R
AIChE
July 2006
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Solutions to the Challenge
of Electronic Waste
Wayne Rifer
Rifer Environmental
Green Electronics Council
wrifer@concentric.net
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Contents
1 Costs and Impacts of
E-Waste Management
2 Status of a national solution
3 Options for state legislation
4 Prognosis
The U.S. E-Waste
Challenge
R
I
F
E
R

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
U.S. lacks recycling
infrastructure
U.S. e-scrap exported to developing countries
 Current Recycling rate: 10 - 14%



Cost to recycle: $10 - $25 per unit
3 millions tons nationally
1/2 of HHs have an obsolete CRT in storage
 Much U.S. e-scrap shipped overseas

EOL Electronic Products
A New Kind of Garbage
R
I
F
E
R


E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The dilemma

E-waste is not readily compatible with
current waste management technologies
Technical wastes

Waste authorities have responsibility,
but lack knowledge and control
Toxics in Electronics
R
I
F
E
R

Toxics
Lead, cadmium, mercury & chromium
 Brominated flame-retardants & PVC

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

Univ. of Florida study determines CRTs
meet characteristics of hazardous waste
Fail TCLP
 From large generators, not HHs


EPA rule to exclude CRTs for recycling

Other components fail TCLP
Exporting Harm
R
Video by Basel Action
Network (BAN) & Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition
(SVTC), February ‘02
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

Portrays Chinese recycling
operations extremely harmful to
human health and environment

Computer Take Back Campaign
has pressured manufacturers to
implement take back, cease
export, and improve
environmental design
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
New Ideas Emerge about
Responsibility for Product Wastes
Whoever designs, makes, sells or uses a
product should take responsibility for
minimizing its environmental impact. This
responsibility spans the product's life
cycle - from selection of raw materials to
design and production processes to its
use and disposal.
The Goal
R
I
F
E
R

With consistent standards nationwide
 Providing economies of scale
 And allowing local service variations

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
A single national solution

Role of state action
To incubate solutions
 To drive national action
 To provide interim services

R
I
F
E
R
The National EOL Debate:
National Electronic Product
Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Europe legislates
U.S. negotiates
R
The NEPSI Process
I
F
E
R

Began June ‘01 – 3+ years
E

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue
 15 manufacturers
 15 state, local & federal governments
 18 ‘others’ – recyclers, NGOs,
academics, retailers, etc.
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Positions at the Starting-Line
R
I
F
E
R

Not government’s responsibility
 To shift costs

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Government

NGOs
Producer responsibility as design driver
 Waste diversion


Manufacturers
Traditional model of waste management
 Last user or government pays

R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The NEPSI Outcome
A system that could work


No effective agreement
R
I
F
E
R
The System that Could Work
Hybrid Financing


E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Two-phase system


Begins with an Advanced Recovery Fee
(ARF)
Evolves to Partial Cost Internalization (PCI)
Rationale


ARF creates infrastructure & covers costs of
orphan/historic waste
PCI will drive design improvement
The NEPSI Product Scope
R
I
F
E
R

Computer systems (CPUs, monitors,
keyboards, etc.)

Computer peripherals (printers, scanners)

Televisions

From residents and small businesses
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
R
M
o
n
e
y
Consumer
Fee Remitter
I
F
E
R
Assurance of
EnvironmentallySound Processing
TPO
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Retailer
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
Reuse
Organization
Municipality
User @ End
of Product
Life
Local
Recycler
Consolidation,
processing
contractors
Remanufacturer
Recycler
Mail-Back
Payment for
product collected
Product can flow
direct to processor
The Fundamental Divide
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Both industry & environmental advocates
1 Visible (consumer) fee (ARF)
Financial Responsibility
 Obligation based on market share
 Collective implementation

2 Producer (Manufacturer) Responsibility
Mandated responsibility to recycle share of
product
 Obligation based on returned share
 Individual cost internalization

Industry Dynamics
R
I
F
E
R

Roughly, big vs. small

Positions
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
HP, Dell
 CE industry, IBM, Apple
 White Box (~30%)

Favor PR
Favor ARF
?
R
I
F
E
R
A Scan of Legislative Trends
State Legislation Introduced ‘03

E

N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L





47 substantive measures introduced
10 Producer responsibility
10 Consumer fees
9 Government solutions
2 Shared responsibility
5 Disposal bans
4 Advisory committees
Also rans: Labeling, green procurement,
surplus property, education
One Passed
California SB 20
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

Consumer fee bill in 2002



Davis vetoed, called for Producer
Responsibility
SB 20, 2003, began as Producer
Responsibility
Passed as consumer fee
$6, $8, $10 paid at retail
 Goes into state fund
 Display devices only
 Imports RoHS


Implementation on track
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Did California Resolve the
Debate?

