Take-back

Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389 www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Short report

Take-back of discarded consumer electronic products from the perspective of the producer Conditions for success A.L.N. Stevels b

a,b,*

, A.A.P. Ram a, E. Deckers

b

a Delft University of Technology, Faculty OCP, Department of Engineering Design, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, Netherlands Philips Consumer Electronics, Environmental Competence Centre, Building SK6, PO Box 80002, 5600 JB Eindhoven, Netherlands

Received 15 April 1999; received in revised form 11 May 1999; accepted 15 May 1999

Abstract Take-back and recycling costs of discarded television sets can be brought down substantially by a combination of design improvements, technology improvements and by achieving economy of scale in the processing. Authorities can enhance the eco-efficiency further by appropriate supporting policies. It is estimated that, compared with the present situation, the total environmental gain over cost ratio can be pushed up by a factor 4 to 8. Prospects to improve end-of-life performance of smaller consumer electronic products (audio, VCR, etc.) are much less. In view of the fact, however, that television sets make approximately 60% by weight of the total waste stream, the improvement potential of the total stream is large.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Recycling; Take-back costs; Ecoefficiency; Design for recycling

1. Introduction In a growing number of countries around the world, laws are in preparation to make producers and importers of electronic consumer products responsible for their products at the end of life stage. Plans are being prepared to oblige industry to take-back its products and set up an end-of-life processing industry for consumer electronics. The ultimate objective of this is to reduce the environmental burden caused by discarded consumer electronic products and to encourage industry to conserve resources. The aim of this article is to present the point of view of Philips Consumer Electronics — Sound & Vision, on how the take-back regulation and the end-of-life industry of electronics should be built up in a gradual way, without imposing an unnecessary financial burden on society. All actors involved in the take-back of discarded electronic products agree upon the issue of taking back endof-life consumer equipment. In principle they all want:

* Corresponding author.

앫 better conservation of resources and value (cascade principle); 앫 more recycling/re-use; 앫 less waste; 앫 eco-design. Up to now, the major points of debate about the organisation and operation of take-back and recycling of these products have been: 앫 who is responsible for which of the relevant issues? 앫 how should the take-back system be financed (waste taxes, internalisation in prices of new products, etc.)? 앫 how should the take-back system be organised (public or private, pool systems or individual brands)? The debate between the actors is now so intense that it tends to overshadow the common ground which is already in place. Moreover, resolution of the differences of opinion will take much time, while the final outcome can be a situation in which our society pays too much for a sub-optimal solution. The present paper considers take-back primarily from the perspective of product characteristics. It will be

0959-6526/99/$ - see front matter.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 5 2 - 3

384

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

shown that the costs of take-back and recycling can be lowered substantially and that the recycling performance can still be substantially increased if technical, organisational and regulatory conditions (‘the conditions for success’) are fulfilled. We first focus on the cost effectiveness of the end-oflife treatment of consumer electronics. From this perspective a distinction is made between the take-back of television sets, and the take-back of the remainder of the consumer electronic products waste stream. The main reason for this is the cost effectiveness of recycling and the level up to which this can be influenced. The cost effectiveness of recycling can, for example, be influenced by dismantling criteria and an acceptable economic material content during recycling. It is suggested that for products that contain picture tubes, dismantling leads to the most eco-efficient recycling process. For products without picture tubes it is pleaded that integral mechanical processing leads to the most eco-efficient recycling process. Eco-efficiency is defined herein as the environmental gain over cost ratio of the recycling process. Moreover, it will be shown that recycling of television sets can be improved and that a reduction in costs can be achieved by means of improved design and an appropriate organisational structure. The end-of-life aspects of television sets are treated, but in principle the same matters apply to picture-tube-containing products in general (e.g. computer monitors). For the remainder of the consumer electronics waste stream, like VCRs, audio equipment, and car stereo products, it will be shown that improvement of the recycling efficiency of these products is much more difficult to achieve. Subsequently, the conditions for success and the effect of these conditions on the recycling efficiency for both these categories of electronic products will be presented.

