e-Waste:
Complicating Municipal Waste
Bill Bardin
MANE 6960 – Solid and Hazardous Waste Prevention and Control Engineering
Professor Gutierrez-Miravete
RPI - Hartford
Spring 2014
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5
End of Life Electronics, What Now? .............................................................................................. 6
Handling e-Waste............................................................................................................................ 7
A Social Responsibility? ................................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 10
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 11
3
4
Thesis
Americans are becoming more environmentally conscious, using less, recycling more but we are
also becoming more dependent on electronic devices in every aspect of our daily lives. When
these devices reach the end of their life, what becomes of them? Do they pose a risk if they are
disposed of as regular waste?
Abstract
The multitude of electronic components that that have inserted themselves as required
accessories in our society has been growing exponentially. From electronic keys to flat screen
TV’s; these electronic devices have become necessary as a functional tool and in many cases, a
status symbol. With the ever changing landscape of electronic devices and the fickle nature of
American consumers the desire to have the “latest and greatest” leads to a short life cycle for
items like cell phones, tablets, laptops and other personal devices. The result of this electronic
narcissism is an ever-increasing number of “obsolete” electronic components. Society is
becoming more aware of the impact of disposing of items like cell phones in the normal waste
streams that are better equipped to handle municipal waste only. The infrastructure to handle the
explosion of electronic components properly is lagging far behind the introduction of newer
models. While manufacturers have adjusted their processes to reduce or eliminate toxic metals
and other components in their products, there is still an environmental risk stemming from
improper disposal.
Introduction
In 2009, it is estimated that only 25 percent of consumer electronic products were collected for
recycling. With an estimated 7.37 million tons of electronics at the end of their life, that leaves
over 5.5 million tons with an unknown disposition1. While some of this will ultimately find it’s
way to a recycling facility, a reasonable percentage will find it’s way into the municipal waste
stream.
Background
E-Waste (Electronic Waste) is a rapidly growing problem in the United States and throughout the
world. When electronic goods are at the end of their life, most people do not to know how or
where to dispose of their electronic items. Electronic goods can be defined as cell phones,
laptops, computers, televisions, and numerous other items. The increasing speed of technology
advances has only increased the desire to have the latest and greatest items at all times. This
means that electronics have a shorter active lifespan with their owners and will soon be destined
for the scrap heap or, more likely, the local municipal waste system.
According to a report by The National Safety Council, in the U.S. alone, there are an estimated
1
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. (2011). Electronic Waste
Management in the United States Through 2009. US EPA.
5
315 million outdated computers and over 500 million used cell phones. Currently, less than 11%
of computers are being recycled, while the majority sits in warehouses or consumer households.2
Although some of the electronics manufacturers are beginning to embrace recycling and reuse as
a method of dealing with the burgeoning problem of e-waste, many still employ the designed
obsolesces method of product stewardship.
End of Life Electronics, What Now?
As previously noted, up to seventy-five percent of the e-waste generated each year is destined for
a fate other than recycling. Typically, the bulk of this waste ends up in the municipal waste
stream, destined for incineration or landfill. Each of these options has their unique set of
problems. Although dwindling in number, there are still millions of CRTs (cathode ray tubes) in
use, sitting in storerooms for lack of a proper disposal stream, or basements and closets. Sadly,
the bulk of these will end up in the municipal waste stream. The landfilling of CRTs will result
in the release of mercury into the landfill. In a secure landfill, the problems are somewhat
mitigated. Leachate can be managed and as long as the liner remains in tact the possibility of a
release is minimized. If the landfill has a methane capture system, the possibility of mercury in
the gas extraction stream poses a problem. Although many landfills process the methane to make
it acceptable for use as a fuel, there are a number that either flare off the raw methane or, worst
of all, simply vent the methane, and all of it’s contaminates, directly to the atmosphere. The
levels of total gaseous mercury (TGM) in landfill fuel gas (LFG) in the µg/m 3 range was
measured in several Florida landfills, and proposed the possible existence of gaseous organic Hg
compounds since monomethyl mercury (MMM) was identified in LFG condensate at elevated
levels. TGM, Hg°, and methylated mercury compounds were directly measured in LFG from
another Florida landfill. In this landfill, dimethyl mercury (DMM) in the LGF was also
identified. Landfills represent the only identified anthropogenic source of DMM emissions to air,
and may help explain the existence of MMM in rainfall3. The presence of mercury will require a
scrubbing system for the mercury before the gas can be properly burned. CRTs are not the only
source of mercury in landfills. Mercury can also be found in batteries, fluorescent bulbs,
thermometers and even old latex paint4. Elemental mercury itself is toxic but it is even more
toxic in the form of methyl mercury, which is the result of a chemical modification by bacteria
found commonly in landfills. The result of this naturally occurring reaction in the landfill
underscores the importance of preventing mercury from entering the municipal-waste stream.
