Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43 – 57

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

SPECIAL SECTION

The contemporary European copper cycle: waste

management subsystem
M. Bertram a,b,*, T.E. Graedel a, H. Rechberger a,1, S. Spatari a
a
Center for Industrial Ecology, School of Forestry and En6ironmental Studies, Yale Uni6ersity, New Ha6en, CT 06511, USA
b
Department of Industrial Sustainability, Institute of Technology Cottbus, D 03050 Cottbus, Germany

Abstract

A comprehensive copper mass balance for waste management in Europe has been carried out, including municipal
solid waste, construction and demolition waste, wastes from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and
end-of-life vehicles (ELV). The recycling efficiency of the current waste management system in Europe was quantified
and the sources of copper scrap used for secondary copper production were determined. Additionally, an assessment
of copper losses to the environment from incinerators and landfills was undertaken. As a final step, select parameters
were varied to test the sensitivity of copper waste generation results to the uncertainties in the data. The total flows
of copper into the European waste management system consists of 920 Gg/y domestic copper waste and of 300 Gg/y
imported old scrap, of which 740 Gg/y are recycled and 480 Gg/y are landfilled. In Europe 2 kg per capita of copper
waste is generated annually. WEEE and ELV are the most important domestic waste streams from the perspective of
copper contents. They contain 67% of the total copper throughput, but only make up 4% of the mass of total waste
generation. Because WEEE is the fastest growing waste category, this finding emphasizes the need for efficient WEEE
recycling strategies. The overall recycling efficiency for Europe for copper in all types of waste, excluding prompt
scrap and scrap imports, is 48%, with a range of 5–58% depending on the country. This shows further potential for
increased recycling activities in the future. Emissions of copper to the environment are under 5 Gg/y but several new
sources for emissions are not yet quantified. Uncertainties in waste generation rate and composition for some waste
categories (WEEE, C&D) are high, and additional analysis is needed to confirm the above findings. © 2002 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Copper; Emissions; Europe; Material flow analysis; Recycling; Waste management

1. Introduction

Two main goals of modern waste management

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-203-432-5675; fax: + 1-
203-432-5556
E-mail address: marlen.bertram@yale.edu (M. Bertram).
1
ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Chair
of Resource and Waste Management, CH 8093 Zurich,
Switzerland
are to protect human health and the environment
and to conserve resources such as materials, en-
ergy and space. Material flow accountings (Eu-
rostat Statistical Office of the European
Communities, 1997; Spatari et al., 2002 —here-

0921-8009/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 0 - 3
44 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
after Paper II) are one means to determine how
far a selected waste management system realizes
these practices with regard to above objectives,
since they help to determine emissions from in-
dustrial and technological systems to the environ-
ment, to detect potential resources (stocks and
flows) within that system, and to reveal and un-
derstand non-optimal waste management prac-
tices. Non-optimal management can refer to
either the generation of waste streams having
unfavorable material composition or simply the
unfavorable management of waste.
Wastes of unfavorable composition are either
too contaminated for direct and safe disposal and
must therefore be treated, or have concentrations
of valuable substances too low to serve as a
resource (e.g. municipal solid waste (MSW)).
Such wastes can only be prevented by changes in
product design at the beginning of the life cycle or
under certain circumstances through different col-
lection and/or separation strategies. Because
products can have residence times of several years
to decades, current and emerging design for envi-
ronment (or design for disposal) activities do not
have an immediate effect on waste management.
The same applies to prevention strategies. On the
contrary, the vast stocks of materials that have
accumulated over the past several decades in pri-
vate households and infrastructure suggest a rise
in waste quantities in the short-to-medium-term
future.
An example of suboptimal management of
waste categories is the direct landfilling of wastes
that have resource potential but are not yet recov-
ered (e.g. wastes from electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE)). This example illustrates that
combined logistical and technological actions are
still appropriate and necessary for medium-term
solutions in waste management. Overall, detailed
material balances for economically and ecologi-
cally important substances can highlight the defi-
ciencies in existing waste management systems,
and therefore are quite valuable for decision mak-
ing with respect to optimal waste management
strategies and technologies.
This paper investigates the flows of copper as-
sociated with the European waste management
system. The study is part of a research study of
copper stocks and flows (STAF) in the European
economy which frames the budgeting approach
(Graedel et al., 2002), and characterizes the over-
all ‘STAF-Europe’ copper cycle (the 15 countries
of the European Union plus Poland, see Paper II).
In this paper we aim to quantify both generation
rates for wastes and their copper contents in order
to identify the relevance of waste streams within
the copper life cycle. Recycling of each waste
category is assessed and the overall recycling effi-
ciency for Europe is determined. As far as possi-
ble, investigations were carried out on the country
level. Emissions of copper to the environment
from incinerators and landfills are assessed and
other sources for losses are briefly discussed.
2. Method and materials
2.1. System analysis
Material flow analysis is used to establish the
copper budget for the European waste manage-
ment system. The temporal and spatial system
boundaries are defined in Paper II; as far as
possible, data for 1994 have been chosen. The
system definition guarantees that more than 90%
of European waste is covered by the cycle. The
term solid waste comprises the following cate-
gories: MSW; construction and demolition waste
(C&D); WEEE; end-of-life vehicles (ELV) includ-
ing passenger cars, buses and trucks; sewage
sludge (SS); hazardous wastes (HW); and indus-
trial waste (IW). The above categories are chosen
because they follow ‘classical’ data and manage-
ment approaches. The material is collected by the
municipality or by private companies, mechani-
cally sorted, separated for recycling purposes (the
recycled stream is known as old scrap), and usu-
ally either incinerated or directly landfilled. The
chosen definition of waste excludes wastes from
the primary production of copper in mills,
smelters, and refineries such as tailings and slag,
which are treated separately in Paper II. Gordon
(2002) discusses the generation rates, composition,
and recovery potential of these wastes with regard
to copper. Besides the above-mentioned waste
categories, prompt scrap is also investigated: it
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
comprises all copper waste that arises during the
manufacturing of finished products and is imme-
diately recycled within the production facility
without entering the classical waste management
system. Hence, prompt scrap has a much shorter
lifetime than old scrap. Fig. 1 illustrates the posi-
tion of classical waste management within the
‘STAF-Europe’ system shows the waste streams
and losses to the environment that were
investigated.
The following assumptions are made for model-
ing the system:
(a) Apart from copper scrap, imports and ex-
ports of wastes to and from Europe are not
considered. The copper concentration in wastes
for disposal (e.g. MSW, HW) is small compared
to wastes for recovery and recycling (old scrap),
and therefore only high quantities of cross-
boundary waste streams could be relevant. The
import/export of wastes for disposal and recovery
to non-EU member states is regulated in the EC
Waste Management Regulation and the Basel
Convention (UBA, 2000). This legislation strongly
restricts the import/export of wastes for disposal.
A study on trade of non-ferrous metal-bearing
waste (Johnstone, 1998) indicates that the major-
ity of waste trade (700 Gg/y) is intra-European.
There is a HW trade (120 Gg/y) to developing
countries, but as Johnstone (1998) cites, this waste
Fig. 1. The position of ‘classical’ waste management within the ‘STAF-Europe’ system and the major investigated material flows.
45
trade is mainly bound for recycling. Hence, it is
safe to assume that copper flows via waste for
disposal are insignificant for the budget with re-
gard to import/export.
(b) Reported statistical values for transconti-
nental scrap trading are assumed to be exclusively
old scrap since prompt scrap is mainly re-melted
and returned to the production stage of semi-
products within Europe.
Waste generation rates, recycling, and disposal
quantities are determined by a literature survey,
and losses from treatment and disposal facilities
into the environment are estimated. Fig. 2 illus-
trates the relevant processes and flows represent-
ing European copper-waste management circa
1994. The first step for the seven identified cate-
gories of waste is collection. Portions of the waste
streams can be mechanically treated and sorted,
and copper scrap may be separated and returned
to the economy. The reuse of copper-containing
products and product parts is not counted in the
recycling flows, since the reuse extends the lifetime
of products and therefore takes place in the use
phase. Hence product reuse is not inventoried in
this waste management MFA.
Waste that is not recycled is either incinerated
or directly landfilled. The partitioning between
incineration and landfill is determined for each
waste category on a country level. The loss of
46 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57

