SIST-TP CLC/TR 50489:2007
(Main)Smart tracker chips - Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID in Electrical and Electronic Equipment for WEEE management
Smart tracker chips - Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID in Electrical and Electronic Equipment for WEEE management
This Technical Report investigates in the light of the implementation of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC) the feasibility of deploying machine readable product identification technologies (e.g. smart tracker chips) to fulfil the marking requirement for the purpose of implementing producer responsibility. The product recognition shall provide information for waste stream management (sorting, reporting and cost allocation). Machine readable product identification technologies can be utilized during every phase of the product life cycle of an EEE. The WEEE management is the last phase. This Technical Report focuses on this phase only.
Etiquetage intelligent - Etude de faisabilité sur l'intégration de dispositifs d'identification à radiofréquence (RFID) dans les équipements électriques et électroniques
Čipi za pametno sledenje - Študija možnosti vključitve RFID v električno in elektronsko opremo za vodenje po WEEE
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-marec-2007
Čipi za pametno sledenje - Študija možnosti vključitve RFID v električno in
elektronsko opremo za vodenje po WEEE
Smart tracker chips - Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment for WEEE management
Etiquetage intelligent - Etude de faisabilité sur l'intégration de dispositifs d'identification à
radiofréquence (RFID) dans les équipements électriques et électroniques
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CLC/TR 50489:2006
ICS:
29.020 Elektrotehnika na splošno Electrical engineering in
general
31.020 Elektronske komponente na Electronic components in
splošno general
35.040.50 Tehnike za samodejno Automatic identification and
razpoznavanje in zajem data capture techniques
podatkov
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
TECHNICAL REPORT
CLC/TR 50489
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
November 2006
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
English version
Smart tracker chips -
Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID
in Electrical and Electronic Equipment
for WEEE management
This Technical Report was approved by CENELEC on 2006-06-17.
CENELEC members are the national electrotechnical committees of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
CENELEC
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique
Europäisches Komitee für Elektrotechnische Normung
Central Secretariat: rue de Stassart 35, B - 1050 Brussels
© 2006 CENELEC - All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CENELEC members.
Ref. No. CLC/TR 50489:2006 E
Foreword
This Technical Report was prepared by CENELEC BTTF 116-3, Waste from electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE).
The text of the draft was submitted to the formal vote and was approved by CENELEC as
CLC/TR 50489 on 2006-06-17.
_______________
- 3 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
Contents
Introduction.4
1 Scope .5
2 Abbreviations.5
3 SWOT Analysis of RFID use in waste management .5
4 Technical requirements.6
5 Economic requirements .6
6 Social considerations.6
7 Legal considerations.6
8 Environmental considerations .6
9 Conclusion.7
Bibliography.8
Annex A (informative) CECED report - ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable the identification of
producer and product characteristics .9
Introduction
An RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system consists of a transmitter, a receiver (mostly
combined and called a transceiver, interrogator or reader), an antenna and a tag or transponder.
The transmitter sends out a radio signal on a certain frequency by means of an antenna. This
signal is recognised by the tag if within the transmitter's reading range. The tag then responds
with a signal that is recognised by the receiver. Data within a tag may provide identification for
an item in manufacture, goods in transit, a location, the identity of a vehicle, an animal, an
individual, etc. By including additional data, it is possible to support applications by item specific
information or instructions immediately available on reading the tag. A certain protocol takes
care of the communication between reader and the host computer.
Three frequency ranges has generally been distinguished for RFID systems: low, medium and
high. Table 1 summarises these three frequency ranges, along with the typical system
characteristics and examples of major areas of application.
Table 1 – Frequency bands and typical characteristics
Frequency range Typical characteristics
Low Short to medium read range
1 Hz - 300 kHz Low reading speed
Medium Short to medium read range
300 – 3 000 kHz Potentially, medium reading
speed
High Long read range
3 MHz – 30 GHz High reading speed
Line of sight required
The choice of operating frequency is of primary importance in determining data transfer rates.
Generally speaking the higher the frequency the higher the data transfer or throughput rates that
can be achieved.
The CECED report “ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION, A Study into the feasibility of
technologies that enable the identification of producer and product characteristics”, (see
Annex A) was considered the most relevant report available and used as main reference for this
Technical Report.
- 5 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
1 Scope
This Technical Report investigates in the light of the implementation of the WEEE Directive
(2002/96/EC) the feasibility of deploying machine readable product identification technologies
(e.g. smart tracker chips) to fulfil the marking requirement for the purpose of implementing
producer responsibility. The product recognition shall provide information for waste stream
management (sorting, reporting and cost allocation).
Machine readable product identification technologies can be utilized during every phase of the
product life cycle of an EEE. The WEEE management is the last phase. This Technical Report
focuses on this phase only.
2 Abbreviations
In the body of this Technical Report the following abbreviations have been used:
CECED: Comité Européen des Constructeurs d’Equipements Domestiques
EEE: Electrical and Electronic Equipment
RFID: Radio Frequency IDentification
SWOT: Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat
WEEE: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
3 SWOT Analysis of RFID use in waste management
Strength Weakness
• No line of sight • Shielding of metals
• Bulk tag reading • Initially only pallets & boxes are tagged
• Not affected by dirt or scratches • Range/Readability.
• Information link • Reliability/Durability
• Non-contact identification • Changing technology in lifetime of product
• Recycling Industry may not use RFID unless
whole WEEE category uses them
• Creating more WEEE.
• Missing infrastructure
Opportunity Threat
• Read-rate • Data security
• Cost / tag • Limitation of RFID use until Point of Sales
• Process innovation • Privacy
• Key to Product Life-cycle Management • Cost of Tag
• Additional data • Could be used for other purposes
• Data format standardization • Could store commercially sensitive data
• Integrity of supply chain management • Identity Theft
systems
• Miss-Identification
• Future incompatibility technology changes
• RFID not implemented in logistics at item
level
4 Technical requirements
In addition to the requirements in the CECED report the main requirements of the RFID’s are:
• Accurate multiple/bulk tag reading
• Live span of tag and information stored longer than product life
• Tag environmental compatible with the product life cycle
• Interoperability between tags and readers used for the same purpose
• Tags to fit into all product types
• The data format stored shall be widely international recognized
5 Economic requirements
According to current knowledge and the return on investments, the use of RFID for only waste
management purposes is not economically feasible.
RFID use for WEEE management needs to be an integrated part of automatic products
identification during the whole product life-cycle and by its included actors.
To be able to justify RFID for waste management we would have to build on existing RFID
applications such as supply chain management. However until technology and standards in
these other applications can become stable then RFID for waste management can not be
considered.
6 Social considerations
When introducing RFID for WEEE management the following aspects have to be addressed
(alphabetic):
• data security
• ethics
• health and safety
• market acceptance
• privacy legislation
7 Legal considerations
When introducing RFID for WEEE management as part of a legislative requirement it has to be
at least harmonized within European Union (Article 95 in the European Treaty).
8 Environmental considerations
If RFID is introduced solely for WEEE management without taking benefit from the use of RFID
in other management aspects one would just introduce an additional electronic component with a
negative impact on the environment. As RFID gives an opportunity for better waste management
an assessment of introducing a new component against this must be carried out.
