HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOHN B. STEPHENSON
Congressional Testimony
07-26-2005
Statement of John B. Stephenson Director Natural Resources and Environment
United States Government Accountability Office Committee on Senate Environment
and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk and Waste Management
July 26, 2005 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss our work to date on the issues surrounding the
growing volume of used electronics accumulating in the nation`s basements,
attics, and landfills. Rapid advancements in technology have led to increasing
sales of new electronic devices, particularly televisions, computers, and
computer monitors. Approximately 62 percent of U.S. households had computers
in 2003, compared with only 37 percent just 6 years earlier. With this
increase comes the dilemma of how to manage these products when they come
to the end of their useful lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has estimated that in 2003 alone, about 50 million existing computers became
obsolete, but one estimate forecast that less than 6 million were recycled.
Disposal of used electronics creates potential problems that can be averted
through recycling or reuse. For example, concerns have been raised because
toxic substances such as lead, which have well-documented adverse health
effects, can potentially leach from used electronics. Concerns have also
been raised over used electronics that are exported from the United States
to countries with less stringent environmental regulations. In addition,
computers contain precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum,
that require substantial amounts of energy and land to extract. These metals
can often be extracted with less environmental impact from used electronics
than from the environment. The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, reports
that 1 metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of
ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores, such as arsenic,
mercury, and sulfur. In this context, you and several other Members of
the Congress asked that we address a number of issues surrounding this
problem. Specifically, we were asked to (1) summarize existing information
on the volumes of, and problems associated with, used electronics and (2)
examine the factors affecting the nation`s ability to recycle and reuse
electronics when such products have reached the end of their useful lives.
To address these issues, we are examining studies that provide nationwide
estimates on the amount of used electronics,` as well as federal and state
government studies (including those by EPA and task forces in Oregon and
Washington), industry and interest group studies, and local studies (including
municipal solid waste characterization studies) that discuss the problems
associated with used electronics. We are also visiting states and localities
that have implemented programs or passed legislation to responsibly manage
used electronics, including California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Oregon, and Washington. In addition, we are surveying participants in the
National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative and other key stakeholders,
which include key stakeholders from federal, state, and local governments,
environmental organizations, recyclers, retailers, equipment manufacturers,
and academicians. To date, we have received responses from 41 of the 53
survey participants. We are also comparing current government and industry
practices with existing practices for promoting recycling in other industries,
such as bottle- and canrecycling programs and the Rechargeable Battery
Recycling Corporation program. Further, we are examining EPA- sponsored
federal, state, and local pilot programs that attempt to encourage recycling
of electronic products. Our work is being done in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards, which include an assessment of
data reliability and internal controls. We are here to present our preliminary
observations on these issues. We will report the final results of our study
and any recommendations we may develop at a later date. In summary: Available
estimates suggest that the volume of used electronics is large and growing
and that if improperly managed can harm the environment and human health.
While data and research are limited, some data suggest that over 100 million
computers, monitors, and televisions become obsolete each year and that
this amount is growing. These obsolete products can be either recycled,
reused, disposed of in landfills, or stored by users in places such as
basements, garages, and company warehouses. Available data suggest that
most used electronics are probably stored. These units have the potential
to be recycled and reused, disposed of in landfills, or exported for recycling
and reuse overseas. If ultimately disposed in landfills, either in the
United States or overseas, valuable resources, such as copper, gold, and
aluminum, are lost for future use. Additionally, standard regulatory tests
show that some toxic substances with known adverse health effects, such
as lead, have the potential to leach into landfills. Although one study
suggests that leaching is not a concern in modern U.S. landfills, it appears
that many of these products end up in countries without modern landfills
or the environmental regulations comparable to the U.S. Both economic and
regulatory factors discourage recycling and reuse of used electronics:
Economic factors inhibit the recycling and reuse of used electronics. Consumers
generally have to pay fees and drop off their used electronics at often
inconvenient locations to have them recycled or refurbished for reuse.
Consumers in Snohomish County, Washington, for instance, may have to travel
more than an hour to the nearest drop-off location, which then charges
between $10 and $27 per unit depending on the type and size of the product.
Consumers in the Portland, Oregon area, pay one local recycler 50 cents
per pound to have their used computers recycled, which is about $28 for
an average-sized desktop computer. Recyclers and refurbishers charge these
fees because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing outweigh
the revenue received from recycled commodities or refurbished units. This
point was underscored by the International Association of Electronics Recyclers,
which reported that the value of commodities recovered from computer equipment
(such as shredded plastic, copper, and aluminum) is only between $1.50
and $2.00 per unit. It was further underscored by our interviews with eight
electronics recyclers, who were unanimous in emphasizing that they could
not cover costs without charging fees. Federal regulatory requirements
provide little incentive for environmentally preferable management of used
electronics. The governing statute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, bars entities that dispose of more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste
per month from depositing hazardous waste (including some used electronics)
in landfills. However, RCRA does not prohibit households and entities that
generate less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month from sending
hazardous waste to municipal landfills. Consequently, since only four states
currently ban disposal of used electronics in their trash or local landfill,
most consumers in the remaining 46 states (and the District of Columbia)
are allowed to do so-and have little incentive to do otherwise. Not surprisingly,
available data suggest that states and localities that do not have landfill
bans have dramatically lower levels of recycling than the four states that
have enacted landfill bans. In addition, federal regulations provide for
neither a financing system for responsible management of used electronics,
nor oversight of these products when exported-a particular problem in the
case of some developing countries, where risks to the environment and human
health may be more likely because of less stringent environmental regulations.
In the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of potentially conflicting
state requirements is developing. This patchwork may be placing a substantial
burden on recyclers, refurbishers, and other stakeholders. As we conclude
our work, we will be examining the implications of our findings for the
ongoing efforts among the states to deal with the problem, for the various
legislative solutions that have been proposed to create a uniform national
approach, and for options the federal government can pursue to encourage
recycling and reuse of used electronics. Background Few people are aware
of recycling options for their old televisions and personal computers.
Because of the perceived value of used electronics, some pass their used
equipment to family members or friends before eventually storing these
units in their attics, basements, or garages. Eventually, though, consumers
need to dispose of these units in some manner. By choosing to have these
products recycled, consumers ensure the recovery of resources like copper,
iron, aluminum, and gold, which would otherwise be procured through less
environmentally friendly practices such as mining. Likewise, consumers
who choose to recycle also reduce the amount of waste entering the nation`s
landfills and incinerators. Since used electronics typically contain toxic
substances like lead, mercury, and cadmium, recycling or refurbishing will
prevent or delay such toxic substances from entering landfills. The Congress
affirmed its commitment to reducing waste and encouraging recycling, first
through enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976, and then again with passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990. Both RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act address alternatives to
waste disposal. RCRA promotes the use of resource recovery, either through
facilities that convert waste to energy or through recycling. To promote
recycling, RCRA required EPA to develop guidelines for identifying products
that are or can be produced with recovered materials. RCRA also requires
federal agencies to procure items that are, to the maximum extent practicable,
produced with recovered materials. The Pollution Prevention Act provides
that pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled or treated in
a safe manner, and disposal or other releases should be used only as a
last resort. It specified that pollution prevention can include such practices
as modifying equipment, technology, and processes; redesigning products;
and substituting less-toxic raw materials. Executive Order 13101, issued
on September 14, 1998, also affirmed the federal government`s commitment
to encourage recycling by directing federal agencies to consider procuring
products that, among other things, use recovered materials, can be reused,
facilitate recycling, and include fewer toxic substances. Nonetheless,
while large-quantity generators, such as businesses, schools, and government
agencies, must treat some used electronics as hazardous waste due to the
relatively high level of toxic substances, it is not illegal for households
or for small quantity generators-non-household entities disposing of less
than 220 pounds per month-to dispose of used electronics in landfills in
most states. Under RCRA, household hazardous wastes, including used electronics,
may be disposed of at municipal solid waste landfills. However, some states
have begun imposing more stringent disposal requirements for used electronics.
For example, because of concerns regarding the potential environmental
and health effects of leaded glass in cathode ray tubes (CRTs), California,
Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota recently banned them from disposal
in municipal landfills. As national awareness of potential problems associated
with the disposal of used electronics has grown, EPA has taken steps to
encourage recycling of used electronics. For instance, EPA, together with
electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers, sponsored several
pilot programs in 2004 to measure the success of convenient collection
options for used electronics. Other recent EPA efforts, such as the Federal
Electronics Challenge and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool (EPEAT) program, attempt to leverage U.S. government procurement power
to drive environmentally preferable design for electronic products. Finally,
through the establishment of the National Electronic Product Stewardship
Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001, EPA established a voluntary, multi- stakeholder
initiative to reach consensus on a national approach to encourage recycling
of used electronics. This voluntary effort ultimately dissolved in 2005
without agreement, however, because stakeholders could not reach consensus
on a nationwide financing system. Volume of Used Electronics and the Problems
They Pose The information we have reviewed to date suggests strongly that
the volume of used electronics is large and growing. For example, in a
1999 study, the National Safety Council forecast that almost 100 million
computers and monitors would become obsolete in 2003- a three-fold increase
over the 33 million obsolete computers and monitors in 1997.` Additionally,
a 2003 International Association of Electronics Recyclers report estimated
that 20 million televisions become obsolete each year-a number that is
expected to increase as CRT technology is replaced by new technologies
such as plasma screens. Thus far, it appears that relatively few units
have found their way into either landfills or recycling centers. Available
EPA data indicate that less than 4 million monitors and 8 million televisions
are disposed of annually in U.S. landfills-only a fraction of the amount
estimated to become obsolete annually, according to EPA. Additionally,
the 1999 National Safety Council report forecast that only 19 million computers,
monitors, and televisions would be recycled in 2005. Hence, the gap between
the enormous quantity of units that are obsolete (or becoming obsolete),
and the quantity either in landfills or sent to recycling centers, suggests
that most used electronics are still in storage-such as attics, basements,
and garages-and that their ultimate fate is still not certain, or have
been exported for recycling and reuse overseas. Conventional disposal of
used electronics in landfills raises two primary concerns, according to
research we reviewed: the loss of natural resources and the potential release
of toxic substances in the environment. By disposing of these products
in landfills or incinerators, valuable resources are lost for future use.
For example, computers typically contain precious metals, such as gold,
silver, palladium, and platinum, as well as other useful metals like aluminum
and copper. Further, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that one metric
ton of computer circuit boards contains between 40 and 800 times the concentration
of gold contained in gold ore and 30 to 40 times the concentration of copper,
while containing much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores,
such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur.` The research we have thus far reviewed
also suggests that the energy saved by recycling and reusing used electronics
is significant- the author of one report by the United Nations University
states that perhaps as much as 80 percent of the energy used in a computer`s
life can be saved through reuse instead of producing a new unit from raw
materials.` Regarding the issue of toxicity, the research we have reviewed
to date is unclear on the extent to which toxic substances may leach from
used electronics in landfills. On one hand, according to a standard regulatory
test RCRA requires to determine whether a solid waste is hazardous and
subject to federal regulation, lead (a substance with known adverse health
affects) leaches from some used electronics under laboratory conditions.
Tests conducted at the University of Florida indicate that lead leachate
from computer monitors and televisions with cathode ray tubes exceeds the
regulatory limit and, as a result, could be considered hazardous waste
under RCRA.` On the other hand, the study`s author told us that these findings
are not necessarily predictive of what could occur in a modern landfill.
Furthermore, a report by the Solid Waste Association of North America suggests
that while the amount of lead from used electronics appears to be increasing
in municipal solid waste landfills, these landfills provide safe management
of used electronics without exceeding toxicity limits that have been established
to protect human health and the environment. Economic and Regulatory Factors
Deter Recycling and Reuse of Used Electronics Solid Waste Association of
North America, The Effectiveness of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in
Controlling Releases ofHearyMetals to the Environment (2004). Because we
have not yet reviewed this study, this data should be used with caution.
The costs associated with recycling and reuse, along with limited regulatory
requirements or incentives, discourage environmentally preferable management
of used electronics. Generally, consumers have to pay fees and take their
used electronics to often inconvenient locations to have them recycled
or refurbished for reuse. Recyclers and refurbishers charge fees to cover
the costs of their operations. In most states, consumers have an easier
and cheaper alternative-they can take them to the local landfill. These
easy and inexpensive alternatives help explain why so little recycling
of used electronics has thus far taken place in the United States. This
economic reality, together with federal regulations that do little to preclude
disposal of used electronics along with other wastes, have led a growing
number of states to enact their own laws to encourage environmentally preferable
management of these products. Cost and Consumer Inconvenience Discourage
Recycling and Reuse of Used Electronics Consumers who seek to recycle or
donate their used electronics for reuse generally pay a fee and face inconvenient
drop-off locations. Unlike their efforts for other solid waste management
and recycling programs, most local governments do not provide curbside
collection for recycling of used electronics because it is too expensive.
Instead, some localities offer used electronics collection services, for
a fee, at local waste transfer stations. These localities send consumers`
used electronics to recyclers for processing. For example, transfer stations
in Snohomish County, Washington, charge consumers between $10 and $27 per
unit for collecting used electronics and transporting them to recyclers.
Moreover, such transfer stations are generally not conveniently located,
and rural residents, such as those in Snohomish County, may need to drive
more than an hour to get to the nearest drop-off station.`` In some localities,
consumers can also take their used electronics directly to a recycler,
where they are typically charged a fee. In the Portland, Oregon area, for
instance, one recycler charges consumers 50 cents per pound to recycle
computers, monitors, and televisions, which means it costs the consumer
about $28 to recycle an average-sized desktop computer system. Recyclers
charge these fees to cover the costs they incur when disassembling used
electronics, processing the components, and refining the commodities for
resale. As noted in a 2003 report by the International Association of Electronics
Recyclers, most recyclers and refurbishers in the United States cannot
recoup their expenses from the resale of recycled commodities or refurbished
units. The report, which compiled data from more than 60 recyclers in North
America, stated that the costs associated with recycling are greater than
the revenue received from reselling recycled commodities, and that fees
are needed to cover the difference. Furthermore, the report states that
the value of commodities recovered from computer equipment, such as shredded
plastic, copper, and aluminum, is only between $1.50 and $2.00 per unit.`
The costs associated with recycling make it unprofitable (without charging
fees) for several reasons. First, recycling used electronics is labor intensive-the
equipment must be separated into its component parts, including the plastic
housing, copper wires, metals (e.g., gold, silver, and aluminum), and circuit
boards, as well as parts that can be easily reused or resold, like hard
drives and CD-ROM drives. Officials with Noranda Recycling Inc., which
recycles used electronics for Hewlett- Packard, told us that over 50 percent
of their total costs for recycling are labor costs involved in disassembly,
even though they operate some of the most technologically advanced equipment
available. Labor costs are high, in part, because electronic products are
not always designed to facilitate recycling at their end of life. For instance,
a Hewlett-Packard official told us 30 different screws must be removed
to take out one lithium battery when disassembling a Hewlett-Packard computer
for recycling. According to this official, if Hewlett-Packard spent $1
in added design costs to reduce the number of different screws in each
computer, it would save Noranda approximately $4 in its disassembly costs.
