Cost impact of WEEE evidence trading
Project Report for Hewlett Packard by 360 Environmental
1. Executive summary
a. The current UK WEEE market works within a system of opaqueness whereby those that pay the
price of compliance generally have very little idea of the actual costs, the infrastructure involved
and the margins that are extracted by that infrastructure.
b. This paper has analysed that market based on information supplied by a range of participants, most
of who contributed on the basis of commercial confidentiality.
c. The paper has looked initially at the impact of ‘ransom’ price profiteering in 2007 and then at the
cost to producers of the current evidence system.
d. The key findings are that:
i.
Whilst excessive ‘ransom’ pricing is seen as the primary cost issue, of much greater
significance for producers has been the wider disconnect between the market for ‘evidence’
compared to the actual cost of collection, treatment and recycling of household WEEE.
ii.
Producers are paying a price for evidence that has remained relatively consistent over the
last three years despite increased collection and treatment efficiencies and rising
commodity values.
iii.
This price now relates primarily to perceived trading values rather than actual costs.
iv.
Commodity values and excess treatment capacity have driven down the cost of processing
WEEE over the last three years to a point where the net cost of collecting and treating WEEE
has become better than cost neutral.
v.
Producer Compliance Schemes (PCS) have increasingly moved towards dependence on the
collection point waste management operators to manage household WEEE at a fixed cost.
vi.
The benefit of reduced cost by waste management operators has not been passed back to
PCSs and producers.
vii.
Local Authorities generally now leave it to their DCF waste management operators to
manage their PCS contracts.
viii.
Current measures by the Environment Agency to tighten contractual trading positions
between PCSs are likely to inhibit sharp price increases for evidence, but are also likely to
protect the current high costs of evidence.
2. Glossary
a. PCS – Producer Compliance Scheme
b. DCF – Designated Collection Facility – UK infrastructure of free collection points for consumers,
usually Local Authority Civic Amenity Sites.
c. AATF – Approved Authorised Treatment Facility
d. AE – Approved Exporter
e. LA – Local Authority
f. LDA – Large Domestic Appliances
g. GDL – Gas discharge lamps
3. Background
a. The implementation of the WEEE Directive in the UK in 2007 was achieved following extensive
debate between Government Departments and industry over the most cost effective way to
achieve the key requirements of the Directive:
 Adequate infrastructure of free disposal for end users
 Collection rate of at least 4kgs per head
1
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
 Financing of all collected household WEEE by producers
The system that emerged required producers to take responsibility for the financing of collection,
treatment and recycling of all household WEEE on a collective basis through a market share
approach.
This required producers to join PCSs which would be required to demonstrate that they had
evidence of their market share of collection and treatment of WEEE by contracting with Local
Authorities for the management of WEEE at DCFs. All household WEEE collected would require
evidence of treatment and recycling to be issued by AATFs.
The expectation was that PCSs would look after the interests of their members by taking physical
control over the collection of WEEE and driving down cost. However, by requiring all evidence to be
purchased and by enabling PCSs to take on more WEEE than they needed for their own obligations,
the Government opened up the potential for profiteering.
One scheme in particular, saw the opportunities for over-collection and entered into an agreement
with a large waste management operator to gain access to surplus evidence that could then be sold
at a price the was significantly above the cost of collection and treatment.
Although robustly challenged by other schemes, the legal requirements of the Regulations forced
acceptance of this position which has since led to the market price for evidence dictated by trading
values rather than actual cost.
A status quo has emerged that now sees the majority of evidence provided to PCSs though
arrangements agreed with the waste management companies that operate the DCFs. The price they
will charge for evidence tends to reflect the perception of the market position and the opportunity
to create margins rather than the reality of cost.
