, 170 organizations, 451 products, 628, 632 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Manufacturers Association (CEAMA), 560t Consumption domains, 444e445 of energy, 464 of resources, 464 Contradictions, 152 Cooling and freezing appliances (C&F appliances), 67e68 CFC-containing, 68 scavenging of, 67f Cooperation improvement, 118e120 with other compliance organizations for other waste streams, 119e120 between Philips and DUT, 651e652 Copper, 312 mines, 223 technology for recovery of, 319e321 Copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), 242e243 Corporate environmental strategy making environmental strategy, 673e674 road maps vision, 676e677 strategy, 675e676 vision, 674e675 WEEE Directive implementation, materials recycling, and, 684e688 philosophy, 624 substance and material management, 643 Corrosion resistance, 465 Cost auditing, 195e196 labor, 134 market share compliance, 122 quality, 577e580 return share compliance, 123 savings, 279

Countering WEEE Illegal Trade project (CWIT project), 4, 42e43, 61, 65, 88, 106, 159, 252 Country e-waste development status, 22e24 Country status assessment, 36 Country-specific problem, 46e47 CPCB. See Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Cradle-to-cradle concepts, 453 Critical materials, 28 Critical raw materials (CRMs), 166e167, 231e232, 247, 257 Critical-to-quality specifications, 665 CRTs. See Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) Crushing operations, 379 technology, 316 Crystal radio, 472 Customer attitudes, 674e675 demand, 274e275, 277e278 Cutting methods, 316 CWIT project. See Countering WEEE Illegal Trade project (CWIT project) Cyclopentane, 360

D DAA. See Dodecyl ammonium acetate (DAA) Danish population and WEEE statistics, 515t Danish Producer Responsibility System, 502e503 Dansk Producentansvars System (DPA System), 502e503, 504t Data for enforcement, 162e163 for making WEEE strategy, 685e686 DBP. See Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) DC. See Direct current (DC) decaBDE, 246 Defensive actions, 675 DEFRA. See UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Degassing processes, requirements for, 362e363 DEHP. See Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

Delft University of Technology (DUT), 651e652 Denmark, WEEE management in collected WEEE and recovery, 505e506, 505f Danish WEEE recovery infrastructure, 503e505 legislative implementation, 502e503, 503t management system and stakeholders, 502e503, 504t Dense medium separation (DMS), 379 centrifugation separation research, 400 Densification, 300e301 Depollution, 433 of hazardous components, 315 Design cycle, 681 Design elements, 462 Design feedback, 159e160, 175e179 design for recycling, 176e177 GPP, 178 information to recyclers, 178e179 Design for disassembly (DfD), 277, 338 Design for environment feedback (DfE feedback), 579e580 Design for recycling (DfR), 144e145, 176e177, 434, 437te439t, 461 possibilities, 159e160 requirements, 42 Design for sustainability (DfS), 444, 448f, 453e463 life cycle thinking and systems thinking, 453e454 movement, 446e447 reuse and recycling of electric/ electronic products, 460e463 tools and rules for, 454e458, 455fe456f use phase of electronic products, 458e459 Detoxification, 653 “Developers Kit”, 250e251 Development cycle, 163, 166 Development project funds, 122 DfD. See Design for disassembly (DfD) DfE feedback. See Design for environment feedback (DfE feedback) DfR. See Design for recycling (DfR) DfS. See Design for sustainability (DfS) Di-iodomethane (CH2I2), 400 DIBP. See Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP)

694 Index

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), 210 Differentiated recycling fees, 661 Digital divide, 3 DIGITALEUROPE, 189 Digitalization, 475e476 Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), 210 N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF), 402e403 DIN, 273 N,N-Dioctyldiglycol amic acid (DODGAA), 410 Dioxins, 132 Direct current (DC), 219 Directive 2002/95/EC restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS 1), 208 Directives for batteries, 376te377t worldwide for spent batteries, 372e378 Disassembly, 433 benchmark TVs, 652t designs, 435 processes, 264e265 technologies, 315 Disc compactor, 300 Discrete element method, 411 Dismantlers, business plan development for, 123 Dismantling, 316, 318e319 of hazardous components, 315 Disposal/recycling, 636 Dissipative resource loss, 436e439 Dissolution methods, 236e237 Distributors, 490t, 504t DIY kit. See Do-it-yourself kit (DIY kit) DMF. See N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) DMS. See Dense medium separation (DMS) Do-it-yourself kit (DIY kit), 472 radio, 475f Dodecyl ammonium acetate (DAA), 400e401 DODGAA. See N,N-Dioctyldiglycol amic acid (DODGAA) Door-to-door collection, 550 DOTCOM.waste project, 43, 174 DPA System. See Dansk Producentansvars System (DPA System) Duplication of activities, 14

DUT. See Delft University of Technology (DUT) Dutch Association for Recycling of Metal/Electronic Products, 654 Dutch Future Flows study, 49 Dutch take-back and recycling law and implementation (1998), 653e655 Dutch Wecycle school project, 171

E e-Stewards, 603 E-waste, 1e2, 4e5, 394e395, 550 catalogue, 535, 535f complexity, 27e29 development cycle, 18, 32e36, 33f assessment of country status, 36 assessment vs. interventions part, 30f business & finance, 120e128 collection, 60e68 inventory of existing policies, 41e44 key development questions, 19te20t, 59t, 95t need for iterative approach, 24e32 pay adequately, 78e86 policy & legislation, 97e120 pollute less, 74e78 problem (re)definition, 44e49 readers’ guide, 18e24, 58e60, 94e97 recycling infrastructure and innovation, 68e74 repair and dismantling, 21e22 stakeholder analysis and initial consultations, 36e41 stakeholder involvement, 46t technologies & skills, 128e136 work safer, 86e88 exchange/PRO, 545te546t future trends, 14e15 generation, 252 problems associating with, 3e7 global perspective, 6e7 local “backyard” techniques, 5e6 quantifications, 60e68, 66f recyclers, 318 recycling improper techniques, 226 standards, 112 synergizing E-waste initiatives, 14 E-waste Academy for Managers, 174

E-Waste (Management) Amendment Rules (2018), 560 E-waste management in India current WEEE management scenario active informal sector, 548 challenges for WEEE management, 553e554 emergence of producer responsibility organizations, 551e553 models of collaboration between formal and informal sectors, 553e558 nascent formal industry, 550e551 SWOT, 556 comparison between E-waste rules 2011 and 2016/2018, 566e570 compliance with rules, 570 EEE and WEEE growth drivers, 542e544 lessons and recommendations, 568e571 policy and legislation, 558e561 current E-waste Rules, 544 e-waste rules evolution in India, 559t, 566 regulatory framework, 561 stakeholder map, 567 WEEE legislative framework, 544 E-waste Management Rules, 550, 552 E-waste Rules, 567 evolution in India, 559t, 566 extended producer responsibility in, 560b E-way bill, 571 EA. See Environment Agency (EA) eBay, 308 ECHA. See European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Eco-efficiency, 84e86, 116, 656e657 of WEEE treatment scenarios in China, 85f Eco-indicators, 673 “Eco-report” tool, 436e439 EcoDesign, 254, 447e453, 645 drivers for, 447e453 eco and sustainable design of electronic products, 479, 479t eco and sustainable supply chain management, 451 ecolabels and social labels, 450e451 “Ecodesign Directive”, 423e424

