Reclaiming End-of-Life Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs),
and Electronics: A Florida Update
John L. (Jack) Price
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Tallahassee, Florida
ABSTRACT
The disposition of end-of-life CRTs, computers and other electronic equipment is an emerging
environmental issue on which Florida, like Massachusetts and a few other states, has taken action.
Florida has focused upon CRTs as the most problematic material in the electronics waste stream due to
their lead content. CRTs are the second largest source of lead in Florida’s municipal solid waste
stream just behind lead acid batteries. Like Massachusetts, Florida’s strategy includes regulatory
streamlining, electronics recycling infrastructure development, time-limited state funding and possibly
disposal restrictions to encourage the recycling of end-of-life electronics and especially CRTs. The
major difference between Florida’s and Massachusetts’ strategies is the regulatory interpretation.
Florida’s interpretation may be a better fit for some states since U.S. EPA Region IV has given
preliminary approval to its interpretation of how RCRA applies to CRT management while U.S. EPA
Region I has not accepted the Massachusetts approach of exempting unbroken CRTs from RCRA by
rule. The lessons learned from both Florida’s and Massachusetts’ strategies and programs for
managing end-of-life electronics can be helpful as other states begin to deal with this emerging
environmental issue.
BACKGROUND
Electronic equipment, especially computers and televisions, are a ubiquitous part of life, with
per capita ownership expected to rise for the foreseeable future. Equipment obsolescence due to
technological advances such as increasing computer speed and memory, high definition television and
flat panel computer monitors will likely increase discards of these items. Recent estimates suggest that
in 1999, 160,000 computers will be discarded into Florida landfills with 410,000 being recycled and
1,410,000 in storage for eventual discard (Matthews, 1997, factored for Florida’s population). By
2005, these numbers could increase to 420,000 landfilled, 1,100,000 recycled, and 3,800,000 stored.
The more recent EPR2 Baseline Report suggests that these estimates may be 30-40% low (National
Safety Council, 1999). Similarly, television discards into Florida landfills may increase from
1,040,000 in 1999 to 1,200,00 in 2005 (Lowry, 1998, factored for Florida’s population; assumes no
recycling).
While much older equipment will be reused or stored for an additional 3-6 years after its 5 year
average estimated initial useful life, all electronic equipment will sooner or later be discarded. This
equipment represents a significant volume of waste material, but the primary concern is with heavy
metal content, particularly lead from cathode ray tubes (CRTs). The current regulatory interpretation
surrounding the management of this discarded equipment is hampering the development of a reuse and
recycling infrastructure. The CRT part of this discarded electronics waste stream appears to be the
most problematic at this time and hence is the focus of Florida’s strategy. CRTs in the form of
computer monitors and TVs account for ~80% of the items received in electronics collections and are
more expensive to recycle than other computer and electronics equipment. Computers, computer
peripherals (key boards, printers) and other end-of-life electronics (VCRs, radios, tape players, etc.)
commonly utilize collection routes and demanufacturing/recycling facilities at end-of-life which are
similar or identical to CRTs, but these non-CRT materials are not normally subject to the hazardous
waste regulations which apply to CRTs. If regulatory impediments to CRT end-of-life management
are reduced or removed and the recycling infrastructure is encouraged by increased volumes, the flow
and recycling of all end-of-life electronics will be enhanced.
CRT recycling rates are very low (Figures 1 and 2) due in large part to the existing regulatory
status of CRTs, the confusion surrounding this status and the attendant high costs of recycling. The
recycling rate for TVs varies from 0.7 -0.11%. For example, in Florida in 1999 it is estimated that of
the 1.3 million TVs becoming obsolete (potentially discarded), only about 1,000 were recycled. These
projected discards may increase dramatically depending on the speed with which High Definition TV
and flat panel TV displace our current sets. The recycling rate for computer monitors varies from 9.4 15.7%. For example, in 1999 it is estimated that of the 941,000 monitors becoming obsolete
(potentially discarded), only about 88,000 were recycled. The balance of these monitors were either
landfilled, incinerated or stored. It is thought that the vast majority of these non recycled monitors are
in storage because their owners think they still have value. This “storage so that I can sell it for a lot
later” thinking over the past few years has accumulated a large quantity of monitors, perhaps 1.5
million or more, currently in storage just waiting to descend on Florida’s local solid waste managers.