The UK system relies on last minute trading to balance obligations. The requirement to buy what is
available has led to instances of excessive profiteering for these final trades as the holders of ‘spare’
evidence know that someone somewhere has to purchase. An attempt by the UK Environment
Agency to control this profiteering through the need for pre-agreed contracts to cover surpluses
and shortfalls has helped to limit the ‘ransom’ extremes. But these measures do not apply any
controls to general pricing and the differentials between cost and price continue to flourish
4. Project aim
a. The purpose of this project was to estimate the cost impact on producers of the UK market share
mechanism and project this forward under a potential recast scenario.
5. UK WEEE evidence costs
a. The cost of evidence is made up of a number of elements:
 Haulage costs from DCFs to AATFs including the costs of containers
 AATF gate fees/value
 The perceived market price for evidence
b. The difference between the charge made to producers for evidence and the actual costs in
generating it is generally split between a number of participants:
 The waste management companies that operate collection facilities
 The PCSs
 The Local Authorities
 The AATFs
c. There appears to be little sign of a direct relationship between evidence costs and gate fees.
d. The graph below shows the change in the representative amount charged (or paid) by AATFs for
WEEE received over a weighbridge. These are known as the gate fees/values.
2
Fig.1 – Average payments or charges made by AATFs for WEEE
e. Haulage costs have stayed relatively stable over the period with increased fuel costs being offset by
increased efficiency.
Fig.2 – Average ‘value’ of WEEE to collectors taking account of AATF and transport charges
f.
The combination of gate fees/value and logistics costs are the net costs/values for those that collect
the WEEE at DCFs.
g. Therefore the cost of evidence should show similar decreases to the increased value/decreased
gate fees. Clearly, this has not occurred.
h. The graph below shows the cost comparison between these prices and the charges for evidence
where ‘nv’ is the net value or cost of the material taking into account collection costs and gate
fees/values.
3
Fig.3 – Showing the difference between the cost of generating evidence and the charge made for
evidence for each WEEE category/group.
i.
Overall, this produces a £/tonne differential as shown below.
Fig.4 – Value extracted by the disposal/compliance chain taking account of the costs and revenues
shown in Fig.3
6. Cost estimates for 2007
a. Taking the total tonnage of WEEE collected in 2007 from published EA data, a calculation has been
made of the total cost to industry for evidence based on average prices that were being charged by
PCSs based on their own costs and the cost of trading, but excluding the extreme costs.
b. A calculation has then been made applying the extreme costs at the time across the full tonnage.
c. It is estimated that ’ransom pricing’ might have accounted for 10% of the tonnage in 2007. A
calculation has therefore been applied assuming that 10% has been charged to producers at
extreme prices.
d. Appendix 1 shows the table of estimated costs derived from supplied data.
e. These indicate that for 2007, the following applies:
4




Average cost for collection and treatment across all categories - £73/tonne
Average cost for evidence at normal market rates - £118/tonne
Average cost for evidence at extreme prices - £182/tonne
Average cost for evidence assuming 10% at extreme prices - £136/tonne
7. Cost estimates for later years
a. The impact of extreme pricing was particularly felt in 2007 and 2008. In later years, the general
dynamics of the market have changed to the extent that they have less impact.
 There is less traded evidence with a higher proportion collected by those that need it.
 The requirement for contracted agreements between PCSs, whilst not generally being price
specific, has dampened excessive pricing.
 Those that initially imposed the extreme prices have been less aggressive in their attitude.
 More profit is probably being extracted at market prices for evidence.
b. However, it is clear that those with the highest surplus do still try and trade at prices approximately
25% higher than the normal market position. The prices below are known trading requests made by
one compliance PCS in 2011 for 2010 compliance.
LDA
Cooling
Displays
Mixed
Market price
£15
£140
£240
£135
PCS A
£20
£180
£300
£170
33.3%
28.6%
25.0%
25.9%
Increase
Fig.5 – Comparison of evidence pricing
c. The prices provided by producers have demonstrated that there has been little change in the
amount that PCSs charge their members.
d. As there is no market indicator mechanism, producers have no means of comparing their prices.