Fig. 2. Solid waste is collected and partly mechanically separated for recycling and recovery purposes. Copper leaves the system
either via recycling streams or is lost to the environment. The remainder is either incinerated or directly landfilled.

copper to the environment is assessed for gaseous 3.1.2. Hazardous waste

and aqueous emissions from incineration, leachate
from landfills, SS applied to agricultural land, and
ashes for road construction.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Solid waste generation
Table 1 shows annual waste generation in
‘STAF-Europe’ subdivided into MSW, HW, SS,
C&D, IW, WEEE, and ELV.
3.1.1. Municipal solid waste
As shown in Table 1, the variation in the
generation of MSW ranges from 250 (Austria) to
670 kg/c y [c is the unit for capita] (Luxembourg)
within the European countries studied (CEC,
2000). MSW data usually include commercial
waste together with waste from private house-
holds, as well as waste fractions (e.g. paper, metals,
plastics, etc.) separately collected for recycling.
For HW an average generation of 90 kg/c y
is documented (CEC, 2000). Since 1994, the
Directory on HW (94/904/EG) has regulated
HW in the European Union. It defines 237
types of HW. This directory is mandatory for
all member states (UBA, 1999). Nevertheless,
national totals reported to the OECD and
Eurostat are still generally based on national
classifications and definitions, which makes it
very difficult to draw valid comparisons
among data from different countries, as the
classification systems can be quite different. The
variations in HW classification can be explained
by the fact that the European Waste Catalogue
does not sufficiently describe what is regarded
and reported as HW (Christiansen and Munck-
Kampmann, 2000). Since HW are often compo-
nents of other waste groups, e.g. C&D waste
(asbestos, lead, tars, paint and preservative
residues, adhesives, bonding agents and sealant
and certain plastics), its generation is difficult
to identify with accurency.
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57 47

3.1.3. Sewage sludge comparably higher C&D waste generation rate

Dry weight production of SS is about 19 kg/c y
(CEC, 2000) in member states of the European
Union. The percentage of the population served
by sewage waste water treatment facilities varies
between 10% (Portugal) and 98% (Denmark) in
countries of the European Union (EEA, 1997).
3.1.4. Construction and demolition waste
The definition of C&D waste (European Com-
mission, 1999) includes waste arising from the
total or partial demolition of buildings and/or
civil infrastructure; waste arising from the con-
struction of buildings and/or civil infrastructure;
soil, rocks and vegetation arising from land level-
ing, civil works and/or general foundations; and
road planings and associated materials arising
from road maintenance activities. For the purpose
of determining the copper content in C&D waste
in Section 3.4, the generation of soil and dredging
soil, asphalt, tar and tarred products is not
counted in this model. It is found that countries
with high population densities (e.g. Germany, The
Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) have a
(670– 725 kg/c y) than countries with low popula-
tion densities (e.g. Sweden, Greece, and Ireland),
whose range is between 160 and 190 kg/c y (Eu-
ropean Commission, 1999). This difference may
partly be explained by differences in data collec-
tion and reporting among the countries, as well as
inaccurate estimates in countries where no official
statistics exist. Research results show that, in gen-
eral, insufficient databases exist for the quantifica-
tion of C&D waste. An MFA of the construction
industry for a region in Austria showed that
reported data on C&D are very likely to be too
low, and a considerable amount of C&D is not
yet reported (Glenck et al., 1997).
3.1.5. Industrial waste
Data published by the European Topic Center
on Waste and Material Flows (2001) are used for
the generation of IW. This term includes all
wastes from industry and manufacturing that are
non-hazardous. The generation of non-hazardous
IW ranges from 40 (Portugal) to : 1600 kg/c y
(Sweden). A uniform system for classifying IW

