Poison PCs and Toxic TVs:

E-waste Tsunami to Roll Across the US: Are We Prepared?

Executive Summary

Full Report (pdf)

Electronic waste (E-waste) encompasses a broad and growing range of electronic devices ranging from personal computers and televisions, to handheld PDAs, VCRs, and cellular phones. Where once consumers purchased a stereo console or television set with the expectation that it would last for a decade or more, the increasingly rapid evolution of technology has effectively rendered everything disposable. Consumers no longer take a malfunctioning television, VCR or telephone to a repair shop. Replacement is often easier and cheaper than repair. And while these ever-improving gadgets - faster, smaller, and cheaper - provide many benefits, they also carry a legacy of waste.

Electronic waste already constitutes from 2% to 5% of the US municipal solid waste stream and is growing rapidly. European studies estimate that the volume of electronic waste is rising by 3% to 5% per year - almost three times faster than the municipal waste stream.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 1997 more than 3.2 million tons of E-waste ended up in US landfills. In a report for the EPA, analysts warned that the amount of E-waste in US landfills would grow fourfold in the next few years.

Over the last several years, no product so epitomizes the problems posed by obsolete electronics as the personal computer. Televisions with cathode ray tubes present the same problems. Due to their growing waste volume, toxicity and management cost, both computers and televisions are the focus of this report. How US policy makers - at the national, state and local level - choose to address the problems posed by obsolete computers and televisions is likely to set the tone for the broader spectrum of E-waste. Our laws and regulations are beginning to slowly - and imperfectly - address these concerns.

Today's computer industry innovates very rapidly, bringing new technologies and 'upgrades' to market every couple of years. According to industry sales figures, US purchasers bought more than 45 million new computer systems in 2002.3 Currently over 50% of US households own a computer.

Should every consumer attempt to throw out their obsolete computer at once, the nation would face a "tsunami" of e-scrap, presenting a major budgetary and environmental crisis that, depending on policy decisions now, could unfairly burden state and local governments with the cost of handling this crisis. By 2006, some 163,420 computers and televisions will become obsolete in the US every day - weighing in at almost 3,513 tons. These units have been used, reused, and stored - and will then be either recycled or tossed out with the trash and subsequently landfilled by trash collectors. Consumers have, on average, 2 to 3 obsolete computers in their garages, closets or storage spaces. US government researchers estimated that three-quarters of all computers ever sold in the United States remain stockpiled, awaiting disposal.

The crisis continues to grow. Other studies estimate that the number of obsolete computers in the United States will soon be as high as 315 to 680 million units.

Recycling rates for computers are low, and opportunities are challenging for most consumers - limited to occasional drop-off programs, or complex mail-back programs offered by a few manufacturers. Options that do exist typically come with a price tag of $10 to $60 per unit, require waiting for infrequent one-day voluntary programs at remote locations. One example: IBM sold more than 3 million computers in the United States in 2000, and was the first manufacturer to establish a payas- you-go system for recycling obsolete computers. Results were under-whelming. According to the company, less than 1,000 computers (0.03% of annual sales) were recycled during this period.

The National Safety Council reported in 1999 that only 11% of discarded computers were recycled, compared with 28% of overall municipal solid waste. Other estimates of computer recycling range from 5% to 15%, compared to a 42% rate for overall solid waste and a 70% rate for major appliances like refrigerators, washing machines, and dryers. For large commercial customers, computer system distributors may negotiate for the collection and management of obsolete computer systems.

While there remains limited information on where and if these computers and televisions are recycled, some studies tracking E-waste shipped overseas find that lax practices pose serious environmental and human health threats. (See Exporting Harm, page 19.)

Computers and televisions are toxic traps:

Discarded computers and televisions are hazardous wastes - and when dumped into landfills or improperly recycled, pose a hazard to the environment and human health. The cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in computer monitors, television sets, and other video display devices contain significant concentrations of lead and other heavy metals. The State of California affirmed that:

"...when discarded, CRTs are identified as hazardous waste under both federal and State law and are required to be managed in accordance with all applicable requirements, including generator, transporter and facility requirements."
Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control March 21, 2001, Letter to Materials for the Future Foundation

As a hazardous waste, the disposal of CRTs in California municipal solid waste landfills is prohibited. Additionally, collection, whether for recycling or disposal, must be regulated and permitted as a hazardous waste activity. Other states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota and Maine, have taken similar steps. In those states without specific landfill bans for CRTs, any non-residential CRT containing hazardous waste is banned from landfilling under national hazardous waste laws.

