1 / 30

Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste

AIChE July 2006. Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste. Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Green Electronics Council wrifer@concentric.net. Contents. 1 Costs and Impacts of E-Waste Management 2 Status of a national solution 3 Options for state legislation 4 Prognosis.

noel-nielsen
Download Presentation

Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AIChE July 2006 Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Green Electronics Council wrifer@concentric.net

  2. Contents 1 Costs and Impacts of E-Waste Management 2 Status of a national solution 3 Options for state legislation 4 Prognosis

  3. The U.S. E-Waste Challenge • 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

  4. EOL Electronic Products A New Kind of Garbage • The dilemma • E-waste is not readily compatible with current waste management technologies • Technical wastes • Waste authorities have responsibility, but lack knowledge and control

  5. Toxics in Electronics • Toxics • Lead, cadmium, mercury & chromium • Brominated flame-retardants & PVC • 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

  6. Exporting HarmVideo by Basel Action Network (BAN) & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), February ‘02 • 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

  7. 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.

  8. The Goal • A single national solution • With consistent standards nationwide • Providing economies of scale • And allowing local service variations • Role of state action • To incubate solutions • To drive national action • To provide interim services

  9. The National EOL Debate:National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) Europe legislates U.S. negotiates

  10. The NEPSI Process • Began June ‘01 – 3+ years • Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue • 15 manufacturers • 15 state, local & federal governments • 18 ‘others’ – recyclers, NGOs, academics, retailers, etc.

  11. Positions at the Starting-Line • Government • Not government’s responsibility • To shift costs • NGOs • Producer responsibility as design driver • Waste diversion • Manufacturers • Traditional model of waste management • Last user or government pays

  12. The NEPSI Outcome • A system that could work • No effective agreement

  13. The System that Could WorkHybrid Financing • 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

  14. The NEPSI Product Scope • Computer systems (CPUs, monitors, keyboards, etc.) • Computer peripherals (printers, scanners) • Televisions • From residents and small businesses

  15. Money Consumer Fee Remitter TPO Assurance of Environmentally-Sound Processing Reuse Organization Product Retailer Consolidation, processing contractors User @ End of Product Life Remanufacturer Municipality Recycler Local Recycler Mail-Back Payment for product collected Product can flow direct to processor

  16. The Fundamental DivideBoth 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

  17. Industry Dynamics • Roughly, big vs. small • Positions • HP, Dell Favor PR • CE industry, IBM, Apple Favor ARF • White Box (~30%) ?

  18. A Scan of Legislative TrendsState Legislation Introduced ‘03 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

  19. One PassedCalifornia SB 20 • 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

  20. Did California Resolve the Debate? • Electronics industry polarized • Environmental community too

  21. State Legislation Introduced ‘04 Of 14 substantive introduced measures • 7 Producer Responsibility • 3 Consumer fees • 1 Shared responsibility • 3 Advisory committees • Several disposal bans

  22. Maine • Producer Responsibility • TVs, monitors and laptops • Municipalities provide collection • Manufacturers take responsibility for own products from consolidation points • Implementation began in January ‘06

  23. Washington Vermont Mftr. takeback, collection & recycling plans or pay into TPO. 2006 State Recycling Legislation Manufacturer takeback Requires collection & recycling plans for TVs, monitors, computers, printers Minnesota Task Force on CRTs & computers; Landfill ban July 2006. New Hampshire CANADA Nebraska Mftr. takeback Requires collection & recycling plans for TVs, monitors, & computers; landfill ban in (as of 02/10/06) Manufacturer takeback using consolidation facilities; covers all CE. WA MT Missouri OR ND Rhode Island ME E-waste task force report due 12/2006 ID MN VT Requires municipalities to manage e-waste; Manufacturer takeback for computers, TVs, display monitors & audio products NH SD WI Oklahoma NY WY MA MI CT E-waste task force report due 12/2006 RI NV NE IA NJ PA UT New Mexico IL OH MD Massachusetts CA IN DE CO Establish statewide recycling pilot if mftrs. pay into fund WV Manufacturer takeback CRTs, Computers Carryover from 2005 KS MO VA KY AZ Utah NC OK TN New York NM Landfill ban after 2007; e-waste task force AR HI SC 1) Manufacturer takeback CRTs, Computers 2) $10 ARF bill on CRT products; reintroduced Illinois MS AL GA TX Recycling Task Force ongoing; Initial recommendations 5/ 06. LA New Jersey Louisiana $10 ARF on TVs; mftr. takeback for computers FL DEQ ongoing study on e-waste management options for state. MEXICO Delaware Puerto Rico Use unclaimed mftr. rebates to fund statewide recycling program Mississippi South Carolina 2008 landfill ban; state agencies develop e-waste recycling plans Producer Responsibility Bill ARF or 1st Seller Bill Electronics/Computer Task Force Recycling law activity in 2005 Landfill ban California model ARF bill reintroduced Kentucky Michigan E-scrap Task Force - recommendations to legislators by Dec. 2006 Recycling law adopted Task Force complete, DEQ recommendations imminent

  24. Washington Model • Producer responsibility • Legislation created default organization • TPO-like state agency • Structures infrastructure delivery • Individual producers on own Great Lakes Model • Consumer fee remitted by manufacturers • Register and report • Fee system with strong producer stake

  25. Trends • 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)

  26. Near-Term Prospects for the EOL Debate • 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

  27. And what about eco-design?

  28. What is EPEAT? 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.

  29. 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

  30. Wayne RiferRifer EnvironmentalGreen Electronics Councilwrifer@concentric.netwww.epeat.net

More Related