An Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil EPA TOPIC REPORT WASTE FROM ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN IRELAND: A STATUS REPORT Simon Wilkinson Clean Technology Centre Cork Institute of Technology Cork Ireland Noel Duffy Clean Technology Centre Cork Institute of Technology Cork Ireland Dr. Matt Crowe Environmental Protection Agency Wexford Ireland May 2001 Environmental Protection Agency Establishment The Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, was enacted on 23 April, 1992, and under this legislation the Agency was formally established on 26 July, 1993. Responsibilities The Agency has a wide range of statutory duties and powers under the Act. The main responsibilities of the Agency include the following: - the licensing and regulation of large/complex industrial and other processes with significant polluting potential, on the basis of integrated pollution control (IPC) and the application of best available technologies for this purpose; - the monitoring of environmental quality, including the establishment of databases to which the public will have access, and the publication of periodic reports on the state of the environment; - advising public authorities in respect of environmental functions and assisting local authorities in the performance of their environmental protection functions; - the promotion of environmentally sound practices through, for example, the encouragement of the use of environmental audits, the setting of environmental quality objectives and the issuing of codes of practice on matters affecting the environment; - the promotion and co-ordination of environmental research; - the licensing and regulation of all significant waste disposal and recovery activities, including landfills and the preparation and periodic updating of a national hazardous waste management plan for implementation by other bodies; - implementing a system of permitting for the control of VOC emissions resulting from the storage of significant quantities of petrol at terminals; - implementing and enforcing the GMO Regulations for the contained use and deliberate release of GMOs into the environment; - preparation and implementation of a national hydrometric programme for the collection, analysis and publication of information on the levels, volumes and flows of water in rivers, lakes and groundwaters; and - generally overseeing the performance by local authorities of their statutory environmental protection functions. Status The Agency is an independent public body. Its sponsor in Government is the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Independence is assured through the selection procedures for the Director General and Directors and the freedom, as provided in the legislation, to act on its own initiative. The assignment, under the legislation, of direct responsibility for a wide range of functions underpins this independence. Under the legislation, it is a specific offence to attempt to influence the Agency, or anyone acting on its behalf, in an improper manner. Organisation The Agency’s headquarters is located in Wexford and it operates five regional inspectorates, located in Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny, Castlebar and Monaghan. Management The Agency is managed by a full-time Executive Board consisting of a Director General and four Directors. The Executive Board is appointed by the Government following detailed procedures laid down in the Act. Advisory Committee The Agency is assisted by an Advisory Committee of twelve members. The members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and are selected mainly from those nominated by organisations with an interest in environmental and developmental matters. The Committee has been given a wide range of advisory functions under the Act, both in relation to the Agency and to the Minister. © Environmental Protection Agency 2001 Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this publication, complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor the author(s) accept any responsibility whatsoever for loss or damage occasioned or claimed to have been occasioned, in part or in full, as a consequence of any person acting, or refraining from acting, as a result of a matter contained in this publication. All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged. Waste from Electrical & Electronic Equipment in Ireland: A Status Report Simon Wilkinson, Noel Duffy and Matt Crowe Simon Wilkinson and Noel Duffy Clean Technology Centre Unit 1 Melbourne Business Park Melbourne Road Cork Ireland Telephone: +353 21 4344864 Fax: +353 21 4344865 Matt Crowe Environmental Protection Agency PO Box 3000 Johnstown Castle Estate Co. Wexford Ireland Telephone: +353 53 60600 Fax: +353 53 60699 Published by Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland May 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures................................................................................................ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 1 – BACKGROUND...................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................7 1.2 A Definition of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) ......................7 1.3 Environmental Concerns ............................................................................8 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.4 Dangerous Substances ..................................................................................8 Resource Depletion ........................................................................................9 Disposal Problems .......................................................................................10 Legislation .................................................................................................10 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 National Legislation Initiatives.....................................................................10 EU Directive ..................................................................................................12 Legislation in Ireland ....................................................................................13 1.5 Quantities of WEEE in Europe .................................................................13 1.6 Collection Trials Experience ....................................................................14 CHAPTER 2 - QUANTITIES OF WEEE IN IRELAND .................................. 16 2.1 Scope of Study ..........................................................................................16 2.2 Sales Data..................................................................................................17 2.2.1 Sources Considered .....................................................................................17 220.127.116.11 Official Statistics..........................................................................................17 18.104.22.168 Market Research Companies ......................................................................18 22.214.171.124 Industry Associations...................................................................................19 126.96.36.199 Extrapolations From Other Countries’ Data..................................................20 2.2.2 Conclusions on Data Sources and Results.................................................20 2.3 Calculation of WEEE Arisings in Ireland .................................................23 2.3.1 Calculation Results.......................................................................................23 188.8.131.52 Results for PC’s ..........................................................................................24 184.108.40.206 Results for Refrigerators..............................................................................26 220.127.116.11 Results for Televisions ................................................................................28 18.104.22.168 Results for Toasters ....................................................................................30 2.4 Comparison of Irish Calculations with Collection Trial Findings ..........32 2.5 Total Quantity of WEEE Arising in Ireland...............................................33 2.6 Material composition.................................................................................35 2.6.1 Overall WEEE Material Composition ...........................................................35 2.6.2 Material Waste Arisings................................................................................36 2.6.3 Specific Materials Arising in Ireland ............................................................38 22.214.171.124 Ferrous Metals ............................................................................................38 126.96.36.199 Non-ferrous Metals......................................................................................38 188.8.131.52 Plastics .......................................................................................................39 184.108.40.206 Glass ..........................................................................................................39 2.6.4 Specific Components Arising from WEEE in Ireland ..................................40 220.127.116.11 Printed Circuit Boards..................................................................................40 18.104.22.168 Brominated Flame Retardants.....................................................................41 22.214.171.124 Cathode Ray Tubes ....................................................................................42 126.96.36.199 PVC ............................................................................................................43 Page 1 of 90 CHAPTER 3 - WEEE MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND.................................... 44 3.1 Shredders ..................................................................................................44 3.2 Specialist Recyclers..................................................................................45 3.3 Management of WEEE by local authorities .............................................46 CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.......................... 48 REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 52 WEBSITES.................................................................................................... 55 APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX ONE: Examples of Collection Trials.......................................................56 APPENDIX TWO: Comparison of Sales Data............................................................60 APPENDIX THREE: Calculation Methods Used........................................................68 APPENDIX FOUR: Assumptions Made .....................................................................77 APPENDIX FIVE: WEEE Calculation Results............................................................81 APPENDIX SIX: Electronic and Electrical Equipment Recyclers in Ireland ............85 APPENDIX SEVEN: Questionnaire to Local Authorities ..........................................88 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................... 90 FURTHER INFORMATION ........................................................................... 90 Page 2 of 90 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of selected WEEE collection trial results ............................................15 Table 2. Items of EEE selected for this study ......................................................................16 Table 3. Comparison of PRODCOM descriptions with external trade descriptions ...............18 Table 4. Irish sales statistics for use in WEEE calculations..................................................21 Table 5. Upper and lower calculation results for PCs ..........................................................25 Table 6. Upper and lower calculation results for refrigerators ..............................................27 Table 7. Upper and lower calculation results for televisions .................................................29 Table 8. Upper and lower calculation results for toasters.....................................................31 Table 9. Comparison of Irish calculations with European collection trials for televisions.......32 Table 10. Comparison of Irish calculations with European collection trials for refrigerators ..32 Table 11. Contribution to WEEE composition (by weight) for key items: comparison of studies. ..............................................................................................................33 Table 12. Calculation of total WEEE potential for Ireland using the four items studied .........34 Table 13. Material composition (by weight) of six different categories of equipment.............35 Table 14. Material composition of WEEE ............................................................................35 Table 15. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland for the year 2000 ....................................36 Table 16. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland 1991-2005 ..............................................37 Table 17. The main sources of PCB’s in WEEE, and arisings in Ireland from each source (after Taberman et al, 1995). ..............................................................................40 Table 18. Estimated amounts of certain elements from the PCB fraction of WEEE (after Taberman, et al, 1995) .......................................................................................41 Table 19. Annual bromine and antimony trioxide arisings from flame retarded thermo-plastics in Ireland ............................................................................................................41 Table 20. Annual material arisings from CRT glass in Ireland. .............................................42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Sales of PC's in Ireland ........................................................................................22 Figure 2. Sales of televisions in Ireland ...............................................................................22 Figure 3. Sales of fridge/freezers in Ireland .........................................................................22 Figure 4. Sales of toasters in Ireland ...................................................................................22 Figure 5. Sales of coffee makers in Ireland .........................................................................22 Figure 6. Sales of photocopiers in Ireland ...........................................................................22 Figure 7. Comparison of calculation models for PC Arisings................................................24 Figure 8. Upper and lower arisings of PC‘s in Ireland ..........................................................25 Figure 9. Comparison of calculation models for refrigerator arisings ....................................26 Figure 10. Upper and lower arisings of refrigerators in Ireland.............................................27 Figure 11. Comparison of calculation models for television arisings.....................................28 Figure 12. Upper and lower arisings for televisions in Ireland ..............................................29 Figure 13. Comparison of calculation models for toasters....................................................30 Figure 14. Upper and lower arisings for toasters in Ireland ..................................................31 Figure 15. Percentage composition (by weight) of the EEE waste stream (from ICER, 2000) ...............................................................................................33 Figure 16. Upper and lower WEEE potential for Ireland.......................................................34 Figure 17. Material composition of WEEE (ICER, 2000) ......................................................35 Figure 18. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland in 2000 ..................................................36 Figure 19. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland 1991-2005 .............................................37 Figure 20. Average composition of a printed circuit board (after ENEA, 1995) .....................40 Figure 21. Inputs to shredders (from ICER, 2000) ...............................................................44 Page 3 of 90 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is considered to be a priority waste stream because of the potentially hazardous nature of the waste stream, the consumption of resources and expected growth. As we move inexorably towards the information age, society is becoming more and more dependent on electrical and electronic equipment. When such equipment reaches the end of its life or becomes redundant through rapid technological change, a waste problem is created. At European level, two EU Directives have been proposed to deal with the management of this waste stream. There is a scarcity of reliable information available about waste from electrical and electronic information in Ireland (WEEE). This investigation sought to fill some of these gaps by: • • • • developing and applying an approach to estimating WEEE arisings; providing an estimate of current and projected WEEE arisings in Ireland; analysing the types of materials and components contained within the waste stream, in particular, hazardous components; and reviewing current WEEE management practice in Ireland. SCOPE Due to the wide variety and complexity of equipment falling under the category of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) the study was limited to a representative range of items. These were: refrigerators/freezers, personal computers, televisions, photocopiers, fluorescent lamps, electric handheld drills and saws, coffee makers and toasters. Based on the estimates of these items, total arisings were projected. SALES Initially data was gathered on the sales of the specific items of EEE. Government statistics were obtained from the Central Statistics Office on production, exports and imports, but these were found to be generally unsuitable for estimating sales. Data from market research companies were found to be more realistic and was mostly selected for use in our waste calculations. For fluorescent lamps and electric tools, no reliable data was available. The growth in sales of personal computers in Ireland is dramatic, with annual increases of 2030%, exceeding the growth levels of many other European countries. The dynamic nature of this market, caused by rapid technology changes and increasing market penetration, means that computer systems are an important item for waste management consideration. More established household items such as refrigerators and televisions exhibit a more steady growth trend, although this growth is greater than other European countries due to the recent population growth and associated housing growth in Ireland. WEEE ARISINGS A number of international investigations have attempted to calculate WEEE arisings. The calculation methods employed by these studies vary widely, with no apparent consensus on the most appropriate method to be adopted. European studies have previously calculated WEEE arisings between 12 and 20 kg per inhabitant per year. Application of the various calculation methods to the Irish data produced a wide range of results, none of which can be selected with confidence as being the most realistic in the absence of reliable information on actual WEEE arisings. Each method required some assumptions to be made and therefore contained some uncertainties. For the purposes of waste management planning this means that the results, using the variety of methods, can be presented as upper and lower estimates with the actual quantity of waste arising probably sitting somewhere between these levels. Page 4 of 90 Using an average composition of waste electrical and electronic equipment together with our calculation results for specific items, we were able to extrapolate total WEEE arisings for Ireland. It is estimated that, in the period 1991 to 2005, between 505,000 and 1,040,000 tonnes of WEEE will be produced. This equates to an average of 34,000 to 69,000 tonnes per annum, or 9 to 18 kg per inhabitant per annum. The EEE waste stream therefore represents between 1.7 and 3.4% of total municipal solid waste in Ireland. Our calculations predicted the following average annual levels of WEEE arisings for the specific items studied in the period 1991 to 2005: Item Personal Computer Refrigerator Television Toaster Upper average annual arisings (tonnes) 8,096 6,558 6,643 243 Lower average annual arisings (tonnes) 2,011 4,109 4,239 115 In Ireland and, to our knowledge, worldwide, there is no systematic collection of data on actual WEEE arisings making it difficult to validate theoretical waste calculations. However, a number of collection trials in municipalities have been conducted in the US and Europe. Review of these projects has shown that typical collection yields of total WEEE average at around 3 to 5 kg per inhabitant per annum. WEEE MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND A survey of the WEEE recycling industry in Ireland revealed two distinct types of recycler. Firstly, there are scrap metal processors and shredders who deal with a range of products from which they separate ferrous and non-ferrous metals before disposing of the residual waste. These recyclers process items of WEEE that are large and metal rich such as refrigerators and washing machines. There are currently an estimated 9 such processors in Ireland. Secondly, there are specialist recyclers who process the more complex items of WEEE such as computers and televisions. These recyclers separate components of the equipment for resale or recycling of valuable materials. They may also refurbish entire systems for resale. The majority of recyclers in this category deal mostly with computers and associated peripherals. There are an estimated 10 such recyclers in Ireland. Local authorities were surveyed in relation to the management of WEEE in their functional areas. Of those that responded, many (70%) are operating schemes for the separation of some items of WEEE from the municipal solid waste stream. The majority of these take the form of collection points at existing civic amenity sites or landfills, and target only “white goods”, i.e. refrigerators, washing machines, cookers, etc. Only two local authorities reported a collection facility for all types of WEEE. Some initiatives are currently being developed in order to improve the management of WEEE in local authority areas. Many of these take the form of collection facilities at proposed civic amenity sites, but there are also three proposals for integrated WEEE collection systems involving the local authority, private sector recyclers and community groups. There is also a proposal to include fluorescent lamps in the collection of household hazardous waste by specialist vehicles. Page 5 of 90 RECOMMENDATIONS A number of recommendations may be derived from this study: 1. Systematic long-term WEEE collection trials should be undertaken by selected local authorities to gather reliable information about actual WEEE arisings in order to validate predictions of waste arisings. They would also identify the cost implications of such collections. 2. These collection trials could be integrated into trials of equipment, component and material recovery schemes. These would be useful national trials prior to the introduction of any EU Directive and would be of value to industry. 3. Waste estimation would be improved by the harmonisation of classification systems used by the different trade and production statistical systems. This would also facilitate easier use of the two data sets in relation to sales calculations. Page 6 of 90 CHAPTER 1 – BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION Until the 1990’s, very little attention was paid to the impact of consumption on waste generation (ENEA, 1995). Generally, consumers’ waste enters the municipal waste stream, which has been growing rapidly over the last decades in both quantity and complexity. Treatment of this waste is made more difficult by this increasing complexity as new materials require changes in treatment technologies in order to reduce their environmental impact. According to evaluations conducted by the European Commission there are few constituents of the municipal waste stream that carry an “ecological baggage” comparable to waste from electrical and electronic equipment (Papameletiou, 1998). In 1990 the European Commission began to promote the concept of prioritising waste streams on the basis of the environmental impacts of the waste being created. The action concentrated on used tyres, end-of-life vehicles, healthcare waste, construction and demolition waste, and waste from electrical and electronic equipment. Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) was identified as a priority waste for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are rapid changes occurring in technology which are leading into a ‘new industrial revolution’ (ENEA, 1995). This pattern of development is resulting in a greater use of EEE in all sectors of human activities. EEE will become more and more widely distributed and, as technological innovation and market expansion continues to accelerate the replacement process, the amount of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) will continue to grow. Secondly, in addition to the predicted growth in this waste stream, there is concern over the continued use of some hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. 