Index 695

for environment, 534 Group at DUT, 655e656 lifetime extension and product discarding, 656e657 QWERTY and EE concept, 656e657 uncertainty factors in product endof-life scenarios, 656 regulation, 424e425 requirements, 423e424, 431 Ecolabels, 450e451 Ecological resource value, 224 Ecom phone, 471e472 Economic. See also Business analysis for urban mining, 582e586 benefits of recycling of PCBs, 313e314 estimated benefits of energy saving, 315t costs, 555 dimension of sustainability, 28e29 economical approach, 399e400 functionality, 452e453 gains, 556 impacts, 78e86 eco-efficiency, 84e86 emerging countries, 80 established countries, 81e83 starting countries, 79e80 total intrinsic material value of scavenged components, 83f landscape, 521e522 EcoSmart software, 468e469 Ecotoxicity, 446 ECs. See Electronic components (ECs) “EE registeret”, 495e496 EEA. See European Economic Area (EEA) EEB register. See Electrical and electronic equipment and batteries register (EEB register) EEE. See Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) EEPs. See Electrical and electronic products (EEPs) "EERA. See European Electronics Recyclers Association (EERA) Effective auditing, 164 EHS management system (EHS MS), 624

EHS principle. See Environmental protection, health management, and safety principle (EHS principle) EKPI. See Environmental key performance indicator (EKPI) El-Kretsen, 499t, 500 ELC. See European Lamp Companies federation (ELC) ELCINA. See Electronic Industries Association of India (ELCINA) Electrical electrical engineering products, usage of preowned components in, 645 energy, 371 goods, 3, 6 products, 426 Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), 3e5, 18e21, 208, 283e284, 357, 358f, 372, 484, 548, 632e634, 649 crystal unit, 218f end of life, 569 estimated amounts of lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium, 216f growth drivers, 542e544 hazardous substances in placed on market after 2006, 214e220 presence in older EEE and functions, 212e214 legislative restrictions on hazardous substances in, 208e212 parts, 213f passive component using HMP solders, 218f plastics in, 213 register, 504t thermoset polymers in, 287e288 Electrical and electronic equipment and batteries register (EEB register), 499t Electrical and electronic products (EEPs), 451, 460e463, 522 Electrolytic reduction, 413 Electrometallurgy, 412e413 Electronic(s), 231e232, 330, 333, 430 devices, 478 and electrical products, 649 industry, 475e476 products, 175, 444

as enablers for socioeconomic improvements, 478 scarcity of resources in design of, 466e468 use phase, 458e459, 459t recycling practices, 554 Electronic components (ECs), 315, 472 Electronic Industries Association of India (ELCINA), 560t “Electronics Goes Green”, 256 Electrostatic separation, 379 separator, 316e317 sorting, 297e298 triboelectric condition of different polymer types, 297f Elretur, 500, 504t ELV. See End-of-life vehicle (ELV) Emerging countries, 22e24 business & finance, 125e127 collection, 62e64 economic impacts, 80 end user education, 170e173 environmental impacts, 75e77 intervention options, 148, 149t inventory of existing policies, 43 monitoring and control, 164e166 policy & legislation, 107e114 problem (re)definition, 47 recycling infrastructure and innovation, 70e73 social impacts, 87 stakeholder analysis and initial consultations, 39e41 technologies & skills, 133e135 EMG. See Environmental Management Group (EMG) Emissions, 28 of volatile organic compounds, 363e365 EMMAUS, 271e272 EN 50625e1:2014 standard, 198 End user education, 168e173 emerging and established countries, 170e173 starting countries, 170 End-of-life (EoL), 208, 273, 435e439 fee, 123 industry, 462 phase, 484 products, 3 solar panels, 244

696 Index

End-of-life (EoL) (Continued ) treatment, 433 environmental priorities in, 678e680 End-of-life vehicle (ELV), 584 End-processing, 132e133 of fractions, 68 fractions, 125 and managing different fractions, 134 Energy consumption, 449, 458e459 Energy Starelabeled products, 450 energy-efficient e-ink technology, 472 Energy-related products (ErP), 424, 429f comparisonn withWEEE approaches, 433e435 Directive, 425e430, 427te429t Framework Directive concept, 430e433 implementation and coverage of EOL aspects, 435e439 trends leading to ecodesign regulation, 424e425 Energy-using products (EuP), 423e424 Directive, 449 Enforcement data for, 162e163 information management for, 165 law, 174e175 Engineering polymers, 285e286 Environment Agency (EA), 255, 351 Environment(al) assessment, 469 benefits, 664 costs, 555 criteria, 471 eco-design for, 534 gains, 556 impacts, 74e78, 430 emerging countries, 75e77 established countries, 78 starting countries, 74e75 labelling approach, 430 performance of e-waste recycling, 530e531 perspective, 424 policy, 484e485 pollution, 320e321 priorities in end-of-life treatments, 678e680 sound product design, 644e645 strategy

corporate, 673e677 take-back and treatment in, 672e673 weighted equivalents, 110e111 Environmental key performance indicator (EKPI), 677 Environmental Management Group (EMG), 6e7, 10e11 Environmental product declaration (EPD), 637 Environmental protection (EP), 621 principles and guidelines for, 624e625 Siemens access to, 621e622 by Siemens and Siemens Healthineers, 645 specifications for environmentally compatible product and system design, 622e624 WEEE as environmental protection strategy, 620e621 Environmental protection, health management, and safety principle (EHS principle), 624 Environmental Protection Act. See Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 256, 502e503, 567 Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB), 531e532 EoL. See End-of-life (EoL) EP. See Environmental protection (EP) EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPB. See Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) EPD. See Environmental product declaration (EPD) EPEAT program, 178 EPR. See Extended producer responsibility (EPR) EPR/IPR. See Extended producer responsibility and individual producer responsibility (EPR/ IPR) Erema system, 301, 301f ErP. See Energy-related products (ErP) ERP. See European Recycling Platform (ERP) Escape routes, 103e104 Established countries. See also Starting countries business & finance, 127e128

collection, 64e66 economic impacts, 81e83 end user education, 170e173 environmental impacts, 78 intervention options, 149e150, 150t inventory of existing policies, 44 monitoring and control, 166e168 policy & legislation, 114e120 problem (re)definition, 48e49 recycling infrastructure and innovation, 73e74 social impacts, 88 stakeholder analysis and initial consultations, 39e41 with take-back systems, 22e24 technologies & skills, 135e136 EU. See European Union (EU) EuCertPlast, 664 EuP. See Energy-using products (EuP) Europe European CENELEC standards, 112 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), 256 European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), 112, 189 and afterlife of WEEELABEX standards, 199e200 European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 199e200 European Economic Area (EEA), 489 European Electronics Recyclers Association (EERA), 188e189 recyclers, 81 European Lamp Companies federation (ELC), 189 European Recycling Platform (ERP), 501, 504t, 599 Directive implementation, 424 Norway AS, 495t European refrigerator, 361 manufacturers, 360 European Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, 2011/65/ EU (RoHS 2), 208e209, 211e212, 214 European Union (EU), 3, 24, 101, 151e152, 289, 327e328, 358, 484e485, 526e527, 573e574, 579e581, 595, 625 collection results in, 607t