This is exacerbated by the different methods of charging - some PCS’s opt for a market share price
and others charge on the basis of EEE placed on the market. The range of prices provided by
producers on request indicates a general consistency of average price across the PCSs although with
some significant variation each year between the PCSs. The table below shows the range of prices
received.
2007
2008
2009
2010
Large Household Appliances
5-15
10-20
12
12-15
Small Household Appliances
115
140
122-157
120-133
IT and Telecoms Equipment
93-147
88
60-90
92-151
Consumer Equipment
73-140
102-132
70-186
61-124
123
110-151
Lighting Equipment
Electrical and Electronic Tools
Toys Leisure and Sports
Medical Devices
Monitoring and Control
153-183
152
160
143
86-151
95
95
95
95-180
111-216
110
Automatic Dispensers
Display Equipment
217
Cooling Appliances
119
225
Gas Discharge Lamps
225
225
103
179
2506
Fig.6 – Range of evidence prices charged by Compliance Schemes from producer survey
e. Trading between PCSs generally takes place at a perceived market level on the basis that whatever
the evidence has cost to produce, a PCS does not want to lose out on potential revenue by trading
5
at a lower price. Evidence has tended to be traded at the following prices across all the years that
the WEEE Regulations have been operating:
 LDA - £15-20
 Cooling - £140-180
 Mixed - £100-140
 Displays - £220-300
f. Reuse value has increased as a proportion of the extracted value since the Regulations began. A
value for £10/item has been included for cooling, LDA and displays with an overall value of
£300/tonne for small WEEE.
g. For 2010 collected volumes, this would suggest that, assuming the average gates fees/values and
transport costs shown in para 5e are applied across the UK – and there is no reason to believe that
these should not be the underlying positions – then a net margin of approximately £57m was
achieved as the sum of:
 Total value of evidence charges made to producers
 Total value paid by AATFs for household WEEE received (or gate fee charged)
 Total value paid for WEEE sent for reuse
 The cost of haulage from collection points to treatment and reuse facilities
Fig.7 – Estimated make up of revenues and costs for 2010 WEEE showing net value extracted
h. Overall, it shows that in 2010, the combined value of material and reuse was positive with a
speculated figure of £8m. This compares with a negative figure – based on the same criteria, but
adjusted for average material net values – of £12m, a swing in one year of approximately £20m.
Gate fees/values
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Av. Collection
cost per tonne
LDA
110
135
95
160
175
-40
Cooling
0
10
0
15
20
-85
Displays
-125
-94
-106
-38
-22
-40
15
34
26
46
91
-80
Mixed
Fig.8 – Treatment facility gate fees/values and collection costs used to calculate overall revenues
6
8. Margin
a. As discussed in 5. above, the management of WEEE under the Regulations has lprovides different
margin opportunities for each sector. s.
b. AATFs
 The AATF sector has significant over-capacity in the UK and is therefore being tightly
squeezed. Suppliers are well aware of commodity fluctuations and expect to benefit from
any increase in values.
 Some AATFs are therefore seeking alternative ways to gain additional margin and there is
evidence that there are some working with waste management companies to manage a
Local Authority’s WEEE for that company and then to split the additional value they get by
selling the evidence.
 For example, in one authority, the AATF was selling cooling evidence to the PCS that had the
arrangement with the Local Authority at £160/tonne where it only cost £80/tonne to collect
and treat the material. The £80 margin was then split with the waste management company
contracted by the LA to manage their CA sites.
c. Local Authorities
 Pre-WEEE, local authority CA site contracts included a charge for cooling and display
equipment while their contractors kept the value of the scrap metal. Many local authorities
were – and some still are – required to compensate their waste management contractor for
the lost revenue related to LDA and it is known that some PCSs allow the LA to keep the net
value of the LDA, effectively getting their LDA evidence at zero cost. It is not known what
proportion of the WEEE ‘margin’ goes to LA’s, but it is safe to assume that most of it goes to
the waste management contractors. Those LAs contacted indicated that as far as they were
concerned, there was no additional revenue or cost of WEEE.
d. Waste management contractors
 This is the sector that appears to be benefitting the most from WEEE revenues. In most
cases, local authorities devolve the contractual arrangements for WEEE to the WM
company which then contracts with the PCSs. In some cases, the PCSs do manage the
collection arrangements, either paying the WM company for haulage and the AATF, the
gate fee. But in increasingly, the WM company will agree a price for the evidence with their
contracted PCS and manage all the costs – and revenues. Discussions with CA site operators
indicated that there are now no additional site costs associated with the management of
WEEE.
