14.01.2015 Views

mass flow assessment - e-Waste. This guide

mass flow assessment - e-Waste. This guide

mass flow assessment - e-Waste. This guide

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Leverage SEO-optimized Flipbooks, powerful backlinks, and multimedia content to professionally showcase your products and significantly increase your reach.

MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT (MFA) AND ASSESSMENT OF<br />

RECYCLING STRATEGIES FOR CATHODE RAY TUBES (CRTS)<br />

FOR THE CAPE METROPOLITAN AREA (CMA), SOUTH AFRICA<br />

SOUTH AFRICAN PROJECT “KNOWLEDGE PARTNERSHIPS IN E-WASTE RECYCLING”<br />

Diploma Student:<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl<br />

Supervision:<br />

Prof. Susanne Kytzia, ETH Regional Resource Management, Zurich / Switzerland<br />

Dr. Mathias Schluep, Empa Technology and Society Lab, St.Gallen / Switzerland<br />

October 2006<br />

With the support of KFPE Commission for Research<br />

Partnerships with Developing Countries


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT<br />

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this thesis.<br />

Special thanks belong to:<br />

… Prof. Susanne Kytzia and Dr. Mathias Schluep for the supervising and guiding during this thesis.<br />

… Susan and Mark Dittke, the most generous hosts in Cape Town, for the unforgettable stay in<br />

Zeekoevlei.<br />

… Miriam Keller and Ronny Haase for their company and IT support during the thesis.<br />

… Dr. Harro von Blottnitz, Christian Nissing and Carol Carr from the University of Cape Town<br />

Chemical Engineering Department for their precious support.<br />

… Gerry Newson for his efforts and the information provided for this study.<br />

… Roland Hischier for the substantial support of the environmental impact <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

… Rolf Widmer and Martin Streicher-Porte. Their inputs were always highly appreciated.<br />

… Urs Gerig, Jochen Apfel, Dudley Bradford, Juan Nomdo, Bred Scholz and Rob Packham for the<br />

informative site visits.<br />

… Daniel Gsponer for his maritime knowledge.<br />

… Samsung Corning Germany.<br />

… Peter Bornard for his precious experience.<br />

… Paul Rooney for the proofreading of this document.<br />

… Ray Lombard and Alan Finlay for the time spent in Johannesburg.<br />

Moreover, to all of which contributed to this study with any information:<br />

Alison, Inca Cape, Andrew Craig, Dirk Goris, Anthony Gracie, Tom Gloster, Saliem Haider, Jack<br />

Heyns, Sophie Heyns, David Hula, Trevor Karshagen, Kuehne & Nagel, Marina Lancaster, John<br />

Mensing, Peter Novella and Michael Tatana.<br />

Finally yet importantly, I would like to thank my friends and family for their patience and Franziska<br />

for her Love.


ABSTRACT<br />

Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are a major problem for further recycling in South Africa. At this stage,<br />

an economically feasible and environmentally sound recycling process is not available. CRTs are<br />

currently dumped or landfilled.<br />

The aim of this study is to provide background information for the future management of CRT<br />

screens in South Africa. Thus, a <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> (MFA) of cathode ray tube computer monitors<br />

and TVs for the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA) based on the year 2005 was carried out. In<br />

addition, time series were calculated to forecast future figures of obsolete CRT devices. In a second<br />

step, local and best available recycling alternatives for the recycling of CRT glass were specified<br />

and assessed towards their sustainability using the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) methodology.<br />

The results of the MFA showed a significant consumer stock growth of both CRT monitors and<br />

TVs. Only little CRT devices are disposed of at landfill sites. The obsolescence will increase until<br />

2020 for CRT computer monitors and for CRT TVs until 2020 to 2030. It is expected that in the year<br />

2007 some 400 tons of CRT monitors and 600 tons of CRT TVs will become obsolete.<br />

The dismantling of CRT monitors and TVs is already established and economically feasible. Only<br />

the CRT cannot be recycled at this stage and is therefore landfilled. For the future recycling, local<br />

brick manufactures and the building industry is able to use the CRT glass in their processes. Neither<br />

the assessed, local metal smelters nor glass manufacturers were prepared to use CRT glass<br />

in their processes. From the best available technologies, the use of CRT glass in the production of<br />

new CRTs and the use of CRT glass in the copper/lead smelting process were included in recycling<br />

scenarios. Together with the local option, eight scenarios were assessed using the MAUT<br />

methodology. A set of attributes was defined to evaluate the scenarios including economical, environmental<br />

and social attributes.<br />

The study shows that the manufacturing of new CRTs from recycled CRT glass is the best option in<br />

terms of sustainability. As second best option the lead recovery from CRT glass was identified.


TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 10<br />

1.1 What is e-waste................................................................................................................ 10<br />

1.2 Global e-waste development ............................................................................................. 11<br />

1.3 E-waste management and regulation ................................................................................ 12<br />

1.4 Management of e-waste in South Africa............................................................................ 13<br />

1.5 Objective of this study........................................................................................................ 14<br />

2 METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 16<br />

2.1 Mass Flow Assessment ..................................................................................................... 16<br />

2.1.1 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT monitors and TVs in the studied region.................................. 16<br />

2.1.2 Time series of CRT computer monitors................................................................. 16<br />

2.1.3 Time series of TV sets in the studied region ......................................................... 17<br />

2.2 Scenario analysis............................................................................................................... 18<br />

2.3 Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) ................................................................................. 19<br />

2.3.1 Attributes used in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> ............................................................. 19<br />

2.3.2 Normalisation of attributes..................................................................................... 23<br />

2.3.3 Weighting of attributes........................................................................................... 23<br />

2.4 Robustness Analysis.......................................................................................................... 24<br />

2.4.1 Error analysis and error propagation ..................................................................... 24<br />

2.4.2 Determination of the upper and lower bounds of the MAUT utilities ..................... 25<br />

3 MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 27<br />

3.1 System Definition ............................................................................................................... 27<br />

3.1.1 Selection of case study region............................................................................... 27<br />

3.1.2 Players in the case study region............................................................................ 28<br />

3.1.3 Manufacturers, Distributors and Import Statistics.................................................. 28<br />

3.1.4 Second hand suppliers .......................................................................................... 29<br />

3.1.5 Consumer .............................................................................................................. 30<br />

3.1.6 TV refurbishers ...................................................................................................... 30<br />

3.1.7 Collectors............................................................................................................... 30<br />

3.1.8 Recyclers ............................................................................................................... 31<br />

3.1.9 Landfilling............................................................................................................... 32<br />

3.2 CRT computer monitor and TV composition...................................................................... 34<br />

3.3 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT computer monitors in the CMA in the year 2005 ................................ 35<br />

3.4 Time series of CRT computer monitors ............................................................................. 37<br />

3.5 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT TVs in the CMA in the year 2005........................................................ 39<br />

3.6 Time series of CRT TVs..................................................................................................... 40


4 SCENARIO ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 43<br />

4.1 CRT Recycling technologies.............................................................................................. 43<br />

4.1.1 Pre-processing – stripping of CRT monitors and TVs ........................................... 44<br />

4.1.2 Crushing and sorting techniques ........................................................................... 45<br />

4.1.3 Separating techniques ........................................................................................... 47<br />

4.1.4 CRT glass in new CRTs ........................................................................................ 50<br />

4.1.5 CRT glass in smelting processes .......................................................................... 50<br />

4.1.6 CRT glass in bricks................................................................................................ 53<br />

4.1.7 CRT glass in concrete rubble ................................................................................ 53<br />

4.1.8 CRT glass in foam glass........................................................................................ 54<br />

4.1.9 CRT glass in container glass ................................................................................. 54<br />

4.1.10 CRT glass in flat glass ........................................................................................... 54<br />

4.2 Definition of the CRT recycling scenarios .......................................................................... 55<br />

4.3 Application of the MAUT .................................................................................................... 57<br />

4.3.1 Adjustment of the attributes ................................................................................... 57<br />

4.3.2 Scenario 0 – Landfill .............................................................................................. 58<br />

4.3.3 Scenario 1 - Lead mine.......................................................................................... 60<br />

4.3.4 Scenario 2 - Concrete Rubble ............................................................................... 62<br />

4.3.5 Scenario 3 - Recycled crushed aggregate (RCA) bricks....................................... 64<br />

4.3.6 Scenario 3a - Concrete bricks ............................................................................... 66<br />

4.3.7 Scenario 3b - Andela CRT crushing device........................................................... 67<br />

4.3.8 Scenario 4 - CRT manufacturing ........................................................................... 68<br />

4.3.9 Scenario 5 - Lead recovery.................................................................................... 71<br />

4.4 Summary of results and discussion ................................................................................... 74<br />

4.4.1 Comparison of the unweighted and weighted utilities ........................................... 74<br />

4.4.2 Weighted utilities.................................................................................................... 75<br />

4.4.3 Comparison of the attributes.................................................................................. 76<br />

4.4.4 Recycling fees........................................................................................................ 79<br />

5 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 81<br />

6 OUTLOOK.................................................................................................................................. 83<br />

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 84<br />

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 92


LIST OF FIGURES<br />

Figure 1: Top scoring countries in PC growth rates and penetration rate .................. 12<br />

Figure 2: Example of two processes involved in the processing of CRT screens...... 22<br />

Figure 3: General procedure for the calculation of Eco-indicators.. ........................... 22<br />

Figure 6: System picture with the players involved..................................................... 28<br />

Figure 7: Smart City refurbishment centre in Cape Town. ......................................... 30<br />

Figure 8: Worker is dismantling a computer at Footprints. ......................................... 31<br />

Figure 9:<br />

The first container designed to dispose of e-waste in the CMA at the<br />

Wynberg Drop-off Centre............................................................................. 31<br />

Figure 10: CRT monitor stockpiles and stripping at Desco Electronic Recyclers......... 32<br />

Figure 11:<br />

Impressions from the Coastal Park municipal solid waste landfill site and<br />

from the Athlone refuse transfer station ...................................................... 33<br />

Figure 13: Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of computer monitors in the CMA, 2005 ................................... 35<br />

Figure 14: Time series of CRT monitors in the CMA.................................................... 38<br />

Figure 15: Mass <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> of CRT TV sets in the CMA, 2005.......................... 39<br />

Figure 16: Yearly inputs of colour TVs into the CMA.................................................... 40<br />

Figure 17: Time series of the input function of CRT TVs and their obsolescence ....... 41<br />

Figure 18: Possible pathways for the recycling of CRT appliances.............................. 43<br />

Figure 19: Impressions from the CRT glass recycling at SwissGlas. ........................... 46<br />

Figure 20: Process illustration at RUAG Component Inc.............................................. 47<br />

Figure 23: Lining of the Vissershok landfill site in the year 2000.................................. 58<br />

Figure 24: Current baseline recycling scenario of TVs and computer Monitors........... 59<br />

Figure 25: Scenario 0: landfilling of CRTs at Vissershok landfill site............................ 59<br />

Figure 26: Scenario 1: Storage of CRTs in the Black Mountain lead mine .................. 61<br />

Figure 27: Scenario 2: Use of CRTs in concrete rubble manufacturing ....................... 63<br />

Figure 28:<br />

Scenario 3: Use of CRT glass in the manufacturing of recycled crushed<br />

aggregate (RCA) bricks ............................................................................... 65<br />

Figure 29: Scenario 4: CRT manufacturing in Germany .............................................. 69<br />

Figure 30: Scenario 5: lead recovery at Metallo-Chimique........................................... 71<br />

Figure 31: Unweighted MAUT results and the results with the stakeholders’ weight... 74<br />

Figure 32: Comparison of the weighted and unweighted MAUT utilities...................... 75<br />

Figure 33: Impact 2002+............................................................................................... 78


LIST OF TABLES<br />

Table 1: Attributes applied in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>................................................ 20<br />

Table 2: Transfer scale for the weighting in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> ......................... 24<br />

Table 3:<br />

Allocation of relative error to the input parameters used for the MAUT<br />

<strong>assessment</strong>..................................................................................................24<br />

Table 4: Composition of a CRT computer monitor according to literature data ........ 34<br />

Table 5:<br />

Comparison of several separation technologies towards costs, capacity<br />

and quality....................................................................................................49<br />

Table 6: Technical and economical feasibility of the CRT recycling technologies .... 55<br />

Table 7:<br />

Overview of all scenarios described in this section and used for the<br />

MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.......................................................................................56<br />

Table 8: Adjustment of the set of attributes ............................................................... 57<br />

Table 9: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 0 ........................................... 60<br />

Table 10 Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 1 ........................................... 62<br />

Table 11: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 2 ........................................... 64<br />

Table 12: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 3 ........................................... 66<br />

Table 13: Results of the environmental <strong>assessment</strong> of scenario 3a ........................... 66<br />

Table 14: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 3b ......................................... 68<br />

Table 15: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 4 ........................................... 71<br />

Table 16: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 5 ........................................... 73<br />

Table 17:<br />

Table 18:<br />

Derivation of the weight percentage of the luminescent screen coating<br />

used in CRTs ...............................................................................................100<br />

Average composition of a CRT....................................................................101


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 1: Glossary ............................................................................................................ 92<br />

Appendix 2: Definitions of e-waste........................................................................................ 93<br />

Appendix 3: Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs’ global e-waste program ............ 94<br />

Appendix 4: Import statistics from DTI and SARS ................................................................ 95<br />

Appendix 5: MFA computer monitors: specifications of the <strong>flow</strong>s......................................... 96<br />

Appendix 6: Questionnaire sent to the distributors of CRT monitors and TVs in the CMA... 97<br />

Appendix 7: Penetrations rates of TVs and personal computers in South Africa ................. 98<br />

Appendix 8: Detailed listing of WDI and SARS figures ......................................................... 98<br />

Appendix 9: Relationship of weight, diameter and volume of currently (2006) sold TVs...... 99<br />

Appendix 10: Toxicity and legislation of hazardous components in the CRT ....................... 100<br />

Appendix 11: Furnace batch composition and material savings........................................... 108<br />

Appendix 12: Constants used for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> of the recycling scenarios........... 109<br />

Appendix 13: Supporting calculations use din the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>................................. 110<br />

Appendix 14: Environmental gain and loss <strong>assessment</strong> of all scenarios; ............................ 115<br />

Appendix 15: MAUT; questionnaire for the weighting of attributes ....................................... 116<br />

Appendix 16: Results of the weighting of the attributes ........................................................ 117<br />

Appendix 17: Offer for the shipping of a 40 feet container from Kuehne + Nagel ................ 118<br />

Appendix 18: MAUT attribute vs. scenario matrix................................................................. 119<br />

Appendix 19: MAUT values unweighted and weighted used in Figure 32............................ 120


INTRODUCTION<br />

1 INTRODUCTION<br />

The Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (seco) has commissioned the Swiss Federal<br />

Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) to conduct a study. The main objective of<br />

the study was to propose a global program to improve existing e-waste management systems. <strong>This</strong><br />

led to seco's global e-waste program "Knowledge Partnerships in e-<strong>Waste</strong> Recycling" which is<br />

described in a more detailed manner in Appendix 3.<br />

In the context of the "Knowledge Partnerships in e-<strong>Waste</strong> Recycling" program EMPA commissioned<br />

two studies carried out at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) which address<br />

two different aspects of the broad issue of e-waste in two different countries. One study conducted<br />

in India addresses the informal precious metal recovery process from e-waste. <strong>This</strong> study focuses<br />

on a particular issue of the management e-waste in South Africa. The main objectives of the study<br />

are listed in section 1.5. In the following sections, the e-waste issue is introduced. The meaning of<br />

e-waste as well as an explanation of its global relevance is explained.<br />

1.1 What is e-waste<br />

In common speech in industrialized countries, “e-waste” is regarded as being an electrical or electronic<br />

device, which has no further (economic) value to the user. However when an electrical or<br />

electronic device becomes useless for the primary user it can still have a value for the next holders.<br />

The owner can sell it and then it follows a chain where it is reused, recovered or finally disposed of.<br />

Consequently, “e-waste” is a very difficult term to define. At this stage there is no generally accepted<br />

definition for the term “e-waste (Widmer et al., 2005). Attempts to define the term have been<br />

performed by several authorities and authors. A selection of definitions and the different categories<br />

of e-waste is defined by the EU WEEE Directive (The European Parliament and the Council of the<br />

European Union, 2003) and are listed in Appendix 2. In this study e-waste is referred to as "Any<br />

appliance using an electric power supply that has reached its end-of-life” as it is defined by the<br />

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD (2001). E-waste is a controversial<br />

issue discussed on a global scale and features several risks and opportunities.<br />

One opportunity of e-waste is that the appropriate recycling is “…clearly advantageous from an<br />

environmental perspective.” as proved in a study conducted by Hischier, et. al (2006). The authors<br />

compared the environmental impacts of a scenario of e-waste recycling to the baseline scenario of<br />

incineration of all e-waste and primary production of raw materials. Another prospect of e-waste is<br />

its content of valuable raw materials (also strategic materials 1 ) including many rare metals. They<br />

can be recovered with different existing techniques. Thus e-waste recycling has becomes a lucrative<br />

business.<br />

The risky part of e-waste is that it contains over 1’000 different substances and metals. Many of<br />

these substances and metals are toxic. According to Widmer et al. (2005) hazards such as lead,<br />

mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, hexavalent chromium and flame retardants in casings and<br />

circuit boards are present. The printed circuit boards (PCB) (= printed wiring boards, PWB) contain<br />

polychlorinated and polybrominated biphenyls that create dioxin-like emissions when burned. All<br />

these hazardous substances can threaten human health and the environment unless they are dis-<br />

1 Material for which the quantity required for essential civilian and military uses exceeds the reasonably secure domestic<br />

and foreign supplies and for which acceptable substitutes are not available within a reasonable period of time (American<br />

Metal Market, 1985)<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 10 October 2006


INTRODUCTION<br />

posed of properly (Li et al., 2006). Corresponding to (Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), 2002)<br />

“About 70% of heavy metals (including mercury and cadmium) found in landfills come from electronic<br />

discards”. According to a report of the European Commission 40 percent of the lead found in<br />

landfills derives from consumer electronics (Commission of the European Communities, 2000).<br />

Thus e-waste is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, valuable materials can be recovered<br />

economically whilst natural resources can be saved. On the other hand, the risks of hazardous<br />

substances being released in the environment when not processed properly can cause serious<br />

damage to the human health and the environment.<br />

1.2 Global e-waste development<br />

Because of rapid technological progress and the decreasing lifespan of the single electronic devices,<br />

e-waste is growing rapidly. In 2004, more than 180 million personal computers (PCs) were<br />

sold worldwide. In the same year, an estimated 100 million obsolete PCs entered waste streams<br />

(Widmer et al., 2005). Worldwide e-waste growth can only be estimated and is in the range of 20 to<br />

50 million tons per year. The main volume is produced in North America followed from Europe and<br />

Asia (Siemers and Vest, 1999). According to “The Economist” (Berlin Economist Office, 2005) e-<br />

waste is one of the fastest growing waste fractions. It accounts for some 8% of all municipal waste<br />

in Europe.<br />

At present e-waste is mainly generated by industrialised countries, which already have a high<br />

amount of electrical and electronic equipment. It is assumed that some of the e-waste generated in<br />

industrialised countries ends up in developing countries such as India or Africa. The British Protection<br />

Agency released a report in May 2005 admitting that a large amount of e-waste had been exported<br />

illegally from the UK (Agarwal, 2005). In Lagos (Nigeria), 400’000 used computers arrive at<br />

the port each month. 25 % - 75% of them are out of order and have to be disposed (Puckett et al.,<br />

2002). According to Iles (2004) the US exported up to 10.2 millions obsolete computers (or around<br />

50-80% of all PCs sent for recycling in the US) to Asia in 2002. The reason for these exports might<br />

be the less strict environmental standards in developing countries and lower disposal costs. For<br />

example disposing a computer in the US can cost up to $ 20, while an Indian trader pays between<br />

$ 10 and $ 15 for the disused computer (Agarwal, 2005).<br />

In the future, however a large quantity of e-waste will be produced by the developing countries<br />

themselves. Figure 1 shows the growth of personal computers in the different countries. It reveals<br />

the enormous PC growth per capita in developing countries.<br />

Due to the above developments, countries like India, China and Africa will face an increasing<br />

amount of e-waste originating from inland and through illegal exports in the future. To deal with the<br />

fast-growing, valuable and hazardous waste load, this waste stream has to be managed properly<br />

and has to be controlled by putting up <strong>guide</strong>lines and regulations.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 11 October 2006


INTRODUCTION<br />

Figure 1: Top scoring countries in PC growth rates (left) and penetration rate (right) (Schwarzer et al., 2005)<br />

1.3 E-waste management and regulation<br />

E-waste management<br />

The idea of an e-waste management is to set up a local or nationwide system where e-waste finds<br />

the way back within the country of origin from the consumer to the recycling facility rather than to<br />

the municipal solid waste stream or to the landfill. Several organisations, i.e. the “Secretariat of<br />

Basel convention” or the “StEP-initiative” try to develop global standards of such management systems.<br />

A central goal of the Basel convention is environmentally sound management (ESM). “ESM<br />

means taking all practical steps to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes and strictly controlling<br />

its storage, transport, treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal, the purpose<br />

of which is to protect human health and the environment” (Secretariat of the Basel Convention,<br />

2006). One of the five major tasks of StEP is to enhance infrastructures, systems and technologies<br />

to realize sustainable e-waste recycling (StEP, 2005). Different possibilities to finance recycling are<br />

available, i.e. introducing an Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) or a payment at the time of the disposal.<br />

In Switzerland, a properly functioning e-waste management has been realized. It is the first country<br />

who has established a nation-wide take-back system with state of the art recycling technologies,<br />

financed by an ARF. <strong>This</strong> system was established in the early 90s based on the initiative of the<br />

electronic industry itself. The current system is now controlled by two producer responsibility organisations<br />

(P.R.O): SWICO Recycling Guarantee and SENS. SWICO comprises more than 400<br />

providers in the ICT/CE segment and has become one of the most important industry associations<br />

in Switzerland.<br />

Even if a country or region organises its e-waste management system within the industry, legislations<br />

have to be set up to define the general framework. From the economical point of view the<br />

valuable parts of e-waste, i.e. precious metals are from particular interest. Therefore these parts<br />

will be recovered steered by the market demand. To prevent that recyclers take only these parts<br />

(“cherry-picking”) and dump the invaluable and often toxic parts, regulations have to be implemented.<br />

Legislations therefore generally focus on the decontamination of e-waste.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 12 October 2006


INTRODUCTION<br />

European e-waste legislation<br />

In 2003 the European Community introduced WEEE (<strong>Waste</strong> Electrical or Electronic Equipment)<br />

Directive 2002/96/EC (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2003).<br />

<strong>This</strong> regulation is currently being transposed in the EU member states. Main objectives and regulations<br />

are the prevention of WEEE, reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. The reduction of<br />

the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste is also an objective.<br />

Most of the costs for the current disposal and the environmental sound recycling of e-waste are<br />

generated due to its hazardous substances. To reduce the hazardous content of future e-waste the<br />

RoHS (Restrictions of Hazardous Substances) directive (The European Parliament and the Council<br />

of the European Union, 2003) bans several hazardous substances in the manufacturing of EEE.<br />

Materials like lead, mercury or polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) have to be substituted by safer<br />

materials if technologically and economically feasible. The appendix of the RoHS directive specifies<br />

some exceptions for the use of mercury mainly in fluorescent lamps, lead in CRTs or solder, cadmium<br />

and hexavalent chromium and lead containing devices are defined. The regulation has become<br />

effective by July 2006.<br />

International legislation<br />

Despite of the implementation of the above-mentioned legislations there are still concerns about<br />

the treatment of e-waste in non EC- or OECD countries. As mentioned before the driving forces for<br />

the recyclers to send e-waste to developing regions are low labour costs and partly the absence of<br />

environmental regulations. <strong>This</strong> makes it economically interesting to send e-waste to non OECDcountries<br />

such as China, India or Nigeria.<br />

To prevent the developed world to use the developing world as a dumping ground a multilateral<br />

environmental agreement known as the Basel Convention was implemented and entered into force<br />

in 1992. Basel Convention is an UN convention and its principle idea is to set up a framework for<br />

controlling the “transboundary” movements of hazardous wastes. In 1995, the “Ban Amendment”<br />

which is incorporated in the Basel Convention had been introduced. “The Amendment calls for<br />

prohibiting exports of hazardous wastes (for any purpose) from countries listed in a proposed new<br />

annex to the Convention (Annex VII - Parties that are members of the EU, OECD and Liechtenstein)<br />

to all other Parties to the Convention.” The Amendment has not yet entered into force (Secretariat<br />

of the Basel Convention, 2006).<br />

The implementation of the BC and related agreements are coordinated by the “Secretariat of the<br />

Basel Convention”, located in Geneva, Switzerland and administered by UNEP. It also provides<br />

assistance and <strong>guide</strong>lines on legal and technical issues, gathers statistical data and conducts training<br />

on the proper management of hazardous waste (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, 2006).<br />

1.4 Management of e-waste in South Africa<br />

<strong>This</strong> section’s content is partly retrieved from the “e<strong>Waste</strong> Guide” (EMPA, 2004). <strong>This</strong> website<br />

serves as a knowledge base on e-waste recycling with a focus on the needs of developing or transition<br />

countries. It says that:<br />

“South Africa consists of a middle-income emerging market with an abundant supply of natural<br />

resources, well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transport sectors; a stock<br />

exchange that ranks among the 10 largest in the world and a modern infrastructure supporting an<br />

efficient distribution of goods to major urban centres throughout the region. However, growth has<br />

not been strong enough to lower South Africa's high unemployment rate. Daunting economic problems<br />

remain from the apartheid era, especially poverty and lack of economic empowerment among<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 13 October 2006


INTRODUCTION<br />

the disadvantaged groups. High crime and HIV/AIDS infection rates also deter investment. South<br />

African economic policy is fiscally conservative, but pragmatic, focusing on targeting inflation and<br />

liberalizing trade as means to increase job growth and household income.”<br />

and:<br />

“The rate in which e-waste is generated is rapidly increasing. There is well-established waste legislation<br />

and municipal waste management systems in place, as well as a strong recycling industry.<br />

63% of cans, 51.9% of paper, 25.5% of metal and 28% of paper is currently recovered” (Ray<br />

Lombard, National Recycling Forum, 2002).<br />

Very little is known about the e-waste generated and imported to South Africa. It was estimated<br />

that 1.2 to 1.5 million computers enter the South African market each year. About 70% of the country’s<br />

e-waste is thought to be in storage – most of this held by the government. <strong>This</strong> percentage<br />

represents about 10 - 20 thousand tons of e-waste, which is expected to double in 10 years time to<br />

30 - 40 thousand tons (Lombard et al., 2004).<br />

Policies and Strategies:<br />

South Africa has signed and ratified the Basel Convention. The National Environmental Management<br />

Act (NEMA, 1998) is intended to provide the principal framework for integrating good environmental<br />

management into all development activities. NEMA makes provision for waste management<br />

through the principles that refer to avoidance or minimisation and remediation of pollution,<br />

including waste reduction, re-use, recycling and proper waste disposal.<br />

The “White Paper on Integrated Pollution and <strong>Waste</strong> Management for South Africa” intends to encourage<br />

the waste management department to change towards recycling, reuse or total reduction<br />

of waste (DEAT, 1998). In 2001, the government at national, provincial and local level met at the<br />

first National <strong>Waste</strong> Summit in Pietersburg. They adopted “The Polokwane Declaration on <strong>Waste</strong><br />

Management” (Government of South Africa, 2001). It was recognized that: “… waste management<br />

is a priority for all South Africans, and the need for urgent action to reduce, reuse, and recycle<br />

waste in order to protect the environment.” The ambitious goal of the declaration is to reduce waste<br />

generation and disposal by 50% and 25% respectively by 2012 plus develop a plan for “zero<br />

waste” by 2022. The Hazardous Substances Act (PRepublic of South Africa, 1973) provides the<br />

regulations to control the management of hazardous substances and the disposal of hazardous<br />

waste.<br />

These policies, strategies and legislations should boost the future waste management and particularly<br />

the management of e-waste in South Africa. However, at present in South Africa there is no<br />

specific legislation regarding the handling or recycling of e-waste. The recycling of e-waste is currently<br />

carried out by recycling companies and scrap dealers and thus in absence of a regulatory<br />

framework only the valuable parts are currently recovered.<br />

1.5 Objective of this study<br />

The "Green e-<strong>Waste</strong> Channel" was established in Cape Town in 2005 by the scientific partnership<br />

e-<strong>Waste</strong> Recycling Switzerland - South Africa. The "Green e-<strong>Waste</strong> Channel" is presenting a replicable<br />

concept that is equally appealing for suppliers, consumers, recyclers, governmental agencies<br />

and public interest groups. The goal is to establish a secure disposal system for e-waste with<br />

drop-off points, take-back centres and pick-up services. Manufacturer and recycling branches<br />

should work together so that the benefit is optimised, hence avoiding the need for waste fees as<br />

much as possible.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 14 October 2006


INTRODUCTION<br />

Experience with the first service providers unveiled that cathode ray tube (CRT) screens are a major<br />

problem for further recycling. Due to their lead content existing glass recyclers cannot include<br />

CRT screens in their process and an environmental sound and financial feasible recycling process<br />

is not available in South Africa so far. Thus, CRT screens becoming obsolete have to be disposed<br />

of in landfill sites. Due to limited landfill volumes, high disposal costs, environmental concerns as<br />

well as economic losses due to a high content of valuable materials such as iron, copper, lead,<br />

plastics and PWBs (printed wiring boards) in CRT devices, brings around a high interest in alternative<br />

disposal methods focusing on more sustainable reuse and recycling scenarios for CRT<br />

screens. Aims of this study:<br />

a) Carrying out a Mass Flow Assessment (MFA) of CRT computer monitors and TVs within<br />

the studied region.<br />

b) The investigation of possible future recycling scenarios considering the existing recycling<br />

practice and the Best Available Technology (BAT).<br />

c) The <strong>assessment</strong> of these recycling scenarios towards their sustainability.<br />

<strong>This</strong> study will be carried out in the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA) that is described in section<br />

3.1.1.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 15 October 2006


METHODS<br />

2 METHODS<br />

In this section, the methods used in this study are described. First, a dynamic <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong><br />

(MFA) of the selected region was applied to derive the <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong>s and the time series of obsolete<br />

CRT monitors and TVs. In a second step, a scenario analysis was carried out. <strong>This</strong> comprises<br />

the analysis of the current CRT recycling scenario (baseline scenario) within the studied<br />

region and the analysis of different recycling alternatives including local and South African industry<br />

as well as best available technology overseas. The methodology of this <strong>assessment</strong> is described in<br />

section 2.2. Once the scenarios were defined, they were assessed towards their sustainability using<br />

the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) described in section 2.3. <strong>This</strong> resulted in a ranking of<br />

the utilities of each scenario included in this <strong>assessment</strong>. The ranking was further assessed towards<br />

its robustness including error analysis and error propagation described in 2.4.<br />

2.1 Mass Flow Assessment<br />

Mass <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> (MFA) or material <strong>flow</strong> analysis is a systematic <strong>assessment</strong> of the <strong>flow</strong>s and<br />

stocks of materials within a system defined in space and time. It connects the sources, the pathways,<br />

and the intermediate and final sinks of a material. Because of the law on “conservation of<br />

matter”, the results of an MFA can be controlled by a simple material balance comparing all inputs,<br />

stocks, and outputs of a process. It is this distinct characteristic of MFA that makes such method<br />

attractive as a decision-support tool in resource management, waste management, and environmental<br />

management (Brunner et al., 2004).<br />

MFA determines, describes and analyzes the metabolism of industries, regions, or materials. In<br />

MFA, the metabolism of a system stands for the transfer, storage, and transformation of materials<br />

within the system and the exchange of materials within its environment (Brunner and Rechberger,<br />

2004). The methodology for the MFA was originally developed for industrialized countries, and was<br />

recently applied in developing countries by Binder (Binder et al., 2001; Streicher-Porte, 2006) for<br />

the early recognition of the environmental impacts from human activities.<br />

2.1.1 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT monitors and TVs in the studied region<br />

The system boundary for the MFA in this study is the area of the Cape Metropolitan Area shown in<br />

Figure 5 (section 3.1.1). The material studied in the MFA comprises CRT computer monitors and<br />

CRT TVs within the CMA. A stakeholder analysis was first carried out to define the processes and<br />

direction of the <strong>flow</strong>s of the materials. The processes considered in the MFA consist of import, distribution<br />

and consumption as well as the collecting, recycling and disposal processes.<br />

The system picture with the actors involved in the MFA and the system borders (= system boundaries)<br />

is presented in section 3.1.2. All figures for the <strong>flow</strong>s of computer monitors and TVs were assessed<br />

by interviewing the involved players and by questionnaires as well as by site visits. Since<br />

most of the data were based on estimates (except sales figures) an upper and a lower limit was<br />

calculated for most of the <strong>flow</strong>s.<br />

2.1.2 Time series of CRT computer monitors<br />

MFA is usually carried out on a yearly base and therefore it is not possible to show the development<br />

of stock changes or obsolescence of items over time. To assess the future obsolescence of<br />

CRT monitors and TVs in the CMA, a time series was calculated using sales figures, import statistics<br />

and penetrations rates for computer monitors from the World Bank’s World Development Indicator<br />

(WDI, 2003). In addition, forecasts of sales figures for CRT computer monitors were included<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 16 October 2006


METHODS<br />

in the model. According to (Streicher-Porte, 2006) the following formula was used to calculate the<br />

obsolete CRT screens at a certain point in time:<br />

Whereas<br />

O(t x ) = obsolete items at time x (in tons)<br />

S tot = sales (in tons)<br />

L = average lifespan of an item<br />

O(t ) = S (t ) (1)<br />

x<br />

tot<br />

In the case of the computer monitors time series, overall sales figures from the distributors would<br />

have been necessary. Since not all the distributors provided sales figures, the sales figures of the<br />

distributors were multiplied by the reciprocal value of the corresponding market share to derive the<br />

total sales figures mathematically demonstrated in the following equation:<br />

S tot = total sales<br />

tot<br />

i<br />

x−L<br />

1<br />

S =S × (2) m<br />

i<br />

S i<br />

m i<br />

= sales figures market player i<br />

= market share of player<br />

2.1.3 Time series of TV sets in the studied region<br />

A different approach was used to carry out the time series for TVs in the MFA. Penetration rates<br />

from the year 1975 to 2001 (SABC’s first broadcasting was in 1976) and custom statistics from<br />

1992 up to 2005 were available (see Appendix 7 and Appendix 8). These figures were used to<br />

derive the overall input of TVs in the CMA.<br />

For the years 1975 to 1991 data from the World Bank World Development Indicator (WDI, 2003)<br />

was taken to calculate<br />

P<br />

(t)<br />

× pSA(t) -P(t-1) × pSA(t-1)<br />

i<br />

WDI(t)<br />

= f<br />

CMA<br />

×( )<br />

1000<br />

(3)<br />

And from 1992 up to 2005 the custom statistics were used to calculate:<br />

Then the overall input was calculated using:<br />

Whereas<br />

i<br />

C(t)<br />

= f<br />

CMA<br />

×C<br />

(t)<br />

(4)<br />

1991 2005<br />

∑ ∑ (5)<br />

I = i + i<br />

tot WDI(t) c(t)<br />

t=1975 t=1992<br />

i WDI = Input per year (derived from the World Bank World Development Indicator)<br />

f CMA = Transfer factor from national to CMA figures (see section 3.1.3)<br />

P (t)<br />

p (t)<br />

= Penetration rate TVs in use per 1000 capita (WDI)<br />

= South African population (WDI)<br />

I tot = Overall input of TVs into CMA from 1975 to 2005<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 17 October 2006


METHODS<br />

C (t)<br />

= Custom statistics (=import figures)<br />

Due to very unsteady yearly inputs, (see Figure 16) the figures were transformed into a triangular<br />

slope starting in 1975 with an input of 0 and peaking in 2005. The area under this slope has to be<br />

the same as I tot . The peak input in 2005 was calculated using:<br />

i p = Peak input in the year 2005<br />

2×I<br />

i<br />

p<br />

= Δt<br />

I tot = Overall input of TVs into CMA from 1975 to 2005<br />

Δt = Time span from 1975 to 2005<br />

With i p the time series for the input function was calculated and is shown in Figure 17. With this<br />

transformed, linear function the obsolete series was computed. According to (Streicher-Porte,<br />

2006) the time series for the obsolete items were calculated using:<br />

tot<br />

O(t ) = i(t ) (6)<br />

x<br />

x-L<br />

O<br />

I<br />

L<br />

= Obsolete items [tons]<br />

= Input per year [tons]<br />

= Average lifespan of an item [years]<br />

2.2 Scenario analysis<br />

<strong>This</strong> section describes the procedures how the CRT recycling scenarios were defined, described<br />

and assessed.<br />

In a first step, the status quo CRT recycling scenario in the studied region was investigated by visiting<br />

and interviewing the recycling companies assessed in the MFA phase. <strong>This</strong> allows for the investigation<br />

of the current possibilities and problems in the recycling of CRT devices and thus for<br />

the definition of the starting point of each of the recycling scenarios.<br />

To define alternatives to the baseline scenarios first the existing best available technologies (BATs)<br />

for the recycling of CRTs were investigated by field studies and interviews as well as literature<br />

study and visits at European CRT recycling facilities. The aim was to receive a general overview<br />

over the current best available technology (BAT) and best practice (BEP) of recycling technologies<br />

for CRT screens.<br />

Keeping these BATs in mind, the industry in the studied region as well as other South African companies,<br />

which may have the technology to reuse or recycle CRT glass, were interviewed by phone<br />

calls and questionnaires to investigate their ability to handle the CRT glass. <strong>This</strong> led to an overview<br />

of the current best available technology overseas and possible pathways in the studied region and<br />

in South Africa to recycle CRT glass. Based on this overview the recycling scenarios for the CRTs<br />

in the CMA were specified.<br />

The recycling scenarios include pre-processing steps (such as separating or crushing) and the<br />

main recycling process also. In addition, transportation processes for the CRTs and the products<br />

were included in the evaluation process.<br />

Once the scenarios were defined, they were assessed towards sustainability using the Multi Attribute<br />

Utility Theory (MAUT) described in section 2.3. With the MAUT results the scenarios were<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 18 October 2006


METHODS<br />

compared to each other and proved on their robustness using a robustness analysis considering<br />

error analysis and error propagation described in section 2.4<br />

2.3 Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)<br />

The methodology of the MAUT is retrieved from the book “Embedded Case Study Methods”<br />

(Scholz et al., 2002). Multi-Attribute Utility Theory is a label for a family of methods. These case<br />

evaluation methods are used for analyzing, evaluating and comparing different alternatives. “The<br />

objective of the MAUT is to obtain a conjoint measure of the attractiveness (utility) of each outcome<br />

of a set of alternatives” (=scenarios). The outcome (=utility) of each scenario can then be compared<br />

among all scenarios.<br />

Within the MAUT the overall attractiveness of an alternative is decomposes into a number of attributes.<br />

