Urban mining from a circularity perspective

10013


Introduction & background of the study
In the Philippines, the recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is primarily carried out by two distinct groups of e-waste recyclers: the formal and informal sectors.The formal sector comprises entities registered as Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities.There are approximately 109 registered TSDs in the country, but only 40 of these are actively involved in e-waste recycling and management.It's worth noting that not all registered TSDs are engaged in comprehensive recycling and recovery practices for the e-waste they handle (1).
Conversely, the informal sector plays a significant role in handling a substantial portion of the e-waste.This sector encompasses businesses such as junk shops and private individuals conducting backyard recycling and recovery operations.The informal sector is characterized by its unregulated nature, often lacking the utilization of Best Available Technologies (BAT) and the implementation of Best Environmental Practices (BEP).Consequently, this sector remains consistently exposed to hazards associated with WEEE, posing health risks to the community.
In 2019, the Philippines generated a total of 32,644.41metric tons of WEEE, equivalent to 3.9 kg per capita (2,3).Additionally, the importation of used and end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment exacerbates the e-waste issue as these items quickly become part of the waste stream.While specific data on the volume of imported electrical and electronic equipment are limited, there are indications that these figures are substantial, emphasizing the urgent need for proper management.The imported EEE includes various categories, with their respective sources identified.An examination of individuals involved in handling Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) within the formal sector has revealed higher levels of lead in their blood samples.Table 2 provides data indicating that the majority of these workers have lead concentrations in their blood that surpass the threshold level set by international regulatory organizations like the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC).
The CDC employs a reference value for blood lead (BLRV) of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) to distinguish individuals with elevated lead levels in their blood, especially when compared to most children.3 below shows the results of a survey of the metal components of waste mobile phones common brands of mobile phones.Aside from precious metals mobile phones can also contain metals with significant health impact such as lead, cadmium chromium.In the case of lead and assuming that sample of the waste is subjected to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and assuming further that all of it leaks to the water environment as a conservative estimate, a total of 292 mg lead content in 1 kg will leach out to 1 liter of water.Compared to the maximum concentration of lead as prescribed by the US Center of Disease Control is 3.5 mcg/l or 0.035 mg/l, the leachate from a given mobile poses a serious health risk.Such risk is further compounded when we consider the sheer number of mobile phones sold in the country which totals to 53 million units sold from 2020 to 2022 shown in table 4. The current practices of recycling in both the formal and informal sectors are illustrated in Figures 1 & 2, highlighting the contrast in operational complexity between these two groups.Recycling in the formal sector involves the use of appropriate machinery and PPE, a stark contrast to the informal sector, which lacks these resources.The anticipated outcome of the project is a transformation of the recycling system in the informal sector to resemble that of the formal sector in terms of safety and proper recycling procedures -often referred to as the "formalizing the informal" approach.https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346810013ICST UGM 2023

Project Output and Outcome
The project structure for analysis consisted of three operational modes as outlined below: building activities -monitoring and observing the activities of the formal recycler during the first three months with the intention to take over operations thereafter.
The initial investment, total cost and benefits for three modes of operation described above.
The value of a cost or benefit was estimated using primary data whenever possible otherwise secondary sources were utilized.As to the inclusion of relevant items for computation of costs and benefits, only relevant items were considered in the study.Note that intangible benefits such as improved health of dismantlers and impact to barangay constituents were not factored in in the computations for each option since all alternatives were assumed to result in the same intangible benefits.
The costs included in the analysis were the following: 1. Direct costs which include direct labor involved in manufacturing, inventory, raw materials and manufacturing expenses.2. Indirect costs which include overhead costs from management, rent and utilities.3. Opportunity costs which include alternative benefits that could have been realized when choosing one alternative over another.
Low and High range denote the processed input of WEEE depending on the volume arriving at the MRF during the year.
Table 5. Costs and Benefits for Year 1, By Option Table 6.Annual costs and benefits for succeeding years, by option.
Two levels of screening to arrive at a preference option among the three modes of operation was used namely a) Net Present Value and b) Payback period.

Net Present Value
In this method, the values of the benefits and costs over time were aggregated and expressed as an absolute number known as the Net Present Value (NPV).A positive NPV indicates that the project is expected to generate a net benefit for society and should be considered for implementation.
The NPVs for each project option are summarized in Table 7. Mode 1 yielded a negative NPV for all years while Modes 2 and 3 yielded a positive NPV for Years 2-5; hence, these two options were subjected to the next level screening which entails assessment of payback period.

Payback Period
In selecting which of the options to pursue, the Payback Period method was used.This is computed by dividing the annual net cash inflow with the initial investment given the net cash inflow is the same every year.
The project with the shorter payback period should be pursued.Table 8 summarizes the payback periods for each option.
Table 9. Payback period results by option.
Results show that Mode 2 is the best option having yielded a lower payback period.Note however that although Mode 3 has a longer payback period, the difference is relatively small.
In anticipation of the full operation of the Material Recovery Unit at the project site and to ensure its long-term sustainability, several complementary measures have been implemented.One of these measures involves amending the local ordinance to prohibit backyard processing of WEEE and, instead, redirect all collected materials to the Barangay Material Recovery Facility (MRF), where trained personnel handle these materials.Additionally, a competitive purchasing price has been established for the recovered items, aimed at incentivizing informal recyclers to channel their WEEE to the Barangay MRF while maintaining their livelihoods.Furthermore, support has been sought from the national regulatory body of the government to obtain the necessary permits and documentation to enable the legal operation of the MRF.
One of the favourable outcomes of the project is the significant reduction in the informal sector's willingness to engage in primitive recycling activities in their backyards, thereby substantially decreasing their exposure to the hazards associated with WEEE.Furthermore, hazardous components of WEEE, notably Persistent Organic Compounds (POPs) regulated by the Stockholm Convention, such as flame retardants like PBDE and PFOS found in the plastic components of WEEE, are directed to government-accredited commercial treatment facilities for proper handling.The non-hazardous fraction is recycled or repurposed for various beneficial uses.

1 .
Formal recycler rents the MRF (Material Recovery Facility) from the Barangay and handles entire operation.The informal recyclers deliver their goods directly to the barangay MRF to which the formal recycler purchases the items.2. The formal recycler receives and pays for the dismantled items from Barangay solely operating the MRF.The informal barangay MRF personnel do the WEEE dismantling, segregation of the recyclables for selling to the formal recycler at an agreed price.The disposal of residuals is the responibilty of the barangay MRF.The barangay handles daily activitiy including financial and operational matters (waste acceptance, inventory, dismantling schedule, storage and sale of dismantled parts), training of personnel and compliance to applicable government regulations.3. Hybrid of both a and b.For the 1st six months of implementation, the formal recycler oversees the whole operation i.e. pays rent of MRF to the Barangay, shoulders all costs, processes the WEEE, and sells recovered items for revenue.During this initial period, the Barangay personnel undergoes capacity E3S Web of Conferences 468, 10013 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346810013ICST UGM 2023

Table 2 .
Lead concentrations in samples from formal recyclers.
(4)(5)(6) (PPE).However, these numbers indicate that the existing PPE is insufficient.The situation becomes more critical in the informal sector, where workers lack PPE and engage in rudimentary methods of recycling WEEE and recovering precious metals and other reusable materials(4)(5)(6).Given this scenario, it is imperative to reduce or, if possible, eliminate lead exposure among informal sector workers.Table

Table 7 .
Net present value by option Pt. 1.

Table 8 .
Net Present value by option Pt. 2.