UKCRA Response

to the UK Government Discussion Paper

of 28 March 2003

on the implementation of the

WEEE and RoHS Directives

in the UK

30 May 2003

INTRODUCTION

With this Paper, UKCRA responds to the Government Discussion Paper of 28 March 2003 on the implementation of the WEEE and Rohs directive in the UK (=hereafter DP).

As only a part of the DP is of relevance to us, we limit our response to those issues that concern us.

This reply is only our first initial comments, we may want to come back to you on these and other issues in future.

Contents

Remanufacturers and the WEEE Directive

Replies to Questions set by the Directive

Background - Toner Cartridges and UKCRA- UK Cartridge Remanfacturers Association

Toner Cartridges, the Environmental Protection Act, Duty of Care and Recycling

Conclusions

Remanufacturers and the WEEE Directive

This industry with its benefits to the environment is under threat. Most toner cartridges are printer specific, and a substantial amount of printer manufacturers profits are concentrated on the revenues generated from replacement cartridges. As a result, the only competition to original printer supplies comes from the remanufacturing industry. (See UK Office of Fair Trading Report released by the Director General in November 2002).

Today, many new types of cartridge are being made with design features, embedded ‘chips’ or additions that either directly prevent reuse or make it uneconomic to remanufacture, reduce the window of opportunity for remanufacturers. These devices are not necessary for the normal functioning of the cartridge. They have no other role than to force consumers to buy only a new cartridge from the original brand, depriving him from a cheaper, more environmental-friendly alternative.

In addition, the introduction of prebate schemes, where a cartridge producer offers a discount on condition that the cartridge is returned only to the manufacturer for recycling (crushing), thus denying it to the remanufacturer for reuse.

These ever-increasing anti-remanufacturing devices and strategies are contrary to a policy of sustainable development.

Recognising this threat to our industry and the need for forcing reuse, in early 2002, the European remanufacturing industry, with the assistance of Mr. Chris Davies, MEP, achieved a landmark decision for our industry in the passing of Article 4 in the WEEE Directive. This Article was specifically aimed at legislating against the use of such anti-reuse devices, and the environmentally unfriendly behaviour of the original printer and cartridge producers.

When made aware of the remanufacturing industry and its benefits not only to the environment but also the issues surrounding it, MEPs produced one of the most extraordinary votes seen on such an amendment, passing it by 579 votes to 9.

As you know, the changes made to Article 4 during the EU Conciliation Procedure in November 2002 were intended to specifically cover toner and inkjet printer cartridges.

The Discussion Paper: Paragraphs 11 and 16 of the DP (pages 22-23)

UKCRA replies to Q5 and Q6

The "Whereas"-provisions of the adopted WEEE Directive stipulate:

"Where appropriate, priority should be given to the reuse of WEEE and its components, subassemblies and consumables"

Imagine our surprise on reading the DP, stating that "Article 4 does not relate to consumables".

As laser and inkjet cartridges are universally referred to as consumables, unless you have a different definition, this would remove them from the scope of the Directive under your current wording.

Below we underline the reasons why we consider this DP comment on art 4 too strict. Essentially there are 3 separate arguments for the inclusion of laser and inkjet cartridges under article 4.

First that certain consumables, notably those that are part of WEEE at the time of discarding, do fall within the range of the Directive.

Secondly that such cartridges can be defined as EEE in their own right.

And third that the Directive also defines toner cartridges as components that do fall within the range of the Directive:

1 Cartridges may be defined as consumables, but are not consumables like videotapes or computer disks

Article 3 of the WEEE Directive:

"(b) ‘waste electrical and electronic equipment’ or ‘WEEE’ means electrical or electronic equipment which is waste within the meaning of the Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC, including all components, sub-assemblies and consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding".

Under the definition of Article 3(b), consumables are specifically mentioned as falling under the Directive. This definition does not apply to all consumables, only those "which are part of the product at the time of discarding".

But if a cartridge, that is part of the printer at the time of discarding, has a design feature preventing its re-use (re. art 4), that design feature also falls under article 3 (b), and thus is defined as WEEE. How then can the identical design feature present in an identical cartridge that just happens not to be present at the time of discarding, all of a sudden not fall under art. 3 (b)? The distinction between the two is impossible to make in practice or logic.

Concretely: this cannot mean anything other than that art. 4, taken together with art. 3 (b), forces manufacturers to design re-usable cartridges only, irrespective of the question whether/when they are discarded.

We have no argument with storage media such as video cassettes or CDs, or non electrical/electronic consumables such as paper being exempt.

However, printer inkjet and toner cartridges, as electronic devices, meet the definitions of both 3(a) and (b), and are therefore different consumables than video cassettes or computer disks. The latter have only 1 design (=industry agreed standard), for cartridges there are many hundred different types in the marketplace.