1.2 A DEFINITION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT (EEE) It is important to clearly define what is meant by electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). It becomes particularly necessary when EU legislation is being formulated, as is the case with th waste EEE. A simple definition of electrical and electronic equipment (4 plenary meeting of the Project Group on EEE waste) is: Equipment using electricity or through which electricity flows, and/or which contains an electronic circuit, i.e., a circuit with active and passive components. th The 5 draft directive on WEEE (CEC(b), 2000) defines Electrical and Electronic Equipment as; “equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields falling under the categories set out in Annex I A of the draft Directive sets out the Annex I A and designed for use with a voltage categories of equipment covered: rating not exceeding 1000 Volt for alternating current and 1500 Volt for direct current” Large household appliances This definition and its associated Annex is intended to cover all appliances run by electricity. The voltage limits in the definition are intended to ensure that large industrial equipment is not covered by the proposal (CEC (a), 2000). Throughout this study the official CEC definition of EEE has been used. Page 7 of 90 Small household appliances IT & Telecommunication equipment Consumer equipment Lighting equipment Electrical and electronic tools Toys Medical equipment systems (with the exception of all implanted and infected products) Monitoring and control instruments Automatic dispensers 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The disposal of waste from electrical and electronic equipment is of environmental concern for a number of reasons. These include the fate of dangerous materials in the waste, the depletion of resources and the impacts of waste treatment methods. 1.3.1 Dangerous Substances Electrical and electronic equipment contains a wide variety of materials and components, including some that are considered dangerous. Commonly found components include: printed circuit boards, flame retarded plastics, cathode ray tubes, liquid crystal displays, batteries, mercury switches, capacitors and resistors. These components contain a wide range of materials including environmentally problematic ones such as mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium, CFC’s (chloro-fluorocarbons), PCB’s (polychlorinated biphenyls), PCN’s (polychlorinated napthalenes) and brominated flame retardants. These substances make up only a small proportion of the total weight of EEE, but the potential environmental problems that even small quantities of these substances can cause are serious enough to warrant concern. Listed below are the substances targeted by the EU draft directive on WEEE, together with a description of their sources and effects. i) Mercury (Hg)- It has been estimated that 22% of the annual world consumption of mercury can be attributed to electrical and electronic equipment (ENEA, 1995). Many older appliances contain mercury-bearing components. ii) A large use of mercury is in fluorescent tubes, where it transforms the UV-light created in the gas discharge to visible light. A practical substitute for mercury in fluorescent lamps has not yet been found (Hedemalm et al, 1995). Mercury is also used in relays, tilt switches and in medical equipment. Mercury and its organic and inorganic compounds (methylmercury, phenylmercury, etc.) have been found to produce biological transformations in the environment and in living organisms (ENEA, 1995). iii) Cadmium (Cd) - Cadmium is used in batteries, as a pigment and stabiliser in plastics, in specialised treatment of mechanical surfaces and in speciality solders. It is also used as a fluorescent material in screens and was used in old cathode ray tubes (CRT’s). Consumer electronics have been found to contribute 9% of total cadmium in municipal solid waste (US EPA, 1989). Of this cadmium, 95% is attributed to batteries and only 0.1% to CRT’s (Hedemalm et al, 1995). iv) Lead (Pb) - A 1989 study by the US EPA found that lead from consumer electronics accounted for 17% of all lead in municipal solid waste (a further 65% of the lead comes from lead-acid batteries). More recently, consumer electronic have been found to account for 40% of lead in MSW in Europe (CEC(a), 2000). With increased efficiency in the recycling of batteries, lead from electrical and electronic equipment is likely to become the main source of lead in MSW. By far the largest source of the lead in consumer electronics has been found to be contained in CRT’s. CRT’s are found primarily in television sets and computer monitors and can vary considerably in their composition but all contain substantial proportions of lead (Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 1995). It is estimated that a television CRT contains 15-20% lead oxide (ENEA, 1995). Other important sources include soldering on printed circuit boards, pigments and stabilisers in plastics and leaded glass (Hedemalm et al, 1995). Lead has been found to have negative effects on the human body, especially the nervous system, blood system and kidneys. Lead also accumulates in the environment and can have high acute and chronic toxic effects on plants, animals and micro-organisms (CEC(a), 2000). Page 8 of 90 v) Hexavalent Chromium (Cr)- Electrical and electronic equipment does not account for a significant share of chromium use and most producers no longer use it at all. It is used as a corrosion protector for steel plates and in printed circuit boards (PCB’s) and plastic covers (ENEA, 1995). Hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), is highly mobile and can migrate a considerable distance from its source. It is highly toxic to animals and plants and under certain conditions to humans. vi) Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR’s) - It is estimated that flame retarded plastics make up around 5.5% of WEEE by weight, or 25% of all plastic used in EEE (Hedemalm et al, 1995). Of these flame retarded plastics, approximately 80% are treated with brominated flame retardants (ENEA, 1995). BFR’s are designed into electronic products as a means of ensuring flammability protection. They are mainly used in printed circuit boards, components (such as connectors), plastic covers and cables. When subjected to heat in the recycling process some BFR’s form potentially dangerous dioxins and furans. However, due to an increased awareness in Europe of the environmental problems associated with brominated flame retardants, it has been reported that many manufacturers of electronics have changed the types of flame retardants they use as well as reducing the amount they use (Hedemalm et al, 1995). Brominated flame retardants such as deca-, octa-, and penta- polybromo-biphenyls (PBB’s) are organobromine derivatives that are very persistent and tend to accumulate in animal and human fats (ENEA, 1995). 1.3.2 Resource Depletion “Production of raw materials consumes natural resources… If more materials from end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment could be recycled in an environmentally satisfactory manner, emissions associated with extraction of raw materials would decrease and natural resources would be saved” (Swedish EPA, 1995). It is important to consider the potential loss of resources when electrical and A 1997 report estimated that 6 million tonnes of WEEE would be electronic equipment is thrown away. generated in Europe in 1998. They calculated that the potential Some of the materials and components loss of resources from this would be: contained in old equipment can be 2.3 million tonnes of ferrous metal recovered for use in new products and 1.2 million tonnes of non-ferrous metals, of which this reduces the need to extract new 652,000 tonnes of copper materials and manufacture new 336,000 tonnes of aluminium 162,000 tonnes of heavy metal products. Of particular benefit is the 12-27,000 tonnes of lead energy saved through recycling or 6-8 tonnes of mercury reuse. For example, the energy used 1.2 million tonnes of plastics in mining copper is 6 times more than 156,000 tonnes of flame retardants 336,000 tonnes of glass that used in recycling the same Source: AEA Technology (1997) amount, and for aluminium the figure is over 20 times (ICER, 2000). “The household waste stream and industrial and commercial waste streams interconnect. As consumer durables are discarded, a considerable amount of additional waste is generated through the production processes for replacement of goods…. A rule of thumb cited in ‘Beyond the Limits’ is that every tonne of waste at the consumer end of the stream has also required the production of 5 tonnes at the site of the initial resource extraction” (Cooper, 1994). Page 9 of 90 1.3.3 Disposal Problems i) Landfill In Ireland over 91% of municipal waste is disposed of in landfill sites (Irish EPA, 1998). The inclusion of waste from electrical and electronic equipment in this general waste has raised some concerns regarding its potential environmental impact. Studies of WEEE in landfill have found that it is extremely difficult to quantify the potential environmental impact of the equipment due to the complex and lengthy processes that take place in the landfill as the waste degrades. Many external factors affect the decomposition of the chemical substances, including temperature, salt concentrations, pH and oxygen concentration. In sediments and soils many chemical substances will bind to particles and can become less environmentally problematic due to their reduced mobility. Taberman et al (1995) report that pilot tests with environmentally hazardous wastes (including WEEE) in landfills are being conducted in Sweden. “At present it is not possible to state the negative environmental impacts from controlled landfills caused by waste from electrical and electronic equipment. On the other hand, the processes are so complicated that it would be a mistake to neglect the possible risks” (Taberman et al, 1995) As well as this, landfill sites are becoming increasingly scarce. There is therefore a need to closely examine the types of waste that are entering these sites in an attempt to reduce quantities. ii) Thermal Treatment While no thermal treatment of municipal waste currently takes place in Ireland, it is worth considering the environmental consequences of this practice as thermal treatment is being assessed as a waste management option for the country. A reduction in waste volumes and the utilisation of energy by burning the waste are clear advantages to incineration. Also, some environmentally hazardous organic substances in WEEE are converted to less environmentally hazardous compounds in the incineration process (Taberman et al, 1995). Items of electrical and electronic equipment with high plastics content have a high calorific content and are therefore very suitable for incineration. However, they also contain heavy metals and halogenated substances which cause environmental problems such as: the concentration of heavy metals in the slag, emissions of mercury and potential emissions of dioxins and furans. 1.4 LEGISLATION In light of the environmental problems being associated with the management of WEEE, some of the EU Member states have already drafted and implemented national legislation. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and Italy have all adopted legislation on the subject of WEEE. These initiatives are summarised below. 1.4.1 National Legislation Initiatives i) The Netherlands On 1 June 1998 a regulation establishing rules for taking back and processing white and brown goods came into force. According to this legislation consumers can return WEEE free of charge to the supplier or to the local authority. Manufacturers and importers must process these items. The landfilling or incineration of separately collected WEEE is to be prohibited. Page 10 of 90 In 1998 the Netherlands enacted a general phase-out of mercury in products. A Cadmium Decree in 1999 prohibited the use of cadmium as pigments, dyes, stabilisers and plating. ii) Austria Since the mid-1990’s there has been legislation in place regarding the take back of fluorescent lamps (1991) and white goods (1993). Initially the recovery systems for both items were financed through a fee on the price of new products. Since becoming a member of the EU, competitive disadvantages for Austrian retailers have forced a reduction in the endof-life fee. A draft ordinance on the overall WEEE stream was published in 1994 but has been suspended in anticipation of the EU-wide legislation. Austria has banned the use of PBB flame retardants and cadmium pigments, dyes, stabilisers and plating since 1993. The content of mercury in lamps is limited to 15mg per lamp. iii) Germany An ordinance on the take-back and recycling of WEEE is in the final stages of the legislative process. The draft places the responsibility for collection of WEEE on the local municipalities, while the treatment, recovery and disposal of this waste will be the responsibility of the producers. In essence the use of PBDE flame retardants has been prohibited in Germany by specifying certain limit values for brominated furans and dioxins. iv) Belgium In the Flemish region of Belgium, a regulation covering white and brown goods and information technology equipment was adopted in 1998. Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers are obliged to take back free of charge all such equipment. Recycling targets for ferrous, non-ferrous and plastics are included in the regulation. v) Denmark From January 1999 local authorities have been responsible for the collection and recovery of all WEEE, funded through local taxes and/or collection fees. A Danish regulation on lead-containing products is also underway. The draft regulation contains a general prohibition (with exemptions) on the sale of products containing lead. vi) Italy A Waste Management Decree was adopted in 1996 which seeks to implement the EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62), the Waste and Hazardous Waste Directives (91/156 & 91/689) and covers other waste issues including product take-back. Provisions for mandatory product take-back schemes introduces some obligations on industry to create collection points and to ensure recovery of certain defunct products (such as refrigerators, TV’s, PC’s and washing machines). vii) Sweden In April 2000 an ordinance for WEEE was adopted enabling consumers to take their waste back to retailers or municipal collection points. Costs of recycling are to be borne by either the municipalities or the manufacturers. WEEE is not permitted to be landfilled, incinerated or shredded without treatment by a certified operator. This ordinance is expected to come into effect on 1 July 2001. Page 11 of 90 Sweden also has initiatives to phase out the use of lead in many products including cables, solder, light bulbs, cathode ray tubes and boat keels. The Swedish government is currently considering a proposal by the National Chemicals Inspectorate to ban PBDE and PBB flame retardants. viii) Non-EU Countries Other than a voluntary system of “Extended Producer Responsibility” no legislative actions on WEEE is planned at Federal level in the USA. However, some US States have introduced a landfill ban on white goods and cathode ray tube containing equipment. The Japanese Parliament adopted the Bill for the Recycling of Home Electric Appliances in May 1998 which requires that retailers collect television sets, refrigerators, washing machines and air conditioners from consumers. These items are then transferred to the manufacturers who are responsible for further treatment, particularly recycling. Retailers and manufacturers collect charges necessary to cover the cost of recycling the waste. A similar ordinance has been adopted in Taiwan. In Switzerland an ordinance on the take back and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment entered into force in July 1998. In Norway an ordinance on the acceptance, collection, recycling and disposal of WEEE was adopted in March 1998. 1.4.2 EU Directive The European Commission was concerned that the differing national approaches towards the management of WEEE throughout its member sates may result in: • disparities of financial burden due to the differing application of the producer responsibility principle, • reduced effectiveness of national recycling policies due to the transboundary movement of WEEE to cheaper waste management systems, and • technical barriers to trade in electrical and electronic equipment due to a divergence in standards for “design for recycling”, including the phase out of specific substances. It was decided that there needed to be a “harmonisation of the environmental objectives and the responsibilities of the various actors as regards the management of WEEE at Community level” (CEC(a), 2000). The European Parliament, in its resolution of 14 November 1996, asked the European Commission to present Proposals for Directives on a number of Priority Waste Streams, including waste from electrical and electronic equipment and to base such Proposals on the principle of producer responsibility. This principle of “producer responsibility” is intended to encourage manufacturers to take responsibility for the whole life-cycle of a product. This forced take-back of end-of-life products is likely to provide a strong incentive for more ecologically-minded design (ecodesign), as manufacturers themselves directly benefit from reparability, easy dismantling and a low content of hazardous substances (Salhofer, 1999). In the same resolution the European Parliament requested that the Council and the Commission put forward Proposals for cutting the volume of waste as well as reducing the presence of hazardous substances in waste such as chlorine, mercury, PVC, cadmium and other heavy metals. In July 1997 the Commission announced its intention to introduce a directive on WEEE. The Draft Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment is now in its fifth draft (CEC(b), 2000). However, its’ objectives have remained the same throughout: “to protect soil, water and air from pollution caused by current management of WEEE, to avoid the generation of waste, and to reduce the harmfulness of WEEE”. In order to meet these objectives the following measures are proposed within the Draft Directive: i. Manufacturers will be required to improve the design of their products in order to avoid the generation of waste and to facilitate the recovery and disposal of WEEE by: Page 12 of 90 • ii. iii. iv. v. the substitution of hazardous substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and certain brominated flame retardants; • measures to facilitate identification and re-use of components and materials, particularly plastics; • measures to promote the use of recycled plastics in new products; and • incentives from national governments to encourage producers to design equipment that can be easily recycled or refurbished. Producers should take the responsibility for certain phases of the waste management of their products. This is intended to create a financial incentive to improve product design. The legislation is likely to require producers to pay the costs of recycling products from domestic households and may also require them to pay collection costs. Separate collection of WEEE is to be ensured along with a collection target in order to create a level playing field throughout the Member States. Producers will be required to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to improve the treatment and re-use/recovery of WEEE. Targets for the re-use and recycling of WEEE are to be set. Consumers are to be informed of their role in the system through a labelling requirement for items of EEE. The fifth draft of the Directive (CEC(b), 2000) has in fact been split into two Directives. The section restricting the use of some hazardous substances has become a stand-alone Directive known as the Draft Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment. A full copy of the fifth draft of these directives can be found in Appendix Seven of this report. 1.4.3 Legislation in Ireland Ireland has no specific national legislation on WEEE. The Waste Management Act 1996 provides the necessary powers to regulate specific waste streams, including WEEE, and allows for the provision of “producer responsibility” obligations where considered necessary. However, no national programmes or agreements currently exist for the management of WEEE. 1.5 QUANTITIES OF WEEE IN EUROPE All electrical and electronic equipment ends up as waste and it is clear that the quantities of WEEE will increase rapidly, reflecting the dramatic increase in the use of technology in modern society. However, little is currently known about the actual quantities of WEEE arising in the EU member states. There are no statistics collected regarding currently generated quantities or collection rates at a national level in any country. Indeed, this is a problem in all waste categories. The European Commission acknowledges that “neither regular nor harmonised waste-related data is produced at Community level”, and in its Council Resolution on Waste Policy (1996) it urges that a Community-wide reliable system of data collection for waste be established. In the absence of such data we are dependant upon studies which have used calculations and extrapolations to quantify waste arisings from end-of-life EEE. A number of studies have attempted to estimate the potential quantity of WEEE arising in Europe (for example: Toepfer 1993; ORGALIME 1993; ENEA 1994; SOFRES 1995; AEA 1997). However the results vary widely and comparisons of the studies are difficult because the methods used and the assumptions made in calculating the waste quantities differ between the studies. In addition, different countries are analysed (the EU expanded from 12 to 15 members) and different product categories are used. Accordingly no consensus has been reached on the most realistic results. Reviewing all the studies to date, WEEE has been calculated to be in the range of 12-20 kg/inhabitant/year. Page 13 of 90 A comprehensive investigation by the Italian National Agency for New Technology, Energy and the Environment (ENEA) in 1994 examined a number of these studies and estimated that the weight of electrical and electronic equipment at end of life in the EU in 1992 can be assumed to be somewhere between 4 and 6 million tonnes/year. In a further report in 1995 ENEA attempted to calculate predicted WEEE arisings for 1998. They calculated that between 5.4 and 6.7 million tonnes/year would be generated in the EU. They also predicted a 3 to 5% annual growth in WEEE arisings throughout the Member States and for all product categories. This gives a total WEEE potential of around 20 kg/inhabitant/year and this level appears to have been widely accepted as an indicative value. PERSPECTIVE Total annual arisings of all wastes in the EU is estimated at about 1.6 billion tonnes. Þ WEEE therefore represents less than 0.5% of the total EU waste stream. Total annual arisings of MSW in the EU is estimated at about 156 million tonnes. Þ WEEE therefore represents approximately 4% of the EU MSW stream. However, ENEA are quick to point out that there are limitations to their results and that the following problems must be taken into consideration when using the results of their calculations: i. There is a need for a European-wide harmonisation of definitions, monitoring methods, approaches and criteria for characterising and evaluating market data. ii. Waste from EEE is forecasted by estimating the theoretical quantities of equipment at the end-of-life, not all of which is necessarily introduced into the waste cycle or collected as WEEE; this results in overestimates for certain product categories. iii. Significant quantities of WEEE may also depend on accidental, temporary or local situations (e.g. rapid obsolescence of certain items due to technological advances, sudden shifts in habits and fashion, etc.). The problems associated with the calculation of WEEE arisings are discussed further in Chapter 2 of this report. 