The foam used in older fridges was closed cell polystyrene expanded with 
(usually) CFC-11. Each "bubble" within the foam was a reservoir of CFC 
vapour and stayed that way for the lifetime of the fridge. CFCs were 
preferred for foam-blowing because they were very poor thermal 
conductors, hence made good insulators, just because it stayed where it 
was put. It is possible to blow some foams with water but they are very 
poor thermal insulators. The quantity of CFC in a fridge's insulation is 
far from "tiny"; in fact, there was more CFC there than in the cold 
circuit of the same fridge. A medium household fridge of 1980s 
technology contained ~50-70 g of CFC-12 in the cold circuit and ~100-200 
g of CFC-11 in the insulation. Both CFCs had similar ozone-depleting 
potentials.

I'm afraid that the UK underestimated the used fridge problem. The 
result is illicit dumping, not because they had no recycling value, but 
because there were no facilities built to extract and process the CFCs 
in order to comply with the Montreal Protocol in an approved manner. 
This was not a question even of economics but because the incompetent 
government/civil service simply did not understand there was a problem 
until after it was too late. Just to show how serious the situation 
became, in Glasgow, a gang of cowboys (with the collusion of vendors) 
offered to take used fridges from householders buying new ones for £10 
upwards each. They collected them in a closed van in the late evening 
and, under cover of darkness, they drove to bridges over the Clyde and 
dumped them overboard. This came to light only when shipowners claimed 
that they were scraping their bottoms. Divers discovered submarine 
mountains of fridges. I have little doubt that similar practices 
happened elsewhere as it was cheaper to pay a cowboy than to dispose of 
it officially.

Incidentally the export of used equipment containing CFCs was a measure 
of the Protocol, not just an EU directive.

Brian

Mike Fenner wrote:
> I think I got the following right.
> The refrigerators are certainly piling up in the UK because we didn't think
> to build the plant necessary to recycle them to EU standards. Possibly
> because:
> What we were doing was taking back people's old fridges, refurbishing them
> (and where necessary removing the CFC from compressor, and replacing with
> non ODP chemical) and shipping out to third world countries. 
> Unfortunately under the latest EU directives that has now been stopped
> because the insulating foam in the cabinets was blown with CFC and there is
> still some trace amounts. So the export of these "dangerous" goods is not
> allowed and they have to be completely dismantled [i.e. destroyed] in
> special plants which will capture the tiny amounts of CFC. The rest
> (99.999%) of the product is recycled rather than re-used and much energy
> used to do all this and destroy the CFC captured. Meanwhile new
> refrigerators are now having to be made for those that can afford them.
> 
> Doesn't sound as though this was thought through very well to me.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Davy, Gordon
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] WEEE & RoHS: EU takes legal action against 8 member
> states, including UK
> 
> 
> My thanks to Nigel Burtt for providing the link to the EU press release
> complaining about the lack of cooperation by eight member states in
> fully transposing the RoHS and WEEE directives into national law. I
> can't let this official statement by the EU go without commenting on it.
> 
> Commisioner Dimas says that the RoHS and WEEE directives are necessary
> because nobody wants to see e-waste piling up along the roadside or
> e-waste polluting the environment. He doesn't show, or even say, that
> either of these is occurring, only that no one wants to see them. But if
> they aren't occurring (which they aren't), then he has given no basis
> for his statement of necessity. Even if those two concerns were true, it
> doesn't follow that his solution would be the best solution. Maybe the
> eight member states are tardy because they aren't as concerned as he is.
> 
> 
> In an attempt to remind people of why they need these directives, the
> press release states that "In the EU, electro-scrap is the fastest
> growing waste stream, growing at 3-5% per year, which is three times
> faster than average waste." What it doesn't say, not surprisingly, is
> that electro-scrap constitutes only one percent of municipal solid waste
> (in the US, presumably less in less-wealthy countries). The reported
> growth rate, even if true, for such a small component of MSW is
> insignificant, even if it were to continue to grow at that rate for many
> years, which is hardly a sure thing.
> 
> It goes on to say that 90 percent of the electro-scrap is disposed of
> without any pre-treatment, which "allows the substances it contains to
> make their way into soil, water and air where they pose a risk to human
> health." It also states "The banned substances include heavy metals and
> a number of hazardous industrial chemicals" that "can cause" numerous
> serious maladies. 
> 
> Note that it offers no evidence or even a rigorous argument that the
> substances in electro-scrap are "making their way into soil, water and
> air." It says that the substances in electro-scrap pose a risk of
> harming human health, with no evidence or even a rigorous argument that
> they actually are doing so. Evidence to the contrary has been presented
> repeatedly in this forum. 
> 
> Interestingly, although it trots out the "running out of room" and
> "public health risk" arguments, the press release does not even mention
> the argument for sustainability, or as Brian prefers, stewardship. Even
> in the WEEE preamble, which in fine print covers more than two pages,
> the only reference I can find to that notion is the phrase "utilise
> natural resources prudently and rationally." 
> 
> I'm all for that, and for similarly utilizing all other resources,
> including money and time. It is not good stewardship to waste any
> resources. 
> 
> Perhaps so little is said about stewardship because the politicians
> decided that an appeal to fear rather than to altruism would be more
> effective in getting public support. On that, they are probably right.
> 
> This press release is standard environmental activist "just-so"
> rhetoric. To people who haven't investigated for themselves, the claims
> sounds plausible and worrisome. This rhetoric is the best the activists,
> skilled communicators, and their legislative co-conspirators, can come
> up with. They offer no evidence or argument because they have none. 
> 
> But based on this shallow reasoning, the legislators of the European
> Union have passed the RoHS and WEEE directives, thereby forcing the
> beliefs (or at least the claims) of the activists on others around the
> world. It has resulted in the expenditure of billions of corporate
> dollars and euros and other currencies, and commensurate time, on
> activities that, while providing jobs and job security to many
> scientists, engineers, and businessmen, will save not even one life.
> (While some claim that the real benefit is to future generations, the
> extent of that benefit in the future compared to the cost today remains
> unsubstantiated.) Think of all the lives that might have been saved had
> that time and money been put to a better use.
> 
>  
> 
> Gordon Davy 
> 
> Baltimore, MD 
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 410-993-7399 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 
> 
> ***This email, its content and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete and contact the sender by return and delete the material from any computer. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 
> 
> Messages sent via this medium may be subject to delays, non-delivery and unauthorized alteration. This email has been prepared using information believed by the author to be reliable and accurate, but Indium Corporation makes no warranty as to accuracy or completeness. In particular, Indium Corporation does not accept responsibility for changes made to this email after it was sent. Any opinions or recommendations expressed herein are solely those of the author. They may be subject to change without notice.***
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------