2 Cartridges are "EEE" on their own account

According to the Directive, the following definition applies:

Article 3

"(a) ‘electrical and electronic equipment, or EEE means equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electro-magnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields falling under the categories set out in Annex 1A and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 Volt…."),

Today, printer cartridges are not just simple plastic boxes filled with toner. The cartridges enclose electrical equipment. If the cartridges were not supplied with electricity, they would not print. Printer toner cartridges employ electricity and electromagnetic fields in a number of ways. The cartridge’s primary charge rollers (PCRs) create a voltage on an organophotoconductor (the OPC) as they roll over the surface of the OPC. The PCR has an applied voltage of approximately 800 volts AC and -750 volts DC, thus meeting article 3 (a) criteria. Developer sleeves, also known as mag rollers, charge toner particles electrostatically and move them from the hopper containing toner to the surface of the OPC. The developer sleeves also contain magnets to attract the toner particles to the surface of the sleeve, which results in the toner becoming electrostatically charged. The developer sleeves have voltages applied to them to create electromagnetic fields.

So, since they meet the requirements of Art3 (b), cartridges are EEE in their own right.

3 Toner cartridges may be classified as components

The wording of Annex II of the Directive -dealing with selective treatment of certain materials that must be removed from collected WEEE-, even mentions toner cartridges by name as components.

Excerpts from Annex II:

Selective treatment for materials and components of waste electrical and electronic equipment in accordance with Article 6(1)

1. As a minimum the following substances, preparations and components have to be removed from any separately collected WEEE:

- toner cartridges, liquid and pasty, as well as colour toner.

3. Taking into account environmental considerations and the desirability of reuse and recycling, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied in such a way that environmentally sound reuse and recycling of components or whole appliances is not hindered.

If toners were to be consumables, than the title would have included that word. Since it does not, toners must be components.

This specifically treats cartridges as components that are expected to be part of the printer when discarded. But again: as cartridges are not produced for the sole purpose of being thrown away with the printer, this must therefore apply to all cartridges used during the life of the printer.

The UK Government has several ways to ensure that cartridges are covered under the national law implementing the WEEE. The EU’s TAC Committee has agreed that a set of criteria be developed to determine which products should be included and which not. (Meeting EU’s TAC committee on WEEE of 7 May 2003). This will provide the flexibility needed to include cartridges.

Whatever definition is used: para.3 clearly means that re-use of components like cartridges may not be hindered. Clever chips are therefore to be outlawed.

UKCRA replies to Q8 through Q12

To answer the questions posed in the Discussion Paper relating to implementing Article 4, our comments are as follows:

It is impractical for a government department to be able to oversee and inspect all designs prior to production. However, a semi-independent board, able to react to appeals from interested parties, be they environmental groups, consumer groups or industry associations or individual companies, backed by strong legislative powers, with the ability to discourage, or to halt production of an offending product, and to fine and award damages, would appear to fit the bill.

This assumes that all designs will be at least available to interested parties prior to production. The use of legislation and the ability to offer redress is essential to concentrate the mind of those producers who might otherwise offend, with relative impunity, if this were only a voluntary agreement. Given the fact that most EEE goes through a 3-year R&D process prior to a product life of 2-5 years, changes in practise need to come into effect now to ensure compliance when the Directive comes into force.

In addition this board should be able to offer guidelines, again after consultation with interested parties, on specific issues, categories or sectors.

BACKGROUND

Toner Cartridges and UKCRA- UK Cartridge Remanufacturers Association

A toner cartridge can weigh as much as 6 kilos, and contain over 120 parts, mainly of plastics and metals, with the toner powder or ink being an important but minor component when viewing the cartridge as waste. A cartridge usually contains parts such as developer rollers, charge rollers, organically photo-conductive drums and many and varied electrically operated and electronically controlled components. Many inkjet cartridges also have sophisticated electrical circuitry.

The UK imports 10 million laser cartridges, and three times that number of inkjet cartridges every year. In 2003 the market in these products is expected to be worth over £1,500,000,000 (MPA Industry report). This is easily the largest market sector in the Electronic Office Supplies and Stationery market. When empty the majority of these cartridges go into general waste and end up in landfill.

This is the equivalent of over 20,000 tonnes of waste per year.

Whilst virtually all are suitable for reuse, currently the only significant dent made in reusing this incredible wastage of materials is provided by the independent remanufacturing industry.

Around 100 – 120 companies remanufacture for reuse laser and inkjet cartridges within the UK, an industry with a 14 year history and currently employing in excess of 2,000 people. In addition over 20 component manufacturers and suppliers support the industry or act as used cartridge brokers, again significantly swelling the numbers employed.

Every major charity and many individual groups in the UK are involved in collecting empty cartridges as a major and environmentally friendly method of raising funds. These include such names as ActionAid, Cancer Research UK, Scope, Save The Children and Oxfam.