Index 697

EU-funded climate Knowledge Innovation Center, 173 HP WEEE experience in, 595e604 emergence of recycling standards, 602e603 experience with multiple compliance solutions, 597e599 HP’s strategy in compliance operations, 595e596 IT infrastructure for compliance management, 599e601 PROs maturity, 603e604 visible fee, 601e602 WEEE Directive implementation, 596e597 member states, 626 total cost per ton of recycling (2005), 578t WEEE Directive classes LCD equipment, 344 Forum Key Figures report, 64e65 European WEEE recovery systems, 485e487, 488t, 506e510 overall e-waste recycling rates, 507f European WEEE-CENELEC standards series 56025, 112 Evidence-based design decisions, 447 Exemption, 545te546t Export problems, 580e582 Extended producer responsibility (EPR), 98, 484e485, 511, 545te546t, 550 authorization, 560 EPR 2.0, 604e612 principles, 607e611 legislation, 604 principle, 120e121, 573e574 Extended producer responsibility and individual producer responsibility (EPR/IPR), 649 Extended supplier dialogue, 644 Extraction equilibrium expressions, 408 Extrusion processing technology, 302e304

F Fact-based approach, need for, 29e30 Fairphone, 253e254, 471 Fashion-affected products, 274e275 Federal Office for Environment of Switzerland (FOEN), 489

Feedstock recycling of PVC, 236e237 Ferrous smelters, 132 Filler types, 287e288, 288t Finance/financing, 25e27 business and, 120e128 of collection in starting countries, 128 for critical fractions, 125 systems, 511 Financial basis, 96 Financing mechanism, 122e123 Flame retardants, 4e5 in plastics, 650 Flame-resistant biodegradable PLA resin, 249e250 Flat-panel displays (FPDs), 198 Flotation sorting, 295e296 Fluidized bed process technology, 320 Fluorescent lamps (FLs). See Cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs) Fluorinated polymers, 233e234 FOEN. See Federal Office for Environment of Switzerland (FOEN) Food/agriculture, 444e445 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR spectroscopy), 236, 306 FPDs. See Flat-panel displays (FPDs) Framework Directive concept, 430e433, 432f “Free riders”, 160 “Free-fall separator”, 297, 298f Freezers, 359 Fridge techniques for separation of fridge plastics, 367e369 recycling plants, 362 FT-IR spectroscopy. See Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR spectroscopy) Functionality, 27e28 analysis, 452e453 Fund levies and subsidies, 532e533, 532f Fungal-produced organic acids, 321 Fungi, 321 Furans, 226

G Gas and oil operated products, 425e426 Geographical StEP World map, 153

German Federal Environment Agency, 345 Glass-dominated products, 657 Global E-waste. See also E-waste management initiatives, 8e13 ITU, 13 statistic partnership, 12e13 StEP, 11e12 United Nations Environment Programme, 8e11 Global E-Waste Monitor, 13, 21, 64e65 Global reverse supply chain, 21 Global Siemens EHS principles, 624 Global warming gases, 187e189 Good refurbishment practice (GRP), 639e641 Governmental bodies, 490t, 495t, 499t GPP. See Green public procurement (GPP) Granulation, size reduction and, 292e294, 293f “Graphene” technology, 347e348 Green Imperative, The, 446 Green public procurement (GPP), 159e160, 178, 430, 450 “Green” strategy actions to achieve cost reductions through, 675 actions to generate more business through, 675 green and sustainable public purchasing, 450 green washing, 452 GREENELEC project, 177 Grinding procedures, 316 GRP. See Good refurbishment practice (GRP)

H Harmonization, 188, 660, 662 “harmonized” e-waste classifications, 63 Hazardous fractions, 132 Hazardous materials/substances, 4e5, 131e132, 211, 238e239, 252, 433, 449, 464, 484 differentiated approaches for use and banning of, 227e228 in EEE, 212e220 environmental, technological, and economic impacts of RoHS substance restrictions, 220e227

698 Index

Hazardous materials/substances (Continued ) in LCDs, 344e347 liquid crystals in screens, 345 mercury-containing backlights, 346e347 legislative restrictions on, 208e212 Hazardous substances within life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP), 9e10 Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 569 HBCDD. See Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) HCFCs. See Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) HDTVs. See High-definition televisions (HDTVs) Health care products as WEEE management example, 634e642 optimizing and continuous improvement, 635e636 for Siemens Healthineers products, 637e642 Healthy People Sustainable Planet program, 649 Heavy metals, 4e5, 227e228 emission, 530 N-Heptane, 402 HewlettePackard (HP), 468e469, 592e594, 601e602 challenges with WEEE II, 604e615 WEEE management strategy circular economy strategy, 592e595 experience in Europe, 595e604 Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), 236 Hexavalent chromium, 4e5 High melting point solders (HMP solders), 215, 217e219 High-definition televisions (HDTVs), 349 High-impact polystyrene (HIPS), 233 High-quality recycling, 642 “High-tech” methods, 6 HIPS. See High-impact polystyrene (HIPS) HMP solders. See High melting point solders (HMP solders) “Homogeneous material”, 210e211 Horizontal efficiency, 223e224, 225f

Household Appliance Recycling Law in Japan, 578 Housing/energy consumption, 444e445 HSLEEP. See Hazardous substances within life cycle of electrical and electronic products (HSLEEP) Human chip implants, 476 health affecting due to physical recycling process, 317e318, 317t power, 475 electronic products, 470 Hydrochloric acid, 407 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 359 Hydrocyclone sorting process, 296e297, 296f Hydrogen peroxide, 406 Hydrometallurgical route, 383e388, 383f Hydrometallurgy, 319, 412 REE recovery by, 403e412, 404f

I ICER. See Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) ICT. See Information and communication technologies (ICT) IDSA. See Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) IEC. See International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) IEMA. See Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) IETC. See UN International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) IL. See Ionic liquid (IL) IMG. See Issue Management Group (IMG) Impact assessment, 74 Implementation road map, 154e158 awareness and education, 168e175 conditions for success, 159e160 monitoring and control, 160e168 national, 156e158 planning interventions, 155 stakeholder consultations, 155e156

visualizing intended interventions in EoL chain, 158f Implementation rules, 117e118 Importers in Swiss WEEE management system, 490t Incineration, 246 India, 548 challenges for WEEE management, 553e554 accountability of all stakeholders, 556e558 infrastructure and ecosystem challenges, 554e555 lack of financing mechanism, 555 lack of technical capacity and resources, 555e556 WEEE legislative framework in, 544 Indicative occupational exposure limit values (IOELV), 339e341 Indium, 244, 251, 467 Individual producer responsibility (IPR), 101 Individual responsibility, 101e102, 653e654 Industrial/industry ecology systems, 453 goods, 628e629 industry-led initiatives, 424 Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA), 446 Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER), 255, 351 Informal collectors, 560t Informal dismantlers, 560t Informal recyclers, 553, 560t Informal sector, 105e107 Informal-formal sector collaboration, 554 Information availability on product components, materials, and repair methods, 275e277 management for enforcement, penalties and rewards, 165 to recyclers, 178e179 Information and communication technologies (ICT), 3, 187e188, 208e209 Information technology (IT), 592, 655