Each computer or television display contains an average of 4 to 8 pounds of lead. 13 The 315 million computers that became obsolete between 1997 and 2004 contain a total of more than 1.2 billion pounds of lead. Monitor glass contains about 20% lead by weight. When these components are illegally disposed and crushed in landfills, the lead is released into the environment, posing a hazardous legacy for current and future generations. Consumer electronics already constitute 40% of lead found in landfills. About 70% of the heavy metals (including mercury and cadmium) found in landfills comes from electronic equipment discards. These heavy metals and other hazardous substances found in electronics can contaminate groundwater and pose other environmental and public health risks. (See: Computers and Televisions are Toxic Traps, page 10 of full report)

As bans on disposal and other partial responses (such as bottle-bill type deposits on sales of new computers or TVs, similar to a recently adopted California law) begin to take effect, the large volumes of obsolete computers being reused or stored in homes and businesses will begin to show up in local waste collection and recycling programs. If a proposal being circulated in the winter of 2004 at an EPA-created stakeholder consensus group called the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) is adopted, a tsunami of E-waste will swamp our existing programs, starting in 2007 and peaking around 2009-10. (See: Chart "E-waste Tsunami" on page 5 of full report)

How much will this cost?

Recycling of computer and television materials and components - when properly implemented - represents the safest and most cost-effective strategy for addressing the problems posed by these units when inoperative or outdated. Recycling TV and computer materials and components and removing and/or reducing and treating the hazardous components conserves resources, reduces environmental and public health threats, and protects worker safety, while substantially reducing the high cost of permanently storing and disposing of hazardous wastes in permitted hazardous waste facilities. Computers, televisions and other E-waste contain valuable materials and components that are technically recyclable. The problem is the lack of collection incentives and the newly emerging recycling infrastructure, as well as the high cost of materials collection, handling and processing. Estimates for the cost of recycling computers range from $10 to $60 per unit. While this can be less expensive than the estimated $25 to $50 per unit cost for safe and disposal as hazardous waste, someone must still pay these costs. And, as we know from experience with other hazardous waste issues, costs for later cleanup of toxic contamination from poorly handled E-waste, of course, will reach much higher.

Based on conservative, best-case estimates, the minimum costs for recycling and proper disposal of E-waste in the US will reach some $10.8 billion dollars between 2006 and 2015. (See: Chart entitled Best Case: National Cost of E-waste Collected on Page 23 of full report). If costs for recycling rise above the lowest and best-case $10 estimate, the overall price tag will also climb. Clearly, consumers and local governments have neither the technical ability nor financial resources to address this problem on their own. A better approach than a small advance fee is to internalize the cost of proper waste management into the price of electronic devices at the time of purchase. Requiring consumers and small business generators to pay the cost of recycling and/or disposal on the back end has proven to be a shortsighted and ultimately ineffective approach. As we have seen firsthand, reliance on back-end disposal fees - such as those currently in place for used tires in many states - reduces incentives for proper recycling, encourages 'sham' recycling, and results in improper and often illegal disposal which ultimately requires cleanup at a substantial cost to taxpayers.

The State of California took an important first step in 2001, by recognizing that electronics scrap and junk computers are hazardous wastes that must be kept out of landfills. In 2003, responding to local solid waste managers facing a huge and costly influx of disposed CRTs, California adopted a $6 to $10 consumer-paid advance recycling fee (similar to bottle-bill schemes).