Second, to obtain sellable commodities, the resulting metal and plastic
``scrap`` must be further processed to obtain shredded plastic, aluminum,
copper, gold, and other recyclable materials. Processing in this fashion
typically involves multimillion-dollar machinery. According to officials
with one international electronics recycling company, processing costs
are high, in part, because this sophisticated machinery is being used to
process the relatively limited supply of used electronics being recycled
in the United States. The firm`s officials noted that in Europe, by contrast,
where manufacturers are required to take financial responsibility for the
disposal of their products, the increased supply of recyclable electronics
has decreased the firm`s per-unit processing costs and increased the profitability
of recycling used electronics. Finally, recyclers incur additional expenses
when handling and disposing of toxic components (such as batteries) and
toxic constituents (such as lead), which are all commonly found in used
electronics. These expenses include removing the toxic components and constituents
from the product, as well as handling and processing them as hazardous
material. Once separated from the product, these wastes are considered
hazardous wastes and are subject to more stringent RCRA requirements governing
their transportation, storage, and disposal. CRTs from computer monitors
and televisions are particularly expensive to dispose of because they contain
large volumes of leaded glass, which must be handled and disposed of as
a hazardous waste. Since CRT manufacturing is declining in the United States,
some recyclers send their CRT glass to a lead smelter in Missouri that
charges recyclers for their CRT glass. A study on the economics of recycling
personal computers found that the cost associated with disposing of CRT
monitors substantially reduces a recycler`s net revenue. Refurbishers charge
similar fees to cover the costs involved in guaranteeing data security
by ``wiping`` hard drives, upgrading systems, installing software, and
testing equipment. A program manager for a nonprofit technology assistance
provider told us that it generally costs about $100 to refurbish a Pentium
III computer system, plus an additional licensing fee of about $80 for
an operating system. To encourage used electronics recycling, EPA sponsored
pilot programs that addressed the cost and inconvenience issues. Office
Depot and Hewlett-Packard, for example, partnered to provide free take-back
of used electronics at Office Depot retail stores. Collected used electronics
were sent to Hewlett-Packard facilities for recycling. Over a 3-month period,
nearly 215,000 computers, monitors, and televisions were collected and
recycled. EPA officials told us that the pilot program showed the extent
to which recycling can be encouraged by making it inexpensive and convenient
to the consumer. Federal Regulatory Framework Governing Used Electronics
Provides Little Incentive for Recycling or Reuse The lack of economic incentives
promoting recycling and reuse of electronics is compounded by the absence
of federal provisions that either encourage recycling, or preclude their
disposal in landfills. Specifically, current federal laws and regulations
(1) allow hazardous used electronics in municipal landfills, (2) do not
provide for a financing system to support recycling, and (3) do little
to preclude electronic products generated in the United States from being
exported and subsequently threatening human health and the environment
overseas. While several promising federal initiatives supporting electronics
recycling have been launched, their voluntary nature makes their success
uncertain. Hazardous Used Electronics Are Allowed in Municipal Landfills
Regulation of used electronics at the federal level falls under RCRA Subtitle
C, which was established to ensure that hazardous waste is managed in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment. However,
households and small quantity generators are exempt from many RCRA regulations,
thus allowing them to deposit their used electronics in municipal solid
waste landfills-even though cathode ray tubes in computer monitors and
televisions, and potentially circuit boards in computers, exhibit characteristics
of hazardous waste. EPA`s Office of Solid Waste regulates hazardous waste
under RCRA, but it lacks the authority to require environmentally preferable
management of used electronics through recycling and reuse or to establish
a mandatory national approach, such as a disposal ban. As a result, all
of the office`s efforts with regard to the recycling of used electronics
are voluntary. In response to RCRA`s exemption for household hazardous
waste and the growing volume of obsolete electronics within their boundaries,
four states-California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota-recently banned
from landfills some used electronics.`` Our preliminary work suggests that
such bans have contributed to a higher degree of recycling than in states
where disposal in solid waste landfills is allowed. In San Ramon, California,
for instance, a I-day collection event for television monitors yielded
24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan area 4
times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar collection
event (organized by the same electronics recycler as in San Ramon) only
yielded about 6,000 monitors. This difference in yield is consistent with
assessments of California and Massachusetts officials, who all told us
that their states have seen substantial increases in used electronics recycling.
One international electronics recycler, for instance, set up recycling
facilities in the San Francisco area in 2003 because of the large volume
of used electronics that were no longer being disposed of in landfills.
In Massachusetts, an official with the Department of Environmental Protection
told us that six businesses dedicated to electronics recycling were created
following the enactment of a landfill ban. Finally, about 75 percent of
the survey respondents to date said that a national disposal ban should
be enacted to overcome the economic and regulatory factors that discourage
recycling and reuse of used electronics. Experts Believe a National Financing
System is Needed to Support Recycling Given the inherent economic disincentives
to recycle used electronics, we found widespread agreement among our survey
respondents and others we contacted that the establishment of some type
of financing system is critical to making recycling and reuse sufficiently
inexpensive and convenient to attract the participation of consumers. For
instance, almost 90 percent of survey respondents believe that either an
advanced recycling fee (ARF), extended producer responsibility (EPR), or
a hybrid of the two should be implemented if national solution is instituted.
Yet despite broad agreement in principle, participants in the recent multi-stakeholder
NEPSI process, particularly those in the computer and television industries,
did not reach agreement on a uniform, nationwide financing system after
several years of meetings. In the absence of a national system, several
states have enacted their own financing systems through legislation to
help ensure environmentally preferable management of used electronics.
For example, in 2005, California implemented an ARF on all new video display
devices, such as televisions and computer monitors, sold within the state.
The fee is charged to consumers at the time and location of purchase, and
can range between $G and $10. According to an official with the California
Department of Toxic Substance Control, the revenues generated from the
fee are intended to deal with a key concernused electronics in storage,
or ``legacy waste.`` The officials explained that while California`s recycling
industry for used electronics had sufficient capacity to recycle large
volumes, consumers and large-quantity generators had little incentive to
take products out of their basements or warehouses to have them recycled.
The state uses revenues from the fees to reimburse electronics recyclers
at the rate of 48 cents per pound of used electronics recycled. The recyclers,
in turn, pass on 20 cents per pound to collectors of used electronics,
thereby providing an incentive for entities to make collection free and
convenient for households. The state is still in the preliminary stages
of program implementation, and state officials acknowledge that they face
a number of challenges. Some of these challenges underscore the difficulty
of dealing with the electronic waste problem on a state-by-state basis.
The officials noted, for instance, that the ARF applies only to electronics
purchased in California, and that the fees are intended only for used electronics
originating in the state. Implementing the program within the state`s boundary,
however, may prove difficult because the payout for used electronics may
attract units originating in other states. Preventing this problem, they
say, requires substantial documentation for each unit, and may require
a substantial enforcement effort. While California`s ARF focuses on consumers
of electronics, Maine`s approach focuses on producers. In 2004, the state
passed legislation requiring computer and television manufacturers who
sell products in Maine to pay for the take back and recycling of their
products at their end of life-a strategy referred to as EPR. Under this
plan, consumers are to take their used electronics to a consolidation point,
such as a transfer station, where they are sorted by original manufacturer.
Each manufacturer is responsible for transporting and recycling its products,
along with a share of the products whose original manufacturer no longer
exists. According to one official with Maine`s State Planning Office, a
key challenge of its EPR system is the lack of a financial incentive for
consumers to take their used electronics out of storage: they must still
take their products to a consolidation point, and will still likely have
to pay a fee. Several other states, as well as some countries, have implemented
or are considering implementing financing systems for used electronics.
Earlier this year, Maryland passed legislation requiring all computer manufacturers
that sell computers in the state to pay $5,000 into a fund to help implement
local recycling programs.`` Other states, such as Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
and Massachusetts have allocated grants to help pay for the recycling of
used electronics, and New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont are considering
enacting manufacturer take-back programs. In Europe, the European Union
implemented the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management Regulations
in July 2004, which requires producers of electronic products to be financially
responsible for the recycling or reuse of their products at end of life.
In our final report, we will provide a more complete examination of various
strategies for financing environmentally preferable management of used
electronics. Oversight of Exported Used Electronics Is Limited The lack
of oversight over exports of used electronics could also discourage environmentally
preferable management of used electronics. In the United States, businesses,
schools, government agencies, and other organizations, as well as households,
face multiple options for their used electronics. In some instances, organizations
and recyclers receive e-mails from brokers, who typically have partners
in Asia, willing to pay them for their used electronics, regardless of
whether they can be reused. For example, one broker requests up to 50,000
used monitors per month and does not require the monitors to be tested.
Another broker specifically requests nonworking monitors and wanted to
fill at least 10 containers, which equals anywhere from 6,000 to 11,000
units, depending on their size. One Seattle area recycler said that brokers
such as these are probably not handling the units in environmentally preferable
ways once the units are exported. Even so, one business we contacted said
it regularly receives e-mail requests such as these. Companies export used
electronics because the largest markets for reused computers and computer
parts are overseas, according to an EPA official. Likewise, demand is high
for recycled commodities, which can be processed more cheaply due, in part,
to lower wages and less stringent environmental requirements. Also, unlike
their counterparts in some other developed countries, the United States
officials have permitted the export of hazardous used electronics, such
as CRT monitors and televisions, if the exporter asserts that the equipment
is destined for reuse. While some environmental groups have called for
a ban on exports of used electronics, the Congressional Research Service
noted that such a ban would cut recyclers off from many of the markets
able to reuse the materials.`` However, few safeguards are in place to
ensure that exported used electronics are indeed destined for reuse. Used
electronics that are destined for reuse are not considered to be waste
subject to RCRA export regulations. Instead, such electronics are considered
to be commodities, which means that they can be exported with little or
no documentation, notification, and oversight. Nonetheless, instances have
been recently documented in which environmental and human health threats
have resulted from the less-regulated disassembly and disposal of U.S.-generated
used electronics overseas. For example, a 2002 documentary by the Basel
Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition videotaped egregious
disassembly practices in China that involved open burning of wire to recover
copper, open acid baths for separating precious metals, and human exposure
to lead and other hazardous materials.`` Without the ability to track the
exported units to importing countries, or to audit companies exporting
used electronics, it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics
are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately managed responsibly
once they leave U.S. shores. As our work continues, we will further examine
the extent of the problems associated with irresponsible management of
used electronics overseas. Opportunities Exist for Federal Initiatives
to Enhance Electronics Recycling The federal government has taken some
steps to affirm its commitment to encourage recycling of used electronics
through the implementation of two voluntary programs sponsored by EPA.
The Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) both leverage U.S. government purchasing power
to promote environmentally preferable management of electronic products
from procurement through end of life. For example: --The FEC program challenges
federal agencies and facilities to procure environmentally preferable electronic
products, extend the lifespan of these products, and expand markets for
recycling and recovered materials by recycling them at their end of life.
The FEC provides guidance on environmentally preferable attributes of electronic
products information, on operating and maintaining them in an energy-efficient
manner, and on options for recycling or reusing them at the end of their
useful lives. To date, 11 federal agencies and 26 individual federal facilities
participate in the FEC to some extent. The Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) recently documented cost savings associated with its FEC participation.
BPA noted, for example, that the program extended the lifespan of its personal
computers from 3 to 4 years. With over 500 computers procured each year
at an annual cost of more than $500,000, a BPA official told us extending
computer life spans could generate substantial savings. Additionally, BPA
decided to procure new flat-screen monitors instead of CRT monitors, reducing
both hazardous waste tonnage and end of life recycling costs. According
to BPA, it expects to save at least $153 per monitor over each monitor`s
life. --The EPEAT program promotes environmentally preferable management
of electronics by allowing large purchasers, such as government agencies,
to compare and select laptop computers, desktop computers, and monitors
with environmentally preferable attributes. For example, EPEAT evaluates
an electronic product`s design for energy conservation, reduced toxicity,
extended lifespan, and end of life recycling, among other things. EPEAT`s
three-tier system-bronze, silver, and gold-provides purchasers with the
flexibility to select equipment that meets the minimum performance criteria,
or to give preference to products with more environmental attributes. For
manufacturers, EPEAT provides flexibility to choose which optional criteria
they would like to meet to achieve higher levels of EPEAT qualification.
EPA expects EPEAT to be instituted in 2006, and products with higher environmental
ratings could receive preferred consideration in federal procurement decisions.
While we will continue to examine the FEC and EPEAT programs in greater
detail, including how stakeholders say they might be improved, our preliminary
work suggests that the federal government can build on these initiatives
by using its purchasing power to lead markets for electronic products in
environmentally friendly directions. In fact, there is ample precedent
for such a strategy, perhaps most notably in EPA`s and the Department of
Energy`s Energy Star program. In that program, the federal government partners
with industry to offer businesses and consumers energy-efficient products
that ultimately save money and protect the environment. According to EPA,
in 2004 alone, Energy Star products helped save approximately $10 billion
in energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent
to that produced by 20 million automobiles. Part of Energy Star`s success
can be attributed to federal actions, particularly those outlined in two
executive orders that required federal agencies to purchase products equipped
with Energy Star features. Since the federal government will spend over
$60 billion on information technology products in fiscal year 2005, including
televisions, computers, and computer monitors, it could go beyond the voluntary
and limited FEC and EPEAT programs by broadening the programs` scope and
requiring agency participation in, or adherence to, some of the programs`
key practices. As with the Energy Star program, such actions may lead to
cost savings and greater environmental protection. Of particular note,
over 80 percent of the survey respondents to date said that federal government
procurement criteria along the lines of FEC and EPEAT should be required,
and about 95 percent of the survey respondents to date said that such procurement
criteria would encourage environmentally preferable product design, as
well as recycling and reuse. Observations on Federal Actions to Encourage
Recycling and Reuse of Used Electronics In our future work, we will continue
to examine factors affecting recycling in greater detail, and the diverse
efforts by individual states and others to deal with these issues. It is
becoming clear, though, that in the absence of a national approach, a patchwork
of potentially conflicting state requirements is developing, and that this
patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on recyclers, refurbishers,
and other stakeholders. A manufacturer in one state, for example, may have
an advance recovery fee placed on its products, whereas in another state,
the same manufacturer may have to take back its products and pay for recycling.
Further, a retailer may have to set up a system in one state to collect
fees on specific products and, at the same time, set up a different system
in another state to take back a particular manufacturer`s product. Hence,
manufacturers we contacted said that while they had their preferences regarding,
for instance, an ARF or EPR system, their main preference is to operate
within a uniform national system that mandates a financing mechanism that
preempts varying state requirements. Our preliminary survey results substantiate
these views, with over 90 percent of survey respondents indicating that
national legislation should be enacted and, if so, almost 90 percent believe
a financing mechanism should be included. Our future work will also discuss
some of the options-both legislative and administrative-being considered
to encourage environmentally preferable management of used electronics
at a national level. Frequently cited options include disposal bans, consumer
education programs, a variety of financing systems, export restrictions,
and federal government procurement requirements. These options may offer
suggestions for a uniform national approach and what aspects should be
considered. Additionally, an examination of EPA`s voluntary programs-the
FEC and EPEAT-may shed light on other, more effective options available
to the federal government that can save money over electronic products`
life cycle; enhance environmental protection; drive markets for environmentally
preferable product design; and establish a recycling infrastructure and
markets for recycled commodities. Finally, with rapid advances in technology,
particularly in consumer electronics, new products are reaching the marketplace
with remarkable speed. Consequently, our future work will also examine
the implications of these newer generations of electronics entering the
nation`s waste stream. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of this
Subcommittee may have at this time. Contact and Acknowledgments For further
information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
Individuals making key contributions to this report included Nathan Anderson,
Charles Bausell, Virginia Chanley, Bernice Dawson, Steve Elstein, Omari
Norman, Alison O`Neill, Judy Pagano, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Arvin
Wu.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT
THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
COPYRIGHT ¿ 2005 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
Citation for your reference:
Congressional Testimony. HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOHN B. STEPHENSON. Federal
Document Clearing House, , 26 Jul. 2005. eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Congressional Testimony. HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOHN B. STEPHENSON. Federal
Document Clearing House, , 26 Jul. 2005.
BURIED IN E-WASTE
Hosansky, David; Griffin, Denise
State Legislatures
06-01-2004
Jump to best part of document
Electronic waste-often dangerously toxic-is becoming a landfill nightmare.
Computers, televisions and other electronic products are producing a worrisome byproduct. Across
the country, billions of tons of potentially dangerous e-waste are piling up in landfills, warehouses and
homes.