Electronics industry polarized

Environmental community too

R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
State Legislation Introduced ‘04





Of 14 substantive introduced measures
7 Producer Responsibility
3 Consumer fees
1 Shared responsibility
3 Advisory committees
Several disposal bans
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Maine

Producer Responsibility

TVs, monitors and laptops

Municipalities provide collection

Manufacturers take responsibility for
own products from consolidation points

Implementation began in January ‘06
Washington
Mftr. takeback,
collection & recycling
plans or pay into TPO.
Minnesota
Vermont
2006 State Recycling Legislation
Task Force on CRTs &
computers; Landfill ban
July 2006.
New Hampshire
CANADA
Nebraska
MT
OR
Missouri
E-waste task force
report due 12/2006
ND
ID
Oklahoma
NV
WI
CA
NY
MI
CT
IL
CO
KS
IN
MD DE
WV
MO
AR
HI
AL
GA
LA
New Jersey
Louisiana
DEQ ongoing study on ewaste management
options for state.
1) Manufacturer takeback
CRTs, Computers
2) $10 ARF bill on CRT
products; reintroduced
TX
Recycling Task Force
ongoing; Initial
recommendations 5/ 06.
$10 ARF on TVs; mftr.
takeback for computers
FL
Delaware
MEXICO
Puerto Rico
Use unclaimed mftr.
rebates to fund statewide
recycling program
Mississippi
2008 landfill ban; state
agencies develop e-waste Producer Responsibility Bill
recycling plans
Kentucky
E-scrap Task Force recommendations to
legislators by Dec. 2006
Massachusetts
New York
SC
MS
Illinois
NC
TN
Requires municipalities
to manage e-waste;
Manufacturer takeback
for computers, TVs,
display monitors &
audio products
Manufacturer takeback
CRTs, Computers
Carryover from 2005
VA
KY
OK
NM
NJ
PA
OH
AZ
Utah
MA
RI
IA
UT
Establish statewide
recycling pilot if mftrs.
pay into fund
Landfill ban after 2007;
e-waste task force
SD
NE
Rhode Island
ME
VT
NH
MN
WY
E-waste task force
report due 12/2006
Mftr. takeback
Requires collection &
recycling plans for TVs,
monitors, & computers;
landfill ban in
(as of 02/10/06)
WA
Manufacturer takeback
using consolidation
facilities; covers all CE.
New Mexico
Manufacturer takeback
Requires collection &
recycling plans for TVs,
monitors, computers,
printers
South Carolina
ARF or 1st Seller Bill
Electronics/Computer
Task Force
Landfill ban
Recycling law activity
in 2005
Recycling law
adopted
California model ARF bill
reintroduced
Michigan
Task Force complete, DEQ
recommendations imminent
Washington Model
R
I
F
E
R


Producer responsibility
Legislation created default organization
TPO-like state agency
 Structures infrastructure delivery

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

Individual producers on own
Great Lakes Model

Consumer fee remitted by manufacturers


Register and report
Fee system with strong producer stake
Trends
R
I
F
E
R

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

No silver bullet yet found to bridge the divide

Manufacturers’ Coalition advocates for the ARF

HP advocates for Producer Responsibility
Regional initiatives gain some momentum


Great Lakes States, NE States
A notable trend toward Producer Responsibility


Easier to pass
Fewer local opponents (retailers)
Near-Term Prospects for the
EOL Debate
R
I
F
E
R

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
U.S. Congress
In 2005 two House Bills, one Senate Bill
 One hearing





Congress / Administration will not act
States will, but with great contention
There is no will to compromise
Some winners / Some losers
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
And what about eco-design?
R
I
F
E
R
What is EPEAT?
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool
An environmental procurement tool designed to
help institutional purchasers in the public and
private sectors evaluate, compare and select
desktop computers, laptops and monitors based on
their environmental attributes.
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Environmental Performance
Categories








Environmentally Sensitive
Materials
Materials Selection
Design for End of Life
Product Longevity/Life Cycle Extension
Energy Conservation
End of Life Management
Corporate Performance
Packaging
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Wayne Rifer
Rifer Environmental
Green Electronics Council
wrifer@concentric.net
www.epeat.net