The Florida DEP wants to be ready for this avalanche should it materialize as a slug or be intensified
by a wave of discards due to fear of the Y2K problem or the advent of flat panel monitors.
We need to get the lead out of our efforts to get the lead out of the waste stream from CRTs
used in computer monitors and TVs. Florida’s approach to this problem will be compared to
Massachusett’s approach to illustrate two slightly different ways to approach the regulatory and
programmatic aspects of end-of-life CRT management with the same goal: increase recycling and
decrease lead from these products in landfilled or incinerated MSW. In addition, Florida’s strategy for
end-of-life electronics, especially CRTs, will be presented in detail.
T Vs in Florid a
In Thousands
2,000
1,500
O bsolete
1,000
R ecycled
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 1: Projections of obsolete and recycled TVs in Florida 1999-2003. [Source: National Safety
Council, 1999.]
In Thousands
Com pute r M onitors in Florida
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1999
Obs olete
Rec y c led
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 2: Projections of obsolete and recycled computer monitors in Florida 1999-2003. .
[Source: National Safety Council, 1999.]
What’s in a CRT?
A CRT in a TV or a computer monitor can contain from ~1.5 to nearly 6 pounds
of lead, depending on the size and year of manufacture (4 pounds per CRT is sometimes
used as a rough average). The CRT glass can be divided into 4 parts which have differing
amounts of lead in different chemical and physical forms:
1. Neck: The neck glass houses the electron gun (source of the signal leading to
the display we see when we look at the TV or monitor).
2. Funnel: Lead is bound up in the glass matrix of the funnel (22-25% lead) as
“leaded glass” for shielding us from the radiation produced by the gun.
3. Faceplate or panel: A minimal amount of lead (~2-3%) bound up in the glass
matrix. The function of the lead is not known.
4. Frit: Frit is a type of glass solder used to join the faceplate and funnel sections.
It contains from ~15 to nearly 100 grams of lead per CRT, depending on the size.
The lead from the frit is in a soluble form, primarily lead oxide, as compared to
the insoluble lead in the glass matrix of the funnel and faceplate. The lead in the
frit readily leaches in both the US EPA’s TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure) hazardous waste characterization test and in the landfill or
environment. To a lesser extent, lead may also leach from the funnel or panel
glass depending on the particle size of the broken glass.
The concern with CRTs is the fate of the lead upon disposal into the municipal
solid waste (MSW) stream. More than 40% of the lead discarded into Florida’s MSW in
2000 is estimated to come from CRTs in computer monitors and TVs (Figure 3). The
DEP’s stated goal in its 1995 Agency Strategic Plan is to reduce the amount of lead in
Florida’s MSW by at least 50% by 2000 based upon the 1995 levels. It is critical that the
DEP take any and all effective steps to increase the reuse or recycling of CRTs in order to
meet its lead reduction goal.
Vehicular lead acid (VLA) batteries are the leading source of lead in Florida’s
MSW despite a national recycling rate that has been above 95% since the late 1980’s.
But, due to the large amount of lead per battery (~19 pounds) and the large number of
these batteries in use, even the 5% of these batteries which are not recycled are still the
largest contributor of lead to Florida MSW. The DEP is exploring ways to further reduce
this source of lead. Small sealed lead acid (SSLA) batteries are another source of lead.
As compared to VLA batteries which have a liquid electrolyte, SSLA battery electrolyte
is in a gelled form or held in a more-or-less solid matrix of fibers, thus not free to spill
out. This also allows the battery to be sealed rather than open (via removable caps) as
VLA batteries are. The DEP has been working with the Portable Rechargeable Battery
Association (PRBA) to encourage an industry wide collection program for these batteries.
Other minor sources of lead in Florida’s MSW include glass and ceramics (leaded glass,
ceramic glazes) , plastics (stabilizers ), circuit boards (solder), leaded wine bottle foils
and miscellaneous items.
Sources of Pb in FL MSW, 2000 (Est.)
Computer
Monitors
1,033
TV Tubes
1,768
Other
779
VLA
Batteries
2,586
SSLA
Batteries
572
Total 6,739 Tons
Figure 3: Estimated sources of lead in Florida’s municipal solid waste. [Source: Florida
Department of Environmental Protection estimate.]
