Response to Stakeholder Consultation on the review of Directive 2002/96/EC WEEE

European Commission DG Environment, Unit G4 BU5-5/121 Review of Directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) B-1049, Brussels, Belgium Response to Stakeholder Consultation on the review of Directive 2002/96/EC WEEE 5 June 2008 Dear, Electrolux welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this Stakeholder Consultation on the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC. I wish to underline that our reply is going a bit further on some items, such as section 3.3, compared to the response of CECED that we are a member of. Please let us know if you have some questions to our response! Yours Sincerely Viktor Sundberg Vice President Environmental and European Affairs viktor.sundberg@electrolux.be Attached: Annex 1 - modifications to WEEE directive to include responsibility of any actor that takes WEEE. Annex 2 - CECED contribution on how to handle Reuse in the Revision of Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). 210-0056809-19

Electrolux response to the options as outlined in the consultation document 3.1 TARGETS When the WEEE Directive was created it was assumed that the handling of all WEEE in the appropriate manner comes at a cost. The Directive placed the responsibilities and costs for WEEE management on the producers. This assumption has today proven not to be the case. Today we witnesses that many valuable end-of-life appliances, such as washing machines, are not entering the operational recycling systems set up by producers. This is causing several problems as the requirements of the WEEE Directive only apply to producers and not to the other actors that also handle WEEE in reality. The other actors who take WEEE do not fall under the scope of the WEEE Directive and its requirements. This jeopardizes the environmental objectives of the Directive, creates unfair competition in the collection and recycling area, and makes it impossible to properly track the quantities that are collected and treated in reality (as those actors that do not fall under the scope of the Directive they do not have to report quantities collected and recycled). This concern must be addressed in the WEEE review process. Please see Annex 1. 3.1.1 Targets on collection All WEEE that households need to dispose of has to be collected separately and treated appropriately. Member States need to secure that all WEEE is treated properly and not disposed of incorrectly. Enforcement is needed to secure this. Increased collection targets will not stop unscrupulous actors (e.g. shipping WEEE overseas to trade material without any environmental constraint). We do not see that a collection target in the WEEE Directive can improve the collection in reality. The quantity of WEEE that can be collected depends on the willingness of the consumers to discard old appliances, something that can not be regulated by legislation. A problem is that a large proportion of WEEE is taken care of by actors other than producers due to its value. These actors do not fall under the scope of the WEEE Directive and as such they do not need to report the quantities of WEEE that they have collected and treated. This error in the reporting obligation needs to be fixed before a target on collection is discussed. The revised Directive should provide better clarity on the roles and responsibilities of all the actors that may handle WEEE, i.e. including also actors that are not producers. Retailers, when selling a new appliance, and municipalities should continue to be responsible for the collection of WEEE from consumers and should collect all WEEE that is returned from the consumers. 210-0056809-19

Producers should receive all WEEE that has been collected by retailers and municipalities collection points or other actors. Producers and their recycling systems are responsible for treating 100% of the WEEE they receive. To secure that all WEEE is treated correctly and all volumes are reported, the revised Directive should oblige any actor that handles WEEE to report, register and monitor activities and that all actors adopt the same treatment requirements as the producers currently have to fulfill. Please see Annex 1. a. a(i). Fixed mandatory collection target for all Member States a(ii) Fixed mandatory collection target for differentiated per Member State expressed in weight per inhabitant per year to be achieved by a certain date; If the Commission wishes to continue to use collection targets, at least individual country targets for collection of WEEE have to be applied, or a bandwidth of targets, per Member State. a(i): One single weight target (such as WEEE Directive present 4 kg per capita), universally applied to all Member States, does not work. Electrolux does not support this option. a(ii) If targets will nevertheless be set, a differentiation by Member States is essential. As the Directive has not been operational for a long time, more time should be allowed to gain the experience in the Member States. Electrolux does support this option In addition, if collection targets will be set, they need to reflect the historic market development and respective market saturation. 1 b. Variable mandatory collection target expressed in a % of collection in function of the total quantities of EEE put on the market in preceding years in a Member State or per product category; 1 Current collection rates vary from less than 1 kg (Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic states) to more than 15 kg (Sweden). Even with the extended deadline to reach the 4 kg target at least some of the newer member states will not be able to achieve that target. It is also worth noting that for some of the countries there is not even 4 kg of WEEE per capita arising therefore the volume prescribed for collection simply does not exist. At the same time most older Member States are already well above the 4 kg, some of them much above this level. 210-0056809-19