Index 699

infrastructure for compliance management, 599e601 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 350 Institutional capacity development, 162 Integrated circuit evolution, 231e232 Integrated metal smelters, 132 Integrated product policy (IPP), 423e424, 449 International monitoring of export of critical fractions, 165 resource cycling practices, 581e582 International Conference on Chemical Management, 9e10 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 199e200, 246e247, 623, 632 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 451e452 ISO 14001 standard, 34 ISO 17024 standard, 201e202 ISO 17065 standard, 201e202 International Solid Waste Association, 12e13 International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 4, 13 Intervention options, 146e150 emerging countries, 148, 149t established countries, 149e150, 150t evaluation of impacts of individual, 153t grouping, 151t planning interventions, 155 starting countries, 146e148, 147t Inventory of existing policies, 41e44 emerging countries, 43 established countries, 44 starting countries, 42e43 IOELV. See Indicative occupational exposure limit values (IOELV) Ion exchange, 387 Ionic liquid (IL), 408e410 IPP. See Integrated product policy (IPP) IPR. See Individual producer responsibility (IPR) ISO. See International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Issue Management Group (IMG), 10 IT. See Information technology (IT) Iterative approach, 24e32 fact-based approach, 29e30

learning by doing, 30e32 need for balance between legislation, financing, and technologies, 25e27 ITU. See International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

J Japan, WEEE management in. See also WEEE management in China collection rate, 576e577 cost and recycling quality, 577e580 economic analysis for urban mining, 582e586 export problems, 580e582 home appliance recycling system, 574e576 Japan Electronics and information Technology Industries Association (JEITA), 350, 581

K Kabadiwallas, 551, 555, 559 Kärcher GmbH & Co. (KG), 469 Key figures (KFs), 187e188 Knowledge institutes and universities, 173

L L:D ratio. See Length-to-diameter ratio (L:D ratio) Landbell Group role in WEEE, 604 Last mile collectors (LMCs), 551 Law enforcement, 174e175 LCA. See Life-cycle assessment (LCA) LCDs. See Liquid crystal displays (LCDs) Leaching, 404e407 methods for improving leaching behavior of phosphors, 410e413 mechanochemical treatment, 411 melting or calcination of phosphors, 411e412 pressure, 409e410 procedure, 404e409 kinetics and mechanisms of acid leaching, 407 leachant selection, 404, 405t separation methods, 408e409 rate equations, 407 two-stage, 410

Lead (Pb), 4e6, 212, 215, 226, 522 lead-containing electronics, 233 lead-free soldering, 223 mines, 223 ores, 223 Learning by doing, iterative approach, 30e32, 162e163 Leasing businesses, 614 industry role in WEEE management, 615 LEDs. See Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) Legal basis, e-waste regulations, 96, 98e102 Legislative/legislation, 25e27, 274e275, 277, 449e450 framework, 510e511 implementation Denmark, WEEE management in, 502e503 Norway, WEEE management in, 493e496 Sweden, WEEE management in, 498 Switzerland, WEEE management in, 487e491 separation methods, 408e409 Length-to-diameter ratio (L:D ratio), 302 LEV. See Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) Li-ion batteries. See Lithium ion batteries (Li-ion batteries) Liability provision, 545te546t Life cycle thinking, 453e454 Life-cycle assessment (LCA), 454, 623 Lifespan, 464 Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS), 448 Lifetime extension and product discarding, 656e657 Light polarization filters, 331e333 Light-emitting diodes (LEDs), 232e233, 239, 247, 312e313, 349, 395e396, 467 LED BLU, 349e350 Light-sensitive microchips, 476 Linear manufacturing technique, 302 Liquid crystal eco-toxicity tests, 345 in screens, 345

700 Index

Liquid crystal displays (LCDs), 232e233, 237, 245, 327e328, 657 barriers to recycling, 334e335 composition and characterization, 328e334, 329f compositional analysis of 1500 LCD monitor, 330t compositional analysis of 3700 LCD television, 331t construction of 1500 screen LCD panel, 332f construction of 3700 television panel, 332f equipment and components reuse, 348e349 hazardous materials in, 344e347 recycling processes automated processes for LCD recycling, 341e344 manual disassembly, 335e341, 336f screens and transition to newer technologies, 237e240 Lithium ion batteries (Li-ion batteries), 384 LMCs. See Last mile collectors (LMCs) Local “backyard” techniques, 5e6 Local exhaust ventilation (LEV), 339e341 Logistics, guidelines and standards for, 112 LOHAS. See Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) Longer-lasting products, 455 Longevity design, 461 Low-quality goods, reducing imports of, 106 LUMICOM compliance scheme, 248 Lyskildebranchens WEEE Forening (LWF), 504e505, 504t

M MADE. See Manufacture for assembly, disassembly, and end of life (MADE) Magnetic separation, 379 Maleic anhydride, 287 Manganese, 381 Manual disassembly, 335e341, 336f CCFL backlight array, 338f processing for LCDs, 339e341

manual end-of-life LCD recycling facility, 340f removal of CCFL in metal carrier, 337f Manual dismantling process, 318 Manual separation and sorting of WEEE polymers, 290e291, 290f Manufacture for assembly, disassembly, and end of life (MADE), 273 Manufacturer(s), 490t, 560t programs recognition, 612 prohibitive practices, 274e275 Mapping of actors and problems, 41, 41f Market(ing) characteristics and reuse/ remanufacturing strategies, 682e684 demand, 452e453 oriented aspect, 425 registration system for market inputs, 123 share compliance costs, 122 Mass balances, 62e63 Mass-recycling, 463 Massive Open Online Course, 173 Material(s), 358, 359f recovery, 241e245 and recycling technologies, 234e237 recycling, 678 rate, 529e530 WEEE Directive implementation, corporate environmental strategy, 684e688 of WEEE, 231e234 LCDs screens and transition to newer technologies, 237e240 loss of scarce elements, 240 new materials and implications, 245e252 novel materials recovery approaches, 241e245 quality, 554e555 recovery and recycling technologies, 234e237 recycling and environmental impacts, 252e254 Mechanical recycling methods, 284 process of WEEE polymers, 284, 287e288

automated separation and sorting, 291e292 conversion to reusable material, 300e304 effectiveness of WEEE legislation to date, 304 energy saving for recycled materials, 284t flow diagram of mechanical recycling process, 289f future trends, 307e308 granulation, size reduction and, 292e294, 293f manual separation and sorting, 290e291 polymer types, abbreviations and applications, 286t remanufacturing using, 305e307 sorting small-particle-size polymer waste methods, 294e300 source and percentages, 285t waste collection, 288e289, 290f waste washing, 294 Mechanical separation, 68 Mechanical/physical recycling method for waste PCBs, 320 Mechanochemical treatment for acid leaching, 411 Media, 451 Melting of phosphors with alkali materials, 411e412 MEP. See Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) Mercury, 4e6, 239, 522, 566 mercury-containing backlights, 346e347 mercury-containing components, 69e70 Metal(s), 225e226 human toxicity of, 446, 467t indium, 242 metal-dominated products, 657 methods for metals recovery from spent batteries, 378e388 hydrometallurgical route, 383e388 processing routes, 378e379 pyrometallurgical route, 379e383 operational conditions for metal recovery from Li-ion batteries, 385te386t Metallic cadmium, 382e383 Metallothermic reduction, 403e404

Index 701

Metallurgical processing, 379 Metric tons (MTs), 1 Mid infra-red reflection (MIR reflection), 236 Midwave infrared (MWIR), 300 Minamata Convention on Mercury, 397 Miniaturization and integration of functions, 476 Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, 560t Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), 559, 560t, 567 Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), 531e532 MIR acousto-optic tunable filter (MIR AOTF), 236 MIR reflection. See Mid infra-red reflection (MIR reflection) Mirec company, 650 Mixed-mode processing, 362 Mobile phones, 471e472 Mobile Phone Working Group, 9 reuse, 307e308 Mobility/tourism, 444e445 MoEFCC. See Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) Molten salts, 412e413 Monitors/monitoring, 331e333, 345 and control, 160e168 emerging countries, 164e166 established countries, 166e168 starting countries, 161e163 road map, 159, 169f Monochrome phosphor recycling, 401e403, 402f Monopolies, experience with, 598e599 Montreal Protocol, 214 MSW. See Municipal solid waste (MSW) MTs. See Metric tons (MTs) Multifunctional products, 175 Multiple compliance experience with multiple compliance solutions, 597e599 schemes and organizations, 65 Multiple pilot projects, 129e130 Multiple research projects, 32e33 Municipal solid waste (MSW), 525e526, 573e574 Municipalities, 499t

and intermunicipal companies, 495t municipalities/local authorities, 504t MWIR. See Midwave infrared (MWIR)

collected WEEE and its recovery, 496e498 legislative implementation, 493e496 recovery infrastructure, 496