2. Costs of take-back Televisions and computer monitors form 55–60% of the weight of the total waste stream of consumer electronic products. It is expected that this figure will shift towards 60% or even higher in the future due to the increasing part of monitors. The costs of take-back of television sets over time are shown in Fig. 1. The present recycling costs are approximately 10–15 USD per television set (0.35 USD/kg), as found in the Dutch national pilot project concerning the take-back and recycling of consumer electronic products, Apparetour [1,2]. Logistic costs are assumed to be constant. Costs of end-of-life processing of television sets show a change over time. Fig. 1 shows clearly that a large cost reduction in the take-back costs of television sets can be achieved when the conditions for success are fulfilled (see Section 3). It is expected that by approxi-

Fig. 1.

Take-back costs of television sets over time.

mately 2010, the recycling costs of television sets will have dropped to the level of current landfill/incineration costs (±NLG 0.25/kg). Fig. 1 also demonstrates that until approximately 2003 hardly any cost reduction of end-of-life processing of television sets can be achieved. This is due to the fact that the television sets to be taken back in this period have been developed and manufactured in the pre-ecodesign period and thus are not appropriate for efficient recycling. Since the late 1980s, the first eco-design activities in this field have been started. Together with an average lifetime of television sets of 15 years, this leads to an expected improvement of recycling results after approximately 2003. The difference in materials composition and thus recycling potential will be explained in Section 3. At present, far less is known about the costs of takeback of the remainder of the consumer electronics waste stream. Apparetour [1,2] showed that the present costs are approximately 0.75–1 USD/kg. From research done in this area so far [3], we believe that the change over time in the take-back costs of these products should be something like that presented in Fig. 2. The similarity between Figs. 1 and 2 is that, also for this category of products, it is expected that until 2003 hardly any change in costs can be achieved. The reasoning here is similar to that used for television sets. The striking difference is that after 2003 the reduction of end-of-life costs will be smaller (see Section 4). It should be noted that the cost axes in Figs. 1 and 2 are not on the same scale.

Fig. 2. Estimated take-back costs of the remainder of consumer electronics waste stream over time.

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

Following from Figs. 1 and 2, it is obvious from the financial perspective that take-back obligation should start to be applied to television sets. Even here it can be seen from Fig. 1 that costs of take-back can vary substantially, depending on economies of scale, organisational conditions, and legislation. Due to the little knowledge existing so far related to the take-back of the remainder of the consumer electronic waste stream, it is suggested that take-back legislation regarding these products should be implemented at a later time. It should be noted that low costs for taking back and recycling of television sets can only be achieved in the case that the responsibility for the various end-of-life stages (logistics, disassembly, mechanical processing, reapplication of secondary materials) are attributed to those actors in the life cycle chain who can influence these costs. This means that society only gets a costeffective and ecologically efficient take-back system when the costs are based on the operational responsibility (shared responsibility). The responsibility is thus attributed to the actor that can achieve the best environmental gain/cost ratio for the particular part, and is able to close the material chain. At present, common governmental policy however, puts the responsibility with the actor that is responsible for product manufacture or even only for product sales! From the analysis it is also shown that both from an environmental, and a cost point of view, the responsibility for take-back logistics should stay where it is, i.e. with the local authorities. The main reason for this is that currently local authorities already collect other waste streams and have the necessary infrastructure.

3. Recycling of materials in television sets Recycling of television sets means recycling of the materials present in a television set. Because of the rapid technical evolution, the re-use potential of components or sub-assemblies is at present only very limited or nonexistent. On the other hand, a market driven by secondhand products is already in place. In practice a large number of old sets are simply discarded. The secondhand use of television sets may diminish or delay the recycling problem, but as such is not at all a solution to this problem. Moreover, from a life cycle perspective the use of old (second-hand) television sets is no solution to environmental problems either, due to the higher energy use. The higher energy use of old television sets contributes significantly to the higher integral environmental impact, as can be calculated using Life Cycle Assessment [4,5]. In order to recover single materials, electronic products need to be disassembled to reach a sufficient yield. The main reason for doing so is to ensure that the quality of the materials obtained is such that they have the

