Solutions to the challenge of electronic waste
Download
1 / 30

Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 74 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste' - noel-nielsen


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Solutions to the challenge of electronic waste

AIChE

July 2006

Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste

Wayne Rifer

Rifer Environmental

Green Electronics Council

[email protected]


Contents
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
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


Eol electronic products a new kind of garbage
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


Toxics in electronics
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


Exporting harm video by basel action network ban silicon valley toxics coalition svtc february 02
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


New ideas emerge about responsibility for product wastes
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
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


The national eol debate national electronic product stewardship initiative nepsi
The National EOL Debate:National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)

Europe legislates

U.S. negotiates


The nepsi process
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.


Positions at the starting line
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


The nepsi outcome
The NEPSI Outcome

  • A system that could work

  • No effective agreement


The system that could work hybrid financing
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


The nepsi product scope
The NEPSI Product Scope

  • Computer systems (CPUs, monitors, keyboards, etc.)

  • Computer peripherals (printers, scanners)

  • Televisions

  • From residents and small businesses


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


The fundamental divide both industry environmental advocates
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


Industry dynamics
Industry Dynamics

  • Roughly, big vs. small

  • Positions

    • HP, Dell Favor PR

    • CE industry, IBM, Apple Favor ARF

    • White Box (~30%) ?


A scan of legislative trends state legislation introduced 03
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


One passed california sb 20
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


Did california resolve the debate
Did California Resolve the Debate?

  • Electronics industry polarized

  • Environmental community too


State legislation introduced 04
State Legislation Introduced ‘04

Of 14 substantive introduced measures

  • 7 Producer Responsibility

  • 3 Consumer fees

  • 1 Shared responsibility

  • 3 Advisory committees

  • Several disposal bans


Maine
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

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


Washington model
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


Trends
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)


Near term prospects for the eol debate
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



What is epeat
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.


Environmental performance categories
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


Wayne rifer rifer environmental green electronics council wrifer@concentric net www epeat net

Wayne RiferRifer EnvironmentalGreen Electronics [email protected]


ad