1.6 COLLECTION TRIALS EXPERIENCE There have been no collection trials conducted in Ireland to date but a number of pilot projects to examine collection systems for WEEE have been carried out in a number of municipalities in various countries, including the USA and Europe. These collection trial projects provide a useful indication of actual quantities of WEEE being disposed of by households, an indication of consumer behaviour when disposing of end-of-life equipment, and may also provide some sort of validation of theoretical WEEE projections. However, difficulties are encountered when attempting to compare the collection experiences as numerous variations of the collection systems have developed. “The quantitative yields of WEEE in the various collection schemes are difficult to compare with each other because almost every single project had different definitions for the waste it was aiming at.” (Lohse et al., 1998). Appendix One, details some of the collection trials that have taken place to date. Examination of these gives a good indication of the variation in collection and reporting methods employed by each trial. Some are conducted over extended periods of time while others are single events. Also, different items of WEEE are targeted by each trial and it becomes clear that it is very difficult to draw conclusions through a comparison of the various projects. For the same reasons, it is difficult to use the results to validate theoretical WEEE calculations, although they do provide general information about actual quantities of WEEE collected under specific conditions. Page 14 of 90 Table 1. Comparison of selected WEEE collection trial results Region and source Flachgau, Austria, 1998 Bregenz, Austria Weiz, Austria Eindhoven, Netherlands Midhurst, UK Various regions, Germany Dortmund, Germany Hannover, Germany, 1995 Bremen, Germany, 1995 Rhone-Alps, France Envie-Terra, France Total WEEE (kg/inhabitant/year) 3.5 4.2 3.0 1.4 1.22 5.0 1.03–1.8 2.3 4.0 5.2 2.3 In general, it has been found that WEEE estimates using a number of different methodologies are in the range of 12-20 kg/inhabitant/year compared with an average of 3-5 kg/inhabitant/year reported for collection trials. The results of the collection trials therefore serve only a limited purpose for the validation of theoretical WEEE calculations, although it would be expected that collection trial results would be lower than theoretical WEEE estimates. Consideration must also be given to factors such as export of second-hand items of EEE, as this will skew the results of the collection trials through the removal of a portion of the potential arisings. Also, participation in collection trials may be low due to a lack of awareness. Quantities resulting from collection schemes may increase over time (as was found in the US trials) to reflect more realistic levels of arisings. Page 15 of 90 CHAPTER 2 - QUANTITIES OF WEEE IN IRELAND There are two basic approaches to estimating quantities of municipal solid waste (MSW) (US 2 EPA, 1999 ). The first method is site specific and involves sampling, sorting and weighing the individual components of the waste stream. This method would be useful for identifying specific waste components as well as variations due to consumer behaviour or technology change. However, it is an expensive method and must be conducted over a long period of time if trends are to be assessed. To our knowledge there are no statistics collected at landfills or waste treatment facilities in Ireland (or the EU) that specifically identify the WEEE waste stream. The second approach to quantifying MSW utilises a material flows approach. Material and energy flow models are normally based on accounting methods for the activities or processes being examined, and networks to connect the activities or processes being examined, thus indicating the flow of material or energy. This is the approach we have used to study the WEEE waste stream in Ireland. Our material flow methodology is based on the sales of items of electrical and electronic equipment. These sales figures have been applied to a number of calculation methodologies to give us theoretical waste arisings for each of the selected items. Using average weights and an average composition of the waste stream we have extrapolated total WEEE arisings for Ireland. 2.1 SCOPE OF STUDY The EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) system used for external trade, lists electrical and electronic appliances under 87 different headings, contained within four different chapters of product groups (Lohse et al., 1998). This is an indication of the wide variety of items under the product category and it was decided that the consideration of all appliances would be beyond the scope of this project. The study was therefore limited to a representative selection of appliances. These were chosen because they represent a range of compositional and lifecycle criteria that typifies the EEE waste stream. The appliances are listed below together with the reason for their selection. Table 2. Items of EEE selected for this study APPLIANCE Refrigerators & Freezers Personal Computers TV Sets Photocopiers Fluorescent Lamps Electric Handheld Drills & Saws Coffee/Tea Makers Toasters REASON FOR SELECTION A saturated market item (97% of households in Ireland), Good knowledge of material composition, Ozone depleting CFC content could result in large environmental impact, There are national regulations for treatment in many countries. A dynamic market with strong growth in every country, Treatment of waste PC’s very topical, A wide range of hazardous materials is contained in a PC. As with refrigerators, a saturated market item (99% of households in Ireland), Hazardous substances content. Extensively used office equipment, An example of an item with potentially high re-use and re-manufacturing, Hazardous substance content. Large numbers of items, Hazardous content. Currently likely to be disposed of in an uncontrolled manner with household waste, Disposal of rechargeable battery content is an issue. Currently likely to be disposed of in an uncontrolled manner with household waste. Currently likely to be disposed of in an uncontrolled manner with household waste, Large numbers and short life cycle. Page 16 of 90 2.2 SALES DATA The first step in the material flow model was to acquire sales data for the items being studied. Obtaining information on sales of specific items of electrical and electronic equipment in Ireland has proved surprisingly difficult. Initial efforts were concentrated on using official government statistics from the Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO). However, after investigation of this data, problems were discovered in relation to its usefulness for estimating waste arisings. Further sources were then investigated, including market research companies, industry associations, and extrapolations from sales data in other countries. These sources are discussed briefly below and a more detailed assessment can be found in Appendix Two. 2.2.1 Sources Considered 188.8.131.52 Official Statistics Unfortunately in Ireland no data is gathered by official sources at the point of sale on the sales of specific products. However, it is an accepted practice to calculate sales using production, import and export data and applying the following equation: Production + Imports – Exports = Domestic Sales The Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO) collects statistics on production, imports and exports and information was obtained from their offices. Production data is obtained through an annual survey of the value and volume of products manufactured by industrial enterprises in Ireland and sold during the reference year. The results are presented using a harmonised EU product classification called PRODCOM. There is a direct link between the PRODCOM classifications and the EU foreign trade Combined Nomenclature (CN) system. This should allow a direct comparison of the production data with the external trade (imports and exports) data. A number of problems were found with the data sets which have lead us to conclude that the use of the CSO data for estimating sales figures and waste arisings is of limited value: i. Confidentiality The CSO suppresses some data in order to preserve confidentiality. For a small country such as Ireland, the suppression of data regarding manufacturers is particularly necessary as there is often only one or two producers of an item. The only solution to this is to supplement the CSO statistics with information obtained directly from the manufacturers. However, the companies contacted in this regard were not forthcoming with production data. ii. Production Statistics Unreliable The PRODCOM department of the CSO advises that there are difficulties with companies returning accurate data to the annual PRODCOM survey. Whilst completion of the survey is a statutory obligation there is little auditing of the returns. Specific examples of these difficulties were found in Ireland. For example, in Ireland there is at least one manufacturer of electric hand drills and saws, but the PRODCOM survey has no record of this production, even at a confidential level. Page 17 of 90 iii. External Trade Statistics Unreliable A significant number of problems were found in the external trade statistics and a thorough investigation of the data was conducted in conjunction with the Central Statistics Office in Dublin. The investigation revealed that no validation of data on quantity (as opposed to weight or value) is undertaken. Further analysis of the returns for weight and value, which are validated, indicated problems with the accuracy of quantities being reported. iv. Different Classifications Used by PRODCOM and External Trade It was stated above that the classification systems used by the PRODCOM survey and External Trade survey should, in theory, allow the direct comparison of the two data sets. In fact the relationship was found to be more complicated than expected. The Combined Nomenclature (CN) system used for external trade is a great deal more detailed than the PRODCOM classification system. This is well illustrated using the example of personal computers, which are classified using just 2 codes in the PRODCOM system (Laptops and Desktops) but 6 codes in the CN system (see Table 3, below). These differences in classifications exist throughout the two systems and make the task of correlating the relevant data quite complicated. It is felt that the complexity of the External Trade CN system in particular makes it difficult for participants to submit correct returns. An investigation by the CSO into the returns under the category of personal computers found that the largest number of items were being recorded under the codes 8471.30.99 and 8471.41.99 “Other” which is indicative of incorrect completion of returns. Table 3. Comparison of PRODCOM descriptions with external trade descriptions PRODCOM Code 30.02.12.00 30.02.13.00 PRODCOM Description Laptop PC’s and palm top organisers Desktop PC’s Corresponding CN-Numbers 8471.30.10 TRADE Description Portable digital automatic data processing machines, weighing not more than 10kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit, a keyboard and a display, capable of receiving and processing television, telecommunication, audio and video signals 8471.30.91 Digital automatic data processing machines, weighing not more than 10kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit, a keyboard and a display, capable of receiving and processing television signals but having no other specific function 8471.30.99 Digital automatic data processing machines, weighing not more than 10kg, consisting of at least a central processing unit, a keyboard and a display, other Other digital automatic processing machines capable of receiving and processing television, telecommunication, audio and video signals 8471.41.30 8471.41.91 Other digital automatic data processing machines, capable of receiving and processing television signals but having no other specific function 8471.41.99 Other digital automatic data processing machines, other 184.108.40.206 Market Research Companies It was found, through contact with the electrical and electronic industry in Ireland and observation of its associated media, that statistics from market research companies are quoted widely and considered as industry standard. Market research statistics were found to be available for the following items being studied in this report: Item: Personal Computers Photocopiers Refrigerators Coffee/Tea Makers Toasters Televisions Market research conducted by: Gartner Group & International Data Corporation Ltd Gartner Group AC Nielsen Ltd AC Nielsen Ltd AC Nielsen Ltd & Euromonitor Euromonitor Page 18 of 90 a) Gartner Group – Dataquest (PC’s and Photocopiers) The Gartner Group’s Dataquest surveys computer vendors to estimate annual sales for the major markets in the world. Their market analysis is available for purchase for all of the European nations as well as Europe as a whole. They also undertake a market forecast. Dataquest uses a market statistics methodology that combines primary and secondary sources to produce the market statistics documents. Primary research, taking the form of surveys of major computer industry participants, is supplemented with additional research to verify shipment totals and market size. The Dataquest survey is also conducted for photocopier sales in the European market. The Irish market has only been isolated from the general European results and studied as a market since 1996 (Dataquest, pers. comm., 2000). b) International Data Corporation (PC’s) The International Data Corporation (IDC) provide a similar service to that of Dataquest, producing quarterly and annual sales information for PC’s. Less information was available from the company as they were only prepared to release limited data free of charge. Their market analysis is available for purchase for all of the European nations as well as Europe as a whole. They also undertake a market forecast. c) AC Nielsen Ltd (Whiteware) AC Nielsen undertake a market survey of the major actors in the Irish whiteware industry. The survey includes manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. It’s participants make up 95% of the whiteware market in Ireland and it is apparently the only survey of this market sector in Western Europe (AC Nielsen, pers. comm., 2000). d) Euromonitor Euromonitor is an independent market research company that undertakes a world survey of domestic appliances and consumer electronics. Both surveys cover a wide range of western and eastern European countries from 1994 onwards. 220.127.116.11 Industry Associations Only one Irish industry association was able to provide data regarding the activities of its member companies. The Consumer Electronic Distributors Association (CEDA) collects data regarding the sales of televisions in Ireland by way of a monthly survey of member companies. Only data for the years 1998 and 1999 are available as the survey was not conducted prior to this time. Page 19 of 90 18.104.22.168 Extrapolations From Other Countries’ Data More extensive data is available regarding sales of EEE in some other European countries from a wide range of sources. A number of these sources have been compiled for Germany, Austria, Denmark and Spain. An attempt was made to calculate corresponding figures for Ireland by extrapolation from some of these data sources. UK:Ireland Example By taking estimates for other EU member states we can extrapolate Irish sales data by using a simple population ratio equation. Using this method and the best available data from other EU countries, sales figures for Ireland were extrapolated. Population of UK: 60 million Population of Ireland: 3.6 million 60 ÷ 3.6 = 16.7 16.7 = UK to Ireland ratio Sources used for extrapolations included information from industry associations in the different countries, the European Information Technology Observatory (EITO), and Euromonitor. National data collected by government statistics offices was also used (Eurostat). However, it should be noted that extrapolations using this Eurostat data may be generally unsuitable for the same reasons as for Irish government statistics (see section 22.214.171.124 of this report). 2.2.2 Conclusions on Data Sources and Results Our investigation discovered a number of problems with the official statistics required to calculate the sales of EEE in Ireland. Primarily these are: • the unreliability of CSO data for the purpose of estimating sales figures and waste; • the differences in the classification methods used by the different departments within the CSO; and, • the confidentiality of some data. Market research data is available for a number of the selected EEE items. These market surveys are conducted by well established, international market research companies using a range of techniques to calculate sales. The data supplied by the market research companies reflects a generally acknowledged trend in the Irish IT market for an increase in sales over the last few years. Contact with industry confirmed that these market research results are considered industry standard. The extrapolations using a range of data for other participant European states revealed a range of results. Some of the calculations correlated well with those reported by the market research companies, while others did not. The results of the extrapolations obviously depend on the quality of the original data. Where problems have been discovered in the Irish CSO data, it is possible that similar problems exist in official statistical sources in the other EU states. This means that extrapolations based on official sources elsewhere may be problematic. Due to the wide range of data sources and the variance in quality, it has been decided to use a combination of different sources for different items. Table 4, below, shows the chosen sales figures and their corresponding sources. Where two sources have been used (e.g. Dataquest and IDC for PC’s) an average of the two sets of data has been given. Page 20 of 90 Table 4. Irish sales statistics for use in WEEE calculations Item 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Personal Computer Photocopiers Televisions 140,000 140,000 149,000 163,000 1995 1996 1997 139,937 170,667 14,000 14,000 14,000 166,000 195,000 1998 1999 Data Source 252,396 321,790 Average of Dataquest & IDC 14,000 14,000 Dataquest Euromonitor 1 200,000 230,000 CEDA Refrigerators and fridge freezers 114,000 103,000 96,000 98,500 114,250 Extrapolated from UK figures Average 133,590 141,648 Fluorescent Lamps Coffee Makers Toasters 153,300 168,600 194,000 AC Nielsen 1,382,252 1,486,546 1,867,315 1,895,276 1,093,610 2,486,671 168,000 171,000 161,000 13,700 15,600 14,200 101,000 106,000 125,000 14,300 CSO 12,900 AC Nielsen 158,000 1 Euromonitor 131,500 130,200 AC Nielsen CEDA figures have been rounded in order to preserve commercial confidentiality Figures 1 to 6, below, show these sales figures graphically. Simple trends have been calculated using regression analysis and due to the rapid changes taking place in the Irish economy should be considered with caution. Page 21 of 90 Sales of PC's in Ireland Sales of Televisions in Ireland 800,000 350,000 700,000 ? 300,000 ? 600,000 250,000 Units Units 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 100,000 0 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year Figure 1. Sales of PC's in Ireland Figure 2. Sales of televisions in Ireland Sales of Toasters in Ireland Sales of Refrigerators and Fridge/Freezers in Ireland 200,000 250,000 180,000 ? 160,000 ? 200,000 120,000 Units Units 140,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year Note: Two data sources Figure 3. Sales of fridge/freezers in Ireland Figure 4. Sales of toasters in Ireland Sales of Coffee Makers in Ireland Sales of Photocopiers in Ireland 18,000 16,000 16,000 14,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 Units Units 12,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 0 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Figure 5. Sales of coffee makers in Ireland Figure 6. Sales of photocopiers in Ireland Page 22 of 90 1999 2.3 CALCULATION OF WEEE ARISINGS IN IRELAND It was found that a number of different methods have been used throughout the world to estimate WEEE arisings. Each of these methods uses a different set of assumptions and variables and is described in detail in Appendix Three. The various methods are as follows: • • • • • • • The Market Supply Method. Calculates waste arisings using sales data together with average product lifetimes. The Market Supply A Method. The same as the Market Supply method but uses a distribution about the mean product lifetime. The Stanford Method. The same as the Market Supply method but considers the change in the average product lifetime. Particularly relevant to items of IT such as PC’s. The Carnegie Mellon Method. A refinement of the Market Supply method incorporating an examination of end-of-life disposal pathways. The Time Step Method. Calculates waste arisings using the principle of mass preservation. It uses sales data together with private and industry stock levels. The Estimate Method. Simplified method using stock levels together with average lifetimes. The ICER Method. Calculates waste arisings by estimating the number items being replaced by new sales. It should be noted that the Carnegie Mellon and Stanford method have only been applied to the PC data. Each method requires different variables in order to calculate WEEE arisings. Some of the information was readily available while some assumptions also had to be made, details of which can be found in Appendix Four. The variables required by the methods are: • • • • • • Average lifetime. A crucial variable required by both Market Supply methods, the Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and Estimate methods. Some assumptions were required in order to factor in consumer behaviour which strongly influences the lifetime of a product. Household penetration. This is the number of items per household and is required for the methods using stock levels in their calculations: the Time Step and Estimate methods. This information was readily available from market research companies. Population and household information. Number of households was required for the calculation of stock levels for the Time Step and Estimate methods. Industrial penetration. Required for the methods using stock levels in their calculations. Some data was available for PCs but lacking for other items. Assumptions were made regarding industrial penetration for refrigerators. Industrial penetration for the other items was considered negligible. Sales data gaps. Where sales information is missing or where future projections is required, simple linear trends have been calculated. Average weight. In order to calculate quantities of WEEE by weight some assumptions must be made regarding the average weight of each item. These are taken from previous studies of WEEE together with information from manufacturers. Only a limited number of methods could be applied to items such as fluorescent lamps, photocopiers, coffee makers and electric tools. It was therefore decided to limit our WEEE calculations to PCs, televisions, refrigerators and toasters. For each of these items there was good sales data together with good information for the variables outlined above. PCs were the only item for which sufficient data was available to run all seven of our calculation methods. 2.3.1 Calculation Results The charts below show the results of our WEEE calculations using the various methods mentioned above. The results presented in the graphs are given in units only while the tables Page 23 of 90 contain the upper and lower estimates of the calculation methods in both units and tonnes. The full tables of calculation results for each item can be found in Appendix Five. 126.96.36.199 Results for PC’s Estimated WEEE arisings from PC’s for the year 2000 range from 2,157 tonnes (the Carnegie method) to 7,777 tonnes (the Time Step method). The results of the Time Step method sit close to sales levels as does the Stanford method. The initial slow trend shown in the Stanford method is due to the lack of comprehensive historical sales data. The results of the Market Supply method lie considerably lower, at levels as low as 35% of the Stanford predictions (2002). The Market Supply A and the ICER methods both produce results close to the Market Supply method. The Carnegie Mellon are lower still, reflecting the more complex consideration of end-of-life dispositions factored into this calculation method. The Estimate predictions follow a pattern completely different to any of the other methods, probably because it is not linked to sales data like most of the other methods. Figure 5. Comparison of calculation models for PC Arisings 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 Units 600,000 Sales TimeStep Stanford ICER MktSupply Mkt Supply A Carnegie Estimate 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Page 24 of 90 Table 5. Upper and lower calculation results for PCs Year Upper estimate Units Tonnes 3,997 159,889 4,236 169,430 4,314 172,579 4,392 175,668 4,751 190,035 4,888 195,515 5,160 206,404 5,440 217,581 6,610 264,392 7,777 311,077 9,123 364,927 12,063 482,524 14,331 573,221 15,783 631,329 18,573 742,913 4,857,483 121,437 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Lower estimate Units Tonnes 836 33,422 928 37,136 1,032 41,262 1,146 45,847 1,274 50,941 1,415 56,601 1,572 62,890 1,747 69,877 1,941 77,642 2,157 86,268 2,396 95,854 2,701 108,022 3,158 126,302 3,612 144,470 4,249 169,971 1,206,504 30,163 Figure 6. Upper and lower arisings of PC‘s in Ireland 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 Tonnes 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Page 25 of 90 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 188.8.131.52 Results for Refrigerators Estimated WEEE arisings from refrigerators for the year 2000 range from 4,391 tonnes (the Estimate method) to 7,454 tonnes (the Time Step method). The Time Step method results again sits close to the level of sales, while the ICER method results are also at a high level. Comparison of the ICER results for PC’s and refrigerators shows the effects of the replacement factor used in this method. Refrigerators have a much higher replacement factor due to their market saturation and waste arisings therefore sit much closer to sales than with PC’s. The Estimate method results are closer to the Market Supply than they were in the PC’s example. This is due to the longer average lifetime of a refrigerator which effects the Estimate method. Again, the Market Supply and Market Supply A method follow the same trends. Figure 7. Comparison of calculation models for refrigerator arisings 400,000 Sales 350,000 Time Step ICER 300,000 Market Supply Mkt Supply A Estimate 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Page 26 of 90 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 5 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 4 3 Year 20 0 20 0 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 1 0 19 9 Units 250,000 Table 6. Upper and lower calculation results for refrigerators Year Upper estimate Units Tonnes 3,604 75,089 3,684 76,758 3,742 77,949 4,381 91,273 5,172 107,759 5,605 116,765 5,233 109,018 6,177 128,696 7,439 154,970 7,454 155,299 8,389 174,765 8,761 182,517 8,627 179,735 9,791 203,979 10,310 214,799 2,049,371 98,369 