385

potential to be upgraded to their original level of application. This is crucial for an optimal conservation of resources and value, and the only way to really achieve a high environmental gain/costs ratio. Disassembly of products has to be done manually and is therefore rather costly in Western Europe. The most important criteria for applying disassembly are: 앫 To reduce the recycling costs, which can be achieved by: 앫 disassembly of mono-material parts (parts of one kind of material, e.g. ABS) which leads to improvement of the recycling yield (criteria described in Table 1); 앫 disassembly of parts made of materials containing ‘penalty elements’, which leads to a higher value of the waste. Penalty elements are elements that lead to (financial) penalties when the material fraction containing those elements is sold to the metal refinery industry (e.g. Pb, Zn). 앫 To reach a certain efficiency in material re-use. In Table 1, the approximate amounts of materials (in grams) that have to be disassembled per minute to balance the labour and reprocessing costs are shown. The labour costs are based upon the current tariffs of a Dutch recycler, and amount to 7.0 NLG/min. The results are obtained by dividing the current average prices for virgin material by the labour costs, and multiplying this by a factor (0.9) to include the processing costs. In this case, disassembly is aimed at regaining the materials. For the main construction materials of television sets (PS and ABS), this table leads to the conclusion that it is useful to disassemble those parts of PS and ABS whose weight exceeds 800 g and 1000 g, respectively. For Philips television sets, where PS is the main construction material, this means that the cabinet (weight approximately 3 kg), the backcover (weight approxiTable 1 Approximate amounts of material that have to be disassembled per minute to balance labour and processing costs with value of materials recovered Amount (g) Precious metals Gold Silver Palladium Metals Copper Aluminium Iron

Plastics

0.05 PPE 5.0 PC, POM 0.14 ABS PS PVC 300 700 Glass 50 000

Amount (g)

250 350 800 1000 4000 6000

386

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

mately 2.7 kg) and the speaker box (weight approximately 1 kg) are candidates for disassembly. Restrictions are that no contamination of other materials (such as metal inserts) and that no flame retardants are present. Fig. 3 shows the recycling efficiency of old and new television sets, recycled according to the current industrial practice. As can be seen, current Philips television sets already have a higher recycling efficiency than older ones (55% vs. 43%). Reasons for this are as follows. 앫 Design for assembly and design for serviceability have been improved. This has automatically led to fewer parts and thus to an improvement of the disassembly of the television set as well. 앫 Environmentally relevant substances have been eliminated. This has led to less contamination in material fractions, which make them more suitable for recycling (smelter specifications). 앫 Plastic encasing without flame retardants. 앫 Electronics have been reduced. This has led to a smaller fraction with a complex material mix, and therefore to a smaller waste fraction. 앫 Miniaturisation. Because of miniaturisation, the weight of television sets has been reduced significantly. Since less raw materials are used, less waste is generated at the product’s end-of-life stage. This automatically implies a better conservation of resources and value. Recycling of current television sets, however, can still be improved. This can be achieved by a better ecodesign of these products and by fulfilment of some additional conditions for success. The main deficits for recycling of current television sets are as follows. 앫 The encasing is currently landfilled or incinerated because it is made of plywood. New television sets have a higher recycling potential with respect to this

matter since the encasing consists of plastics, provided that these do not contain flame retardants. 앫 Currently, picture tube glass is not recycled at equal level of application. At best, apart from low level applications in ceramics and road pavement, Philips has shown that 70% of the picture tube glass can be recycled into cone glass production. However, if sufficiently large streams of materials are recovered, this recycling capacity will no longer be sufficient and new technology has to be developed to recycle screen glass. 앫 From printed wiring boards (PWB), mainly copper and precious metals are recovered (also iron and aluminium but these do not have a high value), which leaves a considerable remaining fraction (laminate and other elements) which are landfilled or incinerated. For efficient material recycling of the parts that can be disassembled from television sets (at the original level of application) therefore, complementary conditions have to be fulfilled. These conditions for success are listed in Table 2. In Table 3, the current situation, and the expected situation until the year 2005–2010 when the conditions for success are fulfilled, regarding end-of-life processing of discarded television sets is presented. It is assumed that the functionality, the imaging principle (CRT), the materials applied and the end-of-life processing technologies are comparable to the ones of today. Table 3 refers to the average performance of recyclers in Western Europe. The current situation is represented in two columns, current industrial practices, and the maximum level of recycling without downgrading. Clearly, it can be seen that the recycling efficiency is projected to have increased by 2005–2010, with respect to both material recovery, as well as cost effectiveness. In Fig. 4 the material composition and the recycling effectiveness that can be achieved in 2010 is presented.

