Department of Process and Environmental Engineering Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory
Licentiate Thesis
The Impact of the WEEE and RoHS Directives: Development of a WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in Finland
Oulu, November 24th, 2012 Author:
_______________________________ Jenni Ylä-Mella, M.Sc.(Tech.)
Supervisor:
_______________________________ Riitta Keiski, Professor
Advisor:
_______________________________ Eva Pongrácz, Docent
UNIVERSITY OF OULU Faculty of Technology Department
Thesis Abstract Degree Programme (Master’s thesis) or Major Subject
Department of Process and Environmental Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Author
Thesis Supervisors
Ylä-Mella Jenni Annika, M.Sc.(Tech)
Keiski R., Professor Pongrácz E., Docent
Title of Thesis
The Impact of the WEEE and RoHS Directives: Development of a WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in Finland Major Subject
Type of Thesis
Environmental Engineering Licentiate Thesis
Submission Date
Number of Pages
November 2012
64 + 73
Abstract
Technological innovations, new applications of electrical and electronic devices and market expansion into developing countries have significantly increased the production and the use of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) during the last decades. Fast technical progress and EEE becoming a part of everyday life have also led to the rapid growth of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Due to burgeoning amounts and the complex mixture of materials and hazardous substances contained in EEE, environmental and health impacts of WEEE has become a concern. The hazardous substances present in EEE are not likely to be released during their regular use but pose hazards during inappropriate end-oflife treatment methods and landfill disposal. In consequence, the EU has implemented two Directives related to electronics in 2003 to reduce WEEE generation as well as negative environmental and health impacts associated with WEEE recovery. Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, RoHS, (2002/95/EC) bans the use of six hazardous substances (lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, PBBs and PBDEs) in EEE, while Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, (2002/96/EC) deals with the management of WEEE. The purpose of this research was to examine the implementation of WEEE and RoHS Directives in Finland, from the point of resource use efficiency. In this study, the development of the Finnish WEEE recovery system is considered and the challenges of its effective management especially in the sparsely populated Northern areas of Finland are highlighted. Further, improvements to the current system are suggested and the importance of consumers’ awareness is addressed based on the results of the survey regarding consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards recycling of mobile phones. In the study, the Finnish recovery system is compared with those in Hungary, Sweden and Norway to evaluate the similarities and differences between the systems in order to identify the factors defining successful and efficient WEEE recovery systems. The study shows that the WEEE recovery system in Finland fulfils the requirements set down in the WEEE Directive, even though some inefficient practices still exist in the current system, particularly in the collection stage. Above all, the re-use potential of the end-of-life electronics is significantly underused in Finland, not only in the case of devices returned to the recovery system but also in cases when unused devices lie around in storages. However, based on Swedish and Norwegian experiences, it is expected that more raising consumer awareness will lead to environmentally sound behaviour and, ultimately, improved WEEE recovery efficiency. The study also investigated the implications of the RoHS Directive, by assessing the material content of mobile phones and LCD screens. The case studies illustrate that the banned substances were typically located in the same components containing the most valuable substances. Therefore, the RoHS Directive has brought clear benefits to metals recovery from end-of-life electronics by reducing the health hazards of recycling and enhancing the economic profitability of recycling. Moreover, the possible presence of hazardous flame retardants has been a restrictive factor in the utilization of plastics. Further to the implementation of the RoHS Directive, environmental benefit can also be achieved through the recovering of plastics from WEEE as energy. Keywords: WEEE and RoHS Directives, WEEE recovery infrastructure, consumer awareness and behaviour Place of Storage
Oulu University Library, Science and Technology Library Tellus Additional information
OULUN YLIOPISTO Teknillinen tiedekunta
Tiivistelmä
Osasto
Koulutusohjelma (Diplomityö) tai Pääaineopintojen ala
Prosessi- ja ympäristötekniikan osasto
Ympäristötekniikka
Tekijä
Työn valvojat
Ylä-Mella Jenni Annika, DI
Keiski R., professori Pongrácz E., dosentti
Työn otsikko
WEEE-ja RoHS-direktiivien käyttöönotto Suomessa: Käytöstä poistettujen sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaitteiden keräys- ja käsittelyjärjestelmän kehittäminen Opintosuunta
Työn laji
Aika
Sivumäärä
Ympäristötekniikka
Lisensiaatintyö
Marraskuu 2012
64 + 73
Tiivistelmät
Teknologiset innovaatiot, sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaitteiden uudet sovellutukset ja markkinoiden laajentuminen kehittyviin maihin ovat lisänneet merkittävästi sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaitteiden (SE) tuotantoa ja käyttöä viime vuosikymmenten aikana. Nopea tekninen kehitys ja elektroniikkalaitteiden jokapäiväistyminen ovat johtaneet myös nopeaan sähkö- ja elektroniikkaromun (SER) määrän kasvuun. SERin aiheuttamat haitalliset ympäristö- ja terveysvaikutukset ovat nousseet huolenaiheeksi yhä kasvavien jätemäärien ja SE-laitteiden sisältämien vaarallisten aineiden takia. SE-laitteissa käytetyt vaaralliset aineet eivät tyypillisesti aiheuta haittaa laitteiden käytön aikana, mutta aiheuttavat ympäristöja terveysuhan vääränlaisen loppukäsittelyn tai ilman esikäsittelyä tehtävän kaatopaikkasijoituksen seurauksena. SERin käsittelyn ja loppusijoituksen aiheuttamien terveys- ja ympäristöhaittojen vähentämiseksi EU on ottanut käyttöön vuonna 2003 kaksi direktiiviä: Direktiivi (2002/95/EY) tiettyjen vaarallisten aineiden käytön rajoittamisesta SE-laitteissa, ns. RoHS -direktiivi, kieltää lyijyn, elohopean, kadmiumin ja kuudenarvoisen kromin sekä polybromattujen palonestoaineiden (PBB:t ja PBDE:t) käytön uusissa SE-laitteissa. Direktiivi (2002/96/EY) sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaiteromusta, ns. WEEE -direktiivi, koskee puolestaan käytöstä poistettujen SE-laitteiden keräystä ja asianmukaista käsittelyä. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää WEEE- ja RoHS -direktiivien käyttöönottoa Suomessa materiaalitehokkuuden näkökulmasta. Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan Suomen SER -keräysjärjestelmän kehittämistä ja käyttöönottoa sekä nostetaan esiin järjestelmän tehokkaaseen hallintaan liittyviä haasteita erityisesti Pohjois-Suomen harvaanasutuilla alueilla. Lisäksi työssä esitetään muutoksia nykyiseen käytäntöön järjestelmän tehostamiseksi ja erityisesti uudelleenkäytön lisäämiseksi. Suomen SER järjestelmää on myös vertailtu Unkarin, Ruotsin ja Norjan järjestelmiin toimivuutta ja tehokkuutta edistävien tekijöiden määrittelemiseksi. Tutkimus osoittaa, että Suomen SER -keräysjärjestelmä täyttää WEEE -direktiivissä sille asetetut vaatimukset, vaikka joitakin tehokkuutta heikentäviä käytäntöjä järjestelmässä vielä suhteellisen lyhyen käytössäoloajan takia esiintyykin. Materiaalitehokkuuden näkökulmasta katsottuna nykyisen järjestelmän ongelmana on erityisesti käytöstä poistettujen, toimivien SE-laitteiden riittämätön hyödyntäminen. Oulussa tehdyn matkapuhelinten kierrätystä koskevan kyselytutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että kuluttajien tietoisuus SE-laitteiden kierrätysmahdollisuuksista ja -tarpeellisuudesta on suhteellisen korkea, mutta se ei ole kuitenkaan vielä vaikuttanut kuluttajien kierrätysaktiivisuuteen. Ruotsin ja Norjan järjestelmiin tehdyn vertailun perusteella voidaan kuitenkin olettaa, että pitkällä aikavälillä kuluttajien tietoisuuden nousu lisää kierrätysaktiivisuutta parantaen myös SER -keräysjärjestelmän tehokkuutta. Tutkimuksessa selvitettiin myös RoHS -direktiivin vaikutuksia matkapuhelimien ja LCD -näyttöjen materiaalisisältöön. Case -tutkimukset osoittivat, että vaarallisia aineita on käytetty tyypillisesti samoissa komponenteissa, joissa myös taloudellisesti arvokkaimmat materiaalit sijaitsevat. Voidaan siis todeta, että RoHS -direktiivi on tuonut selkeän hyödyn metallien kierrätykseen vähentämällä ympäristölle ja terveydelle vaarallisten aineiden käyttöä sekä parantamalla kierrätyksen kannattavuutta. SE-laitteissa käytettyjen muovien osalta bromattujen palonestoaineiden poistuminen on parantanut erityisesti muovien hyödyntämistä energiana. Asiasanat: Sähkö- ja elektroniikkaromu, WEEE- ja RoHS -direktiivi, SER -kierrätysverkosto, ympäristötietoisuus ja kuluttajakäyttäytyminen Säilytyspaikka
Oulun yliopiston kirjasto, Tiedekirjasto Tellus Muita tietoja
PREFACE Research of this thesis is carried out at the Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory in the Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Finland in 2003-2008. First of all, I would like to thank for my supervisor Professor Riitta Keiski, the Head of Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory, for giving me the opportunity to work in her group and for her guidance. Additionally, my utmost gratitude is expressed to my advisor, Docent Eva Pongrácz, for her generous advice and discussions. I warmly thank you for your continuous support and encouragement over the years! Many thanks to Dr. Laura Sokka from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Dr. Jyrki Heino from the University of Oulu for the review of this work. The financial support of the Finnish Graduate School in Environmental Science and Technology (EnSTe), Tauno Tönning Foundation, Academy of Finland and NorTech Oulu, Thule Institute are also gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank the authors of my publications for fruitful cooperation and contribution to my research work. I wish also warmly thank all my past and present colleagues in the Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory and in Thule Institute. Especially thanks to Tiina, Reeta and Nora for being wonderful lunch and office mates for many years! Above all, my warmest thanks go to my loved ones for understanding, patience and support over the years.
Oulu, November 2012
Jenni Ylä-Mella
LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS The thesis is based on the following original publications which are referred to in the text using Roman numerals. I
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E and Keiski RL (2004) Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. In: Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference. June 10, 2004. Oulu, Finland. Pongrácz E (ed.). Oulu, University of Oulu 2004. p. 83-92.
II
Pongrácz E, Ylä-Mella J, Phillips PS, Tanskanen P and Keiski RL (2005) The Impact of the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE): Development of Mobile Phone Recovery Strategies in Finland. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 31(2): 102-111.
III
Ylä-Mella J, Poikela K, Pongrácz E, Lehtinen U, Phillips PS and Keiski RL (2007) WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in the Oulu Region of Finland: Challenges to Resource Use Optimization. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 18-21, 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2007. p. 447-454.
IV
Miklósi P, Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Garamvölgyi E, István Zs, Csőke B and Keiski RL (2007) The Effect of the WEEE Directive on Electronic Waste Recovery in Hungary and Finland. In: Proceedings of 8th Finnish Conference of Environmental Sciences. May 10-11, 2007. Mikkeli, Finland. Xiang H, Akieh MN, Vuorio A-M, Jokinen T and Sillanpää M (eds.). Finnish Society for Environmental Sciences 2007. p. 269-272.
V
Lehtinen U, Poikela K, Ylä-Mella J, and Pongrácz E (2009) Examining the WEEE Recovery Supply Chain: Empirical Evidence from Sweden and Finland. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference for the Logistics Research Network (NOFOMA) 2009. June 11-12, 2009. Jönköping, Sweden. Herzt, S (ed.). Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University. p. 517-531.
VI
Román E, Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Solvang W, and Keiski R (2008) WEEE Management System: Cases in Norway and Finland. In: Proceedings of Joint
International Conference and Exhibition Electronics Goes Green 2008+; Merging Technology and Sustainable Development. September 8-10, 2008. Berlin, Germany. p. 825-832. VII
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Tanskanen P and Keiski RL (2007) Environmental Impact of Mobile Phones: Material Content. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 18-21, 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2007. p. 1612-1617.
VIII
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E and Keiski RL (2008) Liquid Crystal Displays: Material Content and Recycling Practices. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 30 -April 2, 2008. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2008. p. 1082-1089.
Ylä-Mella was the main and corresponding author of Papers I, III and VII-VIII. She carried out the interviews and enquires related to nationwide and regional situation of the WEEE recovery prior to the Directives and implementation of the WEEE Directive to the national legislation. Further, she conducted the literature surveys and wrote the papers. Ylä-Mella has also given the Conference presentations of Papers I, III and VII. In Paper II, Ylä-Mella’s contributions were the implementation of the WEEE Directive to the Finnish legislation and description of the WEEE recovery in the Oulu region. Further, she performed the mobile phones induction heating disassembly tests, analysed the test results and participated in the writing of Paper II. In Papers IV-VI, Ylä-Mella’s contributions were the implementation of the WEEE Directive to the Finnish legislation and the development of the WEEE recovery system in Finland. Further, she participated in the writing of Papers IV-VI and, further, gave a Conference presentation of Paper IV.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS B2B
from Business to Business
C2B
from Consumer to Business
CRT
Cathode Ray Tube
EEA
European Environmental Agency
EEE
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
EOL
End-of-life
EPR
Extended Producer Responsibility
ETC/WMF
European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows
EU
European Union
EC
European Council
FPD
Flat Panel Display
FR Plastics
Plastics containing flame retardants
IPMI
International Precious Metals Institute
IT
Information Technology
LCD
Liquid Crystal Display
MIT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NFR Plastics
Plastics not containing flame retardants
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
Octa-BDE
Octabromodiphenyl ether (used as a flame retardant)
RoHS
Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive
RoHS I
Directive 2002/95/EC
RoHS II
Directive 2011/65/EU
PBB
Polybrominated biphenyls
PBDE
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
PCB
Printed Circuit Board
PPP
Polluter Pays Principle
PWB
Printed Wiring Board
UNU
United Nations University
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WEEE
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WEEE I
Directive 2002/95/EC
WEEE II
Directive 2012/19/EU
CONTENTS ABSTRACT TIIVISTELMÄ PREFACE LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Objectives of the research ........................................................................................... 12 1.2 Research methods ....................................................................................................... 13
2
EU LEGISLATION RELATED TO ELECTRONICS ........................................... 14 2.1 WEEE Directive ......................................................................................................... 15 2.2 RoHS Directive ........................................................................................................... 21
3
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WEEE DIRECTIVE IN FINLAND ..................... 25 3.1 Implementation to national legislation........................................................................ 26 3.2 Development of the WEEE recovery infrastructure ................................................... 28 3.3 A case study of consumers’ awareness and behaviour on mobile phone recycling .... 32 3.4 Comparative analysis of Finnish and other European WEEE recovery systems ........ 36
4
IMPLICATIONS OF THE ROHS DIRECTIVE..................................................... 41 4.1 Material content of electronic devices ........................................................................ 42 4.2 Case 1: Mobile phones ................................................................................................ 45 4.3 Case 2: LCD screens ................................................................................................... 47
5
DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 50
6
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 53
7
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 56
ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 64
1 INTRODUCTION Waste production appears to be an inevitable consequence of material well-being and consumerism. Wastes represent an enormous loss of material and energy resources in the developed world, such as in the European Union (EU) formed by Member States listed in Table 1. As a result, the European Community has set its main objectives to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and human health as well as utilizing natural resources judiciously. Additionally, the Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development states that the achievement of sustainable development calls for significant changes in current patterns of development, production, consumption and behaviour. It also demands the reduction of wasteful consumption of natural resources and the prevention of pollution. To meet these objectives and ambitions, the EU has enacted a wide range of legislation to contribute to sustainable waste management and use it as a key force for change. Table 1 Member States of the European Union (European Union 2012). Dates of joining
Countries
1952 1973 1981 1986 1995
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom Greece Portugal, Spain Austria, Finland and Sweden
EU15
2004
Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia. Bulgaria, Romania
EU27
2007
The above mentioned development is perceived also in the case of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). Production and use of EEE have significantly increased during the last three decades due to technological innovations, new applications of electrical and electronic devices and market expansion into developing countries. Fast technical progress and EEE becoming as a part of everyday life have also led the rapid growth of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). At the EU15 countries as listed in Table 1, the amount of WEEE arising as waste was estimated to be at 6 million tonnes in 1998. Moreover, the growth rate of WEEE was expected to be 3-5 % per year which was about three times higher than the growth rate of municipal waste. (European Commission, 2000) More recently, the estimate of 9
WEEE amounts in the EU27 was between 8.3 and 9.1 million tonnes per year for 2005. The increase from former estimates is due to the expansion of the EU, growth in the number of households and inclusion of items from business which may have been excluded previously. The most recent estimates predict that WEEE will grow annually 2.5-2.7 %, reaching about 12.3 million tonnes by 2020. The breakdown of WEEE composition for the EU is shown in the Figure 1. (United Nations University 2007)
0.1% 0.1% 2.4%
3.5%
0.2% 0.2%
Large household appliances Cooling and freezing equipment
7.8%
Small household appliances
0% 31.3%
21.6%
IT and telecom, excl. CRT's CRTs LCDs Consumer electronics, excl. CRT's Lightning equipment Electrical and electronic tools Toys, leisure and sports equipment Medical devices
17.7%
8% 7%
Monitoring and control instruments Automatic dispersers
Figure 1 Breakdown of WEEE arising across EU27 in 2005 (United Nations University 2007). Due to burgeoning amounts and the complex mixture of materials and hazardous substances contained in EEE, environmental and health impacts of WEEE have become a concern. The hazardous substances present in electronic equipment are not likely to be released during their regular use but pose hazards during inappropriate treatment methods and landfill disposal. As a consequence, the EU has implemented two Directives related to electronics in 2003 to reduce WEEE generation as well as negative environmental and health impacts associated with WEEE recovery. Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, RoHS (2002/95/EC), bans the use of six hazardous substances (lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)) in electrical and electronic equipment, while 10
Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE (2002/96/EC), deals with the management of WEEE. However, these EU Directives are not the only ones addressing WEEE or e-waste prevention and environmental impacts of electronics but, presently, several other outstanding global initiatives also exist, as listed in Table 2. Table 2 Initiatives of note addressing e-waste (Sthiannopkao and Wong, 2012). Basel Convention
Enacted in 1992 to keep hazardous waste within producer countries, or ones able to safely process it. 172 signatory nations, but not ratified by the United States. Does not specify penalties.
Bamako Convention
In force since 1998 in African Union countries. Sets more stringent waste import limits than the Basel Convention, and sets penalties. Seldom evoked.
EU WEEE Directive
Adapted by all EU members by 2007. Establishes systems of collection and recycling based on producer take-back, for 10 categories of electrical goods.
EU RoHS Directive
Enacted along with EU WEEE, restricts amounts of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB, and PBDE used in manufacture. Versions adapted by many other countries, including China and India.
Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP)
Instituted formally in 2007 by UN agencies, StEP partners with prominent academic and governmental organizations (e.g. MIT, USEPA) on promoting re-use of recycled materials and control of e-waste contaminants.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs)
Promoted by Japan. Seeks to prevent creation of waste, and to further cooperation on recycling with developing countries. Allows waste export for remanufacture.
US State laws and the Responsible Electronic Recycling Act (HR2284)
25 US states have laws for e-waste collection, some stipulating consumer payment. HR2284 is a proposed national law to control e-waste export and certify used electronic goods for export.
US NGOs: Basel Action Network (BAN), Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC) and Electronics TakeBack Coalition (ETBC)
These three act together for workable national e-waste collection and recycling prorams. They internationally promote the “Basel Ban,” a more restrictive waste export amend ment to the Basel Convention. BAN has produced documentaries, and much research.
11
1.1 Objectives of the research The purpose of this research was to examine the implementation of WEEE and RoHS Directives in Finland during 2003-2008, from the point of resource use efficiency. In this study, the development of the Finnish WEEE recovery system is considered and the challenges of its effective management especially in the sparsely populated Northern areas of Finland are highlighted. Further, the Finnish system is compared with those in Hungary, Sweden and Norway to evaluate the similarities and differences between the systems in order to identify the factors defining successful and efficient WEEE recovery systems. The thesis consists of 8 original publications from which Papers I-VI cover national implementation of WEEE Directive in Finland and the comparative analysis between Finnish and other European WEEE recovery systems. Paper VII and Paper VIII consider implications of the RoHS Directive by assessing the material content of mobile phones and LCD screens. Paper I and Paper II describe the implementation of WEEE Directive in Finland and the state of WEEE recovery and recycling situation in Oulu Region prior the implementation. Paper III illustrates the implemented national legislation and the built WEEE recovery infrastructure in Finland. Further, the regional recovery system in Oulu is introduced, the challenges of its effective management are highlighted and, finally, improvements to the current system are suggested in Paper III. In Papers IV, V and VI, the Finnish recovery system is compared with those in Hungary, Sweden and Norway to evaluate the similarities and differences between the systems in order to identify the factors defining successful and efficient WEEE recovery systems. Paper IV presents the contrasting of Finnish and Hungarian system, while Finnish and Swedish systems are compared in Paper V. Moreover, the comparison between Finnish and Norwegian system is illustrated in Paper VI. Paper VII and Paper VIII consider the implications of RoHS Directive. Paper VII introduces material content of mobile phones and discusses environmental and economic benefits achieving by implementing RoHS Directive. Paper VIII, for one, illustrates the material content of LCD screens and describes current recycling practices of LDC screens to fulfil recycling requirements set down in WEEE Directive. 12
1.2 Research methods Various research methods have been applied in this study. Literature surveys regarding e.g. the state of the WEEE recovery and material content of WEEE (Paper VII and VIII) were conducted over the research period. In addition to the literature surveys, personal interviews and enquires have been applied to investigate the WEEE recycling situation prior to the application of WEEE Directives in the Oulu Region (Paper I) and the study of national implementation of Directives (Papers II and III). Personal interviews have been carried through company visits, person-to-person discussions by telephone and in nationwide public events related to the topic of this work. Further, enquires have been conducted by e-mail and, on demand, completed by telephone. Further, examination of the Finnish WEEE recovery infrastructure and the operating recovery network in Oulu region (Papers III-VI) was based on mapping of real-life experiences conducted by Doc. Ulla Lehtinen and M.Sc (Tech.) Kari Poikela, coauthors in Papers III and V. In the mapping process, the material and information flows between the actors of collection network were mapped out and stages of the collection process were documented by taking photos and drawing flow charts. Further, semistructured interviews were held with the main actors. Finally, a study of consumers’ awareness and mobile phone recycling behaviour was carried out through a questionnaire with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The first questions concentrated on respondents recycling behaviour and reasons leading to current situation, while subsequent questions focused on awareness and attitudes of recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Finally, some background information was inquired. A survey was conducted in the City of Oulu in 2008 by occasionally selected respondents. Half of the questionnaires were distributed coincidentally to the large work community and place of municipal service provider, while the other half of questionnaires were delivered to the letterboxes of private apartments across the City of Oulu. Questionnaires were requested to return within pre-paid return envelopes trough the public postal services.
13
2 EU LEGISLATION RELATED TO ELECTRONICS Due to burgeoning amounts and the complex mixture of materials and hazardous substances contained in WEEE, the concern about the environmental impacts of WEEE arose in the middle of 1990s. In that time, more than 90% of WEEE was landfilled, incinerated or recovered without any pretreatment and, therefore, a large proportion of hazardous substances found in the municipal waste stream came from WEEE. In the late 1990s, some of the European countries, such as Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden, began as forerunners to prepare national legislations regarding WEEE management to prevent the environmental problems caused by uncontrolled disposal of WEEE. Further, in order to adequately address the environmental problems associated with the treatment and disposal of WEEE and ensure the functioning of the internal markets, measures at European Community level were introduced in June 2000 in a form of proposal for two Directives {COM(2000)0347}. The proposed WEEE Directive dealt with the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment at a life-cycle point of view and, the second one, the RoHS Directive, sought to harmonize measures on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. (European Commission 2000) Life-cycle thinking looks at environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of a product, from resources to disposal phase. In the waste hierarchy, preparing for re-use is favoured, followed by re-use, material recycling and energy recovery. Disposal of waste is the least favoured resort. In line with life-cycle thinking, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched for the first time the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) already in 1972. The idea of PPP is to make responsible for environmental pollution those parties who are associated with the cause and are able to improve the situation. Nowadays, PPP is one of the fundamental principles of the European Community environmental policy and it encourages preventing and reducing pollution and, therefore, it has also been included in the RoHS and WEEE Directives. In the RoHS Directive, a requirement of substitution of hazardous substances for safer materials follows the principal idea of PPP for pollution prevention, while PPP is included in WEEE Directive in a form of extended producer responsibility (EPR). EPR for the waste management phase of EEE is regulated in order for creating an economic incentive for producers to move toward more environmentally sound design and 14
manufacturing (Directive 2002/96/EC). Therefore, the establishment of the WEEE Directive encourages producers to consider the design and production of EEE in relation to end-of-life (EOL) management; an approach that takes into account and facilitates their repair, possible upgrading, re-use, disassembly and recycling and, finally, the best methods of recovery and disposal. The other fundamental principles built into the WEEE and RoHS Directives are the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The purpose of subsidiarity is to ensure that powers are exercised as close to the citizen as possible. In a European Community context, subsidiarity protects Member States’ capacity to take decisions and action, however, also authorises the intervention of the Community when the objectives cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States ‘due to the scale and effects of the proposed action’. (European Parliament, 2012) The principle of proportionality, for one, introduces only obligations which are necessary to achieve, not the measures of the execution (European Commission, 2000). In accordance with subsidiarity, national and regional conditions have to be taken into account when collection, treatment and financing systems for the management of WEEE are devised. Therefore, the WEEE Directive describes only the main principles of WEEE management and financing and, further, the establishment of principles at Community level. In contrast, the modalities of the logistics and the organization of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of Member States (European Commission, 2000). Further, in accordance with the proportionality principle, the minimum targets of 70 w-% for recovery and 50 w-% for re-use and recycling of WEEE are set in the Directive.
2.1 WEEE Directive The first legislative proposal of the Directive on WEEE was published in June 2000. After the legislative procedure in the EU, the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC was signed in January 27th, 2003 and put in effect February 13th, 2003 by publishing in the Official Journal of the European Union. The principal purposes of the WEEE Directive are to prevent WEEE generation and, in addition, to improve the re-use, recycling and recovery of WEEE in place of disposal, to reduce the environmental and health impacts of WEEE. Further, it seeks to harmonize 15
Member States’ national measures on the management of WEEE in order to avoid national approaches which may hamper the effectiveness of recycling policies and cause substantial disparities in the financial burden at the EU level. These objectives are considered to achieved by a wide range of measures required for operators involved in the life-cycle of EEE, including producers, consumers and, in particular, operators directly involved with WEEE treatment. (Directive 2002/96/EC) Directive 2002/96/EC defines EEE as equipment that is dependent on electric current or electromagnetic field to work and equipment for the generation, transfer or measurement of such currents and fields. The voltage rating ranges 0-1000 V for AC and 0-1500 V for DC. The scope of the Directive includes practically all electrical and electronic equipment falling under the definition, excluding only equipment intended for military purposes such as arms and munitions (Directive 2002/96/EC). Due to extremely wide range of equipment, EEE is categorized in the Directive 2002/96/EC as follows: 1. Large household appliances (e.g. refrigerators) 2. Small household appliances (e.g. coffee machines) 3. IT and telecommunications equipment (e.g. computers) 4. Consumer equipment (e.g. radio and television sets) 5. Lighting equipment (e.g. fluorescent lamps) 6. Electrical and electronic tools with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools (e.g. drills and saws) 7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment (e.g. video games) 8. Medical devices with the exception of all implanted and infected products (e.g. radiotherapy equipment) 9. Monitoring and control instruments (e.g. smoke detectors) 10. Automatic dispersers (e.g. for hot drinks or money). Separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE. Therefore, according to the Directive, producers need to oversee the finance for the development of appropriate systems, so that returning of WEEE is reasonable painless and, moreover, free of charge for private persons. Further, a general collection target for the WEEE categories, 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year, was provided and it had to be achieved by the December 31st, 2006, at the latest. (Directive 2002/96/EC)
16
Producers have to also set up appropriate systems in order to ensure improved treatment and re-use/recycling of WEEE. Certain requirements for treatment are prescribed in the Directive as targets for the re-use, recycling and recovery of WEEE. Treatment requirements, recovery rate up to 80 % by an average weight and recycling rate up to 75 % by an average weight per appliance, had to be realized also by December 31st, 2006. (Directive 2002/96/EC) Specific recovery and recycling targets of different WEEE categories, as set in Directive, are presented in Table 3. Table 3 The minimum targets of WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC (Directive 2002/96/EC). Category Large household appliances Small household appliances IT and telecommunications equipment Consumer equipment Lighting equipment Gas discharge lamps Electrical and electronic tools Toys, leisure and sports equipment Monitoring and control instruments Automatic disperser
Recovery rate [w-%]
Re-use & recycling rate [w-%]
80 70 75 75 70 70 70 70 80
75 50 65 65 50 80 50 50 50 75
In order to achieve high collection rates and to facilitate the recovery of WEEE, users of EEE and recyclers must be informed about their role in the recovery system of WEEE. Therefore, a labelling requirement for EEE put on the market after August 13th, 2005 to minimizing the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and requirements for producers to inform recycling operators about the material content of such equipment are indicated in the Directive. (Directive 2002/96/EC) The symbol for marking EEE is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Symbol for the marking of EEE (Directive 2002/96/EC). 17
According to the Directive 2002/96/EC, within five years after the entry into force, experiences from the application of the Directive, especially regarding separate collection, treatment, recovery and financial systems, have to be reported and recasting of the Directive suggested, if appropriate. Simultaneously, the new mandatory targets for recovery, recycling and re-use of WEEE had to be established by December 31st, 2008, at the latest. (Directive 2002/96/EC) The time line of deadlines and important dates of the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC illustrated is in Figure 3.
August 13th, 2004: June 13 , 2000: February 13 , 2003: Deadline for Member Proposal of WEEE (2002/96/EC) States to transpose WEEE Directive Directive is put into WEEE Directive into national legislation. force. is introduced. th
th
January 27th, 2003: WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC) is signed by European Parliament and Council.
December 31st, 2006: Deadline to achieve WEEE targets: 4 kg/inhab./year for separate collection, 70/75/80 w-% for recovery, 50/65/75 w-% for re-use and recycling.
August 13th, 2005: Separation collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE have to be arranged and financed by producers.
December 31st, 2008: Deadline for proposal of new mandatory targets for recovery, recycling and re-use of WEEE.
New EEE products have to be marked with the symbol of separate collection.