- 7 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
9 Conclusion
Utilization of machine readable product ID identification for WEEE management is dependant on
it being applied during production.
The introduction of machine readable product identification technologies can not solely be
introduce for WEEE management purposes but needs wider consideration of all needs and
limitations along the product life cycle.
The task force has not been able to determine any progress in RFID technology which
significantly changes the conclusions of the CECED report.
The key conclusion from the Executive Summary of the CECED report is still considered valid:
• No tagging system currently available or available in the foreseeable future will meet the
current operational requirements for disposal and logistics of WEEE.
• There is no clear financial case for adopting a tagging system in the short term (10 years).
Having made substantial up-front investment then tagging may offer financial benefit over a
20 year plus period for large goods.
• The major hurdle to adoption of tagging is the acceptance of the investment and operational
changes required by other stakeholders such as disposal companies and local authorities.
The resulting conclusions from the task force are as follows:
• There are no technical and economical ground for implementing RFID for waste
management.
• The RFID technology are evolving and due to this fact the issue should be reviewed within
the next 3-5 years or as soon as RFID at item level is used widely.
Bibliography
ISO/IEC 19762-3:2005, Information technology - Automatic identification and data capture
(AIDC) techniques - Harmonized vocabulary - Part 3: Radio frequency identification (RFID)
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) - Joint declaration of the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Article 9, Official Journal L 037,
13/02/2003 P. 0024 - 0039
- 9 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
Annex A
(informative)
CECED report
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable
the identification of producer and product characteristics
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable the
identification of producer and product characteristics
CECED
FINAL VERSION
th
4 July 2003
Steve Chambers
Dr Valerie Scott
Dr David Stocks
Dr Nick Collier
Mark Cohen
Scientific Generics Limited
Harston Mill
Harston
Cambridge CB2 5GG
A Generics Group company
Confidential
EPI Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been produced for CECED by Scientific Generics Ltd.,
Cambridge, England. The report is a study into the feasibility of using
technologies that enable the identification of producer and product characteristics
in order to address the EU directives regarding waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) and the restriction of the use of hazardous substances.
The study comprised four main sections of work:
• Tagging System Requirements
• A technology review
• An examination of other benefits
• A cost/benefit model
Data was compiled from CECED members and other stakeholders such as
disposal companies and local authorities. Market data was supplied by CECED
and combined with other sources of public information. Information regarding
equipment and costs was obtained from system suppliers.
The results of the studies are included in the appendices and an overview
presented in the main summary document.
The key conclusions are:
• No tagging system currently available or available in the foreseeable future
will meet the current operational requirements for disposal and logistics of
WEEE.
• There is no clear financial case for adopting a tagging system in the short
term (10-15 years). Having made substantial up-front investment then tagging
may offer financial benefit over a 20 year plus period for large goods.
• The major hurdle to adoption of tagging is the acceptance of the investment
and operational changes required by other stakeholders such as disposal
companies and local authorities.
The key recommendations are:
• Do not adopt a tagging solution to address WEEE and RoHS for the present
• Investigate other means of management of disposal costs associated with the
WEEE directive, for example sampling.
EPI Final Report
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .1
2 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS .2
3 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW .3
4 SWOT ANALYSIS .6
4.1 1D Bar codes.7
4.2 2D Bar codes.7
4.3 Low Frequency – Read Only .8
4.4 High Frequency Read /only .9
4.5 High Frequency Read/write ISO 15693 .9
4.6 High Frequency Read/write ISO 14443 .10
4.7 Ultra High Frequency (UHF).10
4.8 Microwave .11
5 OTHER APPLICATIONS .11
6 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS .13
6.1 European Government .14
6.2 National Government.14
6.3 Local Government .15
6.4 Retailers.15
6.5 Disposal and Recycling and Processing companies. 15
7 SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTEGRATION.16
8 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS .17
8.1 Overview .17
8.2 Model construction .18
8.2.1 Scenarios . 18
8.2.2 Product classification. 19
8.2.3 Input data and model coverage . 20
8.3 Model outputs and analysis .21
8.3.1 Cost scenarios. 21
8.3.2 Incorporation of free-riders . 22
8.3.3 Incorporation of Class 3, 4 and 5. 24
8.3.4 Sensitivity to tag price. 26
8.4 Conclusions.27
9 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS. 28
9.1 Technical Conclusions.28
9.2 Commercial Conclusions.28
9.3 Political implications .29
10 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .29
EPI Final Report
APPENDICES
A CECED Request for Proposal
B Scientific Generics’ Proposal
C Requirements Specification
D Technology Review
E RFID Technical Summary
F Supplier Questionnaire
G Report on Suppliers of RFID systems
H CECED Member Questionnaire
I Report from Recycling and Disposal Companies
EPI Final Report
1 INTRODUCTION
This document is the output from Scientific Generics’ study into the feasibility of
using tagging technologies to enable the identification of producer and product
characteristics of electronic and electrical items. Details of the programme of
th
work for the study are contained in Scientific Generics proposal dated 17 March
th
2003 and agreed on behalf of CECED by Mr Luigi Meli on the 30 April 2003. A
copy of the proposal has been attached in Appendix B. The proposal was written
in response to the CECED Electronic Product Identification (EPI) request for
th
proposal dated 6 March 2003 (Appendix A).
The primary purpose of the study was to investigate whether tagging would be an
appropriate technical and cost effective method to address the European Union
(EU) directives 2002/96/EC on waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE)
and 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances
(RoHS). The primary objective of the study was to recommend to CECED a way
forward with respect to tagging to address the EU requirements.
A secondary objective for the study was to identify whether tagging could add
further functions of benefit to the producer throughout a product’s lifecycle and to
consider whether these benefits could offset any additional cost due to installing
tagging and its infrastructure.
For convenience the report has been divided into the following sections though
none of the topics are independent and within the study have been considered “in
the round” for the purposes of the conclusions. This document contains a
summary of our findings for each section described below plus our conclusions
and recommendations. The detailed results have been included as appendices
and referred to as appropriate throughout the text.
• Technology requirements – the tagging requirements as stated by the
CECED members have been collected into a Requirements Specification.
Other stakeholders such as disposal and recycling companies, local
authorities and retailers have also been consulted to obtain their input as to
the minimum technical requirements needed to generate a viable system. As
technologies have been reviewed they have been compared with these
requirements to assess whether their technical performance satisfies or come
close to satisfying the industry requirements.
• Technology review – Scientific Generics has reviewed identification
technologies either currently available or close to being available and
described each group of technologies in the technology report. Each
technology has initially been assessed to see whether three basic
requirements agreed with CECED members are met. Technologies that do
meet the basic requirements have then been discussed in more detail and
various options for adoption reviewed. SG has contacted system suppliers
using a questionnaire followed by telephone interviews and also researched
case studies via the web.
EPI Final Report Page 1
• SWOT Analysis – The technologies that have been identified as potentially
being of use in addressing the WEEE directives (as opposed to satisfying all
the requirements requested by the CECED membership) have been
subjected to an analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats as requested by CECED.
• Other Applications – Other uses for tagging were investigated using a
questionnaire sent out to CECED members and followed by a workshop held
in Brussels to discuss the various options.