The problem is getting more significant every year as innovations quickly render electronic products
obsolete. "It's a very important issue that's just growing exponentially," says Virginia Delegate Brian
Moran, who passed a bill last year directing the state to encourage recycling.
DELEGATE BRIAN MORAN VIRGINIA
DELEGATE
BRIAN MORAN
VIRGINIA
FASTEST CROWING MUNICIPAL WASTE
By some estimates, electronic products constitute the fastest growing category of municipal waste.
More than 500 million computers will be discarded by 2007, resulting in the need to dispose of 6.3
billion pounds of plastic and 1.6 billion pounds of lead, according to the National Safety Council. Older
televisions, cellular telephones, printers, fax machines, microwave ovens and other products also
contain potentially hazardous materials.
In many states, concerned legislators and regulators are debating such steps as banning cathode ray
tubes (CRTs) from landfills, imposing fees to fund recycling programs and directing state agencies to
study ways to reduce the amount of waste.
"This will be an enormous burden on state and local governments on the pretty near-term horizon,"
says David Wood, executive director of the Grass Roots Recycling Network in Madison, Wis. "It's
worth getting out in front of the problem before it overwhelms us."
But policymakers face challenges. Although many in government and industry want to encourage
recycling, they face a deep divide over how to fund such programs. Another thorny issue is whether
to ban electronic devices from landfills-and whether such a ban would be effective.
Only about 11 percent of obsolete computers are recycled, according to an Environmental Protection
Agency estimate. That's partly because many consumers live far from recycling centers, and they
may have to pay a fee to get the equipment recycled.
In some areas, local governments foot the bill to pick up old computers and other electronic devices
once or twice a year. Some manufacturers and retailers also take back certain products for recycling.
And nonprofit organizations often accept donations of computers and other outdated electronics.
A POTENTIAL HEALTH THREAT
Most computer monitors and televisions use CRTs, which contain several pounds of lead. Other
hazardous materials in electronic devices include cadmium, mercury, copper and fire retardant
chemicals.
The products are usually harmless in garages and basements because the hazardous materials are
safely stored in metal, glass and other casing. In a landfill, however, they can break during
compaction. Solid waste experts are divided over whether the products can contaminate local water
supplies or otherwise affect the environment, since landfill liners are designed to prevent metals and
other substances from leaking out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HACKNEY NORTH CAROLINA
REPRESENTATIVE
JOE HACKNEY
NORTH CAROLINA
There are persistent concerns, however, that the liners are not foolproof. And even if the materials
can safely be contained within a landfill, many believe that the products should be recycled instead of
taking up land-fill space.
"How much junk do we put in the land that we could otherwise keep out?" asks North Carolina
Representative Joe Hackney, sponsor of a bill that would provide funding for electronic recycling
programs. "You've got to look at good stewardship."
At present, the EPA regulates electronic devices under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
which bars commercial and industrial users from disposing of materials in landfills or incinerators that
pose a threat of environmental contamination. Businesses have to treat CRTs as hazardous waste,
using special carriers and disposing of them in a special facility. The EPA is considering redesignating
CRTs as reusable products to promote recycling.
Some states, including California, Minnesota and Massachusetts, have taken the step of banning CRTs
from landfills. Experts caution, however, that such bans need to be accompanied by vigorous
recycling programs or frustrated residents will hide electronic devices in the trash or even dump
them in ditches. Ominously, much U.S. e-waste is winding up in China and other nations, where
impoverished residents disassemble them for parts-often without protecting themselves or the
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK MILLER WISCONSIN
REPRESENTATIVE
MARK MILLER
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Representative Mark Miller, who has sponsored legislation to require manufacturers to
oversee the recycling of their products, says he thinks a landfill ban can backfire. "1 specifically did
not go with a landfill ban. You end up collecting all the junk, sending it to China and causing
tremendous environmental harm where it is taken apart," he says.
GETTING AT THE PROBLEM
One widely discussed approach to the e-waste problem is to impose a fee on new electronic
equipment that is used to fund recycling programs.
This is California's approach. ? landmark measure requires residents to pay a recycling fee of
between $6 and $10 (as of july 1) when they buy electronics that contain CRTs-mainly televisions
and computer monitors. The law, which is the first of its kind in the nation, covers mail-order and
Internet sales as well as in-store transactions.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON SHER CALIFORNIA
REPRESENTATIVE
BYRON SHER
CALIFORNIA
"We hope that our program will become a successful model, either for other states or for the federal
government," says its sponsor, Senator Bryon Sher.
An alternative response to the proliferation of e-waste is to require manufacturers to develop and fund
programs to collect and recycle the devices they produce. Legislators in several states, including New
York, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington, have introduced bills to make manufacturers responsible.
So far, none has passed.
Wood says if manufacturers are responsible, they will have an incentive to come up with solutions to
the problem of e-waste. "A flat fee assessed at the point of purchase doesn't encourage innovation,"
he says. "It's a source of cash, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem."
The industry is torn between the two approaches. Some companies prefer the recycling fee, such as
IBM; others, such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard, prefer handling the collection and recycling
themselves.
"We're all over the board on the financing issue," says Heather Bowman, director of environmental
affairs for the Electronic Industries Alliance.
She warns that most electronic manufacturers are global companies with limited insight into the
recycling situation of every state. If state legislators decide to make the manufacturers responsible
for collection and recycling, she said they need to understand that the manufacturers may not know
about small, local recycling companies.
THE NEXT STEPS
The electronics industry has formed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative, which
is an effort to create a unified position and propose a national recycling program to Congress.
She thinks state legislators should hold off passing their own plans until Congress acts.
"A state-by-state approach is only going to lead to a piecemeal solution," she says. "We need a
national solution, and we need it to make sense to consumers."
But Senator Sher's advice to lawmakers in other states is to plow ahead. "This is a group that has
been meeting for a long time trying to get a national solution," he says of the industry initiative.
He and other recycling advocates also want to see manufacturers eventually design products that are
easier to recycle. This may involve using materials that are less toxic and easier to disassemble, and
designing products in such a way that they can be easily updated instead of swiftly becoming
obsolete.
The European Union is already taking steps in this direction. By 2006, it is expected to limit the
amount of toxic materials used in electronic products.
"The ultimate answer is that manufacturers would be designing and creating products with reuse or
recycling in mind," says Rusty Lundberg, solid waste branch manager of the Utah Division of Solid
and Hazardous Waste. "Once something had served its use, it could easily be taken apart."
RHODE ISLAND COLLECTS 600,000 POUNDS OF E-WASTE
Rhode Island launched the country's first statewide no-charge residential computer collection in 2001
with impressive success.
Results are mind-boggling for a state with a population of slightly more than 1 million. More than
600,000 pounds of residential e-waste has been collected in three years. Citizens drop off computers
at collection sites throughout the state. State vendors pick them up and recycle the waste. Officials
say public service ads are vital to the program's success.
The computer collection program is operated by a quasi-public state agency established by the
legislature in 1974. The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation was established to assist
municipalities in developing and operating recycling and waste collection programs.
Some legislators want to also address e-waste from the producer side. A bill to require electronics
manufacturers to finance reuse and recycling and phase out the use of hazardous materials in their
production is pending in the House.
-Denise Griffin, NCSL
THERE'S HELP ON THE WEB
Several organizations maintain helpful Web sites about electronic waste and recycling. Here is a
sampling:
* The Computer TakeBack Campaign, a national advocacy group, has background on the issue of
electronic waste (including state legislative updates) at www.computertakeback.com/index.cfm
* The Electronics Industry Association maintains a Web site for consumers interested in finding out
more about recycling and reusing electronics equipment at www.eiae.org
* The Environmental Protection Agency has background about the issue of electronic waste and
recycling at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/clusters/ecycle.htm
* The International Association of Electronics Recyclers provides information about recycling at
www.iaer.org
* The National Safety Council's Environmental Health Center offers an overview on recycling and
donating electronic equipment. see www.nsc.org/ehc/epr2.htm
* The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an advocacy group that tracks electronic waste issues, has
information about the hazards of electronic waste at www.svtc.org
David Hosansky is a writer in Colorado who specializes in environmental and science issues. he
previously covered federal issues as a senior writer at Congressional Quarterly and state government
issues m Tallahassee at the Florida Times-Union.
Copyright National Conerence of State Legislatures Jun 2004
Back to top ^
Citation for your reference:
Ensure the accuracy and completeness of your bibliography by reviewing this automatically generated
citation information against the guidelines provided by the standard reference works published by the
Modern Language Association (MLA) or the American Psychological Association (APA).
Edit this citation
Hosansky, David; Griffin, Denise. "BURIED IN E-WASTE." State Legislatures. 01 Jun. 2004: 20.
eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Hosansky, D., Griffin, D. (2004, June 01). BURIED IN E-WASTE. State Legislatures, (6), 20, Retrieved
from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
E-WASTE IN THE MODERN ERA:ERIC HARRIS
Congressional Testimony
04-30-2008
Statement of Eric Harris Associate Counsel/ Director of Government and
International Affairs Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Committee
on House Science and Technology April 30, 2008 Electronic Scrap: Can the
Nation Manage Modern End of Life Equipment in the Digital Age? Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Committee. Good Morning. My name is Eric Harris and
I am the Associate Counsel and Director of Government and International
Affairs for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. - the ``Voice
of the Recycling Industry.`` Introduction ISRI is the world`s largest trade
association of recyclers with well over 1,550 member companies that operate
over 3,000 locations in the United States who process, broker and industrially
consume scrap commodities, including metals, paper, plastics, glass, rubber,
textiles and electronics. More than 20 percent of ISRI`s membership is
involved in electronic scrap processing and industrial consumption of scrap
material generated by electronics recyclers. In fact, electronics recycling
is the fastest growing segment of ISRI`s membership. In 2007, the domestic
scrap recycling industry manufactured approximately $71 billion of specification
grade commodities that were used in lieu of virgin materials to manufacture
basic products in the United States and throughout the world. This figure
includes more than 81 million tons of iron and steel, 5 million tons of
aluminum, 1.8 million tons of copper, and 2 million tons of stainless steel,
just to name a few. Of the $71 billion of scrap recycled last year, nearly
$22 billion worth of these commodities were exported to 152 countries worldwide,
making a significant positive contribution to the United States` balance
of trade with other nations and serving as the first link in the global
manufacturing supply chain. Scrap accounts for approximately 40% of the
world`s raw material needs. Scrap recycling is one of the world`s most
climate friendly activities. The use of recycled scrap materials to manufacture
new products sustains the earth`s natural resources, while at the same
time, conserves impressive amounts of energy in the manufacturing process,
and thereby significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions from those facilities.
For example, recycling 1,000 computers and monitors rather than landfilling
them would prevent a net total of 52.64 metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MTCE) and 193 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTC02) from entering
the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of not driving 42 cars for an entire
year. This would also save over 3370 million BTUs. And, the energy savings
would equal 27,171 gallons of gasoline.` Approximately 2.8 billion pounds
(1.4 million tons) of electronic equipment were recycled in 2006, including
65 million units of computer equipment (CPUs, monitors and printers). The
electronics recycling process yielded approximately 1.3 billion pounds
of recyclable materials, more than half of which were metals. Consumer
electronics, alone, are now considered to be approaching more than 3 million
tons generated annually. According to a recent study by the Consumer Reports
National Research Center, E-Waste 2006, 90% of Americans own at least one
computer. That means there are over 270 million computers in America. However,
45% of American consumers retain electronics because they are unsure of
the appropriate method to deal with such items at the end of their useful
lives. Moreover, 35% of American consumers retain electronics because they
consider it inappropriate to dispose of them with the garbage. Consequently,
upwards of 50% of American consumers have yet to send their obsolete electronic
equipment into the recycling stream. . With the proliferation of new electronic
products every day, obsolete consumer electronic equipment levels are expected
to increase to 400 million units annually during the rest of the decade,
including 100 million units of computer equipment. If we combine both consumer
and non-consumer computer equipment (commercial, industrial and government
sectors), we can estimate that more than 2 billion will become obsolete
over the next five years. ISRI members provide comprehensive recycling
operations, which covers everything from logistics (e.g., collection and
transportation) and data security to demanufacturing, to manufacturing
specification grade commodities from the electronic products. Our members
make their living scrubbing and reselling hard drives, by testing and then
reselling cell phones, monitors and CPUs that are in good working order,
and using machinery and equipment to shred or otherwise process electronics
to extract the various commodities that are contained in electronic equipment
including steel, aluminum, gold, silver, titanium, copper, nickel, plastic
and glass - for use as valuable raw material feedstock in the manufacture
of new products. Once electronics products reach our members they are first
triaged to determine whether they are to be resold, refurbished, or processed
into specification commodity streams Whether the decision is made to refurbish
or process into specification grade commodities, the export market for
the resulting product is an essential part of the legitimate recycling
chain. With regard to reusable or refurbished electronics, there is an
increasing presence of large for-profit reuse markets in developing countries,
especially Asia, Africa, and South America, where the majority of the population
simply cannot afford to purchase the latest available technology. It is
both environmentally and socially responsible to provide for the continued
export of these viable products that make basic technologies and communications
available where they would otherwise potentially not be. There is now even
a growing market in the third world for the purchase of monitors to be
converted into TVs. As a result of the above, recycling experts anticipate
that as collection of household electronic equipment in the United States
increases, exports of certain recyclable streams will also increase; for
example, used, intact equipment for reuse; used components for reuse; used
equipment for refurbishment; and, fully processed materials for use as
raw materials in manufacturing. Key Challenges The key challenges to increasing
electronics recycling in the United States include, among other things:
(1) how to adequately cover the costs associated with collection, transportation
and recycling of household electronic equipment; (2) distinguishing scrap
from waste and not over regulating; (3) free and fair trade; (4) developing
adequate end-use markets for recyclable plastics and glass and demand for
that material; (5) Design for Recycling@; and, (6) promoting EPA`s Responsible
Recycler practices and ISRI`s Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS)
as the proper means to address environmental concerns. How to adequately
cover the costs? The cost to responsibly recycle electronic products remains
the greatest challenge for recyclers. As the competition to collect household
computer equipment increases across the country, recyclers are being forced
to take in a growing list of older, less valuable electronic equipment,
such as televisions, AM/FM radios, and old hairdryers. Under current market
conditions, much of the collected electronic equipment, for example at
weekend collection events, has little to no resale value and has a netnegative cost to recycle (the cost to recycle the equipment outweighs the
value of the processed material). This problem is only exacerbated when
you factor in the logistical challenges and associated costs to get the
collected electronic equipment transported to a facility that can responsibly
recycle it. As a result, until such time as the market for recyclable electronics
becomes economically viable, ISRI`s policy continues to support holding
producers responsible for the collection, transportation and recycling
of household electronic equipment that has a net-negative cost to recycle,
such as cathode ray tubes in monitors and televisions. ISRI firmly believes
that producer responsibility will provide manufacturers with the needed
incentive to design their products with an eye to the future, incorporating
design changes that maximize recycling at the end of life. This concept,
which ISRI calls Design for Recycling@, is critical to the success of increasing
the recycling of electronics long term. In the interim, as successful businesspeople,
we believe that if given the flexibility and opportunity to internalize
the costs manufactures will create a model that will be less bureaucratic
and burdensome and cheaper for the tax payer. While ISRI will ultimately
defer to the wisdom of the Congress and the states to decide which financial
mechanism is most apt to spur markets for electronic recycling, we strongly
encourage the Congress and the states to end any financial mechanism as
soon as markets for recyclable electronics become economically viable.
We are not an industry that seeks government subsidies, and we believe
markets must ultimately stand on their own based on solid business principles.
