a material recovery facility in cape town, south africa ... · mrf projects e&a educational...

A Material Recovery Facility in Cape Town, South Africa, as a replicable concept for sustainabl e e-waste management and recycling in developing countriesMathias Schluep, Susanne Dittke, Gerry Newson, Cissé Kane, Klaus Hieronymi

Project e-Waste Management in Africa

Study commissioned by:

© Empa/Switzerland, 29 September 2008 2

Key Stakeholders Involved

■ Funded by Hewlett Packard (HP) in partnership with the Global Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF) and the Swiss Institute for Materials Science & Technology (EMPA) for a total of $ 105 000, as part of the project e-Waste Management in Africa.

■ Run by Recover e Alliance (NPO) under direction by Gerry Newson.

■ Current Operati onal partners: ■ Wasteplan, Wasteman, Footprints, Salesians Institute.

■ Monitored and evaluated by EnviroSense CC by Susanne Dittke.

■ Supported by the e-Waste Association of South Africa (eWASA) and the Swiss e-Waste Programme (which is funded by SECO)


HP / DSF / Empa project e-Waste Management in Africa

■analysis of existing practices in Morocco, Kenya and Senegal (assessment studies)

■Pilot project in Cape Town / South Af rica with the aim to:

■ test the feasibility of an integrated value adding local e-Waste management system, designed to maximize the potential of refurbishment, repair, reuse, dismantling and recycling of equipment, with environmentally responsible disposal only as a last resort.

■ act as a nucleus, raising awareness, and providing training and education to previously disadvantaged individuals as a means of creating opportunities for entrepreneurship in the technical maintenance, dismantling and waste-to-art project sectors.

■ serve as a replicable concept for other initiatives in developingcountries.


Launch of the M aterial Recovery Facility (MRF) in Cape Town, South Africa in March 2008


Activities of the pilot plant

■ Collection & Sorting with partners

■ Testing, Repair & Refurbishment core business

■ Dismantling core business■ for external industrial recycling■ Stripping of equipment (mostl y PCs, printers,

monitors and domes tic electronics)■ Removal and temporary safe storage of CRT tubes■ Removal of labels and metals from plastic casings■ Removal of plugs and connectors from cables.

■ Waste to Art Development & Manufacturing core business

■ Educational & Awareness Activities with partners


Working Principles

■E-Waste is mainly generated as a by -product of the Repair and Refurbishment processes at the plant.

■Only once it is at the “point of no return ” is it considered to be e-waste.

■Through careful and selective processing, the resulting e -waste is easily manageable, with little or no hazardous risk at the plant.

■Manual separation, ensures that maximum volumes of materials/components are removed and/or recycled, lessening signif icantly the related waste endi ng up in landf ill if compared to an automated process.


Workforce size and experience

Number and types of units sold or

donated

Number and types of units

tested and refurbished

T&RTesting, Repair

& Refurbishment

Risk from Hazardous processes

Sources of manpower to

collect and sort

Total income and expenses

Weight of material

collected and sorted

C&S(Collection &

Sorting)

Location of Plant and risk factor in terms

of EH&S

Number and names of working partners

Facility set-up costsPhysical size of working area

General

KPI 4(EH&S)

KPI 3(Social)

KPI 2 (Economical)

KPI 1(Volumes)

Activity Area

Key Performance Indicators for Project Evaluation


No of people receiving EH&S

induction training

Qty of people receiving

training & skills transfer

Income from training given to staff of satellite MRF projects

E&AEducational &

Awareness Activities

Awareness of handling

potentially hazardous materials

Total amount of people

empowered by W2A

Income generated from sale of

manufactured products

Qty and types of e-waste used for

art

W2AWaste to Art

Development & Manufacturing

Type, Qty, Weight and handling of separated hazardous fractions

Workforce size and ability

Income from components &

materials

Number and types of units dismantled

D

Dismantling

KPI 4(EH&S)

KPI 3(Social)

KPI 2 (Economical)

KPI 1(Volumes)

Activity Area

Key Performance Indicators for Project Evaluation


Operational Space Sizes

■Envisaged capacity: up to 150 tons/year with max 20 people.