Attributes are preference-related dimensions of a system and can be system variables, but<br />

can also measure quality or aesthetics.<br />

Once all alternatives have been rated according to all attributes, MAUT composes the ratings and<br />

organizes a synthesis resulting in a one-dimensional utility measure. The multi-attribute decomposition<br />

obeys the following definitions:<br />

• The set of scenarios (recycling-alternatives) S = (S<br />

1,S 2, S<br />

i, ... ,S<br />

m)<br />

• The set of attributes a = (a<br />

1,a 2, a<br />

j, ... ,a<br />

m)<br />

• The scenario vs. attributes matrix M<br />

i,j<br />

= a<br />

j(S i<br />

))<br />

• The set of utility functions U = (u<br />

1,u 2,u j,..,u m), u<br />

j<br />

= f(a<br />

j(S i))<br />

• The set of importance weights W = (w<br />

1,w 2,w j,..,w m)<br />

The composition rule is the weighted sum of the utilities.<br />

m<br />

i j j j i j j i,j<br />

j=1 j=1<br />

m<br />

∑ ∑ (7)<br />

U(S)= wu(a(S))= wu(M )<br />

As indicated above a set of scenarios has to be defined. The scenarios evaluated in this study are<br />

described within the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> (see section 4.2) and are not discussed any further in this<br />

section.<br />

The process of the definition of a set of attributes intends to cover all aspects of the evaluation of<br />

the scenarios. The definition process can be carried out for instance by a study team or a group of<br />

stakeholders. In this study the attributes were defined by the author and reviewed by a group of e-<br />

waste professionals. The attributes represent economic, environmental and social criteria. They are<br />

specified in section 2.3.1.<br />

Before the composition of the values from each attribute to the overall utility of a scenario, the attributes<br />

have to be weighted by the corresponding group of decision makers or stakeholders involved<br />

in the scenarios evaluated. The process of the weighting of the attributes is defined in section<br />

2.3.3.<br />

2.3.1 Attributes used in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

In this study the overall aspect of the recycling scenario evaluation is defined by the term “sustainability”.<br />

The 1995 World Summit on Social Development (United Nations, 1995) defined this term<br />

as "... the framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people …" in which "…<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 19 October 2006


METHODS<br />

economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and<br />

mutually reinforcing components".<br />

There was no set of attributes found which could be adopted for this study to evaluate the recycling<br />

of e-waste in developing countries towards sustainability. An attempt to define attributes for the<br />

<strong>assessment</strong> of e-waste management systems was carried out in a study by Widmer et al., (2005).<br />

Among others they defined criterions and attributes for e-waste recycling systems including the<br />

<strong>assessment</strong> of material <strong>flow</strong>s, technologies and financial <strong>flow</strong>s. In addition, attributes for the<br />

evaluation of impacts on the environment and the human health were defined.<br />

Corresponding to the above definition of “sustainability” in this study each scenario will be evaluated<br />

using a self-defined set of attributes defined by the author and a core group of e-waste professionals<br />

consisting of both Swiss and South African members. Note: a set of attributes should<br />

consider all aspects of sustainability and objectiveness of the team that defines the attributes is<br />

required. However, the definition of a set of attributes always undergoes subjectiveness. In addition,<br />

the more attributes allocated to a certain aspect of a problem the higher is the contributon of<br />

this aspect to the overall utility of a certain scenario.<br />

Table 1 shows the attributes and the scale / unit used for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>. For some of the<br />

attributes data were measured or calculated and for others only semi-quantitative analysis based<br />

on estimates was carried out. Keeping those attributes in mind the following set of attributes was<br />

defined for the <strong>assessment</strong> of CRT recycling scenarios.<br />

Attributes Scale / unit Indicators involved<br />

Economic attributes<br />

Low net costs $ / kg CRT Costs for transport, processing and labour vs. revenues<br />

Low capital costs<br />

Increased potential for local economic<br />

growth<br />

Environmental attributes<br />

Low use of electricity<br />

Low fuel use for transport<br />

Low use of freshwater<br />

Little (toxic) emissions<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill<br />

Social attributes<br />

Creation of jobs for the previously<br />

unemployed in the CMA<br />

Creation of highly skilled jobs in<br />

the CMA<br />

$ / kg CRT<br />

0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1<br />

Normalized Ecoindicator<br />

99 points (=<br />

sum of environmental<br />

losses and environmental<br />

benefits)<br />

kg / kg CRT<br />

Working hours / kg CRT<br />

Working hours / kg CRT<br />

Investment costs for additional plants and technologies<br />

used in a scenario<br />

Additional industries and services involved by implementing<br />

a scenario<br />

Savings of electricity but also energy in general by<br />

implementing a scenario<br />

Fuel used by shipping and road transport<br />

Freshwater consumption of a recycling scenario<br />

Caused vs. prevented emissions according to the savings<br />

of raw materials calculated with eco-indicator ‘99<br />

Remaining waste of a scenario which has to be landfilled<br />

in the CMA<br />

Working hours for low-skilled and semi-skilled workers<br />

generated in the CMA<br />

Working hours for highly skilled workers generated in<br />

the CMA<br />

Creation of jobs outside SA Working hours / kg CRT Working hours generated outside South Africa<br />

Low health & safety impacts 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1<br />

Impacts of a scenario on health and safety of the employees<br />

engaged in a scenario.<br />

Table 1: The attributes applied in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

Following the attributes presented in Table 1 are described in depth.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 20 October 2006


METHODS<br />

Economic attributes<br />

Low net costs: <strong>This</strong> attribute represents the overall costs for a recycling system in this scenario. It<br />

includes the costs for the transportation, labour, the pre-processing or the final disposal of the CRT<br />

glass as well as the revenues for products sold to the industry. The net costs are defined differently<br />

in every scenario. Low net costs mean a high utility.<br />

Low capital costs: <strong>This</strong> attribute includes the investment costs needed if a new plant or technology<br />

is used in a certain scenario to process the CRT glass. Same here, low capital costs leads to a<br />

high utility.<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth: The values for this attribute were assessed only<br />

qualitatively. It was assessed considering industries involved by a certain scenario. For instance if<br />

long transport distances are required and new plants are established using local technology and is<br />

operated and maintained locally then the potential for local economic growth is increased. An increased<br />

potential for local economic growth implicates a high utility.<br />

Environmental attributes<br />

As indicated in Table 1 the environmental utility was intended to be assessed by the evaluation of<br />

the attributes: “Low use of electricity”, “Low Fuel use for transport”, “Low freshwater use” and “Little<br />

toxic emissions”. However for the <strong>assessment</strong> of the environmental attributes the Eco-indicator 99<br />

(Goedkoop et al., 2000) was applied. The Eco-indicator 99 (EI ‘99) is a more powerful tool when it<br />

comes to the <strong>assessment</strong> of environmental impacts than the measurement of only four attributes<br />

because the Eco-indicator 99 is able to assess the complex coherences between technology and<br />

environment. The EI ‘99 is a damage to human health, ecosystem quality and damage to resources<br />

oriented method and provides a aggregated and weighted indicator (see Figure 3 for a general<br />

derivation of environmental impact indicators). The inventory data were collected from the ecoinvent<br />

2000 database (ecoinvent Centre, 2005). <strong>This</strong> database contains Life Cycle Assessment<br />

(LCA) based inventory data mostly for European settings (electricity mix, technologies, etc.). Also<br />

for the recycling processes designed to be processed in South Africa also these inventory data<br />

were applied. EI ‘99 is a LCA-based indicator in terms of a cradle to grave evaluation of goods and<br />

processes. As in this study, the assessed scenarios were not described by a cradle to grave approach<br />

a different method was developed to include the EI ‘99 indicators in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

that is specified in the following.<br />

In accordance to the QWERTY/EE concept developed by Jaco Huisman (2003) the environmental<br />

<strong>assessment</strong> was carried out by adding the environmental impacts (losses) of the recycling scenario<br />

with the environmental benefits (gains). Environmental gains occur when a recycling process leads<br />

to for instance to a replacement of raw materials or to energy savings by using CRT glass instead<br />

of the conventional input. Contrary environmental loss occurs when for instance more waste is<br />

produced by using CRT glass instead of the conventional input in a process. Figure 2 indicates the<br />

principle of the environmental gains and losses by using CRT glass in a process. With this approach<br />

the overall EI ‘99 was calculated by adding the several environmental gains and losses of<br />

the processing of CRT. Positive values for environmental losses and negative values for environmental<br />

gains were allocated to derive the overall EI ‘99 score.<br />

With<br />

n<br />

m<br />

∑ i<br />

+ ∑ j<br />

(8)<br />

i=1 j=1<br />

EI' 99 = EG EL<br />

EI’ 99 = Aggregated environmental indicator for a scenario<br />

EG i<br />

= Environmental gain<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 21 October 2006


METHODS<br />

EL j<br />

= Environmental loss<br />

Raw Materials<br />

SAVINGS<br />

ADDITIONAL<br />

Energy used<br />

Water<br />

SAVINGS<br />

Systemborder<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Process 1<br />

Process 2<br />

good<br />

ADDITIONAL<br />

Emissions<br />

ADDITIONAL<br />

<strong>Waste</strong><br />

Figure 2: Example of two processes involved in the processing of CRT screens. Additions of energy or emissions<br />

lead to an environmental loss and savings in raw materials or water lead to an environmental gain<br />

In addition the results from the Eco-indicator 99 were compared with the Impact 2002+ methodology<br />

(Jolliet et al., 2003) which is also a life cycle based method for the <strong>assessment</strong> of environmental<br />

impacts. <strong>This</strong> method aggregates the impacts on climate change, aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial<br />

acidification and nutrification, terrestrial ecotoxicity and human toxicity. The intention was to<br />

compare the outcome of the environmental impact <strong>assessment</strong> of the evaluation of the recycling<br />

scenarios with a different method.<br />

Figure 3: General procedure for the calculation of Eco-indicators. The light coloured boxes refer to procedures,<br />

the dark coloured boxes refer to intermediate results. Source: (Goedkoop et al., 2000).<br />

As declared in the Polokwane Declaration (Government of South Africa, 2001) the minimization of<br />

waste in general and even the “zero waste” strategy is strived. In addition the fact that most of landfills<br />

are nearly full (Essop, 2005) led to the attribute “Minimization of waste volume to landfill”. <strong>This</strong><br />

attribute was added to the environmental attributes and was not assessed within the Eco-indicator<br />

99. A low volume of remaining waste to landfill means a high utility.<br />

Social attributes<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 22 October 2006


METHODS<br />

Creation of jobs for the previously unemployed in the CMA: In South Africa the unemployment rate<br />

is high (see section 3.1.1). Therefore, the creation of jobs for the previously unemployed is important<br />

when establishing a certain recycling scenario in the CMA.<br />

Creation of highly skilled jobs in the CMA: In addition to the job creation potential for the previously<br />

unemployed, the job creation potential for highly skilled is also included in the <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

Creation of jobs outside SA: Some of the alternatives also create jobs outside South Africa. Those<br />

jobs are also included in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

For all these social attributes, a high value means a high utility.<br />

Low health & safety impacts: The CRT glass contains hazardous substances (see Appendix 10).<br />

Thus it is important that the scenarios are assessed towards the health and safety impacts on employees<br />

carrying out the work in a certain scenario. Like the attribute “Increased potential for local<br />

economic growth”, this attribute is not measurable directly and thus was assessed semiquantitative<br />

using the scale shown in Table 1. A high score here entails a low utility.<br />

2.3.2 Normalisation of attributes<br />

One disadvantage of the MAUT is that a utility of one attribute is per se not comparable with a utility<br />

of a different attribute due to different units and scales. Thus to make the attributes comparable<br />

they have to be transferred into the same scale. <strong>This</strong> was achieved by normalizing the values of an<br />

attribute over all scenarios. For all the attributes for which its value is proportional to its utility (e.g.<br />

“creation of highly skilled jobs in CTN”) it follows:<br />

a<br />

n<br />

ai<br />

-a<br />

=<br />

a -a<br />

max<br />

And if the value from an attribute is reciprocally proportional to its utility (e.g. “net costs”) than<br />

a<br />

n<br />

max<br />

min<br />

ai<br />

-a<br />

= 1-<br />

a -a<br />

min<br />

min<br />

min<br />

(9)<br />

(10)<br />

a n = Normalized value of an attribute of a certain scenario<br />

a i = Value of an attribute of a certain scenario<br />

a max = Maximal value of an attribute over all scenarios<br />

a min = Minimal value of an attribute over all scenarios<br />

The resulting range for the values of a n is between 0 and 1 whereas the normalized lowest attribute<br />

value becomes 0 and the highest 1 respectively. Hajkowicz (2006 ) also used this approach for the<br />

linearization of attributes for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

2.3.3 Weighting of attributes<br />

The weighting of the attributes was carried out subsequent to presentations and the discussion of<br />

the CRT screen recycling problematic and the recycling alternatives at a Workshop at the University<br />

of Cape Town. Participants were local professionals and stakeholders involved in the CRT<br />

recycling issue. <strong>This</strong> group consisted of: consulting engineers, scientists, waste managers, a supplier<br />

of IT equipment, technicians and engineers involved in a computer refurbishment project (not<br />

locals), government representatives and representatives from an environmental NGO. A representative<br />

of a lead smelter (industry) also participated but he did not participate in the workshop. The<br />

questionnaire and the results of the weighting are listed in Appendix 15 and Appendix 16 respectively.<br />

Table 2 shows the transfer scale from the audiences’ weights into the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 23 October 2006


METHODS<br />

Audience’s weight allocated to the attributes Values used in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

No importance 0<br />

Little importance 1<br />

Medium importance 2<br />

High importance 3<br />

Very high importance 4<br />

Table 2: Transfer scale for the weighting in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

Note: The overall weight for the weighting of the Eco-indicator 99 results was derived from the<br />

weights given to the corresponding environmental attributes (see Table 1) by adding those weights.<br />

The reason was that in the aggregated value of the Eco-indicator 99 all these attributes are represented.<br />

2.4 Robustness Analysis<br />

In order to prove the utilities of different scenarios on their robustness an error analysis as well as<br />

an error propagation was carried out. Thus it is possible to calculate upper and lower boundaries of<br />

the MAUT utilities to compare the variations of the alternatives and thus their robustness. The<br />

steps in the analysis of the robustness include error analysis and error propagation.<br />

2.4.1 Error analysis and error propagation<br />

The MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> depends on a big set of input data. Input is generally subject to sources of<br />

uncertainty including errors of measurement, absence of information and poor or partial understanding<br />

of the driving forces and mechanisms. Thus, the analysis of the error of input data and<br />

particularly the promulgation of the errors within a calculation of a specific value for an attribute is<br />

essential. In this study, the errors for all input parameters were specified using a semi-quantitative<br />

scale defined in Table 3. For measured or estimated input parameters, a relative error was allocated<br />

according to the reliability of the data source and due to natural variability in the several parameters.<br />

10% error was allocated when the data for the input parameter was reliable and the<br />

variations are low (e.g. transport distances). 25% error was allocated if the parameter either was<br />

slightly variable or stems from good estimates (e.g. all Eco-indicator 99 values). 50% was allocated<br />

to parameters, which were estimated roughly or can vary widely (e.g. some transport cost parameter).<br />

100% were allocated when the figures were estimated without any informative basis and / or<br />

the parameter was supposed to vary widely.<br />

Semi-qualitative attributes (e.g. increased potential for local economic growth) were varied by +/-<br />

0.1 points and for parameters where the value is by definition 0 (e.g. for the parameter which contribute<br />

to the attribute “Creation of jobs outside SA” in a South African scenarios) no error was allocated.<br />

The allocation of the errors for all input parameters is shown in Appendix 12.<br />

Level of reliability of input parameters variability Relative error allocated [%]<br />

Reliable Low 10<br />

Reliable Middle 25<br />

Quite reliable Middle 50<br />

Not very reliable Middle to high 100<br />

For semi-quantitative values (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1)<br />

+/- 0.1 points<br />

Table 3: Allocation of relative error to the input parameters used for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

Once the allocation of relative errors to the input parameters was carried out the error propagation<br />

was completed in order to assess the overall error generated by the calculation of a value for a<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 24 October 2006


METHODS<br />

specific attribute. The error propagation was carried out according to an online tutorial for students<br />

(Windischbauer, 2005) and a web page by the Rochester Institute of Technology (Lindberg, 2000)<br />

and was adopted accordingly in this study.<br />

Since in this study additions and subtractions as well as multiplications and divisions were used to<br />

calculate the values for the MAUT attributes, the following basic rules were applied:<br />

For additions and subtractions, z = a + b - c the absolute errors are summed up:<br />

to then calculate the relative error using:<br />

Δz = Δa + Δb + Δ c (11)<br />

Δz Δa + Δb + Δc<br />

=<br />

z a+ b−c<br />

(12)<br />

Whereas<br />

Δ z = absolute error<br />

Δ z = relative error [%]<br />

z<br />

For multiplications and divisions<br />

error in the result that is<br />

z =<br />

a<br />

×<br />

c<br />

b<br />

, all the relative errors are added to derive the relative<br />

Δ z a b c<br />

=<br />

Δ + Δ + Δ (13)<br />

z a b c<br />

Whereas<br />

Δ z<br />

z<br />

= relative error<br />

Δ a Δ b Δ c , , = relative errors of the factors a, b and c [%]<br />

a b c<br />

2.4.2 Determination of the upper and lower bounds of the MAUT utilities<br />

With these basic rules of error propagation, upper and lower limits of the values for the attributes<br />

for each alternative can be calculated using:<br />

Δz<br />

Δz<br />

a<br />

max<br />

= a × (1 + ) and amin<br />

= a × (1 - )<br />

z× 2 z×<br />

2<br />

Whereas<br />

a = calculated value of a utility limit of an attribute<br />

a max = upper limit of an attribute<br />

(14)<br />

a min = lower limit of an attribute<br />

The upper and lower limits for the attributes were then included in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> to derive<br />

the boundaries of each utility of the assessed scenarios. The limits were again normalized and<br />

weighted to make them comparable with the MAUT results. Note: the upper and lower values were<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 25 October 2006


METHODS<br />

normalized using the existing maxima and minima from the corresponding attributes to achieve a<br />

ceteris paribus situation according to the theory described in section 2.3.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 26 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

3 MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

<strong>This</strong> section presents the results from the <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong>. In section 3.1 the system is defined<br />

by a description of the case study region within the MFA was carried out (see section 3.1.1).<br />

Then the players involved in the MFA are specified and described from section 3.1.3 until section<br />

3.1.9. Subsequently a short description of the composition of CRT devices such as monitors and<br />

TVs is shown. Finally, the <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong>s and the corresponding time series for both CRT monitors<br />

and CRT TVs are presented in section 3.3 until section 3.6.<br />

3.1 System Definition<br />

3.1.1 Selection of case study region<br />

In this section, the case study region is described<br />

geographically but also a brief economic and<br />

social overview is given.<br />

The information presented in this section are<br />

mainly retrieved from the Official Trade and Investment<br />

Promotion Agency of the Western<br />

Cape (WESGRO, 2005) as well as from the Department<br />

of Environmental Affairs and Development<br />

Planning (Essop, 2005).<br />

The Western Cape Province contributes with<br />

nearly 15% of the South African national output<br />

(GDP) and attracts over 16% of foreign direct<br />

investment. The strength of the Western Cape<br />

lies within its people, diversified economy, modern<br />

infrastructure and the ability to compete in the<br />

international arena. The Western Cape Province<br />

is located in the south west of South Africa,<br />

boasting one of the most diverse, dynamic and<br />

innovative economies in Africa. Since the late<br />

1990s, South Africa has been experiencing an<br />

historic economic upswing. The economic growth<br />

of the Western Cape was projected to be 4% in<br />

2005. Despite the outstanding economic characteristics,<br />

28% of the Western Capes population<br />

still lives in poverty. White highly skilled individuals<br />

are the highest earners with inequalities between<br />

racial groups getting worse. 90% of the<br />

population within is urbanised. The urban areas<br />

of the Western Cape are dominated by the Cape<br />

Metropolitan Area (CMA) with its capital Cape<br />

Town.<br />

The CMA lies in the very southwestern end of the<br />

Western Cape. It comprises of 3.3 million inhabitants<br />

(est. in the year 2005) which are 64.0% of<br />

CMA<br />

South Africa<br />

Figure 4: South Africa (grey), Western Cape (dark<br />

grey) and Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA) in the very<br />

south-western tip of South Africa) source:<br />

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapstadt<br />

20km<br />

Figure 5: Cape Metropolitan Area, source:<br />

http://www.environment.gov.za/<br />

Western Cape<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 27 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

the Western Cape’s Population. 4.3 million people are expected to live in the CMA by the year<br />

2031 assuming an average growth rate of some 1.00% (Dorrington, 2000). From the total of<br />

800’000 households within the CMA 18% are informal dwellings (townships) using either paraffin<br />

candles or electricity for lighting. In 2004, the unemployment rate was 29% with a labour force of<br />

1.4 million people out of 2.1 million adults (15-64 years).<br />

The CMA comprises a socio-economic region that is highly aggregated. It links the economic structures<br />

of the City of Cape Town with the surrounding municipalities of the CMA. It includes the municipalities<br />

of the City of Cape Town, Blauwberg, Tygerberg, Oostenberg, South Peninsula and<br />

Heidelberg shown in Figure 5. The CMA contributes with 76% to the Western Cape’s GDP. Despite<br />

a high unemployment rate as well as a high level of informal dwelling, the CMA is the second largest<br />

economic centre in South Africa after the Gauteng Province.<br />

3.1.2 Players in the case study region<br />

Following the players involved in the CRT <strong>flow</strong>s within the CMA are shown in Figure 6. Since there<br />

is no CRT manufacturer in South Africa, all CRTs either from computer monitors or TVs are imported<br />

to South Africa (Coetzee, 2006).<br />

Manufacturer<br />

Distributor<br />

TVs<br />

Consumers<br />

Collectors<br />

PHILIPS<br />

SAMSUNG<br />

SONY<br />

PANASONIC<br />

LG<br />

MECER<br />

SINOTEC<br />

DEAWOO<br />

EIZO<br />

MAG<br />

PROLINE<br />

Gigabyte<br />

IBM<br />

Distributor<br />

Monitors<br />

AXIZ<br />

MUSTEK<br />

Sahara<br />

Drive Control<br />

Incredible<br />

Pinnacle<br />

Tarsus<br />

Annex<br />

Equity<br />

Rectron<br />

MICO<br />

Corporate<br />

Private<br />

Government<br />

Refurbisher of<br />

TVs<br />

<br />

Desco<br />

Footprints<br />

Recycling IT<br />

Drop Off<br />

MSW<br />

Recoverers /<br />

recyclers<br />

SA Metal<br />

Desco<br />

Salvagers<br />

Second hand<br />

suppliers<br />

Landfills<br />

FreeCom<br />

Smart City<br />

Device SA<br />

Vissershok<br />

Coastal Park<br />

Bellville<br />

Recycling IT<br />

System border<br />

Faure<br />

Figure 6: System picture with the players involved and their relationship to each other in the <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong>s of<br />

computer monitor s and TVs CMA.<br />

3.1.3 Manufacturers, Distributors and Import Statistics<br />

The major brands manufacturing CRT devices that are distributed to the CMA customer base are<br />

shown in Figure 6. The names of the major brands were evaluated by visiting retailers and private<br />

households and according to an interview with an IT professional (Newson, 2006). To both manu-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 28 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

facturers and distributors of CRT monitors questionnaires (see Appendix 6) had been sent to find<br />

out the current and past sales figures, market shares, the average CRT size/weight and future<br />

sales trends. Assuming that the sales figures of the CMA’s manufacturers are equal to the sales<br />

figures of the distributors there were two opportunities to assess the figures of CRTs entering the<br />

CMA.<br />

None of the manufacturers was willing or prepared to share any of the information based on the<br />

questionnaire. Only four of the 11 CRT monitor distributors were willing to share sales figures<br />

based on the questionnaire and e-mail correspondence. With the available data and the market<br />

shares of two of the main players in the CMA a quite reliable estimate of the current (2005) sales<br />

figures was carried out.<br />

For the <strong>assessment</strong> of the TVs entering the CMA, import statistics from 1992 to 2005 were used.<br />

They were provided by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI, 2006) and by the South African<br />

Revenue Service (2006). As those import figures only contain aggregated values from the entire<br />

South African market a factor to estimate the CMA based figures had to be determined. <strong>This</strong> factor<br />

was derived from the fact that the Western Cape contributes with 15% to the national GDP and the<br />

CMA wit 76% to the Western Cape’s GDP (WESGRO, 2005). Thus, the factor to derive the CMA’s<br />

TV import figures was calculated as follows:<br />

f = GDP × GDP = 0.15 × 0.76 = 0.114 (15)<br />

CMA WC CMA<br />

f CMA = factor to derive CMA figures from national import figures<br />

GDP WC = share of the Western Cape’s Gross Demand Product in the national Gross Demand<br />

product<br />

GDP CMA = share of the CMA’s Gross Demand Product in the Western Cape’s Gross Demand<br />

product<br />

Only overall CRT import figures were available as well as the import figures for CRT video monitors.<br />

Thus, the numbers of CRT video monitors had to be discounted to derive the number of CRT<br />

TVs. Although there were many monochrome (black and white) sets imported, only the colour TV<br />

sets were used in the MFA. Appendix 4 shows the import figures from 1992 to 2005. The export<br />

figures had been discounted from the import figures to reach the overall numbers of CRTs sold to<br />

the CMA customer base.<br />

3.1.4 Second hand suppliers<br />

In the CMA there are a few second hand suppliers who take back obsolete computers and refurbish<br />

them for the secondary market or donate these computers to some institutions. FreeCom is<br />

the largest computer refurbisher in the CMA. They possess a market share of almost 100%<br />

(Scholz, 2006). FreeCom imports used computers mainly from the Netherlands and the United<br />

Kingdom. They receive about 500 monitors on a monthly base. Some 100 new CRT monitors from<br />

suppliers like Gigabyte and Proline have to be purchased every month additionally. They sell<br />

around 600 CRTs per month since the year 2000 to their CMA based customers.<br />

Device SA imports obsolete computers from Europe. They sell their refurbished computers and<br />

monitors mainly in the Gauteng Province. Only between 0 and 50 monitors are sold in the CMA per<br />

month (Mensing, 2006).<br />

Recycling IT is an initiative, which assists equipment users with specific queries or problems related<br />

to e-<strong>Waste</strong>. The aim of Recycling IT is “… to develop Cape Town as a blue print model for the<br />

entire Western and Northern Cape. A collection and disposal infrastructure is currently being developed<br />

by Recycling IT, in partnership with the current Green e-<strong>Waste</strong> Channel facilitator, private<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 29 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

business (such as retailers) and the local authorities. Recycling IT is already involved in testing any<br />

e-waste received either at Footprints, (a community based recycling centre), through municipal and<br />

retailer collection points or by pre-arranged collection from private customers. Where computer<br />

equipment is involved, Recycling IT ensures that all client data is fully removed during the testing<br />

process prior to it being passed on for commercial retrofit, donation or resale to various e-waste<br />

entrepreneurship and charity programmes, who utilise it either as is, repair, rebuild, strip components<br />

or make products from e-waste which can be sold.” (Dittke et al., 2006). Recycling IT passes<br />

on some working monitors for second hand usage, but most are currently stockpiled whilst they<br />

continue to search for a satisfactory solution to the CRT waste disposal problem.<br />

Smart City is a governmental refurbishment organization, which collects the obsolete computers<br />

from all the seven administrations of the City of Cape Town. They refurbish some 250 computers<br />

per month and donate some of them to libraries, schools and community centres. Many of the CRT<br />

monitors and computers are stockpiled in Cape Town and in Ndabeni (Tatana, 2006). No figures of<br />

stockpiled monitors in Ndabeni were available.<br />

Computers being set up for reuse Employee at work setting up a PC CRT monitor Stockpile at Smart City<br />

Figure 7: Smart City refurbishment centre in Cape Town, refurbishing activities and stockpiles of CRT monitors.<br />

3.1.5 Consumer<br />

The consumer based CRT <strong>flow</strong>s and the consumer stock growth of TVs and computer monitors<br />

were calculated based on the information collected from the suppliers, the recycling companies and<br />

the landfill figures. No consumer-based survey was carried out to assess the <strong>flow</strong>s from and to the<br />

consumers.<br />

3.1.6 TV refurbishers<br />

According to Desco Electronic Recyclers, many TV refurbishers in the CMA collecting broken or<br />

obsolete TVs and repair them. However the <strong>flow</strong>s to and from these refurbisher were not investigated<br />

in this study due to time restrictions.<br />

3.1.7 Collectors<br />

Four major collectors of the municipal solid waste (MSW) are currently present in the CMA. EnviroServ<br />

(Pty) Ltd, Inter-<strong>Waste</strong> (Pty) Ltd, <strong>Waste</strong>man and <strong>Waste</strong> Control. Only <strong>Waste</strong>man was prepared<br />

to share any numbers or estimates of e-waste collected within the municipal solid waste<br />

(specified in section 3.1.9). The e-waste picked up by MSW-collection is disposed of in the four<br />

remaining landfill sites in the CMA (Coastal Park, Bellville, Faure and Vissershok). They do not<br />

separate any e-waste or assess the e-waste content. According to an interview with Saliem Haider<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 30 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

from the City of Cape Town <strong>Waste</strong> Department (Haider, 2006) and all of the major waste managers<br />

(Kriek, 2006; Novella, 2006; Willcocks, 2006) there are currently no figures of e-waste in the MSW<br />

stream.<br />

With the recently established drop-off container for electronic waste (see Figure 9) in the Wynberg<br />

drop-off centre e-waste can now be disposed of. It is planned to establish eight more of these containers<br />

in several Cape Town based drop-off sites by 2008.<br />

Footprints in Wynberg runs a “waste-to-art” community centre and acts thereby as a collection centre<br />

for e-waste. Footprints does also collect container glass and metals for the further recycling.<br />

They dismantle some of the received computers to produce art of the several components (see<br />

Figure 8) and some are refurbished at recycling IT. Both the Wynberg drop-off site and Footprints<br />

received together in the first 3 month from January to March 2006 around two tons of e-waste. 40%<br />

were processing units (computers) 40% monitors (800 kg) and 20% others e-waste. From April to<br />

June 2006 four tons of e-waste with a composition of 30% processing units, 50% monitors (2000<br />

kg) and 20 % miscellaneous e-waste (Newson, 2006). 2800 kg monitors with an average weight of<br />

14.7kg (see Table 4) results in approx 200 monitors collected in 6 months. No televisions sets were<br />

collected. The public launch of the drop-off site in Wynberg was on 14 June 2006. A newspaper<br />

article on 15 June was published which led to a bunch of e-waste dropped off in the following<br />

weeks.<br />

Manual dismantling of a PC at Footprints<br />

Clocks made of hard disks and printed<br />

wiring boards (PWBs)<br />

Worker is producing earrings.<br />

Figure 8: Worker is dismantling a computer at Footprints. Clocks and earrings are some products of the recycling<br />

activities.<br />

Wynberg Drop-off Centre, 20 feet<br />

Container for e-waste<br />

Mostly Monitors and personal computers<br />

are disposed of<br />

Launch e-waste container: donator (l.)<br />

with the initiator (r.)<br />

Figure 9: The first container designed to dispose of e-waste in the CMA at the Wynberg Drop-off Centre.<br />

3.1.8 Recyclers<br />

Desco Electronic Recyclers, a Recycling company with head office in Johannesburg, is the only<br />

professional e-waste recycler in the CMA who collects and processes CRT screens. Desco is in<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 31 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

business since 2001 and runs a stripping facility in Kraaifontein near Cape Town (see Figure 10).<br />

Currently they strip 300 to 500 obsolete CRT units per month. Only some 10 TV sets are collected<br />

monthly. 90% of the CRTs are collected from private households and industry. 10% stem from<br />

distributors and a local second hand supplier.<br />

They sell the products partly to their head office in Johannesburg and partly to local scrap dealers.<br />

There is no market for the stripped CRT tubes. They used to send them from Cape Town to Johannesburg<br />

assuming that there will be a market for the tubes in the near future. But since there is<br />

no market for the tubes, they just landfill it locally. To send a “super link” truck up to Johannesburg<br />

they pay about R12’000. <strong>This</strong> lorry can transport some 50 tons, which is roughly estimated similar<br />

to some 5’000 tubes (assuming an average weight of 14.7 kg per monitor and a glass content of<br />

60%).<br />

Today Desco transports about 150 CRTs per load on a trailer to the local landfill site. The disposal<br />

costs for the stripped CRTs are around R200 per ton of CRT at Vissershok landfill site (Novella,<br />

2006) transportation and labour costs not included.<br />

There is a market for the plastics from the CRT housings, the copper, ferrous metals and for the<br />

printed wiring boards (PWBs). The metals are sold to a local metal scrap dealer, the plastics and<br />

the PWBs are sold to Desco Johannesburg.<br />

Local TV repairers collect the TVs at Desco and fix them to put them back on the second-hand<br />

market. Thus from Desco no TV tubes are disposed of at the landfill site.<br />

Monitor stock pile at Desco in Kraaifontein<br />

near Paarl<br />

Another monitor stockpile<br />

Manual dismantling of a Monitor<br />

Collected printed wiring boards<br />

(PWBs) for the further recycling<br />

Monitor casings stockpiled at Desco<br />

Trailer for the transport to the landfill<br />

site<br />

Figure 10: CRT monitor stockpiles and stripping at Desco Electronic Recyclers in Kraaifontein near Paarl.<br />

3.1.9 Landfilling<br />

Solid waste outputs in Cape Town are increasing at 1.8% per annum (Essop, 2005). Four of the<br />

former seven landfill sites are still in operation (Coastal Park, Bellville, Faure and Vissershok)<br />

(IWMP, 2004) and are located in the Cape Flats. A valuable groundwater layer underlies this zone<br />

(Essop, 2005). As most of these landfills are nearly full the potential of this layer to be polluted by<br />

hazardous waste becomes more and more a serious threat.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 32 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

Only the Vissershok hazardous landfill site is allowed to manage hazardous waste. <strong>Waste</strong>man that<br />

possess a 50% share of this landfill site was able to share any numbers of e-waste collected and<br />

disposed. They estimate to collect and dispose of some 200 to 300 CRT units per month (Novella,<br />

2006). All other waste managers do not collect any e-waste and were not able to estimate any figures<br />

of e-waste dumped within the municipal solid waste stream. The amount of e-waste collected<br />

by the municipal solid waste collection, by e-waste recyclers or private and corporate customers<br />

has not been reported yet. According to the landfill managers of the four mentioned landfill sites<br />

there is almost no e-waste disposed of but they all were not able to even roughly estimate the<br />

amounts. According to the landfill manager at Coastal Park landfill site, there is “next to nothing” e-<br />

waste dropped off at that landfill site (Nomdo, 2006). A short interview with a “salvager” on the<br />

Coastal Park landfill site (see Figure 11 upper pictures) brought some additional information. They<br />

collect about 50 monitors and TVs in a year mostly monitors. They strip them and sell the metals to<br />

scrap dealers. The CRTs, the casings and the PWBs remain on the landfill site.<br />

A visit at the Athlone Refuse Transfer Station in Bellville (see Figure 11 lower pictures) unveiled that<br />

there is not much of e-waste disposed of. They assume that during the night time when the site is<br />

unsupervised some e-waste is disposed to avoid being charged for the disposal of hazardous<br />

waste. Thus, a quite large number of unreported e-waste is supposed to be disposed of. However,<br />

they were not able to estimate the amount of e-waste disposed of at the transfer station. During the<br />

visit at the Athlone Transfer Station, no e-waste was detected but a single monitor casing.<br />

Hence, it can be said that the streams of CRT monitors and TVs to the landfill sites in the year<br />

2005 are very low. They consist of the 3600 to 6000 CRT monitor tubes from Desco, the 2400 to<br />

3600 monitors collected by <strong>Waste</strong>man and some 150 CRTs recovered by the salvagers on the<br />

Coastal Park, Bellville and Faure municipal solid waste landfill sites. <strong>This</strong> results in an average<br />

disposal rate of CRTs of about 7950 per year mainly CRTs from monitors.<br />

Municipal solid waste at Coastal Park landfill site.<br />

Salvagers at work. No electronic equipment was detected<br />

Municipal solid waste at Athlone Refuse Transfer station.<br />

Train with compacted waste for the transport to the Vissershok<br />

landfill site<br />

Figure 11: Impressions from the Coastal Park municipal solid waste landfill site and from the Athlone refuse<br />

transfer station<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 33 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

3.2 CRT computer monitor and TV composition<br />

Figure 12: A CRT comprises the face plate (= front glass<br />

with 2/3 of the tube’s weight), the funnel glass and the<br />

neck. The solder glass (=frit) connects the neck and face<br />

To carry out a <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> one<br />

needs to know the composition of computer<br />

monitors and TVs. Table 4 shows the<br />

composition of a typical CRT computer<br />

monitor and CRT TV. Many data from literature<br />

are available which contain information<br />

about the content of plastics, metals,<br />

PWBs as well as the chemical composition<br />

of the glass and the coatings within a<br />

Cathode Ray Tube (i.e. panel glass, funnel<br />

glass and the neck glass) (see also Figure<br />

12). Due to the variety in the size and composition<br />

of computer monitors and TVs, it is<br />

difficult to specify exact figures for each of<br />

glass to the funnel glass<br />

the components. In this study the average of the highest and lowest values found in literature was<br />

taken to calculate the amounts of the various components in the MFA (Monchamp et al., 2001;<br />

ICER, 2003; JRC, 2003; Huisman et al., 2004; ICER, 2004; Andreola et al., 2005; Kang et al.,<br />

2005).<br />

weight of fractions in a CRT computer monitor [g] eight of fractions in a CRT TV g]<br />

Components<br />

min. max.<br />

min. max.<br />

average # values<br />

literature literature<br />

literature literature<br />

average # values<br />

Plastics 2’599 2’607 2’603 2 4’851 5’940 5’396 4<br />

Copper 892 892 892 2 1’155 1’353 1’254 2<br />

Ferro 1’324 1’324 1’324 1 1’221 1’353 1’287 2<br />

Aluminium 49 238 144 2 99 264 181.5 2<br />

PWBs 385 1’385 885 2 1’848 1’848 1’848 1<br />

Gun 28 28 28 1 0<br />

CRT 8’428 9’392 8’910 3 19’570 23’760 21’665 7<br />

Front glass 5’619 6’261 5’940 4 13’275 16’155 14’715 2<br />

Funnel glass 2’809 3’131 2’970 4 6’120 7’605 6’863 2<br />

Neck glass 45 45 45 1 90 90 90 1<br />

Frit (solder) 45 45 45 1 90 90 90 1<br />

Total weight 1) 13’705 15’866 14’786 28’744 34’518 31’631<br />

Weight 2) 14’649 1 33’000 1<br />

1) weight added up from the values in this table<br />

2) average weight from literature.<br />

Table 4: Composition of a CRT computer monitor according to literature data<br />

In this study for any weight based calculation a weight of 14.7 kg for CRT monitors and 33 kg for<br />

TVs was applied respectively. For the weight of the CRTs 8.9 kg for monitors and 21.7 kg for TVs<br />

was used.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 34 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

3.3 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT computer monitors in the CMA in the<br />

year 2005<br />

Figure 13 shows the result of the MFA for CRT computer monitors in the Year 2005 in the CMA.<br />

Due to uncertainties in the quantification of the <strong>flow</strong>s, upper and lower limits were defined. The<br />

figures represents computer monitor <strong>flow</strong>s indicated in metric tons using 14.7 kg as the average<br />

weight of a monitor and 8.9 kg for the stripped CRT respectively (see Table 4). A detailed table of<br />

all monitor <strong>flow</strong>s within the MFA can be found in Appendix 5. 1’466 to 1’723 t entered the CMA in<br />

the Year 2005. 106 t were imported to the second hand supply market. 1’359 to 1’617 t of new<br />

monitors were sold to the consumers as 109 to 125 tons of second hand monitors were sold. 46 to<br />

50 tons are estimated to reach the second hand supply from the consumption at consumer level.<br />