However, whatever financial mechanism the Congress and the states might
decide to adopt in order to sustain this market, ISRI suggests that a portion
should be applied to the research and development of end-use markets for
the scrap materials recovered from electronics products, particularly plastics
and glass. Scrap is not Waste, Recycling is not Disposal For recycling
in general, and particularly for electronics recycling, we need to avoid
creating unnecessary impediments. It is very important to distinguish between
scrap and waste as well as recycling and disposal. Simply stated, scrap
is the opposite of waste. Processed scrap materials are commodities that
have a significant value on domestic and international markets as raw material
feedstocks that substitute for virgin materials in the manufacture of new
basic materials such as copper, steel, and plastics. Unlike scrap, `waste`
has no value and is typically buried in a landfill. Electronics scrap,
like scrap paper, glass, plastic, metal, textiles, and rubber, is not waste
when recycled. Defining scrap electronics as waste undermines and overlooks
the value that these electronics retain, if properly recycled. Saddling
them with the moniker of ``waste`` imposes a whole host of unwarranted
regulatory burdens that will undermine the ability to allow the recycling
system to operate effectively and efficiently. Private sector electronics
recyclers are subject to all the federal and state environmental, safety,
and export/import regulations that are applicable to any industrial operations.
For example, recyclers currently operate under a host of applicable environmental
regulations, such as permitting requirements in the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act and its various storm water provisions, among others. In
addition, electronics recyclers adhere to state requirements which in some
cases are more stringent than the corresponding federal requirements, federal
and state transportation arid occupational safety and health laws, US export
laws and regulations and the import requirements of foreign countries,
such as those administered by China`s General Administration on Quality
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). For these reasons, it is
critically important that we avoid confusing the valuable commodities manufactured
by scrap recyclers with wastes, whether in our vernacular or in written
form. Free and Fair Trade Another key aspect underlying ISRI`s policy is
the concept of free and fair trade. We have been in the recycling business
a long time and experience tells us that the specification grade commodities
we manufacture are some of the best examples of basic supply and demand
economics. These materials are traded in the global marketplace, supplying
America`s basic manufacturing industries with valuable raw material feed
stocks that are used in place of virgin materials, and also contributing
significantly towards a positive balance of trade with other nations. And
these global markets are far from new - the London Metal Exchange started
trading copper in 1876, harnessing an already existing global market in
copper. Despite the realities of the global marketplace, however, exporting
electronic scrap continues to be besmirched. We have all seen the horrendous
photographs and broadcasts regarding China`s artisan communities. But,
there has been little to no coverage regarding China`s sophisticated recycling
parks, which have been developed in China over the past ten years in an
effort by the Chinese government to reign in the ``rogue recyclers`` who
have been responsible for some terrible situations. However, costs and
demand for scrap material is still driving the market. Experts tend to
agree that this is largely being driven by the fact that most of all new
electronic equipment is being manufactured in Asian markets. As a result,
since demand is so high, Asian brokers are able to pay more for the obsolete
electronic equipment than in Europe and the United States. Thus, countries
like China continue to purchase obsolete electronic equipment from countries
all over the world, including the United States. ISRI contends that the
stigma associated with ``exporting`` is misguided and exports should be
viewed from the prism of the realities of the global economy. The focus
must be to promote responsible recycling globally and concentrate efforts
towards enhancing and promoting environmentally capable facilities that
will receive and properly handle recycled materials anywhere in the world.
ISRI suggests that the United States government should refocus its attention
on negotiating trade agreements with key trading partners around the world,
such as China and India. These agreements could detail the environmental
and safety requirements for these facilities and establish a process that
would allow the materials to flow more on the basis of value of the commodity
and less on the geographic location of the collection. Markets for Plastic
and Glass Two of the greatest challenges of electronics recycling are the
difficulties in recycling chemically coated glass from cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) and sorting the different resins of plastic. ISRI has suggested
that state bills and a federal bill should focus on establishing a short-term
financial subsidy for consumer generated monitors and televisions with
CRTs. Moreover, additional markets for the recycled glass are a critical
necessity. If CRT manufacturing is, as most predict, soon to be obsolete
and lead smelters continue to charge a fee analogous to a hazardous waste
landfill fee then recyclers need alternative end-use markets for that CRT
glass. ISRI strongly recommends that research and development dollars need
to be invested to develop alternative markets. With regard to plastics,
despite the continual improvement in automation and optical sorting technology
(which helps distinguish between different colors and streams, due to the
heterogeneous nature of input materials) sorting variations of mixed plastic
resins remains a challenge for recyclers. In addition, since the market
for engineered plastics is not fully developed in the United States, the
vast majority of baled plastic is being exported. And, although foreign
markets are driving the price of baled plastic in the right direction,
the stigma on exporting, in general, is creating a lack of confidence in
the U.S. market. Although no single technology has solved the task of sorting
plastic to a level that can compete against virgin resin streams, the technology
has improved. What is lacking is investor confidence in the overall market.
ISRI contends that as the market matures and end-use markets for plastic
and glass develop investment dollars will follow. Similar to CRT glass,
research and development dollars are needed to help develop new end use
markets for mixed plastics scrap. This will create more opportunities in
the market place and thus increase investment confidence in existing optical
and sorting technology. Targeting funds to advance technology in these
two fields would have a positive impact on making end-use consumer markets
more economically viable, which would, over time, ensure these markets
could stand on their own without a subsidy. In fact, ISRI believes it would
be wholly appropriate for the Congress to support research efforts aimed
toward the development of technologies that could remove the remaining
impediments in plastics and glass in order to utilize these materials in
the manufacturing process. Designing for Recycling Removing hazardous components
from scrap electronic equipment and sorting through material that is difficult
to recycle, such as mixed plastics, costs recyclers time and money. ISRI
has long advocated working with manufactures to design their products to
be easily recycled at the end of their useful lives, without using hazardous,
toxic constituents, or impediments that can hinder the recycling of those
products. To date, voluntary calls by the recycling industry to motivate
manufacturers to adopt a Design for Recycling philosophy have been met
with only a tepid response. We do recognize that electronics manufacturers
have taken some steps towards designing for recycling; however, there is
significant room for improvement. For example, manufacturers use of mercury.
The new technology in flat screen monitors utilizes a system of lamps containing
mercury powder. These mercury lamps are very time consuming to remove or
replace, which makes this new technology difficult to recycle. Similarly,
some of the cell phone batteries with small traces of mercury take up to
five minutes to remove. And, laptops contain tiny mercury lamps that are
very difficult to locate and remove. In the end, it takes a lot of extra
time to recycle in the proper manner. This drives up the labor costs, which
makes recycling these products less profitable. Design for Recycling will
help to avoid these additional costs and improve recycling efficiency.
More collaborative opportunities are needed to think through some of these
design issues before these products reach the market. For example, EPEAT
is an electronic product design standard adopted by the Environmental Protection
Agency that has been very successful in the marketplace. Most major computer
manufacturers are using EPEAT as their measure of environmental product
design, and are competing to gain additional credits from EPEAT by going
beyond what other OEMs have done. Some manufacturers have incorporated
significant amounts of recycled plastic in their products. This creates
demand for recycled plastics from computers which increases the value that
recyclers can capture for the material. Similar types of programs could
be encouraged by the Congress. EPA`s Responsible Recycler Practices and
ISRI`s Recycling Industry Operating Standard For the past two years, ISRI
has represented electronics recyclers in a multi-stakeholder process to
develop responsible recycling practices (R2) for electronics recyclers.
The Environmental Protection Agency has convened and facilitated this effort.
Once completed, ISRI intends to incorporate this set of specific performance
practices into its Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS) for electronics
recyclers. ISRI developed RIOS as an integrated management system standard
designed specifically for the scrap recycling industry and the ANSI-ASQ
National Accreditation Board will oversee the third party registrars who
will audit recyclers. It provides electronic recyclers with an affordable
tool to monitor their quality, environmental, health and safety goals.
Few industries worldwide have endeavored to undertake such a huge step,
but the recycling industry in the United States has always been, and intends
to remain, the global leader in recycling technology, environmental protection,
worker safety and the production of high quality materials. RIOS is a tool
for us to accomplish those goals and will help assure that ISRI members
who recycle scrap electronics will do so in a manner that is best for our
country and the world in which we live. ISRI is hopeful that the combination
of the EPA led effort, R2, and RIOS will provide a ``one-stopshop`` for
electronics recyclers. This will help to build needed confidence in the
market place and reward responsible recyclers that are willing to be audited
to a set of requirements in an open and transparent process. Conclusion
In closing, I want to remind the Committee that our members have provided
stable, good-paying jobs in this country during the boom years, the lean
years, in war time, and in peace time. In one capacity or another, ISRI
members have been recycling electronics for decades as an integral part
of their recycling operations. We feel these experiences from our membership
will assist the Committee in developing effective solutions that will help
address the onslaught of consumer based electronic products that are now
entering the market. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee
today. ISRI looks forward to future opportunities to work with the Committee
to continue advancing these and other solutions on issues important to
recycling.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT
THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
Citation for your reference:
Congressional Testimony. E-WASTE IN THE MODERN ERA:ERIC HARRIS. Federal Document Clearing
House, , 30 Apr. 2008. eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Congressional Testimony. E-WASTE IN THE MODERN ERA:ERIC HARRIS. Federal Document Clearing
House, , 30 Apr. 2008.
E-Waste Not
By Kim A. O'ConnellWaste Age
04-01-2007
AS YOU READ this magazine, stop and count the number of electronic devices within a 10-foot radius
of you. Chances are you're near a computer, printer, cordless telephone and cell phone, and you may
have an iPod and a personal digital assistant in your briefcase. Furthermore, you probably bought at
least one of these items new in the last year, which means that an older version of the technology was
cast aside.
In the United States alone, more than 100 million computers, monitors and televisions become
obsolete each year, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Washington. Some
estimates surmise that around 150 million cell phones will be discarded before this year ends.
Although electronic devices are used worldwide, the United States is by far the largest consumer and therefore the largest disposer - of electronic waste (e-waste). In 2005, the last year for which
complete data is available, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that an estimated
2.6 million tons of major consumer electronics were generated. Of this, only approximately 330,000
tons were recovered for recycling. Consumer electronics include products such as TVs, VCRs, DVD
players, video cameras, stereo systems, telephones and computer equipment. According to the San
Francisco-based nonprofit Computer TakeBack Campaign, e-waste constitutes the fastest growing
portion of our waste stream - growing almost three times faster than the overall rate of MSW
generation.
In the last decade, environmental organizations have raised concerns about the landfilling of this
material, which is known to contain toxic substances such as lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and
hexavalent chromium. EPA estimates that e-waste accounts for a significant amount of the heavy
metals found in landfills. While the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA),
Washington, and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), Silver Spring, Md., both
support the recycling of e-waste (see below), the organizations also maintain that there is no
evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when the devices are placed in Subtitle D landfills.
Meanwhile, groups such as the Seattle-based Basel Action Network have claimed that up to 80 percent
of the e-waste collected in the United States for "recycling" is actually sent to developing countries in
Asia or elsewhere, where these products are disassembled or reused under lax and toxic conditions.
100% Recycling
In December, four leading waste associations - SWANA, NSWMA, the Integrated Waste Services
Association (IWSA), Washington, and the National Recycling Coalition (NRC), Washington - joined
forces to promote reuse and recycling as the preferred method of e-scrap management. E-waste
recycling can reduce the need for environmentally harmful and energy intensive mining operations,
while also boosting local economies, creating jobs, transferring technologies to the developing world,
and keeping the materials out of landfills, the coalition says.
The associations offered their assistance in the development of a nationwide system that would
capture these goods for recycling or reuse and that could be complemented by each state. As a goal,
the coalition hopes to greatly increase the recycling of e-scrap in the United States to nearly 100
percent within 10 years. All electronic product manufacturers, recyclers, retailers, federal, state and
local governments, environmental groups, trade associations and other stakeholders should work
toward this goal, the associations say.
Furthermore, the organizations will work to "ensure that recycling electronics products does not
become an unfunded mandate for local governments or their private sector recycling contractors,"
said Bruce Parker, president and CEO of NSWMA, in a press release announcing the coalition.
To begin with, the coalition is supporting the adoption of financial incentives such as federal tax
credits for consumers, manufacturers, retailers and recycling operators for recycling unwanted
computers, monitors and other e-waste. This proposal was included in a federal bill, S. 510,
introduced two years ago by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jim Talent, R-Mo. The bill has to be
reintroduced now that the 110th Congress has convened, and it didn't have any hearings in the last
Congress. Whether it will gain support in the new Congress remains to be seen.
State and Local Efforts
Under federal regulations, electronic equipment that contains a cathode ray tube or mercury is
considered hazardous waste, but these rules do not apply to household electronics, those so-called
"small-quantity generators," much to the chagrin of environmental groups who argue that the rule
allows the landfilling of most of our electronic waste. Some states, such as California, Maine,
Maryland and Washington, already have enacted laws and regulations addressing e-waste. Legislation
includes bans on the disposal of e-waste in landfills and incinerators or front-end fees on consumer
electronics that help offset the cost of recycling them later.
In California, consumers purchasing computer monitors, laptops and televisions pay a recycling fee
that ranges from $6 to $10 per device, which can be adjusted every one to two years. The retailer
collects this money and remits it to the state quarterly. The state then reimburses registered collectors
or recyclers at 20 cents per pound for collection, and 28 cents per pound for recycling (for a total of
48 cents per pound).
In Maine, the burden of financing e-waste recycling is shared between local governments and
manufacturers. Cities and counties collect the products and take them to consolidation facilities, which
store the material for shipment to recyclers and record the amount and type recycled. The facilities
then invoice manufacturers for the costs of handling, transport, recycling and consolidation.
Maryland has launched a five-year pilot program (ending in 2010) in which electronics manufacturers
pay a $5,000 registration fee per year to the state's recycling fund (or $500 if they have instituted a
product takeback program). If local governments set up computer collection/recycling programs,
they can apply to the state recycling fund for grants to offset some costs.
According to the Computer TakeBack Campaign, Washington state has just enacted the most
comprehensive e-waste recycling law in the country. The bill requires electronics manufacturers to
pay for the collection, transportation and recycling of computers, monitors, and TVs from consumers,
small businesses, schools, local governments and charities throughout the state.
While some recycling advocates hail these measures, others say that state-by-state programs are a
piecemeal approach to a nationwide problem. Last October, the National Center for Electronics
Recycling, Davisville, W.Va., released a report titled "A Study of the State-by-State E-Waste
Patchwork." The study is a first-ever effort to quantify the existing and potential economic effects of
state-level electronics recycling requirements on industry, government and consumers. Drawing
from estimates provided by principal public and private sector entities in state e-cycling programs, the
study identifies "dead weight" costs that would not be present with a national electronics recycling
program. Recurring dead weight costs of the four existing state programs are estimated at $25 million
per year.
Private Initiatives
But implementing a national program is easier said than done. Not surprisingly, more regulationfriendly countries such as Japan, South Korea and most of Europe have passed laws requiring
electronics manufacturers to pay for recycling programs for their products. Although widespread
mandates are not likely in the United States and would be vigorously opposed by many U.S.
manufacturers, some electronics manufacturers also are doing their part to deal with the mountains
of waste their companies produce.
Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Round Rock, Texas-based Dell Inc., for example,
which reportedly sell more than half the nation's personal computers, both have instituted recycling
campaigns and sought to use more environmentally friendly parts. "The computer companies are
definitely embracing the idea that they need to deal with their products at the end of their useful life,"
Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Computer TakeBack Campaign, said in a CNN special report.
"There's been a complete turnaround."
Dell was an early leader in addressing its e-waste. In recent months, the company has pledged to
phase out certain toxic chemicals and began offering free recycling for all its products. In 2005, the
company reportedly recovered 80 million pounds of equipment. HP recycles about 50 million pounds
of equipment at its U.S. plants and refuses to send any of that waste to landfills or overseas. The
company charges for recycling, but consumers get a coupon that goes toward the purchase of new
products.
Rather than new taxes or front-end fees that the company says are a turn-off to consumers, HP favors
a product stewardship solution that relies on the private sector to implement workable recycling
programs. Such an approach, according to a recent company report on the topic, should include the
following elements: an efficient recycling framework that involves all stakeholders; the expertise and
innovation of the private sector; opportunities for environmental and cost improvements over time;
the avoidance of new government or quasi-government bureaucracies and new taxes or fees; and the
flexibility to accommodate different business models and new products over time.