During the life of a landfill, mercury and other toxic materials are released to the air as a normal
occurrence. The dumping of e-waste into a landfill and the subsequent compaction by
mechanical means releases numerous toxics directly into the atmosphere since the waste is
completely exposed during the process. The exposed waste is also subject to the prevailing
environmental conditions, rain, wind, solar heating, mechanical action which increases the
probability of toxic dispersion. Even with a cover layer, the possibility of increased release rates
of toxics exists until the landfill is capped, which could be twenty or more years, depending on
the design. Since there is no waste processing (sorting) prior to waste being dumped into a
landfill, the proper classification of the waste falls to the consumer. It is incumbent on them to
properly sort all waste they produce for disposal. Although recycling of e-waste is required under
2
(Edwards, 2010)
(Lindberg, 2003)
4
(Raioff, 2001)
3
6
Connecticut ‘s Electronics Recycling Law, adopted in July of 2007 5, the success of the program
is ultimately dependent on the social convictions of the general population. In order to aid the
public in making effective buying decisions of electronic items, the state maintains a list of
manufacturers who have been deemed “compliant with Connecticut’s electronic recycling law” 6.
Although Connecticut has a law on the books, like many other states with similar laws, it is very
specific and limited in scope. For example, it does not include cell phones; fax machines, video
game consoles, or even printers in the disposal ban7.
Burning of e-waste has it’s own special set of concerns. Although the burning of waste to
produce energy sounds promising, especially for communities that do not have easy access to
landfills or are running out of landfill space, it’s not as simple as it sounds. Many opponents of
incinerating e-waste for it’s energy value alone point out that recycling the products is much
more energy efficient and leads to a significantly more sustainable product.
Trash to energy plants have a distinct advantage over landfills when it comes to recycling waste.
In most cases, a human element has been introduced into the screening process for the
classification and separation of waste. Waste is initially dumped into a storage pit then a crane
transfers it to the sorting conveyor(s). It is much simpler to remove items such as e-waste for
recycling as the trash stream travels down a conveyor. When combined with a mandated e-waste
recycling program and a reasonably committed populous a significantly higher percentage can be
segregated for recycling.
Handling e-Waste
Laws governing the disposal of e-waste vary
widely as shown in Figure 1. Illinois has the most
comprehensive regulations for dealing with ewaste in the United States while some states;
Alaska and Florida for example, have no laws on
the books8. Currently, California is the only state
with Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) laws. ARF
programs require consumers to pay an extra fee
during the purchase of electronic products to
cover the expense of managing a recycling
program. In 2005, California enacted legislation
to implement an electronic waste recovery and
recycling program. As proof of the effectiveness
of the program, more than 215 million pounds of
electronic waste was recycled in 20089.
5
Figure 1: State e-waste laws.
(Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2014)
(Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2014) Approved list
7
(Sustainable Electronics Initiative)
8
(Sustainable Electronics Initiative)
9
(Californians Against Waste)
6
7
Industry experts estimate that of the e-waste that recyclers collect, which represents only 25
percent of the total United States e-waste stream, roughly 50-80 % of that ends up being
exported to developing nations10. Recent toughening of export regulations and increased
awareness placed on recycling has many major electronics manufacturers taking an active roll in
recycling. There are a number of growing companies in the United States that provide
comprehensive we-waste recycling services. While these companies are primarily focused on
providing services to corporate customers, some common recycling streams are finding their way
there as well. Many towns throughout the United States provide a location where e-waste can be
dropped off for recycling and disposal. Figure 2 shows a flow diagram for a typical modern ewaste recycling process11.
Figure 2: Typical modern e-waste recycling flow diagram.
10
11
(Electronics Takeback Coallition)
(Liquid Technology, 2014)
8
A Social Responsibility?
There are a number of electronic manufacturers that have recognized the need to recycle their
products. This is primarily viewed as a social responsibility but there are also economic benefits
to such programs. Recycling on this level is very beneficial when attempting to keep e-waste out
of the municipal waste stream. Not only does it eliminate the need to hand and mechanically sort
e-waste, reducing manpower requirements, but it keeps a significant amount of toxic waste out of
the ecosystem. In addition to keeping toxic waste out of the environment, these programs
facilitate the recovery of ever-dwindling supplies of critical raw materials like copper, gold,
silver and petroleum based components. These programs place the recycling responsibility
squarely on the consumer so it is imperative that it be a simple process to be successful. HP, for
example, has made the process of recycling their Laser Jet® cartridges as simple as placing a
return shipping label on the box containing the cartridge(s) and dropping it off at a local UPS
office. Both Apple and Dell have similar recycling programs. Apple will provide gift cards if
you’re returned items have a monetary value. Dell will plant trees every time you order a
computer.