Electrolux does not support this option. To relate the collection target to the present sales volumes does not make sense. Basing the collection targets on the amount of EEE placed on the market requires that the equipment lifetime is taken into account for each different type of product. This has obvious constraints and difficulties, primarily due to the need for accurate historic total market sales data, and for all the vast differences between product groups average lifetime. If the Commission wishes to set collection targets, targets should be based on the amount of WEEE collected in the previous year, with the possibility to gradually increase the collection target to a certain maximum level, country by country. Experience shows that real waste volumes are the most reliable figures to serve as a good basis for future planning. We propose that the Commission establishes a monitoring system of all WEEE waste streams which would serve as a basis to better control and enforcement in the future. c. Environmental weight based collection target focusing only on the environmentally most relevant streams to be collected (or combining with the fixed or mandatory target described above); Electrolux does not support this option. All WEEE that comes from the consumer should be collected and treated, not only the most environmentally relevant WEEE streams. d. An obligatory give-back by collection points (local municipalities, retailers, distributors, brokers, traders, recycling shops, ) to the producer responsibility organisations (PRO's) or to individual schemes Electrolux does support this obligation, however enforcement will be essential to secure the obligation is fulfilled. 210-0056809-19

3.1.2 Targets for recovery, component, material and substance reuse and recycling a. Increase the current targets, for all or some categories; Electrolux does not support this option. The recycling targets for products in categories 1 and 2 should not be increased. A further increase of the recycling targets would lead to an increase in the cost of compliance. Costs are already substantial. Any cost increase would need to be transferred by the producers to the end-consumer through higher product prices. Regarding reuse, please see general comments and comments further below. b. Introduce a target for category 8 equipment (medical devices); Not applicable to our sector c. Material based targets for all WEEE or per product category; Electrolux does not support this option. To our understanding those considerations can be better addressed by integrating requirements in treatment standards referring to correct treatment of the components and substances that are harmful for the environment (today dealt with in Annex II of the Directive). Apart from ecological restraints there are economic and practical factors, mainly administrative and methodology considerations which would have to be made if material based targets were set: Material based targets for all WEEE, or per product category would need a breakdown of materials by product type, by each category, year by year and per country. We fear that this would require a high effort with limited environmental effect. In addition there is a practical implication to consider. To meet a target for a material, related to a percentage of the input to the recycling operation, you need to know how much of the material is in each WEEE product and how this can be measured. This measurement is impossible to perform in practice. It would require continuous monitoring of the input to the recycling operation. 210-0056809-19

Most appliances are today treated in same recycling shredder. The mix of products is different by country and changes over time. Separate recycling per type of equipment would be necessary. d. Stimulation of outlet market for recycled and recovered products, in particular for encouraging high level of material re-application. Electrolux does not support this option. Electrolux is of the opinion that there should be no market intervention in the recycling area. 3.1.3 Targets for reuse of whole appliances Electrolux General Comments The term reuse has to be considered as consisting of two parts to reflect what is taking place in practice: 1 / the second hand market, and 2 / refurbished products. Instead of addressing reuse, in the Directive, Electrolux recommends to address refurbishment. This avoids having to regulate and monitor the second hand market, which we consider impossible. We recognize that the refurbishment of products can be beneficial. It is essential that the conditions under which refurbishment can take place are specified. See the suggestion below. It needs to be prevented that the WEEE Directive exposes consumers to unsafe products or jeopardizes other environmental goals as defined in the Energy Action Plan or other regulations like the RoHS Directive. Product Safety - Refurbishing products and bringing them to the market can raise serious functional and safety concerns. All new products have to fulfill legal requirements on safety, functionality, reliability, efficiency, declaration of performance when the new products are put on the market, and CE marking. Today these strict criteria are not applied to refurbished products. There is no logical reason for this difference. The exposure and risk is the same. Energy - Labelling and Limits - Refurbished products need to be energy labeled, just as new products need to be. Refurbished products should also fulfill current requirements for energy efficiency. For example we suggest that only refrigerators in energy class A or better are refurbished. Chemicals - Criteria for chemicals in refurbished products should be established. 210-0056809-19