"HP supports uniform national legislation to achieve this goal," the company stated in a recent report,
"but we recognize that some states may seek to address this issue prior to the enactment of federal
legislation [and that] consumer awareness of the issue is limited."
Looking ahead, the focus of e-waste recycling advocates is shifting back from computer equipment
and peripherals to televisions. As Americans increasingly purchase flat-panel TVs, untold numbers of
large cathode-ray tube boxes will soon be looking for a new home. Whether that new home is a landfill
- or whether those parts get a new life through recycling - is something to which many stakeholders
are paying increasing attention.
Kim A. O'Connell is a contributing writer based in Arlington, Va.
Copyright 2007 by Prism Business Information. All rights reserved.
Citation for your reference:
By Kim A. O'Connell. "E-Waste Not." Waste Age. 01 Apr. 2007 eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
By Kim A. O'Connell. "E-Waste Not." Waste Age. 01 Apr. 2007
Electronic waste piling up
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.McClatchy - Tribune Business News
01-20-2011
Electronic waste piling up
Byline: Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.
Type: News
Jan. 20--Electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing categories of solid waste in the country, yet
only 24 states have e- waste laws -- and Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama are not among them.
"We have a patchwork of inconsistent regulations across the country," said Jason Linnell, executive
director of the nonprofit National Center for Electronics Recycling.
"That means even within those 24 states, there are varying levels of service that are offered by
manufacturers and programs," Linnell said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2007 -- the most recent information available
-- American people and businesses generate about 2 million tons a year of e-waste, which may include
computers, monitors, televisions, keyboards, printers, telephones and audio equipment.
Electronic waste generates health concerns as well as landfill costs.
Tennessee's regulations now apply only to processors who take in electronic scrap to dismantle it for
recycling disposal, said Paula Mitchell, household hazardous waste coordinator with the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation.
Without state laws, it's mostly up to local governments to create and fund programs for collection and
recycling or disposal of electronics, she said.
In recent years, Hamilton and Bradley counties in Tennessee and Whitfield County in Georgia are
among local governments that have established electronics recycling programs.
Chattanooga partners with Orange Grove Center. Tera Roberts, director of adult services at Orange
Grove, said it took about three years to develop good markets so the program can accept any
quantities from any customer.
"There are a lot buyers out there, but you can't necessarily trust what they are doing with the product
because there are so few regulations for them to go by," said Roberts.
Mitchell said the most recent attempt to pass an e-waste bill in Tennessee was in 2007. The bill would
have prohibited a manufacturer from selling computer devices in the state unless, among other things,
it had a recovery plan.
In Georgia, the Computer Equipment Disposal and Recycling Council recommended in 2005 not to
ban residential e-scrap from landfills, according to Chuck Boelkins with the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources.
After three years of research, "the council recommended that free market forces be allowed to grow a
recycling infrastructure instead," he wrote in an e-mail. "Georgia has a thriving industry managing
electronic scrap, and all the commercial operations are making money."
ABOUT E-SCRAP
Americans own about 24 electronic products per household, according to the Consumer Electronics
Association.
According to a 2007 EPA report, "Management of Select Electronic Products in the United States,"
2.25 million tons of televisions, cell phones and computer products were scrapped. Of that, 18 percent
was collected for recycling and 82 percent was trashed, primarily in landfills, the report said.
Although electronics now make up less than 2 percent of municipal solid waste, the e-waste category
is growing two to three times faster than any other waste, according to the EPA.
There are several reasons to properly dispose of old electronics, Mitchell said.
Some of the precious metals in the devices are valuables, and other substances, such as cadmium,
lead and nickel, could be dangerous if they leaked out of a landfill.
Cancer and nervous system damage are some of the potential risks from e-scrap toxins, according to
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"We are not yet seeing evidence of some of these metals leaching in landfills, but then again, this is
kind of a new issue. It may be 20, 30 more years down the road before we see that," Mitchell said.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Tennessee started to address the recycling of electronics scrap in 2003, Mitchell said.
There are at least 175 collection sites available to households, Mitchell said, and 18 are operated by
private recyclers or nonprofits. Of Tennessee's 95 counties, 61 provide for the collection and
recycling of electronic scrap from households.
Local governments can apply for solid waste assistance grants through TDEC to help offset costs, she
said.
There's no local data on how much e-waste goes to landfills, but in fiscal 2009-10 public collection
programs managed more than 1.1 million pounds of electronic scrap for recycling, Mitchell said.
Georgia doesn't collect state data, Boelkins said.
The Orange Grove Center collected close to 49 tons of electronics from July 2009 through June 2010,
Roberts said.
Whitfield County and Dalton, Ga., have collected e-scrap since the county collected 13.4 tons in its
first drop-off event in February 2008, said Liz Swafford with the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste
Authority.
In 2010, the waste authority collected 12.66 tons of e-scrap for recycling -- equivalent to the weight
of 10 compact cars, Swafford said.
"We would hope that we are recycling over 30, 40, even 50 percent of electronics in the county, but
it's hard to tell," she said.
FEDERAL LAW
Most electronics recycling is free, although a small fee is common for televisions or glass cathode
ray tube monitors, which contain lead and must be disposed of more carefully.
Kevin Paul, owner of Technology Lifecycle in Hixson, has recycled electronics for about five years.
Some people figured out in the 1980s that early motherboards and memory and processors contained
a lot of gold, he said.
But "it took a long time for EPA and other environmental groups to warn consumers about some of the
toxins," he added.
Paul said the industry has supported electronics recycling, especially the last five years, Companies
such as Dell and Apple and stores like Best Buy have recycling programs.
There is no federal mandate to recycle e-waste, but regulations proscribe disposal of hazardous
materials. Equipment that contains lead, mercury, cadmium, beryllium or hexavalent chromium
cannot be disposed of in a typical landfill.
But unless local landfill rules prohibit it, Tennessee or Georgia households can still dump old
electronics in the landfill.
"In terms of recycling programs and availability and the way that consumers get rid of their old
devices, we are somewhat behind other countries especially in Europe and Asia," said Linnell.
But he expects to see more states implement laws and recycling programs, he said.
Follow Perla Trevizo on Twitter
visit www.mctinfoservices.com.
Citation for your reference:
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.. "Electronic waste piling up." McClatchy - Tribune
Business News. 20 Jan. 2011 eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.. "Electronic waste piling up." McClatchy - Tribune
Business News. 20 Jan. 2011
E-scrap scrape
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.McClatchy - Tribune Business News
01-20-2011
E-scrap scrape
Byline: Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.
Type: News
Jan. 20--Electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing categories of solid waste in the country, yet
only 24 states have e- waste laws -- and Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama are not among them.
"We have a patchwork of inconsistent regulations across the country," said Jason Linnell, executive
director of the nonprofit National Center for Electronics Recycling.
"That means even within those 24 states, there are varying levels of service that are offered by
manufacturers and programs," Linnell said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2007 -- the most recent information available
-- American people and businesses generate about 2 million tons a year of e-waste, which may include
computers, monitors, televisions, keyboards, printers, telephones and audio equipment.
Electronic waste generates health concerns as well as landfill costs.
Tennessee's regulations now apply only to processors who take in electronic scrap to dismantle it for
recycling disposal, said Paula Mitchell, household hazardous waste coordinator with the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation.
Without state laws, it's mostly up to local governments to create and fund programs for collection and
recycling or disposal of electronics, she said.
In recent years, Hamilton and Bradley counties in Tennessee and Whitfield County in Georgia are
among local governments that have established electronics recycling programs.
Chattanooga partners with Orange Grove Center. Tera Roberts, director of adult services at Orange
Grove, said it took about three years to develop good markets so the program can accept any
quantities from any customer.
"There are a lot buyers out there, but you can't necessarily trust what they are doing with the product
because there are so few regulations for them to go by," said Roberts.
Mitchell said the most recent attempt to pass an e-waste bill in Tennessee was in 2007. The bill would
have prohibited a manufacturer from selling computer devices in the state unless, among other things,
it had a recovery plan.
In Georgia, the Computer Equipment Disposal and Recycling Council recommended in 2005 not to
ban residential e-scrap from landfills, according to Chuck Boelkins with the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources.
After three years of research, "the council recommended that free market forces be allowed to grow a
recycling infrastructure instead," he wrote in an e-mail. "Georgia has a thriving industry managing
electronic scrap, and all the commercial operations are making money."
ABOUT E-SCRAP
Americans own about 24 electronic products per household, according to the Consumer Electronics
Association.
According to a 2007 EPA report, "Management of Select Electronic Products in the United States,"
2.25 million tons of televisions, cell phones and computer products were scrapped. Of that, 18 percent
was collected for recycling and 82 percent was trashed, primarily in landfills, the report said.
Although electronics now make up less than 2 percent of municipal solid waste, the e-waste category
is growing two to three times faster than any other waste, according to the EPA.
There are several reasons to properly dispose of old electronics, Mitchell said.
Some of the precious metals in the devices are valuables, and other substances, such as cadmium,
lead and nickel, could be dangerous if they leaked out of a landfill.
Cancer and nervous system damage are some of the potential risks from e-scrap toxins, according to
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"We are not yet seeing evidence of some of these metals leaching in landfills, but then again, this is
kind of a new issue. It may be 20, 30 more years down the road before we see that," Mitchell said.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Tennessee started to address the recycling of electronics scrap in 2003, Mitchell said.
There are at least 175 collection sites available to households, Mitchell said, and 18 are operated by
private recyclers or nonprofits. Of Tennessee's 95 counties, 61 provide for the collection and
recycling of electronic scrap from households.
Local governments can apply for solid waste assistance grants through TDEC to help offset costs, she
said.
There's no local data on how much e-waste goes to landfills, but in fiscal 2009-10 public collection
programs managed more than 1.1 million pounds of electronic scrap for recycling, Mitchell said.
Georgia doesn't collect state data, Boelkins said.
The Orange Grove Center collected close to 49 tons of electronics from July 2009 through June 2010,
Roberts said.
Whitfield County and Dalton, Ga., have collected e-scrap since the county collected 13.4 tons in its
first drop-off event in February 2008, said Liz Swafford with the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste
Authority.
In 2010, the waste authority collected 12.66 tons of e-scrap for recycling -- equivalent to the weight
of 10 compact cars, Swafford said.
"We would hope that we are recycling over 30, 40, even 50 percent of electronics in the county, but
it's hard to tell," she said.
FEDERAL LAW
Most electronics recycling is free, although a small fee is common for televisions or glass cathode
ray tube monitors, which contain lead and must be disposed of more carefully.
Kevin Paul, owner of Technology Lifecycle in Hixson, has recycled electronics for about five years.
Some people figured out in the 1980s that early motherboards and memory and processors contained
a lot of gold, he said.
But "it took a long time for EPA and other environmental groups to warn consumers about some of the
toxins," he added.
Paul said the industry has supported electronics recycling, especially the last five years, Companies
such as Dell and Apple and stores like Best Buy have recycling programs.
There is no federal mandate to recycle e-waste, but regulations proscribe disposal of hazardous
materials. Equipment that contains lead, mercury, cadmium, beryllium or hexavalent chromium
cannot be disposed of in a typical landfill.
But unless local landfill rules prohibit it, Tennessee or Georgia households can still dump old
electronics in the landfill.
"In terms of recycling programs and availability and the way that consumers get rid of their old
devices, we are somewhat behind other countries especially in Europe and Asia," said Linnell.
But he expects to see more states implement laws and recycling programs, he said.
Contact Perla Trevizo at ptrevizo@timesfreepress.com or 423-757- 6578. Follow her on Twitter at
twitter.com/Perla_Trevizo.
visit www.mctinfoservices.com.
Citation for your reference:
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.. "E-scrap scrape." McClatchy - Tribune Business
News. 20 Jan. 2011 eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Perla Trevizo Chattanooga Times Free Press, Tenn.. "E-scrap scrape." McClatchy - Tribune Business
News. 20 Jan. 2011
HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOEL DENBO
Congressional Testimony
09-08-2005
Statement of Joel Denbo Chair, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries,
Inc. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials September 8, 2005 Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Sub-committee, my name is Joel Denbo. I am here as Chair of the Institute
of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). ISRI is the trade association that
represents 1,260 private, for-profit companies that process, broker and
industrially consume scrap commodities including metals, paper, plastics,
glass, textiles, rubber and electronics at nearly 3,000 facilities worldwide--over
80% of those facilities are located in the United States. Approximately
300 of our 1,260 members handle electronics, either exclusively, or as
an aspect of their other recycling activities. I am also the third generation
leader of Tennessee Valley Recycling, a company my family began in 1907
that currently has plants located in Alabama and Tennessee. In the minds
of many, recycling in the United States is a phenomenon that began in the
1970`s following the original Earth Day celebration. For others, awareness
dates to the late 1980`s following the infamous voyage of the ``garbage
barge`` and the ensuing fears that landfill capacity had reached a crisis
stage. It may interest the Committee to know that the scrap recycling industry
actually dates back to the beginnings of our nation, when a statue of King
George III was toppled in NYC and its metal was used to make bullets for
the Continental Army. Our members are in the business of recycling, and
have formed the basis of the established recycling infrastructure that
exists in this country today. Today, the processing of scrap commodities
is an integral part of the U.S. economy and its domestic manufacturing
industries. Scrap commodities are collected for beneficial reuse, conserving
impressive amounts of energy and natural resources in the recycling process.
For example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency recycled
aluminum saves the nation 95 percent of the energy that would have been
needed to make new aluminum from virgin ores. Recycled iron and steel result
in energy savings of 74 percent; recycled copper, 85 percent; recycled
paper, 64 percent; and recycled plastic, more than 80 percent. Collectively,
ISRI members process over 130 million tons of recyclables each year, worth
upwards of $30 billion and contribute more than $2 billion annually to
the US balance of trade. ISRI`s member companies are family owned businesses
that have stood by, and with, the same towns and cities throughout America
for the past century, creating the backbone of the recycling infrastructure
you see in this country today. In fact, in two years my company will celebrate
the one hundredth anniversary of its founding by my immigrant grandfather
and his brother. ISRI members have provided stable, good-paying jobs in
this country during the boom years, the lean years, and in war time. Understandably,
we are known as America`s ``Original Recyclers`` and proudly wear the badge
of the Voice of the Recycling Industry. ISRI members have been recycling
electronics for decades as an integral part of their recycling operations.
Indeed, early computers--mainframes as they were known, were highly sought
after commodities in our industry. In 2002, recognizing the ever- growing
number of obsolete personal computers and peripherals, and other electronics
materials entering the recycling stream, ISRI formed an Electronics Council
to address the issues unique to this segment of the scrap recycling industry`s
activities. Sensing an opportunity, as good businessmen and entrepreneurs
generally do, many of our member companies are investing significant capital
to expand their businesses to recycle more electronics. Yet, while they
have acted on their `recycling know- how` and sense of opportunity, they
also know that before electronics recycling can stand on its own, a number
of challenges familiar to the traditional scrap recycling industry need
to be addressed. The challenges include, among other things, the need:
to distinguish between scrap and waste, to develop end-use markets for
the materials recovered from scrap electronics, to promote manufacturer
design improvements to make electronics easier to recycle and to avoid
the use of hazardous materials in the manufacture of electronics products,
and to promote the benefits of environmental management systems, such as
ISRI`s Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS) as the proper means
to address environmental concerns. Consequently, ISRI`s Board of Directors
last month adopted a policy resolution outlining how best to address these
challenges. As businessmen who know how to recycle, our views are derived
from years of practical experience. In order to assist this Committee`s
efforts to understand how best to ensure that electronics are recycled
properly, and not disposed of in landfills or elsewhere, I would like to
highlight some of the key issues within our policy. We need to avoid creating
unnecessary impediments to recycling. Thus, it is very important to distinguish
the difference between scrap and waste. Electronics scrap, like scrap paper,
glass, plastic, metal, textiles, and rubber, is not waste. Scrap is the
opposite of waste. Processed scrap materials are commodities that have
a value on domestic and international markets, whereas waste materials
have no value and are typically buried in a landfill. Electronics recyclers
make their living by providing de- manufacturing services, such as scrubbing
and reselling hard drives, by reselling cell phones, monitors and CPUs
that are in good working order, and by using machinery and equipment to
shred or otherwise process electronics to extract the various commodities
that are in electronics like steel, aluminum, gold, silver, titanium, copper,
nickel, plastic and glass. Defining obsolete electronics as waste undermines
and overlooks the value that these electronics retain if properly recycled.