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Lower estimate Units Tonnes 3,461 72,100 3,226 67,200 3,310 68,950 3,802 79,217 3,872 80,663 3,943 82,145 4,081 85,015 4,181 87,101 4,284 89,254 4,391 91,477 3,763 78,400 4,613 96,111 4,778 99,534 4,899 102,058 5,024 104,666 1,283,891 61,628 Figure 8. Upper and lower arisings of refrigerators in Ireland 12,000 10,000 Tonnes 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Page 27 of 90 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 184.108.40.206 Results for Televisions Estimated WEEE arisings from televisions for the year 2000 range from 4,410 tonnes (the Estimate method) to 7,366 tonnes (the ICER method). The Time Step and ICER method results again sit close to the level of sales. The Market Supply and Market Supply A method results are at much lower levels. The Estimate method results again show the effect that a comparatively long product lifetime has on this method. Figure 9. Comparison of calculation models for television arisings 350,000 Sales ICER 300,000 Time Step Market Supply Mkt Supply A Estimate 250,000 Units 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Page 28 of 90 Table 7. Upper and lower calculation results for televisions Year Upper estimate Units Tonnes 4,410 126,000 4,410 126,000 4,694 134,100 5,135 146,700 5,229 149,400 6,143 175,500 6,297 179,924 6,452 184,349 7,249 207,118 7,366 210,452 7,727 220,785 8,089 231,117 8,451 241,450 8,812 251,783 9,174 262,116 2,846,794 99,638 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Lower estimate Units Tonnes 3,621 103,449 3,685 105,299 3,752 107,195 3,820 109,137 3,929 112,263 4,001 114,326 4,099 117,112 4,200 119,987 4,303 122,953 4,410 126,014 4,521 129,175 4,634 132,398 4,750 135,728 4,871 139,169 4,995 142,726 1,816,931 63,591 Figure 10. Upper and lower arisings for televisions in Ireland 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 Tonnes 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Page 29 of 90 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 220.127.116.11 Results for Toasters Estimated WEEE arisings from toasters for the year 2000 range from 101 tonnes (the Market Supply method) to 252 tonnes (the Estimate method). The results of the calculations for toasters are quite different to those for the other items of EEE. Firstly, sales do not exhibit the basic growth trend as with all the others. This is due to the use of two different sources for the sales figures. One from 1991 to 1994 sits much higher than from 1995 onwards. However, we also see that the Time Step, Market Supply, Market Supply A, and ICER methods predict similar levels from the year 2000 onwards. This appears to be due to the short lifetime and high market saturation of the toaster which brings the Market Supply predictions closer to that of the Time Step. The short lifetime and high market saturation level of the toaster is also the reason for the Estimate method producing such a high prediction. This result is indicative of the high sensitivity this method has to average lifetime. Figure 11. Comparison of calculation models for toasters 350,000 Sales Estimate Time Step 300,000 ICER Market Supply Mkt Supply A 250,000 Units 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Page 30 of 90 Table 8. Upper and lower calculation results for toasters Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Upper estimate Units Tonnes 209 209,010 213 212,748 217 216,577 221 220,502 225 224,525 229 228,651 234 234,224 240 239,973 246 245,905 252 252,028 258 258,350 265 264,797 271 271,457 278 278,339 285 285,453 3,642,539 3643 Lower estimate Units Tonnes 134 134,400 137 136,800 129 128,800 127 126,400 81 80,800 85 84,800 97 97,135 103 102,756 101 100,540 101 101,000 106 106,000 121 120,620 129 128,631 130 130,200 143 143,283 1,722,165 1724 Figure 12. Upper and lower arisings for toasters in Ireland 300 250 Tonnes 200 150 100 50 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Page 31 of 90 2.4 COMPARISON OF IRISH CALCULATIONS WITH COLLECTION TRIAL FINDINGS As discussed in section 1.6, a number of pilot projects for the collection of WEEE have been carried out in Europe. Because no WEEE collection studies have been made in Ireland it is interesting to compare the results of these “actual” results with our calculated ones. Table 9 and Table 10, below, show a summary of the collection rates per inhabitant for specific items of equipment together with the rates calculated for Ireland using the different methods. Table 9. Comparison of Irish calculations with European collection trials for televisions Source Bremen (Germany) Hannover (Germany) Rhone Alps (France) Strasbourg (France) Eindhoven (Netherlands) Flachgau (Austria) Weiz (Austria) Bregenz (Austria) Average of collection trials Irish lower estimate Irish upper estimate kg/person/year 0.60 0.30 0.70 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.42 1.03 0.5 1.11 1.70 Year of study/prediction 1997 1998 1995 1996 1998 1998 Table 10. Comparison of Irish calculations with European collection trials for refrigerators Source Bremen (Germany) Hannover (Germany) Flachgau (Austria) Weiz (Austria) Bregenz (Austria) Average of collection trials Irish lower estimate Irish upper estimate kg/person/year 1.2 0.60 0.80 0.49 0.43 0.59 1.1 1.63 Year of study/prediction 1997 1998 1995 1996 1998 1998 The average per capita collection rates for televisions in the European collection trials represent between 30 and 45% of the theoretical calculation for televisions in Ireland. For refrigerators the figures are 33 to 60% of Irish calculations. These rates of “actual” to “theoretical” WEEE arisings are consistent with the findings of other European studies (see for example Lohse et al, 1998 or ENEA, 1995). As discussed in section 1.6, the comparison of collection trial results with theoretical WEEE calculations is extremely difficult due to inconsistent methodologies. It is also likely that theoretical WEEE quantities will always be greater than actual collection quantities due to the export of WEEE and other factors such as less than full participation in collection trials. Any attempt to validate WEEE calculations with collection trial results will therefore be problematic. Page 32 of 90 2.5 TOTAL QUANTITY OF WEEE ARISING IN IRELAND A number of studies have examined the mix or composition of the WEEE waste stream. Typically it has been found that a large part of the waste (by weight) is made up of just two types of equipment: large household appliances, such as Small household appliances refrigerators, cookers and washing 3% machines, and IT equipment such as PC’s, printers, and copiers. Difficulties occur when attempting to identify the specific composition of the EEE waste stream as a large number of studies have produced a wide range of results. Also, the use of collection trial data is difficult because most trials have a limited range of equipment being studied, or have only broad categories of equipment. For the purposes of this investigation we have taken two studies, one being a full European study (AEA Technology, 1997) and the other being confined to the UK (ICER, 2000), and we have used an average of the two. IT Equipment 39% Large household appliances 43% Radio, TV, Audio 8% Monitoring and control 1% Tools 3% Lamps 1% Telecoms 1% Toys 1% Figure 13. Percentage composition (by weight) of the EEE waste stream (from ICER, 2000) Table 11. Contribution to WEEE composition (by weight) for key items: comparison of studies. Item PC Refrigerator/freezer Television Toaster TOTAL AEA Technology (1997) 6.3% 17.5% 8.8% 0.2% 32.8% ICER (2000) Average 10.6% 13% 5.2% 0.5% 29.3% 8.45% 15.25% 7% 0.35% 31.05% In order to extrapolate total quantities of WEEE in Ireland, the sum of the calculated arisings for PCs, refrigerators, TVs and toasters was assumed to represent 31.05% of the total WEEE arisings. Using this value the total WEEE arisings for Ireland was extrapolated. The calculations are shown in Table 12 below, and the results are represented in Figure 14 below. It can be seen that both the upper and lower estimates of WEEE arisings for Ireland exhibit a growth trend. For the year 2000 WEEE of between approximately 36,000 and 74,000 tonnes is predicted. Total WEEE arisings for Ireland for the period 1991 to 2005 = 505,000 to 1,040,000 tonnes, an average of 34,000 to 69,000 tonnes per annum. or, approximately 9 to 18 kg/inhabitant/year. Þ Þ Total municipal solid waste for Ireland in 1998 was predicted at 2,056,652 tonnes. WEEE therefore represents 1.65 to 3.36% of total MSW in Ireland. Þ Page 33 of 90 Table 12. Calculation of total WEEE potential for Ireland using the four items studied YEAR PCs (tonnes) upper lower Refrigerators (tonnes) upper lower Televisions (tonnes) upper lower Toasters TOTAL (tonnes) (31.05% of WEEE) upper lower upper lower WEEE TOTAL upper lower 836 3,604 3,461 4,410 3,621 209 134 12,220 8,051 39,357 25,930 4,236 928 3,684 3,226 4,410 3,685 213 137 12,543 7,976 40,397 25,688 4,314 1,032 3,742 3,310 4,694 3,752 217 129 12,967 8,222 41,762 26,480 1994 4,392 1,146 4,381 3,802 5,135 3,820 221 127 14,129 8,896 45,503 28,649 1995 4,751 1,274 5,172 3,872 5,229 3,929 225 81 15,377 9,155 49,524 29,486 1996 4,888 1,415 5,605 3,943 6,143 4,001 229 85 16,865 9,444 54,314 30,415 1997 5,160 1,572 5,233 4,081 6,297 4,099 234 97 16,924 9,849 54,506 31,720 1998 5,440 1,747 6,177 4,181 6,452 4,200 240 103 18,309 10,231 58,966 32,949 1999 6,610 1,941 7,439 4,284 7,249 4,303 246 101 21,543 10,629 69,383 34,233 2000 7,777 2,157 7,454 4,391 7,366 4,410 252 101 22,849 11,059 73,589 35,615 2001 9,123 2,396 8,389 3,763 7,727 4,521 258 106 25,497 10,787 82,116 34,739 2002 12,063 2,701 8,761 4,613 8,089 4,634 265 121 29,178 12,069 93,971 38,869 2003 14,331 3,158 8,627 4,778 8,451 4,750 271 129 31,680 12,814 102,028 41,270 2004 15,783 3,612 9,791 4,899 8,812 4,871 278 130 34,664 13,512 111,640 43,515 2005 18,573 4,249 10,310 5,024 9,174 4,995 285 143 38,342 14,411 123,485 46,413 TOTAL 121,437 30,163 98,370 61,627 99,638 63,591 3643 1724 323,088 1991 3,997 1992 1993 157,104 1,040,541 505,972 Figure 14. Upper and lower WEEE potential for Ireland 140,000 WEEE upper 120,000 WEEE lower Tonnes 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Page 34 of 90 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2.6 MATERIAL COMPOSITION 2.6.1 Overall WEEE Material Composition Given the diverse range of materials found in items of WEEE it is extremely difficult to give a generalised material composition for the entire waste stream. However, a number of studies have attempted to do so. Most studies, when investigating the material composition of WEEE Other examine five categories of materials: ferrous 21% metals, non-ferrous metals, glass, plastic and “other”. As can be seen from Figure 15 and Table Plastic 14, ferrous metals account for the largest portion of 22% materials in WEEE, with plastics also making a large contribution. Ferrous Glass 6% metals 47% However, given the range of equipment that falls under the description of WEEE it is clear that this Non-ferrous average composition will differ greatly between metals 4% items. Table 13, below, gives the composition of six different categories of WEEE. As can be seen, items that fall under the categories of Figure 15. Material composition of WEEE large household appliances and IT equipment (ICER, 2000) have a high ferrous metal content when compared with other categories. Telecommunications equipment and small household appliances, by contrast, have a high plastics content. Table 13. Material composition (by weight) of six different categories of equipment Equipment category Large household appliances Small household appliances IT equipment Telecomms TV, Radio etc. Gas discharge lamps Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Plastics Other 61% 7% 3% 9% 21% 19% 1% 0% 48% 32% 43% 13% 11% 2% 0% 7% 2% 2% 4% 0% 35% 89% 30% 74% 31% 3% 20% 6% 22% 3% Source: ICER, 2000 Table 14. Material composition of WEEE Material type Iron and steel Aluminium Copper Other metals (non-ferrous) Metals total Flame retarded plastic Non-flame retarded plastic Plastics total Glass Rubber Wood & plywood Concrete & ceramics Printed circuit boards Other TOTAL Other 5% Composition (wt%) 47.9 4.7 7.0 1.0 60.6 5.3 15.3 20.6 5.4 0.9 2.6 2.0 3.1 4.6 100.0 Source: Taberman et al, 1995 Page 35 of 90 Printed circuit boards 3% Concrete & ceramics 2% Wood & plywood 3% Rubber 1% Glass 5% Iron and steel 48% Non-flame retarded plastic 15% Flame retarded plastic 5% Other metals (non-ferrous) 1% Copper 7% Aluminium 5% 2.6.2 Material Waste Arisings We can see from section 2.6.1, above, that generalisations regarding the material composition of WEEE are difficult to make. The composition of WEEE today is a result of the production choices made up to 30 years ago. This is why today’s waste from EEE is extremely heterogenous (ENEA, 1995). However, it is necessary for us to use an average WEEE composition in order to examine material flows in the waste stream. To examine the material composition of every individual item of EEE, with variations through time, would be a difficult and laborious task. In order to examine the material flows in Ireland we have used the study of the Nordic Council of Ministers (Taberman et al, 1995). Using the material composition shown in Table 14, above, together with our waste calculations we can calculate the arisings of specific materials from WEEE in Ireland. Table 15, below, gives the upper and lower estimates for quantities of each material arising from WEEE in Ireland in 2000. Table 16, on the following page, gives the upper and lower estimates for total quantities of material in the period 1991 to 2005. Table 15. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland for the year 2000 Material type Composition (wt%) Iron and steel Aluminium Copper Other metals (non-ferrous) Metals total Flame retarded plastic Non-flame retarded plastic Plastics total Glass Rubber Wood & plywood Concrete & ceramics Printed circuit boards Other TOTAL 47.9 4.7 7.0 1.0 60.6 5.3 15.3 20.6 5.4 0.9 2.6 2.0 3.1 4.6 100.0 Arisings (tonnes) Upper Lower 35,249 15,994 3,459 1,569 5,151 2,337 736 334 44,595 20,235 3,900 1,770 11,259 5,109 15,159 6,879 3,974 1,803 662 301 1,913 868 1,472 668 2,281 1,035 3,385 1,536 73,589 35,615 Figure 16. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland in 2000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 Upper Tonnes Lower 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Iron and steel Aluminium Copper Other metals Flame retarded (non-ferrous) plastic Non-flame retarded plastic Page 36 of 90 Glass Rubber W ood & plywood Concrete & ceramics Printed circuit boards Other Table 16. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland 1991-2005 Material type Composition (wt%) Iron and steel Aluminium Copper Other metals (non-ferrous) Metals total Flame retarded plastic Non-flame retarded plastic Plastics total Glass Rubber Wood & plywood Concrete & ceramics Printed circuit boards Other TOTAL 47.9 4.7 7.0 1.0 60.6 5.3 15.3 20.6 5.4 0.9 2.6 2.0 3.1 4.6 100.0 Arisings (tonnes) Upper Lower 498,419 242,361 48,905 23,781 72,838 35,418 10,405 5,060 630,568 306,619 55,149 26,817 159,203 77,414 214,351 104,230 56,189 27,323 9,365 4,554 27,054 13,155 20,811 10,119 32,257 15,685 47,865 23,275 1,040,541 505,972 Figure 17. Material arisings from WEEE in Ireland 1991-2005 600,000 500,000 Upper Tonnes 400,000 Lower 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Iron and steel Aluminium Copper Other metals Flame retarded (non-ferrous) plastic Non-flame retarded plastic Glass Page 37 of 90 Rubber W ood & plywood Concrete & ceramics Printed circuit boards Other 2.6.3 Specific Materials Arising in Ireland Using the material flows approach we can calculate arisings of specific materials within the EEE waste stream. We have used both the upper and lower estimates of arisings throughout this section. 18.104.22.168 Ferrous Metals Ferrous metals, iron and steel, are the most common materials found in EEE and they account for almost half of the total weight of WEEE. The majority of ferrous metal content in items of EEE is steel used in outer housings, frames, supports and other internal structures (ICER, 2000). Large household appliances (61%), IT equipment (43%) and small household appliances (19%) are the categories particularly high in ferrous metal content. Ferrous metals are important constituents of WEEE because they are plentiful, fully recyclable, and easily separated from other materials. Calculation of Ferrous Metals Arisings From WEEE in Ireland 242,000 to 498,000 tonnes of ferrous metals between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 16,000 to 33,000 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 4.2 to 8.7 kg/inhabitant/year 22.214.171.124 Non-ferrous Metals Non-ferrous metals, including precious metals, represent only 13% of WEEE but are an important consideration when examining this waste stream. They are used more sparingly than ferrous metals because they are more expensive and have different properties. The most important non-ferrous metal, by weight, is copper (over half of all non-ferrous metal found in WEEE is copper). It is found in cables, wiring and electric motors. Other important metals include lead (found in solder, the glass of TV screens, and cathode ray tubes) and aluminium (cases, heatsinks, frames and motors). Mercury is also found in WEEE, mostly in fluorescent tubes (gas discharge lamps), but also in tilt switches and relays. Precious metals, in particular silver, platinum, gold, and palladium are used in coatings on electrical contacts and connectors (ICER, 2000). These metals are important because they are valuable and can be extracted and reused. Calculation of Non-ferrous Metals Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 64,000 to 132,000 tonnes of non-ferrous metals between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 4,300 to 8,800 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 1.1 to 2.3 kg/inhabitant/year Of this, 35,000 to 73,000 tonnes will be copper Þ Þ An average of 2,400 to 4,900 tonnes per year Or, approximately 0.6 to 1.3 kg/inhabitant/year Page 38 of 90 126.96.36.199 Plastics Plastics are the second largest component by weight, accounting for approximately 21% of WEEE. There are many types of plastics used in the manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment. The proportion and types of plastics used vary not only from one product category to another, but also among similar products manufactured in different years. A wide variety of plastic materials are used by the EEE industry. The primary polymers are PVC, ABS, HIPS, PC, HDPE, PP and nylon (ICER, 2000) and these can be found as single polymers or as laminates/composites. In addition to these, many other plastics whose details are secret or not well known contribute to the final composition of a plastic component (ENEA, 1995). The materials content of plastics is further complicated by the addition of flame retardants. A flame retardant is a compound or a mixture of compounds that, if added or chemically incorporated in a polymer, prevents ignition or flame-maintenance. Plastic that contains flame retardants, particularly brominated flame retardants (BFRs), is one of the most environmentally problematic fractions of WEEE. Brominated flame retardants are discussed further in section 188.8.131.52, below. Calculation of Plastics Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 104,000 to 214,000 tonnes of plastics between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 6,900 to 14,000 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 1.8 to 3.7 kg/inhabitant/year Of this, 27,000 to 55,000 tonnes will be flame retarded plastic Þ Þ An average of 1,800 to 3,600 tonnes per year Or, approximately 0.5 to 0.95 kg/inhabitant/year 184.108.40.206 Glass Glass accounts for around 5.4% of the total weight of WEEE. A large proportion of this glass comes from cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in televisions and computer monitors. Glass is easy to recycle but glass from CRTs and monitors is mixed with metal oxides (for ray absorption) and other additives. A cathode ray tube, for example, contains up to 20% lead oxide (ENEA, 1995). These impurities create problems for recovery. Of the 5.4% glass in WEEE, it has been estimated that 4.9% is CRTs with only 0.5% being ordinary glass (Taberman, et al, 1995). The proportion of this glass that is from CRTs is discussed in more detail in section 220.127.116.11, below. Calculation of Glass Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 27,000 to 56,000 tonnes of glass between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 1,800 to 3,700 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 0.5 to 1 kg/inhabitant/year Page 39 of 90 2.6.4 Specific Components Arising from WEEE in Ireland There are a number of components in the electrical and electronic equipment waste stream that present particular environmental and waste management problems and require identification in the material flow model. 18.104.22.168 Printed Circuit Boards Printed circuit boards (PCBs) are complex in their chemical composition and pose a problem for the waste management and recycling industry. They are “by far the most complicated building blocks of the electric products” (Hedemalm et al, 1995). They account for approximately 3% of WEEE and they are present in several categories of electrical and electronic equipment, including computer systems, medical equipment, office equipment, telecommunications, toys and TV/audio equipment. Calculation of Printed Circuit Board Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 16,000 to 32,000 tonnes of printed circuit boards between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 1,100 to 2,100 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 0.3 to 0.55 kg/inhabitant/year A 1995 Nordic investigation (Taberman et al., 1995) examined a number of studies into sources of PCBs and their composition. Table 17 below, shows the finding of the Taberman investigation together with our calculation for Irish arisings. Table 17. The main sources of PCB’s in WEEE, and arisings in Ireland from each source (after Taberman et al, 1995). PCB source Computers Colour TVs Industrial installations and control devices Telephones Static radios Tape recorders Calculators Portable stereos Amplifiers Video recorders Share of PCB total (wt%) Annual material arisings in Ireland (tonnes) 19.23 10.55 9.95 Upper 404 222 209 Lower 212 116 109 7.07 6.34 6.14 5.12 5.13 4.70 3.86 148 133 129 108 108 99 81 78 70 68 56 56 52 42 Printed circuit boards differ widely in their composition and a comprehensive analysis is difficult to produce with any great degree of accuracy. Consideration of materials arising from PCBs should be approached with caution due to the constant changes in technology and materials. A printed circuit board is made up of any combination of a number of subcomponents, including chips (integrated circuits), capacitors, resistors, inductors, relays, soldering/adhesives and lighted indicators. A basic composition of a printed circuit board using broad materials groupings is shown in Figure 18, right. Page 40 of 90 Paper and liquids 1% Metals 33% Ceramics and glass 33% Plastics 33% Figure 18. Average composition of a printed circuit board (after ENEA, 1995) Some analyses have been made of printed circuit boards metal content (Taberman et al, 1995) and Table 18 below, represents a combination of four such studies. The composition is only a rough estimate devised from a limited number of sources and our extrapolations of Irish arisings should therefore be treated with caution. They nevertheless give us a useful indication of the quantities of some hazardous substances such as copper, lead, mercury and bromine produced by waste printed circuit boards. Table 18. Estimated amounts of certain elements from the PCB fraction of WEEE (after Taberman, et al, 1995) Element Share of PCB total (wt%) Annual material arisings (tonnes) Upper Aluminium Copper Iron Nickel Lead Tin Zinc Silver Gold Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Palladium Bromine Chlorine Antimony Mercury TOTAL 5.8 9.7 9.2 0.69 2.24 2.15 1.16 0.060 0.023 0.003 0.014 0.052 0.010 2.03 0.24 0.35 0.0009 33.8 122.6 203.8 194.1 14.5 47.1 45.1 24.4 1.25 0.485 0.062 0.297 1.10 0.218 42.6 5.10 7.38 0.019 709.9 Lower 64.2 106.7 101.7 7.58 24.7 23.6 12.8 0.654 0.254 0.032 0.156 0.577 0.114 22.3 2.68 3.87 0.0098 371.8 22.214.171.124 Brominated Flame Retardants We have estimated that between 1,800 and 3,600 tonnes of flame retarded plastics will arise each year in Ireland. Assuming that all of this plastic is technical thermoplastic with no content of thermoset, Taberman et al (1995), estimated quantities of brominated flame retardants. The most commonly used flame retardant system in thermoplastics is a combination of antimony trioxide (Sb2O3) and a brominated organic compound. The antimony trioxide forms about 5% of the thermoplastic by weight, and the brominated compound around 18% by weight (Taberman et al, 1995). Predominantly the brominated compounds used in thermoplastics are penta-, octa-, or decabrominated diphenylether, or, more rarely hexabromobenzene, pentabromotoluene and octabromodiphenyle. All of these contain around 80% bromine by weight. Using the assumption (based on technical data) that flame retarded thermoplastics contain 18% brominated flame retardants and 5% antimony trioxide, and that of the brominated flame retardants 80% is bromine, we can calculate quantities arising in Ireland. The results are shown in Table 19, below. It should be noted that these quantities do not include arisings of brominated flame retardants from printed circuit boards. Table 19. Annual bromine and antimony trioxide arisings from flame retarded thermo-plastics in Ireland Material Bromine Antimony-trioxide (Sb2O3) Annual material arisings (tonnes) Upper Lower 518.4 180 259.2 90 Page 41 of 90 126.96.36.199 Cathode Ray Tubes Cathode ray tube (CRT) technology is used in both televisions and computer monitors. A CRT can be thought of as having four parts: the cone, the screen, the connection between them, and the electronics (ENEA, 1995). They are made of two or even three types of glass containing ray-absorbing metal oxides (such as PbO, BaO, SrO). However, there is a large difference in the glass formulas used by various producers of CRTs and an average composition is given in Table 20 below, and shows the wide variety of compounds found in CRT glass. We have established (in section 188.8.131.52) that 5.4% of WEEE by weight is glass. However, in order to calculate materials arising from CRTs in WEEE we need to ascertain the amount of CRTs being disposed of. An examination of glass sources by Taberman et al (1995), found that most (79%) of the glass in WEEE comes from brown goods which is almost entirely cathode ray tubes, both black and white and colour. Using the assumption that 95% of endof-life televisions are colour, they calculated that the 5.4% of glass from WEEE is made up of 4.9% CRTs, and only 0.5% is ordinary glass. Calculation of Cathode Ray Tube Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 25,000 to 51,000 tonnes of CRTs between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 1,700 to 3,400 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 0.45 to 0.9 kg/inhabitant/year Taking a normal 20 inch CRT to contain 4.4kg cone glass and 8.6kg face plate glass, and that 4.9% of WEEE by weight is CRT glass (1,700 to 3,400 tonnes per annum), material amounts may be calculated. Table 20 below shows the upper and lower results for Ireland Table 20. Annual material arisings from CRT glass in Ireland. Compound SiO2 SrO Na2O K2O BaO PbO Al2O3 CaO CeO ZrO2 MgO TiO2 As2O3 Sb2O3 CeO2 Fe2O3 Total Average cone composition (wt%) 58.45% 0.36% 6.97% 7.68% 1.95% 17.67% 3.48% 2.