World Environment and Energy (2011)
 

Electrical and Electronic Waste

Skip Navigation Links
-- Latest pages --
-08 June 2011 -
___________________
Shale HCs
------------------
Fukushima
Volcanoes/CO2
----------
350 ppm?
----------
Waste-to-energy
----------
Climate: Mitigation
Climate: the future
What's it all about?
Carbon labels
Wind farms
Tridel (update)

On 27 January 2003, two Directives entered into force within the EU. The first (RoHS) concerns constructional materials used for electrical and electronic equipment and does not concern us here, except to mention that it will cause far more environmental harm than it will ever prevent. The second is Directive 2002/96/EC on "waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)"[Download]. Both directives are vaguely worded and are quite open to interpretation and may be expected to be the subject of considerable debate.

The general purpose behind WEEE is to reduce the risk of pollution caused by electrical equipment being disposed of by being deposited within a landfill or by other means. As such, this is laudable. Instead, it should be recycled to a maximum. This maximum, to be attained by 31 December 2006, varies, by weight, from 70% (for small household equipment and similar) to 80% (for large household appliances and dispensers). Components removed from the equipment benefit from reduced percentages; for example, a PC should be recycled to 75% but a graphics card taken from it should be recycled to 65%. The fact that the latter is impossible to achieve does not appear to have fazed the rulemakers!

One of the main points of this Directive is contained within Article 5. Briefly summarised, this states inter alia:

I find that one of the controversial points is the 4 kg/inhabitant/year rule. Some parts of the EU are peopled with large families, often with minimal incomes. It is one thing for a professional childless couple always buying the latest gadgets and changing them regularly to produce 8 kg of waste electrics per year, but it is grossly unfair to expect families with 4 children with only a small fridge and a TV set to produce 24 kg/year, every year.

There is another point that needs examination. Some WEEE will contain metals and other substances that must be considered as very toxic. These will have no market value in the smaller Member States, nor are there any means of safely disposing of them. Whether the waste is recycled locally or not, these toxic materials must be disposed of safely but they will be classed as hazardous waste. This implies they will have to be exported. This will also mean that they come under the aegis of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal [Download]. The cost of complying with this will not be insignificant. To give you an idea of the size of this problem, virtually all electronic and some electrical equipment made before 2006 contains lead and lead compounds (some contain even more toxic metals, such as arsenic and cadmium) and will automatically be considered as hazardous waste when taken out of service. Even if the lead were separated out, it will be impure and will still be hazardous waste when sent elsewhere for re-use.

Three years later

So, where are we in 2008 with WEEE? Honestly, not well advanced.

If you go to a dealer to buy a new mobile phone, fridge or washing machine, it is rare he will offer to take your old one. (Happily, there are some who do!) In fact, they are obliged to and should not even need to be asked. However, small electrical appliances inevitably will find their way into household garbage and thus to landfills not designed to receive them. Larger appliances can still be seen in fly dumps.

The governments are lacking in fulfilling their commitments. "By 13 August 2005, systems are set up to ensure free-of-charge collection of WEEE from private households". Has this been done? Have municipalities arranged for either kerb-side collections or central collection points? Not really, at least in some places. As for the per capita 4 kg collected per annum, this is still ludicrous.

It is time the governments really faced their responsibilities.