Figure 3 Time line of the implementation of the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC (based on Directive 2002/96/EC). According to the impact assessment of the WEEE Directive done in 2008, experiences with the first years of implementation have indicated some technical, legal and administrative problems causing, e.g. continuing environmental harm, low levels of innovation in waste collection and treatment as well as distortion of competition (European Commission, 2008b). While the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC itself foresaw the possibility of revision based on the experiences of the application and, in addition, it set out to propose new mandatory WEEE collection, recovery and re-use/recycling targets by the end of 2008. The proposal of recast WEEE Directive {COM(2008) 810 final} was introduced in December 3rd, 2008. After the revising process, the recast WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU, called also as WEEE II, was signed on the July 4th, 2012. In consequence, the initial WEEE Directive with its successive amendments will be revealed on the February 15th, 2014. 18
The main tasks of revision were the clarification of the scope, improvement of effectiveness through increased compliance and reduced free-riding. Further, reduction of environmental impacts for setting more demanding collection, re-use/recovery and recycling rates for WEEE was also in target. Therefore, in the recast WEEE Directive, the scope has been clarified by defining categories of equipment as from private household (C2B) or from users other than private households (B2B). This is expected to result in positive environmental and economic impacts and clarity for producers by reducing free-riding on the market. Further, electrical and electronic devices have been re-categorized in the recast process. According to the Directive 2012/19/EU, EEE categories follow the initial ones over to transitional period from August 13th, 2012 to August 14th, 2018 with an extension of photovoltaic panels to the category 4. From August 15th, 2018 onward, the Directive applies to all EEE categorized as follows: 1. Temperature exchange equipment (e.g. refrigerators and heat pumps) 2. Screens, monitors and equipment containing screens having a surface greater than 100 cm2 (e.g. televisions, LCD photo frames) 3. Lamps (e.g. fluorescent lamps and LEDs) 4. Large equipment, any external dimension more than 50 cm (e.g. washing machines, photovoltaic panels and large medical devices) 5. Small equipment, no external dimension more than 50 cm (e.g. vacuum cleaners, smoke detectors and sport equipment) 6. Small IT and telecommunication equipment, no external dimension more than 50 cm (e.g. mobile phones, GPS and personal computers) The more demanding and gradually evolved collection and recycling targets of WEEE are included in the recast Directive. In the initial stage, over the first three years, the recovery, re-use and recycling target remained at the previous level. However, the scope of the recovery and recycling targets was extended to cover also medical devices (category 8) with the percentages of 70 % for recovery and 50 % for re-use and recycling. Moreover, a rate of separate collection of at least 4 kg/inhab./year of WEEE from private households, or the same amount of WEEE that was collected in the three preceding years, whichever is greater, will have to be collected. (Directive 2012/19/EU) In the following stage, from three to seven years, all targets will be raised 5 % being from the lowest recycling rate of 55 % for small household appliances up to recovery rate of 85 % for large household appliances. Eventually, after the transitional period of seven years, new categories of WEEE will come into effect and, therefore, some changes for the targets may occur upward or downward due to re-categorization. 19
In 2019, the minimum collection rate shall be 65 % of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years or, alternatively, 85 % of WEEE generated. (Directive 2012/19/EU) Gradually evolved category-specific recovery and recycling targets of the WEEE set in Directive 2012/19/EU are presented in Table 4. Table 4 The minimum targets of WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU (Directive 2012/19/EU). Category
Recovery rate [w-%]
Re-use & recycling rate [w-%]
Part 1: Minimum targets from August 13th, 2012 until August 14th, 2015 Large household appliances Small household appliances IT and telecommunications equipment Consumer equipment Lighting equipment Gas discharge lamps Electrical and electronic tools Toys, leisure and sports equipment Medical devices Monitoring and control instruments Automatic disperser
80 70 75 75 70 70 70 70 70 80
75 50 65 65 50 80 50 50 50 50 75
Part 2: Minimum targets from August 15th, 2015 until August 14th, 2018 Large household appliances Small household appliances IT and telecommunications equipment Consumer equipment Lighting equipment Gas discharge lamps Electrical and electronic tools Toys, leisure and sports equipment Medical devices Monitoring and control instruments Automatic disperser
85 75 80 80 75 75 75 75 75 85
80 55 70 70 55 80 55 55 55 55 80
85 80 85 75 75
80 70 80 80 55 55
Part 3: Minimum targets from August 15th, 2018 Temperature exchange equipment Screens and monitors Lamps Large equipment Small equipment Small IT and telecommunication equipment
20
Due to experiences of low levels of innovation in waste collection and treatment over the first years of implementation, improvements of collection and transportation stage are included in the new Directive for maximizing preparing for re-use. According to Directive 2012/19/EU, the separation of devices that will be prepared for re-use has to be carried out at the collection points, prior to any further transfer in particular by personnel from re-use centres. Further, the European standardization organisations are requested to develop standards for recovery, recycling and preparing for re-use of WEEE no later than February 14th, 2013 (Directive 2012/19/EU). The registration and reporting requirements of producer registration are harmonized in Directive 2012/19/EU for reducing unnecessary administrative burden between Member States and EU and, as well, the minimum inspection requirements for Member States are set in order to bridge the implementation gap. Further, minimum monitoring requirements for shipments of WEEE are enacted to strengthen the enforcement of the WEEE Directive (Directive 2012/19/EU).
2.2 RoHS Directive The first legislative proposal of the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) was published in June 2000 and, after the legislative procedure of EU, the RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC was signed in January 27th, 2003 and put on effect February 13th, 2003 by publishing in the Official Journal of the European Union. The objective of the RoHS Directive is to bring the laws of the Member States regarding the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in EEE closer to each other for improving the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Moreover, the Directive contributes to the protection of human health and the environment by ensuring that the substances in EEE causing major environmental and health problems during waste management are substituted by safe or safer materials. In consequence, possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of WEEE are also enhanced. (Directive 2002/95/EC) The scope of the RoHS Directive is electrical and electronic equipment falling under the categories 1-7 and 10 set out in the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC) and, in addition, electric light bulbs and luminaires in households. According to the Directive 21
2002/95/EC, new EEE put on the market after July 1st, 2006 cannot contain lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), hexavalant chromium (Cr+VI), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) from which PBBs and PBDEs have been earlier typically been used as flame retardants in plastics of EEE. Exemptions from the substitution requirements of the RoHS are allowed only if the substitution is not technically possible to do, or when the negative environmental and/or health impacts of substitution exceed the benefits. (Directive 2002/95/EC) The time line of the implementation of the RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC is illustrated in Figure 4. th
th
February 13 , 2003:
June 13 , 2000: Proposal of RoHS Directive is introduced.
RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) is put into force.
th
July 1st, 2006: Deadline for restriction of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE in new EEE.
January 27 , 2003:
August 13th, 2005:
RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) is signed by European Parliament and Council.
Deadline for review of new measures, in particular, to include categories 8 and 9 of WEEE Directive under the scope of RoHS.
Figure 4 Time line of the implementation of the RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC (based on Directive 2002/95/EC). After its implementation in 2003, several substantial changes were made to the initial RoHS Directive. Various amendments have taken place due to adaption of scientific and technical progress but also completions and replacements have been performed (Annex VII of Directive 2011/65/EU). Still, the Directive had been criticized for being uncertain and inaccurate (The Finnish Federation of Technology Industries 2011). Therefore, in December 2008, the European Commission proposed to revise the RoHS Directive for reducing administrative burdens and ensuring coherency with newer policies and legislation covering e.g. chemicals, and the new legislative framework for the marketing of products in the EU (European Commission, 2008a). After revising, the recast RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU, called also as RoHS II, was signed on the June 8th, 2011 and published on the July 1st, 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union. In consequence, the end of validity of the initial RoHS Directive will be on the January 3rd, 2013 when repealed by RoHS II.
22
One of the main objectives of the recast process was to develop RoHS II to be more understandable, effective and enforceable than the initial one (European Commission, 2008a). The most significant changes made in the recasting process are related to inclusion of additional categories in the scope of the Directive. Further, definitions and legal provisions are specified to be more unambiguous. Conformity and explicit scheduling issues are also inserted in the recast Directive for improving the impressiveness of the Directive. The scope of the upcoming Directive is, practically, extended to apply to all electrical and electronic equipment because formerly excluded EEE categories 8 (medical devices) and 9 (monitoring and control instruments) are now included in the Directive. Moreover, category 11 for “other EEE not covered by any of the categories above” is created. In pursuance of the extension of scope, the former scope stated as a reference of the categories defined in the WEEE Directive is replaced by mention of EEE categories set out in Annex I. (Directive 2011/65/EU) Summary of the restricted substances and the scope of the Directive are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Restricted substances and the scopes of RoHS Directive (Directive 2002/95/EC and Directive 2011/65/EU). RoHS: Restricting the use of Lead (Pb) Mercury (Hg) Cadmium (Cd) Hexavalent Chromium (Cr+VI) Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
The scope of RoHS I
The scope of RoHS II
Categories 1-7 and Category 10 and Electric light bulbs and luminaires in households
Categories 1-7 Categories 8-9 Category 10 and Extended to Category 11 for “other EEE not covered by any of the categories above”
A number of new definitions and obligations are built into the recast Directive to eliminate diverse interpretations in Member States. Several definitions related to EEE introduced earlier only in the WEEE Directive are inserted during the recast process due to extending the scope and breaking the linkage between RoHS and WEEE Directives. However, also uncertainties and inaccuracies of various terms occurred in the initial Directive, particularly in roles and duties of the players in the supply chain are sought to amplify by defining them more clearly. Moreover, requirements of EU declaration of conformity and CE marking are included in the recast Directive to confirm the
23
responsibilities of EEE manufacturers and making them aware of the requirements involved in the Directive. In addition to various interpretations of the Directive, incomplete scheduling requirements has hampered the national implementation and delayed the fulfillment of requirements set in the initial RoHS Directive (European Commission, 2008a). Therefore, the European Parliament and the Council have imposed more straight and scheduled measures for Member States to adopt and publish the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with RoHS II by January 2nd, 2013.
24
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WEEE DIRECTIVE IN FINLAND In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the WEEE Directive describes only the main principles of WEEE management and financing and the establishment of principles at Community level, to avoid the distortion of the internal market. In consequence, the modalities of the logistics and the organization of take-back schemes are left to the choice of Member States. (European Commission, 2000) The WEEE Directive provides that national legislations in the Member States on waste electrical and electronic equipment had to be implemented before August 13th, 2004. In addition, separate collection to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE and suitable waste management facilities had to be developed by August 13th, 2005. Generally, it was presupposed that some Member States cannot reach the requirements under the indicated schedule and, therefore, the possibility to apply an extension of the deadlines was put down to the Directive. However, some difficulties in the implementation were also expected to arise due to unequal development of operational and legislative progress of some Member States. For instance, it was assessed that national regulation and legislation would fall behind in Germany and Sweden even though the ability for practical operation already existed prior to the Directive. The opposite situation was e.g. in Ireland and France, where preparation of the regulation was expected to be implemented on schedule but the operational preconditions were not ready during the transitional period. (Wiik, 2004) In the case of Finland, neither the legislative nor the operational preconditions to a nationwide, comprehensive separate collection and recovery system of WEEE existed at that time. However, a high proportion of discarded metal-rich large household appliances such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and washing machines were already recycled at that time, because most of the electronic goods retailers took back old equipment when buying a new one and paying a discard fee. Individual citizens could also take their end-of-life equipment to designated reception places, such as landfill sites, in the largest cities of Finland. The WEEE recovery and recycling situation in Oulu Region is introduced as a case study of the state of the Finnish situation prior to the national implementation in Paper I.
25
3.1 Implementation to national legislation After the directives came into force, legislative and operational preparations for the implementation were initiated in Finland by representatives of authorities, industry and the operators interested in the recovery and recycling of WEEE. A good example of the cooperation between various parties was a project called AWARENESS (Advanced WEEE recovery and recycling management system) introduced in Paper I. The project was launched in summer 2003 by the Technology Industries of Finland and it focused on influences of the WEEE Directive on the manufacturers and producers of electrical and electronic equipment. The aims of the project were to build the WEEE recovery and recycling system as well as an internet-based information system in Finland. In addition, the project supported companies in arriving at a consensus on Directive implementation details and initiated company co-operation in different product categories and to take optimal recycling processes into use. (Malmström et al., 2004) Implementation of the WEEE Directive in Finland is described in Paper II and Paper III. In order to harmonize with the WEEE Directive, on June 2004 the Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993) was amended (452/2004) to include new clauses on producer responsibility as listed in Table 6. Moreover, governmental regulation of WEEE (852/2004) and RoHS (853/2004) were incorporated to the national legislation in September 2004. This meant that the national WEEE regulation fulfilling the obligations of the WEEE and RoHS Directives was implemented in Finland close to the duration of the transition period of the Directive. Table 6 New clauses on producer responsibility included in the Finnish Waste Act (Ministry of the Environment in Finland, 2004). 18 a §
Producer responsibility means duty of producers over their products put to market, when they become wastes, the management of this waste and the costs incurred.
18 b §
Producer responsibility concerns tires, packaging, paper, cars, EEE, and their producers
18 c §
Producer responsibility may also cover products made by other producers and “old” products (historic waste)
18 d §
Includes regulations concerning the producers’ association
18 e §
Concerns the responsibility of other actors, such regions, distributors, to participate in waste management
18 g §
Concerns the EEE producer’s participation in securing the financing of domestic WEEE recovery
26
According to the Finnish Waste Act, producers of EEE are provided to organize the reuse, recovery and other waste management of the products they have put on the market, and to be responsible for the costs incurred. Producers shall also ensure that an extensive network of collection facilities is established to provide nationwide a reasonable opportunity to deliver EOL products for recovery. Furthermore, sellers and other operators need to be informed by producers with information and instructions on their products, on their re-use, disassembly and recyclability of the components. Producers shall annually report on quantities and categories of electronics put on the market, the accumulation of discarded products and their collection, re-use, recovery, export and other waste management to the Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, which acts as a national inspecting and controlling authority in Finland. Overview of realization of the WEEE legislation in Finland is outlined in Table 7. Table 7 The overview of national legislative realization in Finland (Savage et al., 2006; Ministry of Environment of Finland, 2004) Transposition Act 452/2004 amending Waste Act (1072/1993) was adopted by Parliament on 4th June 2004 and Ordinance (852/2004) on Electrical and Electronic Waste was adopted by the Government on 9th September 2004. Key Provisions
Household WEEE: Producers are responsible for organising and financing the collection of WEEE from households. Retailers must either take back WEEE on a 1:1 basis, or indicate to the consumer an alternative reception facility (e.g. a facility that the retailer has an agreement with). B2B WEEE: Producers are responsible for the cost of managing nonhousehold WEEE put on the market after 13th August 2005. They must take back products put on the market before that date on a 1:1 basis. Producers and purchasers other than households can agree on alternative arrangements if they wish. Guarantee: The guarantee for managing the “new” WEEE from households may take the form of a blocked bank account, recycling insurance or membership in an appropriate financing scheme (e.g. producer responsibility organization). The approval of the guarantee to be decided case by case by the national authority within registration procedure. Producer register: The Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre runs the nationwide producer registration system, for Producer Responsibility Organizations and for producers who are not members of any compliance scheme.
Compliance
Producers associations: FLIP ry (Finnish Lamp Importers and Producers) ICT-tuottajaosuuskunta Ty (ICT Producer Co-operative) SELT ry (Electrical and Electronics Equipment Producers' Entity) SERTY Oy (Society of WEEE producers) Nera ry (Nordic Electronics Recycling Association) Elker Oy is an umbrella organization and service provider founded by Flip, ICT and SELT.
27
3.2 Development of the WEEE recovery infrastructure The overwhelming majority of electronic devices sold on the Finnish market are imported and, therefore, the representatives of foreign and domestic producers may transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to a producers association. The producers association in turn appoints WEEE recovery companies to treat and recycle the collected waste. In Finland, electrical and electronic equipment producers and importing business have formed five producer co-operatives for the purpose of organizing collection and recycling of WEEE as represented in Paper III. FLIP ry (Finnish Lamp Importers and Producers Association), ICT-tuottajaosuuskunta Ty (ICT Producer Co-operative) and SELT ry (Electrical and Electronics Equipment Producers' Association) have founded together an umbrella organization and service provider named Elker Oy. SERTY Oy (Society of WEEE producers) and Nera ry (Nordic Electronics Recycling Association) operate independently. Within the supply chain of WEEE, various tasks such as collection, transportation, sorting and disassembly of products, storage, selling of material fractions as well as reusable products and parts is conducted. The main steps of supply and information chain of WEEE in Finland are presented in Figure 5.
Landfills Industry Communities Private users Householders
Non-recyclable COLLECTION POINTS
SORTING STATION
PRE-TREATMENT STATION
Recyclable materials
Disassembly / Re-usable components
Recycling companies Smelters
Second hand markets
Figure 5 Main steps of current reverse distribution chain of WEEE in Finland (Paper III, based on Poikela and Lehtinen, 2006) Two diverse structures of the WEEE supply chain exist in Finland. SERTY and NERA have both their own centralized reverse supply chains, where WEEE is transported nationally from collection points to only a few treatment points. Elker Oy promotes a nationwide decentralized logistics network with over 30 pre-treatment stations and several transport service providers (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2007). Logistics services are 28
typically sourced from regional operators, such as from social enterprises or public institutions. Regional handling of WEEE includes also the sorting of collected WEEE into re-usable and not re-usable ones (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2006). Collection and transportation are generally the most expensive steps of the WEEE supply chain and, therefore, it is crucial to set up an efficient collection system (Lonn et al., 2002; Truttmann and Rechberger, 2006). Collection of WEEE can be arranged several different ways; however, the three most common ones are municipal sites, in store retailer take-back and producer take-back (Savage et al., 2006). In Finland, collection of WEEE is arranged mainly as a permanent collection; approximately 380 collection points existed around the country in 2008. Permanent collection points are, in most cases, provided by the municipality and, in some cases, by private companies or social economy enterprises. Private users and households can bring end-of-life products to the collection points free of charge. Non-private users, such as enterprises and institutes are, generally, not allowed to return WEEE to collection points but ordinarily required to have an individual contract with regional operators to remove and take care of their electronic equipment. However, a permanent collection system is not efficient for all cases, because e.g. the quantity of returned devices has to be checked and transported regularly (Kang and Schoenung, 2005). Therefore, in the most sparsely populated areas of Finland, the recovery of WEEE has been organized as a mobile collection. End-of-life EEE can also be returned to the retailers in association with buying a new one. In a permanent collection system of Finland, the returned equipment is put into containers or cages at regional collection points. From the collection points, WEEE is transported to local sorting stations where WEEE is separated into cages for different product co-operatives and sent to the various pre-treatment stations. In addition, data on the quantities of collected WEEE are sent to the producers’ co-operatives. Further, in the pre-treatment station, WEEE is weighed and sorted into re-usable and not re-usable fractions. Re-usable equipment or components are disassembled, stocked and delivered onwards. Recyclable materials are delivered for treatment and material utilization, respectively. Non-recyclable WEEE is stocked in the pre-treatment station until it is delivered to treatment plants or disposed. (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2006) The model of WEEE collection network in exemplified with a case of Oulu region in Figure 6.
29
Collection points in rural districts
Collection and sorting station
. . .
Producers’ co-operatives
Haukipudas Private users / Householders
Kempele
Municipal Waste Management Company of Oulu
Kiiminki Liminka . . .
Material flow
Non-private users, e.g. enterprises and institutes
Pre-treatment stations
Utilization or disposal
Partners of producers’ cooperatives (Elker)
Recycling companies
Partners of producers’ cooperative (NERA) Partners of producers’ cooperative (SERTY)
Smelters Landfills Second hand markets
Information flow
Figure 6 The current model of WEEE collection and recovery network in Oulu region (based on Poikela and Lehtinen, 2006) As described in Paper III, in total, 13 collection points are situated in the Oulu Region. The collection points are maintained by local municipalities and the whole regional system is managed by the Municipal Waste Management Company of Oulu, providing containers or cages and taking care of transportation of collected WEEE. At the regional collection points, the returned equipment is put into containers or cages without sorting. From the collection points, WEEE is transported to a sorting station situated at the premises of Oulu Municipal Waste Management Company. These premises also receive electronic waste from citizens. In the sorting station, WEEE is separated into cages for different product co-operatives and sent to the various pre-treatment stations. In addition, data from quantities of collected WEEE are sent to the producers’ cooperatives. In the pre-treatment station, WEEE is weighed and sorted into re-usable and not re-usable ones. Re-usable equipment or components are disassembled, stocked and delivered onwards. Recyclable materials are delivered for treatment and material recovery. Non-recyclable WEEE is stocked in the pre-treatment station until it is delivered to treatments plants or disposed. (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2006) The first official data from Finnish producer registration system in 2006 were reported to the EU in June 2008. According to the Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre (2007), a total of 39 143 tonnes or some 7.4 kg/person/year of WEEE were collected separately in Finland in the very first year after the implementation of WEEE recovery 30
system. Over 95 % of collected WEEE was treated in Finland. Most of the collected WEEE, 78.8 %, was recycled as materials and, in addition, only a minor proportion, about 1 %, was re-used as parts as or whole equipment. Re-use and recycling rate was, therefore, approximately 80 %. Further, approximately 4.8 % of WEEE was recovered as energy. The total rate of WEEE recovery in Finland was, therefore, close to 85 %. (Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, 2007) One year later, in 2007, the total amount of collected WEEE increased to 25 %, that is 48 633 tonnes or approximately 9.2 kg/person/year (Ignatius et al., 2009). A compositional breakdown and amounts of the collected WEEE in 2007 is represented in Table 8. Table 8 Amounts of collected WEEE in Finland and estimations of the distribution to the subcategories in 2007 (Ignatius et al. 2009; Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, 2009). Categories
Amount [t]
Portion [w-%]
Actual recovery/ target [%]
Actual re-use and recycling/ target [%]
1 Large household appliances* 1A Large household appliances 1B Cooling and freezing equipment 1C Large household appliances, smaller items 2 Small household appliances
24 580
51 29 18 4
91/80
86/75
1 526
3
72/70
68/50
3 IT and telecom equipment* 3A IT and telecom equipment (excl. CRTs and LCDs) 3B CRT monitors 3C LCD monitors 4 Consumer electronics* 4A Consumer electronics (excl. CRT’s and LCD’s) 4B CRT TV’s 4C Flat panel TV’s 5 Lightning equipment 5A Luminaires 5B Lamps 6 Electrical and electronic tools 7 Toys, leisure and sports equipment 8 Medical devices 9 Monitoring and control instruments 10 Automatic dispensers
10 375
21 10
75/75
72/65
74/75
70/65
86/70
84/50 94/80
75/70 76/70
72/50 70/50
70/70 99/80
60/50 91/75
84
80
Total / average
10 050
11 0 21 8
1 149 251 898 433 22 23 78 397
13 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1
48 633
100
*the subcategory distribution is expected to follow average distribution of 11 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden and Great Britain) based on the study of United Nations University (2007).
31
According to Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre (2009), rate targets set down in the WEEE Directive for re-use, recycling and recovery of WEEE were fulfilled almost every categories; only in the case of total recovery of consumer electronics (category 4), the actual rate was remained just under the target. The total rates were equivalent with those in 2006, 78.8 % for material recycling and 1 % for re-use. Only the rate of energy recovery was decreased slightly, to 4.4 % at that time. (Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, 2009) However, the tendency of collected and treated WEEE amounts in Finland has recently decreased as can be seen in Figure 7. There is no certainty for reasons but it can be expected that the amounts of historical WEEE (WEEE generated prior the recovery system and stored years in consumers warehouses) has started to diminish. The other conceivable reason might be instability in European and world economy. 60000 50000
[tonnes]
40000 Collected WEEE
30000
Recovered WEEE Recycled and re-used WEEE
20000 10000 0 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
year Figure 7 Amounts of officially collected and treated WEEE in Finland in 2005-2010 (Eurostat, 2012).
3.3 A case study of consumers’ awareness and behaviour on mobile phone recycling The evaluation of the implementation of the WEEE Directive in the EU Member States shows that the returns of appliances lighter than 1kg are currently very low for all WEEE recovery systems in the EU level (UNU 2007). To achieve the required recovery 32
rates under the WEEE Directive, the most important factor to be considered is how to ensure the complete participation of the end-users. Several studies indicate that a large fraction of small end-of-use EEE such as mobile phones do not enter the WEEE recovery systems but lie around not in use or, even worse, are disposed as inappropriate ways such as with mixed waste. (Polák and Drápalová, 2012; Tanskanen and Butler 2007; Jang and Kim, 2010; Melissen 2006) In order to investigate consumers’ behaviour and awareness related to mobile phone recycling, a survey was conducted in the City of Oulu in 2008. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire with 19 multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The first questions concentrated on respondents recycling behaviour and reasons leading to the current situation, while subsequent questions focused on awareness and attitudes of recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Finally, some background information was inquired. In total, 50 persons between the ages of 20 to 65 years participated in the survey. According to the study, end-of-use mobile phones are typically stored at homes; 88 % of respondents reported having at least one old mobile phone at home, with 44 % of respondents stocking up to 3 or more phones. Based on the survey, more than half of end-of-use mobile phones were just stored at homes and 22 % were given to children, relatives or friends. Only 7 % of mobile phones were sold onward and 14 % were left at the store when buying a new one. Moreover, 3 % of respondents have taken old mobile phones to the recycling centre and none of them has disposed them with mixed waste. The fate of the old mobile phones is illustrated in Figure 8.
3% 14% Keep them home Give them to children/relatives
7% 54%
Sell them Leave them at the store
22% Take them to the recycling centre
Figure 8 The fate of old mobile phones. 33
Respondents had various reasons for not returning old mobile phones. The most common reason (46 %) was to keep them at home as spare phones; 56 % of respondents agreed on this reason. Further, approximately 16 % of old phones lay down at homes because respondents have not gotten around to returning them yet. One of respondents felt that recycling was troublesome; however, 11 persons did not know where to take old phones. Reasons for not returning old mobile phones are summarized in Figure 9.
18%
Keep as a spare phone Don't know where to take it 46% Feels that recycling is troublesome
16%
Have not got around to do it 2% Other 18%
Figure 9 Reasons for not returning mobile phones. The WEEE Directive places great stress on building recovery infrastructures that facilitate re-use. Most of the respondents of the survey stated to be aware of the existence of a WEEE recovery system, but have chosen not to take use of it yet. When asking respondents’ willingness to buy a used mobile phone, 60 % of them answered positively with certain reserves, as illustrated in Figure 10. According to the respondents, knowing the last owner is the most important prerequisite (33 %) for buying a used phone. It is also the most common one with the frequency of 28 %. However, the price (28 %) and the age (26 %) of a used mobile phone are nearly as common factors when making a decision. Additionally, the price is a prime prerequisite for 31 % of respondents while no more than 17 % of respondents consider the age as the most relevant factor.
34
33%
Knowing the last owner
28% 31% 28%
Cheaper than a new one
Importance New features compared to current one
Frequency
14% 16% 17%
No more than one year old
26% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Figure 10 Frequency and importance of prerequisites for buying a used mobile phone. On the grounds of the survey, it seems that the awareness of the importance of mobile phone recycling is relatively high but recycling old mobile phones is not yet a mainstream activity. The results of the survey correlate with previous surveys conducted in Southern Finland and in Nokia worldwide. The study conducted in Southern Finland (Pietikäinen 2007) revealed that up to half of the users store their nonused mobile phones at home until a possible future use, which may never come. The internal survey conducted at Nokia in 2006 (Tanskanen and Butler, 2007) in turn revealed that up to 60 % of respondents store old mobile phones at home, with 70 % of them stocking up more than 2, and 25 % more than 5 old phones. In 2007, Nokia had a take-back campaign in Finland with a promise of donating 2 Euros to WWF for each returned mobile phone. The campaign resulted in over 20 000 phones being returned. The average age of returned phones was 7 years, which is also indicative of the consumer’s delayed conduct in participating in WEEE recovery. Furthermore, several recent studies worldwide (Polák and Drápalová, 2012; Ongondo and Williams 2011; Jang and Kim, 2010; Nnorom et al., 2009) show that unused mobile phones are typically stored at homes up to several years before returned to the WEEE recovery system. For instance, according to Polák and Drápalová (2012), the average total lifespan of mobile phones in Czech Republic is 8 years from which the household storage time of EOL mobile phones is estimated to be no less than 4.35 years. To change this attitude of consumers is a fundamental requirement for sustainable waste management. There is a huge potential in the resources currently stored at homes, 35
waiting for the recycling culture to evolve so that WEEE recovery will be a mainstream activity. Awareness and incentive has been proven to be a decisive factor. Direct monetary gain is not vital; the key is the assurance that there is still a value in the product.
3.4 Comparative analysis of Finnish and other European WEEE recovery systems The Finnish WEEE recovery system developed in consequence of the WEEE Directive was compared to those in Hungary, Sweden and Norway in the studies published in Papers IV, V and VI. The starting point for the Hungarian study, introduced in Paper IV, was to compare the national implementation of the WEEE Directive in Finland and in Hungary, since neither had a comprehensive operational WEEE recovery system or national legislation regarding the WEEE management prior to the Directive. As for the other two comparative studies, the Finnish recently developed system is contrasted to the systems with longer history; the comparison with Sweden, within the framework of the EU Directives, is presented in Paper V and with Norway outside is illustrated in Paper VI. The main characteristics of the compared WEEE recovery systems are collected to the Table 9. Circumstances and practices of WEEE recycling were similar in Finland and in Hungary prior to the national implementations of the WEEE Directive. Uncontrolled disposal of electronic devices was typical in both countries, nevertheless, some level of the electronic waste recovery also existed in that time due to the profitability of their recycling. The take back of EOL electronics was ordinarily organized for a fee and, in some cases, distributors and retailers also offered to take back EOL equipment if paying a discard fee in pursuance of buying a new one. Also sporadic opportunities for EOL take back without a fee existed. Despite the WEEE recovery opportunities, home storage of historic EOL equipment was typical to both countries. However, some regions in the Southern part of Finland have reported that the 4 kg/inh./year target has already been surpassed in 2002 (Kuusakoski, 2002), while Hungary was given the extension of time until December 31st, 2008 to achieve the targeted recovery level.
36
Table 9 The overview of national WEEE recovery systems in the European countries based on studies presented in Papers IV, V and VI. Finland
Legislation: WEEE Directive nationally implemented in 2004, no exemptions Financing method: Recycling fee included in the prices of EEE in 2004 Launch of the separate collection: in 2004 in consequence of the WEEE Directive Operators: 5 Producers’ associations formed in 2004: FLIP ry (Finnish Lamp Importers and Producers) ICT-tuottajaosuuskunta Ty (ICT Producer Co-operative) SELT ry (Electrical and Electronics Equipment Producers' Entity) SERTY Oy (Society of WEEE producers) Nera ry (Nordic Electronics Recycling Association) Elker Oy is an umbrella organization and service provider founded by Flip, ICT and SELT. Collected amounts of WEEE: app. 9.5 kg/inhab./year (in 2007) Special characteristics: Significant role of the social enterprises in the pretreatment phase and re-use/refurbishment of EoL equipment.
Hungary
Legislation: WEEE Directive into force 2005 Financing method: Hungarian “Environmental Fee System” expanded to EEE from 1st January 2005 - recycling fee included in the prices of EEE Launch of the separate collection: 2005 in consequence of the WEEE Directive with the extension of time by 31st of January 2008 to achieve the targeted recovery level of 4 kg/inhabitant/year Operators: 6 Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) Collected amounts of WEEE: app. 2.5 kg/inhab./year (in 2006) Special characteristics: Re-use and refurbishment activities only for a few devises.