Saddling them with the moniker of waste imposes a whole host of unwarranted
regulatory burdens that will undermine the ability to make the system work.
For these reasons, it is eminently important that we avoid confusing these
valuable commodities with wastes. Another key aspect underlying our policy
is the concept of free and fair trade. We have been in the recycling business
a long time and understand that scrap commodities are some of the best
examples of basic supply and demand economics. These materials are traded
in the global marketplace, supplying America`s basic manufacturing industries
with valuable raw material feed stocks that are used in place of virgin
materials, and contributing significantly to the United States` balance
of trade with other nations. Hence, our industry has generally opposed
efforts to interfere with commodity markets and create artificial distortions.
However, being the pragmatic businessmen that we are, we recognized that
the electronics market has grown explosively in such a short period of
time that, for the short term, it might take some sort of financial mechanism
to ensure that the costs of recycling electronics - which sometimes have
a `negative intrinsic value`- do not deter recycling from taking place.
Allow me to explain. Right now, under current market conditions, if a citizen,
a governmental entity, a commercial or retail establishment wants to do
the right thing and recycle their electronics, recyclers must charge that
citizen or other entity a fee in order to justify the costs of recycling
certain obsolete electronics components, such as older computer monitors
and TV`s with cathode ray tubes (CRTs). That`s because the costs of recycling
these items are more than the value of the component materials that can
be extracted from them. This is due in large part to the lack of markets
for the recycled glass and plastics in these units. Creating a long term,
sustainable recycling infrastructure for the recycling of electronics will
require that the electronics are both economically and technologically
feasible to recycle. As a result, ISRI decided to support a financial mechanism
to cover the negative value of the material. In looking at the issue, our
Electronics Council determined that the best financial mechanism would
be for manufacturer`s to take some responsibility for the cost of recycling
their products, by internalizing the cost of collecting, sorting, transporting
and recycling of a defined set of electronics for two primary reasons.
First, we recognized that producer responsibility provides a greater incentive
to encourage manufacturers to adopt Design For Recycling, a concept that
ISRI has been advocating since the early 1980s. Second, we believe that
internalization will be cheaper for the consumer/taxpayer. We did not come
to this conclusion lightly. In fact, it was a gut wrenching decision as
our industry has long argued that the markets should be allowed to operate
freely. Essentially, Design for Recycling calls upon manufacturers to design
their products to be easily recycled at the end of their useful lives,
without using hazardous or toxic constituents that can hinder the recycling
of those products, and to be manufactured using recycled materials. Design
for Recycling contemplates cooperative efforts between manufacturers, recyclers
and the government, in research and development efforts, in defining and
understanding the challenges faced at every stage of a product`s life cycle,
and in mutual efforts to develop better ideas. To date, voluntary calls
by the recycling industry to motivate manufacturers to adopt a Design for
Recycling philosophy have met with only a tepid response. We do recognize
that electronics manufacturers have taken some steps towards designing
for recycling; however, there is room for improvement. It is important
to understand that greater Design for Recycling can increase recycling
productivity that will only ensure a stronger more sustainable infrastructure.
We believe, as successful businessmen, that if given the flexibility and
opportunity to internalize the costs, that manufactures can create a model
that will be less bureaucratic and burdensome and cheaper for the tax payer.
However, certain manufacturers insist that a consumer tax in the form of
an Advance Recycling Fee (ARF), implemented, governed and administered
by state governments, will be cheaper than manufacturers internalizing
the costs. We disagree with this logic. We are aware that there is a fierce
and sometimes spirited debate occurring among and between manufacturers
and retailers about this issue. This is as it should be. Ultimately, being
neither an electronics manufacturer nor a retailer, ISRI`s Electronics
Council felt it necessary to take an objective look at this issue, as the
outcome of the debate will ultimately affect the electronics recyclers.
We acknowledge that some manufacturers have had an unkind, if not visceral,
reaction to our position on this issue. They have even questioned our right
to have an opinion on the matter of cost internalization versus ARFs. However,
while we would not fall on our sword whichever way the Congress or state
legislatures decides the cost internalization versus ARF matter, we have
specific reasons for holding our preference. While ISRI will ultimately
defer to the wisdom of the Congress or the states to decide which financial
mechanism is most apt to spur electronic markets, we strongly encourage
the Congress and the states to end any financial mechanism as soon as markets
for recyclable electronics become economically viable. We are not an industry
that looks lightly on government subsidy, and we believe markets must ultimately
stand on their own based on solid business principles. That said, whatever
financial mechanism the Congress and the states might decide to put forward
in order to sustain this market, ISRI suggests that a portion should be
applied to the research and development of end use markets for the materials
recovered from electronics products. Two of the greatest challenges of
electronics recycling are the difficulties of sorting the different resins
of plastic and recycling chemically coated glass. Targeting funds to further
technology in these two fields would have a tremendous impact on making
enduse consumer markets more economically viable, which would, over time,
ensure these markets could stand on their own without subsidy. In fact,
we believe it would be wholly appropriate for the Congress to support research
efforts aimed toward the development of technologies for utilizing these
materials in the manufacturing process. Mr. Chairman, I briefly alluded
to RIOS early in my remarks. RIOS is an integrated environmental, health
and safety, and quality management system standard that ISRI has developed
over the past 18 months. Few industries worldwide have endeavored to undertake
such a huge step, but the recycling industry in the United States has always
been, and intends to remain, the global leader in recycling technology,
environmental protection, worker safety and the production of high quality
materials. RIOS is a tool for us to accomplish those goals and will help
assure that ISRI members who recycle scrap electronics will do so in a
manner that is best for our country, and the world in which we live. In
closing, I want to remind the Committee what this is all about, and that
is recycling. At the end of the day when you have done your jobs and the
money issue is sorted out, and folks start pulling electronics from closets
and basements, it will be the electronics recyclers that end up with electronics
on their doorsteps, and that is exactly what we want. What we do not want
is an over-regulated system that makes it impossible to do our job. Our
job is to make sure electronics are properly recycled in order to protect
America`s environment and support our global economy. I want to thank you
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for addressing this timely issue
and welcome any questions you may have.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT
THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
COPYRIGHT ¿ 2005 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
Citation for your reference:
Congressional Testimony. HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOEL DENBO. Federal Document
Clearing House, , 08 Sep. 2005. eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Congressional Testimony. HANDLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTE:JOEL DENBO. Federal Document
Clearing House, , 08 Sep. 2005.
Tech Trash Talk
Waste Age
08-01-2008
Electronic Waste Continues to be one of the hottest topics in our industry. Part of this stems from the
fact that e-waste is the fastest growing segment of the waste stream, an explosion propelled by
technological advances, such as the switch from analog to digital television sets, the introduction of
new products like the iPhone, and a greater market for electronics as tech-savvy teens grow into
tech-savvy adults. But fears about the environmental impact of the rising tide of discarded
electronics also are helping fuel the discussion.
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised its data on electronic
waste (see "Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the United States," July 2008, EPA 530F-08-014). The agency estimates that while 20 million computers became obsolete in 1998,
somewhere between 26 and 37 million became obsolete in 2005. Throw in TVs, cell phones and other
marvels of the digital age and you have 304 million individual electronic products that were
discarded in 2005.
Fortunately, all these products amount to a small percentage of the waste stream, less than one
percent, or 1.9 to 2.2 million tons of solid waste. Approximately 1.5 to 1.8 million tons of this material
was sent to disposal. While you've probably read that electronics products are highly "toxic" because
they contain lead and can leach into groundwater, the fact is that they can be safely disposed in a
landfill. EPA even testified before Congress that that the pH in a mature landfill is usually close to
neutral (neutral pH is 7.0, while landfills measure around 6.8) making them a neutral, not acidic,
environment. As such, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in a Subtitle D landfill run little risk of leaching lead
into the groundwater.
However, just because these products can be safely landfilled, doesn't mean they should be. We
should make every effort to recover their valuable components instead of burying them. According to
EPA, only about 345,000 to 379,000 tons were recycled in 2005. We can do better. Again, the good
news is that our industry and the electronics industry are constantly developing new and better ways
to collect and recycle used electronic products.
But we face significant challenges. Starting in February, television signals will be broadcast exclusively
in a digital format. Analog television sets without a converter box or a cable television connection will
be useless. While some people worry that we will be buried under an avalanche of instantly obsolete
television sets, their fears are probably as well-grounded as the Y2K worries at the end of the last
millennium (see "The (Ana)Log Jam," Waste Age, May 2008). Nonetheless, the flow of electronics
products headed for recycling or disposal will accelerate in the coming years.
Congress has held hearings on what to do about e-waste, but has taken no action. Instead,
electronics recycling legislation is being vigorously passed at the state level. As of this writing, 16
states have passed laws requiring some kind of e-waste recycling program. The problem is, those 16
states have managed to go almost 16 different ways. For recycling companies and for manufacturers,
this has created barriers to setting up cost efficient recycling programs. In spite of the confusion
caused by these disparate laws, Congress is unlikely to do anything this year.
Next year, however, we may see the passage of significant federal e-waste legislation. Congress
should learn from the mistakes of the past and make sure that a recycling infrastructure is in place
before any disposal bans are imposed. We have a challenge ahead to ensure that the e-waste
recycling rate goes up faster than the e-waste disposal rate. Given the right tools, we can meet this
challenge.
For information on EIA, NSWMA and WASTEC, visit www.envasns.org.
Copyright 2008 by Prism Business Information. All rights reserved.
Citation for your reference:
"Tech Trash Talk." Waste Age. 01 Aug. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
"Tech Trash Talk." Waste Age. 01 Aug. 2008
Export of Electronics Equipment Waste
Ladou, Joseph; Lovegrove, SandraInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
01-01-2008
Electronics equipment waste ("e-waste") includes discarded computers, computer monitors,
television sets, and cell phones. Less than 10% of e-waste is currently recycled. The United States
and other developed countries export e-waste primarily to Asia, knowing it carries a real harm to the
poor communities where it will be discarded. A 2006 directive bans the use of lead, mercury,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and certain brominated flame retardants in most electronics
products sold in the EU. A similar directive facilitates the development and design of clean
electronics products with longer lifespans that are safe and easy to repair, upgrade, and recycle,
and will not expose workers and the environment to hazardous chemicals. These useful approaches
apply only regionally and cover only a fraction of the hazardous substances used in electronics
manufacture, however. There is an urgent need for manufacturers of electronics products to take
responsibility for their products from production to end-of-life, and for much tighter controls both on
the transboundary movement of e-waste and on the manner in which it is recycled. Manufacturers
must develop clean products with longer lifespans that are safe and easy to repair, upgrade, and
recycle and will not expose workers and the environment to hazardous chemicals. Key words: ewaste; electronics equipment waste; printed circuit board; electronics regulations; lead solder;
environmental lead; Basel Convention; RoHS; REACH; WEEE; IPP; EuP; RCRA; take-back; EICC;
HARL; LPEUR.
INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH 2008;14:1-10
Electronics manufacture is a major global industry. Its explosive growth has resulted in a world
market of more than $1 trillion in electronics products each year, and underlies a large part of the
world economy. The demand for electronics products continues to accelerate, while the lifespans of
the products shorten, resulting in an alarming increase in electronics waste equipment ("e-waste"). A
billion computers have been manufactured and discarded, and in the next five years, another billion
will be repeating the cycle. Many billions of electronics products in addition to computers, including
television sets, cell phones, air conditioners, appliances, toys, and a host other devices, have been
discarded in every region of the world, a staggering burden on the environment. The rapidly growing
e-waste stream presents public health difficulties because a wide range of hazardous metals and
chemicals are used in electronics products and in their manufacture.
Less than 10% of discarded electronics products are currently recycled. Many of them are discarded
with household trash out of ignorance or disregard of the hazardous materials contained in them.
These hazardous materials pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The developed
countries do not have an exemplary record of attempts to deal with the problem. Instead, they export
a great deal of the e-waste to developing countries under the guise of recycling and reuse. As
electronics manufacture increasingly moves to Asia, the problem accelerates. China manufactures
almost a third of all electronic products used in the world today. China is not taking a lead position
among countries to develop a policy to deal with e-waste.
The printed circuit board (PrCB) is a major component of e-waste. The PrCB is the platform upon
which electronics components such as semiconductor chips and capacitors are mounted. Printed
circuit boards are found in virtually all electronics products. Asia produces three fourths of the
world's PrCBs, with over 1,000 manufacturers in China alone. Japan produces 29%, followed by China
at 17%, then the United States at 15%, Taiwan at 13%, and Europe at 10%.1
The PrCB industry requires chemical-intensive manufacturing processes. Toxic chemicals such as
glycol ethers have been phased out of some electronics industry manufacture in developed countries,
while they are still commonly used in Asia. Large quantities of hazardous chemicals such as
formaldehyde, dimethylformamide, and lead are used by the PrCB industry. Only recently has there
been any serious effort to diminish the quantity of lead distributed worldwide by this industry.
In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a limited joint effort with the
PrCB industry, the Design for the Environment (DfE) project, to identify and assess environmentally
safer alternatives to chemical and process technologies that pose potential hazards to workers and
communities.2 Its project with the industry was limited to only one of the many processes necessary
to the production of PrCBs. The EPA study resulted in a recommendation that the industry end its
widespread reliance on the electroless copper process, and remove formaldehyde and other
carcinogens from the workplace. There is no evidence that this has been done, or even contemplated.
The Chinese PrCB industry does not publish data on chemical usage in its plants. Chinese e-waste
disposal practices are state secrets.3
Many electronics products also contain brominated, chlorinated, and phosphorus-based flame
retardants, phthalate esters, and esters of long-chain organic acids. Following recent EU moves to ban
the use of some brominated flame retardants found to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and
carcinogenic, a number of U.S. states have enacted legislation that bans their use in consumer goods.
Legislation may include tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), the leading flame retardant used in circuit
boards and computer chip casings. Plastic components of electronics products, such as PrCBs, cases,
cables, and other structural elements, are likely to be constructed with brominated plastics. There is
additional concern over the use of brominated materials due to their potential to generate halogenated
dioxins and furans during open burning and improper incineration.4
Lead use is ubiquitous in electronics manufacturing. Lead is present in solder, batteries, paints,
finishes, piezoelectric devices, discrete components, and sealing glasses, and in heavy concentration
in cathode-ray-tube glass used as computer monitors. Lead is also used as a stabilizer for plastics
such as polyvinyl chloride, commonly used in cable assemblies. The elimination of lead solder has
been a goal of many PrCB manufacturers, due partly to local discharge limitations. Tin-lead solder is
easily replaced by tin solder. However, the transition from tin-lead to tin-only solder has been slow.
The early PrCB industry produced electronics products using prodigious quantities of lead and other
toxic materials, and systematically shipped them to every corner of the world, where, to this day, they
are improperly discarded in landfills, waterways, and incinerators.
PROCESSING E-WASTE
Discarded computers and other electronics products should be considered hazardous waste in all
countries. About half of the heavy metals, including lead, mercury, and cadmium, in landfills comes
from e-waste. Discarded computers and other consumer electronics products are the fastest-growing
portion of the waste stream-growing almost three times faster than the overall municipal waste
stream.
