ELECTRONIC WASTE

1
ELECTRONIC WASTE

• Information and Recommendations

Joseph E. Shacter Environmental Law Policy
Center
2
Presentation Outline

• Scope of the problem
• International and federal reactions
• Review of approaches across the United States
• Our recommendations

3
What is E-Waste?

• Several categories
• Computers
• Televisions
• Audiovisual equipment
• Cellular phones

4
How much of it is there?

• Staggering amounts of junked equipment
• ABC News 315-600 million computers
• Inform 130 million cellular phones
• USEPA says 163,420 TVs and computers will become
  obsolete every day in 06
• And it will only get worse
• Useful life of TV now only ten years
• Just three years for computers
• Analog TVs about to become obsolete

5
Whats in the stuff?

• Mercury
• Lead
• Cadmium
• Hexavalent chromium
• Other hazardous materials

6
Whats being done around the world?

• Europe Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  (WEEE) directive
• Took effect in 2005
• Participating countries develop own methods for
  compliance
• Responsibility is shared
• Manufacturers operate a take-back program
• Retailers accept old equipment for pick-up
• Consumers expected to bring old equipment to
  retail or other drop-off locations
• 0.01 and 0.1 by weight limits going into effect
  for lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium
  and two flame retardants in
• Japan Similar legislation enacted.

7
What is the United States doing?

• Nothing.
• First federal hearing on e-waste occurred in 05
  at House Subcmte. on Environment and Hazardous
  Materials
• Sens. Wyden (D-OR) and Talent (R-MO) prepared
  joint proposal for a tax credit for individuals
  recycling their old equipment

8
Consequences of Inaction

• E-waste is now fastest growing component of
  landfills
• Hazardous materials, if not encapsulated or
  disposed of in properly-maintained landfills, can
  leach into groundwater
• Or our equipment ends up endangering people
  around the world

9
Welcome to Lagos, Nigeria

• All images from Basel Action Network film, The
  Digital Dump, issued in October 2005

10
Welcome to Lagos, Nigeria

• Up to 75 of the equipment arriving here each
  month in 500 40-foot containers is junk.
• So it isdumped,

11
Welcome to Lagos, Nigeria

• burned,

12
Welcome to Lagos, Nigeria

• and left for local children to explore.

13
And its not just in Nigeria

• This is Guiyu, China

14
How does this happen?

• Municipalities often hold annual drop-off days
• Funding constraints force use of low-bid
  recyclers
• Some of these companies are responsible for the
  pictures you saw
• Industry, legitimate recyclers, and environmental
  groups are united in wanting this practice to end

15
Plus, its an economic opportunity

• Business Communications Company, Inc. 2005 report
  said
• Demand for recycled plastic expected to jump
  10.2 each year
• Metals mined from end-of-life electronic waste to
  grow 8.1
• CRT glass to grow 7.5

16
Our Laboratories of Democracy

• Regions and states are beginning to act
• Maine, Maryland, and California all have enacted
  e-waste laws recently
• Washington State and New Hampshire just
  introduced legislation
• USEPA Region V, with Midwest state EPAs, has
  drafted regional legislation
• Northeast region also has drafted regional bill
  for introduction in state legislatures

17
Our Laboratories of Democracy

• Minnesota, Maine, Arkansas, North Carolina, and
  California all have banned CRTs from landfills
• California also has enacted a bill effective July
  1 requiring cell phone makers to take back their
  phones through stores, for free
• A patchwork of conflicting laws needs to be
  avoided

18
And here in Illinois

• Lt. Govs Green Govt. Council urging state
  government to move toward e-waste recycling
• DCEO provided 1 million to City of Chicago to
  start Goose Island facility
• Private concerns working with large institutions,
  Chicagoland Chamber, and school districts on
  obtaining donations of used equipment
• Need legislative action to connect, unify, and
  codify policy

19
The Great Debate

• Agreed a recycling system will be managed either
  by a government agency or third-party
  organization
• Not agreed how this system will be financed

20
The Two Competing Models

• Advance Recovery Fee (ARF)
• An additional charge, usually 10 or less, is
  imposed on the consumer at the time a piece of
  electronic equipment is purchased.