FLORIDA AND MASSACHUSETTS: TWO APPROACHES, SAME GOAL
Regulatory Status
Both states recognize the obvious need to remove the existing RCRA regulatory
barriers that impede the movement of end-of-life CRTs to recycling or proper disposal.
Figure 4 depicts many of the possible routes that end-of-life CRTs can follow from
discard for recycling by households or businesses through transporters, handlers,
demanufacturers and finally to the CRT specialist. Even a quick look at this chart tells us
that full RCRA hazardous waste regulations would hopelessly snarl an already
complicated transportation, handling and recycling network. The current abysmal
recycling rates for CRTs bear this out.
Florida and Massachusetts have the same goal to encourage recycling and
decrease the amount of lead and other materials that are landfilled or incinerated, but the
selected regulatory framework is different. While Massachusetts has declared by state
rule
(310
CMR
30.000)
that
unbroken
CRTs
are
not
Figure 4: End-of-life CRT management infrastructure for demanufacturing and recycling. (Based on
Robin Ingenthron, MA DEP, presentation at 1999Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling
Conference, March 23, 1999, Arlington, VA.)
hazardous wastes, Florida emphasizes that CRTs are and will remain hazardous wastes
under RCRA when discarded in regulated quantities to landfills or municipal waste
combustors. However, under Florida’s interpretation of RCRA, 40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii), CRTs are
neither hazardous nor solid wastes when reused as a substitute for commercial products, i.e.,
glass for new CRTs or a fluxing agent in a secondary lead smelter. Florida’s approach seems to
be more palatable to US EPA. While continuing discussions on CRT regulation with
Massachusetts, EPA Region I has rejected Massachusetts’ deregulation rule because it “is not
equivalent to, and is less stringent than” RCRA (64 FR 9110, February 24, 1999). In contrast,
Region IV has given tacit approval for Florida to move forward with its interpretation. Florida is
using this interpretation in its pilot end-of-life CRT management project being done at a Florida
secondary lead smelter under RCRA’s treatability study provisions at 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f).
Upon successful completion of the treatability study, Florida will ask EPA Region IV to formally
accept this interpretation of RCRA with respect to CRT management. Note that EPA has already
issued regulations exempting from RCRA reuse as glass for new CRTs as recommended by its
Common Sense Initiative Committee on Computers and Electronics.
To clarify how and where Florida’s regulatory interpretation applies to end-of-life CRTs,
it is helpful to distinguish between what happens before and after the CRT reaches the CRT
specialist (Figure 4). The CRT specialist may also be a demanufacturer but is depicted as a
separate block here for clarity. Until an unbroken CRT reaches the CRT specialist, it is still a
“product” in that it is either functioning or can be repaired to a functioning state and offered for
resale. Given the complexity of the routes which CRTs may travel on the way to the CRT
specialist, regulation of the CRT as a hazardous waste between the households or businesses and
the CRT specialist would significantly inhibit their movement to beneficial reuse or proper
disposal. If businesses were to discard their CRTs instead of sending them to a CRT specialist,
they would be subject to full hazardous waste regulations. If discarded in regulated quantities,
the CRTs would need to be transported to a hazardous waste landfill by a licensed hazardous
waste transporter with all the associated manifesting, record keeping and reporting. The CRT
specialist makes the determination whether to repair the CRT based upon cost and demand for
resale. Thus, the CRT specialist becomes the “generator” of the waste CRT. If not repaired, the
CRT will either be recycled (into new CRTs or used as a fluxing agent in a secondary lead
smelter) or disposed.
The CRT specialist is the facility that determines that a CRT will not be repaired. All
CRTs that are not physically broken can be repaired: the question is the cost effectiveness of
repairing the CRT. Listed from most to least desirable from an environmental perspective, the
four options available for the CRT specialist are resale, use to make new CRTs, use as a fluxing
agent in a secondary lead smelter, and disposal. Of the four options available for the CRT
specialist, only disposal would trigger management as hazardous wastes under Florida’s
regulatory strategy. There are domestic and foreign resale markets for both computer monitors
and TVs, even black and white TVs. The extent and location of these markets are not well
known as they are closely guarded commercial information of critical competitive value to TV
and computer repair companies. For the CRT glass to be reused for manufacture of new CRTs,
the face glass must be separated from the neck and funnel glass and lead frit bonding compound.