Table 1
Solid waste generation in Europe (kg/c y)

Country Population (million) MSW C&D SS HW IW WEEE

Germany 81.4 503 725 28 113 1032 7

France 57.9 379 408 13 102 1813 7
UK 58.3 394 515 19 41 961 7
Italy 57.2 430 350 20 100 388 7
Spain 39.1 451 332 20 100 353 7
Netherlands 15.4 355 725 20 83 1247 7
Belgium 10.1 352 668 9 201 1327 7
Sweden 8.8 355 192 26 57 1591 7
Austria 8.0 253 588 21 95 1313 7
Denmark 5.2 380 508 32 52 442 7
Greece 10.4 354 173 20 100 48 7
Finland 5.1 348 265 28 112 294 7
Portugal 9.9 377 323 15 100 40 7
Ireland 3.6 422 158 11 64 1056 7
Luxembourg 0.4 677 750 20 358 500a 7
Poland 38.7 300 400a 8 50 800a 4a
‘STAF-Europe’ 409.5 402 427 19 90 846 7

Data source: European Commission (2001), CEC (2000), European Commission (1999), European Topic Center on Waste and
Material Flows (2001), Christiansen and Munck-Kampmann (2000), O8 kopol (1998).
a
Informed estimate.
48 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
does not exist in Europe; therefore, national totals
are based on national definitions and reporting
systems.
3.1.6. Waste from electrical and electronic
equipment
On the basis of its high electric conductivity,
copper is the basic material of electrical engineer-
ing technologies. Today more than half of Ger-
many’s copper consumption is used in mechanical
apparatus and electrical engineering (DKI, 2001).
The interpretation of the term WEEE differs
greatly among countries. WEEE covers a wide
spectrum of electronic products ranging from con-
sumer goods such as personal computers and
refrigerators to capital goods such as medical
equipment systems and monitoring and control
instruments. Actual components of published
WEEE generation rates in Europe are insuffi-
ciently recorded. Estimates for OECD countries
assume a distribution pattern of 70% consumer
goods and 30% capital goods (O8 kopol, 1998).
WEKA (1999) indicates for Germany a distribu-
tion of two-thirds consumer goods and one-third
capital goods. Quantities for the domestic mate-
rial flow of WEEE in Germany range between 16
and 21 kg/c y in 1994 (Zhang and Forssberg,
1999; ZVEI, 1992), and for the European Union,
16– 24 kg/c y in the late 1990s (Christiansen and
Munck-Kampmann, 2000; Welslau and Kraus,
1998). These values are based on lifetime models
incorporating production, import and export, and
consumption statistics and the average lifetime of
electrical and electronic products. European data
collected by O8 kopol (1998) show a separate col-
lection rate of WEEE from private households of
1 kg/c y in the 1990s. The same study indicates
that a rather successful separate collection of
WEEE from private households could probably
not catch more than an average of 4– 5 kg/c y.
The wide gap between the theoretically expected
generation rate of 14 kg/c y and the actual possi-
ble collection rate of 4– 5 kg/c y from private
households suggests that a significant fraction of
retired electronic products remains in ‘hiberna-
tion’; that is, they are not collected, but rather
stored in households. Furthermore, a fraction of
retired electronics may circulate and hibernate in
second-hand markets and repair shops. ARGUS
(1996) estimates in Germany a portion of WEEE
from private households that is collected in do-
mestic waste in the range 0.52 and 1.6 kg/c y. As
for the industrial sector, we assume the theoretical
WEEE generation rates correspond to actual gen-
eration rates since we expect industry to have
short hibernation periods for retired electronic
products. An expected generation rate of 1 kg/c y
by private households and 6 kg/c y by industry
for the year 1994 is assumed for all countries
except Poland. Regional EU differences are not
taken into account. Any attempt to measure this
potential more precisely, and especially to ade-
quately take into account regional and socio-eco-
nomic differences, will be faced with great
difficulties.
3.1.7. End-of-life 6ehicles
Quantities for passenger cars, buses, and trucks
are taken from a study by Müller (1995) con-
ducted for EUROSTAT using the following
equation:
ELV = DStock + New +Import− Export (1)
where ELV, end-of-life vehicles; DStock, previous
year’s vehicle stock minus actual vehicle stock;
New, first registrations of vehicles; Import, im-
ports of used vehicles; Export, exports of used
vehicles.
The results of Eq. (1) for 1992 are presented in
Table 2. There is some uncertainty associated with
the final geographic destination of all ELV. This
is especially true in Germany where 50–60% of
ELV are exported, mainly to Eastern European
countries (ARGE-Altauto, 2000). This uncer-
tainty presents boundary allocation difficulties for
STAF-Europe, because Poland is a primary im-
porter of retired vehicles from Western European
countries, and is included within the STAF-Eu-
rope boundary.
3.2. Generation of new scrap
Table 3 presents the data on secondary (recy-
cled) copper production. The published data on
secondary copper includes the copper returned to
smelters/refineries (International Copper Study
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57 49

Table 2
ELV (passenger motor cars, buses and coaches, and trucks) in pieces

Country Passenger motor cars Buses and Vehicles for the transport of goods and other vehicles (thousand)
(thousand) coaches

Germany 3272 5127 173

France 1831 3957 358
UK 1252 3265 466
Italy 1384 2889 186
Spain 363 2069 51
Netherlands 317 503 52
Belgium 262 130 25
Sweden 215a 2.226a 14a
Austria 214a 634a 35a
Denmark 71 151 16
Greece 135 156 2
Finland 106a 780a 5a
Portugal 5 181 5
Ireland 61 41 27
Luxembourg 12 33 6
Poland n.a. n.a. n.a.
‘STAF-Europe’ 9500 19 918 1421

n.a., not applicable.

a
Import and export data are not available for these countries, so values are estimated based on historical vehicles registration
statistics (AAMA, 1996) and assumed lifetime of 13 years for cars and 20 years for busses and trucks.