N Nascent formal industry, 550e551 National e-waste systems, 21, 29e30, 111 National implementation road map, 156e158 National Institute of Material Science, 582e583 National monitoring and control road map, 167e168 National population and WEEE statistics, 513 National WEEE management systems, 487 monitoring, 164e165 Near infrared (NIR) sorting, 299e300 technique, 236 Neodymium, 240 Neurotoxin. See Mercury NGOs. See Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) NiCd batteries, 372e375 Niche products, 431 Nigerian “Person-in-the-Port” project, 162e163 NiMH batteries, 388 NIR. See Near infrared (NIR) Nitric acid, 407 Non-ferrous smelters, 132 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 431, 673 Non-industrial association, 432 stakeholders, 432 Noncompliance, 160 Nonferrous metal industry, 583 Nonmetallic powder, 528 Nontoxic biodegradable materials, 477e478 NORSIRK, 496, 507e509 AS, 495t Norwegian Environmental Agency, 496 Norwegian Ministry of Environment, 493 Norwegian WEEE legislation and amendments, 493, 494t management system, 494, 495t

O OctaBDE, 246 ODSs. See Ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) OECD. See Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) OEMs. See Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) OLED. See Organic light emitting diode (OLED) Operational environmental protection, 631 Operational systems of WEEE management, 485 Operators, 202e203 Optical sorting, 299e300 OPV materials. See Organic PV/dye sensitized materials (OPV materials) Organic acids, 383e384 Organic light emitting diode (OLED), 232e233, 239e240, 248, 350 Organic PV/dye sensitized materials (OPV materials), 243 Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 484e485, 573e574 Organizational basis, 96 Organizational skills, 133 Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), 613 Overlaps, 152 Ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), 4e5, 292, 359e360, 362

P PA. See Polyamide (PA) PACE. See Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) Painted aluminium, 132 Painted scrap, 132 Panasonic Eco Technology Centre (PETEC), 256 Paradigm shifts effect, 275 Parallel processing, 362

702 Index

Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE), 9 PBB. See Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) PBDD/Fs. See Polybrominated dioxins and furans (PBDD/Fs) PBDE. See Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) PC. See Polycarbonate (PC) PC-88A (2-ethylhexyl phosphonic acid mono-2-ethylhexyl ester), 408 PCB. See Pollution control boards (PCB); Printed circuit board (PCB) PCDD/Fs. See Polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs) PCR plastic content. See Postconsumer recycled plastic content (PCR plastic content) PCs. See Personal computers (PCs) PDCA approach. See Plan-Do-CheckAct approach (PDCA approach) PE. See Polyethylene (PE) PEDOT/PSS, 251 Penalties, 126e127 information management for, 165 PentaBDE, 246 Performance-based business model, 667 Personal computers (PCs), 284, 575, 582t, 592 PETEC. See Panasonic Eco Technology Centre (PETEC) Philips, 448e449, 648e650, 654 cooperation between Delft University of Technology and, 651e652 Philips-supported research at Delft University, 655 PhilipseDelft program, 651e652 Phosphor(s), 4e5. See also Trichromatic phosphors collection, 398e400 materials, 403 melting or calcination, 411e412 methods for improving leaching behavior, 410e412 Photovoltaic (PV), 242e243 cell materials, 243 panels, 198 Physical recycling human health affecting due to, 317e318, 317t of nonmetallic fractions, 320e321

Physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs, 315e316 Physicochemical separation, 401e403 Pilot project funding, 121e122 studies on collection and treatment, 129e130 PLA. See Polylactic acid (PLA) Placed on market (POM), 60 Plan-Do-Check-Act approach (PDCA approach), 34 Plastics, 6, 110e111 in EEE, 213 flame retardants in, 650 recycled, 663e665 techniques for separation of fridge, 367e369 PLATIRUS H2020 project, 257 PLM process. See Product life cycle management process (PLM process) PMMA. See Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) Pneumatic air jets, 299 Policy & legislation, 97e120 development, 29 drafting process, 29 emerging countries, 107e114 aligning stakeholder responsibilities, 111e114 legal principles; scope and goals, 108e111 pros and cons of entity in charge, 100t pros and cons of fee systems, 124t separation and dismantling criteria for E-waste, 130t stakeholder lessons from ecoefficiency studies/system, 115t established countries, 114e120 improving system efficiency and cooperation, 118e120 proportionality and administrative burden, 116e117 update and mature implementation rules, 117e118 information needs for policy decisions, 163, 166 policy makers, 174 policy-analysis, 32e33 starting countries, 97e107

choosing initial requirements, 104e107 individual vs. collective responsibility, 101e102 legal basis, 98e102 primary responsibility, 99e101 setting initial scope and definitions, 102e104 Polluter-pays principle (PPP), 121, 484e485 Pollution control boards (PCB), 560t Pollution control requirements, 531 Polyamide (PA), 302e303 Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), 208, 210, 246 Polybrominated dioxins and furans (PBDD/Fs), 226 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), 208, 210, 226, 236, 246 Polycarbonate (PC), 233 Polychlorinated biphenyls, 4e5, 522 Polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs), 226 Polyethylene (PE), 233, 302e303 Polylactic acid (PLA), 233, 249e250 PLA/metaleorganic framework nanocomposites, 249e250 Polymer, 235 flakes, 241e242 WEEE, 286t, 287e288 Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), 331e333, 347e348 Polyphenylene oxide blends (PPO), 233 Polypropylene (PP), 233, 235, 286 Polystyrene (PS), 286, 367e368 PS-based polymers, 235 Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), 233, 246e247 Polyurethane foam, 292 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 6, 235e237, 241 POM. See Placed on market (POM) Positive financial incentives for collection and treatment, 127e128 Postconsumer recycled plastic content (PCR plastic content), 595 Power semiconductor devices, 217 PP. See Polypropylene (PP) PPO. See Polyphenylene oxide blends (PPO)

Index 703

PPP. See Polluter-pays principle (PPP) Precipitation, 387 Prefabricated radio, 472 Preprocessing, 68, 131e132, 134, 366e367 Preshipment testing, 614e615 Pressure leaching, 409e410 Price volatility, 554 Primary objectives, 96 Printed circuit board (PCB), 235, 311e313, 328, 347e348, 461, 473f, 525. See also Waste PCBs components, 313t physical-mechanical recycling process, 315e316 Printed wiring boards (PWBs), 212 Problem (re)definition, 33e34, 44e49 emerging countries, 47 established countries, 48e49 quantitative mapping of actors, 49f starting countries, 45e47 Problem solving process, 32e33 Processing routes, 378e379 Producer responsibility organizations (PROs), 48, 99e101, 176, 186, 490e491, 490t, 551e553, 555, 595, 597e598, 600, 608 maturity, 603e604 Producer(s), 103e104, 120e121, 560t compliance schemes, 511 producers/PROs, 504t responsibility principle, 609e610 sampling, 612 Product characteristics and reuse/ remanufacturing strategies, 681e682 development process, 465 end-of-life scenarios, 656 extending and updating product scope, 109 life cycle, 463, 631 analysis, 264 moving from products to services, 477e478 product-service systems, 462 recovery processes, 266, 268f Product life cycle management process (PLM process), 627