One of the best in exhibiting a commitment to product stewardship is Hewlett-Packard. In 2012,
Hewlett-Packard, a leader in product recycling, reached a milestone by recycling 2.5 billion
pounds of electronic products and supplies since 198712. HP has made a significant commitment
to recycling their products in the most efficient way possible. When equipment has resale value,
it is refurbished and resold. This option results in the lowest environmental impact and extracts
additional profits from the product stream. If it is determined that refurbishment is not a viable
option, the equipment is disassembled and broken down into its basic constituent components
and materials. In many cases, because of effective product design, many of the base components
can be reused rather than being recycled. HP has long maintained an extensive program to
recycle their ink and toner cartridges and continues to expand it. HP employs numerous retailers
as well as a direct recycle program for these items. Returned HP ink and Laser Jet® cartridges
are recycled and used to make new cartridges as well as other plastic and metal components for
HP.
HP has direct relationships with a number of first-tier reuse and recycling vendors, who in turn
manage hundreds of subcontractors in the recycling environment. HP also conducts extensive
audits of their first-tier vendors to ensure they conform to their hardware recycling and reuse
standards which cover the storage, handling, and processing of returned electronic equipment. A
key aspect of HP’s product stewardship incorporates a responsible policy regarding the export of
electronic waste to developing countries.
This high level of commitment to product stewardship has garnered HP the second highest
ranking on the Greenpeace “Guide to Greener Electronics” 2012 ranking13. Other companies that
rank high in the report are Nokia, Acer, Dell, Apple and Samsung.
12
13
(Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 2014)
(Greenpeace International, 2012)
9
Conclusion
Creating a sustainable electronic device may be a pipe dream. As technology evolves, we are
finding our personal devices doing more in a smaller package. From this perspective, we are
moving in the right direction. Smaller devices that do more are benefiting in two ways, they use
fewer raw materials, and by performing multiple functions, they eliminate the need for multiple
devices. The problem is exacerbated by the explosion of “must have” devices that hit the market
every day. New bio plastics, which are 100 percent biodegradable, can reduce the burden on the
environment14. The fact that these bio plastics will fully degrade in a landfill eliminates a large
problem of plastics that will remain in the environment for hundreds of years.
14
(Hower, 2013)
10
Bibliography
Californians Against Waste. (n.d.). California's Existing E-waste Recycling Laws. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
Californians Against Waste: http://www.cawrecycles.org/issues/ca_ewaste/existing_laws
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2014, 02 07). Connecticut DEEP's List of
Compliant Electronics Manufacturers. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/ewaste/ewastemfgcomplist.pdf
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2014, 02 19). Connecticut's Electronics Recycling
Law. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from Department of Energy & Environmental Protection:
http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=397482
Edwards, K. (2010, 10 27). Clean Air Council. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
http://www.cleanair.org/program/waste_and_recycling/electronic_waste/electronic_waste_background
Electronics Takeback Coallition. (n.d.). Responsible Recycling vs Global Dumping. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
http://www.electronicstakeback.com/global-e-waste-dumping/
Greenpeace International. (2012, 11). Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
Greenpeace International: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-thecompanies-line-up/
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (2014). Reuse & Recycling at HP. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/environment/recycling-reuse.html#.UzM7YNyG7fM
Hower, M. (2013, 10 15). New Bioplastic Could Eliminate 50 Million Tons of Annual E-Waste. (Sustainable Life
Media) Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from Sustainable Brands:
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/new-bioplastic-could-eliminate-50-million-tonsannual-e-waste
Lindberg, S. (2003, 04 17). Airborne Organic mercury Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Retrieved
03 22, 2014, from http://www.esd.ornl.gov/people/lindberg/lindberg3.html
Liquid Technology. (2014). Fully Compliant E-Waste Recycling Process. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
http://www.liquidtechnology.net/computer-e-waste-recycling-disposal.php
Raioff, J. (2001, 07 07). Landfills Make Mercury More Toxic. Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from
Science News Online: http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/landfills_mercury_toxic.html
Sustainable Electronics Initiative. (n.d.). US State & Local Legislation. (U. o. Urbana-Champaign, Producer)
Retrieved 03 22, 2014, from http://www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu/policy/state.cfm
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. (2011). Electronic Waste
Management in the United States Through 2009. US EPA.
11