 Waste management contracts are also still receiving other revenue, in some cases from LAs.
As an example, one Local Authority has a contract negotiated with their waste management
company in 2007 that includes a handling fee per item of LDA, cooling and Display, ranging
between £2.07 - £2.50 and for mixed WEEE, £25-£51.65/tonne. The LA receives no value for
the WEEE and the annual charge made by the WM company takes no account of this. The
WM Company then have a contract with a PCS who pay them an agreed amount per tonne
of evidence.
e. PCSs
 There are three basic types of PCS:
o Not for profit. These will work on a cost plus basis for their members, but generally have
the highest overheads. They also manage most of the non-WM PCS sites.
o Waste management/larger company owned PCSs who will look to optimise profits
either through member fees or through evidence charges where they manage CA sites
o Others – generally PCSs that rely on purchasing evidence from other PCSs.
 Therefore, the PCSs take up a large proportion of the remaining margin either through high
overheads or through additional profit.
f. Calculating the proportion that goes to each is impossible, but it could be estimated using the
following assumptions:
7


70% of DCFs collections and treatment are managed by waste management companies.
30% are run by Compliance PCSs. Net material revenue tends to be retained by whoever
runs the sites although some may be shared with Local authorities as part of the overall
contract price. An assumption is the WMCs keep 95% whilst LAs get 5%.
 Where WMCs control collection and disposal, 70% of the evidence value goes to them, 20%
is added by the PCSs and 10% is shared by WMCs with AATF operators.
 Where PCSs control collection and disposal, it is assumed that they retain 100% of the value
of evidence.
g. Using the total net revenues from para 7i, it is therefore estimated that the split would be as follows
where:
 LA is local Authorities
 AATF is treatment facilities
 CS – other is PCSs that do not run collection and treatment
 CS – DCF is PCSs that do run collection and treatment
 WMC is waste management companies
Fig.9 – Estimated of how the net margin has been split between sectors
9. Cost impact based on growth models
a. To consider the potential impact of the various cost scenarios on the amount of WEEE required to
meet the likely targets, the tonnage required to meet the targets and the likely costs of collecting
and treating that WEEE must be calculated.
b. The following has been assumed:
 That a 65%target on EEE placed on the market is the most likely scenario for the recast.
 That these percentages will be applied to each category group ie LDA, Cooling, Displays,
Mixed and GDL.
 GDL has been excluded from the totals as the majority of these costs are picked up through
the lighting industry levy system.
 That the level of EEE placed onto the market will stay at 2010 levels. It is recognised that
this is unlikely, but it is impossible to speculate on the likely changes.
 That the % proportion of B2B and B2C will remain at 2010 levels.
c. The growth in costs must be considered against two factors:
 The actual cost of collection
 The costs charged to producers for collection
8
d. To model the potential growth requirements, the targets have therefore been applied to each
category group on a linear basis to 2016.
e. However, given that displays are currently declining from figures over 100%, it has been assumed
that the percentage rate will continue to fall.
f. To simplify the process, 2010 EEE levels have been used as the basis for the targets going though to
2020. The graph below shows the figures for 2008-2010, but there will be a number of factors that
will make this difficult to predict.
