e-Waste
Hazardous Waste Nightmare
Bill Bardin
MANE 6960 – Solid and Hazardous Waste Prevention and Control Engineering
Professor Gutierrez-Miravete
RPI - Hartford
Spring 2014
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
Background ...................................................................................................................... 5
What happens to our “recycled” e-waste? .......................................................................... 5
What are regulators doing about the problem? ................................................................... 8
A “Bottle Deposit” for your iPhone and GoPro? ............................................................... 9
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 10
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 13
2
Thesis
Most electronic devices produced today have an expected functional life of 1 – 3 years, after
which they are disposed of or squirreled away in basements, drawers, and closets because
“they have value”. This mountain of waste is expected to continue growing at 8% per year,
indefinitely.
Abstract
Electronic equipment and “must have” gadgets is the fastest growing waste stream in many
countries. For many, electronics are an essential part of modern life; cell phones, laptops,
GPS, digital cameras, game consoles, networking equipment, industrial process controllers,
TVs and a growing number of gadgets. Every year we buy new, updated equipment to
support our, often perceived needs and wishes. In 2012, global sales of new equipment
included 238.5 million televisions, 444.4 million computers and tablets, and 1.75 billion
mobile phones.1 In many cases, electronic waste contains some very toxic substances, such
as mercury, lead, cadmium, and beryllium. In general, the toxicity of the e-Waste increases
with the age of the components. Mercury and PCB’s were commonly used before acceptable
alternatives were developed. As older equipment is updated and replaced, especially from
industrial sources that typically extend the service life of components to maximize economic
returns, these “higher risk” components are introduced into the waste stream. When these
wastes are incinerated as part of the normal municipal waste stream, they create additional
toxins, such as dioxins and furans, which are considered to be extremely toxic to the
environment in very small quantities. These toxic materials and others in electronics can
cause cancer, and numerous other health issues if these wastes are not properly managed.
With only 25 percent of our e-waste being recycled, what happens to the other 75 percent?2
What happens to the 25 percent that does get recycled?
This paper will provide an analysis of the handling of e-waste, the human and
environmental hazards and economics of the present system. An alternative plan will be
presented that could provide an impetus to socially change the way our electronic products
are marketed, sold, and more importantly, how they are kept out of the environment.
Introduction
The e-waste explosion is overwhelming the normal waste management systems. Some
companies, Hewlett-Packard, for example have very aggressive recycling programs. HP has
even received a consistently high “Green” rating from Greenpeace. The invention, and
1
2
(e-Stewards, 2013)
(US EPA, 2012)
3
subsequent explosion of ink jet an laser jet printers on to the technology stage quickly
evolved into a backlash from consumers who were faced with a growing mountain of spent
ink and toner cartridges. HP recognized the problem and began accepting their cartridges
for recycle. This early effort evolved into the HP Planet Partners program, which recycles an
extensive array of HP products.3 Ink and toner cartridges are shredded and the metal and
plastic components are recycled. Residual ink and other non-recyclables are used to
generate energy or properly disposed of.
Hewlett-Packard is but one of the many responsible electronics manufacturers who conduct
programs similar to this. Nokia, Acer, Dell, Apple, and Samsung are some of the companies
that are highly rated by Greenpeace for their responsible approach to their product
stewardship.4 However, it’s only the major companies that are stepping up to properly
manage their products and even then, they are not 100 percent effective in recycling all their
products. People find it a lot easier, for example, to throw their HP printer and a few spent
cartridges away with an old TV, a few game consoles, keyboards, mice, an old motor and
some scrap wire in with their normal household waste. The best case in this situation would
be the homeowner placing the e-Waste in with other recyclables from the home. At least
there is a chance that they will be properly recycled. If the e-Waste is part of the normal
municipal waste stream, there is a chance that some of it will be recovered if it is taken to an
incinerator that pre-processes its waste stream. If the e-Waste ends up at a mass-burn
incinerator, the only thing salvaged is the metal when it is extracted form the furnace
bottoms.