Fig. 3. Material composition and recycling efficiency of old and new television sets.

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

387

Table 2 Conditions for success to improve the recycling efficiency of television sets TV component/fraction

Technological condition

Economical condition

Organisational condition

Housing — plastics

No flame retardants

Economy of scale, 5000 t/year (300 000 television sets/year)

Consuming market needed (no television set production in NL)

Picture tube — glass

Identification of different types of plastics Separation of screen and cone

Electronics (PWB) — Cu, plastics Reduce penalty elements

Metal — Fe, Al Rest — waste landfill

Economy of scale

Consuming market needed (no glass production in NL) Economy of scale (easy to achieve Consuming market needed by integrating electronic waste (currently existing, but efficiency fraction in existing Cu waste can be better) stream)

Recycling of plastic mixtures Recycling of main other elements as well (Fe, Al,...) Treatment of surface coatings (e.g. Prices secondary materials vs. zinc) virgin materials Specification of waste Fair tariffs

NA Landfill still possible

Table 3 Current and expected situation in television set recycling Item

Current industrial practice

Maximum level

Year 2005–2010

Logistics Average disassembly time Recycling on equal level Downgrading (rec./inc.) Waste (landfill) Economy of scale Costs/set Env. gain/costs ratioa

Present municipal systems 15 min 15% 70% 15% NA ±20 ecu 1

Present municipal systems 20 min 50% 35% 15% 100 000 sets/year ±35 ecu 1.5

Present municipal systems 5–7 min 85% 8% 7% 250 000–400 000 sets/year ±10 ecu 8.5–4

a

The environmental gain/cost ratio is defined here as the amount of material re-used in its original application divided by the end-of-life costs.

3.1. Roadmap EcoDesign

Activity Weight reduction (min. 10%)

Fig. 4. Expected recycling efficiency of television sets in 2010.

In order to fulfil the conditions for success, much has to be done by all the actors. Below, roadmaps are presented for the four main categories of activities.

Miniaturisation of electronics Elimination of flame retardants Standardisation of glass compositions Reduction of environmentally relevant substances Design for recycling (disassembly/nondisassembly) Application of secondary materials

Responsible actor Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer

388

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

3.2. Roadmap for the development of end-of-life processing technology Activity

Responsible actor Recycling technology for plastics Producer, recycler Improvement of separation technologies Recycler, scientists Picture tube glass recycling technology Recycler Optimisation of disassembly Recycler, scientists 3.3. Roadmap for the development of an economy of scale Activity

Responsible actor Certification of recyclers (technical Authorities, performance) producer Supranational approach (e.g. adaptation Authorities of Basel convention) Environmental validation Producer, authorities 3.4. Roadmap for the development of supporting policies Activity Handling pre-eco-design products Differentiated fee system Supporting legislation/regulation Monitoring and control

Responsible actor Authorities Authorities Authorities Authorities

This list obviously shows that much still has to be done. From this list it follows that: 앫 the authorities need to support research and development activities in this field to overcome the gap between current practice and what is needed in 2010; 앫 recyclers should be certified according to their recycling achievements in order to create an economy of scale; 앫 the authorities must stay involved as an actor in the consumer electronics’ recycling and act on a transnational level (economy of scale).

Fig. 5. VCR.

Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a

앫 The weight and size of these products is such that they do not fulfil the disassembly criteria presented in Table 1. 앫 The use of monomaterial for the heaviest and/or biggest parts is much more difficult because of functionality requirements. The front cover of e.g. a miniset or soundmachine incorporates far more functions than e.g. the front cover of a television set. Consequently, at the back of the front cover several different engineering plastics and metal parts are present. This means that even in the bigger parts, many different materials are present. The above considerations have led to the conclusion that the end-of-life processing for these types of products for the time being basically should consist of an integral recycling process. In Figs. 5–7, the average material’s composition and the recycling efficiency of respectively a VCR, a midset (audio), and a soundmachine (portable audio) are given. These figures show that the recycling efficiency of these products presently varies from moderate to very low. The main material that can be recycled is the iron fraction from the housing parts. Although this fraction may maximally be approximately 50 weight percent of the product (VCR, see Fig. 5), its intrinsic value is very low, which makes the recycling of these products cost-inef-

4. Recycling materials in VCRs, and audio and car stereo products Based upon the present technology, the recycling of all other consumer electronic wastes is less favorable than the situation for television sets. The two main reasons for this are as follows.

Fig. 6. Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a miniset.

A.L.N. Stevels et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 383–389

389

back legislation, the following issues should be investigated.

Fig. 7. Average material composition and recycling efficiency of a soundmachine.

ficient. Moreover, the waste fraction of the product consists of a considerable proportion of mixed plastics, which are difficult to recycle. At this moment far less is known about the problems related to end-of-life processing of these products, compared with the knowledge related to the take-back of picture-tube-containing products. The main problems are as follows. 앫 Mainly the ferro materials are regained. This is not a valuable fraction (0.05 USD/kg), which makes the recycling of these products very cost-ineffective because the material benefits do not equal the processing costs. 앫 Substantial waste fraction (mixed plastics). 앫 More contamination in useable material fractions (low grade application only). In principle the conditions for success for television sets recycling also apply to the remainder of the consumer electronics waste stream (with the obvious exception of picture tube glass). An additional condition is given below. 앫 Combination of these products with the television set material fraction that shows the largest similarity in composition. This is most probably the electronic fraction. For the products that have a high plastic content (e.g. soundmachine, walkmans, minisets, etc.) this means that an additional separation technique has to be used to prevent contamination of the valuable television set fractions with the plastics from the remainder of the electronic waste stream. When it is not possible to carry out the above-mentioned condition, incineration should be considered as the best eco-efficient solution for the recycling of these products. At the moment, it is difficult to predict the improvement of the recycling efficiency and end-of-life costs when the conditions for success are fulfilled. Before including audio, VCR, and car stereo products in take-

앫 A well-operating take-back and recycling system for television sets. The other products can be added to this system at a later stage. 앫 An in-depth technological and design programme, tailored to these types of products. 앫 A cost effective incineration capacity for the (large) material fraction which cannot be recycled at equal level of application (not even after carrying out the above programme) or for the products as a whole.

5. Conclusions The present outstanding issues about take-back and recycling of consumer electronic products, like producer responsibility, financing, and system organisation, can only be achieved if all actors involved (producers, recyclers, local/national European authorities) work together on the basis of a common agenda and of shared responsibility. For take-back and recycling of discarded television sets, impressive environmental and economic gains are expected to be achieved, if the conditions for success elaborated in this paper are met. The very nature of other consumer electronic products (audio, VCR, car stereo) makes it much more difficult to get similar results as for television sets, but, again, when compared with the current situation, progress can be made. In all cases, conditions for success include: 앫 a technological programme; 앫 appropriate organisation and certification of the endof-life industry; 앫 legislation and supporting measures, including continuous involvement in this matter by authorities. References [1] Ploos van Amstel JJ, a.o. Back to the beginning. National pilot take back project. Reprint available from Tel 31 402 461 464; fax 31 402 439 901. [2] Ram A, Kersten F. Apparetour Deelrapport Technologie (Apparetour Technology report). Eindhoven, July 1997. [3] Deckers J, Ram A. Recyclability of high volume electronics — design for non-disassembly. Internal Philips report, CTR598-980011, Eindhoven, January 1998. [4] Heijungs R, Guine´e JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds. Leiden (Netherlands): CML Leiden University, 1992. [5] Goedkoop M. The eco indicator 95. Final Report, National Reuse of Waste Research Programme. Report 9523. Amersfoort (Netherlands), 1995.