The independent 2002 CAP Ventures report gives a figure for Western Europe of 25% of cartridges being reused, which means 35 – 40% of cartridges are being collected.

Total turnover of companies involved in remanufacturing in the UK is in excess of £150 million. This figure is based on known turnover of UKCRA member companies and suppliers, extrapolated to cover those known companies who are not members. At original product prices, this saves in excess of £200 million in imports each year.

For those cartridges our members collect but cannot reuse, UKCRA is involved in producing standards of best practice for recycling and disposal of the limited waste its members generate. This includes separate disposal of plastics, metals, card and other packaging materials, as well as the reuse of one major component of concern – toner, which now has a use as a component of masterbatch for the plastics industry. Such waste toner has to be free of contaminants and impurities, making it unsuitable for collection without careful dismantling of the cartridge – a process only undertaken by remanufacturers.

Apart from the obvious benefits of saving waste by reuse, each cartridge remanufactured is one less that has to be manufactured from non-renewable resources, one that does not use non renewable energy to import it, and creates many jobs in the UK – all this with no effort or expense on the part of government.

Many printer manufacturers claim to have recycling schemes in place, but getting information on the size of these schemes is very difficult, as is information on what is actually done with these cartridges. However, practical experience of UKCRA members contacting printer users would lead to an estimate of less than 10% of cartridges being collected for recycling rather than reuse.

Toner Cartridges, the Environmental Protection Act, Duty of Care and Recycling

There is currently considerable confusion or misunderstanding over the status of toner cartridges as waste. UKCRA are in continuing discussions with the Environment Agency regarding a national strategy for the treatment of empty cartridges. The outcome of this may decide the need for handlers of empty cartridges to hold a Waste Management License, carriers to be licensed, and a need for transfer notes for the collection of these cartridges, as they are now being listed under the category of controlled waste. UKCRA members will of course implement these steps, under the guidance of the EA, as soon as we have a decision on the way to proceed.

This system is already in force in some EU countries.

If all cartridges are now controlled waste and need to be handled as such, and can no longer be disposed of as ordinary commercial waste, there will be the need for a decision on who is going to pay for their collection and disposal?

If the cartridge is to be recycled (crushed) rather than reused, the cost of this is many times any potential income from any recycled plastics or metals etc contained in the cartridge. As this also means cartridges will no longer be able to be returned to the producer without their prior knowledge and agreement, a conservative estimate for the cost of paperwork, collection and handling alone could be around £7 per cartridge. At present I know of no site in the UK where cartridges are being recycled (crushed) and materials reclaimed, so there would be an additional cost in shipping this waste outside the UK for treatment.

The plastic that is reclaimed through recycling (crushing) is highly contaminated and therefore of a very low grade, not suitable for either the IT industry or food industry and will mainly be targeted for incineration or landfill.

Without our remanufacturing industry - that upholds the highest principle of conservation - either the printer user must pay for proper third party disposal, or if reclaimed by the producer, these costs must be reflected in the price of the product. Experience in other EU countries shows that if the user has printers from more than one producer, each producer in turn will need to be contacted for disposal.

The remanufacturing industry has already overcome these problems. It already accepts these costs as part of its business structure, and in many cases either pays for the empty cartridge or donates monies to charity for each one collected, while providing the user with a less expensive alternative

to the newly manufactured cartridge. We know of no other industry that offers such environmental advantages as well as monetary incentives for the consumer and such substantial charitable benefits.

There is no question that ensuring the existence of a strong remanufacturing industry has benefits beyond those of the usual reuse vs. recycle argument, and that a weakened remanufacturing industry can only have a negative environmental impact.

CONCLUSIONS

 As an Association and an industry, our members depend upon a strong and thriving market in new toner and inkjet cartridges to provide us with a source of materials and allow the reuse industry to continue to develop and grow. However these cartridges must be able to be reused without the hindrance of unfriendly anti-reuse design features, which was the purpose of the amendments to Article 4.

A market in original products alone, without the benefit of choosing a more environmental friendly alternative, would only benefit the printer manufacturers and their multi-national shareholders, whilst considerably worsening an already existing environmental problem.

If the Government proposal will not be adjusted, this will:

put over 2,000 people in the UK out of work

remove an inexpensive environmentally friendly option to the consumer

deal a heavy blow to the many charity organisations that depend on the revenue of reusable toner a and inkjet cartridges, generated from selling to the remanufacturers

It is each individual’s right to have the opportunity of consumer choice. To take away the alternative cheaper option to printer consumables, an industry that is worth in excess of £150 million annually, shows there is not only the need, but the desire for the reuse industry to continue.

Given the "David versus Goliath" nature of this confrontation, the only sure way to ensure a future for the remanufacturing industry is for strong legislation to be implemented.

The alternative is that a European Directive, designed to push for a cleaner environment, will do exactly the opposite.