Sweden
Legislation: Law of producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products into force 2001, revised in 2005 to comply with the WEEE Directive Financing method: Recycling fee included to the EEE prices Launch of the separate collection: 2002 Operators: Several organisations responsible for collection points of WEEE; only one organization, El-Kretsen, nationally responsible for WEEE recycling system Collected amounts of WEEE: app. 17.5 kg/inhab./year (in 2007) Special characteristics: Re-use possibility of EoL equipment checked when devices returned by the organization responsible for current collection point. ElKretsen not involved in re-use of EEE. Minor role of social enterprises.
Norway
Legislation: Scrapped Electrical and Electronic Products into force 1998, amended in 2006 to comply the requirements of the WEEE Directive Financing method: Fee included to the EEE prices Launch of the separate collection: 1999 Operators: 4 collectively financed take-back companies: El:retur AS (non-profit company, concentrated on consumers WEEE) RENAS AS (non-profit company, concentrated on WEEE from industry) Ragn-Sells Elektronikkretur AS Eurovironment AS Collected amounts of WEEE: app. 32 kg/inhab./year (in 2007) Special characteristics: As a non-member of EU, all EEE products imported and exported are recorded. Data enables to control EEE and WEEE produced, imported and exported and to calculate the amounts not entering the recovery system.
37
WEEE recovery and management systems in Finland and in Hungary built up in accordance with the WEEE Directive resemble each other. In both countries, producers can manage take-back obligations on their own or by handling over to several producers associations or Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), who e.g. coordinate the collection and treatment of WEEE and take care of administration and reporting obligations. Further, recovered WEEE is typically disassembled manually and utilized mainly as material or energy. At the point of re-use and refurbishment, activities are confined to only few devices in Hungary, while in Finland it is advanced to business operations, often carried out by social enterprises. Based on the study, the WEEE recovery systems in Finland and in Hungary are still at a relatively early stage and, therefore, inadequate guidance and inefficient practices occurred especially at the collection points. Thus, the need for more information, guidance and publicity in regard to WEEE legislation and prevailing practices were indicated in both countries. A basis of the study of Finnish and Swedish WEEE recovery systems introduced in Paper V differs substantially from the Hungarian case, as Sweden is one of the European forerunners in relation to WEEE recovery. Sweden has implemented the law of producer responsibility for electrical and electronic producers in 2001 and launched an operational recycling system of WEEE in 2002. Moreover, the Swedish system is recognized as one of the most effective WEEE recovery systems in the world not only on the strength of the annually collected amount of WEEE per inhabitant (approximately 17.5 kg/inhab./year in 2007) but also in terms of costs. The Finnish and Swedish WEEE recovery systems have similarities but also some fundamental differences. In both countries, municipalities have a significant role for arranging and maintaining several hundred permanent collection points around the country. Moreover, similarities exist also in launching producer responsibility through the collective systems, where the representatives of foreign and domestic producers have transferred responsibility over discarded electronics to producers associations and onwards to service providers in both countries. The main difference between the Finnish and Swedish systems occurs in the number of the organizations involved to WEEE management. In Finland, three organizations (Serty, NERA and Elker) manage the collection and recycling operations while only one organization (El-Kretsen) services all producers and manufacturers in Sweden. Further, in the Swedish system, the re-use potential of EOL devices is checked by 38
organizations responsible for collection points and possible re-use of functioning equipment when devices are returned. Therefore, the recycling organization is responsible only for the management of the WEEE recycling system, which can be optimized from an efficient material flow point of view. In contrast to the Swedish system, the Finnish system is more diversified due to three producers associations, varying supply chain structures and multiple organizations involved with WEEE treatment. Furthermore, the re-use and refurbishment potential of EOL devices is not checked until at the pre-treatment stations, when collection, transportation and storing of EOL devices typically hamper the re-use potential of functioning equipment. The third comparative study, comparison between Finnish and Norwegian recovery systems, is illustrated in Paper VI. Even though Norway is not an EU Member, Norway has a long history, since 1998, regulating WEEE and, actually, it was one of first countries in the world that started to run WEEE recovery system in 1999. The Norwegian legislation was later amended to comply with the WEEE Directive. The Finnish and Norwegian systems have several similarities. In both countries, the WEEE management system is financed by a fee included in the prices of EEE. Further, WEEE collection is organized on a municipal level and several collectively financed take-back companies operate in WEEE recovery. Also the material flow of WEEE in both countries follows the same structural lines as outlined in Figure 5. The main difference of the Finnish and Norwegian systems is related to recovery routes of WEEE. In the Finnish system, the recovery route depends on the brand but not the product type (from private consumer (C2B) or business (B2B)). All WEEE of certain producer is treated at the same pre-treatment stations without the consideration of type. However, in the Norwegian case, the WEEE recovery route depends on its source, as WEEE collected from private consumers follow a different treatment route than those collected from business. This feature of the Norwegian system enables more flexibility to select optimal recovery route improving the efficiency of the system Also the comprehensive statistics of produced, imported and exported EEE and WEEE allows Norway to manage the system more efficiently than in Finland. Based on the Norwegian statistics, in 2007, the amount of separately collected WEEE was about 32 kg/inhab./year, being over three times more than in Finland (Paper VI).
39
Based on the comparative studies, it can be said that the implementation of WEEE Directive and development of WEEE recovery infrastructure has succeeded in Finland, while the legislative basis has been enacted and the functional infrastructure has been built successfully in the short term. In addition, the collection requirements of the Directives have clearly been exceeded. When compared with Hungary, Finland has managed to achieve better recovery percentages owing to the existing metals recovery infrastructure. The collection and recycling of WEEE as established in Finland has evidently environmental advantages, however, some inconsistent practices and overlaps exist due to the early stage activities of the WEEE recovery business. Therefore, some improvements to the WEEE recovery efficiency can still be expected in order to raise consumer awareness and improves behaviour in the long run, such as experienced in Sweden and Norway. However, it seems that the Swedish and Norwegian WEEE recovery systems in have also some unique characteristics which contribute to the efficiencies of those systems. In the Swedish case, the key issue is the single service provider for the whole country enabling highly efficient material flows. By controlling the whole WEEE recovery chain, El-Kretsen is able to offer practical and cost-effective solutions and optimized transportation from collection points to the centralized treatment plants (Paper V). In the Norwegian system, the clear advantage for an efficient management of WEEE recovery system is the different recovery routes for WEEE collected from private consumers and those collected from business gained on to occupy a comprehensive statistics related to EEE in Norway. This enables also to control EEE and WEEE flows more accurately and the calculation of the amounts not entering the recovery system. The system also promotes the re-use of B2B devices and, therefore, improves the efficiency of the recovery system.
40
4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE ROHS DIRECTIVE A principal aim of the RoHS Directive is the substitution of the hazardous substances used in EEE, as it is the most effective way to reduce the presence of those substances in the waste stream. Ultimately, this will enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of WEEE recycling (Directive 2002/95/EC). A more closed-loop pattern of resources will reduce the total environmental impacts of EEE. Material recycling not only reduces the environmental impacts of waste disposal, but also decreases the amounts of virgin materials and energy used in our economic system (Fisbein, 2002). The most important characteristic of closing material flows is to implement environmentally sound product design. The principles of environmentally conscious product design include the use of simple structures and, when feasible mono-materials, in addition to the use of safe or low-toxic substances (Gradel and Allenby, 2003). It can be said that the implementation of the RoHS Directive has gained on its aim because RoHS has significantly influenced the design, production, testing and quality control of EEE not only in the EU but also worldwide (Federation of Finnish Technology Industries, 2011). In consequence, at the EU level, the quantities of banned substances being disposed of and potentially released into the environment have reduced hundreds of tonnes annually, as listed in Table 10 (European Commission, 2008b). Table 10 Annual reductions of the quantities of the restricted substances being disposed of and released into the environment due to the implementation of RoHS Directive (European Commission, 2008b). Restricted hazardous substance Lead Mercury Cadmium Hexavalent Chromium Octa-BDE (one of the poly-brominated diphenylethers, PBDEs)
Amount of reduction to release into environment [tonnes] 89800 22 4300 537 12600
41
4.1 Material content of electronic devices WEEE is one of the most complex waste streams as it includes a wide variety of devices from mechanical products to highly integrated systems and technological innovations (EEA, 2003). Overall, hundreds of different components and a wide array of different materials may be contained in WEEE stream. An average material composition of WEEE is shown in Figure 11. Metals are the most abundant materials, while ferrous metals account for half of WEEE. Moreover, non-ferrous metals, including precious metals, represent approximately 13 % of the total weight of WEEE (ETC/WMF, 2003). Plastics are the second largest component by weight representing 22 % of materials contained in WEEE, while glass accounts for 6 % of WEEE. In addition, printed circuit boards (PCBs) compose 3 % and wood 2 % of WEEE. Also minor quantities of ceramics and concrete (1 %), rubber (1 %) and other substances (2 %) occur in WEEE. (Ignatius et al., 2009, based on UNU, 2007)
1% 2% 3% 5%
1%
3%
Ferrous metals NFR plastics Copper
6%
Glass FR plastics 50%
6%
Aluminium PCBs
7%
Wood Ceramics and concrete Rubber 16%
Other
Figure 11 Average material content of WEEE (Ignatius et al., 2009, modified from United Nations University, 2007) Large household appliances, such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and washing machines contain a high proportion of ferrous metals and, therefore, their recycling is a common practice and had a well-established infrastructure already prior to the implementation of the WEEE Directive in the European countries (Paper I; Darby and Obara, 2005). Similarly, precious metal based products, such as printed circuit boards (PCBs) of 42
personal computers and mobile phones have also been recycled for several years, because precious metals provide a strong economic driver for their recovery (Paper I; Darby and Obara, 2005). The motivation is that precious metal concentrations are relatively high in PCBs compared to concentrations in primary ores (Cui and Forssberg, 2003) and the purity of precious metals in WEEE may be more than 10 times higher than that in rich-content minerals (Li et al., 2007). Some EEE products, such as TVs and monitors, are principally glass based. In addition, the cathode ray tube (CRT) also contains toxic elements such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and therefore, used CRTs are considered hazardous wastes (Menad, 1999). Furthermore, a large part of consumer electronics, especially small household appliances are principally plastic based, containing only low amounts of valuable materials (Cui and Forssberg, 2003) but moderate concentrations of toxic metals (Oguchi et al., 2012). As a consequence of varying material contents, different EOL strategies will have to be devised for different classes of WEEE. Further, on demand, removal of materials and components of WEEE required a selective treatment according to the Annex II of WEEE Directive has to be carried out. Strategies suggested by Chancerel and Rotter (2009) are introduced in Table 11. Table 11 Materials and components of WEEE that need a selective treatment and strategies for removal (Chancerel and Rotter, 2009) Easily manually removable components Batteries External electric cables Toner cartridges, liquid and pasty, as well as color toner Gas discharge lamps Components and substances that cannot be removed without dismantling the equipment or special treatment PCBs of mobile phones generally and other PCBs greater than 10 cm2 LCDs greater than 100 cm2 CRTs Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) or Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), hydrocarbons (HC) Components and substances that are difficult to identify and that cannot be removed without deep dismantling of the equipment Plastic containing brominated flame retardants Capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) Electrolyte capacitors containing substances of concern Mercury containing components, such as switches or backlighting lamps Asbestos waste and components which contain asbestos Components containing refractory ceramic fibers with specific limitation Components containing radioactive substances with the specific exceptions
43
WEEE is has received extensive attention as a source of secondary metal resource due to its economic incentive (Graedel et al., 2011; Oguchi et al., 2012). Especially PCBs from EEE are regarded as an important secondary source of several noble metals, such as gold (Au), silver (Ag) and palladium (Pd) (Syed 2012; Wang and Gaustad 2012; Harue Yamane et al., 2011; Oguchi et al., 2011) Also recovery of several rare substances typically used in WEEE, such as indium (In), tamtalum (Ta) and gallium (Ga), are currently in the focus on research (Oguchi et al., 2012; Oguchi et al., 2011; Li et al., 2009). In addition to metals, also plastics from WEEE have been a subject of recent studies (Wäger et al., 2010; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2009; Retkin, 2012). According to the research conducted by Wäger et al. (2010), plastics from the different types of the WEEE still contain measurable amounts of several hazardous substances despite the implementation of the RoHS regulation already 10 years ago. Heavy metals were found at the highest concentrations in small household appliances, ICT equipment and consumer equipment. Several heavy metals or other hazardous substances such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), tin (Sn) and antimony (Sb) are or have been added to polymers as pigments, fillers, UV stabilizers, and flame retardants (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2009). High levels of brominated flame retardants, used to reduce the flammability of plastics, were typically found in small household appliances and, in particular, old CRT monitors and televisions (Wäger et al., 2010). However, according to a recent study of Retkin (2012), the compounds restricted in RoHS has been diminished in WEEE significantly over past years and are expected to be fully eliminated from WEEE by 2015. In this research, the material content of mobile phones and LCD screens were studied as two cases for assessing the implications of the RoHS Directive. The material content of mobile phones is presented in Paper VII and, further, the material content and current recycling practices of LCD screens are illustrated in Paper VIII.
4.2 Case 1: Mobile phones Mobile phone technologies have been developed substantially over the last three decades by evolving from large and heavy two-way radio devices into small and lightweight multimedia products. The weight and size reductions have contributed to the dematerialization and reduced environmental impact of individual mobile phones 44
(Fishbein, 2002).However, the number of mobile phones grew exponentially over the same time. While mobile phones were previously a personal luxury of a few and an addition to traditional landline telephones, they are now the primary communication means also in areas of the world where a wired communication infrastructure is not in place (Basel Convention, 2006a). In the case of mobile phones, used materials and their amounts diverge from each other depending on the manufacturer and models. However, some estimates of the material content can be done. The material content of mobile phones resulted from study of Basel Convention (2006b) is presented in Table 12. Plastics are the most abundant materials by weight, representing approximately 40 % of the material content of mobile phones. Glass and ceramics, as well as copper and its compounds represent approximately 15 %, each. Carbon and ferrous metals are contained in relatively low amounts, only 3-4 % each. Further, minor constituents, e.g. bromine, cadmium, chromium, lead and liquid crystal polymer, are contained in 0.1 % to 1 % per every substance. The content of micro constituents such as barium, gold or palladium, is typically less than 0.1 %. (Basel Convention, 2006b) Table 12 Substances contained in mobile phones (Basel Convention, 2006b). Name of substance Primary constituents Plastics Glass and ceramics Copper (Cu) and its compounds Nickel (Ni) and its compounds Potassium hydroxide (KOH) Cobalt (Co) Lithium (Li) Carbon (C) Aluminium (Al) Steel, ferrous metal (Fe) Tin (Sn) Minor constituents Micro or trace constituents
Location
Content [%]
Case, printed wiring board LCD screen, chips Printed wiring board, wires, connectors, batteries NiCd or NMH batteries NiCd or NMH batteries Lithium-ion battery Lithium-ion battery Batteries Case, frame, batteries Case, frame, charger, batteries Printed wiring board Printed wiring board, batteries, case, frame, keypad
~ 40 % ~ 15 % ~ 15 %
Printed wiring board, batteries, case, connectors
Less than 0.1 %
~ 10 % * ~5%* ~4%* ~4%* ~4% ~ 3 % ** ~3% ~1% 0.1 - 1 %
* only if these battery types are used, otherwise minor or micro constituent ** if aluminium case used, amount would be ~20 %
45
From the point of recovery economics, the most valuable substances of mobile phones are precious metals such as copper, cobalt, silver, gold and palladium, due to their considerable high market value and relatively high concentration in WEEE as compared to concentrations in primary ores. Thus, recovery of these metals from WEEE has a clear positive environmental impact. The metals are located mainly in the electronic circuitry and printed circuit board of mobile phones, where most of the hazardous substances can also be found. Therefore, the RoHS Directive has brought clear benefits to metals recovery from EOL mobile phones by reducing the health hazards of recycling and, ultimately, it also enhanced the economic profitability of recycling. Potential applications of restricted substances in old-fashioned mobile phones are illustrated in Table 13. Table 13 Substances restricted in RoHS Directive and their locations in mobile phones prior the implementation of RoHS (Directive 2002/95/EC; IPMI, 2003). Name of substance
Applications
Lead
Typically used in tin-lead solders in the electronic circuitry of oldfashioned mobile phones. Used in mercury vapour lamp i.e. a small screen illumination unit of old-fashioned mobile phones. Used in nickel cadmium batteries of old-fashioned mobile phones. Small amount used also in plated contacts and switches in the electronic circuitry of mobile phones. Used in decorative and hard coat plating (usually not used in mobile phones). Used as flame retardants (FRs) to prevent flammability in the plastics of the printed wiring boards (PWBs). May be found in electronic circuitry of old mobile phones.
Mercury Cadmium
Hexavalent Chromium PBBs * and PBDEs ** * **
Polybrominated biphenyls Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
According to Fishbein (2002), mobile phones are used for only an average of 18 months before being replaced. However, the time from product release to take-back and EOL treatment for mobile phones is 5 to 8 years (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002; Polák and Drápalová, 2012). These estimates show that the restrictions of the use of certain hazardous substances set by RoHS Directive has strongly affected the EOL treatment phase of mobile phones over last years and, nowadays, those compounds can be expected to be totally eliminated from EOL mobile phones. However, positive implications of RoHS Directive are not so obvious regarding plastics from mobile phones. Plastics are the most common substances in mobile phones but, however, recycling of them are neither environmentally nor economically feasible at the present. 46
Markets for recycled mixed plastics are commonly limited and, especially in the case of plastics from WEEE, the possible presence of brominated flame retardants and other hazardous substances are still a restrictive factor (Wäger et al., 2010). Therefore, more environmental benefit can be achieved by energy recovery than by recycling of mixed plastics from end-of-life mobile phones.
4.3 Case 2: LCD screens LCD technology has rapidly replaced traditional cathode ray tubes (CRT) as a more effective option not only from a technical but also from an environmentally point of view. LCDs contain substantially less materials per unit and, in addition, consume less energy during use than CRTs (Menozzi et al., 1999). Even though LCDs represent an effective option to CRTs, they also pose a disposal problem. Due to the steady increase in LCDs since the mid-1990s, a significant and ever rising amount of disposed LCD has become a problem in recent years. While there are reports of research and collaboration effort in solving the LCD recovery problem, it appears that there is no consensus on best practices and no widespread practice of LCD recovery either. From the point of LCD recycling, requirements set by RoHS and WEEE Directives is compiled in Table 14. Table 14 Main points of RoHS and WEEE Directives at the point of LCD recycling (Directive 2002/95/EC; Directve 2002/96/EC). RoHS: Restricting the use of
WEEE for ITC category
Lead Mercury Cadmium Hexavalent Chromium Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Recovery target 75 % Recycling targets 65 % Separate treatment for ▪ LCDs > 100 cm2 ▪ All units containing gas discharge lamps
In the case of LCD displays, the list of materials used and their amounts vary depending on the applications, manufacturers and models. However, some estimates of material content can be done. Based on the experimental study of Miklósi (2005), the most abundant materials by weight in LCD displays are metals, representing approximately 55 % of the total material content. The second largest material fraction, 33 %, is plastics. The rest, 12 %, is mainly composed of glass and PWBs. (Miklósi, 2005) The typical material content of LCD display is presented in Figure 12a. 47
a)
b) 5%
5% 2%
1% 55%
33%
Metals Plastics
8% Metals
38%
Plastics
PWBs
PWBs
Glass
Glass
Other
49%
Other
4%
Figure 12 Material content of a) a whole LCD display and b) a LCD module (Miklósi, 2005). The material content of the LCD module has also been in focus of research due to special requirements of LCD recovery and treatment set by WEEE Directive. In LCD modules the most abundant materials by weight are plastics with the material content of 49 % and glass (38 %) is the second largest component. Metals, such as steel and aluminum, represent approximately 8 % and printed wiring boards (PWBs) approximately 4 % of the total weight of LCD modules. The rest, 1 %, consists of e.g. indium-tin oxide, liquid crystal polymers and adhesives. (Miklósi, 2005) The material content of typical LCD module is presented Figure 12b. In a case of material content of LCDs, lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and liquid crystals (LC) are recognized as materials of concern. Separate treatment is needed due to liquid crystals (LCs) which may have corrosive and harmful effects when dissolved in water, and cause difficulties in biodegradation when disposed in landfills. (Becker et al., 2003) Lead, in contrast, has been typically found in old-fashioned electronic components, especially in printed wiring boards, where lead-based solders have been used as a surface finishing and attaching agent of electronics components. In LCDs, solders have been the only significant source of lead. (Socolof et al., 2001) However, after the implementation of RoHS Directive in 2003, solders used in electronics do not contain lead anymore but are typically substituted with e.g. silver (Ag), copper (Cu), or bismuth (Bi). The other material of concern used in LCDs is mercury, which is contained in the fluorescent backlight tubes in LCDs. Because of high toxicity of mercury and the requirements of RoHS, mercury-free alternatives to fluorescent lamps contained in 48
backlights have been developed and mercury has been phased out from backlight units. In addition, the substitution of mercury with xenon gas not only eliminated the use of hazardous substances but also extended the life-time of lamps used in LCD displays. (Socolof et el., 2001) As conclusion, the study concludes that the restriction of the use of hazardous substances, especially lead and mercury, has brought clear benefits to design and manufacturing of LCDs and, in addition, reduced the health hazards of recycling and recovery phase of LCDs. However, LCDs and other flat panel display (FPD) devices, such as plasma TVs, still contain substantial amounts of toxic heavy metals and other substances. Especially copper and arsenic are in the focus of concern but also the toxicity of indium, nickel, antimony and barium are highlighted. (Lim and Schoenung, 2010) Therefore, it is crucial to continue research efforts to explore best practices in sustainable recovery of LCDs and other FPD devices.
49
5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to examine the implementation of WEEE and RoHS Directives in Finland, from the point of resource use efficiency. Results of this study show that reduction in substances hazardous to environment and health was achieved by restricting the use of several hazardous substances and collecting WEEE separately for appropriate recovery treatment. The WEEE Directive enables the reduction of the total environmental impacts of EEE because increased material recovery and recycling not only reduce the environmental impacts of waste disposal, but also decrease the amounts of virgin materials and energy used in EEE production. Further, energy recovery for the fraction of treated WEEE which cannot be recycled as materials due to certain constraints (e.g. plastics containing flame retardants) increase the positive environmental benefits for compensating the use of other primary energy sources. Based on this study, it can be said that the implementation of the WEEE Directive and the development of the WEEE recovery infrastructure has succeeded in Finland. The legislative basis has been enacted and the functional infrastructure has been built successfully and in a short time. In addition, the collection requirements of the Directives have clearly been exceeded. The collection and recycling of WEEE as established in Finland has evidently environmental advantages, however, some inconsistent practices and overlaps still exist in the WEEE recovery business. Therefore, there are challenges still to its effective management especially in sparsely populated Northern areas of Finland. The main challenges of WEEE collection rise from the contradiction between the legislation and the benefits of producers. For reasons of efficiency, WEEE re-use should take place as much upstream as possible, in order to send re-usable appliances to the adequate re-use channels without damages (ACRR, 2003). However, producers may regard re-use and remanufacturing as a conflict of interests; the total sales may be increased through a better environmental image or, to the contrary, the remanufacturing of EEE appliances may reduce sales volume of new equipment in parallel with increasing the costs of WEEE collection. In addition, it is suggested that the image of remanufacturing may also hurt the brand image of companies producing high-tech fashion-conscious devices (Herold, 2007).
50
The WEEE legislation provides a reasonable opportunity to return discarded appliances for recovery in the whole country. However, the long distances especially in Northern parts of Finland bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively. Also the re-use value of material contained in WEEE affects substantially to the profitability of recovery. For example, appliances containing many valuable materials, e.g. precious metals, have a considerable market value and, therefore, they are typically in the focus on recycling. At the same time, appliances containing only few valuable components but high transportation and treatment costs, such as refrigerators and other large household appliances, may even have negative value. Therefore, collection and transportation stages of WEEE, especially those of low re-use value categories, should be minimised. An efficient recovery system of WEEE will also depend on adequate and consistent guidance to the personnel. At this moment, it seems the information and guidance in collection points is inadequate in Finland. Therefore, it is recommended that, in the collection points, the return of WEEE will be managed by trained employees and, in addition, information documents related to returning EOL devices are signed by the last user. In order to improve re-use and refurbishment, separating re-usable and not reusable equipment should be intensified and, in addition, standardized testing and refurbishing system with certified operators should be devised (Paper VI). Further, the current market of re-used and/or refurbished EEE in Finland needs to expand in terms of amount and diversity because the existence of a market for recovered products is a determinant of the profitability of recovery (Herold, 2007). In addition to reasonable returning possibilities of EOL devices, legislation highlights that private consumers and households are able to dispose of WEEE without charge, while industry, educational institutes and communities may have to pay for it. However, it seems that some companies use free of charge channels and are not yet familiar with the legislation. In addition, some free and easy rider companies also exist in Finland, who do not attend to their responsibility for recycling. Therefore, more information and publicity on WEEE legislation and prevailing practices are needed. The level of consumers’ understanding of the importance of separate WEEE collection and their behavior regarding to returning EOL devices to collection points also have a significant influence on the effectiveness of WEEE recovery. Based on the impression of WEEE Forum (2012), a non-profit association of 41 European WEEE producer 51
responsibility organisations’ (PROs), consumers’ activity varies substantially across Europe. Scandinavians and Swiss are typically the most aware of environmental issues and, therefore, most likely to return WEEE to collection points. However, the case is that awareness may not translate to behavior if the public are not aware of the consequence of their actions. Without the knowledge of causalities there is no motivation and, without motivation, many recovery schemes fail to meet expectations (Pongrácz, 1999). Therefore, we just need to question how to best improve understanding, and thence participation (Pongrácz, 2002). Education and awarenessraising will continue to underlie progress towards sustainable development by providing an essential tool to that end - knowledge (Read and Pongrácz, 2000).
52
6 SUMMARY Wastes represent an enormous loss of material and energy resources in the developed world. The European Community has set its environmental policy with the main objectives to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and human health as well as judicious use of natural resources. Additionally, the Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development states that the achievement of sustainable development calls for significant changes in current patterns of development, production, consumption and behaviour. It also demands the reduction of wasteful consumption of natural resources and pollution prevention. To meet these objectives and ambitions, the EU has enacted a wide range of legislation to contribute to sustainable waste management and use it as a key force for change. European Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) along with the complementary Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) has been established in 2003 to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE. However, the Directive defines only general requirements to comply with mandatory collection and recycling objectives, and the modalities of the logistics and the organisation of the takeback schemes are left to the choice of Member States. In order to harmonize with the electronics Directive in Finland, the Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993) has been amended (452/2004) to include a chapter on producer responsibility on September 2004. According to Finnish legislation, establishment of collection facilities and separate collection systems for returned WEEE had to be set up by August 2005. The current collection and recovery network of WEEE in Finland consist mainly of permanent collection points, but also mobile collection and retailer take-back are conducted. The study shows that the WEEE recovery system in Finland fulfils the requirements set down in the WEEE Directive, even though some inefficient practices still exist in the current system, particularly at the collection stage. According to the data from the Finnish producer registration system, totally 48 633 tonnes or some 9.2 kg/person/year of WEEE was collected separately in 2007. Most of the collected WEEE, 38 273 tonnes, has been recycled as materials, and only 472 tonnes was re-used as a whole equipment or as parts. In addition to re-use and 53
recycling, approximately 2140 tonnes of WEEE have recovered as energy. Therefore, the total recycling rate was approximately 80 %, and the rate of recovery close to 85 %. The study also investigated the implications of the RoHS Directive, by assessing the material content of mobile phones and LCD screens. The case studies illustrate that the banned substances were typically located in the same components that contain most of the valuable substances. Therefore, the RoHS Directive has brought clear benefits to metals recovery from end-of-life electronics by reducing the health hazards of recycling and enhancing the economic profitability of recycling. Moreover, the possible presence of hazardous flame retardants has been a restrictive factor in the utilization of plastics. Further to the implementation of the RoHS Directive, environmental benefit can also be achieved through the recovering of plastics from WEEE as energy. Primary goal of the Finnish WEEE legislation is to prevent waste generation and to promote re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of such waste. However, it seems that the current system in Finland does not promote re-use and/or refurbishment of electronics. Above all, the re-use potential of the EOL electronics is significantly underused in Finland, not only in the case of devices returned to the recovery system but also in cases when unused devices lie around in storages. In order to enhance re-use, separating collection for re-usable and not re-usable equipment should be intensified and, in addition, standardized testing and refurbishing system should be established. Moreover, the market of re-used and/or refurbished EEE needs to expand in Finland. Based on Swedish and Norwegian experiences with long history of WEEE recovery, it can be expected that raising consumer awareness will lead to environmentally sound behaviour and, ultimately, improved WEEE recovery efficiency. The collection and recycling of WEEE as established in Finland has evidently environmental advantages, however, the activities of the WEEE recovery business are still in relatively early stage in Finland and, therefore, some inconsistent practices and overlaps exist. Furthermore, long distances bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively and, therefore, the importance of cooperation and efficient information flow between the actors and producers co-operatives need to be highlighted. In the study, the Finnish recovery system is also compared with those in Hungary, Sweden and Norway to evaluate the similarities and differences between the systems in order to identify the factors defining successful and efficient WEEE recovery systems. 54
It is expected that consumer attitude and behaviour have a significant role in achieving an efficient and environmentally conscious waste management. For this reason, this study examined the environmental awareness and attitudes of people towards WEEE recovery. According to this study, end-of-use mobile phones are typically stored at homes; many households having at least one old mobile phone stored at home, with some of them stocking up 3 or more phones due to various reasons. Regarding the willingness to buy used mobile phones, there are certain reserves. It seems that the awareness of the importance of mobile phone recycling is relatively high but recycling of old mobile phones is not yet a main stream activity. People are aware of the existence of a WEEE recovery system; choose not to take use of it. The final conclusion of this work is that, currently, the weakest link of the Finnish WEEE recovery system is the consumer. Money does not appear to be the key motivation for recovery. Notwithstanding, consumers need to be aware that the price of the recovery infrastructure is imbedded in the price of the product. Ultimately, information and communication will be the key to fully realize the potential of WEEE recovery and to establish a sustainable WEEE recovery system.