Recycling is as much a social issue as it is an economic or environmental one. We have
evolved (?) from a society where everything had a value beyond its initial intent. During the
“Great Depression”, items and materials were recycled repeatedly. Equipment, tools, and
most products were built to last a long time. In today’s “modern society”, most consumer
electronic products have a 1 – 3 year lifespan. We are also a society in which a large portion
has a high level of disposable income. The desire to have the latest and greatest, the reality
of Moore’s Law5 as it relates to electronics, luxury items becoming everyday “necessities”,
all combine to create an industry that survives by making it’s most recent products obsolete
as soon as possible. This glut of e-Waste is creating a social, economic and environmental
morass that we may find it impossible to extricate ourselves from unless we are willing to
act quickly and decisively.
3
(Hewlett-Packard, 2008)
(Greenpeace, 2012)
5 (Intel, 2014)
4
4
Background
The current mess created by the electronics explosion has led us to an explosion of e-Waste .
Electronic waste, more commonly known as e-Waste, is electronics equipment that is not
recycled properly. Computers, televisions, industrial electronics, cameras and cell phones
are filled with highly toxic materials, like lead, mercury, cadmium beryllium, chromium,
PVC, and brominated flame retardants, to name a few. Compounding the issue is the fact
that much of our e-waste is recycled overseas using methods that do more harm than good.
The amount of old electronics that are discarded every year is rapidly increasing. With
lower prices, higher performance and rapidly changing technology, computers, phones and
TVs now have very short life spans. Because of this technological boon, e-waste is the fastest
growing type of trash in many countries.
As electronics become a larger and larger part of the throw away culture in many of the
world’s developed nations, the solutions to the problem have lagged far behind. In the U.S.,
there is very little regulation of e-waste. Currently less than 25% of U.S. e-Waste is
recovered for recycling - just 10% of PCs and 14% of TVs6.
The advance of electronic technology is evident almost everywhere from required back-up
cameras on automobiles to students with cell phones in grade school. With technology, the
unimagined only a few years ago is now the norm. The biggest explosion has come in the
area of television. Gone are the bulky cathode ray tubes, replaced with sleek, thin, highresolution LED displays. The cathode ray tube televisions that were relegated to basements
and bedrooms are now being disposed of, replaced by the sleek, modern LED and OLED
TV’s. The replacement of computer screens with flat panel displays introduces another large
amount of e-Waste into the stream. The high level of toxic materials in the CRT’s is bound
to end up in landfills in countries with little or no environmental regulation. A large portion
of the 25% that is recycled in the U.S. is often exported to Asia and Africa for recycling just
because the economics are more favorable. Recycling in these countries can pose a
significant health risk for people who process the equipment. In addition to the health
hazards, the environmental impact can be staggering. Even the European Union, which has
very tight e-Waste regulations, recycles less than 50 % and much of that ends up in Africa
and Asia.
What happens to our “recycled” e-waste?
What happens to the 25 percent? Where does the 75 percent go? Is this the right, socially
6
(ICF International, 2011)
5
acceptable, approach? In the United States, just over half of the states have laws on disposal
and recycling of electronics. The United States, one of the largest consumers of electronics,
has been very slow to adopt rules regarding the handling of e-Waste. As a result, a large
portion of our e-Waste finds it’s way to third world countries like India, China. As you can
see from Figure 17, there are no shortages of locations that are willing to take e-Waste from
countries all over the world. Not shown in Figure 1 are similar sites in Africa with Ghana
and Nigeria being the prime receivers of e-Waste.
Of course, the best way
to handle unneeded or
obsolete electronics is to
reuse
them.
Often,
“used” electronics have
not
reached
their
complete service life.
Many organizations are
willing to give them a
new life, and keep them
out of the recycle system
for an additional period.
Barring reuse, the next
desirable course of action
is recycling at an
approved,
regulated
facility. In many EU
states
for
example,
plastics from e-waste are
not recycled to avoid
brominated furans and
dioxins being released
into the atmosphere8.
Figure 1 e-Waste, modern day world traveler.
On March 22, 1989, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted in response to the dumping of hazardous
wastes in Africa and other developing nations9. The primary objective of the Basel
Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of
hazardous wastes.