This separation is due to the differing lead contents of face v. neck/funnel glass (much less lead
in face glass). This separation is currently done by sawing the CRT just forward of the lead frit
bonding compound. One Florida electronics demanufacturer currently does such sawing. For
CRT glass to be reused as a fluxing agent in a secondary lead smelter (recycler of vehicular lead
acid batteries), there is no need to separate the two types of glass. The glass functions as a
fluxing agent in the lead smelter. Secondarily, most of the lead in the glass is recovered as well.
Infrastructure Development
Florida and Massachusetts are taking similar steps to build the collection and recycling
infrastructure for electronics and CRT recycling. These steps include financial assistance to
local governments, state grant funding and a statewide recycling contract. The goal is to push
more electronics through the existing recycling infrastructure and “grow” it to the point that
economies of scale will drive down the costs of recycling CRTs. Currently, the component and
scrap value of computers and telecommunications equipment make their recycling reasonably
attractive and in some cases even result in a positive value to the generator, i.e., the recycler pays
for the unwanted equipment. CRTs have a negative value, i.e., cost, to the generator of ~$9
(monitors, small TVs) to ~$35 (console TVs). FL’s intent is to provide time limited funding to
encourage local government programs until the cost of recycling decreases and local funding of
such programs can be established. The state contract should eliminate the need for local
governments to bid their own contracts as well as establish a lowest cost benchmark. The
benchmark can also be used by private business generators as they negotiate contracts with
electronics recyclers: “If you charge $5 under the state contract, why can’t you give me the same
deal?”
Florida is providing grants to Florida-based lead material recyclers to develop a local
destination for CRTs that are recycled in lead smelters. Florida has one secondary lead smelter
located in the state. Transportation costs are a large component of the CRT recycling cost. The
use of a Florida smelter would cut transportation costs since almost all Florida CRTs currently
being recycled in lead smelters are shipped out of state, commonly as far as Missouri. In its
1999 session the Florida Legislature passed SB 1434 and its House companion authorizing the
appropriation of $400,000 in grants annually through FY 2004/2005 (5 years = $2 million total).
According to Section 1 of SB 1434, the funds can be used for research and development;
innovative technologies and equipment; and establishing a collection and transportation
infrastructure for “the reuse, recycling and proper management of lead-containing materials”
including CRTs. Florida’s grant priorities for Year 1 (FY 1999/2000) are $300,000 for
innovative CRT recyclng technologies and equipment. This money will go “to FL based
businesses that recycle lead-acid batteries and other lead-containing materials, including
products such as televisions and computer monitors that utilize lead-containing cathode ray
tubes” as specified in Section 2 of SB 1434. The remaining $100,000 will be used for collection
infrastructure development. Other funding, especially for county programs, will be provided
from Florida’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center Unique and Innovative Grant and
its Recycling and Education Grant. A variety of pilot public and private management options
and collection scenarios, described below, will be evaluated.
1. Local/State Agency Pilot: The DEP was directed in SB 1434, Section 3, to
“implement a pilot program to collect lead-containing products, including end-of-life computers
and other electronics from state and local agencies.” The DEP has begun discussions with
various state agencies about such a pilot.
2. Municipal Collections: The DEP funded the ongoing dropoff program in Pasco
County and a targeted collection program in Alachua County during FY 1998/1999. Pinellas
County will likely collect at their HHW centers during FY 1999/2000. Another municipal
collection strategy which should be tried is an ongoing curbside collection program.
3 TV Repair Shops: Since televisions tend to be the most common item received at
both ongoing and targeted collections, it is apparent that TV repair shops play a vital role in endof-life TV management. To date, the DEP has been unable to make contact with this business
sector as a group. The MA DEP has found out that TV repair shops have their own aftermarkets
for repaired and discarded TVs which are relatively unknown to the Florida DEP and which tend
to be different from the aftermarkets of computer repair shops (of which much more is known by
the DEP). Recently, the DEP has found a trade group in Florida which represents electronics
repair businesses. Investigation of this management route ought to be a priority for the DEP and
its public and private partners. The Southern Waste Information Exchange (SWIX) targeted
study, funded by the legislature, will be directed towards the TV repair industry.