53 to 89 t go to the recycling. From there 3 to 5 tons of copper, 5 to 8 t of ferrous metals and 1 t of<br />

aluminium are sold to the scrap metal market. 9 to 16 t of plastics and 3 to 5 t of PWBs and cables<br />

are shipped from the recycling out of the CMA. In 2005, the consumer stock growth amounted to<br />

1’333 to 1’550 t and the stock growth at the second hand suppliers adds up to 31 to 43 tons. The<br />

landfilling from the consumption at customer level amounts to 35 to 53 tons and from the recyclers<br />

53 to 89 tons respectively. 0 to 1 ton is salvaged on the landfill sites. The landfill stock grew with<br />

some 67 to 105 tons in the year 2005.<br />

106<br />

106<br />

43<br />

31<br />

Second hand<br />

supply<br />

stock<br />

xyz<br />

yyy<br />

xxx<br />

process<br />

upper limit [tons]<br />

lower limit [tons]<br />

1723<br />

1466<br />

Distribution<br />

(new & used)<br />

1617<br />

1359<br />

125<br />

109<br />

50<br />

46<br />

Consumption<br />

at consumer<br />

level<br />

1333 / 1550<br />

stock<br />

Copper<br />

Ferro<br />

Aluminium<br />

3 / 5<br />

5 / 8<br />

1 / 1<br />

89<br />

53<br />

Recycling &<br />

Salvaging<br />

Plastics 9 / 16<br />

PWBs & Cables 3 / 5<br />

systemborder<br />

53<br />

35<br />

1<br />

0<br />

Landfil<br />

106<br />

stock<br />

66<br />

53<br />

32<br />

CRTs only<br />

all units are specified in metric tons<br />

Figure 13: Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of computer monitors in the CMA, 2005; [metric tons]<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 35 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

Discussion<br />

For the computer monitors relatively unreliable sales figures for the years 2005, 2004 and 2003<br />

were available. Neither sales data from the manufacturers nor custom statistics for CRT monitors<br />

were available. Sales figures were assessed by sending the questionnaire presented in Appendix<br />

6. Only 4 of 11 distributors were prepared to share any sales figures and only 2 of those 4 were<br />

willing to provide any market share data. Thus, it was only possible to assess the overall input of<br />

CRT monitors by using the sales figures and the corresponding market share data (see section<br />

2.1.2 for the methodology). The total sales figures in the CMA were different when applied on the<br />

two players providing sales figures and market shares. <strong>This</strong> led to an upper and a lower total sales<br />

(1’466 and 1’723 tons respectively). In addition to this error, it is likely that the distributors also sell<br />

the monitors to other distributors and not only to retailers. <strong>This</strong> could lead to an over estimation of<br />

the input figures in the MFA. Thus to derive more precise data all sales figures from distributors<br />

and those from the retailers should be obtained.<br />

The <strong>flow</strong> from distribution to second hand supply is based on the figures of FreeCom, which possess<br />

a 100% market share in the CMA. Presumably, there are some other second hand dealers in<br />

the CMA but none was found during this study. The <strong>flow</strong> from the consumption at consumer level to<br />

the second hand supply is mainly generated because of the refurbishment activities at Smart City<br />

from the governmental monitor stock. The stock growth in the second hand supply process is also<br />

assessed from figures provided by Smart City.<br />

Flows from the consumers to the recycling stems from the monitors collected by Desco Recyclers.<br />

As they collect 300 to 500 units per month, the <strong>flow</strong> ranges between 53 and 89 tons. The <strong>flow</strong>s of<br />

copper, ferrous metals and aluminium as well as the <strong>flow</strong>s of plastics and PWBs are derived from<br />

the composition given in Table 4. It is likely that there are additional small <strong>flow</strong>s from other recyclers<br />

to the landfill but according to Desco Electronic Recyclers, they are the only professionals<br />

who collect and process e-waste in the CMA. Thus, additional <strong>flow</strong>s from recyclers to the landfill<br />

are expected to be very low.<br />

Flows form the consumer to the landfill was calculated using the figures from the municipal waste<br />

stream reported by <strong>Waste</strong>man (Novella, 2006). As only one waste manager was able to estimate<br />

the e-waste collected it is likely that this stream to the hazardous landfill site is larger than 35 to 53<br />

tons. However, it is not expected that the stream to the municipal landfill sites is much higher since<br />

the landfill mangers at Bellville and Coastal Park as well as the salvagers all agree that only a few<br />

CRTs enter the municipal landfill sites.<br />

<strong>This</strong> MFA clearly shows that though uncertainties in the <strong>flow</strong>s from the consumption process to the<br />

landfill there was a huge stock growth of computer monitors in the year 2005 in the CMA.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 36 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

3.4 Time series of CRT computer monitors<br />

The modelling of the obsolescence of computer monitors was computed using the formula presented<br />

in section 2.1.2. As a basing point for the modelling the total sales of CRT monitors (S tot<br />

described in the previous section) was used. From there the time series were calculated assuming<br />

the following:<br />

• The World Development Indicator (WDI) starts with the listing of penetration rates for personal<br />

computers in 1988. Thus the year 1988 is considered as a starting point for the sales<br />

of computer monitors to South Africa.<br />

• A linear development of sales figures for CRT monitors from 1988 to 2005 was assumed.<br />

• Until 2005 there was always an increase in CRT monitor sales (Humphreys-Davies, 2006;<br />

Lancaster, 2006; Nel, 2006).<br />

• CRT monitor shipping will drop rapidly after the price for LCD monitors is


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

Estimated sales figures CRT monitors<br />

sales figures<br />

Yearly obsolete CRT monitors (life span =15 years)<br />

2'000<br />

1'800<br />

1'600<br />

1'400<br />

1'200<br />

1'000<br />

800<br />

600<br />

400<br />

200<br />

0<br />

CRT monitors [tons]<br />

2030<br />

2028<br />

2026<br />

2024<br />

2022<br />

2020<br />

2018<br />

2016<br />

2014<br />

2012<br />

2010<br />

2008<br />

2006<br />

2004<br />

2002<br />

2000<br />

1998<br />

1996<br />

1994<br />

1992<br />

1990<br />

1988<br />

Figure 14: Time series of CRT monitors in the CMA. Estimated yearly obsolete CRT monitors (right) based on<br />

the estimated sales figures and a lifespan of 15 years.<br />

Discussion<br />

According to Figure 14 some 250 tons of monitors should have become obsolete in 2005 but only<br />

some 120 tons in average entered the recycling or landfill pathway (see Figure 13). 120 tons would<br />

have been expected to become obsolete in the year 2003. <strong>This</strong> difference can have the following<br />

causes:<br />

• The lifespan of 15 years for a CRT computer monitor is too short. If the lifespan had been<br />

chosen only two years longer the time series would have fit perfectly with the MFA model.<br />

<strong>This</strong> leads to the conclusion that a CRT computer monitor in the CMA has a lifespan of<br />

about 17 years<br />

• Not all the disposal routes had been investigated in the MFA sufficiently. Thus, the <strong>flow</strong> of<br />

CRT monitors to landfill was assessed incompletely. For example, it is very likely that more<br />

CRT screens enter the landfill sites via the municipal solid waste stream or via the Athlone<br />

Refuse Transfer Station during the nighttime rather than via the official disposing at Vissershok<br />

hazardous landfill site.<br />

According to interviews with recyclers, e-waste experts and literature research, the lifespan of CRT<br />

devices had been estimated. For CRT monitors, the lifespan is between 5 years (ICER, 2004) and<br />

15 years (Apfel, 2006; Bradford, 2006; Gerig, 2006; Scholz, 2006). However looking at the results<br />

of the MFA and the time series it seems that 5 years lifespan is clearly underestimated.<br />

In this study, lifespan is defined as the period of time the CRT monitors is in use plus the time in<br />

storage after the use-phase. The distinction between the use-phase and the storage-phase was not<br />

completed in this study. For the <strong>assessment</strong> of the obsolete consumer stock, it would be therefore<br />

important to investigate the proportion of the CRT monitors at consumer level in use compared to<br />

the proportion in storage respectively. <strong>This</strong> would allow predicting more precisely the future obsolete<br />

consumer stock in order to be prepared when new recycling scenarios will be in place. According<br />

to Lombard (2004) most of the obsolete computers (in South Africa) are in storage after the<br />

use-phase. The above MFA indicates that this is also the case for CRT monitors at least in the<br />

CMA. It is assumed that many of the monitors in storage would be disposed rapidly once a public<br />

recycling system is set in place. <strong>This</strong> assumption was recently confirmed as the drop-off site in<br />

Wynberg was launched. <strong>This</strong> led to a significant increase in CRT monitors disposed of by the pub-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 38 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

lic and corporate (see section 3.1.7). Anyway it is likely that the yearly obsolete CRT monitors in<br />

the CMA will increase dramatically until the year 2022 and will then drop rapidly.<br />

3.5 Mass <strong>flow</strong>s of CRT TVs in the CMA in the year 2005<br />

Figure 15 shows the result of the MFA for CRT TVs in the year 2005 in the CMA. For the calculation<br />

of the weight-based <strong>flow</strong>s, an average weight of 33kg for a TV was assumed (see Table 4).<br />

2’607 tons of TVs entered the CMA in the year 2005, exported TVs excluded. It is assumed that all<br />

the imported CRT TVs end up at consumption at consumer level.<br />

The second hand suppliers for TVs in the CMA were not investigated thus it is not possible to say<br />

anything about <strong>flow</strong>s of TVs from or to second hand suppliers. According to Desco Electronic Recyclers,<br />

there are many TV refurbishers in the CMA which repair used TVs. Only some 0 to 5 tons<br />

of TVs reached the landfill sites from the consumer level via the municipal solid waste stream. <strong>This</strong><br />

finding is derived from the salvager’s recovery rates, which is some 0 to 50 TVs a year on the<br />

Coastal Park landfill site. As there are three remaining landfill sites for municipal solid waste this<br />

amount was multiplied by 3 resulting in 0 to 150 TVs (0 to 5 tons) entering those landfill sites per<br />

year. The salvagers strip the monitors and TVs up front and sell the ferrous metals, copper and the<br />

aluminium to local scrap dealers. The PWBs, plastic casings, plastics (and wood) and the CRTs<br />

remain on the landfill site.<br />

Desco collects some 10 TVs per month. As Desco passes those devices to TV refurbishers, 120<br />

TVs (4 tons) are estimated to reach the second hand market (reuse) from the recycler yearly.<br />

Desco does not landfill any TV tubes.<br />

Second hand<br />

supply<br />

xyz<br />

yyy<br />

xxx<br />

process<br />

upper limit [tons]<br />

lower limit [tons]<br />

x + 4<br />

x<br />

2607<br />

Import - Export<br />

2607<br />

Consumption<br />

at consumer<br />

level<br />

2602 / 2607<br />

stock<br />

Copper<br />

Ferro<br />

Aluminium<br />

0 / 0.28<br />

0 / 0.19<br />

0 / 0.03<br />

Recycling &<br />

Salvaging<br />

4 4<br />

5<br />

0<br />

0.55<br />

0<br />

0<br />

Landfil<br />

4.45<br />

stock<br />

0<br />

systemborder<br />

all units are specified in metric tons<br />

Figure 15: Mass <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> of CRT TV sets in the CMA, 2005. All units are specified in metric tons.<br />

Discussion<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 39 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

The average weight of a TV was investigated by analyzing 250’000 collected TVs in Belgium in the<br />

year 2003. The result was a weight of 33kg representing the average Belgian TV weight of obsolete<br />

TVs in the year 2003 (Huisman, 2005). For South Africa, no such average figures were available.<br />

However, the average weight for distributed and collected TVs in South Africa was set equal<br />

to the European average of 33kg. In fact, the weights of TVs strongly depend on the screen diameters<br />

and vary from 10 kg up to some 90 kg (see Appendix 9). 33 kg corresponds to a screen size of<br />

some 66 cm to 72 cm that is a very common screen size.<br />

Neither sales figures from manufacturers nor from distributors were available. Thus import statistics<br />

(custom statistics) from the South African Revenue Service SARS (Heyns, 2006) were used to<br />

derive the amount of TVs entering the CMA. Those national figures were again multiplied by f CMA =<br />

0.114 (see section 3.1.3) to derive the CMA based import figures as presented in. The export figures<br />

of TVs had been considered and were discounted from the import figures. In general the export<br />

figures were very low compared to the import figures.<br />

Again, a striking consumer stock growth was determined since only a very small amount of TVs<br />

was disposed at landfill sites around the CMA in the year 2005.<br />

3.6 Time series of CRT TVs<br />

Penetration rates from the year 1975 to 2001 (SABC’s first broadcasting was in 1976) and custom<br />

statistics from 1992 up to 2005 were available (see Appendix 7 and Appendix 8). These figures<br />

were used to derive the inputs of TVs in the CMA according to the methods described in section<br />

2.1.3.<br />

input per year<br />

overall input<br />

input per year [units]<br />

100'000<br />

90'000<br />

80'000<br />

70'000<br />

60'000<br />

50'000<br />

40'000<br />

30'000<br />

20'000<br />

10'000<br />

0<br />

Data from WDI<br />

Data from custom stats<br />

1'400'000<br />

1'200'000<br />

1'000'000<br />

800'000<br />

600'000<br />

400'000<br />

200'000<br />

0<br />

overall input [units]<br />

2005<br />

2003<br />

2001<br />

1999<br />

1997<br />

1995<br />

1993<br />

1991<br />

1989<br />

1987<br />

1985<br />

1983<br />

1981<br />

1979<br />

1977<br />

1975<br />

Figure 16: Yearly inputs of colour TVs into the CMA based on World Development Indicators (WDI) and custom<br />

statistics.<br />

Due to very unsteady yearly inputs (see Figure 16), the figures were transformed into a triangular<br />

slope starting in 1975 with an input of 0 and peaking in 2005 with the methods described in section<br />

2.1.3. The time series for the input function was calculated. It is shown in Figure 17. With this transformed,<br />

linear function the obsolete series was computed according to 2.1.3. An average lifespan<br />

of 15 years and 25 years respectively for TVs in South Africa was applied.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 40 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

CRT TVs [tons]<br />

3'000<br />

2'500<br />

2'000<br />

1'500<br />

1'000<br />

input per year obsolete TVs (L = 15 y) obsolete TVs (L = 25 y)<br />

<br />

500<br />

0<br />

2035<br />

2032<br />

2029<br />

2026<br />

2023<br />

2020<br />

2017<br />

2014<br />

2011<br />

2008<br />

2005<br />

2002<br />

1999<br />

1996<br />

1993<br />

1990<br />

1987<br />

1984<br />

1981<br />

1978<br />

1975<br />

Figure 17: Time series of the input function of CRT TVs and their obsolescence using lifespans of 15 years<br />

and 25 years respectively<br />

TV sales forecasts<br />

Since the market forecasts for CRT computer monitors are unambiguous, the forecasts for CRT<br />

TVs differ much depending on the position of the forecasting person in the CRT market and the<br />

region. For example the European Display industry Association says:<br />

“…the game is far from being over for CRT makers! CRT remains the dominant technology used in<br />

TV Sets and represents today (2004) 91%* of worldwide TV sales. Forecasts plan it to be still<br />

around 80% (isupply) in 2007 volume wise …”. And: “... CRT makers are putting strong efforts in<br />

new product development. Further to True Flat, which has become the major CRT technology,<br />

CRT manufacturers are developing HDTV products on a worldwide basis to fulfil digital broadcast<br />

requirements. Thanks to their cost advantages, CRT will have the right tools to fight against<br />

Plasma and LCD …”(Trutt, 2005).<br />

Other sources say that<br />

“… the demand for CRT glass used in personal computers and televisions is projected to decline to<br />

about 220 million units for the fiscal year ending December 2005, from around 272 million units in<br />

fiscal 2004, due to a rapid shift towards TFT LCDs ...”(Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., 2005)<br />

Thus at this stage it is not reasonable to forecast CRT TV trends because of the current discontinuous<br />

world market. Additionally as South Africa is a developing country adopting conclusions<br />

from market forecasts in the developed world wouldn’t be reasonable. Hence the author resigns to<br />

forecast the CRT TV inputs in the CMA.<br />

Discussion<br />

The input data from the World Bank World Development Indicator were available from 1975 up to<br />

2001. However, from 1992 until 2005 the import statistics were used for the <strong>assessment</strong> of the<br />

CMA input. It is assumed that the custom stats together with the transformation factor f CMA lead to a<br />

much more reliable yearly input than the WDI data due to it’s unknown how the WDI data were<br />

assessed. Using the import stats lead to a higher yearly input than the derivation from the penetration<br />

rate. For example using the penetration rates in the year 2001 some 750’000 TVs were cumulated<br />

in the CMA whereas the deriving from the import statistics adds up to some 930’000 in the<br />

same year (see Appendix 8).<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 41 October 2006


RESULTS - MASS FLOW ASSESSMENT<br />

According to Figure 17, some 1’400 tons of TVs should have become obsolete in 2005 assuming<br />

an average lifespan of 15 years but almost no TVs entered the recycling or landfill pathway. Also<br />

for an assumed lifespan of 25 years, still 400 tons of TVs would have become obsolete theoretically.<br />

The average lifespan of TVs was investigated by interviewing recyclers in Switzerland and<br />

South Africa. Both South African respondent estimated an average lifespan of 15 years (Bradford,<br />

2006; Scholz, 2006) whereas the Swiss recyclers estimated 10 (Gerig, 2006) and 25 years (Apfel,<br />

2006) respectively as the average lifespan of a TV. According to the ICER report (2004) the lifespan<br />

of TVs range from 8.5 years up to 20 years. In this study, two time series were computed<br />

using 15 and 25 years as lifespans.<br />

Again as discussed within the comparison of the CRT monitor <strong>flow</strong>s with the corresponding time<br />

series, there are the following reasons for that difference:<br />

• The lifespan of 15 and 25 years for a CRT TV is too short. If the lifespan would have been<br />

chosen 30 years (TVs before 1975!) the time series would have fit with the MFA model.<br />

• Rather than a 30 years lifetime presumably not all the disposal routes had been investigated<br />

in the MFA. Thus, the <strong>flow</strong> of CRT TVs to landfill or to uncontrolled dumps was assessed<br />

incompletely. For example, it is very likely that more TVs enter the landfill sites via<br />

the municipal solid waste stream or via the Athlone Refuse Transfer Station during the<br />

night (see section 3.1.9) rather than via the official disposing at Vissershok hazardous landfill<br />

site.<br />

• The lifespan of TVs could be higher than 15 to 25 years because people in the CMA don’t<br />

know where to dispose of the old CRT devices. Maybe they public awareness that e-waste<br />

is hazardous is already existing and thus they know that the municipal solid waste is not<br />

the right channel for their end-of-life equipment.<br />

• It is also possible that obsolete and broken TVs end up on illegal dumps in areas where the<br />

municipal solid waste is not regularly collected and thus the control by the government is<br />

absent (e.g. in the townships like Kayalitsha or Guguletu). The penetration rate of TVs<br />

even in the townships areas is quite high whereas almost no computers are present. According<br />

to Bred Scholz from FreeCom (2006) per 10 capita one TV is present in Kayalitsha<br />

roughly estimated. Hence, it is likely that second or even third-hand TVs enter the townships<br />

and are disposed of locally. From the total of 803’110 households in 2004 in Cape<br />

Town some 150’000 were informal dwellings such as shacks in townships or in backyards<br />

(WESGRO, 2005). However, it is not known how many people live in the townships of the<br />

CMA. Thus at this stage it is not possible to estimate the TVs in storage in Kayalitsha and<br />

Guguletu.<br />

Even though at this stage not many obsolete TVs are collected by the recyclers in the CMA or disposed<br />

of at landfill sites it is likely that the yearly obsolete CRT TVs in the CMA will increase dramatically<br />

in the near future at least until 2020 or 2030.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 42 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

4 SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

In section 4.1 the existing best available recycling technologies for the recycling of CRT glass are<br />

presented. Also the local and South African industry was asked to use CRT glass in their processes.<br />

These results are also listed in section 4.1. With this knowledge, several recycling scenarios<br />

were defined some within the CMA some including best available technologies overseas. Once the<br />

scenarios had been described, they were assessed towards their sustainability using the MAUT<br />

methodology.<br />

4.1 CRT Recycling technologies<br />

In this section, the current best available technologies (BATs) for the pre-processing and the intrinsic<br />

recycling process for CRT glass in Europe are presented as well as the results from the <strong>assessment</strong><br />

of those companies who were asked if they were able to recycle CRT glass in the CMA<br />

and in South Africa.<br />

The CRT recycling process can principally be divided in the stages shown in Figure 18:<br />

Stripping of TVs and monitors<br />

Plastic casings<br />

PWBs<br />

Aluminium<br />

CRT<br />

Copper<br />

Ferrous metals<br />

Disposal<br />

Electronic<br />

recycling<br />

Scrap metal<br />

processing<br />

Separating &<br />

coating<br />

removal<br />

Crushing<br />

Disposal<br />

Ferrous Metals<br />

Removal of the<br />

coatings &<br />

sorting<br />

Panel glass Funnel glass Mixed glass<br />

Use in second application<br />

Figure 18: Possible pathways for the recycling of CRT appliances like monitors and TVs. Coloured boxes<br />

indicate products, white represent are process steps in the CRT recycling.<br />

1. The pre-processing, which includes the stripping (dismantling) of the CRT, screens. The resulting<br />

materials are mainly plastics, printed wiring boards (PWBs), metals and the remaining CRT.<br />

The plastics are either disposed of or recycled. Aluminium, copper and ferrous metals are recovered<br />

and can be sold to the local scrap dealers to be recycled again. PWBs can be recycled to<br />

recover precious metals like gold, silver, palladium, platinum as well as base metals such as cop-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 43 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

per, lead, nickel and zinc, bismuth, antimony, etc. Umicore, a state of the art precious metal<br />

smelter in Belgium recovers 17 metals from PWBs (Kerckhoven, 2006).<br />

2. Currently, in South Africa the remaining CRTs are disposed of at (hazardous) landfill sites as<br />

discussed in section 3.1.8. Alternatively, the CRT can either be separated into funnel and screen<br />

glass or they can be crushed depending on the buyer’s requirements. When separating the CRTs<br />

only the screen coating is removed whereas sophisticated crushing devices are able to remove<br />

both the screen and the funnel coating. The crushed cullets can then be sorted to derive panel,<br />

funnel and mixed glass. Some applications also allow mixed, crushed glass that is not sorted. Ferrous<br />

metals are also recovered after crushing or separating CRTs (e.g. the rimband and the<br />

shadow mask). Detailed descriptions of the separating and crushing techniques as well as the several<br />

applications where the recycled CRT glass can be used are specified in the following section.<br />

The Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER, 2004) has carried out a project<br />

which was examining potential markets for waste CRT glass in the EU member states. Five potential<br />

applications had been investigated, three for screen glass which does not contain any lead and<br />

two for lead-containing funnel glass or mixed glass. The following descriptions of the best available<br />

technologies for the recycling of CRTs correspond partly to the findings in the ICER report and also<br />

to own investigations carried out by literature studies.<br />

4.1.1 Pre-processing – stripping of CRT monitors and TVs<br />

The stripping of monitors and TV sets was studied at a RUAG Components & Immark AG both<br />

Swiss CRT dismantling facilities as well as at Desco Electronic Recyclers in Cape Town. Both the<br />

Swiss and the South African facility use low-tech, manual dismantling techniques using electrical<br />

screwdrivers, grippers and a hammer for the dismantling of the CRT screens.<br />

First, the plastic casing is removed by unscrewing it. To avoid an electric shock, a short circuit of<br />

the anode voltage supply terminal of anode cap attached to cathode ray tube (CRT) should be<br />

performed using an appropriate tool. Without this tool one can just connect a wire to the outer body<br />

of the CRT to then push it under the anode cap and make a good short-circuit (Goldwasser, 2006).<br />

After having removed the casing, the main cord, the cables, the printed wiring boards (PWBs) and<br />

metals such as the ferrous metals, aluminium and the copper coil on the yoke are manually removed<br />

and stored in separate units. The remaining part is the CRT with some stickers on it. The<br />

vacuum is being released by breaking the neck glass. The neck glass with the electron gun is<br />

stored and disposed of separately.<br />

Two workers at RUAG can dismantle 50’000 to 80’000 CRTs per year, which results in some 70 to<br />

120 CRTs per day per worker (assuming 350 workdays a year). The employee at Desco can strip<br />

about 75 (average of 50 to 100) monitors per day. Huisman et al. (2004) calculated the time used<br />

to completely dismantle a CRT screen to around 285 seconds which results in 100 CRTs a day<br />

(assuming an 8 hour work day).<strong>This</strong> value corresponds very well to the values retrieved from<br />

RUAG (70 to 100 CRT devices per day).<br />

Ferrous metals, copper, aluminium and the PWBs are then removed and can be easily recycled as<br />

it is usually economically feasible to process these materials.<br />

The plastic casings of TVs and monitors containing flame-retardants must be disposed of in incineration<br />

plants. Some old types of flame-retardants are carcinogenic. Those halogenated flame<br />

retardants form polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins and furans when burned (Siemers et<br />

al., 1999). Although thermoplasts can be recycled, the recycling of the most of the plastics is difficult<br />

because of the many types it occurs and the separation is economically and technically not<br />

feasible. Plastics are usually down cycled or thermal recycled to extract at least the energy<br />

(Siemers and Vest, 1999).<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 44 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

Cables are generally freed by mechanical means of their casings (usually PVC or PE). Only the<br />

copper and other metals contained in cables have prospective uses.<br />

Particularly old TV sets contain wooden pressboards as a casing. It is coated with paints and embedded<br />

in plastics and can therefore not be recycled.<br />

4.1.2 Crushing and sorting techniques<br />

For some applications the CRT screens have to be either crushed and / or separated leading to<br />

different products. The crushing of CRTs is carried out by crushing systems which produce cullets<br />

in different sizes and separate the metals and the coatings of the CRT glass. There are several<br />

crushing systems in place and also a mobile solution is available. In this study the sophisticated<br />

crushing system of a Swiss CRT recycler was investigated and a mobile crushing solution which is<br />

provided by a US company.<br />

SwissGlas, Switzerland<br />

SwissGlas a division of Immark AG operates a sophisticated crushing, washing and sorting device<br />

for CRT glass in Switzerland. The site was visited by the author in August 2006. They produce<br />

front, funnel and mixed CRT glass cullets. The products are sold to a European manufacturer for<br />

CRT television glass. There is a growing demand for those high quality recycling cullets (Apfel,<br />

2006).<br />

Process description: the stripped CRT tubes are first crushed, sieved and partly separated into<br />

coarse and fine glass cullets, then the ferrous metals are separated from the glass fraction. The<br />

fluorescent layer on the screen glass as well as the iron oxide coating from the funnel glass have to<br />

be removed because of the manufacturers terms to include recycled CRT glass in their smelting<br />

process. These coatings are mechanically removed by tumbling (German: “trobalisieren”) the cullets.<br />

After washing off the dust, containing the removed coatings and some glass dust, the cullets<br />

are dried using electricity. Then the separation step using a detection system to specify the density<br />

of each cullet takes place (funnel glass is denser than front glass due to its lead content). On a<br />

conveyor belt the cullets arrive at detection unit. After blowing out the denser cullets with air jets a<br />

fraction of funnel glass as well as the remaining front and mixed glass is produced. Then the remaining<br />

mixed glass is manually separated into pure front glass and mixed glass. The mixed glass<br />

consists of cullets of front glass frit- and funnel glass (see cullet in Figure 19 in the below, middle<br />

picture).<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 45 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

CRT Stock feed Ferrous metals Front glass cullets<br />

Funnel glass cullets<br />

Mixed glass: left: front glass, middle:<br />

frit, right: funnel glass.<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> (glass dust and coatings)<br />

Figure 19: Impressions from the CRT glass recycling at SwissGlas, Switzerland.<br />

Only 0.5% of waste is produced. It contains the fluorescent coating as well as the iron oxide coating<br />

and glass dust. <strong>This</strong> fraction has to be disposed of in an incineration plant. Water is kept in a<br />

closed loop cycle thus no wastewater is produced. Only losses due to evaporation during the drying<br />

process occur. <strong>This</strong> is estimated to be some 100 litres per ton glass produced. The feedstock is<br />

sprinkled to reduce dust emissions outside the plan. The plant uses some 20 to 30 kWh of electricity<br />

per ton of glass produced mainly for the drying process.<br />

SwissGlas produces currently approx. 5 tons of CRT cullets per hour. Currently 50% TV and 50%<br />

monitor glass is delivered from Swiss collection and recycling sites. They intend to increase the<br />

production to 7 to 8 tons per hour by the next year with the same facility. Front glass, funnel glass<br />

and mixed glass is produced in the same quantities. The costs for the processing of a ton of glass<br />

are approx. € 220. Around € 100 from the Swiss e-waste management system (SWICO SENS, see<br />

section 1.3) based on the Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) helps to cover the costs. They employ<br />

currently 11 workers. Eight of them consist of low and semi-skilled workers whereas 3 highly skilled<br />

worker are busy with administrative work.<br />

In addition SwissGlas technology sells their system to other recyclers. The price for the whole system<br />

including the intermediation of customers and provider of raw materials is about € 2 Mio. The<br />

separation, washing and sorting unit can be procured for approx € 1Mio, the main expense being<br />

for the separator unit. Without the X-ray device the separation plant can be procured for some €<br />

500’000. <strong>This</strong> option requires more manual work.<br />

Mobile or Stationary CRT Recycling System<br />

A CRT Processing unit provided by Andela Products Ldt (Hula, 2006) is installed inside a 20 ft.<br />

shipping container and can be used as a mobile CRT processing solution or as a stand alone system.<br />

<strong>This</strong> system comprised with an in-feed conveyor, a CRT breaker, a custom glass conveyor<br />

followed by a cross-belt magnet and custom installed dust collection system. Stripped CRTs can be<br />

fed into the system. A variable speed controller allows the system operator to modify the impactor<br />

processing speeds to produce a larger or smaller glass size distribution depending on the local<br />

glass market specifications. The crushed CRT glass and the metal frames or screens (rimband and<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 46 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

shadow-mask) are separated. The dust collection system includes a high efficiency cartridge dust<br />

collector installed as a stand-alone unit near the CRT recycling container. A negative air pressure<br />

within the container keeps the leaded glass fines or coating flakes that become airborne during the<br />

crushing process. Up to 600 CRTs per hour can be processed by the Andela CRT Recycling system.<br />

The costs for the Andela Stationary Recycling System would amount to around USD 300’000<br />

transport and installation up front included. Around USD 150’000 have to be added to turn this system<br />

into a mobile CRT processing system. One semi-skilled and two lower-skilled workers could<br />

operate the system. The system runs with a maximal performance of less than 100 horsepower<br />

that is less than 74.57 kW. To compute the energy used for the processing of one CRT unit the<br />

energy use for one hour (74.57kWh) is divided by the maximum capacity, which is 600 CRTs. <strong>This</strong><br />

results in an energy consumption of some 0.124 kWh/CRT. The crushing process is a dry one.<br />

Thus, no water is used.<br />

4.1.3 Separating techniques<br />

Besides the crushing of CRT glass one can also separate the glass without crushing it first. The<br />

advantage is that one does not have to separate cullets but the whole front and funnel glass respectively.<br />

Depending on the manufacturers requirements some times it makes more sense to use<br />

separated glass instead of crushed. However when the glass is being prepared for smelting or use<br />

in other products like bricks or foam glass, it usually must be crushed. In this section, the current<br />

separation techniques are described. Most of the techniques are specified in the ICER report<br />

(ICER, 2004). Some of them are marketed and process the glass for CRT manufacturers. In this<br />

report the focus is on the technologies already in use and marketed.<br />

Hot wire technique<br />

A B C<br />

D E F<br />

Figure 20: Process illustration at RUAG Component Inc., Switzerland<br />

<strong>This</strong> technology was studied at a Swiss CRT recycling facility (RUAG Components). Since 2001<br />

they run a stripping facility and separate the glass using a semi-automatic hot wire device. After the<br />

dismantling of the monitor or TV the stripped CRT is being installed on a workbench manually. The<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 47 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

following steps are also illustrated in Figure 20. First, the ferrous rim band (implosion protection) is<br />

manually removed A). Then the CRT is scored automatically by scratching with a diamond B). In<br />

the next step a NiChrome ribbon is wrapped around the chink and is then electrically heated C).<br />

The heating takes about a minute and the resulting thermal stress cracks the glass entirely. Then<br />

the cone glass with the frit is manually removed and stored separately D). The remaining front<br />

glass is then freed from its coating by suction cleaning it E). Figure 20 F shows the physical process<br />

more schematically.<br />

For the process, three workers are mandatory. RUAG has two separation units in place one for<br />

large and one for small sized screens. The system has a throughput of some 70 CRTs per hour.<br />

The quality of the separated glass is high. According to RUAG (Gerig, 2006) a hot wire system can<br />

be set up by investing some € 300.000. There are second hand systems available for approximately<br />

€ 150.000 depending on the equipment that comes with the system.<br />

The ICER report (2004) mentions several problems that can occur using the hot wire technology.<br />

One problem is the difficulty to accomplish a clean separation of panel and funnel glass if the wire<br />

is incorrectly placed. Another problem with this approach is that the glass does not always break<br />

along the wire line. <strong>This</strong> is particularly so when dealing with CRTs of different sizes since larger<br />

TVs have thicker glass. An advantage is that it is a dry process and thus no wastewater is generated.<br />

Dust is not produced and the suction removal of the luminescent coating does not allow it to<br />

get airborne. The system does not need much electricity either. The variable costs are relatively<br />

high due to much manual work has to be done using this system. However, in places where labour<br />

costs are low the system could be very cost efficient.<br />

Laser Cutting<br />

<strong>This</strong> method was investigated by using details of<br />

a laser cutting device manufactured by (Proventia<br />

Automation Oy, 2006), Finland. They provide an<br />

automatic handling and cutting line for CRTs. A<br />

carbon dioxide laser beam cuts the CRT below<br />

the frit and separates the CRT into the funnel<br />

glass with the frit and the remaining front glass. In<br />

addition to the high quality separation and high<br />

capacity, the laser technology also has superior<br />

health and environmental performance. <strong>This</strong> device<br />

can separate up to 75 CRTs per hour. Additionally<br />

a cleaning and crushing device is available.<br />

Potential problems with the laser approach<br />

include reforming of the glass after the laser<br />

beam has passed through, difficulty in cutting<br />

thick glass, and sharp edges on the separated fractions. It also uses more power than other cutting<br />

techniques and requires significant capital investment (ICER, 2004).<br />

Advantages: high capacity, high quality, low cost / CRT, dry process<br />

Disadvantages: high investment costs , high energy use (Proventia, 2006)<br />

Diamond cutting separation<br />

Figure 21: Laser cutting process.<br />

Source:http://www.masterautomationgroup.com/<br />

<strong>This</strong> uses a wire that is provided with industrial diamonds. The wire diameter is usually very small.<br />

A continuous loop of wire cuts into the glass as the CRT is passed through the cutting plane. The<br />

main problem with this approach is that it is very slow. It also generates dust that needs to be controlled.<br />

<strong>This</strong> research has not identified any companies which are currently using this technique or<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 48 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

thinking of using it (ICER, 2004). <strong>This</strong> technology is marketed and provided for instance by MRT<br />

System AB, Sweden.<br />

A semi-automatic system provided by MRT<br />

System AB, Sweden can process up to 45<br />

CRTs per hour. It is capable to handle CRTs<br />

from 14 to 32 inches and is equipped with<br />

glass dust collection and a cyclone for the rare<br />

earth metals. The power consumption is<br />

around 10 kW. No economic data are available<br />

at this stage.<br />

The CRTs are positioned automatically or<br />

manually before cutting depending on the<br />

equipment of the machine. After setting the<br />

index point for the correct longitudinal position,<br />

the screen is placed into the cutting station<br />

automatically and front and panel glass are<br />

then separated. The station is enclosed to reduce noise and is ventilated to remove dust. The<br />

products are automatically transported for further processing. Dust and rare earth powders are<br />

collected by a powder cyclone and dust filter. No economic data of this system were available in for<br />

this study.<br />

Water Jet<br />

<strong>This</strong> technology is commonly used in cutting many different types of material, particularly metal. It<br />

uses a high-pressure spray of water containing abrasive, directed at the surface to be cut. The<br />

water is focused through a single or double nozzle-spraying configuration set at a specific distance<br />

(ICER, 2004). It takes some 30 seconds to separate a CRT. <strong>This</strong> technology is also marketed and<br />

for instance being transferred to China (Brown, 2006).<br />

Comparison of the above separation techniques<br />

Figure 22: CRT is cut by a diamond cutting device.<br />

Source: http://www.mrtsystem.com/<br />

Table 5 shows an overview over the current major CRT separation technologies. As one can see<br />

there is no technology with outstanding properties. They all provide a separation that leads to high<br />

quality of the product and fulfils the requirements of the customers. Most of the devices can be<br />

purchased in different modules making the system more cost effective or dependent of more manual<br />

work. In this study no recommendation for a certain technology is given. The market is developing<br />

fast and the techniques are getting more and more cost effective. The future costs for e-waste<br />

recycling will decrease as the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) (Europäischer<br />

Wirtschaftsdienst (EUWID), 2006) forecasts.<br />

CRT separating methods hot wire laser cutting diamond cutting water jet<br />

Invest. costs Low High High High<br />

Variable costs Low Low High High<br />

Capacity ca. 50 ca. 75 ca. 45 High<br />

Quality of glass High High High High<br />

Wet process No No No Yes<br />

Table 5: Comparison of several separation technologies towards costs, capacity and quality. Data collected<br />

from (Proventia, 2006) (Gerig, 2006) and (MRT, 2006)<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 49 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

4.1.4 CRT glass in new CRTs<br />

As there is no CRT manufacturer in South Africa this section is mainly consisting information from<br />

Samsung Corning located in Brandenburg, Germany, which is producing TV CRT glass. All information<br />

and numbers are according to an Interview with the technical manager of Samsung Corning.<br />

The European market for the recycling of CRT glass in the manufacturing process of new CRT<br />

glass is currently consolidating. At this stage only Samsung Corning in Germany and Thomson-<br />

Polcolor in Poland are processing and manufacturing CRT glass both using significant amounts of<br />

recycled CRT glass. Thomson-Polcolor recently invested in the plant and they will produce at least<br />

10 more years (Apfel, 2006). Also Samsung Corning intends to refurbish their smelting device by<br />

2007 and thus will go on producing CRT glass in Germany for at least 10 more years. Former big<br />

players like SCHOTT, NEC and Philips have ceased to produce CRT glass in Europe. The shift is<br />

towards the production in Asian countries as today 90% of the worldwide CRT production is already<br />

located in China (Widmer et al., 2005). There are still some more CRT manufacturers located<br />

in Russia and Belarus.<br />

The following company description is according to Samsung Corning, Germany. They currently<br />

produce some 16 Mio. cone and screen glasses per year with a daily output of 260 tons of screen<br />

glass and 160 tons of cone glass. Samsung Corning is engaging 420 employees. They provide<br />

their glasses to customers in Germany, Czech Republic, Poland and Brazil.<br />

Energy and raw materials savings are achieved by using recycled CRT glass. Thus several emissions<br />

are reduced. Currently they process up to 40 % recycling CRT glass. With the input of 1 ton<br />

of recycling glass they can save 1.1 tons of raw materials in average. The use of CRT cullets also<br />

reduces dust production but to a less significant part. The losses due to evaporation are not affected<br />

by using recycling glass. Incidental dust of 300 tons per year contains large amounts of lead<br />

and can be recycled to a content of 90% internally. Only 10% of the dust has to be disposed of by<br />

selling it to a lead smelter where the lead is being recovered. Thereby the revenues for the dust<br />

cover round about the transport costs.<br />

Samsung Corning mainly takes glass from TV sets and to a lesser extent from computer monitors.<br />