55
7 REFERENCES ACRR (The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling) (2003) The Management of Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment; A Guide for Local and Regional Authorities. Basel Convention (2006a) Guidance Document – Environmentally Sound Management (EMS) of Used & End-of-Life Mobile Phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI). 55 p. URL: http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-comment/guidoc200406.pdf (October 25, 2006)
Basel Convention. (2006b) Guideline on Material Recovery and Recycling of End-ofLife Mobile Phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI). URL: http://www.basel.int/industry/mppi.html (October 25, 2006)
Becker W, Simon-Hettich B and Hönicke P (2003) Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Investigations of Liquid Crystals and Disposal of LCDs. URL:
http://www.merck.de/servlet/PB/show/1128660/Tox_Brosch%FCre%A9(040203).pdf
(March 1, 2007)
Chancerel P and Rotter S (2009) Recycling-oriented characterization of small waste electrical and electronic equipment. Waste Management 29(8): 2336-2352. Cui J and Forssberg E (2003) Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials B99(3):243-263. Darby L and Obara L (2005) Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and recycling 44(1): 17-35. 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. Official Journal L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19-23. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24-39. 56
Directive 2011/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 201 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Text with EEA relevance. Official Journal L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88-110. 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. Official Journal L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38-71. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2003) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) – quantities, dangerous substances and treatment methods. European Topic Centre on Waste. URL: http://waste.eionet.eu.int/waste/6 (February 8, 2008) ETC/WMF (European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows) (2003) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Topic Centre of European Environment Agency. URL: http://waste.eionet.eu.int/waste/6 (November 2, 2006) European Commission (2000) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment & Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. {COM(2000) 347 final}. 82 p. European Commission (2008a) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. {COM(2008) 809 final}. 47 p. European Commission (2008b) Commission staff working paper accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) - Impact Assessment. {SEC(2008) 2933}. 120 p. European Parliament (2012) The principle of subsidiarity. URL: http://circa.europa.eu/irc/opoce/fact_sheets/info/data/how/characteristics/article_7148 _en.htm (October 10, 2012)
European Union (2012) Member states of the EU. URL: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm (October 30, 2012)
57
Eurostat (2012) Waste statistics, Waste electrical and electronic equipment URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database (November 24, 2012)
The Federation of Finnish Technology Industries (2011) RoHS II: The restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment – what is changing? (in Finnish). 53 p. URL: http://www.teknologiateollisuus.fi/fi/palvelut/rohs-direktiivi.html (September 20, 2012)
Fisbein BK (2002) Waste in the e Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones. Inform, Inc. 109 p. URL: http://www.informinc.org/wirelesswaste.php (January 10, 2006) Graedel TE and Alleby BR (2003) Industrial Ecology (2nd ed.) Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. Part III: Design of Environment. pp. 94-228. Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P, Buchert M, Hagelügen C, Reck BK, Sibley SF and Sonnemann G (2011) What Do We Know About Metal Recycling Rates? Journal of Industrial Ecology 15(3): 355-366. Harue Yamane L, Tavares de Moreas V, Romano Espinosa DC, SoaresTenório J A (2011) Recycling of WEEE: Characterization of spent printed circuit boards from mobile phones and computers. Waste management 31:(12) 2553-2558. Herold M (2007) A Multinational Perspective to Managing End-of-Life Electronics. Doctoral Dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Industrial Management, Espoo, Finland. Ignatius S-M, Myllymaa T and Dahlbo H (2009) Management of Waste Electrical and Electronical Equipment (WEEE) in Finland (in Finnish). Reports of Finnish Environment Institute 20/2009. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), 2009. 54 p. URL: www.ymparisto.fi/syke/publications (September 21, 2012)
IPMI (International Precious Metals Institute) (2003) Environmentally Sound Management for Used Mobile Telephones. URL: http://www.basel.int/industry/mppi/IPMI-Guidance.doc (October 25, 2006)
Jang Y-C and Kim M (2010) Management of used & end-of-life mobile phones in Korea: A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(1): 11-19. 58
Kang HY and Schoenung JM (2005) Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructure and technology options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45(4): 368-400. Kuusakoski (2002) Rosk’n’Roll is not afraid of the Directive: WEEE is under control (in Finnish). Recycling Forum Nro 2, 2002. Lehtinen U and Poikela K (2006) Challenges of WEEE on Reverse Logistics: A Case Study on a Collection Network in Finland. Logistics Research Network Annual Conference 2006, Sustainable Logistics in an Intermodal Settings. September 6-8, 2006. Newcastle, UK. Lehtinen U and Poikela K (2007) Does WEEE recycling make sense? Case studies on reverse supply chains of WEEE in Finland. Proc. of the 19th Annual NOFOMA Conference. June 7-8, 2007. Reykjavik, Iceland. CD-ROM. Halldórsson A and Stefánsson G. (eds.). Reykjavik. University of Iceland, 2007. p. 697-710. Li J, Lu H, Guo J, Xu Z and Zhou Y (2007) Recycle technology for recovering resources and products from waste printed circuit boards. Environmental Science and Technology 41(6): 1995-2000. Li J, Gao S, Duan H and Liu L (2009) Recovery of valuable materials from waste liquid crystal display panel. Waste Management 29(7): 2033-2039. Lim SR and Schoenung JM (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(1-3): 251-259. Lonn SA, Stuart JA and Losada A (2002) How collection Methods and E-commerce Impact Product Arrival Rates to Electronics Return, Reuse, and Recycling Centers. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. May 6-9, 2002. San Francisco, CA, USA. p. 228-233. Malmström P, Wiik C, Kirkkomäki T and Tirkkonen T (2004) Advanced WEEE recovery and recycling management system (AWARENESS). In: STREAMS Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Technology Programme’s yearbook 2004 (in Finnish). National Technology Agency of Finland (TEKES), 2004. 59
Melissen FW (2006) Redesigning a collection system for “small” consumer electronics. Waste Management 26(11): 1212-1221. Menad N (1999) Cathode ray tube recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26(3-4): 143-154. Menozzi M, Näpflin U and Krueger H (1999) CRT versus LCD: A pilot study on visual performance and suitability of two display technologies for use in office work. Displays 20(1): 3-10. Miklósi P (2005) End-of-Life Liquid Crystal Displays, MicroCad 2005, Miskolc, March 10-11, 2005. Ministry of the Environment, Finland (2004) Waste Act (1072/1993); amendments up to 1063/2004 included. URL: http://www.finlex.fi (November 2, 2006) Nnorom IC, Ohakwe J and Osibanjo O (2009) Survey of willingness of residents to participate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria – A case study of mobile phone recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(18): 1629-1637. Nnorom IC and Osibanjo O (2009) Toxicity characterization of waste mobile phone plastics. Journal of Hazardous Materials 161(1): 183-188. Oguchi M, Murakami S, Sakanakura H, Kida A and Kameya T (2011) A preliminary categorization of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment as secondary metal resources. Waste Management 31(9-10): 2150-2160. Oguchi M, Sakanakura H and Terazono A (2012) Toxic metals in WEEE: Characterization and substance flow analysis in waste treatment processes. In press. Sci Total Environ (2012) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.078 Ongondo FO and Williams ID (2011) Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK. Waste Management 31(6): 1307-1315. Pietikäinen J (2007) A slow start at the beginning of the recycling chain. How to make consumers recycle their mobile phones? Master of Science Thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences.
60
Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre (2007) Preliminary statistics in 2006 from Finnish producer registration system. August 1, 2007. Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre (2009) Statistics in 2007 from Finnish producer registration system, March 31, 2009. Poikela K and Lehtinen U (2006) Modelling and developing a WEEE collection network in Oulu Region, Finland (in Finnish). SYTRIM Project Report 1/2006. 51 p. URL: http://www.elker.fi/uploads/kR/sV/kRsV4vw-BsfA6BO90myuyw/SERreport.pdf (November 6, 2006)
Polák M and Drápalová L (2012) Estimation of end of life mobile phones generation: the case study of the Czech Republic. Waste Management 32(8): 1583-1591. Pongrácz E (1999) Human – waste relations in environmental engineering education and consumer awareness. In: Proceedings of Seventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Volume V. Waste Management and Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Waste. October 4-8, 1999. Cagliari, Sardinia. p. 599-606. Pongrácz E (2002) Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management: Evolving the Theory of Waste Management. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, Oulu, Finland. URL: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268210/
Read AD and Pongrácz E (2000) Consumer education and awareness raising. In: Proceedings of R´2000 World Congress on Integrated Resources Management. June 59, 2000. Toronto, Canada. Retkin R (2012) Effect of Brominated Flame Retardants restriction to Reclamation of Waste Materials and Management. Master of Science Thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Department of Biological and Environmental Science. 65 p. Savage M, Ogilvie S, Slezak J and Artim E (2006) Implementation of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in EU 25. European Commission, Directorate General, Joint Research Centre; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. URL: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22231en.pdf (November 6, 2006)
61
Sthiannopkao S and Wong MH (2012) Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries: Initiatives, practices and consequences. In press. Sci on Total Environ (2012) doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.088
Socolof ML, Overly JG, Kincaid LE and Geibig JR (2001) Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). URL: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca/index.htm (May 5, 2007)
Syed S (2012) Recovery of gold from secondary sources - A review. Hydrometallurgy 115-116(2012): 30-51. Takala R and Tanskanen P (2002) Outlining opportunities of engineering processes and technologies on environmental impacts of the End of Life treatment of mobile terminals. Presented at the IMAPS (International Microelectronics and Packaging Society) Nordic Annual Conference. September 2002. Stockholm, Sweden. Tanskanen P and Butler E (2007) Mobile phone take back – learning’s from various initiatives. Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. May 7-10, 2007. San Francisco, CA, USA. p. 206-209. Truttmann N and Rechberger H (2006) Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48(3): 249-262. UNU (United Nations University) (2007) 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final Report. 377 p. Wang X and Gaustad G (2012) Prioritizing material recovery for end-of-life printed circuit boards. Waste Management 32(10): 1903-1913. WEEE Forum (2012) The challenge of transposing WEEE II into national law. Issues Paper. 12 p. URL: http://www.weee-forum.org/news/the-challenge-of-transposing-weee-iiinto-national-law (September 20, 2012)
Wiik C (2004) Oral notifications from the Federation of Finnish Technology Industries. August 12, 2003 and March 23, 2004.
62
Wäger P, Schluep M and Müller E (2010) RoHS Substances in Mixed Plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa). September 17, 2010. URL: http://ewasteguide.info/files/Waeger_2010_Empa-WEEEForum.pdf (October 1, 2012)
63
ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS I
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E and Keiski RL (2004) Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. In: Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference. June 10, 2004. Oulu, Finland. Pongrácz E (ed.). Oulu, University of Oulu 2004. p. 83-92.
II
Pongrácz E, Ylä-Mella J, Phillips PS, Tanskanen P and Keiski RL (2005) The Impact of the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE): Development of Mobile Phone Recovery Strategies in Finland. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 31(2): 102-111.
III
Ylä-Mella J, Poikela K, Pongrácz E, Lehtinen U, Phillips PS and Keiski RL (2007) WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in the Oulu Region of Finland: Challenges to Resource Use Optimization. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 18-21, 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2007. p. 447-454.
IV
Miklósi P, Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Garamvölgyi E, István Zs, Csőke B and Keiski RL (2007) The Effect of the WEEE Directive on Electronic Waste Recovery in Hungary and Finland. In: Proceedings of 8th Finnish Conference of Environmental Sciences. May 10-11, 2007. Mikkeli, Finland. Xiang H, Akieh MN, Vuorio A-M, Jokinen T and Sillanpää M (eds.). Finnish Society for Environmental Sciences 2007. p. 269-272.
V
Lehtinen U, Poikela K, Ylä-Mella J, and Pongrácz E (2009) Examining the WEEE Recovery Supply Chain: Empirical Evidence from Sweden and Finland. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference for the Logistics Research Network (NOFOMA) 2009. June 11-12, 2009. Jönköping, Sweden. Herzt, S (ed.). Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University. p. 517-531.
VI
Román E, Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Solvang W, and Keiski R (2008) WEEE Management System: Cases in Norway and Finland. In: Proceedings of Joint International Conference and Exhibition Electronics Goes Green 2008+; Merging Technology and Sustainable Development. September 8-10, 2008. Berlin, Germany. p. 825-832.
VII
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Tanskanen P and Keiski RL (2007) Environmental Impact of Mobile Phones: Material Content. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 18-21, 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2007. p. 1612-1617.
VIII
Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E and Keiski RL (2008) Liquid Crystal Displays: Material Content and Recycling Practices. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 30 -April 2, 2008. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2008. p. 1082-1089.
Reprinted with the permissions from Publishers. 64
I
Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland Jenni Ylä-Mella∗, Eva Pongrácz and Riitta Liisa Keiski University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory, P.O.Box 4300, FIN-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU, Finland
Abstract In this article, the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and its impact on Finnish waste management as related to WEEE will be discussed. This paper also describes the project of the Technology Industries of Finland known as AWARENESS, which focuses on how the WEEE directive influences the manufacturers and producers of electrical and electronic equipment in Finland. In the final section of this paper, the current situation of WEEE recovery and recycling in Finland, especially in the Northern Ostrobothnia, is introduced and discussed. Keywords: WEEE Directive, AWARENESS project, WEEE recovery, WEEE recycling, Northern Ostrobothnia
1 Introduction Waste production appears to be an inevitable consequence of material well-being and high levels of consumerism. Wastes represent an enormous loss of material and energy resources in the developed world, e.g. the EU. As a result, the European Community has an environmental policy with the main objectives being to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and human health as well as utilizing natural resources judiciously. Additionally, the Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development states that the achievement of sustainable development calls for significant changes in current patterns of development, production, consumption and behaviour. It also demands the reduction of wasteful consumption of natural resources and the prevention of pollution. To meet these objectives and ambitions, the EU has enacted a wide range of legislation to contribute to sustainable waste management and use it as a key force for change (2002/96/EC). Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is one of the priority waste streams in EU waste management policy because of its major challenges. It is expected that quantities of WEEE will increase rapidly in the near future. Currently, WEEE constitutes 4 % of municipal waste in the EU. However, it is estimated that the amount of WEEE increases 16 - 28 % every year, which means a growth rate three times as fast as average municipal waste. Some parts of the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) market, e.g. TV sets and washing machines etc., are showing signs of saturation; whereas many other areas show significant growth. For instance, IT and telecommunication equipment as well as electronic toys are good examples of the dynamic growth area of EEE market. Challenges faced by WEEE management are not only consequences of growing quantities of waste but also the complexity of WEEE: It is one of the most complex waste streams because the wide variety of products from mechanical devices to highly integrated systems and accelerating technological innovations. (EEA, 2003.)
∗
Corresponding author, E-mail address:
[email protected]
Due to the aforementioned reasons, EU legislation presently also includes electrical and electronic equipment: The European Parliament and Council have implemented two Directives now related directly to EEE. The Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment seeks to approximate the laws of the Member States on the restrictions of the use of hazardous substances in EEE, and to contribute to the protection of human health and environmentally-sound recovery and disposal of WEEE. (2002/95/EC) The second is the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). 2 The Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment The Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) primarily aspires to prevent the waste of electrical and electronic equipment. It also requires the re-use, recycling and recovery of such wastes to reduce disposal of such wastes. Furthermore, it seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment, such as producers, distributors and consumers. (2002/96/EC.) Initially, the term ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ should now be specified. In the WEEE Directive, electrical and electronic equipment is defined as being equipment that is dependent on an electric current or electromagnetic field to function, and equipment for the generation, transfer or measurement of such currents and fields. The voltage rating to which that applies ranges from 0-1000 V for AC and 0-1500 V for DC. (2002/96/EC.)
The WEEE Directive has ten categories of electrical and electronic equipment and they are categorized as follows (2002/96/EC): 1. Large household appliances (e.g. refrigerators) 2. Small household appliances (e.g. coffee machines) 3. IT and telecommunications equipment (e.g. computers) 4. Consumer equipment (e.g. radio and television sets) 5. Lighting equipment (e.g. fluorescent lamps) 6. Electrical and electronic tools with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools (e.g. drills and saws) 7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment (e.g. video games) 8. Medical devices with the exception of all implanted and infected products (e.g. radiotherapy equipment) 9. Monitoring and control instruments (e.g. smoke detectors) 10. Automatic dispersers (e.g. for hot drinks or monies). To achieve the objectives of the WEEE directive, it makes wide-range demands on producer responsibility, collection of WEEE from households, treatment of WEEE and information directed to consumers. 3 The Technology Industries of Finland and the AWARENESS-project The Technology Industries of Finland is a registered association with its mission being the Finnish technology industries’ competitiveness in the global marketplace. It is also a forum that enables efficient co-operation and networking on local, regional, domestic and international. (Teknologiateollisuus 2004.) The Technology Industries of Finland’s ongoing project, AWARENESS (Advanced WEEE recovery and recycling management system), introduced in Summer 2003, focuses on influences of the WEEE directive on the manufacturers and producers of electrical and electronic
equipment. The goal of the project is to support companies in arriving at a consensus on directive implementation details. In addition, the project aims to initiate company co-operation in different product categories and to take optimal recycling processes into use. The Internet-based information system will be also developed during the project and it will be designed to meet the information and reporting obligations of the producers of electrical and electronic equipment imposed by the WEEE directive. (Malmström et al. 2004.) The AWARENESS project consists of two sub-projects called SELMA and RecISys. SELMA focuses on managing issues related to operational recycling and carrying out communication between national authorities and companies. Electronics manufacturers and producers, recycling companies as well as the Ministry of the Environment are participants in the SELMA project. In addition, co-operation between project participants and major constituent groups, such as municipalities and the waste management sector, is promoted. In the other sub-project, RecISys, the main objective is to develop the Internet-based information system, which will meet the information needs of WEEE and RoHS directives. Controlling the operation of recycling processes, reporting to the authorities as well as informing customers and the recycling industry will be done through this information system. (Wiik 2004, Malmström et al. 2004.) A tentative schedule of the AWARENESS project is illustrated in the Figure 1. SELMA Recycling System RecISys Information System Piloting Recognizing Technology Organization Deliberations with operators Choosing a financing model Implementation of model Identification of appliances Adoption of model Specification of system’s planning Execution of system Interfacing to the organizations Piloting Implementation
05/2003
01/2004
06/2004
12/2004
Figure 1 Technology Industries of Finland: Tentative schedule of the AWARENESS project (Teknologiateollisuus ry 2004).
In the operations part of the AWARENESS project, six working groups of product categories were formed. These categories were chosen so that the created operations models for them can be easily modified to all other categories at a later date. At this phase of the project, working groups are planning respectively different realization alternatives of producer responsibility for the product categories. The viewpoints of the groups are aggregated in the advisory board, where common decisions, conclusions and applications related to these issues are made. There has been much discussion on issues related to heterogenic composition of the WEEE stream, for example, by the use of different recovery and recycling methods as well as the need of independent and collective treatment of professional appliances. (Wiik 2004.)
During the course of the AWARENESS project, the developing recycling system is compared to similar ones in Sweden and Norway, where national legislation of WEEE was implemented quite recently as well. The objectives of comparison are to attain information for experiences, advantages and disadvantages and to utilize that information during the development of the Finnish WEEE recovery and recycling system. (Wiik 2004.) 4 WEEE recovery and recycling situation in Oulu region Finland The lack of national legislation necessitates the situation where the WEEE recovery and recycling system will be built based on estimates and reference data of other countries. For instance, the amount of WEEE in Finland for 1996 was estimated to have been 94,000 tonnes (SET 1995). Considering the estimated growth rate of 3 - 5 % per year (EEA 2003), the total amount of WEEE in 2003 can be extrapolated to be 120,000 tonnes. However, the estimation of the amount of WEEE based on reference data from Sweden and Norway is 100,000 tonnes per year. The estimates of WEEE recovery in Finland are even more rough because it is voluntary for the operators to report and publish such data. (Wiik 2003.) For major consumer products, a high proportion of discard metal-rich large household appliances such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and washing machines are already recycled. Similarly, precious metal based products, such as integrated circuit boards of personal computers and mobile phones, have also been targeted for recycling, as the precious metal content provides an economic driving force for recovery (Cui and Forssberg, 2003). The UK based Industry Council of Electronic Equipment Recycling estimates that, in the UK, some 50% of discarded consumer electronics are being processed via some form of recycling (ICER, 2003). During Autumn 2003, a mapping of WEEE recovery and recycling organizations in Northern Ostrobothnia was performed to determine, has Finland already achieved the 4 kg/person/year recovery target. Several WEEE operators in the recovery business operate in the area, but only a few that also treat recovery locally. Habitually, WEEE is collected and pre-treated in Northern Ostrobothnia and transported elsewhere for the actual treatment and materials utilization. Tervatulli Ltd.
HFT Network Oy 350 tonnes / year
Lassila & Tikanoja 200 tonnes / year Northern Ostrobothnia
Stena EK Oy 450 tonnes / year
Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy 550 tonnes / year Kuusakoski Oy
Figure 2 Recovery of WEEE in Oulu region in 2002.
Currently, six major companies operate WEEE recovery business in or near Oulu. Offices and educational institutes, such as our university, would generally have a contract with one of these firms to remove and take care of their electronic equipment. Individual citizens can take their
equipment to designated reception places. The Oulu Waste Management Company receives electronic waste at their landfill site. Most of the electronic goods retailers also take back old electronic equipment in association with buying a new one. Most of the time, a discard fee has to be paid. There are great variations in these fees, from 1 to 36 euros, with refrigerators’ “Freonremoval fees” being higher. In the following, the major electronics recycling operation in or near Oulu are introduced.
HFT Network Oy HFT Network Oy is a member of Proventia Group. Their services include information management systems and advisory services as well as plants and systems for recycling electronics waste, computer screens and mobile phones. (Proventia 2004.) HFT Network Oy has a WEEE treatment plant in Oulu, where approximately 350 tonnes of WEEE us treated per year. The bulk of WEEE is pre-treated by others; for example, Tervatulli, and HFT Network focuses on the actual treatment. Recovered materials from WEEE are then supplied back to the industry. For instance, plastics and glass are sold to Germany, metals are utilized by Outokumpu Oyj, and hazardous wastes are supplied to Ekokem Oy in Riihimäki, both in Finland. (Holappa 2003.)
Tervatulli Ltd. Tervatulli Ltd. is non-profit corporation, the firm was founded in 1997 to improve the employment situation of people with hearing impairments living in the Oulu area. Its line of business includes recycling of household appliances and electronic equipment, engineering on order, cleaning services and small-scale building. Their WEEE recycling services are used mainly by companies and associations, but also by the private sector. Tervatulli Ltd reprocesses WEEE and supplies it forward, e.g. to HFT Network Oy who does the actual recycling (Tervatulli 2004).
Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy is a part of the Ekokem concern and it offers special waste management services to municipalities, companies and to the private sector in the whole area of Central Finland. The collecting plant is located in Iisalmi, where wastes are pre-treated. Pre-treated WEEE is transported and treated at Maaninka. The recycling plant treats approximately 550 tonnes of WEEE per year. The treated WEEE consists of mainly refrigeration devices (40 50 %) and TV sets (30 - 40 %). Most of the WEEE, going to the Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy centre, comes from municipal waste management or store chains, and also from the private sector. (Turunen 2003.)
Lassila & Tikanoja (L&T) Lassila & Tikanoja has a toxic waste disposal plant in Haukipudas (adjacent to Oulu). This plant also receives approximately 200 tonnes/year WEEE from northern parts of Finland. Most of the WEEE received comes from municipal waste management and industry. WEEE is then transported as such to Kerava in southern Finland. In Kerava, Lassila & Tikanoja have a WEEE treatment plant. WEEE is there sorted and pretreated into several fractions, e.g. metals, cables and hazardous wastes. A portion of WEEE is then redirected to a third party, who re-uses or utilizes them as whole equipment. Cooking
ranges, monitors and TV set are examples for this kind of wholy utilized equipment. Other WEEE is then utilized by L&T as a material or energy in Finland and Europe. (Tanskanen 2003.)
Stena EK Oy Stena EK Oy is a part of Stena Metall concern, and Stena EK treats approximately 450 tonnes/year in WEEE in Pietarsaari and Uusikaarlepyy in Ostrobothnia. The treated WEEE consists mainly of control and memory devices as well as data processing equipment, which comes from industry. Materials from WEEE are utilized in different ways: metals, such as copper, aluminium and ferrometals, are supplied back to the industry, plastics can be incinerated or recycled mechanically and supplied to industry, and glass is divided into recycled and hazardous waste. Recyclable glass is returned to industry, whereas hazardous glass is transported to the toxic waste disposal plant. (Luukkonen 2003.)
Kuusakoski Kuusakoski is one of the world’s 15 largest metal recycling facilities, in 2002 it employed 1800 people. WEEE collected from citizens at Oulu Landfill site, or from electronics retailers are generally transported to Kuusakoski. From their yearly material throughput of 2 million tons, it would be impossible to determine what fraction of it is coming from Oulu. Nonetheless, Kuusakoski reported that in some areas of the foundry they have already surpassed the WEEE directive requirement of 4 kg/person/year, and achieved 6 kg /person /year of electronic waste is recovery. (Kuusakoski 2002.) 5 Discussion Due to lack of data, only very rough estimates can be made about WEEE recycling percentages. We can only estimate that an excess of 1500 tonnes of electronic waste are recovered in Oulu region. Oulu region has 457 308 inhabitants, Oulu’s population is 124 500 (Source: Statistics Finland 2003). Nobody can make conclusions based on these data; nevertheless, some electronics recyclers share the feeling that Oulu also might have already achieved the EU electronic waste recovery target. At the present stage, discussions about wording of the Finnish decree continue. In the same time no decision has been made regarding establishing and financing these systems. During these discussions it was suggested that retail shops continue to take back old equipment when buying a new one. The advantage is that retail shops are already prepared for handling electronic equipment and their personnel is educated about handling electronic equipment. However, the retail association resists this solution, and requests a mention in the Finnish regulation that retail shops are not obligated to accept WEEE. (Ilmola 2003.)
6 Conclusions The waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is one of the priority waste streams in EU waste management policy because of its major challenges. Due to the fact that the quantities of WEEE are expected to increase rapidly in the near future, the European Parliament and Council have implemented two Directives related to electronics: The Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in the electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) and the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The WEEE directive aims to prevent WEEE and it requires re-use, recycling and recovery of such wastes to reduce the disposal of waste. To achieve the objectives of the WEEE directive, it places a broad
range of demands on producer responsibility, collection of WEEE from households, treatment of WEEE and information to consumers. Due to the lack of national legislation, The Technology Industries of Finland runs a project called AWARENESS (Advanced WEEE recovery and recycling management system) focusing on influences of the WEEE directive on the manufacturers and producers of electrical and electronic equipment. The aims of the project are WEEE recovery, the recycling system as well as internet-based information systems being built in Finland. The WEEE directive provides that national legislation related on waste electrical and electronic equipment should be implemented before August 13, 2004. In addition, separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE, and suitable waste management facilities will have to be developed for the acceptance of WEEE by August 13, 2005. (2002/96/EC.) It is generally estimated that all member states of the EU cannot reach the requirements under the indicated schedule. For instance, it is assessed that national regulation and legislation will be fall behind schedule in Spain, Germany and Sweden even though the ability for practical operation already exists. The opposite situation most likely exists already in Ireland and France, where regulation will be prepared before August 13, 2004, but the operational preconditions will not be ready in the duration of the transition period. (Wiik 2004.) In the case of Finland, the proposal of national regulation and legislation was introduced in April 20, 2004 and it will be implemented at the latest September 01, 2004. That means that the WEEE regulation, which fulfils the obligations of the WEEE directive, will be implemented in the duration of the transition period in Finland. (Laaksonen 2004.) However it has been evaluated in the UK that from the recycling of large EEE, with a high percentage and/or volume and valuable metals’ containing equipment the 4 kg/person/year is already achieved. References Cui J and Forssberg E (2003) Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 99(3):243-263. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2003) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) – quantities, dangerous substances and treatment methods. European Topic Centre on Waste, January 2003. European Council (2002). 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. Official Journal of the European Union L 37/19 - L 37/23. 13.2.2003. European Council (2002). Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union L 37/24 - L 37/38. 13.2.2003. Holappa P. Oral notification from HFT Network Oy. 2nd October 2003. ICER (2003) Impacts of the WEEE Directive. Proc. UK Producer Responsibility Summit 2003. June 17, 2003. Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Waste Group. Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy homepage (26.5.2004). http://www.ekokem.fi/main/FrontPage.asp?ItemId=1179 Ilmola J (2003) Presentation on the comments of electronic equipment retails regarding the Finnish National regulation proposal on WEEE recovery. Tampere, 2.10.2003.
Kuusakoski (2002) Rosk’n’Rollissa ei pelätä direktiiviä: SE-romu on jo hallinnassa. Kuusakoski Oy:n Asiakaslehti. Recycling Forum Nro2.(2002):3. Laaksonen H. Jätehuollon tuottajavastuuta koskeva lainsäädäntö (Legislation of waste management related to producer responsibility). Oral presentation. STREAMS Yhdyskuntien jätevirroista liiketoimintaa - teknologiaohjelman vuosiseminaari (STREAMS - Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Technology Programme’s year seminar). 25th May 2004, Espoo, Finland. Lassila & Tikanoja, Oral notification from toxic waste disposal plant in Kello. 16th September 2003. Luukkonen A. Oral notification from Stena EK Oy. 18th September 2003. Malmström P, Wiik C, Kirkkomäki T & Tirkkonen T (2004). Advanced WEEE recovery and recycling management system (AWARENESS). In: STREAMS -Yhdyskuntien jätevirroista liiketoimintaa - teknologiaohjelman vuosikirja 2004. (STREAMS - Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Technology Programme’s yearbook 2004). Teknologian kehittämiskeskus TEKES (National Technology Agency of Finland), Helsinki, Finland. Proventia group homepage (28.5.2004). http://www.proventiagroup.com/ Stena EK Oy homepage (5.9.2003). http://www.stenaek.fi/suomeksi/yrityksesta Sähkö- ja elektroniikkateollisuusliitto SET (Federation of Finnish Electrical and Electronics Industry) (1995). Käytöstä poistettujen sähkö- ja elektroniikkalaitteiden hyödyntäminen ja käsittely. (Treatment and utilization of end of life electronic equipment -in Finnish.) Helsinki, Finland. Tanskanen H. Oral notification from Lassila & Tikanoja recycling plant in Kerava. 15th September 2003. Technology Industries of Finland homepage (17.5.2004). http://www.teknologiateollisuus.fi/ Tervatulli Ltd homepage (28.5.2004). http://www.tervatulli.fi/frontpage.htm Turunen P. Oral notification from Iisalmen Keräysöljy Oy. 26th September 2003. Wiik C. Oral notifications from Technology Industries of Finland. 12th August 2003 and 23rd March 2004.
Article reference: Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E & Keiski RL (2004) Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. In: Pongrácz E (ed.) Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference, June 10th 2004, University of Oulu, Finland. Oulu University Press: Oulu. p.83.- 92.