• Other Stakeholders – The decision to implement any system that can
identify the original producer and also the material content of the article will
require agreement of all interested parties and not just the producers. To this
end we have contacted several other stakeholders to understand the current
status of their industry and canvas opinions on tagging. The stakeholders
spoken to included the Department of Trade and Industry in London, the local
authorities in the UK, disposal companies and recycling and reprocessing
companies in Europe. A summary of our findings is given for each group of
stakeholders. (Other National Government sources have been contacted but
at time of writing no replies have been received as yet).
• System Infrastructure and Integration – In order for a tagging solution to
operate, a management information system will need to be constructed and
common standards of data structure agreed. Several groups are starting to
devise systems and agree data structure standards to address this issue. SG
has contacted two such groups and comments on a way forward for CECED
members.
• Cost Benefit Analysis – Using data from a number of sources including
system suppliers, market statistics, disposal companies and local authorities,
a model has been constructed to assess the costs versus the benefits of
adding tagging technology to products.
• Conclusions - Taking into consideration all the inputs from the areas studied
conclusions have been drawn as to the applicability of tagging to address the
EU directives and recommendations made as to how the CECED
membership should proceed.
• Recommendations – Scientific Generics’ recommendations as to how to
progress are listed.
2 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
The completed Requirements Specification document is included in Appendix C.
The specification was constructed initially by taking into account those
th
requirements listed in the CECED request for proposal dated 6 March 2003.
Further requirements were added and some of the existing data refined in
discussions with the CECED members present at the meeting held in Brussels on
th
16 April 2003.
EPI Final Report Page 2
Three overriding requirements were agreed, these were:
1 The technology had to be commercially available now or at least by the entry
into force of the financing requirement of the WEEE directive. This will be
th
effective from the 13 August 2005.
2 The technology must allow for “remote read”. A read range of 5cm was
chosen as the absolute minimum acceptable (a much larger read range of 2m
was requested by some CECED members, however, to adopt that criteria
would exclude the vast majority of technologies available)
3 The data capacity must be sufficient for 5 billion codes (33 bits). This number
was based on 50 million large items and 200 million small items being
manufactured per annum over a twenty year period
These three requirements were used as a first pass assessment in the
technology review.
The main functions of any system were stipulated as follows:
• to identify the producer or importer
• to identify the type of equipment, allowing appropriate disposal
• to identify the individual item to allow payment of disposal tax and recording
of that disposal
• identification of data detailing the hazardous materials content of the
equipment to enable correct disposal and recycling to be carried out.
In order to achieve these functions it was concluded that any system must meet
the following general requirements summarised below:
• universal across the region within EU jurisdiction
• meet regulatory requirements in all member countries
• be robust
• immune from duplicated readings
• the system must be secure against fraud, though this could be at the system
level rather than the technology level
• A system must be “future proof”, i.e. able to be adapted as new developments
in technology and regulations become available
• Each product should be assigned its own unique code valid for twenty years
Each of these requirements is explained in more detail in the specification in
Appendix C.
3 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Scientific Generics has a great deal of experience in assessing and developing
tagging systems and indeed owns IPR in two technologies “Programmable
EPI Final Report Page 3
Magnetic Resonance” and “Flying Null”. SG has also carried out reviews of
tagging solutions for clients in many different scenarios from medical devices to
gas cylinders. In order to carry out the technology review for CECED SG has
drawn on this past experience to generate an overview of tagging technologies
for the CECED EPI application. This is presented as a “stand alone” document in
Appendix D.
The following classes of technology have been briefly described and also
illustrated.
• Retail security tags
• Contact technologies
• Optical bar codes
• Chipless tags
• RFID tags
• Other technologies
Each technology has then been assessed against the three primary criteria
defined in the Requirements Study (see Section 2 above), i.e.:
1 Commercially available
2 Remote read (>5cm)
3 Data capacity (>33 bits)
Two technologies passed all three criteria: optical barcoding and RFID tagging,
and these were investigated in greater depth.
System suppliers were contacted using a basic questionnaire relating to the
CECED EPI application. The supplier questionnaire is included in Appendix F. In
most cases, the suppliers were also interviewed by telephone in order to discuss
in detail their technology performance and further assess its applicability to the
EPI application. A report of the detailed technology findings from the suppliers is
given in Appendix G.
Several variants of the two technologies were evaluated against the key
requirements, as shown in Table 1 below. From these, variants representing the
range of product cost estimates were considered in carrying out the cost benefit
analysis.
EPI Final Report Page 4
Technologies Barcodes RFID
125-134kHz 13.56MHz 13.56MHz 13.56MHz 433MHz 868MHz 915MHz
Requirements 1D barcodes 2D barcodes LF R/O HF R/O HF ISO15693 HF ISO14443 UHF UHF (Eur) UHF (US)
General
Data Capacity <50 bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit
>20 years >20 years
Tag lifetime (data retention) > 20 years > 20 years 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar.
Passive tag (no battery required) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Secure/Fraud proof Easy to copy Easy to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy Crypto Hard to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy
Tag removal destroys tag Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design
Fault tolerance Can misread Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read
Read on metal Yes Yes Range 70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70%
Read-only available Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Line of sight read required Yes Yes No No No No No No No
Remote read possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Robustness to environment Badly affected Badly affected Unaffected Range 70% Range 70% Range 70% Badly affected Badly affected Badly affected
Robustness to handling Easily destroyedEasily destroyed Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust
Standards available Established Established Some exist Emerging Established Established Emerging Emerging Emerging
Comply with EC freq regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Comply with US freq regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Comply with hazardous materials regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Commercially available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Product-type specific
Large white goods (Class 1 & 2)
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 20-50c 20-50c 30-60c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (assumes on metal) > 1.5m > 1.5m Up to 1m < 70cm < 70cm < 70cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling Not compacted Not compacted Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Vacuums and microwaves
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 20-50c 20-50c 30-60c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (assumes on metal) > 1.5m > 1.5m Up to 1m < 70cm < 70cm < 70cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling At drop off At drop off If robust tag At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Class 4 & 5
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 15-40c 15-40c 25-50c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size (for smallest products) Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (for smallest products) 10cm 10cm 20cm 10cm 10cm 10cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Table 1: Comparison of Tag Technologies verses System Requirements
EPI Final Report Page 5
Legend
Data Capacity <50 bit >50bit
Tag lifetime (data retention) <10 years 10 years guaranteed >20 years
Passive tag (no battery required) No Yes
Secure/Fraud proof Easy to read and copy Easy to read Hard to copy Encrypted Hard to read and copy
Tag removal destroys tag No Can be designed Yes
Fault tolerance (inherent technology
property - environmental impact
covered later) Potential for misreads Low % fail to read, but not misread Never fails to read
Read range greatly
Read on metal reduced Read range reduced 30% Yes
Read-only available No - R/W Yes
Light of sight read required Yes No
Remote read possible No Yes
Read range greatly
Robustness to environment reduced Read range reduced 30% Unaffected by dirt and water
Robustness to handling Easily destroyed Hard to destroy if packaged well
Standards available No Emerging Established
Comply with EC regulations No Yes
Comply with US regulations No Yes
Comply with hazardous materials
regulations No Yes
Commerically available In < 1 year Yes
Large white goods (1&2)
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, if individualised, orientated and Yes, if orientated and partially
Compatible with recycling No not compacted compacted
No added benefit over Yes, if can read stacked pallets,
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems e.g. 18 washing machines (3x3x2)
Vacuums and microwaves
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, at drop-off point when Yes, if individualised during
Compatible with recycling No individualised processing after compacting
No added benefit over Yes, if can read pallet of many
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems products
Class 4 & 5
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, at drop-off point when Yes, if individualised during
Compatible with recycling No individualised processing after compacting
No added benefit over Yes, if can read pallet of many
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems products
Table 2: Legend for Comparison of Tag Technologies verses System
Requirements
4 SWOT ANALYSIS
The SWOT analysis has been performed on:
• 1D bar-codes
• 2D bar-codes
• low frequency read only RFID technology
• high frequency read only technology
• high frequency read/write technology, ultra high frequency and microwave
technologies.