The screen glass of monitors must not be leaded which is the case for the most of the CRTs manufactured<br />

after 1990.<br />

The company was not prepared to share the prizes of the raw materials. Thus, it is not possible to<br />

assess the economic benefit of Samsung Corning by using CRT cullets. The costs to produce a ton<br />

of glass include € 240 for the production of cone glass and € 280 for front glass respectively. The<br />

additional costs for Energy and wages are € 40 for screen glass and € 35 for Cone glass. Overall<br />

costs for screen glass are therefore € 320 per ton and € 315 for cone glass respectively.<br />

4.1.5 CRT glass in smelting processes<br />

The following introduction is part from the ICER report (2004) and is not written by the author of this<br />

study:<br />

“Smelting is a high temperature process in which molten metal is separated from the impurities in<br />

metal-bearing material and recovered. Primary smelting extracts metal from ores or concentrates<br />

and secondary smelting recovers metal from scrap material. Most smelting operations use a fluxing<br />

material to fuse with impurities and form a liquid slag. <strong>This</strong> helps in the extraction of the metal.<br />

In smelting operations which use sand as flux there could be potential to substitute CRT glass for<br />

all or some of the required sand, provided that the metals contained in CRT glass, particularly<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 50 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

lead, are compatible with the process and can be recovered. When considering the use of CRT<br />

glass in smelting it is also essential to ensure that the chemical composition of the resulting slag<br />

(which is where the bulk of the CRT glass will end up) is such that it can be used in new applications,<br />

e.g. construction aggregate. The weight-based recycling targets for equipment containing<br />

CRTs set by the WEEE Directive will only be met if the slag and therefore the glass itself can be<br />

recycled for use in other applications.<br />

Metals can be considered in three broad groups — ferrous metals (iron and steel), non-ferrous<br />

metals (such as copper, lead, zinc) and precious metals (such as gold, silver, platinum and palladium).<br />

“<br />

Ferrous metal smelting: No sand is used as a flux. Sand is a contaminant in the steel and iron<br />

production. Thus ferrous metal smelting is not suitable for the processing of CRT glass (ICER,<br />

2004).<br />

Primary Lead smelting: Boliden SA in Sweden operates a primary lead smelting facility. Technically,<br />

there would be in principle no problem to use the CRT glass in the smelting process. Problems<br />

could occur if there is too much of aluminium oxide (Al 2 O 3 ), chromium would increase the<br />

smelting point (energy use), quicksilver increases the costs for flue gas treatment, antimony increases<br />

the costs for refining and silver, antimony, bismuth and tin require refining capacities. Too<br />

much zinc can cause troubles with the slag or the furnace.<br />

Since the lead content in CRT glass (5%) is too low to use it economically in their smelting process,<br />

they even should be paid for taking CRT glass. The economic feasibility depends on the market<br />

price of lead, of the raw materials and the composition of the glass. At this stage, they needed at<br />

least 30% lead in the CRT glass to run the process economically. Including CRT glass would substantially<br />

increase the amount of the silica-slag which leads to extra losses (Swartling, 2006).<br />

Zinc smelting: Modern furnaces do not require silica to control slag chemistry and viscosity. Imperial<br />

Smelting Furnace (ISF): The metal content of slag is too high to be used in secondary application<br />

such as construction aggregate. ISF are not competitive with modern furnaces and are under<br />

the thread of closure. Thus the Zinc Smelting is not applicable for the processing of CRT glass<br />

(ICER, 2004).<br />

Precious metals smelting: Umicore, Belgium: Visits at Umicore in Belgium unveiled that they<br />

cannot include CRT glass in their precious metal recovery plant economically. Although they do<br />

lead recovery, the lead content in CRT glass with an overall content of 5% lead oxide, is not sufficient<br />

to run the lead refining economically. Their processes are optimized for precious metal refining.<br />

They are rather interested in the supply of materials containing precious metals than in CRT<br />

glass. There is no precious metal smelter which is smelting lead in Europe at this stage<br />

(Kerckhoven, 2006).<br />

Rand Refinery, South Africa is a precious metal smelter operating in the Gauteng Province. They<br />

use lead as a redox additive in the precious metal smelting process that is oxidized to reduce the<br />

precious metals to be reduced again by carbon. Thus, the lead is not used in bulk. Additionally they<br />

use only galena (lead sulphide, PbS) and would not be prepared to use lead oxide. There would be<br />

no economic benefit in using CRT glass. Rand Refinery is only interested in materials containing a<br />

certain amount of precious metals (Gloster, 2006).<br />

Secondary copper / lead smelting process: Fry’s Metal: In South Africa there is currently one<br />

secondary lead smelter based in Germiston near Johannesburg. They process some 60’000 tons<br />

of lead scrap per year and use mainly lead from batteries. Fry’s Metal can only economically use<br />

leaded scrap that has a lead content above some 60%. Approximately one third of the furnace load<br />

ends up in the slag which has to be land filled at the Holfontein H:H landfill site. The costs for the<br />

final disposal on that landfill site are some R500 per ton. A sodium-sulphide slag rather than a<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 51 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

ferro-silicate slag is used in their process thus, there would be no benefit from the silica in the CRT<br />

glass. Latter slag is not leachable but needs more energy in the smelting process. The industry in<br />

South Africa is allowed to dispose of leachable slag whereas in Europe and the US only nonleachable<br />

slag can be disposed of at landfill sites. It is economically more feasible to use sodiumsulphide<br />

slag and have more disposal costs than changing to the ferro-silicate slag. However, they<br />

are by far not able to use the CRT glass economically due to<br />

a) The use of a sodium-sulphide slag rather than a silica slag<br />

b) Low lead content of CRT glass<br />

c) The increase in slag volume and therefore increasing disposal costs.<br />

NFA: A copper smelter in Cape Town called NFA was not fond of the idea of taking CRTs for the<br />

copper smelting process. The company’s statement was: "Our Processes cannot handle the leaded<br />

glass as our units are not designed for this."<br />

Boliden AB in Sweden operates a secondary copper / lead smelting plant. According to (Swartling,<br />

2006) technically there shouldn’t be any barriers in using leaded glass as a flux in the smelting<br />

process. If more glass (silica) is added to the process, iron oxide and calcium oxide (CaO) have to<br />

be added as well to keep the proportion at a constant level. <strong>This</strong> generates additional costs. The<br />

furnace has currently no lack of silica and does therefore not rely on more glass input. The lead<br />

extraction of the CRT glass with an average content of some 5% is economically not feasible due<br />

to a relatively high lead content in the slag and mat that have a lead content of some 1-3 % and 6-<br />

8% respectively. A 5% leaded glass would only generate more slag, which has to be disposed of. If<br />

one would only use the funnel glass which has an average lead content of some 22% then it would<br />

eventually be economical feasible to include the glass in the smelting process. However, at this<br />

stage this is not calculated yet.<br />

According to the ICER report (ICER, 2004) most of the secondary copper / lead smelters in Europe<br />

which were asked were not prepared to use the CRT glass in their operation due to mainly the<br />

following reasons:<br />

• A 5% lead content is to low compared to the lead amount in the remaining slag. The use of<br />

CRT glass would only increase the slag production without substantially extracting the lead<br />

from the glass. If the lead content was substantially higher, many of the smelters say that it<br />

would become eventually economic.<br />

• The remaining lead concentration in the slag is too high to be reused in a secondary application.<br />

Thus, it must be disposed of in hazardous landfill sites. The further processing to<br />

lower the heavy metal content is too expensive.<br />

• Most of the copper / lead smelters would be mainly interested in the copper from the yoke.<br />

But in most cases the copper has been removed before due to its value by the recycler.<br />

Although many copper / lead smelters stated not to be able to use CRT, glass there is currently<br />

one European company which is already using CRT glass in their smelting process.<br />

Metallo-Chimique in Belgium is currently processing CRT glass in their copper / lead furnace. They<br />

can recover the lead in an economically feasible way. The main advantage is that they recover the<br />

lead almost entirely and the resulting slag is almost free from heavy metals. Hence, it can therefore<br />

be used as a raw material and is marketed as “Metamix”. <strong>This</strong> process was studied in depth by<br />

Jaco Huisman (2004) and is also described carefully in the ICER report (ICER, 2004). Huisman<br />

assessed the process towards its eco-efficiency using the self developed QWERTY/EE (Huisman,<br />

2003) concept.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 52 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

The use of CRT glass in a secondary lead smelting processes only make sense economically and<br />

ecologically, if the lead recovery rate is high enough that the slag can be used (sold) again rather<br />

than to be landfilled. From the assessed companies only Metallo-Chimique can provide such a<br />

technology.<br />

4.1.6 CRT glass in bricks<br />

Use of CRT glass in concrete bricks: South Africa has many concrete brick manufacturers and in<br />

the Western Cape, brick manufacturing is a very wide spread industry. Two manufacturers within<br />

the CMA were asked to use the CRT glass in the brick manufacturing process.<br />

Cape Brick: Located in Salt River, Cape Town which is almost in the heart of the CMA Cape Brick<br />

is one of the first masonry manufacturers which has a crushing facility to reduce construction and<br />

demolition waste (C&DW), consisting of mainly reinforced concrete, to recycled crushed aggregate<br />

(RCA). The RCA is used as the main ingredient in all the company's products. 42’000 tons of RCA<br />

are worked up in recycled bricks every year. According to (Gracie, 2006) Cape Brick could also use<br />

the CRT glass in the recycled products. The glass cullets should be supplied in sizes lower than<br />

100 mm in order to be used for the crushing device. It is not known yet if therefore a crushing device<br />

would be required. It is namely possible that due to the transportation the glass is crashed to<br />

cullets with sizes below 100mm anyway.<br />

Inca Cape: Located near Somerset West that is in the very eastern end of the CMA, Inca Cape<br />

produces some 25’000 tons of bricks per month. They could avail the CRT glass in the manufacturing<br />

of new bricks. They also do not have a crushing facility and should get the cullets in sizes below<br />

7mm. <strong>This</strong> requires a crushing device, which must be installed separately. They will not be able to<br />

pay for the CRT glass unless it will be delivered in the right amounts and at constant rates.<br />

However, it seems that there are many brick manufacturers who are willing and able to include the<br />

CRT glass in the manufacturing processes. By any means it must be proven that the concentrations<br />

of any hazardous substances within the produced bricks are below the regulatory limits and<br />

leaching tests must be carried out to make sure that the environment is protected from hazardous<br />

substances. Also one has to comply with the corresponding occupational health and safety regulations<br />

when the CRT glass is crushed.<br />

Use of CRT glass in clay bricks: According to the ICER report, there is substantial volume that<br />

could be used in the manufacturing of clay bricks. <strong>This</strong> application has particularly good potential to<br />

use large volumes of waste CRT but only panel glass. <strong>This</strong> shows even greater potential than<br />

waste container glass for reducing the firing temperature and may prove a better fluxing agent because<br />

of its higher alkali content and lower melting temperature. One barrier to using CRT glass in<br />

flux in the near term is getting a reliable supply of CRT glass. In order for the brick industry to consider<br />

switching to CRT glass, manufacturers need to be assured of a constant supply processed to<br />

the required quality standards. However, in this study the use of CRT glass for clay bricks in South<br />

Africa was not studied.<br />

4.1.7 CRT glass in concrete rubble<br />

Malans Quarries is a company, which produces over 300.000 tons of concrete rubble on a yearly<br />

base. They crush reinforced concrete, concrete bricks and general rubble to produce concrete rubble<br />

for road filling purposes. Malans Quarries operates several mobile crushing systems located at<br />

different places in the CMA. <strong>This</strong> would be an option where the glass and the hazardous substances<br />

like lead, barium, cadmium and zinc would be diluted in a way that the resulting concentrations<br />

would be far below any regulatory limits. Additionally there are major concerns in terms of<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 53 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

airborne dust while mixing and crushing the CRT glass on site. Hence, this scenario has to be at<br />

least in accordance with the:<br />

Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993<br />

Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations, GN R 1179 of 25 August 1995<br />

Lead Regulations, GN R 236 of 28 February 2002.<br />

<strong>This</strong> option clearly designs to release hazardous substances in the environment. The South African<br />

National Roads Agency regulates the properties for road building materials within the Guideline for<br />

Road Building Materials, Draft TRH14 (1987). By any means, the blending of CRT glass with concrete<br />

rubble has to be in accordance with this regulation.<br />

4.1.8 CRT glass in foam glass<br />

<strong>This</strong> option was not investigated in this study. But according to the ICER report there is good potential<br />

for using CRT panel glass in foam glass. <strong>This</strong> recycling option has not yet been marketed<br />

(ICER, 2004). It was not investigated if there are any foam glass manufacturers within the CMA.<br />

4.1.9 CRT glass in container glass<br />

Consol Glass is a major player in the world of international glass packaging. It has operations located<br />

at Clayville (Midrand), Wadeville (Germiston), Bellville (Cape Town) and Pretoria. Consol<br />

Glass produces container and beverage glass. They were asked to assess the option to include<br />

CRT glass in the manufacturing process. According to Consol Glass’ John Polasek the statements<br />

to this question was as follows:<br />

For the panel glass: “<strong>This</strong> has a much higher total alkali proportion than our manufactured glass – a<br />

difference of about 11%. Two of the alkali elements in the panel glass are absent from our glasses<br />

– barium oxide and strontium oxide, which together are at a very high level of some 20%. “<br />

For the Funnel (and Neck) glass: “<strong>This</strong> is lead oxide (PbO) rich. Our furnaces employ electric<br />

boosting for which molybdenum metal conductors are used. Lead readily destroys this metal and<br />

hence leaded glasses can never be used in our glass melting operations. We also employ platinum<br />

coated devices that are immersed in the glass to measure temperature – platinum is also readily<br />

destroyed by lead. We have several times examined the feasibility of using CRT glasses but must<br />

come reluctantly to the same conclusion each time” (Polasek, 2006) .<br />

The main problem with any recycled glass (cullet) that varies grossly from Consol’s standard glass<br />

composition is that they have no facility to intimately mix the cullet with the batch materials. Hence,<br />

the lack of mixing promotes an inhomogeneous final glass and erratic bottle production. If the differences<br />

between glass are also gross, as for the panel glass compared to theirs, the cullet would<br />

have to be crushed very finely, in addition to intimate mixing. Even with plate (window) recycled<br />

glass, which is close to their container glass composition, they have to restrict the amount that can<br />

be tolerated to a few percent at most of the total batch weight.<br />

4.1.10 CRT glass in flat glass<br />

Pilkingtons, a South African flat glass manufacturer was asked to assess the use of CRT glass in<br />

the manufacturing process of flat glass. According to Pilkington’s Alex Howitt (2006) the CRT glass<br />

is “so far from the required compositions.” Thus, the flat glass manufacturing seems not to be an<br />

option for the recycling of CRT glass.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 54 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

4.2 Definition of the CRT recycling scenarios<br />

The investigations of the CRT recycling technologies in section 4.1 unveil that the recycling of CRT<br />

glass can be carried out in many ways. The technologies for the pre-processing are sophisticated<br />

and can be adjusted according to the needs of the customers. Looking at the further processing of<br />

the pre-processed CRT glass only a few applications seem to be feasible at this stage. The following<br />

table gives an overview over the assessed applications.<br />

Application for CRT glass technically feasible economically feasible<br />

Europe South Africa Europe South Africa<br />

CRT glass manufacturing Yes No Yes -<br />

Secondary copper / lead smelters Yes Yes Yes No<br />

Brick manufacturing Yes Yes <br />

Concrete rubbel manufacturing Yes <br />

Precious metals smelting Yes Yes No No<br />

Primary lead smelting Yes No No -<br />

CRT glass in foam glass Yes <br />

Ferrous metal smelting No No - -<br />

Zinc smelting No No - -<br />

CRT in container glass No No - -<br />

CRT in flat glass No -<br />

Table 6: Technical and economical feasibility of the CRT recycling technologies assessed in this study<br />

According to Table 6 the following applications for the recycling of CRT glass were included in the<br />

scenarios that were further assessed in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> presented in section 4.2.<br />

• CRT to CRT glass manufacturing at Samsung Corning in Germany<br />

• Secondary copper / lead smelting at Metallo-Chimique, Belgium<br />

• Use of CRT glass in concrete Bricks at Cape Brick, Cape Town<br />

• Use of CRT glass in concrete rubble manufacturing at Malans Quarries, Cape Town<br />

Eight scenarios have been defined (see Table 7) according to the above conclusions. Note: Scenario<br />

2 (Lead mine) was not investigated in the previous chapter. <strong>This</strong> scearnio was added due to<br />

an idea of a local IT professional. The landfilling of the stripped CRT screen as it is currently practiced<br />

in the CMA was taken as the baseline scenario to compare it with recycling scenarios which<br />

are combinations of the current best available technology (BAT) in Europe as well as of local solutions<br />

within the industry or alternative storage options for the CRTs. As the stripping of the monitors<br />

and TVs already occurs in the CMA, the starting point for any of the scenarios is the stripped CRT.<br />

The scenarios are described qualitatively and assessed quantitatively in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

presented in section 4.3.<br />

No. Name Key steps, description Locality<br />

0 Landfill<br />

1 Lead mine<br />

2 Concrete rubble<br />

Transport to Vissershok landfill site from Desco Electronic Recyclers<br />

in Paarl<br />

Transport to the “Black Mountain” lead mine in Agganeys, Northern<br />

Cape. Indefinite storage in the mine, no processing<br />

Transport within Cape Town, use in concrete rubble production as<br />

raw material, chemical analysis of product<br />

CMA<br />

Agganey, Northern<br />

Cape<br />

CMA<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 55 October 2006


RESULTS – SCENARIO ANALYSIS<br />

3 RCA 1 brick<br />

Transport within Cape Town, use in RCA brick production as raw<br />

material, chemical analysis of product<br />

CMA<br />

3a<br />

Concrete brick<br />

Transport within Cape Town, use in concrete brick production as raw<br />

material, chemical analysis of product<br />

CMA<br />

3b<br />

RCA brick with<br />

Andela CRT processing<br />

system<br />

Transport within Cape Town, crushing in mobile crushing unit, use<br />

cullets in RCA brick production as raw material, chemical analysis of<br />

product<br />

CMA<br />

4 CRT manufacturing<br />

Crushing, washing and separating in Cape Town using SwissGlas<br />

technology, transport to CRT manufacturer, use as raw material<br />

CMA, Germany<br />

5 Lead recovery<br />

Transport to Metallo-Chimique, use as flux in copper / lead smelting<br />

process and for lead recovery, slag used in “Metamix 2 ” for building<br />

materials<br />

1) RCA Recycled Crushed Aggregate<br />

2) Metamix Byproduct of smelting process at Metallo-Chimique, sold to the building industry<br />

Belgium<br />

Table 7: Overview of all scenarios described in this section and used for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 56 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

4.3 Application of the MAUT<br />

In this section, the eight scenarios specified in the previous chapter will be assessed towards their<br />

sustainability using the MAUT. First, some adjustments of the attributes defined in section 2.3.1<br />

have to be carried out due to several reasons explained in the following.<br />

4.3.1 Adjustment of the attributes<br />

In Appendix 16 the results of the stakeholders’ weights are shown. 18 persons filled in the questionnaire<br />

(see Appendix 15) for the weighting of the attributes. The group consisted of 4 consulting<br />

engineers and scientists, 4 waste managers, a supplier of IT equipment, 3 technicians and engineers<br />

involved in a computer refurbishment project (not locals), 5 governmental representatives<br />

and 3 representatives from an environmental NGO. A lead smelter (industry) also filled in the questionnaire<br />

but did not participate in the workshop.<br />

The weighting procedure at the workshop was carried out before the completion of the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

It was recognized that some of the attributes, weighted during the workshop, were not<br />

measurable or were redundant. Thus, some adjustments to derive the final attribute set for the<br />

MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> had to be carried out. Table 8 shows the corresponding adjustments as well as<br />

the stakeholders’ weights and the weights used in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> (see also Table 2 for the<br />

scale of the weights).<br />

Attributes defined for the stakeholders’<br />

weighting<br />

stakeholders’<br />

weight<br />

Attribute applied in the MAUT<br />

Weight used<br />

in MAUT<br />

Economic Scael: 0..4 Scael: 0..4<br />

High profit 2.06 redundant ( considered in the Net costs) -<br />

Low operational costs for processing 2.94 Net costs 2.94<br />

Low capital costs 2.47 Low capital costs 2.47<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth 3.00<br />

Increased potential for local economic<br />

growth<br />

3.00<br />

Environmental<br />

Low use of electricity 3.06<br />

Low fuel use for transport 3.24<br />

Low use of freshwater 3.18<br />

Eco-indicator 99 points 12.72<br />

Little toxic emissions 3.25<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill 3.47 Minimum of waste volume to landfill 3.47<br />

Low toxicity of waste to landfill 3.47<br />

redundant considered in Eco-Indicator<br />

99 value<br />

-<br />

Social<br />

Creation of jobs for the previously unemployed<br />

in Cape Town<br />

3.22<br />

Creation of highly skilled jobs in Cape Town 2.22<br />

Working hours for low-skilled/semi-skilled<br />

in the CMA<br />

Working hours for highly skilled in the<br />

CMA<br />

Creation of jobs outside SA 1.50 Working hours outside South Africa 1.50<br />

Low health & safety impacts 3.22 Low health and safety impacts 3.22<br />

Table 8: Adjustment of the set of attributes presented at the regional workshop to derive the final set of attributes<br />

for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

The “High profit” attribute was not considered in the MAUT as it is already considered in the “Net<br />

costs” which are calculated from the overall costs and the revenues of a scenario and thus are<br />

equal to the operational costs. The most striking adjustment is the aggregation of the environmental<br />

attributes such as “Low use of electricity”, “Low fuel use for transport”, “Low use of freshwa-<br />

3.22<br />

2.22<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 57 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

ter”, “Little toxic emissions”. The reason for the aggregation is the use of the Eco-indicator 99 as<br />

the environmental Impact <strong>assessment</strong> rather than the above attributes. As the attributes are aggregated<br />

but not considered redundant, the stakeholders’ values were added to derive the weight<br />

used for the weighing of the Eco-indicator 99 value. “Low toxicity of waste to landfill” is redundant<br />

and is represented in the Eco-indicator 99. All social attributes were used in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />

Only the names were changed slightly but still meaning the same.<br />

Note: The supporting calculations for all scenarios are specified in Appendix 13. All input data and<br />

the corresponding sources as well as the corresponding relative errors used in the calculations are<br />

listed in Appendix 12. Particularly currency exchange rates, fuel prices, fuel use of vehicles, wages<br />

of workers and freight considerations with all type of considered vehicles can be found. These figures<br />

were used to derive the values in the following scenario <strong>assessment</strong>s. In addition, Appendix<br />

14 shows the detailed figures of the environmental impact <strong>assessment</strong> i.e. the list of the Ecoindicator<br />

99 and Impact 2002+ values.<br />

4.3.2 Scenario 0 – Landfill<br />

The current practice in the CMA to recycle CRT TVs and computer monitors is to strip them and<br />

sell the valuable parts either to the scrap metal market or to the electronic recycler that processes<br />

the material or sells it to the next customer. Most of the CRTs are brought to the hazardous landfill<br />

site in Vissershok. An unknown amount is disposed of at the non-hazardous landfill sites within the<br />

municipal solid waste stream (MSW). The only landfill site in the CMA which can handle hazardous<br />

waste and therefore CRTs is the Vissershok H:H landfill site located some 30 km in the north of<br />

Cape Town’s City centre. The Vissershok landfill site is protected using a geocomposite liner where<br />

an HDPE (high density polyethylene) geomembrane is used in conjunction with clay layers<br />

(Entech, 2006) is shown in Figure 23. For this scenario only the landfilling in the hazardous landfill<br />

site was considered rather than the disposal in the municipal solid waste landfills as this is the formal<br />

way of disposing CRTs at this stage. <strong>This</strong> leads to an underestimation of the environmental<br />

impacts of the current practice where CRTs also are disposed of at municipal solid waste landfill<br />

sites.<br />

Lining of the Vissershok H:H landfill site<br />

Figure 23: Lining of the Vissershok landfill site in the year 2000. source: (Entech, 2006)<br />

http://www.entech.co.za/Projects/<strong>Waste</strong>/vissershok.html<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 58 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Computer<br />

monitors<br />

&<br />

TV sets<br />

Ferrous metals<br />

Aluminium<br />

Copper<br />

PWBs 1<br />

Plastic casings<br />

CRT<br />

Scrap metal<br />

market<br />

Electronic scrap<br />

recycler<br />

Landfill<br />

1) PWBs: Printed wiring boards<br />

Figure 24: Current baseline recycling scenario of TVs and computer Monitors carried out by an electronic<br />

recycler in the CMA.<br />

Today the CRTs are stripped at Desco Electronic Recyclers near Paarl that is some 50 km outside<br />

the CMA. The transport distance to the Vissershok landfill site is estimated to be some 60 km<br />

(round trip). Usually a trailer with a capacity of 1000 kg is loaded with CRTs and transported to the<br />

Vissershok landfill site. Figure 25 shows schematically the parameters investigated for the <strong>assessment</strong><br />

in the MAUT. All values used for the <strong>assessment</strong> are listed in Table 9.<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Transportation<br />

Hazardous<br />

Landfill<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

Figure 25: Scenario 0: landfilling of CRTs at Vissershok landfill site<br />

Economics: The costs for the 60 km round trip from Kraaifontein to the Vissershok landfill site<br />

amount to $ 0.0083 /kg CRT. Labour costs including the time use for loading of the trailer and driving<br />

to the landfill site amounts to $ 0.0083 $/kg CRT. The disposal fee for a ton of e-waste is ZAR<br />

200 (Novella, 2006) per ton which is $ 0.0278 $/kg CRT. The net costs for scenario 0 add up to $<br />

0.044 $/kg CRT. No investment costs are required for the landfilling scenario and no increased<br />

potential for local economic growth is expected since no other industry is engaged by this scenario<br />

(value = 0).<br />

Environment: The environmental impact of scenario 0 comprises the transport and the long-term<br />

effects of the landfilling. For the calculation of the Eco-indicator 99 points, a module for a VAN (<<br />

3.5 tons) from the ecoinvent database was taken. A new dataset for the composition of CRTs (see<br />

Table 18) was generated in ecoinvent in order to model the long-term impacts of such waste in<br />

hazardous landfill sites. The eco-indicator for the landfilling process amounts to 0.0064. <strong>Waste</strong><br />

volume to landfill of remaining waste is maximal (1kg/kg CRT).<br />

Social: For the loading and unloading and the round trip to the landfill site in Vissershok it takes 3<br />

hours of semi-skilled work including the loading/unloading and driving to the landfill site. <strong>This</strong> results<br />

in 0.003 hours/kg CRT glass. No additional jobs for highly skilled employees are created. No<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 59 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

additional jobs outside South Africa are created. A low health and safety impact is expected due to<br />

the breaking of the glass during loading, unloading and the transport to the landfill site. By breaking<br />

the tubes the coatings from the front glass could get airborne.<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.0083 70% 0.0111 0.0054<br />

Fuel use l/100km 15 25%<br />

Distance (round trip) km 60 10%<br />

Fuel price $/l 0.92 10%<br />

Load trailer kg 1'000 25%<br />

Labour costs $/kg CRT 0.0083 125% 0.0136 0.0031<br />

Time used h 2 50%<br />

Wage semi-skilled worker $/h 4.17 50%<br />

Load trailer kg 1'000 25%<br />

Disposal costs $/kg CRT 0.0278 50% 0.0347 0.0208<br />

Disposal fee $ / ton 27.8 25%<br />

Load trailer kg CRT 1'000 25%<br />

Net costs $/kg CRT 0.0444 68% 0.0594 0.0293<br />

Investment costs $ 0 - 0 0<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0 +/- 0.1 0.1 -0.1<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI' 99 points 0.0064 25% 0.0072 0.0056<br />

Transport, VAN 3.5t, CH EI' 99 points 0.0051 25%<br />

Landfilling CRT glass on hazardous landfill site EI' 99 points 0.0013 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 1 - 1 1<br />

Social<br />

Work for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.003 60% 0.0039 0.0021<br />

Time used (loading & driving) h 3 50%<br />

Load trailer kg 1'000 25%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.5 +/- 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Table 9: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 0<br />

4.3.3 Scenario 1 - Lead mine<br />

The Black Mountain lead mine is located 10 km west of Aggeneys, Namaqualand District, Northern<br />

Cape Province that is some 560 km outside the CMA. It is the only lead mine in South Africa with<br />

copper, silver and zinc also mined there (Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), 2006). It is<br />

owned and operated by Anglo American. To get rid of the CRT glass without wasting landfill volume<br />

and to save the disposal costs for the landfilling, one could store the CRT glass in the Black<br />

Mountain lead mine.<br />

The high-grade ore body from Broken Hill has been exploited and a new lower grade ore body<br />

(Swartberg) is being exploited now. Copper, lead and zinc metal occur as sulphides in the ore. In<br />

addition, ore from stopes in the upper levels of the Broken Hill ore body is considerably tarnished<br />

(oxidized). Besides those elements, also bismuth, cadmium and cobalt can be found in the ore.<br />

(Williams et al., 2001). The fact that some ore bodies are no longer in use and that lead sulphide,<br />

lead oxide and even cadmium is present, the disposal of CRT glass in that mine seems to be environmentally<br />

safe although not proven yet. In this study, it is assumed that the lead mine is not connected<br />

to any groundwater <strong>flow</strong>s and that therefore possible leaching from metals of the CRT glass<br />

is not supposed to cause any problems.<br />

Legislation: In South Africa, annual Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR) performance<br />

reports have to be submitted to the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) by the<br />

mine operators. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002 (DME,<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 60 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

2002) defines the managing of mining waste, residues, stockpiles, dams etc. After the closure of a<br />

mine comprehensive rehabilitation has to be carried out and the monitoring of disposal sites and<br />

dams has to be warranted. The mining operator is responsible for any damage to the environment<br />

during and after the mining operation. The disposal of waste not produced within the mine is not<br />

regulated within this legislation. Such an application must be allowed by the Department of Water<br />

Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) in<br />

cooperation with the DME (Dittke, 2006). Figure 26 shows schematically the parameters investigated<br />

for the <strong>assessment</strong> in the MAUT. All values used for the <strong>assessment</strong> are listed in Table 10.<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Transportation<br />

Storage in lead mine<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

Figure 26: Scenario 1: Storage of CRTs in the Black Mountain lead mine<br />

Economics: The roundtrip to the Black Mountain lead mine in Agganeys takes some 15 hours for<br />

a “super-link” truck. The fix costs for the truck are derived from the costs from Cape Town to Johannesburg.<br />

They add up to ZAR 6100. <strong>This</strong> amounts to $ 0.0170 /kg CRT wage for the driver<br />

included. Loading and unloading takes 2 low-skilled workers 3 hours (own estimation). <strong>This</strong> results<br />

in $ 0.0003 /kg CRT. The net costs amount to $ 0.0173 /kg CRT. No investing costs are required<br />

for the lead mine scenario. Little potential for local economic growth is expected as only the transport<br />

industry can profit from this scenario (value = 0.25).<br />

Environment: The Eco-indicator 99 considering the transport and the definite storage of CRT<br />

glass in the mine amounts to 0.0184. Basically the CRT glass is disposed of safe in a lead and<br />

cadmium environment and therefore no additional short term impacts from the disposal in the lead<br />

mine can be expected. Nevertheless, the long-term impact of the landfilling was added considering<br />

the worst case scenario. There is no waste volume to landfill.<br />

Social: For the transportation and the storage in the lead mine, some additional jobs can be created.<br />

Assuming that for the loading and unloading of a 50 tons-truck 2 workers are engaged for 3<br />

hours each and a driver needs some 15 hours (1120 km) for the round trip. <strong>This</strong> results in a job<br />

creation for the previously unemployed and semi-skilled potential of 0.0004 jobs /kg CRT. No jobs<br />

for the highly skilled will be created. No jobs are created outside South Africa. A medium health<br />

and safety impact is expected due to the breaking of the glass during loading, unloading and the<br />

long transport to the lead mine. By breaking the tubes the coatings from the front glass could get<br />

airborne.<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.0170 75% 0.0233 0.0106<br />

Price for "Super-Link" truck $ 848 50%<br />

Load “Super-Link” truck kg CRT 50'000 25%<br />

Labour costs (loading and unloading and storage only) $/kg CRT 0.0003 100% 0.0004 0.0001<br />

Time used h 6 50%<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker $/h 2.08 25%<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 61 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Load “Super-Link” truck kg CRT 50'000 25%<br />

Net costs $/kg CRT 0.0173 75% 0.0237 0.0107<br />

Investment costs $ 0 - 0 0<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0.25 +/- 0.1 0.35 0.15<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI' 99 points 0.0184 25% 0.0207 0.0161<br />

Transport, lorry 40t, CH EI' 99 points 0.0171 25%<br />

Landfilling CRT glass on hazardous landfill site EI' 99 points 0.0013 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Social<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00042 75% 0.00058 0.00026<br />

Time used (loading & driving) h 21 50%<br />

Load “Super-Link” truck kg 50'000 25%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.5 +/- 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Table 10:Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 1<br />

4.3.4 Scenario 2 - Concrete Rubble<br />

In this sceanario the CRTs are collected from a central dismantling site which is located at one of<br />

the drop-off sites in the CMA. A 40 feet shipping container would be transported to the Malans<br />

Quarries that would result in a transport distance of some 30 km both ways. Malans Quarries is a<br />

company which produces over 300’000 tons of concrete rubble on a yearly base. They are located<br />

in Bellville, which is within the CMA and some 15 km outside Cape Town city centre. They crush<br />

reinforced concrete, concrete bricks and general rubble to produce concrete rubble for road filling<br />

purposes. Malans Quarries operates several mobile crushing systems located at different places in<br />

the CMA. <strong>This</strong> scenario envisages that the CRTs are mixed with the raw material and are then<br />

crushed to use them in the road foundation. <strong>This</strong> would be an option where the glass and the hazardous<br />

substances like lead, barium, cadmium and zinc would be diluted in a way that the resulting<br />

concentrations would be far below any regulatory limits. Additionally there are major concerns in<br />

terms of airborne dust while mixing and crushing the CRT glass on site. Hence, this scenario has to<br />

be at least in accordance with the:<br />

Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993<br />

Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations, GN R 1179 of 25 August 1995<br />

Lead Regulations, GN R 236 of 28 February 2002.<br />

These regulations determine the prescriptive limits for hazardous substances (e.g. lead, zinc, cadmium<br />

(sulphide), yttrium, etc.).<br />

<strong>This</strong> option clearly designs to release hazardous substances in the environment. The South African<br />

National Roads Agency regulates the properties for road building materials within the Guideline for<br />

Road Building Materials, Draft TRH14 (1987). By any means, the blending of CRT glass with concrete<br />

rubble has to be in accordance with this regulation. Figure 27 shows schematically the parameters<br />

investigated for the <strong>assessment</strong> in the MAUT. All values used for the <strong>assessment</strong> are<br />

listed in Table 11.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 62 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

raw material<br />

savings<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Transportation<br />

Crushing and<br />

use in concrete rubble<br />

Road filling<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

Figure 27: Scenario 2: Use of CRTs in concrete rubble manufacturing<br />

Economics: A 40 feet container transport within CMA costs ZAR 1260 (Faragher, 2006). Thus,<br />

transport costs amount to $ 0.0075 /kg CRT for the cartage within Cape Town. Additional cost<br />

would arise from the loading and unloading of the shipping container as well as from the controlled<br />

mixing of the CRTs into the raw material. The loading of a container engages a worker for 3 hours.<br />

One worker is engaged for 2 hours to allocate the CRT glass to achieve the corresponding dilution.<br />

The labour costs amount to $ 0.0013 /kg CRT. The product would have to be proven on the chemical<br />

composition regularly. Per container load, one series of chemical analysis of the product and<br />

the supervising of the occupational exposure limits during the crushing of the CRT glass have to be<br />

carried out to be sure to adhere the regulatory limits. These additional costs are roughly estimated<br />

to be some $642 per container load assuming five chemical samplings, which leads to $ 0.0273/kg<br />

CRT. The net costs add up to $ 0.0362 /kg CRT. At this stage, Malans Quarries is not prepared to<br />

pay anything for the CRT glass. Thus, no revenues for the providing of CRT glass can be expected.<br />

No investing is required for the concrete rubble scenario (value = 0). Using CRT glass in new products<br />

could lead to a stimulation of the recycling industry to include more recyclable materials in the<br />

manufacturing of their products. Using the CRT glass in the concrete rubble manufacturing requires<br />

the transport- and building industry and stimulates the use of recycling materials in the production<br />

rather then raw materials. Hence a medium potential for local economic growth is expected (value<br />

= 0.5).<br />

Environment: The Eco-indicator 99 value is -0.0035 taking into account both the impacts (losses)<br />

of the transport and the benefits (gains) from the raw material savings. The CRT glass replaces a<br />

mixture of bricks, concrete and reinforced concrete. It is assumed that the hazardous waste is released<br />

into the environment when leaching from the concrete rubble when used in road foundation.<br />

The hazardous substances are not enclosed in a solid product. They are rather present in small<br />

particles with a large surface making them able to react with the environment. Since at this stage<br />

no data is available from the ecoinvent database (version 1.2.) for the impact of this material it was<br />

assumed that this impact equals at least the impact of the landfilling of a CRT in a hazardous landfill<br />

site. <strong>Waste</strong> volume to landfill of remaining waste is supposed to be 0.<br />

Social: The loading of a container engages a worker for 3 hours and a driver for 1 hour for the<br />

round trip. 1 worker is engaged for 2 hours to distribute the CRT glass on site to achieve the corresponding<br />

dilution. A highly skilled employee would be busy with the chemical analysis of the produced<br />

concrete rubble for 2 hours per container load. <strong>This</strong> results in a job creation potential of<br />

0.00026 hours/kg CRT for low-skilled/semi-skilled and 0.00009 hours/kg CRT for highly skilled<br />

respectively. No jobs will be created outside South Africa. Health and safety impacts are consid-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 63 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

ered to be high due to the ability of the coatings from the front glass to get airborne while loading,<br />

unloading and distributing as well as when crushed to be mixed into the concrete rubble.<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.0075 20% 0.0082 0.0067<br />

Transportation costs within CMA $ 175 10%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Labour costs low-skilled $/kg CRT 0.0004 85% 0.0006 0.0003<br />

Time used for low-skilled worker (loading, mixing) h 5 50%<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker $/h 2.08 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23500 10%<br />

Labour costs highly skilled $/kg CRT 0.0009 75% 0.0013 0.0006<br />

Time used for highly skilled work (chemical tests) h 2 25%<br />

Wage of highly skilled worker $/h 11.12 50%<br />

Additional costs $/kg CRT 0.0273 35% 0.0321 0.0226<br />

Chemical anlysis $ 642 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23500 10%<br />

Net costs $/kg CRT 0.0362 34% 0.0422 0.0301<br />

Investment costs $ 0<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0.5 +/- 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points -0.0035 53% -0.0045 -0.0026<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, CH EI' 99 points 0.0007 25%<br />

building, brick, to sorting plant EI' 99 points -0.0016 25%<br />

building, concrete, not reinforced, to sorting plant EI' 99 points -0.0016 25%<br />

building, reinforced concrete, to sorting plant EI' 99 points -0.0022 25%<br />

Landfilling CRT glass on hazardous landfill site EI' 99 points 0.0013 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Social unit figures<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the<br />