Table 3
Secondary copper production and copper origin in 1994

Country Production in Gg Source in Gg

Secondary smelter/refinery production Secondary manufacturing Old scrap Prompt scrap

production

Germany 339 264 290 313

France 25 106 39 92
UK 37 88 44 82
Italy 78 314 116 275
Spain 47 24 38 33
Netherlands – 52 10 42
Belgium/Luxembo 160 – 112 48
urg
Scandinavia 24 56 28 45
Austria 44 – 31 13
Greece – –
Portugal – –
Ireland – –
Poland 24 – 17 7
Other Europe – 42 8 34
‘STAF-Europe’ 778 946 734 990
50 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
Group, 1999), and the copper used directly by
manufacturers, known as re-melt scrap (World
Bureau of Metal Statistics, 1995). In general, sec-
ondary copper used in smelters and refineries is
composed of 70% old and 30% prompt scrap.
Secondary copper used in manufacturing (re-melt)
must have higher purity, and therefore is com-
posed of 80% prompt and 20% old scrap (Interna-
tional Copper Study Group, 1999). Today almost
100% of copper production waste is recycled be-
cause of its high purity and economic value. Only
galvanic sludge, chemical, and electrolysis
residues, whose recycling is not yet economical,
are disposed of as part of HW. Therefore data on
prompt scrap are used to describe the generation
of copper production waste.
3.3. Generation of old scrap
Determining the separation efficiencies for old
scrap in each country is not possible due to
limited information; thus, only approximations
can be made. We assume that the relevant waste
groups for copper recycling are ELV, C&D, and
WEEE.
3.3.1. End-of-life 6ehicles
Copper from ELV is gained from dismantling
parts of the engine, radiators, and electric compo-
nents, as well as from the shredding and non-fer-
rous separation processes. Frei et al. (1993) note
that from the average vehicle scrapping plant 40%
of the copper contained in automobiles reaches
the scrap market, 35% is transferred to the com-
bustible light fraction (residues from shredder
plants, known as ASR), and 25% remains in
ferrous scrap. In a French study that examined
copper contamination in secondary steel produc-
tion Russo et al. (1999) found that dismantling
steps prior to shredding processes make it possible
to separate 90% of copper in ELV during the
disposal procedures. Overall, we assume that 70%
of copper in the ELV stream is recovered and
recycled.
3.3.2. Construction and demolition waste
The following represents a summary of data
collected by the European Commission (1999) on
recycling of C&D in member states of the Eu-
ropean Union. About 175 000 Gg of C&D, con-
taining : 3% metals (mostly steel), are generated
in the European Union each year. This metal
content corresponds well with quantities found in
C&D waste treated by a sorting plant in Switzer-
land (Brunner and Stämpfli, 1993). Recycling and
reuse of C&D varies from B 5% for some coun-
tries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland) to
90% for others (The Netherlands), resulting in a
weighted average of 28% for Europe. Most coun-
tries with poorly developed recycling-infrastruc-
tures have an active ‘informal’ recycling industry
that is based on removing all items with economic
value (e.g. copper pipes) from C&D by hand
before it is landfilled. A study on material and
substance flows in a full-scale construction sorting
plant gives the following four output fractions
(Brunner and Stämpfli, 1993): organic fraction
(25%), metal fraction (3%), and two inorganic
fractions (bulky fraction 45%, fine fraction 27%).
The substance balance for copper shows that 69%
of the copper leaves the sorting plant within the
metal fraction. This amount of copper could be
theoretically recycled. The study also shows that
about 50% of the copper is separated by hand
sorting. We assume that all countries except Italy,
Spain Portugal, Greece, and Ireland have com-
parable metal separation technologies and assess
the recycling efficiency for copper in C&D to be
between 30 and 50%.
3.3.3. Waste from electrical and electronic
equipment
Waste from electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) is one of the most complex waste
streams requiring management since the equip-
ment includes a substantial fraction of the peri-
odic table elements (MCC, 1996). Problems
arising with the establishment of adequate waste
treatment facilities include the rapidly changing
nature of electrical and electronic equipment, and
the negative environmental impact that results
from the treatment of these wastes due to the
presence of hazardous substances in WEEE.
Though mechanical separation standards make it
possible to recycle 80–90% of WEEE, the cost of
recycling most equipment is higher than the value
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
of the recovered metal (Langer, 1994). The ab-
sence of dedicated collection and take-back sys-
tems for this waste group means that a significant
proportion of WEEE in Europe is still disposed of
as part of the municipal waste stream (e.g. 0.52–
1.6 kg/c y in Germany (ARGUS, 1996)), is stored
in households or illegally dumped (O8 kopol, 1998).
Nevertheless, increased recycling efforts have
taken place over the last few years. White prod-
ucts (high metal content) are usually recycled in
automotive shredder facilities, and the same com-
panies that produce computers do some recycling
of them. A recycling efficiency of copper in
WEEE of :50% is assumed.
3.4. Copper content of wastes
The copper contained in each of the solid waste
flows is the product of the overall flow magnitude
and the average copper concentration, which is
determined as follows:
“ The copper concentration of MSW varies be-
tween 360–700 mg/kg in Europe. This range is
derived from several investigations carried out
in Austria and Switzerland by using incinera-
tors as an analytical tool to determine MSW
composition (Brunner and Mönch, 1986;
Schachermayer et al., 1995; Morf et al., 1997;
Belevi and Mönch, 2000; Morf et al., 2000).
“ Few published data exist for elemental compo-
sition and concentration in C&D waste
streams. The copper content of C&D is ob-
tained from a material flow analysis of a full-
scale, construction-waste sorting plant
(Brunner and Stämpfli, 1993): 670 mg/kg.
“ WEEE is composed of consumer and capital
goods. Consumer goods have an average cop-
per content of 4.6%. The recorded copper con-
tent of capital goods is 14.5% (WEKA, 1999).
“ The copper content of ELV is :1.4% (Ke-
oleian et al., 1997); this corresponds to vehicles
built in the 1980s. The copper concentration of
larger vehicles (trucks, busses) is assessed to be