 Economic conditions
 Technology developments
 Human nature
Fig.10 – Reported data for EEE placed onto UK market 2008-2010
g. The calculations have therefore assumed a flat level of EEE supply through to 2020. This might seem
unreasonable for displays which are showing a consistent decline. But the percentage collection
rate for those has been growing at a rapid rate of 20% per year and the potential decline in supply is
therefore offset by assuming a decline in percentage collection rates. Cooling also sits above 50%
but it is fair to assume that this should continue to rise and a 65% assumption has been included for
2016.
h. Given that the collection targets are likely to be applied to all EEE including non-household, the cost
model has used a discounted percentage rate for household WEEE that applies a reduction on the
same proportion as currently occurs. Again, this may seem unreasonable as it is possible that the
amount of collected B2B that is recorded could rise at a more rapid rate, but this will be difficult to
predict.
i. The rates of collection target growth on total WEEE are therefore proposed as follows:
LDA
Cooling
Displays
Mixed
GDL
Total
2010
28.56%
50.15%
100.18%
14.82%
29.33%
2011
34.64%
52.62%
99.32%
23.19%
35.28%
2012
40.71%
55.10%
98.45%
31.55%
41.22%
2013
46.78%
57.57%
97.59%
39.91%
47.17%
2014
52.85%
60.05%
96.73%
48.27%
53.11%
Fig.11 – Straight line growth rates used to calculate costs through to 2016
a.
9
2015
58.93%
62.52%
95.86%
56.64%
59.06%
2016
65%
65%
95%
65%
65%
68%
10. Cost assumptions
a. Costs have been calculated on the basis of current cost plus the predicted cost of achieving the
necessary growth to achieve the targets.
b. For LDA, it is assumed that sufficient is being collected and that there is no additional cost related to
growth as this will come from either protocols of improved enforcement. The graph in para 9c
shows the potential for profiteering from evidence values applied across the full tonnages required
to meet the targets.
c. For Displays, it is assumed that there should be no additional cost as the level of display collection
currently exceeds the 2020 targets. Indeed, it is expected that cost should reduce due to the
declining weight of collected displays.
d. For Cooling, there should also be no additional cost to achieve the target as the hazardous nature of
this category should mean that all available items are collected anyway.
e. It is only for Mixed that there is likely to be the additional costs associated with meeting the targets.
f. Research has been conducted within the Local Authority sector to estimate the costs of extending
recycling collections to include small WEEE.
g. The universal response has been that for LAs, WEEE is simply not an issue and certainly not a
priority collection stream. Their view is that any expansion of WEEE collections would be funded by
Compliance PCSs through their refuse collection contractor.
h. Likewise with CA site operations, there are no perceived incremental costs for Local Authorities for
WEEE separation and management on site. There are, however, historical commercial relationships
between LAs and their CA site management contractors that are reflected in current revenue flows
although it is not possible to estimate the scale of these.
i. These are highly significant as anecdotally, they suggest that in most cases, the operator retains the
revenue as part of their overall commercial position with the LA.
j. The general view is that effectively, LDA evidence will therefore always be at best, Free of Charge to
PCSs where they secure their evidence through waste management companies.
k. A recent small WEEE collection trial in Lincolnshire demonstrated that volumes from that type of
process are likely to be low and unlikely to lead to significant growth.
11. Predicted growth costs
a. To predict growth costs, the model has considered two scenarios – the charge for evidence and
actual costs.
b. It is assumed that the targets will be applied to the total amount of EEE placed on the market
without differentiating between B2B and B2C. It is therefore assumed that the evidence cost will be
applied to the total collected tonnage although a cost line has been shown where B2B would be
assumed to be zero cost and evidence would only be charged on B2C.
c. The costs are based on a split of 10% reuse and 90% recycling through to 2016. It is recognised that
this is an unlikely scenario as the inclusion of B2B will see a far higher reuse element, especially for
IT equipment.
d. It must also be recognised that it has been assumed that the target system will start in 2011 which
clearly it is not. As it is unknown when the Government would impose incremental targets under
the recast requirements, this is just used to build estimated costs for 2016.
e. The graph below is modelled as follows:
 Total charge –assumes that the cost of evidence remains constant and is applied to all of
the tonnage (including B2B) against the growth model needed to meet 65% by 2020.