WEEE aspects significance within, 627e634 consumer products, 628 EEE or WEEE, 632e634 industrial goods, 628e629 manufacturing, 630e631 specification/product design, 629e630 use phase, 631e632 Proportionality, 116e117 PROs. See Producer responsibility organizations (PROs) ProSUM project, 166e167 PS. See Polystyrene (PS) PTFE. See Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Pulse monitor, 3 PV. See Photovoltaic (PV) PVC. See Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) PWBs. See Printed wiring boards (PWBs) Pyrolysis process, 319 Pyrometallurgical/pyrometallurgy, 319, 412e413 operations of NiCd batteries, 382f process, 381e383, 530 recycling processes for NiCd batteries, 383 route, 379e383

Q QD-LEDs. See Quantum dots as LEDs (QD-LEDs) “Quagan” spare parts, 632 Quality Assurance and Test Specifications, 369 Quality criteria for reuse, 273 Quantum dot, 248e249 Quantum dots as LEDs (QD-LEDs), 248e249 Quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability concept (QWERTY concept), 76e77, 84e85, 656e657 QWERTY concept. See Quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability concept (QWERTY concept)

R R2 standard, 603 Radio-frequency identification (RFID), 244e245, 476 Rare earth elements (REEs), 240, 393e395 leaching efficiency, 406e407 potential for recovering, 395e397 production of fluorescent lamp phosphor, 396f recovery by hydrometallurgy, 403e412, 404f leaching procedure, 404e409 methods for improving leaching behavior of phosphors, 410e412 pressure leaching, 409e410 supercritical fluid extraction, 409 two-stage leaching, 410 recycling and recovery in waste phosphors, 400e413 Rare earth metals (REMs), 466e467, 467t trichromatic phosphors composition, 397e398 waste FLs treatment and phosphors collection, 398e400 Rare earth oxides (REOs), 394 REACh. See Restriction, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) Real-time auditing, 166e167 Rebound effects, 152 Rechargeable batteries, 371 Recipo, 499t RECOLIGHT compliance scheme, 248 Reconditioning, 264e265, 267t Recyclate, 233, 288e289, 307 Recycle/recycling, 29, 253e254, 264e265, 382, 398e399, 433, 633. See also Mechanical recycling batteries directives worldwide for spent batteries, 372e378 metal composition of commercial batteries, 375t methods for metals recovery from spent batteries, 378e388 combined recycling infrastructure, 68e69

704 Index

Recycle/recycling (Continued ) cooling and freezing appliances challenges relating to WEEE refrigerators and freezers, 360e361 emissions of volatile organic compounds, 363e365 handling of removed oil/refrigerant, 365e367 materials, 358, 359f ODSs, blowing agent recovery, 359e360 percentage of CFC-free refrigerators, 366f requirements for degassing processes, 362e363 sources of further information and advice, 369e370 techniques for separation of fridge plastics, 367e369 design, 611 for reuse, 643 of domestic electrical appliances, 237 of e-waste, 227 of electric/electronic products, 460e463 informal, 530 infrastructure and innovation, 68e74 emerging countries, 70e73 established countries, 73e74 starting countries, 69e70 use of preprocessing and endprocessing, 71f LCDs, 328e335 equipment and components reuse, 348e349 hazardous materials, 344e347 processes, 335e344 sources of further information and advice, 350e351 valuable materials recovery, 347e348 materials and content, 594e595 recovery and recycling technologies, 234e237 PCBs economic benefits, 313e314 emerging technologies for recycling of waste PCBs, 314e321 metal composition of waste, 314t

metal content and economic value, 314t plastics, 663e665 implementation, 664e665 products, 278, 593e594, 680 quality, 577e580 rate of e-waste, 506 of REEs in waste phosphors, 400e413 standard emergence, 602e603 start-ups, 174 techniques for solar panels, 244 Recyclers, 103e104, 125, 434e435, 490t, 555 Reduction of Hazardous Substances. See Restriction on Hazardous substances (RoHS) REEs. See Rare earth elements (REEs) Refrigerators, 359, 555 average material composition, 359f Refugee radio, 472, 474f Refurbishment, 269e270, 614, 632, 639e641, 639f of complete system, 637e639 of computers, 269e271 future trends, 277e280 competition, 279 cost savings, 279 customer demand, 277e278 legislation, 277 new technologies, 279e280 issues in design issues in remanufacturing, 274e275 information availability, 275e277 paradigm shifts affecting use, 275 quality criteria for reuse and accreditation, 273 variability in standards and quality, 272e273 needs for, 264 plan, 640e641 and reuse of WEEE, 264 role of third sector, 271e272 Regional Siemens organizations, 625 Registration system for market inputs, 123 Regulatory authorities, 560t ReLCD project, 346 Remanufacturing, 264e267, 267t, 270e271 design issues in, 274e275

using WEEE polymers, 305e307 Removed oil/refrigerant handling, 365e367 REMs. See Rare earth metals (REMs) RENAS, 496, 507e509 AS, 495t RENE, 504e505, 504t Renewable energy sources, 475 REOs. See Rare earth oxides (REOs) Repair, 264e265, 267t, 269, 614 shops, 560t REPTOOL, WEEE Forum, 73 Research and piloting, 11 Resource(s) efficiency, 6 performance of e-waste recycling, 527e530, 529f price fluctuation, 612 security, 28 Responsibility, primary, 109 Responsibility of State Government, 545te546t Responsible Consumption and Production, 21e22 Restriction, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh), 208 Restriction on Hazardous substances (RoHS), 423e424, 545te546t, 559t, 573e574, 620, 623, 631, 659. See also Hazardous substances Directives, 231e232, 487, 633 substance restrictions, environmental, technological, and economic impacts, 220e227 Retailers, 490t Return market share, 123 Return share compliance cost, 123 Reusable material, WEEE conversion to, 300e304 compounding using extrusion, 302e304 densification, 300e301 Reuse processes in sustainable manufacturing comparison of options in component reuse, 266e269 component vs. material reuse, 264e269 and recycling of electric/electronic products, 460e463, 461t

Index 705

reuse/remanufacturing strategies, 682e684 market characteristics and, 682e684 product characteristics and, 681e682 targets, 113 Reverse Logistics Group, 604 Revised E-waste Rules, 569 Revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU, 662 Rewards, information management for, 165 RFID. See Radio-frequency identification (RFID) RoHS. See Restriction on Hazardous substances (RoHS) RoHS 1. See Directive 2002/95/EC restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS 1) RoHS 2, 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2). See European Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive Rotterdam Conventions, 9

S SAICM. See Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) Scarcity of resources in design of electronic products, 466e468 Scavenging of refrigerator compressors, 65e66 Scope, 116e117 Screening method, 316e317 SDGs. See Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) SDS. See Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) Secondary market processing, 267t, 271e272 Secondary objectives, 96 Secondary raw materials, 135e136 Selenium, 467 Self-monitoring systems, 477 Self-regulating mechanisms, 477 Semiquantitative evaluation tool, 623 SENS eRecycling, 490t, 491e492, 507e508 Senseo Viva Café Eco, 663 Sensors, 292 Separation methods, 408e409 Shredders, 241