Licensing and registration of the refurbisher - A licensing scheme laying down minimum requirements for refurbishers could best address and avoid any potential risks. This would protect consumers against product failures and risks they cannot be expected to be aware of when they purchase a refurbished product. Refurbishment would gain necessary credibility with such a scheme. Liability and marking - To secure that the responsibility for a refurbished product s safety and that any injury to the consumer stays with the right actor, as well as for creating credibility for refurbisher to the consumer, the refurbished product should be labelled with the name of the organization that undertook the refurbishment and a mark stating that the refurbisher is licensed. For environmental reasons reuse or refurbishment of CFC/HC-appliances or parts thereof should be forbidden at any time. For further details, please refer to Annex 2. a. Set a target for reuse of whole appliances to be achieved by a certain date; Electrolux does not support this option. The Directive should not lay down targets for reuse or refurbishment of products. Such a target could not be enforced. In addition we wonder what actor would be responsible for the achievement of such a target? Instead of setting a target, a logical and constructive and flexible process would be option b. as outlined below. b. Include the reuse of whole appliances in the current or increased components, material and substance reuse and recycling targets; Electrolux does support this option. The Directive should not lay down reuse or refurbishment targets. But if the Commission decides some target is necessary for refurbishment for political reasons, refurbishment of whole appliances could become one way to reach the recycling targets. This would allow a flexible way for all market participants to deal with WEEE. 210-0056809-19

c. Give obligatory access for the reuse sector / organizations to collected WEEE to select that equipment that could meet the criteria for being reused, refurbished or repaired. See our comments under Option b. We agree that reuse organizations could have access to WEEE that is collected, but only if the refurbished products will fulfill safety, marking and labelling requirements as described in the comments above. Care has to be taken so that this option does not open a loophole to cherry pick the products that have a high material value from the collection points and sending them to recycling instead of refurbishment to make a profit. Electrolux does support this option under the conditions given 3.2 THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE Electrolux General Comments The scope of the WEEE Directive should be harmonized and relevant to the real waste streams. However the scope is clarified (fixed list or criteria applying best practice), it should come under Article 95 of the Treaty and should make the products and thus producers under the Directive clearly identifiable. Electrolux also highlights that it is imperative that all actors who are handling WEEE (not only the producers ) should be covered under the scope of the Directive. 3.2.1 Options for clarification of the scope a. Clarifying the scope, by formalizing criteria used in the document http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/faq_weee.pdf on Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ); Electrolux does support this option. Whatever the structure should be, Electrolux recommends to have a harmonized scope laid down for the entire single market. The option of including the scope criteria listed in the FAQs in the legal body of the WEEE Directive would foster fair competition and avoid barriers to trade in the EU by providing legal certainty and a level playing field. The scope of the Directive should not be allowed to vary between Member States. 210-0056809-19

b. Clarifying the scope by using a fixed list of products falling under the scope or falling outside the scope (negative list), updated through the Comitology process; Electrolux does not support this option. This solution is unrealistic as any list would become continuously outdated. If criteria are well defined (option a), establishing a fixed list would be unnecessary. Please see comments under Option a. c. Classifying categories of equipment as being WEEE from private households (B2C) or as being WEEE from users other than private households (B2B); Electrolux has no opinion. d. Define the scope under the RoHS Directive and refer to it in the WEEE Directive. Electrolux does not support this option. Electrolux strongly suggests that the RoHS Directive should have its own Scope. 3.2.2 Options on the width of the scope a. The inclusion of (other) types of products/product categories in the scope; Electrolux does support this option The scope should consider the composition of the real waste stream. The scope needs to be formulated to prevent some products in the waste stream free-riding on other products. If an appliance is likely to end up in the WEEE stream, it should be in the scope of the Directive, for example gas cooking appliances (not currently in the WEEE scope, but this product is in the WEEE stream. This means that its producer is not required to take responsibility for the recycling. Instead other EEE producers that are in scope need to take on the burden of recycling the gas appliances). Please also see comments on Option a 210-0056809-19