II
THE IMPACT OF THE EUROPEAN WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT DIRECTIVE (WEEE): DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE PHONE RECOVERY STRATEGIES IN FINLAND Eva Pongrácz, Jenni Ylä-Mella and Riitta Keiski University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, Mass and Heat Transfer Process Laboratory, FIN-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU, POB 4300, Finland E-mail:
[email protected]
Paul Phillips SITA Centre for Sustainable Wastes Management, School of Environmental Science, University College Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton NN2 7AL, UK
Pia Tanskanen Nokia Research Center, FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP, POB 407, Finland
Juhani Kaakinen North Ostrobothnia Regional Environmental Centre FIN-90101 OULU, P.O.Box 124
Abstract This paper describes an on-going research co-operation effort between Oulu University (Finland) and local electronics and recycling industries as they seek to address the impacts resulting from the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. The reasons why Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) becomes waste is analysed using a novel waste taxonomy. The issue of ownership is addressed and the importance of awareness raising measures is highlighted. Based on on-going developments efforts for automated mobile phone disassembly, future development and research needs are suggested. Keywords: waste, End-of-Life equipment, WEEE Directive, ownership, Purpose, Performance, functionality
INTRODUCTION A wide range of enacted significantly contributed to the sustainable waste management European Union (EU); legislation is
legislation has introduction of throughout the a key driver for
change. However, waste generation per capita still remains high across Europe. Therefore, there has been a need to focus on resource use management and develop strategies for waste prevention and recycling using policy instruments such as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) principle. EPR seeks to achieve life cycle
environmental improvements for product systems by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of the product’s life cycle including, in particular, the take-back, recovery and final disposal of the product. Product groups for which the principle of EPR is applied have expanded from packaging materials and batteries to complex products such as End of Life Vehicles (ELV) and Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE). Underlying the European Community’s Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is the need to reduce waste utilising a Producer Responsibility approach. The Directive was adopted at a time of rapid growth in WEEE; due partly to a general limited infrastructure (varying from State to State) for re-use and recycling. Separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE and, for this purpose for Finland, by the 13th August 2005, suitable waste management facilities had to be developed for the acceptance of WEEE. Producers need, therefore, to oversee the finance for the development of systems to collect, treat and ‘dispose` of WEEE. By the 31st December 2006, a separate collection rate of 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year needs to be achieved. Also, by the same date, up to 80% by weight recovery rate, and up to 75% by weight recycling rate per appliance has to be realised (European Council, 2003). The establishment of the Directive encourages producers to consider the design and production of EEE in relation to ‘end of life’ management; an approach that takes into account, and facilitates, their repair, possible upgrading, re-use, disassembly and recycling. The complex End-of-Life (EOL) system can be divided into three distinct stages with different characteristics and stakeholders. The first stage is the organisation of the collection process. The second is the structural pre-treatment and disassembly of the
product. The third stage is the recycling processes for the material content (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002). WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION WEEE is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the European Union and makes up approximately 4% of municipal waste. However, a report on WEEE by the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 2003) points out that data is limited. The WEEE potential of only four major electronic appliances, for which data was available (refrigerators, personal computers (PCs), television sets and photocopiers), is 1.5 M tonnes in the EU in 2003, and 21 245 tonnes in Finland. However, the absence of reliable data implies that these appliances represent only a fraction of the whole WEEE stream. For Finland, data on WEEE is based on estimates; the amount of WEEE for 1996 was estimated to be 94 000 tonnes (SET, 1995). Considering the estimated growth rate of 3-5% per year (European Environmental Agency, 2003), the total amount of WEEE in 2003 can be extrapolated to be 120 000 tonnes. Some 46 500 tonnes of small and large consumer appliances were estimated to be disposed in 1996; this amount may have reached 57 000 tonnes by 2003 - or some 11.4 kg/person/year. The mass of WEEE for small appliances only, was estimated to be 1.6 kg/person/year in Europe (EEA, 2003). WEEE is a complex waste stream. Overall, there may be hundreds of different components based around a wide array of different materials. An estimate of the composition of WEEE, as would apply to a European context, is shown in Figure 1. Metals are the most abundant materials, iron and steel account for almost half of WEEE; non-ferrous metals, including precious metals, represent approximately 13% of the total weight of WEEE. Plastics are the second largest component by weight, representing approximately 21% of WEEE. (ETC/WMF, 2003.) 47,9
Iron and steel Non-flame retarded plastics
15,3
Copper
7
Glass Flame retarded plastics
5,4 5,3
Aluminium Other
4,7 4,6 3,1
Printed circuit board
2,6
Wood and plywood Concrete and ceramics Other (non-ferrous) metals
2 1 0,9
Rubber 0
10
20
30
40
50
FIGURE 1 Composition of WEEE in a European context (wt%) (ETC/WMF, 2003)
60
Some products, such as TVs and monitors, are principally glass based and, in addition, as the cathode ray tube contains toxic elements such as lead, cadmium and mercury, they are also considered a hazardous material (Menad, 1999). As a large part of consumer electronics, especially small household appliances, are principally plastic based, different EOL strategies will have to be devised for WEEE based on this material content. IMPLEMENTATION OF WEEE DIRECTIVE IN FINLAND The WEEE directive provides that national legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment had to be implemented before August 13th, 2004. In addition, separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE, and suitable waste management facilities had to be developed by August 13th, 2005. In the case of Finland, the Ministry of Environment of Finland has prepared a proposition for the Finnish WEEE directive during the summer of 2003 and the proposal of national regulation and legislation was introduced in April 20th, 2004 (Laaksonen 2004). To harmonize it with the electronics directive, on September 1st, 2004 the Finnish Waste Decree was amended (452/2004) to include sections on producer responsibility, as outlined in Table 1. The Ministry of Environment of Finland, consider that the responsibility of producers should be clear and unshared. In Finland, the overwhelming majority of electronic devices sold on the market are imported. The representatives of foreign and domestic producers may transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to a producers’ association. The producers’ association in turn appoint WEEE recovery companies to treat and recycle the collected waste. The building
blocks of the Finnish electronics recovery system thus are (Laaksonen 2004): - Producers’ associations; - Agreements between regional authorities, distributors, waste management companies, pre-treatment and utilization facilities, business-to-business transfer, etc; - An information system, and a reporting plan to collect data on product and WEEE flows and utilization percentages. WEEE RECOVERY IN OULU, FINLAND A significant problem in Finland is the lack of reliable data as, up until 2003, it was not obligatory to collect information about the electronic waste stream. As of January 1st 2004, the Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre gathers information on electronic waste flows and reports it to the Ministry of Environment. The amount of WEEE in Finland for 1996 was estimated to have been 94,000 tonnes (SET 1995). Presently, the estimation of the amount of WEEE based on reference data from Sweden and Norway is 100,000 tonnes per year. In Oulu region, six major WEEE recovery and recycling companies operate. Habitually, WEEE is collected and pre-treated in Northern Ostrobothnia and transported elsewhere for the actual treatment and materials utilization. For major consumer products, a high proportion of discard metal-rich large household appliances such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and washing machines are already recycled. Similarly, precious metal based products, such as printed wiring boards of personal computers and mobile phones have also been targeted for recycling, as the precious metal content provides an economic driving force for recover. Offices and educational institutes would generally have a contract with one of these firms to remove and take care of their electronic equipment.
TABLE 1 New clauses on producer responsibility included in the Finnish Waste Decree 18 a § 18 b §
Producer responsibility means duty of producers over their products put to market, when they become wastes, the management of this waste and the costs incurred. Producer responsibility concerns tires, packaging, paper, cars, EEE, and their producers
18 c §
Producer responsibility may also cover products made by other producers and “old” products (historic waste)
18 d §
Will include regulations concerning the producers’ association
18 e §
Concerns the responsibility of other actors, such regions, distributors, to participate in waste management
18 g §
Concerns the EEE producer’s participation in securing the financing of domestic WEEE recovery
Individual citizens can take their equipment to designated reception places. In Oulu, the Oulu Waste Management Company receives electronic waste at their landfill site. In addition, most of the electronic goods retailers offer a paid service to take away old electronic equipment when delivering a new one. Due to lack of comprehensive data, only very rough estimates can be made about WEEE recycling percentages in Oulu. One can only estimate that an excess of 1500 tonnes of electronic waste are recovered from Oulu and its neighbourhood (Ylä-Mella et al., 2004), while about 300 000 people live within a 100 km radius of the city of Oulu. Some electronics recyclers share the feeling that Oulu might have already achieved the WEEE recovery target of 4 kg/person/year. Some regions in the Southern part of Finland have reported that the 4 kg target has already been surpassed in 2002 (Kuusakoski, 2002). WEEE AND THE CONCEPT OF WASTE It can be argued that the main objective of the WEEE Directive is waste prevention. However, to prevent waste, we need to know the reasons of why EEE ended up becoming waste in the first place. This key question can be approached using a radically new approach to classifying waste, where it has been argued that there are 4 waste categories (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999). Classes of waste are included in Table 2. While non-rechargeable batteries are typical members of Class 2, arguably, most electronic waste falls into Class 3 or 4. To categories waste requires an analysis of its purpose, structure, state and performance, as well as state of technical development. Artefacts are things that have been produced for a specified purpose. Structure and state are to
ensure that the artefact will be able to perform with respect to the assigned purpose. The most typical representatives of Class 3 are things that are not functional due to structural damage. One would expect that most of WEEE would belong to this class. Class 4 would incorporate EEE that are outdated, but still functional. Consider the record player, in most European households it has been replaced by the CD player, and thus it may end up being discarded although it is still able to perform its function. The same applies to `older` models of the mobile phones that have been discarded to be replaced by enhanced, smaller models. However, the owner might argue that he is disposing of the record player because they are no longer satisfied with its performance, as they require the superior quality provided by the CD system. In the case of ‘older’ mobile phones, it is the expectation of the performance that has also changed. It is not that structural, or other, damage has impaired the original performance but that the given object is not able to provide the new, higher quality performance. Ultimately, the ‘older’ version mobile phone and the record player became waste because the owner has changed the purpose of the artefact. The requirements for enhanced performance are almost always brought trough market forces, by introducing newer, more enhanced models as a result of technological development. The user’s decision to change the purpose can be a very dynamic process, as newer models appear on the market, the dissatisfaction with the `older` model grows, until a decision to replace it is made. This decision can be irrespective of performance and may be brought by the desire to have a newer, better model. It is due to this fact that the Class 3-4 borderline cases of WEEE are the most difficult to manage. To change consumer’s attitudes is extremely difficult, yet this is a fundamental requirement for sustainable waste management.
TABLE 2 Classes of waste (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997) Class 1
Non-wanted things created not intended, or not avoided, with no purpose.
Process wastes, discharges, emissions
Class 2
Things that were given a finite purpose thus destined to become useless after fulfilling it. Things not able to perform with respect to the intended purpose due to change in structure or state.
Single use, disposable products
Things able to perform, but their users fail to use them for their intended purpose.
Products that go beyond their target
Class 3
Class 4
Obsolete, spoiled, broken products
It can be seen that certain EEEs have become a status symbol, and the purpose specification of this equipment includes providing the necessary image required by the consumer. It can thus be expected that EEEs, such as mobile phones, will be exchanged before the end of their useful life. This fact will have to be considered at the design phase, to facilitate easy recovery of useful parts as well as safe removal of hazardous components. OWNERSHIP AND TAKE-BACK Producer responsibility schemes are oriented towards producers of products, although the producers of the waste are actually the end-users. Consumers play a critical part in product take-back systems. Their continuous motivation, based upon a sound knowledge framework, is crucial for the success of WEEE recovery systems. The issue of ownership plays a very important role in waste management. For the purpose of waste management, ownership has been defined as a right and a responsibility to act upon something, that is, to manipulate its properties: purpose, structure and state (Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1999). A controversial issue of the WEEE Directive is that it makes EEE manufacturers responsible for things that they do not own. For economic analysis, “owning an asset” can be interpreted as having the residual rights of control - that is the right to make any decisions concerning the asset’s use that are not explicitly controlled by law or assigned to another by contract. (Milgrom and Robert, 1992). From this point of view, as legislation does not control the end-users, by definition they have the right not to participate in recovery efforts. The WEEE directive does, however, require producers to achieve a 4 kg/person/year recovery rate; additionally, producers are also responsible about informing consumers that they must not to dispose WEEE as general municipal waste. To aid this
process a symbol has been adopted to inform the general public (Figure 2). To achieve the required recovery rates, under the WEEE Directive, the most important factor to be considered is how to ensure the complete participation of the end users. The WEEE Directive requires that the Member States ensure that users of EEE in private households are given the necessary information about the return and collection systems available. However, some knowledge of the recovery system in itself does not bring about a step change in pro-environmental behaviour, if the public are not aware of the consequence of their actions. Without the knowledge of causalities there is no motivation and, without motivation, many recovery schemes fail to meet expectations (Pongrácz, 1999). Citizens are not aware that, when discarding non-wanted artefacts, they give up ownership over them and demur responsibility for them. Few question the morality of this, nor care for the fate of the discarded object. It has been suggested that embracing the ownership concept could, hypothetically, improve this view. If everyone were to become conscious of ownership and gain awareness of the responsibilities associated with ownership, then they would be more mindful in ceding their ownership. What all must realise is that waste management is everyone’s problem, and in society, each has a role to play. We need to question how to best improve understanding, and thence participation (Pongrácz, 2002). Education and awareness-raising will continue to underlie progress towards sustainable development by providing an essential tool to that end – knowledge (Read and Pongrácz, 1999). DISASSEMBLY STRATEGIES FOR MOBILE PHONES Dismantling and separation constitute the important first step of End of Life (EOL) management for reducing amounts of WEEE and emissions from WEEE treatment.
FIGURE 2 Symbol for the marking of EEE (European Council, 2003).
FIGURE 3 Automated disassembly possibilities for a mobile terminal. 1) Robotic disassembly 2) induction heating disassembly 3) mechanical impact disassembly 4) build-in disassembly system (Tanskanen and Takala, 2003)
Disassembly is a systematic process that allows reusable, non-recyclable, and hazardous subassemblies to be selectively separated from recyclable ones (Gungor and Gupta, 1997 In the Figure 3 different automated disassembly processes for mobile phones are presented. Level of disassembly must be in line with the following material recovery processes so that the input to them is optimized in pre-treatment phase. ROBOTIC DISASSEMBLY In the field of automation and robotics of assembly, high standards have been reached, but the degree of automation of disassembly is relatively small (Kopacek and Kopacek, 1999). Currently, robotic disassembly is cost prohibitive, however, it is a growing research field, as hand disassembly is only economic for a small proportion of the input material (Boks and Tempelman, 1998). Also, due to the danger of human exposure to possibly hazardous materials and by-products, the development of automated disassembly systems is necessary (Gungor and Gupta, 1999). It is expected that fully or semiautomated disassembly will increasingly gain importance (Kopacek and Kopacek, 1999), especially for disassembly of WEEE containing hazardous materials. Pilots for disassembling of keyboards, monitors, and printed circuit boards have been developed and a prototype of a flexible robot based disassembly cell for obsolete TV-sets and monitors has been developed (Scholz-Reiter et al., 1999).
MOBILE PHONES: DISASSEMBLY
INDUCTION
HEATING
The European market for mobile phones has shown an extraordinary rate of growth over the last few years (EEA, 2003). Close to 1 billion mobile phones are already on the market to which take-back and disassembly processes need to be designed (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002). A disassembly process of mobile phones based on inductive heating has been tested at Oulu University in collaboration with the former Eco-Electronics company. Prior to heading for recovery, the phone body and the battery are separated. During the process the metal screws in a mobile terminal are heated inductively to reduce the structural strength of the plastic screw boss. After the covers are disassembled from the electronics, these two fractions can be routed in different processes (Leskinen et al., 2003. In the test result shown in Figure 4, the integrated circuit board and the liquid crystal display are separated together, while the plastic housing is successfully disconnected. There are several weaknesses of this system, one being that the process conditions have to be very exact for the disassembly to be successful. Figure 5 is an example of an unsuccessful test, where the inductive heating hasn’t been sufficient, and the phone cover did not separate from the phone body. Due to its many drawbacks and restrictions, it is unlikely that this method will gain widespread use.
FIGURE 4 Phone disassembled with induction method: test 1
FIGURE 5 Disassembly test 2: due to insufficient heating the cover did not separate from body
However, if the heating is excessive, the plastic parts will start to melt, as illustrated with Figure 6, or in the worst case can even burn. The operating conditions thus have to be determined for every phone type. In addition the induction method is only viable for disassembly of mobile phones that are fastened with metal screws (Ylä-Mella 2002). BUILT-IN DISASSEMBLY SYSTEM A possible method for automated disassembly is active disassembly by replacement of conventional fasteners with shape memory alloys (SMA) and shape memory polymers (SMP). The principle of Active Disassembly using Smart Materials (ADSM) is that products split open by using radical temperature changes or an electronic charge. (Chiodo et. al, 2002.) Product design must include some changes to the housing of the intended products if active or selfdisassembly were to take place (Chiodo et al., 1998). Several smart devices using both SMAs and SMPs have been developed and successfully tested.
However, the implementation of these concepts into the candidate products revealed specific issues that will need to be addressed, such as smart material properties, device design, positioning and large-scale production (Arnaiz et al. 2002) A built in disassembly system is a feature or component that can be triggered by a simple outside force to open the phone structure. Several designs that accomplish this task have been presented in previous works. Common triggering forces for self-disassembly are a magnetic field and heat; chemical or biological agents can be considered (Tanskanen and Takala 2003). Active disassembly is best suited for large products which are not exposed to severe use conditions, such as dropping and rapid temperature changes. It also needs to be applied to large product range to enable the constant flow of EOL products to a specific disassembly process. FUTURE CHALLENGES The final step of the recovery process is the utilization of the different material fractions. Metals,
FIGURE 6 Disassembly test 3: Excessive heat-up will cause the plastic parts to melt especially precious metals recovery provide an economic incentive for the recovery of metal-rich appliances. Recovery of plastics, especially utilization of ABS-PC plastics, however, presents a challenge,and will need further research efforts. Polycarbonate (PC) is used in speciality applications due to its high toughness and higher continuous working temperature The drawbacks of PC are high melt viscosity and consequently difficult processibility. The disadvantages of PC can be overcome by blending PC with various thermoplastics, of which ABS is the most popular. The addition of ABS retains useful properties of PC such as glossiness and low-temperature toughness. PC/ABS alloys are the largest selling commercial polymer alloys in the world. (Balakrishnan et al., 1998.) It has been suggested that pyrolysis is a more adequate way of recovering plastics from WEEE as conventional mechanical recycling is not readily adaptable due to the fact that 15-20 different types of plastics may be used in EEE containing a variety of plasticizers, colorant, flame retardant and fillers (Day et al., 1999; Blazsó et al, 2002). The advantage of pyrolytic processing is the possibility of recovery of hazardous substances such as brominated flame retardants (Vehlow et al., 2002) as well as chlorine from PVC (Zevenhoven et al., 2002). Use of a reducing agent in metallurgical processes is also suggested, to substitute for fossil fuels presently used (Arpiainen et al., 1999). Reports of successful mechanical recycling of post-consumer PC/ABS plastics (Fujitsu, 2002) indicate that a combination of closed and open-loop recycling is also to be considered. CONCLUSIONS End of life treatment of electronics is a rapidly changing and developing area where new technologies and practices are constantly being
created. Consequently, no prevalent process technologies exist for disassembly/material separation. The delay between the design of a product and its recycling is several years which also brings uncertainty for the compatibility of these two ends of the products’ life cycle (Takala and Tanskanen 2002). It is yet to be seen how the logistics of mobile phone recovery develop, and what disassembly and separation technologies will best fit local conditions. At this stage of the work in Finland, we suggest that the following issues will have require further research: • • • • •
Conceptual analysis of WEEE to study the reason of waste generation; Analysis of relevant ownership and responsibility issue;. How to best improve understanding, and thence public participation in recovery of WEEE; Continued development effort into processes of eco-efficient material separation from EEE; Create markets for mixed recycled plastic fractions from WEEE.
REFERENCES Arnaiz S, Bodenhoefer K, Herrmann C, Hussein H, Irasarri LM, Schnecke D and Tanskanen P (2002) Active disassembly using smart materials (ADSM). A status report from an ongoing EU project. GDR1-1999-10458, Competitive and sustainable growth programme. Proc. Going Green - Care Innovation 2002: Eco-efficiency and the drive towards sustainability. Concepts for the electr(on)ics & automotive industry. 4th International Symposium. November 25-28, 2002, Austria Center, Vienna, Austria. ArpiainenV, Ranta J, Hietanen L, Leppämäki E. & Sipilä K (1999) Muovin pyrolyysin esiselvitys, (Preliminary study of pyrolysis technology for
plastic waste) Report ENE 1/34/99, VTT Energy, Espoo, Finland. Balakrishan S, Neelakantan NR, Nabi Saheb D andJyoti P. Jog (1998) Rheological and morphological behaviour of blends of polycarbonate with unmodified and maleic anhydride grafted ABS. Polymer 39(23):57655771. Blazsó M, Czégény Zs and Csoma Cs (2002) Pyrolysis and debromination of flame retarded polymers of electronic scrap studied by analytical pyrolysis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 64(2):249-261. Boks C, Tempelman E (1998) Future disassembly and recycling technology: Results of a Delphi study. Futures 30(5):425-442. Chiodo JD, Billett EH, Harrison DJ. (1998) Active disassembly. Journal of Sustainable Product Design. Issue 7, p. 26-36. Chiodo JD, Jones N, Billett EH and Harrison DJ (2002) Shape memory alloy actuators for active disassembly using ‘smart’ materials of consumer electronic products. Materials & Design 23(5): 471-478. Cui J and Forssberg E (2003) Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 99(3):243-263. Day M, Cooney JDD, Touchette-Barrette C and Sheehan SE (11999) Pyrolysis of mixed plastics used in the electronic industry. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 52(2):139-262. European Council (2002) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003on waste electrical and electronic equipment. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2003) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) – quantities, dangerous substances and treatment methods. European Topic Centre on Waste, January 2003. ETC/WMF (European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows) (2003) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Topic Centre of URL: European Environment Agency. 2.7.2003. Fujitsu (2002) Fujitsu uses plastic recycled from its own PCs in new Notebooks, an industry first. Press release, 2002-275, Fujitsu Ltd., Tokyo, November 29, 2002. Gungor A and Gupta SM (1997) An evaluation methodology for disassembly processes. Computers & Industrial Engineering 33(1-2): 329-332. Gungor A and Gupta SM (1999) Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Computers & Industrial Engineering 36(4):811-853.
ICER (2003) Impacts of the WEEE Directive. Proc. UK Producer Responsibility Summit 2003. June 17, 2003. Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Waste Group. Kopacek B and Kopacek P (1999) Intelligent disassembly of electronic equipment. Annual Reviews in Control 23:165-170. Kuusakoski: Rosk’n’Roll is not afraid of the Directive: WEEE is under control. (In Finnish). Recycling Forum Nro 2, Kuusakoski, 2002 Laaksonen, H.: Legislation of waste management related to producer responsibility (In Finnish). STREAMS - Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Technology Programme’s seminar, Espoo, Finland, May 25, 2004 Leskinen K, Ahonen H and Holappa R. (2002) Magneettisen induktion perustuva matkapuhelimen purkulaitteisto. (Mobile phone disassembly equipment based on magnetic induction - in Finnish.) Patent no. FI 02/109773. Leskinen K, Tanskanen P, Takala R and Ahonen H (2003) Disassembly of mobile phones with induction heating. Proc. 2nd International Electronics Recycling Congress, January 13-15, 2003, Basel, Switzerland. Luttropp C (1998) Design for Disassembly: a new element in product development. Journal of Sustainable Product Design. Issue 6, p. 30-40. Menad N (1999) Cathode ray tube recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26(34):143-288. Milgrom, P. and Robert, J. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.) Prentice Hall 1992. Ch. 9. Ownership and Property Rights. pp. 288-324. Pongrácz E (1999) Human – waste relations in environmental engineering education and consumer awareness. Proc. Seventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Volume V. Waste Management and Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Waste. pp. 599-606. October 4-8, 1999, Cagliari, Sardinia. Pongrácz E (2002) Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management: Evolving the Theory of Waste Management. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, Oulu, Finland. URL: Pongrácz E & Pohjola VJ (1997) The Conceptual Model of Waste Management. Proc. ENTREE’97, November 12-14 1997, Sophia Antipolis, France, p.65-77. Pongrácz E & Pohjola VJ (1999). The importance of the concept of ownership in waste management. Proc. 15th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. December 12-15, 1999, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Pongrácz E and Pohjola VJ. Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and the roles of waste
management. Resources Conservation & Recycling. In press. Read AD & Pongrácz E (2000) Consumer education and awareness raising. Proc. R´2000 World Congress on Integrated Resources Management, June 5th-9th 2000. Toronto, Canada. Scholz-Reiter B, Scharke HG and Hucht A (1999) Flexible robot-based disassembly cell for obsolete TV-sets and monitors. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 15(3): 247255. SET (Sähkö ja elektroniikkateollisuuslitto) (1995) Käytöstä poistettujen sähköja elektroniikkalaitteiden hyödyntäminen ja käsittely. (Treatment and utilization of end of life electronic equipment- in Finnish.) Helsinki, Finland. Takalo R and Tanskanen P (2002) Outlining opportunities of engineering processes and technologies on environmental impacts of the End of Life treatment of mobile terminals. Presented at the IMAPS (International Microelectronics and Packaging Society) Nordic Annual Conference, Stockholm, September 2002. Tanskanen P and Takala R (2002) Concept of a mobile terminal with an active disassembly mechanism, Proceedings of International Electronics Recycling Congress, Davos, Switzerland, January 2002Tanskanen P and Takalo R (2003) Engineering paradigms for sustainable design of mobile terminals. Proc. International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’03 Stockholm, August 19-21, 2003. Vehlow J, Bergfeldt B, Hunsinger H, Jay K, Mark FE, Tange L, Drohmann D and Fisch H (2002) Recycling of bromine from plastics containing brominated flame retardants in state-of-the-art combustion facilities. A technical paper from APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, technic und Umwelt, and EBFRIP (European Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel). APME’s Technical and Environmental Centre, Brussels, Belgium. Ylä-Mella J (2002) Sähkö- ja elektroniikkaromussa olevien muovien kierrätys. (Recycling of plastics from WEEE – in Finnish) Diploma work. University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering. Oulu, Finland. Ylä-Mella, J.; Pongrácz E.; Keiski R. Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. Proc. Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference. Oulu. University of Oulu, Finland. June 10, 2004, p. 83-92. Zevenhoven R, Axelsen EP & Hupa M (2002) Pyrolysis of waste-derived fuel mixtures containing PVC. Fuel 81(4): 507-510.
III
WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in the Oulu Region of Finland: Challenges to Resource Use Optimization Jenni Ylä-Mella Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Kari Poikela Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4610, Finland
[email protected]
Eva Pongrácz Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Ulla Lehtinen Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4610, Finland
[email protected]
Paul Phillips Division of Environmental Science, University of Northampton Boughton Green Road, Northampton NN2 7AL, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Riitta L Keiski Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Abstract: Setting up efficient collection schemes is necessary to ensure the achievement of the targets set in the WEEE Directive. Following the subsidiarity principle, the Directive defines only general requirements to comply with mandatory collection and recycling objectives. The modalities of the logistics and the organisation of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of 447
Member States. An efficient collection system will depend on accessible and efficient collection facilities as well as adequate and consistent guidance to the personnel in collection points. The long distances in sparsely populated areas of Finland bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively.
Keywords: WEEE Directive; recovery scheme; Oulu Region; Finland
Introduction Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) is developing fast and spreading over every part of modern life. They have raised the standard of living globally, and contributed to the development of affluent societies all over the world. However, Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world, with its 5 % yearly growth; which is three times faster than average waste (European Environment Agency, 2003). For the moment, it is estimated that WEEE makes up approximately 8 % of municipal waste globally (Widmer et al. 2005). In the European context, the most recent estimations of the amounts of WEEE vary from 5 M tonnes up to 7 M tonnes per year (Hagelüken, 2005; Mark, 2006). Approximately 90 % of WEEE has typically been disposed of to landfill sites, incinerated or recovered without any pre-treatment. This allows the harmful substances contained in WEEE, such as heavy metals and brominated flame retardants to migrate into soil, water and air, where they pose a risk to human health and to the environment. Therefore, it is essential to manage WEEE in a proper way and avoid these risks. (Savage et al. 2006) WEEE has been identified as a priority area to take specific measures on a European scale. Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) along with the complementary Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE throughout all stages of the equipment’s lifecycle, by encouraging eco-design, life-cycle thinking, extended producer responsibility and the end-of-life management of the product. The end-of-life management of EEE takes into account, and facilitates, their repair, possible upgrading, reuse, disassembly and recycling. (Pongrácz et al. 2005) The WEEE Directive was adopted not only due to the rapid growth of WEEE but also to improve on limited infrastructure (varying from State to State) now existing for reuse and recycling. Separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE. Therefore, according to the Directive, producers need to oversee the finance for the development of systems to collect, treat and ‘dispose’ of WEEE. By the 31st December 2006, a separate collection rate of 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year had to be achieved. In addition, by the same date, up to 80 % by weight recovery rate, and up to 75 % by weight recycling rate per appliance had to be realised (European Council, 2002). Specific recovery and recycling targets of different WEEE categories are represented in Table 1.
448
Table 1 The minimum recovery and recycling targets of WEEE (European Council, 2002) Category
Recovery rate
Recycling rate
Large household appliances
80 %
75 %
Small household appliances
70 %
50 %
IT and telecommunications equipment
75 %
65 %
Consumer equipment
75 %
65 %
Lighting equipment
70 %
50 %
Electrical and electronic tools
70 %
50 %
Toys, leisure and sports equipment
70 %
50 %
Monitoring and control instruments
70 %
50 %
-
80 %
Gas discharge lamps
Implementation of WEEE Directive in Finland The WEEE Directive provides that national legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment had to be implemented before August 13th, 2004. In addition, separate collection to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE, and suitable waste management facilities had to be developed by August 13th, 2005. In the case of Finland, the Ministry of Environment of Finland prepared a proposition for the Finnish WEEE Directive during summer 2003 and the proposal of national regulation and legislation was introduced in April 2004 (Laaksonen, 2004). In order to harmonize with the electronics Directive, on September 2004 the Finnish Waste Act had to be amended (452/2004), to include clauses on producer responsibility, as listed in Table 2. Table 2 New clauses on producer responsibility included in the Finnish Waste Act (Finland’s Ministry of Environment, 2004) 18 a § 18 b § 18 c § 18 d § 18 e § 18 g §
Producer responsibility means duty of producers over their products put to market, when they become wastes, the management of this waste and the costs incurred. Producer responsibility concerns tires, packaging, paper, cars, EEE, and their producers Producer responsibility may also cover products made by other producers and “old” products (historic waste) Will include regulations concerning the producers’ association Concerns the responsibility of other actors, such regions, distributors, to participate in waste management Concerns the EEE producer’s participation in securing the financing of domestic WEEE recovery
449
In Finland, the overwhelming majority of electronic devices sold on the market are imported. The representatives of foreign and domestic producers may transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to a producers’ association. The producers’ association in turn appoints WEEE recovery companies to treat and recycle the collected waste. Thus far, five producer cooperatives (Serty, Flip, Selt, ICT and Nera) have been formed for the purpose of organizing the collection and recycling of WEEE. The current national legislative situation of WEEE is overviewed in Table 3. Table 3 The overview of national legislative situation in Finland (Savage et al. 2006, Ministry of Environment of Finland, 2006) Transposition Act 452/2004 amending the 1993 Waste Act was adopted by Parliament on 4 June 2004 and Ordinance (852/2004) on Electrical and Electronic Waste was adopted by the Government on 9 September 2005. Key Provisions
Household WEEE: Producers are responsible for organising and financing the collection of WEEE from households. Retailers must either take back WEEE on a 1:1 basis, or indicate to the consumer an alternative reception facility (e.g. a facility that the retailer has an agreement with). B2B WEEE: Producers are responsible for the cost of managing non-household WEEE put on the market after 13 August 2005. They must take back products put on the market before that date on a 1:1 basis. Producers and purchasers other than households can agree on alternative arrangements if they wish. Guarantee: The guarantee for managing the “new” WEEE from households may take the form of a blocked bank account, recycling insurance or membership in an appropriate financing scheme (e.g. producer responsibility organization). The approval of the guarantee to be decided case by case by the national authority within registration procedure. Producer register: The Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre runs the nationwide producer registration system, for Producer Responsibility Organizations and for producers who are not members of any compliance scheme.