EPI Final Report Page 6
4.1 1D Bar codes
Strengths
• Can be very low cost (depending on tag substrate)
• Widely available
• Familiarity
• Could use existing infrastructure
Weaknesses
• Easily obscured
• Limited data capacity
• Not secure
• Easily copied
• Easily damaged physically (e.g. Compacting)
• Requires line of sight
• Label relatively large for small goods, poor visual impact
Opportunities
• Integrate with current systems
Threats
• Damaged codes lead to too many labels unable to be read resulting in loss of
system credibility
• Not extensible
• Greater potential for misreads than other systems
4.2 2D Bar codes
Strengths
• Can be very low cost (depending on tag substrate)
• Adequate data capacity (variable according to area)
EPI Final Report Page 7
Weaknesses
• Easily obscured
• Not secure
• Easily copied
• Easily damaged physically (e.g. Compacting)
• Requires line of sight
• Label relatively large for small goods, poor visual impact
Opportunities
• Integrate by upgrading current systems
Threats
• Damaged codes lead to too many labels unable to be read resulting in loss of
system credibility
4.3 Low Frequency – Read Only
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Resistant to contamination
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
Weaknesses
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
• Minimum cost for complete label higher than bar codes
• Immature standards
Opportunities
• Could replace current bar code systems with a more robust solution
EPI Final Report Page 8
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.4 High Frequency Read /only
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Resistant to contamination
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Most established frequency in RFID
Weaknesses
• Shorter read range than LF
• Greater sensitivity to contamination
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
• Minimum cost for complete label higher than bar codes
• Not compatible with other equipment such as conveyors
Opportunities
• Could replace current bar code systems with a more robust solution
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.5 High Frequency Read/write ISO 15693
As for HF R/O
EPI Final Report Page 9
Additional threat that the data may not be retained for 20 years.
4.6 High Frequency Read/write ISO 14443
As above except:
Strengths
• Cryptographic format
Weakness
• Higher cost
4.7 Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Potential compatibility with emerging technologies
• High data rate
• Increased read range
Weaknesses
• Much greater sensitivity to contamination
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
Opportunities
• Very low costs claimed once technology is available.
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
EPI Final Report Page 10
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.8 Microwave
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Increased read range
Weaknesses
• Very sensitive to contamination
• Only available in the US
Opportunities
• Future changes in EU regulations may make technology available
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
5 OTHER APPLICATIONS
A number of possible other applications for tagging were listed in the CECED
th
request for proposal dated 6 March 2003. These were amplified in discussions
th
with CECED members at the pre-start-up meeting held in Brussels on the 16
April. More information was sought firstly, by sending out a questionnaire to the
CECED members (Appendix H) and secondly by use of a workshop held with
those members of the CECED task force that could attend the CECED offices on
th
the 11 June 2003. At that meeting the possible applications were reviewed and
it was agreed with the members present which applications were potentially of
real benefit and which were not. Those applications that were thought by the
CECED members to be potentially beneficial have been considered for the
cost/benefit model.
The additional potential applications identified in the CECED request for proposal
were:
• Manufacturing assembly line
EPI Final Report Page 11
• Supply chain logistics
• Wholesale
• Retail
• After sales service
• Waste disposal
• Fee payment
To gain further information regarding additional benefits questions were included
in the CECED member questionnaire to see if members had already
implemented or trailed tagging within their businesses for other purposes. A
th
workshop was organised for the 11 June at the CECED offices to review the
questionnaire, the cost benefit model and any additional benefits identified with
CECED task force members able to attend.
At this meeting the following were agreed regarding the additional benefits of
tagging:
Manufacturing - Producers of electrical goods already have tagging of
components and assemblies usually in the form of bar codes. It was agreed that
the current installed systems serve the purposes of manufacturing well and little
or no functional benefit could be identified for manufacturing if the systems were
changed to integrate with any new tagging system adopted to address WEEE.
Therefore it was concluded that no additional benefit would accrue as a result of
tagging for WEEE only additional cost.
Logistics - Currently bar code systems are extensively used to track and log the
movement of items for the purposes of logistics. Operation of the system is
carried out using hand held scanners operated by low skill, low cost staff.
Electronic tagging may offer the possibility of full automation of the logistics cycle
replacing the reader operators. It was estimated in the meeting that the total
saving across Europe would be15,000 Euro per person per annum. It was
estimated there were approximately 600 operators in Europe that could be
replaced. It was agreed that this was a benefit and should be included in the cost
/benefit model if all of the technical requirements such as multiple tags in a stack
or on a pallet could be met. Wholesale was included in the logistics section.
Presales - this was defined as mail order/internet/order taking and is a new and
growing area. However, sales in this segment are relatively small and although
growing were not thought to be likely to become significant compared to
conventional retail outlets for the majority of members’ products. It was concluded
that there was no significant benefit for CECED members here.
Retail - The retail industry has very different characteristics in different countries
in Europe. In France and the UK there are a few large retail groups that dominate
the retail sector with only relatively few independent traders. However, in other
markets such as Germany independent small traders dominate the business. Due
to the large number and diverse nature of retailers across Europe it was felt
unlikely that a universal standard necessary to gain benefit from tagging could be
agreed. The cost to the traders of installing the necessary readers and computing
EPI Final Report Page 12
equipment to handle the tagging system would be prohibitive particularly for small
retailers handling relatively few products per annum. The benefit to the producer
(which is the focus of this study) could not be seen. It was agreed to exclude
retail from the cost/benefit model as no producer benefit could be identified.
After-sales service - In many cases a sophisticated after-sales tracking and
registration system already exists using bar code systems. Increasingly after-
sales service is being contracted out and is not operated by the producer. Again
there was little benefit to the producer that could be identified by linking after-
sales service with WEEE directive tagging. It was agreed it was not relevant to
include a benefit in the cost/benefit model.
Guarantee enforcement - A recent article in the press in Germany raised the
possibility of using RFID tagging to assist in guarantee verification. This article
produced a great deal of adverse publicity with respect to concerns regarding
data protection. Due to its potentially controversial nature it was agreed this was
not a benefit to producers and should be excluded.
Waste disposal – Benefits of tagging to address the WEEE directive are the
main purpose of the study.
Verification of fee payment - Confirmation of payment, ensuring payment is
only made once and avoiding paying for other companies’ waste is part of this
study.
The cost benefit model described in section 8 reflects t
...