7
(Greenpeace, 2014)
(Greenpeace, 2014)
9 (Basel Convention, 2011)
8
6
In spite of the tenants of the Basel Convention, hazardous e-Waste continues to flow from
the world’s high tech countries to countries in Africa and Asia as well as India. Although
legislation exists to prevent illegal disposal of e-Waste, equipment is shipped as used electric
and electronic equipment. It then finds its way out of the country bound for developing
nations. Vast amounts of electronic materials end up in developing nations such as Nigeria,
which,
despite
having
a
population of 155 million people,
does not have a licensed landfill10.
Figure
2
shows
discarded
computer monitors in Ghana.
Children commonly scavenge the
dumps looking for scraps of metal
or anything of value. The toxic
nature of e-Waste dumps places
their health in jeopardy. Figure 3
shows a child laborer in a
Nigerian e-Waste dump11.
Figure 2 Discarded computer monitors in Ghana.
This is not an isolated problem. Waste dumps like this are prevalent in many developing
nations and the problem is only growing. Workers in these e-Waste dumps are routinely
exposed to high levels of known toxins like lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium
(chromium 6), PVC, brominated flame retardants. Most of the workers will suffer the longterm chronic toxicity effects from handling many of these components. Toxins from these
operations threaten the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. It is
likely that these effects will be
seen for generations to come
because of the unhealthy levels
of these toxic chemicals in the
environment. The amount of
electronics that organizations
and people use is growing. At
the same time, the life of
equipment is getting shorter.
This is creating a worldwide
explosion of electronic waste.
We throw away millions of tons
of
electronic
equipment
Figure 3 Worker in a Nigerian e-Waste dump.
worldwide each year.
10
11
(Metcalfe, 2011)
(Hanft, 2013)
7
The dumping of electronic waste not only creates health issues and pollution, it also leads to
the loss of valuable materials furthering the environmental damage as we explore and
extract more from the earth.
It is obvious to anyone who gives even a cursory exam of the e-Waste situation that
something must be done to protect both the people in these developing nations and the
environment as well.
What are regulators doing about the problem?
In the United States, the job or regulating e-Waste falls to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Under current EPA regulations, only cathode ray tubes (CRT’s) are banned
from export. This is due to their high lead content. All other electronics can be exported
with minimal restrictions. Countries that have ratified the Basel Convention total 172. The
United States, the world’s biggest e-Waste
producer, has not ratified the Basel
Convention resulting in the continued,
unrestricted flow of electronics overseas for
disposal12. The lack of comprehensive eWaste disposal laws among the states is
compounding the problem and allowing eWaste to be freely shipped overseas13.
Figure 4 shows the current state-by-state eWaste regulations. As one would suspect,
California leads the nation in e-Waste
recycling. California has imposed a fee on
the sale of electronic devices. This fee is
used to offset some of the costs associated Figure 4 State by state e-Waste regulations.
with an e-Waste recycling program. The fee
is based on the size of the display and currently ranges from three to five dollars 14. At the
other end of the spectrum, fourteen states have no electronic recycling laws at all.
The European Union has taken a two-pronged approach to the issue. First, they have
banned the use of a number of toxic substances used in the manufacture of electronic
devices. Second, they require the manufacturers of electronic devices to take them back at
the end of their life as well as cover the costs associated with refurbishment or recycling. In
spite of the EU’s efforts, it is estimated that less than 40% of the total e-Waste was collected
12
(Bennion, 2011)
(Sustainable Electronics Initiative)
14 (California State Board of Equalization, 2014)
13
8
with the balance being sent to processing facilities outside Europe15. There are a number of
reputable e-Waste recyclers in the United States and Europe but the shipments to
developing nations continue. The lax laws allow the shipment of waste under the guise of
donations or “for repair or refurbishment”. Clearly, this problem requires major social and
political commitments from all concerned parties.
A “Bottle Deposit” for your iPhone and GoPro?
Is a “deposit” on electronic devices a viable method of keeping them out of the municipal
waste stream? Vermont has passed a law that bans recyclables from landfills beginning in
2015.16 In order for this ban to be effective there needs to be a simple method of recycling
used electronics. For example, each town in Connecticut is required to provide a facility for
recycling waste electronic items. This makes recycling of electronics a purely social
responsibility. At this point, CT-DEEP does not prohibit the exporting of electronic waste to
overseas locations17.
