Exporting a problem: is the U.S. exporting an environmental problem when it ships electronics scrap overseas? - Electronics Recycling

Recycling Today, Feb, 2002 by Susan Bush

For many environmental advocates, the recycling "triad" has included reduce, reuse and recycle, in that order, as the hierarchy of waste management options. When considering electronics, environmentalists are particularly concerned with avoiding disposal of these items, as they contain potential hazards.

Monitors and televisions contain cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which can contain up to six pounds of lead per unit -- the largest source of lead in municipal solid waste. The largest source of cadmium is found in rechargeable nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries, which are commonly found in laptop computers. Electronic waste is also a leading source of mercury in municipal waste.

Many of the plastics used to manufacture electronics contain brominated flame retardants. In addition, cabling and older casings contain polyvinyl chloride (PVC). All of these substances can be dangerous to human health if not handled appropriately. Clearly, we need to be careful in terms of disposal, but it is less clear whether these items should be reused or recycled -- and whether these activities should take place domestically or in other countries.

Reducing and Reusing

Reducing consumption is one solid waste management option, as it prevents disposal of materials, and conserves resources. Increasingly, however, more Americans own more computers, televisions and other home electronics.

Computers, in particular, are becoming obsolete more quickly than ever (the typical computer now has a life span of two to three years, down from five years in 1997). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates in its June 2001 report, Electronics: A New Opportunity for Waste Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling, that 20 million computers became obsolete in 1998, while only 13 percent were reused or recycled.

The National Safety Council, Itasca, Ill., estimates that by 2005 as many as 60 million personal computers will become obsolete every year. Based on these statistics, it appears that we are not doing so well, collectively, in the "reduce" area when it comes to electronics. Perhaps this is not a realistic option.

In recent years, non-profits have become the "dumping grounds" for outdated electronics, according to one recycler, so they had to raise their standards. Most now will accept nothing less than a working Pentium 166, and many will not accept materials from the general public. The non-profits simply cannot absorb the computers that we try to donate for reuse. Some in the industry are also concerned that when businesses donate their computers to charity, they are removing them from a RCRA-covered waste stream (e.g., a business), to one that is not covered under RCRA regulations, and may therefore potentially be landfilled. Another concern is that non-profits and schools, often the recipients of donated computers, don't have the financial resources to properly dispose of these materials at the end of their lives.

In Eastern Europe, however, there is a huge demand for computers that are "outdated" by American standards. Similarly, Mexico is a vast market for old televisions, even black-and-white models. This is good news, right?

Some would say this is a step in the right direction. Others, however, would say shame on us, and suggest that we keep our electronic waste in our own country, and many are unsure what disposal alternative is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental.

One state DEP representative asserts that there is no way the U.S. market could absorb all of the electronics that are "recycled" each year. Furthermore, he asserts that many municipalities may be hiring recyclers that claim to keep the product and its components in the U.S., but that two links down the electronics food chain, at least some components are being shipped overseas. It is simply unrealistic, he says, for us to think that we can reuse and recycle all of our discarded electronics here, with our standards for electronics, as well as our cost of labor, being so high.

Another state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) representative agrees, stating that, even if the computer and its components are processed in the U.S., materials will go overseas.

Bob Tonetti, senior environmental scientist at the U.S. EPA, states that the EPA supports reuse, for the aforementioned reasons, and because it offers great benefits in terms of computer literacy to those in developing nations. He states that the market for reusing electronics is limited here in America, not just because of our degree of electronic sophistication, but because of our mindset -- we, as a nation, do not like "used stuff." Furthermore, he states that "without foreign reuse and recycling efforts, we would have to shut down much of our collection efforts in the U.S."

Lauren Roman, vice president of electronics recycling firm United Recycling Industries, West Chicago, Ill., is in favor of exporting functioning computers for reuse.

David Wood, program director for Grass Roots Recycling Network (GRRN) of Athens, Ga., has mixed feelings about exporting computers for reuse. He acknowledges that resale of functioning computers helps fund the computer recycling industry, however, GRRN is against the export of electronic scrap. They are among those contending that it is irresponsible to send our electronics to developing nations, and that in doing so we are just exporting our hazardous waste, which will some day be improperly disposed in these developing nations -- possibly jeopardizing the health and safety of their citizens.