0.5%. The copper contained in ELV was calcu-
lated as the weighted average of copper in cars,
busses, and trucks.
“ The copper concentration in SS varies between
200 and 640 mg/kg dry matter (CEC, 2000).
51
“ Data on copper concentrations in HW and IW
are not available. We assumed 500 mg/kg for
HW (similar contents as MSW) and 200 mg/kg
for IW.
With the exception of MSW and SS, data
availability for waste composition is not satisfac-
tory. We believe that at least the order of magni-
tude of our copper content estimates are correct;
however, in order to develop strategies for recy-
cling and optimized waste management additional
and more accurate data are needed to verify the
assumptions made in the present work.
The copper content of scrap varies between 2%
(copper sludge) and 99% (offal of pure copper
semi-finished products). Electronic scrap, which is
the mechanically pre-treated WEEE, represents
the largest secondary copper resource of old
scrap. Its copper content ranges from 15 to 20%.
Copper-brass radiators from ELV have a copper
concentration of 60–65% (IPPC, 2000).
3.5. Losses
In this paper we consider the following losses of
copper to the environment: (a) emissions from
incinerators and landfills to the atmosphere and
hydrosphere (surface waters and groundwater),
(b) application of SS in agriculture, (c) use of
incinerator bottom ash (‘slag’) in road construc-
tion. Emissions from mechanical separation facili-
ties are not considered and are assumed to be
negligible.
3.5.1. Incineration
About 22% of the MSW stream was incinerated
in STAF-Europe in 1994 (CEC, 2000). Countries
in which incineration constitutes an important
part of waste treatment are Denmark, France,
Luxembourg, Sweden, and The Netherlands. The
incinerators in those countries are mainly state-of-
the-art facilities obeying the European limit for
particulate matter emissions of 10 mg/m3 (EPC,
2000). In order to assess the rate of copper emis-
sion to the atmosphere an actual particulate mat-
ter emission of 5 mg/m3 is assumed. For example,
incinerators in Austria achieve levels B 2 mg/m3.
The specific volume of off-gas is : 5 m3/kg
MSW. This yields a specific particulate matter
52 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
emission of 25 mg/kg MSW. Copper concentra-
tions in emitted fine particulate matter vary be-
tween 1000 and 5000 mg/kg (Schachermayer et
al., 1995; Morf et al., 1997; Rechberger, 2002).
Assuming an average value of 3000 mg/kg results
in a specific copper emission of 0.075 mg/kg
MSW or a transfer coefficient of copper into the
atmosphere of 0.00015 [kg Cu emitted per kg Cu
in MSW]. Hence, it is reasonable (an overesti-
mate) to apply a transfer coefficient range for
atmospheric copper emissions from incinerators
of [0.001–0.0001]. If incinerators are equipped
with wet scrubbers for air pollution control the
scrubber waters are physically and chemically
treated. The purified wastewater is either evapo-
rated (no aqueous emissions) or discharged into
receiving water. Emissions of copper into the hy-
drosphere for state-of-the-art wastewater treat-
ment are estimated to have transfer coefficients in
the range [0.000001– 0.0001] (Schachermayer et
al., 1995; Morf et al., 1997; Rechberger, 2002).
There are no data available on the co-incineration
of combustible wastes in (a) industrial furnaces
such as rotary kilns of the cement industry and
fluidized bed furnaces of the paper industry and
(b) coal-fired power plants. Generally, because
these facilities are not equipped with state-of-the-
art air pollution control devices, emissions may be
relevant if wastes with composition similar to
MSW are utilized for energy recovery. This uncer-
tainty regarding emissions from co-incineration
becomes increasingly significant since the Eu-
ropean Union’s policy on waste management re-
lies on co-incineration of wastes in order to
reduce the amount of biodegradable wastes that
are landfilled, a goal of the new landfill directive
(CEC, 1999).
3.5.2. Landfill
Assessing the average copper emissions of
landfills is a nearly impossible task. Emissions are
a function of (a) technology (leachate contain-
ment, collection, and treatment), (b) the climate
(precipitation, evaporation, wind velocity, temper-
ature, and humidity), and (c) the surface design
(permeability, porosity, capacity, mightiness, re-
cultivation). Hence, site-specific assessments of
emissions should be carried out if possible.
Finnveden (1996) gives a survey of research re-
sults on emission factors (transfer coefficients)
showing a range between [0.00001– 0.0005] for the
survey time period (several decades up to one
century). Typical values for copper in leachates of
MSW landfills are 0.02–0.1 mg/l (Jensen and
Christensen, 1999); higher values up to 0.5 mg/l
may be found during the first 10 years of opera-
tion (Döberl et al., 2002). Assuming an annual
precipitation of 1000 mm/y, an average evapora-
tion of 50%, a depth of 15 m3 (z=1.3Mg/ m3),
and an average leachate concentration of 0.1 mg
Cu/l over 100 years yields a transfer coefficient of
: 0.0005. Because this rough estimate does not
consider any leachate treatment, a value of 0.001
can be regarded as the upper limit for aqueous
copper emissions of landfills over 100 years.
3.5.3. Application of sewage sludge and utilization
of incinerator ashes
About 30% of SS was applied to agricultural
land in 1994 (CEC, 2000). The use of this disposal
method varies considerably among the countries
studied, from 11% in Ireland to 67% in Denmark.
Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark use 60–
90% of their incinerator bottom ash as an aggre-
gate in road base material (European
Commission, 2000). About 90% of the copper is
transferred to the bottom ash in incinerators
(Morf and Brunner, 1998; Belevi and Mönch,
2000). Hence bottom ash represents a sink for
copper. There have been attempts to use incinera-
tor ashes for other purposes, for example as a
secondary resource for cement and brick produc-
tion (Dhir et al., 2000). All these applications
result in losses/dissipation of copper. Further in-
vestigations and more analyses are necessary in
order to determine the relevance of these losses.
3.6. Copper budget for European waste
management
Fig. 3 illustrates the copper flows in the ‘STAF-
Europe’ waste management system for 1994. A
total of 920 Gg/y of copper within MSW, C&D,
ELV, WEEE, SS, HW, and IW and 300 Gg/y of
imported old scrap enter waste management.
Around 48% of domestically generated copper
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57 53