CMA h/kg CRT 0.00026 60% 0.00033 0.00018<br />

Time used h 6 50%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00009 35% 0.00010 0.00007<br />

Time used h 2 25%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.75 +/- 0.1 0.85 0.65<br />

Table 11: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 2<br />

4.3.5 Scenario 3 - Recycled crushed aggregate (RCA) bricks<br />

<strong>This</strong> scenario foresees that the CRTs would be collected from a central dismantling site, which<br />

would be located at one of the drop-off sites in the CMA. A 40 feet shipping container would be<br />

transported to the Cape Brick located in Salt River which would result in a transport distance of<br />

some 30 km both ways. Cape Brick is one of the first masonry manufacturers which has a crushing<br />

facility installed to reduce construction and demolition waste (C&DW), consisting of mainly reinforced<br />

concrete, to recycled crushed aggregate (RCA). The RCA is used as the main ingredient in<br />

all the company's products. 42’000 tons of RCA are used in recycled bricks every year. Cape Brick<br />

could use the CRT glass in the recycled products. The glass would have to be delivered in cullets<br />

below 100 mm size, which eventually requires a crushing facility or manual crushing. Note: In this<br />

scenario, the pre-crushing was not included. It is included in scenario 3b.<br />

The raw material input apparently passes through four different reduction processes before being<br />

finally reused. The primary crusher is outside and reduces the building rubble to some 200 mm<br />

fragments. Using a normal front loader, the material is then moved inside and passed through two<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 64 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

more crushers, before being finally sized and shaped for their manufacturing process (Newson,<br />

2006).<br />

The internal operations produce a lot of dust. Air samples are regularly taken and analyzed to confirm<br />

air quality and levels of airborne hazards. Again as in scenario 2, it must be proven that the<br />

concentrations of any hazardous substances within the produced bricks are below the regulatory<br />

limits and that leaching tests have to be carried out to make sure that the environment is protected<br />

from hazardous substances. In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993 with<br />

the corresponding regulations have to be considered due to the exposure of the workers to airborne<br />

hazardous particles during the crushing process. Figure 28 shows schematically the parameters<br />

investigated for the <strong>assessment</strong> in the MAUT. All values used for the <strong>assessment</strong> are listed in<br />

Table 12.<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

Raw<br />

material<br />

savings<br />

Energy<br />

savings<br />

work<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Transportation<br />

Crushing &<br />

manufacturing bricks<br />

Brick use<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

Figure 28: Scenario 3: Use of CRT glass in the manufacturing of recycled crushed aggregate (RCA) bricks<br />

Economics: A 40 feet container transport within the CMA costs ZAR 1260 (Kühne & Nagel, Cape<br />

Town). Thus the transport costs amount to $ 0.0075 /kg CRT for the cartage within Cape Town.<br />

Additional cost would arise from the loading and unloading of the shipping container as well as<br />

from the controlled mixing of the CRTs into the raw material. The loading of a container engages a<br />

worker for 3 hours. One worker is engaged for 2 hours to allocate the CRT glass to achieve the<br />

corresponding dilution. The labour costs amount to $ 0.0013 /kg CRT. The product would have to<br />

be proven on the chemical composition regularly. Per container load, one series of chemical analysis<br />

of the product and the supervising of the occupational exposure limits during the crushing of the<br />

CRT glass, have to be carried out to be sure to adhere the regulatory limits. These additional costs<br />

are roughly estimated to be some $642 per container load assuming five chemical samplings of the<br />

bricks produced of which leads to $ 0.0273 /kg CRT. The net costs add up to $ 0.0362 /kg CRT.<br />

Cape Brick would not be prepared to pay anything for the CRT glass. No investing is required for<br />

this scenario (value = 0). Only little increased potential for local economic growth is expected due<br />

to the same reasons as described in scenario 2.<br />

Environment: The Eco-indicator 99 value is -0.005, which includes both the impacts of the transport<br />

and the benefits from the raw material savings. The CRT glass replaces recycled, reinforced<br />

concrete. It is assumed that the hazardous waste is released into the environment when leaching<br />

from the bricks in the remote future but in a highly diluted way. <strong>This</strong> impact is set equal to the impact<br />

of the landfilling of a CRT in a hazardous landfill site. <strong>Waste</strong> volume to landfill of remaining<br />

waste is supposed to be 0.<br />

Social: Through the transportation process, some additional jobs can be created. The loading of a<br />

container takes one worker engaged for 3 hours and a driver for 1 hour from the site where the<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 65 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

CRTs are dismantled to Salt River and back. One worker is engaged for 2 hours for unloading and<br />

distributing the CRT glass for the corresponding dilution. Then someone will be busy with the<br />

chemical analysis of the product. <strong>This</strong> results in a job creation potential of 0.00026 for low skilled<br />

and 0.00009 hours/kg CRT for highly skilled respectively. No additional jobs will be created outside<br />

South Africa. Health and safety impacts are considered to be high due to the same reasons explained<br />

in Scenario 2 (value = 0.75).<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.0075 20% 0.0082 0.0067<br />

Transportation costs within CMA $ 175 10%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Labour costs $/kg CRT 0.0004 60% 0.0006 0.0003<br />

Time used for low-skilled worker (loading, mixing) h 5 25%<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker $/h 2.08 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Labour costs highly skilled $/kg CRT 0.0009 75% 0.0013 0.0006<br />

Time used for highly skilled work (chemical tests) h 2 25%<br />

Wage of highly skilled worker $/h 11.12 50%<br />

Additional costs $/kg CRT 0.0273 35% 0.0321 0.0226<br />

Chemical anlysis $ 642 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Net costs 0.0362 33% 0.0422 0.0302<br />

Investment costs $ 0<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0.5 +/- 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI' 99 points -0.0049 30% -0.0056 -0.0041<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, CH EI' 99 points 0.0005 25%<br />

building, reinforced concrete, to sorting plant, CH EI' 99 points -0.0054 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Social<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00026 35% 0.00030 0.00021<br />

Time used h 6 25%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00009 35% 0.00010 0.00007<br />

Time used h 2 25%<br />

Load container kg 23500 10%<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.75 +/- 0.1 0.85 0.65<br />

Table 12: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 3<br />

4.3.6 Scenario 3a - Concrete bricks<br />

<strong>This</strong> scenario comprises the use of CRT glass in conventional concrete bricks rather than in the<br />

RCA bricks described in section 0. <strong>This</strong> scenario is almost equal to scenario 3. The net costs and<br />

the social figures are equal to those in scenario 3. Only the environmental attributes differ as instead<br />

of recycled material sand and gravel are replaced by the CRT glass.<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI' 99 points 0.0003 65% 0.0004 0.0002<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, CH EI' 99 points 0.0005 25% 0.0006 0.0004<br />

Savings of sand, at mine, CH EI' 99 points -0.0001 25% -0.0001 -0.0001<br />

Savings of gravel, crushed, at mine, CH EI' 99 points -0.0001 25% -0.0001 -0.0001<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Table 13: Results of the environmental <strong>assessment</strong> of scenario 3a<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 66 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

4.3.7 Scenario 3b - Andela CRT processing system<br />

In S3 and S3a, the use of a pre-crushing device to size the glass cullets according to the needs of<br />

the concrete rubble and brick manufacturers is uncertain. Nevertheless, it was assessed in this<br />

study. It is intended to use the Andela CRT recycling unit specified in section 4.1.2. All figures used<br />

in the following calculations are according to the specifications provided by Andela Products, Ltd.<br />

(Hula, 2006).<br />

Economics: In addition to the net costs of S3, the operating costs for the crushing device have to<br />

be added. Three low-skilled workers are supposed to be used for the operation of the crusher. The<br />

maximum capacity of the crushing device is applied and for the weight of CRTs, the average of the<br />

monitor and TV CRTs weight was calculated. <strong>This</strong> adds up to slightly higher net costs of 0.0.0369<br />

$/kg CRT compared to 0.0362 $/kg CRT in scenario 3. A mobile version of the Andela CRT recycling<br />

system costs around USD 450’000 including the shipping and installation up front (Hula,<br />

2006). Since the crushing device would be purchased as a complete system, the local industry<br />

would not benefit by producing components for the system. Contrary the system would be operated<br />

and maintained locally. Thus a quite high potential for local economic growth is expected (value =<br />

0.75) but less than in S4.<br />

Environment: In addition to the Eco-indicator 99 of S3 the impacts from the crushing device has to<br />

be added. Since the crushing device only uses electricity this impacts was added. The crusher runs<br />

with a maximal performance of less than 100 horsepower, which is less than 74.57 kW. The energy<br />

used for the processing of 1 kg CRT is 0.008 kWh. The eco-indicator 99 is therefore 0.0000359<br />

points higher which is -0.00484 compared to -0.00487. <strong>This</strong> difference is negligible. Minimum of<br />

waste volume to landfill is not altered by the use of the crusher (value = 0).<br />

Social: Low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs in the CMA: In addition to the 0.00026h/kg CRT used in<br />

S3 0.00033 h/kg CRT are generated using the CRT crushing device. Adding up the resulting working<br />

hours lead to a total working hour of 0.00059 h/kg CRT. Note: A throughput of 600 CRTs per<br />

hour seems to be very high and could be substantially lower in practice. Highly skilled jobs in the<br />

CMA and jobs outside South Africa: Neither additional working hours for the highly skilled within the<br />

CMA nor any jobs outside South Africa are generated using a crushing device. Low health and<br />

safety impacts: Health and safety impacts will increase from 0.75 to 1 since the crushing of CRT<br />

glass is assumed to release dust from the screen coatings and the CRT glass though a dust collection<br />

system is installed (see Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.).<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.0075 20% 0.0082 0.0067<br />

Transportation costs within the CMA $ 175 10%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Labour costs $/kg CRT 0.0004 60% 0.0006 0.0003<br />

Time used for low-skilled worker (loading, mixing) h 5 25%<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker $/h 2.08 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Labour costs highly skilled $/kg CRT 0.0009 75% 0.0013 0.0006<br />

Time used for highly skilled work (chemical tests) h 2 25%<br />

Wage of highly skilled worker $/h 11.12 50%<br />

Additional costs $/kg CRT 0.0273 35% 0.0321 0.0226<br />

Chemical analysis $ 642 25%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Cost for the crushing of CRT glass $/kg CRT 0.0007 95% 0.0010 0.0004<br />

Number of employees - 3 25%<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker $/h 2.08 25%<br />

Capacity of crusher CRTs/h 600 25%<br />

Average weight of CRT kg 15.3 20%<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 67 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Net costs $/kgCRT 0.0369 35% 0.0432 0.0305<br />

Investment costs $ 450’000 25% 506250 393750<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0.75 +/- 0.1 0.85 0.65<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI' 99 points -0.0048 30% -0.0056 -0.0041<br />

Transport, lorry 32t EI' 99 points 0.0005 25%<br />

Electricity, medium voltage, at grid EI' 99 points 0.0000 25%<br />

reinforced concrete, to sorting plant EI' 99 points -0.0054 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Social<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the<br />

CMA h/kg CRT 0.00058 69% 0.00078 0.00038<br />

Working hours for loading and transport h/kg CRT 0.00026 35% 0.00030 0.00021<br />

Time used h 6 25%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours for CRT crushing h/kg CRT 0.00033 95% 0.00048 0.00017<br />

Number of employees - 3 50%<br />

Capacity of crusher CRTs/h 600 25%<br />

Average weight of CRT kg 15.3 20%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00009 35% 0.00010 0.00007<br />

Time used h 2 25%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 1 +/- 0.1 1.1 0.9<br />

Table 14: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 3b with the Andela CRT crushing device<br />

4.3.8 Scenario 4 - CRT manufacturing<br />

At this stage no CRT glass manufacturer is present in South Africa (Coetzee, 2006). The option to<br />

pre-process the CRTs in South Africa and send the glass cullets to Germany for CRT manufacturing<br />

was investigated. The CRTs need to be separated into panel and front glass to fulfil the requirements<br />

of the CRT manufacturers. <strong>This</strong> scenario envisage to install a pre-processing facility in<br />

the CMA for the crushing, removal of the screen and funnel coating, washing and separation of the<br />

CRT glass. Subsequently the glass cullets will be shipped it in a 40 feet container to Hamburg<br />

where it will be unloaded and transported to the Siemens Corning CRT manufacturing plant in<br />

Brandenburg. Figure 29 indicates the involved processes parameters.<br />

Siemens Corning processes recycling CRT glass for the production of front and funnel glass for the<br />

manufacturing of TV tubes. They also take CRT glass from computer monitors but the front glass<br />

must not be contaminated with lead oxide. Note: At this stage, Siemens Corning does not accept<br />

mixed waste glass. Nevertheless, for the calculations in this scenario the mixed waste glass is included<br />

in the manufacturing process.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 68 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

energy costs work water<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

Material<br />

Savings<br />

Energy<br />

savings<br />

SG: 0,295 kg<br />

SG: 0.295 kg<br />

CG: 0.295 kg<br />

MG: 0.295 kg<br />

1 kg CRT Crushing, cleaning<br />

Transportation<br />

& separating<br />

CG: 0,295 kg<br />

MG: 0,295 kg<br />

Transportation to<br />

CRT manufacturer<br />

CRT manufacturing<br />

revenues Ferrous Metals<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

waste<br />

SG = Screen Glass<br />

FG = Funnel Glass<br />

MG = Mixed Glass<br />

Lead dust<br />

emissions<br />

revenues<br />

Hazardous landfill Metal scrap dealer<br />

To lead smelter<br />

Figure 29: Scenario : CRT manufacturing in Germany<br />

Economics: The net costs were calculated taking into account the costs for transportation and preprocessing,<br />

minus the market price paid from the CRT manufacturers for the CRT glass cullets.<br />

<strong>This</strong> includes also the revenues of the ferrous metals of the CRTs sold to the scrap dealers. These<br />

costs would arise in the South African recycling system. The total transportation costs were provided<br />

by an offer from a transportation company Kühne & Nagel (see Appendix 17). They and add<br />

up to $ 0.2125 /kg CRT. The costs for the pre-processing plant were calculated using data provided<br />

by SwissGlas (Apfel, 2006). SwissGlas operates a crushing, coating removal and separating plant<br />

in Switzerland. The costs for the pre-processing amount to $ 0.128 /kg CRT (including the treatment<br />

of 0.5 w% slag at an incineration plant). The same facility operated in CMA was estimated<br />

could be run for only $ 0.058 /kg CRT as the labour costs are approximately nine times lower. The<br />

revenues by selling the glass cullets to the German CRT glass manufacturer are $ -0.136 /kg CRT<br />

(average revenues from Samsung Corning and Thomson in Poland). The net costs amount to $<br />

0.1341 /kg CRT. The investment costs for such a plant would be some $ 1.28 Mio but could be<br />

lower considering more manual work and less sophisticated technology. There is a significant potential<br />

for local economic growth considering the operation and maintenance of the separation<br />

plant. The construction of the plant’s components would also be partly carried out in the CMA<br />

(value = 1).<br />

Environment: CRT glass separation uses some 0.025 kWh of electricity per kg CRT glass. Freshwater<br />

consumption is considered to be around 0.1 l/ kg CRT and is kept in a closed loop cycle.<br />

Only evaporation due to the drying process of the cullets occurs. No wastewater is produced. 0.5%<br />

of the processed material (coatings and glass dust) is disposed of at an incineration plant. In South<br />

Africa the produced waste is supposed to be disposed of at a hazardous landfill site.<br />

CRT manufacturing: using 1 kg CRT glass as a stock feed in the CRT manufacturing saves 1.14 kg<br />

of raw materials listed in Appendix 11. Additionally about 0.006 m 3 /kg CRT of natural gas and<br />

0.014 m3/kg CRT of oxygen can be saved using recycled CRT glass. No electricity can be saved.<br />

The overall Eco-indicator 99 is -0.042. 0.5% waste is generated resulting in 0.005kg/kgCRT waste<br />

volume to landfill.<br />

Social: The transport and pre-processing operations create jobs inside and outside South Africa.<br />

For the loading and transporting of a 40 feet container to the pre-processing plant some 4 hours<br />

are estimated. The recycling plant runs with eight low-skilled employees and 3 highly skilled. 5 tons<br />

of CRT glass is produced per hour. <strong>This</strong> results in 0.0018 h/kg CRT for low skilled and 0.0006 h/kg<br />

CRT for highly skilled in CMA. From the pre-processing plant, the container has to be transported<br />

to the harbour, which takes 1 hour and the processing of one container at the harbour in Cape<br />

Town again 0.1 hour. The shipping crew consists of 6 low skilled workers and 6 highly skilled offi-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 69 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

cers (Gsponer, 2006). The freighter carries 2’500 40 feet containers and it takes 283 hours from<br />

Cape Town to Hamburg. In Hamburg only 0.1 hours is used for the unloading of one container.<br />

Then it takes some 5 hours to transport the container to Samsung Corning in Brandenburg. <strong>This</strong><br />

results in working hours of 0.00027h/kg CRT outside South Africa. Medium health and safety impacts<br />

are expected in this scenario due to a sophisticated handling of the glass at the separation<br />

plant including sprinklers for dust reduction at the crusher. Only the loading transportation process<br />

to the separation plant can lead to airborne particles from the screen coatings (value = 0.5).<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.2125 20% 0.2338 0.1913<br />

Transportation costs within the CMA $ 175 10%<br />

Container to Hamburg $ 3'712 10%<br />

Container to Samsung Corning $ 1'107 10%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Crushing and separating costs $/kg CRT 0.0575 37% 0.0682 0.0469<br />

Net processing costs $/h 642 10%<br />

Net labour costs $/h 401 10%<br />

Number of employees - 11 25%<br />

Wage of semi-skilled worker $/h 4.17 50%<br />

Production volume kg/h 5'000 10%<br />

Revenue from CRT manufacturer $/kg CRT -0.136 20% -0.1496 -0.1224<br />

Average revenue at Thomson $/kg CRT -0.137 10%<br />

Average revenue at Samsung Corning $/kg CRT -0.135 10%<br />

Net costs $/kg CRT 0.1341 68% 0.1796 0.0886<br />

Investment costs $ 1'284'700 25% 1'445'288 1'124'113<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 1 +/- 0.1 1.1 0.9<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI ‘99 points -0.042 56% -0.0542 -0.0306<br />

Transport, to separation plant EI' 99 points 0.00049 25% 0.0006 0.0004<br />

Electricity, medium voltage, at grid EI' 99 points 0.00011 25% 0.0001 0.0001<br />

Water EI' 99 points 0.00000 25% 0.0000 0.0000<br />

hazardous waste, to underground deposit EI' 99 points 0.00029 25% 0.0003 0.0003<br />

Transport to port CH EI' 99 points 0.00033 25% 0.0004 0.0003<br />

Transport, transoceanic freight ship EI' 99 points 0.01520 25% 0.0171 0.0133<br />

Transport, to Samsung Corning EI' 99 points 0.00978 25% 0.0110 0.0086<br />

Natural gas, burned in industrial furnace >100kw EI' 99 points -0.00056 25% -0.0006 -0.0005<br />

Oxygen, liquid, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00017 25% -0.0002 -0.0001<br />

Silica sand, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00039 25% -0.0004 -0.0003<br />

Feldspar, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00018 25% -0.0002 -0.0002<br />

Soda, powder, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00158 25% -0.0018 -0.0014<br />

Potassiumloride, as k2o, at regional storehouse EI' 99 points -0.00157 25% -0.0018 -0.0014<br />

Lead, at regional storage EI' 99 points -0.05450 25% -0.0613 -0.0477<br />

Dolomite, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00302 25% -0.0034 -0.0026<br />

Potassium nitrate, as n, at regional storehouse EI' 99 points -0.00592 25% -0.0067 -0.0052<br />

Sodium antimonate EI' 99 points - 0 0<br />

Barium carbonate EI' 99 points - 0 0<br />

Strontium carbonate EI' 99 points - 0 0<br />

Limestone, milled, loose, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00001 25% 0.0000 0.0000<br />

Zirconium silicate EI' 99 points - 0 0<br />

Titanium dioxide, production mix, at plant EI' 99 points -0.00042 25% -0.0005 -0.0004<br />

Ceroxide EI' 99 points - 0 0<br />

Zinc for coating, at regional storage EI' 99 points -0.00027 25% -0.0003 -0.0002<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0.005 50% 0.0063 0.0038<br />

Social<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the<br />

CMA h/kg CRT 0.0018 38% 0.0021 0.0014<br />

Time used for pre-processing h 8 25%<br />

Time used for loading and transport h 4 25%<br />

Time used for shipping h 0.1 100%<br />

Production volume kg CRT 5'000 25%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 70 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.0006 50% 0.0008 0.0005<br />

Time used for pre-processing h 3 25%<br />

Production volume kg CRT 5000 25%<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0.00027 55% 0.0003 0.0002<br />

Distance Cape Town - Hamburg km 11882 10%<br />

Ships complement (crew) - 12 25%<br />

Speed of freighter km/h 42 10%<br />

Number of 40 feet containers on board - 2'500 10%<br />

Time used from Hamburg to Samsung Corning h 5 50%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.5 +/- 0.1 0.6 0.4<br />

Table 15: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 4<br />

4.3.9 Scenario 5 - Lead recovery<br />

As in section 4.1.5 described there is no secondary copper / lead smelter within South Africa who is<br />

capable to process the CRT glass. Thus, scenario 5 comprises the trans-oceanic freighting of the<br />

stripped CRTs from a collection point in the CMA to Beerse in Belgium to Metallo-Chimique. Figure<br />

30 indicates the transport and the lead recovery process as well as the use of the remaining slag.<br />

energy<br />

costs<br />

work<br />

costs<br />

raw<br />

material<br />

savings<br />

energy<br />

savings<br />

1 kg CRT<br />

Transportation<br />

Lead recovery at<br />

Metallo<br />

“Metamix” in<br />

building industry<br />

emissions<br />

emissions<br />

Figure 30: Scenario 5: lead recovery at Metallo-Chimique<br />

Lead<br />

emissions<br />

Economics: Transport costs are estimated to be some $ 0.180 /kg CRT for the cartage to the port<br />

of Cape Town and the freighting costs as well as the unloading and handling costs (customs, port<br />

costs etc., see Appendix 17) for a 40 feet container calculated by Kuehne+Nagel (Faragher, 2006).<br />

Metallo-Chimique charges € 40 for a ton of stripped CRTs (€ 140 for whole monitors and TVs)<br />

which contributes with $ 0.0514 /kg CRT. Thus, the net costs for the scenario 5 consist of the total<br />

transport costs and the charges at Metallo-Chimique. <strong>This</strong> adds up to net costs of $ 0.232 /kg CRT.<br />

No additional investing is required as Metallo-Chimique already uses CRT glass in their smelting<br />

processes. No additional technology or industry is involved in this scenario thus no increased potential<br />

for local economic growth is expected.<br />

Environment: Estimates of Jaco Huisman (2005) unveiled that 1kg of CRT glass can save some<br />

0.5 kg of silica in the lead smelting process. Metallo-Chimique agreed to use this rough estimation<br />

for the <strong>assessment</strong> of the environmental impact though they were not prepared to name any exact<br />

figures. The main environmental benefit results from the lead extraction. The CRT glass replaces<br />

lead scrap and not primary lead. Anyway, lead is recovered and replaces a certain amount of primary<br />

lead on the market. <strong>This</strong> amount of lead does not have to be produced from raw material<br />

anymore. Thus, the recovering lead from CRT glass was considered in this study. No other raw<br />

material than sand and lead can be saved using CRT glass. Additionally energy can be saved by<br />

using CRT glass but again no figures were available. As the use of glass instead of sand lowers<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 71 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

the melting temperature in any silica-based smelting operation it was roughly assumed that the<br />

amounts of energy savings are as much as in scenario 4. However, the impacts from the energysavings<br />

compared to the impact of the lead recovery are almost negligible. The main environmental<br />

gain (which is 75 times higher than the effect of the assumed energy savings) results form the extraction<br />

of the lead. Lead is almost completely recovered. The remaining slag is marketed as<br />

“Metamix”. It contains the remaining hazardous substances from the CRT glass but in very low<br />

concentrations. The “Metamix” is sold to the building industry. In this study, the remaining Metamix<br />

is considered to have at least the environmental impacts of the landfilling process of CRT glass<br />

without the lead. Thus, a dataset for the disposal of CRT glass without the lead was generated in<br />

the ecoinvent database. The overall Eco-indicator 99 is -0.038. The <strong>Waste</strong> volume to landfill is 0.<br />

Social: The loading of the container takes 3 hours. Transportation to the Cape Town port takes 1<br />

hour and the processing of one container at the harbour in Cape Town again 0.1 hour. The shipping<br />

crew consists of six low-skilled workers and 6 highly skilled officers. The freighter carries 2500<br />

40 feet containers and it takes the freighter 272 hours from Cape Town to Antwerp. In Antwerp only<br />

0.1 hours is used for the unloading of one container (Gsponer, 2006). Then it takes 1 hour to transport<br />

the container to Metallo-Chimique. The working hours for low-skilled ad semi-skilled workers in<br />

the CMA amounts to 0.00017 h/kg CRT. No highly skilled work is carried out within South Africa.<br />

The working hours outside South Africa amount to 0.00004 h/kg CRT. Minimal health and safety<br />

impacts are expected in this scenario due to a sophisticated handling of the glass at the lead recovery<br />

plant. Only the loading and unloading process of the container can lead to airborne hazardous<br />

particles (value = 0.25).<br />

Unit Value Rel. error Max. value Min. value<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs $/kg CRT 0.1802 20% 0.1982 0.1621<br />

Transportation costs within the CMA $ 175 10%<br />

Container to Antwerp $ 3712 10%<br />

Container to Metallo-Chimique $ 347 10%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Additional Charges at Metallo-Chimique $/kg CRT 0.0514 5% 0.0527 0.0501<br />

Net costs $/kg CRT 0.2315 17% 0.2508 0.2122<br />

Investment costs $ 0<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth - 0 +/- 0.1 0.1 -0.1<br />

Environment<br />

Total Eco-indicator 99 points EI ‘99 points -0.0381 48% -0.0473 -0.0289<br />

Transport, lorry 32t EI ‘99 points 0.0005 25%<br />

Transoceanic freight ship, Cape Town to Antwerp EI ‘99 points 0.0146 25%<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, Antwerp to Metallo-Chimique EI ‘99 points 0.0016 25%<br />

Silica Sand, at plant EI ‘99 points -0.0007 25%<br />

Natural gas, burned in industrial furnace >100kw EI ‘99 points -0.0006 25%<br />

Oxygen, liquid, at plant EI ‘99 points -0.0002 25%<br />

Lead recovery EI ‘99 points -0.0545 25%<br />

Disposal, Pb-free CRT slag, to residual material landfill EI ‘99 points 0.0011 25%<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill kg/ kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Social unit figures<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0.00017 36% 0.0002 0.0001<br />

Time used (loading and transport) h 4 25%<br />

Time used (shipping) h 0.1 50%<br />

Load container kg 23'500 10%<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA h/kg CRT 0 - 0 0<br />

Working hours outside South Africa h/kg CRT 0.00010 93% 0.00014 0.00005<br />

Working hours outside South Africa freighting h/kg CRT 0.00006 80%<br />

Distance Cape Town - Antwerp km 11423 10%<br />

Ships complement (crew) - 12 25%<br />

Speed of freighter km/h 42 10%<br />

Number of 40 feet containers on board - 2'500 25%<br />

Working hours outside South Africa in Belgium 0.00004 110% 0.00007 0.00002<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 72 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Time used from Antwerp to Metallo-Chimique h 1 100%<br />

Load container kg CRT 23'500 10%<br />

Low health and safety impacts - 0.25 +/- 0.1 0.35 0.15<br />

Table 16: Overview of the MAUT results from scenario 5<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 73 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

4.4 Summary of results and discussion<br />

<strong>This</strong> section presents the aggregated utilities from the above MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>. Following the<br />

results from the weighted and unweighted utilities of the recycling scenarios are presented and<br />

compared to each other. Subsequently the utilities and the values of the several attributes are discussed<br />

in a more detailed way.<br />

4.4.1 Comparison of the unweighted and weighted utilities<br />

Figure 31 shows the normalized results from the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> for the scenarios described in<br />

the previous section. Both the utilities containing the stakeholders’ weights as well as the unweighted<br />

utilities are indicated. The black lines represent the error bars derived from the error<br />

propagation.<br />

The CRT manufacturing scenario (S4) achieves the highest utility in both the stakeholder weighted<br />

as well as in the unweighted case. The second best scenario is the lead recovery scenario (S5) at<br />

least in the weighted case. The scenarios S2, S3, S3a and S3b reach almost the same utilities as<br />

the landfilling and the lead mine scenarios (S0 and S1) reach the lowest ranking. Looking at the<br />

unweighted case S4 clearly ranks out all other scenarios. The utility from the lead recovery scenario<br />

(S5) is almost as low as the utility from the landfilling and lead mine scenario.<br />

Considering the variance derived from the error propagation, S4 is significantly above all other<br />

scenarios though for the unweighted case only. In the weighted case, the utility of S4 is not significantly<br />

higher than of S5. However, it is significantly higher (and therefore robust) compared to the<br />

scenarios S0, S1, S2, S3, 3a and S3b. On the other hand, the lead mine-scenario (S1) scores significantly<br />

below all other scenarios but scenario 0 in the weighted case. In the unweighted case no<br />

other scenario than S4 is robust compared to any of the scenarios.<br />

Total utility unweighted, normalized<br />

Total utility weighted, normalized<br />

1.200<br />

1.000<br />

0.800<br />

0.600<br />

0.400<br />

0.200<br />

0.000<br />

S0<br />

Landfill<br />

S1<br />

Lead mine<br />

S2<br />

Concrete<br />

Rubble<br />

S3<br />

RCA brick<br />

S3a<br />

Concrete brick<br />

S3b<br />

Brick with<br />

crusher<br />

S4<br />

CRT manuf.<br />

S5<br />

Lead recovery<br />

Figure 31: Unweighted MAUT results and the results with the stakeholders’ weight. The black lines indicate<br />

the total errors of the utilities.<br />

Figure 32 shows the MAUT utility of every single attribute assessed for both the weighted and the<br />

unweighted utilities. The following comparison intends to show the differences in the relative contributions<br />

of an attribute’s utility to the aggregated utility of a specific scenario. Note: The scales of<br />

the two diagrams are different but that does not affect the comparison since the relative contributions<br />

are compared rather than the absolute values. In this comparison, the stakeholders’ weighting<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 74 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

is used for the explanation of the differences of the unweighted and the weighted utilities. The<br />

stakeholders’ weights are shown in Appendix 16. In addition, the MAUT values used in Figure 32<br />

are shown in Appendix 20.<br />

In general the environmental utility contributes much less to the overall utility in the unweighted<br />

case than it does in the weighted case. <strong>This</strong> is mainly due to the fact that the Eco-indicator 99<br />

weight consists of the sum of all the weights from the attributes “Low use of electricity”, “Low fuel<br />

use for transport”, “Low use of freshwater” and “Little toxic emissions” as explained in section 0.<br />

Thus, the weighted Eco-indicator 99 contributes much more to the overall utility than it does in the<br />

unweighted case.<br />

The attributes “Working hours for highly skilled in the CMA” and “Working hours outside South Africa”<br />

reach also a smaller relative utility in the weighted case than in the unweighted. These two<br />

attributes were weighted significantly lower compared to the other attributes. The utilities from the<br />

rest of the attributes show a similar pattern of the distribution in the unweighted and the weighted<br />

case respectively as the weighting of these attributes do not differ much from each other.<br />

8.0<br />

MAUT utility unweighted sfdf<br />

7.0<br />

6.0<br />

5.0<br />

4.0<br />

3.0<br />

2.0<br />

1.0<br />

0.0<br />

MAUT utility weighted sadf<br />

0.9<br />

0.8<br />

0.7<br />

0.6<br />

0.5<br />

0.4<br />

0.3<br />

0.2<br />

0.1<br />

0.0<br />

S0<br />

Landfill<br />

S1<br />

Lead mine<br />

S2<br />

Concrete<br />

Rubble<br />

S3<br />

RCA brick<br />

S3a<br />

Concrete brick<br />

S3b<br />

Brick with<br />

crusher<br />

S4<br />

CRT manuf.<br />

S5<br />

Lead recovery<br />

Low health and safety impacts<br />

Working hours outside South Africa<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill<br />

High eco-indicator 99<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth<br />

Investment costs<br />

Low net costs<br />

Figure 32: Comparison of the weighted and unweighted MAUT utilities. Note the scale of the diagrams is different.<br />

4.4.2 Weighted utilities<br />

Following the weighted utilities are discussed in a more detailed way. The discussion refers to the<br />

weighted utilities shown in Figure 32. First, the outcome of each scenario is discussed briefly to<br />

locate the main contributors to the utility of a scenario. Subsequently the attributes are discussed in<br />

depth.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 75 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

S0: the main contribution to the landfilling scenario (S0) stems from the large social utility. <strong>This</strong> is<br />

due to the transportation to the landfill site, which is carried out with only a 1000kg trailer whereas<br />

for all other scenarios, transport weights form 23.5 tons and 50 tons respectively were chosen.<br />

Thus, the working hours per kg CRT are quite high in the landfilling scenario. The utility of the<br />

“Minimum of waste volume to landfill” attribute is zero. Thus, the environmental utility is very low<br />

compared to the other scenarios.<br />

S1: Though it is a relatively cost effective option, it ranks as worst solution mainly due to a bad<br />

environmental score. The low environmental score stems mainly from the long transport distance<br />

with the lorry to the lead mine. The utilities from the social attributes are relatively low, compared to<br />

S0 and S4.<br />

S2, S3 and S3a: These scenarios achieve almost equal utilities due to the same results in the economic<br />

and social <strong>assessment</strong>. The main contribution to the net costs is the chemical analysis of the<br />

product, which accounts for almost 80% of the total costs. They only differ slightly in the environmental<br />

score as each of the scenarios saves different raw materials. The social utility is the lowest<br />

due to a very short transport distance and because of low working hours generated. In addition, the<br />

health and safety impacts are estimated to be high because of the exposure of the workers to airborne<br />

hazards during the mixing and crushing process. Thus, the utility from the “Low health and<br />

safety” attribute is low.<br />

S3b: In this scenario, the crusher has to be purchased and thus the utility for the “Low investment<br />

costs” is lower than in S3. On the other hand, the “Increased potential for local economic growth”<br />

utility is higher also because of the crusher. S4 with high investment costs and increased potential<br />

for local economic growth shows the same pattern. The net costs are not significantly higher due to<br />

low costs for the operation of the crusher. Again, the main cost driver is the chemical test of the<br />

product. A few more working hours for the low skilled are generated in S3b. The health and safety<br />

utility is the lowest of all scenarios because hazardous dust can get airborne during two crushing<br />

processes (Andela crusher and brick manufacturing).<br />

S4: The CRT manufacturing scenario comes off as winner in this study. The main contribution<br />

stems from the environmental utility although the long transport distance from Cape Town to Germany.<br />

The main contributor to the environmental utility is the recovery of the lead. Without the lead<br />

recovery, the environmental utility would be even lower than the in the landfilling scenario (S0). In<br />

addition, the social utility is maximal due to the working hours for low skilled and highly skilled in<br />

the CMA by the operation of the CRT-separation plant as well as the working hours generated by<br />

the transoceanic transport. <strong>This</strong> scenario leads to high operational and investment costs. Thus, the<br />

economic utility is low.<br />

S5: As second best solution ranks the lead recovery scenario at Metallo-Chimique. As in S4, this<br />

ranking is mainly due to the environmental gain due to the lead recovery. Social utility is higher<br />

than S2, S3, S3a and S3b. That is because of the working hours caused by the shipping of the<br />

CRT glass to Europe. The economic utility is the lowest due to the highest net costs and due to no<br />

potential for local economic growth.<br />

4.4.3 Comparison of the attributes<br />

Following the results from the several attributes will be discussed in depth.<br />

Net costs: The landfilling scenario shows a high net cost utility with net costs of $ 0.044 /kg CRT.<br />

<strong>This</strong> is slightly higher than the net cost from the scenarios S2, S3, S3a and S3b. Very high net<br />

costs result in S4 and S5 that are three times and five times higher respectively than the landfilling<br />

net costs. S5 has no utility due to the maximum net costs with $ 0.232 /kg CRT.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 76 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

Low capital costs: Only S4 and S3b require any investment. Thus, this utility is 0 and 0.054 respectively.<br />

All other scenarios reach utilities, which are almost equal. Again as explained in section<br />

4.1.2, in S4 the investment costs could be halved by omitting the X-ray separation device whilst<br />

more manual work is needed. Thus, in addition to the lowered investing costs more working hours<br />

for the low skilled could be generated. However, this would raise the net costs on the other hand.<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth: <strong>This</strong> attribute was the most difficult and uncertain<br />

in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong>. Nevertheless, it was assessed considering additional industries<br />

involved in a certain scenario. The highest potential for local economic growth was allocated to the<br />

S4 scenario because a new recycling plant would be installed in the CMA and that the plant would<br />

be constructed, operated and maintained by local companies. In addition, S3b reaches a high utility<br />

due to the operation and maintenance of the Andela CRT processing system. A middle potential is<br />

allocated to the scenarios S2, S3 and S3a. It is assumed that the local recycling industry could be<br />

stimulated because of using recyclables in their processes and new processes could be established.<br />

Only little potential for local economic growth was allocated to S1, which includes long<br />

transport distances. <strong>This</strong> could contribute to the local transport industry. No local economic growth<br />

is expected for the landfilling and the lead recovery scenario since they do not stimulate the local<br />

industry.<br />

Eco-indicator 99: The environmental inventory was assessed by using inventory data from the<br />

ecoinvent database (ecoinvent Centre, 2005). Additionally to the existing modules for transport,<br />

energy use, raw materials etc., a landfilling module for CRT glass was generated to assess the<br />

impacts of CRT glass disposed of on landfill sites. <strong>This</strong> was completed by modifying an existing<br />

hazardous landfill module including the chemical composition of a CRT (see Table 18). A second,<br />

similar module was generated using the same chemical composition but the lead (only for the impacts<br />

of the “Metamix” in scenario 5). Naturally, the landfilling module was used for the landfilling<br />

scenario. Although the CRT glass is diluted, it has at least the long-term impact of the landfilling.<br />

Thus for all the scenarios where CRT glass is intended to be released in the environment the landfilling<br />

module was included. The landfill module was applied in Scenario 0, 1, 2 and 5. Note: It must<br />

be clearly indicated that for scenarios 3, 3a and 3b no landfilling impact was added assuming that<br />

the CRT glass is inertly bound in the brick matrix. Hence, no release of any hazardous substances<br />

in the environment is expected. In this scenario, the fate of the brick and therefore the impacts of<br />

the bricks after their end of life are not included. However, the impact of the landfilling of CRT glass<br />

is 0.0013. The landfilling of CRT glass without lead (see Metamix in S5) reaches 0.0011 EI ‘99<br />

points. <strong>This</strong> is only a small difference.<br />

Appendix 14 shows that in general the impact of long transportation processes is very high (0.0171<br />