Shredding LCDs process, 342 trials, 342 Siemens AG, 620 Siemens Business Conduct Guidelines, 624 Siemens Healthineers, 635e638, 636f, 642 approach, 638 selected management examples GRP, 639e641 high-quality recycling, 642 material usage and environmental product declaration, 637 refurbishment of complete system, 637e639 reuse of components and extraction of spare parts, 641e642 X-ray tubes, 641 Siemens standard SN 36350, 644e645 Siemens’ WEEE management strategy aspects significance within PLM process, 627e634 as element of EP strategy, 620e621 environmental business management global Siemens EHS principles, 624 management mechanism within Siemens, 625e627 principles and guidelines, 624e625 Siemens access to EP, 621e622 Siemens EP standard, 622e624 EP by Siemens and Siemens Healthineers, 645 health care products, 634e642 sources eco-design, 645 environmental sound product design, 644e645 usage of preowned components, 645 trends, 642e644 corporate substance and material management, 643 design for reuse and recycling, 643 extended supplier dialogue, 644 WEEE reduction by material optimization, 643e644 Sieving technique, 292 Silent Spring, 446 Silicon wafers, 243 Simplification of permissions, 545te546t Single pilot projects, 129e130

Single screw extruders, 302, 303f, 304 Single-sided boards, 312 SLRS. See Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation (SLRS) Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), 208 Small government fund, 121 Small-particle-size polymer waste sorting methods, 294e300 air table sorting, 294e295 electrostatic sorting, 297e298 flotation sorting, 295e296 hydrocyclone sorting, 296e297 NIR and optical sorting, 299e300 Smaller products, 175 Smart City, 560 Smart materials, 477 Smart systems, 477 Smarter products, 175 Smartphone(s), 5 sustainable design, 471e472 SMEs. See Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) SN 36350e1/2/3/5/7 standard, 622e624 Snail cells, 476 Social aspects, 465 costs, 559e560 criteria, 471 design, 447 dimension, 28 gains, 555e556 impacts, 86e88 emerging countries, 87 established countries, 88 starting countries, 86e87 labels, 450e451 landscape, 521e522 Society, 121 Socioeconomic improvements, electronic products as enablers for, 478 Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 400e401 Sodium oleate, 400e401 Solar cells, 243 Solar panels end-of-life, 244 recycling techniques for, 244 Solidworks Sustainability, 466 Solvent extraction method, 387

706 Index

Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative (StEP), 4, 11e12. See also Global E-waste management initiatives documents, 44e45 e-waste world map information, 154f Initiative World Map, 133 StEP-Business-Plan-Calculation-Tool, 123 Whitepaper on guidance principles, 88 Sorting techniques, 244 Spare part extraction, 641e642 SPCBs. See State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) Spent batteries, 372 directives worldwide for, 372e378 methods for metals recovery from, 378e388 Sputter process, 468 SRI project. See Sustainable Recycling Industries project (SRI project) Stakeholder(s), 425, 430, 451, 487, 503, 507e508, 554 aligning stakeholder responsibilities, 113e114 analysis, 36e41 consultation, 155e156 processes, 449 in e-waste management chain, 560t, 568f lessons from eco-efficiency studies/ system implementations, 115t map, 567 process, 433 transparent stakeholder process, 434 Standard copper smelters, 133 Standard disassembly times, 651e652, 651t Standardization, 451e452 Starting countries. See also Established countries business & finance, 121e123 collection, 61e62 with e-waste policies, 22e24 economic impacts, 79e80 end user education, 170 environmental impacts, 74e75 intervention options, 146e148, 147t inventory of existing policies, 42e43 monitoring and control, 161e163 policy & legislation, 97e120 problem (re)definition, 45e47

recycling infrastructure and innovation, 69e70 social impacts, 86e87 stakeholder analysis and initial consultations, 37e39 technologies & skills, 129e133 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), 567 State government departments, 560t StEP. See Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative (StEP) Stock-and-flow modeling, 64e65 Stockholm Conventions, 9 Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), 9e10 Strategy and goal setting, 11 Streamlining financing, 125e126 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis (SWOT analysis), 556, 673, 684 Structured approaches, 29 Subsidies utilization procedure, 533, 534f Sulfuric acid, 407 Supercritical fluid extraction, 409 Superfluous requirements, 116 Supply chain, 451 Sustainable/sustainability design, 444e446 development, 445e446, 445t drivers for, 447e453 green and sustainable public purchasing, 450 legislation, 449e450 market demand and consumer awareness, 452e453 standardization, 451e452 materials and manufacturing processes choice, 464e466 scarcity of resources in design of electronic products, 466e468 printing, 468e469 procurement, 450 product(s), 452 reuse processes in sustainable manufacturing, 264e269 services, 454, 468e469 supply chain management, 451 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2, 6e7, 7te8t, 18e22, 22f, 86

SDG12, 21e22 Sustainable electronic product design, 444, 468e472 Fairphone, 471 refugee radio, 472 sustainable design of cleaning equipment, 469 of smartphone, 471e472 sustainable printing, 468e469 Trevor Baylis’s windup media player, 470 Sustainable Recycling Industries project (SRI project), 38e39, 130, 155 Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, 560 Sweden, WEEE management in, 498, 499t collected WEEE and recovery, 501e502, 501f legislative implementation, 498, 499t recovery infrastructure, 500e501 Swiss Economic Association for Suppliers of Information, Communication and Organizational Technology (SWICO Recycling), 490t, 491e492 Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation (SLRS), 490t, 492 Switzerland, WEEE management in collected WEEE and recovery, 492e493 equipment recovery infrastructure, 491e492 legislative implementation, 487e491 management system, 489, 490t SWOT analysis. See Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis (SWOT analysis) SYMETA project, 250e251 System efficiency, 118e120 Systems thinking, 453e454

T Take-back systems, 29, 648 circular economy, 665e667 development, 34 in environmental strategy, 672e673 period cooperation between Philips and DUT, 651e652

Index 707

dealing with environmental concerns about products, 648e649 treatment, 650e651 product characteristics environmental priorities in end-oflife treatments, 678e680 market characteristics and reuse/ remanufacturing strategies, 682e684 and reuse/remanufacturing strategies, 681e682 recycled plastics, 663e665 and treatment, 650e651 system in Netherlands, 652e657 WEEE Directive, 658e660 recast, 660e662 Tantalum, 467 Target-based approach for collection under EPR, 545te546t TBBPA. See Tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA) TBP. See Tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP) Technical specification (TS), 199e200 Technologies, 25e27 cycles, 681 and skills, 128e136 emerging countries, 133e135 established countries, 135e136 starting countries, 129e133 Telecommunication sectors, 491e492, 655 Televisions, 331e334, 345 Tellurium, 467 Termination of rules, 117 Tertiary objectives, 96 Tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), 236 2-Thenoyltrifluoroacetone (TTA), 402 Thermoplastic polymers, 283e284 Thermoset polymers, 287e288 Thiocyanate, 409e410 Third party auditor, 201e202 “Three-partite governing” model, 99e101 3D printing technology, 250e251 Tokyo Olympic games (2020), 583 Top submerged lance furnace (TSL furnace), 583 Toxic fractions, 69e70 heavy metals, 227e228 substances, 522, 672e673 Toxicity, potential, 28

