As engineers we are taught to use the scientific method to prove our hypotheses, and we need proof that toxic materials in the waste stream are indeed harmful. So where's the proof? The University of Florida Department of Environmental Studies did an initial study, Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (S. Musson, C. Yon, T, Townsend, and I. Chung). The study shows that lead does leach out of crushed CRT glass in a landfill environment.

Technical and Legal Events

The earlier e-waste article also generated some ideas from readers on how they could reduce or even eliminate toxic waste. One reader, G.J. Bender, said that we just have to think about the manufacturing process in reverse. The physics is the same either way. For example, ion implanters sort atoms and their isotopes 24 hours a day. He says Silicon Valley should be able to build a machine that can "flash-fry" an entire computer in certain stages and recover every element used in the production of that computer—from iron, carbon, cobalt, copper, gold, and nickel to beryllium, boron, arsine, silicon, and all the other rare-earth elements used in the production of computers.

A study under way at the Georgia Institute of Technology—in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the National Science Foundation—developed a model that may work for other states and nations.

It is a "reverse production" system that designs the infrastructure to recover and reuse every material contained within e-wastes—metals such as lead, copper, aluminum, and gold, and various plastics, glass, and wire. Such a "closed-loop" manufacturing and recovery system offers a win-win situation for everyone—less of the Earth will be mined for raw materials and groundwater will be protected, researchers explain.

Jane Ammons, a professor in the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, and colleague Matthew Realff, an associate professor in the School of Chemical Engineering, are devising methods to plan reverse-production systems that will collect e-trash, tear apart devices, and use the components and materials again.

I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, we should pursue this course immediately. However, until we come up with the magic pill, we need to figure out what to do with the huge and increasing amounts of waste we are creating. Some states, including California, are wrestling with this problem, and have even pushed for mandatory-recycling laws.

In 2002, the California Legislature passed electronics-waste legislation, SB 1523 and SB 1619, which was vetoed by Governor Davis. The proposed legislation would have made manufacturers responsible for maintaining or funding a recovery and recycling system for junked electronics by requiring companies to collect a $10 fee from consumers at the time of purchase. The bill passed both houses of the legislature, but the Governor vetoed it. The Governor said that the program outlined in the bills was not the most efficient or cost-effective approach for California. Instead, Governor Davis urged industry to lead the way and devise solutions that develop partnerships between the consumer and manufacturers. This would create an environmentally sustainable electronics industry with incentives to design products that are less toxic and more recyclable. The Electronics Industry Alliance calls the legislation a "tech tax," and applauds Governor Davis' veto. The computer industry in California argued that the legislation would put in-state companies at a competitive disadvantage with out-of-state rivals who would not have to collect the fee.

However, many PC makers, including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM, have introduced their own recycling initiatives, as have retailers such as Best Buy and Staples. These efforts also include fees, but only at the end of a computer's useful life and only if its owner chooses to dispose of the device that way. The bill would also require the EPA to study the quantities of computer waste being generated, and to include statistics on export of the waste from the United States.

Winston Hickox, the Agency Secretary of the California EPA, was given the task to work with the California government, industry, and other stakeholders to create a California electronics-waste program. The governor wants the program to focus on the concept of product stewardship, similar to the model proposed by the European Union, and tailored to fit California's recycling and disposal infrastructure.

Legislation has been introduced in Washington State to begin to resolve a growing electronics-waste crisis. House bill 1942 would hold manufacturers financially responsible for the environmentally sound collection, recycling, and disposal of electronics wastes such as old computers, televisions, and cell phones.

Some think this will defuse a growing toxic-waste problem by giving consumers a convenient way to recycle their computers and TVs. At the same time, it creates market-based incentives to ensure that the electronics industry becomes steadily greener and cleaner.

Currently, taxpayers, local governments, schools, and businesses all bear the burden and costs of safely managing discarded electronics equipment. For example, to prevent landfill-dumping of electronics waste, Snohomish County, Washington, recently financed a one-time "clean-out" of broken electronics from local school districts that resulted in 135 tons of materials at a cost to taxpayers of $55,000.

Many readers agree that the best approach to rid ourselves of e-waste without raising taxes or disposal rates is through producer responsibility. Computers and televisions should pay their own way to the recycler, rather than having the taxpayer pay for it.

Several states are introducing laws to deal with this mess, but we need a federal bill that provides a minimum acceptable level of recycling and distributes the cost across the supply chain. Manufacturers should be required to arrange for convenient collection sites to serve urban and rural populations. The sites could be at retailers of electronics, municipal recycling centers, or other sites.

The Washington State legislation would leave the financing of the program up to manufacturers, allowing them to decide what is most cost-effective. This bill assumes that the initial costs would be passed to consumers by means of a small increase in product prices. This should lead to manufacturers making products that can be easily de-constructed, thus reducing end-of-life disposal costs.

The Washington legislation is one of 25 state bills that have recently been introduced or readied because federal legislation is seen to be lagging far behind the need for immediate action.

Laws and policies concerning the proper management of electronic-product discards are evolving rapidly. Since certain components of electronic devices may be considered hazardous because of their heavy-metal content or other parts, the end-of-life handling of some electronics discards is regulated by either federal (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—RCRA) or state (Health and Safety Code) hazardous-waste laws, or both. New regulations regarding the proper management of the cathode-ray tubes (CRTs) found in computer monitors and televisions were recently approved.

Final regulations for Electronic Hazardous Wastes were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on February 1, 2003. These regulations replace the Emergency Regulations for CRTs that went into effect August 3, 2001.

Federal legislation (HR 5158) that would require the U.S. EPA to develop a grant program for computer-recycling programs was introduced July 18, 2002. We have taken the next step in this battle against e-waste and we are about to do something important—keep our waste from killing us and keep our environment safe for generations.

Final Thought

Almost every article about e-waste is about what we can do to recycle and how we can safely rid our landfills of the toxic wastes, but what about the design of environmentally safe products? What can we, the designers of electronics, do to promote the use of non-toxic materials in our designs? Are you concerned? Does your company allow you to research the use of friendlier materials? Maybe this is the next step, or maybe it isn't a problem if we can recover and recycle completely.

Return to Poll

Analog Main | Product of the Week | Columns | Editorial | Tech Notes