■Reflecting the current need, the available total of 335 m2 is allocated as follows:

■ Testing, Repair & Refurbishment (IT) 90 m2■ Testing, Repair & Refurbishment (TV, domestic appl.) 20 m2■ Dismantling (equipment) 80 m2■ Dismantling (sub assembly) 20 m2■ Waste to Art Development & Manufacturing 40 m2 ■ Storage: 15 m2 (container) + 20 m2(external storage) 35 m2■ Communal & Meeting Areas 50 m2


Total Number of People Emplo yed Per Work Unit

■ Testing, Repair & Refurbishment (IT) 2■ Testing, Repair & Refurbishment (TV, domesti c appl.) 2■ Dismantling (equipment) 5■ Dismantling (sub assembly) 1■ Waste to Art Development & Manufac turing 3 ■ Project and Marketing Management 2■ Daily operations co-ordination 1

■ TOTAL: 16

■ The number of people engaged at present is adequate for the efficient operation of the facility.

■ Within the available space, the number of staff could possibly increase by a further 50% to total of 24


Testing, Repair & Refurbishment


Major equipment receiv ed and processed March –September 2008

Desktop computersCRT monitorsKeyboardsMousePrintersLaptop PCsTelephonesFaxes & CopiersPower SuppliesHubs, Switches and RoutersScannersVCR/DVD unitsDstv receiversCRT televisions


Examples of Equipment Suitable for Refurbishment, Repair and Reuse

PCs 37 from 676 5%Keyboards 50 from 603 8%Monitors 64 from 1096 6%Printers 18 from 380 5%Copiers & Faxes 2 from 71 3%Notebooks 4 from 31 13%


Basic Financial Evaluation of Testing, Repair & Refurbishment Activities

■ The value of Refurbished IT related equipment sourced through normal drop off and collection programs and currently in stock for reuse, by sale or donation, is estimated to be in excess of US$ 8000.

■ PCs & Workstations from equipment reserved by clients for donation, has a current stock value estimated to be US$ 10 00.

■ Stocks of TVs and other domestic appliances that are currently being serviced, are expected to provide US$ 600 of additional income.

■ TOTAL STOCK VALUE OF EQUIPMENT FOR RE-USE: > US$ 10000


Dismantling


Types of Components & Materials Recovered

■ Traditionally, the main components & materials recovered within the facility (regardless of the incoming mix received) include:

■ Light steel■ Aluminium■ Copper■ Light cables and wiring■ Cable connectors■ Medium and low grade electronic circuit boards■ Styrene based plastics ■ Lead Acid batteries + numerous other smaller batteries■ CRT monitor and TV Tubes

■ NOTE: CRTs, TV tubes are disposed of at the Vissershok (Cape Town) hazardous landfill together with a few smaller items. Everything else can be recycled further downstream, including lead acid batteries.


Volumes of Materials & Components Recove red

■ Since March 2008, the amounts separated and recycled have been:

■ Light steel tons 2,2 @ US$ 4000 ■ Aluminium tons 0,5 @ US$ 750■ Copper tons 0,3 @ US$ 2000■ Light cables and wiring tons 0,8 @ US$ 750■ Medium &low grade electronics tons 2,1 @ US$ 2500■ Styrene based plastics tons 5,9 @ US$ 900■ Lead Acid batteries tons 0,7 @ US$ 200

TOTAL: tons 32,4 @ US$ 11000

■ Special batteries & components (Under evaluation for disposal solution) Kg 1000■ Sub Assemblies materials (In stock for “Waste to Art” applications) Kg 2000■ CRTs and LCD displays disposed off as Haz. waste Kg 7000■ Non-haz. materials & residues constituting general waste Kg <1000


Recovery Efficiency - Recycling vs. Disposal

Total Separated e -Waste 43 tons(Excluding working equipment sold,donated or sti ll in stock)

Recovered for Recycli ng/W2A: 34 tonsRecovered for Safe Di sposal: < 9 tons

Recovering for Recycling Efficiency: > 79%


Basic Financial Evaluation of Dismantling Activity

■ Total “Recovery Value from Recycling”■ (March-Sept 08) : > US$ 11 000

■ Total “Recovery for Safe Disposal” Costs:■Hazardous Waste: < US$ 800■General Waste: < US$ 100


Waste to Art Product Development & M anufacturing


Key Statistics

■Manufacturing and Marketing of Waste2Art actively started in Aug 2008

■Sales value to date : US$ 2 000 ■Stock value ready for sale: US$ 3 000■Value of current production line: US$ 2 000

■TOTAL VALUE GENERAT ED: US$ 7 000


Marketing of Recover -e-Alliance and its Activities

■ Registered as an NPO and a member of eWASA, ITA and the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce.