 Total cost a. – assumes that the current net costs for each type of WEEE are applied to the
total tonnage at the assumed growth rates. This reduces due to the sharp growth required
for LDA.
10




Total cost b. – assumes that incremental mixed WEEE growth will only be achieved through
high cost extraction and therefore adds £100/tonne to the cost of collecting Mixed WEEE
over and above 2010 levels.
High – assumes that all evidence will be charged at the current extreme trading levels.
Extreme – assumes that all evidence will be charged at 2007 extreme trading levels.
Costs per tonne are assumed as follows:
Evidence charge to producers
Low
High
Extreme
LDA
£15
£20
£20
Cooling
£140
£180
£190
Displays
£230
£200
£340
Mixed
£120
£170
£220
Fig.13 – Costs used for Fig 14 predictive graph
Net WEEE cost
a.
b.
-£120
-£120
£70
£70
£78
£78
£34
£150
Fig.14 – Predictions of potential costs increases versus WEEE costs/values
d. This shows the extreme positions that may emerge for 2016 if there is a shortfall. It must also be
recognised that if a similar target system is adopted to the packaging PRN system, then a surplus
caused, for instance, by the capture of hidden recycling could lead to a dramatic fall in evidence
prices rather than an escalation.
e. There is also the issue of displays. Under the current PRN system, a 65% target for displays would
see the value of display evidence probably match the actual cost of collection and recycling as there
is already a large surplus. The fact that displays (and the same will apply to cooling equipment) have
to be collected because of their hazardous nature means that this will always be the case.
Nevertheless, the model assumes that the charge made for evidence will be at a level created by
the current market type rather than by a PRN market type.
f. With regards to the EU position, a calculation has been made using the same % growth and cost
assumptions as for the UK model. This has been extrapolated from the 2012 figure given in the
Commission Impact Assessment of 12m tonnes in 2012 and assessing the tonnage that would be
required by 2016 to meet the targets, but as in the UK’s case, that certainly for displays, the amount
being collected would be well above the target.
g. The validity of these figures is extremely questionable as it does not take account of the current
positions of other Member States. But it demonstrates a potential comparison between the actual
11
costs of collection and the charges to producers should a current UK type regime be allowed to
spread.
Fig.15 – Potential costs for 2016 based on expected EU WEEE arisings
12. Summary
a. It is clear that the current market has settled into a broadly status quo position that suits the
majority of PCSs, DCF operators and Local Authorities.
b. There appears to be little motivation within that market to reduce prices to producers who
generally, have very little understanding of market conditions and no visibility on market prices,
either for commodity values or the costs for creating evidence.
c. This is leading to producers paying an increasingly disproportionate level of margin into the system
with little sign of any change under the current Regulatory requirement where all collected B2C
WEEE must be paid for by producers. The current gap between cost of collection and recycling vs
charge to producers has been indicated to be in the region of >£50m.
d. Whilst this position allows some high prices to be charged, the current margins would seem to be
limiting the tendency to move to the level of ransom charges seen in 2007/8. Moves by the
Environment Agency to control non-contracted trading are also making this more difficult. However,
marginal trading activity suggests that given the right conditions, the position would quickly be
exploited again in a similar way to 2007/8.
e. A change in the targets could well lead to a return to full exploitation but it must also be recognised
that this could go both ways. Packaging Regulations experience has demonstrated that in a
supply/demand market based on targets, charges for evidence bear no relation to costs and quickly
establish their positions on the basis of market flexibility. In a shortfall situation, it is therefore likely
that evidence charges would move much higher than current extreme pricing. But equally, in a
surplus – as already exists with displays – prices can quickly fall to levels that then become counterproductive and stifle existing activity unless the material has an intrinsic value in its own right.