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% Trace 100 Average face plate composition (wt%) 59.95% 9.59% 8.15% 7.67% 5.76% 1.73% 3.26% 1.82% 1.2% 0.86% 0.00% Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace 99.99 Annual material arisings (tonnes) Upper Lower 1412.6 153.7 184.2 182.3 106.2 169.3 79.2 48.0 18.9 13.5 5.8 Trace Trace 2.5 Trace Trace 2,376.2 706.3 76.8 92.1 91.2 53.1 84.7 39.6 24.0 9.4 6.8 2.9 Trace Trace 1.2 Trace Trace 1,188.1 The inside of the screen and the outside of the cone are also coated with a film of fluorescent material (pigment), typically phosphides or sulphides of zinc, yttrium, europium and cadmium. In older tubes, the fluorescent coating was mainly cadmium and zinc sulphide, while in more recent models, zinc sulphide is the most common (ENEA, 1995). Page 42 of 90 184.108.40.206 PVC PVC is a source of chlorine when waste is incinerated, and is therefore an important component of WEEE to consider. However, it is difficult to estimate the PVC content of plastic. On German study for example states that the consumption of PVC by the electronics industry in Germany is 21.9% by weight of total plastics consumption, while another German study found that there is only 0.8% by weight PVC in the mix of large plastic parts from collected end-of-life products. The discrepancy between these finding may be explained somewhat by the large quantity of PVC used in cabling. Taberman et al (1995) state that 510% by weight PVC in the plastic fraction of WEEE is considered a good estimate. We have estimated that 6,900 to 14,000 tonnes a year of plastic will arise from WEEE in Ireland. We have calculated PVC arisings using an assumed 7.5% of plastic in WEEE. Calculation of PVC Arisings from WEEE in Ireland 7,800 to 16,000 tonnes of PVC between 1991 and 2005; Þ Þ an average of 518 to 1,050 tonnes a year. Or, approximately 0.14 to 0.28 kg/inhabitant/year Page 43 of 90 CHAPTER 3 - WEEE MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND The electrical and electronic equipment recycling industry in Ireland is relatively underdeveloped compared with other European countries. This is probably due to the small size of the country which limits the economic base available for profitable recycling. This is exacerbated by the island nature of the country. There is a well established industry for the recycling of large household appliances, along with other metal-rich equipment. Essentially there are two sectors of the recycling industry dealing with electrical and electronic equipment: large shredder operators and smaller, specialist recyclers. In order to assess the state of play of EEE recycling in Ireland we undertook a survey of companies operating in the field. A telephone survey of the EEE recycling industry was conducted as part of this project. Local Authorities were also surveyed to gather information about WEEE management practices at landfills and civic amenity sites throughout the country. 3.1 SHREDDERS Shredders are part of the general ferrous scrap industry. Also known as fragmentisers, these large hammermills are designed to shred a mixed stream of metal-rich items including; endof-life vehicles, household appliances and other light iron (ICER, 2000). They produce a clean shredded metal product as well as a mixed non-ferrous product which is sent for further processing in a heavy media plant. In Ireland this recycled metal is sold to one company who is Light iron the only buyer of such product, or 25% exported. The shredders also produce a waste stream, known as “fluff”, comprising dirt, glass, concrete, rubber End-of-life Large vehicles and plastics. household 60% Of the items of EEE, shredders handle large household appliances such as cookers, washing machines and refrigerators. This equipment is recycled because it has a scrap metal value which exceeds the costs associated with collection and processing. appliances 15% Figure 19. Inputs to shredders (from ICER, 2000) There are currently 3 shredders in operation in Ireland (Limerick, Cork, Dublin), with a further 2 located in Northern Ireland (Belfast and Armagh). They have a combined capacity of 4,810 kW (6,500 hp) in the south and 3,700 kW (5,000 hp) in the north. Using a rough guide of 30kW hours per tonne and 50 working weeks per year (ICER, 2000), this gives a combined shredding capacity of about 320,000 tonnes in the Republic of Ireland and 250,000 tonnes in Northern Ireland. In addition to shredder operators there are several firms that act as metal processors, traditionally known as scrap metal dealers. These companies operate mechanical shears for the dismantling of metal items and often handle white goods. There are currently 7 such operators in Ireland. Page 44 of 90 3.2 SPECIALIST RECYCLERS A telephone survey of companies in Ireland that recycle WEEE found 10 companies providing specialist recycling services for a wide range of equipment. These are contained within the list of recyclers in Appendix Six. There are two main types of specialist EEE recyclers in Ireland: those that simply collect items for export to countries with more advanced recycling systems and those that extract components and materials for recycling. Indicative of the small recycling infrastructure in Ireland, the majority of companies fall into the first category. In addition to these recyclers, there are a small number of companies and organisations that refurbish equipment for re-use. The majority of specialist EEE recyclers in Ireland handle IT equipment. This is because there are good markets for re-selling equipment, often overseas, and also because many of the materials that can be recovered have a high value. Essentially there are three options for the treatment of a discarded computer. The first is to resell the equipment. Often these resale operations are linked to asset management programmes run by manufacturers, large corporations and institutions. In Ireland some of these resale operations are run in parallel with recycling. As equipment comes in for processing, it is tested and assessed for resale. The old machine is cleaned up and refurbished, then sold. One Irish company estimates that 50 to 70% of its incoming PCs are treated this way. It is also worth noting that the majority of these refurbished systems are exported for sale, often to Eastern Europe or Asia. The second option available is the recycling of the computer. Recyclers have understood the value of computer recovery for many years. While PC’s are highly complex mixtures of numerous materials, until recently they typically contained enough precious metals to allow for a volume-based scrap recovery process . One tonne of printed circuit boards (PCB’s) for example, yields approximately 284 grams of gold (Broughton, 1996). Common practice in Ireland is to isolate printed circuit boards, secure them (often by drilling a hole through), and then export them for precious metal recovery overseas. We are not aware of any company in Ireland that currently extracts precious metals from EEE themselves. This may be because electronics recycling is a very labour intensive industry with significant environmental and regulatory compliance issues, making it difficult to keep costs low. Over the last several years the computer industry has cut its use of precious metals by as much as 90% in order to reduce costs (Biddle, 2000). At the same time the amount and variety of plastics being used in PC’s has increased. This shift in available material has made it more difficult for computer scrap recyclers to operate effectively. In the United States it is generally felt amongst the industry that greater volumes of material along with more advanced processing technologies will be needed in order to continue to make a profit. The third option available for the treatment of PCs is demanufacturing. It is a common method used in the Irish WEEE industry. Demanufacturing is the practice of dismantling computers into their constituent components, removing and testing chips, hard drives, CDROM drives, circuit boards etc. Once removed and tested, components are cleaned, sometimes repaired, repackaged and sold as useful parts. One problem encountered in the demanufacturing of equipment is fluctuations in the value of chips and component parts. A good example of this is the global price of random access memory (RAM), which has fallen from approximately US$8 per four megabyte single inline memory module (SIMM) in the early nineties to just US$1 (Biddle, 2000). Most computer treatment operations in Ireland utilise all three approaches when dealing with discarded computers. A PC is first assessed for potential refurbishment and resale. Unsuitable machines are demanufactured and components are resold or exported for recycling. Often in Ireland, components are stored until sufficient quantity has been accumulated and then shipped overseas for material recovery. Page 45 of 90 A major problem in the recycling of computer monitors and televisions is the cathode ray tube (CRT). A CRT from a colour television contains two types of glass: the cone glass has a high lead content (typically 10-25%), and the screen glass contains barium (typically 2-14%). The main problem for recycling CRTs has been identifying markets or uses for the two types of glass (AEA Technology, 1997). The US EPA however is advocating glass-to-glass recycling of CRTs; “In addition to removing lead from the municipal waste stream, by supplying lead for CRT glass manufacturing, glass-to-glass recycling avoids mining and processing raw lead from ore. Industry experts estimate that US CRT glass manufacturers could use up to 300,000 tonnes of recycled CRT glass annually. Most of this capacity is currently unused” (US EPA, 1998). There is currently only one company in Ireland that can process cathode ray tubes, and this is only done in a small capacity. The majority of televisions and computer monitors are being exported whole for CRT processing in countries such as Great Britain, Germany and the United States. Fluorescent lamps are recycled using a special process. Currently there is only one such specialised recycler in Ireland. A number of companies collect lamps but simply act as transfer stations, exporting them to recycling plants in the UK or mainland Europe. The vast majority of equipment processed by specialist recyclers come from the commercial sector. These are usually producers who operate takeback schemes or want to dispose of surplus stock, or large companies who want to dispose of their waste responsibly. Currently there is very little equipment being sourced from the domestic market because there are no mechanisms for recyclers to obtain a steady supply of equipment. The setting up of collection systems linked to recycling companies is currently being examined in a number of local authority areas in Ireland and these are discussed in section 3.3, below. The capacity of the specialist recyclers in Ireland is very difficult to measure. Due to the small and competitive nature of the Irish market the companies were understandably reluctant to detail quantities moving through their operations. In the UK, the lack of commercial return for recycling some types of equipment is widely seen as the limiting factor to expanding capacity (ICER, 2000) and this is also the case in Ireland. However, it is likely that with sufficient demand (resulting from the impending European legislation) returns on recycled materials may become more viable. 3.3 MANAGEMENT OF WEEE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES In order to assess the current management practices of the 36 local authorities in Ireland we distributed a questionnaire regarding WEEE. We received 20 responses (56%) from local authorities representing 65% (2,349,573) of the total Irish population. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix Seven. Around half of the respondent local authorities impose some kind of restriction on the acceptance of WEEE at their landfill sites. These restrictions varied from area to area, with most targeting just white goods and fluorescent lamps. Only one landfill site specifically does not accept computer systems and one landfill accepts no WEEE at all. Approximately 70% of the responding local authorities operate schemes for the separate collection of items of WEEE. The majority of the schemes take the form of collection points sited at civic amenity sites or landfills and target white goods only (80%). Some target refrigerators only, and 25% collect fluorescent lamps. Only two authorities (Galway and Louth County Councils) provide a collection facility for all types of WEEE. One authority promotes a twice yearly collection day for white goods at their area offices. Twelve of the local authorities (60%) have initiatives planned for improving the management of WEEE. The majority of these proposals are for collection facilities at planned civic amenity Page 46 of 90 sites. Three authorities are currently planning significant initiatives for the management of WEEE: (a) Fingal County Council. A local authority partnership with two private sector recycling companies is proposed, involving the establishment of a collection/storage point at an existing civic amenity site for computer equipment and possibly general consumer electronics. (b) Louth County Council. An existing private sector recycling operation is based at a civic amenity site and accepts all white goods free of charge. This system has been successful and it is planned to expand the facility to provide for the free collection of televisions, computers, consumer electronics and fluorescent lamps. (c) Dublin Corporation. A partnership project is proposed which will involve the local authority, a private sector recycling company, a social economy enterprise and a community project. The proposal aims to create a sustainable model for the recycling and reuse of computer waste. It is anticipated to be commercially viable as well as providing training and employment for disadvantaged people. Three first stage collection and treatment centres will be set up, including a service to actively collect waste from commercial and domestic sources. These will be linked to a second stage “secure” disposal centre. Refurbishment will also allow distribution of low-cost equipment to low-income communities. Specific questions were asked with regard to refrigerators as this item of WEEE is the most commonly collected due to the presence of CFC gas. It was anticipated that local authorities would have good knowledge of management practices and quantities being processed. The majority stated that the standard practice of degassing refrigerators prior to landfilling or recycling is taking place. Some, however, note that virtually all refrigerators arrive at their sites punctured or damaged so that CFC gas has already escaped. 35% of authorities do not degas before disposal. Page 47 of 90 CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Following our investigation into the arisings of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Ireland, a number of conclusions and recommendations can be made regarding this waste stream. Some of these may also be applicable to similar waste investigations. SALES DATA • • • • Official government statistics from the Central Statistics Office were found to be problematic and generally unsuitable for estimating sales figures and waste arisings. Any similar attempts to calculate sales using government statistics on production and foreign trade in Ireland should be approached with caution as a number of unsolved problems remain with the data. Data from market research companies were found to be more realistic and were mostly selected for use in our waste calculations. A combination of different sources for different items appears to be the most appropriate way to establish sales data. SALES TRENDS • • The growth in sales of personal computers in Ireland is dramatic, with annual increases of 20-30%, exceeding the growth levels of many other European countries. The dynamic nature of this market, caused by rapid technology changes and increasing market penetration, means that computer systems are an important item for waste management consideration. More established household items such as refrigerators and televisions exhibit a more steady growth trend, although this growth is greater than other European countries due to the recent population growth and associated housing growth in Ireland. WASTE CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES • • • • There have been a number of international investigations which have applied a variety of waste calculation methods. Each method requires some assumptions to be made and therefore contains some uncertainties. Application of the various calculation methods to the Irish data produced a wide range of results, none of which can be selected with confidence as being the most realistic prediction of WEEE, in the absence of reliable information on actual WEEE arisings. Results have therefore been presented as upper and lower estimates with the actual quantity of waste arising probably sitting somewhere between these levels. Ideally we need to calibrate waste calculation models with data on actual WEEE arisings. There is a need to enhance the limited existing collection of statistics regarding WEEE at landfills, civic amenity sites and recyclers by conducting collection trials. WASTE QUANTITIES • • European studies have previously estimated WEEE arisings between 12 and 20 kg per inhabitant per year. Review of WEEE collection trial projects has shown that typical collection yields of total WEEE average around 3 to 5 kg per inhabitant per annum. However, comparison of these values with theoretical waste arisings is difficult due to the variation in collection methodologies and equipment targeted by the trials. Page 48 of 90 • Our calculations found the following average annual levels of WEEE arisings for the specific items studied in the period 1991 to 2005: Item Personal Computer Refrigerator Television Toaster • • Upper average annual arisings (tonnes) 8,096 6,558 6,643 243 Lower average annual arisings (tonnes) 2,011 4,109 4,239 115 Using these results together with an average composition of WEEE it is estimated that: - in the period 1991 to 2005 between 505,000 and 1,040,000 tonnes of WEEE will be produced. - This equates to an average of 34,000 to 69,000 tonnes per annum - Or, 9 to 18 kg per inhabitant per annum. The EEE waste stream therefore represents between 1.7 and 3.4% of total municipal solid waste in Ireland. MATERIALS ARISING FROM THE EEE WASTE STREAM Material Ferrous Metals Non-ferrous Metals Copper Plastic Flame Retarded Plastic Bromine Glass Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1991-2005 Annual average (tonnes) 242,000 to 498,000 64,000 to 132,000 35,000 to 73,000 104,000 to 214,000 27,000 to 55,000 (tonnes per year) 16,000 to 33,000 4,300 to 8,800 2,400 to 4,900 6,900 to 14,000 1,800 to 3,600 259 to 518 1,800 to 3,700 518 to 1,050 27,000 to 56,000 7,800 to 16,000 Waste per inhabitant per year (kg/inhabitant/year) 4.2 to 8.7 1.1 to 2.3 0.6 to 1.3 1.8 to 3.7 0.5 to 0.95 0.07 to 0.14 0.5 to 1.0 0.14 to 0.28 COMPONENTS ARISING FROM THE WEEE STREAM Component Printed Circuit Boards Cathode Ray Tubes 1991-2005 Annual average (tonnes) 16,000 to 32,000 25,000 to 51,000 (tonnes per year) 1,100 to 2,100 1,700 to 3,400 Waste per inhabitant per year (kg/inhabitant/year) 0.30 to 0.55 0.45 to 0.9 WEEE MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND • There are two distinct types of WEEE recycler in Ireland: • Scrap metal processors and shredders who deal with a range of products from which they separate ferrous and non-ferrous metals before disposing of residual waste. - There are currently an estimated 9 scrap metal processors in the Republic of Ireland, including 3 shredders. The shredders have a combined capacity of approximately 320,000 tonnes. - These recyclers process WEEE that is metal rich, such as refrigerators and washing machines. Page 49 of 90 - • • • • • • • Their recycled metal is then either exported or sold to the sole buyer of such product in Ireland. Specialist recyclers who process the more complex items of WEEE such as computers and televisions. These recyclers separate components of the equipment for resale or recycling, or refurbish used components for resale. They may also refurbish entire systems for resale. - There are currently an estimated 10 specialist WEEE recyclers in Ireland - The majority of specialist recyclers in Ireland deal in computers and their associated peripherals. - There is a lack of infrastructure for the recycling of cathode ray tubes and those collected are almost all exported to the UK or mainland Europe for recycling. - The vast majority of equipment processed by specialist recyclers comes from the commercial sector due to the lack of supply from household sources. - The capacity of specialist recyclers in Ireland is currently unknown. Local authorities in Ireland operate civic amenity sites and landfills and are therefore involved in the management of WEEE. Approximately 70% of local authorities responding to our survey operate programmes specifically for the separate management of WEEE These mostly take the form of collection points at civic amenity sites which target white goods or refrigerators only. Only two authorities provide collection facilities for all types of WEEE. Around 60% of responding local authorities have initiatives planned for improving the management of WEEE in their area. Many of these are collection points to be located on planned civic amenity sites. Three authorities propose significant WEEE collection and management systems, involving both the public and private sector. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Systematic long-term WEEE collection trials should be undertaken by selected local authorities to gather reliable information about actual WEEE arisings in order to validate predictions of waste arisings. They would also identify the cost implications of such collections. 2. These collection trials could be integrated into trials of equipment, component and material recovery schemes. These would be useful national trials prior to the introduction of any EU Directive, and would be of value to the industry. 