• Producer Responsibility (PR)
• Manufacturers become responsible for the complete
  life-cycle of the products they make, paying a
  fee per piece of equipment either sold or
  returned for recycling

21
Advance Recovery Fee (ARF)

• Californias legislation adopted this model
• Favored by television manufacturers
• Low-margin competition from abroad makes it
  difficult for TV makers to absorb any additional
  costs or raise their prices
• IBM also supports ARF
• Other computer manufacturers, as well as
  retailers, oppose the ARF

22
More on Producer Responsibility

• Maine and Maryland have adopted various models of
  PR
• USEPA Region V draft legislation is PR-based so
  are Washingtons and New Hampshires
• Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and other computer
  manufacturers are supportive of legislation
  modeled on the PR concept
• Retailers also are generally supportive
• Television manufacturers oppose it

23
What about the Tax Credit idea?

• Wyden-Talent provides 10 tax credit for
  individuals donating equipment
• Insufficient incentive?
• Doesnt fund a recycling system
• Worsens whatever governmental budget the tax
  credit comes from
• Wyden-Talent oppose ARF because it imposes
  additional tax on electronic equipment

24
Where do cell phone makers stand?

• Illinois-based Motorola is piloting a number of
  take-back approaches
• Manufacturers prefer to be considered apart from
  the TV and computer makers
• In Europe, cell phones by weight are only .4 of
  total recyclable electronic equipment

25
What about reuse?

• Encourage greater use of existing reward
  mechanisms
• Profit-making motive for companies to recycle and
  then re-sell refurbished machines
• Federal tax deduction for charitable contribution
  of donated goods
• Further research needed on whether these
  incentives are sufficient
• New York City working on reuse language in its
  bill

26
Our Recommendations

• We support producer responsibility
• Will lead to a well-funded system
• Will provide necessary incentive for
  manufacturers to spend less on recycling by using
  less hazardous material

27
Recommendation 1

• Producer responsibility is the right system
• Base fees on manufacturer shares of current sales
• Think about making retailers the data providers,
  so they also are part of the solution
• ARF too cumbersome to administer and can be
  problematic for equipment sold directly from
  manufacturer to consumers on the Internet
• ARF places no responsibility on manufacturers,
  thus providing no incentive to change product

28
Recommendation 2

• The scope of legislation should be as broad as
  possible from the beginning
• Televisions, DVD players, VCRs
• Computers, printers, other peripherals, fax
  machines
• Cell phones, I-pods, PDAs

29
Recommendation 3

• Establish recycling goals for whatever
  organization runs the system
• Set the goals by product category and tie them to
  the amount of recycling revenue received.
• Reward manufacturers for product design
  improvements by lowering the fee per unit

30
Recommendation 4

• Legislation needs to work across state lines
• Make it compatible with regional efforts so that
  the framework of an eventual national system is
  formed
• Manufacturers will find it easier to comply, and
  costs will be lower

31
Recommendation 5

• Retailers need to be the primary information
  source for consumers
• Manufacturer websites also should be required to
  include recycling information

32
Recommendation 6

• Recyclers need to go through a qualification/audit
  ing process
• Require recyclers to not export the trash to
  third-world countries
• To establish thriving commercial recycling
  industry, minimize use of prison labor

33
Recommendation 7

• Historic/orphan products need to be apportioned
  fairly
• The most equitable method appears to be by share
  of returned products.

34
Recommendation 8

• Legislation needs to be matched with a landfill
  ban
• Take effect 1-2 years after e-waste legislation
  enactment.
• Five other states have enacted such bans for CRTs.

35
Recommendation 9

• Give manufacturers the option to fund their own
  recycling system
• Manufacturers should agree to use local recyclers
  so the state economy benefits
• Manufacturers must submit required reports with
  proof of recycling

36
The Bottom Line

• Illinois has another chance to lead the region
• Only the coasts are acting so far
• Illinois can show the way
• Last week we improved the health of our own
  states kids by proposing the mercury rule
• Now we can improve the health of kids around the
  world by dealing with e-waste
• We look forward to further collaboration on this
  important effort