waste is recycled; the remaining 52% is either
landfilled or lost to the environment. Roughly
60% of copper scrap used in European secondary
copper production comes from prompt manufac-
turing scrap and 40% from old scrap. The 740 Gg
of old scrap is made up of 300 Gg imported and
440 Gg domestic scrap. The high use of scrap in
Europe is mainly within the large manufacturing
base from which new scrap is generated. Only
23% of scrap used in domestic secondary produc-
tion comes from old non-imported scrap. About
half (56%) of copper scrap is re-melted directly by
brass mills, wire rod producers, foundries, and
ingot producers; the remaining 44% goes back to
the smelting and refining processes. There is con-
siderable agreement in comparing the data on old
scrap (734 Gg/y) obtained from literature (Inter-
national Copper Study Group, 1999) and that
calculated based on the method described in Sec-
tion 3.3 (720 Gg/y).
Table 4 shows annual waste generation cate-
gories in STAF-Europe as well as their relative

Fig. 3. Copper flows in ‘STAF-Europe’ associated with waste management. The overall recycling efficiency is 48%. Emissions are
B 0.05%, and losses due to SS application and utilization of incinerator bottom ash for road construction are B 0.5%. All units are
in Gg/y (1000 metric tons/year).

Table 4
Waste generation and copper contents for STAF-Europe in 1994

Waste category Waste generation Mass fraction Copper content Copper content Copper fraction

Tg/y % % Tg/y %

MSW 165 21.5 0.05 0.083 9.0

C&D 184 24.0 0.07 0.129 14
WEEE 2.9 0.4 13 0.377 41
ELV 27a 3.5 0.9 0.243 26.4
SS 7.7 1.0 0.037 0.0028 0.3
HW 30 3.9 0.05 0.015 1.6
IW 350 45.7 0.02 0.070 7.6
Total 767 100 0.12 0.92 100

a
The weight of an average car in Europe is estimated to be 1000 kg (ARGE-Altauto, 2000), for busses and trucks 12 000 kg is
assumed.
54 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57

Table 5
Waste generation, copper content and uncertainties

Waste category Waste generation Copper concentration

Base value Uncertainty Base value Range

Tg/y % % %

MSW 165 920a 0.05 0.04–0.06a

C&D 184 +100b,a 0.07 0.05–1a
WEEE 2.9 940a 13 6–14a
ELV 27 920a 0.9 0.8–1.0a
SS 7.7 920a 0.037 0.02–0.04a
HW 30 910a 0.05 0.02–0.08a
IW 350 930a 0.02 0.01–0.05a

a
Uncertainties and ranges for each stream were judged from informed estimates.
b
Possible uncertainties for C&D waste generation are up to +200% (Section 3.1.4).

Fig. 4. Effects of uncertainties in waste generation and copper content on the copper flow entering the waste management system.
Columns represent the flow of copper entering waste management (base flow, 920 Gg/y), bars the sensitivity in the base flow due
to changes in (a) waste generation and (b) copper content of each waste stream.