3. Waste estimation would be improved by the harmonisation of classification systems between the different trade and production statistical systems to facilitate easier use of the two data sets in sales calculations. Page 50 of 90 RECOMMENDED GENERAL ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY As a result of the experience of investigating the status of WEEE in Ireland we have developed a methodological framework that may be applicable to similar studies of products or product groups: i. Obtain data on sales from as many of the following sources: • Government statistics offices • Market research companies • Industry associations • Media However, the limitations of these data sources for the purposes of estimating sales and, by extension, waste arisings, must be kept in mind, particularly the limitations of the official statistics. Some investigation into the data collection methods utilised by each source is advisable. ii. Compare all the sales data sets and select the most appropriate, based on an assessment of the data collection methodologies and knowledge of the industry. iii. Set the assumptions and variables for the different methods of waste calculation: • • • • • Number of households (from government statistics) Saturation levels for each product (from market research handbooks) Average lifetime for each product (estimate using a variety of sources) Industrial penetration for each product (from market research information) Average weight for each product (estimate using a variety of sources) Information may not be available for all assumptions and variable required for all products. This may mean that some calculation models can not be applied to some products. iv. Apply as many of the relevant calculation methods as possible. v. Assess the results and present the upper and lower results as a “best” and “worst” case scenario. Page 51 of 90 REFERENCES AEA Technology (1997) Recovery of WEEE: Economic & Environmental Impacts. Final Report. Produced for the European Commission DG XI. Basque Government (1996) Collection and Treatment of End-of-Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Domestic Flow and Enterprise Flow – A Mixed Experience. Ministry of Territory, Housing & Environment, Basque Government. Biddle, D. (2000) End-of-Life Computer and Electronics Recovery Policy Options for the Midnd Atlantic States 2 Edition, prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Consortium of Recycling and Economic Development Officials by the Centre for Solid Waste Research, March 2000. Philadelphia. Retrieved 20 March 2000 from World Wide Web: http://www.libertynet.org/macredo/comelc.htm Broughton, J. (1996) Circuit board recycling increases, in Recycling Today, May 1996, pp. 71. Bureau B&G (1993) De wit- en bruingoedketen doorgelicht (KAMER-studie) Commission of the European Communities (a) (2000) Draft Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on WEEE: Explanatory Memorandum. Brussels, June 2000. Retrieved December 7, 2000 from World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/en_500PC0347_02.pdf Commission of the European Communities (b) (2000) 5th Draft Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on WEEE. Brussels, June 2000. Retrieved December7, 2000 from World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/en_500PC0347_02.pdf Commission of the European Communities (1996) Community Strategy for Waste Management and Draft Council Resolution on Waste Policy. Brussels, July 1996. Consumers Association of Ireland (1994) How Long? in Consumer Choice Magazine April 1994, pp.101. Cooper, T. (1994) Beyond Recycling: The Longer Life Option New Economics Foundation, London. CSO (1994-1998) PRODCOM Survey Central Statistics Office, Ireland CSO (1994-1998) External Trade Survey Central Statistics Office, Ireland ENEA (1994) Final Report of the CEU Study Contract – Waste ’92 – End of Life Electronic Equipment. Rome, Jan. 1994. ENEA (1995) Priority Waste Streams: Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Information Document. Italian National Agency for New Technology, Energy and the Environment (ENEA). Harant, M.; Hochhuber, J.; Lorber, K.E.; Nelles, M. (1997) Pilot Project for Collection and Treatment of Electronic Scrap in Styria, in Waste Magazin 1/97 pp.51-52. Hedemalm, P.; Carlsson, P.; and Palm, V. (1995) Waste from electrical and electronic products – a survey of the contents of materials and hazardous substances in electric and electronic products TemaNord report to the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 1995. ICER (2000) UK Status Report on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER). Page 52 of 90 IMS (1991) Entsorgung von Elektro- und Elektronikgeraten aus Haushalten Ingenieurgesellschaft MbH, Hamburg. Irish EPA (1998) National Waste Database, Summary 1998 Retrieved October 10, 2000 from World Wide Web: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/docs/Nat.%20Waste%20Summary.pdf LEEP (1997) Unplugging Electrical and Electronic Waste: The Findings of the LEEP Collection Trial, Lothian and Edinburgh Environmental Partnership. Lohse, Dr. J.; Winteler, S.; and Wulf-Schnabel, J. (1998) Collection Targets for Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Report for DG XI by Oekopol, (Institut for Okologie und Politik GmbH), May 1998. Retrieved June 7, 2000 from World Wide Web: http://www.oekopol.de/ Matthews, H.S.; McMichael, F.C.; Hendrickson, C.T. & Hart, D.J. (1997) Disposition and End-of-Life Options for Personal Computers, a Green Design Initiative Technical Report #9710, Carnegie Mellon University. . Retrieved December 12, 1999 from World Wide Web: http://gdi.ce.cmu.edu/comprec/NEWREPORT.PDF Mertens, L. & Strobel, R (2000) Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) – Material Flow Schemes and Projection Models. Draft report to the European Environment Agency. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (1995) Management of Waste Electronic Appliances St Paul, Minnesota, August 1995. Retrieved March 12, 2000 from World Wide Web: http://www.moea.state.mn.us/publications/wastelec.pdf National Safety Council (NSC) (1999) Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report: Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States. Nelles, M.; Harant, M.; Hochhuber, J.; Lorber, K. (1996) Modellversuch zur Sammlung, Demontage und Vertwertung von Elektro- und Elektronikalgeraten im Bezirk Weiz, Montanuniversitat Leoben. NTC Publications Ltd (1994-1999) The European Marketing Pocketbook ORGALIME (1993) End of Life Electrical and Electronic Appliances – ORGALIME Guidelines for the Working Group “Priority Waste Stream on Electronic Appliance” November 1993. Papameletiou, D. (1998) Towards a European Solution for the Management of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment. A report to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament. IPTS, Spain. Ploos van Amstel, J.; Bakkers, F.; Bassie, M.; Kersten, F.; Klompers, L.; Ram, A. (1997) Back to the Beginning: National Pilot Project ‘Apparetour’ for Collecting, Recycling, and Repairing Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the District of Eindhoven. Ploos van Amstel Millieu Consulting B.V., September 1997. Salhofer, S. and Gabriel, R. (1996) Bregenz Pilot Project: Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Universtat fur Bodenkultur, Abteilung Abfallwirtschaft, Wien. Salhofer, S. (1999) Collection and Treatment of End-of-Life Electric and Electronic Equipment in Austria from Proceedings, Sardinia 99, International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, October 1999. SOFRES (1995) Information System on Plastics in the Electric & Electronic Sector and in the Wastes from Electric and Electronic Equipment in Western Europe SOFRES Conseil for Association of Plastic Manufacturers, Brussels, February 1995. Page 53 of 90 Swedish EPA (1995) Electronic and Electrical Equipment: The Basis for Producer Responsibility. Report 4406. Stockholm. pp. 13-14. Taberman, S-O; Carlsson, B; Erichson, H; Brobech, J.; and Gregersen, JC (1995) Environmental Consequences of Incineration and Landfilling of Waste from Electr(on)ic Equipment TemaNord report to the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 1995. TEAM-Engineering (1992) Anorganische Zusammensetzung von Computer-Einzelteilen Schweizer Bundesamt fuer Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern. Toepfer, P. (1993) Elektronikschrott – Entsorgung / Recycling. Impuls-Siftung (VDMA), June 1993. US EPA (1989) Characterisation of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal Waste in the United States, 1970-2000. US EPA/Franklin & Associates. January 1989. US EPA (1998) Computers and Electronics Sector Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) Glass-to-glass Recycling, The Common Sense Initiative, US EPA, June 1998. 1 US EPA (1999) Analysis of Five Community Consumer/Residential Collections of End-of-life Electronic and Electrical Equipment, Common Sense Initiative, US EPA. EPA-901-R-98-003. 2 US EPA (1999) Characterisation of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998 Update Prepared for the US EPA by Franklin Associates, July 1999. Retrieved October 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/mswrpt98/98charac.pdf Wolf, B.; Hora, M.; Weissmantel, H.; and Jager, J. (2000) Modelling of Disposal Processes and a recycling and Disposal Mix for the Development of Sustainable Products EGG2000 conference (ref). Page 54 of 90 WEBSITES Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Initiative http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/ Central Statistics Office, Ireland http://www.cso.ie/ ComputerScope (magazine) http://www.techcentral.ie/index.html Dataquest http://gartner6.gartnerweb.com/dq/static/dq.html Euromonitor http://www.euromonitor.com/default.asp European Information Technology Observatory (EITO) http://www.eito.com/ Federation of Electronic and Informatic Industries (FEII) http://www.ibec.ie/ibec/internet.nsf/LookupPageLink/IBEC_Opening Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers http://www.ieee.org International Data Corporation http://emea.idc.com/ Irish Computer (magazine) http://scripts.ireland.com/technology/ic.cfm US EPA Common Sense Initiative http://www.epa.gov/commonsense/computer Page 55 of 90 APPENDICES APPENDIX ONE: Examples of Collection Trials 1. Apparetour Project, The Netherlands (1995-1997) This pilot project aimed to develop and measure an environmentally feasible method for separate collection of white and brown goods and assess options for reuse and recycling. The project partners were the electronics industry association, the manufacturers of white goods association and local government. The project took place in Eindhoven and a total of 630,000 people participated in the trial. Collection points were set up at 20 municipal depots and at 2 recycling shops. 70 retailers were also involved in an “old for new” takeback system. Table 21. Theoretical WEEE quantities compared with recovered quantities by the Apparetour Project Item Theoretical WEEE per 1000 inhabitants (units) Average amount recovered (%) 29.9 41.2 35.9 107 42 10 43 28 12 129 213.5 354.5 461.5 23 9 7 8 13 Large appliances: CFC containing products Large whitegood products CRT containing browngoods Subtotal Small appliances: Small whitegood products Non-CRT containing browngoods Small housekeeping products Subtotal TOTAL It can be seen from Table 21 above that the results when compared to the theoretical arisings were disappointing. The key findings of the Apparetour Project were: • • • • • • Overall the project collected just 13% of theoretical arisings; The best collection locality recovered 40% of theoretical arisings; The most effective method of collection, both economically and in terms of quantity recovered, was the public delivering their unwanted items to the municipal collection points; Relatively more large goods than small goods were collected; The retail trade played an effective role when exchanging old for new, in particular for large appliances; and The garbage is considered as a “highly competitive channel”, especially for small appliances. Reference: Ploos van Amstel et al, (1997). 2. Bregenz, Austria (1994-1995) This trial was carried out over 14 months and aimed to establish an efficient model for collecting WEEE. A free collection system was put in place by the Bregenz municipality and some retailers took part voluntarily. The trial covered 28,000 inhabitants and WEEE was collected at waste collection centres, retailers (then passed to waste collection centre) and in bins at select waste collection points (for small appliances). There was also an existing bulky waste system. Page 56 of 90 As with the Apparetour Project the most effective method of collection was the public delivery to a collection facility. Table 22. Amounts collected by different channels, Bregenz Trial Collection Channel Waste collection centre Small appliances bins Bulky waste collection point Retail Phase 1 63% 2% 17% 18% Phase 2 80% discontinued discontinued 20% The trial resulted in the collection of 27 tonnes of WEEE in the 12 months of 1995 and this represented approximately 45% of theoretical WEEE arisings from households. Total amounts of WEEE collected during the trial were equivalent to 4.6 kg/inhabitant/year. Table 23. Overall category breakdown, Bregenz Trial. Item Large appliances TV Sets Small appliances Various appliances (cables, batteries etc.) Share by Weight (%) 40% 24% 20% 16% The Bregenz trial estimated that the likely regular costs of operating the WEEE collection system at just over € 11 per household per year. Reference: Salhofer & Gabriel (1996). 3. Weiz, Austria (1995) This collection trial took place in a rural area with a total population of approximately 83,000, and wide variations in population density. A total of 232 tonnes of WEEE were collected, equating to 3.04 kg/inhabitant/year. Table 24. Amounts collected by different channels, Weiz Trial Collection Channel Waste collection centre Scrap market Bulky waste Retail 65% 6% 5% 24% Table 25. Overall category breakdown, Weiz Trial Item Large appliances TV Sets Small appliances Share by Weight (%) 69% 14% 17% This trial also predicted costs of running an ongoing WEEE collection scheme at € 6-10 per household per year. Reference: Nelles et al, (1996). Page 57 of 90 4. Styria, Austria (1995) This was a pilot experiment in the Styrian district of Wiez, Austria on behalf of the provincial government of Styria. WEEE was collected at drop-off centres, retailers, flea markets and as part of the existing bulky waste collection system. A total of 15,883 items, equal to 194.35 tonnes (194,349 kg), were collected during the 11 months of the project. This corresponds to approximately 3 kg/inhabitant/year (including refrigerators). Reference: Harant et al, (1997). 5. LEEP Collection Trial, Scotland (1995-1996) The Lothian and Edinburgh Environmental Partnership (LEEP) and the Electronic Manufacturers Equipment Recycling Group (EMERG) conducted a workplace and civic amenity site collection trial in the Lothian region of Scotland. Workplace WEEE formed a large percentage by weight of the total collected during the trial (89.4% compared with 10.6% from civic amenity sites) and IT equipment featured strongly in the WEEE collected. A total of 120 tonnes was collected during the 15 months of the trial Table 26. Materials recovered by type, LEEP trial Material Ferrous metals Precious metals Non-ferrous metals Plastics Wood Wastes TOTAL Weight (tonnes) 60 4.7 15.6 3.5 6 29.9 119.7 Weight (%) 50 4 13 3 5 25 100 Actual costs for collection during the trial were estimated at € 430 per tonne. As the trial did not run at full capacity all the time, projected costs were calculated for potentially higher amounts collected. It was concluded from an analysis of these projected costs that a dedicated collection service within a region or local area would cost at least € 100 per tonne to administer and run. Reference: LEEP (1997). 6. Bilbao Trial, Spain (1994-1996) This trial in the city of Bilbao (population 375,000) covered brown goods and IT/Office equipment from households and companies. Participants were the municipality of Bilbao, a hypermarket chain, the MSW contractor for the municipality, and authorised recycler and a number of firms. All participants financed the storage, classification, shipment and treatment of their end-of-life capital goods. The total quantity of material collected and treated was 494 tonnes, which equated to approximately 0.14 kg/inhabitant/year. It is interesting to note that TV’s and monitors accounted for over 95% of the municipal flow and virtually all of the hypermarket flow. Table 27. WEEE collected by Bibao Trial Source Municipal Hypermarket Enterprise TOTAL Units of Equipment 5,048 520 110,747 116,415 Weight Collected (tonnes) 105.7 14.8 374.0 494.5 Reference: Basque Government (1996) Page 58 of 90 7. Lower Saxony, Germany (1994) This study compared actual and theoretical WEEE collection rates in four counties of Lower Saxony. Television sets, other consumer electronics and large household appliances were targeted by the project. Three of the counties financed their collection systems by a local waste tax while the fourth used a disposal fee. The three counties that applied the local waste tax achieved collection rates ranging from 30 to 50%, while the fourth county which charged a disposal fee collected only 15% of the expected quantity. Reference: ENEA (1995) 8. USA Trials (various years) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysed five WEEE collection trials in the United States. The collection programmes represented a range of different collection models, from one-day collection events to permanent collection depots, and therefore a range of costs and revenues. It should be noted that whiteware was not included in the trials. They found that in terms of quantity of material collected per inhabitant, the kerbside collections were the most efficient, while one-day events were the least efficient. In contrast to this, however, costs per item collected were higher for the kerbside collections compared to the other models. Equipment collected per inhabitant varied from less than 0.05 kg/inhabitant to 1.2 kg/inhabitant. However, it is impossible to compare these with European trials as the results have not been expressed as a function of time and a more limited range of equipment was considered. Items that contained cathode ray tubes (CRTs), such as televisions and monitors, predominated in all the collection trials. Disposal of these drove the cost of the projects up. Analysis of the trials concluded that promotion and planning of the events or programmes were essential to the effectiveness of collection (poor results for one collection event being attributed to a local football game taking place at the same time). For ongoing collection programmes it was found that quantities increased over time and that public support was high. 1 Reference: US EPA (1999 ) Computers/CPUs 8% Monitors 11% Keyboards 5% Printers 4% Misc. other 9% Peripherals 1% Telephones 3% Televisions 36% Audio/Stereo 16% Microw aves 1% VCRs 6% Figure 20. Composition of WEEE collected (units), average of five US collection trials Page 59 of 90 APPENDIX TWO: Comparison of Sales Data The following graphs show the sales levels obtained for each item of equipment from each of the sources listed in the main report. The results are discussed and selection of the most appropriate levels is made. 1. Personal Computers As can be seen, the CSO results are highly variable. This is due to a number of factors which have been discussed previously. The levels do not reflect an anticipated trend for growth in sales and do not reflect industry information on sales quantities. The results from the two market research companies, Dataquest and IDC, show levels that reflect both the anticipated growth trend and quantities that appear realistic for a country the size of Ireland. Both sets of market research results, collected by separate surveys, are closely matched, further indicating their reliability. The sales figures extrapolated from the German Behrendt source reflect relatively well the levels reported by the market research companies for 1996-1998. The EITO extrapolated figures are limited and well above quantities expected by reference to the market research statistics. It was therefore decided to use an average of the two sets of market research statistics as the best estimate of PC sales in Ireland. Figure 21. Comparison of data sources for PC sales 1600000 1400000 CSO 1200000 Dataquest Units 1000000 IDC 800000 Extrapolated (Germany, Behrendt) 600000 Extrapolated (EITO) 400000 200000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 28. Sales data for PCs Source: CSO Dataquest IDC Extrapolated (Germany, Behrendt) 1 Extrapolated (EITO) 1992 1993 1994 1,345,214 132,719 378,699 1995 755,624 153,640 1996 189,529 139,937 170,219 1997 704,419 175,333 166,000 194,035 1998 600,000 261,792 243,000 225,570 1999 324,580 319,000 450,897 1 Data on units installed in the home and office obtained from the European IT Observatory (EITO). It should be noted that this data is for installations rather than sales (AEA Technology, 1997). Page 60 of 90 2. Televisions While most of the CSO figures seem realistic (between 180,000 and 280,000 units), they also contain two anomalous values indicating the potential inaccuracies in the official statistics. The Euromonitor figures show the anticipated steady growth in sales but only cover 1991 to 1996. The CEDA figures only exist for the years 1998 and 1999 but should be the most realistic as they are collected by the national distributors association, ensuring industry participation. The trend exhibited by the Euromonitor data matches well with that of the CEDA data. A combination of the Euromonitor and CEDA statistics are therefore used as the best estimate of television sales in Ireland between 1991 and 1999. This means that only data for the year 1997 is missing and this can be predicted using a trend model. Figure 22. Comparison of data sources for TV sales 700000 CSO 600000 Euromonitor 500000 Units CEDA 400000 Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated(Germany, Eurostat) Extrapolated (EACEM) 300000 200000 100000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 29. Sales data for televisions Source: CSO Euromonitor 2 CEDA Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) Extrapolated 1 (EACEM) 1991 1992 140,000 140,000 259,079 256,316 1993 186,760 149,000 1994 607,260 163,000 1995 220,966 166,000 1996 217,115 195,000 1997 274,618 394,558 416,163 424,680 383,724 374,965 240,439 242,763 245,132 248,158 1998 591,243 1999 200,000 230,000 193,935 1 using the European Association of Consumer Electronics Manufacturers (EACEM) 1994 estimate of 20,080,000 TV’s sold annually in the EU (excluding Ireland) numbers were calculated for each member state using a population ratio (AEA Technology, 1997). CEDA figures have been rounded in order to preserve commercial confidentiality 2 Page 61 of 90 3. Refrigerators The CSO statistics stand at relatively plausible levels, with the expected growth trend. However, when compared to the AC Nielsen figures, the CSO sales figures are found to be 25 - 50% lower. The figures extrapolated from the UK data continue the trend shown by the AC Nielsen statistics. The UK extrapolations are available for 1986 to 1995 (full data set not listed) and the AC Nielsen data is available for 1993 to 1999. The sales level from both sources in the cross over period of 1993 to 1995 corresponds well. It was decided to use a combination of extrapolated figures and the AC Nielsen results as the best estimate of refrigerators sales in Ireland. Where the sets of data intersect, an average of the two has been used. Figure 23. Comparison of data sources for refrigerator sales 250000 200000 Units CSO 150000 AC Nielsen 100000 Extrapolated (UK, AMDEA) 50000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 30. Sales data for refrigerators Source: CSO AC Nielsen Extrapolated 1 (UK, AMDEA) 1990 1991 1992 114,000 103,000 96,000 1993 70,975 96,000 101,000 1 1994 96,817 112,500 116,000 1995 83,817 137,180 130,000 1996 77,137 141,648 1997 108,376 153,300 sales data from AMDEA (Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances) in the UK. This data was based on deliveries by AMDEA members as well as market research to estimate the market share of non-members. Page 62 of 90 1998 122,072 168,600 1999 194,000 4. Photocopiers Again, the CSO results are quite variable. Dataquest analysts have advised that the Irish market for photocopiers has remained static for the last five years at around 14,000 units per year. This level is reflected in the quantities extrapolated from the German and Danish data. The figure extrapolated from the AEA data does not appear realistic. The sales for Ireland extrapolated from the Eurostat data for these two countries reflects the level of sales reported by Dataquest for Ireland. The steady levels also reflect the advice of Dataquest that the Irish photocopier market is in a relatively steady state. It was decided to use the Dataquest figure of 14,000 units per year as the best estimate of photocopier sales in Ireland. Figure 24. Comparison of data sources for photocopier sales 100,000 CSO 90,000 80,000 Dataquest 70,000 Units 60,000 Extrapolated (AEA data) 50,000 Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) 40,000 30,000 Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 20,000 10,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 31. Sales data for photocopiers Source: CSO Dataquest Extrapolated (EITO 1 data) Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 1993 10,106 1994 13,037 1995 6,957 14,000 1996 7,796 14,000 1997 8,867 14,000 17,045 18,621 18,146 14,607 16,583 15,026 14,339 1998 12,870 14,000 1999 14,000 87,184 15,546 1 Data on photocopiers installed obtained from the European IT Observatory (EITO). It should again be noted that this data is for installations rather than sales (AEA Technology, 1997) Page 63 of 90 5. Coffee Makers The sales figures for coffee makers in Ireland are difficult to interpret. The CSO figures are again highly variable. The AC Nielsen figures are considerably lower than the CSO levels and are extremely low when compared to the levels extrapolated from the German and Danish data. It may be accepted that there are cultural differences between Ireland and Continental Europe regarding coffee drinking practices, but even taking this into consideration the difference would not be expected to be this large. Interestingly, when the AC Nielsen reported sales of coffee makers in Ireland is combined with their reported sales of kettles the total figure is around 250,000 units, which more closely matches the figures extrapolated from the German and Danish data. It may therefore be possible that kettles have been included in the category of tea/coffee maker in the German and Danish Eurostat data. It was decided to use the AC Nielsen results as the best estimate of coffee maker sales in Ireland. Figure 25. Comparison of data sources for coffee maker sales 400,000 350,000 CSO Units 300,000 AC Nielsen 250,000 200,000 Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 32. Sales data for coffee makers Source: CSO AC Nielsen Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 1993 27,286 1994 54,589 