It has been 43 years since the first “bottle bill” became law in Oregon in 1971. By 1986, ten
states had deposits on bottles in one form or another. These ten states covered twenty-five
percent of the US population. Although states with bottle laws reported a reduction of
beverage container litter ranging from 70 to 83 percent, and a reduction in total litter
ranging from 30 to 47 percent after implementation of the bottle bill, the number of states
with bottle bills remains at ten in 201418. Michigan, which has the highest deposit at $0.10
per container, claims a return rate of 97%19. New York, with a $0.05 deposit per container,
reports a 70% return rate. Non-deposit states report that only about 38% of the cans and
bottles in circulation are recycled20. It is evident from some statistics that bottle deposit
programs significantly improve the recycle rate. The deposit system creates a necessarily
controlled system for handling recycled bottles and cans.
In a typical bottle deposit program, distributors charge the 5 or 10-cent deposit per can or
bottle to stores, which then charge consumers that amount. When the consumers return the
empty bottles and cans to the store, they receive their deposit back. Stores get their 5 or 10cent deposit, plus a 2-cent-per-container handling fee, when they return the bottles and cans
either to the distributor. In addition to unclaimed deposits, distributors also get to keep
money earned from selling bottles and cans to recycling companies, which often prefer
material collected from redemption systems over curbside pickup because it tends to be
mixed with fewer non-recyclables.
15
(United Nations University, 2013)
(Herrick, 2014)
17 (State of Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2014)
18 (Bottle Bill Resource Guide, 2013)
19 (Eggert, 2008)
20 (Marszalek, 2009)
16
9
Opponents of bottle deposit laws cite added costs for stores that are not included in the
economic models. Stores need additional people and equipment to handle the volume of
recyclables. Additional space is required for storage of returned containers. Many stores
employ on-site reverse vending machines that shred plastic and aluminum containers and
break the glass ones to conserve space. These machines are cost prohibitive for many
smaller operations and are another cost for larger supermarkets. As result of standard
labeling and a fluid distribution system, it is possible for consumers to collect the $0.10
Michigan deposit on containers purchased, for example, on Ohio. States with deposit
programs loose millions in illegal refund schemes and end up spending millions to prosecute
the scammers. Michigan reports losses in excess of $10 million per year, California over $11
million21.
Complicating the equation, states with deposit laws are eying the unclaimed deposits and
legislating ways to turn that into another revenue stream. New York estimates that this
would add over $100 million dollars to the states environmental protection fund22.
Recycling used electronics under a similar system would require significantly more
resources than bottles and cans but would it work?
Conclusion
Deposits work for bottles? Will they work for other things? Over 98 percent of the very
pedestrian, lead-acid automotive batteries are recycled with only a 5-dollar exchange fee23.
There is no single answer that will solve the e-Waste problem. While the European Union’s
approach where manufacturers are responsible for establishing separate end-of-life collection
and recycling programs provides a clear roadmap to handling and disposal of e-Waste, it
still depends largely on the commitment of consumers who must make the effort of
delivering the equipment to recycling stations. Since the manufacturers are responsible for
the ultimate final disposition of their equipment, it is important for them to make the return
process as user friendly as possible. The additional costs for these programs would
ultimately be passed on to the consumer in higher prices. With these prices incorporated
into the product cost, the consumer is less aware of the true cost of disposal. Were
consumers aware of the financial impact of properly recycling and disposing of e-Waste
some would be more inclined to properly recycle the items and a few would be inclined to
push for a more inclusive cradle to cradle approach to manufacturing. Cradle to cradle being
defined as utilizing all the components from the initial product to produce subsequent
21
(Eggert, 2008)
(Marszalek, 2009)
23 (Battery Council International, 2013)
22
10
products. It is important to understand that part of the EU’s program requires
manufacturers to reduce and ultimately eliminate the use of heavy metals and other toxic
ingredients in these products. The EU law also assigns responsibility for “historic” waste
made before the rules came into force, based on producers’ current market shares. This
“Love Canal” approach is sure to increase product costs as improperly handled waste is
“discovered” and “potentially responsible parties” are identified and tapped for theoretically
massive cleanup costs.
