Elizabeth Hicks
June 5, 2005
The Need for Mandatory Electronics Recycling
America is in need of laws that promote safe, effective electronics recycling. In general, electronics can contain many different toxins that are harmful to humans. As a society, we need to be aware of these potential hazards and find ways to effectively deal with the hazards. Consumers, manufacturers and governments need to work together and share the responsibility for electronics recycling.
Electronics have many potential hazards. Electronic waste in general contains many toxins such as lead, cadmium and brominated flame retardant (Consumer Reports, 1). When these toxins are discarded into landfills, they can seep into the soil and contaminate the food and water supplies or they can be released into the air. These toxins negatively affect the human nervous system, brain and liver (Powell, 1).
According to many different studies, electronics equipment manufacturing is one of the most hazardous processes for the environment. This is especially true of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors. Many televisions and computer monitors are CRTs.
The CRT monitor contains about 4 pounds of lead in the form of lead oxide. Lead oxide is one of the most hazardous chemicals used in the monitor. According to Mohamad Neilforosham, lab experiments have shown that “lead has a cumulative effect in the cells and most body organs, which results in harmful or even fatal effects after exposure” (95). Lead oxide can contaminate the ground, the water supply and the air. Lead oxide is poisonous to humans and can be fatal if ingested.
CRT monitors also contain a very complex glass composition, which is very hazardous to manufacture. CRT monitor manufacturers use many different oxides as stabilizers and for x-ray absorption. The oxides used include strontium oxide, sodium oxide, potassium oxide, lead oxide, cadmium oxide and other oxides. These oxides can lead to various health problems if not treated properly.
According to Environmental Health & Safety, if lead is burned, the fumes may cause brain defects and kidney damage. Potassium poisoning can result in heart effects, change in respiration rate, tingling in the extremities, heaviness in the limbs, nausea and diarrhea. Environmental Health and Safety states “inhalation of vapors can cause breathing difficulties and lead to pneumonia and pulmonary edema, which may be fatal. Other symptoms may include coughing, choking, and irritation of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract.”
CRT monitors may also contain chromium, cadmium, mercury, beryllium, zinc and brominated fire retardants (Dritsas, 1). According to the MSDS, these toxins may cause illnesses such as burning of the mouth and pharynx, dryness of mouth, abdominal pain, vomiting, corrosive ulceration, bloody diarrhea, shallow breathing, paleness, exhaustion, central nervous system problems, tremors and collapse. Death may also occur if not properly treated.
Mobile phones are also of concern to the environment. Mobile phones contain lead and brominated fire retardants.
Many electronics that we use today will become obsolete within a few years. These obsolete electronics contain many different types of toxins that can harm or even be fatal to humans.
The Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council preformed a study on computers. They found that more than 20 million computers became obsolete in 1998; however, only 11% of those computers were recycled. (Neilforosham, 97). According to Neilforosham, 41.8 million computers were obsolete in 2003 and the number will reach 61.3 million by 2007 (97).
William Powell cited another study by the National safety Council that estimates “nearly 75% of computers bought in the United States remain stowed away in the closets and basements of people’s homes (1).
According to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 130 million cell phones are thrown away each year. The EPA also states that over 3 million tons of waste comes from electronics each year. Much of that waste can contain toxic materials (Dritsas, 1).
In 2001, the National Safety Council stated that 400 American companies were electronics recycling companies. The International Association of Electronics Recycler (IAER) has a database that shows 650 companies who have some part in electronics recycling (Neilforosham, 98). Despite all of the electronics recycling companies available, only 25% of the used electronic devises were actually recycled in 2003. That number is up from 15%in 2001, however (Neilforosham, 98).
This small percentage of recycled electronics can be attributed to the public’s lack of knowledge. The public’s lack of knowledge includes being unaware of the toxins in their electronics, being unaware of the effects of the toxins, and being unaware of where to take their obsolete electronics. Also, the toxic ingredients and massive amounts of electronic waste can put a large burden on the local recycling agencies (Consumer Report, 1). Since the law rarely requires electronic hardware to be recycled, many people and companies just do not recycle.
Many companies have stated that electronics recycling does not make money like aluminum or paper material recycling. So, many companies have to rely on government subsidies to stay in business (Neilforosham, 98). According to Consumer Reports, the cost of electronics recycling as it is now will cost the government and its taxpayers “about 7.5 billion dollars over the next decade to collect and process old TVs and computer equipment” (1).
Computer companies have made many investments in making computers and computer manufacturing less hazardous to the environment and humans. According to Neilforosham, some companies have replaced “chemical with less toxic and more recyclable water based substances.” (97). Neilforosham states that some computer companies have made an effort to make their production process and products less harmful to the environment. The steps taken include replaced human workers with robots, and replacing harmful chemicals “with less toxic and more recyclable water based substances.” (97). However, computer companies have not made a significant effort in designing better computers and monitors that are easier to recycle. Also, Neilforosham believes that the computer companies “lack significant coordination with landfill and recycling industries” (97). Computer companies should inform themselves of the capabilities of local recycling and use that knowledge in their manufacturing designs.