4 Computer Repair Shops: These businesses and nonprofits repair computers for
resale and remove operational and valuable components (e.g., memory, chips, drives) for resale
at the highest level of reuse. These operations require at least some highly skilled staff who
know what to fix (and how to fix it), what to keep and what to scrap. The DEP knows of at least
two vocational school programs that teach computer repair and operations using discarded
computers. Recently, it appears that the City of Tampa and the Hillsborough Education
Foundation may be gearing up for a similar program. Large quantities of unrepairable or
unusable (e.g., 286’s) computers, maybe as many as 2 for every 3 received, are generated by
these operations. The unrepairable or unusable computers may proceed to electronics
demanufacturers. It is important that these operations, especially the nonprofits, realize that they
will have a significant waste stream to deal with.
5. Electronics Demanufacturers: These businesses demanufacture electronics for
reusable and operational components and for scrap value. They landfill the rest (usually a very
small fraction of the material stream). They may also test and repair computers (but rarely other
electronics) for resale. Demanufacturing operations seem to be very attractive to nonprofit
organizations since many of the tasks can be done by unskilled or semiskilled labor such as
prisoners, former welfare recipients, or mentally disabled individuals. Training for these tasks is
usually straightforward.
The DEP has been working with Florida based electronics
demanufacturers and gathering information from U.S. based operations at national conferences
for over two years. As a consequence, the DEP has a good working knowledge of what actions
are needed to encourage this part of the infrastructure, i.e., regulatory relief and increased
throughput to bring down costs. The DEP believes that the necessary demanufacturing
infrastructure currently exists in Florida. The three existing demanufacturers can easily open
“satellite” operations which could service the entire state as the demand for service warrants.
6. Computer Leasing Businesses: These businesses lease computers to users for a
fixed period of time after which the computer is returned. If the returned computer is obsolete, it
may enter the used sale/export market or proceed to electronics demanufacturers or be discarded.
The DEP has just begun to investigate how leasing operations fit into end-of-life computer
management. Computer leasing will likely become more popular as the life spans of succeeding
generations of computers shortens and business computer users, especially, wish to avoid or
minimize end-of-life management costs or storage of obsolete equipment.
7. Thrift Shops/Charities - Used Goods: Thrift shops and other charities such as
Goodwill and the Salvation Army often receive usable computers, TVs and other electronics as
donations. However, much of the received equipment is either obsolete or inoperable and must
proceed to demanufacturing and recycling or disposal. These locations may be able to serve as
collection points for end-of-life electronics as well.
8. Moving Companies: There may be a significant electronics waste stream, especially
TVs, from people who are moving out of the area. It is not known how much or what types of
electronics tend to be left behind during a move but large, console TVs seem to be a likely
candidate. Movers may be able to serve as collection points by directing “left behind”
electronics to the appropriate point of the demanufacturing and recycling infrastructure.
9. Private Asset Recovery Operations: These companies specialize in providing the
highest dollar return on discarded computer equipment from usually large scale business
information system users such as banks and Fortune 500 type companies. These companies may
also be electronics demanufacturers (e.g., SEER based in Tampa; Creative Recycling Systems
based in Brandon) or may be a cost center for a MSW management company (e.g., Waste
Management Asset Recovery Group). The DEP may be able to establish a public/private
partnership with, for example, Waste Management Asset Recovery Group and an electronics
manufacturer, such as Sony. The MN Office of Environmental Assistance (compliance
assistance sister office of the MN Pollution Control Agency) has conducted a pilot with Waste
Management and Sony during 1999. One consideration in such a pilot is that the private partners
may want to direct the recovered assets to their own outlets as opposed to using Florida based
electronics demanufacturers.
Disposal Restrictions
Both Florida and Massachusetts believe that any disposal restrictions or ban should be
preceded by the development of a cost effective alternative to disposal, i.e., recycling at a
reasonable cost. To that end, both states are adjusting the regulatory status, providing timelimited infrastructure funding and developing a state-wide contract for recycling of CRTs and
other end-of-life electronics. Massachusetts has proposed a disposal ban for CRTs effective at a
date certain as part of its CRT strategy. The date upon which this disposal ban is to become
effective has been rescheduled to account for changes in the rate at which the infrastructure has
developed to provide such a reasonable alternative to disposal.