In order to recover valuable materials and to minimize the adverse effects of hazardous materials,
waste computers are dismantled, then the retrieved materials are sent to specialized facilities for
further recycling or treatment. Recycling can recover 95% of the useful materials from the central
processing unit (power supply, fan, PrCB, DVD drive, CD drive, hard disk, soft disk, shell casing, etc.)
and 45% of useful materials from the computer monitor (CRT).5
Mechanical processes, such as crushing, screening, and magnetic and electrostatic separation separate
metal fractions from polymers and ceramics, and are able to obtain more than 50% of the copper,
24% of the tin, and 8% of the lead.6 The remaining fractions can be added to cement mortar, where
no heavy metal ions such as copper, lead, or cadmium are detected in the leachate as a result of the
fixation effect of the cement hydrates.7
The regulated pollutants most often found in PrCB wastewater are copper, lead, nickel, silver, and
total toxic organics.8 Many other metals associated with the electronics industry are found in
wastewater, including barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, gold, nickel, silver, and zinc. More than
95% extraction of the gold, silver, copper, iron, zinc, nickel, and aluminum is possible with available
technologies.9
E-waste contains marketable products, including resalable electronics devices and recycled
materials such as plastics, metals, and glass.10 The most costly unit operation is CRT glass recycling.
Approximately 50% of the weight of a computer monitor is composed of CRT glass. Thus, the
successful recycling of scrap CRT glass can greatly relieve the disposal problem created by scrap
monitors. CRT glass may be considered a hazardous waste due to its high lead concentration.11
Policies restricting or banning some popular disposal options increase disposal costs significantly.12
Dopants are chemical materials incorporated into a pure substance to alter its electrical conductivity.
Trace elements, such as arsenic, antimony, phosphorus, gallium, and indium, are incorporated into
the matrices of silicon-based chips. These elements are also used in the production of semiconductors,
such as gallium arsenide, indium arsenide, or indium phosphide. There has been virtually no
discussion of the possible exposures of the general population to e-waste resulting from the disposal
of outdated semiconductor-containing devices. The potential environmental release of toxic trace
elements from semiconductor materials deposited in municipal incinerators or landfills resulting in
unanticipated human exposures to these agents in the general population is an important issue. Many
of the agents used as dopants are highly toxic and, in several cases, are now identified as known or
probable human carcinogens.13-15 Indium arsenide, indium phosphide, and aluminum gallium
arsenide show clear evidence of carcinogenic potential.
E-WASTE EXPORT
There is an escalating global trade in obsolete, discarded computers and other e-waste collected in
North America and Europe and sent to developing countries by waste brokers and so-called recyclers.
As much as 80% of the e-waste collected for recycling in the United States is not recycled
domestically, but is instead exported to developing countries.16 The United States and many other
developed countries have exported e-waste primarily to Asia, knowing full well that it carried with it a
real harm to the poor communities where it would be discarded. E-waste is shipped overseas for
dismantling under appalling conditions, contaminating the land, air, and water in China, India, and
other Asian nations, Africa, and Latin America. The few informal studies of the public health impact of
the recycling efforts around the world give only a glimpse of the true horror this represents to poor
countries.17-21
In Africa, while there is a legal capacity and ability to repair and refurbish old electronics equipment,
as much as 75% of the imports are not economically repairable or marketable. Consequently, the ewaste is inappropriately discarded and routinely burned. Serious adverse impacts on the environment
and human health from e-waste recycling continue to occur today due to a lack of regulation and
enforcement. China has become the recipient of 70% of the world's scrap electronics products,
making it the largest electronics garbage dumping ground in the world, according to a recent report
by the State Environmental Protection Administration of China.22
At workshops in China, India, Bangladesh, and many other countries, lead solder and other metals are
dissolved in open acid baths. Some e-wastes are burned on open fires to recover metals from plastics
in which they are encased. The open burning, acid baths, and toxic dumping of e-waste introduce
unconscionable levels of contaminants into fragile environments, and expose the world's poorest
people to a large number of toxic materials.23,24 The public health and environmental costs of this
recovery process are borne neither by the consumers nor by the manufacturers of the products. The
costs are purposely shifted to the poor people least able to absorb them, and least likely to speak out
against the unfairness of the trade. High levels of toxic lead turning up in cheap jewelry from China
have received media attention in the United States. Some of the lead used by these Chinese
manufacturers comes from e-waste dumped in China. 25
REGULATION
The current e-waste recycling system is largely doomed to failure before the electronics products
ever enter the marketplace. Electronics manufacturers resist or delay efforts to eliminate or
substitute for hazardous materials, and they are slow to design products for eventual ease of
disassembly and recycling. In league with the industry, government fails to hold manufacturers
responsible for end-of-life management of their products. Consumers assume an unspecified
responsibility for electronics products, which they frequently must discard. Left with few choices,
consumers readily turn to recycling without realizing that it is an industry with considerable deceit
and corruption.16 The electronics industry has evaded its responsibility for management of products
at the ends of their useful lives, while public policy has failed to promote producer take-back, clean
design, and safe recycling.
UNITED NATIONS
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
The Basel Convention is a multilateral agreement regulating the international shipment of hazardous
wastes. It began in 1987 following many decades of unregulated dumping of hazardous waste in poor
countries. The Convention requires that participating nations reduce the transboundary shipment of
hazardous wastes by minimizing production, and by treating and disposing of the wastes as near to
the source of production as is possible. Under Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) guidelines, non-hazardous wastes exported to recycling facilities do not need to
be regulated. The United States and Canada refuse to follow the European nations that define
discarded electronics products as hazardous waste. The United States defines computers and other
electronics consumer goods as "special wastes," and exempts these wastes from the domestic
hazardous waste regulations convention.26 This creates a loophole for the unregulated exporting of
waste electronics products when the exporter claims they are being transferred to an overseas
recycling facility. No such loophole exists in the Basel Convention, where all discards and residues
are considered to be hazardous waste. By signing and ratifying the Basel Convention, EU member
states preclude electronics wastes from being shipped to poor countries. Because the United States
remains a non-signatory of the Basel Convention, this limitation does not apply to one of the world's
largest consumers of electronics products. Although representatives from the U.S. Department of
State were actively involved in the Basel negotiations and signed the resulting agreement, the U.S.
Senate failed to ratify the treaty.27
EUROPE
Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS)
Environmental management has become increasingly influenced by non-regulatory international
standards. The Europeans have taken an important leadership role in facilitating the process. In 2003,
the European Union enacted the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive that bans the
use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and certain brominated flame retardants in
most electronics products sold in the European Union beginning July 1, 2006.28,29 Both business-tobusiness and consumer products are covered. This directive, by banning the use of critical materials in
electronics products sold in key world markets, may result in a significant change in the way
products are designed for global sale. It is anticipated that banning certain core substances from the
manufacture of electronics products will drive innovation and substitution. Research and technical
assistance on lead-free electronics are developing and are widely acknowledged to be the result of
the EU directive.
Unfortunately, the political process has taken its toll, and a gradual weakening of the original intent of
RoHS has taken place. There are many exemptions to RoHS, including batteries, and electronics
equipment intended to protect national security, or with a military purpose. The U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) was encouraged to stop purchasing lead-containing electronics products, but instead
the DOD joined the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in lobbying the European Union to exempt
the very large defense consumption of electronics products from RoHS restrictions. 30 Moreover,
there are specific applications where higher concentrations of mercury are allowed-including some
varieties of fluorescent lamps-and lead has a wide range of exceptions, including higher allowed levels
in the glass of cathode ray and fluorescent tubes, in an array of solders, and in electronic ceramic
parts. Nonetheless, the ultimate value of the RoHS directive is that many other countries, and over 25
U.S. states, have adopted or are considering similar types of legislation.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
The electronics industry must take responsibility for its products at the ends of their useful lives. This
responsibility forms the basis for "take-back" legislation which is being implemented in the European
Union under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive that took effect in
2005.31 The WEEE directive attempts to establish a new management program that could have farreaching implications for product design and materials management. The directive encourages the
design and production of electronics equipment to take into account and facilitate dismantling and
recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling of electronics equipment, components, and materials
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The RoHS and WEEE directives are intended to address the problem of the increasing waste stream
created by electronics equipment. Increased recycling of electronics equipment will limit the total
quantity of waste going to final disposal. Producers will be responsible for taking back and recycling
electronics equipment. Consumers will be able to return their equipment free of charge.32 Extended
producer responsibility (EPR) legislation, making producers responsible for financing and organizing
take-back and recycling of waste batteries, packaging, end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), and waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), has been or is currently in the process of being
implemented in 29 different countries in Europe following introduction of EU directives. There are
presently more than 250 producer responsibility organizations (PROs) established to meet EPR
obligations in Europe, which contrasts to the single national recycling schemes founded in the late
1990s.33
Regulation, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)
The European Parliament and the European Council are advancing legislation entitled Regulation,
Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) that will require industry to prove that chemicals
being sold and produced in the European Union are safe to use or handle. REACH policy will require
registration of all substances that are produced or imported into the European Union. The amount of
information required for registration will be proportional to the chemical's health hazards and
production volumes. Companies will also need to seek authorization to sell and produce problematic
chemicals, such as carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens. Toxic chemicals that persist in the
environment or that bioaccumulate will also need authorization. REACH is intended to increase the
speed and efficiency of the risk-assessment process and to make producers and importers of
chemicals responsible for this process. 34
The REACH proposal gives greater responsibility to industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to
provide safety information about the substances. Manufacturers and importers will be required to
gather information about the properties of the substances they use, which will help them manage
them safely, and to register the information in a central database. The REACH proposal will have a
substantial impact on the global electronics industry. Efforts to restrict the use of carcinogens,
mutagens, reproductive toxicants, and persistent and bioaccumulative substances will affect the
computer industry and provide a strong incentive to replace these chemicals in products. Opposition in
both Europe and America is delaying the progress of the REACH proposal. The electronics industry
has argued that the proposal is too broad and unworkable, providing a series of recommendations to
limit its registration, authorization, and data requirements, and calling for exemptions for polymers
and chemical intermediates. Under industry pressure, the U.S. Department of State joined the EPA in
opposition to the REACH process.25,35,36 Nonetheless, final adoption of the proposal is expected in
2007.37
Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
The European Commission has adopted an Integrated Product Policy (IPP), its strategy for reducing
the environmental impact caused by products, and will take a number of actions to stimulate
continuous improvement in the environmental performances of products throughout their life
cycles.38 The Commission will also initiate the identification of those products with the greatest
potential for environmental improvement. After adoption of the directive, the Commission will be able
to enact implementing measures on specific products and environmental aspects such as energy
consumption, waste generation, water consumption, and extension of lifetime. Products that have
been awarded the Eco-label will be considered compliant with the requirements of the measure.
Environmentally Friendly Design of Energy-using Products (EuP)
The directive Energy-using Products (EuP) provides EU-wide rules for eco-design.39 The directive
defines conditions and criteria for setting requirements regarding environmentally relevant product
characteristics such as energy consumption and allows them to be improved. This proposal will be a
model directive under the Integrated Product Policy strategy, and will therefore set for decades to
come the standards for better product design. This directive is an important advance in EU product
policy and introduces many innovations to existing law. The EuP is expected to increase the
effectiveness of other EU legislation concerning the environmental aspects of electronics products.
UNITED STATES
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
In the United States, environmental regulation is lagging behind the accomplishments found in
Europe. The United States has been particularly reluctant to advance legislative solutions to the ewaste problem, and its electronics industry has been unsupportive of efforts by other governments.
For a period of decades, the U.S. electronics industry was not regulated for its impact on the
environment. The industry has never been required to pay anything close to the actual cost of the
environmental damage it has produced. Billions of electronics waste products have been discarded in
every region of the world. Not until 1997 did the EPA enter into the Design for the Environment
project. By that time, the international pollution of the world with what has come to be known as ewaste was readily apparent.
Since certain components of electronic devices are hazardous due to heavy metal or other
constituents, the end-of-life handling of some e-waste is regulated by either the EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state (health and safety code) hazardous waste laws, or
both.40 New regulations regarding the proper management of CRTs found in computer monitors and
television sets were recently approved. The United States, with its past reliance on traditional
approaches to environmental regulation, only recently began to assume a strong role in international,
consensus based, environmental management standards. Regulatory initiatives are emerging that
require the electronics industry to incorporate environmental, health, and safety considerations into
design and manufacturing decisions. Moreover, regulations governing the use, storage, transportation,
and disposal of hazardous materials are beginning to influence the manufacturing process.
In 2003, the EPA proposed revisions to the definition of solid waste that would exclude certain
hazardous waste from the RCRA if the waste is reused in a "continuous industrial process within the
same generating industry." The proposal may eventually exempt all "legitimately" recycled materials
from RCRA hazardous waste regulations. The proposal was intended to exempt recycled
electroplating sludge containing a high percentage of recoverable metals from hazardous waste
management requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, thus reducing the
costs of recycling.41 In 2006, the EPA reported that it had withdrawn a draft proposed rule that
would have allowed for the recycling of electroplating sludge. According to the EPA, it "has decided
not to continue with the development of this stand-alone rule addressing recycling." The EPA said it
may include the proposal in a separate rulemaking that seeks to redefine solid waste.39
State Initiatives
Four states have passed e-waste recycling laws, and more than 25 states are at varying stages of
adopting RoHS-type legislation. Washington, Maine, California, and Maryland have enacted e-waste
legislation. Washington has a free, safe, and simple electronics recycling program without additional
taxes or fees for residents. It provides recycling options in every county in the state. Massachusetts,
in 2000, was the first state to ban CRTs in its landfills, and in 2006 a new law required manufacturers
to collect their consumer products from the customers after use. California has established a funding
mechanism for the collection and recycling of computer monitors, laptop computers, and most
television sets sold in the state. That law, the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, also contains
a provision that prohibits a covered electronics device from being sold or offered for sale in California
if the device is prohibited from being sold in the European Union by the RoHS directive.42
Domestic recycling legislation currently resides at the state level, while international trade operates
federally. Because responsible recycling makes products more expensive in a highly competitive
market, the electronics industry insists that any e-waste regulation apply nationwide, not state by
state, to ensure a level playing field. Industry likes to point out that after the State of California
enacted the ban on landfill disposal of e-waste, recycling became the most common end-of-life
option in California. As a result of this legislation, the State of California will need more than 60
additional recovery facilities to recycle the number of personal computer systems generated.43
Computer Take-back Campaign
The Computer Take-back Campaign is an example of legislation-driven market reform in the place of
absent or failed public pressure. The campaign is building substantial momentum for state-level policy
reform requiring brand-owner-financed collection and recycling of hazardous electronics products.
Take-back legislation requires electronics manufacturers and brand owners to take responsibility for
their discarded products, both physically and financially. Shifting the costs for managing discarded
computers and other electronics products to brand owners and manufacturers creates a powerful
market incentive to improve product design and reduce the use of toxic materials, which will make
recycling cheaper and easier. Model legislation builds off of the EU directive requiring brand owners
to finance the e-waste collection and recycling system.44
Electronics Industry Code of Conduct (EICC)
The Electronics Industry Code of Conduct promotes industry standards for socially responsible
business practices across its global supply chains. The code, developed in collaboration with a number
of leading electronics manufacturing companies, proposes a standards based approach for
monitoring suppliers' performances across several areas of social responsibility, including labor and
employment practices, health and safety, ethics, and protection of the environment.45 The code
reflects the participating companies' commitment to social responsibility and will potentially reduce
inefficiency and duplication, and make performance easier to audit and verify.
Fundamental to adopting the code is the understanding that a business, in all of its activities, should
operate in full compliance with the laws, rules, and regulations of the countries in which it operates.
The code encourages participants to go beyond legal compliance, drawing upon internationally
recognized standards, in order to advance social and environmental responsibility. The code may be
voluntarily adopted by any business in the electronics sector and subsequently applied by that
business to its suppliers. The participating companies invite other companies to review and adopt the
code.