361,173 1995 48,120 13,700 363,003 1996 91,080 15,600 294,803 1997 84,772 14,200 334,474 319,029 267,239 341,247 323,804 336,649 316,927 Page 64 of 90 1998 65,939 14,300 1999 12,900 6. Toasters The CSO data for sales of toasters is meaningless due to the confidentiality of production levels in Ireland which have resulted in negative quantities. The AC Nielsen figures show an expected upward growth trend, reflecting the increase in housing in Ireland. The Euromonitor results, however, have remained relatively stable and at a level over 50% higher than the AC Nielsen data. The levels extrapolated from the Eurostat data for Denmark and Germany are approximately double the sales reported for Ireland by the AC Nielsen market research survey. It is interesting to note just how different the sales levels of the two sources for Germany are. The Eurostat results may be indicative of the problems already noted in government statistical sources. The levels extrapolated from the Euromonitor data for Germany shows levels very close to those of the AC Neilsen data. It was decided to use a combination of the AC Nielsen and Euromonitor data as the best estimate of toaster sales in Ireland. Figure 26. Comparison of data sources for toaster sales Units 300000 250000 AC Neilsen 200000 Euromonitor 150000 Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) 100000 Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Euromonitor) 50000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Table 33. Sales data for toasters Source: CSO AC Neilsen Euromonitor Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Euromonitor) 1991 1992 1993 -67,136 1994 -42,222 168,000 171,000 161,000 196,233 90,219 99,167 1996 -6,537 106,000 161,000 139,231 1997 -147,717 125,000 158,000 250,493 1995 13,271 101,000 160,000 241,406 226,931 225,420 182,635 180,583 196,893 102,632 106,184 109,342 112,281 Page 65 of 90 106,231 1998 91,120 131,500 1999 130,200 7. Fluorescent Lamps There was very limited data regarding the sales of fluorescent lamps in Ireland. The CSO data is once again highly variable and should be treated with caution as there is some production in Ireland but this is kept confidential by the CSO. The extrapolated figures from the Danish data are considerably higher than the CSO results and highly variable. There is a huge difference in the levels extrapolated from the data for Austria and Denmark. Knowledge of the European markets appears to be small for fluorescent lamps. None of the data sets appear particularly realistic and due to a current lack of reliable data it has been decided not to calculate WEEE arisings of fluorescent lamps in Ireland. Figure 27. Comparison of data source for fluorescent lamp sales 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 CSO Units 6,000,000 Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) 5,000,000 4,000,000 Extrapolated (Austria, Eurostat) 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Table 34. Sales data for fluorescent lamps Source: CSO Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Austria, Eurostat) 1993 1,382,252 4,829,932 1994 1,486,546 5,102,041 Page 66 of 90 1995 1,867,315 8,163,265 3,119,171 1996 1,895,276 8,435,374 3,583,553 1997 1,093,610 7,346,939 3,096,113 1998 2,486,671 8. Hand Drills & Saws The results for the extrapolated sales of hand drills in Ireland are highly variable, indicating possible problems with the source data. The CSO data is meaningless due to the confidentiality of production in Ireland. The extrapolated data is highly variable with no match between the German and Danish data. Data for hand saws and hand drills was the most inadequate of all the data sets. It appears that little attention has been paid to these items, probably due to their size, value and the relatively small quantities sold each year. Contact with industry was fruitless with the only manufacturer in Ireland being unwilling to release their production figures. Distributors and retailers were also unaware of national sales figures (even approximations) for these items. It was decided that WEEE arisings for saws and drills would not be estimated due to the current lack of reliable data. Table 35. Sales data for electric hand-held drills Source: CSO Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 1993 11,412 70,855 1994 -81,628 114,221 1995 -112,661 122,745 1996 -90,452 249,704 1997 -28,691 215,086 244,385 175,590 145,503 1995 -34,626 58,518 1996 8,627 168,615 1997 14,067 -6,084 120,269 89,231 89,023 1998 -28,183 Table 36. Sales data for electric hand-held saws Source: CSO Extrapolated (Denmark, Eurostat) Extrapolated (Germany, Eurostat) 1993 41,609 15,954 1994 -21,631 22,169 Page 67 of 90 1998 13,281 APPENDIX THREE: Calculation Methods Used 1. The “Market Supply” Method The so called Market Supply method was first used in a 1991 German investigation of WEEE (IMS, 1991). It is based on the extrapolation of waste arisings by using sales together with the typical lifetime of an appliance. It can be represented by the following simple equation; WEEE Generation in year x = Sales n years previously (n = average life time of item) The method assumes that 100% of units sold in one particular year will become obsolete at the end of the average life. For example, in Ireland 125,943 PC’s were sold in 1995. A PC is assumed to have an average lifetime of 5 years, meaning that in the year 2001 125,943 will become WEEE. This method makes the assumption that the average variance in lifetime of items of EEE does not change very much, whereas in reality lifetimes may become shorter in the future. It also does not take into consideration sudden events such as changes in technology or problems such as the Y2K bug which may result in a temporary increase in discarded equipment. This means that this method is especially not useful in the calculation of WEEE for a dynamic market such as PC’s where technologies and lifetimes are changing rapidly. Table 37. Waste PC arisings using the Market Supply method Year 1991 Sales Average Life WEEE 82,631 1992 91,813 1993 102,014 1994 113,349 1995 125,943 1996 139,937 1997 170,667 91,813 1998 252,396 102,014 5 years 82,631 1999 321,790 113,349 2000 370,059 125,943 2001 425,567 139,937 2002 489,402 170,667 2003 562,813 252,396 2004 647,235 321,790 2005 744,320 370,059 Cumulative total: 1,770,599 Page 68 of 90 2. The “Market Supply A” Method The Market Supply method, described above, is simplified by assuming that 100% of units sold in one particular year will become obsolete at the end of the average life. In reality, this disposal would occur as a distribution around the average lifetime of the equipment. The Market Supply A method attempts to consider the actual variance in the lifetime of an item of equipment. For example, a PC may have an average lifetime of 5 years but it is unrealistic to assume that all PC’s will be disposed of together when 5 years old. Items of equipment are often reused or stored for potential reuse. In reality this disposal would occur as a distribution around the average lifetime of the item. The average “keeping time” of an item after it becomes obsolete is important to know for this method and we must therefore make some judgements on consumer behaviour. The IMS in their 1991 report state that the variance in lifetime is similar to a normal distribution about the average. For each year the number of new appliances sold is stated. For the total sales of the appliance a distribution is advanced and the amount of WEEE in the following years is calculated. The total amount of WEEE in the different years is calculated by addition of the different calculated years. Table 38. Waste PC arisings using the Market Supply A method Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Sales 82,631 91,813 102,014 113,349 125,943 139,937 170,667 252,396 321,790 370,059 425,567 489,402 562,813 647,235 744,320 855,968 3 years 10% 4 years 20% Average Life 5 years 6 years 40% 20% WEEE 7 years 10% 13,994 34,133 100,958 64,358 37,006 Cumulative Total: Page 69 of 90 8,263 25,708 61,617 84,989 102,695 114,106 128,303 151,871 191,507 250,449 312,830 371,675 430,579 495,166 569,441 654,857 3,954,056 3. The “Time Step” Method This method was also used in the IMS study of 1991. It is based on the principle of mass preservation, by considering the incoming and outgoing appliances in households. It is represented by the following equation; WEEE generation (t) = [Stock (t1) – Stock (t)]private + [Stock(t1) – Stock (t)]industry + Σ Sales (n) - Σ (n=t1+1 to t) WEEE (n) (n=t1+1 to t-1) with t1 < t Stock private = Number of households * saturation level of households / 100 or = Population / average size of household * saturation level of households / 100 Stock industry = Number of work places * saturation level in industry / 100 or = Number of employees / number of users per appliance Using the equation above, waste potential at time t is calculated from the difference in stock levels of private and industrial equipment in the period between two points in time t, plus sales in that period, minus the annual waste produced in that time period up to time t-1. The appliance stock levels required for this method can be taken from saturation levels in households together with the total number of households. The sources of these statistics are discussed in Appendix Four. Industrial stock has been calculated using information on PC penetration for white collar workers from the European Information Technology Observatory (EITO). However, for refrigerators industrial stock levels can only be guessed as there is no information available regarding commercial penetration. For items such as televisions and toasters industrial stock levels have been assumed to be negligible and have therefore not been considered. Year Population Saturation 3,525,719 Average Household Size 3.34 1991 1992 No. Households 0.18 1,055,604 190,009 496,920 82,631 3,545,793 3.30 0.20 1,074,483 214,897 518,730 91,813 45,115 1993 3,565,866 3.26 0.19 1,093,824 207,827 540,540 102,014 87,274 1994 3,585,940 3.22 0.18 1,113,646 200,456 562,349 113,349 98,910 1995 3,606,013 3.18 0.22 1,133,966 249,473 584,159 125,943 55,117 1996 3,626,087 3.14 0.22 1,154,805 254,057 605,968 139,937 113,543 1997 3,667,149 3.10 0.24 1,182,951 285,683 627,778 170,667 117,231 1998 3,708,676 3.06 0.26 1,211,986 318,752 649,588 252,396 197,517 1999 3,750,673 3.02 0.28 1,241,945 353,333 671,397 321,790 265,399 2000 3,793,146 2.98 0.30 1,272,868 389,498 693,207 370,059 312,085 2001 3,836,100 2.94 0.33 1,304,796 427,321 715,017 425,567 365,935 2002 3,878,339 2.90 0.35 1,337,358 466,738 736,826 489,402 428,175 2003 3,921,044 2.86 0.37 1,370,994 507,953 758,636 562,813 499,788 2004 3,964,219 2.82 0.39 1,405,751 551,055 780,445 647,235 582,324 2005 4,007,869 2.78 0.41 1,441,680 596,134 802,255 744,320 677,430 = Extrapolated values = CSO Census results Page 70 of 90 Private Stock Industry Stock Sales WEEE 4. The “Carnegie Mellon” Method In 1997, the Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University, used a model which is similar to the Market Supply A method outlined in 2, above. The model attempts to examine further and take into consideration consumer behaviour when disposing of an end-of-life PC. The model may be applied to other items of EEE as well. The model used in the Carnegie Mellon study defines the pathways of computers from purchase to end-of-life. These pathways are shown in Figure 28, below. A new computer is purchased and eventually becomes obsolete. At this point there are 4 options available to the owner: i) REUSE. Possibly resold or reassigned to another user without extensive modification. ii) STORAGE. Not used. iii) RECYCLED. Defined as the product being taken apart and individual materials or subassemblies are sold for scrap. iv) LANDFILLED. Purchased PC Obsolete PC Store Recycle Reuse Landfill Figure 28. Flow Diagram of Pathways of PC from Purchase to End-of-Life (after Matthews et al, 1997) The model therefore allows for a computer to be purchased, reused, stored and finally recycled or landfilled. Some assumptions are made regarding the pathways and these are applied to the model. The following assumptions regarding the pathways were applied in the US model: 1. Computers generally become obsolete in 5 years. This is supported by industry and market research companies (Dataquest and IDC), and has been widely used as a guideline in other studies. 2. Very few obsolete PC’s go directly to landfill or for recycling. Quantities going to landfill are not as great as had been originally thought. Computer recycling firms were found to be processing very few computers less than 5 years old. Thus, RECYCLING and LANDFILLING at the top level (i.e. direct from obsolescence) was assumed to be almost negligible. 3. Remaining obsolete PC’s are assumed to be split evenly between REUSE and STOCKPILING. Research found that there was roughly a 1:1 choice between reuse and stockpiling after 5 years. 4. The majority of reused computers are then assumed to be stored. Reused computers are now 8 years old (after 3 years of reuse). Large quantities are not seen entering landfill. Also, large quantities are not recycled. 5. After storage most PC’s are recycled, with some being landfilled. This was approximately 8-11 years after purchase. Page 71 of 90 The study then applies these assumptions and suggests the percentage of computers following each end-of-life option: Table 39. Assumptions used in USA disposition model Parameters Initial Lifetime of PC % Obsolete Reused % Obsolete Recycled % Obsolete Stockpiled % Obsolete Landfilled Lifetime of Reused PC % Reused Recycled % Reused Stockpiled % Reused Landfilled Lifetime of Stockpiled PC % Stockpiled Recycled % Stockpiled Landfilled Value 5 years 45% 5% 45% 5% 3 years 40% 50% 10% 3 years 75% 25% The Carnegie Mellon model predicted that by 2005 in the USA; 680 million PC’s will have been sold 55 million PC’s will have been landfilled 143 million PC’s will have been recycled The assumptions made for the Carnegie Mellon USA study will not apply to the Irish situation but the basic model can be applied with some information on consumer behaviour in this country. Contact with electronic equipment recycling companies and regulatory authorities has given us an insight into the pathways being used currently to dispose of waste PC’s. Consumer behaviour, such as time to obsolescence and stockpiling, can be taken from the experiences of the Carnegie study. Our observations of the Irish WEEE recycling and disposal industry could lead to the following assumptions regarding disposition pathways: Table 40. Assumptions for an Irish disposition model Parameters Initial Lifetime of PC % Obsolete Reused % Obsolete Recycled % Obsolete Stockpiled % Obsolete Landfilled Lifetime of Reused PC % Reused Recycled % Reused Stockpiled % Reused Landfilled Lifetime of Stockpiled PC % Stockpiled Recycled % Stockpiled Landfilled Value 5 years 45% 5% 45% 5% 3 years 10% 80% 10% 3 years 10% 90% Pathways immediately after obsolescence remain the same. After reuse however, the quantity recycled is much smaller than that of the USA, due to the less well developed infrastructure in Ireland. In a similar assumption to the US model, the quantity being landfilled after reuse is thought to be small. After stockpiling (11 years after initial purchase) it is anticipated that 90% of PC’s would be landfilled due again to the poor recycling infrastructure in Ireland. The workings of the Carnegie Mellon model with the Irish PC data can be seen below. Page 72 of 90 74,368 82,631 91,813 102,014 113,349 125,943 139,937 170,667 252,396 321,790 370,059 425,567 489,402 562,813 647,235 744,320 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 370,059 321,790 252,396 170,667 139,937 125,943 113,349 102,014 91,813 82,631 74,368 66,931 60,238 54,214 48,793 43,914 39,522 334,944 291,256 253,266 220,231 191,505 166,526 144,806 113,578 76,800 62,972 56,674 51,007 45,906 41,316 37,184 33,466 30,119 27,107 24,397 21,957 19,761 17,785 16,007 14,406 12,965 11,669 37,216 32,362 28,141 24,470 21,278 18,503 16,090 12,620 8,533 6,997 6,297 5,667 5,101 4,591 4,132 3,718 3,347 3,012 2,711 2,440 2,196 1,976 1,779 1,601 1,441 1,297 Recycled 334,944 291,256 253,266 220,231 191,505 166,526 144,806 113,578 76,800 62,972 56,674 51,007 45,906 41,316 37,184 33,466 30,119 27,107 24,397 21,957 19,761 17,785 16,007 14,406 12,965 11,669 Stockpiled FATE OF OBSOLETE PC'S Reused = Projected sales 744,320 66,931 1989 35,570 2010 60,238 1988 32,013 647,235 54,214 1987 28,812 25,931 2009 48,793 1986 562,813 43,914 1985 489,402 39,522 1984 2008 35,570 1983 2007 32,013 1982 425,567 28,812 Obsolete 2006 25,931 1981 Sales 1980 Year 37,216 32,362 28,141 24,470 21,278 18,503 16,090 12,620 8,533 6,997 6,297 5,667 5,101 4,591 4,132 3,718 3,347 3,012 2,711 2,440 2,196 1,976 1,779 1,601 1,441 1,297 Landfilled 22,023 19,151 16,653 14,481 11,358 7,680 6,297 5,667 5,101 4,591 4,132 3,718 3,347 3,012 2,711 2,440 2,196 1,976 1,779 1,601 1,441 1,297 1,167 176,185 153,204 133,221 115,844 90,863 61,440 50,377 45,340 40,806 36,725 33,053 29,747 26,773 24,095 21,686 19,517 17,565 15,809 14,228 12,805 11,525 10,372 9,335 Stockpiled 33,608 28,237 22,797 19,518 15,892 11,761 9,970 8,973 8,075 7,268 6,541 5,887 5,298 4,768 4,292 3,862 3,476 3,129 2,816 2,534 1,441 1,297 1,167 Recycled 302,468 254,131 205,170 175,665 143,026 105,845 89,727 80,754 72,679 65,411 58,870 52,983 47,685 42,916 38,625 34,762 31,286 28,157 25,342 22,807 12,965 11,669 10,502 Landfilled FATE OF STOCKPILED PC'S Page 73 of 90 22,023 19,151 16,653 14,481 11,358 7,680 6,297 5,667 5,101 4,591 4,132 3,718 3,347 3,012 2,711 2,440 2,196 1,976 1,779 1,601 1,441 1,297 1,167 Landfilled FATE OF REUSED PC'S Recycled 92,847 79,749 67,590 58,469 48,528 37,943 32,356 27,260 21,709 18,855 16,970 15,273 13,746 12,371 11,134 10,021 9,018 8,117 7,305 6,574 5,077 4,569 4,112 1,601 1,441 1,297 Recycled 361,707 305,643 249,963 214,615 175,662 132,028 112,114 99,042 86,313 76,998 69,299 62,369 56,132 50,519 45,467 40,920 36,828 33,145 29,831 26,848 16,602 14,941 13,447 1,601 1,441 1,297 511,129 444,460 386,487 336,075 282,368 227,966 195,183 158,918 117,606 99,697 89,727 80,754 72,679 65,411 58,870 52,983 47,685 42,916 38,625 34,762 31,286 28,157 25,342 14,406 12,965 11,669 Stored ANNUAL TOTALS Landfilled 2,029,980 1,739,083 1,486,128 1,266,168 1,074,898 906,108 754,942 622,730 520,487 453,889 400,098 351,687 308,117 268,904 233,612 201,849 173,263 147,535 124,380 103,540 84,785 67,905 52,713 39,040 24,634 11,669 In Storage 454,554 385,392 317,553 273,084 224,190 169,971 144,470 126,302 108,022 95,854 86,268 77,642 69,877 62,890 56,601 50,941 45,847 41,262 37,136 33,422 21,678 19,511 17,560 3,201 2,881 2,593 WEEE (Recycled + Landfilled) 9,042,675 7,641,083 6,249,073 5,365,380 4,391,555 3,300,698 2,802,843 2,476,040 2,157,823 1,924,962 1,732,466 1,559,220 1,403,298 1,262,968 1,136,671 1,023,004 920,704 828,633 745,770 671,193 415,039 373,536 336,182 40,016 36,015 32,413 (kg) 921 829 746 671 415 374 336 40 36 32 9,043 7,641 6,249 5,365 4,392 3,301 2,803 2,476 2,158 1,925 1,732 1,559 1,403 1,263 1,137 1,023 (t) Weight to Landfill 28,937 24,451 19,997 17,169 14,053 10,562 8,969 7,923 6,905 6,160 5,544 4,990 4,491 4,041 3,637 3,274 2,946 2,652 2,386 2,148 1,328 1,195 1,076 128 115 104 (cu mtrs) Volume to Landfill 5. The “Estimate” Method This method has also been referred to as the “Consumption and Use” method (Lohse et al., 1998). The same method was used to calculate WEEE in the Netherlands (Bureau B&G, 1993) and was also used by NGS for WEEE estimations for the German Federal State of Lower Saxony (Mertins & Strobel, 2000). The method is represented by the following equation; WEEE Generation = Stock (private + industry) Average lifetime Stock private = Number of households * Saturation level or = Population / average size of household * saturation level / 100 Stock industry = number of work places * saturation level in industry or = number of employees / number of users per appliance The Estimate method uses stock levels together with an assumption regarding the average lifetime of the appliance. Private and industrial stock levels are calculated using the same method as described for the Time Step method (section 3, above). Stock is then divided by average lifetime to calculate the WEEE potential. This method is particularly sensitive to alterations in the average lifetime of the item being considered and this is a somewhat subjective variable in the equation, as is discussed in Appendix Four. 6. The “Stanford” Method In a 1999 report for the National Safety Council in the USA, Stanford Resources Inc. conducted research on electronic equipment recycling. It was the first attempt to gather actual quantitative information from firms involved in electronics recycling in the United States. As part of this research they attempted to calculate an estimate of waste PC’s arising in the US. The study used a varying lifetime model. The model assumes a range of life times for each years sales, “based on variations in usage patterns” (NSC, 1999). These lifetime assessments invite significant uncertainty (NSC,1999) and are mostly qualitative, having been obtained from industry interviews. For each year they listed an average lifetime and a distribution of lifetimes (from 2 to 5 years) for the PC’s sold. The number of obsolete PC’s is then totalled for each year. We have applied the Irish sales data to the model, using the same assumptions regarding average lifetime and variance. Table 41. Waste PC arisings using the Stanford method Year Units Sold Average Lifetime 1991 82,631 4.7 1992 91,813 1993 102,014 1994 Share of PC's Lasting 5 Years 4 Years 4.5 50% 50% 4.2 20% 80% 113,349 4.1 10% 1995 125,943 3.8 80% 20% 1996 139,937 3.6 60% 40% 1997 170,667 3.4 40% 60% 141,686 1998 252,396 3.2 20% 80% 164,006 1999 321,790 3.1 10% 90% 192,811 2000 370,059 2.8 80% 20% 253,838 2001 425,567 2.6 60% 40% 358,390 2002 489,402 2.4 40% 60% 482,524 2003 562,813 2.2 20% 80% 573,221 2004 647,235 2.1 10% 90% 631,329 2005 744,320 2 100% 742,913 2006 855,968 2007 3 Years No. Obsolete 2 Years 90% 2 100% 799,335 2 100% 930,400 Cumulative total: 5,270,453 7. The “ICER” Method In a 2000 report the UK Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER) attempted to estimate WEEE arisings for the United Kingdom. Taking the best available sales figures ICER then estimated what proportion of total sales were replacement sales and therefore likely to result in the equipment being discarded. To do this they took a market saturation factor for each different type of equipment to indicate how many items sold were likely to be thrown away. For example, when they give a market saturation factor of 0.6 this means that 60% of sales are replacement items and 40% represent market growth. The higher the saturation factor the more likely it is that the particular product will enter the waste stream when a similar one is purchased. The method is represented by the following equation: WEEE = Sales * Saturation Factor Saturation Factor = % of items sold which are likely to result in a similar item being thrown out Unfortunately, ICER do not detail their methodology for estimating the market saturation factor for each item. We used their saturation factors together with our sales data to calculate WEEE arisings in Ireland. For IT products such as PC’s this saturation factor is likely to rise, resulting in greater replacements from sales. For simplicity we have used a constant value and this should be kept in mind when considering the results. Page 75 of 90 Table 42. Waste PC arisings using the ICER method Year Sales 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 82,631 91,813 102,014 113,349 125,943 139,937 170,667 252,396 321,790 370,059 425,567 489,402 562,813 647,235 744,320 Saturation Factor 0.5 WEEE 41,316 45,906 51,007 56,674 62,972 69,969 85,333 126,198 160,895 185,029 212,784 244,701 281,406 323,617 372,160 Page 76 of 90 APPENDIX FOUR: Assumptions Made The calculation methods outlined above require a number of assumptions to be made and applied as variables to the calculations. These are described below as applied to the Irish study. 1. Sales Projections Many of the methods outlined in the previous section require full coverage of sales data from as early as possible. As we have seen sales data for some items in Ireland is extremely limited and therefore it is necessary to extrapolate sales data using forecasts. We have simply used a linear trend to project sales figures for all items of EEE. For PCs this is probably a large underestimation of growth in sales and this is a limitation that should be kept in mind. For other items with a high market saturation factor, such a refrigerators or televisions the linear projection of sales is probably appropriate. It must be emphasised that projections are not predictions. Projections are based on an assumption that there will be no unforeseen changes in current trends. Thus, rapid future changes in technology and population trends can not be incorporated into the projections. 