Compliance
Producers’ associations: FLIP ry (Finnish Lamp Importers and Producers) ICT-tuottajaosuuskunta Ty (ICT Producer Co-operative) SELT ry (Electrical and Electronics Equipment Producers' Entity) SERTY Oy (Society of WEEE producers) Nera ry (Nordic Electronics Recycling Association) Elker Oy is an umbrella organization and service provider founded by Flip, ICT and SELT.
Setting up an efficient recovery scheme is necessary to ensure the achievement of the targets set in the WEEE Directive. Following the subsidiarity principle, the Directive only defines general requirements to comply with mandatory collection and recycling objectives. The modalities of the logistics and the organisation of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of Member States. There are several channels for the collection of WEEE, the three primary ones being municipal sites, in store retailer take-back and producer take-back (Savage et al. 2006). 450
In Finland, the collection of WEEE is arranged nationally as a producer take-back. Within the supply chain of WEEE, various tasks such as collection, transportation, sorting and disassembly of products, storage, selling of material fractions as well as reusable products and parts is conducted. The producer co-operatives source logistics services from regional operators, usually from social enterprises or public institutions. Private users and households can bring end-of-life products to the collection points free of charge. Collection points are mostly provided by the municipalities and, in some cases, private companies or social enterprises. Also, electronics retailers take away old electronic equipment when delivering a new one or allocate the collection point with reasonable opportunity of returning of WEEE. Non-private users, such as industry and communities, are generally not allowed to return WEEE to collection points. Ordinarily, companies and communities are also charged for take-back. Usually, they would have a contract with one of the regional operators to remove and take care of their electronic equipment. (Poikela and Lehtinen, 2006) The main steps of reverse supply chain of WEEE in Finland are represented in Figure 1. Landfills Industry and communities
Private users / Householders
Non-recyclable materials
COLLECTION POINTS
SORTING STATION
PRETREATMENT
Recyclable materials
Repair / reuse Disassembly / Reusable components
Recycling companies, Smelters
Second hand markets
Figure 1 The stages of reverse supply chain of WEEE in Finland (Poikela and Lehtinen, 2006)
WEEE Recovery in Oulu, Finland In the Oulu region, for major consumer products, a high proportion of discarded metal-rich large household appliances such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and washing machines have already been recycled for several years prior to the requirements of WEEE. Similarly, precious metal based products, such as printed wiring boards of personal computers and mobile phones have also been targeted for recycling, as the precious metal content provides an economic driving force for recovery. Habitually, WEEE is collected and pre-treated in Northern Ostrobothnia and transported elsewhere for the actual treatment and materials utilization. (Ylä-Mella et al. 2004) The regional handling of WEEE includes the sorting into reusable and non-reusable ones (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2006). Individual citizens can take their end-of-life equipment to designated reception places. Totally 13 collection points of regional WEEE collection network are situated within a 100 kilometre radius
451
of Oulu. The collection points are maintained by local municipalities and the whole regional system is managed by the Municipal Waste Management Company of Oulu, providing containers or cages and taking care of transportation of collected WEEE. At collection points, the returned equipment is put into containers or cages without sorting. Further, WEEE is transported from the collection points to a sorting station situated at the premises of Oulu Municipal Waste Management Company. These premises also receive electronic waste from citizens. In the sorting station, WEEE is separated into cages for different product co-operatives and sent to the pre-treatment stations. In addition, quantities of collected WEEE are sent to the producers’ co-operatives. In the pre-treatment station, WEEE is weighed, and sorted, reusable equipment and components are disassembled, stocked and delivered onwards. Recyclable materials are also delivered for treatment and materials utilization. Nonrecyclable WEEE is stocked in a pre-treatment station until it is delivered to treatments plants or disposed. (Lehtinen and Poikela, 2006) The current network of WEEE collection in Oulu region is illustrated in Figure 2.
Private Company
COLLECTING AND SORTING STATION
COLLECTION POINTS
PRE-TREATMENT STATION
Producers co-operatives
Recycling companies, Smelters
Disposal plants, Landfills
Material flow Information flow
Figure 2 The current collection network of WEEE in Oulu region (Poikela and Lehtinen, 2006)
Conclusions Collection and recycling of WEEE as established in the Oulu region has evidently environmental advantages, however, the logistical costs are high and there are value losses during handling and transportation stages hindering potential reuse of functional equipment. The long distances in sparsely populated areas bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively. The producer co-operatives and local operators are looking for the most economical practices to organise the collection. The main challenges of WEEE collection rise from the contradictions in the legislation and the benefits for the producers. One contradiction affecting collection is the reuse value of EEE. For example, refrigerators have a negative value because they have few valuable components, but high transportation costs. On the other hand, circuit boards have a positive value because they contain many valuable materials. Thus, the transportation and handling stages of low reuse value categories of WEEE should be minimised.
452
In addition, an efficient collection system will depend on accessible and efficient collection facilities as well as adequate and consistent guidance to the personnel in collection points. At this moment, it seems the information and guidance in collection points is inadequate. Therefore, it is highly recommended that the return of WEEE is managed by trained employees and, in addition, all documents are signed by the user. The legislation highlights that private consumers and households are able to dispose of WEEE without charge, while industry, educational institutes and communities have to pay for it. It seems that some companies use free of charge channels and are not yet familiar with the legislation. In addition, some free- and easy rider companies also exist in Finland, who do not attend to their responsibility for recycling. Therefore, more information and publicity on WEEE legislation and prevailing practices are needed in Finland.
Acknowledgements The financial support of the Finnish Graduate School in Environmental Science and Technology and the Academy of Finland are gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the authors thank the contribution of the Elker Oy company and acknowledge the Sytrim Equal project.
References EEA (European Environment Agency) (2003) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) – quantities, dangerous substances and treatment methods. European Topic Centre on Waste, January 2003. European Council (2002) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Finland’s Ministry of Environment (2004) Waste Act (1072/1993) of Finland amendments up to 1063/2004 included. Hagelüken C (2005) Recycling of electronic scrap at Umicore’s integrated metals smelter and refinery. Proceedings of European Metallurgical Conference (EMC). September 18-21, 2005. Dresden, Germany. URL: (November 2, 2006) Laaksonen H (2004) Legislation of waste management related to producer responsibility (In Finnish). STREAMS - Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Technology Programme’s seminar, May 25, 2004. Espoo, Finland. Lehtinen U and Poikela K (2006) Challenges of WEEE on Reverse Logistics: A Case Study on a Collection Network in Finland. Logistics Research Network Annual Conference 2006, Sustainable Logistics in an Intermodal Settings. September 6-8, 2006. Newcastle, UK. Mark FE (2006) The characteristics of plastics-rich waste streams from end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment. PlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium. URL: (November 2, 2006) Ministry of Environment of Finland. Producers responsibility in waste management. URL: (November 2, 2006)
453
Poikela K and Lehtinen U (2006) Modelling and developing a WEEE collection network in the Oulu Region in Finland. URL: (November 6, 2006) Pongrácz E, Ylä-Mella J, Keiski R, Phillips PS, Tanskanen P and Kaakinen J (2005) The Impact of the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive: Development of the Mobile Phone Recovery Strategies in Finland. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 31(2): 102-111. Savage M, Ogilvie S, Slezak J and Artim E (2006) Implementation of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in EU 25. European Commission, Directorate General, Joint Research Centre; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Widmer R, Oswald-Krapf H, Sinha-Khetriwal D, Schnellmann M and Böni H (2005) Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(5):436-458. Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E and Keiski R (2004) Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. Proc. Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference. Oulu. University of Oulu, Finland. June 10, 2004, p. 83-92.
454
IV
The Effect of the WEEE Directive on Electronic Waste Recovery in Hungary and Finland Miklósi, P.1, 2, Ylä-Mella, J.3*, Pongrácz, E.3, Garamvölgyi, E1, István, Zs.1, Csőke, B.2 and Keiski, R.L.3 1. Bay Zoltán Foundation for Applied Research Institute for Logistics and Production Systems, 3519 Miskolc, Iglói u. 2., Hungary 2. University of Miskolc, H3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary 3. University of Oulu, Mass and Heat Tranfer Process Laboratory, P.O.Box 4300, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland.
[email protected] 1 Introduction Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world, with its 5 % yearly growth; which is three times faster than average waste (European Environment Agency, 2003). For the moment, it is estimated that WEEE makes up approximately 8 % of municipal waste globally (Widmer et al. 2005). In the European context, the most recent estimations of the amounts of WEEE vary from 5 M tonnes up to 7 M tonnes per year (Hagelüken 2005, Mark 2006). Approximately 90 % of WEEE has typically been disposed of to landfill sites, incinerated or recovered without any pre-treatment. This might allow the harmful substances contained in WEEE, such as heavy metals and brominated flame retardants to migrate into soil, water and air, where they can pose a risk to human health and to the environment. Therefore, it is essential to manage WEEE in a proper way and avoid these risks. (Savage et al. 2006) WEEE has been identified as a priority area to take specific measures on a European scale. Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) along with the complementary Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE throughout all stages of the equipment’s lifecycle, by encouraging ecodesign, life-cycle thinking, extended producer responsibility and the end-of-life management of the product. The WEEE Directive was adopted not only due to the rapid growth of WEEE but also to improve on the limited infrastructure that existed for reuse and recycling. Separate collection is the precondition to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE. Therefore, according to the Directive, producers need to oversee the finance for the development of systems to collect, treat and ‘dispose’ of WEEE. 2 Electronic waste recovery in Hungary and Finland prior the WEEE Directive While uncontrolled disposal of electronic devices has been a problem in both countries, some level of electronic waste recovery existed also prior to the implementation of the WEEE Directive. Especially large household appliances with high metal content (e.g. stoves) and smaller equipment containing precious metals (PCs, mobile phones) were collected, due to the profitability of their recycling. In addition, CFC-containing refrigerator collection was organised, in order to prevent the release of CFCs to the environment. In both countries the take back of end-of-life (EOL) electronics was organised for a small fee. In some cases also distributors and retailers offered to take back EOL equipment when buying a new one. However, sporadic opportunities existed also for EOL take back without a fee, e.g. “free days” at municipal landfill sites in Finland, or the yearly “spring junk clearance days” in Hungary. Despite the opportunities, home storage of “historic” EOL equipment has been a typical characteristic to both countries.
Customer
Collection point (stores, coll. yards)
Material flow
Producer 2
PRO 1 (Producer Responsibility Organisation)
Transport
Producer n
…
Treatment facility
…
or
PRO n
Recovery Landfill
Money flow
Co-ordination Obligors
Producer 1
Operation
State
Ministry for Environment and Water
Environmental fee (if coll. and recovery obligation not fulfilled)
Information flow
Figure 1. Organization of WEEE recovery in Hungary (based on Garamvölgyi et al. 2006). 3 Organisation of WEEE collection and recovery in Hungary The WEEE Directive was taken into effect on August 13th, 2005. As the collection and recovery infrastructure was undeveloped at that time, Hungary was given longer time, until December 31st 2008, to achieve the targeted 4 kg/inhabitant/year recovery level. The WEEE recovery obligations closely relate to the existing “Environmental Fee System” expanded to electrical and electronic products from 1st January 2005. Environmental fee is included in the price of a product paid by customers, and producers pay that amount into an environmental central fund which finances EOL management of products. Producers can handle take-back obligations on their own, or by handling the responsibility over to Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs). There are presently six registered PROs in Hungary. As illustrated in Figure 1, PROs coordinate the collection and treatment of WEEE by contracting with collection points, transporters and treatment facilities. They handle reports from transporters and treatment facilities about collected and treated waste amount, and take over most of the administration and reporting obligations from the contracted producers. Take back is also organized at retailers and at some municipal collection yards. The estimated annual amount of WEEE arising in Hungary is about 140-150 000 tons/year. The obligated amount to collect was ca. 18 000 tons in the year 2006. However, this target was exceeded and the six PROs collected 25 000 tons (ca. 2,5 kg/inhabitant/year) of WEEE (Hulladéksors, 2007). Presently, the take-back capacity may enable to reach 30 000 tons, however, the producers are not interested in financing treatment of collected waste over their obligation. There has been a flood of historic equipment to the collection points when takeback for free was organised, and the collected WEEE contained a lower amount of valuable components as expected. Therefore, their recovery is not profitable without the financial support of the recovery infrastructure. In most treatment facilities WEEE is disassembled manually, but installation of more mechanical processing facilities has also been started. Recovered material fractions are utilised mainly by metallurgical processing in Hungary, or sent abroad. Those materials, such as plastics that have no recovery value are sent to landfill. Reuse/refurbishment activities are confined to toners, cartridges for printing and copying, starters and alternators of motors.
4 Organisation of WEEE recovery in Finland The WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC provides that national legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment had to be implemented before August 13th, 2004. In addition, separate collection to ensure specific treatment and recycling of WEEE, and suitable waste management facilities had to be developed by August 13th, 2005. By the 31st December 2006, a separate collection rate of 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year needed to be achieved. Also, by the same date, up to 80 % by weight recovery rate, and up to 75 % by weight recycling rate per appliance had to be realized. In the case of Finland, in order to harmonize with the electronics Directive, on September 2004 the Finnish Waste Act had to be amended (452/2004), to include clauses on producer responsibility. Finland applies the principle of producer responsibility to minimize the generation, and to enhance the recovery of certain types of waste. This principle was first incorporated into Finnish law through the Government decisions on discarded tires (12.10.1995/1246), batteries and accumulators (26.1.1995/105), packaging and packaging waste (23.10.1997/962) and waste paper (25.11.1998/883). In Finland, the overwhelming majority of electronic devices sold on the market are imported. The representatives of foreign and domestic producers may transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to a producers’ association. The producers’ association in turn appoints WEEE recovery companies to treat and recycle the collected waste. Thus far, five producer co-operatives (Serty, Flip, Selt, ICT and Nera) have been formed for the purpose of organizing the collection and recycling of WEEE. Within the supply chain of WEEE, various tasks such as collection, transportation, sorting and disassembly of products, storage, selling of material fractions as well as reusable products and parts are conducted. The producer cooperatives source logistics services from regional operators, usually from social enterprises or public institutions. (Lehtinen & Poikela 2006) Private users and households can bring end-oflife products to the collection points free of charge. Collection points are provided by municipalities, private companies or social enterprises. Also, electronics retailers take away old electronic equipment when delivering a new one or allocate the collection point with reasonable opportunity of returning of WEEE. Non-private users, such as industry, institutes and communities, are generally not allowed to return WEEE to collection points. Ordinarily, companies and communities are also charged for take-back. Usually, they would have a contract with one of the regional operators to remove and take care of their electronic equipment. The current collection network of WEEE in Finland is represented in Figure 2. Producers co-operatives Non-recyclable materials
Industry and communities
Private users / Householders
COLLECTION POINTS
SORTING STATION
PRE-TREATMENT STATION
Recyclable Recycling materials companies, Smelters
Disassembly / Reusable components Reuse / Repair Material flow
Landfills
Second hand markets
Information flow
Figure 2. The current collection network of WEEE in Finland (based on Lehtinen & Poikela 2006).
5 Discussion Prior to the implementation of the WEEE Directive, disposal of WEEE was typically uncontrolled in Hungary and Finland. However, due to their valuable material content, some devices have already been recycled for several years prior to the requirements of WEEE. After the implementation of the WEEE Directive, collection schemes and suitable waste management facilities for specific treatment and recycling of WEEE were organized and the amount of recovered WEEE has increased exponentially. Recovered WEEE is typically disassembled manually and utilised mainly as material or energy. In Hungary, reuse and refurbishment activities are confined to only some devices, while in Finland it is advanced to business operations, often carried out by social enterprises. The main challenges of WEEE collection rise from the contradictions in the legislation and the benefits for the producers. One contradiction affecting collection is the reuse value of EEE. In addition, an efficient collection depends on accessible and efficient collection facilities as well as adequate and consistent guidance to the personnel in collection points. At this moment, it seems that the information and guidance in collection points is inadequate both in Hungary and in Finland. Therefore, more information and publicity on WEEE legislation and prevailing practices are needed in both countries. Acknowledgements The financial support of the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO), the Finnish Graduate School in Environmental Science and Technology, and the Academy of Finland are gratefully acknowledged. References Garamvölgyi, E., István, Z. and Tóth, Z. 2006. WEEE: reporting compliance – case study on the Hungarian system. Proc. of the Electronics Goes Green – CARE INNOVATION 2006. November 13-16, 2006, Wien, Austria. Hagelüken, C. 2005. Recycling of electronic scrap at Umicore`s integrated metals smelter and refinery. Proc. of European Metallurgical Conference. September 18-21, 2005, Dresden, Germany. Mark F.E., 2006. The characteristics of plastics-rich waste streams from end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment. Plastics-Europe, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.plasticseurope.org/Content/Default.asp?pageID=25 (2.3.2007)
Lehtinen, U. and Poikela, K. 2006. Challenges of WEEE on reverse logitics. A case study on a collection network in Finland. Logistics Research Network Annual Conference 2006, Sustainable Logistics in an Intermodal Setting. September 6-8, 2006. Newcastle, UK. Savage, M., Ogilvie, S., Slezak, J. and Artim, E. 2006. Implementation of Waste Electric an Electronic Equipment Directive in EU25. European Commission, Directorate General, Joint Research Centre; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Hulladéksors. 2007. Report on the Waste Treatment Coordinating Organisations' 2006 achievements. 2007. Hulladéksors, February 2007. Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M. and Böni H. 2005. Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(5):436-458.
V
EXAMINING THE WEEE RECOVERY SUPPLY CHAIN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM SWEDEN AND FINLAND Ulla Lehtinen* Kari Poikela** Jenni Ylä-Mella*** Eva Pongrácz**** *Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4600, 90014 University of Oulu, E-mail:
[email protected], Tel:+358 8 2926, Fax: +358(0)553 2926 ** Elker Ltd, Käenkuja 8 D 32, FIN-00500 Helsinki, E-mail:
[email protected] *** NorTech Oulu and Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 7300, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, E-mail:
[email protected] **** NorTech Oulu and Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 7300, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, E-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT Purpose of this paper: The amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) will continue to increase, and, therefore, it is crucial to set up efficient collection systems. The main objective of this descriptive paper is to increase understanding of how the reverse logistics of WEEE are managed in a national context. First, the paper examines how the reverse supply chain of WEEE is organized in Finland and Sweden. Second, the paper discusses the structure and efficiency of recovery systems of WEEE based on the literature and the empirical data Design/methodology/approach: The research is explorative in nature and rests on interviews and a real-life experience founded on the three years experiences from Finland. Findings: Both in Sweden and Finland, the supply chains of WEEE are open-looped so that municipalities, other organisations, and private service providers are responsible for WEEE reverse flow without any involvement of product manufacturers. The Swedish collecting system has been very effective: By owning the total WEEE recycling flow in Sweden, the service organisation has been able to offer practical and cost-effective solutions and optimized transportation from collection points to treatment plants. In Finland, the system is more diversified. The activities of the WEEE recovery business are still an early stage in Finland and, therefore, some inefficient practices still exist. Practical implications: The paper gives insight information of the WEEE collection systems in Finland and Sweden. Originality/ value: Reverse supply chain management has been so far under-represented in the logistics and supply chain literature. This paper complements current discussion. Key words: recycling, reverse logistics, e-waste, producer responsibility, waste collection
517
1.
INTRODUCTION
Quantities of end-of-life electronics (e-waste) around the world keep growing. In European context, the estimations of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipments (WEEE) vary from 5 M tonnes up to 7 M tonnes per year (Hagelüken, 2005; Mark, 2006). In 2005, the US discarded 1.36-1.72 M tonnes of e-waste, mainly into landfills, and only about 0.3 M tonnes were recycled. For example, it is estimated that 9 % of the electronics sold between 1980 and 2004 in the United States, or 180 million units, are still in storage awaiting disposal. (U.S.EPA, Kahhat et al., 2008) The developing countries are facing huge challenges in the management of WEEE which are either internally generated or imported illegally and “used” goods in an attempt to bridge the co-called “digital divine” (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2008). China has received the largest share of e-waste from around the world and is tapping into huge market for used electronic products behind of backyard or informal recycling. In informal recycling, e-waste is disassembled manually and recycled using archaic methods to obtain valuable materials (Kahhat et al., 2008). End-of-life (EOL) products, especially, WEEEs contain pollutants which are toxic and hazardous to human health. Improper handling of these e-wastes may trigger damage to human health from respiratory problems of cancer. When discarded into the landfill, these hazardous contents are also damaging to the ecosystem. This awareness became vivid by the enactment of various environmental laws around the world, such as the WEEE Directive by the European Union (2003), the Household Appliances Recycling Law by the Japanese Ministry of Environment (2000) and Extended Producer’s Responsibility Act by New South Wales Government Australia (2001) (Hanafi, 2008). Meanwhile, the significant increase in e-waste has not corresponded to growth in the processes related to collection, recycle and reuse of these electronic devices. WEEE is a very complex waste stream; it includes wide variety of devices from mechanical products to highly integrated systems and technological innovations. Generally collection and transportation are the most expensive steps of supply chain of WEEE and, therefore, it is crucial to set up efficient collection systems. The main objective of this descriptive paper is to increase understanding of how the reverse logistics of WEEE returns are managed in a national context. To explore this issue, the following research questions are asked: 1. How recovery supply chain of WEEE is organised in Finland and Sweden? 2. How the efficiency of the WEEE recovery system in circling materials is improved? First, the paper examines how the reverse supply chain of WEEE is organized in Finland and Sweden. Second, the paper discusses the structure and efficiency of recovery systems of WEEE based on the literature and the empirical data. The research is explorative in nature and rests on interviews and a real-life experience founded on the three years experiences from Finland in years 2005-2007. The data is collected from interviews and written materials. The study does not provide any quantitative analysis or statistical generalization.
2.
REVERSE LOGISTICS OF WEEE
As mentioned earlier, WEEE is one of the most complex waste streams having a number of recovery options (see figure 2.1). Within the supply chain of WEEE, various tasks like collection, transportation, sorting and disassembly of products and storage and selling of
518
material fractions as well as reusable products and parts are conducted. After the consumer discarded his end-of-life product to collection, following options of the reverse flow could be found: Reuse consists of finding another user to use the product in its existing condition Recycling involves the breakdown of a product into different materials which then get processed into material feedstock (Thierry et al., 1995) Cannibalization removes a few particular components for reuse but discards the rest (Thierry et al., 1995) Repair fixes a product to a level where it will still function (Thierry et al., 1995) Refurbishing fixes production functioning and improves its condition (Thierry et al., 1995) Remanufacturing takes previously utilized product components and repairs and refurbishes these components to the same standards for new product components (Jayaraman et al., 1999).
Figure 2.1. Basic flow diagram of reverse logistics activities (Srivastava, 2006) So far, the WEEE recovery has concentrated on recycling flow having a lesser concern with reuse or remanufacturing flow. At the same time there are increased interest towards remanufacturing among auto manufacturers and heavy machinery. Remanufacturing is such a money spinner because of the low cost of the materials and energy it uses. Materials represent 70 % of costs for new product, but only 40 % for a remanufactured one. Also energy costs are up to 85 % lower than in new one (Grose, 2007). Overall, hundreds of different components and a wide array of different materials may be contained in waste stream of EEE. An estimate of the material composition of WEEE in
519
European context is shown in Figure 2.2. Metals are the most abundant materials; iron and steel account for almost half of WEEE, while non-ferrous metals, including precious metals, represent approximately 13 % of the total weight of WEEE. Plastics are the second largest component by weight, representing approximately 21 % of materials contained in WEEE. (ETC/WMF, 2003) precious metal based products, such as printed circuit boards (PCBs) of personal computers and mobile phones have also been targeted for recycling for several years because precious metals provide a strong economic driver for their recovery (Ylä-Mella et al., 2004; Darby and Obara, 2005). In printed circuit boards, precious metal concentrations are relatively high compared to concentrations in primary ores (Cui and Forssberg, 2003) and the purity of precious metals in WEEE is more than 10 times higher than that in rich-content minerals (Li et al., 2007). Some EEE products, such as TVs and monitors, are principally glass based, and in addition, as the cathode ray tube (CRT) contains toxic elements such as lead, cadmium and mercury, they are also considered a hazardous material (Menad, 1999). Furthermore, a large part of consumer electronics, especially small household appliances are principally plastic based and contain only low amounts of valuable materials (Cui and Forssberg, 2003). As a consequence of varying material contents, different EOL strategies will have to be devised for different classes of WEEE.
47,9
Iron and steel Non-flame retarded plastics
15,3
Copper Glass Flame retarded plastics
5,3
Aluminium Other
4,7 4,6
7 5,4
3,1 2,6
Printed circuit board Wood and plywood Concrete and ceramics Other (non-ferrous) metals
2 1 0,9
Rubber 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig 2.2 Composition of WEEE in a European context (wt %).
2.1.
Network design for reverse logistics of WEEE
Reverse supply chain management (RSCM) is defined by Prahinski and Kocabasoglu (2006) as the effective and efficient management of the series of activities required for retrieving a product from a customer and either dispose of it or recover value. According to Blumberg (2005, p. 12) the reverse logistics process is found either as a subset of closed loop systems or standing alone (an open-loop supply chain). Closed-loop supply chains involve the transportation of products in a forward and reverse direction to the same company. An open-loop supply never returns product back to the original manufacturer. Every member of the supply chain is responsible for the materials and energy used as well as the creation of products or materials. The flow of goods is driven by the amount of used
520
goods available. Both closed loop and open loop systems are found in WEEE recovery systems. In Europe, the open-loop supply chains are typical: usually municipalities or other organisations and private service providers are responsible for WEEE reverse flow without any involvement of product manufacturers. On the other hand, efficient closed-loop supply chains exist also today, for product remanufacturing and customer returns. Some of the best examples are Xerox copiers that are leased, refurbished and go through multiple lifecycles, single-use cameras that may actually be reused up to 10 times by unsuspecting consumers (Cottrill, 2003; Kumar, 2008). According to Herold (2007 p. 68) manufacturer investments in recovery capabilities are the highest in Japan. Three companies have their own recycling facilities in Japan: NEC, Fujitsu, and Hitachi. For example, NEC has been offering cradle-tocradle services for its B2B products since 1969. Apart of its activities in recycling PCs. NEC has been offering a refurbishment service to consumers. It buys used PCs that meet quality criteria back from consumers and then refurbishes these products at its own facilities. Reverse logistics systems cannot be considered as the reverse version of forward logistics systems (Fleischmann et al., 1997). Following unique characteristics summarise the difference of reverse logistics network from traditional logistics network (Guide et al., 1997; Fleischmann et al., 2000; Fernandes, 2004, Blumberg, 2005): Uncertainty. Unlike the traditional supply chain where supply is organized according to the manufacturing process needs, supply in reverse context is in most cases random. Layout of the reverse logistics network. The difficulty to decide on the reverse logistics network. The structure should be such that returns transport and warehousing operations will be operated in an efficient manner and capable of capturing the relationships among the various parties involved. Amount and scope of the activities. Intakes in the recovery of products involve a greater number of logistics activities to be performed than for traditional logistics. Features of materials flow. There is a converging flow from the disposer market and diverging flow to re-use markets. Also a high number of low volume inbound flow. Quality of items. The quality of items is not uniform. There is a unique inspection stage to assess the condition of the returned products. Also the options of disposition are not clear. Centralisation refers to the number of locations at which similar activities are carried out. In a centralised network each activity is installed at a few locations only, whereas in a decentralised network the same operation is carried at several different locations in parallel. (Fleischmann et al., 2000) According too Blackburn et al. (2004) centralized return supply chains are designed for economies of scale – both in processing and transport of product. Centralising the reverse flow creates larger volumes, which provide the critical mass needed to buy specialised equipment and allows employees focus solely on reverse logistics (TibbenLembke, 2002). Facilities with high fixed costs generally require centralized operations, while other activities may be decentralized to reduce transportation costs. Additionally, collecting low value products relies on economies of scale which is met through a centralization of the network structure. For products with high value materials and little production complexity – materials recycling will be referred (Realff et al., 1999, 2000). Since increases in manufacturing complexity makes reuse, remanufacturing, and refurbishing of products more popular options, decentralized production networks for these more complex products may make more economic and environmental sense to pursue (Clarke 2006 p. 10). Blackburn et al. (2004) also argue that in the reverse supply chain, there are significant time advantages to early, rather than late, process differentiation. Early diagnosis of product condition maximizes asset recovery by fast-tracking returns on to their ultimate disposition and minimizing the
521
delay costs. They argued that making the reverse supply chain responsive, the testing and evaluation of product must be decentralized. Instead of a single point of collection and evaluation, product is initially evaluated at multiple locations – when possible, at the point of return from the customer. Thus, decentralizing the returns process improves asset recovery delays for disposition of new and scarp products.
3.
WEEE RECYCLING SYSTEM IN FINLAND AND SWEDEN
In EU countries, directive 2002/96/EC, which came into force in 2003 and the official deadline for having systems operational was August 2005, establishes a framework for the prevention of waste electrical and electronic equipments (WEEE), and in addition, the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of such wastes so as to reduce the disposal of waste. In the case of Finland, the proposal of national regulation and legislation was introduced in the spring of 2004. In Sweden, the law of producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products was introduced already in 2001 and was revised in 2005 to comply with WEEE Directive. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has a long history in northern European countries. Also The Netherlands (1999) and Belgium (2002) in addition to Sweden adopted producer responsibility legislation for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) before EUlevel intervention (Herold, 2007 p. 24). OECD (The organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) defined EPR as: “an environmental policy approach in which a producers’ responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a products life cycle including its final disposal” (OECD, 2001; Widmer et al., 2005). There is no coherent example for take-back systems in the Member States that is based on individual producer responsibility; instead collective systems are set up where producers do not pay specifically for the take-back of their own waste but rather for share calculated on this basis of the weight of their produced products (Roller & Fuhr, 2008). This is also the case in Sweden and Finland. The representatives of foreign and domestic producers have transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to producers’ associations and onwards to service providers. In addition, in both countries municipalities plays an important role by maintaining collection points.
3.1.