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-marec-2007
ýLSL]DSDPHWQRVOHGHQMHâWXGLMDPRåQRVWLYNOMXþLWYH5),'YHOHNWULþQRLQ
HOHNWURQVNRRSUHPR]DYRGHQMHSR:(((
Smart tracker chips - Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment for WEEE management
Etiquetage intelligent - Etude de faisabilité sur l'intégration de dispositifs d'identification à
radiofréquence (RFID) dans les équipements électriques et électroniques
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CLC/TR 50489:2006
ICS:
29.020 Elektrotehnika na splošno Electrical engineering in
general
31.020 Elektronske komponente na Electronic components in
splošno general
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
TECHNICAL REPORT
CLC/TR 50489
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
November 2006
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
English version
Smart tracker chips -
Feasibility study on the inclusion of RFID
in Electrical and Electronic Equipment
for WEEE management
This Technical Report was approved by CENELEC on 2006-06-17.
CENELEC members are the national electrotechnical committees of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
CENELEC
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique
Europäisches Komitee für Elektrotechnische Normung
Central Secretariat: rue de Stassart 35, B - 1050 Brussels
© 2006 CENELEC - All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CENELEC members.
Ref. No. CLC/TR 50489:2006 E
Foreword
This Technical Report was prepared by CENELEC BTTF 116-3, Waste from electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE).
The text of the draft was submitted to the formal vote and was approved by CENELEC as
CLC/TR 50489 on 2006-06-17.
_______________
- 3 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
Contents
Introduction.4
1 Scope .5
2 Abbreviations.5
3 SWOT Analysis of RFID use in waste management .5
4 Technical requirements.6
5 Economic requirements .6
6 Social considerations.6
7 Legal considerations.6
8 Environmental considerations .6
9 Conclusion.7
Bibliography.8
Annex A (informative) CECED report - ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable the identification of
producer and product characteristics .9
Introduction
An RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system consists of a transmitter, a receiver (mostly
combined and called a transceiver, interrogator or reader), an antenna and a tag or transponder.
The transmitter sends out a radio signal on a certain frequency by means of an antenna. This
signal is recognised by the tag if within the transmitter's reading range. The tag then responds
with a signal that is recognised by the receiver. Data within a tag may provide identification for
an item in manufacture, goods in transit, a location, the identity of a vehicle, an animal, an
individual, etc. By including additional data, it is possible to support applications by item specific
information or instructions immediately available on reading the tag. A certain protocol takes
care of the communication between reader and the host computer.
Three frequency ranges has generally been distinguished for RFID systems: low, medium and
high. Table 1 summarises these three frequency ranges, along with the typical system
characteristics and examples of major areas of application.
Table 1 – Frequency bands and typical characteristics
Frequency range Typical characteristics
Low Short to medium read range
1 Hz - 300 kHz Low reading speed
Medium Short to medium read range
300 – 3 000 kHz Potentially, medium reading
speed
High Long read range
3 MHz – 30 GHz High reading speed
Line of sight required
The choice of operating frequency is of primary importance in determining data transfer rates.
Generally speaking the higher the frequency the higher the data transfer or throughput rates that
can be achieved.
The CECED report “ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION, A Study into the feasibility of
technologies that enable the identification of producer and product characteristics”, (see
Annex A) was considered the most relevant report available and used as main reference for this
Technical Report.
- 5 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
1 Scope
This Technical Report investigates in the light of the implementation of the WEEE Directive
(2002/96/EC) the feasibility of deploying machine readable product identification technologies
(e.g. smart tracker chips) to fulfil the marking requirement for the purpose of implementing
producer responsibility. The product recognition shall provide information for waste stream
management (sorting, reporting and cost allocation).
Machine readable product identification technologies can be utilized during every phase of the
product life cycle of an EEE. The WEEE management is the last phase. This Technical Report
focuses on this phase only.
2 Abbreviations
In the body of this Technical Report the following abbreviations have been used:
CECED: Comité Européen des Constructeurs d’Equipements Domestiques
EEE: Electrical and Electronic Equipment
RFID: Radio Frequency IDentification
SWOT: Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat
WEEE: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
3 SWOT Analysis of RFID use in waste management
Strength Weakness
• No line of sight • Shielding of metals
• Bulk tag reading • Initially only pallets & boxes are tagged
• Not affected by dirt or scratches • Range/Readability.
• Information link • Reliability/Durability
• Non-contact identification • Changing technology in lifetime of product
• Recycling Industry may not use RFID unless
whole WEEE category uses them
• Creating more WEEE.
• Missing infrastructure
Opportunity Threat
• Read-rate • Data security
• Cost / tag • Limitation of RFID use until Point of Sales
• Process innovation • Privacy
• Key to Product Life-cycle Management • Cost of Tag
• Additional data • Could be used for other purposes
• Data format standardization • Could store commercially sensitive data
• Integrity of supply chain management • Identity Theft
systems
• Miss-Identification
• Future incompatibility technology changes
• RFID not implemented in logistics at item
level
4 Technical requirements
In addition to the requirements in the CECED report the main requirements of the RFID’s are:
• Accurate multiple/bulk tag reading
• Live span of tag and information stored longer than product life
• Tag environmental compatible with the product life cycle
• Interoperability between tags and readers used for the same purpose
• Tags to fit into all product types
• The data format stored shall be widely international recognized
5 Economic requirements
According to current knowledge and the return on investments, the use of RFID for only waste
management purposes is not economically feasible.
RFID use for WEEE management needs to be an integrated part of automatic products
identification during the whole product life-cycle and by its included actors.
To be able to justify RFID for waste management we would have to build on existing RFID
applications such as supply chain management. However until technology and standards in
these other applications can become stable then RFID for waste management can not be
considered.
6 Social considerations
When introducing RFID for WEEE management the following aspects have to be addressed
(alphabetic):
• data security
• ethics
• health and safety
• market acceptance
• privacy legislation
7 Legal considerations
When introducing RFID for WEEE management as part of a legislative requirement it has to be
at least harmonized within European Union (Article 95 in the European Treaty).
8 Environmental considerations
If RFID is introduced solely for WEEE management without taking benefit from the use of RFID
in other management aspects one would just introduce an additional electronic component with a
negative impact on the environment. As RFID gives an opportunity for better waste management
an assessment of introducing a new component against this must be carried out.
- 7 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
9 Conclusion
Utilization of machine readable product ID identification for WEEE management is dependant on
it being applied during production.
The introduction of machine readable product identification technologies can not solely be
introduce for WEEE management purposes but needs wider consideration of all needs and
limitations along the product life cycle.
The task force has not been able to determine any progress in RFID technology which
significantly changes the conclusions of the CECED report.
The key conclusion from the Executive Summary of the CECED report is still considered valid:
• No tagging system currently available or available in the foreseeable future will meet the
current operational requirements for disposal and logistics of WEEE.
• There is no clear financial case for adopting a tagging system in the short term (10 years).
Having made substantial up-front investment then tagging may offer financial benefit over a
20 year plus period for large goods.
• The major hurdle to adoption of tagging is the acceptance of the investment and operational
changes required by other stakeholders such as disposal companies and local authorities.
The resulting conclusions from the task force are as follows:
• There are no technical and economical ground for implementing RFID for waste
management.