If we take the approach of imposing a deposit on electronic devices at the point of sale,
similar to the bottle deposit laws mentioned above, we are creating an incentive for the
consumer to recycle them. As noted, California has a basic program that collects fees on a
small number of electronic products at the point of sale. The California program however
can be vied as more of a tax than a deposit since the funds collected go directly to fund
electronics recycling programs. A fee more akin to oil and tire recycling fees imposed at
auto service centers. The California program does little to incentivize the consumer to
recycle but does at least provide a small, visible line item cost at the point of sale that may
help remind the consumer to recycle the product.
As shown in the data from the states that have bottle deposit laws, placing a dollar value on
an item for the purpose of recycling, does increase the recycle rate, not only of the specific
product but of all recyclables in general. These deposits also create a secondary market for a
product many people consider disposable. All one has to do is look around the parking lot
after a large sporting event. There are nickels and dimes lying on the ground everywhere in
the form of cans and bottles. The consumer in this case has consciously decided that it is not
worth the effort to return these containers for a cash reward, either the monetary value is not
sufficient or there is peer pressure not to do so.
Inconsistencies in the law would also impose confusion on the system. Being able to recycle
a cell phone in California for more than in Arizona would create an illegal underground
economy that would create an imbalance where California would be paying out
significantly more than they were taking in and Arizona would have a surplus. As we have
seen in the bottle deposit example, people are willing, on a large scale, to exploit
opportunities when their state has no deposit law and there is one in an adjacent state.
Deposit programs need to be uniform from state to state to avoid dumping in higher priced
states. Since no states have adopted bottle deposit laws in the past 27 years, it is unlikely
that individual states could come together to set up a comprehensive e-Deposit program.
Unfortunately, this would necessitate a program implemented and administered by the
federal government. Although there is a strong public resistance to adopting environmental
programs from Europe, ratifying the Basel Convention would be a good start.
11
In one form or another, people need to be personally invested in the environmental and
social issues that are affecting our world. While there will always be people who simply do
not believe in recycling and have a limited concern for the environment outside their own
sphere, overall environmental awareness is improving, but not as fast as our problems.
Asking people to recycle be cognizant of the environment and the social ills our policies are
creating will only carry us so far. Social responsibility will extend only so far. People need to
look at the entire cradle to cradle costs and be ready to adopt, and pay for, these additional
costs and accept them as the right thing to do. Companies need to make sustainability a
major selling point, not just the low prices of their products. They need to garner social
credibility by moving these programs to the forefront of their marketing programs.
Education of the public is critical. Placing the responsibility for proper use and disposal of a
product on the company is not the answer. People can’t be expected to employ common
sense or social responsibility at the level needed to address this problem. The company
should provide every reasonable opportunity for the consumer to do the right thing. A
company can’t be held responsible if an individual decides to dump their oil down the drain
or throw a box of mercury switches in the garbage that ends up in a landfill. How many
people continue to use plastic bags even though they have numerous reusable bags, often
provided free from the stores where they regularly shop?
I believe that we need to aggressively be taking steps now to address the problem of eWaste. Ratify the Basel Convention, it provides a good framework to build on. I think
deposits on electronics, on a countrywide level are critical. I would propose a 1 percent
deposit on all electronics sold at the consumer level based on the manufacturers suggested
retail price. This would generate over 2.0 billion dollars worth of incentive to consumers24.
In addition, I would impose an electronics tax to fund increased enforcement of illegal
overseas shipments of electronics for “donation or refurbishment”. Even the common
“Free” cell phone would be subject to deposits and taxes at the same rates.
We are a disposable society and it’s getting worse. It used to be that you buy something, it
breaks, and you get it fixed. However, that’s not how it works anymore. Now when
something breaks you throw it away and get a new one. Until we put a realistic, consumer
cost on our cradle to cradle disposability, it will continue unchecked. As long as we have
people who are willing to cheaply (and usually in a less than desirable environmental way)
deal with our waste, and we allow it, problems will continue to grow.