importance for copper. IW, C&D, and MSW are
the most relevant flows from a mass flow point of
view. These wastes count for 90% of the total
waste generation. Regarding the waste categories
for their potential for copper recovery, WEEE,
ELV, and C&D are most relevant. WEEE, with
its growing generation rate, is a particularly at-
tractive future resource for secondary copper.
3.7. Sensiti6ity analysis
The uncertainties in this analysis are admittedly
substantial, and are best regarded as initial char-
acterization under the classification framework of
Graedel et al., 2002. Nonetheless, it is important
to see whether any of our conclusions might be
affected by these uncertainties. To evaluate this,
two key parameters (waste generation and copper
content) were selected to test the sensitivity of
estimates of copper entering the waste manage-
ment system on the ultimate results. The waste
generation rate and copper concentration for each
of the seven waste streams was varied individually
while keeping other parameters constant. Table 5
shows the assumed uncertainty ranges based on
sources provided in Sections 3.1 and 3.4. In the
base scenario 920 Gg/y of copper (hereafter base
flow) enters the waste management system (Fig.
4).
Fig. 4a shows how changing the waste genera-
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
tion rate over the given uncertainty range for each
stream affects the base flow. Changes in the C&D
and WEEE streams affect the base flow the most.
For example, changes in the WEEE generation
rate can potentially change the base flow by 9
150 Gg/y. Variations in the ELV, MSW, IW
generation rates change the base flow by lesser
amounts; 950 Gg/y (ELV), and 9 20 Gg/y
(MSW, IW). Changes in SS and HW generation
do not have a significant effect on the base flow.
Fig. 4b shows how variation in the copper
content of each stream affects the base flow enter-
ing waste management. Here, the WEEE stream
has the greatest influence (+30/ − 200 Gg/y). The
IW variation can change the base flow by + 100/
− 40 Gg/y. Variation in the C&D and ELV
streams have a small influence on the base flow,
while SS and HW have essentially no influence.
Overall, applying single-variable sensitivity analy-
sis illustrates that assumed uncertainties in waste
generation and copper concentration have a rela-
tively small effect on the total domestic copper
waste flow that is derived. Variation in the copper
concentration in the WEEE stream has the
biggest effect on the base flow, which can decrease
as much as 20%. Nevertheless, it is worth men-
tioning that we believe uncertainties in C&D
waste generation to be as high as + 200%, which
would increase the base flow by 260 Gg/y ( +
28%).
4. Conclusions
The results presented here show that it is feasi-
ble to develop a copper budget for the European
waste management system. However, these results
must be considered with caution since uncertain-
ties in waste generation rate and composition for
some waste categories are rather high. Additional
analysis is needed to confirm the findings. It
would be useful to establish a central, public data
bank for collecting all available information on
composition and generation of wastes. Such a
resource would provide fundamental information
for engineers and decision-makers.
The recycling efforts of several European coun-
tries prove that a high percentage of copper can
55
be recycled and that the European Union should
attempt to attain high efficiencies for all its mem-
ber countries. With high certainty, WEEE is al-
ready the most important source for old copper
scrap. Considering the predicted annual growth
rate of 5–10% for this category for the next 10
years (Christiansen and Munck-Kampmann,
2000), it is time to develop recycling strategies for
WEEE. In other words, it would be important to
investigate whether, for example, separate collec-
tion and mechanical dismantling of WEEE is
superior to a system where consumer appliances
and MSW are collected together and sent to an
incinerator with adjacent recovery of copper from
the bottom ash. To do this, environmental and
economic aspects, including collection, transport,
treatment, and landfill, must be considered.
Should it turn out that WEEE treatment yielding
high recovery rates for copper and other precious
substances is not yet economic, WEEE should be
at least stored in separate compartments at a
landfill site in order to generate a stock for future
recovery activities.
The copper content of MSW, SS, and perhaps
also of IW and HW is small and their relevance
for copper is not very significant. Nevertheless,
efforts should be made to reduce the loss of
copper via these waste categories. This applies
especially to wastes with high generation rates,
such as IW and MSW. In order to develop sensi-
ble strategies, more information on the sources of
copper in these wastes is needed.
Generally, the budget for copper shows that its
distribution pattern in the waste management sys-
tem is quite favorable, making high recovery rates
theoretically possible by applying appropriate
technology to selected waste streams. Such
changes are generally much easier and quicker to
realize than structural changes such as the re-
design of industrial and commercial products.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the U.S. National
Science Foundation under grant BES-9818788. H.
Rechberger thanks the Max Kade Foundation,
Inc. for post-doctoral support.
56 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
References
AAMA, American Automobile Manufactures Association,
1996. World motor vehicle data, 32nd ed. AAMA, Wash-
ington, DC.
ARGE-Altauto Arbeitsgemeinschaft Altauto, 2000. 1. Moni-
toring Bericht gemäß Punkt 3.6 der Freiwilligen Selbstver-
pflichtung zur umweltgerechten Entsorgung von
Altfahrzeugen (Pkw) im Rahmen des Kreislaufwirtschafts-/
Abfallgesetzes. www.arge-altauto.de, (in German).
ARGUS, 1996. Stand der Entsorgung von elektrischen und
elektronischen Kleingeräten in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland. Final Report of Research Project No. 103 10
603 for the Umweltbundesamt Berlin, Arbeitsgruppe
Umweltstatistik an der Technischen Univeristät Berlin AR-
GUS e.V., Berlin, (in German).
Belevi, H., Mönch, H., 2000. Factors determining the element
behavior in municipal solid waste incinerators. 1. Field
studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2501 –2506.
Brunner, P.H., Mönch, H., 1986. The flux of metals through a
municipal solid waste incinerator. Waste Manage. Res. 4,
105– 119.
Brunner, P.H., Stämpfli, D., 1993. Material balance of a
construction waste sorting plant. Waste Manage. Res. 11,
27– 48.
CEC, Commission of European Communities, 1999. Council
directive on the landfill of waste of April 26, 1999/31/EC,
Brussels.
CEC, Commission of the European Communities, 2000. Re-
port from the Commission to the Council and the Eu-
ropean Parliament of the implementation of community
waste legislation (Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, Direc-