• The RFID technology are evolving and due to this fact the issue should be reviewed within
the next 3-5 years or as soon as RFID at item level is used widely.
Bibliography
ISO/IEC 19762-3:2005, Information technology - Automatic identification and data capture
(AIDC) techniques - Harmonized vocabulary - Part 3: Radio frequency identification (RFID)
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on
waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) - Joint declaration of the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Article 9, Official Journal L 037,
13/02/2003 P. 0024 - 0039
- 9 - CLC/TR 50489:2006
Annex A
(informative)
CECED report
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable
the identification of producer and product characteristics
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
A Study into the feasibility of technologies that enable the
identification of producer and product characteristics
CECED
FINAL VERSION
th
4 July 2003
Steve Chambers
Dr Valerie Scott
Dr David Stocks
Dr Nick Collier
Mark Cohen
Scientific Generics Limited
Harston Mill
Harston
Cambridge CB2 5GG
A Generics Group company
Confidential
EPI Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been produced for CECED by Scientific Generics Ltd.,
Cambridge, England. The report is a study into the feasibility of using
technologies that enable the identification of producer and product characteristics
in order to address the EU directives regarding waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) and the restriction of the use of hazardous substances.
The study comprised four main sections of work:
• Tagging System Requirements
• A technology review
• An examination of other benefits
• A cost/benefit model
Data was compiled from CECED members and other stakeholders such as
disposal companies and local authorities. Market data was supplied by CECED
and combined with other sources of public information. Information regarding
equipment and costs was obtained from system suppliers.
The results of the studies are included in the appendices and an overview
presented in the main summary document.
The key conclusions are:
• No tagging system currently available or available in the foreseeable future
will meet the current operational requirements for disposal and logistics of
WEEE.
• There is no clear financial case for adopting a tagging system in the short
term (10-15 years). Having made substantial up-front investment then tagging
may offer financial benefit over a 20 year plus period for large goods.
• The major hurdle to adoption of tagging is the acceptance of the investment
and operational changes required by other stakeholders such as disposal
companies and local authorities.
The key recommendations are:
• Do not adopt a tagging solution to address WEEE and RoHS for the present
• Investigate other means of management of disposal costs associated with the
WEEE directive, for example sampling.
EPI Final Report
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .1
2 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS .2
3 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW .3
4 SWOT ANALYSIS .6
4.1 1D Bar codes.7
4.2 2D Bar codes.7
4.3 Low Frequency – Read Only .8
4.4 High Frequency Read /only .9
4.5 High Frequency Read/write ISO 15693 .9
4.6 High Frequency Read/write ISO 14443 .10
4.7 Ultra High Frequency (UHF).10
4.8 Microwave .11
5 OTHER APPLICATIONS .11
6 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS .13
6.1 European Government .14
6.2 National Government.14
6.3 Local Government .15
6.4 Retailers.15
6.5 Disposal and Recycling and Processing companies. 15
7 SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTEGRATION.16
8 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS .17
8.1 Overview .17
8.2 Model construction .18
8.2.1 Scenarios . 18
8.2.2 Product classification. 19
8.2.3 Input data and model coverage . 20
8.3 Model outputs and analysis .21
8.3.1 Cost scenarios. 21
8.3.2 Incorporation of free-riders . 22
8.3.3 Incorporation of Class 3, 4 and 5. 24
8.3.4 Sensitivity to tag price. 26
8.4 Conclusions.27
9 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS. 28
9.1 Technical Conclusions.28
9.2 Commercial Conclusions.28
9.3 Political implications .29
10 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .29
EPI Final Report
APPENDICES
A CECED Request for Proposal
B Scientific Generics’ Proposal
C Requirements Specification
D Technology Review
E RFID Technical Summary
F Supplier Questionnaire
G Report on Suppliers of RFID systems
H CECED Member Questionnaire
I Report from Recycling and Disposal Companies
EPI Final Report
1 INTRODUCTION
This document is the output from Scientific Generics’ study into the feasibility of
using tagging technologies to enable the identification of producer and product
characteristics of electronic and electrical items. Details of the programme of
th
work for the study are contained in Scientific Generics proposal dated 17 March
th
2003 and agreed on behalf of CECED by Mr Luigi Meli on the 30 April 2003. A
copy of the proposal has been attached in Appendix B. The proposal was written
in response to the CECED Electronic Product Identification (EPI) request for
th
proposal dated 6 March 2003 (Appendix A).
The primary purpose of the study was to investigate whether tagging would be an
appropriate technical and cost effective method to address the European Union
(EU) directives 2002/96/EC on waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE)
and 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances
(RoHS). The primary objective of the study was to recommend to CECED a way
forward with respect to tagging to address the EU requirements.
A secondary objective for the study was to identify whether tagging could add
further functions of benefit to the producer throughout a product’s lifecycle and to
consider whether these benefits could offset any additional cost due to installing
tagging and its infrastructure.
For convenience the report has been divided into the following sections though
none of the topics are independent and within the study have been considered “in
the round” for the purposes of the conclusions. This document contains a
summary of our findings for each section described below plus our conclusions
and recommendations. The detailed results have been included as appendices
and referred to as appropriate throughout the text.
• Technology requirements – the tagging requirements as stated by the
CECED members have been collected into a Requirements Specification.
Other stakeholders such as disposal and recycling companies, local
authorities and retailers have also been consulted to obtain their input as to
the minimum technical requirements needed to generate a viable system. As
technologies have been reviewed they have been compared with these
requirements to assess whether their technical performance satisfies or come
close to satisfying the industry requirements.
• Technology review – Scientific Generics has reviewed identification
technologies either currently available or close to being available and
described each group of technologies in the technology report. Each
technology has initially been assessed to see whether three basic
requirements agreed with CECED members are met. Technologies that do
meet the basic requirements have then been discussed in more detail and
various options for adoption reviewed. SG has contacted system suppliers
using a questionnaire followed by telephone interviews and also researched
case studies via the web.
EPI Final Report Page 1
• SWOT Analysis – The technologies that have been identified as potentially
being of use in addressing the WEEE directives (as opposed to satisfying all
the requirements requested by the CECED membership) have been
subjected to an analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats as requested by CECED.
• Other Applications – Other uses for tagging were investigated using a
questionnaire sent out to CECED members and followed by a workshop held
in Brussels to discuss the various options.
• Other Stakeholders – The decision to implement any system that can
identify the original producer and also the material content of the article will
require agreement of all interested parties and not just the producers. To this
end we have contacted several other stakeholders to understand the current
status of their industry and canvas opinions on tagging. The stakeholders
spoken to included the Department of Trade and Industry in London, the local
authorities in the UK, disposal companies and recycling and reprocessing
companies in Europe. A summary of our findings is given for each group of
stakeholders. (Other National Government sources have been contacted but
at time of writing no replies have been received as yet).
• System Infrastructure and Integration – In order for a tagging solution to
operate, a management information system will need to be constructed and
common standards of data structure agreed. Several groups are starting to
devise systems and agree data structure standards to address this issue. SG
has contacted two such groups and comments on a way forward for CECED
members.
• Cost Benefit Analysis – Using data from a number of sources including
system suppliers, market statistics, disposal companies and local authorities,
a model has been constructed to assess the costs versus the benefits of
adding tagging technology to products.