Research methodology
This study has its origin in the Sytrim –project (social enterprises and recycling 2005-2007) that was financed by European Social Fund (ESR) Equal-programme and managed by Learning and Research Services at the University of Oulu, Finland. The core mission of Sytrim was to develop and create enterprises in the field of recycling (see www.sytrim.fi). During year 2006, Kari Poikela and Ulla Lehtinen carried out the study on WEEE collection network in two regions in Finland (see Lehtinen and Poikela 2006, 2007; Ylä-Mella et al., 2007). During these studies, the material and information flows between the actors of collection network were mapped out and stages of the collection process were documented (photos, flow charts). Semi-structured interviews were held with the main actors. In September 2007, Ulla Lehtinen interviewed the logistics manager of El-Kretsen from Swedish WEEE organization in order to find out the present situation in Sweden. Yin (2003) defines a case study as an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
522
phenomenon and context are clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. Case studies are especially applicable in the early stages of research of the topic or to provide fresh perspective on a previously researched topic (Eisenhardt, 1989). The phenomenon of WEEE recovery has very short history and thus, case study method fits well to the subject. The criticism of the case study research relates to the lack of statistical reliability and validity, the ability to generate hypotheses but not the test them, and generalizations cannot be made on the basis of case studies (Gummesson, 2000). These limitations can also be recognized in this study. Yin (2003) identified six sources of evidence: documents, archival records, interviews, direct observations and physical artifacts. In this study multiple sources of evidence are used: interviews, direct and participant observations, statistical records and annual reports. The use of multiple sources of data collection procedures will increase reliability of the study. 3.2.
WEEE supply chain in Finland
According to the data of Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre, a total of 50 528 tonnes or some 9.5 kg/person/year of WEEE was collected separately in Finland in 2007. Over 99 % of collected WEEE is recycled. For the moment, electrical and electronic equipment producers and importing business have formed five producer co-operatives: Flip, ICT, SELT, Serty and Nera (Table 3.1.) for the purpose of organizing collection and recycling of WEEE. Flip, ICT, SELT have founded together an umbrella organization and service provider named Elker Ltd. Thus, the cooperatives form three organisations (Serty, NERA and Elker) which manage the collection and recycling operations. Each of the organisations has its own system from collection points onwards, although NERA is in some extent co-operating with Serty. In Finland, collection of WEEE is arranged mainly as a permanent collection; approximately 470 collection points exist around the country. These collection points are, in most cases, provided by the municipality and, in some cases, by private companies or social enterprises which can also operate as pre-treatment stations. In collection points, end-of-life products are divided into two containers owned by Elker and Serty based on the WEEE categories. Private users and households can bring end-of-life products to the collection points free of charge. Non-private users, such as enterprises and institutes, are generally not allowed to return WEEE to collection points; ordinarily, they are required to have an individual contract with regional operators to remove and take care of their electronic equipment by charge. NERA is formed by large retailers and importers who take-back end-of-life home appliances when new appliances are purchased. Also mobile collections are organised occasionally e.g. in sparsely populated regions. In the figure 3.1 the basic information and materials flow in Finnish WEEE supply chain is presented. First, when a private user is buying new equipment, he also pays a recycling fee for producer co-operatives. Few years later the used equipment is discarded to a collection point and transported to a pre-treatment company. The sorting of collected WEEE into reusable and non-reusable ones is in principle done in pre-treatment points; although the magnitude of reuse is insufficient. After pre-assembly the metal fractions and other valuable components are sold to recycling firms. Elker Ltd. as well as Serty has contracts with collection points and transportation companies. Elker Ltd has also a number of pre-treatment points. The payment for these organisations is based on the amount of handled WEEE at each stage. Earnings from valuable components and metals sold to recycling firms are divided between the pre-treatment firm and the producer organization.
523
As mentioned earlier, three diverse structure of WEEE supply chain exist in Finland. Serty and NERA have both their own centralized reverse supply chains: the WEEE is transported in national scale from collection points to only a few treatment points. Elker Ltd, for one, promotes a nationwide decentralized logistics network with about 30 pre-treatment points and several transport service providers in 2007. In 2007, About 25 social enterprises operated as pre-treatment stations of WEEE making manual disassembly. These pre-treatment points are in general owned by social enterprises or local associations of the unemployed. They have also their own charity shops where they sell reusable equipment.
Table 3.1. The organisations responsible for WEEE recycling operations in Finland. Producer cooperatives Society of WEEE Producers (Serty)
Organisation
WEEE categories
Collecting points
Serty
Home technology (refrigerators, washing machines, television sets etc.)
Nordic Electronics Recycling Association
NERA
Mostly household appliances
SELT Association
Elker
ICT Producer Cooperative
Elker
Large household appliances, small household appliances, lighting equipment, electrical and electronic tools, toys, leisure and sports equipment, medical devices, monitoring and control instruments, automatic dispensers. IT and telecommunications equipment, Consumer equipment
Municipalities, Pre-treatment stations, Mobile collection Retailers. Municipalities, Pre-treatment stations, Mobile collection Municipalities, Pre-treatment stations, Mobile collection
Flip Association
Elker
Fluorescent and gas discharge lamps
524
Figure 3.1 Information and materials flow within a WEEE supply chain in Finland
3.3.
WEEE supply chain in Sweden1
Contrary to Finland, in Sweden there is only one organisation, servicing all producers and manufacturers, responsible for manage WEEE recycling. El-Kretsen, established in 2001, is owned by 21 business associations. El-Kretsen is a non-profit organisation and the charges paid by the affiliated members are based on their own costs. The amount of discarded electrical and electronic products collected in Sweden was in 2007 160 million kg; that is 17.5 kg per person, which is evidently the highest amount of collected WEEE in the world. ElKretsen makes contracts with municipalities (household collection) and other collecting organisations (business collecting). In 2007, approximately 650 recycling facilities were in operation around Swedish municipalities. In many areas, an additional household collection service was offered. El-Kretsen had also around 300 locations where organisations could dispose of electrical and electronic products. El-Kretsen also provided collection services for certain types of product, such as light sources. It is important to notice that the disposal service for business is also free of charge by using a return certificate. A return certificate means that the party disposing of the object guarantees that the number of units returned corresponds with the undertaking’s purchase of new equipment. At the recycling facilities, products are sorted into six different categories (see table 3.2.) ElKretsen makes usually two years contracts with transportation companies and treatment plants (a recycling service provider) based on four categories: 1) fridges and freezers 2) electrical
1
The information is based on an interview of a logistics manager in El-Kretsen September 2007 and an annual report 2007 (El-Kretsen, 2007).
525
and electronic goods 3) large white goods 4) straight fluorescent tubes. El-Kretsen has divided the country to different collection areas based on volume, logistics costs and location of pre-prosessing; for example there were four collection areas for fridges and freezers and ten areas for large white goods. For each collecting area a single sourced contact is made with one treatment plant. Table 3.2 The categories of WEEE in Sweden (El-Kretsen,2007)
Category
Recycling 07 (tons)
%
Large white goods (cookers, dishwashers, washing machines etc.)
45 453
28.4
Other household appliances, hand tools, gardening tools
12 582
7.9
IT, office equipment, telecommunications equipment
30 769
19.2
Televisions, video, audio equipment
30 396
19.0
Cameras, watches, toys
339
0.2
Light sources, electrical fittings
2253
4.9
Miscellaneous
2253
1.4
Fridges and freezers
30 453
19
Total
160 138
The procurement is conducted through an open tender procedure. All tenders who met the environmental and quality requirements had an opportunity to take part in the procurement. The transport procurement was implemented with the same manner, the transportation volume of a collecting area is divided between two to three transportation companies so that transportation routes are optimised. Each transport supplier is specialised to deal with a particular category and region. In 2007, a web-based system was introduced to disseminate and cover information. The transporters have access to stock reports that the collection facilities have submitted. The transporters plan their shipments and use handheld computers to report back. The recyclers can then see when the transporters are planning to deliver electrical and electronic waste. The cash flow between El-Kretsen and a pre-treatment service provider is based on the material value. The treatment service provider “buys” the waste from El-Kretsen; although their pay from the products only if their get profit. On the other case, e.g. in the case of large white goods, television sets, when there is a negative material value; EL-Kretsen pays to treatment service provider.
526
El-Kretsen have taken been care of recycling WEEE; it has not involved in reuse of remanufacturing issues. When consumer returned the product to collection point, the reuse possibility is checked. Those organisations responsible for collection points should also take care of reuse. The basic feature of Swedish system is the efficient materials flows; the recycling operations are centralized and transportation optimised. The large companies, like Stena Metal AB, dominate recycling business. Also, the social enterprises have very small role in recycling in Sweden; El-Kretsen supplied 5 % of its volume from social companies in order to show social responsibility.
Figure 3.2. The information and materials flow within a WEEE supply chain in Sweden
4.
DISCUSSIONS
Both Sweden and Finland, the producers and importers of electrical and electronic equipments have formed associations. By affiliating to service organisations, companies producing goods do not have set up a system of their own. In practice, the producer responsibility is transferred to a collective system which makes possible to have “free-riders” e.g. producers that do not pay their fair share of recycling. In Finland, three organisations manage the reverse supply chain of WEEE, while in Sweden, only one national service organisation exist. Albeit there has been a notable IT and telecommunications industry in both countries, the influence of companies to WEEE recycling systems seemed to be minor. In Sweden, the WEEE recycling started (2002) four years earlier than in Finland (2006). In 2007, electronic and electronics products were discarded 17.5 kg per person in Sweden, whereas in Finland the amount was 9.5 kg per person while collecting target in Europe has been 4 kg per inhabitant. Evidently, the Swedish system has been the most effective, also in costs, in the world. What makes Swedish system so effective? First, the supply of end-of-life products is high enough to assure convergent flow thanks to long tradition and high awareness of recycling. The most important issue has been that there is a single system for whole country. By owning the total WEEE recycling flow, the service organisation has been
527
able to offer practical and cost-effective solutions and optimized transportation from collection points to treatment plants. In Finland, the system is more diversified which include both centralized and decentralized reverse supply chain structures and multiple organizations. Collecting low value products such as home technology (large white goods) relies on economies of scale which is met through a centralization of the network structure. On the other hand, the high value WEEE such as computers and mobile phones, have had more decentralized flow. Also in Finland, the role of social enterprises in WEEE business has been much more important than in Sweden. Facilities for WEEE treatment plants have high fixed costs and environmental requirements that require centralized operations. The shortage and uncertainty of discarded materials compared to volumes have been one problem among Finnish recycling companies. The activities of the WEEE recovery business are still an early stage in Finland and, therefore, some inefficient practices still exist. Furthermore, long distances bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively and, therefore, the importance of cooperation and efficient information flow between the actors and producers co-operatives need to be highlighted (Román et al., 2008). So far, the European WEEE recycling has been based on national systems. Also, the legislation concerning waste materials has limited export and import of WEEE. In the future, the nations wide reverse supply chains are a cost-effective opinion. For example, in sparsely populated Northern areas this kind of co-operation between Finland, Sweden and Norway would decrease logistics costs. In the future, the manufacturers of electric and electronics in Europe may also be more interested in remanufacturing which will also challenge the reverse supply chains by causing divergent flows and demanding new operation practices. The reuse of WEEE is emphases by the EU legislation. So far, the targets for reuse have not been reached. Also, the second hand markets for used equipment and spare parts are undeveloped. The primary goal of the EU WEEE legislation is to prevent waste generation, especially through promoting reuse, and setting mandatory recovery percentages. While the recovery percentages have been achieved and even surpassed even in Finland, the current system in Finland does not promote reuse and/or refurbishment of electronics (Ylä-Mella et al., 2007). Negligence during collection, transportation of storage hinders the reuse potential of functional equipment. In order to improve reuse and refurbishment, separating reusable and non-reusable equipment should be intensified and, in addition, standardized testing and refurbishing system with certified operators should be devised (Román et al., 2008). Thus, the pre-testing and sorting of discarded products should take place as much upstream as possible, in order to send reusable appliances to adequate testing points without damages. In addition, the observation has been that Finnish consumers are hesitant to take functional equipment into recovery centres, even though they have purchased a newer equipment. According to a study in Finland (Pietikäinen 2007), up to half of the users store their nonused mobile phones at home until a possible future use, which may never come. Evidently there is insufficient education to ensure that functional equipment are returned for use rather than become waste. To facilitate reuse, and the highest level of recovery, consumers will need to be committed to return these end-of-use electronics to WEEE recovery centres. (Pongrácz et al., 2008) Further research will be needed to ascertain the full effects of the inefficiency of logistics extent and lack of customer compliance in evaluating the reverse recovery system in Finland. We can conclude that education and awareness-raising will continue to be a crucial element in the progress towards sustainable WEEE recovery in Finland.
528
References Blackburn, J.D., Guide, V.D.R., Souza, G.C, van Wassenhove, L.N. (2004) Reverse Supply Chains for Commercial Returns. California Management Review 46. Vol. 2 pp. 6-22. Blumberg, D.F. (2005) Reverse Logistics and Closed Loop Supply Chain Processes. CRC Press. Clarke, A.R. (2006) Decentralized or Centralized Production: Impacts to the Environment, Industry and the Economy. Michigan Technological University. Houghton, Michigan. URL: http://www.me.mtu.edu/~arclarke/research_page.htm (Accessed 19. March 2009) Cui, J. and Forssberg, E. (2003) Mechanical recycling of waste electric and electronic equipment: a review. Journal of Hazardous Materials B99. Nro 3 pp. 243-263. Darby, L. and Obara, L. (2005) Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and recycling Vol. 44 Nro 1 pp. 17-35. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building Theories form Case Study Research. Academy of Mangement Review. Vol 13 Nro 4, pp. 532-550. El-Kretsen (2007) Annual Report 2007. URL: (Accessed 2.March 2009) ETC/WMF (European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows) (2003) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Topic Centre of European Environment Agency. URL: (Accessed November 2, 2006) European Council (2002) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Fernandez, I. (2004) Reverse Logistics Implementation in Manufacturing Companies. Acta Wasaensia. No. 127. Industrial Management 8. Universitas Wasaensis. Vaasa Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., Dekker, R., van der Laan, E., van Nunen, J., van Wassenhove, L.(1997) Quantitative models for reverse logistics: a review. European Journal of Operations Research 1997; 103 pp. 1-17. Fleischmann, M., Krikke, H.R., Dekker, R., Flapper, S. (2000) A Characterisation of Logistics Networks for Producer recovery, Omega 28:653-666. Grose, T.K. (2007) Born Again. Time 12. Jul.2007 URL: http://www.time.com/printout/0,8816,1642728,00.html/ (Accessed 19.March 2009) Gummesson, E. (2000) Quality Methods in Management Research. Sage Publications, Inc. Hagelüken, C. (2005) Recycling of electronic scrap at Umicore’s integrated metals smelter and refinery. Proceedings of European Metallurgical Conference (EMC). September 1821, 2005.Dresden, Germany. URL: http://www.eco-cell.org/files/EMC-2005-UmicoreWEEE.pdf (Accessed 29.March 2009) Hanafi, J., Kara, S., Kaebernick, H. (2008) Reverse logistics strategies for end-of-life products. The International Journal of Logistics Management. Vol 19, nro 3 pp. 367388. Herald, M. (2007) A multinational perspective to managing end-of-life electronic. Helsinki University of Technology. Laboratory of Industrial Management. Doctoral Dissertation Series 2007/1. Espoo 2007. Jayaraman, V.M., Guide, V.D.R., Srivastava, R. (1999) A Closed-loop Logistics Model for Remanufacturing. Journal of Operational Research Society Vol 50, nro 5 pp. 497-508.
529
Kahhat, R., Jumbeum, K., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., Zang, P. (2008) Exploring ewaste management systems in the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol 52 pp. 955-964. Lehtinen U. and Poikela K. (2006) Challenges of WEEE on reverse logistics: A case study on a collection network in Finland. Proceedings of Logistics Research Network Annual Conference 2006. 6th-8th September 2006, Newcastle upon Tyne, Uk. Eds. Bourlakis M. et al. The Chartered Institution of Logistics and Transport (UK). p. 208-214. Lehtinen, U. and Poikela K. (2007) Does WEEE recycling make sense? Case studies on reverse supply chain of WEEE in Finland. The 19th Annual NOFOMA Conference. 7-8 June 2007. Reykjavik, Iceland. Eds. Halldorson, A. & Stenfansson G. Faculty of Engineering. Univeristy of Iceland p. 697-710. CD-ROM Lu, H., Guo, J., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y. (2007) Recycle technology for recovering resources and products from waste printed circuit boards. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 41 nro 6 pp. 1995-2000. Mark, F.E. (2006) The characteristics of plastics-rich waste streams from end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment. PlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium. URL: (accessed 29.March 2009) Menad, N. (1999) Cathode ray tube recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol 26(3-4) pp. 143-154. Ministry of Environment of Finland. Producers responsibility in waste management. URL: (accessed 19. March 2009) Nnorom, I.C. and Osibanjo, O. (2008) Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol 52 pp. 843-858. OECD (2001) Extended producer responsibility; a guidance manual for governments. Paris. OECD. Pietikäinen J (2007) A slow start at the beginning of the recycling chain. How to make consumers recycle their mobile phones? Master of Science thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences Pongrácz E, Ylä-Mella J., Tanskanen P., Keiski R.L. (2008) Conceptual analysis of electronic waste: Revisiting the definition of waste and the classes of waste. Proceedings 23rd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, Philadelphia, PA, USA, March 30 – April 2, 2008. pp 359-365. Prahinski, C. & Kovabasoglu, C. (2006) “Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply chains”. Omega, Vol 34 pp. 519-532. Realff, M.J., Ammons, J.C., Newton, D. (2000) Strategic Design of Reverse Production Systems. Computers and Chemical Engineering. Vol 24 Nro 2 pp. 991-996. Roller, G. and Fuhr, M. (2008) Individual Producer Responsibility: A Remaining Challenge under the WEEE directive. RECIEL Vol 17 Nro 3 pp. 279-285 Román, E., Ylä-Mella, J., Pongrácz, E., Solvang, W.D., Keiski, R.L. (2008) WEEE Management System – Cases in Norway and Finland. Proc. Electronics Goes Green 2008+ Conference. September 8-10, 2008, Berlin, Germany. 6 p. Srivastava, S.K. (2007) Network design for reverse logistics. Omega Vol 36 pp. 535-548. Thierry, M., Salomon, M., van Nunen, J., van Wassenhove, L.N. (1995) Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Management. California Management Review Vol 37 nro 2 pp. 114135.
530
Tibben-Lembke R.S. (2002) Life After Death: Reverse Logistics and the Product Life Cycle. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logisrics Management.Vol 32 nro 3 pp. 223-244. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S.EPA). Management of Electronic Waste in the United States. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/index.htm (Accessed April 2009) Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., Böni, H. (2005) Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Vol 25 nro 5 pp. 436-458. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage Publications. Ylä-Mella J, Poikela K, Pongrácz E, Lehtinen U, Phillips P.S., Keiski R.L (2007) WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in the Oulu region of Finland: Challenges to Resource Use Optimization. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. March 18-21, 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University 2007. p. 447454. Ylä-Mella, J., Pongrácz, E., Keiski, R.L. (2004) Recovery of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Finland. Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference. June 10, 2004. Oulu, Finland. Pongrácz E. (ed.). Oulu. Oulu University Press 2004. pp. 83-92
531
VI
WEEE Management System – Cases in Norway and Finland Elisabeth Román1*, Jenni Ylä-Mella2,3, Eva Pongrácz2,3, Wei Deng Solvang1, Riitta Keiski2 1
Narvik University College, University of Oulu, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300 3 University of Oulu, Thule Institute, NorTech Oulu, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 7300 2
* Corresponding author,
[email protected], Tel.: +47 909 15 004
Abstract Rising amounts of end-of-life electronics have triggered legislative responses for their control within the European Union (EU) and beyond. The European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has been put in force in 2002 to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE. In Norway, a voluntary agreement was established for EE products in 1998 and, in 1999, as one of the first in the world, Norway started to run a system for WEEE. The paper explores the development of WEEE legislation in Finland and Norway. Further, the structures of WEEE recovery networks in both countries are presented. The differences and the pros and cons of each system are identified and evaluated. Cash flows associated with WEEE recovery networks in both countries are also explored and the implications of implementing EPR in both countries are presented. Finally, the challenge of managing the WEEE recovery system effectively in sparsely populated countries is pointed out.
1
Introduction
Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world, growing at 3-5 % per year, which is three times faster than the average waste arising [1] Environmental legislation is a fundamental tool to encourage reuse and recycling and avoid wastes being deposited on landfills. The necessity to manage WEEE in a sustainable manner has been identified as a priority area within Europe. The European Council Directive 2002/96/EC on WEEE along with the complementary Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) have been put in force to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE throughout all stages of an appliances’ lifecycle. Norway as a country outside of EU has been a forerunner in regulating WEEE. The regulation called “Scrapped Electrical and Electronic Products” [2], was promulgated by the Norwegian ministry of Environment March 1998, which is pursuant to the Pollution Control Act of 1981 [3]. Recovery centres in both countries have been set up during the last years, however, both countries face the problem of these centres having to serve areas with a large radius and having to transport WEEE from north to south, since recycling companies are located mainly in the southern part of the countries. In this article, the authors first explore the legislation implemented in the two countries and how WEEE management is organized and built up.
Cash and data flows are analyzed in order to make conclusions on the effectiveness of WEEE management. Finally, the paper touches upon the common issue in both Norway and Finland: the challenges of managing the WEEE recovery effectively in sparsely populated areas.
2 2.1
WEEE legislation and national infrastructure WEEE legislation in Norway
In Norway, the Act 1976 relating to the control of product and consumer services [4] and the Pollution Control Act of 1981 [3] served as fundamental tools and framework to implement the EU Directives. Waste management is described in Chapter 5 of the Pollution Control Act. The Norwegian Report no 44 (1991-1992) [5] of the Norwegian Department on Environment submitted to the Norwegian Parliament has been regarded as of strategic value for promoting extended producer responsibility (EPR), stating: “Different instruments may be used to make producers and distributors responsible for handling the waste generated by their products, and to motivate them to reduce or change their use for wastegenerating products. Economic instruments like product-fees or deposits and return-systems together with regulations as for example demands on collection and recycling will turn the environmental costs to be an element in the total price for a product ” (p.29) .
This strategic political statement was the basic background for Ministry of Environment to start negotiations with the Electric and Electronic Industry and Business Sector in Norway to facilitate take-back and recycling of WEEE. A voluntary agreement was established, as one of the first in the world, in 1999. As a result, Norway started to run an EPR- system for WEEE financed by the manufacturers and importers [6]. The WEEE directive 2002/96/EC has put demand on the Norwegian government to make amendments to the legislation. The revised regulation entered into force 1st July 2006 [7]. The major amendments in the Norwegian waste regulation within WEEE were: 1. Take-back companies handling WEEE must have an approval from the authorities – the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT). 2. Producers and importers of EEE are demanded to be members of an approved waste company (One of four companies established for WEEE take back).
In 2002, SFT estimated that there are around 12 000 EEE companies in Norway. As of March 2008, 3640 producers have become members in one of the four take-back companies. The number of members is increasing from year to year, however “free riders” are still a problem [9].
2.2
EEE register and financial transfer in Norway
The WEEE management system is financed by an environmental fee put on every EEE on the market, in accordance with EPR (section 20 in the EU-directive). This fee is a demand from the Ministry of Environment. The fee is determined by the authorized take-back company and put on their respective members. The basis for calculating the fee is not standardised by the authorities [10]. In addition to the obligations common to all the four take back companies, according to the waste regulation they are required to:
3. A register, database on EEE should be established.
• Ensure the free collection from enterprises, distributors and municipalities collecting WEEE
The task of information on WEEE take-back system has been worked out systematically from municipalities and waste companies during a decade. Up-stream systems for WEEE have been improved over the last years.
• Collect and accept WEEE in equivalent geographical areas of Norway where the members of the EEE-companies are located or was previously sold or supplied, regardless of the scrapped equipment brand or manufacturer
A national EEE-register owned by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority was established on July 1st, 2006 [8]. The register comprises of an administrative and a web-based module, providing overview of all producers (importers are included in the term producers). The register makes it possible to produce reports on:
• Ensure that the collected WEEE is treated pursuant to the requirements within the waste regulation
• Total amounts of export and import of EEEproducts and WEEE. • Producers not being members of an authorised waste company, making possible to reduce the number of “free riders” • Total amount of collected, reused and treated WEEE • Parts of WEEE being reused Four collectively financed take-back companies are registered and authorized by SFT: El:retur AS., RENAS AS, Ragn-Sells Elektronikkretur AS and Eurovironment AS. Two of these companies El:retur and RENAS, are non-profit companies owned by the Electric and Electronic Industry and Business Sector. These two companies have been in this business for the last 10 years. El:retur has concentrated of consumers WEEE and RENAS on WEEE from industry (B2B).
• Collect and accept a proportion of the total collected WEEE corresponding to the members’ share of the total supply of goods in the same geographical areas. This obligation to collect and accept applies to each of the product groups. Different and independent established databasesystems in Norway ensure the controlled EEE and WEEE management according to legislation (Figure 1). The Customs and Excise Authorities, a subordinate agency under Ministry of Finance, has a registration system for all import and export of EEE and WEEE. They provide data on EEE and WEEE to Statistics Norway. Statistics Norway provides all their data from EEE and WEEE in addition to making national statistics within waste, provide data to the national EE-register. The EE-register also receives data on WEEE from the four take-back company. The EEregister is provided data from two main sources. (Figure 1). The system established in Norway seems to be an important WEEE-structural benefit to operate and control the WEEE management.
EEE Producers in Norway (export, import) Statutory Data Delivery
National database: The Customs and Excise Authorities Data Delivery
National Database: Statistics Norway Data delivery
Producers shall also ensure that an extensive network of collection facilities is established to provide nationwide a reasonable opportunity to deliver EEE products for recovery. Furthermore, producers need to provide sellers and other operators with information and instructions on their products, their reuse, disassembly and recyclables of the components. Producers shall report on quantities and categories of electronics put on the market, the accumulation of discarded products and their collection, reuse, recovery, export and other waste management annually to the Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, which acts as a national inspecting and controlling authority in Finland.
2.4 Database: National EE-register
Data delivery WEEE: take-back companies
Figure 1: Structure of data delivery flow within EEE and WEEE in Norway Since Norway is not a member of EU, total amounts of products imported and exported are recorded. The data registers makes it possible to control the total amount of EEE and WEEE produced, imported and exported. The system also allows for calculating the amounts of WEEE not entering the waste treatment system in Norway.
2.3
WEEE recovery system and legislative background in Finland
The proposal for national regulation on waste electrical and electronic equipment was introduced in the spring of 2004. In order to harmonize with the electronics Directive, on September 2004 the Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993) was also amended (452/2004) to include a chapter on producer responsibility. Finland applies the principle of producer responsibility to minimize the generation, and to enhance the recovery of certain types of waste. This principle was first incorporated into Finnish law through the Government decisions on discarded tires (1246/1995), batteries and accumulators (105/1995), packaging and packaging waste (962/1997) and waste paper (883/1998) . According to the Waste Act, producers of EEE are provided to organize the reuse, recovery and other waste management of the products they have put on the market, and to be responsible for the costs incurred. The costs are covered by recycling fees which are included in the price of EEE and range from 1 to 18 euros depending on the EEE article.
Comparison of WEEE regulatory systems of Norway and Finland
The EU-legislation is implemented in Norway and Finland and makes the basis for WEEE management. In Norway WEEE management has a longer history, since Acts for pollution and product control were passed 25 and 32 years ago. The trade organizations have played an active role in establishing take-back companies financed by the tax put on every single EEE. Norway as a country outside EU also benefits from having their customs barriers and data registration, which contributes to an effective WEEE management. To reduce waste, Finland has been applying the Producer Responsibility principle since the mid-90s. Finland has also long traditions in metals recycling; the Kuusakoski Recycling Company looks back on 100 years of history. Metal-rich WEEEs have been recycled long before the implementation of WEEE; however, a WEEE recovery network that covers the whole country and accepts every WEEE free of charge has been the result of the WEEE Directive. Likewise, the central monitoring system of WEEE recovery system based on the recycling fee included in EEE has been built further to the WEEE Directive, and there are yet some improvements to make in both.
4 4.1
WEEE recovery WEEE recovery in Norway
Cash flow in the form of consumer taxes to ensure end treatment follows the same route. WEEE is of that reason an example of “polluter-pay-principle”. The resources in the WEEE are however not yet utilized optimally in Norway. There is still some unexplored potential for new business and reverse chain management of WEEE. WEEE collection is organized on municipal level, by inter-municipal waste companies or by stores. The WEEE material flow is depicted in Figure 2.
may transfer responsibility over discarded electronics to a producers’ association. For the moment, electrical and electronic equipment producers and importing business have formed five producer co-operatives (Flip, ICT, Selt, Serty and Nera) for the purpose of organizing collection and recycling of WEEE.
Figure 2: WEEE management and tax system WEEE in Norway follows the same structural lines for material flow as outlined for the Finish system (Figure 3). A critical issue in Norway is that most WEEE takeback companies are located near the capital Oslo. In the Northern part of Norway Fauske is a juncture. To the central dismantling station in Fauske WEEE is transported by trailers from the Northernmost Nordland, Troms and Finmark counties. Hazardous waste is separated and sent to the Intermunicipal waste company in Bodø. The rest is transported by train to Oslo for further treatment. The distance between the Northernmost collection centre in Finmark County and Fauske is 1170 km. Transportation of EEE from south to north, and WEEE back, contribute to a sizeable environmental load, especially emissions to air. In addition, transportation especially in winter road conditions involves the risk of accidents. Despite the geographical challenges, according to the Norwegian statistics, 147 477 tonnes or some 32 kilo/person/year of WEEE was collected separately in Norway in 2007, which was 15 000 tonnes more than in 2006. The recovery percentage in 2007 was 89.3%, which is also and improvement from the 85% level in 2006. This is due to a decreased tendency in landfilling and increased material recovery of WEEE.
3.2
WEEE recovery in Finland
In Finland, the overwhelming majority of electronic devices sold on the market are imported. The representatives of foreign and domestic producers
Within the supply chain of WEEE, various tasks such as collection, transportation, sorting and disassembly of products, storage, selling of material fractions as well as reusable products and parts is conducted. The main steps of supply and information chain of WEEE in Finland are presented in Figure 3.Two diverse structures of WEEE supply chain exist in Finland. SERTY and NERA have both their own centralized reverse supply chains, where WEEE is transported nationally from sorting points to only a few treatment points. On the contrary, Elker Oy, an umbrella organization and service provider, founded by Flip, ICT and SELT, promotes a nationwide decentralized logistics network with over 30 pre-treatment points and several transport service providers. Logistics services are typically sourced from regional operators, usually from social enterprises or public institutions. Regional handling of WEEE includes also the sorting of collected WEEE into reusable and non-reusable ones [13]. In the Finnish recovery system, returned WEEE is put into containers or cages without sorting at collection points. Collected WEEE is transported from the collection points to a regional sorting station, where WEEE is separated into cages for different product co-operatives and sent to the contracted pre-treatment stations of each co-operative. In the pre-treatment stations, WEEE is delivered as a component or material onwards or stocked in the pre-treatment station until delivered to treatment plants or disposed. Due to this arrangement, two items WEEE from the same source, of same type but different manufacturer, but might end up in two different recycling companies, depending on the producer co-operative’s preference. Prior to the WEEE Directive, the amounts of WEEE and their recovery percentages have not been collected. The first official data from the Finnish producer registration system will be reported to the EU in June 2008. According to preliminary data from Pirkanmaa Regional Environmental Centre, a total of 39 143 tonnes or some 7.4 kg/person of WEEE was collected in Finland in 2006. Over 99 % of collected WEEE is treated in Finland and 78.75 % of WEEE is recycled as materials; only a minor proportion (1 %) is reused as a whole equipments or as parts. Reuse and recycling rate is, therefore, approximately 80 %. In addition to reuse and recycling, approximately 4.80 % of WEEE is recovered as energy. Total rate of recovery of collected WEEE in Finland is, therefore, close to 85 %. [14]
Figure 3. The main steps of current reverse distribution chain of WEEE in Finland [15]
3.3
Differences in the WEEE recovery infrastructures of Norway and Finland
In Finland, private users and households can bring end-of-life products to the collection points free of charge but non-private users such as enterprises and institutes are generally not allowed to return WEEE to collection points. Ordinarily, they are required to have an individual contract with regional operators to remove and take care of their electronic equipment. However, the equipment from households and non-private users is mixed together in the pre-treatment stage. The other feature of Finnish recovery and treatment system is that the recovery route of the WEEE does not depend on the product type or source, but the brand; all WEEE of a certain producer is treated at the same pretreatment stations. To this effect, the Norwegian system is more efficient. In Norway, WEEE recovery depends on its source; WEEE collected from business may follow different recycling routes than those collected from private citizens. This allows implementing more flexibility for B2B recovery, as they are more active in recycling and their waste stream is more homogeneous [10].