b. Maximise the scope to all EEE (also above 1000Volt AC or 1500Volt DC) and to spare parts and components All air conditioning equipment with a power input lower than 12 KW should be considered within the scope and be classified as domestic waste. Spare parts and components should not be in the scope. c. The exclusion of types of products/product categories from the scope. This option is not relevant for us. 3.3 THE OPERATION OF THE PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS Some general remarks One of the main objectives of the WEEE Directive and its introduction of producer responsibility for recycling was to establish an incentive for producers to build products that are easier to recycle. Individual Producer Responsibility was introduced to secure this incentive. This incentive and objective can not be achieved with a Collective Producer Responsibility. The Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) as established by article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive (and recitals 12,19 and 20) enables end-of-life costs to be fed back to the individual producer. This provides an incentive for producers to design their products so that they are easier and therefore less costly to recycle. By modifying the product design, the producer can directly influence the end of life properties of the product. Without Individual Producer Responsibility these incentives for design improvements would be lost. Without the Individual Producer Responsibility (article 8.2) of the WEEE Directive, producers would become collectively responsible for treating WEEE. With Collective Producer Responsibility there can be no differentiation of the recycling costs according to how easy the product is to recycle. Recycling cost would instead be split between producers based on their market share or other sharing mechanisms. Therefore collective responsibility does not provide any incentive for producers to design products to be easier to recycle. Collective Producer Responsibility creates a situation whereby producers continue to focus on minimising production and purchase costs for components and materials and 210-0056809-19

attach little importance to the recycling properties of their products. With Collective Producer Responsibility, if a product design choice is made that makes a product more difficult and costly to recycle the extra effort and cost for treating that product would be distributed onto all producers. The producer of this product would not be concerned as the cost increase for recycling that product would impact him in a neutral way. All his competitors would also be exposed to the same cost increase which means that the negative feed back from the recycling is diluted on all. This can create a downward spiral, whereby the high price and cost pressure on producing new products leads to product design that becomes ever more difficult and expensive to recycle. There is a range of implementation options for Individual Producer Responsibility available that illustrate its feasibility. This was confirmed by Ökopol, in their recent report to the European Commission. Ökopol stated The alternatives are, in light of ongoing efforts of producers, highly feasible One such example is Return share IPR that is currently in operation in the state of Maine in the USA and will soon be operational in Washington as well as Connecticut and Oregon. Return share enables producers to start to reap the benefits of the real recycling costs of their own products or bear the real impacts of any recycling unfriendly design. 1- Bring the provisions under a different legal basis like provisions related to the scope, definitions, and product requirements in the legislative text under Art. 95 of the Treaty and provisions related to targets, stakeholder responsibilities and waste treatment under Art. 175 of the Treaty, aligning at the same time definitions (e.g. with the recently proposed package on the "marketing of products" or other Community legislation such as the electromagnetic compatibility or low voltage Directives); We support that articles relating to definitions and product requirements, such as Article 11.2 regarding product marking, as well as the producer responsibility (article 8) should be changed to legal basis article 95 of the Treaty. We support that the definitions (Article 3) of the WEEE Directive, in particular the definition of producer is under legal base article 95. However, the wording of the producer definition as it stands is not satisfactory. It is essential to have a definition that avoids the dilution of the bearing of responsibility by the entity that has the best control over the manufacture of the product and its characteristics. The actor that places the product on the European Market should be defined as the producer, instead of the current formulation of the WEEE directive, the actor that import/exports into a member state. The current definition of producer, together with the marking requirement of Article 11.2, requires that products are relabelled with the brand name of the company that is selling products between member states. The current formulation is in contradiction the EU common market and the free movement of goods. 210-0056809-19

However, specifying Article 95 basis for these articles can not replace the Commission and Member States continuing to improve the current transposition situation, see below. 2(1)- Harmonising the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility One of the main provisions of the WEEE Directive, producer responsibility, has not been transposed correctly (in line with Article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive) by a number of member states (10 out of 25 according to our assessments). These 10 Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, UK) have failed either to transpose or implement the provisions of article 8.2 (see relevant FAQ section on www.iprworks.org). The potential for realising economic incentives to encourage producers to focus on product design for easier recycling is thus absent in these countries. This jeopardises the fulfilment of one of the main objectives of the Directive namely to establish an incentive for producers to design products for easier recycling. This analysis was further substantiated by Ökopol, Lund, RPA and Arcadis in their reports to the European Commission. We stress the need for harmonisation of the transposition and implementation of Producer Responsibility. In particular as stated above we support the full transposition and implementation of Individual Producer Responsibility as specified by Article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive and swift infringement procedures by the Commission towards those countries that have not transposed this article correctly. We recall that recital 19 of the WEEE Directive highlights the need for harmonization regarding financing of recycling of WEEE (producer responsibility): Basic principles with regard to the financing of WEEE management have to be set at Community level... 210-0056809-19