• Conclusions - Taking into consideration all the inputs from the areas studied
conclusions have been drawn as to the applicability of tagging to address the
EU directives and recommendations made as to how the CECED
membership should proceed.
• Recommendations – Scientific Generics’ recommendations as to how to
progress are listed.
2 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
The completed Requirements Specification document is included in Appendix C.
The specification was constructed initially by taking into account those
th
requirements listed in the CECED request for proposal dated 6 March 2003.
Further requirements were added and some of the existing data refined in
discussions with the CECED members present at the meeting held in Brussels on
th
16 April 2003.
EPI Final Report Page 2
Three overriding requirements were agreed, these were:
1 The technology had to be commercially available now or at least by the entry
into force of the financing requirement of the WEEE directive. This will be
th
effective from the 13 August 2005.
2 The technology must allow for “remote read”. A read range of 5cm was
chosen as the absolute minimum acceptable (a much larger read range of 2m
was requested by some CECED members, however, to adopt that criteria
would exclude the vast majority of technologies available)
3 The data capacity must be sufficient for 5 billion codes (33 bits). This number
was based on 50 million large items and 200 million small items being
manufactured per annum over a twenty year period
These three requirements were used as a first pass assessment in the
technology review.
The main functions of any system were stipulated as follows:
• to identify the producer or importer
• to identify the type of equipment, allowing appropriate disposal
• to identify the individual item to allow payment of disposal tax and recording
of that disposal
• identification of data detailing the hazardous materials content of the
equipment to enable correct disposal and recycling to be carried out.
In order to achieve these functions it was concluded that any system must meet
the following general requirements summarised below:
• universal across the region within EU jurisdiction
• meet regulatory requirements in all member countries
• be robust
• immune from duplicated readings
• the system must be secure against fraud, though this could be at the system
level rather than the technology level
• A system must be “future proof”, i.e. able to be adapted as new developments
in technology and regulations become available
• Each product should be assigned its own unique code valid for twenty years
Each of these requirements is explained in more detail in the specification in
Appendix C.
3 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Scientific Generics has a great deal of experience in assessing and developing
tagging systems and indeed owns IPR in two technologies “Programmable
EPI Final Report Page 3
Magnetic Resonance” and “Flying Null”. SG has also carried out reviews of
tagging solutions for clients in many different scenarios from medical devices to
gas cylinders. In order to carry out the technology review for CECED SG has
drawn on this past experience to generate an overview of tagging technologies
for the CECED EPI application. This is presented as a “stand alone” document in
Appendix D.
The following classes of technology have been briefly described and also
illustrated.
• Retail security tags
• Contact technologies
• Optical bar codes
• Chipless tags
• RFID tags
• Other technologies
Each technology has then been assessed against the three primary criteria
defined in the Requirements Study (see Section 2 above), i.e.:
1 Commercially available
2 Remote read (>5cm)
3 Data capacity (>33 bits)
Two technologies passed all three criteria: optical barcoding and RFID tagging,
and these were investigated in greater depth.
System suppliers were contacted using a basic questionnaire relating to the
CECED EPI application. The supplier questionnaire is included in Appendix F. In
most cases, the suppliers were also interviewed by telephone in order to discuss
in detail their technology performance and further assess its applicability to the
EPI application. A report of the detailed technology findings from the suppliers is
given in Appendix G.
Several variants of the two technologies were evaluated against the key
requirements, as shown in Table 1 below. From these, variants representing the
range of product cost estimates were considered in carrying out the cost benefit
analysis.
EPI Final Report Page 4
Technologies Barcodes RFID
125-134kHz 13.56MHz 13.56MHz 13.56MHz 433MHz 868MHz 915MHz
Requirements 1D barcodes 2D barcodes LF R/O HF R/O HF ISO15693 HF ISO14443 UHF UHF (Eur) UHF (US)
General
Data Capacity <50 bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit >50bit
>20 years >20 years
Tag lifetime (data retention) > 20 years > 20 years 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar. 10 years guar.
Passive tag (no battery required) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Secure/Fraud proof Easy to copy Easy to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy Crypto Hard to copy Hard to copy Hard to copy
Tag removal destroys tag Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design Can design
Fault tolerance Can misread Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read Can fail to read
Read on metal Yes Yes Range 70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70% Range<<70%
Read-only available Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Line of sight read required Yes Yes No No No No No No No
Remote read possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Robustness to environment Badly affected Badly affected Unaffected Range 70% Range 70% Range 70% Badly affected Badly affected Badly affected
Robustness to handling Easily destroyedEasily destroyed Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust
Standards available Established Established Some exist Emerging Established Established Emerging Emerging Emerging
Comply with EC freq regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Comply with US freq regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Comply with hazardous materials regulations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Commercially available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Product-type specific
Large white goods (Class 1 & 2)
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 20-50c 20-50c 30-60c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (assumes on metal) > 1.5m > 1.5m Up to 1m < 70cm < 70cm < 70cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling Not compacted Not compacted Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated Orientated
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Vacuums and microwaves
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 20-50c 20-50c 30-60c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (assumes on metal) > 1.5m > 1.5m Up to 1m < 70cm < 70cm < 70cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling At drop off At drop off If robust tag At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Class 4 & 5
Tag cost (installed, 100s millions volumes) 15-40c 15-40c 25-50c 30-50c 40-60c 50-70c 20-50c 20-50c 20-50c
Handheld reader cost (linked to a PC) 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400 300-400
Tag size (for smallest products) Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today Fits today
Read range (for smallest products) 10cm 10cm 20cm 10cm 10cm 10cm Up to 1m Up to 1m Up to 1m
Compatible with recycling At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off At drop off
Compatible with logistics No NoNoNoNoNo NoNoNo
Table 1: Comparison of Tag Technologies verses System Requirements
EPI Final Report Page 5
Legend
Data Capacity <50 bit >50bit
Tag lifetime (data retention) <10 years 10 years guaranteed >20 years
Passive tag (no battery required) No Yes
Secure/Fraud proof Easy to read and copy Easy to read Hard to copy Encrypted Hard to read and copy
Tag removal destroys tag No Can be designed Yes
Fault tolerance (inherent technology
property - environmental impact
covered later) Potential for misreads Low % fail to read, but not misread Never fails to read
Read range greatly
Read on metal reduced Read range reduced 30% Yes
Read-only available No - R/W Yes
Light of sight read required Yes No
Remote read possible No Yes
Read range greatly
Robustness to environment reduced Read range reduced 30% Unaffected by dirt and water
Robustness to handling Easily destroyed Hard to destroy if packaged well
Standards available No Emerging Established
Comply with EC regulations No Yes
Comply with US regulations No Yes
Comply with hazardous materials
regulations No Yes
Commerically available In < 1 year Yes
Large white goods (1&2)
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, if individualised, orientated and Yes, if orientated and partially
Compatible with recycling No not compacted compacted
No added benefit over Yes, if can read stacked pallets,
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems e.g. 18 washing machines (3x3x2)
Vacuums and microwaves
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, at drop-off point when Yes, if individualised during
Compatible with recycling No individualised processing after compacting
No added benefit over Yes, if can read pallet of many
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems products
Class 4 & 5
Tag size Too big for product Fit with redesign Fits today
Read range <0.5m 0.5-1.5m >1.5m
Yes, at drop-off point when Yes, if individualised during
Compatible with recycling No individualised processing after compacting
No added benefit over Yes, if can read pallet of many
Compatible with logistics existing barcode systems products
Table 2: Legend for Comparison of Tag Technologies verses System
Requirements
4 SWOT ANALYSIS
The SWOT analysis has been performed on:
• 1D bar-codes
• 2D bar-codes
• low frequency read only RFID technology
• high frequency read only technology
• high frequency read/write technology, ultra high frequency and microwave
technologies.