3.4
Challenges of WEEE recovery
For reasons of efficiency, WEEE reuse should take place as much upstream as possible, in order to send reusable appliances to the adequate reuse channels without damages [11]. In Finland, the current collection and recovery system of WEEE does not promote reuse [14]. However, producers may regard reuse and remanufacturing as a conflict of interests; the total sales may be increased through a better environmental image or, to the contrary, the remanufacturing of EEE appliances may reduce sales volume of new equipment in parallel with increasing the costs of WEEE collection. In addition, in some cases, it is
suggested that the image of remanufacturing can also hurt the brand image of companies producing high-tech fashion-conscious devices [12]. End-oflife EEE in Finland is collected without sorting for reusable and non-reusable equipment and, in addition, an incautious treatment over the collecting, storing and transportation stages hinders potential reuse of functional equipment. In order to improve reuse and refurbishment, separating reusable and non-reusable equipment should be intensified and, in addition, standardized testing and refurbishing system with certified operators should be devised. The current market of reused and/or refurbished EEE is limited in Finland and, therefore, it is needed to expand in terms of amount and diversity. WEEE legislation provides a reasonable opportunity to return discarded appliances to the recovery in the whole country. However, the long distances from the collection points to the sorting and pre-treatment stations especially in Northern parts of Finland bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively. Transportation stages of low value materials WEEE, e.g. comprised of plastics should be minimised. [15]
4
Discussion and Conclusions
The speed of EEE turning to WEEE reflects a high degree of buying power in both countries. The primary goal of the Finnish WEEE legislation is to prevent waste generation and to promote reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of such waste. However, it seems that the current system in Finland does not promote reuse and/or refurbishment of electronics. In order to enhance reuse, separating collection for reusable and nonreusable equipment should be intensified. In addition, standardized testing and refurbishing system should be established and the market of reused and/or refurbished EEE needs to be expanded in Finland. The collection and recycling of WEEE as established in Finland has evidently
environmental advantages, however, activities of the WEEE recovery business are still an early stage in Finland and, therefore, some inconsistent practices and overlaps exist. Furthermore, long distances bring challenges to managing the WEEE recovery system effectively and, therefore, the importance of cooperation and efficient information flow between the actors and producers cooperatives needs to be highlighted.
[5]
[6]
In Norway, the WEEE situation seems to be better organized than in Finland. Several reasons seem to explain this fact: • The early introduction of ‘polluter pays’ principle evidenced by long-term strategic work of the Norwegian government.
[7]
• The early establishment of Product Control Act and Pollution Control Act together with the early introduction of EPR.
[8]
• The active cooperation of environmentally conscious EEE trade-organizations, manufacturers and importers with the Norwegian environmental authority. • The success of EEE trade organizations’ to establish sustainable business considering social as well as economic gains. Still, there is a paradox that, while the primary goal of WEEE recovery is waste prevention and reduction of resources use, it is largely based on transportation with trailers over large distances, contributing to air pollution and consuming fossil resources. This fact will need to be included in the environmental cost/benefit analysis of WEEE recovery, in order to determine the overall environmental benefits of WEEE recovery in sparsely populated countries such as Norway and Finland.
[9] [10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
References [1] EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2003) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) –quantities, dangerous substances and treatment methods. European Topic Centre on Waste, January 2003. http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionetcircle/etc_waste/library?l=/working_papers/we eepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dequipment. [2] Regulation“Scrapped Electrical and Electronic Products”. Unofficial translation: http://www.sft.no/artikkel____38634.aspx [3] Pollution Control Act of 1981. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/ Pollution-Control-Act.html?id=171893 [4] Act 1976 relating to the control of product and consumer services.
[14]
[15]
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/ Product-Control-Act.html?id=172150 Norwegian Ministry of Environment (NMoE) (1991) Report to the Storting no.44 (1991-92). Related to the Measures to Reduce Waste, Increase Recycling and Ensure Environmental Sound Waste management. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT). Lee, C-Y, and K. Røine. Extended producer responsibility stimulating technological changes and innovation: Case study in the Norwegian and Electrical and Electronic Industry. NTNU: Program for industriell økologi. Rapport nr: 1/2004. http://www.ntnu.no/eksternweb/multimedia/ar chive/00023/rapport1_04web_23588a.pdf SFT: Regulation relating to the recycling of waste (Waste regulation). Chapter 1: WEEE. http://www.sft.no/seksjonsartikkel____30216.aspx. The Norwegian EEE-register. http://www.eeregisteret.no/ShowHTML.aspx?f ile=OmEEregister.htm SFT, Oct. 11th Dec. 2002. Letter to Ministry of Environment of changes to the EEregulations. Flygansvær B (2006). Coordinated Action in Reverse Distribution Systems. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. ISBN: 82-405-0157-5. ACRR (The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling) (2003) The Management of Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment, a guide for Local and Regional Authorities. http://www.acrr.org/publications/tech-reports.htm Herold M (2007) A Multinational Perspective to Managing End-of-Life Electronics. Doctoral Dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Industrial Management, Espoo, Finland. http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512288007/ Poikela K, Lehtinen U (2006) Sähkö- ja elektroniikkaromun kierrätysverkoston mallintaminen ja tehostaminen Oulun seudulla (in Finnish). SYTRIM Report 1/2006. 51 p. Ylä-Mella J, Poikela K, Pongrácz E, Lehtinen U, Phillips PS and Keiski RL (2007) WEEE Recovery Infrastructure in the Oulu region of Finland: Challenges to Resource Use Optimization. Proc. 22nd Int’l Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. 1821.3. 2007. Philadelphia, PA, USA. CD-ROM. Zandi I, Mersky RL and Shieh WK (eds.). Chester. Widener University. p. 447-454. Ylä-Mella J, Pongrácz E, Poikela K, Lehtinen U, Phillips PS and Keiski RL. The application of the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive: Development of a WEEE recovery infrastructure in Finland. Manuscript.
VII
Environmental Impact of Mobile Phones: Material Content Jenni Ylä-Mella Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Eva Pongrácz Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Pia Tanskanen Nokia Corporation FI-00045 NOKIA GROUP, P.O.Box 300, Finland
[email protected]
Riitta L Keiski Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Abstract: Implementation of the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) Directives in the EU has been the result of a rising concern about the rapid growth in WEEE and the health risks posed by the hazardous content of WEEE. The hazardous substances present in electronic equipment are not likely to be released during their regular use, however, they may pose hazards during landfill disposal, or destructive end-of-life processes such as shredding operations. Precious metal based products, such as printed wiring boards of mobile phones have been a target for recycling, as the precious metal content provides an economic driver for recovery. In this contribution the material content of end-of-life mobile phones is evaluated, with regard to continuous improvements of the environmental performance of mobile phones, in particular phasing out hazardous materials due to the RoHS Directive. Keywords: environmental impact; material content; mobile phones
1612
Introduction Mobile phone technologies have been developed substantially over the last three decades. Mobile phones have evolved from large and heavy two-way radio devices into small and lightweight multimedia products. The first mobile phones at the beginning of the 1980’s were typically installed and wired to their electrical systems and weighted up to 5 kilograms (11 lbs). In the late 1980’s and over the 1990’s mobile phones progressed steadily to smaller and lighter, leading to current mobile phones models weighing under 100 grams (3.5 ozs). (Basel Convention, 2006a) The weight and size reduction of mobile phones is illustrated in Figure 1.
1984 5 kg
1985 770 g
1989 349 g
2001 75 g
Figure 1 Weight and size reductions of mobile phones (Basel Convention, 2006a) The weight and size reductions have contributed to the dematerialization and reduced environmental impact of individual mobile phones (Fishbein, 2002). However, at the same time, the number of mobile phones has grown exponentially. While mobile phones were previously a personal luxury of a few and an addition to traditional landline telephones, they are now the primary communication means in areas of the world where a wired communication infrastructure is not in place. (Basel Convention, 2006a) The number of mobile subscribers around the world has increased rapidly and, by 2005, the total amount reached over 2 billion (Wireless Intelligence, 2007). The growth of mobile connections is represented in Figure 2. A more closed-loop pattern of resources use is needed to reduce the total environmental impacts of mobile phones. Material recovery and recycling do not only reduce the environmental impacts of waste disposal, but they also decrease the amount of virgin materials and energy used in production. (Fishbein, 2002) The most important characteristic in closing material flows is to implement environmentally sound product design. Principles of environmentally conscious product design include the use of simple structures and mono-materials when feasible (Graedel and Allenby, 2003).
1613
Figure 2 Number of mobile phone connections in the world (Wireless Intelligence, 2007)
Material Content of Mobile Phones Electronic equipments contain a considerable number of materials, some of which can have diverse performance at the end-of-life (EOL) phase. As a case in point, certain hazardous materials such as lead may cause problems in landfills but can also be recovered and recycled without posing hazard to human health and the environment. From the point of recovery economics, the most valuable material group in electronics are recyclable materials, such as metals, which can be recovered and recycled time after time. The material type which is of concern is non-recyclable materials, which can be recovered only to lower level applications such as fillers or as energy. Ceramics and many plastics are typical non-recyclable materials. In addition, the design of the product might also set some restrictions to the recovery and recycling of otherwise recyclable materials. Multimaterial structures may lead to a situation where material recovery might be difficult or even impossible, such as metals used in coatings. (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002) In the case of mobile phones, used materials and their amounts diverge from each other depending on the manufacturer and models. However, some estimations of the material content can be done. Plastics are the most abundant materials by weight, representing approximately 40 % of the material content of mobile phones. Glass and ceramics, as well as copper and its compounds represent approximately 15 %, each. Carbon and ferrous metals are contained in relatively low amounts, only 3-4 % each. Further, minor constituents, e.g. bromine, cadmium, chromium, lead and liquid crystal polymer, are contained in 0.1 % to 1 % per every substance. The content of micro constituents such as barium, gold or palladium, is typically less than 0.1 %. (Basel Convention, 2006b) Substances which may be contained in mobile phones are listed in Table 1. 1614
Table 1 Substances contained in mobile phones (Basel Convention, 2006b) Name of substance
Location
% content
Plastics Glass and ceramics Copper (Cu) and its compounds
Case, printed wiring board LCD screen, chips Printed wiring board, wires, connectors, batteries NiCd or NMH batteries NiCd or NMH batteries Lithium-ion battery Lithium-ion battery Batteries Case, frame, batteries Case, frame, charger, batteries Printed wiring board
~ 40 % ~ 15 % ~ 15 %
Minor constituents
Printed wiring board, batteries, case, frame, keypad
0.1 – 1 %
Micro or trace constituents
Printed wiring board, batteries, case, connectors
Less than 0.1 %
Nickel (Ni) and its compounds Potassium hydroxide (KOH) Cobalt (Co) Lithium (Li) Carbon (C) Aluminium (Al) Steel, ferrous metal (Fe) Tin (Sn)
~ 10 % * ~5%* ~4%* ~4%* ~4% ~ 3 % ** ~3% ~1%
* only if these battery types are used, otherwise minor or micro constituent ** if aluminium case used, amount would be ~20 %
At the point of material recovery, current EOL technologies for electronics are concentrated mainly on metals, especially precious metals recycling, particularly in the case of mobile phones. In the latter case, precious metals are located mainly in the electronic circuitry and wiring circuit board of mobile phones, where also most of the hazardous substances can be found. The Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) has been implemented to phase out the use of six hazardous substances in the electrical and electronic equipment. According to the RoHS Directive, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market after July 1st, 2006, cannot contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). These substances will have to be substituted by more environmentfriendly alternatives. Exemption from the substitution requirements of the RoHS Directive is allowed only if the substitution is not technically possible to do, or when the negative environmental and/or health impacts of substitution exceed the benefits. (European Council, 2002) Applications of restricted substances in mobile phones are illustrated in Table 2. The time from product release to take-back and EOL treatment for mobile phones is estimated to be up to 5 years (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002). However, on average, mobile phones are used for only 18 months before being replaced (Fishbein, 2002). These estimations show that the restrictions of the use of certain hazardous substances set by RoHS Directive will be affecting the EOL treatment phase in the near future.
1615
Table 2 Substances restricted in RoHS Directive (European Council, 2002; IPMI, 2003) Name of substance
Applications
Lead
Typically used in tin-lead solders in the electronic circuitry of mobile phones.
Mercury
Used in mercury vapour lamp i.e. a small screen illumination unit of old-fashioned mobile phones.
Cadmium
Used in nickel cadmium batteries of old-fashioned mobile phones. Small amount used also in plated contacts and switches in the electronic circuitry of mobile phones.
Hexavalent Chromium
Used in decorative and hard coat plating (usually not used in mobile phones).
PBBs * and PBDEs **
Used as flame retardants (FRs) to prevent flammability in the plastics of the printed wiring boards (PWBs). May be found in electronic circuitry of mobile phones.
* Polybrominated biphenyls ** Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
Discussion and conclusions Mobile phone technology has developed substantially over the decades and, at the same time, weight and size reductions have contributed dematerialization and reduced environmental impact of an individual mobile phone. However, the use of mobile phones has grown exponentially; hence the total environmental impacts of mobile phones have increased significantly. Therefore, closing of material flows will be needed to reduce the total environmental impacts of electronics. This can be achieved by increased material recovery and recycling. Plastics are the most common substances in mobile phones, however, at the present their recycling is neither environmentally nor economically feasible. Markets for recycled mixed plastics are quite limited; furthermore, especially in the case of plastics from WEEE, the possible presence of brominated flame retardants is a restrictive factor. Therefore, more environmental benefit can be achieved by energy recovery than by recycling of mixed plastics from end-of-life mobile phones. From the point of recovery economics, the most valuable substances of mobile phones are precious metals such as copper, cobalt, silver, gold and palladium, due to their considerable high market value and relatively high concentration in WEEE as compared to concentrations in primary ores. Thus, recovery of these metals from WEEE has a clear positive environmental impact. The metals are located mainly in the electronic circuitry and wiring circuit board of mobile phones, where also most of the hazardous substances can be found. Therefore, the RoHS Directive can bring clear benefits to metals recovery from nd-of-life mobile phones by reducing the health hazards of recycling and, ultimately, it will also enhance the economic profitability of recycling.
1616
Acknowledgements The financial support of the Finnish Graduate School in Environmental Science and Technology and the Academy of Finland are gratefully acknowledged.
References Basel Convention. 2006a. Guidance Document – Environmentally Sound Management (EMS) of Used & End-of-Life Mobile Phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI). URL: (October 25, 2006) Basel Convention. 2006b. Guideline on Material Recovery and Recycling of End-of-Life Mobile Phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI). URL: (October 25, 2006) European Council. 2002. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Fishbein B K. 2002. Waste in the e Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones. Inform, Inc. URL: (January 10, 2007) Graedel T E and Allenby B R. 2003. Industrial Ecology (2nd ed.) Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. Part III: Design for Environment. pp. 94-228. International Precious Metals Institute (IPMI). 2003. Environmentally Sound Management for Used Mobile Telephones. URL: (October 25, 2006) Takala R and Tanskanen P (2002) Outlining opportunities of engineering processes and technologies on environmental impacts of the End of Life treatment of mobile terminals. Presented at the IMAPS (International Microelectronics and Packaging Society) Nordic Annual Conference, Stockholm, September 2002. Wireless Intelligence. The global database of mobile market information. URL: (January 10, 2007)
1617
VIII
Liquid Crystal Displays: Material Content and Recycling Practices Jenni Ylä-Mella, M.Sc.(Eng.) Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Eva Pongrácz, Doc., Dr. Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Riitta L Keiski, Prof., Dr. Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu FI-90014 University of Oulu, P.O.Box 4300, Finland
[email protected]
Abstract: Liquid crystal displays (LCD) are rapidly replacing traditional cathode ray tubes
(CRT) as a more effective option. Due to the steady increase in LCDs since the mid 1990s, a significant and ever rising amount of disposed LCD is to be expected in the following years. The WEEE Directive, the result of a rising concern about environmental and health risks posed by end of life electronics, requires WEEE to be recovered and LCDs larger than 100 cm2 to be treated separately due to their potential hazardous material content. The article will evaluate the development of LCD material content and recycling practices in Finland, in light of the RoHS and WEEE Directives.
Keywords: LCD; WEEE; RoHS; material content; recycling practices; Finland Introduction Liquid crystal displays (LCD) serve as user interfaces in a wide range of applications including notebooks, desktop monitors, cell phones and other consumer and business electronics. LCD technology is rapidly replacing traditional cathode ray tubes (CRT) as a more effective option. LCDs contain substantially less materials per unit than CRTs, and the lower weight of LCDs enables a wide range of new applications. LCDs also consume less energy during use and are not vulnerable to overheating. The lower energy consumption also gives an advantage with regard to a lower potential of electromagnetic radiation causing adverse effects on biological matter.
1082
(Menozzi et al., 1999) Due to the steady increase in LCDs since the mid 1990s, a significant and ever rising amount of disposed LCDs is to be expected in the following years. Presently, end-oflife LCDs are stored, or crushed to be used in steel and zinc smelters and in the manufacture of concrete or asphalt. However, a considerable amount ends up in landfills and, therefore, there is a worldwide demand for an environmentally sound and ecologically sustainable method for LCD recovery.
EU legislation related to end-of-life electronics Implementation of the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment) Directives in the EU have been the result of a rising concern about the rapid growth in WEEE and the health risks posed by the hazardous content of WEEE. Electronic equipments contain a considerable number of materials, some of which can have diverse performance at the end-of-life (EOL) phase. The hazardous substances present in electronic equipments are not likely to be released during their regular use; however, they may pose hazards during landfill disposal, incineration or EOL treatment in recovery and recycling facilities (Basel Convention, 2006). As a case in point, certain hazardous materials such as lead may cause problems in landfills but can also be recovered and recycled without posing hazard to human health and the environment. According to the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC), new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market after July 1st, 2006, cannot contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). These substances will have to be substituted by more environment-friendly alternatives. Exemption from the substitution requirements of the RoHS is allowed only if the substitution is not technically possible to do, or when the negative environmental and/or health impacts of substitution exceed the benefits. The WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC), for one, provided that the establishment of collection facilities and separate collection systems had to be set up for the return of WEEE from private households for free of charge by the August 13th, 2005. Producers need, therefore, to oversee the finance for the development of systems to collect, treat and ‘dispose` of WEEE. Targets for recovery, reuse and recycling of WEEE have also been set in the Directive; a separate collection rate of 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year needed to be achieved by the December 31st, 2006. Also, by the same date, up to 80 % by weight recovery rate, and up to 75 % by weight recycling rate had to be realized. In the case of end-of-life LCD recycling, recovery and recycling targets for information technology and communication (ITC) equipment set by the WEEE Directive are 75 % and 65 %. The Directive also requires WEEE to be recovered and LCDs with an area larger than 100 cm2 to be treated separately. Separate treatment of LCDs is needed due to the hazardous material content. Some liquid crystal (LC) materials may have corrosive and harmful effects. Liquid crystals may also dissolve to water and cause difficulties in biodegradation when disposed to landfills. (Becker et al., 2003) In addition, backlight units containing mercury need to be removed before treatment. The main points of the RoHS and WEEE Directives are summarized in Table 1.
1083
Table 1 Main points of RoHS and WEEE Directives at the point of LCD recycling RoHS: Restricting the use of
WEEE for ITC category
Lead
Recovery target 75 %
Mercury
Recycling targets 65 %
Cadmium Hexavalent Chromium
Separate treatment for
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs)
▪ LCDs > 100 cm2
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
▪ All units containing gas discharge lamps
Material content of Liquid Crystal Displays LCD devices are typically composed of four main modules. Base and case modules include large mono-material parts, such as metal brackets and plastics enclosures. LCD panel and printed wiring board (PWB) modules, for ones, contain a wide array of different materials, including several precious metals and other valuable components. The hazardous substances present in LCD devices are located mainly in the LCD and PWB modules, respectively. The main modules of LCD display are illustrated in Figure 1. Arm Base module Base Bracket Bezel Case module Rear cover Back-light LCD display
LCD module Lamp Main board PWB module Power board
Figure 1 Generalized structure and modules of LCD device (Shih and Lee, 2007)
1084
In the case of LCD displays, the list of materials used and their amounts vary depending on the applications, manufacturers and models. However, some estimations of the material content can be done. In LCD displays, the most abundant materials by weight are metals representing approximately 55 % of the total material content. The second largest material fraction, 33 %, is plastics. The rest, 12 %, is mainly composed of glass and PWBs. (Miklósi, 2005) The typical material content of a LCD display is presented in Figure 2a. The material content of the LCD module has also been in focus of research due to special requirements of LCD recovery and treatment set by WEEE Directive. In LCD modules the most abundant materials by weight are plastics. Plastics, in particular polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polycarbonate (PC), represent approximately 49 % of the material content. Glass, 38 %, is the second largest component. Metals, such as steel and aluminum, represent approximately 8 % and printed wiring boards (PWBs) approximately 4 % of the total weight of LCD modules. The rest, 1 %, consists of e.g. indium-tin oxide, liquid crystal polymers and adhesives. (Miklósi, 2005) The material content of typical LCD module is presented Figure 2b.
PWB 5%
Plastics 33 %
Glass Other 5% 2%
Glass 38 %
PWB 4%
Metals 55 %
Other Metals 1% 8%
Plastics 49 %
Figure 2 Material content of a) the whole LCD display and b) the LCD module (Miklósi, 2005) The environmental and health impacts of different materials differ substantially. Hazardous materials contained in electronics, such as heavy metals and some halogenated flame retardants, have high negative environmental and health impacts in spite of their low concentrations of total material content by weight. In a case of material content of LCDs, especially lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and liquid crystals (LC) are recognized as materials of concern. Lead has been typically found in electronics components, especially in printed wiring boards, where lead-based solders has been used as a surface finishing and attaching agent of electronics components. According to the literature, lead-based solders are typically comprised of 37 - 40 % lead resulting up to 8.5 grams of lead per LCD display. Solders have been the only significant source of lead in LCDs. (Socolof et al., 2001) In consequence of a rising concern about the state of the environment and the health risks of lead, alternative lead-free solders have been developed and, after the implementation of RoHS Directive in 2003, solders used in electronics do not contain lead anymore; it is typically substituted with e.g. silver (Ag), copper (Cu), or bismuth (Bi). The other material of concern used in LCDs is mercury, which is contained in the fluorescent tubes providing the light in the LCDs. According to the literature, approximately 4 mg of elemental mercury is typically used to manufacture the fluorescent backlight for the LCD
1085
backlight unit assembly. Because of high toxicity of mercury and the requirements of RoHS, mercury-free alternatives to fluorescent lamps contained in backlights have been developed. In addition, the substitution of mercury with xenon gas not only eliminated the use of hazardous substances but also extended the life-time of lamps used in LCD displays. (Socolof et el., 2001) Liquid crystals (LCs), the unique feature of LCD devices, are generally organic materials, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, with the optical and structural properties of crystals, but with the mechanical features of fluids. LCs are relatively new materials and, therefore, there is some lack of information on the environmental impacts of these compounds. It was reported that LCs may have corrosive and harmful effects and, in addition, they may also dissolve to water and cause difficulties in biodegradation when disposed to landfills. (Becker et al., 2003) The LC portion of LCD typically consists of up to 20 different LC substances. According to literature, the amount of LC mixture required for the LCD panel surface is approximately 0.6 mg/cm2. (Socolof et al., 2001) That means that LCDs with an area larger than 100 cm2 to be treated separately contain a minimum of 60 mg of LCs.
LCD recycling practices The main requirement of an environmentally sound and ecologically sustainable recovery system of WEEE is to produce pure fractions of components in a safe manner to avoid environmental and health hazards. In addition, the gained benefits of the recovery and recycling have to exceed the impacts of the final treatment of WEEE. The most suitable processes have to be used in pretreatment stage and chosen for liberating components from each other that enables their separation. The main components of WEEE can usually be liberated easily. From the point of recovery economics, the most valuable material group is recyclable materials, such as metals, which can be recovered and recycled time after time. The material type which is of concern is non-recyclable materials, which can be recovered only to lower level applications such as fillers or as energy. Ceramics and many plastics are typical non-recyclable materials. In addition, the design of the product might also set some restrictions to the recovery and recycling of otherwise recyclable materials, e.g. multi-material structures may lead to a situation where material recovery might be difficult or even impossible, such as metals used in coatings. (Takala and Tanskanen, 2002) To fulfill the recovery and recycling targets and separate treatment requirements of WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC), in the case of LCD recycling, a pre-treatment step is necessary. Presently, manual dismantling is the only feasible pre-treatment method available, which enables to recover components without impurities. During the recovery process, components containing potentially hazardous materials such as the back-light tubes need to be removed before the mechanical treatment. According to the research of Shih and Lee (2007) eight disassembly operations are needed before the LCD panel is released. After manual dismantling and separation of hazardous components, the rest of materials can be treated and recycled mechanically, incinerated or disposed. A possible mechanical recycling scheme of LCD is illustrated in Figure 3.
1086
MANUAL DISMANTLING
PWB
LCD modules
Mono-material parts
Hazardous waste Hg-lamps
MATERIAL RECOVERY: MECHANICAL TREATMENT
Plastics
Metals Al
PWB
PC
PMMA
PET
Glass
Waste
Displays
Adhesives
Figure 3 LCD dismantling and mechanical recycling scheme (based on ReLCD, 2007; Shih and Lee, 2007) Presently, manual disassembly is the only environmentally and economically feasible pretreatment method available that enables the recovery of components without impurities. In the case of LCD recycling, the main elements of dismantled LCDs are large mono-material parts composed of metal and plastics, PWBs, and LCD modules. Sorted elements are typically recycled mechanically, incinerated or disposed; potentially hazardous components are treated separately. For the optimizing disassembly and recycling process of WEEE at the point of environmental and economical point of view, several researches have been done e.g. by Shih and Lee (2007), Lambert (2002) and Lee et al. (2001). Research on material recycling of thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) waste glass has been reported in the literature. According to Lin (2007), the use of TFT-LCD waste glass as a clay substitute in the bricks manufacturing may even improve the characteristics and material properties of bricks. Based on the results, the optimal amount of mixed with clay to produce good quality brick is 30 % by weight. (Lin, 2007) In addition to material recycling, incineration and metallurgy processes have been investigated for the recovery of waste glass from the end-of-life LCD treatment. The glass contained in LCD modules can also be utilized as a substitute of silica containing material in corrosion protection or in metal production and purification. Finally, plastics can be utilized as a fuel in energy generation. (Martin et al., 2004; LIREC, 2007) 1087
In Finland, LCD displays are not typically recycled. This is mainly due to the low amounts of end-of-life LCD equipment returned to the WEEE recovery system up to date. This far, most of end-of-life LCDs have been refurbished and sold to the secondary market. The rest of LCDs, which cannot be reused, are at the moment stored to wait a treatment. However, it has been recognized that LCD recovery may pose a challenge in the near future, which is a cause for rising concern.
Conclusions The replacement of CRTs with LCDs has been an environmentally advantageous solution, as it leads to resource efficiency and also provides a superior service. While there are reports of research and collaboration effort in solving the LCD recovery problem, it appears that there is no consensus on best practices and no widespread practice of LCD recovery has been found. In Finland, LCDs have not yet been entered in large numbers the waste management stream and most end-of-life LCDs have refurbished to be reused. Notwithstanding, due to a rising trend of LCDs entering the market, it is expected that they will pose a recycling problem in the near future. Research will continue to explore best practices in sustainable recovery of LCDs.
Acknowledgements The financial support of the Finnish Graduate School in Environmental Science and Technology, Tauno Tönning Foundation, the project 209375 of the Academy of Finland and Global Change in the North –program of Thule Institute, University of Oulu are gratefully acknowledged.
References Basel Convention. 2006. Guidance document – Environmentally sound management (EMS) of used & end-of-life mobile phones. Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI). URL: (25.10. 2006)
Becker W, Simon-Hettich B and Hönicke P. 2003. Toxicological and ecotoxicological investigations of liquid crystals and disposal of LCDs. URL: (1.3.2007)
European Council. 2002. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. European Council. 2002. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Lambert AJD. 2002. Determining optimum disassembly sequences in electronics equipment. Computers & Industrial Engineering 43(3):553-575. Lee SG, Lye SW and Khoo MK. 2001. A multi-objective methodology for evaluating product end-of-life options and disassembly. Advanced Manufacturing Technology 18(2):148-156.
1088
Lin K-L. 2007. The effect of heating temperature of thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) optical waste glass as a partial substitute for clay in eco-brick. Cleaner Production 15(18):1755-1759. LIREC: LCD Industries Research Committee. 2007. Environment and safety activities. URL: < http://home.jeita.or.jp/device/lirec/english/enviro/> (11.1.2008)
Martin R, Simon-Hettich B and Becker W. 2004. Safe recovery of liquid crystals displays (LCDs) in compliance with WEEE. Joint International Congress and Exhibition Electronics of Electronics Goes Green 2004+: Driving forces for future electronics, Berlin, Germany. Menozzi M, Näpflin U and Krueger H. 1999. CRT versus LCD: A pilot study on visual performance and suitability of two display technologies for use in office work. Displays 20: 3-10. Miklósi P. 2005. End-of-life liquid crystal displays. MicroCad 2005, Miskolc, Hungary. ReLCD: Liquid crystal display re-use and recycling. 2007. Results of the ReLCD project. URL: (5.3.2007)
Shih L-H and Lee S-C. 2007. Optimizing disassembly and recycling process for EOL LCD-type products: A heuristic method. IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, 30(3):213-220. Socolof ML, Overly JG, Kincaid LE and Geibig JR. 2001. Desktop computer displays: A lifecycle assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). URL: (5.3.2007)
Takala R and Tanskanen P. 2002. Outlining opportunities of engineering processes and technologies on environmental impacts of the end of life treatment of mobile terminals. IMAPS Nordic Annual Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
1089