■ Own website marketing activities and products on http://www.ewastealliance.co.za

■ Regular advertising of services via:■ Selective mail-shots, ■ advertorials and the Chamber news letter, ■ on radio (e.g. Cape Talk 567), and■ by inclusion in the DEADP Recycled Products Catalogue

■ Manned displays at exhibitions, showing ranges of clocks and jewellerymanufactured at the Maitland plant and by independent Alliance partners.


SWOT Analysis Results:STRENGTHS

■None of the recovery or dismantling processes undertaken, involve physical shredding or processing of material in a manner that would create dust or residue that would be hazardous to health or the environment.

■ Increasing interest f rom corporate users to make use of the project, to test & ref urbish equipment on their behal f, which can then be donated to charitable organizatio ns in their own name.

■As an NPO there is greater opportunity to attract better quality equipment from corporate users, who in turn, may possibly benef it from the additional CSI opportunity.


SWOT Analysis Results:WEAKNESSES

■Quality of the equipment received can be poor, but is improving.

■ Incoming mix changes regularl y making long-term operational planning very diff icult.

■Our 3 MRF processes can be replicated in any area, but it is not always practical to include Corporate ref urbishment programs or large scale manufacturing of W2A.

■Maitland MRF is not ideal for the promotion of Waste2Art products. New methods of promotion are being investi gated including Internet and T ourist Markets.

■Suitably enclosed transport for bulk pick -ups from businesses, is not always readil y available.


SWOT Analysis Results:OPPORTUNITIES

■ Material available for sale or donation is now increasing as a result of improving quality of incoming equipment.

■ It is estimated that the current processing volumes can increase by up to 30% with no increase in personnel, and by 60% within the existing available space.

■ Long term plans of Recover e Alliance include the establishment of a separate centre that focuses on “donation” projects.

■ To man additional facilities, additional technical staff will be required. Training courses are being identified, and the establishment of a separate Fund for this further education process is being considered.


SWOT Analysis Results:THREATS

■Confusion about possible Government regulations (e.g. EIA requirement ?) for initi atives that focus on any aspect of e -waste management.

■Management of e -waste in facilities like ours may be illegal by virtue of their potential exposure to hazardous content. (This would however a lso include all traditional Computer, TV and Electrical repair shops).

■Not replicable as a blueprint unless the process itsel f is acknowledged to qualify f or exemption f rom EIA reqmnt.

■Lack of availabilit y of stock for W2A initiatives to produce long runs (e.g. 100 similar pieces). As a result, products are often unique, and as a result, quite expensive to purchase.

■Function recovery is in creasingly sacrificed for material recovery from automated e -waste processing f acilities.


Key Recommendations to identify suitable Drop-off Facilities

■ For INDUSTRY/COMMERCE - secure drop-off points capable of handling small numbers of large volumes.

■ SOLUTION: Partner wi th waste management c ompanies, offering the e-Waste collection facility as part of their existing service contract to corporate clients.

■ For the PUBLIC - “public friendly” drop offs that can handle large numbers of small volumes.

■ SOLUTION: To increase the number of suitable public drop offs by making facilities available at shopping malls and retail outlets is currently being discussed.

■ For SMALL BUSINESSES - ideal set-ups still need to be explored.


Using the MRF Cape Town as a replicable concept for developing countries: Preliminary conclusion

■ Sustainable “first level” e-waste recycling businesses can be small and decentralized

■ Operations should concentrate on non-hazardous activities■ However the output of dismantling produces hazardous fractions, which

need special disposal solutions■ Collection is the key for a sustainable operation■ Value added services, such as Testing, Repair & Refurbishment and

Waste to Art allow for cross-subsidizing non-viable operations (e.g. secure disposal of CRTs) – especially in the absence of recycling fees

■ Low wages allow for high level manual dismantling■ Downstream partners are crucial for generating income through material

recovery■ …■ A comprehensive report is expected by the end of 2008


Acknowledgements

■HP: Klaus Hieronymi, Jeannette Weisschuh, Katarina Molin

■DSF: Cissé Kane

■Empa: Rolf Widmer, David Rochat

■Recover-e-Alliance: Gerry Newson

■eWASA: Keith Anderson, Lene Ecroignard

■SECO: Hans-Peter Egler, Stefan Denzler


And all the amazing staff at our M RF that make it happen…..


Thank you for your attention

“Beach stroll in the computer age”

For more information check the e-Waste Guide:

ewasteguide.info

Contact:Dr. Mathias [email protected]

a material recovery facility in cape town, south africa ... · mrf projects e&a educational...

Documents