2(2)- Harmonizing the implementation of the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and how to make the information available We support the harmonisation of reporting (frequencies and format) as well as the registration and information requirements. This is necessary to: ensure all producers including retailers and importers who may bear the same responsibilities as producers and all level and pathways of recycling including the so called informal sector are covered assess the overall volume of EEE put on the EU market, which is needed to determine the responsibilities for historical waste between the producers and recycling systems assess the volumes of WEEE treated and verify that WEEE requirements are fulfilled secure that EEE products can circulate freely on the common market. minimise missing data and enable a more precise assessment of the leak rate i.e. escape of WEEE to the informal sector or for (il)legal export If legal base 95 can improve the harmonization of reporting (frequencies and format) as well as the registration and information requirements, we would support legal base 95 for these issues as well. 3- Stimulate eco-design through targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability We fully support that design for recycling should be promoted and stimulated. The Individual Producer Responsibility of article 8.2 is providing a very important incentive for producers which stimulates and promotes producers to improve the design for recycling of their products. This is confirmed by the recently published Arcadis report, commissioned by the EU Commission Directorate for industry. Legislation such as such as the EU RoHS Directive, will also improve products from a environmental point of view. Such specific legislation is not in contradiction to Individual Producer Responsibility. They are complementary policy tools. Targets and requirements however set minimum legal requirements for market access of products and as such they do not stimulate innovation beyond the level of the requirement. Individual Producer Responsibility constitutes an incentive for companies to go beyond the minimum legal requirements. 210-0056809-19

We wish to point out that there are no standards available defining or specifying how to measure reusability, recyclability and recoverability of products. Measurement tools (here assuming from standards) are essential to be able to enforce that a target is fulfilled. If enforcement is not possible, the corresponding target should not be set in the first place. Furthermore, the level that a product can be recycled to (i.e. the products recyclability ) depends to a large extent on the effort and resources that are spent on the recycling operation. If unlimited resources are available many products can be recycled to almost 100%. This means that a term such as a products recyclabilty has no practical value. It is only a theoretical concept. 210-0056809-19

3.4 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS a. Introduce the development of treatment standards; Electrolux does support this option. The highest environmental benefit and also the strongest effect on development of innovative treatment technology and on the competition of the recycling market, is the establishment of treatment requirements, most desirably by international standards. This would also support the aims achieved by the EU Waste strategy. The provisions of the waste framework regulation and future BREFS should also be applicable for the WEEE Directive. We are of the opinion that this will give clear, distinctive and harmonized guidance to all parties. As an alternative to the approach of Annex II, Electrolux has through CECED been proactive in establishing voluntary treatment standards for the treatment of cooling appliances. Such standards will have a positive environmental impact on WEEE streams. b. Include a definition of "remove"; Electrolux does support this option. We support this option. Electrolux has worked extensively with CECED on the nature of this definition in the context of the treatment of Hydrocarbons during the recycling process of cooling appliances. 210-0056809-19

c. Modify the entries of the current list in Annex II.1 to the Directive in function of technical progress including a reference to the exemptions granted under the RoHS Directive to ensure that for those applications, the hazardous components, parts and substances are removed. Electrolux does support this option. As far as the specific provisions are concerned, we deem it necessary to clarify the provisions of the WEEE Directive Annex II relating to the treatment of Ozone Depleting and/or Global Warming substances. The 9th indent of Annex II(1) must be amended: 1. As a minimum the following substances, preparations and components have to be removed from any separately collected WEEE: chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) or hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), hydrocarbons (HC), in case they have a global warming potential (GWP) and/or ozone-depleting potential (ODP) as specified in Annex II(2). We propose that Annex II(2) is amended in the following way: To prevent any potential negative environmental impact from wrong sorting in the treatment of refrigerators and freezers containing Ozone Depleting and/or Global Warming substances:,: 2. The following components of WEEE that is separately collected have to be treated as indicated: [ ] equipment containing gases that are ozone depleting or have a global warming potential (GWP) above 15, such as those contained in foams and refrigeration circuits: the gases must be properly extracted and properly treated. Ozone-depleting gases must be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (4) In case there is any doubt about the type of gas/ volatile substance contained in a refrigerator/ freezer, the appliance should be treated in the same way as those containing CFC. [ ] 210-0056809-19