If the California or NEPSI models are adopted, and are successful at a national scale, there will be a shortfall of funds from the nationally-collected monies to pay for recycling E-waste. This is based on the following assumptions (see Chart "Best Case: National Cost of E-waste Collected 2006-2015 on page 23 of full report):

• Recycling up to 90% of all televisions and computers from both residential and non-residential sources that have reached the end of their useful life and are coming from use, reuse, or storage,
• Recycling costs $10 per unit,
• A minimal $5 per unit "advance recovery fee" or ARF to be paid by everyone who purchases a new television or computer.

Under this scenario, there is a $7.5 billion shortfall in ARF monies to handle the "tsunami" of E-waste that will come out of storage and reuse cycles between 2006 and 2015. Local agencies, taxpayers and/or fee payers across the nation will inevitably pick up this huge difference in costs. As well, the funding shortfall could lead to increased illegal dumping of unwanted electronics. Note that if actual recycling costs are greater than $10 per unit, the costs of this unfunded mandate will grow dramatically.

Front-end fees collected in the future will pay for handling costs for IBM's past large market share as that two-decade legacy of past IBM PC sales moves out of storage. But IBM, now shifting its business model away from selling PCs to providing services, will only collect fees in the future on their estimated 5% of share of the PC market, and thus escape collecting fees that would pay for the whole of their historic sales now moving out of storage and finding its way into solid waste collection programs. Estimates of the anticipated tax or rate payer subsidy to IBM range as high as a $430 million.

Clearly, electronics manufacturers will have to come up with more money than is currently proposed, or we must pursue some other system.

What we are proposing:

There's much more that must be done. Europe has taken the lead in addressing the E-waste problem by proposing an ambitious system of "Extended Producer Responsibility" (EPR or sometimes "producer takeback," for short). In May of 2001, the European Union (EU) Parliament adopted a directive that requires producers of electronics to take responsibility - financial and otherwise - for the recovery and recycling of E-waste. A second directive requires manufacturers to phase out the use of hazardous materials. US policy should follow the EU's lead.

1. Manufacturers of electronic devices sold in the US should be required to phase down - and where feasible, phase out - the use of hazardous materials in their products.
2. Manufacturers should be responsible for meeting specified recovery and recycling goals for electronic devices in the US. Such goals will provide manufacturers with an incentive to help finance the development of a convenient and effective collection infrastructure.
3. Manufacturers should be required to pay the net cost of recycling electronic materials (or the cost of proper disposal for devices that are not recyclable). This approach (proven in Europe) will provide manufacturers with an incentive to design products for recyclability, as well as to develop markets for recycling.
4. Taxpayer-funded local solid waste programs are already overburdened and underfunded and should not be financially responsible for the new task of E-waste management. In the short term - in areas where no other collection opportunity exists - programs should be authorized to charge-back manufacturers for the costs of managing their electronic devices.
5. State and federal policy makers must establish a workable regulatory framework for the management of electronics waste that encourages recycling while protecting public health, worker safety and the environment.
6. Manufacturers of computer monitors, television sets and other electronic devices containing hazardous materials must be responsible for educating consumers and the general public regarding the potential threat to public health and the environment posed by their products, and for raising awareness of the proper waste management protocol. At minimum, all computer monitors, television sets and other electronic devices containing hazardous materials must be clearly labeled to identify environmental hazards and proper materials management.

>> Photos from Report Release Event

 Acknowledgments:

Much of the research contained here was released in 2001 by Californians Against Waste (CAW) in a report entitled Poison PCs and Toxic TVs: California's Biggest Environmental Crisis That You've Never Heard Of. Established in 1977, CAW is a nonprofit grassroots organization that has grown to represent the interests of more than 24,000 Californians. CAW is the only environmental group in California with full-time staff lobbying exclusively in support of a recycling economy. CAW advocates policy initiatives at the local, state, and federal levels.

We would like to thank the CAW and the author of the original report, Keirsten Scanlon, for her hard work and diligent research - and Michael Picker of Lincoln Crow for his oversight of the project. In addition, we thank Anne Peters and Carolyn Dunmire of Gracestone, Inc. for the use of its model and data regarding costs for managing E-waste at its end of life (page 23) (which in turn, is derived from the Carnegie-Mellon/Matheson model 1997). Any errata resulting from the adaptation of these earlier works are the responsibility of the Computer TakeBack Campaign.