This blog discusses the Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directives and how they affect the design, manufacture, marketing, and sales of products sold in the European Community member states and North America.
These directives govern the registration, collection, disposal, and recycling of electrical and electronic products produced within and outside the countries concerned. The European Parliament is in the process of final review for the most recent amendments to the directives, and each individual member state is working to identify governing bodies that will be responsible for the practical aspects required for full compliance. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the governing body for the United States, and electronic waste is covered under Title 40 Part 261 (Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste).
In this blog I will discuss all the various elements of these environmental regulations and name all the players manufacturers must be aware of to assure compliance. The regulations are many and the enforcers similarly numerous, but your company needs to be aware of all these participants to avoid getting caught in a legal mess. As noted in the headline, this is an updated primer on the various parties involved. The details would be too intense for those already familiar with the regulations and the implications for their businesses, but for anyone that is just getting started, this may just be what the doctor ordered.
First, I'll identify all of the departments and government agencies you need to know about in Europe -- plus all of the acronyms. In part two of the report to be posted next week, we'll discuss details of the laws and how they impact the electronics market. Please chime in with comments and suggestions.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) leads the EU negotiations on European Directives, all of RoHS implementation, and on most aspects of UK implementation of WEEE. The Environment Agency (SEPA in Scotland and EHS in Northern Island) are the enforcement agencies for WEEE. Responsibility for enforcement of the RoHS directive has yet to be allocated by the DTI.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs UK (DEFRA)
leads on certain aspects of domestic implementation, including drawing up guidance on how WEEE must be treated, waste permitting, and assessing producers’ compliance with the collection, recycling, and recovery targets. The Environment Agency (SEPA in Scotland, EHS in Northern Island) enforce these aspects.
The EC member states
are reporting progress towards implementation and enforcement of the WEEE and RoHS directives. Because of the organizational, resource, legal, and implementation challenges, the effective details for registration, collection, and enforcement vary considerably. The "Perchards Report" is monitoring and reporting individual state progress. The DTI commissioned this to provide a series of short factual reports on existing WEEE-related measures and the types of transposition plans that were developing in other member states. The last report was filed in November 2005.
Will it, at the end, read: "Send everything to a poor country that prefers a few dollars over the possible effect of those devices on its land"? I think those strategies should take that into a account and have an integral solution that looks for the best solution, for everyone, not just their country or region.
Paying up front for recycling makes sense to me, because it doesn't just shunt the costs to future generations or to the government. It recognizes that these costs eventually become payable by someone. As long as the costs can be delayed and passed onto someone else, the market will do that. This unwillingness to deal with the costs of recycling is a failure of the market, understandable because no one business can competitively afford to be the first one to move the costs upfront. That is why we must have regulation do it for us.
I agree. The optimum, interim solution is to buy from franchised distributors or sources that have well documented processes in place so every part is traceable back to the source. Rules Based RFID is the best implementation for supply chain tracking that is widely deployed now, but for semiconductors, Hardware Intrinsic Security may be the most cost effective in the long run and DNA marking for all materials and components will most likely capture the countermeasures market as the cost for aunthentication come down. This article discusses Waste management via WEEE and I think at some point, we will not be able to address the beginning of the supply chain without discussing the end of the supply chain. For now, just ask your distributor to guarantee reimbursements against all losses for passing on counterfeit parts. Make sure you cover cost of rework and replacement, and not just the cost of the component itself.
"Mission-critical systems like ATM's, voting machines, and defense electronics should stick to sources that are verifiable from fabrication to test to assembly."
Excellent point. There need to be trustworthy guarantees of functionality in place.
For recycled processing or networking equipment, there needs to be some expensive investigation of the equipment. There was a rumor of a scam running a few years ago where hackers would replace firmware in routers and sell the routers on eBay, with the intent of monitoring digital traffic. Beware when buying used equipment!
A lot of electronic parts now have identification burned onto on-board ROM. Like key for cars recently manufactured having a unique code that unlocks the door, parts could have a traceability id burned in on board, or maybe on a micro-QR code.
Counterfeiters could of course burn in duplicate codes from authentic parts they take out of the supply chain. With a manufacturer providing traceability for each device, this could be tricky to pull off.
Rich,
I agree 110% about the disincentive nature of individuals having to pay to turn in their old terminals and other electronics. The EU WEEE requirement states that he manufacturer or agent shoulders the recycling costs upfront so individual consumers don't have to carry the cost of recycling. In addition, in the EU, the stores where the product was initially purchased, take the returned "waste" back without hesitation. Now, I suspect, the retailer adds something to their mark-up, and the manufacturer recoups their burdened cost by adding to the wholesale price some or all of the recycle costs.
Stochastic,
In suggesting recycled parts find there way back into the supply chain with some kind of marking ID, I was suggesting that there may be a licit path for reclaimed parts that might be segregated from new parts sold on critical use products. If your child's toy had a 1 year MTBF (Reliability) label on it, would you buy it for a two-year old at a cheaper price than the same toy with a 10 year MTBF? The problem I was hinting at is still the counterfeiting potential of 1 year MTBF being marked as 10 year. So, tying it back into WEEE, the question becomes, can a recycled component or higher level product be identified as recycled in such a manner that it not only does not end up in a land fill, but in fact would find its way back into the market place as a new, USED or refurbished product with a known and stated lower Reliability quotient? My two- year old is not going to play with the same toys 10 years fom now anyway. I'm just putting a new spin on the used product market by suggesting a new loop being deliberately added to the supply chain, without turning it into a knot that counterfeiters could use to tangle up the licit, new product supply line.
The practice of recovering raw materials such as tantalum from electronic waste makes a lot of sense. Microprocessors are different because they are almost like the brains of systems that incorporate them. Mission-critical systems like ATM's, voting machines, and defense electronics should stick to sources that are verifiable from fabrication to test to assembly.
In the same way you wouldn't use recycled paper for a publication meant to impress a client. Recycled materials have importance in the supply chain it seems as more of a supplement to existing sources.
Where I live, I can recycle some electronics and related products (such as batteries and compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs) at local stores, such as Best Buy or Lowes. What is interesting is that, for instance, the local recycling authority will charge 75 cents to recycle a CFL, but there is no effective enforcement to prevent that same CFL from being dumped into the waste stream and landfill. Fortunately, there are the recycling programs of the businesses that I mentioned above that offer a low-cost recycling alternative for the conscientious consumer. Plus, it probably brings in more traffic, which likely increases sales.
Some messier electronics, such as old cathode ray tube TV sets, can cost the consumer about $25 per set to recycle, depending on where he or she lives. (The stores don't take these items, so likely a lot of the lead from those sets is entering the landfills.)
In one municipality in a neighboring state, electronics recycling is free, but a special pick-up must be arranged for the item. If the pick-up does not occur, then the homeowner who put the item on the street may be fined for leaving junk on the street!
"Should there be a marking on recycled components like we have for recycled paper?"
@Douglas: That's an interesting point. I think many electronic components can be fairly easily recycled and should be. This would certainly save the resources being used to build new components. However, I think the process of recycling electronic components will be much different than the one for paper. There needs to be standards in place which can control the recycling process.
Machine-to-machine technology is growing so rapidly that one report says there could be 10 billion connected devices by 2016. That's a big market opportunity.
RFID makes it possible not only to increase the quantity and types of products streaming through the supply chain, but also to build higher-level products and services.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This