ASIA
Japan
In 2001, Japan adopted two waste-recycling laws that apply to e-waste. The Home Appliance
Recycling Law (HARL) covers TVs, washing machines, and air conditioners, while the Law for
Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources (LPEUR) is more broadly based and covers eco-design
and recycling. Computer manufacturers are required to design products that consider the "3R" theme
of reduce, reuse, recycle. Education of consumers and industry on the 3R theme has been successful.
Between them, these HARL and LPUER account for the recycling of 18 million appliances per year.
The laws require manufacturers to collect and to recycle computers from businesses. The law was
expanded in 2003 to include household computers, which can be collected and recycled by
manufacturers, or collected by local post offices and returned to the manufacturers. The consumer
may or may not have paid for the recycling at the time of purchase.46
Subsequent to the HARL and LPEUR legislation, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment and the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) suggested a voluntary phase-out of lead, along with
increased end-of-life product recycling. Since 2005, the Japanese government has been considering
new legislation called the General Law on Constructing Environmentally Sustainable Society.47 The
Japanese Environment Agency appears to have tried to include extended product responsibility (EPR)
clauses in the bill, but industry's firm resistance to any EPR concept made the plan ineffectual. As the
plan does not require manufacturers to internalize waste-management costs within the price of
products and goods, it fails to bring about the intended producers' responsibility. The Environment
Agency is unable to advance the EPR concept because Japanese industry as well as the METI express
strong disapproval. The result is that Japanese e-waste continues to be shipped to other countries,
and the waste producers are free from all legal responsibilities. Japan not only suffers a severe
environmental setback by this policy failure, it establishes a precedent that may influence other Asian
countries.
Taiwan
The Taiwanese Environmental Protection Agency declared waste personal computers the producer's
recycling responsibility in 1997 legislation. Under this decree, the manufacturers, importers, and
sellers of personal computers must properly recover and recycle the scrapped computers that they
originally sold. In 1998, a producer-responsibility recycling program for scrap computers was
officially implemented in Taiwan. Currently, only six computer items are mandated to be recycled in
this recycling program. They are notebooks, monitors, hard disks, power supplies, printed circuit
boards, and mainframe shells.48 Under this program, consumers can bring their unwanted personal
computers to the designated collection points and receive payment.
China
In order to ensure that its domestic electronics producers can sell products in the EU market, China
has advanced its own RoHS-type law. The Ministry of Information Industry's draft Management
Methods for Pollution Prevention and Control in the Production of Electronic Information Products
would ban the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and certain brominated flame
retardants in consumer electronics and electrical equipment sold in China. South Korea is also
considering the enactment of a RoHS-type law although details are unclear at this time.
Asia has many industrial regulations that are not enforced, and considerable time may elapse before
these attempts at regulation are instituted. With more outsourcing and contract manufacturing
migrating to south and southeast Asia, there will be increasing requirements for suppliers to the sector
to become more aware of environmental issues, especially product related aspects related to materials
reduction, energy efficiency, reduced toxicity, and increased recycling. However, outside of
subsidiaries of multinationals in south and southeast Asia, small- and medium-sized enterprises have
little awareness and understanding of environmental issues, and few governments in these countries
have initiated programs covering eco-design, hazardous materials substitution, and recycling.
India
The Indian Government, in a newly drafted hazardous waste management law, Draft Hazardous
Materials Rules, 2007, may change the established definitions of waste and consider material that is
being recycled somehow less hazardous than the waste that must be placed in landfills. This change
in the law is thought to be the result of industry lobbying efforts. The altered definitions are contrary
to the international rules of the Basel Convention which India is obliged to uphold. The new law
departs from the Basel Convention and international law as it fails to implement the Ban Amendment
forbidding all imports of hazardous waste from developed countries, and it fails to recognize that it is
illegal to trade in waste with non-parties of the Basel Convention, such as the United States.49 India
does not have the capacity to deal with its internally generated wastes, yet it is considering a further
opening up its borders to imported hazardous and electronics waste.
CONCLUSION
The EU Directive on Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and the related Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive are useful approaches to the problem of e-waste, though
applying only regionally and covering only a fraction of all the hazardous substances used in
electronics manufacturing. There is an immediate need for much tighter controls both on the
transboundary movement of e-waste and on the manner in which it is recycled. There is an urgent
need for manufacturers of electronics products to take responsibility for their products from
production through to end-of-life. Manufacturers must develop and design clean products with longer
life-spans that are safe and easy to repair, upgrade, and recycle and will not expose workers and the
environment to hazardous chemicals.
REFERENCE
References
1. LaDou J. Printed circuit board industry. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006;209:211-9.
2. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Design for the Environment. <http://www.epa.gov/dfe/>.
3. Luthje B. Why China matters in global electronics. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003;9:345-6.
4. Morf LS, Tremp J, Gloor R, et al. Brominated flame retardants in waste electrical and electronic
equipment: substance flows in a recycling plant. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;15;39:8691-3699.
5. Lee CH, Chang CT, Fan KS, Chang TC. An overview of recycling and treatment of scrap computers.
J Hazard Mater. 2004;114:93 100.
6. Veit HM, Diehl TR, Salami AP, et al. Utilization of magnetic and electrostatic separation in the
recycling of printed circuit boards scrap. Waste Manage. 2005;25:67-74.
7. Ban BC, Song JY, Lim JY, et al. Studies on the reuse of waste printed circuit board as an additive for
cement mortar. J Environ Sci. 2005;40:645-56.
8. Chen YH, Chang CY, Chen CC, et al. Decomposition of 2-mer-captothiazoline in aqueous solution by
ozonation. Chemos-phere. 2004;56:133-40.
9. Oh CJ, Lee SO, Yang HS, et al. Selective leaching of valuable metals from waste printed circuit
boards. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2003;53:897-902.
10. Kang HY, Schoenung JM. Economic analysis of electronic waste recycling: modeling the cost and
revenue of a materials recovery facility in California. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:1672-80.
11. Lee CH, Hsi CS. Recycling of scrap cathode ray tubes. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36:69-75.
12. Macauley M, Palmer K, Shih JS. Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and
environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal. J Environ Manage. 2003;68:13-22.
13. Chen HW. Exposure and health risk of gallium, indium, and arsenic from semiconductor
manufacturing industry workers. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;78:5-9. 2007;78:123-7.
14. Tanaka A. Toxicity of indium arsenide, gallium arsenide, and aluminium gallium arsenide [review].
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004;198:405-11.
15. Liao YH, Yu HS, Ho CK, et al. Biological monitoring of exposures to aluminium, gallium, indium,
arsenic, and antimony in optoelectronic industry workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:931-6.
16. Schmidt CW. Unfair trade: e-waste in Africa. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:232-5.
17. Basel Action Network. Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia.
<http://www.ban.org/#ToOrderExportingHarm TheVideo>.
18. Greenpeace. Toxic technology contaminates e-waste recycling yards in China and India.
<http://www.greenpeace.org/inter national/press/releases/toxic-technology-contaminates>.
19. Greenpeace. India being treated as a dumping ground.
<http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/19/stories/200508190429 1400.htm>.
20. China Development Brief. Reporting the latest news on China's social development.
<http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/ node/411>.
21. Puckett J. High-tech's dirty little secret. The economics and ethics of the electronic waste trade.
In: Smith T, Sonnenfeld DA, Pellow DN (eds). Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental
Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2006; chapter
20.
22. Liu X, Tanaka M, Matsui Y. Electrical and electronic waste management in China: progress and
the barriers to overcome. Waste Manage Res. 2006;24:92-101.
23. Wong MH, Wu SC, Deng WJ, et al. Export of toxic chemicals- a review of the case of uncontrolled
electronic-waste recycling. Environ Pollut. 2007;149:131-40.
24. Li H, Yu L, Sheng G, Fu J, Peng P. Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F pollution in the air around an
electronic waste dismantling area in China. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:5641-6.
25. Fairclough F. Lead toxins take a global round trip. 'E-waste' from computers discarded in West
turns up in China's exported trinkets. Wall Street Journal. July 12, 2007; page B1
26. Geiser K, Tickner J. International Environmental Agreements and the Information Technology
Industry. In: Smith S, Son-nenfeld DA, Pellow DN (eds). Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and
Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,
2006; chapter 23.
27. United Nations Environment Program. Basel Convention. <http://www.basel.int/>.
28. European Union, 2003. Directive 2003/ 108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8
December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE). <http://ec.europa.eu/environment /waste/weee_index.htm>.
29. European Union, 2002. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27
January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (RoHS). <http://europa.eu. int/eurlex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en 00190023.pdf>.
30. National Academy of Sciences. Linkages: Manufacturing Trends in Electronics Interconnection
Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005. <http://books.nap.edu/cata
log/11515.html>.
31. European Union, 2002. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27
January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). <http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.htm>.
32. European Union, 2003. Directive 67/548/EEC on the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of
Dangerous Substances, Annex 1, as last amended by Directive 2003/32/EC (28th ATP).
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/dansub/home_en.htm>.
33. Kieren MC. Strategic, financial, and design implications of extended producer responsibility in
Europe: a producer case study. J Ind Ecology. 2007;11:113-31.
34. Europa. European Commission. Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH).
<http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm>.
35. Thacker PD. U.S. companies get nervous about EU's REACH. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;39:171-2.
36. Petry T, Knowles R, Meads R. An analysis of the proposed REACH regulation [review]. Regul
Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006; 44:24-32.
37. Lahl U, Hawxwell KA. REACH-the new European chemicals law. Environ Sci Technol.
2006;40:7115-21. <http://pubs.acs. org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i23/html/120106view
point_lahl.html>.
38. European Commission. Integrated Product Policy; Commission outlines its strategy to stimulate
greener products. <http:// europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ipp/>.
39. European Union. Directive 2005/32/EC on the eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP).
<http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise /eco_design/index_en.htm>.
40. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
<http://www.epa.gov/oppt/index.html>.
41. Louis GE. A historical context of municipal solid waste management in the United States. Waste
Manag Res. 2004;22:306-22.
42. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2003. Electronic Waste Recycling Act of
2003. <http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ Electronics/Act2003/>.
43. Kang HY, Schoenung JM. Estimation of future outflows and infrastructure needed to recycle
personal computer systems in California. J Hazard Mater. 2006;pending.
44. Computer Take Back Campaign. <http://www.computertake back.com/>.
45. Electronics Industry Code of Conduct (EICC). Global supply chain standards promote socially
responsible business practices. <http://www.eicc.info/21OCT2004.html>.
46. Japan: Home Appliance Recycling Law (HARL) . Japan: Law for the Promotion of Effective
Utilization of Resources (LPEUR). <http://www.moea.state.mn.us/publications/betterbydesign. pdf>.
47. Inform. Electric Appliance Recycling in Japan. <http://www. informinc.org/fact_JapanEPR.pdf>.
48. Lee CH, Chang CT, Fan KS, Chang TC. An overview of recycling and treatment of scrap
computers. J Hazard Mater. 2004;114:93 100.
49. Ban Action Network. Draft Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2007. <http: //www.ban.org/>.
AUTHOR_AFFILIATION
JOSEPH LADOU, MD, SANDRA LOVEGROVE
Received from the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of California School
of Medicine, San Francisco, CA 94143-0924, U.S.A.; telephone: (415) 476-4951; fax: (415) 4766426; e-mail: <joeladou@aol.com>; and from Abel Publication Services, Inc. (SL), e-mail:
<abelpubserv@aol.com>.
Joe LaDou and Sandra Lovegrove founded the International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health 13 years ago. They now transfer their roles as editor and publisher to David
Egilman and Susanna Rankin Bohme. This article is a final message to readers from Joe and Sandy,
and reflects their gratitude to all those who helped make the journal a success, and a wish for
continued success to Dave and Susanna.Export of Electronics Equipment Waste
Byline: Ladou, Joseph; Lovegrove, Sandra
Volume: 14
Number: 1
ISSN: 10773525
Publication Date: 01-01-2008
Page: 1
Section: Original Articles
Type: Periodical
Language: English
Copyright Abel Publication Services, Inc. Jan-Mar 2008
Citation for your reference:
Ladou, Joseph; Lovegrove, Sandra. "Export of Electronics Equipment Waste." International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health. 01 Jan. 2008: 1. eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Ladou, Joseph; Lovegrove, Sandra. "Export of Electronics Equipment Waste." International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health. 01 Jan. 2008: 1.
States experiment with e-waste financing
Jennifer GrzeskowiakAmerican City & County
01-01-2006
So far, only three states - California, Maine and Maryland - have enacted legislation to finance the
recycling and reuse of electronic waste, better known as e-waste. Illustrating the complexity of the
issue, the three states have developed three different solutions. Aside from debating which approach
will prove most effective, interested parties also are discussing who should take the lead in crafting
federal legislation and programs.
E-waste - which includes televisions, computers and cell phones - often contains elements, such as
lead, cadmium and mercury, that can be harmful to humans. With nearly 100 million computers,
monitors and televisions becoming obsolete every year, e-waste makes up an estimated 1 percent of
waste going into landfills, a percentage that is increasing quickly. While some people argue that the
materials have the potential to leach from landfills, contrary evidence exists. In either case, collected
e-waste sometimes is sent for disposal to other countries with less-stringent landfill regulations, giving
reason for concern.
In November, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the role the federal
government should take in the recycling and reuse of e-waste. The report cites economic factors,
such as the cost consumers pay to drop off used electronics at recycling sites and the lack of a
financing system as reasons national laws are needed. It also mentions the absence of regulations
that "prevent the exportation of used electronics to countries where disassembly takes place at far
lower costs, but where disassembly practices threaten human health and the environment." As a
result, GAO suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take the lead in federal
legislation.
The EPA - opposed to being responsible for such action - responded with a letter stating, "As GAO
knows, there is no consensus among manufacturers about what the best financing solution is to
enable widespread electronics recycling, even though manufacturers and many other stakeholders
have expressed the view that a national solution is better than a patchwork of state solutions."
As the nation waits for direction from the federal government, dozens of states are considering ways
to deal with e-waste and have the benefit of observing states that recently have adopted regulations.
"Clearly, a federal approach is preferable," says Chaz Miller, director of state programs for the
Washington-based National Solid Wastes Management Association. "But in California and Maine, we
have the opportunity to see if either of those programs works out."
Last year, California began charging customers $6 to $10 when purchasing certain electronics, using
the money to reimburse recyclers and collectors. The potential problem, Miller says, is that
"California's plan requires a large bureaucracy to make sure the money gets spent properly."
Shifting responsibility away from consumers, Maine's law, which takes effect this month, requires
manufacturers to finance and implement a plan for recycling residential televisions and computer
monitors. It also makes them pay to transport the electronics when e-waste loads reach 16,000
pounds. Beginning in July, the state will ban television and computer disposal, which makes
municipalities responsible for providing recycling options.
Maryland, meanwhile, charges a flat fee of $5,000 per year to manufacturers that sell more than
1,000 computers annually in the state. Manufacturers can reduce that fee to $500 if they establish
recycling programs that are free to consumers. The money funds local e-waste collection programs.
As the state programs develop, national leaders can treat them as test sites for the various
approaches available for financing recycling and reuse programs.
Counting on e-waste
.
Approximately 62 percent of households had computers in 2003 versus 37 percent six years earlier.
.
1 metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of ore.
.
In 2003, 70 million computers became obsolete, but only an estimated 7 million were recycled.
.
EPA has spent about $2 million on programs to encourage e-waste recycling and reuse.
SOURCE: Government Accountability Office, "Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal
Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse," November 2005.
Copyright 2006 by Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Citation for your reference:
Grzeskowiak, Jennifer. "States experiment with e-waste financing." American City & County. 01 Jan.
2006 eLibrary. Web. 07 Mar. 2011.
Grzeskowiak, Jennifer. "States experiment with e-waste financing." American City & County. 01 Jan.
2006