Computer companies are trying to make their processes more efficient by update their techniques. These new techniques include using snap-on panels instead of screws to make dismantling easier. Some companies are using tin, silver, and copper alloys to eliminate the need for lead soldering (Neilforosham, 97). Instead of using plastic shipping peanuts, some companies use a packing material made of water-soluble starch. Also, in some companies, “metal paneling has been replaced with spray-on flame retardants” (Neilforosham, 98).
IBM has begun shipping its obsolete computers to specialist in plastics, metal, and glass. Hewlett-Packard has invested in a 200,000 square-foot warehouse in Roseville, California where they grind and separate computers. Then, the pieces are shipped all over the country (Neilforosham, 98). As of 2003, Hewlett-Packard recycles four million pounds of computer-related products each month at this facility. According to Hewlett-Packard, “Every part of the computer is reused, recycled or disposed of responsibly (Isaacs, 1).
Some companies offer free recycling but only when you buy one of their new machines. IBM and Hewlett-Packard both will recycle old computers for a $15 to $30 fee. They also have started take-back solutions for medium and large-sized companies (Powell, 1). Best Buy and Sony have also started take-back programs in limited areas.
“Consumer Union [is an organization that is in favor of] mandatory take-back programs that hold manufacturers physically and financially responsible for recycling their products (Consumer Reports, 1). Consumers Union is starting two new programs they believe will help to reduce electronic waste and improve the choices for recycling electronics (Consumer Reports, 1).
One program by Consumers Union is the launching of a website, HearUsNow.com. This website will promote telecommunication changes and provide service to help consumer. One way that consumers Union plans to help consumers is to find ways for the consumers to keep their old cell phones when they change cell phone providers (Consumer Reports, 1). This would decrease the number of cell phones that would need to be recycled or that were just thrown away.
Then second project by Consumer Union is ConsumerReports.org. This site “will feature advice to help consumers reduce the environmental effects of their purchasing decision” (Consumer Reports, 1). This may help consumers to buy electronic devices that are less toxic and more recyclable.
Electronics recycling laws are urgently needed to reduce the amount of toxins used in electronics and manufacturing of electronics. Also, laws are need to prevent electronics’ toxins from contaminating the ground, water, and air.
So far, many cities offer local collection programs. These programs have made recycling easier for consumers and the recycling comp0anies alike. Consumers can drop off their electronics at events held throughout the year. Many areas also have local waste-management or good will companies that will take back old computers (Powell, 1). Educational programs are in place in some cities to help make the public aware of the potential problems cause by improper disposing of electronics.
Electronic manufacturers need to “design for the environment”, says Chaz Miller (1). Whenever possible, manufacturers should eliminate the toxic materials found in their electronics. Manufacturers should also learn n the best way to safely collect and process electronic material for recycling.
The National Recycling coalition’s website and websites like it offer a list approved recycling centers. Some out of state cities will even take electronic recyclables by mail. Even though all these options are available to us, manufacturers still need to be held reliable for the products they make. Electronics recycling laws will help ensure electronics are recycled properly.
Hewlett-Packard strongly believes in the sharing of responsibility for recycling. They suggest legislation that focuses only on computer monitors and on other products (Isaacs, 1). This, however, will still leave many toxic electronics in landfills, such as cell phones and televisions. Hewlett-Packard also believes that computer companies should be responsible for their products only (Isaacs, 1). This would help the government regulate the legislation and punish those who do not comply.
Another major issue Hewlett-Packard is stressing is that the responsibility for recycling should be share among governments, consumers, manufacturers and others as they relate to electronics recycling (Isaacs, 2). This would ensure that everyone is doing his or her part in the recycling of electronics. A good way to divide the responsibility is by holding local governments and municipalities ultimately responsible for the collection and consolidation of monitors. The manufacturers should be responsible for the recycling of the monitors (Isaacs, 2).
Any legislation for electronics recycling laws should also include the implementation of punishments for those who do not comply, be it the consumer, the government, or the manufacturers. Reward should also be given for those who do participate. Tax breaks are always a good incentive.
Some states are setting the example for the rest of the nation. “Massachusetts … enacted the nation’s first ban on dumping computer screens and other glass picture tubes at landfill” (Neilforosham, 97). Maine was the first of the United States to follow the lead of Europe, Japan and other nations that are already transferring the cost of computer recycling to the manufacturers (Consumer Reports, 1). In 2006, computer and television manufacturers in Maine will have to establish regional recycling centers. These manufacturers will also have to pay for the cost of the recycling (Consumer Reports, 1).