2. Household Penetration of Items (Saturation). This is market research data obtained by a survey of a representative number of households. It was obtained from the European Marketing Pocketbook (NTC Publications), which also lists such data for all other European countries. The results show that items such as televisions and refrigerators have reached a point of saturation in the Irish market. These levels are reflected throughout Western Europe. A good indicator of the change in economic conditions in Ireland may be the large rise in households with 2+ televisions as shown in Table 43, below. The penetration of PC’s has risen to 26% in 1998 and can be expected to continue to rise in line with trends throughout Europe. In countries such as Germany and Austria household penetration of PC’s has risen from around 15% in 1991 to over 40% in 1999. No market data was available for toasters. For the purposes of our calculations we have assumed a 99% penetration of toasters in households across the years. Table 43. Household penetration of items of EEE Item Personal Computer Televisions 2+ TV’s 1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 18% 20% 19% 18% 22% 22% 98% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 27% 23% 25% 30% 39% 43% 99% 99% 1 1 Refrigerators and 1 fridge freezers 2 Toasters 97% 97% 97% 92% 97% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 1997 1998 1999 26.3% 99% Sources: 1 Javelin/Young & Rubicam 2 Estimated 3. Industrial Penetration Some information is available for the industrial penetration of PCs. The European Information Technology Observatory (EITO) have assessed the number of business PCs per 100 white collar workers for all countries in Western Europe. For Ireland the figure is 93. This compares with a Western European average of 61 and the United States of America with 118. The Irish Central Statistics Office collects data through the Census on occupations within the labour force. Results are available for 1991 and 1996. For the years between and after we have extrapolated values using a simple linear trend. Table 44, below, shows the results of our industrial stock calculations for Ireland. Page 77 of 90 Table 44. Calculation of Industrial Stock levels for PCs in Ireland Year Number of white collar workers 655,306 Industrial PC Stock 1992 679,840 632,251 1993 704,374 655,068 1994 728,909 677,885 1995 753,443 700,702 1996 777,977 723,519 1997 802,511 746,335 1998 827,045 769,152 1999 851,580 791,969 2000 876,114 814,786 2001 900,648 837,603 2002 925,182 860,419 2003 949,716 883,236 2004 974,251 906,053 2005 998,785 928,870 1991 PCs per 100 white collar workers 93 609,435 = extrapolations = CSO Census results For refrigerators there are no figures on the industrial penetration or the stock levels. We are therefore required to make an assumption and we have estimated that in the industrial sector ten employees share one refrigerator. Using CSO data on the labour force we can therefore calculate industrial stock levels. For televisions and toasters we have assumed that industrial stock levels are insignificant and we have disregarded them. 4. Population and Housing Statistics In calculation methods using stock as a variable (Time Step and Estimate), population and housing statistics are an important factor. The number of annual house completions in Ireland has risen by over 100% since 1992. This has a critical impact on the sales of electronic and electrical equipment by increasing stock levels. The total number of dwellings has increased by almost 10% between 1991 and 1996 and the number of persons per household has decreased during the same period. These trends are expected to continue to the next census in 2001. Official census population figures exist for 1991 and 1996. The Central Statistics Office of Ireland also projects population growth for 2001, 2006 and 2011. These are presented by the CSO as upper and lower projections. For this investigation we have used the upper projections. For years between official census results we have extrapolated using a simple linear regression. Page 78 of 90 Table 45. Population and housing statistics House 1 completions 1991 1992 22,464 1993 21,391 1994 26,863 1995 30,575 1996 33,725 1997 38,842 1998 42,349 1999 46,512 Total 2 Dwellings 1,029,000 Total 2 Population 3,525,719 No. of Persons 2 per Household 3.34 1,127,318 3,626,087 3.14 3 2001 3,836,100 2006 4,052,000 3 3 2011 4,254,700 1 Sources: Dept Environment & Local Govt., Housing Statistics Bulletin 2 CSO Census 3 CSO upper projections 5. Average Lifetimes The time-scale for disposal of EEE items is highly variable, ranging from one year to over 15 years from the date of purchase. A number of definitions of average lifetimes should be considered (Cooper, 1994): Technical life – the maximum period during which the item can physically function (i.e., irrespective of repair costs which might reasonably be considered prohibitive). Service life – the item’s total life in use from the point of sale to the point of discard. This is considered the most practical definition, and is of the greatest use when assessing future waste streams. Replacement life – the period after which the initial consumer purchases a replacement, irrespective of the original still functioning (ie. there is no consideration of re-use or storage). This definition is of most interest to retailers. Because this study’s purpose is to investigate WEEE from a waste management point of view, the typical lifetime of an item has been considered as it’s service life, as defined above. This makes the decision on an average lifetime difficult and somewhat subjective. A major difficulty in calculating this service life is consideration of 5 the ‘loft effect’. Obsolete 4.5 equipment may initially be stored 4 rather than discarded 3.5 immediately, and will therefore not 3 2.5 enter the waste stream for some 2 years after it has ceased to be 1.5 used. A UK survey for example 1 found that 10% of households 0.5 were storing a broken TV and a 0 further 10% a broken video 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 (ICER, 2000). A survey of 1000 Year households by a German study found that 7% of households has Figure 29 The average lifetime of a PC central processing unit. a defective vacuum cleaner in storage (National Safety Council, 1999) (Wolf et al, 2000). It is therefore necessary to factor in this delay effect when giving average lifetimes for most methods. Page 79 of 90 A further factor which must be considered is the change in average lifetimes of items of EEE. This is particularly difficult when considering the lifetime of an item of new technology such as a computer equipment. Technologies are changing so rapidly that items of electronics often become obsolete very quickly. A very good example of this is the personal computer. Figure 29 illustrates the decline in lifetimes of PC’s that have occurred over the last 8 years and are predicted to continue. Average equipment lifetimes are largely subjective and it should be noted that the various studies of WEEE throughout the world use widely varying average lifetimes (see for example Lohse et al., 1998). One study by the American Consumers Organisation gives the following average lifetimes: Table 46. Forecast of equipment lifetimes Item Refrigerators TV’s PC’s Toasters Coffee Makers Range (years) 9 – 18 5 – 11 4–8 7–9 3–7 Average (years) 14 8 6 8 6 (From Consumers Association of Ireland, 1994) Table 47, below, shows the average lifetimes used in this study. They have been selected on the basis of a number of previous reports regarding appliance lifetimes. 6. Average Weights In order to facilitate easy interpretation for the purpose of waste management planning it is necessary to convert the results of our calculations from units to weight. We have done this by using average weights for each of the items. However, it should be noted that this is fraught with difficulty due to the wide range of sizes and materials used in a particular category of EEE. A number of European studies have published this information but there is a wide variation in the weights found. Table 47, below, shows the average weights we have used in this study. Table 47. Average lifetime and weight of items of EEE used for this study Personal Computer Photocopiers Average Lifetime (years) 5 Average Weight (kg) 4 100 25 Televisions 10 35 Refrigerators 15 48 Fluorescent Lamps 3 0.2 Coffee Makers 6 1 Toasters 5 1 Page 80 of 90 APPENDIX FIVE: WEEE Calculation Results 1. Calculation Results for Personal Computers Results in Units METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “Stanford ” “ICER” “Carnegie Mellon” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 44,108 1993 86,267 1994 97,902 1995 54,110 1996 112,536 82,631 61,617 41,316 33,422 159,889 159,889 33,422 45,906 37,136 169,430 169,430 37,136 51,007 41,262 172,579 172,579 41,262 56,674 45,847 175,668 175,668 45,847 62,972 50,941 190,035 190,035 50,941 69,969 56,601 195,515 195,515 56,601 METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “Stanford” “ICER” “Carnegie Mellon” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 2001 364,927 139,937 151,871 358,390 212,784 95,854 252,985 364,927 95,854 2002 427,168 170,667 191,507 482,524 244,701 108,022 265,432 482,524 108,022 2003 498,781 252,396 250,449 573,221 281,406 126,302 278,238 573,221 126,302 2004 581,317 321,790 312,830 631,329 323,617 144,470 291,422 631,329 144,470 2005 676,423 370,059 371,675 742,913 372,160 169,971 305,001 742,913 169,971 2006 785,994 425,567 430,579 799,335 224,190 318,996 799,335 224,190 1997 116,224 91,813 84,989 141,686 85,333 62,890 206,404 206,404 62,890 1998 196,510 102,014 102,695 164,006 126,198 69,877 217,581 217,581 69,877 1999 264,392 113,349 114,106 192,811 160,895 77,642 229,060 264,392 77,642 2000 311,077 125,943 128,303 253,838 185,029 86,268 240,857 311,077 86,268 2007 2008 2009 2010 489,402 495,166 930,400 562,813 569,441 647,235 654,857 744,320 273,084 317,553 385,392 454,554 930,400 273,084 569,441 317,553 654,857 385,392 744,320 454,554 1997 2,906 2,295 2,125 3,542 2,133 1,572 5,160 5,160 1,572 1998 4,913 2,550 2,567 4,100 3,155 1,747 5,440 5,440 1,747 1999 6,610 2,834 2,853 4,820 4,022 1,941 5,727 6,610 1,941 2000 7,777 3,149 3,208 6,346 4,626 2,157 6,021 7,777 2,157 Results in Tonnes METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “Stanford” “ICER” “Carnegie Mellon” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 1,103 1993 2,157 1994 2,448 1995 1,353 1996 2,813 2,066 1,540 1,033 836 3,997 3,997 836 1,148 928 4,236 4,236 928 1,275 1,032 4,314 4,314 1,032 1,417 1,146 4,392 4,392 1,146 1,574 1,274 4,751 4,751 1,274 1,749 1,415 4,888 4,888 1,415 METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “Stanford” “ICER” “Carnegie Mellon” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 2001 9,123 3,498 3,797 8,960 5,320 2,396 6,325 9,123 2,396 2002 10,679 4,267 4,788 12,063 6,118 2,701 6,636 12,063 2,701 2003 12,470 6,310 6,261 14,331 7,035 3,158 6,956 14,331 3,158 2004 14,533 8,045 7,821 15,783 8,090 3,612 7,286 15,783 3,612 2005 16,911 9,251 9,292 18,573 9,304 4,249 7,625 18,573 4,249 2006 19,650 10,639 10,764 19,983 2007 2008 2009 2010 12,235 12,379 23,260 14,070 14,236 16,181 16,371 18,608 5,605 6,827 7,939 9,635 11,364 19,983 5,605 23,260 6,827 14,236 7,939 16,371 9,635 18,608 11,364 Page 81 of 90 2. Calculation Results for Refrigerators Results in Units METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 76,758 1993 77,949 1994 91,273 1995 107,759 1996 116,765 1997 109,018 1998 128,696 1999 154,970 2000 155,299 72,100 75,089 75,089 72,100 67,200 76,432 76,758 67,200 68,950 77,807 77,949 68,950 79,975 79,217 91,273 79,217 93,513 80,663 107,759 80,663 99,154 82,145 116,765 82,145 107,310 85,015 109,018 85,015 118,020 87,101 128,696 87,101 135,800 89,254 154,970 89,254 135,488 91,477 155,299 91,477 2001 174,765 108,000 2002 182,517 114,000 104,100 152,260 96,111 182,517 96,111 2003 179,735 124,000 118,800 160,646 99,534 179,735 99,534 2004 203,979 121,000 117,700 169,032 102,058 203,979 102,058 2005 214,799 114,000 112,400 177,418 104,666 214,799 104,666 2006 225,567 103,000 105,150 185,804 107,363 225,567 103,000 2007 239,366 96,000 101,525 194,190 110,023 239,366 96,000 2008 250,111 98,500 105,109 202,576 112,773 250,111 98,500 2009 260,797 114,250 115,883 210,962 115,618 260,797 114,250 2010 271,421 133,590 129,796 219,348 118,562 271,421 118,562 1991 1992 3,684 1993 3,742 1994 4,381 1995 5,172 1996 5,605 1997 5,233 1998 6,177 1999 7,439 2000 7,454 3,461 3,604 3,604 3,461 3,226 3,669 3,684 3,226 3,310 3,735 3,742 3,310 3,839 3,802 4,381 3,802 4,489 3,872 5,172 3,872 4,759 3,943 5,605 3,943 5,151 4,081 5,233 4,081 5,665 4,181 6,177 4,181 6,518 4,284 7,439 4,284 6,503 4,391 7,454 4,391 2001 8,389 5,184 2002 8,761 5,472 4,997 7,308 4,613 8,761 4,613 2003 8,627 5,952 5,702 7,711 4,778 8,627 4,778 2004 9,791 5,808 5,650 8,114 4,899 9,791 4,899 2005 10,310 5,472 5,395 8,516 5,024 10,310 5,024 2006 10,827 4,944 5,047 8,919 5,153 10,827 4,944 2007 11,490 4,608 4,873 9,321 5,281 11,490 4,608 2008 12,005 4,728 5,045 9,724 5,413 12,005 4,728 2009 12,518 5,484 5,562 10,126 5,550 12,518 5,484 2010 13,028 6,412 6,230 10,529 5,691 13,028 5,691 143,874 93,771 174,765 78,400 Results in Tonnes METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 6,906 4,501 8,389 3,763 Page 82 of 90 3. Calculation Results for Televisions Results in Units METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 121,499 1993 130,045 1994 143,575 1995 134,746 1996 174,370 1997 172,051 1998 176,088 1999 200,471 2000 203,222 126,000 103,449 126,00 103,449 126,000 105,299 126,000 105,299 134,100 107,195 134,100 107,195 146,700 109,137 146,700 109,137 149,400 112,263 149,400 112,263 175,500 114,326 175,500 114,326 179,924 117,112 179,924 117,112 184,349 119,987 184,349 119,987 207,118 122,953 207,118 122,953 210,452 126,014 210,452 126,014 2001 213,707 140,000 2002 224,560 140,000 2005 255,671 166,000 172,892 262,116 142,726 262,116 142,726 2006 265,939 195,000 187,966 272,448 146,404 272,448 146,404 2008 2009 2010 199,916 199,546 204,832 210,826 230,131 224,309 233,835 234,786 231,117 132,398 231,117 132,398 2004 245,349 163,000 161,700 251,783 139,169 251,783 139,169 2007 220,785 129,175 220,785 129,175 2003 234,978 149,000 150,800 241,450 135,728 241,450 135,728 199,916 199,546 210,826 204,832 230,131 224,309 234,786 233,835 1991 1992 4,252 1993 4,552 1994 5,025 1995 4,716 1996 6,103 1997 6,022 1998 6,163 1999 7,016 2000 7,113 4,410 3,621 4,410 3,621 4,410 3,685 4,410 3,685 4,694 3,752 4,694 3,752 5,135 3,820 5,135 3,820 5,229 3,929 5,229 3,929 6,143 4,001 6,143 4,001 6,297 4,099 6,297 4,099 6,452 4,200 6,452 4,200 7,249 4,303 7,249 4,303 7,366 4,410 7,366 4,410 2001 7,480 4,900 2002 7,860 4,900 2005 8,948 5,810 6,051 9,174 4,995 9,174 4,995 2006 9,308 6,825 6,579 9,536 5,124 9,536 5,124 2008 2009 2010 6,997 6,984 7,169 7,379 8,055 7,851 8,184 8,218 8,089 4,634 8,089 4,634 2004 8,587 5,705 5,660 8,812 4,871 8,812 4,871 2007 7,727 4,521 7,727 4,521 2003 8,224 5,215 5,278 8,451 4,750 8,451 4,750 6,997 6,984 7,379 7,169 8,055 7,851 8,218 8,184 Results in Tonnes METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate Page 83 of 90 4. Calculation Results for Toasters Results in Units METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 152,311 1993 141,852 1994 138,376 1995 80,883 1996 85,370 168,000 1997 97,135 171,000 100,000 234,224 234,224 97,135 1998 102,756 161,000 157,100 105,200 239,973 239,973 102,756 1999 100,540 158,000 143,300 104,160 245,905 245,905 100,540 2000 113,296 101,000 121,800 115,128 252,028 252,028 101,000 134,400 209,010 209,010 134,400 136,800 212,748 212,748 136,800 128,800 216,577 216,577 128,800 126,400 220,502 220,502 126,400 80,800 224,525 224,525 80,800 84,800 228,651 228,651 84,800 METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 2001 120,691 106,000 116,550 121,840 258,350 258,350 106,000 2002 128,453 125,000 120,620 128,552 264,797 264,797 120,620 2003 135,780 131,500 128,631 135,264 271,457 271,457 128,631 2004 143,061 130,200 134,892 141,976 278,339 278,339 130,200 2005 150,291 143,910 143,283 148,688 285,453 285,453 143,283 2006 157,469 152,300 151,768 155,400 292,809 292,809 151,768 2007 2008 2009 2010 160,690 160,690 169,080 169,080 177,470 177,470 185,860 160,690 160,690 169,080 169,080 177,470 177,470 185,860 185,860 1999 101 158 143 104 246 246 101 2000 113 101 122 115 252 252 101 Results in Tonnes METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 1991 1992 152 1993 142 1994 138 1995 81 1996 85 168 1997 97 171 134 209 209 137 213 213 137 129 217 217 129 126 221 221 126 81 225 225 81 85 229 229 85 100 234 234 97 1998 103 161 157 105 240 240 103 METHOD “Time Step” “Market Supply” “Market Supply A” “ICER” “Estimate” Upper estimate Lower estimate 2001 121 106 117 122 258 258 106 2002 128 125 121 129 265 265 121 2003 136 132 129 135 271 271 129 2004 143 130 135 142 278 278 130 2005 150 144 143 149 285 285 143 2006 157 152 152 155 293 293 152 2007 2008 2009 2010 161 161 169 169 177 177 186 161 161 169 169 177 177 186 186 Page 84 of 90 APPENDIX SIX: Electronic and Electrical Equipment Recyclers in Ireland Cara Environmental Technology Ltd Parkview House, Beech Hill Clonskeagh Dublin Phone (01) 260 1199 Fax. (01) 260 1160 Email: email@example.com Manage waste fluorescent lamps as well as televisions and PC’s. Contec (Conservation Technology) Peter Kelly Phone (087) 261 8884 Handle fluorescent lamps. Cork Metal Co. Ltd Dublin Hill Cork Phone (021) 430 9910 Fax. (021) 439 3370 Metal processing operation, including the dismantling of whitegoods using shears. Cummins Metal Recycling Ltd John F Kennedy Drive Naas Rd Dublin Phone (01) 450 3028 Metal processing operation. Electronic Recycling Ltd Jamestown Business Park Finglas Dublin 11 Phone: (01) 864 0806 Fax: (01) 864 0807 Managing Director: Brendan Palmer http://www.electronic-recycling.ie/ Recycle and refurbish computer systems. Fingal Recycling Fingal Dublin Phone: (01) 840 9083 Managing Director: Eammon Dunne Process computer systems, televisions and other electronic equipment. Page 85 of 90 Galway Metal Co. Ltd Oranmore Co. Galway Phone: (091) 794 358 Metal processing operation. Hammond Lane Metal Co. Ltd Ringaskiddy Co. Cork Phone (021) 437 8014 Environment, Health & Safety Manager: Declan O’Regan Processor of scrap metal from a wide variety of sources. Operate 3 shredders (1 of which is in N. Ireland). Irish Lamp Recycling Co. Ltd. Athy Co. Kildare Phone/Fax (0507) 31377 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Recycle fluorescent lamps as well as some cathode ray tubes. KMK Metals Ltd Bettystown Cross Bettystown Co Meath Phone: (041) 9827750 Fax: (041) 9827914 Managing Director: Kurt Kyck Email: email@example.com Process a wide variety of electronic and electrical equipment. Lee Metal Co. Ltd Lower Pouladuff Rd Cork Phone/Fax: (021) 496 4487 Metal processing operation. Material Asset Management Unit 10, Rosemount Business Park Ballycoolin Rd Blanchardstown Dublin Phone: (01) 822 5014 General Manager: Padraic Delaney www.materialasset.com Process computer systems and other electronic equipment. Page 86 of 90 Multis Ireland Galway Phone: (091) 757 343 Business Development Manager: Eamon Reay www.multis.ie Refurbish mainframe computer systems. Munster Metal Co. Ltd Clondrinagh Ennis Rd Limerick Phone: (061) 452 099 Fax: (061) 452 367 Metal processing operation. National Recycling Co. Ltd Churchfield Industrial Estate Cork Phone: (021) 430 5060 Metal processing operation. Silver Lining Industries (Ireland) Ltd Unit 61 Cookstown Industrial Estate Belgard Rd Tallaght Dublin Phone (01) 462 2822 Fax. (01) 462 2833 Electronic equipment and fluorescent lamps. V & W Recycling Ltd Dundalk Co. Louth (042) 932 9200 Managing Directors: Veronica and William Martin Processing of household items of WEEE. Page 87 of 90 APPENDIX SEVEN: Questionnaire to Local Authorities 1. Are there any initiatives within your local authority concerning waste from electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) (note: this includes refrigerators, PC’s, TV’s, small household appliances etc)? For example: (a) Do you currently impose any restrictions on the acceptance of items of electronic and electrical equipment at your landfill sites? Yes No If yes, what kind of restrictions?___________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ (b) Do you currently operate any schemes for the separate collection of waste electronic and electrical equipment? Yes No If yes, what quantities approximately have been collected? Type Quantity (units or weight) Refrigerators (incl. fridge/freezers) Televisions Personal Computers Consumer electronics Fluorescent lamps Mixture (i.e. unspecified) TOTAL (c) Do you have any initiatives or programmes proposed for the collection and/or treatment of WEEE? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Page 88 of 90 2. Are you aware of any private sector WEEE collection and/or treatment facilities in your region? If so please outline: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Specific Questions Regarding Refrigerators: i. Do you collect statistics on the quantity of refrigerators collected at landfills/civic amenity sites? Yes No What are the quantities (i.e. tonnes per annum)? ______________________________ ii. What is the standard procedure for the treatment of refrigerators collected by your authority (i.e. degassing, recycling, landfilling)? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ iii. Could you give an estimate of the disposal paths for refrigerators once collected: Disposal Path Percent Landfilled directly Recycled Residual waste from recycling operation We would be very grateful if you could return this form to us before 29 September 2000. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Please direct enquiries and completed forms to: Simon Wilkinson, Clean Technology Centre, Unit 1 Melbourne Business Park, Model Farm Rd, Cork. Fax 021 434 4865 Tel 021 485 6705 email: firstname.lastname@example.org Page 89 of 90 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and information provided by the European Topic Centre on Waste and the European Environment Agency. This study formed part of a wider study on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment conducted by the European Topic Centre on Waste on behalf of the European Environment Agency. Information about the activities of the European Topic Centre on Waste and the European Environment Agency is available on their respective websites: www.etc-waste.int; www.eea.eu.int FURTHER INFORMATION A published summary of this report is available free of charge from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Publication Office who can be contacted at: Environmental Protection Agency St. Martins House Waterloo Road Dublin 4 Ireland Telephone Number: 00 353 1 6674474. Page 90 of 90 An Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil Bunú Achtaíodh an tAcht fán nGníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil ar an 23ú lá d’Aibreán, 1992 agus faoin reachtaíocht seo bunaíodh an Ghníomhaireacht go hoifigiúil ar an 26ú lá d’lúil, 1993. Cúraimí Tá réimse leathan de dhualgais reachtúla ar an nGníomhaireacht agus de chumhachtaí reachtúla aici faoin Acht. Tá na nithe seo a leanas san áireamh i bpríomhfhreagrachtaí na Gníomhaireachta: - ceadúnú agus rialáil próiseas mór/ilchasta tionsclaíoch agus próiseas eile a d’fhéadfadh a bheith antruaillitheach, ar bhonn rialú comhtháite ar thruailliú (Integrated Pollution Control-IPC) agus cur chun feidhme na dteicneolaíochtaí is fearr atá ar fáil chun na críche sin; - faireachán a dhéanamh ar cháiliocht comhshaoil, lena n-áiritear bunachair sonraí a chur ar bun a mbeidh rochtain ag an bpobal orthu, agus foilsiú tuarascálacha treimhsiúla ar staid an chomhshaoil; - comhairle a chur ar údaráis phoiblí maidir le feidhmeanna comhshaoil agus cuidiú le húdaráis áitiúla a bhfeidhmeannas caomhnaithe a chomhlíonadh; - cleachtais atá fónta ó thaobh an chomhshaoil de a chur chun cinn, mar shampla, trí úsáid iniúchtaí comhshaoil a spreagadh, cuspóirí cáilíochta comhshaoil a leagan síos agus cóid chleachtais a eisiúint maidir le nithe a théann i bhfeidhm ar an gcomhshaol; - taighde comhshaoil a chur chun cinn agus a chomhordú; - gach gníomhaíocht thábhachtach diúscartha agus aisghabhála dramhaíola, lena n-áirítear líontaí talún, a cheadúnú agus a rialáil agus plean náisiúnta bainistíochta um dhramháil ghuaiseach, a bheidh le cur i ngníomh ag comhlachtaí eile, a ullmhú agus a thabhairt cothrom le dáta go tréimhsiúil; - córas a fheidhmiú a chuirfidh ar ár gcumas astúcháin COS (Comhdhúiligh Orgánacha Sho-ghalaithe) a rialú de bharr cáinníochtaí suntasacha peitril a bheith á stóráil i dteirminéil; - na rialúcháin OMG (Orgánaigh a Mionathraíodh go Géiniteach) a fheidhmiú agus a ghníomhú maidir le húseaid shrianta a leithéad seo d’orgánaigh agus iad a scaoileadh d’aon turas isteach sa timpeallacht; - clár hidriméadach náisiúnta a ullmhú agus a chur i ngníomh chun faisnéis maidir le leibhéil, toirteanna agus sruthanna uisce in aibhneacha, i lochanna agus i screamhuiscí a bhailiú, a anailisiú agus a fhoilsiú; agus - maoirseacht i gcoitinne a dhéanamh ar chomhlíonadh a bhfeidhmeanna reachtúla caomhnaithe comhshaoil ag údarás áitiúla. Stádas Is eagras poiblí neamhspleách í an Ghníomhaireacht. Is í an Roinn Comhshaoil agus Rialtais Áitiúil an coimirceoir rialtais atá aici. Cinntítear a neamhspleáchas trí na modhanna a úsaidtear chun an tArd-Stiúrthóir agus na Stiúrthóirí a roghnú, agus tríd an tsaoirse a dhearbhaionn an reachtaíocht di gníomhú ar a conlán féin. Tá freagracht dhíreach faoin reachtaíocht aici as réimse leathan feidhmeannas agus cuireann sé seo taca breise lena neamhspleáchas. Faoin reachtaíocht, is coir é iarracht a dhéanamh dul i gcion go míchuí ar an nGníomhaireacht nó ar aon duine atá ag gníomhú thar a ceann. Eagrú Tá ceanncheathrú na Gníornhaireachta lonnaithe i Loch Garman agus tá cúig fhoireann chigireachta aici, atá lonnaithe i mBaile Átha Cliath, Corcaigh, Cill Chainnigh, Caisleán an Bharraigh agus Muineachán. Bainistíocht Riarann Bord Feidhmiúcháin lánaimseartha an Ghníomhaireacht. Tá Ard-Stiúrthóir agus ceathrar Stiúrthóirí ar an mBord. Ceapann an Rialtas an Bord Feidhmi úcháin de réir mionrialacha atá leagtha síos san Acht. Coiste Comhairleach Tugann Coiste Comhairleach ar a bhfuil dáréag ball cunamh don Ghníomhaireacht. Ceapann an tAire Comhshaoil agus Rialtais Áitiúil na baill agus roghnaítear iad, den chuid is mó, ó dhaoine a ainmníonn eagraíochtaí a bhfuil suim acu i gcúrsaí comhshaoil nó forbartha. Tá réimse fairsing feidhmeannas comhairleach ag an gCoiste faoin Acht, i leith na Gníomhaireachta agus i leith an Aire araon.