EI ‘99 points for the lead mine scenario) compared to the majority of other impacts. Contrary the<br />

environmental gain of processes, including lead recovery (S4 and S5) is even higher. In fact, the<br />

lead recovery in S4 and S5 leads to an almost four times higher environmental gain (-0.054 EI ‘99<br />

points) than the corresponding impact of the long transport distances. In general, this results in a<br />

good environmental utility of scenarios either showing short transport distances or a lead recovery<br />

process involved.<br />

Accordingly it is clear that the lead mine scenario with a) a long transport distance and b) no lead<br />

recovery, has no environmental utility. Even the landfilling scenario has a higher utility than the lead<br />

mine scenario due to a much shorter transport distance.<br />

The Eco-indicator 99 score was also compared with the results form the impact 2002+ <strong>assessment</strong><br />

shown in Figure 33. Looking at the left diagram, the impact on the human toxicity is very large compared<br />

to all the other impacts. <strong>This</strong> is mainly due to the landfilling module present in S0, S1, S2 and<br />

S5. The main contribution to the human toxicity of the CRT glass compounds is the antimony<br />

(SbO 3 ). It contributes with almost 100% to the human toxicity (Hischier, 2006). As the human toxic-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 77 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

ity outnumbers all other effects in the Impact 2002+ <strong>assessment</strong>, the effect of the human toxicity<br />

was excluded for the comparison of the Impact 2002+ with the Eco-indicator 99 results. The effects<br />

without the human toxicity are shown in Figure 33 on the right hand side. The resulting impacts and<br />

benefits follow the same pattern as calculated with Eco-indicator 99. S4 and S5 reach the highest<br />

environmental gains as S1 and S0 clearly have the highest environmental losses.<br />

Thus from an environmental point of view all the options including the release of CRT glass in the<br />

environment (S0, S1, S2 and S5) are clearly not environmental sound and should therefore not be<br />

taken into account.<br />

climate change<br />

terrestrial acid. & nutr.<br />

human toxicity<br />

aquatic ecotoxicity<br />

terrestrial ecotoxicity<br />

climate change<br />

terrestrial acid. & nutr.<br />

4.E-05<br />

aquatic ecotoxicity<br />

terrestrial ecotoxicity<br />

3.E-04<br />

3.E-05<br />

2.E-05<br />

Impact 2002+<br />

2.E-04<br />

1.E-04<br />

Impact 2002+<br />

1.E-05<br />

0.E+00<br />

-1.E-05<br />

S0 S1 S2 S3 S3a S3b S4 S5<br />

4.E-05<br />

-2.E-05<br />

-6.E-05<br />

S0 S1 S2 S3 S3a S3b S4 S5<br />

-3.E-05<br />

-4.E-05<br />

Figure 33: Impact 2002+; left: with human toxicity impact, right without human toxicity impact<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill: <strong>This</strong> attribute was assessed separately because it was<br />

chosen because of the Polokwane Declaration on <strong>Waste</strong> Management (Government of South Africa,<br />

2001) and the fact that the landfills in the CMA are about to be full in the next few years<br />

(Essop, 2005). S0 and to a minor degree also S4 (only 0.5 w%) intend to landfill any waste. Hence,<br />

the utility is zero for S0 where the whole CRT is disposed of on the landfill site. In all other scenarios,<br />

the utility is equal to each other.<br />

Social attributes – general considerations: The social indicators are mainly based upon working<br />

hours generated in a certain scenario. Thus, it was essential to include every single job step in a<br />

scenario. The steps included in the scenarios were loading and unloading of the CRT glass, transportation<br />

and in some cases the pre-processing of the CRT glass. Most of the working hours are<br />

based on estimates. Reliable data were available only for already existing processes such as the<br />

time used for the landfilling scenario (S0), the working hours in the separation plant (S4) and the<br />

trans-oceanic shipping (S4 and S5).<br />

Additionally the distinction between the working hours generated for low- and semi-skilled workers<br />

and those for the highly skilled workers had to be carried out. It was assumed that in general the<br />

loading of CRT glass, the transportation is being carried out by low-and semi-skilled workers. Jobs<br />

such as the chemical analysis in S2, S3, S3a and S3b and partly the CRT separation in S4 are<br />

supposed to be carried out by highly skilled workers.<br />

Low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs in the CMA: S0 reaches the highest score since the transport<br />

process is carried out with only a 1000 kg trailer rather than a shipping container or a 50 t lorry.<br />

<strong>This</strong> leads to 0.003 h / kg CRT. In addition, a high score achieves S4, which includes the operation<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 78 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

of the CRT separation plant in the CMA. In the separation plant, eight low-skilled and semi-skilled<br />

workers are engaged. Note: these figures are valid for the separation plant currently installed in<br />

Switzerland were labour costs are much higher than in South Africa. Thus, it is likely that the operation<br />

in SA requires more manual work rather than the use of all the sophisticated technology currently<br />

installed. All other scenarios only reach relatively low scores due to mainly short transport<br />

distances or the lack of any pre-processing steps for the CRT glass.<br />

Highly skilled jobs in the CMA: The majority of the highly skilled jobs are generated due to the<br />

operation of the CRT separation plant in S4, which engages three highly skilled workers. The working<br />

hours calculated for the separation plant are based on the current production volume of 5 tons<br />

per hour. As the recycling plant intends to extend the production up to 8 tons per hour presumably,<br />

the working hours per kg CRT will decrease slightly. It is not known if proportionally more workers<br />

will be engaged by increasing the production. Also in S2, S3, S3a and S3b some working hours for<br />

highly skilled in the CMA are needed due to the chemical analysis of the products.<br />

Jobs outside South Africa: Only S4 and S5 generate jobs outside South Africa. The transoceanic<br />

transport contributes with 0.00006 h/kg CRT for both S4 and S5. The transportation from<br />

the port in Hamburg to Samsung Corning in S4 was estimated to take 5 hours, which leads to<br />

0.00021 h/kg CRT that amounts to more than three times the fraction of the trans-oceanic transport.<br />

In S5, only 1 hour is used for the transportation from the port in Antwerp to Metallo-Chimique.<br />

Thus, S4 reach the highest utility.<br />

Low health and safety impacts: <strong>This</strong> attribute was estimated semi-quantitatively only. A scenario<br />

was supposed to have health and safety impacts when dust from the CRT glass or the screen<br />

glass coating gets airborne. <strong>This</strong> depends mainly on the kind of the transportation and on the processing<br />

of the glass.<br />

A small utility is reached by S2, S3 and S3a, the smallest by S3b. These scenarios include the<br />

crushing of the CRTs with the crushing devices already installed, where lots of dust gets airborne<br />

and thus the workers are exposed to hazardous substances. In addition, S3b includes the crushing<br />

using the Andela CRT processing system, which leads to more airborne dust. S0 has also a small<br />

utility due to the use of an open trailer that also leads to airborne particles. S1 too reaches only a<br />

small utility due to the loading of the “super-link” truck which can cause much more breaking of the<br />

glass and thus more dusts from the coating could get airborne during the loading and unloading of<br />

the truck compared to a shipping container. A middle score reaches S4 due to the secure handling<br />

at the separation plant using sprinklers at the crushing device to reduce airborne particles. Additionally<br />

after the removing of the screen coating, no hazards can get airborne while sending the<br />

CRT glass to Europe. S5 reach the highest score due to the glass is enclosed in the shipping container<br />

from the CMA until Metallo-Chimique where protective measures for the workers and sprinkling<br />

systems are set in place to reduce airborne hazards.<br />

The CRT manufacturing scenario (S4) clearly dominates the ranking in this <strong>assessment</strong> whereas<br />

the lead recovery scenario (S5) is second best but not robust compared to S2, S3, S3a and S3b.<br />

The landfilling scenario (S0) is second last and the lead mine scenario (S1) clearly is last and robust.<br />

4.4.4 Recycling fees<br />

Though S4 is considered the best solution for the recycling of CRT glass in the CMA, it has a bad<br />

economic utility. Following the economics of S4 are compared with the costs of a similar European<br />

CRT recycling alternative. The net costs for S4 amount to $ 0.134 /kg CRT. Huisman (Huisman,<br />

2003) (see p. 176) calculated the integral costs (= net costs) for the recycling of a 17” CRT monitor<br />

in Belgium. Taking only the costs for the transport, the costs for the shredding and separation and<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 79 October 2006


RESULTS – APPLICATION OF THE MAUT<br />

the costs for the glass furnace (to make it comparable with S4) this results in € 0.81 + € 0.27 + €<br />

0.48 = € 1.56 per CRT monitor. With the weight of 14.7 kg per monitor, this results in € 0.106 /kg<br />

CRT that is $ 0.134 /kg CRT.<br />

Coincidentally the costs for the CRT to CRT recycling from the stripped monitor is exact the<br />

amount of the net costs calculated in S4. However, this comparison did not intend to show that the<br />

costs of S4 are equal to the costs calculated by Huisman. The intention was to show that the costs<br />

for the recycling with S4 are in the same order of magnitude as they are in Europe.<br />

Using $ 0.134 /kg CRT as the net costs for S4 this adds up to $ 1.19 for a monitor CRT and $ 2.9 $<br />

per TV CRT (see Table 4 for the weights of CRTs). Note: The costs for the dismantling at Desco<br />

Electronic Recyclers are not included. As they are already dismantling the monitors at Desco economically,<br />

it is assumed that no additional costs will arise. Thus, it is estimated that the ARF for a<br />

CRT monitor is around $ 1.2 and $ 3 for a CRT TV respectively. These costs could be paid either<br />

by an ARF or at the time of disposal.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 80 October 2006


CONCLUSIONS<br />

5 CONCLUSIONS<br />

MFA and time series<br />

The <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> of CRT screens unveiled that there is still a growing stockpile of computer<br />

monitors and TVs in the CMA mainly at consumption level. Though the sales figures of CRT<br />

computer monitors will decrease dramatically within the next 3 years, there will be an increasing<br />

amount of obsolete CRT monitors at least until the year 2020. The lifetime of a CRT computer<br />

monitor in the CMA is according to the comparison of the MFA with the corresponding time series<br />

17 years.<br />

For CRT TVs no sales forecast was carried out due to a very unstable market and diverging statements<br />

of the market leaders to the fate of CRT TVs. Taking into account that at this stage only a<br />

very small amount of TVs enter the recycling chain, it is likely that i) the lifetime of a TV is longer<br />

than the assumed 15 to 25 years in South Africa, ii) the MFA did not assess the disposal pathways<br />

sufficiently or iii) a substantial amount of TVs enter the areas of informal settlements like Kayalitsha<br />

and Guguletu and are disposed of locally on illegal dumps. However, the time series carried out in<br />

this study shows that the number of obsolete CRT TVs in the CMA will increase at least until 2020<br />

to 2030.<br />

It is expected that in the year 2007 some 400 tons of CRT monitors and 600 tons of TVs respectively<br />

will become obsolete in the CMA. In the year 2020, some 1600 tons of CRT monitors and<br />

between 2000 and 2500 tons of CRT TVs are expected to become obsolete.<br />

Scenario analysis<br />

The <strong>assessment</strong> of CRT recycling alternatives shows that in the CMA there is already an efficient<br />

system in place for the recycling of CRT devices but for the recycling of the CRT itself. At this<br />

stage, stripped CRTs are landfilled either on the municipal solid waste landfill site or on the Vissershok<br />

hazardous landfill site. Locally there are only brick manufacturers and the building industry<br />

able to include the CRT glass in their recycling process. However, these options clearly intend to<br />

release CRT glass into the environment. At this stage, the assessed copper, lead and precious<br />

metal smelters, as well as container glass producer in South Africa are not able to use CRT glass<br />

in their process for technical and/or economical reasons.<br />

From the best available technologies for the processing of CRT glass the CRT manufacturing and<br />

copper / lead smelting are the current state of the art processes for the recycling of CRT glass.<br />

Primary lead smelting as well as iron and zinc smelting is not suitable for the processing of CRT<br />

glass. Other technologies such as CRT glass for the production of foam glass or clay bricks were<br />

not assessed for South Africa in this study.<br />

Multi Attribute Utility Theory<br />

The Multi Attribute Utility Theory for the <strong>assessment</strong> of eight recycling scenarios for CRT screens<br />

was carried out. The results unveil that the scenario where the CRT glass is pre-processed in the<br />

CMA and then sent to a CRT manufacturer in Germany reaches the highest utility. The advantage<br />

of this option is i) an increased potential for local economic growth, ii) a high environmental benefit<br />

mainly due to the lead recovery and iii) a high social utility due to the creation of low-skilled and<br />

highly skilled jobs locally. The disadvantages are a) relatively high net and investment costs compared<br />

to other scenarios. The robustness analysis showed that the CRT manufacturing option is<br />

robust compared to the other scenarios.<br />

The second best scenario is the lead recovery scenario. <strong>This</strong> option intends to ship the CRTs to<br />

Europe to be included in the copper / lead smelting process. The advantages are a high recovery<br />

rate for lead and that the remaining slag can be use in the building industry resulting in a high envi-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 81 October 2006


CONCLUSIONS<br />

ronmental utility. The disadvantages are high net costs, no increased potential for local economic<br />

growth and a low social utility. The scenarios where the CRT glass is used in concrete rubble or in<br />

the manufacturing of bricks reach almost the same utility that is below the utility of the CRT manufacturing<br />

scenario and the lead recovery scenario. According to the robustness analysis, there is no<br />

significant difference between these and the lead recovery scenario. Thus, a ranking for these scenarios<br />

is not applicable. The baseline scenario where the CRTs are landfilled and the scenario<br />

where the CRTs are transported to the lead mine for the infinite storage reach the lowest utility.<br />

Thus, it is recommended to establish a recycling scenario similar to the CRT manufacturing scenario<br />

in the CMA. The recycling costs per CRT monitor would add up to some $1.2 and to around<br />

$3 for a TV respectively. These costs could be covered by a fee at the time of disposal or with the<br />

establishing of an e-waste recycling system, including an advanced recycling fee (ARF) paid at the<br />

time of purchasing.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 82 October 2006


OUTLOOK<br />

6 OUTLOOK<br />

MFA<br />

It is important to increase the accuracy of the MFA with the investigation of more sales figures from<br />

the manufacturers and the distributors because only a few reliable sales figures were available in<br />

this study. In addition, sales figures from the retailers should also be assessed which was not the<br />

case in this study.<br />

Consumer based survey should be carried out rather than only the investigation of sales and import<br />

figures. <strong>This</strong> would allow specifying the consumer stock changes, the disposal routes and the lifetimes<br />

of CRT monitors and TVs could be investigated. Furthermore, the use-phase and storage<br />

phase of CRT devices at consumer levels should be investigated.<br />

According to Desco Electronic Recyclers, there are many TV refurbishers in the CMA. For a more<br />

reliable <strong>mass</strong> <strong>flow</strong> <strong>assessment</strong> of TVs, the <strong>flow</strong>s from consumer to second hand use and from<br />

there to the landfill or dumps should be investigated. Additionally the CRT <strong>flow</strong>s into the informal<br />

settlements (e.g. Kayalitsha and Guguletu) should be investigated in the future.<br />

The Cape Town <strong>Waste</strong> Management Department intends the future monitoring of the collected e-<br />

waste within the municipal solid waste stream. Hence, these figures should be included in the MFA.<br />

Scenario analysis<br />

In this study, only a few South African players from the industry were asked to use CRT glass in<br />

their processes. Thus it is important to systematically investigate the South African industry (e.g.<br />

the smelting, glass and building industry) to either make sure that there is no feasible application<br />

for the CRT processing or to find out new ways for the processing of CRT glass. For instance, the<br />

Palabora Mining Company another copper smelter in South Africa was suggested to be evaluated<br />

for the use of CRT glass by Boliden SA.<br />

MAUT<br />

The weighting of the attributes in the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> was carried out at the regional workshop.<br />

Only one representative of the industry and only one representative of the suppliers has participated<br />

the weighting. As these groups belong to the main drivers for a future recycling system for<br />

CRT glass more representatives should be asked for the weighting of the attributes. In addition, it<br />

would be important to weight the attributes hierarchically, which was not the case in this study. Also<br />

the attribute set has to be proven if it covers all relevant aspects of the CRT recycling process.<br />

For the environmental impact <strong>assessment</strong>, only data from Swiss or European processes were<br />

available from the ecoinvent centre. Thus, it is important to generate life cycle inventory data for<br />

processes in developing and industrialising countries such as South Africa to improve the quality of<br />

the eco-indicator 99 values generated in this study.<br />

Nevertheless the MAUT result show clearly that the recycling scenario including the local preprocessing<br />

and the manufacturing of CRT glass overseas is the best solution for the CMA at this<br />

stage. As 90% of the global CRT production is located in China (Widmer et al., 2005) it is important<br />

to assess similar solutions considering alternative pre-processing steps and CRT manufacturers in<br />

other regions such as Asia or the USA.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 83 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

REFERENCES<br />

Agarwal, R. (2005). Computer Myths: The Story of Scrap. Southern Initiatives. Journal for Sustainable<br />

Development 1(3).<br />

Aisemberg, J., Nahabedian, D. E., et al. (2005). Comparative study on two freshwater invertebrates<br />

for monitoring environmental lead exposure. Toxicology 210(1): 45-53.<br />

American Metal Market (1985). Recycling can cut US reliance on strategic metal imports - scrap<br />

metal industry. Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3MKT/is_v93/ai_3860738,<br />

September 2006<br />

Andreola, F., Barbieri, L., et al. (2005). Cathode ray tube glass recycling: an example of clean<br />

technology. <strong>Waste</strong> Management & Research 23: 1-8.<br />

Apfel, J. (2006). SwissGlas AG. Müllheim, Switzerland. (Personal communication, August 2006)<br />

Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. (2005) Forecast of the demand for CRT glass used in personal computers<br />

and televisions. Retrieved, October 2005<br />

ATSDR (1992). Toxicological Profile For Antimony And Compounds. Agency for Toxic Substances<br />

and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Retrieved from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html, October<br />

2006<br />

ATSDR (1992). Toxicological profile for lead. TP-88, 17. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease<br />

Registry (ATSDR). Retrieved from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html, October 2006<br />

ATSDR (1999). Toxicological Profile For Cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease<br />

Registry (ATSDR). Retrieved from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html, October 2006<br />

ATSDR (2005). Toxicological Profile For Barium And Barium Compounds. Agency for Toxic Substances<br />

and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Retrieved from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html,<br />

October 2006<br />

ATSDR (2005). Toxicological Profile For Zinc. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry<br />

(ATSDR). Retrieved from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html, October 2006<br />

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage (2006). Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/10.html<br />

Balzer. (2006). Kuehne + Nagel, Switzerland. (Personal communication, August 2006)<br />

Berlin Economist Office (2005). The Economist, 29.01.2005, p. 56<br />

Binder, C., Bader, H.-P., et al. (2001). Dynamic models for managing durables using a stratified<br />

approach: the case of Tunja, Colombia. Ecological Economics 38 (2): 191-207.<br />

Bradford, D. (2006). Desco Electronic Recyclers. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication,<br />

June 2006)<br />

Brown, J. (2006). E-Cycling, Water Jet Technology. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.phpid=57989&issue=7:2003, September 2006<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 84 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

Brunner, P. H. and Rechberger, H. (2004). Practical handbook of material <strong>flow</strong> analysis, CRC<br />

Press LLC.<br />

Cape Metropolitan Council (2000). <strong>Waste</strong>water And Industrial Effluent By-Law. PN 466 of 15.<br />

Coetzee, A. (2006). PHILIPS. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

Craig, A. (2006). Mico. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

DEAT (1998). Draft White Paper on Integrated Pollution and <strong>Waste</strong> Management for South Africa.<br />

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/whitepaper/2000/20978.pdf, October 2006<br />

Department of Health / Departement van Gesondheid (2006). Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants<br />

Act, Regulations Relating To All Bottled Waters. 54 of 1972.<br />

Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) (2006). Contact List of all South African Mines. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.dme.gov.za/minerals/mine_contacts.pdf, September 2006<br />

Der Schweizerische Bundesrat (1998). Gewässerschutzverordnung (GSchV). 814.201.<br />

Dierks, S. (1995). Electronic Space Products International, Material Safety Data Sheet, Lead. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.espimetals.com/msds's/leadoxide.pdf, Juli 2006<br />

Dittke, M. (2006). Attorney. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, September 2006)<br />

Dittke, S., Schluep, M., et al. (2006). From National Policy Planning To Local Green E-<strong>Waste</strong><br />

Channel Action-Responsible E-<strong>Waste</strong> Management In South Africa. <strong>Waste</strong>Con<br />

DME (2002). Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28; Department of Minerals<br />

and Energy. Retrieved from: http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2002/a28-02.pdf, August 2006<br />

Dorrington, R. E. (2000). Projection of the Population of the Cape Metropolitan Area 1996-2031.<br />

Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from: http://www.capetown.gov.za/home/demographics.asp,<br />

Mai 2006<br />

DTI (2006). Department of Trade and Industy. Retrieved from: http://www.dti.gov.za/, June 2006<br />

DWAF (1996). Water Quality Guidelines - Aquatic Ecosystems. 77-80. The Department of Water<br />

Affairs and Forestry, Retrieved from: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Dir_WQM/docs/Pol_saWQ<strong>guide</strong>.zip,<br />

August 2006<br />

ecoinvent Centre (2005). ecoinvent data v1.2. ISBN 3-905594-38-2. 2005, Swiss Centre for Life<br />

Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH. Retrieved from: http://www.ecoinvent.ch/<br />

Eisler, R. (1988). Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish<br />

Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.14).<br />

Electronic <strong>Waste</strong> Guide (2006). A knowledge base for the sustainable recycling of e<strong>Waste</strong>. Retrieved<br />

from: www.ewaste.ch, August 2006<br />

EMERG (1996). CRT Analysis Report. Electronic Manufacturers Equipment Recycling Group. UK.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/33/32176.pdf, September 2006<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 85 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

EMPA (2004). e<strong>Waste</strong> Guide. St. Gallen, Switzerland. Retrieved from: http://www.e-waste.ch/,<br />

5.8.2006<br />

EMPA (2004). e<strong>Waste</strong> Guide. Facts and Figures. Hazardous Substances. St. Gallen, Switzerland.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.e-waste.ch/facts_and_figures/hazardous_materials/substances/, August<br />

2006<br />

Entech (2006). Lining of the Vissershok waste management facility in Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.entech.co.za/Projects/<strong>Waste</strong>/vissershok.html, September 2006<br />

EPA (1986). Air quality criteria for lead. EPA 600/8-83-018F. Research Triangle Park, N.C.,. Environmental<br />

Protection Agency. Retrieved from:<br />

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfmdeid=158823, September 2006<br />

Essop, T. (2005). Towards a sustainable Development Implementation Plan for the Western Cape.<br />

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning<br />

EU (2002). Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January<br />

2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Retrieved<br />

Europäischer Wirtschaftsdienst (EUWID) (2006). Starkes Wachstum bei E-Schrott-Recycling. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.euwid-recycling.de/cipp/euwid/custom/pub/visit,lang,1/oid,100/ticket,guest,<br />

September 2006<br />

Faragher, K. (2006). Sales Assistant, Kuehne + Nagel Ltd. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal<br />

communication, September 2006)<br />

Foodstuffs Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (2006). Regulations Relating To All Bottled Waters. 54<br />

of 1972. Department of Health / Departement van Gesondheid, Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.doh.gov.za/department/foodcontrol/legis.html#foodreg, October 2006<br />

Gerig, U. (2006). RUAG Components. Altdorf, Switzerland. (Personal communication, Mai 2006)<br />

Gloster, T. (2006). Rand Refinery. Germiston, South Africa. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

Goedkoop, M., Müller-Wenk, R., et al. (2000). Eco-indicator 99 - eine schadensorientierte Bewertungsmethode.<br />

12. Diskussionsforum Ökobilanzen<br />

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R. (2000). Eco-indicator 99. A damage orientated method for Life<br />

Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. 2000, PRé Consultants B. V., Amersfoort. Den<br />

Haag.<br />

Goldwasser, S. M. (2006). TV and Monitor CRT (Picture Tube) Information, Version 1.98a (28. Feb<br />

2006) Retrieved from: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/crtfaq.htm#crtwcd, June 2006<br />

Government of South Africa (2001). The Polokwane Declaration on <strong>Waste</strong> Management. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/<strong>Waste</strong>Mgmt/Polokwane_declare.htm, September<br />

2006<br />

Gracie, A. (2006). Cape Brick, Brick Manufacturer. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication,<br />

July 2006)<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 86 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

Grosell, M., Gerdes, R. M., et al. (2006). Chronic toxicity of lead to three freshwater invertebrates -<br />

Brachionus calyciflorus, Chironomus tentans, and Lymnaea stagnalis. Environmental Toxicology<br />

and Chemistry 25(1): 97-104.<br />

GSchV (1998). Gewässerschutzverordnung (GSchV). 814.201.<br />

Gsponer, D. (2006). MESPAS Ltd., costs and fuel use for shipping of a 40 feet container. Zürich,<br />

Switzerland. (Personal communication, June 2006)<br />

Haider, S. (2006). City of Cape Town, <strong>Waste</strong> Management Department. Cape Town, South Africa.<br />

(Personal communication, June 2006)<br />

Hajkowicz, S. (2006 ). Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecological economics<br />

[0921-8009] 57(1): 122-139.<br />

Heyns, J. (2006). South African Revenue Service (SARS). (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

Heyns, S. (2006). Metallo-Chimique, Commercial Department, Purchasing. Belgium. (Personal<br />

communication)<br />

Hischier, R. (2006). EMPA, Head of Unit Life Cycle Assessment. St. Gallen, Switzerland. (Personal<br />

communication, September 2006)<br />

Howitt, A. (2006). Pilkingtons Flat glass Manufacturers. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication,<br />

July 2006)<br />

Huisman, J. (2003). The QWERTY/EE Concept; Quantifying Recyclability and Eco-Efficiency for<br />

End-of-Life Treatment of Consumer Electronic Products.<br />

Huisman, J. (2005). QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency check on actual treatment of stripped monitors at<br />

Metallo – Chimique NV, Eco-efficiency check on plant measurement of treating stripped monitors in<br />

a secondary copper – tin – lead smelter. October 31, 2005<br />

Huisman, J., Stevels, A. L. N., et al. (2004). QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on treatment of<br />

CRT containing appliances at Metallo – Chimique NV.<br />

Hula, D. W. (2006). CRT Recycling System, Andela Products, Ltd. New York, United States of<br />

America. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

Humphreys-Davies, T. (2006). Pinnacle Micro Sales Figures. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

ICER (2003). New Approach To Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Recycling. Industry Council For Electronic<br />

Equipment Recycling. October 2003<br />

ICER (2004). Materials recovery from waste cathode ray tubes (CRTs), The <strong>Waste</strong> & Resources<br />

Action Programme.<br />

Iles, A. (2004). Mapping Environmental Justice in Technology Flows: Computer <strong>Waste</strong> Impacts in<br />

Asia. Global Environmental Politics 4(4).<br />

IWMP (2004). Integrated <strong>Waste</strong> Management Plan. <strong>Waste</strong> Management Department<br />

Jang, Y., Townsend, TG (2003). Leaching of lead from computer printed wire boards and cathode<br />

ray tubes by municipal solid waste landfill leachates. ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL 37(20): 4778-4784<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 87 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

Jolliet, O., Margni, M., et al. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology.<br />

Int J LCA 8(6): 324-330.<br />

JRC, D. (2003). Environmental, Technical and Market Analysis concerning the Eco-design of Television<br />

Devices. I. f. P. T. S. European Commission Joint Research Centre (DG JRC). Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.jrc.es<br />

Kang, H.-Y. and Schoenung, J. M. (2005). Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructure<br />

and technology options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 368-400.<br />

Kemco International Associates (2006). Properties of Iron Oxide/Graphite Conductive Coatings.<br />

Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.kemcointernational.com/GRAPHITEINTERNALCONDUCTIVECOATINGS.htm, September<br />

2006<br />

Kerckhoven, T. V. (2006). Umicore Precious Metal Refinery. Hoboken, Belgium. (Personal communication,<br />

April 2006)<br />

Klimisch, H. (1993). Lung deposition, lung clearance and and cadmium sulphide in rats. Toxicology<br />

(84): 103-124.<br />

Kriek, K. (2006). EnviroServe. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, June 2006)<br />

Lancaster, M. (2006). MECER. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

Lead Regulations, G. R. (28 February 2002).<br />

LeBlanc, G. A. (1980). Acute Toxicity of Priority Pollutants to Water Flea (Daphnia magna). Bull.<br />

Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 24(5): 684-691.<br />

Li, Y., Richardson, J. B., et al. (2006). TCLP Heavy Metal Leaching of Personal Computer Components.<br />

Journal of Environmental Engineering 132(4).<br />

Lindberg, V. (2000). Rochester Institute of Technology. Uncertainties and Error Propagation. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.rit.edu/~uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart2.html#addsub, September<br />

2006<br />

Lombard, R. (2004). E-waste <strong>assessment</strong> in South Africa; Case Study of the Gauteng Province.<br />

Lombard, R., Widmer, R., et al. (2004). Tracing the e-waste stream in Gauteng, South Africa, .<br />

Proceedings of <strong>Waste</strong>Con.<br />

Mensing, J. (2006). Project Manager, Device SA. Johannesburg, South Africa. (Personal communication,<br />

July 2006)<br />

Monchamp, A. (2000). The Evolution of Materials Used in Personal Computers, A Paper Prepared<br />

for the OECD, Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA). Second OECD Workshop on Environmentally<br />

Sound Management of<strong>Waste</strong>s Destined for Recovery Operations. Vienna, Austria. 28-29 September<br />

2000.<br />

Monchamp, A., Evans, H., et al. (2001). Cahtode Ray Tube Manufacturing and Recycling: Analysis<br />

of Industry Survey. Electronic Industries Alliance.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 88 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

MRT (2006). MRT System AB Sweden. Technical data sheet of CRT Separator. Karlskrona, Sweden.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.mrtsystem.com/downloads/products/CRT-<br />

Separator%20folder%20ny%20bild_komprimerad.pdf, July 2006<br />

Mueller, J. (1985). Atmospheric pathways of heavy metals. Proc Heavy Metal Environ Int Conf<br />

1:214-216.<br />

Musson, S. E., Jang, Y. C., et al. (2000). Characterization of lead leachability from cathode ray<br />

tubes using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. Environmental Science & Technology<br />

34(20): 4376-4381.<br />

Nel, B. (2006). AXIZ Sales figures. Cape Town. (Personal communication, 26 July 2006)<br />

NEMA (1998). The National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA). Republik<br />

of South Africa<br />

Newson, G. (2006). Recycling IT. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, June 2006)<br />

Nomdo, J. (2006). Landfill manager at Coastal Park landfill site. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal<br />

communication)<br />

Novella, P. (2006). <strong>Waste</strong>man. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, August 2006)<br />

Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 (1993).<br />

OECD (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments.<br />

Oldiges, H. and Glaser, U. (1986). The inhalative toxicity of different cadmium compounds in rats.<br />

Trace Elem Med 3: 72-75.<br />

Oldiges, H., Hochrainer, D., et al. (1989). Long-term inhalation study with Wistar rats and four<br />

cadmium compounds. Toxicol Environ Chem 19: 217-222.<br />

Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) (2006). Toxicity and regulatory information for pesticides.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/, August 2006<br />

Polasek, J. (2006). Consol Glass Head Office Laboratory. (Personal communication, July 2006)<br />

PRepublic of South Africa (1973). Hazardous Substances Act (No. 15). Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/legislation/acts/1973/act15.html<br />

Proventia (2006). WEEE Treatment - CRTs. Workshop on technical Satndard for <strong>Waste</strong> Electronic<br />

and Electric Appliances Treatment. April 20, 2006<br />

Proventia Automation Oy (2006). CRT Recycling line. Kempele, Finland. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.masterautomationgroup.com/tiedostot/Proventia%20CRT%20Recycling.pdf, July 2006<br />

Province of Western Cape (2006). <strong>Waste</strong>water and Industrial Effluent Bylaw of 31 May 2006.<br />

Pucket, J., Byster, L., et al. (2002). Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, The Basel<br />

Action Network (BAN), Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC)<br />

Puckett, J., Byster, L., et al. (2002). Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. The Basel<br />

Action Network (BAN), Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). Information retrieved from:<br />

www.ban.org. [Date of Access: August 2006].<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 89 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

Pulko, S. (2006). Sales Assistant, Kuehne + Nagel. Embrach, Switzerland. (Personal communication,<br />

September 2006)<br />

Qivx Inc (2006). Antimony General Information. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.qivx.com/ispt/elements/ptw_051.php, October 2006<br />

Rusch, G., O’Grodnick, J., et al. (1986). Acute inhalation study in rat of comparative uptake, distribution<br />

and excretion of different cadmium containing materials. Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 47: 754-763.<br />

Scholz, B. (2006). FreeCom Affordable Computers. (Personal communication, May 2006)<br />

Scholz, R. W. and Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and<br />

Qualitative Knowledge, Sage Publications, Inc., California USA.<br />

Schwarzer, S., A. De Bono, et al. (2005) E-waste the hidden side of IT equipment's manufacturing<br />

and use. Retrieved from: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf,<br />

August 2006<br />

Siemers, W. and Vest, H. (1999). Environmental Handbook. Environmentally Sound Electroscrap<br />

Disposal and Recycling. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development<br />

(BMZ).<br />

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) (2002) Exporting Harm. The High-Tech Trashing of Asia.<br />

Retrieved from: http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/tt2.htm, 6.10.2006<br />

Sinha, D. (2004). The Management of Electronic <strong>Waste</strong>, University of St. Gallen<br />

South African Revenue Service (SARS). Jack Heyns. (2006). (Personal communication, July<br />

2006)<br />

StEP (2005). Solving the e-waste problem: a synthetic approach (StEP). Retrieved from:<br />

http://work.step-initiative.org, August 2006<br />

Streicher-Porte, M. (2006). SWICO/S.EN.S, the Swiss WEEE recycling systems, and best practices<br />

from other European systems. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on<br />

Electronics and the Environment (IEEE Cat. No. 06CH37796)<br />

Stuff, S. (2005). Material Safety Data Sheet. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C1983.html, August 2006<br />

Swartling, P. (2006). Boliden AB. Sweden. (Personal communication, September 2006)<br />

Tatana, M. M. (2006). Smart City. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication, June 2006)<br />

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003). Directive 2002/95/EC of<br />

the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of<br />

certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS). Official Journal L 037<br />

, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023. Retrieved from:<br />

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.htm<br />

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003). Directive 2002/96/EC of<br />

the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic<br />

equipment (WEEE) - Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commis-<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 90 October 2006


REFERENCES<br />

sion relating to Article 9. Official Journal L 037 , 13/02/2003 P. 0024 - 0039. Retrieved from:<br />

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.htm<br />

Trutt, D. (2005). Newsletter Of The European Display Industry Association (EDIA). Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.eeca.org/pdf/edia_newsletter_july_2004.pdf, June 2006<br />

Tukker, D. A., Buijst, D. H., et al. (2001). Risks to Health and the Environment Related to the Use<br />

of Lead in Products.<br />

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration OSHA (2006). Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_219900.html, September 2006<br />

United Nations (1995). World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6-12<br />

March.<br />

Vieto, J. and Pratt, L. (1999). Eco-Efficiency in a High-Tech Cluster. A meta analysis of the evolving<br />

high-tech electronics Cluster. Headed by Intel. Costa Rica. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.incae.edu/EN/clacds/investigacion/pdf/cen703final.pdf, August 2006<br />

Wang, W. (1986). Toxicity Tests of Aquatic Pollutants by Using Common Duckweed. Journal: Environ.Pollut.Ser.B<br />

Chem.Phys. 11(1): 1-14.<br />

WDI (2003). The World Bank World Development Indicator. Washington, USA<br />

WESGRO (2005). Trade and Investment Promotion Agency for the Western Cape Province. Retrieved<br />

from: http://www.wesgro.co.za/, June 2006<br />

Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., et al. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste. Env. Imp Ass Rev 25:<br />

436-458.<br />

Willcocks, A. (2006). Interwaste (Pty) Ltd. Cape Town, South Africa. (Personal communication)<br />

Williams, N. and Holtzhausen, S. (2001). The impact of ore characterization and blending on metallurgical<br />

plant performance. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 101 (8):<br />

437-446.<br />

Windischbauer, G. (2005). Grundlagen der Medizinischen Physik. Arbeitsunterlagen zur Studieneingangsphase<br />

WS 2005/2006, Vet. Univ. Wien. Retrieved from: http://i115srv.vuwien.ac.at/physik/ws95/w9522dir/w9522120.htm,<br />

Septemper 2006<br />

Windowsmarketplace (2006) Prize Compariosn of CRT and LCD Monitors. Retrieved from:<br />

http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/category.aspxbCatId=502, July 2006<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 91 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 1: Glossary<br />

ARF<br />

Advanced Recycling Fee<br />

BAN<br />

Basel Convention Network<br />

BAT<br />

Best Available Technology<br />

BC<br />

Basel Convention<br />

BEP<br />

Best Practice<br />

CE<br />

Communication Executive<br />

CMA<br />

Cape Metropolitan Area<br />

CRT<br />

Cathode Ray Tube<br />

EC<br />

European Community<br />

EC 50 , EC 20 Effect Concentration (for 50% and 20% of the tested subjecs)<br />

EEE<br />

Electronic and Electrical Equipment<br />

EIC 50<br />

Effective Inhibitory Concentration<br />

EI ‘99 Eco-Indicator 99<br />

EMPA Eidgenössische Materalprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt - Swiss Federal<br />

Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research<br />

ESM<br />

Environmental Sound Management<br />

EU<br />

European Union<br />

EUR, € Euro<br />

GNP<br />

Gross National Product<br />

ICER<br />

Industry Council For Electronic Equipment Recycling<br />

LCD<br />

Liquid Crystal Display<br />

LC 50<br />

Median lethal concentration; it defines the concentration of a toxic substance or<br />

radiation is the dose required to kill half of the members of a tested population.<br />

LOEC Lowest Observable Effect Concetration<br />

HDTV High Definition TV.<br />

MAUT Multi Attribute Utility Theory<br />

MFA<br />

Mass Flow Assessment<br />

NGO<br />

Non Governmental Organization<br />

NOEC No Observable Effect Concentration<br />

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development<br />

PC<br />

Personal Computer<br />

PWB<br />

Printed Wiring Board<br />

Recycling Extraction of materials from a product in order to reuse them (UNEP, 2006).<br />

RoHS<br />

Restrictions of Hazardous Substances<br />

seco<br />

Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs<br />

SENS Stiftung Entsorgung Schweiz – Foundation for disposal Switzerland<br />

StEP<br />

Solving the e-<strong>Waste</strong> Problem<br />

SWICO Swiss Association for Information, Communication and Organisation Technol-<br />

TCLP<br />

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (US EPA Method)<br />

TFT<br />

Thin-Film Transistor, a field effect transistor<br />

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme<br />

USD, $ US Dollar<br />

WDI<br />

World Bank World Development Indicator<br />

WEEE <strong>Waste</strong> Electronic and Electrical Equipment<br />

ZAR<br />

South African rand<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 92 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 2: Definitions of e-waste<br />

Reference<br />

EU WEEE Directive (EU, 2002)<br />

Definition<br />

“Electrical or electronic equipment 2 which is waste 3 … including all components, subassemblies<br />

and consumables, which are part of the product at the time of discarding”.<br />

Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (January 2003),<br />

defines ten categories (see below).<br />

Basel Action Network (Pucket et<br />

al., 2002)<br />

"E-waste encompasses a broad and growing range of electronic devices ranging from<br />

large household devices such as refrigerators, air conditioners, cell phones, personal<br />

stereos, and consumer electronics to computers which have been discarded by their<br />

users."<br />

OECD (2001)<br />

SINHA (2004)<br />

StEP (2005)<br />

"Any appliance using an electric power supply that has reached its end-of-life."<br />