In California, an “e-waste” bill was passed in 2002 by the state legislature. “The bill would have imposed a recycling fee on products containing a CRT” (Isaacs, 2). However, Governor Davis vetoed the bill. Hewlett-Packard opposed the bill stating that the state-specific fees would hurt sales in California. Sales over the internet and by phone from companies not located in California would not be subjected to those fees (Isaacs, 2). This could lead to an unfair advantage for companies based outside of California.
After the failure of the “e-waste” bill, the legislation was revised. new policies for California were signed into law by Governor Davis on September 26, 2003 and were effective on July 1, 2004. This new bill states that a retailer selling “covered electronics devices” in that state of California must charge a recycling fee. The fee can be anywhere from $6 to $10 per unit. The fees then go to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Board then reimburses California recycling and e-waste management companies (Dritsas, 1).
The California “e-waste” bill includes local retailer as well as any catalog or internet companies selling product to Californian consumers. This will prevent an advantage for companies outside of California (Dritsas, 1).
The bill also states that manufacturers must inform the consumers on when and where to take their electronics to be recycled when the consumers are finished with them (Dritsas, 1). The manufacturers must also follow the guidelines set by the European Union, directive 2002/95/EC. This directive requires manufacturers to reduce the use of certain heavy metals (Dritsas, 1). The new Californian bill also mandates that manufacturers annually submit a report on “the number of consumer electronics in the state, as well as estimated total of the amount of hazardous materials used in the construction of electronics for that year” (Dritsas, 1).
The Consumer Electrons Association (CEA) is concerned about California’s new e-waste bill. The CEA believes that California may have trouble implementing its new law fairly (Dritsas, 2).
Some manufacturers in California have begun partnerships with recycling agencies to ensure proper recycling of their products. Dell signed a partnership with National Recycling Coalition and co-hosted “a training conference for California recycling coordinators on the proper methods of computer recycling (Dritsas, 2). JVC also sign a partnership with a recycling agency named nxtcycle. JVC will pay for the recycling of any JVC product (Dritsas, 3).
Electronics contain many harmful toxins; therefore, proper
recycling is essential to the health of all humans. The consumer, the
government and the manufacturing companies must share electronics recycling
costs. This will ensure that everyone involved does his or her share in the
recycling of electronics. Electronics recycling laws make it beneficial for
manufacturers to produce less toxic electronics.
Electronics recycling laws should limit
the amount of environmental problems that electronics can cause. The
electronics recycling laws should include manufacturers, governments, and
consumers. There are many ways the law can help these groups to safely and
effectively reduce or recycle electronic waste.
Manufacturers can help by limiting or eliminating toxins used in electronics. Manufacturers can also limit the amount of human contact with the toxins. This can be accomplished by using robots in processes that exposure to toxins is likely. Manufacturers could also help in the design and implementation of recycling programs for their products.
The government can help reduce environmental problems caused by electronic waste by investing in recycling programs by giving incentives, such as tax deductions. The government can also pass laws that will reward companies that cooperate and promote electronics recycling and punish the companies that do not cooperate.
Consumers are also able to help in electronics recycling by becoming educated in which types of products are the least toxic. Consumers may also become aware and participate in events. Consumers should also find ways to use their electronics longer. For instance consumers can enlist the help of groups such as Consumers Union to help them keep their cell phones when changing service providers.
Manufacturers, the government, and consumers all play an important roll in electronics recycling. All parties are responsible for taking care of the earth by not polluting the ground, water and air with toxins found in electronics. The United States needs legislation to help promote proper electronics recycling and for the reduction of toxins used in the manufacturing of electronics.
Bibliography
Dritsas, David. “Going Green.” Dealerscope. 2003: 45.+.
Isaacs, David. “Creating fair legislation for electronics recycling.” Electronic Business.
2003: 29+
Miller, Chaz. “Poison PCs.” Waste Age. 2003: 34+.
Environmental Health & Safety. “Material Safety Data Sheet.” J.T. Baker. 05 June 2005.
< http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/C0239.htm >
Environmental Health & Safety. “Material Safety Data Sheet.” J.T. Baker. 05 June 2005.
< http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/B5840.htm>
Environmental Health & Safety. “Material Safety Data Sheet.” J.T. Baker. 05 June 2005
< http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/p6060.htm>
Neilforoshan, Mohamad R. “The environmental effect and waste management of
computer manufacturing.” Journal of Computing
Sciences in Colleges. 2003: 19+.
Powell, William. “Talkin' E-Trash.” T+D. 2002: 56.6+.
“Recycling electronics: Industry's responsibility.” Consumer Reports. 2004: 69+.
“Waste not, want not.” Economist. 2003: 366+.