tive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, directive 75/439/
EEC on waste oils and Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage
sludge) for the Period 1995 –1997, Brussels.
Christiansen, K.M., Munck-Kampmann, B., 2000. Waste an-
nual topic update 1999, Topic report 2/2000. European
Environmental Agency, Copenhagen.
Dhir, R.K., Dyer, T.D., Paine, K.A. (eds.), 2000. Use of
incinerator ash. Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Sustainable Construction, University of Dundee,
20– 21 March 2000, Telford, London.
DKI Deutsches Kupfer Institute, 2001. Recycling von Kupfer-
werkstoffen, (in German).
Döberl, G., Huber, R., Brunner, P.H., Eder, M., Pierrard, R.,
Schönbäck, W., Frühwirth, W., Hutterer, H., 2002. Long-
term assessment of different waste management options —
a new, integrated and goal-oriented approach. Waste
Management and Research. In press.
EEA, European Environmental Agency, 1997, Sludge treat-
ment and disposal: Management approaches and experi-
ences. Environmental Issues Series No. 7, Copenhagen.
EPC, European Parliament and Commission, 2000. Directive
on the incineration of wastes of December 4, 2000/76/EC,
Brussels.
European Commission, 1999. Construction and demolition
waste management practices, and their economic impacts.
Report to DGXI, Brussels.
European Commission, DG Environment, 2000. A study on
the economic valuation of environmental externalities from
landfill disposal and incineration of waste, Brussels.
European Commission, Eurostat, 2001. Statistical pocket
book: EU energy & transport in figures 1970 – 1999. http://
europa.eu.int/comm/energy – transport/en/etf – en.html.
European Topic Center on Waste and Material Flows, 2001.
The activity of the ETC/WMF on source of wastes e.g.
manufacturing. http://www.etc-waste.int.
Eurostat Statistical Office of the European Communities,
1997. Material flow accounting: experience of statistical
institutes in Europe, Directorate B: Economic statistics and
economic and monetary convergence, Luxembourg.
Finnveden, G., 1996. Solid waste treatment within the frame-
work of life cycle assessment. Metals in municipal solid
waste landfills. Int. J. LCA 1 (2), 74 – 78.
Frei, M., Küng, A., Schuler, B., 1993. Kupfer-Flüsse in der
Automobilbranche. Vertiefungsblock-Arbeit ETHZ,
Zürich, (in German).
Glenck, E., Lahner, T., Arendt, M., Brunner, P.H., 1997.
Baurestmassen in Oberösterreich, Stoffbilanzen der
Bauwirtschaft (BRIO-S), Institute for Water Quality and
Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology,
Vienna, (in German).
Gordon, R.B., 2002. Production residues in copper technolog-
ical cycles. Resour. Conserv. Recy., Accepted for
publication.
Graedel, T.E., Bertram, M., Fuse, K; Gordon, R.B., Rech-
berger, H., Spatari, S., 2002. The characterization of tech-
nological copper cycles. Ecol. Econ., 42, 9 – 26.
International Copper Study Group, 1999. Copper Bulletin, 6
(11). Lisbon, Portugal, November.
IPPC, International Pollution Prevention and Control, 2000.
Reference document on best available techniques in the
non-ferrous metals industry. Institute for Prospective Tech-
nology Studies, Seville, Spain, May.
Jensen, D.L., Christensen, T.h.H., 1999. Colloidal and dis-
solved metals in leachates from four Danish landfills. Wa-
ter Res. 33 (9), 2139 – 2147.
Johnstone, N., 1998. The implications of the Basel Convention
for developing countries: the case of trade in non-ferrous
metal-bearing waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 23
(1998), 1 – 28.
Keoleian, G.A., Kar, K., Manion, M., Bulkley, J., 1997.
Industrial Ecology of the Automobile: A Life-Cycle Per-
spective. SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
Langer, B.E., 1994. Recycling von Elektronikschrott. Metall.
48 (11), 880 – 885 in German.
MCC, Microelectronics and Computer Corporation, 1996.
Electronics Industry Environmental Roadmap, Austin,
TX, p. 195.
Morf, L., Ritter, E. and Brunner, P.H., 1997. Güter- und
Stoffbilanz der MVA Wels. Final Report, Institute for
Water Quality and Waste Management, Vienna University
of Technology, Austria, (in German).
Morf, L.S., Brunner, P.H., 1998. The MSW incinerator as a
monitoring tool for waste management. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 32, 1825 – 1831.
 M. Bertram et al. / Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 43–57
Morf, L.S., Brunner, P.H., Spaun, S., 2000. Effect of operating
conditions and input variations on the partitioning of
metals in a municipal solid waste incinerator. Waste Man-
age. Res. 18, 4 – 15.
Müller, K., 1995. Waste from Road Vehicles in the Member
States of the European Union. Internal Working Docu-
ment, Doc. ENV/95/13, Eurostat, Luxembourg.
O8 kopol, 1998. Collection targets for waste from electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE). Report compiled for the
Directorate General (DG XI) Environment, Nuclear Safety
and Civil Protection of the Commission of the European
Communities Contract N° B4-3040/97/000800/MAR/E3,
Hamburg, Germany.
Rechberger, H., 2002. Informed estimate based on unofficial
reports about emission tests on behalf of local authorities
as well as the work as an expert in environmental impact
assessment of incinerators, in press.
Russo, P., Birat, J.P., Aboussouan, L., Geoffroy, X., Quelier,
M., Backert, S., 1999. Upgrading scrap quality by improv-
ing shredder operation, 4TH ASM International Congress
on Recycling of Metal, 17 –18 June 1999, Vienna.
Schachermayer, E., Bauer, G., Ritter, E. and Brunner, P.H.,
1995. Messung der Güter- und Stoffbilanz einer Müllver-
brennungsanlage. Federal Environment Agency, Monogra-
phien Bd.56, Vienna, (in German).
57
Spatari, S., Bertram, M., Fuge, D., Fuse, T., Graedel, H. and
Rechberger, H., 2002. The contemporary European copper
cycle: One year stocks and flows. Ecol. Econ. 42, 27 – 42.
UBA, Umweltbundesamt Deutschland, 1999. Sonderabfall,
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-daten/daten/
sonderabfall.htm (in German).
UBA, Umweltbundesamt Deutschland, 2000. Grenzüberschre-
itende Abfallverbringung, http://www.umweltbundesamt.
de/uba-info-daten/daten/grenzueberschreitende-abfallver-
bring.htm (in German).
WEKA, 1999. Richtiger Umgang mit Abfällen, In: Praxis
Handbuch Plus. Fachverlag für technische Führungskräfte
GmbH, Augsburg, Germany, Section 3.2.11 (in German).
Welslau, G., Kraus, H.H., 1998. Elektronik Schrott (WEEE).
Europäisches Parlament, Direktion B, Abteilung für
Umwelt, Energie und Forschung, Luxemburg (in German).
World Bureau of Metal Statistics, 1995. Metal Statistics 1984 –
1994, 82nd ed. Ware, England.
Zhang, S., Forssberg, E., 1999. Intelligent liberation and clas-
sification of electronic scrap. Sweden Powder Technol. 105,
295 – 301.
ZVEI, Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindus-
trie e.V., 1992. Entsorgung von gebrauchten elektrischen
und elektronischen Geräten– Leitfaden zur Entwicklung
eines Konzeptes. Frakfurt/Main (in German).