EPI Final Report Page 6
4.1 1D Bar codes
Strengths
• Can be very low cost (depending on tag substrate)
• Widely available
• Familiarity
• Could use existing infrastructure
Weaknesses
• Easily obscured
• Limited data capacity
• Not secure
• Easily copied
• Easily damaged physically (e.g. Compacting)
• Requires line of sight
• Label relatively large for small goods, poor visual impact
Opportunities
• Integrate with current systems
Threats
• Damaged codes lead to too many labels unable to be read resulting in loss of
system credibility
• Not extensible
• Greater potential for misreads than other systems
4.2 2D Bar codes
Strengths
• Can be very low cost (depending on tag substrate)
• Adequate data capacity (variable according to area)
EPI Final Report Page 7
Weaknesses
• Easily obscured
• Not secure
• Easily copied
• Easily damaged physically (e.g. Compacting)
• Requires line of sight
• Label relatively large for small goods, poor visual impact
Opportunities
• Integrate by upgrading current systems
Threats
• Damaged codes lead to too many labels unable to be read resulting in loss of
system credibility
4.3 Low Frequency – Read Only
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Resistant to contamination
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
Weaknesses
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
• Minimum cost for complete label higher than bar codes
• Immature standards
Opportunities
• Could replace current bar code systems with a more robust solution
EPI Final Report Page 8
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.4 High Frequency Read /only
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Resistant to contamination
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Most established frequency in RFID
Weaknesses
• Shorter read range than LF
• Greater sensitivity to contamination
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
• Minimum cost for complete label higher than bar codes
• Not compatible with other equipment such as conveyors
Opportunities
• Could replace current bar code systems with a more robust solution
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.5 High Frequency Read/write ISO 15693
As for HF R/O
EPI Final Report Page 9
Additional threat that the data may not be retained for 20 years.
4.6 High Frequency Read/write ISO 14443
As above except:
Strengths
• Cryptographic format
Weakness
• Higher cost
4.7 Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Potential compatibility with emerging technologies
• High data rate
• Increased read range
Weaknesses
• Much greater sensitivity to contamination
• Needs to be orientated
• Range diminished by metal
Opportunities
• Very low costs claimed once technology is available.
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
EPI Final Report Page 10
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
4.8 Microwave
Strengths
• Adequate data capacity
• Not line of sight
• Discreet for small product
• Can be made physically robust
• Increased read range
Weaknesses
• Very sensitive to contamination
• Only available in the US
Opportunities
• Future changes in EU regulations may make technology available
Threats
• Public perceive threat to their data protection rights
• Poor read rate would destroy credibility
5 OTHER APPLICATIONS
A number of possible other applications for tagging were listed in the CECED
th
request for proposal dated 6 March 2003. These were amplified in discussions
th
with CECED members at the pre-start-up meeting held in Brussels on the 16
April. More information was sought firstly, by sending out a questionnaire to the
CECED members (Appendix H) and secondly by use of a workshop held with
those members of the CECED task force that could attend the CECED offices on
th
the 11 June 2003. At that meeting the possible applications were reviewed and
it was agreed with the members present which applications were potentially of
real benefit and which were not. Those applications that were thought by the
CECED members to be potentially beneficial have been considered for the
cost/benefit model.
The additional potential applications identified in the CECED request for proposal
were:
• Manufacturing assembly line
EPI Final Report Page 11
• Supply chain logistics
• Wholesale
• Retail
• After sales service
• Waste disposal
• Fee payment
To gain further information regarding additional benefits questions were included
in the CECED member questionnaire to see if members had already
implemented or trailed tagging within their businesses for other purposes. A
th
workshop was organised for the 11 June at the CECED offices to review the
questionnaire, the cost benefit model and any additional benefits identified with
CECED task force members able to attend.
At this meeting the following were agreed regarding the additional benefits of
tagging:
Manufacturing - Producers of electrical goods already have tagging of
components and assemblies usually in the form of bar codes. It was agreed that
the current installed systems serve the purposes of manufacturing well and little
or no functional benefit could be identified for manufacturing if the systems were
changed to integrate with any new tagging system adopted to address WEEE.
Therefore it was concluded that no additional benefit would accrue as a result of
tagging for WEEE only additional cost.
Logistics - Currently bar code systems are extensively used to track and log the
movement of items for the purposes of logistics. Operation of the system is
carried out using hand held scanners operated by low skill, low cost staff.
Electronic tagging may offer the possibility of full automation of the logistics cycle
replacing the reader operators. It was estimated in the meeting that the total
saving across Europe would be15,000 Euro per person per annum. It was
estimated there were approximately 600 operators in Europe that could be
replaced. It was agreed that this was a benefit and should be included in the cost
/benefit model if all of the technical requirements such as multiple tags in a stack
or on a pallet could be met. Wholesale was included in the logistics section.
Presales - this was defined as mail order/internet/order taking and is a new and
growing area. However, sales in this segment are relatively small and although
growing were not thought to be likely to become significant compared to
conventional retail outlets for the majority of members’ products. It was concluded
that there was no significant benefit for CECED members here.
Retail - The retail industry has very different characteristics in different countries
in Europe. In France and the UK there are a few large retail groups that dominate
the retail sector with only relatively few independent traders. However, in other
markets such as Germany independent small traders dominate the business. Due
to the large number and diverse nature of retailers across Europe it was felt
unlikely that a universal standard necessary to gain benefit from tagging could be
agreed. The cost to the traders of installing the necessary readers and computing
EPI Final Report Page 12
equipment to handle the tagging system would be prohibitive particularly for small
retailers handling relatively few products per annum. The benefit to the producer
(which is the focus of this study) could not be seen. It was agreed to exclude
retail from the cost/benefit model as no producer benefit could be identified.
After-sales service - In many cases a sophisticated after-sales tracking and
registration system already exists using bar code systems. Increasingly after-
sales service is being contracted out and is not operated by the producer. Again
there was little benefit to the producer that could be identified by linking after-
sales service with WEEE directive tagging. It was agreed it was not relevant to
include a benefit in the cost/benefit model.
Guarantee enforcement - A recent article in the press in Germany raised the
possibility of using RFID tagging to assist in guarantee verification. This article
produced a great deal of adverse publicity with respect to concerns regarding
data protection. Due to its potentially controversial nature it was agreed this was
not a benefit to producers and should be excluded.
Waste disposal – Benefits of tagging to address the WEEE directive are the
main purpose of the study.
Verification of fee payment - Confirmation of payment, ensuring payment is
only made once and avoiding paying for other companies’ waste is part of this
study.
The cost benefit model described in section 8 reflects these decisions made by
the CECED task force.
6 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.
Loading comments...