Florida recognizes that a disposal ban on regulated quantities of CRTs is currently in
effect. Businesses that are Small Quantity or Large Quantity Generators under RCRA and that
discard CRTs must manage those CRTs as hazardous wastes. In Florida, that means that these
CRTs cannot be disposed in municipal solid waste landfills or municipal waste combustors.
Florida will consider a disposal ban on CRTs from non-regulated businesses (including
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators) and perhaps residential users at some future
time as the infrastructure is deemed “adequate” and the recycling costs are deemed “reasonable.”
While disposal bans in Florida have been effective, i.e., yard trash, white goods and tires, the
imposition of such bans is not considered lightly. The Florida DEP would rather encourage
proper management by all means possible prior to, or at least in conjunction with, a disposal ban.
Whether Florida will impose disposal restrictions on non-regulated businesses and residential
users is an open question at this time.
CONCLUSION
The disposition of end-of-life CRTs, computers and other electronic equipment is an
emerging environmental issue on which Florida, like Massachusetts and a few other states, has
taken action. Florida’s strategy is summarized in Appendix I. Florida has focused upon CRTs as
the most problematic material in the electronics waste stream due to their lead content. CRTs are
the second largest source of lead in Florida’s municipal solid waste stream just behind lead acid
batteries. Like Massachusetts, Florida’s strategy includes regulatory streamlining, electronics
recycling infrastructure development, time-limited state funding and possibly disposal
restrictions to encourage the recycling of end-of-life electronics and especially CRTs. The major
difference between Florida’s and Massachusetts’ strategies is the regulatory interpretation.
Florida’s interpretation may be a better fit for some states since U.S. EPA Region IV has given
preliminary approval to its interpretation of how RCRA applies to CRT management while U.S.
EPA Region I has not accepted the Massachusetts approach of exempting unbroken CRTs from
RCRA by state rule. The lessons learned from both Florida’s and Massachusetts’ strategies and
programs for managing end-of-life electronics can be helpful as other states begin to deal with
this emerging environmental issue.
APPENDIX I
Summary of Florida’s Strategy for Management of End-of-Life Cathode Ray Tubes
(CRTs), Computers and Other Electronic Equipment
September 2, 1999 Discussion Paper
Action Item Summary
1. Specify the Regulatory Framework
• Discourage landfilling and encourage recycling of CRTs
• Intact CRTs not waste until CRT specialist decides not to repair
• Intact CRTs (and even broken/crushed CRTs) from CRT specialist not hazardous
wastes when “used or reused as effective substitutes for commercial products” [per 40
CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii)] in both manufacture of new CRTs (glass-to-glass) or as fluxing
agent in secondary lead smelters
2. Promote Recycling Infrastructure: Provide Time Limited Funding
• Specific programs funded by $400,000 from SB 1434
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center Unique and Innovative Grants
• Encourage use of Recycling and Education Grants for CRT/electronics recycling
3. Pilot Programs to Evaluate Various Management Options: Public & Private Partners
3.1. Local/state agency pilot per SB 1434
3.2. Municipal collections
• Ongoing dropoff (Pasco County)
• One day collections (Alachua County)
• Ongoing curbside
3.3. TV repair shops (in cooperation with SWIX)
3.4. Computer repair shops (including schools)
3.5. Electronics demanufacturers
3.6. Computer leasing businesses
3.7. Thrift shops/charities (Goodwill; Salvation Army)
3.8. Moving companies
3.9. Private asset recovery operations
4. Execute State Recycling Contract: Department of Management Services Partner
• Available to counties, municipalities and other governmental agencies
REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register: February 24, 1999 (Volume 64, Number
36), Page 9110-9114.
Lowry, Jeff, Techneglas, Inc. “Color Television Glass Industry,” presented at Demanufacturing
of Electronic Equipment Seminar, October 31, 1998, Deerfield Beach, Florida.
Mathews, H.S., C.T. Hendrickson and D.J. Hart, “Disposition of End-of-Life Options for
Personal Computers,” July 7, 1997, Carnegie Mellon University, Green Design Initiative
Technical Report #97-10.
National Safety Council, “Electronics Products Recovery and Recycling (EPR2) Baseline
Report: Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the U.S.,” May, 1999.