24
(Consumer Electronics Association, 2012)
12
Bibliography
Basel Convention. (2011). Controlling Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Retrieved
04 13, 2014, from http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/1271/Default.aspx
Battery Council International. (2013). Battery Recycling. Retrieved 04 14, 2014, from Battery Council
International: http://batterycouncil.org/?page=battery_recycling
Bennion, J. (2011). Drowning in Electronics. Retrieved 04 14, 2014, from Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/resources/ewaste.html
Bottle Bill Resource Guide. (2013). What is a bottle Bill? Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from Bottle Bill Resource
Guide: http://www.bottlebill.org/about/whatis.htm
California State Board of Equalization. (2014). Tax Rates - Special Taxes and Fees. Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from
California State Board of Equalization: http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/tax_rates_stfd.htm#6
Consumer Electronics Association. (2012, 07 24). CE Industry Yearly Revenues Expected to Surpass $200B for First
Time. Retrieved 04 17, 2014, from Consumer Electronics Association: https://www.ce.org/News/NewsReleases/Press-Releases/2012-Press-Releases/CE-Industry-Yearly-Revenues-Expected-to-Surpass-$2.aspx
Eggert, D. (2008, 10 26). States find a can of worms in bottle deposit laws. Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from USA Today:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-26-3225980560_x.htm
e-Stewards. (2013). The Globally Responsible Way To Recycle your Electronics. (Basel Action Network (BAN))
Retrieved 04 04, 2014, from http://www.e-stewards.org/the-e-waste-crisis/
Greenpeace. (2012). Greenpeace Guide To Grener Electronics. Retrieved 04 12, 2014, from Greenpeace Magazine:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/18th-Edition/
Greenpeace. (2014). Where does E-Waste go? Retrieved 04 13, 2014, from Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/toxics/hi-tech-highly-toxic/e-waste-goes/
Hanft, J. (2013, 08 21). The Electronic Waste Crisis: 6 Things You Can Do to Help. Retrieved 04 13, 2014, from The
Green Citizen Blog: https://greencitizen.com/blog/?p=589
Herrick, J. (2014, 02 24). Beverage distributors propose an end to bottle bill. Retrieved 04 12, 2014, from brattleboro
Reformer: http://www.reformer.com/morelocalnews/ci_25218059/beverage-distributors-propose-an-endbottle-bill
Hewlett-Packard. (2008). Recycling FAQ's. Retrieved 04 13, 2014, from Hewlett-Packard:
http://h20423.www2.hp.com/program/suppliesrecycling/ap/en/faq.asp
ICF International. (2011). Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
Intel. (2014). Gordon Moore. Retrieved 04 12, 2014, from Intel:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-gordon-moore-law.html
Marszalek, D. (2009, 03 05). Can bottles and nickels turn to millions? (New York Times) Retrieved 04 15, 2014,
from New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/nyregion/westchester/08bottlewe.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
13
Metcalfe, S. (2011, 11 11). Time to stop our electronic waste being dumped on the developing world. (Guardian
Professional Network) Retrieved 04 13, 2014, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/electronic-waste-developing-world
State of Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2014). E-Waste Frequently Asked
Questions . Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from State of Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental
Protection: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=397852&deepNav_GID=1645#Certain
Sustainable Electronics Initiative. (n.d.). U.S. State & Local Legislation. (U. o. Urbana-Champaign, Producer)
Retrieved from Sustainable Electronics Initiative: http://www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu/policy/state.cfm
United Nations Environment Programme. (2012). United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved 04 12,
2014, from Environment and E-Waaste in India:
http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Home/Business/SectoralActivities/ICT/ProjectsActivities/Enviro
nmentandEWasteinIndia/tabid/101142/Default.aspx
United Nations University. (2013, 10 20). EU Crack Down on Illegal E-waste Trade: Countering WEEE Illegal Trade
(CWIT) Project Launches. Retrieved 04 14, 2014, from United Nations University Vice Rectorate in Europe:
https://www.vie.unu.edu/article/read/eu-crack-down-on-illegal-e-waste-trade-countering-weee-illegal
US EPA. (2012, 11 14). Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials - eCycling. Retrieved 04 04,
2014, from http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm#recycled
14