"An electrically powered appliance that no longer satisfies the current owner for its original<br />

purpose."<br />

E-<strong>Waste</strong> refers to "…the reverse supply chain which collects products no longer desired<br />

by a given consumer and refurbishes for other consumers, recycles, or otherwise processes<br />

wastes."<br />

Categories of e-waste defined by the EU WEEE Directive (EU, 2002):<br />

1. Large household appliances<br />

2. Small household appliances<br />

3. IT and telecommunications equipment<br />

4. Consumer equipment<br />

5. Lighting equipment<br />

6. Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools)<br />

7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment<br />

8. Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)<br />

9. Monitoring and control instruments<br />

10. Automatic dispensers<br />

2 “electrical and electronic equipment” is defined as equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic<br />

fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents.<br />

3 “waste” is defined as any substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required to dispose of pursuant to the<br />

provisions of national law in force.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 93 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 3: Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs’ global e-waste program<br />

Facing up to the controversial issues of e-waste disposal the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic<br />

Affairs (seco) has commissioned the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research<br />

(EMPA) to conduct a study. The main objective of the study was to propose a global program<br />

to improve existing e-waste management systems. <strong>This</strong> led to seco's global e-waste program<br />

"Knowledge Partnerships in e-<strong>Waste</strong> Recycling" to be structured in three phases:<br />

Phase 1: Assessment of existing e-waste management systems (2003 – 2004)<br />

Phase 2: Planning of improvements (2004 – 2005)<br />

Phase 3: Implementing pilot projects (2005 – 2008)<br />

The program's focus lays on 'capacity building' and 'knowledge management' and intents to mitigate<br />

negative externalities of information and communication technologies. It therefore contributes<br />

to the sustainability of these new and promising technologies without dismissing industry from its<br />

extended producer responsibilities.<br />

The <strong>assessment</strong>s during Phase I1were limited to case studies carried out in the capitals of the<br />

three pre-selected countries China, South Africa and India. As a reference the Swiss e-waste management<br />

system was used. The results were published on a website (www.e-waste.ch) as the<br />

“e<strong>Waste</strong> Guide” (Electronic <strong>Waste</strong> Guide, 2006) which serves as a knowledge base on e-waste<br />

recycling. Among other things it highlights potential environmental hazards when dealing with e-<br />

waste and raises the awareness of the problem.<br />

The case studies revealed specific needs for improvements in each of the three assessed countries.<br />

These specific needs led to different foci for the program implementation: support for policy<br />

and legislation in China, technology & skills in India, and business and financing in South Africa.<br />

During Phase 2 knowledge partnerships involving the different stakeholders had been established.<br />

Following improvements to the current e-waste management systems were planned in a body. The<br />

outcomes were agreed goals and strategies which are…<br />

a) …at a local level the testing of practical improvements.<br />

b) …at a national level the formulation of e-waste strategies.<br />

The aim is to reduce safety and environmental hazards without reducing the attractiveness of the<br />

business.<br />

The ongoing Phase 3 focuses on implementing the planned activities in the three countries. The<br />

program mainly provides technical assistance and advisory services to build capacity for a sustainable<br />

and effective e-waste management system. Also the knowledge sharing of the various stakeholders<br />

by integrating them in the global community of practice is supported.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 94 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 4: Import statistics from DTI and SARS; the TVs were derived from the total import figures<br />

minus the Video figures<br />

Year<br />

Tot colour<br />

CRTs<br />

Colour CRTs<br />

Monochrome CRTs<br />

Video<br />

CRTs Tot TV TV in CMA Total import Video TVs TVs CMA<br />

1992 540'335 2'501 537'834 61'313 156'074 9'129 146'945 16755<br />

1993 360'191 3'876 356'315 40'620 106'732 2 106'730 12170<br />

1994 475'799 4'155 471'644 53'767 163'918 10'867 153'051 17452<br />

1995 514'083 12'433 501'650 57'188 175'743 0 175'743 20039<br />

1996 374'677 3'393 371'284 42'326 145'022 24 144'998 16533<br />

1997 412'592 1'867 410'725 46'823 185'511 5'849 179'662 20486<br />

1998 404'675 681 403'994 46'055 140'549 25 140'524 16023<br />

1999 482'171 150 482'021 54'950 117'500 172 117'328 13378<br />

2000 416'710 1'327 415'383 47'354 106'072 590 105'482 12028<br />

2001 431'168 728 430'440 49'070 112'112 14 112'098 12782<br />

2002 468'955 753 468'202 53'375 78'889 16 78'873 8994<br />

2003 534'977 786 534'191 60'898 16'928 65 16'863 1923<br />

2004 705'418 808 704'610 80'326 35'693 5 35'688 4069<br />

2005 693'064 88 692'976 78'999 41 4 37 4<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 95 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 5: MFA computer monitors: specifications of the <strong>flow</strong>s<br />

monitor <strong>flow</strong>s metric tons<br />

min max average<br />

from import 1466 1723 1594<br />

to distributor 1359 1617 1488<br />

to second hand supplier 106 106 106<br />

FreeCom 18 18 18<br />

import FreeCom 89 89 89<br />

from distribution<br />

to consumer * 1359 1617 1488<br />

AXIZ 163 163 163<br />

MUSTEK (MECER) 291 291 291<br />

Sahara Computers - -<br />

Drive Control - -<br />

Incredible Connection - -<br />

MICO 0 9 5<br />

Pinnacle Micro 177 177 177<br />

rectron - -<br />

Annex - -<br />

Tarsus - -<br />

Equity - -<br />

from consumption<br />

to second hand supplier 46 50 48<br />

Smart City 44 44 44<br />

Device SA 0 0 0<br />

Recycling IT 2 5 4<br />

to recycling 53 89 71<br />

to landfill 35 53 44<br />

<strong>Waste</strong>man 35 53 44<br />

Enviro Serve 0 0 0<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> Control 0 0 0<br />

Inter-<strong>Waste</strong> 0 0 0<br />

from second hand supply<br />

to consumer 109 125 117<br />

FreeCom 106 106 106<br />

Device SA 0 9 5<br />

Recycling IT 0 0 0<br />

Smart City 2 9 5<br />

Stock at Smart City 44 31 0<br />

from recycling<br />

to recycler 53 89 71<br />

plastics 9 16 12<br />

copper 3 5 4<br />

ferro 5 8 6<br />

aluminium 1 1 1<br />

PWBs & wires 3 5 4<br />

gun 0 0 0<br />

to landfill<br />

tubes 32 53 43<br />

landfill<br />

to recycling 0 1 1<br />

Stock calculations<br />

consumer stock change 1333 1550 1441<br />

* derived from market shares<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 96 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 6: Questionnaire sent to the distributors of CRT monitors and TVs in the CMA<br />

QUESTIONNAIRE SALES FIGURES<br />

Please use a fax machine to return the questionnaire (021 706 6622). Thank you.<br />

name:<br />

___________________________ position: _____________________ date: _____________________<br />

phone: ________________ mobile phone: ______________ Email: _________________________________<br />

1. What are your company’s functions in South Africa<br />

manufacturer importer distributor retailer<br />

2. Which of the following CRT-devices have you been providing to your Cape Town customer base<br />

TV sets<br />

computer monitors<br />

3. Which are your distributors in / for Cape Town 1 _________________________________________________<br />

4. How many units had been sold in the past few years to your Cape Town customer base (If no specific sales<br />

figures for Cape Town are available, you can provide data from Western Cape or even national sales figures).<br />

The below sales figures include numbers for: Cape Tow Western Cape South Africa<br />

Year<br />

2000<br />

2001<br />

2002<br />

2003<br />

2004<br />

2005<br />

Any statistics available<br />

prior to the year 2000<br />

CRT – TV sets<br />

CRT - computer monitors<br />

average screen<br />

units sold<br />

size or weight 2 units sold average screen<br />

size or weight 2<br />

5. Which market share in % do you currently possess from the total market in Cape Town approximately for CRT-<br />

TV sets and CRT-computer monitors respectively (If no data of the CRT market share is available, you can<br />

provide overall TV and monitor market shares from the total South African market.)<br />

TV sets: ________ % computer monitors: ________ %<br />

6. Does your company also provide lead-free TV sets or computer monitors based on CRT technology If you do<br />

so, what is the current percentage of the units you currently provide and since when do you provide your<br />

customers with a lead-free CRT technology<br />

________________________________________________________________________________________<br />

7. Considering the phasing-out of the CRT-technology due to increasing replacements through plasma and LCD<br />

technology: Can you give an estimate for the future sales figures of leaded TV sets and computer monitors<br />

Year<br />

2006<br />

2010<br />

2020<br />

units sold<br />

CRT – TV sets<br />

CRT - computer monitors<br />

average size or<br />

1 Units sold average size or weight1<br />

weight<br />

1<br />

If yourself are not a distributor<br />

2<br />

specify weight without packaging<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 97 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 7: Penetrations rates of TVs and personal computers in South Africa<br />

penetration rates of TVs and computers<br />

50<br />

160<br />

South African population<br />

[milions]<br />

45<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

South African population, total<br />

television sets (per 1,000 people)<br />

personal computers (per 1,000 people)<br />

140<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

TVs / computers<br />

5<br />

20<br />

0<br />

0<br />

2000<br />

1998<br />

1996<br />

1994<br />

1992<br />

1990<br />

1988<br />

1986<br />

1984<br />

1982<br />

1980<br />

1978<br />

1976<br />

1974<br />

1972<br />

1970<br />

1968<br />

1966<br />

1964<br />

1962<br />

1960<br />

Year<br />

Appendix 8: Detailed listing of WDI and SARS figures for the derivation of yearly and cumulated<br />

inputs of TVs into the CMA<br />

Source (WDI, 2003) (Heyns, 2006)<br />

Year<br />

TV penetration rate South African CMA TV Import figures Cumulated Input per Year<br />

[units /1000 capita] Population stock [units] to CMA [units] Input<br />

[units]<br />

1975 3.87 24'728'000 10'909 10'909 10'909<br />

1976 26.93 25'268'090 77'574 77'574 66'666<br />

1977 31.35 25'805'580 92'229 92'229 14'655<br />

1978 39.27 26'355'320 117'996 117'996 25'767<br />

1979 68.34 26'940'790 209'905 209'905 91'908<br />

1980 68.07 27'576'000 213'985 213'985 4'081<br />

1981 69.28 28'254'650 223'144 223'144 9'159<br />

1982 70.71 28'971'840 233'540 233'540 10'396<br />

1983 72.04 29'724'000 244'100 244'100 10'560<br />

1984 82.43 30'505'360 286'643 286'643 42'542<br />

1985 89.29 31'307'880 318'698 318'698 32'055<br />

1986 89.99 32'121'290 329'521 329'521 10'823<br />

1987 90.62 32'933'080 340'224 340'224 10'703<br />

1988 91.20 33'728'500 350'661 350'661 10'437<br />

1989 94.42 34'490'550 371'256 371'256 20'596<br />

1990 104.30 35'200'000 418'531 418'531 47'275<br />

1991 104.98 35'933'110 430'019 430'019 11'488<br />

1992 105.43 36'690'740 440'982 61'313 491'332 61'313<br />

1993 105.81 37'473'800 452'039 40'620 531'952 40'620<br />

1994 126.25 38'283'220 550'980 53'767 585'720 53'767<br />

1995 132.33 39'120'000 590'149 57'188 642'908 57'188<br />

1996 128.92 39'912'000 586'578 42'326 685'234 42'326<br />

1997 130.96 40'670'330 607'180 46'823 732'057 46'823<br />

1998 129.36 41'402'390 610'563 46'055 778'112 46'055<br />

1999 127.75 42'106'230 613'193 54'950 833'062 54'950<br />

2000 145.33 42'800'990 709'128 47'354 880'416 47'354<br />

2001 152.38 43'240'000 751'133 49'070 929'486 49'070<br />

2002 53'375 982'861 53'375<br />

2003 60'898 1'043'759 60'898<br />

2004 80'326 1'124'085 80'326<br />

2005 78'999 1'203'084 78'999<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 98 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 9: Relationship of weight, diameter and volume of currently (2006) sold TVs<br />

Relationship Diameter, Weight and Volume of<br />

CRT TVs<br />

100<br />

0.50<br />

90<br />

80<br />

0.40<br />

70<br />

R 2 = 0.871<br />

weight [kg]<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

0.30<br />

0.20<br />

volume [m3]<br />

20<br />

10<br />

R 2 = 0.9177<br />

0.10<br />

0<br />

0.00<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

diameter [cm]<br />

w eight to diameter<br />

Exponentiell (w eight to diameter)<br />

volume to diameter<br />

Exponentiell (volume to diameter)<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 99 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 10: Toxicity and legislation of hazardous components in the CRT<br />

In this Appendix the basic composition of the CRT glass is and the scree anf funnel glass coating is<br />

calculated. In addition the toxic compoiunds of the glass and coatings are discussed. Human and<br />

ecotoxicity is discussed as well as the regulatory limits for South Africa compared with international<br />

standards and regulations.<br />

There is much data from literature available which provide such figures. Due to a large variety in<br />

the size and composition of computer monitors and TVs it is difficult to specify exact figures of the<br />

several components. In this study the arithmetic average of the data found in literature (EMERG,<br />

1996; ICER, 2004) was taken to derive the average content of every element in the CRT glass<br />

which is shown in Table 18. The data from EMERG were taken for the composition of older CRT<br />

glass where the ICER report represents rather newer CRT glass. The composition of the funnel<br />

coating was derived from (Kemco International Associates, 2006). The front glass is coated with a<br />

thin layer of fluorescent materials. These substances contained in the screen are generally<br />

phosphides or sulphides of zinc, europium, yttrium and cadmium (5-10 grams per screen). In older<br />

model tubes (manufactured before 1990), the fluorescent coating contains mainly cadmium and<br />

zinc sulphide while the newer models contain 94% zinc sulphide and rare-earth metals (Vieto et al.,<br />

1999). No exact composition of the screen coating was found. Nevertheless the composition was<br />

derived from the specifications from the study of Vieto and Pratt (1999). It was further assumed that<br />

the proportion of older and newer CRTs is 1:1 and that in the older CRTs cadmium and zinc was<br />

used in the same quantities in connection with sulphides or phosphides.<br />

old coating = 0.5 Cd X + 0.5 Zn X (16)<br />

X is a substitute for sulfide (S) or phosphide (P) respectively<br />

The newer models were assumed to consist of 94% zinc sulphide (or phosphide) and to 3% of<br />

Yttrium and to 3% of Europium respectively again in connection with the sulphides or phosphides.<br />

new coating = 0.94 ZnX +0.03 YX +0.03 EuX (17)<br />

<strong>This</strong> leads to the following average stoichiometry for the mixing of old and new CRTs:<br />

average coating = 1S +1 P + 0.72 Zn +0.25 Cd + 0.015 Y +0.015 Eu<br />

note: it was assumed that CRTs with new screen coating and such with old screen coating are<br />

mixed evenly to derive the average composition. With the molecular weights (m) and the use of the<br />

average stoichiometry the weight percentage (w%) specified in Table 17 was calculated using:<br />

n × m<br />

i i<br />

w% = × 100<br />

6<br />

∑<br />

i=<br />

1<br />

n × m<br />

i<br />

i<br />

(18)<br />

i element m [g/mol] n [mol] weight percent [w%]<br />

1 P 31.0 1 21.8<br />

2 S 32.1 1 22.6<br />

3 Zn 65.4 0.72 33.2<br />

4 Cd 112.4 0.25 19.8<br />

5 Y 88.9 0.015 0.9<br />

6 Eu 152.0 0.015 1.6<br />

Table 17: Derivation of the weight percentage of the luminescent screen coating used in CRTs<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 100 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

The resulting chemical composition of the average CRT glass is shown in Table 18. The elements<br />

of concern from a toxicological point of view are lead oxide, barium oxide, antimony, cadmium and<br />

zinc (sulphides or phosphides). All other elements will be neglected in this section.<br />

Oxides in CRT glass [wt%] [kg / kg CRT] wt% in fraction Standard deviation [%]<br />

SiO 2 0.545 61.38 0.81<br />

Al 2 O 3 0.023 2.57 0.47<br />

Na 2 O 0.075 8.43 0.51<br />

K 2 O 0.069 7.72 0.23<br />

CaO 0.017 1.90 1.06<br />

MgO 0.008 0.92 0.67<br />

BaO 0.079 8.88 1.82<br />

ZnO 0 0<br />

PbO 0.048 5.44 0.35<br />

B 2 O 3 0 0<br />

SrO 0.015 1.67 0.80<br />

Fe 2 O 3 0.001 0.15<br />

CoO 0 0<br />

TiO 2 0 0<br />

CeO 2 0.001 0.16<br />

ZrO 2 0.004 0.43<br />

Sb 2 O 3 0.003 0.33<br />

Total oxides in glass 0.887 100.00<br />

Fe 0.1100 11.00 shadow mask and rimband<br />

funnel coating 1 0.0019<br />

C 0.0002 Graphite<br />

FeO 0.0003 Iron Oxide<br />

Na 2 SiO 3 0.0002 Sodium Silicate Solids<br />

H 2 O 0.0012 Water<br />

screen coating (luminescent layer) 2 0.0008 100<br />

P 0.00018 22 Phosphor<br />

S 0.00019 23 Sulfide<br />

Cd 0.00017 20 Cadmium<br />

Y 0.00001 1 Yttrium<br />

Eu 0.00001 2 Europium<br />

Zn 0.00028 33 Zinc<br />

1) 0.022 to 0.028mm coating on 0.5m 2 for 1 CRT with a density of 1380kg / m3 and CRT weight of 8.91 kg; source: Kemco International Associates, 2006<br />

2) 5-10g / CRT<br />

Table 18: Average composition of CRT glass, the ferrous metals and the coatings within the CRT<br />

Lead<br />

Occurrence: Since metallic lead and common lead minerals such as sulphides, sulphates, oxides,<br />

carbonates, and hydroxides are hardly soluble levels of dissolved lead in aquatic ecosystems are<br />

generally low. The solubility in water for lead oxide is 1.7 mg/l (Stuff, 2005). The Agency for Toxic<br />

Substances and Disease Registry ATSDR (1992) reported 1mg/l respectively. Most of the lead<br />

entering aquatic ecosystems is associated with suspended sediments, while lead in the dissolved<br />

phase is usually complexed by organic ligands (DWAF, 1996). The ratio of lead in suspended solids<br />

to lead in dissolved form has been found to vary from 4:1 in rural streams to 27:1 in urban<br />

streams (EPA, 1986). The dissolved lead also undergoes hydrolysis. The hydrolysis constants pK i<br />

for lead are 7.7, 9.4 and 11 respectively indicating that dissolved lead occurs mainly as Pb 2+ up to<br />

pH 7.7 and Pb(OH) - from pH 7.7 to pH 9.4. Lead Oxide also called Litharge is amphoteric thus it<br />

reacts with either acids to form Pb 2+ which is shown in equation (19).<br />

PbO (s) + 2 H + (aq) Pb 2+ (aq) + H 2 O (l) (19)<br />

or with bases to form lead(IV) hydroxide plumbic hydroxide shown in equation (20).<br />

PbO (s) + H 2 O (l) + 2 OH - (aq) Pb(OH) 4<br />

2-<br />

(s) (20)<br />

Hence decreasing pH increases the bioavailability of Pb 2+ .<br />

Human Toxicity:<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 101 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

“Short-term exposure to high levels of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsions, coma or<br />

even death. Other symptoms are appetite loss, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, sleeplessness,<br />

irritability and headache. Continued excessive exposure, as in an industrial setting, can affect<br />

the kidneys. It is particularly dangerous for young children because it can damage nervous connections<br />

and cause blood and brain disorders.” (EMPA, 2004)<br />

Eco-toxicity: Both aquatic and terrestrial organisms are affected by lead. Lead is cancer-causing,<br />

and adversely effects reproduction, liver and thyroid function, and disease resistance (Eisler,<br />

1988). Lead oxide has caused mutagenic effects in experimental animals (Dierks, 1995). The toxicity<br />

of lead to terrestrial organisms ranges from 40 mg Pb/kg d.w. (stadard soil) for Crustaceans to<br />

1100 mg Pb/kg d.w. for Insects (Tukker et al., 2001). Toxicity tests with freshwater invertebrates<br />

such as Brachionus calyciflorus, Chironomus tentans, and Lymnaea stagnalis were performed in<br />

artificial freshwaters (Grosell et al., 2006). They measured no-observable-effect concentration<br />

(NOEC), lowest-observable-effect concentration (LOEC), and calculated 20% effect concentration<br />

(EC 20 ) for each of the three species. The EC 20 for the rotifer B. calyciflorus were 0.125 mg dissolved<br />

Pb/L, respectively. The midge C. tentans was less sensitive, with NOEC of 0.109 mg dissolved<br />

Pb/L, respectively, and the snail L.stagnalis exhibited extreme sensitivity, evident by EC20<br />

of 0.004 mg dissolved Pb/L, respectively (Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN), 2006).<br />

Aisemberg et al. (2005) performed the determinations of ALA-D (enzyme) activity in the whole body<br />

soft tissues of pigmented and non-pigmented gastropods B. glabrata and in the oligochaete L.<br />

variegatus. The organisms were exposed to varying concentrations of Pb for 48 h. The values of<br />

Pb concentration that produce 50% of inhibition on the enzyme activity (EIC 50 ) were 0.023 and<br />

0.029 mg Pb/L for pigmented and non-pigmented B. glabrata, respectively. A much higher value<br />

was found for L. variegatus (0.703 mg Pb/L). The non-observed effect concentration (NOEC) on<br />

enzyme activity for the oligochaetes was 0.05 mg Pb/L, about twice the EIC 50 calculated for the<br />

gastropods. Bioconcentration factors of four species of invertebrates and two species of fish<br />

ranged from 42 to 1700 (DWAF, 1996). Lead can be bioconcentrated from water, but does not bio<br />

accumulate and tends to decrease with increasing trophic levels in freshwater habitats (Eisler,<br />

1988).<br />

Regulatory limits: Although lead oxide has a low solubility, the above results indicate that the<br />

(aquatic) environment is highly affected by lead. Considering the very low level of 0.004mg/l, which<br />

affects L.stagnalisand and the finding that the ratio of lead in suspended solids to lead in dissolved<br />

form can be as little as 4:1 in rural streams, one has to conclude that 20% of the total Pb of a certain<br />

probe could theoretically be dissolved and therefore be toxic. <strong>This</strong> indicates that the maximal<br />

dissolved lead concentration in freshwater systems mustn’t exceed 0.02 mg/l (0.004mg/l times 5).<br />

Legislation on lead effluent in South Africa and Switzerland: The regulatory limits for lead containing<br />

effluents in South African freshwater systems are regulated in the provincial legislation. For<br />

the Western Cape Province the limit for dissolved lead is 0.01 mg/l (Cape Metropolitan Council,<br />

2000). According to the Swiss “Gewässerschutzverordnung” (GSchV, 1998), the lead content of<br />

industrial effluents in freshwater systems must not exceed a total lead amount of 0.01 mg/l and the<br />

dissolved fraction has to be below 0.001 mg/l Pb. Looking at the limits for potable water according<br />

to the European Community Directive 83/98 (CELEX Nr: 398L0083) the lead content in drinking<br />

water must not exceed 0.01mg/l. According to the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act<br />

(2006) the limit for bottled water in South Africa is 0.01mg/l as well.<br />

The occupational exposure limit (OEL) for lead compounds other than tetra-ethyl lead is according<br />

to the South African Lead Regulations, GN R 236 (28 February 2002) 0.15 mg / m 3 air measured<br />

in accordance with health and safety standards.<br />

Leachability of lead from the lead oxide of CRTs: Leachates of landfill sites or run offs from<br />

illegal dumps can vary widely in pH due to the large content of organic acids. Although lead oxide<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 102 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

(PbO) has a very low solubility in water (see above) and is inert under standard conditions (20°C<br />

and pH of 7) the deposition of CRT glass has to fulfil the environmental regulations and has therefore<br />

to be proven in terms of its chemical behaviour and the variations in pH and redox-conditions.<br />

According to a leachability study by Musson et al. (2000) using the EPA Toxicity Characteristic<br />

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) the lead leached from the CRT samples at an average concentration<br />

of 18.5 mg/L. <strong>This</strong> exceeded the regulatory limit of both the EPA and the South African legislation<br />

by far. The most significant quantities of lead were obtained from the funnel portion of the CRTs at<br />

an average lead concentration of 75.3 mg/L. Samples containing the frit seal had lead leaching<br />

levels nearly 50 times those without. Samples comprised of smaller particle sizes exposed a<br />

greater surface area resulting in higher lead leaching levels. Musson et al. (2000) tested 30 colour<br />

CRTs and 21 exceeded regulatory lead limits, none of the six monochrome CRTs did. A different<br />

study using also TCLP with the leachates from several MSW landfill sites was conducted by Jang<br />

(2003). Lead concentrations ranged from 1.7 to 6.0 mg/L, with an average of 4.1 mg/L. Background<br />

levels of lead in the landfill leachates ranged from less than detection limit (0.04 mg/L) to 0.07<br />

mg/L.<br />

Although the average lead contents unveiled by Jang are slightly below the EPA regulatory limit<br />

there is evidence that the lead oxide in CRT tubes is leachable and thus the CRTs have to be disposed<br />

of on hazardous landfill sites rather than on municipal landfill sites or dumps. Alternatively<br />

the CRT cullets can be diluted in a way that the maximal leachable dissolved lead is below the<br />

limits for freshwater or bottled water concentration.<br />

Barium<br />

Occurrence: The following information were derived from the US Agency for Toxic Substances<br />

and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2005). Barium oxide is quite soluble in water. The solubility in water<br />

is 34.8 g/L (at 20 °C). Barium oxide reacts rapidly with carbon dioxide in water to form barium hydroxide<br />

and barium carbonate. The barium in these compounds that is dissolved in water quickly<br />

combines with sulphate or carbonate that are naturally found in water and become the longer lasting<br />

forms (barium sulphate and barium carbonate). Barium sulphate and barium carbonate are not<br />

very toxic compounds. Airborne barium oxide, which can react to barium hydroxide but not to barium<br />

sulphate and barium carbonate, can cause severe effects on human health and safety.<br />

Humant toxicity: There are many effects of barium described in the toxicological profile for barium<br />

and barium compounds provided by. However, for barium oxide no toxicological information were<br />

available in this study. Nevertheless, for barium hydroxide and other soluble compounds, it says:<br />

“Barium compounds such as barium acetate, barium chloride, barium hydroxide, barium nitrate,<br />

and barium sulfide that dissolve in water can cause harmful health effects. Most of what we know<br />

comes from studies in which a small number of individuals were exposed to fairly large amounts of<br />

barium for short periods. Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium compounds that dissolve<br />

in water causes changes in heart rhythm or paralysis.” (ATSDR, 2005)<br />

And:<br />

“No studies were located regarding cancer in animals after dermal exposure to barium. However,<br />

results of one skin-painting study with mice suggest that barium hydroxide extract derived from<br />

tobacco leaf may act as a tumor-promoting agent.” (ATSDR, 2005)<br />

Ecotoxicity: Acute toxicity levels of barium for aquatic biota was found to be 68 mg/l for Daphnia<br />

magna (LeBlanc, 1980). For Lemna minor (a duck weed) affection of growth was observed at a<br />

level of 26mg/l (Wang, 1986).<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 103 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Regulatory limits: The regulatory limits for barium in bottled water is 0.7mg/l (Department of<br />

Health / Departement van Gesondheid, 2006). The US EPA set a limit of 2.0 mg barium per liter of<br />

drinking water (2.0 mg/L). The South African Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 (1993) regulates<br />

airborne soluble barium compounds to a total OEL of 0.5 mg/m 3 . The same limit is regulated<br />

by the U.S. Department of Labour Occupational Safety & Health Administration OSHA, (2006).<br />

Discussion: No studies on the leachability of barium oxide from CRT glass were found. However,<br />

if the CRT glass is broken into cullets or ground to dust particles, barium could easily leach on the<br />

landfill sites, as it is quite soluble in water. It is likely that barium forms sulphates and carbonates<br />

which are both not very toxic compounds. The eco-toxicity of barium is also not considered to by a<br />

very severe problem, as the effect concentrations are quite high. However, groundwater contamination<br />

should be avoided.<br />

Severe threads can be expected by airborne barium that is inhaled during the transport and processing<br />

of CRT glass. Both barium oxide and barium hydroxide can harm the health of workers exposed<br />

to CRT glass dust.<br />

Antimony<br />

Antimony trioxide is used in the glass industry as a refining agent and colorant. In an exposure<br />

<strong>assessment</strong> in the German glass industry, TWA antimony levels were as high as 0.351 mg/m3<br />

(ATSDR, 1992).<br />

Occurrence:<br />

Sodium antimony is used as a melting agent in CRT glass. It provides necessary optical properties.<br />

The percent of sodium antimony in a CRT is 0.2% in the funnel and 0.24% in the panel. Sodium<br />

antimony has replaced arsenic, which was originally used in CRT glass. Sodium antimony is used<br />

because it is much less hazardous than arsenic (Monchamp, 2000). The antimony in the CRT<br />

glass occurs as antimony trioxide (Sb 2 O 3 ). It is used as a fining agent to remove bubbles from the<br />

molten glass melt. (ICER, 2004). Antimony trioxide can be reduced to antimony according to (21)<br />

and can also be oxidized to Sb2O 5(Qivx Inc, 2006).<br />

Sb O + 6 H + 6 e ↔ 2 Sb + 3 H O E = 0.152 (21)<br />

+ -<br />

2 3 2 0<br />

Human toxicity: According to the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage, (2006)<br />

“… antimony compounds show toxic properties similar to those of arsenic. <strong>This</strong> depends on how<br />

much antimony a person has been exposed to, for how long, and current state of health. Exposure<br />

to high levels of antimony can result in a variety of adverse health effects. Breathing high levels for<br />

a long time can irritate eyes and lungs and can cause heart and lung problems, stomach pain, diarrhoea,<br />

vomiting, and stomach ulcers. Ingesting large doses of antimony can cause vomiting. Antimony<br />

can irritate the skin on prolonged contact.”<br />

Effects of antimony trioxide (Sb 2 O 3 ): Health effects have been observed in humans and animals<br />

following inhalation exposure to antimony trioxide as shown in the list below. Note: all data were<br />

retrieved from the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1992). Note:<br />

The literature entries according to the citations in the following list are not listed in the references of<br />

this study:<br />

• Guinea pigs exposed to approximately 37.9 mg antimony/m 3 as antimony trioxide dust for<br />

52-125 days (Dernehl et al. 1945) or guinea pigs died.<br />

• Occupational exposure to antimony trioxide and/or pentoxide dust (8.87 mg antimony/ m 3<br />

or greater) resulted in antimony pneumoconiosis (inflammation of the lungs due to the irritation<br />

caused by the inhalation of dust) (Cooper et al. 1968; Potkonjak and Pavlovich 1983;<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 104 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Renes 1953) Chronic interstitial inflammation was also observed in rats exposed to 0.07<br />

mg antimony/ m 3 for 1 year with a 1 year recovery.<br />

• Alopecia was noted in rats exposed to 0.92 mg antimony/ m 3 or greater as antimony trioxide<br />

for 13 weeks (Bio/dynamics 1985).<br />

• Hyperplasia of the reticuloendothelial cells in the peribronchiolar lymph nodes was observed<br />

in rats exposed to 0.07 mg antimony/m 3 antimony trioxide for 1 year with a 1 year<br />

recovery period (Bio/dynamic 1990).<br />

• Alopecia was noted in rats exposed to 0.92 mg antimony/m 3 or greater as antimony trioxide<br />

for 13 weeks (Bio/dynamics 1985).<br />

• Fibrosis and lipoid pneumonia have been reported in rats chronically exposed to 1.6 mg<br />

antimony/m 3 or higher as antimony trioxide or to 17.48 mg antimony/m 3 as antimony trisulfide<br />

(Bio/dynamics 1990; Gross et al. 1952; Groth et al. 1986; Watt et al. 1980,1983; Wong<br />

et al. 1979).<br />

• Factory workers exposed to antimony trioxide (0.042-0.70 mg antimonym 3 ) had elevated<br />

urine and blood antimony levels (Ludersdorf et al. 1987).<br />

The above effects are not explained any further in this section. The intention is only to show the<br />

variety of effects, mostly long term effects at low doses of antimony trioxide. The atmospheric halflife<br />

for antimony trioxide is estimated to 3.2 days (Mueller, 1985).<br />

Ecotoxicity: For the Gastrophryne carolinensis (Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad) the LC 50 is 50ug/l.<br />

The LC 50 for rainbow trouts Oncorhynchus mykiss was detected at 170ug/l. The LC 50 for Americamysis<br />

bahia (opossum shrimp) is 4150 ug/l (Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN), 2006)<br />

Regulatory limits: For drinking water the level of antimony is regulated to 5 ug/l according to the<br />

South African Regulations Relating To All Bottled Waters (Foodstuffs Cosmetics and Disinfectants<br />

Act, 2006). The U.S. and Canadian drinking water standards allow a maximum concentration of 6<br />

ug/l (Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN), 2006). The South African Occupational Health<br />

and Safety Act 85 (1993) regulates airborne antimony compounds to a total OEL of 0.5 mg/m 3 .<br />

Discussion<br />

The antimony trioxide present in CRTs seems to be hazardous when employees are exposed to<br />

airborne particles for a long period of time or in high doses. Animal test show that long-term effects<br />

occur at concentrations below 1mg/m 3 . No information of the faith of antimony trioxide in water was<br />

found.<br />

Cadmium<br />

Occurrence: The cadmium in CRTs occurs as cadmium sulphide (CdS) in the screen coating and<br />

can easily get airborne once the CRT is crashed.<br />

The following properties and toxicological information of cadmium sulphide were retrieved from the<br />

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1999).<br />

Behaviour of cadmium and cadmium sulphide in water: Under reducing conditions (which as are<br />

present in leachates of landfill sites) cadmium can be reduced to form cadmium sulphide. Cadmium<br />

sulphide, cadmium carbonate, and cadmium oxide, are practically insoluble in water. An aqueous<br />

suspension of cadmium sulphide can gradually photo oxidize to soluble cadmium. Cadmium sulphide<br />

can also get soluble under acid conditions. The soluble Cadmium is the most toxic compound.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 105 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Behaviour of cadmium and cadmium sulphide in air: cadmium sulphide may photzolyse to cadmium<br />

sulphate in aqueous aerosols.<br />

Toxicity to animals: In general for both the acute and chronic toxicity the more soluble cadmium<br />

compounds such as cadmium oxide and cadmium chlorite seem to be more toxic. Accordingly<br />

cadmium sulphate and cadmium sulphide are the least toxic compounds (Klimisch, 1993). A reason<br />

for this difference in toxicity is the higher lung absorption and retention times for the more soluble<br />

compounds (Rusch et al., 1986). A long-term effect study of the exposure of rats to cadmium<br />

sulphide dust unveiled that: “0.090 mg Cd/m 3 was not lethal during the exposure period but was<br />

lethal to more than 75% of the males and females by 12 months postexposure. In these chronic<br />

studies, cadmium’s lethal effects differed among the chemical forms in the following order from<br />

most to least toxic: CdCl 2 >CdSO 4 ≈ CdO dust>CdS, but lethality still occurred from all forms of<br />

cadmium.” (Oldiges et al., 1986). Oldiges (1989) also experienced increased tumors in male and<br />

female rats exposed to cadmium oxide and cadmium sulphide dust at 30 μg/m 3 and 90 μg/m 3 respectively.<br />

Human toxicity: “The primary health risks of long term exposure are lung cancer and kidney damage.<br />

Due to the long half-life in the body, cadmium can easily be accumulated in amounts that<br />

cause symptoms of poisoning.” (EMPA, 2004).<br />

Ecotoxicity: Cadmium is very highly toxic to aquatic organism. The toxicity for the most affected<br />

organisms is for Daphnia magna (Water flea) 33.6 ug/l, Ischnochiton hakodadensis (Chiton) 20.0<br />

ug/l, Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow) 13.9 ug/l and for Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow<br />

trout) 97.4 ug /l respectively. These figures are summaries from several studies carried out for each<br />

of the aquatic organism. All data were collected from (Pesticide Action Network North America<br />

(PAN), 2006)<br />

Regulatory limits: For industrial effluents the concentration of cadmium is limited to 5 mg/l<br />

(Province of Western Cape, 2006). The regulatory limit for cadmium in bottled water in South Africa<br />

is 3 ug/l (Foodstuffs Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 2006). The US fresh water quality attributes<br />

for continuous exposure to cadmium is 2.2 ug /l (Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN),<br />

2006). The Swiss law for the effluent in freshwater systems sets the limit for industrial effluents in<br />

freshwater systems to 100 ug /l. The concentration in freshwater systems shall not exceed 0.2 ug/l<br />

whereas the dissolved partition must be below 0.05 ug/l (GSchV, 1998). The South African Occupational<br />

Health and Safety Act 85 (1993) regulates airborne cadmium compounds to a total OEL of<br />

0.05 mg/m 3 and for cadmium sulphides (which is actually present in CRTs) 0.04 mg/m 3 respectively.<br />

Discussion: Cadmium sulphide is the least toxic compound from the discussed in this section.<br />

However it can be transformed to more soluble compounds such as Cd 2+ by photo oxidation or<br />

under acid conditions. On the other side under reducing conditions Cd 2+ can be transformed to<br />

cadmium sulphide again. Thus in aqueous solutions many reactions can occur and form insoluble<br />

and soluble compounds depending much on the prevailing conditions. Cadmium is highly toxic to<br />

aquatic organisms and should therefore not be released in the environment.<br />

Long term effects of airborne cadmium sulphide unveiled that mammals are affected even by the<br />

least toxic cadmium sulphide. The post exposure lethal dose was 0.090 mg Cd/m 3 . Thus airborne<br />

cadmium sulphide can harm the health of workers exposed to. The OEL for cadmium sulphide is<br />

0.04mg/m 3<br />

Zinc<br />

Zinc is also present in the luminescent coating of the screen glass. It occurs as either zinc sulphide<br />

or zinc phosphate. Like cadmium the zinc compounds are able to get airborne and into the soil or<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 106 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

water. Zinc phosphate is non toxic. The solubility of zinc sulphide is 6.5 to 6.9 mg/L at 18°C<br />

(ATSDR, 2005). Thus Zn 2+ can be formed from zinc sulphide in aqueous solutions.<br />

For zinc sulphide no legal or toxicological data were available. Thus in this section the toxicity and<br />

the legal regulations for zinc is discussed.<br />

Environmental toxicity:<br />

Eastern Narrow-Mouthed Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis<br />

Fleshy prawn Penaeus chinensis<br />

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis<br />

Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas<br />

Chiton Ischnochiton hakodadensis<br />

Water flea Daphnia magna<br />

Scud Hyalella azteca<br />

10 ug/l<br />

412.5 ug/l<br />

960.0 ug/l<br />

75.0 ug/l<br />

20.0 ug/l<br />

742.7 ug/l<br />

73.0 ug/l<br />

Regulatory limits: For industrial effluents the concentration of zinc is limited to 30 mg/l. (Province<br />

of Western Cape, 2006). The Swiss law for the effluent in freshwater systems sets the limit for industrial<br />

effluents in freshwater systems to 2 mg/l. The concentration of zinc in freshwater systems<br />

shall not exceed 0.02 mg/l whereas the dissolved partition must be below 0.005 mg/l (Der<br />

Schweizerische Bundesrat, 1998). The South African Occupational Health and Safety Act 85<br />

(1993) regulates airborne zinc oxide to a total OEL of 5 mg/m 3 .<br />

Discussion<br />

Zinc phosphate is not toxic. For zinc sulphide no toxicological data nor regulatory limits were available.<br />