12
Appendix 1
2007
Average
market
Evidence
charges
2007
Average
market cost 2007 extreme
used for
trading
calculation
charges
2007
Average gate
fee/value
Large Household Appliances
-£110
£40
£0
5
£5
£20
60,395
£0
£301,974
£1,207,894
£422,763
321,882
£6,437,636
£1,609,409
-£43,454,041
Small Household Appliances
-£15
£70
£55
115
£120
£190
6,514
£358,251
£781,639
£1,237,595
£905,387
97,061
£18,441,567
£11,647,305
-£1,067,670
IT and Telcomms Equipment
-£15
£70
£55
93-147
£125
£190
6,393
£351,598
£799,086
£1,214,611
£920,535
133,851
£25,431,646
£16,731,346
-£1,472,358
Consumer Equipment
-£15
£70
£55
73-140
£120
£190
6,304
£346,715
£756,470
£1,197,744
£876,232
48,487
£9,212,473
£5,818,404
-£533,354
Lighting Equipment
-£15
£70
£55
17
£913
£0
£0
£0
33,442
£0
£0
-£367,866
Electrical and Electronic Tools
-£15
£70
£55
153-183
£150
£190
3,455
£190,021
£518,240
£656,437
£583,869
51,852
£9,851,836
£7,777,765
-£570,369
Toys Leisure and Sports
-£15
£70
£55
152
£150
£190
174
£9,589
£26,152
£33,126
£29,449
40,389
£7,673,935
£6,058,370
-£444,280
Medical Devices
-£15
£70
£55
95
£120
£190
2
£97
£211
£334
£233
7,596
£1,443,293
£911,554
-£83,559
Monitoring and Control
-£15
£70
£55
111-216
£150
£180
166
£9,123
£24,881
£29,858
£27,852
14,769
£2,658,468
£2,215,390
-£162,462
Automatic Dispensers
-£15
£70
£55
0
£0
£0
£0
£0
5,231
£0
£0
-£57,541
Display Equipment
£120
£40
£160
217
£225
£340
44,049
£7,047,842
£9,911,028
£14,976,664
£11,408,672
123,301
£41,922,340
£27,742,725
£7,644,662
Cooling Appliances
£0
£80
£80
119-160
£140
£220
58,263
£4,661,010
£8,156,768
£12,817,779
£9,438,532
133,108
£29,283,781
£18,635,133
£8,652,026
£2,300
£2,300
307
£613,676
£705,727
£705,727
£776,070
9,413
£21,650,925
£21,650,925
£14,120,168
£25,389,593
981,459
£174,007,899 £120,798,326
-£17,796,645
Gas Discharge Lamps
Total
2007
Average
costs
£2,000
2007 WEEE
tonnage
collected
collected
Cost @
Total cost at
extreme
av. Mkt
prices
prices market applied to
Av. total cost
price
total
2007
Average
collection
costs
186,037
13
£13,588,836 £21,982,177 £34,077,770
Predicted 2016
Costs @ extreme tonnage @ 65% 2016 costs @ 2016 costs @
prices applied to
(other than
extreme
average
10%
displays)
prices
prices
2016 costs @
average 2011
costs
Appendix 2 – Proposed B2C targets that would be necessary to achieve the proposed recast targets with B2B collections at current rate
B2C % targets
LDA
Cooling
Displays
Mixed
Total
2011
34%
44%
97%
23%
15%
2012
40%
46%
96%
31%
18%
2013
46%
48%
95%
39%
20%
2014
52%
50%
95%
47%
23%
2015
58%
52%
94%
55%
25%
2016
64%
54%
93%
63%
28%
B2C tonnages
LDA
Cooling
Displays
Mixed
Total
2011
169,622
89,306
126,029
150,129
535,086
2012
199,361
93,507
124,933
204,273
622,075
2013
229,101
97,709
123,837
258,417
709,064
2014
258,841
101,910
122,742
312,561
796,053
2015
288,580
106,111
121,646
366,704
883,042
2016
318,320
110,313
120,550
420,848
970,031
14