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
2.2.1.1 Official Statistics..........................................................................................17
2.2.1.2 Market Research Companies ......................................................................18
2.2.1.3 Industry Associations...................................................................................19
2.2.1.4 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
2.3.1.1 Results for PC’s ..........................................................................................24
2.3.1.2 Results for Refrigerators..............................................................................26
2.3.1.3 Results for Televisions ................................................................................28
2.3.1.4 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
2.6.3.1 Ferrous Metals ............................................................................................38
2.6.3.2 Non-ferrous Metals......................................................................................38
2.6.3.3 Plastics .......................................................................................................39
2.6.3.4 Glass ..........................................................................................................39
2.6.4
Specific Components Arising from WEEE in Ireland ..................................40
2.6.4.1 Printed Circuit Boards..................................................................................40
2.6.4.2 Brominated Flame Retardants.....................................................................41
2.6.4.3 Cathode Ray Tubes ....................................................................................42
2.6.4.4 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
2.2.1.1 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
2.2.1.2 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.
2.2.1.3 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
2.2.1.4 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 2.2.1.1 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.
2.3.1.1 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
2.3.1.2 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
2.3.1.3 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
2.3.1.4 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.
2.6.3.1 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
2.6.3.2 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
2.6.3.3 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 2.6.4.2, 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
2.6.3.4 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 2.6.4.3, 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.
2.6.4.1 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
2.6.4.2 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
2.6.4.3 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 2.6.3.4) 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
2.6.4.4 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 protected]
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: [email protected]
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 protected]
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: [email protected]
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.