Aquatic biota is highly affected to Zn 2+ .<br />

Discussion<br />

For all of the investigated hazardous compounds occurrence and toxic concentrations differ much<br />

and the effects on human health and the environment as well. However it is important to make sure<br />

that the CRT glass which is released in the environment or is used in secondary applications has to<br />

be diluted in a way that the resulting concentrations of hazardous substances is below any regulatory<br />

limit. The transport and the recycling of CRT glass can lead to airborne hazards mainly from<br />

the screen coatings. Thus the work steps must be designed in a way that the airborne hazards are<br />

minimized and that the remaining concentrations in the environment adhere to the regulatory limits<br />

particularly the occupational exposure limits (OEL) have to be monitored.<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 107 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 11: Furnace batch composition and material savings; Samsung Corning CRT manufacturing<br />

plant<br />

Material svaings per 1000kg recycling CRT glass at Samsung Corning, Germany<br />

compound<br />

chemical formula cone glass Screen glass screen & cone glass<br />

kg % kg % kg %<br />

Sand SiO 2 451.4 40.90 523.4 44.69 487.4 42.79<br />

Feldspar (Ba,Ca,Na,K,NH 4 )(Al 112.8 10.22 107.5 9.18 110.15 9.70<br />

Soda Ash Na 2 CO 3 113.2 10.26 129.3 11.04 121.25 10.65<br />

Potash K 2 CO 3 64.6 5.85 62.6 5.34 63.6 5.60<br />

Leadoxide PbO 189.4 17.16 0 0.00 94.7 8.58<br />

Dolomite CaMg(CO 3 ) 2 100.9 9.14 17.4 1.49 59.15 5.31<br />

Potassium Nitrate KNO 3 11.8 1.07 26 2.22 18.9 1.64<br />

Sodium Antimonate NaSbO3 2.1 0.19 4.7 0.40 3.4 0.30<br />

Barium Carbonate BaCO 3 28.4 2.57 129.4 11.05 78.9 6.81<br />

Strontium Carbonate SrCO3 29.1 2.64 121.4 10.36 75.25 6.50<br />

Calcite CaCO 3 0 0.00 17.7 1.51 8.85 0.76<br />

Zirconium Silicate ZrSiO 4 0 0.00 24.5 2.09 12.25 1.05<br />

Titanoxide TiO 2 0 0.00 3.6 0.31 1.8 0.15<br />

Ceroxide CeO 2 0 0.00 2.7 0.23 1.35 0.12<br />

Zinc Oxide ZnO 0 0.00 1.1 0.09 0.55 0.05<br />

Rohstoffe gesamt 1103.7 100.00 1171.3 100.00 1137.5 100.00<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 108 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 12: Constants used for the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong> of the recycling scenarios<br />

Input parameter Value Unit Rel. error Sources<br />

Shipping of a 40 feet container<br />

Factor for nautical mile to km 1.852<br />

20 feet containers (FEU) per freighter TEU 5'000 (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

40 feet containers (FEU) per freighter FEU 2'500 10% (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Speed: 23 kn v s 42 km/h 10% (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Max load container L c 23'500 kg 25% (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Transport of container within CMA 1'260 ZAR (Faragher, 2006)<br />

Transport of container within CMA C CMA 175 $ 10% (Faragher, 2006)<br />

Costs Cape Town to Hamburg C CH 3'712 $ 10% (Faragher, 2006)<br />

Costs Hamburg to Samsung Corning C HS 1'107 $ 10% (Pulko, 2006)<br />

Costs Cape Town to Antwerp C CA 3'712 $ 10% (Faragher, 2006)<br />

Costs Antwerp to Metallo-Chimique C AM 347 $ 10% (Heyns, 2006)<br />

Ships complement sc 12 - 25% (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Low-skilled employees ue 6 - (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Highly skilled employees he 6 - (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

"super-link" truck<br />

Max. weight L SL 50'000 kg 50%<br />

Costs from Cape Town to Johannesburg 12'000 ZAR (Bradford, 2006)<br />

Costs from Cape Town to Agganey 6'000 ZAR Authors estimation<br />

Costs from Cape Town to Agganey p sl 834 $ 50%<br />

Desco trailer<br />

max. weight L T 1000 kg 25% Authors estimation accord-<br />

Fuel use<br />

Transport with car and trailer f t 15 l/100km 25% Authors estimation<br />

Container tranport on road f c 32 l/100km 10% (Balzer, 2006)<br />

"Superlink" transport (50 tons) on road f s 40 l/100km 10% calculated<br />

Wages ZAR/ h $/h<br />

Low-skilled worker w u 15 2.08 25% Experienced in SA<br />

Semi-skilled w s 30 4.17 50% Authors estimation<br />

Highly skilled w h 80 11.12 50% Authors estimation<br />

Crushing and sorting plant<br />

Investment costs for separation plant $ 1'284'700 25% SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Production volume v p 5'000 kg/h 25% SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Net costs C n 642 $ / h 10% SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Net labour costs C nl 401 $ / h 10% SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Employees e 11 - 25% SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Revenues for CRT glass cullets<br />

Thomson<br />

Screen glass r sg $/kg -0.154 SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Funnel glass r fg $/kg -0.154 SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Mixed glass r mg $/kg -0.103 SwissGlas, (Apfel, 2006)<br />

Average revenue at Thomson r T $/kg -0.137 25%<br />

Samsung Corning<br />

Screen glass r sg $/kg -0.122 Samsung Corning<br />

Funnel glass r fg $/kg -0.148 Samsung Corning<br />

Mixed glass r mg $/kg - Samsung Corning<br />

average revenue at Samsung Corning r S -0.135 25%<br />

Fuel prices South Africa ZAR/l EUR/l $/l<br />

Petrol unleaded (for car) p c 6.6 0.71 0.92 http://www.shell.co.za/vpower/pprice.htm, 01.09.2006<br />

Diesel 0.05% (for lorries) p l 6.3 0.68 0.88 http://www.shell.co.za/vpower/pprice.htm, 01.09.2006<br />

Diesel 0.005% (for lorries) p l 6.3 0.68 0.88 http://www.shell.co.za/vpower/pprice.htm, 01.09.2006<br />

Heavy Fuel Oil (for shipping) p s 0.44 0.34 (Gsponer, 2006)<br />

Wages South Africa ZAR/ h $/h<br />

Low-skilled worker w u 15 2.08 25% Experienced in SA<br />

Semi-skilled w s 30 4.17 50% Authors estimation<br />

Highly skilled w h 80 11.12 50% Authors estimation<br />

Currency exchange rates Exchange rate Source Date<br />

€ --> $ 0.778 1.285 google.com 24.08.2006<br />

$ --> ZAR 0.139 7.195 google.com 01.09.2006<br />

€ --> ZAR 0.108 9.243 google.com 01.09.2006<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 109 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 13: Supporting calculations use din the MAUT <strong>assessment</strong><br />

Scenario 0<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

ft × d × pc<br />

tc =<br />

L<br />

t<br />

× 100<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value Rel. error [%]<br />

tc<br />

ft<br />

d<br />

p c<br />

L T<br />

Transport costs<br />

Fuel use van with trailer<br />

Distance<br />

Fuel price car<br />

Load trailer<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

l/100 km<br />

km<br />

$/litre<br />

kg CRT<br />

0.0083<br />

15<br />

60<br />

0.92<br />

1’000<br />

70<br />

50<br />

10<br />

10<br />

10<br />

Labour costs:<br />

t×<br />

ws<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

Disposal costs:<br />

lfc<br />

dc =<br />

L<br />

t<br />

t<br />

lc<br />

t<br />

w s<br />

L t<br />

dc<br />

lfc<br />

L t<br />

Labour costs<br />

Time used for transport<br />

Wage of semi-skilled worker<br />

Load trailer<br />

Disposal costs<br />

Landfilling costs<br />

Load trailer<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$/ton<br />

kg<br />

0.0083<br />

2<br />

4.17<br />

1’000<br />

0.0278<br />

27.8<br />

1’000<br />

125<br />

50<br />

50<br />

25<br />

50<br />

25<br />

25<br />

Social<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

s<br />

= L<br />

t<br />

W s<br />

t<br />

L t<br />

Work for semi-skilled worker<br />

Time used<br />

Load trailer<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.003<br />

3<br />

1’000<br />

60<br />

50<br />

25<br />

Scenario 1<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

pSL<br />

tc = L<br />

SL<br />

Labour costs:<br />

t×<br />

ws<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

SL<br />

Social<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

s<br />

= L<br />

SL<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value Rel. error [%]<br />

tc<br />

p sl<br />

L SL<br />

lc<br />

t<br />

w s<br />

L SL<br />

W s<br />

t<br />

L SL<br />

Transport costs<br />

Price for “super-link” to lead<br />

mine<br />

Load “super-link”<br />

Labour costs<br />

Time used for load/unload,<br />

storage<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker<br />

Load “super-link”<br />

Work for semi-skilled worker<br />

Time used (loading & driving)<br />

Load “super-link”<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

kg CRT<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.0170<br />

848<br />

50’000<br />

0.0003<br />

6<br />

2.08<br />

50’000<br />

0.00042<br />

21<br />

50’000<br />

75<br />

50<br />

25<br />

100<br />

50<br />

25<br />

25<br />

75<br />

50<br />

25<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 110 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Scenario 2, 3, 3a<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

cCMA<br />

tc = L<br />

C<br />

Labour costs lowskilled:<br />

tL<br />

× wL<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

C<br />

Labour costs highly<br />

skilled:<br />

th<br />

× wh<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

C<br />

Additional costs:<br />

ca<br />

ac =<br />

L<br />

Social<br />

C<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

u<br />

= L<br />

c<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value Rel. error [%]<br />

tc<br />

p CMA<br />

L C<br />

lc<br />

t L<br />

w L<br />

L C<br />

lc<br />

L SL<br />

t h<br />

w h<br />

ac<br />

ca<br />

L C<br />

W u<br />

t<br />

L t<br />

Transport costs<br />

Price for container within CMA<br />

Load container<br />

Labour costs<br />

Time used for low-skilled worker<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker<br />

Load container<br />

Labour costs<br />

Load container<br />

Time used for highly skilled work<br />

Wage of highly skilled worker<br />

Additional costs<br />

Costs for chemical analysis<br />

Load container<br />

Work for low-skilled workers<br />

Time used<br />

Load container<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.0075<br />

175<br />

23’500<br />

0.0004<br />

5<br />

2.08<br />

23’500<br />

0.0009<br />

23’500<br />

2<br />

11.12<br />

0.0273<br />

642<br />

23’500<br />

0.00026<br />

6<br />

23’500<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

85<br />

50<br />

25<br />

10<br />

75<br />

10<br />

25<br />

50<br />

35<br />

25<br />

10<br />

60<br />

50<br />

10<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

h<br />

= L<br />

c<br />

W s<br />

t<br />

L t<br />

Work for highly skilled worker<br />

Time used<br />

Load container<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.00009<br />

2<br />

23’500<br />

35<br />

25<br />

10<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 111 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Scenario 3b<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

cCMA<br />

tc = L<br />

C<br />

Labour costs lowskilled:<br />

tL<br />

× wL<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

C<br />

Labour costs highly<br />

skilled:<br />

th<br />

× wh<br />

lc =<br />

L<br />

C<br />

Additional costs:<br />

ca<br />

ac =<br />

L<br />

C<br />

Crushing costs<br />

e × wu<br />

cc =<br />

C × W<br />

CRT<br />

Average weight of<br />

CRT<br />

w × w<br />

mon<br />

W =<br />

CRT<br />

2<br />

Environment<br />

Work of crusher:<br />

Pcrusher<br />

W =<br />

E<br />

C × w CRT<br />

Social<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

u<br />

= L<br />

c<br />

TV<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value Rel. error [%]<br />

tc<br />

p CMA<br />

L C<br />

lc<br />

t L<br />

w L<br />

L C<br />

lc<br />

L SL<br />

t h<br />

w h<br />

ac<br />

ca<br />

L C<br />

cc<br />

C<br />

W CRT<br />

e<br />

w u<br />

W CRT<br />

W mon<br />

W TV<br />

W E<br />

P crusher<br />

C<br />

W CRT<br />

W u<br />

t<br />

L t<br />

Transport costs<br />

Price for container within CMA<br />

Load container<br />

Labour costs<br />

Time used for low-skilled worker<br />

Wage of low-skilled worker<br />

Load container<br />

Labour costs<br />

Load container<br />

Time used for highly skilled work<br />

Wage of highly skilled worker<br />

Additional costs<br />

Costs for chemical analysis<br />

Load container<br />

Crushing operating costs<br />

Capacity of crusher<br />

Average weight of CRT<br />

Number of employees<br />

Wage for semi-skilled worker<br />

Average weight of CRT<br />

Average weight monitor CRT<br />

Average weight monitor CRT<br />

Work crusher<br />

Power consumption crusher<br />

Capacity of crusher<br />

Average weight of CRT<br />

Work for low-skilled workers<br />

Time used<br />

Load container<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

kg<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

kg CRT<br />

h<br />

$/h<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

units/h<br />

kg<br />

-<br />

$/h<br />

kg<br />

kg<br />

kg<br />

kWh/kg CRT<br />

kW<br />

units / hour<br />

kg<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.0075<br />

175<br />

23’500<br />

0.0004<br />

5<br />

2.08<br />

23’500<br />

0.0009<br />

23’500<br />

2<br />

11.12<br />

0.0273<br />

642<br />

23’500<br />

0.0007<br />

600<br />

15.3<br />

3<br />

2.08<br />

15.3<br />

11.12<br />

21.7<br />

0.008<br />

74.57<br />

600<br />

15.3<br />

0.00026<br />

6<br />

23’500<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

60<br />

25<br />

25<br />

10<br />

75<br />

10<br />

25<br />

50<br />

35<br />

25<br />

10<br />

95<br />

25<br />

25<br />

25<br />

25<br />

10<br />

10<br />

20<br />

70<br />

10<br />

50<br />

10<br />

60<br />

50<br />

10<br />

Working hours: W u<br />

e<br />

e<br />

w u = C× w<br />

C<br />

CRT W CRT<br />

Working generated from crusher<br />

Number of employees<br />

Capacity of crusher<br />

Average weight of CRT<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

-<br />

units / h<br />

kg<br />

0.00033<br />

3<br />

600<br />

15.3<br />

35<br />

25<br />

10<br />

Working hours:<br />

t<br />

W<br />

h<br />

= L<br />

c<br />

W s<br />

t<br />

L t<br />

Work for highly skilled worker<br />

Time used<br />

Load container<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.00009<br />

2<br />

23’500<br />

35<br />

25<br />

10<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 112 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Scenario 4<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

C + C + C<br />

tc =<br />

L<br />

CMA CH HS<br />

C<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value Rel. error [%]<br />

tc<br />

p sl<br />

L s<br />

C CH<br />

C HS<br />

Transport costs<br />

Costs for container within CMA<br />

Load container<br />

Costs CMA - Hamburg<br />

Costs Hamburg - Samsung Corning<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$<br />

$<br />

0.2125<br />

175<br />

23’500<br />

3’712<br />

1’107<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

10<br />

10<br />

Costs for pre-processing:<br />

( c n<br />

− c nl<br />

+ e × w ) s<br />

lc =<br />

V<br />

Revenues for glass cullets:<br />

(r T<br />

+ r S)<br />

r=<br />

2<br />

Social<br />

Working hours low-skilled<br />

and semi-skilled:<br />

t t + t<br />

w = × V L<br />

u<br />

up t p<br />

P<br />

C<br />

p<br />

lc<br />

c n<br />

c nl<br />

e<br />

w s<br />

V p<br />

r<br />

r T<br />

r S<br />

w u<br />

t up<br />

t t<br />

t p<br />

V p<br />

L C<br />

Labour costs<br />

Net costs<br />

Net labour costs<br />

Number of employees<br />

Wage of semi-skilled worker<br />

Production volume<br />

Revenue from CRT manufacturer<br />

Average revenue at Thomson<br />

Average revenue at Samsung Corning<br />

Working hours for low-skilled workers<br />

Time used for pre-processing<br />

Time used for loading and transport<br />

Time used at port<br />

Production volume<br />

Load container<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$/h<br />

$/h<br />

-<br />

$/h<br />

kg/h<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

h<br />

h<br />

kg CRT<br />

kg<br />

0.058<br />

642<br />

401<br />

11<br />

4.17<br />

5’000<br />

0.136<br />

0.137<br />

0.135<br />

0.0018<br />

8<br />

4<br />

0.1<br />

5’000<br />

23’500<br />

37<br />

10<br />

10<br />

25<br />

50<br />

10<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

38<br />

25<br />

25<br />

100<br />

25<br />

10<br />

Working hours highly skilled:<br />

thp<br />

w<br />

h<br />

= V<br />

p<br />

w u<br />

t hp<br />

V P<br />

Working hours for highly skilled<br />

Time used for pre-processing<br />

Production volume<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

kg CRT<br />

0.00026<br />

5’000<br />

5000<br />

50<br />

25<br />

25<br />

Working hours outside<br />

South Africa:<br />

d × sc t<br />

+<br />

CH<br />

HS<br />

w<br />

oSA<br />

= v<br />

s<br />

× FEU × L<br />

C L<br />

C<br />

w oSA<br />

d CH<br />

sc<br />

v s<br />

FEU<br />

t HS<br />

L C<br />

Working hours outside South Afirca<br />

Distance Cape Town - Hamburg<br />

Ships complement (crew)<br />

Speed of freighter<br />

Number of 40 feet containers on board<br />

Time used from Hamburg to Samsung<br />

Load container<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

km<br />

-<br />

km/h<br />

-<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.00027<br />

11882<br />

12<br />

42<br />

2'500<br />

5<br />

23'500<br />

55<br />

10<br />

25<br />

10<br />

10<br />

50<br />

10<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 113 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Scenario 5<br />

Economics<br />

Transport costs:<br />

C + C + C<br />

tc =<br />

L<br />

CMA CA AM<br />

Social<br />

Working hours low-skilled<br />

and semi skilled:<br />

tt<br />

+ tp<br />

w = L<br />

u<br />

c<br />

Working hours outside<br />

South Africa:<br />

c<br />

d × sc t<br />

CA<br />

AM<br />

w<br />

oSA<br />

= +<br />

v<br />

s<br />

× FEU × L<br />

C L<br />

C<br />

Abbr. Description Unit Value<br />

tc<br />

p sl<br />

L s<br />

C CA<br />

C HS<br />

w u<br />

t t<br />

t p<br />

L c<br />

w oSA<br />

d CA<br />

sc<br />

v s<br />

FEU<br />

t HS<br />

L c<br />

Transport costs<br />

Costs for container within CMA<br />

Load container<br />

Shipping costs to Antwerp<br />

Shipping to Metallo-Chimique<br />

Working hours for low-skilled workers<br />

Time used for loading and transport<br />

Time used at port<br />

Load container<br />

Working hours outside South Afirca<br />

Distance Cape Town - Antwerp<br />

Ships complement (crew)<br />

Speed of freighter<br />

Number of 40 feet containers on board<br />

Time used from Antwerp to Metallo-<br />

Chimique<br />

Load container<br />

$/kg CRT<br />

$<br />

kg CRT<br />

$<br />

$<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

h<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

h/kg CRT<br />

km<br />

-<br />

km/h<br />

-<br />

h<br />

kg<br />

0.1802<br />

175<br />

3712<br />

347<br />

23'500<br />

0.00017<br />

4<br />

0.1<br />

23’500<br />

0.00010<br />

11423<br />

12<br />

42<br />

2'500<br />

1<br />

23'500<br />

Rel. error<br />

[%]<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

10<br />

10<br />

36<br />

25<br />

50<br />

10<br />

93<br />

80<br />

10<br />

25<br />

10<br />

25<br />

110<br />

10<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 114 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 14: Environmental gain and loss <strong>assessment</strong> of all scenarios; EI ‘99 and Impact 2002+<br />

Env. loss<br />

Env. gain<br />

EI'99 (H,A)<br />

IMPACT 2002+<br />

terrestrial acid.<br />

& nutr.<br />

Scenario and processes Unit [Units / kg CRT] Points<br />

Points<br />

Szenario 0 - Landfill<br />

Transport, van 100kW MJ -0.129 -5.59E-04 -8.49E-07 -3.70E-10 -2.53E-09 -1.11E-08 -1.91E-09<br />

Oxygen, liquid, at plant kg -0.011 -1.67E-04 -4.04E-07 -7.78E-10 -4.15E-09 -2.12E-08 -8.77E-09<br />

Silica sand, at plant kg -0.288 -3.89E-04 -5.99E-07 -1.50E-09 -5.79E-09 -8.35E-08 -7.78E-09<br />

Feldspar, at plant kg -0.065 -1.76E-04 -2.26E-07 -4.69E-10 -3.79E-09 -3.04E-08 -4.48E-09<br />

Soda, powder, at plant kg -0.072 -1.58E-03 -3.02E-06 -1.71E-08 -9.79E-08 -5.57E-07 -2.82E-07<br />

Potassium chloride, as K2O, at regional storehouse kg -0.038 -1.57E-03 -1.76E-06 -4.79E-09 -2.79E-08 -2.16E-07 -6.42E-08<br />

Lead, at regional storage kg -0.056 -5.45E-02 -8.34E-06 -5.05E-07 -5.60E-07 -3.79E-05 -3.10E-06<br />

Dolomite, at plant kg -0.035 -3.02E-03 -9.14E-08 -2.26E-10 -1.06E-09 -8.30E-09 -2.04E-09<br />

Potassium nitrate, as N, at regional storehouse kg -0.011 -5.92E-03 -1.16E-05 -9.32E-09 -2.72E-07 -4.15E-07 -2.10E-07<br />

Sodium Antimonate kg -0.002 <br />

Barium Carbonate kg -0.047 <br />

Strontium Carbonate kg -0.044 <br />

Limestone, milled, loose, at plant kg -0.0052 -8.32E-06 -6.66E-09 -1.33E-10 -1.66E-10 -5.30E-09 -1.68E-10<br />

Zirconium Silicate kg -0.0072 <br />

Titanium dioxide, production mix, at plant kg -0.0011 -4.16E-04 -4.69E-07 -8.66E-10 -8.04E-09 -3.09E-08 -1.36E-08<br />

Ceroxide kg -0.0008 <br />

Zinc for coating, at regional storage kg -0.00032 -2.70E-04 -7.68E-08 -2.60E-09 -2.98E-09 -3.42E-07 -3.20E-08<br />

TOTAL -4.24E-02 -3.05E-06 -4.61E-07 2.41E-07 -3.44E-05 -2.96E-06<br />

Szenario 5 - lead recovery<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, Cape Town to harbour tkm 0.03 4.89E-04 4.92E-07 1.99E-09 1.73E-08 1.97E-07 2.00E-08<br />

Transport, transoceanic freight ship, Cape Town to Antwerp tkm 11.423 1.46E-02 1.20E-05 2.28E-08 8.13E-07 8.41E-07 2.57E-07<br />

Transport, lorry 32t, Antwerp to Metallo tkm 0.1 1.63E-03 1.64E-06 6.64E-09 5.77E-08 6.56E-07 6.68E-08<br />

Silica sand, at plant kg -0.5 -6.75E-04 -1.04E-06 -2.61E-09 -1.01E-08 -1.45E-07 -1.35E-08<br />

Natural gas, burned in industrial furnace >100kW MJ -0.129 -5.59E-04 -8.49E-07 -3.70E-10 -2.53E-09 -1.11E-08 -1.91E-09<br />

Oxygen, liquid, at plant kg -0.011 -1.67E-04 -4.04E-07 -7.78E-10 -4.15E-09 -2.12E-08 -8.77E-09<br />

Lead, at regional storage kg -0.056 -5.45E-02 -8.34E-06 -5.05E-07 -5.60E-07 -3.79E-05 -3.10E-06<br />

Disposal, Pb-free CRT slag, to residual material landfill kg 0.95174 1.11E-03 2.85E-07 6.34E-06 1.21E-08 1.63E-08 2.64E-04<br />

TOTAL -3.81E-02 3.78E-06 5.86E-06 3.23E-07 -3.64E-05 2.61E-04<br />

total<br />

climate<br />

change<br />

aquatic<br />

ecotoxicity<br />

terrestrial<br />

ecotoxicity<br />

human toxicity<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 115 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 15: MAUT; questionnaire for the weighting of attributes carried out at the regional workshop<br />

at UCT in July 2006<br />

WEIGHING OF CRITERIA<br />

Imagine a new process for the recycling of Cape Town’s CRT screens would become available. Several<br />

technologies and processes could be considered for the preferred and most viable recycling process. Below are<br />

the main criteria listed which would have to be considered for the evaluation process in order to assess the<br />

suitability and sustainability of any proposed recycling method.<br />

How important are for you the consideration of:<br />

weights<br />

criteria<br />

no<br />

importance<br />

little<br />

importance<br />

medium<br />

importance<br />

high<br />

importance<br />

very high<br />

importance<br />

Economic criteria<br />

high profit<br />

low operating costs<br />

low capital costs<br />

increased potential for local<br />

economic growth<br />

Environmental criteria<br />

low use of process energy<br />

(electricity, fuel, gas, ect.)<br />

low fuel use for transportation<br />

low use of freshwater<br />

little emissions<br />

minimum of waste volume to<br />

landfill<br />

low toxicity of remaining waste<br />

Social criteria<br />

creation of highly skilled jobs in<br />

CTN<br />

creation of jobs for the<br />

previously unemployed in CTN<br />

creation of jobs outside SA<br />

low health & safety impacts<br />

To which group of stakeholders does your company/organization belong to<br />

Supplier of IT equipment<br />

Government<br />

Environmental NGO<br />

Consumer<br />

Refurbisher<br />

Scientists / consultants<br />

Smelters / Refiners / Industry<br />

Other group: _______________________<br />

Date: _____________ Name: ___________________________<br />

Email: _____________________ Phone: __________________<br />

Position: _________________________<br />

Mobile phone: ___________________<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 116 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 16: Results of the weighting of the attributes carried out at the regional e-waste workshop at UCT in July 2006<br />

Attributes<br />

Average<br />

Consultant<br />

Consulting Engineer<br />

Scientist<br />

Scientist<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> Management<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> Management<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> Management<br />

<strong>Waste</strong> Managment<br />

Supplier<br />

technician Holland<br />

ICT Engineer Holland<br />

System Specialist Holland<br />

Government<br />

Government<br />

Government<br />

Environmental NGO<br />

Environmental NGO<br />

Environmental NGO<br />

Smelter<br />

Economic 2.71 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 1 2 2<br />

High profit 2.06 2 2 4 3 2 4 2 2 4 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2<br />

Low operational costs for processing 2.94 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 1 2 1 4 4 3 3 3 2<br />

Low capital costs 2.47 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 4 3 3 2 2<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth 3.00 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 4 1 0 2 3 4 3 4 3 3<br />

Environmental 3.40 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3<br />

Low use of electricity 3.06 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 3<br />

Low fuel use for transport 3.24 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3<br />

Low use of freshwater 3.18 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3<br />

Little toxic emissions 3.25 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 4<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill 3.47 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 2 4<br />

Low toxicity of waste to landfill 3.47 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 4<br />

Social 3.30 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3<br />

Creation of highly skilled jobs in Cape Town 2.22 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 4 1 3 3 0 1 2 2 1 2 2<br />

Creation of jobs for the previously unemployed in Cape Town 3.22 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 0 4 4 3 4 3 3<br />

Creation of jobs outside SA 1.50 1 2 2 1 0 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 1<br />

Low health & safety impacts 3.22 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 4 3 4 1 4 4 3 4 4 3<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 117 October 2006


Appendix 17: Offer for the shipping of a 40 feet container from Kuehne + Nagel, Cape Town.<br />

APPENDICES<br />

P.O. BOX 4119, CAPE TOWN, 8000<br />

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA<br />

Tel: +27 21 386 2677 Date Validity Prime Quotation References<br />

Fax: +27 21 386 2765 11/09/06 30 Days 11.5 QKF-609.012<br />

FCL EXPORT COST ESTIMATE<br />

TO:<br />

ATTENTION:<br />

Dominik Zumbuhl<br />

FROM: Karen Faragher DATE:<br />

11/09/2006<br />

ORIGIN: Exw Wynberg DESTINATION:<br />

CFR Antwerp ( = Hamburg)<br />

COMMODITY: Glass Cullets RATE OF EXCHANGE : USD 7.61<br />

NO. OF PKGS: 40'GP<br />

RATE OF EXCHANGE :<br />

WEIGHT: Tons 23.500 kg<br />

VALUE : $<br />

CUBES VALUE : ZAR<br />

R50 000<br />

SHIPPING MODE Seafreight MEASUREMENT<br />

Unknown<br />

ROUTING<br />

TARIFF HEADING<br />

EXPORT CHARGES<br />

Cartage from Wynberg to Cape Town Port<br />

1'260.00 1.00 1.00 1'260.00<br />

Carrier Merchant Haulage Fee<br />

407.00 1.00 1.00 407.00<br />

Terminal Handling Charge<br />

1'109.00 1.00 1.00 1'109.00<br />

Cargo Dues<br />

1'599.39 1.00 1.00 1'599.39<br />

Bill of Lading<br />

185.00 1.00 1.00 185.00<br />

Courier Fees (per mailbag) 350.00 1.00 1.00 350.00<br />

CTO Fee<br />

Oceanfreight Cape Town to Antwerp<br />

BAF<br />

110.00 1.00 1.00 110.00<br />

2'300.00 7.61 1.00 17'503.00<br />

402.00 7.61 1.00 3'059.22<br />

CAPE TOWN (SUB-TOTAL)<br />

25'582.61<br />

DESTINATION CHARGES<br />

DESTINATION CHARGES (SUB TOTAL)<br />

25'582.61<br />

Documentation<br />

400.00 1.00 400.00<br />

Communication 75.00 1.00 75.00<br />

Agency Fee-4% (Min: R 750-00)<br />

0.04 25'582.61 1.00 750.00<br />

Facility Fee (Prime + 3%)<br />

14.50 25'582.61 1.00 463.68<br />

Insurance: Not Quoted<br />

DELIVERED TOTAL<br />

27'271.29<br />

Account facility is available if required, additional finance fee will be charged on 30 days<br />

Payment can be affected on call, weekly or fortnightly if you wish to reduce finance charge.<br />

Estimates are based on specifications, dates and values etc., as submitted by clients and are calculated using current tariffs<br />

and charges as per third party's notification.. Fees are based on the official tariff. We shall be entitled to revise the Estimate<br />

should changes occur in specifications, rates, values, current exchange rates, sub-contractors and third party charges or any<br />

other charges applicable to the handling of goods at time of shipment , with or without prior notice.<br />

All Estimates submitted are subject to our Standard Trading Conditions, a copy of which is available on application.<br />

Please confirm rates prior to shipment, estimate valid for 30 days only. If you are shipping any goods based on this estimate,<br />

please forward a copy of this estimate with your shipping instructions.<br />

Thank you for your attention.<br />

KUEHNE & NAGEL (PTY) LTD<br />

Karen Faragher Cpt VMS<br />

Sales Assistant<br />

Transport costs for a 40 feet container<br />

Kuehne & Nagel Switzerland<br />

Metallo-Chimique<br />

Hamburg to Samsung Corning € US $ Antwerp to Metallo-Chimique € US $<br />

transport 700 899.29<br />

MAUT (german road levy) 92 118.19<br />

custom 70 89.92<br />

total 862 1107 total 270 346<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 118 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 18: MAUT attribute vs. scenario matrix. The weights, the scales, the values of the attributes and the normalized and weighted utilities<br />

weighing<br />

Scenario 0 Scenario 1<br />

g<br />

storage in the "Black Mountain" use in concrete rubble<br />

landfilling with trailer in the CMA lead mine in the Northern Cape production in CMA<br />

Scenario 2 Scenario g 3 Scenario 3a<br />

use in recycling (RCA)<br />

concrete bricks<br />

blending with raw materials to<br />

use in concrete bricks<br />

Scenario g 3b with crusher Scenario p p 4 g<br />

Sceanrio 5<br />

use in recycling concrete CPT, CRT manufacturing in<br />

bricks with previous crushing of Germany<br />

lead recovery in Belgium<br />

Criteria<br />

weight stakeholders<br />

weight normalized<br />

Scale / unit<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

value<br />

utility normalized<br />

utility weighted<br />

Low net costs 2.94 0.08 $ / kg CRT 0.0444 0.87 0.074 0.0172 1.00 0.084 0.0362 0.91 0.077 0.0362 0.91 0.077 0.0362 0.91 0.077 0.0369 0.91 0.077 0.1341 0.45 0.038 0.2315 0.00 0.000<br />

Investment costs 2.47 0.07 $ 0 1.00 0.071 0 1.00 0.071 0 1.00 0.071 0 1.00 0.071 0 1.00 0.071 450000 0.65 0.046 1284700 0.00 0.000 0 1.00 0.071<br />

Increased potential for local economic<br />

growth<br />

3.00 0.09<br />

0, 0.25 0.5 , 0.75,<br />

1<br />

0.00 0.00 0.000 0.25 0.25 0.022 0.50 0.50 0.043 0.50 0.50 0.043 0.50 0.50 0.043 0.75 0.75 0.065 1.00 1.00 0.086 0.00 0.00 0.000<br />

Economic utility 8.41 0.24 1.87 0.145 2.25 0.177 2.41 0.191 2.41 0.191 2.41 0.191 2.31 0.188 1.45 0.125 1.00 0.071<br />

Low use of electricity 3.06 0.09<br />

Low fuel use for transport 3.24 0.09<br />

Low use of freshwater 3.18 0.09<br />

eco - indicator 99 0.0064 0.20 0.072 0.0184 0.00 0.000<br />

-0.0035<br />

0.36 0.132<br />

-0.0049<br />

0.38 0.140<br />

0.0003<br />

0.30<br />

0.109<br />

-0.0048 0.38 0.140 -0.0424 1.00 0.366 -0.0381 0.93 0.340<br />

Little toxic emissions 3.25 0.09<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill 3.47 0.10 kg/ kg CRT 1 0 0.000 0 1 0.100 0 1 0.100 0 1 0.100 0 1 0.100 0 1 0.100 0.005 0.995 0.099 0 1 0.100<br />

Environmental utility 16.19 0.47 0.20 0.072 1.00 0.100 1.36 0.232 1.38 0.240 1.30 0.209 1.38 0.240 2.00 0.465 1.93 0.440<br />

Working hours for low-skilled / semiskilled<br />

in the CMA<br />

3.22 0.09 hours / kg CRT 0.0030 1.00 0.093 0.0004 0.09 0.008 0.0003 0.03 0.003 0.0003 0.03 0.003 0.0003 0.03 0.003 0.0006 0.14 0.013 0.0018 0.57 0.052 0.0002 0.00 0.000<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the<br />

CMA<br />

2.22 0.06 hours / kg CRT 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0001 0.14 0.009 0.0001 0.14 0.009 0.0001 0.14 0.009 0.0001 0.14 0.009 0.0006 1.00 0.064 0.0000 0.00 0.000<br />

Working hours outside South Africa 1.50 0.04 hours / kg CRT 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0003 1.00 0.043 0.0001 0.36 0.016<br />

Low health and safety impacts 3.22 0.09<br />

0, 0.25 0.5 , 0.75,<br />

1<br />

0.50 0.50 0.046 0.50 0.50 0.046 0.75 0.25 0.023 0.75 0.25 0.023 0.75 0.25 0.023 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.50 0.50 0.046 0.25 0.75 0.070<br />

Social utility 10.17 0.29 1.50 0.139 0.59 0.054 0.42 0.035 0.42 0.035 0.42 0.035 0.29 0.022 3.07 0.206 1.11 0.085<br />

TOTAL weights 34.77 1.00<br />

Total utility unweighed 3.570 3.837 4.192 4.215 4.130 3.977 6.516 4.042<br />

Total utility unweighed, normalized 0.548 0.589 0.643 0.647 0.634 0.610 1.000 0.620<br />

Total utility weighed 0.36 0.33 0.46 0.47 0.43 0.45 0.80 0.60<br />

upper and lower error<br />

Total utility weighed & normalized 0.45 0.42 0.58 0.59 0.55 0.57 1.00 0.75<br />

Total utility unweighted 3.57 3.84 4.19 4.21 4.13 3.98 6.52 4.04<br />

Upper and lower error unweighted<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 119 October 2006


APPENDICES<br />

Appendix 19: MAUT values unweighted and weighted used in Figure 32. Also the lower and upper error margin used for the error bars are shown<br />

S0<br />

Landfill<br />

S1<br />

Lead mine<br />

S2<br />

Concrete<br />

Rubble<br />

S3<br />

RCA brick<br />

S3a<br />

Concrete brick<br />

MAUT values normalized and unweighted<br />

S3b<br />

Brick with<br />

crusher<br />

S4<br />

CRT manuf.<br />

S5<br />

Lead recovery<br />

Low net costs 0.873 1.000 0.911 0.911 0.911 0.908 0.455 0.000<br />

Investment costs 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.650 0.000 1.000<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.750 1.000 0.000<br />

economic utility 1.873 2.250 2.411 2.411 2.411 2.308 1.455 1.000<br />

High eco-indicator 99 0.197 0.000 0.360 0.383 0.298 0.382 1.000 0.929<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.995 1.000<br />

Environmental utility 0.197 1.000 1.360 1.383 1.298 1.382 1.995 1.929<br />

W orking hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA 1.000 0.087 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.145 0.566 0.000<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA 0.000 0.000 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 1.000 0.000<br />

Working hours outside South Africa 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.363<br />

Low health and safety impacts 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.500 0.750<br />

Social utility 1.500 0.587 0.420 0.420 0.420 0.286 3.066 1.113<br />

Total utility unweighted 3.570 3.837 4.192 4.215 4.130 3.977 6.516 4.042<br />

Total utility unweighted, normalized 0.548 0.589 0.643 0.647 0.634 0.610 1.000 0.620<br />

unweighted error, upper error 0.705 0.386 0.266 0.417 0.457 0.621 1.527 0.703<br />

unweighted error, lower error 0.535 0.192 0.089 0.240 0.280 0.211 1.439 0.703<br />

MAUT values normalized and weighted<br />

Low net costs 0.074 0.084 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.038 0.000<br />

Investment costs 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.046 0.000 0.071<br />

Increased potential for local economic growth 0.000 0.022 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.065 0.086 0.000<br />

economic utility 0.145 0.177 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.188 0.125 0.071<br />

High eco-indicator 99 0.072 0.000 0.132 0.140 0.109 0.140 0.366 0.340<br />

Minimum of waste volume to landfill 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.099 0.100<br />

Environmental utility 0.072 0.100 0.232 0.240 0.209 0.240 0.465 0.440<br />

W orking hours for low-skilled / semi-skilled in the CMA 0.093 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.013 0.052 0.000<br />

Working hours for hihgly skilled in the CMA 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.064 0.000<br />

Working hours outside South Africa 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.016<br />

Low health and safety impacts 0.046 0.046 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.046 0.070<br />

Social utility 0.139 0.054 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.022 0.206 0.085<br />

Total utility weighted 0.356 0.331 0.458 0.466 0.435 0.450 0.796 0.596<br />

Total utility weighted, normalized 0.447 0.416 0.575 0.586 0.547 0.565 1.000 0.749<br />

weighted error upper error 0.057 0.034 0.067 0.052 0.067 0.068 0.173 0.117<br />

weighted error lower error 0.043 0.018 0.052 0.037 0.052 0.037 0.166 0.117<br />

Dominik Zumbuehl 120 October 2006

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!