“Trade-in/trade-up” model, 673 Trade associations, 560t Training and development, 12 needs, 173e175 knowledge institutes and universities, 173 law enforcement, 174e175 policy makers and recycling start-ups, 174 Transportation, 464 of e-waste, 545te546t guidelines and standards for, 112 Treatment, 135e136, 362 guidelines for treatment facilities, 112 improving quality, 118 targets, 110e111 technology, 366 Trevor Baylis’s windup media player, 470 Tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP), 408e409 Triboelectric separation method, 306 Trichromatic phosphors. See also Waste phosphors composition, 397e398 flows into use and in-use stock of REEs, 397t and mixing ratios, 398t enrichment, 400e401 comparison of rare earth phosphor enrichment research, 401t TS. See Technical specification (TS) TSL furnace. See Top submerged lance furnace (TSL furnace) TTA. See 2-Thenoyltrifluoroacetone (TTA) Twin-screw extruders, 304 Two-stage leaching method, 410

U UEEE. See Used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE) UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), 351 UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 351 UL 94 VO fire safety standard, 246 Ultraviolet radiation (UV radiation), 359 UVB radiation, 359

UN International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), 9e10 UNCTD. See United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) UNIDO, 9, 122 United Kingdom (UK), 597e598 UK Environment Agency, 341, 345 United Nations (UN), 2 UN General Assembly, 6e7 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), 4 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 4, 8e11, 351 Basel Convention, 8e9 EMG, 10e11 IETC, 10 report, 130 SAICM, 9e10 United Nations University (UNU), 4e5, 357 E-waste Academy series, 133 Global E-waste Monitor, 61e62, 133 UNU. See United Nations University (UNU) Up-front fee finances, 122 Urban local bodies responsibility, 545te546t Urban mining, 584 economic analysis for, 582e586 Used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE), 613 UTeMa-Matrix tool, 469, 470f UV radiation. See Ultraviolet radiation (UV radiation)

V Valuable fractions, 69e70, 125 Valuable materials recovery, 347e348 Valuable metals/materials recovery, 347e348 technology, 319e321 Value chain analyses. See Stakeholder(s)danalysis Value chain factors, 680 Ventus SPIN Media Player, 470, 471f “Vertical” regulation, 426 Visible fee(s), 601e602 for historic waste, 122

708 Index

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 132, 369 emissions, 363e365

W Waste collection, 288e289, 290f disposal, 448e449 FLs potential for recovering REEs from, 395e397 treatment, 398e400, 399f fluorescent tubes, 406 generation, 465 imports, 43 washing, 294 waste-related legislative directives, 193 Waste and Resources Action Programme, 286 Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), 12, 18e21, 101, 151e152, 185e186, 209e210, 231e232, 264, 284, 312, 327e328, 344, 423e424, 484, 521e522, 548, 573e574, 584e585, 592, 604e605, 620, 627, 632e634, 649, 662. See also Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) approach, 433e435 aspects significance within PLM process, 627e634 challenges for WEEE management, 553e554 relating to WEEE refrigerators and freezers, 360e361 circular economy and, 613e615 collection and logistic systems, 511 compliance, 187e188, 597e598 conversion to reusable material, 300e304 directive, 334, 357, 358f, 367e368, 449, 597e598, 601, 632e633, 672e673 avenues for improvement, 659e660 data needed for making WEEE strategy, 685e686 implementation, materials recycling, and corporate environmental strategy, 684 implementation in member states, 596e597

issue lists for making decisions on implementation, 686e688 Philips vision for, 658e659 recast, 660e662 revised WEEE Directive 2012/19/ EU, 662 disposal method by waste stream in Italy, 171f effectiveness of WEEE legislation to date, 304 as element of environmental protection strategy, 620e621 environmental performance of e-waste recycling, 530e531 evolution of e-waste generation quantity, 525e526, 526f expanding of e-waste recycling industry, 533e534 flows and EPR 2.0, 604e612, 608f design for recycling, 611 EPR 2.0 principles, 607e611 fluctuating resource prices, 612 producer sampling, 612 recognition of manufacturer’s own programs, 612 WEEE landscape, 606e607 forum, 369e370 key figures benchmarking tool, 164, 187e188 mission, 186e187 growth drivers, 542e544 legislative framework in India, 544 management, 620e621 in Denmark, 502e506, 505f examples for Siemens Healthineers products, 637e642 health care products as, 634e642 initiatives, 8e13 in Norway, 493e498, 497f optimizing and continuous improvement, 635e636 strategy, 625e626, 629e630 in Sweden, 498e502, 501f in Switzerland, 487e493, 492f management in China catalogue of WEEE recycling, 523f eco-design for environment, 534 evolution of e-waste generation quantity, 525e526 expanding of e-waste recycling industry, 533e534

experience extracted from past adventure, 526e532 exploration, 524e525 imbalance between fund levies and subsidies, 532e533 new catalogue of e-waste, 535, 535f procedure of subsidies utilization, 533 management in Japan collection rate, 576e577 cost and recycling quality, 577e580 economic analysis for urban mining, 582e586 export problems, 580e582 Japan’s home appliance recycling system, 574e576 operational systems, 485 percentage of collection category, 606f polymer types, 287e288 abbreviations and applications, 286t identification of different materials and forms of fillers, 288t processing, 577 recovery in Europe, 485e487 recycler prices, 605t recycling, 525, 605e606 system, 574 reduction by material optimization, 643e644 register, 495t resource performance of e-waste recycling, 527e530 statistics Danish population and, 515t National population and, 513 Norwegian population and, 514t Swedish population and, 514t Swiss population and, 513t status of e-waste recycling industry, 526e527, 527fe528f strategy development, 628 systems, 186, 188 take-back companies, 499t WEEE-compatible production aids, 631 WEEEForum, 603e604 WEEELABEX project phase conformity verification, 200e203 context, 188e196 standards, 196e200 WEEELogic company, 604 Waste PCBs, 313

Index 709

emerging technologies for recycling, 314e321 available technology with opportunities and challenges, 318 disassembling, 315 dismantling, 318e319 human health affected owing to physical recycling process, 317e318 mechanical processes for recycling of waste PCBs, 317f physical-mechanical recycling process of PCBs, 315e316 size reduction and separation, 316e317 technology for recovery of copper and valuable metals, 319e321 Waste phosphors, 404e406. See also Trichromatic phosphors recycling and recovery of REEs in, 400e413 monochrome phosphor recycling, 401e403 REE recovery by hydrometallurgy, 403e412, 404f

trichromatic phosphors enrichment, 400e401 Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), 255 Wear-out life, 681 Web-based application, 164 WEEE. See Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) WEEE label of excellence (WEEELABEX), 185e186, 189 accreditation, 191 added value to WEEE market, 191e193 ambitions of project, 189 birth of project, 188e189 business economics, 193e196 conformity verification, 200e203 auditors, 201e202 operators, 202e203 scheme, 200e201 deliverable project, 191 office, 200 organisation, 193e194, 201 scope of project, 190e191 standards, 196e200, 602e603

CENELEC and afterlife of WEEELABEX standards, 199e200 general normative requirements, 197e198 rollout of standards, 198e199 specific normative requirements, 198 Weight-based recycling targets, 110e111 Whiskers, 212, 212f Working condition improvement, 106e107 WRAP. See Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) Writing process of legal text, 152

X X-ray tubes, 641e642 Xerox, 267e268

Z Zinc, 387 zinc-containing batteries, 381 Zinc oxide (ZnO), 384

This page intentionally left blank